Table of Contents

The Epistle of Paul to the  Colossians.

Colossians 1

Colossians 2

Colossians 3

Colossians 4

Ephesians 1 - 3.

Ephesians 2.

Ephesians 3.

Ephesians 4 - 6.

Ephesians 4.

Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 6

Galatians.

Galatians 1.

Galatians 2

Galatians 3.

Galatians 4.

Galatians 5.

Galatians 6.

Hebrews 1 - 6.

Preface.

Introduction.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

Hebrews 1.

Hebrews 2

Hebrews 3

Hebrews 4

Hebrews 5

Hebrews 6

Hebrews 7 - 13.

Hebrews 7

Hebrews 8

Hebrews 9

Hebrews 10

Hebrews 11

Hebrews 12

Hebrews 13

Exposition of the Epistle of James.

Editor's Preface

James 1

James 2

James 3

James 4

James 5

Exposition of the Epistle of James

James 1

James 2

James 3

James 4

James 5

John — Appendix.

Editions of Authors used.

British.

American.

German.

Dutch.

French.

Swiss.

John — General Index.

Abarbanel, 423

Aben Ezra, 423

Abiding in Christ, 146, 322

Æschylus, reference to, 336

Alford (Dean) 12 14,. 183, 256, 411

Allegories, 213 214

Alsbech, 423

Annas, trial before, 397,

Antichrist, coming in his own name, 126

Antinomianism, 140, 271

Aorist, force of, 284, 376,107

Arminianism, 274, 319, 321

Ascension, none in the fourth Gospel, 3;

of Son of man, climax for faith, 152

Asceticism, 417

Athanasian Creed, 112,

Augustine, 3. 176.184, 266, 257, 460,

Baptism, John's, 21, 47; Christian, 23 47ff; of the Holy Ghost, 28; sign of death 48 ; misapplication of 266

Basilides, 18,

Believer,

Bengel (J. A.), 60, 184, 414; 436

Benisch (Dr. A.)

Beza, 363,112,154

Birks, (T. R.). 114

Blakesley 184

Blood and water, 266, 421f

Bloomfield, 376

Body of Christ, the Vine and the, 319, 321

Boothroyd, 423

Brethren of the Lord 167,

Burial of JESUS, prophecy fulfilled in,

Calvin, 12, 23 272, 319, 321, 330, 448

Cyril of Alexandria, 184, 381

Death, words used by Evangelists of the Lord, 418; JESUS Divine in His, 418

; the second, 69

Euthymius Zigabenus, 184, 307, 363, 421, 424,

Oil and blood, 27

Prayer, 366

Profession, Christian, 319 Prophetic Word, the, 360

Sabbath, the, 107.tF.

Sanctification, 378.1:

Government, Divine, 198, 319; communion and God's moral, 322

Grace, activity of love in midst of evil, 17; without limit, 18: precedes truth, 17; produces confidence, 84: relieves where

Law powerless, 106; abused, 281

Hardening, judicial, 283

Homœoteleuton, 407, 272

Judæan ministry, the early, 71, '79

Judge, Christ to be, 179

acrobius, 412

Magistrate, Christ did not act as, 177

Milton, i93.

Ministry, degenerated into worldly

Ordinances, lifeless, 266

used of JESUS 19

214, 381

Præteritio, 368

Preparation, the Paschal, 412

prov", force of, 9. ~

Raphelius, 184

Reprobation 140

Responsibities, 319

Sanctification by truth, 378f

use of, 15f.

Words, Christ's

lovgo"

explains His

laliva

John — Index of Scripture Quotations.

Genesis 1: 1-2. 11; 1: 9

13: 4. 18

20: 7. 88

25: 22. 198

49 212

Leviticus 6:

14: 21. 386

20: 7. 88;

30: 270

Deuteronomy 6: 4. 206

1 Chronicles 17:

8: 35. 152, 185

22: 33; 7. 176; 9. 270

40: 6

.; 62 14. 324

41: 9. 278

55: 6. 55

80: 152. 212;

132: 131

133: 3. 262

Proverbs 1: 1

30: 4. 60

24: 21. 347

27: 1. 347

31: 8. 324

35:

8. 298

63: 3. 392

Jeremiah 2: 21

3:. 17f. 466

10: 7. 405

36: 23f. 51, 55f.

Daniel 7: 152, 185;

5: 2. 33; 163, 172, 453;

Zephaniah 3:

12: 10 422, 453

13: 212

Ecclesiasticus 48: 1. 110

1 Maccabees 3: 40

Maccabees 6:

13: 26. 166

Psalms of Solomon 17:

9: 15. 77; 30. 239

16: 16f. 257;

272; 21. 402; 25. 234

17: 11f. 22; 12.

23:

251

24: 40

25:

28: 432;

4: 15.

James 1. 18, 48, 93

Epistles of John — Addresses 1 - 9.

Preface.

Introduction.

THE FIRST EPISTLE.

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

1 JOHN 1: 1-4.

1 JOHN 1: 5-10.

1 JOHN 2: 1, 2.

1 JOHN 2: 7-11.

1 JOHN 2: 12, 13.

1 JOHN 2: 14-27.

1 JOHN 2: 28-3: 6.

1 JOHN 3: 7-10.

Epistles of John — Addresses 10 - 20.

1 JOHN 3: 11-17.

1 JOHN 3: 18-24.

1 JOHN 4: 1-6.

1 JOHN 4: 7-10.

1 JOHN 4: 11-16.

1 JOHN 4: 17-21.

1 JOHN 5: 1-5.

1 JOHN 5: 6-12.

1 JOHN 5: 13-21.

2 JOHN 1-13.

3 JOHN 1-14.

John — Appendix.

Notes (E. E. Whitfield.)

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED

BRITISH.

AMERICAN.

GERMAN.

DUTCH.

FRENCH.

SWISS.

John 1 - 6.

Author's Preface.

Preface to the Second Edition.

Introduction

JOHN — THE FIRST CHAPTER*

John 1: 1-5.

John 1: 6-8.

John 1: 9-13.

John 1: 14-18.

John 1: 19-28.

John 1: 29-34.

John 1: 35-39.

John 1: 40-42.

John 1: 43-51.

JOHN — THE SECOND CHAPTER*

John 2: 1-11.

John 2: 12.

John 2: 13-22.

JOHN — THE THIRD CHAPTER*62a

John 3: 1-21.

John 3: 22-34.

JOHN — THE FOURTH CHAPTER*

John 4: 1-4.

John 4: 4-6.

John 4: 7-10.

JOHN 4: 11 f.

John 4: 13f.

John 4: 15-19.

John 4: 20-26.

John 4: 27.

John 4: 28-30.

John 4: 31-34.

John 4: 35-38.

John 4: 39-42.

John 4: 43-46.

John 4: 46-48.

John 4: 49 f.

John 4: 51-54.

JOHN — THE FIFTH CHAPTER*

John 5: 1-9.

John 5: 10-18.

John 5: 19-30.

John 5: 31-47.

JOHN — THE SIXTH CHAPTER*

John 6: 1-15.

John 6: 16-21.

Matt. 14: 22-33; Mark 6: 45-52.

John 6: 22-51.

John 6: 52-59.

John 6: 60-65.

John 6: 66-71.

John 7 - 12.

JOHN — THE SEVENTH CHAPTER*

John 7: 1-13.

John 7: 14-36.

John 7: 37-52.

JOHN — THE EIGHTH CHAPTER*

John 8: 12-20.

John 8: 21-30.

John 8: 31-59.

JOHN — THE NINTH CHAPTER*

John 9: 1-12

John 9: 13-34.

John 9: 35-41.

JOHN — THE TENTH CHAPTER*

John 10: 1-6.

John 10: 7-21.

John 10: 22-38.

John 10: 39-42.

JOHN — THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER*

John 11: 1-16.

John 11: 17-44.

John 11: 45-54.

John 11: 55-57.

JOHN — THE TWELFTH CHAPTER*

John 12: 1-11.

Matt. 26: 6-13; Mark 14: 3-9.

John 12: 12-19.

John 12: 20-36.

John 12: 36-43.

John 12: 44-50.

John 13 - 17.

JOHN — THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 13: 1-11.

John 13: 12-30.

John 13: 31-38.

JOHN — THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 14: 1-14.

John 14: 15-24.

John 14: 25-31.

JOHN — THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 15: 1-17.

John 15: 18-27.

JOHN — THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 16: 1-15.

John 16: 16-24.

John 16: 25-33

JOHN — THE SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 17: 1-19.

John 17: 20-26.

John 18 - 21.

JOHN — THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER*

John 18: 1-11.

John 18: 12-27.

John18: 28-40.

JOHN — THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER*

John 19: 1-15.

John 19: 16-30.

John 19: 31-37.

John 19: 38-42.

JOHN — THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER*

John 20: 1-18.

John 20: 19-23.

John 20: 24-29.

John 20: 30-31.

JOHN — THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER*376

John 21: 1-14.

Lectures on the Epistle of Jude.

Jude 1.

Jude 2, Jude 3.

Jude 3.

Jude 4, Jude 5.

Jude 6, Jude 7, Jude 8.

Jude 9.

Jude 10, Jude 11, Jude 12, Jude 13.

Jude 14, Jude 15.

Jude 16, Jude 17, Jude 18, Jude 19.

Jude 20, Jude 21.

Jude 22, Jude 23.

Jude 24, Jude 25.

Jude 25.

Luke: Notes

Notes on the Introduction.

NOTES ON THE FIRST CHAPTER

NOTES ON THE SECOND CHAPTER

NOTES ON THE THIRD CHAPTER

NOTES ON THE FOURTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE SIXTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE SEVENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE EIGHTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE NINTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TENTH CHAPTER (TO VERSE 37).

NOTES ON CHAPTER 10: 38 TO CHAPTER 11: 54.

NOTES ON THE TWELFTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-SECOND CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-THIRD CHAPTER.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FOURTH CHAPTER.

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED.

Luke 1 - 10: 37.

Preface.

Introduction.

Luke 1: 5-6.

There was in the days of Herod the king of Judea,19 a certain priest by name Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth

And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless

walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless

Luke 1: 7-14.

Luke 1: 15-17.

He shall be great before [the] LORD,* and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with [the] Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb

And many of the sons of Israel shall he turn to [the] LORD their God

And

shall go before him in [the] spirit and power of Elias, to turn hearts of fathers to children, and disobedient ones to [the] thoughts of just [men]15 to make ready for [the] LORD a prepared people

Luke 1:18-20.

And Zacharias said to the angel, How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife advanced in years?

Luke 1: 21-25.

And the people were awaiting Zacharias, and they wondered at his delaying in the temple. But when he came out he could not speak to them: and they recognised that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he was making signs to them and continued dumb. And it came to pass, when the days of his service were completed, he departed to his house

Now after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus has the LORD done to me in [these] days in which he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men

Luke 1: 26-38.

But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?

Luke 1: 39-56.

Luke 1: 57-80.

And thou, child, shalt be called [the] prophet of [the] Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of [the] LORD to make ready his ways

To give knowledge of salvation41 to his people by [the] forgiveness of their sins

on account of [the] bowels of mercy of our God; whereby [the] day-spring from on high has visited* us, to shine upon them who were sitting in darkness and in [the] shadow of death, to guide our feet into [the] way of peace

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census should be made of all the habitable world

Luke 2: 8-20.

And there were shepherds in that country49 abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock. And lo,* an angel of [the] LORD stood by49a them and the glory of [the] LORD50 shone

around them, and they were sore afraid

And this is the sign unto you: ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger

Luke 2: 21-40.

And his father* and mother wondered at the things which were said concerning him.

said to Mary his mother, Lo, this [child] is set for the fall and rising up of many in Israel; and for a sign spoken against (and even a sword shall go through thine own soul), so that [the] thoughts may be revealed from many hearts

And when they had completed all things according to the law of [the] LORD, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth

And the child grew and waxed strong [in spirit],* filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him

Now his parents went to Jerusalem* every year at the feast of the passover

And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men

Matt. 3: 1-12; Mark 1: 1-8.

Now, in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar,68 Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip Tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias Tetrarch of Abilene,

came upon 71 John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness

Luke 3: 15-18.

Matt. 3: 11, 12; John 1: 10ff.

Luke 3: 19-20.

Luke 3: 21, 22.

Matt. 3: 13-17; Mark 1: 9-11.

Luke 3: 23-38.

Matt. 4: 1-11; Mark 1: 12, 13.

Luke 4: 14-30.

Mark 1: 21-28.

Luke 4: 38-44.

Matt. 8: 14-17; Mark 1: 29-39.

Matt. 4: 18-22; Mark 1: 16-20.

But Simon Peter seeing it, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, Lord. For astonishment had laid hold on him, and on all those who were with him, at the haul of fishes which they had taken

Luke 5: 12-16.

Matt. 8: 1-4; Mark 1: 40-45.

Matt. 9: 1-8; Mark 2: 1-12.

And it came to pass on one of the days that he was teaching, that there were Pharisees

I and doctors of the law sitting by' who were come out of every village of Galilee and Judea, and [out of] Jerusalem: and the power of [the] LORD was [there] to heal them.*

and they sought to bring him in, and to put [him] before him

the house-top

through the tiles,

into the midst before Jesus

Luke 5: 27-39.

Matt. 12: 1-8; Mark 2: 23-28.

Matt. 12: 9-14; Mark 3: 1-6.

Luke 6: 12-16.

Mark 3: 13-19.

Luke 6: 17-19.

Matt. 4: 23-5: 1; Mark 3: 7-12.

Luke 6: 20-23.

Matt. 5: 3, 4, 6, 11, 12.

Luke 6: 24-26.

Matt. 5: 39-48.

Luke 6: 37-49.

Matt. 8: 5-13.

Luke 7: 11-17.

Luke 7: 18-35.

Matt. 11: 2-19.

Luke 7: 36-50.

Matt. 13: 1-23; Mark 4: 1-20.

Luke 8: 16-18.

Mark 4: 21-25.

Matt. 12: 46-50; Mark 3: 31-35.

Luke 8: 22-25.

Matt. 8: 18, 23-27; Mark 4: 35-41.

Luke 8: 26-39.

Luke 8: 40-56.

Matt. 9: 18-26; Mark 5: 21-43.

Matt. 10: 1-7, 9-11, 14; Mark 6: 7-13.

Luke 9: 7-9.

Matt. 14: 1-2; Mark 6: 14-16.

Luke 9: 10-17.

Matt. 16: 13-28; Mark 8: 27-9: 1.

Luke 9: 28-36.

Matt. 17: 1-9; Mark 9: 2-9.

Eight days after

as he prayed

fashion

effulgent

two men

who were

appearing in glory, spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem

But Peter and those with him were oppressed with sleep

But having fully woke

awake),238 they saw his glory,

And it came to pass as they departed from him

Master

they* entered into the cloud

And as the voice was [heard]

And they kept silence and told no one in those days any of the things they had seen

Luke 9: 37-45.

Matt. 17: 14-23; Mark 9: 14-32.

And as all wondered at all the things which [Jesus]* did†

Do ye let these

words sink into your ears.

Luke 9: 46-50

Matt. 18: 1-5; Mark 9: 33-40.

It came to pass when the days of his being received up were fulfilled he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers before his face. And having gone they entered into a village of the Samaritans that they might make ready for him. And they did not receive him,245 because his face was [turned as] going to Jerusalem

they did not receive him, because his face was

going to Jerusalem

Luke 9: 57-60.

Matt. 8: 19-22.

Luke 9: 61f.

Mark 6: 7; Matt. 9: 37f.

After these things the Lord appointed seventy* others also, and sent them

before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to come

Luke 10: 12-16.

Matt. 11: 21-23.

He

that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me; and he that rejects me rejects him that sent me

Luke 10: 17-20.

Luke 10: 21.

Matt. 11: 25-26.

In the same hour

spirit

Luke 10: 25-28.

Matt. 22: 35-40; Mark 12: 28-34.

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up tempting him, and saying, Teacher, having done that, shall I inherit life eternal?

Luke 10: 29-37.

But he, desirous of justifying* himself,

said to Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

fell into

robbers, who also, having stripped him and inflicted wounds, went away, leaving him in a half-dead state

And a certain priest happened271 to go down that way,

And in like manner also a Levite, being at the spot, came and looked [at him], and passed on the opposite side

But a certain Samaritan,

who had nothing to do with the law at all,

journeying, came to him; and, seeing [him],† was moved with compassion,272 and came up, and bound up his wounds, pouring in273 oil and wine

He put him on his own beast, and took him to [the] inn, and took care of him

And on the morrow [as he left],‡ taking out two denaria he gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him,§ Take care, of him, and whatever thou shalt expend more,

will render to thee on my coming back

Which [now]|| of these three seems to thee was275 neighbour [had been neighbour] to him that fell into [the hands of] the robbers? And he said

he that showed him mercy

Luke 10: 38 - 24.

But Martha was distracted with much serving, and, coming up, she said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? speak to her therefore that she may help me

But there is need of one; and* Mary hath chosen the good part, such as shall not be taken from her

Luke 11: 1-4.

Matt. 6: 9-13.

Luke 11: 5-8.

He said to them, Who among you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight and say unto him, Friend, let me have three loaves; since a friend of mine on a journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? and he within answering should say, Do not disturb me; the door is already shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise up to give [it] thee. I say unto you, although he will not rise up and give [them] to him because he is his friend, because of his shamelessness, at any rate, he will rise up and give him as many as he wanteth

Luke 11: 9-13.

Matt. 7: 7-11.

Matt. 12: 22-30; Mark 3: 22-27.

Luke 11: 29-32.

Matt. 12: 38-42.

But as the crowds thronged together, he began

Luke 11: 33.

Luke 11: 34-36.

Matt. 6: 22f.

Luke 11: 37-52.

Matt. 23: 1-36.

One of the lawyers

said to him, Teacher, in saying these things thou insultest us also

Woe unto you also, doctors of the law!

Luke 11: 53f.

And as he said these things to them,* the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him vehemently, and to make him speak317 of many things

watching him [and seeking]† to catch something out of his mouth [that they might accuse him]

Matt. 6: 25-33.

And Peter said to him,* Lord, sayest thou this

parable unto us, or also to all? And the Lord said,

Luke 12: 49f.

Matt. 20: 22.

Luke 12: 51-53.

Matt. 10: 34-36.

Luke 12: 54-59.

Matt. 16: 2f.

Matt. 5: 25f.

There were present352 some at that season who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with that of their sacrifices

Galileans were sinners beyond all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you, but, if ye repent not, ye shall all perish

Luke 13: 10-17.

Luke 13: 18-21.

Matt. 13: 31-33; Mark 4: 30-32.

Luke 13: 22-30.

From the time that the master of the house shall have risen up, and shall have shut the door, and ye shall begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord,* open to us; and he answering shall say unto you, I know you† not whence ye are

Luke 13: 31-35.

It must not be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem

Luke 14: 7-11.

Matt. 23: 6.

Luke 14: 12-14.

Luke 14: 15-24.

Matt. 22: 2-10.

And all

without exception began to excuse themselves

The first said unto him, I have bought land and I must go out and see it; I pray thee hold me for excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee hold me for excused

Matt. 10: 37f.

Matt. 5: 13; Mark 9: 50.

Luke 15: 1-2.

Luke 15: 3-7.

Matt. 18: 12-14.

Luke 15: 8-10.

Or, what woman having ten drachmas, if she lose one drachma,384 doth not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek carefully till she find it?

And having found it, she calleth together the friends and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma, which I had lost

Thus I say unto you, There is joy before the angels of God for one repenting sinner

And after not many days the younger son gathering all together went away into a country a long way off, and there dissipated his property, living in debauchery

But when he had spent all, there arose a violent famine throughout that country, and

began to be in want

There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was accused unto him as wasting his possessions

And the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord is taking the stewardship from me; I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg

I know 401 What I will do, that when I shall have been removed from the stewardship I maybe received 401a into their houses

He called each of his own lord's debtors, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord! And he said, A hundred measures [baths] of oil.402 And he said unto him, Take thy bill and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then he said to another, And thou, how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures (cors)403 of wheat. And * he said unto him, Take thy bill and write eighty

And the lord404 praised the unrighteous steward, because he had done prudently. For the sons of this age404a are in respect of their own generation404b more prudent than the sons of light

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true?

If ye have not been faithful in that which is another's, who shall give unto you your*407 own?

Luke 16: 14-18.

And he said unto them,

are they who justify themselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which amongst men is highly thought of410 is an abomination before God

The rich man also died, and was buried

in Hades

lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom

And he, crying out, said, Father Abraham, have compassion on me: and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame

Luke 17: 5-10.

Luke 17: 11-19.

And it came to pass, as he was going up to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst431 of Samaria and Galilee

And as he entered into a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood afar off

And they lifted up [their] voice, saying, Jesus, Master, have compassion on us. And seeing [them] he said to them, Go, show yourselves unto the priests

And one of them, seeing

that he was cured

turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice

glorifying God with a loud voice, and fell on [his] face at his feet, giving him thanks. And he was a Samaritan

And Jesus answering said, Were not the ten cleansed? but* the nine, where are they! There have not been found to return and give glory to God, save this stranger

Luke 17: 25-30.

Matt. 24: 37-39; Mark 8: 31.

But first he must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation

Luke 17: 31-33.

Matt. 24: 17f.

Remember Lot's wife

shall seek to save

Luke 17: 34-36.

Matt. 24: 40f.

I say unto you, in that night there shall be two [men] upon one bed* one shall be taken444 and the other let go.

Luke 17: 37.

Matt. 24: 28.

And answering they say to him, Where, Lord? And he said to

body [is], there* the eagles will be gathered together

And he spoke also* a parable to them, to the purport that they† should always pray, and not faint, saying, There was a judge in a city, not fearing God, and not respecting man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came

to him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary; and he would not for a time; but afterwards he said within himself, If even I fear not God, and respect not man,

at any rate because this widow annoys me, I will avenge her, that she may not by perpetual coming completely harass

me

Luke 18: 9-14.

Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee, standing, prayed thus to himself: God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest of men, rapacious, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax-gatherer. I fast twice in the week, I tithe every thing that I acquire.* And the tax-gatherer, standing afar off, would not lift up even his eyes to heaven, but was striking upon his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me the sinner. I say unto you, this [man] went down to his house† justified rather than that [other]; for every one who exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted

Matt. 19: 13-15; Mark 10: 13-16.

Luke 18: 18-30.

Matt. 19: 16-29; Mark 10: 17-30.

Matt. 20: 17-19; Mark 10: 32-34.

Luke 18: 35-43.

Matt. 20: 29-34; Mark 10: 46-52.

And he entered and was passing through Jericho; and behold a man by name called Zacchaeus,

and he was chief tax-gatherer and he was rich. And he was seeking to see Jesus who he was, and could not for the crowd, because he was little in stature. And he ran on before and got up a sycamore

that he might see him, because he was going to pass that [way]. And when he came to the place, Jesus looking up saw him and said to him, Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for today I must

abide in thy house. And making haste he came down and received him joyfully

And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have by false accusation exacted anything of any man, I restore fourfold.

And Jesus said to him, Today salvation is come

to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham:* for the Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost

Luke 19: 11-27.

Matt. 25: 14-30; Matt. 24: 47.

Luke 19: 28-40.

And when he had said these things, he went on before, going up to Jerusalem

Luke 19: 41-44.

Luke 19: 45f.

Matt. 21: 23-27; Mark 11: 27-33.

Matt. 21: 33-46; Mark 12: 1-12.

Matt. 22: 15-22; Mark 12: 13-17.

Luke 20: 27-40.

Matt. 22: 23-33, 46; Mark 12: 18-27, 34.

Matt. 22: 41-45; Mark 12: 35-37.

Luke 20: 45-47.

Matt. 23: 1, 5-7, 14; Mark 12: 38-40.

And as all the people were listening

Mark 12: 41-44.

Luke 21: 5f.

Luke 21: 7-9.

Matt. 24: 3-6; Mark 13: 3-7.

Luke 21: 10-19.

Then said he to them,*

pestilences

there shall be fearful sights and great signs from heaven

before all these things514 they shall lay their hands upon you and persecute you

and prisons

to you

Settle therefore in your hearts

will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist or reply unto

and friends

and a hair of your head shall in no wise perish

gain§ your souls

Luke 21: 20-24.

Luke 21: 25-28.

Matt. 24: 29-31; Mark 13: 24-27.

Luke 21: 29-36.

Matt. 24: 32-51; Mark 13: 28-37.

Luke 21: 37f.

Matt. 26: 1-5; Mark 14: 1f.

Luke 22: 3-6.

Matt. 26: 14-16; Mark 14: 10f.

Luke 22: 7-23.

Matt 26: 17-29; Mark 14: 12-25.

Luke 22: 25f.

Matt. 20: 5-27; Mark 10: 42-44.

But, behold, the hand of him that delivereth me up [is] with me on the table

And there was also a strife (and emulation) among them which of them should be accounted greater. But he said to them, The kings of the nations rule over them, and they that exercise authority over them are called benefactors.

But ye [shall] not [be] so; but let the greater among you be as the younger, and the leader as he that serveth.

For which [is] greater, he that is at table, or he that serveth? [Is] not he that is at table? But I am among you as he that serveth. But ye are they who have persevered with me in my temptations.

And I appoint unto you as my Father appointed unto me, a kingdom, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom

and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel

Luke 22: 31-34.

Luke 22: 35-38.

Matt. 26: 30, 36-46; Mark 14: 26, 32-42.

Luke 22: 47-53.

Luke 22: 63-65.

Matt. 26: 59-66; Mark 14: 55-64.

And when it was day, the elderhood of the people, both chief priests and scribes, were gathered together, and led him into their‡ council, saying, If thou art the Christ,565 tell us. And he said to them, If I tell you, you will not at all believe; and if I should ask, ye would not at all answer

they all said

to them,

, say that I am. And they said

we

ourselves

from his mouth

But Pilate having heard of Galilee,* demanded if the man were a Galilean. And having learnt that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he remitted him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in those days. And when Herod saw Jesus he rejoiced exceedingly, for he was wishing for a long time to see him, because of hearing [much]† of him. And he hoped to see some sign done by him, and questioned him in many words. but he answered him nothing

And the chief priests and the scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his troops set him at nought and mocked him, and having arrayed [him] with a splendid

robe, sent him back to Pilate

Pilate and Herod became friends with one another that very day, for they had been previously at enmity with each other

Luke 23: 26-32.

Matt. 27: 52; Mark 15: 21.

Luke 23: 33-49.

And two others, malefactors, were led with him to be put to death

And when they came

And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

Now one of the hanged malefactors reviled him

Art not

the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other in answer rebuking him said, Dost not even thou fear God, because thou art in the same judgment? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due requital for what we have done, but this [man] has done nothing amiss. And he said to Jesus, Remember me† when thou shalt come in‡ thy kingdom.584 And he§ said to him, Verily, I say unto thee,|| Today585 shalt thou be with me in paradise

Luke 23: 50-56.

Mark 16: 12.

And behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village, distant sixty* stadia from Jerusalem, called Emmaus; and they conversed with one another about all these things which had taken place. And it came to pass while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus himself drawing nigh went with them. But their eyes were holden so as not to know him. And he said to them, What words [are] these which ye interchange with one another as ye walk and are downcast?†

And one [of them], named Cleopas,

answering said to him, Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem and knowest not

the things come to pass in it in these days? And he said to them, What things? And they said to him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarean,‡ who was

a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to [the] judgment of death and crucified him. But

had hoped that he was [the one] about to redeem

Israel; but then also§ with all these things, this is the third day since these things came to pass. And withal, certain women from among us astonished us, having been early at the sepulchre, and, not having found his body, came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who say that he is alive. And some of those with us went to the sepulchre, and found even as the women also had said; but him they saw not

And he said to them, O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter

into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets,

he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24: 36-49.

Mark 16: 14-18; John 20: 19-23.

Mark

An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark

Preface

Introduction

MARK 1

Mark 1: 1-18.

Mark 1: 9-11.

Mark 1: 12, 13.

Matt. 4: 1-11; Luke 4: 1-13.

Mark 1: 14-20.

Mark 1: 21 -28.

Luke 4: 31-37.

Mark 1: 29-34.

Matt. 8: 14-16; Luke 4: 38-41.

Mark 1: 35-39.

Luke 4: 42-44.

Mark 1: 40-45.

Matt. 8: 1-4; Luke 5: 12-16.

MARK 2

Mark 2: 1-12.

Matt. 9: 1-8; Luke 5: 17-26.

Mark 2: 13-17.

Mark 2: 18-22.

Matt. 1: 14-17; Luke 5: 33-39.

Mark 2: 23-28.

Matt. 12: 1-8; Luke 6: 1-5.

MARK 3.

Mark 3: 1-6.

Matt. 12: 9-14; Luke 6: 6-11.

Mark 3: 7-12.

Matt. 12: 15-21; Luke 6: 17-19.

Mark 3: 13-19.

Matt. 10: 1-4; Luke 6: 12-16.

Mark 3: 20-30.

Matt. 12: 22-32; Luke 11: 14-23.

Matt. 12: 46-50; Luke 8: 19-21.

MARK 4

Mark 4: 1-20.

Matt. 13: 1-23; Luke 8: 4-15.

Mark 4: 21-25.

Luke 8: 16-18.

Mark 4: 26-29.

Mark 4: 30-34.

Matt. 13: 31-35; Luke 13: 18, 19.

Mark 4: 35-41.

Matt. 8: 18, 23-27; Luke 8: 22-25.

MARK 5

Mark 5: 1-20.

Matt. 8: 28-34; Luke 8: 26-39.

Mark 5: 21-43.

Matt. 9: 18-26; Luke 8: 40-56.

MARK 6

Mark 6: 1-6.

Mark 6: 7-13.

Matt. 10: 1-15; Luke 9: 1-6.

Mark 6: 14-29.

Matt. 14: 1-12; Luke 9: 7-9.

Mark 6: 30-44.

Matt. 14: 22, 23; John 6: 15-21.

Mark 6: 53-56.

Matt. 14: 34-36.

MARK 7

Mark 7: 1-23.

Matt. 15: 1-20.

Mark 7: 24-30.

Matt. 15: 21-28.

Mark 7: 31-37.

Matt. 15: 29-31.

MARK 8.

Mark 8: 1-9.

Matt. 15: 32-39.

Mark 8: 10-13.

Matt. 15: 39-16: 4.

Mark 8: 14-21.

Matt. 16: 5-12.

Mark 8: 22-26.

Mark 8: 27-29.

Matt. 16: 13-16; Luke 9: 18-20.

Mark 8: 31 — Mark 9: 1.

Matt. 16: 21-28; Luke 9: 22-27.

MARK 9

Mark 9: 2-13.

Matt. 17: 1-13; Luke 9: 28-36.

Mark 9: 14-29.

Matt. 17: 14-20; Luke 9: 37-42.

Mark 9: 30-32.

Mark 9: 33-37.

Matt. 17: 24-18: 5; Luke 9: 46-48.

Mark 9: 38-42.

Mark 9: 43-50.

Matt. 18: 8, 9.

MARK 10.

Mark 10: 1-12.

Matt. 19: 1-9.

Mark 10: 13-16.

Matt. 19: 13-15; Luke 18: 15-17.

Mark 10: 17-22.

Mark 10: 23-27.

Matt. 9: 23-26; Luke 18: 24-27.

Mark 10: 28-31.

Matt. 9: 27-30; Luke 18: 28-30.

Mark 10: 32-34.

Mark 10: 35-45.

Matt. 20: 20-28; Luke 22: 24-28.

Mark 10: 46-52.

Matt. 20: 29-34; Luke 18: 35-43.

MARK 11.

Mark 11: 1-11.

Mark 11: 12-14.

Mark 11: 15-18.

Matt. 21: 12-19; Luke 19: 41-48.

Mark 11: 19-26.

Matt. 21: 20-22.

Mark 11: 27-33.

Matt. 21: 23-27; Luke 20: 1-8.

MARK 12.

Mark 12: 1-12.

Matt. 21: 33-46; Luke 20: 9-19.

Mark 12: 13 -17.

Matt. 22: 15-22; Luke 20: 20-26.

Mark 12: 18-27.

Matt. 22: 23-33; Luke 20: 27-38.

Mark 12: 28-34.

Mark 12: 35-37.

Matt. 22: 41-46; Luke 20: 41-44.

Mark 12: 38-40.

Matt. 23; Luke 20: 45-47.

Mark 12: 41-44.

Luke 21: 1-4.

MARK 13

Mark 13: 1-13.

Matt. 24: 1-14; Luke 21: 5-19.

Mark 13: 14-23.

Matt. 24: 15-28; Luke 21: 20-24.

Mark 13: 24-32.

Matt. 24: 29-36; Luke 21: 25-33.

Mark 13: 33-37.

MARK 14

Mark 14: 1-11.

Mark 14: 12-16.

Matt. 26: 17-19; Luke 22: 7-13.

Mark 14: 17-21.

Mark 14: 22-25.

Matt. 26: 26-29; Luke 22: 14-20.

Mark 14: 26-31.

Matt. 26: 30-35; Luke 22: 31-34.

Mark 14: 32-42.

Matt. 26: 36-46; Luke 22: 39-46.

Mark 14: 43-52.

Matt. 26: 47-56; Luke 22: 47-53.

Mark 14: 53-65.

Mark 14: 66-72.

MARK 15.

Mark 15: 1-5.

Mark 15: 6-15.

Mark 15: 16-21.

Mark 15: 22-32.

Mark 15: 33-41.

Mark 15: 42-47.

MARK 16

Mark 16: 1-8.

Mark 16: 9-11.

Luke 8: 2; John 20: 11-18.

Mark 16: 12-15.

Luke 24: 12-35.

Mark 16: 14-18.

Luke 24: 36-49; John 20: 19-29.

Mark 16: 19-20.

Luke 24: 50-53.

Mark — Appendix.

Notes on the Introduction

NOTES ON MARK 1.

NOTES ON MARK 2.

NOTES ON MARK 3.

NOTES ON MARK 4.

NOTES ON MARK

5.

NOTES ON MARK 6.

NOTES ON MARK

7.

NOTES ON MARK

8.

NOTES ON MARK

9.

NOTES ON MARK 10.

NOTES ON MARK 11.

NOTES ON MARK 12.

NOTES ON MARK

13.

NOTES ON MARK 14.

NOTES ON MARK

15.

NOTES ON MARK

16.

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED

Matthew 1 - 12.

Matthew 1

Matthew 2.

Matthew 3

Matthew 4.

Matthew 5

Matthew 6

Matthew 7

Matthew 8

Matthew 9

Matthew 10

Matthew 11

Matthew 12

Matthew 13 - 28.

Matthew 13

Matthew 14

Matthew 15

Matthew 16

Matthew 17

Matthew 18

Matthew 19

Matthew 20

Matthew 21

Matthew 22

Matthew 23

Matthew 24

Matthew 25

Matthew 26

Matthew 27

Matthew 28

Philemon., An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to.

Introduction.

The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians.

Philippians 1

Philippians 2

Christ Jesus Emptying Himself

Philippians 3

Philippians 4

Revelation of John

REVELATION 1

REVELATION 2

REVELATION 3

REVELATION 4

REVELATION 5

REVELATION 6

REVELATION 7

REVELATION 8

REVELATION 9

REVELATION 10

REVELATION 11

REVELATION 12

REVELATION 13

REVELATION 14

REVELATION 15

REVELATION 16

REVELATION 17

REVELATION 18

REVELATION 19

REVELATION 20

REVELATION 21

REVELATION 22

An Exposition of Revelation.

Preface.

The Revelation.

Revelation 2

Revelation 3

Revelation 4: 1.

Revelation 5.

Revelation 7

Revelation 8

Revelation 9

Revelation 10.

Revelation 11.

Revelation 12

Revelation 13

Revelation 14

Revelation 15

Revelation 16

Revelation 17

Revelation 18

Revelation 19.

Revelation 20

Revelation 21.

Revelation 22.

Revelation 1 - 3.

Preface.

Introduction.

LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

Revelation 1.

Revelation 2.

Revelation 3.

LAODICEA.

Revelation 4 - 11.

Revelation 4.

Revelation 5.

Revelation 6

Revelation 7

Revelation 8

Revelation 9

Revelation 10

Revelation 11

Revelation 12 - 18.

Revelation 12

Revelation 13

Revelation 14

Revelation 15

Revelation 16

Revelation 17

Revelation 18

Revelation 19 - 22.

Revelation 19

Revelation 20

Revelation 21

Revelation 22

Romans 1 - 7.

Preface.

NOTES

ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Romans 1.

Romans 2.

ROMANS 3.

ROMANS 4.

ROMANS 5.

ROMANS 6.

ROMANS 7.

Romans 8 - 16.

ROMANS 8

ROMANS 9

ROMANS 10.

ROMANS 11.

ROMANS 12

ROMANS 13

ROMANS 14

ROMANS 16

Titus., An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to.

Introduction.

Titus 1.

Titus 2.

Titus 3.

WKELLY - Major New Testament works

New Testament Commentary [2]

William Kelly

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com) (2011)

1 Corinthians

W. Kelly.

Notes on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians with a new translation.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1.

Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus by God's will, and Sosthenes the brother, 2 to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, [persons] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs and ours; 3 grace to you and peace from God our Father, and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus; 5 that in everything ye were enriched in him, in all discourse and all knowledge, 6 according as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you; 7 so that ye come not short in any gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ 8 who shall also confirm you until [the] end, unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God [is] faithful by whom ye were called into [the] fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all say the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you, but [that] ye be made perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by those [of the house] of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. 12 But I say this, that each of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized unto the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, 15 that no one should say that ye were baptized unto my name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; further I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ should be made vain. 18 For the word of the cross is to those that perish foolishness, but to us that are to be saved it is God's power. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and put away the understanding of the understanding ones. 20 Where [is the] wise? whore scribe? where disputer of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe; 22 since both Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling-block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those that [are] called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ God's power and God's wisdom; 25 because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For look at your calling, brethren, that not many [are] wise according to flesh, not many powerful, not many high-born. 27 But the foolish things of the world God chose that he might put to shame the wise; and the weak things of the world God chose that he might put to shame the strong things; 28 and the low-born things of the world and those despised God chose, [and] the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are, 29 so that no flesh should boast before God. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 31 that, according as it is written, He that boasteth, let him boast in [the] Lord.

1 Corinthians 2.

And I, when I came unto you, brethren, came not in excellency of word or wisdom, announcing to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I in weakness and in fear and in much trembling was with you; 4 and my word and my preaching, not in persuasive words of wisdom but in demonstration of [the] Spirit and of power; 5 that your faith might not be in man's wisdom but in God's power.

6 But we speak wisdom among the full-grown, but wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age that come to nought. 7 But we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God pre-determined before the ages for our glory; 8 which none of the rulers of the age knew (for, had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory), 9 but, according as it is written, Things which eye saw not and ear heard not, and into man's heart entered not, all which God prepared for those that love him, 10 but God revealed to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who of men knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of the man that [is] in him? So also the things of God knoweth no one save the Spirit of God. 12 But we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that [is] from God, that we might know the things freely given us by God; 13 which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in [those] taught by [the] Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual [words]. 14 But [the] natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually examined; 15 but the spiritual [man] examineth all things, while he himself is examined by no one. 16 For who hath known [the] Lord's mind that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3.

And I, brethren, was not able to speak to you as spiritual, but as fleshy,* as babes in Christ. 2 With milk I gave you drink, not meat; for ye were not yet able, nor indeed are ye now able, 3 for ye are yet carnal. For whereas emulation and strife [are] among you, are ye not carnal and walk according to man? 4 For when one saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, are ye not men? 5 What† then is Apollos? and what† is Paul? Ministers by whom ye believed, and as the Lord gave to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So that neither he that planteth is anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. 8 And he that planteth and he that watereth are one thing; but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9 For we are God's fellow-workmen; ye are God's tillage, God's building.

* Perhaps "carnal."

† Or, "who."

10 According to the grace of God that was given to me, as a wise architect I laid the foundation and another buildeth on [it]. But let each see how he buildeth on [it]. 11 For other foundation can none lay than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, 13 the work of each shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare [it], because it is to be revealed in fire, and the fire itself shall try the work of each, of what sort it is. 14 If the work of any one shall abide which he built on [it], he shall receive reward: 15 if the work of any one shall be burnt up, he shall suffer loss, but himself shall be saved but so as through fire. 16 know ye not that ye are God's temple, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any one destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, the which ye are.

18 Let none deceive himself; if any one thinketh himself to be wise among you in this age, let him become foolish that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, He that taketh the wise in their craftiness; 20 and again, [The] Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise that they are vain. 21 Wherefore let none boast in men, for all things are yours: 22 whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours, 23 and ye Christ's, and Christ God's.

1 Corinthians 4.

So let a man account of us, as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries. 2 Here moreover it is sought in stewards that one be found faithful, 3 but to me it amounteth to very little that I be examined by you, or by man's day. 4 Nay, I do not examine even myself, for I am conscious to myself of nothing, yet I am not justified by this, but he that examineth me is the Lord. 5 So then judge nothing prematurely until the Lord shall have come, who shall both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall each have his praise from God.

6 And these things, brethren, I transferred to myself and Apollos on your account, that ye may in our case learn, Nothing above what is written, in order that ye be not puffed up one for one against another. 7 For who distinguisheth thee? and what hast thou which thou didst not receive? But if thou didst even receive, why boastest thou as not having received? 8 Already ye are filled, already ye have been enriched, apart from us ye reigned; and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God set us the apostles last as devoted to death, because we became a spectacle to the world, to both angels and men: 10 we, fools for Christ, but ye prudent in Christ; we weak, but ye strong; ye illustrious, but we disgraced. 11 Until the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and are buffeted and are homeless wanderers, 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; reviled, we bless, persecuted, we suffer; 13 slandered, we beseech. We became as the world's scum, off-scouring of all, until now.

14 Not to abash you do I write these things, but as my beloved children I admonish [you]; 15 for if ye should have ten thousand child-guides in Christ, yet not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus, through the gospel, I begot you. 16 I beseech you then, become imitators of me. 17 For this cause I sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in [the] Lord, who will remind you of my ways that are in Christ [Jesus], even as everywhere in every assembly I teach.

18 Now some were puffed up as though I were not coming unto you; 19 but I shall come shortly unto you, if the Lord will, and will know not the word of those that are puffed up but the power; 20 for the kingdom of God [is] not in word but in power. 21 What will ye? that I come unto you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness?

1 Corinthians 5.

Universal report is of fornication among you, and such fornication as [is] not even among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2 And ye are puffed up, and hate not rather mourned, that he that did this deed might be taken away out of the midst of you. 3 For I, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, 4 in the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ], ye and my spirit being gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus [Christ], [concerning] him that so wrought this- 5 to deliver such an one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7 Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened. For also our passover, Christ, was sacrificed. 8 Wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.

9 I have written* to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators; 10 not absolutely with the fornicators of this world, or the covetous and rapacious or idolatrous, since [in that case] ye must go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you, if any one called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, not to mix with [him], with such an one not even to eat. 12 For what [is it] to me to judge those without? Do ye not judge those within? 13 But those without God judgeth. Put out the wicked person from among yourselves.

* Epistolary, or allusive usage of aorist, as in 1 Cor. 9: 15. See 1 John 2.

1 Corinthians 6.

Dareth any of you, having a matter against another, go to law for, seek judgment] before the unjust and not before the saints? 2 What! know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? 3 And if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy of the least judgments? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? much more things of this life. 4 If then ye have judgments in things of this life, set up those who are of no esteem in the assembly. 5 I speak to your shame. Thus there is not among you one wise [man] who shall be able to decide among brethren [literally, "brother [and brother]"]! 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and this before unbelievers. 7 already therefore it is altogether a fault in you that ye go to law among yourselves. Why are ye not rather wronged? why are ye not rather defrauded? 8 But ye do wrong and defraud, and this brethren. 9 What I know ye not that unjust [men] shall not inherit God's kingdom? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers of themselves as women, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor rapacious, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit God's kingdom. 11 And these things were some of you. But ye were washed [literally, "had yourselves washed"], but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus [Christ] and by the Spirit of our God.

12 All things are lawful to me, but not all things profit; all things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meets for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God will bring to nought both it and them; but the body [is] not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us by his power. 15 Know ye not, that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then, taking the members of Christ, make [them] members of a harlot? Let it not be. 16 What I know ye not that he that is joined to the harlot is one body? For, saith he, the two [shall be] one flesh. 17 But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin whatsoever that a man may practise is outside the body, but the fornicator sinneth against his own body. 19 What I know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit that [is] in you, and that ye are not your own? 20 For ye were bought with a price: do then glorify God in your body.

1 Corinthians 7.

But concerning the things of which ye wrote [to me], [it is] good for a man not to touch a woman, 2 but on account of fornications let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. 3 To the wife let the husband render her due, and likewise also the wife to the husband. 4 The wife hath not authority over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. 6 But this I say by way of permission, not by way of command. 7 Now I desire all men to be even as myself; but each hath his own gift of God, one this way, and another that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them that they remain even as I. 9 But if they have not continency let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. 10 But to the married not I enjoin but the Lord, that wife be not separated from husband 11 (but if also she be separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and that husband leave [or, put away] not wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, if any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not leave [or, put away] her; 13 and a woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he consenteth to dwell with her, let her not leave [or, put away] him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; since then your children are unclean, but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving separateth himself, let him be separated. The brother or the sister is not in bondage in such [circumstances]: but God hath called us in peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shalt save thy wife?

17 Only as the Lord divided to each, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the assemblies. 18 Was any one called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any one been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandments. 20 Let each abide in that calling in which he was called. 21 Wast thou called a bondman? Let it not be a care to thee; but if also thou canst be free, use [it] rather. 22 For the bondman called in [the] Lord is [the] Lord's freedman; likewise he that was called free is Christ's bondman. 23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondmen of men. 24 Brethren, wherein each was called, in this let him abide with God.

25 Now concerning virgins command of [the] Lord have I none, but I give an opinion as having received mercy of [the] Lord to be faithful. 26 I think then that this is good because of the present necessity, that [it is] good for a man to be so. 27 Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But if even thou shouldest have married, thou didst not sin; and if the virgin should have married, she did not sin. But such shall have tribulation in the flesh: but I am sparing you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the season is straitened: henceforth that both those that have wives be as having none, 30 and those that weep as weeping not, and those that rejoice as rejoicing not, and those that buy as possessing not, 31 and those that use the world as not using [it] for themselves;* for the fashion of the world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be without care. The unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord; 33 but he that hath married careth for the things of the world how he shall please his wife. 34 Divided also is both the wife and the virgin: the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that hath married careth for the things of the world how she shall please her husband. 35 But this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare [lit. a noose] over you, but for what [is] seemly and waiting on the Lord undistractedly.

* Or, to the full, καταχρώμενοι. See 1 Cor. 9: 18.

36 But if any one thinketh that he is behaving unseemly to his virginity, if he be past his prime, and so it ought to be, let him do what he will: he is not sinning, let them marry. 37 But he who standeth firm in his heart, having no necessity, and hath authority concerning his own will, and hath judged this in his own heart to keep his own virginity, shall do well. 38 So that he that marrieth [lit. his own virginity] doeth well, and he that marrieth not shall do better. 39 A wife is bound as long as her husband liveth; but should the husband have fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord. 40 But she is happier if she so remain according to my judgment, and I also think that I have God's Spirit.

1 Corinthians 8.

But concerning the things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge; knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. 2 If any one thinketh that he knoweth anything, not yet knoweth he as he ought to know; 3 but if any one loveth God, he is known by him. 4 Concerning the eating, then, of the things sacrificed to idols, we know that [shore is] no idol in [the] world, and that [there is] no God save one. 5 For even if there are [so-]called gods whether in heaven, or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; 6 yet to us [there is] one God the rather, of whom [are] all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. 7 Howbeit not in all [is] the knowledge, but some with conscience of the idol until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat shall not commend us to God; neither if we eat have we the advantage, nor if we eat not do we come short. 9 But see lost in any wise this your title become a stumbling-block to the weak. 10 For if any one see thee who hast knowledge sitting at table in an idol's temple, shall not his conscience, as he is weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to idols? 11 And he that is weak perisheth by thy knowledge, the brother for whom Christ died? 12 But thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat stumble my brother, I will in nowise eat flesh for ever, that I may not stumble my brother.

1 Corinthians 9.

Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? my work are not ye in [the] Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of my apostleship ye are in [the] Lord. 3 My defence to those that examine me is this. 4 Have we not a title to eat and to drink? 5 have we not title to take about a sister wife, as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? 6 or I alone and Barnabas, have we not title to abstain from working [lit. not to work]? 7 Who ever serveth in war at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of its fruit? or who tendeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I speak these things as a man, or doth not the law also say these things? 9 For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox while treading out corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, 10 or doth he say it altogether on our account? For it was written on our account, because the plougher ought to plough in hope, and the thresher in hope of partaking. 11 If we sowed for you the spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others partake of the title over you, should not we more? But we use not this title but bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of the Christ. 13 Know ye not that those that minister about the holy things eat of the temple, and those that attend the altar share with the altar? 14 So also the Lord ordained those that announced the gospel to live of the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things. And I have not written these things that it should be thus in my case, for [it were] good for me to die rather than that any one should make empty my boast. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast, for necessity is laid upon me, for woe is to me if I preach not the gospel. 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if unwillingly, I have an administration entrusted to me. 18 What, then, is my reward? That in preaching the gospel I may make the gospel without charge; so that I use not for myself my title in the gospel. 19 For being free from all I made myself bondman to all, that I might gain the most. 20 And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; and to those under law, as under law, not being myself under law, that I might gain those under law; 21 to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak; to all I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. 23 And all things I do for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow-partaker of it.

24 Know ye not that they who run in a race-course run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. 25 And every one that contendeth is temperate in all things: they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, as not uncertainly — so combat, as not beating air. 27 But I discipline my body and lead [it] captive, lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be reprobate.

1 Corinthians 10.

For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual meat, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking of a spiritual attendant rock (and the rock was Christ); 5 but in the most of them God had no pleasure, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 But these things happened as types of us, that we should not be lusters after evil things, even as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, even as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, even as some of them committed, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt the Lord, even as some of them tempted, and were perishing by the serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, according as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them typically, and were written for our admonition, unto whom the ends of the ages have reached. 12 So then let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation hath taken you save a human one: but God [is] faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what ye are able, but will with the temptation make also the issue that ye may be able to bear [it].

14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to prudent [men]: judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowship with the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not fellowship with the body of the Christ? 17 Because we, the many, are one loaf, one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 18 See Israel according to flesh: are not they that eat the sacrifices in fellowship with the altar? 19 What say I then? that an idol-sacrifice is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 but that what they sacrifice, they sacrificed to demons, and not to God; and I wish you not to be in fellowship with demons. 21 Ye cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and a cup of demons; ye cannot partake of [the] Lord's table, and of a table of demons. 22 What I do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

23 All things are lawful, but not all profit; all things are lawful, but not all edify. 24 Let none seek his own [advantage], but his neighbour's [lit. that of the other]. 25 Everything that is offered for sale in the shambles eat, examining nothing for conscience' sake: 26 for the earth [is] the Lord's, and its fulness. 27 And if anyone of the unbelieving inviteth you, and ye desire to go, all that is set before you eat, examining nothing for conscience' sake. 28 But if anyone say to you, This is sacrificed, eat not for his sake that pointed [it] out, and conscience; 29 but conscience, I say, not one's own, but the other's; for why is my liberty to be judged by another conscience? 30 If I partake with thanks, why am I to be evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether then ye eat or drink or do anything, do all things unto God's glory. 32 Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews or Greeks, or to the assembly of God; 33 even as I too please all in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but that of the many, that they be saved. 1 Corinthians 11. Be imitators of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

2 Now I praise you that in all things ye remember me and hold fast the traditions according as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I wish you to know that the head of every man is the Christ, and woman's head the man, and the Christ's head God. 4Every man praying or prophesying with head covered [lit. having something on [his] head] shameth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shameth her own head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn; but if [it is] shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory. 8 For man is not of woman, but woman of man. 9 For also man was not created on account of the woman, but woman on account of the man. 10 On this account ought the woman to have authority on her head on account of the angels. 11 However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord; 12 for as the women [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him; but if woman have long hair, it is a glory to her? 15 Because the hair hath been given her instead of a veil. 16 But if any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the assemblies of God.

17 Now in enjoining this I praise [you] not, because ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first, when ye come together in an assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and in some measure I believe [it]: 19 for there must be even sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you. 20 When therefore ye come together into the same [place], there is no eating of [the] Lord's supper. 21 For each in eating taketh his own supper before [others]; and one is hungry, and another drinketh excessively. 22 Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or despise ye the church of God, and put shame on those that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I do not praise. 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was being delivered up, took bread; 24 and, having given thanks, he brake [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever eateth the bread, or drinketh the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty as to the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body. 30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and rather many are falling asleep. 31 But if we were discerning ourselves, we should not be judged; but when judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 32 Wherefore, my brethren, when coming together to eat, wait for each other. 33 If any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment. But the rest will I arrange when I come.

1 Corinthians 12.

Now concerning spiritual things, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2 Ye know that, when ye were Gentiles, [ye were] led away unto the dumb idols as ye might be led. 3 Wherefore I give you to know, that no one speaking in [the] Spirit of God saith, Jesus [is] accursed, and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in [the] Holy Spirit. 4 Now there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit, 5 and there are differences of services, and the same Lord, 6 and there are differences of operations, but the same God that operateth all things in all. 7 But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit. 8 For to one, through the Spirit, is given [the] word of wisdom, and to another [the] word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; 9 to a different one faith by [or, in] the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings by [or, in] the same Spirit, 10 and to another operations of powers, and to another prophecy, and to another discerning of spirits; to a different one kinds of tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues. 11 But all these things operateth the one and the same Spirit, dividing in particular to each as he pleaseth.

12 For even as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit.

14 For also the body is not one member but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body, it is not on this account not of the body; 16 and if the ear say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, it is not on this account not of the body. 17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where the hearing? If all hearing, where the smelling? 18 But now God set the members each one of them in the body according as he pleased. 19 And if they all were one member, where the body? 20 But now [are there] many members, and one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; or, again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 But much more the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary: 23 and those which we think to be less honourable [members] of the body, on these we put more abundant honour, and our uncomely [members] have more abundant comeliness; 24 but our comely [members] have no need. But God blended the body together, having given more abundant honour to that which lacked, 25 that there might be no division in the body, but that the members might have the same concern one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with [it]: whether a [or, one] member is glorified, all the members rejoice with [it]. 27 Now ye are Christ's body, and members in particular. 28 And God set some in the assembly, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then powers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all powers? 30 Have all gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But desire earnestly the greater gifts, and yet I show you a way of exceeding excellence.

1 Corinthians 13.

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, yet have not love, I am become sounding brass and a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophecy, and know all the mysteries and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to remove mountains, yet have not love, I am nothing. 3 And if I should dole out in food all my substance. and if I should deliver my body that I might be burned, and have not love, I am nothing profited. 4Love is long-suffering, is kind; love is not emulous, is not vain-glorious, is not puffed up, 5 doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not its own things, is not easily provoked, reckoneth not the evil, 6 rejoiceth not over iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth, 7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Love never faileth, but whether prophecies, they shall be done away; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For in part we know, and in part we prophesy; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I talked as a child, I thought as a child, I reckoned as a child; when I am become a man, I have done with the things of a child. 12 For we see now through a mirror in a dark form, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know, even as I also was fully known. 13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but [the] greater of these [is] love.

1 Corinthians 14.

Pursue love, but earnestly desire the spiritual things, yet rather that ye may prophesy. 2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to men but to God; for no one heareth; yet in spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh to men edification, and encouragement, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh with a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the assembly. 5 But I desire that ye all should speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy. And greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, in order that the assembly may receive edification. 6 And now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I shall speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching? 7 Nevertheless lifeless things giving sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not distinction to the notes, how shall be known what is piped or what is harped? 8 For also if a trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for war? 9 So also ye through the tongue, unless ye give a distinct speech, how shall what is spoken be known, for ye will be speaking into air? 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none insignificant. 11 If therefore I do not know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh a barbarian in my case. 12 So also ye, since ye are zealous after spirits, seek that ye may abound for the edification of the assembly. 13 Wherefore let him that speaketh with a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding. 16 Since if thou bless in spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the private [person] say Amen at thy thanksgiving, since he knoweth not what thou sayest? 17 For thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in a tongue more than ye all; 19 but in an assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, rather than ton thousand words in a tongue.

20 Brethren, be not children in mind, but in malice be infantine, but in mind be of full age. 21 In the law it is written, By men of other tongues, and by lips of others, will I speak to this people; and not even thus will they listen to me, saith [the] Lord. 22 Wherefore the tongues are for a sign, not to those that believe, but to the unfaithful, while prophecy [is] not to the unfaithful but to those that believe. 23 If therefore the whole assembly come unto the same [place], and all speak with tongues, and there come in private or unfaithful [persons], will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and some unfaithful or private one come in, he is convinced by all, he is examined by all: 25 the secrets of his heart become manifest; and thus, falling on [his] face, he will do homage to God, reporting that God is indeed among you.

26 What is it then, brethren? Whenever ye come together, each of you hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edification. 27 If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two, or at the most three, and in turn, and let one interpret; 28 but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in an assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern; 30 but if there be a revelation to another sitting by, let the first be silent; 31 for ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all be exhorted. 32 And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not [a God] of confusion, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints. 34 Let the women be silent in the assemblies; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also the law saith. 35 But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in an assembly. 36 What I did the word of God go out from you, or reached it unto you alone? 37 If any one seemeth to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things which I write to you, that they are [the] Lord's commandment. 38 But if any one is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, my brethren, seek earnestly for prophesying, and forbid not the speaking in tongues; 40 but let all things be done becomingly and in order.

1 Corinthians 15.

And I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I announced to you, which also ye received, in which also ye stand, 2 by which also ye are being saved, if ye hold fast with what discourse I announced [it] to you, unless ye believed lightly. 3 For I delivered to you, in the first place, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day according to the scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, after that to the twelve. 6 after that he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain till now, but some also have fallen asleep. 7 After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to the abortion, he appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God; 10 but by God's grace I am what I am, and his grace that [was] towards me became not empty, but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I but the grace of God that [was] with me. 11 Whether then I or they, thus we preach, and thus ye believed. 12 But if Christ is preached that he is raised from [the] dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of [the] dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of [the] dead, neither is Christ raised; 14 and if Christ is not raised, then also empty [is] our preaching, and empty also your faith; 15 and we are also found false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God that he raised the Christ, whom he raised not, if indeed no dead are raised. 16 For if no dead are raised, neither is Christ raised; 17 and if Christ is not raised, vain [is] your faith; ye are yet in your sins; 18 then also those that fell asleep in Christ perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are most to be pitied of all men.

20 But now is Christ raised from [the] dead, first-fruit of those fallen asleep. 21 For since by man [is] death, by man also resurrection of dead. 22 For as in the Adam all die, so also in the Christ shall all be made alive; 23 but each in his own rank: [the] first-fruit Christ; then those that are the Christ's at his coming; 24 then the end, when he giveth up the kingdom to him [who is] God and Father, when he shall have done away all rule, and all authority, and power. 25 For he must reign until he put all the enemies under his feet. 26 Death, last enemy, is to be done away. 27 For he subjected all things under his feet. But when he saith that all things have been subjected, [it is] manifest that [it is] except him who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things shall have been subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to him that subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all.

29 Else what shall they do that are being baptized for the dead? If no dead rise at all, why also are they baptized for them? 30 Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 Daily I die, by the boasting of you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If after man I fought with beasts in Ephesus, what [is] the profit to me? If no dead rise, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34 Wake up righteously, and sin not; for some are ignorant of God: I speak unto your shame.

35 But some one will say, How are the dead to rise? and with what body do they come? 36 Fool, what thou sowest is not quickened unless it die; 37 and what thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the rest; 38 and God giveth to it a body as he pleased, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Every flesh [is] not the same flesh, but one [is] of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 40 [There are] both bodies heavenly and bodies earthly; but different [is] the glory of the heavenly, and different that of the earthly: 41 one [the] sun's glory, and another [the] moon's glory, and another [the] stars' glory; for star differeth from star in glory. 42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. 43 It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body: if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual. 45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a quickening Spirit: 46 yet not first [is] the spiritual, but the natural, afterward the spiritual; 47 the first man out of the earth made of dust, the second man out of heaven: 48 as [is] he made of dust, such also those made of dust; and as [is] the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly [ones]; 49 and even as we bore the image of the [one] made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly [ones]. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in an instant, in [the] twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for it shall sound, and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. 54 But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the word that is written, Death was swallowed up in victory. 55 Where, death, [is] thy victory? where, death, thy sting? 56 Now the sting of death [is] sin, and the power of sin the law; 57 but thanks to God that giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Wherefore, my brethren beloved, be firm, immoveable, abounding in the work of the Lord always, knowing that your toil is not empty in [the] Lord.

1 Corinthians 16.

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the assemblies of Galatia, so do ye also. 2 Every first [day] of a week let each of you put by him, storing up whatsoever he may be prospered in, that there be no collections when I come. 3 And when I am arrived, whomsoever ye shall approve, them I will send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem: 4 and if it be suitable that I go, they shall go with me. 5 But I will come unto you when I shall have gone through Macedonia, for I go through Macedonia. 6 But perhaps I shall stay, or even winter, with you, that ye may send me forward wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now in passing; for I hope to remain some time with you, if the Lord permit. 8 But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost. a For a great and effectual door is open to me, and [there are] many adversaries.

10 But if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear, for he worketh the Lord's work, as I also. 11 Let none then despise him, but send him forward in peace, that he may come unto me, for I am awaiting him with the brethren. 12 But concerning the brother Apollos, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren; and it was not at all [his] will to come now, but he will come when he shall have good opportunity.

13 Watch, stand in the faith, play the man, be strong. 14Let all your doings be in love.

15 Now I beseech you, brethren — ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is a first-fruit of Achaia, and that they appointed themselves to the saints for service — 16 that ye also be subject to such, and to every one that co-operateth and laboureth. 17 But I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, because what was lacking on your part these filled up; 18 for they refreshed my spirit and yours: own then those that are such.

19 The assemblies of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca salute you much in [the] Lord, with the assembly in their house. 20 All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. 21 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand. 22 If any one loveth not the Lord , Jesus Christ], let him be anathema maranatha [or, a curse: the Lord cometh]. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ] [be] with you. 24 My love [be] with you all in Christ Jesus. [Amen.]

Notes on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1.

The epistle on which we are about to enter gives us more than any other an inner view of the church or assembly of God. It does not, like the epistle to the Romans, lay the foundation of divine righteousness. But it is not at all contracted in its scope. It deals with the practical conduct of the Christian, as well as the public walk of the assembly. It maintains the authority of Paul's ministry as apostle. It denounces party spirit. It exposes worldly wisdom. It insists upon the power of the Spirit. It urges godly order both in the Lord's institution of the eucharist, and in the use of the gifts or spiritual manifestations. It commands holy discipline. It reproves litigiousness, — above all before the world. It presses personal purity; it counsels the saints as to social and family difficulties, as to their relations with the heathen, as to decorum, privately or publicly, in men or women. Finally, it meets their speculations as to the future state, and shows how an error as to this jeopards soundness of faith as to Christ Himself, holiness of walk meanwhile, and the brightness and strength of the Christian's hope. Nor does it withhold the light of God from a matter seemingly so trivial as the mode of collection for the poor saints, whilst it adjusts also the mutual relations of those who laboured on the spot and of those who might visit them.

From this sketch, slight as it is, one sees how varied and momentous are the topics handled in the first epistle to the Corinthians; and an examination in detail will manifest the holy wisdom, the burning zeal, the delicacy of affection, the admirable elasticity with which the apostle was enabled by the inspiring Spirit to throw himself, heart and mind and soul and strength yet always in the name of the Lord, into their most critical circumstances. For he writes from Ephesus, not far from the close of his three years' abode in that city, when, to any other man than Paul, it might have seemed that his labours for a year and a half at Corinth were fatally compromised. But not so: the Lord, who had cheered him on soon after his arrival at Corinth, strengthened his faith now so severely taxed at Ephesus. "I have much people in this city" were words then to stimulate, now to sustain his hope in God spite of many fears, and in the midst of the deepest exercises of heart. Of all this and more the epistle bears the impress, and every now and then lets out the expression.

"Paul, a called* apostle of Jesus Christ† by God's will, and Sosthenes the brother, to the assembly of God that is in Corinth,‡ [persons] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, theirs || and ours; grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 1-3.)

* I see no reason for doubting κλητός with Lachmann (because of the omission in ADE etc.) The word is vouched for by BFGLP, all the cursives, and almost all the ancient versions and the Fathers that cite the verse.

†   Ἰ Χ. with ALP and all the cursives save five, all the versions save the Latin, and most of the Fathers save in the west, I prefer to Χ. Ἰ. as adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf on the authority of BDEFG 17, 37, 76, 115, 119, some copies of the It. and Vulg.

‡ This order of inserting τῃ οὔσῃ ἐν Κ. (AD and LP, perhaps all the cursives and the Fathers, as against BD and CFG and a few Latin copies which insert the clause between Ἰ and κλ.,) I believe correct.

|| The authorities are pretty evenly divided as to weight if not numbers for and against τε ("both"); I rather incline to its absence.

To the Roman brethren Paul began by introducing himself as "a bondman of Jesus Christ." This he omits to the Corinthians to whom he speaks of himself at once as a "called apostle of Jesus Christ." The difference is due to the facts before him. There had been no undermining of his ministry at Rome, where indeed personally he was a stranger. At Corinth it was well-known to the saints how truly he was a bondman of Jesus Christ. Had not his very hands borne witness to it, night and day caring spiritually for the saints with the Lord's glory before his eyes, even in that outward work by which he had refrained from being a burden to them? To both he writes formally as an "apostle," and this, not by birth, not by acquirement, not by election of man, but as "called," that is, by calling of God. Both he reminds that they themselves were saints, and this too by calling. It was grace which chose them as saints, grace that chose him not as a saint only but as an apostle. Such is the principle of Christian ministry, as well as of the salvation of souls or of Christianity itself. It is "by God's will," as he adds — "a called apostle of Jesus Christ by God's will," not by his own ability or merit, nor by other men's choice. God's sovereign goodness is the spring in every respect. What can be more blessed? We do well to ponder it, and to repudiate whatever is inconsistent with it. It is God then, it is grace which, as it calls saints, so also calls to His service. How different from the ecclesiastical thought and style of olden times! Paul is not what he was in the church "by divine providence" or "by divine permission," for this might be where the person was alien from His mind or will, God merely overruling for His own secret purpose. And it is not denied that such cases may be, as of old in Balaam, so under Christianity; but how awful for all these who intrude thus unbidden to speak in the name of the Lord! For many shall say to the Judge in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied through Thy name, and through Thy name cast out demons, and through Thy name done many wonderful works? But He will say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Beyond controversy it is God, not man, who sets in the church, as we are expressly told in 1 Corinthians 12: 28, and this applies to "teachers" as distinctly as to "apostles." They never are in scripture called by man. The church never chose them, as it did those entrusted with its funds for the poor. Nor did apostles or their envoys choose teachers or preachers as they did elders; for these were a local charge, those are gifts set as members in the body of Christ as a whole. Such are the biblical facts, and the principle on which this distinction depends.

It is gross ignorance to confound ministry with priesthood, and to cite for the former what the epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 5: 4) says of the latter, as applied from Aaron to Christ. Yet if it did apply, it would go to prove, not men's calling to the ministry, as they term it, but the exclusive call of God; for in priesthood God alone chose, though this after Aaron (and we may add perhaps Phinehas) by birth successionally, whilst the consecration was in view of all the congregation. In ministry as in the church, where the Holy Spirit dwells and acts, who is a spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind, we are entitled to look for reality;* in the flesh or in the world one must be often content to let the merest forms pass, bound to pay to each the honour owe, even where the object of it may be personally undeserving, as is laid down in Romans 13, 1 Peter 2. The church is, and is responsible to be, the pillar and ground of the truth, the epistle of Christ known and read of all men; and therein, by virtue of the Holy Ghost dwelling in it, is power and obligation to judge according to the word of God whatever is inconsistent with its profession corporately as well as individually.

* So Calvin (in loco, Comment. Halis Sax. 1831,) ed. Tholuck, I. pp. 213, 214. "Re ipsa talem se exhibeat necesse est . . . . Sed notandum est, non satis esse, siquis tam vocationis titulum, quam suam in exercendo officio fidelitatem obtendat, nisi utrumque de ipsa probet. Nam saepe contingit ut nulli fastuosius titulis superbiant quam qui veritate sunt destituti; quemadmodum olim alto supercilio pseudoprophetas se a Domino missos gloriabantur. Et hodie quid aliud crepant Romanenses, quam Dei ordinationem et sacrosanctam successionem ab ipsis usque Apostolis? sed postea apparet, inanes esse earum rerum quibus insolescunt. Hic ergo non iactantia, sed veritatis quaeritur." This is good and true. But it is utterly marred in the Institt. IV. iii, § 14, 15, where, not satisfied with affirming that the elders or bishops were designated by men authorised to choose them Calvin's republicanism leads him to say boldly that Paul was in Acts 13 subjected to the discipline of an ecclesiastical call, and that the same thing is seen in the election of Matthias. Who does not see on the contrary that the lot (which was not voting) decided as to the latter, and that Acts 13 was in no sense ordination, still less election by man, but separation of men (already in the highest position) to a particular work which the Spirit was confiding to them, though engaging for them in it the solemn commendation of their brethren to the grace of God? Compare Acts 14: 26.

We see next that the apostle associates with himself here "Sosthenes the brother," as in the second epistle Timothy. If the Sosthenes just named were the chief of the synagogue who seems to have succeeded Crispus on his conversion, if he were himself converted after his ignominious failure to hurt Paul before Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, at Corinth, we can see with what propriety he, no longer the Jewish adversary but the brother in Christ, should thus accompany the apostle in this address to the Corinthian saints. But I affirm nothing, as there is no direct evidence, and the name was not uncommon. He was certainly known at Corinth and was then with the Apostle at Ephesus.

Notice now in what character the Corinthian believers are addressed: "to the assembly of God that is in Corinth." It is in the strictest connection with the scope of the epistle, as this is of course according to the true wants there and then. It was not because of a godly few amongst a vast multitude of ungodly persons. What unacquaintance with the mind of God! It is not so that holy scripture speaks. They constituted God's habitation there by the Spirit's presence. This is the distinctive constituent and real character. No ungodly multitude could be the church or assembly of God; nor have a godly few as such any virtue to be themselves the assembly, still less to make others so by their own presence in their midst. Only the Spirit of God sent down from heaven makes those whom He gathers and with whom He dwells to be the assembly of God. The state of the Corinthians was frightfully bad, perilous to all, and such as to raise the gravest fears as to some. But we must recollect that, in commanding them to deal with the most scandalous case of all, the apostle goes on the ground of the spirit being saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; and that the second epistle exhorts the saints to confirm love by taking back the offender as one at length roused to deep self-judgment and in danger of being swallowed up with excessive sorrow. No; the assembly of God is liable to the inroad of the most serious evils through ignorance and unwatchfulness; but it does not forfeit its character, if duly constituted, till it renounces all holy discipline by refusing to judge according to the word when evil is brought before it. For it is responsible, if it have let in evil, to put it out in the Lord's name which it bears. And the second epistle is of the greatest value among other things in this also, that it proves how the apostle's confidence was justified in such a clearing of conscience, as led him to expect the work of vindicating the Lord to go on still farther, and thus maintain the character of the assembly of God which grace had given the brethren in Corinth.

But it is well also to observe that in apposition with that character stands more, "[persons] sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." The construction is peculiar, but the language is exact. The term ἡγιασμένοις ("sanctified") is in what is called a rational concord with ἐκκλησίᾳ. It would not be correct to speak of the assembly as ἡγιασμένη any more than as ἐκλεκτή, though those who compose it are both. But the fact that they were sanctified, and that the form of the word does not mean merely a process going on but their character as stamped with separation to God in Christ Jesus, and thus saints by calling, not merely called to be saints, was a most impressive appeal to their hearts and consciences, especially in the crisis at which things had then arrived in the Corinthian assembly.

It is incorrect to say that here, or anywhere else, justification is meant rather than sanctification. The fact is that, while almost all admit sanctification in the practical sense as a matter of growth and so allowing of degrees among those justified, it seems to be forgotten that scripture speaks of all those who are actually born of God as being sanctified from the beginning of the work of grace in their souls. Compare 1 Corinthians 6: 11, and 1 Peter 1: 2. And so far is it from being true that the call to holiness in practice is enfeebled by this primary and absolute sanctification of all real Christians, that contrariwise it is this setting apart to God which is the ground of, and a powerful support and a solemn motive to, consistency with Christ Jesus in whom we are thus sanctified. It is in virtue of God's will we are said (in Heb. 10: 10) to be sanctified through the offering of Christ's body once for all, as elsewhere the Spirit is viewed as its agent. Thus all the Godhead take their part in this great work from the outset and indeed right through. And this is confirmed by its result from the first; for those who participate in this sanctification are saints, "called saints" (not a mere holy nation by birth like Israel), whilst they are exhorted to follow holiness no less than peace.

But there is an addition that claims our attention: "with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, with theirs and ours."* (Ver. 2.) It is of the deepest interest and value, as it connects the epistle with the entire field of Christian profession. There is no hint of limiting the address to the Christians in all Achaia, as we see in 2 Corinthians 1: 1. And the difference is the more striking as God foresaw that men would ere long seek to tamper with the application of this epistle beyond all others, and seek to limit it to the apostolic age when the gifts (χαρίσματα) were in full force. The unbelief that would make the Corinthian assembly an exception to the order in other places is still more strikingly provided against. Compare for this 1 Cor. 4: 17; 1 Cor. 7: 17; 1 Cor. 10: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 36, 37; 1 Cor. 16: 1. Further, the clause seems to me one of those which, while applying then to those who bore the name of the Lord truthfully, would acquire a meaning more distinct as the professing mass became more and more distant from the true character of the assembly of God, and Christianity will be well-nigh swamped in Christendom.

* I reject the notion of such as connect "theirs and ours" with "every place." The Authorised Version gives the true sense, which does not render the first ἡμῶν superfluous but gives emphasis. It asserts the Lord's relationship to all that call on Him wherever they may be.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 3.) Such is the initiatory wish or prayer of the apostle here as in Romans 1: 7, from God in His relation of Father to us, from Jesus Christ as Lord (compare 1 Cor. 8: 6): an association however, impossible in an inspired writing, derogatory anywhere, if they were not one in the unity of the divine nature. True and sovereign favour was the spring, grace the result that would prove and magnify its source, shedding its light even on those too blind to see beyond the effect. Be it ours, enjoying the gift, to adore the Giver.

After his address and usual greeting, the first thing the apostle does is to let them know that he always thanks God for them. That he should write thus to the saints in Rome, Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica, is not surprising; and the wonder to some may be increased when it is observed that he withholds it in writing to the assemblies in Galatia. But the wisdom and the propriety of his procedure are apparent to the spiritual eye. The Corinthians were suffering the consequences of fleshly wisdom and worldliness; the Galatians had let in law, and thus fallen from grace, to the subversion of the truth of the gospel. Hence the reserve of the apostle's tone to the latter; whilst he begins to the former (far more grossly fallen) with the recognition of all he could thank God for in their case. Without some such assurance, where indeed would be the ground of appeal? What the standard by which to judge themselves? It was the more necessary because of their low and disorderly state, as well as of the reproofs that must follow.

On the other hand it is a grave misconception of their state and of the apostle's words that he alludes to any proof of maturity and richness of their spiritual life. He takes care to give prominence to the source which had so bountifully supplied the assembly in Corinth; but there is not a word that implies a spiritual state, much less maturity in it, such as could comfort his heart in thinking of them. He knew his God sufficiently to be sure that there had been no lack on His part.

"I thank my* God always concerning you for the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus; that in everything ye were enriched in him, in all discourse and all knowledge, according as the testimony of Christ† was confirmed in you, so that ye come not short in any gift, awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you until [the] end, unimpeachable in the day‡ of our Lord Jesus Christ. God [is] faithful by whom ye were called into [the] fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ver. 4-6.)

* The Sinai (original hand) and Vatican MSS, as well as the Aethiopic Version, omit μου, which all others read correctly.

† Three uncials (B. F G) and ten cursives read θεοῦ "of God;" but the received reading seems right.

‡ Four Latin-Greek MSS, etc. read παρουσία mistakenly. It was a. Western error. The Vulgate makes matters worse by uniting both "in die adventus."

Thus the occasion of thanksgiving was the grace of God bestowed on them in virtue of Christ Jesus. But this is defined immediately after. They had been in everything made rich in Him. In spiritual discernment of His glory and feeling of His grace? in enjoyment of Christ and devotedness to His name? In these respects alas! they were defective, as all that follows shows. He means, as he says, in every sort of expression of the truth, and all knowledge, in what was preached or taught, as well as in apprehension; for God had amply confirmed the testimony of Christ which Paul above all with others had rendered in their city. Many of the Corinthians, as we are told in Acts 18, heard, believed, and were baptized. But there was more than this: the power of the Spirit wrought largely and mightily among them. And this was the characteristic token of the assembly of God — not more truly, but far more sensibly, then than now. The issue was that they came behind in no gift, clearly not in what is called the inward grace of the spiritual life, but in communication to others and manifestation of power, as in 1 Corinthians 12.

This is strengthened by the way the saints at Corinth are next characterized: "awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is not that aspect of our Lord's return which will unfold and express His grace to His own,* but rather that which deals with conscience now, as it by and by will display their faithful or unfaithful employment of all entrusted to their charge. Every saint who walks with God meanwhile and judges intelligently of the growing miseries of Christendom, not to speak of the world at large and of man, has love for the appearing of the Lord, as the time when He shall be exalted and we are to reign with Him, the power of Satan being publicly and effectually expelled from the earth. But our proper hope is that Christ will come and fetch us to the Father's house; and so shall we be for ever with the Lord. The Corinthians however are hereby reminded of Him who will judge of every one's work; when each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. They needed to be exercised in self-judgment whether they were serving the Lord with the manifestations of the Spirit distributed to each. And hence also the repeated and striking way in which the name of "our Lord Jesus Christ" is brought before them here.

* This would have been expressed by the παρουσία, presence or coming of Christ, which the Authorized translators have wrongly confounded in their version here with ἀποκάλυψις, though the correction was given afterwards in the margin. They are not synonymous, but expressive of distinct facts which embody different principles as different as grace and judgment.

Not that a word is said to induce a doubt of His goodness or love to them. Never does a soul more need to hold fast grace than when it is probed and searched by the unsparing and all-detecting word of God. Hence the apostle does not hesitate to say that the Lord should also confirm them to the last unimpeachable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. How sad then that a Christian should be to Christ's reproach now! When Christ, our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory. But this to the apostle becomes by the Spirit only one cogent motive more for urging us to mortify our members that are on the earth. It is the day of our Lord which here again calls our responsibility into play. And as this does and must act on conscience, being in truth intended to do this, so it makes the saint feel the need and value of what the apostle adds as closing his introduction — "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ver. 9.) If He has called, will He not also perform? Philippians 1: 6; 1 Thessalonians 5: 24. But His calling to the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord is not more sure in His grace than serious in its present claim on us that we cast no shade of unfaithfulness on both, sullying His name that is named on us, to which the very world binds us, loose as may be its sense of what is due to Him whom it knows not. How did the Corinthians answer to that call then? How do we now?

The apostle begins next to touch one of the evils which particularly dishonoured the Lord and injured the saints at Corinth. Their party spirit was a sore grief to his heart. Not only did it hinder mutual comfort of love in their midst but the testimony they owed His name before the world.

Compared with what has followed since, or even what the New Testament elsewhere discloses, it might seem but a little beginning, but it was the beginning of a great evil. For the allowance of such fleshly preferences and the consequent formation of parties lets loose the activities of the natural mind and feeling, goes onward into passionate zeal or dislike, and well if it end not in helpless heterodoxy and open insubjection to the Lord.

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,* that ye all say the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you,. but that ye be made perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been shown to me concerning you, my brethren, by those [of the house] of Chloe, that there are strifes among you.* But I say this, that each of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized unto the name of Paul? I thank God † that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, that no one should say that ye were baptized‡ unto my name. And I baptized¶ also the household of Stephanas; further I know not whether I baptized any other." (Ver. 10-16.)

* In the paragraph the MSS differ in the order of the Greek words repeatedly.

† The Sinai, Vatican, and a few other witnesses, do not give τῳ θεῳ (or as A. etc. μου also) like the rest.

‡ The Sinai, Vat., Alex., Cod. Res. Par., some good cursives, ancient versions, with Greek and Latin Fathers, have ἐβαπτίσθητε, not ἐβάπτισα as in others.

¶ The Clermont, Aug., and Boern. MSS read βεβάπτικα, and the first again at the end of the verse — a mere error, for the perfect is only read when special aim interferes with the regular employment of the aorist in such cases.

Apostle though he was, and the one who had not only instructed them in Christ but begotten them through the gospel, he appeals to them here by that name which most intimately deals with the believer, and most solemnly even with the professor, the centre of unity, as the Holy Spirit is its bond. By that name, if by any means, would his exhortation come home to their souls. He is jealous of the honour of Him, their Lord, whom their discords compromised. Where was the witness, of men in these rival schools with their misguided chiefs, to the fellowship of God's Son? He exhorts them therefore that they should "all say the same thing." For the Philippian saints he earnestly desired that they might "think the same thing," and this by thinking one thing; of whom, as being more experienced and in a more spiritual state, he could not but expect more. Nor is it the like-mindedness one toward another pressed on the Roman saints?

Would the apostle then have been satisfied with the same uniform confession outwardly? By no means. With this he begins, according to the wisdom of the Spirit which directed him; for it is surely unbecoming, in reformers, or men who can easily follow reformers in what was wrong, to criticise an inspired writer or presume that they can draw nicer distinctions or arrange the truth better, than Paul.* Then he adds "that there be no divisions among you," of which, their party-cries were the expression; and lastly he beseeches that they may be "made perfect" (see Eph. 4: 12 as well as 2 Cor. 13: 9) or "wholly united," in the same mind and in the same judgment." Not that he means by this exactly the will, so that there should be a complete division of the soul, the first referring to faith and the second to love,** however important all this may be in its place; for nou'" signifies mind viewed as intelligent faculty, as γνώμη is the opinion or judgment it forms. He wanted them to have a nicety of intelligent thought. They were defective where they were proud or vain, as men generally are.

* Lachmann, following the opinion of some, punctuates this clause as affirmative, not as interrogative: "Christ has been divided." And Meyer uses against the interrogative form the fee that there is no μή here as just afterwards But it has been justly replied that it was due to Christ that A difference should be thus made between a question relating to Him, and one that follows as to His servant.

** There seems no ground whatever for the strange fancy of Estius and others that ἐγὼ δὲ χριστοῦ is the apostle's own proper sentiment in contrast with the aberration of the Corinthians.

Nor does the apostle hesitate to write on the information which he had received (and indeed it was too plain and precise in its character to doubt its accuracy), nor to tell them its trustworthy source. A godly woman's household might be a particularly good means of ascertaining; as it also gives warrant for another day. It is the same apostle who, if he reprobates silly women laden with divers lusts, shows how a Phoebe or a Persis, a Prisca and a Mary, an Evodia and a Syntyche, should be valued and cared for. He can here write with full confidence of what he had learnt from Chloe's household.

The divisions were as yet within the assembly, not rents from it, but they tended to this end, as we are expressly told in 1 Corinthians 11: 18, 19. No conclusion can be less well founded than that the separation into denominations is lawful, while an evil spirit within is the sin; for this schismatic working is evil most of all because it leads those who are heady and unsubject to that worst result. It is assumed here that the assembly has not compromised Christ by unholy tolerance of false doctrine or any such evil as would make it a duty to disown those who would retain the title when they have forfeited its true character.

Alas! at Corinth the saints seem to have been largely infected with party spirit. "But I say this that one saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ:" this last to my mind as intelligible as any of the others;* for the wrong was not in any of those named, but in such as set up their names out of their own vanity and love of opposition. And the worst of all, I doubt not, was that party which plumed itself on its superior spirituality. They had done with men.† Paul, Apollos, Cephas, were beneath their aspirations. Not the servants, but the Master was their watchword. They disliked the high claims, especially of Paul. For their part they would cleave to the Lord's own precept: one is your teacher, one your leader, and all ye are brethren. Thus not infrequently does self-exaltation among Christians disguise itself unconsciously (and unconsciously, because the state is bad, and the heart too long away from the Lord in practice); whereas it is evident that he who really loves and bows to the Lord does for this very reason honour His servants for their work's sake, and according to the place He has set them in. The corruption of the best thing is truly said to be the worst; and so it was here where the specious plea of such as abjured all but Christ might seem to be the only thing right and spiritual in Corinth, divided as the assembly was. How important it is, and now as then, to judge righteous judgment, not according to appearances!

* "Sed videamus, quid in Christiana unitate requirat. Siquis subtilius distingui singula cupiat, vult eos cohaerere primum in una mente, deinde in una sententia, tertio vult eos consensum verbis profiteri." Calvini in Omnes Pauli Ap. Epp. Comm. i. 219, Halis Sax. 1831.

† "Pro Sententia Paulus habet γνώμην: sed ego hic pro Voluntate accipio, ut sit integra partitio animae, et prius quidem membrum ad fidem, alterum ad caritatem referatur." Ibid. 219, 220.

It is well to note that the evil at Corinth was the converse of what the apostle meant in his address to the Ephesian elders. (Acts 20: 30) For in the one it was the sin of the disciples, in the other of the rulers. Our only security is in that subjection of heart to Christ, which estimates what is of Him wherever it may be, and walks in dependence on Him, come what will. I had made the reflection before noticing that Calvin fell into this very confusion.* Perhaps in his own system, as being of a democratic character, it is harder to see that the mass of the disciples have their snares no less than those who guide. It is however as sure from scripture as it is evident in experience. No thing, nor person, escapes the vigilance of the enemy. How blessed that all are under the eye of perfect love in our Lord: may we be guided by it!

* Ibid. 220.

"' Is Christ divided?" asks the indignant apostle. Is He not the Head of that one body the church to which they all belonged? It is a whole Christ to whom all His own belong and who Himself belongs to all. To think of dividing Him would be as irrelevant as absurd. They might divide, not He: what an inconsistency if they valued Him! But this is followed up by the further query, "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized unto the name of Paul?" To state the question was to render the true answer certain and necessary to the Christian; yet how many since have overlooked both! But One is worthy of imprinting His name on us.

So blinding is the influence where the first man is allowed to take the place of the Second. Apostles and others have died, yea, been crucified, but Christ alone for us, as it is to Him we have been baptized, not to the twelve, still less to other men.

Far different was the loyalty of the apostle to Christ. Therefore does he not scruple to express his gratitude to God that he had baptized so few personally at Corinth: an impossible subject for thanksgiving, if baptism be the means of new birth, for in this case he who loved God and man must rejoice the more, the more he baptized. On the other hand there is no real slight put on christian baptism as our burial with Christ unto death, the appointed outward sign of subjection to Him who died for us and rose again.

Its solemn import is derived from the objective truth signified by it, not from the position or power of the baptizer, nor from any qualities of the baptized, whatever be the Lord's will as to either. But the apostle owns the good hand of the Lord in ordering things so that in fact Paul had baptized only a very few out of the many Corinthians who, on hearing the gospel, believed and were baptized (Acts 18: 8): had he actually baptized the mass, it might have given a more tangible excuse to those who affected his name at Corinth. But there can be little doubt that those he did baptize were among such as had stood comparatively faithful to the Lord there.

It may be mentioned here that Professor Olshausen notices it as a surprising circumstance that the apostle should not have reasoned on the import of baptism itself in order to cherish his argument, but rather on the providential history of the facts as to it, so far as he was concerned. Dean Alford also urges the last clause of verse 16 as important against those who maintain the absolute omniscience of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle.

Do the two divines seem to write with enough of reverence? Both forgot, if they seriously knew what it is to believe, that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul. Does He not know better than any when to urge this topic, when that? And as to the inspired writers, I know of no sober believer who holds their omniscience, but that of Him who employed them to communicate the truth. It is common, but incorrect, to speak of their infallibility; whereas evidently none can be said to be infallible but God.

The true statement of inspiration is not that the writer became omniscient or infallible, but that the Holy Ghost so controlled his writing as to convey the truth without admixture of error and perfectly for His own design. Hence He might with perfect consistency withhold absolute recollection on a given point here, or a distinct command from the Lord on another point, as in chapter 7.

But all this leaves unimpaired the divine authority of what He does convey or command as from the Lord. Those orthodox as to inspiration may be incorrect in phrase or a shade of thought; but this in no way lessens the seriousness — indeed sin — of enfeebling inspiration, especially in these perilous times, when God's word is the grand resource of the faithful. For the simple but grave fact that it is His word is not only a truth in itself clearly revealed, but it is the basis and support of every other. Weaken inspiration, and you jeopard all else that concerns God and man, and you may end with nothing better than human ideas.

It is not that the apostle Paul slights baptism: who could that accepts it as Christ's institution? Impossible that he could have used such language if baptism be the means of life to the soul, as so many falsely teach. Yet we can hardly conceive any of the twelve speaking as he does here. "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ should be made vain." (Ver. 17.) The rest were expressly sent to baptize, which they did either personally or using others for the purpose. Paul too was baptized and did baptize; and no apostle unfolds the observance in so profound a way as we find in Romans 6, Galatians 3, and Colossians 2. But 1 Corinthians 11 shows us that the Lord's supper was revealed directly, not merely accepted as he found like baptism. And v Len we reflect, we perceive that the rite is not the seal of union with Christ, but the individual owning of Him who died and rose again, buried with Christ into death, as the former sets forth the communion of His body, for which we need His ascension and the sending down of the Holy Ghost, with which is bound up all the doctrine of the church, of which Paul pre-eminently became minister. (Col. 1: 25)

But Paul as emphatically became "minister of the gospel" (Col. 1: 23); and so he was sent by Christ to preach it, as he tells us here, "not in wisdom of word," as the Corinthians liked to hear, "lest the cross of Christ should be made vain." It seems to be philosophic speculation and not rhetoric only which he denounces thus strongly. And philosophy leaves no room for divine love on the one side, or for man's utter ruin on the other: the cross of Christ maintains both in the highest degree.

By the cross of Christ is meant much more than the means of pardon for the sinner. To treat it only as the great remedy for man's need, however true as far as it goes, is to rob it of an immense deal of its importance as well as to obscure the truth and shut out God's glory. For in that most stupendous of all facts, what has not come to issue? God's holy hatred and judgment of sin; His amazing love of the sinner; the infinite grace, humiliation, and suffering of the Saviour; the audacity and craft of Satan; the abominable wickedness of man, under the best possible circumstances and, spite of the greatest benefits, without cause to justify or excuse to palliate: all met, as nowhere else, in the cross. There are the pretensions of man crushed; sin condemned and put away; Satan defeated and vanquished; judgment borne; and God glorified in Christ who knew no sin made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. There only indeed divine attributes and; ways, which our sin had otherwise seemed to set aside or at variance, are now conciliated for ever on behalf of those that believe, and a firm basis laid for the ruined creation, as well as the people of God, to be made new and shine unto eternal ages to the glory of God. Yet all this would be rendered vain by that wisdom of speech which some in the Corinthian church were ignorantly affecting and blaming Paul because it was far from him.

But the Corinthians were in danger who shrank from the facts of the gospel and desired to hear the philosophy of the christian scheme. "For the word of the cross is to those that perish foolishness, but to us that are to be saved it is God's power." (Ver. 18.) The cross bespeaks the lowest extreme of human shame and suffering. It was the severest penalty for a slave. That the Son of God should stoop not merely to the nature of man but to the death of the cross, and this in atonement for man to God as well as in rejection of God by man, seems the depth of folly to those who, ignorant of their own sinfulness and of the holiness of God, must needs perish, living and dying as they are. That He must suffer in order to save supposes the hopeless ruin of the race.

But it is also irreconcilable with every feeling of the natural heart that He would stoop so low to suffer for His enemies, and that God would give Him up to do so. For philosophy knows nothing truly of love in God, any more than of total ruin in man: the cross proclaims both, and that He who hung there in grace, suffering for our sin, that God might deliver us righteously, was Himself God over all as surely as He was man without sin. For the gospel was no effort or device of man's wit. Yea, the word of the cross is the deepest offence and the sheerest foolishness to him; but it is God's power, not wisdom only, to believers, "to us that are to be saved," for here, to bring it the more home, the apostle treats it as a personal fact instead of continuing his abstract statement. Salvation here, as elsewhere in this Epistle, is regarded as not complete till the Lord comes; it takes in the whole work of bringing us through till we are conformed to Christ in resurrection glory.

In fact the seeking for thoughts and words palatable to the world argues a mind at issue with God, who had fully pronounced on its best wisdom as folly in divine things. It is worthy of note that the apostle quotes in proof God's sentence on Israel by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 29: 14). I cannot agree with those who fail to see the pertinency of this testimony, for it would be impossible to find, out of the many scriptures which declare the insufficiency of human resources, one more to the purpose which the apostle had in view, and therefore serving better to warn the Corinthian saints. "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and put away the prudence of the prudent. Where [is the] wise, and where scribe, and where disputer of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the* world." (Vers. 19, 20.) In the last words are seen not more than an illustrative allusion to Isaiah 33, where there is a burst of surprise at the deliverance from the scornful power of the enemy, as here a triumphant challenge over the failure of its proud pretensions against God.

* Many second-rate uncials and cursives, etc., insert τούτου ("this") here, answering to the clause before; but the better authorities omit it.

It is well to remember that the digression here begun but carried on much farther, in which the world's wisdom is shown to slight and oppose but to be judged by the cross of Christ, is none the less really connected with the party spirit and divisions of the saints at Corinth which the apostle has been denouncing, as he will be found to do yet more in 1 Cor. 3. Indeed it was their value for what the world esteems as wisdom which had wrought to the depreciation of Paul and to the advantage of those whom he afterwards designates "false apostles." (2 Cor. 11)

Men had dared to call the preaching of the cross of Christ foolishness. But who and what were they? Those that perish! Was it wise to follow such? They might vaunt of their wisdom, but this would not save them from perdition; and Jews at least, yea all who feared God and heard His ancient but living oracles, should remember that it is His way to stain the pride of human wisdom no less than human power. So it is written: God had already judged it in His word. And so experience confirms. For what has been the moral history of man?

Tremendous is the blow which the apostle here deals the wisdom of the world. The proof that God made it foolish follows in a few pregnant and unanswerable words. "For since in the wisdom of God the world through* wisdom knew not God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe; since both Jews ask for signs† and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling-block and to Gentiles‡ foolishness, but to those that [are] called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ God's power and God's wisdom; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (Ver. 21-25.)

* "Wisdom" here is preceded by the Greek article which seems to mean its wisdom, what it has as a fact, and not merely character.

† The Text. Rec. has σημεῖον: so L and most cursives; but the oldest and best uncials, some cursives, and almost au the ancient versions favour σημεῖα, the plural.

‡ The Text. Rec. follows what I cannot but regard as the meddling of C3 Dc and most cursives to agree with the words before and after; but the best authorities give here ἔθνεσιν, Gentiles, not  Ἐλλησιν, Greeks.

When man fell and got the knowledge of good and evil, it was the wisdom of God to leave him to himself, though not without a plain revelation which from the first held out to the eye of faith the Seed of the woman, who, bruised Himself, should bruise the serpent's head. But this did not suit the fallen child of Adam who assumed his own competency for worship or anything else without grace from God or the sense of his own ruin which would have made him feel its necessity. And the world grew up till its corruption and violence were so unbearable that it became morally imperative to sweep off the guilty race in the deluge. Even after this solemn intervention of God in judgment the world only became more subtly evil. It ceased to retain God in knowledge; it set up the powers of nature in heaven and earth, deifying them, and degrading themselves into whatever the demons behind those objects might drag their votaries. Thus Satan's triumph over the nations now heathen was complete; for their religion itself most of all corrupted them, its symbols being also identified with every moral iniquity, and their wisdom bound them fast in that debasing slavery, seeking at best to explain, or explain away, all that misrepresented and supplanted the true God.

The Corinthians too of all men should have known how powerless is the wisdom of the world to deliver man from the grossest self-pleasing and the lusts which, while shunning the light, usurped the name of a god, and only proved how completely God Himself was unknown. For evil is too serious and fatal to be overlooked, and the creature would fain roll it off from himself on God, and is thus necessitated to attenuate its moral consequences as well as its contrariety to the Creator. To this effort, resisted by conscience till it is utterly seared, it is philosophy lends its baleful torch, but thus, as man is unjudged, so is God lost for the soul. Were His holy nature and His righteous judgment bowed to, man must own his iniquity and humbly seek a door of escape through divine mercy. But such was not the course of the world. Nothing is a man so slow to acknowledge as his own badness; and in such a state religion is only a blind for the soul and a sop for God, of all vanities the greatest and most pernicious.

It appears to me that Calvin* has mistaken the force of the reasoning, as if by the wisdom of the world was meant the workmanship of the universe, an illustrious token and clear manifestation of His wisdom. This is one of the two witnesses adduced for God to heathen conscience in Romans i., the other being that knowledge of God which they possessed till the flood and after it, when first they fell into creature worship. One must not be surprised that not a few adopt the rendering "by the revelation of God's wisdom," that is, in His works with or without His law. I believe it to be simply a question of God's wise ordering of things that the folly of idolatrous man should be apparent, and so the need of His salvation by the cross of Christ be the more felt when it was preached. By διὰ τῆς σ. is meant "by wisdom" in the abstract or "by its wisdom," either of which would require the article in Greek. I do not think that Stanley and Alford are right in taking the phrase as "through the wisdom [of God]" just mentioned, though of course the article there too would be proper. The latter wisdom seems to me contradistinguished from the former, the one self-exalting and destructive, the other real and righteous altogether.

* I. Calvini in omnes Pauli Ap. Epp. loc. cit. ed. Tholuck, I, 228. So the Institt. II. vi. 1.

Thus in God's wisdom ends the world's wisdom: He is unknown, the knowledge of whom in Christ is eternal life. And what did God in presence of this pretentious wisdom which was thus the guiltiest folly? "It pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe." The world had either adopted the most degrading notions of polytheism, or it had tried to escape superstition by the dreary blank of pantheism and even atheism. Man being now fallen was not prevented (at least after the food) from thus in his presumption proving his ignorance of God; but God showed His grace as matchless as His wisdom; for when the world's wisdom had spent itself weary and worn in its idolatrous devices or in the waste of scepticism which those abominations provoked, God was pleased, not to close the revolting theatre of man's rebellion, whether religious or irreligious, by judgment, but contrariwise to save. And as salvation to be open and effectual for sinners must be by grace, so could it only be by faith. (Compare the reasoning of Rom. 4.) In this way alone could it be sure to all that believe; for the essence of faith is that the worth is found in the object believed, the efficacy lies in what He, the Saviour, has wrought for us, not we for Him, however truly we do, when believers, seek to please and serve Him. Thus is God glorified in this as in all things by Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever.

Accordingly it will be noticed by the careful reader that the apostle here speaks not exactly of preaching as a mere instrument, but of the thing preached. Such is the force resulting from the form of the word, which with others I have translated "the preaching." This the Jews derided, as well as the Greeks. It was to them foolishness; nor need we wonder, if they saw not the glory of the person of Christ given to die in God's love to sinners. For what could seem less reasonable to the natural mind, than for a crucified man to be the only Saviour from sins and the wrath of God? Yet this is the truth preached, τὸ κήρυγμα, and salvation is the fruit of believing it. Grace not only gave the Son of God thus to suffer, but it takes care to send out everywhere the proclamation, that souls may hear, believe, and be saved.

Men naturally despise the cross, who do not believe either that their sins deserve divine judgment or that He in grace bore that judgment thereon. Their depth of need is unfelt, and hence other and lesser objects occupy them. The world is pre-occupied or turns elsewhere: "since both Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek wisdom." Visible tokens were vouchsafed of God when He sent the Lord Jesus to the land of Israel. Never since the world began had there been such a cloud of witnesses in this kind; but what can satisfy the heart where all is alienated from God? The Jews overlooked all He gave and asked for a sign as if none had appeared. Greeks expected nothing from God; but, if the object of their search was wisdom, they never learnt its first lesson in the fear of Jehovah.

This obstinacy or levity of unbelief did not dishearten the apostle, but rather stimulated him in the work near to his heart. "But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling-block and to Gentiles foolishness." It is not here simply the blood shed that makes atonement; and it is more to say "crucified" than dead; for though both declare the end of man in the flesh, there is the extreme of shame and weakness in the cross beyond elsewhere. That God then should save by virtue of the cross, where the world saw the worst of human suffering and humiliation, was to silence that wisdom, proving it to be folly which dared so to think and speak of His wisdom. Over the stone of stumbling fell the Jews who would only have a Messiah in power and glory. So will He come shortly, but where then will those Jews find themselves who were offended by His stooping to the cross in order to save those that believe? Where the Gentiles who preferred their own ideas and vaunted reasonings to the mighty work then wrought at infinite cost? Like the lightning shall the Son of man shine in His day; but first must He suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. For it was morally impossible for God's kingdom to be till sin was judged in the cross. How senseless and slow of heart were even disciples to see that so it must be if God was to be glorified and man righteously blessed and saved! But "to the called Christ," and Christ thus crucified, "is God's power and God's wisdom; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (Vers. 24, 25) Any other way had compromised sin or made salvation impossible. The cross of Christ is the fullest display of God's judgment of sin and of His love to the sinner. What men taunted as foolishness and weakness, the incarnate Word suffering on a gibbet, equally proves man's utter ruin and God's saving mercy. So did the Saviour endure the judgment of sin that the believer might be saved. Is it not then wiser and stronger than men? Did not the resurrection prove, does not the gospel proclaim, it to be so?

The apostle pursues his theme — the annihilation by Christ's cross of every object flesh would cherish and vaunt. His first proof was drawn from the utter and evident infatuation which was most foolish where most it affected wisdom without God; his second from the ways of God in those brought to Himself by the gospel. As to the latter he appeals to themselves.

"For look at your calling, brethren, that not many [are] wise according to flesh, not many powerful, not many highborn. But the foolish things of the world God chose that he might put to shame the wise; and the weak things of the world God chose that he might put to shame the strong things; and the lowborn things of the world and those despised God chose, [and]* the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are, so that no flesh might boast before God.** But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; that, according as it is written, He that boasteth, let him boast in [the] Lord." (Ver. 26-31.)

* The copulative (καὶ) is not read by A B C D F G and various other authorities.

** C is the only first-rate MS which joins many inferior copies, the Vulg. Syr. etc. in reading αὐτοῦ. All others give θεοῦ.

Thus the reproach which infidelity loves to cast on the gospel the apostle avows and puts forward as a fact which brings glory to God. For the gospel is the revelation of the grace which calls man from the world to Himself. Hence every ground of worldly distinction and of human merit disappears. He who alone is good and great would act in His own love and display His supreme excellence above the faults and the ruin of mankind. Yet so stubborn is the pride of guilty man that he parries the consequence of his misery and rejects the proof of his sin and danger, rather than accept the free mercy of God in Christ the Lord: and thus it becomes a question of God's love in electing sinners to eternal life in His own sovereignty, unless He would either save or condemn the race indiscriminately and thereby destroy all testimony to His holy judgment on the one hued, or to His counsels of grace on the other. If neither can be, He must choose: else none could be saved, for all have sinned, and not one sinner would trust His love in Christ for eternal life, such goodness being above all his own feelings and contrary to all experience of others. The more man reasons, the less can he believe and rest on salvation in Christ for one who, if God's word be true, deserves condemnation. He prefers to trust his own efforts with or without Christ, manifesting how little he accepts the testimony of God to the glory of Christ and to the infinite value of His work. If he is an unbeliever and dost, still more plainly is the man who defies the truth of God and despises His grace, at open war with the God who now bears with but will surely judge him. If a man values his advantages and disdains those around, he is the surer to fight against that grace which makes nothing of all that is precious in his eyes.

The Corinthians then, who were not weaned from their old admiration of man's wisdom and power and rank, the apostle bids to consider their calling. In the assembly of God before their eyes was the clearest evidence that not many were wise according to flesh, not many powerful, not many highborn. And they could not but know enough by report of Christians in other parts to be satisfied that the same features were true everywhere else. But the apostle goes farther and shows that it is not only a fact among men (ver. 26) but a purpose on God's part. (Ver. 27-29.) He chose the foolish things of the world to put shame on the wise men; He chose the weak things of the world to put shame on the strong things. So clear is His judgment pronounced on what is ever apt to captivate the heart of Christians, for they love to be able to count up the wise and the world's grandeur in their own ranks, as if aught of the sort could add lustre to Christ. Did not God choose the mean things of the world, and the disdained things, the things that are not, that He might bring to nought the things that are, so that no flesh might boast in the sight of God? It is no question of what they or their circumstances seemed, but of what these really were for most when God chose them. Few of the saints had been among the wise, most knew what it was to have been arrested by the gospel from obscurity and of no influence or account among men. If God called such to the fellowship of His Son, to be one with Him now, to reign with Him soon and for ever, if the wise and powerful and nobly born were for the most part left in their possession or pursuit of all which blinded them to the glory of Christ on the one hand and to judgment on the other, whose sin was this? whose grace that? But how unworthy and inconsistent that the Christian should yearn after or glory in flesh and its advantages! Looking within and without, what believer could fail to learn that no flesh should boast before God?

Yet such a negative conclusion, important as it may be, is not enough for the Spirit of God. He would lead the heart from the emptiness of man's vanity or pride to real moral worth, to the provision of divine grace and holiness, and to that glory which shall not pass away; and all this and more he shows to be the portion of the Christian, with pointed emphasis affirming it of those he was addressing. "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus." How vast the change of nature, position, and relations for any! How blessed for those whose wretchedness in the world and according to flesh he had just set forth without disguise! Nor is the stability of the source a whit less than the character of the blessedness "of Him," of God whose grace has given us to have our being in "Christ Jesus" "who was made to us wisdom from God." Here is the reality, and this of blessings incalculably precious.

Christ has been made wisdom to us from God, for wisdom is the first question here; and it is now answered for the Christian in Christ, and Christ crucified, who alone thus put everyone and everything in its true place; and this it is the part of wisdom to see, as folly disarranges and misunderstands all. If philosophy left God out, it was necessarily all wrong; if it essayed to bring Him in, it subjected Him to man's mind, and this made matters, if possible, worse. Christ revealed God and blessed man, and this not by glossing over his state and sins but by suffering for them on the cross, so that God was glorified as much about evil in His death as about good in His life. He was thus made unto us wisdom from God. Not merely was the world's wisdom, flesh's wisdom set aside, but God's wisdom shown and given us in Him.

Nevertheless wisdom was not our sole want, greatly as it was needed — wisdom to its end, and not its beginning only in God's fear. The sinner has no righteousness for God; but God has for him, and this in Christ, yea, Christ Himself, for He it is who was so made to us, not wisdom alone from God, but righteousness. Man is thus set aside root and branch; God takes His place and gives all we lack in Christ. He had amply tested man's efforts under His law, which the Jew twisted to make up a hollow appearance, instead of submitting to learn by it his own insufficiency and sin. But Christ is not more surely God's wisdom than He is God's righteousness, and made this to us; for by His death God is just and can justify the believer in Jesus. Man — the believer alone truly and fully — owns himself as a sinner. The righteousness is God's, though it is Christ's work alone which could have made it not condemn but justify as. In virtue of the cross God is consistent with Himself in justifying us both freely and righteously.

Further, Christ was made to us "sanctification." The Greek wallowed in sin, however he might sentimentalize; the Jew boasted in the law, but broke it. Christ is the measure and means and pattern of holiness to the Christian; no doubt the Spirit is the agent, and He works by keeping not Himself but Christ before us. So we read elsewhere that, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, as there is bondage where the law rules. But we are not under law but under grace. Nor is this all; but we all beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face are changed according to the same image from glory unto glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit.

Finally, He was made to us "redemption," by which, as the order clearly shows, is meant not the forgiveness of sins which we have, but that complete deliverance from the effects of sin in our bodies which we await at the coming of our Lord Jesus. See Romans 8: 23; Ephesians 1: 14; Ephesians 4: 30.

How complete the blessing Christ has been made to us I And what a joy that we not only may but ought to boast in Him who has so ordered and given to us! Do pious souls call on us to beware of presumption? It is the apostle, and this on the strength of Jeremiah the prophet, who calls on him that boasts to boast in Jehovah. It is therefore not rash nor wrong, but a hallowed boast. We owe it to Him, and He deserves it of us.

1 Corinthians 2.

The apostle now touches on that which had been made a matter of reproach against his preaching at Corinth. He had not sought to avoid the scandal of the cross here any more than elsewhere. On the contrary it was this precisely to which he had given undisguised prominence in that city of intellectual culture and of moral corruption. Even here however there was a guard against narrow one-sidedness, as well as care to bring forward Christ personally, not a point of doctrine only, were it even that deepest and most justly absorbing point of the cross. It was Jesus Christ he preached, and Him crucified. He eschewed the pompous phrases and the subtle speculations which Corinth then affected.

Thus the brethren there might see the consistency, first and last, of that which unbelief stumbled at in Paul, and which the flesh in saints would rather shroud in silence. Is the cross God's power to those that are saved? Is Christ crucified foolishness to the Gentiles and an offence to the Jew? Does wisdom of word make the cross vain? The apostle was led of God to present the truth in a way not palatable but truly wholesome and withal most for God's glory when he went to Corinth. It was not Jesus and the resurrection (as at Athens), nor was it His return to reign (as at Thessalonica), though no doubt none of these elements was wanting; but at Corinth the Spirit directed to that which was in due season. And as he says to the. law-affecting Galatians, "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world;" so here he could look back with satisfaction on the pre-eminence given to Jesus Christ and Him crucified in his first visit to Corinth; and this too with decision and conviction on his own part. It is not merely that so it was, but he judged it best. Nor does it mean, as some have thought, that with all the abasement of the cross he nevertheless preached Christ. No such uncertain sound came from the apostle as from his commentators. It was not Christ, crucified though He was, but emphatically Christ and Him crucified. Well he knew and deeply felt that there is nothing like that cross which stands alone apart from all before and after: yea, nothing in time, nothing in eternity, similar or second to it. For there sin in man rose up to slay the Son of God, yet was in slaying Him itself slain as well as judged, that grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life for every believer.

"And I, when I came unto you, brethren, came not in excellency of word or wisdom announcing to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified: And I in weakness and in fear and in much trembling was with you; and my word and my preaching, not in persuasive words of* wisdom but in demonstration of [the] Spirit and of power; that your faith might not be in man's wisdom but in God's power." (Ver. 1-5.)

* The common insertion of ἀνθρωπίνης is supported by corr. A C L P, most cursives, and a few versions, with many Fathers Greek and Latin; but the great weight of authority rejects it; and in my opinion the unqualified phrase is right.

There can be no doubt in my judgment that the various reading in the first verse μυστήριον, though given in the Sinaitic (first hand), Alexandrian and Palimpsest of Paris (C), with some good cursives and very ancient versions (Pesch. and Cop.), etc., is not correct, but the common text. It is not only erroneous but an error which destroys the beauty and indeed the sense of the passage. For the apostle is contrasting his use of revealed truth in dealing with such souls as those in Corinth when he first carried them the gospel, and that which he would do with those who simply and thoroughly submitted to Christ. The mystery in all its hidden depths and all its heavenly glory he sets before those he calls "the perfect," that is, the full-grown who were established in Christianity; but not so with babes unformed in the truth of the gospel.

Hence the introductory words. The apostle came not in excellency of word or wisdom when announcing at Corinth the testimony of God, who was calling them as all men to repent, and to this end testifying of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. To this Paul judged it right to confine himself at the beginning of the gospel in that voluptuous city. Maturer souls need Christ every way, risen, at God's right hand, and coming again in glory. Here he presented His person, and especially Him crucified. It is not a philosophy but a divine person and work. "The perfect" need much more, and have no stint; and there it is that God's hidden wisdom in the mystery hidden from ages and generations becomes so important: not that there is reserve on God's part, but that the state of souls is such that some want milk as being babes, others solid food as being settled in Christ; and they are welcomed into all the truth of God, as indeed they need it all.

But further there was in the apostle's tone and way a suitability to the message he brought. He repudiated all artificial method whether in thought or in the language which clothed it, that the truth of God should address itself directly to man's heart. So also he was with the Corinthians in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. This is not the ideal that men in their imagination frame of the great apostle! But such a deep sense of weakness was by grace his strength, as the Corinthians' straining after power was their weakness. His one desire was to exalt God, owning the nothingness as well as the guilt of man; with an anxious dread lest any word on his part should obscure His true glory, that it might be God's testimony to and in Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. Hence his word and his preaching (the thing preached, not merely his manner in it) was not after the rhetoric of the schools, but such as gave scope to God's Spirit.

Did the saints then loathe the bread of heaven? Did they pine after the leeks and onions and flesh-pots of Egypt? The apostle was not the one to gratify their natural tastes. He at least was true to Jesus Christ and Him crucified. He sought not to win by the display of his own extraordinary ability; nor would he exhibit the wonders of the divine word which he could easily have presented so as to dazzle the Corinthian mind; nor did he condescend to set out these precious truths in a diction attractive to refined ears. The matter and the manner he judged most for God's glory was that which poured contempt on man and looked only to the Spirit's demonstration and power, that their faith might not be in man's wisdom but in God's power. For just so far as preachers fill men with admiration for their peculiar style of thought or language, is it evident that they are weak in the Spirit, and attract to themselves instead of clearing and establishing souls in the truth whereby the Spirit works in power. Another indication of unwholesome teaching (too abundant at Corinth) is that which produces a distaste for all but the favourite or his line. It is not that the heart does not bless God for the instrument; but the effect of such a course as Paul's is to maintain the Lord's glory and His truth unimpaired, to avoid the natural tendency to a school or clique with its leader, and to keep the saints in full liberty and holy confidence before God by faith. May our decision be like his whose words (and they are God's) have occupied us here!

The apostle next explains his attitude towards those established in Christian truth, "the perfect" as they are designated here and elsewhere. To these he brought out far more than Jesus Christ and Him crucified. There is no limit or reserve. Had there been truth undisclosed in the Old Testament, secret things which belonged to Jehovah, in contrast with those revealed which had to do with Israel and their children? They are, none of them, hidden now, but shared by the Father with His children to the glory of Christ His Son. They are our proper and needed portion.

Hence says he "But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but wisdom not of this age nor of the rulers of this age that come to nought. But we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden [wisdom] which God predetermined before the ages for our glory; which none of the rulers of the age knew (for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, but according as it is written, Things which eye hath not seen and ear not heard, and into man's heart have not come, all that* God prepared for those that love him, butt God revealed to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of God." (Ver. 6-10.)

It is not then that "wisdom" is wanting to the christian scheme; nor could this be, for Christ who is all therein is God's wisdom which has a character, height, depth, and extent proper to God. For this reason it suits His children, at least such as are weaned from the first man and the world in which he seeks activity and exaltation; it suits in a word "the perfect" or full-grown, not the babes that are absorbed in their personal wants and care at best for milk, not for the meat which a riper condition needs for its due nourishment. Wholly apart from such wisdom as Paul spoke of is "this age," the course of the world that now is, and this not in the lower strata only but in its "rulers" "that come to nought," little as they themselves expect it, or those who covet their place. Blessed be the grace that has revealed the mind of heaven to man on earth! It is "God's wisdom" the apostle spoke habitually and characteristically, where it was proper to be spoken, and this "in a mystery;" not meaning by this aught that was unintelligible or vague or obscure, but truth which could not be discovered by the wit of man, and was never before made known in the living oracles of God. The faithful who were settled on the great foundations of Christianity the apostle would initiate into it. All that ignore or oppose Christ come to nought: He is God's power no less than His wisdom.

* The most ancient witnesses give ὅσα, the rest ἅ.

† The Vatican MS., and some cursives, the Cop. Sah., etc., read γάρ "for," which seems to me not to suit the context like δέ which the other authorities support.

But if Christ be God's wisdom, as He surely is, it is not His personal glory simply, but this "in a mystery." It is not Christ as He was here presented to the responsibility of man, especially of the Jews; nor is it Christ when He returns again as the Son of man in His universal kingdom which shall not pass away. It is Christ exalted on high and invested with a new glory, outside all the old revelations, and founded on the cross where the world, led on by its prince, rejected Him, but thereon glorified in God, and given as head over all things to the church which is His body. This therefore the apostle adds was "the hidden" wisdom, "which God predetermined before the ages for our glory." It formed no part of His ways either in creation or in providence. The law never touched it, nor did the chosen people under law look for it Nay, not only did the prophets ignore it altogether, but the Spirit did not speak of it in His ancient communications, though, when it was revealed, it could be seen, from hints here and there from the beginning and all through, that He of course knew all and said enough to justify its principles even where most differing from all that kind been meanwhile carried on.

But when the patient and full trial of man's responsibility closed in the cross which showed alike his own sin and ruin, Satan's guile and folly, and God's perfect goodness and wisdom, then was the suited moment to bring out those counsels of God in Christ for our glory, which were predetermined before all the sorrowful history of man, before even the world was created as the sphere in which his responsibility was tested. Of this man is still as then wholly ignorant, and none more than, if so much as, "the rulers of this age." None of them knew it when Jesus was here; and just as those that dwelt in Jerusalem and their rulers, not having known Him, fulfilled the voices of the prophets which were and are read on every sabbath by judging and slaying Him, so "none of the rulers of this age knew; for, had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;" yet thus it was that they too instrumentally laid a basis for it. For the cross of Christ on earth answers to and is answered by the glory of God in heaven Wondrous fact — a man exalted over all the universe, risen and glorified with all things set under His feet at God's right hand! Not only a matter of faith, but the revelation of it is also made known, as indeed only now since the cross and the ascension is it a fact. But it is a fact, and a fact revealed to the Christian, totally distinct from all Old Testament hopes, or that which shall be realised when the kingdom comes in the displayed power and glory of the millennial days.

Strikingly does the apostle proceed to set out the newness of this work and word of God in terms too often perverted through misapprehension to a mere confession of such ignorance as could not but be in the times before Christ rose and the Spirit was given. It is an application of Isaiah 64: 4, yet for the purpose not of direct illustration but of full contrast. The Jewish prophet most consistently was inspired to stop with the acknowledged inability of man to pierce the veil that hides the future blessedness that God has prepared for him that waits for Him. Not so the christian apostle; for the veil is rent, and we are invited to draw near now emboldened by the blood of Jesus. Thus all things are ours, coming no less than present. We look at the things that are not seen and eternal; we seek and have our mind on the things above, not on the things that are on the earth. It is in vain to say that they are hidden from man. They were so, but assuredly are now revealed to the children of God. They are revealed that we may not doubt or remain in the dark but believe. This is the emphatic statement of the apostle. What God has prepared for those that love Him He has revealed to us by the Spirit.

Do you limit His competency or question His willingness to show us all the truth, yea, things to come, in divine love? Expressly is it added, as if to meet our hesitation, "for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the depths of God." Such a declaration may well silence every argument of unbelief, as disposed alas! to trust in the ability of man as to distrust the gracious power of God on our behalf. The Spirit who searches all, and knows all, is now in the believer to whom all is revealed in the written word of God. He who sounds the depths of God is able to instruct His children; and He is as ready as able, being here for this as for other loving purposes worthy of God and in virtue of Christ's redemption.

It is the Holy Spirit then by whom God has revealed to us what of old was hidden; and He is thoroughly able to do so, seeing that He searches the very depths of God, as indeed He is God. This the apostle illustrates by an analogy drawn from human nature. "For who of men* knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of the man that [is] in him? So also the things of God knoweth† no one save the Spirit of God. But we received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that [is] from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God." (Vers. 11, 12.)

* A few witnesses, including the Alexandrian uncial and a Paris cursive (17), omit ἀνθρώπων, but it is surely right.

† The received text, with one uncial and very many cursives, etc., reads oi[den instead of the true word ἔγνωκεν (ἔγνω F G 23, etc.) as in A B C D E P ten cursives, etc. With οὐδείς it was proper to say "cometh to know," rather than "consciously knoweth." The Spirit οἴδεν of course, and so do we when we have the Spirit of God in us.

No man knows what is in another's mind. He may conjecture more or less accurately, but none of men can know inwardly what is in another's mind and has not been communicated to him. The spirit of the man himself knows, and no one else. It is shut out not only from animals inferior to man in the scale of creation, but from his fellows. So, but with incomparably greater force, no one can come to know the things of God, unless they be revealed: only the Spirit of God knows them. But here is the inestimable privilege of the Christian. It was not the spirit of the world we received, but the Spirit that is from God, and this expressly that we might know, inwardly know, the things freely given to us by God.

We are in the conscious relationship of children, and have not merely an acquired objective knowledge, but realize what God has vouchsafed in our own minds. Were any courting the spirit of the world? What a descent for a Christian! What a forgetfulness of our new and divine and eternal associations through our Lord Jesus! Here then it is a question of knowing through the Holy Ghost the things freely given us by God, and to this end is the Spirit given to the believer now that Christ was come and had wrought redemption. Where the blood has been put, the oil can follow, that unction from the Holy One whereby the very babe in Christ knows all things. For the grace that has freely given him all with God's own Son would put him in the conscious knowledge of all and in the joy of communion; and this can only be by the Holy Spirit of God, who accordingly anoints us when established in Christ, that is, when firmly attached to Him.

But the apostle tells us of more than this supernatural Spirit-given knowledge. In order that they may be enjoyed, the things of God had to be communicated divinely; and here the chosen instruments had to be made, not infallible of course, which is the quality of God alone, but perfectly guided in giving out the truth and guarded from all error for their task. This is inspiration, its permanent fruit being the scriptures we possess in the goodness of God. The principle is stated in verse 13, "which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in [those] taught by [the] Spirit,* communicating spiritual things by spiritual† [words]."

* The received text, with Dcorr E L P most cursives, etc., adds ἁγίος "holy," contrary to the best authorities.

† The Vatican and a good cursive (17) read πνευματικῶς, "spiritually;" as the Porphyrian has the Spirit communicating (συνκρίνοντες), not we. The Alexandrian omits αὐτῳ "to him."

It is well known that the last clause has been variously interpreted, through a different sense given, now to συνκρίνοντες, now to πνευματικοῖς, and even to πνευματικά. Thus Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., take it to mean, "explaining spiritual truths [of the New Testament] by [Old Testament] spiritual testimonies." Only less far-fetched is the counter-view of Theophylact, H. Grotius, and others, "explaining what the Spirit-led prophets said by what Christ has opened to us by His Spirit" But Theophylact proposed a way too, which as it prevailed in medieval times, so also it has been common up to our day, of taking πνευματικοῖς as masculine, which the late Dean Alford treated as "clearly wrong" in several editions of his Greek Testament, but gave as right in his New Testament revised (1870), as Wiclif had done in 1380.

Again our Authorized Translation preferred, with all the other early English versions except that of Geneva, the sense of "comparing" as in the Syriac, Vulgate, etc., rather of "explaining" for συνκρίνοντες. And doubtless it is a natural impulse to use a meaning which is unquestionable in 2 Corinthians 10: 12 for the same word in 1 Corinthians 2: 13: so Tyndale's (1534), Cranmer's (1539), and perhaps that of Rheims (1582), though I am not quite sure what was meant by "comparing spiritual things to the spiritual," as the latter might be understood as masculine (so the Arabic) no less than as neuter. The Genera Version (1557) gave "joining spiritual things with spiritual things," I presume after Calvin, Beza, Piscator, etc.

There are two elements for gathering the mind of God in the clause which have not been in general borne in mind adequately. First, the context as elsewhere helps to the sense of a. here demanded. Now it is certain that the apostle is describing, in verse 13, neither the revelation of divine things which the Spirit of God alone knows and can give (vers. 10-12), nor the reception of what is revealed, which is due to the power of the Spirit (vers. 14, 15), but the intermediate process of conveying in words spiritual things when disclosed that they may be received by the spiritual man. Secondly, as συνκρίνοντες appears to be a carrying on the thought of speaking the things of God to others in verse 13, so is ἀνακρίνεται equally characteristic of the manner and means of reception. As the one aptly expresses the putting together (συνκρίνοντες) spiritual things with spiritual words so as to furnish that concrete whole, the word of God, so the spiritual man ἀνακρίνει π., the converse sifting and examining accurately — a sense common to the New Testament and the LXX. (1 Sam. 20: 12; Acts 17: 11.) Ἀνακρ. was a word used technically in ordinary Greek of the preliminary investigation to ascertain whether an action would lie.

Hence in my judgment the meaning of "comparing" or even of "explaining" is here shut out; and, when we examine the present passage along with that in the Second Epistle, we may readily see with certainty that the construction wholly differs, though Parkhurst is rash enough to say the contrary. For in the latter it is a question of persons only, and hence "comparing" gives the sense justly. So Wahl in his second edition rightly, though from Rose's note to Parkhurst it would seem that in his first with Schleusner he explained it as "we cannot endure to enrol or mix ourselves with" etc. — a poor sense assuredly.

Here, in one phrase, if not in both, it is a question of things, and hence the analogy disappears. In the LXX, which so constantly furnishes the true source of the Greek New Testament language, we find the verb and its derivatives used in senses more suitable to the requirement of our text, as has been often noticed. Compare Genesis 40: 8, 12, 16, 18, 22; 51?: 12 (twice), 15 (twice); Daniel 2: 4-45 (thirteen times); Daniel 4 (seven times); Daniel 5 (eight times), where "interpret" or "interpretation" is meant. Again we have Numbers 15: 32, where it means "to determine;" also Numbers 9: 3, Numbers 29 six times in the sense of "ordinance," etc.

It is certain then that the most common meaning in the Septuagint, so familiar to the writers and earlier" readers of the New Testament, is that of making known the previously hidden mind of God couched in a dream or vision; and that the word was also applied to a determination through a judge or law-giver speaking for God. By an easy transition thence the apostle was inspired to use it here in the sense of "communicating" (or, in a similar usage, of "expounding") spiritual things by spiritual words. "Communicating" however seems to me better, because less ambiguous than "expounding," as the point here is the fact and appropriate form of conveying spiritual troths rather than of "expounding" or explaining it when conveyed in words, which is the function of the teacher and not really in the passage at all. It is plain to him who weighs all that, though in some cases σύνκρισις may seem to mean pretty much the same as ἐξήγησις applied to such subjects, it goes really farther. For instance, Joseph's or Daniel's task went much beyond that of an ordinary expounder of scripture; and the word which duly described it might easily pass into the sense of communicating the previously unknown things of God in language suited to them. This I feel assured is the idea in the verse under consideration.

The apostle then shows that not human wisdom but the Spirit taught the words to convey the truth of Christ now. How null then in divine things is that wisdom! Why did Corinthian eyes see differently?

There was another lesson in its place of no less weight — the incapacity of man without the Holy Spirit not merely to know or convey, but even to receive the truth of God. "But [the] natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned; but the spiritual [man] discerneth all things while he himself is discerned by no one. For who hath known [the] Lord's mind that he should instruct him? But we have [the] mind of Christ." (Ver. 14-16.)

This is a momentous declaration in all its parts. For the apostle by the "natural man" means man as he is born and grows up, without being born of God or the Holy Ghost given to him. He might be ever so learned, scientific, intellectual and refined; still, till quickened of the Spirit, he is ψυχικός. He does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are folly; nor can he learn them, so as to appropriate them, apprehending their truth, because they are spiritually discerned, and the Spirit of God he has not as unbelieving in Christ. The spiritual man on the other hand is one who is not only renewed but in the power of the Spirit. He accordingly has a divine spring of discerning while he is beyond the ken of all who are destitute of the Spirit.

It is in virtue of the Spirit of God that the believer now stands in so astonishing a place, capable of discerning all things, yet himself outside the discernment of man. How great the folly of any saint in Corinth or elsewhere yearning after human wisdom! What makes it even more striking is the application the apostle appends from Isaiah 40: 13. For there the prophet insists on the supremacy of Jehovah's intelligence, as before of His infinite goodness and power. Unsearchable Himself yet searching all, "who hath measured the Spirit of Jehovah, and, the man of his counsel, will teach him?" As independent of man's measuring and instruction is the Christian in divine things, and this through the Spirit of God dwelling in him. Thus the use of Isaiah 64 bears witness that, as man's heart had not conceived the purpose of God before the world for our glory (not merely the nations, as Kimchi would have it, but man generally, Israel included), so God has revealed it now that Christ is crucified and received up in glory, and this by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven to be in and with us. But the use of Isaiah 40 goes farther; for the apostle ascribes to the Christian the mind (νοῦν) or intelligence of Christ, in whom God's wisdom is, and thus appropriates to us now by grace, as possessing the Holy Spirit, that which, belonging characteristically to God, is wholly independent of man and undiscoverable by him.

In short, as the revelation of God's hidden wisdom is of the Holy Spirit, so is the inspiration that conveys it, and no less truly though of a more general character is the reception of it. In the gospel as Paul knew and made it known, in the mystery of the gospel, was brought positively new truth, of which not Gentiles only but Israel or men universally were ignorant; but now it was revealed, communicated, and received in the Spirit. As He only could make it known, so He gave the words which were the due medium of conveying it, and He enables us to receive it.

How infinite then is the Christian's debt not only to the Father and the Son but to the Holy Ghost! Paul's gospel was pure truth to man, and pure truth through man: may we have self judged so as to receive it in like purity. It is the flesh — man's nature — which ever opposes the Spirit of God. There are those who count what the apostle insists on as supernatural; and they labour, some in this way, some in that, to reduce the gospel to the level of common sense. But let me warn them that if they succeed in their scheme for themselves or other men, they have lost the truth for God, who will not, to please man, give up His purpose of thus glorifying Christ by the Holy Spirit.

To naturalize Christianity is simply to ruin it. Only scripture draws a deep and marked distinction between the revelation and inspiration of the truth on the one hand and the reception of it on the other, though all be of the Spirit, and of Him only to be of true spiritual profit. And indeed it is evident that, if the communication had not been perfect by those employed as instruments of His inspiration, the revelation of God had not been any more perfect ; and consequently the authority of God attached to their writings had been not only a delusion but a deception; for Christ and the apostles treat it as no less the word of God than what He uttered without human intervention. If it be not the infinite brought into the finite, we should have nothing to trust to as divine truth; we should have the finite and nothing else. Whereas the word of God, like Christ Himself, is God's entering into our circumstances, and this to give us His own grace and truth in perfection. Our use of it is another thing; and for this we are wholly dependent on the Spirit of God. But He is given to us; and we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 3.

Such then is the ample complete and perfect provision of God for the blessing of His children by the truth to His own glory. His Spirit is everywhere the agent and power, as Christ is the object presented, and His work the efficacious ground and means, which His own sovereign counsels are the spring of all. Expressly is it the Holy Ghost who, as He reveals, and communicates in suited words, so enables the believer to receive, the things of God. And this led to a contrast between him that is spiritual, who discerns all things, and the natural man who does not receive and cannot know the things of the Spirit.

It is not however that the Corinthian saints were "natural" men, for this would imply that they were not born of God. This the apostle does not say or mean, but that they were "carnal," or "fleshly:" that is, flesh had still attractions for them. It was not judged, detected in principle, or hated in all forms and degrees. They still valued what was of man, wisdom, ability, or eloquence, as such. They had no adequate sense of nature's worthlessness in divine things. "Carnal," or "fleshly" describes not those dead in their sins, but those who, though quickened of the Spirit, are either not yet set free (as in Rom. 7) or still swayed by the influence of men, and nature unjudged — I do not say in its immorality, but in its estimate of itself. This last is before the apostle's mind here. The Corinthians might be babes in Christ, but they were not spiritual.

"And I, brethren, was not able to speak to you as spiritual, but as fleshly,* as babes in Christ. With milk I gave you drink, not meat; for ye were not set able, nor indeed are ye now able, for ye are yet carnal. For whereas emulation and strife** [are] among you, are ye not carnal and walk according to man? For when one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are ye not men?"† (Ver. 1-4.)

* The most ancient authorities ( A B Cp.m. Dp.m. 17. 67s.m. 71. and some Greek fathers, who however vary elsewhere) here give σαρκίνοις, in verse 8 all but Dp.m. F G on the first occurrence, all on the second. The difference is that σάρκινος means physically of flesh (2 Cor. 3: 8, Heb. 7: 16); whereas σαρκικός supposes a fleshly will (1 Peter 2: 11; 1 Cor. 3: 3; 2 Cor. 1: 12; 2 Cor. 10: 4;), where it is not used generally as in Romans 15: 27 and 1 Corinthians 9. In Romans 7: 14 the best authorities (p.m. A B C D E F G and many cursives, etc.) give σάρκινος contrary to the reading of the common text. Here the importance dogmatically is great. The main question is which of the two should stand in 1 Corinthians 3: 1. Tischendorf says on Hebrews 7: 16, that in the apostolic age either form was undoubtedly applied in the same sense, and refers in proof to Romans 7: 14 and 1 Corinthians 3: 1; but these prove really that there is the difference in scripture which flows from the differing structure of each word.

* The common text (T. R.) adds καὶ διχοστασίαι on the authority of many MSS uncial and cursive, but contrary to the best copies ( A B C P 23. 46. 67. 71. 74. etc., Vulg. Cop. Arm. Aeth. and many Greek and Latin fathers).

† Instead of the vulgar reading σαρκικοί at the end of verse 4, the weight of authority is decidedly in favour of ἄνθρωποι ( A B C D E F G, etc., most ancient versions and fathers).

Thus the reason now given by the apostle for having urged on the Corinthians the elementary truths of Christ is their own state. They were not spiritual but fleshly. What a blow to their self-complacency! If they were but babes in Christ, what else would be suited food? That hankering after, or admiration of, the world's wisdom was its sure evidence: for flesh delights in what is of man, as the Spirit gives to enjoy what is of God.

It is quite an error however to suppose that all Christians are "spiritual" in the sense in which that term is used in chapter 2, which differs not at all from its use in chapter 3. In both it means those not merely quickened but walking, feeling, judging in the Spirit. To say in 1 Cor. 2 that one discerns all things but is oneself discerned by none conveys quite as much as the contrast with fleshliness in 1 Cor. 3. The mistake is in supposing that the apostle looks only at but two classes, whereas in truth he speaks of three: the natural man, the carnal, and the spiritual, the last two being Christians, but the state different. For "babes in Christ" does not refer to the recency of their conversion, but to their lack of growth. As the Hebrews were kept back by their religious prejudices (Heb. 5), so were these Greeks by their philosophising. In either way souls may be arrested, or misled, and stunted in growth. In one of the cases indeed it was from no want of time; for on this score they ought to have been teachers when they had need to be taught the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, as the apostle put it to their great humiliation. So here: he gave them milk to drink. Meat was of no use in their actual state, nay, it might help on the mischief.

But there are other mistakes to guard against. Some in opposing the absurdity of reserve, Arcani Disciplina, etc., have laboured to prove that the same doctrine is in one aspect milk, in another meat. It is true that the Christ in whom the babes rested is more and more enjoyed of the fathers, but it remains certain that there is a whole range of truth as to Him which a carnal or even immature state. in the believer would render unseasonable. The mystery of Christ and the church in Ephesians and Colossians is more than the priesthood of Christ in Hebrews. It was not that the apostle could not have communicated the depths of God; but could they then profit by such teaching? Would it be of God to give meat beyond them or injurious to them? "Ye were not yet able, nor indeed are ye yet able." Nor was it from lack of natural ability, but on the contrary because they valued and trusted it to the hindrance of the Holy Spirit: "for ye are yet carnal." And this he proves from their state by incontestable evidence. "For whereas emulation and strife [are] among you, are ye not carnal and walk according to man? For when one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are ye not men?" Emulation and strife were works of the flesh, not fruits of the Spirit. Their existence in their midst showed how little they walked in self-judgment. It was the party work they were used to in the schools of men. Certainly party zeal for Paul or Apollos was no better than for Plato or Aristotle; it had all the same root. Nor is there any difficulty in conciliating such a reproof of not a few of the Corinthian saints with his thanksgiving for the church in the introduction of the epistle? For as already seen, this was for the privileges bestowed on them by the goodness of God, not for their actual state. Whatever their gifts, they were in fact grievously lacking in practical grace, and this, as it exposes to fresh or revived forms in which human nature works, so it would effectually hinder growth through the truth. The Holy Spirit in such circumstances must take of their things to show them their faults, not of Christ's things to glorify Him and comfort their hearts.

It is important, moreover, to see that it is a question not of morality according to the law, but of what suits, pleases, and magnifies Christ — the very object of the presence and action of the Spirit here below. Hence the apostle reproves them for walking, not as bad men merely, but "according to man." They ranged themselves under their new favourites in forgetfulness of Christ, and in abuse of their own mercies through His servants. "Are ye not men?" says he, indignantly protesting against such a state of things. They were saints and ought to walk as such.

Glorying in men, be they ever so blessed, is carnal, no less than self-assertion; they are indeed off-shoots of the same tree. How could those who are thus erected into heads of schools tolerate so false a position for themselves or their followers if indeed they have the eye single to Christ: if not, can they be trusted? Far different is our apostle who asks, "What* then is Apollos? and what† is Paul? "Ministers by whom ye believed, and as the Lord gave to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So that neither he that planteth is anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. And he that planteth and he that watereth are one thing; but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (Ver. 5-8.)

* Τί is twice read by p.m. A B. 17. 46. 71. 121. Vulg. Aeth., etc.; τίς ("who") is found in the great majority of MSS and Vv.

† The order of P and A is thus given in A B C Dp.m. E F G P 17. 37. 46. 71. 116., etc. The best of these uncials ( A B C P) and the same cursive add ἐστίν which is left out of the vulgar text.

‡ The common text inserts ἀλλ᾽ ἤ, and so read Ds.m. L P, and most cursives, contrary to A B C Dp.m. E F G, a few cursives, several of the oldest versions, etc. It is hard to think what Calvin means, save that he is mistaken, in saying that in some copies καί is wanting, for this is not so. The Cod. Rescr. Ephr. of Paris leaves out ὡς, but I am aware of no support for this but a Latin copy. No Greek MS omits καί. He may confound ἀλλ᾽ ἤ with it, as to which we have already seen the evidence for and against. Calvin's critical remarks here, as often, are not to he trusted. His division of the verse is every way wrong, especially in making the last clause a further query.

Thus does God's wisdom correct the workings of unjudged nature, and this by a simple statement of the truth. For what are any? Servants at best in the proclamation of the gospel and the truth in general — servants by whom the Corinthian saints believed. Was there then no difference between Paul and Apollos? As the Lord gave to each. What room for boasting of men? Why not of the Lord who gave to each? Of this they had thought little. Grace unites. Flesh divides and scatters — flesh pre-occupied with this man or that, sometimes as here unable to find anything save in its favourites, sometimes heaping to itself teachers as at a later day. In either way there may be ever learning, but really no coming to the knowledge of the truth. The fact is that the Lord gives variously, nothing that is not good for the use of edifying, nothing in vain. It is not His way to form a class of labourers all alike, but to work differently by each. "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." As it is in the work of the field where labour is expended in one form or another, but God alone can cause to grow, so it is in spiritual things. "So that neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase." How insignificant is any instrument! God it is who works efficiently. "And he that planteth and he that watereth is one thing." Here he sets ministry, or ministers, together as "one thing." The consequence is that God alone is seen to be of moment. But this very consideration, that they are "one thing," rebukes the party work of their flatterers; as his own reward for his own work to be received by-and-by is a serious suggestion for ministers who like or allow the unwise zeal of those who cry them up and depreciate others. Their differences vanish into nothingness before God who graciously deigns to use each for blessing; even as "each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour:" not according to his personal qualities, however cried up by his partisans, nor even according to the particular gift bestowed of the Lord, nor yet according to present results before the eyes of men often deceived and in no case able to discern as He does and will manifest by-and-by, but "according to his own labour."

How cheering to the despised but faithful and self-denying and gracious labourers; how humbling to Corinthian vanity which never took into account the one principle the Spirit here gives for the divine and enduring recompense! "For we are God's fellow-workmen; ye are God's husbandry, God's building." (Ver. 9.) This is the transition which justifies the foregoing, and prepares for the expansion of the last figure into the applications that follow. Whoever the servants may be, they are God's in direct responsibility, not in this sense the church's, still less of a party. Not that for this reason they do not serve the saints, for the more they preach not themselves but Jesus Christ, the more are they bondmen of the saints for His sake. But they are God's fellow-labourers, given of Him, doing His work, responsible in everything to Him, and finally to give Him an account. The phrase in no way means "workers together with God." This is not the gist of the argument in the context; it is a thought and language foreign to scripture; and also, in my judgment, unbecoming and presumptuous. The emphasis rests on "God's." They were "God's fellow-workmen, workers together," not rivals (as flesh in others or themselves might make them) but companions in work under God who employed them as such.

Nor is this all. The saints are God's husbandry, God's building, as emphatically. Were they producing what was suitable for Him who had the field tilled? Was the building as God's should be? I am surprised that any should think the meaning to be "with a view to your being God's husbandry and God's building;" for the apostle in saying "ye are" goes much farther. And duty is ever grounded on and shaped and measured by relationship.

We now come to language and application still more precise and solemn. "According to the grace of God that was given to me as a wise architect I laid the foundation and another buildeth on [it]. But let each see how he buildeth on [it]. For other foundation can none lay than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of each shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare [it], because it is revealed in fire, and the fire shall try the work of each of what sort it is. If the work of any shall abide which he hath built on [it], he shall receive reward; if the work of any one shall be burnt up, he shall suffer loss, but himself shall be saved but so as through fire." Ver. 10-15.)

Even the apostle loved to connect his work and office with the grace of God rather than with abstract authority. It is this feeling which has so evaporated from Christendom, so that ministry has humanized and assumed even a worldly character, to the unspeakable loss of the church and the most serious dishonour to the Lord. Here he is careful to speak plainly; "according to the grace of God that was given me as a wise master-builder [or architect] I have laid a foundation, and another buildeth upon [it], but let each see how he buildeth on [it]." Here we have the responsibility of him who ministers. Apostolic place is maintained, but responsible service is affirmed, and it is a serious thing. "For other foundation can none lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But if any one buildeth upon the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, grass, straw, the work of each shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed by fire; and the work of each, of what sort it is, the fire itself shall prove."

Here all is in due proportion, and the revelation of God in Christ is laid as the foundation of all; but we see how man's responsibility remains. On that foundation very different material might be built up — not only what is precious, like the great and costly stones, etc., of the temple, but also what is worthless and vile. And here man's judgment is at fault; for doubtless many a Corinthian saint had prized the hay and straw of man's wisdom, and slighted the gold and silver of apostolic truth. Hence the need of another day and of the Lord's discernment. Therefore are they told that much may only be disclosed in the day that is coming. None but this day is to be revealed in fire. Then will the consuming judgment of God deal with each one's work. Even now there may be manifestations; but they are necessarily partial. The fire itself of that day will prove of what sort is the work of each. It is good to weigh this now. All that lets in the light of God's future on present occupation is wholesome not only for His servant, but for all concerned. There will be no mistake then: all must be in the light of God. "If any one's work which he hath built up shall abide, he shall receive reward." For reward there is to cheer in the midst of present sorrow with the hope of the Lord's recompense in that day. Present reward is a danger for every soul, especially in divine things. There is however comfort of love, and the more real it is the more we rest on Christ rather than on Christians. He then takes care that we shall have it in good measure, even if the sphere seem small. And so it must be in a day of general departure from faith. It is His love which constrains the servant, and confidence in His grace too which serves as a constant spring of action.

When so labouring, the hope of future reward from the Lord acts both safely and powerfully: otherwise there is danger. But it is dangerous also to despise the future as naturally do those who are too much occupied with present results. Will their work stand? "If the work of any one shall be burnt up, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." It is a powerful figure, and not hard to understand where the truth in general is held firm.

It is well known that Rome has founded on this passage one of its chief proofs of purgatory; but this is itself a sample of the refuse against which the apostle warns. For it is evident that not the faithful in general or their ways are in question, but ministers and their doctrine and again that a day of sifting judgment is meant and not some intermediate state now after death. Fire is the figurative expression of His judicial action which consumes all dross, not punishment for the separate spirit or soul, nor even a process of purifying it. "Saved, yet so as through fire," is to mark the difficulty of it; yet will God take care that so it shall be. So, as has been said, a builder might see his building ruined by fire, yet himself escape. Besides each one's work is to be thus tested — the apostle's work as certainly as that of his detractors, and gold, silver, and precious stones are subjected to the fire no less than the consumable material. Does all this apply to Romanist ideas of purgatory? The real point is the danger of introducing rubbish even where the true foundation is owned, not fundamental error or Antichristianism, but airy notions, lax maxims as to practice, etc., which the day of trial would detect and destroy. It was not so with his work whom some at Corinth had despised.

The figure of a building with its foundation, already used, furnishes the apostle with a yet fuller illustration. We have seen workmen wise or negligent, materials costly and durable or perishable and worthless, with a reward as the result on the one hand, or the workman suffering the loss of his work and his person only saved with difficulty. Now he develops on both sides, and contrasts the holiness of God's temple in the saints with the enemy's instruments in corrupting and destroying.

"Know ye not that ye are God's temple, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any one destroy the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which ye are. Let none deceive himself: if any one thinketh himself to be wise among you in this age, let him become foolish that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written, He that taketh the wise in their craftiness; and again, [The] Lord knoweth the reasonings of the wise that they are vain. Wherefore let none boast in men, for all things are yours: whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours, and ye Christ's, and Christ God's." (Ver. 16-23.)

Thus God has His temple on earth now as surely as of old in Israel. But this is often not seen by those who confess that the old Levitical order is judged and gone, and that the effort to imitate it since redemption is to fall away from the grace and truth of God now come in Christ, and proclaimed in the gospel, and to be displayed in the Christian and the church. It was the presence of God always which constituted God's temple. Not the costliness of stones, nor the splendour of gold or silver, but the cloud wherein Jehovah was pleased to come down was its true glory, when Israel could boast of a habitation in their midst for the mighty One of Jacob. So now it is not merely that there are Christians, but God has His house or temple. It is the assembly, not the individuals considered as such, but those builded together for the purpose in virtue of the Spirit. See Ephesians 2: 22. The Spirit dwells in each believer doubtless; but this is another truth and equally certain from God's word. "Know ye not that ye are God's temple, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you!" How solemn the fact that a divine person, the Holy Ghost, dwells where Christians are; and this, it may be added, because of redemption! For it was never so till the work of Christ was wrought, and He going on high sent the Holy Spirit down to be in the saints and abide with them for ever. It is God's testimony to the efficacy of His sacrifice. Whatever the mercies and blessings and privileges before, this could not be till the blood that makes atonement for ever was shed. Now the Spirit of God comes where that blood-shedding is confessed; and there He dwells, making those who confess Christ and His work God's temple.

But it is much to be weighed that the apostle is here showing the danger not only of unreality but of defilement. There are those who build wisely and well; there are those who, confessing His name, build on the one and only foundation unfit materials. But there is worse still. There is the enemy at work using men that bear the Lord's name to corrupt or destroy (the same word, and one may say, the same thing). For God speaks of evil doctrine according to its own nature if it work unimpeded; and this is the only result of heterodoxy so left. He who teaches it corrupts and destroys; and him who destroys (or corrupts) the temple of God shall God destroy. Awful end! but is there not a cause? is it not sufficient? Could the holy God feel or do otherwise? It is in vain to plead love; for in truth the blow of love in caring for the objects beloved is beyond all to be feared. And how does not God resent that evil which defiles the holy temple where His Spirit dwells in virtue and honour of the work of Christ on the cross? He will surely destroy those whom Satan thus employs, under whatever disguise, to pollute the very streams of life and blessing for souls, yea, to dishonour the temple wherein He Himself dwells.

It is to deceive oneself where any reason is allowed in palliation of evil. Men who so weaken — I will not say christian feeling only, but — common conscience may be found among those who bear the Lord's name; but, specious as they may seem and fine-spoken, it is not the wisdom of God in Christ, but of this age that comes to nought. How incomparably better and safer to become foolish that one may be wise! Such was the path the apostle took, obedient to the heavenly vision Did he not seem foolish in the eyes of all with whom he broke? Was he not wise, whatever a Festus might say? What and where is Festus now? and Agrippa and Bernice? and the high priest and the accusing chiefs of the Jews? They thought themselves wise; and so did others who in the Corinthian assembly brought in the wisdom of the schools to evade the cross and stand well with the men of the time.

But everywhere, without yet more than within, "the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God;" yet nowhere is its character so exposed, nowhere its indulgence so perilous, as in the temple of God — the church. So it is written in Job 4: 13, and Psalm 94: 11. Whether one look back on past experience or forward to the kingdom, it makes no difference: feast of all can human craft or sage reasonings suit God's temple, or those who traffic in them there escape His judgment. And why should those boast who have with Christ all things? For so indeed it is in the grace of God. "All things are yours: whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours, and ye Christ's, and Christ God's." We have all and abound, not only all those whom flesh would set up as rivals, but all circumstances present and future, ours now through the grace of Christ, and ourselves His as He is God's, for ever and to His glory. flow blessed and infinite the associations which flesh overlooks and the world in its self-sufficient nothingness treats as nothing!

1 Corinthians 4.

The apostle had now shown the solemn responsibility of the workman, and the impropriety of all boast in men, seeing that all things were theirs as truly as they were Christ's and Christ God's. It was needful however to draw out still more fully the relations of ministers, and this he does in the beginning of our chapter. "So let a man account of us, as servants of Christ and stewards of God's* mysteries." (Ver. 1.) The apostle is careful so to characterize himself as well as Apollos. They were Christ's official servants, not merely he and Cephas who were apostles, but he and Apollos, the latter of whom certainly had no such apostolic place.

* Only F inserts τοῦ before θεοῦ.

Indeed nothing could be simpler than the manner in which this Alexandrian brother was led on in the work of the Lord, having begun it when possessed of the least possible light (the baptism of John) and afterwards indebted to no more formal instructors than the godly Priscilla and Aquila. But being an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures, he contributed much to those who believed through grace, particularly in the controversies which sprang up with the Jews. From Ephesus he went to Corinth soon afterwards. We can thus understand how readily so distinguished a person fell in with the taste of not a few Christians in that city, whose party-spirit raised him up (with not the least allowance of it on his part) against Paul or Peter. On the other hand the apostle in the holy liberty of grace would in no way lower Apollos — rather the contrary, classing him with himself, and this not merely as bondmen (δούλους) but as servants of Christ. They were therefore responsible to Him only. Thus they were also ὑπήρεται (official servants) and stewards of God's mysteries. This was their duty to the household of God — to furnish meat in due season, specially that truth which is most distinctively characteristic of the New Testament.

It is scarcely needful to prove here that "mysteries" never mean the sacraments or standing institutions of Christianity. God's mysteries mean those secret things which are now revealed in contrast with what Israel had of old (Deut. 29: 29), not, as is vulgarly supposed, things unintelligible, but truths reserved by God in Old Testament times, now displayed in Christ on high and made known by the Spirit in the New Testament.

"Here* moreover it is sought in stewards that one be found faithful, but to me it amounts to very little that I be inquired into by you or by man's day. Nay, I do not inquire even into myself, for I am conscious to myself of nothing, yet I am not justified by this, but he that inquireth into me is the Lord. So then judge nothing prematurely until the Lord shall have come, who shall both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and shall make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall each have his praise from God." (Ver. 2-5.)

*  Ὧδε in A B C Dp.m. F, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Arm. etc.; whereas ὃ δέ has only Dcorr L., many cursive) and some Greek Fathers.

Thus the apostle reasons from the figure of a steward where fidelity was especially required. The critical reading is ὧδε instead of the common ὅ δέ, and there can be little doubt that the former, not the latter, is correct. Here (meaning on earth), he adds, it is required in the case of stewards, that one should be found faithful. Undoubtedly it is of still more consequence in the steward of heavenly things; but the apostle is careful to place the personal responsibility of the steward in direct relation to Christ; "but to me it is a very little thing [or, "amounteth to very little"] that I should be," not exactly, "judged" "by you." The word properly signifies the preliminary inquiry before the trial. Not that this was said in contempt of the Corinthian saints; man's day, or inquisition, was held equally cheap by him, whoever might essay to undertake a task which the Lord had never delegated to man. Not only is none competent, but the Spirit gives no sufficiency for this thing. It is reserved for the Lord whom alone it suits, even if the creature could conceivably be made fit for it. Here again it was no slight of others, nor self-complacency, for he particularly disclaims any pretension either to irresponsibility or to be his own judge.

Man is wholly incompetent for such an inquiry, were he even an apostle: yea, it would be an usurpation of the functions of the Lord. It is of the highest importance that this immediate sense of responsibility to Him be maintained always and everywhere. Whether it be a question of Paul or of Apollos, it is the same principle. Nor does it apply only to those whom God set first in the church, or in Christ's service, but to the last or least no less than to the first. To the Lord alone it belongs to inquire into their service.

Again, it is of the utmost importance to see that the church has no such authority or duty. Christ's servants according to their gift in His sovereign disposal may serve the church, or they may be debtors to all men in the gospel; but in their service, in all its details as well as in principle, they are accountable alone to Christ. For He, and not the church, gave them the gift, the possession and exercise of which constitutes them His servants. As they are called to love and honour the assembly, so the assembly is bound to respect their direct allegiance to Christ the Lord, not to interpose itself between Him and them.

The servants no doubt are saints, and as such their conduct, if apparently so wrong, comes under discipline, and, if really evil, under holy censure. No person or office enjoys or ought to enjoy immunity. Nay, the doctrine of teachers if false, would expose them to the assembly's judgment, and more severely than in the case of others, because of their position, perhaps even to putting away. A clearly improper use of their gift for selfish purposes might bring them under similar dealing, were the doctrine ever so sound. Still in their service as such, apart from such evil, Christ's ministers are directly and exclusively accountable to Himself. They have not a lady over them in the church, but are subject only to the Lord. The abandonment of this truth, the assertion of the assembly's instead of Christ's authority over ministry, brought in catholicism and finally popery, though other and still more deadly ingredients might mingle with both and the last especially. But the substitution of the church for Christ in regulating ministry, as well as claiming to be its source, is assuredly an evil of the gravest nature; and Protestantism has by no means succeeded in exorcising completely this evil spirit. Do we not see it active in Presbyterianism, flourishing in Wesleyanism, gross and unblushing in Congregationalism? Truly we may say this kind goeth not forth but by prayer and fasting; for as the energy and self-importance not of ecclesiastics but of men dearly loves it, it is only faith that can walk in constant dependence on the Lord, so as to dispense with it and make it an intrusion and offence.

It is of deep interest also to observe the apostle's choice of expression. Even in speaking of the Lord he does not say κρίνων, but ἀνακρίνων με. The truth is that the believer never comes into judgment (κρίσιν), as our Lord Himself laid down in John 5; if he did, he must be lost. Life and judgment are incompatible. He that refuses Christ and life in Him will assuredly be judged. He is lost, and it will be manifest then.

Thus is the honour of Christ vindicated by God on such as have spurned His Son. Those who believe in Him are called to no such compulsory and ruinous homage; they gladly bow even now to Him their Lord and life. They will give account to God; they will receive according to the things done in the body, as they will be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ; but they will never come into judgment, having already faith and eternal life in Him. They exercise themselves, therefore, to have a good conscience now.

So the apostle says here (not speaking of his past life, though even there he had walked conscientiously, however blinded and so sinning with a high hand), "I am conscious to myself of nothing," yet, he adds, "I am not justified by this." A good conscience is a good thing; but it does not clear the person who may in this or that be blinded by self-love or other feelings. The Lord will decide at His coming; it is He who makes the only adequate inquiry. "Wherefore judge nothing prematurely [which the Corinthians were presuming to do], until the Lord shall have come, who will [not judge us but] both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall each have his praise from God." At that epoch all that sought the dark to avoid detection will be exposed in the light of God, which will even manifest the counsels which the hearts themselves failed to see through. How fallacious often is the praise of men now where shams and shadows reign for most! Then shall each have the praise that is due and enduring and precious from God. Of this alone the apostle speaks here. He had already spoken of perdition, and of salvation where the work of the careless workman is burnt up.

The apostle had thus established both the dependence of the. servant on the Lord, and his independence of human scrutiny. Not, of course, that the church is denied its responsibility to judge conduct. Here it is a question of the counsels of the heart, which no man can scan duly, but the Lord will at His coming. "And then," he adds solemnly, "shall the praise be to each from God." He could thus speak freely and happily himself. It ought to have searched the conscience of many a Corinthian.

"And these things, brethren, I transferred to myself and Apollos on your account, that ye may in our case learn nothing above what is written,* in order that ye be not puffed up one for one against another. For who distinguisheth thee? and what hast thou which thou didst not receive? But if thou didst even receive, why boastest thou as not having received? Already ye are filled, already ye have been enriched, apart from us ye reigned; and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you" (ver. 6-8). The apostle explains here what he has also done elsewhere — his applying a principle to himself, and, in this case, to Apollos also, which he meant for others, in order that the saints might be profited. The misleaders at Corinth were really in his view, as the apostle here implies; but he lays down a standard, by which he does not hesitate to measure himself and Apollos, which the saints could easily use for others whose pretensions were as high and unfounded as the services of Paul and Apollos were real and of God. Of Him some had lost sight entirely; and each, choosing his leader, was puffed up with party feeling. What is written makes God everything, man at best an instrument, as he is alone rightly a servant. God only makes the difference between one and another, and this especially in divine things. And as it is He who makes a difference, what has anyone that he has not received? and if received, why boast as if it were not so? The folly of Corinthian vanity was evident in being puffed up for those they exalted as their respective chiefs.

* The MSS differ in trifles or slips, which do not affect a version of verve 6, save here, where p.m. B Dp.m. Ep.m. F G, old Latin, Vulg., etc., add nothing to γεγρ. But the Text. R. adds φρονεῖν, "to think," supported not only by the later correctors of some of the older copies, but by L P, and most cursives, versions, and fathers.

But he proceeds to deal a further blow, and this of the keenest irony, as Isaiah scrupled not to do in exposing the folly of idol-worship. Trashy, if not corrupting, doctrine always lowers practice; and the Corinthians had insensibly relinquished or lost the place of sufferers with Christ. This the apostle notices witheringly. When Christ reigns, we shall indeed be at ease, and in the fullest satisfaction; and He will drink the wine new with us in the kingdom of His Father — yea, He will gird Himself, and make us recline at table, and come and serve us as He in His grace deigned to assure us, when He will also set the faithful servant over all that He has, But now is the time to deny self, to take up one's cross, and follow Him, who suffered many, all, things here below. But all was confusion for the Corinthians; their eye was not single, and their body therefore anything but full of light. "Already [that is, before the time] ye are filled, already ye have become rich, apart from us ye reigned, and I would that ye did reign." For they were deceiving themselves: the time was not yet come. False doctrine had made them false practically to the present object of God. Satan had succeeded in severing them, in walk at least and aims, from the Lord, who nevertheless waits for the time of glory, when He and they shall really reign together. The apostle proceeds to draw out the contrast seen in those to whom, if God had set them "first in the church," He had given grace to become the greatest and most patient sufferers in the world.

"For, I think,* God set us the apostles last as devoted to death, because we became a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men, we fools for Christ, but ye wise in Christ; we weak, but ye strong; ye illustrious, but we disgraced. Until the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and buffeted and homeless wanderers, and we toil, working with our own hands; reviled, we bless; persecuted, we suffer; slandered," we beseech. We became as the world's scum, offscouring of all, until now" (ver. 9-13). It is evident that those who misled the Corinthians, as well as the saints misled by them, had made the church their world, and that fleshly principles had supplanted the grace of Christ for their souls. They had schools and spectacles of their own, as well as the Greeks outside. In a burst of the finest feeling, not without sarcasm but with real love, which could use it for good, the apostle sets out the true path of Christ as one of suffering but victory over the world. Faith working by love can alone secure such victory. This was apostolic ambition, if ambition there can be of a saintly kind; and this God had given the apostles in appointing them last, nearest to Christ, who had gone down into depths of suffering where none could follow. But there were sufferings of Christ which grace does share with the Christian, and these the apostles knew best, and of the apostles, we may perhaps add, none so much as Paul. Well could he then say, "God set us, the apostles, last, as devoted to death, a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men." Did the Corinthians wish and claim to be prudent in Christ? The apostles at least were content to be fools for His sake. Were the Corinthians strong and glorious in their own desire and estimate? The apostles gloried in weakness and disgrace; even as Peter and John, on a well-known occasion, went their way rejoicing from before the Sanhedrim, because they had been counted worthy to be dishonoured in behalf of the name. Nor was it only the fervour of early zeal. "To the present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked and buffeted and homeless wanderers, and labour working with our own hands." Had not the Corinthians, or their misleaders, counted all this low and eccentric, ascetic and enthusiastic, in Paul? "Railed on, we bless; persecuted, we endure; slandered, we beseech: we became as the world's scum, offscouring of all, until now:" an utter impossibility, of course, not in this or that particular which superstition can readily imitate, but as a whole, save through the constraining and assimilating love of Christ, who cheers those who set out and go on in such a path as this with the bright comfort of reigning along with Him. For I reckon, as the apostle says in Romans 8, that the sufferings of this present time are of no account in comparison of the glory that is to be revealed in regard to us. If there is a more energetic sketch of the suffering here, it is because apostles are in view rather than the saints at large; but the principle is the same, and the Corinthians had slipped out of it to present ease and dignity, which they thought due to the truth of Christianity — an error which soon culminated, as it still does, in Christendom. Where are those that can expose it, not only in word but in deed and in truth?

* T. R.* here inserts ὅτι "that," supported by the corr. of and D E L P, most cursives and versions and fathers, as against p.m. A B C D p.m. F G, 46, 116, some of the best and oldest Latin copies, and of the earliest fathers, Greek and Latin.

† For blasf. ( corr. B D E F G L, most cursives, and perhaps It. Vulg. etc. as in T. R.), p.m. A C P 17, 46, etc. give δυσφημούμενοι "defamed."

The apostle, in accepting, yea, claiming, a place of present contempt in the world's eyes for the chief emissaries of the Lord, in contrast with the ease and honour which the Corinthians lived in and valued, the fruit of the false teaching in their midst, had put the case in such a form as could not fail to appeal, and deeply, to every heart that loved Christ. He now, with the quick sensibility of genuine affection, seeks to reassure them. If he had wounded any, were not his wounds those of a friend? "Not to abash you do I write these things, but as my beloved children I admonish [you]; for if you should have ten thousand child-guides in Christ, yet not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus through the gospel I begot you. I beseech you then, become imitators of me." (Ver. 14-16.) A false teacher flatters his party, and abuses those who oppose his aims. He who is faithful to the Lord loves the saints; but this very love makes him vigilant, and gives moral courage to deal with what is offensive to Him. Yet his reproof is for those ears who need it, not for others to lower in their eyes such as may be censured.

It is well to observe that there is no depreciation of christian teaching or teachers in comparison with gospel work, such as the common version naturally insinuates. It is an appeal to the love which ought to bind specially the converted souls to him who was the means of bringing them to God; and not in any way a formal comparison of the relative value of this gift with that. Hence there is the avoidance of the word διδασκάλους, or teacher, and the use of the somewhat slighting term, παιδαγωγούς, as applied to those at Corinth who had done too much to occupy and turn away the saints there. Some of these might affect the law, others philosophy; but all Bought to keep the brethren who listened to them in their leading-strings. They had little enjoyment of, or confidence in, the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and hence sought to direct the thoughts and ways of their admirers, as do guardians, or παιδαγωγοί, with the young entrusted to their charge. But this savours more of Jewish or Gentile modes, than of the gospel or its liberty; and the apostle could not but remind them that he it was who begot them through the gospel. Only one could feel for them as a parent — himself; yet was it against him especially that these leaders of cliques had sought to alienate his "beloved children." It is the interest of such a guardian to retain his charge in subjection as long-as possible; while a father's joy is to see his children grow up intelligent as well as affectionate, maintaining the family character. Hence he adds, "I beseech you then, become imitators of me," a word which he urges again at the beginning of 1 Cor. 11, with the beautiful proviso, "even as I also [am] of Christ." Disinterested love is bold, and can speak freely. Certainly he sought not theirs but them, and the cross in practice, not earthly ease or honour or gain. Had they not lost their sense of what becomes the Christian? Let them follow him in self-renunciation for Christ.

"For this cause I sent to you Timotheus, who is my beloved and faithful child in [the] Lord, who will remind you of my ways that are in Christ [Jesus],* even as everywhere in every assembly I teach." (Ver. 17.) This young servant of the Lord was one who could speak the more intimately of the apostle's ways in Christ; inasmuch as, on the one hand, he himself was his beloved and faithful child (which the apostle could not say of the Corinthians); on the other, the apostle never accommodated his doctrine to the assemblies, so as to falsify the testimony of the Lord. Whatever might be the elasticity of grace which dealt with individuals, seeking their blessing in Christ, he taught in every assembly just as he wrote to Corinth. The ways that are in Christ do not waver; they are straight, if painful to the flesh. Yet this was the man whom the perverse eyes of detractors charged with inconsistency and untrustworthiness! It is utterly false that a differing doctrine in discipline prevailed in the different assemblies. The apostle taught the same everywhere, and his writings insist on it where he did not go personally. It is the assembly of God, and His mind varies not. He had demanded nothing of the assembly in Corinth that he had not laid down elsewhere.

* C Db, some fifteen cursives, some good Latin copies, Cop. later Syr. Arm. (Aeth. invertedly), etc., give Χ. Ἰ., but the latter is not in A B Dc E L P, most cursives, other good Latins, Pesch. Syr., etc. D F G (Gr. and Lat.) have Κυρίῳ Χ.

But some had drawn from the apostle's not going to Corinth, and sending Timothy, that he shrank from visiting the assembly there. So had the false apostles insinuated in their own pride to his depreciation. "Now some were puffed up as though I were not coming unto you; but I shall come shortly unto you, if the Lord will, and will know not the word of those that are puffed up but the power; for the kingdom of God [is] not in word but in power. What will ye? that I come unto you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness?" (Ver. 18-21.) Indeed he was coming, and for this dependent on the Lord's will. But subjection to the Lord in no way enfeebles the conduct of His servants. So on coming the apostle tells them he will know, not pretentious talk, but reality — "the power." For this in truth is the essential characteristic of "the kingdom of God," in contradistinction from "the word," to which Greek ears had been ever used, and alas! the Jews for the most part. And this* leads the apostle to remind the Corinthian saints that, if he had reminded them of the peculiar bond between them and him, as their father through the gospel, he had power and authority from God, however slow he might be to enforce it. It was for them indeed, as he puts it, to decide how he was to come, for this was the real question, not whether, nor when, but how: with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness? What he desired himself, as he says elsewhere, was their edification, not their destruction. In Acts 5 we see Peter using the rod; and the apostle Paul could do as much according to the Lord. But his heart sought other things for his beloved children: what did they wish?

* It seems to me, therefore, that Calvin did not duly see the connection with what the apostle had just pressed, or he would not have said that the person who divided the epistle into chapters ought to have made 4: 21 the beginning of chapter 5. These chapters appear to be better divided as they are.

1 Corinthians 5.

Grave reason there was why the apostle should speak of such an alternative as "a rod." For the assembly at Corinth had at present no happy name, if common rumour were true.

"Universal report is of fornication among you, and such fornication as [is] not even among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who hath done this deed might be taken out of the midst of you." (Vers. 1, 2.) It was distressing enough that so monstrous an evil should have found an entrance in the assembly of God. But what grieved the apostle most — as well it might — was the tolerance of the offender in their midst. The assembly cannot hinder a Christian from falling into the worst scandal, but it is bound to deal with evil as identified with Christ before God and man. Here below this is the reason of its being. It is the temple of God, as he had urged in chapter 3 for a warning against trashy and corrupting theories; but if that holy habitation of God through the Spirit be inconsistent with false teaching, certainly and yet more manifestly with immorality. Now there was in their midst grossness beyond the heathen — a brother, so-called, living with his step-mother!

Granted that the Corinthian assembly was young in the knowledge of the Lord, and few, if any, men of spiritual experience were among them. Gifts they had abundantly; but elders are nowhere hinted at, as indeed we know they were not, and could not be, in an infantine state of things. And divine wisdom, I doubt not, selected this state rather than one more mature and fully furnished, in order the better to provide for the exigencies of a day like ours.

But surely the youngest saints ought at least to have been appalled at such sin where God's Spirit dwelt. They might have had no special teaching on discipline, nor previous cases of evil, while the apostle was with them. But why did they not mourn that he who had wrought such evil in the assembly might be taken away? Humiliation and prayer are the resource of those who feel a wrong, and know not yet the remedy: and the Lord would have acted for them, or given them to act for Him. Instead of this they were "puffed up" — a grievous aggravation of the mischief. I will not go so far as to assume that the offender was one of those, of whom they were proud, and who helped the carnal multitude to carp at the apostle; but it seems plain enough that the self-exalting doctrine and the bad morality went together in his mind. Had they allowed into their hearts the germ of that unholy idea, so rife in modern and even evangelical circles, that the evil of another is not to be judged, but each is solely to judge himself? It is to the destruction of God's glory in the church. For what can more directly strike at all common union in good, all corporate responsibility for evil? Where such thoughts are suffered, it is plain that the presence of the Holy Ghost is either ignored or forgotten; for no believer will deliberately say that He can be a partner of iniquity, and this He must be if evil is known and unjudged where He dwells.

Seriously, as one familiar with the presence of God, and not like those whose self-esteem or vanity led them to evil in the assembly, does the apostle speak. It was that power of God in which he would have acted if present. "For I, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present, in the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ], ye and my spirit being gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus [Christ], [concerning] him that so wrought this — to deliver such an one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (Ver. 3-5.)

It thoroughly fell within the province of the apostle to help the church at such an emergency, as indeed it was his joy at all times. For an apostle regulated and governed, and in this differed from such as were prophets without being apostles. But here was the assembly at Corinth, his own children in the faith, ensnared into the grossest dishonour on the Lord's name, and withal puffed up, instead of mourning in order that the offender might be removed out of their midst. He proceeds therefore to pronounce the only judgment open to such a case. "For I,* absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged as present [concerning]† him that so wrought this." The best authorities thus give the sense. "As" comes in to modify the second "present," not the first, which is sufficiently qualified by "in spirit," contrasted with "absent in body." In the second case the very reverse is intended, and "as" is indispensable (for he means as if actually there), whereas in the first it would be improper. He then shows the authority for, and manner of, dealing with the person: "in the name of our‡ Lord Jesus (ye being gathered, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus), to deliver such an one to Satan for destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

* A B C Dp.m. six cursives, Pesch. Syr. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. with ancient Greek and Latin fathers, omit ὡς before "absent in body."

† The grammar seems a little harsh, but it is in order to give special prominence to the guilty person, who follows παραδοῦναι as τ. τ.

‡ A, etc., raise a question as to ἡμῶν here.

This has been confounded, especially since Calvin's time, with excommunication. But delivering to Satan is power here associated with the assembly, as the conferring of a gift is in 1 Timothy 4: 14 with imposition of the hands of the elderhood. In both cases the result hinges on apostolic power. But the absence of this in no way enfeebles the duty of putting away the guilty professor, as is carefully laid down in verse 13

Our Lord indeed had Himself set forth the principle in Matthew 18, and provided for its maintenance in the worst of times. He had put the assembly as the last resort, even for a case which began with an individual trespass; for I do not doubt, spite of the omission of εἰς δέ, "against thee," in verse 15 (according to the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts, supported by three cursives, etc.), that they are genuine, resting as they do on most ample ancient authority, and falling in exactly with the context, which is embarrassed by the omission — an omission easily accounted for by the similarity of their sound in a Greek's mouth to the last two syllables of the preceding word. If the matter then were told to the assembly, and the offender should not heed it, "let him be to thee as the heathen and the tax-gatherer." But the Lord gives what is general and abiding: "Verily, I say to you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven." This goes beyond the enforcement or removal of a sentence on evil to the more general authority of the assembly as acting for Christ. Next, He shows the efficacy of its united prayer, even if but two agreed in asking: "Again, I say to you, that if two of you agree on the earth about whatever they may ask, it shall come to them from my Father that is in the heavens;" and this on a ground which takes in not merely a meeting for judicial decision or prayer but every assembly of the church as such: "for where two or three are gathered together to my name, there am I in the midst of them." For the authority of the assembly or the validity of its action in these matters of practice and conduct depends, not in any way on its numbers or the weight of the persons composing it, but on Christ who guarantees His presence where but two or three are gathered together to His name.

This is clearly urged by the apostle in verse 4. If Satan had sought to alienate the Corinthians from Paul, he at least joins himself in spirit with them, as gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus, in His name to deliver the incestuous Corinthian to Satan. If flesh had been indulged shamelessly, flesh must be galled and broken to pieces under the adversary's hand, but for good in the end at any rate — "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." In fact, as the second epistle shows, the discipline was blessed to him in this world also; but the end specified cannot fail for all born of God, whatever may be the hindrances here, or the particular shape of God's dealing with the soul. For there is a sin unto death, and in such a case to make request of God would be an error. In the present instance it was not so; awful as the sin was: and the man not only did not fall asleep, but was brought to the deepest abasement and grief, and the apostle called on the saints to forgive, as doubtless they did.

As yet the Corinthians had no sense how they themselves were implicated in this frightful evil, and, what is more important, how the Lord's name was compromised by it. On the contrary they were high-minded, and levity prevailed. "Therefore," says the apostle, "your boasting [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened. For also our passover, Christ, was sacrificed. Wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth." (Ver. 6-8.)

There cannot be a more serious principle for the practical and public walk of the church. Evil is here presented under the symbol of leaven. Not only may it exist among saints, but its nature is to work, spread, and assimilate the mass to itself. The apostle insists that it shall never be tolerated. Here it is moral evil, in Galatians doctrinal; and of the two the latter is the more insidious, because more specious. It does not shock the conscience so immediately, or strongly, if at all. To the natural mind evil doctrine is but a difference of opinion, and the generous heart shrinks from proscribing a man for an opinion however erroneous. The church stands on wholly different ground, because it stands in Christ on high and has the Holy Ghost dwelling in it here below. No assembly can guarantee itself against the entrance of evil, but every assembly of God is bound not to tolerate it. When evil is known, the church is bound to put it away. Elsewhere we may find details in dealing with it. There are those who may be specially fitted not only to discern but to apply moral power, and they are responsible to act faithfully to Christ whose the church is. It is no question, where known evil is persisted in, of exercising compassion, still less of cloaking it. This would be connivance with Satan against the Lord, and the ruin, not only of the individual already ensnared, but of the assembly. When the assembly knows evil, and either forbears to judge through indifference, or (still worse) refuses it when appealed to according to the word of God, it is playing false to the name of the Lord, and can no longer be regarded as God's assembly after adequate means to arouse have failed.

Bad as the state of things in Corinth was, the evil had arrived at no such footing as yet. It was humbling that their consciences were not yet wakened up beyond perhaps individuals, who communicated facts to the apostle or others who sympathised with their uneasiness. The mass, if they knew, acted as if they knew not, and were proud and puffed up instead of being abased in sorrow but in prayer to God. So early did the notion creep in that sin in the church belongs only to those directly guilty, that it does not involve all, and that the Lord Himself forbids others to judge, commanding tares and wheat to grow together till the harvest. Is it needful to expose such unholy and ignorant sophistry? "The field is the world," not the church.

Now comes the grave warning of the apostle in Christ's faithful love to the church. The tolerance of evil in any part vitiates the whole. It virtually commits the Holy Ghost to the sanction of what God hates. No interpretation can be more contrary to the spirit of the apostle's admonition than that which supposes that the whole is only leavened when every part is saturated with the leaven. It is really meant that a little leaven gives its character to the whole lump. Even the late Dean Alford (though far from sound generally in doctrine, strict in ecclesiastical principle, or firm for the glory of Christ) speaks incomparably better than those brethren who debase the holy name of love to mean license for their friends or themselves. "That this is the meaning," says he, "and not 'that a little leaven will if not purged out leaven the whole lump,' is manifest from the point in hand, namely, the inconsistency of their boasting: which would not appear by their danger of corruption hereafter, but by their character being actually lost. One of them was a fornicator of a fearfully depraved kind, tolerated and harboured: by this fact the character of the whole was tainted."* (Comment on 1 Cor. 5)

* The italics are the Dean's. I quote his words in no way as authoritative, but as a just rebuke of an unholy principle and aim by one who might be thought rather disposed to palliate evil. Much more guilty are those who should know and do better.

The apostle therefore charges them to purge out the old leaven, that they might be fresh dough, "according as ye are unleavened." This is of high importance. The saints are unleavened, not merely ought to be. Their practical conduct is grounded on their standing. All efforts to deny the purity of the church are from the enemy. The apostle, writing even to the Corinthians, reminds them of this, and insists upon it. He recalls them to what God's grace had done for them. He rouses their conscience to act consistently with and for Christ. Never does he think of allowing sin, because saints have the old man as well as the new. Was not the old man crucified with Christ? If God has already executed sentence upon it, there is no excuse for allowing it. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set every believer free. Not only has he a new nature, but the Holy Ghost to work in it by the word and grace of Christ. They were unleavened then and must purge out the old leaven. The very object of God was to form the church in purity for Christ and according to Christ in this world, and the responsibility of the saints is to walk individually and corporately according to Him. His word makes His will plain.

But the figure of an unleavened lump at once recalls Christ as the true paschal lamb, and the consequent putting away of sin by His sacrifice. This deepens the ground on which the apostle demands that sin should be judged by the saints if through unwatchfulness any one had fallen into sin and repented not. The feast of unleavened bread was bound up with the passover, as every Israelite knew. This is turned to practical account here. "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth." There might be new forms of evil besides those of old habits and associations. But as. all leaven had to be shut out by the Jew, so the Christian is solemnly called to deal unsparingly with evil in every shape.

Further, it seems to me of some importance to remark that this does not mean only at the table of the Lord on His day. The seven days of the Jewish institution represent the whole term of our stay on earth; and the celebration of the feast covers therefore the full time of each here below. Nothing inconsistent with Christ morally is tolerable in the Christian, and this not now and then but continuously. Such is the teaching of these types which the New Testament unveils and enforces. Beyond doubt the true light now shines. Redemption, far from allowing of sins in the redeemed, is the basis of holiness, and all evil was only then fully judged when Christ our passover was crucified. Before that how much was borne with because of the hardness of men's hearts! Now that it has been condemned in the cross of Christ and consequently in grace to the believer, we are told to yield our members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Freed from sin and become servants to God we have our fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life. Anything short of this is not Christianity.

The apostle now lays down the direction of the Lord as to unworthy confessors of His name in the assembly. Those at Corinth did not know how such should be dealt with; but why did they not at least pray and mourn? Why were they puffed up?

" I have written to you in the epistle not to mix with fornicators;* not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or the covetous and† rapacious, or idolatrous, since [in that case] ye must go out of the world. But now I have written to you, if any one called a brother be* a fornicator, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, not to mix with [him], with such an one not even to eat. For what [is it] to me to judge those without?†† Do ye not judge those within? But those without God judgeth.‡ Put|| out the wicked person from among your own selves." (Vers. 9-18.)

* The best MSS. ( p.m. A B C D E Fp.m. 17, 46, 93, vv. and father.) omit καί, which T. R. puts with L P, etc., some vv. and ff.

† καί in A B C Dp.m. F G P and some cursives, for ἤ, as in T. R

* ῃ Elz., ἤ Steph. several uncials and vv.

†† A B C F, etc. VV. omit kaiv.

‡ κρίνει L and many more, κρινεῖ Bc. P, etc.

|| καί here D3 L, contrary to A B C Dp.m. F G P, etc.

There appears no sufficient reason a priori, why an inspired apostle might not have written an epistle which God meant to lapse after accomplishing its end, without filling a constant place in the scriptures. Hence there would be no difficulty, to my mind, if allusion were here made to an epistle of Paul which was never included in the canon. But where is the evidence that this is the fact, or that any other epistle is here intended than the one he is writing? In the latter case, the tense used would be what is called the epistolary aorist. It is in vain then to say, "not this present epistle," which the phrase means as naturally as a former letter which has not come down to us. (Compare Rom. 16: 22; Col. 4: 16; 1 Thess. 5: 27; 2 Thess. 3: 14.) Indeed 2 Corinthians 7: 8 is the only instance that exemplifies a reference to a former letter, as the context necessitates, where the contrast is plain between the two letters. But there is nothing of the sort to determine here. As the usage the other way is far more frequent, so the sense is excellent, if we understand the actual epistle we have to be in view. The notion of a previous letter involves the inference that the present is a correction of their misunderstanding of a former command of his as regards keeping company with fornicators; but this appears gratuitous. So is the idea that there must be something in the preceding part of this epistle bearing on the point; for it is quite sufficient for the passage that he should be so instructing them now. That he must be referring to what went before is simply to deny the epistolary sense of the aorist. Again ἐν τῃ ἐπιστολῃ, far from being irrelevant and superfluous, if he meant the letter in which he was now engaged, is full of force and precision. "I have written to you in [not "an" but] the epistle not to keep company with fornicators." He was exhorting to this effect now. This he proceeds to qualify: "not absolutely [or in all cases] with the fornicators of this world, or the covetous and rapacious, or idolatrous, since [in that case] ye must go out of the world. But now [or as the case stands] I have written to you not to keep company, if any one called a brother be," etc. Here the same tense is used for what must be allowed to be what he is going to say in the present epistle; the νυνί only serving to distinguish the guarded sentence, a more definite application of the principle in verse 11, from the general statement in verse 9.

In short the apostle is showing that brotherly intercourse is restricted to brethren, and so is discipline: to extend either to men of the world is false ground, and would make intercourse with people at large impossible. Christian companionship, on the other hand, demands purity of life on the part of those who enjoy it. If any one called a brother be impure, or covetous, or idolatrous, or abusive, or a drunkard, or rapacious, one is not to mix with him: "with such an one not even to eat." The meaning is, not that we ought not to take the Lord's supper, but not to eat the least meal with him. The corrupt or violent professor of Christ is to be avoided even in an ordinary social act, not merely on the most solemn occasion of christian worship.

The closing verses explain why this limitation ought to be. "For what [have] I [to] do with judging those without? Do not ye judge those within? But those without God judgeth. Put out the wicked person from among your own selves." (Vers 12, 18.) The world is not the sphere of divine judgment as yet, but His children, whom the Father judges without respect of persons, as the church is bound to do. By-and-by the world will be not only judged but condemned. (1 Cor. 11) Therefore should the believer so much the more seek to judge himself: else grace would be of ill report, as if seeking to Bloke evil. But even if he fail, the Lord does not, who chastens by a divine judgment that he should not be condemned with the world.

Those without then are not the actual arena for apostolic or church judgment, but those within, as God deals with the rest in due time. The church cannot evade their duty; strong or weak, they must stand clear in this respect before God. The saints may not be able to deliver to Satan, but are bound to put out from among themselves the wicked person. But they are not called on to put out any one who is not "wicked." There are other steps in discipline which should never be forgotten, as rebuke in some cases, and withdrawment in others. It is false and mischievous that every offender should be thus removed; none should be but the wicked. In their case it is imperative, otherwise communion no longer exists according to Christ. It is not the entrance of the worst possible evil that destroys the character of the assembly, but the deliberate toleration of evil, were it even the least. Only we have to take care in judging that it be done in the word and Spirit of God. Unity that subsists by allowing known evil in its midst is of Satan, and directly opposed to God's object in His assembly, which is responsible to reflect the character of Christ now in holiness, as it will by-and-by in glory.

1 Corinthians 6.

We have now to encounter a worldly evil among the Corinthian saints, as distinguished from the fleshly state and the corruption which have already passed before us.

"Dare any of you having a matter against another, go to law [seek judgment] before the unjust and not before the saints?" (Ver. 1.) Here modern practice, or even thought, greatly differs from apostolic principle. Christians now-a-days have little conscience in appealing to a worldly tribunal. It is evident that the Holy Ghost felt it to be an outrage, nor could any Christian walking rightly think of prosecuting a suit before the world against another however wrong. He must forget what God accounts each to be: the world, as having rejected His Son; the saints, as those that are by grace separated from it to God.

Here however the apostle grounds his reproof on the anomaly of seeking judgment at the hands of those whom we shall judge at Christ's coming. "*Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy of the least judgments? Do ye not know that we shall judge angels? Much more things of this life. If then ye have judgments in things of this life, set up those who are of no esteem in the church." (Ver. 2-4.) The apostle thus brings in the light of the coming day to bear upon present matters. This is certain from verse 8, if any one could question verse 2. In vain the efforts of ancients (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, etc.) to make it moral, or of moderns (Mosheim, Rosenmüller, etc.) to make it political and worldly. The future judgment of the quick in the kingdom of our Lord is a reality that acts on the apostle now. He uses it to judge the conduct of every day. How can it be a living truth if it operate not thus? Even the Corinthians did not doubt the fact as to the future; but, like all unspiritual persons, they had let it slip now where they ought to have remembered it.

* A B C Dp.m. F G P, at least ten cursives, etc., read ἤ omitted in Tex, Rec. on the authority of two or three uncials and most cursives.

It is evident however that "that day" was a truth so familiar and admitted on all sides by the saints that Paul could reason from it as unquestionable. The saints have the same life now, and the same Spirit; they have also the word of God. How monstrous then thus to ignore the glory with Christ to which grace calls them, and to fall into the ways of men! To faith it was the grossest inconsistency; for if the world is judged by the saints, are they unworthy of the "least judgments?" Such were and are the questions on which men usually go to law. Nor is it only the world but other beings the saints are to judge. "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? Much more things in this life."

The future judgment of the world and of angels has slipped away from Christians generally. They believe in the judgment of the dead, not of the living; and hence the ground of the apostle's appeal no longer exists for them. Scriptures such as these become unreal to their minds. So far they are practically infidel; and necessarily their practice is worldly in this respect. Alas! it is only a sample, not an exception. The difficult times of the last days are come, when men are lovers of self and of money, boastful and arrogant, abusive and disobedient to parents, lovers of pleasure rather than of God, having a form of piety but denying its power. From these we are commanded to turn away. Scripture is the grand resource; and this, not forgetting the apostle's conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecution, suffering, and the certainty that all who desire to live piously in Christ shall be persecuted, while wicked men and impostors grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. The time is come when men will not bear sound teaching, but according to their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having itching ears, turning away from the truth as decidedly as they have turned aside to fables. What more mischievous delusion than a millennium to be brought in by the church's testimony and labours? It will really follow divine judgment when the Lord Himself comes, who, after executing it, will pour out the Spirit afresh on all flesh, when they see the salvation of God.

The Corinthians were not so far gone as the Christians of our day. They were well aware that the saints shall judge the world: only selfishness had dulled their remembrance of it. The Spirit of God now recalls the truth to them, and appeals to their sense of the evident incongruity that those who are to judge the world on the grandest scale were accounting themselves in feet unworthy of the smallest judgments. Such no doubt were those that could be then before the Corinthian brethren, whereas by-and-by the gravest will be held by them when glorified. And the apostle makes the inconsistency more pungently felt by characterising the world as the "unjust" and themselves as "the saints" — nay, by reminding them that we shall judge angels. Surely then things pertaining to this life between brethren ought not to go farther! Where was their faith and their love? Where their hope?

Some interpreters, as we know, take verse 4 interrogatively, others sarcastically. There seems no particular reason for the former, Matters of this life require no more than good sense and honesty; and surely the possession of these would not constitute a claim for honour in the church. Brethren might have both, and be little esteemed there, where the grace and power of Christ alone constitute such a claim. The decision of those matters in no way called for high spirituality. Indeed the apostle says, "I speak to your shame. Thus there is not among you one wise [man] who shall be able to decide between brethren" (literally, "brother [and brother]"). "But brother goeth to law with brother, and this before unbelievers. Already therefore* it is altogether a fault in you that ye go to law among yourselves. Why are ye not rather wronged? why are ye not rather defrauded? But ye do wrong and defraud, and this,† brethren." (Ver. 5-8.)

* p m. Dp.m., several cursives, etc., omit οὖν.

† So it is, τοῦτο, in A B C D E P, etc.; ταῦτα in Tex. Rec., with L and most cursives, etc.

It is clear that the apostle in no way wished such disputes to be brought, in the first instance at least, before the assembly. The gravest cases should be, not lighter ones. Had they not even one wise man to decide them? He is slighting such questions as well as reproving themselves for their worldliness; and their moral state was worse to him than their lack of wisdom. The Christian is called to suffer, even when he does well, and to take it patiently, not to go to law. The Corinthians were sadly forgetful of the true glory of the church; and when Christians thus forget their proper standing and the conduct that suite it, they cease to walk even as upright men should. "Ye do wrong and defraud, and this, brethren." Nor is it so surprising, when we consider that it never was intended that Christians should walk well except by faith, any more than Peter could walk on the waves without looking to Christ. When he ceased to look to Him, he begins to sink at once, less safe than those who had never ventured out of the ship.

Failure in faith and hope too, I must repeat, will soon be found to involve failure in love. "Ye do wrong and defraud, and this, brethren." All through from first to last, it was a direct dishonour to God, and a false testimony to their relationship to Him, if indeed they were born of God. His sense of their failure as Christians does not lessen his horror at the dishonesty or other wrong which provoked the law-suits. "Know ye not that unjust [men] shall not inherit God's kingdom? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers of themselves as women, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor rapacious, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit God's kingdom." (Vers. 9, 10.) It is clear that the apostle, without confining himself to the actual case, is exposing severely the habits so common at Corinth — corruption much more than violence. He is speaking for profit and for solemn warning as the Holy Ghost always does, if He touches sin at all. He is not beating the air, nor denouncing sins only found elsewhere. Fleshly add worldly licence would surely end, if unjudged, in revolting excesses. Tampering with a little evil is the straight road to more and worse, and in none so certainly as the professing Christian. To indulge in any evil is in works to deny Christ. The business of a Christian is to manifest Him. The Corinthian saints were in danger of slipping back into the vilest ways of human corruption.

"And these things were some of you." This would give Satan an advantage if they looked away from Christ. Old habits then resume their power, and evil communications corrupt good manners. Then he adds, "But ye were washed" [literally, "had yourselves washed"], "but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus [Christ]* and by the Spirit of our God." (Ver. 11.) He reminds them of the gracious power of God in Christ on whom they believed by the action of His Spirit; and will not allow that this could be all in vain. In ἀπελούσασθε there may be an allusion to the administrative sign, as in Acts 22: 16; but the connection here points rather to the reality signified. The sanctification is clearly the setting apart of the Christian to God which the Holy Spirit effects in conversion, rather than the practical holiness which He afterwards works to make good, the former being absolute as the latter is relative. This is shown conclusively by its preceding justification, which has here of course its regular sense, when the soul is not only born of God but stands acquitted of all charge before Him through the work of Christ, and is then sealed by the Spirit.

* Χριστού is here read by B C D p.m. E P, some cursives, and almost all the ancient versions, etc.

The apostle turns next to fleshly abuses: the first in respect of meats, the second and gravest in fornication. He had shown that, whatever the grace of God is in calling the vilest, all such are saved after a holy sort. This he now exemplifies in two instances where some pleaded liberty to deny practical purity. Of this he will not hear. He will not diminish liberty one jot, but he asserts its character to be Christian, as all our other privileges are. If not of Christ, it is sin. So is it with all we boast: life, righteousness, peace, and glory. In this liberty differs not from the rest. What Christian could wish any of these in or for the flesh? It would be to abandon the Second man for the first: to wish licence for sin proves utter lack of love and honour for the Saviour.

"All things are lawful to me, but all things do not profit; all things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God will bring to nought both it and them; but the body [is] not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us by his power. Know ye not, that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then taking the members of Christ make [them] members of a harlot? Let it not be. What!* Know ye not that he that is joined to the harlot is one body? For, saith he, the two [shall be] one flesh. But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin which a man may practise is outside the body, but the fornicator sinneth against his own body. What! Know ye not that your body† is a temple of the Holy Spirit that [is] in you, which ye have from God; and ye are not your own? For ye were bought with a price: do then glorify God in your body."‡ (Ver. 12-20.)

* ἤ is read by A B C F G P and other authorities.

† to; σῶμα Ap.m. B C D E F G K P, etc,; τὰ σώματα Ap.m. L, many cursives, etc.

‡ The common reading καὶ ἐν τῳ πνεύματι ὑμῆν, ἅτινά ἐστι τοῦ θεοῦ is absent from A B Cs.m. Dp.m. E F G, and many excellent witnesses.

If all things are lawful to the Christian, certainly all do not profit. As Christ never did what did not profit, so neither should the Christian. He is free, but it is only according to Christ for good, and this in love, the good of others. But there is another guard: if all things are lawful to the Christian, he refuses to be brought under the power of anything: were it not so, it would be bondage, not liberty. Thus to have regard for others' good must be kept up, as well the liberty itself intact. The Christian is called to serve others, never to be the slave of a habit in anything great or small.

The first application of the apostle is to meats, which he deals with in terms so curtly contemptuous as to decide the question for every godly soul. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God will bring to nought both it and them;" He then points out an analogy as forcible as it is surprising and withal no less true: they mutually suit one another, and both perish under God's dealing. They are but temporary. It was the more striking, as coming through one who had been a Jew to those who had been Gentiles; and all know the place meats had in Judaism. But Christianity brings in the light of God and of the future for our present guidance; as we see in the second case still more at length. For "the body is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." If the belly is put down to its true and passing use, the body is exalted to a place of which philosophy knew nothing. As it was not formed for unhallowed or promiscuous indulgence, so it is for the Lord and the Lord is for it.

Never was the honour of the body set in its true light till Christ came and proved it not only in His own person as man but in ours as redeemed by His blood and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. (Compare Rom. 6: 12, 13, 19; Rom. 8: 10; Rom. 12: 1 ; Col. 2: 23; 1 Thess. 4: 4; 1 Thess. 5: 23; 1 Tim. 4: 3-5.) Even now the Lord disdains not this temple of the Spirit: how much less when changed into the likeness of His glory? (Rom. 8: 11, 18-23; Phil. 3: 21.) In this body we shall have the portion of our Lord. For "God both raised the Lord and will raise up us by his power." (See 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 4: 14.)

It is not merely that our spirits go to be with the Lord in heaven; our bodies shall be raised like His at His coming, as many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of their graves after His resurrection. For if death shows man's weakness, resurrection displays God's power. The actual spiritual effect of this is immense. Not our souls but our bodies are declared to be members of Christ. Those who descant on the soul only may claim a superior elevation. But it is never really so in practice or in theory. On the contrary the immortality of the soul is easily perverted to man's pride; not so the resurrection, which not only exalts God and humbles man but delivers from present ease and indulgence where it is held in faith. Of this the Holy Spirit is the earnest, who joins us to the Lord and constitutes our bodies members of Christ. Hence the enormity of fornication. (Vers. 15, 16.) How basely inconsistent with such intimacy, yea union, is impurity with a harlot! It was the more needful to urge this on a city more than any other noted for this sort of licence, besides the broad fact that the heathen in general regarded fornication as an indifferent act like eating and not as in itself a sin. "The two, saith he, shall be one flesh; but he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit." (Vers. 16, 17.)

But its incongruity with our relation to Christ is not all that the apostle urges. Fornication he would have avoided earnestly, because of its peculiar character, differing as it does from every other sin in this that it is against the body itself, while others are external to it. How dreadful then to think not merely of the body so misused, but the Christian's body, temple of the Holy Spirit as it is! not from any mere consecration to Him but from His being in us, and this from God, on the ground of purchase by Christ's blood. Therefore the apostle's appeal to glorify God in their body.

It was only because of Christ's work that the Holy Spirit could thus be given to us and dwell in us. He quickened souls before Christ shed His blood, but He never sealed them till after. Jesus, the Holy One of God, is the sole example of man so sealed without blood. But He is the exception that proves the rule. Adam was not, because, though innocent, he was not holy nor is ever said to have been; the Second man was, and only He apart from redemption; and therefore was He sealed by God the Father in virtue and witness of His intrinsic perfection. If we can be and are, it is solely in virtue of being perfected by His one offering, and we are therefore exhorted not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption (that is, of our bodies). The Spirit given is the expression of God's love shed abroad in our hearts; He is also the measure by which we should try our conduct, and the power of enjoying and representing Christ aright. Bought then so that we are not our own but God's, we are called accordingly to glorify God in our body. A wondrous fact to be assured of on divine authority that such as we by grace can and should glorify God!

These then are the motives for us. We are bought with a price, and we have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. "Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit that is in you, which ye have from God; and ye are not your own? For ye were bought with a price." It enhances the presence of the Spirit in us when we are told that we have Him from God. It could not be otherwise of course; but to have it thus stated is precious and solemn God would have us to remember and feel that it is from Him we have the Spirit thus given.

But let us not forget that it is in our body we are to glorify God. Many a one deceives himself in the thought that he is all right in spirit, though he dare not say that he keeps his body under and brings it into subjection. The Christian is bound to glorify God in his body.

So in the consecration of the priests under the law (Lev. 8) we may see that the washing of water preceded the putting on of blood, and the anointing of oil closed the matter. It is just the same order of truth which is discernible here, and which is true of the Christian in fact. Of old followed the duties of the priestly office according to the instructions of Jehovah; as we see the Christian here exhorted to glorify God. What a claim! How God values the spirit, ways, communion, and conduct of the Christian! How lowering to the standard when, like the Corinthians, we forget that we are no longer men striving to walk with decency through the world, but our body the temple of the Holy Ghost and ourselves the purchase of Christ's blood, and with such an aim set before us as glorifying God! The unbelief of believers is the delight of the adversary and the saddest hindrance to His glory in and by us. It is the fertile source of every failure and of the most grievous sins in the saints. It is the main stumbling-block for every serious man in the world. It makes the glorifying of God an impossibility. May we be enabled then to meet the simplest matter of every-day propriety in the faith that is familiar with the richest and highest displays of God's grace in the redemption of Christ and the gift of the Spirit!

1 Corinthians 7.

We now enter on a fresh division of the Epistle, though the opening of it is naturally connected with (at least, so as to follow) the apostle's exhortation to personal purity, which he has just shown to be due to the Holy Ghost's presence, as well as the Lord's purchase of us: our consequent call is to glorify God in our body.

It seems that the saints in Corinth had written, among other topics, about marriage, and the various questions it naturally raised for the Christians as yet little versed in the truth. From the laxity of heathen, especially of the Greeks and above all the Corinthians, there was a reaction toward asceticism, that favourite resource of moralists and philosophers in the East, which had thence spread more or less into the West. The apostle urges holiness, but not at the expense of liberty in Christ.

"But concerning the things of which ye write to me, [it is] good for a man not to touch a woman; but on account of fornications, let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. To the wife let the husband render his due, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The wife hath not authority over her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, unless by consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency." (Ver. 1-5.)

When Adam was made, Jehovah said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a help meet for him. And so He builded the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. It was he who still later wrote to the Hebrews, Let marriage be every way honourable, and the bed undefiled. Here he in no way contradicts it or differs. He is in full unison with his Master (in Matthew 19 and Mark 10) who vindicated God's original institution from creation for man in the flesh, whatever the law might allow in view of the hardness of men's hearts, though he maintained the superior excellence of the unmarried state, where there was power to be undividedly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every saint. All cannot receive it, but those to whom it has been given If any one is able, let him receive it: if he boast, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises. The Lord and His apostle both caution souls. Grace may call and strengthen to live above what is not only lawful but honourable every way; and surely, if kept thus in lowliness, the former is the better portion.

But there are snares through nature as it is; and nowhere was there reason to fear more from the habits and associations of the place than at Corinth. Heathenism in some cases consecrated fornication. Because of the licentious ways, there and then of the commonest occurrence but at all times a danger, let each have his own wife, and each have her own husband. Mutual consideration to the last degree becomes both in a relationship where they that were two are no longer so but one. Grace, if it lift above nature in certain cases for the Lord's glory, enforces the honour and duties of those who are in a natural relationship. It is the sure mark of the enemy, where grace is perverted to put contempt on the least or lowest ordering of God. If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims. Hence the husband was to pay her due to the wife, and in like manner the wife to the husband. The married estate is inconsistent with independence of each other in all that pertains to it. The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband; and in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife. Hence they were not to defraud or wrongfully deprive one another, unless by consent for a time, that they might be free for prayer and again be together, lest Satan should tempt them for their incontinency. The law made nothing perfect. Christ vindicated God's mind and will as to the first man, but Himself was the manifestation of God in man. So does the apostle speak of marriage in words far above the thoughts and ways of Israel. What is first was never so fully stated before; but grace, as ever, presents a better thing.

"But this I say by way of permission, not by way of command. Now I wish all men to be even as myself; but each hath his own gift of God, one this way, and another that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows: It is good for them that they remain even as I. But if they have not self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn." (Vers. 6-9.) Thus did the Holy Spirit lead the large-hearted apostle to write, in what he had laid down, declaring that it was not as a commandment, but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as himself. But he does not overlook that each has as God gives him. Hence to the unmarried and to widows he says, it is good for them to remain even as he; yet even then not absolutely, but only in case they can without fear of sinning in this respect.

"But to the married, not I enjoin, but the Lord, that wife be not separated from husband (but if also she be separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and that husband leave: [or put away] not wife." (Vers. 10, 11.) Here it was no fresh direction from apostolic authority, but the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known, the general duty of man and wife, grounded on the indissolubleness of the tie. Wife was not to be parted from husband, nor husband to dismiss wife: if parted, she was to abide unmarried, or be reconciled; for, even if she were without fault; separation is a reproach and might be a snare.

Next we have the apostle inspired to add light as to present difficulties, and this not at all a repetition of the principle for Israel, but in contrast with it. "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, If any brother have an unbelieving wife, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not leave [or put away] her; and a woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he consents to dwell with her, let her not leave [or put away] him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife,* and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother;** since then your children are unclean, but now are they holy." (Vers. 12-14.) Here it was the grave question of mixed marriages, where one of the parties already united, and not the other, had been won to Christ by the gospel. In this the grace of Christianity is strikingly contra-distinguished from the rigour of Judaism. (Compare Ezra 9: 10.) One of the ways in which Israel abode a holy people was in refusing to mix with the heathen in marriage. Those who thus intermarried, or took strange wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean; when they felt and judged the sin, they proved it by not only offering a ram for the trespass but putting both away. The holiness of the Christian is not only intrinsic, instead of being fleshly and external, but there is a far more gracious consideration, and a largeness, of which the law knew little or nothing. Thus, if husband or wife were a believer, he or she was not defiled by union with the unbeliever, but contrariwise the unbeliever is sanctified, and the children are holy.

* The best MSS ( A B C K L Q, etc.) do not give τῃ πιστῃ as in D E F G and some ancient versions

** ἀδελφῳ is read by p m. A B a D p.m. E F G P, etc., ἀνδρί by the mass, and by almost all the ancient versions.

In this way does the Spirit of God comfort the believer whose wife or husband, as the case might be, still remained an unbeliever; for I presume it was as true of an Israelite as of a heathen. It was of course a grievous trial to be so united. If the believer were the wife, she might be suspected and thwarted at every turn by her unbelieving husband. He would naturally be vigilant that the children should be kept from Christian truth and privileges of every kind, and would himself show his contempt for that which his wife valued, resenting above all the calm confidence of faith that counted idols nothing and confessed the Lord Jesus before men. But she is here instructed and strengthened by the apostolic injunction. If her husband consented to dwell with her, spite of that confession, she was not called to quit or put away her unbelieving husband, for he was sanctified in her, as the children were holy. What a relief this must have been to godly but scrupulous souls, who had been brought to God by the gospel, after being married to Gentiles or Jews, with children brought up in Judaism or idolatry! Were they troubled when they read in the scriptures that of old the requirement was to abandon the ill-assorted wife and the children so born? The grace of the gospel, as the apostle shows, delivers from all uncertainty as to God's mind, and pronounces the unbeliever, whether husband or wife, to be sanctified in the believing correlative, and the children holy, not profane.

We have seen then the striking contrast between the gracious power of the gospel and the weakness of the law: under the one, the unbeliever sanctified in the believing relation and the fruit of their union holy; under the other, the Jew defiled and the children unclean.

But it may be well here to notice the use made of verse 14 by both the parties to the baptismal dispute. Thus writes Dr. Wall in his "History of Infant Baptism" (I. , 144, 5, Ed. 4,1819):

"Mr. Walker has taken the pains to produce quotations out of almost all the ancient writers, to show that this was a common phrase with them to say, an infant or other person sanctified, when they mean baptized; and I do, for brevity's sake, refer the reader to his book. The scripture also uses it so (1 Cor. 6: 11; Eph. 5: 26), which makes that explication of 1 Corinthians 7: 14, 'Now are your children holy,' which is given by Tertullian, St. Austin, St. Hierom, Paulinus, Pelagius (chap. 19), and other ancients, and since by Dr. Hammond, Mr. Walker, etc., much the more probable; whereby they make the words (ἅγια) holy, and (ἡγίασται), has been sanctified, to refer to baptism. — Their explication is also the more probable, because there has no other sense of those words been yet given by expositors but what is liable to much contest; but especially that sense which some Antipaedo-baptists have endeavoured to affix to them (of legitimacy, in opposition to bastardy) seems the most forced and far-fetched of all. The words are ἡγίασται, κ. τ. λ. Τhe grammatical translation of which words is, 'For the unbelieving husband [or an unbelieving husband] has been sanctified by the wife;' . . . . and our translators altered the tense, and put is sanctified instead of has been sanctified; because they thought, it seems, the sense required it; but without any such alteration, the paraphrase given by many learned men is to this purpose: — For it has ordinarily come to pass, that an unbelieving husband has been brought to the faith, and so to baptism, by his wife; and likewise an unbelieving wife by her husband. If it were not so, and if the wickedness or infidelity of the unbelieving party did usually prevail, the children of such would be generally kept unbaptized, and so be unclean; but now we see, by the grace of God, a contrary effect, for they are generally baptized, and so become holy, or sanctified."

The intelligent Christian will see that, the ancient fathers notwithstanding, scripture does not warrant this usage. 1 Corinthians 6: 11, and Ephesians 5: 26, teach a truth as different from the bearing of 1 Corinthians 7: 14 as from 1 Timothy 4: 4, 5, the cleansing power of the word as applied by the Spirit. The Christian, the assembly, is thus sanctified. It is a real divine work: cf. John 13, 15, and 1 John 5. Blood expiates, but water purifies; that is, the word, as the expression of the truth and the revelation of God in Christ, judges all contrary to God within and without. Thus are the saints, from first to last, formed morally to have part with Christ on high. His power will complete all at His return, as His first coming in love laid the foundation for all in the gift of Himself for us. It is ignorance of these scriptures to confound with them 1 Corinthians 7: 14, as may yet be shown more fully. But the ancients, and those who build on them, are scarce darker as to this than the moderns, even if evangelical. Washing by the word is outside their traditions; it is perfectly certain in scripture, and most momentous for christian doctrine and practice.

But Dr. Wall's criticism is unsound. Our translators were far nearer the truth than he. His alteration of the tense not only is not required but falsifies the sense. The aorist would be the form, rather than the perfect, to convey his notion and bear his paraphrase. The perfect expresses a state consequent on an act, whether we say "is," or "has been, sanctified." But it means the permanent result of a completed action, and not what ordinarily comes to pass, a sense which the gnomic or iterative aorist may approach as in James 1: 10, 23; 1 Peter 1: 24. Hence the teaching deduced is all wrong. The apostle means a sanctified, or holy, state, actually and always true of the husband and children of a believing wife, not of what generally becomes true. Not a hint is dropped in this verse of being converted or brought to baptism.

Must we then embrace the view which prevails among Baptists? Not so. Legitimacy is out of the question. The children are said to be ἅγια, not γνήσια, the danger was lest they should be ακάθαρτα, not νόθα. The marriage of believers is no more lawful than that of unbelievers. The question is as to God's sanction for the Christian's conscience of a mixed marriage, and its fruit; and, as to this, the apostle decides that the unbelieving partner is hallowed in the believing one, and the children holy, not unclean: the one being placed in that state of holiness by the faith of the other, and the children viewed as in it already. Of fitness for baptism, on the one hand, the text says nothing: if it did, it would be asserted for the unbelieving husband or wife, no less than for the children. On the other hand, it is a mean and untrue sense of ἡγίασται that it refers to the lawfulness or validity of the marriage, especially as all turns on the faith of at least one of the parties. So Mr. Booth's effort to render ἐν to, instead of "in," is futile. Luke 1: 17, l Thessalonians 4: 7, and 2 Peter 1: 5, 6, 7, give not the least warrant for it, any more than 1 Corinthians 7: 15. The first is elliptic, and has a pregnant force. John was to turn disobedient ones not merely to, but so as to abide in, thoughts of just men. (2) God called us, says the apostle to the Thessalonians, not for uncleanness, but in sanctification, which similarly is far stronger than εἰς, to. (8) Peter calls on the christian Jews, in their faith to supply or have also virtue, in virtue, knowledge, etc.; as Paul reminds the Corinthians, God hath called us in peace.

It remains clear then that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in virtue of the christian wife, and the children holy, to the relief of those that were troubled by scruples from God's judgment of such a state of things among the Jews. God's grace in the gospel reverses the sentence of the law, to the pure making pure what had hitherto been unclean. Otherwise it might have seemed the duty of the believing husband to have put away his unbelieving wife and their children, as Gentile admixture was abhorrent to the law. Hence the apostle keeps up the language of the Jewish ceremonial, even where he determines the question by God's gracious and holy sanction of such marriages and their offspring, in contrast with the obligation of the Jews as shown in Ezra and Nehemiah.

We have now the question raised of separation on the part of the unbeliever. "But if the unbelieving separateth himself, let him be separated. The brother or the sister* is not in bondage in such [circumstances]: but God hath called us† in peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shalt save thy wife? Only** as the Lord†† divided‡ to each, as God†† hath called each, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the assemblies." (Ver. 15-17.) Thus, if the unbelieving party in the relationship were to sever himself from the other, the believer is released from bondage, be it the brother or the sister in the case. Not that such an act on the unbeliever's side gives to the believer thus abandoned licence to marry, but that the believer is thereby left the more free to serve the Lord by the other's separation. Such a union after all is apt to involve strife, the natural man hating the life of the Spirit. Not that this would justify anything on the believer's part to break the marriage tie: the unbeliever is supposed to have broken it of himself or even herself; and "in peace hath God called us," (or "you,") not to seek separation. On the contrary, whatever the trial involved in such a life, the brother or the sister must earnestly desire the salvation of the unbeliever; but this after all is in God's disposal. "For what knowest thou, woman, if thou shalt save the husband? or what knowest thou, husband, if thou shalt save the wife?" If it were so, what a joy! We have to acquiesce therefore in the ordering of the Lord and as we should on no account take the initiative into our own hands, so also to save the unbeliever is a question, and should not swamp everything else. Thus the apostle even here cautions by pressing the rule, whatever the issue: "Only as the Lord divided to each, as God hath called each, so let him walk." This was intended to guard against undue or excessive feeling. Our place is one of intelligent subjection, owning the Lord's allotment and God's call: the one at the time of conversion, the other the permanent condition. So was each to walk. If Judaism enfeebled, Christianity strengthened a sense of relationship, and meets every difficulty and complication in grace. Nor was the apostle laying down anything peculiar on the Corinthians because of their peculiar circumstances: "So I ordain in all the assemblies." There may be ever so many assemblies, but the order of all is one, and apostolic authority is universal. Nothing is more opposed to its true idea than ecclesiastical independency. The notion of different bodies, each with a distinct regimen, is a modern invention, while the assumption of a continual power of regulation in or over the church may be ancient but is no better. Neither the one nor the other was "from the beginning," when the foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets. There is no authoritative regulation now outside the word of God, though the Lord raises up those that guide and take the lead, but they, as all, are bound by scripture to which the Spirit answers in power.

* ἡ is omitted by p.m. F G P, etc.

† p.m. A C K, etc, have ὑμᾶς, "you."

** εἰ μή is in some cursives and ancient commentators changed into ἢ μή and joined with the foregoing, evidently to escape a difficulty. It appears to be really an elliptic phrase to the effect that there is no more to say except that, etc.; which we turn briefly by "But," or "Only "

†† In the first clause ὁ κύριος A B C D E F G, many cursives, versions, etc.; in the second ὁ θεός A B C D E F, and many cursives, versions, etc.

‡ p.m. B read μεμέρικεν "hath divided."

It will be seen that the authorised version following the common text inverts the true relationships here. It is God that has called, the Lord that divided, not the converse, as in what is known as the Received Text.

"Was any one called circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any one been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandments. Let each abide in that calling in which he was called. Wast thou called [as] a bondman? Let it not be a care to thee; but if also thou canst be free, use [it] rather. For the bondman called in [the] Lord is [the] Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called free is Christ's bondman. Ye were bought with a price; become not bondmen of men. Brethren, wherein each was called, in this let him abide with God." (Vers. 18-24.) Christ thus raises the Christian superior to all circumstances. Hence, when called of God, it is not worth while to change. Why should the circumcised man care to disguise or obliterate the fact of his circumcision? Why should the uncircumcised seek or submit to it? It is no longer a question of distinctions in the flesh. What God values, and what the Christian should, is keeping His commandments, not forms of truth or schools of doctrine, which are an unquestionable danger. The believer is sanctified to obedience, and this, the obedience of Christ, not that of a Jew, as the apostle of the circumcision himself insists. (1 Peter 1: 2.) So does the apostle of the uncircumcision here.

But we are led somewhat farther. "In the calling in which each was called, in this let him abide. Wast thou called a bondman? Let it" (that is, the bondage) "not be a care to thee. But if also thou canst be free, use it" (that is, the freedom) "rather." I am aware that many in ancient (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecum., Phot., etc.,) and in modern times (Bengel, De Wette, Estius, Meyer, etc.) take this last verse (21) quite differently, supposing it to mean, Even if thou canst be free, use it rather (that is, the bondage). Prefer to be a slave rather than a freeman. This however appears not only to be extravagant, but to make the human circumstances of too much weight, as if slavery were more favourable for christian walk than freedom. Yet even the Syriac so construed the words; and such is the view taken in one of the most recent of English versions. The true sense is given in the authorised Bible; and such was the conviction of the Reformers and of most since the Reformation.

It may be well to notice here the grounds of the question. The Dean of Canterbury thus argues for the sense of remaining rather in slavery: "This rendering .... is required by the usage of the particles, εἰ καί — by which, see Hartung, Partikel-lehre, i. 139, the καί, 'also' or 'even,' does not belong to the εἰ, as in καὶ εἰ, but is spread over the whole contents of the concessive clause. . . . It is also required by the context: for the burden of the whole passage is, 'Let each man remain in the state in which he was called.'" It is remarkable that the same commentator, in his note on, Mark 14: 29, seems to reverse this statement, and says that the καί before εἰ intensifies the whole hypothesis; the καί after εἰ intensifies only that word which it introduces in the hypothesis, citing Klotz on Devar. p. 519 f. (I cite from the fifth edition of both vols.) Allowing however that the latter is incorrect, I maintain that the principle is quite consistent with the ordinary version and view. For the effect of καί following εἰ is in some cases simply to emphasize the verb that follows; whereas καὶ εἰ, were this the reading, would really be more in favour of the sense desired. For we should then translate it, Wert thou called, a slave? Let it not trouble thee; but even if thou canst become free, use it [that is, slavery] rather. But these very epistles to the Corinthians furnish plain instances, which prove what is just affirmed. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 4: 7, the Dean gives (New Testament newly compared, 1870) "if thou didst receive." As Madvig observes, the καί is often best rendered by the emphatic present or past (do, did), or emphatic auxiliary. So 2 Cor. 4: 3, 16; 2 Cor. 5: 16; 2 Cor. 7: 8 (three times), 12; 2 Cor. 11: 6, 15; 2 Cor. 12: 11. In every case the right rendering is "if also" where an additional fact is intended; "if even" or "though" where it is not.

In the text under discussion then the apostle meets the question as to one called while a slave by the answer, Let it (that is, δουλεία, understood from the preceding δοῦλος) not be a care to thee; as he meets the added supposition, but if also thou canst be free, which of course might occasionally be, rather use it (that is, ἐλευθερίᾳ, understood from the preceding ἐλεύθερος). The context is in no way decisive against this; for as abiding in the marriage state has the exceptional provision for separation enforced by the unbeliever, so for the slave there is the analogous provision for the use and even preference of freedom. Manifestly too if the unmarried have an advantage in being less divided in caring for the things of the Lord, a similar remark tells perhaps as much in favour of the freeman compared with the slave. (See vers. 32-85.) The objections urged are null. Thus καί is in its right position here, not after δύνασαι. Again, ἀλλ᾽ εἰ is required rather than εἰ δέ as one may see by comparing 2 Corinthians 4: 16, and Philippians 2: 17. Nor is a demonstrative needed after χρῆσαι more than before μελέτω. The imputation of inconsistency with the general context and with verse 22 in particular has been already disposed of; the depreciation of the prevalent view of the apostolic precept as "worldly wisdom" is as unjust, as it seems important to rescue his teaching from the total absence of sobriety implied in the preference of slavery to freedom. Galatians 3: 28, and 1 Corinthians 7: 29-31, are quite consistent, and with one equally as the other. Nor is there any weight in the argument as to χράομαι, the import of which suits the use of freedom as a new thing no less than slavery as an old. Besides, it was meant to express not the act of entrance on freedom, implied in ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, but of using it when given. Indeed it is evident that, as the other view of slavery, μ. χρῆσαι is a hard or vague phrase, and thus differently understood by Bengel, etc., of late, as compared with Chrysostom of old.

The apostle explains, "For the bondman that was called in [the] Lord is [the] Lord's freedman." Such is the correct force, "freedman" rather than freeman. ἀπελεύθερος means one who was made free, not who was free-born. It is the accurate term here, and it is the more emphatic, because freeman or free-born (ἐλεύθερος) follows immediately. "Likewise he that was called [being] free is Christ's bondman." Christ alone puts every one in his place and true light: emancipation by human means cannot effect or approach it. The christian slave is the Lord's freeman; the christian freeman is Christ's slave. The Lord's authority breaks the fetters of the one to his faith; the grace of Christ reduces the other to slavery for his heart. "Ye were bought with a price." Whether it be the freeman or the bondman, all were bought. The saints are the purchase of Christ's blood: so indeed is all the world; but believers alone acknowledge it, and they are called to act on it. "Be [or become] not slaves of men:" an exhortation as incumbent on the free as on the slave. A single eye alone secures true service, and yet is perfect liberty. They were already serving the Lord Christ: only so can the Christian serve aright in any case.* Strange to say, none are so prone to slip into human bondage as those who profess the Lord's name: so the second Epistle to the Corinthians shows. But this was real forgetfulness of Christ and unfaithfulness to Him. Christianity in its true power brings into responsibility no less than into liberty, and as this is true in doctrine, so it is of all consequence to be remembered in practice. "Wherein each was called, brethren, in this let him abide with God." "The calling" appears to mean a man's providential condition when called of God, as here we see it applied to circumcision or uncircumcision, freedom or slavery, not earthly occupations, commonly supposed, some of which might involve not a little that would clash with God's word and offend a Christian's conscience. Here all pleas for continuance in evil, because one was converted by God's grace spite of them, is effectually cut off, for the believer is called to abide "with God." If one cannot continue with God, it is high time to ask His direction who assuredly never calls a saint to do evil but to cease from it at all cost.

* Whitby's idea is very poor: that the exhortation was to slaves who had been freed not to sell themselves into slavery again. Not only is it a word for all Christians bond or free, but it is a warning against a more subtle bondage into which the free might slip as much as the bond.

The apostle had spoken of the married relation, Christians on both sides or mixed. Now he takes up the unmarried. "Now concerning virgins command of [the] Lord have I none, but I give an opinion as having received mercy of [the] Lord to be faithful. I think therefore that this is good because of the present necessity that [it is] good for a man to be so. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if even thou shouldest have married, thou didst not sin; and if the virgin should have married, she did not sin. But such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I am sparing you." (Vers. 25-28.)

In "virgins" or οἱ παρθένοι we see an usage of the word not exactly unknown in classical Greek (see Jacob's Index to the Anth. Gr.) but so unusual that most New Testament commentators seem indisposed to allow it. Of the ancients Theodore of Mopsuestia found no harshness in the language. "  Ὁτ᾽ ἂν οὖν εἴπη περὶ τῶν παρθένων, δῆλον ὅτι περὶ τῆς παρθενίας λέγει, τὰ ὅμοια καὶ ἐπὶ τούτου περί τε τῶν ἀνδρῶν καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν φθεγγόμενος. As to its contextual propriety there ought to be no doubt. That it should be rarely said of males in ordinary Greek authors no one acquainted with the morality of the heathen can be surprised at. If therefore it were absolutely strange among their productions, I should not consider this a valid objection to its extension in christian or apostolic hands. What believer would limit ἀγάπη to its sense in classic Greek? We shall find a further use of the word, lower down, natural indeed yet uncommon, the admission of which appears to be essential to a due understanding of the closing verses, where it is used for a man's own state, not of his daughter; but of this more in its own place.

It is the general question of entering on the married relation by brother or sister; and this too the apostle solves, not on the Lord's authority as commanding, but by giving a judgment of his own grounded on the opposition of the age to Christianity. It is not the instant but the present necessity which makes it best to remain as one is: such is the force of the word everywhere else in the New Testament as in other writings. It was then existing, not impending merely; nor is there any reason that I know to think that it does not exist still, as it will till the Lord come. Men habitually deny, as Christians are too apt to forget, it; but the apostle had it ever before him and sets it before us. He never conceives of a truth, especially one so solemn, without a corresponding effect on practice. Till the day of the Lord the earth is a scene of wickedness, confusion, and misery: why act as one who likes a settled life there, if indeed you are a pilgrim and stranger? It is not the special time of tribulation or of apostasy before the Lord comes in judgment that he has before him, but that the gospel necessarily encounters enmity where in its purity the world discovers its own doom as unbelieving and already judged.

Yet the apostle guards the abuse of his commending a single life to the Christian ordinarily. The married should not seek its dissolution, any more than the single seek to be so bound; and again he would keep the conscience free for such as might marry. Neither man nor woman sins in being married, whatever may be its inexpediency to the christian judgment. For trouble in the flesh is inevitable for such, and the apostle desired that they should be spared this.

Next he recurs to the topic of faith's estimate of present things, not more constantly before him than needed by the Christian. "But this I say, brethren:* the season is straitened: henceforth† that both those that have wives be as having none, and those that weep as weeping not, and those that rejoice as rejoicing not, and those that buy as possessing not, and those that use the world‡ as not using [it] for themselves; for the fashion of the world passeth away." (Vers. 29-81.) It is no common-place on the brevity of time, but the solemn affirmation that the time is shortened henceforth (that is, as I suppose, since Christ's death and the call of the church) in order that the believer should hold all but Christ with a loose hand — all things in which men might rejoice, however sorrowful their lot may be. But the Saviour has changed all for the Christian, who looks on the earth as His place of rejection and follows Him in spirit into the heavens now opened, whence he in peace awaits Him with joy unspeakable and full of glory. This world has really no more permanence than the shifting scenes of a theatre.

* ὅτι D E F G, many cursives, and versions (and so the Elzevir T. R., not R. S.), but A B K L P, thirty cursives, etc., reject it.

† F G and other authorities read ἐστίν λοιπόν ἐστιν. R. S. has τὸ λοιπόν ἐστιν. Elz and Griesbach without the colon.

‡ τὸυ κ. p.m. A B, Arm. Cop. Basm., changed into τῳ κ. τούτῳ in most uncials and cursives, and so in T. R. to accord with usual grammar. Alford is wrong however in denying the ace. in Xen. Αγ. xi. x., Π. viii. i. 1.

The construction here given of the opening clause seems to me the true one; others involve us in harshness and break the connection.

"But I would have you to be without care. The unmarried cares for the things of the Lord, how he shall please the Lord; but he that hath married careth for the things of the world how he shall please his wife. Divided also* is both the wife and the virgin: the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both† in body and in spirit; but she that hath married careth for the things of the world how she shall please her husband. But this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare [lit. a noose] over you, but for what [is] seemly and waiting on; the Lord undistractedly." (Vers. 32-35.) Here the apostle urges the greater exemption from earthly anxiety for serving and pleasing the Lord, which the single man or woman enjoys as compared with the married. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal. Yet even here the apostle speaks with caution and delicacy. He would not entangle any, he sought their welfare with a view to seemliness and undistracted attendance on the Lord.

* καὶ μ. A B D P, many cursives and versions, omitted in T. R., following most authorities, as also before ἡ γ. which has overwhelming weight. Lachmann and Reiche point thus: γυναικί, καὶ μεμέρισται. καὶ ἡ γ.,., κ.τ.λ..

† καὶ τῳ σ. B, F, G K L, etc.

‡ εὐπάρεδρον all the most ancient uncials and many cursives, etc.

Here however I must take the opportunity of protesting against the remarks of a late commentator. "Since he [the apostle] wrote, the unfolding of God's providence has taught us more of the interval before the coming of the Lord than it was given even to an inspired apostle to see. And as it would be perfectly reasonable and proper to urge on an apparently dying man the duty of abstaining from contracting new worldly obligations — but both unreasonable and improper should the same person recover his health, to insist on his abstinence any longer: so now, when God has manifested His will that nations should rise up and live and decay, and long centuries elapse, before the day of the coming of Christ, it would be manifestly unreasonable to urge — except in so far as every man's καιρός is συνεσταλμένος, and similar arguments are applicable — the considerations here enforced." This may sound plausible to men in Christendom who have let slip the view scripture gives of the total ruin of man and the world, and the imminence of that judgment of the quick on which all the inspired writings insist, just as truly as those of Paul. To my mind it is a lamentable pandering to unbelief and worldliness, as it springs from the lowest conception of the authority of God's word. Doubtless the truth was so revealed that none beforehand could know that God would lengthen out the interval which severs from us the coming of the Lord. But the moral grounds are increasingly strong, not weaker. The apparently dying man is now only a great deal nearer more evidently the moment of dissolution instead of his having recovered health and strength so as fittingly to enter on new obligations. The deepening darkness of Jew and Gentile, and not of Mahometanism only but of professing Christendom, warns every eye which can see that a crisis from God is at hand; while the bright hope of the Christian, independent though it be itself of all circumstances, and essentially of heaven with Christ, shines out but the more if possible as he sees the day approaching.

It is in the next section that we have ἡ παρθένος employed as equivalent to ἡ παρθενία. For there is no question here of a man's daughter but of his own state. The Lord deserves to have us wholly devoted to Himself. This is true christian reckoning. "But if any one thinketh that he is behaving unseemly to his virginity, if he be past his prime, and so it ought to be, let him do what he will: he is not sinning: let them marry. But he who standeth firm in his heart, having no necessity, and hath authority over his own will, and hath judged this in his own* heart to keep his own virginity shall do† well. So that he that marrieth‡ [his own virginity] doeth† well, and he that marrieth‡ not shall do better." (Vers. 86-38.) Apparently this, the plain key to the passage, was not seen before the well-known Locke observed it, and produced excellent reasons drawn from the context, which commend themselves to any dispassionate mind. The great emphasis given to the heart's purpose (for instance, "one's own will" and "one's own heart") suits perfectly if it be a question of one's own virginity, but how a daughter's? There they sound beyond measure arbitrary and inconsiderate. If it mean one's persevering unmarried himself, it is easy to see the force of all; as to a daughter or ward, it seems out of the way. The wonder is that Whitby should be among the few who follow Locke's interpretation. The phrase is no doubt peculiar; but the apostle may have been influenced by the Hebrew idiom which uses the plural for the abstract idea. The singular seems more suited to the Greek tongue, which allows sometimes of a secondary sense, as e.g. βίος life, and means of life.

* αὐτοῦ supported by the best MSS is wanting in T. R. in the first case, ἰδίᾳ, in the second.

† The fut. A B., etc.; the pres. most MSS, etc.; and so in the end of verse 38.

‡ γαμίζων in both places is sustained by the best witnesses, as is the addition of τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον, though the order is not always the same, and it may have been inserted.

"A wife is bound* as long as her husband liveth; but should the husband+ have fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord. But she is happier if she so remain according to my opinion, and I also think that I have God's Spirit." (Vers. 39, 40.)

* νόμῳ is added in Tex. Rec. with many excellent authorities, but the best omit it.

† αὐτῆς is added in T. R. following many witnesses, but not the highest.

The close of the chapter takes up widows especially and is a remarkable instance of opposition between the apostle's mind and the church councils which dared to treat a widow's marrying as so evil that the church had to refuse its sanction and prayers. The marriage tie of believers is for life. Death separates. Not only the widower but the widow becomes thus free to marry again. But the apostle gives his judgment against it: not on moral grounds, of which only superstition could raise a question, but as the happier state to abide in. Even here we have no such language as sprang up later when celibacy was cried up as the highest of christian virtues, and re-marriage was denounced as unchristian. On the contrary, even for the widow, the apostle qualifies her marrying again "only in the Lord:" a phrase which goes farther than the fact that both are Christians and demands that it be after a christian sort. Yet here again the apostle points out what he judged more expedient on spiritual grounds. Had others given a different opinion? He, if any man might, gives his judgment as one who thought he had God's Spirit. He was inspired to put it thus, not as if he were of doubtful mind, but as avoiding an express command from the Lord, and rather as a matter of apostolic counsel.

1 Corinthians 8.

The apostle now turns to another subject which presented dangers to the saints in Corinth.

"But concerning the things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge: knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. If* any one thinketh that he knoweth" anything, not yet‡ knoweth§ he as he ought to know; but if any one loveth God, he is known by him. Concerning the eating, then, of the things sacrificed to idols, we know that [there is] no idol in [the] world, and that [there is] no|| God save one. For even if there are [so]-called gods, whether in heaven, or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us [there is] one God the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. Howbeit not in all [is] the knowledge, but some with conscience of the idol until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat shall¶ not commend us to God ;** neither if we eat have we the advantage, nor if we eat not do we come short. But see lest in anywise this your authority become a stumbling-block to the weak. For if any one see thee who hast knowledge sitting at table in an idol's temple, shall not his conscience, as he is weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to idols? And he that is weak perisheth*** by†† thy knowledge, the brother for whom Christ died? But thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore if meat stumble my brother, I will in nowise eat flesh for ever, that I may not stumble my brother." (Chap. 8: 1-18.)

* δέ in Text. Rec. is not in B P) several cursives, and ancient versions.

† ἐγνώκεναι A B D E F G P and several cursives, etc., but K L and most cursives εἰδέναι: the former, objective knowledge, the latter, inward conscious knowledge, as remarked by another.

‡ οὔπω A B P, six cursives, etc., οὐδέπω the mass. The best do not add οὐδέν.

§ ἔγνω A B Dp.m. F G P, seven cursives, etc.

|| ἕτερος is not in p.m. A B D E F G P, many cursives, etc.

¶ παραστήσει p.m. A B, several cursives, versions, etc., instead of παρίστησι ("commendeth") corr D E L P, and most cursives, Ital., Vulg., etc.

** γάρ, added in Text. Rec., is not in A B) etc., several ancient versions, but in most MSS and versions. There is a difference of order also in the copies as to the clauses.

*** For καὶ ἀπολεῖται Text. Rec.. with most of the witnesses. B and a few other authorities read ἀπόλλυται γάρ many giving the present who read καί.

†† ἐν A B D E F G P, etc. ἐπί ("for") Text. Rec. L and most cursives, etc.

The construction of the opening sentence has led to some difference of judgment and arrangement. Griesbach and Scholz, among editors, insert marks of parenthesis from after "we know," in verse 1, to the end of verse 8, which involves translating ὅτι "for," or "because." This was the view of Luther, Bengel, Valcknaer, and others; but it is liable to the objection that in the resumed sentence "ὅτι," after the second οἴδαμεν, certainly means "that." I am therefore disposed to take it so in the former case. Mr. T. S. Green, etc., would begin the parenthesis with πάντες which necessitates singular abruptness in the structure. According to that which most commends itself to me, the apostle does not dispute that we Christians as such have knowledge; but he soon proceeds to show how empty it is without that love which brings in the consideration of others, and, above all, God Himself. This leads him to compare knowledge, in which they boasted, with love, which they overlooked, or ignored. The one puffs up, the other builds up. Love is only known in God's presence, where self is judged. Knowledge in one's own opinion is not love, which is inseparable from the new nature. For he who is born of God loves, having the nature of Him who is love. The apostle however says not that he who loves God knows Him, but that he is known by Him. The turn may be unexpected, and has embarrassed the critics, but its propriety is unquestionable. Not that the believer does not know Him, as indeed it is eternal life (cf. John 17: 3; 1 John 4: 6-18), but that it was seasonable for the consciences of the Corinthians to weigh that he is known of Him — a serious but blessed and blessing consideration. There is no sufficient or right ground therefore for taking ἔγνωσται in a Hophal sense — "hath been caused to know." It is really the converse (see Gal. 4: 9). Nor is there need to give it the sense of approval. The best meaning is its ordinary one.

It would seem also that the parallelism in the last clause of verse 4 favours our translating οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόρμῳ as "there is no idol," rather than, "an idol is nothing in the world," though in itself equally legitimate. It is quite true, as the prophets assert, that the idols of the Gentiles are vanities and impotence; but here the apostle appears to affirm that they had no existence in the world. There were no such beings as they associated with their idols. Later on he shows there were demons behind, as indeed the law intimated. (Deut. 32: 17.)

The apostle, as all can see, refers not to the decrees of the apostles, though we know that he and his companions instructed the assemblies they visited to observe them. He meets the question on intrinsic grounds, according to the principle of his own apostleship, in no way as leading men to think that the apostolic decrees were not binding on the whole church. It is monstrous to infer the competency of Christians, even then, or at any time, to open and question a matter thus decided. Such an idea could only lead to lawlessness and presumption, especially in presence of the solemn claims of what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Their determination however was not at all impaired, but confirmed, by the apostle's dealing with the question on its own merits, and settling it similarly. He allows then, that there was no such thing as the heathen conceived in an idol, and no God save one. He insists that, whatever the multiplicity of so-called gods and lords in heaven or on earth, to us there is but one God, the Father, source of the universe and object* of our being and obedience, and one everything was absolutely indifferent and open. Love Lord, Jesus Christ, who has taken the place of administrator of all and mediator of redemption. But it would be rash and precarious to reason hence that takes account of things and beings as seen in the light of God; it seeks not its own things but the things of others — of Jesus Christ above all.

* The text of the English Bible "in" is quite wrong, as are many commentators, such as Calvin, etc.; the marginal correction "for" is right.

But conscientious men are apt to be slow in apprehension, often much more so than those who are less exercised. For them the apostle would have us feel. Howbeit knowledge, or that knowledge, is not in all: but some, with conscience of the idol until now, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. They were not at all assured of the nonentity of these false gods. The Sinaitic, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Porphyrian uncials, four or five cursives, and several of the most ancient versions, etc., read συνηθείᾳ, "through custom," not conscience, that is, from their habituation; and so Lachmann and Tischendorf. Doubting thus, they were condemned when they ate; and Satan thus took advantage of them through guilty fears. The apostle admits that food will not commend us to God. Those who pleaded their title should see that its exercise did not stumble the weak. What if the weak one imitated it with a conscience not free and emboldened or edified the wrong way, and the brother for whom Christ died perished? For scripture characterizes an act according to its tendency, without palliating it by the resources of grace in arresting the issue. To sin thus against the brethren, to wound their weak conscience, is to sin against Christ. The apostle closes this part of his subject by a fervid declaration of his refusal of a thing otherwise open to him, if it were the occasion of stumbling to his brother. Such is love according to Christ.

1 Corinthians 9.

The apostle now enters on the vindication of his office which some in Corinth had sought to undermine and of ministry in general which they tended to corrupt. Title is asserted, but with full room for grace. For ministry is of Christ the Lord, not of the first man, and the spirit of the world if allowed is its ruin.

"Am I not free?* am I not an apostle?* have I not seen Jesus† our Lord? my work are not ye in [the] Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of my apostleship ye are in [the] Lord. My defence to those that examine me is this. Have we not authority to eat and drink? have we not authority to take about a sister wife, as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? or I alone and Barnabas, have we not authority to abstain from‡ working [lit. not to work]?" (Vers. 1-6.)

* The order is transposed in the vulgar text, following the mass but not the best MSS and versions, A B P, etc. Vulg. Syr Cop. Aeth. Arm., etc.

†  Ἰ. Χ., as in T. R., D L K L P, most cursives and versions; X. F G, etc.;  Ἰ. A B, a few cursives, some ancient versions, etc.

‡ μὴ ἐργ. A B D F G P, etc.; τοῦ μὴ ἐργ. the rest.

Most strongly had he declared his readiness to give up anything for natural life rather than jeopard his brother. Yet does he affirm his independence of human yoke as distinctly as his apostleship. Liberty thus went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. Nor was his office vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His detractors were thus far right: he had derived no degree from the apostolic college, no mission from Jerusalem. From the twelve others might pretend to succession, and falsely: Paul had his authority immediately from the Lord seen on high. Were the Corinthians the men to question this? — the "much people" whom the Lord had in that city? whom Paul had begotten through the gospel? Was this their love in the Spirit? If not an apostle to others, surely such should not deny it who were its seal in the Lord. But what may not the saint do or say who slips out of the Lord's presence? Too, too like Jeremiah's figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil. In none is evil worse than in. the Christian. The corruption of the best thing is not the least corruption. Was it come to this, that Paul was put on his trial, on the preliminary inquiry at least, to see whether an action would lie against him, and that he had to make his plea or speech in defence to his own Corinthian children in the faith? He then asserts the title of an apostle, as we may say too in general of him who ministers in the word, and here in the gospel particularly. "Have we not authority to eat and drink?" that is, right to maintenance. "Have we not authority to take about a sister wife, as also the other apostles and the brethren in the Lord and Cephas?" that is, not only to marry a sister but to introduce her where he himself went, an object of loving care to the saints with himself. So it was with the apostles in general, notably with the Lord's brethren or kinsmen and above all with Peter. (See Matt. 8: 14.) "Or I only and Barnabas, have we not authority not to work?" This is the alternative ordinarily where support is not given. But the saints should never take advantage of the grace that foregoes such a title to relax in their own plain and positive duty. To cut off the plausible self-seeking of false apostles who wished to ingratiate them. selves and to insinuate evil against the true, the apostle did not use his title, especially at Corinth, but wrought with his own hands, as it would seem Barnabas did also. But he is careful to lay down as unquestionable the title of the spiritual workman to a living for himself and his family.

Very fittingly does this follow his exhortation in the preceding chapter, where he reproves such an use of liberty as might stumble the weak. It was certainly not so with him who did not even use his right to support when in their midst; so had he done as to marriage (1 Cor. 7),* through all his career in order to serve the Lord the more undividedly; even as he could tell the Ephesian elders at a later day how they themselves knew that his hands had ministered to his wants and the wants of those who were with him, and had shown them every way that so toiling we ought to come in aid of the weak and call to mind the words of the Lord Jesus, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

* The ignorance of the plainest facts and statements of scripture which characterizes the fathers, even those who were comparatively near the apostolic age, would be scarce credible, if one did not see the same sort of haze over the eyes of almost all who read their writings. They seem incapable of a spiritual or even sober judgment. Thus Eusebius (H. E. iii, 30) cites from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii.) that "Paul does not demur in a certain Epistle to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better." This is a total misconception of Philippians 4: 3 and of our chapter, neither of which supposes him married, whilst 1 Corinthians 7 proves he was not. Again, quite a crowd of fathers (Tertullian, Ambrose, Aug, Jerome, Theod, etc.), followed of course by Romanist theologians, even their two best commentators (Cornelius à Lap. and Estius), interpret 1 Corinthians 9: 5 of rich christian females who accompanied preachers to help out of their substance. Possibly so gross a misconstruction flowing from a false system of thought as to celibacy led to the ἀγαπηταί, ἀδελφαί, or συνείσακτοι of early ecclesiastical notoriety, condemned by the first council of Nicea. One may add here the curious error in the Vulg. (not alone the printed editions but some good, if not most of the, manuscripts), hoc or haec operandi.

But he proceeds to show that even nature teaches better than to neglect those who serve the Lord in His saints or gospel. "Whoever serveth in war at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of its fruit[*?]? or who tendeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Do I speak these things as a man, or doth not the law also say these things? For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that is treading out corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, or doth he say it altogether on our account? For it was written on our account, because the plougher ought to plough in hope and the thresher [†?]in hope of partaking. If we sowed for you the spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others partake of the authority over you, should not we more? But we used not this authority, but bear all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of the Christ. Know ye not that those that minister about the holy things eat of the temple, and those that attend the altar share[‡?] with the altar? So also the Lord ordained those that announce the gospel to live of the gospel." (Vers. 7-14.)

* τὸν κ. Ε. p.m. A B Cp.m. F G P, etc; ἐκ τοῦ κ. T. R. supported by the mass.

† T. R. adds τῆς ἐλπίδος αὐτοῦ with large but inferior authority.

‡ παρεδρεύοντες p.m. A B C D E F G P, a few cursives, and many citations; προσεδρεύ T. R. following a few uncials, most cursives, etc.

All live on the return of their work, soldier, husbandman, shepherd. The propriety of this, according to man, is unimpeachable: did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction; and if He spoke of not muzzling the ox when treading out corn, He had not cattle in view but His people, His servants in the word. The figure is kept up accurately. The plougher ought to plough in hope, and the thresher (ought to thresh) in hope of partaking, the last phrase being more appropriate when the time for a share was obviously near.

There is also, it may be well to notice, in verse 11 a guard against him who would object that the analogy fails, in that the labourer thus specified received in kind, whereas the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets the senseless or selfish cavil by showing the duty of a recompense à fortiori, as what is of the Spirit transcends what is of flesh. "If we for you sowed the spiritual, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal?" He appeals in verse 12 to their own practice as owning the title of others. "If others partake of the authority over you, should not we more?" He takes care however to show that he was wholly above selfish aims in thus pleading for the spiritual labourer and his title to support: "Yet we used not this authority, but bear all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of the Christ." He would plead for others and their title, and the duty of the saints ministered to on a right consideration of the work done; but he used not the right for himself, on the contrary bearing all sorts of trial in order to afford no hindrance to the gospel.

Lastly the apostle draws a testimony from the Levitical system contrasted, as it is in many respects, with the gospel, in that it identified the ministrants with what was brought into the temple and laid on the altar. Jehovah being the part and inheritance of the priestly name among the sons of Israel, He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. So now under the gospel the Lord forgets not those who preach it but appoints them to derive their maintenance from it, though there may be exceptional cases as in his who has written the rule for us.

The apostle had now affirmed the principle. It was for others however, not for himself. He is careful to make this understood by the Corinthians. He had written in love for the glory of the Lord, "but," says he, "I have used none of these things. And I have not written these things that it should be thus in my case, for [it were] good for me to die rather than that any one should make vain my boast. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast, for necessity is laid upon me, for woe is to me if I preach not the gospel. For if I do this willingly, 1 have a reward; but if unwillingly, I have an administration entrusted to me." (Vers. 15-17.) Divine love cares for others, and sacrifices self. The apostle was the living exemplification of the gospel he preached. There were rights, and grace does not forget them for others — does not avail itself of them. He is even warm in repudiating any such thought in the present case. It was living Christ so to feel and act, who taught that it was more blessed to give than to receive. His own life and death were the fulness of its truth; but the apostle was no mean witness of it, though a man of like passions with us. Nor has he been without his imitators in this, even as he also was of Christ. He would not afford a handle to those who sought it at Corinth. Others have had grounds equally grave for a similar course.

It is important to see also that to preach is not a thing to boast of. It is an obligation — a duty to Him who has called one, and conferred a gift for this very purpose. It is thus a necessity laid on all such, not an office of honour to claim, nor a right to plead. Christ has the right to send, and He does send, labourers into His vineyard. This makes it truly a necessity laid on him who is sent. According to scripture, the church never sends any to preach the gospel. Relations are falsified by any such pretension. Again He who sends directs the labourer. It is of capital importance that this should be maintained with immediate responsibility to the Lord. ,Therefore it is that the apostle adds, "For woe is to me if I preach not the gospel." Undoubtedly he who does this voluntarily has a reward, and the heart goes with the blessed work, whatever the hardness and reproach which accompany it. But if not of one's own will, an administration, or stewardship, is entrusted to one. Now of the steward it is sought that he be found faithful.

"What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel I may make the gospel without charge. So that I use not for myself any authority in the gospel." (Ver. 18.) It was meet that such an one as the apostle, extraordinarily called, should act in extraordinary grace; and this he does. He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to a support for himself. It is no question here of "abuse," any more than in chapter 7: 31. It is the giving up of one's right for special reasons of grace, and it is the more beautiful in one who had as deep a sense of righteousness as any man, perhaps, who ever lived. The plea for the rights of others was therefore so much the more unimpeachable, because it was absolutely unmixed with any desire for himself.

"For being free from all, I made myself bondman to all, that I might gain the most. And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; and to those under law, as under law, not being myself under law,* that I might gain those under law; to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak; to all I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. And all things I do for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow-partaker of it." (Vers. 19-28.) How bright a reflection of the spirit of the gospel! The apostle was ready to yield at every side where Christ was not concerned. He was free, but free to be a bondman of any and everyone, in order that he might gain, not ends of his own, but the most possible for Christ. Hence among the Jews he raised no question about the law. His heart was set on their salvation; he would not be turned aside by legal questions. He became as a Jew; but while he declares that to those under law he was as under law, he carefully guards his own standing in grace by the clause left out in so many of the more modern copies, "not being myself under law," that he might gain those under it. Such was the only gain he sought — not theirs, but them; and them for God, not to mould after any opinions or prejudices of his own.

* μὴ ὢν αὐτός ὑπὸ νόμον A B C D E F G P, many cursives, ancient versions, etc.; Dcorr. K and most cursives omit, as does Tex. Rec.

He was just the same with the Gentiles. (Compare Gal. 4: 12.) Such is the elasticity of grace. "To those without law, as without law," while he carefully adds, not being without law to God, but duly or legitimately subject to Christ, that he might gain those without law. It is in vain to speak of natural character or education. If there ever was a soul rigidly bound by Pharisaic tradition within the straitest limits, it was Saul of Tarsus. But if any man be in Christ, there is a new creation. The old things passed; behold they are become new. Such was Paul the apostle; and so he lived, laboured, and speaks to us livingly. He would not wound the scruples of the feeblest; nay, to the weak he became weak, that he might gain the weak; in short, he could, and does, say, "to all I am become all things, that I may by all means save some." It was not, as some basely misuse his words, to excuse tampering with the world, and so spare one's own flesh, which is really to become the prey of Satan. His was self-sacrifice in a faith which had only Christ for its object, and the bringing of every soul within one's reach into contact with His love.

"Know ye not that they who run in a race-course run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And everyone that contendeth is temperate in all things; they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, as not uncertainly — so combat, as not beating air. But I buffet my body, and lead [it] captive, lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be reprobate." (Vers. 24-27.) The figure from these games would be most striking to the Corinthians accustomed to those of the Isthmus. Indeed the use is plain to anyone. Spiritually, the prize is not for one, but for all, if all run well. But even in the games the candidates must be temperate in all things, though theirs were but a fading crown, ours an everlasting.

The apostle then applies it with touching beauty, not to the faulty Corinthians, but to himself. His was no rhetoric of the schools or the law-courts, but the word of Christ for heaven. He therefore transfers the figures to himself for their sakes, if one may apply his own language in 1 Cor. 4. "I therefore so run as not uncertainly." How was it with them? I "so combat, as not beating air." To this alas! they were habitually prone, as the epistle shows throughout, especially 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Cor. 15. "But I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be reprobate."

Would that the Corinthians had so dealt with themselves! Alas! they were reigning as kings, while the apostles were, as it were, appointed to death. It is an utter mistake to suppose that the language of the apostle supposes any fear of perdition for his own soul. He had grave fears for those who were living at ease and carelessly. It is very possible for a man to preach to others, and be lost himself; but such an one does not buffet the body, nor bring it into subjection. Had the apostle lived without conscience, he must have assuredly been lost, as indeed one of the twelve was. Here we are shown the inseparable connection between a holy walk along the way, and eternal life at the end of it. Who can doubt it? and why should any man make a difficulty of the passage? There would be difficulty indeed, if the apostle spoke of having been born again and afterwards becoming a castaway: in this case life would not be eternal But he says nothing of the sort. He only shows the solemn danger a" certain ruin of preaching without a practice according to it. This the Corinthians needed to hear then, as we to weigh now. Preaching or teaching truth to men without reality, self-judgment, and self-denial before God, is ruinous. It is to deceive ourselves, not Him who is not mocked. Nor do any Christians more deeply need to watch and pray than those who are much occupied with handling the word of God or guiding others in the ways 'of the Lord. How easy for such to forget that doing the truth is the common responsibility of all, and that speaking it to others ever so earnestly is no substitute for their own obeying it as in the sight of God! A spiritual walk is a different thing from sincerity; but high discourse without an exercised conscience exposes to shipwreck ere long.

1 Corinthians 10.

The apostle had warned the Corinthians against carelessness and self-indulgence, instancing himself as one who must be a reprobate if he preached without keeping the body under. He now makes a pointed application of Israelitish history in scripture to clench the exhortation.

"For* I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were† baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking of a spiritual attendant rook (and the rock was Christ); but in the most of them God had no pleasure, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. But these things happened [as] types of us, that we should not be lusters after evil things, even as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, even as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, even as some of them committed, and there fell in‡ one day twenty-three thousand. Neither let us tempt the Lord,** even as some of them tempted, and were perishing†† by the serpents. Neither murmur ye,†‡ according as§ some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer. Now all|| these things happened to them typically,¶ and were written for our admonition, unto whom the ends of the ages have reached." (Vers. 1-11.)

* γάρ p.m. A B C D E F G P, ten cursives, the Latin and Egyptian versions, many fathers Greek and Latin; δέ is read by corr. K L, most cursives, etc.

† ἐβαπτίσαντο (= got baptized) B K L P and the cursives generally, and many Greek fathers; ἐβαπτίσθησαν A C D E F G with some cursives and Greek fathers.

‡ ἐν, added by most, is not in p.m. B Dp.m. F G, etc.

** κύριον B C P, eight cursives, some ancient versions and fathers; Χριστόν D E F G K L, most cursives, versions, etc.; Θεόν Α, etc.

†† ἀπώλλυντο A B, the rest ἀπώλοντο.

‡‡ γογγύζωμεν, 'let us murmur,' D E F G, etc., contrary to the general testimony.

§ καθάπερ B P, καθώς the rest, as in Text. Rec. || πάντα is omitted by A B, etc.

¶ τυπικῶς A B C K P, and many other witnesses; τύποι, as in Text. Rec., D E F G L and most cursives, etc. For the Text Reel sunevbainon, supported by A D E F G L and most; -νεν B C K (not L, as Tisch. gives by oversight on both sides) many cursives, etc. The force is greatest, when we see the facts in detail happening, (pl.) to Israel, but recorded (sing.) as a whole in scripture for us.

Israel are adduced as a warning to those who professed Christ. Did the Corinthians boast of their privileges and endowments? They are here shown how little security such institutions as baptism and the Lord's supper confer on those who rest in them. "For [this is the true reading, γάρ, not δέ, now, or moreover] I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." It was not only that preachers were in danger, but professors — not some, but all. Witness the ancient people of God, who similarly trusted not in God but in His acts and ordinances, their own special favours; and this from the beginning, not in days of cold and dead formality. So ready is the heart of unbelief to depart from the living God. To presume on institutions of the Lord, initiatory or even continuous, is fatal. A recent commentator regarded this passage as an inspired protest against those who, whether as individuals or sects, would lower the dignity of sacraments, or deny their necessity. To my mind the aim seems wholly different — to guard those who were baptized, and joined in the Lord's supper, from the illusion that all was therefore right and safe, that such might not grievously sin and miserably perish. The apostle solemnly disproves the superstitious and Antinomian error that men must have life because they partake of these rites. Not so; they were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, they might all therefore be said to be there and then baptized to Moses; but what was the end? It is impossible however to suppose here an outward professing mass, who had the initiatory privilege, and no more; for he takes particular pains to show that they "did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink [ἔπιον] the same spiritual drink; for they were drinking [ἔπινον] of a spiritual attendant rock (and the rock was Christ)."

Here we have figuratively the highest outward sign, that which answers to the Lord's supper, and not to baptism only. But the express point is to deny that there was necessarily life in the participants, still less efficacy in the signs. It is really the importance of the holy walk of faith in those who partook that the apostle is pressing, not at all to cry up the sacraments, still less to affirm the necessity of what nobody thought of denying.

But we must also beware of a mistaken notion which has misled most Protestants, some more partially, others completely, but all with inconsistency enough. They assume that by the expression, "all our fathers," the christian church is regarded as a continuation of the Jewish, and the believer as the true descendant of Abraham. Whatever is taught elsewhere under certain limits, it is plain that here the apostle teaches nothing of the sort. "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers," etc., maintains the distinction which is sought to be got rid of. There is no fusion of the Jews of the past with the Gentiles who now believed. The same distinction is maintained in Ephesians and in Galatians. Within the church and in Christ the difference vanishes. There is oneness in Him, and such is the effect of the Spirit's baptism, who forms the one body. But it is not true retrospectively, as is commonly supposed, and drawn unintelligently from such words as these.

Again, even so sensible a writer fell into the kindred but yet grosser view, that the apostle, by the words "the same," identifies the sacraments of the old and of the new economies. "It is a well-known dogma of the schoolmen, that the sacraments of the ancient law were emblems of grace, but ours confer it. This passage is admirably suited to refute that error, for it shows that the reality of the sacrament was presented to the ancient people of God no less than to us. It is therefore a base fancy of the Sorbonists, that the holy fathers under the law had the signs without the reality. I grant, indeed, that the efficacy of the signs is furnished to us at once more clearly and more abundantly from the time of Christ's manifestation in the flesh than it was possessed by the fathers. Some explain it to mean that the Israelites ate the same meat together among themselves, and do not wish us to understand that there is a comparison between us and them; but these do not consider Paul's object. For what does he mean to say here, but that the ancient people of God were honoured with the same benefits with us, and were partakers of the same sacraments, that we might not, from confiding in any peculiar privilege, imagine that we would be exempted from the punishment which they endured?" *

*Calvin, Transl. Soc. in loc. Edinb. 1848.

That the apostle is drawing an analogy between Israel and Christians is plain; but the very language employed, that their things were "types" or figures of us, should have prevented the identification either of them and us, or of the facts that resemble baptism and the Lord's supper more or less. Doubtless the doctors of the Sorbonne were wrong in virtually denying quickening faith to the fathers under the law; but Calvin is ever, more culpably wrong, if deluded by their error of saving sacraments now, he conceives that the signs under the law were thus efficacious also. Christ alone, received by faith, has quickening power, through the Holy Spirit, either of old or now; but now there is accomplishment, as then there was only promise. Saints of old had pretermission of sins; now remission, and life more abundantly, and the gift of the Spirit. This is a vast deal more than a difference in degree only, as so many Protestants dream, not to speak of Popish darkness; but their legalism, where they are not the victims of rationalism, deprives them of perception as well as power. The veil is on their eyes, though not on their hearts.

As a question of interpretation, it is evident that by all eating the same spiritual meat the apostle is speaking of the fathers, not of the Corinthians or other Christians, the point of warning and instruction being, that in the most of them God took no pleasure, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. He is speaking therefore in these verses solely of Israel, and in no way predicating the sameness of their manna and water with our signs of Christ's death, or what men call the sacraments. The sense then is, not that they were in the very same condition with us, or had the same sacraments with us, but that, though they all partook of the same spiritual meat and drink, in the most of them God had no pleasure. Title as God's people, and participation in sacred privileges, which are expressly made like to the two institutions so familiar to us in Christendom, did not save the mass from being overthrown, by divine judgments, in the wilderness.

Next the apostle shows us how the things that happened in their case are "types of us (ver. 6), that we should not be lusters after evil things, even as they also lusted." This is general; but those things are successively specified which were perilous to the Corinthians. "Neither be idolaters, even as some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." There was, in the first place, a yielding to fleshly gratification, then pleasurable excitement followed, which told the result one sees in the scripture cited — the judgment. Were not the Corinthians in danger? "Neither let us commit fornication, even as some of them committed fornication, and fell in one day twenty-three thousand." In the history (Num. 26), where twenty-four thousand are said to have died in the plague, it is not said "in one day," as here, where we hear of a thousand less. To me such a difference implies the greatest accuracy, nor have I named all the points of distinction which deserve the thoughtful reader's consideration, small as the matter may seem, and to some grave men only a question of general numbers on either side of the precise amount. "Neither let us tempt the Lord, even as some of them tempted, and were perishing by the serpents." To tempt was to doubt His presence and action on their behalf, as Israel, not only "ten times" (Num. 14), but also just before Jehovah sent fiery serpents to cut them off. "Neither murmur, even as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer." This, if it be not more general, seems to allude to the gainsaying of Korah and his company, which so excited the evil tongue in Israel.

"Now these things happened to them typically, and were written for our admonition, unto whom the ends of the ages have reached." There cannot be a more important canon for our intelligent and profitable reading of these Old Testament oracles. The facts happened to them, but they were divinely cast in systematical figures, or forms of truth, for admonishing us who find ourselves at so critical a juncture of the world's history. They contain therefore far more than moral lessons, however weighty. They do disclose man's heart, and let out God's mind and affections but they have the larger and deeper instruction of events which illustrate immense principles, such as sovereign grace, on. the one hand, and pure law on the other, with a mingled system of government on legal ground, while mercy and goodness availed through a mediator, which came in when the people worshipped a calf at Horeb. There is thus an orderly, as well as prophetic, character in the mode these incidents are presented, which, when lit up with the light of Christ and His redemption and the truth now revealed, prove their inspiration in a self-evident way to him who has the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Israel only witnessed the facts, and the writer was enabled, by the Spirit of God, to record them in an order which was far beyond his own thoughts, or the intelligence of any before redemption; but now that this mighty work of God is accomplished, their figurative meaning stands out in the fulness of a wide system, and with a depth which reveals God, not man, as the true Author. Be it our happiness not only to know but to do the truth!

The scriptural history of Israel is thus exceedingly solemn as well as instructive. It was so recounted by the Spirit as to be typical of us. "So then let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. No temptation hath taken you save a human one: but God [is] faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted above what ye are able, but will make with the temptation also the issue that ye* may be able to bear [it]." (Vers. 12, 13.)

* ὑμᾶς ("ye") is expressed in Tex. Rec. with large cursive support, but contrary to the great uncials, save in a correction of two.

On the one hand the self-confidence of the Corinthians, as of every one else, is precisely the source of danger. In the world as it is, and in man as he is, there must be constant exposure; for evil exists, and an enemy is not wanting to avail himself of it; and the people of God are the especial aim of his malicious activity to dishonour the Lord by their means. If others slumber in unremoved death, those that are alive to God in Christ need to watch and pray. On the other hand they had been tried by no temptation beyond the lot of man: Christ was tried beyond it in the days of His flesh, not only at the end of His service but at the beginning; not only in all things in like manner, apart from sin, but beyond what belongs to man, tempted as He was for forty days in the wilderness. But we can only overcome in our little trials as He in His great ones by dependence on God and obedience of His word which the Spirit clothes with might against Satan. We may and ought to confide in God. If He is faithful who called us to the fellowship of His Son, equally so is He in not permitting us to be tempted beyond measure. It is His power by which the saints are kept through faith, not by their perseverance. Hence with the trial He makes also the issue or escape, and this not by removing the trial but by enabling His own to endure.

Now comes the special warning. "wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to prudent [men]: judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it* not fellowship with the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not fellowship with the body of the Christ? Because we, the many, are one loaf, one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (Vers. 14-17.) To count idolatry impossible for a Christian is to trifle. This the Corinthians were doing. They knew, said they, that the idol was a nullity, and therefore it was nothing to them to eat meet which had been offered to heathen idols; nay, they could go a step farther and sit and eat in the heathen temples. The apostle on the contrary maintains the principle of partaking in an evil which you may not yourself do, and especially in things sacred. The true wisdom in such Gases is to keep wholly aloof. It is a misuse of knowledge to participate, or even give the appearance of participating, in what is religiously false. It is in vain to plead that the heart is not in what one allows outwardly, not only on moral grounds but because it slights Christ and ignores Satan's wiles. Is not the Christian redeemed from bondage to the enemy? Is he not bought with a price to glorify God? At once the apostle makes themselves judges by putting them in presence of the central and standing institution of church fellowship. Where was their practical understanding now? "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowship with the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not fellowship with the body of the Christ?"

* ἐστίν stands before τοῦ αἵμ. in A B P, etc., and before τοῦ σ. Α, etc., contrary to all the rest.

Clearly the apostle reasons from the public symbol of christian communion; he is not laying it down to correct any wrong observance: else he would not hays put the cup before the loaf here. He begins his appeal with that which had the deepest meaning as to Christ; he leaves for the next place what most impressively conveys the fellowship of the saints with Christ as one body. It is so viewed as to compare it best with the peace-offerings of Israel and the sacrifices of the heathen. Fellowship there is in each. The worshippers share in common what distinguishes them from all others. In the church's case it is the blood and body of Christ. The blood of Christ awakens the gravest thoughts in the Christian; the body of Christ, the most intimate unity possible, "because we, the many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of the one loaf." There is neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation. It is the loaf that we break, it is the one loaf of which we all partake. Representatively it is the one body of Christ; and if the loaf be that body, just so we, the many, are that one loaf also. This scripture, like the rest which speak of it, is wholly irreconcileable with Romanism or Lutheranism, which here present mere superstitions, not the truth of God. The words on which they essay to base their errors do really refute them.

There is not a thought of sacerdotal consecration of the elements. "The cup of blessing which we bless," "the loaf which we break," prove that it is no act of one endued with extraordinary power and transmitted authority. It is "we" and "we, the many," in the very context which speaks of "I" and "ye." But all such individuality vanishes from this feast, as being radically opposed to its nature. None that truly entered into its spirit could have so marred the fellowship as to make the minister first receive in both kinds himself, and then proceed to deliver the same to the clergy if present, and after that to the people also in order. Who that is faithful to its scriptural meaning could say, The body . . . . which was given for thee, the blood . . . . which was shed for thee? Still less could there have been such a contrast with the Lord's words in letter and spirit, such an oblivion even of the form as a wafer expressly unbroken placed by the priest on the tongue and no cup whatever for the communicant. These are the palpable and fatal signs of a Christendom at war with the Lord, of His word set at nought, and the Holy Spirit quenched. One of course may give thanks at the breaking of the bread; but in truth, if duly done according to Christ, it is all the saints that bless, all that break the loaf. Such is the essence of its meaning; and he who departs from it must account for it to the Lord who commanded all that are His to do thus.

It may be added that in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark we read of the Lord, after taking the loaf, blessing, and then giving thanks after taking the cup. In Luke He is said to give thanks after taking a loaf. The decisive disproof however of what gross ignorance mistakenly infers from it is that, on the occasion of feeding the multitude with bread, the very same language is used; that is, when a sacrament confessedly was out of the question, He took the five loaves and two fishes, and, looking up to heaven, blessed them. (Luke 9) It is not that εὐλογέω is exactly equivalent to εὐχαριστέω, but clearly they can be used to a certain extent interchangeably; they express with a shade of difference the self-same act, neither prayer for a miracle nor the form of effecting one, but very simply a benediction or thanksgiving. If our ordinary food be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, who could think of the supper of the Lord without blessing and thanksgiving?

Again that not faith only is possessed but the Spirit of God is supposed to have sealed the communicants is plain from all that is said. Nobody doubts that a hypocrite or self-deceived soul might partake; but the Lord's intention is as clear as that the character of the feast excludes such. They may drink the wine or break the bread; but they are as distant as ever from the grace and truth therein celebrated, and only add presumptuous sin to the self-will and unbelief of their habitual life. Individually the believer has already eaten the flesh of the Son of man and drunk His blood; he eats it, knowing that he has eternal life in Him, and otherwise no life in himself. Together we bless the cup, together we break the bread in thanksgiving before Him who has blessed us beyond all thought; and herein is communion. To suppose that unbelievers share it is profanity, and deliberate profanity if we systematically open the door for them and invite them in.

But the point before the apostle was rather that the Christian cannot go out to another fellowship if he enjoy this. Communion is the joint participation of the blessing for all whom it concerns; but it excludes as rigorously those who have no part or lot in it. Further it forbids from any other fellowship those who share this. Even the Israelite after the flesh who ate the sacrifices was a partaker with the altar of Jehovah, severed thus in principle and fact from the vanities of the heathen. "See Israel according to flesh: are not they that eat the sacrifices in fellowship with the altar?" How much more did it become the Christian to judge and walk according to God! If they lived in the Spirit, let them walk in the Spirit.

"What say I then? that an idol-sacrifice* is anything, or that an idol* is anything? but that what they† sacrifice‡ they sacrificed to demons and not to God; and I wish you not to be in fellowship with demons. Ye cannot drink [the] Lord's cup and a cup of demons; ye cannot partake of [the] Lord's table and of a table of demons. What! do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" (Vers. 19-22.)

* corr. B Ccorr. D E P, some cursives, many versions, etc., have the order different from K L and most with Text. Rec., p.m. A Cp.m. omitting the second clause altogether.

† τὰ ἔθνη A C L most cursives, the ancient versions, etc., as in Text. Rec., but not in B D E Fgr Ggr. etc.

‡ θύουσιν A B a D E F G I' etc. θύει K L. most cursives. etc.

To eat of sacrificial offerings was evidently then no light matter. As the Jew who ate was in communion with the altar, so he who partook of what was offered to an idol had fellowship with the idol. Such is its real meaning. Does this contradict the previous reasoning of the apostle as of the prophets of old, that the idol was a mere nonentity? Not at all. But if such products of man's device have no existence and their images see not nor hear, demons are very real and avail themselves of man's imagination or his fears and arrogate to themselves the idol-sacrifices. The emptiness of idols is therefore no ground for partaking of meats sacrificed to them; for "what they sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God." (See Deut. 32: 17; Ps. 95: 6.) The idols and their sacrifices may be utterly powerless; but demons hiding behind can and do thereby shut out from souls the true God and usurp the homage due to Him alone. This is the effect of heathen worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who partake in their sacrifices. They no more purposed to revere demons (or fallen and evil spirits) than the unconverted now mean to serve Satan. But they did and do so none the less. The truth puts things in their real light which the reasoning, the imagination, or the indifference of man leaves in the shade.

The Corinthians loved ease and sought to escape the cross. Why trouble, they might argue, about trifles? The idol is nothing, nor its sacrifices, nor its temple. How unwise then to offend for nothing! Communion with demons, answers the apostle, is the result. He that eats and drinks where the Lord's blessing is not partakes in the demon's curse. We shall see in the next chapter what it is to eat and drink unworthily at the Lord's supper. Here it is the real character of the evil where one partook of things sacrificed to idols, which the vain Corinthians prided themselves on doing freely because of their superior knowledge. But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons: if he tampers with demons, has he not virtually abandoned the Lord? They may delight to have and harm the christian professor; the Lord refuses His fellowship to the idolater. If fellowship is inclusive, it is exclusive. "He that is not with me is against me," said He Himself; "and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt. 12) "What! do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?" Love cannot but be jealous of wandering affections; it were not love if it did not resent unfaithfulness. And is He so powerless that we can despise Him with impunity? Are we stronger than He? Do we court destruction?

Thus had the apostle shown the danger of idolatry, from the inveterate tendency, not of the Gentiles merely in their habitual worship of idols, but of the very people separated to Jehovah as His witnesses against it. He had also proved that to partake of sacrificial feasts in a heathen temple is none the less idolatrous, because, if the idol is nothing, the demons are very serious indeed, as the enemies of God and man. The meat in itself may be harmless, but to eat it thus is to have communion with the demons behind the idol, and so to renounce the fellowship of Christ. For one cannot have both: Christianity, Judaism, heathenism, are exclusive of each other. The Lord must feel and judge such unfaithfulness on the part of His own; His love. and honour could not pass by a virtual renunciation of Himself.

But if a Christian should abstain from idol-sacrifice out of love to a weak brother, and yet more for fear of provoking the Lord's jealousy, is it wrong in itself to eat such meat? Certainly not. As he began, so he closes. "All things are lawful,* but do not profit; all things are lawful,* but do not edify. Let no one seek his own [advantage], but his neighbour's [literally, that of the other]." (Vers. 23, 24.) The principle laid down in chapter 6 is enlarged. It is not merely lawful "to me," nor is it a question here of being brought under the power of any. There indifference as to meats exposed some to impurity, here to idolatry. The apostle urges not merely exemption from evil, but positive edification. This love alone secures; because it looks not at its own things and seeks the good of others. It would please one's neighbour, with a view to good to edification. Even Christ, in whom was no evil, did not please Himself, but rather took on Himself the reproaches of those that reproached Jehovah. Thus it is not enough to avoid being brought under the power of anything, but one should seek the profit, not of self, but of others, and the building up of all.

* μοι is added by the correctors of and C, by H K L, most cursives, etc., contrary to the best authorities of every kind.

Hence we have the principle applied in general, and tested particularly, in verses 25-30. "Everything that is offered for sale in the shambles eat, examining nothing for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and its fulness. And if any of the unbelieving inviteth you, and ye desire to go, all that is set before you eat, examining nothing for conscience sake. But if any say to you, This is sacrificed,* eat not for his sake that pointed [it] out and conscience,† but conscience I say, not one's own but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? If‡ I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" Thus the principle of God's creation holds good for all that is on sale in the market, as well as for what might be on an unbeliever's table, if one should go there, and one may eat in either case without special inquiry. It is otherwise, not merely in an idol temple but even in private, where one should say, This is offered to holy purposes, because he evidently has a conscience about it, though one otherwise might have perfect liberty. It is good in such a case to deny oneself, and not expose one's liberty to be judged by another, or incur evil speaking for the thing for which I give thanks. One must in love respect the scruple of the weakest saint, while holding fast by the intelligence and liberty of Christ.

* ἱερόθυτον, as a heathen would say, A B H S Sah. yr. (Pesch.); but all others, εἰδωλόθυτον, sacrificed to idols, as a Christian might say.

† The last clause of T. Rec. is omitted by the ancient authorities.

‡ δέ ("For") is added in T. Rec. by few and slight witnesses.

The apostle then lays down the still larger and golden rule of christian conduct: "Whether then ye eat or drink, or do anything, do all things unto God's glory. Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews or Greeks, or to the church of God; even as I too please all in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but that of the many, that they be saved. Be imitators of me, even as I too am of Christ." (Ver. 31; 1 Cor. 11: 1.) Thus, if one does all to God's glory, self is not sought to be gratified, but given up; and in this way is no stumbling-block presented to man, on the one hand, whether Jews or Gentiles, or to God's assembly, on the other. Love alone so walks, seeking God's glory and man's good. Against the fruit of the Spirit there is no law, even among those who vaunt law most, and least love grace. So it was with the apostle habitually; the most uncompromising of all the apostles, none equalled him in gracious concession, where it could be consistently with Christ.

1 Corinthians 11

It is not without instruction for us that the apostle can praise in the midst of so much too justly merited reproof. He loved to approve all he could. In this too he surely was, as he had said, an imitator of Christ. So love wrought in Him who had not a particle of self. It left Him free to approve without reserve whatever was of God in those dear to Him, and none the less because they were themselves weak and faulty. But the apostle for the same reason was delivered from the fear of others imputing to him vanity or pride when he called the Corinthians to imitate him, as he too imitated Christ. Certainly in seeking the salvation of souls there was no self-pleasing on His part, but such suffering as could be borne only by One who was God judged, for the sins of those He was saving, according to the unsparing indignation and holy vengeance of God against that which is above all hateful to Him. This was His work and His suffering alone; but the apostle appreciated it profoundly; and such an appreciation forms the heart accordingly. The untiring and enduring devotedness of his life was the fruit. He desired that this should characterize the Corinthians, instead of the superficial abuse of knowledge, which in making light of idolatry lost sight of Christ and endangered souls precious to Him through the wiles of the enemy. Such had never been the apostle's way who loved others and cared for their true profit that they might be saved. He could ask the Corinthians to follow him in this, as he too followed Christ. Yet he could praise them also.

"Now I praise you* that in all things ye remember me, and hold fast the traditions according as I delivered [them] to you." (Ver. 2.) Tradition in scripture is used, not only for the added maxims of men, as in Matthew 15, but for what the apostles enjoined on the saints, first orally, then in inspired writings, as also in both ways, while the canon was in course and not yet complete. Compare also Romans 6: 17; 2 Thessalonians 2: 15.

* A B C P, some good cursives, and ancient versions, do not read ἀδελφοί, "brethren."

"But I wish you to know that the head of every man is the† Christ, and woman's head the man, and the‡ Christ's head God. Every man praying or prophesying with head covered [literally, having something] on [his] head] shameth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered shameth her own§ head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn; but if [it is] shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. On this account ought the woman to have authority on the head on account of the angels. However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord; for as the woman [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman should pray to God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if man have long hair, it is a dishonour to him; but if woman have long hair, it is a glory to her? Because the hair hath been given her instead of a veil. But if any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the assemblies of God." (Vers. 3-16.)

† ὁ Χ. X. A Bcorr. Dcorr. E K L P, most cursives, etc.; but some good witnesses omit.

‡ τοῦ A B D E, etc, the rest omitting the article.

§ ἑαυτῆς B Dcorr E K, etc.; very excellent authorities, αὐτῆς.

This is a most characteristic specimen of the apostle's dealing with a point of order. He deduces the solution from first principles involved in divine dealings from the beginning. It is an admirable way of settling questions, not by mere abstract authority, even where the highest lay, but by conveying to others the ways of God in creation and providence, which drew out the admiration as well as submission of his heart. It is no question of new creation. There difference disappears. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. But here on earth there is a relative order established of God; and as the man is woman's head, so the Christ is the head of every man, and God is the Christ's head. It were still more perilously false to use these words to disparage Christ than to turn aside their force to deny the subjection of woman to man. The Christ is viewed as such, not in His own intrinsic personal glory, or in the communion of the divine nature, but in the place He entered and took as the Anointed. God therefore is the head of the highest; and as woman is bound to own the place given her by God, so is man to fill suitably his own assigned relationship. The principle is applied to correct some christian women at Corinth who outstepped the limits of propriety. The apostle puts the entire case, and even a man's mistake as to it, though it would appear that it was as yet a question of the other sex. For a man to have his head covered would falsify his witness to Christ; so for a woman not to be. It is not argued on grounds of habit, modesty, or the like, but of the facts as revealed by God. It would be the sign of authority taken by the woman, of authority abandoned by the man. A woman without a veil is like a man, without being really so. It is to renounce, as far as the act goes, the subjection she owes to man; it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. Let her also be shorn, says the indignant servant of the Lord; but if either be shameful for a woman, he adds, let her be covered. (Vers. 2-6.)

There is a still further opening of the ground as to man and woman in the verses which follow. "For man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory; but the woman is man's glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created on account of woman, but woman on account of man. On this account ought the woman to have authority on the head on account of the angels. However, neither [is] woman without man, nor man without woman, in [the] Lord; for as the woman [is] of the man, so also [is] the man by the woman; but all things of God." (Vers. 7-12.)

Thus the apostle points out man's standing directly as God's image and glory: woman is man's glory, having no such place of public representation for God. Whatever she has relatively is essentially mediate and derivative. Creation is the proof, not of course the ordinary course of things since. It is impossible, therefore, to form a right estimate without looking to the beginning. If verse 7 then refers to the origination of man and woman respectively, verse 8 sets forth the making of the woman for, and subsequently to, the man, as grounds of woman's subordination to man. It is easy to see that, where creation is denied, or even ignored, men naturally reason and labour for their equality. But there is another consideration, which only faith could admit — the testimony to divine order which should be given by man and woman to those spiritual beings whom scripture declares to have the most intimate connection with the heirs of salvation. (Compare 1 Cor. 4: 9; Eph. 3) "For this reason ought the woman to have power on the head on account of the angels" — a sentiment entirely mistaken by the mass of commentators, who have gone off, some into degrading thoughts about bad angels, others into lowering the word to the sense of the righteous themselves, the christian prophets, the presidents of the assemblies, the nuntii desponsationum or persons deputed to effect betrothals, or mere spies sent there by the unfaithful.

So also the expression, "authority on the head," has given rise to endless discussion. To have authority on the head unquestionably means to wear the sign of it in a covering or veil. On the other hand, in verses 11, 12, the apostle is careful to insist on the mutuality of man and woman, denying their independence of one another, affirming God the source of them respectively, and of all things.

Further, he appeals to the sense of propriety grounded on the constitution of both man and woman. "In your own selves judge: is it becoming that a woman uncovered should pray to God? Doth not even nature itself teach you," etc. If it be as natural for man to have short hair as for woman to have long, is it not a revolt against the nature of each to reverse this in practice? God's creation must govern where the word of His grace does not call to higher things, and this could not be pretended here.

Finally, the habitual usage of the churches, as regulated by apostolic wisdom, is no light thing to disturb, and this the apostle puts with great moral force. "But if any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor yet the churches of God." It is a contemptible sort of independence which sets itself up, not only against the spiritual feeling of all the public witness in God's assemblies, but above those endowed with heavenly wisdom to direct all. It is neither conscience nor spirituality, but a fleshly love of differing from others, and at bottom sheer vanity. The "custom" negatived was the Corinthian innovation, which confounded God's order in nature, not disputatiousness, as many ancients and moderns strangely conclude.

The apostle had settled the point of comely order as respects women. He now turns to a still graver matter, the Lord's mind about His supper. From this the Corinthians had sadly departed there and then, slipping into the grossest evils, as we shall see.

Yet is it important to take note before we go into detail that, according to the modern mode of administering the sacrament, such a disorder was impossible. The reason is beyond measure a grave one. Christendom has radically altered the supper — a more serious state of things than even the distressing and immoral levity which then disgraced the Corinthian assembly. The latter could be judged and rectified; the former demands a return to first principles which have been wholly given up, not merely as to the institution itself but as to the nature of both ministry and church, and their mutual relations.

What gave occasion to the grievous impropriety of the assembly in its then low and careless estate was apparently the mixing up the love-feast with the Lord's supper. The love-feast (or Agape) was a meal of which the early Christians partook in common, the aim being to cultivate social intercourse among those who are strangers and pilgrims called to suffer on earth and to spend eternity together in glory with the Lord. The Corinthians however had lost the sense of christian strangership, and as they had let in from the world the rivalry of the schools in zeal for favourite teachers, so they degraded even the Agape by holding to class distinctions, the rich feasting on their own contributions to the meal, while those who had nothing to give were made keenly to feel their poverty. Thus the principle of christian society was destroyed at the very meal which ought to have displayed it in practice; and as they thus selfishly forgot wherefore they thus came together, God gave them up to the deeper sin of degrading the Lord's supper, which was partaken of at the same time, by the effects of their licence in eating and drinking.

This doubtless was a scandalous irreverence; but the sacrament as now observed is the deliberate and systematic abandonment even of the form of the supper, the change of it into a superstitious ordinance from the thanksgiving of God's family in view of the deepest solemnity in time, nay for eternity, the death of our Lord on which it is based with the remembrance of Himself in infinite love, humiliation, and suffering for our sins. Nothing but the appreciation of its spiritual aim preserved it from becoming a scene of shame; if not kept in the Spirit, it quickly passed into fleshly lightness; and this is the will of God in order that it may necessitate the looking to the Lord who promises His presence to those gathered to His name. It is with the supper as with all other parts of christian worship and service. They are nothing if not sustained by the Spirit according to the word of God. Change their principle in order to secure appearances, and all is ruined. This is precisely what tradition has done in the Lord's supper as elsewhere. From the sacramental eucharist of post-apostolic times the Corinthian excesses were excluded, but so was the Holy Spirit from guiding the saints according to the word. Clericalism was introduced to preside, formalism and distance imposed on the rest, and the rite made more or less a saving ordinance, instead of the communion of Christ's body and blood enjoyed by His members in His presence.

But let us weigh the apostle's words. "Now in enjoining this I praise* [you] not, because ye come together not for the better but for the worse. For first, when ye come together in an assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and in some measure I believe [it]; for there must be even sects among you that the approved may become manifest among you." (Vers. 18, 19.) We have here important help toward deciding the difference between these terms as well as the precise nature of each. Schism is a division within the assembly, while they all still abide in the same association as before, even if severed in thought or feeling through fleshly partiality or aversion, Heresy, in its ordinary scriptural application as here (not its ecclesiastical usage), means a party among the saints, separating from the rest in consequence of a still stronger following of their own will. A schism within if unjudged tends to a sect or party without, when on the one hand the approved become manifest, who reject these narrow and selfish ways, and on the other the party-man is self-condemned, as preferring his own particular views to the fellowship of all saints in the truth. (Compare Titus 3: 10, 11.)

* The readings here are singularly conflicting. Lachmann and Tregelles read τοῦτο δέ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν, "This I enjoin, not praising [you]" on the authority of A Cp.m. F G, some cursives, the Vulgate, Pesch. Syr., and other ancient versions. Tischendorf had adopted this, but in his eighth edition he returns to the common text, παραγγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ supported by and the mass of uncials and cursives, etc. The Vatican strangely gives παραγέλλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶν, which can hardly be said to have any just sense and is probably a mere slip, one or other only being a participle, not both.

They met in one place. "When ye come together therefore into the same [place], it is not to eat [the] Lord's supper. For each in eating taketh his own supper before [others], and one is hungry, and another drinketh excessively. Have ye not then houses for eating and drinking? or despise ye the church of God, and put shame on those that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I do not praise." (Vers. 20-22.) They had not as yet broken up into sects: this evil was reserved for a later and worse day. If however they did come together into one place, the apostle will not allow that it was to eat the Lord's supper, but each their own: so utterly were they losing the truth of things while the form lingered on. Not only was Christ gone, but even the social element. They were a spectacle of greed; and, what made it more flagrant, those who had means were the worse, despising the church of God and putting to shame the poor. With all his desire to praise the Corinthians, in this the apostle could not.*

* No wonder that Dr. C. Hodge remarks, "If within twenty years of its institution, the Corinthians turned the Lord's Supper into a disorderly feast, although the apostles were then alive, we need not wonder at the speedy corruption of the church after their death." The case is yet stronger; for the corruption began almost immediately after the apostle had planted the church at Corinth. It is only as walking in the Spirit that anything goes aright in the church. And so would God have it who has for us judged and ended forms in the cross of Christ.

This leads to the revelation on the subject vouchsafed by the Lord. "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was being delivered up, took bread, and, having given thanks, brake [it] and said†, This is my body which [is] † for you: this do in remembrance of me; in like manner also the cup after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord till he come." (Vers. 23-26.)

† The Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaitic, and Palimpsest of Paris, with other authorities, have not κλώμενον "broken" as in most followed by Tex. Rec. Still more largely do the witnesses reject λάβετε, φάγετε, "take, eat."

It is interesting to notice that to Paul was given a revelation of the supper, not of baptism. He was baptized like another himself, not by an apostle even, lest this might be perverted to make him dependent on the twelve, but by a simple disciple, Ananias. Baptism attaches to the individual confessor and would have its place as the sign of the great christian basis, the death and resurrection of Christ, if there had been no such thing as the baptizing believers by the Spirit into one body, the church. But the supper, besides being the memorial of Christ and emphatically of His death, is now bound up with the body of Christ, as we have seen in 1 Cor. 10: 16, 17. This is so true that he who wilfully or under an act of discipline does not partake of that one loaf ceases to enjoy the privileges of God's assembly on earth; he who partakes of it cannot free himself from the responsibilities of that holy fellowship. And as Paul was the chosen vessel by whom was to be revealed the mystery of Christ and the church, so did it seem good to the Lord that he should receive a special revelation of His supper, the standing sign of its unity and public witness of its communion.

It is striking to observe that, plainly as the Lord has revealed His mind here, even the Protestant Reformers failed to recover its lineaments. They have individualised the Lord's supper. They make it "for thee." "Take thou," etc. This is consistent. They had not seen the one body and one Spirit. Even if they had limited it to those who were believed to be justified by faith, still this would have been only an aggregate of individuals. They never received the truth of the church as Christ's body on earth. On the contrary they began the system of distinct or independent national churches on earth; they relegated the unity of the church to heaven. The one body, as an existing relationship to which the Christian belongs now, and on which he is bound to act continually, was unknown as a present reality; and this ignorance betrayed itself even in their mode of celebrating the sacrament, as it does to this day.

Even where there is no such form of individuality, there is as little sense or expression of the one body.* The reason is obvious. They do not contemplate all the faithful, being avowedly associations of certain souls on the ground of points of difference (that is, sects), or embracing the world as well as believers. In either way dissenting or nationalist, being off the basis of God's church, they naturally drop the words as they are revealed for God's order of things, and change them, perhaps unconsciously, into what suits their own condition. Communion there cannot be but in the Spirit, who exalts Christ, not opinions, and goes out toward all saints, not some only, nor the world at all in such worship.

* Early, in the Catholic days of Gregory, so little was the unity of Christ's body apprehended that we find the form, "the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul," enlarged before the time of Alcuin and Charlemagne to "the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto everlasting life." The grace of the gospel had then also faded greatly, as one can see.

It is the holy, gracious, and deep meaning of the Lord's supper, and in no way the elements or the ministrant, which invests it with such value and blessing. He is in the midst of His own to give them the enjoyment of His love in present power, but as recalling their hearts to the sacrifice of Himself for their sins to place them without charge or question before God. The bread remains bread, and so does the wine; the thanksgiving, or blessing, we find as at all times of ordinary life in receiving the creatures of God; of miracle at this time the word of God whispers not a word. The Lord breaks the bread and says, This is My body which is on your behalf: this do in remembrance of Me; in like manner the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do as often as ye drink it in remembrance of Me.

The Lord's supper then is to remind us of Christ, of His death; not of our sins but of our sins remitted and ourselves loved. It is in no wise the old covenant of condemnation, but the new covenant (God known in grace, iniquity forgiven, and sins remembered no more); not yet made with the houses of Israel set for ever the land under the reign of Messiah, but the blood shed which is its foundation, and we who believe, Jew or Gentile, having it in spirit, not in letter. (See 2 Cor. 3) Of this the cup especially is the pledge.

But Romanism takes away the cup from its votaries, and consistently enough; for as a system it supposes sacrifice going on, not finished, and consequently it administers a sacrament of non-redemption. The bread, say they, contains the blood, flesh, soul, divinity, all in the body; that is, the blood is not shed, and therefore no remission of sins, no perfecting of the sanctified, for the one offering is always going on and not yet accomplished or accepted. Romanism therefore stands in contrast with Christianity in the capital truth of the efficacy of Christ's death, indispensable both to God's glory and to the cleansing of the conscience of the Christian.

But Protestantism has infringed on Christ's institution, not only by impairing the grace of God in the Lord's supper, but by letting in the world as we have seen and by insisting for the most part on an authorised official to administer it. All these ruin its simple, profound, and most affecting significance. Not that one denies for a moment ministry or rule; they are of exceeding moment and will be treated of in their place according to scripture. Yet in the Lord's supper, not only as He instituted it at first but as it was revealed by Him to the apostle in its final shape, none of these things appear. It is essentially as members of the one body that we communicate. Even the gifts are introduced separately and afterwards. Elders, if any, are ignored; and this is the more remarkable, as the occasion might have seemed exactly one to have reminded them of the disorder allowed at Corinth, if it had really been their duty to preside at the supper. But, instead of reprehending any one's neglect as specially responsible, the apostle deals with the hearts and consciences of all the saints and brings out its true meaning, object, and guard for the instruction of the entire church of God. To discern the body, to appreciate the unfathomable grace of our Lord in His death for our sins, is the true corrective for all that have faith in Him who deigns to be in their midst as thus gathered to His name. To introduce a human order however reverent in appearance, without divine warrant, for the purpose of shutting out the Corinthian excesses or any others, is more offensive to him that trembles at the word of the Lord than any abuse of His supper as it was instituted. Even under such circumstances as those of Corinth the apostle adds nothing, takes away nothing, corrects nothing of that institution; in which we are called to announce the death of the Lord until He shall have come.

These last words convict of a great, perilous, and irreverent error those who count the Lord's supper a relic of Judaism and argue for its disuse among Christians like the community of goods practised only for a brief space after Pentecost. A fresh revelation to the apostle of the Gentiles ought to have put such a notion to the rout, even apart from words such as those of verse 26 which suppose the constant and frequent observance of the supper till Christ returns in glory. And in fact the history of such theorists as the Society of Friends is the strongest proof of their error; for no christian sect has more thoroughly lost the force of the truth of redemption in discarding its signs. As is well known, they refuse as a whole (I speak not of evangelical individuals) both baptism and the Lord's supper. In accordance with this they do not see death Healed on the race, nor the efficacy of Christ's death in grace for the believer. They think of Christ as putting all mankind into a state of indefinite improvableness and so of saving those who do their best, Jew, Turk, or heathen; they repudiate therefore both institutions which set forth objectively that one can have no part with Christ risen but through His death. Subject to the word, we were buried with Him by baptism to death; and now continually announce His death till He come. Self is thus judged, yet are we kept in the constant sense of His grace. Is it not the truth as to ourselves, and due to Him? Is it not in perfect harmony with the gospel, which combines peace and salvation in Him with the confession of good-for-nothingness in those who are thus blessed to the praise of God's mercy in Christ? Worship and even discipline only confirm this.

Such is the institution and the aim of the Lord's supper. Let us pursue the consequences pressed by the apostle with his wonted fulness, depth, and solemnity.

"Wherefore whoever eateth* the bread or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily† shall be guilty as to the body and the‡ blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh§ eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body.|| For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and pretty many are falling asleep. But** if we were discerning ourselves, we should not be judged; but when judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when coming together to eat, wait for each other. If†† any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment. But the rest will I arrange when I come." (Vers. 27-34.)

* τοῦτον K L P, most cursives, several ancient versions, and so Text. Rec., contrary to AB1CDEFG, several cursives and ancient versions.

† Dcorr. L and twenty cursives, add τοῦ κυρίου "of the Lord."

Text. Rec., with some cursives, omits τοῦ.

§ Text. Rec. adds ἀναξίως and κυρίου with many MSS and versions, contrary to A B C, etc.

|| δέ p.m. A B D E F G, etc.; γάρ corr. C K L P, etc. Text. Rec.

** τοῦ B C, etc., which Text. Rec. omits with most.

†† Text. Rec. adds δέ with most, contrary to p.m. A B C Dp.m. F G, etc.

But the more precious the Lord's supper is, as the gathering of christian affection to a focus in the remembrance of His death, the greater the danger, if the heart be careless, or the conscience not before God. It is not a question of allowing unworthy persons to communicate. Low as the Corinthians might be through their unjudged carnal thoughts and worldly desires, they had not fallen so grievously as that; they had not yet learned to make excuses for admitting the unrenewed and open enemies of the Lord to His table. But they were in danger of reducing its observance to a form for themselves, of partaking in the supper without exercise of soul, either as to their own ways, or as to His unspeakable love who was thus reminding them of His death for them. Hence the solemn admonition of the apostle, "Wherefore whosoever eateth the bread (for the added emphasis of the common text is uncalled for) or drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." To eat or drink it as an ordinary meal, or a common thing, without reflection or self-judgment, is to eat and drink "unworthily;" and the more so because it is a Christian who does so; for of all men he should feel most what he owes the Lord, and what the Lord expressly brings to his remembrance at that serious moment. It is to be guilty of an offence, not merely against Himself in general, but in respect of His body and His blood, if he treat their memorials with indifference. There meet together the extremity of our need and guilt, the fulness of suffering in Christ, the deepest possible judgment of sin, yet withal grace to the uttermost, leaving not a sin unforgiven: what facts, feelings, motives, results, surround the cross of the Lord Jesus! For this reason it appeals, as nothing else can, to the believer's heart as well as to his conscience, and therefore does the apostle censure and stigmatize the Corinthians' fault so strongly. How much for their and our profit!

"But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body." Grace is thus maintained, but through righteousness, as ever. Each is to put himself to the proof, and so to eat and drink. The Lord would have His own to come, but not with negligence of spirit or levity; this were to be a party both to His own dishonour, and the deeper evil of his followers. Still He invites all, if He urges the trying of our ways. Self-judgment is with a view to coming, not to staying away. For it is a question of those whom grace counts worthy; whatever their past or personal unworthiness, they are washed, they are sanctified, they are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Having the Spirit, not of fear, but of power and love and a sound mind, they are assumed to be in peace with God, and delivered from the law of sin; they are contemplated as jealous for the Lord's glory, and hating what grieves the Holy Spirit of God, whereby they are sealed unto the day of redemption.

It is not supposed that they could persevere in evil that they discover themselves exposed to, or that they confess sin in which they begin again to indulge, as if God were mocked by an acknowledgment which would thus aggravate their wickedness. Grace strengthens the man who tries himself with integrity, and it emboldens him to come. Where there is lightness on the other hand, the Lord shows Himself there to judge. "For he that eateth and drinketh (most add "unworthily," but the most ancient omit) eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body," that is, the Lord's body, as the mass add, in both cases needlessly, though right enough for the sense which is implied. To bring in the church would falsify the thought: the wrong was forgetfulness of the Lord's self-sacrificing love. He instituted the supper to remind us of it continually.

But there is another error still more prevalent, and even long and widely consecrated, which has wrought as much mischief as almost any other single mistranslation of a scripture. It is not "damnation" of which verse 29 speaks, but in contrast with it judgment, κρίμα. Yet all the celebrated English versions, from Wiclif downward, have sanctioned the grievous mistake, save the worst of them, the Rhemish, through its servile adherence to the Vulgate, which here happens to give judicium rightly. The curious fact however is, that of all systems none is really so tainted with the unbelief which led to the mistranslation as the Romanist. For it naturally regards with the utmost superstition the Lord's supper, and with it interweaves its idolatry of the real presence. Hence its interpretation of guilt as to the body and the blood of the Lord. Hence its notion of "damnation" attaching to a misuse of the sacrament, followed by almost all the Protestant associations. But the Protestant is misled by his version, while the Romanist is the less excusable, inasmuch as his Vulgate and vernacular versions are so far right, yet he is even more deeply under the delusion which denies christian relationship and an atom of grace in God, as a fact now know to the heart by faith.

Here the Spirit really teaches us that, where the true and holy aim of the Lord's supper is slighted, and the communicant does not discern the body (that is, does not discriminate between the memorial of Christ and an ordinary meal), he eats and drinks judgment as a present thing. He brings on himself the chastening hand of the Lord in vindication of His honour and His love. Hence it is added, "For this cause [are] many weak and sick among you, and a considerable number are falling asleep." There sin, sickness, was to death, And there is still further instruction: "For if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged; but when judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world." This is conclusive. The express aim of the Lord in inflicting these bodily sufferings at the present is in order that His faulty saints may escape damnation. Condemnation awaits the world because, rejecting the Lord, it must bear its own doom. He has borne the sins of the faithful; but if they are light about His grace, they come under His rebukes now, that they may be spared condemnation by and by with the world which they so far resemble. If they discerned the evil in its working within, they would avoid, not only its manifestation without, but His chastening; if they fail in this self-judgment, He does not fail in watchful care, and deals with them; but even such judgment flows from His love, and takes the shape of chastening, that they may not perish in the condemnation yet to fall on the guilty world. How grievous on the part of the saints; how gracious and holy on His part! But it is evidently and only present judgment that they may not fall into future condemnation; that is, it is in contrast with "damnation."

The apostle closes his grave censure and instruction with the exhortation to wait for each other when coming together to eat; self would thus be judged, and love in active exercise. "If any one is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment." The indulgence of flesh in one provokes flesh in another, and the Lord must then judge more than the one who first dishonoured Him.

The apostle manifestly did not say all he might. "The rest will I arrange when I come." It would not be for the best interests of the assembly if all were laid down formally. The Spirit in living power is the true supplement to the written word as the unerring standard, not tradition. We need and have the Holy Ghost as well as scripture; but scripture is the rule, not the Spirit, though we cannot use it aright without Him. This keeps up practical dependence on God, who would not have us to act either alone or together without the distinct light of His word, for which, if we have it not, we ought to wait. And waiting on God for light which we have not, though humbling, is ever wholesome, as God Himself is faithful who has called us to the fellowship of His Son. But it is evident that what despises the plain word of God cannot be His light, however high be the pretensions of those who are beguiled by it. No lie is of the truth, which surely hangs together as a whole. So it is in Christ; and not otherwise with the written word. It refuses the admixture of that which is not of God; and those who are led of the Spirit will prove the divine energy which works in them, not by presuming to bring in any thoughts of their own, as if scripture were at fault, but by a juster and fuller application of scripture than others could have seen till it was thus pointed out there.

1 Corinthians 12.

It may be well to remark here the wisdom of God in furnishing the revelation of the due object and order of the Lord's supper before He treats of the Spirit's presence and operations in the assembly. The observance of that holy feast is independent, not only of the presence of elders or bishops, as we have seen, but of the display of power in the assembly. Not that grace now withholds the Spirit's working, but that God would have us to know that His saints are free, and bound, to remember Christ in this solemn and appointed way of His love, apart from this, or that, or any form of gift. The unfolding of the ways of the Spirit in the church follows as a fresh topic, and is thus kept quite distinct from the standing sign of our fellowship in showing forth the Lord's death.

Nor can there be a doubt to the intelligent believer that an apostle had authority from Christ to act, speak, and write of Him in all that concerns the church, its doctrines and discipline, its order and worship; and that these regulations found in the written word bind the church at all times. It is in the despising of these institutes, and the deliberate abandonment of them, consists the sin and ruin of the church; as, again, those who have ears to hear prove it in their practical submission and obedience. For it is not enough to do the will of the Lord in our individual ways. After being awakened of the Holy Spirit, and brought to God, we find, if we believe scripture, that we are not units but living parts of an organic whole. We belong to God, but also are members of a body on earth — the body of Christ, the church, in which the Holy Spirit acts with a view to glorifying the Lord Jesus. We are not left to our own wisdom as to this, but instructed and directed by the word of God, and very especially by such apostolic epistles as the present. Hence the all-importance of diligent attention to these inspired words, with dependence on God and distrust of ourselves; for the aim of Satan is by all means to thwart what is so near to His glory, and so full of blessing to the saints themselves. Self-confidence may be the snare of some; others may be exposed to the influence of tradition, public opinion, and human learning. The truth is that we must be taught of God, though this be in the godly use of every means His word warrants for our help. But then we have the assurance that "they shall be all taught of God" — a word which our Lord drew from the prophets and applies to the present, so that we may confidently look for its verification in the measure of our waiting on Him in faith.

We shall also see, as we study this new section of the epistle (1 Cor. 12 - 14), how grace turns the errors and faults of the Corinthians to the standing profit of all who desire to learn and walk faithfully. Power is wholly distinct from spirituality. What assembly among the Gentiles surpassed that in the capital of Achaia for the display of energy evidently supernatural? Yet was their communion with God's mind at the lowest ebb. This should have checked the yearning, in our day as in the past, after such manifestations of the Spirit as abounded in their midst; and the rather, as we live when Christendom has grown so inured to its own ways, that though God's word seem to many saints peculiar and eccentric, they have forgotten, if they ever knew, that the most ancient tradition is but an innovation on the "old path" marked down unerringly in scripture. The Corinthians had slipped away from God's end of glorifying the Lord Jesus in the assembly; and hence flesh was active, which forgets the common grace in Christ, and leads us to measure ourselves by ourselves, and to compare ourselves with ourselves. It is vanity, not intelligence; and the fruit is puffing up, not edification. But the watchful eye of the apostle was led to use it for God in his care for all the churches, yea, for the church at all times. Scripture meets every need. It is God's word, and in view of all wants, though He availed Himself only of what then pressed, but after a divine sort.

There are indeed two great and widely prevalent snares: that of sacrificing the individual to the assembly; and that of forgetting the assembly for the individual. Romanism illustrates the former, as Protestantism the latter. In Romanism the church is all; there alone is the Spirit, the truth, holiness, everything: the individual is nothing, not even a saint. It were presumption; the church must settle it, if at all, fifty years after he is dead. The individual cannot even pretend to know his sins forgiven: anathema, says the Council of Trent, to him who says justification is by faith alone; anathema to him who says he can know it for his soul. Thus is the gospel ignored and denied in principle, and most distinctly, for every individual within the bosom of Rome; and this to aggrandize the church, which arrogates to itself alone to speak, but speaks here falsehood in Christ's name. And as to any individuals pretending to say that their body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in them, which they have of God, it could only sound still more awful presumption, if not blasphemy. And no wonder, for it is wholly inconsistent with the sacrifice of the Mass, or the subsistence of an earthly priesthood, which are the Jachin and Boaz of the Romish temple. It is of no avail that the apostolic doctrine is plain, precise, and conclusive that every Christian should know this transcendent privilege of himself now on earth. Romanism boldly sets it aside, and every other which belongs to the individual, in order to swell the church's power and glory. "Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt. 15: 7-9)

But there is an opposite snare, not so destructive of man's salvation, but equally at issue with God's glory. It is the Protestant scheme, which rightly affirms justification by faith, and God's title to address every man's conscience in His word, though enfeebled and spoilt by putting it as man's right to a private judgment on it. But Protestantism ignores the church of God, and in claiming a co-ordinate place for churches, national and dissenting and what not, virtually denies the one body on earth. It may dream of one body in heaven, where scripture never speaks of such a thing, but it recognizes ever so many bodies on earth, each independent, which scripture expressly sets aside.

The word of God guards the truth as to both points, and excludes all error. According to it the gospel deals with each soul first of all. By faith the individual has life and is justified, adopted as a child of God, blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ. Then, over and above his faith, he is sealed by the Spirit. In virtue of one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all given to drink into one Spirit. Thus, and thus only; is the body, the church, formed; it supposed the individual question settled by faith, and then the corporate relationship begins, and is established by the Holy Spirit; and this now on earth, as a privilege indeed of the highest kind, yet at once involving responsibilities thenceforth of the gravest. If the known individual blessedness by faith delivers the soul from Romanism, no less surely does the corporate place of the church, when understood, lift one outside and above Protestantism in all its manifold and varying phases. How could you, intelligibly or consistently, join this, or that body, when you are consciously of the "one body," and responsible to walk according to God's will in that relationship? If I hear God's word, I am first in Christ, then in the church; I know the Spirit dwells in me, and know also that He dwells in the church, which is therefore one while on the earth, not merely alike in doctrine, discipline, and polity, which might be in many independent societies, but one body here below. And this is so true and grave, that the truth would call one out of Romanism, if Rome had not an Image nor a superstition, and out of Protestantism, if its sects kind not a single unconverted member or minister. All this, however, and more, will appear plainly as we pursue the teaching of the apostle.

"Now concerning spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant. Ye know that, when* ye were Gentiles, [ye were] led away unto the dumb idol as ye might be led. Wherefore I give you to know that no one speaking in [the] Spirit of God saith, Jesus [is] accursed, and no one can say, Lord Jesus,† unless in [the] Holy Spirit. Now there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit, and there are differences of services, and the same Lord, and there are differences of operations, but the same God‡ that operateth all things in all." (Vers. 1-6.)

* It is clear that ὅτε was omitted by mere oversight through the preceding ὅτι in F G K and many cursives, followed by the Pesch. Syr., Cop., etc, but all the rest A B C Dgr Egr L P, etc., read it.

† The Text. Rec. follows the mass in giving the accusative; but A B C, etc., the nominative.

‡ B C, etc., read καί "and;" and the Text. Rec. with most adds ἐστι "is."

The Authorized translation, with almost all others, inserts "gifts" after "spiritual" in the first verse; but this is scarcely comprehensive enough, for it does not properly contemplate the presence of the Spirit Himself, which clearly is far more momentous than any gift, and in itself distinct from them, they depending on Him rather than He on them. Hence "manifestations" has been suggested. But this, though better, seems inadequate to express the great truth in question, as we may learn from verse 7, where "the manifestation of the "Spirit" refers to what is given to each, as distinct from the baptism of the Spirit, which forms all into one body. The sense is the entire range of what pertains to the Spirit; and if our language could bear "spirituals," this would seem the best way of rendering τῶν πνευματικῶν. A christian usage has already adopted "heavenlies" in Ephesians. There seems at least as much need for a similar modification here in Corinthians. There is no sufficient reason, with Locke and others, to suppose that spiritual men are meant here again, as in 1 Cor. 14: 37, 1 Cor. 2: 15; Galatians 6. Compare verse 31 and 1 Cor. 14: 1. This would narrow the field even more than the common version, and thus be more objectionable still.

The apostle, then, would have them acquainted with the source, character, and object of all that flows from the Spirit in the assembly, and of His manifestation in each member of Christ. And, first, he reminds them of their pitiable condition when heathen. They were led away to the dumb idols so familiar to all, as they happened to be led. Their own will, doubtless, wrought and exposed them to unseen beings, who availed themselves of those senseless objects of adoration. The more, therefore, did they need to learn what had a wholly different origin and intent. This brings in the criterion of the Holy Spirit, the confession of Jesus as Lord, in contrast with the aim of evil spirits, who said, Curse on Jesus. Alas I this was not confined to Gentiles, for so cried the Jews under Satan's influence at the late crisis of their history. It would be to lose much, however, to reduce this twofold test to such gross forms alone. We may justly infer that, as the Holy Spirit ever works to exalt Jesus, so does the enemy to degrade Him. And this appears to be the point here, not the ascertainment of true believers among professors, but the character of what is taught in the assembly, whether of God's Spirit or of Satan. So it is even in 1 John 4: 2, 3; 2 John 7.

Next, the apostle descends from this broad and absolute test, in which all true confessors must unite, to the varieties, and these in relation to their source and aim. "Now there are differences of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of ministries, and the same Lord; and there are differences of operations, but the same God that operateth all things in all." It is not, on the one hand, the Trinity, as such, which we have here, though unquestionably "the Spirit" and "the Lord" could not be thus introduced if they were not God equally with the Father. But it is plain that our Lord appears not so much in His divine glory as the Son, but rather in the official position conferred on Him. And God is spoken of as such, not in His personal distinctiveness as Father. On the other hand, it is not a division into three classes of gifts, but the same thing in substance viewed in three relations: gifts, in relation to the Spirit, through whom they come; services, in relation to the Lord, under whom and for whose glory they are responsibly exercised; and operations or workings or effects, in relation to God, for it is God, and not man, that works the whole in all. Thus, if by the Spirit there be a gift, its exercise is a ministry or service of the Lord, by whose authority it is carried on; and it is God who works it all effectually. Compare 1 Corinthians 3: 5-9 and chapter 2.

We learn also how surely the action of the Holy Spirit in a Christian must be in communion in order to meet the mind and will of God. Powers, even of the most manifestly supernatural kind, may be exercised, as in too many of the Corinthians, to self-exaltation.

We come next to individual distinctions, the special forms of the Spirit's working in Christians.

"But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit. For to one, through the Spirit, is given [the] word of wisdom, and to another [the] word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit;* to a different one faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings by the same† Spirit, and to another operations of powers, and to another prophecy, and to another discerning of spirits;‡ to a different one kinds of tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues. But all these things operateth the one and the same Spirit, dividing in particular to each according as he pleaseth." (Vers. 7-11.)

* δέ "and" is read by the majority of MSS and versions, but is not in p.m. B Dp.m. E F G, etc.

† Or "one," ἑνί, A B, etc.

‡ Authorities are pretty equal for and against δέ "and."

It is well to remark that the apostle is speaking only of the assembly, of each one there and not in the world. This might seem needless to notice, did we not know that a whole community in Christendom is based on the opposed assumption that a manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man on earth without restriction. Here the apostle is treating strictly of the church: to each within it is the manifestation of the Spirit given, and that with a view to the common good, not for personal influence or display. Chrysostom is quite in error in supposing that the term "manifestation" is here used because unbelievers do not own God, save by visible wonders. For it is not a question of miracles only, as the very first samples (the word of wisdom and that of knowledge) prove; nor is it a sign to unbelievers, but for the profit of believers.

The way of the Spirit too is not concentration of all His powers in a single person, but distribution to a variety of individuals; and this because the assembly is contemplated, not a chief man but the church, by the different constituents of which God is pleased to work for the good of all. "For to one, through the Spirit, is given [the] word of wisdom, and to another [the] word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit." The apostle takes care to begin with what would be called non-miraculous gifts, the better to counteract the fleshly mind, whether of the Corinthians or of any others, which sets an inordinate value on what strikes the eye, the mind, or the imagination by undeniable effects of power. Though not miraculous however, the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge are as expressly of the Holy Spirit as the most striking sign-gifts. It is not through a commanding, or a merely "sanctified," intellect that the word of wisdom comes; it "is given through the Spirit." "According to the same Spirit" is given the word of knowledge. They are thus no less supernatural, though not in the ordinary sense miraculous. They are the fruit neither of innate powers nor of acquirement, but of the Spirit, just as is the new birth of every believer; and far more important than any miracle, grave as it may be and glorifying to God in its own place and for its own purpose.

What then is "wisdom" as distinguished from "knowledge?" Wisdom seems to me that moral discernment given by God of things as they are before Him, and consequently as they truly are in themselves, and in relation to one another, which is of prime value for practical judgment and conduct here below. Good and evil, right and wrong, are thus seen intuitively, because of familiarity with the presence of God, not only in their results but in their principles and springs. Knowledge is rather that understanding of revealed truth, which of course therefore is given through a diligent use of the scriptures, and is of great value for appreciating the ways as well as word of God, though the abuse of it issues in systems of divinity, of prophecy, and the like. The "word" in the two instances means or implies the faculty of communicating to others the wisdom or knowledge, as the case may be. It does not seem correct to infer that the prophets were characterized by the latter as apostles undoubtedly were by the former. It would be more according to scripture if one said that "the word of knowledge" pertained to the teacher, always remembering that an apostle or a prophet might also be a teacher and a preacher, as Paul himself was beyond all controversy. But his was a rare combination of gifts, and all of them rich, deep, and ample, in order to accomplish the special work for which he was called of the Lord.

But next follow very different manifestations of the Spirit. "To a different one faith by (ἐν) the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, and to another operations of powers, and to another prophecy, and to another discerning of spirits," etc. Clearly "faith" here, as sometimes elsewhere, does not mean a soul's believing in Christ or the gospel for salvation, being a manifestation of the Spirit, and this to one here or there among the Christians. It is that distinctive gift from God which enables its possessor to face foes and dangers, and rise above hindrances or difficulties, and be assured of the issue, where others, even saints, are perplexed and disquieted. It is thus distinct from healings, powers, prophecy, etc.

There seems no need of dwelling on "gifts of healings in virtue of (ἐν) the same Spirit," further than to say that it is not more comprehensive, but less, than "faith." There was faith in him who exercised spiritual powers in healing the sick, but gifts of healings were restricted of course to their own peculiar domain. "Faith," as such, might be exercised in a great variety of ways besides that which strengthened some to be martyrs or confessors. Again, another might have "operations of powers" (erroneously rendered in the Rhemish and the Authorized Versions, "the working of miracles"), which were not "healings," but such superiority to things material, or beings spiritual, as we see promised in Mark 16: 17, 18, and illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles. "Prophecy" another might have given him, which was an energy of the Holy Ghost in the purely spiritual domain, enabling him to give out the mind of God as to the present or future. This definition embraces the twofold application of the term in scripture, whether to the narrow field of prediction, or to the larger one of declaring God's mind and will, so as to act on conscience with unfailing, divine conviction. (See for the latter 1 Cor. 14; for the former Acts 11) "Discerning of spirits" is another gift, which means the faculty of deciding, not between true and spurious professors of the Lord Jesus, but between the Spirit's teaching and that which simulated it by evil spirits. The general responsibility to try or prove the spirits if they are of God we see in 1 John 4, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Here it is a special gift. The danger, or rather the fact, of misleading some is also foreshown in 1 Timothy 4. The designed distribution of these gifts is strikingly shown in the last two, where "kinds of tongues," or a variety of languages naturally unknown to the speaker we find distinguished from "interpretation of tongues" given to another, though 1 Corinthians 14: 13 intimates the desirableness of their combination.

"But all these operateth the one and the same Spirit, dividing in particular to each according as he pleaseth." (Ver. 11.) The unity of the Spirit, who not only distributes each to each but works all the gifts, thus keeping up dependence on His power, is thus set forth, no less than His sovereign activity as a divine person, however truly come down to work in subservience to the glory of the Lord Jesus. Evil and error may have as many springs as there are men and demons with their varied and often conflicting wills, lusts, and passions. But the self-same Spirit works all that glorifies Christ in these different gifts, distributed respectively at His pleasure to each servant of the Lord. How this diversity with unity characterizes the church will appear from the reason given in the subjoined comparison, as little understood in its force as it is familiar in its forms or phrases, yet of all moment for His glory and our blessing.

"For even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the* body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ. For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of† one Spirit." (Vers. 12, 13.) Thus the assembly, being an organic unity, while it consists of many parts or members, harmonizes with the various gifts which the Spirit distributes according to His will. Just such is, as the apostle pointedly says, "the Christ;" we would have said the church. The apostle looks at Christ and the assembly as one mystic man, which, while one, has many members, and yet all the members, many as they are, forming but one body. "So also is the Christ." The assembly is identified with Him, and this because "by (ἐν, in virtue of) one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit."

* Text. Rec. adds ἕνος, with two or three uncials and the mass of cursives, etc., contrary to the best MSS, versions, and other authorities.

† A few uncials with most cursives insert E", contrary to B Cp.m. Dp.m. F G P and the best of the other witnesses. A gives the strange reading καὶ πάντες ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν.

It is important to observe that it was not by faith, precious and mighty as it is, that this unity was formed, but by the Holy Spirit personally sent down from heaven. Faith is individual; it does not unite, though fitting for union morally. One believes the gospel for one's own soul; and the believer receives life for himself in the Son of God, who is life and quickens the dead. But the baptism of the Spirit is over and above life, and is given therefore not to the dead unbeliever but to those already quickened, and the issue is the one body. So the Lord, who had already quickened the disciples, and this even with life more abundantly in resurrection (John 10; 20), promised them just before His ascension that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit, which accordingly was fulfilled not many days after at Pentecost. (Compare Acts 1: 6, Acts 2; also Acts 8: 15, 16; Acts 10: 44, 45; Acts 11: 15-17; Acts 19: 2-6.) The one body had never existed; from Pentecost it begins, as a present fact, on earth, because the Spirit is thus sent to baptize as He never did before; and this continuously, for He when given was to abide in and with us for ever. (John 14: 16, 17.) No difference in religion or in social standing hinders. There is one body and one Spirit. The figures employed in the verse before us seem to allude to baptism and the Lord's supper, the latter being the standing sign of the church's unity.

But it must be borne in mind that scripture nowhere identifies water-baptism with the baptism of the Spirit. Thus, on the grandest occasion of all, the disciples in Jerusalem, waiting for power from on high, were not baptized with water that day; and the convicted souls from among the Jews were told to repent and be baptized each of them, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, and they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The disconnection of the two is still more manifest in the case of the Samaritan converts a little after, and of the Ephesian disciples long after. If possible more evidently false is the hypothesis which binds them together in Cornelius' case, with his household and friends, who received the gift of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.

It is not only Catholics then but Protestants also, who are utterly wrong in adducing this text for the effect of baptism. We are not, though Calvin puts it into the lips of the apostle, "engrafted by baptism into Christ's body."* Baptism is not an engrafting into the body; it associates the believer with His death. It means that we were buried with Christ unto death, a strictly individual truth, and wholly distinct from making us members of His body, which is always attributed to the Holy Spirit, whether we were or were not baptized with water at that time. Nor is it possible to attribute to the cup the keeping up of the unity, or the conducting us by degrees to the same unity, for the phrase implies a single finished act (ἐποτίσθημεν, like ἐβαπτίσθημεν, both aorists). It is at most therefore a glance at the two institutions of our Lord, and in no way a doctrinal connection. They are separable, and in fact separated, even when true believers are concerned; and, blessed as is the aim and the effect of the Lord's supper, it has nothing whatever to do with our reception of the Spirit, though doubtless the Spirit, when received, gives an immense accession to the enjoyment of the grace of Christ in the supper, and this in communion with one another. They are not sacramentally bound together, even baptism being to death with Christ, not to life, still less to union or the one body which is by the baptism of the Spirit.

* "Probatio est ab effectu Baptismi. Inserimur, inquit, per Baptismum in Christi corpus. . . . . . deinde ubi sacram Coenam percipiunt, gradatim rursum ad eandem unitatem deduci, quia eodem simul potu reficiantur." (Calvini Opera, vii. 187, 188, Amst. ed. folio, 1667.)

Further, it will have been gathered by the thoughtful reader that the baptism of the Spirit is wholly distinct from the new birth, as in John 3. Hence it is incorrect to think that any communication of the Holy Spirit is called His baptism. Neither the new birth nor sanctification of the Spirit is so designated, any more than His inspiration, but only the gift, Himself personally received by the believer, not His quickening operation which makes a believer or gives one faith.

The apostle proceeds to employ the idea of the body to illustrate the assembly of God as now existing on earth. Doubtless it was in season for the state of things then in Corinth; but it is ever needed while we are here below, and never more so than now, when the state of Christendom renders it, on the one hand, harder to seize and apply the truth, and, on the other, still more imperatively due to the injured honour of the Lord, whose word and will are in general so grievously set at nought and ignored.

"For also the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body, it is not on this account not of the body; and if the ear say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body, it is not on this account not of the body. If the whole body [were] an eye, where the hearing? If all hearing, where the smelling? But now God set the members each one of them in the body according as he pleased. And if they all were one member, where the body? But now [are there] many members, and one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. But much more the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary; and those which we think to be less honourable [members] of the body, on these we put more abundant honour, and our uncomely [members] have more abundant comeliness; but our comely [members] have no need. But God blended the body together, having given more abundant honour to that which lacked, that there might be no division in the body, but that the members might have the same concern one for another." (Vers. 14-25.)

The great and most obvious characteristic of the body is that it consists of not one member but many. This is so essential to its nature that it could not be called "the body" if it consisted of but one member, and not of many. It would be a monstrous formation, not the beautiful unity with diversity seen in the human body, as indeed in every other organization. It is exactly so with the assembly of God. It is not only His house, but Christ's body in virtue of the one Spirit who has baptized all the believers, whatever their antecedent and their otherwise irreconcilable differences, into one: an unity which subsists now and not by-and-by alone, on earth and not merely in heaven. Indeed we may go farther, and say that the sole object of the Spirit's instruction here is the church now on earth, and not at all in heaven, where we hear of the bride and the new Jerusalem, never of the one body or the many members.

But it is important to observe that the instruction has no bearing on denominations, save simply to blot them out. So far are they from being contemplated in the exhortation, that the truth of the one body utterly condemns them root and branch. In no extent or way then can the apostle's words be applied to the different denominations which now exist. It is opposed to the fundamental unity of the body on which Paul insists, that one denomination stands in need of another. The body has many members, not denominations, which only exist antagonistically to that unity. Far from being necessary to the due working of the church, like the many members of the body, they frustrate the truth, allowed in theory perhaps, but always denied in practice, as indeed they are dead against the will of the Lord.

The first practical inconsistency with the church's constitution which the apostle warns against (vers. 15, 16) is the discontent of inferior members with their position. They were in danger of ignoring and neglecting their own functions from envy of those who had a higher place. "If the foot say, Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body, it is not [or, is it] on that account not of the body. And if the ear say, Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body, it is not [or, is it] on this account not of the body." Such disaffection, if carried out, would destroy the church. Each has its own office, but for the assembly, not for itself; as the foot and hand, the eye and ear, act for the entire body.

Next the absurdity of such wishes is shown. If one member might desire lawfully some special place, so might all the rest; the consequence of which would be the ruin of the body. "If the whole body [were] an eye, where the hearing? If all hearing, where the smelling?" (Ver. 17.) The admirable co-ordination and sub-ordination of the various members in the one body would be at an end.

Nor is this a question of a true theory or of a wise practice, but of the divine will. God has so ordained it; and those who wish otherwise are fighting against His word." But now God set the members each one of them in the body according as he pleased." (Ver. 18.) It is not merely the providential fact of one being in the wilderness, and another in a city; nor is it one led of the Spirit to go here, and another there. As the assembly is according to God's design and constitution, each is set in a place arranged by God in the body of Christ with a gift suitable for it. One's own choice is excluded: and so is selection by other men. It is neither self, nor man, nor the church, but God, who can, or ought to, set the members; and He set them, each one of them, in the body according as He pleased. He determines for the least as well as for the greatest. Any other ordering is at issue with God's ways and pleasure. It is God's church; and He, not man, orders the place of each and all in it.

"And if they all [were] one member, where the body?" (Ver. 19.) It is the remark of another that as the former proof of absurdity (ver. 17) appealed to the concrete, so does this to the abstract. I add that as there is shown that the distinctness of the members would be destroyed by forgetting the truth, so here the completeness of the body. "But now are they many members, and but one body." (Ver. 20.) The unity of the body perfectly consists with diversity in the members, and the diversity of the members with that one body. And so, in fact, it is according to God's mind. It is the departure from this which constitutes mainly the present disorganized state of the church which we see in Christendom. For the most part all the gifts which can find expression must be in one member in a congregation, and there is not one body, as far as facts attest, but many bodies, differing and opposed. The root of the evil is that the one Spirit is not really owned, but human acquirement and appointment of varying form. And the eye does, in present practice, say to the hand, I have no need of thee, and the head to the feet, I have no need of you, the eye and head coalescing in the one sole minister.

Thus openly is the truth, enunciated by the apostle, set at naught; for he is proving that, as this cannot be without ruin in the natural body, so is the body of Christ framed in the grace of God. "And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." (Ver. 21.) Disdain is thereby put down even more strongly here, on the part of the higher members toward the lower, than was discontent, as we saw, in the lesser toward the greater. The highest cannot do without the least. God has made nothing, gives nothing, in vain; yea, the truth demands more than this. "But much more, the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those [members] of the body which we think to be lees honourable, these we invest with more abundant honour; and our uncomely [members] have more abundant comeliness: but our comely [members] have no need. But God blended the body together, having given more abundant honour to that which lacked, that there might be no divisions in the body, but that the members might have the same concern one for another." (Vers. 21-25.)

By this instinctive sense implanted in us, we feel that the most attractive features can do without the care which is freely bestowed on the less comely; while we know that there are parts of the body which seem weaker, and yet are necessary to its wellbeing, or even life, which last is not the case with some possessed of show and strength, and having a good place, if not so essential. Nature itself teaches us to cover or adorn what is not pleasant or proper to see, while what is fair can appear freely.

So is it according to God with the body of Christ. Much that appears not is ,of the utmost importance; those that laboured like Epaphras are far more necessary than some who shone at Corinth with miracles or tongues. As we cover the feet, not the face, so it is that God uses and honours what is apt to be despised; and so should we, if we have the mind of Christ; and this is thus ordered of God to guard against the tendency to division in the body. Had the Corinthians heeded this, how much sorrow and shame would have been spared! The disorder, however, grace has turned to our account, who have been awakened to see and judge, and to have done with that which is so dishonouring to the Lord, but a state which is ever ready to repeat itself, and not least where knowledge takes the place of love, and saints condescend to form cliques with a favourite leader. to help them on in the sorry work of jealousy and detraction. Is this the members having the same concern one for another? or is it not schism, against which God tempered the body together so that there should be none?

We have seen, then, that God has so constituted the body of Christ, like the natural one, that there should be no division of interest, but the good of each in the good of all, and the care of each for every other member. It is His aim, but may not be the fact.

"And whether* one member suffer, all the members suffer with [it]: whether a [or one] † member is glorified, all the members rejoice with [it]." (Ver. 26.) It is not said merely that they ought, but that they do. Whether it be good or ill, all that is according to God in one Christian goes out for blessing to all the rest; and there is not an ill or scandal in a saint at the antipodes which does not affect with its shade and suffering every other in these lands. We consciously suffer or rejoice, one may add, in the measure of our spiritual power. But the effect is real throughout the church. It is a body — the body of Christ — and as a whole it feels in joy or sorrow: else it were not a real organic unity. Undoubtedly also its present condition, with denominational barriers, which in all the saints sever into independent associations, as well as with the allowance of the world in most, reduces spiritual sensibility to the lowest: still, far from desiring otherwise, one dares not deny that it subsists, surviving these deplorable hindrances by its own vitality, as flowing from the Holy Spirit of God who dwells in the church.

* εἴ τι B F G, etc., and versions, the rest εἴτε.

† The second ἕν is not in p.m. A B.

See how the blessed apostle brings home the truth from the abstract to the concrete, applying this precious truth to the case before him. It is true that the state of the Corinthians was such that he would not go there. If he had gone, he must have taken a rod with him, and this was far from his heart. He would rather write, and wait; and God blessed his written rebuke to their restoration in measure, and he could rejoice as we see in the second epistle. But even here, before he was refreshed with the fruit of grace, while censuring severely their faults, he does not hesitate to say, "Now ye are Christ's body, and members in particular." (Ver. 27.) Such is the privilege, and such no less the responsibility of the local assembly; not independently of course, for this would deny the body of Christ, but representatively, for, if it were not so, the local assembly were not Christ's body; and as this they collectively were, so also they were members severally.

It is very evident too that it is not an ideal or future picture. It is a living reality on earth, which every Christian is bound to walk in and manifest, abandoning at all cost whatever is inconsistent with, or destructive of, it. It is a state now on earth, not about to be by-and-by in heaven. There will be no such thing as the suffering of one and the sympathy of the rest on high. Unbelief shirks responsibility, and would like to conceive it another state, not yet practicable, because it does not like the trial. In heaven, no doubt, there will be perfect love, and all selfishness will be gone for ever; but it is quite a different state of things, and not once contemplated in these verses.

"And God set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then powers, then* gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all powers? Have all gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But desire earnestly the greater† gifts, and yet I show you a way of exceeding excellence." (Ver. 28.)

* ἔπειτα (sic) ABC, five cursives, and several fathers; εἶτα Text. Rec., with E L and most cursives, etc., while D E F G, etc., omit either.

† μείζονα A B C, ten or more cursives, both Aeth., and many ancients; κρείττ(σσ)ονα as in Text. Rec. DEFGKL and the great mass of cursives, most versions, etc. Chrys. and Theoph. expressly add even that he did not say τὰ μ. but τὰ κρ.

We see hence how completely the true thought is that God, not man, arranged the assembly, and the relative place of all in it. It is the same principle, from the highest to the lowest, from apostles to the least gift for the manifestation of the Spirit in it. And the Corinthians then, as others of late, had to hear, whether they heeded or not, that those striking displays of power in which they found their childish surprise and delight, like the world without, were not highest, that there were gifts relatively first and second and third, the last-named being the very one they had been abusing to no small disorder and hindrance of edification in the assembly. The apostles had a place of governing for Christ which prophets had not, though both constitute the foundation on which this building of God is built. (Eph. 2) Teachers were subordinate of course. "Helps" and "governments" are commonly supposed to be the gifts needed for the offices of deacon and elder respectively. It at least is certain, that there is no difficulty in understanding this of the presbyters or bishops, because these had to be διδακτικοί. For "apt to teach" is not the same thing as a "teacher." The ruling elders of Presbyterianism are very distinct from scriptural elders; and so still more is the one teaching elder, or the minister. Other societies diverge, if possible, farther from the principle laid down here and elsewhere.

But it is the Lord who calls, not the church. The church may be the sphere of the exercise of the gifts, never the source of the authority, any more than of the power, both of which come from Christ. It is He who gives mission, He who sends labourers to sow or reap. Nor does scripture ever assert it to be the church's office to examine the candidate for the ministry, as it is called, nor authoritatively to declare its judgment. There is no appointed way for the church in either case, because it is not the church's work or duty. The Lord qualifies the servant whom He calls for the work He appoints to be done; and He works by the Spirit, not only in this member, but in all the others, to have His call and work and workmen respected, though flesh and world be stirred up of the enemy to discredit all. Hence we find the church at Corinth, as well as those of Galatia, questioning, not declaring authoritatively (which God never asked any to do), the apostleship of St. Paul. Ministry, according to scripture and this very chapter in particular, is clearly the exercise of a gift from the Lord to a given end. So says the apostle Peter in his first epistle (1 Peter 4: 10): "As every man [each] hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God." There is therefore no real ministry according to God without a gift in the word; and where such a gift is exercised, it is ministry. Only there were also lower gifts of power, and these the apostle puts in their true place, as the Corinthians had put them out of it.

It is to be noticed too how, in verses 29, 80, the apostle's questions suppose distribution of gifts among the members of Christ, and not their concentration either in one or in all. Neither have all the same functions, nor has any one all the functions which are expressly said to be distributed to each of the many members, to this one, and to that another.

The Corinthians' folly was not greater in wishing all the gifts to be in each and all the saints, than the modern theory of arrogating all, as far as public ministration goes, to a single official. The one was ignorant vanity before the truth was fully revealed in a written form; the other is more guilty presumption in presence of the acknowledged word of God, which condemns every departure from His principles, and the great fact of the one body with its many members, wherein the Holy Spirit works to glorify the Lord Jesus.

At the same time the saints are encouraged to desire earnestly the greater gifts, but these were for edification, not for show. And yet he points out to them a way surpassingly excellent; not surely a mere way, however eminently good, to obtain these gifts, as some suppose, but a way for souls to feel and think, to walk and worship, beyond all gifts. It is the way of love, which he opens out in the next chapter.

1 Corinthians 13.

Love is the theme in hand, not "charity," for which we are indebted to Wiclif's too close following of the Vulgate. Tyndale and Cranmer gave "love," from which our Authorized translators often went back again to "charity." The apostle discourses on it worthily of Him who displayed its perfection here below. Not law, but love, is in harmony with God's assembly. Doubtless it is handled with special reference to the need and dangers of the Corinthians, but the Holy Spirit gave it out with divine precision and fulness. Love was a new sound even to a Jew; how much more to the Gentiles, used to walk in the vanity of their mind, darkened in understanding, hardened in heart, who, after having cast off all feeling, gave themselves up to lasciviousness, though none the less hateful and hating one another! Selfishness reigned, whatever the sentiments and pretensions of men, and this because God Himself was unknown, sin was unjudged and unforgiven. For love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God; as, on the other hand, he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love, while he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. So our apostle tells the Thessalonians that they were taught of God to love one another, and the Colossians, that love is the bond of perfectness, reminding Timothy that the end of the charge laid on him, and on others through him, was love out of a pure heart and good conscience and faith unfeigned.

It is well, however, to remark its connection here with the assembly of God, and the working of the Holy Spirit in it. Everywhere precious, never out of season, above all it is the lifebreath of the church. Where love is not the regulating power in the Spirit, the very nearness of the saints to each other, and the action of the gifts, prove the greatest dangers; where love governs, all else works smoothly to the edification of the saints and to the Lord's glory. If the Corinthian saints, in their ministering of the gifts, had forgotten the supreme excellence of love, the apostle puts it forward with all prominence between his treatment of the Spirit's presence and action in the assembly, and the order laid down for the due exercise of gift there.

Love, he shows, has intrinsic and divine excellency, surpassing all gifts, even the gifts that edify. For such gifts may be where there is no love. "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, yet have not love, I am become sounding brass and a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all the mysteries, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to remove mountains, yet have not love, I am nothing. And if I should dole out in food all my substance, and if I should deliver my body that I might be burned, and have not love, I am nothing profited." (Vers. 1-3.) The apostle begins with the superiority of love to the gift of tongues in any conceivable degree. It is as evident from this verse as from Acts 2 how baseless is the effort of Meyer and others to deny that they were articulate and intelligible languages. "Of angels" completes the cycle for the apostle, who here, as elsewhere, personates the supposed case. (Cf. 1 Cor. 9: 26, 27; Rom. 7: 7-26, according to the principle stated in 1 Cor. 4: 6.) To speak all possible tongues without love were to become sounding brass or a clattering cymbal, not even vox but sonitus and praeterea nihil. But he goes farther. The possession of the prophetic gift, with an inward consciousness, and not merely acquired knowledge, of all the mysteries and all the knowledge that is revealed, nay, the possession of all the faith so as to remove mountains, if without love, leaves one nothing. It is plain that he is not treating of divinely given faith in Christ's person, which is inseparable from eternal life and love too. It is the gift, or χάρισμα, of faith. Power is not grace. (See Heb. 6; Matt. 7) If one should bestow all one's property in charitable doles, and give over one's body to the flames of martyrdom, without love, he is nothing profited, whatever others might reap.

We may notice that the reading, καυχήσο-(or -ω-)-μαι, "I may boast," is that of A B, 17, the Roman Æthiopic, etc. But it is, as Matthaei said, whatever Jerome alleges, "prorsus absurda lectio," and a change by one letter from καυθήσο-(or -ω-)-μαι, "I may be burned," whether inadvertently, or by the design of such as did not understand the scope of the passage; for the motive of boasting would exclude love so completely, as to render ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω a needless addition. The fact however is instructive, in that it is one of not a few proofs how mistaken and perilous it is to accept absolutely the united verdict of the three most famous uncials.

Next we come, not to a definition of love, but to its qualities as in this world, specified for our instruction. It is what Christ was here, active as well as suffering in love above evil. "Love is long-suffering, is kind; love is not emulous, is not vainglorious, is not puffed up, doth not behave unseemly, seeketh not its own things, is not easily provoked, reckoneth not the evil, rejoiceth not over iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." (Vers. 4-7.) Patience in the midst of trial is the first-mentioned attribute of love, which even shows positive kindness instead of harbouring a vindictive thought. Again, as it does not indulge in envy or jealousy of another, so there is no self-display (or, as some think, forwardness), nor the arrogance whence it springs. Hence indecorum, or rude behaviour, is incompatible with love, as it is marked by disinterestedness and slowness to anger, and by readiness to forget the wrong that is done.

"Thinketh no evil" scarcely expresses the clause, but rather not having the evil in the mind and tongue. "No evil" would answer to the phrase if anarthrous. Here it is an actual evil done, which would rankle but for love, which is ever above evil, always free and always holy.

Hence love does not rejoice over unrighteousness, as malice does, too glad to cover its own evil by that of others; the joy, the sympathies, of love are with the truth, which is personified here as elsewhere. Thus love bears all vexations, believes all possible good (cf. Acts 9: 27; Acts 11: 22-26), hopes all, in spite of evil manifest enough at present, endures all things, persecutions or afflictions, knowing the! we are set for this. God being seen in Christ raises the heart above the depressing power of evil or even suspicion.

Strange to say, the Vatican manuscript (B) reads οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ μὴ ἑαυτῆς, that is, love only seeks her own advantage! So do even the Gentiles, who know not God. It is the character of selfishness, not of love. Yet Clement of Alexandria cites this false reading, and reasons on it as if correct in Paed. iii. 1, sec. 3; though elsewhere he cites the clause as it should be. One sees the folly of making such men authoritative in the least degree.

The perpetuity of love, in contrast with means of present testimony or blessing by the way, is next urged. "Love never faileth; but whether prophecies, they shall be done away; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall be done away. For in part we know, and in part we prophesy; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." (Vers. 8-10.) Evidently this again proves the immense superiority of love. It will never be out of date. Prophecies, knowledge, shall be done away, and tongues cease; but love abides. They are suited to our time-state, they are but in part, and do not square with the perfection where no evil exists and love is in fullest exercise. Love is thoroughly in keeping with a condition of glory, while incidental and partial agencies as naturally terminate with its arrival.

There is a difference in the phraseology as to tongues as compared with prophecies and knowledge, and it has been inferred, perhaps justly, that the cessation of tongues intimates their dropping when God's aim was achieved, whilst the means of edifying fall in with continuance, till the perfection of glory brings them to a comparatively abrupt end. Those habituated to the accuracy of scripture expression will not doubt that a difference is intended by the change of words. Certainly, however this be, there is the utmost care to maintain the Lord's coming as our immediate hope. All expression of a long future for us on earth is avoided here and everywhere.

The apostle proceeds to illustrate the present and the future by the childhood and full growth of a man as follows. "When I was a child, I talked as a child, I thought as a child, I reckoned as a child; when I am become a man, I have done away with the things of the child. For we see now through a mirror in a dark form, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know, even as I also was fully known. But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but [the] greater of these [is] love." (Vers. 11-13.) Clearly the drift of the passage is not to cast uncertainty on our present measure of knowledge, but to set forth its partial character, as compared with the fulness in glory. He confirms the difference by another similitude, the reflection of a mirror with no more than a dim shape seen thereby, and seeing face to face. The medium, or rather our seeing now, is necessarily imperfect, and the result more or less dark. By-and-by it will be immediate vision, and I shall know fully as I was also fully known. It is a difference not merely of measure but of manner too. Our very learning now, no matter how much we have learnt, proves our ignorance. It will not be so then. The state which needs to grow, as well as the means which contribute to growth, will have passed away. Truth will be fully known as a whole in that day, not learnt piecemeal as now.

"But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but [the] greater of these [is] love." The apostle speaks of the main moral principles characteristic of Christianity not of power in testimony; and here too love has the greater place, though all are great and abiding. But there is no intimation of faith and hope abiding throughout eternity. They remain, but to say that these three shall remain for ever is to interpolate rather than interpret. It is well known how some try to explain the continuance of faith and hope, where all is seen and enjoyed in glory: the one as anticipation certain to be fulfilled; the other as trust, entire and undoubting

But scripture cannot be broken; and faith is the evidence or conviction of things not seen, as hope seen is not hope. (Rom. 8; Heb. 11) Faith and hope therefore refer only to the present state, love alone to eternity as well as to the present. Fruition supersedes the faith that looks at God's word for the object presented, and the hope that desires and waits for it; but love never fails. So it was laid down in verse 8, in contradistinction from the instruments or signs there given of God. Then, after the setting out of the intervening verses which explain or confirm, the apostle resumes with νυνὶ δέ μένει, "now however remaineth" not love only, nor first, but "faith, hope, love, these three; but the greater of these is love," which last is turned to grave account in the chapter following. They are the cardinal points of every Christian, as is attested right through the New Testament; and of the three love has the pre-eminent place, not because it contains in itself the root of the other two, but because they point and lead through Christ our Lord to it, as their end which has no end, that nature and activity of divine goodness which we share now by grace in a world of evil, and which will last everlastingly where there is no evil but only good in source and fruit.

In writing to the Thessalonians the Apostle could remember their labour of love and tell them that he had no need to write to them about it, they themselves being taught of God to love one another. Was it so at Corinth? He thanks God for enriching them in all word and all knowledge, so that they came short in no gift, but as to love kept ominous silence. Was it love to form rival parties? to cry up the servants into leaders? to crave after worldly wisdom? to slight impurity? to refer differences to courts of law? to enfeeble family ties? to seek relief in change of circumstances? Alas! the Corinthian saints were proud of their knowledge, though even at that time it had worms and stank, for they were perverting it to tamper with idolatry, and needed to learn that, while knowledge puffs up, love builds up; while the one gives no deliverance from self-seeking and self-indulgence, the other strengthens the believer in the self-sacrificing service of Christ, free from all, yet becoming slave to all, in order to gain the most possible. And assuredly the palpable alienation of the Lord's supper, and even of the love-feast mixed up with it, from the divine object of it was the saddest proof that they needed that teaching on love which grace gave them: with what special aim we shall hear presently.

1 Corinthians 14.

Here we come to the application of love. Blessed as is always and everywhere this energy of the new nature, it is in the assembly of God that it finds its largest and deepest exercise, so far as we are concerned. Nowhere else is it demanded so continually, and in such varied forms. Without love souls therein make speedy and utter shipwreck; with it the sorest trials turn into the happiest testimony to the grace of Christ.

But hitherto the saints in Corinth had failed to learn it. They were far from the simple freshness of the Thessalonians, to whom the apostle could say some years before that they needed not that he should write, for they themselves were taught of God to love one another. Nevertheless he besought even them that they should increase more and more, as indeed (we learn from his second epistle) they did. At Corinth the failure was great, and not in private only but in public, as even shown on the solemn occasions when the assembly came together to celebrate the Lord's supper and to exercise their spiritual gifts. Hence the exhortation that follows.

"Pursue love, but earnestly desire the spiritual things, yet rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to men but to God; for no one heareth, yet in spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh to men edification and encouragement and comfort." (Vers. 1-8.)

Love, then, should be the main and constant object; but there were spiritual manifestations which had a place only subordinate to love, for the Holy Spirit, in giving and working thus, was glorifying the Lord Jesus. Among these prophesying has the chief place, the superiority of which over such a sign-gift as speaking in a tongue, the apostle rules, is proved by this, that such a speaker speaks not to men but to God, for none hears or understands while in spirit he speaks mysteries; whereas he that prophesies speaks to men edification and encouragement and comfort.

Assuredly the apostolic test is not always appreciated, and there are those in our day as indifferent to edification as the Corinthians. But a greater than they did not regard as a defect in spiritual tone the desire that men should be refreshed or helped in whatever way they needed. No doubt those who spoke in a tongue argued that they stood for the rights of Christ, who was glorified in the gift, and that theirs was the divine side — they spoke to God. But the apostle boldly maintains that the lack of speaking to men demonstrates the inferiority of speaking in a tongue to prophesying. He that so speaks is not taxed with speaking unintelligibly, or unintelligible things; on the contrary he is presumed to speak the truth, and high truth — "in spirit he speaketh mysteries." But, the language being unknown, "no one heareth;" he is not understood. He that prophesies speaks to men edification, encouragement, and comfort. The testimony flows in blessing to souls. The apostle was not dazzled, as the Corinthians were then and many since, in their yearnings after it, with the display of power. But he unqualifiedly sets prophesying beyond such a display, for it brings in not power merely but God, and God in His building up souls, encouraging them and consoling them. This does not cast such a halo around man; but it really brings in God in grace, and gives the consciousness of His presence.

We must remember, however, that verse 8 is not a definition of prophesying, but its contrast with speaking in a tongue. Prophesying, again, has no necessary connection with the future, as some suppose, nor is it preaching or teaching in general. It is forth-telling rather than fore-telling. It is so speaking to man as to put him in the light of God — of God's dealing with his heart and conscience. It gives His mind.

Hence the apostle proceeds to say (ver. 4) that he that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the assembly. Here again the mistake of the Corinthians was exposed, and the grace and wisdom of the apostle evident.

Still more does the largeness of his heart come out in verse 6. "But I wish that ye all should speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy. And greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, in order that the assembly may receive edification." Such is his continual test. It was near the faithful servant's heart, as it was in his Master's. What astonishes is for the spiritual mind far less than what edifies. This he enters into a little more minutely in verse 6. "But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I shall speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or [in] doctrine?" It was not therefore that the apostle slighted the gift of tongues. How could he, seeing it was a manifestation of the Spirit promised of the Lord Jesus — a mighty testimony to the grace of God from the day of Pentecost and onwards? Still the less showy gift of prophesying has a far higher character in and for the assembly. The error he corrects lay in the misapprehension and misuse of the Corinthians. Had their eye been single, they had been full of light; but it was not so, and hence their unspiritual judgment, as well as conduct, draws out the instruction of the Lord. It is important also to observe how it is insisted on that all done in the assembly should be done in the Spirit. For the idea is not that he who spoke in the tongue did not understand what he said, yet it is never supposed that he would communicate, unless he had the interpretation of tongues. But his own knowledge of what was spoken is not the same as this interpretation; and unless he could interpret, there is no thought of his communicating to the assembly what was said in a tongue. For the assembly is the sphere,' not for man's ability, but for the Spirit of God. Interpretation must therefore be a gift, not a human power, to be available there.

It may be remarked also that revelation and knowledge seem to correspond in general with prophesying and teaching respectively. It is not meant that they are identical, but that they more or less correspond. They are the great means of edifying the assembly, not speaking in a tongue, unless the gift of interpretation accompanied it. To profit souls one must come thus. Indeed the apostle appeals to themselves whether it was not so.

Next he adduces the case of musical instruments to confirm the point. The sounds must be distinguished and understood in order to the wished-for result. "Nevertheless lifeless things giving sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not distinction to the notes, how shall be known what is piped or what is harped?" (Ver. 7.) Now we do not distinguish the sounds of a language we do not know. The truths conveyed may be ever so weighty, but an unknown language is but a confused jargon. Nor is this the only illustration given. "For also if a trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for war?" (Ver. 8.) The trumpet-call must be understood in short. "So also ye through the tongue, unless ye give a distinct speech, how shall what is spoken be known, for ye will be speaking into air?" (Ver. 9.) Distinctness, so as to be understood, is the point pressed; not exactly easy to be understood, but distinct speech, so as to be intelligible: otherwise all is lost for the hearers.

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none insignificant. If therefore I do not know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh a barbarian in my case. So also ye, since ye are zealous after spirits, seek that ye may abound for the edification of the assembly." (Vers. 10-12.) To be understood then is essential to edification. No matter how excellent the matter conveyed by the unknown language, it has no claim to be said to the assembly, unless it be duly interpreted. It is foreign there, even more out of place than a colloquy with a barbarian or foreigner If they really were in earnest for the power of the Spirit in their midst, why did not they seek to abound for the building up one another? This were divine love, not vain display, but worthy of Christ and His saints: It is flesh that likes distinction for itself, not the service of the Lord for the good of others, where God deigns to deal with souls.

Edification, then, is rule absolute for what is said in the assembly. No matter how astonishing may be the exhibition of divine power answering to the name of Jesus, if it edify not, it has no rightful place there. For love edifies, as knowledge puffs up, and power startles or stuns; and as God is love, so the assembly is the suited sphere for the exercise of this, the energy of His own nature. The children partake of His nature; for he who loves is born of God, and knows God. To keep up the exercise and testimony of this is of all moment; as it is to hinder what would give loose reins to the flesh, under cover of displaying the mighty effects of Christ's victory. Hence the regulation that follows: "Wherefore let him that speaketh with a tongue pray that he may interpret." (Ver. 18.) But the apostle proceeds to give reasons, and this, as his manner was, by application to his own case: "For if I pray with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding. Since if thou bless in spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the private person say Amen at thy thanksgiving, since he knoweth not what thou sayest? For thou givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank God, I speak in a tongue more than you all; but in an assembly I desire to speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue." (Vers. 14-19.)

Thus the rule of love is still further enforced and maintained. Praying in a tongue is excluded on this principle as decidedly as any other kind of speaking in a tongue. And it is evidently the strongest case as being an address to God, who of course understood all, and conclusive against prayer in any unknown tongue. Communion is the joy of the assembly; at the least edification is indispensable. What cannot be understood by the assembly as such has no claim to be heard there, unless there were interpretation directly or indirectly.

But we see also that prayer, singing, blessing, thanksgiving, as well as prophesying, had their full place in the assembly. They are all to edification; and who could forbid any of them? Power is insufficient, however manifestly divine. What is with the understanding, and consequently addresses it, has the greatest weight with the apostle, as thus speaking authoritatively for the Lord; and this is as true of prayers and hymns as of teaching. The least in the assembly is presumed to go intelligently with the praise or thanksgiving that rises up to God.

Indeed fellowship is the aim of the Holy Spirit in all church action; and hence the all-importance of His guidance into the will of the Lord, which alone is entitled to govern all the saints, and into such worship as renewed hearts can feel and join in spontaneously. Influence and effort are alien and unseasonable, as they are human. The assembly is of God, with One there perfectly adequate to work in all hearts to the glory of the Lord Jesus; and the new man the apostle would have to do, say, and hear all intelligently. The day of vague emblems is past; ecstatic utterances, mighty effects, may have their scope elsewhere; but in the assembly there ought to be the exercise of the understanding. It is called to be "fruitful;" so that he who holds no public place (ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιωτοῦ) maybe able to go along with what is said. To be intelligible, so as to edify, is requisite in the assembly.

It is evident, from Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3, that the Christians of that early day had psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, quite distinct from those God inspired by David and others for His ancient people. Not a word implies that what was sung in the assembly of God was either a Jewish psalm or of New Testament inspiration. They were therefore, I presume, substantially such as Christians in our day, and in all days, are wont to use. Only they sought the Lord's guidance, and the fellowship of all, on these solemn public occasions. Our chapter is of importance in proving that they sung in the assembly; as the other epistles referred to, as well as James, prove the use of hymns in private or alone. Of course the power of the Spirit was sought in both; as He indeed dwells in the individual Christian no less than in the assembly.

The apostle is careful to intimate that there was not the least reason on his part for jealousy of others speaking in a tongue; for he himself was gifted in this way more than them all. But in the assembly to speak five words with the understanding was to him more desirable than ever so many in a tongue; and this, because his heart was set on instructing others also. It is love which should animate, not self-pleasing; and love works with a view to edification. Hence the grave and wise exhortation that follows, not without reproof.

"Brethren, be not children in mind, but in malice be infants, but in mind be of full age. In the law it is written, By men of other tongues, and by lips of others,* will I speak to this people; and not even thus will they listen to me, saith Jehovah. Wherefore the tongues are for a sign, not to those that believe, but to the unfaithful, while prophecy [is] not to the unfaithful, but to those that believe. If therefore the whole assembly come together unto the same place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in simple or unfaithful [persons], will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and some unfaithful or simple one come in, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all;† the secrets of his heart become manifest; and thus† falling on [his] face he will do homage to God, reporting that indeed God is among you." (Vers. 20-25.)

* So read A B and twice as many cursives, etc.; but the vast majority give the easier reading of the Text. Rec. "by other lips"

† The Text. Rec., with two or three uncials and most cursives, etc., here inserts καὶ οὕτως instead of before the last clause, contrary to the best authorities; it also puts ὄντως after ὁ θεός whereas it should be before as I have translated.

Thus the apostle as a father again admonishes his beloved children that they should eschew the trifling natural to the young, the disposition to be occupied with some new thing of slight moment in itself, but apt to tend to mischief, as their fondness for and misuse of tongues in the assembly hindered a due estimate of prophesying, the weightiest of all gifts for such an occasion. But he would nave them to cherish with the artlessness of a babe the understanding of riper years. And he cites freely from Isaiah 28: 11,12, so as to convoy a wholesome inference for the Corinthian saints. For God is there warning the Jews, dull to hearken to His prophets, that He would speak to them with the stammering lips of foreigners. Such a tongue speaking to Israel was a sign of their humiliation, and of God's judgment. What perversity, then, for the saints in Corinth to turn from God, speaking in prophecy for their edification, to tongues which they could not understand! to find their pleasure as Christians in what was God's solemn threat to His ancient people because of their unheeding refractoriness! The apostle, neither here nor anywhere, despises a tongue in its own place and season, used as a sign for unbelievers as God intended it. The unintelligent and unloving mistake was introducing it among believers, who could not profit by it. Divine gift as it was, its possession constituted no license to exercise it apart from the end of the Lord, who gave it in His grace and for His glory, and with His will now expressed to control its use.

The common English version needlessly introduces "serveth" in the latter half of verse 22. I think, however, that it is justified in not understanding "sign" with prophesying, which essentially differs from those powers correctly falling under that designation, like a tongue or a miracle. It was this, no doubt, which influenced them in changing the "to" of the former clause into the "for" of the latter, which reads more smoothly in English. But the change seems scarcely called for, and is not here adopted. We could equally well say tongues are as a sign for the unbelieving, prophesying for those that believe.

But the apostle is not content with this withering application of the Jewish prophet; he both exposes the folly of their conduct, and lays down the right aim in the assembly. On the one hand he puts the case of their all speaking with tongues in full assembly, and this in presence of simple persons or unbelievers. What must be the impression produced? That the saints were mad. On the other hand, if all were to prophesy, how would such an one feel if he came in and heard? In the discovery to himself of his heart's secrets, divinely dealt with by them all, the profoundest conviction that God is truly among the saints. So, when the woman of Samaria had her life set out in a few words by One who had never met her before, she confessed, "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet." By His words she could not but feel and own that all was out, and God was speaking to her conscience.

This is the characteristic of prophesying, not the announcement of the good news as in evangelizing, nor the unfolding of doctrine as in teaching, but God by His word dealing with the soul consciously. Such, in this hypothetical case, would be the conviction irresistibly brought home by all prophesying, and such the report made, as well as the homage rendered at the moment. It is supposed to be the effect, not of one preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, but of God's presence in His saints thus prophesying in the assembly. The apostle does not describe it as a fact that ever did take place, but as the natural effect under the circumstances.

How solemn that there is no such "assembly" now found, or even essayed, in the so-called "churches"! How blessed that ever so few have faith in His word and Spirit, who alone can make it good in the measure of their dependence upon Him! It is in the Spirit that we wait on the Lord, the central object of faith to the assembly gathered to His name. That the two or three who thus meet have "little strength" is most true; that they have deep reason to humble themselves is no less true; but they have the deepest and unfailing reason to praise Him for His faithfulness as they keep His word and deny not His name. Those who forsake or despise such assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of most is now-a-days, are scarcely entitled to speak. Unbelief or unfaithfulness should at least be silent. What can be worse than to invent plausible appearances to cover sin and shame?

The apostle now comes to the practical deductions from the divine principles laid down for regulating the assembly. The Corinthians had assumed absolute openness or really license for human will from the fact of the powers distributed to one and another by the Spirit. To control a meeting where He wrought thus seemed unreasonable. But here they were wholly mistaken; for the blessed One who is now sent down from heaven is a Spirit of order, and works in love for the purpose of maintaining the Lordship of Christ. Hence no power at work in or by man exempts from the rule of the Lord, but on the contrary exalts it, if exercised according to the will of God.

"What is it then, brethren? Whenever ye come together, each of [you]* hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edification. If any one speak with a tongue, [let it be] two or at the most three, and in turn, and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let him be silent in an assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern; but if there be a revelation to another while sitting, let the first be silent; for ye can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all be exhorted. And spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not [a God] of confusion but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints." (Ver. 26-33.)

* ὑμὼν "of you" is not in A B, etc.

Such was the restless desire of contributing each his part, not of general edification by whomsoever the Lord might deign to employ. Indeed they were thinking of themselves, not of Him nor of each other in love. Still none can deny to the assembly the fullest liberty: else it could not have been thus abused. Modern arrangements exclude not the abuse only but that liberty which ought to be; and in fact, where the Spirit of the Lord is, liberty is characteristic of His presence individually or collectively, and in the assembly it is marked according to scripture. Not that this was in the least understood by such as Neander, who founded it on the priesthood of all Christians, which is a wholly different relation concerning the saints in their freedom of access to God. Here it is a question of His assembly wherein the Holy Spirit acts by the members as He will to glorify the Lord and edify the saints. Hence power is subordinated to the Lord's authority, the vessel of divine energy is made to feel responsibility in its use, and the vital principle of obedience is preserved intact. Thus is God in all things glorified through Jesus Christ, as says the great apostle of the circumcision, when exhorting that each should use the gift which he had received as a good steward of God's manifold grace.

The apostle then limits speaking in a tongue to two or at most three on the same occasion, in turn, and then only in case of one there to interpret. So it was to be even with prophesying, where the others* were to judge or discern, instead of one interpreting. Prophesying was of all gifts the most precious and suited to build up or otherwise act on the saints and even those outside for good; but there must not be an excess even of the best thing, for God is jealous for the blessing of His saints, and thinks of the weakest in the assembly who might be distracted, not edified, by more than three. Should a revelation be made to one sitting by, he could speak, the other being silent, for a revelation when thus given took precedence of all communication. There was room indeed for all to prophesy for the instruction and stirring up of all, but one by one. Power must not set order aside: spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, instead of there being an uncontrollable impulse. It was not with the working of the Holy Spirit as with demon power; and this because God is not the source of confusion but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints, where order was peculiarly due to His character as present. Excitement and tumult, even in the exercise of divinely given energy dishonour Him, the spring and giver of peace.

* No adequate reason appears to limit οἱ ἄλλοι, the others, or the rest, to prophets. The spiritual, not prophets only, can certainly judge all things. I am aware that some assert that "the spiritual" means inspired persons. Such teaching corrupts God's word and demands not correction or disproof only, but the moral reprobation of every true-hearted Christian. The truth is, on the one hand, that, when the Corinthian saints abounded in every gift, they were as a whole carnal and not spiritual; as on the other hand we may and ought to be spiritual, if we have ever so little strength.

It is not quite certain whether we should connect the last clause with verse 33 as its close, or with verse 34 as its beginning. Many critics and commentators prefer the latter. There is no doubt that Lachmann was wrong in punctuating the Greek, so as to make "of the saints" the complement, not of the assemblies to which it unquestionably belongs, but of "the women," ὑμῶν being of course omitted on the authority of the three greatest uncials, six cursives, with most of the ancient versions and early citations. But safer editors, like Tischendorf, who also omit ὑμῶν, separate αἱ γυναῖκες, "the women," from τῶν ἁγίων, "of the saints." To begin with such a phrase is unexampled. "Let the, women be silent in the assemblies; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be in subjection* as also the law saith. But if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in an assembly." (Vers 34, 35.)

* Text. Rec., with D F G 11( L, &e., has ὑποτάσσεσθαι, which may be regarded as the more difficult, but ὑποτασσέσθωσαν is in A B and other ancient authorities, besides, good cursives.

This rule is of great moment. Women are forbidden to speak in the assemblies. It might have been supposed by those who love to reason that there if anywhere they might be allowed. The holy atmosphere, where man is as nothing, where God makes His presence and power known spiritually, might have seemed a fitting place for holy women to speak, who undoubtedly might have gifts, even that of prophesying like the four daughters of Philip the evangelist. (Acts 21: 9.) But no; the apostle was inspired to forbid it in the assemblies, of course not absolutely, for every gift is meant to be exercised, but the manner must be in submission to the Lord's direction. Divine revelation in the Old Testament gave clear intimation of woman's place generally in subjection: the New Testament is no less peremptory as to the assemblies. The notion of their standing forth in proclamation of the gospel crossed no mind in those days. This was a violation of female propriety, which would have shocked even the heathen. It was reserved for the corruption of the best thing, for the innovating spirit and ways of modern Christendom. The apostle forbade their even asking a question on these public occasions. If they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a women to speak in an assembly.

The entire subject is wound up by the demand whether the word of God set out to them or reached to them only, The Corinthians were the first to depart from the apostolic order established everywhere. It was the beginning of ecclesiastical revolt. The church is to be subject. The word of God commands, and commands all assemblies alike.

"What, did the word of God go out from you, or reached it unto you alone? If any one seemeth to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge the things which I write to you, that they are [the] * Lord's commandment.† But if any one be ignorant, let him be ignorant.‡ Wherefore, my§ brethren, seek earnestly for prophesying, and forbid not the speaking in|| the tongues;¶ but let all things be done becomingly and in order." (Vers. 36-40.)

* τοῦ "the" in Text. Rec., with many cursives, but not in the uncials, the best and most cursives, etc.

† Tischendorf omits ἐντολή with D E F G, etc.; Lach., etc., ἐστὶν ἐντολή, with A B, etc; Text. Rec. εἰσὶν ἐντολαί, with most.

‡ ἀγνοεῖται "he is ignored," with A D F G, etc., the common reading has excellent authority.

§ μου, omitted by Text. Rec. with most, is in A B D, etc.

|| ἐν BDFG, etc.

¶ δέ omitted by K L and most, is read by A B E F G P, many cursives, versions, etc.

The assembly is bound to maintain the truth, and, whilst bearing with want of intelligence (for we all know but in part), to sanction no error. The assembly is bound to walk in holiness to the Lord, as becomes those called from darkness into His marvellous light. But the assembly is taught; it cannot and ought not to teach, but to accept those whom the Lord sends to teach. The assembly is called to act in receiving and putting away, in both subject to the Lord and His word; but rule properly is in the hands of those so gifted of God, just as preaching, teaching, or any other service. It is the Lord who gives; it is the Lord who commands, as we see here, in the authoritative injunction of His apostle. The word of God comes to the saints, and it comes to them all. Differing views may be found, alas! like every other failure; but the assemblies are surely to seek to walk in the fellowship of His mind and will. Different circumstances may modify in matters of detail, yet more in appearance than reality; while, in matters which concern not only vital truth but godly order as here, scripture leaves no justifiable ground for dissent.

Again, to be gifted with special insight into God's mind, or to reap the fruit of this in spirituality, if real, would only deepen the sense of the Lord's authority and the imperativeness of obedience. We see the perfection of this in Christ Himself here below. Let power of the Spirit then be shown in the recognition of His commandment! Does any one refuse subjection on the score of ignorance? Then let him keep the place of ignorance and not pretend to teach. Those who wish to guide others should know what is, and what is not, of the Lord. It is really a question of will in those who do not see; for His injunction fails not in power to reach the conscience. To reason further would be to indulge will and strengthen self-confidence, beside possible harm to one's own soul. The refractory are best left in His hands whose words they cavil at: if His own, He knows how to break them down and make them thankful for the light, the refusal of which keeps them in ignorance.

The conclusion the apostle then shuts up the brethren to is, zeal for prophesying, and no prohibition of speaking with tongues, regulated as we have seen in the assemblies. For all things, not these merely, are to be done becomingly and in order. But the Spirit alone can give us to discern always what is comely, and the order is not left to human discretion, but revealed by the Lord. Thus man's will, as it is condemned in every detail of individual life (for we are sanctified to obedience, yea, to the same kind of obedience as our Lord Jesus Christ), is no less excluded from the assembly of God which He has formed for the glory of Christ, and in which He acts by the Holy Ghost according to the written word.

1 Corinthians 15.

But there was another question of the deepest moment, and still more fundamental, which the apostle reserved for the last place. The resurrection of the dead was doubted and denied by some at Corinth. This was grave indeed; but it is incomparably more so now, after the ample testimony to the truth rendered here and throughout the New Testament. It was inexcusable ignorance then; it is far guiltier and more rebellious if we doubt in presence of the disproof we are about to study, and of much more to the same effect elsewhere.

"And I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I announced to you, which also ye received, in which also ye stand, by which also ye are being saved, if ye hold fast with what discourse I announced [it] to you, unless ye believed at random. For I delivered to you in the first place that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, after that to the twelve. After that he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain till now, but some also have fallen asleep. After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the abortion, he appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God; but by God's grace I am what I am, and his grace that [was] towards me became not vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God that [was] with me. Whether then I or they, thus we preach, and thus ye believed." (Vers. 1-11.)

Nothing was farther from the intention of the Corinthian speculators than to compromise the gospel or the resurrection of Christ. But to this exactly does the apostle reduce their question. They forgot that there is an enemy behind who can take advantage of the mind no less than of the body, and whose artifice it is to array falsehood with a fairer garb than the truth, and so not only to gain admission for what is false, but thereby also to expel or undermine what is true, holiness suffering in the same proportion.

It was humbling therefore, but wholesome, to have the gospel made known afresh to saints, who ought rather to be in the fellowship of its activities — to have the apostle insisting on it, (1) as what he had declared to them originally, (2) as what they had received, (3) as that in which they had their standing, and (4) as the means of their salvation. The copulative conjunction, καί, defines each consideration recalled to them; the hypothetical particle, εἰ, supposes the fact of their holding fast the glad tidings, otherwise their faith was worthless. Salvation in this epistle, as in many others, is viewed as going on. (Vers. 1, 2.) It is σώζεσθε, the present, and neither the perfect, ἐστε σεσωσμενοι, as in Ephesians 2: 5, 8, nor the aorist, as in 2 Timothy 1: 9 and Titus 3: 5.

If Paul was an apostle, and delivered to them especially the glad tidings, it was what he too received; he pretended to no more than a faithful discharge of the trust the Lord had reposed in him as a witness concerning Himself. He received it, as we are told elsewhere, immediately from Christ. There was no intermediate channel, but a direct revelation and a personal charge. And what is the foundation laid? "That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." (Ver 3.) Not for ourselves merely, not at all for our good ways, but for our bad, "for our sins." Who could have said or thought it but God? And He has said it, not only now in the gospel, but from of old in the scriptures. From Genesis to Malachi all was a preparing the way for Christ to die for our sins. The law witnessed to it in the sacrifices; the Psalms declared that the sacrifices were but temporary, and that the Messiah must, and would, do the will of God; and the prophets showed that He would do it by suffering and death when Jehovah should lay on Him the iniquities of His people. Without the death of Christ for our sins, not only has the gospel no foundation, but the Old Testament has no adequate meaning or worthy end.

But God would give the amplest evidence. So it is added to Christ's death (ver. 4), "and that he was buried." Only here is made no mention of the scriptures. This is reserved for the immense fact of the resurrection: "and that he was raised the third day according to the scriptures," which is followed by the repeated appearances, of course without any such attestation. It is not merely an accessory fact or corroboration of Christ's death. His resurrection is the grand pivot of the chapter, the display of God's glory as regards man, the fullest answer to all unbelief, and the knell of Satan's power. This was the truth which the enemy sought to undermine among some at Corinth; but the result, under the grace of God, is the complete demonstration of its certainty, and of its all-importance.

But this is not all that the apostle points out. Christ was not raised only; He "was raised the third day according to the scriptures." The first book of the law gave its early preparation for it. For from the beginning, even in Eden, though not till after sin entered, God announced that the bruised Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. Still more distinctly do we see the Father ready to give His beloved and only Son, and that Son under the sentence of death till "the third day" (Gen. 22: 4), when a ram in the type was substituted, and Isaac was received as from the dead in a figure. (Heb. 11: 17-19.) The Psalms give their intermediate but glowing witness, Psalm 8 showing us the Son of man who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, but crowned with glory and honour, with all things put under His feet; Psalm 16, the dependent One, trusting in God through life and death, and beyond. What possibly more distinct? "My flesh also shall rest in hope; for Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life," etc., — words which, as a whole, apply as clearly to the dead and risen Messiah, as they cannot to David or any other. There is no mention of "the third day" here of course, which would be a foreign element, and destructive of the calm confidence of the psalm; but it is plain that for the soul not to rest in Sheol, and the body not to see corruption, there must be not only a raising from the dead, but this without delay. His flesh therefore should rest in hope, and not merely the spirit. But the prophets carry on and complete the testimony, for if Hosea 6 be only the principle applicable to Israel by-and-by, Jonah 1: 17 is the striking type of the Son of man three days and three nights (so it was counted Jewishly) in the heart of the earth: what a sign to the faithless Jew!

The apostle confirms the resurrection of Christ by certain of His appearances afterwards, as He had the death by burial. "And that he appeared to Cephas, after that to the twelve." (Ver. 5.) He omits Mary of Magdala and the other women, important as both might be for the objects which the evangelists had in view. There is no heaping up of proofs in either Gospels or Epistles, but a selection suitable to the design of God by each writer. The apostle gives only men who for weight, number, or other circumstances, furnished evidence unanswerable for every fair mind. The risen Lord appeared to Cephas, or Simon Peter, before He stood in the midst of "the twelve." (Compare Luke 24: 34.) Nor could any individual be of greater importance than Simon, especially at a moment when his soul needed reassurance so deeply. But no individual could have the weight of the entire company which knew him best; and the twelve are therefore next named, without noticing either the two disciples who had enjoyed His company to Emmaus on the resurrection-day, or that the apostolic body wanted somewhat to complete it on the same evening.

But there is another occasion, to which the apostle points as unsurpassed for magnitude of testimony: "after that he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the most remain till now, but some also have fallen asleep." (Ver. 6.) Never was a truth better attested. The greater part of these five hundred united witnesses still survived if any one doubted. Even if a person were prejudiced enough to accuse the twelve of a plot, what unreasonable folly to allow such a thought of so large a body of simple disciples, above all suspicion of object or office? The Holy Spirit left Luke to record the Lord's partaking of food when risen, and John the incredulity of the apostle Thomas, only the more to strengthen the truth; but Paul gives us this great body of witnesses, most then alive, if any chose to examine or cross-examine them. Surely had it not been the simple truth, some of that crowd of eyewitnesses must have disclosed the wickedness of thus conspiring in a lie against God.

"After that he appeared to James, after that to all the apostles." (Ver. 7.) James had a place of singular honour, both in the church at Jerusalem, and as an inspired writer; and as he was the object alone of an appearance of Christ, this is mentioned, no less than His appearing subsequently to all the apostles. All was in place, and each had its separate importance; and this, extending over forty days with such a variety of occasions and circumstances, marks the care with which divine wisdom and grace made the resurrection known. The quiet statement of the fact is in remarkable contrast with what Jerome quotes from the spurious Gospel of the Nazarenes (Catal. Script. Eccl.), how James made a vow neither to eat nor drink till he saw the Lord risen again. Man spoils all he touches in divine things; he cannot even fill up a gap with a trustworthy tradition. James had no such superiority of faith over the rest; nor, if he had possessed it, would he have shown it by any such vow.

One more remained, the most extraordinary of all, and long after date; "and last of all, as to the abortion, he appeared to me also." (Ver. 8.) It was from heaven, in broad daylight, as he drew near to Damascus, not only an unbeliever, but the hottest of adversaries, in the midst of a like-minded band of companions: all smitten down, all seeing the light, and hearing the Pound, but he alone seeing Jesus, he alone hearing the words of His mouth. Unspeakable grace he felt it was, with unaffected lowliness of heart; "for I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (Vers. 8, 9.) If Thomas illustrated the difficulties even of believers, Saul of Tarsus is the best sample of opposition on the part of earthly religion. But he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision; and the sight of a risen, ascended, Lord becomes the end of his old life (closed in grace by God's judgment in the cross), the beginning of what was new and everlasting. No wonder that, as the others preached by Jesus the resurrection from among the dead, to the horror of the sceptical Sadducees, Paul was no less urgent to both world and church. It was the turning-point of his own conversion; and his penetrating, comprehensive, mind soon saw under God's teaching that the death and the resurrection of Christ were none other things than what Moses and the prophets had said should happen, and light through this be announced both to the Jews and to the Gentiles.

Of this ministry the converted persecutor was to be the most honoured instrument. And this he himself could not but add; "but by God's grace I am what I am; and his grace that [was] toward me became not vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God that [was] with me." (Ver. 10.) The simple truth carried its own weight. His apostleship, which had been assailed by those who were not less hostile to his full preaching of grace, received no small confirmation; the pride of human nature, in its merits or its wisdom, was put down; God was in every way exalted; and the special point in debate had a crowning testimony from Paul himself, which also accounted for a revolution never surpassed, if equalled, in any man's history since the world began: a revolution which was unintelligible otherwise in one trained, as he had been, in the strictest traditions and ways of Pharisaism, and now the boldest minister of the gospel, the most devoted minister of the church, yet withal a mind eminently sober and conscientious, logical and profound. The appearing of the risen Jesus from heaven explained all perfectly, not his conversion only, but his work beyond all laborious and blessed of God. Truly it was the grace of God that was with him, who loved to own it, while he abased himself.

But of those labours, so abundant and fruitful, what was the foundation truth, and what the animating spring? The resurrection of Christ with Paul, as with the apostles whom some pitted against him. "Whether then I or they, thus we preach, and thus ye believed." (Ver. 11.) There was no change in the preaching: how then such a departure in some of the Corinthians? It was not so when they believed. Could it be of God?

Having thus shown the immense care with which God had provided witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, as it was preached by the apostles, and believed by all Christians, he now proceeds to reason from it to the resurrection of the dead, and also from their denial of the resurrection to its effect on Christ and the gospel.

"But if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from [the] dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of [the] dead? But if there is no resurrection of [the] dead, neither hath Christ been raised; and if Christ hath not been raised, then also empty [is] our preaching, and empty also your faith; and we are also found false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God that he raised the Christ, whom he raised not, if indeed no dead are raised. For if no dead are raised, neither hath Christ been raised; and if Christ hath not been raised, vain [is] your faith; ye are yet in your sins; then also those that fell asleep in Christ perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are most to be pitied of all men." (Vers. 12-19.)

Philosophy may issue in dualism, pantheism, or materialism; it may make reason or experience the sole criterion of truth; it may glory in the creative imagination of a Plato, or the pure reason of an Aristotle; but Stoics and Epicureans mock and evade the resurrection, which displays the power of God in the scene of man's total nothingness and corruption. Of the soul they may boast. It is man's soul; and its capacity, its intellect, may be as great in the wicked as in the righteous. But God alone can raise the dead. Man has not even the idea. Even the well-read Pliny (Nat. H.) denies the possibility: Revocare defunctos ne Deus quidem potest. Then Oriental thought, which ever thinks of matter as essentially evil, and therefore makes liberation from the body the highest blessing, would help in the same direction those who attach weight to such speculations. Christ, Christ risen from the dead, is not only the death-blow to all these workings of human intellect, but establishes, as the great fact presented by God to faith, victory over evil in Him who bore its consequences, in the righteous judgment of God, that He might deal in sovereign grace with man, give the believer power morally by the Holy Ghost meanwhile, and associate him openly and triumphantly with Christ in the same risen condition ere long and for ever.

We can understand, then, the effort of Satan to bring in among the Christians doubt and denial of the resurrection of the dead. As the seal of Christ's grace and glory, of the miracles He wrought, and of the truth He taught, His resurrection is all-important; no less is it the proof of Satan vanquished, of redemption accepted, of God glorified, even as to sin and sins borne in Christ's body on the tree. It is the power of the new and inner life, and it is the object and spring of the most glorious hope, in which the Christian and the church look to be blessed with Christ in heavenly places, and this in fact, as now in title, Christ having already borne God's judgment for the believer, who has passed from death into life.

In vain, then, did reason object to a state of incomparable superiority to the present, or even to the past, before sin entered and spoilt the work of God on earth. In vain did it scorn the re-union of soul and body, as if it must be a hopeless imprisonment, a going back and not forward, and an everlasting degradation for the spirit after its emancipation. Christ risen is the completest possible answer, wherein God gives us already to behold by faith man according to His counsels of glory, flowing from His love, and founded on His righteousness: not an idea, but a fact, attested as none ever was singe the world began, for precision and competency and fulness as well as certainty, those witnesses alone being excluded which were incompatible with its nature, and which constituted therefore a moral impossibility.

It is impossible to read the Acts of the Apostles without seeing that the resurrection of Christ was the all but unvarying testimony presented to souls, Jews or Gentiles: not merely that He died for our sins, but that God has raised Him from the dead. To say that there is no resurrection of dead men is evidently to set that aside. (Ver. 12.) It is the introduction of Christ which brings every reasoning of man in divine things to the test. The universal message, the gospel to every creature, is that the Saviour is raised from the dead after suffering for sin. The denial of the resurrection denies not merely the future hope of the saints, but the standing fact of Christ, the mainspring of God's good news. For it is plain that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, what becomes of the apostolic preaching? what of the faith of saints in Corinth, and everywhere else? (Vers. 13, 14.) He had told them before that there is salvation by the gospel for such as held fast the truth preached, unless they believed heedlessly, or at random (εἴκη, ver. 2), in which case they would be as ready to give up as to receive. Now he goes farther, and, instead of speaking of their subjective state as a light reception of the truth, he points out that, if Christ has not been raised, as the gospel declares, the preaching of the apostles was objectively as empty (κενόν) as the faith of the saints. But there is something more precise still: "and we are also found false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God that he raised the Christ, whom he raised not, if indeed no dead are raised." (Ver. 15.)

The resurrection of Christ is thus vital and fundamental. It is no accessory privilege, nor proof ex abundanti, which can be lopped off, leaving the stock of divine grace unimpaired. If it is not true, the foundations are gone, the gospel is worthless, God Himself misrepresented, and the witnesses impostors. The immense fact of resurrection was one which Christ not only predicted over and over again, but on it staked the truth of His mission and Sonship. It is the manifestation of that power of deliverance from death and judgment which is the present joy of the Christian, as it is the brightest witness to the efficacy of atonement, and the pledge of glory with Christ at His coming again. Hence too, if it be not true, the chosen witnesses are convicted of falsehood, because their testimony belies God in attributing to Him the raising of the Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact no dead are raised.

It will be seen how persistently the apostle binds together the resurrection of Christ and of the dead. This is no accident, but the fruit of God's grace and wisdom, who would associate every hope and ground of confidence for His own with Christ; as indeed the Christian is truly united to Him, and knows it. "For if no dead are raised, neither hath Christ been raised; and if Christ hath not been raised, vain [is] your faith; ye are yet in your sins; then those also that fell asleep in Christ perished." (Vers. 16-18.) Again, he argues that, if no dead are raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if He has not, vain (ματαία) is their faith, in the sense of being without purpose, and without effect; or, as the next clause teaches, "ye are yet in your sins." The consequence is, of course, no less serious for the believers already passed away: "then also those that fell asleep in Christ perished." Inferences so shocking as to saints that are gone, as well as for their own souls, yet flowing legitimately from any principle, are no slight evidence of its falsity. But if the conclusions were so inadmissible, who could accept the premisses which make them not only just but inevitable?

Thus the future, according to God, is lost, and we are reduced to a hope in Christ for this life only. But if this be all, the Christian, instead of the happiest, is of all men most to be pitied; for he certainly falls under special trials because of his faith in Christ, which is nevertheless fruitless, and leaves him in his sins, if no dead rise; for in this case Christ has not been raised, and perdition must be the portion of all that sleep in Him; they suffer in the present, and they have lost their hope for the future. None can be more pitiable. (Ver. 19.)

The apostle, having thus brought to a climax of absurdity the consequences that flow from the assumption that no dead rise, turns next to the facts of revelation, and triumphantly displays their blessedness in Christ, as contrasted with the first head of the race.

"But now hath Christ been raised from [the] dead, *first-fruits of those fallen asleep. For since by man [is] death, by man also resurrection of dead. For as in the Adam all die, so also in the Christ shall all be made alive; but each in his own rank: [the] first-fruits Christ; then those that are the† Christ's at his coming; then the end, when he giveth up ‡ the kingdom to him [who is] God and Father, when he shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign until|| he put all the enemies under his foes. Death, last enemy, is annulled. For he subjected all things under his feet. But when he saith that all things have bean subjected, [it is] manifest that [it is] except him who subjected all things to him. But when all things shall have been subjected to him, then also the Son himself will be subjected to him that subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all." (Vers. 20-28.)

* ἐγένετο (Text. Rec.) is added by Dcorr. K L, most cursives, Syrr., Goth., etc., contrary to all the rest.

† τοῦ is omitted in Steph. and the early edition, Elz., by mere carelessness.

‡ παραδῳ (Text. Rec.) K L and most cursives, etc., παραδιδοῖ (or -ῳ,) the best authorities.

|| άν (Text. Rec.) is added by a good many authorities, uncial and cursive, but not the more ancient, as is αὐτοῦ by A F G, etc.

Thus the fact is that Christ is raised from the dead, not merely first, but "first-fruits of those fallen asleep." It is uncalled for, therefore, to reason more on the disastrous results of non-resurrection. For not only is a dead man risen, but that dead is Christ, the conqueror of Satan, not only for this life in the wilderness, but from the grave for eternity. He is risen, so that death has no more dominion over Him; He is risen, the pledge that those fallen asleep shall consequently rise. It is the proof that all men shall live, unjust no less than just; but here He is viewed, not in His power to raise His enemies for judgment, but as the blessed spring of the resurrection of His own, first-fruits of those fallen asleep. Consequently He is said to be, as He was, raised from out of (ἐκ) dead men, as His saints will be at His coming or presence. In His and their case it is not only ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν but ἐκ νεκρῶν (that is, resurrection of, but from among dead men), because in both cases other dead remain in their graves; whereas the resurrection of the unjust will be only ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, and not ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Such is the simple statement of the truth as to this, which is sometimes missed through ignorance, if not prejudice. It is superfluous to argue that the resurrection of the saints is called a resurrection of the dead. Of course it is, as the resurrection of the unjust might be also. But the decisive point of difference is, that only the resurrection of Christ or of His own, who are raised without disturbing the wicked as yet from their graves, could be designated a resurrection from, or from out of, the dead, because the rest of the dead await His voice to wake them up to stand before the great white throne, and be judged according to their works. There are two distinct acts, as well as characters, of resurrection, according to our Lord, in John 5 (and so in Rev. 20); never, therefore, such a notion as one universal or indiscriminate rising of all (good and bad) at the same moment, as tradition supposes with an effort at proof from Daniel 12 (which predicts the revival of Israel on earth), and from Matthew 25 (which treats of all the Gentiles, or the nations which the Son of man will judge when He sits on the throne of His glory here below), neither scripture speaking of resurrection in the true and literal sense.

But more: we are shown the connection of resurrection, as of death, with man. If the weak and fallen Adam brought in the one, the glorious last Adam will bring in the other, Himself already the first-fruits. "For since by man [is] death, by man also the resurrection of dead. For as in the Adam all die, even so in the Christ shall all be made alive." (Vers. 21, 22.) There are two families characterised by the irrespective heads. The Adam family consists of all mankind, and they all die; the Christ family consists of all that are Christ's, and they shall all be made alive, that is, in resurrection. For the question is exclusively of the body, and not of the soul, important as this last may be in its place. What the apostle here demonstrates is, that the bodies of the dead rise, and this in virtue of Christ for all His people, as death is the portion of all Adam's posterity as such. It is impossible to sever "all" in either case from their representative head: only "all" in Adam's case embraces the entire race, whereas "all" in the case of Christ as necessarily attaches to His family alone. And as this is certain to the thoughtful believer, so is it made plain to the simplest in verse 23, "But each in his own rank; [the] firstfruits Christ; then those that are the Christ's at his coming." Then all that are made alive in virtue of the Christ are shown here distinctly to be those that are His, and none else. Are not the wicked, then, to be raised? Unquestionably; but so special is the resurrection here that they are not even named. It is the resurrection of life, and belongs only to those that have practised good. They are His. For them He has won the victory. To them even now He has given eternal life; and they, if fallen asleep, shall rise at His coming.

"Then the end, when he giveth up the kingdom to him who is God and Father, when he shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power." (Ver. 24.) Here it will be noticed that the apostle introduces, not the rising of the wicked dead, but "the end," when Christ delivers up the kingdom in which He is to come and appear. (Compare Luke 19: 12; Luke 23: 12; 2 Tim. 4: 1.) "The end," being the epoch of the delivery of the kingdom in which He is to judge, must be after all judgment is over, and still more after the rest of the dead have been raised in order to be judged. It is in this way, then, that the resurrection of the wicked is not expressed but involved; not in the blessed life-giving resurrection which is for His own, but in that exertion of His power which characterises His kingdom, when all the enemies are to be put under His feet, the last of those to be annulled being death. The unjust are no longer, even seemingly, under that power of death or Satan; for they must be raised, Satan punished, and death annulled. He must reign and judge the enemies, and theirs is expressly a resurrection of judgment according to the Lord's express declaration; whereas believers do not come into judgment, but have life in Him, and will reign with Him then. The risen saints are associated with Him when He takes the kingdom; the wicked are judged before He gives it up. "The end" here is absolute. It is the close, not merely of the age, as in Matt. 13, Matt. 24, and Matt. 28, which inaugurates the Son of man's coming to reign, but of that kingdom. It is strictly "the end," when eternity in the fullest sense begins, the new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It will have been seen that the grand point is God's exaltation of the risen Man, the Lord Jesus, in contrast with fallen Adam. And we must carefully distinguish between the words of the two psalms applied to Him: in verse 25 of Psalm 110, and in verse 27 of Psalm 8. God, according to the latter, subjected all things to the Son of man, once humbled, now risen; and this so absolutely takes in the universe as put under Christ, that God alone is excepted. But according to the former the glorified Messiah sits on the throne on high till Jehovah makes Messiah's enemies His footstool. He is waiting until that moment. Then is the rod of Messiah's strength to be sent by Jehovah out of Zion, and He will rule in the midst of His enemies.

Thus the subjection of all things to Him risen is already true to faith, according to the use made of Psalm 8, while at His coming from the right hand of God His enemies will be made His footstool, and He will rule in their midst. To this last answers the necessity of His reigning till He put all the enemies under His feet, death's annulling included at the last. It is what scripture calls the kingdom, during which the Lord is to reduce all rule and all authority, and power, and then render it up to Him who is God and Father. (Ver. 24.) This will be at the end of the thousand years' reign, which reign is characterised in verse 26, verse 26 adding what will be at its close. Verse 27 states the universality of His present title, as bound up with His resurrection; as verse 28 the eternal condition, when the universe has been subjected in fact, and the Son Himself shall be also, to Him who subjected it all to Him, in order that, not the Father exclusively, but God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) should be all in all, instead of the kingdom of man in Christ exalted and reigning. Thus is the lie of Satan met by the truth, grace, righteousness, and glorious counsels of God: man in Christ governing all first; and finally God all in all, where righteousness needs not to rule, but can dwell in endless blessing and peace.

The apostle now resumes the reasoning interrupted by the great parenthesis of divine revelation in verses 20-28. Therein he had traced out the consequences of Christ's resurrection, and its connection with the kingdom to the end, when God shall be all in all. And the simple apprehension of the unquestionable fact that he does take up again the thread laid down at verse 19 is of all moment in helping us to understand the true bearing of verse 29, which has been singularly misapplied by all who fail to see this reference. It had been shown that the denial of the resurrection affects alike the dead and the living saints. If Christ be not raised, not merely did those that fell asleep in Him perish, but if in this life only we have had hope in Christ, we are more to be pitied than all men. This directly in sense connects itself with the disputed clause.

"Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If no dead rise at all, why also are they baptized for them?* Why are we also in danger every hour?" (Vers. 29, 30.) There is no need of departing from the ordinary meaning of "baptized," "for," or "dead." Still less is it admissible that the Corinthians or others, in that early day, had devised a new and superstitious application of baptism, either for catechumens about to die, or for relatives already departed, who had not been baptized. It is incredible that the apostle should have contented himself with so passing a notice of such a nefarious imposture; though Dean Stanley assumes its truth, and characteristically draws from it a testimony to the apostle's charitable dealing with a practice for which he could have had no real sympathy. Calvin justly explodes the notion of any such allusion here. It is probable however that, though with Estius, etc., he is wrong in thinking "the dead" mean those about to die, such a misinterpretation of the language may have suggested the rite later to the excitable and perverted minds of the Syrian Marcionites, or other heretics, of whose practice we hear in the writings of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc.

* αὐτῶν A B Dp.m. E F G K P, twenty cursives, most versions, etc.

Neander's mind revolts from the idea of such a baptism, yet he so far yields to the reasoning of Ruckert as to allow that it seems the most natural interpretation. (Hist. of the Pl. and Tr. of the Christian Church, i. 164, ii. 117, ed. Bohn.) He suggests the raging of an epidemic about that time in Corinth, which may have swept away believers before baptism, whose relatives were baptized in their stead; but he pleads that, if Paul might for the occasion have borrowed an argument from the conviction lying at the basis of such a custom, he would probably have taken care to explain himself at another opportunity against this custom itself, as he did in reference to females speaking in their public assemblies.

There is not the smallest foundation for any hypothesis of the sort. The context suggests the true substitutionary idea. That ὑπέρ allows of some such shade of thought is certain, not only from its usage in all correct Greek, but especially from the New Testament, where the physical sense of "over,"* so common elsewhere, does not occur. Thus we find the apostle's use in Philemon 13, which is distinct. (Compare John 11: 60-52; John 18: 14; Rom. 5: 6, 7, 8; 2 Cor. 5: 14, 15, 20; 1 Thess. 5: 10; 1 Tim. 2: 6; 1 Peter 2: 21; 1 Peter 3: 18, etc.) Nor is this found in the inspired writers only. Viger has cited a decisive passage from Dion. Hal. (Ant. Rom. viii. 87, ed. Reiske, p. 1723): οὗτοι τὴν ἀρχὴν παραλαβόντες, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τῳ πρὸς  Ἀντιάτας πολέμῳ ατρατιωτῶν, ἠξίουν ἑτέρους καταγράφειν.

* Yet this was the thought of Luther, Tyndale, and others here. They took ὑπέρ as meaning over their graves; but the Greek Testament usus loquendi is against the sense.

The apostle then refers to those who had already slept in Christ, as well as the living trials of such as himself. What will become of those baptized for the dead? Why then be enlisted into such ranks, if no dead at all are raised? Why do we too incur danger every hour? It was a forlorn hope indeed, if the light of resurrection did not shine. There is no strange practice supposed, but a forcible association of any now baptized with those who had gone before; still less is there a reprehension, express or tacit, which it is only possible to conceive by indulging in the imagination. Had it been οἱ βαπτισθέντες, there might have been some biding show of argument for an exceptional fact or class, but οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι much more naturally suits the baptized in general, the objects of that action. To infer that the present participle, rather than the aorist, implies a practice not generally prevalent, is as illegitimate grammatically, as it is exegetically to conceive a practice not otherwise known to us. There is not the least ground to gather from the text that it existed then, or was here alluded to. There is no reason, therefore, for translating the phrase "on behalf of the dead." Indeed it seems to me that, were there a reference to friends, believing or not, who had died without baptism, a much more definite and restricted formula would be imperatively called for than ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, which very naturally refers to those in verse 18, as present danger does to verse 19. This also accounts for the change from the third to the first person; so strict is the analogy, without the strange fancy that by the third person, and by the article before βαπτ., the apostle indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in, or approval of, the practice.

I do not contend for, nor agree with, the views of the Greek fathers; but it is to be noticed that not one of them, as far as I am aware, saw any such reference, as Ambrose, Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, etc., followed by Ruckert, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, etc.; still less does one state it as "the only legitimate reference," which is indeed not only unfounded but presumptuous, if not to the last degree puerile. Nor do I understand what Hr. T. S. Green means by "baptized concerning the dead," as he translates in his "Twofold New Testament." In his "New Testament Grammar" of 1842, page 251, he cites Romans 1: 4, and 1 Corinthians 15: 29, as supposed instances where by νεκρῶν only one person, namely, Christ, is really signified; but this is in both a mistake. C. F. Matthaei falls into the opposite error of supposing that, baptism being typical of resurrection, ὑπὲρ τῶν ν. = ἑαυτῶν, comparing Matthew 8: 22 and similar passages. This resembles Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, etc., who taught that "for the dead" meant for our bodies. None of them saw the train of thought.

But G. B. Winer seems at least as uncertain as any in his Grammar of New Testament Greek (Moulton's edition). First, he tells us (page 219) that ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν can hardly refer to (the dead) Christ — in that case we should have had εἰς τοὺς νεκρούς — but must be understood of (unbaptized) dead men. There is no such necessity, as we have seen. But, letting this pass, in page 349 we are told that the text is probably to be rendered, "who allow themselves to be baptized over the dead;" whereas, when formally treating of the prepositions, he admits that the meaning of ὑπὲρ in the New Testament is always figurative, the nearest approach to its local signification being 1 Corinthians 4: 6, unless we so render our text. In the same page (478) he gives "for the benefit of, for," as probably meant in 1 Corinthians 15: 29. But he does not close the paragraph without admitting that, as in most cases he who acts in behalf of another appears for him, ὑπέρ sometimes borders on ἀντί, "instead of," and cites, besides Eurip. Alc. 700 and Philemon 13, Thuc. i. 141 and Polyb. iii. 67. 7. This last evidently sustains the real unforced sense of our text, which is as consonant with the context and argument, as it avoids the need of doing harshness to grammar, exegesis, early doctrine, and history.

It is the resurrection (and all is based on that of Christ) which, as it is the basis of Christianity, so also animates with a calm and constant courage more than human. Here the apostle turns to his own experience, the more vividly and solemnly to impress the saints addressed: "Daily I die, by the boasting of you, brethren,* which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. If after man I fought with beasts in Ephesus, what [is] the profit to me? If no dead rise, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Wake up righteously, and sin not; for some are ignorant of God: I speak unto your shame." (Vers. 31-34.)

* ἀδελφοί, A B K P, many cursives, versions, and fathers.

The Corinthian saints were his boast and joy, whatever their faults, which no one had such reason to feel as the apostle; but he had it in Christ Jesus, which gave it force and permanence. Thus does he protest his dying day by day. It is not a doctrinal standing; there he could say, I died. Death with Christ is a fact; for faith it is never a mere and slow process going on, as mystics dream. Here it is a constant exposure to physical death. So he served the Lord, and boasted in His saints: how absurd if there be no resurrection l But it was not only joy in the saints spite of daily dying; what a spring for endurance in the world outside l "If after man I fought with beasts in Ephesus, what [is] the profit to me?" Faith is not fanatical; it reasons as soundly as it feels loyally and works by love.

Here again it was resurrection which cheered him in the fierce conflict, which, speaking as men do, he calls a fight with beasts. It is no uncommon figure. Compare Titus 1: 12; 2 Timothy 4: 17; and so, it seems, Heraclitus designated the Ephesians: see also Appian, Bell. C. ii. 763, and Ignat. ad Rom. 5. To me also with some ancients and moderns, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον seems meant to qualify the phrase, so that it should not be taken literally.

To abandon resurrection then is to yield ourselves up to ease, pleasure, and indulgence. It is not the immortality of the soul, but the faith of resurrection, which keeps man from sinking to and below a brute. Men may cry up the soul, without a thought of God and only to self-exaltation; but the resurrection brings in the reality of God's intervention with men, either in salvation or in judgment. And these human thoughts, which looked plausible and even spiritual, had deceived some of the saints in Corinth. Is it not more purifying to think of the soul apart from the body, and in heavenly glory? Not so; it is the hope of the body rising which encourages us to deny self, and mortify our members here below. See the place given to the body in Rom. 6, Rom. 12, as well as in the Epistles to the Corinthians, and elsewhere. Now is the time, here the place, to walk as dead with Christ, and alive in Him to God. In glory we shall dwell at ease, our bodies changed into the likeness of His glorious body.

The word of God maintains this life of unselfish faith and readiness to suffer, not the communications of men, as themselves confess. These puff up and corrupt: so say Euripides, Menander, and common proverbs. Hence the call to wake up righteously, or to righteousness, and not to be sinning. To deny the resurrection is to display ignorance of God. (See Matt. 22: 29.) This was not wonderful in a heathen; but what a disgrace to the saints that some among them should be thus ignorant! So ends boastful knowledge. The Corinthians must begin again, and, starting from a dead and risen Christ, use the truth of God to judge the thoughts of men. He loves to be known as the God that raises the dead, while it is also true that all live unto Him.

The apostle next turns from warning to meet objections in the shape of questions physical, as our Lord met the social difficulty raised by the Sadducees. These he quickly exposes in their true character. They are folly; or he rather is a fool who employs his avowed ignorance to reject the testimony of God, who alone knows. Our wisdom is to know the scriptures, and so His word, without a question of His power to give them effect.

"But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what body do they come? Fool, what thou sowest is not quickened unless it die; and what thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the rest; and God giveth to it a body as he pleased, and to each of the seeds its own body." (Vers. 85-38.) Thus severely is the inquisitive mind of man rebuked, and especially so in this instance, where the clear revelation of God is doubted or denied, because the process, the how, of the resurrection may not be understood, or the character of the risen body. It will be found, however, that God does not withhold the weightiest information; but the apostle here administers a reproof which would be deeply felt by those who piqued themselves on their wisdom, yet were foolish enough to overlook the analogies of nature before their eyes, which refute the assumed likeness between the body as it is, and as it shall be. "Fool, what thou" (not God merely, but the feeble objector) "sowest is not quickened unless it die." Death, therefore, was no barrier to the resurrection, of course not its cause, but its antecedent. There may be change, as shown afterwards, but no resurrection unless death be first. There is dissolution in death, but not annihilation. There is disorganisation in death previous to another mode of being. But the seed dies as such in order to pass into a plant; and so he adds, "and what thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but bare grain it may be of wheat or of some of the rest, and God giveth it a body as he pleased, and to each of the seeds its own body."

What springs up differs widely from what was sown, yet each seed issues in its own plant. There is such a thing as species, and this fixed from the first, as God pleased. "Natural selection" is not only contrary to fact but senseless, yet none the less the idol of modern materialists, as Ashtoreth was of the Sidonians and Molech of the Amorites. No doubt there is a germ or principle of life; but what does the objector know of it? If he is utterly unacquainted with this even in the seed, is he in a position to cavil as to the body? One may reason fairly from known truth, not from ignorance. If one rejects whatever is not understood, where is such unconscionable doubt to end? Not only is all spiritual being swept away, but one must begin with denying the existence of oneself and every other being. Nothing is less rational than to make reason the only inlet of thought, feeling, knowledge, conscience, or consciousness.

"Every flesh [is] not the same flesh, but one [is] of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. [There are] both bodies heavenly and bodies earthly; but different is the glory of the heavenly, and different that of the earthly: one [the] sun's glory, and another [the] moon's glory, and another [the] stars' glory; for star differs from star in glory. So also [is] the resurrection of the dead." (Vers. 39-42.) The apostle shows how vain is the assumption of a condition for the body in resurrection similar to the present state, from the diversity even of flesh in the animal world that now is. There is no monotony in God's creation. The flesh is palpably different in men, cattle or quadrupeds, birds, fishes: how unreasonable then, if that ground be sought, to take for granted that the body must be at all like what it is now in a condition so distinct as resurrection! Far more sensibly might one conceive the most striking difference. It is no question, however, either of reason or of imagination, but of faith as far as God has revealed. But there is a farther illustration, which the apostle draws even from sight, to set aside empiricism, petty and grovelling, as it always is.

"There are both bodies heavenly and bodies earthly," and the glory of the one differs from that of the other; and not only this, but the heavenly ones, sun, moon, stars, vary from each other, as do those below. There is no need to suppose angels are meant, like Alford, de Wette, and Meyer; and to introduce saints here as do Chrysostom and his followers, is to confound the things compared. The objection to understanding "heavenly bodies" of the sun, etc., as if too modern a term, is simply want of knowledge; it is mere captiousness to boot that, if we apply these words thus, we must suppose the apostle to have imagined the stars to be endowed with bodies in the literal sense; for similar language occurs in the Hellenistic Greek of Galen (iv. 868, 869, ed. Kuhn), who lived not long after the apostle, as was pointed out by Wetstein, ii. 171, more than a hundred years ago. Yet the object is not to prove different degrees of glory in heaven, as thought by many ancients and moderns, but rather to contrast the risen with the natural state. "So also is the resurrection of the dead." This is made plain from what follows. They are quite wrong who make the glory to be exclusively heavenly or earthly. Both will be found in the kingdom of God. (See John 3: 12.)

"It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body: if* there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual." (Vers. 42-44.)

* εἰ A B C D F, etc., while Text. Rec. omits it with the rest: so also with the place of καί after or before ἐστιν, and further against or for σῶμα before πν.

This is one among the scriptures where the present is used, not as an actual or continuous thing, but abstractly: a sense constantly forgotten by grammarians as well as expositors. Yet is it inexcusable ignorance, for the same principle applies to almost, if not all, languages, and seems to flow from the nature of language, the present being most suitable for an abstract, as distinguished from its historical, usage. Here it is impossible rightly to take it otherwise. Resurrection, and even burial, or sowing, as it is here figuratively called (and not the origin of our natural being, as Archbishop Whately understood), excludes a merely actual or a continuing fact. It is the statement of a truth.

The body of the believer is sown in dishonour, corruption, and weakness: so all see; what do we believe? It is raised in incorruption, glory, and power — not a mere ethereal or airy body, as Chrysostom and Origen respectively said, but a body instinct with spirit life, as once with animal life from the soul, yet not a spirit, but a spiritual body, not limited by earthly conditions, but capable either of passing through a closed door, or of being felt, able to take food, though needing none, if we may judge from Him who, risen as the great Head and pattern and power, declared that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as they saw He had.

The suitability of this for heaven is apparent. "If there is a natural (or soulish) body, there is also a spiritual." As surely as there is the body which we have now, suited to the earth and the life that now is, there is also a spiritual body, which we shall have when the Lord Christ comes to raise those that are His. (See vers. 20-23.) God, who constituted the one for the sphere of responsibility and trial, will certainly adapt the other to the conditions of glory, where the eternal life which is now exercised in scenes of sorrow, itself in faith, hope, and love, will then enjoy the unclouded rest of God on high. The εἰ, omitted by most of the later uncials and cursives, and even the Syrr. vv. as well as the Greek fathers, is attested by the most ancient and best manuscripts, uncial or cursive, the rest of the old versions, and the Latin fathers: only some, by ὁμοιοτέλευτον, have left out the entire latter half of verse 44.

Now the apostle comes to the decisive proof of scripture, and the personal test of Christ. "So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam a quickening Spirit: yet not first [is] the spiritual, but the natural, afterward the spiritual; the first man out of earth made of dust, the second man* out of heaven: such as he made of dust, such also those made of dust; and such as the heavenly [one], such also the heavenly [ones]; and even as we bore the image of the [one] made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly[ones]." (Vers. 45-49.) It is the way of the apostle, and indeed of the inspired in general, to trace up all to the sources; and so it is here at the end, as at the earlier part, of this discussion. Adam and Christ are before us, the first man Adam made only a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. Thus, as usual, first is seen man failing in his responsibility; then the obedient, suffering, victorious Man.

* So p.m. B G D E F G, etc., with many ancient versions and fathers, T. Rec. adds ὁ κύριος, "the Lord," with most of the later uncials and cursives, Syrr. Arm. and Goth. It is even said to be a Marcionite corruption in Dial., and by Tertullian.

It is to be noticed too that the great occasion when scripture shows us the Lord become a quickening spirit was when He rose from the dead. Then, not before, did He breathe on the disciples, and say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. It was not the new birth merely, but life more abundantly, because in the power of resurrection; and this quite falls in with the doctrine of the chapter, which looks neither at incarnation nor at ascension, however important, nor here at His death, though this be sacrificially and in moral power the foundation of all for us as well as for God's glory.

Such was the order, and this the triumph, not yet in our resurrection, but in His who will raise the sleeping saints at His coming. It is not that Adam had not an immortal soul, or that Christ could not lay His life down; but the one at the beginning became a living soul, the other (after having been manifested in the end of the ages for putting away of sin by His sacrifice) a life-giving spirit as risen. "Out of heaven" is no more inconsistent with this, than "out of earth" with Adam's being made a living soul, but each, on the contrary, most suitable.

And now we can go a step farther in each ease. Such as was the dusty one (Adam), such also the dusty ones (the race); and such as the heavenly One, such also the heavenly ones (Christians); and just as we bore the image of the dusty one, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly One. We were, and are, naturally the family of the first man, and bore his image (cf. Gen. 5: 3); we, as now in Christ, shall also bear the image of Christ in the day that is coming. God has predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He should be first-born among many brethren. It is not a question of any transforming of us meanwhile according to the same image by the Spirit, which is true and momentous day by day; it is that full and final conformity which cannot be till Christ consumates salvation, and transforms our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory, according to the working of His ability even to subdue all things to Himself.

If we go alone by manuscripts, etc., we should have here φορέσωμεν, "let us bear," seeing that the great majority of the best authorities is in its favour, not (it is true) the Vatican, and a few cursives with some versions and fathers, while others lay the express emphasis on the hortative form. The context is decisively in favour of the fut. inc. How then is the erratum to be accounted for? By two considerations: first, the proneness, even of the best copies, to confound o and w; secondly, the readiness of pious men, who feebly know grace, to turn a promise into an exhortation. The rationalist naturally prefers a reading which puts forward man, so as to hide the glorious power of God in raising the dead into the likeness of the risen Christ.

Thus the dying man and the Man of resurrection power stand in full contrast, as do those who are respectively theirs, with the glorious issue for such as once, the first man's, like others, became by grace of the Second, the last Adam. Adam became a sinner, and was sentenced to death before he became head of the family. Christ bore sin, and died to it, before He became Head of those who believed. Till He died He abode alone; after it He had much fruit. And as there never was a hope for man in another, so none other can rival Him. He is the last Adam, no less than the second Man. He who will finally pretend to it, ere the age ends, and secure the worship of what was once Christendom, as well as (strange to say) of the Jew, is only the man of sin, though sitting down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. He is emphatically from beneath, as the Lord is from heaven, and they that follow him perish everlastingly, while the believer has life eternal in Christ, and shall be glorified with Him.

But we have more. "Now* this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,** in an instant, in [the] twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for it shall sound, and the dead shall live incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruptibility, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the word that is written, Death was swallowed up in victory. Where, death, [is] thy victory?† where, death,‡ thy sting? Now the sting of death [is] sin, and the power of sin the law; but thanks to God that giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my brethren beloved, be firm, immovable, abounding in the work of the Lord always, knowing that your toil is not vain in [the] Lord." (Vers. 50-58.)

* δέ is the reading of A B C K L P, all the cursives known, etc., γάρ "for" of D E F G, etc. So the future κλ. is in C D F G, etc., but contrary to the mass and best.

** The true text is πάντες μὲν οὐ κ., π. δέ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, as in B E K L P, etc. But A F G, and many other excellent authorities support the absurd reading, "we shall all sleep, but we shall not all he changed," as Lachmann actually edited not only in 1831, but in 1850. He also read with many MSS ἀναστήσονται for ἐγ. in verse 52, but this makes scarcely a perceptible difference in translation.

† p.m. B C I M, etc., support this order contrary to Text. Rec., with most.

‡ "Grave," or "Hades," 2 A3 L M P contrary to the oldest as above.

It will be observed that God's kingdom is here viewed exclusively on the other side of death, in accordance with the great theme in hand. "Earthly things" have their place very definitely elsewhere; here, for the reason given, they are not found. Flesh and blood, man, as he is here below, cannot inherit God's kingdom. It is not merely that corruption does not inherit incorruption, being incompatible, but man in his best estate is altogether vanity. Short of resurrection, which is the intervention of another Man, who is also God, he cannot inherit where God reigns. But in Christ we see the power which withdraws the believer completely from death, impossible without His death, not because He could not intrinsically quicken for evermore, but because the believer had been a sinner like others, and could not otherwise be saved consistently with God's righteousness, holiness, truth, and glory.

His victory extends even to the living saints, not merely to keep them alive in the world, but to change them at His coming, without undergoing the humiliation of death in any shape. This is no doubt a truth unknown to Old Testament times, and the revelation there given; it is a secret made known now. "Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for it shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." The earlier communication was not a mystery; this is. Old Testament saints (witness Job) knew certainly the resurrection, not only of man in general (Job 14), but of the saint in particular (Job 19). But who could tell or think of saints being changed without going through death in virtue of the perfect victory of grace in Christ? It was reserved for the days of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, when the infinite work was done whereby souls, once guilty, could be brought into the efficacy and the knowledge of redemption. And what a proof of its efficacy, when the saints that remain alive are changed without dying, or still less any purgatorial process after death, and this, not in some specially known for practical holiness, but in all the saints then waiting for Christ here below!

Here man breaks down utterly. He revolts from what makes nothing of his power or his merits, yea, what exposes his total inability and demonstrates his ruin through sin, while it reveals the free and full and triumphant grace which saves — saves the body as well as soul of the Christian, through Christ, to God's glory. Even saints, themselves owing all to it, find it often so beyond their thoughts, that they are apt to curtail its extent, too bscure its clearness, and to fritter away its power.

A notable evidence of this appears in the singular vacillation here found in the ancient copies and versions. There is no need, perhaps no ground, for accusing any of failure in good faith; but if not, it is hard to account for the departure from the words and truth given by the Spirit, save by the strangeness of it for those who copied or translated.

Thus the Latins followed the reading extant in the first hand of the Clermont manuscript, but corrected there later, ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δέ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur, "we shall indeed all rise again, but we shall not all be changed," a double error, directly opposed in each part to positive scripture. Indeed the dead saints shall rise, but all saints are not to die, nay, none found alive and remaining unto the coming of the Lord, when the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. It is appointed unto men, doubtless, once to die; but saints stand on another ground — of the second Man, not of the first; and such as live till He comes look to be not unclothed but clothed upon, that mortality be swallowed up of life, instead of dying and rising again like the rest. Thus those who teach that we shall all rise imply the universal dying of the saints, and in effect deny the power of life in Christ, which it is the great aim of the Spirit to press in 2 Corinthians 5. But they teach still more erroneously that "we shall not all be changed" in no less open contrariety to the invariable declaration of scripture, and the necessary exigencies of that glory of God in hope of which we rejoice.

For we look for the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven as Saviour, who shall change our body of humiliation that it may be fashioned like unto the body of His glory. In this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven. The earthly house of the tabernacle we have now is wholly unmeet for the glory of God: we need therefore a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens, which we shall have at Christ's coming. Consequently we must, and shall, be changed then and there. Hence the second clause of the Latin is as false as the first. They together ignore grace and glory in their full character and final issues. Accordingly, without a particle of prejudice against the Vulgate, one may say that it would be difficult to match such a departure from the true text and the truth in general in the worst version that ever was made. Yet human tradition dooms its votaries to the sanction, as authentic scripture, of these gross and grievous errors throughout half Christendom.

But the text of Lachmann the critic, founded on A C F G, and other authorities, is as bad, if not worse, π. [μ.] κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ π. δέ ἀλλαγ. For here we are taught in no sense the power of life, but of death, in the very chapter which develops resurrection in and of Christ, and in the part of it, above all others, which discloses the secret of victory by and with Christ when He comes for His own then alive on earth. A singular mystery it were, that "we shall all die (or sleep);" seeing that this is the common lot of the race, and in no way the disclosure of the exemption which grace will confer when the Lord Jesus will come and gather us to Himself. We need say no more of the further error which denies the change, after the pattern of Christ's glorification, to any that are His. Rationalism shares this latter with Romanism; and though they differ as to the former point, the one affirming that "we shall all sleep," the other that "we shall all rise," they agree in adopting mistaken readings, which deny the special grace of Christ to His own who are to be found awaiting His descent from heaven, and the special mystery here added to complete the general truth of the chapter.

This is entirely confirmed by the context (ver. 52), which besides furnishes somewhat more to the believer. We shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. The glorification of the saints will be effected, immense as it is in itself, and from every spot of the globe, sooner than the mind can reckon, or the eye discern, when the final summons is given to the heavenly host to quit its halting-place. The allusion is to the signal last given on the breaking up of a camp, at that time too familiar a figure to escape the nations of Europe and far beyond it, which had been welded into the empire of Rome. "For it shall sound," however little man may expect it, "and the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed;" not, remark, we shall rise then, nor they only, but "we" too shall be changed, in exact accordance with the true and common text of verse 51, and in opposition to the changes of both rationalists and Romanists.

But we have more explanation, and a scripture rich in its connection of truth, cited from the Old Testament. "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality." (Ver. 53.) The apostle expresses the truth with perfect precision. He does not speak of those corrupting in the grave; nor even of the dead or dying, but of what is "corruptible" and "mortal," so as to take in the body even whilst we are alive, and thus be an object for the change, if not for resurrection. "But when this corruptible shall have put-on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that is written, Death was swallowed up in victory." (Ver. 54.) The epoch of the change is the coming of the Lord from heaven. When the dead in Christ shall rise, and we who are alive be changed and caught up, then shall Isaiah 25: 8 come to pass. But it is evident from the prophet that this must be at the end of the age, not of the world; that then the earth's blessing begins, instead of passing away, and that then Jehovah will destroy in this mountain [Zion] the face of the covering cast over all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of His people shall He take away from off all the earth: for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it. . . . In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah, We have a strong city, etc. It is the kingdom come in power and glory, instead of the end of it for eternity; and the risen or changed saints will share it, as well as eternity, with Christ. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" It is to be feared that many Christians know it less now than the carnal Corinthians of old. Yet it is less excusable for those who have the apostolic correction to profit by.

No wonder that the apostle refers to the challenge of another prophet, "Death, where [is] thy victory? Death, where [is] thy sting?" (Hosea 13: 14) with the comment, "Now the sting of death [is] sin, and the strength of sin the law; but thanks to God that giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Vers. 65-57.) What a triumphant answer is the resurrection and the change of the saints at the coming of the Lord! It is sin which gives not only occasion, but its sting, to death; and the law, however righteous, could work no deliverance for the guilty, but proves in effect the strength of sin, by provoking its rebellious will so much the more against the commands of God. His grace; not the law, is the strength of holiness, as we learn from Romans 6: 14; and therefore does the apostle here break forth into thanksgiving as he sees God giving us the victory so completely and for ever, through our Lord Jesus Christ. "Wherefore, my brethren beloved, be ye stedfast, immovable, abounding in the work of the Lord always, knowing that your toil is not vain in [the] Lord." (Ver. 58.) Christ's resurrection is the pledge of ours, the witness of salvation, the pattern of deliverance, and the spring of hope in the midst of labour as well as suffering for Christ,

1 Corinthians 16

Another and a very different topic claimed the service of the apostle, because it fell under the Lord's care for the church. It might seem wholly a matter for the saints; but experience itself proves how much they need in it the guidance of the Spirit through the written word. Hence pretension to superior spirituality here, as elsewhere, sinks below the instincts of love, and the dictates of every sound mind. How blessed to have the regulating wisdom of God, who deigns to give us His mind even for the smallest things of this life!

"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the assemblies of Galatia, so do ye also. Every first of a week let each of you put by him, storing up whatever he may be prospered in, that there be no collections when I come. And when I am arrived, whomsoever ye shall approve, them I will send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem; and, if it be suitable that I go, they shall go with me." (Vers. 1-4.)

It is untrue that the assemblies were left without apostolic regulation, or that they were regulated differ entry. The snares and the circumstances of Galatia were as unlike those of Corinth as could be conceived; the directions given by the apostle were the same, and this, not merely on matters of the most momentous significance, as sound doctrine, and holy discipline, and the attesting institutions of Christ, so that the worship and public ways of the saints might present the same testimony everywhere, but here, as we see, even in the exercise of their liberality.

One cannot overlook the frequent remembrance of the poor saints at Jerusalem; and no doubt there were circumstances which gave them a special claim. Probably external distress prevailed, and persecution had left some widows and orphans. Not only were the believers very numerous there, but there only, so far as we read, had they sold their possessions and substance, so as to distribute to all, as any one had need; there only not one said that anything of what he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them, so that none was in want. But there, partly through this surprising testimony of unselfish love, poverty prevailed later; and none among the Gentile assemblies was so urgent as our apostle that relief should be sent for the brethren in Judea, not merely during the great famine under Claudius Caesar, but thenceforward, as we may gather from 1 and 2 Corinthians, as well as Romans. (Of. Gal. 2: 10; Acts 24: 17.)

Still a general principle and practice we find laid down of the highest value for any time. The collection for the saints was bound up with the solemn and gracious associations of the first, or resurrection, day. It was to proceed regularly, not occasionally; it was to be done with conscience, according as any might be prospered, not under influence, or pressure, or haste, still less with indifference, or on mere human grounds. Thus faith and love would be called out, and healthfully applied, while waiting for the coming of the Lord. It seems that each was to lay aside at home what he judged according to the means given; but the mention of the first of the week, or Lord's day, points to their joining their contribution, when they came together, as every disciple did, to break bread. This is truly to lay up treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust corrupteth, and where thieves do not dig through or steal.

Again, the apostle was careful to leave no room for evil surmise or appearance; and so he here indicates a fresh application of the apostolic wisdom which we see in Acts 6. The multitude chose their own administrators. They contributed the funds, and they, not the apostles, chose men in whom they had confidence to dispense them. (See also 2 Cor. viii.) As the church cannot impart a spiritual power, so the Lord alone gave gifts for the ministry or service of souls. (Rom. 10, Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4) The apostles, personally or by delegate (as Titus), chose elders, being the chiefs of that authority of which the presbyters were the ordinary representatives locally. (Acts 14; Titus 2) Everything in the church rests on its own proper ground. Here, then, the apostle promises on his arrival to send with letters whomsoever they should approve to bring their bounty unto Jerusalem.

But the letters were to be his, not theirs as the Authorised Version says, following the mistake of the Vulgate, Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, and the Text. Rec., which punctuates wrongly in consequence. For what would be the sense of their approving by their letters when the apostle came? The Corinthians really were to select whom they approved, and Paul, on arriving, would send them on, furnished with letters from himself. So too the Greek commentators understood.

It is common to make the genitive dependent on ἄξιον, "meet," and to deduce the meaning, "if the occasion, or magnitude of the collection, warrant an apostolic mission in order to carry it." But such a sense, though grammatically possible, seems to me unworthy, not only of the apostle, but even of the delegates, and only tolerable because men have been lowered by the mendicant habits of Christendom. The truth is that the genitive of design, purpose, or the conclusion to be formed, as here, is a common Hellenistic usage, not infrequent in classical authors. The Authorised Version is therefore nearer the mark, and much more in unison with the dignity of all concerned, as well as with God's word and Spirit, which, while cherishing the largest self-denial and generosity, are wont to slight the resources of unbelief, and to brand covetousness as idolatry. If it were suitable, then, that Paul also should go, the delegates should go with him. He would guard his services from all ground for reproach, providing for things honest, not only before the Lord, but also before men.

"But I will come unto you when I shall have gone through Macedonia, for I go through Macedonia. But perhaps I shall stay, or even winter, with you, that ye may send me forward wherever I may go. For I do not wish to see you now in passing; for I * hope to remain some time with you, if the Lord permit. But I will remain at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great and effectual door is open to me, and [there are] many adversaries. But if Timotheus come, see that he be with you without fear, for he worketh the Lord's work, even as I. Let none then despise him, but send him forward in peace, that he may come unto me, for I am awaiting him with the brethren. But concerning the brother Apollos, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren; but it was not at all [his] will to come now, but he will come when he shall have good opportunity." (Vers. 5-12.)

* Not δέ as in Text Rec. following K L and most cursives, but γάρ in the A B C D E F G I M P, many cursives, the best of the ancient versions, etc.

It is evident from verse 8 that the apostle was in Ephesus when he wrote to Corinth this first epistle. The spurious postscript in the common text, followed in the Authorised Version, says "from Philippi," but it was really from Ephesus, as in the Vatican and some other copies; and therefore salutations are given from "the assemblies of Asia." (Ver. 19.) His purpose was to pass through Macedonia: this is the force of Μακ. γάρ διέρχομαι, a journey then before him as a settled thing, but not actually in progress. He might, perhaps, then stay, or even winter, with them, adding an expression of loving confidence that they might send him on wherever he might go. For he declined seeing them then, for reasons explained in 2 Corinthians 1, hoping to remain some time with them, under the Lord's permission, instead of merely passing through. He should remain at Ephesus, where he then was, till Pentecost. That the Lord was there working was a sufficient reason, and none the less because there were adversaries many. He trusted to carry on the work, and help souls against Satan.

But his heart could not rest without commending Timothy, and the more as he was timid. He would have him be without fear in their midst, and deigns to put him as a workman of the Lord so far on common ground with himself. He is anxious that none should despise him — a danger among the saints, who are as open to be deceived by self-seeking men, as to slight true servants of Christ.

The case of Apollos is also instructive in more ways than one. Paul besought him to go to Corinth, rising above all feeling that not a few set him above himself; Apollos would not then go, it would seem, out of similar delicacy, unwilling to give occasion to such folly and wrong among the saints as they then were. We see how the Lord maintains freedom, as well as calls out grace, among His labourers, even when apostles were there, recording it for our guidance when there are none. Nothing, in its way, can be happier than this picture of unjealous love and respect, but free as before the Lord, among servants so varied as an apostle, his young companion, and a comparatively independent labourer like Apollos.

After these details the apostle gives a few pithy words of exhortation: "Watch, stand in the faith, play the man, be strong.* Let all your doings be in love." (Vers. 13, 14.) They are words eminently suited to the state of things at Corinth, besides being wholesome for all saints in all times and places. Carelessness had marked them as a company, and therefore were they now called to vigilance. They had allowed speculations to work even on foundation truths of revelation, and so they needed to cleave firmly to the deposit of faith. They had been walking after the manner of man (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον), and had shrunk from reproach and suffering, feebly dreading the world's opinions; they are urged, therefore, to quit themselves in a manly way (ἀνδρίζεσθε), and to be strong. They kind need also, and above all, that whatever they did might be done lovingly. It is the final application of that which 1 Cor. 13 had opened out — the blessed energy of the divine nature, which lives and delights in the good of others; and it is the fitting preface to his next topic.

* Some manuscripts and versions, etc., prefix καί, "and," but it is not sustained by the best authorities.

"Now I beseech you, brethren — ye know the house of Stephanas,† that it is a first-fruit of Achaia,‡ and that they appointed themselves to the saints for service — that ye also be subject to such, and to every one that co-operateth and laboureth." (Vers. 15, 16.)

* Some add of "Fortunatus" here, others, "and of Achaicus" also, but the best oppose. It is a gloss.

‡ In the common text of Romans 16: 5, Epaenetus is said to be a first-fruits of Achaia; but the ancient and true reading is Asia, not "Achaia," of which Stephanas' house was the firstfruits.

This entreaty of the apostle was, and is, of the highest, for the house of Stephanas represents a considerable class of labourers, if we reckon them up in every place where God has His assembly. They stand on a distinct footing from such servants of the Lord as Timothy, on the one hand, or Apollos on the other. They do not answer to one designated by prophecy, specially gifted to serve with an apostle; neither were they men eloquent and mighty in the scriptures, who from small beginnings learnt the truth more exactly, and could, in a freer action of the Spirit, either boldly speak before adversaries, or contribute much to those who believed through grace.

The house of Stephanas had no such prominent, wide, or energetic sphere; but they devoted themselves in an orderly way to the saints for service. It was their regular work, not a thing taken up perfunctorily now and then; and this, which some dare to deride as self-appointment, is as thoroughly maintained and commended by the apostle in the name of the Lord, as the call of a patron or of a congregation to the ministry of the word is absolutely unscriptural, and opposed to all sound and holy principle. The apostle establishes their attitude and activity as of God, whose love gave them a heart toward the saints in service. They were not elders. Indeed it would seem that as yet none had been chosen at Corinth to the work of oversight by the apostle. But none the less does he call on the saints also to range themselves under such, and every one sharing the work, and toiling. We see the same thing in Romans 12 and 1 Thessalonians 5, where no trace, of presbyters appear, and where, in fact, we can hardly conceive of their existence. But there were those who ruled, or took the lead, those who toiled among the saints, and presided over them in the Lord, entirely apart from exterior appointment. As this was of moment to sanction in those early days, so is it of at least equal importance in our own time, when we have no apostle, or apostolic delegate like Titus, to visit the assemblies, and to establish elders, as of old. The same holy liberty, the same solemn responsibility, and the same apostolic warrant, abide for our day of weakness and need. How evident the gracious wisdom of the Lord, while thus naming but incidentally, as it might have seemed, the house of Stephanas, really providing for all that call on His name, in every place, and at any time of the church's career here below! How blessed in His eyes is the subjection of the saints, not only to such devoted servants, but to every one joined in the work, and labouring!

Another feature of interest is the delicacy with which the apostle notices some from Corinth who had not forgotten his temporal necessities. "But I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, because what was lacking on your part these filled up; for they* refreshed my spirit and yours: own then those that are such." (Vers. 17, 18.) It would appear from both epistles that the help did not come from the assembly as such, but from these three individuals, whose love the apostle does not fail to record. In his allusion there is certainly the grace which counted on the mention refreshing the Corinthian assembly as it had refreshed himself, but not without a hint that they had lost an opportunity which the three discerned and used before the Lord.

* οὗτοι B C K L P, and the cursives, etc., in general; αὐτοί ADEFGM, etc.

"The assemblies of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca* salute you much in [the] Lord, with the assembly in their house. All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. The salutation of Paul with mine own hand. If any one loveth not the Lord [Jesus Christ,]† let him be anathema maranatha (a curse: the Lord cometh). The grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ] [be] with you. My love [be] with you all in Christ Jesus. [Amen]." (Vers. 19-24.)

* Priscilla as in Acts, but Prisca also in Romans 16: 3, and 2 Timothy 4: 19, as in the common text.

† I have given the best authenticated reading; but others add what follows in each case of the dotted brackets.

The salutation from "the assemblies of Asia" falls in with the fact that the apostle was writing from the capital of that pro-consular province. But it seems to me a mistake to conceive that the name of the church or assembly is applied to a single family in the next clause. The truth really is that this godly pair appear to have opened their house habitually for the saints to assemble there wherever they might reside, whether in Ephesus or in Rome. Thus it was in those early days, when true unity prevailed and vast buildings for accommodating multitudes did not yet exist among Christians. So in Jerusalem, from the first they used to break bread καἰ οἶκον. That Aquila and his wife should greet the Corinthian saints "much in the Lord," as distinguished from the more general salutation, "all the brethren," or of the Asiatic assemblies, is easily understood from their personal acquaintance with the Achaian capital. But the mode of salutation enjoined here, as on the Romans, and by the apostle Peter on the christian Jews scattered throughout Asia Minor, points to the ardent, but holy, affection which then knit together the saints as such: so should it ever be in a world where sin brings in distance or corruption.

The apostle, then, appends his salutation with his own hand; for here, as usually, the body of the epistle was not in his autograph. But he also adds the sternest denunciation of any one who loved not the Lord, under a seemingly familiar Syrian formula. Calvin ridicules the idea of writing so to Greeks in that tongue; but, explain it as you may, such is the fact, which does not seem mitigated by his own suggestion that it was a customary form of expressing excommunication among the Hebrews. To me it appears to go farther still: yet did it not in the least clash with the love which animated and filled his heart, as one sees from verse 23, and especially 24. It is to be doubted indeed whether love can be unfeigned without abhorring evil; and what evil can compare with bearing the name of the Lord without real attachment to Him?

Thus the first epistle to the Corinthians ends with a denunciation similar in solemnity to that with which the epistle to the Galatians opens. There the apostle in his zeal for the truth of the gospel imprecates a curse on himself, or an angel from heaven, or any one preaching aught besides what he had preached and they received; here he burns with no less vehemence against any one loving not the Lord, and in the light of His coming too, which goes beyond excommunication. But this in no way interferes with his prayer, that not His judgment but His grace might be with you, as he assures them all of his own love in Christ Jesus. Thus confidence and affection mark this autograph conclusion as well as the gravest warning, the wise and worthy personal message to his beloved children in the faith.

LONDON: G. MORRISH, 20, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 1878.

1 Peter

W. Kelly.

Introduction.

Not to the apostle of the circumcision but to him whom the Lord sent to the Gentiles was it given to make known the mystery, or secret of God, as to Christ and as to the church. Nowhere is it so much as named in Peter's inspired writings, though we know that it was revealed since redemption, to the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. But Paul was the minister of the church (Col. 1: 24, 25) as no one else was led to style himself. To him pre-eminently was the mystery made known by revelation, as to him was given this grace to evangelize among the nations the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all as to what is the administration of the mystery, which from all ages had been hid in God Who created all things. Even the word "church," inserted in 1 Peter 5: 13 by the A.V. as by other translators, is an unfounded conjecture; and the R.V. rightly agrees with the correction, "She that is in Babylon, elect together with [you], saluteth you, and Marcus my son." It was an individual sister, with the brother named.

The subject matter is the government of God, which is richly treated in both Epistles, but on a different side in each of the two. It is however God's government, not simply as saints of old knew it, but as it was modified by Messiah's advent and the accomplishment of redemption. Hence there is evident contrast with Israel's position under law, and the anticipation by faith of what it will be at Christ's appearing, making the necessary difference that those addressed are strangers and sojourners meanwhile, and hence holy sufferers on the earth, awaiting praise and honour and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ. But while the First Epistle is occupied with that righteous government applied to the Christian's path day by day as he hopes for the bright result at our Lord's revelation, the Second pursues it with solemn and detailed energy to the judgment of false teachers, rivalling the false prophets of Israel, and working no less corruption and destruction; and it goes on even to the day of God, by reason of which inflamed heavens shall be dissolved, and burning elements shall melt, succeeded by new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness, even the eternal state. The judgment of the wicked was notably distinct in the Second, as the watchful care and eventual triumph of the saints in the First. But, so far from any antagonism or even dissonance, they are the complement of one another.

Accordingly we are told in the beginning of the First Epistle that the apostle Peter addresses "sojourners of dispersion," which can mean Jews only, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But they were Christian Jews, and so described as "elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father by (or, in) sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ." The Gentiles of this large region of Asia Minor were settled at home in it; Jews there were sojourners dispersed from the land of Israel. But the description appended, like the Epistle generally, shows that they were pilgrims in a higher sense as God's children and confessors of Jesus Christ. The Second Epistle (2 Peter 3: 1) declares that it was written to the same persons. There is no ground therefore to claim for it a more catholic character than for the First. But "catholic" is a word greatly abused.

That both Epistles are divinely given and intended to profit all the faithful is unquestionable. But if for all saints, it is of interest and not without moment that we should recognise to whom they were written. That which the inspired writer himself says ought to be conclusive. But the learned no less than the unlearned like to have their opinions; and the late Dean Alford was only one of many who cite a number of verses, even in the First Epistle, to persuade us, notwithstanding the express terms of the address, that the apostle addresses himself to Gentile Christians as well as Jewish (for instance, 1 Peter 1: 14, 18; 1 Peter 2: 9, 10; 1 Peter 3: 6; 1 Peter 4: 3). Is it true then, that these passages furnish proof that his admonitions were directed to such as had been heathen, and were now converted to the faith of Christ?

Take now the first of these (i.e. 1 Peter 1: 14); and where is the trace of a Gentile? Were not Jews, when begotten again to a living hope, to be as children of obedience, not conformed to former lusts in their ignorance but according to the Holy One Who called them, to be themselves also holy in all manner of living? What indication of previous heathenism is here? Ver. 18, far from pointing necessarily to Gentiles, emphatically supposes Jews only. For they beyond all had a mode of life handed down ancestrally, and all the more vain from their boasted knowledge of the living God.

Still plainer seems the Jewish appropriation of 2: 9, 10. It is true that the Jews by their unbelief and rebellion, their idolatry first, and finally by Christ's rejection, forfeited their special privileges. "But ye," says the apostle, ye the remnant who believe, ye anticipate what the nation are yet to have "in that day" when they too believe. Ye who in your unbelief belonged to them as "not a people," but now do believe, ye are "God's people;" ye who were not shown mercy, now became objects of mercy. And this is entirely confirmed by the verses which immediately follow. For they are exhorted, as strangers and sojourners in a yet higher way, to abstain from fleshly lusts, having their behaviour seemly "among the Gentiles," as an outside class of evil-speakers.

The next, 1 Peter 3: 6, offers no difficulty for after setting forth Sarah's pattern of obedience, he tells the wives that they were become her children, not by mere flesh and blood, but by doing good and being not afraid with any terror. How does this imply previous heathenism? The last is 4: 3; but it is a forcible reminder that in the days of their unbelief they had been morally as corrupt as the heathens. Living far off among them, they were guilty even of their unhallowed idolatries — a thing of course if they were Gentiles, but shameful in Jews. Not a word of proof is there in all or any of these passages that the Epistle goes beyond its address.

It ought not to be doubted that Peter was in Babylon, the literal Babylon on the plain of Shinar, when he wrote the First Epistle, according to the arrangement made in earlier days (Gal. 2: 7, 8), that the gospel of the uncircumcision should be confided to Paul, and that of the circumcision to Peter, God working in each to their respective ends. There was no jar whatever, but happy fellowship; and it was marked by Peter's employing the same brother as his intermediary, who had been Paul's choice on a remarkable occasion and a former mission. It seems not improbable that Peter's wife (cf. 1 Cor. 9: 5) was the co-elect sister there whose salutation is given, with that of Mark his son in the faith (it appears). And we may feel assured that he would not associate with his own salutation that of one who had drawn out a memorable censure even of Barnabas, until confidence was restored, as the great apostle expressed it in Col. 4: 10, Philemon 24, and 2 Tim. 4: 11. If the apostle Paul was debarred at this time from visiting the assemblies which he had planted in these lands, the apostle Peter writes to strengthen his brethren; but with singular delicacy he addresses those of the circumcision who were allotted to his care, yet sends the letter by Silas the well-known fellow-labourer of the apostle to the Gentiles, who had founded the assemblies throughout this extensive region. Not a word implies that Peter had served in those parts, though Origen and Eusebius state so from a mistaken inference put as a tradition.

It is scarce worth while to notice the strange error of many ancients and moderns that Rome is meant by Babylon. Even if the Revelation had been known when the Epistle was written, instead of long after, it is harsh to conceive a mystical term of prophecy introduced into a writing so simple and direct, yet more into a greeting of love. What can one think of the theologians who cling to that which in the end is fraught with unsparing judgment, in order to extract its shadowy support to the dream of Peter's episcopate in the metropolis of the Gentile world?

1 Peter 1.

"Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ to elect sojourners scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1: 1).

When James wrote his Epistle, as bondman of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, it was to the twelve tribes that were in the "dispersion." It is a mistake to call this a "catholic" address, but it has an expressly large character for Israel; for it appeals to their utmost extent. So on a notable occasion the apostle Paul says before the king Herod Agrippa, "Now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God unto our fathers, unto which our twelve tribes earnestly serving God night and day hope to arrive" (Acts 26: 7). That hope hangs on resurrection, as the prophets indicated clearly, and the law too, rightly understood. Wherefore he immediately (ver. 8) speaks of God raising dead persons, as proved in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. God will thus be the doer and giver of all the blessing He promised; and Israel will have only to incline their ear and come to Him, from Whom they had so long departed, and by Whom they were at length for their apostasy dispersed among the nations. But by-and-by they are to hear, and their soul shall live; and He will make an everlasting covenant with them, the sure (the faithful or inviolable) mercies of David, in Him Who is the true Beloved, a witness given to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples far beyond the son of Jesse.

"The dispersion" is a phrase evidently familiar to the Jews, which first occurs in John 7: 35, and clearly means the Jews dispersed among the Greeks or Gentiles. For the genitive here as often elsewhere expresses a dependence, not immediate but remote and external, as for instance μετ. Βαβ. removal to Babylon (Matt. 1: 11).

But the apostle Peter in this scripture prefixes two words before "dispersion" which necessarily limit the scope of that term. The first, "elect," points out restriction to individuals chosen of God. They were elect from among the Jews, as believing that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God; whereas their brethren after the flesh for the most part rejected Him. Those who believed were Christians.

Israel had enjoyed the privilege of being the nation chosen by Jehovah as no other people was; and they will in sovereign mercy be reinstated at the end of the age under the Messiah and the new covenant, to be blessed with richer favours and for ever in that fast approaching day. It will be no longer a mixed condition as in the palmiest season of the past. "Thy people also (says Isa. 60: 21, 22) shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of. my hands, that I may be glorified. The little one shall become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation: I Jehovah shall hasten it in its time." So Daniel was told later, "At that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (Dan. 12: 1).

But that time is not come. Out of the Jewish people, when the apostle wrote, God is choosing to a heavenly calling by the faith of Him Whom the nation rejected and God has glorified on high. They are His present election while the heavens receive the Lord Jesus. To these only does Peter here write; he does not, like James, address a larger circle, some even unconverted, throughout the twelve tribes. He writes only to Christian confessors of the Lord Jesus who had been Jews.

This last is made plain and certain by the second term, "sojourners," when combined with the word "dispersion" which it qualifies. They were not the primitive possessors of these countries, nor simply "elect" from among its settled inhabitants. They were not only Jews scattered in those parts, but elect "pilgrims" or "sojourners." This was a title of grace, as "dispersion" was of judgment. Their election in this case was bound up with the journey to the better country, that is, a heavenly. Originally Jews, they were now Christians. This entirely accords with the writer of the Epistle. Peter was an "apostle of Jesus Christ" as he here introduces himself; and as the gospel of the uncircumcision had been confided to Paul, so was that of the circumcision to Peter (Gal. 2: 7). Hence it is to such that these two Epistles were addressed. Compare 2 Peter 3: 1 with the verse before us. As this is certain, it is unbelieving to allow that any other statements can countervail. Even a man would not write so incoherently: why should men of faith think so unworthily of scripture? Can such persons hold divine inspiration?

It is the more remarkable, because, as we know, the churches throughout Asia Minor had been founded by the apostle Paul and consisted largely of those who had been Gentiles. The delicate consideration of Peter is the more striking, because he directs his appeals throughout a part of that land to those Christian Jews who fell under his administration. Needless to say, his instruction in no way clashed with that which Paul had preached, taught, and written to them, whether Jews or Gentiles. None knew better than Peter how much the Jewish confessors of the Lord Jesus needed to be established in grace; none felt more than he how disposed they were on the one hand to boast in law and ordinances, and on the other to conform to the shameful ways of the Pagans who surrounded them. in his very address or the superscription he strikes the key-note. From the start he thus reminds them, that they were "elect" after a new sort, not national now but personal, and flowing out of the grace of God as Father for known association with Christ not on earth but in heaven. They were therefore but "pilgrims" meanwhile, where He was despised and rejected as a sufferer beyond all others in life (as He was alone and infinitely in His atoning death), that they too might by faith rejoice in sharing His sufferings as far as this could be.

For Peter was jealous over their souls with a godly jealousy, lest election might be severed from a deep sense of divine grace, and the spring be forgotten in claiming the issue. He therefore loses no time in saying plainly that not more surely are they "elect" than "sojourners." Had he heard the Son of God, in pouring out His heart to the Father, declare that His own (and were they not His own?) were not of the world, as He was not? Had he forgotten the Lord's repeating, yet more emphatically, "Of the world they are not, even as I am not" (John 17: 15, 17)? Here it is a figurative expression, but the same truth. They were elect pilgrims. The world of man's home was not theirs, nor yet was Canaan, but heaven, yea the Father's house above. It was not Jewish feeling for the land of promise, but Christian hope in waiting for Christ and to be with Him where He is, and like Him glorified.

Therefore were they but sojourners here looking for glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, and called to gird up the loins of their mind, being sober, and setting their hope perfectly upon the grace to be brought them at that revelation. Practical duties are based on the new relationships of grace; and truth is the communicated knowledge of both. For it is a characteristic of Peter's method and style to blend all together informally and with fervour, so as to act on the renewed mind, exercising the conscience and the heart. If he has not the immense sweep of Paul in ranging through the counsels of God, if not his the penetrating into the roots of complicated questions and clearing the principles at stake, if a far-reaching and unfailing and subtle dialectic belongs to Paul beyond all others, to no one more admirably than to Peter was it given to strengthen his brethren pithily, earnestly, and affectionately, by the exhibition of Christ and His work, and by the constant application of God's righteous government, whatever be His grace too.

The names given of the lands, where were the Christian Jews addressed, call for little notice. It has been shown by others that it well suits one writing from the eastern Babylon, but not the little place so named in Egypt any more than the symbolic metropolis of the west. The lack of persons saluted serves to prove that Peter was little if at all known personally there, whatever might be the just weight of inspired letters from him. These various provinces had been the familiar scene of Paul's labours.

They were "elect," then, "according to foreknowledge of God [the] Father, in (or, by) [the] Spirit's sanctification, unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace be multiplied" (ver. 2).

Israel was the elect people beyond any nation on the earth; but they were elect after quite a different pattern. This clearly appears in Ex. 6: 2-4. "And God spoke to Moses, and said to him, I am Jehovah; and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I was not made known to them. And I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they sojourned." The designations as such, were familiar enough previously; but the name was not given by divine authority as a title of relationship to count on, when God first revealed Himself as El-Shaddai to the fathers, next as Jehovah to the sons, of Israel. The true pilgrim fathers were thereby assured of His unfailing protection, weak as they might be, in the midst of the corrupt heathen they were destined to supplant; and the sons were through Moses to know Him as their unchanging Governor who made them a people of possession to Himself through all ages, He that was and is and is to come.

The Christian Jews, believing in Jesus not only Lord and Christ but Son of the living God, as our apostle first confessed Him, were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. So had our Saviour unbosomed Himself in John 17. "I manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word.... Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given to me, that they may be one, even as we are . . . . O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me. And I made known to them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them." So on the Resurrection-day His message through Mary of Magdala was, "Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God" (John 20: 17). How immense the advance in the glory and nearness of the relationship revealed!

According to this form and reality of foreknowledge, then, is the Christian chosen. It was and is Christ's in the fulness of personal divine dignity; it became ours by grace through redemption. The name of "our Father that is in heaven" shone early through the Lord's discourses on the mount, as in Matt. 5-7, and in Luke 6 and elsewhere. But it was definitely and fully made our own by the Lord when risen; and thus the Holy Spirit leads our hearts now in joy and in sorrow. It is so that we are entitled distinctively to know Him, as Christ did perfectly. And it was in God's wisdom that the apostle of the circumcision should make it plain to the believing remnant of the Jews, as the apostle Paul did fully to Gentile believers.

Hence the "sanctification" or "holiness" here spoken of took quite another and far deeper shape. The elect people Israel had been set apart to Jehovah in an outward way. Individually and peremptorily they were circumcised in the flesh on the eighth day Any other peculiar marks were, as the Epistle to the Hebrews declares, "carnal ordinances imposed until a season of reformation." On the contrary the Christian, whether Jew or Greek, enjoys the Spirit's holiness; he is even born of the Spirit (John 3: 6, 8), and thus is the sanctification inward to the utmost degree. Accordingly such a one is "a saint" from God's first vital action spiritually in his soul. So Ananias instructed of the Lord goes to Saul, just converted, and at once accosts him as "Brother Saul," before he was even baptised as he was immediately after; so it is in substance for every one that is begotten by the word of truth. The Spirit's activity is immediate and abiding, the ground of the practical holiness that ensues, which is but partial and relative; whereas what the apostle here introduces is a principle absolute, unfailing, and personal. In practice alas! we must confess, with the Epistle of James, that "we all often offend." Only unspiritual men flatter themselves otherwise. We too frequently need the active care of the blessed Advocate Whom we have with the Father (1 John 2: 1).

Practical sanctification is a capital and constant duty for every Christian; and it is urged, as throughout the Bible, expressly in vers. 15, 16 of this chapter. But in ver. 2 it is solely sanctification in principle, that is, in the life given by grace rather than in the walk which is bound to manifest it, as all the godly must readily own. "As he who called you is holy, be ye also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy." But so to interpret the Spirit's holiness (or, sanctification) here would necessarily dislocate the sentence, and could insinuate nothing but error destructive of truth, even the fundamental truth of the gospel. For what we are taught is that those Christian Jews were chosen, in virtue of the Spirit's sanctification, for obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus: the original spring, the necessary power and process, and the distinct result as a fact. If taken to mean holiness in practice, this would be before coming under the virtue of Christ's blood. In other words the error must follow, that practical holiness is the way to be justified by His blood; which might suit a besotted Romanist, but must be rejected by the least enlightened among Protestants. It denies the gospel of God's grace, and is at issue with all scripture that treats of the matter.

But if we understand the words to mean that the Spirit works in souls when born anew, to set them apart to God in this vital and indelible way, all is clear as well as consistent. For His setting apart is unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ. We are thus sanctified, not externally but in the new life imparted, to obey as Christ obeyed and to be sprinkled with His precious blood. So the same Saul of Tarsus immediately, when converted, says, "What shall I do, Lord?" His heart's primary purpose is to obey; as our Lord Himself could say in His unique perfection, "Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God." The Christian is bent on the same character of obedience. It is not like a Jew, to obey and thus gain life, as under law; it is obeying out of life already possessed, because he believes on Jesus.

Even the order, which to some is a difficulty, strictly adheres to the truth. For converted souls in general, perhaps always, have invariably as the instinct of divine life this purpose to obey as Christ obeyed, not legally, owning God's wondrous grace, before they do or can apprehend at all fully the efficacy of Christ's sacrificial work in blotting out all their sins. The interval may be ever so short where the gospel is distinctly proclaimed; but as this is far from usual, one can see that many a soul truly converted may struggle on for weeks or months or even years, without the comforting assurance that Christ's blood has made them whiter than snow in the eye of God. Saul of Tarsus again supplies an obvious illustration. Was there ever a more notable conversion? Yet was he three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink: the plain sign of a deep work of self-judgment, in no way of distrust or doubt, before he entered into the settled peace of deliverance by faith of the gospel, which before those days he had only regarded with stern unbelief.

Unquestionably the allusion is to Ex. 24 where Holocaust and Peace-offerings were presented to Jehovah; and Moses took half the blood in basins, and sprinkled half on the altar. Then he read the book of the covenant and the people said, All that Jehovah hath said will we do and obey; and Moses sprinkled the blood on the people, and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant that Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words. The blood here was the special sanction of death, signified by the blood-sprinkling, in case of disobedience. With this ministry of legal condemnation for the sinner the apostle contrasts the Christian, sanctified by the Spirit from his starting-point, to obey as Christ did in filial love, with the immensely blessed addition of His blood-sprinkling, which cleanses from every sin, instead of menacing inevitable death if we fail. If this was the law wherein Jews boasted, that is the gospel of which Peter was ashamed no more than Paul. The resulting obedience, of which our Lord is alike example and power, is (in other words but the truest sense) our practical holiness; and it confirms in the strongest way the refutation, already ample, of the notion that the Spirit's holiness in this scripture imports the same thing. For it would really confuse the sentence and destroy the truth generally.

The fact is that theology in all the schools, Popish or Protestant, Calvinistic or Arminian, has somehow lost, and ignores, this most momentous truth of the Spirit's primary setting apart the renewed soul to God, even before and in order to justification and that obedience which is its inseparable effect. The only person my reading has lit on with any little inkling of its distinctness from the practical holiness which, as all the Reformed at least agree, follows justification, is the excellent and able Abp. Leighton. All others to the best of my knowledge slur over what they did not understand; and this is to say the least.

But I regret to add that none has more impudently tampered with this scripture, to suit his ignorance of it and his desire to uphold mere dogmatic views, than the famous translator and commentator, Beza, or Theodore de Bezel Dean Alford was bold enough sometimes in squeezing the text and its translation through too much confidence in German critics, and his own real desire to be candid, without sufficient knowledge of the truth or subjection to the divine authority of the written word. But even his occasional temerity shines in comparison with Calvin's successor in the college of Geneva. For I ask any competent scholar whether the ill-regulated wit of man could devise a worse or more shameless perversion of our text than his rendering, "ad sanctificationem Spiritus, per obedientiam," etc. ἐν = ad! εἰς = per! Were it in Homer or Herodotus, one might smile at lapses so absurd on the part of a learned, able, and zealous Christian. But such a dealing with God's word is atrocious. Yet this flagrant error stands uncorrected in all the five folio editions of his Greek and Latin N.T. from 1559 to 1598.

Had Beza and other theologians been subject to scripture, they would have learnt by grace that what the apostle of the circumcision here teaches is implied by the apostle of the uncircumcision in 1 Cor. 6: 11, "But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Do men with the fear of God assume to correct the inspiring Spirit? Do they allow themselves the daring unbelief that they can alter the apostle's word, so as to avoid error and sustain their systems of divinity? It is clear that this greatest even of inspired teachers lets the Corinthians and all believers know, that there is a real and most vital sanctification to God which accompanies the first quickening of the soul, when we are born of water and Spirit, and cleansed from our natural impurity by His life-giving power, before we enjoy the blessed sense of God's justifying us through faith in Jesus and His work. The order of Paul therefore is as necessary and as exact as that of Peter, both conveying the same truth, which has drops out of all the systematic divinity of all ages, as far as I know. The reader can also compare 2 Thess. 2: 13. Holiness in practice remains intact, distinct, and imperative, to which justification gives its powerful impulse and cheer.

The apostle here adds, "Grace unto you and peace be multiplied." The nearest analogy in O.T. scripture, singular to say, is in Dan. 4: 1; though the imperial penitent only says, "Peace be multiplied." So Peter does yet more fully in the address of his Second Epistle to the same dispersed remnant of Christian Jews. It is characteristic of his fervour. James was content to write, "Greeting." Paul usually says, "Grace to you and peace" though he almost always adds "from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," with "mercy" to an individual. Grace is the source, peace the outflow.

In grand terms from a glowing heart our apostle opens his letter after an address, as we have seen, of admirable suitability. It recalls the initiatory of a still greater apostle and the loftier theme of the Epistle to the Ephesian saints. But it is the deeply defined distinction between the two, notwithstanding this obvious resemblance, which gives the true key to both Epistles. He who fails to apprehend the different scope and the divine propriety of each betrays his own spiritual incapacity, and, if he imposes his ignorance on others, is nothing but so far a blind leader of the blind.

"Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ": so begins the letter to the saints that were in Ephesus. He is the God of the Man, Christ Jesus; He is the Father of Him, His Only-begotten, eternal, and beloved Son. He blessed us accordingly in His sovereign grace as "God," in His most intimate relationship as "Father." Every spiritual blessing is conferred; not one fails. It is not natural blessing as on earth to Israel till by transgression they forfeited it. Ours is in the heavenlies where Christ is now glorified at God's right hand; and all is secured in His redemptive power by virtue of Whom all the universe subsists together (Col. 1: 17). It is in Christ so as to be unchanging blessedness, in contrast with those who stood on the conditions of the law fatal to the sinful and fruitless.

No such wealth of privilege, no such heavenly elevation, appears in our text; yet does it announce what is equally momentous for the saint and for God's glory. Every other spiritual blessing had been in vain, if God's mercy did not beget us again, as our Epistle declares. There is no blessing more absolutely necessary for a sinner lost and ruined, with the old life depraved by inborn evil, habitual self-will, and incurable alienation from God. Hence the precious assurance of our apostle in words at first strikingly akin to those of the apostle Paul. "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that according to his abundant mercy begot us again unto a living hope through Jesus Christ's resurrection out of [the] dead" (ver. 3): an entirely new and divine life.

It is not as Jehovah for Israel, nor as Almighty God for the fathers. For us Christians God wrought more profoundly for His glory and for those who believe. It was in Christ's redemption in view both of the present and future on earth, and for heaven through all eternity. For He went down under God's judgment of sin, broke the power of sin and death, procured purification for sinners by His blood, and was raised again for the justification of believers. Every saint from the beginning had life in the Son of God: impossible to live to God, as all did, without life in Him. But now the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ wrought in a more triumphant way in Him Who as sin-bearer entered the dark portals of the grave which closed on all others, and so glorified God that He could not but raise Him from among the dead in the virtue of a life which death could no wise touch, so complete that henceforth we belong not to death, but rather death to us. Thus did God as here revealed beget us again through Christ's resurrection out of the dead. None could speak or know it till that mighty witness of redemption. It was not, nor could be true, till Christ was thus raised.

Truly it was "according to God's abundant mercy." If death has no more dominion over the dead and risen Saviour, the believer receives a commensurate portion even now: so much so that were He to come from heaven for us, we should be changed in a moment into the likeness of the body of His glory. Mortality would be swallowed up of life without one dying. We should not be unclothed but clothed upon with our house which is from heaven.

It is therefore "unto a living hope" that God begot us again. "Lively," though due to Tyndale and followed by Cranmer, Geneva, and even the Rhemish, is inadequate and misleading. Wiclif alone was right. We are viewed as pilgrims still on earth in our mortal bodies. We have left the Egypt world, and have crossed the Red Sea, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, instead of meaning death to us, is our cleansing from our sins; as His life is the spring of that filial obedience, which in Him is seen in absolute perfection. We are here not regarded in the height of the heavenlies, risen with Christ and seated in Him there. But Christ is raised for our deliverance, and we are ushered into the world as set free from the old house of bondage, and we traverse it as the wilderness, led of God on the way to the heavenly Canaan as Israel of old to the earthly.

It is accordingly under this aspect that the Epistle contemplates the Christian. He has to do with a God of grace, not of law for a Jew, and an object of His government here below, till the living hope is realised of being with Christ and in heaven. But that divine government for every day meanwhile is not of the chosen people as of old in earthly power and with deliverances to strike the eye and awe of the nations. A government of souls comes before us while evil is still prevalent in the world; but God makes all things, trials and sufferings of faith in particular, work together for good to those that love Him. As Christ's resurrection was manifestly the victory of the Saviour for His own over the enemy's power, behold Him on high to fill them with holy confidence that He will appear to their full deliverance and glory in due time according to promise.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians we find the present association of the Christian and the church with heaven in Christ. Here it is a living hope of reaching heaven through Christ in a glorified state by-and-by. Both aspects of the truth are of the deepest interest and importance: we are on earth redeemed, as pilgrims and strangers, going across a desert and waiting for Christ; we are also even now quickened together with Christ, raised together with Him, and seated in Him in the heaven" lies. As the letter to the Ephesians treats all its topics on this footing from first to last, so does the first Epistle of Peter to the Christian Jews throughout open out to them divine life as theirs, aided by the sustaining power and gracious direction of God, to guide them through this dread and howling wilderness of the world.

Nor are there any proofs of the inspired mind of God finer or firmer than the details of divine truth thus discoverable to the soul dependent on God and honouring His word. Some of the indications, each characteristic of its own book, may appear as we dwell for a season on this or that; but what are they among the many more which remain to reward the diligent searcher into these oracles, nowhere deceiving, never dumb?

The scope of our Epistle excludes, as we have seen, the great truth unfolded in that to the Ephesian saints, that we are already blessed in the heavenlies (ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις) in Christ. This is connected indissolubly with the mystery of God's will, which gave Christ, set there above the highest creatures, as Head over all things to the church, the which and which alone is His body. Accordingly we await an administration of the fulness of the seasons or set times, when God will head or sum up all the universe in the Anointed Man, the things in the heavens and those on the earth, in Him in Whom also we were given heritage.*

{*It is an instructive proof how little the most eminent critical ability avails for the N.T., that Lachmann edited ἐκλήθημεν (A D E F G) in Eph. 1: 11, where spiritual intelligence is certain that it must be ἐκληρώθημεν, the added truth of our heirship. The Vulgate had similarly erred though qualifying it by "sorte," as also the Peschito and Harcl. Syrr.; Memph. etc. in the rendering of "chosen" which belongs to the calling, not to the inheritance.}

We have no such elevated relationship revealed here, nor is the boundless inheritance of all creation in this Epistle predicated of us or even of Christ. The inheritance here is simply "in the heavens" to contrast it the more distinctly with that which was Israel's portion in the land of Canaan. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ begot us again unto a living hope through resurrection of Jesus Christ from out of dead persons. It was a hope therefore superior to the inroads of death. If He died, it was that our sins should not bar us from bliss with Him, inasmuch as His own self bore them in His body on the tree; and He rose that we might enjoy His victory, as well as profit now and ever by His suffering once for sins.

But the apostle pursues the inspired aim yet more definitely into the future — "unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and unfading, reserved in [the] heavens for you*, that are being guarded by God's power through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in a (or, the) last season" (vers. 4, 5).

{*There are but few cursives which read ἡμᾶς "us," as do Steph edd. 3 and 4, and Beza edd. 1 and 2, and Elz. It is in none else even of the Barber editions, as Erasm. Complut. Ceph. Beb. Colin. Steph. 1 and 2. Beza is right in edd. 3, 4, and 5. No uncial is known to sanction "us," which seems due to assimilating ver, 4 to 3, in disregard of what follows.}

Thus Christ risen and gone on high (instead of taking His seat on the holy hill of Zion, and the sceptre of righteousness over Israel and the nations) has changed the outlook for the believer meanwhile. He too looks by faith on Christ where He is, and awaits the part which the gospel pledges to him in heaven. It is an inheritance which no corruption can destroy, which no defilement can sully, which resists all the withering of time. In itself, in its purity, and in its freshness, it will abide unchanging. It stands in virtue of Him Who not only created all originally but Who has reconciled us, and will more widely still by His blood (Col. 1: 20, Heb. 9: 23).

The inheritance in view is in no way enjoyed now, but "reserved in the heavens for you." Who can doubt these words were meant to raise the eyes of these believing Jews especially, and of the readers in general, above "glory dwelling in our land," as in Ps. 85: 9? Yet the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and to those that turn in that day from transgression in Jacob, when (as surely as Jehovah said the word) His Spirit and His words, according to His covenant, shall not depart from them from generation to generation, from henceforth and for ever. But beyond just doubt, neither the closing promise of Isa. 59 nor the glowing vision of Isa. 60 and of all that follows to the end of the book, speaks of an inheritance "reserved in the heavens" for those who now believe in the gospel. It is Israel and the glory predicted for the earth, though rising up in the last two chapters to "new heavens and a new earth." The promise is there applied to Jerusalem; but it furnished the ground for Peter in his Second Epistle to look onward to its fulfilment in the largest sense, when the kingdom shall give place to the eternal state, and God shall be all in all. Before that, will be accomplished, inchoatively at least, Israel's full part in that which shall never know change or eclipse.

The language here recalls Col. 1: 5, where the apostle Paul speaks of "the hope that is laid up for you in the heavens." The saints there, as here, are regarded as on earth, instead of being seen in their present heavenly association with Christ. It is hope anticipating the glory on high, not as already seated together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, as in Eph. 2: 6. Only Peter was not given like Paul to tell the saints in the Epistle to the Colossians, that as they died with Christ and were raised with Him, and thus had done with ordinances for men as alive in the world, so they were to seek and mind the things above where He sits, not those on the earth. Indeed our apostle (as we see in 1 Peter 2: 24) rises no higher than our death to sins in a practical way, which is true and important, not at all to the doctrine in Rom. 6 of our death with Christ to sin, which is the root, and not merely the manifest effect or offshoot. Every shade of difference proves how grievously those err who think that scripture speaks loosely. For such a thought really betrays the spiritual ignorance of such as presume to judge it; when in fact they, however great their erudition outside (it may be), have need to be taught the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and are become such as need milk rather than solid food.

The hope of such an inheritance reserved for them in the heavens was most cheering. But in thinking of themselves and the wilderness through which they pass, they needed and have another source of blessed comfort — you, says he, "that are being guarded by (or, in) God's power." What more suitable, what more precious and welcome, than such a divine assurance? The inheritance was kept or reserved for them in the heavens. This was just what was wanted, while they were on the earth waiting and learning self as well as God, and suffering for righteousness' sake or, still more blessed, for Christ's name. But, as proving their own weakness and men's hostility and Satan's active malice, they were constantly exposed to difficulties, trials, afflictions, and dangers. Hence their need to be meanwhile guarded all the way through. And so they are — garrisoned by God's power. And if God be for us, who against? Is He not immeasurably more than all?

Still God has His means; and this the apostle proceeds next to tell us. It is "through faith." Nor can any means for a saint on earth compare with faith. For it beyond all others honours God and the word of His grace, needing dependence on the good Shepherd by the Holy Spirit, Who is sent here and dwells in the Christian, to guide into all the truth, and thus glorify Him by receiving of His and announcing or reporting it to us. Thus is it "by God's power," but "through faith" which gives Him His due place, and keeps us in our place of confidence in Him according to His word. For we walk through faith, not through sight (2 Cor. 5: 7). It was not so that Israel marched through the wilderness, but guided visibly by the cloud or the pillar of fire. The Christian now, whether a Jew or a Gentile, has to walk through faith, of which the Lord Himself was the blessed pattern and perfection.

But the end is also added: "unto [or, for] salvation." In our Epistle, as often in the Pauline Epistles, salvation does not stop short of the final result. See Rom. 5: 9, 10; 8 Rom.: 24; 1 Cor. 5: 5; Heb. 1: 14; Heb. 7: 25; Heb. 9: 28. Hence when our apostle speaks of what is now given and enjoyed, he discriminates it as "salvation of souls" (1 Peter 1: 9). Otherwise he connects salvation with the full victory of Christ even for the body; which therefore must look on to the future day.

This is entirely confirmed by the context. Here for instance it is a salvation "ready to be revealed." This is quite characteristic of our apostle. For the truth which runs through the First Epistle in one form, and the Second in another, is the righteous government of God as made known in Christ to the Christian. John is occupied with eternal life in the Son of God; the issue of which will be the Father's house where He is, and we are to be, at His coming to fetch us there (John 14: 2, 3). 1 John 3: 2, 3, adds that if it or He is manifested, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. The apostle Paul was given, more than any, to make known how the saints are to be changed and caught up to be with the Lord; so as to be brought with Him when that day begins (1 Thess. 3: 13, 1 Thess. 4: 13-17).

Thus Peter points to the revelation of salvation in the day of Christ's appearing; because not till then will be the establishment of the kingdom in power and glory when the earth and the earthly people shall taste its blessed effects. Grace will be shown in the richest way by the Lord's coming to receive us to Himself that we may thus be with Him in the Father's house: all are caught up alike, as the apostle Paul shows, into the same home of love. But there is no manifestation of righteous government in this; in the revelation to the world there will be in the highest degree. For in His appearing and kingdom each will be seen as having received his own reward according to his own labour. And the Lord, the righteous Judge, will render in that day the crown of righteousness, not to the faithful servant only who was already being "poured out," but also to all who love His appearing. Then too will Satan be excluded not only from the heavenlies but from the earth. Then will come the world-kingdom of the Lord and His Christ, and not only recompence to the righteous, but destructive retribution to those that destroy the earth (Rev. 11: 15-19).

Peter also lays great stress on the fact that Christ has so completely wrought redemption to God's glory that nothing calls for delay, save the long-suffering of God that is still bringing souls to repentance. Otherwise salvation is "ready" to be revealed "in a last season," as Christ is "ready to judge living and dead" (1 Peter 4: 5). Both belong to that day of manifestation, when evil shall be put down, and judgment, instead of miscarrying as so often now, shall return to righteousness. Never more shall the throne of wickedness claim fellowship with Jehovah. "For He cometh; for He cometh to judge the earth." Those who mind earthly things cannot love His appearing, which will establish the new divine order of righteous government wherein Jehovah alone shall be exalted.

Thus the new life imparted, as abundant as the mercy that begot us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Christ from out of the dead, has a result no less worthy of the God and Father of our Lord. It is for an inheritance incorruptible in itself, undefiled by evil, and unfading in its beauty. It is not on earth as Israel looks for their portion, but reserved in heaven for saints who in their weakness are being guarded in the midst of difficulties and dangers through faith unto salvation, founded on a sacrifice even now accepted, and therefore ready to be revealed, even for the body, in a last season which will manifest the grand purpose of God.

The apostle now turns to the marked and peculiar characteristic of Christianity which stands contrasted with the hopes of Israel: the co-existence of exceeding joy, whilst passing through keen sorrow of ever so varied kinds. It will not be thus! when Jehovah reigns, the world is stablished that it cannot be moved, and He judges the peoples with equity; when all creation is in harmony, the heavens glad, the earth rejoicing, the sea and its fulness loudly responsive, the field and all that is therein exulting, and the very trees of the wood singing for joy (Ps. 96). While the Lord Jesus abides hidden on high, the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now, though its earnest expectation waits for the revealing of the sons of God (Rom. 8); as their revealing depends on the manifestation of the Lord (Col. 3).

Then, and not before, will come the restitution of all things (Acts 3), when God who sent Jesus the first time for the redemption (by blood) of His heirs will send Him again for redemption (by power) of the inheritance, both heavenly and earthly (Eph. 1: 10). Then Zion shall never more taste sorrow or shame; and stiff-necked rebellious Israel shall be meek under Jehovah and David their king, their backsliding healed, themselves loved freely, when He will be as the dew to them (Hosea 3, Hosea 14), and they in the midst of many peoples as dew from Him, as showers upon the grass, a blessing that tarries not for man nor waits for the sons of men (Micah 5).

But though by faith we behold Jesus, Who has been made a little lower than angels on account of' the suffering of death, for the same reason crowned with glory and honour, now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him, as they will be seen when His world-kingdom comes (Rev. 11: 15). Meanwhile sufferings prevail during the present time; and Satan, though known to faith as judged in the cross of Christ, is the ruler of this world, the god of this age blinding the thoughts of the faithless to the end that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ Who is God's image should not shine forth. Hence the Christian has the part of Christ, rejection and suffering both for righteousness and for His name. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15: 19). How different from the day when "great shall be the peace of thy (Zion's) children. In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression, for thou shalt not fear; and from terror, for it shall not come near thee." "Behold, they may gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall because of thee." "And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising" (Isa. 60: 3). "For that nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish" (ib. 12): "Thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for Jehovah shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended" (lb. 20).

Undoubtedly these are highly figurative expressions; but they are figures expressive of Israel's blessings in the days of the future kingdom when Jehovah shall be King over all the earth. In that day shall Jehovah be one, and His name one (Zech. 14: 9). Then idols of silver and gold shall be consigned to the moles and to the bats (Isa. 2: 20). And peoples shall flow to the mountain of Jehovah's house; and many nations shall go and say, "Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His path; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many peoples and reprove strong nations afar off; and they shall forge their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-knives: nation shall not rise against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Micah 4: 1-3).

In these scriptures there is a true foreshadow of the coming kingdom, but in no sense applicable to the Christian. For he now, though having peace in Christ, shall have tribulation in the world, called to suffer hardship as a good soldier of Christ; he knows, that if we endure, we shall also reign with Him, while wicked men and impostors wax worse and worse deceiving and deceived. As our apostle says (2: 20), "If when ye do well and suffer, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable (or, grace) with God." Such is practical Christianity in contrast with the coming kingdom, contradicted alike by the principle and the practice of Christendom. It is therefore the more imperative to dwell on the truth and expose the departure from it for His glory and the walk of faith.

Again we have, in a general application, what the apostle of the Gentiles says of Christian service in the still fuller and more emphatic terms of 2 Cor. 6: 4-10. If Paul knew it above measure in his ministry, he like Peter calls on every Christian to be "as sorrowful (or, grieved), yet always rejoicing."

"Wherein ye exult, now for a little (if it is needful) put to grief in manifold trials, that the proof of your faith, much more precious than gold that perisheth though proved by fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at [the] revelation of Jesus Christ" (vers. 6, 7).

To connect "wherein" with the last season seems poor in comparison with the glorious result generally. It is even misleading, if it be so taken as to deny the Christian's title to exuberant joy even now in the portion God has given us in Christ. Never will there be a work to surpass, yea or to match, what has been already wrought in the cross. Nowhere else such a concentration of what otherwise must be irreconcilable, majesty and humiliation, holiness and mercy, righteousness and sin, love and hatred, Satan apparently victorious but really and for ever vanquished, man at his utter worst, God in His fullest grace, Jesus at the lowest point of obedience, yet glorifying God absolutely even as to sin, all issuing for the believer to God's glory in a perfect acceptance and an everlasting deliverance, with the reconciliation of all creation to come. "Wherein ye exult." What else can we feel through grace? If we believe, we do not wait for the day of sight to participate in this exceeding joy, which breaks forth in thanksgiving and praise. In that day it will without doubt be unmixed with suffering and sorrow. The weakness of the mortal body will be no longer, but incorruption, glory, and power: so thoroughly shall we all be changed at Christ's coming. There is no scripture, no sound reason, however hostile, to deny present exultation as a proper characteristic of the Christian even now; or this, as the precise meaning here intended by the apostle.

But it is accompanied by being "put to grief" as a needed passing trial in God's government, while the exceeding joy may and ought to be habitual. For this rests on accomplished redemption and life in the power of resurrection, on the grace and truth which came through the Saviour. These abide unchanging for our souls, whereas the grief is definite; as the very tenses of the verb and of the participle imply, no less than the facts warrant from which both affections cannot but flow. Hence "now for a little" qualifies of course the aorist participle, and in no way our actual exultation as unbelief in effect would make it. This is still more distinctly taught by the brief clause "if needful," or "if there is need." How considerate and good! For the Father of spirits deals thus for our profit to the partaking of His holiness. No discipline at the time seems of joy but of grief; but afterward it yields peaceable fruit of righteousness to those that have been exercised by it. So we read in Heb. 12: 10, 11.

Nor is Peter's doctrine really different: "for a little at this time,* if there is need, put to grief in manifold trials," or temptations. So triumphantly says Rom. 8: 34, It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather raised, who is too at the right hand of God, who also intercedeth for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? These were heavy trials, but by no means all; for indeed they are many and manifold. But if we do not know what we should pray for as is fitting, the Holy Spirit Who dwells in us intercedes according to God Who hears Him; and we do know that all things work together for good to those that love God, to those that are called according to purpose.

*The ἄρτι is in no way superfluous, if ἀγαλλιᾶσθε be as it is a proper present; for it goes with the participle to counteract any wrong use of the aorist. The grief comes transiently now, and only where an unerring God sees the need. This when trusted is a great cheer in the trial.

Only as Heb. 12 looks for a good result now, our text points to yet more by-and-by, as it says, "that the proof of your faith, much more precious than of gold that perisheth though proved by fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory in the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Thus the apostle contemplates the wilderness and our journeying through it. In the type this began for Moses and Israel with a song of exultation; and if Israel failed to continue thus, it is no rule for us, for (or, concerning) whom God foresaw some better thing; and what happened to them is written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. The worshippers once purged have no longer any conscience of sins; and no wonder. For Christ by one offering has perfected for ever — in perpetuity — those sanctified, as Christians are. The wilderness is pre-eminently the scene of temptation. There the heart is put to the proof. All the more needful is it, that in passing through we cherish confidence in God's love to us. There we find by these trials how weak we are, and alas! it may be, careless, light, and unfaithful. We are sifted like Simon Peter, but have the Lord pleading for us as for him that our faith fail not. For this is the desire and aim, that the proof of our faith might be found to praise.

Note again that praise, honour, and glory are connected with Christ's revelation. His coming to receive and take us to the Father's house is supreme grace; in His revelation will be the appraisal of fidelity and reward accordingly. Both assuredly will be verified; but righteous government is quite distinct from sovereign grace.

The apostle explains how it is that the Christian is enabled to exult in the midst of trials ever so severe, yet never allowed but where need calls for them at the present time and for a little while. For assuredly, if God's power acts as a garrison round His saints whilst they pass through the world, it is no less energetic in controlling every hostile influence, whatever be the malicious wiles of the adversary the devil. Hence can we boldly say, we know that all things work together for good to those that love God, to those that are called according to purpose. Yea we glory in the tribulations also, knowing what under God is the blessed result both here and hereafter. All the blessing along the way turns upon having Christ as the object before our souls.

"Whom, having not seen, ye love; in whom, though not now seeing but believing, ye exult with joy unspeakable and glorified (or, full of glory), receiving the end of your faith, salvation of souls" (vers. 8, 9).

When the kingdom is manifested in power and glory at the revelation of Christ, when Jehovah will punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth, when with His sore and great and strong sword He will visit leviathan the fleeing serpent and leviathan the crooked serpent, and will slay the dragon that is in the sea, He will in Zion make unto all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined. And there He will swallow up the veil that veils all the peoples and the covering that is spread over all the nations. He will swallow up death in victory. And the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off the earth; for Jehovah hath spoken.

But now there is the contrast which the N.T. everywhere proclaims, as in the opening, and, we shall see, throughout this Epistle; where it was a special aim to instruct the Christian Jews, lest their old Jewish expectation might mingle and lead to disappointment. For we who believe in the rejected but glorified Christ have to do meanwhile with "the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens" (Matt. 13: 12), as the Lord told the disciples. "To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God" (Mark 4: 11). As a whole, and in its varied parts, it was a secret for which the chosen people was unprepared, looking mainly for the display of righteousness, when Israel shall blossom and bud, and they shall fill the face of the world with fruit, and Jerusalem shall be called Jehovah's throne, and all the nations shall be gathered there, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem; and as they shall walk no more with stubborn heart, so shall both houses of Israel be gathered in one, and Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. And no wonder, for Satan shall be bound in the abyss, and Jehovah-Jesus shall be King over all the earth, nor this only but as the Head over all things heavenly as well as earthly.

With the glorious prospect for the universe in ages to come Christianity stands in striking contrast. For the devil, as our Epistle shows (v. 8), walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. It is a wilderness world still, instead of blossoming abundantly and rejoicing with joy and song; and the glory of Jehovah is not yet seen, the excellency of our God, as all the earth in that day shall be filled with His glory. The saints are the very souls who are put to grief, as need arises, in manifold trials. At the same time they are entitled to deeper joys than the displayed kingdom can afford. And here, as the fact had been clearly stated according to experience in the light of the truth, the apostle explains the rich and unfailing source. It is Jesus, the crucified; yet He is not here but risen, yea glorified on high. He is thus the key to all.

"Whom having not seen ye love." What a difference from the ordinary occasion of human affection, nay more, from the promise to Israel in that day! "Thine eyes shall see the King in his beauty" (Isa. 33: 17). "Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips. Therefore God hath blessed thee for ever . . . Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows" (Ps. 45: 2, 6, 7). It is not only His reign of beneficence in power and majesty, but at least Jerusalem begins with looking on Him whom they pierced, and mourning as for an only son, a firstborn. Yet appears their Deliverer when their danger is at its extremity, and their bitterest self-reproach is swallowed up in their loving gratitude for Him whose faithfulness to them no evil on their part could overcome.

Good as their portion will be, that of the Christian is far better. And here the apostle does not even notice the peculiar circumstances of such disciples as beheld the Lord in the days of His flesh. He does not say, "we who saw Him then," but "ye" as addressing those of the dispersion, just like the bulk who believe the gospel. "Whom having not seen ye love." Nevertheless it was an immense fact that He had come, the obedient and dependent Man; God's faithful Witness, manifesting the Father, as we read of Him in the Gospels; accomplishing redemption, and now at the right hand of God above. Hence the Lord pronounced the least in the kingdom of the heavens greater than the greatest before it; and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 11: 40) says that God provided or foresaw "some better thing for us."

It must be admitted, as to the words before us, that whatever the love the elders cherished for the coming Messiah, it could not have had that impulse and strength which was given by the power of His infinite grace acting on renewed hearts, as they followed His steps, and hung on His words, and delighted in His ways here below. The Lord could say, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. For I say to you that many prophets and kings desired to see the things that ye behold, and did not see them, and to hear the things that ye hear, and did not hear them" (Luke 10: 24). But it is plain that even that wondrous privilege was beneath the mighty accession imported by His death, and resurrection, and ascension, especially when the Holy Spirit was given to apprehend all fully and to bear witness accordingly.

Therefore those who yearn after a Messiah seen on earth know not how much it is to know Him dead, risen, and glorified, even for the deepest profit in tracing His recorded ways on earth. For it is in this light that His every word, step, and act are best understood and enjoyed. There His love shines at its fullest; and we love, because He first loved us, and assuredly love Him beyond all. Now it is in this way that the apostle could say characteristically, "Whom having not seen ye love." It is just so the Christian loves Christ. He knows His love, as none before Incarnation could know, and beyond all during His ministry. He knows it in His humiliation, in His suffering unequalled and above all comparison in His rejection and cross. He begins, though he never saw Him here, with learning its depths, where those who followed Him on earth closed their difficulties, and passed into spiritual understanding, when He was raised from out of the dead. None has such vantage ground for loving the Lord Jesus as the Christian. Even the apostles loved Him all the more when they emerged from Jewish wraps and veils into that state of light and liberty.

The next clause only confirms the superior blessedness of Christianity: "in whom, though not now seeing but believing, ye exult with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Our Lord has conclusively ruled that believing has a value beyond sight. "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed they, that have seen not and believed" (John 20: 29). It is just the difference between the Jews when their blessing comes, and the Christian yet more blessed morally now; and what will it be then? As heaven is above earth Hence it is evident that as Christianity deepens love, so it purifies and strengthens faith. The elders in its power obtained witness; but how immensely the scope of faith is enlarged when the secrets of God are no longer hidden but revealed as now to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit!

Well may the Christian then "exult with joy unspeakable and full of glory." It is so characteristic that our Lord represents its very starting-point in the reception of the prodigal son. For God as such is glorified in that cross of Christ which is its foundation, and He is also as Father in the love of that relationship. "Bring out the best robe and invest him; and put a ring on his hand, and sandals on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it; and let us eat and be merry. For this my son was dead and hath come to life, he was lost and is found." God Himself has His joy in the grace that to such brings salvation. What sanction for its object and all that have tasted of like mercy! And as we are called to grow by the knowledge of God and His Son, so also to rejoice in the Lord always, and in every thing give thanks. Shame on us if we do not now exult with joy unspeakable and glorified, seeing that in the glory is He on whom our blessedness depends. No doubt we boast in hope of the glory of God; but our best, our perfect, security for it is that He is there, entered as forerunner for us.

In accordance with the exultation to which we are even now entitled, while looking on for its perfection when we are glorified, it is added, "receiving the end of your faith, salvation of souls." We shall not receive salvation of the body till He comes for whom we wait; but we are not waiting for the salvation of souls. This the gospel announces with all plainness of certainty. Christ has wrought such a work for it that no addition could make it more complete in itself or more efficacious for him that believes. He is not like the earthly priest standing to renew what never could be finished. When He had offered one sacrifice for sins, He in perpetuity (or, without a break) sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made the footstool of His feet. Whatever else He may do, He has nothing to do for cleansing the worshippers. For by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity those that are sanctified; His seat there proclaims it.

But we are told by one who denies this present fruit of Christ's work to be here meant, that the word κομιζόμενοι quite forbids the sense of "present realising," and in every one of the references it betokens the ultimate reception of glory or condemnation from the Lord. Is this true? The texts are 2 Cor. 5: 10, Eph. 6: 8, Col. 3: 25, 1 Peter 5: 4, 2 Peter 2: 13; which in fact disprove the strange allegation. For indisputably the first is from its nature only a future scene with which the aorist subjunctive falls in. The second and third not only presuppose that day but are expressly the future tense; like the fourth. The fifth is a future participle, whereas in the contested case of our text it is the participle of the present tense, and the context confirms that it is now. "Joy one cannot speak out and glorified" may be and is pleaded for a future sense. But will it be really so in that day, when perfection is come? When we know as we are known, will utterance fail as it does now?

"Glorified," or full of glory, is no doubt an unusual word; yet to attribute this also to a joy too big for our present power of expression seems just to suit the fervour of the apostle. Christ on high its source might readily clothe the Christians' joy with that character of glory before they themselves are there. Soul-salvation, before our bodies are conformed to the body of His glory, is a worthy end of our faith to receive now; for beyond all controversy the outer man follows the inner, and God never disappoints the believer of his hope. Salvation "of souls" too by its restricted application fittingly lends itself to what the believer receives now; whereas for the future the apostle does not so qualify "salvation," as we have already remarked.

The concluding verses of the introduction refer to salvation as far as it was originally disclosed to prophets, and now fully presented as glad tidings by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven, consequent on the sufferings which were to befall Christ and the glories that should follow, while we await that power which will even externally deliver from evil at His appearing. The brief unfolding here given was of extreme moment for the believing remnant whom the apostle then addressed and all such as might follow. They had little difficulty in apprehending that the Lord in that day will not only accomplish the blessed and joyous prospect for the earth, but for the heavens also. Salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time, comprehends, though it be not limited to, their entering on an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and unfading, reserved for them on high, whilst they need to be guarded in God's power through faith meanwhile. It is but soul-salvation now, the pledge of what is final, complete, and glorious in that day. The rejection of Christ and His absence on high brought in meanwhile a necessary modification which tests every soul of man, and not least those who had the early and partial revelations of God.

The unbelieving Jews sought to solve the difficulty by the fiction of two Messiahs: one the son of Joseph, of the tribe of Ephraim; the other the son of David, of the tribe of Judah; the first, to contend and suffer death; the second, to conquer and reign gloriously and for ever. The Talmud taught it; the later Targum applied it to Cant. 4: 5, Cant. 7: 3; and the Rabbins Solomon Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and D. Kimchi popularised it. Now we know that the O. Testament leaves no conceivable opening for two such personages, but lays the utmost stress on their being different states of the same Anointed of Jehovah. He was indeed the Son of David, not through Mary only as in Luke 3, but legally too through Joseph who was of Solomon's royal stem as in Matt. 1. And, what was of immeasurably deeper importance, He and Be only of David's sons was David's Lord, as in Ps. 110: 1 cited by Himself to confound the haughty adversaries who doubted and despised Him. The crowd then, and probably their leader, had not yet invented the delusion of a double Messiah; but they left no room for His sufferings, and cared only for His earthly glory as their vested right. Hence when He said (John 12: 32), "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all to me" (this He said signifying by what death He was about to die), they answered, "We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?"

As we shall have more to say, when we look closely into ver. 11, we turn here to examine the details of what precedes in its due order.

"Of which salvation prophets* that prophesied of the grace that [was] toward you sought out and searched out" (ver. 10).

{*It is not "the" prophets as a body, but persons so characterised, Hence the article follows, "that" prophesied concerning the grace that was destined for those that now believe. Prophetic character is all the more brought into prominence by omitting the article before προφῆται. Class is in view rather than the persons as an entire and definite object before us.}

So we learn from Gen. 49: 18. "Salvation" was identified with the coming and work of the Messiah. The believers little if at all understood how it was to be; but they had no doubt of the saving grace which would then be manifested. They recognised signal acts of deliverance meanwhile, as in the days of Moses the miraculous passage of the Red Sea; as in the work which Jehovah wrought by Jonathan; and as later still in Jehoshaphat's day, when the sons of Ammon and Moab and those of mount Seir destroyed each other to the relief of Judah whom they had menaced with ruin. But they looked on to the latter day as the goal of their hopes, when Messiah should establish the salvation fully and for ever. How clearly it is "grace," not of works whereof flesh might glory.

Hence in the Psalms we hear as in the last verse of 14, "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When Jehovah bringeth back the captivity of his people, then shall Jacob rejoice, Israel shall be glad." In the second book Ps. 53. similarly concludes, "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, then shall Jacob rejoice, Israel shall be glad." The times were dark, and growingly darker; but if the godly remnant fall back on what God, Elohim, is when covenant privileges were no longer enjoyed, they anticipate in faith God's scattering the ruined foe, and long for final salvation to come out of Zion as His centre, when His people as a whole should return with everlasting joy. It is certain too from Ps. 67 that the Spirit of prophecy, if the written word had been but heeded, regards God's mercy to Israel as His way to extend His "saving health among all nations." Sovereign grace is not more sure and definite than rich and free. "Let the peoples praise thee, O God, let all the peoples praise thee. Oh let the nations be glad and sing for joy I for thou shalt judge the peoples with equity and govern the nations upon earth." Nothing can be in more marked contrast with Jewish narrowness. Salvation is neither of prescriptive right, nor of personal merit, but of "grace." And so will sing in a day yet to come, both the nations, and all Israel that shall be saved.

It is of deep interest to observe that the next Psalm, 68, has for its central truth the Lord ascended on high, the mighty conqueror, Who, as He "received gifts in man" (i.e. as such), gave gifts to men. So the apostle could add, without citing the words which await divine grace in its future activity, "yea, the rebellious also, for the dwelling of Jah Elohim [there]." Alas! the Jews are still rebellious; but the day hastens, when they shall look up and say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah; and He will assuredly come with a blessing never to pass away. Their God is the God of salvation; and so they are to prove, when in answer to their cry He rends the heavens and comes down, and all their righteousnesses are as a polluted garment in their eyes, as indeed they are, and He clothes them with the raiment of salvation and praise. But we must refrain from citing more from the book of praises.

None need wonder that the prince of prophets is pre-eminently rich in speaking of salvation so divine. In Isa. 12 which closes the first section of his prophecies, Isaiah predicts that Israel shall say, "Behold, God is my salvation: I will trust and not be afraid; for Jah, Jehovah, is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation. And with joy ye shall draw water out of the wells of salvation." This follows beyond doubt the introduction of Messiah and His future reign in Isa. 11. In Isa. 25: 9 he says when drawing to the end of the next section with various and prolonged thanksgiving, "Behold, this is our God: we have waited for him, and he will save us. This is Jehovah, we have waited for him; we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." So in Isa. 26: 1, "We have a strong city: salvation doth he appoint for walls and bulwarks." In his third section, where the final troubler of Israel is revealed with a "woe" to him, Isa. 33., we have in ver. 2, "Jehovah be gracious to us; we have waited for thee. Be their arm every morning, yea, our salvation in the time of trouble;" then in ver. 22, "Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah our lawgiver, Jehovah our king; he will save us." Again in Isa. 35: 4, "Be strong, fear not; behold, your God: vengeance cometh, the recompence of God! He will come himself, and save you." In the middle or fourth section of history we could not look for more than such a typical reference as Isa. 38: 20. But in the fifth where "My servant" appears, we have ample testimony and in forms of great variety beyond the words "save" or "salvation." He restores, redeems, forms for Himself, pours water and His Spirit upon them, as His witnesses and His servants as He is the God of Israel, the Saviour, "a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth" (Isa. 45: 21, 22; see also 8, 17; Isa. 46: 13). In the sixth division, where Messiah comes out fully and His rejection, salvation is still more conspicuous, as in Isa. 49: 6, 8, 25; Isa. 51: 5, 6, 8; Isa. 52: 7. Who can be surprised that discerns the Saviour suffering, and exalted, in Isa. 53 where we have the fullest and clearest witness to Him and His work, though the expression of "save" or salvation there occurs not? But many other words point to that truth and the meritorious and efficacious cause, as in vers. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12. In the seventh or last part we have its express and abundant mention, as in Isa. 59: 1, 11, 16, 17; Isa. 60: 18; Isa. 61: 10; Isa. 62: 1; Isa. 63: 1, 5; Isa. 64: 5.

In Jeremiah it is enough to refer to Jer. 15: 20; Jer. 30: 10, 11; Jer. 46: 27; in Ezekiel: Ezek. 34: 22; Ezek. 36: 29; Ezek. 37: 23; in Hosea 1: 7; in Zeph. 3: 17, 19; in Zechariah: Zech. 8: 7, 13; Zech. 9: 16; Zech. 10: 6; Zech. 12: 7. Only it would be a mistake to imagine that other prophets did not predict the same thing in other words. See for example Daniel (Dan. 9: 24) who confesses the sins of Israel and pleads the Lord's righteousness and name. Then comes the answer of a definite time, when the transgression should be closed, and an end made of sins and expiation for iniquity, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and the vision and prophet sealed, and the holy of holies anointed. So it is with others, each in differing forms.

Nothing then can be plainer in result than that prophets predicted concerning the coming salvation, which did not fail for such as believed the gospel, like those to whom the apostle addressed this Epistle. For what if the mass of the Jews were without faith? Their unbelief did not make of none effect the faith of God. Those who submit to His righteousness in Christ reap the blessing.

Prophets before them, we are told, diligently sought and searched diligently concerning that salvation. Their prophesying did not supersede the need or the profit of sedulous research, but rather stimulated it. No honour in prophesying saved its instruments from seeking and searching earnestly to understand what was given them to predict out of the fulness which is in God. Dependence is and has ever been called for, with confidence in His goodness and His tender consideration of our own ignorance and weakness. But the gift of His word encourages us to wait on Him for understanding it as far as pleases Him. So did inspired men, as we see notably in Daniel for a case at hand, as well as for what would only be in the time of the end. Nor can any incidental fact more distinctly prove how truly prophecy was not of man's will nor shrewd guess of wit, but of God, Who spoke or wrote by His servant in the Spirit. For he had still to sift it with all diligence to understand what he had thus divinely uttered. Salvation was a rich blessing from God, transcending all that they possessed in gracious privilege and bound up with Messiah's day, which God alone gave prophets to anticipate. But what they prophesied, they needed to weigh and examine deeply to make truly their own, in whatever measure of intelligence this might be.

Let us now consider what is revealed as the object of the research "Searching what or what sort of time the Spirit of Christ that [was] in them did indicate when testifying beforehand the sufferings that [were] for Christ, and the glories after them" (ver. 11).

A mind was at work far beyond that of prophets, yet at work intimately in them; "the Spirit of Christ," a phrase the more striking because not till long after did the Son become the Christ. But what He was disclosing looked on to that wondrous fact and testified of Him beforehand in that character. It is somewhat as in Heb. 2: 17 the apostle speaks of Him as High Priest, whereas He only became a priest properly when He rose from the dead and went to heaven. This some not perceiving have been led on by the enemy to cast the precious truth of propitiation into the chaos of their own error, which denies to His cross its moral glory, and gives it to a fable.

Be it observed that the language employed is unusually precise. The sufferings are said to be not merely "of" Christ, but "for" Him. They befell Him not simply as a fact, but were appointed unto Him; just as the grace was "to youward," so were the sufferings to "Christward." Christ is never by Peter used mystically as in 1 Cor. 12: 12, but exclusively and strictly in person. Compare especially 1 Peter 4: 1, 13.

Nor are we left in doubt what the Spirit of Christ that was in prophets of old did signify, seeing that He testified beforehand, not only the glories of the anointed One Whom all saints awaited, but what at first sight seems beyond measure strong, the sufferings destined for Him which precede. This it was that the astonished disciples were taught by the Lord Himself, both before His death and after His resurrection, and nowhere more clearly than in the Gospel of Luke. "So shall the Son of man be in his day (i.e. His appearing in glory). But first must he suffer many things and be rejected of this generation" (Luke 17: 24, 25). Again, when risen He said (Luke 24: 26), "Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter his glory? And, beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." Who could wonder that they should afterwards say one to another, Was not our heart burning within us as He spoke to us on the way and as He opened to us the scriptures? Now that He is gone, His Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is come to guide us into all the truth.

The saints addressed, like all other Christians, come between the sufferings that came unto Christ, and, if not the glory, certainly the greater part of the revealed "glories" that should follow. For it is plain and sure that the magnificent scenes of the last days, times of restitution of all things whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began, await His coming from the heavens to take the earth and all the universe under His direct and manifested sway.

Messiah, ascending as a conqueror on high, was clearly made known in Ps. 67: 28, and His receiving gifts as Man, that Jah Elohim might dwell in Israel, still regarded as the rebellious till He make Zion His abode for ever. Then, on the one hand, God will smite the head of His enemies; and, on the other, princes shall come out of Egypt: Ethiopia shall haste to stretch out her hands unto God, and the kingdoms of the earth shall sing praises to the Lord. The same great truth is reiterated in Ps. 110 — the scripture Christ Himself recited to confound those who denied His divine dignity as David's Lord. Both psalms strikingly pass from His exaltation in heaven to the day of His wrath. Then Jehovah shall send forth the rod of Messiah's strength out of Zion, and He shall rule in the midst of His enemies.

What is being done for His friends meanwhile is developed only in the New Testament generally, as here in particular. Room is left for it in the O.T. It is the grace come to the believing remnant, as to us who believe from among the Gentiles, before the generation to come is born again for the days of the displayed kingdom. Undoubtedly He is received up in glory (1 Tim. 3: 16); but this is part of the mystery of piety, there made known by the apostle of the uncircumcision, and found so largely explained and applied by him in his Epistles, as it is used briefly and powerfully in what lies before us (1 Peter 1: 21, 1 Peter 3: 22).

But there are "glories" to come, which give object and exercise for that hope which is a bright and large part of the truth, so characteristic of Christianity, and so difficult for a Jew as such to apprehend. Hence one perceives how unpalatable to a rabbi it is to read in Dan. 9: 26 that after a definite interval Messiah the Prince was not to come merely, but "should be cut off and have nothing" i.e. of His Messianic rights, which is the true force. It was ruin to the benighted and faithless people; it brought destruction, as the context shows, on the city and the sanctuary. The facts and the prophecy which revealed this and more, they themselves cannot deny. Yet are they still impenitent, unbelieving, unblessed, and disposed to deny a great prophet, who shed light on what and what sort of time the Spirit of Christ was signifying, as was done in various ways.

But those who believe the gospel, Jews or Gentiles, come in according to the new principle of sovereign and indiscriminate grace to save souls. The Saviour, rejected by the Jews as a whole, is gone up on high, not at once to introduce the Kingdom in power and glory as even the apostles at first expected, but to inaugurate the mysteries of the Kingdom, itself a mystery, while He sits at the right hand of glory above. This it was which perplexed prophets of old, and not only the sufferings destined for Him Who might well have seemed the last One to suffer. Yet so said the prophetic word, so testified beforehand the Spirit of Christ that was in prophets: the Servant Righteous beyond all comparison was to be equally the sufferer beyond comparison. Suffering is an enigma to all who believe not what sin is before God; but even to those who did believe of yore, which of them so read the riddle that the Christ was to fathom its depths? For He was to suffer, not only from man because He was faithful to God, but, yet more overwhelmingly as it must beyond controversy be, from God because He was faithful for man, for sinful man! Yet Daniel is equally clear that the people are to be delivered after a time, the last time of distress without parallel, when blessed is he that comes to those days, and the prophet like all the righteous dead shall then stand in his lot. It is part of Christ's glories to follow, when He shall reign, not as Son of David only, but with the wide and everlasting dominion of Son of Man.

Long before the prophet of the captivity, the lowly seer of Moresheth-gath, testified (v. 1-3) of the Judge of Israel smitten with a rod upon the cheek. Even a rabbi cannot mistake that He was to be born in Bethlehem, though overlooking on the one side His rejection, and on the other His going forth from of old, from everlasting days. Knowing Him not, they in judging Him fulfilled also the voices of the prophets which were read every sabbath. "Therefore will he give them up until the time when she that travaileth hath brought forth." The birth of the new-born Israel is thus postponed; while Christ sits, rejected by them but exalted by the right hand of God to the blessing of such as Peter was writing to. When that day comes (the prophetic terminus of glory for Israel and the earth), "the residue of His brethren," instead of being added together now to form the church as on and after Pentecost, "shall return unto the children of Israel." Then shall He stand and feed them in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God. And, instead of being scattered as now, outside their land, they shall abide: for then shall He be great even to the ends of the earth. And this [Man] shall be Peace. When the last head of a great country, the leader of the outside nations, shall come into the land, it will only be to find power there, not the previous weakness. Then the enemy's land shall be wasted retributively; and the remnant of Jacob be not only as a dew of blessing in the midst of the peoples, but also as a lion among the beasts of the forest.

Here again was no obscure intimation of the sufferings to come for Christ and of the glories that are to follow them. But seek diligently and search out as they did, no small difficulty remained, even for those who pondered the wonderful words of Isa. 49: 3-8, Isa. 50: 4-9, Isa. 52: 13-15, and Isa. 53, the most detailed and luminous of all: the sufferings which awaited Messiah, and the glory of His people Israel. But there was also a covert allusion in Isa. 65: 1, 2, to a time, and a singular sort of time, when God would be found by the heedless Gentiles, and find in Israel a people disobeying and opposing; just as Moses of old predicted (Deut. 32) that God would provoke them to jealousy through a no-nation, and anger them through a nation void of understanding.

But we know that even those who were blessed in seeing and hearing what many prophets and kings desired to see and hear, so little realised our Lord's clear and repeated explanation of His coming death of rejection and ignominy, that they were utterly staggered when it came to pass. "We were hoping," said two of them no more downcast than others on the resurrection day, "that He it is that was about to redeem Israel." His sufferings in redeeming by His blood, so far from entering their hearts, were the stumbling-block; whereas, as the Lord assured their troubled souls, this was both the only way consistent with God's character and their moral necessities, and the very truth set out in the scriptures. He must be a suffering and an ascended Christ: as emphatically for the Christian now going to heaven, so for Israel and the nations to be blessed on the earth by-and-by under His reign of glory.

In fact, however, the first prediction in the first book of scripture made known to the instructed ear what prophets searched into, and what the apostle explicitly states here with all clearness of light from Christ dead, risen, exalted, and about to appear in glory. The figurative terms are intelligible and expressive. The woman's Seed (in itself a phrase as gracious as startling and unique) should have His heel bruised, but bruise the serpent's head: a victory over the power of evil complete and final, but not without keen suffering. Again, blessing even for all families of the earth, when idolatry had overspread them, was promised in Abram's seed in Gen. 12; but fuller light came in Gen. 22, where the father's only son is seen risen from the dead in the same parable which presented him previously as the lamb God would provide for a burnt-offering. Thereon Jehovah's oath which distinguishes, in a way which the apostle Paul gives us to understand, the numerous seed which shall possess the gate of the enemies (as in O.T. prophecy), and the Seed without any such number attached but "one" only, in Whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed. This last Gal. 3 applies to the grace come now to Gentiles no less at the least than to Jews who believed. What a testimony is it not to "the sufferings Christward, and the glories after these things"?

The same principle might readily be shown in the history of Joseph, suffering in the pit at the hand of his brethren, and then both sold to Gentiles and consigned, if not to death, to the Gentile prison; but exalted to rule the world, administering its power with the same wisdom that had been manifested in previous humiliation, to the glory of him who sat on the throne. We at least are inexcusable if we cannot clearly discern what prophets may have duly searched. Add to this, that so it was before he made himself known to his guilty brethren whose sins he forgave, preserving their life no less than the Egypt-world's that he governed. Can one fail to read here another application of our text? Nor would it be difficult to trace a fresh testimony beforehand in the blessing Jacob a-dying pronounced on his sons, yet to be fulfilled, for their good portion at the end of days, if we may not now speak of it all more particularly.

Genesis is not singular in this respect. So it might be shown in the types of Ex. 12 and Ex. 14, Ex. 15. So too throughout the earlier and the later prophets. The Book of Psalms is quite as rich in the same witness borne beforehand to Christ. What can be deeper, what more undeniable, than the testimony to His sufferings and His consequent glories in Psalm 22 and Psalm 102? These may be the fullest; yet are they but a part of what presents both, in that rich collection which the Lord loved and used so perfectly, and prophets searched not in vain, though at a great interval, in their day.

We have next an interesting intimation made as to enquiring prophets, full of importance to us no less than to those the apostle was addressing: —

"To whom it was revealed that not to themselves but to you* they were ministering the very things which have now been announced to you through those that brought you glad tidings by** [the] Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven; which things angels desire to look into" (ver. 12).

*"To us" (ἡμῖν) seems so natural that one need not be surprised that this reading should appear in K, many cursives, and some ancient versions, more than even in ver. 10. But there is no sufficient ground to doubt that ὑμῖν ("to you") is the true text, as attested by the best and oldest copies, with the bulk of juniors and with good and ancient versions. Text. Rec. presents the record rather unnaturally in giving ἡμῖν and ὑμᾶς in ver, 12.

**The preposition is not read by A B, some cursives, and Greek and Latin fathers. Ancient versions are in such a case uncertain. The great mass favour ἐν which would mean "in the power or virtue of," or "by" as we say briefly.

There is no distinction more characteristic than the one just brought out. The Holy Spirit wrought in those of odd as "the Spirit of prophecy"; and so He will work in days to come, as we learn from Rev. 19: 10. Our brethren that have the witness of Jesus at the end of the age, when the final conflicts arise, will know the Spirit's action in a prophetic way, not as the one Spirit who baptised us into one body, the church, and who dwells with and in us individually (John 14: 17).

Here we have the contrast drawn. It was revealed to the O.T. prophets that not to themselves but to us they ministered the things announced now to the faithful through the gospel. They prophesied of the privileges now enjoyed. The Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven at Pentecost is not giving a prophetic testimony to Jesus as then. He is as given to the Christian a Spirit of present communion in a way which was not and could not be, till Christ had come and accomplished redemption.

Fully is it admitted that all saints of old were born of God. If not born of water and Spirit, they could not see or enter the kingdom of God, as the Lord told Nicodemus. This was no privilege special to Christianity, as some shortsighted men conceive. It is indispensable for that kingdom of God in which shall come many from east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, as well as with the elders before them, and prophets and saints after them. Flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. But all the children of God without exception will have their part in it, as they that are Christ's are raised at His coming.

The saints of old, before He came in flesh and suffered as He did once for sins, could not have more than "the Spirit of prophecy." And it appears from the Revelation, that so it will be again during the Apocalyptic crisis, when the heavenly saints are seen on high, and Jewish and Gentile saints will be separately called to bear witness on earth in the tribulation to come. All that is revealed of them in those trying scenes points to a distinct testimony and experience, resembling substantially that of the elders who had witness borne to their faith and through it, but with the faith and witness of Jesus too, as far as it is given them. They will look for His coming in His kingdom. But nothing indicates the possession of those privileges, individual and corporate, which we now enjoy through the Holy Spirit given to us.

They will not know that their bodies are Christ's members (1 Cor. 6), and that they are a living God's temple (2 Cor. 6); nor will it be theirs to say that they have put on Christ in Whom they are all one, and there can be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, nor male and female, but who as being sons have the Spirit of God's Son sent into their hearts crying, Abba, Father (Gal. 3, 4). It would be language beyond their intelligence to hear of the glory of His grace (which God freely bestowed on us in the Beloved), still more to be the fulness of Him that fills all in all (Eph. 1: 23). Nor could they, as Paul exhorted the Colossian saints, give thanks to the Father who qualified them for their share in the inheritance of the saints in light, Who rescued them from the power of darkness and translated them into the kingdom of the Son of His love. They will in faith long for the glorious future He shall establish; but they must fast and groan for the present. The two witnesses prophesy (not, preach grace) in sackcloth, but with power to devour their enemies with fire, killing those who would hurt them — power to shut heaven, and over the waters, and to smite the earth, till their hour is come on finishing their testimony. Symbolic and figurative this is no doubt, but the symbols and figures are of a state wholly foreign to that of the Christian and the church.

Far different is your position, says the apostle, who have not only the prophetic testimony of old, but had glad tidings brought to you by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven. Even the babes of the family have an unction from the Holy One and know all things (1 John 2: 20); they know the Father, as well as their sins forgiven for the name's sake of Christ. The Christian dwells in God and God in him: what greater blessedness can there now be? He is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is the earnest of our inheritance. We are children of God, kings and priests. We are Christ's body, and bride. We are heavenly in title, and about to bear the image of the Heavenly at His coming. What precious, holy, or glorious privilege is withheld from us? In short, as another apostle says, "all things are yours;" not that ye in yourselves are anything, but that Christ is the whole sum and substance of blessedness. "All things are yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present or things to come, all are yours; and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." What a circle, and what a centre!

How wondrous it is that the rejection of Christ which would prove the Jews returned from Babylon worse than their fathers banished there and elsewhere for their idolatry (as Isaiah and others foretold), is made by God's grace in the cross the turning-point of all blessing! Hence is the righteousness of God. Receiving it by faith now (while the people generally are as unbelieving as the nations generally) the remnant according to the election of grace enters into better blessings than if He had been received in the display of His kingdom. For thus only in divine wisdom could these exceeding privileges be the portion of believers on earth, with the further privilege of suffering, not only for righteousness, but for His name. Truly, as the Epistle to the Hebrews says (Heb. 11: 40), God provided, or foresaw, "some better thing" concerning us.

It is the interval after propitiation was made, Christ meanwhile exalted at God's right hand, and the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven, which gives occasion and ground for the special privileges of the Christian and of the church, as well as of the gospel. The Messiah had been cut off and had nothing (i.e. of His Messianic glory on Zion and over all the earth); but He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father for His new and higher glory; and by-and-by He will appear for the promised glory before the world. Christianity comes in between. Cf. John 17: 24, Rev. 11: 15.

Thus the joys of communion as well as peace in Christ are tested fully. Also love has the freest scope, in the endurance of suffering for good rather than evil, and for earnest service both in the church and in the gospel. Thus hope again acquires its highest character, no less than spiritual understanding while we wait for Christ's coming and the glory to be revealed in the last time. The new blessedness is so rich and peculiar, that the Holy Spirit, besides illuminating the ancient oracles of God, was already inditing another divine volume, and expressly in the leading tongue of the Gentiles, of which this Epistle forms a part. It is written in Greek, not in Hebrew, even though addressed to believing Jews, or to the twelve tribes of Israel. Nothing short of this would set forth the now things adequately, beginning with Christ's advent and atoning death, and closing with that great prophecy, which, while it crowns all the predictions, fitly concludes the entire revelation of God.

Who can wonder that the verse ends with "which things angels desire to look into?" Angels were upheld by the Son. They were enabled to keep their first estate. They did not need redemption like guilty man. But they were permitted, not only to shout for joy when the corner-stone was laid in founding the earth, but in the multitude of the heavenly host to praise God at the birth of the Saviour, and say, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men. It was not that they doubted; but what wonder and awe, yet eagerness withal, must have filled them as they bent down to apprehend what His sufferings meant, and indeed His humiliation at large, and the glories after these! Oh, what lessons to learn of God in men, and above all in that one Man Who best proved the divine complacency in mankind!

Exhortation here begins, founded on the preceding verses. Now that Christ is come, and gone to heaven, having borne our sins, the believing Jews were objects of rich and sure blessing, far beyond what their fathers enjoyed before the law or since.

The glory is not manifested on earth as the prophets predicted, but this will have actual accomplishment in a new age. There is now an intermediate state for saints on earth before that new age: faith, love, and hope have their fullest exercise, after the sufferings destined for Christ were closed, while He is received up in glory. It is therefore before the revelation of His other glories to all the earth, and indeed to the universe. Our life is hid in God; but when He is manifested, so shall we be with Him in glory. The glories after His sufferings are not therefore complete, but in a large measure await His appearing at the end of the age.

Yet the glory in which He sits already at God's right hand has a momentous bearing on the soul individually and on the church as a body. Hence even now we exult with joy unspeakable and full of glory; for Christ, its spring, is glorified and we expect to be, now receiving the end of faith, salvation of souls, but not yet that of our bodies. Meanwhile we have for our profit, not only what prophets testified beforehand, but the still fuller light of truth announced in Christ and since Christ by apostles and others, who evangelised in the power of the Spirit sent forth from heaven, as Father and Son alike promised. This is Christianity, not promise but accomplishment of redemption by Christ's work, and, as shown elsewhere, for Gentile believers as much as Jewish, though these only are addressed here by the apostle appropriately to this message.

"Wherefore, having girded up the loins of your mind, losing sober, hope perfectly for the grace that is to be brought to you at Jesus Christ's revelation (ver 13).

The allusion in the opening clause is evidently to their forefathers at the first passover: a memorial to them, a feast to Jehovah to be kept by an ordinance for ever. "Thus shall ye eat it; with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand." Could words or acts more graphically give us the living picture of a people screened from divine judgment, and leaving in haste the house of bondage for a land flowing with milk and honey? The Lord in Luke 12: 35 employed the same figure, with others, to impress on His disciples their pilgrim character in waiting for His coming: in no taking of their ease, but constant readiness to do His will earnestly, as is meant by their loins girt about. On occasions of active exertion the garments, instead of being allowed to flow loosely, were tucked up, that the work might be done without impediment. So would He now have our hearts engaged without wandering affections or distraction of mind. The blessing is assured to our faith; we love Him Who first loved us, and He with a love above all measure; whilst the prospect before us is glorious beyond all comparison.

The apostle's phrase "the loins of your mind" renders inexcusable the notion of such fathers as interpreted it of chastity; for this would require another expression of quite distinct form. It seems strange that Calvin should characterise a turn so unintelligent in itself, and unsuitable to the contest, as philosophising refinedly about the loins. It is a wholly baseless importation of prurient ideas, natural perhaps to those who piqued themselves on a fair show in the flesh, which soon betrays its hollowness by falling into all manner of uncleanness. He himself however had no doubt of its quite different meaning, in the disentanglement of the Christian from all hindrance to devotedness.

There is another term which immediately follows, of great practical moment, "being sober." It is expressly from its form a continuous habit; which is the more emphatic, because the form of the phrase before, with which we have been occupied, implies no less precisely the act done and settled; and such is the force of the hope which immediately follows. They had once for all girt up the loins of their mind; their hope was set with equal decision upon the grace to be brought to them at Christ's appearing. The nature of the case called for and explained these being accomplished facts in their souls. But the sobriety in question calls for unceasing diligence.

For there is much in the gospel and in the truth now fully revealed, which might naturally lead to the utmost enthusiasm. We see how it affected outside observers on the day of the church's birth. All were amazed and in perplexity when they heard Galileans speaking in the various tongues of the Gentiles the great things of God. Some mocking said, They are full of new wine. Apart from the striking phenomenon of grace which was thus ungraciously maligned, how much there is in Christianity if realised to fill the heart and lips to overflowing! Even the eminently wise Paul could say, "whether we are beside ourselves, it is to God; or we are sober, it is for you" (2 Cor. 5: 13). Here no doubt it is the kindred thought of discretion that is expressed; but it is at bottom the same truth. Before God and to Him, the heart may rightly go forth in ecstasy; but when we think of men and even the saints, a more guarded feeling is well on our part.

Hence the same apostle exhorts the saints that were in Ephesus to guard against exciting causes. "Be not drunk with wine whereby is dissoluteness, but be filled with the Spirit." Where He becomes the source and power of all within us, acts outward should be according to God's mind. Our singing even is meant to be so characterised that it may please Him Whom we praise, in no way carried away by sweet sound, but with the spirit and with the understanding also.

Hence then "being sober" is laid on us as a continuous duty. It is a figure naturally drawn, as all admit, from keeping clear of all intoxication; which for the Christian means the avoidance of everything apt to excite the flesh or spirit. Young Thessalonian believers are thus exhorted, "So then let us not sleep as do the rest, but let us watch, and be sober [the same word as here]. For they that sleep sleep by night, and they that drink drink by night; but let us, being of the day, be sober, having put on a breastplate of faith and love, and hope of salvation as helmet." In 1 Peter 4: 7 the word, in view of the end of all things having drawn nigh, is "Be of sound mind therefore, and be sober unto prayers." (So also in 1 Peter 5: 8). Here it is not constant habit that is involved in the form of the phrase, but the soul's attitude due to so solemn a fact. Both appeals have their importance. The call in our verse 13 is grounded on known redemption as our portion, whilst we journey through a wilderness world, with an expectation worthy of what God has already given us in Christ.

Of this he proceeds to speak in the next words, "hope perfectly for the grace that is to be brought to you at Jesus Christ's revelation." One cannot doubt that it is the glory about to be revealed unto us, as it is put in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 8: 18, 19), the revelation of the sons of God. Nor does our apostle treat of anything beyond that supreme bliss, which he describes as "the grace that is to be brought" in that day. For he does not open out, as Paul did in 1 Thess. 4, the preliminary stage and the special action of the Lord, in Himself descending from heaven with that shout which shall assemble His own whether dead or alive to meet Him in the air. Our Epistle dwells on the manifestation of the saints with Christ in glory without telling us how the wondrous issue is to be effected.

It is so intrinsically blessed, and so efficacious even now for the well-being of the soul, that he bids the saints "hope perfectly" for the grace to be brought then and thus. "To the end," as in the A.V. and so understood by many, seems short of what is intended by the adverb; nor does any sufficient reason appear to make us swerve from the simple meaning. It is likely that translators shrank from connecting perfection with a hope which too often fluctuates, if it be not also rather indefinite and feeble. They preferred "to the end."

But it is the aim of the Spirit apparently to reveal it in its power, grandeur, and blessedness, so that the coming glory should be regarded as part of that grace which we have known in Christ's death and resurrection for our souls, and the rest we are awaiting for our bodies. Then indeed we shall be conformed to the image of God's Son, the Firstborn among many brethren. The grace that is to be brought in that day is a meet object for our hope to have once for all and perfectly; just as in Heb. 10 we are now called to approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, sprinkled as to our hearts from a wicked conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water. For the veil is rent; and we who believe have boldness to enter into the holies by the blood of Jesus. It may be that none of those addressed by Peter did "perfectly" hope for that grace to come, as sure as the grace which had already appeared; but the aim of this scripture was to invite, yea, to urge it. Why should the saints not cherish the hope fully and without a waver? He Who has promised will assuredly perform. Let us treat all shortcoming in hope as a wrong done to His grace and truth.

It may seem strange that our apostle writes here of the grace to be brought at Christ's revelation only to those who now believe. Prophets do speak of this, as may be seen with especial plainness in Isa. 8: 13-18. To this throughout is the Epistle directed, rather than to the far more common witness which prophecy bears to the manifest and wide-spread blessing when Christ comes in His kingdom with power and glory. Then all Israel shall be saved; and their receiving and fulness shall be "life from the dead" to the world at large. But this would not have been meat in due season to the believing remnant whom Peter here addresses. Hence he stops short of any development on that head which fills the prophets, and he dwells simply on their own Christian portion at the revelation of Christ. This is what they needed, and what the Holy Spirit gave him to minister. Compare the preceding ver. 4. What will be by-and-by for Israel and the nations on earth the prophets fully declare from Isaiah (we might add from Moses) to Malachi.

"So great salvation" calls for earnest decision and sobriety, brightened as it is by a perfect hope which puts not to shame. But next the apostle insists on a quality of the new life we have in Christ which is as indispensable for the saint, as it is due to God.

"As children of obedience, not conformed to the former lusts in your ignorance, but according to the Holy One that called you, be ye also holy in every [part of] conduct, because it is written, Holy ye shall be, because I [am] holy" (vers. 14-16).

The Christian is characterised as a child of obedience. This is far more energetic than the "obedient children" of the A.V. which rightly speaks of men in their unrenewed state as the children (or rather sons) of disobedience (Eph. 2: 2, Col. 3: 6). It is the habitual bent of fallen nature to disobey God. Now on the contrary, when sanctified by the Spirit, we are so for obedience, childlike obedience, as we see its perfection in our Lord Jesus. As He is our pattern as well as life, it is to His obedience we are livingly set apart, no less than to the sprinkling of His blood. Quickened by the faith of Christ, we are neither left to ourselves like the Gentiles, nor set under the law as the Jews; but are subject to Christ and His word as the perfect law of liberty; even as it was His meat to do the will of the Father that sent Him.

Here it was of the more consequence to express this, as the apostle was addressing such of the circumcision as believed. Re-action is ever a danger. They might have slipped into the delusion that all direction was gone because the law was; a mere negation for those delivered from the bondage of the law. But Christ freed from law only to lead into a constant obedience far deeper and more comprehensive. So in Romans 8 the apostle taught the saints in Rome, Jewish or Gentile, that if the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (which is our law) set free from the law of sin and death (against which Israel and man vainly strove), it is through redemption that the law's righteous requirement (τὸ δικαιωμα) might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit. And this walk is solely one of obedience. We are not our own but bought with a price, and what a price! "Glorify God then in your body." We are the Lord's freedmen, had we been slaves; we are Christ's bondmen, had we been freest of the free. The Christian denies his Master and his standing, if he claim independence of His authority and His word. The more he knows his privileges, the greater is his obligation to obey. He was once, Jew or Gentile, a son of disobedience; he is now a child of obedience; let him be consistent as such. "If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." The apostle John only confirms and completes Paul and Peter.

Such then is the great governing principle; and so it must be, unless God's children are to have an unnatural independence, yea mastery, of God Himself, and thus subvert the highest of all rights. But it is of moment also to beware of old habits, which may not be weighed sufficiently when the Christian relationship is new; for habits are apt to re-assert their evil influence when the truth has no longer the fresh power over the soul which the ungrieved Spirit maintains. Hence it is here added, "not conformed to the former lusts in your ignorance." When the True Light was unseen, the heart's ignorance of God was extreme. Here it is no comparison of Jews with heathen, but their real state pointed out as before Him, when divine love was as unknown as light. How rank was the growth of lusts in that ignorance! They were now the more to beware of being conformed to what dishonoured Christ, being themselves begotten of His God and Father unto a living hope. If God's power alone keeps, it is through faith, which implies the heart simple and subject to His word. Those who are still passing through the wilderness need to be on their guard, vigilant, and self-judging.

Another consideration follows and lifts the eyes yet higher. "But according to the Holy One that called you, be ye too holy in every [part of] conduct." Holy is He that called them out of darkness unto His marvellous light (1 Peter 2: 9). Holy is He that called them by His grace unto His eternal glory in Christ Jesus (1 Peter 5: 10). He is just the same every step of the dangerous journey they were meanwhile treading. They were even now in the nearest relation to Him as objects of His love, and after a sort which was only shadowed by His people of old. Then it was national and after a fleshly and temporal sort, though individual faith pierced through to the Coming One and to things better and enduring. Now it was distinctly personal in character and everlasting. For the people and the land and the world Jesus was the rejected Christ; higher and larger glories came into view, grace fuller and more intimate. "He calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. When he shall put forth all his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice." The highest in earthly position might claim or call away; but such are strangers to those that have heard the voice of the rejected Christ. "And a stranger will they not follow; for they know not the voice of strangers." Can one wonder? He is the door that opens into every blessing. By Me (said He) if any one enter, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture. Who but He could truly say, I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly? It is now in the power of His resurrection (1 Peter 1: 3). If He that called them is holy, how essential it is. that they should cherish the same character of separateness from evil to Himself, and this without stint or limit? "Be ye too holy in every part of conduct."*

{*"Conduct" answers to the early meaning of "conversation," which is antiquated and nearly obsolete, being now confined to free interchange of speech. It is strange that Johnson, Richardson etc., ignore this, the uniform sense in the A.V of O. and N T i.e.. "behaviour," "conduct," "course," or "practical life." Webster edited by Goodrich and the Century Dict give it as the first sense of the word.}

Was this an unheard of requirement on God's part? Far from it. When as Jehovah He governed a people after the flesh, even so it could not be otherwise: "Because it is written, Holy ye shall be, because I am holy." The apostle cites Lev. 11: 44: see also Lev. 19: 2; Lev. 20: 7, 26. Without doubt, as we read in Heb. 9: 10, the Levitical system consisted only of meats and drinks and divers washings, ordinances of flesh imposed until a time of rectification. Christ brought in His person grace and truth, and redemption enables us to walk accordingly in the Spirit. It is now the children, not of the fathers, but of God the Father, whose standing is not in flesh, but in Christ. The holiness rises according to the place and relationship.

If the principle in itself be thus invariable, the character of the holiness is akin and proportionate to the blessing conferred. As there is no bound to the grace and truth received in receiving Christ, so must the holiness suit the Holy One revealed in the Son of God. God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. And Christ is the light, not of Jews only but of the world. Hence he that followeth Him shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. The natural man, no matter how intelligent, never rises to this; if he profess Christianity, as he may and often does, it is unreal. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth." The believer alone has reality in Christ, whence is the contrast: "but if we walk in the light as He is in the light [and there every true Christian does walk], we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from every sin."

We all know how often it is argued that this is a condition. Who doubts this of "If we walk" etc.? But what most who so talk overlook is that it is the condition of being a Christian, not in name only but in deed and truth. The apostle John in no way means of some real saints compared with others. It is the condition of such as are brought to God. It is the unquestionable privilege of all the faithful who follow Christ, unless it be pretended that any faithful souls do not follow Him. It is not a question of walking according to the light which admits of different degrees, but of walking in it, which belongs alike to all who were once darkness but are now light in the Lord. They are therefore exhorted to walk as children of light. But John expresses the necessary condition assumed: if we walk in the light as God is in the light (true of every real follower of the Lord Jesus), then have we these other privileges. For all now go together, as the gift of divine grace: we have fellowship one with another; and the blood of Jesus cleanseth us from every sin. They are the constant enjoyment of all that walk in the light, as do all that are Christ's.

So too in this Epistle of Peter the exhortation to be holy is addressed to all. If all were alike sanctified of the Spirit in principle, as we have seen in ver. 2, all are in ver. 15 enjoined to be holy, because the God that called them is holy. Here it is holiness in practice, without which (as Heb. 12: 14 solemnly assures) no one shall see the Lord. If ye live after the flesh, ye are about to die (Rom. 8: 13). Know ye not that unrighteous men shall not inherit God's kingdom (1 Cor. 6: 9)? He that soweth to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal. 6: 8). We need not surely quote more of these grave warnings.

It is well to guard against the misuse of this text and others, as if God's word gave apparent support to the heterodoxy of perfection in the flesh, otherwise styled sinless sanctification, whether taught by A'Kempis and other Romanists, by Jer. Taylor and W. Law, by J. Wesley and his followers, or by the American school of so-called higher holiness, with its modifications in Great Britain since it got discredited. Nothing can be plainer than that scripture urges God's people, or as we now say His children, to be holy, because He is. It is a call addressed to all. The false deduction is of a state attained by special faith in some. And this has led J. W., if my memory serves aright, to misquote, "holy as God is holy." What is written is the reason God lays down: He requires practical consistency with Himself in those that are His. Nothing can be more certain, becoming, and necessary. But to be holy as He is holy is in any case mistaken, and liable to most presumptuous thoughts if not blasphemous error.

Possibly what was running in the good man's head was our Lord's injunction in Matt. 5: 48: "Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." But this text has no real connection with the aim for which it is produced. For our Lord simply insists on the grace toward evil men which His disciples are to cultivate, after the pattern of their heavenly Father, Whose sun is made to rise on evil and good, and Who sends rain on just and unjust. What has this to do with the question of the old man in believers? There is power in the Spirit given to us against every ill; but this assertion is very distinct from the assumption that sin is extinct and gone from any saint on earth. It ought never to be allowed to act.

But other considerations are urged of distinctly Christian character, which add immense weight and power both to the new responsibility and to the comfort and cheer of those who are Christ's.

"And if as Father ye call on Him that impartially judgeth according to the work of each, pass the time of your sojourning in fear" (ver. 17).

As Jehovah was the divine name in relation to Israel, so is Father to the Christian, and this, not in the vulgar sense of the derivation from His breath, as fatherhood of Adam and the race (Luke 3: 38, Acts 17: 29), but of the special and spiritual nearness into which the risen Christ brought the believer. "Go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." He had prepared the disciples for this throughout His ministry. Rejected by the Jew, He turned from fleshly kin and said, "Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father that is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother" (Matt. 12: 49, 50). But now that redemption was accomplished and accepted as the new standing fact, now that purification of sins is made, and life given abundantly by His resurrection, He could announce precisely that His brethren enter the same relationships that He Himself had as risen from the dead and taking His place on high. So had He anticipated while opening His heart to the Father in their hearing only a few days before: "I made known to them thy name, and will make it known, that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them." This is Christianity, not in atonement (however true and needed through our sins and ruin), but in its positive excellency and in our special and proper place according to God's counsels and love.

To the fathers dwelling in tents with nothing but His promises He revealed Himself as God Almighty, El Shaddai, their sure and sufficient Protector in the midst of the peoples they were in due time to dispossess. When the time came to bring forth Israel out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, He gave the name of Jehovah as their unchanging Governor, He their God and they His people. "And what great nation is there (Moses could ask), that hath God so nigh to them, as Jehovah our God is in everything we call on Him for?" "Hath God essayed to come and take Him a nation out of the midst of a nation by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a powerful hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that Jehovah your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? Unto you it was shown that thou mightest know that Jehovah He is God; there is none else besides Him. From the heavens He made thee hear His voice, that He might instruct thee; and on earth He showed thee His great fire; and thou heardest His words out of the midst of the fire. And because He loved thy fathers, therefore He chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt, to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as at this day. Know therefore this day, and lay it to thy heart, that Jehovah He is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath — none else" (Deut. 4: 7, 34-39).

It was indeed the best portion a nation could have here below till Messiah reigns over them, and the new covenant be made with the houses of Israel and of Judah. But before that day Messiah came for a deeper, holier, and more wondrous purpose — to suffer for sin, and for the sins of all who believe, to the glory of God. The cross of Christ, where He suffered from God as well as from man, presents a work divine beyond all that ever was wrought or can be again. For in this way, so strange to human eyes, not only was the Son of man glorified, but God was glorified in Him Whom man despised and the nation abhorred. Therefore God glorified Him in Himself and glorified Him straightway, instead of in His kingdom of manifested power and might, which He awaits in due time. But in and by His sufferings on the cross atonement was made; and risen from the dead He could and did reveal in all its fulness the name of His Father and our Father, His God and our God; that we might ourselves call upon Him as such, in a blessed nearness never till then appropriated by the faithful, never even possible before save to our Lord Himself.

Yet it is exceedingly important to recognise that divine love never weakens but really and powerfully strengthens our sense of divine light. This is the dread of fallen humanity. Conscious sinfulness, till we know that we have been once for all cleansed sacrificially, makes us shrink from God. How changed all is, when we not only repent and believe but rest on Christ's one offering, whereby He has perfected in perpetuity (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς) the sanctified! Then we children of light walk in the light, and prove it as wholesome as it is marvellous. We are thus thankful for the way with us of our God and Father in a world of danger and darkness and deception and self-will and rebellion against His will and word. For He "impartially judgeth according to the work of each."

So had the Lord Himself taught in John 15., speaking of Himself as the True Vine, and of His disciples as the branches. "My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He taketh away; and every one that beareth fruit He cleanseth it, that it may bear more fruit." Those that remained around Him were already clean, because of the word He had spoken to them; many went back and walked no more with Him, and stumbled at the word, being disobedient. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him. The Vine represented the external relation, and the branches those who bore His name truly or not. It was no question of life eternal or of union with Him as glorified. It was a blessed place on earth of cleaving unto Him and bearing fruit, and so every true saint proves; but it might be only mental or external, and so unable to bear the word or overcome the world, and thus in some way come to ruin. The believer welcomes the Father's care and bears more fruit. Even if He chastens, it is a Father's hand, and a proof of His love, the very reverse of alienation from the erring one. "He dealeth with you as with sons, for what son is there whom a father chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastening, of which all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." The Father of spirits can make no mistakes, as our honoured parents may have done; without fail He chastens for profit in order to the partaking of His holiness (Heb. 12: 7-10). Man or woman, young or old, poor or rich, He judges according to the work of each. There is no partiality with Him; there is a Father's love in the light.

But the present participle expresses here, not the abstract principle, but His actual dealing in distinct reference to the time of our sojourning. It is uncommonly bold to say otherwise in presence of John 5: 22, and indeed the contest; where our Lord teaches that the Son quickens in communion with the Father, but has all judgment committed to Himself, because He is the Son of man. He only, of the Persons in the Godhead, became man, and suffered to the utmost in that humiliation; so He only has authority to execute judgment (in the final and everlasting sense) in that very nature. This is set beyond fair doubt, because the Lord declares that the believer does not come into judgment, by any such solemn act as He speaks of; whereas it is certain that every believer does become subject to the judgment which the Father now carries on while we are here. It is not that future act in God's judgment, no doubt through Jesus Christ the Lord (Rom. 2: 16, Rom. 14: 10); it is not the Father's doing but the Son of man's. But it is the Father Who now judges according to the work of each saint in his sojourn here.

That this scripture goes no farther than the Father's present scrutiny is evident from the exhortation which follows: "Pass the time of your sojourning in fear." At Christ's appearing there is for those addressed or others like them no sojourning more. Any such time is ended. Pilgrimage in the wilderness is exchanged for an abiding city, the coming one. There is no longer grief which we no doubt needed, but praise and glory and honour, with an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading. But now it is our responsibility as Christians that our conduct be "in fear" of our Father and God, Whose word is living and operative, sharper than any two-edged sword, and penetrating to division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern both thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature unapparent in His sight; but all things are naked and laid bare to His eyes with Whom we have to do.

It may be well, even if hardly needful, to say that the fear enjoined on the believer, during the time of his earthly course, is not only consistent with enjoying our Father's love but its inseparable accompaniment. "There is forgiveness with Thee that Thou mayest be feared," says Psalm 130: 4. Hence "blessed is the man that feareth Jehovah, that delighteth greatly in His commandments" (Ps. 112: 1). Not only is "the fear of Jehovah the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1: 7), but "happy is the man that feareth always" (Prov. 28: 14). It is in contrast with him that hardens his heart, who shall fall into mischief.

There is a natural fear of unbelief, which distrusts God and really hates Him. Of this John speaks in his First Epistle (1 John 4: 18), as incompatible with love as with faith and hope, in short with the knowledge of God and His Son. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love [His, not ours] casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth hath not been perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us." A true and filial spirit fears the commandment; as whoso despiseth the word shall be held accountable. In His fear is strong confidence, for He looks to the man who trembles at His word. No privileges of grace are meant to hinder or weaken this pious fear and godly awe. We shall also give account of all done in the body before Christ's tribune, and receive accordingly. But this to us who believe is not the judgment from which grace exempts.

So the apostle Paul speaks of being with those who received the gospel at Corinth "in fear and in much trembling," though in the full assurance of faith and in labours as abundant as his love; and in the Second Epistle he praises the saints for receiving Titus with fear and trembling (2 Cor. 7: 15), to his comfort and the joy of his fellow-workman. What a contrast with the wicked and slothful bondman in the parable! Him the Lord describes as being afraid of the gracious Master, counting Him "an austere man," and therefore hiding His talent in the earth, instead of using it faithfully for the good of others in His service, relying on His love!

Well did one write more than two centuries ago, "This fear is not cowardice; it doth not debase, but elevates the mind; for it drowns all lower fears, and begets true fortitude and courage to encounter all dangers for a good conscience and the obeying of God. 'The righteous is bold as a lion' (Prov. 28: 1); he dares do anything but offend God; and to dare do that is the greatest folly and baseness and weakness in the world. From this fear have sprung all the generous resolutions and patient sufferings of the saints and martyrs of God, because they durst not sin against Him; therefore they durst be imprisoned, and impoverished, and tortured, and die for Him. Thus the prophet [Isaiah 8: 12, 13] sets carnal and godly fear as opposite, and the one expelling the other. And our Saviour [Luke 12: 4], 'Fear not them that kill the body; but fear Him Who, after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say to you, fear Him!' Fear not, but fear; and therefore fear that ye may not fear" (R. Leighton in loco, Jerment's ed. i. 133, 4).

The fear in which the saints were urged to pass the time of their sojourn is the farthest possible from that doubt as to their souls and distrust of God's grace, which go together if they be not the two sides of the same unbelief that leaves Christ out as revealed in the gospel. Such a dread is wholly excluded by the words which follow, as they ground the inculcated fear on the comforting and assured fact of having been redeemed, and redeemed by that which is of all things the most precious to God, and the most efficacious for sinners.

"Knowing that not by corruptibles, silver or gold, ye were redeemed, from your vain course ancestrally handed down, but by precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless" (vers. 18, 19).

Jewish believers ought to have been familiar with redemption. In its earthly and temporal shape it is the central truth of the book of Exodus; wherein their bitter bondage and oppression forms the beginning; and God dwelling in the tabernacle in their midst, founded on that redemption, is the close. But they also came under the law, which Israel then undertook to obey. They thus let slip the promises to the fathers, and slighted the grace just shown to themselves from the Red Sea all the way to Sinai. This was fatal; not because the law was not good, but because they were weak and ungodly, sinners and enemies, as another apostle describes man's natural state (Rom. 5). To such, no matter what long-suffering and goodness may be shown, the law must prove a ministration of death and condemnation. And so it was to the elect nation, which blindly and self-righteously offered to stand on legal conditions.

Now it is by grace that any have been or can be saved, and therefore through faith. This was attested to their fathers, as plainly as any shadows could convey it, in the combined type of Jehovah's Passover and Israel's passage of the Red Sea. The blood of the lamb sprinkled on the door-posts and upper lintel of each house expressed in that figure the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 5). This alone could perfectly meet His moral judgment and not only screen a people justly exposed to it, but give them there and then to feast on the lamb's body. With bitter herbs they were to eat; for repentance toward God must accompany the faith that He would see the blood that night and pass over all within the sprinkled doors; also with loins girded, shoes on feet, and staff in hand, as pilgrims henceforth turning their back on Egypt for Canaan, but meanwhile crossing the desert. But there was a great supplement — the passage of the Red Sea; which in figure joins the resurrection to the death of the Lord Jesus for us. Here it was divine power righteously exercised on behalf of :His people, impossible without the Victim's blood, but now annulling the enemy's power, and entitling them to sing as delivered, Jehovah too no longer as a judge shut out, but leading and fighting for them victoriously. Christ was not only a propitiatory through faith in His blood, but given up for our offences and raised for our justification. It is God for us (Rom. 8) but by Christ, Who gave Himself for our sins to take us out from the present evil age. We are thereby brought to God, not yet to heaven though made meet for it as Col. 1: 12 declares with all plainness and decision.

It is of this redemption Peter speaks when he tells the saints that they "were redeemed," and that they knew it consciously (εἰδότες). It was no longer a simply objective fact: this they had at first to apprehend by faith; it was now part of their inward realisation by the Holy Spirit. And the Epistle to the Hebrews (9: 12) characterises it, in contrast with the foregoing pattern, as "everlasting redemption." An eternally divine Person was needed, as He deigned to become incarnate, in order by His atoning death to obtain it; and having obtained it, He entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary where we know Him now on high. Redemption is therefore an accomplished standing of rich and immediate consequence to God Who is glorified by it, and to the believer; and of his acceptance, not Christ's resurrection only is the guarantee but His session at God's right hand above.

There is another and future application of divine power which is called redemption, as in Rom. 8 for "our body" when raised or changed at Christ's coming (1 Cor. 15: 23); so too of the acquired possession, "our inheritance" (Eph. 1: 14: cf. Rom. 8: 19-22). But this power of His glory is also founded on His work as well as His person. The same principle applies to its very frequent use in the Psalms and Prophets to the future deliverance of Israel for His kingdom on earth. See Ps. 103: 4, Ps. 106: 10, Ps. 107: 2; Isa. 35: 9, etc., Isa. 41: 14, etc., Isa. 43: 1, Isa. 44: 22, 23, Isa. 48: 20, Isa. 52: 9, Isa. 63: 9. Another word also conveys it, as in Isa. 1: 27, Isa. 29: 22; Isa. 35: 10, Isa. 51: 11; Jer. 15: 21, Jer. 31: 11; Hosea 13: 14; Micah 6: 4; Zech. 10: 8. All however rests on His blood-shedding. The return from Babylon was an outward sample and pledge.

True redemption was no mere release by creature means, such as the children of Israel knew, when every man in the numbering of them had to give a ransom for himself as a living man to Jehovah, "that there might be no plague among them." Here it was no question of sins or sacrifice but of a ransom for his life against plague. Accordingly the principle established was a sacred half-shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary. "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than the half shekel when they give the heave-offering of Jehovah to make atonement for your souls" (Ex. 30: 15).* This was a beautiful token that each of the people, all alike, belonged to Jehovah their Divine Guardian and Governor. But in presence of Christ and His redemption already possessed, even silver that shadowed grace or gold that represented divine righteousness, were but "corruptibles," fading away before the glory that both surpasses and abides (2 Cor. 3: 9-11).

{*Think of Peter's unintelligent zeal in maintaining that his Master was a good Jew in paying this temple tax, and of the Lord's gracious reproof in summoning to Peter's hook the fish with the shekel in its mouth to pay "for Me and thee."}

It is worthy of remark, that the saints are here said to be redeemed, among its manifold and wondrous results, from their vain course, or mode of life, handed down from their fathers. Language so precise to describe, not Gentile idolaters, but the Jews since the Maccabees in their tenacity of tradition from father to son, it is hard to conceive. Of old before the Babylonish captivity, kings, priests, people, ran a race after the abominations of the heathen. But this hateful lusting after strange gods they learnt to abjure; and even Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes) could only impose his profane Hellenising on Jerusalem and the Jews for a measured space by treachery and violence, by pillage and massacre. Our Lord Himself formally charged even the more orthodox and learned among them with neutralising the most solemn duties of the law on its human side, and thus the word of God, because of the tradition of the elders. It made them "hypocrites." "In vain do they worship me" (citing Isa. 29: 13); a prophecy which embraces their final trouble but deliverance when at the lowest, as well as their sinfully blind state, that brought them so low, about to pass away for ever at the end of the age.

Can there be a more authoritative comment on the apostle's description of their state before they were redeemed? Their manner of life, even in its religious aspect, had neither purpose nor result. No doubt this might well be said of Paganism, which was wholly a lie with demons behind it; but how emphatic when applied truly to men confident of being a guide of the blind, a light of those in darkness! Only among Jews had the early fathers a claim from God. But this was for His promises, not for any such tradition of theirs, as the sons imagined. For the truth, "one is your Father, who is in heaven" said the Lord to the disciples. Fore-fathers, of whom scripture gave a reliable and sad account, were their trust, not the living God. They were guilty, because only they knew those sure and unambiguous oracles; but the heathen knew them not, and filled the void with the deceptive myths of poets. Gentile religion, like their wisdom, did not come down from above, but was earthly, natural, and demoniacal. What a contrast with ours which has its centre in Christ and its basis in His redemption, its glorying in God, its charter in His word, and its power in the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven!

Accordingly the redemption is here said to be "by precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless." The order of the Greek, which some prefer in English also, is "by precious blood as of a lamb . . . , Christ," followed closely by "fore-known" etc. in ver. 22. The truth in substance remains the same. Christ's blood is of all things precious. "Without shedding of blood is no remission"; by His blood our conscience is purged from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9, 10). Not only are believers redeemed by it, as here; but it is everlasting redemption, as we have seen. In Christ we have redemption through it, not yet of the body, but the remission of offences (Eph. 1: 7). Nor was there forgiveness only but peace through the blood of His cross (Col. 1: 20), and justification in virtue of it (Rom. 5: 9). For indeed as He loves us, so He washed us from our sins in His blood (Rev. 1: 6). As we now drink the cup of the new covenant in His blood, so in heaven the new song is of the Lamb slain Who bought to God by His blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation. Is it not indeed precious blood?

The allusion is plain in "as of a lamb unblemished and spotless." It may well be to the paschal lamb of which we have spoken. They had too the burnt-offering of the morning, and especially perhaps the evening lamb, offered between the evenings, day by day continually. It was at the door of the tent of meeting before Jehovah, "where I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee [the mediator]. And there I will meet with the children of Israel; and it [the tent] shall be sanctified by my glory." So it stands in Ex. 29: 38-46, the book of redemption. Thus only could Jehovah dwell in their midst. Hence we can measure the daring that takes away from the Prince of the host the "daily" or continual offering (Dan. 8); for it was the exclusion of the visible link of acceptance between God and His people on earth: a more impious affront than any political oppression of His people.

For the Christian the sanctuary is on high. "For Christ is not entered into holies made by hands, figures of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God for us" (Heb. 9: 24); and there He entered once for all by His own blood (12). "For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens" (Heb. 7: 26).

The apostle next treats of the comforting truth, in order to establish the saint, that however new to them the gospel might be, it was all settled in God's mind and counsel before man fell, yea before creation. Redemption was no remedial afterthought, though of course implied in the sentence of Jehovah Elohim on the serpent in paradise, and shadowed in sacrifice ever after.

Hence we here read of Christ, "foreknown* indeed before [the] world's foundation, but manifested at [the] last of the times for your sake, that through him believe on God that raised him out of [the] dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God" (vers. 20, 21). All the older English versions, save that of Rheims, add "who was" foreknown. But the absence of the article forbids this. It is assumed rather than asserted.

{*Tyndale and others since say "foreordained," but this goes beyond the word which ought to be rendered faithfully. A commentator cites Rom. 8: 29 to justify the change, but the text is adverse, because it distinguishes the two.}

Such language is never employed about the divine dealings with Israel. Rich and large as are the promises to the fathers, they never go back into eternity as here. Hen may reason in an abstract manner on prescience and omniscience; but the fact is plain, that God did not speak to the fathers nor through the prophets of blessings before the world's foundation. They were made in time, however enduring they may be.

Here we learn that which transcends the promises. Lately come in manifestation, Christ as God's Lamb was foreknown before creation. The gift of His Son to suffer and redeem was ever in the mind of God. He knew what the creature would be if put to proof, and that none could stand save those upheld by the word of His power. Meanwhile every means to instruct and to direct, to cheer and to restrain, to warn and to alarm, was tried; and this formally and fully in Israel separated from the nations for God's grand moral and religious experiment; vain as it must prove. God showed all along how thoroughly He knew the end from the beginning, though they believed it not, seeking to make their own righteousness out of that law which was meant to prove the impossibility. For through law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3: 20), as salvation is only through the faith of the Saviour.

"Foreknown" could not suffice. Christ was "manifested" in due time; and the due time was "at close of the times." Long had been God's patience; manifold His dealings in moral government, if by any means there might be fruit from man for His acceptance. But the fall, though in one man, was of the race; and the sample of the race under the special care of God proved the tree to be worthless, producing therefore bad fruit. If any one could have been conceived to change the result, it was the Lord Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. When He was sent, as He Himself puts it, the husbandmen said among themselves, This is the Heir: come, let us kill Him, and seize on His inheritance. And they caught and cast Him out of the vineyard and slew Him. But in Christ's rejection on the cross God made Him that knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. For therein only was God glorified as to sin. The Son of man bore His judgment of evil, as He had already glorified His Father in the unfaltering obedience of a life devoted to do His will. Hence as it was God's righteousness to raise Jesus from the dead and give Him glory at His right hand, so it is to justify every one who believes in Jesus.

It is accordingly written "manifested at the last (or, the end) of the times for your sake." The most ancient and best MSS. (ABC), many good cursives, and old versions give this sense; not "at the last time" according to earlier editors. It is similar in force to Heb. 1: 1. where the form is "at the last of these days." In fact the gospel was sent out to Jew first, and to Greek. Among those who believed, the dispersed Jews to whom the apostles wrote received it as God's power unto salvation. When boasting is excluded, and ought to be silenced, God speaks, and speaks in love to all; for all are lost sinners. When we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for ungodly men. Such as owned their guilt and ruin before God cast themselves on Christ and His precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless. Nothing else could meet adequately either God or man. And as these believing Jews submitted to the righteousness of God, they became entitled to the blessing of the gospel.

But it is an error often made to confound what is here annexed with the statement in Rev. 13: 8. For this scripture teaches no more than our text that the Lamb was slain from the founding of the world, a meaning only made possible by a mystical imagination. The comparison however of what is said in Rev. 17: 8 affords plain evidence that the name written in the book of life of the Lamb slain is the true connection with the world's founding, not that the Lamb was then slain. For the later scripture referring to the same truth omits "of the slain Lamb," but affirms the writing in the book of life from that time.

Nor is this all. "From" the world's founding is not of the same import as "before" it. Let us respect and learn from the very words of God. Those saints who are preserved from yielding to the Beast at the close of the age had their name written from the foundation of the world in the slain Lamb's book of life. With this we may compare the King's language to the blessed from all the nations, severed like sheep from the goats, to inherit the kingdom prepared for them "from" the world's foundation. But the phrase used in Eph. 1: 4 as in 1 Peter 1: 20 is pointedly different. As Christ was foreknown and loved by the Father (John 17: 24) "before" then, so did God choose in Christ us who now believe "before" the world's foundation, that we should be holy and unblemished before Him in love. It is easy for a Christian to understand Christ foreknown before time began; but how wondrous the grace that God chose us to such an association and for such a purpose! He was known before creation, as He had a glory in personal right above it; we by grace are objects of divine counsel which His work suite in order that we may enjoy all whore He is, and with Him.

Then the apostle carefully defines who they are that are thus blessed, though in no way confined to the believing remnant of Jews, "for your sake that through Him believe on God." The testimony of the gospel is quite unlimited. "Disciple all the Gentiles (or, nations)," said the Lord (Matt. 28: 15); "preach the gospel to all the creation" (Mark 16: 15); "that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations" (Luke 24: 47). Nor is He less explicit in the gospel of John: "for God so loved the world that He gave his Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have life eternal." Here as we have the result no less plainly unlimited as in the other Gospels, so does the Lord restrict life and salvation to those that believe the testimony of God.

There is a difference in the reading but not in the truth. Three MSS. (AB 9), supported by the Latin Vulgate, say "that are through him 'faithful'." The great weight of copies, uncial and cursive, with the ancient versions generally, support the usual text "that through him believe." Faithful often says more than believing, in no case less. The substance remains the same. Not a doubt can there be to a renewed mind that it is through Christ that we are faithful toward God. The question is, if this be intended here, where faith appears to be set before us, rather than the fidelity which springs from it. If so, it is a truth no less certain than interesting that through Christ we believe on God.

Men talk of rising "through nature up to nature's God." But how could this, even if true of any, avail for a fallen soul whose sins morally compelled the Creator to become a Judge? lend what could His providence, real and gracious and mighty as it is, do to cleanse the sinner from his guilt or to give him reconciliation with God and assurance of His love? The law again, righteous and holy and good as it is, could only aggravate his misery if his conscience rightly felt his evil state, and God's just and necessary displeasure with a creature, originally upright, but now so alienated, self-willed, and rebellious. No, it is the Lord Jesus Who alone could and did meet the otherwise insuperable difficulty. It was His to conciliate what without Him was irreconcilable on any ground of truth; but He only by His sacrificial death for our sins. In His cross divine love and light, grace and righteousness, majesty and mercy, unite to bless those who repent and believe the gospel. Thus only are loving-kindness and truth met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Hence then through Him we believe on God as the Saviour God, giving His beloved Son for our offences and raising Him again for our justification. It is not said here, as once to us when mere sinners, that through the Father's drawing one comes to Christ; but now we through Christ believe on God in the deep, intimate, and enduring way that is revealed to us as saints

No one hath seen God at any time: the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father — He declared Him. It is through Christ that we believe on God, as Light and Love, Saviour and source of all grace, Who sent Christ and drew us to Him, made us His children, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. But we must not forget that by receiving God's testimony the soul believes on Christ. "Verily, verily, I say to you, He that heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath life eternal" (John 5: 24). Christ being received makes God known more fully to faith, as in resurrection He could say, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God (John 20: 17).

Here it is intimated of those "that believe on God that raised him out of [the] dead, so that your faith and hope are (or, should be) in God." The resurrection of Christ from among the dead and the glory given to Him on high are God's mighty and distinct evidence that He is for the believer absolutely and for ever. If anything could have made this doubtful, it was our sins. But they were laid — yea, He laid on Christ (Isa. 53: 6) the iniquity of us all. Christ bore our sins in His own body on the tree. Where are they now? When He made purification of the sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Not one sin did God leave on the believer; not one did Christ carry into heaven; for what He thus did was the will of God; so that our faith and hope are in God. The teaching is thus far the same as in Rom. 4: 24, 25. We can no more doubt God for the future than for the past, as the apostle so triumphantly declares in Rom. 8. If God be for us (and this He has proved irrefutably to the utmost), who against?

The apostle had appealed to their conscious knowledge of redemption by that which is of all things most precious to God — the blood of Christ as of a lamb unblemished and spotless. And if it was eternally before God, however late in accomplishment, God's raising Christ from the dead had through Him so acted on them, that their faith and hope were in God. From Him they looked for all good, and nothing but good, henceforth and for ever. He has now further considerations of the greatest weight in urging the saints to mutual love; for this is only secondary to receiving Christ and the truth, without which is no love according to God's nature.

"Purified your souls as ye have in your obedience to the truth* unto brotherly affection unfeigned, love one another out of a pure* heart fervently" (vers. 22).

{*The most ancient and best MSS. do not read διὰ πνεύματος "through the Spirit," the Latins strangely giving charitatis "of love," instead of veritatis "the truth" which is certainly right. A few omit καθαρᾶς "pure."}

Thus the saints are authoritatively taught the true source of their purification. It is from God as certainly as it is to God. It is not ritual which could not purge the conscience, but in the fullest sense personal; it was not in their habits only, or even their thoughts and affections. They had purified "their souls," that is, their inner selves in all extent. For a man's soul is essentially the seat of his conscious individuality, of his will, of his responsibility to God. His inner capacity is in his "spirit," for or about which he is as responsible as for the things done through the body as the outer instrument; but his responsibility lies in the soul. Soul and spirit however are so closely joined, that but one of the two generally is named, as here. Only the one which is named in scripture, though not excluding the other, is always strictly correct and has its proper force. On the other hand men and in particular philosophers, as they shrink from facing their responsibility to God, constantly incline to count the "I" to be in the "spirit," of which they are proud, rather than in the "soul," awakening thoughts which they do not relish. What depths of sin and shame has not man's will led him into?

But those to whom the Epistle is addressed had no more hesitation in owning the truth as to themselves than the apostle had in crediting them with the grace in question. It is not a wish or a prayer that they should be purified, but rather is assumed as a settled fact, as surely as they were faithful. This is said in no levity, nor does it imply the least licence; save that they were still passing through a desert world, exposed to a sleepless enemy. Hence were they dependent on their unseen God and Father, as He is unfailingly faithful to such. But the call to love one another is manifestly grounded on the assurance that they had purified their souls already; which involves the responsibility of continual consistency with this state of purity, and of self-judgment in case of failure. It is the regular Christian standing, which may be varied in the form of expression; but it meets us substantially in every apostolic Epistle.

Hence our apostle averred the like grace for the believing Gentiles, when he pleaded the cause of their liberty against Pharisaic brethren who sought to put them under law: "And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving the Holy Spirit just as to us also, and made no difference between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith." As in Acts 15: 8, 9 "faith" is stated to be the subjective means, our scripture says yet more that it was by the Jews' "obeying the truth" objectively put before them. "Obedience to the truth" is but another and fuller way of expressing their faith. To have a solid and divine character there must be subjection to the truth.

Further, the purification of their souls is next shown to be "unto brotherly affection unfeigned." Before we have purified our souls, there is every thing not only to hinder such affection but to render it impossible. Sin, darkness, self, fleshly and worldly lusts, and under Satan's power make men more and more miserable, relieved only by pleasures as vain as the religious efforts of a bad conscience in lieu of happiness. How deep the ruin of the fall! God good and holy, whom man gave up and lost, was replaced by the liar and the murderer! Cain is the firstborn of Adam and Eve: what a witness of natural religion and of brotherly affection! Abel testifies to grace by faith. By birth we are like the one, by new birth our part is with the other. "By faith Abel offered to God a mere excellent sacrifice than Cain."

God justified us by faith, giving us redemption through the blood of Jesus. Not otherwise were our souls purged, and thereby are we fitted for brotherly affection, such as God looks for in Christians. In ordinary circumstances any other feeling would dishonour and in effect deny the relationship which grace has established for our present and mutual recognition. Scripture clearly lays down the exceptional cases, and how we ought then to behave; but we need not now say more about it. This is the Lord's new commandment. By this, said He, shall all know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love among one another.

So the Spirit guards against mere forms or words by qualifying the brotherly affection for which their souls were purified as "unfeigned." Pretence to a good that is not genuinely felt is hateful to God, and unworthy of His child. Hence the value of cherishing the sense of His presence to be kept from hypocrisy in this way as in every other. Let us never forget His marvellous light into which He carried us out of darkness. "know ye not," says the apostle Paul, "that ye are God's temple, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you"?

Hence the exhortation, which is not tautological as some have irreverently said, "Out of a pure heart love one another fervently," or intensely. It is a simple charge that the object in view may be earnestly heeded. God's love to us is the spring of all our blessing, and never did it flow out so freely and fully as when man's sin proved how utterly undeserving he was, and no less wretched and helpless. Then it was, and at the lowest point, when God turned his evil in rejecting and slaying Christ, His Son, to the proof of His own all-overcoming goodness in making Him Who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. In the faith of Him and His sacrifice have we purified our souls, hitherto steeped in defilement, unto unfeigned brotherly affection. Let us love then the objects of the same divine love, who rest on the same sin-cleansing sacrifice. No doubt they were called to be holy throughout their course, because He Who called them is holy; but they were bound to love their brethren, not for any reasons of their own or for reasons in others, but "out of a pure heart" and "fervently": had not God so felt and dealt with them? Even to heathen, when they believed in Christ, the apostle could write (1 Thess. 4: 9), "ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another."

Yet the purification of the believer's soul, effected as it is already, is not all that enforces brotherly affection unfeigned and fervent. Our new birth as saints has this love essentially in its nature, as surely as it is through God's word. So the passage proceeds: —

"Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through God's living and abiding word" (ver. 23).

It is not without intention that the participle of the active perfect is employed in ver. 22, and of the passive perfect in ver. 23. Rigid Calvinism seems hardly compatible with the former, nor rigid Arminianism with either. Revealed truth, large no less than exact, insists on both as a settled standing of grace; on which is based the call to be imitators of God as children beloved, and to walk in love, as the apostle of uncircumcision exhorts us. It is not that purification precedes the new birth as matter of fact; for to be born anew is the first vital dealing of grace with the soul, but purification attests it.

Evangelicalism is here utterly lame and short, if we may judge by the theological text-books, and such discourses as meet the public eye. Of course, one could not expect sound doctrine from Romanist divines; but those considered orthodox Protestants are on this scarcely better. Their idea is a change on man by the Spirit's action through the word of God on his faculties, which are no longer devoted to self and Satan but directed to His service. But this is rather descriptive of the effect than a statement of the operating cause or means under His hand. Scripture is abundant and clear that a life is given to the believer (and Christ is this life, as the old one is from Adam fallen), which acts through our faculties on objects revealed by God and far beyond those of natural life. Thus, as our Lord taught, one sees and enters the kingdom, not only by-and" by but now by faith; or as the apostle puts it, translated by the Father into the kingdom of the Son of His love.

In vain do unbelieving professors, or saints misled by tradition, decry this new order of being as mystic. For the life of which the saint partakes was comparatively hidden from O.T. believers; yet they had it in Him Who had not yet appeared, but was truly hoped for. Now since Christ came, this and much more is cleared up; and the believer is assured that he has it as a present thing, whatever be the added blessedness at His coming again when the body is swallowed up by the life which the soul has already in Christ. For indeed it is life eternal, and so declared even now; and woe to him who is emboldened by the enemy to deny it! For this is the soil out of which grow the fruits of the Spirit working on the inner man to the glory of Christ its source, a life even now quite as real and incomparably more blessed and momentous than the old Adamic life. Calvin is almost as vague as the rest; only Leighton here speaks as one taught of God as far as he goes.

We have then been begotten again, as not even the Jews were, whatever their boast of being Abraham's seed and of never being in bondage to any, at the very time when they were undeniably slaves to the Romans for their apostasy, and of their father the devil, in believing his lie against Him Who is the true God and the life eternal. But the believer has been begotten, "not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible," not of man or through man, but through God's living and abiding word. So the Lord declared to Nicodemus, Except one be born anew (i.e. of water and of Spirit), he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God (John 3: 37). That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is spirit. The flesh does not become spirit, any more than the spirit becomes flesh. The life given is of God, in Christ, and by the Spirit who employs the word here figured as often by "water." To bring in baptism here is not only foreign to the context, but opposed to all the scriptures which treat of the subject. James 1: 18 is as adverse as Paul (1 Cor. 4: 15), and John (John 15: 3) no less than the text of Peter before us. Very likely all the fathers who discuss it join in gross and superstitious error; and Calvin may have been the first of the theologians, as Hooker says, who rejected the error; but so much the greater is their shame. This truth is as sure as it is transparent.

What can be more apt for the apostle's purpose than the passage he cites from the prophet? In setting forth the blessedness of being born again, he makes it more felt by contrasting with it universal nature, and nature at its best.

"Because all flesh [is] as grass, and all its glory as a flower of grass. The grass withered and the flower fell away; but the word of [the] Lord (Jehovah) abideth for ever. And this is the word that as glad tidings was preached unto you (vers. 24, 25).

It is the twofold lesson of repentance and faith, which is thus appropriately attached to being born again. Hence, in comforting His people, it is not only the coming of a Deliverer that is in question, even if this Deliverer be Jehovah, but the necessity that the people should judge themselves in His sight. The voice of one crying in the wilderness needs the supplement of a second that cries so solemnly of fallen man, "all flesh is grass, and all its comeliness as the flower of the field." Israel had flattered itself that they were wholly different from other men. But a voice which flatters not must cry that it is not merely the Gentiles that perish, but "surely the people is grass." Where were the ten tribes? and why chased out of Immanuel's land? And where had Isaiah just announced to the king of David's house, that their treasures and their sons were to be carried away? Was it not to Babylon, the centre of graven images and enchantments and sorceries, because of Judah's persistent love of idols? Which of human kind so guilty as the favoured people, and its most favoured tribe?

Nor was this all. For the scattered remnant to whom the apostle wrote knew of another sin still more heinous, into which they had lately fallen though long predicted by the same prophet (Isa. 49 - 57) with its terrible issue in receiving "the king," the Anti-christ of the last days, as must surely be accomplished in its time. Yes, "all flesh is as grass, and all its glory as a flower of grass." Difference there is. Some are much fairer than others, refined, tender, generous, brave, affectionate, and religious after the flesh. There is not only the grass in general, but its flower. And men are apt to admire and even adore what is so pleasant to their eyes, their fancy, and their feelings. But nothing is right truly, where God has not His rights: and He as plainly judged man's sin, as He clearly presented the only hope for the sinner in the woman's Seed, the virgin's Son, Immanuel.

Hence to believe in Him, now come and dead and risen and ascended, is the only salvation; and nothing more truly causes the penitent soul unsparingly to own its natural ruin and its sins. For it is no light thing for man to sit in moral judgment on himself; and it is just what the Spirit of God works in him (not at first peace or liberty, far from either indeed, but) the deep sense, not only of what he has done but what he is before God as a sinful man. That the Son of God is come from God, and by Him sent, not to condemn but as a Saviour, encourages him to integrity in self-judgment. Without doubt it is deeply painful under the word and Spirit of God to be brought down in conscience of one's own evil in His sight into the dust of death; and the sight of Christ by faith by His very perfectness increases the self-loathing. How sweet then to have the testimony that the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from every sin! that He made peace by the blood of His cross! that He is not only the Living Bread, as come down out of heaven, but by His death gives us to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so that I dwell in Him, and He in me!

The Pauline teaching, of not only His death for us but of our death with Him, carries out the truth still more thoroughly; but even in its simpler form by our Epistle we are enabled to write death on all humanity, and forbear to boast of what seems fairest outwardly. Nor is it an idea or sentiment, but a reality personal and experimental for our everlasting profit henceforth, not only in distrusting ourselves, but in tenderness toward others, and in boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through Whom now we received the reconciliation.

The reason too is certain and extreme. All flesh is as grass, and all its glory as a flower of grass. In human nature, fallen as it surely is, there is no stability; its flower only and altogether evanescent. Withered the grass, fell away the flower. There can be no trust, no dependence on the creature. Are we then left to ourselves, our sins and our follies, just when we most evidently need the only true God, as good as He is great? Not so. We had no just claim; we shamelessly deserted Him when He showed us nothing but tender mercy; like Adam, we forgot His word and disobeyed Him, we believed the liar and the murderer, and hoped we might sin and not surely die. This was ruin now; and if this were all, it led to ruin everlasting. For sin breeds more sin; and such was and is the history of the race. But He spoke, even when judging the sin and sentencing the enemy, of One Who should vanquish him who wrought the mischief; and of the One to vanquish Satan, keenly suffering as the woman's Seed, in the infinite compassion of God for the ensnared. If human nature at its best is feeble and failing, man needs what abides; and so in contrast with that which fades away, "the word of the Lord (Jehovah) abideth for ever."

Here, in ver. 25, it is not λόγος as in ver. 23; for the latter is used to convey the meaning or mind of God, whereas ῥήμα is the expression, what was actually said or written. Compare the distinction which our Lord Himself draws between His "speech" (λαλιὰ) and His "word" in John 8: 43: they did not know His speech, because they were unable to hear His word. When the divine truth is received, the words that express it become understood, not before. Here ῥήμα, "word" goes beyond "speech" and is applied to Jehovah's message; which not only withered up self-dependence, but gave them His word immutable and abiding for ever. "And this is the word that as glad-tidings was preached unto you." What a spring of confidence to those that preach and to those that hear the gospel!

It is not only His abstract mind, but His meaning expressed fully and communicated indelibly in the scriptures. He would give His people solid assurance of the comfort He held out so emphatically to them, even before He set out by His prophet the twofold and tremendous indictment of their guilt. For, as in Isa. 40 - 48 He arraigns their idolatries which sent them captives to Babylon, so in Isa. 49 - 57. He predicts after the return the deeper guilt of rejecting the Righteous Servant, His Anointed, and receiving, as they surely will, the Antichrist, the wilful king of the latter day. But where sin abounded, grace shall surpass it all, as the rest of Isaiah triumphantly proves, and the elect remnant at the end of the age shall be His possession for ever; no longer bondmen but above bondage, yet all the more truly His servants, His Onesimi, once severed but now indissolubly joined, once unserviceable but now serviceable to Himself and a blessing to all the families of the earth according to unfailing promise.

But the apostle also shows that the remnant of Jews who now receive Christ anticipate, as do the faithful from among the nations, the blessing in the gospel already preached. They have before hoped in Christ, as the apostle Paul expresses it in Eph. 1: 12. If the mass are now blinded, if mercy shall prevail over every obstacle in the darkest days of the consummation of the age, neither these reasons nor any others hinder sovereign grace while Christ sits at the right hand of God. Those of the Jews who now receive the glad-tidings have their hope in Christ realised to the full, before the remnant becomes the strong nation of the new age. Such is the force of their pre-trusting in Him, while their brethren in the flesh refuse Him, and before the latter day bow to Him in faith. They are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. We are also those who from among the Gentiles have heard and believed the word of truth, the glad tidings of our salvation. For as there is no difference in the ruin, so there is none in the salvation according to the riches of God's grace.

Here too is implied the immense superiority of Christian blessedness over that of which the Jews so loudly boasted. They undoubtedly had privileges from Jehovah as the seed of Abraham: and they were born to them, if at least duly circumcised as they were, in witness of the uncleanness of the flesh. But their privileges were earthly, external, and temporal; and so it had been openly proved in O.T. times by the Babylonish captivity, as it was soon to be more overwhelmingly by the Roman scattering of much longer duration. Far different is the Christian's portion even now, and far brighter his hope. Hence in the Epistle to the Hebrews the emphasis on "eternal" or "everlasting." Such is the salvation (Heb. 5: 9) as is the judgment (Heb. 6: 2); such the redemption (Heb. 9: 12), the Spirit (ver. 14), and the inheritance (ver. 15), as the blood is of an "everlasting" covenant (Heb. 13: 20). To this, without referring to other proofs, may be added the "better" blessings, as in Heb. 7: 19, 22, Heb. 8: 6 (twice), Heb. 9: 23, Heb. 10: 34, Heb. 11: 16, 40.

Our apostle of the circumcision does not write so elaborately, but was led to base the greatness of God's gift to the believer on the being born again, of seed not corruptible but incorruptible through God's living and abiding word; a character and source of being quite above nature, in contrast with transitory flesh, even in Israel, and founded on His word spoken and written which expressly abides for ever. This is the very word that was preached unto them with all its glad news, that they might know that they had through it received a new nature as incorruptible and everlasting as His word Who communicated both. The fervour of his heart breaks out in the simple earnestness with which he speaks of a boon so needful and so blessed for man as he is. He would have his brethren know it theirs now without a shade of uncertainty.

We can readily understand that there was at least as great danger for the Jewish Christian, as for the Gentile to allow questions to arise in his heart in presence of snares and the world's unbelief. We find the apostle Paul recalling in 1 Cor. 15 the gospel which he preached to them, which they also received, wherein also they were standing, through also they were saved if they held fast the word which he preached the gospel to them, unless indeed they believed in vain. For they were doubting of the resurrection which is an essential truth of the gospel, Christ not only having died but being risen. So here the apostle Peter reminds his brethren of the ever abiding word in the gospel announced to them, the source of their new and imperishable life as believers.

1 Peter 2.

If the plague of leprosy were healed in the leper, however this might be (for it was beyond man), it was required that he should be pronounced clean by the blood of a bird slain over running water sprinkled on him, and a living bird dipped in it let go into the open field. Thereon he that was to be cleansed had to wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe himself in water. Only so should he be clean. So it is here. The believer knows, feels, and owns his own nature corrupt, withered, and fallen, as grass under the blast of Jehovah, but has a new nature given which is as incorruptible as its divine seed by His word living and abiding for ever. On this he is called to act.

"Putting away therefore all malice and all guile and hypocrisies and envyings and all evil-speakings, as new-born babes long for the guileless intelligent milk that by it ye may grow unto salvation, if indeed ye tasted that the Lord is good" (vers. 1-3).

It is well that the English reader or any other unacquainted with the original should bear in mind the force of the opening word; which means an act done once for all, as the aorist implies, the tense of what may be called factness, not of gradual process. Again, it is not in the active but the middle voice, which in transitive verbs refers back the action to the agent, giving the emphasis variously according to each word. We may compare James 1: 21: "Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, accept with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls." They are indeed exhortations of marked agreement, in substance of united practical aim, yet characteristic of each writer, and both of them distinct from the apostle Paul's way of dealing with the great principle of the case in Christ's death and our death with Him. They are equally given of God and equally needed by His children.

First, our apostle calls on the saints to have put away (if one may so phrase it) "all malice." That the word, though sometimes meaning "wickedness" in general, here refers to that special root of evil is evident from the other forms of iniquity with which it is joined. It appropriately begins the list as the opposite of love, the fervent love, which he had been enjoining on them as became brethren. Every kind of malice is unworthy of those bow again, born of God Who is love; for it may hide its spirit of hatred, and assume many a disguise to accomplish its nefarious ends. What a complete contrast with Christ, and how close the resemblance to his enemy the devil, whose occupation is to tempt, and to persecute, as well as to accuse!

Next, "guile" follows with no less moral truth, and "all guile" because of its manifold aim, and the desire with which men shun its discovery. For however much addicted to deceive others, they are inwardly ashamed of a habit so base. "Guile" naturally succeeds "malice" in order to do the man deadly mischief, and withal escape detection. It is the reverse of that transparent truthfulness to which we are called as representing Him Who is the truth, just as Satan is a liar and its father.

This opens the way for "hypocrisies," the pretences to be what we are not, and not to be what we are. Hypocrisy is opposed to sincerity, and is simply playing a part in that which is mere fable if it be not the most solemn of realities as well as the most precious. How awful to make the truth of God a game of man for a little while!

"Envyings" are the other side and in the next place. For as hypocrisy has its spring in claiming to have the good we lack, envy seeks to deny and defame the real good of others. God be praised that He fails not to work here and there in ways of love, devotedness, patient grace, zeal for the truth, delight in His glory, compassion for the wretched and the unworthy. There is ample scope for detraction among such as manifest no such qualities, and are vexed to find others credited with what is so excellent. Here the believer must beware lest he yield an ear to this evil spirit and get defiled by it.

Lastly, and fittingly therefore, comes the warning against "all evil speakings," for what a variety of shapes this wears! And how readily it cheats many a one under the plea of care for the Lord's honour and just censure of what is wrong? As "envyings" utterly misbecome those who are blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, so "all slanders" are a deep offence in His eyes and can but please the great adversary of souls. Let us set our face against both and avoid the very suspicion of either, but in fidelity to God.

Then we hear the positive exhortation: "as new-born babes long for the guileless (or, pure) intelligent milk, that by it ye may grow unto salvation." No one can doubt that it is the milk of the word that nourishes the believer. It was the word of God whereby he was born again; it is the same word whereby he is fed. There is no contrast here as in 1 Cor. 3 and in Heb. 5 between milk for the immature and solid food for the adult, blame being put on those who did not profit by the word, rising from elements to higher truths. Here the Spirit of God dwells on the suitability of the food provided for the babe when born; and all are encouraged to desire earnestly the pure nourishment which God supplies so liberally. It is milk for the saint's intelligence; as a mother's breast yields nourishment to her babe physically, so God's word is food to our spiritual understanding.

The general sense is quite plain. The only question is how to represent best the language of the apostle. That which in the A. V. is translated "of the word" occurs only in one other passage of the N.T., Rom. 12: 1; and there it is rendered "reasonable," as it is frequently employed by ordinary writers of the Greek tongue. "Intelligent" seems well to express its force in both texts, a better word than "rational." Why Beza who held this as to the text in the Epistle to the Romans changed it to "sermonis" (of the word) here does not appear, as he regarded them both as alike in sense. The Peschito Syriac has here "of the word"; the Harclean Syr. "rational," as both give "rational" in Rom. 12: 1. But it is hard to understand on what principle it can bear both meanings together.*

{*It is very conceivable that the Spirit of God may have warranted the sense "of the word" among the Christians; for in the nature of things this meaning could not have existed among heathen Greeks; yet if required, it is formed quite legitimately. In this way it would well apply to both passages; and I am disposed to believe it.}

This we may leave, as it is merely the delicate point of a rendering, where the substantial truth remains untouched. The call is of all moment. God puts the highest honour on His word, not only for its quickening power in the hand of His Spirit, but for the constant refreshment and strengthening of the new nature that He imparts.

To put baptism in place of the one, or the Lord's Supper in place of the other, is a daring departure from what is here clearly revealed. The aim of those precious institutions is, one for initiatory confession, the other for the constant communion of the saints. But to turn baptism into the means of being born of God is to falsify the truth, to contradict scripture, and to efface the nature of Christianity. "Ye are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you," says the Lord in John 15: 3. "In Christ Jesus I begot you through the gospel," says the apostle in 1 Cor. 4: 15 — the same Epistle in which he thanks God that he baptised none of them save a few individuals! So James tells us (James 1: 12) that the Father "of his own will begot us by the word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of his creatures." We have no earthly mother, more than the Lord had an earthly father save legally.

The sacramental system sins against the Trinity in usurping the divine prerogative. Nor does our apostle differ from the rest (1 Peter 3: 20). Baptism signifies not life-giving but Christ's death unto which we were baptised; and His death as not only salvation to those that believe, but the privilege of being identified with His death. Thus died we to sin and no longer live in it. Nor is it by the Eucharist, blessed as it is, that the new life is sustained but in Him Who died for us to Whom the Eucharist points. It is of Him coming down from heaven, the Incarnate Word, of Him dying and giving life to the world, and ascending where He was before, that John 6 speaks, in no way of His Supper. Peter does not go beyond salvation's sign in baptism.

The teaching here is that as through the word of God, not baptism, we have been born again, so by it, not the Lord's Supper, we "grow unto salvation." To be born again on the one hand is as strictly individual as growth is. Each has to do with God directly in believing and profiting by His word, whoever or whatever may be the channel. Without faith neither can be; and the essence is that one receives the testimony immediately on God's own word for one's own soul. Hence "he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself"; whereas "he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he believeth not the witness which God hath witnessed concerning His Son" (1 John 5: 10). On the other hand in the Lord's Supper it is a question of communion when individual want has been settled between the soul and God; and we are there together to enjoy His grace and presence. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not communion of the body of Christ? Because we, the many, are one loaf, one body; for we all partake of the one loaf" (1 Cor. 10: 16, 17).

But a strange omission has prevailed since the Complutensian Edition and that of Erasmus, followed by Beza, Stephens, the Elzevirs, and Mill, to say nothing of others. Colinaeus (1534) is the only one of the early editors who adheres to the great body of the oldest and best MSS., versions, and Patristic quotations, and reads (εἰς σωτηρίαν). It may have been dropped either as a supposed scholiastic addition or by those jealous of trenching on sovereign grace toward sinners. But here it is a question of saints growing in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the terms of the Second Epistle (2 Peter 3: 18). Certain it is that any difficulty, in receiving the words so fully attested, is solely due to ignorance of our apostle's doctrine. For though he does speak of "salvation of souls" (1 Peter 1: 9) as a present privilege, and symbolised in baptism (1 Peter 3: 21), he still more frequently regards salvation as a complete whole for body as well as soul, and therefore to be revealed in the last time, even in the revelation of our Lord for whom we wait. Compare 1 Peter 1: 5, 7, 13, 1 Peter 4: 13.

Verse 3 furnishes a weighty proviso: "if indeed ye tasted that the Lord is good." It is a reference evidently to Ps. 34 (33) 8 where there is a most touching call from the inspired writer that others might share his joy in Jehovah. "O taste and see that Jehovah is good; blessed is the man that trusteth in Him." Here it is to the Christian so much the sweeter, in that the apostle identifies the Lord Jesus with Jehovah, as it is the truth. To have proved it for and in our inmost soul is the condition of growth in the word; but it is a condition that is assuredly verified in all who believe on Him. Yes, they can and do say in their hearts, that the Lord is good. They have tasted it in the word all through.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ begot us again unto a living hope according to His abundant mercy, through (not the incarnation, but) resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was not, as the Jews expected, unto an inheritance of earthly glory, ease, and power superior to all disasters and adversaries, the kingdom as it is to be, but unto an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and unfading, reserved in the heavens for those who are guarded by God's power for salvation ready to be revealed. All intrinsically has been accomplished, at a last fit time, wherein they exult, for a little at present (if there is need) put to grief by varied trials to the proving of their faith. After mention of redemption by the Lamb's blood and its practical end, the apostle refers to our being born again of incorruptible seed through God's living and abiding word, and that new nature nourished on the guileless or pure milk of the word unto salvation. All is in contrast with the law at Sinai lightening against disobedience and transgression, but powerless to give either life or righteousness, the indispensable wants of sinful man. But grace has already supplied both abundantly in Christ, and hence, to the faith that receives Him for whom we wait, for salvation to the full, having tasted already how good He is, and so anticipated Psalms and Prophets that proclaim it for a future day.

Now we enter on privileges already conferred, represented by figures singularly interesting to the Jewish mind and its associations of honour and reverence. For, speaking of the Lord, the apostle says "Unto whom approaching, a living stone, by men indeed rejected but with God chosen, precious,* yourselves also as living stones are being builded up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (vers. 4, 5).

{*One might have rendered ἔντιμον prized, or held in honour, to distinguish it from τίμιον, but for τιμὴ in ver. 7 which inclines me to "precious."}

However sure and enduring may be the counsels of grace, God allows no reasoning to weaken the need and the value and the duty of constant dependence on the Lord. So He Himself said, "Verily, verily, I say to you, Unless ye ate the flesh and drank the blood of the Son of man, ye have no life in yourselves." It is truly an act by faith once for all; but where real, a continual participation follows. Hence He adds, "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." It is not life eternal only, but communion as a constant thing: so the Christian abides in Christ and Christ abides in him. To pretend that once to have eaten and drank supersedes always eating and drinking proves its unreality, its selfishness also, and its contrariety to God.

So here it is said, "Unto whom approaching": from the time of approach it is real and full of blessing. Assuredly a soul is not left free and assured, if one go back and walk no more with Him, as some of His disciples did, of whom John 6 tells us. Christ is the centre and touchstone and foundation of Christianity. Those who left Him were fruitless branches of the Vine. The apostle hoped better things and akin to salvation of those who abode (Heb. 6: 9). The converse is written later that "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have abode with us, but that they might be made manifest that none are of us" (1 John 2: 19).

Christ is then called "a living stone, rejected indeed by men but with God chosen, precious." "Living" is a word near to Peter's heart, since so he was enabled to confess Christ, "the Son of the living God," and heard himself for it pronounced "blessed" by his Master. "The Christ" or Messiah was indeed truly given of God; but this truth does not raise above the earth over which He will reign from Zion His centre in Israel. When the Jews were denying Jesus, as they still do, to confess Him as the Messiah was to be born of God. But the Son of God, as revealed in the Gospel of John, is often far more; and "the Son of the living God" gives strong emphasis to our Lord as the conqueror of him that has the power of death. Hence the person of the Lord thus revealed is the rock on which He would build His church, now that the Jews, not the fickle crowd only but the chief priests and elders and scribes, were rejecting Him, and would consign Him even to the death of the cross.

The new building of God was to rise when the chosen nation publicly and finally, as far as their responsibility went, forfeited all for the time; a heavenly work and witness displaced the former earthly one. And the new one, here peculiarly called "My church," He declares superior to "the gates of Hades," which is more than death. As resurrection was to mark Him out Son of God in power, to begin the new as First-born, not of all creation only but from out of the dead, so was that which Christ builds beyond Satan's power to destroy. Thus is its distinctness made plain and certain from that which man builds, which was to be corrupted and the object of divine judgment more irreparably than Israel, as shown through the N.T. from Matt. 13, 2 Thess. 2, 2 Peter and Jude to Rev. 17. For it is revealed that the apostasy shall come before the day of the Lord; and there is no restoration for Christendom, as there will be for Israel thenceforth and for ever.

Meanwhile if Israel do not yet own Him as their Shepherd and their Stone, this He is, and a Living Stone as the apostle of the circumcision here designates Him to those who come unto Him. Shall the unbelief of the mass of Jews make of none effect the faith of God? Far be it: the remnant who believe are all the more blessed. He, a living Stone, imparts His own virtue to those who come. Did men, did the builders in Jerusalem, vent their contemptuous rejection of Him Who came into the world, not to reign, but to bear witness to the truth, to bring God into it and to put sin out of it, and thus met hatred as none ever had, and on the cross wrought atonement? What was He ever, and then especially, with God? Was He not His choice One? His servant, whom He upholds, though forsaken even by God as none ever was, yet so He must be if made sin for us. Yes, He is Jehovah's chosen, in whom His soul delights; and as He put His Spirit upon Him, so Jesus shall bring forth judgment to the nations; He shall not cry, nor lift up His voice, nor cause it to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall He not break, and the smoking flax shall He not quench; He shall bring forth judgment in truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till He have set judgment in the earth; and the isles shall wait for His law (Isaiah 52). Here however it is by the way; for the Spirit of God is occupied with a very different servant, deaf and blind, ensnared by the idols of the heathen with all the ruinous consequences, instead of being true witnesses, like Him of His choice, Who becomes from Isa. 49 the great topic for His rejection with its blessed results; that in the end Israel may really become His servants to the joy and blessing of all the earth.

But the apostle writes in the gap of Christ's rejection, before the day of blessing and glory dawns on Israel, the land, and all the nations; and he shows us Christ, dead, risen, and ascended, the object of God's delight, and the hinge of all that is good for the believer now. He is a living Stone, rejected indeed by men, but with God chosen, prized. So he preached at Pentecost: Him given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye through hand of lawless men did crucify and slay, Whom God raised up. . . Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God made Him, this Jesus Whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ. And as Peter received a new name from the Rock which Christ alone was, so the saints who believe acquire a new nature from what He is, as he here tells us; "yourselves also as living stones are being builded up a spiritual house."

In nature no object lies more obviously void of life than a stone. But this only makes the power of grace the more impressive. Even John the Baptist could tell the haughty Pharisees and Sadducees, who pleaded their descent from Abraham, that God was able of the stones to raise up children to Abraham. Here the apostle predicates of the believing remnant that they themselves as living stones were being builded up for God's use and to His praise. But it was all through the One, even our Lord Jesus. He does not develop the unity of the Spirit like the apostle of the uncircumcision; but he not obscurely hints at the association of the saints. They are being formed into a spiritual house.

It was no longer a question of the mountain consecrated by Samaritan pride, nor yet of Jerusalem and the house where the Jews said one must worship if one worshipped at all. That hour in principle passed away with the cross of Christ, as the Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrated at a later day. The only temple God owns is the church as a whole, unless it be individually the temple of a Christian's body; for the Holy Ghost by His indwelling so constitutes both (1 Cor. 3: 16; 1 Cor. 6: 19). Here the language is less full and precise. The general import sufficed for the purpose in hand. They composed, as being living stones, a spiritual house. Assuredly such and so near a relationship to God was a high honour put upon them even now when passing through the world; and we shall find that it entails corresponding duties on all so invested.

This he follows up by another title of honour and living nearness to God, "a holy priesthood." Nor does the Holy Spirit now recognise any other priesthood as accredited by God. The entire Jewish religious system came to its end with Christ's death: temple, sacrifice, rite, and priesthood. Heathenism was an imposture, Satan's evil imitation or delusive substitute. Christ is not entered into holy places made with hand, answering to the true, but into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God for us. As He according to scripture is the sole and great High Priest, become higher than the heavens and seated on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, the sole priestly house (the same scripture acknowledges) consists of all the saints of God. They are alike washed, sanctified, justified. They had and have also access by faith into the favour of God "in which we stand." In Christ Jesus they were become nigh by the blood of Christ. Whatever the distance between Jew and Gentile, and between God and both, we out of them both who believe have through Christ the access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Though nearness to God is the most precious and essential mark of a priest, the proof is not merely the principle furnished in the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians just referred to. In our text the apostle Peter explicitly characterises the Christians only as the "holy priesthood" which the N.T. owns. The apostle John speaks to the same effect in Rev. 1: 6; and the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the fullest treatment of the necessity arising out of the priesthood changed in Christ, from first to last treats Christian brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, as the true and present analogue to the family of Aaron. Early in it we read that Christ is Son over God's house; Whose house are we (Heb. 3: 6). Later (Heb. 10: 19) we read again, "Having therefore, brethren boldness to enter into the holy [places] by the blood of Jesus, a new and living way which he dedicated for us through the veil, that is his flesh, and [having] a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and having our body washed with pure water."

Here the privilege attributed to all saints is greater than any son of Aaron ever enjoyed, or even Aaron himself; for it applies to all times, and with a boldness he never knew. Faith is entitled thus to approach where Christ is now through the rent veil in virtue of His blood and the Spirit who makes its efficacy good to our conscience and heart, as our settled status. Hence as we read in our text "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ," the functions are open to us and binding on us, far beyond using oxen, sheep, goats, cakes, or incense. And this we find confirmed in Heb. 13: 15: Through Him therefore let us offer up sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, fruit of lips confessing to His name. The proof of our priestly place is remarkably complete. Hence it follows that the caste of a priesthood now on earth on behalf of the Christian saints, and separate from them, is an imposture not only unsupported by scripture, but wholly opposed to its plain and ample testimony. Nay more, it is subversive of the being and nature of the church, and incompatible even with the fundamental character of the gospel, and of christian standing.

The holy building, of which the apostle had just spoken, consists of living stones which derived so striking a peculiarity from the Living Stone. This, familiar in general to those who knew the Bible, he proceeds to base on a prophecy repeatedly cited in the N.T.

"Because it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him (or, it) shall in no way be shamed. To you therefore that believe [is] the preciousness; but to disobedient [ones] a stone which the builders rejected, this became head of corner, and stone of stumbling, and rock of offence; stumbling as they do at the word, being disobedient, unto which also they were appointed" (vers. 6-8).

Isaiah 28 turns from "the drunkards of Ephraim" and their judgment to the still more terrible stroke which must fall on the guilty "scornful" rulers in Jerusalem. For these, to escape the overflowing scourge of the king of the north, or the Assyrian, will have made a covenant with Death and with Sheol are at agreement. But lies shall prove no refuge, nor falsehood hide them. For Jehovah who is to rise up, after the fashion of the overwhelming victories He gave David of old, will do His strange work, only on an unexampled scale — a consummation and that determined upon the whole earth. Thus the wilful king within and his covenant shall come to nought with the apostates of the people; and no less the king of the north without and the multitude of the besieging foes, as Isa. 29 adds. But in the face of this unparalleled tribulation, of which all that has befallen the people is but an earnest, the prophet declares from the Lord Jehovah, that He lays in Zion for a foundation a Stone, a tried Stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. For that day will prove the downfall, final and irretrievable, of all the powers of the world, west or east, as well as of the unbelieving mass of the Jews, when the godly remnant that trust in Immanuel are for ever vindicated. Then shall He Whose name is Branch grow up from His own place, and He shall build the temple of Jehovah; even He shall build the temple of Jehovah; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne, which no Son of David ever was save in a small typical degree, but He who is also the Root of David.

Here it is not the temple of glory as by-and-by, but a spiritual house, and a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices during the day of Christ's rejection by Israel. But do the believing Jews forfeit all because the mass reject Him? Far from it. They enter into the enjoyment of the promises, as far as these were compatible with the present ways of God; and if there be not the reception of all, God has provided some "better thing" for or respecting us, as another points out (Heb. 11: 39-40). They have in measure the blessedness of believing without having seen, when the prophecy is, not merely applied, but fulfilled to the letter. The trust in Christ which refused idolatry, antichrist, and the seemingly overwhelming power of the world, will surely be blessed, though objects of mere mercy at the end, if they have not the power of faith breaking through every obstacle in peace as ought to be now through the word.

It is interesting to note that the apostle Paul, in Rom. 9: 30-33, seizes this portion with the aim of explaining how Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, failed; while Gentiles, that did not pursue it, yet attained it. The latter believed, and thus gave glory to God; the former clung to works, though far from what the law demanded, and thus betrayed their own vain self-righteousness, as they also stumbled at the stumbling-stone, despising their own Messiah. For the law is not of faith, whereas the blessing is, and thus open to the Gentile that believes, not to the Jew that disbelieves.

Moreover the introduction of Zion is seen to have a notable meaning. For, as thus figuratively used, it expresses the mountain of God's grace in contrast with Sinai, the mountain of the people's responsibility under law, where all was failure, not because the law was not good, but because man is bad and so ruined that he cannot do without a Saviour. Zion appears after the utter breakdown of the kingdom under Saul, man's choice; for it was only wrested from the Jebusites to be the city of David, God's choice. But a greater than David is here, the Christ, Whom Jehovah lays as a cornerstone, elect, precious, beyond all comparison. Ho that believes on Him shall in no wise be put to shame; as all must be who trust in an arm of flesh, most of all those of Israel who despised Him to whom law and prophets ever pointed. For the world-kingdom Jehovah has anointed His King upon Zion, the hill of His holiness; and Christ, not now but in that day, will ask and have the nations for His inheritance, and the ends of the earth for His possession, breaking all that oppose with iron sceptre, as the vessels of a potter are dashed in pieces. "For Jehovah hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His dwelling: this is my rest for ever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it." The key to all this, is that Zion will be the earthly seat of His anointed, His beloved Son.

But Zion and the earth vanish for the present as the centre and the sphere of the divine dealings. For the rejected Christ is in heaven at God's right hand, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him; and as He suffered for us in flesh, the Jews that believe are called to arm themselves with the same mind, no less than the Gentile saints and not to count as strange the fire-kindling among them that comes to them for trial, but, as we share in Christ's sufferings, to rejoice that at the revelation of His glory also we may rejoice exultingly. Such is the genuine Christian lot for the present, put to grief by varied trials that the proof of our faith, more precious than gold that perishes though proved by fire, be found unto praise and glory and honour in that day.

Assuredly the precious value of Christ will be manifest then. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they understand. And nations shall come to Zion's light and King, to the brightness of its rising. Yet how infinite the mercy now, that the chosen people's ruin (not only under law but worse still in rejecting the Messiah and the gospel too) did not hinder the believing remnant from anticipating the blessing in its Christian form and fulness! All turns on Christ dead and risen and on high. "To you therefore that believe is the preciousness." His rejection was the occasion of making good to God's glory all that was promised, and a vast deal more which it was given to the apostle Paul to communicate. But even here how rich is the grace that is unfolded! If they could not but sorrow over their unbelieving brethren after the flesh, in what had grace come short to him that believed?

Now they understood the import of many a scripture hitherto obscure through unreadiness to think that the rulers and the people of the Jews could be so hard and dark and rebellious against Jehovah. Not only did they overlook the solemn warnings of His word in their hands or hearing, but they fulfilled the voices of the prophets by condemning His righteous servant, marked out by those divine oracles, and by wonders of divine power and goodness, only surpassed by His personal glory and by moral excellence on every side without a parallel.

Take a sample. Isa. 53 was no enigma to them any longer; on the contrary it afforded the most luminous explanation of what had come before them in facts as certain as important. "Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of Jehovah been revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor lordliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hide their face; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our sicknesses and carried our sorrows: yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all."

Now the Jews are profoundly unbelieving, not only as all natural men but judicially blinded, because it was in the face of the fullest evidence and of long-suffering withal to the uttermost. But their self-judgment will come at length in the day of Messiah's power and their national deliverance. Then shall they see and confess it all, as other scriptures attest; and they will understand that Jehovah wrought atonement for all their sins by what was their destructive and inexcusable sin. Into this work, already in itself accomplished, the believing remnant enters now in all its value, like ourselves from among the Gentiles. But as yet the mass are insensible. "To you therefore that believe is the preciousness, but to disobedient a stone which the builders rejected, this became head of corner, and stone of stumbling, and rock of offence." How evident the solution of the riddle! and how could it be otherwise if Jesus be the Christ and Son of God? Ps. 118: 22 and Isa. 8: 14 are as clearly fulfilled as the fuller prediction. While we have to wait for the earthly triumph when Israel shall own it all, Jesus is made head of the corner in heaven, and those who now believe, Jews or Gentiles, enjoy the blessing by faith. This too has even now more excellence for the heart than the visible glory when it appears as it surely will, to say nothing of the heavenly glory which will also be displayed above the world in that day.

The present state of the Jews exactly answers to the dark background of the picture. And the words which follow are as solemn morally as they are sure in fact: "stumbling as they do at the word, being disobedient, unto which also they were appointed." There is neither here nor anywhere else the dogmatic reprobation of the Calvinistic school; which has no more to justify it from scripture than the opposite error of the power for good of the Pelagians. All the evil is man's; as the good is exclusively of God's grace. He never made man to be a sinner, nor does He take pleasure in a sinner's death, still less in his everlasting destruction. But He is supreme; and, bold as man may be in wilful disobedience, God's will stands. He presents His grace and truth in Christ; and men stumble at the word which reveals Him. To this they were appointed, not to be disobedient, but, being so, to stumble in this way, which God had in His wisdom appointed as their trial. They refuse and contemn the word; which others, by grace self-judging and believing Him, receive to their salvation, peace, and joy. Compare Jude 4.

Nor is it only that Christians now are a spiritual house, a holy priesthood; and this not as a mere title, but they offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. They stand in the fullest contrast with such as stumble at the word, the disobedient. The roll of blessed privilege is unfolded here thus far.

"But ye [emphatically, are] a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for a possession, that ye might set out the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness unto his marvellous light; who once [were] no people but now God's people, the unpitied, but now pitied" (vers. 9, 10).

It is true that as "a holy priesthood," the exercise of the heart by faith is toward the God who brought us to Himself by His grace in Christ, and could righteously bring us thus near by His blood. We hence approach within, and offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. What the sons of Aaron did in the sanctuary after a material sort, which derived all its value from being a shadow of Christ and His acceptance to God as a perfect and constant odour of rest, the saints are now exhorted to do. As the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, "By Him therefore let us offer sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, fruit of lips confessing to His name." Can any privilege be higher or more intimate than to be in His presence, walking in the light as He is, delivered from the egotism which breaks out into the variance of separate will, and cleansed by the blood which effaces every sin? to adore the Father, the only true God? to pour forth our thanksgivings for all the grace that has reached even to us? to praise Him, in spirit with all saints, for all that He is and has done, and given us to receive and know?

Christ is the ground and substance of it all, and hence without cloud or change, and the Holy Spirit given, that a divine power and character might be in vessels though still earthly. This is a wondrous assimilation to the everlasting worship which shall be in heaven and throughout eternity; but we own it now and are invited to it now, not as a title merely but as a joyful occupation, especially as gathered to His name. It will be perfectly without alloy in the day of glory to which we look on; but it does become us to abound in it here, seeing that the light and the love and the known accomplishment of that work which secures the blessedness of all to God's glory are already ours, and Christ is revealed to us in that glory as the fullest witness and pledge that it is ours.

Never should we confound worship with the ministry of the word. Precious as this is, it is but the means of conveying to us the truth, which received by the Spirit fits us for the praise and adoration of our God. It is rather the service of the Levite than the approach and the offering of the priest. But no communication of blessing from God to our faith, however essential as the basis, has the same nature, character, and effect as worship; for this is the return of the heart, when made free of His presence and strengthened by His Spirit, to present our thanksgivings and praises in the communion of all saints, acceptable to God through the Saviour.

Yet it is not all. The believers are also viewed on another side. They, and they only, are "a chosen race," at the very time when the elect nation had proved itself more than ever guilty to its own ruin. Now to a remnant of the Jews is this word primarily addressed; not as if it were not true of all who believe, but that those might be comforted who were saved from that perverse generation, over which a fresh judgment was suspended, about to scatter them once more, and more than ever. If Israel's place was for the time forfeited, the believing remnant get the blessing and are pronounced "a chosen race." The distinction in Christianity acquired a higher character and more personal.

Nest, they were "a royal priesthood" (which the Aaronic was not), but rather after the pattern of Melchizedek in its display of the blessing. In the day that is coming He will exercise that priesthood, sitting as Priest upon His throne, instead of bearing us up as He now does within the veil. Meanwhile those who are His are even now said to be a royal priesthood to manifest His praises before the day of His power. It is not of course preaching the gospel to the lost that they might be saved, but telling out His virtues or excellencies, as our testimony to Him who alone is worthy and exalted of God in the highest.

Then again they are "a holy nation," when the nation, who ought to have been so, stood with the stamp on it of evil to the uttermost, not of idolatry alone but of disdaining the Holy One of God, the Messiah. Had they not cried in their blind and mad hatred, His blood be on us and on our children? The remnant, on the contrary, who owned Him and were washed from their sins in His blood, were now "a holy nation" accepted in His name.

Finally they were "a people for a possession." If God was morally bound to discard at length the people who were always resisting the Holy Spirit, as their fathers had done, those of them who believed on Christ became "a people for a possession." They were the more dear, because their faith broke through the manifold hindrances by which unbelief, pride, and judicial darkness encompassed the Jewish nation. Few as they were, compared with the mass hurrying on to destruction, they were "a people for a possession" to God, that they "might tell out the excellencies of him that called them out of darkness unto his marvellous light."

Such is the Christian position here below. By-and-by Israel shall have the place in power and glory before all the nations, where the blind people see and the deaf people hear in the rejected Messiah the Lord Jehovah, the only Saviour. Then will it be plain that "this people have I found for myself; they shall show forth my praise." And men shall know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides Him, who is Jehovah, and none else; and the heavens from above and the skies shall pour down righteousness, and the earth shall open and bring forth salvation, and righteousness shall spring up together. But even now, while the rejected Christ sits on the Father's throne, and the Spirit is sent forth to glorify Him after a spiritual sort in a world of darkness and rebellion against God, those who confess Christ are to tell out His excellencies. And well they may: seeing that He called them out of darkness unto His marvellous light. If these should hold their peace, as He said, the stones would immediately cry out. They were once as dark as any. So were all who now believe, darkness itself as the apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians, but now light in the Lord. And truly the light is wonderful unto which He called us, Himself the genuine light which never deceives nor grows dim. Though it has not yet arisen to shine on Zion, as it will surely come, it has shone in our hearts who believe, the light of the knowledge of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ. Now it is only from heaven and for heaven, as we wait for Him. But He will return and appear in manifest and indisputable light for Zion and repentant Israel; and the earth, which darkness still covers, shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah and of His glory as the waters cover the sea.

Meanwhile those He called out of the Jews are consoled by the assurance that in Christ all that can be theirs, consistently with walking now by faith and not by sight, is their assured portion. The failure of the ground (their own obedience), taken in Ex. 19: 5, 6, Ex. 24: 3-7, does not compromise those who believe. Christ suffering for their disobedience established what could not fall. Their faith rests on Him, not on themselves; whosoever believeth on Him shall not be confounded; and they did believe on Him who secures all for the weakest that is His. Hence they anticipate Hosea 2: 23 before it can be verified to Israel, as ver. 10 clearly proves. They are warranted to appropriate now the prophet's words. It is due to Christ whom God delights to honour. But it is full of interest and instruction to apprehend that Paul, writing to both Jews and Gentiles that believed, quotes Hosea 1: 10 no less than 2: 23; whereas Peter, writing to the believing Jews of the dispersion, does not go beyond the latter. Each inspired writer was perfectly guided of God for the divine aim in view. This Wiesinger totally failed to discern, and Alford, who endorses his error, confuses the two truths, and thus destroys a distinction of all moment for spiritual intelligence. The once "no people" were now God's people; the unpitied as to their settled state, which the perfect implies, were now pitied. How truly great His mercy now! And it is good and wholesome for the soul to feel habitually that it needs nothing less in the day of temptation in the wilderness. So the apostle Paul reminds the believing Hebrews in the close of 1 Peter 4. Indeed it is what the priesthood of Jesus constantly implies. All saints should cherish His sympathy and God's mercy throughout our earthly path.

The exhortation at the beginning of the chapter is founded on being born again of incorruptible seed through God's living and abiding word. Therefore were they, and all other Christians of course, to lay aside all malice and all guile and their accompaniments or effects, and to desire earnestly the pure milk of the word, that thereby they might grow to the salvation of glory ready to be revealed. Here it is another exhortation no less general and necessary, based on those high privileges of priesthood, holy and kingly, which distinguish the Christian already, though to be displayed in glory by-and-by, as declared in Rev. 1, 4, 5, 20. What Israel lost in rejecting the Christ was theirs, only in a more eminent degree and with even a far higher sphere in God's sovereign grace. This leads the apostle to press corresponding probity.

"Beloved, I exhort [you]* as strangers and sojourners to abstain* from the fleshly lusts such as** war against the soul, having your behaviour comely among the Gentiles; that in what they speak against you as evil-doers, they, as observing,*** may from your comely works glorify God in [the] day of visitation" (vers. 11,12).

{*It is not that "you" (ὑμᾶς) is expressed, as Lachmann ventured to do on the erroneous impression that the Rescript of Paris so roads, It is implied at most. But that MS. and many more, uncial and cursive do read the verb in the imperative.}

{**Here it is not αἳ but αἵτινες as I attempt to express.}

{***Not the aor. part. as in many good MSS., but the present.}

For the first time the apostle addresses these saints as "beloved," for there is no ground for adding "clearly" though it be common enough with the A.V. It should be here, as the word is rendered in 1 Peter 4: 12; and in the Second Epistle, 2 Peter 1: 17, 2 Peter 3: 1, 8, 14, 15, 17. The endearing term is as appropriate to this entreaty against carnal desires, as farther on against quailing under fiery trial. On either side danger lay; and the respective exhortations came from his heart to theirs.

But he appeals to them also as "strangers (or, pilgrims) and sojourners," not in the more literal sense of 1 Peter 1: 1, but in the deeper and more spiritual view of 1 Peter 1: 17. If grace called them to heaven, what had they to do with the objects and pursuits and interests of the earth? They were waiting for the revelation of the Lord Jesus in glory, called to be holy in all manner of behaviour, as is He who called them, and while free to invoke Him as Father who judges impartially according to the work of each, bound to pass their time of pilgrimage in fear, yet in a fear not of distrust but of confidence; for it is based on the conscious knowledge of divine grace in their redemption at infinite cost and worth. Here he had been telling them of their invaluable nearness and dignity before God when Israel for the present had manifestly lost all. It was their blessing as Christians, not their calamity as Jews, which called them to walk through the wilderness world as pilgrims and sojourners. These too give the greater force to their present estate of strangers, that they abstain from fleshly desires such as war against the soul. Even what is lawful must be used with measure in God's sight.

How striking is the different way in which grace uses spiritual privilege as here, and the sanctioned principle, as well as ambition, of the world-church! Babylon is now clothed in purple and scarlet, bedecked with gold and precious stones and pearls, with a gold cup in her hand full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication, mystery written on her forehead, and withal drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. Present exaltation on earth, universal power and visible glory, the grossest idolatry, the most wanton and corrupt betrayal of holy separateness to Christ, and the murderous hatred of God's saints and of the witnesses of Jesus: such are her horrible, indelible, and unmistakable features to all taught of God.

What a contrast was even the first hankering after outward honour and authority with our Lord's warning to the twelve! "Ye know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not thus shall it be among you; but whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant; and whosoever would become first among you shall be your bondman; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20: 25-28). From the beginning of His ministry our Lord had laid down for such as heard Him that they are to love their enemies, to do good to those that hate them, to bless those that curse them, to pray for those that despitefully use them. So teaches Peter in this very Epistle, and so he lived: blessed, if we suffer for righteousness' sake, and if we share in Christ's suffering, we rejoice now, that in the revelation of His glory also we may rejoice with exultation. The Catholic system, long before the world-dominion of Popery prevailed, was but the mystery of lawlessness developed; flesh rampant in and after the world to Satan's delight, as far from Christ known by the Holy Spirit as a theatre or circus is from heaven. But greater abominations than these were to come, till the signal and final judgment which slumbers not, when strong is the Lord God who will then surely judge Babylon for ever.

According to the mind of Christ the high privileges of faith were but to strengthen the believer's delight in God and vigilance as "strangers and sojourners" in holding aloof from the fleshly lusts such as war against the soul. It is not now the unamiable and bitter feelings of fallen man, as in ver. 1, but the self-indulgent and licentious. How often through lack of prayer and watchfulness fleshly lusts spring from sincere esteem and pure affection unawares gliding into carnality; as the Galatians' fall from grace was from going on to perfect in flesh what they had begun in Spirit! How readily little fond familiarities follow by degrees, in the intimacy of Christian love ripening into unhallowed freedom, if not the worst evil. So might lust take other direction and form, as covetousness or any other indulgence alien from Christ. These fleshly desires, many of which men praise as doing well to self, war against the soul and are an abomination in God's sight. How contrary to the new and eternal life we have in Christ, and inconsistent with God's wonderful light in which we walk! How mischievous and debasing to the Christian! They grieve the Holy Spirit, dishonour Christ, and fight against the soul.

Hence the call is to have their behaviour comely (καλὴν) among the Gentiles. For there were these Christian Jews interspersed. Though the spring of conduct is the faith that looks to and calls on the Father, it is also an obligation to win the unbelieving and unfriendly by practical consistency with Christ, without affording occasion to those that seek it. For men of the world suspect the motives and the ways of the faithful, yet have a strong if not intelligent sense of their responsibilities, and are ever on the watch for their halting and failure. Therefore is the apostle earnest in urging "that in what they speak against you as evil-doers, they, as observing, may from your comely works glorify God in the day of visitation."

It was an early and common reproach among the Gentiles that Christians must be atheists, because they turned from idols; and no image of gold, silver, stone, or wood, nor picture of man's device, met the eye of man in their assemblies. The Jews well knew that this was just because a living and true God had won them from such vanities to serve Him. But bitterly jealous were they themselves that Christians did not become proselytes of the law, instead of believing in His risen Son, Jesus the Deliverer, and waiting for His coming again from the heavens; and still more furious were they, that any of the stock of Abraham should have the same faith and hope as the uncircumcised.

Among Greeks and Romans again the service of the state was a cherished object: and he who did not take his share of its burdens or value its ambitions had no end of contempt. To have here no abiding city but to seek the coming one, to declare that the Christian commonwealth is in the heavens from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, seemed to both Jew and Greek rank folly and odious in itself.

Love too, as the bond of perfectness, laid them open to the shameless suspicion of ill-wishers, who put an evil construction on the new brotherhood which astonished the world, embracing women emancipated by the faith of Christ from being the mere drudges and playthings of the other sex, and now in a near and common relationship where Jew or Greek cannot be, bond or free, male and female; "for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." It is easy to understand what men think and say of what is only known to and by faith, opening the door, as they in their ignorance of grace and truth judge it must, to indiscriminate licence and uncleanness. But the apostle exhorts that, from observing the comely works of those addressed, even such as spoke against them as evil-doers might rise above their prejudices and glorify God in the day of visitation.

The apostle put no commendation of themselves before them. Christ bade them beware of such praises as dangerous. But He did more to the like effect as here in Matt. 5: 16: Let your light (i.e. in confessing Christ) thus shine before men, so that they may see your comely works and glorify your Father that is in the heavens. Our apostle adds "in the day of visitation;" but hardly in the sense of being visited with the same light and grace which Christians knew, still less of a day when the Gentiles should have a clearer preaching of the gospel than then. It appears rather to look on to a day when God shall judge the secrets of men, when the Lord shall come who will also both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of hearts; and then shall each have the praise from God.

Having begun with self-judgment as to the inner springs in order to a comely behaviour before others, ready as they are to think and speak ill of Christian men, he now turns to various external relations and exhorts us to the conduct that becomes us in them.

"Be subject* to every human institution for the Lord's sake; whether to a king as supreme, or to rulers as being sent through him, for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to those that do well. Because so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye put to silence the ignorance of senseless men; as free, and not having liberty as a cloak of malice, but as God's bondmen. Honour all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the king" (vers. 18-17).

{*The great uncials, with some cursives and ancient versions, do not read οὖν, "therefore." The connection with the foregoing is quite indirect The verb is not only reflexive, but aorist; and so the meaning is, Be ye those who once for all submitted yourselves.}

The Jews found it a hard task morally, and in particular when entrusted with the then only revelation from God, to live in submission to the powers that be; idolatrous as these were and given up to a reprobate mind. The mass never accepted the Gentile yoke as the divine chastening of their own wickedness and departure from the God Who deigned to make them His people. And as their pride was irritated by the gospel which, on their rejection of the Messiah, God was now sending out to the nations no less than to themselves in His free and indiscriminate grace, their rebellious spirit also was growing till it drew down on them the days of vengeance in war, and desolation, as Dan. 9: 26 predicted, as well as the Lord Himself (Matt. 21: 38-41, Matt. 22: 7, and Luke 21: 20-24), in the last clearly distinguishing the Roman siege under Titus from the far more solemn events about to be in the consummation of the age (Luke 21: 25-27, as still more fully given in Matt. 24: 15-31, and Mark 13: 14-27).

It was therefore of moment to exhort the Christian confessors from among the dispersed Jews to whom the apostle writes, that they should in their humble loyalty please God and be gracious, instead of contrary, to all men. Notwithstanding that Israel was a wreck, and Judah so more than ever in God's sight because of adding the Lord's ignominious rejection to their old iniquity, the remnant that believed in Him not only received spiritually what the nation sought after the flesh, but enjoyed new blessings in Christ beyond all that saints possessed of old. Prophets had it even revealed to them, that not to themselves, but to the remnant that believed after Christ's sufferings and glorification, they were ministering those things which were announced to them through those that evangelised them in virtue of the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven.

In such a case therefore consciousness of such rich and unmerited blessing softens the heart before God, and opens and swells its new affections toward man. For as another apostle wrote, "the arms of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful according to God to overthrow of strongholds, overthrowing reasonings and every high thing that lifteth up itself against the knowledge of God, and leading captive every thought into the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10: 4, 5). Thus, on the one side as God's children, and knowing their redemption by Christ's precious blood, while on the other strangers and sojourners instead of being at home on the earth, it was all the more beseeming, simple, and easy that they should be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake.

The church is a divine institution, not a human one, and every Christian is a living part or member, whatever his place. And God set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers. After that we are told of another and inferior class, powers, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. Sign-gifts passed away, and such of the great gifts for edification as laid the foundation. But God is faithful, whatever the changes through man's unfaithfulness; nor can Christ's love to His body cease in active and effectual care, till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at a full grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

But here the call is external even to submit to every human institution; for they might assume different shapes, all involving trial to the Christian. But as the apostle Paul wrote to the saints in Rome (Rom. 13: 1), where these were chiefly Gentiles, and a cruel and unscrupulous and depraved emperor reigned, "Let every soul be subject to the authorities that are above [him]. For there is no authority except from God, and those that be are set up by God." Here it is not the secret providence that comes before us, but the manifest fact. In both the duty is to subject oneself; and here "for the Lord's sake" as there for conscience. A republic had its claim no less than royalty. The only relation revealed as to the believer is subjection without one word here or anywhere else in the N.T. for exercising authority in the present evil age. The grace of Christ is the pattern for every Christian; and "for the Lord's sake" does not import His relation to the human creation, though He is indeed Lord of all, but His appeal to the saints themselves, that they obey Him in submission to the powers of the world.

But the Spirit distinguishes, while He enjoins subjection to all: "whether to king as supreme, or to rulers as being sent through him, for vengeance on evil-doers and praise to those that do well." "Sent through him" refers to royal authority as superior. Had the reference intended been to God, the phrase (I believe) would have been ὑπὸ, "by," and not the intermediate word διὰ, "through." All may see the incongruity which the mistake would involve of predicating divine mission, not of the king but only of delegated governors.

The aim of government expressed in the latter part of ver. 14 is quite clear. It is to punish evildoers, and to encourage those that do well. The broad obligation was enjoined on Noah after the deluge. We hear of neither king nor magistrate in the ante-diluvian world. People imagine and reason in an abstract way about Adam's day; but the case of Cain left unpunished in Jehovah's hands indicates how matters then lay. "At the hand of man, at the hand of each one's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God he hath made man" (Gen. 9: 5, 6) first laid the primary basis of human government as it is. Life belonged to God, who thus communicated the principle to Noah. Henceforward man was responsible as God's servant to execute wrath, and even to blood if blood were shed; for he must not bear the sword in vain. It was the beginning of dispensations, neither the Adamic state being one, nor the new heavens and earth in the absolute sense during the ever-running ages. Nor was it long before Nimrod, the rebel of the Cushite line, availed himself of the dispersion to usurp despotic power of his own will; and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

With the government of the world those who are Christ's have nothing directly to do. They are expressly not of the world as He was not (John 17: 14, 16), who refused even to arbitrate when one sought His informal intervention; He would be no judge or divider of inheritance (Luke 12: 13, 14). "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my officials fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." He was come into the world to bear witness to the truth; and such is the mission of the Christian. The age to come will behold Him and them reigning over the earth when evil shall be infallibly judged and iniquity hide its head. It is now the time to suffer with Him, looking then to be glorified. Therefore should we meanwhile be the more zealous to submit ourselves to every human creation (as it is literally), and not only to a king as super-eminent but to governors as sent from time to time through him for righteous dealing with evil-doers and for praise of ouch as do well. Our proper interests are on high; but that is our duty for the Lord's sake.

A weighty reason follows. "Because so is the will of God (and are we not sanctified unto obedience — obedience of Jesus?), that by well-doing ye put to silence (lit. muzzle) the ignorance of senseless men; as free and not having liberty as a cloak of malice, but as God's bondmen." How sound, wholesome, unselfish, and godly! The true and comely answer to the spiteful hatred of the world is a godly course of living. For men as such, not some only but all, are senseless if they know not God, and therefore find their malignant pleasure in imputing their own evils to His children. This habitual well-doing is not to give up the liberty wherewith Christ set us free, but as we live by the Spirit, also to walk by it, instead of wearing the liberty as a cloak of malice, which enemies pretended. It is our happiness and cherished duty to carry ourselves as God's bondmen: such we really are; and we kind it the perfect law of liberty, as it flows from our new nature.

The paragraph ends with a pointed and pregnant conclusion: — "Honour all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the king." The form of the first honouring is not the same as the last expression of the act: done when called for, not the habitual doing it. The Christian should not fail to remember that man was made as none other in the image of God. He alas! when fallen is prone to forget what rebukes his manifold inconsistencies.

Loving the brotherhood is a constant duty; but the love takes a shape according to their state. No Christian is called to love carnality or worldliness; nor yet a schismatic way, nor the heretical or sectarian, but to turn away from the one, and to have no more to do with the other after a first and second admonition, however once perhaps honoured in God's service. Love would take pains with those guilty of lesser faults, admonishing the unruly, comforting the faint-hearted, sustaining the weak, and patient toward all. It is the very reverse of either self-seeking or indifference, of independency in any shape.

Then how necessary to cultivate habitually the fear of God! There is nothing right where this fails. The holy fear of God shuts out every dishonouring fear of man, and all tormenting fear of God. We know His majesty, His holiness, and His righteous character; and we know also that He loves us beyond a father's love, with the perfection of the Son's Father. May we all deepen in our fear of Him!

There remain the words, "honour the king." This too is continuous. Whatever may be his personal character, he represents God in the things of earth. The Christian, if true to his calling on high, has nothing to blind his eyes; for he seeks no personal interests, favour, or honour, nor consequently has he to feel the disappointments of such as live for present things. He can therefore in simplicity and godly sincerity honour the king for his office as of God in His providence (for it is ignorance to speak here of His grace), and this a. his habit with supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings, not only for all, but in particular for kings and all that are in high place, that we may live a tranquil and quiet life. Our sufferings, sorrows, and conflicts come because we have Christ our life in the world which led of Satan crucified Him; and because we have to do with men bearing the Lord's name who seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ. The world's false glory, the flesh's selfishness and self-will, and Satan's antagonism to Christ and the truth must make it a question habitually of overcoming by faith in subjection of heart to God.

The exhortation is next addressed to domestics (οἰκέται), instead of continuing the unrestricted appeal of verses 11-17. The apostle begins with those, and doss not follow up to their masters as in the Pauline Epistles; and then he writes to the wives and the husbands, without specifying either the children or the fathers. But it may also be noticed that the "domestics" here exhorted are a milder name if not a wider class, not necessarily "bondmen" as in the letters to Ephesus and Colosse. At least they were in contrast with the οἰκότριφ or born slave. One can understand hired servants of Jewish origin among Jews.

"Household servants, be in subjection with all fear to your masters (δεσπόταις), not only to the good and gentle, but also to the crooked. For this [is] grace if for conscience toward God one endureth griefs, suffering unjustly. For what glory [is it] if when ye sin and are buffeted ye shall endure? but if when ye do well (ἀγαθοποι.) and suffer ye shall endure, this [is] grace with God" (vers. 18-20).

One of the hateful and fatal plague-spots of Romanism is the so called church's interdiction of God's word, save according to its own will. None but Satan gave such an authority. But Protestantism never rose in this to the truth; for, in opposing Popish arrogance, it fell into the snare of claiming man's right to the Bible; which easily led on to the wicked principles of the French revolution, socialism, and other like iniquities. The Christian knows it as his real privilege and solemn obligation to assert God's right to address His word to His children now, as of old to Israel, not forgetting man universally in the Old T. as well as in the New. And this it is which constitutes the apostate guilt of the miscalled Higher Criticism, which is but a euphemism for base infidelity, however many amiable and would-be reverent persons are thereby ensnared in both Nationalism and Dissent as well as Popery. What a contrast with the world is God's communication first to the domestics whose lot among Greeks and Romans was hard indeed! The slaves at any rate were no more than living tools or possessions; and their numbers were immense, public as well as private.

With these home-menials as a class the apostle begins. As he had exhorted all in view of public authority, here he presses like subjection in the house. The domestics are enjoined to be subject with fear on every side to their lords; they were Christians, and bound to serve many a master where the danger of provocation was extreme. They needed therefore to walk in all awe. For according to Christ their godly subjection was due not only to the good and gentle, but to the crooked or perverse which last naturally abounded.

Where was any so noble a principle, morally speaking, found among men? We see in the O.T. how selfish were the ways of the Jewish chief men toward their own brethren after the flesh. What a conflict, and what humiliation to such as Ezra the priest and Nehemiah the governor! Of heathen heartlessness and cruelty we need not speak, even among the civilised Greeks and especially the Romans who had to face reprisals and rebellions and serious wars through their barbarity. It is Christ seen by faith as we perceive in the context that follows, which explains the elevation of heart which is here counted on by the apostle. They were to serve the Lord Christ in the spirit not of mere self-abnegation but of grace. No matter how worthless their masters might be, grace raises the soul above the most morose, and enables it to obey and suffer even in face of shameless wrong.

For as the apostle explains, this is "grace," in contrast with the natural bias toward the legal claim, if for conscience toward God one endure griefs, suffering unjustly. The A.V. renders it "acceptable," and this is a fair sense in this place, and capable of defence. But it appears to me simpler and more forcible to adhere to the ordinary meaning, bearing in mind of course that it is not grace as in God which is in question, but the answer to it in those who believe. They were in this and in their measure imitators of God as beloved children, and walking in love as Christ loved them.

An effort has been made to translate the word "thankworthy" here as in Luke 6: 32-34. But this seems short-sighted, because there is no ὑμῖν (to you) here as there, which makes a sensible difference. We can readily perceive the propriety of "thanks to you," where "grace to you" could not stand. Here in the first case it is used absolutely; and in the second it has the very different adjunct παρὰ τῶ θεῶ (with God), who delights to find in His child what reflects Himself.

The apostle carries his argument yet more deeply in ver. 20. "For what glory is it, if when ye sin and are buffeted ye shall endure (or, bear it)?" This no person can fairly affirm. One bears the burden of admitted fault. It is only natural in such circumstances. "But if, when ye do good and suffer, ye shall endure (or, bear it), this is grace with God." Is it not supernatural? Yet it is what the Lord looks for, not only in the mature and better instructed of His saints, but in the most down-trodden menials who call upon His name. For God despises none, and has called by His grace the foolish things of the world that He may put to shame the wise; and chosen the weak things of the world that He may put to shame the strong things; and the base things of the world, and the despised did God choose, that He might bring to nought the things that are: that no flesh should boast before God. A house-servant if a Christian was exhorted, instead of resenting injustice to follow Christ in His path of suffering love. Impossible so to do unless abiding in Him; but he that says he abides in Him ought, just as He walked, so to walk himself.

The place of suffering is enforced for the Christian, to the special comfort of Christian servants, by that of Christ Himself, as we next hear.

"For to this were ye called; because Christ also suffered for you,* leaving you* a model that ye should follow up his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when reviled did not again revile, when suffering did not threaten, but gave over to him that judgeth righteously" (vers. 21-23).

{*There is the too usual discrepancy of copies and critics. Carelessness may have misled some of the scribes, or perhaps the assumption of mistakes which they claim to correct. Erasmus erred in giving "us" twice in ver. 21,the Complutensian ed. also in "us" and you, Colinaeus following the former, Stephens the latter. Beza and Elzevirs were right and chose the text as translated above; so did Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, but not Matthaei or Scholz nor even Tischendorf till his eighth or last edition. Indeed the great MSS. ( A B C), not a few cursives, the ancient versions though not the Peschito, the Memph., or the edited Vulg. against the best copies, give here the true text. Even the unlearned Christian may be assured that this best agrees with the clauses succeeding, and that "us" would clash. Yet scholars who trust overmuch the more ancient copies or the more modern should nave their zeal tempered by the fact that the false reading ἀπέθανεν, "died," is read instead of ἔπαθεν, "suffered," by the Sinaitic (), as well as by many cursives in the same verse; and the same false reading recurs in 3: 18 supported by A C., at least a dozen cursives and almost all the old versions, though the context requires the ordinary reading supported by BKLP, and the mass of cursives. Here Tischendorf right at first, got wrong at last.}

The world's relations to the saints, whether servants or not, is made unequivocally plain. So it was even for the apostles. "I have given them thy word, and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17: 14) "If the world hateth you, ye know it hath hated me before [it hated] you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own, but I chose you out of the world: therefore the world hateth you. No bondman is above his Lord: if they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also (John 15: 18-20)." If it be trying as it surely is, how great is the moral honour of such association with Christ! "For to this were ye called." God allowed, overruled, and used it for the good of His children here below.

Earlier still, and more widely, had the Lord made known His will, God's will. "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you, help those that curse you, pray for those that use you despitefully. To him that smiteth you on the cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh thy cloak forbid not thy coat also. To every one that asketh of thee give; and from him that taketh away thy things ask them not back; and as ye wish that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them that love you, what thank (grace) have ye? Or even sinners love those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do you good, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same. And if ye lend [to them] from whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners that they may receive back as much. But love your enemies and do good, hoping for nothing back; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of [the] Highest; for he is kind to the thankless and wicked. Be ye therefore merciful even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6: 27-36).

It is Christ practically, and the manifestation of the Father's character reproduced in His children. Nothing less palpable or more absurd than to expect such a character in fallen man as such, that is, in the world; nothing less is what the Lord looks for from those that are His. Who is sufficient for these things? Our sufficiency is from God. Do not doubt Him, nor allow to unbelief that these are bygone things. They become and bind the Christian at all times. And so we read here, "because Christ also suffered for you." Was this to dispense with our suffering? On the contrary He suffered for you, "leaving you a model, (or, copy) that ye should follow up his steps."

The saint needs an object from God to form our souls and fashion our ways. And He sets before us Christ. What or who can compare with Him? Flaws were in the best of saints at their best, think of Peter, Paul, John. Christ "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." Christ "when reviled did not revile again; when suffering, did not threaten, but gave over to him that judgeth righteously." Who among his most bitter foes that sought every occasion ever convicted Him of sin? He always did the things that pleased His Father, and never once did any will but His, the lowliest of men, yet above the highest. For there is nothing so lowly as obedience; nor is there any thing so pure and morally elevating as ever obeying God. He and He only was "His righteous servant," He absolutely and perfectly.

It has not been shown as far as I am aware that the word pared. admits of the reflexive sense, good as it would seem in itself, that is, of meaning "gave himself over." Hence various modes of supplying the ellipse have been proposed. But why should it not be rendered, though a little rugged, as it seems used, absolutely? So we find in Mark 4: 29, where there seems no need of rendering, "is brought forth" or "provided." Why not "should permit"? See Pind. P. v. 4; and Demosth. 1394. 23 even for the aorist; which A. Buttmann oddly denies. The present, etc. are common as in Herod. vii. 15; Xen. Anab. vi. 4, 34; Isocr. 106 C.; Polyb. xxii. 24, 9, as given by Liddell and Scott.

At this point the apostle turns from the more general reference to the Lord's sufferings for us, the peerless example of unrepining love and unswerving yet patient righteousness in a world of evil, to that which stands alone from all before and after in the expiation of our sins, here expressed in terms of extreme simplicity. In atonement Christ had no companions and no followers.

"Who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed (ver. 24).

Both our text and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 9: 28) make certain the strict sacrificial sense of ἀνήνεγκεν ("bore") when connected with the object, "our sins."* So joined, this is the simple and sole sense of the word. Such too is the regular, if not invariable, employment by the LXX, as any scholar may satisfy himself. The notion of a pregnant sense "bringing up to," and "bearing on" the tree, equivalent to the altar, is as certainly a mistake as any thing can be. For to express the former, the usage is προσφέρειν or προσάγειν, as opposed to ἀναφέρειν. Thus we read in Lev. 1: 2, 3, 5 (as in the corresponding cases), with the distinct term ἐπιτιθέναι which answers to the latter in 9. The same fact occurs in Lev. 2: 1 compared with 2, as in 16 ἀνοίσει is given, the exact term instead of its substitute. Compare also Lev. 3: 1 with 5; 6, 7, 9 with 11, and 12 with 16. The Hebrew is always exact, and does not warrant the weak confusion of the LXX. in 14. The due distinction reappears in Lev. 4: 1 contrasted with 10, though the high priest himself was in question; and so for the whole congregation, 14 with 19; again the ruler, 23 with 26; and one of the people, the simple οἴσει being used in this case, and the proper ἀνοίσει in the other. In the intermediate mixture of sin and guilt, as well as the full guilt-offering, there is at least no violation of the usage, though other terms displace the latter; and so it might be shown from Genesis to Ezekiel that ἀνήνεγκεν ("bore") expresses the final sacrificial act, and not the preparatory "bringing up" which also some have sought to attach to it. This, as we have seen, has its own distinct and appropriate expression.

{*Thus with "spiritual sacrifices" "offer" is right, as in ver. 5 of this chapter and in Heb. 13: 15. So it is with "Himself" in Heb. 7 as well as with "sacrifices" in the same vers. 27. With other objects, it is rendered "carry, bring, or lead up;" and it may elsewhere mean to bear or undergo.}

Our apostle and the still greater one to the Gentiles cite Isa. 53: 12; which stamps these words of the Septuagint with divine authority. Heb. 9: 28 has the deeper use of exhibiting in the same verse the exact distinctiveness of the two words (προσφέρειν and ἀναφέρειν), which many scholars have confounded, and incomparably more who were far from being scholars. In the Epistle to the Hebrews is no wavering, as in the Septuagint though generally correct. Both terms are used with strict accuracy, as for instance Heb. 7: 27 for the closing act, and 9: 14 for what preceded it. Heb. 11: 17 beautifully shows the proper word* in the great trial of Abraham's faith, and with the added exactitude of the perfect and imperfect tenses, of which none perhaps but the inspiring Spirit would have thought, but which when revealed is appreciated by every Christian who understands it.

*It may interest the Hebraist to note that it is not the technical term referred to which God used in addressing Abraham in Gen 22: 2. The LXX. therefore may have gone here beyond the word. Yet James (2: 21) when he uses the figure "on the altar" says ἀνενέγκασ. But fine as much is in their rendering of Isa. 53. (especially so long before the Advent, and revealing a portion so foreign to Jewish expectation), there are evident flaws. For who can defend μεμαλάκισται in ver. 5? Even if it could express adequately the Hebrew for "bruised," the perf. is quite out of place. It ordinarily would mean "is" or "has been reduced to effeminacy." Even "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" is not cited here, but the last clause only. But the 9th verse is not well rendered still less the 10th and 11th save the last clause. It is the 12th however which the N. T. cites for the atonement; and there the Hebrew verb is nasa, not yisbol. These verbs for "bore" occur in reverse order in ver. 4, where we have the invaluable light of the Spirit through Matthew (Matt. 8: 17), who applies the quotation, not to His expiatory sufferings as in vers. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12, but to the depth of the sympathy which characterised His spirit whilst acting in divine power toward the sick and suffering in Israel. With this does not agree the rendering of the Septuagint. Hence the Evangelist was led to a more correct rendering; for it is about griefs or sicknesses, not "sins" directly nor "selves" vaguely as the object. And this is the more important, because of the tendency to distract the attention of the faithful from apprehending the immense theme of Christ's moral glory, through fixing it only on what immediately ministers to peace for souls not well grounded in it. Another evil consequence is that making all the entrance of Christ's spirit to be only into what atones for the sinner not only detracts from Him much else to His praise, but it causes the testimony to the work of redemption virtually to lose its distinctiveness, and the word of God its definiteness. Thus the unwise effort to concentrate all on atonement cannot but enfeeble its own proper character and defeat itself.}

Does it surprise any reader that so plain a point should be proved so elaborately? Look at the margin of the A.V. and especially of the Revisers. And who does not know the bitter zeal of too many in our own day to found, on the gross ignorance of that mistranslation, the dangerous misconception of Christ's work involved in Christ's bearing "our sins in His body to the tree?" To translate competently one must know a great deal more than a grammar and a dictionary; one needs to consider the varied usages of the language as modified by its application, and especially the scope and requirement of the context. Who but a tyro could write, "It is the same word that in the verse before us is rendered on, that in the following verse is rendered to, 'Ye are returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of souls?' This, then, we apprehend, is the apostle's statement, 'He himself bare our sins in his own body to the tree.'"* The blunder led him and many another to the utterly false doctrine, that Christ "as really, though not so obviously, bare our sins when he lay a helpless infant, in the manger in Bethlehem, as when he hung, an agonised man, on the accursed tree."

{*John Brown, D.D., on 1 Peter (i. 453, Sec. Ed. 1849).}

O foolish theologians, who bewitched you? One may not expect all to read the Greek Testament with intelligent and reverent care, especially if persons doubt that "every scripture is inspired of God." A single word of the text before us upsets bushels of essays, sermons, and expositions. The dark and perilous hypothesis would require the imperfect tense to give continuity of bearing our sins, which men have imagined and reasoned on. It is the aorist, on the contrary, which above all shuts out relative duration, continuity, repetition, or action commenced and not accomplished. Here it is a simple fact of the deepest moment for God and man, for time and eternity.

The hypothesis is incompatible, not merely with the word used by the Holy Spirit here and everywhere else, but with the broadest and most solemn facts which the most unlettered of believers, taught of God, receive with awe and adoring gratitude. What meant that supernatural darkness which in the hours of broad daylight wrapped up the cross from a certain point? What the cry of Him who had ever, in the fullest enjoyment of love, said "Father," but now "My God, my God, why didst thou forsake me?" Had He not, when His baptism might have raised a question, received the testimony of the Father's absolute complacency in Christ as His beloved Son? How strange bearing up our sins in His body to the tree! Undoubtedly Christ did never so profoundly glorify God; but His bruising, His stripes, His being made sin and curse, were they all while He was enjoying His Father's love? His suffering for our guilt, and God's face shining at the same time! If He had been all His life bearing our sins, He must all His life have been abandoned by God who cannot look on sin with the least allowance. But no: Isa 53: 6 attests that Jehovah laid our iniquity on His Anointed when He hung on the tree: nothing more characteristic of the atonement, or more opposed to the perfectly enjoyed communion of His life.

Christ's work on the cross, then, is here before us, the answer of divine grace to man's need and danger, and the base of divine righteousness; but this last was left for another, Paul, to treat formally and fully. The practical aim was that which fell to the fervour of Peter, "that, being dead to sins, we should live to righteousness." Both apostles delighted in these wondrous antitheses which gave glory to God and to the Lord Jesus, His Son.

The word ἀπογενόμενοι, "being dead," is so uncommon in the N. T. that this is its only occurrence. It occurs in the best classic authors, and answers to our "deceased," rather than the ordinary word for "dead." This the apostle Paul used for the privilege into which the Christian is let in order to know his deliverance from sin, as distinguished from the remission of his sins. The further privilege he treats from Romans 5: 12 to the end of Romans 8. It is too often confounded with what goes before, though it is clearly a grave question of the Christian's state which arises generally for the soul when he knows his sins forgiven. But our apostle speaks of "having died to sins," which is quite another thing from Paul's doctrine. It is simple and practical (having done with sins), as was his province generally. It is true that the word sometimes means "having taken no part in," and "being absent or aloof from"; but the context even of a correct writer always suffices to fix what is intended, Here it proves that death spiritually is meant, because it is that we may live to righteousness. No other sense would apply here. It never implies "being freed from," as some have said.

The apostle adds a gracious encouragement as the result already achieved by Christ and given to the believer, for which he borrows the language of Isaiah, in the same chapter but a different verse, yet as exclusively descriptive of Christ's expiatory sufferings: "by whose stripes ye were healed." Strange paradox, but no less blessedly true! It is literally the weal or rising left by the lash which many a slave knew well. How comforting to the Christian, slave or not, who rests with assurance, not on the puerile use made of Pilate's unprincipled indignity (whatever general custom might be pleaded in excuse) to the Lord of glory, but to that which God wrought for the ungodly through the ignominious but glorious death of His Son!

The need for the healing given to believers here recurs: — "For ye were* going astray as sheep, but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (ver. 25).

{*The famous Vatican MS. (1209) omits strangely the opening words, but is joined by A, 5, 40, and some good Latin copies in reading πλανώμενοι as represented here; not "as sheep going astray" as in most, and the Text. Rec. In the LXX. of Ps. 119: 176, and of Isa. 53: 6, it is the aorist expressive of the fact. Here the present participle looks at the habit rather than the fact.}

The description admirably suits those who from among the Jews repented and believed the gospel It is substantially true of sinners like ourselves from among the nations. For as the Good Shepherd said, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall be one flock, one Shepherd. Such were the means which sovereign grace employed and made effectual for gathering to Christ.

Few indeed are the Epistles which do not present our previously lost condition. Rom. 1 in its latter half is an awful but exact picture of the Gentile world under Greek letters and Roman polity. The heathen remains, in poets, in dramatic and other classic writings, demonstrate it in its actual and unconscious vileness, which the apostle but touches with a holy hand. Rom. 3 brings the moral ruin home to the Jews from their own law, psalms, and prophets: that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become, as it was, under judgment to God. And hence, as man universally had no righteousness for God, the absolute need of God's righteousness for man if any were to be saved. The redemption that is in Christ Jesus by grace laid the ground for this justifying righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, as it is written, toward all, and upon all those that believe. For there is no difference: all sinned; and God is showing His righteousness at the present time of the gospel, that He should be just Himself and justify him that has faith in Jesus.

In 1 Cor. 1 Jewish pretension to signs of power and Greek to wisdom are alike crushed by Christ crucified; who is to those called, both Jews and Greeks, God's power and God's wisdom. Man as he is cannot inherit God's kingdom. The Corinthians ought to have been the last to forget their shameless depravity. And these things, sad to name, were some of the saints, as the apostle reminded them; but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in (or, by) the Spirit of our God. 2 Cor. 5 might furnish a bright testimony of the same grace to the morally dead and the unreconciled; and other apostolical writings are full of like mercy to sinners. But those records suffice to prove the activity of divine love in Christ toward a guilty world. The sad fact is as true of Gentiles as the Lord told the Jews, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life" (John 5: 40). All the evil is on man's side; the goodness is wholly with God, as the Lord Jesus fully shows. "Him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out" (John 6: 37).

The straying sheep returned unto the Shepherd and Overseer of their souls. They were His, the Father's gift to Him. The Son loved them and proved His love to them at all cost to Himself; and the Father loved them as He loved the Son: a love beyond the creature's conception, yet assured by Him who is the Truth.

They did well to return to Him whose love is beyond al] other love. Glory will prove and display it before the wondering world, as the Lord told them (John 17: 22, 23); and the apostle attests it also for that day as a matter of retributive righteousness (2 Thess. 1: 10). But His love is as fully set on them and made known to them now for the joy of faith and the strengthening of their souls; only unbelief can doubt it, a great dishonour to Him and loss to us. O what a Shepherd and Overseer is Jesus!

Who can measure the descent, if the sheep are content to return, not to the divine Shepherd Whose the sheep are, but to the church even were it ever so true according to God's word, to articles or symbols however sound, or to pious devices to fan the embers of faith and love in their souls? No, we have Him given us of our God and Father, Who once died for our sins, and is now alive again to tend and watch over our souls in His undying love, with all authority given to Him in heaven and upon earth; that we may please Him in a world of darkness, as He always did the things that were pleasing to the Father. Nor does He for a moment fail if the sheep should fail, as they will surely do if they be not dependent and obedient. Yet all are sanctified by the Spirit unto His obedience, not to a Jew's obedience under law, but to that of Jesus, conscious of the Father's love. For this is our portion. Yet if negligent or worse, let us not doubt His grace, but humble our hearts and sit in self-judgment on ourselves. "He restoreth my soul; He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake."

The Jews were taught of old to regard their kings as "shepherds"; but for the most part these were ungodly and selfish, as the prophet Ezekiel describes their sordid ways. "Woe to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed; ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up the broken, nor have ye brought again that which was driven away, nor have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered without a shepherd; and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill; yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek."

Therefore were the shepherds to hear the word of Jehovah, Who is against the shepherds and will require His flock at their hands. He Himself will both search and seek out His sheep, deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day, gather them from the countries, bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, where they shall lie in a good fold and feed in a good pasture. More than all, He will set up over them one shepherd who shall feed them, His servant David, Who is not less Jehovah than Himself.

But the believing remnant to whom the apostle had not to wait for that day; they were, as is said in Eph. 1: 12, pre-hopers in Christ; they not only anticipate the repentance of the latter of the latter day, but enter into better blessings during the day of Israel's eclipse, when God has raised the rejected Christ out of the dead and given Him glory above, that their faith and hope might be in God. And if there be not yet visible power and glory, they find all the more touchingly their blessing in Him by whose stripes they were healed, whose grace in receiving them without one word of reproach made them judge their blind folly in going astray, and cleave with purpose of heart to the Shepherd and Overseer of their souls.

1 Peter 3.

The apostle does not exhort the masters, as we find in the Epistles to the Ephesian and the Colossian saints; but he addresses wives and husbands in the next place, without speaking in particular to children and parents. The relation of wives, as of domestics, was one of subjection.

"Likewise, ye wives, [be] subject to your own husbands, that even if any are disobedient to the word, they may be gained without word through the behaviour of the wives, having beheld your chaste behaviour in fear; whose adornment let it not be the outward one of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on apparel, but the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible of the meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God very precious. For thus also heretofore the holy women that hoped in God adorned themselves, being subject to their own husbands; as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children ye became, doing good and not being afraid of any dismay" (vers. 1-6).

It is easy to understand, that, as with servants, so with wives, Christians who stand in the subject place might and must find frequent difficulty with heathen or Jewish superiors to whom they were so near. For the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; and it is provoked by what is of the Spirit in those whom they command. A Christian wife cannot give up a conscience toward God in matters of right and wrong; again she has objects of faith dearer to her soul than life which claim her allegiance and observance, in public as well as private ways utterly repugnant to unbelievers of every sort.

All the more is it incumbent on such believing wives as are bound to unbelieving husbands, that they should be truly and sedulously subject to their own husbands, wherever it is compatible with doing the will of God. Even in the O.T., where such unions existed, the wife was under obligation before God to be subject; whatever the rigour that the law required, whatever the horror inspired by idolatry. The eyes of Jehovah, they knew, were toward the righteous and His ears open to their cry. The face of Jehovah was against those that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

But the N.T, greatly strengthens the believer's heart by the then revelation of the grace of Christ far beyond what could act of old. Not only does it fortify to suffer both for righteousness and His Name; it encourages faith by the sovereign grace which saved ourselves to look to our God and Father on behalf of others who need it no less than we once did. And if He sought and saved me, a lost sinner, may I not the more (from standing in so close a relationship) pray for my husband dark and dead as he is?

Here too the apostle gives a wise caution. The less spiritual Christian is too apt to forget the ways of divine grace in bringing ourselves to God, and to regard conversion as the simple effect of the truth, overlooking the various workings of the Spirit to give the word a root in the heart. The unbeliever as such slights the word and has no conception of its power when by the Spirit Christ is thereby revealed to the soul. The practical bearing has immense weight with one ignorant of God and of himself. But his conscience can value greatly, gentleness, lowliness, patience, obedience in another and especially that other his wife. He is well aware how unreasonable and unkind he has often been to her; yet she has borne it, and never complained, never reproached, but been as loving and dutiful as ever. He is forced to feel that there must be something that makes the difference in her faith which he often mocked. Hence is pressed "that even if any are disobedient to the word, they may be gained without word through the behaviour of the wives, having beheld their chaste [or, pure] behaviour in fear."

It is not meant that one can be begotten of God without the word: 1 Peter 1: 23 forbids such a thought as decidedly as James 1: 18 and many other scriptures. But the moral weight and the gracious way of the wife tell on the hard husband; and he is won to hear, so much the more because she does not preach at him, as he calls it. How many have been thus gained to hear the gospel the day will declare. The modest purity he knows and values much, and this in fear, not boldness or self-confidence, but tempered by the dread of offending God or her husband. For here it seems put with all generality.

Next he turns to the external habits of a Christian wife, and urges the avoidance of frivolous and sumptuous ornaments Some may deride this: but it is their carnality or worldliness which governs. Has not the Christian to please Christ and do all things in His name? Our bodies are to be presented a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God; and we are not to be conformed to this age with its changing fashions of luxury and splendour, whatever station may be ours naturally. Christ is dearer, nearer, and more than all. And the Christian wives are not exempt. Their adornment is not the outward one of dressing hair, or wearing gold things, or putting on dress, which are alien from Christ and a shame to saints. The real ornament is the hidden man of the heart which He sees, in the incorruption (for outside all is corruptible) of a meek and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is of much price. None of these showy objects is so, nor could all Ophir buy it.

Therefore Peter was led to speak of ancients witnessing for God in this respect. "For thus also heretofore the holy women that were hoping in God adorned themselves accordingly, being subject to their own husbands; as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose children ye became, doing good and not being afraid with any dismay." On God their hope rested, not on themselves. Sarah stood at the head of these pious matrons of Israel; but though not alone (for there were not a few saints of like spirit), she was far from forgetting the true ornaments that became saints.

Favoured as Christians were by Christ and redemption come, the wives now ought not to fall short either in moral adorning or in subjection. Sarah obeyed her husband and reverently addressed him (Gen. 18: 12); she was not carried away by the common ground for vanity, though she had beauty more than most. Her children such wives now became as were doers of good and not frightened by any scare from propriety. Why should they be who know that Christ's Father is their Father, and Christ's God is theirs? Why be perturbed since He sent His servants to comfort them with the same peace He gave them? The enemy works by fear; God by His love in Christ against every source of alarm.

Hence as another wrote, even before love was fully manifested, when it was simply hoped for with confidence, souls "from weakness were strengthened, became mighty in war, made armies of aliens give way. Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not having accepted deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection" (Heb. 11: 34, 35).

Thus the apostle cites examples; and this from the earliest days of dealing with the called out pilgrims, which would have great weight with the Christian remnant of Jews.

Exhortation had been already given against all vanity and worldly show, but with due care that the outward apparel should express "the hidden man of the heart." No doubt the open man of his house, the predominant partner, might enjoin and be entitled to her wearing jewels or other costly array in his sphere. But here women do not usually need a husband's command. Here the word is for their own conscience. For it is not only that God, in contrast with man, looks on the heart: His wondrous light into which He called us gives the Christian woman the highest standard, and thereby enables her by grace to judge all inconsistencies in the incorruptibility of a meek and quiet spirit. This, however foreign to human nature, would not be lost even on a hard and exacting husband, Jew or Greek; for such might be the lot of those addressed, and of course the former most frequently, either of them on the watch too often to spy the faults of a Christian. But under any circumstances such a lowly spirit, seen in all its perfection in Christ, is of much price in the sight of God; and this is of all things most consolatory to the tried if faithful.

Changes many and great have passed over the world. But this fidelity led in olden days when Israel's great progenitors dwelt in tents. Yet Sarah knew to her husband's shame that her beauty commended her to a court and a King's palace for a while, and royal gifts were lavished on him whose selfish fear exposed her to dishonour but for their Almighty protector. But thus aforetime also the holy women adorned themselves as became those whose hope was in God, instead of following the fashion of the world that fleets away. Sarah is singled out as obedient to Abraham, and paying him marked honour, notwithstanding the familiarity of wedded life, which too often has a contrary effect. This example is here set impressively before Christian wives.

But the terms employed are notable: "Whose children ye became, doing good and not being afraid of any dismay." They were far from this in their unrenewed state. The Lord Jesus does not find, but makes, us what pleases God. Self-will reigns in those afar from Him, with ready resentment of all wrongs that may be inflicted, and submission induced through fear, self-interest, or amiability at best. What a change is wrought by the faith of God's grace in Christ! Sanctification of the Spirit, setting apart to God in a new life now given, effects obedience, not legal but after the pattern of Jesus, and faith in the sprinkling of His blood. Thus did those Jewish matrons become Sarah's children in obeying and honouring, each her own husband. It was a divine duty imprinted on the heart by their Saviour. Becoming Christians, they became Sarah's children in deed and in truth. They were not merely lineal descendants, like the unbelieving Jews whom the Lord in John 8 reproached as being Abraham's seed, not his children; else they would do the works of Abraham. They became Sarah's children, "doing good and not afraid of any dismay." On this side is woman apt to be weak.

Is there a gentle hint here of the occasion when Sarah laughed incredulously, as she covertly heard Jehovah promise she should have a son (Gen. 18: 10-15)? How graciously the Spirit speaks openly of her comely bearing at that same time toward her husband! Yet did He not spare her then, when she even denied her derision. Here He only records her good conduct, and calls her children to remember it: "doing good and being not afraid of any dismay," as frequent a cause as any other of untruth. For sudden perturbation of any kind is unfaithfulness in women professing godliness. Failing in dependence on God and communion, they fear to own the truth under such pressure. Is not the caution here given therefore seasonable and salutary?

The address to husbands is much shorter, as we can readily see and understand. Yet is there not a little for our instruction.

"Ye husbands, likewise, dwelling with [them] according to knowledge, awarding honour as to a weaker vessel — the female, as also fellow-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered" (ver. 7)

As the wife is called to subjection to her own husband, so is the husband to dwell with her "according to knowledge." Thus the apostle reminds the Corinthian saints "we all have knowledge" (1 Cor. 8: 1). It is characteristic of Christ to give spiritual intelligence which is far more. We do not await the day of the Lord to have divine light. We walk in the light as following Him who is the Light of life; we are already, all Christians, sons of light and sons of day; we are not, as we were, of night and of darkness. The Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true. Loved of Him we are to walk in the same love; light in the Lord, to walk as children of light, for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth. On the one hand we are to prove what is well-pleasing to the Lord; on the other, to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather also reprove them, exposed as they all are by the light, for that which makes every thing manifest is light.

Favoured as the Jew of old was, compared with the heathen (no matter how civilized or refined as in Greece and Rome), Christianity gave an immense advance. But as one apostle, who had inwardly all knowledge beyond such as boasted, insisted that if he had not love, he was nothing, so here our apostle implies its necessity for the husband's "dwelling together" with his wife. Hence to love their wives has the first and great place in the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. To fail in such love is a breach of the relationship, and unworthy of a Christian. Alienation is a practical denial of the husband's place. Faults there may be, haste, forgetfulness, shortcomings; but love as elsewhere, so here in a position so near and tender and peculiar, should have long patience and be kind; be not emulous any more than insolent and rash, nor be puffed up, nor behave in an unseemly way, neither quickly provoked nor imputing evil, and rejoice not at iniquity but rather with the truth. Love does not change nor weary; but we need not here say more. Only we must bear in mind, in thus "dwelling together," the need that it be "according to knowledge." The vanity of our knowing, which puffs up, is contrasted with love which builds up. And what a source of instruction is scripture for the difficulties of the home as well as of the way! Christ Himself, as the other apostle pointed out, is the standard.

But a few words follow which deserve every attention. The husband, as having the place of authority, is exposed to the danger of presumption and lack of consideration. Hence the force here of "awarding honour as to a weaker vessel — the female." The very fact that such is her nature as compared with his own is the ground of the Spirit's appeal to him who is given to be her protector. Has he never learnt his own weakness before God, and proved that in the sense of it by faith is his power through the grace of Christ? His therefore it is, never to despise, but to guide and cherish her and this in no suspicious spirit but the watchfulness of love, and the grace that pays her honour. But to apply this definitely to "allotting an honourable subsistence" to the wife, as Dr. Doddridge contended, has no more claim to be God's mind than his similar use of 1 Tim. 5: 17 for the elders.

Another consideration consists of a still higher plea: — "as also fellow-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered." Though the married estate is essentially of the earth, yet those here in view were the redeemed of God, His children. "And if children, heirs also; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." Husband and wife, being Christians, are appealed to as in a relationship by grace which shall never pass away. When Christ our life shall be manifested, then shall they exchange the present exposure to sorrow and suffering, in which we give God thanks, for that exceeding weight of glory, into which Christ has entered as our fore-runner, whilst we are waiting for Him. O dear brethren, recognise your blessedness, and count the heaviest trial but light affliction and momentary. Look not at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen; for the things that are seen are for a time, but those that are not seen eternal.

More general exhortation succeeds.

"Finally [be] all like-minded, sympathetic, brother-loving, tender-hearted, humble-minded; not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, because hereunto ye were called, that ye should inherit blessing. For he that will love life and see good days, let him stop his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile; and let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it; because [the] Lord's eyes [are] on the righteous and his ears unto their supplication; but [the] Lord's face is against evil-doers" (vers. 8-12).

It is Christ alone who makes these desires possible in those who are His. But less than this could not satisfy the apostle even in the presence of weakness and contrariety. They were called out of sin and ruin and misery to blessing, and were therefore to be the witnesses and channels of grace in a world and a race which had fallen under curse. They were already begotten again according to the much mercy of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ through His resurrection from the dead unto a living hope, unto an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading, reserved in heaven for them; and they were blessed with other privileges of love, and holiness, and dignity in the highest degree, as we have seen, according to the fulness of Christ. For He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely grant us all things?

Thus it is plain that our duties flow from our relationships conferred by sovereign grace in Christ according to the glory of His person and the efficacy of His redeeming work. They are there fore not only beyond all price but unchanging; and they are the ground of our new responsibilities. Christ by His death met and closed our old responsibilities, in which we were lost; and by His resurrection He has ushered us who believe into an entirely new standing of soul-salvation and blessing, whilst here below, and waiting for the completion of His grace as to our bodies also and in heavenly glory. We can therefore without affectation and in the Spirit bless God, and are a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For He ever liveth to make intercession for His own. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? He that bore our sins in His body on the tree, lost and dead as we were in evil, lives also to make the fruit of our lives, our praises, acceptable to God. What that issues by the Spirit from our hearts and lips can have a place so high and momentous as our worship of God and the Lamb? No doubt love works here and downwards by the same Spirit; but we, if rightly feeling cannot but own that God has the first and nearest claim.

And if this be so, will not His working be all the mightier and purer when we consider our relations to one another, to say nothing of the claim of compassionate love toward a perishing world? The apostle calls all who believe to be "like-minded." Rivalry, self-seeking, liking to differ or even thwart, is not Christ, but of the first and fallen Adam. When the eye of faith rests on all, Himself and those He loves, there is no difficulty. Naturally we see others' faults and overlook our own; but this is the old man; it is the reverse of Christ, Who is our new life and Whom we are called to live. Members one of another, members of Christ, how unworthy not to be "like-minded?" If nature is opinionative, what does the one indwelling Spirit aim at and effect? If we live in Spirit, in Spirit also let us walk, not vain-glorious, provocative, or envious.

Being in such a scene of wretchedness as the world and with bodies not yet redeemed in which we groan, we are exhorted to be also "sympathetic." Surely we may and ought to rejoice with those that rejoice; but far more frequent is the demand on our sharing the grief that abounds, and especially for righteousness or Christ's sake. It is our common portion as Christians to suffer with Him, even if we may not have the experience of suffering for Him. In any case sympathy in these holy sorrows is sweet and strengthening.

"Brother-loving" is a plain call, as belonging to the same family of God. Are we not to love them personally beyond our affection to our natural kin, as the bond is deeper and of divine nature and everlasting? Assuredly the enemy strives continually to bring in contention and misunderstanding, and every other means of hindrance; but the duty is as incontestable as the relation. How it is to be exercised depends on each case, for which we need the word and Spirit of God. For as John clearly shows, it is no mere human impulse and must not clash with the truth of God or with obedience.

"Tender-hearted" suitably follows. There is no worth in God's eyes if we love but in word or tongue, and not in deed and truth. We are to learn of Him who never relieved by power only, but His spirit entered into and bore up before God the infirmities and the diseases which He removed.

Nor is "humble-minded" the least though last in these qualities which the apostle sought to be in exercise. And where can we find its perfection but in the same Lord and Saviour? Nor could the days of His flesh be recalled without the vivid and humiliating remembrance of the sad contrast even in the honoured Twelve, so often and to the last disputing which of them should be accounted greatest. "I am meek and lowly in heart," said He, and it was ever true. Man's ambition was wholly alien. "Ye shall not be so; but let the greater among you be as the younger, and the chief as he that serveth."

Again the apostle charges the saints not to return evil for evil, or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary to bless, "because for this thing were ye called that ye might inherit blessing." So marked is the contrast of the Christian with Israel when they undertook to earn blessing by keeping the law; as the apostle Paul set before the saints in Galatia, who had made the same sad mistake. "For as many as are of works of law are under curse" (Gal. 3: 10): not as many as broke law, but as many as are pledged to that principle.

It is by grace alone, that we, Christians, are saved, or any can be; and it is through faith, not of works. Called also to an inheritance of glory, are we not witnesses of blessing? We know that one of our own poets expresses what nearly all felt as unbelievingly as himself: "Man never is, but always, to be blest." Christianity is the standing proof that they knew not the truth. It was the less wonderful in A. Pope, as he never rose out of superstition and dead form even to apprehend the gospel of God's grace.

But grace gives the Christian to understand and make good the moral government God carries on with His children. The apostle in vers. 10-12 cites Ps. 34 for this even now; though Israel must await another day when their heart turns to Him whom they rejected in their unbelief. Evil and guile wholly misbecome the life of believers. If any dishonour their Lord like the Corinthians, they fall under His chastening; and this may take the shape of sickness and death. Nor is it only words that are warned against. He urges from that scripture that they should turn away from evil and do good, seek peace in practice, and this earnestly, because Jehovah's eyes are on the righteous, and His ears to their supplication, whereas His face is against evil-doers. Now the mind of the saint is as truly to please God, as the carnal mind is not nor can be. The believer is in living relationship with Christ, the duty follows, and the Holy Spirit works in power to His glory.

Zeal for what is good is apt to disarm the honestly hostile; but in case it should not be so, how blessed to suffer for righteousness! Christ was perfect thus; in what was He not?

"And who shall injure you if ye become zealous of the good? But if even ye should suffer for righteousness, blessed [are ye]; and be not afraid of their fear, nor be troubled, but sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, ready always for answer (or, defence) to every one that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, but with meekness and fear, having a good conscience, that in what they speak against you as evil-doers, they may be ashamed that revile your good behaviour in Christ" (vers. 13-16).

Man that is born of woman is of few days, as Job says, and full of trouble; he is fallen and sinful with death before him soon, and, after this, judgment for ever. Impossible to face his real state conscientiously without continual unhappiness and awful forebodings for all eternity. Nothing within or around one can afford him solid satisfaction, still less be acceptable to God who is good and does good. His goodness therefore leads to repentance, and effectually in Christ only; for herein was the love of God manifested in our case, that God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him. It is clear that, if we are spiritually dead as being all of us lost sinners, this is our first great want, to receive a new life that we might live to God; and this life, as it is seen in its perfection and fulness in Christ, so it is given by Him to every one that hears His word and believes [km that sent Him. The Son quickeneth whom He will; and thus the believer has life eternal, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

But God's love as known in the gospel goes very much farther even now; for the believer might have life, life eternal, and be burdened by the sense of his past sins and of his present weakness and unworthiness. In the gospel God removes this distress by purging his conscience, and fills with peace through faith in Christ's sacrifice. Therefore is it added in 1 John 4: 10, Herein is love, not that we loved God (which we surely do as now living in Christ), but that He loved us, and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins. This alone is perfectly efficacious, and the Spirit seals us in virtue of it, so that we are brought into liberty and spiritual power by grace.

Henceforward, therefore, delivered from evil we become zealous of the good; and who shall injure us if it be so? The worst of mankind are struck when they see the proud rendered lowly, the violent meek, the quarrelsome peacemakers, the frivolous and pleasure-hunting grave, the corrupt pure, the covetous liberal, the careless or even blasphemous godly. But no doubt an evil eye under Satan's power may refuse all moral evidence and impute ever so real change for good to hypocrisy, and only hate the more those who leave their own wretched and wicked ranks to follow Christ. They do therefore seek to draw His confessors into evil ways old or new; and if they fail in ensnaring, they will not fail to detract and persecute; for all that desire to live piously in Christ Jesus are surely persecuted, or (as our text says) "suffer for righteousness' sake." But "blessed are ye" says the word. It is God's mercy and their honour, as delivered by Christ out of the present evil age according to the will of our God and Father.

Accordingly the saints are exhorted not to "fear their fear, nor to be troubled." Why should they, who now are redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, and called out of darkness into God's wonderful light? Calling Him Father (for such He truly is) Who without respect of persons judges according to each one's work, they would pass the time of their sojourning here in fear, because they are so favoured and blessed, yet in a wilderness of trials and pitfalls and dangers. From "their fear" who hate and malign, once their own fear, they are set free by the Saviour; and they owe it to His honour not to be troubled, seeing that at His cost they are blessed supremely by His God and Father who is ours also. Instead of such unbelieving fear and trouble naturally, they can and do exult though now for a little while, if needed, put to grief by various trials, all of which His grace turns to account (Rom. 8: 28) to those that love Him, to those that are called according to purpose.

What then is the resource and remedy? "But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord." Sanctimoniousness in manner or outward acts, far from availing, is a snare and a shame unworthy of a Christian, as far as possible from pleasing God, though it may deceive himself if unwary and others too. But to give Christ the holy place due to Him, and supremely as Lord, in our hearts, truly pleases Him Who would have us honour the Son even as we honour the Father. Without Him thus constantly set up and apart in our hearts, we are exposed to any and every idol whereby the enemy deceives the world; but with Christ thus the object of our inmost affections, how kept and blessed! So we see the fruit and accompaniment in the words that follow, "ready always for an answer to every one that asketh you a reason (or, account) for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." What account can creature give so satisfying, even to God, as the Lord Jesus and His redemption? In Him we have the righteousness found nowhere else, yea, we are become God's righteousness in Him; so that, as the same apostle says (Gal. 5: 5), "we through the Spirit by faith await," not righteousness as if we were not justified, but "the hope of righteousness," that is, heavenly glory with Christ. But this very blessedness, so undeserved by any, calls us to meekness and fear in confessing it, lest a rough or presumptuous spirit might dishonour the God of all grace or ourselves the recipients of His rich mercy.

In a fallen world and a sinful nature, with God on one side and Satan on the other, there must needs be suffering, and especially for the saint till Christ take His great power and reign. Satan is still the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience. So far is the enemy from having lost his bad eminence, though defeated by our Lord perfectly dependent and obedient, it was by the world's rejection of Him that he became the ruler of the world, yea, the god of this age, as we read in 2 Cor. 4: 4. No doubt exceeding his commission by inciting the world to crucify the Lord of glory, he has, as it were, sealed his own everlasting ruin in that precious blood. For to this end, as to others of greater moment still, Christ died, that through death He might annul him that has the might of death. But the full execution of the sentence awaits (not the coming age merely, when the Lord will reign and he is shut up in the abyss, but) the end, when ha is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the Beast and the False Prophet had been consigned a thousand years before; and they shall be tormented day and night for the ages of the ages.

Here in the present evil age (Gal. 1: 4) the Christian pre-eminently is called to suffer, not merely under divine discipline when he fails, but because he has a new nature as possessing life in Christ, and is faithful to God. Why should the fact seem hard? This the apostle here meets and explains.

"For [it is] better, if the will of God should will [it], to suffer [for] well-doing than [for] evil-doing. Because even Christ once suffered for sins, just for unjust, that He might bring us to God, put to death indeed in flesh, but made alive in [the] Spirit" (vers. 17, 18).

How simple yet weighty and conclusive is scripture! Who that considers it, when declared, can doubt that it is better to suffer when we are doing well than when we deserve chastening for ill-doing? Yet it is not at first obvious to him who, feeling the iniquity done him, is apt to complain of the hardship. Christ suffered throughout for righteousness, for truth, for love; and we have it as our privilege to share these sufferings of His, as the apostle Paul pressed on his beloved Philippians; "To you was granted in behalf of Christ not only the believing on him but the suffering for him also, having the same conflict as ye saw in me and now hear of in me" (Phil. 1: 29, 30). Peter too had already in 1 Peter 2: 21 presented Christ as a model in this, but there as here, distinguished from that following in His steps, the foundation of all which He only could lay, in that He bore our sins in His body on the tree, that dead to sins, we might live to righteousness (ver. 24). So here the apostle turns to what is and must be solely His: "because even (or, also) Christ once suffered for sins, Just for unjust."

For sins it was His alone to suffer. He suffered but once in this atoning way where none could follow; for it was not from man because He was faithful to God, but from God because of His grace to man, whatever it might cost in bearing God's righteous judgment of man's sins. For on His holy head Jehovah made to light, as Isaiah says, the iniquity of us all. "It pleased Jehovah to bruise him," not only to put Him to grief, but "to make his soul an offering for sin." Thus only could we be pardoned righteously and saved. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes are we healed. What pathos as well as force in the apostle's cheer for suffering as doers of good and not evil, that He suffered for our sins once and once only I Let this suffice: so perfectly was it done, as He alone could bear that burden, intolerable to Him above all, yet borne by Him that they might be, as they are, borne away for all that are His. Let us therefore now suffer only for what is good on our part.

But there is more. Christ also suffered once for sins, Just for unjust. He was alone in that one act of suffering supremely at God's hand. It was for unjust or unrighteous men. Alas! here all were unrighteous, all sinned; and those who by grace benefited through faith would be the first to own it of themselves. Henceforward they are righteous, and so live by faith, as through it they became so; nor do they forget that they believed on Him that justifies the ungodly, and thus their faith is reckoned for righteousness. Such was His grace.

Think too of the efficacy of His suffering thus, "that he might bring us to God," not yet actually to heaven but meet for it, and therefore "to God" Who is far more than heaven. Christ on the cross cleared us from both our evil works and the evil root and sap, sin in the flesh that produces them. We are therefore no longer far from God but brought nigh, as he had said in 1 Peter 2, a holy and a royal priesthood with a better reality of nearness to God by the blood of Christ than the Aaronic priest had typically. To assert a sacerdotal class on earth now between the Christian and Christ is to deny the gospel. None can wonder who believe in the glory of His person who was put to death in flesh, and made alive, or quickened, in the Spirit. His death rolled away the evil before God, and His resurrection proclaimed the victory to faith.

If any one desire a fuller discussion of these remarkable expressions and of what follows, he may find help in a small treatise entitled, "The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison" (Weston, 53, Paternoster Row).

Here we have need of vigilance that we yield not to fancy, but be subject to the words of the Holy Spirit in their exact bearing and in accordance with the context. For they are often taken up loosely and with bias in favour of a preconceived idea or with a view to a desired end. To ensure light we need the single eye; and this can only be where Christ is the governing object. The relative refers to the Spirit in virtue of "which" Christ was made alive after His death. Now of course a very different fact is added, but equally dependent on the Spirit.

"In [virtue of] which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, disobedient aforetime when the long-suffering of God was waiting in Noah's days, while an ark was being prepared, in which few, that is eight souls, were brought safe through water" (vers. 19, 20).

We are here given to understand that Christ in the Spirit preached to those whose spirits are imprisoned because when they heard His warning they were disobedient; which time is fixed as before the flood which punished them here, as they are now kept like others for judgment hereafter.

The Greek preposition ἐν is here required in order to accurately express "in" or "by" what power Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison. It was not in person but by virtue of the Spirit. This is remarkably confirmed by the language of Gen. 6: 3: "And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not always strive (or, plead) with man, for he indeed is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Here we learn to what the apostle alluded, not only Christ in Spirit (and we know He was Jehovah beyond doubt), but the term of the long-suffering of God in Noah's days. For to this the divine statement refers, not to man's life, which even after the deluge was far longer as yet, but to His patient pleading while the ark was in preparation. 2 Peter 2: 5, with 1 Peter 1: 11, lends much help to the clearness of the sense intended; for as Noah is beyond any man of old designated "preacher of righteousness," so we might expect for the power at work in him the same Spirit of Christ which in the prophets testified beforehand the sufferings Christward and the glories after these.

The truth meant in the passage is thus made quite plain and consistent, not only with the exact demands of the context but with the rest of scripture. There is if possible less difficulty here than with Eph. 2: 17, where it is said of Christ, that "He came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to those that were nigh." No sensible person sees more in this than Christ, not personally but in Spirit, preaching to Gentiles as well as Jews, after His ascension. This was plain enough; but in our text, lest it might be misunderstood by the imaginative or the superstitious, grace furnished the qualification "in which" [Spirit] He proceeded, not into the prison, as some have conceived, but preached to the spirits that are in prison. They were living men on earth when the Spirit pleaded with them in Noah's days while preparing the ark.

With this precisely agrees "disobedient as they once, or aforetime, were," during that long space of forbearing, compassion, and testimony. Again the structure of the phrase is the one proper to express the moral cause or reason why they are now in prison. Instead of penitence and faith, when Jehovah's Spirit strove, they were disobedient: a fact which our Lord (Matt. 24: 38, 39) turned to a warning like His servant here. A similar fate will befall the heedless at the coming of the Son of man in the consummation of the age. There is no room in doctrine any more than in fact or in the phraseology of Peter, for the strange notion of ancients or moderns that Christ in person went to Hades after His death for the purpose of preaching to the spirits there. The strangeness is heightened by the fact that the only ones said to be the objects of His preaching were that generation of mankind which had been favoured with the pleading of His Spirit in Noah. Such a favour when they were alive would much more naturally have weighed against the alleged visitation after death, even if other scriptures did not prove its needlessness for saints and its unavailingness for sinners.

The truth is that the fabulous notion of such a preaching by Christ after death in Hades contravenes all scriptural truth elsewhere, and is only extracted from the passage before us by violence done to its separate clauses and its scope as a whole, in no way carrying on the divine argument but interpolating a wholly incongruous interruption. For the only character given to those who heard the preaching is that they were then disobedient, as the ground of their imprisonment: a strange reason for singling these out for the favour of the Lord's going to the prison on their account.

If it be an outrage on orthodox doctrine to suppose such a preaching to such an audience in such a place, condition and time, it is even more plainly opposed to the terms of the apostle, if one foist in the idea that the Lord preached to the O.T. departed saints. Not a word implies a believer among the spirits in prison. All attempts in this direction from Augustine down to Calvin, and near our day to Horsley, as to others since, are utterly vain. The clear bearing of the teaching is to contrast the disobedient mass of spirits (in the prison of the separate state for such) with the few who in the ark were brought safe through water.

The unbelieving Jews who objected to the fewness of the Christians were thus powerfully met, as well as their contempt for preaching as having no serious effect, whether believed or rejected. Was Christ acting now by the Spirit, instead of that manifestation of power and glory which they longed for in unbelief of what God is doing by the gospel? Let them remember how He wrought before the deluge, and how it fared with those who disobeyed His warning. There is thus no real difficulty in the passage when the general analogy of Noah's days is apprehended; any more than in the details of the most correct text, with the strictest attention both to grammatical rendering and sound doctrine. No event in the O.T. could be found more apposite to warn scoffing Jews in the apostle's day than that which befell the disobedient in Noah's time of preparing the ark. How different the effect of Jonah's preaching to the men of Nineveh! Yet their repentance was but transient, and the end of the great city followed. But the deluge was not all for those who rejected the Spirit of Jehovah that warned by Noah. Their spirits are in prison waiting for the judgment, wherein no one is just before God. They are lost for ever. It is only by faith that a sinner is justified. The disobedience of unbelief is final; it braves God's mercy as well as His wrath; it is worst in such as have the scriptures.

The assumption of Christ's preaching to the departed in Hades is a dream, which clashes not only with the truth in general but with this context in particular, rendering it in all the minute points of the words both halting and irreconcilable, when adequately looked into. The result too is an allegation extraordinary, suggesting a doctrinal inference at issue with God's word everywhere else. For it attributes a work to Christ which is superfluous for saints no less than sinners; and for these last is apt to become the basis of a spurious hope, as inconsistent with all that our Lord when here declared for those that die in unbelief, as with that which the Holy Spirit has taught since redemption. Another evil effect of this misinterpretation is, that it sets ingenious minds to essay a shadowy confirmation from such texts in the O.T. as Psalm 68: 18, Isaiah 45: 2, Isaiah 49: 9, and to deny that Paradise is heavenly in the N.T. One error leads to another and perhaps many. It is well to maintain the hope of the blessed and holy "first resurrection" at Christ's coming; but there is very great harm in denying the intermediate bliss of the saints departed to be with Christ. Scripture! is perfectly plain and sure as to both.

The water of the deluge leads to the spiritual meaning of baptism in ver. 21: the figure of death judicially, whether for the world that perished thus; or for the believer's salvation by grace through Him Who went down for our sins and rose that He might be the true ark for us. The water was the instrument of God's judgment in destruction. Those in the ark were saved through it, but this only because they submitted to God's word and were secured by the ark. But the ark prefigured Christ, not the church as some vainly imagine; for no such thing existed then, nor, if it had, could it have saved, but rather consists of those that needed the salvation which is in virtue of Christ's death and resurrection.

"Which *figure (or, antitype) also now saveth you, baptism, not a putting away of filth of flesh, but a request of a good conscience toward God through Jesus Christ's resurrection; who is at God's right hand, having proceeded into heaven, angels, and authorities, and powers being subjected to him" (vers. 21, 22).

{*The Elzevir Edd., like Beza's, and before all, the Complut., followed indifferent MSS. in giving ῳ, which the Auth. V. adopted; but Erasmus, Colinaeus, Stephens, with whom agreed Wells, Lachmann, Griesbach, Scholz, and all modern critics, give ὅ on fuller and better authority. The Revisers of course correct accordingly; but they are not very consistent in their rendering of ἀντίτυπον. For the only other N.T. use of the word is in Heb. 9: 24, there "like in pattern," here "after a true likeness." There seems no sufficient ground to translate differently in the two cases. "Figure" is the sense in both, as the A.V. conveys. Also I; A B P, many cursives, and the ancient versions have ὑμᾶς, "you," instead of ἡμᾶς, "us." There are curious omissions in the witnesses; as the Sinaitic, the cursive 78, and Aeth. omit ὅ. Again νῦν, "now," is drops by several cursives, the Pesch.-Syr. and Arm., as well as Cyprian. Of lesser aberrations we need not speak. The true text emerges with certainty.}

It is of all moment to understand the mind of the Spirit; for superstition has caught at words here also to support its delusion. But we must read scripture in the light of other scriptures, as well as of the context, if we are to walk in the truth. All scripture, we may say, points to the Saviour and faith in Him for salvation of the soul. Nor is any part of it plainer as to this than the foregoing doctrine of the Epistle before us. Christ is pointed to as the quickener of men dead in trespasses and sine, Christ the Son in communion with the Father, made known in the Holy Spirit's power through the word (John 3: 5, John 5: 21-25). So in the first chapter of our Epistle the apostle says, "Having purified your souls in obedience to the truth unto unfeigned brotherly affection, love one another out of a pure heart fervently." How could this be, considering what man is naturally? "Having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through God's living and abiding word. Because all flesh [is] as grass, and all its glory as flower of grass; the grass withered, and its flower quite fell; but the Lord's word remaineth for ever. And this is the word preached unto you." Hence in James 1: 12 it is written, "Of His own will He (the Father) begot us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures."

These are but a few of many scriptures which one might cite from the Gospels and the Epistles; but they amply show that, as life is in the Son, so He is the giver of life to the believer, and this now not only for fellowship with the Father and with the Son, but for walking in the light, cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Baptism has its place of deep interest and importance; but scripture never attributes quickening to it. This is a very old and inveterate error of Christendom. All the so-called Fathers who speak of life-giving assign it to baptism. It was the error of darkened times long before the Popish day; and its necessity was founded on the wholly misunderstood words of our Lord in John 3: 3, 5. This was so universal after the apostles that Hooker lays down, in opposition to Cartwright (Eccles. Poll v. § 59), "that of all the Ancient, there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or allege the place than as implying external Baptism."

Now it is a striking fact that, beyond the allusion to the disciples baptising as John did long before our Lord's death and resurrection, and His subsequent commission to baptise all the nations, the Gospel of John avoids even the mention of Christian baptism and the Lord's supper. Its design was to bring out, not the hallowed institutions of Christianity, but the life eternal and the gift of the Holy Spirit with their precious issues. No institution is ever said to give life, nor can any restore the communion which indulgence in sin may have interrupted. In John 3 the Lord urges the absolute necessity of being born anew, that is, of water and Spirit, in order to see or enter the kingdom of God. Being by nature a child of wrath, a new nature is requisite. Water, as in John 15: 3, Eph. 5: 26, refers to the word of God brought home by the Spirit in faith and repentance. This Nicodemus as a Jewish teacher should have known, especially from Ezek. 36: 25, etc.; whereas neither he nor any one else could have known of Christian baptism, instituted years after.

It is similar with John 6: 53, etc., which means communion by faith with Christ dead for redemption, as verses 32, etc., speak of Him incarnate. The language in John 3 goes far beyond baptism, as that of John 6 far exceeds the Lord's supper. This last ought to be evident to any one who bows to scripture. He who so applies this passage ought to affirm, that none can have life eternal without the Supper, and that none who partakes of it can fail to have life eternal: both statements as dangerous as they are false.

Still baptism is the expression and confession of part in Christ's death; or as the apostle Paul puts it, "know ye not that we as many as were baptised unto Christ Jesus were baptised unto His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism unto death." This is its meaning: Christ's death, not life, both which are by faith in Him. So too in the Lord's supper we announce His death till He come; for this is as it ought to be a constantly recurring feast, as Christian baptism is expressly once only. Christ must come, not by birth alone, but by water and blood with the Spirit given as witness. Till then Christianity could not be, because God had not been glorified nor sin judged in His death. He was straitened, however great His grace, glory, and moral perfections, till that baptism was accomplished. The Christian institution followed.

Baptism was as Peter taught "for remission of sins," as we read in Act 2: 38. Hence Ananias was sent to "brother Saul," already having life in Christ risen, and bade him arise and get baptised, and have his sins washed away, calling on the Lord's name. So here "Which figure," for this it is, "also now saveth you, baptism." But the apostle carefully adds, "not a putting away of flesh's filth, but a request (or, demand) of a good conscience." For the life of Christ given to the soul seeks and can be satisfied with nothing less. And as He Who is and gives us life eternal suffered for sins, we also receive the rich blessing of His death in all its value. It figures therefore not life, as says tradition ever dark and misleading, but salvation, the present salvation of our souls, and pledge of the glorious change for our bodies at Christ's coming. Baptism sets forth our passing out of the fallen estate into the new standing of salvation "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." All was holy and acceptable in Him incarnate; but such was our guilt, such our ruin, that nothing short of His resurrection could bring us into salvation. "Verily, verily, I say to you, Except the grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit." Remission of sins and salvation are thus part of our blessing. Baptism as the initiatory institution proclaims it; and so does the Lord's supper throughout, as we wait for Christ; but it all depends on the efficacy of His death and resurrection to our faith.

We can thus see the consistency of the truth in Christ. For in Him God came down to poor lost sinners, that believing in Him they might live who were dead. But in Him dead and risen we come to God, cleared by His atoning blood and in the power and acceptance of His resurrection. And here it is that Christianity finds its basis and character. We are thus not merely safe, as all were who had life; but now we "are saved," and become God's righteousness in Him. Hence Christian baptism follows Christ's death and resurrection. A good conscience toward God is the thing demanded, when we are alive in Him to God: our clearance by His work of redemption. "Request" or "demand" (not "answer") is the true force of ἐπερώτημα. And what a grand demonstration of it is in Christ on God's right hand, the same Christ Who suffered once (it was enough) for our sins and bore them away, and proceeded in due time into heaven and its highest seat of honour, angels and authorities and powers subjected to Him, instead of disputing His righteous title. That they indeed pay Him divine homage, Heb. 1 declares according to O.T. prophecy; and the Revelation discloses in its visions of heavenly glory, seen by John and made known to us, to act now on our souls. For all things are ours, things present and things to come. Hay we profit by a privilege so wondrous!

We may remark too, that (though God was pleased to give au advance of privilege and truth by Paul in Rom. 6 and Col. 2, as compared with Peter's testimony in this text), the words in Heb. 11: 7 coincide with "now saveth you." "By faith Noah, warned oracularly concerning things to come, prepared an ark for the saving of his house." This was the figure. But the true salvation to which baptism points figuratively is of a divine and everlasting character on the foundation of Christ's death and resurrection.

But it is needful to say that whatever be the place and value of baptism, the same Paul thanks God in 1 Cor. 1 that he baptised only a few at Corinth, lest any should say that they were baptised to his own name. How could he possibly say this, if thereby any get life eternal? And further, that Christ sent him not to baptise but to preach the gospel, by which, in 1 Cor. 4: 16, he says that in Christ Jesus he begot them. Whereas in 1 Cor. 10: 1-12 he warns them by the examples of Israel's history, that neither baptism nor the Lord's supper avails to hinder falling in the wilderness through unbelief and the sins to which it exposes. See also Heb. 3, 4.

The truly astonishing thing is, how any saint can have become so bewitched by human pretensions, and so dull to the infinite work of grace (engaging as it does all the Trinity to save a guilty sinful man), as to receive so evident a delusion of the enemy. As God in Christ alone could save, so nothing short of His power can keep souls through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. For salvation here (1 Peter 1: 5), as often elsewhere, means the salvation of the body, and not only of the soul as in 1 Peter 1: 9.

For those unbelievers who alighted the gospel through their zeal for Messiah's glory to be manifested on earth, it was not without importance to point out how much more is the glory on high in which the Christian delights to regard Christ now. He "is at God's right hand, having proceeded into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being subjected to him." He will surely and in due time sit as David's Son on David's throne in Zion; and all Israel will repent, believe and be saved in that day. But the Jews, and the Gentiles too, who now see Him by faith have a better portion, as He has gone up into a higher glory. Nor can the unbelieving Jew gainsay the fact that David in Spirit attests it, saying, Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit on my right until I set thine enemies as footstool of thy feet. If He sits, as Psalm 110 assures, angels and authorities and powers are not disobedient like the Jews on earth to the heavenly vision, but, subjected to Him, break forth in glad and loud acclaim. And Christians even here and now worship in the Spirit Him who is thus exalted above. They believe and know Him there.

1 Peter 4.

Here as in 1 Peter 2: 24, our apostle urges death to sins in its practical reality. It is not (as the apostle Paul, in Rom. 6: and elsewhere, teaches) the Christian privilege of having died with Christ to sin, but the duty which flows from His death as a fact in the spiritual realm, that we should no longer serve sin but walk as righteous men after Christ's example. Both speak to the same end.

"Since Christ then suffered [for us*] in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind; because he that suffered in flesh hath ceased from sin, no longer to live the rest of time in flesh to men's lusts but to God's will. For the past time [is] sufficient to have wrought out [or, purposed] the will † of the Gentiles, walking as ye had done in lasciviousness, lusts, wine-bibbings, revels, carousings, and unhallowed idolatries; wherein they think it strange that ye run not with [them] into the same excess of profligacy, speaking injuriously, who shall render account to him that is ready to judge living and dead. For to this end was the gospel preached to dead men also, that they might be judged according to man in flesh, and live according to God in spirit" (1 Peter 4: 1-6).

* 31 and a few other cursives with Syr. Pesch., read ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, "for you," as e A K L P and many more, Memph. and other ancients give ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, "for us." B C etc. omit either, and this most critics prefer.

†The more ancient MSS. omit τοῦ βίου, "of life," and have βούλημα, not θέλημα as in ver. 2.

To Messiah, the greatest of all sufferers, the apostle turns the hearts of his brethren. It was all the more impressive that of Him it had been verified to perfection, and in the cross above all. For till the veil was taken from the heart of the righteous remnant, the Jew saw nothing but triumph and glory for Him, as wolf as for His people. And what a large part of Holy Writ bore witness to it! Yet His death was the simplest, plainest, and the most irrefragable proof, that unbelief had hidden from their eyes the divine testimony to His suffering throughout the O.T., Law, Psalms, and Prophets. Risen from the dead He opened the understanding of His disciples to understand the scriptures and thus to judge their own dark onesidedness. As He said to two of them on the resurrection day, "O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets spoke! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?" Long before His crucifixion He had told His disciples of the Son of man being in His day as the lightning shines from under heaven to under heaven to the surprise of a guilty world; "but first he must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation" (Luke 17: 24, 25).

There was revealed an unequalled Sufferer, not Job, not Joseph, not Moses, nor David, nor Jeremiah, nor any other of the prophets; but all these perhaps in some stage foreshadowing the suffering One to come. But all this is infinitely short of the wondrous truth of the cross. For He, the Holy One of God who knew no sin, was made sin for us, and suffered, not for righteousness as saints might and did, but from God for our sins, as He alone could. And hence, when rejected of the people, betrayed by one apostle, denied by another, forsaken by all (we may say), God forsook Him, as His own lips declared. So it must be if sin was to be adequately judged, and a perfect ground laid in His death to reconcile the foulest sinner to God, cleansing him from every sin by His blood. As the apostle testified to His blood in 1: 18-21, so does he now to the practical power of His suffering to give power against sin: "Arm yourselves with the same mind." Never had He pleased Himself, though in Him was no sin. Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God. Such was His life in every detail; it was a. pure meal-offering, a holy oblation, to God His Father, whose glory He sought in the least thing as in the greatest, and in the humblest, truest, and deepest of all ways — in obedience. And so it was in that with which nothing can compare, in His atoning death, where God had all His nature glorified even as to sin, and made Him sin for us that we might become His righteousness in Christ.

Great, and varied, and infinite are the results of His suffering; yet here the apostle speaks, not of its being the efficacious means of bringing us to God as blameless and spotless as Himself, but of its practical power against sin day by day. "Since Christ then suffered in flesh, arm yourselves with the same mind." Christ never yielded, but suffered being tempted; holy Himself, He kept sin outside. He had no sin in the human nature which He took. But how were we to be met who had it within and were guilty without? He died for us, yea for our sins; He was forsaken of God that this judgment might be complete; and in this judgment the apostle Paul adds that God condemned the root of all, sin in the flesh, in Him a sacrifice for sin, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit.

Peter here draws from Christ for the Christian the great abstract principle, "because he that suffered in flesh hath ceased from sin, no longer to live the rest of time in flesh to men's lusts but to God's will." Allowing all the difference between the Saviour and the saved, this truly applies to His followers. When we sin, it is our own will that is active to His dishonour. One suffers in refusing to sin; one judges and hates and thwarts the will of flesh, and suffers, but does not sin. If by grace our mind is set on God's will at all cost, sin does not enter. It is suffering in flesh, and therein is separation from sin. And this is the simple normal state of the Christian with the heart resting on Him that went down below all depths for him. When the heart loses sight of Him, one shirks suffering, and the will asserts fleshly activity, and actual sin follows. But we are sanctified by the Spirit to the obedience of Jesus, no less than to the sprinkling of His blood. We are left here to do the will of God, now that we are Christ's.

There is another consideration the apostle sets before us, and truly humbling it is. "For the past time is sufficient to have wrought out the purpose [or, will] of the Gentiles, walking as ye have done in lasciviousness, lusts, wine-bibbings, revels, carousings, end unhallowed idolatries; wherein they think it strange that ye run not together into the same excess of profligacy, speaking injuriously; who shall render account to him that is ready to judge living and dead" (3-5).

There is no doubt that these wicked ways were characteristic of the Gentiles, not of the Jews; but those of the dispersion, living among the heathen, were apt to be corrupted by their environment. Like their fathers of old, the descendants, especially outside the sharp supervision of Palestinian eyes, were too easily drawn into gross lusts and passions, and thence, with a bad conscience shutting out God and His judgment, adopted unhallowed idolatries, such as amulets, charms, and the like. This is what the apostle charges as a fact in former days, on those who now bore the Lord's name. It was natural for the heathen so to live; it was shocking that such of them as owned Jehovah had so walked: they now knew that they were no better than others. The apostle, while exhorting to consistency with that holy name, reminds the saints that their Gentile neighbours counted it strange that they do not run the same common race of impure and selfish indulgence, so generally linked with idolatrous customs. Instead of approving the change, they indulged injurious imputations, as the world still does in its form of Christendom. In this they but follow the prince of the world, who is a liar and murderer, the marked contrast of Him who is the Truth and the Life-giver, to whom they "shall render account." But he puts it with all impressive force, when He is described here as "having it in readiness to judge quick and dead." Can any believer name a single visible event that hinders His coming?

It is indeed a certain, solemn, yet simple truth, that the Lord Jesus Christ is ordained, or determinately appointed, to this office by God. As Peter preached at Caesarea, Paul at Athens declared that God now enjoins men that they shall all everywhere repent, because He has set a day in which He will judge the inhabited earth by the appointed Man, having as pledge to all afforded His raising Him from the dead. To the believer Peter taught in 1 Peter 1: 21 that His resurrection is to give him faith and hope toward God, delivered from all fear of judgment. To unbelievers, Paul at the Areopagus preached it to be God's assurance that the day hastens when Christ will judge living men as well as dead: the first when He comes in Hs kingdom, the second just before He gives it up for the eternal state (Rev. 20). For He who bore our sine in His body on the tree is the same that is now raised from the dead; because God was glorified for the putting away of sin in that sacrifice of Himself, Who is the fore-runner for us entered into that within the veil; as He will come to receive us to Himself, that where He is, there we may be also.

But He is ready to judge, not those even now associated with Him, but "living and dead" who disbelieved and despised Him. He brings salvation to those, judgment to these. How the word of God sweeps away, not doubt only, but delay! "My lord delayeth" is the heart's language of mere professors. How sad that believers should plead excuses for the unbelief which our Lord stigmatises! True hearts love His appearing and would rather hasten the day, solemn as it is.

It is His judging that is linked with verse 6, and helps to rid it of the difficulties with which superstition loads and darkens it. "For to this end the glad tidings went to dead persons also, that they might be judged according to men in flesh, and live according to God in spirit." From the hour that man fell by sin under death and judgment, God had in His grace a gospel to shelter and give life according to God; which is therefore in the last book of scripture called "an everlasting gospel." To this clung faith from the first; and it was added to and cleared gradually throughout the O.T. till the death, resurrection, and glory of Christ gave it fulness. And those who now dead heard it in the course of ages had their responsibility so much the more increased. If they abode in their sins through unbelief, they will be judged by the coming Lord according to men in flesh. Grace exempts from that sorrowful condition by the faith of the glad tidings, and life is in Christ for all who believe, who therefore live to God in spirit. For Christ gives life no less than pardon. Those who feel their need of God's grace do also submit to the humbling sense that they deserve judgment. Thus it is that repentance and faith ever go together.

We may add that the passage similarly mistaken in 1 Peter 3: 19, 20 does not speak of "glad tidings" like this, and has thus another bearing. It was simply Noah's proclaiming the coming deluge as "a preacher of righteousness" and affected those who perished for their disobedience and are kept for judgment. But we hear of "glad tidings" here; and therefore as the context proves, it applies to all in the past who have heard the gospel. This if refused left them in their natural state as men in flesh, fallen men, to be judged; while those who by grace heard the good news that was sent live according to God in spirit by virtue of that word which quickens by the faith of Christ, and produces the good fruit proper to that life practically. Any one acquainted with the language must own the strict accuracy with which the apostle Peter, certainly not a man of letters or learning, was led to the precisely accurate κηρύσσω and κήρυξ on the one hand, and to the appropriate εὐαγγελίζω on the other.

Founded on the Lord's readiness to judge, in all its solemnity for man, is the reminder of the approaching end of all things which now subsist. This is supposed in such an intervention.

"But the end of all things hath drawn nigh. Be discreet therefore and watch (or, be sober) unto prayers,* and before all things having your love toward each other fervent, for love covereth* a multitude of sins; hospitable toward one another without murmuring;* according as each received a gift, ministering it toward each other as good stewards of God's various grace: if one speak, [let it be] as oracles of God; if one ministereth, as of strength which God supplieth; that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages. Amen" (vers. 7-11).

{*The true reading is the plural, and without the article as in Text. Rec. Also "covereth" is right, not "shall cover"; and the singular "murmuring" rather than the plural.}

The Holy Spirit keeps as constant and proximate, not only the bright hope of the Lord's coming for the saints, but the close of man's day for the earth. The world refuses or ridicules the warning. Even saints forget it as a living word from God for every day; and when mingling with human interests and men's thoughts, get weary, are ashamed of the truth, apologise for or gloss over the words of the Lord and the apostles, so as in effect to say, like the evil bondman in his heart, "My Lord delayeth:" alike the cause and the consequence of growing worldliness. Even watching for executive providence in the meantime undermines and destroys the separating and heart-elevating power of waiting for Christ.

But the word here flowing out of faith in the impending end of all things is, "Be discreet therefore," that is of sound mind spiritually; "and watch," or be sober, "unto prayers:" a very different attitude from absorption in the newspaper, and in each exciting movement west or east, so often to fade and disappoint the superficial readers of prophecy. Hope like faith looks to God, expects in patience, and does not make ashamed. The Christian ought never to forget that he is a Christian, and follows the crucified but glorified One, content — yea rejoicing — to endure till we reign together with Him at His appearing and kingdom. It is not our place to thunder and lighten, as those under the law were bound to do, at the revolt of Israel and at the passing enormities of the Gentile powers. When we are translated, it will be for the godly remnant on earth to take up the cry once more, "How long, Sovereign Master the holy and true, dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on those that dwell upon the earth?" Blessed saints will they be, but no more Christians in the full sense than the O.T. saints before us.

The saints now are exhorted to watch unto prayers; as another apostle bade his dear Philippians, with the Lord at hand, be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let their requests be made known unto God. Thus should the peace of God that surpasses all understanding guard their hearts and their thoughts in Christ Jesus. Such is true Christian experience. Still more wide and deep is the word in Eph. 6 where the apostle says "with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching "hereunto with all perseverance and supplication."

"But before all things" (for it ought in practice to take precedence of all), he adds, "having your love toward each other fervent, because love covereth a multitude of sins" (ver. 8): this last clause an application of Prov. 10: 12. As hatred makes the worst of everything, love is entitled to bury things out of sight; and God endorses it as answering to His own nature. Needless to say that holy discipline retains its needed but sorrowful action.

Next (ver. 9) the apostle would have them, as another form of love, "hospitable unto one another, without murmuring." Surely grumbling and grudging did not become a holy and a royal priesthood Practical outgoing of heart in this way promotes fellowship, and strengthens the bonds of grace. It yields a fine contrast to man's selfishness, which seeks its own things, and complains of all else.

Gift too (vers. 10, 11), used according to God, subserves the same end as well as much greater ones, even the perfecting of the saints, for ministerial work, and for building up the body of Christ. But our apostle as usual is eminently direct and practical "As each received a gift," they were to minister it toward each other, "as good stewards of God's varied grace." This is just what human organising hinders. How sad for saints to sanction any meddling with God's will and ways! It is not the right of each that is pleaded, but the obligation from gifts of God to use whatever it be in responsibility to Him. "It is required in stewards that one be found faithful" (1 Cor. 4: 2) from the greatest to the least: else God's rights are infringed, and His grace is thus far suppressed.

The apostle divides gifts into two general classes, speaking or service otherwise. "If one speak [let it be] as oracles of God." This does not merely mean according to scripture; which might be misdirected, and thus even do harm; as e.g. encouraging, when reproof was due, or the inverse. Not even a gifted man ought to speak without the assurance of God's mind for the moment and case in hand. How much would be spared, were this divine rule truly felt! Then again, "If one ministereth, as of the strength which God supplieth." Creature advantages might be a snare on both sides. Even in temporal service, which is thus distinguished from the word, the right strength is that which comes from God, and not human ability, attainment, rank, or wealth. We may compare with this latter "ministry," "giving," and "showing mercy" in Rom. 12, and "helps" in 1 Cor. 12. It is remarkable how scripture in this differs, as usual, from the thoughts and language of Christendom. For so ignored is scripture, even by men zealous in dispensing it in all possible versions throughout the world, that they confine "ministry" to public speaking, and never consider that God thus dignifies all real service which is not of that oral character.

But "gifts" in either way are so designated by inspiration; and their free and holy exercise claimed as coming from such a donor; "that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is (not merely "be") the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages. Amen." For thus the fervent spirit of the apostle poured itself out, as he wrote these things to the saints in Asia Minor; and God has kept them for us also.

The apostle next turns definitely to suffering of the severest kind which they were called to endure, not as a question of right or wrong, which any upright brother might and does face, but for Christ's name which in a greater degree draws on faith.

"Beloved, be not surprised at (count not strange) the fire among you that cometh for your trial, as though a strange thing were happening to you; but inasmuch as ye share in the sufferings of Christ, rejoice, that in the revelation of his glory also ye may rejoice exultingly. If ye are reproached in Christ's name, blessed [are ye], because the [Spirit] of glory and the Spirit of God resteth upon you: [on their part he is blasphemed, but on your part he is glorified]" (vers. 12-14).

Blessed is a man that endureth temptation or trial, and the more fiery it may be, the more blessed he that endures; because when thus proved he shall receive the crown of life which the Lord promised to those that love Him. The danger is of entering into temptation, as even the apostle knew too sadly, when he forgot the Lord's warning in the confidence of his own love, and denied Him thrice. But grace began to restore him, when the Lord re-called to His poor servant His admonitory words, and never stops till he could be so re-instated before his brethren, as to have His sheep and lambs entrusted to his care. Nor was this all. For the redeeming work of Christ so completely purged him, as it does every worshipper (Heb. 10: 2), that he could boldly charge the men of Israel with their denying the Holy and Just One. Once for all purified, he had no longer any conscience of sins: that sin and every other were effaced for ever. Such is the Christian's initiatory privilege.

Who then was more fitted than this apostle of the circumcision to strengthen the hearts of his brethren at the fire among them coming for their trial? They should not count it strange but an honour from God, especially as they had, what the apostle had not when he was tried, the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, as the fruit of Christ's accomplished work. Had not the Lord said to His disciples, "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from them, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as wicked, for the Son of man's sake"? Had He not bidden them to "rejoice in that day and leap for joy; for, behold, your reward is great in heaven, for according to the same things did their fathers to the prophets"?

The apostle had already exhorted them (in 1 Peter 2: 20, 21) to endure as a grace and honour if one for conscience toward God endured griefs, suffering wrongfully. For as he admirably argued, what honour is there, if when sinning and buffeted ye shall endure? But if doing good and suffering ye shall endure, this is grace, or acceptable, with God. There too he points to Christ's suffering for us, as the great model to follow. This he followed up more briefly but with sharp pungency (in 1 Peter 3: 17, 18), as better, if God's will should will it, to suffer as doing good rather than doing evil, with the same One before our hearts in His once for all suffering for sins, as He alone could. Here he goes beyond suffering for righteousness and as well-doers; and in accordance with the fiery persecution in view, he reminds them that inasmuch as ye share, or have fellowship in, the sufferings of Christ, it was theirs to rejoice, that in the revelation of His glory also they may rejoice with exultation. The Spirit was afresh applying what the Lord at the beginning laid down on the mount, the surpassing excellence in His eyes (and who such a judge?) of being reviled and persecuted with every wicked thing lyingly said against them for His sake. Blessed they that were persecuted for righteousness' sake, because theirs is the kingdom of the heavens (Matt. 5: 10); but in the next verses 11, 12, He rises higher, and addresses personally, and no longer as before in the abstract, "ye" that suffer for His sake. These were to rejoice and exult, because their reward was great in the heavens.

Here too His servant was given to add, "If ye are reproached in Christ's name, blessed [are ye]; because the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." Christ was not here, but in the glory of God; and thence came the Spirit, sent by the Father in His name, and by Himself from the Father to abide with them and be in them (John 14, 15). How fitting and full of comfort the reminder! He was the seal of their accomplished redemption, and the earnest of the glory coming to them. He is the Spirit of God, which is more and better than glory. Such was the Spirit that rested on them, both for energy to endure and for joy' now and evermore. No doubt, it is generally true of all the sons of God, for He is the Spirit of sonship, which believers receive since redemption (Gal. 4: 4, Eph. 1: 13, 14); but it is here said with emphasis to sustain the sufferers for Christ's name. The latter part of the verse is quite true, and said in substance elsewhere; but omitted as the words are by the best MSS. and most ancient Vv. and looking like a gloss, they are here bracketed as of doubtful authority. There is an addition also to the Spirit of glory and of God, "and of power" in AP, more than 30 cursives, some ancient versions, etc., even expanded in ; but the Vatican MS. and other good witnesses oppose; and indeed it seems still less in accord with the context.

The apostle had put forward the sufferings of the saints as fellowship with Christ's sufferings. They could not share His grace without sharing what this entailed on Him in an evil world where God is hated quite as much as He is dreaded by a bad conscience and an unbelieving heart. They were therefore to count persecution no strange thing, but to be expected where sin pervades and prevails, where darkness is put for light and light for darkness, where good is called evil and evil good, where sweet is accounted bitter and bitter sweet. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the portion of the righteous be but the rejection which their Lord had? The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the bondman above his lord. Every one when perfected shall be as his master. It was saintly privilege and to be accepted with thanks and exultation. It was to be reproached in His name, the Spirit of glory and of God resting on them that their groans might have a divine and unselfish character, and themselves be strengthened with all power according to the might of His glory unto all patience with joy.

Now he turns to the moral side, after an earnest exhortation against the dangers for a Christian in the midst of the worst examples. Assuredly if God judges, it is for good reason; and judge He must, according to His holy nature, what is inconsistent with it, and lifts itself proudly and rebelliously against Himself. Already too men slept, and the enemy sowed darnel, and the evil could not be expelled till the consummation of the age when the Son of man takes it in hand with power and glory. The Holy Spirit was sent for the good news, the saints, the church, but not to apply remedy to the ruin. This is reserved for the Lord who will at His appearing bring in times of restoration of all things, as the prophets spoke and God through them since time began. 2 Thess. 2, one of the earliest communications to the church, is explicit that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work. This is the succession that is never interrupted, though kept in check by the Spirit of God till He departs, and the apostasy ensues, which culminates in the lawless one fully displayed in his audacious taking of his seat in God's temple, showing himself that he is God.

Hence says our apostle, "Because the time [is] that judgment begin from the house of God; and if first from us, what [shall be] the end of those that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous is with difficulty saved, where shall the impious and sinful appear? Wherefore also let those that suffer according to the will of God commit their souls in well-doing* to a faithful Creator" (vers. 17-19).

{*The most ancient authorities omit ὡς "as."}

So it had been in the awful judgment which befell Jerusalem and the Jews as described by Ezekiel. "Begin at my sanctuary," said Jehovah, where man assumed indefectibility, and such is the vain confidence of tradition, in the face of the plainest testimonies to the contrary in the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation. The glory of Jehovah refused to dwell in His house defiled by abomination, and yet greater abominations, the last of which was that eastern attitude which has ever stamped the idolator, never the two worshipper of our God and Father. No doubt, salvation ever was of God and in sovereign grace; and this in Christianity is made more evident and indisputable than it ever had been. But God from the first maintained His title to judge every departure from Him; and none ought to be so ready and so thorough in confessing their sins as those who own that all they enjoy and boast is of His grace. Whereas the plague-spot in Christendom, as in Israel, is to claim for its most guilty and apostate state the immunity that belongs to the counsels of grace. Never was Judah loftier in its pretensions and louder in its sense of security than on the eve of unsparing judgment. And now it is still more guiltily the fact with Christendom.

Here it is where even real disciples sadly fail. Party-spirit blinds; for what is Christendom but a scattered group of parties? As another apostle taught, there were schisms even then; and there must be heresies or sects as it really means, the inevitable elect if not corrected by self-judgment; and these we now see all around and unblushing. Those that carry the head highest can hardly deny it. Their own association is of course the true one, if not quite immaculate in their eyes; but they must know of souls on earth more than themselves subject to the word and Spirit of God, devoted to Christ's name, and separate from the world. This might pierce their conscience, and lead them by grace to discover the overwhelming ruin underneath the haughtiest prejudice. But the darkness which besets all who yield to the fatal assumption of indefectibility in the Christian profession hinders the entrance of divine light as to this into their souls.

Yet the Lord in Matt. 13 had given ample warning that the kingdom of the heavens, which He was about to set up, would be characterised by ruin through the enemy's craft, as the earthly kingdom of old entrusted to Israel had broken down. Only judgment at the Son of man's appearing could duly rid the field of the darnel here below, But the wheat, taken up to the heavenly granary, should shine forth as the sun in a higher sphere.

The testimony of Paul has been alleged; here before us is that of Peter. Jude is in prophetic vision as distinct and pregnant, as he is brief. "Woe to them, because they went in the way of Cain, and gave themselves up to the misleading of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah." John penetrates deeper than all when he calls it "the last hour" of many antichrists come, the heralds of the antichrist.

But where is this felt by saints generally and confessed with grief before God and with shame before men? If they go so far as to protest against this evil or that, they are satisfied with their part, even though they in fact join in with what they own as deplorable, or alas! seek to explain away.

Let them heed the way of the godly in Israel, though surely the Christian is bound to go farther still and judge more profoundly through far more light. From Moses to Samuel how much is there to learn in presence of the people fighting against God I From Jeremiah and Daniel, from Ezra and Nehemiah, what agony over the remnant's short-coming, what bearing the burden of all Israel's sins, of people, priests, and kings! Is the church to have no such sense of responsibility? Is the Christian, because he has eternal life and is justified, to have no sorrow because of the beautiful flock of Christ harried and scattered, and of the rashness, heats, and self-will which oft caused it?

Undoubtedly scripture provides to faith and fidelity a clean path outside corporate as well as individual defilement. But if there be not a spirit mourning and broken that precedes recourse to it and that is kept up ever after, a hard and cold self-righteousness will rush in there, the sure proof of failure that only adds sin to sin, and that forebodes worse evil still. If we are of the church, Christ's body, it is a heartless thing that we are only to feel what wrong we have personally done. The true principle is that, if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; and of this suffering the spiritual are deeply sensible. But the self-satisfied is quite indifferent. He has his party, and is content. In Christ we see the perfection of His love in this respect as in all others. He bore on His spirit the burden of every woe He relieved by His power: how much more did He feel all the unworthy selfishness which impeded and weighed down His beloved ones! We are entitled and bound by grace to share this divine affection with Him. The faith which refuses sin works by love to warn the saints who yield to it, but also to intercede on their behalf. Christ would have us wash one another's feet; but what lowliness and love we need to do it aright!

Now if judgment begin from the house of God, as it does and ought (compare Amos 3: 2), what must be the end of those that obey not the gospel of God? This is the only obedience to which the unforgiven is called. What a proof of blind wickedness that any sinners should refuse! For the gospel of God is the glad news of full remission of his sins in the blood of Jesus. Yet what thousands and millions dare hell-fire rather than believe on Him. What shall their end be?

No wonder that the apostle speaks of the righteous saved with difficulty. Yes, the obstacles are many and immense; and there is no good thing in them, that is, in all naturally theirs, while even as saints, what weakness and exposure! "Who then can be saved'" said the disciples, when they heard of special difficulty for the rich, who, as they thought, had such advantage over all others. But Jesus looking on them with His unfailing love replied, "With men this is," not difficult, but "impossible"; but ( thanks for ever to His name!) "with God all things are possible." Salvation is of God, as His is the gospel which proclaims it to everyone, poor or rich, that believes. But all the more appalling is the lot of those who not only violate His law but scorn or neglect His gospel. Where shall the impious and sinful appear?

God is not only the One that raises the dead, as already shown us in Christ for the deliverance of our souls; He does not cease to prove Himself "a faithful Creator" to such as suffer on earth. "Wherefore also let them that suffer according to the will of God commit their souls" to Him thus "in well-doing." He is fonder to His creatures; how much more to His children, suffering wrongfully for a little while I The sentiment is closely in keeping with the testimony to such Jews as were now Christians.

1 Peter 5.

Now the apostle turns to such as took the lead in governmental care among the saints, as he had already exhorted gifted persons (1 Peter 4: 10, 11), after urging the more general call to fervent love and ungrudging hospitality (8, 9).

"Elders [therefore] that [are] among you I exhort that [am] fellow-elder, and witness of the sufferings of Christ, that [am] also partaker of the glory about to be revealed. Tend (or, shepherd) the flock of God that [is; among you, exercising oversight,* not by necessity but willingly,* not for base gain, but readily, nor as fording it over your allotments, but becoming models of the flock. And when the Chief-shepherd is manifested, ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory" (vers. 1-4).

{* B here as remarkably omit ἐπισκοποῦντες as A P add after "willingly" κατὰ Θεόν. The Revisers follow the latter in their text, the former in the margin.}

As the apostle's heart may well have bounded in writing the early verses of 1 Peter 2 which recalled the memorable passage in his life when the Saviour gave him his new name, did it not also swell with deepest gratitude and lowly praise in now writing to elders as he recalled the grace that before his brethren reinstated the one who had thrice denied Him? Feed My lambs; tend (or, shepherd) My sheep; feed My sheep (John 21: 15, 17, 18). Yes, Peter was brought to feel and own that his love to the Saviour of which he once boasted had so utterly failed, that only the Lord who knew all things could see it at the bottom of his self-confidence. Notwithstanding all, the Lord did know that he dearly loved Him! To him then and there He confided what was dearest to Himself, His lambs and His sheep, to tend and feed His flock. In like love Peter in his measure appeals to elders as a fellow-elder. Though apostle he takes common ground as far as this was possible, as grace gladly does to further its unselfish purposes. True service, as well as rule, is founded on love; and the love of the servant flows from that of the Saviour. But self needs to be judged in its pride, vanity, and worthlessness, in order that love may be divine and pure.

Men soon perverted service into lordship, though our Lord took pains to anticipate and warn of the danger, and to implant the principle of grace which is suited if held in faith to guard from ill and form the heart according to God. So bold and inveterate was this evil that it followed the apostles themselves up to the last Passover and the Lord's Supper. "There was also a contention among them which is accounted the greater. And he said to them, The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called benefactors. But ye [shall be] not so; but he that is greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve" Blessed Lord, Thou Thyself wert in the midst of them as He that serveth! then on earth, now in heaven, by-and-by in glory, not only in that day but for ever. When the kingdom is given up, all things having been subdued, even then wilt Thou the Son be subject to Him that subjected all things to Thee, that God should be all in all! This will be perfection in all fulness, as it is Thy grace to make it good without end.

But what corruption in Christendom, a loud contradiction of Christianity, to turn the service of the Lord into worldly rank and means, to emulate the pride of life with claim of superiority over rival grandees, in the name of the Crucified One, who here had not where to lay His head, and laid down that it is enough for the disciple to be as his teacher, and a bondman as his lord!

Nor was it only departure from scripture in worldliness; it is as plain ecclesiastically. For the accepted tradition among the ancient systems, Catholic and Protestant, is that to the bishop or overseer belongs the authority of ordination, consecration of persons and places, and excommunication. Now the written word is positive, that what is called ordination belonged solely to apostles, or an apostolic delegate, like Timothy or Titus, commissioned for definite action in a given time and place. Even when the church looked out God-fearing men for external or diaconal service, like the seven in Jerusalem, the apostles set them over this business (Acts 6: 3). But the church in scripture never chose elders; nor did elders, but only an apostle or an envoy by his authority. Hence we read (in Acts 14: 23) that the apostles Paul and Barnabas on their return to the gathered saints chose for them elders in every church. Is it needful to say that at a later day Timothy and Titus followed this model, when authorised to act similarly where Paul could not be? Their instructions are simple and clear, as we can see; and they were faithful. Even the competent advocates of Episcopacy acknowledged that in apostolic times there were elders in each local assembly, and that these elders were bishops, the distinction which is found in the second century being unknown in the first, not even a leader among equals. "The" bishop first appears in the letters of Ignatius, who (if not the inventor of that hitherto unknown official, nay in defiance of all scriptural facts and order) is the first to assume its existence and lofty position. His jurisdiction was limited to those in the city. The diocesan bishop later was another and considerable step away from scripture, as were other superior dignitaries, as the church lost its true character and sunk into, or rose in, the world, till the rivalry of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople became a struggle for primacy in honour of old or new Rome, as mistress of the earth, the office as set forth in God's word being long forgotten and despised.*

{*All are or may be aware of the effort to make capital out of the "angels" of the Apocalyptic churches. But this is not nor ever was a ministerial title save among Irvingites, though Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists have each and all striven (in honour and support of their opposed theories) to divert it from its exceptional place in that great prophecy. It was really such a representative man in each of the seven Asiatic churches as the Lord viewed as identified with the good or evil of these several communities. He might be an elder, or a teacher, or both, or perhaps neither; but he must somehow be responsible for the state of the assembly to be here addressed as its "angel": a man, of course, and not an invisible being, any more than a new official.}

For therein eldership is never confounded with gift, whether the χάρισμα of Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, and 1 Peter 4, or the δόμα of Eph. 4. For this depends on Christ as the giver, and the Holy Spirit as the power, and never required human choice or appointment, as elders did. The Lord gave them direct. Neither evangelists nor pastors and teachers admitted of intermediate action, any more than apostles or prophets (who constituted the foundation, and therefore were not continued). Apostolic succession is a mere romance, conceived in honour of the bishop when elevated, after the apostles were gone, into an oversight of the overseers, to say nothing of all others, and in fact a creator of them. Thus is presented that three-fold singularity of which so many have been and are enamoured, the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, undergoing another transformation of presbyters into priests, a change still more opposed to Christianity and the church.

The claim to ordain like an apostle or his delegate would be soon made. To consecrate persons and places would and did follow ere long, although altogether foreign to the New Testament, and as clearly borrowed from the heathen rather than Judaism, which recognised but one sacred centre. The title to excommunicate was a bold contradiction of the Lord's will and word in committing that solemn responsibility to the assembled saints judging in His name (1 Cor. 5). The apostle Peter dealt personally with a husband and a wife who were guilty of a hypocritical lie to which both had agreed. The apostle Paul could and did deliver blasphemers or other great offenders to Satan. But we may be assured that neither would usurp the function of the assembly in putting away from itself those members that were guilty, after previous warning, of persisting unrepentant in sins incompatible with His presence. Hence we have the latter enjoining on the assemblies distinct action in clearing the saints of what was thus done to their defilement and His dishonour. He (though at a distance) had reliable testimony and quite enough to judge the deed; but he insists on the necessity of their judging such evils as he indicates. "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover hath been sacrificed, Christ; wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. . . . For what have I to do with judging those that are without? Do not ye judge those that are within? whereas those that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." Such is the Lord's commandment to the assembly, not to "the bishops," not to the elders, not to the gifts many as then were there, but to the entire church in Corinth. Who can deny it?

Elders then are here exhorted by him as fellow-elders; but one who was "witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also partaker of the glory about to be revealed." It is a fitting and precise description of the facts, and exactly in keeping with his Epistle. He was truly one of "the apostles of the Lamb," as we hear of them in Rev. 21: 14. It has been well remarked, how distinct was the place which divine grace gave to Paul; for his it was in the sovereignty of God to be witness of the glory of Christ, and also partaker of His sufferings, beyond the lot of any other in both respects.

It was and is of all moment to regard "the flock" as God's; and all the more, because it is the habitual way even of excellent souls to forget this truth and assume that the sheep whom they feed and tend are their flocks. Such a thought betrays an unwitting denial of God's rights, and falsifies the relation of His sheep, and engenders erroneous interpretation of His word to the hurt of His servants themselves as well as of the saints. Take the common misuse of Heb. 13: 17, implying that those that guide, or have the rule, have to give account of the souls who are exhorted to obey them. The truth is, that the guides are called to watch in their behalf as having to give account, not of the sheep, but of their own conduct toward them before the Lord. Again, the unity of the flock of God is undermined by not a few who talk without the least warrant of its consisting of many folds. The Lord on the contrary is showing in John 10, not only that He quits the Jewish fold, and leads His sheep out, but that He has other sheep not of that fold, Gentile believers; both of whom were about to constitute the one flock, as He is the one Shepherd. There was to be no such thing henceforth as a fold, still less many folds, but His new flock. The one flock of Christ contains all Christians. The sheep might gather to His name here, there, and everywhere, with many an under-shepherd; but as He says, "They shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd." This is Christian truth.

"Tend the flock of God that [is] among you, exercising oversight, not by necessity but willingly, nor for base gain but readily." It is not under law but grace, and the zeal of love brightened and cheered and strengthened by the crown of rejoicing in those tended, in the presence of the Lord Jesus at His coming, the contrast of base gain in this life.

Of another danger they are warned: "nor as lording it over your allotments, but becoming models of the flock." If the property which flesh counts our own is not really so to the man of faith, but rather the goods of the Master entrusted to his stewardship, how much more have elders to beware of fording over the allotted charge as if it were theirs? No, they are to become models of the flock in the constant remembrance that it is God's flock, and that they must render account to the Lord how they guided His sheep, as well as of their own walk day by day.

Who then, said the Lord, is that faithful and wise steward whom his lord shall make ruler over his household to give the portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say to you, he will make him ruler over all that he hath (Luke 12: 42-44). So the apostle speaks here: "When the chief-shepherd is manifested, ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory." Alas! ere long the blessed hope faded from their hearts, and the work of oversight was changed into a title of earthly honour and emolument, and the position a lordly installation if not an enthronement; so that Peter, if allowed to see things as they are now, could not recognise the office, as it was according to God, under what it is become according to man in Christendom. Is this to exaggerate, or to say the truth in love? How deep the fall really!

The apostle was fond of the word "likewise" in a spirit of grace where nature would never have thought of it but rather resented. Thus the latter part of 1 Peter 2 is addressed to domestics; and as he had pressed on the saints in general submission to every human institution for the Lord's sake, so he urges it on them particularly to their master in all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the crooked. For this is grace; and we are called, every one of us, to walk in it as we were saved by it. As law characterised Israel, grace should stamp the Christian, even as Christ was full of grace and truth; and who walked submissively as He? To endure when sinning and buffeted, what glory is it? But if when doing good and suffering ye shall endure, this is grace with God. And there too throughout His life Christ is the model, and above all in His death, where He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that being dead to sins we might live to righteousness: an all-important issue, to convict those who misrepresent, hate, and deride grace. "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands" (1 Peter 3: 1), says the apostle, and in ver. 7, "Ye husbands, likewise, dwell with them according to knowledge." Such was the order in which the Holy Spirit appealed to each.

Here the exhortation was first on the apostle's part as fellow-elder to the elders among them; and then he adds, "Likewise, ye younger, be subject to elders," which evidently goes beyond those in official place to all whose years clothed them with title to moral respect if spent in faithful service to the Lord. Indeed it is to be noticed that among the Jewish saints, and in Jerusalem itself, we have no record of a formal introduction by apostolic authority as ruled in the Gentile assemblies (Acts 14: 23, Titus 1: 5). They are first mentioned as subsisting in Acts 11: 30 and recognised in their place by Barnabas and Saul. The fact is strikingly confirmed by Acts 15 wherein they are repeatedly mentioned with honour. Yet the peculiarity alluded to is no less plain in the critical test of ver. 23, which is the opening sentence of the decree determined at the council. It runs, if we heed the Vatican MS., the Alexandrian, the Sinaitic, the Rescript of Paris, and Beza's of Cambridge with other good support, not as in the A. V., "The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren," but "The apostles and the elder brethren"; and this is adopted in the Revised Version, as by Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, etc. The reading of the later copies, seems due to conforming the phrase with ver. 22. But this was implied here, as it was there expressly asserted to be "with the whole assembly." Nor was it the least likely that the ecclesiastical copyists would have dared to introduce a phrase so alien to their habit of helping on hierarchical distinction. Even Luther, Calvin, and others down to our day have felt constrained to yield to the larger sense of elders and youngers in this context.

"Likewise, ye younger, be subject to elders; and all of you bind on humility to one another; because God setteth himself against haughty ones, and giveth grace to lowly" (ver. 5).

Both exhortations have fallen too often on deaf ears. When the apostles passed away, the presbyters easily persuaded themselves, that order called for one of their number to receive or take a chief place over his fellows in a city; especially as the angels of the seven Asiatic churches in the Apocalypse could by a ready mistake be thus construed, until it rose by degrees to be a diocese of any extent. A presbyter, says a grave commentator (in logo), is not called a bishop by ancient ecclesiastical writers, but a bishop is often called a presbyter. Had he overlooked the fact, that the Holy Spirit in Acts 20: 17, 28 does call the elders of the church in Ephesus "bishops" (ἐπισκόπους)? Does not inspiration outweigh all ecclesiastical writers put together and demonstrate their unsoundness when they venture to differ? So the apostle addresses the saints "in Philippi with bishops and deacons." Also Titus 1: 5-7 is almost equally plain. No doubt it is as much opposed to Dissent as to Episcopacy, "the minister" being as antiscriptural as the traditional trio, bishop, priests, and deacons. After the death of the apostles the lawlessness secretly working before grew apace and became bold. The sole divine authority as to this attaches to what they authenticated in the scriptures.

As the elders by unbelieving development sunk into various sorts of clerical irregularity, so did the youngers lose all sense of their due place of subjection. It was an early error that they began to choose bishops on the plea that the multitude of the disciples were allowed to choose men full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom for the apostles to appoint over their diaconal work. For where elders or bishops were appointed among the Gentile churches, the disciples never chose, but the apostles for them, as in Acts 14: 23; or if an apostle could not go, he wrote (not to any church but) to an apostolic man like Timothy or Titus, to appoint elders. For the principle is as plain as it is important. As the church contributed its means, it was allowed to choose those it confided in for due administration. But apostles, not the church, had spiritual discernment of the qualities suitable to preside or rule; and they therefore chose elders. Besides, there were endowed with power men that were the gifts of Christ, such as evangelists, pastors, teachers, etc., who were never appointed (like elders locally), but acted freely in their work as they were led by the Spirit in the unity of Christ's body, the church.

In our day both the clerical spirit and the democratic are so rampant that there is all the more need to heed the gracious appeals of the apostle. Let those who guide never forget that the flock is not theirs but God's; and that they are to be models to the flock, not lords. Let the younger be subject to elders on principle, instead of seeking their own will or innovations so natural to youth. No doubt blind guidance ends in a ditch; but such direction is not of a Christian type, which is rather the seeing leading the seeing, with eye and heart fixed on Christ, who thus gives singleness of purpose.

"Yea, all of you bind on humility to one another." The more numerous authorities read "all of you, being subject to one another, bind on humility," but some of the best MSS. and versions drop "being subject," which results in what has just been given. "Clothed" is too vague here. It is a word unique in N. T. usage, and occurs but rarely elsewhere. The figure is taken from the apron a slave girt on to do his work earnestly without soiling his dress. The Lord from a far different motive stooped lower still when He girded Himself with a linen towel to wipe the feet of His own which He washed clean from defilement. This was holy love; and this alone constrains us to bind on lowly-mindedness, to which we are all exhorted by the apostle who had not forgotten his sad ignorance and error on that memorable and touching occasion.

But he also fortifies the call with the solemn admonition, that God opposes Himself to haughty men, and gives grace to humble, the same quotation word for word as in James 4: 6. See Prov. 3: 34, and Rom. 12: 16. Thus indeed it is a moral principle on both sides which runs through scripture; and it is a lesson for every soul in the church from day to day which none can afford to overlook. It is the more needed, because there is a ready danger of being haughty under a misapplied idea of position and duty, and of losing the grace God is so willing to bestow through failure in cherishing that lowliness which is only found perfectly in Christ.

Humility is a precious quality in the saints; and like other virtues it is apt to be debased by the enemy, and mistaken by themselves according to their own thoughts. It is of moment that we should discover its real nature as made sure and clear by Christ. For He is the true light who makes all persons and all things manifest; without Him its Christian character is not realised. How often it is understood to consist in our being brought to see and detest our own evil! But this is far from the standard of Christianity. For we are thus occupied with ourselves, however right it be to bewail our manifold failures and grievous shortcomings. Certainly it is far better than to be deceived into the notion that we have attained a high stage of holiness, and to thank God that we are not as other men. In its grossest form the error is fed by recourse to a director of conscience, into whose ear we can pour our confessions and seek profit from his ghostly counsels, even if we go not on to the extreme of looking for authoritative relief by his absolution in the Lord's name from time to time. Again, while souls cling to the invention of the weekly class and its leader to hear and advise on the rehearsed experience of good or bad, others who belong to an opposite pole strive to gather a scanty comfort from dwelling on their felt unworthiness, and to find lowliness in all manners and measures of self-condemnation.

Now the work of Christ, on which the awakened soul is brought to rest, is not only perfect in itself, but it perfects him; as Heb. 10: 14 explicitly declares with many other scriptures of differing form but similar import. By one offering Christ has perfected continuously — not merely for ever, but without an interruption — those who are sanctified, or set apart from the world to God by the faith of Christ. This was hard for an Israelite to accept, accustomed as he had been to fall back on his sin or trespass offering, and the priest's action in sprinkling the blood, offering the fat, and eating his part of the victim, while burning the rest with fire unsparingly. It was so significant a type, identifying the offerer by his hand laid on the head of the offering, with Jehovah's authority to the priest to atone for him and assure of forgiveness, that one can understand the need of the utmost certainty in order to relinquish the shadow for the substance. But herein are the expressed will of God the Father, the accomplished work of the Son, and also the applied witness of the Holy Ghost in Jer. 31: 33, 34 — a predicted remission of sins now so complete, that there is no more offering for sin.

The efficacious bearing of Christ's sacrifice is as immense to faith, as the glory of His person and the depth of His suffering for sin. It is this which lays the ground for Christian humility; because it gives a purged conscience before God. Till then it was no more than an exercised conscience, and thereby a humbling process in the measure of our spiritual feeling. But in the work of Christ it is God who condemned sin in the flesh, not morally alone as in all that He was and did, but as a sacrifice for sin, that it might be utterly effaced in His sight, as indeed we become His righteousness in Christ. Hence the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins. They are entitled and meant to see themselves so clear in His light as to have done with themselves, and free with a pure conscience and a peaceful heart to enjoy the fulness of Christ. What a deliverance to have done with self! It was humbling to feel and have to own how vile we learnt ourselves to be. Is it not a truer deeper humility to know in His light, that our careless perhaps and certainly unworthy failure cost Him to be as it were consumed to ashes in God's unsparing judgment of our iniquity laid upon Him? and that we are, that I am, not worth thinking or talking about? How easy this ought to make it for each to esteem the other as better than himself! Such is the basis of Christian lowliness of mind. It is through divinely given faith.

"Humble yourselves (or, Be humbled) therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time, having cast all your anxiety upon him, because he careth for you" (vers. 6, 7).

It was that mighty hand of God which made the sinless Jesus sin for us, when He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. So Israel will yet confess, the generation to come when this unbelieving and adulterous generation shall pass; and Christ's words are more widely and manifestly verified than ever. We who now believe, whether Jew or Gentile, while He is unseen, delight to see the truth as before God; and blessed, as Himself said, are they that saw not and believed. We rest on the depth of that atoning work when darkness shrouded the cross, and His voice attested that God hid His face and forsook Him, the rejected Messiah, the Son of man giving His life a ransom instead of many, yea for all; that we who believe might be healed by His stripes, and made meet to share the portion of the saints in the light.

Under that mighty hand which has thus wrought and given us everlasting redemption are we called to be humbled. We fail alas! in the abiding sense of this marvellous light into which God called us. But therein it is our privilege to walk, as 1 John 1: 7 tells us; and it is our fault only if we do not walk consciously there. Thereby is that humility secured to which we are here exhorted. Would there be defect if our souls were ever realising that most solemn yet most gracious presence? Yet it is into this grace that faith in our Lord Jesus has brought us, and gives us to stand (Rom. 5: 2).

Nor is less than this the proper and constant standing of the Christian. It is our shame to forget or alight such favour. And those who deny the new privilege (out of a Puritan jealousy on behalf of the O.T. saints) are indifferent servants for the honour of Christ or the Christian faith. It may sound lowly for the believer to cry, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this body of death?" But this ignores that it was a passing state, and that "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus set me free from the law of sin and death." Thus my confession now on failure becomes a deeper self-loathing. O blessed man that grace has made me, what shame to Him as well as to me that I should now defile my feet! that I, perfectly atoned for, should have sinned against grace as well as holiness, and need to be sprinkled with the water of separation to restore my communion! What agonies my sinful folly cost the Saviour!

In God's blessed presence let us be ever humbled, and all the more because it is always open to us through the rent veil. We contributed nothing to Christ's cross but our sins: the grace therein was God's sovereign grace. The effect of Christ's work is that divine righteousness which we became in Him; and we boast (for it is more than "rejoice") in hope of the glory of God. And indeed He will exalt us in due time. For it will be the day when Christ shall be manifested, and we also shall with Him be manifested, in glory. While He our life is hidden, it is inconsistent and incongruous that we should now look for any glory in this world, least of all from that world whose princes crucified the Lord of glory. As loyal to the crucified One we wait for the appearing of His glory, in order to share it with Him. For did He not tell us, that the glory which the Father had given Him He has given to His own, that they may be one as the Father and the Son are one, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know (not believe, as now) that the Father sent the Son, and loved the saints even as He loved the Son? Then the world shall behold Him and them in the same heavenly glory. Never will there be our perfection in unity till then, and only of that future day does the Lord say it. Truly God will exalt us in due time. Our call is to suffer meanwhile with Christ, and also for His name, that we may be also glorified together.

But of another privilege the apostle here reminds us in connection with being humbled now and waiting for His glory in the day of Christ. He says, "having cast all your care on him, because he careth for you." He assumes this relegation, in faith, of our every anxiety on our God and Father, who loves to bear burdens too great for His weak ones, for whom He has joys and service which demand freedom of spirit for their right aim and end. How enfeebling is the unbelief that fancies it our duty to be weighed down outwardly and inwardly! Why, Christian, have you not rolled upon Him the weight that oppresses you? Is not His word to us plain and certain? Does He not care for you — He that gave His Son for your sins, He that numbers all the hairs of your head?

Here again the apostle exhorts to be vigilant and to watch. In his former injunction (1 Peter 4: 7) it was in view of the end of all as being drawn nigh; here it is because of danger from their great adversary.

"Be vigilant, watch: *your adversary [the] devil as a roaring lion walketh about, seeking whom he may devour; whom resist, steadfast in faith, knowing that the same sufferings are accomplished in your brotherhood that [is] in the world" (vers. 8-10).

{*The best authorities do not support the "because" of the Text. Rec. followed by the A.V.}

It is of interest to note how distinctly the enemy is presented as the power of evil with which we have to cope, no less than our God and the Lord Jesus to care for us. Here, as the apostle regards us, not as the Epistle to the Hebrews in view of the sanctuary, but as at the same time exposed to the peculiar stress of the desert, he appropriately sets forth our adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion walking about, and seeking whom he may devour.

To the Roman saints, exhorted to be wise for that which is good, and simple as to evil, the word is that the God of peace shall bruise Satan under their feet shortly, and the grace of Christ meanwhile with them. What a blessing had they so continued, instead of human wisdom and ambition, leaving room in time for the most loathsome system of impurity, imposture, pride, and bloodshed!

To the Corinthian assembly, not adequately weaned from philosophic wisdom and the persuasive words of excellent speech, the warning is, as the serpent beguiled Eve by his craft, lest their thoughts should be corrupted from simplicity as to Christ. False apostles can thus pass as ministers of righteousness, as Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

The Ephesian saints, carried up to the highest plane, are characteristically reminded of the victory over the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience now led captive, but having wiles, with towering pretensions in the heavenlies, against which we need the panoply of God. The Colossian saints have a somewhat similar reference, though much shorter.

Nor need we here dwell on the hindrance of Satan to the apostle, or on his temptation of the saints in Thessalonica, as spoken of in the First Epistle; nor on the awful prediction of his future power at the end of the age as in the Second.

We can passingly notice what more affects leaders, the fault and the snare of the devil endangering an overseer, as in 1 Tim. 3: 6, 7; and the possible recovery from his snare, as in the Second Epistle (2 Peter 2: 22, 26), for adversaries that repent.

In Hebrews 2: 14, 15, he is the one that has the might of death annulled through the Saviour's death; and in the Revelation he is shown fully both as to the church and in the world to his utter ruin.

We are entitled to resist him as the Epistle of James (James 4) also urges, however loudly he may roar, and menace with destruction. He is a conquered foe, as faith knows; and the name of Him we confess is ample to terrify him. But confidence in our wisdom, or righteousness, exposes to inevitable defeat. Our strength is in Christ, whose grace suffices, and power is perfected in weakness. Therefore we are bid to resist, stedfast in faith. Some understand "in the faith;" but I question the strength in such an encounter of faith only viewed objectively. It appears rather to be encouragement given to our subjective faith in the Lord. Our apostle is eminently practical, however important it is that we be sound in the faith. It is no strange thing to be thus assailed. So he reminds us that we know that the selfsame sufferings are accomplished in the brotherhood that is in the world. They have like relationships to God which expose them to persecution through the spite of Satan against Christ, even more than against themselves.

If the apostle does not hide from the pilgrim the power and malice of the enemy in this desert world, what fervour characterises him when he sets God before us in that love which is above every danger and difficulty, turning all for good to those that love Him!

"But the God of all grace that called you unto his everlasting glory in Christ Jesus, after having suffered a little while, shall himself perfect, stablish, strengthen, ground: to him [be or, is] the glory and the might for the ages of the ages. Amen" (vers. 10, 11).

It is more than a closing prayer, a most confident assurance based on a full knowledge of God as revealed in Christ, and on the already accomplished work of redemption displayed in the power of His resurrection. As Peter began the epistle, so he concluded it. He, like Paul as to his beloved Philippian brethren, had confidence in this very thing, that He who began in them a good work would complete it until Jesus Christ's day. Satan might roar and devour. But, as Paul wrote to the Roman saints, if God be for us, who against us? He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him grant us all things? Who shall lay accusation against God's elect? God is He that justifies: who is he that condemns? Christ is He that died, yea rather that was raised, who is also at God's right hand, who intercedes too for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? According as it is written, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay in all these things we more than conquer through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The apostle of the circumcision followed the apostle of the uncircumcision in tracing all blessing to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, not rising to the height before us in Ephesians but alike pointing to the same source in his opening words. As the resurrection was the mighty key-note to the one, the ascension gave the heavenly mark to the other. Both were led of the Spirit to present the divine source flowing in the richest streams of goodness suited to the varying circumstances of the saints addressed. None is so characterised as Paul by revealing the eternal and immense counsels of God for the universe with the glorified Christ at the head of all things, heavenly and earthly, and the church, His body, above any question of Jew or Greek, the sharer as His bride of all given to Him.

Yet Peter was inspired here to speak of "the God of all grace'" a title of peculiar significance, and for all saints wherever and whatever they might be; but how divinely wise and suited to the Christian elect of the Jewish dispersion! Many of them had, no doubt, heard Paul and his companions who long laboured in their part of the East, as Peter had not. Paul indeed was called to write elaborately and powerfully to the believing Hebrews, and bring them definitely out of the old legal elements which had so straitened and hampered them, before judgment was actually accomplished on the earthly city and sanctuary. So on Peter devolved the task of feeding and tending by his epistles those sheep who needed comfort and confirmation, now that their great teacher was no more to see their face.

Thus, while there are the clearest tokens of identity between what Peter writes and his preachings in the Acts of the Apostles, he too teaches here, as we have already seen, much beyond what was then required or seasonable. This wondrously beautiful summary before us reflects that advance with all due meetness and forcible compression. Not the God of our fathers which glorified His servant Jesus, but "the God of all grace that called you unto his everlasting glory in Christ Jesus." It is not merely the God of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the God of all overcoming love as manifested in Christ Jesus, superior to, not weakness and failure alone, but the hatred of the enemy seemingly successful to the uttermost in the cross, which His grace turned to be the ground of deep and righteous judgment of sin, yea, making them, the believers, now as spotless in His eyes as the Lamb, through His precious blood. Nor this only; for He called us, not to salvation of souls alone, great as this grace is, but to His everlasting glory in Christ. For it is a glory which far exceeds the earthly kingdom, with its thousand years of righteousness reigning, and Satan shut up, and creation rejoicing after its long thraldom of vanity and groan.

The God of all grace, who called saints to His everlasting glory in Christ Jesus, is the best security against all that creature can or cannot do meanwhile; and the more, because as Father He carries on a constant, watchful, and righteous government of His children all through the wilderness (1 Peter 1: 13-17). But there is another needed and weighty consideration. As Jews, they might associate with the Christ immunity from suffering and promotion to high honour; but as Christians, their portion is to share His sufferings for righteousness and love and truth. No mistake more common in Christendom than looking for present reward and distinction and ease through the gospel and the church. But it is a hateful lie of Satan. The Corinthian saints slipped easily into this snare, to the apostle Paul's pain and horror (1 Cor. 4: 8-14); it was still more natural for such as had been Jews. So the apostle Peter seeks throughout to impress suffering as the necessary path of the Christian, and "after having suffered a little while," as his beloved brother to the Hebrews (Heb. 10: 32-39), fortified by not a few even of old (Heb. 11: 35-38) but above all by His case who sums up all as our perfect exemplar (Heb. 12: 2, 3). It is through suffering in faith and patience that we are disciplined and bear fruit to Him who deigns thus to prune the branches of the vine.

And what more emphatic than the cheering declaration to which he that wrote put his seal, as one who had proved it so truly in his own experience that the God of all grace "Himself shall perfect, stablish, strengthen, ground." Could those addressed, could we, lose one of these mighty encouragements? Could we allow them to lack the most definite meaning, or to be heaped together as a faggot deriving its virtue from the binding together of the weak? Are they not each strong and expressive, to give without bands the utmost possible confidence in His all-sufficient love to us? It is much that He will "perfect" those who in themselves lack all, in the sense of a complete furnishing and adjustment. It is more that He will "stablish" those who need to be turned inside out, as Peter once in his self-confidence, to lean on Himself and His word by faith. It is precious that He will "strengthen" those that know themselves as weak as water spilt on the ground, and changeable as the wind. It is if possible more, that on the Rock that never moves He will "ground" those who learn deeply their nothingness, and worse still.

Be it ours to join with his immediate object, in the apostle's ascription of praise and thanksgiving, "to Him be (or is) the might unto the ages of the ages. Amen." Assuredly "the glory" is His also; but the connection here seems to strengthen the testimony of the few witnesses (A B 23, ancient Latin copies, etc.) which express only His "might" in the race of the adversary. The great majority however read "the glory and the might," which was a frequent phrase, as in 1 Peter 4: 11, Jude 25 enlarged, and Rev. 1: 6. But "dominion" answers to κυριότης, rather than to κράτος as to which translators vacillate.

The Epistle thus concludes.

"By Silvanus, the faithful brother, as I account, I write to you in (by) few [words], exhorting and testifying that this is God's true grace in which stand (or, ye stand). She that is in Babylon elect with [you] saluteth you, and Mark my son. Salute one another with a kiss of love. Peace to you that are in Christ" (vers. 12-14).

It is of interest to learn that Silas, or Silvanus, the fellow-labourer of Paul in Achaia and Macedonia was the messenger through whom Peter sent his first Epistle to the saints of the Dispersion. Once Peter had himself been far from faithful to the Christian truth of liberty for Gentile as for Jew that believed the glad tidings; and Paul withstood him to the face. For it was not to walk straightforwardly according to the gospel, but to compromise it to the Lord's dishonour. Now Peter writes fearlessly to confirm with his apostolic testimony the yet bolder and deeper witness which the apostle of the uncircumcision had borne in Asia Minor, through one who was in his estimate as in Paul's a faithful brother, a suited link between them. It was to hold fast the Head from whom all the body, ministered to and united together by the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God.

His words were few but weighty from one who was justly looked up to by Christian Jews who had already profited in those Gentile lands by him whose province lay there especially. But God took care that so conspicuous a pillar of the circumcision as Kephas should write without doubt and fervently in the same strain of grace to the sheep whom the Lord confided to his love and care. Who can fail to recognise an unjealous largeness which was quickly forgotten, or rather never known, in haughty Christendom with its little yet ever-growing fences, bound up by official pride, miscalled rights, far from the Lord's mind as possible.

Nor can any description of the Epistle be more exact than "exhorting and testifying that this is God's true grace in which" he calls them to "stand." It is what every intelligent saint cannot fail to discern as distinguishing Peter's letter beyond James, Jude, John, or even Paul, though each wrote from the heart, with solemn sense of divine authority, and in abundant love to the saints, each with his own distinctive excellency as a good steward of God's various grace, and as of strength which God supplied. How earnestly Peter exhorted! How freely and pertinently he testified as from his Master, full of grace and truth, to the glad tidings of God's true grace! Yes, in his glowing words is no exaggeration. He adhered to what he bore witness at a great earlier crisis (Acts 15). He believed, and would have them to believe, "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved as they," not merely they even as we then a noble testimony in Jerusalem above all.

He believed in the same grace still. It is not man conceding or yielding, it is not fearing nor yet pleasing man. It is God's true grace, in which, he says, "Stand," as he did not doubt they were standing. Nor was it needless so to exhort as a last call. What one of our own poets says of his imagined angel, a saint should here and now surely be,

"Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified;

His loyalty he kept, his love, his zeal.

Nor number, nor example, with him wrought

To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind."

We owe it to God, and to our Lord Jesus; but His grace can alone make us thus stand.

The subjoined salutation is strikingly instructive. Not from the Apocalyptic Babylon did Peter write, but from the great ruined city in the East, to which Jews strangely clung, when the natives migrated elsewhere. Many Jews still lived there as they did for hundreds of years after as before, and there had a famous school of Rabbinical lore, which issued in their most copious Talmud completed about 500, A.D. There, it appears, Kephas led about a sister wife, like the other apostles and the brethren of our Lord (1 Cor. 9: 5, 6); as scripture fails not to inform us, and thus gives the lie to the false and demoralising tradition which Romanism prefers to the plain and holy word of God. For this seems the real bearing of "the co-elect * [sister] in Babylon" who salutes those addressed, no less than does Mark his son.

{*It is interesting and fair to note that the Sinaitic Uncial does read here ἐκκλησία, or "church." In this it stands alone among primary authorities: a thing almost impossible, if true; but easily accountable, if spurious. Old versions in such a question count little or nothing, as probably but expressing an ellipse.}

The apostle, we see, was careful not to speak of "the church" as such in either of his Epistles: they are essentially individual in their character. It was an oversight, therefore, to interpolate "the church," even in italics. We have no ground to think there was an assembly there, and can readily conceive that the apostle (with his wife, and Mark caring in love for them both in advanced age) should yearn to impart the gospel to the benighted Jews, so dear to him in that distant quarter, far away from the fabulous Episcopate of which tradition dreamt in the West. How forced and unnatural to borrow from the future symbol of John in Rev. 17 for an epistle so simple, fervent, and matter of fact, as this of Peter unquestionably is!

Assuredly, too, one likes to think of Mark in happy and devoted service, as none other than he whose early failure is recorded when he ventured in zeal beyond his then faith to accompany Barnabas and Saul on their first circuit among the Gentiles. If he then so soon grew weary or discouraged, he at a later day, when it was peculiarly sweet to the apostle of nations, became serviceable to him for ministry (2 Tim. 4: 11), and even before this had won back his confidence (Col. 4: 10). As his mother's house had been a house of prayer, when his spiritual father's life was in extreme danger, he is now the attendant on those so long dear to him, and shares their visit of love for the gospel's sake as well as the saints, where of old their forefathers had been sent in captivity. Any other Mark, like any other Silas, we might expect to be distinguished from each of those familiar to us in scripture; whereas those we have already known appear in this new phase with natural propriety.

It was meet in this world of selfishness and sin for the apostle Paul to invite the saints in Rome, Corinth, and Thessalonica to salute one another with a holy kiss; and not less so that Peter should bid the Christian Jews, scattered in lands devoted to dark paganism, salute one another with a kiss of love. The affections are apt to grow cold, as the world's spirit prevails; and Jews needed the intimation as well as Greeks and Romans.

And how precious is "peace" as the suited portion to us all that are in Christ! How unseemly among such is difference and dispute, self-seeking and strife! Were Christ the object as He is entitled to be, these things could not be. Peter had not forgotten His words, so welcome to their hearts on the resurrection day, "Peace to you; and having said this He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples rejoiced therefore, having seen the Lord. He said therefore again to them, Peace to you: as the Father sent me forth, I also send you."

1 Thessalonians.

The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians.

W. Kelly.

Preface.

It will not be denied by any considerate Christian of intelligence that there is room and need for fresh help in studying these earliest Epistles of the great apostle. The Homilies of Chrysostom, even if available generally, consist chiefly of exhortation. The comments among Jerome's works, were they certain, are of the slightest account, and avowedly supposititious.

Passing over the regular commentators, such as Calvin and others, Bishop Jewell has in his works an exposition upon these two Epistles, which reflects his characteristic ability, eloquence. and learning, his solid piety and earnestness, with the deepest abhorrence of Popery, of all Christian or quasi-Christian systems the most offensive to God and the most perilous to man. As the Bishop of Salisbury died in September, 1571, this work was posthumous, the original edition in 8vo. having the date 1583, the second 1594, and not appearing in the folio collections, but of course in the more modern edd. of his works, the Parker Society series, etc. The version of the N. T. followed is that of Geneva; there is no evidence of critical research into the disputed questions of text or translation; but that familiarity with the fathers and ecclesiastical history shines, for which the author was as renowned as Abp. Ussher at a later date.

As these Epistles bring out into special prominence the coming and the day of the Lord, the right handling of this subject becomes a crucial test, wherein foreign divines like Zwingle and Musculus, etc., fail no less than Rollock, Ferguson, etc. Even Bengel's spiritual tact here breaks down signally; for he ventures to say (Gnomon on 2 Thess. 2: 8) that the appearing of the Lord's coming is before His coming itself, or at least its first shining out: a statement which directly clashes with such scriptures as Col. 3: 4, Rev. 17: 14, Rev. 19: 14. To my mind Mr. Jowett's edition is a painful one, from the rationalistic incredulity which perverts even his scholarship. In treating Plato or Thucydides he is at home and reliable. Bishop Ellicott's contribution is critical, erudite, and reverent; but he is so under the influence of the reputed standards of Anglican divinity that he cannot rise to the height of the inspired text, particularly in profiting by that revelation of the future which is put forward in such varied and striking forms throughout both letters to the Thessalonians.

To speak with the least slight of others who have laboured on this portion of Scripture is, however, so invidious a thing for one who sends out a new little work that I forbear to say more. Those who examine candidly the pages that follow are responsible to judge as in His sight Who has communicated a treasure so great as His own truth. May we be subject to His written word, and so understand, enjoy, and walk in the power of His Spirit.

London, 13th May, 1893.

1 Thessalonians 1.

The coming of the Lord characterises both these Epistles, which are the capital seat of that great truth. Of early date in the writings of the apostle, they bespeak simplicity, freshness and vigour in the saints addressed. They warmly, overflowingly, answer to their hearts, in kindred tones, but so as to lead on and deepen them. Hence the informal manner, not didactic but practically interweaving that blessed hope with every topic, with every duty, with all sources or motives of joy and sorrow so as to imbue the inner man and outer ways of all the saints day by day.

Those of Thessalonica, it appears from Acts 17: 6, 7, had from the first received strong impressions of the kingdom. But they needed instruction on that large and fruitful theme, which, like every other revealed truth, affords ample room not only for unintelligent mistake but also for baneful error. Both in time wrought among these saints; and as the first epistle supplied that which sprang from mere ignorance, the latter corrected what was unequivocally false and mischievous. In the two epistles the presence or coming of the Lord is carefully distinguished from the day of the Lord, their true characters set out distinctly, and their due relation to one another explained. The need for this is as urgent now as then; for though the error was then both recent and active, it is shown to be grounded in a certain preparedness of the heart for it, inasmuch as to this day there is the same propensity to stray similarly, and the same difficulty in appropriating the revelation of God. The commentators ancient and modern are dull in seizing the different sides of the truth as the Spirit has given them, and though it is only in our own day that the chief mistranslation (2 Thess 2: 2) has been set right, on all sides the truth which should have been cleared by the correction seems as little understood as ever. The course of things in Christendom, as in the old world before it assumed that new shape, indisposes the minds of those bound up with its interests to receive what is here taught. The coming of the Lord as a living and constant hope detaches the heart from every thing as an object on earth: for He is coming, we know not how soon, but we do know, to receive us to Himself on high. As is the Heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly and as this is the character in which Christ and the Christian stand correlatively, the hope exactly corresponds. It is independent of earthly events and is not a question of times or seasons. At a moment purposely unrevealed, that those who are His own might be truly and intelligently and always looking for Him, He will come for them that they may be with Him in His Father's house.

The day of the Lord, on the other hand, connects itself with earthly associations of a solemn kind, of which prophecy in the Old and the New Testaments alike speak; and this also has its suited place in these epistles. It is indeed eminently adapted, as it is meant, to deal with the conscience; for that day will deal with the pride of man and the power of the world, with earthly religion and with lawlessness in every form. Further, it is a test in one sense for the affections, whether we do really love His appearing who will put down evil and establish all in order according to God.

But we turn to the apostle's words in their order and detail.

"Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace." (ver. 1.)

Such is the inscription, with its own marked and beautifully suited peculiarities. On the one hand there is the marked absence of relative or indeed of any official place in the address of the apostle or the association of his companions, who are graciously introduced like himself without form. On the other hand the Thessalonian assembly is said, here and in the opening of the second epistle, to be "in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," which is predicated of none other. What can harmonise so well with new-born saints, just delivered from the gods many and the lords many of heathenism, and brought into the conscious relationship of babes that know the Father? To us, Christians, there is but one God the Father, of Whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things and we by Him. But what an expression of tenderness and near relationship thus to speak of the assembly of Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! How sweet for them to be thus addressed as even corporately set in the fellowship of such love and light! But such is the principle in the manifestation of the divine ways of grace. So even in the comforting ways of the Jewish prophet it is written, "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd, he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." Those who are most needy receive special care and consolation.

For the infant assembly so characterised it was enough to say the brief but pregnant words, "Grace to you and peace." To others a fuller form was becoming, here needless because of what went before.

"We thank God always for you all, making mention at our prayers, remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labour of love and patience of hope of our Lord Jesus Christ before our God and Father, knowing, brethren beloved by God, your election; because our gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in [the] Holy Spirit and in much assurance; even as ye know what we were among you for your sake. And ye became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with joy of [the] Holy Spirit; so that ye became a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia. For from you hath sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith that is toward God hath gone out, so that we have no need to say anything. For they themselves report concerning us what sort of entrance we had unto you, and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to await his Son from the heavens, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus that delivered us from the coming wrath." (vers. 2-10.)

The joy of the labourer's heart bursts forth in constant thanksgiving to God for them all, and this not vaguely but with special mention on the occasion of prayer. It answered to their joy who had so lately been brought out of darkness into the marvellous light of God; but it had the deep character of rising to the Blesser from the blessing, as the blessing itself savoured of communion with that source of blessing. So had Paul wrought with God in Thessalonica, not merely with some of the Jews who were persuaded and who consorted with him and Silas (or Silvanus), but especially with a great multitude of the devout Greeks: a mighty and permanent work in no long time. Do we know such thanksgiving to God? Do we make like personal mention on like occasion? Do we unceasingly remember the fruit of the Spirit's blessing in the saints? We know what it is to pray for saints in sorrow, shame, danger, need: are we drawn out in joy before God at the working of His grace in those He has saved and gathered to the name of Jesus? Have not our hearts been straitened by the low and shattered and isolated circumstances of the once united saints? We are quick in putting out, cutting off, withdrawing, avoiding, and every form of repulsion; slow and powerless in the grace that sees and enjoys grace in others, that wins, helps, welcomes, and restores. Not so the apostle and his companions. Doubtless great grace is needed to appreciate little grace. It is Christ-like.

Granted, that here among the Thessalonians, especially when the first epistle was written, there was as much power of life as there was simplicity with lack of knowledge. The three great spiritual elements, of which we often hear in the New Testament and notably in the apostle's writings, were manifest and in the fervent vigour of the Holy Spirit: not only faith, but the "work of faith," not love only but "labour of love," and hope of our Lord Jesus Christ in its patience or enduring constancy. And as Christ is the object of faith which exercises the heart and fixes it on things unseen, so does His grace call forth love, and the hope cheers along the way, and so much the more when all is in the light of God, "before our God and Father." He is our Father, and if babes we know Him as such (1 John 2: 13); but He is God, and in our life, in our ways, we are before Him, and would serve him acceptably with reverence and godly fear. He, before whom the new life in Christ is thus exercised by motives which have their spring and power in Christ, is the God who chose the Thessalonians in His grace to be His children beloved by Him, as thus attested to the consciences and affection of those that serve Him, "Knowing, brethren beloved by God, your election." What practical proof of our election can there be to others but in the manifested power of the life we have in Christ, maintained as it can only be by seeking to have in everything a conscience without offence toward God and men? To gather evidence for ourselves out of it is mere self-righteousness, as well as the unbelief that slights God's testimony to Christ and His work, the effete theology of Christendom hastening on to divine judgment.

But God has ever wrought blessing by the revelation of Himself. Hence it is of faith that it may be according to grace, as the law works wrath; for where no law is, neither is there transgression. But the glad tidings as preached by Paul and those with him, "our gospel," is the full testimony of what is in Christ for the lost. This had been brought home to the Thessalonians in the energy of the Holy Ghost. "Because our gospel came not unto you in word only but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance; even as ye know what we were among you for your sake." (ver. 5.) This young but devoted, persecuted yet happy, assembly was the living testimony to God and His Christ. The gospel had come not in word only but in power, and as it was in the Holy Spirit not fleshly display, so was it in much assurance. The word was spoken with all boldness and certainty by men whose ways were its bright and genuine reflection in love. This produced corresponding effects in those who received it. For Paul and his companions were not like such as seem incapable of appreciating the glory of Christ in the gospel as in the church; who are never weary of crying up one part of the truth to the disparagement of another, as if all did not centre in our Lord: short-sighted and mischievous souls, who overlook the simplest elements of truth in self-admiration, and a broker-like pressure on others of the value of their own wares. If all were teachers where were the evangelists? If there were none to awaken souls, where the sheep to be fed and tended.

The Thessalonians too bore the impress of the power which wrought on their hearts and consciences. "And ye became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with joy of the Holy Spirit; so that ye became a pattern to all that believe in Macedonia and in Achaia." (vers. 6, 7.) They suffered bitterly for the truth which filled their hearts with joy; so Paul dying daily while he lived; so the Lord Who died as no other, yet lived the perfect ensample and fulness of joy in God His Father with utter rejection here below.

How different those in Thessalonica from their brethren in Corinth who soon followed, who slighted the weightier matters of practical grace as they gloried in the showier displays of sign-gifts and external power. And what a difference in the moral testimony! Never do we hear of the Corinthians as a pattern to any that believed in Macedonia or in Achaia. Yet did the apostle's heart yearn in love over his later children in the faith, untoward and unruly as they were, that God's unspeakable gift of grace might produce suited if late fruit in them also.

Nor was this all: the world was full of strange tidings and this beyond all Greece where the believers were impressed with the zeal and moral power of the Thessalonian assembly. "For from you hath sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith that is toward God hath gone out, so that we have no need to say anything." (ver. 8). Men were talking everywhere of the singular change and fact in that important entrepôt of trade which lay in the direct line between the West and the East. That a body of people should have abandoned their false gods, and be filled with the knowledge of the one true God in a joy which no sufferings could chill (as distinct from the Jews as from the heathen, and yet more distinguished in an all absorbing life of faith, love, hope, never so seen there before) could not but strike minds so acute, speculative, and communicative as the Greek. The sound of it rang out like a trumpet's in all directions, not about miracles or tongues, but their faith Godward: surely a fine, admirable, and gracious testimony had gone out in the midst of idolaters. For it was wholly in contrast with the hard proud legalism of the Jews, as decidedly as with the dark and indecent follies of the Gentile world. Indeed the effect was such that the apostle declares "we have no need to say anything." Why preach that which the very world in a certain way preached? Preaching has for its aim to make known the unknown God and His Son, to rouse the slumberers, to gain the ear of the careless for God's good news. Here men's lips were full of this truly new thing in Thessalonica; and from this active centre of commerce the report went out everywhere of a Macedonian assembly that renounced Zeus, Hera, Artemis, Apollo, and all the rest, without adopting circumcision or the institutions of Moses.

Nor was there anything vague or pretentious, but the sobriety of grace and truth. "For they themselves report concerning us what sort of entrance we had unto you; and how ye turned unto God from idols to serve a living and true God and to await his Son from the heavens whom he raised from the dead Jesus that delivered us from the coming wrath." (vers. 9, 10.) It is a grand object of Satan to combine the world with God, to allow the flesh while pretending to the Spirit, and thus really to fall under his own delusions while professing Christ. The reverse of all this Babylonish confusion is seen in the sort of entrance the apostle had among the Thessalonians, and the complete break made for their souls from all that is opposed to God known in light and love. They turned unto God from their idols instead of christening them and mocking Him; they served not forms or doctrines or institutions, but a living and true God; and they awaited His Son from the heavens, not as an awful and dreaded Judge, but as their Deliverer from the coming wrath, whom He raised from the dead, the pledge of their justification and the pattern of the new life of which they lived to God in the faith of Him.

1 Thessalonians 2.

Such was the vivid and powerful effect of the Apostle's visit to Thessalonica. There was an unmistakeable and deep impression produced by the conversion and walk of the saints there on those outside, around and everywhere. Their faith went forth as a living proclamation of the truth; "so that we need not to speak anything." How happy, when the work is in such power and freshness as to leave the workman free for other fields white already unto harvest! What glory to the Lord, when the very heathen aroused and amazed by the result in power before them cannot but talk of the true God and His Son!

Now, the apostle draws a good sketch of his "entering in," as to its character and bearing on the saints themselves, an internal picture, as before we were told of its external effect.

"For yourselves know, brethren, our entrance unto you that it hath not been vain. But having suffered before, and been outraged, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict. For our exhortation [is, or was] not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile; but even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God that proveth our hearts.

For neither at any time were we with speech of flattery, as ye know, nor with a cloke of covetousness, God [is] witness; nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children; so yearning over you, we were well pleased to impart unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls because ye became beloved by us. For ye remember, brethren, our labour and our toil; working night and day that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God. Ye [are] witnesses, and God, how holily and righteously and blamelessly we behaved ourselves to you that believe, just as ye know how each one of you as a father his own children we [were] exhorting you, and comforting, and testifying that ye should walk worthily of God that calleth you unto His own kingdom and glory" (vers. 1-12.)

The apostle could confidently appeal to the inner consciousness of the brethren. The entering in of Paul and Silas, which they had to the Thessalonian saints had not been empty. A divine purpose of grace, reality in pressing the truth on consciences, and energy of the Holy Spirit, had characterised their service and produced corresponding results. And no wonder; for it was the love of Christ constraining to the love of perishing souls, which knew not God nor the power of His resurrection who had tasted death even for them. Assuredly too, it was neither an ostentatious show nor a holiday visit, but an errand so serious in the eyes of their visitors, that no object by the way or on the spot detained; "but having suffered before and been outraged, even as ye know, in Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict" (ver. 2).

Their injurious treatment at the hands of the Gentiles in Philippi no more daunted their unconquerable faith and love than the subsequent persecution by Jewish spite and jealousy at Thessalonica. No experience of suffering can turn aside those whose mind is to endure all things both for Christ and for the elect's sake, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. Hence their confidence: "we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God in much conflict." If there was the assurance that the glad tidings were God's, they were emboldened in God to speak out whatever the opposition or violence that environed them. So, if the apostle had now to exhort the saints in Thessalonica that no one might be moved by their affliction, it was not as a dilettante divine, laying on the shoulders of others a burden which he would not move with his own finger. From the first he was called to suffer for Christ's name, as distinctly as to bear that name before Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel, to open their eyes that they might turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in Christ. And in this he wrought with burning earnestness, to which "much conflict" refers, rather than to mere external trouble on the one hand, or that wrestling for the saints against the wiles of the devil, of which we hear in Col. 2: 1, on the other hand. He walked and served in the truth he taught.

"For our exhortation [is, or was] not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor of guile; but even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God that proveth our hearts" (vers. 3-4). There was as good a conscience as boldness and endurance. There was integrity of heart, the very reverse of playing a part, instead of becoming the victim of delusion and so misleading others. Error was as far from the exhortation as impurity, nor was there the least intent to deceive, which "guile" expresses; but the truth was pressed holily and sincerely; and so spoke these blessed labourers, as became those who knew they had been approved of God to have the gospel entrusted to them. Grace forms responsibility, as grace enjoyed in the soul maintains its force livingly. They had God before them, God that proveth the hearts, not men to please whose breath is in their nostrils: wherein is man to be accounted of?

This is a grave and abiding principle, as true and important now as when Paul thus spoke of himself and his companion in the service of Christ. One cannot serve two masters. Patrons and congregations are not the only snares. Desire of influence, dread of disfavour, party, ecclesiasticism, may interfere with allegiance to the Lord, and righteousness in that case will surely suffer, perhaps truth itself. So Satan works in Christendom to the dishonour of Christ. The attempt to serve more than one is fatal; for a man will either hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. If a labourer in faith regards himself as approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, he will only the more take heed to himself that the ministration be not blamed, but in every thing commend himself as God's minister. Only he will seek to hold fast liberty as much as responsibility in the Spirit, with the written word as his sole rule. An apostle had the same direct responsibility to the Lord as the least labourer in the gospel, and, as we see here, owned it for himself as he urged it on others. It is no question of right but on Christ's part; it is solely of responsibility on ours. This maintains His glory and our obedience. To us there is, and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, to whom are all things, and we through Him; as there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto Him. May we be imitators of the apostle, as he was of Christ.

But there is the snare of mammon as well as of a master rival to Christ; and we cannot serve God and mammon. Here, too, the apostle could appeal to the experience of the Thessalonian saints. "For neither at any time were we with speech of flattery, as ye know, nor with a cloak of covetousness, God [is] witness; nor seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome [or, stood on dignity] as apostles of Christ" (vers. 5, 6). Those with whom Paul and the others were conversant could bear witness whether his speech was that of flattery or words of truth and soberness. God was his witness whether covetousness was concealed under any pretext. But there are other ways in which the corruption of our nature is apt to indulge and betray itself. Hence many a man who would not stoop to flattery and may not be covetous is vain or ambitious. How in these respects had Paul and his companions carried themselves? "Not seeking glory of men, neither from you nor from others, when we might have been burdensome as apostles of Christ." He sought their blessing in the testimony of Christ, not theirs but them for God's glory; and instead of claiming just consideration in carnal things as sent of the Lord on spiritual service, there was thorough self-denial in devotedness to Christ.

Now he turns to the positive side of their walk and work. "But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherisheth her own children" (ver. 7). The figure of a parent, even a mother, fails to convey the tender care of a love which has its spring in God Himself. Babes need a nurse, which all mothers are not; but a nurse cherishing her own children is the just figure here employed, not a hireling for another's offspring. "So yearning over you, we were well pleased to impart unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye became beloved by us" (ver. 8). Where else is there anything to compare with this in unselfish love unless it be in the persevering faithfulness of grace which watches over the same objects in their growth end difficulties end dangers afterwards? "For ye remember, brethren, our labour and our toil: working night and day that we might not burden any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God" (ver. 9).

Paul wrought with his own hands in Thessalonica as in Corinth, whence he wrote to them, that he might be chargeable to none. Yet if anyone was entitled to say, like Nehemiah, "I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down," it was the apostle, who truly did in another sense come down, and so much the better did his great work though never was there a greater mind than his who thus laboured manually night and day during his brief stay among the Thessalonians. "Ye [are] witnesses, and God, how holily and righteously and blamelessly we behaved ourselves to you that believe." He sums up his appeal to the believers and to God Himself, as only one could do who exercised himself to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men alway. "Just as ye know how each one of you as a father his own children, we [were] exhorting you and comforting, and testifying that ye should walk worthily of God that calleth you unto His own kingdom and glory" (vers. 11, 12).

Love adapts itself to the wants of those loved. So did the apostle when the saints needed more than the food of babes. And what earthly father ever made good his relation to his own children as Paul to his beloved Thessalonians? Each one and all were objects of unremitting and considerate vigilance. Exhortation, comfort, testimony never failed to stimulate, cheer, and direct in the ways that befit the God that calls unto his own kingdom and glory. There He will have His own with Christ soon and for ever; in that hope, and worthily of it, He would have them now to walk. Such is the aim of a true workman of Christ; and no lovelier picture can anywhere be found than appears in the simple sketch here drawn by the Apostle.

Thus far for the ministry of Paul and his companions. Now he turns to the means God had used for the blessing of the saints by that ministry.

"And* for this cause we also thank God unceasingly that, when ye received [the] word of [the] report from us of God, ye accepted not men's word but as it is truly God's word, which also worketh in you that believe. For ye, brethren, became imitators of the assemblies of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen, even as they also of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and please not God, and [are] contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sins alway; but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (vers. 13-16).

* "And," omitted in Text. Rec., has the highest but not large authority.

Man as he is naturally lives without God, acted on by the things he sees around him, a prey to the desires of the flesh and of the mind. In order to a spiritual link with God he needs a revelation from Him; and God is now sending this in the glad tidings concerning His Son, that men may believe and be saved. Thus does the soul know God, and Jesus Christ whom He did send, and this is life eternal. By faith he begins to feel and think according to God; and faith is the reception of a divine testimony. Thereby he sets to his seal that God is true. The word of God mixed with faith puts into immediate association with God.

In apostolic days Paul, as here, was an instrument to convey God's word in his preaching; and this, by divine power, without admixture of error. So it is in the Scriptures, which as being inspired of God exclude mistake. Hence, while they are of the richest value as a medium of communicating the truth, they have their special and indeed unique function as being the divinely given standard to try every word and work.

Not only, then, had the Apostle laboured in the power of the Holy Ghost and in a way suitable to the beginning and growth of those who were the objects of his ministry, but it was not in vain. There were sweet and manifest fruits in God's grace. "And for this cause we also thank God unceasingly, that, when ye received the word of the report from us of God ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word, which also worketh in you that believe." It is always a true effect of God's gracious power when souls in a hostile world receive His testimony, however perfectly His word meets the cravings of the heart and presents the blood of Christ to purify the conscience from the dead works to serve the living God. There is a constant network for men to hold them fast in Satan's hand; and the truth, as being God's word, judges the thoughts and intents of the heart. It was yet more trying when the truth was as novel as it must ever be opposed to human will and reasoning. When many profess it, the reproach to a great extent disappears, though God does not fail to counteract Satan's wiles, who would thus destroy the power by making the form cheap and common. To the Thessalonians, as indeed to every Gentile then, the word reported was a new thing. But it was "of God," and so they proved it. "Ye accepted not men's word, but as it is truly God's word." The heart bowed to God, and the word also wrought by the Spirit of God its own divine effects in those subject to it by faith.

The Jewish matron was true to the instincts of humanity and the traditions of her race, when she saw the Messiah casting out demons and heard Him warning of a worse power of the enemy those who still sought a sign from heaven; out of the crowd she cried, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the breasts that Thou didst suck." The gospel renders it plain and certain that it is no question of a relationship after the flesh, but of the authority and blessing of the divine word, and thus as open to the Gentile as to the Jew. To believe it is the obedience of faith. It is to be in living association with God, which cannot be otherwise.

The word wielded by the Spirit and received as of God thus separates to Him, and is indeed exactly what is called "sanctification of the Spirit" in 1 Peter 1: 2: not in the practical sense (which follows in ver. 15, 16 as well as elsewhere), but, in principle and absolutely, that setting apart to God from the beginning which constitutes a saint (see. 1 Cor. 6: 11). Hence it precedes the knowledge of forgiveness or the possession of peace with God; as Peter says, in (or by) sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Here nothing but prejudice would have hindered believers seeing that obedience is not merely faith-obedience, but practical. Now sanctification in the ordinary sense cannot be said to be for or "unto obedience," seeing that it very largely consists of obedience, and cannot exist without it; but sanctification of the Spirit as here spoken of is for (εἰς) obedience, and such as Christ's in contrast with a mere Israelite's. It is also for "sprinkling with His blood," for the new life or divine nature in the saint wishes to obey God even before it knows the efficacy of His blood in a purged conscience; and hence the perfect order of the words in the phrase.

The want of seeing this has greatly embarrassed the commentators, and has even led, to positive falsification, as in Beza's Latin Version and the Geneva English Version, which render the clause unto (ἐν) sanctification of the Spirit through (εἰς) obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ! This is to sacrifice, not grammar merely, but God's word to a defective system of theology, which only acknowledges the sanctification that is consequent on justification, and ignores the primary setting of the person apart to God by the Spirit, which is true of every saint from his conversion, when he may not yet rest by faith in Christ's blood. Erasmus, though perplexed, is nearer the truth than the Vulgate, followed by the Rhemish, which yields no just sense whatever. Archbishop Leighton is one of the few who saw that sanctification here does not mean inherent, gradual, or practical holiness, but that work of the Spirit which from first to last separates from nature and the world to God (compare 2 Thess. 2: 13).

The same spiritual cause produced kindred effects. All are not Israelites, neither are they Cretans, and the flesh in all, if unjudged, affords a ready occasion to the enemy who presents snares suited to beguile each. But the Holy Spirit forms by the image of Christ, presented in God's word, which is effectual not only to beget souls to God. but to clear, correct, instruct, reprove, and in every way to discipline, as well as cheer on, the believer. Of this the apostle reminds the Thessalonians. "For ye, brethren, became imitators of the assemblies of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus." Difference of race, contrast as to previous habits of religion, cannot hinder the power of grace and truth. The Thessalonians followed in the same path of suffering and endurance as the Jewish assemblies in Christ Jesus. There the flame of persecution burnt fiercely against the companies that bore the name of Him whom they had crucified. It was not otherwise for the Thessalonian saints from their own countrymen.

There is no such hatred as that embittered by difference in religion, and especially where the claim is exclusive and divine. The gospel gave occasion to this in its most concentrated form; for it first had to make its way where God had really given peculiar privileges, which it was quite right to maintain in all their value as long as He owned the people to whom He had given them. But the Jewish people slighted and abandoned them, killing the prophets who pressed their infidelity and apostasy on their consciences, as they crowned their guilt when outward forms seemed orderly, but real unbelief and enmity to God were laid bare, by the ignominious rejection and death of their own Messiah. But evil is insatiable, and even the cross only whetted their rancour against the witnesses of divine grace. They "drove us out."

For the possessors of law are provoked to madness by the preaching of grace, which makes little of any earthly privileges whatever, and insists on the ruin of the Jew as much as of the Gentile. Hence the Jew's undying hatred of the gospel. It were bad enough to hear a testimony as much above and deeper than the law, as Christ is greater than Moses; and the difference is really immeasurable. But to proclaim its incomparable blessings in Christ so as to obliterate all distinction, and to bring the believer, Jew or Gentile alike, into a new place of heavenly relationship and of everlasting favour, is intolerable. This, then, was necessarily the final dealing of God as far as Israel's responsibility was concerned. All hope for the nation on the earth was buried in the grave of Christ. They had a last appeal from the Holy Ghost in the gospel witnessing of Christ exalted to heaven; but they refused the message as much or more than the Person, above all when they saw others, yea, Gentiles, entering into the good which they had spurned for themselves.

Thus they "please not God, and [are] contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always; but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." It might not yet be executed, but it impended, and no small part became their portion after the apostle passed away. Still it rests on the ,Jew, but it is not yet expended; and were the Jew to return to his land, to rebuild the city and the sanctuary, and to take possession as far as possible of his ancient heritage, it would be but a deadly delusion and a satanic snare, bringing on them first Antichrist, then the trouble from the Assyrian, and finally the Lord Himself in unsparing vengeance, however mercy may in the end rejoice against judgment. As, however, the apostle does not lift the veil of the future, (as in Rom. 11). from their prospects, but returns to the new relations of grace, the common joy of himself and the Thessalonian saints, we too follow the line of the Holy Spirit here.

"But we, brethren, being bereaved of you for a little season [lit., of an hour], in person, not in heart, made more exceeding diligence to see your face with much desire. Wherefore* we desired to come unto You, I, Paul, both once and twice, and Satan hindered us. For what [is] our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying? [Are] not even ye before our Lord Jesus† at His coming? For ye are our glory and joy" (vers. 17-19).

* The right reading is διότι, not διό of the Text. Rec., though the sense differs little.

† "Christ" is added in the Text. Rec., but does not appear in the best MSS. and Versions.

Doubtless, if Christianity gives the deepest importance to the individual with God, the assembly affords the largest scope to the affections of the members of Christ as His one body. And Satan hinders in all possible ways the happy interchange of what is so sweet and holy, the mind and love of heaven enjoyed among saints on earth. The presence of each other, above all of such an one as Paul, what a difference it makes! Still the apostle had been introducing that which ought to correct any undue moment given to bodily presence. Had he not been showing the all-importance of God's word, and how effective it is in the hand of grace? Absence, therefore, is in no way fatal to the saints' joy and blessing. Waiting but exercises faith, and should increase the longing desire, which after all was stronger in Paul than in his Thessalonian children; how much in Him Whose patient waiting is as perfect as His love to us! Thus does he bind their hearts with his own (and may it be true of us also!) in the joy of Christ's presence at His coming. Then will be the true rest from labour, then the enjoyment of the fruits without alloy or danger. May we find ourselves habitually thus looking onward from present hindrances to that blessed and everlasting scene!

1 Thessalonians 3.

Grace works by joints and bands in the body, which is so constituted by our Lord Jesus to this end. If Paul could not visit the Thessalonians, he sent Timothy. Love seeks not its own things, and can find resources according to Christ, whatever the hindrances which Satan puts in the way.

"Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought good to be left behind at Athens alone, and sent Timothy our brother and workfellow* under God in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage concerning your faith, that no one might be moved by [lit., in] these afflictions. For yourselves know that for this we are set. For even when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we are to suffer affliction, even as it came to pass, and ye know. On this account I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest perhaps the tempter had tempted you and our labour should be in vain. But when Timothy came just now unto us from you and brought us glad tidings of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us even as we also [to see] you: on this account we were comforted by you, brethren, in all our distress and tribulation through your faith, because now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord. For what thanksgiving can we render again to God for you for all the joy wherewith we rejoice on your account before our God, night and day beseeching exceedingly that we may see your face, and perfect what is lacking in your faith? Now our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another and toward all, even as we also toward you; in order to establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints" (vers. 1-13).

* Probably the various forms of the MSS. here are due to correctors who wishers to soften what they did not relish or understand. omits τὸν συνεργὸν ἡμῶν, B omits τοῦ Θεοῦ. The Clermont copy seems to have preserved the true text as given above, though some erroneously here as elsewhere, render it "fellow-worker with God." Compare 1 Cor. 3: 9; 2 Cor. 6: 1. "Under God" may be a paraphrase, but seems in our tongue needed to guard from a mistake against which true knowledge of God and His word ought to have preserved souls. The Greek genitive admits of relations far wider than the English. It is a question of contextual requirement.

To the apostle visiting Athens it was no small trial to forego the companionship of his true and beloved child in faith. But his affectionate concern for the Thessalonians could not otherwise be satisfied. He knew that they were but babes spiritually, and that they were exposed to enemies, Jewish and Gentile, as subtle as determined and unscrupulous. He was himself about to brave Satan in a stronghold of his religious influence and of philosophic speculation, where the name of Jesus had never yet been proclaimed, still less had he himself the fellowship of brethren in Christ with whom to pray and take counsel. A storm of popular fury, stirred up by Jewish instigation among the Gentile rabble, had burst out against Jason (Paul's host) and other brethren in Thessalonica, which led to the hurried leave of Paul and Silas that night after a sojourn of but few weeks. The same Jewish influence had stirred up the crowds at Berea, whither they had repaired, and where they found a yet readier reception of the word, and withal remarkable care in bringing what was preached to the test of the scriptures. There Silas and Timothy staid, while Paul was once more hurried off to Athens. But the heart of the apostle could not rest as to the Thessalonians, young as they were, and exposed to danger, suffering, and snares. "And we sent Timothy our brother and work-fellow under God in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and encourage concerning your faith, that no one be moved by these afflictions. For yourselves know that for this we are set. For even when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we are to suffer afflictions even as it came to pass, and ye know." The Holy Spirit by the apostle, as the Lord Jesus previously, had given full warning of the special and constant troubles that await the saint in passing through the world — peace within beyond thought of man, peace in Christ, but tribulation in the world. Faith alone can enjoy the one and endure the other. Such is meant to be the experience, none other the expectation, of Christians while waiting for Christ. Even the youngest must thus learn, for the real enmity of the world and of its prince spares none, and so the apostle prepared the converts in Thessalonica to look for distress. Nor was this at all too soon. They had already the gravest reason to know the truth and wisdom of his warnings, but they had the witness of love in the visit of Timothy for their establishment and encouragement concerning their faith. Grace only could call into such a path; grace alone can sustain in it; but grace does not fail. Still the Lord works by means, as by Paul's sending, by Timothy's going and comforting the saints, and by their joy in the consolation, whatever might be the pressure of affliction. Flesh would weary, murmur, doubt, and turn aside from the truth which entailed such sorrow. Faith sees Christ, gives God thanks, perseveres at all cost, and grows by the exercise. while the links of love are strengthened on all sides.

"On this account I also, when I could no longer forbear, sent that I might know your faith, lest perhaps the tempter had tempted you, and our labour should be in vain. But when Timothy came just now unto us from you, and brought us glad tidings of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us even as we [to see] you; on this account we were comforted in you, brethren, in all our distress and tribulation through your faith; because now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord." The Second Epistle will afford ample evidence that the apostle might well dread that the tempter would avail himself of the circumstances to dishonour the Lord in those who bore His name at Thessalonica. For the present, however, the work stood in the vigour and freshness in which it began, and Timothy had such good news to bring back as cheered the fervent and affectionate heart of him that sent him, and changed his anxieties into thanksgiving that rose above all his own distress and affliction. Their faith shone, their love burned, they had always good remembrance of the stranger to whom they were indebted for hearing of the living and true God, and of His Son the Deliverer risen from the dead Who is coming from the heavens. They longed to see again the messenger whom they recognised as bringing them unequivocally God's word, whatever the varied storms of trial it had brought on them from man, the very trials proving their sincerity and truth, for had they not been told before that so it was to be? It was strength as well as joy to the labourer, as he most energetically expresses it, "now we live if ye stand fast in [the] Lord."

The joy of the apostle, as it was of divine love, so was it holy: no vain proselyting zeal, but delight in the presence of God over that which was the fruit of His grace to the praise of Jesus; delight over that faith and love kept bright and firm, in young confessors of Christ left alone, notwithstanding the fierce hostility of Jews and Greeks. "For what thanksgiving can we render again to God for you for all the joy wherewith we rejoice on your account before our God, night and day beseeching exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?" If theirs was the love of Jonathan, his was certainly more than the love of David. It is the love of the divine nature in the power of that Spirit, which finds its ever-growing joy in the blessing of others, and especially of those already blessed, that what is wanting may be perfected in personal ministry. "Now our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you; and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another and toward all, even as we also toward you; in order to establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints."

Such was the prayer dictated by the apostle's affection as the Holy Spirit brought their need before him in God's presence. And the way of the apostle was directed to the Thessalonians, but not before another epistle to them followed, and years of labour elsewhere intervened. What he meanwhile seeks for them is no less important for ourselves and all saints — the increase and abounding of love in us, one toward another, and toward all, in order to the establishing our hearts unblameable in holiness. This is God's way as surely as it is not man's; for he insists on holiness in order to love, whereas in truth love must work in order to holiness. It is a true principle from the gospel all the way through; for God's love it was that met and blessed us in sovereign grace when we were enemies, powerless and ungodly, in Christ's death for us, and this was the most powerful motive which wrought in us to holiness. So is it here among the saints, who are exhorted to love mutually as well as toward all, in order that their hearts should be confirmed in holiness without blame; even as Christ, in love to the church, first gave Himself, and then washes with the word, that He may present it to Himself glorious, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.

But there is another consideration of great weight and interest in this brief prayer. Not only does he join in a most striking unity our God and Father Himself with our Lord Jesus in his earnest prayer for the blessing of the saints by a renewed visit, but he desires that the Lord may confirm their hearts blameless in holiness "before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints" — not merely now before God, so that it should be real, but at the coming of the Lord with all that are His, without a break in thought till that day when the failure or faithfulness of each shall appear beyond controversy. For as it is a question of responsibility, it is not simply His coming that is here spoken of, but His coming with all His saints, that is, His day when they shall appear with Him in glory, and He shall come to be glorified in His saints and to be admired in all them that believed. How this brings the light of that day on the present hour! Even if one may not for the Lord's sake walk with all the saints now, it is not that the heart is alienated, but it anticipates that glorious scene in which they shall come forth with Him, the objects of our love because they all are of His.

1 Thessalonians 4.

The knowledge of Christ is inseparable from faith; yet is it pre-eminently a life of holiness and love, and not a mere creed, as the human mind tends to make it. We have seen how it wrought in the practical ways of those who first preached the gospel to the Thessalonians, in unselfish goodness and exposure to suffering (1 Thess. 1, 2), as well as in deep feeling afterwards for the young converts, so soon called to bear the brunt of affliction. For their abounding in love in order to holiness the apostle prayed the Lord (1 Thess. 3). Now he proceeds to appeal to themselves: —

"Further, then, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that, as ye received from us how ye ought to walk and please God, even as also ye do walk,* ye abound still more. For ye know what charges we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is [the] will of God†, your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honour, not in passion of lust, even as also the Gentiles that know not God; that he should not over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter; because the Lord is an avenger in respect of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified. For God called us not for uncleanness but in sanctification. Wherefore then he that disregardeth disregardeth not man but God that [also] gave‡ His Holy Spirit unto you" (1 Thess. 4: 1-8).

*Text. Rec. omits this grave clause, so encouraging to those addressed. The authority for it is overwhelming.

† Some copies insert τό, others omit τοῦ, contrary to the best authorities.

‡ Even Dean Alford thinks δόντα was changed into διδόντα, or early ignorance may have done it undesignedly.

It is an immense thing for those who were once mere men on earth, severed from God and in spirit from each other by sin, only united when united for objects of human will or glory, now as His children with one purpose of heart to walk so as to please God. Yet such is Christianity practically viewed; and it is worthless if not practical. It is true that there is in the light and truth which Christ has revealed by the Holy Ghost the richest material and the fullest scope for the renewed mind and heart. But there is in "the mystery" no breadth nor length, no height nor depth, which does not bear on the state of the affections or the character of the walk and work; and no error more dishonours God or damages man than the divorce of theory from practice. Scripture binds them together indissolubly, warning us solemnly against those who would part them, as evil, the sure enemies of God and man. No! truth is not merely to inform but to sanctify and what we received from those divinely given to communicate it is "how we ought to walk and please God." In that path the youngest believer walks from the first, slave or free, Greek or Scythian, learned or unlearned; from that path none can slip save into sin and shame. It is not, however, a mere defined direction, as in a law or ordinance. As a life is in question, the life of Christ, there is exercise and growth by the knowledge of God. On the state of the soul depends the discernment of God's will in His word, which is overlooked where levity marks the inner condition, or the will is active and unjudged. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." Then only is there surefootedness spiritually; and a deepening sense of the word in the intelligence issues in a fuller obedience. One knows God's mind better, and the heart is earnest in pleasing Him. We abound more and more.

This was no new solicitude of the apostle. They knew what charges he gave them through the Lord Jesus. Is not His will, His honour, concerned in a walk pleasing to God? He on earth could say, "I do always those things that please Him;" in heaven He is now occupied with those who are following in the same path here below. We may fail; but is that our aim'? He does not fail to help us by His word, as He would also by His grace if we looked to Him and leaned on Him. Do we hear His voice?

On one thing especially was the apostle urgent, the personal purity of those who bore the name of Jesus; and the more so as the Greeks utterly failed in it. Their habits and their literature, their statesmen and their philosophers, all helped on the evil; their very religion conduced to aggravate the defilement by consecrating that to which depraved nature is itself prone. Few can have any adequate notion of the moral horrors of the heathen world, or of the insensibility of men generally to pollutions so shameless Christ changed all for those who believe in Him, leaving an example that they should follow His steps. "For this is God's will, your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication; that each of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honour, not in passion of lust even as also the Gentiles that know not God, that no man over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter; because the Lord is an avenger of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified." Holiness, of course, goes far beyond freedom from sensuality. Still to stand clear of that which was everywhere sanctioned in ordinary life was no small thing. Nor is the apostle satisfied with the negative duty of abstinence, but calls on "each of them to know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honour," instead of letting it drift loosely into sin and shame, "not in passion of lust, even as the Gentiles also that know not God." Acts 15 is proof positive on scripture testimony of that day, painfully confirmed by the disclosures of Pompeii and Herculaneum, to the moral degradation that pervaded even the most civilized portion of the heathen world. When God is dishonoured, man is reprobate; and God, in forgiving and rescuing from the wrath to come through Christ's death and resurrection, gives also a new life in Christ on which the Holy Spirit acts by the word so as to produce fruits of righteousness by Him to God's glory.

Hence the exhortation further, "that he should not over-reach and wrong his brother in the matter, because the Lord is an avenger in respect of all these things, even as we told you before and fully testified." There is no real ground to introduce a new topic here, confounding with Calvin and others τῳ πρ. with τοῖς πρ., still less to suppose with Koppe τῳ enclitic = τινι, "any," like our own Authorised Version (compare 2 Cor. 7: 11). It is the apostle's delicate way of referring to the same uncleanness, especially in married circumstances where the rights of a brother were infringed. This demanded and receives special notice. For as the brotherhood of Christians casts them into free and happy and intimate intercourse, there would be peculiar danger in these very circumstances, lest Satan should tempt where flesh was not kept by faith in the place of death, that love only should act in holy ways with Christ before their eyes. There is perhaps no danger more gravely pressed. They are the ways which bring wrath on the sons of disobedience, and all words which make light of the evil are vain: the Lord avenges all these things, and God will judge the guilty. It is not the true grace of God which spares the strongest and repeated warnings; for God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. It is plain that there is no branching off to commercial dealings, or to dishonesty in the affairs of every-day life. Impurity in the social relations of the saints is the evil still in view: and the conclusion is, "Wherefore then he that disregardeth disregardeth not man but God, that also gave his Holy Spirit unto you." Thus does grace, in calling to a moral duty, rise entirely above the mere weighing of such motives as act on men. It is not that delicate consideration of man is omitted: the apostle begins with the slighting of man in the matter, but he forthwith brings in also the immense yet solemn privilege of the Christian, God's gift of the Holy Spirit. How would impurity affect Him Who dwells in the saints, and makes the body God's temple?

Next follows a call to abound in brotherly love, in which the apostle does glide into the connected proprieties of daily labour animated by care for others. "Now concerning brotherly love ye have no need that we write to you; for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another; for, indeed, ye do it toward all the brethren that are in the whole of Macedonia. But we exhort you, brethren, that ye abound still more, and that ye make it your aim to be quiet and mind your own affairs and work with your own hands, even as we charged you, that ye may walk honourably toward those without, and may have need of nothing" (vers. 9-12). The possession of Christ does wonderfully bind hearts together; and as affection one toward another is a spiritual instinct, so all that is learnt of Christ deepens it intelligently. Intercourse may test its reality sometimes, but as a whole develops it actively, and the more as sharing the same hostility from the world. Here, too, the apostle looks that it should abound more and more, and along with it the studious aim to be quiet and to mind their own affairs, which brotherly love would surely promote: the very reverse of that meddling disposition which flows from the assumption of superiority in knowledge or spirituality or faithfulness. Further, he calls on them to work with their own hands, even as we charged you (and who could do it with so good a grace?), that they may walk honourably toward those without and may have need of nothing [or none]. There is not such a thought as encouraging the needy to draw on the generosity of others. Let it be the ambition of those who love, and would keep the love of others, to spare themselves in nothing and avoid encroaching on the help of any, so as to cut off all suspicion from those without. Brotherly love would be questioned if heed were not paid to propriety; it flourishes and abounds where there is also self-denial.

Having thus exhorted the saints to personal purity, and connected divine love with the quiet discharge of daily duty, so often apt to be neglected on that very plea and the vain pretension to higher ways, the apostle now turns to their immoderate sorrow and surprise at the death of some among them. So filled were they with the expectation of the presence of the Lord, that they had not conceived the possibility of any saints thus passing away. They looked only for His coming, and drew inferences which, not being of the Lord, exposed them, as all human reasonings do, to danger. The need then was to maintain the truth, whilst guarding from such a misuse; but grace vouchsafed fresh and fuller light for them and for as.

"But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those that fall asleep;* that ye be not grieved even as the rest also that have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also those put to sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say to you in [the] word of [the] Lord, that we, the living that remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede those put to sleep; because the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout of command, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet [the] Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. So then encourage one another with these words" (vers. 13-18).

* The oldest authorises have κοιμωμένων, the class of those that sleep, character, and not time, as in σωζόμενοι, ἁγιαζόμενοι, etc. Later but more numerous copies support κεκοιμημένων which is exactly right in 1 Cor. 15: 20, but not required here.

The Thessalonian saints knew, as a settled certainty of the Lord's coming and kingdom. They were waiting for Him, the Son of God, from heaven as a constant hope, the nearest hope of their hearts. They had never taken into account that He might tarry according to the will of God who would gather fresh souls to the fellowship of His love, while letting the world ripen in iniquity and lawlessness, whether in proud unbelief or in hollow profession, till the apostasy come and the man of sin be revealed. As to all this they lacked instruction, having enjoyed the teaching of the apostle for but a short season, and no epistle being yet written. This is the first St. Paul ever wrote; and while promoting the joy and growth of faith, of nothing does he write as a more necessary help than to supply a lack, which, if not filled up by divine revelation, laid active minds open to the enemy, through speculations which he would soon suggest, in order to undermine the truth already known, or their souls' confidence in God.

Their grief was excessive like the rest of men, Jews, or rather heathen, that have no hope. Why such extravagant sorrow about those who, if called hence, knew God's love and salvation in the Lord Jesus? Is life eternal a vain thing? Is remission of sins, or the possession of the Holy Spirit? Surely it must be only ignorance on their part, and not that any called of God to His kingdom and glory (not to speak of the church, Christ's body) could forfeit by dying, as they imagined, their blessedness when the Lord Jesus comes. And so it was for want of knowing better that they had yielded to thoughts which had plunged them in Christ-dishonouring sorrow.

Even here, however it is remarkable that the apostle does not unveil the state of the separate spirits, as we see done in Luke 23: 43, Acts 7: 59, 2 Cor. 5: 8, and Phil. 1: 23. He meets fully the error that death in any way destroys or detracts from the blessed hope of the Christian. He would have the saints no longer ignorant concerning those who may most truly be said to fall asleep; if they do, it is but more evidently to have the portion of Him Who died and rose, as we assuredly believe; for they will rise if they meanwhile die. And is such a resurrection a loss? "Even so those also put to sleep through Jesus," as it is here beautifully described, "will God bring with Him." They were laid to sleep by Jesus; and, far from forgetting or even postponing their joy and blessedness, God will bring them with Jesus in that day.

But how so, since they sleep in death, and He comes from heaven in power and glory? Hereon follows a most enlightening and fresh communication, "in the word of the Lord," which clears up the difficulty by unfolding the order of events, and thus the way by which the sleeping saints are to come with Jesus. The Thessalonian believers had fancied the departed would miss the blissful reunion, or at least come behind the living that remain. But it is not so. "For this we say to you in [the] word of [the] Lord, that we, the living that remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede those put to sleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout of command, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in [the] air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. So then encourage one another with these words." Such is the wondrous intimation in this striking episode which brings us up parenthetically to the introductory words which assured them that the Lord would come, and the saints, including those that sleep, along with Him. Here we learn how it can be: He first descends for them, and afterwards brings them with Him.

But there are details. He shall Himself descend from heaven with "a shout of command." The word employed, being peculiar in the New Testament to this passage, cannot but have special force. Outside scripture it is used for a general's call to his soldiers, for an admiral's to his sailors, or sometimes more generally as a cry to incite or encourage.

It seems most appropriate as conveying a word of command to those in immediate relationship. Not a hint drops of a shout for the world, for men at large, to hear. It is here for His own to join Him on high. "with archangel's voice" brings in the highest of heavenly creature glory to attend the Lord on that transcendent occasion. If angels now minister to the saints, as we know they did to Him also, how suitable to hear of "archangel's voice" when they thus gather round Him! Nor is "God's trump" silent at such a moment, when all that is of mortal man in His own shall be swallowed up of life at the presence of Christ.

Accordingly "the dead in Christ rise first." It is no question of the first man but of the Second; and all of that family who have slept "rise first." So unfounded was the despairing sorrow of those in Thessalonica. So far they precede the living saints, in being the earliest to experience the power of life in the Son of God. The truth is, however, that the difference in time is but just appreciable; for "then we, the living that remain, shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in [the] air." The translation of all the changed saints is simultaneous. The grief of such as doubted the full blessedness of those meanwhile put to sleep was really ignorance and unbelief; for even if they could not anticipate the fresh revelation from the Lord, they ought, from their divinely given knowledge of His love and of His redemption, to have counted on His grace towards the dead saints no less than towards the living. They might have sought needed light as to the particulars from those raised up and given of the Lord to impart it. We can, however, readily conceive how haste wrought injuriously in them as in ourselves. But what an unspeakable mercy that grace met the need to the correction of the mistake then, and to the prevention of it afterwards! So is it habitually in the Epistles especially, as in all scripture.

It is important to note that "the general resurrection" is as foreign to this part of God's word as to every other. The faithful dead, the faithful living, are alone spoken of. Not that there will not be a resurrection of unjust as well as of just. But there is no such thing in scripture as a resurrection of all men together. Of all things resurrection separates most distinctly. Till then there may be more or less mixture of the evil with the good, though it be a dishonour to the Lord and an injury to His people. But appearances deceive, and absolute separateness is not found, and God uses the trial produced by it for blessing to those whose eye is single. But at His coming the severance will be complete, at His appearing it will be manifest. Hence, the resurrection of the sleeping saints is called a resurrection out of, or from among, the dead; which could not be said of the resurrection of the wicked, for they leave no more to be raised. Thus both classes are raised separately, and the traditional idea of one general resurrection of the dead is fictitious. Daniel 12 speaks of a resuscitation of Israel, Matthew 25 of the Lord's judgment of the nations: neither refers to the literally dead.

But the moral consequence of the error is as positively bad as the truth sanctifies. For the action of a general resurrection connects itself with a general judgment, and thus vagueness is brought in on the spirit of the believer, who loses thereby the truth of salvation as a present thing, and the consciousness of possessing eternal life in Christ, in contrast with coming into judgment. Compare Heb. 9: 27, 28, and John 5: 24. One of the enemy's main efforts is to annul this solemn difference: he would shake, if he could, the believer's enjoyment of God's grace in Christ; he would lull to a fatal calm the unbeliever, indifferent alike to his sins and the Saviour. The first resurrection of the saints, severed by at least a thousand years (Rev. 20) from that of the rest of the dead, the wicked who rise for judgment and the lake of fire, is the strongest possible disproof of the prevalent confusion, an immensely grave appeal to the conscience of the unbeliever a most cheering solace to those who are content to suffer with Christ meanwhile.

Further, it is unquestionable that death is in no way the believer's hope, but Christ's coming, when every effort and trace of death shall be effaced from the saints deceased, as well as the living Christians, who have mortality, as others, at work in them. Then shall it be swallowed up of life; for to receive them to Himself He comes, Who is the resurrection and the life. Thus the believer on Him, though dead, shall live; and the living believer on Him shall never die. Death is not the Bridegroom, but merely a servant (for all things are ours) for ushering us, absent from the body, to be present with the Lord. But here it is no mere individual going after dying to Him, but His coming, the Conqueror of death, for us all, whether sleeping or waking, that we may be changed into His glorious image even in the body.

But there is another, and in itself far more precious, privilege signalised here. "Thus shall we always be with Him." This last is the deepest joy of the separate state when a saint departs, then to be with Christ. So even was it with the dying but believing robber: Christ assured him that he was to be that day with Himself in Paradise. Only such a state was but intermediate and imperfect, however blessed. For it was not the body glorified; nor was it all the saints gathered. At His coming all will be complete and perfect for the heavenly family, "and so shall we ever be with the Lord." What can lack, or what be added, to such words of infinite and everlasting joy? "So then encourage one another with these words." The Holy Spirit says on this head no more. That which is perfect shall then be come.

1 Thessalonians 5.

From the special side of the Lord's coming which consummates His grace to those waiting for Him by their translation to His presence in the air, the apostle now turns to the more general fact of "the day", when he deals with the world according to the concurrent testimony of the Old Testament and of the New. The gathering of the saints to Himself, asleep or alive changed into the image of His glory, is a new revelation, and is introduced here as such. Not so the appearing or day of the Lord, which had formed the burden of many prophecies, and, I think we may say, of all the prophets since time began. For it is an epoch and indeed period second to none in manifest importance, affecting every creature in heaven and earth, and displaying the immense change which God will then bring to pass in honour of His Son according to His word from the beginning.

"But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need to be written to. For yourselves know thoroughly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief at night. When they are saying peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh on them as the pain on her that is with child; and they shall! in no wise escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief; for ye all are sons of light and sons of day: we are not of night nor of darkness.

So, then, let us not sleep as [do] the rest, but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep by night, and they that ere drunk drink by night; but we being of day, let us be sober, putting on a breastplate of faith and love, and hope of salvation as helmet. Because God did not appoint us unto wrath, but unto obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we may live together with Him. Therefore encourage one another, and edify each other, even as also ye do" (vers. 1-11).

It will be remarked that there is no mention, no mixing up, of "the times and the seasons" with the presence of the Lord to gather His own to Himself on high. This, our hope, is wholly apart from the defined periods of which prophecy treats. Here where "the day of the Lord" is in question, they are expressly brought forward; for that day is the most momentous event embraced within its scope. It is not improbable from 2 Thess. 2: 5 that the apostle had already taught them of it orally, as he certainly did of antecedent circumstances. But it is not necessary to assume that he had taught them as much as could be known, nor even that he had ever by word of mouth gone into detail on the day of the Lord. There was really no need for this, because the Old Testament treats of no theme more largely and minutely. It was already, therefore, a matter of common and familiar knowledge among the saints. Yet the accuracy of their knowledge is here simply said of the sure and sudden and unwelcome coming of the day of the Lord. There was no need of writing anything now, for they knew perfectly that Jehovah's day so comes as a thief at night. The apostle may not have gone into particulars; but this great and solemn truth was part of their inward conscious assurance (vers. 1, 2.) They knew perfectly, not as some strangely say that the time of it is uncertain, but that its coming is certain, and no less terrible than unlooked for.

With this is contrasted the fatal self-deceiving security of men around them, of the world. "When they are saying peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh on them, as the pain on her that is with child; and they shall in no wise escape" (ver. 3), In 2 Peter 3 it is rather such scoffing unbelief as is found among philosophers, who point to the substantial stability of all things visible in the midst of superficial change and development. Here it is rather inward quiet and outward exemption from danger, through confidence in the social and political state of mankind; yet not without uneasy qualms which betray the real unrest and underlying dread of those that know not God and His Christ. As it was with men when the flood came and swept away all those who despised God's warning by Noah; as it was when, after feebler and still briefer warning in the days of Lot, condign judgment fell on the polluted cities of the plain; so shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. Sudden destruction, indeed, impends on those who trust themselves and their own thoughts, rejecting the testimony of God. This is the judgment of the quick; and, it will be noticed, no trace accompanies it of a judgment of the dead nor yet of a burning up of the earth, however surely both are to follow in their own due season. It is the end of the age, but not of the world materially. As a snare shall it come upon all them that dwell on the face of all the earth. And they shall in no wise escape, any more than the woman with child when her hour is come and the birth-pang is on her. It is unspiritual ignorance, not to say folly, to apply this to the destruction of Jerusalem or to death, as some have done and do. It is the day of the Lord yet to fall on the world.

The apostle, however, immediately and carefully declares how different is the lot of the faithful. "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief; for ye all are sons of light and sons of day: we are not of night nor of darkness" (vers. 4, 5). He is not afraid that it would endanger the young believers in Thessalonica, or any others, to know how grace had distinguished them from the rest of mankind, his very aim here, as elsewhere, is to impress this distinction on them ineffaceably. He says, first, that they were not in darkness, that the day should surprise them as a thief; secondly, that they all were sons of light and sons of day. Not only were they unlike the world as in darkness and the objects of the Lord's judgment, but positive sharers of divine nature and blessedness. Indeed, such is the peculiar being of God's children generally, as he adds, "we are not of night nor of darkness." We are of God, Who is light, and in Whom is no darkness at all.

But privilege known and enjoyed by the believer is the very hinge and incentive of responsibility; and so the apostle proceeds to exhort. "So then let us not sleep as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober" (ver. 6). If children of God, it is a deep spring of joy in Christ and of thanksgiving to our Father, but how instant and inalienable the call to walk according to the relationship! So here, if sons of light and of day, sleep — indifference to the will of the Lord — becomes us not, but watchfulness and sobriety, as those who derive their life from Him Who is the one true light, and will bring in the day, as free from excitement as from careless ease. The righteous shall then shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Then follows a brief but vivid picture of the slumbering world and of the wakeful Christian. "For those that sleep sleep by night, and those that are drunk drink by night; but we, as being of day, let us be sober, putting on a breastplate of faith and love, and as helmet hope of salvation" (vers. 7, 8). Sleep suits the night, and so does excess: men naturally do in the dark what they would not like to do in the light. It is the common and undeniable practice of men which is thus brought before the mind. To what is the Christian exhorted? It is not exactly, as in the Authorised Version after the Vulgate, etc., "Let us who are of the day," which would require the article, but let us as being of day be sober, having put on a breastplate of faith and love, and hope of salvation as helmet.* Thus the believer is called to be in arms as well as watchful and sober. But the arms here, as but young Christians were immediately addressed, are not offensive, but defensive only: the three characteristics of their life here below, faith, love, and hope. We have seen how they are used in chap. 1 of this Epistle; here they re-appear in the last. Indeed they cannot be absent if we would speak of the motive principles of Christ, whether in truth or in practice; and hence they are more or less prominent in all the apostolic writings.

* It may be worth while here to remark that the reason for the anarthrous structure of the phraseology is not what Bishop Ellicott assigned following Winer's Greek New Testament Grammar, namely, that as well known terms they dispense with the article. Now there may be cases where with a connected word the phrase is virtually a proper name, which sufficiently designative to do without the article unless special reasons require it. But as a general rule the facts do not bear out the conclusion and the familiar words in question fall under the ordinary principle that when they are intended to present an object before the mind the article must be used; whereas it is dropped in order to characterise or predicate simply. The usage is not arbitrary nor careless, but correct in the New Testament and all exact writings. Sometimes the article might or might not be inserted, and both be true; but the force is never precisely the same.

It must be understood that "salvation" here is used in the final or complete sense when the body will share the application of that gracious power which has already dealt with the soul. The believer has already life everlasting and redemption in the Son of God, and thus receives the end of his faith, soul-salvation; he is therefore looking for the salvation of his body (Phil. 3: 21) at Christ's coming as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory, according to the working of the power which He has even to subdue all things to Himself. "Because God did not appoint us unto wrath, but unto obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep we should live together with Him." These are plain words which trace up to God the sovereign grace which distinguishes the saints from the world from first to last, and makes Christ and His death the turning-point of all blessing for those who look to Him, as His wrath abides on such as are not subject to His Son. As lawyers, however, are apt to find in the law more difficulties and stumbling-blocks and evasions than any other class, so do theologians in the written word, to the dishonour of God and the injury of all who confide in them. Could any minds save those perverted by systematic divinity have ever allowed so low a thought as that physical waking or sleeping was here meant? Yet Dr. Whitby did thus think; and even Calvin* says that we might not unsuitably interpret it as meaning ordinary sleep and that it is doubtful what is now intended by sleeping and waking, for it might seem as if he meant life and death, and this meaning would be more complete. Assuredly this pious and learned man here gives a very uncertain sound with the trumpet. It were better to utter no opinion at all than to leave the reader under such a confusion of thoughts. But even this is not the lowest depth, for there have not been wanting men who wish the apostle to teach that the words bear the same ethical force in ver. 10 as in 6, 7! the necessary inference from which would be that, whether we be spiritually watchful or slothful, we shall alike enjoy the portion of everlasting blessedness together with Christ. Does not this sound uncommonly like moral indifferentism?

* "Dubium tamen est quid nunc per somnium et vigilias intelligat: videri enim posset vitam et mortem designare, et hic sensus esset plenior, quanquam de quotidiano somno non inepte etiam exponere liceat." Comm. in loco, Opera, vii. 418.)

Dean Alford, to take a recent case, seems in no small strait as to all this in his remarks on the passage (iii. 278, 279, ed. iv.): "In what sense? surely not in an ethical sense, as above: for they who sleep will be overtaken by Him as a thief, and His day will be to them darkness, not light. If not in an ethical sense, it must be in that of living or dying, and the sense as Rom. 14: 8. [For we cannot adopt the trifling sense given by Whitby, al., — 'whether He come in the night, and so find us taking our natural rest, or in the day when we are waking.'] Thus understood, however, it will be at the expense of perspicacity, seeing that γρηγορεῖν and καθεύδειν have been used ethically throughout this passage. If we wish to preserve the uniformity of the metaphor, we may [though I am not satisfied with this] interpret in this sense: that our Lord died for us, that whether we watch [are of the number of the watchful, i.e. already Christians] or sleep [are of the number of the sleeping, i.e. unconverted] we should live, etc. Thus it would = 'who died that all men might be saved:' who came, not to call the righteous only, but sinners to life. There is to this interpretation the great objection that it confounds with the λοιποί, the ἡμᾶς who are definitely spoken of as set by God not to wrath but to περιποίησιν σωτηρίας. So that the sense live or die must, I think, be accepted, and the want of perspicuity with it."

Of course Alford is right in accepting the sense of living or dying, but wrong and irreverent in imputing want of perspicuity to scripture. He saw Paul only not the Holy Ghost perfectly guiding and guarding him, in what is written. Apply the Dean's reasoning to a kindred mode of speech in Matt. 8: 21, 22 Was there want of perspicuity in the words of the Lord Jesus? or, in 1 Cor. 8, does the unexpected but striking turn given to the word "edified" = "emboldened" in ver. 10 destroy perspicuity? It really gives force in every instance: it is only men's perception which is at fault, with the still worse fault of lack of faith in God's word. If they felt their own shortcoming but owned the perfection of scripture, it would be the right attitude, and they would learn, instead of indulging an assumption which covers ignorance in themselves, injures others, and is a great disrespect to God. The verse is really the conclusion of the answer to the Thessalonian difficulty as to the dead, and the Holy Spirit seems to have boldly used the words γρ. and κ. ethically in 6 and 7, and metaphorically here, because He took for granted the mind of Christ in the saints, which could not misapprehend His different aims in the two cases. Christ died for us, that, whether alive or dead, we should live together with Him. It is living along with Him where He is and as He is, glorified on high. And as the apostle called on the saints in 1 Thess. 4: 18 to comfort or encourage one another with these words he repeats it here in ver. 11, with the added call to edify one the other; for to know the solemn judgment to fall on the world in the day of the Lord should the more build up believers consoled and rejoicing in their own proper hope at His coming.

The apostle next turns to a need rarely if ever out of season among the faithful, even where the stream of faith and love is yet fresh and strong, the due recognition of those that labour and take the lead on the part of their brethren.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, to know those that labour among you and are over you in [the] Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them exceedingly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves" (vers. 12, 13).

It is commonly assumed that the persons indicated by these expressions of spiritual toil, admonition, or presidency, were bishops or presbyters. But this is to lose the special instruction and value of what is here urged; as it is an oversight of the apostolic order as presented in the scripture to take for granted that any were appointed in the Thessalonian assembly to the office of oversight during so brief a sojourn as the first visit, among converts, all of them as yet necessarily novices in the things of God, however bright, and fervent, and promising. To the careful reader of Acts 13, 14 no argument is needed to prove that it was on a second visit, unless the first were of long continuance, that the apostles appointed or chose for the disciples elders in every assembly. The wisdom of this, if not the necessity for it, will be evident to any sober mind that reflects, even if we had not the positive prohibition to Timothy of any such persons from such a function. (1 Tim. 3: 6) For surely, whatever Popes may do, it would be harsh in the extreme to suppose that the apostle in his own choice of bishops neglected the principle which he so gravely charges on his true son in the faith.

Undoubtedly elders, or bishops, were to be honoured, especially those that laboured in word and teaching. (1 Tim. 5: 17.) But the weighty lesson inculcated in the other scriptures we are considering is that, before there was such an official relationship, those who laboured among the saints, took the lead of them in the Lord, and admonished the saints, are held up by the apostle as entitled not only to recognition in their work, but to be regarded exceedingly in love on account of it. Very probably they were just the persons suited for an apostle, or an apostolic delegate like Titus, to appoint as presbyters. But meanwhile, and independently, this established a most important principle, and quite as wholesome for the saints themselves as for those who had no external title as yet: nothing more than a spiritual gift exercised in faith and love, with the simple-hearted desire of the Lord's glory in the healthful, happy, and holy condition of their brethren.

Nor is this state of things among the Thessalonians at all an exceptional case; in other places we may see what is analogous. Thus, among the saints at Rome, where (so far as scripture teaches) no apostle had as yet sojourned, we find gifts which they are encouraged in the Epistle to exercise, teaching, exhorting, presiding or ruling, etc. Apostolic appointment they had not yet; and accordingly we hear of no such officers as bishops or deacons. But it is a mistake to infer from this that there were or could be none otherwise taking the lead; for Rom. 12 explicitly exhorts such persons to exercise their gift, even if they had no outward appointment.

Similarly in the Epistles to the church in Corinth we find no trace of elders — rather the proof that they did not yet exist there. For if they did, would it not be strange to ignore them in the absence of godly discipline as we see in 1 Cor. 5, 6, and in the presence of such disorder as there dishonoured the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11), not to speak of confusion in the assembly (1 Cor. 14), and heterodoxy germinating in their midst (1 Cor. 15)? If elders were not there, one could understand these evils laid directly at the door of the assembly without reference to any individuals appointed to rule. Their absence is readily accounted for: the Corinthian assembly was still young, however vigorous. It was usual to appoint on a later visit those of the brethren in whom the Lord gave the apostles to descry fitting qualifications for the office of a bishop. Yet, meanwhile they were not destitute of those that devoted themselves, like the house of Stephanas to the service of the saints (1 Cor. 16: 15, 16); and the apostle enjoins subjection to each and to every one joined in the work and labouring.

At Ephesus there were, as we know from Acts 20, elders or bishops; but this did not hinder the free action of those who were gifts from the Lord, whether pastors or others (Eph. 4), who might not have the local charge of elders. The same remark applies to Philippi, where express mention is made of bishops and deacons, but as there might be, and no doubt was, the exercise of gifts in teaching or presiding before such officials appeared, so there was nothing in their presence to hinder the liberty of the Spirit in the assembly. Compare also Col. 2: 19 with Col. 4: 17, Heb. 13: 7, 17, 24. 1 Peter 4: 11 illustrates and confirms the same principle: a golden one for us now, when we cannot have apostolic visits, or the then orderly appointment to local charge such as they were authorised to make. But we may and ought so much the more sedulously to own all that the Lord gives for the order and edifying of the assembly, as we hear the apostles exhorting the saints in so many places to do, where elders were not, and even where and when they were.

It might be asked if there was as yet no official nomination of the chiefs at Thessalonica, how were the saints to know the right persons to own, honour, and love as such? The answer is, that the Spirit of God would give this, if not with the intelligence and surely not with the authority, of an apostle, but quite enough to guide the saints for all practical purposes. Therefore, says the apostle here, "We beseech you brethren, to know those that labour among you," etc. Here was the warrant of the word; the Holy Spirit would do the rest, unless self-will and pride or envy hindered. Even so much service of devoted labour and lowly taking the lead and faithful admonition would make itself known in the conscience, as it would yet more readily to the heart if the saints walked with God. Yet this is so novel among Christians, that even devout scholars find very great difficulty in discovering the meaning of εἰδέυαι, whereas its force here is its constant use. If the saints can know a brother to love him, so they can know those whom God uses for their blessing and guidance, and, if right themselves before Him, will respect them the more for not slurring over what is wrong, though a pain at the moment. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." You cannot love as here exhorted unless you know them, just as it is impossible to render brotherly love if we cannot tell who are our brethren.

To be at peace among ourselves is of great moment in order to such recognition as the recognition conduces to it. So it follows here.

But there is no countenance given to the unloving, careless thought that those who labour are to undertake the whole burden of the saints, especially that which draws on moral courage and patience. This is enjoined, not (as Chrysostom says here) on the rulers, but also on the brethren generally. "And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be long-suffering toward all" (ver. 14). Love alone can thus work, looking at the saints as they are in God's sight, and grieved at the havoc Satan would make in that holy garden of the Lord, for whose will and glory love is jealous. Such is to be our way with our brethren.

Next follows a cluster of short pithy exhortations almost to the end, which deal first of all with our spirit or state personally; next in our more public walk.

"See that none render to anyone evil for evil, but always pursue that which is good one toward another, and toward all. Rejoice always; pray unceasingly; in everything give thanks, for this [is] God's will in Christ Jesus toward you. Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophecies; but prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from every form of evil" (ver. 15-22).

Grace is the characteristic of the gospel; and as it is the spring in God Himself as shown in Christ so would He have it in His children, not human justice, for the just against the unjust, but unselfish love doing good to the evil and suffering evil from them. Thus would He have us to be not overcome of evil but to overcome evil with good. Such is Christianity in practice above heathenism and Judaism alike. Such is it one with another and toward all, and so Peter no less than Paul: "If when ye do well and suffer, ye shall take it patiently this is acceptable — grace — with God."

Nor should the Christian give an ill impression of his God and Father or of the portion he even now possesses in His grace, any more than of his prospects. With what joy the disciples returned even from their Master departing to heaven! And the Holy Spirit in due time came to make the joy unfailing. (John 4: 14) What has there been since to dry up the spring? "Rejoice always."

But we are still in the body and in the world, as they were. Therefore is the word "pray unceasingly;" just as we see those who returned with great joy from Olivet, all with one accord continuing steadfastly in prayer with Mary the mother of Jesus, not yet the abomination of prayer to her or to His brethren. Yet this due expression of increasing dependence on God should never be without thanksgiving, but as we are in everything, which otherwise might make us anxious, by prayer and supplication to let our requests be made known to God (Phil. 4: 6), so are we here exhorted to "give thanks in everything." And as a constant spirit of thanksgiving is the very reverse of nature's querulousness, because of manifold suffering and chagrin and disappointment, the apostle fortifies this call with a reason subjoined, "for this is God's will in Christ Jesus toward you." Otherwise it would soon in the declension of Christendom have been counted levity and presumption. How truly does the apostle say in his second Epistle, "all have not faith."

Next we have terse but full exhortation as to our more public ways. It is not here the personal call of Eph. 4, "grieve not," but "quench not the Spirit," followed up by "despise not prophecies," which serves to fix its true bearing. Both suppose the free action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, where He must not be hindered in His general movement even by the least member of Christ, any more than despised in the highest form of dealing with souls, or "prophesying." On the other hand the saints must not be imposed on by high or exclusive claims which are never needed by, and would be repulsive to, the truly spiritual. They were to prove all things, to hold fast the good, to abstain from every form of evil. By έἶδος translated "appearance" in the Authorised Version, is really meant kind or form.

This brief but full exhortation is followed by a beautifully suited prayer. "Now the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful [is] He that calleth, who will also do [it]" (ver. 23, 24). Thus does the apostle commend his beloved children in the faith to the God of peace Himself, after so comprehensively urging their own responsibility; and this both generally and in detail. This is the reason of distinguishing the spirit, the soul, and the body, the entire man inner and outer, and even the inner divided into spirit and soul, that they might look for God to set them apart wholly, and every whit within as well as without to be preserved entire without blame at Christ's coming.

It may be well to add that "the soul" is the seat of personality, "the spirit" is rather the expression of capacity. Hence the soul, with its affections, is the responsible "I;" as the spirit is that higher faculty capable of knowing God, but also of unutterable woe in the rejection of Him. The God of peace Himself claims and sanctifies us wholly. For this should we pray, as the apostle for the saints in Thessalonica, that they might be preserved entire blamelessly, and in every respect, at the coming of our Lord. And for our comfort he adds that, as He who calls us is faithful, so also He will accomplish His purpose. Peace with God, the peace of God, the God of peace; such is the order of the soul's entrance into and experience of the blessing through our Lord Jesus, as the Holy Ghost is the person who effectuates this wonderful purpose of our Father whether now in measure, or absolutely and perfectly at Christ's coming, a hope never separated in Scripture from any part of Christian life.

But there is another trait of that life to which the apostle invites the saints. "Brethren, pray for us." What grace! We can understand easily an Abraham praying for an Abimelech, and perhaps also a more faulty Abraham interceding for a faulty prince of the world who had done a wrong which he wist not fully. But how blessed that it is the privilege of the saints to pray for the most honoured servant of the Lord, and that he seeks and values their prayers! Then follows a warm expression of loving salutation to the brethren, to all the brethren.

But there is another word of marked significance introduced with peculiar solemnity. "I adjure you by the Lord that the letter be read to all the [holy]* brethren." We may conceive how proper and necessary this was when the apostle sent out his first Epistle. It was a communication in the form of a letter, so characteristic of Christianity in its affectionate intimacy as well as in its simplicity. Depth of grace and truth it has in its nature, whatever the form in which it may be presented orally or in writing. But being a letter, and the first of the apostle's sending out, he will have the things he writes acknowledged as the commandments of the Lord, and read to all as concerning all in the Lord. For though he does not put forward his title of apostle, when he could only rejoice that its assertion was needless, he writes in the fullest consciousness of it (1 Thess. 2: 6), and here implies its fullest authority, but withal would be in immediate contact with the least member of Christ's body, as he wishes finally that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ should be with them (ver. 28). It was not that he suspected the integrity of those that were over them in the Lord, but that he would impress on all the saints the solemnity of a fresh inspired communication. And truly, the more we reflect on the gracious interest of God in thus drawing out the heart of the apostle, guided and filled with suited truth for His children, the more will our value rise for such unerring words of divine love.

*Some have judged "holy" a gloss. For my own part, I venture to think it is as appropriate here as in Heb. 3: 1, and can readily understand that its absence from "brethren" generally might induce scribes even in early days as in later to omit the term. This was the first letter addressed to the Gentile saints, as the Epistle to the Hebrews lays special emphasis on those of that nation who confessed Christ being now "holy brethren," not such as were only Abraham's seed according to the flesh.

1 Timothy.

W. Kelly.

From: An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy.

With a Translation of an Amended Text. Third Edition.

Editor's Note to the Third Edition.

During the years; 1884-7, Mr. Kelly wrote his Notes on the two Epistles to Timothy, which appeared serially under his editorship in The Bible Treasury (Vols. 15 and 16). In July 1889 these Notes were published in single volume form as an Exposition of these Epistles. In 1913 a second edition revised followed in two volumes, now succeeded by the present issue in a single volume. No change in the substance of the Exposition has been made, but slight modifications of phraseology in the expositor's remarks have occasionally been introduced by the editor for the help of the reader. Also, care has been taken to verify the numerous references in the text and in the footnotes.

A brief summary of the two Epistles, also by W. K., is added* as a further aid in studying Paul's final charges to Timothy in view of his own imminent decease, and of the rapid perversion and widespread abandonment of the truth of God by the Christian profession. The present need of this particular instruction is evident. What was but a trickle in the first century is a raging devastating flood in the twentieth. In the solemn warnings and authoritative counsel of the apostle, inspired of God, as they emphatically are, the Holy Spirit has provided an impregnable defence against that roaring, threatening flood. Let us walk around our Zion and count her towers and mark well her bulwarks; so may we stand fast in the evil day of apostasy.

W. J. Hocking March 1948

*See pages 335-348. [file 2timothy.doc]

Preface

Though of late years commentaries on the New Testament in general, and some of a more partial nature yet including the Pastoral Epistles have not been wanting, there seems room for further help. Especially is it desired by such as seek to understand these Epistles each as a whole, next as compared one with another, and lastly as forming a portion of the scriptures still more comprehensively.

The inspired word, though in Hellenistic Greek, has nothing to fear from the minutest research. The slightest change of construction is instructive; so is the choice of case or number, of comparison or collocation, still more of tense or mood, where more than one might have been employed. The particles and prepositions are never loosely used, any more than the article, but always for the most accurate conveyance of truth rather than for mere rhetoric as often is the case in classical writings. Here it is sought to transfuse the apostolic expression as exactly as one could, even at the risk of shocking ears accustomed to the beautiful smoothness of the Authorized Version, and notwithstanding the fact that there is now a Revised Version open to almost everybody who can read English, the result of united labours on the part of many respected names, few of whom may be themselves quite satisfied, as the mass of intelligent students are less so.

My hope is by grace to contribute somewhat to the better understanding and enjoyment of this part of the divine word. But personal dependence on God is indispensable for spiritual profit, even for souls at rest in His love through faith in Christ and His work. If there is plain (I trust neither unkind nor arrogant) speaking, do we not owe this one to another, in truth which concerns the moral glory of God, to say nothing of the effect on man? May His Spirit deign to use this little work to magnify the Lord!

W. Kelly, London, July 1889

The first Epistle of Paul to Timothy.

1 Timothy 1

Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus according to command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope, 2 to Timothy, genuine child in faith: grace, mercy, peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 Even as when setting out for Macedonia I besought thee to remain in Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some not to be strange teachers, 4 nor to pay heed to fables and endless genealogies, such as furnish questionings rather than God's dispensation that is in faith. 5 now the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned; 6 which [things] some, having missed, turned aside unto vain talk, 7 desiring to be law-teachers, not understanding either what they say, or whereof they affirm. 8 Now we know that the law [is] good if one use it lawfully, 9 knowing this that law is not laid down for a righteous person, but for lawless and insubordinate, for ungodly and sinful, for unholy and profane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjurers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound teaching, 11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted. 12 I thank Him That strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, that He counted me faithful, appointing me unto ministry, 13 though before I was a blasphemer and persecutor and doer of outrage. But I had mercy shown me because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief;

14 and the grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love that is in Christ Jesus. 15 Faithful [is] the word and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 But for this cause mercy was shown me that in me, [as] chief, Christ might display the whole long-suffering for an outline-sketch of those that should believe on Him unto life eternal. 17 Now to Him Who is King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, only God, [be] honour and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen. 18 This charge I commit to thee, child Timothy, according to the prophecies on thee going before, that by them thou mightest war the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust away made shipwreck concerning the faith; 20 of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may be taught not to blaspheme.

1 Timothy 2

I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men, 2 for kings and all that are in high rank, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and gravity. 3 For this [is] good and acceptable before our Saviour God, 4 Who desireth that all men should be saved and come unto full knowledge of truth. 5 For [there is] one God, one Mediator also of God and men, Christ Jesus a man, 6 Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times, 7 to which I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I speak truth, I lie not), a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth. 8 I wish then that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also that women in seemly deportment adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with braids and gold or pearls or costly apparel, 10 but, what becometh women professing godliness, by good works. 11 Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection. 12 But to teach I permit not a woman, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman quite deceived is become in transgression; 15 but she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety.

1 Timothy 3

Faithful [is] the word: if anyone is eager for oversight, he is desirous of a good work. 2 The overseer [or bishop] therefore must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, temperate, sober, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach, 3 not given to wine, no striker, but gentle, not contentious, not fond of money, 4 one that ruleth well his own house, having children in subjection with all gravity, 5 (but if one knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he care for God's assembly), 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the devil's charge [or judgment]. 7 But he must also have good testimony from those without, lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil. 8 Deacons likewise [must be] grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of base gain, 9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also be first proved, then let them serve as deacons, being blameless. 11 Women likewise [must be] grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well; 13 for those that have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree, and great boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus. 14 These things write I to thee, hoping to come unto thee rather quickly; 15 but if I should tarry, that thou mayest know how one ought to behave in God's house, seeing it is a living God's assembly, pillar and groundwork of the truth. 16 And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: He Who was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached among Gentiles, was believed on in [the] world, was received up in glory.

1 Timothy 4

But the Spirit saith expressly that in latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, 2 by hypocrisy of legend-mongers, branded in their own conscience, 3 forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats which God created for reception with thanksgiving by those faithful and fully acquainted with the truth. 4 Because every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is sanctified through God's word and intercession. 6 Setting these things before the brethren, thou wilt be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourished in the words of the faith and the good teaching which thou hast followed up. 7 But the profane and old-womanish fables refuse, and exercise thyself unto piety; 8 for bodily exercise is profitable for a little, but piety is profitable for all things, having promise of life that is now and of that which is to come. 9 The word [is] faithful and worthy of all acceptance; 10 for unto this end we labour and suffer reproach, because we have our hope set on a living God Who is Saviour of all men, especially of faithful [men]. 11 These things charge and teach. 12 Let none despise thy youth, but be a pattern of the faithful in word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Neglect not the gift that was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elderhood. 15 Bestow care on these things; be wholly in them; that thy progress may be manifest to all. 16 Take heed to thyself and the teaching; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt save thyself and those that hear thee.

1 Timothy 5

Reprimand not an elder, but exhort [him] as father, younger men as brethren, 2 elder women as mothers, younger women as sisters in all purity. 3 Honour widows that are widows indeed; 4 but if any widow hath children or descendants, let them learn first to show piety toward their own house and render requital to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight-of God. 5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and left desolate, hath set her hope on God and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that devoteth herself to pleasure is dead while living. 7 And these things charge that they may be irreproachable. 8 But if one doth not provide for his own and especially his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 Let a widow be enrolled not more than sixty years old, wife of one man, 10 witnessed of in good works, if she reared children, if she entertained strangers, if she washed saints' feet, if she relieved afflicted [persons], if she followed up every good work. 11 But younger widows refuse; for when they wax wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12 having as accusation that they slighted their first faith. 13 And withal they learn also [to be] idle, going about the houses; and not only idle but also tattlers and busy-bodies, speaking things that are not fitting. 14 I wish therefore that the younger marry, bear children, rule the house, give none occasion to the adversary for railing; 15 for already have some been turned aside after Satan. 16 If any believing [man or] woman hath widows, let [such an one] relieve them, and let not the assembly be burdened, that it may relieve those that are really widows. 17 Let the elders that preside well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they that labour in word and teaching. 18 For the scripture saith, An ox when treading out corn thou shalt not muzzle, and Worthy [is] the workman of his hire. 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation except at [the mouth of] two or three witnesses. 20 Those that sin rebuke [or rather, convict] before all that the rest also may have fear. 21 I testify [or charge thee] before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels that thou keep these things apart from prejudice, doing nothing according to partiality. 22 Lay hands quickly on no one, neither be a partaker in others' sins; keep thyself pure. 23 Be no longer a water-drinker, but use a little wine on account of thy stomach and thy frequent illnesses. 24 Of some men the sins are openly manifest, going before unto judgment, and some also they follow after; 25 and likewise also the good works are openly manifest, and those that are otherwise cannot be hid.

1 Timothy 6

Let as many as are bondmen under yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and the teaching be not reviled. 2 And they that have believing masters let them not despise [them] because they are brethren, but the more let them serve, because they that partake of the good service are faithful and beloved. These things teach and exhort. 3 If anyone teach differently, and accede not to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is according to piety, 4 he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questionings and word-disputes, out of which cometh envy, strife, revilings, evil suspicions, 5 wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that piety is gain. 6 But piety with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world; because neither can we carry anything out. 8 But having food and-covering we shall be therewith satisfied. 9 But those that wish to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and many unwise and hurtful lusts, such as sink men into destruction and perdition. 10 For a root of all evils is the love of money, which some eagerly seeking were led astray from the faith and pierced themselves through with many pains. 11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things, and pursue righteousness, piety (godliness), faith, love, endurance, meekness of spirit. 12 Combat the good combat of faith; lay hold on the life eternal whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses. 13 I charge thee in the sight of the God That keepeth all things alive, and Christ Jesus That witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession, 14 that thou keep the commandment spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; 15 which in its own times shall show the blessed and only Potentate, the King of those that reign and Lord of those that exercise lordship; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, Whom none of men saw nor can see; to Whom [be] honour and might eternal, Amen. 17 Those rich in the present age charge not to be high-minded, nor to set their hope on uncertainty of riches, but on the God That affordeth us all things richly for enjoyment; 18 to do good, to be rich in good works, to be liberal in distributing, ready to communicate, 19 laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold on the real life. 20 O Timothy, keep the deposit, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge, 21 in professing which some missed the mark concerning the faith. Grace [be] with you.

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY

INTRODUCTION

Of the so-called Pastoral Epistles the First to Timothy now claims our attention. It is a solemn charge of the apostle to his young fellow-servant in that place of trust which had been assigned him Timothy was not an elder, but was set to guard the doctrine, order, and conduct of the elders, as well as of the saints in general. And so distinct is his position from all the modern as-well-as-possible arrangements of Christendom, that one wonders how an Episcopalian, or a Presbyterian, or a Congregationalist, can venture to appeal to it. And yet, in their opposing systems, they all do cite it with similar confidence, but this (is it hard to say?) proportioned to their failure in intelligence to see its bearing. Men are apt to be more arrogant where they have least reason.

For what analogy can honestly be traced between Timothy's position and that of a diocesan bishop, not to speak of a spiritual baron with claim to control hundreds of clergy in a given area? Development is not faith, but the avenue to corruption; and this becomes the ruin of that which bears the name of the Lord. Again, Presbyterianism is herein more distant than Episcopacy from the church in apostolic times, because it denies and dispenses with a superior authority to ordain, losing sight of the evident truth that power comes from above. Thus the Lord Who chose the apostles invested them with title, themselves or by delegates where fit or when requisite, to choose elders for the saints, and to appoint deacons chosen by the saints. Never in those days was such a thought as a mere elder ordaining elders. More remote still from the divine idea and primitive practice is the congregational plan of the people choosing their own religious official. All alike depart from the truth in setting aside, not only the direct and constant supply of gifts from the Lord as distinct from local charges (if these were ever so duly appointed, whereas it is wrongly done as we have seen), but the actual presence and free action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly. This they agree to count a by-gone state of miraculous power, instead of owning His being with us for ever and the consequent abiding responsibility of the Christian body as long as it goes on here below.

Timothy's charge was in its measure that of an apostolic delegate, besides doing the work of an evangelist or discharging ordinary ministerial functions. He was not only to teach, but also to enjoin others not to teach strange doctrines. This is a frontispiece so indelibly graven in the Epistle that the difficulty is in understanding how it could be overlooked, if one did not know the eagerness with which men neglect plain truth and catch at appearances to justify themselves in that strange anomaly, unknown to God's word, the minister of a church. Scripture speaks often and seriously of ministry; and we, as believers, should honour gift for the Giver's sake, value it in itself for its exercise of love, and hail it as a priceless blessing for souls. But beyond doubt a minister of Christ and of the church is alone according to its spirit and letter; and his responsibility is immediate to the Lord Jesus the Head, though no one ought to question his liability to just scriptural discipline (like other members of His body) for walk or doctrine.

One innovation, come in, drew another dark shadow with it, most offensive to a rightly taught spiritual mind, namely, that a certain circle of the assembly is his flock, and that he is their minister. Man's thoughts always fall short of God's word, and his will recklessly cuts through the most sacred obligations to his own loss and to the Saviour's dishonour. For the gifts are distributed in the one body, and the elders or overseers are set in the flock or church of God, not each church having its own minister and each minister his own church: an arrangement painfully calculated to foster the jealousy of the minister and the avarice of the flock. It may have been as ancient as you will; what matter if it were of the second or even the first age, if it were not of the Lord through His apostles in His word?

Ministry, like the church, is a divine institution and therefore must not alter from its original. We may not have all the church once had; but therefore should we reverently cherish all that remains, which we may be assured is all that best suits our present condition and the Lord's glory, Who regulates all in wisdom and love. If the church is morally a ruin (and who that knows what it was would deny the sin and shame of its present states) Christ abides ever faithful and true, with all the resources of love, in the seat of power and glory. He will never abdicate, nor even relax, His functions while we need Him. People forget or never knew that He only became Head of the church since He sat down at God's right hand in heaven; and since then no change has ever passed over Him, nor can do so while the work of gathering the church is in hand.

But it became very and sadly different with the church, as His word warned that this was to be. For departure from the faith was to set in, as grievous wolves would also, not sparing the flock; the mystery of lawlessness was to work; men were to have the form of piety denying the power thereof; evil men and impostors would wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. Hence we ought to be not at all surprised if even good men be drawn away by their dissimulation, as Barnabas was and even Peter in a measure in the very earliest days. (Gal. 2: 11-13).

And these Pastoral Epistles let us into the confidential communications that passed between the wise masterbuilder and his associates. For government supposes the evils and disorders which need to be checked or exposed, and shows us, not what the assembly has to do in given circumstances, but the duty of a man of God like Timothy or Titus. It does not follow that these Epistles were at once the common property of all saints. They were addressed to individuals in a special place, and may only have been copied and circulated later on when the difficult and delicate matters which drew them forth had passed away The truth and exhortations would always abide, even if no one could claim the peculiar place to which prophecy designated Timothy, as it had Paul and Barnabas in their place before him (Acts 13: 2).

1 Timothy 1

"Paul, apostle of Christ* Jesus according to command† of God our Saviour and Christ Jesus our hope, to Timothy, genuine child in faith: grace, mercy, peace from‡ God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (vers. 1, 2).

* Such is the order in D F G P, a few cursives, and some of the ancient versions.

† The Sinaitic gives the stupendous error of "promise" instead of "command," from assimilation perhaps to 2 Tim. 1: 1 in a wholly different connection.

‡ "Our" is not in the more ancient and excellent copies.

The character of the Epistle accounts for the opening expression. Paul here is not a "called" apostle, as to the Romans; nor this "by the will of God" as in 1 Cor.; nor as in the varying forms of his other letters; but he is apostle "according to command of God." The holy propriety of the language is plain when we remember that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write in words taught of Him. That the Epistle was written for others rather than for Timothy is a remark unworthy of a Reformer; Calvin is sometimes too bold.

It is important to heed and understand the way in which God is here presented, as in the Epistle to Titus — "God our Saviour," a blessed title of His relation to all mankind. Without this, church government ever tends to be dry and narrow. Timothy was to regard God thus that his heart might be kept large and fresh, notwithstanding the details of care for that assembly in general, or for individuals whatever their position around him. The coming, and above all the cross, of Christ has revealed God in a love that rises above the sins of rebellious and lost man, as decidedly as above the trammels and ordinances of Judaism. Till the people under the law had manifestly and totally failed, the way was not clear for the full revelation of His grace toward man as such. The middle wall of partition stood; the veil was not yet rent. The death of Christ not only broke the last tie with the Jews but opened the door of faith publicly to Gentiles no less than Israel. There is no difference, as in their ruin, so in His grace and redemption for sinners that believe on Him. The law by which God governed Israel tended to give Him the semblance of a national god who cared only for the chosen people. The gospel of His grace makes plain that, after the grand moral experiment for man to learn what he is, God is now displaying Christ for what He is Himself; and He is God our Saviour.

It was good for Timothy as it is good for us to weigh this blessed character of God. It might have seemed to the superficial spirit of man more consistent to have employed here an ecclesiastical title, as rule in that sphere was to occupy the Epistle so fully; but it is not so; and God is as good as He is wise. He, Whose authority works by desired and chosen instruments, would have His character to the world shown as Saviour. Not of course that all men are saved, but that believers are, and that all are now called to believe on the Lord Jesus and thus to be saved.

Thus, if there be command flowing from divine authority (and what is there of good without it? See John 12: 50; John 14: 31), there is also His character of love toward man which cows from the depths of divine grace, sovereign and full, and hence issues in a call of glad tidings to every creature on earth. It is the activity of His nature, now righteously able to work far and wide in everlasting salvation, whatever His special design for those who are saved; it is authority which insists on ways consistent with His word and nature, resenting a pretension to superior holiness, which, despising God's order, becomes a prey to Satan.

But salvation known even now and here is not all. We have Him by Whom it came as "our hope," even Christ Jesus, Who will present us in the glory of God commensurately with His salvation. Oh, how that blessed hope has been lowered! (ver. 1).

In presence of such things (and now there are far worse before us) Timothy had need of "mercy" as well as of "grace" and "peace." And the apostle greets him with prayer accordingly (ver. 2).

"Even as when setting out for Macedonia, I besought thee to remain in Ephesus that thou mightest charge some not to be strange teachers, nor to pay heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which (αἵτινες) furnish questionings rather than God's dispensation* that is in faith" (vers. 3, 4). To teach different things from the word of God is to be a strange teacher. What hypotheses are to the man of science, speculations are to the teacher: snares to divert us from the divine deposit of revealed truth. True science bows to facts and seeks to discover their general principles or associations, which it calls laws. Similarly does the believer and the teacher. To go beyond the written word is to stray and mislead.

* All the older English Versions are wrong from Wiclif to the A.V., misled by the Syriac and Vulgate. The Clermont uncial is doubly wrong, text and correction; Vat. 1761 is the only cursive that supports the error. The Complutensian editors and R. Stephens are right; not so Erasmus, Colinaeus, Beza, and Elzevir.

But when men begin to be teachers of strange doctrine, they ever venture into the region of the fabulous and give heed to myths and interminable genealogies. So did the love of the marvellous work early among Christians. Imagination is never faith, which, as it delights in knowing God and His will, so trusts in nothing but His word, however thankful for such as minister it. Imagination is the natural resource for those who know not the truth: the truth in Christ is the only perfect preservative from it. We are not distinctly told whether these faults here warned against had a Gentile or a Jewish root: if like those denounced in the Epistle to Titus, they were Jewish. From either side they issued in the Gnostic reveries and wickedness of a later day, which were especially opposed to the Old Testament, whereas these apparently made much though wrong use of it.

The "endless genealogies" were a vain effort to solve without Christ what is otherwise insoluble, and thus be lost in wandering mazes of the mind, apart from conscience the one inlet by grace into all truth. For conscience alone gives God His place and us our own effectually before Him. Without conscience the heart may be attracted, but can never be trusted till it find its rest in God's love and truth, the very reverse of a vain confidence in self. Then with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. And the known grace which forgives every sin takes away all guile from the spirit: for there is no more to conceal, all being judged and gone. One can then pray and praise: one desires teaching and guidance, and can call on others for and in fellowship of joy in the Lord. How dismal the descent to human speculations with its shadowy myths, and endless genealogies! These are occupation for the restless mind which knows not the truth and which alas! now turns from it to these husks for swine.

The apostle does not finish his sentence. Timothy would understand without question; so ought we. But he lets us know his judgment of speculation as being productive of barren questionings for the mind. God's dispensation is, on the contrary, in faith. It is faith that He uses both to dispense and to receive.

The notion that in verse 5 "commandment" has anything to do with the law has wrought widely and disastrously, not merely so as to lose the true scope of what the apostle urges on Timothy, but alas! to insinuate the direct reverse of the truth. If the word had meant "command" or "injunction" as in verse 1, there would not have been one whit more of real ground for dragging in the law: only those carried away by sound would have thought of it. For "command" there even is in relation with God, not as Judge according to law, but as our Saviour in mercy. It is accordingly well to adhere to the strict expression in verse 5, as it stands related to verses 3 and 18, which it would be absurd to connect with the law. It is rather in contrast, as an evangelical charge on which the apostle insists with his wonted force, and incisive keenness, and antithetical-manner, which go for nothing where the ordinary confusion prevails. For thereby the blessing here and truly bound up with the gospel is attributed to the law. The apostle is really explaining, in connection with his charge to Timothy, how God's dispensation that is in faith acts.

*"Now the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned; which things some, having missed, turned aside unto vain talk, desiring to be law-teachers, not understanding either what they say, or whereof they affirm" (vers. 5-7).

* There is not the least need of the parenthesis (here to ver. 17 inclusively) marked by Griesbach, Scholz, Knapp, Lachmann, et al.

The apostle is setting the face of Timothy against those who would put the Christian under law. He does not allow their motives to be good in guarding souls from evil ways, nor does he fear their outcries against his teaching as antinomian. He maintains that the end of the charge he is giving is love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith. These are the effects of the gospel brought home to the believers; of which things the law is essentially incapable. It may convict of the enmity and impurity of the heart; it may prove that the conscience is evil; and it is not of faith in any way, as we are told expressly in Gal. 3: 12. The law works out wrath, not grace, and thus becomes death, not life; not because it is not good and holy, but because man is evil, ungodly, and powerless. It is by faith that the heart is purified (Acts 15: 9) in virtue of obeying the truth unto unfeigned brotherly kindness that we may love one another out of a pure heart fervently (1 Peter 1: 22); and so it is through the word of God; but it is the word that is evangelized, not the law but the gospel contrasted with it.

Those whom the apostle characterizes were Judaizing adversaries; and he tells them plainly that they had missed their aim. Could they really pretend to a pure heart, or a good conscience, or unfeigned faith? They were manifesting not love but vain talk. Through Christ the feeblest Christian walks in truth and love. Being loved perfectly we love: the heart is purged according to the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice, as the conscience is made good by it; and faith, knowing that all the evil and ruin are fully met in Christ's death and resurrection, now rests at ease without feigning anything, because all good is truly given of God and secured in His Son.

But, cries a would-be law-teacher, does not Rom. 13: 10 ("love is the fulfilling of the law"), identify the "charge" here with the "law" after all? The very reverse is proved by it: for the Christian, in the new nature which characterizes him now, does love, not as requirement under law, but as the outflow of his life in Christ. Love worketh no ill to one's neighbour; love therefore is the fulfilment or full complement of law, but this result is by being under grace, and not law. The interpretation of too many, ancients and moderns, is the very principle here denounced. Their ignorance, according to the apostle, is complete. They understand neither what they say nor the question on which they thus dogmatize. At the same time grace, while it detects and rejects the misuse of law to puff man as he is and obscure the intervention of divine mercy in Christ, vindicates its true place as a matter of spiritual knowledge of which all Christians are conscious.

"Now we know that the law [is] good if one use it lawfully, knowing this that law is not laid down for a righteous person, but for lawless and insubordinate, for ungodly and sinful, for unholy and profane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, men-stealers, liars, perjurers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine (teaching), according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted" (vers. 8-11).

The fables of human imagination were evil and incapable of any profitable use. Truth is the answer to the wants of a troubled heart and the questionings of an exercised conscience; but endless genealogies were trash and could only give rise to questions.

But there was another and more subtle danger — man's misuse of God's law, which has misled more widely and permanently, and alas! godly souls, too often. But this is not God's dispensation which is in faith, any more than it is the end of the charge to Timothy. Yet the law is good, if one uses it lawfully. Have the misusers the inward consciousness that law is not made for a righteous man but for lawless and unruly, and for other evil-doers? Far different was their thought. Herein, then as now, men betray their inability to discern God's revealed mind. Law does not contemplate the good but the bad. Law is enacted to detect, convict, and punish. Law never made a "just man," still less "the good" man, if one may cite the distinction in Rom. 5: 7. It is a sharp weapon to wound and kill transgressors; it never was designed to form motives of integrity or a walk of true righteousness. Its excellence lies in its unsparingness of evil; and man is evil, and this by nature. Grace, not law, saves sinners. Not law but grace teaches us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Titus 2: 11-13).

Here theology revolts from the truth, and even good men ignore the source of all that made them what they are through the redemption that is in Christ and the faith that casts them thus on God. It matters not that the apostle elsewhere declares that by law is knowledge of sin, that it works wrath, that it is the power of sin, that it is a ministration of death and condemnation, that as many as are of its works are under the curse, that it was added for the sake of transgressions. They will have it that the law was made for the righteous as a rule of life, though it is the plain unavoidable inference from the words before us that this is precisely what the apostle explicitly denies of all law. It is Christ Who above all acts by faith on the believer's soul. Hence he needs the word of God as a whole throughout his life, and the Spirit helps him to apply it in practical detail. Such is the Christian's secret of true morality; which in divine wisdom binds the heart up with the Saviour habitually, and makes the written word to be matter for constant pondering, for comfort and conscientious application in the Spirit, but all in the sense of the true grace of God in which we stand and are exhorted to stand. For such exceeding privileges are meant to deepen our dependence on God and our confidence in His love day by day.

Entirely is it not only admitted but insisted on in scripture that the Christian is bound to do the will of God at all cost, and is never free to gratify the flesh. He is sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ no less than to the sprinkling of His blood (1 Peter 1: 2). Self-pleasing is Satan's service. But the law is not the measure of God's will for the Christian. It was for Israel; but we, even if by nature Israelites, were made dead to it through the body of Christ, that we should belong to Another — to Him that was raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God (Rom. 7: 4). This is now the method of divinely-wrought freedom from the law, only to obey God with a nearness, fulness, and absolute devotedness unknown to a Jew.

Can anything be less satisfactory, yea more nugatory, than the ordinary assertion of the divines that Paul still leaves it open, so far as the scripture speaks, for the law to be the directory of Christians, and that he simply means to exclude it from justifying the soul? Now it is undeniable that in Rom. vi. and vii. he is treating of Christian walk, not of believing in order to justification; and he there lays down that we are not under law but under grace, and this as a principle of dealing on God's part, the expression of which is therefore put anarthrously, so as to go beyond "the" law, though fully including it. It is just the same here; so that Dean Alford errs in thinking that verse 9 does not go farther than verse 8 where the article appears. It is not "the" nor "a," but "law" as such; and the οὐ negatives any such thing as law being enacted for a righteous person. Against the fruit of the Spirit, as the same blessed apostle whites in Gal. 5: 23, there is no law. The general form is intended in all cases with or without prepositions, where the article is not. Winer has misled people by his list of words (Pt. iii. § 19), which really fall under rule. Bishop Middleton was nearer the truth, though he mistakenly made prepositions exceptional.

It is a mere assumption, not only groundless but anti-scriptural, that law is made for a righteous man as well as a sinful, so that "the apostles meaning doubtless (!) is that it was given, not for the purpose of justifying the most righteous man that ever lived, but for restraining the wicked by its threatenings and punishments" (Macknight's Apostolical Epp. 512. Tegg, 1835). This is to subvert, not to expound, scripture. Nor is Whitby in the least better, who takes it as "to condemn the righteous." Justification and condemnation are out of the question here, where the apostle speaks of the object contemplated in the enactment of law, and declares it to be, not for righteous, but for sinners.

And is it not painfully instructive to see how an error once let in works to ungodliness? For those who so strenuously contend against the uniform doctrine of the New Testament, and place the Christian under law as his rule of life, contend that, if he offend as we all do too often, he is not under its curse! Is this to establish the law, or to annul it? If Christ died and bore its curse, and we too died with Him and now are no longer under law but under grace, the truth is kept intact, the authority of law is maintained, and yet we who believe have full deliverance. If we were really under law for walk, we ought to be cursed, or you destroy its authority; if we are not under it, the true provision for one's sin is Christ's advocacy with the Father, which brings us to repentance by the washing of water with the word.

Law then is established for lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, unholy and profane, beaters of fathers and beaters of mothers. Such are the pairs in this dark list of human depravity: first, the inner spring of self-will and its more open insubjection; next, irreverence God-ward, end evil man-ward; thirdly, impiety end positive profanity; fourthly, insolent violence towards parents, without going so far as killing. Compare Ex. 21: 15. For this last extreme introduces the general group, wherein one follows after another — murderers, fornicators, sodomites, men-stealers (or kidnappers), liars, perjurers, and if anything else is opposed to the sound doctrine.

Truly the law is a ministry of condemnation: what then can minister life, righteousness, and the Spirit? The gospel of salvation based on Christ and His work, which faith only receives; "and the law is not of faith" as we repeat from scripture. Blessing is inseparable from Christ; and it is of faith that it might be according to grace. They then that are of faith, whose principle is faith, are sons of Abraham and blessed with the faithful Abraham. Those that speak of law may speak out of the abundance of their heart, as they certainly do out of want of faith, and never show the good works for which they call, but prove the wretchedness of slighting Christ. For the Spirit is sent to glorify Christ, and will never decorate nor deceive self by vain hopes of amelioration.

But the apostle is careful to add the concluding clause, "according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I was entrusted" (ver. 11). The glad tidings may not assert man's condemnation, which is assumed in the strongest way. It is occupied with good for the worst of sinners, for it is the message of grace from the God Who was glorified in the Son of man and Who has now glorified Him in Himself, before the kingdom comes wherein He will display His power and glory to every eye. The gospel only went out to all the creation under heaven after the proved guilt and irremediable ruin of all mankind; so that, as God's righteousness is therein revealed from faith unto faith, therewith is revealed, not such temporal judgment as we see under law, but God's wrath from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1: 18).

For it is the gospel of God's glory, not "the glorious gospel," as the Geneva Version led the way unhappily for the Authorized, but, as Wiclif, Tyndale, and all others, "the gospel of the glory". Such is the hope in which we rejoice, and such the standard by which He would have us measure and reject all evil; a standard therefore which suffers no compromise in view of man's hardness of heart, as the law did, but is absolutely intolerant of all that is antagonistic to God's nature and presence on high. And God is now revealed as "the blessed God," because He speaks to us, not in Sinai's fire and darkness and tempest and words yet more awful, but in the fulness of grace and truth of Christ Who declared Him on earth and is now set down in the heavenly places, where we who believe are blessed with every spiritual blessing in Him. The atonement once accomplished and the Saviour gone up into glory, God was "happy" in acting freely in love to the lost; for grace could then reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 5: 21).

Such is the gospel which the apostle (here and in Titus 1: 3) says was entrusted to him; as in Gal. 2: 7 he says it was and is, the abiding state, and not the fact only which here sufficed. The Authorized Version alone of English versions is accurate in this.

The gospel with which the apostle was entrusted gives occasion for the words that follow down to the end of verse 17. It is singular that this is one of the passages on which a distinguished rationalist rested to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle; whereas in fact his remark goes to prove the blindness of unbelief. It attests the incapacity of the doubting school in general (Schleiermacher being one of their ablest minds, and perhaps the least objectionable in his ordinary tone) to seize the admirable links, and not least such as do not lie on the surface but reveal themselves to those that search the word as God's word and feel the truth as well as understand it. The apostle had given emphatic expression to himself as entrusted with the glad tidings of the glory. Light from Christ's glory had, even literally, shone on, and into the heart of, Saul of Tarsus. Hence it is not doctrine here, but an outburst of thanksgivings, which breaks forth and links together his own case, as the readiest and deepest and most conspicuous object to be found of sovereign grace, with the message he was called to deliver.

Perhaps it was the wish to connect these verses with the foregoing, from lack of the spiritual insight to discern their intimate connection without any outward mark, which added the copulative ("And") of the common text (ver. 12). The most ancient copies and versions do not countenance it. Nor is it needful to begin a doxology, which could not be repressed from a heart over-flowing at the recollection, and in the present enjoyment, of the Saviour's grace.

*"I thank him that strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, that he counted me faithful, appointing me unto ministry, †though I was a blasphemer and persecutor and doer of outrage. But I had mercy shown me because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief; and the grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love that is in Christ Jesus. Faithful [is] the word and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. But for this cause mercy was shown me that in me, [as] chief, Christ might display the whole long-suffering for an outline-sketch of those that should believe on Him unto life eternal. Now to the King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, only† God, be honour and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen" (vers. 12-17).

* Most copies, none first-class, add "And" as in Text. Rec.

† The article in the best MSS. goes with πρ. which forbids the rendering "him who" or "me who" as with the common text.

† "Wise" is an interpolation here and in Jude 25. In Rom. 16: 27 it is right and most suitable. Its omission here Bengel calls "magnifica lectio": so the oldest and best MSS. and Vv.

The heart of Paul glows in thanksgiving to our Lord for the inward power conferred on him. Not only was he called to be a saint but appointed to service, for. that Christ deemed him faithful. It was immeasurably enhanced by another consideration never to be forgotten, — what he was when thus called: he had been before this a blasphemer, a persecutor and an insulter, which all persecutors might not be. It was therefore not merely high colouring, but the genuine feeling of the soul that he was foremost of sinners: and no man who ever lived was more competent to form an adequate judgment of sin. He knew what sinners were, in as large an experience as any man could grasp. Yet did our Lord call him, who, as he says himself, even compelled the saints to blaspheme, and who was exceedingly furious in persecuting them outside their own land, even breathing out threatenings and slaughter in his hatred of the name of Jesus; which, believed in, gave him power to go forth and persevere in an endurance beyond what this world has ever seen, in not labours only, but in sufferings for Christ. The Lord did indeed account him faithful, and this from the day of his conversion, an elect vessel (as He said) to bear His name before both Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel, in that astonishing path of trial for His name, of which the apostle says nothing, except only when it was as it were wrung out in his "folly" as he calls it, by the bad state and real folly of the worldly-wise Corinthians (2 Cor. 11: 16 et seq.).

For the love of Christ proved its own strength in appointing to His service, not merely one apostle whose confidence in his own affection for Christ met with a speedy and most overwhelming humiliation that so he might by grace be a strengthener of his brethren and a bold preacher of the glad tidings assured even to those who denied the Holy and Righteous One, but also another arrested in the mid-career of unmitigated hatred of His name and haughty contempt of His grace, whom He was calling to the highest and largest conceivable place of service, minister of the assembly His body, and minister of the gospel proclaimed in all the creation that is under heaven (Col: 1: 23-25). Who but "Christ Jesus our Lord" would have felt, thought, acted thus toward either Peter or Paul? Such a Saviour and Lord was He to both; and thus were they each fitted to give the best effect to the testimony of His grace without the smallest palliation of their sins respectively.

"But," says the one before us, "I had mercy shown me because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Assuredly there was no lack of sincerity: not a doubt clouded his conscience. He thought he ought to do much against the name of the Nazarene, armed as he was with the authority and commission of the chief priests, confident of the strictest Pharisaic orthodoxy as well as scrupulous practice, and satisfied of an unbroken succession in the religion of the true God from its enactment at Sinai, not to say from the garden of Eden.

Still the power and glory which struck all down as far as concerned Saul in his person, and revealed to his soul, in a light beyond the sun at noonday, that the crucified but glorified Jesus was the Jehovah God of Israel, changed all in an instant, and without a question-proved all he had loved and venerated to be in hopeless enmity against God. Grace, truth, glory — all-centred in Him, Who in convicting him of the worst sins, saved him to be His servant-witness, while taking him out from among the people and the Gentiles, to whom He thenceforward sent him on the lifelong errand of His own matchless mercy.

No doubt he was ignorant, and unbelief was the root of it; but this is a different state from that of those who, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, sin wilfully or fall away to religious forms in preference to Christ and the Spirit's testimony to His work. The heavenly Christ was Jesus Whom he had been persecuting in His members. It was all over with himself, as well as with his religion: Christ was all to him, and Christ he owns in all who loved Him, Whose name he had till that moment anathematized. It was his ever after to live and die for Him Who died for all that they who lived should no longer live to themselves but to Him Who for them died and rose again. It was sinful unbelieving ignorance. "But the grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love that is in Christ Jesus", the contrast of unbelief and hatred when he knew only the law. And so with the deepest feeling he can commend to others his own compressed summary of the gospel: "Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"; but he adds, "of whom I am chief."

In vain do men seek to limit either "sinners" on the one hand, or "chief" on the other. The apostle knew the truth incomparably better than they, be they Fathers of old, or modern Germans, Catholics, or Protestants. His very aim is to sweep away all comparison, to overturn all self-righteousness, and to meet all despair, laying man in the dust and exalting only the Saviour Who abased Himself and saves to the last degree those that disobey not "the heavenly vision."

Nor was it only a question of mercy in saving the foremost of sinners, there was also a purpose of grace toward others. "But for this cause mercy was shown me that in me, as chief, Jesus Christ might display the whole long-suffering for an outline-sketch of those that should believe on Him unto life eternal." It is impossible to exceed the energy of the expression. Nor need we wonder, if his case was to be a standing pattern or delineation of divine love rising above the most active hostility, of divine long-suffering exhausting the most varied and persistent antagonism, whether in Jews or in Gentiles at large; for who had in either exceeded Saul of Tarsus? How will not the Lord use the history of his conversion to win the hardened Jew by-and-by! How does He not turn it to the account of any wretched sinner now! Profoundly does the apostle delight in that grace which can thus make the pride and wrath of man praise Him, both at present and in the future day, through the faith of our Lord Jesus, without Whom all must have been only ruin and wretchedness, closed by everlasting judgment. "Now to the King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, only God, [be] honour and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen."

As those that believe on Christ unto life eternal are not a mere people under earthly government to enjoy and attest the blessings of a just rule and a divine ruler, so God is here owned and praised as King of the ages in His supremacy above all passing conditions and circumstances of the creature here below. But He is also confessed as "incorruptible" in face of that which has shamelessly departed from Him in heaven above and on the earth beneath, turning even His dealings and revelations into self-aggrandizement or self-indulgence to His dishonour; as "invisible," where unseen powers have availed themselves of what is seen to play into the idolatry of the fallen heart and evil conscience; as "only" or "alone," where the world's wisdom freely gave its worship, begrudged to the alone true God, to created objects on high and around and below which, excited its admiration, hopes, and fears, and so was led on by Satan to deify him and his hosts under names which consecrated every lust and passion to man's own ever-increasing degradation. "To Him that is King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, only God, be honour and glory," not now merely as the basest-rivals may have had, but, "to the ages of the ages" — time without end, "Amen." The Authorized Version is here inaccurate; and so is any commentator that carps at Bp. Middleton's just and necessary correction. The article really goes with Θεύς, "God," binding together all between as descriptive. If ἀφθαρτῳ κ.τ.λ. were in immediate concord with τῳ βατιλέι they could not be anarthrous.

The "charge" here clearly connects itself with verses 3 and 5, which refer to the same thing, not to verse 15 in particular however momentous, the practical purpose follows to the end of the chapter. The man of God must be prepared to war the good warfare.

"This charge I commit to thee, child Timothy, according to the prophecies on thee going before, that by them thou mightest war the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust away made shipwreck concerning the faith; of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may be taught not to blaspheme" (vers. 18-20).

As the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them (probably through one of the prophets at Antioch, Acts 13: 2), so it appears that Timothy had prophecies leading the way to his work. Indeed in the case of the apostle the Lord had revealed his mission from his conversion. That the prophecies were uttered over Timothy at his ordination is absolute assumption. It was certainly not a part of the service whence the first and greatest of those sent to the Gentiles went forth recommended to the grace of God by the laying on of their brothers' hands. The prophecy preceded and led to that separation for gospel work; and so analogy, if not express intimation here and in chapter 4: 14, compared with 2 Tim. 1: 6, might give us to infer for Timothy.

It is no mere battle but a campaign that the apostle puts before his "child" and fellow-labourer. He must war the good warfare, but he is not asked to go at his own risk. The Master had given the word: if ever so gentle, sensitive, timid, he might trust Him, Who by His servants had prophesied about Timothy. There is no necessity, nor sufficient reason, to understand with the grammarian Winer that in these prophecies lay his spiritual protection and equipment, the armour as it were in which he was to wage his good warfare. This is to narrow and emphasize unduly the forge of the preposition. The English Authorized and Revised Versions seem to me more simple and correct. So again the transient form of the verb (adopted by Tischendorf and Tregelles on the meagre authority of the first hand of the Sinaitic and the Clermont MSS.) does not commend itself in comparison with the ordinary text (as in all other copies) which has the present. Observe also that "faith" as an inward state is different from "the faith" or truth believed.

But condition of soul has much to do with warring the good warfare. Faith must be kept up, bright and simple and exercised, the eyes of the heart ever on the things unseen and eternal. Withal a good conscience is imperative. For if faith bring God in, a good conscience judges self so as it keep sin out. This, of all moment for every Christian, is pre-eminently needful for him who is devoted to the service of Christ. There is nothing which so hardens the heart as the continual giving out of truth apart from one's own communion and walk. Take the extreme case of Judas falling under the power of the devil; but look also at Peter, who was far from a traitor, himself betrayed into the denial of his Master. Here, however, it is the maintenance not only of faith, but also of a good conscience, "which some having thrust away made shipwreck concerning the faith."

Rarely, if ever, does the heterodox soul maintain a good conscience; and as there cannot be a good conscience without faith, so on the other hand, where the conscience becomes practically bad, the faith is lowered, and it is well if it be not at last wholly perverted. A man is uneasy at continuing burdened with the sense of his own inconsistency. He is thus tempted to accommodate his faith to his failure, and what he likes he at last believes to the destruction of the truth; or, as the apostle puts it here, "some, having thrust away" a good conscience, "made shipwreck concerning the faith."

The apostle gives examples then living; "of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may be taught not to blaspheme."

This is not ecclesiastical discipline, or excommunication pure and simple, but the apostle's own act of power. Indeed it is questionable whether the assembly ever did or could, without an apostle, hand over to Satan. Certain it is, that in 1 Cor. 5 the apostle connects himself with a similar exertion of power: "For I, as absent in body and present in spirit, have already judged as present as to him that so wrought this thing, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (ye and my spirit being gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ) to deliver him, being such an one, to Satan for destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

So another apostle exercised the power given him of the Lord to deal extraordinarily with Ananias and Sapphira when they sinned unto death (Acts 5). The Lord, it would seem, thus by His servant judged them by so solemn a chastening that they might not be condemned with the world.

But if, according to scripture, the assembly be not invested with such power, it is none the less under obligation to purge out the old leaven "that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened." The standing is the ground of responsibility. If unleavened by and in Christ, we are bound to tolerate no leaven. Practice must be conformed to principle, and so the Spirit works by the word; not by high or heavenly principle brought down to low and earthly practice. "For also Christ, our passover, was sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." If the assembly cannot and will not judge those that are within, it forfeits its character as God's assembly. Hence, even in the lowest condition, that which claims to be God's assembly is bound to put away the wicked person from among them. Responsibility to put out of church communion is the inalienable duty of the Christian assembly whenever a professed member of Christ can be justly designated as a "wicked person." But this is a distinct thing from the apostolic power of delivering over to Satan, which might or might not accompany that extreme act of the assembly.

It is well, however, to notice that even the apostle's act of delivering over to Satan, here spoken of apart from the assembly, had the merciful as well as holy object in view, "that they may be taught not to blaspheme." It is a consoling thought that even such evil-doers are not irrecoverably beyond the reach of divine grace. The terrible sentence which befell them was, on the contrary, to teach by discipline those who refused to be taught by the truth, whose unjudged evil led them to depart from the faith which condemned them. Even Satan's power in dealing with the outer man, and perhaps in the infliction of anguish of mind, may be used under the hand of God to bring down the haughty spirit and make past blasphemy to be seen in all its offensive pride and opposition to God.

It is singular that Calvin, on this passage, chooses rather to explain it as relating to excommunication, of which not a word is said, though probably this may also have been the fact. But the opinion, as he calls it, that the incestuous Corinthian received any other chastisement than excommunication, he ventures to say, is not supported by any probable conjecture. Now this confusion we have seen to be in direct opposition to the plain declaration of 1 Cor. 5, which distinguishes the apostolic energy and its effects from the inalienable call of the assembly to put away those who cast deliberate and manifest affront on the Lord's name. It is only when Paul joins himself to the assembly that he speaks of delivering to Satan. When he treats of their purging leaven that had entered, he speaks of putting out, and not a word more.

In short, then, delivering over to Satan was not a form of excommunication from the church, but an effect of apostolic power, which might or might not accompany the act of putting out, and which manifested its effect in bodily pains or even death itself. The distinction is of importance for this reason among others, that we can see clearly how the obligation abides to purge out the leaven that has got in; whilst it would be unbecoming to arrogate to the assembly that which scripture never speaks of apart from an apostle's power. Those who have Christ Who was sacrificed as their centre cannot escape from the holy responsibility of keeping the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, purging out what practically denies and dishonours Him. Power is another element, and as distinct from form as from duty; and, power or no power, we are bound to do our duty, as in the end of 1 Cor. 5 it is no less obvious than momentous, if indeed we are Christ's.

1 Timothy 2

From those who had been within, now so solemnly delivered over to Satan, the apostle turns to our relationships with those outside, especially such as are in authority.

"I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men, for kings and all that are in high rank, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all piety and gravity. *For this (is) good and acceptable before our Saviour God, Who desireth, that all men should be saved and come unto full knowledge of truth" (vers. 1-4). It is not here the counsels of God in all their immense extent and heavenly glory, but rather what is consistent with the nature of God revealed in Christ and published everywhere by the gospel. Such is the character of our Epistle, and is the ground on which the apostle insists upon a spirit of peace on the one hand and of godly order on the other. In accordance with this he exhorts that the saints should be marked by a desire of blessing for all mankind: the very reverse of that proud austerity which the heathen bitterly resented in the later Jews. It was the more important to press this gracious attitude, inasmuch as it is of the very essence of the church to stand in holy separateness from the world, as a chaste virgin espoused to Christ. With light or harsh minds this separation easily degenerates into a sour self-complacency; which repels from, instead of attracting to, Him Whose rights over all it is the prime duty of the church to assert, Whose glory and Whose grace ought to fill every mouth and heart with praise. From a misuse of his privileges a Jew was ever in danger of scorning the Gentile, and not least those in high place, with a bitter contempt for such of their brethren as served the Gentile in the exaction of tribute, the sign of their own humiliation. In their national ruin they had more than all the pride of their prosperity, and judged their heathen masters with a sternness ill-suited to those who had lost their position, for a time at least, through their constant yielding to the worst sins of the Gentiles.

* The authority for omitting γάρ "for" is small but ancient — A17 67corr. Sah. Memph. Cyr. All others accept it.

The Christian is in no less danger. For on the one hand he is entrusted with a testimony of truth far beyond what the Jew had; and, on the other, his separation does not consist so much in external forms. Hence he is in continual danger of making good a separation to God, not in the power of the Holy Ghost in truth and love among those who cleave to the Lord, but in peculiar abstinences and prohibitions, in an effort to differ from others, and so in a claim of superiority for themselves. This evidently exposes the unwary to self-deception, as it tends to build up that which is as far as possible from the mind of Christ — a bitter though unconscious sectarianism.

Here we see how the Spirit of God guards the saints, so that their separation, however holy, may savour of God's grace and not of man's pride. Supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, are to be made for all men. It is not only that they ought always to pray and not to faint; nor again that they should only pray for all saints and especially for those identified with the testimony of Christ. But here we find an exhortation to every variety of prayer on the broad basis of God's relationship with all mankind. The saints have to answer to this if they would not be false to the truth. They, too, have a corresponding relation,

The very gospel by which they were saved should remind them of it; for if the church in its union with Christ, or rather if Christ and the church, be the special witness of divine counsels, the gospel is no less the standing witness of God's grace to the world. The saints therefore, knowing both, are responsible to bear a true testimony to the one no less than the other. And in practice it will be found that exaggeration in one tends not only to lose the other, but to corrupt that which becomes the exclusive object. For Christ is the truth; neither the gospel nor the church has a right to our love undividedly, but both in subjection to Christ. And we are called to bear witness to "the" truth as we are sanctified (not by this or by that truth, but) by "the truth."

Such is the danger today as it was of old. Saints like other men are apt to be one-sided. It looks spiritual to choose the highest line and stand on the loftiest point, and fancy oneself to be safe in that heavenly elevation. On the other hand, it seems loving to steer clear of the church question so constantly abused to gratify ambition, if not spite and jealousy (and thus scattering saints instead of uniting them holily around the Lord's name), and to devote all one's energies, in the present broken state of Christendom, to the good news which wins souls to God from destruction. But this is to surrender the nearest circle of Christ's affections and honour. The only course that is right, holy, and faithful, is to hold to all that is precious in His eyes — to love the church with all its consequences on the one hand, and on the other to go out to all mankind in the grace that would reflect the light of a Saviour God. As in Ephesians and Colossians the former truth is most prominent, so the latter is here. Let us seek to walk in both.

The Authorized Version wrongly connects "first of all" with the making supplications, etc., as both the Syriac, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Bengel, et al. So had Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva; not Wiclif nor the Rhemish (cleaving as usual to the Vulgate) nor Beza. For the apostle means that he thus exhorts, as being first of all in his mind for his present purpose. The exhortation had a great importance in his eyes who would have God's character of grace truly presented in the public as well as private intercourse of the saints with Himself. The God Who gave His own Son to die for sinners in divine judgment of sin could not be taxed with slighting sins, whether of corruption or of violence; but oh, the love of Him Who gave His Son to die for sinners that they might be saved through faith in Him!

Therefore does His servant first of all exhort to make supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings for all men, but specifying "for kings and all that are in high rank." So the godly in Israel had prayed for the city which chastised them for their sins, and sought its peace; whereas the false were habitually rebellious, save for occasional gain or other selfish ends. But now that God had fully shown Himself out in Christ, what became His saints in presence of all men, and especially of sovereigns and rulers? The continual going forth of earnest love on behalf of all men, for which they should ever be free who are delivered from dread of evil and a bad conscience, who are peaceful and happy in their own near relationship with God as His children, who can therefore feel truly and deeply for all that are far off in unremoved death and darkness, and are as ignorant of their own real misery as of the blessed God Himself. The exalted place of those in authority would only make such the more especial objects of loving desire that sovereign goodness might control them and their officials in order that the saints might lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety.

The reader will notice the abundance and variety in expression of the saints' prayers. "Supplication" implies earnestness in pressing the suit of need; "prayer" is more general and puts forward wants and wishes; "intercession" means the exercise of free and confiding intercourse, whether for ourselves or for others; and "thanksgiving" tells out the heart's sense of favour bestowed or counted on. Of all interpretations perhaps the most singular is in Augustine's Epistle to Paulinus (149, Migne), where the four words are assigned to the several parts of the communion service! Witsius, on the Lord's prayer, is nearer the mark than any other I have noticed. From first to last the terms bespeak the overflowing charity of the saints who know in God a love superior to evil, and withal never indifferent to it nor making light of it (which is Satan's substitute) — a Father Who makes His sun rise on evil and good, and sends rain on just and unjust. It is of all moment that the children keep up the family character, and that love should be in constant exercise to His praise. What can men think, feel, or do, about such as love their enemies and pray for those that use them despitefully? Paroxysms of persecution pass quickly, and the saints are let live peacefully in all godliness and gravity; for nothing makes up for failure in piety before God and in a practically grave deportment before men.

"For this [is] good and acceptable before our Saviour God, Who desireth that all men should be saved and come unto full knowledge (or, acknowledgment) of the truth" (vers. 3, 4). The spirit of the gospel the apostle would have to permeate the conduct as well as the heart of the saint. Activity in goodness becomes those who know our Saviour God, Whose own heart goes out in compassion toward all men, not alone surely in present mercies without number, but also that they might be saved. This however cannot be unless they come to the knowledge of the truth. Hence the gospel is sent out to all the creation. Here human weakness, if it be not worse, betrays itself. Those who believe in the large grace of God too often leave no room for His positive and living links of love with the elect, once children of wrath even as others. Those who are sure of the special nearness of God's family as often overlook what is patent here and elsewhere all over scripture — that love which Christ made known personally and proved triumphantly in His cross whereby it is free to flow out in testimony to all the world.

"Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him" (John 13: 31). Now that His character as Judge of sin is vindicated in the expiatory death of His own Son, His love can freely go out to men on the express ground that they are ungodly, enemies, and powerless (Rom. 5: 6-10). He is both able and willing to save the vilest, but not without acknowledgment of truth. Therefore He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel; also the saints, while walking as members of the one body of Christ, are called to walk in love toward all, and to testify the love that can save any by the faith of Christ. If men are lost, it is through their own will opposing the truth; it is not God's will, Who, desiring their salvation, gave His Son, and has now sent His own Spirit from heaven that the glad tidings might be thus declared to them in the power of God our Saviour.

This gives occasion to the broad and weighty statement of divine truth which follows.

"For [there is] one God, one mediator also of God and men, Christ Jesus a man, Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times, to which I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I speak truth, I lie not), a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth" (vers. 5-7).

The unity of God is the foundation-truth of the Old Testament; as it was the central testimony for which the Jewish people were responsible in a world everywhere else given over to idolatry. We must add that Jehovah, the God of Israel, was that one Jehovah, His proper name in relationship with His people on earth. "Ye are My witnesses, saith Jehovah, and My servant Whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He; before Me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after Me. I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside Me there is no Saviour" (Isa. 43: 10, 11).

But during the Jewish economy, God, though known to be one, was not known as He is. "He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel" (Ps. 103: 7). He dwelt in the thick darkness, even where He surrounded Himself with a people for a possession, and. a veil shrouded what display there was of the divine presence; so that the high priest approached but once a year, with clouds of incense and not without blood lest he die. It was only Jesus Who made Him truly known, as we see (where it might least have been expected) by that act of incomparable grace in which He was fulfilling all righteousness when baptized of John in the Jordan (Matt. 3: 13-17). There, as the Holy Spirit descended on Him, the Father from heaven proclaimed Him to be His beloved Son. The Trinity stood revealed. It is in the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that God, the one God, is really known. Without Jesus this was impossible; when He takes the first step, the Trinity in unity shines out, — love and light wherein is no darkness at all. How infinite is our debt to the Word made flesh, Who deigned to tabernacle with us, Only-begotten Son Who declared God and revealed the Father!

Thus, as we need, we have an adequate image of the invisible God; and this Jesus is "mediator of God and men," though mediation of course goes farther than representation. For there are two parts in it — His manhood and His ransom, both of special moment if God is to be known, and if man, sinful man, is to be suitably blessed in the knowledge of God.

The Mediator is a man that God may be known of men. The Absolute is divided from the relative (and we, indeed creatures universally, are necessarily relative) by a gulf impassable to us. But if man cannot himself rise to God — and those of mankind who are by grace righteous would most of all repudiate and abhor so presumptuous a thought — God can and does in infinite love come down to man, to man in his guilt and misery with an endless judgment before him.

This, however, does not meet all that is wanted, though it blessedly manifests the love of God in the gift of His own Son that we through faith might have life, eternal life, in Him. Yet even this free gift, immense as it is, does not suffice, for we were lost sinners; and so we needed to be brought to God, freed from our sins, and cleansed for His presence in light. He therefore sent His Son as propitiation for our sins (1 John 4: 10). Herein indeed is love, not that we loved Him (though we ought to have so done), but that He loved us, and proved it in this way, divine and infinite, in the Person of His Only-begotten Son sent to suffer unspeakably for our sins on the cross that we might through the faith of Him be without spot or stain before God (where otherwise we could not be), and that we might know it even now on earth by the Holy Ghost given to us. So here it is said that He "gave Himself a ransom for all."

Hence, as God is one, it is important to remark the unity of the Mediator. Here the Catholic system, and not Rome only, though Rome most, has sinned against the truth. For the oneness of the Mediator is as sure, vital, and characteristic a testimony of Christianity as the oneness of God was of the law. It is not only that Christ Jesus is Mediator, but there is this "one" only. The introduction of angels is a base invention that savours of Judaism. And who required it at their hands to set the departed saints, or the Virgin Mary, in the least share of that glory which is Christ's alone? The Head of the body, Who also is Head over all things, can admit of no such fellowship. He only of divine persons is Mediator; and though He is so as man, to claim partnership for any other of mankind (living or dead makes no real difference as to this) is not short of treason against Him. Not only is it untrue that any other in heaven or earth shares in mediation, but the assertion of it for the highest of creatures is a lie of Satan, as subversive of Christianity as polytheism was the direct and insulting denial of the one two God.

And most solemn and affecting it is to see that, as the Jew (called to bear witness of the one God) broke down in the foulest adoption of heathen idolatry, so Christendom has betrayed its trust at least as signally in the especial point of fidelity to its transcendent treasure and peculiar glory. For the Greek church is in this respect only less faulty than the Romish; and what are Nestorians, Copts, Abyssinians, et al.? The Protestant bodies are doubtless less gross in their standards of doctrine; but the present state of Anglicanism shows how even its services admit of an enormous infusion of objects before their votaries which detract from the glory of the Lord Jesus.

There is however another and an opposite way in which professing Christians may be false to the mediation of Christ, not by adding others which practically divide His work and share His honour, but by supplanting and in effect denying mediation altogether. It is not open Arians or Unitarians alone who are thus guilty, but rationalists of all sorts, whether in the national bodies or in the dissenting systems. The incarnation, if owned in terms, is really robbed of all its glory and blessedness; for if Christ Jesus were but "a man", why or how could He be mediator of God and men? Superiority in degree is no adequate basis. It is His divine nature which makes His becoming man so precious; as it is the union of both in His person which gives character to His love, and efficacy to His sacrifice, and value to His ransom. Here the faithlessness, not of the party of tradition, but of the school of human reason and philosophy, antipodes as they are in Christendom, is as painfully conspicuous. God is only an idea and therefore unknown; as He Who alone can make Him known, or fit man to serve and enjoy and magnify Him, the one Mediator? Jesus, is ignored in His divine glory, His manhood being cried up perhaps, but only, if so, to set aside His deity, and to assume a fresh honour to the human race.

Thoroughly in keeping with the large character of the Epistle, it is here said that He "gave Himself a ransom for all." It is not special counsels, which cannot fail of accomplishment, as in Ephesians 5 where Christ, it is said, loved the church, or assembly, and gave Himself up for it; and so the apostle there goes on to say, as he does not here, that He might sanctify it, purifying it by the washing of water by the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, having no spot or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that it might be holy and blameless. Here the same apostle treats of the answer in the Mediator's work to God's nature and His willingness to save, in face of man's will who, as His enemy, expects no good from God, and believes not the fullest proof of grace in Christ's death, nor would be persuaded when He Who died in love rose in righteousness from the dead to seal the truth with that unquestionable stamp of divine power. It is "a ransom for all," whoever may bow and reap the blessing; which those do who, renouncing their own proud will for God's mercy in Christ, repent and believe the gospel.

"Its own times" came for "the testimony" when man's wickedness was all out in its hatred, not merely of God's law, but of God's Son. As long as it was but failure in duty or violation of commands under the law, divine patience lengthened out the day of probation, whatever the enormous provocation from time to time, as we see in the inspired history of the Jew. But the cross was hatred of divine love and perfect goodness. of God in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their offences; but Him even thus, yea perhaps because it was thus, they would not have at any price, hating Him without a cause, hating Him most of all for a love beyond all when "made sin" for us.

Thus was man, not Gentile only but Jew if possible yet more, proved to be lost; and on this ground the gospel goes forth to all, "the testimony in its own times." It is salvation for the lost as all are, for him that believes; God's righteousness (for man universally had been shown to have none), — God's righteousness unto all (such is the universal aspect of divine grace) and upon all that believe (such is the particular effect where there is faith in Jesus). Therein God is just and justifies the believer.

Here it is "the testimony," and accordingly its direction or scope "unto all," rather than the blessed result where it is received in faith. And therefore to "the testimony", it is consistently added "to which I was appointed preacher (or herald) and apostle," giving the first place to that which was not highest but most akin for proclaiming it, though not leaving out but bringing in for its support the apostleship. For indeed the apostle was not ashamed of the gospel, but emphasizes clearly his own full and high relation to it ("I speak truth, I lie not"), and closes all up with the title of (not a prophet to Israel as in probationary times of law, but) "a teacher of Gentiles in faith and truth." For now sovereign grace was not only the spring but the display in Christ Jesus the Lord. Where sin abounded, grace over-exceeded that, even as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 5: 21).

The call to prayer for all had brought in as its basis the character of God as Saviour, shown in the gift and mediation of Christ, the testimony of which goes forth at this time to all mankind. And who could so well bear witness as the apostle Paul, and this in the Gentile field so emphatically his own, alike for preaching and teaching?

This naturally leads to the detailed injunctions that follow in gracious interest about men with God, wherein Paul is guided by competent wisdom, power, and authority from Him Who appointed him to the testimony.

"I will (wish) then that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting; in like manner also that *women in seemly deportment adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with braids and gold or pearls or costly apparel, but, what becometh women professing godliness, by good works" (vers. 8-10).

* The Received Text has the article here which all the best MSS. discard; and rightly, for "the" women as a class have no such title predicated of them, but they (persons of that sex) are called on individually to please the Lord by heeding His servant's word.

It is not merely a gracious acquiescence but his active wish or will. It is positive apostolic direction. "I will then that the men pray in every place," not all the constituents of the assembly, but the men in contrast with women. This is of great moment. Title to pray belongs to "the men" as a whole, not to women; for public prayer is in question. There is no thought of a particular class among the men; yet is the apostle regulating the house of God. Prayer, then, is not restricted to the elders, even when elders were in full form. It belongs to "the men." Nor has it only to do with gifts, though of course gifted men might form a large part of such as prayed. And this is so true, that the apostle adds "in every place." It may be that there is no allusion to a different practice among the Jews or the heathen. Certainly there is no trace of polemic purpose. Nevertheless Christian practice is most evident in the words — the fullest liberty for prayer on the part of "the men," and this not in private only but in public.

The direction entirely coincides with the spirit of the instructions in 1 Cor. 14: 34. Only there the assembly is prominent, which had been previously shown in 1 Cor. 12 to be formed by the presence and action of the Holy Spirit. Here the ruling of the apostle is more general, as marked by the words "every place." It would be a false inference, instead of holding both, to set the one (as people often do) against the other. There is complete liberty for "the men," but absolute subjection to the Lord* Who acts by the Spirit and leads thus to the glory of God. Man is incompetent to guide the assembly. The Lord ought to be looked to, and in fact is "in the midst" of those gathered to His name, as Matt. 18: 20 shows: another scripture of the highest importance for the saints, as the resource of His grace for even "two or three" at any time.

* Neander (Church Hist. i. 253) lays down emphatically that "the monarchical form of government was in no way suited to the Christian community of spirit". But what is it if the Spirit form the saints in continual dependence on Christ? Is this not essentially theocratic? It is quite consistent with godly order, and with a system of gifts, as well as with unity.

Not that the Jews were so restricted in the synagogue as many suppose. Scripture furnishes proof that in the early days of the gospel considerable latitude was left to take part in reading or speaking, and it is to be supposed in prayer also. But Christianity, while it teaches liberty, brings in immediate responsibility to God as it was founded on the Divine presence in a way altogether unknown to Judaism, not to speak of the heathen.

It is most instructive therefore to observe that, where scriptural order is laid down most precisely, the apostle himself rules liberty for "the men" to pray "in every place." Who abrogated it? It is impossible to deny that this apostolic direction has no place in Christendom. It would seem disorder on the most important occasions. Only one official has the title ordinarily in every place. He may associate with himself one or more of a certain rank ecclesiastically. Hence it is not open to "the men" to pray "in every place"; and accordingly no man of right feeling would think of invading the imposed regulations of such societies.

Nothing therefore can more distinctly demonstrate that a revolution, somehow or another, has intervened; for modern order is irreconcilable with apostolic. And this is quite independent of "gifts"; for prayer is never in scripture treated as a question of gift. Undeniably our Epistle treats of godly order, when it was in all its purity and fulness, when apostles were on earth still and elders were or might be in every church, and "gift" abounded in every form; yet prayer "in every place" was open to "the men." Now, on the contrary, the exercise of such a title would utterly clash with the order of every denomination in Christendom. The question therefore is one of the greatest importance, not practically alone, though never was prayer more needed, but as a matter of principle; for surely all Christians are called to walk according to the fullest revelation of the truth. We ought every one of us to be where an apostolic direction, plain beyond controversy, can take full effect.

What can be thought of the statement [by Alford] that "it is far-fetched and irrelevant to the context, to find in these words the Christian's freedom from prescription of place for prayer"? It is far better to own the truth, like Chrysostom and Theodoret, etc., of old, or like Erasmus, Calvin, etc., in Reformation times, even if it condemn our ways. "Far-fetched" it is not, but the unforced and sure meaning of the sentence in itself, whatever be people's practice. "Irrelevant to the context" it is not, for what can be more proper, after exhorting prayers to be made of whatever character to lay down liberty of praying on the part of "the men" "in every place"? The scriptural doctrine of the church, and its history in apostolic times confirm not its relevancy only, but also its immense moment and prove that such a practice must have been followed until the habits which sprang up later at a post-apostolic date made it seem disorderly. Prayers on public occasions were thenceforward confined to the ordained officials. But from the beginning it was not so: as we read here, it was the apostle's will that "the men" should pray "in every place."

But right moral condition is carefully maintained, "raising up holy hands, without wrath and doubting," or perhaps "reasoning." The holiness expressed is that of pious integrity, not of a person set apart, ὁσίους not ἀγίους. It did not become men at the time conscious of evil not duly judged to take so solemn a part, if any, in the assembly. Again, if the evil were known to others, such a part taken must be an offence to their consciences. But the highest motive of all is that which should never be wanting — a sense of the presence of the Lord, and of the state which befits each of the saints so sovereignly blessed in His grace.

Hence "wrath" too is expressly forbidden. Unseemly if it intruded into any action of a Christian kind, it was peculiarly unbefitting for one who was the mouth-piece of all in prayer. So also "doubting" was most unseasonable there, being more or less a contradiction of the dependent confidence which is expressed to God in prayer. If souls lay under any of these disabilities, it became them to seek restoration of communion with God: else public praying might become a positive snare through a hardening of conscience in such circumstances.

Thus subjection to scripture in the church, where duly carried out in private and public, ever tends to true happiness and holiness; which mere form is apt to destroy, especially when the form is based on tradition opposed to scripture.

"In like manner also that women adorn themselves with modesty and sobriety." The Lord in no way ignores women as the Rabbis were apt to do; nor were they pushed into an unseemly or even shameless prominence as in heathenism. Public action was not their place. The word is that they should adorn themselves "in seemly deportment," which includes not dress only but bearing. And hence it is added, "with modesty and sobriety," that shamefastness which shrinks from the least semblance of impropriety, that self-restraint where all is inwardly ruled. The apostle does not hesitate to deal plainly and unsparingly with the common objects of female vanity in all ages: "not with braids (that is, of hair), and gold, or pearls, or costly array."

This ought to settle many a question for an exercised conscience. Take the last only. How often do we not hear a plea for the most expensive attire on the ground of its economy in the end! But those who are waiting for Christ to come need not look so far forward. Negations, however, do not satisfy the mind of the Spirit; "but what becometh women professing godliness, by good works." Such is the adorning that the Lord approves; and women have therein a large and constant sphere, δἰ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν "by means of good works," not here καλώ (honourable, right, fair) as in Matt. 5: 16; Gal. 6: 9; 1 Thess. 5: 21; but ἀγαθός as in Gal. 6: 10; 1 Thess. 5: 15, of which we have an instance in Dorcas (Acts 9: 36). Where intelligence takes the place of this activity in good, sorrow soon ensues for others, and later on shame for themselves. Real spiritual power would have hindered both; whereas vanity likes and encourages this practical error, only to find in the end its intelligence all wrong. If blind lead blind, both will fall into a pit.

The apostle now turns to further details which correct female tendencies of quite another kind, but not a whit less important to heed if as Christians they seek to glorify the Lord. Perhaps they are even more called for in these times, as men growingly lose sight of the divine order in their craving after the imaginary rights of humanity. How many now-a-days are in danger from a misdirected zeal or benevolent activity, without due reverence to the written word! To such finery in dress might be no attraction, nor the frivolous changes of worldly fashions. Their very desire to abound in good works, by which the apostle wished them to be adorned, might expose them to a snare; and the more, as no fair and intelligent mind can doubt that women (to say nothing of natural capacity or culture) may have gifts spiritual as really as men. It was of moment therefore to regulate the matter with divine authority, as he now does.

"Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection. But to teach* I permit not a woman, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman quite† deceived is involved in transgression; but she shall be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety" (vers. 11-15).

* The emphatic place is restored in accordance with A D F G P many cursives, Vulg. Goth. Arm. etc., and so I imitate in English.

† The best MSS. sustain ἐξαπ. for ἀπ. in Text. Rec.

The apostle had already laid down most salutary principles in 1 Cor. 11: 1-16, whence he had deduced that the man is woman's head, and that the head uncovered became him, as the covered head became her. He is called of God to public action, she to be veiled; for man is not from woman but woman from man, though neither is without the other in the Lord, while all things are of God.

Again, in 1 Cor. 14: 34 is laid down the imperative regulation that the women are to keep silence in the assemblies, "for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law." They were forbidden even to ask their own husbands there. If they would learn anything, let them ask at home; "for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly." What can be more distinct and peremptory than this? The ingenuity of will, however, has found a supposed loophole. The word "speak," say they, means only to talk familiarly or to chatter. This is wholly untrue. It is the regular word for giving utterance, as may be seen in 1 Peter 4: 10, 11. Here, "as each hath received a gift," they are called to minister it as good stewards of the manifold grace of God; and the distinction is drawn between gifts of utterance and those of other spiritual service. "If any one speaketh," he is to do so "as God's mouthpiece; "if any one ministereth," he is to do so as from strength which God supplieth, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ." Now here it is the same word for "speaking" as is forbidden to the women in the former scripture. It is speaking in public, not prattling. The prohibition therefore is complete. Woman's place is a retired one; she is to learn in quiet with entire submissiveness.

But there is more here. "I permit not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness." This clearly is not limited to the assembly; as the apostle traces the ground of it in the constitution and natural character of woman. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." Her subsequent formation out of the man is never to be forgotten by such as fear God and believe His word. All other thoughts are presumptuous theory in forgetfulness of the truth which goes up to the beginning. An individual woman may be comparatively able and well-instructed; but under no circumstances is leave given for a woman to teach or to have dominion over a man; she is to be in quietness. Thus absolutely does the apostle guard against any reaction from the abject place of women in ancient times, specially among the heathen; or any imitation of the peculiar prominence given to her sometimes in oracular matters, as among the Greeks and especially the Germans of old.

Had then women no seemly or suited, no good and useful, place in Christianity? None can deny that they have, who see how honoured were some of them in caring for the Lord Himself in His ministry (Luke 8: 1-3), who know how He vindicated Mary that anointed Him when the apostles found fault under evil influence. Certainly He put no slight on Mary of Magdala, if His resurrection interrupted the plan of those who brought their spices and ointments after His death. Not otherwise do we find the action of the Holy Ghost when the Lord went to heaven. Mary the mother of John Mark gives her house for the gathering together of many to pray; and the four daughters of Philip were not forbidden to prophesy at home, though even there authority could not be rightly exercised over a man. Lydia is a beautiful example of Christian simple-heartedness and zeal; her house too has honour put on it for the truth's sake. Nor was Priscilla out of place when she with her husband helped the learned Alexandrian, mighty in the scriptures, to know the way of God more thoroughly. Romans 16 pays no passing honour to many a sister, from Phoebe who served the church at Cenchreae, commended to the saints in Rome as a succourer of many and of Paul himself. Prisca or Priscilla again is coupled with her husband as his fellow-workers in Christ, who not only for his life laid down their own necks, but wherever they went opened their house for the assembly. But need we dwell on all the cases and the beautifully discriminating notice taken of them?

We may say of Evodia and Syntyche that there is not the smallest reason for conceiving them preachers, because they shared the apostle's labours in the gospel (Phil. 4: 2). That they joined their efforts with Paul in that work is no warrant for the inference that they preached. In those days a woman's preaching must have seemed far more egregious than her venturing to say a word in the assemblies of the saints. Even in private where they might exercise that which was given them in the Lord, they must never forget the form and the reality of subjection. In public all teaching was forbidden. Such is the testimony of scripture, and nowhere with greater precision or breadth than here.

The apostle adds another reason, "Adam was not deceived; but the woman quite deceived is involved in transgression." The man may have been in a certain sense worse. He followed the woman in wrong against God, where he ought to have led her in obedience; and he did it knowingly. She was beguiled outright; he was not. Her weakness therefore, and its dangerous effect on man, are urged as an additional plea, why she should be in quietness, neither teaching nor ruling; let her own sphere be at home (1 Tim. 5: 24).

The next words have suffered not a little through speculation. Some have yielded to Wells, Hammond, Kidder, Doddridge, Macknight, et al., and endeavoured to invest them with a direct reference to the Incarnation. But there is no sufficient reason for any such thought. The Authorized Version gives substantially the true sense, which is also maintained by the Revisers, although they affect a more literal closeness, which, tempting as it may be, seems really questionable here and unnecessary. For there is no doubt that in the apostle's usage as well as elsewhere, the preposition with the genitive (as with the accusative also) may mean "in a given state," no less than the more common sense of the instrument used or the medium passed through.

Dean Alford's remarks are as unhappy yet a characteristic specimen of his exegesis habitually as could be desired: "saved through (brought safely through, but in the higher, which is with St. Paul the only, sense of σώζω see below) her child-bearing (in order to understand the fulness of the meaning of σωθήσται, we must bear in mind the history itself, to which is the constant allusion. . .What then is here promised her? Not only exemption from that curse in its worst and heaviest effects; not merely that she shall safely bear children, but the apostle uses the word a. purposely for its higher meaning, and the construction of the sentence is precisely as reference, 1 Cor. 3: 15."

Now we may well agree with him that Chrysostom's interpreting τεκνογονὶα of Christian training of children, as others of the children themselves, is beside the mark and indeed unfounded; but so is his own confusion of the government of God with the "higher meaning" of eternal salvation, which is not here in question. This very Epistle (1 Tim. 4: 10) furnishes decisive proof that the preservative goodness of God in providence is fully maintained in Christianity, though His grace in the gospel goes deeper, higher, and for ever. Dean Alford enfeebles the "higher meaning" by misapplying such an assurance of providential care as the text before us supplies. There is no doubt of saving grace in Christ for the believer; but to turn this word aside from its obvious relation deprives us of the very object in view, viz., the comfort of knowing that while God does not set aside the solemn mark of divine judgment from the first in the pangs of child-bearing, it becomes in mercy an occasion of His providential intervention. Redemption clears away the clouds, so that the light may shine on all the path of the saint; and woman meanwhile shares the suited blessing in the hour of nature's sorrow. The forced elevation of scripture not only fails in power of truth, but darkens or takes away its precious consolation for the pilgrim now on earth.

The promised succour however is conditioned by abiding "in faith and love and holiness with sobriety." One feels how important such a proviso is at a moment when human and even worldly feelings often encroach even on children of God. Where is family pride here? where the gratification of the wish for an heir of filthy lucre, or the hope of wide-spreading influence in that world which crucified the Lord of glory? Nor need one doubt the wisdom of the peculiarity in grammar which gives individuality to the deliverance vouchsafed in mercy, while it urges (not on the "children" as some have thought, nor yet on the husband and wife as others, but) on Christian women generally the qualifying call to abide in all that fits and strengthens the sex for the due and happy and godly discharge of their momentous duties. It is continuance in faith and love and holiness "with sobriety," which is pressed on saintly women; who doubtless could already say with Christians generally that God had saved them according to His own purpose and grace which was given them in Christ Jesus before time began.

1 Timothy 3

The character and qualifications for the local charges of bishops and deacons are next laid down. Timothy, though not an apostle, had a position superior even to the higher of the two, and he is here instructed in that which was desirable for each office. The prohibition of women from the exercise of authority naturally led the way, when their case was fully disposed of, to the due requisites for such as might desire the good and weighty work of overseeing the house of God. It is a question of government here, rather than of gifts, whatever the importance of gifts for the right discharge of the office. Women were excluded: but all Christian men were not therefore eligible. Certain weighty qualifications, and circumstances morally clear, were to be sought in such as desired to do this excellent work.

Hence one sees the mistake such as Calvin make when they talk of "ordaining pastors." For "pastors and teachers" the apostle treats in Eph. 4: 11 as Christ's gift for the perfecting of the saints. Ordination there was where either government or even service in external things was the object, and the only lawful authority descended from Christ through the apostles whom He chose (or apostolic delegates, such as Timothy or Titus, specially commissioned to act for an apostle in this respect) to appoint the bishops or elders and the deacons.

No doubt apostles hold an unique place. They stand the first in point of gifts (χαρίσματα, 1 Cor. 12; δόματα, Eph. 4); but they were also the chief of appointed authorities with title to appoint subordinate authorities in the Lord's name. Hence they, and they only, are seen in scripture appointing presbyters and deacons, either directly or through an authorized deputy in a given sphere like Titus. Never is such a fact heard of as a presbyter ordaining a presbyter or a deacon. It destroys the whole principle of authority descending from above as stated in scripture; but, whatever else may or must go, scripture cannot be broken. (John 10: 35).

If we are familiar with scripture, we shall soon learn that evangelists and pastors and teachers are simply Christ's gifts, without question of ordination any more than prophets, whom none (but fanatics that neglect scripture for their own quasi-divine communications) would think of ordaining. They are all alike bound to exercise their gift in immediate responsibility to Him Who gave and sent them for ministerial work, for edifying the body of the Christ.

Ye men who call for order in this matter, why do you not heed the order of the Lord, alone recognised in holy writ? Is it that you are so prejudiced as to see nothing but the traditional order of your own sect? Beware of giving up all principle, and if you know your own order to be scripturally valueless, of being content with any order, provided it be human and contrary to God's word. I am grieved deeply for you, my brethren, if the only order you decry is that which is solely founded on and formed by obedience to scripture, alike in what is done or not done. Search and see where you are as to this good work; search the scriptures whether these things are so. God caused His word to be written that it might be understood and obeyed.

The Catholic error is the confusion of ministry and rule with priesthood, and this error is fundamental. It flows from ignorance of the gospel, and is of either Jewish or heathen extraction; where the living relationship of children reconciled to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is unknown. All Christians are priests (Heb. 10: 19-22; 1 Peter 2: 5, 9; Rev. 1: 6). Nor is it a question of words or title only, but of fact. They are brought nigh to God by Christ's blood. Having a great High-priest they are exhorted now to come boldly to the throne of grace (Heb. 4: 16), yea, into the holies by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil. None but a priest of the highest dignity of old did so, tremblingly and once a year; whereas "brethren" as such are now free to do so habitually (Heb. 10: 19-22). But all Christians are not ministers in the word, only those to whom the Lord by the Spirit has given the gift: "Having gifts then differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy . . ." (Rom. 12: 6-8).

The Protestant mistake is the confusion of gifts with offices or charges.* The gifts were in association with the body of Christ, as we see wherever they are spoken of. Local charges are never found mixed up with gifts, though individuals might have both. It was when Christ ascended on high that He gave gifts, some beyond controversy to lay the foundation, as the apostles and prophets; others, as evangelists, pastors, and teachers, to carry out the work in its more ordinary shape. Such is the true source and character of ministry in the word. For ministry is serving Christ the Lord in the exercise of whatever gift may have been given for any purpose of His love. Hence, even in its humblest form, it is essentially in the unity of His body, and not limited to this or that locality: whereas local charge, which has government for its aim, is based on the possession of qualities chiefly moral (with or without specific gift in the word) which would give weight in dealing with conscience, or righteous aptitude in the discharge of external duty.

* Some try to eke out the error by the argument that "presbyter" is priest writ large. Very likely the English word is etymologically due to that Anglicized exotic. But in fact of usage they are wholly distinct, and "priest" in every version, save the corrupt Rhemish, represents not its ancestor which really means "elder," but the sacrificial officer ἱερεύς.

The importance of this distinction is great because men quite ignore the real permanence and universal character of gifts, and merge all in the local charges, which have come to be regarded as inalienable and exclusive fixtures, one of them the minister, the other (singular or plural) being a subordinate office, and in some places the noviciate to the higher grade. The truth seen in scripture is that where the assemblies had time to grow up a little, the apostles used to choose elders or presbyters for the disciples (never the disciples for themselves); which as clearly shows that there were assemblies which as yet had them not, and might, as some, never in fact have them, for want of apostolic authority (direct or indirect) to appoint them: a comforting consideration for those who cleave to scriptural order and shrink from make-shift, believing that the Lord Who so ordered things is worthy of all trust, without inventions of our own in default of that order.

"Faithful [is] the word: if anyone is eager for oversight, he is desirous of a good work. The overseer [or bishop] therefore must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, temperate, sober, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker,* but gentle, not contentious, not fond of money, one that ruleth well his own house, having children in subjection with all gravity, (but if one knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he care for God's assembly"), not a novice lest being puffed up he fall into the devil's charge [or judgment]. But he must also have good testimony from those without, lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil" (vers. 1-7).

* Text. Rec. has here the clause, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, "not seeking gain basely," taken apparently from ver. 8 where it is all right, yet more probably from Titus 1: 7.

"Bishopric," or "office of a bishop," misleads here; because the modern office, with which most are familiar, so greatly differs from the primitive reality. For. there were in each assembly several, with co-ordinate governmental duties of a circumscribed nature, however valuable and to be honoured in their place. Hence it appears best and wisest, as well as most consistent, to call the function "oversight" and the functionary "overseer," in accordance with the Authorized Version of Acts 20: 28, where the elders of the Ephesian assembly (ver. 17), who met the apostle at Miletus, are so designated. There it will be observed that it is not episcopal rulers of many dioceses or of separate assemblies, still less the several chiefs! that are styled and called presbyters, because they must have been of the lower grade to attain the higher. But the elders, or presbyters, are called "overseers" or bishops; and this of the single assembly in Ephesus.

What honest man of intelligence can deny that this passage is incompatible with either Episcopacy, or Presbyterianism, or yet Congregationalism, the three distinctive claimants of Christendom? For it is death to "the" minister of the latter two no less than to the "prelate" of the former. They are, all of them, manifest inventions since apostolic times, in collision irreconcilable with the plain facts and the all-important principles of the days when the divine word regulated those who called on the name of the Lord. And wherein is antiquity to be accounted of, if it be human? What are they but shades of contending earthenware, a pretender higher than any of these, the Papacy, being by far the weakest and the worst of all spiritually, Other scriptures as Acts 14: 23; Acts 15; Phil. 1: 1; 1 Tim. 5: 17; Titus 1 might readily be enforced in confirmation; but to an upright soul I feel it enough to stand on the footing of a single passage of God's word, and so no more is added now. "The scripture," we repeat, "cannot be broken" (John 10: 35).

The formula, "Faithful is the word", with which the apostle here opens recurs in this Epistle, though found but once respectively in the Second to Timothy and in that to Titus. Here it appears three times; on the first (1: 15) and third (4: 9) occasions with the suited addition, "and worthy of all acceptation," which could not properly be in the case before us, any more than in the Second Epistle (2: 11), or in that to Titus (3: 8).

It is a question of government in the assembly; and faithful is the saying: whoever is eager for oversight desires a good or honourable work. Moral qualities, not gifts, are the requisite; and also personal or relative circumstances of good report. Hence to be husband of one wife was sought as well as a character free from reproach. How many evangelists God has deigned to bless, who had once been shameless sinners in violence or in corruption! Not such could the overseer be. Again, if a man had more than one wife, he was (not to be then refused fellowship; for many a Jew or Gentile so situated might believe the gospel; but) ineligible to be a holy guardian of order according to God among the saints. Self-restraint and moderation and modesty or good order were sought in one set over the rest: else the appeal to others must be undermined by his own shortcomings. It was also of moment that active love should be proved in hospitality, as well as intelligence or aptitude to teach, if one were not necessarily a teacher. Yet sitting over wine, and the quarrelsome character it breeds, could not be tolerated for this work, but a gentle uncontentious spirit, free from the love of money, and used to rule well his household, with children subject in all gravity. For there too practical inconsistency would be fatal; and so much the more, as God's assembly needs far more care than one's own house.

Further, one newly come to the faith, "a novice," was objectionable (not of course for the exercise of any gift confided by the Lord, but) for this delicate position in dealing with others, "lest being puffed up he fall into the devil's charge (or judgment, κρῖμα). "Condemnation" is too strong an expression and not the sense intended. The allusion appears to be to the remarkable passage in Ezekiel 28: 11-19, where the king of Tyrus is set forth in terms which seem to reflect a still more exalted creature's fall through self-complacency and self-importance.

The whole is wound up by the demand that he should also have good testimony from those that are without "lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil." This of course has nothing to do with creature vanity or pride, occupied with its own position as compared with that of others. It points to the danger from an ill reputation; for if not kept in the presence of God, and how hard is this in having much to do with others! what advantage the consciousness of that would give to the enemy, both to calumniate and to entangle! For one in so public and responsible a place, if the report be not good, Satan knows how to cover him with shame in his desire to avoid hypocrisy, or to lead into at least the semblance of hypocrisy, if he shrink from shame.

It is not an ordinary saint who suits the serious and honourable work of overseeing; nor can one be surprised, unless vitiated by ecclesiastical tradition or by the pride of man unjudged, that an apostle, or a specially qualified apostolic man, is the only one seen in scripture competent to nominate presbyters. Never was the assembly, whatever the piety or intelligence of those who made it up, entrusted with a choice so difficult to discharge. Such are the facts of God's word; which entirely fall in with the principle that authority does not come from below, whatever may be the theories of men ancient or modern, but from above. It is from Christ the Lord, Who not only gives gifts as Head of the church, but is also the source and channel of all true authority, as has been already noticed.

It is generally assumed that "deacons" or "ministers" (as some prefer to translate, in order to guard from confounding them with the lower or earlier grade of clergy, so familiar in modern times) answer to "the seven" (Acts 6: 3; Acts 21: 8) who served tables in the daily ministration at Jerusalem. It is true that "the seven" are not so styled; and that elsewhere there is no thought of "seven" deacons. It is also true that in Jerusalem at the first there prevailed a state of having all things common wholly peculiar to that place and time, which created the necessity for the apostles to appoint the same, both to allay murmuring of others, and to allow themselves leisure for continuing steadfastly in prayer and in the ministry of the word. Admitting however all due to the early form and order in Jerusalem, I agree with others that substantially the same office is in view. "The seven" served as deacons in the circumstances proper to that day; as others served elsewhere in a more ordinary way. In Jerusalem at least they were chosen by the disciples, and the apostles laid their hands on them with prayer.

"Deacons likewise [must be] grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of base gain, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also be first proved, then let them serve as deacons, being blameless. Women likewise [must be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, conducting (ruling) [their] children and their houses well, for those who have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree, and great boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus" (vers. 8-13).

Manifestly the requirements for the deacons are not so high as those for bishops or overseers, though there be somewhat in common. Their duties are of a lower character. Gravity was sought as well as the absence of deceit. These would naturally be required even in the commonest intercourse of life; and failure in them would bring contempt upon such an office. For if every Christian is called to walk after Christ, surely not less is a deacon to reflect His light even in the commonest things he has to do. Again, he must not be given to much wine, nor be greedy of base gain: either would be ruinous to the due fulfilment of his functions, and to the confidence which he ought to inspire in others. Far fuller we have seen to be the demand for the bishop, who must be without reproach, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach: which are not said of the deacon save so far as gravity may approach. In this they do strongly meet — that as the bishop was not to be long (or quarrelsome) over wine, so the deacon was to be "not given to much wine." And as the deacon was not to be greedy of base gain, so the bishop was to be no lover of money. There is no question of aptness to teach for the deacon as for the bishop; but even deacons must hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. So indeed is it binding on every saint; but if laxity were allowed in office-bearers, what could more stumble the world, grieve the saints, and dishonour the Lord?

It may be worth while to remark that "mystery," as it never means what is unintelligible, so it is never applied to an institution or sacrament. "Stewards of the mysteries of God" means those called and responsible for bringing out the special truths of Christianity. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are never so described; and the term cannot be with propriety predicated of them as rites but at most only of the truths represented by them. Deacons, however, are not called "stewards" of the mysteries of God, though they must hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, that is, the distinctive truth of Christianity. Of course the Old Testament abides of divine authority for every conscience and of exceeding value for every Christian. But we have further revelation in the New Testament, and that of truth wholly unknown to saints before Christ. "The mystery of the faith" expresses the truth which had never been revealed before, the general system of that which is commonly called Christianity beyond what was known of old, though of course confirming it in the most interesting manner and in the highest degree. That truth deals with the conscience in the closest way and purges it.

But it is also possible that high truth might be held with habitually low practice. This could not be in a deacon as it is unworthy of any Christian. He was called to hold the mystery of the faith "in a pure conscience." Others might not be able to judge directly of the state of his conscience, but an irregular walk is the clearest proof that a man's conscience cannot be pure. Where that was evident, it was permitted, yea incumbent, to judge this.

Even here there was to be care in the gradual introduction of deacons to their duties: "and let these also first be proved, then let them serve as deacons, being blameless." Proving them first might bring out their unfitness for the work; for there are many saints even, who cannot bear a little brief authority, and that which outwardly raises such soon exposes to moral degradation. To walk blamelessly in the least of such new duties was no small testimony of their fitness to serve in all.

Women in the nearest relationship with them are not forgotten. They in like manner "must be grave, not slanderers, sober (temperate), faithful in all things." The duties of their husbands would give them opportunities of knowing much of a delicate nature; they were therefore to be both grave and not evil-speakers, sober or temperate, faithful in all things. None but such could help their husbands aright; those who were otherwise would not only hinder but lead to constant difficulty and scandal.

Nor was it only that the bishop must be husband of one wife, deacons must be the same. Polygamy was thus being dealt a death-wound. No matter what might be the qualities and competency of a Christian, he could not even be a deacon if he had, like many in those days, more than one wife. This was strictly ruled for all who held office in the assembly, whatever might be the forbearance of grace whilst "the powers that be" tolerated things otherwise.

Further, like the bishops, deacons must rule their children and their houses well. It was not allowable in those that served even in outward things that disorder should reign among their children or in their households. The assembly of God is set in this world, till the Lord come, to manifest His will and to please Him.

But deacons, like the seven, were not tied only to that service which they were appointed to fulfil; for those who have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree and great boldness in faith which is in Christ Jesus. So we see in both Stephen and Philip who were of the seven: the one being greatly honoured of God as a teacher of the truth; the other being largely used to spread the gospel where it had never yet penetrated. This,was to gain for themselves a good standing, and no one who reads the Holy Spirit's account of their testimony and its effects can doubt their great boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The presence of an apostle was an incalculable boon both for founding and for building up the assembly in any place. But what do we not owe also to his absence? Therefore he wrote, as here to Timothy, so at other times to this or that assembly, and thus he gave us in a permanent form the mind of the Spirit as applied to the instructive wants, difficulties, and dangers of the saints here below.

"These things write I to thee, hoping to come unto thee rather quickly; but if I should tarry, that thou mayest know how we ought to behave in God's house, seeing it is a living God's assembly, pillar and ground-work of the truth" (vers. 14, 15). Thus the loss of the apostle's presence is turned to profit, not of Timothy only but of us also. From detailed duties we are now in presence of the great truth that God has a house on earth where each Christian has to conduct himself aright. Our relationships are always the measure and mould as well as the ground of our duty. How solemn, yet how precious it is to know that God has His dwelling-place on earth with which every believer has to do in faith and practice!

No doubt this was meant to act on Timothy's soul; but the form of the phrase indicates that it was not limited to Timothy; it is so expressed as to take in any and every saint in his own position. It is no longer now an overseer, or a deacon, or their wives. All is on the broadest ground, yet what could act more powerfully on conscience than to find oneself called to behave suitably to God's house? All the English versions from Wiclif to the Authorized refer the call to Timothy only and his personal duty. I cannot but agree with the Revisers that the application is purposely left more general. Perhaps however "how men ought to behave themselves" is hardly so happy as "how one ought to behave oneself." It seems too vague, even as preceding English Versions are rather too limited.

In the Old Testament God had His house on earth. It was not so always. In the earlier dealings of God with man He had no such dwelling-place here below. There was none when man was unfallen in the brief sojourn of Eden; still less was there during the long sorrowful years of fallen man's history till the flood. Nor was it a privilege vouchsafed to Noah when God established His covenant and "set His bow in the cloud for a token between Him and the earth." Not even the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had it yet vouchsafed to them, though Jacob did say in his fear, "How dreadful is this place! this is none other than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven!" More correctly did he add "This stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God's house." As yet, God had not actually any house which He could own on earth, though faith might anticipate it.

On what then is God's house based? On redemption. Hence as Exodus is pre-eminently the book of redemption, it is precisely that book of the Old Testament which first and most fully treats of God's house. For the second book of Moses naturally divides into three parts: first, the evidence of the people's need of redemption; secondly, the accomplishment of redemption in all its fulness; thirdly, the great consequence of redemption in the founding and ordering of God's house or tabernacle with all its appurtenances, and the surpassing glory of His presence filling that in which He was then pleased to dwell.

But, in accordance with the general character of the Jewish economy, the dwelling of God was but typical, manifesting itself after an external sort. And as the law was the ground-work of God's government of His people, so the glory that dwelt in the sanctuary had a judicial character, whatever the long-suffering that bore with a stiff-necked and guilty people from generation to generation. When patience with the idolatry in the people, the priests, the kings, even of David's house, must be, if continued longer, the sanction of their apostasy and of His own dishonour, that very glory judges them by the power of Babylon (mother of idols) and is seen slowly departing from their midst, though not for ever, but assuredly till He come Whose right it is to restore this and all things. Compare Ezekiel 1-11; Ezekiel 40-48.

Meanwhile Christ has come; but the people would not have their King, the Anointed of God. For the time they have forfeited all, having both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and driven out the apostles, "pleasing not God and are contrary to all men, forbidding the Gentiles to be spoken to that they might be saved, filling up their sins always, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. 2: 15, 16). But their greatest evil is the occasion of God's greatest good to man. Israel's rejection of the Messiah has brought about the redemption that is in Christ Jesus through His cross, blood-shedding, and resurrection.

And now God deigns to dwell not merely in the midst of a people externally, but most really and intimately in His own and with them for ever by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. "Ye are God's building," says Paul to the Corinthian assembly. . . . "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 9-16. Compare also 2 Cor. 6: 16). The same truth applies also individually, as we have seen it collectively: "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own, for ye were bought with a price; glorify God therefore in your body" (1 Cor. 6: 19, 20). In both cases God's dwelling-place is maintained by the presence of His Spirit, not by a mere outward display. "Ye also are builded together for God's habitation in virtue of the Spirit" (Eph. 2: 22), the reality and permanence of which indwelling is measured by Christ's having obtained an eternal redemption. What a call to holiness, not only in personal walk but in our joint responsibilities! Those who truly believe and appreciate this incomparable favour are of all others under the deepest obligation to behave accordingly.

But the apostle adds "which" (or "seeing that it") "is a living God's assembly." This description gives great force to God's house, placing it in direct contrast with that of a dead idol, the boast and shame of all Gentiles everywhere. Form without life is valueless under the gospel; though life acts and shows itself in forms for which scripture is the only adequate authority, for it is God's word and not man's. And "wherein is he to be accounted of?" Nor does a dead assembly suit a living God. But the point above all remains — not what they are, but what He is. It is His assembly: let those there never forget it.

Further, the assembly is characterized as "pillar" and as "groundwork," or support, of the truth. Christ is the truth, and so is the written word, as well as the Spirit. They all are the truth, either objectively, or in power. But the assembly is the pillar on which the truth is inscribed and upheld before the world which believes not in Christ, receives not the word, and neither sees nor knows the Holy Spirit. The truth is not in faithless Judaism; nor is it in Mohammedan imposture; if possible yet less in the abominable vanities of heathendom. The church is the responsible witness and support of the truth on the earth. There only might men see the truth (compare 2 Cor. 3: 2, 3), if they could not read a letter of the scriptures. Alas! how great the ruin of the pillar, if we judge the privilege and the responsibility of the church by the word as it bears on its actual state. He who so weighs before God all the failure will never take things lightly, but will search the same word in order to find how grace provides for the path of the faithful in such circumstances; so that one may neither acquiesce in evil nor give way to unbelieving despair, but may judge oneself as well as the departure of Christendom in order to do God's will in faith.

There is not a single good reason to sever the last clause from the assembly, and to connect it with "the mystery of godliness," as is done chiefly by Germans of the 17th and 18th centuries (including even Bengel). Not only do I agree with Alford and Ellicott in their rejection of a dislocation so abrupt and artificial, but I maintain that it would strip the assembly of its essential place which is here defined, and that it would detract from, instead of adding to, the true dignity of "the mystery of godliness." It is a construction therefore burdened with almost every conceivable objection, without one genuine merit, and in my judgment the offspring of not ignorance only but deplorably low and wrong views of the church's place and duty here below. Scarcely better is the reference to Timothy as made by some ancients and moderns. To the assembly alone is the true application.

The assembly, or church, of God then is in no way the truth, but is its responsible witness and its support on the earth before all men. Not the church but Christ is the standard and expression of what God is and of man and all else, as revealed in Holy Writ, the one daily and perfect rule of faith, the word that abides for ever. So far from being before the word, so as to formulate the truth, it was the word making known Christ which the Spirit of God used to quicken and fashion those who compose the church. Thus to the truth the church in God's grace owes its being; without the truth, or rather by abandoning it (for, to be the church, the truth must have been possessed and maintained), the faithless church becomes not null only but the special object of divine judgment. Its privileges furnish the measure of its guilt; nor has anything more helped on its ruin than the fond assumption (in the teeth of Rom. 11, 2 Thess. 2, and of many other warnings) that the ancient people were broken-off branches that the now favoured Gentile might be grafted in never to fail or to be cut off, as rebellious Israel has been!

Hence the propriety of the striking summary which follows as the conclusion of the chapter: not the heavenly relationship of the church, but the fundamental truth set forth in the person of Christ, and graven, not only on the hearts of Christians as such, but on the assembly for its public confession, its habitual praise, and its practice every day.

"And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He Who* was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached among Gentiles, was believed on in [the] world, was received up in glory" (ver. 16).

* Dr. Scrivener, though with hesitation from his own first impression with that of others in the past, no longer (second Ed. 552-6) denies A to have read ὅς (with C F G. etc. and almost all the ancient Vv.), rather than Θεός, "God," as in most copies followed by the Text. Rec.

The introductory clause is most instructive as well as impressive. "Mystery" means a truth once secret but now fully divulged, never a sacrament, (though important in its place and for the purpose intended of the Lord). The secret (now revealed) of piety or godliness is the truth of Christ. He is the source, power, and pattern of what is practically acceptable to God-His person as now made known. True life is living by the faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal. 2: 20). To look on Him or for Him as a Jew once might in faith is not enough. Here He stands revealed in the great essential lineaments of the truth. The church lives, moves, and has its being in presenting Him thus to every eye and heart. Men may disbelieve or gainsay to their own destruction; but to present the truth of Christ is, we may say, the reason of the church's existence, rather than the admirably good results which flow both for each saint within and for those without who come to believe unto their own eternal blessing.

Some doubtless will cry out as if "He Who," as in the Revised Version, grievously displaces "God", as in the Authorized Version which follows editions formed on the more modern copies. But weigh well the better attested reading, and soon you may happily learn how much more exact is the relative in this connection, as it also really supposes the self-same truth in the background. For where would be even the sense of saying that Adam or Abraham, that David, Isaiah, or Daniel, or that any other human being, "was manifested in flesh"? An angelic creature so manifested would be revolting for the end in view, and could no more avail than a man. If only a man, no other way than "flesh" was open to him: the mightiest "hunter before the Lord," the subtlest wit, the most consummate orator or poet or warrior or statesman, "he also is flesh," no less than the least one born of woman.

Not so the one Mediator between God and men; for though He deigned to become man, He was intrinsically and eternally divine. But for the counsels and ways of grace, He might conceivably have come as He pleased, in His own glory, or in His Father's, or in that of the holy angels, without emptying and humbling Himself to incarnation and atonement. Here the opening and immeasurable wonder of the truth is the glory of Him Who was born of the virgin and thus manifested in flesh. So in the kindred passage of John 1 it is written (John 1: 14), "The Word became flesh," where it had been carefully laid down before (John 1: 1) that "The Word was God," as well as "with God," in the beginning before He made anything in the universe created by Him.

1. "Manifested in flesh"; not only is this a truth to test every conscience: what an appeal to the heart! what infinite love to ruined and guilty sinners, for whose sake He was thus manifested to the glory of God! He came to make known, as only He could, God as light and love, Himself the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man, Himself the Son of man that came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. Herein is love, not that we loved God (as we ought according to the law, but we did not, yea, we hated both Father and Son without a cause), but that He loved us and gave His Son a propitiation for our sins. And herein was laid the new and everlasting ground of God's righteousness, where man was proved hopelessly unrighteous, in the cross and blood of Christ, that God might be just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. Here however it is not the work done in infinite love that God might righteously do His will in sanctifying us through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; it is His person in the state in which alone that work could avail — the Son incarnate, "He Who was manifested in flesh."

2. Next, we are told, He "was justified in Spirit."* He was as truly man as any; but His state was, as that of no other, characterized absolutely by the Spirit of God, from the beginning right through life and death, in uninterrupted energy of holiness and incorruption till He rose from the dead and took His seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. His unvarying life was to do God's will, the only Man Who never once did His own will. He felt, spoke, acted, uniformly in the Spirit: as He was conceived in the virgin's womb, so He was in due time anointed, and finally marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection (cp. Rom. 1: 4; 1 Peter 3: 18). It was His perfection as Man in the midst of an evil and ruined world to do, not miracles only but, everything in the Spirit's power; where we who believe have to follow in His steps, endowed with the same Spirit now given to us in His grace; but we, with our old man, which He had not to save, but to die for it on the cross, and which therefore was crucified with Him that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin, having died to it (Rom. 6: 6).

* It is well known that some have thought that ἐν πν. (in Spirit) here does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to the spiritual principle in our Lord as a man. Now admitting that there was this spirit in Him and that σάρξ ("flesh") does not express it, anyone subject to scripture may soon satisfy himself that the phrase here employed is not proper to convey any such thought, which would require the article, as in Matt. 5: 3, Matt. 26: 41; Matt. 27: 50; Mark 2: 8; Mark 8: 12, Mark 14: 38, Luke 10: 21 (in the true text) John 11: 33; John 13: 21; John 19: 30, Acts (18: 5), Acts 19: 21, Acts 20: 22, et al. These may suffice to prove that where one's own spirit is meant, the article is the correct form of expression. On the other hand, proof is no less abundant that πν., with or without such prepositions as ἐκ, ἐν, διά, κατά, does express as regularly the state or power of the Holy Spirit characterizing men, in contrast with mere nature, often of course with ἁγ. which I do not cite, but also without, as Matt. 22: 28, Matt. 12: 43, John 3: 5, John 4: 23, 24; Rom. 8: 4, 9, 13; 1 Cor. 2: 4, 13; 1 Cor. 7: 40; 1 Cor. 12: 13; 2 Cor. 3: 18; Gal. 3: 3; Gal. 4: 29, Gal. 5: 5, 16, 18, 25 (twice); et al. The real difficulty might rather be when the intent is to present the Spirit objectively, which requires the insertion of the article, as in Matt. 4: 1, Matt. 12: 31, Mark 1: 10, 12, Luke 2: 27 where grammatically Simeon's spirit only might be meant, but we know from the context, as in the other cases very clearly, that the Holy Spirit is the thought.

3. He "appeared to angels." The Son of God was made visible to angels, not only on marked occasions as specified in scripture from His birth of woman till He ascended on high, but generally we may say through His incarnation. But is this all that the clause implies? May it not also describe, what appears more characteristic, that, when He ceased to be seen among men on earth, not even the chosen witnesses beholding Him conversant with them more, He was an object of sight to angels? The earthly scene closed, He certainly has to do most expressly with all the angels of God, seeing they worship Him. Nor can any condition be more outside the ordinary way in which a Jew thinks of the Messiah, even when glory dawns on Immanuel's land. However this may be, I should not be too bold as to it.

4. "He was preached among Gentiles." Here the sphere of preaching is not merely beyond habitual Jewish expectations but in contrast with it. They looked for Him to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His ancients gloriously, and no doubt to have the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession, but still set as Jehovah's King upon His holy hill of Zion, Israel the centre of that wide circle of blessing and glory here below. Such is to be the display of the kingdom when He comes again and shall have cleared away the apostate and rebellious despisers. But here it is the secret which the Christian knows now — Christ "preached among Gentiles," instead of reigning over Israel. This indeed is the evident truth, and would be plain and simple enough to us, if Gentile boasting did not darken it by claiming Israel's place as now indefeasibly the portion of Christendom, to the denial of the ancient people's hopes, as well as to the destruction of all right perception of our own, incomparably brighter, even as the heavens are higher than the earth.

5. So again, He "was believed on in [the] world" exactly describes the essential difference in this sphere from that which prophecy held out and which God will make good in the age to come. Then every eye shall see the Son of man, and a dominion will be given Him, and glory, so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; and this dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away (as the old empires did), and His kingdom shall not be destroyed (as the last or Roman Empire must, though it be revived by the power of the pit, in order to meet the peculiar judgment of God on its surpassing lawlessness and self-exaltation in the last days). Christ now is an object of faith only, not yet reigning in power over the world, as Rev. 11: 15 announces.

6. He "was received up in glory." Such is the suited and worthy close of this concise but comprehensive form of sound words, so as to leave fresh on all souls that read it the bright impress of Christ in glory. For if He came down in love, as has another admirably remarked, He went up in righteousness. The work given Him to do He accomplished at infinite cost to Himself and perfectly to God's glory, even where all might have seemed hopeless — as to sin, and a world of sin. The adequate answer to the cross of the suffering Son of man (Who had thus glorified God) was that God should glorify Him in Himself and this straightway (John 13: 31, 32).

And such accordingly is the righteousness of which the Spirit when come at Pentecost afforded evidence to the world. The world had proved its unrighteous hatred in rejecting Him Whom God raised from the dead and set at His own right hand. This exaltation is the righteousness which the presence of the Spirit sent down from heaven demonstrates: the crucified Son of man sits on the throne of God. And here we have the same glorious fact which completes the circle of the truth embraced by the Spirit of God in "the mystery of piety". How wonderful to find it all in a few facts of our Lord Jesus! But the wonder melts into worship, as we bear in mind that if He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also Who ascended up far above all heavens that He might fill up all things (Eph. 4: 9, 10). He that emptied Himself to become a servant was in Himself God and Lord. The pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand, as Isaiah (Isa. 53: 10) foretold.

1 Timothy 4

The assembly, in its practical and responsible standing before men as the witness of God's revealed truth and will, naturally leads the apostle to treat of Satan's efforts to undermine and falsify the truth, not without warning on God's part.

"But the Spirit saith expressly that in latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, by hypocrisy of legendmongers, branded in their own conscience, forbidding to marry, [bidding]* to abstain from meats which God created for reception with thanksgiving by those faithful and fully acquainted with the truth. Because every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through God's word and intercession" (vers. 1-5).

* This is a case of what the grammarians call Zeugma, where another verb is implied by the context, as in 1 Tim. 2: 12.

The mischief here set out is not the wider and later evil of 2 Tim. 3: 1-9, when Christendom would be but men professing the Lord's name, a form of piety with the denial of its power, no better than heathen in reality (cp. Rom. 1: 28-32), though with the semblance and the responsibility of God's final revelation of grace and truth in Christ. Still less is it the frightful apostacy of 2 Thess. 2: 3-12, which is to close the age before the Lord Jesus be revealed in judgment from heaven to introduce the new age and the kingdom of God to be manifested in power and blessing universally over the earth. No such absolute or comprehensive enmity to the gospel and the Lord is seen here, but rather a sentimental and intellectual affectation of ascetic sanctimoniousness, the germs of which were even then at work and which were soon to develop into the Gnostic sects. It was human pretension, and not the faith of the holy communications of the divine mind nor the submission of heart to His will Who cannot but direct us for His glory through the corruptions of a world ruined by lust.

Here the liberty which characterizes those who have the Spirit is supplanted by a systematic bondage of man's will, setting up to be holier than God, and founded on airy conceits, which, being exaggerations of the imagination, are never the truth which in the highest degree they claim to be. It is not the ease but the pretentious effort of the flesh inflated by the enemy, which at a later day brought in the oriental error of two divine principles, an evil as well as a good: the good having to do with the soul and characterized by light; the evil with the body and characterized by darkness; the God of the New Testament in contrast with the God of the Old in its ultimate Manichean form of heterodoxy. The root of this is apparent here. Slight on the creatures of God issues in slight of the Creator. Nor is the error dead yet, though it may retreat into cloudy phrases, shunning collision with the truth. In our day it has taken the shape of death to nature and neglect of relationships. It is the same principles which the Holy Spirit denounces here as the denial of fundamental truth, with which the highest revelations are never inconsistent. He that wrote to the Romans wrote also to the Ephesians, and the same apostle is the author of the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Hebrews. So it will always be found that those who are most truly versed in the mysteries of God are careful to maintain the immutable truths of His nature and the due place of the creature.

Here all was at fault. "Some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons, by hypocrisy of legend-mongers." There were thus three parties in the abandonment of the faith; first, the victims of the errors, secondly, the unseen power of evil, the spirits or demons that misled, thirdly, the legendmongers who were the medium. This shows the importance of a correct translation. For it is not meant that the demons were the utterers of lies in hypocrisy, any more than that they were branded with a hot iron in their conscience. And this probably led to the softening down of the true phrase. Restore the medium, and any such necessity disappears. A man may utter falsehoods in hypocrisy. We can scarcely talk of a demon's hypocrisy; and scripture certainly gives no warrant for attributing conscience to a seducing spirit. But this is exactly true of the false teachers who were carried along by these unseen agents of evil. They were the hypocrites, and they had "their own" conscience branded in distinction from the unhappy but less guilty men who were led astray by their means.

They forbade to marry and bade men to abstain from meats which God created for reception with thanksgiving by those faithful and fully acquainted with the truth. There was the assumption of extraordinary purity. But the wiles of the devil were in it; for the assumption impeached God's institution of marriage, the bond of society here below. And God is not mocked. The result soon showed that the evil one was its author, for the deepest moral corruption was the consequence.

Grace may call a servant of God for special and worthy reasons to a path inconsistent with the married relation, because its duties could not be fulfilled with the due accomplishment of the objects of that path. So we see in the apostle Paul himself, as he lets us know in 1 Cor. 7. But this very chapter maintains the ordinary rule of the marriage state, as elsewhere he exhorts that it should be every way in honour. Only the call of God is paramount. Yet he that is so called respects and never despises the ordinary rule because of that exception. Error lays hold of the exception (for even error cannot subsist without a scrap or show of truth) and converts the exception into a human rule. It is Satan occupying the place and rights of the Lord; his aim is to bring God into contempt and lead man dazzled with the vain hope of higher holiness into the depths of corruption. It is the truth (and no lie is of the truth) which sanctifies.

So in bidding men to abstain from meats the same disrespect of God appears. He created them to be received with thanksgiving. No doubt all mankind were meant to share the benefit and do so in their measure; but many partake like brutes without real thanksgiving, often without even the form. The faithful thoroughly acquainted with the truth receive such gifts from God and give thanks. Satan exalts some to such a height of philosophic folly as to deny that they come from His hand Who reconciled them to Himself by the death of His Son; then to imagine them to be the temptations of an evil being; finally to conceive that there is no such thing as creation or consequently a Creator. So that the error if but a little in beginning becomes the beginning of a very great evil.

Here, again, the importance of fasting is in no way impaired by the thankful reception of daily bread. Rather do both things go together in every sound and godly mind. But the wiles of the devil were shown in availing himself of abstinence from food. Fasting is admirable in its own place and for special reasons from time to time as the grace of God may direct. Wholly opposed is the delusion of seducing spirits, which the legend-mongers turned into a law, as in the eschewing of marriage: "Because every creature of God is good and nothing to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through God's word and intercession." Thus the ordinary prohibitions of the law disappear, for in this respect as in others the law made nothing perfect. The gospel, the full revelation of Christ, whilst it rises to the glory of God in the highest and stands in presence of the inscrutable depths of God's most holy judgment of sin in the cross, vindicates all the ways of God in creation as well as in providence. Hence the Christian, if not the Jew, can say that every creature of God is good and nothing to be rejected; but there is the proviso — "if received with thanksgiving." An ungrateful saint is an anomaly. The simplest believer cannot more than the most intelligent overlook the kindness as well as the wisdom of God, Who created all things and has Himself said, "I will in no wise fail thee; neither will I in anywise forsake thee" (Heb. 13: 5).

But the apostle adds a reason which confirms the thanksgiving of the believer; "for it is sanctified through God's word and intercession." Thus is the use of every creature of God guarded. It is no mere indiscriminate licence; but as the restrictions of a law for a circumscribed people vanished before the light of the gospel, and the goodness of God was heard declaring that He had cleansed what Jewish prejudice would have to be common ("to the pure all things are pure"), so the receiver proved his faith in "God's word" by the answer of his "intercession." Not their will but His word sanctioned the use of every creature good for food; and their hearts, brought to know His grace in salvation, draw near in that free intercourse which is assured of, as it springs from, His love made known to us in Christ and His redemption. But it is an intercourse based on His grace, which takes in the least things as not too little for God, as it has learnt in Christ that the greatest things of God are not too great for His children.

The word ἐντευξις is here translated "intercession," in order to keep up its speciality in accordance with its sense elsewhere, as in 1 Timothy 2: 1. "Prayer," though seemingly less harsh, and as in all the earlier English so still in the Revised, is too vague to express the free intercourse which grace has opened with God for His children. I admit that "intercession" sounds inadequate; but I know no better counterpart in our language and therefore have ventured to explain what appears to be conveyed. If God's word communicated the reality and extent of His gracious will, the faithful can speak unrestrainedly their heart's sense-of His loving bounty. Thus all that is received is "sanctified." For, now that we know Christ dead and risen, here too we can say that the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new. And all things are of God Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ (2 Cor. 5: 19, 20).

Thence the apostle turns to a more precise application and, at the close, to what is yet more strictly personal. (vers. 6-16).

"Setting these things before the brethren, thou wilt be a good servant of Christ Jesus,* nourished in the words of the faith and the good teaching which thou hast followed up. But the profane and old-womanish fables refuse, and exercise thyself unto piety; for bodily exercise is profitable for a little, but piety is profitable for all things, having promise of life that is now and of that which is to come. The word [is] faithful and worthy of all acceptance; for unto this end we **labour and **suffer reproach, because we have our hope set on a living God Who is Saviour of all men, especially of faithful [men]" (vers. 6-10).

* The preponderance of ancient and excellent authority favours this order against that of Text. Rec., which has not the support of a single uncial in its primary reading. — Other variants in this verse and the three following are not worth recording here.

** "Both" is not represented in the oldest copies, nor, in any ancient versions, contrary to Text. Rec. — But ἀγωνιζὸμεθα  "we strive," or "we combat," is supported by prn A C Fgr Ggr K and eight cursives against the rest which have ὀνειδιζόμθα as in Text. Rec.

The language employed is of studied moderation. Suggesting these things to the brethren Timothy would be a good minister of Christ Jesus. Dignity does not lose by lowliness in any: in a young man it is most becoming, and gives the most weight to a solemn warning. The object of all ministry is the exalting of Christ, but this cannot be at the expense of truth or holiness. The substitutes of the enemy may look fair and certainly flatter the flesh; but God's word alone can be trusted. He infallibly secures not one thing only but all in the harmony of his revealed will. Human tradition is as worthless as human imagination, and both if accepted will be found in the long run only to supplant God's word, and play into the power of the enemy through yielding to the will of man. To lay before the brethren what the Spirit expressly speaks is good ministry; — it is to serve Christ Jesus. So He Himself walked and served here below. His food was to do the will of Him that sent Him and to finish His work. What more blessed than so to walk and serve Him now? Men are best kept where Christ alone is the object, as He is the source of all power in the Spirit to guide and sustain. He called and He sent forth at His charges. How different the moral effect, for the minister as well as for others, of serving a society, even if that society were the church of God as the mistress of the service! He who seeks to please men cannot be thoroughly Christ's bondman. We cannot serve two masters.

Timothy, in putting forth divine truth, would be a good servant of Christ Jesus: "Nourished in the words of the faith and in the good teaching which thou hast followed up." This is of moment. To go on well in Christ's service one must be trained or nourished up in the words of the faith. To give out, one must take in. But the proper material is not the science or literature of men, but the "words of the faith." The good teaching, which Timothy had already followed up closely, yields matter for the right service of Christ Who repudiates the wisdom of this age. The words of the faith are ever beyond the age and above it. It is to Christ's dishonour to mingle with them the persuasible words of man's wisdom. The Holy Ghost has been given that there should be no lack through God's bounty and also the most complete preservative against the seductions of the prince of the world.

What can be more contemptuous towards the constant snare of Jews as well as Gentiles than the apostle's exhortation: "The profane and old-womanish fables refuse"! So he characterizes that which takes the place of God's word, the food of faith. Where there is no healthy appetite of the new man, fabulous dreams have ever had an attraction for the heart and mind of man; and these which surely abound in proportion to distaste for divine revelation. They stimulate, they inflate, they in a measure satisfy nature. But the true God is not there, nor Jesus Christ Whom He has sent, and least of all where they dare most profanely to conceive and set forth either God or His Christ according to their own imaginings. What can be more offensive than the pseudo-evangels about the Lord? How palpable the darkness in contrast with the true light which shines in Him according to the Gospels! How absurd, indeed morally impotent and positively mischievous, the imaginary miracles of His childhood! How holy and wise and perfect the glimpses we have of the truth in the Gospel of Luke!

From old-wives' fables Timothy was to turn away. But, says Paul, "exercise thyself unto piety." Service of Christ is admirable; yet there is no greater danger if piety be neglected personally. It is of prime moment that this be kept up in the soul, as otherwise the comfort and joy as well as the sorrows and dangers of His service are most absorbing. The lightminded Corinthians were in great peril from the neglect of piety (1 Cor. 9: 24-27). The apostle had therefore transferred the exhortation and for their sakes applied it to himself, when he told them that he was in the habit of buffeting his body and leading it captive, lest, after having preached to others, he should be himself reprobate or rejected. Not that he was careless of holiness and piety, but that they were. But he makes himself the example, unlike as it was to his way, that they might be warned of a very real danger for their own souls, not at all in distrust of God as to himself.

Here as in 1 Cor. 9 the figure of "exercise" appears to be taken from the public games and the necessary preparation for them, so familiar to the Greek mind. Timothy was to be in constant training: "Exercise thyself unto piety, for bodily exercise is useful (profitable) for a little, but piety is useful (profitable) for all things, having promise of life that is now and of that to come." The allusion is evident. Outward exercise profits physically or as he says strictly, "bodily exercise is useful for a little." Piety is spiritual exercise and demands as constant vigilance, as holy self-restraint, as complete subjection to the revealed will of God, even as training for the games called for habitual abstinence from every relaxing habit and for daily practice toward the end in view. How little the latter goal! How transcendent the former! Piety is profitable for all things, having promise of life that is now and of that to come. Christianity does not take tithes like Judaism, but can allow no reserve though all be grace. It has and from its very nature must have the entire man, dead to sin and alive unto God, right through the present life into eternity. And this wide practical scope of godliness is pre-eminent in these pastoral Epistles; not so much heavenly privilege or dispensational peculiarity is enforced as a sound and devoted life according to godliness. This the apostle presses on Timothy, as Timothy was bound to press it on others.

Hence the repetition of the formula so frequent in these Epistles: "The word is faithful and worthy of all acceptation; for unto this end we labour and suffer reproach, because we have our hope set on a living God Who is Saviour of all, especially of faithful [men]." It is no question here, it appears to me, of Christ's work in the salvation of the lost who believe. It is of the living God as such that the apostle speaks — of God in His character of preserver of men, as also Job speaks (Job 7: 20). God's providential care and government are before us, wherein nothing escapes His notice. So He clothes the herbage of the field and nourishes the birds of heaven which sow not, nor reap, nor gather into granaries. So He makes His sun rise on evil and good, and sends rain on just and unjust. How much more prized are not His own than many sparrows, even the hairs of their heads being all numbered!

No Christian could forget for a moment the infinite privilege of eternal life and redemption, of heavenly hope and everlasting glory; but, in presence of these unseen and eternal things, he might to his own great loss as well as to the Lord's dishonour overlook the constant daily and special care of God in the ordinary matters of this life. Against such an error, this verse (10) as well as the previous context would guard the soul. The highest privileges do not supersede nor even enfeeble the unchanging truth in its lowest range of application every day. It is the unfailing mark of the heterodox where it is so; and this let faithful men note well. It was never more rife than now. Grace never disparages law nor despises nature; but an intellectualism which avails itself of privilege to destroy responsibility and relationship is guilty in both respects.

"These things charge and teach. Let none despise. thy youth, but be a pattern of the faithful in word, in conduct, in love,* in faith, in purity. Till I come, give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching. Neglect not the gift that was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elderhood.† Bestow care on these things; be wholly in them; that thy progress may be manifest to‡ all. Take heed to thyself and the teaching; continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt save thyself and those that hear thee" (vers. 11-16).

* "In spirit" stands in the Text. Rec., but against the best MSS. and all the ancient Vv.

† The Sinaitic has some slight support against all the rest in the strange blunder of "the elder."

‡ The Text. Rec. adds "in" as in the margin of the Authorized Version. But "to" is the true reading. Did the Authorized Version owe it to the Vulgate?

Here we have plain personal precepts for Timothy. Absence of assumption gives more, not less, weight to a solemn charge or a faithful teaching; and there was the more need for admonition as he was young, though any who despised him on that account was inexcusable. But it was a serious reason for Timothy himself to cultivate such speech and manner of life, such love and faith and purity as ought to disarm even the naturally froward with whom he might have to do among the believers.

The adjoining terms give conclusive proof that the "reading" was not personal study but rather the public recitation of scripture for general instruction, since the "exhortation" and the "teaching" must refer to others; the importance of his own walk had been carefully insisted on just before.

Hence, immediately after, he is reminded of that gift of grace which was imparted to him, the ground of his ministry: for no practical grace, however momentous morally and for God's glory, entitles a soul to go forward in Christ's service without such a gift. It was, as we are told afterwards (2 Tim. 1: 6), through the laying on of Paul's hands that the gift was in Timothy; but none the less were the elderhood associated with the apostle in the imposition of hands. They were its comely witnesses and his honoured associates, though only to apostolic power under the Lord was the gift really due. And this is not more fully borne out by the facts and the language elsewhere than by the nice distinction of the prepositions in the account given in the two Epistles to Timothy. So little are they to be heard who assume either vagueness in a style strikingly precise, or a love of mere variety without intentional distinction in phrases more exquisitely correct than in any work of any classic of antiquity, however accurate. Here only, in inspired writ, can we be sure of the exact expression of the truth without affectation of any kind.

The connection of "prophecy" as well as of the "laying on of hands" is well illustrated by Acts 13: 2, 3, where the Spirit designated Barnabas and Saul for the special mission to which they were separated; and their fellow-labourers thereon laid their hands on both, conjointly commending them to the grace of God for the work they were about to undertake among the Gentiles. There is, however, this marked difference among others, that none of those who then laid hands on these already blessed servants of the Lord pretended to confer a gift on either. It was simply fellowship in commending men superior in position and power to themselves; and it seems certainly to have been repeated with Paul and Silas in Acts 15: 40, as perhaps often. In Timothy's case,* through the apostle was given a gift which he must not neglect. Use of means that the gift be turned to the best account is of moment; but the gift from the Lord for ministerial work must be there as a foundation. "Bestow care on these things; be wholly in them that thy progress may be manifest to all." Diligent following up is called for, without distraction from other objects. Thus only is there growth and advance, which all fair men cannot fail to see.

* Bengel is utterly wrong in construing "prophecy" with the elderhood, and in including Paul in that elderhood.

But there is another caution of prime value, which if attended to entails rich blessing: "Take heed to thyself and the teaching," and do so in this order. Vigilant and holy self-restraint is needed by no man so much as a teacher of the truth; for nothing corrupts one to the Lord's dishonour and the stumbling of souls more than a careless behaviour combined with the highest doctrine. A consciously low walk ever tends to drag down the testimony in order to seem consistent; as the maintenance of the highest truth without a corresponding walk directly leads into hypocrisy. In doing aright in both, "thou shalt save both thyself and those that hear thee," says the apostle. Salvation often as here means safeguarding all through this life.

1 Timothy 5

Having thus generally exhorted Timothy as to his own walk and work, reminded him of the gift conferred, urged on him practical piety and devotedness, and lifted him above all fear from his youth, the apostle goes into full details for his guidance in maintaining order among the saints so favoured of God.

"Reprimand not an elder, but exhort [him] as a father, younger men as brethren, elder women as mothers, younger women as sisters in all purity. Honour widows that are widows indeed; but if any widow hath children or descendants, let them learn first to show piety toward their own house and render requital to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and left desolate, hath set her hope on God and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that devoteth herself to pleasure is dead while living. And these things charge, that they may be irreproachable. But if one doth not provide (neglecteth providing) for his own and especially his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (vers. 1-8).

It is not the official elder who is here in view but any brother advanced in years. Of course the exhortation would apply if possible more to an elder in the official sense. But Timothy was not to speak harshly to an elder generally; he was rather to exhort him as a father. We can all feel how much is implied in this injunction; had we to reproach a parent about any fault, how much reverence would be due! What tenderness in touching that which we might rightly condemn! The humility of grace and respect alone would become us. Indeed love was to characterize his bearing toward younger men also. As brethren, Paul would have him to regard them, and elder women as mothers. Younger women he was to view as sisters in all purity: such is the especial guard in the latter case.

This is practical Christianity in a servant of God, dear to the apostle; and particularly as Timothy was called to act when things were decaying. Order was not the less necessary because it was apt to be forgotten; the nearness of relationship into which the saints are brought by grace exposes to peculiar danger. Nothing is more opposed to Christ than an official position without the need of the full flow of love; so that speech as weld as conduct should be always in grace seasoned with salt. And it was the more necessary in a comparatively young man. If no one was to despise his youth, Timothy was called to give no occasion of stumbling in anything. To this rule the apostle himself submitted that his ministry might not be blamed: "in everything," says he, "commending ourselves as ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, in pureness, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left; by glory and dishonour, by evil report and good report; as deceivers and true; as unknown and well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and possessing all things" (2 Cor. 6: 4-10). Never did the apostle exact so much as, if we may so say, from himself. In dealing with Timothy, Paul is the best example of what he enjoins on Timothy toward others.

Next comes the important case of those who had lost their husbands, and the more so as women were in the old world of that day: "Honour widows that are widows indeed." Such is the introductory exhortation, and therefore the word used, "honour", is expressly of the most general bearing. Some if not many might not need material proof of care; but due regard was to be paid to all that were really widows. By this he means that they lived in a way which marked their habitual sense of this loneliness and that they bowed to it as from God. The later ecclesiastical class may have been founded on such a passage as this; but no such thing really existed as yet so far as scripture informs us. The context makes plain the meaning of the real widow. She had no immediate relations to take care of her, and therefore was the more to be an object of honour; and if destitute, that honour would certainly imply support more or less according to her need. But it is a mistake to limit honour to such a provision, as many a real widow might have no such necessity. "Honour" here as elsewhere must be preserved in its own proper and broad meaning.

"But if any widow has children or descendants, let them learn first to show piety to their own house and render requital to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God" (ver. 4). Such a widow in distinction from those of verse 3 is commended to the immediate relatives, who must learn their duty if they did not know it. Singular to say, most of the ancient Fathers as well as some of the modern Germans, including Winer, understand the widows to be the persons thus to learn: so Chrysostom, Theodoret and others among the Greeks, Jerome, etc., among the Latins, and even Luther and Calvin of Reformation times. But the Syriac stands with others in the true view that it is the children or grandchildren who are called to learn, as best agreeing with the context, besides being of intrinsic soundness morally. Affectionate and pious respect was due from the younger to the widow of their family; and herein lay the strict sense of rendering requital. The church was never intended to swamp the family. Rather should the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ deepen the sense of every duty as well as enlarge the sphere of active love.

Among our English translators Wiclif of course is misled by the Vulgate: "But if any widow hath children of sones, learne she first to govern her hous . . .". Tyndale translated ἔκγονα "neves"; and so it is in the Protestant versions that followed down to the Authorized; which word at that day seems to have been used for grandsons or descendants generally, though now restricted to the issue of a brother or sister. It is no mistake in the common translation, therefore, but only an antiquated usage which seems best replaced by "descendants." The Rhemish Version, as usual, cleaves to the error of the Vulgate: "let her learn first to rule her own house . . ." The true sense we have seen to be the duty, not of the widow, but of her immediate kin in descent, though as usual the apostle puts it in the largest possible form. If the ἔκγονα or descendants were exhorted, it is not merely the χήμα or widow who is to be cared for, but οἱ πρόγονοι, the progenitors.

Only the Geneva Version among the English ones escaped the strange and general error of confounding piety or godliness with ruling one's own house; for which there is no real ground in the phrase or its context.

"Now she that is a widow indeed, and left desolate, hath set her hope on God and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day" (ver. 5). Such is the picture that the apostle draws of the widow who is commended to the church's honour. "But she that devoteth herself to pleasure is dead while living" (ver. 6). The inconsistency of the habitual life in the latter case was most offensive to the apostle's spirit, as it ought to be to all who feel what becomes the house of God in this world. We can never form a right judgment of becoming conduct if we do not bear in mind our relationship to God and the Lord Jesus. How unseemly to despise the chastening of His hand! Was a woman wholly to forget her desolation? Were she happy in the Lord (and this no chastening is intended to touch), the last thing she would indulge in is pleasure, Satan's sorry substitute in the world for happiness above it. Enjoyment of God and His Son not only makes us realize the more the bitterness of a ruined world and of all genuine sorrow in it; but it lifts the heart clean out of it to the things above where Christ sits at the right hand of God. It was therefore of great moment to command these things that the saints concerned might be without reproach.

"But if one neglect providing for his own, and especially his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." Even nature teaches the contrary. What can be more distressing than, with the possession or even the profession of Christian privileges, to fall short of ordinary righteousness or of family affection? To neglect care for one's relatives and especially for those that compose the household is in the apostle's energetic language to have denied the faith and to be worse than an unbeliever. Unfeeling selfishness is a denial of the faith; for what has not God given to us in His own Son? He who confesses such grace is bound to manifest fruit in accordance with the Christ in Whom he believes. If he refuses, how many heathen would put such a man or woman to shame! It is usually an effort to lay one's own burden on others without any adequate reason, and contrary to the strongest dictates of not love only but propriety. Certainly God's church was never meant to be a club for the exercise of covetousness, but to be a school of divine love, and of righteousness unto holiness. And woe be to those who despise the importance of these injunctions, whether the motive be the lowest personal interest, or the pretension be that Christianity is so high as to exclude these natural relationships! Self, and not Christ, will be found at bottom to be the root of the latter as of the former. Only He gives scope and force to all scripture; whereas error may often hide itself behind one part of the word, which it misuses to deny another part. Faith welcomes and submits to it all. "By faith ye stand."

Next the apostle treats of special provision for a widow who had none bound to care for her. Grace is the life-breath of the saint and of the assembly; but the grace is in harmony, not conflict, with righteousness. There are circumstances and limits which cannot be neglected without loss to man and dishonour to God.

"Let a widow be enrolled not less than sixty years old, wife of one man, witnessed of in good* works, if she reared children, if she entertained strangers, if she washed saints' feet, if she relieved afflicted [persons], if she followed up every good* work. But younger widows refuse; for when they wax wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, having as accusation that they slighted their first faith. And withal they learn also [to be] idle, going about the houses; and not only idle but also tattlers and busy-bodies, speaking things that are not fitting. I will therefore that the younger marry, bear children, rule the house, give none occasion to the adversary for railing; for already have some been turned aside after Satan. If any believing [man or woman] hath widows, let [such an one] relieve them, and let not the assembly be burdened, that it may relieve those that are really widows" (vers. 9-16).

* Those two words are not the same. The first means good in the sense of comely, fair, honourable; the second answers to good in the shape of benevolent acts.

Here is much more a widow in a privileged if not official position. But there is no indication of a diaconal class, the age being adverse to any great activity of personal duties of the kind; nor yet of a presbyteral sort, though the least limit of sixty years might be claimed in its support. But there is a total absence in the context of any such functions, whatever scholars may argue from Fathers, Greek or Latin, in order to confirm the idea that female superintendents are in question. The apostle appears simply to contemplate such widows as the assembly is bound to put on the list of its care and bounty; and hence he speaks of past life and ways, not of future duties less or greater.

There is therefore a certain gradation in those described: 1st., widows in general; 2nd., widows really; 3rd., widows on the list of the assembly's special recognition. But no trace appears of an organized, still less, ordained, class of widows, known as this is to have existed afterwards. There is first an age sufficiently advanced for the list, irrespective of any disabling malady which might commend the youngest person if destitute to gracious consideration. Next, it is required that she have been wife of one husband. With this may be compared Luke 2: 36, 37, though it has no direct bearing on 1 Tim. 3: 2, which consequently derives no illustration from it. Then her general character in respect of reputable works is insisted on. Rearing of children (not necessarily her own) is not forgotten; as well as the exercise of hospitality to strangers. Even this alone would not bear the Christian stamp; and the apostle adds that lowly act, so consecrated to deeper meaning by our Lord Himself in John 13 — washing saints' feet; which would be sure to receive an immense impulse from that blessed example, though alas! turned to vanity or a sectarian badge in days of degeneracy. Relief to distressed people in any form follows, and general diligence in whatever called for active benevolence. Widows known so to have lived were to be remembered especially by the assembly, without a word of investing them with ecclesiastical functions for the future. When cared for, they would not assuredly cease to care for others: godly and gracious habits do not so change; and the assembly was not to neglect but honour widows of such a sort.

Younger widows on the contrary Timothy was directed to decline — certainly for the list of which we have just heard, like older ones suitable otherwise; and perhaps even more generally. The apostle adds a reason which would not fail to act on the sensitive spirit of the labourer he is addressing. It is of deep value to see how Christ, and not moral or prudential or personal considerations, weighs in the apostle's mind. So should it be with us. The young widows are judged according to their relationship to Christ. They of all perhaps might have been expected from their personal experience of sorrow to feel that the time is straitened, and that the fashion of this world passes (1 Cor. 7: 29-31). But they lose sight of Christ and His dealings with them and look out for themselves. Instead of seeking to please Him, they wax wanton against Him, and cannot rest without a return to that estate which had just closed for them. Nothing of vows of or office appears here, but what became a younger widow looking for Christ, as all saints are called to wait for Him.

Failure in faith entails serious consequences on those that bear the Lord's name. Others may be restrained more by character, value for social opinion, or other motives inferior though common in the world. But professing Christians, when they take a true position and swerve from it, fall lower than others; and none so much as those who pique themselves on their fidelity. Faith alone keeps up lowly dependence on the Lord. Those of whom the apostle treats, having cast off their freshness of faith, slip lower and lower. "And withal they learn to be idle, going about the houses," i.e. known as of the saints generally; "and not only idle but also tattlers and busybodies, speaking things not fitting." It is severe, but how true! Was it not called for and wholesome? How often from what seems a little departure great evil ensues? To believe the word of God is to be warned and kept by grace.

Just as in 1 Cor. 7 while the apostle tells us what his judgment is, he lays not down all in the way of commandment (vers. 25, 40). So here, "I will that the younger marry, bear children, rule the house, give no occasion to the adversary for railing: for already some have turned aside after Satan." This was most painful to one that loved the assembly. "She is free to be married to whom she will — only in the Lord" (1 Cor. 7: 30).

It seems singular that the English Versions since Tyndale should, after "younger", have supplied "women"; for widows only are meant as Wiclif properly rendered. The Rhemish seems exact by expressing neither; but the Greek form precludes the necessity of adding females, and the context is decisive that the apostle speaks of none but those who had lost their husbands.

How different from scripture is the enforced celibacy of nuns, not to speak of monks and priests also! To what moral enormities, as well as wretchedness, this daring encroachment on God's prerogative has given rise for ages! Yet no doubt need be that it grew out of a desire for thorough devotedness. The due limits are laid down in Matt. 19: 11, 12 and in 1 Cor. 7 as well as here. The unmarried state has its advantages where grace gives the due inward condition, which would surely fit into suited external circumstances and issue in such a life and service as we see in the apostle himself. But this is not given to all, nor is it of man's will but of divine grace. Make it a law, and the grace is destroyed; and a speedy result of sin, shame, and misery proclaims the wisdom of God's ways and the folly of Christendom's. Presuming to do better, they have notoriously fallen not only into the violation of common morality, but into unspeakable turpitude, covered with the veil of hypocrisy, to the ruin of souls and the present worldly advantage of those whose unswerving instinct is doing evil that good may come, whose judgment is just.

The external authority for the shorter reading (ver. 16), πιστή ( A C F G P etc., with some ancient versions and Fathers) is so decided as to sway the chief modern critics, the Revisers, et al.; but the sense resulting is strange and unsatisfactory. Why should the support or relief of a young widow be cast on a believing woman peculiarly? Is this like the sobriety, the largeness, the wisdom, of scriptures. That a believing man or woman should be appealed to on the behalf of such a needy connection is very intelligible; and the text which exhibits this is given by D K L and most of the cursives, with some ancient versions and Fathers. The direction in verse 16 is in no way a mere repetition of the principles laid down in verses 4, 8. In the earlier case (4), if a widow had children or descendants, they were, before others could be rightly called on, to learn pious care for their family in requital of their parents; and this is enforced (8) as a duty of providing so plain that failure in it is denounced as a denial of the faith, and even worse than an unbeliever. Then after describing a widow that is entitled, not here to respect simply as in 5, nor yet to censure as in 6, but to be placed on the list of the assembly's support (as in vers. 9, 10), we are confronted with the delicate question, especially for such a one as Timothy, of younger widows, whose dangers are set forth, answered by the apostle's will about them. This is followed by the call on any believing man or woman connected with such that relief should be given to those that were truly widows. There is no question here of scandal, or of unfitness for official duties: indeed the latter is nowhere, save in men's imagination now or in fact at any time posterior to the apostolic age.

As we had elders in respect of years (proved by the contrast of youngers and of the two sexes) brought before us in the beginning of the chapter, we have here the apostle's injunctions as to official elders or presbyters.

"Let the elders that preside well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in word and teaching. For the scripture saith, An ox when treading out corn thou shalt not muzzle, and Worthy [is] the workman of his hire" (vers. 17, 18).

It is remarkable how much we may and ought to glean from these few words, decisive as they are of important differences among Christians, and not least of all since the Reformation. For the revival then lay more in shaking off the main hindrance in Christendom to free reading of the Bible, and in a measure to the recovery of the gospel, than in any real intelligence of the assembly or of ministry, or indeed of like matters. Men's notions got cleared of gross superstition, but church truth was the less learned, because it was assumed that there was little or nothing to learn; and so traditional error as to what is of such moment rests on the mass of Christians to this day.

The business of the elders was to rule or take the lead among the saints. They were responsible to see to godly order in public and private; and hence, as we saw in chapter iii., qualities were looked for which would give them moral weight, not only in cheering the weak and timid and tried, but in repressing the forward, and rebuking the disorderly. They are therefore quite distinct from the gifts, of which we hear so much in Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4, and elsewhere. Hence we must distinguish, as scripture does, a pastor from an elder. For as the latter is never enumerated among the fruits of Christ's ascension, the former is incontrovertibly treated as a gift of His love, no less than apostles, prophets, and evangelists, for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4: 12).

The two might be united, doubtless, in the same person. But eldership was a local charge, which needed the authority of an apostle, or an adequate person acting definitely under apostolic commission, to make the desired choice of fitting men. This is clearly shown in Acts 14: 23; where, we are told, that Paul and Barnabas chose or appointed elders for the disciples in each assembly. That the disciples chose elders, whom the apostles ordained, is a fiction, perhaps due to the wholly different case in Acts 6 of "the seven," whom the saints at large did select and the apostles appointed over the business of the "tables". The reason of this procedure seems plain. The saints, as they contributed of their goods, were left most wisely to look out from among themselves brethren so endowed as to inspire the confidence of all. But the "gifts" are given by Christ, not by the church, and therefore in this case He alone chooses; and, as authority also is from Him Who invested the apostles with power to act for Him on earth, we see them, directly or indirectly, choosing elders accordingly. Hence Titus was sent for the purpose of appointing elders in every city of Crete (Titus 1: 5). Never was the assembly told in scripture to choose such. Directions also are here given to Timothy only, not to the assembly in Ephesus. Authority and power are from above.

So we see both gifts and elders not only subsisting, but this together, in apostolic times. Thus in Acts 15: 2, 32 we hear of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and of Judas and Silas as chief men or guides among the brethren; but these are also described as "prophets," and so they exhorted freely at Antioch, and are never viewed as "elders". "Gift" is in the unity of the body of Christ, and might therefore be exercised as freely in one place as in another. An elder was a local charge, exercised in the particular assembly for which it was appointed; and this, it would seem, not singly but more than one in each church. The distinction will be found sustained everywhere in scripture, and rests on the difference of principle already explained, while both might be found harmoniously working together, as was seen in early days. Let us be subject to the word of God.

The practical bearing of all this is as immediate as it is important. Men have confounded the local charges with the gifts to the immense dishonour of the Lord and to the decided loss of all concerned. Again, economic desires have concurred with the democratic principle (now more rampant than ever) to swamp both gifts and elders by that singular invention, the minister of a church, instead of that which is exclusively found in scripture — a minister of the church. And godly souls are so little versed in the truth as to imagine that this upturning of all ecclesiastical truth and order, as far as this subject is concerned, is so unimpeachably sound that there is no sect at all where the like disorder does not reign: so ruinous is the force of tradition and habit against the confessed meaning of God's word.

It will be argued of course that we ought to have elders, though we have neither an apostle nor an apostolic commissioner to appoint them. But "scripture cannot be broken," as it must be if either an assembly, or a person without the due authority, usurp apostolic functions. It would be holier and humbler to own that we lack apostolic authority as a living reality; and that therefore, though there are no doubt very many among the believers possessed of the qualities required in an elder, it would be more seemly to search the scriptures whether divine principle does not provide for godly order without our assuming what is beyond our power and title. There were many assemblies of old which had not enjoyed the intervention of an apostle to this end and which had no apostolic vicar sent to do this work. Yet the great apostle himself exhorts the saints to own and honour those who laboured and were over them in the Lord, even though they had no official status as elders (1 Thess. 5: 12).

So to the saints in Rome (where, it would seem, apostles went to be prisoners or to die) these are the words: "Having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, [let us occupy ourselves] in ministry; or he that teacheth, in teaching; or he that exhorteth, in exhortation; he that giveth, in simplicity; he that presideth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness" (Rom. 12: 6-8). Now here it is expressly a question of gifts direct from the Lord, Who gave and still gives what is needful — yea, far more than is barely needed — for His saints; still though there is no trace of a charge, we find rule as well as teaching and other ministry in their midst. Neither order nor doctrine therefore need fail for want of elders. Base is the spirit that despised an elder. The service was a great boon, and so was most thankfully received and owned and honoured when given. But where they were not and could not be, was it faith to say "we must have elders"? How much better to have used such things as they had, praising Him Who, whatever the lack or the weakness, never fails in His faithful love, but is the same yesterday and today, and for ever!

Similar is the lesson of 1 Cor. 16: 15, 16: "Now I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they set themselves to the saints for ministry), that ye also be subject to such and to every one that joineth in the work and laboureth." It is the same principle; for though the apostle had been in Corinth it was but a youthful assembly, and of elders we have not a word, while of gifts a great deal. But did means even there fail, however ill the use they had made of what they had? Let others judge what the apostle here enjoins — of all moment for us today.

Gal. 6: 6 proves that the duty of the saints towards one "that teacheth" is not dependent on elders. Of Eph. 4: 11, 12 enough has been said for our present purpose; and Phil. 1: 1 compared with verses 14-17 suffices to show that the fullest order consists with the freest preaching, and that the apostle's joy is triumphant even where motives were sadly mixed. Col. 2: 19 is not silent on the joints and bands that knit together the body and so contribute to growth. It is in 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13 that we find luminous and full instruction on this head; where two things are equally plain, that these saints, but lately converted, had not elders yet that they had simple and sufficient means in God's grace for their orderly walk together. More might be added; but this is surely enough. There were circumstances in apostolically owned and founded assemblies where elders were not; and this affords comfort and instruction in times when they cannot be in the due manner. But the written word prescribes amply for all times. Only a single eye is needed to ensure the light of God.

Where elders exist, those that preside well were to be deemed worthy of double honour. For honour was due to an elder as such, double honour if he did his work well. There is no comparison with any preceding class. And "honour" means what it says; though it would be strange honour that could neglect their wants. But there is especial value, beyond that double honour, due to those that labour in word and doctrine. This also is notable and instructive. Ruling was the aim of their institution; but if they laboured in word and teaching, it had peculiar price in the apostle's eyes. All did not so labour. They were not "teachers," though aptness to teach was sought in one eligible for the office. The Presbyterian system may be far from a resemblance; but others surely are more distant still; while in all sects the minister is in contrast with the facts of scripture.

But to make "double maintenance"* out of the text is as mistaken as to deduce from it two classes of elders — lay elders that shared the government without maintenance, and clerical or ministerial elders that taught publicly as well as privately. The truth conveyed is opposed to both of these contending schemes, as divine truth never can really mix with any polity of human origin. But false interpretation begets and fosters pseudo-criticism. Thus even so ripe a scholar and able a reasoner as Bp. Bilson,† under the influence of a foregone conclusion, would resolve the participles with the article in verse 17, like the participle without it in verse 18, as if they were alike conditional. "Presbyters if they rule well are worthy of double honour, specially if they labour in the word:" or, "Presbyters for ruling well are worthy of double honour, specially for labouring in the word." To bear such a sense the construction ought to have been anarthrous: with the article as it stands in each clause, it is a described or defined case, and not a conditional one, and the true force is given in the Authorized Version as well as the Revised. To take those "labouring," in the sense of travelling from place to place to visit the churches is not only without the least foundation but opposed to the clearly revealed fact that the elders were, as such, local charges, and had no title from their office save to rule or preside in the assembly in which they were appointed.

* There are cases where τιμή means price (as Matt. 27: 6, 9; Acts 4: 34 Acts 5: 2, 3, Acts 7: 16, Acts 19: 19, 1 Cor. 6: 20; 1 Cor. 7: 23); but these are all in the New Testament. Extend it to "maintenance" in 1 Tim. 6: 1 or to the verb in v. 3, and see what would result. "Double maintenance" or "price" here would be a heathen, not a Christian, idea.

† The Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, ed. Eden, Oxford, 1842, pp. 9, 191.

The true meaning then of the apostolic injunction is that the elders that preside well should be counted worthy of double honour — honour in their office, honour because it was excellently filled, with especial distinction for those of the elders that labour in word and teaching: which clearly all might not do and some could not equally do. For presiding is a delicate and difficult task, demanding tact and moral courage more than public exposition or the like, and assiduous perseverance, in the face of frequent discouragement and trial as well as opposition, calls for such "labour," rather than moving from place to place like an apostle, prophet, or evangelist, from all which eldership is wholly distinct. "Honour" is the right version and sense, not "maintenance" or "price" though, as we have seen, it often means so elsewhere. But here such a force is only tolerable in eyes rendered dim by the mist of evil influence and habits in Christendom. "Honour" however, as the true and larger word, would imply this where support was needed, as is suggested by the quotations that follow in verse 15.

In every case then, whether they were needy or above need, those that rule well are to be held worthy of double honour. For such an elder if wealthy or with competent means, would it be truly honouring him to give him a salary or even money? He who wrote now to Timothy impressed the very reverse in the strongest way from his own example on the elders of the assembly in Ephesus assembled at Miletus (Acts 20: 33-35). But here it was important to indicate that an elder who rules well is to be deemed worthy of such honour as would neither let him want nor turn him aside from his absorbing work to provide the bread that perishes. Such men ought no more to be forgotten than the evangelists (1 Cor. 9), though the latter may labour "without," the former "within." Indeed the same scripture (Deut. 25: 4) is cited, though it be from the less to the greater in both cases, a remarkable witness to the depth of God's word below the surface. In the citation there is a difference in the order, as well as in the word for "muzzle," κημόω [B D F G] in 1 Cor. 9: 4 being the more technical, φιμόω in 1 Tim. 5: 18 the more general, but both meaning the same thing.

There is a second scripture cited which calls for more notice as presenting matter of peculiar interest, arising possibly from its cast. The workman [is] worthy of his "hire," or "wages," may be proverbial; but the apostle quotes the phrase expressly as "the scripture." Whence did he draw it? From the Gospel of Luke (Luke 10: 7); for so it stands there to the letter, not in Matt. 10: 10 where the Lord declares the workman worthy "of his food."* Surely this is the more instructive (not to speak of its bearing on the date of our Epistle as necessarily subsequent to Luke's Gospel), as it is a decisive instance of an apostle's quoting from another inspired man as "scripture." So Peter in his Second Epistle (2 Peter 3: 15, 16) speaks of "our beloved brother Paul's" epistles as part of "the scriptures." It is unwarrantable to contradict Theodoret and Theophylact, who say that one citation is from the Old Testament and the other from the New. Everywhere else no doubt the two apostles speak of the Old Testament as scripture; but each of them as here predicates scripture of the New at least once, which is as authoritative as if said a dozen times. It was uncalled for save here; but here it is of all importance, let Wieseler, Baur, or others, reason as they may. It is put, not as only explanatory of the first, but as an added and distinct quotation.

* Dr. Bloomfield (Rec. Syn. viii. 269) is therefore short of the truth in referring to Matt. 10; the elder Rosenmüller errs in saying that Paul added it de suo; and Heinrichs wanders still farther.

It is not only, however, a question of paying honour to the presbyters that take the lead well. They were exposed in the duties of their office to frequent misunderstanding and detraction. Those whom an elder had to rebuke for a fault, might, and, if unbroken, would resent it; and the ill-feeling would, if unjudged, betray itself in evil speaking. Others again, if arrested in their unruly and factious ways, would, if not brought to repentance, cherish a hard and bitter spirit against such as warned of and put a stop to their mischief. These or the like admonitions might at length issue in positive charges against one or another in local charge who had given umbrage in his duty, or perhaps acted imprudently. Timothy, who was not a mere elder but in a peculiar position of superior authority, doing in his measure apostolic work, was liable and likely to hear damaging reports, and he is therefore cautioned by the apostle. For we are, or should be, not ignorant of Satan's devices.

"Against an elder receive not an accusation except at [the mouth of]* two or three witnesses" (ver. 19). The principle of the law for extreme cases righteously applies to what is analogous not only in things but as to persons also. None so open to the assaults of the disaffected; and therefore divine wisdom checks the tendency to entertain such charges unless gravely supported: else oversight would become a dreaded work to exercise, instead of a good work to which a grave brother might aspire. One cannot therefore agree with Chrysostom, et al. that it is a question here of age as at the beginning of the chapter, but of an office which called for a guard not so requisite ordinarily. Scripture gives no countenance to the democratic self-importance which loves to reduce all to the same dead level. There are differences in administration, which are not only recognized of God but carefully provided for in their moral consequences, as we see here and elsewhere. A Christian like an Israelite might be charged by a single witness, though confirmation was needed to convict him with a serious result. An elder could not even have a charge preferred against him rightly, save on the testimony of two or more. Righteousness takes the circumstances into account, and not souls merely; and Timothy must respect the authority of others whose fidelity might imperil them, if he would not undermine what the Lord had set up, not only in his own place, but in all that are set to discharge variously the duties of preserving the truth, godliness, and order.

* The earlier English Versions had "under," probably influenced by the Vulgate. The Pesh. Syriac seems nearer the mark. "Before," as Winer prefers, suits magistrates better than witnesses with whom the accused were confronted. This however is the textual rendering of the Authorized Version, with "under" in their margin, as in Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and those of Geneva and Rheims, which is at least better. For the point pressed is not "before," or "in presence of" witnesses, though Dean Alford says it is literally, which would be ἐνώπιον, ἔμπροσθεν, or ἀπέναντι according to the shade or emphasis required, and hence not "confronted with" as Mr. T. S. Green has it, but at the consenting testimony of two or three. In Heb. 10: 28, it is the dative (not genitive as here), and hence with a slight increase of forge, where again the older English Vv. give "under" save Wiclif who has "bi". The sense is that the despising transgressor died without mercy, but on the testimony of two or three. Were it judges, dicasts, or the like (as in 1 Cor. 6: 1), ἐπί might well bear the sense of "in presence of," but hardly with "witnesses." "To" Titus well gives the sense in 2 Cor. 7: 14. [N.B. — "Dicasts" were Greek officials of the law.]

"*Those that sin rebuke [or rather, convict] before all that the rest also may have fear. I testify [or charge thee] before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels that thou keep these things apart from prejudice, doing nothing according to partiality" (vers. 20, 21). The first of these has nothing specially to do with the elders, but breaks into the larger field of the saints in general. And as the apostle, while sustaining the elders in a work which must provoke the injurious tongues of the unruly, was far from sheltering an elder when impeached on adequate testimony, so here he insists that there should be no sparing those that are guilty of persistent wrong-doing. To limit the range of τὸυς αμαρτανοντας (ver. 20) as if it meant only "the sinning" presbyters naturally leads to think of "the rest" of that class to the loss of a solemn injunction in no way restricted, as "before all" ought to demonstrate. It would seem that the conjunctive δέ was inserted chiefly by Western influence under the prejudice that the passage as a whole has that narrow, instead of the general, reference with which last its absence from the best and most authorities falls in. The Authorized Version like the other Protestant English versions weakens the effect by omitting the verb "have," which adds to the permanence of the fear produced. We can understand the better then how solemnly the apostle adjures his young fellow-labourer in a task so serious and demanding such moral courage, especially from a tender gentle spirit, not to speak of his youth, which had danger for himself as well as from others already pointed out (1 Tim. 4: 12).

* Lachmann and Alford insert in brackets δέ "But," with A D, some Latin copies, Gothic, or al.: but all other MSS and Vv. reject.

But the sense of God before his soul, with Whose presence he binds up "Christ Jesus," would give firmness and decision, and keep love and obedience indissoluble and active, in contrast with the moral laxity which usurps the name of that holy affection, though as far from it really as God is from fallen man whose evil will is allowed. There is but one article in the first part of the apostle's ground of appeal, not because it is one person, as Gr. Sharpe hastily supposed, but to mark their entire association, which could not be unless they stood on the same level of divine nature and glory. The one article τοῦ simply identifies the two persons in a common object, as the τῶν following marks off the "elect angels," however exalted, as having no title to be so identified. Christ Jesus could be and is put with God as on the same ground: not so the elect angels, though introduced connectedly, yet apart, as witnessing now, not merely in the future scene of glory. Compare 1 Cor. 11: 10. Reference to any angels save those that kept their own first or original estate would be here altogether incongruous.

It may be well to notice also that the Authorized Version seems to lose the distinction between προκρίματος and πρόσκλισιν, words, as far as the New Testament is concerned, only found here. For the former refers naturally to "prejudice" which condemns a case before hearing or duly hearing it; as the latter expresses an undue inclination or "favour" for one side, even if one should hear both. Timothy is admonished by the most sacred associations to watch against any bias either way. Now "preferring one before another" is partiality; whereas "prejudice" (the marginal alternative of the Authorized Version, not "preference" as in the Revised Version's margin) is the true counterpart.

We now come to an exhortation which, I doubt not, has been pressed improperly into the interpretation of verse 20, from which it is quite distinct, so as to bind all these verses into an intimately connected whole. We have seen reason to infer that this is an error, and that verse 20 bears generally on offenders, instead of being confined to sinning elders, though there is no sufficient ground to exclude both 19 and 20 from the charge in 21. But verse 22 opens out a new thought, and there again the apostle would have his young colleague alert on the watch-tower: "Lay hands quickly on no one, neither be partaker in others' sins; keep thyself pure" (ver. 22). It has been assumed that the act of laying on hands here pertains to the instituting of elders. But this is a hasty thought; for even if it were the fact, which is very probable, that hands were laid on elders when chosen, it is certain that imposition of hands had a far larger connection, and that it was a sign of blessing conferred or of fellowship in commending to God's grace, when there was no question of the presbyterate. "The seven" (Acts 6) had apostolic hands laid on them, which gave dignity to a work easily apt to degenerate, though the apostles themselves till then did not disdain to fulfil it. Hence it is not improbable that a similar form of inauguration may have been when elders were appointed. But scripture has carefully veiled it, if it were so; and, it is but a little venture to say, most wisely; for its omissions are never without design, any more than its insertions, or the manner of them. May it not have been on the same principle that Mary's interposition (John 2: 3) was not encouraged, and that Peter's word to our Lord (Matt. 16: 23) after a high commendation of his confession of Himself, drew out the sternest rebuke ever by Him administered to a disciple? Was it not foreseen that a superstitious meaning would, in process of time, be assigned to the act, against which scripture raises its silent protest if people only knew how to profit by the omission?

In not a single instance are hands said to be laid on presbyters. Hands were laid on Timothy, and even the elders joined in doing so, when the apostle conveyed the gift of God that was given then. Hands were laid on Barnabas and the apostle himself when prophecy named them for a special mission, for which the Spirit separated and sent them forth among the nations (Acts 13: 3). But it is extreme and ignorant prejudice that could confound either of these very distinct cases where hands were imposed, with eldership, or even with what people call ordination. Assuredly Barnabas and Saul were already recognized as most honoured servants of the Lord. Compare Acts 9, 11, Gal. 1, for the one who, though greatest by far, was the younger in that work. This (and it is by no means all that might be adduced) is ample to prove that laying on of hands has in scripture a more extensive application than the very narrow one to which some have reduced the verse before us, even it if were without doubt applied to elders, which in scripture it undoubtedly never is.

The true deduction therefore is that the injunction has no special, if indeed any, link with elders, but was meant to warn Timothy against haste in all such acts. What has been drawn from scripture still more decidedly confutes Dr. Hammond's notion (revived of late by some at home and abroad) that the words refer to that act on the absolution of penitents and their re-admission to church-fellowship. Euseb. H. E. vii. 2, Concil. Nic. can. 8, Suicer's Thes. ii. 1576, Bingham's Ant. xviii. 2, 1, clearly indicate this as an early ecclesiastical custom; but that it has the smallest title to be scriptural remains to be proved. Huther, who is not often to be commended, is right in claiming for the reference the large extent of its usage in scripture, rashness in any part of it being a danger in proportion to its importance.

The full bearing of this first command gives perhaps the more significance to the words that follow, "neither be a partaker in others' sins; keep thyself pure." Haste in according that well-known sign of fellowship, even if not the conveyance of spiritual power as sometimes, might accredit fair-seeming men, ere long to develop into enemies of the cross of Christ. What a sorrow would not this occasion to so sensitive a heart as Timothy's! Especially then he would do well to bear in mind the danger of sharing their sins by haste on his part.

Then follows the closing appeal: "Keep thyself pure." Chastity to which Wiclif and the Rhemish Version confine this last word is but part of what the apostle impresses on Timothy. The purity required emphatically in himself would the better help to guard against looseness in sanctioning formally men who would make sad havoc of the flock of God or dishonour the Master by forsaking the work through love of the present age, if they did not fall into gross sins or bring in privily heresies of perdition.

That these exhortations are not so confined as has been supposed, but embrace godly and moral order, after speaking of elders in good and evil, seems plain from what follows in verse 23: "Be no longer a water-drinker, but use a little wine on account of thy stomach and thy frequent illnesses."* This appears to be a parenthetic statement of touching consideration for the scrupulous mind of Timothy, if he thought personal purity incompatible with what his weak bodily state demanded. How striking the juxtaposition! Nor was it a private letter, which would no doubt have corrected the mistaken and injurious asceticism of this young servant of the Lord, but have left others to suffer similarly from that day to this; and especially in this day of ours which popularly regards the revival of ancient Gnostic error, as if it were a course of special moral worth, yea, a weapon of divine temper to exalt man and win the world. But he is indeed a poor believer who could hesitate between all the opinions of medical men (were they agreed), and all the arguments of teetotal reformers on the one hand, against those few words of the apostle on the other. For they are but dust, God's own is an inspired word — that which can never decay. The provident care which thus anticipated and delivered from the snares of men in ancient or modern times is thus to be remarked with thankfulness. Alford's modification seems beneath grave notice and due to the error of regarding all this context as bearing on the prescription of Timothy's duties as to elders; whereas we have seen that it has far broader aims.

* Paley (Works, vol. v. 298, ed. vii.) remarks that in such an Epistle "nothing but reality, that is, the real valetudinary situation of a real person, could have suggested a thought of so domestic a nature. But if the peculiarity of the advice be observable, the place in which it stands is more so. . . . The direction to Timothy about his diet stands between two sentences as wide from the subject as possible. The train of thought seems to be broken to let it in. Now when does this happen? It happens when a man writes as he remembers; when he puts down an article that occurs the moment it occurs, lest he should afterwards forget it." It may be quite true that no forger of Paul's name writing in an after-day would have thought of such an intercalation, which, in its indifference to what men generally would account literary order, would surely have been avoided, especially in the dignified ideal of an apostolic letter to his vicar. But does not Paley's tone reveal a painfully human standard of regarding an inspired work? Were it only the correspondence of "a man," the comment would be unobjectionable, but what irreverence to talk of Paul's putting it down the moment it occurred lest he should afterwards forget it! Calvin however speaks with even greater laxity mentioning without a reproof that some suppose the sentence thus introduced was not written by Paul! and pleading his custom of intermingling a variety of things stated without arrangement! Besides, he dares to hint that a marginal note may have found its way into this passage through the mistake of transcribers! What! where not a single MS., uncial or cursive, not a single Version of east or west, not a single early ecclesiastical writer, Greek, Latin, or aught else, attests either an omission or an insertion in this passage? It is therefore demonstrably Paul's; or else we have absolutely no certainty for the genuineness of anything the apostle ever wrote.

Nor should we omit to notice the caution thrown in, whilst maintaining liberty as to every creature of God, and duty to use what is beneficial in weakness — "a little wine": why "a little" if it were no more calculated to excite than water? The nature of the wine is thus intimated, and the impropriety of indulging in excess guarded against.

From this measure of digression, dependent on the call to keep himself pure, the apostle resumes the more direct connection of not partaking in others' sins (ver. 22). "Of some men the sins are openly manifest, going before unto judgment, and some also they follow after; likewise also the good works are openly manifest, and those that are otherwise cannot be hid" (vers. 24, 25). A holy mind seeks not to occupy itself with the sins of others, save when duty calls for it imperatively. But there is no excuse for the carelessness which would expose one to be continually deceived. It was therefore of importance to lay down principles of divine wisdom to guide where mistake is easy and its consequences might be deplorable. If the sins of some men are notorious and point to that solemn judgment where there is no mercy to mitigate the just doom of those who despised it in their contempt of God's truth and grace, there are some also whose sins follow after; and this is surely no less dreadful in the reality if appearances be saved, the deception of which is apt to ensnare not others only but the guilty themselves, making the end still more bitter though most righteous. On the other hand a like difference is found in that which grace produces; for the works that are comely are openly manifest, and those that do not come thus at once into notice cannot be concealed any more than He could Who is their source (Mark 7: 36). That this flows out of and is connected with the warning given to Timothy against sharing another's sins, and especially in sanctioning unworthy workmen or discouraging such as might be vessels meet for the Master's use, is true. But to confine the instruction to the choice or rejection of candidates in the Lord's work seems to be the narrowness of man's mind and foreign to the studiously comprehensive terms of the apostle, in which he looks at things large and deep and far beyond.

Yet was it no mean man who thus commented: "Some there are who offer themselves to ordination, whose scandalous lives are known beforehand; and run, before their tender of themselves to this holy function, into just censure; others' offences are not known, till after they be ordained. Likewise also, on the contrary, the good works and holy carriage of some that put themselves to the holy calling are well known and approved beforehand; so as thou needest not scruple about laying thy hands upon them; and as for them that are otherwise, if thou do diligently enquire after their demeanour and conversation, they cannot be hid from thy notice; so as thou may refrain to admit them." So Bp. Hall (iv. 429, 430, ed. Pratt, 1808).

Yet such a limitation, through attaching verses 24, 25 strictly to the preceding context, reduces the thought immensely below the unforced bearing of the words, when seen to rise to the Lord's judgment by and by; while the latter, if allowed fully, would in no way hinder the profit which the true meaning affords for present use. The truth, when understood as the Holy Spirit presents it, is invariably better than man's thought however bright, or his tradition however prevalent; and Christ is the only way.

1 Timothy 6

From matters of ecclesiastical and moral order the transition is easy and becoming to the due feelings and conduct of slaves, a burning question for the house of God on earth where materials lay so abundant for mischief at the hands of men rash, heady, and unbroken. Some have yielded to their subjective notions bred in the unhealthy swamps of modern licence, and, with no appreciation of the apostle's gracious wisdom any more than of his stern disallowance of self-assertion, dare to question the inspired claim of the passage or even its genuine Pauline character. Suffice it to say that to the believer every word is as seasonable and wholesome in itself as the importance of the exhortation is plain for that time and any other. Nor is one without hope of sufficiently indicating its value as we weigh it clause by clause in its bearing for our day on souls who owe domestic service, where the pressure of bondage no longer exists.

"Let as many as are bondmen under yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and the teaching be not reviled. And those that have believing masters, let them not despise [them] because they are brethren, but the more let them serve, because they that partake of the good service are faithful and beloved. These things teach and exhort. If any one teach differently, and accede not to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is according to godliness (piety), he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questionings and word-disputes, out of which cometh envy, strife, revilings, evil suspicions, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness (piety) is gain" (vers. 1-5).

The law given by Moses had done much to mitigate slavery in Israel, and this not merely as to a Hebrew sold for debt or selling himself through poverty. A year of release came round speedily, after which his abiding servitude was quite voluntary, with a blessed Antitype in view familiar to the instructed Christian. The old and still prevailing British boast is but an echo of the command that a slave who escaped among them should not be delivered to his master but was free to live unoppressed and free, where he pleased in their midst (Deut. 23: 15, 16). This was not however in regard to his social position merely, but still more to his religious status. In this the law of Moses stands in contrast with other codes, yea, with selfish and haughty Christendom. For Jewish slaves were entitled among other privileges to circumcision, enjoyed expressly the Sabbatical rest — indisputably a boon to none more than to them, and had their place at the solemn assemblies of the year, joining in the feasts like others, and in the fruits of the sabbath of the land every seventh year, as well as in the universal joy and liberty of the jubilee. Still it is fully allowed that the law made nothing perfect, as everywhere else so here also; and that in view of Jewish or human hardheartedness not a little under the law was tolerated which was far from God's mind, till He came Who is the truth in grace. Christ changed all, and the bondman became His freedman, as the freeman rejoices and is honoured in being His bondman. There can now be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, no male and female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus. Circumcision or uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian: what matters one or other now? Christ is all things and in all. All is grounded on His death and resurrection Who, ascended into heaven, has formed an entirely new and heavenly relationship, of which the Holy Spirit actually come is the power.

Such is the Christian teaching, and no class seems to have reaped the blessing more bountifully in God's grace than the slaves who heard the gospel. Here we have most wholesome precepts to which Timothy was called to give heed, and this in view of false teachers, ever ready to abuse the truth for their lusts, as political leaders too have done from time to time in the world's history.

The first verse, as a maxim of the widest sphere, urges as many as were under yoke as bondmen to deem their own masters worthy of all honour. Some might cry up other masters, others might dislike or disparage their own: neither spirit is of faith or becomes the Christian; and a slave, if a Christian, is no less responsible than another to reflect and live Christ. It is no question what their own masters might be, Jew or heathen, vain or proud, immoral or self-righteous, mean, ambitious, or what not. If God's providence had cast their lot under the obligations of bondmen, they were responsible to Him for counting them worthy of all honour, not because they deserved this or that praise, but simply as being their own masters. The possession of eternal life, redemption, and glory in prospect, was meant as it is calculated to lift the heart into moral elevation; inasmuch as this can only be truly the case through the sense of sovereign grace on God's part to a guilty sinner, saved at the infinite cost of His blood Who has thus secured the blessing, and waiting for Him to come, one knew not how soon, to consummate his heavenly hope.

It is not often the Rhemish Version can justly lay claim to exactness, but here through adhering to the Vulgate it may. All the older English seem to me to have failed, as well as the Authorized Version, in not regarding "servants" or slaves as part of the predicate. And so I understand the Pesch. Syr., though somewhat vague, whilst the Philoxenian reflects the more ordinary view. This gives undue prominence to "being under yoke," whereas the true force is but complemental. It seems to be only a full description of all in bondage, not the peculiar case of some; and hence the general duty of all such fellows. How solemn for the inconsiderate and unwatchful Christian in such a position to remember that his failure toward his master causes God and His truth to be evil spoken of! To light minds their conscious knowledge might expose to a slighting of their own masters more or less destitute or even opposed. But doing the truth in all lowliness and honouring each his own master is the simple, true, and efficient way of bringing glory to God and the truth.

Next come the special circumstances of such as had believing masters. This privilege might seem to promise only comfort and blessing; and doubtless the difference of the atmosphere would be great. But every position has its snares and difficulties; and both masters and servants, if believers, would be as apt to expect a great deal mutually, as sometimes to be sorely disappointed. Hence the apostle guards with care the exception: "And let those that have faithful masters not despise them, because they are brethren, but the more serve, because those that partake of the benefit are faithful and beloved." It is needless to remark that the Rhemish with Wiclif is nearer the truth, not the other English translations which since Tyndale treat the last clause as part of the predicate

This beyond just controversy the article forbids, the force of which they overlooked. On the other hand Beza, Bengel, et al. are quite mistaken in the thought that the article with εὐεργεσίας points to God's beneficence in Christ, which would make here the poorest sense possible. The article is really by implication due, as often happens, to the previous phrase, μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν. Faith does exalt the lowly and humble the proud; but it does not misuse communion in the Spirit to equality in the flesh. Rather would it teach the believers because they know this or that, instead of despising their masters, to render the more service, because those that reap their good service are believing and beloved. And there was then, as now, urgent need to impress these lessons on souls, particularly on such as are in the subject-relationship. With these the apostle uniformly begins, when as in Ephesians and Colossians he exhorts both. A carnal acquaintance with the gospel readily falls in with the selfishness of the humbler class which shuts out Christ, and breeds socialism, the basest caricature in Christendom.

But it seems a strange division which severs that which follows from the foregoing, by taking "These things teach and exhort," either as the beginning of a new paragraph, like Green, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Webster and Wilkinson, Westcott and Hort, Bengel, Matthaei, or as the end of the previous one, like Ellicott and the Revised Version. It is better with Alford, Bloomfield, et al., to regard this as an unbroken context; and the more as the denunciatory warning which now commences stands in more evident contrariety to the exhortation just concluded. "If any one teach differently [or play the strange teacher] and accede not to sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questionings, and word-disputes, out of which cometh envy, strife, revilings, evil suspicions, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is gain" (vers. 3-5).

Thus plainly does the apostle prepare his younger colleague to watch against the strange teaching that would undermine the truth in these things, and substitute the proud and reckless will of man under fair pretences.

Some may think it strange that the apostle should speak so decidedly to Timothy; but let them weigh the moral judgment which this eminently sober servant of the Lord pronounces under the immediate power of the inspiring Spirit. None that fears God will tax him with undue severity; yet does he unqualifiedly condemn any man who taught a different teaching from what has been laid down. To undermine the relation of a servant to a master was heinous in his eyes, and not less so because fair pretexts and high-sounding professions were put forward. For the duty of subjection flows from the relation; and it is strengthened, not relaxed, by the faith of those concerned. In every case supposed those under yoke are assumed to be believers: else they would not fall under the apostle's scope. In the latter case those in authority are represented as believers. In no case is a disrespectful, still less a rebellious, spirit tolerated; but every approach to it is repudiated as dishonouring God and the truth.

Nor is this all. For to teach otherwise is not to accede* to sound words, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the teaching that is according to godliness. The Spirit of God descried socialistic principles impending, if not then at work, which drew out so sweeping and unsparing a rebuke. Can one conceive any censure more suited to check and destroy such a tendency? Who that knows what it is to be a sinner, owing every mercy to grace in Christ, would dare to persevere in a line of direct antagonism to His words Who is the Lord of all and the ordained Judge of quick and dead? Who so satisfied with his own theories and pleadings as to despise the apostolic declaration that his doctrine was incompatible with that which is according to godliness? There is such a thing as, after knowing the way of righteousness, turning back from the holy commandment delivered to us. No true-hearted saint would trifle with so awful an admonition from such a quarter. He who would persist in trusting his own heart, spite of it, must reap the bitter fruit in the ruin not only of his testimony but of his soul; for God is not mocked, if man deceives himself. Corrupt teaching is of the enemy, and, if unjudged in the light that grace gives to expose it, cannot but issue in the worst results, especially for such as teach error where Christ is named, and consequently all are responsible to set forth Him Who is the Truth.

* Bentley's conjecture is singularly confirmed by the Sinai MS. which reads προσέχεται (with an itacism). Still there is no sufficient reason to abandon the common text supported by all other authorities.

Here too there is no excuse on the score of abstruse thought or of delicate shades of expression. It is a question of fundamental morality, or, as the apostle puts it, "the teaching that is according to godliness." How blessed for us that Christ covers all truth, the highest and the humblest alike, our heavenly privileges and our most commonplace responsibilities! Nor is anything more perilous than the vaunting spirit that treats these ordinary proprieties of every day as of no moment, in its one-sided zeal for union with Christ on high or the special glories of the Spirit's ministration. It is clear that our apostle gives no quarter to such shortsightedness; and the less where it is arrogant and vituperative as it is rash and shallow. He is himself the best example of a teaching which rests on foundations morally broad and deep, on which alone can be safely built that which melts into the light and glory of God's presence.

Hear how the apostle lashes the offender: "He is puffed up, knowing nothing, but sick about questionings and word-disputes." Is it not a faithful likeness of mind at work without conscience or heart, where Christ is only made the means of exalting the church, instead of the church subserving His glory?

We are sanctified by the, not by a, truth; but human one-sidedness (which ever boasts of its measure as being all that is worth hearing, and so much the more, the narrower it is) is but the knowledge that puffs up. Think of Paul or even Timothy glorying in their friends as the men of intelligence in contrast with Peter or Apollos and with those who appreciated either! No; they left such vain comparisons to the carnal Corinthians. Love builds up. This was the apostle's aim even in his withering exposure of the true character of this empty inflated teaching, which availed itself of the richest grace and highest truth to set aside the plain duties of every day in human relationships. And a great mercy it is, when simple souls who understand little else take their stand on the Christ they know, rejecting the sacrifice of common morals, whatever the showy pretensions which accompany or even extenuate such laxity. Their conscience, not yet depraved, assures them that it cannot be of God to treat grave sin lightly, while cultivating extreme zeal for ecclesiastical pretension or yielding to excessive pre-occupation with our peculiar and heavenly privileges. Partial views are but "knowledge," apt to minister directly to the egotism that cherishes only those who hold with self exclusively, to the disparagement, not only of saints less informed, but of those who, better taught and subject to Christ, cleave to the truth unreservedly.

With self-judgment are we best kept both in the sense of our littleness and in love to all the saints, instead of being puffed up in self-complacency and contempt of brethren generally. It is the budding of Gnosticism which is thus nipped by the apostle in more than one passage of the Epistle, though the evil afterwards assumed a far more subtle and malignant shape. But, whatever its form, it is the inevitable enemy that dogs the steps of the truth, ever claiming the highest value for its own chosen line, but none the less betraying its alien source and nature, not only by its pride and party-working, but by its palpable neglect of the teaching that is according to piety. This the truth promotes because it is the revelation of Christ to the soul, and in Him Who fills all things we learn practically as well as dogmatically that, as there is nothing too great for us who are by grace made one with Him, so there is nothing too small for God Who went down to the dust of death in the person of His Son. The most despicable position on earth through the grace of Christ becomes the fairest field for magnifying Him in our body, whether by life or by death.

And equally sorrowful is the fruit: "whereof (out of which) cometh envy, strife, revilings (or blasphemies), wicked (evil) suspicions, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness (piety) is gain." They are the unmistakable works of the flesh excited by the hopes of turning piety to a selfish account. Far different is it when faith is at work through love! There the fruit of the Spirit cannot be hid in love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance (Gal. 5: 22, 23); for Christ is the object, not self veiled under deceptive appearances, which on that account is only the more loathsome to God, and which therefore breaks out ere long into confusion and every evil work.

The last clause of verse 5 in the common text and the Authorized Version is rejected by all critics as destitute of adequate authority, though the Syrr. et al., favour the insertion. It seems to correspond with the last clause of 2 Tim. 3: 5, which is unquestionably genuine, though not in exactly the same terms. Here the exhortation is out of place: for it is only the hypothetic case of some one guilty of insinuating the false principles in question; whereas in the Second Epistle it is an evil state that is positively predicated with directions how to act then. Further, the insertion in this First Epistle interrupts the connection of the apostle's words, as any one can see in the context before us.

The selfish evil of making piety a means of gain has been fully exposed. It is really to turn Christ's name to the account of present and worldly interests; it is an abuse of grace, an abandonment of truth, save in profession, and also a taking forethought for the flesh in order to satisfy its lusts; it is as alien as can be conceived from all that the Holy Spirit is now working on earth to the glory of God the Father.

"But piety with contentment is," says the apostle with emphasis, "great gain. For we have brought nothing into the world; because neither can we carry anything out. But having food and covering we shall be therewith satisfied" (vers. 6-8).

Piety as a cloak of covetousness, piety paraded in order to rise in the earth and acquire wealth, is a reversal of that which is everywhere in scripture shown to be a genuinely Christian expectation. When the Corinthians betrayed the desire thus to make the best of both worlds, the apostle reproved them in terms cuttingly ironical: "Already ye are filled full, already ye are rich, ye reign as kings without us; and I would indeed that ye did reign that we also might reign with you. For methinks God hath set forth us the apostles last as men sentenced to death; for we are made a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are in honour, but we are despised. Even to this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place, being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we entreat; we are become as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things unto this day" (1 Cor. 4: 8-13). This speech of his was in grace, but it was unmistakably seasoned with salt. He could not but blame, but it was in loving admonition that they might be sound in the faith and saved from ruinous practice flowing from false principle.

The true course is that which is urged later by the apostle in 1 Cor. 7: 29-31: "But this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is shortened; in order that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep as weeping not; and they that rejoice as rejoicing not, and they that buy as not possessing; and they that use this world as not using it to the full; for the fashion of this world passeth away." We are but pilgrims and strangers, passing through a world to which we no longer belong; we are of the Father, His gift to Christ, Whose witnesses we are now called to be, as we wait for His coming to be with Him and to share the glorious inheritance along with Him. It is His will to assign us our lot meanwhile; and piety would own with thankfulness His disposal of us, whether as a test of our subjection of heart or as a sphere of serving Him from day to day. For there is nothing right for our souls where He has not His place. It is not enough that there be "contentment." This alone would be but a heathen sentiment; as in fact not a few pagan authors have expressed it prettily, though (it is to be feared) it was rather what they could see to become man than what they really made good in their daily conversation. The Stoics who most affected such language were hard rather than happy men. Even had they succeeded in practice, how far short of Christ was their self-complacent contentment!

What is here declared to be a great means of gain is "piety" with contentment. This is a state wholly opposed to the pagan self-reliance which leaves out God and dependence on Him. "Piety" cherishes confidence in Him, and looks up to Him habitually, as to One Who does not and cannot fail in His gracious consideration of every need, difficulty, and danger, all being naked and laid bare to His eyes with Whom we have to do. With piety "contentment"* is the fruit of knowing His love and the assurance of His will as good, acceptable, and perfect. As the same apostle said to the Christian Hebrews, "Let your conversation (or conduct) be without love of money, satisfied with present circumstances, for Himself hath said, I will never leave thee, neither will I forsake thee: so that taking courage, we may say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not be afraid: what will man do with met;" (Heb. 13: 5, 6). It is the same principle at bottom; but here it is the harm for one's own spirit that the apostle warns against rather than the apprehension of mischief from others, which he would remove from the believers of the circumcision. Piety with contentment is great gain.

* The Peschito Syr. seems to take αὐταρκείας in the-objective sense of "our sufficiency," or the use of it, a sense no doubt possible, and as in 2 Cor. 9: 8 legitimate, but here inconsistent with the scope of this passage.

This he illustrates and enforces by the homely yet all the more impressive facts of man's beginning and end here below; which all can see, but on which only men of faith act: "For nothing have we brought into the world, because neither can we carry anything out" (ver. 7) This is urged with such characteristic brevity and compressed ruggedness that one need not wonder if words once brought in to explain have crept into the text of not a few manuscripts. These apparent interpolations differ. In one of the earliest (D. or the Clermont MS.) which contains an addition prevalent in the West, "[it is] true" appears; and so it substantially stands in the Vulgate, Gothic, et al. Among the Greek early writers as in several late uncials and the mass of cursives, "[it is] manifest" is the word ("known" in the Syr. being perhaps fairly equivalent). The oldest authorities do not allow καί or ἀλλά for ὅτι, but give as the text what is here translated; which turns man's entrance into the world with nothing into the solemn reminder that thus it will be at the close, so that the two-fold truth may bear on the believer throughout his course. Compare Job 1: 21, which is an anciently expressed sentiment, and as simple as sure. But piety with "contentment," alone makes its weight felt and forms the walk in accordance with the truth.

"But having food and covering we shall be therewith content (satisfied)" (ver. 8). The words translated food and covering are both in the plural which may indicate the variety in each case provided of God. The "covering" too is not limited to clothing, and should not be so translated, as it takes in dwelling as well. The future seems more forcible than the exhortatory tense, and better suits the passive voice. Little reliance can be placed even on the oldest and best MSS. which too often interchange the long with the short vowels, as in this case. The critics generally of late incline to the future.

Let the Christian reader study also the words of our Lord in Matt. 6: 19-34, and delight his soul in the incomparable fulness and dignity of that blessed discourse.

With the godly contentment of the Christian, the apostle next contrasts the restless, sorrowful, and perilous path of covetousness in its mildest form. It is a worldly lust to be judged and disallowed like any other.

"But those that desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and many unwise and hurtful lusts, such as sink men into destruction and perdition. For a root of all evil is the love of money, which some eagerly seeking were led astray from the faith and pierced themselves through with many pains" (vers. 9, 10).

As usual, under a plain and unostentatious exterior, the language of the apostle bears the witness and conveys the power of divine wisdom. It is not here the possession of wealth which stands in the soul's way. This the Lord had laid bare in the rich young ruler who went away sorrowful, because he valued his great wealth too highly to follow Christ at all cost. Moses suffered what the suffering and glorified Son of man never sanctions. The law made nothing perfect. The introduction of a better hope not only gives us to draw near to God instead of maintaining the old distance, but in Christ detects and judges the flesh and the world as enmity against God. Outward advantage becomes a spiritual obstacle. Man is evil; and God alone is good; and the cross becomes the door of salvation from a God to Whom all things are possible, if they that have riches enter with difficulty the kingdom of God. And all things are possible to him that believeth. For faith makes Christ all, which the young man did not: else he had not gone away with a fallen countenance from Him Who never fails to give peace to the most tried believer, and fills with joy the most forlorn.

Here it is the far more common class whose purpose it is to become rich. What does such a desire betray? Discontent with the calling in which one is called; distrust of God's will, goodness, and wisdom in His dealings with each; the same unbroken, unjudged thirst for the things after which the Gentiles seek. Does not our heavenly Father know what we have need of, and what He deems fitting for us? The word of our Lord is, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not dig through nor steal; for where thy treasure is, there will be also thy heart" (Matt. 6: 19-21). Child of God, where is thy treasure? Is it Christ in heaven? If so, happy art thou! If it is wealth or distinction, the Lord warns, There also will be thy heart. What can be more false and beguiling than the fond fancy that prevails among many in direct contradiction of Christ, that, while the life is absorbed in the struggle for riches, the heart is not there but is true to Him! It is not for want of solemn admonition that a Christian can thus stray. The character, the state, is proved in what we are set on and live for from day to day. "If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body will be bright." And if the whole body in one be found dark, is it not because the eye is evil? "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great the darkness!" (Matt. 6: 23). So the Lord detected the source and motive, and exposed the blindness that results.

The apostle here dwells briefly on the effects of such a purpose however veiled. They fall into temptation and a snare and many unwise and hurtful lusts, such as sink men into destruction and perdition. But oh! the unbelief of believers where an object other than Christ and opposed to His will and glory carries them away! It is not the riches themselves which are the worst danger, though thereby the path is made more difficult; but the lack of faith that counts them the Lord's, not our own, and that therefore seeks only to be faithful as a steward according to His mind and to be blessed in doing His will. It is our own will or purpose that is so often wrong and to be dreaded most.

To fall into temptation is quite different from being tempted. The fact of being tempted is trying; but blessed is he that endures temptation. The Lord Himself knows what sore temptations mean, none so much. For as God cannot be tempted by evil things, and Himself tempts no one, thus neither was the Second Man (however the first was at once to his own ruin and that of the race) unto God's dishonour. But Christ suffered whilst being tempted, instead of weakly yielding to present gratification and lying down afterwards in unavailing sorrow. Temptation in His case, however complete, was apart from sin; whereas Adam was drawn away and enticed by lust with all its bitter results. Christ had no sinful temptations within, as we have. He never fell, never entered into temptation, as He warns us to pray against. To "enter" is fatal, as we see in Peter's case, though through the Lord's intercession his faith did not fail absolutely, and, when turned back or restored, he was used to confirm his brethren.

"A snare"* goes yet farther than temptation, and supposes the deceived soul caught in the net of the enemy, whence only the grace and power of the Lord can extricate.

* Not a few MSS. (three of them uncials), versions, etc., add "of the devil:" but this is superfluous if not narrow, no doubt due to 1 Tim. 3: 7

Further, the desire of riches is not alone, but is also the parent of "many unwise and hurtful lusts." It feeds vanity. It engenders pride. It ministers to selfishness. It suggests and promotes ambition, and so may be the means of corrupting others. How truly we hear of many unwise and hurtful lusts in its train!

As the way is sad and evil, the end (and here it is shown fully) is unspeakably wretched: "Such as (or, seeing these lusts) sink men into destruction and perdition." Of course this is said of "men," not of "saints;" but not the least terrible examples are of those who took their place and were once perhaps without question recognized among the confessors of Christ. The more we may know and possess, the less hopeful and the more unconscientious is our departure, when it comes, from what becomes His name. Their course and end mark such only as "men." "Destruction" is the general description of their ruin; "perdition" is still more awfully precise. It is part of the snare and folly to presume on the bearing of the Lord's name as if it must preserve those under it from the baneful consequences of the unbelief which slights the word and gives loose rein to the will. But God is not mocked, and those who sow to the flesh must reap corruption. The end of these things is death, and not the less but the more irreclaimably. where the word which should be living becomes a dead dogma, under which God's calls to holiness, in disallowance of self and the world, are not heard, and the unwary soul drops into a more and more hardened hypocrisy. Who has not known such instances? Are they exhausted? Is your soul or mine to pay no heed?

"For a root of evil is the love of money, which some, being eager after, were seduced from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many pains (pangs)". This is a solemn but not too sweeping sentence, which we all should ponder; though some more than others, as the apostle implies, are exposed to the poison. Wealth practically means the possession of much more than we need for ourselves or for the poor from day to day, of what is over and above godly use, of what therefore can only be for show or indulgence, for lavishness or for hoarding.

The language of men betrays their mammon-worship. They conceive money, and the love of it, a root of "goods." God pronounces it a root of "evils"; and not merely possible but actual τῶν κακῶν, the evils that exist, subtle or important, of the flesh and of the mind. So the Lord had admonished the disciples against the cares of the age, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things, entering in (Mark 13: 32).

Christianity is no doubt of faith and the "faith;" but, when real, it is a life more than a creed. It is Christ living in each believer, as the apostle says of himself as a saint, not officially, so as to be a sample of the household of faith (Phil. 1: 21). But so deadly a root of evils is the love of money that its seductive influence from the faith is singled out for the forefront of resulting danger. And this may help to explain the strength of the language in Eph. 5: 5 where a covetous person is styled an idolater, as in Col. 3: 5 covetousness is declared to be idolatry. Be it that πλεονεξία there employed goes beyond φιλαργυρία here used; still the latter is at least included in that unsatisfied greed which becomes pre-eminently an absorbing idolatrous passion that excludes true homage to the true God.

But the apostle in no way limits the mischief to causing souls to wander from the faith, though surely nothing can be more disastrous. The eager pursuit of money is wont to pierce its votaries through with many pangs or pains. It is hard in that case to avoid deceit here, dissimulation there, hard words and ways to one, soft to another, taking selfish advantage of men and things and times, without account of heart or circumstances, and still less of Christ before God. It is not only failure but success that inflicts the many pangs; yea, the most successful in general have their disappointments, and therefore all the keener.

Still it is hardly exact, I think, to say "the" root, though one knows what has been pleaded on its behalf; because "the" implies naturally an exclusive force, and the love of money, deep and wide as it may be, is not the only root of all men's evils. But our language hardly admits of a simply anarthrous usage like the Greek, and therefore we make use of the indefinite article, though it may be feeble.

In contrast with those who, through that root of evils, not more wounded themselves than they dishonoured the Lord, Timothy is now exhorted to cultivate all that is suited to and worthy of His name.

"But thou, O man of God, fee these things, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, meekness of spirit.* Combat the good combat of faith; lay hold on the life eternal whereunto thou wast† called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses. I charge [thee]‡ in the sight of God that preserveth (keepeth alive) all things,§ and Christ Jesus that witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession, that thou keep the commandment, spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; which in its own times He shall show, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, Whom none of men saw nor can see; to Whom, be honour and might eternal. Amen" (vers. 11-16).

* The older reading πραῦπάθειαν seems stronger than the ordinary πραοτήτα, meekness.

† καί "also" only in some inferior witnesses

‡ σου "thee" is not in the best copies.

§ Authorities are divided between two words that are like, the Sinaitic with the less weighty witnesses supporting the Text. Rec., but A D F G P the critical text.

"Man of God" is a phrase of common occurrence from the Pentateuch, and throughout the historical books of Old Testament scripture. Continually applied to a prophet, it regards him as one identified with the interests and character of God in deed and in truth, though of course liable to failure, and thereon to suffer chastening. In the New Testament it is found nowhere save in the two Epistles to Timothy, here predicated of the one addressed in order to stimulate and warn; in the Second Epistle open to all who in an evil day make good in faithful and holy devotedness to God what is implied in it.

Timothy as a man of God is called to shun the worldly lusts, foolish and hurtful, against which the apostle had been warning. It is vain to affect zeal for what is good, if so dangerous a snare be indulged, source as it is of all evils. But persevering avoidance of evil can hardly be, unless there be also the zealous pursuit of righteousness and godliness, of faith and love, of endurance and meekness of spirit. Practical consistency with one's relationship is indispensable, as is reverent affection Godward, the light of the unseen let in on the present and the activity of the heart in what is good, the spirit made up to bear evil, and this with meekness, not with resentment and impatience. Such is the morally beautiful path traced here for his young fellow-labourer by one who knew it familiarly and deeply, though its perfection be found only in our Lord Jesus here below.

But more than this is called for, if He is to be magnified in our body, whether by life or by death. The figures are taken as often from the games so familiar to that day. "Combat the good combat of the faith." Flesh or sight would seek only present things. Christ must be in view.

"Lay hold on eternal life whereunto thou wast called and didst confess the good confession before many witnesses." As in "fleeing" and "pursuing," the work is regarded as expressly continuous: not so in "laying hold" of the eternal life. It is a single act, and duration is excluded from the thought, all being summed up in its completion, like the waking up righteously once for all in 1 Cor. 15: 34 compared with the habit of not sinning. It is the prize at the end of which faith could have laid hold now, as the good confession is a thing done, not of course done with, nor on the other hand in process of doing. It is the simple act in itself, which is expressed in the aorist, as ought to be well-known. The Authorized Version is doubly wrong in "hast" professed, and "a" good confession. The Vulgate may be supposed to have influenced all from Wiclif downwards. The endeavour to bring in the whole ministry of Timothy as covered by a good confession, as Calvin contends, seems as unfounded as, and only less objectionable than, the strange "oblation" imputed to the phrase by the author of the "Unbloody Sacrifice" (i. 223, ed. of Anglo-Cath. Library). Into what vagaries men wander who slight the truth of Christ for objects of their own!

The apostle rises next to a solemn admonition in this connection, as he does towards the close of his Second Epistle. "Quickening," or creating however, is not the thought, but "keeping alive." Here all the older English versions like most others have followed the received reading; not that which suits the context, which has also the better authorities. How Dean Alford could adopt the right reading but give a rendering which suits the wrong, seems unaccountable; but so it is. The usage in the New Testament as in the LXX distinctly points to saving alive or preserving; and here "all things", not persons, are in question, though some go so far as to teach the contrary. God, Who is the source of life, is also the preserver of all things: on this he who espouses His cause in a hostile scene can reckon and needs to reckon.

Besides, there is One no longer seen, to Whom faith looks with assurance, for not consolation only but also for unfailing support: "Christ Jesus that witnessed before Pontius Pilate the good confession." He is on high to succour His servants, but He was here as none else "the faithful Witness," the good Confessor. What cheer to the spirit of him who might flag through timorous counsels or the demoralization of compromise, that dire and corrupting pest for the mouth and heart when evil thickens among the faithful on earth! He has to follow His steps in this as in all things; and if he knows his weakness, as surely he will increasingly in the arduous combat, he has but to spread it before His sight Whose grace suffices and Whose strength is made perfect in weakness. What a joy and honour consciously to witness the "good confession" where our Lord did so before us, He without what we have so abundantly, and with such aggravation as none ever had or can have again!

To have the truth is of capital moment; and this can only be by faith of God's word. "By the word of Thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer" (Ps. 17: 4). Thus only can we escape the lie of the enemy who deceives the whole world. But another thing there is, only second — that confession or witness which our lips and lives owe to Him Whose grace has given us the truth; and this not only though chiefly to His honour, but in love according to His will for those that lie as the world does in the wicked one. that they may be sanctified and saved. Before Pontius Pilate, the overwhelming fact came out that (not only did the Gentiles know not the truth, but) the Jews would not have it when before their eyes and ears livingly in Him Who, while the Messiah, was infinitely more. The chosen nation was as unbelieving as the nations generally, and hence as more guilty, so also more unrelentingly cruel unto blood, though it were the blood of Him Who was Jehovah's Fellow. Jesus confessed Himself not only King of a kingdom not of this world, but born and come to bear witness of the truth that every one who is of the truth might hear His voice. As the Jews alleged, He made Himself equal with God; He was, He is, the Only-Begotten Son of the Father. No wonder even hard-hearted Pilate was afraid, till Caesar's, the world's, friendship was seen to be at stake: and so, like the Jews who tempted him, he perished in enmity to God. Such is the end of all indeed, who, as they believe not with the heart to righteousness, confess not with the mouth to salvation, though in this passage no doubt "good confession" is more precise.

The charge to Timothy was "to keep the injunction (or commandment) spotless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is important to notice the accuracy of the thought as well as of the language; and the more so, as erudite ignorance takes the unhallowed licence every now and then of apologizing for scripture, as if even the apostle's Epistles were deficient in the exactitude which the schools, as they think, alone possess and impart.

But the unction from the Holy One gives quite another character and precision from that which is fed by the midnight oil of human training. This alone forms in the believer the mind of Christ, which, in its surface and in its depths, is alike beyond the wisdom of this age. Take as an instance the epiphany or "appearing" of our Lord (ver. 14) which is never confounded with His "presence" (παρουσία) or "coming:" the one being bound up with questions of our responsibility in service or testimony, as in the case before us, the other as simply and regularly (unless specifically modified* otherwise) presenting our hope in all the fulness of divine grace. It will greatly help the Christian student to search the two words and contrast their connections throughout the New Testament.

* As for example, the presence or coming of "the Son of man" brings in His judicial aspect, and is therefore necessarily tantamount to His "appearing" or "day."

On the great and instructive theme of the Lord's return, whether to receive His own to be with Himself above, or to display them already with Him when He comes in judgment of the quick for the kingdom, the distinction becomes evident on examination, as it is of the deepest moment in conducing to an intelligent grasp of revealed truth or of God's counsels and ways. In sovereign grace Christ will come to gather us together on high to be with Himself for ever; but He will appear also to put down all evil and reign in righteousness; and when He is manifested, we shall be manifested with Him in glory. The object and character differ as much as the time: where grace in its due heavenly power is meant, it is His "coming" to fulfil our hopes: where government and responsibility are in question, it is His "appearing," "manifestation," or "day," as any soul subject to the word may ascertain in searching the scriptures.

And such is the clear connection here, not only as introducing His "appearing" but as following it: "which in its own times He shall show, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings (lit., of those that reign) and Lord of lords" (lit., of those that exercise lordship). None can deny that as Timothy's responsibility was involved directly in the words preceding, so in these the display of the Lord's glory is no less distinct; neither of which appears to be the thought where His coming for our translation on high is revealed. One might add its "own times" or seasons as naturally and characteristically mentioned along with His appearing; whereas no such language ever accompanies the gathering of the saints to meet the Lord above. His appearing ushers in the kingdom, as in 2 Tim. 4: 1. In its course, first and last, :He will judge living and dead. But this is clearly government rather than grace; at least it is not grace in its heavenly fulness but in contrast with it.

It is not denied that even those who are one with Christ, members of His body, His bride, are also to be viewed as servants to receive each his own reward according to his own labour. And hence the apostle speaks of the saints, responsible for each gift to be used in Christ's service now, awaiting "the revelation" of our Lord Jesus Christ Who shall also confirm them to the end, unimpeachable in the "day" of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1: 8). But here again we see how responsibility brings in the "day," etc., whereas grace in its heavenly privileges is ever linked with His "coming" and "presence." As Christ has to do with both, so shall we; but they are quite different; and it is ruinous to the truth, if we, contrary to the word of God, confound things that are there kept invariably distinct, though occasionally but rarely both may be stated together.

We may notice that even our Lord Himself is here brought forward in just the same way, as Jesus Christ the righteous owned and displayed by God in the glory of that great day. The Spirit speaks of His unseeable and inaccessible glory: our Lord Jesus Christ is the One Whose appearing will manifest God's glory before the universe in its own seasons.

This manifestation it is which gives occasion for the striking doxology which closes the section, where God as such is presented as He "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, Whom none of men hath seen nor can see; to Whom be honour and might everlasting, Amen." On the other hand, "the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh (not Israel only) shall see it together" (Isa. 40: 5). But it will be in the appearing of our Lord that God will show His various glories, He "Who only hath immortality," in and by Him Who died and rose and lives again for evermore, the King of those that reign and the Lord of those that rule, in the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who, Himself God and Lord, deigned by His abasement unto the death of the cross to lay a new basis in a ruined world, so that grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

All testimony of faith is now seemingly as vain as was the good confession of Jesus our Lord; but His appearing will be the display of divine power, glory, and righteousness to the confusion of all that doubt as well as of proud rebels. Ere that day man will have shown his "rights" to be unmitigated wrongs, and his liberty, equality, and fraternity (vile, false, and selfish as they ever were) to be only the prelude to the most galling slavery of man and Satan that the world ever saw. God will show our Lord's appearing in its own due times, not merely for the overthrow of apostate wickedness, but for the establishment, in the peace and blessing of man bowing to Jesus, of His own honour and might eternal. May our portion be with the present substantiating energy of faith which the apostle desired for his dear young fellow-servant! It is all revealed by His word to act not only on: his soul but on ours.

Besides, the apostle lays it on Timothy to enjoin the wealthy saints in solemn and searching tones, the counterpart of which it was uncalled for to give to the poor, who never fail to find uninspired abundance of exhortation. The rich are apt to pass easy muster, not because they have not special difficulties and dangers, but because both poor and rich and even those who should be above either are disposed to be less outspoken with them than is well for all and to the Lord's praise. But not so did Paul walk or direct his fellow-servant.

"Those rich in the present age charge not to be high-minded nor to set their hope on uncertainty of riches, but on a* God That affordeth us all things richly for enjoyment; to do good, to be rich in good works, to be liberal in distributing, ready to communicate, laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold of (on) the real† life" (vers. 17-19).

* "Living" is here added by inferior authorities (and so Text. Rec.), which favour ἐν also, rather than επί.

† The ordinary reading is "eternal" as in the lesser witnesses and Text. Rec.; the primary (Vv. as well as MSS.) give "that which is really life."

As our Lord designated wealth "the mammon of unrighteousness," in the same spirit are the wealthy here characterized as "rich in the present age." It was certainly not to exalt in their eyes or in those of others what the flesh is sure to overvalue, while it hides the great responsibility of those who have it. Yet there is no fanatical credit given to the garb or habit of poverty, no sanctimonious eschewing of ordinary food or shelter among the abodes of men, still less is there a hint of the superior worth of the monastic life. These anilities were reserved for the deeper gulfs of superstition. But those who are rich in the present age ("this present evil age," as the same apostle stamps it in Gal. 1: 4) have need especially to be on their guard, and to hear, not the voice of flattery so likely to be at hand, but the solemn admonition of the Holy Spirit, that they be not poor toward God in view of "the day of eternity" (2 Peter 3: 18). Certainly riches toward God consist neither in lavishing on oneself or one's own, any more than in laying up for either.

Charge them then, says he, "not to be high-minded." What so readily or so generally generates haughtiness as the possession of money, The Lord in the parable (Luke 16: 1-9) already referred to lays the axe to the root, when He calls on the disciples to make to themselves friends with, or out of, the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails they may be received into the eternal tabernacles. The grand principle, He insists, is faithfulness in that which is another's (God's), Who will commit to us in glory the true riches — our own and much too, if faithful here and now in a very little. Self-appropriation was the ruinous theory or practice (or both) for the rich man that lifted up his eyes in Hades, being in torment, and forgot that, in a sinful world which breaks the law and rejects the Messiah, wealth is no true sign of God's favour.

In effect the Lord would have His own sacrifice the present in view of the future, counting that not their own but His, and therefore with all the freedom and cheerfulness that He loves in a giver, with their eyes set on that which seems His only which He will give to be their own with Him for ever. Does this seem folly to any who flatter themselves that they are wise and prudent! What will your wisdom and prudence prove in that day? Our true wisdom as Christians is moulded by the cross of Christ. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Following Christ is the surest cure of highmindedness, as it ensures also the scorn of the world. "Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself" (Ps. 49: 18): what do they feel at the walk of one who can truly say, "To me to live is Christ" (Phil. 1: 21)?

But there is a danger kindred to highmindedness which is next warned against: "nor set their hope on uncertainty of riches." On this too many a philosopher of old moralized in vain: not that his words did not sound wise and grand, but that their effect was powerless; for he was either a selfish hypocrite who decried wealth in others to get it for himself as much as possible, or he denounced wealth with a cynical haughtiness of mind more extreme than in any man of wealth. Well then does the apostle first warn against highmindedness, and next on building one's hopes on the stability of what so quickly takes wings and flies away, whence the possessor is so often summoned in the midst of his self-aggrandizing plans. "Uncertainty of riches" indeed: how true and expressive!

One is never quite right, however, without what is positive; and hence the apostle urges that those addressed should have their hope set, not on a foundation so sandy, "but on God That affordeth us all things richly for enjoyment." There cannot be conceived a sentence more completely condemning the spirit of asceticism, which is fairer in appearance than the love of ease and luxury. But they are only forms of selfishness, however opposed: neither savours of God, Who has not left Himself without witness of His goodness toward men, even among the heathen allowed to go on their own ways. Surely it is not less among His own family of grace, though He may for higher ends give them the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, being conformed unto His death. But He is none the less the God of all grace, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort. And as to real superiority over all circumstances, where there was no wealth of the present age, who could testify better than the apostle? A prisoner in Rome, yet able to write thence, "I have learned in whatsoever state I am therein to be content. I know how to be abased, and know also how to abound: in everything and in all things I am initiated both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer want. I can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me. . . .And my God shall fulfil every need of yours according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4: 11-19). The ungrudging and bountiful Giver of all loves a heart that responds to His grace, as far from legality as from licence.

But He looks also for activity in good on the part of the godly rich, as He Himself is unwearied in good (Acts 14: 17). Hence follows the call "to do good, to be rich in good works." There is an important shade between the two acts, although it is not easy to express the difference except in a paraphrase. By the first (ἀγαθοεργεῖν) is meant doing, works of kindness or goodness to others; by being "rich in good works (πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς) is meant abounding in fair, upright, works, comely in themselves: the first relatively, and the second absolutely, good works. And very important it is to note how both are pressed in close connection here and elsewhere, for men in general laud the one which affects man, and forget or disparage what is of yet greater moment, what is good in itself before God. Flowing from faith and love, how acceptable are both!

Even this does not express all the generous outgoing of heart the apostle would have the rich exhorted to seek. He adds, as if he could not remember the poor enough, "to be liberal in distributing, ready to communicate," which, I presume, goes beyond cases of pressing need, where calls arise peculiarly suitable for men of ample means, as in the varied circumstances of the Lord's work and witness. How many opportunities of promoting His glory, which are not of a kind one would like to lay as a burden on the assembly as a whole! "Charge the rich in the present age." There is a divine way for all; and those whose privilege it is especially can hear His voice, as the apostle takes care that they shall.

But there is also encouragement specially significant and cheering to those in view: "laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold on the real life" (ver. 19). Here again we may see the close correspondence with Luke 16: 11 where "the true" is re-echoed by the last remarkable expression of the apostle, "that which is really life."

Anxiety for ourselves is one of the snares carefully shut out by our Lord from the disciples: were it even "for the morrow," it is unworthy of confidence in the Father's provident love. He knows that we have need of food and raiment, and He will surely provide. We have to seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, with the assurance that all these things shall be added unto us (Matt. 6: 33). So the apostle bids us in nothing to be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let our requests be made known unto God (Phil. 4: 6).

Here he enjoins on the rich saints to lay up in store for themselves a good foundation for the time to come by their generous giving to others. It may not seem good common sense, but it is the surer way of grace in faith. To be consistent with Christ is to treasure up for ourselves, and all the better when so done that the left hand knows not what the right hand does. For that our Father sees in secret is a cardinal truth in Christian practice, as it is also to have by-and-by reward with Him Who is in heaven. Let us then with patience wait for it, as here laying up for ourselves a good foundation for the future, that we may lay hold on the life that is life in earnest. What is now so misjudged even by saints not only slips but disappoints, just because it is not habitually to live Christ, which, if it have its brightness in glory, has here its reality of exercise and enjoyment too.

The conclusion is a solemn appeal, which was never more seasonable than at this moment, when the vanity of scientific speculations misleads souls increasingly to despise revelation.

"O Timothy, keep the deposit, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge, in professing which some missed the mark concerning the faith. Grace [be] with you*" (vers. 20, 21).

* The critical reading (the plural) seems confirmed, contrary to what at first sight would appear natural, by the end of the Second Epistle, where after the benediction to Timothy individually, we certainly close with ῃ χάρις μεθ᾽ υμῶν without question of σοῦ. Those with him if not all the saints at large are in view.

"The deposit" here, as in 2 Tim. 1: 14, means the truth entrusted by God through His chosen instruments, divine revelation conveyed in words taught of the Holy Spirit, the pattern of sound words which Timothy heard from Paul among many witnesses. It is neither the soul nor its salvation on the one hand, nor yet on the other the ministerial office, nor even the grace of the Spirit. It is the perfect communication of what God is in nature, ways, relationship, and counsels. This revelation alone gave, as inspiration now alone secures. It is not only the material of ministry, but its safe-guard, as it is of those to whom it is ministered; for grace would vouchsafe to all an unerring standard. This the church, the assembly, is not nor in the nature of things can be: the church is not the truth, but its pillar and base, as the truth calls out each member of Christ, forming and fashioning the whole. There only among men is the truth plainly inscribed and maintained. Where else is the word of God responsibly attested or presented here below?

Doubtless Timothy had a special place according to the favour shown, the truth unreservedly made known, the position given, and the charge and work assigned, as we see from the first to the last of this Epistle. But if we may not overstep our measure or intrude into the peculiar duties of that honoured colleague of the apostle, we are no less bound in our place to guard that truth which is now entrusted to our keeping. It is the declared tower of safety in these last days of deception and self-will — to acknowledge and receive every scripture as being inspired of God.

But along with adhesion and subjection to the truth goes the necessity of watching against the false. And so Timothy is exhorted to turn away from "the profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge." What more thoroughly undermines the power of the truth confessed than the allowance of theories which flatter man, occupy the creature, and, as they ignore or debase God and His Son, so will be found at last really to deny both? "This is life eternal to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent" (John 17: 3). All must be false where the true state of man is unfelt, and where consequently the real character and intervention of God because of that state is left out; for the intervention of God to triumph in His grace over sin and Satan has formed relationships on which our duties depend. "The falsely-named knowledge" attempts to fill the void which unbelief ever finds because it does not really know God and His Son, possessing it only with its profane vapourings and antitheses. It cannot face the stern fact of utter ruin by sin; it shirks therefore the revelation of pure grace and of a righteousness which is God's and which can justify the ungodly when man was proved to have none for Him. If it introduces Christ at all, which may often be and largely too, it is not as the Saviour of the lost to God's glory, and as the Judge of all who believe not and so are unjust and have done evil, but only as the flower that adorns the race and bears witness to the moral perfectness of which humanity is capable.

God revealed in man, Christ rejected even to the death of the cross, yet in that cross an efficacious sacrifice for the guiltiest by faith of Him; and now man in Christ accepted in the holiest, and sending down the Holy Spirit to make all that is believed good to those that believe — this is the truth which defeats those babblings and oppositions. And as the centre of it all is He Who was manifested in the flesh, a divine person yet man, the truth is perfectly suited to each soul, Jew or Gentile, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free. It is independent of ruin or development, of learning or the lack of it, forming the believer inwardly and outwardly according to its own character by the Holy Spirit, Who sets Christ as the object and pattern before the eye of faith.

No wonder then that the apostle was not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. And the gospel is not, as is so often thought, a mere display of mercy irrespective of God's moral glory; for therein is revealed God's righteousness by faith unto faith. The law was God's just claim on man; the gospel is the glad tidings of salvation as the fruit of Christ's death and resurrection, and therein of God's undertaking for man and delivering him that believes. It is God's, not man's, righteousness, and hence is is revealed to faith, so as to be as open to the Greek as to the Jew, faith (not law) being the only source and way and principle of blessing for a lost sinner.

In this Epistle, however, it is not our privileges as God's children or as members of Christ's body that we see developed, but the broad and deep foundations of the divine nature and glory as the Saviour God dealing with all mankind through the mediation of Christ. And, in keeping with this, it is not here the heavenly wealth and beauty of the church, but its moral order as the responsible witness and true defender of the faith before the world, the misuse of the law being denounced, and the profane fables and logomachies of man's imagination yet more, which, if they begin by promising showy and superior sanctity, soon betray their worthlessness and worse by grievous moral laxity. Hence the importance given throughout to everyday duty which the grace and truth which came by Jesus strongly enforces, while making the yoke easy and the burden light.

"The falsely-named knowledge" always subjects God and His revelation to the mind of man. Thus man acquires the place as far as possible of judge ever agreeable to his self-importance, and withal necessary to veil from himself his own guilty and ruined estate in the sight of God. Nay more, in the fulness of his presumption, he avails himself of the human medium to deny inspiration in any true force, so as to sit in judgment upon that word which, our Lord declares, shall judge him at the last day (John 12: 48). Thus, in criticizing what God is in the communication of scripture, Who He is gets utterly lost; and sinful man in effect sets up, perhaps without suspecting what he does or its heinous sin, to judge God Himself!

The manner in which God is now and then presented in this Epistle appears to be directly suited to meet and expose such airy and daring speculations, which developed later into all the many vagaries of Gnosticism, sometimes subtle and bewildering, at others low and licentious, but always destructive delusions. The King of the ages, incorruptible, invisible, only God, and with that, one God, one Mediator also between God and men, Christ Jesus a man, Who gave Himself a ransom for all; God the Creator and Giver of every creature, the living God the Preserver of all, specially of the faithful; God Who preserves all things in life, Who is about to display the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, whilst He dwells in light unapproachable, Whom no man has seen nor can see — God so revealed consigns to their own nothingness the profane babblings and oppositions of the falsely-named knowledge; as the humble and godly walk produced points to its excellent and wise and holy source, in contrast with the degrading ways which falsehood entails, and on none more surely than on those who once called on the name of the Lord.

Here accordingly the apostle briefly touches on the effect of this spurious knowledge: "in professing which some missed the mark [or erred] concerning the faith." It is sad to know men loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. But there is a deeper sorrow over those who once seemed to run well, thus fatally erring about the faith, not only the victims of folly and evil, but dishonouring blindly the Name which is above every name.

"Grace be with you;" so the most ancient copies say, though one might have expected "thee" as in most manuscripts and some of weight. But compare the closing words of the Second Epistle. There it is the more striking, because they follow a strictly individual prayer that the Lord should be with Timothy's spirit. Yet I am not aware of a single MS. there that favours the singular, and scarce any version save the Peschito Syriac. The comparison appears to confirm the judgment of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, as to the close of the First Epistle. The benediction is of few words, but, as ever, weighty. Timothy did surely need grace, and the grace of the Lord would be sufficient for him; but it is the common need, the unfailing support, of all others, who therefore are not forgotten, even in a confidential communication to a tried fellow-servant.

LONDON: C. A. HAMMOND, 11 LITTLE BRITAIN, E.C.1

2 Corinthians.

Notes on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians with a New Translation

W. Kelly.

2 Corinthians 1.

Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ by God's will, and Timothy the brother, to the assembly that is in Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia; 2 grace to you and peace from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 that comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those that are in any tribulation through the comfort with which we are comforted ourselves by God, 5 because as the sufferings of the Christ abound toward us, even so through the Christ aboundeth also our comfort. 6, But, whether we be in tribulation, [it is] for your comfort and salvation, that worketh in endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer (and our hope [is] stedfast for you); whether we be comforted, [it is] for your comfort and salvation, 7 knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the comfort.

8 For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, as to our tribulation that came to pass in Asia, that we were excessively pressed beyond power, so as for us to despair even of our living. 9 But we ourselves have had in ourselves the sentence of death, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God that raiseth the dead, 10 who delivered us from so great a death, and doth [or, will] deliver, in whom we have hope that he will also yet deliver, 11 ye also labouring together by supplication for us that from many persons the gift toward us may by many be matter of thanksgiving for us. 12 For our boasting is this, the testimony of our conscience that in holiness and sincerity before God, not in carnal wisdom but in God's grace, we conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly towards you. 13 For no other thing we write unto you than what ye read, or even recognise, and I hope that ye will recognise unto the end, 14 even as also ye recognised us in part that we are your boast, just as ye also are ours in the day of our Lord Jesus.

15 And with this confidence I was intending previously to come unto you, that ye might have a second favour, 16 and through you to pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come unto you, and by you to be sent forward into Judea. 17 Having, then, this intention, did I, pray, use lightness? Or what I purpose, do I purpose according to flesh, that with me may be the yea yea and the nay nay? 18 Now God [is] faithful that our word that [was] unto you is not yea and nay. 19 For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, that was preached among you by us, by me and Silvanus and Timothy, became not yea and nay, but is become yea in him. 20 For as many as [be] God's promises, in him [is] the yea; wherefore also by him [is] the amen for glory to God by us. 21 Now he that establisheth us with you in Christ, and anointed us is God, 22 who also sealed us, and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 23 But I call God as witness upon my soul, that to spare you I came not yet unto Corinth; 24 not that we rule over your faith, but are fellow-workers of your joy, for by faith ye stand.

2 Corinthians 2.

But I judged this for myself not to come again unto you in grief. 2 For if I grieve you, who then [is] he that gladdeneth me, if not he that is grieved by me? 3 And I wrote this very thing, that I might not on coming have grief from those from whom I ought to have joy, having trust in you all that my joy is [that] of you all. 4 For out of much tribulation and distress of heart I wrote to you with many tears, not that ye should be grieved, but that ye may know the love that I have very [lit. more] abundantly unto you. 5 But if any one hath grieved, he hath grieved not me, but in part (that I may not press heavily), all of you. 6 Sufficient to such an one [is] this rebuke, which [is] by the many; 7 so that, on the contrary, ye should rather forgive and comfort, lest somehow such an one be swallowed up with excessive grief. 8 Wherefore I exhort you to ratify love toward him. 9 For I wrote also for this, and that I might know the proof of you, whether as to all things ye are obedient. 10 But to whom ye forgive anything, I also; for I too, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, [do so] for your sake in Christ's person, 11 that we might not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices.

12 Now when I came unto the Troad for the gospel of Christ, a door being opened to me in [the] Lord, 13 I had no rest in my spirit at not finding Titus, my brother; but, having taken leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia. 14 But thanks [be] to God that always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the odour of his knowledge through us in every place. 15 Because we are a sweet odour of Christ to God in those to be saved, and in those that perish: 16 to the one an odour from death unto death, but to the others an odour from life unto life; and who [is] sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not as the many, corrupting [lit. retailing] the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3.

Begin we again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some, recommendatory epistles unto you or from you? 2 Ye are our epistle inscribed in our hearts, known and read by all men, 3 being manifested that ye are Christ's epistle ministered by us, having been inscribed, not with ink, but [the] Spirit of [the] living God, not on tables of stone, but on fleshy tables of [the] heart [or, hearts]. 4 And such confidence have we through the Christ toward God; 5 not that we are competent from ourselves to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency [is] of God, 6 who also made us competent [as] servants of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter killeth but the spirit quickeneth.

(7 But if the ministry of death in letter, graven on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently toward the face of Moses for the glory of his face, that was to be done away, 8 how shall not the ministry of the Spirit rather be in glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation [have] glory, much more doth the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For even that which hath been glorified hath not been glorified in this respect on account of the surpassing glory. 11 For if that to be done away [was] with glory, much more what abideth [is] in glory. 12 Having then such hope we use much openness of speech: 13 and not as Moses used to put a veil on his own face, that the sons of Israel should not look stedfastly unto the end of that to be done away. 14 But their thoughts were darkened [lit. hardened]; for until this very day the same veil at the reading of the old covenant abideth unlifted [lit. not unveiled], which in Christ is done away. 15 But unto this day, when Moses is being read, a veil lieth upon their heart. 16 But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken off.)

17 Now the Lord is the spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord [is, there is] liberty; "but we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from [the] Lord [the] Spirit.

2 Corinthians 4.

On this account, having this ministry, according as we obtained mercy, we faint not, 2 but refused the hidden things of shame, not walking in deceit, nor guilefully using the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men in the sight of God. 3 But if even our gospel is veiled, in those that perish it is veiled, 4 In whom the god of this age blinded the minds [or thoughts] of the faithless, that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is [the] image of God, should not shine forth. 5 For not ourselves do we preach, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves your bondmen for Jesus' sake, 6 because it is the God that bade light shine out of darkness, who shone in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthenware vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be God's, and not of us, 8 in everything being afflicted, yet not straitened, sorely yet not utterly perplexed, 9 persecuted yet not forsaken, cast down yet not destroyed, 10 always bearing about in the body the dying [or, putting to death] of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body. 11 For we that live are ever being delivered up unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So that death worketh in us, but life in you. 13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is written, I believed wherefore [also] I spake we also believe, wherefore also we speak; 14 knowing that he that raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also with Jesus, and shall present [us) with you. 15 For all things [are] for your sakes, that the grace having multiplied through the greater number might make the thanksgiving abound to the glory of God.

16 Wherefore we fail not; but even if our outer man is consuming, yet the inner is being renewed day by day. 17 For the momentary lightness of our affliction worketh out for us in surpassing measure an eternal weight of glory: 18 while we have the eye not on the things that are seen, but on those not seen, for the things seen [are] temporary, but those not seen, eternal.

2 Corinthians 5.

For we know that if our earthly tabernacle-house be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. 2 For also in this we groan. longing to clothe ourselves with our dwelling which is from heaven, 3 if indeed also when clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For also we that are in the tabernacle groan, being burdened, because we desire not to be unclothed but clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that wrought us for this very thing [is] God, that gave us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore being always confident, and knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord (7 for we walk by faith, not by appearance [or, sight]), 8 we are confident and well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore also we are zealous that, whether present or absent, we may be agreeable to him.

10 For we must all be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive the things [done] in [literally, by] the body according to what he did, whether good or evil.11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men; but we have been manifested to God, and I hope also to have been manifested in your. consciences. 12 For we are not again commending ourselves to you, but giving you occasion to boast on our behalf, that ye may have [it] with those boasting in face and not in heart. 13 For whether we were beside ourselves, [it is] to God; or are sober, [it is] for you. 14 For the love of Christ constraineth us, having judged this, that if one died for all, then they all were dead [or, died] 15 and he died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who for them died and rose.16 So that we henceforth know no one as to flesh: if we have even known Christ as to flesh, yet now are we no longer knowing [him]; 17 so that, if one [is] in Christ, [there is] a new creation; the old things passed away; behold, they [or, all things] are become new. 18 And they all [are] of God that reconciled us to himself by Christ and gave to us the ministry of the reconciliation: 19 how that it was God in Christ reconciling [the] world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences, and putting in us the word of the reconciliation. 20 For Christ then we are ambassadors, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God: 21 him that knew not sin he made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in him.

2 Corinthians 6.

And working together we also beseech that ye receive not in vain the grace of God (2 for he saith, In an acceptable season I listened to thee, and in a day of salvation I helped thee: behold, now a right acceptable season, behold, now a day of salvation), 3 giving none offence in anything that the ministry be not blamed. 4 But in everything as ministers of God commending ourselves, in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in straits, 5 in stripes, in prisons in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, 6 in pureness, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in [the] Holy Ghost, in love unfeigned, 7 in [the] word of truth, in [the] power of God. Through [or, with] the arms of righteousness on the right and left, 8 through glory and dishonour, through ill report and good report, as deceivers and true, 9 as unknown and well known, as dying and, be hold, we live, as chastened and not put to death, 10 as grieved but always rejoicing, as poor but enriching many, as having nothing and possessing all things.

14 Be not diversely yoked with unbelievers: for what partnership [is there] for righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship [hath] light with darkness? 15 and what consent of Christ with Beliar? or what part for a believer with an unbeliever? 16 and what agreement for God's temple with idols? For ye are [the] living God's temple, even as God said, I will dwell and walk among them, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, saith [the] Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you 18 and will be to you for Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith [the] Lord Almighty. 2 Corinthians 7. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God's fear.

2 Receive us; we wronged none, we corrupted none, we overreached none. 3 For condemnation I do not speak; for I have said before that ye are in our hearts to die with and to live with. 4 Great [is! my openness toward you, great my boasting in respect of you: I am filled with encouragement, I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction. 5 For also when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but [we were] afflicted in every way; without fightings, within fears. 6 But he that encourageth the lowly, God, encouraged us by the coming of Titus, 7 and not by his coming only but also by the encouragement with which he was encouraged in your case, declaring to us your longing desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I the more rejoiced. 8 Because if even I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret, if even I did regret; for I see that that letter if even for a time grieved you. 9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were grieved but that ye were grieved unto repentance, for ye were grieved according to God that in nothing ye might suffer damage from us. 10 For grief according to God worketh repentance to salvation not to be regretted: but the grief of the world worketh out death. 11 For, behold, this very thing that ye were grieved according to God, how much diligence it wrought out in you, nay self-clearing, nay indignation, nay fear, nay longing desire, nay zeal, nay avenging! In everything did ye prove yourselves to be pure in the matter. 12 Wherefore, if also I wrote, [it was] not for the sake of him that wronged, nor for his sake that was wronged, but for the sake of your diligence for us (or, ours for you) being manifested unto you before God. 13 On this account we have been encouraged; but in our comfort we rejoiced the more exceedingly over the joy of Titus, because his spirit Lath been refreshed by you all. 14 Because if I have boasted to him anything of you, I was not put to shame; but as we speak all things to you in truth, so also our boasting of you to Titus was truth. 15 And his affections are more exceedingly toward you, calling to mind the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him. 16 I rejoice that in everything I am confident in you.

2 Corinthians 8.

Now we make known to you, brethren, the grace of God that is given in [or, among the assemblies of Macedonia; 2 that in much trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality; 3 because according to power [I bear witness] and beyond power [they gave] of their own accord, 4 asking of us with much entreaty the grace and the fellowship of the ministering unto the saints; 5 and this not as we hoped, but their own selves they gave first to the Lord and to us by the will of God; 6 so that we exhorted Titus, that, even as he before began, so he would also complete as to you this grace also; 7 but as ye abound in everything. faith and word and knowledge and all diligence and love from you to us, [see] that ye abound in this grace also. 8 I speak not by way of commandment, but through the diligence of others proving the genuineness of your love also.

9For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he being rich became poor, in order that ye by his poverty might become rich. 10 And I give an opinion in this, for this is profitable for you who began before not only the doing, but also to be willing a year ago. 11 But now also complete the doing, that even as the readiness of the willing [was there], so also the completing [may be] out of what ye have. 12 For if the readiness be there, [one is] accepted according to what he may have, not according to what he hath not. 13 For [it is] not that others [should have] ease and you distress,14 but on equality: at the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance also should be for your lack, so that there should be equality; 15 as it is written, He that [gathered] much had nothing over, and he that [gathered] little had no lack.

16 But thanks to God that giveth the same zeal for you in the heart of Titus, 17 in that he received indeed the exhortation, but being very zealous of his own accord he set out unto you. 18 But we sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel [is] through all the assemblies, 19 and not only [so] but also chosen by the assemblies our fellow-traveller with this grace that is being administered by us unto the glory of the Lord [himself] and our readiness; 20 guarding against this, lest any should blame us in this abundance that is being administered by us, 21 for we provide things honourable not only before [the] Lord but also before men. 22 And we have sent with them our brother whom we proved to be zealous many times in many things, but now much more zealous by great confidence that [he hath] in you. 23 Whether as regards Titus, [he is] my partner and fellow-labourer toward you; whether our brethren, [they are] messengers of assemblies, Christ's glory. The showing forth then of your love and of our boasting for you show forth unto them in the face of the assemblies.

2 Corinthians 9.

For about the ministration of the saints it is superfluous for me to write to you. 2 For I know your readiness unto which I boast of you to Macedonians that Achaia hath been prepared a year ago, and your zeal stimulated the many. 3 Yet I sent the brethren in order that our boasting of you may not be made vain in this respect, that (as I said) ye may be prepared; 4 lest haply, if Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we may be ashamed, that we say not ye, in this confidence. 5 I thought it necessary therefore to exhort the brethren that they would go before unto you and complete beforehand your blessing promised before, that it be ready thus as blessing, not as covetousness. 6 But this [I say], he that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth in blessings shall reap also in blessings; 7 each as he hath purposed in his heart, not of sorrow or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make every grace abound unto you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in every [thing], may abound unto every good work; 9 as it is written, He scattered, he gave to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. 10 But he that supplieth seed to the sower and bread for eating, will supply and multiply your sowing and increase the fruits of your righteousness 11 ye being enriched in everything unto all liberality which worketh out through us thanksgiving to God.12 Because the ministration of the service is not only filling up the wants of the saints, but also abounding through many thanksgivings to God; 13 through the proof of this service glorifying God for the subjection of your confession unto the gospel of Christ and liberality of fellowship toward them and toward all; 14 and in their supplication for you, while longing for you, on account of the surpassing grace of God [bestowed] on you. 15 Thanks to God for his unspeakable gift.

2 Corinthians 10.

But I myself Paul entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ, [1] who face to face [am] mean among you but absent am bold toward you — 2 but I beseech that I present may not be bold with the confidence with which I think to be daring against some that think of us as walking according to flesh. 3 For walking in flesh we do not war according to flesh. 4 For the arms of our warfare [are] not fleshly but powerful with God to the pulling down of strongholds, 5 pulling down reasonings and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and leading captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to avenge every disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled.

7 Do ye look on things according to appearance? If any one hath trust in himself that he is of Christ, let him of himself consider this again, that even as he [is] of Christ, so also we. 8 For even if I should boast somewhat more abundantly of our authority which the Lord gave for building up and not for your overthrowing, I shall not be ashamed; 9 that I seem not as it were to terrify you by letters: 10 because his letters, saith one, [are] weighty and strong, but the presence of the body weak and the speech contemptible.11 Let such an one consider this, that such as we are in word by letters when absent, such also in deed when present. 12 For we dare not class or compare ourselves with some of those that commend themselves; but they, measuring themselves among themselves and comparing themselves with themselves, are unintelligent [or, misunderstand].

13 We however will not boast as to things unmeasured, but according to the measure of the rule which God distributed to us, a measure to reach as far even as you. 14 For we do not, as though not reaching unto you, overstretch ourselves, for even as far as you we advanced in the gospel of Christ, 15 not boasting as to things unmeasured in another's toils, but having hope while your faith increaseth, to be enlarged among you according to our rule unto abundance, 16 to preach the gospel unto the [quarters] beyond you, not to boast in another's rule as to things made ready. 17  But he that boasteth, in the Lord let him boast; 18 for not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

2 Corinthians 11.

Would that ye might bear with me in some little folly; but even bear with me. 2 For I am jealous as to you with a jealousy of God; for I betrothed you to one husband to present a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity that is toward Christ. 4 For if indeed he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom ye preached not, or ye receive a different Spirit whom ye received not, or a different gospel which ye accepted not, ye might well bear with [it]. 5 For I reckon that I am in nothing come short of those surpassing apostles; 6 but if * even ordinary in speech, yet not in knowledge, but in every [way we were] made manifest [or, manifested it] in all things towards you. 7 What! did I commit sin in humbling myself that ye might be exalted, because I gratuitously announced the gospel of God to you? 8 Other assemblies I spoiled, receiving hire for service toward you. 9 And when present with you and in want, I have not been a burden to any one (for my want the brethren on coming from Macedonia supplied); and in everything unburdensome to you I kept and will keep myself. 10 There is Christ's truth in me that this boasting shall not be stopped unto me in the quarters of Achaia. 11 Wherefore? Because I love you not? God knoweth. 12 But what I do I will also do that I may cut off the occasion of those desiring an occasion, that wherein they boast they may be found even as we. 13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ: 14 and no wonder, for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light: 15 [it is] no great thing then if his servants also transform themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.

16 Again I say, let not one think me to be a fool; but if otherwise, even as a fool receive me, that I also may boast some little. 17 What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord but as in folly, in this confidence of boasting. 18 Since many boast according to flesh, I also will boast. 19 For ye bear fools pleasantly, being wise. 20 For ye bear if one bring you into bondage, if one devour you, if one receive, if one exalt himself, if one beat you on the face. 21 By way of dishonour I speak, as though we had been weak; but wherein any one is bold (I speak in folly) I also am bold.

22 Are they Hebrews? I too. Are they Israelites? I too. Are they Abraham's seed? I too. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? (Beside myself I speak) I above measure; in labours very abundantly, in prisons very abundantly, in stripes exceedingly, in deaths often. 24 From Jews five times I received forty [stripes] save one; 25 thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 by wayfarings often, by dangers of rivers, by dangers of robbers, by dangers from countrymen, by dangers from Gentiles, by dangers in town, by dangers in desert, by dangers at sea, by dangers among false brethren, by toil and trouble; 27 in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. 28 Apart from things without [or, besides], my pressing care day by day, the concern for all the assemblies. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I burn not? 30 If I must boast, I will boast in the matters of my infirmity. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he that is blessed for over, knoweth that I lie not. 32 In Damascus the ethnarch [or, prefect] of Aretas the king garrisoned the Damascenes' city to seize me; 33 and through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall and escaped his hands.

2 Corinthians 12.

I must needs boast; though it be not profitable, yet I will come unto visions and revelations of [the] Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man (whether in the body or without [or, apart from] the body, I know not: God knoweth), 4 how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words which [it is] not lawful for a man to utter. 5 On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on mine own behalf I will not boast save in [my] weaknesses. 6 For if I should desire to boast, I shall not be foolish, for I shall speak truth; but I forbear, lest any should account as to me above that which he seeth me or heareth of me. 7 And that I should not be uplifted by the exceeding greatness of the revelations, there was given to me thorn [or, stake] for the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I might not be uplifted overmuch. 8 For this I thrice besought the Lord that it might depart from me; 9 and he hath said to me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for [my] power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ may rest on me. 10 Wherefore. I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits for Christ; for when I am weak, then am I strong.

11 I am become foolish, ye compelled me; for I ought to have been commended by you, for in nothing was I behind those surpassing apostles if also I am nothing. 12 The signs indeed of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by both signs and wonders and powers. 13 For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the other assemblies, unless that I myself pressed not heavily on you? Forgive me this wrong.

14 Behold, this third time I am ready to come unto you, and I will not press heavily, for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15 And I most gladly will spend and be spent for your souls, if even more abundantly loving you I am less loved. 16 But be it so: I did not myself burden you, but crafty as I am I caught you with guile. 17 Did I make a gain of any of them whom I sent unto you? 18 I exhorted Titus and sent the brother with [him]: did Titus make any gain of you? Did we not walk in the same spirit? [did we] not in the same steps?

19 Ye long ago think that we excuse ourselves to you. Before God in Christ we speak, but all things, beloved, for your building up. 20 For I fear lest by any means on coming I find you not such as I wish, and I be found by [or, for] you such as ye wish not; lest by any means [there be] strife, jealousy, wraths, feuds, slanderings, whisperings, swellings, confusions; 21 lest on my coming again my God humble me among [or, before] you, and, bewail many of those that have sinned heretofore and not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and indecency which they committed.

2 Corinthians 13.

This third [time] I am coming unto you. At [the] mouth of two witnesses and three shall every word [or, matter] be established. 2 I have foretold and foretell, as if present the second [ time] and now absent, to them that have sinned before and to all the rest, that if I come again I will not spare. 3 Since ye seek a proof of the Christ speaking in me (who toward you is not weak, but is powerful in you, 4 for although he was crucified in weakness, yet he liveth by God's power; for indeed we are weak in him, but shall live with him by God's power toward you), 5 try your own selves whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves. Or recognise ye not as to your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed ye be reprobate? 6 But I hope ye shall know that we are not reprobate. 7 But we pray unto God that ye may do nothing evil, not that we may appear approved, but that ye may do the right though we be as reprobate. 8 For we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth. 9 For we rejoice when we are weak and ye are strong: this also we pray for, your perfecting. 10 For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not when present deal severely according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for casting down.

11 For the rest, brethren, rejoice [or, farewell], be perfected, be encouraged, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 12 Salute one another with a holy kiss. 13 All the Saints salute you. 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, [be] with you all.

Notes on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians

INTRODUCTION.

Very different in tone from the first Epistle, yet not less distinctly from the same mind and heart, is the second Epistle to the Corinthians. No writing of the apostle bears more unequivocally the marks of all which characterised him; none more corresponding with the state of those whom he addressed; but this in rich restorative grace and deep triumphant feeling before God. Of all the epistles none abounds in more rapid transitions; as indeed it flowed from profound exercises of soul. The circumstances through which he had passed evidently fitted him for the work in hand, which forbids any division of orderly treatment of subjects. This however is just what should be; nor does any epistle afford a finer example of what is suitable to the case in every point of view.

Personal experience, and this used for the help of others in their trials; the work of the Lord in all its varieties, with the action of the Holy Ghost answering to it; the truth of God in its distinctive shape and highest forms, or the glory of Christ contrasted with the spirit, in former days hidden under the letter; the walk and service which befit such revelations of grace; the affections called into action by all this in the midst of sorrow and suffering, with evil abounding and grace much more abounding; the trials and wants of saints, calling out the loving remembrance of others; the opposition of self-seeking men, employed of the enemy to hinder the blessing of saints and to lower the glory of Christ, to distract the weak and give scope for unscrupulous activity; but on the other hand the energy of the Holy Ghost working not only to vouchsafe heavenly visions, and so give faith its. object, but to manifest Christ in weakness and suffering where the power of Christ may rest, are all brought out with remarkable force and fulness.

Hence the expression of feeling is far more frequent and pronounced in the second Epistle than the first. Not that the first fails in showing that the apostle loved the Corinthians, and still hoped all things. But the second brings out still more manifestly how he bore all, believed all, endured all. Here therefore he speaks with far more confidence of his sure reward, in a love which sought not his own things but theirs. Here he explains his motives with much greater openness. Their subjection to the rebukes of his first epistle, their obedience to the word of the Lord which he had charged on their consciences, left him free now to explain himself. But even so he speaks with the greatest delicacy, lest he might seem careful to vindicate himself instead of cherishing jealousy for the Lord alone. Their edification was the nearest object of his heart, next to the glory of the Lord, if indeed we may even thus far sever what faith knows to be inseparable. More than once he takes up the case of the soul under discipline (as in the first epistle he had urged them to act in holy jealousy for Christ), first to show grace in restoring him who was surcharged with grief; and secondly to own how they in every way had proved themselves pure in the matter.

We may in a general way regard the epistle as consisting of the following divisions. The first seven chapters present a sketch of his ministry in its trials and dangers and the conflicts of soul which the state of the saints, of the Corinthian saints themselves above all, occasioned, in the mighty power, glorious character and blessed result of the service of Christ, triumphing over all opposition, up to death itself, in love to its objects; and this not only in those ministering but also in those ministered to, as being the working of the Holy Ghost in the life of Christ; and hence superior to all that could oppose, even to death and judgment; but exercised in suffering and in holiness; yet having to do with the judgment of unholiness which grace turns to a deeper repentance on the part, not only of the guilty, but of all who have to do with them, so as to bring glory to the Lord in Satan's defeat, as well as in quickened and strengthened divine affections.

Next, in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 we have an admirable exposition of the divine principle in giving and receiving among Christians, combined with his call to the Corinthian saints, whom he could now freely exhort, as brought back by grace, to abound in grace towards the poor saints in Judea: a constant and most grave duty, and a blessed privilege of the church towards the poor saints at all times, when they take it up in faith of the Lord's grace, and in love towards His own, as the apostle bore lays down.

Lastly, from 2 Corinthians 10 we have an apologetic discourse, in which the truest humility goes hand in hand with burning indignation against those whom Satan employs to oppose the glory of Christ and destroy the blessing of the saints under cover of exposing the imaginary faults of His servants. Nothing can exceed the propriety, as well as profound feeling with which the apostle handles this difficult and delicate theme; nothing more withering to the adversaries of grace, whatever their pretension to light and righteousness. To a spirit so disinterested, loving, and lowly as Paul's it was a very great pain to speak of himself; and he calls it his folly, as he calls on them to bear with it. Vanity loves to speak of itself and its little doings; true greatness, while it delights in that which is its own source — the all-surpassing One in whom it loses thoughts of self, can for the sake of others afford to speak of labours and sufferings for that loved object and for all that He loves, so as to refute these heartless detractions and calumnies. And as the unworthy insinuation of levity of purpose was dispelled by the first chapter, so in the last those who had undermined his apostleship he warns of the just severity which must befall them if they persevere in a course as dishonouring to the Lord as it was destructive of their own souls.

2 Corinthians 1.

Restorative grace, according to the character and power of life in Christ, is the key-note of this epistle, and that accompanied by the deepest exercise of the heart under the disciplinary ways of God. If the Corinthians must learn it in a manner suited to their state, the apostle had to do so far more profoundly, that he might be enabled fittingly to carry on and complete the gracious work of humbling and self-judgment begun in them by his first epistle. The Lord called him to pass through the severest personal trial and suffering in order the more effectively to serve and sympathise with them, now that their state interpreted by love admitted of unreserved affection and its free expression to them. The influence of all this, as we may see, is very considerable on the style of his second letter, which abounds in the most rapid transitions and abrupt allusions, as he tells out for their profit his own affliction, and the faithfulness of God, intermingling experience, doctrine, comfort, and warning, most intimately; yet so far from confusion that all helps on the great aim of bringing home the lessons of grace to the annihilation of self-confidence or glorying in man.

"Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ* by God's will, and Timothy the brother to the assembly that is in Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia; grace to you and peace from God our Father and [our] Lord Jesus Christ."

* Χ.  Ἰ., B M P, etc.  Ἰ Χ., as in Text. Rec., A D B G K L, the mass of cursives, and most ancient versions, etc.

The opening words of the second epistle naturally resemble those of the first, yet with well defined marks of difference. There is no repetition here of his calling to the apostolate, nor does he qualify the assembly at Corinth as sanctified in Christ Jesus, and saints by the analogous calling of God, which one cannot but judge intrinsically calculated and intended by grace to exercise their consciences in the then state of things in that city. Sosthenes was there graciously associated with the apostle, as one known to and probably of themselves, whom he could honour if they did not; as here we find Timothy from elsewhere, as to whose worthy reception by them the first epistle shows him solicitous. But in the first the apostle had joined the Corinthian church "with all that call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours," here "with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia." It is clear that the first gives a far wider extension than the second, and leaves room for a profession which might not be real, as indeed the apostle evidently feared for the Corinthians themselves in both epistles, especially the first. But the direct force seems to be to embrace, in the express address, saints here or there in Achaia who might not be gathered into assemblies, or such as called on the Lord's name everywhere. As it was of moment that all these should know their heritage in the privileges given and revealed, and be kept from the snare of unbelief which denies their catholicity and continuance, so it was of moment that all the saints throughout Achaia should know and rejoice in the grace that had wrought restoratively in the Corinthian assembly, whatever might remain to be desired from the Lord. It was their common interest and profit for others as well as those immediately concerned. If one member suffer, all the members with it; and if one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it. In both Epistles he could not but wish them characterised by "grace" the spring and by "peace" the effect of love above evil and need, flowing richly and freely "from God our Father and [our] Lord Jesus Christ," the source and the channel of every blessing, but here again associated with the desired grace and peace.

"Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all comfort, that comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those that are in any tribulation through the comfort into which we are comforted ourselves by God, because even as the sufferings of the Christ abound toward us, so through the Christ* aboundeth also our comfort. But, whether we are in tribulation, [it is] for your comfort and salvation, that worketh in endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer (and our hope [is] stedfast for you);† or whether we are comforted, [it is] for your comfort and salvation, knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the comfort." (Vers. 3-7.)

* Text. Rec. on very slight authority omits τοῦ.

† Verse 6 is in a varied order in the MSS and edd. Text. Rec. puts καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς β. ὑπ. ὑμ. at the end, and τῆς ἐν κ. τ. λ. after σωτηρίας, which seems an unauthorised conjecture. Tisch. follows A C M, etc., in reading εἴτε δὲ θλ., ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπῶν π. κ. σ.· εἴτε π., ὑπὲρτ. ἡμ. π. (omitting καὶ σ.) τῆσ ἐνεργ. I follow B D F K L, etc., except that B. omits the first καὶ σωτηρίας.

How striking the difference as compared with the opening of the first epistle! There he thanked his God, not indeed for the spiritual state of the Corinthian saints — very far from it, whatever some might but most unintelligently have inferred — but for their rich endowments. Now he can bless the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for the grace which turns to account all our tribulation, designating Him the Father of compassions, and the God of all comfort. And surely if one adore such a God, that adoration is enhanced when one thus comes in contact with a heart (once how far from it till purified by faith!) which could thus welcome any and every trouble, be it the sorest, comforted by God so as to comfort those that were in any conceivable trouble through the comfort with which itself had been already comforted. It is well to look at the operation of grace in a man of like passions, and not only in the fulness and perfection of all, even in Christ Himself. And certainly, if Paul was remarkable for an energy of loving labour beyond every other, he was yet more so for the variety and greatness of what he suffered for Christ's name. So here he can speak of what he had just proved afresh. The sufferings of the Christ abounded towards us, as he says; so through Him did our comfort, he adds. His faith laid hold of the Lord's way and end, and applied it to his own circumstances, and the working of grace in the face of all. As love never fails, so all things work together for good. And whether we are in tribulation, it is for your comfort and salvation. Love interprets boldly and liberally. He had heard enough to cheer his spirit: "whether we are comforted, it is for your comfort and salvation, that worketh in endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer." Far other were the sufferings of the Corinthian saints from his own. But grace delights in sharing all it can; and faith gives the highest character to whatever it can discern to be of God. In this spirit the apostle seems here to regard the sufferings of the saints at Corinth, and to hope the best results, "Knowing that as ye are partakers of the suffering, so also of the comfort."

The apostle now refers to the afflicting circumstances into which God had been pleased to bring him, in order the more deeply to teach, not merely him, but the Corinthians, and indeed all saints, His ways. The process is painful, no doubt, the profit immense to others as well as the soul itself, and this to God's glory. How good is the God we adore!

"For we would not have you ignorant, brethren, as to* our tribulation that came to pass† in Asia, that we were excessively pressed beyond power, so as to despair even of our living. But we ourselves have had in ourselves the sentence of death, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God that raiseth the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and doth [or will]‡ deliver, in whom we have hope that he will also yet deliver, ye also labouring together by supplication for us that from many persons** the gift toward us may by many be matter of thanksgiving for us. For our boasting is this, the testimony of our conscience that in holiness†† and sincerity before God, not in carnal wisdom but in God's grace, we conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly towards you. For no other thing we write to you than what ye read, or even recognise, and I hope that ye will recognise unto the end, even as also ye recognised us in part that we are your boast, just as ye also are ours in the day of our‡‡ Lord Jesus." (Vers. 8-14.)

* περί A C D E F G P many cursives, etc., ὑπέρ, Text. Rec. with B and most uncials and cursives.

† ἡμῖν Text. Rec. with most MSS, but the oldest and best authorities do not read "to us."

‡ ῥύσεται B C P, etc., with some of the best versions, ῥύεται, Text. Rec. and most others, save A D, etc., which omit either.

** The Elz. ed. of 1633 without sense inserts τὸ before εὐχ. The MSS and even edd. strangely interchange  and ὑμῶν.

†† ἁπλότητι is the reading of Text. Rec. with the mass, ἁγιότητι of the oldest.

‡‡ Text. Rec. with most omits ἡμῶν.

Thus does God prove Himself rich in mercy, and this, not in conferring objective favour only in Christ, but in rendering His tried ones superior to all trouble, not by exempting those He loves from suffering and sorrow, but by giving the faith that accepts all at His hands with confidence in His love. Here we see, not the Holy One of God, who suffered as He was tempted to the uttermost, sin apart, and on the cross knew not sin indeed, but what it was for God to make Him sin; here we see a man of like passions with ourselves, strengthened with might in the inner man, and the outer crushed in every way, yet out of the eater meat coming forth, and out of the strong sweetness. Nor is this all. But he had to do, as we too, with One who knows how to order the tribulation so that its fruit, in divine consolation, should come out just at the right moment for the saints that needed succour and comfort. The apostle's mouth is opened to the Corinthians; his heart, which had been rebelled by their evil and hardness, has expanded. He can now speak freely of deliverance, that they too, humbled, if not humble, may hear and be glad, with him magnify the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, and exalt His name together. By the trouble that happened in proconsular Asia he had been pressed excessively beyond his power, so as to despair, as he says, even of living, but grace, as suits God always, wrought unfailingly. It was not by a providential intervention to screen the apostle from suffering, still less by a miracle which might confound the adversaries, but because he had abidingly the sentence of death in himself. This Job had not, and so his long struggle, as he writhed under his sorrows from without and within; to it, as far as could be, he was brought at the last before his deliverance and blessing came. The apostle bowed to it all along, and hence was above all that Satan could do, for he has no power beyond death, and was utterly baffled by the faith which accepted such a sentence,* and this "in ourselves, that we should not have our trust in ourselves, but in God that raiseth the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and doth, or will, deliver, in whom we have our hope that he will deliver." It is the power of the resurrection brought into the present, so as not to shrink from, but to retain, the sentence of death in himself. If Abraham learnt this in his last lesson of faith in Isaac (Heb. 11: 17-19), the apostle declares that he had it in himself. Such was to him the power of life in Christ, not ascetically, so as to exalt self after all, but finding strength in faith, giving glory to God, the perfect and unlimited deliverer. But his unburdened heart brings them in also as labouring together by supplication on his behalf that the gift of grace towards him by many persons may be matters of thanksgiving from many on his behalf. Thus would he by grace bind together, at whatever cost to self, the hearts of saints in thanksgiving for him, once in danger of wanton and utter alienation through the levity which exposed them to Satan's wiles. How far from Christ is independence, whether personal or ecclesiastical!

* I see no reason to doubt that not "answer" but "sentence," as Hesychius says, is the true meaning.

Yet is there nothing good, loving, or holy without God, to whom conscience, as well as the heart, purified by faith, and free, ever refers. Therefore does the apostle next turn to the ground and proof of spiritual integrity, though he writes for their sakes rather than his own. "For our boasting is this, the testimony of our conscience that in (simplicity, or rather) holiness and sincerity (literally of God, but in sense) before God, not in carnal wisdom, but in God's grace, we conducted ourselves in the world, and more abundantly toward you." He could the more boldly ask and count on their prayers from the persuasion that he had a good conscience as to his general conversation in the world, as before God, and especially as toward themselves. (See Heb. 13) He did not seek to conciliate men to and for himself, but as bent on pleasing God, he did not doubt that a conscience cleared in them would acknowledge a conscience void of offence in himself. Activity of self blinds the person, and genders bitter thoughts, especially of the one whose course morally condemns others; if the eye be single, on the contrary, the whole body is full of light, and love flows freely. "For no other things we write to you than what ye (well know, or) read, or even recognise, and I hope that ye will recognise unto the end, even as also ye recognised us in part that we are your boast, as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus."

Now that self-judgment had begun to work in the saints at Corinth, they would not fail to see the folly of taxing him with inconstancy, whose life as a saint and servant of God had been one of immovable firmness and unbending truth. There is much difference as to the force here of ἀναγινώσκετε. Elsewhere in the New Testament the meaning, beyond controversy, is to "read," which very many hold to, like the Authorised translation; others, like Calvin, contend for "well know," which is rarely if over found save in poets. It is a question between what they might gather from his presence in their midst, or from his epistle. But he writes with the calm confidence of one before God, which fails not to tell on the conscience of saints wherever they feel freely, apart from the heat and bias of party; and as he had ground to trust that they had thus recognised him in part at least, so also he hoped that they would to the end own that he was their boast, even as they were his in the day of our Lord Jesus. It was good for all to anticipate that day.

The apostle now explains circumstances which some in Corinth were as quick to misunderstand as ready to turn to his advantage. He is free to explain now as things are, but he is more anxious to turn all to the account of Christ and the truth, and this in the truest interests of the saints.

"And with this confidence I was intending previously to come unto you, that ye might have a second favour,* and through you to pass into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come unto you, and by you to be sent forward into Judea. Having then this intention, did I, pray, use lightness? Or what I purpose,† do I purpose according to flesh, that with me may be the yea yea and the nay nay? Now God [is] faithful that our word that [was] unto you is‡ not yea and nay. For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, that was preached among you by us, by me, and Silvanus, and Timothy, became not yea and nay, but is become yea in him. For as many as [are] God's promises, in him [is] the yea; wherefore also by him|| [is] the amen for glory to God by us." (Vers. 15-20.)

* χαράν the reading of B L etc., is not entitled to shake the common χάριν. There is more question between the received ἔξητε or σχῆτε, which last is supported by B C etc.

† For the vulgar βουλευόμενος, the best MSS, etc., give βουλόμένος.

‡ ἐγένετο Text. Rec. with later witnesses, but the earlier show ἔστιν.

|| καὶ ἐν αὐτῳ Text. Rec. with some later authorities, but διὸ καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ A B C F, etc.

The injurious impression, and even charge, of some at Corinth against the apostle was based on the slenderest appearances, and these severed from the action in him of power and love and a sound mind. How opposed to the Spirit were not such thoughts in them! The modification of his plans in not going before to visit them was as distinctly in subjection to the Lord, as his actual desire to see and help them. It was not dread of any there, still less was it from lack of moral purpose in himself. His heart was toward them in the large and holy activity of divine love. Blessed before to them, he sought that they might be favoured of the Lord again on his way to and from Macedonia for Judea; and their affectionate care in sending him on to the East he valued and counted on, His true motives he let them know afterwards. Those who yielded to such surmisings proved both their own bad state, and their ignorance of the apostle; for character and state are according to the object before the man. If it be Christ in love to His own, and even to man generally, the result follows in a walk according to God. This is to imitate God, and serve the Lord. If there be an absence of purpose on the one hand, or on the other a planning according to flesh, in either way self governs, and there could be for others no just ground of confidence. The man is as he loves, or loves not. He that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him. He that lacks an object lacks character, and can only be frivolous and inconstant; he that seeks personal influence, power, honour, money, etc., is degraded according to what his heart is set on. What is of the flesh is worthless, and its purpose untrustworthy. In God only is continuance, and His Spirit alone works it in the heart and ways, where Christ displaces self as the object. For man otherwise is incapable of walking or serving according to God. He is either and evidently fickle, or his planning, however positive, is without God's guidance and strength.

Beautifully does he turn, in a spirit of grace, from their insinuations against himself to the doctrine he preached. "Now God [is] faithful, that our word that [was] unto you is not yea and nay." There is no shift of purpose, no uncertainty, in the gospel, whatever may be thought of the man. God Himself is pledged to it and concerned in it. His glory and His grace are not more bound up with it than His truth and righteousness. In the mighty work of redemption, all that God is shone out as nowhere else in past or future. There He vindicated His own nature in everlasting hatred of sin; there He demonstrated His love, rising above the worst evil of the creature. Did He compromise His word? He accomplished it, letter and spirit, to the full. Did He abandon His holiness? Never was His absolute separation from evil so manifested, nor His righteous judgment of it over so seen as then; yet then it was that every obstacle to the outflow of allovercoming grace toward sinners, whatever and wherever they might be, fell before the efficacy of the one offering and sacrifice of Christ. And as in the work which is its ground, so in the preaching, there is no inconsistency. On the contrary, every fact and thought, otherwise irreconcilable, are there brought into harmony. Our only absolute consistency is in Christ and His cross.

Here it will be observed that the apostle associates others with himself. For the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ ever enlarges the heart, and gives enduring fellowship; and this appears still more clearly in what follows. "For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, that was preached among you by us, by me, and Silvanus, and Timothy, became not yea and nay, but is become yea in him." The glory of the person proclaimed answers to the certainty guaranteed. Doubt, difficulty, hesitation, or inconsistency can have no place in the Son of God, now the glorified Man, who suffered on the cross for the annulling of sin; and the apostle and his companions know and preached no other doctrine. As the truth is one, and they believed, so is the doctrine the same which they preached. Others might seek novelties; and it is natural to the active, restless, spirit of man. They could not so deal with such a person, such a work, or such a message. That divine person, in His infinite grace, governed their minds and filled their hearts; and out of the abundance of their hearts they preached the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, and this as consistently each with himself, as all with each other.

Thus he declares most unequivocally that the preaching of him and his companions had none of the vacillation or conflict common to the schools of human opinion, and this because all truth is verified in Christ's person. It is become yea in Him. It abode the same. Perfection is come in Him, and also as available for others. This is far more than the witnesses' agreement with themselves and one another, which is eclipsed by Christ, who is personally the truth, and all is become verified in Him. Nothing more distant from the subdued, hesitating, style of Greek thought and expression, where even what was not doubted they put as opinion. Here all is sure, and unclouded, and peremptory. The gospel, as Paul preached it, admits of no doubtful answer, any more than double dealing; and this, because it is revealed in the Second man, who has set aside the first, with his darkness and doubt, no loss than with his guilt and corruption.

More than this: "For how many soever [are] God's promises, in him is the yea; wherefore* also through him [its] the amen to God for glory by us." Hence it is not only that there is the affirmation of all promised of God in Christ, and therefore in the highest way, before the fulfilment in others, as the effect, and the outward display before every eye in the universe, but there is a present application of the surest character, through apostolic ministration, to God's glory. God is glorified in the Son of man, as the Son of man is glorified; but there are results of the deepest sort which God vouchsafes now to faith, in the administration of which (not of the kingdom merely, as Peter) our apostle had the chief place, and the Christian is entitled to reap the blessing, as heartily and in the Holy Spirit assenting to the truth. So Bengel, long ago, said tersely enough, "Nae respectu Dei promittentis, Amen respectu credentium." But to bring the believer into the enjoyment of what God has wrought in Christ more has to be said, and immediately follows. Here it is the firm foundation, not God's promises as of old, still less the law which proved that man could not make them good, yet all accomplished in Christ, but also as surely verified through Him, for glory to God by us.

* καὶ ἐν αὐτῳ Text. Rec. with some later authorities, but διὸ καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ A B C F, etc.

The apostle refutes yet more the insinuation of uncertainty in his preaching, by the drawing out, not merely of the verification of the truth, and accomplishment of all God's promises in Christ, but of our firm association with it all in Him.

"Now he that establisheth us with you* in Christ, and anointed us is [God], who† also sealed us, and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (Ver. 21.) It is not man's own will or effort that is able to secure us Christward, nor, consequently, is it a mere question of his fickleness, feebleness, or failure in anyway. He that binds us fast to Christ is God; and the emphasis is all the greater, because God is expressed, not objectively, but as a predicate. It is truly surprising, then, that a professed commentator, and a distinguished scholar, should have said that ὁ δὲ βεβ . . . . . ἡμᾶς is the (prefixed) predicate, and θεός the subject; for this is to reverse all that is certain in the language, and to lose the true force of what is here insisted on. Had ὁ δὲ β. . . . . ἡμᾶς been affixed to θεός, instead of prefixed, the sense had been the same, the order of the words in a sentence affecting it only as a matter of emphasis, and in no way disturbing the relation of the subject to the predicate, which it is the chief function of the article to distinguish. Compare chapter 5: 5, where a precisely similar construction occurs. Nor is this a casual mistake, for it re-appears no less distinctly in the comment on Hebrews 3: 4, where θεός is said to be the subject, and ὁ πάντα κατασκευάσας the predicate, though it is allowed that the ancient expositors, almost without exception, take q. as predicate, and ὁ π. κ. as a designation of Christ, thus making the passage a proof of His deity. It ought not to be disputed that in all these, or the like, instances, the object before the mind, or subject of each proposition, designated as operating in the way described, as to either the saints or the universe, is declared to be God. Man is excluded by the nature of the case, as in Hebrews; or He that is said so to act is affirmed to be God, for the confirmation of the saints, as here. Had it been ὁ θ. in these cases, the propositions would have been reciprocal, and either might have been viewed as subject or as predicate. But the effect of the absence of the article is to characterise Him who works as is described in each instance. He is divine, is God: a very different statement from saying that God so works.

* So A D B F G K L O P, most cursives, and Text. Rec. C, etc., ὑμᾶς σὺν ἡμῖν, B and another the absurdity of ὑμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν.

† So corr. B Ccorr. D E L O, etc., Text. Rec.; F G, etc., καὶ ὁ, but p.m. A Cp.m. K P, etc., omit the article.

Here, then, it is laid down that He who firmly attaches us to Christ is God, as elsewhere we are declared to be in Him. Man is weak and vacillating, and yet more in deed than in word; but He who binds fast unto Christ is God, and this, not the strong only, but the weakest, as needing most such securing grace and power. Hence, in a love that rises above all that wounds the spirit, the apostle adds, as coupling the saints in Corinth with himself and Timothy, "He that establisheth us with you." Christ for both was the impregnable fortress, the rock that never can be moved.

But more than this follows we are "anointed" as believers, we receive the unction from the Holy One, whereby, as John says, we know all things. God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power the Lord Jesus, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil. (See Luke 4: 18; Acts 10: 38) To us who believe it is rather energy of communion with His revealed mind; still the Spirit given is of power, and love, and a sound mind; and He that anointed us is not man, but God. Hence, as the apostle with the last hour before his eyes says, the unction as surely abides as it teaches us of all things. It is no transient display of power over Satan outwardly, no qualification of apostles only, as some have thought. It is the permanent privilege of the Christian for his own soul's entrance into the revealed mind of God; and "the babes" (τὰ παιδία) have it as truly, if not so manifestly, as the most mature. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament received, of course, gift or energy for their work; but they are never said to be "anointed" as such.

But our apostle tells us that God also sealed us, and gave the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." Not as if the Spirit were given at so many distinct epochs according to the difference of His operation. The gift of the Spirit to us, as believing in Christ and resting on His redemption, is really the powerful source of all. He that establishes us in Christ, and anointed us, as we have seen, also sealed us, and gave us the earnest. The Father, even God, sealed the Son of man. This, we can easily understand, was only meet, for He was not only from eternity but as man His Son, the constant and perfect object of His delight. But how could we be sealed who were in sin and wretchedness, the marked contrast of the Lord Jesus? His redemption completely delivers us from Satan's thraldom, and we are not only born of God and His sons, but washed from our sins in His blood, and sin in the flesh is condemned in His death as a sacrifice, as truly as ourselves forgiven. Hence, in virtue of that work, God also sealed us, and gave the "earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." The Holy Spirit is not only the seal of redemption, but the pledge of the inheritance. The meaning is in no way the Spirit given in measure as the earnest of more. He is the witness of what has been done and accepted on our behalf; He is also the foretaste of the glory that is assuredly to follow. And all things are of God, who sent first His Son, that every promise should be verified, and then His Spirit, that we who believe should be brought into the security, knowledge, and enjoyment of all this blessedness, past, present, or to come, in Christ our Lord.

Having thus turned in grace the Corinthian disparagement of his own word to the praise of the gospel, the apostle next passes, with great solemnity, to explain his real motive for not coming before to their city. "But I call God as witness upon my soul, that to spare you I did not yet come unto Corinth; not that we rule over your faith, but are fellow-workers of your joy, for by faith ye stand." (Vers. 23, 24.) Had he come before, it must have been with a rod. (Cf. 1 Cor. 4: 21.) Desirous of uniting them in love, and in a spirit of meekness, he had deferred his coming till grace had wrought self-judgment among them. The delay, and turning elsewhere meanwhile, furnished the occasion for unworthy insinuations, already touched on. It was really as sparing them he did not come; but he carefully guards against the charge of assuming undue authority; "not that we rule over your faith, but are fellow-workers of your joy." Nothing is truly done that is not in the soul before God. Even an apostle like Paul or John sought not for a moment to step between the faithful and God. The apostles communicated His mind, that the saints might have the same assurance of it as themselves, and so their joy be full. "For by faith ye stand." So it must be in order to please God. Without faith it is impossible. It is not by the fear or favour of men, however blessed, that the saints stand, but by faith. A fellow-helper of their joy, he would rather expose himself to the charge of changing his mind, if any were low enough so to think and speak of him, than to deal harshly with them, as he in faithfulness must, had he come as he first purposed. He waited, that the word of God might work its salutary aim, mixed with faith in those who heard it. He wished to do his work with joy, and not groaning, for this would be unprofitable for them. Was this to lord it over them, as proud men might allege? It was to farther their joy of faith, as their servant for Jesus' sake.

2 Corinthians 2

The apostle now explains more fully his motive for not going before to Corinth. They ought, from 1 Corinthians 4, to have gathered plainly enough why it was. But the flesh never appreciates motives of the Spirit; and the enemy takes pleasure in embroiling the saints, if he fail with those that serve them for Jesus' sake. Now, however, that grace had begun to work in the Corinthians, the language is modified accordingly. The apostle had then asked if he was to come with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness. Here, as he had already stated that it was to spare them he had not as yet come to Corinth, he follows up with words that show how far from him it was to lord it over their faith, as some might have drawn from his threat of a rod.

"But I judged this for myself not to come again [or back] unto you in grief.* For if I grieve you, who then [is] he that gladdeneth me, if not he that is grieved by me? And I wrote† this very thing, that I might not on coming have grief from those from whom I ought to have joy, having trust in you all that my joy is [that] of you all. For out of much tribulation and distress of heart I wrote to you with many tears, not that ye should be grieved, but that ye may know the love that I have very [lit. more] abundantly unto you." (Vers. 1-4.)

* The true order is πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν with the

best and most MSS.

† There is no ὑμῖν ιν p.m. A, B, Cp.m. O, P, etc.

It is a mistake that these words imply a former visit in grief, and therefore a second intermediate and unrecorded one, distinct from the first. The work began, as described in Acts 18. The next visit of which scripture speaks was in Acts 20: 2, 3, after both epistles were written — the first from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16: 8), the second from Macedonia — but whether from Philippi (as is the traditional idea), or from some other place, as Thessalonica, does not appear. Tradition is certainly wrong in asserting that the first also issued from Philippi, as it may be about the second. 2 Corinthians 12: 14, 21; 2 Corinthians 13: 1, in no way indicate the fact, but the intention of a second visit, put off because of their state, and in the hope that the delay might give occasion to the intervention of grace, and thus the need of judicial severity be spared, on the apostle's part, toward many in the assembly. Indeed 2 Corinthians 13: 2 seems plainly to indicate that he had not really been a second time: "I have declared beforehand, and say beforehand, as present the second time, and now absent," etc.

There is no evidence, in my judgment, that he had gone once to correct abuses, and to exercise discipline. He was anxious to avoid any such necessity, and therefore, instead of going as intended, he went to meet Titus, spite of work most attractive to him, that he might know how his first letter had fared at Corinth.

Actually he had not been; this was the third time he had the purpose of going; and it was the putting off the visit when intended which gave rise to the charge of light-mindedness. The change was due to their failure, and in no sense to his. On the contrary, he preferred in love to them to be grossly misconstrued, and so, instead of explaining to others, he decided this for or with himself, not to come back to them in grief.

At that time his visit would have been sorrow all round — to him certainly — at the sight of the saints, divided by party zeal, entangled by fleshly lusts, dabbling with the world, tampering with idolatry, unworthily communicating, disorderly in the assembly, and denying — implicitly at least — fundamental doctrine, and not less surely to them, if he convicted their consciences, and dealt with their state as it deserved. Graciously, therefore, had he deferred his visit till the issue of his first letter appeared, wherein he had brought the light of God to bear on all these evils and more, of which report mainly, not a fresh visit, had apprised him. The good news he had received of the effect produced by his letters opened his heart, and let out the deep affection he had for them, spite of their grievous faults. For he is convinced that their grief was his, as also that his joy was theirs. What a wondrous power there is in Christ to produce communion in grief over evil, in the joy of grace, above self and its divisive character and consequences! His desire was the happiness of the saints. No wonder, then, he shrank from going where and when his visit must be one of grief. For if I grieve you, who then is it that is to gladden me, if not he that is grieved by me?" That is, none but they could satisfy his heart. What love, and delicacy too! He individualises the saints in this phrase: And I wrote this very thing, that I might not on coming have grief from those from whom I ought to have joy: having trust in you all that my joy is [that] of you all."

It is clear thence that it is not only inflicting, but receiving, grief of which the apostle speaks, as indeed it is always according to God in His church, whatever it be in the world. His motive in writing was the removal of what ought to pain them as it did him, that he and they might at his coming rejoice together, Christ being the spring, who can tolerate nothing offensive to God in His temple, which the saints are. And the circumstances, as well as inward feelings of the apostle, were eminently adapted to bring about the result. "For out of much tribulation and distress of heart I wrote to you with many tears, not that ye should be grieved, but that ye may know the love which I have very abundantly unto you." It was very abundant love, but hardly more than to others, as some conceive.

There is, perhaps, no place where the delicacy, as well as faithfulness, of the apostle appears more than in dealing with the case which had so deeply pained his heart, in view of the dishonour done to the Lord at Corinth. For if it betrayed how low the unjudged flesh of a Christian might carry him, it had also discovered the low state of the assembly, and made it a special trial to him who loved them, and a special danger for those who were otherwise alienated. Nevertheless, the grace and truth which came in Christ wrought so mightily by the Holy Spirit in this blessed servant, that even the light-minded Corinthians were roused to repentance quite as decidedly as to activity in discipline; and so far communion was restored between them and the apostle. It ought to be doubted that, as he commanded them to put away the wicked person from among themselves, they could not but bow, purging out the old leaven, that they might be a new lump, as they were unleavened. The paschal sacrifice of Christ is inseparable from the feast of unleavened bread we have to celebrate here below. We cannot shirk the responsibility, if we enjoy the privilege. Siincerity and truth must characterise the believer.

But if the saints in Corinth were only of late awakened to feel and act with honour and holy resentment at such an outrage in God's temple, there was danger now of a strong reaction. Severity is as little according to Christ as laxity or indifference; and those who needed such a powerful appeal to arouse them to vindicate the injured name of the Lord, were now disposed to an extreme of judicial sternness, as far from the grace of the apostle, as before from his care for holiness. Thus fellowship of heart was imperilled from the opposite side.

The apostle, however, seizes on what was good, through the action of the Spirit in them, to labour for still more and better. Recovery from a low state is rarely immediate. Correction is needed there, as well as here; and the very fact that the call to righteousness is again heard, may, for the time, so pre-occupy the soul, that love cannot yet act freely. So it was at Corinth, till he who so blessedly represented the Master laid his hands again upon their eyes, which as yet saw men like trees walking, that, restored fully, they might look on all clearly. He had written out of much tribulation and distress of heart to them, with many tears, which refuted the charge of either levity or self-exaltation; not that they might be grieved, but that they might know his very abundant love toward them. Now he turns to the one in question, who had grieved him from the first tidings of the sin, since the first epistle had been used to put his and their sin in the light of God before their consciences.

"But if any one hath grieved, he hath grieved not me, but in part (that I may not press heavily) all of you. Sufficient to such an one [is] this rebuke, which [is] by the many; so that, on the contrary, ye should rather forgive and comfort, lest somehow such an one be swallowed up with excessive grief. Wherefore I exhort you to ratify love toward him. For I wrote also for this, and that I might know the proof of you, whether as to all things ye are obedient. But to whom ye forgive anything, I also; for I too, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, [do so] for your sake, in Christ's person, that we might not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his devices." (Vers. 5-11.)

The sorrow which had filled the apostle's heart had, more or less, overspread the assembly; and such is the feeling which becomes it. If the godly Israelite so took up and confessed the sins of the people, how much more those in a far nearer relation to the Lord? Yet we see it deeply in Moses and Joshua, in Hezekiah and Josiah, in Daniel and Ezra. So now grace had communicated to the saints, in measure, the apostle's grief at the Corinthian scandal: not that they, if any, felt so deeply as he, but that he could speak of them all as affected similarly with himself. Thus the hearts of all would be conciliated, and even he that had caused the grief would feel that there was in the apostle anything but the wish to overwhelm him. He adds that the rebuke or punishment already inflicted of the many was enough. This would not have been so if the sentence of excision had not been carried out. Not a word intimates that a. mere reproof short of it had arrested the evil, and brought the evil-doer to repentance. The notion, therefore, of the French Reformers (Calvin, Beza, etc.), or others, to this effect is not only unfounded but unworthy also; for as the first epistle had peremptorily insisted on putting away the offender, the second is equally plain that mutual confidence was in measure restored by their decision and self-judgment in this very case. Verse 9, in particular, is inconsistent with anything less, not to speak of verses 7, 8, and indeed others elsewhere. Nor does verse 6 fairly bear the meaning that he is distinguishing another sort of censure which the Corinthians had administered from the excommunication he had himself enjoined; but that what was already done in accordance with inspired injunctions had effected its purpose, and should not last longer. This is entirely confirmed by the call that follows, rather to forgive and comfort, lest perhaps if he continued under so terrible a sentence, broken down as he was, he should be swallowed up with excessive grief. Wherefore he beseeches the saints to ratify love, as they had already testified abhorrence of the sin, by a formal act of the assembly. Thus too would the saints prove their obedience in all respects, in gracious restoration of the penitent, as before in solemn judgment of his heinous sin; and the apostle also had all this in view when he wrote both epistles.

But it is of deep moment to mark and learn that, though he has to awaken the assembly both to judge and to restore, for they had failed in both respects, he will have them to feel and act aright, joining them in their acts, and in no way acting for them. Hence he does not at all speak as a spiritual dictator, however real and great the authority given him of the Lord, as he takes pains to allege in both doctrine and discipline. "But to whom ye forgive anything, I also [forgive]; for also I, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, [do so] for your sake in Christ's person, that we should not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his thoughts." It would have been no adequate healing of the assembly to have forgiven the Corinthian offender because the apostle had done so, and commanded it. When the flagrant evil was not judged, he did command excommunication; but when grace had wrought all round in estimating as well as dealing with what was so humbling, he will have them to forgive, and go with them in it. It is not, therefore, "whom I forgive, ye also," but "to whom ye forgive anything, I also." He is most careful to press their own place of ratifying love, even when apostolically laying down their duty, that he might have fellowship with them throughout. In the prerogative of mercy he would follow, and what he had forgiven, if he had forgiven aught, do it on their account in Christ's person. How blessed the seal of authority, and how gracious the sanction! May we cherish such a scene of divine affections in presence of good and of evil. Our weakness is immense, the difficulty as various as humanly insuperable, the danger from Satan's wiles constant; but greater is He that is in the saints than he that is in the world; and we know that the enemy's thoughts and designs are levelled pre-eminently at God's assembly, the only divine society on earth.

The apostle resumes for a moment the account of his course, but the aim is to testify his affectionate concern for the Corinthian saints who misjudged him, and, failing in love themselves, saw not his love which spared them, as much as it sought their blessing to the Lord's glory.

"Now when I came unto the Troad for the gospel of Christ, a door being opened to me in [the] Lord, I had no rest in my spirit at not finding Titus, my brother; but having taken leave of them, I went forth unto Macedonia. But thanks [be] to God that always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the odour of his knowledge through us in every place. Because we are a sweet odour of Christ to God in those to be saved, and in those that perish: to the one an odour from* death unto death, but to the others an odour from* life unto life; and who [is] sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, retailing the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ." (Vers. 12-17.)

* ἐκ twice ( A B C, etc.), with the genitive.

We see two things here: the apostle's deep value for the gospel; his still deeper value for the saints as in danger of compromising Christ. Hence, whatever his purpose in coming into a new region, and in the face of a distinct opening for the work of reaching souls outside, he could not rest without hearing of those souls, so dear to him for the Lord's sake, and so exposed to Satan's wiles. He had hoped to have heard news of Corinth through Titus; but Titus he did not find; and so, turning his back on those on the eastern side where he then was, he repairs to Macedonia. His heart was on the saints. Anxiety for the assembly decided him to abandon for the time even so promising a field for the gospel. The church has the nearest claim, and the apostle acts on it. It was not only that the letter he had written bore witness of his love for them, and grief over the grave circumstances of the Corinthian assembly, but also his relinquishment of the gospel work he so valued, and this spite of the opening of a door in the Lord. His heart was tried greatly, as he thought of the saints and of his own letter. Would they accept it as of God, and judge themselves by the light? Would they resent his plain and searching, however affectionate, appeals? The situation was most critical. Taking leave, then, of the saints in Troas, he goes forth where he hoped to hear the most speedy and authentic tidings of their state, and the effect of his own letter.

But, instead of stopping to describe the intelligence conveyed by Titus, the apostle breaks forth into a burst of praise and thanksgiving. It was, no doubt, characteristic of his deep feeling and immediate appreciation that he should thus turn from the human instrument to His grace who had wrought such a happy result, where things were so painful and perilous; but no means can be conceived more admirably adapted to express at once what grace had effected in the Corinthian saints, nor any more becoming a servant of Christ. There is thus the complete absence of self-vindication, and there is no credit taken for superior wisdom.

The gracious power of God is celebrated immediately as His victory. Not merely is every means attributed to Him, and the blessing, from Him, which piety would always feel and utter gladly, but he speaks in the most forcible way of God always leading us in triumph in the Christ. The best proof of its peculiarity is that so many commentators, Protestant and Catholic alike, pare down and alter the meaning. Among the rest, our own Authorised translation was so affected by this impression, that they rendered θριαμβεύειν, "to cause to triumph," instead of lead in triumph, as they should. The other has been attempted to be sustained by the Hellenistic causative usage of μαθητεύειν, βασιλεύειν, κατηλεύειν, and χορεύειν, even in classical Greek. But the usage of the apostle in Colossians 2: 5 is adverse, nor am I aware of a single instance in which it can be proved to be ever thus employed. Besides, it really weakens, if it does not destroy, the beauty of the apostle's image, and makes it to be his triumph rather than God's. The one would be a rather unseasonable, and perhaps galling, reminder to the Corinthians that he was as right as they were wrong; the other, a singularly beautiful, though bold, prediction of a divine victory, in which he has part as a willing captive, or part of the train.

There is no over-colouring of the figure, no representation of himself as humbled and conquered, still less any reference to their fighting against God or His servant. But he turns his joy over their being brought to repentance, and a recognition of his apostolic authority, as well as of his loving services, into a thanksgiving to God, who, instead of letting him feel his abandonment of evangelistic work, always loads us in triumph in the Christ, and makes manifest the odour of His knowledge through us in every place. The allusion is to a Roman triumph, where aromatics were burnt profusely; and on this, too, he seizes to illustrate the going forth everywhere around of his testimony to Christ in the gospel. But the sweet perfumes in a triumphal procession were accompanied by life to some of the captives, and by death to others; and this is as naturally as powerfully turned to point the twofold issues of the gospel.

The unbelieving Jew or Gentile saw no more in Jesus crucified than a dead man; how could the message founded on Him be of power to such? They might not deny the gracious words of it, any more than of Christ in the synagogue of Nazareth, where He announced His mission in the wondrous citation from Isaiah 61; yet they saw not, heard not, God in either. But as God delighted in His Son, a Saviour, so He pronounced beautiful the feet of those that announced glad tidings of peace, of those that announce glad tidings of good things; and so, too, He smells a savour of rest sweeter than that of Noah's offering, or any other. "Because," says the apostle, "we are a sweet odour of Christ to God in those to be saved, and in those that perish;" and this he explains carefully: "to the one an odour from death unto death," which we have seen; "but to the other an odour from life unto life." Such is the message where it is mixed with faith; for faith sees and hears Him as the Son of God, yet Son of man, who died for man, for sins, but rose in the power of an endless life, that we might live also, and live of His life, where sin can never enter, nor death have dominion more.

No wonder, as the apostle weighs the responsibility of a service so blessed on the one side, so tremendous on the other, that he exclaims, "And who [is] sufficient for these things?" For if the gospel is a word of delivering grace, it causes the truth to shine out so as to intensify the servant's estimate of responsibility. This is just what should be — full liberty imparted, instead of bondage; but solemn responsibility, realised as it never was before, and could not be in any other way. But here the mass of the Corinthians sadly fell short, not the apostle, whom they had slighted in their self-sufficient folly. "For we are not, as the many, retailing (or, adulterating) the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ." He did not, like the many, traffic in the word of God; but as of transparency, nor this only, but as of God, and this too with a present sense of having to do with Him, as all must later, "before God," "we speak in Christ," which is far more intimate and forcible than merely of Him. Yet even such solemn words did not hinder men, and even saints, too soon and down to our day, to make the ministry of the gospel a stepping-stone to earthly gain and worldly honour, in manifest discord with the cross of Christ, and to the utter eclipse of His heavenly glory, not to speak of the grievous loss of all concerned.

2 Corinthians 3

From this the apostle turns in a peculiarly touching way to the saints at Corinth. His spirit felt that his last allusions to a triumph, in contrast with those who trafficked in truth (never then given out with genuine purity), might expose to unkind personality. He therefore, in disclaiming the need of human commendation in any form, lets out what grace forms in the heart before contrasting the law with the gospel.

11 Begin we again to commend ourselves? or* need we, as some, recommendatory epistles unto you or† from you? Ye are our epistle inscribed in our‡ hearts, known and read by all men, being manifested that ye are Christ's epistle ministered by us, having been inscribed, not with ink, but [the] Spirit of [the] living God, not on tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of [the] heart (or, hearts) §. And such confidence have we through the Christ toward God; not that we are competent from ourselves to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our competency [is] of God, who also made us competent [as] servants of [the] new covenant, not of letter but of spirit, for the letter killeth but the spirit quickeneth." (Vers. 1-6.)

* (not εἰ as A K L P, etc., which follows) μή B C D E F G etc. The Auth. V. here rejects Er. Compl. St. Be. for the reading of Colinaeus and the Vulg.

† The second συστατικῶν added in Text. Rec. following most MSS is rejected by the best witnesses.

‡ , half a dozen cursives, and versions too, exhibit the strange blunder of ὑμῶν for ἡμ. "in your hearts."

§ καρδίαις "hearts" in apposition with pl., "tablets," is read by high authority ( AB C D E G L P, five and twenty cursives, etc.); the common reading καρδίας "of the heart," by F K, most cursives, and almost all ancient versions; etc.

It is plain that there was then, as now, the practice of giving and receiving letters in commending stranger brethren to the assemblies. And a valuable means of introduction as well as guard it is, provided we hold it in spirit, not in letter: otherwise we might fail doubly, in refusing those who ought to be received, where circumstances have hindered the requisite voucher, and in receiving those who, being deceivers, can supply themselves with any letter which may the more effectually mislead. The aim of all such provisions is to afford adequate testimony to the assembly of God, which is in no way bound to a form however excellent, if wanting, provided perchance other means of godly satisfaction leave no reasonable hesitation to those who judge fairly and in love. It is mischievous when that which God uses for our mutual comfort is perverted by legalism into an instrument of spiritual torture, as may be sometimes the lack of a commendatory note, or some kindred informality.

But the apostle turns, from the supposed imputation of seeking to commend himself, to foster in the Corinthian saints somewhat of the love which burned so warmly in his own bosom. If he, if an apostle, could be supposed to need a commendatory epistle, surely not Paul to or from the assembly in Corinth! As he adds, with as much beauty as affection, "Ye are our epistle," not in process of being "written," but this already done and abidingly (ἐγγεγραμμένη) "in our hearts," whereas it was but becoming "known and read by all men," as was also their manifestation that they were Christ's epistle, "ministered" as a past fact (διακονηθεῖσα) by us, "written" as it has been and was (ἐγγεγραμμένη) "not with ink, but the living God's Spirit," not on tablets of stone, but on fleshy tablets — hearts, or of the heart.

It was a wonderful thing to call any company of saints in this world Paul's epistle, that which set forth his mind and heart, the fruit of his testimony in the Spirit to the world. Such he declares the Corinthian assembly to be, no mere tongue-work this, but "written in our hearts," yet without doubt intended for men generally to learn by, as he says, "known and read by all men." Such is the church, not a thing of creedism, or a subscription to paper-and-ink articles, however pure in their place, but an epistle to set forth livingly what the apostle taught and felt. Here he goes farther still; for even of those saints, who had caused him such shame and pain, but now consolation and joy, he does not hesitate to say that they were manifestly showing themselves to be Christ's epistle ministered by him. Paul might be the means, but Christ was the end; and just as God wrote the law on stone for Israel, so now does the Spirit grave Christ on the fleshy tablets of the Christian's heart, that the world may read Christ in the church. It will be noticed too, that this epistle says they are; it is no mere question of a duty, but of a positive relationship which is the ground of the duty. If we are Christ's epistle, as the apostle declares to the Corinthians, we should assuredly convey His mind and affections truly and without blot. The truth abides for us, which wrought on them; and so does the Spirit of the living God; and thus we are inexcusable in our failure. At least may we own and feel it, that grace may work in us as in those who had fallen so short!

"And such confidence have we through the Christ toward God." Christianity not only excludes despair but gives assurance, and this on the firmest ground with God, even Christ, whose work puts the believer into the same acceptance, nearness, and favour as our Lord enjoyed through His own personal relationship and perfection as man. This is the meaning, aim, and effect of a Saviour such as He is: less than this would be to slight Him and His work, and the new creation and relationships which are the fruit of it. But here the apostle speaks of confidence as regards his ministry, which is no less true and flows from the same grace. For it is all the expression of God's love in Christ to us and to Christ in the delight of His glorification of God; and in the power of one so able to give it effect as the Holy Spirit. Therefore the apostle could not doubt, but cherishes a confidence, measured by God's estimate of what was due to Christ whom He had sent to testify and prove His love, and now had glorified on high in witness of the perfection of His work. But along with it goes the most earnest disclaimer of any intrinsic competency, while owning it given of God to serve in new covenant order, but even here of spirit, not of letter. For literally it remains to be applied to the houses of Israel and of Judah, though the blood is shed and accepted, on which its efficacy rests. But this only the more suits the genius of Christianity, where the principles stand out in the light, and the truth is told plainly as here: "for the letter killeth, but the spirit [that is, the mind of God couched under the forms which unbelief never seizes] quickeneth." And this is universally true; for if the letter were more glaringly perilous of old, there is always the danger of deserting the spirit for it, even under the gospel.

The apostle proceeds next, in a long parenthesis (7-16) to contrast the respective services of the law and of the gospel, the ever rising debate wherever Christ is named and known. And no wonder, for sovereign grace is not natural to the heart, though it alone reveals God fully. The believer himself never keeps grace fresh, pure, or even true, save as consciously in God's presence, with Christ before him. As in Christ thus, it is simple and appreciated as the one principle and power which suits either God on the one hand, or those He saves on the other. Grace alone puts each in the place which befits them. But the effect or assumption of the mind even in the believer to take up grace and reason it out, apart from present dependence, is as bad or worse than misuse of the law; for conscience answers to the law when it condemns every evil way, but faith is needed for grace. Outside God's presence it is but allowance of sin. In His presence grace deals with sin far more overwhelmingly than law, as is evident in the cross of Christ. Only there can the believer enjoy grace safely, happily, and holily: and there is no possibility of having peace in His presence but through grace — grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

"But if the ministry of death in letter,* graven on stones, came in with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently toward the face of Moses for the glory of his face, that was to be done away, how shall not the ministry of the Spirit more be in glory? For if the ministry of condemnation [have]† glory, much more doth the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For even that which hath been glorified, hath not‡ been glorified in this respect on account of the surpassing glory. For if that to be done away [was] with glory, much more what abideth [is] in glory. "

It is of moment to notice that the apostle reasons here on Exodus 34 not on Exodus 20 as in Hebrews 12 It is a question, not of law pure and simple, when God's voice shook the earth, with a sight of terror which caused even Moses to be full of trembling; but of law when given the second time, accompanied by the mercy which not only forgave but accepted mediation. It was a mixture of law with grace, and precisely what people now conceive to be Christianity. But this is what is designated the ministry of death in letter, engraven on stones. For on the second time, not on the first, it was introduced with glory (ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ) and then, not before, was there any difficulty for the sons of Israel steadily to gaze at his face. Only then are we told that the skin of the face of Moses shone (Ex. 34), and that the Israelites were afraid to come nigh him. It was the glory of Jehovah which caused his face thus to shine, an effect entirely peculiar to the second occasion. Nevertheless this is styled "the ministry of death." The mercy which had spared Israel did not alter its character, nor did the glory which shone in the Mediator's face. How different is that which the Spirit now ministers in a dead, risen, and glorified Christ! The reflection of glory in Moses' case was but a passing fact: it was neither intrinsic nor permanent, but to be done away. Not so Christ's. Here all that is the fruit of His work abides. It has everlasting value. It is no question of letter, nor of graving on stones, but of a divine Saviour yet a man, who has glorified God atoningly as to sin, not in living obedience only but up to death, the death of the cross, and is thereon glorified in heaven, yea, in God Himself, and gives the believer, once a wretched, guilty, and lost sinner, now washed, sanctified and justified, a righteous title to stand in perfect grace, to be with Him in glory, one with Him even now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. This is the gospel, this the ministry of the Spirit which abides and is assuredly abundant "in glory."

* γράμματι (sing.) B D F G, Pesch., Arm.; γράμμασιν (plur.) in much the more numerous copies, and versions, and all the fathers.

† τῃ δ. A C Dp.m. F G, Syrr., etc.; but ἡ δ. most MSS., versions, etc.

‡ οὐ the best MSS. and versions and Fathers; οὐδέ Text. Rec. following many cursives. etc.

But the law requires righteousness, and man being a sinner cannot yield it. The law is necessarily, therefore, a ministry of death (ver. 7), and the more brightly God's goodness shines, the worse it is for the sinner, for he is only the more proved worthless and guilty. In the gospel righteousness is revealed to faith, not required: for Christ Himself is the righteousness of the believer, and the work was done and accepted before God sent out the gospel of His grace to man. The Spirit, therefore, testifies to a man at God's right hand, who suffered once for sins on the cross, and declared that by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Hence the Holy Spirit, as He sealed Christ the righteous One without blood when on earth, now seals us when washed from our sins in His blood, and rests on us as the Spirit of glory and of God. (Ver. 8.) We are put, therefore, in association with Christ on high and await His coming to bring us there. The law, on the contrary, not only hills but condemns; it brings sense of guilt on the conscience, and God as a judge of the evil actually done. Hence it can only be a ministry of condemnation (ver. 9), as well as of death, whatever the glory that marked its enactment; whereas the gospel is the ministry of righteousness already accomplished in Christ and the portion of the believer; and that righteousness abides unchanged and glorious in Christ above. Hence the ministry of the Spirit is also that of righteousness.

As the righteousness is a fact of free grace in One who loves no perfectly, so has the glory the same attraction, unlike the glory which alarmed Israel, even in the face of Moses. The light which shines from Christ glorified speaks of the efficacy of His sacrifice; the brighter the light, the clearer the proof that our every sin is cleansed away by His blood. It is the light of divine glory, doubtless, but flowing from redemption. His title to be in heaven is not His person only, but the work which God His Father gave Him to do, that as surely as we know Him in the Father, we should also know that we are in Him and He in us. Most wondrous! yet the simple truth of Christ and the Christian. But what is so wonderful as the truth? Yet Christ accounts for it all, and His work brings us who believe into it all. Such is grace in the ministry of the Spirit by righteousness.

And as the glory of God's grace in Christ completely dims by excess of brightness His glory in the law (ver. 10), so also does the transitory or temporary character of the latter proclaim its incomparable inferiority to the former which abides (ver. 15), as indeed it ought; inasmuch as it flows from and expresses the will of God, while the other only condemns and executes sentence on the evil of man already fallen and disobedient.

A few details may be useful in helping the reader to appreciate the remarkably compressed phraseology of these verses. ἐγενήθη ἐν δόξῃ means that the law was introduced in or with glory, rather than that it existed in glory. The verb is changed when we come to the Spirit and His ministry, subsisting in glory. It is an error, however, to suppose that the future ἔσται is one of time; it is rather of inference. There is no allusion here to the coming glory. The apostle points emphatically to what the Spirit is ministering now. It is hard to express, but important to bear in mind, the abstract nature of the contrast, τὸ καταργούμενον and τὸ μένόν, the present participle of character, apart from time, not of actual fact.

Lastly, it is at best oversight to affirm that διὰ δόξης and ἐν δόξῃ present a mere variation of expressions without a difference of meaning. Never does scripture thus change words without a fresh thought and a distinct purpose. ἐν δ.  is admirably adapted when connected (not with ἐγενήθη, but) with μένον, to set forth permanence of glory; διὰ δ.  a mere accompanying condition of what was to pass away. Romans 3: 30; 5: 10, prove difference, not sameness, of force, whatever Winer may say (Moulton's edition, pp. 453, 512), or the commentators misled by such laxity, as Alford, Hodge, etc.

This leads the apostle in the Spirit to apply the incident of Moses with and without a veil, as before of the glory of his face. He glories that in the gospel all is open. It is no longer the unhappy though wholesome detection of sin in man, but the plain revelation of good from God in Christ, and this righteously through His cross, yea, gloriously in His place at God's right hand in heaven: the ground of our association with heaven now, and of glory there not in spirit only but in body at His coming. In Judaism man could not bear to hear the truth, which was the sentence of death to flesh; in Gentilism all was doubt or deception. In the gospel we can speak plainly: it is God's good news of His Son. There is no reason or motive for reserve, but just the contrary. We cannot be too open. So the love of God who gave such a treasure would have it. Leave darkness to Rabbis and philosophers, who love it rather than light.

"Having then such hope we use much openness of speech: and not as Moses used to put a veil on his own face, that the sons of Israel should not look stedfastly unto the end of that to be done away, But their thoughts were darkened [lit. hardened]; for until this very day the same veil at the reading of the old covenant abideth unremoved [lit. unveiled], which in Christ is done away.* But unto this day when Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken off." (Ver. 12-16.)

* Or, It not being unveiled (that is, revealed) that (or, because) in Christ it is done away.

Christianity is no system of restraint on evil in the first man, with ordinances suited to the flesh in the world, and God afar off in the dark, but founded on the grace of Christ, who, after establishing righteousness by the cross, is gone up into heavenly glory, and is ministered by the Holy Ghost in power. Hence the unseen, the future, and the everlasting converge on the believer now; and having such a hope one can be thoroughly outspoken: there are the strongest motives for openness in every way, in contrast with the dimness, distance, and reserve of the law. Not only did God in Christ come down to man, but, now that his evil has been judicially and conclusively dealt with in the cross, man can go up — nay, has already sat down at His right hand — in the person of our Saviour and Head. The accomplishment of redemption, as it closed the ministry of death, opened the way and became the basis of the ministry of the Spirit, to abide in glory. The previous state of concealment, where man had such reason to dread the sight of glory according to the law, is set forth in Moses putting a veil on his face when he spoke with the children of Israel outside.† whereas he in variably put it off whenever he went in before Jehovah.

† I am aware that the late Dean Alford affirms in his Greek Testament (ii. 645, 5th ed., 1865) that "a mistake has been made with regard to the history in Exodus 34: 33-35 which has considerably obscured the understanding of the verse [13]. It is commonly assumed that Moses spoke to the Israelites, having the veil on his face; and this is implied in our version -'Till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a veil on his face.' But the LXX (and Heb.) gave a different account: καὶ ἐκειδῃ κατέπαυσεν λαλῶν πρὼς αὐτούς, ἐπέθηκεν ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ κάλυμμα. He spoke to them without the veil, with his face shining and glorified; — when he had done speaking, he placed the veil on his face: and that not because they were afraid to look on him, but as here, that they might not look on the end, or the fading of that transitory glory," etc. But the mistake is in Dean A. following the Septuagint and at most the letter of the Heb. in verse 33, so as to contradict or neutralise the plain force of the context, and especially verse 35. The meaning ought never to have been questioned, that, while Moses talked to the people without, he covered This face, but removed the veil when he went in to speak with Jehovah. Verse 30 is clear that, because his face shone, the people were afraid to come nigh, and he therefore put on the veil which he took off when he went in before Jehovah till he came out. The Vulgate, like the Sept., sacrifices the sense to the letter; and the two have misled many.

The christian position is in the fullest contrast with that of Israel, to which tradition and human thoughts of unbelief would ever in principle reduce us. It suits reason and conscience guided by it, and our estimate of self as well as of God, where Christ and His work have no distinctive and commanding place. Hence not only do the utmost extremes meet here, popish and puritanical, but also that via media, which pleases the moderate men of all parties, rationalist or nonconformist, who on the one hand rightly venerate the law as clothed with God's authority, but on the other see not the wholly new position grace has placed us in by redemption, answering to Christ glorified on high, who has sent down the Spirit that we might enjoy it to the full, and walk accordingly. For we find our privilege Godward typified in Moses unveiled, not with the veil on. We behold Christ and His work in the ritualistic system, which conveyed to the Israelite only precepts to kill a lamb, a goat, or a bullock, with the blood brought in before God, and to sprinkle themselves with the water of separation, or the like. The law made nothing perfect. It (and not the speculative thought of the Greek, nor the political wisdom of Rome) was the true nursery of man in his nonage, the divine pro-paedeutic, shutting up to the faith about to be revealed.

Israel through unbelief slighted grace when shown to them abundantly, and forgot the promises which God had made to the fathers, which faith would have remembered and felt the need of. They therefore doubted not for a moment their ability to keep His law, and so maintain their place with Him. Granted that this was their deepest ignorance, both of God as a judge according to law, and of themselves as guilty and powerless sinners; and that scripture reveals their ruin under law, that the Gentile should avoid the snare and find their resource, strength, and blessing, all and only in Christ by God's sovereign grace. How awful then the darkness which has deliberately put Christendom back into the self-same position of law, as the rule of people to live by, after the proclamation of God's mercy! This is what not only the multitude believe but the doctors have taught, Protestant no less than popish; this is the prevalent doctrine, alike Presbyterian and Prelatical, Methodist or Congregational. It is the mind active and exercised on what God used as a probationary system, but as unable to look to the end of it as the Jew of old, rebellious against its transitory character, and blind to the surpassing glory of what is now revealed in Christ.

It is solemn to reflect on those once the people of God, now Lo-Ammi, in zeal for their forms rejecting Christ who gives them their real meaning and chief, if not only, value. But so it is and must be. How could the infinite gift of the Son of God, and then the witness of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, in virtue of redemption, have, if refused, any other consequence than utter ruin for those who have despised God? It is the rejection of God's fullest grace and heavenly glory, not merely of the law which demanded and defined a man's duty. God would be a partner to His own utter dishonour if He passed by the refusal of His Son dying in love for man's sin, or despite to the Spirit of grace who testifies of it and Him. This the Jews did formally, before God swept them from their land by the Romans, not because the scriptures are not express as to Christ and His work, but because of their own unbelief. "But unto this day, when Moses is being read, a veil lieth upon their heart." (Ver. 15.)

It is humbling however to know that their hardening is but the shadow of a guiltier and incomparably wider unbelief which is settling down on Christendom, not profane only but even religious after the flesh, into more and more dense delusion and self-complacency in resistance of the Holy Spirit and an ignorant contempt of Christ's glory as of our own portion in and with Him. So proceeded the Jew with his darkened thoughts till divine judgment fell on their temple and capital. Their (it was no longer God's) house was left to them desolate; yet do they persist in their most ruinous infatuation, to be punished with a yet more awful tribulation, not (thank God) for ever but till they say, as they will ere long, Blessed He that cometh in the name of Jehovah, and own in their rejected Messiah their Lord and their God. "Whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken off."* (Ver. 16.) Alas! it is not so with Babylon as with Jerusalem. For the Gentile city of confusion there will be exterminating judgment without Lope of recovery. It behoves then all the faithful to beware of the evils which end in such strokes from God; it becomes them to inquire whether they may not have fellowship with her sins, which dishonour the excellent name which He called upon them. To the law and to the testimony: if men speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in (or morning for) them.

* Calvin in his comment on this verse indulges in a whimsical conceit, which is the more singular as it is meant for correcting other Greek and Latin writers who were in this nearer the truth than himself. "Locus hic male hactenus versus fuit: putarunt enim tam Graeci quam Romani subaudiendum nomen Israelis, quum de Mose loquatur Paulus. Dixerat velamen esse impositum Iudaeorum cordibus, dum legitur Moses. Continuo addit, Simulatque conversus fuerit ad Dominum, velamen ablatum iri. Quis non videt de Mose hoc dici, hoc est, de Lege?" (I. Calv. Nov. Opera Omnia, vii. 233, Amst. 1667.) It is quite true that the Jews in shutting out Christ lost the truth of scripture, its aim and scope; but the heart of Israel is the true subject, and not Moses as representing the law.

"Until this very day," says the apostle, "the same veil at the reading of the old covenant abideth unremoved, which in Christ is done away." (Ver. 14.) So it was and so it is, but it is graver still and no less sure, that the same veil rests on the hearts of the baptised at the reading of the latest revelation of God, when they refuse to submit to the righteousness of God, and their eyes and hearts are turned away to self, or to the church so called, from the only true Light. They do not truly acknowledge the Son, nor own the present efficacy of His work. The veil will envelop the heart for them (perhaps we may say) no less than for Israel; and what greater danger can there be than that such darkness should prevail where Paul is read no less, yea, far more, than Moses? Is it not that, though it be for the Gentile the day of grace, their thoughts are increasingly darkened? Those born of God will no doubt come out of Babylon; for His grace will work, and it may be in ways we little anticipate, to extricate souls that they may await His Son from heaven. But there is no revival, no restoration, for corrupted Christendom. It is salt that has lost its savour, fit neither for land nor for dunghill, only to be cast out, or burnt with fire, recompensed at last as the great city recompensed during her unrighteous career. For strong is the Lord God that judges her.

The central portion of the chapter, from verse 7, contains not only the remarkable allusion to Moses veiled and unveiled, but the contrast between the ministry of letter in the law with that of the Spirit. The parenthesis being closed, he forthwith recurs to that contrast of letter and spirit which preceded it. "Now the Lord is the spirit, but where the Spirit of the Lord [is, there is] liberty." (Ver. 17) Scarce any scripture shows more instructively than this the necessity of understanding the mind of God, in order even to present it correctly in form. For it is an utter mistake to give "the spirit" in the first clause a capital letter, which would imply the Holy Ghost to be meant; and where would be the sense, where so much as the orthodoxy, of identifying the Lord with the Holy Ghost?* To me the meaning, without doubt, is that the Lord Jesus constitutes the spirit of the forms and figures and other communications of the old covenant. These, if taken in the letter, killed; if in the spirit, quickened. "The Lord" was their real scope; and now this comes out into the fullest evidence. Faith sees in Him contrast with Adam, analogy with Abel; the light of which shines even on Cain and Lamech. Yet more manifestly do we see types of Him in Joseph and Moses, and in that vast system of sacrifice and priesthood which, coming in by Moses, furnished those shadows so abundantly. Unbelief never laid hold of the coming One, faith always did; though it might not apprehend the bearing of all, nor perhaps fully of anything, till He actually died and rose. But "the Lord is the spirit," and the new testimony is so precise, that there is no excuse for misapprehending the old longer. "The true Light now shineth," and "we who were once darkness are now light in the Lord." In the light we walk, and we ought to walk as children of it; and an immense help it is to our souls intelligently to apprehend the Lord in every part of the word. It is this which gives the deepest interest, and truest solemnity, and living power, to every part of the Old Testament. Thus only have we communion with the mind of God with positive and growing blessing to our own souls. Now that He is revealed, all is plain.

* It is not denied that the Spirit is Lord, which seems to me conveyed in verse 18. Still this, if put in the form of a proposition. would be expressed by τὸ πνεῦμα κύριός ἐστιν, and not in the reciprocal form which would exclude the Father and the Son from the same title. The fathers, therefore, who regarded this clause as an assertion of the Holy Ghost's divinity, were as wrong grammatically as exegetically. Neither words nor context can admit of this interpretation. The late Dr. Hodge amazes one, on the other hand by saying that Christ is the Holy Spirit, in the same sense as the Lord says, "I and the Father are one." There is not the least reason that the Spirit should mean the same thing in both clauses, especially as the phrase differs ("Spirit of the Lord"), which we have already traced in the burning, yet weighty, words of the apostle.

But there is more than this, for "where the Spirit of the Lord [is, there is] liberty." Here the truth requires that there should be a capital, for the apostle means not merely the true inner bearing of what was communicated of old, but the presence and power of the Holy Ghost now; and He is not a spirit of bondage unto fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind; not a spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of the Son, whom God had sent into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Hence the effect is liberty, not alone because it is the Son that makes us free, but the Spirit of life in Him risen from the dead, after the mighty work in which God, sending Jesus in the likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Thus all was condemned that could be condemned, and we by grace are delivered — free indeed. "Where the Spirit of the Lord [is, there is] liberty," as opposed to Gentile license as to Jewish bondage.

It is liberty to do the will of God, "for sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace." Yet do we yield ourselves slaves for obedience; and having got our freedom from sin, and become slaves to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life. We are no longer in the flesh, and are clear from the law, so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in oldness of letter. "Where the Spirit of the Lord [is, there* is] liberty." It is not yet the liberty of the glory of the children of God; it is the liberty of grace before glory dawns at Christ's coming.

* ἐκεῖ in Text. Rec. is supported by many MSS., but not A B C D, etc.

But we are creatures, though a new creation in Christ, and we need an object that we maybe kept and grow, and be formed and fashioned spiritually according to God, while here below. Without the cross of Christ all this were vain; yet are we not called simply to be at the foot of the cross, or to behold no object but Jesus Christ crucified, as men misuse the passage. Not so; "but we all beholding† the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from [the] Lord [the] Spirit." Such is the present business, we may say, of the Christian. It is alike the duty and the privilege of all Christians, not the perquisite of a favoured few who attain to it. It is not a state reached in a moment by an act of faith, but a gradual process, which ought to characterise every Christian all the way through. At the coming of Christ we shall be conformed to His image — that of the Son, the First-born among many brethren. Meanwhile thus does "the Lord the Spirit" (for such, I suppose, is the meaning in the last clause) work in us from glory to glory, as all that Christ is glorified on high becomes more familiar and real to our souls by faith. We need, most assuredly, the lowly grace which came down as a servant, obeying to the uttermost, even to the death of the cross, if we would have the mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus. But, blessed and indispensable as it is thus to know His love, faith in the Christian does not rest there, nor ought it, but, holding all this fast, to look on the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, and thus be changed, according to the Same image, from glory to glory. For the Spirit, though Lord equally with the Father and the Son, does not work independently of Christ, but by presenting Him to us, from first to last.

† κατοπτριζόμενοι means neither "reflecting," nor "seeing in a mirror." though this last be etymologically the source, but "beholding," without reference to the mirror, as in so many words which thus cast their primitive shell.

It is scarcely needful to add, that one rejects the translation of the closing phrase, which pleases Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, etc., "Lord of the Spirit," as being clearly against the truth of scripture — a serious fault in a Subject of this kind. So Macknight, who paraphrases it, "the Lord of the covenant of the Spirit," but those who expect either spiritual intelligence or sound scholarship from that divine, must be bitterly and uniformly disappointed. Dr. Thomas F. Middleton, in his able "Doctrine of the Greek Article," mistakes the margin of the Authorised Version, which agrees with my view against its own text. So Luther, Beza, etc., had rendered it. The reader may compare ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρός (Gal. 1: 2; Eph. 6: 23), and analogous phrases in many other passages.

2 Corinthians 4

The apostle returns to the manner and spirit of his service in the gospel. Such a hope, such glory, demands and by grace inspires good courage, as well as conduct, of a divine sort. "On this account, having this ministry, according as we obtained mercy, we faint* not, but refused the hidden things of shame, not walking in deceit, nor guilefully using the word of God, but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every conscience of men in the sight of God. But if even our gospel is veiled, in those that perish it is veiled, in whom the god of this age blinded the minds [or, thoughts] of the faithless, that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is [the] image of God, should not shine forth." (Vers. 1-4.)

* The more ancient MSS. read (some ἐνκ.) ἐγκακοῦμεν, the great mass (some old) ἐκκ., and the critics, as well as lexicographers. fancy a difference of reading and word, where there seems but variety in spelling. Thus Dean Alford takes ἐνκ. as not "shrinking back," quailing, or acting cowardly; while he assigns to ἐκκ. the sense of "fainting." But he is not consistent, for, though he reads ἐγκ. in Luke 18: 1, he rightly treats it as "fainting." so also in Galatians 6: 9, Ephesians 3: 18, 2 Thessalonians 3: 14. In Polyb. iv. 19, 10 it is properly the same (not ἐξ., but ἐνεκάκησαν), the Lacedemonians failed to send, not that they behaved badly, etc. They were faint-hearted about it. Liddell and Scott, as well as Rost and Palm, should revise the words, or rather word. I see Bishop Ellicott had been before me in coming to a judgment which I had formed independently.

It was not only the surpassing and abiding excellence of this ministry, but the possession of it, which touched the heart with the sense of divine mercy, and took away all disposition to be craven-hearted in presence of the gravest difficulties, and the keenest and constant sufferings. It is true that the Corinthians knew but little of such experience, but therefore was it the more needful that the apostle, who knew little else here below, should bring it out clearly. On the other hand, men admire cleverness in baffling adversaries, and in evading dangers or difficulties, alas! too often in glossing over what cannot bear the light, and in turning aside the edge of what exposes and condemns. Here also the saints at Corinth were not without the contagion of their city and its schools. Could they, like the apostle, say that they refused the secret things of shame? — that they did not walk in trickery? — that they did not falsify the word of God? Some among them certainly gave too much appearance of being thus lacking in the faith that counts on God, and declines secret influence, and shrewd, if not unscrupulous, plans after the flesh. The ways of the servant should harmonise with His blessed service, as they did in Paul's case, leaving to the children of darkness all that shrinks from the light, which it does not suit, no less than evil surmisings of the good they cannot sympathise with. It is not only what is scandalous, but all cunning, which is abhorrent to Christ, who needs nothing that is not of the Spirit. And if Satan lures us to the path of selfseeking, the desire to win others soon slips from hesitation into a guileful handling of that word which breathes only light and love, like its source.

The apostle, far from uncertainty in his own soul, acted and spoke in the consciousness of divine authority, as he says, "by the manifestation of the truth" (what a blessing in a world of darkness!) "commending ourselves to every conscience of men in the sight of God." Activity of mind, which likes to propagate its ideas, and to produce common action, was not wanting at Corinth; but where was this conscious possession of truth which formed the ways in accordance with it, an cl sought no other influence, but only thus in love to appeal to conscience in God's sight? To shine before men, to gain applause, to have a party, are snares to avoid, unworthy of Christ's servants. To seek, or even to receive, glory one of another, instead of seeking the glory which is from the only God, is the ruin of faith, and wrought not in the Jewish unbeliever, but in many a Corinthian believer. The apostle, in unwearied love, and unquailing before difficulties, and unflinching in candour, pressed the truth in season, out of season, whether men heard or forbore, assured that, while he preached as in God's presence, every conscience bowed inwardly, even if the will were set on its own way in defiance of God.

Moreover, the vividness of the heavenly vision, to which he was not disobedient, reproduced itself by the Spirit in his evangelising. All was out, without disguise, radiant with the light of heaven and the glory of the Christ he had seen on high. Hence he could add, that even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in the perishing, in whose case the god of this age blinded the minds of the faithless. He had no veil like Moses: the gospel effectually repudiates it — at least the gospel as he and his fellows preached it. As he believed, so he preached. There was for him no affectation of depth or sublimity. The truth needs no arts to set it off. Nothing else is so lofty, nothing else so deep. It is Christ, the Word, who was God and yet was made flesh, life eternal yet dying for sinners, who descended into the lower parts of the earth, and also ascended up above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. If such glad tidings were veiled, they were veiled in the lost, not by those that preached the truth. In their case, the god of this age blinded the thoughts, or understandings, of the unbelieving. It was no defect in the truth, nor obscurity in the message from God, nor insincerity in the messenger, who gave it out as purely as he received it.

Alas! there is a subtle and energetic adversary of God and man; there are men who have not faith but passions and lusts, which expose them to his influence in blinding them to the truth. And such are all by nature since sin ruined mankind, till grace work repentance to acknowledgment of the truth. But men who are feeble in owning the power of the Spirit are apt to be slow to perceive Satan's workings; and controversial zeal increases this unscriptural bias. Hence we see that the fathers in general, early and late, Greek and Latin, misapplied this simple and weighty statement of scripture, and denied the devil to be meant here, construing it as God blinding the minds of the unbelievers of this age! (See Cranmer's Cat. Patr. Gr. v., 373, 374, Oxon. 1844; Iren. Haer. iv. 392; Tert. advers. Marc. 11; Aug. c. adv. Leg. iii., vii. 29.) Hilary, in his zeal against the Arians, and among the Greeks, Chrysostom, would not allow Satan to be called god of this age, lest it might tell against the deity of Christ; and so OEcumenius and Theodoret, etc., down to Theophylact; as others, like Origen, against other early heretics, Marcionites, Manicheans, etc. It is instructive as a plain proof of patristic shallowness, where they agreed, as they rarely did, on an interpretation. They failed to distinguish between "God" used absolutely, and "god" with a distinct and restricted qualification. And as the Lord, in view of His own rejection unto death, spoke of the devil as the prince of this world (John 12; 14), so the apostle here designates him, with striking propriety, as "god of this age." During the new age, when the Lord takes the sovereignty of the world (Rev. 11), it will not be so; he will be bound, and thereby kept from his old deceits. Now he takes advantage of all truth to dishonour God and destroy men, his wretched slaves, who, in doing their own will, serve him effectually. Thus are they blinded, that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine forth.*

* αὐτοῖς. "unto them," is not an omission as Dr. Bloomfield says, but rather an addition of the more recent copies followed by the Text. Rec., against the oldest MSS, and versions and fathers.

Here also it is well to notice that "the glorious gospel," as in the Authorised Version, is not only inadequate, but incorrect. For "the glory" is definitely of Christ exalted to God's right hand, in virtue of not His person only but redemption, that we who now believe might see Him, and have our place in Him, there. What enlightenment can compare with this? It is part of what the apostle calls "my" and "our gospel." Christ was, and is, God's image, alone fully representing Him; but the gospel, as Paul preached it, was not of His descent and life here only, nor of His death and resurrection, but of His glory in heaven also. Hence the appropriateness of the language, with which the reader may contrast the vague platitudes of the Cat. Patr. v. 374, 375.

There is no defect, then, in "our gospel." There is not only the firmest foundation of righteousness, but the brightest heavenly glory in the display of that righteousness. In Christ exalted is love with us made perfect. How could it, indeed, go farther? because as He is, so are we in this world. It is the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is God's image. We are not yet ourselves in possession of the glory as an actual fact, but we have it in Him in whom it shines most fully, and through whom it shines into our hearts. No greater proof, then, of the blinding power of Satan, than that men should be insensible to such glory. But an evil conscience cannot endure the light of God, whatever the love from which the light of that glory springs. For they cannot endure the discovery and judgment of their sins, even though the rejection of His testimony exposes them to everlasting ruin. They believe themselves, or really Satan, the god of this age, rather than the only true God; they are lost. This is what the gospel supposes, though it fully provides for it. But the blessing is inseparable from faith; for God is not saying only, but making the saved vessels on earth to reflect the glory of Christ in heaven.

Such pre-eminently was the apostle. He himself, the stoutest of combatants against the name of Jesus, was struck down in mid-career by the glory of Jesus shining from heaven. He therefore knew, if any soul over did, the gospel of the glory of Christ. Lost, spite of all that law could give or boast of; saved by sovereign grace, spite of all that the strongest enmity could breathe against the Lord and His own, he became the suited witness of a Saviour and Lord on high. Where was self now in his eyes? and what the worth of religious authority in Israel, any more than of that philosophy which leaves men groping in the dark, whatever the vauntings of its several schools? The worthlessness of all here below he had proved; for him henceforward Christ was all, as indeed He is all, and in all.

"For not ourselves do we preach, but Christ Jesus as Lord,* and ourselves your bondmen, for Jesus'† sake, because [it is] the‡ God that bid light shine|| out of darkness, who shone into our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God § in the face of Jesus Christ." (Vers. 5, 6.) Others might preach themselves; the apostle, Christ Jesus as Lord. He was content to be servant of Christ, and, for that very reason, of the saints, for the Sake of Jesus. This alone is true service; anything else a snare, both to him who serves, and to those who are served, who, in such circumstances, alike serve themselves to His dishonour.

* The MSS. fluctuate between Χ.  Ἰ. K., supported by the Vatican, some few uncials, and most cursives, versions, etc.;  Ἰ. Χ. K. as the Sinaitic, Alex., Rescript of Paris, and some other good authorities; K.  Ἰ. Χ. with some few witnesses; and finally  Ἰ. Χ. or Χ.  Ἰ. omitting K.

† The weight of authority is in favour of διὰ  Ἰησοῦν, but the Sinaitic and Paris Rescript, etc., read διὰ  Ἰησοῦ, as some others have Χριστόν or Χριστοῦ.

‡ The Vatican, etc., omit ὁ before θ.

|| For λάμφαι, as in Text. Rec. following most, the oldest read λάμψει (= God that said, Out of darkness light shall shine).

§ Some MSS. (D F G, etc.) omit ὅς, as others beside (C D, etc.) for τοῦ θ. have αὐτοῦ. Most give  Ἰ. Χ., others Χ.  Ἰ., A B, etc.. simply Χ.

But as Christ Jesus is Lord, and the believer owns and proclaims it according to his measure, so is He the one true and safe motive for the ready service of His saints. Personal interest, or honour, vanishes before His name. And such a servant was the apostle to the Corinthians. What a change, from the prejudiced, law-bound, yet impassioned Jew of Tarsus! How came so complete and sudden a revolution to be brought about in the heart of one naturally most averse to change? It was, it is always, the effect of God's power in grace. The Creator-God is the Saviour-God, through His Son.

It was as truly light spiritual from God, as that which shone at God's bidding where darkness had reigned before the earth was prepared for man. "Because God, that bid light to Shine out of darkness, [is he] who shone in our hearts for [the] illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Thus, for faith does the first man give instant place to the second; and we, who were once darkness, become light in the Lord. The apostle, no doubt, had vividly before him the never to be forgotten circumstances of his own conversion, suggestive of the light at mid-day, above the brightness of the sun shining from heaven. With this he brings in the allusion to Genesis 1: 8, so as the better to contrast the light with the previous darkness, and connect all with the power, as well as the word, of God. But he gives both references the precision requisite to the case in hand.

It was a question here, not of an external miracle, but of God's shining "in our hearts" — a thing, after all, far more blessed than even the light of old which answered the bidding of God to dispel the world's deep gloom. If the enemy blinds the thoughts of the unbelieving, grace shines in the believer's heart for the shining forth of the knowledge of His glory in the face, or person, of Christ. So had God operated in the apostle's heart, not merely for his own enjoyment of that heavenly light (though this primarily), but also that it might shine on others, as a testimony to them and for Christ. Grace thus identifies the two things, as Christ gave Himself up "for us," an offering and sacrifice "to God," for an odour of sweet savour. The energy of the Holy Spirit alone can effect so mighty a work in any heart, as it did most abundantly in him for a pattern of those about to believe on Him to life everlasting. So, when taken out from among the people and the Gentiles, he could say that the Lord sent him to the last, with a view to open their eyes, that they might turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God.

There is, therefore, in the gospel, as it reached the apostle, a wondrous double action: not only an inshining of God in his own heart; but this also with a view to giving forth the light of the knowledge of God's glory in Christ's face. If the law was addressed to a people already formed, and in a definite relationship with God, the gospel, especially as Paul knew and preached it, went out to any, to all, to the lost. It was not requirement of man's duty, it was the communication of the knowledge of God's glory, a glory which shone in Christ's face, consequent on the infinite work of redemption, whereby God could justify man in free grace, instead of judging him for his iniquities. If men are inexcusable who reject the gospel, no wonder that the apostle should say, We preach such a Saviour, blending as he does the glory of God with the salvation of sinners. But that glory of God which is thus bound up with salvation is seen not in the heavens, whatever they may declare, but in the face of Jesus Christ. The expanse shows His handy work; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared God Himself, the God whom no one has seen at any time; and so blessedly does He reveal the Father, that, as He said Himself, he that had seen Him had seen the Father.

Such then is the ministration of the Spirit and of righteousness in Christ, the revelation of God's glory in His face. This is the treasure which grace gives.

"But we have this treasure in earthenware vessels, that the surpassingness of the power maybe God's, and not of us; in everything being afflicted, yet not straitened, sorely yet not utterly perplexed, persecuted yet not forsaken, cast down yet not destroyed, always bearing about in the† body the dying [or, putting to death] of Jesus.* that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body.‡ For we that live are ever being delivered up unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus|| may be manifested in our mortal flesh." (Vers. 7-11)

* Some three uncials, etc. add χριστοῦ "Christ' as Text. Rec. with two uncials and most cursives prefix κυρίου "the Lord," but the best support the text followed here.

† Many authorities give "our."

‡ etc., read σώμασιν "bodies."

|| gives χριστοῦ "Christ" instead of "Jesus;" others give both.

Thus does the apostle meet the natural thought of men which the carnal mind among the Corinthians had taken up against himself, to their loss and his grief. In an apostle they had looked for a grand style of speech, for lofty speculation and subtle argument, as well as a dignified and attractive presence, backed up by such a display of power as would overawe all the world. They could not understand therefore that one who was not a whit behind the chiefest apostles should be with them in weakness and fear and much trembling; and that on principle he should forego every advantage of intellectual ability and acquired learning, of all that which is a matter of boast to the flesh; nay more, that he should glory in infirmities, and treat as his foolishness all reference to his devoted service and mighty deeds, signs and wonders, with the vast and deep effects of his preaching. He was indeed the most remarkable of sufferers no less than of labourers; but he insists that, when he was weak, then was he strong. What he gloried in was the Lord, and His strength made perfect in weakness. Doubtless, as the apostle surpassed all others in depth of heart and all — endurance for Christ and the church and the gospel, so in this also, the most abiding consciousness of weakness and insufficiency keeping him in dependence on the Lord.

Here he lays down the general principle. "We have this treasure in earthenware vessels," and this "that the surpassingness of the power may be God's, and not of us." The deposit was none the less precious because laid up in the coarsest ware. The very object is to make evident, by the contrast of man, weak and fragile and suffering, that the power is God's. On the one hand a revelation of grace and truth which goes down into all depths of evil, and extricates so completely as to put those who were once slaves of Satan into the closest living association by the Spirit with the Christ glorified in heaven; on the other, the vessels of this delivering power exposed not to an occasional assault of the enemy, but kept up by God in the face of constant pressure and excessive trial and extreme weakness, yet with blessing flowing out on every side: hard pressed, but not straitened; at a loss, but not absolutely so; pursued but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.

What was it then that the Spirit set before those who thus hold on their way? What gave patience in a path so strange to flesh and blood? "Always bearing about in the body the putting to death of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body." Such was the habitual course of the apostle himself. He went about everywhere as one that realised Christ's portion in the world, at all times applying death to the body, keeping it down as dead. It is the power of the cross applied to that which otherwise craves present case and enjoyment, in order that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our body." For the believer lives of the very same life as the Saviour, in contrast with his old Adam life shared by all the race; and it is the activity of the natural life which hinders the working and manifestation of the life of Jesus. Hence the importance of ever applying by faith the putting to death (νέκρωσιν) of Jesus, in its moral power, to the body, disallowing its energy by holding it for dead, that the life of Jesus also may be shown out.

And as this is the constant bent of those who are true to the cross practically, so God helps such souls in fact by continuous exposure to sorrow and suffering, difficulty, to danger, and death itself for Jesus' sake, in order that the blessed end of manifesting the life of Jesus may be the more effectuated. "For we that live are ever being delivered up unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh." A far weightier testimony, in such unwearied and unceasing trial, to God's power with His servant, than enduring a martyr's death through some sudden outburst of the world's hatred, however blessed and honourable such a death undoubtedly is.

Verse 12 is the conclusion of this part of the subject, the service of Christ in divine love and self-abnegation which works death to the servant as surely as life to the saints he serves. This was true of the Master in the fullest way; it is verified in those who follow Him in the labour of love, just so far as they are true to Him.

"So that* death worketh in us, but life in you. But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is written, I believed, wherefore [also]† I spoke: we also believe, wherefore also we speak; knowing that he that raised up the Lord‡ Jesus shall raise up us also with|| Jesus, and shall present [us] with you. For all things [are] for your sakes, that the grace having multiplied through the greater number might make the thanksgiving abound unto the glory of God." (Vers. 12-15.)

* μέν is not read by the best authorities.

† καί "also" F G, etc.

‡ B, etc. omit κύριον.

|| σὺν  Ἰ. p.m. B C D E F G P, a few uncials with most cursives, etc.

It is a total misapprehension of the opening words to suppose that the least approach to a withering rebuke lies hid here, as in 1 Corinthians 4: 8-14. Calvin and others have thought so, but there is no real ground to doubt that the apostle very simply states the present effect of serving Christ when His mind and grace govern in such a world and state as this. It is death to kiln who in the work shares the affections and thoughts of Christ. Continual exposure to trial, habitual experience of grief, ridicule, detraction, opposition, enmity on the one hand; on the other, hopes, fears and disappointments; a never ceasing succession of all that can draw out, and withal distress, the spirit cannot fail to do their work in him who thus serves Christ and the saints for His sake. But in the face of all, in spite of evil, and in virtue of grace, the saints are helped, strengthened, cleared, comforted, and blessed. "Death worketh in us, and life in you." The apostle habitually toiling and suffering was thoroughly content, and rejoiced in the gain of others: if he was wearing away bodily, those ministered to were being led on in what is imperishable. The service of Christ truly carried out costs all here below, but the blessing is commensurate even now; and what will be the result in glory? Not only was life in Christ given to those that believed, but it was fed, exercised, and developed by ministrations of truth, of which grace was the spring and character and power, in presence of the deepest shame and pain and all calculated to dishearten, yet ever rising above the obstacles and persevering, no matter what the weakness, not only in view of death, but death working already.

But in Christ is the power of resurrection, now to faith, by-and-by in fact, even as the Spirit of Christ gave the Psalmist of old to sing in days of sorrow, "But having the same spirit of faith, according to that which is written, I believed, wherefore I spoke; we also believe, wherefore also we speak." No trial or suffering, not death itself in view, can stop the believer's mouth: he confides in God, and can speak out and well of Him.

New Testament accomplishment also exceeds Old Testament promise, for we can read all in the light of Christ dead and risen. Such is our conscious knowledge, before we too are raised and glorified. And thus we are to be on a common principle with Jesus, in contrast with the wicked who refuse to believe on Him, and are only raised by divine power for judgment. It is not so with the righteous or saints, who live of His life, and have the Spirit of God dwelling in them since redemption. They look to be changed at His coming, to enjoy His glory and love in perfection of their state, as now they do in His person. The resurrection of those who fall asleep meanwhile is from among the dead as His was. His resurrection declares that there is no judgment for the believer, as surely as it proclaims its certainty for the world, as the apostle teaches in Romans 4: 25, and Acts 17: 31. But it is a mistake to use Ephesians 2: 6, or Colossians 2, 3: 1, to illustrate the critical reading σύν "with" against the more common διά "by" or "through." For these epistles, pre-eminently treating of our association with Christ, insist that we are already dead and risen with Christ, whilst our text speaks solely of the future. Perhaps the nearest to it is 1 Thessalonians 5: 10, where it is taught that our Lord Jesus Christ died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Mm. It is in the one living the life of glory, as in the other raising us in order to it.

And it is added that He "will present us with you." All efforts of Meyer and others now, as of some in former times, to lower the meaning to extrication from dangers or difficulties, are vain. Here it is the presentation of all together in glory, whether the servants or those served in grace, all being raised on a common principle with their Master who is their life after dying for them. What are present trials in comparison of such a prospect! How blessed that as nothing shall be able to separate the saints from the love of God which is in Christ, so God will have together in glory those who on earth were exposed to all kinds of divisive and destructive influence!

"For all things [are] for your sakes, that the grace having multiplied through the greater number might make the thanksgiving abound unto the glory of God." (Ver. 15.) What an answer in the apostle to the affections of Christ! And certainly it was not in word or feeling only, but in deeds and sufferings which proved its reality and depth. It was endurance with joyfulness in a love like its source for the saints of God. And he looked for fruit accordingly, that if it fell to such as himself to suffer in the service of the many, the grace which so wrought might be the more diffused and cause thanksgiving to go up from all that reaped the blessing to the glory of God.

There are thus, along with the consciousness of utter weakness and exposure, spiritual forces of the most powerful kind, which sustain in the face of all trial and suffering the faith of what God has already wrought in Christ risen; the hope of what He will do for us who believe on Him; and the love which bears all for the blessing of those so precious to both the Father and the Son.

"Wherefore we fail not; but even if our outer man is consuming, yet the inner is being renewed day by day. For the momentary lightness of our affliction worketh out for us in surpassing measure an eternal weight of glory: while we have the eye not on the things that are seen, but on those not seen, for the things seen [are] temporary, but those not seen, eternal." (Vers. 16-18.)

On such divine ground the apostle repudiates all thoughts of succumbing, and declares for moving on undauntedly. Enjoyment, ease, honour, are out of the question as a present thing; nay, pain, tribulation, detraction, contempt, opposition, all that can wear away the outer man are sure as the path of Christ is trodden. But in all these things is the life of the Spirit. Grace turns to our account by Christ, and this, even now, the things which seem most contrary to man's life in this world. Be it that it perishes, yet the inner man is renewed day by day. (Ver. 16.) It is not that the saint becomes more meet for partaking of the inheritance of the saints in light, for this rests on Christ and His redemption; but there is growth spiritually, a new nature and sure judgment of things around us, there is less value for what once attracted, and a more undivided deepening joy in the Lord and His objects here as well as in heavenly things. The babe becomes not a young man only, but a father. (1 John 2) Christ is more unwaveringly the attraction and the standard of thought, feeling, conduct, everything; while flesh and world not only sink, but are judged unsparingly, as one passes through all that would otherwise disappoint and torture, now regarded with calm and even thanksgiving.

This is so true that the apostle does not hesitate to designate so withering and pitiless a storm of trial, ever repeating itself in fresh blows and continual grief, as "the momentary lightness of our affliction." Yet who ever beheld, yea conceived, such suffering, save in the One with whom none can compare? And His grace it is that so works, and strengthens thus to reckon. Lightness of affliction! in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in death often. But why recite what no reader of feeling can have forgotten? Momentary! in him who scarce knew cessation of unexampled perils, inflictions, and labours. Yet was he full of good cheer. "For the momentary lightness of our affliction worketh out for us in surpassing measure an eternal weight of glory." (Ver. 17.) To this he looked onward, reaping withal no small return of blessing even now, and thus binding together what was spiritual along the way with the end in the presence of the Lord by-and-by, in words which labour for adequate expression of the truth.

We must not lay unfounded stress on the "while" which introduces the last verse in our tongue. It is not here the expression of time emphatically, as if the blessing were only going on during the soul's regard of the things set before our faith, however important it may be that our regard should go on unbrokenly. The apostle says no more than that such is the due object for our contemplation, our heed paid not to the things that are seen, but to those that are not seen; with the explanation or reason assigned, "for the things that are seen [are] temporary, but those that are not seen [are] eternal." (Ver. 18.) Who does not own, save the basest of sceptics, that deliverance from the present and fleeting is true power? Who feels as he ought the simplicity with which Christ, as now revealed to us, and revealing the unseen and eternal things, makes good this mighty work in those who believe? How ought not the Christian to appreciate the gospel of His glory?

2 Corinthians 5

This leads the apostle to open out the power of life we have in Christ, and its results. "For we know that if our earthly tabernacle-house be dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. For also in this we groan, longing to clothe ourselves with our dwelling which is from heaven, if indeed* also when clothed† we shall not be found naked." (Vers. 1-8.)

* γε CKLP and almost all cursives, and fathers; περ B D E F G, 17, 80, etc.

† ἐκδ. is the strange error of Dp.m. F G etc., contrary to all the set.

What calm and confident knowledge the apostle here predicates of Christians as such! And what a contrast with the dark uncertainty of unbelief, or with its impious audacity! The eternal things are none the less sure in hope because they are not seen. For we know that, if death destroy the earthly tent we live in, we have a building of God. The body in its present state he compares to a tabernacle to be taken down, in its future to a building from God as the source, and to a house not made with hands, and hence everlasting in the heavens, its suited and purposed sphere for ever. As we already heard, God who raised up the Lord Jesus shall also raise up by Him those also who sleep, and then present us all together faultless before the throne of His glory: here details are entered into with clearness and discrimination. It is one of the few passages which treat of the intermediate state, as well as of the resurrection or change of the body for glory, and therefore of the deepest interest to the faithful personally and relatively. And in a few brief and plain words adequate light is given, without the smallest indulgence of irreverent curiosity, for all that concerns the family of God after death as well as the change at Christ's coming. One cannot conceive a communication more worthy of God, or more characteristic of His word generally, while it bears the deep impress of His blessed servant who was inspired to give it.

Of course theology is here little more than a Babel of discordant tongues; and even the more pious and learned seem unable to answer with precision what is meant by the building we have of God. Some will have it that this house not made with hands is heaven itself, but how then could it be said to be "in the heavens?" How could we be in this case said to be clothed with our house or "dwelling which is from heaven?" The house and heaven itself are carefully distinguished. Others again, with less error but with an imperfect view of the passage as a whole, think only of the resurrection body. But it does not follow that the passage throws no light on the state of the soul between death and the resurrection, or that it treats solely of what is to happen after Christ's second coming.

The lowest and most mischievous of these interpretations is that of Olshausen and others who admire petty philosophising,* and contend that the house entered at death is an ethereal corporeity adapted to the heavenly condition of the soul, either intermediate between death and the resurrection, or (as bolder spirits say) to the exclusion of the body which is not to be resuscitated and changed. The intermediate and glorified vehicle of the soul is directly at issue with the plain and decisive language of this very passage. The house is described not only as in the heavens, but as "everlasting." Scripture shuts out therefore all notion of a temporary body, for the soul in heaven before the resurrection of the body we now have. And a man must be a sceptical Sadducee who denies that He who raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies by (or, by reason of) His Spirit that dwelleth in us. (Rom. 8: 11) There is intermediate blessedness for the believer apart from his body with Christ on high; but the resurrection from the dead awaits His coming.

* It is false and anti-scriptural that "without body there is no soul," that "the continuance of the soul as a pure spirit without a body is to the apostle an impossibility: the doctrine of the soul's immortality is like the term, strange to the Bible. And no wonder, a self-consciousness in a created being necessarily supposes the limit of a bodily organisation." This denies angel and spirit really, as well as what scripture teaches of the separated soul.

In opposition to the true bearing it is argued:

1. That heaven is often in scripture compared to a house in which there are many mansions (John 14: 2); or to a city in which there are many houses (Heb. 11: 10, 14; Heb. 13: 14; Rev. 21: 10); or more generally to everlasting habitations. (Luke 16: 9.) But we have already seen that, whatever be the figures used of the portion of the glorified saints in other scriptures, the house in this passage cannot mean heaven, because it is said here to be from heaven and in the heavens.

2. Whatever the reasoning to show that, as the soul now dwells in the body, heaven will be its house after death, it is inconsistent with the thoughts and language of the context.

3. Again, the effort to press that the discipline given here of the house agrees with that of heaven elsewhere is vain, if it were only because the state on which the soul enters after death is so far from "everlasting," that the change we await is at Christ's coming. The body is not in heaven now, nor is it said to be brought down to us from heaven; but Christ is there and is coming thence when we shall have in power and actuality what we have now in faith.

4. And this is the true force of ἔχομεν, not in the least as conveying that the house is one on which we enter immediately after death, but its certainty to faith. That it is synchronous with death is mere assumption, and would involve the idea, not of heaven, but of a new vehicle for the soul which we have already seen to be wholly inconsistent with this passage and all truth. Hence it is not said that when our tent-house, or the body is dissolved, but if it should be. This leaves it equally open when, as now, the building from God is entered, and only declares the certainty that such a house of permanence we have. The present in Greek, as in other languages and our own, is frequently used (when required) to express, not merely actual time, but a truth apart from time in its abstract character or certainty. This must be, from what we have observed, its force here. To give it the meaning of actual fact now going on introduces nothing but confusion and error. What the apostle expresses is certainty of possession. He speaks of incomparably better habitations, supposing the dissolution of the present; but the time and way of entering on it had to be learnt from other scriptures. He does speak of being absent from the body and present with the Lord a little farther on, but neither of being in a new body while absent from the body, nor of heaven being like a body meanwhile, which seems, if possible, more absurd, as both thoughts are alike baseless. Matthew 22: 32 speaks only of the resurrection. Luke 20 38 adds that the souls of the deceased live to God, though away from men, before they rise. Nor is there any doubt, if we believe Luke 16; 22; 2 Corinthians 5; and Philippians 1, that it is far better with the departed saints, and that they are in paradise, the brightest part of heaven, with Christ. (Cf. Heb. 12: 23.)

If death come, the resurrection body, already fully described in 1 Corinthians 15, is sure, in all its contrast with tent or any other building of time or of this creation, crumbling to rain as it is. And the blessedness of what we thus have in hope is such that only the more do "we groan in this, longing to have put on our house which is from heaven, if indeed also when clothed we shall not be found naked." (Vers. 2, 3.) That is, the brightness of the life he now had in Christ was so hindered by the body as it is that he could but groan in his ardent desires after the glorified condition with which Christ will invest him. It is the groaning not of a disappointed sinner nor of an undelivered saint, but of those who, assured of life and victory in Christ, feel the wretched contrast of the present with the glory in prospect. Only he adds the cautious proviso, that is, supposing we are really Christ's. The anxiety expressed more plainly at the close of 1 Corinthians 9 is not quite gone from the beginning of 2 Corinthians 5.

Hence one must reject every attempt to tamper with the conditional rendering of verse 3. The ordinary text εἴ γε (or εἴγε) has excellent support, not only in the vast majority of the manuscripts, but in the antiquity and goodness of some, as the Sinaitic, Rescript of Paris, and others; and this is adhered to by most critics. But Lachmann and Tregelles prefer εἴπερ with the Vatican, Cambridge, and a few other authorities. But the alleged distinction (of Hermann's notes on Viger) is unfounded in the New Testament, as elsewhere also. It has been even remarked by one of remarkable penetration that the converse is true, and that the true difference is: εἴπερ puts the case that a thing is; εἴγε the possibility that it is not. Εἴγε, says J. B. Lightfoot, leaves a loophole for doubt; εἴπερ is, if anything, more directly affirmative than εἴ γε. Assuredly this seems rather confirmed by their distinctive origin, for as per is intensive, ye is restrictive. But the usage appears to indicate that the context must be taken into consideration in order to decide the true bearing. So Meyer and Ellicott confess that it is the sentence, and not the particle, which determines the rectitude of the assumption. It is utterly false that, either in or out of the New Testament, εἴγε as a matter of course means "since" any more than εἴπερ always expresses doubt.

The various reading ἐκδυσάμενοι, "unclothed," in the Clermont, Augian, and Boernerian manuscripts, etc., accepted by many fathers and even by a few critics, is a mere effort to get rid of difficulty. The sense may be plainer, but it is worthless. The true reading ἐνδυσάμενοι is most pertinent and forcible, unless indeed we translate εἴγε "since," which reduces the clause to a platitude: "since when clothed we shall not be found naked," or "seeing that we shall verily be found clothed, not naked," which is a poor tautology unworthy of scripture, and as far from Pauline as possible. Translate it, "if at least, even when clothed, we shall be found not naked," and the propriety is as great as its strength. For the solemn fact is, that there is a resurrection of unjust no less than just. All therefore are to be clothed. An hour is coming when all that are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son, and shall go forth, those that have practised good to a resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to a resurrection of judgment. The resurrection of the body for all will be the clothing of all, though not of all at the same time nor with like result, but with the most marked contrasts and unchanging issues. For when the wicked are raised, they may and shall be clothed indeed, but shall be found naked. They have not the wedding robe, they have no righteousness before God; they rejected, despised, or did without Christ; they have nothing but sins, and cannot escape everlasting judgment. Whilst in the body here, they might pass muster; when clothed with the resurrection body (for all must rise), those who here lived and died without Christ will be found naked. The apostle therefore solemnly warns, in this passage of the richest comfort for the true, that some might prove false. The everlasting and heavenly glory will be for us at the resurrection, if at least when clothed we shall be found not naked: a seeming paradox, but not more startling than true. Blessed they, and they only, who now have and have put on Christ.

The words "clothed" or "unclothed" refer to the being in or out of the body; "naked" to being destitute of Christ. This distinction was overlooked by Calvin, as it has been by others since. They conceive that the idea was to restrict the clothing to the righteous; and hence that the wicked are, stripped of their bodies, to appear naked before God; whereas believers, clothed with Christ's righteousness, are to be invested with a glorious nature of immortality. Had it been observed that "not naked" alone refers to the putting on Christ now with its everlasting consequences, the confusion would have been avoided. The apostle speaks of the common portion we have in Christ (in presence of death, as by-and-by of the judgment-seat), of the triumph assured in His life who died but is risen and alive again for evermore; but this in no way hinders a passing and grave caution to such as might boast of gifts without grace or conscience.

Other speculations, such as of Grotius, are hardly worth a notice; and that of Meyer followed by Alford ("if, as is certain, we in fact shall be found clothed, not naked") demands no more words, having been disposed of already. Nor need we discuss at greater length Hodge's attempt from the same rendering to sustain his notion that the apostle here refers not to the risen body but to a mansion in heaven. The simple but profound truth of God delivers from every mist of error.

Having given so solemn a word of warning for conscience, the apostle returns to the groaning and the longing spoken of in verse 2 in order to clear the truth more fully.

"For also we that are in the* tabernacle groan, being burdened, because† we desire not to be unclothed but clothed upon, that what is mortal should be swallowed up of life. Now he that wrought‡ us for this very thing [is] God, that gave§ us the earnest of the Spirit." (Vers. 4, 5.)

* D E F G, etc., with many versions and fathers read τούτῳ "this," contrary to B C K L P and the great majority.

† ἐπειδή St. (not Elz.) with a few juniors.

‡ D E F G etc., κατεργαζόμενος "worketh."

§ καί is added by some uncials and most cursives, contrary to the best authorities.

The true knowledge of the living possession of Christ, far from neutralising one's sense of the groaning creation, deeply increases it. Peace and joy in believing there is most really and to the full; but it is in Him who suffered here and is glorified above the sorrow and death that He tasted and the sins which He bore in His own body on the tree. Our body is the tabernacle in which we are, a part itself of the creation made subject to vanity; and we who are in it groan under the oppressive sense of its utter ruin, not because we are not delivered in Christ, but the rather because we are and feel deeply therefore what is under the bondage of corruption. We know that deliverance is at hand, not merely for our body but for all that is now travailing in pain, and that Christ will have the glory, as all creation will have the joy in that day.

Difficulties have been made about the phrase, which opens the next clause; but it seems rather needlessly, for ἐφ᾽ ῳ, the true reading, is not uncommon in our apostle, whose use of it quite falls in with its regular application in all correct Greek to express the condition, or occasion, under which a thing or person is characterised, and may be rendered "for," "seeing," "in that," or "because" qualifying what precedes. Compare Romans 5: 12, Philippians 3: 12, Philippians 4: 10, with the clause before us, in all of which may be found a like sense substantially, though modified by a different context. "Wherefore," or "in which," seems as feeble as misleading. The fact is that it is but a special case of its general sense as the ground, condition, or occasion of anything — the term on which a thing is based.

Here the apostle qualifies our burdened groaning in the tabernacle, as no selfish desire to escape trial, however aggravated. Yet no man experienced this so deeply, variously, or unremittingly as himself; none therefore was so exposed to wish that such a path should be closed by departure to be with the Lord. But this he deprecates for the saints as well as himself, not for that we wish to be unclothed but clothed upon, that what is mortal should be swallowed up by life. He is contrasting the power of life in Christ at His coming with going to Him in the separate state. No doubt this is better, far better, for us than abiding here in sorrow and suffering. But the apostle thought of Christ's glory in this scripture, as of the need of souls in Philippians 1. Hence in the latter he recognised the value of his staying for their help, and that so it would be. Here he expresses the exceeding blessedness of bringing the body under the power of that life which he already knew for his inner man in Christ. Nothing less than this therefore could satisfy him.

To be "unclothed" is to be rid of the body by death when the believer goes to be with Christ. But this is expressly what he did not wish, however blessed in itself, for the very reason that the blessing was only for himself in His presence. What he desired was fresh glory to Christ when He comes; for then and only then is the believer "clothed upon." He resumes the body then, no longer like the first Adam, but like the Last, once having borne the image of the earthy, thenceforward bearing that of the Heavenly. We will have put on our house which is from heaven, according to our longing desire. For it is not even necessary to be "unclothed," that is, to put off the body by dying. All turns on the coming of Christ who is our life in all its fulness. If He tarry and call us meanwhile to be with Him, we shall of course be "unclothed;" but if He come while we wait for Him here, we shall be "clothed" upon without the putting off of our tabernacle. For from the heavens we await Him as Saviour, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory according to the power which He has even to subdue all things to Himself. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last tramp; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. Hence it is said here "that what is mortal shall be swallowed up by life," not merely raised up out of death, but the mortal in us yielding to the superior and all-transforming power of the life in Christ, the body no longer as it was in Adam, but as in the Second man coming again from heaven.

The New Testament apostle goes considerably and characteristically beyond the Old Testament prophet, though both statements be true and one writer be inspired as really as the other. Yet the truth is not quite the same; for Isaiah speaks of Jehovah swallowing up "death" in victory [or, for ever], and this will be verified ex abundanti at Christ's coming, when there will be not only the raising of the dead in Christ but the arrest of mortality in the living saints, or, as it is here figuratively designated, the swallowing up of what is mortal by life. Even such a resurrection of the faithful would be a manifest triumph of gracious power over utter ruin: how much more that mortality should never work out into death, but be absorbed by the all conquering power of life in Christ!

Nor does the apostle allow the smallest uncertainty in the hope before the believer; nay, he affirms an actual and divine pledge which cannot fail. "Now He that wrought us for this very thing [is] God that gave us the earnest of the Spirit." (Ver. 5.) How blessed to have come under the operation of His grace, even while here we groan in the tabernacle! But so it is. We have life in Christ, yea, everlasting life, and everlasting redemption. God, who cannot fail, does not begin to leave His work an unfinished thing. He that wrought us for this very thing, the swallowing up of the mortal by the life which triumphs for ever, the self-same portion as Christ, is God, as indeed He only would have thought of it or could have so wrought; nor this only, for He gave us the earnest of the Spirit that we might taste the joy of coming glory, having its pledge even in our utter weakness. It is not the "anointing" us here as elsewhere, which has a larger force, not yet the "sealing" us, but that aspect of the Spirit given to us which is in relation to Christ's coming again, and our entering on the inheritance with Him. It is "the earnest of the Spirit" given in our hearts, that we might not rest here, vainly contenting ourselves with what is present, or groaning without a divine taste of that which we shall share with Christ, as even hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost that was given to us.

It is instructive to notice how the coming of the Lord is not only urged continually in the scriptures as the constant and proximate expectation of the saints, but underlies all and accounts for much even where not a word is said about it directly or openly as here. It is the failure of the divines, and even of commentators, in perceiving this which has exposed them to such poverty (if not perversity) of interpretation in speaking of this momentous passage, which ought not to present a difficulty to a single believer, but to be the cheer of every christian heart, as evidently intended of God. Had the coming of the Lord been a practical truth living in the souls of good men like Dr. John Guyse and the mass of even orthodox and godly Protestants, could they have applied these words to that which is immediately after their death, merely allowing that, as the happiness of the soul in heaven will be followed and completed by the resurrection of the body, the apostle might also have that in his ultimate view? No, it is not true, (whatever the happiness of the separate state with Christ, of which we shall hear anon,) that he is here treating of "the transcendent undefiled felicities of an immortal life, which the soul shall enter upon as soon as ever it is separated from the body," but of the resurrection or change when Christ comes. Of this theology stops short; and hardly any other cause has produced wider or deeper effects on saints in Christendom than such habitual and systematic forgetfulness of our proper hope. On the other hand, nothing has contributed more than its recovery to awaken the faithful by self-judgment to their past low estate and their true posture of waiting for the Lord, yea, going out to meet Him, according to His own parabolic prediction.

Such then is the power of life in Christ which we possess now. We look for glory even for the body if it were dissolved, for mortality to vanish before it if Christ came, without any need of death, which was already vanquished. God has wrought us for this very thing, the same glory as Christ, and meanwhile has given us the earnest of the Spirit.

"Therefore being always confident, and knowing that, while present in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by appearance [or, sight]), we are confident and well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore also we are zealous that, whether present or absent, we may be agreeable to him." (Vers. 6-9.)

The good courage of the Christian is unbroken by death, though he looks not for death as a man does. His confidence is founded on Christ, he knows God for him, and he has the Spirit as earnest of all he hopes for. All things are sure, and among them life or death: but Christ governs all, and we are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Neither death nor life nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. We are courageous then at all times, whatever the way of God with us meanwhile, and know that, while at home in the body, we are abroad from the Lord. This is not our rest, it is polluted. He is not here but risen and in glory, and our hearts are with Him where He is, and we look for Him to be like Him as well as with Him. But this is not all. We know that, while sojourning in the body as now, we are away from the Lord. This is neither the ground of our confidence, as Calvin most strangely misconceived,* nor is it an exception to it as Romanists and Rationalists have thought. It accompanies our good cheer and falls in with it as a part of our christian knowledge, and it accounts for our readiness of mind to quit the body when summoned, and to go home with the Lord. The connection of εἴδοτες is both grammatically and logically with εὐδοκοῦμεν, though afterwards resumed in another shape.

* Thus he writes (Comm. in loco, ed. A, Tholuck, Halis Sax., i. 459), "Copula quae mox sequitur, resolvi debet in causalem particulam, hoc modo: Bono animo sumus quia scimus nos peregrinari a corpore, etc. Nam haec cognitio nostrae tranquillitatis et fiduciae causa est."

The wisdom of God is apparent in this. For here we have one of the few scriptures which give us the light of God on the intermediate state of the Christian: and it is of great moment that the immense blessedness of the final victory should not cloud that state of bliss which intervenes.

There is on the one hand no excuse for the unbelief which makes everything of going to be with Christ after death and stops short of the only adequate answer in our resurrection and change at Christ's coming by the power of His resurrection. But on the other it is a real slight of God's grace and of Christ's redemption to darken the condition of the disembodied soul in order to heighten the splendour of the resurrection morn. It is not true that the apostle when looking to the dissolution of his earthly tabernacle was comforted only by the building of God not made with hands, eternal in the heavens; for in this very context he shows that we choose rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. And in fact inability to look at death or Satan in the face is a proof of weakness, not strength, of faith. The apostle does exactly the right thing in the Holy Ghost: for while he does present in the forefront the full triumph of life in Christ, he does not misrepresent departure to be with Him as bare and ghastly, or the state as airy, shadowy, or fantastical. It is of course unworldly, but not therefore inert; for it is to be with Christ which is far better than remaining in the flesh, though far short of the triumph we shall share when He comes. Never does the apostle treat it as sepulchral gloom and pale moonlight, which is the mere depreciation of the human spirit vexed with the perversity of such as blot the glorious hope of resurrection from their Bibles. Again, leaving out Christ. death is a parting, not a meeting; but is it a sorrowful parting if we go to be with Him in paradise? No doubt it is not our one hope; but is it then the cheerless parting, the sorrow without hope, which unbelief makes it? Such exaggeration is mischievous, most of all in those who call on the saints to wait for Christ's coming; for what is false in their statements acts powerfully to discredit what is true, and thus to hinder souls instead of helping them. The balance of truth is lost, and such as on scripture warrant look for the blessedness of those with Christ who fall asleep are stumbled by the doubt cast on it and indisposed to receive what may be doubtless truly said of the triumphant result of His coming.

As death then will own itself vanquished in every saint, yea, mortality itself in the living saints be swallowed up of life when Christ comes, so even now death itself in no way hinders the saint from enjoying the presence of the Lord. Both truths are clearly revealed here and in this order. They are due to Him and the redemption He has accomplished for us; they are of the utmost moment for the heart of every saint. It is ignorance to overlook either; it is of the enemy to misuse one to destroy or enfeeble the other.

The parenthetic verse 7 has given much trouble to scholars, though the general sense is plain enough. But εἶδος in the New Testament, as in ordinary Greek authors, seems rarely if ever used like ὄψις for sight, but for "appearance" (as in Luke 9: 29), or "form" (as in Luke 3: 22; John 5: 32, as also derivatively in an ethical sense in 1 Thess. 5: 22). Every intelligent reader of Plato and Aristotle knows its philosophic bearing as modified by their respective theories. But "species," or "sort," or "form," cannot be meant here. We are shut up therefore by New Testament usage to the alternative "appearance," unless we admit the sense of "sight" with our authorised translators, though its occurrence in this subjective meaning seems doubtful in any author, sacred or profane. The substantial meaning however amounts to the same. We walk by faith, not by appearance, being absent from the Lord and heaven. If we look at the unseen and eternal, it is by faith, not on the things or persona themselves, as we shall when actually there.

Hence the apostle sums up with a somewhat irregular but all the more forcible emphasis, δέ being used like our "well," or "why," or "nay." "We are confident and well pleased rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord." (Ver. 8.) Granted, that it is a state imperfect for man, and short of the glorious consummation according to the counsels of God. But grace has intervened even now; and as the God who spake light to shine out of darkness, shone in our hearts here below for the shining forth of the knowledge of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ, so our departure is, if we value His presence, incomparable accession of enjoyment. For we go to no abode of dimness unworthy of Him and His blood, but to the brightest realms of heaven where He is in everlasting joy and glory. The Lord Jesus receives our spirits; as it is to be with Him. No wonder we are pleased rather to go from our home in the body, and to come to our home with the Lord.

"Wherefore also we are zealous, whether present or absent, to be agreeable to him." (Ver. 9.) The common version conveys an utterly misleading idea, which if fully received would destroy the gospel; and the more so as φιλοτιμούμεθα is rendered "we labour" or "endeavour," and εὐάρεστοι "accepted," to the danger of insinuating salvation by works in the most bare-faced manner. Already accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1) we aspire — it is our zealous aim — to serve Him well, whether present or absent. This is in His hands, and our confidence either way is unbroken; but our ambition, if we have any in the Holy Ghost, is to be agreeable to Him. As His favour is better than life, so would we devote ourselves to His pleasure who delights only in what is good, holy, true, lowly and loving.

The apostle now introduces the very solemn consideration, not exactly of judgment, but of the judgment-seat of Christ. Judgment of course is included, but the judgment-seat embraces more, as we shall see.

"For we must all be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive the things [done] in [literally, by] the body according to what he did, whether good or evil. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men; but we have been manifested to God, and I hope also to have been manifested in your consciences." (Vers. 10, 11)

Grace is not at variance with righteousness, but on the contrary reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. Nor can any truth be more indisputable or universally applicable than the manifestation of every man, saint or sinner, before the Lord. There is the utmost precision in the language as always in scripture. Never is it written that we must all be judged. Indeed this would contradict the clear declaration of our Lord in John 5 that the believer has eternal life and does not come into judgment (εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται). It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; whereas we, believers, are not all to die, but all to be changed: in fact, none of us alive when Christ comes shall fall asleep but be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven without passing through death, mortality being swallowed up of life. But if no believers shall be judged, all must be manifested, saint no less than sinner, that each may receive the things [done] by the body (or, as the Authorised Version says, done in it), according to what he did, whether good or bad.

Hence it may be noticed that the form of the phrase favours the universality of the manifestation. In 2 Corinthians 3: 18, where no more is meant than all of us Christians, it is ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες, whereas here it is τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς, which lays greater stress on the totality, and makes it thus absolute. Accordingly the language suits the aim of comprehending Christians within an area which has no exception.

So again it is not a question of rewarding service as in 1 Corinthians 3: 8, 14, but of retribution in the righteous government of God according to what each did whether good or bad. This covers all, just or unjust. It is for the divine glory that every work done by man should appear as it really is before Him who is ordained by God Judge of living and dead. Only as the believer is by grace exempted from judgment both as a partaker of everlasting life and as having in Jesus a perfectly efficacious Saviour, his standing before the judgment-seat assumes the character of manifestation, and in no way of a trial with the awful possibility of destruction. There is not the smallest compromise of the salvation he now enjoys by faith; and he is accordingly glorified before he stands there. He will give account of himself to God and be manifested; but there is no condemnation depending on the issue then, as there is none now to those that are in Christ. This may not be reasonable in man's eyes, but it suits the God of all grace and is due to the glory and suffering of the Son of God, and harmonises with the testimony of the Holy Spirit, whose seal will not be broken or dishonoured in that day. And as it is for God's glory, so it is for the perfect blessing of the believer that everything should stand out in the light and he himself should know even as he is known.

Nothing will blind the eye then, no unsuspected motive warp the heart or mind before the judgment-seat of Christ. The merciful care, the overruling power, of God in all our ways will appear in their astonishing wisdom and goodness, no longer concealed by the mists of this life. We shall know perfectly what debtors we were to grace, and the resources and activity of that grace in our chequered history and experience even as saints, and the boundless patience of God to the last, as well as His rich mercy at the first. Even now what a comfort for us to have renounced the dishonesty of the natural heart, to judge ourselves unsparingly in presence of love that never fails, to be in the light of God, and have no guile in our spirit as those who know Him who by redemption can and will impute nothing to us! And this is true to faith now that we believe in Him who suffered once for us that He might bring us to God: not a cloud above, not a spot within. The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. Perfect love casts out fear. We love Him who first loved us, and shirk not but welcome the light which makes everything manifest. "We have been — we are — manifested to God." It is the mighty and abiding effect of Christ's work, which made us meet for sharing the inheritance of the saints in light. We no longer walk in darkness as once when we had on true knowledge of God; we walk in the light as He is in the light.

Yet are there times when what is always true in principle is applied powerfully in fact to the Christian whom God gives in quiet retirement, often in a sick chamber, to review his ways and examine himself alone with God, when energy or self-love or flattery do not enfeeble a holy self-judgment; and all the more deeply, as he firmly holds to the assurance of God's changeless favour. What is thus verified in a high degree by the way will be complete and perfect at that day, when we already caught up and glorified in the body shall be manifested before the judgment-seat without a trace of the shame that either hides or with pain confesses. It is great gain to have such times on earth, though the process be but imperfect, greater still the more it approaches an habitual state. How full the blessing when all is absolutely out in love and light with Christ!

But, as we have seen, the manifestation has an end here described, that each may receive the things [done] in [or, by] the body, good or bad. Even in the saints all had not been good; and all has its result, though not to jeopard the grace that saved by Christ. But as God is not unrighteous to forget the work of faith and labour of love, so failure and wrong entail loss; and the soul itself will in full intelligence and unmurmuring adoration bow and bless Him who orders the place of each in the kingdom, and who (while never abandoning His own sovereignty) will take note of the greater or less fidelity and devotedness of each in service or ways.

Thus will God be vindicated, displayed and enjoyed in all that He is and does; and thus will the saint have perfect communion with all, in not a single detail any more than as a whole missing the joy and blessedness of what He is to all His own and to each for ever.

But the manifestation of the wicked, as it will be at a considerably later time, so it will have a wholly different character and effect. The judgment-seat in this case will be the judgment of the great white throne after the reign of the thousand years, as for the righteous it will be before that, when the dead small and great are (not manifested only but) judged each according to their works. (Rev. 20) They refused the Saviour; they stood in their own righteousness or were indifferent about the lack of it, thinking nothing of God or counting Him like themselves. They had no life, as no faith, in Christ; they rise to a resurrection not of life but of judgment, for God will judge all who believe not by Him whom they despised. And if the righteous be saved with difficulty, with a difficulty which nothing but sovereign grace in Christ could surmount, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? It is eternal judgment dealing with evil, and the issues are as sure as awful and endless.

"Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men; but we have been manifested to God, and I hope also to have been manifested in your consciences." (Ver. 11)

The language here again confirms and necessitates the universality of the manifestation already noticed. For as there is no reason to soften down "the terror of the Lord," so there seems no force in our persuading men if it does not mean the heart of the saint urged in love by the tremendous sense of divine judgment impending on the heedless yet guilty sinner. How deep and loud and constant the call for those who believe to arouse those who believe not, while the day of grace lingers, that they may not unwarned brave that judgment which will be their irremediable ruin to "persuade men" on the one hand of the wickedness, the folly, and the danger of sin; on the other of the reality and freeness, of the fulness and certainty, of salvation in Christ. Fearing always ourselves, no less than knowing His love, we realise for them what unbelief easily forgets till too late, and would be therefore the more in earnest to call to repentance in the light of the gospel of God's grace. And in this we are the more free, because we have been and are manifested to God. Our guilt is gone; we are justified, and are children of light, though once darkness — light in the Lord. Hence we speak what we know and press a remedy, a deliverance, we have proved. We are already manifested to God; so that the manifestation before the judgment, let it be ever so profound or minute, awakens no alarm for ourselves but anxiety for "men," for all in their natural state, who have not Christ. "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord we persuade men; but we have been manifested to God; and I hope also to have been manifested in your consciences." A most pressing motive was that judgment-seat, with the terror of the Lord for men, to preach the gospel far and wide; and the more because consciously before God, as he humbly but not without a reproof adds, "and I hope also to have been manifested in your consciences." Of the former he was sure and speaks absolutely; of the other he could only say "I hope also," not because it ought to have been doubtful, but because their state was not all he could desire. And a state that is not good is apt to suspect evil in those who reprove it. The Corinthian saints, though in a measure restored and restoring, had not dealt with the apostle as became them. Love ought always to be able to count on love; but he had to say of them that, the more abundantly he loved them, the less he was loved.

The apostle felt, as we have seen, that he could appeal to their consciences, now that self-judgment was begun in the Corinthians. We have been and are manifested to God; and I hope also to have been manifested in your consciences. This might have seemed, to ill-disposed men, savouring of self-complacency. It is really what every saint walking in the truth with integrity of heart is entitled to say, whatever an enemy might insinuate: a blessed state and statement doubtless; but what does not grace give to and effect in the Christian? And when strife and party-feeling are rebuked and hushed, conscience cannot but approve what is of God, even in those most defamed like the apostle. In this confidence of love he had written, and quickly guards the sheep from any misleading shaft; and this for their sakes rather than his own. A calumny indeed injures not the assailed, but those who are influenced by it.

"For we are not again commending ourselves to you, but giving you occasion to boast on our behalf, that ye may have [it] with those boasting in face and not in heart. For whether we are beside ourselves, [it is] to God; or are sober, [it is] for you. For the love of Christ constraineth us, having judged this, that if* one died for all, then the all were dead [or, died]; and he died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who for them died and rose." (Vers. 12-15.)

* The mass of authority and of the highest character omits εἰ "if," which Text. Rec. has with corr. C, etc. Vulg., Cop. and Arm. and many fathers. it seems a mere slip to omit it, because of the εἶς following.

Nothing can be conceived more admirably than the apostle's delicacy, as far from indifference to the saints as from lording it over them, and equally far from the arts of those who, while ingratiating themselves with the Corinthian assembly, in order to exalt their own reputation and lower the apostle, were blinded by the enemy to attribute to him their own unscrupulous ways. He loved the saints with an unsullied conscience and an unselfish heart, and he counted on their confidence, now that grace had begun to work restoratively. As he did not seek to commend himself by what he said of his ministry, so neither did he again by appealing to their consciences as to his ways. He was but affording them occasion for boast, as he says, "on our behalf, that ye may have [it] with those that boast in face [or person], and not in heart." (Ver. 12.) For, on the one hand, holiness and truth go together, care for God's glory and love of His children; and, on the other, those who however fair in his presence aimed at undermining the apostle, were serving not the Master but their own belly.

But was he not inconsistent and capricious, at one time so ecstatic that none could follow his transports, at another so sedate as to chill his brethren and abridge their liberty? Not so; "For whether we are* beside ourselves, [it is] to God; or are sober, [it is] for you." (Ver. 13.) Cold is the heart that knows no rapture before God as one thinks of His grace in Christ. Such certainly was not St. Paul's case, as we may see in many a doxology which interrupts a chain of closest reasoning, and yet more when the love of Christ or the counsels of God are before his eyes. But the same Paul can come down to the most ordinary questions of daily walk, can regulate the relations of husband and wife, or of master and slave, can prescribe for a weakly man, and cheek a woman's taste for dress. There is one name, and but one, which draws out and accounts for both feelings, raising the heart above all that is seen and temporal, yet giving the most lively interest in the smallest detail of the life that now is. And He who, bears that name is both God and man in one person.

* The Five Clergymen, like others, argue for "have been beside ourselves," but while there is a propriety in the aorist as transient, our English idiom seems to require a present here, as in many other cases. The sobriety was continuous.

"For the love of Christ constraineth us, having judged this, that, if one died for all, then the all were dead [or, died]; and he died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves, but to him who for them died and rose." (Vers. 14, 15.)

If transported when turning to God, the need of saints and desire for the Lord's glory in them awoke sober thoughts; nor this only, for the love of Christ urged his soul toward men, sinners no less than saints, in loving service and faithful testimony of the truth. If there was the solemnity of manifestation before the judgment-seat of Christ, there was the constraining energy of His love. There was no vain conceit of man's improveableness, no crying up of intellectual culture, nor even the most distant hope of good from further moral training. He had judged this that, if one died for all, then the all died or were dead. Christ's death for all is the proof that it was all over with mankind. If He went down in grace to the grave, it was just because men were already there, and none otherwise could be delivered. In this way of death is Christ here known, not a living Messiah to reign over the quick, but One who died for all, for all were under death; and it is a question of man universally, not of Israel only, and of the power and triumph of life in Christ over death.

Hence, if nothing short of this is the judgment of the Christian as of the apostle, if there is no slighting of the fatal effects of sin, if death is seen and owned to be written on all, the death of Christ, though so unsparing in its import becomes the ground of deliverance; for we have judged also that He died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves. There is then life in Him risen, and this not in Him only, but for those who believe. He is our life. And such is the meaning of "those who live;" not merely those alive on earth (though this be implied, of course) but living of His life, in contrast with "all dead."

It is contended, as I am aware, that ἀπέθανον can only mean "died," and not "are" or "were dead." But this is an oversight from pressing too technically the aoristic force, so as to clash with English idiom. We may see how harsh it would be to absolutely reduce us to the English preterite by a glance at the same or a kindred word in the case of Jairus' daughter. Even the most servile of translators gives us Matthew 9: 18 as "My daughter is just dead" (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν), though he represents verse 24, "For the maid did not die but is sleeping" (οὐ γὰρ απέθανεν); and Mark 5 as "My daughter is dead" (ver. 35), but "The child did not die" (ver. 39); and Luke 8, She did not die." Is it not evident that the nature of the case modifies the aorist? Although strictly ἀπέθανεν expresses only the fact that one died, still, death being for the present final, it may be used for, as it implies, the condition of death: if one died, one is dead. But where express precision is intended, the perfect appears as in Luke 8: 49, "My daughter is dead," τέθνηκεν. Yet in verses 52, 53, it is in both cases ἀπέθανεν. To say here "She did not die," and "she did die," is mere pedantry, not good English; and in this connection the Authorised Version more fittingly gives "she is not dead," and "she was dead." It is not that the aorist is ever used with impropriety, or confounded with the perfect; but that the fact in Greek is enough, where English gives the state.

The same thing is no less appropriate here, where death spiritually, not physically, is in question. Grammar does not touch the question, whether the death is of all men as such, or of the saints; ἀπέθανον might be used either of death by sin or of death to sin. There was intention, it seems, in retaining the same word for all as for Christ, though a different expression for men might have been used, as in Ephesians 2. But this would have interfered with the aim, which is as much as possible to link His death in grace with theirs in sin.* "If one died for all, then the all died," or "were dead." And that this is the universal condition of mankind, is made the more apparent by the further judgment that He died for all, that those who live, etc. It is not ζῶντες as including all for whom He died, but οἱ ζῶντες as some out of all, "those that live" in contradistinction to all dead. It is the solemn judgment of faith that all are dead, whatever appearances may say; it is its no less sure but happy judgment that Christ died for all, that those who live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him who for them died and rose. What men call a judgment of charity is Satan's cheat, and as far from the truth as from real love. It is the delusion of trusting appearance and feeling and reason against God's word. True love according to God owns that all are dead, but in the faith of Christ's death seeks that others too might believe and live, and that those who live should live to Christ.

* Chrysostom takes the Greek thus without hesitation, and he surely must have known his own tongue. Οὐκοῦν ὡς πάντων ἀπολομένων, φησίν. Οὐ γὰρ ἄν, εἰ μὴ πάντες ἀπέθανον, ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν. Hom. xi. in 2 Corinth. tom. iii. 127: ed. Field. Oxon. 1845.

The reader will observe that Christ's resurrection is associated only with "those who live." This again confirms the special class of the living, as only included in, and not identical with, all for whom He died. Those who would narrow the all for whom He died to the elect, lose the first truth; those who see the special blessedness but responsibility of the saints, those that live, lose the second. He died for all; He was raised again for the justifying of those who believe, and who consequently had life in Him; that they might live no longer to themselves, as of old in their sinful folly, but to their dead and risen Saviour. It was not only "the terror of the Lord" that acted on the apostle's soul, but the constraining love of Christ. His outgoings of heart, and labours of love were not bounded by the church, however dear to him; as we saw, he would not only feed the flock, but "persuade men." He knew what the judgment-seat must be to sinful man, but he knew also the efficacy of Christ's death, and the power of His resurrection. If Christ died for all, he earnestly sought all, and preached to all, urgent in season and out of season. The judgment which faith gave him seems therefore, like the context before and after, to take in all men, no less than the saints; whereas another line is brought in, out of harmony with what we have, if we speak of death to sin only, limiting the range of the first clause to the elect, instead of seeing its universality.

Thus the apostle sees death come in for all, and judgment awaiting men as such; and, because this was the fact for all, Christ dead for all. Promises avail not, nor the kingdom: so complete is man's ruin. Else a living Messiah would have sufficed. But no! only a Saviour that died could meet the case; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him who for them died and rose. This closes the door, not for Him only who died, but for those that by and in Him live, on the world and man. Not "all" alas! but only "those who live," really live to Him who died and rose for them. All outside Him and them is death; and they, now living, are called to live to Him: how could those who rejecting Him have not life?

This is practical Christianity. They are bound, as they owe all, to the Saviour, but to Him not in this world, but gone out of it as dead and risen for them. It is Christ who determines and characterises all for the Christian. It is not Christ as He was when coming into the world on this side of the grave; nor Christ as He will govern the world by-and-by in power and glory, but Christ who for them died and rose. Thus is He known to the Christian, and thus is the Christian to live. Nor is it, as sense and tradition reckon, that in the midst of life we are in death, or exposed to it, but that now in the midst of death we by grace live, but would live and own our obligation to live to Him who dead and risen is in a new sphere, to which we too belong, though still on earth, as the apostle proceeds to set forth, man as well as self being done with to faith, and ourselves belonging to Him. Thus He who is the source of life is also the object of life to the Christian; and this in His full character of death and resurrection, so as to act the more on the affections. For if He died for us in grace, He rose for us in power, that we might devote ourselves thus set free to His service and glory.

The sin of Adam ruined creation here below. It fell in its head. Not less but more, as is due to the surpassing glory of His person, has the death and resurrection of Christ changed all gloriously for faith. The apostle draws the consequence for the present characteristic knowledge of the Christian.

"So that we henceforth know no one as to flesh:* if we have even known Christ as to flesh, yet now are no longer knowing [him]; so that, if one [is] in Christ, [there is] a new creation; the old things passed; behold, they [or, all things]† are become new." (Vers. 16, 17.)

* Text. Rec. adds δέ "but" with the majority, but not p.m. B D, etc. F G, etc., and in καὶ εἰ, "and if;" as some also add κατὰ σ.   as to flesh" at the end of the verse.

† Text. Rec. with most adds τὰ πάντα before or after κ., but not "B C Dp.m. F G nor most of the very ancient versions.

Man as he is in his present life, with all its objects, pursuits, and interests, is morally judged in the cross of Christ, where alone God is glorified as to sin. Where are earthly rank, grandeur and power? Where are intellectual activity and learned attainment? Where is mental acuteness or far-reaching all-embracing thought? Where the wisdom of the wise, or the understanding of the prudent? Where even are moral exercise, and reverence in religion? All are closed in death, all proved worthless in presence of perfect holiness and most lowly love. It is no question now of thunders and lightnings, and of Jehovah descending in fire, and every heart quaking for fear. The same God descended in grace, yet all that was of man cast Him out in the person of Jesus; and so death is stamped on all. Man judged himself in judging Him, and proved his own worthlessness, either with the pride of vain knowledge, in not knowing Him who made the world, or in receiving Him not, whom the living oracles attested and every testimony that should have gone home if man had not been deaf, yea, dead. Christ's death under man's guilty hand proved the moral death of all; and as all played their part in it, so all were sentenced before God by it.

But He is risen; and thus by divine power and grace a door is opened, not of hope merely, but of life and salvation in the midst of a waste of death. Doubtless the mass of men go on as heedless as ever, the Gentiles abusing their power, the Jews striving to drown their judicial misery; but we, if none else, by faith beholding the dead and risen Christ, are in the secret of God now so clearly revealed in His word; we, perhaps primarily the apostle and his fellow-labourers, but we Christians also in contrast with all under death. Beyond question Paul entered into the full truth of all this, as no one else did; but surely it is no apostolic prerogative to know none according to flesh, to value nothing before God which flows not from Him who is risen from the dead.

The apostle goes even farther. "But if even we have known Christ as to flesh, yet now no longer know we him." This is so strong that it is impossible to go beyond it. For Christ was the just cause of every expectation of blessing here below. In Him all promises centred, not only a rod out of Jesse's stem, but a root of Jesse, to which the Gentiles should seek. All hopes for men living on the earth were buried in the grave of Christ: not because of any defect of power or grace in Him, but because man is dead Godward, and how could He reign at God's expense? How take pleasure in governing a nature at enmity with God? No; He died, not only as the full witness of man's state, but to lay a righteous ground of deliverance to God's glory.

No doubt the Jews looked for Him to reign after an earthly sort, exalting the chosen nation of whom He is the chief. But we know Him only as a dead and risen Christ; and if even, as the apostle adds, we have known Him according to flesh, that is, on this side the grave, yet now we know Him so no more. Our association is with Him in that new and heavenly glory, where the death through which He passed has met our evil, and now He is risen and gone on high, and our life is bid with Him in God. The apostle does not say that He ever did not know the Lord thus; but that, if it were even so, we now only know Him as the risen and heavenly Christ. The lustre of an earthly Messiah was quite swallowed up in the surpassing glory of His now place and condition. And this it is which imprints its heavenly character on Christianity. "As is the Heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly." Had we been Israelites, of the tribe of Judah, of the family of David, we know Christ now in a brightness beyond the sun at noon-day, which utterly dims the light of promise to which we had formerly turned fondly with all our souls.

Nor is this all; for there is power in Him as well as an object that we know. It is not a question of apprehending Christ no more as Messiah, nor even of only knowing Him above. The life that is in Him has won the victory for us already and entitled us to regard and speak of ourselves according to His new estate. So that, if one is in Christ, [there is] a new creation the old things passed; behold, they [or, all things together] are become new." We do not wait for the kingdom, still less the eternal state, before we know and can say so if any are in Christ, as every Christian is. A new creation can be predicated of such an one, Christ in risen and heavenly glory being the Head. What is true of Him can be said of His, as being in Him. The old things have passed; behold, all things together (τὰ π.)  are become now. Faith sees the end from the beginning and looks for all the consequences according to Christ risen. It is no question, as so many make it, of examining ourselves within and seeing how completely we are changed in principles and path as well as spirit and end, since we believed in Christ, though there is a vital change and self-judgment be incumbent on us. It is what faith knows and can say, because of being "in Christ" and knowing Him only as risen, not connected with man on the earth, for this is closed in His death for ever. It is true of "any one in Christ." Whatever he may have been, Gentile or Jew matters not; if in Christ, there is a new creation, and from the starting-point the end is as sure as the beginning is the great all-including fact in Christ's person.

The marginal reading, "let them be" a new creature, was probably due to Calvin, whose notion at any rate agrees with it; but it destroys all the force and beauty of the passage by making it no more than exhortation. On the other hand, it is no question of mere experience, which would reduce the language miserably. It is faith judging and speaking according to Christ, in whom the believer is. Thus new creation has all its scope. But it is of all moment to be ever measuring and forming experience by faith, and not to lower faith by experience.

Nor is it a question of new creation alone, great as is the power requisite for it, and precious as its exercise is in presence of death and ruin. Man can avail nothing. It is a question therefore of God; and love and righteousness would reconcile the lost and guilty foes to God, without which His glory must be compromised. Hence it is written, after "all things [or, they] are become now," "And they all [are] of God that reconciled us to himself by Christ* and gave to us the ministry of the reconciliation: how that it was God in Christ reconciling [the] world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences, and putting in us the word of the reconciliation. For Christ then we are ambassadors, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God: him† that knew not sin he made sin for us, that we might become‡ God's righteousness in him." (Vers. 18-21.)

* Text. Rec. adds "Jesus," with a few uncials and the bulk of the cursives, etc., against the best MSS. and all the ancient versions.

† γάρ, "for" is added in Text. Rec., with many uncials, most cursives, and several ancient versions; but the weight of authority is against it, as also yet more in favour of γενώμεθα, instead of the present form (γιν.).

‡ Dean Alford has no reason to identify "us" in verse 18 with the" world" in verse 19. There is marked difference in the two verses, and no room for the confusion of the saints with the world. Nor was he the worst instance of such confusion.

One object of reconciliation, as we read in Col. 1 embraces all things in heaven and on earth. But this is future, and awaits the appearing of Christ. Meanwhile believers are already reconciled, being not only born of God but redeemed. In virtue of the work of Christ God can act freely, not reinstating merely but making good their relationship, as it suits His own nature as well as theirs, according to His love and for His glory. Traditional orthodoxy errs in insisting on the death of Christ to reconcile His Father to us. Scripture never speaks thus. But if it declares that God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son in order that the believer should not perish but have everlasting life, it is no less peremptory that the Son of man must be lifted up in order to the same blessed result. (John 3: 14-16.) Still more dangerous is the error which leaves out that God is light in the anxiety to press that He is love. Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. We must not let the needed expiation of our sins by the blood of Christ be weakened by the blessed fact that we are also reconciled to God. The enmity was on our side, not on His; but what was our evil nature, what our sins, in His eyes? Does not God abhor iniquity and rebelliousness, hypocritical form or even indifference to His will? And, if He abhor, has He no majesty to vindicate, nor authority to judge? After sin and before judgment came Christ, who gave Himself up not only to manifest God in this world but to suffer on the cross. Hence, instead of nothing but righteous judgment awaiting guilty man at the end, the Lord Jesus has so met and even glorified God as to sin in His death, that divine righteousness now justifies the believer; and the reconciliation is so complete that in virtue of His redemption we stand in a wholly new relationship which derives its character from Christ risen from the dead. In due time all things in heaven and on earth shall be made new accordingly. Even now if one is in Christ, it is a new creation. The rest will follow in its season, whether for our body, or for heaven and earth; but for us reconciliation is a fact now. God reconciled us to Himself by Christ, as surely as He gave the ministry of reconciliation.

For the saving grace of God has a service suited to itself. It does not, like the law, govern a people already in relationship with God; it calls, as Christ did, not the righteous but sinners to repentance. The word of truth it proclaims for all to hear is the gospel of salvation; and those who hear not only live but are saved by grace through faith, quickened with Christ, raised up together, and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, that God might display in the coming ages the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Reconciliation therefore is a term of rich meaning, and goes far beyond repentance or faith, quickening or justification. It is, if we may borrow the figure which lies at the root of the word, God's settlement of account in favour of him who, if he have nothing to pay, submits to His righteousness. Divine love in Christ has undertaken all and has set down the enemy and lost one, not only in deliverance, but in full favour, boasting in hope of God's glory, yea even now in God Himself through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a question of our dispositions and feelings only but of relationship with God, out of which we were as sinners, into which His grace has now brought us who believe, not according to Adam unfallen, but according to Christ dead, risen, and glorified, in virtue of His redemption outside us, though of course not without our being born anew.

But let us follow the apostle's explanation of the ministry of reconciliation: "How that it was God in Christ reconciling [the] * world to himself, not reckoning to them their offences, and having put in us the word of the reconciliation." (Ver. 19.) By a change of form in the participles, there appears to be intimated, first, the continuous aspect of Christ's presence here below, and, secondly, the gospel charge deposited in His servants when He was no longer here. God put in us, says the apostle, the word of the reconciliation. But what was He doing when the Reconciler Himself was here? It was not the law, which forbade all approach and registered every transgression; it was God (or, God was) in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their offences. This is not Christ's death, but His living presence; nor is it consequently that He reconciled the believers by His death, but the bearing of God in Him toward not Jews only but a guilty rebellious world; and it was reconciling — Jew or Gentile, it matters not, if it was God there and thus in Christ — reconciling the world, and consequently not reckoning to them their offences. Was it not thus He bore Himself to the woman in Luke 7? to the Samaritans in John 4? But why enumerate? It was His special aspect in Christ here below, dealing in grace, not law, and hence indiscriminately, not reckoning to them their offences. On the one hand, He came to seek and to save the lost; on the other "him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." For the bread of God is He that came down from heaven and gives life to the world. As He was far beyond the rnanna, angels' food (Ps. 78: 25), so He is for the world, not for Israel only. For this is the will of His Father' that every one that sees the Son and believes on Him should have life eternal, and He will raise him up at the last day. Christ's presence, or God's in Him, was the full proof that fallen man is irremediable. Before the flood he was left to himself; and such was the corruption and violence that God had to sweep all away, save Noah's family in the ark. After the flood in due time the great trial of law was carried on in the chosen and separate nation; but they transgressed in every way, people and priests, judges and kings, till there was "no remedy," even after prophet on prophet was sent in patience truly divine. Last of all He sent to them His Son, saying, They will reverence My Son. But when the husbandmen saw Him, they said among themselves, This is the heir: come, let us kill Him, and let us seize on His inheritance. And they caught Him, and cast Him out of the vineyard and slew Him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard comes, what will He do to those husbandmen?

*There is no real ground for Bishop Middleton's remark (Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 350, 351, Rose's ed. 1845) that κόσμος here and in Galatians 6: 14 is one of those words which partake of the nature of proper names, and so dispense with the article exceptionally in these two instances. The true reason has nothing to do with its emphatic position, and simply is that the word is used characteristically in both, and hence, though we cannot so express it in English, more forcibly than if "the" world in either case were presented as an objective fact. Hence the critical reading which drops not only ὁ but τῳ in Galatians 6: 14 is right. Further, it is not the fact that Plutarch (περὶ Στωικ. ἐναντ.) omits the article With κόσμος, for it is inserted in both Reiske's ed. 1778, x. 348. and Wyttenbach's, Oxon. 1800, v. 193.The Bishop's citation was from an old edition and a bad text. Winer and T. S. Green follow in the same wake, classing k. with many other words like ἥλιος, γῆ, which may drop the article, as nearly equivalent to proper names. This is as to all defect of analysis. They probably misled Alford and Ellicott, but not Dr. Lightfoot, who evidently sees nothing irregular, and simply remarks that the sentence thus (i.e., by the anarthrous form) gains in terseness. So in our passage the entire clause is intentionally and essentially characteristic, θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῳ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῳ, and τόν would have brought in fact, which is exactly what is not intended, any more than ἦν καταλλάσσων = reconciliavit as Wetstein says. It is the aspect or bearing of His presence in Christ, not an accomplished fact (which is expressed by the aorist part. in verse 18).

Such is the divine account of human responsibility as tested in Israel even till judgment. But the display of grace in Christ here below is no less true and of infinite moment; and man's rejection of God in grace was as evident and complete as his total failure under law. For though Christ was here and the fulness of grace and truth in Him, receiving publicans and sinners, not reckoning to them their offences, they crucified Him as they had forsaken Jehovah for an idol.

But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; and over human iniquity at its worst God triumphs in Christ, yea in His cross. Hence, when the Son of man was cast out of the world, when it is no longer God in Christ reconciling the world and rising above every offence, He put the word of the reconciliation in chosen vessels; and as we have had the character of God's action in Christ in the days of His flesh, so here follows their character as sent out to testify of Him. "For Christ then we are ambassadors, God as it were beseeching by us, we entreat for Christ, Be reconciled to God: him that knew not sin he made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in him." (Vers. 20, 21.) The dignity is indeed great. They represent, not Levites, nor priests, nor yet the high priest, but Christ dead and risen, and this in the aspect of divine grace, God as it were (it was not meet to speak absolutely) beseeching by us: we entreat on behalf, or instead, of Christ, Be reconciled to God. Such is the gospel call to the world in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. The grace of God and of Christ is stamped on every word; and human assumption as wholly excluded from its nature, as human worth or means from that new creation where all things are of God, flowing through Christ risen from the dead.

Calvin expounded verse 20 as the apostle addressing himself to believers. He declares that he brings to them this embassy every day. Christ therefore did not suffer that He might expiate our sins once only, nor was the gospel ordained merely with a view to the pardon of those sins which we committed previously to baptism, but that, as we daily sin, so we might also by a daily remission be received by God into His favour. For this is a perpetual embassy, which must be assiduously sounded forth in the church till the end of the world; and the gospel cannot be preached unless remission of sins is promised.* This is as great at an error, if not so pernicious, as the broad-church rationalism which teaches that the world is reconciled to God. The contrary of this last appears from this very verse. The apostle exemplifies the gospel call he was commissioned to declare in the words, Be reconciled to God. This exhortation does imply that they were not yet reconciled; and no boldness of assertion, no tortuous reasoning, can elude the plain expression of scripture. Not less plainly does the apostle contradict the first error in verse 18, which states that God reconciled us to Himself by Christ — a fact accomplished for the believer, as other scriptures treating of the subject confirm. It is false that the apostle is here addressing himself to believers; he is giving a specimen of the true call to the unconverted. Neither here nor anywhere else does he testify that he brings to the saints such an embassy as this every day.

* "Observandum hic Paulo negotium esse cum fidelibus. testatur se quotidie id illos perferre hoc mandatum. non ergo passus est Christus ut semel tantum peccata nostra expiaret; neque in hoc institutum Evangelium ut quae ante Baptismum." etc. 1. Calv. Nov. Opera Omnia, vii. 244, Amstel. 1671.

Another apostle, not less truly inspired of God, expressly declares that Christ did once suffer for sins; as the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10: 11-14) pointedly sets aside the Judaism of a daily provision to meet daily sins by the revelation that Christ, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές) at God's right hand . . . . for by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified. It is not denied that we need our feet washed day by day, to use the expressive figure of our Lord; but this is the washing of water by the word in answer to His advocacy, not a fresh application of blood or another reconciliation into God's favour: strange doctrine from the head of Calvinism. The truth is that none of the Reformers knew the blessed comfort of Christ's having come by water as well as blood; and the effort to make the blood do the work of the water also has impaired in the minds of Protestants generally the full efficacy of the blood that cleanses from every sin. Of Romanists we need not speak, as they refused to profit by the candle of the Reformation.

It will be noticed that the critical text drops the argumentative particle with which the Authorised Version opens the last verse. The sentence is not so much a reason for the call that precedes as an explanation which the apostle adds in continuance, yet more enforcing the call. Him that knew no sin — not merely is it a fact, but no other supposition is admissible — He [God] made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him: a most full and blessed statement of the way in which grace secured its victory when guilty man seemed to have lost the last possible hope through Christ, by rejecting Him even on His errand of reconciling love. In that rejection to the death of the cross God wrought another thing, even atonement; He made Christ sin, laying for us His solemn unsparing judgment of sin on His holy head, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. Thus was our reconciliation effected by propitiation and substitution, the two goats of atonement-day, which find their meaning in the work of Christ on the cross, as we may see both parts distinguished in Hebrews 9: 26-28. He became a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3: 13, 14.)

The aoristic, not present, subj. is the true form, for "we might become," as all critics allow following every manuscript of value. Why Scholz and others read γινώμεθα, it is hard to say, for every authority he cites is against him. Indeed it would be hard to show what manuscript reads the present, not even Matthaei or Scrivener citing a single cursive for it. Yet Dr. Hodge also says the apostle uses the present tense, because this justification is continuous: doctrine and criticism equally erroneous. For Christian justification is regularly spoken of as past, e.g. in Romans 5 as a fact, in Romans 6 as a state. But this last is the perfect. Where the present is used, it is abstract.

The Christian will notice the peculiar manner in which God's righteousness is here predicated of "us." Elsewhere it is what is revealed in the gospel, and declared both to vindicate His dealings with saints of old and still more fully at this time. (Rom. 1, 3) It is what the zealous but unbroken Jew did not submit to (Romans 10), losing that blessing in refusing Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us righteousness and all else we need. (1 Cor. 1) It is of God by faith, in contrast with one's own. (Phil. 3) But here and here only are we said to become such, a fact as truly accomplished in the believer as the incomparable work of Him in whom He believes. Christ in virtue of His work was set at God's right hand in heaven: no other seat was adequate to express God's sense of His death in which sin was judged and God for ever glorified. Therefore did He raise Christ from the dead and set Him in the heavenlies; or, as the Lord said, the Spirit should convict the world of righteousness by His going to His Father and their seeing Him no more. Had there been righteousness here, the world would have received Christ to reign; but the world proved itself under Satan's dominion by casting Him out, as God showed His righteousness by receiving Him in the highest place above; and there, associated with Him, we become God's righteousness in Him. His righteousness wrought not only in thus exalting Christ but in justifying us according to Him. Nothing can exceed the energy of the inspired expression as to both sin and righteousness to the Saviour's praise and our blessedness.

2 Corinthians 6

The apostle now follows up the striking specimen he had given of the ministry of reconciliation toward the close of 2 Corinthians 5 by an appeal to the Corinthians themselves. There we saw how erroneous it is to treat verse 20 as a call to the saints; for he is illustrating the word they had to preach to the world. Here the opposite error is common through fear of compromising the security of the believer; and the more so, as men like Olshausen say, It is undeniable that the apostle assumes that grace when once received may be lost: the scriptures know nothing of the dangerous error of the advocates of predestination, that grace cannot be lost; and experience stamps it as a lie. This the more orthodox Calvinist, like Hodge, attempts to meet by saying that the apostle is only exhorting men not to let God's grace be to no purpose in making His Son sin, as it regarded them; that is, that a satisfaction for sin sufficient for all and appropriate to all had been made and offered to all in the gospel. But this is incorrect. It is a direct exhortation to the Corinthians, and not a declaration of the method in which the apostle preached, like the concluding verses of the preceding chapter. He is not exhorting all men, but the Corinthians who bore the Lord's name not to receive the grace of God in vain. Were there no ὑμᾶς, "you," expressed, it might be so argued; but there it stands, not in 2 Corinthians 5: 20 but here, a distinct and effectual disproof of those who would assimilate the two; and its reserve to the last place gives such an emphasis to the pronoun that the only wonder is how grave and godly men should have ignored its force. The aorist inf. δέξεσθαι does not necessarily imply, as Meyer alleges in at least an early edition, a past reception of His grace, but may mean the act complete and decisive irrespective of time, which is thoroughly if not more consistent with the application to the Corinthians. What the apostle has in view is the danger of easy-going self-satisfaction in those who already called on the name of the Lord. So He Himself in the parabolic marriage of the king's son had warned, first, of despising or maltreating the messengers of the gospel; secondly, of indifference to what alone suits those who come, of wearing one's own garments instead of having put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism would aggravate, not hinder, the most condign judgment.

"And working together we also beseech that ye receive not in vain the grace of God (for he saith, In an acceptable season I listened to thee, and in a day of salvation I helped thee: behold, now aright acceptable season; behold, now a day of salvation), giving none offence in anything that the ministry be not blamed." (Vers. 1-3.)

There is no authority for inserting "with him" as in the italics of the Authorised Version, though supported by many commentators.* It is an unscriptural familiarity, if not irreverent. 1 Corinthians 3: 9 gives it no real countenance; for the messengers are said to be, not fellow-workers with God, but His fellow-workmen, or journeymen together doing His work. So here, but by and on behalf of Him they work together, and exhort not men only to believe the gospel, but those who already professed faith not to receive His grace in vain. And "beseeching," while just applied to those without in token of the incomparable goodness of God to His enemies, is not less suitable in urging on His professing saints to beware of all inconsistent with His grace. The security of His children is unquestionable, not so much through their perseverance as men say, but by His power through faith: but the Corinthians needed and received faithful entreaty, for their ways were not such as became the gospel. They were compromising His glory who Lad called them to the fellowship of His Son; and the apostle, instead of comforting them with the blessed assurances at the close of Romans 8, would here exercise conscience as well as affection in presence of God's grace.

* The old interpretation is particularly objectionable, Dei enim sumus adjutores. Bengel on 1 Corinthians 3: 9 put the true thought neatly: Sumus operarii Dei et co-operarii invicem.

Nor is this enfeebled but strengthened by the following verse in which Isaiah 49: 8 is applied. It is a quotation from that section of the prophecy in which Jehovah arraigns the Jews not for idolatry but for rejecting the Messiah; and it is affirmed to be a light thing in consequence to raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the preserved of Israel. Jehovah would also give Him, thus cast off by His own people, for a light to the Gentiles, that He might be His salvation unto the end of the earth. If man despised and the nation [Israel] abhorred, His glory as on earth should be secured among kings and princes, whereon follows the word here cited. It is the principle, not the mere fact, which is taken up.

There is no need of supposing in this case that a promise to the Messiah included at the same time His people, though we see how strikingly this appears in the use made of Isaiah 50 by the apostle in Romans 8. Here the blessing to the Gentiles is expressly mentioned, so that it seems more akin to James's use of Amos 9: 11, 12, in Acts 15. And this is confirmed, it would appear, by the fact that the apostle breaks forth into a strong expression of the grace God is now showing, surpassing as it does the actual fulfilment in the days of the kingdom, when the earth shall be raised and the desolate heritage is enjoyed; when the prisoners shall go forth and those in darkness show themselves; when hunger and thirst shall be no more, and heat and sun shall not smite, but the merciful Jehovah shall guide even by the springs of waters; when the mountains shall be made a way, and the scattered return from every quarter under heaven; when the heavens themselves shall sing and the earth be joyful in Jehovah's mercy and comfort for His afflicted people. Yet in presence of such an anticipation, bright as it was in the apostle's heart, there shone a light brighter by far in Him who is exalted into a new and higher glory at God's right hand, which leads him to say, "Behold now a right acceptable season, behold now a day of salvation:" words suggested by the prophecy, but designedly rising above them in strength as expressive of God's present display of grace in the gospel.

Then, resuming the thread of his exhortation to the Corinthians, the apostle shows how far he was from refusing to measure himself and his service by that which he meted to others, "Giving none offence in anything, that the ministry be not blamed." Who knew better that inconsistency above all things undermines preaching or teaching? Christianity is real and living, not dogmatic only, still less official: else it becomes of all things the most contemptible; just as when genuine it is heavenly and of the Holy Spirit, as the moral expression of Christ in those that are His. In Moses' chair sat the scribes and the Pharisees: it was a duty to do and keep all things whatever they might bid, whilst not doing according to their works; for they said and did not. But unreality, as it is a lie against Christ, destroys the weight of christian teaching, which derives its power from the Spirit of God. And no more eminent witness of his own words ever lived than the apostle, not more to endure the heaviest burdens for Christ's sake than to bear those of any or of all others. His life, not only as a whole but in every detail, was a comment on his ministry; and who so vigilant to out off occasion from those who sought it?

It is a right and needed thing to begin with giving no offence in anything which might occasion blame to the ministry. How often there is unguardedness of which the enemy takes advantage, against not merely the servant but the objects of his work and above all the Master whom He serves! The apostle however would go much farther: —

"But in everything as ministers of God commending ourselves, in much patience, in affliction, in necessities, in straits, in stripes, in prisons, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, in pureness, in knowledge, in long-suffering, in kindness, in [the] Holy Ghost, in love unfeigned, in [the] word of truth, in [the] power of God." (Vers. 4-7.)

Earlier in the Epistle (2 Cor. 3) we have seen the character of the ministry. In contrast with the ministry of death and condemnation, as set out in the law graven on stone, it is of the Spirit and of righteousness, the Spirit given and righteousness revealed to the believer in virtue of Christ's redemption. Later (2 Cor. 5) we saw its source in the God who reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ and gave to suited instruments, called and qualified by sovereign grace, the ministry of the reconciliation: how that it was God in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their offences, and having put in us the word of the reconciliation. And as all the thoughts and feelings of men fall immeasurably short of the simple but deep truth of God here made known, so does the apostolic statement of the spirit and manner of its exercise rise above all the practices and theories of Christendom, never so alien, never so low, as when it indulges in the haughtiest pride. And no wonder, for it is then most remote from Christ; and Christ here as everywhere alone gives us the truth. Under law priesthood was the characteristic, the intervention of a representative class charged with maintaining before God the interests of His people who could not draw near into His holy presence for their own wants or His blessing. Under the gospel ministry is no less characteristic, as being the instrument of God's active love, both in reconciling His enemies as it goes out to the whole creation under heaven, and in building up the faithful who in one Spirit were all baptized into one body and were all given to drink into one Spirit. Christ is the fullest expression of this love in its activity both, to the world and to the saints; and those who desire the will and the glory of God have Him before their eyes as the test of all.

So we know it was with the apostle; and such is the revelation here of the spirit in which God would have His ministry exercised. He never meant it only for the pulpit, as men say, nor for set occasions, nor in a little or a larger sphere of one's own, nor as a matter of vested rights or of personal authority. Conversion did not of itself correct the tendency even in the apostles toward a direction the most opposed to Christ. "There was also a strife among them which should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? But I am among you as he that serveth." (Luke 22) So here the first quality set before us is "in everything as ministers of God commending ourselves;" if not as His ministers, what are we? Worse than useless. And that as a fixed purpose of the soul, not now and then, nor in specified duties only, but in everything as God's ministers commending ourselves.

It maybe noticed that in this version "as God's ministers" is placed before the participle, whereas in Greek it follows. The reason is that our idiom does not admit of the order which is correct in the original because of its definite case-ending. The Authorised Version really expresses ὡς θεοῦ διακόνους which is the reading of the Clermont manuscript, and the more extraordinary, because the corresponding Latin is "sicut Di [ Dei] ministri." The Vulgate falls into the error of translating ὡς θ. διάκονοι "sicut Dei ministros." If the same order were sought in English as in Greek, it would necessitate, I think, the addition of "should;" for there is a difference of sense attaching to the difference of construction, and the apostolic phrase expresses precisely what the context requires. Were it the accusative, διακόνους, the meaning would be commending ourselves* as competent to be God's ministers, whereas with the nominative διάκονοι, as it is, the force is that in everything we in the capacity of His ministers commend ourselves, etc.

* In this case the order would also differ, probably by placing ἑαυτούς before σ. so as to give the former the more emphasis.

What then is the prime quality which is looked for? "In much patience" or "endurance." So the apostle in 2 Corinthians 12: 12, where he sets "all endurance," or patience, before signs and wonders and works of power as apostolic vouchers. God Himself is called the God of patience no less than of comfort or encouragement, and this with a view to grant the saints to be like-minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus; nor is there a happier proof of moral power in His servants than such constancy in the face of suffering, opposition, trial and temptation. When impatient, one is overcome of evil instead of overcoming it with good in the lowliest form.

Then follows a threefold cord of the several ways in which endurance is put to the proof: "in afflictions, in necessities, in straits." "Afflictions" or tribulations (θλίψεις) are cases of pressure which every saint has in the world. We are set for this, and must through many tribulations enter into the kingdom of God. Necessities (ἀνάγκαι) express distresses which take the shape of need or constraint, and so, as the early Greek writers noticed, indicate an advance in suffering; as straits (στενοχώριαι) point to such troubles as shut a man up without space to move or turn.*

* "In pressuris, complures patent viae, sed difficiles; in necessitatibis, una, difficilis; in angustiis, nulla." Beng. Gn. in l.

Next come specific inflictions, "in stripes, in prisons, in tumults." As to the first of these three, the apostle further gives us the fact that from the Jews he five times had received forty stripes save one, and been scourged thrice. As to "prisons," we know of but one, recorded minutely in Acts 16, doubtless for its momentous connection with the first planting of the gospel in Philippi; but 2 Corinthians 11: 23 speaks of the apostle's being "in prisons more frequent," so that we know such shame to have been abundantly his lot. There remains in tumults" (ἀκαταστασίαις), which some apply to the forced changes of the apostle's unsettled life, comparing 1 Corinthians 4: 11 with Isaiah 54: 11, Isaiah 70. And so not moderns only, but apparently Chrysostom. Nevertheless New Testament usage does not support such a meaning, but either a "riot" in the world or "confusion" among saints; and here the context confirms the former: a trial shocking to one of well-ordered habits. But we see in the Acts how often it befell the apostle in his preachings; and doubtless very much more frequently than that history records.

Then we pass on from inflicted to voluntary trials, "in labours, in watchings, in fastings," which are not the least witness to sustained devotedness. The language so clearly intimates one's own agency here that it might have seemed needless to say a word more. But scripture fares as no other book; and this at the hands of friends as well as foes. Dr. Bloomfield will have it that this application to voluntary sufferings is, not only unfounded, but devised to afford countenance to monkish austerities; and that κ. may very well refer to his corporal labours at his trade, ἀγρ. to the abridgment of rest to make up by over-hours at night for evangelising by day, and ν. to the scanty fare that must follow such a trade. But 2 Corinthians "is the true parallel, and not merely 1 Corinthians 4; and in the former we have "fasting" distinguished expressly from "hunger and thirst," clearly as voluntary from involuntary suffering. No! the apostle's "labours, watchings, fastings," had to do with the gospel and the church, as well as individual souls, and were quite above the circumstances of trade good or bad.

But now we turn from circumstances and sufferings to quite another class, to qualities which God looks for in His service: "in pureness, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in love unfeigned, in [the] Holy Ghost, in [the] word of truth, in [the] power of God." There is thus not only perseverance in the face of antagonism and enmity, but the exercise of all that is holy and wise, long-suffering and gracious, and all this, not in mere amiability but in love unfeigned, yea in the Holy Spirit, and hence in the word of truth and in God's power, not more human wisdom and ability, that its excellency might be of Him, and not from the man though by him.

There is a slight change in the middle of verse 7 indicated by a difference in the preposition and beginning with the needed arms of the christian servant. We have ἐν ("in" or "by") no longer, but διά. Even the latter cannot here, or elsewhere, be restricted to the sense of "by means of;" for though this might suit the first occurrence, it does not fit in with the two which follow, but rather "through," or "with" as with the genitive it sometimes means (as in 2 Cor. 2: 4).

"Through [or, with] the arms of righteousness on the right and left, through glory and dishonour, through ill report and good report, as deceivers and true, as unknown and well-known, as dying and behold we live, as chastened and not put to death, as grieved but always rejoicing, as poor but enriching many, as having nothing and possessing all things." (Vers. 7-10.)

As the Holy Ghost naturally precedes love unfeigned, and the word of truth is accompanied by the "power of God," so "the arms of righteousness" in full equipment follow. Some here as elsewhere take "righteousness" as that which is secured by justification before God. But this is to mistake both the figure and the context. As a figure it is a mistake, inasmuch as armour is used to protect one against the assaults of an enemy, which God assuredly is not to the believer. Hence, where we have details as in Ephesians 6, we see beyond controversy that we are told to put on the armour in order to withstand the powers and wiles of evil; not to stand before God, in which case we hear of a robe, not of arms. Clearly then righteousness in the practical sense is in question, rather than the righteousness of God. And the context equally requires it; because the apostle is insisting here, not on the standing of the believer, but on the avoidance of all which could expose the ministry to reproach, and on the cultivation of all that should approve it to universal conscience, representing God aright in a world where everything is opposed, and spite of a nature which is enmity against Him, and this in an earthen vessel as weak as the pressure of circumstances was great and varied and constant, so as to test the workman in every conceivable way.

Next we have a series of contrasts, not more paradoxical in appearance than strictly true. "Through glory and dishonour, through ill report and good report." Who among mankind ever touched the extremes of both as he who thus portrays the path of service according to God? Who over served the Lord Jesus so superior to circumstances? Who less elated? Who farther from depression? Revered as a divine being and afterwards stoned, now suspected of murder and immediately after regarded as a god, he experienced vicissitudes only loss wild and rapid among the saints themselves, and among none more remarkably than at Corinth and in Galatia, where he had to vindicate even his apostleship among his own children in the faith, ready enough to bow down to arrogance and pretension.

Then by a simple transition we come to instances of ill or good report: "as deceivers and true, as unknown and well-known." Never was it true of Paul, never can it be with a thoroughly devoted and unworldly servant of God, that all speak well of him. So did the Jews of old to the false prophets, not to the true. Faith loves not, but refuses, the chief place in feasts, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. The servant cleaves to His name whom the world know not, and so is unknown; yet as with the Master grace in service cannot but make itself felt in a world of need and misery — it cannot be hid.

The clauses which follow have a rather distinct character, sliding from matters of report into actual fact: "as dying and behold we live, as chastened and not put to death, as grieved but always rejoicing, as poor but enriching many, as having nothing and possessing all things." If the Lord alone, when challenged as to who He was, could say of Himself as man here below, Absolutely that which I also say to you, the Truth in word and in deed, in everything and in every way; Paul inspired of God could speak with so much the more freedom as his heart entered into the spirit of seeing God according to Christ with largeness and with humility, with tenderness and with courage, with unwearied patience and unflagging energy, with a purity and a love, with a jealousy for Christ's glory and an exercised conscience before God, never seen so combined in another. Out of all this he exhorts, feeling all acutely yet moved by nothing, and making no account of life itself, that he might finish his course with joy and the ministry which he had received of the Lord Jesus, not only testifying the gospel both to Jews and Greeks, and preaching the kingdom of God, but also announcing to the saints all the counsel of God. What suffering did it not involve! What faith and perseverance under discipline and sorrow! Yea, surely, joy in the Holy Ghost was there if in any, and triumph by grace over all seeming disadvantages. He knew, if any servant did, the force of the Lord's word in Mark 10: 29-31, as poor but enriching many, as having nothing but possessing all things.

Having closed the blessed sketch of christian service from its source and power to its moral characteristics and effects, the apostle now turns to the saints with the expression of unhindered affection. There had been a barrier to that expression in their state; but God had wrought in grace, and they had in a great measure judged themselves, and faith working by love looked for all that is worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing. Hence he could say

"Our mouth is open unto you, Corinthians, our heart is expanded: ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels; now for the same requital be expanded also yourselves." (Vers. 11-18.)

Love was no longer driven back, for God was at work; and joy and thankfulness open the lips, as sorrow isolates where sympathy fails. So he can and does speak freely. "Our mouth is open unto you, Corinthians." He similarly names the Galatians (Gal. 3: 1), and the Philippians (Phil. 4: 15); but each with a characteristic difference. The Galatians he blames severely, as senseless and bewitched, for turning aside from faith and the Spirit to law and flesh. To the Philippians he mentions that they alone had the privilege of communicating with him at the beginning of the gospel as now when the apostle was drawing near his close. The personal address to the Corinthians lies between those two. He could not accord to them that token of confidence in their spiritual simplicity and unworldliness which the Philippians had enjoyed first and last; whilst he is pouring out the fulness of his heart on the restored condition of the Corinthians instead of the stern censure on the Galatians. "Our heart is expanded," he says. There can be no doubt that this is the word and sense intended. But it is an instructive fact that the two oldest and best uncials unite in a positive and evident error. The Vatican and the Sinaitic uncials give your, not "our." Such facts should correct the exaggerated confidence of some in a few very ancient copies. The context has its grave importance where the external authorities differ. Here there can be no doubt that the mass of other and later authorities is right. The argument requires "our" imperatively, if ever so many voices had pronounced differently.

There was no narrowness in the apostle. His heart was ever large; and now he could show them so. It was in their own affections the Corinthians were contracted. (Ver. 12.) There was free and full room in his heart for them, but not in theirs for him. They had been lax, and he is about to warn them solemnly on this head; they were still narrow. How great an error to count narrowness fidelity, whereas it may well go as here with laxity! In the apostle we see large-heartedness with real holiness; and they too go together. But the apostle counts yet more on grace, and as he had declared how his heart was expanded, instead of being shut up, he adds, "and for the same requital* (or, for requital in the same), I speak as to children, be expanded also yourselves." (Ver. 13.) Love never fails; and that their affections should answer his was the only recompense he sought at their hands.

*Here we may notice the strange misconception of the Vulgate, followed as usual by Wiclif and the Rhemish. "eandem remunerationem habentes," "ye that have the same reward," "having the same reward." This inverts the meaning: he wanted the reward in the same kind, not that they had it. Tyndale understood the phrase as "I promyse you lyke rewarde with me as to my children;" and Cranmer follows in the same wake. "I promyse unto you lyke reward, as unto children," taking the accusative as the complement or direct regimen of the verb. The Geneva Version exhibits another variety, nearer the true sense, "Now I require of you the same recompense," etc. The Authorised Version seems best, not applying any fresh verb, but taking the accusative absolutely, or rather as in apposition with a cognate accusative supposed in the verb following.

The Corinthians were not only straitened in their affections. They were lax in their associations. Had Christ been the object, the new life had not been hindered in either way; for as He creates, directs, and sustains the affections according to God, so does He guide and guard the feet in the narrow way, His own path outside and above the world. Where He is not before the heart, the world in one form or another fails not to ensnare, fair excuses which cover unholy alliances escape detection, and His honour somehow is ere long compromised.

The apostle's jealousy was alive to this danger in a love that bound together Christ and the church. Love speaks and acts freely, though with tender consideration. The apostle comprehends in his wide warning not only idolatry, but every kind of worldly association as defiling and unworthy of the Christian, because it suits not Christ nor the presence of God. If blessed with Christ for eternity, you cannot without sin have relations with the enemy in time.

Some have narrowed, if not perverted, the passage, by restricting it to an exhortation against the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever. But while the principle undoubtedly condemns the contracting of any such union, it is clear on the face of it that, strictly speaking, this cannot be the direct intent; for the corrective insisted on is exactly what one ought not to follow, even in so sad a case. Thus a Christian woman who had sinned in marrying a worldly man ought not to come out or be separate from her husband; and she might expect the strongest censure from God and His children, not promised blessing, were she to act thus rashly, whatever the purity of her motives. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7 is the true and direct weapon for the question of marriage; our passage has a far larger bearing. It is the prohibition of every evil connection for a Christian, and it calls for thorough clearance from all; and no wonder, since the Christian has Christ for his life, righteousness, and hope, even now by the Spirit able to behold His glory without veil. It is incongruous, it is treason, if one has taken Christ's yoke, to accept also that of the world which rejected and crucified Him.

"Be not diversely yoked* with unbelievers; for what partnership [is there] for righteousness and lawlessness? or what fellowship [hath] light with darkness? and what consent of Christ with Beliar†? or what part for a believer with an unbeliever? and what agreement for God's temple with idols? for ye are‡ [the] living God's temple, even as God said, I will dwell and walk among them, and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Vers. 14-16.)

* This opening phrase is very compressed, being a kind of pregnant construction, and to be resolved either with Winer as μὴ γίν. ἑτεροζυγ. καὶ οὕτως ὁμοζ. ἀπ., or more simply perhaps μὴγίν. δμοζ. ἀπ. καὶ οὕτως ἑτεροζυγ. The sense is plainly a heterogeneous yoke, not another part of it as Grotius, nor a beam with diverse weights as Theophylact.

† The MSS fluctuate as to the form of the word, βελίαλ being the nearest to the Hebrew original, corrupted through Syriac to βελίαρ which is best supported (m B C P, more than fifty cursives, and other excellent authorities). Some give βελίαν and βελίαβ.

‡ Good witnesses ( B D L P, etc.), followed by a few eminent critics, read ἡμεῖς . . . . ἐμέν, "we are," for ὑμεῖς . . . . ἐστέ with C Dcorr. E F G K, the mass of cursives, and most of the versions and commentators.

The figure with which the paragraph opens is obviously taken from the law which forbade yoking together heterogeneous animals, as the ox and the ass in ploughing. (Deut. 22: 10.) It is not now the Jew severed from the Gentile, but the Christian separate from the world in every shape and degree. Principles, motives, interests, ways, are not only different but opposed; what common ground is possible? But this is not all. Faith is the life-breath of the Christian, and his only avowed power the Holy Ghost, whom the world cannot receive as neither seeing nor knowing Him; and He works to reduce every thought to the obedience of Christ in absolute judgment of the world and its prince.

In detail what can be stronger than the clenching blows of every clause? First the apostle points to the radical difference of principles, low or high, righteousness and lawlessness, light and darkness. Next he points to their characteristic heads, Christ and Belial. Then he contrasts the partisans or followers, believers and unbelievers. Lastly he closes with their joint place as God's temple, contrasted with idols. Thus all that forms the life outward and inward is embraced so as to exclude alliance with the world and claim the saints wholly for Christ apart from the world. This in no way bars doing good to all, or especially seeking the salvation of any. On the contrary, the truer the separateness to Christ, the more forcibly can grace be preached to the world as a lost thing, and Christ the only Saviour. For righteousness was ever looked for in a saint; light, now that Christ was revealed, is characteristic of a Christian.

It is not here said that the body of the saint is the temple of God, as we see in 1 Corinthians 6, but that the saints are His temple; and it is added that accordingly God said, I will dwell among them and will walk among [them], and will be their God, and they shall be my people: an Old Testament promise and privilege (Ex. 29; Lev. 26; Ezek. 37: 7), but better enjoyed now, when His presence is given, not in a merely sensible sign as then, but in the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven since Pentecost. Redemption in figure or in reality, as often observed. laid the ground for God's dwelling thus.

With this great privilege is ever bound up the imperative obligation of separation to God from all evil. Holiness becomes, and must be in, the dwelling-place of God. No doubt the heathen then as ever are characterised by all sorts of corruption morally: but it is not from heathenism only but from every evil that God calls out the believer and insists on habitual avoidance and judgment of it.

"Wherefore come out from the midst of them and be separated, saith [the] Lord, and touch not an unclean thing; and I will receive you and will be to you for Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters, saith [the] Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us purify ourselves from every pollution of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God's fear." (Vers. 17, 18; 2 Cor. 7: l.)

If privilege abide and be deepened since redemption, more obviously moral truth is seen with increasing clearness and force. The conscience is purged by blood, the heart by faith. God must have His own holy, for He is holy; and this not only in an inward way, without which all would be hypocrisy, but in outward ways also to His own glory, unless He would be a partner with us to His own dishonour. He will have us clear from associations which are worldly and defiling; He will exercise our souls in order to freedom from all that denies or despises His will. He would not force others, nay He refuses not things only but persons also that are of the world; He commands those that believe to come out from those that believe not, and to be separated. Indeed the union of the two is so monstrous that it never could be defended for a moment by a true heart; it is only when selfish interests or strong prejudices work that men gradually accustom and harden themselves to disobedience so flagrant and in every way disastrous. For as the man of the world cannot rise to the level of Christ to be together with His own, the Christian must descend to the level of fallen Adam and the world. God is thus and ever more and more put to shame in what claims to be His house, with a loudness proportioned to its departure from His word.

Here again the Holy Spirit led the apostle to borrow words from various parts of the Old Testament, especially Isaiah 52: 11, Ezekiel 20: 34, 2 Samuel 7: 8, 14, Isaiah 43: 6. Apostolic gift only enforced divine authority, and expressed itself in terms drawn freely from various parts of scripture. Nor could any other way have been chosen so wise or pertinent if the aim was to show the will of God and His promises. It is here to encourage individual submission to His word, as before for the enjoyment of His presence in common. There they were His temple in virtue of His dwelling and walking about among them; here He says, "I will receive you and will be to you for Father, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters." It is our new relationship in positive blessing and supposes the divine nature given to us.

But there is another thing of much moment as well as interest to observe. Jehovah as such is introduced under the Septuagintal form of "Lord" (κύριος) and so without the article; and still more "Lord Almighty." That is, in Old Testament form Jehovah Shaddai now brings out His New Testament relationship to those who in the obedience of faith come out from among the men of the world to be His sons and daughters. For these are the great relations into which God Elohim enters, as revealing Himself, first to the fathers as Almighty (Gen. 17: 1, Gen. 27: 8, Gen. 35: 11, Gen. 48: 3), then as Jehovah to the children of Israel (Ex. 6: 3, etc.), lastly as Father, which was reserved for the Son to declare, not only out of the fulness of enjoyment and in testimony, but bringing us into it in virtue of His death and resurrection (John 20: 17, etc.) And to our souls what more instructive than the fact everywhere patent, that those saints who cling to the world, which is enmity against God and involves in what is unclean at every turn, never seem to rise into the liberty of God's sons, especially in their public worship, but habitually drop into language more befitting the days when God was dealing with a nation and dwelt in the thick darkness, instead of being revealed as He now is in and by His Son, according to His true nature and that relationship which is so sweet to the believer as led by the Holy Ghost, the relationship proper to us now, though of course He be evermore Jehovah Shaddai?

Clearly too the possession of these promises is the great incentive to personal purification in practice. Nor is anything more hateful than the position of separateness from the world along with indifference to holiness. There are those who inculcate what is personal only and apologise for ecclesiastical evil as if it did not compromise them in the Lord's dishonour; there are others whose zeal is solely for ecclesiastical purity and whose personal ways are light and loose and far below those of many a saint in humanly formed and ordered societies. Both classes are condemned by the solemn words before us: the first by 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, the second by 2 Corinthians 7: 1. May we, as having proved the truth and blessing of the former, have grace to find the constant value of the latter also, and to cultivate purity outward and inward, perfecting holiness in God's fear! We have thus a double relationship in His grace. God dwells and walks in us as His temple, plainly a collective blessing; and besides, He is to us for Father, as we are to Him for sons and daughters, which is no less surely individual. But both are founded on coming out in separateness to God from among the worldly, with responsibility to touch no unclean thing. The apologist for ecclesiastical antinomianism argues that the apostle is actually speaking of heathen impurity. Granted: it was the unclean thing there and then; but he was led by the Spirit to write with such breadth and depth as to cover everything that defiles. Is it meant that uncleanness is now consecrated or ignored? Is it denied that evil is most of all evil when coupled with the name of the Lord Jesus? Is not such an association the deceit, power, and triumph of the wicked one? To cleanse ourselves from every pollution is our clear and habitual duty as God's temple and family.

2 Corinthians 7

The apostle returns to the expression of his affection towards the Corinthians, as he desired their love.

"Receive us: we wronged none, we corrupted none, we overreached none. For condemnation I do not speak; for I have said before that ye are in our hearts to die with and to live with. Great [is] my frankness toward you, great my boasting in respect of you: I am filled with encouragement, I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction. For also when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but [we were] afflicted in every way; without fightings, within fears. But he that encourageth the lowly, God, encouraged us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming only but also by the encouragement with which he was encouraged in your case, declaring to us your longing desire, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I the more rejoiceth. Because if also I grieved you in the letter, I do not regret, if also I did regret;* for I see that that letter if also for a time grieved you. Now I rejoice, not that ye were grieved but that ye were grieved unto repentance, for ye were grieved according to God that in nothing ye might suffer damage from us. For grief according to God worketh† repentance to salvation not to be regretted; but the grief of the world worketh out death. For, behold, this very thing that ye were grieved according to God, how much diligence it wrought out in you, nay self-clearing, nay indignation, nay fear, nay longing desire, nay zeal, nay avenging! In everything did ye prove yourselves to be pure in the matter. Wherefore, if also I wrote, [it was] not for the sake of him that wronged, nor for his sake that was wronged, but for the sake of your diligence for us (or, ours for you)** being manifested unto you before God. On this account we have been encouraged; but†† in our comfort we rejoiced the more exceedingly over the joy of Titus, because his spirit hath been refreshed by you all. Because if I have boasted to him anything of you, I was not put to shame; but as we speak all things to you in truth, so also our boasting of you to Titus was truth. And his affections are more exceedingly toward you, calling to mind the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him. I rejoice‡‡ that in everything I am confident in you." (Vers. 2-16.)

* Some punctuate thus: "if also I did regret, for I see that that letter grieved you if also for a time, now I rejoice," etc.

† ἐργάζεται p.m. B C D B P, etc. κατ- Text. Rec. with corr. F G K L, and most cursives, etc.

** B C E K L P and a great many cursives, etc., etc. Steph. ὑμῶν τ. ὑπ. ἡμῶν; etc. ὑπ. ὑμῶν; G, etc. ἡμῶντ. ὑπ. ἡμῶν; but EIz. with some cursives, Vulg., Gothic, etc., ἡμῶν τ. ὑμῶν.

†† T. Rec. omits δέ, which affects the sentence considerably, and also reads ὑμῶν instead of ἡμῶν.

‡‡ Elz., not Steph., adds οὖν with a few cursives.

Thus does he call for room in their hearts: a touching appeal when we reflect who and what he was, who and what they were. The lack of love was certainly not in him; nor was lowliness absent from him who deigns to repudiate the unworthy insinuations whispered against him, which they had better see whether they might not be more applicable elsewhere: neither injustice nor corruption nor fraudulent gain were true of him. He was careful to exclude even the appearance of these evils. But if the Holy Spirit work in the saints, Satan is ever busy and knows how to avail himself of all circumstances to detract and undermine, especially where love should most abound. In speaking thus however the apostle is careful to guard his words from the semblance of a condemnatory spirit. As he had already implied in 2 Corinthians 6: 11, they were in his heart to die with and to live with. He that is familiar with the Latin lyric may remember the well-known line which resembles this sentiment in form — how different in reality! "Tecum vivere amem, tecum obeam libens." And how infinitely superior, in strength as in purity, is this outpouring of unselfish affection, where the Christian begins with dying together, whilst the heathen can but end with it!

Far from a word to wound their spirits now restored, he can and does speak freely and in the strongest confidence. "Great [is] my frankness toward you, great my boasting in respect of you: I am filled with encouragement, I am overflowing with joy in all our afflictions." Sorrow closes the heart, joy opens it; and now the apostle's gladness of heart was proportionate to the depth of his pain over saints so dear in the Lord. "For also when we came into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted in every way: without fightings, within fears. But he that encourageth the lowly, God, encouraged us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming only but also by the encouragement with which he was encouraged in your case, declaring to us your longing desire, your mourning, your zeal for me. so that I the more rejoiced." It was not only in Troas he was full of heaviness and anxiety, but also in Macedonia whither he had gone in the hope of hearing the latest tidings from Titus. There he had yet more pressure of trouble till the good news came. Deeply interesting and affecting it is to hear the apostle opening his heart thus freely and to know how distracted and burdened he had been by all. . . "Our flesh" (ver. 5) is a peculiar expression, signifying (I suppose) his human weakness as such; "afflicted in every way" describes the circumstances ("without fightings, within fears") inward and outward. But God does not fail. He is the encourager of the depressed as He resists the proud; and He it was who now appeared to cheer the distressed apostle by the coming of Titus, above all by the tidings of what grace had wrought in the Corinthians, restoration in affection, and, as we shall see later, in conscience too.

The reason or explanation of his former severity, given in the verses that follow, is highly interesting and important in various respects. It is not "a" but the letter, clearly referring to the first epistle to the Corinthians. Did our translators wish to conceal this? It is not the only instance here of want of faith in men of God; for Calvin also shirks the truth, when he contends that μετεμελόμην "I repented" is used in the passage improperly for being grieved. For (argues he) when Paul made the Corinthians sad, he himself also shared in the grief and in a certain way inflicted sadness on himself at the same time. It is therefore just as if he said, Though I unwillingly pained you, it grieved me too that I was forced to be harsh to you; now I cease to grieve on this account whilst I see it has been useful to you. Otherwise if we own that Paul was concerned at what he had written, Calvin thought it would involve the grave absurdity that the former epistle was written under inconsiderate impulse rather than by the direction of the Spirit.* So Erasmus considered that the supposition was not the face.†

* "Sed quid est quod addit: etiamsi me poenituerit? Nam si fateamur Paulo displicuisse quod scripserat, sequetur non levis absurditas inconsiderato magis impulsu scriptam fuisse superiorem epistolam quam Spiritus directione. Respondeo, verbum Poenitendi improprie hic positum pro Dolorem capere. Paulus enim, quum moerore afficeret Corinthios, doloris partem capiebat ipse quoque, ac sibi quodammodo tristitiam simul infligebat. Proinde ergo est acsi diceret: Tametsi invitus vos pupugi, ac mihi doluit quod vobis durus esse cogerer, nunc dolere ob hac causam desino, dum video utile vobis fuisse." Calv. Opp. vii. 250.

† This seems a singular slip in an unquestionably great scholar as to a nicety of Greek phrase; for καὶ εἰ (when used as a composite, instead of the first as a mere copulative) differs from εἰ καί in that the former treats the condition as itself altogether improbable, the latter raises no doubt as to the fact, though reduced in moment as much as possible.

But there is not the smallest need for toning down or altering the language. It is indeed, however common, an erroneous view of inspiration, which does in no way preclude the working of motive as we see in Luke 1: 1-3, any more than deep exercise of mind as here. We are bound to accept the plain words of the apostle, which show his anxiety after he had written an unquestionably inspired epistle. "Because if also I grieved you in the letter I do not regret, if also I did regret; for I see that that letter if also for an hour grieved you. Now I rejoice not that ye were grieved but that ye were grieved unto repentance; for ye were grieved according to God that ye might in nothing suffer loss from us." He recognised the indubitable fruit of the Holy Spirit's operation through the very epistle which had harassed his spirit after he had written and sent it off. He had no question more. It was of God, as he was divinely convinced and reassured; but now in his joy at their restoration he could tell them all his feelings freely, even a passing regret for having written the first epistle, truly inspired of God as it was, though joy abounded the more now for the blessing that had resulted.

It is a mistake to call even an inspired man infallible: none but Christ was, and He was pleased to write neither Gospels nor Epistles, without overlooking of course what He commanded His servants to write in the great and final book of the Canon. But the Spirit of God guided and kept the vessels of His inspiration, so that, maintaining the individuality of each writer, He should give a result perfectly according to God. In the first Epistle the apostle distinguishes between the fruit of his spiritual judgment and the positive commandments of the Lord; but he was inspired to give us both in 2 Corinthians 7. Here he is inspired to tell us how his spirit was agitated even about that inspired epistle, in no way as to its absolute truth, but through his anxiety lest the very desire to win his beloved children back might not have estranged them for ever.

Further, we have precious light from God here as to that great work in the awakened soul, repentance. it is quite distinct from regret or change of mind. Even sorrow however deep is not repentance, though sorrow according to God works it out. Again, it is not correct to confound repentance with conversion to God, which is surely a turning from sin with earnest desire for holiness. Repentance is the soul as born of God sitting in judgment on the old man and its acts, its words and its ways. And as repentance for remission of sins was to be preached in Christ's name, so He was exalted to give both. It is not a changed mind however great about God in Christ, which is rather what faith is and gives; it is the renewed mind taking account of the man and his course according to God's word and nature. Hence it is said to be not about God, but "toward God" or Godward; for the conscience then takes His side in self-judgment before Him, and all is weighed as in His sight. It is of course of the Spirit, not intellectual but moral. "Surely after that I was turned, I repented." It follows conversion and consequently that application of the word which arrests the soul by faith, though it be not yet the faith of the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, which brings into peace.

Here of course it is the repentance of saints who had sinned. But it is the same principle, and in contrast with the world's grief which, knowing not God, gives itself up to despair and works out death. However overwhelmed may be the believer, God takes care that there shall be enough hope in His mercy to guard from the despairing fear which Satan wields for his deadly purposes.

And what a picture the apostle draws of God's recent work in the repentant Corinthians! "For behold this very thing, that ye were grieved according to God how much diligence it wrought out in you, nay self-clearing, nay indignation, nay fear, nay longing desire, nay zeal, nay avenging! In everything did ye prove yourselves to be pure in the matter." (Ver. 11) Of course its precise character was modified by the generally bad state of the assembly before grace thus used the first epistle. No indifference now, but earnest care; no extenuation of the evil, but thorough cleansing of themselves; a burning sense of indignation, fear, longing desire, zeal, and revenge, all had their place; so that he who had sternly reproved them could say that they had proved themselves clear in the matter: a, if not the, grand aim of the Spirit in discipline, and not merely getting rid of the offender.

Sometimes in a case of disciplinary truth, it is a question as at Corinth of the assembly's state as a whole. Before the first Epistle they were wholly ignorant that all were involved in the evil which was before their eyes, and which they did not know they were bound to judge. When we read that they were puffed up and had not rather mourned, we must bear in mind that they were quite inexperienced, and that the mind of the Lord as to dealing with wickedness in the assembly or its members, had not yet been revealed to them. Still as saints they ought to have felt the sin and scandal deeply, and if they did not know how to act, they should have betaken themselves to mourning in order that he that had done this deed should be taken away out of the midst of them. Spiritual instinct should have felt thus and laid it with shame and earnest desire before the Lord who never fails. But that epistle was blessed of God, in dealing with their souls, not only as to the offender, but, as to their own state, and thus gave occasion for the apostle to open his heart so painfully burdened, and sorely agitated with all the fervour of a real love which only overleaps its old channel because of the temporary repression.

Where souls since then, in the face of these epistles, have tampered with grave evil whatever it be, where palliation has been at work, where ingenious excuses have blunted the sense of right and wrong, as may be at any time among Christians, it is a state of things worse in some respects than that at Corinth. For there ignorance of the duty of the assembly in discipline prevailed, and we cannot wonder at it, though the sin was appalling. The mere getting the wicked person outside, important as it may be, is not what comforted the apostle's heart, but the working of deep and united moral feelings all round. "In everything ye have proved yourselves to be pure in the matter." Where there had been such indifference to their complicity, even though in ignorance of their responsibility as at Corinth, the saints had to clear themselves and prove it for the Lord's vindication. But it is, I doubt not, a general principle, and always incumbent. Merely to have done with the offender would show in others an unexercised conscience, or but judicial hardness. The happy contrast with all this was here manifest. They had indeed been grieved according to God.

Hence the apostle adds that, if also he wrote to them, it was not for the sake of the wrong-doer nor of the one wronged, but for the manifestation to them before God of their diligent zeal for them or of the apostle's for them. (Ver. 12.) It seems passing strange that the early clauses should seem obscure; as to the latter in opposite ways the copies singularly differ, some as the Sinaitic and the Boernerian yielding no good sense. Whatever the adversary had wrought for a while, their true zeal for the apostle was made plain to themselves at last before God. This is the best supported sense.

"On this account we have been encouraged; and in [or in addition to] our encouragement, we rejoiced much more abundantly at the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all." Grace had given the happiest issue to that which fleshly energy or ease had ruined for a time. And joy abounded not in them only but more in Titus, most in Paul himself. And there were other grounds beyond, though connected with, their present state. "Because if I have boasted anything to him over you, I was not put to shame; but as we spoke all things to you in truth, so also the boasting about you before Titus was truth; and more abundantly toward you are his bowels, while calling to mind the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him. I rejoice that in everything I have good courage in respect of you." Such an allusion to his feelings towards the Corinthians, when they must have been conscious of their temporary alienation, and deplorably low state, would more than ever seal their affection, as it proved his to have been true from first to last. His heart was not inconstant, nor was his tongue insincere. He loved, if also he had blamed his beloved children at Corinth, and they could now appreciate all better, as he could tell out all freely, however delicately. How blessed it is when grace thus reigns through righteousness, as it perfectly did by Christ unto eternal life!

2 Corinthians 8.

The apostle was now free, so far as the state of the Corinthian saints was concerned, to introduce the great duty of remembering the poor. Even the most honoured servants of the Lord were forward in this work, and not least Paul himself. This he would lay on the heart of the Corinthians. As he sought not his own things, he could plead for others; and he would draw out the affections of his children at Corinth toward saints suffering from poverty in Judea, whither he was going.

Yet we may notice how the character of the man comes out. He did not like the task of appealing to others for pecuniary help even though for others. The directness of his language in the first epistle is therefore in the strongest contrast with his circumlocution in the second. The need was deeply on his own heart; and he has no more doubt of the generous feelings of the Corinthians than of their ability, so far as circumstances were concerned, to respond; but the delicacy with which he deals with all is most marked and instructive. Personal influence has no place; faith and love are called out actively; the cheering example of saints where such devotedness could have been least expected opens the way; and Christ is brought in, carrying it home with irresistible power for those that knew Him.

"Now we make known to you, brethren, the grace of God that is given in [or, among] the assemblies of Macedonia; that in much trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches* of their liberality; because according to power [I bear witness] and beyond* power [they gave] of their. own accord, beseeching of us with much entreaty† the grace and the fellowship of the ministering unto the saints; and this not as we hoped, but their own selves they gave first to the Lord and to us by the will of God; so that we exhorted Titus, that, even as he before began, so he would also complete as to you this grace also; but as ye abound in everything, faith and word and knowledge and all diligence and love from you‡ to us, that ye abound in this grace also. I speak not by commandment, but through "the diligence of others proving the genuineness of your love also." (Vers. 1-8.)

* Text. Rec., with most, reads τὸν πλ.,  but p.m. B C P etc., to; pl.  as in verse 3, ὑπέρ instead of παρά. Krebs seems not to have been aware of this last fact.

† The addition of dέξασθαι ἡμᾶς in Text. Rec. is supported by some cursives and versions, against the great mass of good authority

‡ Lachmann actually adopts the strange reading of the Vatican MS. supported by other witnesses, ἐξ ἡμων ἐν ὑμῖν. Internal evidence would be decisive against this if the external evidence were not as strong as it is.

|| D E read διὰ τὴν etc., that is, on account of. Elzevir differs from Stephens in falsely reading ἡμετέρας "our," with a few cursives, instead of ὑμ. "your."

How blessedly the grace of God" changes everything it takes up And what can it not reach in its comprehensive embrace? Where is the demand too hard for it to entertain? Or the evil too deep for it to fathom? What sin is beyond forgiveness? Whose misery or of what sort can it not turn into an occasion for the all-overcoming goodness of God? See here how that which is among men but "filthy lucre," an especial object of the covetousness which is idolatry, becomes the means of exercising faith in love, to the glory of God and the exceeding blessing of His children, while it draws out the wisdom of the Holy Ghost through the apostle, who did not deem it beneath the fullest consideration in all its details.

First, the mighty influence of example is brought to bear on the saints in Corinth. (Ver. l.) Nor is this surprising; for are they not one family with its common interests, yea, one body with its fellowship undivided and immediate? Granted that the wants are in carnal things; granted, that it is no question of pleading rights or claims. But a relationship in the Spirit is no less real and far more momentous than one in the flesh; and, if there be suffering, love feels accordingly. In the next place God took care that the first to respond should be saints not in the wealthy city of Corinth, but in the long desolated and impoverished district of Macedonia, that the work might be of God's grace, and in no way a matter of worldly circumstances. Even in writing to the Corinthians the apostle had reminded them, as all experience shows, that the confessors of Christ are for the most part from the poor and obscure and foolish: and we know that in the Macedonian assemblies at this time the saints were no exception to the generally distressed condition of the country. On the contrary, we are expressly told here of their poverty down into the depths. They gave no gifts of superfluity; it was faith working by love, whilst they were proving themselves a great trial of affliction. The circumstances of Macedonia might have seemed eminently unfavourable; the reality of their liberality was the more evidently from a divine source; for in the face of tribulation their joy abounded, and their deep poverty, instead of appealing for aid to others, abounded unto the riches of their open-hearted generosity. (Ver. 2.) It was unselfish devotedness, loving others better than themselves; and as God gave them the grace that so wrought, so the apostle names it in love to the saints in Corinth, and, indeed we may say, to us all, that our hearts too should go forth in no less love. For love is as energetic and fruitful, as it is holy and free; and God would have not a grain of the good seed lost.

Nor does love calculate what it can spare nor what it can effect. (Ver. 3.) The heart animated by love thinks not of its own trials or deep poverty, but of those it hears to be suffering in any special degree, and acts at once. At least the apostle testifies of the Macedonian saints, that according to means, and beyond means, they gave of their own accord. No earthly incentives were here; no pressure of agents, no rivalry of donations, no moving appeals among multitudes, no circulated lists to shame or to stimulate, no personal or party aims of any kind. It is the grace of God given from first to last; and as God treasures it, so His servant testifies of it so much the more because those in whom it wrought thought nothing of it in the love that felt only the need of its objects.

But this is not all: the Macedonian saints, far from being solicited.. were themselves the suitors of Paul and his companions, and with much entreaty begged of them the grace and the fellowship of the ministering unto the saints, that is, to be allowed a share in the grace or favour of thus caring for the suffering saints of Judea.

It will be noticed that the Authorised Version, following the common Greek text, contains the words, "that we would receive" (δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς), which again involves the insertion of "take upon its" in verse 4. But as the former is not warranted by the best authorities, so the latter is needless and indeed worse; for both additions enfeeble and falsify the sense, which is, that the Macedonian saints might have the grace and fellowship of the service which was to be done the poor saints, not the mere idea that the apostle would receive their collection and undertake its distribution.*

* Even so difficulty has been felt because of the absence of the finite verb expressed; but it seems plain enough, as Bengel long ago suggested, that ἔδωκαν, which follows in verse 5, is understood in the earliest clause, and this removes all appearance of what has been styled "a sentence entirely shattered in passing through the apostle's mind." But it is no less plain that Bengel was mistaken in supposing that χάριν and κοιν. depend on ἔδωκαν, for they are unequivocally objects of δεόμενοι, which also takes a genitive of the person. "Hoc verbum totam periochae structuram sustinet, tali sensu: Non modo gratiani, communionem, sive δόμα, munus illud dederunt, sed plane se ipsos dederunt. Ita Chrysost. Homil. xvi. in 2 Cor. coll. maxime Homil. xvii., ubi repetit ὑπὲρ δύναμιν ἔδωκαν. Cum eodem verbo ἔδωκαν cohaerent nominativi illi, αὐθαίρετοι, δεόμενοι, et ab eodem peudent accusativi, χάριν κοινωνίαν, ἑαυτούς, sensu facili et suavi." Gnomon in loco. ed. Stuttg. 1866.

But the apostle goes farther in his fine sketch of Macedonian devotedness; for it was not only spontaneous, but beyond all expectation of himself, accustomed as he was to live in the walk of faith every day. "And this not as we hoped, but their own selves they gave first to the Lord and to us by the will of God." Is not this the reflection, yea reproduction, as far as it goes, of Christ's love in giving Himself? Doubtless directly and necessarily there is a perfection in Christ's offering which is altogether unique. He gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; it was all this and more to God and for us, as nothing else could be. But these humble and loving saints, the grace of God in whom is commended to the Corinthians, did not merely go beyond their means, but beyond the apostle's hope, who did not wish to be burdened with the wants of others those who were themselves in the depth of poverty. And no wonder that they thus exceeded, seeing that, as he adds, "their own selves they gave first to the Lord, and to us by the will of God." Had they not caught a vivid impression of the Saviour's love, where God always had the first place, whatever His infinite compassion for man? When love for the saints follows in their case, it is qualified by that which was the constant motive of Christ, "by the will of God." It is not only consistency with His will, though this of course was true, but His will was the spring of the self-sacrifice.

This acted on the heart of the apostle up to the point of beseeching Titus to carry out what he had formerly begun among the Corinthians when he delivered the first epistle. (Ver. 6.) Paul's love for them was holily jealous that their love should not slacken and that an early promise should not wither in the bud. And Titus was the meet instrument, as he before began, so also now to complete as to* the Corinthians this grace also.

* I see no need whatever of giving εἰς ὑμᾶς so wide a rendering as Mr. Green's "on reaching you," or even "among you" as is oftener done. it is not for ἐν ὑμῖν but more exact as it stands. No more is there any real ground for translating ἀλλά in verse 7 "therefore," as in A.V. "But" introduces anew appeal.

"But, as ye abound in everything, faith and word and knowledge and all diligence and love from you to us, that ye abound in this grace also." The apostle exhorts the Corinthians too, as he had Titus. They had their part now, and as God had enriched with everything else, were they to fail in this grace? Nay, He looks that they should abound in it also. (Ver. 7.) Yet he is careful that it should not be by injunction but of grace. "I speak not by command, but through the diligence of others proving the genuineness of your love also." (Ver. 8.) What a blending of tenderness, delicacy, and of faithfulness withal!

We have seen how powerfully the thought of the Lord acted on the saints of Macedonia, who in spite of their deep poverty had so exceeded the apostle's expectation. Now he brings His grace to bear on those of Achaia whom he had ground to believe awakened to feel accordingly.

"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he being rich became poor, in order that ye by his poverty might become rich. And I give an opinion in this, for this is profitable for you who began before not only the doing, but also to be willing a year ago. But now also complete the doing, that even as the readiness of the willing [was there], so also the completing [may be] out of what ye have. For if the readiness be there, [one is] accepted according to what he may have, not according to what he hath not. For [it is] not that others [should have] ease and you distress, but on equality: at the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance also should be for your lack, so that there should be equality; as it is written, He that [gathered] much had nothing over, and he that [gathered] little had no lack." (Vers. 9-15.)

The parenthesis of verse 9 is eminently instructive, not only for that which would act powerfully on the Corinthians as on all saints who appreciate the grace of our Lord, but as a sample of the way the Spirit of God turns what was in Christ to every exigency of the individual or of the church. Nor does any other motive act with equal power in holiness. And it could not be otherwise; for who or what can compare with Christ? To His grace, though it be really immeasurable, two measures are applied, the infinite glory of His person in itself, and the depth of humiliation to which He submitted for us. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he being rich became poor, in order that ye by his poverty might be made rich." Wealth consists in fulness of means and resources, and poverty in their utter lack. As a divine person our Lord had no need for Himself, and all things at command for others absolutely. He was rich indeed, yet for our sakes became poor, not in the letter only but in spirit to the uttermost. See the picture summed up in Philippians 2, and expanded or detailed in all the Gospels, the perfect pattern of One who hung in dependence on His Father and never used a single thing for Himself throughout His career. He waited on and lived on account of the Father; it was His meat to do His will and finish His work. He had no motive but the one of pleasing His Father, whatever the cost. The fast of forty days in the wilderness was doubtless a special scene of trial which ushered in His public ministry; but it was His ordinary life to count on the care of God while doing His work without an anxiety on the one hand, and on the other without independent resources. But His poverty went down into depths unfathomable in the cross when giving His life for the sheep. I do not speak merely of His garments parted among them and of their casting lots upon His vesture, image though it was of extreme and helpless destitution. Deeper elements were there than man's eye saw, when all forsook Him and fled. God forsook Him too — His God. What remained then? Nothing but the unsparing judgment of our sins. Was He not the "poor man" then as none other was, never morally so high, yet never so abject, and this not circumstantially alone but in all the unspeakable abandonment of that hour? As He said prophetically in Psalm 22, "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men and despised of the people . . . . . I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death."

But He was heard from the horns of the unicorns, and in resurrection declares His Father's name unto His brethren, in the midst of the congregation praising Him. What tongue of men or of angels can adequately tell the change? None but His own when He passed from the abyss of woe where was no standing to the everlasting and immutable ground of divine righteousness where the once guilty objects of grace are set in Him without spot or stain or charge before God, who delights to show them His estimate of Christ's redemption, and gives the Holy Spirit to seal them unto the day which will declare it. Yet is this but part of the riches of grace wherewith Christ now enriches us who believe. And the blessing of Jehovah is not only for us an exhaustless treasure, but it will go forth with wide-embracing fulness when Messiah's praise shall be "in the great congregation." Then all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto Jehovah; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him. For as surely as the Father will surround the Son with His children in His house in heaven, the kingdom is Jehovah's, and He is the Governor among the nations, and the earth is to be blessed in that day no less than the heavens be filled with the rich harvest gathered into the granary on high, when for the dispensation of the fulness of times He will gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will. Truly we by His poverty have been enriched, though not we alone but every soul who ever has been, and ever shall be, blessed. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship; all they that go down to the dust shall bow before Him; and none can keep alive his own soul. Such is the grace, the known grace, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and these the ways of our God, not now only but in the ages to come for His own glory and to His praise, whose humiliation and redemption have wrought such wonders, as yet only seen by faith, soon to be displayed before every eye. How sweet to associate it with the gracious consideration of the poor saints and the supply of their need at Jerusalem! How worthy of God thus to bring Christ into that which otherwise had been but an exercise of benevolence and compassion!

The apostle adds his judgment of its profit for the Corinthian saints themselves (ver. 10), who began before not only the doing, but also the willing a year ago. He could therefore with the more delicate propriety urge the completing of their purpose out of what they had. Grace repudiates constraint, but values, encourages, and directs readiness of mind: without this, what is the worth of giving? Is the gift acceptable? or the giver? But if the readiness be there, one is accepted according to what one has, not according to what one has not. Sentiment disappears; reality takes its place. Truth accompanies grace; and equity follows. For it is not that others should have ease and the Corinthians pressure, but on equality; and, as the application is made, "at the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance area should be for your lack." This is fortified by God's way and word as to the gathering of the manna of old; when God adjusted the supply to the demand with a wisdom and power which precluded superfluity no less than deficiency. He that gave the manna from heaven measured it exactly, whatever the differing measures in man's hands. And we have to do with the same God, who regulates all in the assembly with assuredly no less care and love.

In the rest of the chapter the apostle dwells on the care taken that the administration of the bounty should be not only beyond suspicion, but clothed with dignity and godly confidence by the known character of those entrusted with it. For it is not enough that the end should be divine, but that the means also should approve themselves to every true conscience. If lucre be apt to be filthy, if covetousness be idolatry, if the love of money be a root of all evil, the Spirit of God knows how to bring in Christ into every detail, and to turn both way and end into blessing to God's glory.

"But thanks to God that giveth the same zeal for you in the heart of Titus, in that he received indeed the exhortation, but being very zealous of his own accord he set out unto you. But we sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel [is] through all the assemblies, and not only [so] but also chosen by the assemblies our fellow-traveller with this grace that is being administered by us unto the glory of the Lord [himself]* and our† readiness; guarding against this, that none should blame us in this abundance that is being administered by us, for we provide‡ things honourable not only before [the] Lord but also before men. And we have sent with them our brother whom we proved to be zealous many times in many things, but now much more zealous by great confidence that [he hath] in you. Whether as regards Titus, [he is] my partner and fellow-labourer toward you; whether our brethren, [they are] messengers of assemblies, Christ's glory. The showing forth then of your love and of our boasting for you show forth** unto them†† in the face of the assemblies." (Vers. 16-24.)

* B C Dp.m. F G L many cursives and ancient versions omit αὐτοῦ "himself."

† Text. Rec. has ὑμῶν "your," contrary to the oldest and best MSS which read ἡμῶν "our."

‡ Instead of Text. Rec. προνοούμενοι with later MSS (or better γάρ added as in C. etc.), the best read προνοοῦμεν γάρ "for we provide."

** For Text. Rec. ἐνδείξασθε with many old MSS, is real in B Dp.m. Ep.m. F G etc.

†† The καί "and" of the Text. Rec. has no adequate authority and encumbers the sense.

The apostle thankfully owned the grace of God in giving Titus to feel as he zealously felt himself about the Corinthian saints in the matter, so that while he met the desire, yet too zealous as he was to require it he was ready to set out of his own accord unto them. He speaks as if it were already done; because in the style adopted in letters the facts would be made good when Titus had reached Corinth with this epistle. How eminently suited to comfort as well as rouse to a holy zeal the saints themselves when such a servant of the Lord as Titus so promptly responded to the apostle's heart, confident as both were that, whatever appearances indicated to those who judged superficially, grace had wrought in them, really and would yet flow through them to God's glory abundantly! If Timothy was like-minded with him to care for the state of the Philippians with genuine feeling at a later day, the Corinthians might now learn no less, as they were already prepared to do, how Titus shared the zeal of the apostle in carrying out the proffered bounty of Corinth, which bad been so slow of execution as to compromise them.

Thoughtful too as ever that Christ's glory should be sustained in His servants, He would not expose Titus to unworthy, however unwarrantable, question; and so he associated with him in this service "the brother whose praise in the gospel is throughout all the assemblies." So well known was he by this description to the Corinthians that no direct designation was needed, though men of other times have found it so vague as to afford grounds equally plausible for many, equally uncertain for any one in particular. Of one thing we may be assured that, whether or not Luke was intended, "whose praise in the gospel" has nothing to do with him in respect of the inspired account of our Lord which induced many of the ancients to appropriate the description to him, any more than to Mark. Barnabas and Silas have been conjectured; as also Aristarchus, Gaius, Trophimus, etc. But none of these guesses seems less happy than that of some speculative Germans, who have applied τὸν ἀδελφόν to a supposed brother (after the flesh) of Titus, not seeing the incongruity of such an one, if indeed he existed, for the work in hand. The object and character of the association would have been frustrated by selecting one so near to Titus. But we do know the further consideration that, whoever he may have been, he was chosen by the assemblies to travel with the apostle and the rest who were to carry the offering of love from the, Gentile saints to their poor brethren in Judea.

Here we see an important principle in exact accordance with the direction of the twelve in Acts 6. As the christian multitude gave the means, they were left free to choose the administrators. This was as wise as gracious. The apostles kept aloof from all appearance of favouritism, and adhered to their own work with prayer, the condition of power. They might solemnly establish the seven over their business of serving tables; but they called on the disciples in general to look out from among themselves men of good report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom in whom they had confidence. Such were the proceedings in the assembly of Jerusalem; and a like method was adopted among the Gentile assemblies, where many joined their contributions for the need at Jerusalem as we learn in verse 19. Where the saints gave, they chose according to their best judgment for the due application of their gifts, whether in one assembly, or for the special work of many assemblies. But in no case did they meddle with the ministers of the word. These the Lord gave, not the church; and the church, instead of choosing, received those whom the Lord chose and sent, not merely the higher ones, as apostles and prophets, but the more ordinary, as evangelists, pastors and teachers. For they too all rest on the same principle of the Lord's gift, and not man's. And hence it is an utter confusion to mix up two things so different as the Lord's sole title to give and send His servants in the word, and the assembly's title to choose those in whom the saints have confidence to administer their bounty.

The case before us falls under the latter. "The brother" un-named was chosen by the assemblies "our fellow-traveller with the grace that is being administered by us unto the glory of the Lord [Himself] and our readiness;" as indeed the apostle had directed in 1 Corinthians 16: 3, 4. The moral reason of the caution follows: "guarding against this, that none should blame us in this abundance that is being administered by us, for we provide things honourable not only before [the] Lord but before men." (Vers. 20, 21.) It is not lack of faith, but rather faith working by love which would cut off occasion from men, as well as walk with pure conscience before God. The allusion is to Proverbs 3: 4 in the LXX.

The next verse, as well as that which follows, proves that the apostle added another brother. "And we sent with them [i.e. with Titus and the one already described] our brother whom we proved to be zealous many times in many things, but now much more zealous by great confidence that [he hath] in you." (Ver. 22.) Still less is it possible for us to determine who is this second brother meant; because we have not even so many marks as attached to the first. But two particulars fitting him for the work are mentioned: the apostle's experience of his proved zeal often and variedly; and again the exceeding warmth of his own zeal now by his (hardly Paul's) great confidence in the Corinthian saints. For the margin of the Authorised Version is more correct than the text, at least in my judgment. None could be so unsuitable an associate as a near relation, if the aim were, as it was, to inspire confidence in the donors.

It seems to be clear from verse 23 that Titus stood relatively in the higher position of the three who were to accompany the apostle: "Whether as regards Titus, [he is] my partner and fellow-labourer toward you; whether our brethren, [they are] messengers of assemblies, Christ's glory." Is it not then incredible that the apostle would have thus classified or described men so eminent as Barnabas, Silas, Luke or Mark? Not to say that it was only at a later day that he expresses his re-assurance as to the last. Could he yet write that Mark was serviceable to him for ministry? or that he was among his fellow-workers for the kingdom of God who were such as had been a consolation to him? Renewed confidence may be gravely doubted then, though it came at length; and the apostle was glad to say so as soon as he could to the Lord's praise.

It is well to note how the expression "messengers [ἀπόστολοι] of assemblies" illustrates the difference of a charge from men however delicate and weighty as compared with a gift or charge from the Lord like an apostle. These brethren, while beautifully and graciously styled "Christ's glory" as being active in the display of His excellency, were deputed envoys of certain churches who entrusted them with their contributions for Judea. Not only did he decline the sole administration of the gift himself, but he directed and sanctioned the choice of more than one and gave their task dignity in all eyes by associating the two brethren, not only with Titus who shared the highest confidence of the saints, but with himself. Our Authorised Version, however, is quite right in not rendering the word "apostles" (which is appropriated to the envoys of the Lord in the highest rank of His work) and in preferring "messengers" here and in Philippians 2: 25, where it is said of Epaphroditus who was the bearer of what the Philippian saints sent at a later day of the apostle in Rome. To translate the passage in our text or in Philippians 2, "apostles" can only be from inconsiderateness, or still worse — the desire to level down the apostles of Christ by levelling up the messenger or messengers of churches. The source of the commission is the measure of their difference. To confound them is to degrade the Lord or to deify the church, the great effort of the enemy by those who know not the truth, however they may look in opposition to each other. For here it is that the highest and the lowest ecclesiastically meet: the one by exalting a merely human caste of church officials to the place which the Lord gave His apostles; the other by reducing the apostles of the Lord to those chosen by the assemblies or delegates of the people. They both agree, one superstitiously, the other rationalistically, in unbelief of Christ's gracious power in providing for the perfecting of the saints.

Having thus summed up what he had to say of his companions, of moment for the Corinthian saints at this time, he calls on the saints to give the proof of their love and of his boasting about them to those brethren in the face of the assemblies.

2 Corinthians 9

But the apostle has a good deal more to say on a subject so constantly and often urgently needed in the assembly, where the poor are apt ever to abound. He had brought before the Corinthians the bright example of the Macedonian believers, notwithstanding circumstances most unpromising naturally. And this had stirred up the apostle to urge on Titus the completion of this grace also in Achaia which the Corinthians had begun a year ago. Not that he spoke by commandment, but through the zeal of others and proving the genuineness of their love, while setting before them the incomparable grace of our Lord Jesus Christ to act on their souls. So God in giving the manna to Israel took care that, whatever the inequality in gathering, none should be in excess and none want: was there to be less regard for each other in the church? Love desired not the case of those, nor pressure on these, but rather a principle of equality in mutual consideration of each other, and this wherever the church is found. Then he sets forth the hearty diligence in this matter of Titus, who had gone about what remained to be done at Corinth with two other brethren; for thus had the apostle lent the contribution importance whilst guarding it from the smallest imputation of evil, and calling on the Corinthians to make good their love and his own boasting of them.

"For about the ministration for the saints it is superfluous for me to write to you. For I know your readiness which I boast of you to Macedonians that Achaia hath been prepared a year ago, and your* zeal stimulated the mass. Yet I sent the brethren in order that our boasting of you may not be made vain in this respect, that (as I said) ye may be prepared; lost, haply, if Macedonians come with me and find you unprepared, we may be ashamed, that we say not ye in this confidence.† I thought it necessary therefore to exhort the brethren that they would go before unto you and complete beforehand your blessing promised before,‡ that it be ready thus as blessing, not as§ covetousness. But this [I say], he that soweth Sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth in blessings shall reap also in blessings; each as he hath purposed|| in his heart, not of sorrow or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver." (Vers. 1-7.)

* The common T.R. reading ὁ ἐξ ὑμ.  is largely supported, but not by the best MSS, etc., and may be taken as "zeal on your part."

† T.R., with several uncials and most cursives, etc., adds τῆς καυχήσεως "of boasting."

‡ προεπηγ. has much the best support, not as in T. R. προκατηγ.

§ ὡς the best MSS, not ὥσπερ as T.R. with a few cursives.

|| T. R. has the present, "purposeth," with most, but the oldest read the perfect.

From Galatians 2: "we know how earnest our apostle was like the rest as to the general principle, and how in this particular case his heart went out to the distressed saints in Jerusalem, none the less because his part of the work was emphatically toward the Gentiles. But his delicacy is no less striking and instructive here, where he gives the saints in Corinth full credit for the same love which overflowed his own heart; "it is superfluous for me to write to you." They had been taught it of God themselves. Why then did he write so amply? Not because he did not know their ready mind; not because they had failed to give him ground to glory in what God had wrought in this respect; for as he in the last chapter boasted of the Macedonians triumphing over their trying and needy circumstances in their most generous remembrance of the poor saints in Judea, so now he lets the Corinthian saints know his habit of boasting of themselves to Macedonians, and very especially in their preparation for this call a year ago.

Hence, no doubt, it is that in his zeal for themselves and the Lord's honour in them, and seeking the happy flow of love in every way, he speaks (in the epistolary aorist) of sending the brethren referred to in the close of the preceding chapter, in order to guard in this particular against mishap in his boast on their behalf. He wanted them to be prepared beyond danger of disappointment as far as pains on his part could secure it. How painful for him, not to say for them, it would be if brethren came from Macedonia and found shortcoming in the very saints, the report of whose zeal had acted so powerfully in kindling their own! What shame on all sides if this confidence in the Corinthians should not prove well-founded! He did not wish, as we know from 2 Corinthians 16, that there should be collections when he came himself; as he would guard against haste on the one hand or personal influence on the other, or malevolent insinuation. But his love for them and desire for the Lord's glory in the business made him exhort Titus and his two companions to go on before to Corinth and previous to his own arrival complete their fore-promised blessing. Compare, for this use of "blessing," Genesis 33: 11, Judges 1: 15, 2 Kings 5: 15; it is love not in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth, 1 John 3: 18.

The apostle's longing was, not merely that their proposed beneficence should be ready, but in such sort as blessing, and not as covetousness, meeting thus the danger on both sides. As he would have it a blessing on the givers' part, he repudiates all covetousness on the part of those receiving it for the poor saints. He does not seem to limit his caution to the former nor to allude in covetousness to a niggardly spirit, any more than to make πλ. mean "tenacity," instead of the desire of having more which soon runs into tricky means to get more.

But this further he adds, a wholesome thing to remember, being truth in God's moral government, and of all moment in our life on earth: he that sows sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that sows with blessings shall reap also with blessings. It is no question of correspondence in kind, but it may be spiritually also and so much the better. Still it is true, and especially among God's people, as it always was. (See Prov. 11: 24, 25.) Scripture indeed teems with it in one form or another; and experience is the sure and plain commentary. God despises not what is given to the poor saints; but the spirit of giving is far more important than the gift. Therefore the apostle follows up the apothegm he had just applied: each just as he has predetermined in his heart, not of sorrow or of necessity, for God loves a cheerful giver, quoting Prov. 22: 8 (Alex. LXX). To grudge and grieve over what is given is unworthy of a saint of His; to exact it no less unworthy of His servant. How needed is faith here as everywhere! how energetic is love, which is our only due spring in this as in all else practically, whatever the encouragements God may and does give those whom grace has called and strengthens to walk in the path of Christ! Himself the sovereign giver of all good, He loves to see the reflection of His grace and blessing in His children.

The close of the apostolic exhortation on giving is admirably in keeping with all we have had already. Not only does God love a cheerful giver, but He is able in His grace to see that there shall be means to give, and not in this form only, but for every good work. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth." (Prov. 11: 24.)

"And God is able to make every grace abound unto you; that ye, having always all sufficiency in every [thing], may abound unto every good work; as it is written, He scattered, he gave to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever." (Vers. 8, 9.) No doubt that God has now revealed Himself in Christ according to His own nature, in view of heaven and eternity; no doubt He has given us life in His Son and redemption through His blood and union with that glorified man at His right hand, that we might glory in nought but His cross here below, and count not life dear to serve the Lord in His way and our measure, as we wait for Him from heaven. But this does not hinder the government of God and the pleasure He takes in blessing large and generous hearts, as of old, so now. Special privileges do not forbid His general principles, and His power finds a way in His wisdom to harmonise all. And the apostle, who knew better than any what it was to suffer with Christ and for Christ, is just the suited one, out of his capacious mind and heart, to communicate the assurance of these His unchanged ways, for which he cites Psalm 112: 9; the beautiful description of man blessed in the kingdom when divine judgment introduces it by-and-by. Then the fear of Jehovah and obedience will have might on the same side, and judgment will return to righteousness, and wealth in no wise corrupt it, but it endures for ever with a spirit of compassion and gracious consideration of others. There may be judicial ways peculiar to that day as looking on his enemies, and his horn exalted, etc.; but true righteousness, far from being hard, dispenses with liberal hand from that which grace supplies abundantly. Nor could it be otherwise in the estimate of a true heart that now, in the day when grace is vouchsafed in other and deeper ways, it should fail in this. It is not so however; and He who shows us His mercy beyond measure or thought is able to make every grace abound, and this that we might have the blessed favour of imitating Him here too, or as the apostle puts it to the Corinthian saints, "that ye, it every time having every kind of sufficiency in everything, may abound unto every good work," as it is written in the Psalms.

There is no need, we may by the way remark, of altering the force of "righteousness" here or elsewhere. It does not mean "benevolence" as the Geneva Version renders it with many a commentator, but comprehends it. (Cf. Matt. 6: 1, 2.) Righteousness means consistency with relationship; and what can be more consistent than generous remembrance of want in others, especially in the household of faith, on the part of those who own that all is of grace in their own case?

But this is not all. Not only is God able thus to do, but He, the God of all grace, acts accordingly. "But he that supplieth seed to the sower and bread for eating will" supply and multiply your sowing and increase the fruits of your righteousness, [ye] being enriched in everything unto all liberality which worketh out through us thanksgiving to God." (Vers. 10, 11) It is not a wish or prayer as in the Authorised Version, nor is it (with the same Version, the Vulgate, Luther, Calvin, etc.) correct to construe χορηγήσαι "minister" or supply (were this the true form) with ἄρτον εἰς βρ. ("bread for your food"). Compare Isaiah 55: 10. It is an assurance that the God who amply provides for ourselves loves to furnish means as well as opportunities of blessing to others, as He delights in owning and rewarding these fruits of righteousness, which are really of His grace, as if they were ours and not of Him by us. The form of the sentence following is slightly irregular, the sense quite sure and plain, without introducing the parenthesis of the English or other versions. God would thus increase the fruits of their righteousness, "while ye are in everything being enriched with every kind of liberality, which is such as worketh out through us thanksgiving to God." The word translated "liberality" is given in Romans 12: 8 as "simplicity," which is no doubt its literal force. But thence, from conveying the absence of excuse for not giving, it easily derived the sense here implied. The apostle acknowledges the source of all they had given — that they might abound in good works, reminds them of his own share in it whether in strengthening their zeal or in dispensing the fruit, and anticipates the thanksgiving of those about to be relieved by it rising up to God.

* The future appears in the most ancient and best MSS, B C D P, fifteen cursives, in the old Latin, Vulg. Cop. Arm. Aeth., etc.

On this last thought, the worthy conclusion of all previously urged, the apostle dilates to the end of the chapter. "Because the ministration of the service is not only filling up the wants of the saints, but also abounding through many thanksgivings to God; through the proof of this service [they] glorified God for the subjection of your confession unto the gospel of Christ and liberality of fellowship toward them and toward all; and their supplication for you, while longing for you, on account of the surpassing grace of God [bestowed] on you. Thanks [be] to God for his unspeakable gift." (Vers. 12-15.) Thus is shown the true and proper character of such a loving contribution for the poor saints. It is an honourable service and a ministry of love. It meets their wants, but it flows over, and rises into many thanksgivings to God. It draws out praise from those who receive it in this subjection to His name; for why also thus liberally remember them at all? It rouses them to prayer with earnest longing for those who manifest such grace. And if such be the blessed effect of love working in the heart and the supplying the poor saints with that which otherwise perishes in the using, what shall we say or feel, as we think of Christ? Thanks to God for His undescribable gift. The reader will agree with me that it is strong to suppose the apostle could speak in such unmeasured terms of liberality in earthly things, however of grace. Spoken of Christ, of all God is to us in and by Him, what can be more proper? One would scarcely have deemed it needful to make even this brief remark, if Calvin and many others had not allowed a turn so derogatory, as it seems to me.

2 Corinthians 10.

From the exhaustive treatment of giving and receiving according to Christ which filled the two preceding chapters, the apostle turns to vindicate the authority given him in the Lord. This Satan had been bringing into question among the Corinthians, not merely to discredit the servant, but thereby to undermine the testimony and separate the saints from Him whose grace and glory were interwoven with it most intimately.

In the beginning of the epistle, now that they had begun to judge themselves in God's sight truly, if as yet imperfectly, he could open his own heart and speak of his ways and his motives which had been so basely misconstrued; he had just alluded to his authority enough to indicate his possession of it with calmness of spirit but also unwillingness to exercise it with severity. He even appeals to God as a witness upon his soul that it was to spare them, not through fear or levity or any other unworthy reason, he had not come as yet to Corinth, but with marvellous tact and gracious skill he binds up, with his explanation of what had been misunderstood, the divine certainty we enjoy in Christ by God's word and the power of the Spirit given to us. And then, just touching on the case of discipline which Satan had used and was still seeking to use to separate the Corinthians from the apostle, not only in judgment but in affection and in the mutual confidence which springs from it, he lets them know how that an evangelistic door, even opened to him in the Lord, failed to turn his loving heart from themselves at this critical juncture; but spite of all, he thanks God for always loading him in triumph in Christ, as in an ancient procession of victory where sweet spices were being burnt, harbinger of death to some of the captives and of life to others. This gives occasion to the admirable setting forth of the gospel of the glory of Christ, the ministration of the Spirit in an earthen vessel in contrast with that of the law which false teachers would ever mingle with it, and to the manifestation of the superiority of life in Christ over all that can obscure, menace, hinder or destroy, which runs through 2 Corinthians 3 - 2 Corinthians 6: 10. Thence he returns to his relations with the Corinthian saints, but not without exhortation to keep them clear of every association of Satan, flesh and world, inconsistent with Christ.

After this, to the end of 2 Corinthians 7, he freely speaks of what had tended to make a practical breach between him and them. Then in true grace and wisdom he who took nothing for himself from the saints at Corinth proves how his heart beat freely toward them by informing them of the grace displayed in Macedonia notwithstanding their well-known and deep poverty in liberally contributing to the poor saints in Judea, and by giving the Corinthians an opportunity of proving the genuineness of their love, especially as they had begun a year ago but had not yet given effect to it; a work in which Titus shared the gracious desires of the apostle, not only as to the help itself for the suffering poor but also that the saints in Corinth should not fall behind their boasting about them. But therein he manifests with equal strength the avoidance of all reproach on the part of those engaged with himself in administering the relief, and the manifold blessing of such liberality, and God's delight in it, whether one thinks of the saints that give or of the saints that receive through His grace who is Himself the unspeakable gift of God.

The apostle did not love to speak of himself or even of his authority, high as it was and most surely conferred by the Lord. But there was a necessity for the Corinthians as for the Galatians; but here he reserves it for and pursues it to the close of the epistle; whereas there he could not but begin with it, the call being yet more urgent.

"But I myself Paul entreat you by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ, [I] who according to appearance [am] mean among you but absent am bold toward you — but I beseech that present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I count to be daring against some that count of us as walking according to flesh. For walking in flesh we do not war according to flesh. For the arms of our warfare [are] not fleshly but powerful with God to the pulling down of strongholds, pulling down reasonings and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and leading captive every thought unto the obedience of Christ, and being in readiness [or ready] to avenge every disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled." (Vers. 1-6.)

It seems that Paul physically had nothing of a showy presence, such as men like generally, most of all perhaps Greeks. But besides his was a lowly and gracious bearing which judged self and set it aside, as in everything, so particularly in the delicate task of dealing with others; which did not suit the Corinthian mind, nor seem in keeping with the apostolic office: especially as the apostle could and did to them write severely now and then in his first epistle. His adversaries accordingly took advantage of all this in seeking to aggrandise themselves and to lower the apostle and his teaching. He appears here and elsewhere to take up their words and meet them in the Spirit, as one who had learnt the lesson, if over saint did, of death and resurrection with Christ. He therefore introduces himself, now that they had morally compelled it, with straightforwardness and dignity; and he entreats them by the meekness and gentleness of the Christ, which had as great price in his eyes, as it seemed to have none in theirs. Did detractors tax him with a mean appearance, but withal boldness when absent, that is, in his letters? Well, he says, I beseech that I may not when present have to be bold (θαρρῆσαι) with the confidence with which I am (not "reckoned," but) minded, or think to be daring (τολμῆσαι) against some that think of us as walking according to flesh. Whatever the energy and fervid zeal and depth of feeling and strength of will found in his natural character, Paul had borne himself among the Corinthians with a self-forgetting humility and the forbearance of active love. It was what he had seen in the Master he served, and this reproduced itself in his adoring heart and in his ways. Let men beware of despising in the servant what was the fruit of the perfection of Christ. But who also so unsparing in his words? Is there the least incongruity? What can be so outspoken as love — the love of Christ? Did Paul find pleasure in blaming his "beloved sons" in the faith? It was and must be due to their state if he came with a rod, or in love and the spirit of meekness. So far from liking to censure, as enemies insinuated, he beseeches that he may not when present have to exercise his authority with a power withering to those who opposed the Lord and sought to cloak their own carnality under such an imputation against him. Revelling in the grace of God for his own soul, it was his deepest grief to see saints misled by Satan, forsaking their own mercies, grieving the Spirit, and putting the Lord's name to disrepute. It was not of Paul to lord it over the faith of any; he was a workman, and a fellow-workman, of their joy. And it was his joy far more than theirs. But he was servant in all he had received of the Lord Jesus, and responsible to use his authority where requisite. And as he had spoken out in his letter, so he would act when present; but he would rejoice if no such need arose. For he sought not himself, nor his things, not theirs, but them.

"For walking in the flesh we war not according to flesh." All who live here below can say the former; how few, the latter — at least as the apostle could. But it was because the weapons of his warfare were not fleshly but mighty "with" God, "before," "according to," or "for," Him.* Flesh prides itself on its own resources within which it entrenches itself against God, who works in His children when dependent, least of all in His own when independent. The enemy was seeking to bring back again fleshly wisdom, which like all that is of the first man attracts nature and exalts itself against the knowledge of God, for this is inseparable from Christ, and from Christ dead and risen. If we war not according to flesh, it must be by pulling down reasonings and every high thing exalted (or exalting itself thus) and leading captive every thought unto the obedience of the Christ. This is the object and effect of dependence, as wrought by the Spirit of God. For there is nothing harder to man than contentedness with being nothing; nor does aught hinder the obedience of Christ more than subtle self-seeking.

* It is the dative which admits of all these shades, of which it is not easy to decide which is best.

We may see in the first how the apostle employed those arms with God to the overthrowing of strongholds, whatever the reasoning or the high thing that was lifted up against the knowledge of God. Take their fleshly zeal for Paul, Apollos, or Cephas: he brings in Christ and His cross to judge its roots, declaring that the former were but ministering servants through whom they themselves believed and as the Lord gave to each; and in fact all theirs, and they Christ's and Christ God's. It was a carnal corruption of their privileges. Take their worldly ease: with such an unbelieving anticipation of the day when we shall all reign together, he contrasts the apostles set by God as the last appointed to death, despised, suffering, and become as the world's offscouring until now. Take their appeal to law courts: he confronts the indignity of saints, who are to judge the world and angels, prosecuting suits one against another before the unjust. Take their laxity about temple feasts: he shows that their boasted intelligence about the vanity of idols was exposing them to Satan's snare, and drawing them into communion with demons. Take lastly their denial that the dead rise: he proves that it virtually upsets the resurrection of Christ, and consequently the gospel with all their heavenly privileges and hope. Thus admirably does the former epistle lead captive every thought into the obedience of Christ.

But the apostle adds another word which yet more brings out the grace and wisdom which wrought in and by him. "And being in readiness [or, as we say, being ready] to avenge every disobedience when your obedience shall have been fulfilled." (Ver. 6.) He loved the saints, and even more Christ's glory in the church. Therefore he could stay away and be mis-represented, but still wait till the word was brought home by the Spirit. This had been in part at least: the gross evil had been not only got rid of, but the saints in Corinth had been deeply moved in judging their own haughty and insensible state, and were now in danger really of' veering to the opposite extreme of judicial hardness toward the one who had not only sinned without shame but ensnared them also. Grace becomes the church as well as righteousness, yea it should characterise us now as earthly righteousness was looked for in Israel. But grace in the apostle could wait, not with indifference at any time, but in all patience now that conscience was working, till their obedience should be fulfilled, never giving up Christ's title to punish every sort of disobedience, and not merely what was scandalous. He would have them all with himself united for the Lord against every evil thing. The church must renounce Christ if it sit down in quiet acceptance of what denies His name. But grace knows how to hail a little that is of God, and looks for all according to His will in due time, in the solemn judgment of what is repugnant to His nature and word.

Such is the way the apostle sets forth beseechingly the authority he had received in the Lord against the detraction of adversaries who were even yet exercising a poisonous influence over the saints. Nothing was farther from him than the fleshly, vacillating, and tortuous policy they attributed to him. But these are the common tactics of the enemy. The first to brand others with lack of spirituality, of fidelity or even integrity, are those who are themselves guilty in these very respects, and spend their breath in a restless endeavour to imbue all they meet with their own surmisings; until they seem at last not only to believe their every impression, but to be satisfied that rancour is true love and invective nothing but faithfulness to Christ. The apostle, after showing that it is one thing to walk in flesh, another to walk according to it, declares that we do not wax according to flesh. He puts it not as a merely personal question of fact, but as a matter of general christian principle and practice. The warfare of the saint derives its character from Christ. The liberty to which we are called gives no licence for flesh, as if violence or vituperation were consecrated in His service. His name gives no just plea to war according to flesh, but on the contrary reproves such carnality, and ought to awaken suspicion of the end because of the way. The arms of our warfare, powerful as they are with God to overthrow flesh's strongholds, are of small value in carnal eyes. The apostle insists on all being reduced to the obedience of Christ, and on readiness to avenge every disobedience when their disobedience should have been completed. What are we here for if not for that obedience? Yet grace and wisdom would first deal with what most openly and seriously dishonours God; and then, when conscience answers to the word, would look for more, yea for all that is pleasing in His sight. God is in the assembly, His dwelling, His holy temple (however men may forget or fritter down the solemn fact), and surely there to give efficacy to His own word and will, as He then was to vindicate by His power the authority of His servant when undermined or denied.

"Do ye look on things according to appearance?* If any one hath trust in himself that he is of Christ,† let him of‡ himself consider this again, that even as he [is] of Christ, so also we.|| For even§ if I should boast somewhat more abundantly of our authority which the Lord gave¶ for building up and not for your overthrowing, I shall not be ashamed; that I seem not as it were to terrify you by letters: because his letters, saith one,**[are] weighty and strong, but the presence of the body weak and the speech contemptible. Let such a one consider this, that such as we are in word by letters when absent, such also in deed when present. For we dare not class or compare ourselves with some of those that commend themselves; but they, measuring themselves among themselves and comparing themselves†† with themselves, are unintelligent [or without understanding]." (Vers. 7-12.)

* The Latins and some of the Greeks took this as an exhortation, not as a question. Others understand it indicatively.

†Sundry copies as Dp.m. Ep.m. F.G., etc., add δοῦλος, "bondman."

‡ ἐφ᾽ ἑ.  B. L., etc., ἀφ᾽ ἑ. almost all others with Greek fathers. Lachmann originally inclined to the first, afterwards to the last.

|| Most cursives with a few uncials support Χριστοῦ, "of Christ," as in the Text. Rec.

§ τε even is omitted by B F G, etc., as καί is by the best MS and most versions. A few also read, "I shall boast."

¶ ἡμῖν "to us" Text. Rec., is not in the oldest copies.

** B with the Latin copies give "they say," and so Lachmann, though Tischendorf says that he omits it.

†† The critics strangely differ, as do the copies, in the last phrase, not only as to form, but as to arrangement. The renderings proposed singularly differ also.

It seems clear that Paul had nothing in presence or action, any more than in rank or position, to attract the fleshly or worldly mind. So we see elsewhere that the heathen who were struck by the miracles wrought called Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermes. Some of the Corinthians indulged in similar depreciation. They could not understand an apostle of such mean appearance, and a style of speech so little suitable to an ambassador of Christ. In this last respect they were much more fastidious than the Lycaonians who felt the force of Paul's words. External manner had an egregious over-value in Achaian eyes. The apostle at once brings in Christ, who reduces all men and all things to their true level. "Do ye look on things according to appearance? If any one hath trust in himself that he is of Christ, let him of himself consider which answers to it. Bathe goes farther. "For even if I should boast somewhat more abundantly of our authority which the Lord gave for building up and not for your overthrowing, I shall not be ashamed; that I seem not as it were to terrify you by letters." Now he quietly, but with firmness, lets them know how much more he might have put forward his apostolic authority. He had not talked, we may be sure, of the blindness he had inflicted on Elymas; he had written in his first epistle of delivering the incestuous offender to Satan, as well as of coming with a rod for the refractory in general. But he had not come, and these vain men treated the warning as vain words. But the Lord gave not in vain the function of acting as His spiritual right hand on earth, though its prime aim was for blessing, not punishment. Still the hand that can wield the trowel can use the scourge; and it were better to fear for their own bold irreverence than to put him to the proof, whether the Lord was with him now.

The apostle's call was to build up, not to cast down; and love it is which builds up. But there was opposition to the Lord quite as much or more than to Paul in questioning the authority given him. And in order to sap and destroy it, advantage was taken of his words and ways to impute fickleness, vacillation, and untruthfulness, as we gather from the first chapter; lack of moral courage when present and despicable weakness in person and ministry, as we see here, aggravated by the heroic style of his letters when absent; craft, guile, and self-seeking, as it would seem from 2 Corinthians 12. Self-will never did lack material for disparaging the person, character, office and work of a servant beyond all example used, kept, and honoured of the Lord. If he refrained then from saying more, as he easily might and naturally would, of his authority in and from the Lord, it was that he might not seem as if he would frighten them by his letters. And this because his letters, said one, are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence weak and his speech of no account. Such was the carping of his adversaries or of one in particular. We can understand it well. Neither spirituality nor unworldliness nor faithfulness vaunts itself nor seeks to lower others; but flesh betrays thereby its pretensions and its party-spirit.

There were various parties in the Corinthians, and some who strove to stand clear in grace and truth; but of all this schismatic activity the Christ-party, I should gather, was the most obstinate. Certainly we have no allusion in the second Epistle to any other; but there appears to be a trace that the spirit of those who said, "I am of Christ," claiming a peculiar and exclusive connection with Him, was not yet extinguished. The root of this error is judged in 2 Corinthians 5, especially verse 16. We can readily understand how it might creep in among men boasting of having seen, heard, and perhaps followed the Lord in the days of His flesh. Here the apostle bids the man (who is confident in himself that he is of Christ) of himself to think this again, that even as he is of Christ, so is Paul. How simple is the truth, how destructive of airy dreams which would misuse even Christ to flatter self! Nor is anything so holy or humble as the faith which cleaves to Him. Similarly of his authority from the Lord, as of his relationship to Him, he bids such a detractor think (ver. 11) that "such as we are in word by letters when absent, such also in deed [we will be] when present."

It was the adversaries who had nothing to boast but words or manners, show or position. When he came, the apostle would know not the word of those puffed up, but the power; but he desired earnestly that it might be, through self-judgment on their part, a visit in love and in a spirit of meekness. But their state might compel him to use a rod, as it did to speak of himself when he would rather discourse only of Christ. Their boastfulness about themselves, their alienation from him, went along with real evil and error in some who misled them, with whose vaulting ambition he deals afterwards. For the present he contents himself with this severe rebuke: "For we dare not class or compare ourselves with some of those that commend themselves; but they, measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves, are unintelligent." With this clique of self-satisfied men the apostle did not venture (he severely says, though with courtesy) to rank or compare himself and brethren like him; but he retires with a Parthian shaft, for he lets them know that to measure or compare themselves thus is the reverse of that intelligence on which they most plumed themselves.

Another thing forgotten by his adversaries the apostle here introduces. The sphere of work is not a question of human choice or judgment, but of the divine will. There were those who slighted the labours of Paul, and their fruit at Corinth; but as he had not entered on that field of his own will, so he had toiled in the face of difficulty and with signal blessing guaranteed for his encouragement from the first.

"We however will not boast as to things".* unmeasured, but according to the measure of the rule which God distributed to us, a measure to reach as far even as you. For we do not,† as though not reaching unto you, overstretch ourselves, for even as far as you we advanced in the gospel of Christ, not boasting as to things unmeasured in another's toils, but having hope, while your faith increaseth, to be enlarged among you according to our rule unto abundance, to preach the gospel unto the [quarters] beyond you, not to boast in another's rule as to things made ready. But he that boasteth, in the Lord let him boast; for not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." (Vers. 13-18.)

* The singular is in D F G, and in several Latin copies.

† Lachmann strangely follows the Vatican (B), etc., in omitting the first and objective negative, which necessitates an interrogative force "For do we overstretch," etc.

The saving grace of God widely as it goes forth, even to all, falls nevertheless under the ordering hand of God who has His will about the sphere as well as the character of His service.

Others might boast immoderately. This is natural to the flesh, especially in vain minds. But the apostle laboured as he lived in the fear of God. Not a thought crossed him of displaying abilities; he was a servant, a bondman, of Jesus Christ; and so to him it was no question of liking or disliking, but of doing the work assigned to him, "according to the measure of the rule which God distributed to us, a measure to reach even to you."

In truth as all the christian life is meant to be a matter of obedience, so in particular the work of the Lord; else will it speedily degenerate into vain glory or slighting others, and often better men than our. selves. So certainly it was here. The Lord had not called them as he did Paul to Corinth. They at their ease had followed where Paul had wrought with constant self-denial, and not outward labours only but deep exercise of soul; a labour in which grace alone could sustain by the Holy Ghost in continual dependence on the Lord. And the Lord had rejoiced his heart with much people, even in that corrupt city, brought to the knowledge of Himself. This was a work of divine power and goodness; but some had risen up or entered in since the apostle's departure, whose worldly spirit depreciated the work, and claimed superior power. If Paul had begun, they were the men to finish. Was he not indeed too ready to begin and leave his work incomplete as he roved from place to place? For their part they preferred the chiefs who stayed and reared a statelier edifice, as in Jerusalem. This they now strove to do at Corinth.

Such vapouring the apostle simply and thoroughly disposes of by the great truth that God apportions the sphere of labour. Those who venture on an enterprise of the sort without God, must not wonder if their service be without His honour and blessing. Happy the man who is wont to look to God, not only for his soul and in his walk, but also in his work. Nor does God fail to vouchsafe His guidance in this as in all things where His servants wait on Him. It was a. new language doubtless to the self-exalting men of Corinth, jealous of the power and authority of the apostle. Power belongs to God, but He loves to use it in and by those who walk by faith; and now was the fitting time and place to make known the secret to the saints. It was "according to the measure of the rule which God dealt to us, a measure to reach as far even as you." There was no overstraining in the apostolic word or work, as though not reaching to the Corinthians; "for even as far as you we advanced in the gospel of Christ." None could deny this. The apostle had traversed many lands, planting the standard and proclaiming the good news of Christ in them all. He had done so as far as Corinth to the joy of many hearts. Let others boast then of lengths without measure; he and those like-minded would not boast of anything of the sort, more especially if it were taking advantage of other men's toils, which he was careful to avoid. "But having hope, while your faith increaseth, to be enlarged among you according to our rule unto abundance."

Thus admirably does the apostle rise above the pettiness of human conceit or pride in divine things, nowhere more offensive than there, on the one hand laying bare those cheap pretensions which turned to selfish account the toil of others; on the other, cherishing confidence in the grace of God that the faith He had given would grow and thus afford him an opportunity of being enlarged as he says among them, instead of being chilled and straitened by having to deal with serious and growing evils. For thus would he be set free in fact and in spirit to preach the gospel unto the quarters beyond them, instead of boasting in another's rule as to things made ready. This his adversaries were doing, as we have seen, and as the apostle here says quietly, but none the less cuttingly.

But the Christian has a just ground of boasting There is One in whom we may and ought to boast, not self, but the Lord. So said the prophet of old, when the Jews were either glorying in idols or distrustful of Jehovah, who was laying bare their vanity and punishing their departure from Himself. So repeats the apostle now to the saints at Corinth. To glory in the Lord is due to Him and good for us; to glory elsewhere is a danger as well as a delusion. It connects more or less immediately with self; and not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

2 Corinthians 11.

The apostle loved to spend himself in the service of Christ or the saints, and begrudged a word about himself even when the occasion demanded it, at least when it might look like self-defence. His wisdom as his joy was to testify of Christ. To speak of himself even as His servant he counts "folly," however needful. But it is part of the enemy's tactics to undermine and lower, and destroy if possible a true servant of the Lord, no less than to cry up those that serve their own belly and by their fair speech and speciousness deceive the hearts of the guileless. For can anything be more calculated to frustrate testimony to Christ than to blacken the bearer of it in his motives, ways, and aims? Hence, as thus the object of unceasing detraction to the saints at Corinth by self-seeking men who were really Satan's instruments in dishonouring Christ and corrupting the church, the apostle addresses himself, however reluctantly, to the necessary task of vindicating His name assailed in his own person and ministry.

"Would that ye might bear* with me in some little* folly;* but even bear with me. For I am jealous as to you with a jealousy of God; for I betrothed you to one husband to present a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft,** your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity** that is towards Christ. For if indeed he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we preached not, or ye receive a different spirit whom ye received not, or a different gospel which ye accepted not, ye might well bear with [it]. For I reckon that I am in nothing come short of those surpassingly apostles; but if even ordinary in speech, yet not in knowledge, but in every [way we were] made manifest [or, manifested it]† in all things towards you. What! did I commit sin in humbling myself that ye might be exalted, because I gratuitously announced the gospel of God to you? Other churches I spoiled, receiving hire for service towards you. And when present with you and in want, I have not been a burden to any one (for my want the brethren on coming from Macedonia supplied); and in everything unburdensome to you I kept and will keep myself. There is Christ's truth in me that this boasting shall not be stopped‡ unto me in the quarters of Achaia. Wherefore? Because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do I will also do that I may cut off the occasion of those desiring an occasion, that wherein they boast they may be found even as we. For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ: and no wonder,*** for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light: [it is] no great thing then if his servants also transform themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works." (Vers. 1-15.)

* Steph. with the most and best, ἀνείχ. Elz. ἠνείχ. but, rightly μικρόν τι  (for τι Steph.) and ἀφοσύνης (though wrongly τῆς).

** οὕτω is added by the Text. Rec. with many witnesses, but not B D F G P, etc.; καὶ τῆς ἁγνότητος  added by m B F G, etc, and so Lachmann and Alford.

† φανερώσαντες p.m. B Fgr G, etc. φανερωθέντες corr. Dcorr. E H L P, etc. φανερωθείς Dp.m. etc.

‡ σφραγί. the error of a few cursives with Steph.; Elz. has rightly φραγήσεται.

*** θαῦμα B D F G P R, etc. for θαυμαστόν of Text. Rec. supported by most later copies.

He apologises first of all for having to speak, not of Christ only, but of himself. Yet if any one might be jealous over the Corinthian saints, he surely who betrothed them (such is his expressive figure) to one husband, to present in them a chaste maiden to Christ. Such is the destiny of the saints; they are loved, washed, sanctified, justified, in view of this intimate relationship to Christ, which was most real and sure to the apostle, not so to those who lowered the standard of future hope and present separateness and conscious nearness in love and holiness to Christ by allowance of ease in this life, and of association with the world in its objects and ways, its philosophy or even religion. It is not only that here have we no continuing city and seek the coming one, but that we are now espoused to one husband even Christ, and are called to judge not conduct only but unsuitable thoughts and feelings. And as Paul had thus espoused the saints at Corinth, could he be otherwise than jealous at the creeping in of so much that was inconsistent with presenting them a chaste virgin to Christ?

For it was not merely failure through unwatchfulness: false principles were being instilled, and some relished the poison. So he continues, "I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craft, your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity that is towards Christ." In proportion as Christ is a living person to the soul, the reality of Satan's counterworking will be owned. Insensibility to the wiles of the enemy as a true and active adversary to be resisted is the awful indication of an unbelief common and growing in Christendom. How many Christians there are who think and talk slightingly enough of the Corinthian saints, themselves more lax still, not in ways only, but in faith! Satan is to them scarce more than an abstraction, an ideal expression of the power of evil. So far were those addressed, poor as they might be spiritually, from such incredulity, that the apostle could refer without hesitation to the serpent beguiling Eve. The history of the fall in Genesis was as yet indisputable truth to all who called on the name of the Lord; even the manner of the tempter's approach proved no difficulty, as it has to many a soul since, and this to their no small loss. Scripture recorded the simple, sober, solemn truth, which all heathenism attests in a traditional form more or less moulded into fable. And the latent enemy who employed the serpent is active still as ever, and now under Christianity is corrupting the thoughts of saints from the simplicity of the truth as to the Christ. For the merely professing mass the end will be the apostasy, and the man of sin revealed, whose coming is after the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness to them that perish.

And what had they got to warrant slight or alienation? "For if indeed he that cometh preacheth another [ἄλλον] Jesus whom we preached not, or ye receive a different [ἕτερον] spirit which ye received not, or a different gospel which ye accepted not, ye might well bear with [it]." For none of these blessings were they indebted to any channel but the apostle; him they had lightly esteemed whilst ready to honour the self-exalting men who had set up to teach on his foundation, crying up the twelve only to depreciate Paul. "For I reckon that I am in nothing come short of those surpassingly apostles; but if even ordinary in speech, yet not in knowledge, but in every way we manifested [it, or, were made manifest] in all things towards you." They had all had the amplest experience of the apostle in everything; and as in power so in knowledge, they knew that he was behind none, unless it were in the rhetoric of the schools which the Greek mind overvalued.

But low-minded men misunderstand and despise that humility and love of which they are themselves incapable; and some there were at Corinth who cringed to position and means as they were insensible to the apostle's grace in working with his own hands, or at least receiving no aid from rich Corinth. "Did I commit sin in humbling myself that ye might be exalted, because I gratuitously announced the gospel of God to you? Other churches I spoiled, receiving hire for service towards you. And when present with you and in want, I have not been a burden to any one (for my want the brethren on coming from Macedonia supplied); and in everything unburdensome to you I kept and will keep myself." Ready to evangelise at all cost to himself everywhere, the apostle in some places felt free and happy to receive, not only from individuals but from assemblies, going on with God in grace and humility: when the world's spirit prevailed, he was reserved and would receive nothing. The general principle remained intact: "the labourer is worthy of his hire;" "the Lord hath ordained that those that preach the gospel should live of the gospel." But the apostle whilst laying down what is right could and did go beyond it in grace, not using it for himself but for Christ wherever His glory called for it. From the poor Macedonian brethren he received; from the wealthy Corinthians nothing. O what a contrast is this day in Christendom! Nor did he thus speak to draw out their liberality in future, for as he had kept himself, so would he in future. "There is Christ's truth in me that this boasting shall not be stopped unto me in the quarters of Achaia." Was he disappointed and bitter now? "Wherefore? Because I love you not? God knoweth." It was indeed to deny his uniform life in Corinth and since.

His true motive he explains. "But what I do I will also do that I may cut off the occasion of those desiring an occasion that wherein they boast they may be found even as we" — a cheap boast where men have plenty and need no self-denying devotedness. "For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ." The beginning of those evil ways was then at work which soon formed a clerical class, dispensing even with the claims to gift from Christ under the fabulous pretension to apostolic succession. Such men then opposed the apostle in person, as now they oppose his doctrine. Is this wonderful, when. as the apostle reminds us, "Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light? It is no great thing therefore if his servants also transform themselves as servants of righteousness," though he solemnly adds, their "end shall be according to their works."

Having turned aside to warn of pseudo-apostles, their high pretensions, and their low realities, the apostle comes back again, reluctantly as we see, to speak of himself, his "folly" as he calls it. In truth no task could be to him more repulsive, for he loved to speak only of Christ and the wondrous grace of God in Him. But what he so much disliked was a necessity; and at length the duty is faced of confronting their pretensions with his own reality. If in the previous chapter he shrank from pressing on the rich care for the poor saints, still more did he shrink now from self-vindication. But the Lord's glory was concerned and the saints were endangered; and so he again takes up the disagreeable task.

"Again I say, let not one think me to be a fool; but if otherwise, even as a fool receive me, that I also may boast some little. What I speak, I speak not according to the Lord but as in folly, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to flesh, I also will boast, For ye bear fools pleasantly, being wise. For ye bear if one bring you into bondage, if one devour you, if one receive, if one exalt himself, if one bout you on the face. As to dishonour I speak, as though we had been weak; but wherein any one is bold (I speak in folly) I also am bold." (Vers. 16-21.)

It was impossible to treat the assailed ministry of Christ without speaking of himself and his service; and of these how could he speak to unfriendly ears without apparent boasting? So we have effort and apology and circuitous approach, all characteristic of the man, but the work done thoroughly and the word of God dealing with their consciences. Boasting was certainly not the way of the Lord; boasting in the Lord is what becomes every believer; and the apostle shrank perhaps more sensitively than any other man from boasting in aught else. But the false apostles were dishonouring the Lord and damaging the saints by putting forward their fleshly advantages; such as a fine personal presence, power of mind, play of fancy, readiness of speech, rhetorical artifices, independent fortune, family connection, social position, and the like. Therefore does he feel it necessary to put forward what God had wrought according to the ability He bestowed; and this not merely in positive spiritual power, but in every kind of labour and suffering for the Lord's sake. It is humbling yet instructive to contrast the apostle's pain at having thus to speak, and the too evident pleasure with which many a servant of Christ goes off into personal narratives, which seem to have no aim but to prove his own cleverness at the expense of poor Mr. This or Mr. That, the great sacrifices he has made for the truth, or the surpassing excellence of his line of things in the testimony of Christ. Indeed it is well in these days of fleshly pretension, which claims high and exclusive spirituality, if our ears escape the deliberate effort to lower such as are resolved by grace to exalt Christ only and to love all that are His, abominating therefore all party-work, whether in leaders or in followers.

Still, he is instinctively averse to everything which might look like self-exaltation, and which necessarily involved speaking of himself or of his work. He deprecates their thinking him a fool; but if they would not concede this to him, "Receive me even as a fool, that I too may boast some little." They, being deceitful workers, sought their own glory; the apostle wrote only to deliver the saints from that which undermined the Lord and puffed up the flesh. Nevertheless it was not Christ; and not to be wholly occupied with Him was distasteful. "That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in folly, in this confidence of boasting." He had ample matter and real substance; still it was not directly the Lord, and this tried him, however necessary it might be. This seems to be the true meaning; not at all that he was writing as an uninspired man, but that, by inspiration, he was writing what was painful to a heart wholly devoted to the Lord's glory, but indignant at the trickery of these spurious ministers, and at the ready ear given to their insinuations by many of the saints. And certainly the Corinthians who permitted and enjoyed the lofty talk of those who detracted from Paul had no right to complain of the rapid glance at his work and sufferings, as well as power and office.

"Since many boast according to flesh, I also will boast, for ye bear with fools pleasantly, being wise." The false teachers without scruple flattered the saints, as they flattered themselves. The irony of the apostle is the most cutting reproof of self-complacency. Where the folly really lay was neither doubtful, nor far to seek. He who has Christ for his wisdom can afford to be counted, and to count himself, a fool; it is really the truest wisdom, which they wholly miss, who exalt a favourite teacher into the place of Christ, and claim the character of obedience for such abject and perilous folly. Among the Jews, to say "there is no God" was to be a fool, in the worst sense of the word; among Christians, to set the servant practically above the Master, to give the servant the homage due only to Him, is real folly, and commonly as at Corinth it is the acceptance of Satan's ministers to the disparagement of those who are truly serving Christ.

Nor can any sight be more remarkable than the way in which flesh displays itself in these circumstances. The same saints, who were restive under the authority of a true apostle, were all submission to those who were false. "For ye bear if one bring you into bondage, if one devour you, if one capture, if one exalt himself, if one beat you on the face." Such was the degradation into which many at Corinth had fallen, hugging the chains which they saw not; for flesh is blind as well as foolish, and loves its own things, not those of Jesus Christ. It likes a director of faith and duty — not conscience in God's presence, subject to the word. It submits to bondage to man, if it be allowed sometimes licence. It never really knows and enjoys liberty in the Spirit. It ignores and endures wrongs, through indulgence to its favourites, to the last degree of injury and insult, as if all this were a high degree of religious merit, instead of the lack of faith and power which must bow down to a human priest or pontiff. The history of Christendom is but the filling up of the sketch the apostle has drawn of what Satan had wrought to a certain extent at Corinth.

Now at length the apostle comes once again, however slowly, to himself and his ministry. "As to dishonour I speak as though we had been weak, but, wherein any one is bold (I speak in folly), I also am bold." It was the apostle's glory to be weak that the power of Christ might rest upon him. This his adversaries turned to his reproach, and he bowed to it; he was far from affecting that high spirit which imposes on the vulgar used to it in the world, and is ever of price to the fleshly mind. But he apologises for speaking folly, and he adds, "wherein any one is bold, I also am bold." He was pained and ashamed to allude to his own things, however true and blessed; whilst they blazoned with the utmost vanity their advantages, however petty or really despicable in comparison.

The fleshly pretension of those who opposed the apostle prided itself on its Jewish extraction, as clericalism and ecclesiastical corruptions are apt to do virtually if not naturally as here. Knowing that the apostle turned every eye to Christ in heaven as dead and risen, they seem to have forgotten how easily he could dispose of such claims to superiority. "Are they Hebrews? I too. Are they Israelites? I too. Are they Abraham's seed? I too." (Ver. 22.) It is a climax from the external designation of the chosen nation, through the internal name (clearly enough distinguished in such scriptures as 1 Sam. 13: 3-7, 19, 20; 1 Sam. 14: 21-24), to the name in virtue of which they inherited the promises; yet each appropriated to himself with a curtness very galling to his vain-glorious rivals. It was low ground in comparison of Christ, and the apostle treating it with scant respect turns to a higher claim.

"Are they ministers of Christ? (Beside myself I speak) I above measure;* in labours very abundantly, in prisons very abundantly,† in stripes exceedingly, in deaths often. From Jews five times I received forty [stripes] save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; by wayfarings often, by dangers of rivers, by dangers of robbers, by dangers from countrymen, by dangers from Gentiles, by dangers in town, by dangers in desert, by dangers at sea, by dangers among false brethren, by‡ toil and trouble; in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Apart from things without [or, besides], my pressing care§ day by day, the concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I burn not? If I must boast, I will boast in the matters of my infirmity. The God|| and Father of the Lord Jesus, he that is blessed for ever, knoweth that I lie not. In Damascus the ethnarch [or, prefect] of Aretas the king garrisoned the Damascenes' city** to seize me; and through a window I was let down in a basket by the wall and escaped his hands." (Vers. 23-33.)

* Lachmann gives ὑπερεγώ: it is hard to say why.

† Lachmann and Treg. follow B D E, etc. φυλ. περ. ἐν  πλ. ὑπ.; Tisch. prefers p.m. Fgr. G, etc. πλ. περ. ἐν  φυλ. ὑπ.

‡ Text. Rec. adds ἐν with the later uncials, cursives, Vulg., etc.; but p.m. B D E F G and Gothic do not read the preposition.

§ ἐπίστασις B E F G, several cursives, etc.; ἐπισύστασις Text. Rec. supported by most of the later uncials and cursives, apparently also by the Greek and Latin expositors. The more ancient copies give μοι instead of the vulgar μου.

|| Verse 31 has been strangely tampered with by copyists. Thus the Clermont and St. Germain's (now St. Pet.) MSS. to ὁ θεὸς add τοῦ  Ἰσραήλ. Again they and two other uncials with very many cursives add ἡμῶν to τ. κυρίου, as still more add Χριστοῦ to Ἰησοῦ.

** The more ancient copies read π. Δαμ.  rather than Δαμ. π.  and have no θέλων as in Text. Rec.

It is hardly exposition that is needed here, but thanksgiving for the grace bestowed of God on a man of like passions with ourselves, when the eye surveys such a roll of suffering labour for Christ, when the heart seeks to realise what it actually means so to be poured out as a libation, as he says to Philippi, where he could rejoice and rejoice in common with all the saints, not as here where the folly of the Corinthians wrung out of an outraged heart the reluctant tale, so profitable for us and all, which we should never otherwise have had recounted. We may well be humbled as we read that which puts our lukewarmness to shame.

Nevertheless, though the summary is as brief as it is plain in the main, the wounded modesty of the apostle, forced to withdraw the veil from a life of unequalled suffering, enters on the task with apologetic words which let out the pain it cost him to speak of his own things. He puts the question as to his adversaries, "Are they ministers of Christ?" and answers, not now as a fool (ἄφρων) but as raving, "I above measure." The, commentators, ancient and modern, will have it to be a comparison. This is the very thing be seems studiously to avoid by the use of the preposition used adverbially and by other means afterwards. It is impossible to conceive an answer more spiritually wise and conclusive. For he does not even notice here the extraordinary power which the Lord had given him in the Spirit to deal with disease, death, or demons; nor yet the immense range and success of his work in the gospel; but he turns from his very abundant labours to the excess of stripes which had befallen him, his very abundant imprisonments, and his frequent exposures to death. Those who sought to undermine him might boast of their learning or their originality, their logic or their imagination, their depth of thought or their piquancy of illustration. They might appeal to their adherents numerous or intelligent, to their high favour with women, to their popularity with men; for they sought above all to draw away the disciples after them. What did they care for the poor and despised? What for the interests of Christ and the church?

The phraseology of the apostle (as in ὑπὲρ ἐγώ, and also the sense of παρεκτός) may be now and then difficult to seize or convey from the brevity and abruptness of one who could not bear to dwell on such a theme in view of unworthy adversaries who stood high in the esteem of many a saint. But he assuredly does not mean that any service here was more than the ministry of Christ, for this to him was the highest glory; and the Lord Himself had said that whosoever would be great among them should be their minister, and whosoever would be first should be slave of all. Nor would he merely intimate that he was more devoted and laborious than his detractors, as some have supposed. He was really comparing himself with none; but apologising for so speaking as contrary to a sound mind, he could not but own himself Christ's minister beyond measure. No doubt the comparative occurs both with "labours" and with "prisons," and even Bengel thought the false apostles experienced these like Paul, but less. But it was overlooked that the Greek tongue often uses the comparative without any object of comparison in a merely intensitive sense,* where we should employ the positive qualified by "very," "rather" or the like, meaning (if we attempted to fill up the ellipsis) "more than usual," or "ordinary," etc.; and the context confirms this as well as the moral bearing. For μᾶλλον or πλέον would have been more natural to express comparative superiority, while ὑπερβαλλόντως and πολλάκις just afterwards oppose the idea. We see in 2 Corinthians 10: 12 what the apostle felt of comparing, which was their way, not his who was altogether above a habit so far beneath Christ or the Christian.

* Winer (Gr. N.T. Gr. iii. § 35, Moulton's ed.) seems to deny this, so far as the N.T. is concerned; but hardy assertion is no proof. I do not say that it is ever used for the positive; nor would the superlative suit, but just what is found. Were there only the two comparatives employed, it would be strange to depart from the literal meaning "more abundantly." But as the context stands before and after, and taking account of the moral considerations, as well as the delicate dignity of the apostle, I incline to the version given as. preferable.

The apostle next glances at particulars thus far in his course, to which others had compelled him who can have little anticipated such an answer to their vain-glory. He puts them to shame with (not miracles but) sufferings. "From Jews five times I received forty [stripes] save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once I was stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and day I have been in the deep." This last danger was of course, like the three shipwrecks, previous to that which is so graphically described in Acts 27, though Grotius by a singular oversight speaks of it as if included. The one stoning at Lystra is related in Acts 14. Paley notices the remarkable accuracy of the inspired historian as compared with the apostle's statement. There is the nearest approach to a seeming contradiction without giving the least real ground for it. The same chapter which gives the case of stoning mentions at the beginning that an assault was made on Paul and Barnabas at Iconium, "to use them despitefully and to stone them; but they were ware of it and fled unto Lystra and Derbe." "Now had the assault been completed; had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions; or even had the account of this transaction stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were aware of their danger and fled, a contradiction between the history and the apostle would have ceased. Truth is necessarily consistent; but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it." (Horae Paulinae. Works, v. 120, 121, ed. vii.) In the Acts we have but one of the three beatings with rods, and not one of the five scourgings by Jews.

And what a picture of ceaseless, unselfish, suffering toils is despatched in the next few words, before which the great deeds of earth's heroes grow pale with ineffectual light, attended as they were with heavy blows on others and clever schemes to screen themselves! "By wayfarings often, by dangers of rivers, by dangers of robbers, by dangers from countrymen, by dangers from Gentiles, by dangers in towns, by dangers in desert, by dangers at sea, by dangers among false brethren, by toil and trouble; in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." Yet this is the man who deprecates it as "folly" to speak of himself, who practised as he exhorted "but one thing!" "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." Forget his failures, his sins, he did not; it is good and wholesome both for self-judgment and as a witness of sovereign grace and faithfulness on God's part. But his progress, his trials, his sufferings, others only by their folly constrained him to recall, in meekness setting right those who opposed, if God per. adventure might sometime give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.

Yet it is not only the endurance of cruel usage from time to time from open enemies that tests the heart; it is shown out yet more by the unwearied and constant going out, no matter what the labour and the danger, from country to country among strangers whom the Jews could readily influence when they themselves took fire at the gospel, added to the manifold trials of the way. "in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from countrymen, in perils from heathen, in perils in town, in perils in desert, in perils at sea, in perils among false brethren; in toil and trouble, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." How poor the lengthy tales of the most devoted labourers in ancient or modern times compared with these living strokes from the heart of the great apostle!

Nor was it by any means an exhaustive account. Apart from the things besides" (παρεκτός, possibly without," as in the Vulgate, Calvin, Beza, Authorised Version, etc.), "the pressure on me day by day, the concern for all the churches." There is little doubt that an early confusion crept into the text, and that the true word here is one signifying "urgent attention," as in Acts 24: 12 it is rather one signifying "faction" or "tumultuous concourse," though the more ancient copies support the former word (ἐπίστασις, not ἐπισύσταις) in both; and they are followed in this by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Tregelles. Mr. T. S. Green is one of those who fall into the opposite extreme of reading the latter word in both. It is one of the few instances where Scholz has in my opinion shown better judgment, reading "concourse" (ἐπισύσατσιν) in Acts and "pressure of attention" (ἐπίστασις) in the passage before us. Anxiety for all the assemblies is the appended explanation of that care day by day which pressed on the apostle. And of this he gives us a sample. "Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I [emphatic] burn not?" If they were sorely troubled by scrupulosity, he could and did enter into their difficulties; if any one was stumbled by the unworthy bearing of others, his soul was on fire, filled with love for Christ and the saints, and abhorring selfishness and party with thorough hatred.

Was this self-praise? "If it is needful to boast, I will boast of the matters of my infirmity. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is blessed for ever, knoweth that I lie not. At Damascus the prefect of Aretas the king garrisoned the Damascenes' city to seize me; and through a window in a basket was I let down by [or through] the wall, and escaped their hands." No doubt, it was a remarkable escape at the beginning of his ministry; but it was just the last thing one who sought his own glory would have repeated and recorded for ever. No angelic visitors opened the bars and bolts of massive doors, nor blinded the eyes of the garrison: the apostle was let down in a basket through a window in the city wall. Truly he gloried, not in the great deeds or sayings of his ministry, but in his weakness and the Lord's grace. It is the more remarkable from the way in which he proceeds immediately after to speak of his being caught up to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12

We have had the apostle glorying in what had no glory in men's eyes. Now he turns abruptly, from being let down in a basket to escape a Gentile governor, to being caught up to heaven for a vision of the Lord in paradise.

"I must needs boast, though not profitable; but I will come* unto visions and revelations or [the] Lord. I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago (whether in [the] body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in [the] body or without† [or apart from] the body, I know not: God knoweth), how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words which [it is] not lawful for a man to utter. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on mine own behalf I will not boast save in [my] weaknesses. For if I should desire to boast, I shall not be foolish, for I shall speak truth; but I forbear, lest any should account as to me above that which he seeth me or heareth‡ of me." (Vers. 1-6.)

* For κ. δὴ οὐ συμφέρει μοι, ἐλ, γάρ T. R. after K M and most cursives, etc.; the more ancient support κ. δεῖ, οὐ σον μέν, ἐλ. δέ,   D, etc., having κ. δέ and B 213 ἐλ. δὲ καί.

† B Dp.m. Ep.m. read χωρίς, the rest ἐκτός.

‡ τι is added by T. B. and Lachmann.

The text is, from the conflict of readings, rather precarious. But the truth conveyed runs like a ploughshare through all fleshly thought and feeling. Certainly in the boast of the apostle is not one thing palatable to nature, or exalting to himself or of profit humanly. Grace alone characterises visions and revelations of the Lord, and to these he would come. Yet even though boast one must in the Lord, room for vain glory is excluded. "I know a man in Christ:" not "I knew," as the Authorised Version so strangely misunderstands. Still even in the form which the apostle employs to convey the former, personal boasting is sedulously avoided, so much so that even our translators appear to have conceived that he was speaking not of himself but of some other man.

How blessedly Christ meets self in its need and guilt and ruin in order to deliver from its power, not only by the judgment of the first man, but by identification with the Second! It is good to be indebted to another's grace: what is to be thus lost, if one may so say, in the blessedness of Christ? Undoubtedly Paul had the marvellous experience he so vividly alludes to; but he puts it in a way meant to convey to any "man in Christ" that it is his privilege substantially, as it was his own in fact miraculously. In 2 Corinthians 5 we were told that, if any man is in Christ, it is a new creation: the old things passed, all things made new, and all of the God who reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ. Here it is one caught up to the third heaven and in paradise hearing what it is not possible or permissible for man to tell unspeakable words. The sphere he was introduced into, though the communications were beyond what could be conveyed now; but it was of great moment to have the certainty of all. And he whose province it was to make known the counsels of God as to Christ and His own for heaven was thus allowed to hear, that all in Christ should know their portion by such a chosen witness.

The entire allusion is as peculiar as wise and suited. "I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago." Faith does not boast of visions and revelations of the Lord, any more than of its doings: of trials and sufferings one may speak if compelled, and so too of that which appertains to every man in Christ, though one alone got the vision. So David said not a word about the lion and the bear which he was enabled to kill while engaged in his lowly task, till it was needful to allay the fears of others to God's glory; and the apostle only spoke many years after a wondrous experience which others less spiritual would have talked of everywhere for as many years or more. What would not the Corinthians or their misleaders have made of it?

Prophets of old have known what it is to look on scenes outside man's experience. So Isaiah, the year in which king Uzziah died, beheld the Lord on His throne with the Seraphim in attendance on His glory, that he might fittingly to the people bear witness of their evil but of the virgin — born Jehovah-Messiah who should establish the kingdom and deliver the people from their sins to God's glory. Ezekiel too was lifted up between earth and heaven and transported to Jerusalem in the visions of God and the temple (Ezek. 8 - 11), as afterwards to Chaldea (ver. 24), and finally to the land of Israel (Ezek. 40 - 48) for the future temple and city and division of the land. Nor is it only in the great Apocalyptic prophecy of the New Testament that we trace the analogy of these ways of the Spirit, but we see His power in catching away Philip bodily to Azotus or Ashdod, from the neighbourhood, one of the roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. As for the apostle, he says "(whether [in the] body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such an one caught up to the third heaven." It was not dubious, but transcendent, knowledge; and God who gave it hid from the apostle whether it was in spirit only or in bodily presence also. Certainly, if caught up like Philip, there was left such a sense of the glory as was too deep and bright for human words or for present circumstances. Body there or not, he was not hindered from feeling the glory to be beyond the measure of man. There the glorified will be to enjoy all with Christ at His coming, in bodies like His own; and there the disembodied saint goes to be with Him; there too Paul as a man in Christ, but Paul actually as apostle and prophet that we might learn now, was taken up. "And I know such a man (whether in [the] body or apart from the body, I know not: God knoweth), how that he was caught up into paradise and heard unspeakable words which [it is] not lawful for a man to utter." In the mysteries of the old heathen there were "unspeakable words," but they were strange forms of language to alarm and overawe the mind. Here the things forbade communication as rising completely in their nature above all that surrounds or is natural to us.

But the apostle does boast, not exactly "of" nor "in" but" on behalf of such a one." God did not deal thus with His servant for no reason but worthily for Himself: and Paul was led by the Spirit in speaking of it fourteen years after the fact to meet the exigencies of the testimony of Christ. It was grace to give the privilege; it was grace not to boast of it for himself meanwhile; it was grace to write of it now, and to write it in the inspired word for all saints in all time. "On behalf of such an one I will boast, but on mine own behalf I will not boast save in my weaknesses." These we have had in the preceding chapter; they were the suffering of love for Christ's sake in a weak body with all men and things opposed, which Satan was ever skilfully arraying against him. How beautiful are the feet of such heralds of good things! Yet philosophy and religion saw only what was despicable, as in the Master, so in the servant. Do we know what it is to live beyond the depreciation of our fellows? Let us look to it, however, that it be truly for Christ and His glory in those that are His. Nothing is more opposed to Christ, yet nothing more common among Christians than a pretentious self-asserting spirit, which will boast of the distinctive possession of the truth which we know, even though it most condemn us. God looks for reality in a world of shadows and untruth; He looks for the possession and reflection of His revealed light and truth where darkness reigns; He looks for divine love where only self is found, though in subtle forms; He looks for the faith which reckons on Him according to His word in the face of all difficulties and dangers. Assuredly the apostle thus lived and laboured: as it is for our profit to see in these two epistles how misunderstood is such a path even among saints, who are apt to welcome a high and self-exalting spirit, even though it indulge in sufficiently contumelious ways towards themselves. So the Israelites, who would have a king like the nations, received one after their own heart, who served himself, instead of ruling them in the fear of the Lord,

"For if I should desire to boast, I shall not be foolish, for I shall speak truth; but I forbear, lost any should account of me above that which he seeth me or beareth of me." The servant was jealous of his Master's glory, and hence his reticence as to much which would have interested us in the highest degree. "To me," he could say as none other since nor then nor before "To me to live is Christ;" and he was as vigilant as to this in public ministry as in private walk. "On behalf of a man in Christ" he had much to say, as he does say it elsewhere; and so he boasts here, for here all is of grace. "Who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive, why dost thou glory as if thou didst not receive?" But even here, though speaking truth only, he forbears lest any should account of him beyond what he sees or hears of him. Such is the effect of a life spent in the faith of Christ and His love.

We have seen the spiritual power and tact with which the apostle handles his glorying, how he blends "the man in Christ" with that which was peculiar to himself, so as to out of all self or fleshly boasting, and yet to afford every saint intelligent of his privileges the same conscious privilege substantially as he had himself received miraculously. Now he turns to that counterpoise which the wisdom of the Lord had bound up with his own experience in order to hinder the misuse of it; for flesh was as bad in the apostle as in any other, and it needed His dealing no less than in the Corinthians, though differently as to form.

"And that I should not be uplifted by the exceeding greatness of the revelations,* there was given to me a thorn [or stake] for the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I might not be uplifted overmuch.† For this I thrice besought the Lord that it might depart from me; and he hath said to me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for [my]‡ power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ may rest on me Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits for Christ; for when I am weak, then am I strong." (Vers. 7-10.)

* διό A B F G, etc.

† The last clause is omitted by the best MSS. p.m. A D E F G, etc., Vulg. Aeth., etc.; but it can hardly be doubted that it was done in error to correct a supposed repetition, which was meant for emphasis. This is an instructive fact.

‡ μου is added in T. Rec. with many but not the highest authorities. It is implied.

Here at least is no ambiguity, no studied mysteriousness of mention. Paul boasts of nothing here below but in his weaknesses, and indeed specifies one especial trial, or thorn if not "stake" for the flesh, sent to make nothing of him in the eyes of others, rendering him contemptible, it would seem from elsewhere in his preaching. With this goes an extraordinary irregularity in the very expression which it is easier to paraphrase than to translate with any smoothness, if we adopt with some διό "wherefore" after "revelations" and before "that."

This the Revisers deal with ingeniously: "And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations — wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given," etc. Otherwise, accepting the word, Lachmann was driven to make verse 6 a parenthesis, and to connect the first clause of verse 7 with the end of verse 5; and then the new sentence began with διὸ ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ. which of course, if all allowed, yields a simple sense. In the text of Tregelles the insertion is beyond measure harsh. Alford brackets the word, and very oddly the last clause also, though repeatedly affirming its propriety for emphasis or solemnity; Tischendorf rejects it.

It will be observed that in the early part of the chapter the allusion is to what was communion with God's presence, not matter for communication to His children; and in that communion the body had no part. What he saw and heard was so outside its sphere that he knows not whether he were in the body or out of it. A man in Christ thus favoured he knows, but whether in the body or apart from the body he knows not. Could anything make him feel more distinctly that all the power to enjoy is in God?

Yet flesh even in a saint might work in consequence and whisper that none before had over been so caught up to the third heaven. Hence, lest by the excess of the revelations he should be uplifted, there was given him what was alike painful and humbling. What the thorn in the flesh was in Paul's case is purposely left undetermined, even if one may gather more or less its nature; but its moral aim, its intended effect, cannot be doubted. Nor is the measure of reticence without a wise motive, for it is a general principle of divine dealing with a form suited to each person so dealt with. If we hear of a messenger of Satan on one side, we hear of something given on the other. If the enemy take pleasure in the pain of God's servant or child, He assuredly works even by that which so distresses the flesh for the deeper blessing of the soul.

Lessons previously not learnt at all or imperfectly are now taught. "For this I thrice besought the Lord that it might depart from me; and he hath said to me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for [my] power is perfected in weakness." (Vers. 8, 9.) How it reminds us of what was still more wonderful, yea of absolute perfection, in that very Lord Himself when He prayed thrice that, if the Father would, the cup might pass from Him. Here it could not, ought not, to have been otherwise; for how could He who knew His love as the Son but deprecate unsparing judgment because of sin? The Lord, in that infinite suffering according to God's will and in doing it, was alone necessarily: but in the case before us we have as a principle what pertains to us and must be our position by grace, if indeed we are to be kept from the more humbling lesson of what the flesh is by a positive fall like Peter's. There are exceeding precious privileges given to the Christian. And it is not in the soul's entrance into or enjoyment of them that the danger lies, but in our natural reflection on their possession afterwards. Hence God knows how to use in grace what Satan means for hurt as in Job's case. Only here it is far deeper and more triumphant, as it ought to be now that Christ is come and redemption accomplished. It is not only dependence on God exercised and maintained, nor is it mere resignation to inevitable trial, but the sufficiency of grace practically proved, and Christ's power perfected in weakness.

Thus he who felt as soberly and profoundly as any man ever did can say, "Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weakness, that the power of Christ may spread its tabernacle over me." This is incalculably more than vanquishing mighty foes by faith and patience. It is taking pleasure in what is most trying and overwhelming to nature that Christ's strength may be manifested. Where flesh might rise, it is put down. In such dealing with us is the life of the Spirit; but Christ makes the bitter sweet, and His power can make its dwelling in us when we acquiesce in our nothingness and rejoice in it if it be but to His praise and glory. Practically there is nothing so profitable for the soul; and the apostle was ministering in the most effectual way while thus drawing forth from his own deep experience the true glorying of the saint as he knew it in his life before God and His ways with him day by day. What did they know of it, who were boasting of themselves or their leaders at Corinth and depreciating the true path of Christ to which the apostle clave faithfully? They would willingly have persuaded themselves into the idea that such devotedness and suffering were but the eccentricities of an ill-balanced mind, and a prejudice to the gospel rather than a true and acceptable testimony to Christ. But, bear or forbear, he will tell them and us undauntedly what it is to live Christ. "Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits for Christ; for when I am weak, then am I strong." Practical Christianity is as truly of faith as deliverance. All is of grace, though the ways differ. In every respect Christ is all. Only in redemption He suffered for us; in the path of faith we suffer with and it may be for Him. And blessed are those who thus suffer now, whether for righteousness' sake or for His name.

But was not the apostle speaking of himself, of what grace had given him to suffer? Was it not talking of what he calls weaknesses, insults, necessities, persecutions and straits for Christ, but on his own part?

"I am become foolish,* ye compelled me; for I ought to have been commended by you, for in nothing was I behind those surpassingly apostles if also I am nothing. The signs indeed of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by both signs† and wonders and powers. For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the other assemblies, unless that I myself pressed not heavily on you? Forgive me this wrong." (Vers. 11-13.)

* Text. Rec. adds καυχώμενος on large but inferior authority.

† Good and numerous authorities support Text. Rec. ἐν σ., as some read τε σ., and p.m. * B, etc., σ. τε.

It is not irony, but the genuine and deep feeling of one whose heart burned with a divinely given sense of what Christ is, and of love to the saints, forced to speak of himself by those who should have been prompt rather to have vindicated him and his service in love. It was the more painful, because he is treating, not of sin in man met by the righteousness of God in Christ, but of utter weakness in the Christian displaced by the strength of Christ. Even the saints in Corinth were as to this on ground like the world, the heathen world around them. They gloried in. intellect, in learning, in eloquence — briefly in man. They had never applied the cross of Christ practically to judge it, save so far as grace may have begun the work by the first epistle; and we need His glory on high, as this second epistle shows, to deal with fleshly pretensions thoroughly. (Cf. 2 Cor. 4, 2 Cor. 5) The weakness which some detractors laid to his reproach he was so far from denying that he himself insisted on it as the condition of the display of Christ's power.

It was real and culpable ignorance therefore to contrast him with those surpassingly apostles in this respect. Rather was it true that in nothing was he behind them, though as he says he was nothing, and quite content to be so. What his heart yearned for was Christ's glory, Christ's strength, not his own. As later in Philippians 3 his desire was to be found in Him, not having a righteousness of his own, that which is of the law, 'but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; so here he would not be strong in himself if he could, but weak that he might be strong through Christ. He would glory of a man in Christ, but in himself of nothing but his infirmities.

Natural power indeed is as offensive in the service of Christ as is one's own righteousness in justification: the latter denies Christ for us, the former denies Christ in us, or rather His power resting on us in our own felt weakness, yea, nothingness. Nothing can be more opposed to the feeling and the reasoning of flesh and blood. Human nature dislikes what is humiliating and painful; it loves ease or honour. To go on in difficulties, dependent on nothing but the Lord, is most trying, not delivered but enduring, that He may be glorified and we may prove the sufficiency of His grace. Such is the true pathway of power, and Paul trod it as none other since, in whom the first man is apt to be strong, the confusion or perplexities of others being only the greater where the Second man seems also strong, and the consequence serious for those who accept the activity of the two Adams as the right and desirable thing, to be admired in the Christian and the service of Christ. How different was his experience who took pleasure in all that made him for Christ's sake despised before others, and crushed in himself — when weak then strong!

Yet had he far rather have not said a word of himself, even when speaking only of this suffering trying path, and absolutely silent as to himself, his family, his acquirements, or his doings. It was the Corinthians who compelled him to speak out for their own profit, even though it took the shape of reproof. Neither was Paul behind the apostles, however exalted any might be; and none the less but the more, though (and because) he was nothing; nor were the Corinthians inferior to the assemblies, save in Paul being no burden to them. And as he shows that the apostolic signs were wrought among them in all patience by both signs and wonders and powers, so he asks them to forgive him the wrong of never accepting support or favours from that rich assembly. It is calm, dignified, loving but overwhelming, in its exposure and reprimand of their fleshly conceit, as well as of their readiness to take up insinuations against him whom they ought rather to have defended when impugned.

"Behold, this* third time I am ready to come unto you, and I will not press heavily,* for I seek not yours but you; for the children ought not to lay up for the parents but the parents for the children. And I most gladly will spend and be spent for your souls, if even† more abundantly loving‡ you I am less loved." (Vers. 14, 15.)

* τοῦτο, omitted in Text. Rec. with three uncials and most cursives, is attested by A B F G, many cursives, and most ancient versions etc., ὑμῶν "on you" being added in Text. Rec. with most but not the oldest.

† The καί is very doubtful, being rejected by p.m. B F G, etc., but given in most other authorities.

‡ ἀγαπῶ instead of the participle in p.m. A and a few other witnesses.

The servant would still (if now at length he revisited Corinth) cherish the portion of his Master, and give rather than receive: though entitled to live of the gospel and be cared for by the assembly, he would forego his title in the midst of those who might misuse or misunderstand it to Christ's dishonour. He would be like a parent in unselfish affection to his children. He would fare as He whose love was the more as others hated, however pained to find the saints so like the world. How singularly close was Paul's "imitation" of Christ!

"But be it so: I did not myself burden you, but crafty as I am I caught you with guile. Did I make a gain of any of them whom I sent unto you? I exhorted Titus and sent the brother with [him]: did Titus make any gain of you? Walked they not in the same spirit? [and] not in the same steps?" (Vers. 16-18.)

Here the apostle obviates the cunningly mischievous insinuation of any who might charge him with reaping advantage indirectly through his friends. Such dishonour he repudiates. Guile like that was far from his soul, though the accusers seemed by no means above it if they suspected him; for what will not malice in the heart dare to think and say? They well knew that Titus and his companion walked in their midst with a self-abnegation kindred to his own. No wonder this unwearied witness of Christ's glory abhorred from the bottom of his heart the sickening compulsion which drew forth such words from his pen; but we should profit by it all no less than those primarily addressed. There are many saints like those in Corinth: where the servant like him who thus pleads for Christ and like Christ?

Nothing can be conceived more untrue than the impressions which the Corinthians had received of the one to whom they were so deeply indebted; and this from the rivalry of men who boasted much, and as usual with little or nothing really to boast. So it was even in these early days, so often halcyon days in superficial estimation, unless indeed for eyes yet more superficial, which, misled by theory only, look for progress in Christendom, degrading the past to exalt the present and speculate on the future. Positive and weighty and even notorious facts were utterly opposed to the misrepresentation of his adversaries; and none ought to have known better than the Corinthians how unfounded was all this detraction. It would be unintelligible if one did not know the natural weakness of the mass to fall under high-sounding words, and the subtle activity of the enemy to take advantage of the flesh in order to ruin the church and make it an instrument to the Lord's shame, instead of a witness in grace to His glory. Therefore did the apostle stoop to refute this miserable trash. But he was jealous lest this too should be misinterpreted, and he next proceeds to guard even this brief notice of his slanderers.

Ye long ago* think that we excuse ourselves to you. Before† God in Christ we speak, but all things, beloved, for your building up. For I fear lest by any means on coming I find you not such as I wish, and I be found by [or for] you such as ye wish not; lest by any means [there be] strife,‡ jealousy, wraths, feuds, slanderings, whisperings, swellings, confusions; lest on my coming again my God humble me among [or before] you, and bewail many of those that have sinned heretofore and not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and indecency which they committed." (Vers. 19-21.)

* Text. Rec. has πάλιν supported by the later uncials and most cursives, versions, etc.; πάλαι p.m. A B F G and most of the Latins, Vulgate, etc.

† κατέναντι on similar grounds, and rather stronger than the received κατενώπιον,

‡ There is the highest, though not the largest, authority for the singular form, which seems to have been assimilated to the words following.

There need be no question, I think, as to the reading in verse 19. It is not "again" as in the Authorised Version, but "this long time," which does not suit the interrogative form. If others sought self-justification, not so the apostle, whatever their surmisings. For those who are not occupied with Christ readily conceive of others what fills their own minds. He whom they misjudged turns to the presence of God and in His sight speaks in Christ. His speech was not only in the consciousness of the divine presence, but characterised by Christ, not by the natural man. In His name does not seem the thought, nor yet conformably to His doctrine. He stood consciously over against the highest tribunal, and spoke in Christ accordingly, not in the flesh; as he thus disposed of any self-complacency on their part in judging him, so he disclaims as carefully all thought of self-interest or fear: "but all things, beloved, for your building up." Love never fails, and it builds up. For this he spoke and toiled and suffered.

And the more because he could not but have the gravest apprehensions of not a few in Corinth, whatever his comforting hopes of the rest. "For I fear, lost by any means on coming I find you not such as I wish, and I be found by you such as ye wish not." It was the dread of their state and its consequences for themselves and to his own heart which had hindered his going when he had intended; and the delay had exposed him to evil tongues long since. And he still feared that the work of restoring grace meanwhile was not so complete, but that much which was amiss remained feebly if at all judged in many. For rather would he come in love and a spirit of meekness, than with a rod which their condition might demand. If he found any failing not in grace merely but in righteousness, those who were thus putting the Lord to shame must be as unwelcome to His servants, as he must prove to them in vindication of His name. The evils he hints at as still at work are those which he had so unsparingly rebuked in his first epistle; strife and jealousy, outbursts of angry passion and cabals, outspoken slanderings and privy whisperings, manifestations of proud insolence, and open disorders. It is a long list of sad evils; but how soon these might characterise true believers, where there is a party or parties to take up and spread and give effect to the word of leaders!

Some see it hard to reconcile the warm expressions of loving confidence found elsewhere, especially in the central part of the Epistle, with these forebodings. They even venture to conjecture that the latter portion from 2 Corinthians 10 formed another letter written at a different epoch, and under circumstances widely differing from those supposed in the preceding part; or at least that a considerable period elapsed between the writings of the former and the latter parts. But there is really no special difficulty, as the apostle does not here speak of all, but of many; and the attentive reader will not fail to discern, even in the earliest chapters of the first portion, quite enough to prepare him for the solemn anxieties which press on the apostle's spirit before he closes the Epistle with his parting appeals.

Indeed, it has been pre-eminently remarked of this very chapter with truth that it contains the most striking contrasts among those that bear the name of the Lord. There is, on the one hand, the man in Christ, viewed in an extraordinary measure of enjoying the privileges of a Christian; there is, on the other, the most distressing exhibition of the worst possible state of the saints practically in both violence and corruption; and there is between these extremes the way of the saint, in being made nothing of, that the power of Christ might rest on him. Thus there is really no difficulty for those who accept God's word in simplicity; and the intellectual activity which musters objections is spiritually as infirm and unintelligent, as it also dishonours the Lord.

Verse 21 seems naturally inconsistent with the notion of a second visit as yet, though it is admitted on all hands that the apostle had intended ere this to have paid it. "Again" goes with coming, not with "humble," though some prefer giving it to the entire clause. What an expression of love lurks in the apostle's words! To find saints thus in sin was God humbling him in their presence, not them in his, as it looked as a fact. But he felt as he spoke "in Christ." It was God humbling him at the evil condition of his saints, and what it rendered necessary. And what does he say as he thinks of the grossest forms of it? "And I bewail many of those who have sinned beforehand, and not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and indecency which they committed." It is not that his hand would fail to wield the rod, but it was surely with a wounded heart which bled because of shameless evil among those who called on the name of the Lord. Doubtless the corruptions were characteristic of heathen Corinth; and old habits soon revive, even in young converts, when the heart turns from Christ to other objects. But what a tale is told of feeble faith? For faith it is that overcomes; and they were overcome with evil, not overcoming it with good. Nature is an important fact for the enemy; but the Holy Spirit lifts above all hindrances, forming, exercising, and strengthening the new life we have in Christ our Lord.

2 Corinthians 13

The apostle reverts to his intention of visiting the Corinthian saints once more, and in such a way as to give a solemn force to the visit when it should be accomplished.

"This third [time] I am coming unto you. At [the] mouth of two witnesses and three shall every word [or, matter] be established. I have foretold and foretell, as if present the second [time] and now absent, to them that have sinned before and to all the rest, that if I come again I will not spare. Since ye seek a proof of the Christ speaking in me (who toward you is not weak, but is powerful in you, for although he was crucified in weakness, yet he liveth by God's power; for indeed we are weak in him, but shall live with him by God's power toward you), try your own selves whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves. Or recognise ye not as to your own selves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed ye be reprobate?" (Vers. 1-5.)

It had been already explained why the second visit had fallen through. It was to spare them he had not come. When he should revisit them, they must not expect such forbearance. His patience had been misconstrued by some, if others had profited. But this third time he was coming; and when he did, everything should be established with due evidence. The previous warnings he had given, to not only those that had sinned heretofore but all the rest, only strengthened his resolve not to spare at his coming again. The, language most naturally conveys that he had not gone to Corinth the time when he had intended his second visit. Hence he says, "I have foretold and foretell, as if present the second time and now absent, to them that have sinned before and to all the rest," etc. There is no ground apparent to my mind that this was literally a third visit, rather on the contrary the second in fact, though third in purpose.

It helps greatly to the understanding of what follows to see that, whether marked externally or not, there is a parenthesis after the first clause of the third verse which runs through the fourth also; so that the connection of the first clause of verse 3 is really with verse 5. Since ye seek a proof of the Christ speaking in me, . . . . try your own selves whether ye be in the faith, prove your own selves." It is a final notice of and answer to their unworthy questioning of Paul's apostleship. Did they demand a proof of Christ speaking in him? Were not they themselves proof enough? Had He not spoken to their souls in that servant of His who first caused His voice to be heard in Corinth? As surely as they were in the faith, which they did not at all question, he was an apostle — if not to others, assuredly to them. The many Corinthians who, hearing the apostle, believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, were the last who ought to gainsay the messenger if they appreciated the message and Him who sent the messenger. If they were reprobate, having confessed Christ in vain, there was no force in the appeal, which derives all its power from their confidence that Christ was in them as the fruit of the apostle's preaching.

This also shows how baseless is the too common abuse of the passage, as well as of 1 Corinthians 11: 28, to sanction a doubting self-examination, as one often hears, not only in the practical history of souls, but in the teaching of doctrinal schools otherwise opposed. Here, say they, we are taught to search ourselves and see that we be not too confident: does not the apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians call on each habitually to examine or prove himself before partaking of the Lord's Supper? and does he not pursue that special call by the general exhortation in the second Epistle to examine or try themselves whether they be in the faith? The truth is that an examination of the context in each case dispels the error as to both — an error which strikes directly at the peace of the believer, if not also the truth of the gospel. For the gospel is sent by God, founded on the personal glory and the work of His Son, to bring the believer into communion with the Father and the Son in full liberty of heart and with a purged conscience. These misinterpretations, under cover of jealousy for holiness, tend immediately to plunge the soul into doubt through questions about itself.

What then do the passages respectively teach? 1 Corinthians 11: 28-31, the duty, need, and value of each Christian testing himself by the solemn truth of the Lord's death expressed and confessed and enjoyed in His supper. How slur over sin of any kind, were it but levity in word or deed, in presence of that death in which it came under God's judgment unsparingly for our salvation? Nor is it enough to confess our faults to God or man, as the case may require; but as on the one hand we discern the body, the Lord's body, in that holy feast of which we are made free and which we can never neglect without dishonouring Him who thus died for us, so on the other hand are we called to discern ourselves, scrutinising the inward springs and motives of all, and not merely the wrong which appears to others. But this intimate self-searching, to which we are each called who partake of the Lord's Supper, is on the express ground of faith, and has no application whatever to an unbeliever. This last doubtless has been mischievously helped on by the error of "damnation" in the Authorised Version of verse 29, which verses 30-32 clearly refute, proving that the judgment in question is the discipline of sickness or death which the Lord wields over careless or faulty saints in positive contrast with the condemnation of the world. As for the passage in our chapter, we have already seen that the argument derives all its force from the certainty that those appealed to were in the faith, not in the least that they were uncertain. That they were in the faith through Paul's preaching ought to have been an unanswerable proof that Christ spoke through him; if Christ was not in them, they were reprobate; and was it for such to question his apostleship Scripture never calls a soul to doubt, always to believe. But self-judgment is ever a Christian's duty; and our privileges, we being in ourselves what we are, only deepen the importance, as representing Christ, of dealing with ourselves truly and intimately before God, as well as of reminding our souls habitually of the Lord's death and of its infinite and solemn import as shown forth in His Supper.

The parenthesis connects the apostle's ministry, Christ's speaking in him, with all he had laid down before as its true principle throughout the epistle, as well as in the preceding chapter. Christ certainly had shown Himself toward them not weak, but powerful in them. Let them only bethink themselves of the past, and weigh what His grace and truth had done for them. And if they found fault with the apostle as indifferent to, yea, as despising and abominating, fleshly power and worldly wisdom, let them think again of the Saviour, who "was crucified in [lit. out of] weakness, yet he liveth by [lit. out of] God's power." Let them judge then who was consistent with Christ, His cross and His resurrection — they with their natural thoughts; or the apostle with his ministry so despicable in the eyes of some? "For indeed we are weak in him, but shall live with him by God's power toward you." Where was dependence in faith of the crucified One? Where real power, as became the witness of resurrection and glory on high? Where unselfish devotedness and practical grace answering to Him who loved the church and gave Himself for it?

Thus did the apostle turn the unworthy demand of some in Corinth as to his apostolate to their own souls' blessing as well as to the overthrow of their argument. So at the beginning of this epistle he had dealt with their imputation of fickle levity if not of untruthfulness by insisting on the immutable truth of what he preached of Christ, and the power of God in the Holy Ghost's blessing that confirmed it in the believers. Not less does he here overwhelm those who, in their anxiety to dishonour his commission from Christ, were bringing to nought their own title to Christ. Did they seek evidence of Christ that spoke in Paul, and that was not weak toward them but was mighty in them? Let them try their own selves whether they were in the faith. The apostle was content with no better evidence than his Corinthian converts, unless indeed they were reprobate, which was far from the ground they took or he. He had far rather give them, and that they required, no proof of his apostolic power in severe discipline.

"But I hope ye shall know that we are not reprobate. But we pray* unto God that ye may do nothing evil, not that we may appear approved, but that ye may do the right though we be as reprobate. For we can do nothing against the truth but for the truth. For† we rejoice when we are weak and ye are strong: this also we pray for, your perfecting. For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not when present deal severely according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for casting down."

* εὐχόμεθα A B D F G P many cursives and all the ancient versions save the Pesch. Syr. and the Gothic, instead of the sing. εὐχόμαι of the Text. Rec.

† Text. Rec. adds δέ contrary to the best authorities.

It is impossible to conceive a more admirable dealing with a state of mind which must have been as grievous as it was humiliating to the apostle. Their high-minded ingratitude and short-sightedness only brought out an answer complete and withering, yet dignified, lowly, and loving. His heart was occupied with their further blessing, more than with his apostolic office, which he asserted for their sakes more than his own. To stand in doubt of him might jeopardise their own faith rather than his apostleship, which was there to he exercised if need were in vindication of the Lord against their evil, as it had already been by grace in their conversion. But he prayed that they might give no such occasion, not that the validity of his claim might appear, but that they might do that which became saints, even though he might lack such proofs or be ever so depreciated. There would then be no occasion for the display of power, as their honourable walk would testify for the truth; and as for the apostle, he could say "we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. For we rejoice when we are weak and ye are strong." And he prayed for this too, their perfecting.

It was reserved for the anti-church to claim irrevocable authority along with immunity from error. Where difference exists among the faithful, it is folly to claim a character which attaches only to their agreement in the power of the Spirit. And the apostle disclaims what the Roman pontiff arrogates, that clave errante the decision binds. The inevitable effect, soon or late, will be destruction, not edification. It is not Christ, but human assumption, not to say presumption.

Whether it be an individual's assumption or an assembly's, or whether as in one notable theory it be the chief along with that which represents the church as a whole, such a claim is fictitious and destructive of the Lord's glory. The promise is strictly conditional, not absolute; and never was there an apparent failure save when the condition was broken, and then in very faithfulness the Lord gave not His sanction. To be unconditionally true, there ought also to have been infallibility, which belongs not even to an apostle but to God alone. The meek will He guide in judgment, and the meek will He teach His way; and this now in the church by His own guaranteed presence and lending, though nothing seem harder to conceive where the several wills of so many would naturally act diversely. But He is there in the midst to make good His gracious power when truly waited on, with subjection in the Spirit to the written word which casts its divine light on facts and persons; that all without force or fraud may act as one in the fear of God, or those who dissent may he manifested in their self-will, whether they be few or many.

But the taking for granted that a given sentence is irrevocable, because it is the opinion of a majority or even of a whole assembly, in the face of facts which overthrow its truth or righteousness, is not only fanatical (I do not say illogical only) but wicked fighting against God. In such a case, humbling as it is, most humbling for an assembly to judge itself hasty and mistaken in pretending to the mina of the Lord, where it was only the illusive influence of prejudiced leaders or the weakness of the mass who prefer general quiet in floating with the stream at all cost, or both causes or others also, the only course at all pleasing to the Lord is, that the error when known be confessed and renounced as publicly as it was committed, being due to Him and to the church, as well as to the individuals or company, if there he such, more immediately concerned. To keep up appearances in deference to men however respected if mistaken and misleading, to give expression to high-sounding terms or to vague begging the question of truth and right, in order to cloak an evident miscarriage of justice, is unworthy of Christ or of His servants. This was far from the apostle, who, as at the beginning of this epistle he disclaimed lording it over the faith of the saints, at the end proves his sincere desire, even when grievously slighted, to avoid if possible sharp dealing with those who had afforded grave occasion, and to use the authority which the Lord gave him for building up and not for casting down.

"For the rest, brethren, rejoice [or, farewell], be perfected, be encouraged, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the saints salute you. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit [be] with you all*."

* Text. Rec. adds ἀμήν with most manuscripts (not the most early) and most ancient versions, etc.

May our souls be corrected and strengthened and refreshed by so benignant a conclusion! It well befits the epistle of restorative grace. The work of bringing back the saints in Corinth to meet thoughts in the Lord as to themselves and His servants, and the apostle especially, was only begun. Much remained to be done, both in fulfilling obedience and in avenging all disobedience. But the apostle was encouraged of God, and would comfort them on his part. He bids them, not merely farewell, but rejoice; he wishes what was lacking supplied, what was awry adjusted; he desires them to be not discouraged by or in occupation with themselves, but cheered on as they looked at his exhortation to the Lord; he would have them cultivate, not crotchety points of difference, but the same mind; he calls them, not to indulge in questions gendering strife, but to live in peace; and he assures them that the God of love and peace, as one combined blessing in the power of His presence, should be with them. What a spring of consolation for those who in the measure of deepening self-judgment might otherwise have been cast down! Nor was it only of that divine source of blessedness he assures them, but he calls on the expression to one another of mutual and holy love, as he sends it from all the saints in that part of Macedonia whence he wrote.

The benediction that closes all has the same suitability which we see in each epistle, admirably adapted to the state of the Corinthian saints, and of course not only to all others in similar experience but instructive and wholesome for all that believe. Yet for this very reason one feels the unintelligence which turns such pointed words of blessing into a standing invariable form for all sorts of different occasions, as if we were reduced to one ouch mode of dismissal, or that it was of the Spirit of God to select that which might seem the most comprehensive and comforting. As God gives no licence to confusion in the assemblies, so does He not sanction those who walk in pride and passion, in self-will, railing, and contention, however graciously He may act, when they begin to judge themselves. We need, not the word of God only, but His Spirit to apply it aright: else we May unwittingly pervert even that word to real mischief, with cheer where reproof is rather called for, and rebuke where consolation would be more seasonable. But what grace is told out in this inspired servant sending under all the circumstances such a parting message to all the saints in Corinth! "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Poor, weak, unworthy, what can saints lack to help them when this is made good? and what simple soul among the faithful would on such a warrant doubt it? or desire less or different for himself and his brethren? The free and full favour of Him who for us died and rose; the love of that God against whom we had without cause sinned to our utter ruin, yet who sent the Saviour to redeem us; the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, the power and seal of this infinite blessing, who gives us a common and abiding share in it all, yea, with the Father and the Son: what a portion to be with us all, and assured for ever!

2 Peter

W. Kelly.

(T. Weston, 1906.)

Preface.

It will be observed that this Exposition of Peter's Second Epistle, does not extend beyond the 7th verse of the concluding chapter, this being as far as was written by the Author when called away to his rest.

Whilst it would have been easy to have added some comments on the remaining verses of this Epistle from the Author's other writings, yet, as they would not be of the same detailed character as is here presented, it has been thought best to issue this little book as it now stands, with the earnest desire that the Lord may graciously bless it to the refreshing and edification of the reader, to whom its writer, though dead, yet speaks.

Introduction.

The authenticity and genuineness of the First Epistle needed not a word. It seems never to have been disputed from the first. Not so the Second. Eusebius P., who died about A.D). 340, tells us (H.E. iii. 25) that among those scriptures that were controverted, but recognised by most (the many), was this Epistle. Even he did not dare to class it (as the Epistles of James, Jude, and John's second and third, or the Revelation) with the spurious; but he does not count it like the other books of the N.T. accepted by all without question.

Yet on its face the writer declares himself with yet more carefulness than when he wrote before, not "Peter" only but "Symeon Peter," name and surname. So, at the Jerusalem conference on the Gentile question, James speaks of him (Acts 15: 14) as "Symeon" (the Aramaic form of "Simon"), though historically designated "Peter" just before (ver. 7). A forger would have strenuously avoided any such shade of difference, superficial though it be; as he never would have conceived still greater care to attest thus minutely the Peter who added this Second Epistle. For he now was led with all holy energy and apostolic authority to denounce the false teachers that were to corrupt more and more the Christian profession, and the scoffers walking after their own lusts, wilfully blind to the day of the Lord, through unbelief and materialism.

The late Bp. Christ. Wordsworth, though loyally defending the true inspiration of this Epistle, seeks to palliate the hesitation raised (at least in the third and fourth centuries). He pleads that, as "Writings were forged in early times by heretics in the names of Apostles, especially in the name of St. Peter," it was therefore incumbent on Christian churches to be on their guard, and not to receive any book as written by an apostle and as dictated by the Holy Spirit, before they were-convinced by irrefragable proofs that it was apostolic and inspired. "Little harm would arise from a temporary suspension of judgment. If the Epistle was what it professed to be, viz., a work of the Apostle St. Peter, then in due time it would not fail to be universally received as such. But if it was not what it claimed to be, then perhaps heresy might steal into the church under the venerable guise of an apostolic name, and the church might be convicted of reading a forgery as the word of God; and then the credibility and inspiration of those other books, viz., the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, which had already been received by the Church, would be impugned; they too might be exposed to suspicion; and thus the foundation of the faith would be in danger of being overthrown. It was therefore the duty of all churches to take time to consider, before they received any book as the writing of an Apostle. It was their duty to doubt."

The error here is serious enough; and Dr. W., a grave and sincere prelate (far above trickery), puts it in its naked deformity. "It was the duty of all churches" to doubt! How little did he mean to surrender the ground of faith! Ecclesiasticism led him thus astray. It is never a duty, even for the simplest Christian, to doubt Scripture, but only to believe; and if so, what about the duty for all churches, or even for any church, to doubt? Really it was suicidal, and an utter dishonour to God who inspired the Scriptures, and a shameless failure on the church's part. One of the haughtiest sins of Popery is to set up the claim of the church to decide what is scripture. Whether they vest this prerogative in the church, in the ecumenical council, or in the Pope, makes no radical difference. In every form the bringing in of any authority but God's is treason against His glory.

So far is man, whatever his position, privileges, powers or responsibilities, from having the duty of judging God's word, it is what judges man. For man to doubt God's word, or to sit in judgment to pronounce it His or not, is an overthrow of all righteousness and of all grace, one might add of all decency. It is at the peril of any soul, and peculiarly inconsistent with the Christian, or the church, to question what He has written. The Lord has decided for the intrinsic authority of His own words, to say nothing of His unvarying reverence for all scripture as the full and final sentence of God's mind. "He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my sayings hath him that judgeth him: the word which I spoke, that shall judge him in the last day. For I spoke not from myself, but the Father that sent me, himself hath given me commandment what I should say and what I should speak; and I know that his commandment is life eternal. What therefore I speak, as the Father hath said to me, so I speak" (John 12: 48-50).

The Holy Spirit is no less precise in affirming the same principle in Heb. 4: 12, 13. "For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature that is not manifest in his sight ; but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do." What words could more directly refuse the monstrous assumption of the church in pretending to accredit scripture, or the still more unseemly assertion of its duty to doubt?

There is no evidence that the question as to 2 Peter was raised in the first century. We hear of it much later in the fourth century when unbelief and unspirituality had long prevailed to the decay of faith and the prevalence of heterodoxy, to which the open and sanctioned worldliness that followed gave great impetus and wide currency. The death of Peter no more invalidated his Second Epistle, than Paul's death did his Second to Timothy. This is a mere imagination of circumstances to account for a much later and a wholly ungrounded hesitation about our Epistle. The supposition of delay at first, and the collection of evidence from various parts, before the Epistle was received on the church's verdict of its genuineness, are but an amiable dream.

The Second Epistle, like the First, eminently bears on daily life, but with less doctrine, as is natural, being avowedly written afterward to the same persons. Both are hortative; but the Second pronounces, as the First does not, a solemn warning on closing evils, with the severest denunciation of false teachers denying the Sovereign Master that bought them. These bring on themselves swift destruction, and mislead many into their dissolute doings, whereby the way of truth shall be blasphemed; as also by covetousness with feigned words they make merchandise of the saints. Hence prominence is given to these appalling enormities under the garb, not only of professing Christians, but of accepted teachers. This, at a later date at least, struck superficial observers so strangely as to raise a question of the authorship. But they ought to have recognised the selfsame spirit in the early episode of the apostle's dealing (Acts 8: 18-24) with Simon of Samaria, the sorcerer of old. The fervour of love which characterised his evangelising kindled into a flame against the profanity of the baptised man, who thought to obtain the gift of God with money. Peter therefore pointed him out for the warning of others, yea, of himself too, as in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. The advance and spread in corruption now descried by the Spirit called for still more energetic terms of abhorrence; as the last chapter exposes the latter day mockery of infidels in a philosophic form.

After the suited salutation in 2 Peter 1: 1, 2, the apostle presents grace's foundation of all things for life and godliness in what was already given, even to becoming partakers, not of human nature ameliorated, but of a divine nature through God's precious and exceeding great promises, having escaped he corruption that is in the world through lust. But for this very reason there is need of diligence to make our calling and election sure (3-11). This he shows them in view of his speedy departure, not by any hint of apostolic succession, but by leaving the truth with them, and recalling the wondrous sight vouchsafed to him and two other chosen witnesses of the power and coming of our Lord on the holy mount, even in the days of His flesh, and the Father's voice out of the excellent glory: the divine miniature of the kingdom, in confirmation of the prophetic word, with a hint of a blessedness and hope more surpassing still for their hearts (12-21). And he explains that no prophecy is of its own solution, but rather forms a whole by divine purpose and power converging on God's kingdom in Christ.

Then in 2 Peter 2 is the apostle's indignant prediction of the ungodly issue, the germ of which was already at work, and its judgment sure and unswerving from God. It is thus the complement of the First Epistle. As the latter was occupied with the suffering of the righteous from a hostile world turned to their good; so the former tells of the doom that must fall on the corrupting false teachers who hypocritically made truth and righteousness a mockery. The judgment on angels that sinned, on Noah's ungodly despisers, on godless and unclean Sodom and Gomorrah, are set out as fore-runners of the punishment that awaits the still more guilty that now follow Balaam in his unrighteousness. Whatever their high-flown words of vanity, they despised lordship, and were slaves of corruption.

2 Peter 3 follows up God's righteous government of the world to the uttermost, in dissolving the heaven and earth that are now, and so, purging the world of all associations with ungodliness, to bring in new heavens and a new earth wherein righteousness dwelleth. But the apostle is not content with withdrawing the veil from the destruction, not only of the corrupt, of the covetous and insubordinate, but of the sceptical who rest on the stability of things material, which also perish. The saints who believe in God's promise, and wait for these awe-inspiring displays of divine retribution to come, he would have to be found of Him in peace without spot and blameless.

Thus any unbiassed Christian apprehends clearly, even if he had not the inspired writer's word for it, that the two Epistles came in the power of the Holy Spirit from the same hand, mind, and heart: the one specially regarding God's present government of the righteous; the other as specially that of the unjust in the future. Only together do they complete the great theme, and this in the style of the great apostle of the circumcision, wholly different from that of James, or John, or Paul, while Jude has his own distinctive character, as can readily be proved in its season. "Ye therefore, beloved, as knowing [things] beforehand, take care lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness; but grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him the glory both now and to eternity's day! Amen." The close is as directly practical as the beginning; so in measure, rightly applied, is all scripture, and every scripture, as surely profitable for man, as it is inspired of God. But through Peter it is peculiarly evident, and in his Second Epistle no less than in the First. Yet all is based on Christ's accomplished redemption, the possession of a new and divine nature to preserve from corruption, and a living hope through His resurrection Who is gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him.

But the Catholic principle is false, that the church teaches; for it is taught by those given as teachers by the exalted Head. Nor is it the church that preaches, but evangelists equally given by Christ in glory. The Protestant is just as false, who asserts the right of every man to private judgment. This directly tends to rationalism, and deifies man, as the Catholic does the church. The truth is that God has the right and the authority to send His gospel to every man; and woe be to every man that despises it. So God addresses His word in general to the christian and the church; and woe be to such as do not bow and bless Him for it. Hence it is quite exceptional when those divine communications, however deep, are sent save to the faithful as a whole, either in this or that place, or quite unrestrictedly. There are three letters to two chief rulers, who had a special place as His servants in the word, and as apostolic envoys. Yet the richest unfoldings of grace and truth in the Epistles were not addressed to officials, but expressly to all the saints or to the church. Now is it not almost blasphemous to say that the saints or the church addressed had the duty of doubting? How a Christian could be beguiled so to think is the marvel. But human tradition and prevalent ecclesiastical habits account for many a mistake.

Take the N.T. facts. Did the church of the Thessalonians doubt the first of Paul's Epistles, unexampled as it was? Did they not accept without question his written testimony, as they had his oral a little before, not as men's word — but just as it truly is — God's word, which also works in the believer, certainly not in the doubter? It is the more pertinent, because the Second of these Epistles exposes the fraud of a letter pretending to have come from the apostle, which had imposed on some at least. Thenceforward his salutation with his own hand in every Epistle is the token to guard the saints; yet far from him, or even them, the pestilent and unbelieving thought that their church, or any other church, was temporarily to suspend judgment, — no, not even when they, or some of them, had just been drawn into error by a deceiver.

And if the sign-manual of Paul sufficed, surely also that of Peter, or Symeon Peter! The name might be a possible question; and this it was not difficult to ascertain. Silvanus a prophet (Acts 15: 22) was the bearer. But this settled, there was nothing, when the Second came, but to receive as from God what His inspired servant conveyed to the same saints who had his First Epistle. Examining its contents for the church to accept it would have been a snare of the enemy. The inspired word was to judge their conscience; not they to judge it, but to have their hearts invigorated and souls cheered by His grace and truth through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Again, not only did the inspired writer preface his name and apostolic title in fuller fashion than when he wrote before, but he refers to personal facts, one of the weightiest import, the other of the most exclusive nature, early in the Second Epistle. He pathetically tells them of his knowledge that he was speedily to put off his tabernacle, as his motive for sending them a permanent testimony of what they needed for their continued remembrance Then he introduces the most magnificent and unique scene ever vouchsafed on earth to saints, himself, and his two companions: the transfiguration of the Son of man, acknowledged by the Father as His beloved Son, far above Moses or Elijah, with whom the apostle then foolishly placed Him, as if they could be on common ground. "Hear Him;" and as the voice out of the cloud came, Jesus was found alone. Therefore this Epistle must be either a base imposture, or the last words of love from that apostle.

Nor is there a part of the N.T. more pregnant with wise and holy counsels, suited to the wants of the saints, or more characteristic of him that wrote it, following up his former letter. For as his First set forth God's righteous government of His children, founded on His grace which called unto His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, so his Second adds that righteous government about to fall on the corrupt false teachers, such as bring in by the bye heresies of perdition (2 Peter 2), as well as on the sceptics that rest on the world's stability to mock at the coming of the Lord (2 Peter 3). The Second accordingly is needed to complete the First; just as that to Colossian saints from the apostle Paul completes what he wrote to Ephesians (the fulness of the Head, and the body His fulness). It is to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The two Epistles of Peter dwell alike on the all-importance of the gospel, so blessed already, yet on the one hand surrounded by a world of persecutors as well as by immense dangers from evil men within and without. It is this development of evil which draws out the energetic sketch of the misleaders in all the second chapter, and of the sceptical enemies and their doom, down to the dissolution of all things, in 2 Peter 3. Both led speculative persons, like the untaught and ill-established of whom he himself speaks in 2 Peter 3: 16, to question that Peter wrote it. No doubt that solemn warning has a stamp of its own necessarily different, not only from the First Epistle, but from what precedes and follows it in the Second. But can any objection be shallower? Its nature demanded an unsparing denunciation entirely out of season elsewhere. But when he is occupied with the souls of the saints as in the First Epistle, his style in the Second is impressed and instinct with the same ardent, fervent, practical earnestness in love and godliness, peculiar in its manner to him beyond any other writer in the N.T. And how beautiful his allusion to "our beloved brother Paul also"! and how marked the contrast with well-known patristic impostures which set the one against the other!

The case of the Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates that of 2 Peter, though the circumstances differed widely. For there were reasons of gracious consideration why the former had no name prefixed, whilst it contain) marks at the end only appropriate to the sole apostle who could have written a letter so comprehensive, profound, and wise in a style that rises in grandeur to the height of his argument, as he employed when required to the Romans (Rom. 8), the Corinthians, and the Colossians. Here it is sustained from first to last; but he is teaching the latent value of the O.T. to saints familiar with its letter, rather than as an apostle and prophet communicating the mysteries of the N.T. of which he was the most honoured steward. Paul was here inspired outside his allotted province to write the final call to the believing Jews, that by it they might realize, as they had not hitherto, their proper Christian place of entering within the rent veil, and of going forth to the rejected Messiah without the camp, and bearing His reproach. The "new" covenant, the spirit of which is embodied in the gospel had made the first old; and what grows old and ages is near vanishing away. Now God claimed this after long patience before providential judgment fell on the city and its sanctuary. Nor should we fail to admire the divine care in sending God's last message to the converted Jews by Paul as He sent His first apostolic call to the Gentiles by Peter.

Yet leading men in the Roman church stood in doubt of Paul's writing to the Hebrews. So Eusebius P. tells us (H. E. iii. 3; vi. 14, 20) not only of Caius and Hippolytus (commonly called bishop of Portus R.), but of others till his own day. Baronius labours in vain to get rid of this shame: but Photion confirms it in his Bibl. μή. ρκα Ed. Hoesch 1653. So does Jerome, more than six times in his letters, expositions, etc., to the general effect that "the Latin custom did not receive it among the canonical Scriptures." Nevertheless the Roman church as such never went so far as to reject the Epistle; and from the middle of the fourth it was as fully owned there as elsewhere. The Novatian trouble had tended to its prejudice, because such passages as the early verses of Hebrews 6 had been abused to justify their extravagance as of others before that. Nor was one known in those days of faith to broach the idea that it was the church's duty to sit in judgment on an inspired communication. The danger lay rather in the second century, at any rate of publicly reading what was not inspired, as we know was done.

Had people but known the Scriptures in faith and power, no such question had ever risen about the Epistle to the Hebrews. God had taken care to cut off all excuse for unbelief by the unusual verification of 2 Peter 3: 15, 16. For as it is certain that Peter wrote his two Epistles to Christian Jews (1 Peter 1: 1, 2 Peter 3: 1), so is it that he declares Paul to have written to such also. What can this be other than that to the Hebrews? Therein are the same topics as spoken of here: the Lord's longsuffering and salvation, far more than in the letters to the Galatians, the Ephesians, or the Colossians; His coming for the blessed glory of His own, and the judgment of all that refuse His voice and are adversaries. Nor is it to be passed by, that, as Peter speaks of some things therein, as in all his Epistles, hard to be understood, which the untaught and ill-established wrest to their own destruction, so Paul in that Epistle (Heb. 5: 11-14) tells the Hebrews that he had much to say and hard to be interpreted, because of their dulness in hearing.

So in the next chapter (Heb. 6: 1) he exhorts them, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ (certainly not the principles of His doctrine, but what was known before redemption and the descent of the Holy Spirit), to go on to perfection i.e. full growth by the truth. Luther and Calvin were as unappreciative of this as Cajetan and Erasmus, and indulged in dreams from which some few have not recovered down to Dean Alford and others in our own day, putting forward Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Silas, Clemens Rom. and even Tertullian! With equal show they might have contended for sixty more, besides those six; for there is no sound reason for any one of them. What more frivolous than the pleas for attaching any one of these names to this noble Epistle? What can excuse the slight of the Holy Spirit's attributing it to Paul, as we have just seen?

It is interesting to note too that the letter from the Roman church, which passes under the name of Clemens R., refers repeatedly to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and proves that no doubt of its inspiration existed at that early date (probably before the first century had run out). Its chap. 36. not only makes much use of Heb. 1 but this under the solemn formula γέγραπται, It is written. The doubts of individuals were long after.

Calvin, whose repute as an expositor is high enough, passes this over, as indeed his comment is meagre and vague. Yet he did not doubt that Peter wrote the First to the converted Jews in Asia Minor, but (painful to say) he was guilty of the same hesitation as Origen and others as to the Second. He holds cheap the anonymous doubter of whom Eusebius speaks, but is influenced somewhat more by Jerome's mention of such as reasoned on the difference in style. "I confess however that there is the manifest distinctness that indicates (or, proves) different writers.". . . "At the same time by consent of all it has so far nothing unworthy of Peter as to express everywhere the force and grace of an apostolic spirit. But if it is received as canonical, Peter ought to be confessed its author, since not only has it his name inscribed, but he also attests that he had lived with Christ. Whereas to personate another would be a fiction unworthy of Christ. So then I determine that if the Epistle be counted worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of the disciples by his command composed the things which the necessity of the time required." Who can fail to see a vacillation unworthy of one who could be firm in matters of less moment than what touches the honour of the written word? (J. Calv. Opp. vii. Arg. in loco.) Real ground for a doubt among ancients or moderns there was none.

It is remarkable that the only other Epistle to the Hebrews once suffered without any just cause from a similar doubt of unbelief. There may be occasion to treat of this fully where it is more directly called for. Here a few words will suffice in confirmation of what has been said against any question of Peter's Second Epistle. And it is a pleasure to say that Dr. Wordsworth's prefatory defence of Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is as excellent, as any palliation of the hesitation as to Peter is deplorable.

The church in Rome, or some of its notable leaders, it was that indulged in this unwarrantable prejudice. So Jerome says in more than six places that "the Latin custom did not receive it among the canonical Scriptures." Baronius in his history combats the allegation of Eusebius and tries to excuse Jerome as misled by him. Yet the Novatian dispute, with its mistaken abuse of Heb. 6, did dispose those in Rome against the Epistle, till that bias gave way before the bright light of truth chased away all clouds and mists.

But the remarkable fact is that at the beginning no doubt was entertained. Nor can evidence be asked earlier or weightier than its frequent citation as the written word in the letter from the church in Rome, which goes under the name of Clemens R. to the Church in Corinth. So many are they that Moses Stuart, the American Prof., even divides these quotations into four classes. And Justin M., following not long after in the first half of the second century, makes clear references to it, both in his Apology, and in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. But we need not here say more on these external evidences. There is not a little to show that, notwithstanding its peculiarities, no doubt was expressed till long after it had been received as an undoubtedly inspired document. Peter himself affords a divinely given proof that Paul wrote to Hebrew saints, and that this is the blessed Epistle in question. That to the Christian should be the end of controversy. "But if any one is ignorant, let him be ignorant."

These two Epistles are eminently characteristic of the two apostles, whatever the peculiar features in each owing to the urgent need which called for them. Nor is there any real ground to infer that any one but Paul and Peter had to do with those peculiarities. Both display the unmistakable power of the Holy Spirit's inspiration. Both wrote with the moral power and doctrinal precision and divine majesty and love to the saints proper to the grace of God, with authority and not as the scribes.

2 Peter 1.

The first notable trait in this Epistle is that the writer not only repeats the new name Christ gave him (Matt. 16: 18) with his apostolic office, but adds his old one, object of divine mercy, with the confession of absolute subjection to his Master conveyed in "bondman." Paul loved so to call himself, and Jude, and John. The Lord Jesus had drawn it out of that shame and degradation which only it could have in the estimate of the first man, and had invested it in His own person, when the Word became flesh, with all that is right and lovely and devoted in the sight of God, and of all moment to the faith of those who have communion with Him.

For who such a bondman as He that, being originally in the form of God, counted it not an object for grasping to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, becoming in likeness of men; and losing found in figure as man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, yea death of the cross? Nor did it atop there; for He gave before His departure the beautiful pledge of carrying on in heaven the lowliest service of washing the feet of His own, as the Advocate with the Father. Nor did this satisfy His love; for He also intimated that, when those bondmen of His, whom at His coming He shall find watching with girded loins and burning lamps, are thenceforward blessed on high at His coming again, He will gird Himself, and make them recline at table and come forth and serve them. Nay, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to the God and Father, all things having been subjected to Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected to Him that subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all. As He will never cease to be man, He will abide throughout eternity bondman, without derogating from that deity which He ever shares as Son equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who alone gives us the full truth, and so of bondman as of all else. It is in an evil world, the place of active and suffering divine love which He loved so well that He will never give it up.

The same privilege and duty of love the Lord laid on His disciples, as we read repeatedly in all the Gospels, and in varying form. Let it suffice to quote what Luke (Luke 22) gives us at the last Supper; for he it is who brings together the deepest moral contrasts, if to man's shame, for the believer's profit, and above all to Christ's glory. "And they began to question together among themselves which of them it could be who was to do this [i.e., give Him up]. And there arose also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted to be greatest. And he said to them, The kings of the nations have rule over them, and those that exercise authority over them are called benefactors. Ye however [shall be] not thus; but let the greater among you be as the younger, and the leader as he that serveth. For which [is] greater, he that reclineth at table, or he that serveth? [Is] not he that reclineth? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth?"

The apostles by grace were enabled to make His bondman character their own. O what a contrast with His servants too soon, and ever since, especially with such as claimed to have the succession, though by no means confined to them! It is no doubt a hollow name of pride where taken up in word only; but what is comparable with it when in power? To be somebody is the desire of fallen man, the world's spirit; to give up all in love and obedience is Christ's, who alone really had all things. It is our pattern now. Greatness according to Him is to be a true servant; and to be chief is to be a slave, as He became, who not only served every need, but gave His life a ransom for many, His peculiar glory.

Peter therefore in his later Epistle, while he does not hide his Jewish name of nature with all its failure, puts forward before his apostolic title that lovely name of "bondman"; which more than ever shone in his eyes, so needful and good for the saints to ponder, delight in, and appropriate.

"Simon Peter, bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ to them that obtained like precious faith with us in virtue of [the] righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (ver. 1).

"Bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ," he writes to the same saints as before (2 Peter 3: 1). But the terms now employed strikingly differ, yet have they an equally appropriate application to those of the Jewish dispersion in Asia Minor, who believed in Christ. In his First Epistle he was careful to describe them as sojourners elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father by the Spirit's sanctification unto obedience and blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ. This was a pointed and elaborate contrast with their previous position as of a chosen nation to Jehovah, severed from others by the fleshly ordinance of circumcision, and held to obedience of the law under the penal sanction of the blood of victims (Ex. 24) which kept death before them if guilty of transgression. Here in the Second Epistle they are said to have obtained like precious faith with the apostle and his brethren and theirs, in virtue of their God and Saviour Jesus Christ's righteousness.

"Like precious faith" raises no question of measure of faith in those who believe, but asserts that what is believed is equally precious for the simplest Christian as for an apostle, in its source, agent, object, and result. It is that full revelation of God in Christ, and not merely from God as had been from the first.

There is however a remarkable expression that follows, differing wholly from "the righteousness of God" as used by our Lord in Matt. 5: 33, as this does from its use by the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere. Yet one is as true as the others, and all are in harmony as alike from God. It is therefore of interest and moment to distinguish them, whilst they all three agree in meaning God's moral consistency with Himself in varying aspects. In the First Gospel the disciple is enjoined to seek first, not the supply of our natural wants for which we may count on our Father's care, but "the kingdom of God and his righteousness." This was then revealed in Christ, God's power and authority supreme, and in all goodness but consistency with Himself. To this the new nature responds in subjection and love; and this the disciples were to seek first, assured that He would see to all their need. But there is not a word about redemption, or saving lost sinners, but saints answering to what the Christ brought out to faith in Himself and His teaching.

Again, in Rom. 1, 3, 8, 10: 4, we have the gospel of God based on the work of Christ, and sent out to all mankind on the very ground that they are lost. It is therefore a righteousness that justifies the sinner through the faith of Christ; God's righteousness, not man's, grounded on His redemption, so that He, believing His witness to Christ, is justified by Christ's death and resurrection. God can afford through the Saviour to bless him, whatever may have been his ungodliness, according to His cleansing blood and risen power.

But in our text it is not the believer obtaining God's righteousness through faith, but obtaining faith by the righteousness of their God and Saviour Jesus Christ*: a quite different truth, and peculiar to the remnant which God ever has in Israel. Branches may be and are broken off, but some, not all. There are ever the elect that obtain, while the rest are blinded; so it is at the present time, and so it was of old. They only of all men have this privilege, a remnant according to the election of grace. Of no other nation can it be predicated. As theirs were the fathers, so still better the promises. Accordingly the apostle here attributes their receiving like precious faith to the righteousness of Jehovah Messiah, Jesus their Saviour and God. He at least was faithful to the promise, and in virtue of it they were given to believe, no less than the apostle and the saints in Jerusalem. So Peter had preached on the day of Pentecost; "for to you is the promise and to your children, and to all afar off, as many as Jehovah our God may call." Them too He called, and they by grace believed; but it was in His righteousness — "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ's."

*It may interest the reader that the most learned and able theologian among the Congregationalist Puritans did not understand "the righteousness of God" here to refer to Christ's obedience of the law, as so many moderns have argued. Here are his words: — "In 2 Peter 1: 1, the saints are said to obtain 'precious faith, through the righteousness of God.' It is a righteous thing with God to give faith to them for whom Christ died because thereby they have a right unto it. Faith, being amongst the most precious fruits of the death of Christ, by virtue thereof becometh their due for whom he died" (Works of John. Owen, D.D. Goold's ed., X. 468). It is not that he understood its true bearing, but he was too intelligent and logical, not to say conscientious, to force the text as his followers and others commonly do. It did not occur to him to connect it with the believing remnant of the Jews and their peculiar hold on the promise; from which indeed his high Calvinism tended to preclude him.

"Grace to you and peace be multiplied in knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord" (ver. 2).

The text of the salutation in ver. 2 differs from that in the First Epistle only by the addition of the words, "in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord"; which reappear in its course substantially elsewhere. They are characteristic of the Second Epistle, and of great weight and worth where living faith accompanied that full knowledge.

Yet the solemn fact is shown in 2 Peter 2: 20-22 that such a full knowledge might be only in the flesh, and end in a last state worse than a first, or total ruin. So we read in Rom. 1: 18 of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness: very zealous for an orthodox creed, but quite unrenewed, and hence holding fast the truth with unrighteousness. The faith, Christianity, is so rich in knowledge of the utmost interest, that the natural mind, where the conscience is not before God, nor the soul purified by obedience of the truth, may deceive itself and readily acquire much, which only puffs up, instead of building up. It is never in this case receiving the love of the truth, that they may be saved; but their mastering the truth, as they would any department of art or science, rather -than being searched by truth, and subject to it, unto salvation. In a word there is no repentance Godward, but intellectualism. When Christ is the object and the life, the truth is known and loved, while it also frees from bondage of every sort to make one all the more bondman of Jesus. Thus it was that the apostle desired "grace and peace multiplied in full knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

It was of great moment for the Christian Jews to learn (and indeed it is imperfectly understood in Christendom) that, before our Lord came, the knowledge of God though true was vague, comparatively speaking. Yet all the O.T. saints looked away from themselves to Him in the sure hope of the woman's Seed to destroy the enemy. They knew Him as a faithful Creator and Preserver and Saviour, and by sacrifice too. His ways with Adam and Abel, with Enoch and Noah, gave ever-increasing light; though but partial, it was blessed. To Abraham more was vouchsafed, and the name of the Almighty, as a present help in the midst of the race ripening for judgment, was no small thing. Much more became known when through Moses He gave the name of Jehovah the Eternal, as the grand national watchword to Israel His people, the security of their final and everlasting blessing on earth under His government, whatever their changes meanwhile.

But the Lord Jesus has given us the knowledge of God His Father as He knew Him, generally in the days of His flesh, fully in His resurrection and ascension, that we might know Him as His Father and our Father, His God and our God, in the new creation consequent on His atoning death. What was all before in many modes and many measures, compared with this fulness? As the "beloved" disciple says in his First Epistle (1 John 5: 20), "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true; and we are in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Is anything so wonderful, gracious, and practical, as the truth now made fully known? It could not be till He came who knew it Himself perfectly, and died and rose and ascended that we might be brought, as far as is possible, into His relationships, and have the Holy Spirit given to know it this day (John 14: 20). Such is Christian knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As the Father is revealed, so the Son reveals, and this only in its living reality by the Holy Spirit. It is the full revelation of God, confessed in our baptism, and needed, as it ought to be enjoyed, every step of the way till our pilgrimage closes in His coming to take us on high that where He is, we also may be.

"As his divine power hath granted to us all things that [are] for life and godliness through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and excellence" (ver. 3).

Such is the apostle's testimony to the intervention of God's grace in salvation. Who knew better than the chief workman on the great Feast of Pentecost when three thousand souls were added in one day? Who could testify as he of the power of God that wrought outside to save multitudes, and against evil within judicially, and assuredly not less in the devotedness with one heart and soul to Christ in love, which rose above all selfishness? Who could speak more nearly of the miraculous energy vouchsafed in those early days when, notwithstanding the awe that reigned, the sick were even carried into the streets and laid on beds and pallets, that, as he passed by, at least his shadow might overshadow some one of them; and this not of Jerusalem alone, but from the cities round about, the sick and the possessed, who were heeled everyone?

Here however he speaks only of the divine power in its ordinary but supernatural operation. It is God's prerogative to quicken souls that were dead in their offences and sins; the Father in communion with the Son gives life. He calls out of darkness into His wonderful light — yes, makes us, once darkness, now light in the Lord; once tasteful and hating, to love because He first loved us. Think, too, of the relationships He confers on the Christians, His children and sons, also, as the First Epistle said, a holy priesthood, and a royal one. Others we might recount; for, being Christ's, all things are ours, with the Holy Spirit ever indwelling since we rested by faith on Christ's redemption, that there might be power as well as capacity. How truly His divine power hath granted all things that are for life and godliness!

Jews, we know, ask signs, Greeks seek wisdom. Never were such signs of power and of goodness as in Christ; yet the Jews rejected Him. Never was such wisdom of God as in Jesus; yet the Greeks, the world, disdained Him. Had the rulers of this world known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but none knew. They were blind in unbelief. And a new thing was brought in; not yet the expected kingdom restored to Israel in power and glory, but "some better thing "in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord," who is on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to Him. Hence, carrying out what was surprising even to the Twelve, His divine power has granted to us even now all the things that pertain unto life and godliness. For the Christian is called to the life of faith in all reverence and godly fear, as having nothing yet possessing all things, sharing now Christ's reproach, while looking at the things unseen and eternal.

Such is Christian faith, which the apostle set before these saints, once Jews, in his First Epistle; and confirms with point and solemnity in the Second against all corruption and scoffing. Therefore from the start he would establish their confidence in the provision of grace for all wants, weakness, and dangers. Even the Jews were counted Atheists, because they had no images. How much more open to the charge were Christians without visible temple, altar, or sacrifice! Yet they, and they alone, knew the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent. They alone had, now that Christ was on high, the other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father sent in the name of Jesus to be with them for ever, and to be in them, consequent on Christ's death and their acceptance thereby.

This was but part of the "all things" His divine power has given us for life and godliness. For we have now also an entirely new revelation, fully conforming to the O.T. which they had from of old, but conveying what was now suited to God, no longer hidden in the holiest whence His people were strictly debarred, but fully manifested in Jesus, His Son yet Man, perfect God and perfect man in one person. This involved a total change for all who now believe. We have redemption through His blood, and we await His coming for redemption of the body as well as of the inheritance. We are baptised in the power of the Spirit into one body whether Jews or Greeks, all fleshly distinctions therein gone which were strictly maintained in the O.T. We have a great High Priest gone through the heavens as He is, Jesus the Son of God, to sympathise and intercede; and if any one have sinned, we have with the Father Him as Advocate, the Righteous One that is the propitiation for our sins. And we have a hope no less precious and high, that He is coming for us, we know not how soon, to receive us to Himself for the Father's house, as well as to display us in the same glory with Himself before the world when we shall reign with Him. Hence we need, and we have, a new and special revelation in what is called the N.T., to guide us, not of the world as Christ is not, in His path till He comes. The Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation furnish this perfectly by the Spirit as our guide into all the truth.

We see how carefully the apostle guards the truth from mere speculation or sentiment. Knowledge that puffs up is as far as possible from his thought, save in these who had nothing else along with their dissolute or unrighteous ways. There may be a knowledge of God and of Jesus which never rises above the human mind, leads into no communion with God, has not even moral roots in the conscience and heart, and is ever liable to heterodoxy, because it is only natural. But the knowledge which he commends to the saints is what his fellow-apostle John treats as life eternal, and he himself as the means of life and godliness; for our apostle is ever intent on practical result. For this indeed divine power cannot but be needed, as the saints are here cheered by the assurance of it.

Its working is strikingly expressed, "through the knowledge of him that called us by his own* glory and excellence." Man is fallen, and thus is in a condition wholly different from his first estate Then his duty was to obey, in thanksgiving to God for all the goodness that surrounded him. But with his disobedience came ruin not only for himself but for the creation of which he was head. Departing from God, he was an exile from paradise, a sinful dying man; and so the race in and by him. All deliverance hung on Another, the woman's Seed, who crushed in heel should crush the serpent's head; a Man, but necessarily more than man thus to deliver by the utter defeat of Satan. From that day forward faith clung to the Coming One, later called Son of God, and Son of man, Messiah, in Psalms and Prophets. But only the N.T. brings out the truth with all simplicity, clearness, and depth; and not His personal glory alone, but His reconciling work shining out in divine light.

*The Vatican supports most copies in reading "through glory and excellence," as in the Text. Rec. But ACP and other good witnesses warrant what is here given, and followed by the better critics save Westcott and Hort. It is peculiar to our apostle to predicate ἀρετὴ of God, whether plural as in 1 Peter 2: 9, or singular as here in the Second Epistle. Virtue or moral courage suits the word, where man is meant. God's excellence works virtue in the saint.

This salvation is by God's call; and one quits self, man, the world, sins and all, for the object of faith He sets before us. Hence God calls us by His own glory and excellence. It is in Christ, but it is His own glory and excellence, not ours. Instead of staying where we are, which had been quite right if sin and ruin had not come in, we turn to One in heavenly glory who here suffered for our sins, that we should be not only forgiven but with Him there; and even here and now, while we are weak indeed, to enjoy that excellence which goes out of Him to preserve and guard us in the present scene of evil. We leave all by faith for Him. Our calling is the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. 3: 14); and there will the prize be. But there is He, dead and risen now; and to Him the sinner looks to be saved, for His is the power that keeps from the paths of the destroyer. He that rests where he is rests in self and sin, blinded by the enemy. The voice of Christ awakes him to his lost condition; and he, obeying the word, repenting toward God, and believing on the Lord Jesus, is called by God's own glory and excellence. The Saviour is there, and associates him who believes with Himself above in hope, thus separating him from the evil in him and around him.

It may help souls if we illustrate the same by the words of the apostle Paul in Rom. 3: 23; especially as their sound is as familiar as the sense is not. "For all sinned, and do come short of the glory of God." The first clause is plain; but what of the second? By sin man lost his place on earth as well as his life as it was. It became a question of meeting the glory of God, or of being cast into hell. And this is only met by the Saviour and His work on the cross to fit the sinner by faith in Him for heavenly glory Otherwise he is content with himself, neglects so great salvation, and refuses the Saviour who will judge him at the last day. He verily comes short of the glory of God; whereas the believer rejoices in hope of it. Without the blood of Jesus we could not stand by faith before the glory of God; but, knowing that His blood cleanses from all sin, we are entitled there to stand in spirit even now, and thus do not come short of it. We are called by His own glory and excellence.

Justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, we repent toward God, we judge ourselves, and (instead of resting here on ourselves) we go forward in faith to Him who is at God's right hand, thereby entitled to boast, no longer in self, or man, or the world, but in hope of the glory of God. Meanwhile we are guarded in (or, by) His power through faith for the salvation even of our bodies in that day. But it is by His own (not our) excellence and glory that He called us, instead of licence for ease, worldly honour, or natural enjoyment. Hence says the apostle Paul as the right experience of a Christian, "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them dung, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, that which is of the law, but that which is of God by faith," etc. "Not that I already attained, nor am already perfected, but I pursue, if also I may apprehend, seeing that also I was apprehended by Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 8-12). Instead of abiding as unfallen man ought in his first estate, there is but one thing, forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things before, to pursue toward the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The apostle proceeds to explain through what God has granted now, not the manifested kingdom of the Messiah (for this is postponed to the day of His appearing in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory), but the greatest promises, as he calls them and precious, whilst we await Him, walking by faith, and not by sight. For what are those of earthly glory and power for Israel on earth in comparison? Ours are association with Christ in heaven. In short another and higher order of blessing now goes on. It is what we call Christianity.

"Through which he hath granted to us the greatest and precious promises, that through these ye may become partakers of a divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world in (or, by) lust" (2 Peter 1: 4).

These words are the weighty expression of truth peculiarly appropriate to and needed by the persons addressed, but of permanent value for all saints since then to our day. "Which" refers to God's own glory and excellence, whereon we have dwelt the more because the force is quite lost in the common Greek text, and the current translation. No less a standard suited His call. He would have the called to estimate the total difference of that object which was familiar to them as Jews under law. To live long on the earth and be blessed in basket and store presented an incomparably lower prospect; and a hopeless ground, if one applied it spiritually to such sinful creatures as they were in God's sight, a ministry indeed of death and condemnation. The gospel proclaims grace reigning through righteousness unto life eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord; it is a ministry of the Spirit and of righteousness, even of God's righteousness which we become in Christ. Therefore are we always confident, even in view of death and the judgment-seat of Christ, because God holds us for the very triumph we know in Christ, and has also given us already the earnest of the Spirit till we too are glorified. Even the new covenant for Israel under the Messiah's reign falls quite short of our heavenly associations with Christ already.

Hence we can understand the bounteous provision of His word that we may enter intelligently into what He has communicated to us in the carrying out of His gracious purpose. Through His own glory and excellence He has granted us the greatest promises, far more elevated than any given to His earthly people Israel. Take as a little example what the apostle himself had said in the early verses of his First Epistle, and of its first chapter. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His much mercy, begot us again to a living hope through Jesus Christ's resurrection from among the dead, unto an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance, reserved in [the] heavens for you who are kept (or, guarded) in (or, by) God's power through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in [the] last time." He does not, in the verse we are considering, repeat what these precious promises are, now proposed to the precious faith of the Christian. But this one sample may suffice to show their general character, in contradistinction from the earthly hopes, which once sufficed to fill them with satisfaction and pride in the highest degree, and so greatly contributed to their unbelief in the Messiah.

The Christian promises do not at all lend themselves to human feeling or worldly ambition. We can easily understand how the Jew might carnally delight in looking on to the day when, as Isaiah predicted, kings shall be Zion's nursing-fathers and Gentile princesses her nursing-mothers. Then they shall bow down to her with the face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of her feet. Then the sons of the strangers shall build up her walls, and their kings serve Zion, and her gates remain open continually day and night, to bring in to her the wealth of the nations, and their kings in triumphal train. For the nation and the kingdom that will not serve Zion shall perish; and those nations shall certainly be laid waste. It would be easy to accumulate, as any Christian can verify from the prophets generally, no less glowing visions of earthly glory assured to converted and restored Israel, when the day of Jehovah dawns. But here too a single inspired voice is surely enough.

Flesh in its unbelief and vanity among professing Christians may abuse every word of God. But the exceeding great and precious promises held out to the Christian do not in themselves afford any real handle to carnality. They presume the Lord's coming, and our body of humiliation transformed in order to be conformed to the body of His glory. In that day assuredly there can be no perversion for the Christian in heaven, nor will there be for Israel on the earth, all righteous under Messiah and the new covenant. It is now, in an evil world ruled by Satan, and with flesh still in us, that we are ever exposed to danger. But those promises has God granted to us, says the apostle, "that we may become partakers of a divine nature." For it is in the exercise of His own will that the Father of lights begot us by the word of truth.

It was not a mere operation, however excellent and powerful, on the mind. This of course there was. Conscience was penetrated and overwhelmed with a just sense of our sins and evil state; the heart was exercised truly before God by His manifested love in Christ and His work. But besides, a new nature was imparted, and this no less than supernatural in character. We were born of God, not only sons by adoption, but given the title and reality of His children (John 1: 12, 13). Throughout the Fourth Gospel the divine design was to declare life eternal in the Son of God, to manifest its character in Himself and His ways and words, but also to announce that this life He gives, all the more distinctly because He was the rejected of the Jews and man — the world in short. From John 3 to 20 this is written with more than sunbeam brightness; and if now denied by those who once rejoiced in that light, it can only be through the darkening power of Satan.

O.T. saints had life in the Son; they were God's children: without it they never could have walked in faith and fidelity as they did, nor share in the resurrection at His coming, nor reign with Him. But it was only revealed as a known, conscious, and present reality in John's Gospel. Its future privilege for converted Israel and the Gentile sheep (Ps. 133: 3, Dan. 12: 2, Matt. 25: 46) is plain; but then, and even before, we shall have it, if deceased, in a resurrection for the body, as now we have it in our souls as a revealed and existing certainty. To doubt, darken, or deny this fundamental truth of Christianity is of the evil one; it is connected with false doctrine as to Christ's person, and more or less the loss of almost all the truth characteristic of the Christian and the church.

Nor does it depend only on the phrase life eternal, or on the Gospel and First Epistle of John — the revelation of that blessed phrase which some would pare down to extinction. The apostle Paul intimates the same gift of grace substantially in other forms of speech suited to the scope given for his teaching. Let us look at the Epistle to the Romans only, though others are just as plain and abundant He tells us of life in the future (Rom. 5: 17, 21), but of "newness of life" too in which we should walk now (Rom. 6: 4); he bids us reckon ourselves alive to God in Christ Jesus whilst here, and yield ourselves to God as alive from among the dead already (11, 13). In Rom. 7: 4 he says to those knowing the law that they were made dead to the law through the body of Christ to their being Another's that was raised from among the dead, in order that they might bear fruit to God — an impossibility without life in Christ, serving too in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter. It would be mere letter in the way of exposition to deny that such a life is eternal, though the term is not employed. Again in Rom. 8: 2, what else was life in Christ Jesus?

No doubt in Christendom, and in its most evangelical circles there is the utmost feebleness as to a real spiritual life communicated now to the believer. Hence there is a dangerous tendency either to the amelioration of the old man, or to a miserable blank, as if we had but the flesh, and the Spirit of God only to guide and reprove according to need. It is a sad loss to overlook Christ in us, Christ as truly the life of the saint as the fallen Adamic life is shared by the race.

This is, according to Peter's line of things, implied in "a divine nature" of which, he tells the saints, they had become partakers through the divine promises God had granted them, "having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust," the spring of the evil. He does not speak of life eternal as John was given to do, nor of death and resurrection with Christ as Paul; but he presents the moral result, inseparable from the truth as each of them put it, and as important for the believer to apprehend and enjoy. Therefore he speaks of the same substantial privilege as partakers, or possessors in common, of a divine nature, with the moral blessing annexed of "having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." The one description looked more at the divine character into which the believer entered to form his practice day by day; the other, the negative side of the evil and danger from which grace had given the saints escape through faith: both eminently falling within the range of the truth on which the apostle loved to dwell. Of its source in Christ the Mediator, John delighted to testify; as Paul, on the association with Him to which His work entitles the believer in deliverance not merely from sins but from sin, on the eternal counsels of God for heavenly glory with Christ, and on His present power by the Spirit that should work in the inner man above all that we ask or think.

We have seen how carefully from the first the apostle was led to point out the distinctive character of Christianity in dealing with souls. It was not now the law, as they had known, demanding consistency with obligations to the God of Israel from a people in the flesh already formed and owned, as well as directed by a divinely appointed priesthood to maintain them according to the legal covenant for the trial if thus they could stand in His sight. The result was not only idolatry but the rejection of their own Messiah, the Righteous One, and, as He told them, in the consummation of the age the reception of the antichrist (John 5: 43), the man of sin, and the destruction of that generation with him. The gospel is founded on the wholly different principle of sovereign grace; another character of things follows with results in manifest contrast. It addresses Jew and Gentile as alike guilty and lost. It calls them by faith in Christ to the God that reconciled us to Himself by the sinless One whom He made sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. Therefore is the ministry of reconciliation to win sinful souls through the saving grace of God; and the ministry of the church to nourish and guide the saints into and by all the truth, Christ being the great Priest, Advocate, and Head, etc., and the saved made kings and priests now in title and enjoyment, manifestly so in the day of glory.

Hence the stress here laid on their having received like precious faith (ver. 2), and (vers. 3, 4) on the same knowledge of Him that called by His own glory and excellence, through which He hath granted to us the greatest and precious promises, far beyond those to Israel, that through these they might become partakers of a divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world through lust. For Peter ever insists on plain moral realities. For these no ordinances or institutions avail. In Christianity there is and must be the direct communication of God's grace and truth in Christ to the soul, and the consequent knowledge of God, with approach to Him in the confidence of His love and of our own nearness to Him in known favour, all sins being forgiven. For it is indeed no energy or desert on our part, but His divine power that has granted us all the things that pertain to life and godliness. Faith is the appropriating means.

Yet is much more needed on our part, which the apostle proceeds to enforce. A divine nature requires all care and diligence that it may grow; and as its spring and fulness are in Christ, and it is communicated and revealed to us by the word through the Spirit's agency, so is it formed in all that is suited to it by its requisite food and exercise, alms, and objects.

"But for this very thing also, bringing in besides all diligence, in your faith supply virtue, and in virtue knowledge, and in knowledge temperance, and in temperance endurance, and in endurance godliness, and in godliness brotherly affection, and in brotherly affection love" (vers. 5-7).

It is evident that the apostle is here enforcing experimental reality in the saints. But the Auth. Version hardly gives the force adequately. It is not "And besides this," but an energetic call for what is due to the grace of God in communicating the signal blessing of being sharers in a divine nature through faith in His very great and precious promises. Even a fleshly mind might and does deduce from the power and certainty of divine grace that there is room for earnest and practical purpose of heart on the part of the believer. But scripture enlarges the argument, warns against sloth and easy-going, and summons to assiduous diligence on all sides. For this very reason also are they, along with what they had already, to apply diligence in every way.

Thus it may be seen that salvation, as Peter was given to view it, is not regarded (as in Eph. 2: 8, 2 Tim. 1: 9, and Titus 3: 5) as complete in Christ, but rather a process going on to the end of the journey through the desert (as also in the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Philippians, Hebrews, etc.). They are distinct aspects of the truth, and one as true though not so elevated as the other, but both highly important to hold fast and discriminate. For it is our privilege as full-grown, or in that sense "perfect," Christians to enjoy the unclouded certainty and comfort of a salvation so complete, that we are not only quickened together with Christ, but risen together, and seated down together in the heavenlies in Him. For this we must turn to the later Epistles of the apostle Paul. Yet none the less are we, as full grown also, to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God that works in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure, with the prize in view, and at the goal of His coming as Saviour to conform our body of humiliation unto His body of glory (Phil. 2, 3).

We are already by grace partakers of a divine nature; but we are still in a body not yet redeemed, and passing through a world of corruption through lust. And we that are in the tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not as once when in bondage, but because we are only freed in the spirit and have still to await sonship in full, the redemption of our body (2 Cor. 5, Rom. 8). Hence we need meanwhile to bring to bear all diligence in presence of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Nor is it only a question of our weakness and exposure, if unwatchful to prayer or in any measure heedless of the word; for we belong to the Father and the Son, and are bound to witness a good confession by the Holy Spirit in word and deed.

It is assumed that all those addressed have faith, and are therefore not told to furnish it. But that we might be formed spiritually, or grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as is said later, we are exhorted here, not exactly to "add to" our faith, but to "supply in it" virtue, or spiritual courage before a hostile world. Phil. 4: 8 has been cited vainly to oppose this: whether moral worth or spiritual vigour, it is just as clearly the sense there as here. A sense more vague would enfeeble both texts. It is the first out of seven requisites here laid down for practical need and power. The Christian has urgent occasion for them all, and it might be an any day and every day; so that we are not to conceive a progress from one to the other by successive stages, however wisely the order is here given by His power who inspired the writer. There is a perceptible rise in their character; but the principle of each and all more or less marks the believer from first to last, though here he is called very impressively to make them all practically his own.

Assuredly the youngest saint quickly finds the value of supplying in his faith virtue or moral power. This he needs to support faith, that he may not swerve from his new-born capacity of seeing things in God's light, instead of using the light of his own eyes or those of other men. As the Lord Himself, after He was divinely acknowledged the Son of God, was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, so it is with each son of God by faith in Christ Jesus. We too in our measure are put to the proof, and need courage to resist the adversary, stedfast in faith, and subject to scripture. The confession of faith makes one an immediate mark for Satan's attack. But we have to apply scripture in due season. It may be for the babe the guileless milk of the word; but this is just the food whereby he grows unto salvation. It may be rather the solid for those of full age. In any case it is not the mere bread of man's labour, but the revelation of God which is the means of growing up unto Christ in all things. "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." His word quickens. It reveals Christ the life-giver, and thus associates the quickened soul with God Himself immediately.

But clearly spiritual vigour is not all. Knowledge is necessary as well as courage. Scripture supplies it reliably, and in the N.T. both amply and with special precision to Christian privilege for direction and instruction. How beautiful the scene which Luke 2 presents of our blessed Lord, at twelve years of age, sitting in the midst of the Jewish teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions, when all that heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers! He was true man as well as God, advancing in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men. As partakers of a divine nature we have a new capacity from above; and yet more we received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is of God, that we might consciously know the things freely given us by God. There is thus the fullest provision made for these wants, and no excuse for a Christian's ignorance of divine things. The natural or soulish man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the spiritual discerns all things, and himself is discerned by no one. For which knew Jehovah's mind, who shall instruct Him? But we have Christ's mind. How wondrous yet true is this abiding privilege of the Christian!

Again, "in knowledge" supply "temperance" or self-control. Knowledge, however precious, has its danger of puffing up, and begetting contentions; and in itself it is a poor safeguard against lust, ill-feeling, or passion. There is therefore the utmost need of self-restraint. Against such a guard there is no law: rather is it a calm preservative against inflation, and so falling into the fault of the evil one, as well as reproach and his snare. At no time do we more need to watch than when our feelings are acutely wounded. For they only blind us to the character of any hasty impulse and hurry us to sacrifice every Christian consideration to self. But this we are bound to distrust. It wars exactly what in no case or degree wrought in Christ, who ever bowed to His Father in accepting from Him the utmost slight, dishonour, and contempt which came from those among whom He went about doing good, especially from God's people in their unbelief.

No doubt, there is the deeper pain if our trial come from His children, and the keener if from such as we specially trusted and valued. But the point for the soul, and above all for God, is not what this one has done or that said (lest it should rankle and inflame), but am I above it all by grace? am I self-restrained through (not self, but) Christ working in me? This enables one not to feed on what provokes, but to think on the things lovely, and of good report, which heat on our own account makes us forget. If others stumble, am I manifesting Christ?

But there is suffering for righteousness, if not for Christ's name, which is never far or long from a Christian's path; and thus he has need of self-control supplying "endurance." He is not to quail if called to suffer ever so wrongfully. How unworthy, natural as it is, to complain because of this! Would it be any satisfaction, or real alleviation, if one deserved it? "For it is better, if the will of God should will it, to suffer as well-doers than as evil-doers." "But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed but glorify God in this name." Yes, believers have need of endurance. Let us then, in "self-control" that puts a quiet but needed check on ourselves and on every device of self-will, supply "endurance" under any wrong inflicted by others. This is quite compatible with, not reserve, but plain rebuke of a saint who so errs.

Yet another want of at least equal or greater weight is next urged: "in endurance godliness" or piety. What more momentous for the soul than to preserve the links of reverence and affection, of dependence and obedience, in fresh and constant exercise with God and our Lord Jesus! Yet such is the pressure of work, to say nothing of the course of the age, the deceitfulness of riches, the disappointment at loss, or lusts of other things, that the peril from any earthly preoccupation is great. But here we are reminded to supply godliness in its constant place. To confide in Him, to bow implicitly to His will assured that it is the best, is all the more blessed in the pressure of the persecutions that try our endurance. For indeed He is good, and does good, overcame evil in our case with His good, and strengthens even us not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good. If we do not know what we should pray for as befitting, we do know that all things work together for good to those that love God. And surely this true piety feels. To the same end he bade them in his First Epistle (1 Peter 3: 14, 15) not to fear the world's fear, nor be troubled, "But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord," as He had Jehovah always before Him.

Then we are reminded that paying God His due takes nothing from "brotherly affection," but on the contrary both cherishes and controls it; for in godliness, which is fitting and necessary to be supreme, we are told to supply this exercise of grace. As the apostle Paul wrote concerning it to the young and dear Thessalonian converts, "Ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. For also this ye do toward all the brethren in the whole of Macedonia. But we exhort you, brethren, to abound yet more." Nevertheless brotherly affection has its limits because of its nature and its objects; for it is not God, and it may often let in what shuts Him out. Thus brethren too frequently slip into evil of one sort or another; and if brotherly affection be pressed (as commonly it is) as the acme of love, what mischief must arise for the saints! and what dishonour to the Lord and the truth!

Therefore mark the divine wisdom and the profit for us, in that the apostle here distinguishes, instead of confounding, "love"; for he closes with "in brotherly kindness love." Higher than this last he could not rise; for not only is love of God, but God is love. It is of all moment that in brotherly kindness we should supply that love which is of God, and which God is. Nothing here evinces the wretchedly fallen state of Christendom more than the chorus of commentators who think of nothing beyond brotherly kindness save love to all mankind, even enemies, overlooking the source and power of all good. So Alford and Wordsworth, Bloomfield, Webster and Wilkinson, etc., among moderns speak for most shades of modern theology; and the ancients as far as one knows are no better.

Even John Calvin's remarks, which were consulted after writing thus, are singularly meagre, passing by the beautiful circle of truth here given us. From virtue and knowledge he turns off with few words to brotherly affection, and has no more to say of love than "Charitas latius patet, quia totum humanum genus complectitur" ("Love extends more widely, because it embraces the whole human race"). This is enough to represent the mind of the Reformers, of whom Calvin was regarded as the chief expositor. It is wholly defective and erroneous; for such a view loses what one of them calls "the crown of Christian virtue." Surely it would be, not a meet climax, but a descent from the deep and faithful character of special affection toward the holy brotherhood to universal and benevolent love for men as such. He speaks like the author of Saturday Evening, chap 12, who was far too humanitarian.

On the contrary it is an immense and blessed elevation from that affection, high as it is, to "love" in its fullest nature. And so speaks the apostle Paul who communicated not a little to his brother apostle of the circumcision for both his Epistles, and wrote to the Galatian brethren, after pressing on them "bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, longsuffering," with a forbearing and forgiving spirit. "And over (or, to) all these, love which is the bond of perfectness" (Gal. 3: 12, 14), as he wrote to the Colossians at a later day. Nor need we quote the Epistles of John, rich as is their contribution of proof to the same effect. The reason too is quite plain. God's nature in its active energy of love is the complement of all, the standard withal that strengthens us against every evil. Love, as known in Him, of which Christ is the full expression, while the most expansive of affections as it is necessarily, maintains all His character intact, refuses any sacrifice of His rights to indulge or palliate a brother's fault or error, and rises to its full height in God.

Yet how deep and wondrous this is in the God who gave His beloved Only-begotten Son that we, lost and dead, might live through Him, who was sent into the world with life eternal in Himself for every one that believed! yea, to be the propitiation for our sins, that the evil in us, intolerable to Him and grief and abhorrence to us, might be blotted out for ever! Not that we then loved Him, but He us to the uttermost: wherefore we do love Him whose perfect love casts out fear. We love, because He first loved us. God is love; and he that abides in love abides in God, and God in Him. Thus love gives its best force but also its preservative guard to brotherly affection; whilst it has its own highest and deepest scope according to its divine spring, nature, and character. "Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another" (1 John 4: 11); but he never says that we "ought" to love God; for this we do, if indeed called according to purpose. It may be hard sometimes to love a brother when naughty: but we do love God always. What does it tell to leave this out?

It may be of interest for some to know that the too famous Bp. Warburton preached a sermon on these three verses, entitled, "The Edification of Gospel Righteousness" (Works, v. 123-143, 4to, 1788). But able as it is in his peculiar fashion, and not without his strong impression of its divine wisdom, it is vitiated by his ignorance of grace and truth, and so completely that he takes for granted (p. 127) that the N.T., here as elsewhere, refers us to what the Religion of Nature (!) taught concerning virtue for example.

The apostle enforces the importance of that diligence to which he had exhorted saints by a twofold consideration expressed in verses 8, 9. In the first of these he points out the blessing of being thoroughly furnished in our practical state for every good word and work; and in the second, the blighting effect of negligence as to our state.

"For these things being in you and abounding make [you] not idle nor unfruitful for the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ: for he with whom they are not present is blind, shortsighted, having forgotten* the cleansing of his old sins."

* λήθην λαβὼν here may be compared with 2 Tim. 1: 5 and the simpler cases of Heb 11: 29, 36. It occurs in both classical and Hellenistic Greek, as in Jos. Ant. ii. 9,1, is precisely the same phrase.

These varied qualities, set forth in a just order, were all of them requisite for the Christian character. The disciple is not above his teacher, nor the bondman above his lord. The Christian follows Christ and is His witness in the ways of every day. "Ye are our epistle," says Paul to the Corinthian saints when recalled to obedience, "written in our hearts, known and read of all men, being manifested that ye are Christ's epistle ministered by us, written not with ink but Spirit of a living God, not on stone tables but on the heart's fleshy tables." The new divine nature does not imitate outward points of moral propriety, but beholds Christ objectively, which with delight in His perfection works inwardly. Hence it participates in every thing that pleases God, and is particularly vigilant where an awakened conscience has felt and judged special failure. So we read here "These things being in you." Divine life works energetically in every right direction.

But the apostle was led to seek more. He urges that these things should "abound" also; and this they do where Christ dwells in the heart by faith. No doubt the words in Eph. 3: 17 go out immensely farther; but Christ is and must be the spring and strength of the heart for all that is acceptable to God. The exercise of the heart in the full confidence of Christ's love promotes growth in what is good. These things are therefore not only a real subsistence in the Christian, but also abound through dependence on His grace. Nor do troubles distract, if instead of intensely occupying ourselves with them, we are simple in casting the burden on Him, who cares for us, and delights in hearing the cry of faith's confidence in Him, and gives His own peace to guard our hearts and our thoughts by Christ Jesus. If we be ever so pained, the new nature, while in no way sparing self in ourselves or others, gives us to turn to its own congenial occupation with what is pure, true, noble, just, lovely and of good report, to think on these things, rather than to be occupied with evil, where it is not a positive duty.

What is the effect? They "make you not idle nor unfruitful for the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." It was a change for the worse when the A. V. for "idle" rendered the word "barren," and led so many readers and preachers to guess what the difference could be between "barren" and "unfruitful." But there is no room for doubt or difficulty. The first word is properly translated "idle" elsewhere in the A. V., as it should be here; and so Tyndale, Cranmer and the Geneva V. had given. Wycliffe and his follower, as well as the Rhemish, have "voide" or "vacant" (as the last), which can hardly be said to have any just sense.

If the practical characteristics of Christianity abound in the saints, they themselves would be neither idle nor unfruitful. How unworthy to be idle, not only as standing in so blessed a relationship and possessed by grace of a new nature so excellent and repellent of every evil thing! How unworthy to be fruitless, if branches in the True Vine, such as those whom the Father purges that they may bear more fruit (John 15: 2, 1 Peter 1: 17)! "Herein is my Father glorified that ye bear much fruit; and ye shall be my disciples" (John 15: 8). So the apostle Paul prays for the Philippian faithful that they might be pure and without stumbling for (or, against) Christ's day, "filled with the fruit of righteousness that is through Jesus Christ unto God's glory and praise" (Phil. 1: 11).

The holiness of the new nature makes all sin to be hateful in the believer's eyes. But as the flesh is still in us, and ready to work and manifest itself, there is the constant necessity of prayer and the word watchfully applied in self-judgment. The brotherhood too has unceasing claims that we should never wink at sin but abhor it both in brotherly affection and yet more strongly in that love which strengthens us in keeping His commandments and in rebuking a brother's disobedience and every iniquity. And if we cleave with purpose of heart to the Lord, can we be insensible to mankind around who remain, as once we were, unintelligent, disobedient, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another? If idle in confessing earnestly according to our measure the saving grace of God in the gospel, we cannot be but unfruitful "for the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." Where is our heart then for God and His Son, for saints or for sinners? For what are we, since our deliverance, left in such a world as this? Is it not that God in all things may be glorified, as far as His children are concerned, through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory and the might for the ages of ages, Amen?

But the other side is next noticed, and we do well to take heed. "For" (this is the true connective, not "but") "he with whom they are not present is blind." How sad that such a description should apply to one bearing the Lord's name! For had not Peter in his First Epistle set forth Christians as loving Him whom they had not seen, and not now looking on but believing, they exult with joy unspeakable and full of glory? Theirs was no mere natural but supernatural sight in God's wonderful light. What a fall from divine privilege to be "blind," or even short-sighted! It is the lack of spiritual perception by the neglect of communion with God, the result of habitual indifference and self-seeking, to the slight of Christ, and grief of the Spirit.

It is explained by the next word, "shortsighted": the things afar off, the heavenly, are no longer the objects before the eyes of the heart. Thus things that are near and before all mankind absorb the mind. It is a worldly spirit actively at work after the things of the world, and not those which the Father loves. Because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world, as the apostle John urges. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. The knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ is hindered and its separating power annulled, if we thus look, not at the unseen, but at the seen; for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.

Another immense loss too follows: "having forgotten the cleansing of his old sins." It is not that a soul may here deny the truth of the gospel, or oppose his justification by faith of Christ and His work. But enjoyment of peace with God is gone. For the Holy Spirit, instead of bearing present witness to his spirit that he is a child of God, testifies to his inconsistent and evil state. The doctrine, however certain and true, that the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins ceases to be his joy, and becomes forgotten. His conscience is not clear but troubled as to his condition, instead of being trustful and bold before God. Till he is thoroughly self-judged, he feels, when he reflects, that his own heart condemns him; and if so how much more must the God who is greater than our hearts, and knows all things!

Is it not in this duty and sense that he incurs forgetfulness of the cleansing of his old sins? It is not that he either gives up the truth or despairs as to himself; but there is no comfortable consciousness of that cleansing of our sins which the very gospel proclaims to every believer. How can it be otherwise in that government which God as Father keeps up with His children in our time of sojourn here? When the cleansing of one's old sins is truly remembered, it acts on the soul to cleave to Him who for us died and rose, and strengthens us to hate evil of every kind, especially in our own ways. To forget the profession of being purged from one's sins is to lose the power and duty of practical purity; and to be a Christian becomes but a name.

Here again in these concluding words of the introduction we may see the practical earnestness which eminently characterises our apostle. His aim is not dogmatic clearing up but spiritual power for every day.

"Wherefore the rather, brethren, use diligence to make your calling and election sure; for in doing these things ye shall never stumble. For thus shall be richly furnished to you the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour .Jesus Christ" (vers. 10, 11).

The true knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord is characteristic of Christianity, and rises far above what the law and the prophets conveyed, excellent as they were and are. But that knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the gospel communicates, is meant to make us, as partaking of a divine nature, neither idle nor unfruitful meanwhile. Flesh has to be judged, and the world held aloof by such as have escaped its corruption by lust. We need, as all life does, to grow by suited divine fare; and we are called to do God's will.

There are the due affections to cultivate around us and upward. The pointed warning was just given of what surely follows indifference to the moral side, the blindness that ensues, the shortsightedness as to God's own glory and excellence, Jesus crowned with honour and glory in all that becomes our relationship, and dangers here ever present. Otherwise one forgets the gracious and solemn remission of the gospel, and the meaning of baptism to Christ's death at the start of the Christian profession.

Thus the diligence called for in vers. 5-7 is impressed in another way in vers. 10, 11. There it was in faith as the starting-point to furnish the necessary and blessed elements that form Christian character, from moral courage to divine love reproduced in the heart and ways, with the happy result where they exist and abound, with the saddest effect where they are lacking. Here looking at both sides the apostle exhorts his "brethren" all the more to give diligence, not merely to bear in lively recollection, in thankfulness, and exercised conscience, their first confession of divine grace to them as guilty sinners, but "to make their calling and election sure." In our fallen state, as in the world, there is nothing at all to help for life and godliness. The fairest show in flesh is the most deceptive and dangerous; and if Gentiles, like the Galatian and the Colossian brethren, were so prone to this snare, how much more were those who had been Jews, both to slip back from grace, and to make it a creed to own, instead of the spring and proof and joy of faith?

It is plain that the fresh appeal is to our state and consequent course and character of walk. The very order of the terms indicates this; for on the side of divine grace election according to scripture necessarily precedes calling. God's choice of the Christian is in eternity; as His calling of us is in time out of darkness into His wonderful light (1 Peter 2: 9). So in the opening of the First Epistle the saints were said to be elect according to God the Father's foreknowledge; but it was in virtue of the Spirit's sanctification that they were separated unto the obedience and blood-sprinkling of the Lord Jesus Christ. The well-known summary in Rom. 8: 28-30 is still more precise and full. "And we know that all things work together for good to those that love God, to those that are called according to purpose. Because whom he fore-knew he also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he should be firstborn among many brethren. And whom he predestinated, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified." Thus the chain of blessing is completed when the many brethren are brought even as concerns the body into conformity with their glorified Lord. The order is as clearly of God's grace; as that in our text, where calling comes before election, is of its actual application to man. And this is in keeping with the context which deals with the present moral government of souls.

The passage answers in its place to what we have in 1 Peter 1: 17, 18: "And if ye call on him as Father that without respect of persons judgeth according to the work of each, pass the time of your sojourn in fear, knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptibles, silver or gold, from your vain manner of walk handed down from fathers, but with precious blood of Christ as of a lamb unblemished and spotless," etc. The fear enjoined is not from lack of certainty in our redemption, which on the contrary is enforced with all power and clearness. It is filial fear strengthened by the only efficacious sacrifice, but tempered because a Father holy and impartial watches over every step of our pilgrimage; and as He will not condemn us with the world, He chastens because He loves us too well to gloss over our failures. Here Christian responsibility is pressed, that there should not be inconsistency in our ways. His calling like His election is a matter of sovereign grace, and admits no question. But the case is different when we hear of our calling and election. Here negligence disorders the walk, and compromises our profession of His name, takes away our joy and enfeebles or hinders our testimony, and all the more if our conscience be tender. The heart condemns us, as is said in 1 John 3: 20; and how much more does God, who greater than our heart knows all things, and draws us into self-judgment, so that it should not condemn us!

Practical fidelity, then, is urged the more with diligence to make our calling and election sure; "for doing these things" which please God, and are His will concerning us, they are made firm to our enjoyment, instead of being loose and unstable by a careless state; and so one may add, they are to others who look for our ways agreeing with our words. Walking in dependence and obedience we shall never stumble. It is therefore a most humbling thing when one thus trips by the way, and mistakes his own will or the enemy's suggestion for the Lord's guidance. How painfully it is learnt that all knowledge here fails; and that we must be brought to deep self-judgment, and vigilance in looking to and leaning on the Lord that we may follow Him closely. For any one can see a failure, and flesh can censure without measure or heart. Grace alone can purify according to the standard of the sanctuary; but this may be retarded by failure in penetrating to the roots of what misled. And here it is ourselves who are to blame; for there is in Christ and the word all resource to meet the need, yea, so as to strengthen one's brethren also, as Peter himself had to learn, and learnt so well.

But more encouragement follows here. "For thus shall be richly furnished to you the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Here again it is not a predicted fact that is prominent, but the full realization even now by the soul that walks blamelessly before God. Thus it is that the entrance into the kingdom should be furnished. One is thus enabled to anticipate in rich measure the everlasting kingdom. So the Spirit was pleased to describe it. At any rate it is not put as a mediatorial display of glory in reigning over the earth for a thousand years, blessed as this will be; but rather what is unchanging. For there is also revealed that His servants shall serve Him and see His face, and reign for ever and ever.

Here then to those walking by grace faithfully "shall be richly furnished the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Not only is evil avoided, but there is nothing to dim the eyes or burden the heart. And the future glory is made richly to fill the soul as that which, as it belongs to Him, is shared with us, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. We are thus led into it for heart enjoyment; for the Spirit, being ungrieved, is not stopped by our errors and wrong-doing to humble us, but can show us things to come. "He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine and shall declare [it] to you." The entrance into it shall be richly furnished in the case described for practical joy and power over all that is present, whereby Satan seeks to dazzle and occupy the unwary.

A great principle of God appears in the words that follow, to which we do well to take heed. For the proof is abundant and plain, and a serious warning at this very time, and at all times, of the peril to God's glory, so far as His saints are concerned, from neglecting it.

"Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in mind of those things, though knowing [these] and established in the present truth" (ver. 12).

Can any thing give clearer evidence of the all importance of the written word, not only to communicate the truth on divine authority, but to keep it intact in the living remembrance of the saints, than the earnestness with which this inspired bondman and apostle of our Lord impresses its need in his last message?

We learn, from Gal. 1: 6-10, how prone those mercurial Gentile brethren were, under evil influence, to forget even the fundamental principle of the gospel they had heard from the greatest preacher that ever lived. "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, which is not another [one]; only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But if even we, or an angel from heaven, proclaim a gospel to you besides [or, other than] that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, now also I say again, If anyone preach a gospel besides that which ye received, let him be accursed. For am I now persuading men or God? or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be Christ's bondman."

We learn also from 1 Corinthians, that the vain Greek mind in the capital of Achaia, where the same apostle had preached and won much people to the Lord, was soon slipping away, when his back was turned, from the ways and will of God, even to the compromise of the resurrection, though not of the immortality of the soul, which philosophy favoured and the first man might and did misuse to exalt himself. Hence that first Epistle, early as the date was, reproved their carnal schools with leaders, their low moral sense, their worldliness in going to law, their tampering with idol feasts as if nothing, and the laxity as to natural relationships. Even the gospel demanded re-statement in 1 Cor. 15, as their disorders at the Lord's supper, and in the assembly, called for rebuke and rectification in 1 Cor. 11, 12 and 14.

Nor need there be more than a reference to the "doubtful disputations" which endangered the peace of the saints in Rome; nor to the preaching for envy and strife of some at Philippi, nor to others who caused weeping to the apostle while he named it, enemies as they were of the cross of Christ, whose end was destruction, whose God was their belly, and their glory was their shame, who minded earthly things. Nor does the Epistle to the Colossians here call for notice, though it might well be a lengthened and appropriate one in view of the havoc which threatened those saints from the inroads of Gentile philosophy and of Jewish elements on the glory of the Head and the unity of the body with Him. We know too that the Epistles to the Thessalonians were written among other things especially to disabuse those young Christians of error: the First, as to the departed saints at Christ's coming, the Second, as to His day for the living saints. Then the letters to the trusty fellow-labourers, Timothy and Titus, explicitly deal with falling away from the faith, profane babblings, with vain talkers and deceivers, specially those of circumcision; and in every case supplying the adequate remedy in God's grace and truth, as we ought to learn.

Eminently instructive is the opposite snare exposed in the grand Epistle to the Hebrews. Therein the apostle sets out the glory of Christ in person, office, and work, to deliver the circumcised believers from their traditional attachment to Judaism with its priesthood, ordinances, and sanctuary, from which they had not got clear after so many years of knowing Christ. But the Spirit of God would no longer tolerate this dulness, natural to babes, but inconsistent with the solid food of full-grown men, who have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil. There is therefore exhortation from God to take their true Christian place of entering with boldness into the holies by the blood of Jesus, and of going forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. This was expressly before the destruction of the city and the temple; that the saints might shake off their old swaddling clothes, to be thoroughly and only Christ's by faith, before the coming acts of God's providence.

The later Epistles are just the fullest on the impending ruin of the professing church, the latest of all (Jude's and John's) pointing out apostasy at the end with the Lord's unsparing judgment. For "the last hour," however it might be prolonged in divine patience, was characterised even then by "many antichrists," the sure token of "the Antichrist" to be destroyed in the day of the Lord.

Even this short survey of inspired correction is the most convincing proof how dependent the Christian saints were on fresh scripture to guard our souls from forgetfulness of the truth and the aberrations from all round its circle provoked and promoted by the spirit of falsehood. But, besides this, food was provided in due season. To the Roman saints the apostle only refers to revelation of a mystery or secret as to which silence had been kept in everlasting times, but now manifested, and by prophetic scriptures according to the eternal God's command made known for obedience of faith unto all the nations. But it was not here revealed. Nor was it to the Corinthians in its heavenly side but only in its earthly working; still less to the Galatians or the Thessalonians. Not till he was a prisoner in Rome did he unfold it fully to the Ephesians and the Colossian saints, and thence to the church gradually far and wide. The word is the truth, and its written form under the inspiring power of God adds to it His abiding permanence as alike the supply and the standard for His children.

Nor can it be doubted that today beholds the most fearful and widespread and deadly onslaught on scripture ever since the apostles departed. At all times bad men had yielded; and with more or less daring circulated their doubts and disbelief. But now so shameless is unbelief that the seats of human learning are its citadels; and theologians vie with scientists and literary men in thinly if at all disguised denial of God's word from Genesis to the Apocalypse. Divine revelation is therefore a burning question today; and the more because it taints largely and deeply every sect in Christendom.

And how fares it with such as abjure a sectarian place? Has it not been affirmed among such, orally and in print, that the church needed not scripture, at least if walking decently and in order? Again, "it is no good sending out Bibles if there are not preachers"? Again, "the word of God is in the scriptures"? Not that scripture is the written word but Christ is the word of God? That "the scriptures are more the record of it, than the thing itself"? We are all familiar with such language among adversaries of the truth; but how solemn that such praise of incredulity should pass as from God's Spirit among the more ignorant of those once most staunch for the Bible! And how still more solemn that such impiety has not been judged on the guilty, and repudiated with horror and humiliation by the more intelligent! Are there not some true-hearted enough for God and His word to be above the dread of consequences?

There is another phase of unbelief which prevails among such brethren as claim to be the faithful in disowning and separating from that depraved confraternity. Their danger made itself manifest from the time when both these parties, now opposed, staked all on what they called assembly-judgments. It was a phrase unknown in days when faith and patience reigned, and scripture was demanded and given for every legitimate judgment. No right-minded saint conceived of a godly action save in obedience of the word. What honour the Lord habitually put upon it! But just when party-spirit was beginning to blow up ecclesiastical fire to a white heat, and scripture was found unavailable to justify an extreme and revolutionary action desired, the strange proceedings brought in strange phrases.

Scripture was denied to be necessary, when it could not be produced. Very distressing became the course of these brethren who claimed all the faithful qualities and denied them to those who blamed their doings as without and beyond scripture. It was laid down that all were bound by an assembly-judgment, however partial or hasty, nay, even if known to be wrong! And this, not only prima facie but excluding in future any revisal, when it was distinctly urged that the right should alone be done by such as were assured of error.

No, there could be, there ought to be, no rectification, no owning of a wrong! An assembly-judgment, once made, must be accepted as irrevocable, even if known afterwards and certainly to be unrighteous and erroneous! This did not matter; it was bound on earth and in heaven! Therefore the prime duty henceforth of the intelligent saint was to accept this as due to the Lord's word and name! The natural home for such fanaticism seems to be Babylon.

No doubt in regular cases of discipline, conducted according to scripture, the assembly is entitled to pronounce in the Lord's name, and individuals are bound to hear. Even then elder men acquainted with facts well knew that, in ordinary times, errors if unredressed might be fatal, and that unsound decisions were abandoned to the Lord's honour and the assembly's shame, yet so done heartily for His name's sake. How much more was it called for, when souls were perplexed, agitated, and prejudiced on all sides; when the unprecedented step was taken, as in the world's way to change the venue, and this not as even there to secure impartiality, but to judge a question where strong bias for and against was known to exist! Hence some were satisfied that there was no scriptural authority for such a case, declined even going to hear, and only staid in fellowship till there was no remedy, and a case occurred which compelled them to act according to conscience guided by the word.

These samples of the need, not exemplified among the distant denominations, but among saints who were once simple, gracious, and faithful, may help, as really existing facts, to show how invaluable was the help of which our apostle here speaks to the saints. He should be ready always to put them in remembrance of these things, just before urgently pressed on their heed, though they knew them, and were established in the truth present with them. How considerately he appeals, and gives them credit for the utmost possible! He was truly a bondman as well as apostle of Jesus Christ, and ruled not over their faith, but as with Paul a fellow-worker, not only of their joy, but of their stability and safety.

It was not enough then that the saints should know the things which the gospel communicates to them, nor even that they should be established in them. Those grand facts of divine grace with the moral responsibility they involve are "the present truth": Jesus the Messiah actually come, rejected by the chosen nation, as the prophets did not omit to announce and the basis of all, yet easily let slip, because of the glowing visions of His kingdom not yet accomplished but apt to eclipse what was deepest and essential. Hence the earnestness of the apostle to impress on his brethren the truth which was then before them, so distinct from the past and from the age to come.

It is, as he had said, the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord (ver. 2); the knowledge in particular of our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 8), without which none can know God as He now needs to be known. In vain people cried up that which was so precious in foregoing time. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and none greater than John the Baptist had arisen among those born of women. But from his days the kingdom of the heavens suffered violence, and men of violence seize on it. It is now a question of faith breaking through every difficulty and obstacle in the power of the Spirit to receive the Son of God come, which necessarily tests every soul of man. For this is life eternal, that they should know the Father revealed by the Son whom He had sent to this end. What was any knowledge compared with that? In vain they talked of "father Jacob," or of all the fathers from Abraham, who exulted that he should see Christ's day, as he by faith saw and rejoiced. For One was come, who, though man also, could say, Before Abraham was, I AM. This changed all for faith, and made inexcusable the unbelief that only stuck to the past.

To slight "the present truth" was to lose God and His Son. For it alone puts the believer into living relationship with God, and makes available His divine power which has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness; for this is inseparable from the knowledge of Him that called us by His own glory and excellence. It is in fact what we mean by Christianity, as the life no less than the faith we confess; and therefore it involves growth practically as we have seen in all that becomes the Christian, of which God is the judge, who deigns to instruct us with all precision, as having become partakers of a divine nature, and thus escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh! God, sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous import (or, requirement) of the law might be fulfilled in us that walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit. For He slights mere forms now and will have reality in those that are His. The greater the present privileges; the more are saints to be diligent to make their calling and election sure, avoid stumbling, and have richly furnished to them the entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For as another apostle dear to Peter says, "he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."

But practically believers are exposed to such injurious influences, distractive of spirit and attractive to flesh, that they are like watches in need of habitual winding up. It is not enough to know and to be established in the present truth. Therefore the readiness of the apostle always to put them in mind of these things (ver. 12). Here again he reiterates it as their urgent need while he lived, and in view of his speedy departure.

"And I deem [it] right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting [you] in minds knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle is speedy, according as our Lord Jesus Christ manifested to me" (vers. 13, 14).

Whoever believes, as every Christian is bound to believe, that the great enemy sets himself most against all that God has actually in hand, can readily understand the importance of this care for the saints. It was always so. Cain and Abel were severally put to the proof by the then urgent truth of sacrifice, which faith prized and unbelief disdained. Enoch and Noah both recognised the old truth, but were tested by, and faithful to, what God revealed to each in their day. Abraham held all that went before, but believed in the promises and confided in the divine revelation of "God Almighty" to himself, a pilgrim among races to be destroyed for their iniquity. Israel again had God bringing them out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and into the land of Canaan, under condition of the law which they undertook to obey in their self-confidence. The Christian begins with redemption by His blood who gives us life eternal, walking in the light of the true God revealed in love and calling us to His eternal glory. In every case power of faith shows itself in specially appropriating "the present truth," whilst valuing all that had been made known previously, because it was all God's doing and communicating.

But, if this be true as a principle, the infinite nature of God's revelation of Himself in Christ makes the actual deposit of faith precious and momentous beyond all comparison. It is not merely revelation from God but of God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are now made known through our Lord a man, and in His work of redemption who is now consequently in heavenly glory, and, by the Spirit sent forth from heaven, the Spirit of God and of glory rests on the Christian. Not that our apostle makes known all these wondrous privileges, individual or of the church, Christ's body; but he does insist on the all-importance of the knowledge of God, which is now the portion of faith, beyond what could be before Christ came, or what is to be displayed in the kingdom to the world by-and-by.

It was the inspiring Spirit who laid this duty on the apostle, knowing that his time was short, and the putting off of the earthly tabernacle at hand. Of tradition, in the sense of handing down man's oral addition, he never thought. What had this done for men before the deluge or after it? What was the issue of pretending to it in Israel or in Christendom? The prophet spoke out on the worthlessness of the fear of Jehovah taught by a commandment of men; the Lord still more decidedly, as transgressing the commandment and making void the word of God on account of their tradition. Inspiration makes it not a word of men, but as it is truly, God's word, which also works in those who believe, and clothes it with divine permanence as being written in the Spirit.

So the apostle Paul bade Timothy abide in the things which he had learnt and was assured of, knowing of whom he learnt, and that from a child he had known the sacred letters that are able to make wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. This of course refers to the O.T. But he adds more: "Every scripture [is] God-breathed (or, inspired), and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly fitted for every good work." It is a sentence framed expressly to embrace not only whatever of the N.T. had already appeared, but every part of it that remained to be written. Terms could not be devised more simply or absolutely predicating God's authority of every part of the written word. To call it genuine or authentic was wholly short of what is conveyed. It was inspired or God-breathed, that we might know the things freely given to us by God; and this spoken in words, not taught by human wisdom, weakness, defect of any kind, but taught by the Spirit. Thoughts and words were alike spiritual, that the result might be God's word certain and complete.

Our apostle, like Paul, had his dissolution before his eyes as well as the increasing evil through false teachers in depravity, and scepticism. Both are distinct in pointing to scripture as the great safeguard. As they alike set aside tradition, so they exclude any thought of apostolic succession. Grace might raise up faithful men to teach the truth they had learnt, or even to instruct others competent to communicate it. But scripture alone is the rule of faith, the sole unerring standard given of God to all His children whereby to test what they hear; and it is all the more blessed and necessary, as wicked men and impostors advance for the worse, leading and led astray. Scripture alone has divine authority. Therein God speaks directly to every soul; as indeed the apostle John also expresses it in his First Epistle, We [the inspired, apostles and prophets] are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (1 John 4: 6). No one honoured scripture as Christ did from first to last, on the cross, and when risen from the dead. He even set the written word as a definitive witness beyond His own spoken words (John 5: 47).

These are but a portion of what might be cited to explain what the apostle here felt as guided of God to write these last words of his. Tradition must be a foundation of sand; and the foundation of the apostles and prophets is too well laid by divine grace to admit of a supplement, either of a vague and imaginary apostolic succession, or of a rival twelve set up by modern (?) prophets. Scripture must be itself complete to make the man of God complete and fully equipped for every good work But divine power is needed to receive, enjoy, and carry out the written word; and this is imparted to every Christian in the gift of the Holy Spirit abiding in and with us for ever. Yet that word is the only standard. With his departure in near view the apostle would write his last inspired words to stir up the saints by recalling what is easily forgotten, but by his speedy departure made the more urgent, "according as our Lord Jesus Christ manifested to me."

Peter remembered the grave lesson he had learnt through Paul at Antioch, when he himself failed to keep in mind the truth conveyed so vividly by the vision at Joppa and its fulfilment in Caesarea, the grace of God to Gentile now as to Jew. The pillar of the circumcision stood condemned, and he who was entrusted with the apostolate of the uncircumcision resisted him before all, and for the truth's sake recorded so great a failure in scripture. For little as it might seem to carnal eyes, it was dissimulation to please certain that came from James, compromised Gentile liberty, and surrendered the truth of the gospel. God thus took care to register it as such, the overwhelming disproof of an infallible Roman see, even if there had been evidence, which there is not, that Peter was the founder of the church there, or its first bishop. So tradition says, and the credulous believe, not only without but contrary to the clear testimony of the written word. Nor did Paul found it, but wrote his Epistle to the Roman saints before he was carried there a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles, as at length also His martyr there.

Yet Irenaeus, who stands above all the fathers in the second century as Clemens of Rome above those in the first, tells us, in his book III. against Heresies, that Matthew brought out his Gospel in Hebrew, "when Peter and Paul were evangelising in Rome and founding the church." This the famous and we may say first ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, adopts (H.E. v. 28), though an error irreconcilable with scripture; as he had before (2: 25) from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, that Peter and Paul had founded the church in Corinth before going on to Rome for a similar work. Paul we know to have been its planter, not Peter. Can any thing more plainly indicate the absurdity of trusting tradition even of early days, in presence of the sure light of God's word? Yet all goes to justify our apostle in his zeal to leave nothing for edification to such a haphazard channel, but to write all needed to help, guard, and stimulate the saints in words taught by the Spirit, that they might thereby be brought face to face with Him who inspired these exhortations. Thus only can we know and have communion with God.

In a third form the apostle presents the urgent importance which he felt in the Spirit for the written word; here expressly that "after his departure" they should be enabled also at any time "to call to mind these things."

"And I will be diligent also that at every time ye may have [it, or the power] after my departure to call to mind these things" (ver. 15).

This is one of the many and immense advantages of scripture above the oral word, no matter how distinctly this might be given by the highest authority. No one lays it down more clearly than our blessed Lord in John 5, where to the reluctant Jews He recounts the varied testimonies to Himself as grounds of faith. (1) "Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness to the truth." (2) "But the witness I have is greater than John's; for the works which the Father gave me to complete, the very works which I do bear witness concerning me that the Father hath sent me." (3) "And the Father that sent me hath himself borne witness concerning me." (4) "Ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have life eternal, and those are they that bear witness concerning me.... For if ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote concerning me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

Never spoke man as this Man, His enemies themselves being judges; yet in His great climax of witnesses the Lord does not hesitate from that point of view to set the written word in the superior place of authority with a permanence peculiar to itself, so that the reader or hearer can weigh it again and again with prayer. Those who slight scripture to the exaggeration of ministry ought to consider His decision. And how remarkable that the Lord should thus speak of the books of Moses, which beyond fair question were then what they are now as many citations show, and not least His own! Yet modern audacity has lifted up its heel against those books quite as much as against Isaiah's or Daniel's. But He who knew what is in God no less than what was in man anticipated and pronounced against all this self-vaunting criticism of unbelief.

It is equally plain that the apostle followed His Master in abhorrence of tradition. Never was it trustworthy since God saw fit to convey His mind in holy writ; least of all then, when a fresh body of truth was being revealed for the enlargement, instruction, exercise and comfort of faith in what we call the N.T. The higher the truth, as is necessarily due to the person, work, and offices of Christ, opening out to an unlimited sphere, even of heavenly things morally, as well as of things to come, the more was new scripture needed imperatively and supplied bountifully, with the same Spirit personally given to help the believers as had inspired the chosen instruments for its perfect communication.

One of the greatest perils which the apostles foresaw on their own departure is the rise and increase of impostors, corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. These men withstand the truth: some by superstition, fables, and tradition; others by scorn and scoffing at God's word generally, and at prophecy in particular. As it may be read of Paul in 2 Tim. 3, so here of Peter, the great safeguards are (1) knowing of what persons the truth had been learnt, not teaching only but conduct, purpose, faith, long-suffering, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings; and (2) not only the sacred scriptures, the O.T., able to make wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus, but "every scripture," divinely inspired as it is and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God might be complete, out and out furnished unto every good work. The value of a known source in immediate relation to the God who communicated His mind and grace and will is thus shown to be of the highest degree, as well as the divinely assured certainty that the words were as unequivocally Spirit-taught as the thoughts themselves. No safeguard entrusted 'to the church, not to ministers only but to all the saints, is so sure and unfailing as scripture.

It is merely a cheat of unbelief to argue from the infirmity of the men employed for this all-important work. Granting all the infirmity, we are assured (from what God tells us in 1 Cor. 2, as well as 2 Tim. 3) that His inspiration precludes the action of human weakness to impair the absolute reliableness of what is revealed to bring our souls who believe it into direct subjection to God. Conscience, understanding, and heart, are all addressed suitably; but the aim is that we may have fellowship with the inspired messengers, and thus by the Holy Spirit have communion with God Himself, with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and have power in the new life for holy walk.

Hence the prime duty for the Christian to turn away from these evil men, no matter how learned humanly they may be, and sanctimonious in manner, who either undermine the scriptures or substitute tradition for them. The form of godliness only makes such self-deceived deceivers more dangerous. It is in vain to reason on the scriptures as partial or fragmentary. It is an essential feature of them that God therein selected, out of much more that was given by the Spirit orally, all that was intended to be permanent and useful, all that was requisite to make the most advanced and honoured complete, fully equipped for every good work. Even if we could have from an uncertain source stray words carried down from the Lord's teaching or that of any apostle, what could it add to produce the spiritual result which scripture claims for itself? Nor is it the least of its merits that scripture, so astonishingly full as it is to meet every want and to refute every error, should be also unburdened by superfluity. How worthy of Him who gave it as it is!

Nor is it only against the sceptic we have to be on our guard. Corruption comes in through those who do not openly deny but pare down inspiration, allow errors in history or other (as they call it) secondary matter, and attribute the selection of what is written to the instruments without God. But this is to deceive themselves and others, to say and unsay. If God inspired the writings, He suggested, He selected, He included, He left out. He gave the thoughts and the words; He guided and controlled all. This is scripture.

The first and grandest characteristic is that God inspired every scripture, every whit that was so written when Paul wrote his last to Timothy, his final to any. Every scripture is God-breathed, even anything that He would add afterwards. This is enough for all that know God, and have every reason to distrust themselves or other men who were not inspired. As the apostle John later still and most trenchantly says, "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them [the deceivers and antichrists], because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. They are of the world; therefore speak they [as] of the world, and the world heareth them. We [the inspired] are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he who is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." What an awful warning to "higher critics," and their victims! Scripture possesses beyond all else the indelible authority of God, not only what was meant but what is written; but if this be so, it is in the fullest way profitable. Their value, not only as the ultimate source of truth but as the standard by which the highest ministry, even an apostle's, was to be tried (Acts 17: 11), is without a rival.

Ministry is the exercise of a gift from the ascended Lord (Eph. 4) who not only gave His precious gifts at Pentecost, whether to lay the foundation by the apostles and prophets, or to perpetuate other gifts till the body is complete in the fullest sense (ver. 13). But its basis and its supplies depend on the authority of the written word; and so He led the way when on earth who was the supreme Apostle of our confession as He is the Great Priest. Who so honoured, loved, and used the scriptures with God, with man, with Satan? So we see with all the inspired writers. Whatever new truth had to be imparted, they were led by the Spirit to impress on the saints the divine claims of the old holy writ to the uttermost. Nor is anyone more notable in this way than he who calls himself the least of all saints, to whom we are indebted as to none else for the administration of the mystery hidden throughout the ages in God, but now revealed (Eph. 3), minister of the church (as he says in Col. 1) to complete the word of God.

We may next observe how carefully the apostle Peter excludes all dependence not only on tradition but on ecclesiastical office of any kind after his departure When faith decays and the power of the truth proportionately, then man's energy displaces the Holy Spirit, and the world enters with the love of worldly things to dim, darken, and destroy the love of the Father; external things gain an undue and growingly false place. Baptism and the Lord's supper, instead of being kept in their true niche, become at length traps of error, and engines of destruction, being invested with the reality of the grace that is in Christ Jesus. So it was with the elders, especially when they had no longer apostolic authentication, direct or indirect. And so yet more proudly when the figment of apostolic succession was conceived, to say nothing of the modern dream of a whole twelve-fold apostolate nominated by prophets as pretentious and as false as those apostles themselves. Peter is silent on every such resource for the future. He was led of God to provide scripture for the saints. "And I will be diligent also that at every time ye may have [it, or the power] after my departure to call to mind these things."

It was exactly so that the great apostle of uncircumcision charged the elders or bishops of the church in Ephesus who met him at Miletus (Acts 20). "I know that after my decease grievous wolves shall come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one with tears. And now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build up and give an inheritance among all that are sanctified." The very elders were to become a danger and evil to themselves and the disciples, not they only but they prominently; for out of them emerged ere long the clergy (not gifted men) unknown while the apostles lived. Had the word of Christ dwelt in the saints richly, such a change could not have been. Man was looked to, and the word of God's grace became more slighted, forgotten, and powerless.

And who that looks at Christendom, or even at that part of it which boasts of an open Bible and separation from the idolatries and mummeries of Popery, can doubt that the apostle's warning has been verified, and that far worse is in rapid progress? Who can survey the enormous change during the last seventy or eighty years, for spreading and deepening evil, whether in superstition or in free-thinking, without humiliation or horror, unless he be under either delusion? One of the most painful and certain signs of the great enemy's work is the all but universal spread of error and worldliness, not in the greater communities only but throughout them all, down to the least. So it is in the new or western hemisphere as in the older world; so it is in almost every land and tongue, and very markedly in those which once hailed whatever of truth the Reformation recovered to hungry and thirsty mortals.

How little those who glory in the light and liberty and progress of the opening century are aware that both the sensuous and sentimental church revivalists, and the irreligious intellectualists who mangle the scriptures, are fast preparing the way for what the apostle Paul calls the falling away, "the apostasy," when both the O. and N.T. will be cast away with scorn; when the Saviour and His cross, His glory in heaven and His coming again, will be objects of open derision and general ribaldry! Christianity as a whole will be rejected by Papists and Protestants, by Episcopalians and Presbyterians, by Independents and Baptists, by Wesleyans, etc., by Quakers, passive resisters and disputers of all sorts. The prevalent neglect of the prophetic word will only hasten the awful catastrophe.

His zeal in furnishing the saints with divine grounds of faith the apostle fortifies, by reminding them of an unique display of glory, into immediate vision of which he had been admitted personally and with adequate witnesses.

"For we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, not following cleverly devised fables, but made eyewitnesses of his majesty" (ver. 16).

A sight more marvellous than any miracle, a scene more impressive and august than any other vision on earth, a living miniature of the future kingdom more instructive, vivid, and glorious than any prophecy could present, was there given to saintly eyes and ears, that it might be divinely recorded and strengthen the hearts of the faithful. All the Synoptic Gospels had already recorded it.

But manifestly it did not fall within the scope of the fourth Gospel to describe it, though many have conceived it alluded to in the latter clause of John 1: 13. But here our apostle attests it as one of the chosen three who actually beheld the glory and heard the Father's voice about the Son, by a word in the N. T. peculiar to Peter, capable of a wide application, but going beyond eye-witness and appropriated to those admitted into the highest grade of the mysteries among the Greeks. For ἐπόπται here is not the same as αὐτόπται in Luke 1: 2.

Nevertheless, without going into details, we can all perceive that the Epistle omits one most important lesson for the Christian which the Gospels were inspired to convey: "hear Him," the Christ, the Son of God. It was drawn out by Peter's hasty, shallow, and irreverent proposal to make here three tabernacles, one for the Lord, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. For, as Mark adds, and Luke too, he knew not what to answer, being affrighted as the others also. And their fear could not but be aggravated by the bright cloud (the pavilion of God's presence) that overshadowed them, into which they entered and out of which the Father's voice said in gracious rebuke, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I found my delight: hear Him," Moses and Elijah disappearing.

Yet "hear Him" Peter alone omits, as he alone gives the emphatic personal expression of the Father's complacency (ver. 17). To impute to men's shortcoming either the omission or the addition is to betray one's own unbelief in God's perfect word. These differences are as much intended as their concurrent evidence; they are in no real sense discrepancies, but distinct intimations of the truth to carry out the Holy Spirit's special design in each part of holy writ. The Gospels were to initiate and maintain the primary value and authority of Christ's word, not only as spoken but to be communicated permanently in due time in what is commonly called "The New Testament." Peter is here corroborating the testimony to Christ's kingdom by the magnificent scene witnessed on the holy mount of the Transfiguration. But no body had such reason as himself in every point of view to remember "Hear Him" in that never to be forgotten incident. His omission is therefore the fruit, not of weakness but of divine design. He is here, as he says, making known to his believing Hebrew brethren "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," to which that blessed oracle was comparatively as uncalled for here as indeed it was of the utmost moment for God's purpose by the Synoptic evangelists.

Let us then briefly consider the character and teaching of what came to pass on the mountain. What drew out the display of His glory in the kingdom before the time of its establishment was to strengthen His own in taking up the cross and following the Master. For the disciples, like the unbelieving brethren, like Christendom too, looked for progress and triumph, and overlooked faith and love put to the proof in suffering with Christ, the pattern of all holy endurance. Hence the Lord told them plainly of His own sufferings and the glories after these. So indeed it must be for sinners to be saved righteously; and for saints that, suffering with Him, they may also be glorified with Him. If we endure, we shall also reign together. "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say to you, There are some of those standing here that shall in no wise taste death till they see the kingdom of God come in power. And after six days Jesus taketh with [him] Peter and James and John, and bringeth them up on a high mountain by themselves apart. And he was transfigured before them" (Mark 8: 33, Mark 9: 2). Not only did the fashion of His countenance become different as He prayed, shining as the sun, but His garments were effulgent as the light. Again, not angels but Moses and Elias appeared in glory, and spoke of His departure which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.

Here then was an anticipative and unparalleled sample of the kingdom, not as it has ever been since in mystery, but in manifestation as when He comes in its power and glory. As there was so much to try the disciples in His yet to be deepened humiliation, what could be more gracious on His part, or more suited to their need, than to grant chosen ones of the twelve who were to be alone with Him in His anguish, to be also with Him beholding so unexampled a foretaste! For here were the great elements of the coming kingdom.

It is not at all a picture of eternity, when the kingdom is given up to Him that is God and Father, after Christ shall have annulled all rule and all authority and power, and the Son Himself shall be subject to Him that put all things in subjection to Him, that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) may be all in all. This we easily recognise in Rev. 21: 1-8. But here it is the exalted Man, made both Lord and Christ after man crucified and slew Him. Here He is seen as He will reign in power that all shall see, with the dead saints raised and the living changed, answering to the two glorified men. There will be also the righteous in their natural bodies, like the three honoured disciples made free of the blissful vision.

This may seem to Corinthian minds, that savour the things of men, an abhorrent mixture. But what an utter prejudice! For the kingdom is God's "Hand scheme and answer to the shame the world puts on the faithful Christians, as before on Christ to the uttermost. If they in their devotedness to Him became a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men, how righteous in the coming day of glory their exaltation with Christ! Then the world shall know that the Father sent the Son, however low He stooped in grace, and that He loved the saints, however weak and unprofitable they feel themselves to be, as He loved Christ (John 17: 22, 23) here will be "the world" of men not glorified; there will be Israel and the nations on earth to learn this; not indeed in the eternal state, but in the kingdom which Christ will establish and manifest during the "age to come." When eternity follows the "white throne" judgment, righteousness dwells in the new heavens and a new earth, instead of ruling as in the millennial earth. For the latter the Son of man receives the kingdom and returns (Luke 19: 15) to reign; for the former He gives up the kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all, after the mediatorial reign and judgment are quite over, and the universe is brought into perfect harmony with God's counsels and ways in grace and in righteousness, and as to good and evil, for His glory for ever and ever.

It was reserved for Pope Leo X. to avow without a blush that to the Roman communion and its chief the gospel had turned out a profitable fable; and St. Peter's in Rome stands as the monument, built out of part of the cash paid by benighted souls for indulgences! the base traffic in sins, which brought on the Reformation. What a contrast with the holy man whom they falsely claim as their first pope! Here is the simple and true averment of a true fisherman of souls: "For we followed not cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but were made eye-witnesses of his majesty." What the three witnesses saw and heard on the mountain was a glorious display which God alone could accomplish. But it was not merely the manifestation of the highest honour put upon the rejected Christ. It was also a most instructive type of His glory in the coming kingdom in due time to close all suffering, when His church should be complete which began to be gathered on and from the day of Pentecost. Of that kingdom the vision shown was the wondrous pattern and the certain pledge. Hence the apostle expresses its difference from His first coming by the phrase "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." First He came to suffer and to die; "for ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he being rich became poor, that ye by his poverty might be made rich." Yes, He was crucified out of (or, as we say, in) weakness. But when He appears again, He will come on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, the indisputable Lord of all.

Hence we must avoid the error of godly Puritans who apply the verse to the power of Christ in the preached gospel for saving from the guilt as well as the corruption of sin. So they applied it either exclusively, or including His future advent also. But such vagueness as this last implies is the way to lose the precision of the truth, and at best a makeshift when men are not sure, and seek to cover it by that style of accommodation. For the Transfiguration was significant, not of grace to perishing sinners, but of that glorious kingdom of God to come, which will consist of heavenly things as well as earthly, and the Lord the glorified chief and centre of them all. Compare Matt. 6: 10, Matt. 13: 41-43, Matt. 19: 28, Eph. 1: 10.

It is to be noticed that angels are not seen on the mount of Transfiguration. Yet we know that, when the day arrives for the establishment of His kingdom, the Son of man will come in the glory of His Father with His holy angels, or, as Luke puts it fully, "in His glory, and of the Father, and of the holy angels." Here not a word is breathed about them. Men are prominent, two saints in glory of the past who represented the law and the prophets, three of the present followers of Christ in their natural bodies. The delights of Divine Wisdom were with the sons of men; the Life was the Light of men, and so when He deigned to enter on His earthly mission and work, He takes not hold of angels but of the seed of Abraham, not only for all that the promises to the fathers assured, but for heavenly and eternal counsels.

But there is more that we do well to observe, the unmistakable voice out of the cloud of the Divine Presence, not in thunder but in accents of the tenderest love, and in evident answer to Peter's well-meant but utterly unmeet desire to exalt His Master. The Father alone knows how His Son should be honoured; as He indeed loves the Son supremely, and has given all things to be in His hand. Let us too hear the Father; for He is Christ's Father and ours, His God and ours.

"For he received (literally, having received) from God the Father honour and glory, when such a voice was borne to him by the magnificent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I found my delight (or, complacency)" (ver. 17).

The Lord Jesus was Man, the Messiah, on the road to the most extreme humiliation, even to the death of the cross, and by none so keenly consigned to it as by His own people, the Jews. Such was the ruinous blindness and the guilty unbelief which pervaded mankind. Hence to encourage His feeble followers in a path of suffering, least of all anticipated by themselves, it suited Him Who is wise and good and righteous to rise above all natural limits which ordinarily prevailed, and to manifest in the most unwonted fashion and impressive way His predestined exaltation in the coming kingdom. This indeed is not even yet come; while Israel abides in hard incredulity, and the church is meanwhile being called to its special blessedness in heavenly places. Then the Jew too shall become object of God's healing mercy, as the Gentile now does, though rapidly abandoning the truth for the crisis at the end of the age like the mass of Jews.

Hence, in view of Christ's sufferings, and His glories to follow in due time, not only in the heavens but on the earth, grace gave to chosen witnesses this extraordinary anticipation on a small scale but with divine depth and power. As He prayed (so tells us Luke, who speaks most of His human perfection), the fashion of His countenance became different, and His very raiment white, effulgently so. And the two men of olden time, so renowned for fidelity to Jehovah and His people, talked with Him, the central Object for saints above or below. They appearing in glory spoke of His departure which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem. How full of interest and instruction! One was the promulgator of God's law, the other its restorer and vindicator when Israel apostatised and worshipped Baal. Yet it was of our Lord's death they talked, not of the law. Where was anything comparable to His death? and how ominous, "in Jerusalem"! Thereby alone was God glorified morally as to sin; there Satan for ever defeated; there man's sin, there the Jew's was darkest; there grace shown to the uttermost; there the judgment of our sins so borne, that God can only justify the believer in Jesus. What had either Moses or Elijah revealed to them that could fairly be put alongside of these truths? Yet they are the common faith of Christians, the faith once delivered to the saints.

Peter who was there does not say a word about His wondrous converse; and Luke who was not there is the only one to record it. Nor was Paul at that time anything but a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to law a Pharisee, ignorant of Christ after the flesh, only to know Him as dead, risen and ascended to heaven, and in no way cognisant of the days of His flesh. What it proves is God's design and power and will as to inspiration; who gave to each writer what consisted with His purpose by each. Here the apostle, having before him the power and coming of our Lord Jesus, testifies the honour and glory He received from God the Father, when initiated into that mystery which transcended all the secret mysteries of the heathen; as much as the Father and the Son in truth and love transcended their wretched divinities, morally contemptible on their own showing, whether in their fables or in moral effect on their votaries. But it was in view of the coming kingdom and Christ's revelation to introduce it, with which this and the former Epistle teem.

Peter does however speak here of "such a voice being borne (or uttered) to him by the magnificent glory: This is my beloved Son in whom I found my delight." Soon, soon, would be proved by His departure in Jerusalem, that the city over which He wept saw in Him no form nor comeliness that it should at all desire; yea, hid as it were its face from Him, as an aversion of men and as smitten of God and afflicted. But here is attested by the voice out of the glory, This is my beloved Son in whom I found My delight. So it had been in eternity before creation; so it was when the world was made by Him, and in all the dealings of providence, in the secret working of grace with individuals, and in the public government of Israel under the law. So still more when the incarnate Word presented that object of His everlasting complacency as man on earth in unwavering dependence and obedience on His way to death for His glory, for man's salvation, for the church's blessedness, for His people's deliverance, and for the reconciliation of all things.

But Peter here too omits, what all three Synoptics tell us, the "hear Him" so important for their purposes, but not for God's task assigned to himself. Christ had lost nothing of His eternal glory by His extreme humiliation even to the cross. On the contrary, as He had thus glorified God both as Father and as God, so He was the object for God the Father to glorify; and here in view of His coming kingdom, incomparably more glorious in itself and in Him who would display its full character and power than ever Rabbi had conceived. Their aspirations and anticipations were as short of it as of Himself, the true Messiah and the beloved Son of God.

As the apostle once more recurs to the Father's voice, let us follow him also.

"And this voice we heard uttered (or, brought) out of heaven, being with him on the holy mountain" (ver. 18).

The three apostles were truly eye-witnesses of the Lord's majesty, all the more wondrous because it was His power and coming for a brief view in the midst of His humiliation in grace for God's glory. Every part of the scene before their eyes was a magnificent testimony to the future kingdom of the Son of man beheld on a small scale, before the Lord come to establish it in its visible grandeur and its appointed season before the universe. But the emphasis is manifestly laid on "this voice we heard," borne out of heaven as it was, when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

Already had the Father's voice been heard in terms identical with these now recorded, save the pregnant construction of εἰς ὃν for ἐν ὧ in the Gospel which makes no difference in translating. But none, as far as we know, heard the first time but the Lord Himself and the Baptist, though the Lord adduced it as one of the four testimonies to His personal glory which proved the Jews to be thoroughly unbelieving: John the Baptist His predicted herald; then the greater witness which the Father gave Him to complete; next, the Father that sent Him had Himself borne witness concerning Him by His voice; and lastly the scriptures, to which He assigned a very great place (John 5). But man's will can resist any and all, as the Jews then verified to their ruin, and will another day and in another form, as He then warned them.

The occasion too was quite different. For the grace of the Lord Jesus led Him to take His place with the feeble remnant of the Jews who obeyed John's call to repentance, and came to the Jordan to be baptised as they did. Holy, guileless, undefiled, He associated Himself with those who had nothing but sins; yet as they confessed them, the first mark of awakened conscience in bowing to God's call, He would not stand aloof though He had not the least evil to confess. It was the perfection of man's position in lowly active love; and so He, the Righteous One, corrected John's reluctance in the gracious words, Thus it becometh us (you and Me) to fulfil all righteousness. "And Jesus being baptised went up straightway from the water; and, behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him; and, behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The heavens opened to Him, the Holy Ghost's descent as a dove on Him, the Father's voice expressing His delight summed up there and then, bore witness to the divine delight in Him and never so much as in that act of humiliation in grace.

Yet at the mount of Transfiguration the immediate occasion of the voice again heard, and by the chosen witnesses, was Peter's own attempt to honour his Master in the highest way he could then suggest. But to put Him on a level with the chiefs of the law and the prophets would not suit the Father. "This is my beloved Son: hear Him." And the terrified disciples fell upon their faces; but lifted up at the touch and the comforting words of their Master, they saw no one but Jesus, alone with themselves. He was to be heard, He paramountly, He the truth. Others at best were His forerunners.

As noticed already, Peter here was not led to recall this last part of the utterance given in all the synoptic Gospels. His aim was to concentrate attention on Jesus as the centre of divine affection and glory; theirs was also to attest Him as the complete fulness and revealer of all the truth. Matthew gives the Father's voice undiminished: as his province was to show the full consequence of the rejected Messiah, His larger glory as Son of man, and higher still as the beloved Son of God, the Rock on which the church was to be built. Mark and Luke omit here the expression of God's complacency in Him, so as to throw stress on hearing Him; the former as the Servant Son in the gospel, the latter as God's Son, yet fully man. Our apostle omits the clause they carefully record, not because he could or would forget it, but to make the more prominent the good pleasure the Father had in Him, His beloved Son.

We next hear of the confirmation given by the vision on the mount to the prophetic word, the light of which, however valuable, is very briefly shown to yield to the superior brightness of a heavenly light for the hearts of saints, not a display to the world.

"And we have the prophetic word firmer, to which ye do well in paying heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawn and a (or, the) morning star arise in your hearts" (ver. 19).

The prophetic word of O.T. and of N.T. alike converges on the coming and kingdom of our Lord Jesus; and this, the apostle here declares, was made firmer, or confirmed, by what the witnesses were there given to behold and hear, the glorious anticipation and precursor of that day of power and glory for the universe. The predictions were absolutely true and reliable; but it seemed good to the All-wise at the first coming of Christ and in view of His death of shame (so essential to lay a basis for the ways and purposes of grace), to confirm the truth of His second coming and kingdom by a sight which set on the word another seal more. A vivid though brief realisation of its chief elements confirmed the prophetic word in a way beyond aught else. No season was so appropriate for it as when He earnestly charged and enjoined His disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ, saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and the third day be raised up. This was a fact wholly unexpected by all, even by him who had just owned His personal dignity as the Son of the living God. It was the substitution, for the Messianic testimony and hope utterly rejected by the people and their rulers, of the death and resurrection of the Son of man and Son of God. This laid the basis for introducing not only the kingdom of the heavens but the church, which now occupy the place which Israel once had in an earthly way under law, and when they repent shall have under Messiah and the new covenant.

The Christian Jews, as the apostle says, were doing well in paying heed to all that the prophets had announced of those coming days of glory. They did not misapply their words, as Christendom soon began to do, to the different character of the parenthesis which runs on between the first and the second comings of Christ. It is now an unseen victory which faith beholds in Christ raised from among the dead and seated on His Father's throne, and in Christians united to Him on high by the Spirit sent here below, whilst they suffer on the earth as their Master did (His atoning death excepted), not of the world as He was not. It will not be so in that day when Christ will appear and sit on His own throne, and they shall reign with Him, who now suffer with Him, if not also for Him.

Then Israel, instead of being lost in unbelief, shall be saved, and become Jehovah's witness in truth of heart and in power. And all the nations shall bow to His behest, not only having learnt righteousness when His judgments are on the earth, but truly subject to His anointed King on Zion, the centre of all the world's kingdoms, whence the law goes forth, their idols of silver and gold consigned to the moles and to the bats. For the great invisible organiser of iniquity is shut up in the abyss, whilst this display of righteousness, peace, and glory is enjoyed by all the earth, till the hour strikes for God to sift those who have multiplied when war and want and pestilence are unknown. But those who are on the earth (the risen being above), as many as are not born of God, will fall under Satan's power once more, when he is let loose to tempt, and prove that man's fallen nature is as unimprovable under a dispensation of glory, as of grace, or law, or anything else. Man ever prefers Satan to God that he may have licence for his corruption or his violence.

Dull as the Jewish Christians were as to our highest privileges, they were not so beguiled as to imagine that the prophetic word, save quite exceptionally, describes the Christian state which is now our portion. Their danger was rather to make the future kingdom to be their hope, instead of reading in the prophets the hope of Israel and of all the peoples who in that day accept Jehovah's word from Jerusalem. It is the delusion of Christendom to appropriate it now by what they call spiritualising, and relegating to eternity what they cannot thus force. The believer called to heavenly hopes meanwhile does not forget that Jehovah will renew and restore Israel to their place of promise on the earth.

Here accordingly they were told that, however well it was to heed the word of prophecy, it is but "as a lamp shining in a dark place;" for so the earth is and must be till the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings. But he just glances at the higher light of heavenly truth, which they might have as yet but feebly entered into, however truly they had received Christ Jesus as their Lord. The prophetic word did show the ruin of Israel as a whole for its idolatry, and the special further sin of Judah for the rejection of the Messiah. The prophetic word made clear the rise of the four Gentile empires while the Jews are Lo-ammi (not-my-people), and between Daniel and the Apocalypse also the reappearing of the last or Roman empire with the apostate Jews, who set up the Antichrist in Palestine, to be destroyed by the Lord shining out from heaven.

But the prophetic word nowhere reveals those heavenly counsels which the mystery (hid from the ages) made known through Paul. Nor does Peter here do more than allude to it under the strikingly distinct figures of "day" and "morning star." The lamp is excellent to cast adequate light on this dark world, its evil and its doom; and they did well in paying it heed, "till day dawn and a (or, the) morning star arise in your hearts." That is to say, till they apprehend with enjoyment the bright heavenly relationship which Christianity fully understood gives us now in Christ, and the heavenly hope of His coming to introduce us into the Father's house. The prophetic lamp is good to help us against the squalid place; but how much more is "daylight" in Christ to lift us above the world in all our associations of faith, and the bright hope, Christ as Morning Star, which He not only is, but has promised to give the overcomer (Rev. 2: 28, Rev. 22: 16, 17)!

The apostle adds an important caution to the commendation in ver. 19. They did well in taking heed to the prophetic word. God alone can speak with certainty of the future, for a world in confusion and change, prone to sin; and He has been pleased, not only to speak but to write by chosen instruments, that those who believe may profit by His communications, where otherwise they were liable to stray, but thereby were enabled by faith to enjoy the measure of light thus afforded. His people could not despise it, save to His dishonour and their own loss.

Before the deluge Enoch prophesied as to the ungodly in deeds and words, whose daring would bring on the Lord's coming with His holy myriads to execute judgment on their ungodliness: a prophecy preserved and cited by the inspired Jude as yet to be accomplished on those that deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. Later still by faith Noah, oracularly warned concerning things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness that is according to faith (Heb. 11: 7). Abram had not only prophecy but a prophetic vision, centuries before the facts of his seed's oppression in Egypt and of deliverance from the oppressor by divine judgments, which should also deal in due time with the enemies who filled Canaan (Gen. 15). Further, he was given as: a mark of divine friendship to learn from Jehovah Himself the imminent destruction of the cities of the Plain.

Nor is it otherwise with us Christians; for if given an incomparably "better thing" now in and with Christ glorified after the accomplishment of redemption, we do not lose the present value of prophecy. The same Holy Spirit, who guides us into all the truth (as He empowered the apostles and prophets to make it known to us), was to declare unto us the things that are to come, and He is in us to make all good instead of leaving us to unprofitable guesswork.

But for this reason we need the authority of God's. word, and here we have it, "Knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is (or, becometh) of its own interpretation" (ver. 20). "Its own," which is the simplest and the strictest and the most frequent usage of the disputed word, alone satisfies the context. It is hard to see why the A.V. and the Revision adopted "private" except that they did not know what to make of it. So does Dean Alford, following in his commentary Huther's idea "that prophecy springs not out of human prognostication." Such a view may be intelligible where the freethinking of higher criticism prevails as an antidote; but it could only be regarded with horror by the Christian Jews, whom the apostle was addressing. Nor was the canon which the apostle lays down directed against such humanizing sceptics; it is a serious caution to the believer for his profit in seeking edification and intelligence in studying the writings of the prophets.

Dean A. says "two references seem to be possible" (to us, and to the prophets themselves). He has overlooked a third, which is even grammatically the most exact, the prophecy itself, "No prophecy of Scripture is, or comes to be, of its own interpretation." If you isolate prophecy and make each part its own interpreter, you counteract its origin and character, and lose its force as pertaining to God's grand scheme for glorifying His Son, the Lord Jesus. It is divine design which gives prophecy of Scripture, like the rest, this character.

The apostle is therefore guarded in his language beyond what the commentators in general have apprehended. He does not deny that many a prophecy had its scope only in a particular and passing event of sufficient moment to call for it. And not a few such are mentioned in scripture. Take in Genesis the dreams of Pharaoh and of his two chamberlains previously. Take in the Acts of the Apostles the prophecies of Agabus as to the faming and the apostle Paul. Many such are recorded in the O.T. Yet none of them is a prophecy of Scripture as here intended, not for instance so much as Jacob's in Gen. 49 or Moses' in Deut. 33., nor yet Balaam's in Num. 23, still less the Prophets' so-called. They had their importance at the time, as the Scripture intimates.

By "prophecy of scripture" the apostle, to my mind, appears to mean exclusively such as look on to the future Kingdom of God for Christ's glory; and this is the object in the prophets, so that it may be predicated of every "prophecy of scripture" whether in O. or N.T. They may speak not a little of the moral evil which necessitates God's intervention to put down Satan and a revolted world, and to bring in the long promised reign of the Lord in righteousness, peace, and glory. But it is of that blessed Kingdom as His theme that the inspiring Spirit delights to speak, because it will then be the sphere of Christ's glory manifested in the universe; as He has already in the N.T. made known to the Christian His hidden glory as the exalted Man on high.

Hence it is that from Isaiah to Malachi no "prophecy of scripture," whatever the importance of any event in God's providence and the application of prophecy to it meanwhile, stops short of the grand fulfilment, "when the powers of the heavens shall be shaken," Satan loses his bad eminence, and Israel shall be saved, to blossom and bud and fill the face of the world with fruit. It is what the first man never attained, neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Cyrus, neither Alexander nor Caesar. It will be verified in Jehovah Jesus when "Jehovah shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall be one Jehovah, and His name one" (Zech. 14: 9).

We need not here speak of Christ's exaltation over all the heavens as well as the earth; nor of the church's union with Him, as Head of the body over all things: the two parts of that mystery which, hidden from the ages in God, was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit's power, and hence to us Christians in the N. T. But the kingdom was in full and increasing view from God's sentence on the serpent throughout the ages; and any turning aside at the comparatively small events within their compass frustrates the design of God in the testimony of them all to the coming Deliverer and King.

Yea, this was so notorious that the very heathen were aware that His birth was expected at or about the time when our Lord appeared and had the cross assigned Him by the Jews and Gentiles, instead of the crown. Tacitus and Suetonius attest this; and so does their own historian of the siege of Jerusalem. Yet prophecy of scripture predicted that so it was to be, and in the true moral order of "the Christward sufferings, and the glories after these" (1 Peter 1: 11). For thus only could those who believe be rescued from evil and share His glories. To reign first, and afterward suffer, would be nugatory and purposeless, with utter confusion. But because Christ was thus faithful in His infinite love, the unbelieving Jews rejected Him; and therefore God rejected them for a season of rich mercy to the Gentiles meanwhile.

We can understand accordingly that "prophecy of scripture" is fraught with God's mind about Christ's kingdom in power and glory, and this after His sufferings, though the latter element is not so frequent as the former, yet well attested in one form or another in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. But where is not the future kingdom over the earth held out?

One exception may be alleged, the very peculiar but deeply interesting and instructive book of Jonah, which on the surface has no "prophecy of scripture," but only a conditional threat of judgment arrested by repentance. Yet it conveys a true prophetic narrative on which the Lord affixed His seal, not only as preaching to the heathen Ninevites that repented, but as a sign of His own death and resurrection, when the Gentile that believes enters the blessing of grace, and the Jew who refused reaps the judgment of his unbelief. For Jonah shows us Israel shut up in a selfish prejudice that despised the Gentile, unwilling to warn, and jealous lest, if Nineveh repented, God should be gracious enough to arrest the judgment, and thus set aside the prophet's denunciation.

In the way of a contrast Jonah typified. Christ, though himself an unfaithful witness, and hence cast into the sea, and even for three days and nights swallowed by a great fish. Even then whilst going to the Gentiles, he sulked at God's grace, at the time when God made him feel his folly. Whereas Christ was the Faithful Witness, saved His ungrateful people, delighted in grace to the Gentile, and for the joy lying before Him in love and obedience endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of God's throne. Jonah's course was a true type prophetically of Christ, but as much to his own shame as to God's glory in the end; as to which his writing the book by inspiration is the best proof of his repentance. It also contrasts strikingly with the perfection of Christ, and prefigures the mercy God as a faithful Creator will show, not only to the dark heathen but to the meanest of His creatures. Had He listened to the Jew, yea and a real Jewish prophet, not a Ninevite had been spared in honour of his woe on the city. But God is righteous to the claims and worth of Christ's atoning death, which in the coming kingdom will shine in the mercy and blessing of all nations, so that "beasts and all cattle" shall join the chorus of praise to His name from the earth (Ps. 148).

Thus even the book of Jonah in its exceptional way differs only in its form from other prophecies of scripture. All point to Christ's coming Kingdom over the earth, which was so soon forgotten after the apostles, that there is no proper statement of it in a single ancient creed, any more than in the symbols of the Reformation. Neither the Fathers, nor the Reformers, were at all versed in prophecy. The Oxford revival of the Fathers accordingly in no way helps; still less does the Rationalist school, which denies it in principle. Nor has Nonconformity any light of God as to the future, least of all since it has entered the arena of politics, and become as worldly as Popery itself in setting its mind on earthly things.

The last verse of our chapter gives the reason why no prophecy of Scripture can be limited to its own isolated solution, but forms part of a vast circle of divine predictions centring in Christ and His kingdom.

"For no prophecy was ever brought by will of man, but [holy] men* spoke from God, moved (or, borne along) by [the] Holy Spirit" (ver. 21).

*The MSS. are here very confused, both in order which is of less importance, and in words added or omitted. Yet all the uncials omit the article before ἄνθρωποι (men) as the best do ἅγιοι (holy).

It is not surprising that those who are only conversant with man, his thoughts, sayings and doings, believe not in prophecy any more than miracle, and despise grace and truth. For all these are of God, and utterly impossible save by His power: grace and truth are only in and through our Lord Jesus. If we now turn our attention to prophecy, consider how Isaiah the prophet was led to triumph over heathen prognosticators and idolatrous stargazers, as Moses did over the magicians of Egypt, and Elijah over the priests of Baal.

"Produce your cause," we read in Isa. 41: 21 etc., "saith Jehovah, bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob; let them bring forth and show us what will happen; let them show the former things what they [be] that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye [are] gods; yea, do good or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold [it] together. Behold, ye [are] of nothing and your work of nought: an abomination [is he that] chooseth you. I have raised [one] up from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name; and he shall come upon princes as [upon] mortar, and as the potter treadeth clay. Who hath declared from the beginning that we may know? and before time, that we may say, [He is] righteous? Yea, [there is] none that showeth; yea, [there is] none that declareth; yea, [there is] none that heareth your words."

Here the challenge was beyond any votary of a false god to take up, though the demand was small compared with prophecy of scripture. It was beyond mar's will to speak even in an isolated way of a future person or event. But those given by God's intent are each part of an immense web which He has woven, on which is indelibly traced His purpose of glorifying Him who gave up the glory proper to Him as divine, that He might become man and by His death and resurrection conciliate the most jarring principles and join the most opposed persons. He will take away all the sins and iniquities of believers; He will establish righteousness, peace and joy over all the earth where self and will wrought only evil and mischief. He has defeated and will defeat the subtle and mighty adversary and all his host. He wine back the weak rebels (deceived to set God at defiance) into repentance, meekness and humility, rejoicing to be the ready servants of His will; for God deigns to make them His children, and His sons, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. They enjoy even here and now fellowship with the Father and the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit by His working on life in Christ; and they reign with Him when He reigns before the world, as for ever before God.

Nor is it only that the reconciliation is what we receive now; but it will embrace the heavens defiled by the enemy's evil, and the earth where he, through man's servitude, set himself up as prince and the god of the world. Through Christ's death on the cross all things shall be reconciled unto God, the things whether on the earth or in the heavens; not those who live and die despising alike the unseen God and His Son who stooped so low and suffered infinitely for sin that God might be able to say righteously to the worst, Be reconciled to God. As He will have the risen saints above with Christ, thus giving His children their special joy in the Father's house, so they share Christ's glory before the universe. Nor shall anything fail of His magnificent plans for the earth, when Israel shall be delivered from his stiffneckedness, and adore the crucified Messiah, and rise out of all abasement to be God's son, His firstborn nationally upon the earth; and all the nations shall abandon their shameless idolatries, and willingly own the long guilty people to be the seed Jehovah has blessed. "And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister to thee; and the nation and kingdom that will not serve Zion shall perish," when Messiah reigns, and Israel are under the new covenant.

To all this the will of man is adverse; but were it ever so zealous to help, who is sufficient but God to take in a range so vast, deep, and high? Hence the only possible power is that of the Holy Spirit; and God has deigned, in His great love of man's blessing, to tell us beforehand of those coming glories of Christ, as by holy men He also predicted His sufferings. It was a competency so entirely conferred by God's grace, that now to pave the way for the apostasy Satan has raised up a new school of men in all the world's seats of learning, and very largely among the clerical and ministerial ranks, who agree in nothing so much as that true prophecy is impossible. They thus bear on their forehead and hands the stain of infidelity, and spend their activities in propagating their lie about a large part of both Testaments as God's truth.

Yet the fact is that direct, formal, and avowed prophecies abound in scripture, positive and definite, some of the largest and loftiest character, and others minute to a degree that none could expect who is not familiar with the most condescending tenderness in God. But also the narrative of persons and facts from the first book of the O.T. has a deep scope of prophecy below its surface. The same principle applies to His instructions for His earthly people which none but the unspiritual fail to see running through not Genesis only but Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and in a less degree Deuteronomy, and really scripture in general which is not open prediction. Who but God was sufficient for those things? Truly when we accept and understand as well as believe that no prophecy was ever brought by will of man, but men spoke from God moved by the Holy Spirit, we can but say, flow gracious of God! how needed by us! But how base that man should be so deaf to His word, so ready to heed the shallow reasonings of Satan's emissaries who add to their guilt the pretence of bearing the Christian name, though sinking lower than decent Jews!

2 Peter 2.

The apostle turns to the first of the evil classes among those of the circumcision who, if not now, had once professed the Lord's name; the class of corruption in word and deed (2). 2 Peter 3 deals with the philosophic and sceptical class.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, as there shall be also false teachers among you, such as shall bring in by-the-bye sects of perdition, denying even the Sovereign Master that bought them, bringing on themselves swift perdition; and many shall follow their dissolutenesses;* because of whom the way of the truth shall be blasphemed. And in covetousness with feigned (or, well-turned) words, they shall make merchandise of you: for whom judgment from of old is not idle, and their perdition slumbereth not" (vers. 1-3).

*There is no doubt that the Text. Rec. must here yield to much better authority, and the intrinsic sense.

Thus we see that the downward progress in Israel was to have its counterpart in Christendom, and a similar tide of moral pravity both cause and effect of hateful heterodoxy. If God of old, as we were told, raised up for the evil day prophets as marked for the truth as for holiness of life, Satan was not slow to supply prophets as shameless for their lies as for their selfish and corrupt ways. This the O.T. shows but too abundantly; and here the apostle foretells it would be no better but more guiltily where grace under the gospel was more open to be abused than the law.

Let me refer to a modern development as a sample; the party extensively spread over Great Britain and America which adopts J. S. Russell's Parousia, London, 1878. It is the antithesis of the Seventh-Day Baptist school, which destroys the gospel by its extreme judaizing, and is therefore too repulsive to attract any save those completely under law. But the Parousia delusion captivates the wider and more refined minds who cannot shut their eyes to the "better thing" that Christ has introduced, and the ministry of the Spirit with its subsisting and surpassing glory; yet all herein is taken up in a way merely natural. It starts with the assumption that the Lord's second coming or presence took place at the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70! and that thenceforward the promised glory is fulfilled, so that we are now reigning with Christ! and therefore the fullest change so long looked for in both O. and N.T. has already taken place!!

Hence dogmatic and practical Christianity are alike and absolutely annulled in such a pseudo-scheme. For the N.T. contemplates us and our communion; and our walk and our worship are in view of the blessed presence of Christ to receive us glorified to Himself for the Father's house, where He is now (not we till then). Not only the Gospels cease to apply but the Epistles, to say nothing of the Revelation; for they unquestionably exhort us to a path of suffering, both for righteousness' sake and for Christ's name, in a world wholly opposed to Him and His reign. When He really appears, God will use His solemn judgments, so that the world will learn righteousness, especially as Satan cannot then seduce. In short, the enemy has beguiled these visionaries into an entire abolition of all the state and duties of believers on which the Bible insists till "that day," when all things become new, however true now to our faith and hope, as they will then be in fact and to every eye.

Nor need one do more than glance at another egregious folly under the strange claim of "Christian Science." It is worthy of a female teacher who cannot be ignorant that the apostle by the Holy Spirit calls her to learn in quietness with all subjection, saying by St. Paul "I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness." He forbids "exercise," and not usurpation only. Here too the notions are too preposterous to need anything but a rebuke for their presumption and impiety. If these set up to be new inventions, it would be a very long task to survey all the old schemes of falsehood which have been accumulating since our Epistle, and are designated as "heresies" or more correctly "sects of perdition." For therein lies the difference of "schism" from "sect": the former a party within, the latter, more aggravated as being a different party without, as 1 Cor. 11: 18, 19 makes plain, though habitually forgotten in systematic divinity.

Even before the Kingdom of the heavens came or the church was founded on the Lord dead, risen, and ascended, He warned (in Matt. 13) of the darnel which the enemy would sow among the wheat. Clearly it is neither pagans nor Jews but nominal Christians, who were not to be cut off, and would pursue their destructive evil till the Son of man come in personal judgment. So in Luke 12. He also described the faithless though professing servant who would put off His return, and accordingly be marked by worldliness and oppressive self-exaltation, and must have his portion with the unbelievers, punished all the more severely because he made not ready nor did His will though he knew it. What an appeal to conscience!

Again in Acts 20 the apostle Paul in his charge to the overseers or elders of the church in Ephesus told them that he knew of there coming in among them after his departure grievous wolves not sparing the flock, and from among their own selves men rising up speaking perverted things to draw the disciples after them. Earlier to the Thessalonian saints he pointed out the mystery of lawlessness at work, not among Jews or Gentiles desperately wicked as they were, but among Christian professors of the latter day which was to develop into the apostasy and the man of sin, the lawless one, to be consumed (not by preaching however sound, but) by the judicial breath of the Lord Jesus. Later to the Philippians he mourned over "many" as enemies of Christ's cross whose end is perdition. So in 1 Tim. 4 he says that the Spirit speaks expressly of some in latter times falling away from the faith, heeding deceiving spirits in hypocrisy of legend-mongers without conscience yet ascetics; and in 2 Tim. 3 he speaks of the opposite school of self-will or self-indulgence and proud lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, with a form of piety but denying its power. From these the word is, "Turn away," with a twofold announcement, that all those wishing to live piously shall be persecuted, and that wicked men and impostors shall wax worse and worse. See also 2 Tim. 4: 1-4.

The Epistle of James (James 5: 7-9) calls to patience and establishment of heart, "because the presence of the Lord is drawn nigh!" "Behold, the judge standeth before the doors." So Peter in his First Epistle declares it "the time for judgment to begin from the house of God." And here we begin with his full testimony as to false teachers who corrupt the springs of all truth and righteousness. Jude goes over the same ground, only denouncing its apostate character which was a deeper view. 1 John fully characterises as the "last hour" the appalling prevalence of antichrists gone out, the more freely to work their nefarious way. And we may regard the Revelation as the great Christian prophecy of the approaching judgments, first providential, then personal when Christendom becomes but a sad object for divine punishment. All point to the awful issue: not reunion save in an evil way so far as it may be; but the Lord's appearing in relentless dealing when the cup of iniquity is full.

There is no difficulty in the apostle's predicating of these false teachers that the Sovereign Master bought them. It is "purchase," which is universal, not "redemption" which is limited to those who have in Christ the forgiveness of the offences through His blood. In the parable too we read that He bought not only the treasure but the field. Purchase acquired all as His slaves or chattels; but redemption sets free from Satan's power as well as divine judgment. Hence they are nowhere said to be "redeemed," but they were bought though they disowned the purchase in rebellion against His rights.

What can bring a deeper stigma on "the way of the truth" than the dissolutenesses, whatever their form, of these accredited teachers? It is in Jeremiah's writings where we find most fully the prophets prophesying falsely and the priests conniving at the evil so as to rule. "And my people love to have it so; and what will ye do in the end thereof?" says the true prophet in his anguish. But throughout Jewish history we see the same principle from the beginning to the crisis in our Lord's day, which ended in the Romans taking sway both their place and their nation. Still more terrible is God's vengeance on the abominations of the N. T. Babylon and the false teachers who for their covetousness and well-turned words have all along drawn the mass into departure from the truth, despite of His Spirit, and rebellion against God and His Anointed. Jubilant at man's progress in his own way without Christ, how little they believe that God's eye is on their selfish merchandise, and that their perdition does not slumber according to the judgment pronounced on such evil even before the deluge! How utterly unfounded to expect in Christendom, any more than in Israel, a real reunion and recovery! For the mass it is worse and worse, whatever superficial appearances say to the contrary. Scripture is clear and conclusive.

In the three opening verses the apostle pointed out in plain and pointed terms the very class of false teachers which is now poisoning the fountains of Christendom. It is itself a prophecy fulfilled to every believer of spiritual intelligence. As in Israel the false prophets, so now the false teachers are a fact more manifest in our day than ever before. The very scattering, which ought not to be among true-hearted saints, but which is inevitable under personal or party pressure, makes the peculiar evil more apparently the work of the spirit of error. They may differ each from the rest doctrinally in other respects; but they all agree to let in scepticism as to scripture, which necessarily destroys divine authority for every article of faith, and therefore directly tends to dissolve the credit of its rule in anything. Now where is there a single denomination free from this malaria? And the worst is that it is no longer eccentric individuals winked at to avoid trouble and split, but now leading seniors and energetic juniors in the ministry are those more zealous for that deadly error, though nominally some may not deny Christ and the truth of His work.

In former days, as the rule when such unbelievers found themselves opposed through their speculations to the Articles of faith they had subscribed, or to their public profession on becoming religious guides, they withdrew from a position they could no longer hold with common integrity. But in our day we see how those who are false in doctrine are bold enough to set conscience at defiance, and cleave to their position and emoluments when they abandon the truth which they had solemnly pledged themselves to preach and teach. It is not therefore the Lord and the truth only which they betray; but they sacrifice plain honesty of principle for a place and a living which they value. This depravity too is severely exposed in the apostle's words, "through covetousness with well-turned words they will make merchandise of you." Nor is it his rebuke only since he adds the retribution which must befall those who thus mock God: "for whom judgment of old is not idle, and their destruction slumbereth not." The maledictions under the seal of the Fisherman may return on the guilty illwisher, but God will surely give effect to the words of the bondman and apostle of Jesus Christ His Son in the solemn Epistle before us.

The apostle proceeds to give examples of divine judgment executed on angels as well as men.

"For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to lowest hell and gave them up to chains [or, pits*] of gloom reserved for judgment, and spared not an ancient world but preserved Noah an eighth (i.e. with seven others), a preacher of righteousness, having brought a flood upon a world of ungodly ones" (vers. 4, 5).

We must not confound this fall of angels with the original defection of the devil and his angels, which had a distinct character and a different treatment on God's part. What can be plainer than that the earlier defection was before man was created? For the devil their leader became man's tempter, as his own fault was being lifted up with self-importance and pride against God, and his aim was to lure our first parents into like independence and rebellion. In the case before us the direction of sin was toward man in a way contrary to the nature of angels or of mankind; and so abhorrent to God that He executed an exemplary dealing of His displeasure at the time of the deluge. This too continues through all the ages of man on the earth till final judgment come for wicked men and angels when the eternal state is to open. The devil and his angels have quite another destiny; for they are allowed to tempt man, as their chief tempted even the Son of God when here incarnate, rising more and more during the season of divine long-suffering till the ruin of Christendom, as well as of the Jews, shall revive the Roman empire in the Beast, and the False Prophet of Judea, the Antichrist, to sit not only as Messiah but as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is Gad. Even at the end of Christ's thousand years' reign, Satan will be loosed once more to deceive man for a little space. All so far is in contrast with the sinning angels here.

*It is a question between σιροῖς or σειροῖς (ABC) and σειραῖς (KLP and the cursives). Here τηρουμένους has better support than τετηρουμένους.

But the comparison with Jude 6, 7, renders another fact sufficiently clear; that the particular time and the special enormity of their sin point to what is described in Gen. 6: 1-4, which played a prominent part in the accumulated evil for which the deluge was sent to destroy the world which then was. One knows how repugnant to most minds is the natural sense of this episode, what violent efforts have been made by learned men to evade it, provoked by absurd rabbinical legends gloating in what is vile and strange, and availing themselves of our Saviour's words in Matt. 22: 30 on the very different truth of the resurrection state to deny its possibility. Besides, the word does not necessarily mean "wives" but "women," though ordinarily so employed. However this be, we may all admire the holy wisdom of God in telling us briefly and even obscurely a tale on which man has so much to say, and so great a desire to fill up the details, if he could.

Next the apostle speaks of Noah with his family of seven preserved when God spared not the ancient world. For this is important in his account of God's government. If His hand brought a flood on a world of the ungodly, He took care to guard the safety of Noah's house for the sake of its faithful head. And he draws attention to the interesting fact that Noah was not only a righteous man but "a preacher of righteousness." The hundred and twenty years of which Jehovah spoke was the space of the preparation of the ark and of Noah's preaching It has nothing to do with the duration of human life, as some have fancied, but of divine patience before "the flood came and took all away." To the same time refers the mention of Noah and his preaching also in 1 Peter 3: 19, 20 where we are told of their spirits, disobedient as they were to the word of his testimony, and therefore in prison awaiting a judgment still more terrible than aught of a temporal nature, however vast and exceptional

And so it is now. The day of the Lord, of which the Lord Himself warned, and calls His servants to warn, is at hand; and it will come when men say Peace and safety, while their hearts are filled with fear and foreboding of what is about to be on the inhabited earth. Assuredly the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power taking vengeance on a guilty world disobedient to the gospel will even more terrify men in its sudden destruction.

The apostle adduces another divine judgment, not so vast as the deluge, but even more solemnly significant, though on a small scale.

"And reducing to ashes [the] cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, he condemned [them] with overthrow, having set an example to those that should live ungodlily, and rescued righteous Lot, distressed by the behaviour of those abandoned in licentiousness; for the righteous [man] dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing was tormenting a righteous soul day after day with lawless works" (vers. 6-8).

The awful story is told with holy plainness of speech in Gen. 19. The sinning and doom of angels consigned to the deepest pit of gloom in chains of darkness for a judgment still more terrible; and the ensuing and unsparing destruction of an old world except Noah and his family, are followed by a catastrophe of fire and brimstone on the cities of the plain. There the bold monstrous depravity of mankind sunk to its lowest depths and cried aloud for heaven's open and indignant vengeance. These were early days comparatively speaking. The boasted civilization of man had borne much fruit to glory in, not only on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris, but on the Nile. And here on the borders of Canaan, destined for the seed of Abraham, and round the sea into which debouched the waters of the Jordan, were men sunk into unblushing vileness not to be named, save in the days long after by the classic authors of Greece and Rome, who liked moral filth without shame. Host righteously did Jehovah execute His judgment on these cities, setting an example to those that should live an ungodly life, not providentially through the hand of man, but Himself raining upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven.

Do any now bearing the name of Christians question this dealing of Jehovah? They may plead the unbelief of an erratic speculator like Origen to excuse their own scepticism, to which, as they allow, the free thinking of Hobbes and Spinoza and the like gave a great impulse; and they are not afraid to cheer one another with the godless cry that they are the winning side. But how will it be when, in the approaching consummation of the age, the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with angels of His power in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God and those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Will it be any consolation to the teachers of those responsible to preach the truth that they were successful in undermining God's authority in His word under colour of historical investigation which has no real facts but fancy, and of criticism which is not to get rid of human error but to enthrone it and to dissolve, in will at least, all that is divine? Will they encourage one another in their work of mischief when such impious infidelity pays the penalty of everlasting destruction from the Lord's presence and from the glory of His might? O that where conscience is seared by the power of evil, there might be an ear to hear, and repentance be given to the acknowledgment of the truth, so that out of the snare of the devil, taken as they were by him, they might wake up for God's will! They may flatter themselves that they are as moral as the old cities were corrupt. But after all to reject God's word, and claim title to sit in judgment on it, is to have a character of pride and malignity more destructive than the abominable and unnatural debasement of Sodom. If God, not man, is the measure of sin they who are caught red-handed in their war against His inspiration will learn then, if they mock now, what it is to have helped on the apostasy and the man of sin.

But the apostle here as before attests divine mercy as well as judgment. For as before He preserved Noah preacher of righteousness with seven others who shared the ark with him, so now He saved "righteous Lot, distressed by the behaviour of those abandoned in licentiousness." Peter's appointed view is righteousness and unrighteousness; as Jude's was apostasy from a place given by divine will. Both were true of old, and shall be true again in those who hate and deny prophecy, yet will prove its truth in the ruin of those they mislead. And shall they escape, who served Satan's aim and despised God's word, because they die before that day to which all the prophets point, though they had "settled" it to have been a mistake? Lot was not like Abraham in the secret of the Lord apart from the scene. But he wee no scoffer, any more than a sceptic; "for the righteous man, dwelling among them in seeing and hearing was tormenting a righteous soul day after day with lawless works." Whoever heard of such seriousness in a dilettante higher critic? Lot's was not the more blessed part of Abraham, yet was he truly grieved for the Lord's sake. And so it will be with a righteous remnant, when the Jews are in their last trial and the mass accept idols once more, and the antichrist too, as the Psalms and the Prophets amply prove.

Thereon the apostle goes out to show the divine government in a more general way both as to good and evil.

"[The] Lord (or, Jehovah) knoweth to deliver the godly out of trial, and to keep unjust [men] for judgment-day to be punished; and especially those that walk after flesh in lust of uncleanness, and despise lordship. Daring, self-willed, they tremble not speaking railingly of dignities (or, glories), when angels, being greater in might and power, bring not against them before [the] Lord (or, Jehovah) a railing charge" (vers. 9-11).

Though it is still the evil day and the enemy is not yet hurled from his place in the heavens (Eph. 6), the eye of the Lord is not closed to the trial of the godly any more than to the ways of unrighteous men. There is a constantly active care of His own to deliver out of temptation, as He reserves unjust men for another day when judgment must requite them. But this is allotted to the Lord Jesus, whom the world despised and rejected. He it is who was determinately appointed of God Judge of living and dead. The Father judgeth none but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He the Son is therefore the test. He that honours not the Son honours not the Father that sent Him. And as it is the self-emptying and humiliation of the Son in becoming man and dying on the cross which gave occasion to unbelief and contempt, instead of love and subjection, it will be as Son of man that the Lord will judge mankind. Those who believe on the Son of God receive in Him life eternal; those who despise and disobey Him as if only man must be judged by the glorified Son of man; and His judgment on the great white throne (Rev. 20: 12) will be as everlasting as His life He gives the believer. There will be no escaping judgment for unjust men, even if a day of judgment too punish them in this life at His appearing.

The gospel has saved those who believe for heaven; but it has not purged the earth of iniquity. This will be in the age to come when the Lord reigns over all the earth. It is not what God is doing now, nor will it be till He appears in glory. The darnel was to grow with the wheat in the world of profession. His servants were too ready to uproot; but His word is, Suffer both to grow together unto the harvest or the age's completion. Then shall He send His angels; for it will be their work, not ours even then. We have to witness grace. Then a king shall reign in righteousness; and as the result of retribution executed on the wicked, not only shall the righteous nation enter in, which keeps faithfulness, but "when Thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness."

But "specially those that walk after flesh in lust of uncleanness, and despise lordship" shall incur the divine indignation. To this the grace which God is now showing in the gospel will contribute, because unbelief works to indulge all the more in evil. For if favour be shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness, but trifles with sin, and hopes to walk as he likes with impunity; or as it is written in Eccles. 8: 11, "because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the children of men is full in them to do evil." Nor is it unclean lust only that is peculiarly offensive to God, and nourished by the abused grace of the gospel, but despising lordship. For God in His providence has set up the check of magisterial authority against evil; and what undermines this more than the self-will of man in these last days which pleads liberty against law to indulge in licence and rebellion? It was bad in Judaism; it is worse in Christendom, as this Epistle anticipates, and the corresponding Epistle of Jude. How this defiant haughtiness abounds now! And it will increase to more ungodliness, as the end of the age approaches.

In vers. 10, 11 the wicked spirit is still more pointedly designated. "Daring, self-willed, they tremble not speaking railingly of dignities (or, glories, literally); when angels, being greater in might and power, bring not against them before [the] Lord (or, Jehovah) a railing charge." The tongue as is shown in the Epistle of James is pre-eminently the index of the inner man's feelings, aim and character. He cannot always do what he would; but his lips express what he is in audacity and self-will. The fact that some are set in a place above others in authority is enough to rouse hatred and revolutionary desires, to lower and destroy. Men tremble not to speak railingly of dignities. A debased Christianity helps this where the truth does not reign to produce self-judgment, yet is sufficiently known to make little of man's pretensions and worldly glories. With such presumption of the baptised the apostle contrasts the humility and awe of angels, superior as they are in might and power, who have such a sense of reverence before God as to restrain their speech before Him, whatever be the evils to call out their abhorrence.

Even such a sketch did not suffice adequately to convey what the false teachers would turn out in Christendom. The Holy Spirit proceeds yet more vividly in His anticipative description of their words and deeds.

"But these, as irrational animals born by nature for capture and destruction, speaking evil in what things they are ignorant, shall also perish in their corruption, receiving as they shall wages of unrighteousness, accounting [their] ephemeral luxury pleasure, spots and blemishes, luxuriating in their love feasts [or, deceits], feasting with you; having eyes full of an adulteress and without cessation from sin; setting baits for unstable souls; having a heart practised in covetousness, children of curse; abandoning as they did a straight way, they went astray, following out in the way of Balaam [son] of Beor, who loved wages of unrighteousness, but had reproof of his own iniquity; a dumb beast of burden speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet" (vers. 12-16).

It was already shown generally from ver. 10 how these nominal Christians proceed after flesh in lust of pollution, instead of walking according to Spirit, as freed from the law of sin and of death. Then their boldness was contrasted with angels greater in strength and power who are as reverent before the Lord as those were scornful. Now they are compared to such irrational animals as by nature are born to be captured and destroyed. How overwhelming that the apostle has thus to describe false teachers and those that follow their dissolutenesses! They were once enlightened, had tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of Holy Spirit, and tasted God's good word and power of a coming age (not evil as the present is), and now yielded to malevolence, speaking evilly in what things they were ignorant. What was before such but also to "perish in their corruption?"

We may profitably remark that Heb. 6 in reviewing the many and great privileges of such spurious professors does not speak any more than Peter of being born anew or of God, any more than of being sealed of the Spirit. They had accurate knowledge of the Christian revelation and special gift in its characteristic power Mind and feeling can go far in appreciating the wonderful works of God, and the moral beauty and grace of Christ. But in all the scriptures which designate natural men, the utmost care is taken to leave out the communication of life eternal and a divine nature, or "repentance unto life." This supposes a real self-judgment before God, an overwhelming sense of sin in His sight, of total moral ruin, so as absolutely to need sovereign grace, but it is never found save in those begotten of God. Yet short of it, what is there that the intellect cannot appropriate, enjoy, and proclaim? Ere long the test comes, which life in Christ with the Spirit's power alone can stand; and Satan so touches and masters them that their departure from God becomes more apparent and complete. Shall they not receive wages of unrighteousness? Can any course of life be farther from Christ than esteeming ephemeral luxury pleasure? He never once sought to please Himself but in every thing to do His Father's will; and did He not call His own to hear His voice and follow Him? Did He not suffer for us, leaving us a model so that we should follow in His steps?

"Spots and blemishes" were these men, "luxuriating in their love-feasts (or, deceits),* feasting with you." To bring self-indulgence into a love-feast was a shame to Christ, and the forerunner of worse corruption. "Having eyes full of an adulteress and without cessation from sin." It was bad enough at a heathen celebration: what was it before the Holy and True? "Setting baits for unstable souls" in honour of Him who suffered to the uttermost to win the foulest from their sins to God! Who could wonder that they "have a heart practised in covetousness" in order to carry on the basest self-indulgence, where all are bound, denying impiety and worldly lusts, to live soberly, and justly and piously in the present age, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ! But these who act as if the cross of Christ opened the door for any abomination, are they not "children of curse?" It was sinning that grace may abound.

*There is no small diversity and correction in the readings here. Cp. Jude 12.

"Having left a straight way" (and such surely is Christ), "they went astray, having followed out in the way of Balaam [son] of Beor, who received wages of unrighteousness." No more solemn or apposite warning could be drawn from the Book of God; none of one who more deceived himself and others; none that so combined the most glowing and grand anticipations for Israel from Jehovah with the subtlest efforts to ensnare into evil which should compromise and endanger them. Yet had he crafty care for his own interest while pretending to be quite above it. Whatever his words, he loved wages of unrighteousness, but had reproof to his own iniquity, and in a form eminently adapted to appeal to his conscience and to be a continual warning in the ease, less sceptical than the west. "A dumb beast of burden speaking with man's voice forbade the madness of the prophet." He who boasted of having his eyes open saw not what the ass was given to see, and knew not why she turned aside (from the sword drawn in the angel's hand), and why she thrust herself unto the wall that Balaam might not have his head smitten, but at most his foot crushed; and why she fell down where there was no other way for her or her master to escape destruction. How much more guilty are false teachers since the Son of God came and gave us understanding to know Him that is true!

The indignant invective of the apostle is not even yet exhausted. So various are the forms of hypocritical unrighteousness, he would have the faithful fully informed and on their guard.

"These are springs without water,* and mists* driven by storm, to whom the gloom of darkness is reserved.* For uttering overswellings of vanity, they allure in lusts of the flesh, by dissolutenesses, those that are just †escaping from them that walk in error, promising them liberty while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a man is worsted, by him is he also held in bondage. For if after having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but again entangled and worsted thereby, the last for them is become worse than the first" (vers. 17-20).

*For "clouds," the best authorities give "and mists," and omit "for ever."

†"Those just (or, a little) escaping," not "those clean (or, really) escaped," as in the Text Rec. In ver. 20 it is the aorist participle, not the present as in ver. 18.

It is no longer contrast with angels or comparison with Balaam, but the gravest picture of spiritual worthlessness with the seal of everlasting darkness affixed before judgment consigns to it. It is the privilege of every Christian, not only to be begotten of God but to have the Spirit of His Son given to be in him a spring of water springing up into life eternal. Yea the Lord adds elsewhere, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water; and that this great gift should not pass away like Jewish favours, but abide for ever. And surely the Christian teacher has yet more, not only the δωρεα; to enjoy but his special χάρισμα to make it known, and appreciated, and applied. But these teachers of Christendom, certainly not of Christ, "are springs without water" (they never had any), and "mists driven by storm," instead of luminaries directed by the Holy Spirit; they express nature empty and fallen, and under gusts of feeling if not the enemy's power. And the end is not death only but divine wrath for ever, in character with the darkness they loved because their deeds were evil.

For what are the utterances of those that figure for mischief on the ecclesiastical stage? "Over-swellings of vanity" by which to "allure in desires and lusts of flesh by dissolutenesses those just escaping from them that walk in error." Take three plain examples of false teaching which directly tend to lower the standard of holiness and make provision for flesh's lusts. 1. Sin is not "the transgression of the law" (as in the A.V. of 1 John 3: 4), but "lawlessness" which rejects all subjection to God, and applies to Gentiles who knew not the law as well as to the Jew who did, and to the wicked that heard but obeyed not the gospel. How much evil in Christendom is not touched by the Decalogue! 2. What licence for evil ways is not covered by "so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" in Gal. 5: 17? Its real meaning is the wholly different force, "that ye should not do the things that ye would" or desire. The error becomes the religion, or at least practice, of despair which is as far from Christian holiness as can be. 3. There is too the dogmatic error in the misreading of Rom. 7: 6, where the too confiding public were taught that the law was dead, instead of the believers' death to it, so that they should serve in newness of spirit, and not oldness of letter which alas! has ever been the bane of mere profession. It was sad that good men were blinded to what their spiritual instinct must have revolted from; but who can tell the enormous influence of such a threefold cord for misrepresenting God's word, especially in the hands of unscrupulous, false teachers who gloat in misrenderings which thus consecrate their wicked life and labours?

Love, lowliness, purity are essentials of the new nature, and hence so characterise the Christian that, when failure in any of these respects occurs, the weak are stumbled, and the strong are grieved for the Lord's sake. But when haughty vapourings as in ver. 18 takes the place of truth as it is in Jesus, one need not wonder that underneath they allure in flesh's lusts by wantonnesses those just escaping with the skin of their teeth from them that walk in error. For the young are peculiarly open to danger from these seducing ways in those they trust for precept and example. The promise of liberty has a fair sound to their ears. But the apostle points his finger to the fatal spot, which is not now nor ever that of God's children: they are veritable bondmen of corruption. No swellings can hide or excuse the evil, or disguise effectually to the simplest saint the enemy at work. "For by whom one is worsted, by him also is he held in bondage."

The very babe in Christ only just escaping is sensitive to vileness and turns away, where old ones are dulled and deadened by theories which apologise for error or evil. Nor is any plea more insidious or successful than unity, precious where Christ is its centre; but where it is not really His, it is the gilded bait of the soul-destroyer. "For if, having escaped the pollutions of the world through true knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but again thereby entangled, they are worsted, the last for them is become worse than the first" (ver. 20). How graphic and energetic and solemn is the apostle's picture of the soul's ruin! And this after God's work in the cross of Christ, this gift of the Spirit sent forth from heaven, and His full revelation to man. Yet the cross had already shown man's enmity and guilt and ruin, with Satan's power over him; but, thank God, it has also shown man in Christ perfect for God, for sinners to save, for saints to keep, guide and bless, that Satan be wholly defeated.

But nowhere is the divine value of the cross more ignored than where it is made an external idol, the rival of the crescent that rules the night, or of the sun that rules the day. In all these sin is not seen to be already dealt with to faith for God's glory; but man profits by unbelief to make a tariff for it in a way suited to circumstances sad his own will for Satan's pleasure.

The apostle confirms the awful end of the course he had just portrayed by the two concluding verses, one explanatory, and the other in the true proverb applied with its telling figures, too often exemplified.

"For it were better for them not to have known well the way of righteousness than knowing well to have turned back* from the holy commandment delivered to them" (ver. 21).

{* ὑποστρέψαι B C P etc. ἐπιστρέψαι K L etc.}

The righteous tone of the warning is sustained with apostolic gravity to the close. Knowledge even of the most accurate sort, however desirable, is not the indispensable thing, but faith working by love and yielding our members in bondage to righteousness unto holiness. It is never affirmed or hinted that these false teachers were begotten of God; but they had professed His name who secures every thing that is good to the partaker of a divine nature, to which they had ever been strangers. They had once abandoned the pollutions of the world through the moral effect of what they had received. For the light of Christianity has had not a little influence even on Jews and heathen and infidels; and this the false teachers had profited by as much or more. But when the crisis came personally, and they deliberately succumbed to known evil, their downfall was profound if not rapid.

Therefore it is that we know now that "it were better for them not to have known well the way of righteousness than knowing well to have turned back from the holy commandment delivered to them." What can be clearer or more certain? The way of righteousness is Christ made known in the gospel; but the truth and the life accompany the way when it is taken by a living faith, and fruit of righteousness follows only through Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. Here was nothing but the ground of fallen nature bringing forth thorns and briers, and therefore the end is all the worse for a beginning of outward culture and cleansing, and the end is to be burned as we read in Heb. 6: 8. God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this also shall he reap. For he that sows to his own flesh shall reap corruption from the flesh; but he that sows to the Spirit shall reap from the Spirit life eternal. In this the false teachers had no more part or lot than Simon Magus in the early days. Their ruin was all the more aggravated by the morning cloud of seeming promise or the early dew of good words perhaps blessed to others, without effect in themselves. The attempt of some to attribute to them a passing from death into life is disproved by scripture which never goes so far, but stops short of salvation by grace. The holy commandment delivered to them was not even mixed with faith in their souls; and from this they at length turned back, that they might do their own will and gratify their evil lusts.

We may see in Heb. 10: 26-30 more analogy with our chapter than in Heb. 6: 4-8. For in the latter case it was rather a return to Jewish ordinances after having professed the grace of the gospel. In the former it is a return to sins after being confessors of Christ's death, which means for us death to sin. This case is what we read of in the warning of Peter before us, only that he dwells on the aggravated guilt of false teachers, as the Epistle to the Hebrews does on the apostasy of professing Christians in yielding to sinful lusts. How fully and precisely scripture provides for every danger, and against all evil!

"[But]* there hath happened to them the [saying] of the true proverb, A dog returned to his own vomit, and A sow washed into rolling in mire" (ver. 22).

{* δέ is not in A B etc., but in c C K L P etc. Lesser flaws we may leave.}

The yielding to sin, described in ver. 21, is entirely confirmed by the application to their case by the point of the true proverb that follows: "a dog returned to his own vomit, and a sow washed into rolling in mire." Never had these evil workers been sheep of the Good Shepherd's pasture. They had never been transformed by the renewal of mind which is of God's effectual grace. There was therefore no such anomaly in the Christian sphere as the degradation of a sheep to a dog, nor such a metamorphosis as into swine. When born anew, there is a new life and nature imparted; but the old abides to be disallowed, because we died with Christ to sin. But a dog does not become a sheep, nor do sheep become swine, save in the false science of theology. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3: 6). And this it is which the believer receives through faith in Christ, even His life communicated now to the soul in the Spirit, as by-and-by to the body also at His coming again. There is not the most distant thought that the false teachers were ever thus born anew. On the contrary they are described as having no more than what the natural mind is capable of knowing. They might have accurate knowledge in the intellect, but no divine work whereby they were begotten of God. Hence at last came a turning back to a worse state than before they professed Christianity.

What can exceed the loathing our apostle feels and expresses, as he denounces not only the errors but the immoral practices of these false teachers? The apostle of the circumcision describes in solemn terms the ruin of which Paul at Miletus warned the elders of the church in Ephesus. "I know that there will come in among you after my departure grievous wolves not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking, perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20: 29, 30). "Grievous wolves" are surely enemies, whether or not they get the position of guides; they were enemies who, instead of loving and tending the flock of God, ravenously and at all cost preyed on the sheep. And the alienated elders, who forgot the Lord with the grace and truth which came through Him, fell sadly from their office when they by means of perverted things drew away the disciples after them. Thus what man built in the Lord's name, man's will should mislead and destroy; and such is Christendom, an utter departure from the heavenly witness of Christ to which the church and every Christian is called. That which Christ has built will alone stand, for it is kept through the grace that is in Him, which is unfailing. But all that bear His name are responsible; and guides must give account, not merely as all saints, but of that entrusted to them in particular.

Still these self-seeking chiefs, and even the grievous wolves though violently injurious, are not depicted with the contempt which the apostle attaches to those of whom he warns in this chapter. What figure more expressive of abominable impurity can be found to express "A dog returning to his own vomit, and A washed sow into rolling in mire?" The dog so returning we hear of in Prov. 26: 11, where the application is to the fool returning to his folly. Here it is still more emphatically said of him who once knew clearly the glad tidings of Christ and the truth of God in a general way. The better the knowledge, the worse if corruption ensues. What could match it but "A washed sow" again gone back to roll in mud?

Thus the awful issue of unrenewed man here set out in the unerring word of God keeps the security of grace wholly untouched. May the true believer not slip or fall? Surely he may, if unwatchful. But "he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand (Rom. 14: 4). Without Him he owns himself lost; but now "we more than conquer through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8: 37). A man may preach ever so acceptably; but if he live evilly as one not born anew, he perishes a reprobate. And why any Christian should question this is the leas excusable, since scripture is perfectly plain in its call to self-denial, and in its denunciation of unholiness particularly in such as profess the Lord's name, with full warning of the awful end.

2 Peter 3.

From the humbling and awful indictment of false teachers in 2 Peter 2 beginning to play their corrupting part in Christendom, as the false prophets had wrought the ruin of Israel in the past, the apostle turns to speak of this Second Epistle, and its aim in the grace of God. But even so, as we shall soon see, he has to warn of another daring snare to be, and a wholly different class of adversaries.

"This already a second epistle, beloved, I write to you, in both which I stir up your pure mind by putting in remembrance, that ye be mindful of the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Saviour [by] your apostles*" (vers. 1, 2).

{*The uncials give ὑμῶν, the cursives ἡμῶν as in the ordinary text It does not Seem that any of the ancient versions support the former. No doubt the peculiarity of the phrase accounts for this. But we may be assured that, as it is overwhelmingly attested. so we do well to receive it, and learn the special ground for the unusual expression. It was a reminder of their near and dear relation to Christians.}

The apostle of the circumcision here presents scripture, both O. and N.T., as the grand safeguard, just as the apostle to the nations in his second Epistle to Timothy. Neither has the least thought of apostolic succession; which, if really given of the Lord, might well be regarded as no small stay for beleaguered saints exposed to the worst of perils from misled leaders, and these at work within. But the truth is that the mystery of lawlessness was actively at work from early days, as 2 Thess. 2 informs us. It was restrained by the power of the Spirit, and especially by apostolic energy. But, as the apostle Paul let the Ephesian overseers know (Acts 20: 29, 30), his own decease would be the signal for fresh and successful efforts of the enemy. "I know that after my departure there will come in grievous wolves not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall rise up men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them". What then was the resource? "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all that are sanctified." Not a hint of a successor, but the assurance to faith of God and the word of His grace.

Just so here our apostle, in view of the danger, and horrors of the false teachers carrying on their nefarious work, casts the Christians from among the dispersed Jews on the words that were spoken before by the holy prophets, and on the commandment of the Lord and Saviour by their apostles. Both the prophets and the apostles were inspired to write as they did; for only by the faith of divine communications are those who believe brought into living relationship with God. Thus His word separates the soul to God, and by the revelation of Christ is the source of their joy and the formative power of obedience. In this faith the elders from Abel downwards obtained witness, whatever the dislike of the world, which was not worthy of them and awaits sure judgment from God. Still the O.T. at best was predictive, and could not make known as the N.T. does the infinite glory and grace of the Saviour, nor the God-glorifying efficacy of His work for our souls, before the salvation of our bodies at His coming again. known eternal life and accomplished redemption give the believers now to walk in the light, as could not be given before Christ came the first time, and renders him as a worshipper once purged to have no more conscience of sins, yea to have the Holy Ghost sealing him, and the earnest of coming glory with Christ as a joint-heir.

These privileges of the believer are the outcome of His actual advent and of the atoning work done and accepted by God, so that His love has been and is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us. The First Epistle of Peter makes much known, the Epistles of Paul much more, which could neither be known nor enjoyed as they are since redemption. Thus the commandment of the Lord and Saviour by "your apostles," while it fulfils the spiritual promises of the O.T., goes far beyond it in the revelation of blessings in and through and with Christ in the heavenly places. Hence Paul refers to the mystery or secret which was kept silent in times everlasting, but now manifested according to the eternal God's commandment for obedience of faith to all the nations. For, after the cross (which entailed the setting aside of the Jew meanwhile), God set up the rejected Christ above as the Supreme Chief over all things heavenly and earthly, and makes us who now believe (few or Greek), His body and bride, to share all glory with Him at His coming. This glory of the Head and the body over all things is far higher, wider and deeper, than anything in O.T. prophecy; it is the secret now revealed, however little it may be apprehended.

How horrified both the apostles would have been to witness the deadly undermining of the Bible, which, begun by free-thinking men more than a hundred years ago has become a naturalised epidemic, not only in Germany, France and Holland, but now in the English-speaking regions of the earth; growing self-confident, impudent and arrogant beyond measure, not knowing that God has forewarned of this turning away their ears from the truth and readiness of mind for fables. Take their treatment of the Pentateuch in particular, and of such prophets as Isaiah and Daniel. The infinite fact of a divine Person become flesh as truly as He is God is (with very few exceptions, to whom God may give deliverance) as nothing in their eyes, though of infinite value to those who believe and love as they know His love, God's love, to them.

Christ and His apostles declare that Moses wrote these earlier books. He and they treat the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, not only as genuine and authentic, but as of divine authority. Most are not ashamed to be so intoxicated with the poisonous wine of neo-criticism as to deny the certainty of Christ's knowledge, and to regard Him and the inspired writings as under the ignorant prejudice of their age, just like themselves at the present time, impiously claiming for themselves superiority of intelligence ranging over the, whole Bible.

Their success, with the youth chiefly of a mocking and scoffing generation, emboldens them to shut their eyes to the iniquity of sitting in judgment, not on copyists who introduced some errata, but on His word which shall judge them. They believe not that the Judge stands before the doors; nor that the secret of lawlessness is in all this working more fatally than in the priestly party who glorify themselves and their leaders with their self-aggrandising legends. For those give God's written word the lie, and accept as a settled fact that, instead of Moses writing e.g. Genesis, it was really written by a large number of unknown men, fragments interwoven by a compiler, separated by hundreds of years, with perhaps traditionary words of Moses, a priestly document and another quite different and opposed, and only published many centuries after Moses and his successor Joshua. Now even if we do not notice the monstrous perversion of the discovery of the neglected book of the law in Josiah's day, as if it were a concoction then first palmed on the king and the people, how could such a hodge-podge as all this be the word of God? How blot out the fullest historical proof that Moses wrote as God spoke to him? How get rid of the inspired men from his own day till the O.T. Canon closed? Were these holy men all impostors? Were they, the inspired, more ignorant of divine things, than these infidel reformers?

The faith of saints in all ages fully accepts the O.T. So the Lord taught His disciples, and His hearers generally, as God's testimony, written by those who claim it and by adequate evidence communicated it. Nor does the expression on which stands the modern fable of the Elohists and Jehovists and the many redactors afford the most slender proof. It is simply the reverie of one who was too ignorant and unbelieving to see the depth of truth in the words for "God (Elohim)" sovereign and historical, and "Jehovah" for His reference to relationship. It is a distinction as real as important, which is lost to such as build on the absurd fancy that it springs from different documents or legends. But infidelity took it up to discredit and destroy God's authority, as it must if received, as well as deny those whom we have sound evidence to believe really wrote the various hooks as they stand, with few and brief editorial notes at a later day added by similar divine authority.

But here, as in 2 Tim. 3, we read how the last words of the two apostles call on the saints to cherish what God has given them, things old and new. Be the corruptions as they may, and however veiled by those who are deceived and deceive by them, we have the inspired word to stir up the "pure mind." How different from the unbelief that denies real inspiration, and fancies the most incredible tissue of authorship to set aside God's word searching the reins and hearts! What more blessed than to have such in remembrance? What could we call to mind for profit and comfort compared with the prophets and the apostles as our teachers? It is not those of old only, but "your apostles." For as one of these wrote, "We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not. From this we know the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." Solemn word for conscience! "They (that judge the word of God, the sceptics) are of the world; for this reason they speak [as] of the world, and the world, heareth them." O how true is the apostolic word! Even that of old is not enough now without "your apostles." If the O.T. be Blighted, the N.T. will ere long share the same lot. How awful to become an apostate! Yet the danger is most imminent in our day.

A special reason for heeding the prophets and the apostles follows, which gives urgency to the warning as to those who despise the word of God. For do we not recognise that today is a day of prevalent and growing mockery in Christendom among philosophers and those influenced by their speculations?

"Knowing this first, that in the last of the days mockers shall come with mockery walking according to their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming (or presence)? for from the [day] that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue thus (or, as they were) from beginning of creation" (vers. 3, 4).

The apostle first introduced the formula "Knowing this first" when insisting on the divine source and character, with the certainty and value, of prophecy, even while intimating the still more intimate and elevated nature of the heavenly light and hope of Christianity. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is (or rather is made to be) of its own interpretation." It is not an isolated thing, but part of a vast plan for God's glory in the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Its true and lull interpretation cannot be apart from His future kingdom in displayed glory. As the Fathers counsels look onward to nothing short of this, so the Holy Spirit has moved in the inspiration of the word to this end. Man of himself is quite beneath such ability. Like the gracious power of good which alone could set aside all the evils under which man groaned, and especially the awful weight of Satanic possession, as a testimony before the age to come will enjoy it fully; so prophecy of scripture anticipatively fills the heart and mind of the believer with the mighty beneficence of that day, and His grace and His glory through it come to pass with everlasting Hallelujahs to God. It was therefore in neither case the working or effect of man's will. Those who wrought the wondrous deeds, or who wrote the no less wondrous words, did so by the power and Jove of God Who alone could qualify them in honour of His Son, the Lamb of God.

So here the repetition of "knowing this first" marks the importance of the truth. It might have seemed that the proclamation of the gospel to all the creation must have disarmed the hostile spirit, even of those who did not believe through pride, pleasure, and lusts of all kinds, to the saving of their souls. But the mind of the flesh is enmity against God. And our Lord :Himself had prepared us for unbelief and self-seeking and defiance of God and His word, as in Israel, so as bad or worse in Christendom. "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, till the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came .and destroyed all. And in like manner as took place in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven, and destroyed all: after this manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed." The subject is wound up in His closing figure: "where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together" (Luke 17). Divine judgment will find its object.

The apostle Paul was given to reveal that lawlessness should come out openly, ,as even from the early days of the gospel it was at work secretly, till (the great Hinderer being removed,) it should culminate in the man of sin, the express opposite of the Man of righteousness, the Saviour from perdition instead of its son; "whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness to them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth to them a working of error, that they should believe the falsehood, that all might be judged who believed not the truth but found pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2).

No less plain is 2 Tim. 2, 3, and 4, on the growth of haughty unbelief and unrestrained disregard of God in word and deed in the last days, while having a form of piety before even this is finally cast off. The Epistle of James lays bare' as the beginning of evil, the unjudged creedism which life in Christ was not, and works quite dead and worthless, and instead of love, worldliness, selfishness, and injustice prevailing. 1 Peter 4 affirmed the end of all things drawn nigh, and the season for the judgment beginning from or at the house of God, a principle to which He adheres; for as His privileges are there, so also is the special responsibility of those who claim them, though every one shall bear his own burden in God's moral government. But it is here in the second Epistle and in that of Jude and in the Revelation of John that the marked form of evil professors at the close is fully defined. It is a return to that materialism which abounded in the heathen that knew not God. Here it comes out in the naked infidelity of scoffers who sit in the seat of the scornful.

Scoffing was an evil sign in pagan Greece and Rome. Yet none can wonder that mockers should rise up like Lucian of Samosata when paganism was exposed in its falsehood, emptiness sad demoralisation under the revealed light of God. Again, when the Bible got read at the time of the Reformation, we are not surprised that natural men treated Catholic legends and traditions, and the decrees of the Popes with contempt, any more than that the unhallowed ribaldry broke out before, during, and since the French Revolution, against truth as well as error and fable in divine things. But here we are apprised of a dense dark cloud, far more widely spread, which would shut out the light of heaven, not merely on the gross licentious ways of evil men who taught for gain as in 2 Peter 2, but on others of philosophic mind, who might be generally correct in moral ways, but were beguiled into such an abandonment of truth, as we have already in Agnosticism, Positivism, and the like. They stand on phenomena, on things seen, on matter. God is in none of their thoughts as a living reality, His word (if His word) of no account. Things continue as ever. This is the fixed law. All else is idea. God is, for such, an unknown God. These do not openly hate the name of the Lord Jesus, but like other incredulous men have no words too lofty to express their admiration of His life and ministry and death, quite apart from God's testimony to their own guilt and dire need to find redemption through His blood. But their dream of human progress is so judged and cut short by His return to judge the quick, that they all unite with open mouth to refuse and decry His return to judge the habitable earth. Hence their description here, as "proceeding according to their lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for from the day that the fathers felt asleep, all things continue thus from beginning of creation."

This therefore is a distinct and solemn part of Christian testimony: not only the judgment of the wicked dead at the end of the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, but that which will fall suddenly on men "as a thief by night" at the end of the age, while they cry, Peace and safety. The yet more awful judgment of the dead is comparatively distant; and men with little effort but extreme peril can put off all thought till a more convenient season. But for flesh and blood, it is intolerable to hear also of a judgment unsparing and universal to arrest the every-day interests of mankind, when sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon her that is with child. And He comes with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth shall wail because of Him. Where then will be the rock, the dust, to hide man from Jehovah? For "man's lofty looks shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men bowed down, and Jehovah alone shall be exalted in that day. And the idols shall utterly pass away. . . . In that day men shall cast away their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made [each] for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; to go into the clefts of the rooks, and into the fissures of the cliffs, from before the terror of Jehovah, and from the glory of His majesty, when He shall arise to terrify the earth" (Isaiah 2).

The corruption of the best is the worst corruption. It was an abomination in Israel. It is the apostasy in Christendom. The counsel of the ungodly in a moment comes to nought. The way of sinners is seen to be everlasting ruin. And what will it be to the seat of the mockers when their mocking is confronted with the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power? For He will appear in flaming fire taking vengeance on those that know not God, and those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. As they shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the Lord's presence, and from the glory of His might, so He shall have come to be glorified in His saints and to be wondered at in all that believed in that day (2 Thess. 2).

Not only for these the heavenly saints will it be glory with Christ, but times of refreshing, for those who repent and are converted, both in Israel and in the nations on earth, will surely come from the Lord's presence who sends the Anointed Jesus Who was fore-ordained for His people but now in heaven; but there are times of restoring all things of which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began. So the apostle preached in Acts 3. It is clear therefore that this word leaves no room for expecting the Holy Spirit as now working to bring in those times. The Spirit had just come for the gospel and the church; and He was in no way grieved and hindered and denied as He soon began to be. But ever increasing woes have been singe the apostles. But even then the apostle explicitly looks to God's sending the Lord Jesus again to bring in the day of earth's blessedness, and the nations rejoicing with Israel, no longer deaf and dumb, but the loudest in that united and continuous chorus of divine praise. Yet the sword, as we have seen, must inevitably clear the earth before Jehovah, Jah the Saviour, "shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall there be one Jehovah, and His name one."

Then too shall all the universe be put into divine harmony, according to Eph. 1: 10-12. For it will then be the administration of the fulness of the fit times: to sum, or head up, all things in the Christ,. the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth: in Him in whom too we were given inheritance, being marked out beforehand according to purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will, that we should be unto praise of His glory.

We have seen that the Holy Spirit lets us know one special trait of philosophic unbelief at the end of the days of nominal Christianity. Mockers with mocking, proceeding according to their own lusts' and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? for from the day that the fathers fell asleep all things continue thus from creation's beginning."

It is not true. "For this escapeth their notice willingly, that by the word of God heavens were of old, and an earth having its subsistence out of water and through water; by which [waters] the then world being overflowed with water perished" (vers. 5, 6). It is barefaced materialism which the light of Christ ought to have dispelled. Rather did the proclamation of grace encourage these unbelieving speculators to deny that judgment is imminent for living man upon the earth. The Jews were much less incredulous as to it than the nations, and themselves secured as being the seed of Abraham. Blind to their own sins, their prejudices conspired to read clearly what the Prophets wrote on the downfall of the world in general. Yet the Lord had already reversed all thought of immunity for the ungodly, whether Jew or Gentile. He had declared the universality of the judgment which He Himself would indict on the quick. For it is quite distinct from the judgment which awaits all the unbelieving dead whom He will raise for the purpose at the end of His world-kingdom. But the imminence of the judgment on the quick, Christendom has ever been too ready to put off, if not disbelieve, whatever the common creeds may say: what we wish not we readily forget.

The Lord had done more. In His great prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives He had compared this very judgment of the quick to the days of the deluge.

"Watch therefore; for ye know not on what day your Lord doth come." It may be urged that He has the judgment of the Jews particularly before Him in these words, which manifestly apply not to the Roman siege of Jerusalem any more than to the judgment of the wicked in Rev. 19. But in Luke 17: 29, and following verses, He refers to the days of Lot also, and thus gives it a bearing on the Gentiles too. Again in Luke 21: 25-35 He directly refers to the Gentiles also. For which reason He speaks not only of "the fig-tree" but of "all the trees," and declares that "as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth."

The stability of the earth therefore is a vain defence, even according to their own acquaintance with the known geologic facts from the time that the earth was first brought into being. There is abundant evidence to prove that it has passed through many phases of destruction, followed by renewal in the wise ways of God before man existed, and, in general, progressive in character. But when the earth was made in due time the suited sphere for Adam and his race, moral considerations entered. Not only did the earth become corrupt. and filled with violence, but a new violation of all order was perpetrated as in Gen. 6: 1, 2, most abhorrent to God and deeper than any natural depravation, which was the immediate occasion of the deluge. Did these men, wise in their own eyes, never hear of the deluge? Hardly a country on earth but has traditions, more or less true, of that solemn dealing with the whole habitable earth, while God preserved in an ark Noah and his family, as well as of the lower creatures which otherwise had perished in the waters. They are therefore without excuse, for what else than the fact could give rise to a tradition so universal among the races of mankind, North, South, East and West? On their own ground it is irrational to pay no heed to an historical tradition which, though different in shape, was alike in substance over the world, that all things did not remain thus from creation's beginning. Yet those who find pleasure in slighting God's word are generally apt to respect relics of the past which have prevailed everywhere.

How then can we account for this slight of so general a report among all the races of men? It is wilful ignorance. "For this willingly escapeth their notice that heavens were of old and an earth having its subsistence out of water and through water by the word of God; by means of which [waters] the then world being overflowed with water perished." Here we have inspired scripture to set every doubt at rest for those that fear God. The stupendous fact is briefly attested to, the universal destruction of guilty man by the deluge, and this stripped of any local vanity, or of other human accessories; the moral fact is left in all its solemnity. In 1 Peter 3 much is made of the exceptional salvation effected by the ark which Noah was prophetically instructed to make; and this is also referred to in 2 Peter 2: 5. Here too the catastrophe is cited to overthrow the alleged stability of nature.

But the passage before us is by some applied only to the earth's primeval constitution, by others to the deluge. It is plain enough that the apostle looks successively at each. The All-wise God had so constituted it in case of need; and as the apostasy of the race required the drastic remedy, He applied it to destroy the old world. Could unbelief be more suicidal than to presume on its impossibility?

Notice the stress laid on the word of God here. The natural system must bend to His will. The fixed laws which even His enemies set up to block Him out of sight and hearing have over and over again bowed to His word, not only in a small sphere but on the largest scale. It may repent Him of His work, when it rebels against Him and He interferes to reprove, punish and destroy. But His word He exalts above all His name. It is the expression of His mind, purpose and love, as well as His majesty in judgment.

With the deluge in the past there is analogy as well as contrast in the future. God is not mocked either way; but abuse of greater privilege will infallibly destroy the proud unbelief of the ungodly in the surest way.

"But the now heavens and the earth by the same word have been stored with fire, being kept for a day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (ver. 7).

The gospel is a question of faith, not only in the Son, but in the word of God, beyond whatever was in patriarchal days, or during the law, as well as in coming ages.

The displayed kingdom which the Lord Jesus will establish to His glory for a period longer than man ever attained when he lived longest, or even Christianity in practice, can only be in power where each is sanctified by the Father's word, which is His word fully and finally revealed. Yet tradition, the great enemy of the word, never wrought in Israel so insidiously and widely and systematically as in Christendom to darken, undermine and pervert God's word; and that in face of the Lord's own denunciation in Matt. 15 and Mark 7, or by the words of Isaiah in a more burning indignation as became him.

But now there is a new school of deeper pride which disdains ancient tradition, deifies itself, and idolises the working of man's mind in history and science, so foreign to the will of God and so dear to the world, even to the length of making it the judge of His written word. A worse or more dangerous form of infidelity there is not nor ever was; it directly leads into the "apostasy" which the apostle of the Gentiles declares must be before the day of the Lord comes in judgment of living mankind. Its success among professors of Christianity intoxicates its votaries so that they are encouraged by its popularity to essay even more daring scepticism.

Here we see that the destruction of the early population of the earth was effected by the vast store of water God provided above and below to overwhelm man and beast save those preserved in the ark with Noah by His command. To this exceeding overflow the language of Gen. 7: 11 points: "all the fountains of the great deep were broken up," "and the windows (or, the flood gates) of heaven opened," as on the other hand that of Gen. 8: 2, when the assuagement set in.

Dealing with the outrageous depravity of that age was just when ignorance was as great. But as since the law, Christ's coming, and the gospel to every creature, have made the responsibility of man immensely greater, so is his sin in rejection of the truth, and professing science, or ideas, that ignore sin as well as grace, and flatter pride in the progress of the first man whilst forgetting his guilt against the Second. How much sorer a doom awaits man, especially the Jew, and most of all Christendom, when treading under foot the Son of God, and treating the blood of the covenant as vain and unclean, and thus insulting the Spirit of grace! Such guilt beyond measure, through rejecting the only and absolutely righteous One and His propitiation, and the full revelation of grace and truth in Him who was true God and perfect man in one person, will have to face God's extreme punishment by fire. And this is made known in the words of the scripture before us, looking back on man visited of old by a deluge of water. "But the now heavens and the earth by the same word have been stored with fire, being kept for a day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

God has not left Himself without witness on a small scale of what He intends for the punishment of the ungodly who are willingly ignorant of His warning, and of their awful wickedness against His Son and the wondrous proclamation throughout all the world of life eternal and the forgiveness of their sins, through His death on the cross. The very book of Genesis records, not very long after the deluge, the destruction of the cities of the plain because of their enormous impurity, contrary to fallen nature itself. "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven; and overthrew those cities and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities and that which grew upon the ground" (Gen. 19: 24, 25).

Again, in Lev. 10 when Nadab and Abihu, sons of Aaron, were so heedless of the favour shown by the coming of fire out from before Jehovah to consume the burnt offering, and slighted it in the service of their own inauguration to the service of the sanctuary by putting common fire for burning the incense, "there went out fire from Jehovah and devoured them, and they died before Jehovah" (ver. 2). Jehovah will be sanctified in those who come nigh Him, and before all the people will He be glorified, as Moses told Aaron; "and Aaron held his peace." It was not only the ungodly outside who must be shown that He is the witness and the Judge of evil, but those who approach Him cannot trifle with His sanctity save to their cost.

In Num. 11: 1, when the people complained instead of acknowledging His justice, He was displeased and the fire of Jehovah burnt among them in the uttermost parts of the camp; and the people cried to Moses who prayed not in vain, and the fire was quenched. But they renewed their murmuring; and Jehovah, though He gave the flesh they lusted after, smote the people with a very great plague. It is Num. 16 which sets forth this solemn dealing with the gainsaying of Korah, which the epistle of Jude lets us know as the last and worst of the sinful developments reproduced in Christendom. "Woe to them! because they proceeded in the way of Cain, and were devoted to the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah." For here it was ministry usurping the priesthood, and hence rebellion against the efficacious priesthood, as well as denying the Christian title of nearness to God. And what befell them? "And it came to pass as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground crave asunder that was under them; and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained to Korah and all their goods. They and all that was theirs went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them; and they perished from among the congregation. And all Israel that were round about them fled at the cry of them, for they said, Lest the earth swallow us up. And there came out a fire from Jehovah, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense." This is by no means all that the O.T. offers on the subject, but it is ample for the proof that from the beginning a still more tremendous destruction by fire in a day both at its opening and at its close is plainly revealed as the way in which the wrath of God will be against the ungodly before the great white throne, and the resurrection for judgment described in Rev. 20: 2-15. Isaiah 9: 5 and Isaiah 66: 15, 16, are as clear proofs as 2 Thess. 1: 8, that the day of the Lord will open with fury and destruction on the wicked, discriminatingly and not as a providential judgment.

The phrase "the new heavens and the new earth" is borrowed from 65: 17, Isaiah 66: 22. But there, it is the principle as applied to Jerusalem and the land in the future kingdom, rather than its full character which follows. This is clear from the prophet's explanation which indicates its realisation in the chosen land and people, "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in what I create; for behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy, and I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die a hundred years old; but the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses and inhabit [them], and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree [are] the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they [are] the seed of the blessed of Jehovah, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer, and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock; and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith Jehovah."

It is plain that the prophet sees in the vast change when Messiah reigns in power, the introduction and sure pledge of the new heavens and earth, rather than the absolute fulfilment. Rev. 21: 1-8 makes this evident and certain; for here is no more an earthly Jerusalem nor a people in flesh such as Isaiah describes; no infant of days to die, no more curse to be executed. Neither will building take place, nor planting; nor again labour however blessed, nor bringing forth for joy any more than trouble. In the eternal scene all will be praise and worship at God's counsels fulfilled to the utmost, and for the defiance of God its righteous punishment for ever. It is in the future kingdom over the earth that the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and there the lion shall eat straw like the bullock, and there that dust shall be the serpent's meat as the solitary mark of degradation. But in the full and eternal sense of the new heavens and new earth these creatures are found no more: only the holy city, new Jerusalem, prepared as a bride for her husband, as before the kingdom in power, so after it to all eternity, and outside it redeemed men with it shall tabernacle when God shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, their God.

These are the two extreme points of view, the prophet of Israel though giving the glorious prospect, dwelling only on its initiatory application to Jerusalem and the land and the people. Equally seasonable is the beloved disciple's vision, at the end even of the wondrous age and world to come, of the end in its full sense when even a dispensation of glory with the Son of God and Son of man reigning over the universe closes the proof that such a reign fails, as did His coming in the grace of all His humiliation among men to God's glory, as man left to do his will showed. But He really and everywhere triumphed over the enemy and the race which distrusted God and was misled to everlasting ruin in despising Christ. And the teaching of Peter holds a wide way as became the chief apostle of the circumcision writing to Christians who had been Jews. For he embraces the beginning and the ending of the day of Jehovah as the transition link between Isaiah and John. That such a view is according to the spirit of scripture may be made plain by "new creation" as applied by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 5: 17: "so if any one [be] in Christ, [there is] a new creation." Yet it is but the risen life in the soul. Only when we are changed into conformity to the body of Christ's glory will it be fulfilled in its entirety.

[Left unfinished by the Author's death].

2 Thessalonians.

The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians.

W. Kelly.

2 Thessalonians 1.

The first Epistle to the Thessalonians dealt with a mistake of the saints there as to those who fall asleep in Christ. In their immature and absorbing occupation with the coming or presence of the Lord, they had too hastily affirmed that such saints as were not found alive and waiting for Him would lose their part, not of course in eternal life and salvation, but at that blessed moment of His advent. This error was dissipated, not only by bringing in the grand principle of a dead and risen Christ with whom we are associated, and of especial cheer to those who are put to sleep by Him, but by a special revelation which discloses the Lord descending to raise the dead in Christ, and change the believers surviving till His coming, in order to their all coming together along with Him.

In the second Epistle, the delusion which false teachers sought to foist on the saints, and even with the claim of the Spirit, and a pretended letter of the apostle, concerned the living whom the enemy endeavoured to shake and trouble under the apprehension of the presence of the day. All knew that the day of the Lord is to be ushered in by darkness and divine judgments, and these Satan sought to inflict on the saints so as to fill them with terror and distress. Clearly this is the natural expectation of a Jew, who even if he fully confided in the faithfulness of God, cannot but look for an awful season of tribulation and of judicial dealings to precede the kingdom of glory for Israel on the earth. (Isa. 2 - 4: 13; Jer. 30, Joel 2, 3. Amos 5; Zeph. 1 - 3). As the enemy is ever at work to draw back the heart of the Christian to the law, if he cannot entice him into lawlessness, so did he at Thessalonica, and ever since, put forth his wiles to judaise the hope, presenting the Lord as about to appear in judgment, instead of letting him rejoice in His coming as the Bridegroom for the bride. The deception is the more perilous, because the day of the Lord is a weighty truth in itself, and the revealed period of divine intervention and blessing for the ancient people of God. How the coming of the Saviour, for us who now believe and wait for Him from heaven, would fit in with the prophetic testimony, must have been as yet vague, for there was no written word to define the matter or solve the difficulty. Hence the importance of this fresh communication. For the question was raised by Satan's attempt to pervert the saints from the enjoyment of their own proper hope. They were agitated under the false alarm that the day was actually come. This more or less completely obscured from their eyes their bright and longing expectation of the Saviour's coming to receive them to Himself, and present them, perfectly like Him in glory, before the Father with exceeding joy.

As in the first Epistle, the apostle does not immediately grapple with the error, but prepares the hearts of the saints gradually and on all sides so as to clench the truth and exclude the error once it is exposed. This is the way of divine grace and wisdom; the heart is set right, and not the mere point of error or evil dealt with. The very snare is thus made the occasion of fresh and deeper blessing; and as all truth is consolidated, so the Lord is more enjoyed.

"Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the assembly of Thessalonians in God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ: grace to you and peace from God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ."

"We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, even as it is meet, because your faith increaseth exceedingly, and the love of each of you all toward one another aboundeth; so that we ourselves glory in you in the assemblies of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and the tribulations which ye are enduring" (ver. 1-4).

It is impossible to accept as sound and satisfactory Chrysostom's remarks on the address to "the church" rather than to "the saints," as in other epistles. (Field's ed. v. 314, Oxon. 1855). It has nothing to do with comparative paucity of numbers, and their aggregation in a single company. For in no city perhaps were the saints more numerous than in Jerusalem, when we read of the church or assembly there (Acts 5: 11; Acts 8: 1; Acts 11: 22; Acts 15: 4, 22). A similar remark applies to Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, or to any other place where we know the numbers were great comparatively, and there might be, as in Jerusalem, not a few houses where the saints met to break bread, but all composed "the assembly" there. Never, in short, whatever the number do we in Scripture hear of "assemblies" in a city (as of a province), but always of "the assembly." No doubt the apostle addresses those at Ephesus and Colosse and Philippi and Rome as "saints", but this, because of the truth he was communicating by the Spirit of God, and not because of their greater numbers. In fact, we read of "the assembly in Ephesus" (Rev. 2: 1) after his Epistle to "the saints" as well as before (Acts 20: 17). Nobody can deny that a long time had passed and the organisation was complete, when St. John wrote to "the assembly" there; and therefore Chrysostom's reason is invalid. The true ground lies in the perfection of wisdom with which the Holy Spirit addresses according to the nature of that which He is making known.

Thus the apostle again associates with himself in the salutation those dear fellow-labourers whom the saints in Thessalonica knew already when the assembly was founded there: and he again characterises the assembly as in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: the one severing them from Gentiles, as the other from Jews. Indeed at bottom both contrasted them with both. For what did a Jew more than a Gentile know of such a new living, and intimate relationship with God as Father? And what knew a Gentile more than a Jew of a rejected but risen Lord and Saviour in heaven? "Our" is added here, as compared with the opening formula in the first Epistle. Is is not to rivet emphatically those saints, who, however well they walked in most respects, needed to be reminded more than ever of their common relationship with him who wrote, and with all saints, to Him whose grace is the source of all blessing?

Thanks as before he owns as due to God always for them, not simply because they were objects of His grace, but as was meet because their faith was greatly growing, and the love of each individually and of all mutually was abounding. This was much; but what of their joy of hope in the Holy Ghost? Of this he says nothing. And the absence is the more striking, because in the introduction to the first Epistle he had spoken of remembering without ceasing, not only their work of faith and labour of love, but also their patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. Here, to the close observer, there is an ominous silence on any such enduring constancy of hope. Yet there is nothing said to damp their hearts, but all he could say to encourage. The fact is that their hope of Christ was consciously but seriously undermined and clouded, not by undue excitement but by agitation and trouble of mind as if the awful day of the Lord were upon them. This brought in fear which darkened their experience of persecution and of outwardly trying circumstances, though the apostle could boast in them among the assemblies of God for their patience and faith in all their persecutions, and the tribulations they were sustaining.

But patience and faith need the power of hope to sustain in freshness. There will and must be a lack when Christ is not personally before the heart as One who may at any moment come to receive His own to Himself. But yet more, there cannot but be an exposure, as we shall find here, to the counter and disturbing influence of fear, which leaves the soul open to the positively delusive power of the enemy. Even in the first Epistle the apostle was not without apprehension on that side; and therefore did he send Timothy to establish them and comfort them concerning, their faith, that none might be moved by these afflictions; knowing as they did that hereunto we are appointed. For they had surely not forgotten that Paul, when with them, told them beforehand that we are to suffer affliction, even as, they knew full well, it came to pass. But this did not hinder, rather did it draw out, the solicitude of the apostle on their behalf, "lest by any means the tempter had tempted you, and our labour should be in vain" (1 Thess. 3: 5).

For the enemy has, of course, no real good or blessing to hold out; but he can and does work most effectively through fear of evil, especially where the conscience is bad or gets troubled. Therein lies his great power in awakening terror, availing himself of God's own threatened judgments on a guilty world. He may deceive the unbeliever by flattering him with false peace and false hopes from this the believer is freed by the gospel, but if not filled with the hope of Christ, he might easily be distressed by the pressure and the variety and the continuance of affliction, especially if Satan got him under the fear that they were judicial inflictions from God on the world in which he was involved like others. Where the heart is kept in peace and confidence before God, the mind can judge soundly. Fear unnerves the soul that is occupied with painful circumstances and throws all into confusion; for God and the word of His grace no longer guide, in the calm trust of a love that never fails, and that gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The apostle, on the contrary, would have them take fresh courage from all their persecutions and the afflictions they were enduring, as he lets them know that he himself was boasting in them on that very account. So he bade the Philippians at a later day be in nothing affrighted by the adversaries which is for such an evident token of perdition, as it is for the saints of salvation, and this from God; because it is a real privilege on the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him but also to suffer for His sake. It is part of the great conflict ever raging between Satan and those who are of Christ. This the Thessalonians had to learn more perfectly; and we shall see in what follows how skilfully the apostle sets their souls right on general grounds before he broaches the direct correction of the error in the second chapter.

It would seem that the Thessalonian saints had been engrossed with the day of the Lord, as indeed it occupies a large part, and is the grand issue, of Old Testament prophecy. If grace, righteousness, and blessing characterise that day, there can be no doubt that darkness, trouble, change and judgments beyond all previous experience are to usher it in. Hence the apostle felt the need of preparing the way, by a just determination of its true nature, for his correction of this special error foisted on them. This he proceeds to set before them that they might be clear in what was indisputable, and so the better able to judge the delusion.

Their endurance and faith in all their persecutions and the distresses they were then enduring had been already treated as, to him and those like-minded, an object of glorying in them among the assemblies of God. He adds now, "a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, to the end that ye be counted worthy of the kingdom of God for which ye also suffer; if so be that it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to those who trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to those that know not God and to those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (ver. 5-8).

This moral dealing with their troubles was of the deepest moment. For even saints easily miss their way in the prophetic word: but God abides and cannot deny Himself, as these saints ought not to have forgotten. Now they might be to the uttermost tried, and evil in unrighteousness, deceit, or oppression, might prosper for awhile; but even so the faithful are called to trust confidently and rejoice exceedingly, reaping better blessings far than if all ran smoothly as the heart could wish. But the righteous judgment of God is unshaken, and faith rests on it without wavering, but with a solemn sense of what is at hand for violence no less than corruption, and especially for the hatred which cannot endure the objects of God's love in an evil world, where they, however unwelcome, are seen as lights, holding forth the word of life, not overcome of evil but overcoming it with good, and so much the more intolerable to the evil heart of unbelief which either rejects God or departs from Him.

Does God then regard with indifference His children's persecutions and distresses? On the contrary their patience and faith in all they are enduring is a demonstration of the just judgment of God; who, if He tries the righteous, loves righteousness, beholds the upright, and will surely rain fire and brimstone and a tempest of burning on the wicked. If he sees mischief, it is to requite it with His own hand. But His children meanwhile are being disciplined in the ways of Christ; and as faith perseveres without a sign, it may be, so patience must have its perfect work, that they may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. And is it not well worth while? "To the end that ye be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also ye suffer." So it is His good and holy will: through many tribulations we must enter into that kingdom. It was Christ's way, it is or should be ours. In that day the darkness will pass for the world. All will be plain that is now obscure: uncertainty and complication will be no more. For us the darkness passes away and the true light now shines; and we who were once darkness are light in the Lord. Then for the world, and especially for that portion of it which is now darkest and most embittered, the light will have come and the glory of Jehovah be risen there.

But the very contrariety of the world now to God and to His children only the more proves that the righteous Lord will surely intervene and vindicate in that day all that looks tangled now. One understands easily that, if Satan is as God calls him the god of this age, it can only be in the age to come when the Lord Jesus governs publicly and in power, that as a rule the wicked shall be put down and the righteous prosper. The unbeliever is hardened at the sight of the just man perishing in his righteousness, and of a wicked man prolonging his life in his wickedness. The believer awaits the kingdom of God and suffers for its sake. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Unto the sons of God it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him but to suffer for Him. When the day comes all will be changed.

"If so be [it is] a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to those that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with us." This none can dispute who believes that God is, and that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him out, and an avenger of all wrong against God and man. He is now dealing in grace; in that day He will judge the habitable world (and the dead also in due time) in righteousness by the Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance to all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead. In that day, as even a godly Jew did know, He will be merciful to His land and to His people, as surely as He will render vengeance to His enemies and reward those that hate Him. What then will be His attitude toward the persecutors of His children and to those of them who thus suffered? He will dispense to such as troubled them tribulation, and rest to His now troubled children — rest with Paul and His companions in loving service for their sakes.

The danger is of allowing in this day of grace a judicial spirit, and this not only in our own minds like the sons of Zebedee who would have called down fire from heaven to consume the adversaries, but also in our interpretation of God's dealings with others if not with ourselves. The apostle would have the saints bright in their severest troubles, joyfully anticipating the day of requital when the sufferings of the saints shall be swallowed up in the glorious rest of the saints, the rest of God we may add, while their troublers become the objects of His unsparing judgment. For it will be the day of God's righteous award, in reversal of this day when Satan blinds princes and peoples, as he did when they crucified the Lord of glory.

This being so, persecutions and trouble were no indications of the day of the Lord; rather were they proofs that that day had not yet dawned and that grace still calls and would arm the saints unto all endurance with joyfulness. How different it will be for saints and for sinners when that day of the Lord is really come! How solemn yet blessed the change when the wicked fall into the hands of the living God, who is not unrighteous to forget the work of faith and the labour of love on the part of His children meanwhile called as they are to endure a great fight of afflictions!

For in that day of righteous judgment it will be a "revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to those that know not God, and to those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

It will be observed that not a word here hints that this is the moment when the Lord comes to gather the saints to Himself. It is not the action of sovereign grace which translates the saints waiting for Him to heaven, but the display of judicial righteousness by the Lord when He appears in glory. Then, and not till then, will be the day of divinely apportioned trouble to the troublers, and of rest to the troubled who suffered for Christ's sake and for righteousness. How unsuitable to be revealed "in flaming fire with angels of power" to receive unto Himself the children of God, His bride, and to present them with Himself in the Father's house!

Here it is a question of rendering vengeance, not to unbelievers distinguished by two marks, as Calvin says, but to two distinct objects of judgment, "to those that know not God," the Gentiles, described thus expressly in 1 Thess. 4: 5, and in substance throughout Scripture; "and to those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus," as the Jews might well be regarded, who, outwardly owning the true God and boasting of His law, were now the most resolute, whether vehement or sullen, in disobeying the gospel.

God is never indifferent to good or evil, and His children learn this and bow to it in His word now knowing that, if they suffer with Christ, they shall also reign together. Their adversaries despise, hate, and persecute His unwelcome witnesses of grace and truth, who seek to adorn the teaching of their Saviour God in all things. Is this day of grace to go on indefinitely? Not so; that day hastens when His judgment will be revealed. And as glory, honour, and peace will be the portion of every soul that does good, so tribulation and anguish upon every one that doeth evil, to Jew and Gentile, for there is no respect of persons: evil will be treated as nothing but evil, when the Lord arises to judge, and this in the most manifest way before the universe.

Hence the importance, not only that sovereign grace should take to heaven the saints that are awaiting Him, but that righteous judgment should be displayed at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels of His power in flaming fire. For the day will then have come to render vengeance to His and their enemies, whether they be Gentiles that know not God or they be Jews, who (if not so ignorant as the nations) cannot deny that they obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

As a man cannot shake off his responsibility according to what he once knew of God (Rom. 1: 19-21) and his conscience also as well as the law (Rom. 2: 12-15), so he must then be made to feel the guilt of his unbelief in his insubjection to God's glad tidings concerning His Son. And this suitably comes into manifestation before the world when Christ is no longer hidden in God but revealed from heaven, in order to bring out and display the government of God in power and righteousness and peace; as all the prophets bore witness from early days, and now the New Testament (so-called) sets its seal to the Old.

Thus was the balance of truth readjusted in the souls of the Thessalonians, who had been led to fear that their grievous troubles were the beginning of the day of the Lord. They were now to learn that this could not possibly be true from the essential character of that day, as one of rest to the troubled saints and of retributive trouble to their foes. For as it will be the time of divine recompence, so infallibly the Judge of all the earth will do right. It is not that the saints might not individually go to be with Christ meanwhile, nor even that He might not previously come for our gathering together unto Him. But there will be no public display of their righteously awarded rest and of vengeance on their adversaries till He is revealed thus in flaming fire. Such is the solemn fact, and this the distinctive principle therein, and the result of the revelation of the Lord from heaven, as here made known to the agitated saints in Thessalonica. The apostle too knew what tribulation was, and looked for this rest with them, as they were entitled to expect it with him, in that day which was still before them all. But as yet he and they were exposed to pass through trouble, and their persecutors were for the present in honour and ease and power without God. In that day the tables will be turned, His friends at rest and His enemies in trouble. It will be the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven in judgment of the quick.

We have had the objects of the Lord's dealing at His revelation from heaven; and they are clearly His enemies, in no way or degree His friends. It is His judgment of all the earth, Who cannot fail to do right. This is made yet more apparent by the solemn description which follows: — "Who (οἵτινες, men of the class which) shall pay as penalty everlasting destruction from [the] presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be wondered at in all that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day. Whereunto we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of the calling and fulfil every good pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power; so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 9-12).

Present tribulation then through persecutors differs essentially from the trouble of that day, which shall fall not on saints but on those that hate and injure them. In that day their persecutors shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power. Like Matt. 25: 31-46, it is not the great white throne judgment of the wicked dead; it is the judgment of the quick, yet is it final. Their perdition is irretrievable, being everlasting from His presence and from the glory of His power; the wicked here (like apostates in Israel, Dan. 12: 2) are abandoned to shame and everlasting contempt.

On the other hand, the Lord shall have come at that time to be glorified in His saints and to be wondered at in all those that believed. Blessed prospect "in that day!" and comforting in this day for the Thessalonians to hear themselves included, among those to be thus a marvel to His praise, for this appears to be the gracious motive of the parenthesis, "because our testimony unto you was believed." The saints in Thessalonica might have erred as to the dead, and been misled as to the living; yet the apostle fails not to confirm their souls by the intimation that the divine testimony borne by himself and others had not been in vain, but had really taken effect upon them.

The careful reader will observe that the Lord is not said in that day to come for the saints and receive them to Himself, and present them in the Father's house, as in John 14. Here He will have come to be glorified in them, and to be marvelled at in all those that believed. It is an evidently different and subsequent part of His advent: not the hidden scene, so near to the Lord's desire, that where He is, they also may be with Him, that they may behold His glory which the Father had given Him, but the outer display, Christ in them and the Father in Him, when they are in glory thus perfected in one. So we see in Rev. 21: 23, 24. The world will then know thereby that the Father sent the Son and loved the saints, appearing with Him in glory, even as He loved Him. Compare John 17: 22, 23. The translation of His saints to heaven is one thing; quite another and subsequent is their appearing with Him in glory and judgment of the world.

Further, it is interesting to notice the accuracy of the preterite "believed," instead of the "believe" of the Received Text, in verse 10. The former is not only the reading in the Complutensian edition, but that of all the uncials, almost all cursives, as well as the ancient versions and Fathers, unless a Latin copy or two. Erasmus seems to have misled Stephens, Beza, and others, and so our Authorised translators. No doubt the present is much the most frequent, but when the aorist occurs, there is always a special propriety as here. For the glorious display, which is predicated of the saints, refers with this reading expressly to the past believers' The importance of this becomes the more impressive, on our learning that the great harvest of blessing for man on earth follows, He and the glorified reigning over the world, when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah (and of His glory, Hab. 2: 14) as the waters cover the sea, Isa. 11: 9. In that day it will be no longer a question of faith as now, and hence the monstrous error of the Peschito (not the Philoxenian) Syriac, etc., which connect the believing of "our testimony" with that day, and thus make it future, in Pat contradiction of the very Scripture before them. Whatever may be the dealings of grace in that day, the apostle carefully restricts the faith and the glorious reward here described to a reception of the testimony before the display of glory and of righteous judgment arrives.

Thus was the way gradually made plain for the more complete and decisive correction of the error which had been foisted in at Thessalonica. The true nature of God's intervention has been cleared. That day will be characterised by the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power in flaming fire. This it would be hard for the most resolute spiritualiser to apply to any such providential events as were then in progress, of which the enemy was taking advantage to mislead the saints. Nor had men gone so far in those early days as in later, for such as Macknight to say, that, when the apostles wrote, there were four comings of Christ to happen — three of them figurative, but the fourth a real and personal appearing; that these different comings are frequently spoken of in Scripture; and that, although the coming of Christ to destroy Jerusalem (!), and to establish His everlasting kingdom! be represented by His apostles as then at hand, no passage from their writings can be produced in which His personal appearance to judge the world is said or even insinuated to be at hand! The truth is that it is one and the same appearing of the Lord which shall overthrow the last head of Gentile power, destroy the man of sin, and display the saints in glory, as He will judge the world in righteousness in that day also. Nothing can be farther from the truth than that the Spirit does not speak of one and the same day, which is invariably declared to be at hand, not at a great distance. Moreover, the presence of the Lord to gather His own to be with Him on high is not separate from the various aspects of His appearing we have just enumerated, though necessarily anterior to them; for they follow Him out of heaven for that day and appear with Him in glory, instead of being just then caught up to meet Him. His coming for the saints is sovereign grace completing its work for us; His revelation from heaven is to render vengeance to His enemies and be glorified in His saints in the righteous and retributive government of that day.

Now the apostle lets the saints know his prayer for them, of course in view of their existing circumstances and need. "Whereunto we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of the calling, and fulfil every good pleasure of goodness and work of faith in power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." He had already, while introducing the preliminary topic of their persecutions, sought to lift up their hearts by speaking of their endurance and faith in all such troubles. It was a manifest token of God's righteous judgment to the end of their being counted worthy of His kingdom, for which they too suffered, as the apostle might well remind them, instead of their tribulation being an indication that God's judgments were let loose upon them. So now he also prays always for them that God would count them worthy of the calling. Elsewhere we hear of "His" calling, and of "your" calling, and again of "the calling wherewith ye are called." Here it seems better to leave "the" in its own generality than to restrict it simply to "your."

The next clause is that He would bring to completion every good pleasure of goodness end work of faith in power. Certainly this could not be, if they were driven from their steadfastness by listening to the delusions of false teachers. Confidence in the Master's grace produces faithful service, and loves to own that, whatever purpose of goodness may be, whatever work of faith, it is only God that fulfils each and all in power; "so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." As He is not here in fact nor yet reigning over the universe, the name of our Lord, the revelation of Himself, is given us that it may in the power of the Spirit be glorified in us, as we serve the true God and await His Son from heaven. It is a question of keeping His word and not denying His name, whatever the difficulty or discouragements.

But the apostle adds, "and ye in him," for his eye was ever on the bright day, and he would have theirs drawn from their troubles, and every possible misconstruction of them, to that manifestation of the glory of His might and righteousness. For as surely as His name is glorified in the saints now, still more fully, yea absolutely, in that day shall they be glorified in Him, as He is in them (ver. 10). It is no mere iteration of the previous intimation of the apostle, but fresh thoughts completing all, such as only the inspiring Spirit could furnish. To say "in it," for "in Him," would be havoc with the truth in general as well as the context; yet it has been said, doubtless through rage for novelty and lack of appreciating the truth. May we be kept walking firmly in the truth according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ, even as the apostle prayed for his dear Thessalonians. It is an admirable introduction, before directly touching the error by which they had been drawn aside from the freshness of hope into agitation and fear, the result of a misjudgment of the deep trials that were pressing on them.

It is needless to discuss here at length the true bearing of the last clause, which some, out of zeal for the divine glory of our Lord, would have to designate His person only: "of our God and Lord Jesus Christ." But, though this be grammatically a quite possible construction, as it is dogmatically also true in itself, its contextual suitability is another matter. That one article in the singular rightly in Greek designates even distinct persons if the object be to express their union in a common category (as here in "grace"), ought to be known not only to scholars in general, but familiarly to all students of the later body of revelation in its original tongue. Supposing God the Father to be here meant, as well as the Lord Jesus Christ, the insertion of the Greek article was not required, though English needs "the" before Lord Jesus Christ. On the contrary, its insertion in Greek would have been an intrusive error, if both were expressly to be united in a common object; for the repeated article would have had for its effect to present the persons as separate agents rather than as joined. And the nature of the case, as well as the clearly revealed truth of Scripture, shows abundantly that the joint agency of these blessed persons could not be, save in — that which lies behind all — the unity of the divine nature.

2 Thessalonians 2

The apostle now enters on the correction of the error which, as we shall see, false teachers had foisted in among the Thessalonians. It cannot be doubted that the early believers, whether those directly addressed or others elsewhere who received these epistles, understood and profited by the instruction conveyed. But it seems demonstrable that too soon afterwards the bare meaning of the apostle's words was lost, if we may judge from ancient versions and comments, and it is equally plain that modern translators and christian writers in general have not recovered its real scope till this day. In the verse before us, as is sometimes the case, the misunderstanding of a single word is the cause and proof of confusion prolific and irremediable For if Scripture, however unintentionally, be made to speak not alone ambiguously but in a way that misleads, the result, as far as it goes, is fatal. With the strongest desire to avoid exaggeration and, yet more, falsely accusing any soul, one is bound for the truth's sake to record the conviction that grave mischief is here done in the Revised Version, by the introduction of "touching" into their text, and "in behalf of" into their margin (2: 1). It will be shown that neither suits the context. We are in no way limited to these reflections of the Greek, especially where connected with words of entreaty. The Authorised Version, in the main point before us, is substantially better; yet the misrendering has been considered by not a few as a decided improvement: so thoroughly has the aim or argument of the apostle been for the most part misapprehended.

In a comparatively minor detail that follows in the verse, the Revisers have shown better scholarship; for neither "by" nor any substitute for it has a right to stand in the last clause. The structure of the phrase not only requires no such insertion but absolutely precludes and condemns any supplement of the kind. Christ's coming and our gathering together unto Him are expressly bound together, as closely associated events of the deepest moment to the saints. The older translation shows that those responsible for it paid no heed to this, the unequivocal import of the construction, for they have, on the contrary, interpolated a word which however small, severs the objects, which the form of the original does and could not but intimate to be in the strictest union. The Revisers were therefore at liberty and indeed responsible as faithful translators to expunge the second "by." They thereby represent the coming of the Lord Jesus and our gathering together unto Him as two parts of the joint idea brought before us by the Holy Spirit.

But the great question is, what is the real bearing in this connection, of that joint object before the reader? and what in particular is the true force of the preposition employed by the Spirit of God? The Authorised Version says "by," the Revisers give "touching" in the text, and in the margin they add "Gr. in behalf of." The usage of ὑπὲρ, if we come to facts even in the New Testament alone, is pretty wide; but the context as ever has immense and distinct and decisive control in helping us to determine the intended import. There is the difficulty that ἐρωτᾶν ὑπέρ is only found here, whereas ἐπ. περί is of frequent occurrence and unquestioned meaning. Compare John 17 where it is found repeatedly, and can have but one force — to pray or make request for — in the sense of "touching" or "concerning." Is it critical, or reasonable, that ἐπ. ὑπέρ should mean the same? It appears to me beyond doubt that it is not. The Revisers themselves give us not only "in behalf of" but "for the sake of," or more briefly and far more commonly "for." Now "in behalf of" renders no just sense in this context; but what of "for" i.e. "for the sake of?" "Now we beseech you, brethren, for (or, for the sake of) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him," etc.

Here we have a definite sense which fits in admirably with the connection. It is the bright object of hope and assured comfort, whereby the apostle besought the saints not to be distracted by the agitating apprehension, spread by false teachers, that the day of the Lord had actually dawned. flow far the Authorised translators may have so regarded the context, it is difficult to say; but the transition from "for the sake of," or "for," to "by reason of" or "by" is easy, and in this case might perhaps be allowed to approximate. Even Bishop Ellicott, who adopted "touching" for want of duly appreciating the contextual bearing if not necessity, admits that an adjurative meaning is grammatically tenable; and certain it is that, from the Vulgate to Erasmus, Zwingle, Calvin, Piscator, Beza, Estius, etc., a crowd of others hold to this as the true scope. Meyer first assumes that it is strange to the New Testament, and then argues against the reasonableness of the apostle's choosing for the object of adjuration the very point he is going to instruct them on. But this is his own oversight. They are distinct and even contrasted objects.

I cannot but think therefore that, while the Authorised Version in substance gives the sense, the Revisers have missed it completely, and substituted a meaning which tends to obscure and falsify the passage. The adjurative force "by" with a verb of entreaty is known from the earliest extant remains of classical Greek; and none can deny that the force of a motive or a plea ("for the sake of" or "for") abode to the last, and is nowhere more usual than in the Hellenistic Greek of the New Testament. So rendered, the phrase runs consistently, and the argument or ground of entreaty yields a meaning in perfect accordance with the verse that follows, and the entire paragraph. The blessed hope of being caught up to the Lord at His coming or presence is a most intelligible preservative against the false and disquieting rumour that the day of His judgment of the earth had come. Everyone can understand when it is brought before him, that such a consolatory and transporting prospect, if always in view, is calculated to deliver from the agitation and fear created by the delusive cry that the terrible day of the Lord was there. And so the apostle conjures them, not by "the day of the Lord" concerning which he was about to teach them (as he had been laying a ground for it in the previous chapter), but by "His presence" to gather them to Himself above, which was full of joyful associations. The subject-matter he treats of is that "day," and very full of terror, especially when misrepresented by some at Thessalonica as actually set in.

But where is the propriety of the supposition that the apostle beseeches them touching the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the saints unto Him? The error was about "the day of the Lord."

Did not the Revisers, like others who have thus translated the clause, assume that the presence (or coming) of our Lord is identical with His day, and render ὑπέρ here "touching," either because they quite identified these events in their thoughts, or because they had no distinct notion of the context? Now if the coming of the Lord be treated as the same as His day, what is the sense of beseeching them touching the same matter as is denied to be then present? If the day of the Lord be a source of disquiet and awful anxiety, nothing can be more appropriate than to beg them, for the sake of their most longed-for blessing in hope, not to be troubled by the false teaching that the dreaded epoch was come. The two objects are contrasted as in 1 Thess. 4, 5.

Thus, it is quite incorrect that "the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto Him" is the subject-matter either before or after the entreaty in the verses before us. The reader has only to examine the preceding chapter 1 in order to be satisfied that the apostle has been laying bare the character of the day of the Lord, when (not the hope of the saints shall be realised, but) the righteous judgment of God shall be manifested. It is for this last they are here exhorted to wait, in patience and faith enduring all present persecution and affliction; for then are the glorified saints to reign with Christ in the kingdom of God, for which they were yet suffering. Then, and not before, will God recompense affliction to those that afflict the saints, and to the afflicted saints rest with Paul and his fellow-labourers. Neither will be when the saints are caught up to heaven, but when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with the angels of His power, rendering vengeance to those that know not God, and to those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus. For then the day will have come for His and their enemies to suffer as punishment everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might, when He shall come, not to translate His saints to the Father's house, but to be glorified in them, and to be marvelled at in all those that believed, in that day,

Such is the real matter in hand: not in a single phrase is it the coming of the Lord to have us changed into His glorious likeness and in the Father's presence, but our appearing with Him in glory to the confusion of His adversaries overthrown before the wondering world, the day of righteous award for both to God's glory. Hence, if the apostle had been beseeching the saints "touching" the subject in discussion, and as to which they needed rectification, it ought to have been the day of the Lord and of our reigning in the kingdom with Him. Those who so render appear to have confounded "the coming" with "the day" of the Lord; whereas the one is the comforting hope against the fear of the other.

Equally plain is the bearing of what follows. For the apostle tells the saints that the day, of which the misleaders had falsely spoken as actually there could not be, however men may beguile about it, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed; and of course therefore the power or person that restrains meanwhile must à fortiori be gone out of the way. For the mystery of lawlessness already works; not yet is the lawless one revealed till the restraint is away. Once it is, the full display of Satan's power takes its course in the revelation of the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nought, not by His coming simply, but by "the manifestation of His coming." Here again it is "the day of the Lord," when righteous judgment deals publicly with friends and adversaries, and not His "coming" or presence, when He gathers His saints to Himself on high.

Can evidence then be asked more complete than what the context before and after furnishes, that the apostle beseeches the saints for (or by) their inspiriting hope, not to be upset in mind nor to be troubled about the day of the Lord as if there with its terrors? To beseech them touching that day, which he was going to paint in the most vivid colours, not to be uneasy as if it were now present is opposed to his words! as unlike the accustomed energy and precision of the apostle as can be conceived. He entreats by their hope against their fear.

That there is a marked distinction between the Lord's coming and His day respectively had already been laid before the Thessalonians in chapters 4 and 5 of the First Epistle. 1 Thess. 4: 15-17 explicitly show us the character and circumstances, the aim and consequences, of the coming of our Lord Jesus when the saints, dead or living, are gathered unto Him; as 1 Thess. 5: 1-3 plainly opens out the dread effect of that day when it overtakes the wicked. There is the strongest contrast between them, and not a word intimates that they occur at the same moment, though, no doubt, when the day arrives, it is still the coming of the Lord, and indeed not this only, "but the manifestation of His coming," and therefore with the utmost suitability called His "day." On the other hand, neither here nor in any part of Scripture is there a trace of the saints being caught up to meet the Lord in His day; for this is a further and subsequent step of His presence, when it is not the consummation of His love to His own, but the outpouring of His just indignation on His enemies as well as the no less righteous display of His friends with Himself in the same glory.

The misleaders at Thessalonica were not so infatuated as to imagine that the Lord had come, and by His presence gathered to Himself on high all the saints, whether departed, or alive and waiting for Him. Even they never dreamt that He had descended into the air, and translated all the once suffering children of God to be with Him glorified in heaven. Since it was patent to all eyes that the saints in Thessalonica, and their brethren throughout the world, were still on earth, they could hold no such suicidal thought as that the deceased saints were already raised from their graves, and themselves were left behind. The truth is that they were not thinking about the Lord's presence: their delusion was not on this score at all, but about "the day of the Lord," as verse 2 makes clear and indisputable. They did conceive that His "day" was not merely "at hand," which is true, but "present," which is false. Identify "the coming" with "the day" of the Lord, and all is confusion; distinguishing between them, you forthwith receive light, and need put no strain on the words, which are instructive in proportion to the discernment of their exact force.

For the Authorised Version is here wholly astray and even inconsistent with its own rendering of every occurrence of the word elsewhere. The reader can compare Rom. 8: 38, 1 Cor. 3: 22, 1 Cor. 7: 26; Gal. 1: 4; (2 Tim. 3: 1;) and Heb. 9: 9, which form the entire range of the word in the New Testament. Not only does it not convey "at hand" in any one of the other cases, but such a sense would be everywhere absurd and impossible. In the first two references "things present" (ἐνεστῶτα) are contrasted with "things to come." This could not be if the word really bore the sense of "just coming, imminent or at hand." So again in the third instance the distress was actually "present," not merely threatening but already come. Just as evidently in the fourth it is "the present age, evil as it is," ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος or ὁ νῦν αἰών as the apostle calls it in Rom. 12: 2 and 1 Tim. 6: 17, contrasted with "that" or "the coming age" (Luke 18: 30; Luke 20: 35; Heb. 6: 5), which is the very reverse, being good, righteous, peaceful, and glorious. Nor should we wonder; since Satan shall no longer be the prince of the power of the air or god of the next age, as he is of this (2 Cor. 4: 4), but cast out and restrained, while the Lord reigns in displayed power and glory, instead of being as now hid in God. So even the different and future form in 2 Tim. 3: 1, ἐνστήσονται, does not mean that difficult or grievous times "impend," but shall actually "come." "Shall be soon coming" would altogether enfeeble the sense and ruin its force. Not otherwise is it with the last reference, where the meaning beyond controversy is "for the present time." One can hardly conceive any reasonable man construing the phrase of the time soon to come or at hand. The future will be regulated on distinct principles, as to which Scripture is not silent.

Thus, on the ground of the New Testament usage, the weightiest help of all for our guidance in translating a disputed word, there can be no hesitation that the Revised Version is justified, and the Authorised Version at fault, as to the very important word at the end of the verse, the hinge of all sound exposition of the passage. But what of its use in the Septuagint, of such approved and acknowledged value as being the Hellenistic forerunner of New Testament Greek? The first instance, which Tromm (Concord. Gr. lxx. Interp. i. 529) cites from Theodotion's version of Dan. 7: 5, is a ridiculous blunder, εἰς καίρους ἐνεστάθη. The Aldine text was not so far wrong, yet reading εἰς μέρους which is hardly intelligible; and it has the same error as to the verb. The Complutensian gave it rightly, εἰς μέρος ἓν ἐστάθη as in the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS. The Chisian copy of the true Septuagint gives ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς πλευροῦ ἐστάθη. But this effaces the only instance save in the Apocryphal books; where Tromm gives 3 Esdras 5 72 [47], 9, 6; 1 Mac. xii. 44; 2 Mac. iii. 17, iv. 43; xii. 3, every one of which confirms the Revised Version in all respects, and the Authorised Version in every case save the unfounded "is at hand" before us, which means, and can only mean, "is present."

It may be added that the word, and in the perfect too, is used in ordinary classical authors precisely as in the New Testament. See Herod. i. 83, Isoc. 82 B; Polyb. i. 71, 4; Plut. Lucull. 13; Dem. 255, 10, cf. 274, 6. The three instances, like the rest cited by Deans Liddell and Scott, in their well-known Lexicon (Aristoph. Nub. 779, Isaeus 88. 40, Dem. 896, 29), are of the usual import not "imminent" but "present," actually begun, literally set in. In each the suit was already commenced, even if still pending. It is the same beyond doubt with ὁ νῦν ἐνεστηκῶς ἀγών, Lycurg, 148, 32; τοῦ ἐνεστ. μηνός, Phil. apt Dem. 280. 12 means the present month, not one soon coming; and so does ἐνεστ. πόλεμος in Aesch. 35, 27. And χρόνος ἐν., means the present, not future tense; as τραύματα ἐν., Plat. Legg. 378 B, means wounds inflicted, not merely threatened; and τὰ ἐν., or ἐν πράγματα, Xen. Hell. 2. 1, 6; Polyb. 2. 26, 3, means present circumstances, in no case "at hand." Not any instance has been produced where the word in the perfect can be shown to mean a state of things not yet commenced. The sense then, in writings as well profane as sacred, is uniformly "present," not "at hand." The rendering was therefore inexcusable.

This may suffice in a well-grounded way to assure the reader that the error so unscrupulously taught by fanatics in Thessalonica was, not that the day is "at hand" (for the apostle himself taught this expressly in Rom. 13: 1 2), but that it had "actually come." These mischievous men were probably of similar type as Hymenaeus and Philetus, "who concerning the truth erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. 2: 18). The resurrection could be only thus explained away as accomplished, by reducing it allegorically to some spiritual privilege already received; as many writers, and even commentators, counted orthodox, have misinterpreted "the first resurrection" in Rev. 20. Some such attenuation by giving a present bearing is as easily understood, as of the day of the Lord, if not more so. For while that day can never be fulfilled in all its scope, till Jehovah executes judgment on the quick here below and brings in His own reign, when all things rejoice instead of groaning as now, yet judicial inflictions in God's ways on Israel or the heathen were designated by "that day" in the Old Testament. Take Isaiah 3, 7, and still more evidently 13, and 19. For what can be clearer than that a then sweeping and exterminating judgment on a people and country, as of old on Babylon or on Egypt, is called the "day of the Lord" on them? Yet no doubt there remained momentous elements as yet unfulfilled which await "the day" in the fullest sense at the end of the age.

Joel 1, 2 may illustrate this same thing. The day of the Lord is similarly introduced and with similar characteristics. It is a day that comes as a destruction from the Almighty; a day of darkness and of gloominess; a day of cloud and of thick darkness; great and very terrible, and who can abide it? It is a day which, however it might fall on any in a measure through Medes or Persians, through Greeks or Romans, looks onward to its completeness at length, when the Lord rises up to shake not the earth only but also heaven. Compare Zeph. 1: 7-18 with Zeph. 3: 8-20, Zech. 12-14.

Now it is very intelligible that a misleader might avail himself of the germinant or partial application of the prophecies in ancient times to affirm that the sore troubles and persecution the Thessalonians then endured along with external distress and political convulsion, etc., indicated that day. It was not indeed Christ's presence, nor were the saints translated to heaven, which twofold event could not of course be pretended in any way to have taken place; for it is here pleaded as a self-evident guard against the error in circulation, that the day of the Lord's dealing with the living on earth had begun, and that the saints were involved in its terrors. So far in fact were any from so egregious a fancy as that Christ had come, that beyond controversy the apostle could entreat them by* (or, for the sake of) His presence and our gathering together unto Him, that they should not credit the alarming rumour that His day was there. That is, every believer in his senses was fully aware that Christ had not come, but was in heaven still, and that the saints were as yet on earth instead of being caught up to Him above. Therefore the apostle does make this a ground of appeal why they should not receive the mischievous report, no matter how strongly in appearance commended, that His day had actually dawned. Christ's presence and our gathering unto Him on high must precede that day. That on the one hand so great a joy, so bright a hope, was not the actual portion of the saints and that on the other (while Christ was still absent; they themselves and their brethren were as yet on earth, were obvious facts and irrefragable reasons why the day could not be come. The saints are to appear from heaven following Christ to bring in that day, See Rev. 17: 14; Rev. 19: 14. In order to this they must be translated there previously; and so we see them symbolised as in heaven from Rev. 4 and onward.

*It may be remarked here that not only older scholars like Erasmus and Beza hold to "by" as the true sense in this connection, but Wahl of recent years adds his high authority, as also Matthiae and Jelf allow the principle, and the late Greek Professor Scholefield of Cambridge, though preferring "concerning" from not understanding the argument and context.

The phraseology too, if scrutinised, will be found consistent only with this view, irreconcilable with the popular confusion which clouds these verses. For the apostle beseeches the Thessalonians, as we have seen, "that ye be not quickly shaken in [lit. from your] minds* nor yet troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from [lit. by] us, as that the day of the Lord is present." As it is an offence against every sound exegetical principle to imagine that "the coming of the Lord" in verse 1 differs from that which had been so distinctly revealed in the first Epistle (1 Thess. 4), so equally are we bound to interpret "the day of the Lord" here with what was laid down in 1 Thess. 5. Providential or figurative applications are thus out of the question. The New Testament at least employs both terms in the full and final sense.

* It would seem scarce credible to intelligent Christians if happily ignorant of the dreary comments written on Scripture, that Dr. Macknight interprets this as "shaken from any honest purpose which they had formed concerning their worldly affairs"! But his translation, popular as the work has been, is as incompetent as his commentary is worldly-minded throughout.

Those who in our day speak of a providential coming of the Lord are on the same ground with the fabulists of Thessalonica who insinuated a figurative day of the Lord with this difference (it is true) that the former apply that coming to the future, the latter to the time then present. Consistency of interpretation refutes both. A partial meaning of either term is excluded from these epistles, which in fairness cannot be allowed consistently to teach anything short of the complete events. The resurrection of the saints bound up with Christ's coming, and the awful depth and extent of the judgment to be executed on the apostate powers of evil and on all who, believing not the truth, had pleasure in unrighteousness, point unmistakably to the intervention of the Lord in person.

We are told by excellent and intelligent Christians that the apostle's object here was to calm down the too ardent or wild anticipation of the Lord's immediate return. But as to this the prevalent confusion meets us. It took a stirring form says its champion, in the Thessalonian church. Their inexperienced minds and warm hearts were plied with the thrilling proclamation that the day of Christ [rather, "of the Lord"] was at hand or imminent [not so, for ἐνέστηκεν never means this but "is present"]. Is it not passing strange that able Christian men, who differ widely as to Christ's advent and reign, should coalesce in an evident misapprehension of what the apostle does say and mean? He "fearlessly crushed"* the delusion that the day was come. He besought them, by (or, for the sake of) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him, not to be troubled by that false alarm. This was a powerful motive against believing the dreaded day to have arrived: but how could such a hope disprove the view that the day was "at hand," even if he did not himself so teach elsewhere? It is exactly a premillennialist who could most fully be expected to make or appreciate that entreaty. A post-millennialist does not even comprehend it as it stands, but instinctively slips off into false rendering and bad exegesis; and this from the necessity of a starting-point which effectually bars intelligence of the meaning. He therefore naturally and utterly mistakes both what the Thessalonians thought, and what the apostle says in opposition to their thought. Those alone are right who affirm that the apostle meant only to deny that the day of the Lord had begun or was actually present; and one may hope that the passage is on the way to be so understood, now that the Revisers have corrected this faulty verse.†

* Brown's Christ's Second Coming, sixth edition, pp. 42-49, 425-433 Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, fifth edition, iii. 91 et seqq., iv. 184 - 187.

† Mr. Mede and Bishop Horsley wrote when the misrendering is "at hand" supplanted "present" to the total darkening of the apostolic argument. The latter in particular quite misconceives the occasion of the Second Epistle, for it was an error, backed up by forgery, about the living saints as it involved in the day of the Lord; whereas the First Epistle corrected the mistake about the dead saints at Christ's coming, which may not have had any such unhappy source.

The "long and complicated series of events" to be developed, the very commencement of which was retarded by an obstacle then in being while the apostle wrote, was to crush, not the waiting for Christ's coming as a proximate hope, but the false statement that the day of the Lord was there already. The designing men in question did not set themselves systematically to urge the nearness of His coming, which all the New Testament does; their pretension to spiritual inspiration, their solemn utterance, their forgery of a letter under Paul's name, were all to give colour and currency to the wholly distinct and false insinuation that the day of the Lord was come then and there.

Hence it was not enthusiastic and feverish excitement associated with the expectation of Christ's coming and the fruition of the Christian's joy with Him in glory. It was the operation of dismay and terror, as if that day of unsparing judgment and of inevitable horror had set in on them. To be "shaken" from their [or, in] mind or "agitated" (σαλευθῆναι) is descriptive of the disquiet and perturbation caused by fear; still more plainly does it flow from the same source to be "frightened" or "troubled" (θροεῖσθαι), which (less, if possible, than s.) suits the impatient and impetuous enthusiasm of a wrongly excited hope. It is in a quite different connection that we read in the last chapter of disorderly brethren who did not work as became them: spurious hope might produce this result; but nothing of the kind is implied here in 2 Thess. 2.

It will be seen that all this warping of details, as well as misinterpretation as a whole, by men otherwise to be respected, turns on the erroneous assumption that the express subject of discourse is the second personal coming of our Lord; and that it is to guard against the notion that His personal coming was "at hand" or imminent. Not so: this is divine truth everywhere taught in the New Testament, and nowhere so constantly, clearly, and urgently as in these Epistles. The apostle is really exposing and uprooting the delusion that the day of the Lord was now present. Do those confusing expositors aver that the Thessalonian dealers in false alarm as to that day thought or pretended that the Lord Himself was come or present in power and glory? The fact is, that on the contrary the apostle begs the saints, by His coming which would gather them together to Him in perfect peace and endless joy, not to be troubled with the deceptive cry that the day so awe-inspiring had begun. This cry is nowhere imputed to a misconstruction of the apostle's words in the first epistle. Even if we punctuate with Lachmann, and Theile, etc., or with Webster and Wilkinson, the only real meaning is the claim of a spirit of communication, oral ministry, and a letter, falsely attributed to the apostle. Of course it in no way emanated from really earnest Christians, but from fraudulent men who misled them. Tertullian and Chrysostom are right; Whitby, etc., quite wrong.

A Christian writer of late contends for a figurative sense here only to be given to the coming or presence of our Lord in verse 1, supplemented by verse 8; because, he rightly thinks, the destruction of Antichrist immediately precedes, not the eternal state, but the millennial reign. Hence, as he will not have the reign of our Lord to be personal, he construes His antecedent coming as a figure. Now the decisive answer is, not only that in other New Testament cases (and notably in these epistles, as he himself allows) the presence (παρουσία) of our Lord is invariably personal and in grace, and not merely providential and in judgment, but that His presence is inseparably joined to "our gathering together to Him." Will he venture to say that the translation of the saints to heaven is here ?figurative* and why should both be literal in 1 Thess. 4 where they are also (though in another way) shown to be indissolubly bound as immediate cause and consequence? Such a figurative force given to our Lord's coming is overturned by our gathering together unto Him conjoined to it; as it would also nullify the apostle's appeal (grounded on that blessed hope not yet realised) against the imposture that the day of the Lord was come. The truth is that the postmillennial coming is a myth, not less certainly than the Thessalonian delusion about the day; as is every form of the popular misinterpretation based on the false translation of these verses, especially of ἐνέστηκεν in verse 2. To argue on the π. of the man of sin in verse 9, as if it is assuredly to be impersonal, shows how prejudice can blind a usually vigorous reasoner to build one assumption on another, without one element of solid truth more than in the fabled piling of Ossa on Pelion. The coming of our Lord and our gathering to Him above, which all must have known to be yet future, is the motive to dispel the delusion that His day had arrived; and hence His coming is not identified with His day — the real subject in question (which would be senseless), but contra-distinguished from it. Never can there be an intelligent grasp of the apostle's reasoning, never a comprehensive view of the context, till this distinction is seized, an immense help to the understanding of other scriptures also.

* I am aware that Dr. Whitby, the father of the popular theory of a future reign of the saints on earth without Christ, interprets, as a primary explanation, the π. of Christ's coming to destroy Jerusalem! and ἐπισ. as the gathering of Jewish converts to Christian churches!! as they often worshipped in the synagogues till that destruction. Did Paul, Silvanus Timothy, the Thessalonian saints so worship, and so need to be gathered then? The figurative view of blessed facts is false.

It will have been observed that the subject-matter was no new revelation to the Thessalonians. It had particularly occupied the apostle's spirit when he had visited their city, not only in teaching the saints but even in the public preaching to the world. And his First Epistle had set out carefully for all the saints, asleep or alive, the circumstances, order, character, and issue of the Lord's "coming" (especially since some misapprehension had sprung up in their minds touching the deceased); as he had not kept back the solemn nature of the judgment awaiting men in their unbelief when His "day" comes suddenly upon them. He had now applied His coming in all its joyful associations to dispel the fresh and alarming error that the "day" had arrived — an error for which its propagandists falsely alleged the highest authority, spirit, word, and letter even of the apostle himself. For it is sad to see that, when the truth is lost, those who depart from it are apt to be no longer truthful, and become the dupes of Satan by unscrupulous perversion to give currency to their error. But the apostle entreats the saints by Christ's coming and their consequent gathering unto Him on high not to be shaken or troubled by any such dream as that His day was come. They must be with Him before it, in order to appear with Him in glory when that day comes for the judgment of the quick. When men are saying Peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, so that they shall not escape. Nothing like this had happened as yet: rather the converse of trouble and persecution for the saints, and of ease for their troublers, which is to be exactly reversed when that day comes.

From verse 3 begins a new line of disproof, not a motive from their blessed hope, but a reason founded on the positive fact that the stupendous evil about to work in its successive steps must be developed and manifested in its last and ripened form, with which "the day of the Lord" is to deal according to the prophetic word.

"Let none deceive you in any way; because [it will not be] except the falling away shall have come first, and the man of sin* be revealed, the son of perdition" (verse 3).

* Tischendorf, in his last edition, and Westcott and Hort follow B, some 9 or 10 cursives, and several ancient versions, etc., in preferring "lawlessness" to "sin" in this phrase.

Not a hint drops as to "the coming of the Lord." Tyndale's Version of 1534 and Cranmer's of 1539 are therefore inexcusable in supplying the ellipse with the words, "for the Lord shall not come," etc. Wiclif and the Rhemish avoid the matter by their usual adherence to the Vulgate, which literally reflects the incomplete structure of the Greek. The Geneva and Authorised Versions so far rightly cleave to "the day;" for it is a question of "the" day of the Lord. His "coming" is kept apart from these predicted enormities, which must surely be fulfilled, each in its season, but both before that "day" come, in which the Lord is to judge them. But there is a careful reserve as to His coming, which is kept outside prophetic times and seasons as a constant hope, having only been introduced as a motive why the saints should not lend an ear to the unfounded and absurd rumour, whatever the authority claimed for it, that "that day" had come already. The Lord at any rate had clearly not come: else the saints had been at once gathered unto Him above. Thus His presence indisputably was not yet a fact; and it would, not only when fulfilled, but if kept by faith steadily in view now, preserve them from those vain fables and fears. His coming, or presence, is not the accomplishment but precursor of the day of the Lord; His appearing does synchronise with that day.

But the saints were liable to be beguiled in other ways: hence the fresh warning, and the distinct instruction that the apostacy must come before that day, and the revelation of the man of sin. Let us consider both in the light of the word. They are assumed to be more or less known already. Scripture has furnished light as to both; and the apostle had not been silent as to either when personally with them.

Our Authorised translators have utterly weakened the sense by rendering ἡ ἀπ. "a" falling away. Beyond doubt it is "the apostacy," and there is no ground whatever for depriving the phrase of its intentionally definite force. Nobody can pretend that it is abstract; and a quality would not have the article in Greek more than in English, so that Archbishop Newcome was as wrong in the principle as in the particular case. In the New Testament the word occurs only in Acts 21: 21, and there is anarthrous, which testifies to the emphasis here expressed. There however it means "apostacy" though not "the apostacy" as here. This is better than softening it to falling away or forsaking. A verbal form occurs in 1 Tim. 4: 1, where "apostatise" should have been preserved both for the sake of consistency, and to maintain the definite expression of religious defection. For this it means, not corruption but abandonment, as politically it expresses revolt from authority. See the Septuagint for its use in both these ways.

Here then we have in this brief but expressive phrase the Holy Spirit's expression of that state of things which must precede the day of the Lord. (1) The apostacy must come first; and (2) the man of sin must be revealed, the son of perdition.

(1) In 1 Tim. 4 it is only "some in later times" who apostatise from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience, etc. It is an ascetic departure from the faith in the pretension to superior sanctity, but real denial of God's rights as Creator and grace as Saviour. In 2 Thess. 2 it is no such partial turning away, but the extreme and general defection from the gospel which will boldly issue in the abandonment of all revealed truth and of what may be called natural religion, the testimony to the Godhead in creation and man's conscience. It is the revolt which the prophetic word declares shall characterise the end of this age, as is so largely and variedly revealed in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, in the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Revelation. Deut. 31, Deut. 32, Psalms 10 - 14, Isa. 65, Isa. 66, Dan. 7: 8, 11, 25, Dan. 9: 27, may suffice for the Old Testament. In the New one may cite Matt. 12: 31, 32, 43-45, Luke 17: 26-30, Luke 18: 8, 2 Tim. 4: 4, besides 2 Thess. 2, 2 Peter 3, Jude, and Revelation throughout. These Scriptures warrant the awful expectation that both Jews and Christians will abandon their profession of the truth for which they are respectively responsible, and God be left publicly and in general without a witness of His truth and glory here below, save in the confession of a persecuted remnant and in the execution of His solemn and ever deepening strokes of judgment.

Sad to say, the graver men among Jews and Mohammedans (probably instructed indirectly by Old Testament prophecy) allow more of the ruin here below and the approaching apostacy than many Christians do. Even the Mussulmans own that the Jews are for the mass to abandon the law, themselves the Koran, and the Christians the gospel, before God sends Jesus to judge the world. Certain Christians, misguided alas! by the infidel dream of progress, look for a gradual advance of Christendom to extend itself over all the world, if they do not, like some beguiled yet more by human vanity, expect a state of semi-perfection here below. Scripture however, though it proclaims the gospel of the kingdom, never admits for one moment a kingdom of the gospel, the common delusion of Papists and Protestants. The truth is, that Christendom returns rapidly to that pride, self-will, contempt of the truth and of real godliness, with moral degradation, which characterised the world before the gospel; and 2 Tim. 3 had already prepared us for it. But "the apostacy" goes farther still and supposes the general renunciation of the public profession of the truth here below.

(2) Nor is this all; for the abandonment of the Christian faith leads to another and worse development of evil: the revelation of "the man of sin, the son of perdition." He is to be the evident and personal contrast of Christ, the Man of righteousness, the Saviour of the lost. He will concentrate in himself the wickedness of man and the destructive power which Satan wields, the antagonist of the Lord in a fulness which Judas Iscariot had only in measure, though both are designated alike by the same tremendous name (John 17: 12) which points to a doom most signal.

Of this personage also Scripture speaks in both the Old Testament and the New. Without citing types in the Law, there is a wicked one within (not merely an enemy outside) who is everywhere prominent in the Psalms. Isa. 11: 4 (formally in view of the Holy Spirit in ver. 8 of our chapter) identifies him with the man of sin, and Isa. 30: 33, Isa. 57: 9, describe him as "the king," the usurper of His throne whose right it is, Dan. 11: 36-39 yet more fully. The Lord speaks of him in John 5: 43, as the Epistles of John call him "the Antichrist," and Rev. 13 "the second beast" from the earth, and "the false prophet" who in Rev. 19 perishes with the last head of the fourth empire revived, or first beast from the sea.

Apostate as he is, he none the less is a religious power, and is indeed such distinctively as compared with the then Emperor, the political head of the West, he in the East being the chief of religion. Though he is a king, his main and marked influence is not as a secular power but in a religious way. None can doubt this who weighs the various passages of holy writ here brought together, or even this one capital revelation in our chapter. No doubt he is really as infidel as the secular power in the West, his wicked ally, but his characteristic is spiritual, backed by every sort of power and signs and wonders of falsehood according to the working of Satan, and by every sort of deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish.

It is notorious that unbelief has wrought in divers ways to divert this prophecy from its true object and real scope. Thus a little before and at and since the Reformation those who struggled against the papacy applied freely the man of sin to that corrupt hierarchy, as the later Greeks understood the apostacy of many oriental churches which fell into Islamism, and the man of sin to be Mohammed. So, when the French revolution broke out, and Napoleon Bonaparte rose on its fall, many applied the chapter to those stirring events, just as earlier men like Grotius, Wetstein, Whitby, etc., had applied it to the evils of the Jews and the destruction of their city and temple. But there remains the undeniable fact that the oldest extant interpretation, which survived for centuries among the ever darkening fathers Greek and Latin, recognised the yet future apostacy just before the close, and the personal Antichrist to be overthrown by the Lord Jesus returning for judgment. I attach no authority whatever to the statements of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus, of Tertullian and Lactantius. But even such as Jerome and Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom, held firmly to a personal Antichrist to be destroyed by Christ appearing from heaven. As an expositor no ancient writer excels the eloquent Archbishop of Constantinople in simplicity and perhaps understanding of Scripture. Here is his comment on the verse before us: "Concerning the Antichrist, he discourses here and reveals great mysteries. What is the apostacy? Him he calls apostacy, as about to destroy many, and cause them to revolt so that, He says, if possible, the very elect should be stumbled. And he calls him man of sin; for he will work, and furnish others to work countless things dreadful. And he calls him son of perdition because of his being destroyed himself. Who is he then? Satan? By no means, but a man receiving all his energy; for he is a man." (S. Io. Chrys. in loco, v. 465, 466, Field, Oxon. 1865.) This confusion of the apostacy with the man of sin is not intelligent; but the main statement is correct, and the personality of the Antichrist evident, as in the mind of the fathers generally.

Bellarmine and other Romish advocates (who would parry the application to the papacy by the argument that "the" man of sin, "the" son of perdition, etc., necessarily means an individual, not a succession or class) some excellent men of what is called the Protestant school essay to meet by quoting "the" priest, "the" king, etc., as sufficiently establishing a class, not an individual. But these are words of office, and so differ from the very definite and singular description in our chapter; and assuredly as "many antichrists" elsewhere, so "many deceivers," cannot swamp the unity of "the deceiver and the antichrist" in 2 John. It is in vain also to urge "the one that hinders or restrains," and "that which restrains" in our chapter, which may well be, and I believe is really, meant to express one who is both a person and a power, as may be shown in its place.

Now though it be true that "the king of the north" and "king of the south" are in Dan. 11 applied to several kings of Syria and of Egypt, yet is neither used vaguely for a line of kings there, as this argument would insinuate and require, but in each several instance circumstances are connected so as to mark off one king from another, and make every one individually recognisable. Next, after the full account of Antiochus Epiphanes from verses 21 to 32, closing with a transition (in 33-35) where we hear of neither the north nor the south, a break occurs which carries us down "to the time of the end." Then with notable abruptness we are confronted from verse 36 with the king that shall do according to his will, etc. That is, the analogy of the chapter is dead against the desired succession or class; for, to warrant it in 36-39, a class ought to be intended in each of verses 5, 6, 7, and so on. But the truth is that each speaks of a distinct king of the south: in verse 5 meaning Ptolemy Soter; in 6 the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus; in 7 Ptolemy Euergetes. On the same principle which had applied uniformly elsewhere in the chapter, verses 36-39 ought to describe a single individual and not a class, even if a king of the north or of the south had been intended.

The fact is, however, that here "in the time of the end," as the careful reader sees, culminates the main interest of all the previous series. Here we have a king characteristically different from all else, who becomes in a future day the object of attack to the king of the north and the king of the south "in the land," i.e., of Palestine, which lies between them, and thus becomes in that day once more the battle-ground of nations. Hence what makes the point absolutely conclusive, this very king in "the land" is described by the prophet in terms which the apostle so applies to the man of sin as to prove that they both mean the precisely same object; and this, not a succession of men, but a single individual, yet to appear and oppose the Lord Jesus, and to be destroyed by the manifestation of His coming. In this way light is cast mutually on these remarkable passages of Old and New Testament scripture; and certainly, if the reader of 2 Thessalonians derives help from comparing the Epistle with the prophecy, he who studies the bearing of Dan. 11: 36-39 may and ought to receive yet fuller light from the later writing of the apostle here brought before us.

There is also a simple and complete answer to the unbelieving cavil of a late Oxford Essayist, to the effect that there is "not only minute description of Antiochus' reign, but a stoppage of such description at the precise date 169 B.C." For we are conducted step by step down to that which exactly gives the general description of the Jewish state, which will reappear at the time of the end. Then suddenly is brought before us, in that time of the end, a lawless king in Judea, setting himself up above every god, and speaking words against the God of gods; regarding neither Jehovah nor Messiah, yet, while magnifying himself above all, honouring a god of his own. Had there not been a stoppage at that point, the prophecy could not have been stamped with its actual perfection. The same Spirit gives minute predictions of contending Lagidae and Seleucidae for centuries after the prophet's day (stopped at the only just point), and resumes with at least equal minuteness the solemn crisis in the land, and the kings of north and south once more joining in that strife, which only closes in the day of blessing for the land and the earth and for man to God's glory which shall not pass away. Are we content to become fools that we may be wise? "None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

But there is further light from God cast on the man of sin, the son of perdition (ominous as are these indications of evil beyond precedent and measure), who is to be revealed before the day comes which is to be his destruction. "He that opposeth and exalteth himself exceedingly against every one called god, or object of veneration, so that he sitteth down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (ver. 4). There is no sufficient warrant for the words "as God" in the Received Text as in our Authorised Version. They rather soften the force, where the true text leaves the assumption in its unmitigated arrogance.

Scripture in its various notices of this future head of evil brings into prominence different characteristics which are to meet in him distinctively. He is to come in his own name, the impersonation of self-sufficiency as of independence of God. This will suit the then spirit of the age. Men, the Jews in particular, will be ripe for it and hail it gladly. It will gratify and crown their selfishness. Of old they would not have the One Who came in His Father's name. It was irksome to their proud hearts to see and hear One Who was here only to do the will of Him that sent Him, only to manifest the Father's name, only to make known His love and glory. They admired a bold and free spirit, daring, and self-assertive, The lowly mind was as far from their ideal of man as abhorrent to them practically. "I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things." Such servant-like humility and devotedness was hateful in their eyes, as it could only condemn their ways and words. Had they known the glory of Him Who there spoke, that He was the Son, the Word, the Creator of all, it would have increased their amazement and forced them to own themselves at deadly issue with that only and true God, of Whose testimony they considered themselves the exclusive and faithful guardians. Faith in Christ would have broken them down in utter self-abasement and self-judgment; and they would have seen the Father, by and in the Son, wholly different from all their thoughts.

The Jews then, not only in Christ's day but since, "this generation," rejecting their Messiah, the Son of God come in the infinite humiliation of divine grace, were manifestly of the devil as father, not of Abraham whose seed they were, still less of God Whose name they claimed only for pride; and as they had no standing in the truth, so they were more and more developing into lawless violence like him who from the beginning was a murderer and a liar. By and by the Jews will take the farther step of receiving one to come in his own name, and this as their Messiah. This will be no doubt the depth of moral darkness, for Scripture is not silent as to the righteous and holy character of Jehovah's Anointed. Psalms 16, 22, 40, 69, 72, 75, 91, 101, 102; 132, 144-150; Prov. 8; Isa. 9, 11, 12, 25, 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 63 are ample testimonies from a small part of Scripture. Space fails merely to cite the barest references in the Old Testament to the moral perfectness of Jehovah-Messiah and His future reign. So that, as the Jews were without excuse when they failed to discern the true and divine Messiah, so will they be yet more (after rejecting Him) in receiving the full and final representative of selfishness, which Satan will bring before them in the antichrist of the latter day. "Him," said the Saviour, "ye will receive." This awaits "the many" in the land, and the time hastens.

John brings out other features of their coming leader. "Who is the (not "a") liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son" (1 John 2: 22). Here we learn that there are two steps: the denial of the Jewish confession that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, which is the fatal unbelief of that nation; the denial of the Father and the Son, which is the equally fatal repudiation of the christian confession. The antichrist will be the chief outcome of the twofold blasphemous infidelity, the spirit of apostacy, not only among the Jews, but of Christendom. He will be the Head of both; and that the unbelieving Jews and Christians can and will have a common head is enough to show how complete must be the apostacy. The denial of the Father and the Son is the rejection of the fullest revelation of grace and truth from God to man, and this is now going on in Christendom, not ignorance only of such infinite love in the person of the Lord Jesus, but heart-opposition and unbelieving dislike and defamation. Into this outward professors are gradually falling from a mere creed-profession; from it nothing will truly preserve, but the living faith of God's elect according to His power Who saved and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began — the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.

But the lie of Satan will go farther than the denial of that especial display of grace and truth, of the Father and the Son; for it will, as we have seen, reject even the Messiahship of Jesus, and thus pave the way for that awful amalgam of unbelieving Jews and Christians who will accept the antichrist as their one head. "For many deceivers," as John says in his Second Epistle, "are gone out into the world, those that confess not Jesus coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." If they refused the highest and deepest revelation, it might be supposed that they would allow the least. But no; the hour approaches when the work of deceivers will be complete, and Christendom, proud and effete, will fall under the power of the lie to the utmost, along with the blinded Jews. And this gives distinctness to the sitting in the temple of God spoken of in the end, and disposes of all need to soften it into any figure whatever. Where else would the apostate head of Jews and Christians sit but there?

Now the intimation in our chapter, if it convey not the personal depth and immense scope of John, gives particulars of the greatest weight and interest. The man of sin is further described as "he that opposeth and exalteth himself exceedingly against every one called god or object of veneration." Here appears antagonism and arrogant self-exaltation against every divine or even reverent claim. How humbling and awful to know from God that such is to be the issue of not the law only but the gospel, in the hands of men prone and skilful to corrupt all, and to make of the best thing the worst corruption! The evil will not be only an apostate state, embracing all, even the most opposed, but it will have a head, and this a religious head.

There will be a worldly head also; and many have confounded the two, because they play each into the other's hands. The political chief will own the religious head, as the latter will uphold the former. Indeed they are so closely bound together in their policy and doings and issue, that one need not be surprised that in ancient as in modern times many have mixed them up, attributing to the one what is properly true of the other, an error equally true of historicalists as of futurists. Thus of old as now not a few think of the seven-headed and ten-horned beast out of the sea (Rev. 13: 1-10, where they read of the man of sin); whereas in truth the second beast out of the earth, or the false prophet (Rev. 13. 11-18), is the evil power which is here before us. He imitates Christ's power as King and Prophet ("two horns like a lamb"); but his utterance is of Satan ("he spake as a dragon"), a quasi-religious or irreligious much more than a merely secular potentate. So the antichrist in 1 and 2 John is clearly he who supplants and denies the blessed One held out in hope throughout the Old Testament, and no less the same One revealed in the New Testament as already come to give communion with the Father and with Himself, the Son of the Father in truth and in love.

Here it is not otherwise: the antagonist of God stands before us, not the conqueror of kings or captains. He opposes and exalts himself exceedingly against every one called God or object of veneration. There is deliberate and unspeakable arrogance in putting down all rivalry, yet it is not the mere negation of God, but pretension in every shape, in order to deify self after the most open way and the most exorbitant degree. We see the first evil aim proposed to man by the serpent carried out at length defiantly, man taking the place of the only true God to the exclusion and denial of all above himself. "So that he sitteth down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

It will be observed that it is not in the sphere of the world, but "in the temple of God" that he is said to sit. This gives a peculiarly daring and awful character to the opposition and self-glorification of the man of sin. "The king of Babylon," type of the last holder of the imperial power which began with that Gentile empire, said in his heart (as we are told in Isa. 14: 13, 14), "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, I will ascend above the heights of the north; I will be like the Most High." This might seem so aspiring as to leave no room for a higher flight. But mount Zion on the sides of the north, the city of the great King, is not such an encroachment on divine prerogative as to sit in the sanctuary, showing himself that he is God. This audacious assumption is not that of the world-power or first beast, but of the second, when he takes the exclusive place of the God of Israel in His temple. A figurative sense of the church, as God's habitation through the Spirit, is here out of the question. The revealed character of the person, and the antecedent apostacy, forbid any such application. It was in the temple of Jerusalem that the glory of God was once enthroned above the mercy-seat, it was in that temple that He Who will yet be the glory of Israel, and of the earth, as He is of heaven, presented Himself in grace and healed those blind and lame who were of old the hated of David's soul.

There will this sad contrast of the man of righteousness and Saviour of the lost take his seat, not like God or "as God" (which words of the Received Text disappear as wanting adequate authority), but showing himself that he is God. He is no vicar, nor earthly representative. He claims to be the true God of Israel, and this in His temple. It might seem past belief that any creature could so deceive himself, or at least hope to deceive others, into a pretension so egregiously profane and in a place so unspeakably aggravating his wickedness. But we must remember on the one hand that God will give up men in Christendom to a judicial blindness, and on the other that Satan will be permitted for a little to display his evil power unchecked. Of both the man of sin will avail himself to the uttermost; and one may conceive how the blessed truth of the Incarnate Word may be perverted to the damnable lie of Satan at the end of the age, and this in Jerusalem, where the latter glory of this house will be awaited, once more to surpass the former, by the same unbelieving generation which saw no beauty in the true Son of David why they should desire Him. Those who despised God become man are morally prepared in due time to adore man assuming to be God. Grace is hateful in their eyes, which greedily accept self-glorification. And if it be in general the hour of high looks and words of blasphemy, we can understand the power of darkness culminating in the chief who assumes supreme Godhead in God's temple.

Thus the man of sin is the unspeakably evil counterpart of the blessed Lord; Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it a matter of grasping (or robbery) to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, coming in likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. Wherefore also God exceedingly exalted Him — the very word which the Spirit uses to describe the son of perdition in his self-inflation. God, on the contrary, highly exalted the Saviour, and gave Him the name that is above every name. Here we have two parts deeply distinguished: His emptying Himself as the divine Son, His humbling Himself as a man. Not that He ceased to be either. He was intrinsically and eternally God; it could therefore be no matter of seizing such dignity, as did in principle the first Adam, who was a mere man, and as this son of perdition will fully do in his own time to become the slave and dupe and victim of Satan, disobedient unto death, yea unto divine and eternal judgment, as antichrist is to be beyond doubt.

Indeed it is notable that our Lord, even when found in figure as a man, humbled Himself in becoming obedient as far as death, for it had no claim on Him Who knew no sin, had He not deigned to be the willing Victim, Whom God made sin for us, as He emptied Himself in taking a bondman's form. The highest creature, Michael, is but a servant, while the Son emptied Himself to become one. What a testimony to His deity! What a contrast with him who being the vilest of men vaunts himself God in the temple of God! What will this last and worst usurper be in the eyes of Him that blasts him with the breath of His lips, and consigns him to the lake of fire? For this impious adversary of the God of Israel (with all the deeper guilt of denying Him as alone fully revealed in the Son, as Christians know Him) it will be a question of the earth only. He denies the unseen and eternal: heaven is nothing to him any more than hell, and therefore he daringly assumes to be God on earth where the glory of Jehovah was once displayed. But he will be manifestly a man and not God when the Lord Jesus from heaven smites him with the rod of His mouth; for then His lips are full of indignation, and His tongue as a devouring fire.

It appears from ver. 5 that the apostle had in no way kept back these solemn truths as to the apostacy and the man of sin during his first visit, to Thessalonica. Reserve is the reverse of the truth in Christianity, which if veiled is veiled in those that are lost, in whom the god of this world has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, that the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ should not dawn on them. Reserve is the more strikingly false, as the time the apostle spent there was short, and the saints had been only just brought to God: yet did he not withhold either the coming of the Lord or His day when He introduces the kingdom, nor the awful defection from the gospel and the manifestation of the lawless one which His day is to judge.

"Remember ye not that, being yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know that which restraineth, that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already worketh: only [there is] one that restraineth now until he be out of the way" (ver. 5-7).

Had the Thessalonians only borne in mind the oral testimony, they would have resisted more effectually the inroad of error. But they, as we, should learn even from that failure the incalculable value of the written word. Even a primitive tradition is unreliable, and as it needs, so it receives, the correcting hand of the Holy Spirit. The inference from the Lord's word in John 21: 22 seemed to the early brethren inevitable; but the disciple whom Jesus loved lived long enough to prove inspiration by the danger of inferential reasoning from an oral report, and the all-importance of the written word. How easy it is to let slip the words of the Lord, or what the apostle used to say!

There is no real ground of course for such a solecism as taking νῦν with τὸ κ. like Macknight and others. It is simply resumptive with καὶ, a particle of transition and not temporal, which is the less necessary as we have subsequently ὁ κατἕχων ἄρτι. Even if "now" were used temporally as to the Thessalonians, it would not imply that there was a time coming when they would cease to know, which is ridiculous, but a contrast of present knowledge with past ignorance. And the logical force of the adverb here, as determined by the order of the words and the context or coherence, does not suppose, more than the false construction, any undue knowledge of God's ways by His saints.

But the apostle does not say that he when with them had explained the restraint of which he here speaks. They knew, he says, that there is that which restrains the revelation of the man of sin till the fit and destined moment come. That he had told them what it was is more than is intimated; and there is no reason therefore to suppose this an unwritten tradition. All he says is that the Thessalonians knew the fact, there he leaves it mysteriously for others, as it appears to me, with perfectly given wisdom from on high. For the form of the restraining power might change in God's providential government; and that which the Thessalonians knew as then standing in the way of the lawless one's manifestation might give place to another hindrance later. Thus other and better reasons might lead the apostle to be reticent, than the prudent fear which the fathers imputed to him of offending the Roman Empire, the one barrier in the eyes of most. If the man of sin be not yet revealed, it is clear that the breaking up of the Empire then did not bring the antichrist, as Tertullian expected. Yet their idea is perhaps rather defective than false.

For the powers that be are ordained of God, and do act as a bulwark against that spirit of lawlessness to which the corruption of Christianity gives an immensely increased impetus. It matters not whether we look at the clerical party or the radical, they both help on self-will, and are each unfriendly to civil government when it opposes either. Outside both, yet in the bosom of Christendom, rise up ever increasing masses of men whom it would be unjust to class with either churchism or dissent; men perhaps baptised, certainly animated with hatred of all restraint, yet notwithstanding their religion or infidelity skilful and eager to avail themselves of Scriptural words, facts, and principles, in order to overthrow not only all recognition and honour of God, but all reality of human government. This is among the premonitions of the approaching apostacy, and the man of sin. But as yet there is "that which restraineth that he may be revealed in his own season." God is meanwhile gathering out His children, the members of Christ's body, as lie is sending His gospel to the ends of the earth.

The empire is gone; divided kingdoms of more or less constitutional character have followed the downfall of feudalism. The energy of the Spirit of God has wrought as yet, during each and all, to hinder the outbreak of the apostacy, and the manifestation of the lawless one before his appointed hour. But the Roman Empire is to rise again, ordained of Satan, not of God; when its active re-existence will operate as the main support, and be the manifest sign, if sign be wanted, of antichrist in his opposition and self-exaltation against every one called god or object of veneration. The beast, or fourth empire revived, and the false prophet, as they work together in evil, so must both perish together, as Scripture plainly shows. The patristic scheme was therefore defective, to say the least.

It is quite erroneous to confound "the apostacy" with "the mystery of lawlessness." The apostacy is future, and only just precedes the revelation of the man of sin, both of which must be before the day of the Lord. But here (ver. 7) we are expressly told that "the mystery of lawlessness doth already work." The apostacy will be an open abandonment of all revelation, after that the coming and work of the Lord Jesus, and the consequent presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, had made divine truth manifest in the richest grace to man on earth. When the unfaithfulness of Christendom has corrupted the testimony and made, the church utterly and hopelessly despicable, to the shame of the Lord Jesus, men will rise up in rebellion, not merely against the faithless church, but yet more against the holy revelation itself, spurning God's grace and hating the truth, and resolved on nothing so much as their own will and way. "The mystery of lawlessness" is the hidden energy of Satan meanwhile in mingling error with truth under Christ's name, either swamping grace by legalism or prostituting it to licence. Even then this lawlessness was secretly at work in apostolic days, soon to rot inwardly and foul contagion spread, as we see in Acts 20: 29, 30 in these Epistles, and almost all the others, especially those called catholic, where the evil germinating from the first is no longer a matter of prediction, but of fact and denunciation in the darkest colours and the most solemn notes of sure judgment. It is lawlessness secretly at work, and so called its "mystery," in contrast with the revelation of the lawless one when the resisting power no longer acts, and his own season is arrived.

It is also a mistake ἀνομία, lawlessness, is never in the New Testament the condition of one living without law, but always the condition or deed of one who acts contrary to law; for this would be παρανομία (as the verb in Acts 23: 3 and the noun in 2 Peter 2: 16). The usual terms for such a violation or transgression of law is παράβασισ (Rom. 2: 23; 4: 13; 5: 14 etc.) The truth is that ἀνομία is both a wider and deeper word, as we learn from 1 John 3: 4, where the Revisers have at length vindicated the mind of God from the darkening cloud with which theology had too long veiled the truth. Sin is not transgression of law but lawlessness, and lawlessness is sin. It is a convertible or reciprocating proposition, the subject being identified with the predicate. Hence it is exactly where there is no law, that ἀνομία (properly speaking) is found. For, the apostle declares (Rom. 2), as many as sinned without law shall also perish without law, as many as sinned under law shall be judged by law. The Gentile was a sinner and lawless, the Jew a transgressor of the law. It is wholly to miss the truth therefore to say that the Gentiles sinning without law might be charged with sin, but could not be charged with ἀνομία. For this is precisely the designation of their state, and besides, as a universal principle, ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. Had it been said that they could not be truly called "transgressors," it would have been correct. For where no law is neither is there transgression; but if there be sin as there is, there cannot but be lawlessness. Hence, says the apostle in 1 Cor. 9: 20, 21, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them under law, as under law, not being myself under law, that I might gain those under law; to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law." Theology is but a blind guide in the truth of God.

How then comes "lawlessness" to be appropriate in this case? Just because it is the abuse of grace in Christendom. For every Christian ought to know himself dead with Christ, not to sin only but to law (Rom. 6, 7), but for this very reason sin not having dominion over him as under grace, not law. Flesh (man in his natural state) may profess the name of the Lord, but either would be justified by law and so is fallen away from grace, or avails itself licentiously of the notion of grace to live lawlessly. Thus the flesh, which used to oppose and persecute, learnt to corrupt and perverts the truth; as its idea of grace the is utter relaxation of law for self-indulgence or self-will. In those only who are in Christ Jesus, possessed of new life in Him and resting on His sacrifice for sin, is fulfilled the righteous import of the law, for they walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit (Rom. 8: 1-4). Thus lawlessness had been from early days secretly working within the circle of christian profession, as it will be developed openly in the lawless one ere long, when as the gospel will be flouted as worse than heathenism, so the law will be discarded as putting an unworthy restraint on the will of man that owns no superior on earth, and mocks at heaven and hell as being nowhere. Not "wickedness" or "iniquity," or "unrighteousness," still less "transgression of the law," is the true reflection, but "lawlessness."

The rendering of ver. 7 in the older English Versions is singularly perplexing.* Wiclif simply reproduces the Vulgate's error of "hold" twice, for "withhold" which both the Vulgate and Wiclif gave rightly in ver. 6. The Rhemish follows suite with its usual servility. I confess inability even to conjecture W. Tyndale's meaning, if he meant what is printed, or to correct the misprint if he did not mean it. "For the mistery of that iniquity doeth he all readie worke which only loketh, untill it be taken out of the way." (Ed. 1534.) That of Cranmer (1539) resembles the rendering of Alford and Ellicott, save that "only" with them precedes "until:" "tyll he which now only letteth be taken out of the waye." Geneva led the way in substance for the Authorised Version, save that in both "taken" goes too far. "Till he withdraw" is perhaps unobjectionable, or "be out of the way."

*Some years ago use was made of some such version as this, or even the stronger one of "holding fast," to oppose any application to the Spirit or the church. It was insinuated that the kind of restraint meant is illustrated by Zech. 5: 8, i.e., some secret agent of God forcibly constraining, till in his withdrawal the wickedness rises in its strength and the man of sin is revealed. But this sense seems to he changed now.

But this last and very important clause has of late been questioned, though happily by few. It might have been thought that the last words of ver. 7 were too plain to be misconstrued. Nor are they in any version at all known nor even in G. Wakefield's, or in Gr. Penn's. The Vulgate takes it, as all the English from Wiclif to the Revised, to indicate the removal of the restrainer, leaving (as the Bishop of Gloucester says) the manner of the removal wholly undefined. So does the Memphitic; so the Pesch. and the Philox. Syriac Versions; so the Arabic and the Aethiopic of Walton's Polyglott. Alford and Meyer may be adventurous, but here abide with the unbroken column of translators everywhere. Here then is a bold suggestion: "For the mystery of wickedness is already working (only there is at present one that restraineth) until it becomes developed out of the midst*" etc. That is, even when abandoning the old "holding fast" for the sense here intended of "restraint," he dislocates the sentence in order to avoid the truth of its withdrawal, when it will no longer be the secret working of lawlessness as now, but the lawless one displayed, with whom the Lord Jesus will then deal. There is nothing, says he, in the words ἐκ μέσου to signify removal or taking away! which he argues is "derived entirely" from the connected ἁρτάζω, αἴρω, ἐξέρχ. (Acts 23 10; 1 Cor. 5: 9; 2 Cor. 6: 17); whereas γίν. has not at all the sense of removal, but rather of origin or of existence. Now, waiving the "half" in Thuc. iv. 133, and "in common" in Aristides ii. 120 (Jebb), Herodotus over and over again refutes the statement that it is only the connected verb that gives, though of course it may strengthen, the notion of keeping aloof or neutral, a wholly different idea from development (iii. 83, iv. 118, viii. 22, 73 twice). The most fanciful cannot attribute movement to ἔζεσθαι or καθῆσθαι, to sit or sit down; yet Wesseling, a competent scholar, properly interprets the phrase, secedere e medio. The truth is precisely opposed to this objector, for it is ἐκ τ. μ. which lends the force of secession to the verb. Compare Eur. Electra 797, where Paley takes ἐκ. μ. as meaning apart from the company, but probably it is abruptly or in the midst. Wetstein (ii. 311) long ago cited Anton. viii. 12, μικρὸν, καὶ τέθνηκα, καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐκ μέσου I am dead, and all gone. Let me add Dion C. who in his H. B. says of Lucullus (ea. Sturz, i. 188) that he kept aloof from both, ἐκ μέσου ἀμθοῖν, and similarly of others (i. 686, ii. 48, 768), save that in the last the connected word is ὄντας, which is akin to γίν. In i. 388 Nepos is said to have withdrawn himself ἐκ τ. μ. away. Now we need not dwell on passages like that of Demosth. de Cor. (Reiske i. 323) where ἀνελόντας is connected with ἐκ μέσου, putting away," or laying aside, or again yet earlier, ἀν. ἐκ μ. in his Fourth Phil. ( i. 141) "if we remove or take out of the way." But two passages of later Hellenistic Greek are the more decisive, as we have the precise phrase contested. Plutarch says of Timoleon (Ed. Bryan, ii. 109) ἔγνω ζῃν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ μέσου γενόμενος, he decided to live by himself away from all. Achilles Tatius, ii. 27 (ea. Boden, 186) has τῆς Κλειοῦς ἐκ μέσου γενομένης, submota Clione, "if Clio be removed." Is it not plain then that the scholarship which could deny to ἐκ μ. γ. the force of removal is as bad as attributing the spurious sense of development to a phrase which never bears it in one single instance, nor I believe could bear it? The ordinary version is unquestionably correct.

*Since. writing these words I find that a Dominican, le Pére Lambert, (in his "Exposition des Prédictions et des Promesses faites à l'Eglise pour les derniers temps de la Gentilité," ii. 314 - 318, Pans 1806) resorts to a similar distortion of the last clause, "jusqu'à ce que ce mystére sorte de son secret, on paraisse au grand jour." There is no parenthetic interpolation here, but no less violence is done otherwise to the preceding words, which are actually supposed to mean, "Seulement que celui qui sait maintenant en quoi consiste ce mystère, le retienne bien, jusqu'à" etc. That is κατέχ is taken in three distinct senses in order to banish the true meaning which supposes but one: (1) "ce qui empêche" (ver. 6), (2) "celui qui sait," and (3) "le retienne bien," the understood supply (ver. 7). The alternative for ver. 6, "à quoi il tient," or "ce qui est nécessaire," would in no way improve matters. Whether the English writer was indebted directly or indirectly to the older French work is of no moment; but It is of interest to see in both how one false step is apt to involve more, and that the truth is both simpler and deeper than either of these incoherent conjectures.

Thus far was written when a third modification from the same source meets us, somewhat more sober, and mainly brought about by a passage in Aeschines' Epist. xii. (Reiske iii. 695), where is another instance, ἐκ μέσου γενομένων, referring to men dead or exiled. In either case they were "gone away." H. Stephens need not be summoned to inform us that γενόμενος cannot be rendered "taken away" (sublatus), though this sense he unhesitatingly gives to the whole phrase. Every scholar knows the wide range of meanings γ. derives from prepositional phrases attached to it as here. It is uncritical to cite texts like Ex. 24: 16, and Deut. 18: 18, in view of a wholly different construction. For in all the Septuagint appears no instance of the phrase used absolutely as here with γ. But even so, calling "out of the midst" of the cloud, or raising up a Prophet "from among" (though here it is probably ἐκ only) Israel's brethren, is in no way development. Removal, destroying, taking, sending, or going out, are among the frequent associations in the Greek Bible.

Take however Amos 6: 4 as one not so common, where it is a question of eating, and ἐκ represents "out of" and ἐκ μ. "out of the midst of." Development is never the connection there. Does it not then seem strange to extract that idea for the latter phrase from Matt. 21: 19, Mark 1: 11, Mark 9: 7, Luke 3: 22, Luke 9: 25, Gal. 4: 4, 1 Tim. 6: 4, Heb. 9: 3; when not one has ἐκ μ. γ. but γ. ἐκ which last nobody disputes may mean development? And why cite the identification by Hederich of ἐκ μ. γ. (at least in Eur. Iph. in Aul. 342) with ἐν μ., its regular inverse? It is hard to conceive, if it be not to bring doubt or darkness into the question. Even there is it not meant that A. would secure to himself the object of his ambition "apart from others"? In general the one means "in the way," etc., the other, "out of the way," etc., somewhat like the stronger ἐμποδών and ἐκποδών. That mind must be singularly constituted which could regard ἕζ. or καθέζ. in Herod. as giving the meaning of "secession"! quite as much as αἴρω in Col. 2: 14 gives "removal." If the author had said "session," it would be true but irrelevant. But it is true that the idea of secession from party really does come from ἐκ μ. and not from the verbs, which mark inaction rather. The passage from Aeschines' supposititious letter must be added to those from Plutarch and Achilles Tatius, clearly proving that the secession implied in the phrase is intrinsic, not contextual, and due to ἐκ μ. rather than to the associated verb, here the very same as in the clause in dispute.

Again, the inspiring Spirit had the best grounds for avoiding ἀρθῃ here, though Chrysostom, who applied it to the Roman empire, so paraphrases it; and he surely knew his own tongue. Besides, the preceding clause implies only a present constraint, so that its future withdrawal is the natural sequel; whereas the device of enclosing the central clause of verse 7 in parenthesis is not only harsh and uncalled for, but cuts the thread of the truth. And then, what an insignificant parenthesis when you have made it! If the Thessalonians knew that which restrains, did they not know that there is one restraining now? Tautology might be truly said to attach to the desired parenthesis. One would think that the mystery of lawlessness must have been "developed out of the midst," in order to be already at work. In short the idea is at all points unfounded.

The withdrawal of the obstacle, of Him who restrains, leaves the door open for the man of sin to make his appearance in Satan's power.

"And then shall be revealed the lawless one whom the Lord Jesus shall destroy with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought by the manifestation of his coming" (ver. 8).

It will be no longer the mystery or secret of lawlessness, but his own time for the son of perdition to be revealed (ver. 6). The restrainer gone is the signal for the revelation of the lawless one. We are not here to look for the steps or stages by which he is led of Satan to his bad pre-eminence: this belongs rather to the details of the prophetic word, which is far from silent in the Old Testament or in the New. Here it was of urgent moment for the young believers in Thessalonica to be delivered from the perturbation and even terror caused by the false gloss that the day of the Lord was actually come. The apostle was inspired of God to correct the error by casting a flood of light on that which still seems hidden from most, though clearly revealed in the instructive words of the Holy Spirit to the Thessalonians — the relation between the coming, and the day, of the Lord. So far are they from being identical or inseparable, though surely and nearly connected, that, wherever the popular confusion prevails, it renders the apostolic handling of the matter unintelligible, and Paul is made as vague in his argument as most of his commentators in expounding it. For if the coming and the day be practically the same thing, where is the propriety of the apostle's beseeching them for the sake of (or "by") the Lord's coming not to be troubled by the cry that His day has arrived? The balance, beauty, and force of truth are restored when we know that he entreats them, for their blessed hope which was surely future, not to be alarmed as if the dreaded day which follows it were come; and then he proceeds to show (that not Christ, but) that day with its judicial terrors could not come till the evil, now veiled and as to its worst development suppressed, break out fully into its most audacious contempt and lawless defiance of God. When, by the departure of the actual and mighty hindrance, it shall reach this climax in the assumption of supreme divine honour here below, the Lord Jesus as it were accepts the challenge, and displays Himself to the destruction of His enemy. This will be "the day" not the coming or presence merely, but the manifestation of His presence, or His appearing.

Hence the reader will do well to take note of the striking precision in the inspired language, and of the marked change from verse 1 to verse 8. It is not that a mere dealing in providence can be seriously entertained as the sense of verse 7. "The coming of the Lord" is demonstrably His personal presence, in ver. 1. inseparably bound up with the gathering to Himself of the saints deceased or then alive. It is now admitted by all expositors of the least weight, however opposed to premillennialism that the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ here spoken of can admit of no figurative or secondary sense, but points simply, unmistakably, and exclusively to His future advent in person. This clears away at once the darkening cloud of praeterists such as Grotius Wetstein, Hammond, Whitby, le Clerc, Schottgen Hardouin, etc., who, though differing in details, agreed in interpreting the Lord's coming of Jerusalem's destruction.

It is well known that the late G. S. Faber in his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy (iii. 434, etc.) sets himself to disprove what he calls the identicality of the coming of Christ in the two Epistles. He allowed of course, as all must, that in 1 Thess. 4: 11-18 it is Christ's personal advent from heaven; but he denied that there is anything that can warrant the thought that St. Paul in the second Epistle refers to the advent which he had mentioned in the first Epistle! He reasoned on the spurious letter as the sole source of any speedy expectation of Christ! But he really overlooked the egregious violence of his own assumption. For the first Epistle gave no little light from God, both as to Christ's coming for the joy of the saints (1 Thess. 4: 13-18), and as to His day for the surprise and judicial destruction of the world (1 Thess. 5: 1-3). How unnatural to suppose a change of meaning for either in the second Epistle! For these are the very topics which he resumes in exposing the fraud of false teachers. How monstrous to suppose them used in any other sense than in the First! Such inconsistency would be unworthy of a human author, still less of inspiration.

The truth is that the apostle applies them with fresh light to expose the imposture of those who in that spurious letter misused the day as if already come (in some figurative way doubtless), so as to alarm all who heeded them. And most strengthening it is to see, after explaining in chap. 1 that the revelation of the Lord in that day will be to the punishment of His foes and the display of His friends in glory with Himself, he beseeches them by (or for the sake of) His coming, which is to gather all the saints to be with Him on high, not to credit the false rumour that His day had arrived below, adding the most solemn changes and developed evils, which must be (not before His "coming" but) before "the day" which is to judge those evils.

How can any unbiassed person fail to see that His coming in 2 Thess. 2: 1 is self-evidently identical with the same terms in 1 Thess. 4? The spurious epistle made out that the day of the Lord was present. The apostle first appeals (verses 1, 2) to the necessary translation of the saints to Christ at His coming as refuting this; and then he shows (verses 3 et seqq.) what appalling events must come to pass before that day, not only the utter and general renunciation of Christianity, but the open antagonism of the man of sin to God. For, as he explains, it is secret lawlessness which already works, kept down for the present by God's power whilst He is calling out His own for heaven; once the restraint is withdrawn, the revelation of the lawless one follows, and the Lord shines forth from heaven in overwhelming judgment.

Dr. D. Brown differs, but is no less unsatisfactory. For he separates verse 8 from verse 1, argues from such scriptures as Isa. 13: 6-19, Isa. 19: 1, Isa. 30: 97-33, Micah 1: 3-5, Joel 2: 30, 31, compared with Acts 2: 16-20, Matt. 10: 23, Rev. 3: 3, that "a bright coming of Christ" (!) to destroy the Antichristian power points to a figurative providential coming, rather than to His personal advent.

The great defect in both is the common fault from early days to our own times. Neither Mr. F. nor Dr. B. understood the precise nature of the error combated, nor consequently the real correction of the Holy Spirit. Both imagined, as one of them expressly says, that the time of Christ's personal advent was what excited and unsettled the Thessalonians. But it is not so: they were shaken and troubled by the pretence that (not His advent but) His day was come, which delusion could only have been by insinuating some such figurative notion of that day as Dr. B. pleads for. The apostle dispels it by recalling them to their bright hope of Christ's personal coming to gather His own to Himself, which all know is not yet the fact: a connection and motive quite lost sight of by both to the ruin of the apostle's reasoning, and to the obscuring of the truth in question. To confound two objects, not only distinct but in contrast, is the surest way to spoil the proper character of each

The day of the Lord is a further step of His advent, not merely His coming, but the appearing or manifestation of His coming, as the phrase in verse 8 really means. This would naturally admit of a striking difference. His presence to gather His own to Himself is never so called. He comes to translate the saints dead or living to heaven. Here it is not merely His coming, but the appearing or manifestation of it which destroys the lawless one. The last is, or coalesces with, His day; which therefore could not be, till the lawlessness that brings down the swift and final judgment of the Lord is fully revealed. "A bright coming" is weak and vague, though no one doubts its awful and penetrating brightness. Probably "illustratione" in the Vulgate helped on looseness of interpretation, which first found expression in Wiclif and last in the Authorised Version, all the intervening English versions being correct like the Revised Version.

We are told that the one object of the apostle expressed by himself as plainly as possible was to dissipate the notion that "the day of Christ was at hand" or "imminent." Strange mistake, we must repeat, on the part of scholars — hardly possible if they were not also held in the meshes of tradition. It was really to deliver from the false cry that the day of the Lord "was actually there." The errorists said nothing about the Lord's coming to gather the saints on high. The apostle first beseeches them by it not to believe so unfounded a rumour. Then he tells them of what must be, not before the Lord's coming, but before the manifestation of it in judgment of antichrist. The subject in discussion is not His coming, but His day; and the light given on what must be developed before that day (not before His coming) is a most necessary part of the truth revealed in order to disabuse them thoroughly.

There is another impression which has to be guarded against in much that is taught about His day. Who has not heard of the effort to persuade souls that the destructive judgment of the lawless one is to be gradual rather than immediate, the result of many blows rather than of one? Hence stress is laid on "consume "* as well as "destroy" in Dan. 2: 44, Dan. 7: 26, and here also in our verse, as indicating the successive steps by which the extermination of the antichrist is to be effected. And Macknight, like others, tells us that by "spirit, or breath, of His mouth" are predicted the preaching of true doctrine, and its efficacy in destroying the man of sin. Now one has only to compare Isa. 30: 33 with Isa. 11: 4 to expose the unsoundness of such an explanation. The gospel, the truth preached, is in no way like "a stream of brimstone," as the prophet explains himself; and smiting the earth or slaying the lawless one is not Christ's speech in the scriptures nor is it a mere "rendering ineffectual the vile arts of a corrupt priesthood." It is instant and extreme judgment executed by the Lord in person; the truth of which is confirmed, if anything were needed to confirm it, not only by the explicit phrase, "manifestation of His coming," but by the critical addition of "Jesus," the Lord Jesus, on the authority of A Dp.m. Ep.m. FGLcorr. P, some cursives, all the ancient versions, and abundant early citations.

* The reading which is so translated here, even if it really implied gradual waste, which it does not, is very doubtful, and "take away" or "slay" is a variant preferred by many, the Revisers included. But the ordinary text means a sudden consumption, as by fire, in Luke 9: 54, and so in our verse, were it certain. Even in Gal. 5: 16, it is the result in the climax, not the process. The reader of the Greek Bible can compare Jer. 27 (50) 7, Ezek. 15: 4, 5, Ezek. 19: 12; Ezek. 23: 25; Joel 1: 19; Joel 2: 3; where all but the first means destruction by fire. A few other instances more general might he added. But clearly the Sept. refutes the preparatory and slow process no less than the N. T.

The importance of all this is that, if it be, as we are assured, the same coming of the Lord throughout both Epistles, followed by the further stage of its "manifestation" or that "day," there is no room for the kingdom or millennial reign till after the Lord comes and executes judgment on the quick. "When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." Then follows that blessed period, to His glory alone, and not to the praise of poor fallen Christendom as it fondly dreams; an unworthy hope, the bride reigning without the Bridegroom! What so distasteful to a true spouse who derived all from Him?

For the scope of the context is as conclusive as it is plain. The hope of the saints is kept distinct from prophecy. The coming of the Lord, which is to gather us to Himself, is not mixed up with His day, but a motive for the heart against the delusion that the day was come, as some alleged. No one pretended or believed that the Lord had come, nor that the saints were translated to Him on high which nevertheless must be before His day dawns for the destruction of His enemies. Of His coming neither the misteachers nor the mistaught had ever thought till the apostle recalled the saints to this their hope, in order to dispel the error about His day. Meanwhile lawlessness works secretly to corrupt the testimony of God's grace and truth; and more than this Satan cannot yet do, because there is One that restrains till He withdraw, when the apostacy shall come and the lawless one be then revealed, not before. His defiant opposition to God, usurping His glory in His temple, is the signal for the Lord Jesus in person to destroy him with the breath of His mouth and to annul him by the manifestation of His presence. So perverse are men that here (ver. 8) where publicity of judicial intervention is most emphatically expressed, they are ready to conceive of secret providence; whilst in verse 1, where not a word implies manifestation, they will not hear of aught else. His coming gathers the saints to Himself, the manifestation or appearing of His coming it is which makes an end of the lawless one. The saints are with Him and come from heaven for that judgment, as we may see in Rev. 17: 14, Rev. 19: 14; they had been caught up to heaven at His coming before the day. The distinction is as clear as it is important; the Revelation as a whole can scarcely be understood without it; as the future is otherwise vague indeed, and mistranslation follows with false interpretation in its train.

The connection excludes all room for an intervening millennium. The mystery of lawlessness is distinctly shown to have been even then at work, and to pursue its corrupting course, till the apostacy comes, and the man of sin be revealed; the very reverse of a reign of righteousness on the earth for ever so short a while, much less for a time so considerable. There is an evident and solemn link between the secret energy of lawlessness that wrought ruin from the apostolic days, till (the restraint being gone) it merges in the lawless one whom the Lord destroys by the manifestation of His coming. All scripture points to, and is alone consistent with, the appearing of the Lord, as the necessary means, on the one hand, of divine judgment in destroying those that destroy the earth, and on the other of rewarding the suffering saints, as well as blessing the world, especially His ancient people at the head of all the nations.

It will be the administration of the fulness of times, when God shall gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him in Whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will, that we should be to the praise of His glory who first trusted in Christ. It is neither the present age, nor is it eternity, but the age to come, when the glorified Son of man with His heavenly Eve shall have dominion visibly over the subjected universe of God. Of this, His present exaltation (when we see not yet all things put under Him) is the pledge, as the Holy Ghost given is its earnest to the joint-heirs. For while He shall inherit all things, according to the glory of His person and His rights as well by creation as by redemption, there is an especial fitness, that over the earth, which cast Him out when He came down in infinite love, He should reign in power and glory, all kings falling down before Him, and all nations serving Him. But this state of things is as distinct from the present as from eternity; yet, as it has never been accomplished, so it surely must be, for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken it, and it is due to His Anointed.

It is hardly conceivable then to find language more explicitly opposed to the notion of mere providential instrumentality or of covert judgments than the words we have just had to weigh. "The spirit of his mouth" is expressive of the inner energy of divine power (whether creative, Ps. 33: 6, or judicial, 2 Sam. 22: 16, Job 4: 9, Ps. 18: 15, Isa. 11: 4, Isa. 30: 33) with which the Lord shall dispatch the lawless one. "The appearance of His coming" declares that it will not be annulling him from a distance or by secret action any more than by secondary means, but by the shining forth of His presence. And, as if to cut off all excuse for unbelief, the best text of authority demands our reading, not "the Lord" only, but "the Lord Jesus." Even the too common attempt to maintain a distinction between "consume" and "destroy" can only be through force of habitual prejudice, not to say ignorance, for the Greek term in the first member of the sentence no more implies a gradual waste than in the second. On every ground then the gospel is out of the question. Together they mean an overwhelming and utter judgment inflicted by the Lord Jesus personally before all the world, as both related to one and the same destruction.

The apostle now turns to explain the connection of Satan, as also of God's retribution, with the lawless one, "whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness for* those that perish, because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error that they should believe falsehood, that all might be judged who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (verses 9-12).

* The Received Text has ἐν "in" contrary to the best and oldest witnesses; so also in verse 12, though "in" be meant here.

The Lord Jesus is the Son of God, and in Him all the fulness was pleased to dwell. The man of sin, the son of perdition, is the awful counterpart of the enemy, and the picture would not be complete if we had not the dark addition of the unseen power of evil at work in him. Here it is given in a few energetic words of the Holy Ghost, falsehood being the universal characteristic: "in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood," the very terms (with the blessed unquestionable contrast of grace and truth) in which the apostle Peter (Acts 2) set out the Messiah, "a man demonstrated of God to you by deeds of power and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in your midst, even as ye yourselves know." How amazingly solemn that here we have the anti-Messiah described beforehand in language so similar!

The application of all this to the Papacy has quite enervated the force of the scripture among Protestants generally. For they, with such an object before them as the Popes of Rome, naturally think of unreal miracles, and false pretensions to power and signs which have it as their aim to support their ambitious designs in the world. Macknight as well as another may illustrate this kind of interpretation: — "After the heathen magistrates were taken out of the way by the conversion of Constantine, and after he and his successors called the Christian bishops to meet in general council, and enforced their assumption of divine authority by the civil power, then did they in these councils arrogate to themselves the right of establishing what articles of faith and discipline they thought proper, and of anathematising all who rejected their decrees, a claim which in after times the bishops of Rome transferred from general councils to themselves. It was in this period that worship of saints and angels and images was introduced; celibacy was praised as the highest piety; meats of certain kinds were prohibited; and a variety of superstitious mortifications of the body were enjoined by the decrees of councils in opposition to the express laws of God. In this period likewise idolatry and superstition were recommended to the people by false miracles, and every deceit which wickedness could suggest; such as the miraculous cures pretended to be performed by the bones and other relics of martyrs, in order to induce the ignorant vulgar to worship them as mediators; the feigned visions of angels who, they said, had appeared to this or that hermit, to recommend celibacy, fastings, mortifications of the body, and living in solitude, the apparition of souls from purgatory, who begged that certain superstitions might be practised for delivering them from that confinement. By all which, those assemblies of ecclesiastics, who by their decrees enjoined these corrupt practices, showed themselves to be the man of sin and lawless one in his first form, whose coming was to be with all power and signs and miracles of falsehood, and who opposed every one that is called God or an object of worship. For these general councils, by introducing the worship of saints and angels as mediators in the place of Christ, they degraded Him from His office of Mediator, or rendered it altogether useless. However, though they thus opposed God and Christ by their unrighteous decrees, they did not yet exalt themselves above every one that is called God or an object of worship. Neither did they yet sit in the temple of God as God, and openly show themselves to be God. Then blasphemous extravagances were to be acted in after times by a number of particular persons in succession; I mean by the bishop of Rome, after the power of the christian Roman emperors, and of the magistrates under them, should be taken out of the way.

"This height, however, of spiritual and civil power united, the bishops of Rome did not attain till, as the apostle foretold, that which restrained was taken out of the way, or till an end was put to the authority of the Roman emperors in the West by the inroads of the barbarous nations; and more especially till the western empire was broken into the ten kingdoms of the fourth beast. For then it was that the bishops of Rome made themselves the sovereigns of Rome, and of its territory, and so became the little horn which Daniel beheld coming up among the ten horns which had 'the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things,' to show that its dominion was founded in the deepest policy, and that its strength consisted in the bulls, excommunications, and anathemas it uttered against all who opposed its usurpations But this impious scheme of false doctrine, and the spiritual tyranny founded thereon, agreeably to the predictions of the prophet Daniel and of the apostle Paul, began at the Reformation to he consumed by the breath of the Lord's mouth; that is, by the preaching of true doctrine out of the scriptures  In short, the annals of the world cannot produce persons and events to which the things written in this passage can be applied with so much fitness as to the bishops of Rome. Why then should we be in any doubt concerning the interpretation and application of this famous prophecy? At the conclusion of our explication of prophecy concerning the man of sin, it may be proper to observe, that the events foretold in it, being such as never took place in the world before, and in all probability never will take place in it again, the foreknowledge of them was certainly a matter out of the reach of human conjecture or foresight. It is evident therefore that this prophecy, which from the beginning hath stood on record, taken in conjunction with the accomplishment of it verified by the concurrent testimony of history, affords an illustrative proof of the Divine original of that revelation of which it makes a part, and of the inspiration of the person from whose mouth it proceeded" (Macknight's Apost. Epp. 496, 497, ed. Tegg, 1835).

This copious statement, tersely presenting the scheme of the Protestant school in as good a shape as I know, is given here, and falls before the truth. For the first beast of Rev. 13 (which coalesces with the little horn of Dan. 7) is the Roman empire risen out of the abyss — the beast that was, is not, and shall come or be present. Now this cannot apply to the north-eastern hordes who first broke up the Western Roman empire, and then formed, say, ten kingdoms out of its ruins. Whereas the ten horns of prophecy are to reign for one hour with the beast, to which they give their power as suzerain; as all perish together at the appearing of the Lord Jesus from heaven (Rev. 17, 19). It is the second beast, which is the religious seducing chief or false prophet, doing great signs, and exercising all the authority of the first beast in his sight, and thus clearly answers to 2 Thess. 2, being distinct from the apostate imperial power, though its staunchest ally.

We have had imperial unity without the ten kingdoms, we have had the ten kingdoms which dismembered the empire without imperial unity, though Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte ardently sought it. There is to be the combination of that imperial power (revived by Satanic power) with the ten kingdoms of the west; and along with this an apostate religious power in Palestine (Dan. 11: 36-39), that is certainly identical with the apostle's man of sin, and as clearly the antichrist of the future (not the papacy, wicked as this may have been). It is he whose coming shall be in falsehood what Christ's was in truth with all powers and signs and wonders to support his lie, as the Lord was proved to be of God thereby. And just as Elijah brought down fire from heaven in demonstration that Jehovah, not Baal, was God, so will the lamb-like beast do "in the sight of men" to accredit the beast and himself, the false prophet, setting himself forth as God in the temple of God.

Plainly the Protestant view confounds in the past things differing much (whatever analogy be traceable, for even now, says S. John, there have arisen many antichrists), and Dr. M. goes farther than a. wise man ought in saying that in all probability such events will never take place. The interpretation limps, as error naturally does; for first the general councils that introduced superstition are treated as "the man of sin"; then, as this is defective as well as vague, the pope of Rome. And when men prophesy who are not prophets, can one wonder that they prophesy falsely? Even the world allows that it is the unexpected that happens. As the believer knows that every word of God must be fulfilled, so these scriptures have not yet been. Mahomet is excluded, impostor though he was, as pretending to no miracle

The false prophet of the future in the land will do great signs such as no Pope ever wrought or claimed to work. And he will work "in all deceit of unrighteousness for those that perish;" as Christ by God's word, in righteousness and holiness of truth, for those that are to be saved. Deceit of unrighteousness characterises every false religion; but here it is "in all deceit of unrighteousness," and men are lost "because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved." For here we are given to see the activity of the lawless one, seducing men to their ruin in Satan's power, as before we had his blasphemous and self-acting antagonism against God Whose glory on earth he had arrogated to the exclusion of every object of worship. And into this men will fall, so much the more because they had the truth familiarly enough before their ears to despise it, never receiving the love of it unto salvation. Lawlessness secretly at work prepares the way for the apostacy; as the utter renunciation of Christianity does for the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son (as well as that Jesus is the Christ), confirms the resurrection-beast of the dragon's power at Rome, and sets up as "the king" in the Holy Land.

But there is another feature of moment to be added, judicial hardening from God in His abhorrence of Jewish and Gentile infidelity, apostate as both are from the gospel and rebellious against Himself. "And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should believe falsehood." So there was with Pharaoh in Egypt after slighting ample appeals and solemn signs; so again it was among the Jews, partially before the Babylonish captivity, fully in the rejection of the Messiah and (we may add) of the Holy Ghost and the gospel, so there will be when Christendom becomes apostate and amalgamates with the infidel Jews in worshipping as the true God him who comes in his own name, "that all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

Remark here that, though undoubtedly the Received Text is wrong, and the best authorities exclude the future, it is simply absurd to say that the verb is present ("sendeth"), because the mystery of lawlessness is already working. It is ethical, not historic, as often and indeed like "is" in verse 9. Even Dean Alford and Bishop Ellicott could not hold that the lawless one is revealed, as the context proves his revelation to be contrasted as a future thing with the actual and secret working of lawlessness. Compare Rev. 14: 9-11. "Damned" in the Authorised Version is false as a rendering, but the result of being "judged" is damnation, for only unbelievers come into judgment; and therefore, pleads the Psalmist, "Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Salvation is by grace through faith, God having already nor only pardoned the believer, but condemned sin in the flesh by Christ as a sacrifice for sin, that there might be no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. Rom. 8: 1-4.

With a retribution so terrible yet so righteous on apostate enemies, the apostle puts in contrast the assured portion of the believers to whom he writes.

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you brethren beloved of [the] Lord, that God chose you from [the] beginning* unto salvation in sanctification of [the] Spirit and belief of [the] truth; whereunto† he called you by our gospel unto obtaining of [the] glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (verses 13, 14).

* It is instructive to weigh the alternative "as first-fruits" instead of "from the beginning" given by the Revisers on the authority of "many ancient authorities." Indeed, an editor no less celebrated than Lachmann adopted it as the true text in his early as well as his later editions. It differs from that which is generally accepted by but one letter and is supported by the famous Vatican (B) 1209, the Cambridge (F), the Greek of Boerner's uncial now in Dresden (G) (independent copies probably of an older archetype), and the Porphyrian palimpsest, seven cursives, the Vulgate, and the later or Philoxenian Syriac with several Greek and Latin ecclesiastical writers as against D E K L (Alford leaving out E, and adding A which is not legible), the mass of cursives, Syr. Pesch., Memph., Arm., Aeth., with Greek and Latin early citations. And Tischendorf was carried away so as to give ἀπαρχήν in his first edition (Lipsiae, 1841), as well as in the New Test. Greek and Latin, and the smaller Greek text dedicated to Guizot (both of Paris, 1842); but corrected the error in his second of Leipzig (1849) and ever since. I say "error"; for the expression is at issue with the surest facts. Of what could the Thessalonian saints be first-fruits? Not even of Macedonia, the Philippians being earlier. Hence the statement is the more untenable, as the phrase is not even thus qualified, and no agreement of the ancient witnesses could have justified it, for it is opposed to truth. But we learn thereby to estimate more justly the facts: (1) that documents of the highest value may be egregiously wrong, through a clerical slip probably; and (2) that editors of the highest repute are liable to be misled, partly through overweening confidence in favourite witnesses, like the Vatican in combination with the Vulgate, partly through natural love of originality, or rejection of what is common.

+ Tischendorf follows F G P, etc., in adding καὶ "also" as Lachmann reads "us," for "you," with A B Dp.m. etc., both, in my judgment, to the detriment of the force and beauty of the text.

The manifested character and awful doom of those who abandoned the truth when most fully brought out had been laid before us. Now we are told of the simple blessedness of those who cleave to the grace of our Lord in the gospel, and its effect upon the heart of those who wrought in the work, and were sharers in the blessing. It would be a poor ground of thanksgiving if the salvation were precarious; but this is quite to mistake the nature of Christianity, which is founded on the glory of Christ's person and on the everlasting efficacy of His atoning work. Hence on the one hand the unspeakable guilt of rejecting, and above all of apostatizing from it; as on the other hand the blessedness and security of those who enter in by faith. Peace, joy, thanksgiving are the fruits of the love of God thus shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us. And no wonder; it is God's own joy and love flowing in and out of hearts, all round, purified by faith. Doubts and fears are not of faith any more than the presumption founded upon our own estimate of ourselves, the natural effect of law acting upon the human mind for despair or false confidence.

Christ and His work of redemption alone give a true foundation before God, and as the foundation is immutable, so with faith there need be hesitation neither in the channels nor in the objects of this grace, as we see here. "But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brethren beloved of the Lord." This is not the unbelieving language of man. Divine love reproduced in the believer's heart delights in owning the present fruits of grace. There is no reserve where no such mischief was at work as called it forth. Had there been the admission of human righteousness or going back to ordinances, as we see in the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews, the apostle would have solemnly warned and even spoken conditionally; for there the Spirit of God descried real, actual, and growing danger, Here, where there was simplicity, there was no call for such guarded language. As the workmen were bound to give thanks always to God for them, so the saints are designated as brethren beloved of the Lord. What honour, what happiness, unsullied by suspicion or question on either side!

For what then do the apostle and those with him so continually thank God? That God chose the Thessalonians from the beginning unto salvation. The context appears to decide that "from the beginning" must be interpreted in the largest sense, not merely from the beginning of the gospel or of Christ's manifestation on earth, but from of old from everlasting. "Chose," too, is somewhat peculiar here, not so much chose out from others as chose for Himself, a Septuagintal usage. This is sweet and comforting to a believer whom true repentance has made nothing in his own eyes, if nature take it up, it turns to pride and hardness without a drop of real consolation.

But the way in which God's choice operates in time is next shown with brevity and clearness, "in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." Here I conceive there cannot be a doubt that sanctification of the Spirit means, that mighty separative act of the Holy Ghost, by which a soul is first livingly set apart to God; and so it is accompanied by faith of the truth. Practical holiness is the consequence, and this we have seen insisted on in 1 Thess. 4: 3, 7, 1 Thess. 5: 23. Here it is rather the great principle and power which accompanies conversion to God, so generally overlooked in Christendom, or, if the thing be seen and owned more or less, not called by its true name. It is that operation which meets a man when a sinner, and by grace constitutes him a saint. People are willing to allow it afterwards in practice, but are afraid to own its truth at the starting point. They are too far from God, too unbelieving in the energy of His grace and the wisdom of His means, to accredit His work in the soul, which, however deep, has as yet little to show for itself before men. But there is belief of the truth; and confession of the Lord, of course, accompanies this. There may, however, be at that stage many a difficulty and much searching of heart, which the Lord turns to real and permanent account, though not a little, especially in our day, as in special circumstances of old, may be due to legal bondage. Still grace gives confidence, that the light of God may thoroughly search the heart, and if Christ be kept in view, the more it is searched the better. If Christ be shrouded by the law-work in the soul, there cannot as yet be peace but distress, as in the latter part of Romans 7. The person, however, is no less a saint then, than when set free by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, as in Romans 8: 2, though the latter alone describes the proper condition of a christian. Practical holiness follows in the exhortation of Romans 12, etc.

1 Peter 1: 2 helps greatly to fix the sense, not only here but in 1 Cor. 6, where sanctification follows washing, and precedes justification. This every theologian must know is quite outside the ordinary systems of divinity. There is no question here of sanctification in the practical life after justification, which all admit and insist on; but the theological systems omit the very important bearing in scripture. and therefore to real faith, of sanctification before justification. Of that fundamental preliminary work it really cannot be pretended they know anything; nor is it pressed in the pulpits of great men or of small, being ignored popularly no less than theologically. The truth in fact has dropped through, and from every school, ancient or modern, Calvinist or Arminian. Hence the difficulty both for Roman Catholics and for Protestants. The Vulgate gives "in sanctificationem Spiritus, ad" etc., which the Rhemish version (1582) reproduces "into sanctification of the Spirit, unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," as the Geneva version (1557) had yet farther strayed in saying "vnto sanctification of the sprite, through obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

It was the influence of Theodore de Bèze, which acted so banefully on the English exiles; for he in his just preceding version (1556) had ventured to translate "ad sanctificationem Spiritus, per obedientiam et aspersionem sanguinis I. C." and even to argue for this perversion in the notes of his subsequent editions. In his first Greek and Latin New Testament (Tiguri, 1559, as in all four later) he boldly says, "Ad sanctificationem Spiritus, ἐν ἁγιασμῳ πνεύματος. Id est εἰς ἁγ . . . . . . Erasmus, Per sanctificationem Spiritus; non satis apposite. Per obedientiam, εἰς ὐπακοήν. Id est δι᾽ ὑπακοῆς, etc." Now it was not ignorance of either Latin or Greek which led the French Reformer into these stupendous misrenderings; it was a defective though presumptuous theological system which still exercises a similar tyranny over men's minds. For, learned or unlearned, they go to scripture, not to learn in simplicity what God has there revealed to His children, but to get proof if they can of tenets they have imbibed from the nursery, and never think of bringing to the absolute test of the scriptural standard. Thus it is plain that the prevalent error as to sanctification led Beza, who assumed it to be the truth, to change the force of the inspired words doubly. Erasmus may not have hit the mark in "per sanctificationem Spiritus," but he is incomparably nearer than his critic. For ἐν must often be and is rightly rendered "by" or "with," not "through" like διά of agency or means, but expressing a characteristic cause or abiding state, where "in" would scarcely suffice or suit.

It is therefore a question here between "by" or "in"; but "to" or "unto" is positively and inexcusably false, and can never be in such a context the meaning of ἐν. In contrast with Israel set apart by an outward rite for obeying God's law under the solemn sanction of the victim's blood, which sprinkled both the book and the people, and so held death before them as the penalty of transgression, the believing Jews are addressed as elect according to the knowledge of God the Father, by (or in) sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, i.e. for obeying as sons of God (so Jesus did in the highest way), and as freed from their guilt by His blood. Hence εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥ. is perfectly regular and beautifully true, as indicating the blessed object in constant view to which the Christian is set apart by the Holy Spirit: to obey not as an Israelite under legal bondage and with death as the penalty of failure, but in the liberty of Christ Whose blood cleanses him from all sin. By the obedience and blood of Jesus may suit Protestant confessions of faith, but it is a painful inversion of the apostle's language; as to say εἰς ὑπ. = δι᾽ ὑπ. is unworthy of a scholar far beneath the erudite and able successor of Calvin. But all this shows that the sanctification of the Spirit here in question describes that vital work in separating a soul to God when born again, which is followed by justification when the soul submits to the righteousness of God in Christ; as practical holiness is the issue in the consequent walk.

But God's secret power in the Spirit's separation to Himself is not all. That there should be sanctification and belief of the truth He uses means and calls by the gospel; or, as it is here said, whereunto He called you through our gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thus, if we have God's purpose in Himself before time, we have the object He proposed as to the saints for eternity. He chose them from the beginning unto salvation. This He effectuated in time for the saints in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, not by a law curbing the lusts and passions of a fleshly people under the elements of the world.

For God will not now own aught less than inward reality in subjection to His own revealed mind. And what He employs to produce this holy result is the gospel, so preached by Paul and those with him. For, while the gospel is of God and concerning His Son, none the less was our apostle the most honoured instrument of His grace in bringing out its full character as well as its deep foundations. All the apostles preached it, and Peter with especial success in acting on thousands from the first. But Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, not only preached with unprecedented fulness the glad tidings of the unsearchable riches of Christ, but entrusted directly and indirectly the truth as he knew it to faithful men, such as were competent to instruct others also.

And then the end, how high and holy as well as excellent! How worthy of God and suitable for His children! It was not merely to attain blessing, but "to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." As He is the One in whom all the divine counsels centre for the display of His own excellency, so would His grace have us who now believe to share it with Him. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together."

It is remarkable how the thoughts of men cross the word of God when His grace is brought out as a living, believed, and applied reality. Speculative men wonder and judge after their puny way that the apostle should call the saints to steadfast adherence in ways and words to the truth, after he had just owned their calling of God to obtain the glory of our Lord. The mere mind of man regards this as logical inconsistency, conscious or not: why, reason they, should those elected to salvation be exhorted to aught more? Is not all sure and settled on divine grounds? But it is the elect, the consciously blessed and happy children of God, whom scripture everywhere urges to vigilance and prayer, to reading the word of God and all other means of spiritual well-being; never do we find such calls to the unbelieving and the fearful. Those who owe all, and who own that all is due, to sovereign grace, are the very persons to show diligence in their responsible services day by day. And how can this be known save by the revelation of His mind? If we are God's workmanship, we were created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should walk in them. To faith alone all is plain and sure. If Christ is believed on God's testimony, we believe His love from first to last, and His word is a law of liberty to our souls. The reasoning that sets His. grace at issue with our responsibility is seen at once to be of Satan. Subject to the word we believe both, go forward in peace, but acknowledge the need of all lie lays on us.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast the traditions which ye were taught whether by word or by letter of ours. But our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, that loved us and gave everlasting encouragement and good hope through grace, encourage your hearts and stablish* in every good work and word" (verses 15-17).

* The "you," ὑμᾶς of the Authorised Version as of the Received Text, wants the testimony of the ancient MSS., Versions, etc., which also restore the true order of the last clause, it would seem, though not with the same certainty.

There can not be asked a more conclusive disproof of that ecclesiastical consciousness (ἐκκλησιαστὶκον φρόνημα) which Dr. J. A. Moehler (Symbolik, § xxxviii.) claims for the Romish body, as the true sense of tradition, than this verse 15 affords. For the peculiar sense existing in their midst and transmitted by ecclesiastical education, is a coloured light which misleads souls, not only involving but sealing them up in error, with so much the more self-security because they assume it to be the general faith of the church throughout all ages as against particular opinion, the judgment of the church as against that of the individual.

But this is a merely natural sentiment, such as pervades every department of human life; not only every nation having its own peculiar character imprinted on the most hidden parts of its being, as well as manifested in every relation, but each considerable society, religious or political, literary or scientific, having its own traditional and distinctive spirit, with which it strives to carry out its aims consistently.

To argue from such an analogy is to deny the reality of the church as a divine institution, and to sever the living link of each believer with God. The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven is the sole power of preserving intact both the individual relationship of the Christian, and the common walk of the church. For if the church is God's temple (1 Cor. 3: 16, 17; 2 Cor. 6; 16), so is the body of every saint now (1 Cor. 6: 19); the presence of the Spirit makes good the privilege alike in either case. Undoubtedly His presence is productive of the most important and blessed results; but the church is no judge in matters of faith, still less is it infallible in interpreting the divine word or in aught else. The church is the lady, not the Lord, and is bound by her essential relationship to obedience as her prime and inalienable duty. Hence the Lord sent the apostles as His vicegerents, who, as need arose, made known His word and will to the church. They were the Lord's commandments, even when orally communicated; and they were in due time written by the apostles, though not all at once, but in fact as required. Let unbelievers, if they will, accuse scripture of deficiency or other faults. We believers know that it is adequate to make the man of God complete, furnished completely to every good work. What sort of logic is it that would attribute so perfect a result to imperfect means?

Never was it from the assembly that the word of God went forth, but from the Lord through servants extraordinarily chosen and endowed by divine power to that end. And the word came not to any particular assembly alone, but as of God binding on all that called on the Lord, whatever the special circumstances which drew it forth. Hence says the great apostle, "If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge [or take knowledge of] the things that I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14: 37). If the apostles were authoritative envoys, it was the Lord's authority they imposed on the church, which was bound to unqualified subjection. His name is the all-important claim; theirs only as vouchers for it; the church being responsible simply to obey.

So when Paul wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians, he adjured them by the Lord that it be read to all the (brethren, or holy) brethren. They were young in the Lord, having been not long converted and only enjoying his instruction for a sufficiently brief season. Yet does divine wisdom see no ground for withholding from these babes in the truth a communication remarkable for its freedom in presenting some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. On the contrary, and, perhaps because it was the first epistle written to the Gentiles, the inspired writer employs language of striking solemnity to impress on all the duty of hearing what he charges to be read to all.

And now again, in the second epistle, he says, "Accordingly then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the traditions which ye were taught whether by word or by letter of ours" (verse 15). Beyond a doubt the delivered instructions embrace oral and epistolary teaching, and in no way allow an indefinite sense actuating powerfully but almost insensibly a community from age to age. The traditions which the apostle urges the church to hold fast were known and possessed truth (1 Cor. 11: 2), not at all scripture supplemented by a vague spiritual sense that would mould all by its intrinsic influence. The Romish idea is unknown to and excluded by scripture, which insists on the Lord originating and forming all that is His will by that word which the Spirit makes effectual in all His operations from quickening to the highest edification, and alike in worship and in service. For He is here in the individual saint, and in the assembly, to glorify Christ according to the Father's will. The theory of a dual rule of faith betrays its real character as a rival of scripture, and a rebel against God Whose glory admits of no co-ordinate authority, such as its tradition cannot but assume to be. For this supposes defect in scripture, and claims, though human, nothing less than divine honour. A tradition you have not got and do not know is not only an absurd contradiction of the only true sense of tradition in scripture, but its assertion by Romanism exposes its votaries to the purely human tradition of the elders, which the Lord denounced as commandments of men which make void the word of God. In vain do such worship God; they honour Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. The word of God alone has an absolute title over the heart and conscience of His people.

It may be added that this in no way supersedes ministry. For the right exercise of every gift from Christ (and all real ministers are His gifts or δόματα to the church) is to bring the gracious authority of God as revealed in His word to bear in power on the soul. It is the enemy who would interpose between God and His children to whom His word addresses itself. For it is not so much a question of our right to His word, but far more of God's right to instruct and guide, correct and warn His own. And hence the great bulk of New Testament scripture is to the saints as such, not to chiefs like Timothy or Titus, though these two are not forgotten, as if they needed no special exhortation. True ministry will never enfeeble or deny God's rights by interposing itself or aught else between the conscience and God. Its appointed work is, as it always was, to help souls in their desire and duty to know the will of God.

But when the causes of ruin so far wrought among the saints as to bring before the Holy Spirit the blinding power of corrupted Christendom, He more than ever insists on the value of scripture (not a word in the later epistles about the oral part of what was delivered), as the intended safeguard in presence of men speaking perverse things, or of grievous wolves in sheep's clothing. Hence we are bound to test both ministerial dicta and church action, by the word ever living and abiding. The denial of such a responsibility is Romanism in principle, wherever it may be, and this so real and thinly disguised as to deceive none but the victims of delusion. Just in proportion to the power of the Spirit which accompanies the preaching or teaching of Christ's servant, does the word neutralise extraneous influence of every kind, as well as judge and destroy hindrances from within. So the soul realises its immediate obligation to hear and obey God; accepting, not man's word, but as it truly is, God's word which also works in him that believes.

On the one hand when the professing body holds a form of godliness but denies its power, we are told to turn away, were it even in most favoured Ephesus, on the other hand, we are told in the same context to abide in the things we have learned and been assured of, knowing of whom they were learnt — from the apostle — in the fullest contrast with the vague latent tradition which worldly wisdom wants, as a sort of common law in Christendom. Not tradition, but the sacred writings as a whole are able to make wise unto salvation, not without but through faith which is in Christ Jesus. When the highest claim on earth, when the church, would be a snare, he that would here below stand firm for God's glory and will, is referred to every scripture as divinely inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness. Woe be to whatever comes between the soul and God, darkening, destroying, and denying that which alone has direct and paramount authority, as it must judge at the last day. It is that which we have "heard from the beginning": what comes in since has no divine authority, were it ever so ancient and venerable. God would guide His own, and uses ministry the rather to effect it, by His children's faith in His word.

The expression of thankfulness for the assured blessing of the Thessalonians, in contrast with the everlasting ruin of the apostates from Christ and Christianity, is followed up not only by an exhortation to stand firm in the truth of God given to them, but by a prayer suited to their need. "But our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, that loved us and gave everlasting encouragement and good hope through grace, encourage your hearts and stablish [them] in every good work and word" (verses 16, 17). He who came out from God to sinful man on earth, and went to God in heaven after the accomplishment of redemption, revealed Him as our Father, as Himself abides our Lord. God is fully manifested to faith, and the believer fully blest whilst waiting for Christ's return to complete for the body what is already done for the soul.

The apostle desires that grace may cover all the path that intervenes with that divine encouragement, which alike suits His past goodness, and His people's exposure to suffering and sorrow, and the more so, because they are called to bear a steadfast testimony to Christ, inwardly and outwardly, in every good work and word. A wonderful call, when we think of God and His Son on the one hand, and of ourselves on the other! Who is sufficient for these things? Our sufficiency is of God, Who has given us His Spirit, that divine power might not be lacking to the least of His children for their arduous but blessed mission. Here again the gift of ever lasting encouragement does not stifle, but rather draw out and strengthen, the prayer that He may encourage His children's hearts. Our Lord, and God our Father, are remarkably identified in thus cheering and strengthening us now, as in 1 Thess. 3: 11: a special phraseology, inexplicable save grounded on the eternal relation of the Father and the Son, and their unity of nature in the Godhead

2 Thessalonians 3.

From prayerful desires for his beloved Thessalonians the apostle turns to ask their intercession on behalf of the testimony of the Lord generally, and especially of himself and his companions in their continual exposure to the adversary.

"For the rest, brethren, pray for us that the word of the Lord may run and be glorified, even as also with you, and that we may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men, for all have not faith. But faithful is the Lord who shall stablish you and keep from evil. And we have trust in [the] Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we charge. And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the* patience of the Christ" (verses 1-5).

* The omission of the article in the Received Text has no known MS. to warrant it. Erasmus, the Complutensian, and R. Stephens rightly read it; Beza seems to be the bad guide who misled the Elzevirs after the Authorised Translators, who may or may not have noticed it. It is strange that Bishop Middleton did not observe the fact.

It is beautiful to see how grace binds all believing hearts together through Christ. The apostle was the most gifted and energetic servant whom the Lord ever raised up to spread the knowledge of Himself throughout the world. In him the call of sovereign grace, not only as a saint but as an apostle, found its highest expression: "not of men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead." He neither received the gospel of man nor was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And when it pleased Him Who separated him from his mother's womb, and called him by His grace, to reveal His Son in him that he might preach Him among the nations, "immediately I conferred not," says he, "with flesh and blood." Yet the same man, who was thus formed and led of God manifestly to break the very semblance of a successional chain in official position as well as in the revelation of the truth, earnestly enlists the prayerful interest of the youngest brethren, his own newly-born children in the faith, in world-wide labours, both evangelic and ecclesiastic, encompassed with grave and frequent perils. On the one hand no one, no thing, must intervene between the risen Christ and His servant sent on the mission of His grace, on the other he (most markedly independent of men in his mission, in order that no mist may obscure the call of Christ or the message of His love) is the most dependent of all men on divine guidance and support, and thus the most desirous of the sustaining prayers of the saints.

What gracious wisdom shore was in God's thus ordering must be apparent to any spiritual mind. Was it Paul and his companions who alone reaped the blessing of the saints, however young in the faith, thus praying? Could anything be more strengthening or elevating or purifying to the believers themselves, unless it were direct occupation with Christ Himself, which indeed was promoted in no small degree by this very identification of heart with that which is ever so near His heart? Whatever draws out the affections toward the Lord in that which glorifies Him and His word is so much the purer gain for His treasury and ours, as it is deliverance from self and present things where Satan easily ensnares. And as His word ran and was glorified with the Thessalonians, they could the more really and simply pray that so it should be elsewhere. They were not cast down or distracted by internal and humiliating, complications, which preoccupy the spirit and hinder the outgoing of heart far and wide for the blessing of others to His praise. Paul could freely ask, and they without stint or effort give, their prayers. The word of the Lord might make rapid progress, without a deep result in man, and without glory to Him Who is its source; the apostle would have them pray that it should be glorified even as also among themselves it was, They could therefore the more truly and heartily desire this from God elsewhere.

Besides this, many adversaries fail not, as surely as grace gives an open and effectual door for the testimony of Christ. Never does the apostle, never did a spiritual man, boast of the numbers or the position, of the wealth or the intelligence, of his supporters . no surer sign of the world, nor of Satan's snare among those who take the ground of faith. The apostle does ask their prayers "that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men, for all have not faith." The word here translated "unreasonable," ἄτοποι, meant originally "out of place," and hence strange, marvellous, and in a moral sense worthless, as saying and doing what was unsuitable and out of the way. I know not why "the faith" should be preferred to "faith" in the abstract: the Greek will bear either. Nor do these adversaries mean Jews only, though these were prominent and active in bitter unbelief. Faith is natural to no sinner's heart; it is ever of grace.

There is, however, a blessed resource, as they are told by one who well knew how far party hatred and personal detraction can go: — "But the Lord is faithful who shall stablish you and keep from wickedness" (or "evil" verse 3). His faithfulness answers to the faith of His own, be it ever so feeble; His face is against those that do evil, as His eyes are upon the righteous, and His ears unto their cry. Hence the confidence that He would strengthen the Thessalonian saints and guard them from evil. So faith reasons and is ever entitled to reason. Nor can any ground be stronger; for it is from God to man, not from man to God, as men are prone to reason to their disappointment, shame, and sorrow. For as our Lord Himself warned His own, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." They sleep when they should pray, and may flee or even deny where they ought to stand and confess. How different the other side! "But God commendeth His own love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Rom. 5: 8-10). So here the argument of the Lord's grace is before the apostle, who would have the disciples empowered in Him and in the strength of His might, the secret of victory to faith.

But if the end be thus sure, grace makes the way plain, the yoke easy, and the burden light. The obedience of Christ is the law of liberty. To a single eye His path is alone the question. Therefore the apostle has not a doubt that the saints addressed are as desirous of doing the Lord's will, as he of making it duly known. "And we have trust in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we charge" (verse 4). For there is a distinction between Christ's giving us rest, and our finding rest to our souls. The former is of sovereign grace, however labouring or burdened we might be, and the gift is free and full to sinners according to the glory of His person and the goodness of the errand on which He came and suffered; the other is of divine government, and we as children of God find rest to our souls day by day, not certainly in self-will which is our danger, but in simple-hearted subjection to Him and confidence in Him, even as He Himself always did the things which pleased the Father Who sent Him, and could say that it was His food to finish His work — that He kept His Father's commandments and abode in His love. It is in obeying Him only that the believer finds rest to his soul; and so the apostle counts on the Thessalonians here.

Verse 5 comes in beautifully to complete the paragraph: "And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the patience of the Christ." Could anything more effectually strengthen or keep souls in obedience? We need not follow those who in times ancient or modern contend that the Holy Ghost is here objectively before us: there is no sufficient ground for abandoning the usage of scripture. By "the Lord" is meant as elsewhere Jesus the Son of God! to Whom he wishes to keep them straight; and this, by drawing and fixing their affections in the love of God and in the patience of the Christ. But even here, and in both respects, we have to face the doubts of learned men and their difficulties in submitting to the truth. We are told with sufficient confidence, that the first, from the fact of his wishing that their hearts may be directed into it, must be subjective, the love of man to God. The objective meaning, God's love, is said to be out of the question. This may seem "natural"; but it just destroys the force of the truth. The simple meaning is also the deepest and alone true. The apostle would have our hearts guided into the love of God, the love in which He has His being, forming His counsels, and acting as well as revealing Himself. This too alone secures our love to Him, which is at best tiny indeed, compared with that unfailing source and infinite fulness which Christ personally and in His work has discovered to us, and the Holy Spirit has shed abroad in our hearts. It is, one grants, very natural to think of our love to Him; but the sight of Christ by faith gives the word living power and leads us into God's love as revealed in Christ, Who alone (and not we) could be an adequate object to draw out and unfold the affections of God and His moral glory. And thus it is that we learn ourselves even to be the object of His love in a way and degree which otherwise had been impossible, for He gives His own to know that "as He is, so are they in this world," and that the love wherewith the Father loved the Son is in them, and Himself in them (1 John 4: 17, John 17: 26).

Such love as this alone delivers from self practically; whilst it produces its like in us without effort or thought about it. Nor is there any other means comparable, for it is His way; especially if our hearts are also directed "into the patience of the Christ," not, I think, the endurance which He showed when here, however true and blessed it may be for us to cultivate that, but His patient waiting for the blissful meeting of His own, thenceforward changed into His glorious image at His coming. For this He waits patiently in heaven, as we now wait for Him on earth. Into the communion of His patience, as well as of God's love, would He lead our hearts.

Toward the beginning of the first epistle the Thessalonians were said to be converted to serve a living and true God, and to await His Son from the heavens. Here toward the end of the second we have in substance the same elements, with the shade of difference proper to each case. The apostle sought the well-being, enjoyment, and progress of the saints; and what can effect these so well as directing their hearts into the love of God and the patience of Christ? The God whose love we know is His Father and our Father, His God and our God; the words the Father gave to Him He has given to us; and He is coming to introduce us into the glory which will make the world know that the Father sent Him and loved us as He was loved. We ought not to wait for any such demonstration of it, but to rest in His perfect love, as we wait patiently for Christ. Rev. 3: 10 is a clear instance that ὑπομονή has this meaning; and so in 1 Thess. 1: 3. Other occurrences in the sense of "endurance" cannot disprove it. We must leave room for the modifications of language by the context in all speech, most of all in a book so surpassingly rich and deep as the Bible One-sidedness, always a hindrance and a danger, is nowhere so injurious as in the exposition of scripture: yet where is it so habitual? May we be warned and watchful.

It remains to direct the saints how to deal, not with wickedness as at Corinth, but with the disorderly ways of any in fellowship. No sin is to be ignored or passed by in God's habitation; and His dwelling there is the measure of judgment for His children. What is offensive to Him, what grieves His Spirit, what dishonours the Lord Who made Him known and embodied His will livingly, cannot be indifferent to those who are called to bear witness to His nature, grace, and glory. But one of the ways in which He exercises the hearts of His children is in representing Him aright when they have to face and judge the delinquencies of one another. On the one hand they are responsible never to wink at evil, now that they have all beheld God's unsparing judgment of it, as well as its demonstrated hatefulness, in the cross. On the other they are not set to legislate, as if they enjoyed continual inspiration by apostolic succession, or that God had not already revealed His mind completely in the scriptures by chosen instruments "from the beginning." The church is here to obey; the Lord directs with a wisdom and righteousness worthy of Himself, as we learn best in the spirit of dependence, and by real exercises of obedience. The Spirit of God works in the assembly, as well as in each individual, to apply the written word with a divinely given intelligence. For there are dangers owing to nature on either side: the easy-going gentleness which shrinks from duly probing and justly estimating evil; the Draconic severity which visits lesser faults with such rigour that there is no sterner dealing left for what is far worse. Scripture meets all by giving us both precept and example, that principle from God and not man may cover all, and direct conscience in each, with an unforced conviction of His will.

"Now we charge you, brethren, in [the] name of our* Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they *received from us."

* There is a little good authority (B D L etc.) for omitting "our" Lord Jesus. There is, perhaps, more ground of doubt whether it be "they," "ye," or "he," received; but "they" has unquestionably the best evidence in its favour, "he" of the Revised Text, the least.

As yet there had been in the Thessalonian assembly no such case of scandalous wickedness as 1 Cor. 5 afterwards dealt with. Yet in the first epistle the apostle saw reason under the inspiration of God to warn the saints against personal impurity as well as to caution each not to wrong his brother in the matter. It is an offence which especially affronts the Holy Spirit given to us; and the Lord is the avenger in all these things. And in urging what is wholly different, brotherly love, even as the saints are taught of God to love one another, he had exhorted them earnestly to seek to be quiet, and to mind their own affairs, and work with their own hands.

But, as the bright hope (we have seen) had somewhat waned for their hearts, when he wrote his second epistle, he had to feel also that some had heeded too lightly his call to walk honourably toward those without, so as to have need of nothing or of no one. It was not, in my judgment, too enthusiastic absorption with the Lord's coming which induced any to neglect their daily duty; it may have rather been that excited apprehension of the day of the Lord, as if already set in, which indisposed some to honest labour and gave rise to the gossiping communication of their fears which would naturally flow from such an error, as it has often done singe. Be the motive as it may, the sorrowful fact was then patent, that some in their midst were now walking in the disorderly way already denounced; and the apostle accordingly adopts still more solemn language in directing the saints how to meet the dishonour thus done to the Lord. With that name he binds up his injunction that they should withdraw, or keep themselves, from "every brother" walking so unworthily. The disorderly are not described as wicked persons, but still spoken of as brethren; yet it was a course which even moral men would feel to be disreputable, and this aggravated by their indifference to, if not defiance of, the previous exhortation of the apostle here referred to.

Thus they were inexcusable if the Christian is saved to glorify the Lord. And what were their brethren to do, if that name swayed their hearts supremely? Never was a greater fallacy than to imagine the assembly left to spiritual instinct under the plea of the Lord's authority. Not so: "if any man thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge (or take knowledge of) the things that I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord." "From the beginning" it was so; and it is assuredly quite as necessary now. The church is called to obey even in the exercise of its most serious functions. There is the most frequent temptation to assume discretionary power; and Christendom has everywhere fallen into the snare. But such an assumption is really a departure from the one invariable duty of obedience, the sole path of honour to the Lord, and of blessing to the saints themselves. It ought not to be irksome for any who love His name, it is certainly safe for those who are not merely incompetent for a task beyond man, but are here simply as witnesses of Him. And it is recorded for our admonition that in the only council of which scripture speaks, on an occasion of the utmost moment for the truth and liberty of the gospel, with all the apostles present, not to speak of other chief men among the brethren, there was much discussion before all in Jerusalem, as there had been previously through Judaisers among the Gentiles, till the decisive judgment agreeably to "the words of the prophets" was given by James, and decrees framed accordingly were sent to be kept among the assemblies. Even they, the apostles and the elders with the whole church, needed, and had, the scripture as the end of controversy.

So here, though the occasion was most ordinary, the apostle enjoins the brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. All are bound to walk according to apostolic teaching.

But smaller offences are no more left out of the scriptures than the great. Nor will a love for Christ allow any stain, be it ever so slight, among those who bear His name. The assembly must never be the shelter of evil: what does not suit Him does not suit those who represent Him on earth. But to put away is not His will for all that is offensive to Him. Even of old He could say He hated putting away in the earthly and natural. In the spiritual domain it is only right when, according to His word, it is imperatively due to His glory. Levity in what is so grave one can understand in a petty sect governed by self-will; it is unworthy of those who know what the church is to Him Who gave Himself for it. But in things great or small it is the Lord Who regulates all by His word, which His servants are responsible to apply truly in the Spirit. Hence have we the apostle here enjoining His will on the disorderly walk of some in Thessalonica. To pass it by would be not merely their loss but His shame. To leave it vague would open the door for the self-importance of man ready enough to define and exact. The apostle was given to treat the offence gravely but with measure This was righteous, and man (as of course he is ever bound) ought to be in the place of obedience

But, even in calling the saints to mark their reproof of disorder, the apostle deigns to plead with the hearts and consciences of all. "For yourselves know (says he) how ye ought to imitate us; because we were not disorderly among you, nor did we eat bread for nought from any one, but in toil and travail, working night and day,* that we might not burden any of you: not because we have not title, but to make ourselves an example to you that ye should imitate us" (verses 7-9). How blessedly he can exhort them to follow, conscious of his own following the Master! an incomparably truer "imitation of Christ" than the monastic one so popular in Christendom. Yet he who could say with a good conscience "we were not disorderly among you" was not behind the very chiefest apostles.

* It does seem strange that Alford, Ellicott, Griesbach, Scholz, and Wordsworth should cleave to the received reading, which exaggerates, contrary to, 1 Thess. 2: 9. Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort rightly (in my opinion) accept the text of H B F G, etc., against the majority.

Nor did he claim aught from the saints he had left behind, nor from the Thessalonian converts who were learning from him the ways of Christ; but he set a pattern of unselfish grace at great cost to himself. How had some of those begotten by the gospel he preached learnt the lesson? how had Christendom, which would deny the least title in the ministry of Christ to one in this important way following the wake of the great apostle of the Gentiles? Does memory fail, or does not the prohibition of any such toil or travail in a minister of the word figure prominently in the ecclesiastical canon-book? But those who invent tests and rules are not afraid to contradict scripture and in effect to censure the apostle. Their imitation of Christ is more sentimental and pretentious; his was as deep and real as it was very homely and of no account, save indeed to be shunned and despised by the least and lowest of sects, as well as by those who more openly seek the world which their hearts value. The apostle (filled with the love which is of God, and not of the world as Christ is not) sought not theirs but them, and could point to his own daily ways, when among them at the beginning of the gospel, in witness of a self-denial, which of itself rebuked in the strongest yet most gracious way the disorderly brethren, who were working neither day nor night, and were not ashamed to eat the bread of every one who would supply them for nought.

It is to be noticed that this too is not the first time the apostle recalls his labours for his own support while evangelising among them in Thessalonica and teaching the young converts; for he speaks of it in similar terms in the second chapter of his earlier epistle. It was heavenly devotedness, and the mention of it no less single-hearted. He would not be burdensome to any of them. To me, he could say at a later day, to live is Christ. Without doubt this showed itself primarily in dependence on and delight in Christ, in the Spirit's lifting the heart into habitual rest and joy in the Lord above all that attracts and seduces, and consequent victory over the wiles and power of Satan. But the outer life corresponds with the inner, and the power and grace of Christ not only are in the spiritual affections but issue also in love to God by the outward ways which have the divine impress and savour of Christ. If he exhorted his son Timothy in his last epistle to be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, he knew long before what it was to be so strengthened himself; and this cannot but disclose itself in giving a fresh colour to the ordinary things of this life, so that they become in truth the most extraordinary.

Yet the apostle is careful to assert the labourers' title, though he speaks as he worked in a total self-surrender: "not because we have not title, but to make ourselves an example to you that ye should imitate us" (verse 9). It is one thing to assert the right that the Lord confers on His service, quite another where it might be misinterpreted or misapplied. Here, as at Corinth, he foregoes that which he carefully explains to be a divinely given title of much moment to maintain both for the givers and the receivers, to say nothing of His wisdom Who so laid down His will. An overflowing charity which thought only of the blessing of others and above all of Christ's glory filled his spirit and accounts for all, whether it may be maintaining a principle perfectly right in itself and of importance to others, or abandoning at this time his own just claims in honour of Christ and the gospel.

Nor did it cost him nothing. A man of means may preach and teach publicly and privately; but then he escapes necessarily the pressure of manual labour by day or by night. When wearied by his spiritual exertions, he has not to think of filling up with other work every available minute that he can fittingly abstract for the supply of his bodily wants. The apostle, in an energy of devoted love which has never been equalled among the sons of men, tells us in a few words the simple truth of his ordinary life, while enjoining the saints how to mark their sense of the disorder in Thessalonica. And he faithfully lets them know that he was giving them this truly christian zeal as an example for their imitation. How it acted on the Thessalonians in general we know not; but we may be sure that such a gracious abandonment of fleshly ease and of worldly etiquette was eminently suited to inflict the most withering rebuke on the idlers who, liking to talk rather than work, imposed on the kindness of the brethren and dishonoured the Lord. How blessed when the fault of others turns to our learning afresh the grace of Christ as it applies in a world of sin, selfishness, and misery! Still more so, when he who thus teaches walked from first to last in the grace he commends to others; and this, not only as now to the saints generally but to the elders in particular, as we read in his parting address at a later day to the Ephesian overseers at Miletus. "Ye yourselves know that these hands ministered to my wants and to those that were with me. I showed you all things that so labouring ye ought to help the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

What an immeasurable gap between this true-hearted disinterestedness, and the base begging of the mendicant friars, Franciscan or Dominican! For they appealed in a natural way to the feelings of mankind by a show of austerity beyond scripture, and thereby amassed vast wealth in the end, and what men value yet more, incalculable influence and power from the highest to the lowest, save among those who saw through their pretensions to spirituality, or were jealous of a reputation which eclipsed their own. To say with Rabban Gamaliel that one thus working was like a vineyard that is fenced is far beneath the apostle; lowly love was active there. It was to live Christ every day, without the bondage of a vow in a liberty that could accept the offering of his dear and poor children at Philippi. For there is no doubt on the one hand of the right to support, and of the duty on the other hand of the saints to render it ungrudgingly. But grace knows how and when on the labourers' part to dispense with it, if the glory of Christ or a special lesson to souls so calls for it as here. And how real and faithful is the guidance of the Spirit! For who can suppose that, when the apostle thus wrought with his own hands by midnight lamp in the tent-making of his early days and native land, he foresaw the need of reminding the Thessalonian saints of his habitual and incessant labours in this kind during his brief visit to their city? But what believer can doubt that the Spirit of God led the blessed man, both in thus labouring when there, and in now laying it upon the saints to give his exhortation a weight with which nothing else could compare?

It is possible and even probable that these brethren who showed indisposition to work may have taken advantage of the love that flowed to such as were engaged in the ministry of the word. Selfishness could soon find place to look for that love in their own case where no such service was rendered. An eye single to Christ preserves from any snare of this sort or any other, enabling one to detect and deal rightly with the evil where it appears. And the written word, coming from Him Who saw all that was needed from first to last, provides perfectly for every need that could arise, though not without the Holy Spirit, Who alone can guide us according to scripture, and thus manifests our state good or bad. For we are sanctified unto obedience — the obedience of Jesus.

"For even when we were with you, this we charged you, that if any will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear of some walking among you disorderly, doing no business, but busybodies. Now those that are such we charge and exhort in [the] Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, faint not in well-doing. And if any obeyeth not our word by the epistle, mark him to keep no company with him, that he may be ashamed; and count [him] not as an enemy but admonish as a brother" (verses 10-15).

It is a striking characteristic of Christianity that, as in it not one thing is too great or high for the saint, so neither is aught too little or low for God. He concerns Himself even with a duty so simple and small as a man's working day by day and not sponging on his brethren. Union with Christ is the key to all. If by grace I am one with His Son, no wonder that my Father should take pleasure in opening His heart and mind to me. But for the same reason it becomes a question practically not of mere right and wrong, but of pleasing Him as children, of representing not an honest man merely, nor yet Adam unfallen (were this possible), but Christ. And if we are in Christ on high, Christ is in us here below. Our responsibility flows from these exceeding privileges, which they ignorantly destroy who would reduce us to the footing of Jews, under the law as our rule of life, an error which looks the more fair because it claims to guard moral rights but is in fact subversive of the gospel, and of Christ's glory, and so of all we boast.

Who on the other hand could have thought that pious christian men would be so inconsiderate, to say no more, as to live without working, so selfish as to expect support from those who did work or were living on the fruits of industry? Such was the fact at this time, among the saints in Thessalonica, and the apostle had even forewarned them when he was there. It is a danger which might be anywhere and at any time, but at no time or place more likely than where saints are fresh and simple in the life of Christ: the very blessing exposes to the peril. Among decent men of the world such an expectation would be altogether exceptional if not impossible. The common interests of men all but exclude the thought; their selfishness would resent it as intolerable.

Thus the grace of Christ has its perils as well as its joys, perils on the side of exaggeration no less than of short-coming. The only security, the only wisdom, the only happiness, is in looking to Christ, Who assuredly leads not to idleness but to earnest service in a lost world. None who looks to Christ could be a drone: if inclined to it, let him not forget the apostolic charge that whoever does not choose to work, neither let him eat. This would be an effectual cure, if faithfully carried out, and are not the saints bound to do so? It is a just and homely way of dealing, no doubt, but the christian is surely equal to the occasion, not less than a Jew or a Gentile. If anything be contrary to Christ, it is the selfishness that would take advantage of grace; and we are called not to honour but to reprove and repress what is so unworthy of the Christian, because it misrepresents Christ.

This idleness was real disorder of walk. And it is an infectious disease which so much the more demands prompt treatment. "For we hear of some walking among you disorderly, doing no business, but busybodies." Such never was the Master, never is a true servant. For love in a world of misery delights to serve, instead of demanding the service of others, as pride and sloth do. The Son of man came "not to be ministered unto, but to minister." And in this He is surely a pattern to us; and assuredly the great apostle proved his greatness in this as elsewhere. The idlers at Thessalonica had therefore the less excuse for their idleness. And there was danger of worse, for those who do no business are apt to be busybodies, as the apostle pungently warns them. Leisure from work is time for mischief, and occupation with the affairs of others without a duty is itself mischief.

But here, too, faith works by love; the truth builds up instead of destroying or scattering. Chastening has its measure, as the end is restoration. "Now those that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread." The meddlesome effect, as well as its cause, idleness, must be given up. The name of the Lord was incompatible with both; but the apostle beseeches as well as commands. Thus even what nature might teach is bound up with our Lord and Saviour. It is a question of God's kingdom and not of mere morality, as if we were only men, and grace and truth did not exist in Christ.

But the saints generally are exhorted to go onward in the path of all that suits and pleases Christ. They were neither to be indifferent on the one hand, nor to be stumbled on the other. Disgust at those who walk unworthily is neither grace nor righteousness. It was therefore with a caution to others. "But ye, brethren, faint not in well-doing, and if any obeyeth not our word by the epistle, mark him to keep no company with him, that he may be ashamed, and count him not as an enemy, but admonish as a brother." It is easy for excellent people to lose heart in doing what is comely and honourable. The dislike of selfishness in others soon produces reaction and repulsion in themselves. The apostle would not have it so, but rather an even and earnest perseverance in all that is fair in the Master's eyes, whilst dealing plainly with such erring brethren and dishonourable ways. Disobedience was not to be passed by. "Our word by the epistle" was not a word of men, but, as it is in truth, God's word (1 Thess. 2: 12) which also works in those that believe, as it leaves those who slight it worse than before. "We" are of God, the apostles could say; "he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not." "Ye are of God," say they to the saints; but let the saints see that they continue to overcome by faith, as they have overcome the power of evil that would have kept them slaves of the enemy. The faith which heeds God's word in the greatest thing will not despise it in the least, nor overlook the unbelief of that man who bears the Lord's name but obeys not the word. It will mark him and avoid his company that he may be ashamed of himself. Is he then put out from the saints, as a wicked person? Expressly the contrary: "count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." He was grievously wrong, and his company refused, but brotherly admonition is the word, not excommunication as if he were an enemy and a wicked man.

It would be unnecessary to say, but for the misleading of great names, that neither the word καλοποιοῦντες in itself nor its usage admits of the sense of doing good in acts of beneficence to others. This on the contrary might play into the hands of those the apostle censures. We must not confound τὸ ἀγαθόν with τὸ καλόν. They occur in the proper and distinctive sense of each in the same context of Gal. 6: 9, 10. Honourable and upright practice is the point here.

Further, it might seem incredible beforehand, if one did not know it as a fact, that Luther and Calvin, and men from Grotius down to Winer, though the last hesitatingly and with modification as seeking to heed the article, join in the strange misinterpretation, opposed to ordinary grammar, of taking διὰ τῆς ἐπ. as "by an epistle [to me]!" Bengel with the Aethiopic of the Polyglotts connects the words with σημ. in the sense of stigmatizing him by this letter. But this gives a quite unnatural emphasis to these words, which are thereby severed from the true and weighty connection with "our word," and lend an unusual and (I think) undue force to σημ.

Again, Professor Jowett is not justified in taking καί here, instead of ἀλλά. Unaccountable it might seem that his nice and ripe scholarship should thus range itself with the older slovenly school which ever imagined that the inspired men use one word for another. But it is mere ignorance; and to treat it as such is the best lesson for the self-exaltation of theologian critics. The copulative is the true expression; the adversative would have been a coarse weakening of the love, on which the apostle counted. They would know how to temper their correction of the evil-doer. Mr. Jowett would have dealt better with the language of a heathen. His rationalism undermined his respect for Paul, and suggested the self-complacent thought that he knew what the apostle intended to say better than the apostle himself.

The conclusion is in perfect and manifest keeping with all that has gone before. "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace constantly in every way. The Lord [be] with you all. The salutation by the hand of me Paul, which is a mark in every epistle; so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all" (verses 16-18).

The saints, through, faith rescued from the wrath to come, are serving a living and true God, and waiting for His Son from heaven — Jesus raised from the dead. Even "that day" shall not overtake them as a thief: as of the day, they are sober, and have on the armour of light; and, triumphing over death, comfort one another with the bright hope of His coming, when we shall ever be with the Lord. The worst deceit and the destructive power of Satan have no real ground of alarm for them, though none know so well the character of both in the latter day: still less has the day of the Lord any terror, though misled and misleading man has striven hard to trouble them by a false apprehension about it. But now, delivered alike from hopeless sorrow by the first epistle, and no less baseless fear by the second, their hearts had been comforted and stablished in every good work and word. And the apostle could and did ask their prayers that the word of the Lord might run and be glorified,and His servants be delivered from unreasonable and evil men; as he had also charged them, unweary themselves in well doing, to deal in brotherly faithfulness with disorderly brethren.

It remained only to commend them suitably to the Lord; and this the apostle does in his closing words. In the first epistle he had said "The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly: and may your entire spirit and soul and body be preserved without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," with the comforting assurance, "Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." This beautifully fell in with an earlier stage, when these young saints needed to be reminded of God's will, even their sanctification, as none were more exposed to the snares of personal impurity than the Greeks of that day: an evil peculiarly offensive to the Holy Spirit given to the saints, as the Corinthians were told yet more strongly afterwards. His prayer went well according to the freshness and energy of the Thessalonians, where this hope shone brightly before their eyes.

The second epistle gives greater prominence to the Lord; but holy separateness has no longer such a place given to it. "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace constantly in every way." He had looked at disturbing causes both in the world and in the assembly. But greater is He that is in them than he that is in the world, and He that is in the assembly is surely competent to make His gracious and withal mighty presence respected, if looked to, for such as dare to forget it or despair. The Holy Spirit is here to glorify Christ: why then should His own doubt or fear? Why not count on that unspeakable favour of "peace," whatever the natural threats or springs of disquiet?

"The Lord of peace" is a blessed title in which He stands related and revealed to the saints, who might and ought to be assured that He could not fail to act accordingly. For the name of the Lord is the expression of what He is or does; and what is our sense of that which is due to those related to us when they need succour in their difficulties, compared with His unfailing grace?

Nor is this all. "The Lord of peace himself give you peace constantly," or, "at all times." His inspired servant did not wish to raise in their breasts an unwarranted expectation, but had the Spirit of truth directing the desire which, he desired them to feel, was of God. He did even more; not only at all times, but "in every way." Is it possible to conceive a more studied exclusion of every source of alarm at all times, a stronger guarantee of peace from the Lord of peace Himself (and what fountain of peace can match with Him?) for saints of little experience, passing through a world full of trouble at all times, with a predicted period impending of tribulation beyond all precedent?

The apostle directs them to expect it from the Lord "in every way." As they had no time wherein they might not look to Him to give them peace, whatever may be in its destined season for Jews or Gentiles, so He would give them peace, not in some way only, but "in every way." How exactly answering to His own words before to the disciples! "These things have I spoken unto you that in me ye may have peace. In the world ye have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." It was the enemy, not the truth, which had alarmed their souls falsely for a while.

There is indeed a singular but easily conceived various reading τόπῳ "place," for τρόπῳ "way," in the first hand of the Alex. and Clermont MSS., as well as in the Augian copy (now in Trin. Coll. Camb.) and in the Boernerian (now in the Dresden Royal Libr.) and in two cursives. The Vulgate and Gothic versions represent it; and so apparently Chrysostom, as Montfaucon (not Field) has edited the word. The great Greek commentator has in fact as unduly narrowed the meaning of "peace" as the word in question; for the apostle does not limit his wish to harmony among themselves, but embraces peace in a far higher sense and in all its force. It is therefore an instance not without its instruction, that critics like Griesbach and Lachmann should have the least hesitation in endorsing the ordinary and best attested text: Griesbach marking τόπῳ as possible; and Lachmann actually adopting it as his text. The apostle prayed that peace might be given them in every way, with no mere outward thought of "place."

This, too, is crowned by "The Lord be with you all:" a wish of small price in eyes which see only a man writing to other men. What is it to those who know by faith God employing a servant under His own unfailing guidance so to communicate His mind and heart to His children while passing through the world? What avail all other helps, if "the Lord" be not with us all? and why should we not have perfect peace, if He is with us, whoever and whatever else be lacking?

There is another notable link of connection with the close of the first epistle, though each perhaps has, as usual, its own distinctive traits. "The salutation by the hand of me Paul, which is a mark in every epistle: so I write." How in keeping with a very early communication of the apostle, called to write not a few thus carefully to authenticate his letters to the Gentile saints! Still more solemnly in the first had he adjured the Thessalonians by the Lord that the letter be read to all the (holy) brethren. The notion that scripture, addressed even to the whole assembly, was not to be read to or by all, was an interference with divine authority as well as divine grace, which could only be conceived in a degenerate and rebellious age, verging to apostacy. That Paul's epistles are, as truly as any other of the holy writings, accredited as scripture, 2 Peter 3: 16 makes sure and plain. And it was the more necessary that they should have in all the mark of his hand in saluting the saints, as he usually employed an amanuensis. (Compare Rom. 16: 22, 1 Cor. 16: 21, and Col. 4: 18, with Gal. 6: 11.)

Also, the concluding words of the two epistles resemble greatly while they differ sensibly. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you," says the first — be "with you all," says the second. Here we find the more decided emphasis, where and when it was most needed; whilst the same farewell of divine love appears substantially in both.

2 Timothy.

W. Kelly.

2 Timothy 1

Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus, by God's will according to promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 to Timotheus [my] beloved child: Grace, mercy, peace, from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I thank God Whom I serve from [my] forefathers in a pure conscience, how unceasingly I have the remembrance of thee in my supplications, 4 night and day longing to see thee, remembering thy tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 calling to mind the unfeigned faith that [is] in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and, I am persuaded, in thee also. 6 For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands 7 For God gave us not a spirit of cowardice, but of power, and love, and sobriety of mind. 8 Be not ashamed therefore of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner; but suffer hardship with the gospel, according to the power of God, 9 Who saved us, and called [us] with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times everlasting*, 10 but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, Who abolished death, and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel, 11 whereunto I was appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher [of Gentiles]. 12 For which cause also I suffer these things; yet I am not ashamed; for I know Whom I have believed; and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted [or, my deposit] against that day. 13 Have an outline of sound words, which [words] thou heardest from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 The good thing entrusted [or, the good deposit] keep through [the] Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us. 15 Thou knowest this, that all that are in Asia turned away from me; of whom is Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain; 17 but being in Rome he sought me out diligently and found [me]; 18 (the Lord grant him to find mercy from [the] Lord in that day.) And in how many things he ministered at Ephesus thou knowest very well.

* I have given "everlasting" rather than "eternal" as in the Revised Version, because it fairly admits of a modified sense when applied to "times," as in Rom. 16: 25, and Titus 1: 2, as well as here, just as "for ever" when spoken of living man on earth is similarly used. Others who hold the same sense prefer "age-times" or "ages of times." "Eternal" though certainly the unmodified meaning, hardly consists with "times.

2 Timothy 2

Thou therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men, such as shall be able to teach others also. 3 Take thy share* of suffering hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No one on service entangleth himself with the businesses of life, that he may please him that enlisted [him]. 5 But if one also contend [in the games], he is not crowned unless he have contended lawfully. 6 The labouring husbandman must first partake of the fruits. 7 Apprehend what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things. 8 Remember Jesus Christ raised out of [the] dead, of David's seed, according to my gospel, 9 in which I suffer unto bonds as an evil-doer; but the word of God is not bound. 10 For this cause I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation, that [is] in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. 11 Faithful [is] the word: for if we died together with [Him], we shall also live together; 12 if we endure, we shall also reign together; if we shall deny [Him], He also will deny us; 13 if we are unfaithful, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. 14 Of these things put in remembrance, testifying earnestly before the Lord that they fight not about words, to no profit, for subversion of those that hear. 15 Be diligent to present thyself approved to God, a workman not to be ashamed, cutting straightly the word of truth. 16 But shun profane babblings, for they will advance unto greater ungodliness, 17 and their word will eat up as a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 [men] who concerning the truth went astray, saying that the resurrection hath already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the firm** foundation of God standeth, having this seal, [The] Lord knoweth those that are His; and, Let every one that nameth the name of [the] Lord† depart from unrighteousness. 20 Now in a great house there are vessels not only of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some unto honour, and some unto dishonour. 21 If one therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified,‡ serviceable for the master, prepared unto every good work. 22 But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with§ those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But foolish and ignorant questionings avoid, knowing that they beget contentions. 24 And a bondman of [the] Lord must not contend, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, 25 in meekness instructing those that oppose, if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgment of truth, 26 and they may wake up out of the snare of the devil, taken as they are by him, for His will.

* The best authorities give συν — (or συγ — ) κακοπάθησον for the common reading σὺ οὖν.

** The Alexandrian uncial has the strange error of "the foundation of God standeth to the firm."

† Very few and poor cursives give "of Christ."

‡ The copulative is wrongly inserted by many authorities, as in the text. rec.

§ Even Lachmann edited "all" here, on considerable authority, but not the best. It is a gloss from Acts 9: 14; 1 Cor. 1: 2.

2 Timothy 3

But this know, that in [the] last days grievous times shall be there. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, uncontrolled, fierce, haters of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, puffed up, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, 5 having a form of piety [godliness], but having denied the power thereof; and from these turn away. 6 For of these are they that enter into houses and lead captive* silly women, laden with sins, led by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come unto knowledge of truth. 8 And in the manner that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall not advance farther; for their folly† shall be very manifest to all, as theirs also became. 10 But thou hast followed" closely my teaching, course, purpose, faith, long-suffering, love, patience, 11 persecutions, sufferings; what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that desire to live piously in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted. 13 But wicked men and impostors shall advance for the worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But abide thou in those things which thou didst learn and wast persuaded of, knowing of whom§ thou didst learn [them]; 15 and that from a babe thou knowest the|| sacred writings that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. 16 Every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction,** for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be complete, furnished thoroughly unto every good work.

* The article appears in Text. Rec. on very poor evidence, against the mass of the oldest, best, and even most numerous witnesses.

† The Alexandrian has for ἄνοια the strange various reading of διάνοια "thought," or "purpose."

‡ The main witnesses ACFG support the aorist; the majority give the perfect, as in 1 Tim. 4: 6 (with but small exception), which has a greater present force.

§ τίνων (plural) ABpm. Fgr G P, etc.; τίνος (sing.) as in Text. Rec., with the majority of uncials, cursives, versions, and Fathers.

|| The article does not appear in Ccorr. Dpm F G, etc., contrary to the great stream of authority, Lachmann bracketing, and Tischendorf omitting in his eighth edition.

** The Greek witnesses differ slightly as to the form of the word.

2 Timothy 4

I† testify earnestly [or, charge] before God and Christ† Jesus that is about to judge living and dead, and‡ by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, convict, rebuke,§ encourage with all long-suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will be when they will not endure sound teaching; but according to their own lusts they will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear; 4 and from the truth they will turn away their ear, and will be turned aside unto fables. 5 But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship [evils], do an evangelist's work, fully perform thy ministry. 6 For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is all but come. 7 The good combat I have combated, the course I have finished, the faith I have kept: 8 henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me in that day; and not to me only, but also to all those that love His appearing. 9 Use diligence to come unto me quickly; 10 for Demas, having loved the present age, forsook me and went unto Thessalonica; Crescens unto Galatia, Titus unto Dolmatia. 11 Luke alone is with me. Take up and bring Mark with thee, for he is useful to me for ministry. 12 But Tychicus I sent unto Ephesus. 13 The cloak which I left behind in Troas with Carpus bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments. 14 Alexander, the coppersmith, did (lit. showed) many evil things against me: the Lord will render to him according to his works; 15 of whom be thou ware also, for he exceedingly withstood our words. 16 At my first defence no one took my part, but all deserted me: may it not be laid to their account. 17 But the Lord stood by me and gave me power, that through me the proclamation might be fully made, and all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of a lion's mouth. 18 *The Lord will deliver me from every evil work and will preserve for His heavenly kingdom; to Whom [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages. Amen. 19 Salute Prisca and Aquila and the house of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. 21 Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. 22 The Lord [Jesus Christ be] with thy spirit. Grace be with you.

† The Text. Rec. gives οὖν ἐγώ, as do most cursives, and two or three uncials (Dcorr. KL), etc.; but the great preponderance of authority in MSS. and Vv., not to speak of careful citations of old, excludes the particle of reference as well as the emphatic subject, which really weaken the solemnity of the protest intrinsically. So too the order Χριστοῦ, Ἰησοῦ is better supported than the inverse in the Text. Rec., not to speak of the addition τοῦ κυρίου, or, as some in better accordance with usage, omitting the article before κυρίου, while others add ἡμῶν.

‡ Text. Rec. has κατά corr. DCorr. EKLP, most cursives, and ancient Vv. But καί is best sustained, and by the western versions, Aeth. being altogether loose.

§ The order in pm. FG, etc., etc., differs in putting παρακάλεσον, {encourage) before ἐπιτίμησον, (rebuke).

** The copula is not found in the highest authorities, but was probably inserted later to make the passage more flowing.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY

INTRODUCTION

This Epistle to Timothy is the admirable complement of the earlier communication. Men have discussed largely the interval between them; but even if it were briefer than many suppose, the change of circumstances and consequently of aim, treatment, and tone is immense: yet we know, from all scripture and from experience also, that great revolutions may occur within a little while. It is the last written word of the apostle, which imparts peculiar earnestness, gravity, and tenderness to all he has to say. No other form is so good for suitable exhortation, and this from one who was made "minister of the church" (Col. 1: 24, 25) in a fuller sense than any other.

Order in the assembly, moral weight and worth in all, especially in those who govern or administer publicly, was urged in the First Epistle with the seriousness proper to the theme. Here the soon-departing apostle, whilst longing for Timothy's presence (1 Tim. 1: 4; 1 Tim. 4: 9, 11, 13, 21), lays on the heart of his beloved fellow-labourer his final injunctions and personal call in view of deep and growing disorder. Such a ruin-state however (and it is incomparably worse now), he implies, would only give the better occasion to make manifest those who abide true to Christ and cleave to His grace in the midst of the prevailing generally-fatal declension which he could not but describe. It would furnish no doubt every facility for the flesh and the world in possession of the Lord's name; but therefore all the more energy, endurance, and courage would be due to the Lord from the devoted and godly.

Hence the more than wonted sublimity and tender solicitude of the apostle, the remembrance of Timothy's tears, the reminiscences of his conscientious fidelity in the past, the cordial recognition of real faith, even where the surroundings might be untoward. Hence too Paul reminds Timothy of that gift of God which was in him through the imposition of his own hands. He, therefore, was peculiarly required at so critical a moment to serve boldly in faith, conscious of that special grace which deigned to use him and to work by him to the glory of Christ. Indeed, peculiar as might be the power and place thus given to Timothy, it was in full accord with the character of the gift of the Holy Ghost to every Christian; for "God gave us not a spirit of fear (cowardice), but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." What all therefore have and should manifest, Timothy was to carry out in his own prominent position, and to suffer evils (hardship) with the gospel, hateful as it was to the pride and religiousness of the world which persecuted its heralds. How vain to endure thus except with and according to the power of God!

Hence, he of all men was not to be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of Paul His prisoner. To those who merely look on from a distance, to readers in a drawing-room or students in a library, such shame might seem impossible save for the most cowardly and base. But the enemy knows how to bring about a state of feeling, even among Christians, where it demands the most simple and steadfast faith to stand by those who-suffer for Christ and the gospel as Paul then did. This tide had been setting in for a long while and had now, as far as the apostle was concerned, arrived as its height. A thousand excuses might be made, a variety of seemingly good reasons might be pleaded, the result was that the mass of his brethren were ashamed of Paul! and, what was, if possible, sadder still, of the testimony of our Lord, which he takes care to place before himself, as they, doubtless, quite ignored and forgot it in the pressure of peril and disgrace.

And how deep though blessed is that testimony! an already possessed salvation from God, and a holy calling, "not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has been made manifest now by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Who annulled death and brought to light life and incorruption through the gospel, whereunto I was appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher [of the Gentiles]". It was for this cause Paul was also suffering these things. Never was there a more worthy reason. Certainly he was not ashamed: how terrible to think that any Christian could be! how humbling that even such as had once known Paul were! For if ever there was a servant whose life and labours, whose spirit, ways, and speech harmonized with the gospel, was it not Paul? Yet were brethren ashamed of the testimony of our Lord and of him His prisoner, when zeal and affection ought to have been most drawn out to him. Many a faithful servant proved utterly weak in the hour of trial; not a few were painfully inconsistent in detail, though sincere and honoured of God in the main. Paul stands well-nigh alone, according to his earnest expectation and hope that in nothing he should be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always so even to the end, Christ should be magnified in his body, whether by life, or by death (Phil. 1: 20). Then it was his first imprisonment; and his desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better, was not yet to be gratified. To abide in the flesh was more needful for the saints; and, having this confidence, he knew that he was to abide and continue with all. Now it was his second imprisonment; and Christ was to be magnified by his death, but in nothing was he put to shame, least of all was he ashamed of the gospel or of the hardship in prison and in death which the gospel entailed.

With the gospel, with the testimony of our Lord in every part, with Christ Himself, was Paul bound up. He knew Him Whom he had believed and was persuaded of His ability to guard that which he had committed to Him against that day. Therefore did he exhort Timothy to have an outline of sound words which he had heard from him in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; and to keep, by the Holy Spirit Who dwelleth in us, the good thing that is entrusted.

This deposit refers to no unwritten tradition, nor to any humanly drawn up formula, but to the written word since Christ. It was the more important because Timothy knew how all in Asia (the Roman province where he had laboured so long and diligently) had turned away from Paul, not from Christ or the gospel, of course, but from him who had beyond all presented its distinctive and unadulterated truth, and who best represented its unwearied labours and its sufferings. And, if more than one brought such a pang to the apostle's heart, how touchingly he recalls the faithfulness of one, Onesiphorus; for whose house he beseeches mercy of the Lord; "for he oft refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently and found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day)". It was indeed just in keeping with the habitual love of Onesiphorus where he ordinarily dwelt; for the apostle adds, "and in how many things he administered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well." If we love the truth, we shall not fail in affection toward those that are identified with it. Party-zeal is the flesh's parody of it. God will have love and faith to be a living reality here below; and, in the world as it is, one must increasingly suffer. But He will be sanctified in those that are nigh Him, ever noticing both what He values and what He hates.

The apostle (2 Tim. 2), calls his child to be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ, with relation to others, not only in holding the truth fast, but in transmitting it duly  - a work no less delicate than important. "And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also". The communication of the truth is here in question, not the conferring of authority as on elders and deacons locally. Faithful men were to be the objects of his care for these offices; but also they needed to be taught by such an one as Timothy, himself taught of the apostle, in order that they might be able to teach others. Here, too, the apostle summons him to take his share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus; for what things, within as well as without, demand greater self-denial or expose to greater trials? In three figures the apostle sets forth what is needed by those who would thus serve the Lord aright. "No soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of life, that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier." The servant must make up his mind to refuse all distraction. Next, "if a man also contend in the games, he is not crowned except he have contended lawfully." The manner in which he serves is of the highest moment and claims entire submission to the will of the Lord Who is served; so the athlete was bound by the rules of the games. Lastly, "the labouring husbandman must first partake of the fruits." If love leads to toil, certainly labour must precede the fruits. All this the apostle would have Timothy to consider, and assures him of the Lord's grace in giving understanding in all things. Faith should be intelligent.

From him that labours in teaching the transition is easy to the truth taught, and happily (for God thinks of the simplest) its sum is set forth in few but profound words, and in that one Person, Who is the object of our faith, the wonder of angels, the satisfying delight of God. "Remember Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel." It is not so that theologians would present it, nor even as had the prophets; it is as God would have the apostle impress Timothy and us. The historic order would have begun with His relation after the flesh, His Messianic position, the fulfilment as far as His Person went of promise and prophecy; but Paul's gospel, which faithfully asserts this foundation truth, gave the emphasis to that resurrection from the dead which supposes the work of redemption already done and man in Him entered on the new estate according to God's heavenly counsels. And this enlarges the character of Christ's suffering, which above all the workman should not shirk, as the blessed apostle so deeply tasted of it in his gospel-service: "In which I suffer evil unto bonds as an evil-doer; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with everlasting glory. Faithful [is] the saying; for if we died with [Him], we shall also live with [Him]; if we endure, we shall also reign with [Him]; if we shall deny [Him], He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

On this Paul makes personal appeal to the end of the chapter that Timothy would not only urge truth fundamental and practical, but would avoid word-fights and profane babblings of even more destructive tendency, specifying the unholy dream of the resurrection so past as to make the present an enjoyable scene. Thus some of the fathers taught, and worldly religion prospered then as now.

This leads to a development as instructive in itself as it is characteristic of the Epistle. The false teaching is met by the apostle's pointing out both sides of the seal as God's sure foundation: [The] Lord knoweth those that are His; and, Let every one that nameth the name of [the] Lord depart from unrighteousness. Whatever come, the Lord is sovereign, and His confessor is responsible to Him. Here very suggestively the state of the church is anticipated: "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some unto honour and some unto dishonour. If therefore one purge himself from these [the vessels to dishonour], he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work." Zeal as a good workman, however, would not suffice. Timothy must flee youthful lusts (not carnal or worldly ones only), and pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Isolation is never right as an object, though sin must never be sanctioned. But foolish questions must be eschewed, gentleness be cultivated, and not least in setting right opposers, if God might give them repentance and waking up from the devil's snare for His will.

But in 2 Timothy 3 an awful picture is displayed: not merely some erring here and there, but a far more prevailing condition of decay where they could no longer be spoken of as disciples or faithful but as mere "men," not of course heathen or Jews, but alas! calling themselves Christians, for they are said to have a form of piety but denying its power: the morally awful fact of men, with the external light and privileges of Christendom, no better at bottom though less gross than the heathen, whose picture is drawn by the same hand in the latter part of Rom. 1. They may and do loudly claim to be the church in unbroken succession; but the word is, "from these also turn away." Doubtless all are not equally mischievous: there are weak victims, not without moral faults, and chiefs like those that withstood Moses. But Timothy had intimate familiarity with a life of godly and suffering and patient devotedness, as well as with truth in divinely given form and power; and all that would live godlily in Christ would suffer persecutions, as surely as evil men and impostors grow worse and worse.

Hence the inestimable value of those from whom Timothy had learned, and of the written word known by him from childhood. This gives the apostle the occasion to predicate of every scripture (be it Old or New Testament) qualities that constitute it the only abiding rule of faith, not only the fullest source, but the sole unfailing and perfect standard of truth. That they all were "God-inspired" implies this in one word to the mind that knows God.

Even then (2 Tim. 4) the apostle charges Timothy most solemnly before God and Jesus Christ Who shall judge quick and dead; and this therefore by His appearing and His kingdom, for here it is no question of heavenly grace, but of responsible service. and therefore a powerful motive to stimulate and strengthen his beloved child, both in preaching and in reproving, rebuking and exhorting, with all long-suffering and doctrine. For a time shall be when they will not hear sound doctrine, but according to their own lusts will heap teachers to themselves, having itching ears, and will turn away their ear from the truth and will have turned aside unto fables. This departure from the truth may not be the apostasy, nor the revelation of the man of sin; but it seems the worst development of the last days before that future crisis, and without doubt it has long since arrived. Yet more to impress Timothy, the apostle speaks of his own departure as a time close at hand. His course was run. He was awaiting the Lord's appearing to crown him, and not him only but all who love His appearing.

With a variety of personal notices deeply interesting in many ways the letter closes. He would hasten Timothy's joining him before winter, and it would seem that the sending of Tychicus to Ephesus may have been to facilitate this, Luke only being with the apostle. Of Demas' departure he speaks with pain, of others simply as a fact. But he begs his cloak left at Troas, the books, and especially the parchments: death before his eyes in no way hinders duty, the Lord's appearing demands it. A dangerous man is not forgotten; nor the fact that not one stood with him in the hour of danger, but the Lord did Who would do so to the end, preserving him for His heavenly kingdom. Salutation from himself and others follows, and the wish for His presence to be with Timothy's spirit, Who had delivered him, and Whose grace he would have with them all.

THE EXPOSITION

2 Timothy 1

The opening salutation of the Epistle as usual is instinct with the spirit of all that is to follow. Deep seriousness and tender affection pervade the whole. It is no longer a question of order in the house of God on the earth when the apostle is obliged to speak of a great house where are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen, and some to honour and some to dishonour. Then not discipline only, but purifying oneself from these at all cost becomes a paramount duty, if one is to be personally a vessel to honour, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work. It is a question in short of the firm foundation of God with its unfailing comfort on one side and its inalienable responsibility on the other. But, thank God, come what may, that foundation stands, whatever the disorder of the house; and the consequent obligation of the faithful abides, the more peremptory for His glory because of general defection. Faith never despairs of good, never slights evil, and is free only to please God, instead of easing self by the choice of the lesser wrong.

It could not be, however, in these circumstances, but that a tone of importunate earnestness should prevail. Therefore is the need urged more than ever of courage and endurance, as well as of high jealousy for the will of God and detestation for the evil way of man — of man now alas! associating the Lord's name with the worst wickedness of Satan. The modest but apparently timid character of Timothy called forth the apostle's heart under the power of the Holy Ghost to prepare him for the arduous labour and conflict which lay before him on the speedy departure of his spiritual father. Even more thoroughly and with less exception do its exhortations apply to the faithful now, than do those of the First Epistle because there was more of the official element in the First, whereas what is moral predominates in the Second. Be it ours therefore to profit fully from this consideration. For unquestionably the difficult times of the last days have long since come, and the darkness of the closing scenes of lawlessness are already casting their shadows before.

"Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus, by God's will, according to promise of the life which is in Christ Jesus, to Timotheus [my] beloved child: Grace, mercy, peace, from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord" (vers. 1, 2).

It is observable that here, as in the First Epistle, Paul puts forward his. great commission. Intimacy was never meant to enfeeble that divinely-given place and authority. Sometimes the apostle might merge it; as we see with gracious beauty in his Epistle to Philemon, where authority would have jarred with the chord he wished to strike in that valued believer's heart. Here apostleship was demanded, not only by the nature of the First Epistle, but in order to give weight to the moral directions of the Second. The path of Christ which lay through the perilous dilemmas of the last days required the highest expression of divine authority. Without this sanction even the most necessary step of righteousness must expose the man of God who took it in faith to the charge of innovation, of presumption, and specially of disorder because the general state of Christendom was itself one of fixed, traditional, and all but universal departure from God's word.

But in the First Epistle it is "apostle according to the command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope." This is evidently more in relation to mankind, since much to the saints is external as compared with the terms of the Second Epistle. "By God's will" is here, as in 1 and 2 Cor., Eph., and Col. It was requisite or wise at first, and it abides to the last. The "will" of God admits of a far larger and deeper application than-His "commandment," however important the latter may be in its place. Many, who would shrink from insubjection to a commandment of God, might be comparatively little exercised about His will, which takes in a vast variety of spiritual life exercised outside the range of a formal injunction. We may observe a kindred distinction which our Lord draws in John 14 between His commandments and His word (vers. 21, 23, 24). This addition in the Second Epistle quite falls in with its broad and deep character.

But there is more difference still. Paul was apostle "according to promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus." This clearly connects the closing Epistle of Paul with the opening one of John, where eternal life in all its fulness in Christ is the characteristic doctrine. Not that this was ever absent from the Pauline Epistles. We see it in those to the Romans and the Corinthians, to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, if possible still more brightly and in practical power. But here "life" is in the most prominent way bound up with his apostleship and of course, therefore, with the entire bearing of this, his last written, communication. The Spirit of God for the first time puts it undoubtedly in the fore-ground.

But I think that the method employed has not been at all rightly apprehended. The preposition (κατά) holds its more ordinary sense — "according to" — in conformity with, rather than in pursuance of, or with a view to the fulfilment etc. Not the object and the intention of the apostleship are expressed thereby, but its character. Undoubtedly Paul's apostleship did further and made known the promises of eternal life; but the truth revealed here is that he was thus called of God according to, or in keeping with, this promise of life. His office was not merely to be minister of the gospel in the whole creation under heaven; nor yet only to be also minister of the church which is Christ's body (Col. 1: 23, 24). He now for the first time describes himself as by God's will apostle "according to promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus." Never did Timothy, never do the faithful, need so much the comforting strengthening knowledge of that life as in view of the horrors and dangers which this Epistle contemplates. If aught be real in a world of vain show, it is the life which is in Christ; it is eternal, as it is meant to overcome by faith. Without that life even the power of the Holy Ghost might work in a son of perdition. "Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy name, and by Thy name cast out demons, and by Thy name do many powers? And then will I avow unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, workers of lawlessness" (Matt. 7: 22, 23). Power without life is most ominous and fatal; with life, most blessed and eminently characteristic of Christianity. We shall see this carefully put forward for our consolation in this very chapter of this Epistle. But life has indisputably the prime place in the character here given of Paul's apostleship. No one had prophecy as he had; none knew all mysteries and all knowledge like him; and who, as he, had all faith, so as to remove mountains? But he had also that love which is of God, surpassed perhaps by none; for he lived the life which is in Christ Jesus. We can but admire, therefore, as we here read of his apostleship characterized, not by display of spiritual energy, but "according to promise of life that is in Christ Jesus."

Life, like faith, is individual, yet obedient and therefore valuing, next to Christ, the walking to His glory with those who are His. But do any walk well together who have not faith to stand alone if His will requires it? Life therefore is thus brought forward in this capital place. If ever its value was felt more than before, it was now: the strait of times called for all that is of Christ. Glory on earth had been the idol of the Jew at his best; heavenly glory in and with Christ is the Christian hope; but one has now life in Christ, a "promise" incomparably beyond those to Abraham, David, and any other worthy. We have it in Him now, and with Him shall manifestly have it when glorified. The earth, the world, was the theatre of God's dealings, and will be of His kingdom in power and glory when Christ appears and reigns. But as Paul was apostle according to promise of the life that is in Christ, so we having Him have that eternal life which will enjoy its own proper sphere at His coming above the world of which its nature is wholly independent.

"To Timotheus, [my] beloved child." In the First Epistle he was designated "true" (γνησίῳ) child. It might have seemed impossible to have missed the intended difference. For the words necessarily intimate in the latter case that Timothy was no spurious son but his genuine child, and this not merely in "the" faith as an objective possession but in "faith" as a real living principle in the soul. In the former case there is the express declaration of the apostle's positive and personal affection, which was apparently no formal or unmeaning phrase. Yet a German annotator of some repute (Mack) asks, "Can it be accidental that instead of γνησίῳ τέκνῳ, as Timotheus is called in the First Epistle 1: 2, and in Titus 1: 4, here we find ἀγαπητῳ? Or may a reason for the change be found in this that it now behoved Timotheus to stir up afresh the faith and the grace in him, before he could again be worthy of the name γνησίον τέκνον in its full sense?" And this shallow remark, which misses the true inference from the use of the designation in Titus (who never draws out the strong feelings of the apostle as Timothy does in both Epistles, and yet is styled no less γν. τ.), has had the most deleterious influence on Dean Alford's general comparison of the two Epistles, and misled him on not a few details of importance. Bengel, Ellicott, and others are much more correct in this; so that the regret expressed for their misapprehension might have been well spared. The failure in discernment really belongs to those who affect to see loss of confidence in the Second Epistle; and it is only made conspicuous by allowing more love. "More of mere love"! is a strange phrase, and unworthy of a saint, who ought to know better its real and inestimable worth.

"Grace, mercy, peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." Here we have the same words precisely as in the First; and as to both so famous an expositor as Calvin dares to apologize for the apostle, if it be not to censure him. "He does not observe the exact order; for he places first what ought to have been last, namely, the grace which flows from mercy. For the reason why God at first receives us into favour and why He loves is, that He is merciful. But it is not unusual to mention the cause after the effect for the sake of explanation."* Such is his comment on the first occasion, which is repeated substantially on the second. It is plain that the scope of the blessed wish of the apostle has escaped him. For grace is the general term for that energy and outflow of divine goodness which rises above men's evil and ruin, and loves notwithstanding all; and so is most correctly, as it is uniformly, in the first place in the salutation, whether to assemblies or to individual saints. "Mercy" most appropriately finds its place in the desire of God's pitiful consideration for individual weakness, need, or danger, and so is found not only in 1 and 2 Tim., but also exceptionally and of special purpose in Jude, as it disappears from Philemon where the assembly in his house rightly modifies the formula. But mercy being thus subordinate, however sweet individually, with unquestionably good reason holds the second place. By none is it doubted that "peace," being an effect rather than a spring, is found where it should be, as indeed each and all have been shown to be. Yet how sorrowful and humiliating that such apparently unconscious but real disrespect to scripture should stand unchallenged in the final shape as well as in a modern translation of Calvin's writings, who is generally allowed to be in nothing behind the very chiefest Reformers! If reverence for God be attested by trembling at His word, may we be warned by such an example.

* "Secundum hoc, hoc est, Misericordiae nomen, praeter suum morem interposuit, forte singular) erga Timotheum amore impulsus. Porro, non servat exactum ordinem: quod enim posterius est priore loco posuit gratiam scilicet quae ex misericordia manat. Nam ideo nos in gratiam initio recipit Deus, et deinde amore nos prosequitur, quia misericors est. Verum non est insolitum, causam subjungi effectuii, explicationis causa" Calvin, (Opp. vii. 438. Amstel. 1607).

It is interesting to note how often in the last words of an old man one hears the recall of earlier facts in his life or recollections. Inspiration does not set this aside. The apostle speaks now of his "forefathers," as he reminds Timothy of the faithful predecessors in his family. "I thank God whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience how unceasingly I have the remembrance of thee in my supplications, night and day longing to see thee, remembering thy tears, that I may be filled with joy, calling to mind the unfeigned faith that [is] in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and, I am persuaded, in thee also" (vers. 3-5). There is a difference in the way in which Paul speaks of his forefathers as compared with the female line of believers before Timothy. He does not affirm that his ancestors were faithful in the same sense as were those of his child in the faith. It would not seem to be more than what he predicates of "our whole twelve tribes" in Acts 26: 7. He however assuredly served God with pure conscience and could speak of giving Him thanks in the remembrance of Timothy. It was not merely a gracious affection for his sorrowing and anxious fellow-labourer; but he had the remembrance of Timothy in his supplications unceasingly, whilst night and day he longed to see him. Both were true. One cannot conceive a grosser delusion than that faith destroys affection. There is no life so influential as Christ's, no bond equal to that of the Holy Spirit.

But there is more to be observed here: Paul remembered Timothy's tears, without particularly telling us why he shed them. The context however, implies that it was the bitterness of parting from his revered leader; for the joy, with which the apostle desired to be filled, would be in their seeing one another again. No doubt there was the added feeling for Timothy, but the Spirit of prophecy had over and over again predicted the bonds and imprisonment, if not death, that awaited Paul.

Again, we may notice there was this further for which the apostle was thankful to God: "calling to mind the unfeigned faith which [is] in thee" — faith deeply called for in the increasing perplexities of God's people here below.

It is indeed great joy to think of a beloved soul here and there, thus marked out by the Spirit, not only in time but for eternity; to think of such as an object of God's love, and in the nearest relation to Christ. It is a sweet comfort in shame and sorrow to look on a friend who by "unfeigned faith" is witness for God in an unbelieving world. Such was Timothy in the apostle's eyes, which, if they were soon about to close on that world, looked back at the faith which dwelt first in his grandmother Lois and in his mother Eunice, as he emphatically adds, "and, I am persuaded, in thee also." Timothy was not the less but the more dear to the apostle, because he had been deeply exercised and severely sifted. But he could not leave him under possible discouragement, nor simply bring before him those who had preceded him in faith, nor cheer himself in a merely general way. He adds, "For which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands" (ver. 6).

This gift (χάρισμα) was the special energy of the Holy Ghost imparted to Timothy. There is no reasonable doubt that it is the gift spoken of in 1 Tim. 4: 14. Only there it is said to have been given through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the elderhood; here. through the laying on of Paul's hands. The presbyters were associated with Paul; but the power was solely in the apostle. He only was the divinely employed channel of so great a gift. And this is indicated by the difference of the prepositions "with" and "by."

But the apostle takes occasion to speak of that which, thank God, is not special and in no way calls for prophecy. Rather is it the abiding spring of power for the church of God, the standing privilege guaranteed by the Lord (John 14-16) to every believer in the Lord resting on redemption during this present interval since Pentecost. Hence the change of language: "for God gave us not a spirit of cowardice, but of power and love and sobriety of mind" (ver. 7)

What can be more comforting now in the utter ruin of the outward character of the church, which caused the apostle such intense grief when he descried its beginnings! Signs and wonders, if they could be in consistency with God's will and glory, had been no such source of joy and blessing. They were most important in their season and for their end. They attested the victory of the risen Man over Satan; they proclaimed the beneficent power of God just vested in the hands of those that were His, and in the midst of a ruined creation. They were calculated, as they were used, to arouse the attention of a dark and slumbering race to the new ways of a God active in goodness, Who was putting honour on Him Whom man had rejected to his own shame and irreparable loss.

But there is a still deeper grace in the permanence of the Holy Ghost given to the Christian as also to the church. And the more so as we learn how every truth has been enfeebled, every principle corrupted, all the ways of God not only misunderstood but misinterpreted, so that His testimony as a whole is wrecked in Christendom. Nevertheless, as the firm foundation of God stands, and as the Head of the church is exalted at His right hand infallibly to love, cherish, and nourish His body, so is His great gift to us unrevoked, and is not a spirit of cowardice. To supplant it alas! might well seem to become us, when one realizes the present ruin of all that bears the name of the Lord here below. On the contrary, He is given to abide in and with us for ever, and His gift is that of power and of love and of a sound mind. This was meant to cheer Timothy; and we have yet deeper need. So much the more therefore ought it to cheer us as nothing else can.

For we must remember that the Spirit of God is given us for present enjoyment and service. It becomes us therefore neither to sit down helplessly in dust and ashes, nor to show how unbroken we are, if not profane, in saying, while we go on with wrong, that Christ will set all to rights when He appears in glory. The more we are led of Him, the more deeply we shall feel that, as the evil around is irreparable, we must now cleave to His name, separate from evil and be associated godlily. We shall not give ourselves up to despair, but rise in faith and faithfulness. We shall be strengthened in obedience, and filled with the divine cheer of the Lord's presence, as we keep His words and look for Him from heaven.

The consciousness of the Holy Ghost in us will be power, not to work miracles, but to do the will of God, as this will draw us out in the love of God, and impart a sober judgment of all that becomes His saints in the midst of ruin. This is worthy of Christ in an evil day; and what can we desire more till He Himself comes, the crown of divine goodness and glory?

In the path of Christ the time surely comes when faith is put to the proof. It is one thing in the confidence of grace and at the summons of the truth to turn one's back on the fairest pretension opposed to His name; it is quite another to stand firm and unabashed when not only the world turns from us, but desertion sets in among those that confessed Him. How few can stand the loss of valued associations, not to speak of their taunts and persecutions! This abnormal state was dawning on the sensitive and distressed spirit of Timothy. It has long been the ordinary experience for the faithful in Christendom. What a frightful illustration of it even recent years have furnished!

"Be not ashamed therefore of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner; but suffer hardship with the gospel, according to the power of God, Who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to His purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times everlasting, but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, Who abolished death and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel, whereunto I was appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher" (vers. 8-11).

It is only ignorance of self which makes it to many difficult to understand why Timothy should be thus ashamed. When the tide of blessing is at the full there is little or no room for shame. It is far otherwise when the ingathering is small and when the love of the many waxes cold, when the world becomes more hardened and contemptuous and the saints cower under its reproaches. Faith alone keeps the eye upon Christ and the heart warmed with His love in an atmosphere so chilling. His reproach (for it is Christ's assuredly) becomes then glorious in our eyes; and "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8: 37). For the testimony though it may seem to fail is none the less the testimony of our Lord, and the suffering witness under the unjust hand of human authority is His prisoner. "Be not therefore ashamed" is the word. Grace identified the witness, who may not be perfect, with His testimony which is absolutely so. Why should we ever stand for that which is less than divine' We are not called to suffer or to bear shame for anything but Christ. He has still His objects, precious in His eyes, here below. Be it ours to find our lot only there, and let us not be ashamed in a day of grievous departure.

But more; Timothy was called to "suffer evil (hardship) along with the gospel" as an object assailed and involved in all possible trial. It is a grievous blank where a servant of God has only the gospel before his soul, lacks heart for the glory of Christ as Head of the church, fails in faith to enter into the mystery of Christ and His body, and takes the scantiest interest in the joys and sorrows which those blessed relationships entail. It is wrong to be absorbed even with the gospel, so as to abnegate our part in these high and heavenly privileges and consequent duties, so near to Christ and inseparable from God's counsels and Christ's love. But there is the opposite error, which though more rare is at least as dangerous and even more dishonouring to Christ because it is more pretentious and seductive — the danger of occupying the mind and life with the truth of the church and its wondrous associations to the depreciation of the gospel and the despising of those who faithfully addict themselves to this work. The apostle to whom we are indebted more than to any other inspired instrument for the revelation of the church not less strenuously insists on the all-importance of the gospel. Christ is most actively and supremely concerned with both, and so should His servants, though one might be neither a teacher on the one hand nor an evangelist on the other. Still more responsible, because of the grace given to him, was Timothy, being both an evangelist and a teacher. He is here enjoined to suffer evil with the gospel, but according to the power of God. Nothing can show more forcibly the deep interest in it to which he was called. When worldliness enters, suffering hardship disappears. When the church becomes worldly, one gains honour, ease, emolument; and so it is with the gospel when it becomes popular. If the gospel and the church engage the heart and testimony according to Christ, suffering and rejection cannot but ensue. Timothy, therefore, was called to take Christ's part in the gospel; and God's power would not be lacking, however he might suffer.

The gospel is well worth the while, "for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes," being entirely above the distinction which the law or circumcision made. It is of the Spirit, not of the flesh, not national now but personal. God "saved us." It is the fruit of His work in Christ; and that work was finished on earth, and accepted in heaven, and abides for ever, complete and unchanging. Men may be moved away from the hope of the gospel by ordinances on the one hand or by philosophy on the other. Both are of the world, and almost equally worthless; both are absolutely inefficacious to save, though one be a sign, the other purely human. But God "saved us and called us with a holy calling." Here "holy" is emphatic and most suitable to the Epistle and the state of things contemplated. Always true, it was urgent now to press its "holy" character. It is a calling on high or upward, as we read in Phil. 3: 14, in contrast with the earthly things in which men find their glory to their shame. It is a heavenly calling, as we see in Heb. 3: 1, which those needed especially to consider who were used to the external calling of Israel in the land. It is God's calling with its hope in and with Christ where the creature disappears from view and His eternal counsels for the glory of His Son are developed for the soul, as in Eph. 1 and 4. But now in the growing declension of such as bore the name of the Lord the apostle binds together God's salvation with His holy calling. An evil time is not at all one for lowering the standard but for unveiling it and for pressing its importance.

Further, being divine, God's salvation and call are not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace. Even the saint was to pray, "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Ps. 143: 2). There are good works in every saint: "For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God before prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2: 10); they are not only to be fair morally but they ought to be such as suit those on earth who are united to Christ in heaven, responsible to reflect heavenly grace — no longer earthly righteousness merely. Such works alone are properly Christian. "Against such there is no law" (Gal. 5: 23). But they are quite distinct from those of legal obedience, were it ever so exact. Nevertheless God's salvation is according to Christ's work, not ours. Nor is it of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. 9: 16), according to His own purpose and grace, Who would thus perfectly honour the Son as we do in our measure by our faith.

This, again, was given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting times, a most weighty and blessed truth. It is not merely security assured without end, but grace given in Christ Jesus before time began. It was not so with Israel: they were called in time. God's purpose about us, Christians, was in eternity before any creature existed. To make it only endless security in the future is to lose this wondrous fact of the divine will about the saints who are now called in Christ to His glory. Their blessing was a counsel bound up with Christ before the world was or any question of creature responsibility entered: God purposed to justify His love and glorify Himself in having us with Christ in His presence and like Him of His own sovereign grace; therefore are we so much the more bound to walk, now and here, as He walked, in righteousness and holiness of truth as the new man after God was created (Eph. 4: 24).

But the manifestation of this purposed grace to us came in with Him Who was manifested in flesh and justified in the Spirit. Even so, though all depended on the dignity of His person, and awaited the completion of His work, and His return as man into that glory whence He had come as God the Son that thus it might be the Son of man Who had glorified God in Himself; and this straightway (John 13: 31, 32). Manhood, now that the infinite work of suffering for sin was accomplished, was in His person at least raised from among the dead and glorified on high according to the fullest counsel of God. His purpose and grace was no longer a question of gift only as before the ages of time, but manifested now through the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, having annulled death and brought life and incorruption to light through the gospel.

This helps to the more distinct understanding of verse 1; for it is the promise of life, that which is in Christ Jesus, fulfilled. Grace was thus distributing its incomparable stores. Death was brought to naught as Satan's empire over sinful man, and Jesus was manifestly Lord of all and Conqueror over all hostile power and Giver of infinite blessing in communion with God His Father; and all this in truth and righteousness. For sin had been borne and borne away, as the gospel declares to all men in itself and applies the good news to ourselves by faith individually.

Where is man's wisdom then? For ever put to shame in His cross of which it was ashamed. Where is the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us? Effaced for ever and taken out of the way by Him Who nailed it to the cross, as the resurrection cast its glorious light on the incorruption of the body pledged to us in Him risen. No wonder the apostle told the Roman saints long before that he was not ashamed of the gospel, destined to be imprisoned and slain and cast out in the person of its witnesses in that city more than in any other that professed it, not to speak of the loathsome imposture and harlotry which supplanted and still supplant it there. No wonder the apostle there imprisoned for its sake, and anticipating the speedy pouring out of his blood as a drink-offering (2 Tim. 4: 6), adds with triumphant thankfulness, "unto which [gospel] I [emphatically] was appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher [of Gentiles]." Some few high and varied authorities ( A 17) omit "of Gentiles," which from the character of the Epistle seems to me probably right; and the rather as the copyists were profoundly insensible of such a trait but disposed to assimilate the second letter to the first, where "of Gentiles" has its suited and certain place.

The apostle no sooner introduces himself and his appointed place in service than he names those sufferings of his which were at least as wonderful as his labours.

"For which cause also I suffer these things; yet I am not ashamed; for I know Whom I have believed; and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted [or, my deposit] against that day. Have an outline of sound words, which [words] thou heardest from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. The good thing entrusted [or, the good deposit] keep through the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us" (vers. 12-14).

No one was more remote from superstitious penalties or self-righteous pains; yet where was ever such a life-long endurance in the most varied ways for the testimony of Christ? "In stripes beyond measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Five times from Jews I received the forty stripes save one; thrice I was scourged with rods; once I was stoned; thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I spent in the deep; in journeyings often; in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from Gentiles, in perils in town, in perils in wilderness, in perils at sea, in perils among false brethren; in labour and toil, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness" (2 Cor. 11: 21-27). And this is but the mere external part in what he calls his "folly," that is, in speaking of himself instead of Christ, extorted from him as it was by the detractors at Corinth. But what a life of love such sufferings indicate, what devotedness to Him Who had appointed him a herald and apostle and teacher!

Was he "ashamed" then? Rather did he boast of what humanly speaking is a humiliation. If it is needful to boast, says he, "I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity," "most gladly therefore will I rather boast of my infirmities [not faults or sins assuredly], that the power of the Christ may dwell upon me. Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits, for Christ; for when I am weak, then am I strong" (2 Cor. 12: 10). As that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God, so to the spiritual mind there is nothing so glorious for a saint here below as reproach, rejection, and suffering for Christ's sake and His testimony. This was the cause for which Paul was suffering then as all through his course, since the Lord said, "I will show him how much he must suffer for My name" (Acts 9: 16). But it was also great grace that, instead of complaining like Jeremiah, he should abound in courage, joy, and triumph, NOT shame.

Was Paul then a man of iron constitution, a heart of oak, which threw off all blows and wounds, as if unfelt? "Ye know," said he to some who should have known him well, "that in weakness of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first; and my temptation which was in my flesh ye did not slight nor reject with contempt; but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (Gal. 4: 13, 14). His circumstances were as trying as his health was infirm; yet went he on for years, night and day, admonishing each with tears, coveting no one's silver or gold or clothing, but his hands ministering to the wants of others as well as his own. Truly in nothing was he ashamed; but with all boldness of grace, as always, so now also magnifying Christ in his body whether by life or by death.

What sustained him? "For I know Whom I have believed." It is faith, but it is the Person Who is believed, and a real inward knowledge of Him thereby formed. No other knowledge has such sterling value for eternity; yet there is communion with God in it now, as now the Holy Spirit communicates it through the word. The voice of Christ is heard and believed and known; for there is, though the channels may be many, but that One, and the voice of any other is only the voice of a stranger. His words are spirit, and they are life; and that life depends on Him Who is its source; Who draws out confidence the more He is known without enfeebling dependence. In Him we have redemption through His blood; and as He is, so we are in this world: acceptance is complete and perfect, according to the glory of His person and the efficacy of His work.

Hence the apostle adds, "and I am persuaded that He is able to keep my deposit — that which I have entrusted unto Him — against that day." By "my deposit" is to be understood all that I as a believer entrust to the safekeeping of God, not only the security but the blessedness of the soul and the body, of the walk and the work, with every question conceivable to be raised in the past, present, or future. As responsibility is clearly in question, the reference is as usual to "that day," which will declare the measure of every saint's fidelity when each shall have his praise from God. The coming or "presence" of the Lord, as is well-known, is the aspect of pure grace when all shall be caught up in the likeness of the Lord to be with Him for ever.

This leads the apostle to impress on his fellow-labourer an all-important exhortation regarding his own service of Christ with others. "Have an outline of sound words, which thou heardest from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus" (ver. 13). "Hold fast" goes far beyond the force of the first word, as "the" form is also unwarranted. Timothy had been used to hear the things which are freely given us by God spoken in words, not which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth, or, as they are here described, "sound words". But there had been no formula which he was called and bound to keep; simply the truth conveyed in divinely taught expressions, which, heard before from Paul, he was to heed jealously now that the end of that mighty testifying was near.

For man is not competent to set the truth in new forms without trenching on it and thus impairing if not corrupting the testimony of God. It is not enough to have the things of the Spirit; the words in which they are conveyed need to be of the Spirit also, in order to communicate God's mind in perfection; and hence, to be a rule of faith, we must have God's word. Now that the inspired authorities no longer exist, scripture only is this; and it is as distinct from ministry on the one hand as from the assembly on the other.

Ministry is the regular service of Christ by gift to communicate the truth, whether to the world in the gospel, or to the saints in the truth generally. But even if not a word were amiss (which is rarely the case — indeed far otherwise), it is not inspiration and therefore in no way a rule of faith.

Still less can the assembly be rightly so viewed. It is responsible to receive and reflect the word of God. It is the pillar and stay of the truth, the responsible keeper and corporate witness of holy writ; as Israel of old was of the law and the prophets, the living oracles committed to them. But scripture itself abides the rule of faith.

And hence in this last Epistle of Paul we have the reiterated forms which urge the duty of taking heed to the sound words heard from the apostle. Outline or sample of such words he was to have, the authority of which was imprinted on them from God; for Timothy was no such authority, and less if possible were the saints who were to profit by them. But Timothy's state of soul was much for their happy use with others; and therefore "with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus" has its importance. Memory, however exact, would not suffice. Faith and love, which have their power in Jesus Christ, would make them so much the more impressive.

The verse that follows appears to me to summarize what its predecessor exhorts in detail: "Keep the good deposit through the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us" (ver. 14), the latter having a sort of antithetical reference to verse 12. There it was the apostle resting with holy satisfaction on God's keeping what he had entrusted to Him. Here is the other side, in which Timothy is called to keep what he was entrusted with, for which God provides help in the Holy Spirit that dwells in us. For the Spirit given abides with us for ever. He may be grieved by our sins and folly; but He does not abandon the saint since redemption. He is there, when self-judgment corrects the hindrance, to act in His own gracious power to the glory of Christ Who sent Him down for this very purpose.

It will be noticed that the Spirit's dwelling is not said to be "in thee", but "in us". So it is in scripture habitually, and is incomparably better than if predicated of Timothy alone. On him had been conferred by apostolic prerogative a special gift; but he or any other saint shared the unspeakable boon, for Whose mission it was expedient that even Jesus should go away (John 16: 7). This is the common and characteristic power of the Christian; and therefore it was fitting that, while Timothy should be reminded of One so competent to help our infirmity, he should have it clearly before his soul that the saints at large have the divine Spirit no less truly dwelling in them. It was well for both him and them to have the comfort and the stimulus of so blessed, yet solemn, a fact indelibly before them.

We cannot too strongly urge that the precious privileges with which God's grace in Christ has invested believers are standing facts, and not mere ideas or transient feelings. They are indeed calculated to exercise the mind and fill the mind to the full, and wretched is his state, who, possessing what so transcends human thought or affection, seems to estimate them less than the passing things of the day or the trifling objects on which man spends his care. But the life of Christ, His death and resurrection, redemption through His blood, union with Him on high, His intercession at God's right hand, are facts on which the soul can rest, no less than on His Deity and His humanity in one person. Just so is it with the presence of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, and His varied operations in the assembly and the individual. The believer stands in divine present relationship with them all, which are as certain and infinitely more important than the links of natural kin or country, which nobody in his senses disbelieves. What a reproof to the thoughtless saint! and what solid cheer to the trembling heart! We have only to reflect on what grace has made ours in Christ to run over with thanksgiving and praise.

There is more, however, than hardship or suffering to be faced in the testimony of our Lord, and no one proved it more than the apostle. To be persecuted by foes may be bitter, though glorious for His sake Who really entails it as the world now is. But what is this to compare with desertion by friends? Here, the life that is in Christ finds fresh scope. For glorifying the Lord in such an experience how deep the value of the word, and how energetic the power of the Holy Ghost which dwells in us! A single eye to Christ alone can sustain in it, and as the apostle was then feeling it to the uttermost so does he not hesitate to bring it before the tender spirit of his beloved child.

"Thou knowest this, that all that are in Asia turned away from me; of whom is Phygelus and Hermogenes" (ver. 15). Of these two we may be wholly ignorant. Not so Timothy any more than Paul, who singles out their names as the most painful examples of the abandonment which cut the apostle to the heart. Timothy knew well what made their heartlessness such a distress to the servant, such a dishonour to the Master. It is not Christian to treat such conduct with contempt any more than with resentment. We can afford to hear all, however humbling as well as grievous. For we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Their defection would prepare Timothy and countless others for that which might be similar in its kind and time. Scripture records nothing in vain. It is true that we are nerved and strengthened for the conflict by looking not to deserters but to the Captain of salvation. But it is well to be prepared for that which has been, for what might be, not to say for what from the same causes is sure to be, from time to time. And it was the more important to speak of it to Timothy at this time, because he was so soon to lose the cheering presence and burning exhortations of the one who was writing to him, at least to lose his voice as a living man, though ever to be heard, ever to abide as the word of the living God.

Let us consider more precisely what appears to be meant by these affecting words. Asia, pro-consular Asia, had been the scene of signal triumph for the gospel. It was there that the word of the Lord mightily grew and prevailed, and this in its capital city, Ephesus. To the saints there the apostle had written his most elevated and richest Epistle, with the singular feature of there being no occasion to occupy himself or them with faults or dangers then existing in their midst, though not without warning against the worst and lowest evils into which Satan might betray, and betray so much the more surely if that height of grace and truth were departed from or despised. And Timothy knew Asia well, especially Ephesus. There the apostle would have him remain when he himself was going to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1: 3) that he might keep up the testimony which had been planted there and guard the saints against all the trash of man which Satan would use to supplant it.

But now, the apostle can assume that Timothy knew that desertion of himself which filled his heart, not with dismay but with grief. Such is the effect of divine love shed abroad in the heart, and Paul would have Timothy to feel it according to Christ. This, undoubtedly, adds to the anguish but it delivers from selfishness as well as from acrimony. And Timothy needed to have it brought before him thus, even though he knew the fact. The language supposes, it would seem, a definite act, rather than a general state, though no doubt there was an antecedent state which prepared the way for that act to affect them so unworthily.

It is true that turning away from Paul is very different from forsaking the gospel or the church, from giving up this truth or that. But where the Lord was giving His most honoured servant to suffer, not for any failure of his own, but for the divine deposit, for His testimony here below, that any should desert such a servant at such a time would be lamentable: how much more so that the desertion should be general and in a moral sense universal where the truth was best known and grace could be brought out in all its height and depth and breadth as nowhere else! I should judge from the context that the fact which brought out this most deplorable and guilty desertion was the apostle's imprisonment. The enemy took advantage of human shame put upon the greatest servant of the church and of the gospel. And those who had been the abundant fruit of his labours in divine power did in effect join the world in spirit, cowering under its shame where faith and love ought to have given them identification with the apostle's suffering as bringing glory to the name of Jesus.

But the turning away from Paul was not absolutely complete even in Asia. There was at least a bright exception, as a time of general evil is ever used in the grace of God to bring out singular fidelity and devotedness. "The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chain; but being in Rome he sought me out diligently and found [me]; (the Lord grant him to find mercy from [the] Lord in that day). And in how many things he ministered at Ephesus thou knowest very well" (vers. 16-18). The contrast helps much and definitely to show us where the general defection lay; and the Lord repaid "the house of Onesiphorus" with compound interest the grace He had bestowed on its head. "He often refreshed me," says the gracious apostle: how like the Master Who could say to the poor disciples, "Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as My Father appointed unto Me . . ."! (Luke 22: 28, 29).

But Paul also singles out the crucial fact: "and was not ashamed of my chain." Love evinces its truth, character, and power in the hour of need. How was it with "all that were in Asia"? They were evidently ashamed of it. Fleshly prudence blamed the zeal for Christ which gave the occasion; and worldly spirit shrank from all solidarity with the imprisoned apostle. How did the Lord regard such selfish timorousness" The Holy Spirit marks its baseness indelibly on the everlasting page of scripture. But He singles out the blessed exception of one whose heart crave the more to the apostle, not merely in the province of Asia, but in the proud metropolis where the apostle was bound. "But being in Rome he sought me very diligently";* and not in vain. He found the deserted apostle: "the Lord grant him to find mercy from [the] Lord in that day"! This, it is true, we are all awaiting in faith (Jude 21); but none the less sweet or comforting is the apostle's prayer, surely not less efficacious than that of an Abraham of old for the present government of God. Nor is this all that is said; but he appeals to Timothy as knowing very well how much service Onesiphorus rendered in Ephesus. The apostle does not limit it, as the Authorized Version does with others, to ministering to himself: the general phrase leaves room for what was personal, of course, but it implies much more, as the apostle carefully states. None knew this "better"* than Timothy who needed no further explanation.

* It is the comparative in both verse 17 and 18, not the positive nor the superlative: a favourite Greek idiom, which if the ellipse were expanded would express, "more diligently than could be expected" (ver. 17) and "knowing better than to require more said of it." (ver. 18).

2 Timothy 2

In strong contrast with that desertion of the apostle which had overspread the saints of proconsular Asia is the call to Timothy with which chapter 2 opens.

"Thou therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men, such as shall be able to teach others also" (vers. 1, 2).

There only is the source of all real strengthening of the soul from God — "the grace that is in Christ Jesus." The apostle's presence and teaching wrought invaluably for the blessing of saints; but he could tell the dear Philippians, "even as ye always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2: 12). At all events, whatever might disappear of the highest authorities or of the lower dependent on their appointment, God was there abidingly to work in the saints both to wit and to work according to, or for, His good pleasure. And as the saints in Philippi give us the proof of the power of the grace in Christ to keep and strengthen to all obedience, so the turning away from him that called them in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel which is not another found its sad but sure warning in the Galatians. They were equally as the Philippians the fruit of the apostle's labour, and in spite of the infirmity in which Paul at the first preached to them, no small trial to him or them, instead of slighting or spurning they received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Now so weakened were they by the legal zeal of those who desired to shut them out from the apostle that he needed to ask, if he, for whom they would have plucked out if possible their own eyes and given them to him, — if he was become their enemy in speaking the truth to them. It is good, he adds gravely, to be zealously sought in a good thing at all times, and not only when I am present with you (Gal. 4: 13-18).

This then is the secret at all times and under every change of circumstance; but it is most appropriately urged on a confidential fellow-labourer of timid character and not of the highest rank, when the apostle had in full view the ruin of the church's testimony and his own speedy departure. None need wonder at the emphatic terms in which he exhorts his child to draw on the rich and ever-flowing stream. Faith in the grace of Christ alone drinks freely and has within that living fountain springing up to eternal life; faith in Him, Who is now glorified, alone has rivers of living water flowing out from within. Whatever the want, His fulness is the same, undiminished, accessible, and free; whatever the danger, He has overcome the world and the devil, He Who suffered for us, yea, for our sins once for all; and He knows all and has all power and authority Who hears our every appeal and loves ourselves unchangingly. Timothy needed this grace to strengthen him. It is revealed to us and as true for us who need it no less in our place. It is equally open to us and sure for us. Oh, that we may look to Him confidingly in our wants for ourselves and for others!

But there is more than encouraging ourselves in the Lord when distress abounds and difficulties press and dangers impend or affright. If the truth in Christ is needed to deal with and quicken dead souls, no less is it requisite and valid for the saints. Here it is a question of forming and furnishing those who are to instruct others.

We must distinguish the uses of divine revelation. The word of God is the standard of truth: nothing else is or can be such a test, and in its wondrous fulness, not one word of which is in vain, there is the special touchstone of Jesus Christ come in the flesh, Whom the Holy Spirit always leads a true witness to confess, as the spirit of error ever shirks or denies. But in a general way we may say that the apostolic deposit puts faith or unbelief to the proof. A Jew now would own perhaps sincerely all the ancient oracles called the Old Testament. Is he therefore a believer? Assuredly not, because he does not hear, he rejects, the apostles (1 John 4: 6). Ye are of God, says the beloved disciple to the little children, the actual family of faith, and have overcome the many false prophets that are gone out into the world or the evil spirit animating each: because greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they [as] of the world, and the world heareth them. But this does not finish what he had to say and they to weigh and hold fast: We are of God; not "ye" only as born of Him, being begotten by the word of truth; but we as His inspired witnesses in communicating that truth which beyond all tests souls since the rejection of Christ. He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Here however it is the means of communicating the truth rather than the word acting or employed as its standard. As it is a question of edifying, there is no call for such trenchant and solemn appeal. Scripture is no doubt the fullest, most exact, and absolutely reliable means of conveying the mind of God; but His grace uses many other things from the nursery to the dying bed. Among these sound, competent, gracious and intelligent ministry has a capital place. And the apostle's present charge to his beloved associate is really with the view of providing for efficient service in this kind. No man on earth, we may presume, had enjoyed so largely as Timothy the privilege of hearing the greatest of the apostles. Here he is admonished to bear in mind that what he had received was not for himself only but for others, and in order that the best results should be attained by grace through such as had capacity to teach faithfully. In ministry or service of the word it is only fanaticism, not faith, to deny the importance of competency; as we hear the Lord in the parable of His own dealing with His servants, giving talents, sovereignly indeed (to one five, to another two, to another one), yet to each according to his several ability (Matt. 25: 15). It is not that ability is gift, nor that the talents (His goods) are to be confounded, as in popular parlance and even in vain-glorious theology, with the several ability of each servant. Not only does every scripture that treats of the theme speak of "gifts" as wholly differing in source and character from any one's ability, but even in the parable, which learned ignorance regards as abounding in loose drapery, they are distinguished in the clearest way.

We have also to take note of another prevalent misconception of this verse. By many excellent and erudite persons the apostle is supposed here to lay on Timothy the responsibility of ordaining to ecclesiastical office. Now of this there is absolutely nothing said. 1 Tim. 3: 1-7 does present the qualities requisite for an overseer, or bishop; and undoubtedly the bishop must be apt to teach (διδακτικός, though not necessarily a διδασκαλός or teacher). But ruling was characteristically their duty; and so it is said in 1 Tim. 5: 17, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those that labour in the word and teaching." The fallacy is that others might and did not teach who were not elders; which is at direct issue with the facts, words, and principles of the New Testament on this head. Not an expression in our verse 2 enunciates eldership or implies it. The full meaning of the whole and of every part is satisfied by not going beyond faithful men instructed by Timothy, as the apostle directs, so that they might be competent to teach others also.

Let us weigh a little the nice phraseology of the apostle that we may the better appreciate its wisdom as well as its consistency with the truth revealed elsewhere. The apostle had kept back nothing that was profitable from so confidential a companion. He had nearly accomplished his own course and the ministry which he received from the Lord Jesus to testify the gospel of the grace of God. He shrank not from declaring to others not so near nor so honoured as Timothy the whole counsel of God. So here the things which Timothy had heard from him among many witnesses, these he was to commit to faithful men. As the matter testified was not done in a corner, so the apostle had openly brought out the precious truth in the presence of many witnesses. The Lord had already pointed out that men do not put a light in secret, nor under the corn-measure, nor under the bed; the apostle was an unwearied and whole-hearted witness for Christ unto all men of what he had seen and heard, yea and of the things wherein the Lord was to appear to him. And the "many witnesses" among whom Timothy had heard these things from Paul would not only encourage to the greater spread of the truth but confirm the communications made. For here not inspiration is predicated of the many witnesses, but exact information in order to the confirmation and propagation of the truth. If Christ is the true Light, His own also are the light of the world. To be the salt of the earth is not enough, however good: activity in grace is called for — light diffusing itself and dispelling darkness. For this suited vessels are requisite; not learned, nor even educated, but "faithful men". To them was Timothy to entrust what was revealed of God, in order to build up souls and give them an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. Nor as a simple fact is it assumed that faithful men are necessarily men who are able to teach. It is rather "such as" shall be competent to teach others also. All is as simple as it is beautifully precise.

The apostle now resumes what is rather personal than relative, though he gradually enlarges into what is comprehensive as well as of the deepest importance for the servants of Christ.

"Take thy share of suffering hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one on service entangleth himself with the businesses of life, that he may please him that enlisted [him]. But if one also contend [in the games], he is not crowned unless he have contended lawfully. The labouring husbandman must first partake of the fruits" (vers. 3-6).

It will be noticed that the words "thou therefore" disappear. They were in all probability an importation, perhaps, inadvertently, from verse 1, where the emphasis is of intention and moment. Here such an emphasis is not only uncalled for but would be improper. The timid sensitiveness of Timothy wanted the personal appeal to cast him upon the grace in Christ Jesus for inward strengthening; and this very especially in communicating the truth to faithful men such as should be qualified to teach others also. This is ever a delicate task; and one that demands much moral courage and tact which His grace alone can supply, let the competency be what it may. It was therefore emphatically so to Timothy.

Here too, but without any such prominency, Timothy is exhorted to take his share in suffering hardship, but not "with me" as many understand besides the Revised Version. Really it narrows and spoils the force. The Greek warrants only the general thought of sharing ill with his comrades, Paul or any other. It is left purposely large. This association is lost by the false reading of the Received Text, followed by the Authorized Version, as already alluded to. Not personal emphasis but general share is the thought rather than with Paul in particular. Nor does the particular passage in 2 Timothy 1: 8 warrant "with me," but expressly "with the gospel" which is personified by the great apostle. There is the difference however that our verse does not express with whom he was called to share affliction, nor should we supply it. The construction evidently differs from that in the preceding chapter, and the sense is best left in the vague of the original.

But Timothy's share of suffering is defined. It was to be as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. The "fellow-soldier" of the Clermont MS. goes too far, if it be not also irreverent. In an enemy's land who could wonder that Timothy was called to take his share in suffering?

This naturally leads to the more generally applied figure of verse 4. "No one when on campaign entangleth himself in the businesses of life, that he may please him that enrolled him." The force of the allusion is as evident as its universal truth. Who in the Roman empire was ignorant of the fact? No doubt furlough might allow of relaxation, and completed service, of perfect liberty; but to Christ's servant here below is no furlough and no discharge from his duty. Hence the apostle does not speak simply of a "man that warreth" as in the Authorized Version, but of one on actual service, and therefore he can stamp the truth with an absolute negative. "No one when serving entangleth himself with the affairs (or businesses) of life." It is surprising that the Revised Version follows the Authorized alone of all the English versions in the needless qualification of "this life". It is the more improper, because scripture had already appropriated the demonstrative pronoun not to βίος but to ζωή (Acts 5: 20). It would however be a gross error to think that for the servant of Christ this excludes occupation, if he judge under any circumstances that he is called to provide things honest with his hands or his head. The apostle himself is its best refutation. The workman whether in the gospel or in the church is worthy of his hire. But many a valued man may serve Christ either way or in both, who does not give up his so-called secular employment. He might be assured even that the measure of his gift did not create such a claim on the assembly as to warrant it. And even the greatest of labourers felt it his joy and would not have his boast made vain in declining to use his power in the gospel for himself: so penetrated and filled was he with the spirit of that grace in God which is the source of the gospel itself (2 Cor. 11: 7-9). To entangle oneself in the businesses of life means really to give up separation from the world by taking one's part in outward affairs as a bona-fide partner in it. The servant of Christ is bound whatever he does to do it unto the Lord and therefore in conformity with His word. In everything he serves the Lord Christ; nor is this bondage of the law but liberty in the Spirit, though he be the Lord's bondman. As the soldier on campaign has to please him that enrolled his name, so evermore has the Christian servant to please the Lord. He Himself has said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11: 30).

But there is a second illustration of great moment. "And if also one contend in the games, he is not crowned unless he have contended lawfully." What can be conceived more needed or weightier in practice' The servant of Christ is called to be as careful as an athlete; but if so, he is bound to observe the revealed will of the Lord, no less rigorously than those who took their part in the games of Greece. General fidelity ought never to be sought or allowed as a cover for delinquency. Nor can the highest excellence in the highest objects excuse a departure even in small things from truth or righteousness; as he who infringed in any way the law of the games was therefore excluded from the chaplet of victory.

There is a third maxim which has been singularly misunderstood by truly spiritual minds. Yet the structure of the sentence is not really obscure.* The difficulty is due rather to a certain prejudice as to the sense or its application. The figure is taken from agriculture, not from military service nor from the well-known games. The stress is on the "labouring husbandman". The love of Christ must constrain and brotherly love must continue, in order that the servant of Christ persevere unintermittingly in his labours. Hence we find in the former Epistle (1 Tim. 5: 17) that, while the elders that rule well were to be counted worthy of double honour, those are distinguished "especially" that labour in the word and in teaching. So here, where the general service of Christ is in question, the labouring husbandman ought first to partake of the fruits. Impossible that God could deign to be a debtor to any. "Each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour," whether the planter or the waterer or any other (1 Cor. 3: 8). For God is not unrighteous in any case to forget our work and the love shown to His name. But the labour of love has especial value in His sight. This may be in very young saints (1 Thess. 1: 3), no less than the work of faith and the patience of hope. It is most blessed where the servant of Christ is sustained in such labour. "The labouring husbandman ought first (whatever others may, and before all) to partake of the fruits". It is rather a truism that he must labour before partaking of the fruits, or "labouring first must be partaker of the fruits" as the margin of the Authorized Version says. But this is not the sense of the phrase in any grammatical construction of it possible, nor, if it were, could it afford so grave or so cheering a call to the labourer.

* The notion of a transposition of κοπιῶντα πρῶτον is unworthy of Wakefield's Silva Critica i. 155 and not confirmed by Winer's reference to Xenoph. Cyrop. I. iii. 18. And the Ethiopic V. exhibits a loose paraphrase, not a real rendering. The old expositors are as uncertain as most moderns.

Thus in the three maxims of verses 4-6 we have first the object or starting-point; then the ways or means guarded, as well as the end; and lastly encouragement along the road for him who labours in love, as faith does.

The bearing of that which the apostle had just inculcated was of deep meaning and great value, but by no means obvious. Hence it would appear he adds, "Apprehend what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things" (ver. 7). Such is the true text, not "the things which" (ἅ) in detail, as the Text Rec., but "what" (ὅ) as a whole. This makes all the more pertinent the assurance, not prayer merely, which follows, "And the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things," as large in its range as minute in its ramifications. On this he can count who has an unction from the Holy One, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

"Remember Jesus Christ raised out of [the] dead, of David's seed, according to my gospel, in which I suffer unto bonds as an evil-doer: but the word of God is not bound. For this cause I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation, that [is] in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Faithful [is] the word: for if we died together with [Him], we shall also live together; if we endure, we shall also reign together; if we shall deny [Him], He also will deny us, if we are unfaithful, He abideth faithful, for He cannot deny Himself" (vers. 8-13).

The apostle in these verses recalls to the person of Christ, the touchstone and substance of the truth, but to His person according to Paul's gospel bound up indissolubly with His work. "Remember Jesus Christ, of David's seed, raised out of the dead according to my gospel." Christ is at once the object and the fulfilment of the promises, but He is incalculably more. He is raised from among the dead, the Beginning, the First-born of the new creation. He is as thus risen the head of an entirely new system. From first to last this is the teaching of Paul. He affirms of Jesus, the Son of God, that He was born of David's seed according to the flesh. but that He was marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of dead men, as stated in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1: 3, 4).

But here is there not a practical rather than a dogmatic aim before the Spirit of God? Even as Messiah, the Lord Jesus must be risen from the dead. If any one was entitled to earthly honour and glory, it was the Son of David; but, according to Paul's gospel, He passes through death into resurrection. Such is the only mould of blessing, the world and man being as they are. No statement can be stronger. As Head of the church there would be no wonder; but for the Seed of David it is surprising, yet most true. For the church itself has no existence, save on the ground of His being the risen Head, and in heavenly places. In heaven only could the Head be, in order to give a heavenly character to those who are united to Him by the Holy Ghost on earth. But Paul's gospel insists on the great fact of resurrection from among the dead — even for the Messiah. And this alone is true of Him in that character now — He is risen, but not reigning. Much less is the Christian reigning as yet.

On the contrary, after that gospel the apostle says, "I suffer hardship unto bonds, as a malefactor." Things in the world are wholly out of course. Nothing is settled in order according to God, though His providence governs, and every soul is called to be subject to the powers that be. They may reign, and we are commanded to honour the king habitually, as indeed to honour all men passingly; but we are called to forego all thought of honour now for ourselves. We are called to the communion of Christ; it is our proper honour to share in our measure what the apostle suffered so largely. All thought of present ease, of establishment here below, of a constitution settled and stable in the sight of men, violates the truth before us, as indeed every other presentation of it now to the saint, or to the church as a whole. He that had most of true honour as a Christian in the gospel declares that he suffers as a malefactor unto bonds.

In plain contrast with this, we read of the Corinthian saints reigning without the apostle, who speaks there also of God's setting forth "us the apostles" last of all, as men doomed to death (1 Cor. 4: 8, 9). Christ knew the death of the cross as none ever did or could; and Paul was yet to know death, as His faithful martyr. All for him was true. With the Corinthians alas! how much was false. They had slipped in heart from sharing His rejection. Indeed as yet they had scarcely known it. They had received Christ for eternal life and redemption; they as yet knew nothing of dying daily (1 Cor. 15: 31).

So here the apostle solemnly anticipates the danger, for Christians generally, of settling down here below. This is incomparably more serious. Levity of thought and feeling, the power of nature, the activity of the flesh, may be sad in young saints; but immeasurably worse is it, when old saints depart from the high and heavenly standard they have learnt. Such was the danger now, and the apostle is here awakening Timothy to his own anxiety about it. We see the evil in a gross form when the Christian body acquired power and honour and earthly glory in the days of Constantine and his successors; but the mischief was at work extensively, it would appear from this Epistle, at the time the apostle was writing. The power of the resurrection from among the dead meets the evil for all that have ears to hear. It is wholly past as a living thing for those who accept earthly grandeur as a right estate for the Christian now. He who is most right before God must be content to suffer most before men, as the apostle was seen doing unto bonds.

But suffering wrongfully, even unto bonds as a malefactor, did not hinder blessing. "The word of God is not bound." On the contrary, such circumstances attract fresh notice. A class wholly new have their attention drawn to the revelation of God. The name of the Lord comes before magistrates, officials of the law, soldiers, seamen, governors, and perhaps even crowned heads. It may be the world's shame that so it should be, but rejection is the path of the Christian, the true glory of the church, till Jesus reigns. The preacher himself may be a prisoner; "but the word of God is not bound."

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they also may obtain salvation, that [is] in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." Here was a most dauntless heart, and the eye undimmed by present sorrow, for it was single, and his whole body full of light. If Christ loved the elect — Christ Who suffered for their sins, Paul could use language boldly, yet truly, for he shared His love, though it was Christ's alone to "bear our sins in His own body on the tree." No man, no saint, no apostle, shares that atoning work; yet it is not presumption for the feeblest saint to suffer with Him any more that to hope for glorification with Him. If we are children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him that we may be also glorified together (Rom. 8: 17).

But here the apostle goes farther; "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they also may obtain salvation that [is] in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory." How few would venture to say these words as their own souls' experience from that day to this! Nevertheless we may earnestly desire it in our measure; but it supposes in the believer not merely a good conscience and a heart burning in love, but himself thoroughly self-judged, and Christ dwelling in his heart by faith. The apostle openly declares it to Timothy; and surely it was meant to act powerfully on his fellow-labourer's soul, as also on ours. It is not that the salvation of the elect is uncertain: the Lord Jesus will surely guard that according to all His gracious power and the unfailing counsels of God. But as another apostle says, If the righteous is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear? (1 Peter 4: 18). It is indeed with difficulty that the elect are saved, though saved they assuredly will be; but as it needs all the resources of divine grace, so it calls for all the love of Christ in laborious service, and, what is also most effective, it hails the endurance of all things for their sake.

Nor is this all that the apostle has to urge on this theme. "Faithful is the word; for if we died together with Him, we shall also live together; if we endure, we shall also reign together." He does not add as to this word "worthy of all acceptation"; for it is a saying for saints rather than for sinners as such; but the saying, beyond a doubt, is faithful; for "if we died together with Him, we shall also live together." There is no Christian who died not with Christ. It is the very truth which every baptized soul confesses in his baptism, even were he dumb. And it is lack of faith, not lack of speech, which makes it untrue of any.

Accordingly, the apostle is urging, not what is beyond almost any to say, lest it might be presumptuous and vain, but what all that are true must join as the confession of grace and truth from the starting point. It is the hypothetical clause, which is decisive, yet no Christians ought to shrink, nor can they truly shrink, from it; for Christ it was Who, having suffered all, gave all freely. And "if we died with Him," which is indisputable for the believer now, "we shall also live with Him." It is of the bright and blessed future Paul here assures us, though it is equally true that we live now because He lives, or, as it is put elsewhere, Christ lives in us. But here the living with Him remains before us as a hope. Here, and now, we are to bear about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus (2 Cor. 4: 10); by and by it will be nothing but living with Him.

So, "if we endure, we shall also reign together." Here need be no question; it is suffering now, not yet reigning with Him. The reading in some ancient authorities of Rev. 5 or 20 (that the saints reign now) is unequivocal error. It is wrong morally as well as dogmatically. We shall reign with Christ; but even He sits on the Father's throne as yet. He waits to receive His own throne; and so do we much more. Were our hearts right, we should not wish to reign without Him; as we should have a sounder faith, if we held, that He is not reigning yet, but gone to receive a kingdom, and to return. He will come in His kingdom, which He has not yet received. Till then we are called to endure, not to reign; when He shall appear, we shall appear with Him; when He reigns, so shall we with Him.

But there is solemn caution, as well as sure expectation of glory. "If we shall deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He abideth faithful; for He cannot deny Himself." There was danger in a day of declension particularly of departure not only from this or that divine principle but from Himself, and this permanently. Nor does the apostle bolster up the saints in what is the most dangerous of delusions, that there is no danger. For dangers abound on all sides; and we ought to know that grievous times were to come in the last times. Denying the Lord, so far from being impossible for a servant of His, is exactly what scripture shows us to have been the fact in one most honoured, who had thought that for him, of all men, it was impossible; yet was Peter on the eve of it. No doubt this was but a passing act, however shameful and deplorable, however repeated then, and with aggravation; yet the all-overcoming all-forgiving, grace of Christ rose above and effaced it, turning it even to never-to-be-forgotten profit, and fruitful blessing. But where it is a course of life, as here ("if we shall," not merely if we should as an act), the consequence is, as it ought to be, the necessary vindication on God's part of His injured majesty: "He also will deny us." God would cease to be God, if He acquiesced in the dishonour of His Son. The believer bows and believes, adores and serves. The unbeliever, and the denier if possible yet more, may insult now, but both must ere long honour Him in judgment, "that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father" (John 5: 23).

There is a closing sentence of great weight, "if we are unfaithful, He abideth faithful"; and this for the most convincing and glorious of reasons, "for He cannot deny Himself." It may at first hearing seem to take from the ease and flow of the sentence to read "for", as we ought on good and ancient authority. But on reflection this really adds not a little to its force; because it is not a mere independent addition to confirm the foregoing: the ground or proof of His abiding fidelity lies in the blessed feet of His unchanging truth.

Now Paul turns to another class of dangers, not so common, but rising from verbal disputes to profanity and impious daring and corruption of fundamental truth. Some shrink from the least consideration of such snares; but nothing is gained by shrinking from what we ought to face, if our delight be in what is holy, good, and true, instead of curiously prying into evil. It is the light which makes everything manifest; and light we are in the Lord. Light is the congenial element of the new man, as love is its activity.

"Of these things put in remembrance, testifying earnestly before the Lord that they fight not about words, to no profit, for subversion of those that hear. Be diligent to present thyself approved to God, a workman not to be ashamed, cutting straightly the word of truth. But shun profane babblings, for they will advance unto greater ungodliness, and their word will eat up as a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, [men] who concerning the truth went astray, saying that the resurrection hath already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some" (vers. 14-18).

Here Timothy is called not to understand merely but to put others in remembrance of the great vital truths that the apostle has laid down. He is also charged in the sight of the Lord to warn against word-fights, profitable for nothing, and calculated to subvert the hearers. This is a most wholesome caution needed widely and in all ages. There are real differences even among Christians, more or less serious in disguising or perverting the truth, But those who value the truth, especially if there be no aggressive zeal, are particularly apt to fall into distinctions without a difference. Zeal of this sort makes them doughty word-warriors. How true that this is useful for nothing, while it is readily available for subverting those who hear! For the word-warrior knows when to stop, the simple who hear pass on and are punished There is much vanity, and little, if any, sincerity in such disputes; they tend not to edification, but to real and very grave mischief. The charge to Timothy is no less a duty for those who have moral influence in the assembly and seek the Lord's glory there at any time.

But there is also a more positive and personal call in verse 15: "Be diligent to present thyself approved to God a workman not to be ashamed, cutting straightly the word of truth." Example sways more than precept, and those who teach others have especial reason to dread failure or carelessness in themselves. Further, every pious man knows that the first of all obligations is to stand right with God. Timothy therefore was to use diligence to present himself approved to God in the first instance. Where this was not true, his words might be right enough in themselves, but his work would lack blessing, and himself be ever liable to shame. In fact his course would be more or less hypocritical. There could be no courage before the enemy, where the conscience was not good before God. One must seek to be approved alike in conduct and service, approved to God if shame is to be avoided even now. Again, what confidence can there be in drawing out and applying the word of truth with an unwavering heart and hand? The scripture needed might otherwise condemn oneself. A man without conscience might speak out boldly; he that feared God must tremble in blaming another for a wrong which he knew in himself. It is of all importance therefore! that the workman should present himself approved to God: otherwise his testimony cannot but be timid, feeble, and uncertain.

But there may be a further duty as regards the profane babblings of pretentious men, never so self-satisfied as when they err most. This evil had already set in, as the article appears to show. They were not unknown but existing follies among those who bore the name of the Lord. Timothy was not called to occupy himself, still less to engage in controversy, with them. The apostle's word is "avoid" or shun. This again is an exhortation of divine wisdom. Some conscious of ability to dissect and oppose evil are prone to meddle with these vain profanities. It is not wholesome for themselves; it may injure the saints, who valuing the labourers may saturate their minds with these dreary efforts, which as a general rule inflate instead of convincing the guilty parties. To Titus a very similar exhortation is given by our apostle for an analogous evil (Titus. 3: 9). Time is too precious save for that which edifies; and he who undertakes to contend with every evil dreamer may succeed in vanquishing them, but he is in imminent danger of getting serious harm to himself. It is a good thing to be zealously affected in good always; it is not well to turn aside and deal with evil, unless to do so be the sternest duty.

The apostle adds another reason in this case, "For they will advance unto a greater degree of impiety, and their word will eat up as a gangrene." This statement clearly proves the uselessness of meddling with what is not only vain but profane. There was no fear of God in those who so indulged, and the fear of God is the beginning of all that is good for fallen man. Till conscience is reached, it is useless to expect that the precious revelations of God will not be misused; and this is especially true of such as profess to believe the gospel. Guilty of profanity, they need not arguments but repentance. Nor was anything more likely to touch their conscience than that so gentle and gracious a labourer as Timothy should avoid their words. They will advance to further ungodliness, "and their words will eat up as a gangrene." Discussion would rather flatter their self-importance, and could not possibly stay so destructive an evil.

Again, the apostle points out that this frightful evil in the bosom of the saints once, if not any longer, was no imaginary evil to haunt souls, but a fact for salutary fear and horror: "Of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who as to the truth went astray," or literally, missed the mark, saying that "the resurrection had taken place already, and overthrow the faith of some."

It is of deep interest to weigh the character of this error. It was not ignorance of the truth so much as exaggeration. It was the exalting of present privilege to the denial of our hope at Christ's coming. No doubt they piqued themselves on higher truth than others taught, and on superior intelligence. This is an extreme danger for those who have a real thirst and value for the truth of God; if not watchful, they are the most liable to be ensnared.

But the remedy is simple and sure when men cry up their wares as being above all "precious", and therefore depreciate the tried and faithful servants of the Lord as being those teaching on altogether lower ground. The saints will find it invaluable to cleave to the truth they have always received since they knew God, or rather were known of Him. These pretentious claims will sooner or later prove subversive of foundation truth and plain duty. The saints may not be able quickly to discern the worthless or evil character of what vaunts itself; but they do know the treasure they already possess, of which these new views would deprive them. They have only to hold fast the faith, the common faith, which the high teachers despise; and as they thus resist the devil, he will flee from them.

But those by grace endowed with a more discerning eye are permitted to see more. That the resurrection is past already, though put forth as the expression of the highest present privilege, does in fact undermine the truth set forth pre-eminently for help and guidance throughout this Epistle. God saved us with a holy calling according to His own purpose and grace, given us in Christ Jesus before time began. Christ annulled death, and brought life and incorruption to light by the gospel. This we believe and know, not to speak of the mystery of Christ and of the assembly. But these true and blessed privileges are given us, so much the more to suffer with joy and endure in faith and patience now, and wait for Christ and His appearing to bring in His kingdom, when we shall also reign together with Him.

But the error of the resurrection already past is fatal to this endurance meanwhile. It would, if true, entitle us now to reign as kings, to take our ease, to enjoy present honour and glory; and thus it is directly framed and calculated by the enemy to thwart the will of our Lord, Who calls us to share His sufferings till we are glorified together. Hence it is false as a doctrine, it is ruinous for practice, and it destroys all communion with Christ, as sharing His: affections in separation from the world. It would be hardly possible to discover any delusion more opposed to the truth in its character and consequences for the soul and the walk, as well as in counteraction of the moral glory of the Lord. Well can we understand therefore that its teachers "overthrow the faith of some." And if it were so then, how much more widely extended and settled do we find the mischief now, when Christ's coming is no longer before the saints as a constant living hope, and the resurrection of the body is practically nothing to them, satisfied that after death their souls go to heaven! The world becomes then a scene of present enjoyment. Association with a once dead and rejected Christ is unthought of. They flatter themselves that they have attained to a wisdom higher than was known by the apostles in those earlier days, now that they have learnt to enjoy the best of both worlds.

The truth cannot be undermined without the most withering consequences, both morally and ecclesiastically. It is not only communion interrupted between Christ and His own, but divergence from and opposition to His mind, more or less distinctly. Those who undermine may of course be deceived themselves; they may flatter themselves as contributing a higher testimony. But truth is never at issue with truth: in Christ all is in harmony. To say that the resurrection is past already is both the index of the grave heterodoxy at work destructive of our proper hope, while professing to give advance of privilege, and also the ready instrument of deep and rapid progress in evil. For when the resurrection comes, there will be no more need of watching unto prayer, no more endurance of affliction, no more the good fight of faith: all will be settled in power, glory, rest, and enjoyment.

That we are dead and risen with Christ is true and holy, and cannot be too urgently pressed on the believer from first to last of his career; but we, groaning within ourselves, as having the first-fruits of the Spirit, also await the adoption, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8: 23). This will only be at Christ's coming, which the enemy would also conceal and rob us of, the most influential of all hopes for such as love Him and would know the fellowship of His sufferings. How crafty and pernicious then the device which, turning our hope into an expression of high privilege now, would thus annul our heavenly hope, destroy communion and walk, hide Christ from our heart's longing, and make rest in present things a wise and right thing!

Such was the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus: profane babblings truly, and sure to proceed farther in ungodliness, and a very gangrene in its devouring corruption. Such error is the overthrow of faith wherever it is accepted.

"Nevertheless the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, [The] Lord knoweth those that are His; and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness. Now in a great house there are vessels not only of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some unto honour, and some unto dishonour. If one therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, serviceable for the master, prepared unto every good work. But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (vers. 19-22).

It may be well that the reader should know how much speculation has wrought about "the firm foundation of God." Some have conjectured that it is the doctrine of the resurrection, others the promises, some again election. Further, it has been supposed to be the church, or again, with better reason, Christ Himself. But there seems no sufficient ground for defining the foundation in this place. If the Holy Spirit has left it general, why should any seek to limit the thought? The object clearly is to mark what abides firm and of God in the midst of confusion and ruin; and to use that immutable foundation for the comfort and good courage of all who desire to do His will. Doctrines, promises, election, are out of the question; and the church, or the believer, is rather that for which provision is made in the midst of the existing disorder. On the face of it, the house cannot be the foundation; and it seems unreasonable to argue that Christ Himself should be said to have this seal: "The Lord knoweth them that are His"; and "Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Nothing more simple or important if the firm foundation of God be taken in the abstract; those who stand upon it are on the one side comforted, on the other solemnly admonished. The state of things was such that one could no longer suppose all who composed the church to be members of Christ's body. Carelessness had allowed a harvest of weakness and shame; the godly were compelled to fall back on the assurance that the Lord knoweth them that are His, but along with that they could not but press Christian responsibility — "Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

It will be noticed that here it is no question of "Christ". but of "the Lord". "Christ" is the proper expression where grace known and enjoyed is before the heart; "the Lord" as properly comes into use where profession and responsibility hold good. Even if there be no real communion, there can be no doubt that such is the case in the clause before us; and such is the reading of the best and most ancient authorities followed by all modern critics, even though they may have no notion of the difference in the truth intended.

There is, however, a great deal more, and of paramount importance, in that which the apostle adds, "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some unto honour, and some unto dishonour." There we have a living picture of what the church was becoming. How different from the view given in the First Epistle! (1 Tim. 3: 15) There the house of God is said to be the church of the living God, the pillar and stay of the truth. It is the church on earth, God's habitation in the Spirit, as that which alone here below presents and maintains the truth-before all men. The Jews had not the truth, but the law; the Gentiles had only vanities, and corruptions, and dreams of men. The assembly of the living God held forth the truth before all eyes. But now, in the Second Epistle, the influx, not only of ease instead of suffering, and of timidity instead of courage, and of false doctrines, even in fundamentals, gave occasion for the Spirit of God to represent a far different condition. It is not that the Spirit of God has abandoned His seat, but He no longer characterizes the house as that of the living God. It may assume a greater appearance, but there is far more unreality. "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earthenware."

Long before, the apostle (1 Cor. 3: 5) had prepared us for that which might be built even upon Christ Himself. Who among even true servants is like Paul, a wise master-builder? Every one therefore should take heed how he builds thereon. One might build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones; another, on the contrary, might build upon it wood, hay, stubble; too many, a mixture of both. And the day shall declare, as the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. That which abides is proved to be acceptable to God, that which cannot stand the fire will be so far loss to the workman, even though he himself shall be saved. Here in the Second Epistle to Timothy the apostle is looking not at the process but at the result. In a great house there are not only precious vessels but the commonest — "and some unto honour, and some unto dishonour." God's house therefore is here regarded as reduced to a human comparison. It was becoming just like what we find among men on the earth; it has no longer that exclusively divine stamp which one used to expect in God's house. Failure in many ways has vitiated the testimony; and the result is that mixture which is so abhorrent to God and to those who love His will and Himself.

What is to be done then? Are we to accept His dishonour, and to lie down in despair? Or must one be bound hand and foot to unity, and to shut one's eyes to all the sin and shame? A lowly-minded saint would feel bitterly the dilemma, and could not satisfy his soul by verbal protests against the evil he was sanctioning by his actual life and ways. In such a state it is well to humble one's self, and like Daniel to confess the sins of all one is associated with, as well as one's own sins. But is this all? Thank God, it is not; the apostle immediately gives precise and authoritative direction. The most timid need not fear to follow; the heart most oppressed is entitled to be of good cheer; and those who cleave to the allowance of evil under the plea of not breaking unity are rebuked and confounded by the apostle's call, "If one therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour".

When the assembly is in its normal condition, and an evil-doer, however gross, is among the saints, the word is, "Put away from among yourselves the wicked person" (1 Cor. 5: 13). But here it is the converse. Evil may prevail in an assembly, and the moral sensibility be so low that the mass refuse to purge out the old leaven: the vessels unto dishonour have influence enough to remain in spite of all efforts for their removal. What then? The apostle commands that the God-fearing man should purge himself from them. This meets the conscience if it were of only one; but the self-same principle, it is plain, applies to all who discern the evil, after patient waiting on the assembly and every scriptural means also employed in vain to rouse the conscience. At bottom it is evidently the same principle of separation from evil which in 1 Cor. 5 is applied to put the evil-doer out. In 2 Tim. 2 it is a far more developed case where the well-doer, having striven without effect to correct the evils sustained within, is bound to purge himself out. Impossible that the Spirit of God would seal evil under the name of the Lord Jesus. We are unleavened as surely as Christ our passover was sanctified for us. "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1 Cor. 5: 8). The assembly which professes to be of God cannot bind Christ and known evil together. If any therefore bear the Lord's name, who, under the plea of unity, in the love of ease, or through partiality for their friends, tolerate the evil which scripture shows to be hateful to God, a godly man has no option, but is bound to hear the divine word and to purge himself from these vessels to dishonour.

Doubtless this application of God's immutable holiness to guide the saint in these sad and difficult circumstances is a novel one. The apostle only gave it in the last Epistle he ever wrote. The reason is manifest: no occasion as yet had risen to call for so serious a word. Disorders had often been, and some of extreme character; but hitherto the saints, however faulty, had broken down, and obedience at last had prevailed. No need had ever existed for a just abandonment of those who had walked together in the assembly. But here the Spirit of God brings before the apostle's eyes a new and still more appalling result of the increasing power of evil: Whenever vessels to dishonour are forced on our acceptance, we have no choice: the honour of the Lord is above all other considerations; and, whether it be the most valiant, or the most timid, we are alike called to obey the apostle's command which applies to this state. Let us only be sure that the evil does really call for absolute separation; and, further, that patient and godly remonstrance are duly applied to get the evil judged, rather than to separate. But if it be sheltered and sustained to the dishonour of the Lord and His word, there is no alternative but to purge oneself out.

In these circumstances, to give up conscience is in effect to give up God and His Christ; humbly but firmly to purge oneself from the vessels of dishonour is to be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, serviceable for the Master, prepared unto every good work. So it is ever found in experience: godly separation costs much but gains more. He that separates lightly for a mere idea or for reasons of his own is but sounding brass, and gathers profit for neither himself nor anyone else; yea, he is a standing reproach against the Lord and His word where it truly applies. But the saint who purges himself out with the deepest pain to himself and godly sorrow for others, and the rather because he believes them to be the Lord's, enters into fresh blessing, and renews, as it were, all that is proper to a saint, with fresh power to his own soul. "He shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, serviceable for the Master, prepared unto every good work." Such an assurance is the more comforting, because he must make up his mind for the keenest shafts from those he has left behind, as well as from all who confound easy indifference with love for the church of God. Besides, he might dread a narrow circle for his affections, and a contracted sphere for his work. How gracious that the Lord should forestall all these apprehensions and give him the promise, if he have gone through the great trial with God, of enlargement of heart in all that is for His glory!

It may be noticed that there is no such thought as quitting the house, though some have fallen into this misconception in their zeal for holiness. But we could not, and would not, so long as we bear the Lord's name. An apostate no doubt has abandoned His name. But to purge one's self from vessels to dishonour is here laid down as a positive duty, and, so far from being presumption, it is simple obedience to the word of the Lord if done rightly. It is therefore the path of true and divinely given humility, whatever be the terrorism sought to be exercised by those who seek dominion over the faith of the saints. Purging oneself from evil-doers within the house is not to leave the house, but to walk there as one ought according to scripture.

So it was at the Reformation. Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, Cranmer, did not leave the house of God when they rejected the mass, the worship of the saints, the authority of the pope, and other evil doctrines and practices. On the contrary, they were learning, however slowly and imperfectly, to renounce what disfigured that house, and was most antagonistic to Him Who dwelt there. It was only the gross bigoted ignorance of Romanists which taxed them with leaving the house of God. The papal party assumed, as other pretenders are apt to do, that they exclusively form that house; whereas, as far as the Reformation went, the godly among the Protestants sought to purge themselves from vessels to dishonour, while the Romanists crave only the more pertinaciously to the evil, and thus became increasingly guilty. But both were in the house all the same; only some more acceptably to God, others more offensively, than before.

The principle applies no less when the godly amongst Protestants and Romanists began to discern the true character of the church, and the wrong done by prevalent error and evil practice, not merely to the members, but to the Head of the body. This led, through a better knowledge of the written word, to the distinct conviction of the injured rights of the Holy Ghost in the assembly as well as in ministry. And those who were thus taught of God clearly saw that they must carry out the truth in faith practically, and so seek to glorify the Lord. It were wretched and ungrateful to grieve the Spirit by treating all they had learnt as mere ideas for discussion or criticism of existing thoughts and ways. But by thus acting faithfully as far as they knew, did they thereby leave the house? The very reverse; they were only striving, in deference to scripture and in dependence on the Lord, to behave themselves better in that house. Christendom is not given up by walking more according to God's will in the true path for Christians, whether individually or corporately. And the self-same principle is no less valid at any time, no matter how truly gathered the saints may once have been. Vessels to dishonour cannot enjoy Christ's sanction, and ought to be intolerable to the faithful. "If one purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel to honour."

But the tendency is great to press this searching truth on others, and to claim, without saying so, an immunity for ourselves: so readily does the assembly slip away from the faithfulness of the Lord when really leaned on, to set up a gradually growing plea of indefectibility. For faith degenerates into superstition the more rapidly as spirituality declines, love decays, knowledge becomes more self-complacent, and forms displace reality. A new and pettier Rome soon develops and is cried up as the only right thing. Yet the truth abides for the Spirit to use for Christ's glory, whenever the eye is, or is made, single. We are bound, if we would please Him, to sift ourselves by His word even more rigidly than others.

Nor does the apostle forget personal dangers when one might be pre-occupied with public evils: "But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (ver. 22). It is of high moment, especially in the circumstances of clearing ourselves from what ensnares many a saint, and perhaps had ensnared ourselves too more or less in times past, that we should not give occasion to them that seek it. In vain do you testify against that which is ecclesiastically offensive to God, if you fail in conduct plainly enough to be seen by those virtually censured by you. Hence the care of Paul to urge earnestly on Timothy to beware of that which might hinder or trouble, and the rather then and thus. Lusts youthful must be shunned, not only worldly or carnal but "youthful", such as impetuosity, self-confidence, levity, impatience, or the like. Nor is it enough to watch against what elders might chiefly resent: he was to pursue practical consistency or righteousness, to walk in faith, not mere human prudence or policy, to hold fast love, not selfish interests, and to maintain peace, not allow strife nor push for his own will.

But more, he is encouraged to do all this in personal association and mutual action "with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart". I cannot agree with a German's suggestion (followed by Alford, Ellicott, et al.) to remove the comma after "peace," so as to separate "with those that call . . ." from the verb, "follow", and connect it only with the substantive "peace", immediately preceding. Heb. 12: 14 has no real analogy with the clause; for to limit the pursuance of peace to those that so call on the Lord would give the poorest possible sense, as being such as presented the least strain. Not so: the faithful man, if he purged himself from vessels to dishonour, and walked in self-judgment and cultivation of ways pleasing to the Lord, is cheered with the prospect of companionship in his path. He need not fear isolation, as he loves the communion of saints. God will not fail to work in those whose hearts are cleansed by faith. Let him then pursue that path, not doubting but with good cheer. He will not be alone; he is to follow after the way that is acceptable to God "with those that call on the Lord with a pure heart," i.e., true-hearted saints, in contrast with the promoters or defenders of pravity in word or deed.

Thus is the will of the Lord made plain for a day of ruin. It is not for the faithful to abide in evil with empty protests, after the resources of patience are exhausted. It would be presumption in the face of scripture to stay in the vain hope of mending that which is publicly maintained and justified. The unmistakable call of God is to purge oneself out, and, carefully watching against one's own dangers, to follow the path of righteousness, faith, love, peace, not in pride or carelessness of isolation, but in the fellowship of the like-minded that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

From instruction on a large scale so impressive and opportune from that time and ever after, the apostle returns to exhortations of a more personal kind which none the less abide for us in all their value.

"But foolish and ignorant questionings avoid, knowing that they beget contentions. And a bondman of [the] Lord must not contend, but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing, in meekness instructing those that oppose, if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgment of truth, and they may wake up out of the snare of the devil, taken as they are by him, for His will" (vers. 23-26).

Earlier disputes, as in Romans 14-15, were very different, and far more respectable morally. For they arose chiefly from respect for Old Testament revelation in souls long familiar with the habits formed by it, and who were more or less jealous of that liberty which the Gentiles had entered with joy from their debasing servitude to idols. But the Greek mind, used to the frivolous discussions of philosophy, when not fully emancipated from mere intellectual activity, or not really kept in subjection to God's word, proved a fertile source of danger and evil, even to those not beguiled by such heterodoxy as had been exposed in verses 14-18. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ feeds the soul, lets in the bright light of God, draws out worship, and issues in fruitful ways of goodness and righteousness. Not so "the foolish and ignorant (or uninstructed) questionings", which Timothy is here enjoined to eschew. Nor could any words characterize these debaters more truly in themselves, or more cuttingly for such as indulged in or admired this mischievous trifling in the things of God; just as infidels wince under the proofs of their irrationalism, and sceptics smart when their credulity is made manifest.

The article is here apparent, though it cannot well stand in an idiomatic English version; it supposes the well-known custom of those alluded to, fruit of their will and self-confidence.

But the apostle appends a consequence greatly to be reprobated by one who loves the peace of the saints and seeks their edification. Such questionings "beget contentions," or fights. This is natural enough among men: human will breaks out in this way, yea, takes pleasure in strife for the mastery. Whence come wars, and whence fightings among you? says James. Is it not thence — from your pleasures which war in your members? (James 4: 1). At bottom, it is the spirit of the world at enmity with God. Among those that bear the Lord's name it is deplorable, a witness really against Him instead of to Him and of Him. Yet the very earnestness of conviction may expose to the danger, where Christ is not before the eye, and we hang not on His grace. Let us never forget that grace and truth came by Him, not one or other only, but both. If grace is a snare when divorced from truth, truth fails to win apart from grace; it may even repel and harden: how much more the foolish and ignorant questionings which beget contention! They promote Satan's aims, not the interests of Christ.

"But", further, "a bondman of the Lord must not contend [or fight], but be gentle towards all." So the Lord had taught and practised; and the disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher, and must expect, not return, similar ways in word and deed. But are not some so trying as to deserve snubbing, at the least? He ought to be "gentle towards all;" for it is not a question of human disagreeableness, but of presenting Christ duly. It is easy enough to wound or overthrow a man; but what if it grieves the Holy Spirit of God and dishonours Christ? Are we, as we should be, resolved to bear in patience and to win in the irresistible might of meekness?

Again, he is to be "apt to teach". Many saints are dull of heart to receive fresh truth, and to distinguish things that differ. It is natural to censure, and for some even to ridicule. Aptness to teach supposes not ability in the word only, but love to the saints, and faith in the Lord Jesus Who is served. This one has to cultivate; for the trials and the difficulties are enough to make one weary. Having the Lord before us encourages the heart. How much He has had to bear with even in the most faithful!

"Forbearing" therefore most appropriately follows. For it is sad to think of the uppishness of some, of the ingratitude of others, not to speak of positive evil returned for good in the service of the saints. But is not the service of the Master well worth all trouble even now? And what unexpected blessing He gives by the way! And what joy and glory at His coming!

Accordingly, it is well to seek grace that one be found "in meekness instructing those that oppose." For none other was the path of Christ, and in this way only can one hope to correct those that set themselves as antagonists. This alone may disarm them; grace is pleased so to work. And the apostle puts this as a possible and desired contingency, "if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgment of truth."

This last phrase occurs in the First Epistle (1 Tim. 2: 4), as also in the Second more than once (2 Tim. 3: 7), and always in this anarthrous form. The reason is not that the preposition (εἰς or any other) gives licence to omit the article where otherwise it would be required, which is a most unreasonable and even a barbarous notion, though, as we all know, it is laid down by Bp. Middleton in his able "Doctrine of the Greek article", and endorsed by commentators so respectable as the late Dean Alford and Bp. Ellicott, to say nothing of one so loose on this as Winer. It is an error, notwithstanding, which every portion of the New Testament, of the Septuagint, and of all Greek literature refutes, as any scholar may discover by bringing a single chapter closely to the test. The omission of the article depends on a principle wholly independent of the preposition: only the absence of the Greek article in such a construction is more frequent than elsewhere, because prepositions are used very often where character is intended, rather than a definite object set before the mind. Where the latter is meant, with or without a preposition, the article must appear; where the aim is characteristic, it has no place; and such is the case in the phrase before us.

But it may be profitable to speak briefly of "repentance"; for it goes far more deeply than many think. It is rather a moral question than a mental one, though no doubt there is a change of mind of the utmost gravity. But in repentance the soul is subject to God. His word judges, instead of being judged. There is therefore a moral revolution in the heart which takes God's side against itself, and condemns not only the acts of evil which rise before the conscience, but the entire ground and state of being which gave rise to them. Repentance, therefore, is as distinctly towards God, as faith is towards our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is in fact exalted by God's right hand to give repentance as well as remission of sins (Acts 5: 31; Acts 20: 21). Acknowledgment of truth follows as the fruit of repentance, without which neither truth is divinely received, nor has its acknowledgment any value in God's sight. Life, eternal life, is from God, and in His Son.

This, then, the Lord's servant was to seek "in meekness", not setting down, which quick wit and stubborn will would naturally effect, but setting right, as grace loves to do, if it may be with those who oppose themselves; to get rid of persons, even though troublesome, does not occur to his patient mind. Nevertheless such opposition is most serious; and the apostle lets us see this by that which he subjoins immediately — "and they may awake up out of the snare of the devil, taken captive as they are by him, for His will."

This is a remarkably complicated sentence, and saints eminent in godliness and scholarship have understood it very differently. Thus the Authorized Version stands by no means alone in treating the words as referring only to the enemy; so the Syr. and Vulgate, followed by Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish. The Revised Version on the other hand, with Wetstein, Bengel, Wakefield, and Mack, though slightly differing otherwise, supposes not one agent to be in question, but three, the devil, the Lord's servant, and God. Their version accordingly of verse 26 is, "And they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him (the Lord's servant) unto the will of God." In their margin they give that which appears to be the truer sense, "by the devil" (not the Lord's servant) unto the will of God; and so the Geneva Version, Alford, Ellicott, Hammond, Wells, et al. The two pronouns in the Greek, being different, naturally, though not necessarily, point to two parties: but to bring in "the Lord's servant" here seems as forced as the reference to the enemy is simple and consistent, though Dr. Bloomfield, I see, thinks "so violent a construction is utterly inadmissible"! So Beza prefers (in his note to the fourth edition, 1588), though he translated as others, lest he might seem somewhat bold in a matter so sacred, "ne videri possem in re tam sacra audaculus." In his fifth edition, 1598, he corrects his translation thus, "et sanitate mentis recepta ex diaboli laqueo, ab eo captivi facti, convertantur ad illius voluntatem." All doubt henceforward disappears from his note.

2 Timothy 3

The word-disputes, the profane babblings, with greater impiety in the vista, the heterodoxy of some who said that the resurrection had taken place already, the great house becoming more and more characterized by vessels to dishonour, which made separation from them imperative, the foolish and uninstructed questionings which begat contentions, and whatever betrayed the snare of the devil, gave occasion to the solemn announcement with which chapter 3 opens: — "But this know, that in [the] last days grievous times shall be there" (ver. 1).

Let us weigh a little at length its import and bearing, as well as the general testimony of the New Testament; for as, on the one hand, no statement can well be more at issue with the prevalent judgment of mankind, and even with the cherished expectations of God's children in our days, so, on the other hand, next to fundamental truth individual and corporate, the just and true estimate of what is going on, and how it is to end — whether in progress toward triumphant blessing, or in course of the most humiliating and guilty declension from God to meet His unsparing judgment — is most momentous. Nor does scripture leave the least solid ground for doubt on the question. The difference morally is complete; for it affects the habitual aim of our labour and testimony, as well as the character of our intercourse with God, whether in or out of communion with His mind. Faith in our Lord and His work is no doubt the essential thing; but a mistaken expectation damages the soul indefinitely in proportion to its influence. It is the hope of a man which mainly determines his practical life. He is what his heart is set upon.

Now the scripture before us is most explicit. Difficult or grievous times were to set in; not "perilous" merely, as in the Authorized and all the older English versions, as well as the Rhemish (faithful to the Vulgate). The times are so characterized because of iniquity abounding under a fair Christian show, "a form of godliness" with a real denial of its power. Can one conceive of a state more repugnant to Him Who dwells in the assembly? or more pregnant with difficulty for a godly man to judge and in which act aright? He hates presumption, he seeks humility, he loves his brethren, he is bound to be faithful to Christ, and he cannot go on with evil, individual or collective. It is a strait of times truly for heart and conscience.

And this trying condition for the Christian is declared to ensue "in [the] last days." Winer (Greek Gr. N. T. iii. xix.) attempted to account for the omission of the article as usual, by setting it down as one of a most miscellaneous class of words which dispense with its insertion. One is surprised to see how easily men like Dean Alford and Bp. Ellicott are satisfied with an evasion so irrational and transparent. For that long list of words comes under the invariable principles of the language; and insertion of the article in each instance can be shown no less than omission; so that the statement of the case is not only partial, but misleading. The true solution is that Greek regularly, far more than English, exhibits the anarthrous form when the design is to designate a characteristic state rather than a positive fact, place, condition, person, or date. The article here would have made the period too restricted; its absence enlarges the sphere, as the Holy Spirit intended, Who knew the end from the beginning. We in our tongue can hardly avoid saying, "The last days"; but the Greek could express himself more accurately than those who are compelled to use the same expression for what may be less or more definite.

The phrase plainly covers the closing days of the Christian economy, however long God may be pleased to protract them, the time generally which precedes the coming of the Lord, when an end will be put to the present ways of God, and the kingdom will come in displayed power and glory. Waterland's suggestion of "at the end of the Jewish state" is as he puts it a mistake*; for it is at the approaching end of the Christian profession, as well as of the Jewish. If the Jews believe not yet, Christians ought to be expecting the return of the kingdom to Israel in God's due time, when our Lord appears to receive the homage and blessing of the godly remnant, about to become thenceforth a strong as well as holy nation, His first-born son elect here below. But as there were incipient workings of the evil already apparent to Him Who inspired Paul to write thus to Timothy, we can the better feel how much more correct is the anarthrous construction employed, than if the insertion had fixed it exclusively to the days immediately preceding our Lord's future advent.

* Rightly understood, the judgment of Israel, of the Gentiles and of Christendom takes place about the same time in the consummation of the age, as our Lord shows in Matt. 24, 25; and to this agree Gen. 49: 1; Num. 24: 14; Deut. 4: 30; Deut. 31: 29, Job 19: 25; Isaiah 2: 2 Ezek. 38: 16, Dan. 2: 28, Dan. 10: 14, Dan. 12: 13, Micah 4: 1, in all of these passages the "latter" or "last days" are foretold.

In the preceding Epistle (1 Tim. 4: 1-3) a prophetic warning had been given, but of evil quite distinct in time, character, and extent, from what we have here. Instead of "last days", the Spirit spoke expressly of later, or after, times, i.e., times subsequent to the apostle's writing. Instead of a widespread condition of "men" in Christendom, he there spoke of "some" only. The language suits and supposes but few comparatively; which only controversial zeal could have overlooked or converted into a prediction of the vast if not worse inroad of Romanism. It is a description of certain ones to depart from the faith into fleshly asceticism, paying heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars branded in their own conscience, forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats which God created to be received thankfully. This was a high-flown abuse of grace to deny the creature, and to dislocate the God of grace from the God of creation and law; but the followers are carefully discriminated from the more daring and corrupt misleaders. Gnosticism is the real evil aimed at, even then beginning to work, as we may gather from 1 Timothy 6: 20 in the same communication to Timothy. But limited as it stands in the word, and as it became in fact, it discloses how the Spirit of God guards us, if we heed scripture, from anticipating victory for the gospel, and how He rather prepares us for defection to God's dishonour.

But in 2 Tim. 3: 1 the view is a larger field, not of course to the exclusion of faithful and godly souls, where the eye traverses a general state of decadence from the power of grace and truth, where, as we shall see when we come to the scrutiny of details, those that bear the name of the Lord, and are therefore responsible to walk as dead unto sin and alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord, return as a general description to what the Gentiles were before they heard and professed to believe the gospel. It is the counterpart of the great house in 2 Tim. 2: 20, wherein are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also wooden and earthenware, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. Here, however, we have, not a symbolic figure, but a plain matter-of-fact account of a return to heathenism practically. Even the Corinthians, low as they had sunk, are reproached by the apostle with carnality and with walking "as men", instead of as children of God in the power of the Spirit Who dwelt in them. Here those spoken of are "men", with the guilt of indifference to, and repudiation of, all the savour of Christianity, while still retaining its form. From such, however little developed then, Timothy was called to turn away: how much more, when all is out in the full display of evil, should a faithful man turn away now?

Yet 2 Thess. 2: gives us to descry very far worse at hand. We ought not to be deceived in any manner, whatever the success of false teachers with some of the Thessalonian saints so young in the faith as they were. We know that the Lord is coming Who will gather us together, sleeping or alive, unto Himself, and therefore we need not be quickly shaken in mind, nor yet troubled by any power or means, to the effect that the day of the Lord is present. We know that it cannot be unless first there have come "the apostasy" — not a falling away, as substantially in all the well-known English Versions as well as the Authorized. It is not "discencioun" (Wiclif), nor "a departynge" (Tyndale), as Cranmer's Bible repeats in 1539, and the Geneva in 1557, nor "a revolt", as in the Rhemish of 1582. It is "the apostasy", and nothing else: worse there cannot be, unless it be the person who is its final head in direct antagonism to God and His anointed, the man of sin, the son of perdition, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the Spirit of His mouth and destroy with the manifestation of His presence.

"The apostasy" is a general state though one is far from denying that there will be even then godly ones, some to suffer unto death, and acquire a heavenly degree, and others to escape for ulterior purposes of divine blessing and glory here below. But the apostasy means Christianity abandoned, and witness for God put down all but universally, in the sphere of Christian profession. Now this is the state, issuing in the boldest claim ever to be made on earth of Messianic place and divine glory, which immediately precedes the shining forth of the Lord Jesus from heaven, allotting vengeance to those who know not God (Gentiles), and to those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus (Jews).

Here we carry on the clear, harmonious, and ever accumulating proof that the Holy Spirit thus far bears witness, not of increasing good and ultimate earthly triumph for the gospel and the church here below, but (whatever the gracious and active work of God ordinarily, and especially at certain great epochs of blessing) of evil growing and irremediable generally, till at last it sinks so low that the mass abandon even the name and form of Christian profession in the apostasy; and the Antichrist, the last head of towering hostility to God, rises so high that the Lord appears from heaven with the angels of His power, and in flaming fire, to exact as penalty everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might. The expectation of good prevailing over the world as the result of human means before the Lord appears is not only a dream of vanity, but that which reverses the awful picture which scripture presents of things becoming worse beyond example and imperatively calling for divine judgment, after which only is the knowledge of Jehovah to cover the earth as the waters cover the sea

The Lord indeed had already decided the question both parabolically and prophetically. For what is the instruction as to this of the wheat field in Matt. 13: 24-30; 36-43? While men slept, the enemy of him who sowed good seed in his field sowed darner there; and the mischief done from early days was irremediable by man: only divine judgment can deal with it aright. Now the field is the world under the kingdom of the heavens, the Son of man being exalted, and the devil His enemy, who insinuates fatal mischief, legality, ritualism, gnosticism, asceticism, heresy, antichrists, Romanism or Babylon, and other evils, through his sons; all which causes of stumbling or offence cannot be got rid of till the Son of man shall send His angels in the completion of the age (not "the end of the world", which altogether misleads, for "the age" closes more than a thousand years before "the world").

Hence it irresistibly follows that the Lord predicts the continuance of hopelessly prevalent evil within the sphere of Christian profession till in the consummation of the age, He employ His angels to execute judgment on the quick, and diabolical and all other evils are thus cleared out of His kingdom, while the righteous shine forth in the kingdom of their Father. For all things are to be headed or summed up in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth — in Him in Whom also we obtained an inheritance, being heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ (not His mere inheritance like Israel here below) (Eph. 1: 10, 11; Rom. 8: 17). The notion of good reigning in the world at any time under the gospel or the church, is as false as that righteousness shall not reign when He takes the kingdom in manifest glory over the earth, and the new age begins long before eternity in the full sense of a new heaven and a new earth. No wonder therefore that we read of grievous times in the last days which precede wrath from heaven.

And what again did the Lord intimate of the moral state before the Son of man comes in His day, to speak only of His prophecy in Luke 17: 22-37? "And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed."

It is clear that the Lord compares the state of men (careless, selfish, godless, guilty, dead also to what He, the rejected Messiah, had suffered for their sake) to that which brought on the two most solemn judgments which Genesis records at the deluge and at the destruction of Sodom by fire. Will the revelation of the Son of man in His day be less righteously called for? No; the last days of the Christian era are to be times of excessive, abounding, and audacious lawlessness as well as impiety, when longer patience on God's part is impossible, and the time is arrived in His counsels for displacing the first man of sin, weakness, and shame by the Second, exalted over all creation in visible power and glory on His own throne, as He is now in heaven on the Father's throne.

It is notorious that theologians are not found wanting — indeed their name is Legion — to blunt the sword in their hands by misapplying our Saviour's words, some to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, others to the end of the world when the Lord sits on the great white throne. One representative man, who need not be named, as remarkable for the splendour of his oratory as alas! for the deadly error against Christ's person into which he was betrayed, sought to comprehend with these two events the Lord's appearing in the judgment of the quick. But scripture is not thus limber and indefinite, as falsehood loves to make it, but living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword. It cuts on one side and guards on the other, as is evident in this instance, where the nice discrimination between the two men and the two women (Luke 17: 34, 35) respectively is incompatible with either the ruthless slaughter of the Romans, or the universal standing of all the dead to be judged at the end. The judgment of the quick at the Lord's appearing will be in truth as sudden and vivid "as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven." This applies in no way to Titus' invasion, which notoriously allowed the believing Jews to escape, as even Luke 21: 20-24 distinguishes it carefully from the Son of man coming afterwards on a cloud with power and great glory. To confound the latter, like Luke 17: 22-37, with Titus' sack, is no true exegesis, but abject and unmistakable confusion; and so it is with the wholly contrasted circumstances of Rev. 20: 11-15, when there will be no question of returning to home or field, no difference at the bed or the mill. The Lord here refers exclusively to the day of His appearing to judge living man on the earth, and the Jews especially; and His words leave no room for progress in good but in evil before that day.

The personal followers and inspired servants of our Lord do not speak differently. Because of prevalent evil, corruption, and violence, James exhorts, "Have patience therefore, brethren, till the coming of the Lord . . . "Behold, the Judge standeth before the door" (James 5: 7, 9). They were therefore to take, as an example of suffering and of having patience, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. It was not to be a time of triumph for right outwardly till the Lord come. The days were evil, the last days grievous times. Those who endured we call blessed. This is the very reverse of righteousness at ease and in present honour.

Peter, in his Second Epistle especially, is still more explicit: "There arose false prophets also among the people, as there shall be also among you false teachers, who shall privily bring in heresies of destruction, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Peter 2: 1). The evil characteristics, with solemn warning, are set forth at length throughout chapter 2; and in 2 Peter 3: 3, 4, Peter adds that "in the last of the days, mockers shall come with mockery, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." Even now, materialism and mockery prevail among men of the world surprisingly; still more according to the apostle will they be stamped just before the day of the Lord. There is wondrous long-suffering of God in saving even such; but the day will surely come with condign vengeance on Christendom, thus drinking itself drunk on the basest dregs of positivism and impious raillery. Grievous times then in the last days!

Jude, brother of James, depicts the evil in colours darker if possible than Peter; for he in the Spirit fastens his eyes, not merely on the unrighteousness to prevail as the time of the world's judgment draws near, but on thankless apostasy from the highest privileges of divine goodness, "turning the grace of our God into dissoluteness, and denying our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 4). Nothing can be more tremendous than this short Epistle as a whole, nothing plainer than his identifying those before the eyes of the saints as just the class of whom Enoch prophesied as objects of the Lord's judgment: "But ye, beloved, remember the words spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they said to you, that at the end of the time there should be mockers walking according to their own lusts of ungodliness" (vers. 17, 18). Can anything be more certain than that this holy witness warns of grievous times in the last days? To be set with exultation blameless before the divine glory at Christ's coming is the hope, not the church nor the gospel triumphing on the earth previously.

There remains but one more to cite; and "the disciple whom Jesus loved" writes with at least equal plainness of speech: "Little children, it is the last hour, and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have come many antichrists, whence we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2: 18). This is assuredly incontrovertible. The antichrist will be the chief object of the Lord's consuming and annulling judgment when He shines forth in His day; but the many antichrists even then doing their destructive and malignant work proceed without a break, till the judgment He will execute clears the scene for the reign of righteousness and peace. It is not that grace meanwhile does not save and associate with Christ on high. For "as is the Heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly; and as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly" (1 Cor. 15: 48, 49). The cross morally closed the hope and history of the earth in relation to God, the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven giving a final appeal: this rejected, all henceforth is bound up with Christ in and for heaven, to which the gospel calls all who now believe. And the world, and especially the world-church Babylon, becomes the object of God's judgment to be executed by the Lord when He appears, as we have shown by overflowing but not yet exhausted testimony. It is when the iniquity is full that the blow falls. The times are grievous now, how much more so before that day?

We have now to enter on the detailed examination of the evil characters which the apostle points out as impressing on the last days the stamp of "grievous times". The first and last words are remarkably and painfully instructive. It is Christendom which comes before us; yet those bearing the Lord's name can only be designated as "men", morally as corrupt and violent as the heathen (compare Rom. 1: 29-31), if not so gross, yet having a form of godliness while they have denied its power.

"For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, uncontrolled, fierce, haters of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, having a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof; and from these turn away" (vers. 2-5).

If the Holy Spirit has thus minutely qualified the evils which render the times grievous, to me it does not seem reverent to pass them over sicco pede,* as if His designations were either intelligible on the surface, or unworthy of deep meditation for our better profit. Far more to be admired than this levity of the Genevese Reformer is the spirit of one in our own day who devoted an entire treatise to the laudable endeavour that we should learn what the apostle would have Timothy to know; and the rather, as the days in which we live display in a far more developed degree the dark features, which in the germ were even of old coming to view.

* Sicco pede means dry-footed, that is, passing on without wading in to solve the difficulties.

The apostle had laid down other things of prime importance; but Timothy was "to know this also", and assuredly we know imperfectly what we only apprehend in a dim and hazy light. He who writes to us with the utmost precision would have us read and study with attention. The practical duty ("and from these turn away"), can be but imperfectly discharged if we are not clear who and what the characters are whom one is thus called to have done with. We are bound so to discern, not in one case only, but in each and all, that there be no mistake. If charity may plead, holiness and obedience are imperative, and especially with such as may fairly be charged, in measure like Timothy, with care for sound doctrine, and order, and godliness.

"For men shall be lovers of self." Such is the opening characteristic, so grievous to the Lord and His own in those bearing His name. Justly does it hold the first place in this list of Christ-dishonouring professors; for it is a very mother of evils, as it directly contravenes the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning His children. Christ died for all indeed; but the moral end was that those who live (whatever others do who remain dead) "should henceforth not live unto themselves, but unto Him Who for them died and rose again" (2 Cor. 5: 15). "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13: 34, 35). For "every one that loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God when we love God and keep His commandments, and His commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5: 1-3).

Thus, loving God proves that we truly love His children;, as obeying His commands proves that we truly love God. So the first condition of discipleship, if we hear our Lord (Matt. 16: 24, Mark 8: 34), is denying self, the clean contrary of loving it. Oh, what a pattern in Him Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor that we through His poverty might become rich! Fully do I admit that such love as we are called to is not the original unfallen condition of Adam, still less of course the hateful and hating state of man now; it is what we see and know in the Second Man, the last Adam; it is to be imitators of God, as dear children, and to walk in love as the Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour (Eph. 5: 1, 2). As having put on the new man and sealed with the Holy Spirit of God, no other standard could be set before us; in awful contrast with which stand lovers of self, and so much the more sadly, if baptized to Christ's name and death.

Say not that self reigns only outside among the profane; show me where it does not reign among true believers throughout Christendom. The world loves its own, says the Lord: is this as true of His members scattered as they are in parties, national and dissenting, each the rival of the other? And this false position with its isolating effect has told powerfully on souls to wither all true sense of unity on earth, and to hold out mere progress of party, or at best labour for individual blessing instead of the glory of Christ in the church which is His body.

Next, they shall be "lovers of money." Let believers hear the judgment of one who scanned their ways not untruly, though with no friendly eyes: "As far as we are enabled to discover, they testify no refusal to follow the footsteps of the worldly in the road to wealth. We look in vain for any distinguishing mark in this respect between the two classes of society, That which is 'of the world,' and that which is 'not of the world.' All appear to be actuated by the same impulse to push their fortunes in life; all exhibit the same ardent, active, enterprising, zeal in their respective pursuits."

Can any serious person deny the enormous impetus given to the love of money in our own days; and this, among those who profess the Lord's name as keenly and commonly as in the careless world? Doubtless, as has been remarked, the recent discoveries of fresh sources of wealth, and the remarkable inventions of men, and the habits of far-spread enterprise, not to speak of growing luxury, which have followed in the train, have helped on this eager quest of gain. But the fact is unquestionable, and the effect most mischievous; yet who lays it to heart, or judges it as a sin of the first magnitude? And has it not been accelerated and justified by that new and increasing peculiarity of the last (eighteenth) century, those religious and philanthropic institutions, the offspring and the pride of ecclesiastical divisions, which avowedly depend on the collections, and subscriptions, and donations, of money? Certainly our Lord has ruled otherwise in the Sermon on the Mount, and His inspired servants have both acted and written for our admonition in terms meant to make the service of mammon intolerable, and to refuse a place in the church for the covetous.

"Boasters" follow; and who fails to hear its hollow voice to-day? It follows as close on the track of money-loving, as this love on self-love. And the materials which furnished the means of gratifying the love of money have built up the pedestal from which the empty vaunts of the boasters are heard on all sides. If you doubt it of religious profession, your ears are assuredly dull of hearing, and your eyes, It seem", see not. For all is blazoned before the world, whether of religious contributions, or of charity to the poor, or aught else that occupies men publicly.

And then this enlightened age of ours! Who does not sing its achievements? Who does not praise its science physical if not metaphysical, its chemistry if not its learning? Say not again that these boasters are the mere devotees of natural philosophy. Alas! it is from professedly pious theologians that we hear the hasty and ignorant premises that Geology declares one thing, Genesis another; and the base conclusion is that Genesis must bow down and worship Geology at what time is heard the sound of cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music! For the spirit of vain glory has banished all sense of pain and shame when God's word is thus dishonoured; and even those who preach it are not ashamed to swell the chorus of the "boasters".

Can one wonder that we have "haughty" next? They present an evil more deeply seated than the "boasters", though not so loud in its vain expression. They are the proud against whom God ranges Himself; the most akin to Satan's fault; the most alien from the mind which is in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondman, being made in the likeness of men, and, being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross (Phil. 2: 5-8). Thus it is that appreciation of Christ is our only sure and holy deliverance; for pride hides itself under so many veils, which may deceive itself as much as others, and none more than the mere professor or even the real Christian who walks with the world. Grace gives true lowliness, which consists not so much in thinking all the evil we can of ourselves as in thinking of Christ and not of ourselves at all. When we have seen Him, as He is, we can see ourselves not worth thinking of, save before God to judge our ways when faulty. We can then, readily and without effort, each esteem the other as more excellent than ourselves, regarding each not his own things but each those of others. Is it possible to draw a sketch more unlike what prevails in Christendom? "Proud" or "haughty" is the truest designation of the type that abounds.

Then come "blasphemers" and "disobedient to parents", which fittingly fall next and in due order and together. For self-exaltation paves the way for unworthy thoughts and slighting words against God, and self-will against parental authority is the natural result. Some greatly to be respected for their spiritual judgment understood the first of the pair to mean "evil speakers" in general. But this appears to be out of harmony, not only with its companion, but with "slanderers" in verse 3, which it would thus render an almost needless repetition. "Blasphemers" would therefore seem to be right here, as it is the natural and full force of the word, unless the requirements of the context should tone it down, as is sometimes the unquestionable fact.

Further, it is the liberalism of the day which has given occasion to the unprecedented spread of blasphemy on the one hand, and of disobedience to parents on the other. For it is now more and more accepted, that authority — and above all, divine authority — is nothing but the bugbear of unenlightened ages, and that there is no inflexible standard of truth and righteousness! Thus public opinion assumes to decide, and society becomes the supreme power on earth, with its ordinances (i.e. the laws and the commands of magistrates, who act in the name and for the welfare of the society!) binding on all its members, but not authorizing one national society to govern another, still less entitling its officers to rule contrary to the will of the society, or to exercise greater power than it pleases!

I have purposely adopted the ideas and words of an able, learned, and pious advocate of this impious scheme, which contradicts all that the godly in the past have gathered from scripture, especially such passages as Rom. 13: 1-7 and 1 Peter 2: 13-18. On the texts there is the less reason to dwell as almost all who read these pages reject on principle that wretched fruit of the French Revolution, or rather of the infidel philosophy which gave so deep and strong an impulse to it, not only immediately, but also from our own land for a century before. Blasphemers began to assert their lawless will, not without the reproof of public law and to the horror of believing ears. But gradually restraint gave way, and men have got to think that every form of blasphemous iniquity, which can count so many heads, is entitled to its representation in the high places of the earth. For after all what the Christian calls blasphemy is the religion or school of thought sincerely accepted by others, who are no less entitled to be heard as themselves, and to rule if they can command a majority! For, again says their pious oracle, what human power can pronounce authoritatively upon the truth of a religion, when every nation, or part of a nation, will with equal zeal maintain the truth of its own? Thus God is excluded, where He is most of all needed, and the creature, in all the aberrations of his guilty will, is worshipped rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

As indifference to blasphemers, nay, the right to plead the cause of their party, is now the order of the day, so religious men, nationalist and dissenting, seek their support, making common cause with these open enemies of God and His Son, in order to promote their party measures and political ends. All the old hatred of blasphemy, all the once burning indignation against daring impiety, has well-nigh disappeared from Christendom, yea, is treated by the diabolically spurious charity of our times as no less effete, disreputable, and cruel, than the burning of witches, the prosecution of necromancers, or the denunciation of astrologers. You may not libel a man; his character is sacred and of the utmost importance. Say what you like of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; if you will, denounce Their ways and character; deny Their being; defame divine revelation. It is your right as a man to say what you think of God or His word, of Christ or His cross! Never before this nineteenth century has the world seen such unlimited licence to blaspheme; and nowhere is it more rampant and shameless than in Christendom, Catholic and Protestant. Who can doubt then that "blasphemers" characterize the grievous times in the last days? or that they are already have in a most aggravated form?

And surely the marked and growing lack of reverence to parents, the increasing self-will of the young, cannot have escaped the notice of any observing Christian. So this was to be, according to the warning of inspiration. "Disobedient to parents" follows "blasphemers"; and most suitably as to order; for parents stand in a position altogether unique toward their children. As it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 12: 9-10), "Furthermore, we had the fathers of our flesh to chasten us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened as seemed good to them; but He for profit in order to our partaking of His holiness." If not God but forms are in men's thoughts, real obedience of a parent is nowhere; submission is only where it is unavoidable; where then is the conscientious and loving heart to pay honour and obedience?

And the most serious element in this general ruin of so primary a relationship is that the parents are as much or more to blame than the children, the mothers no less than the fathers; and this neglect is confined and peculiar to no class, but is pervading every grade of the race. The multitude of societies and devices to care for the young in our day is not the least striking proof of the plague which has set in permanently; for the appalling growth of the evil called out the efforts of pious men to stem it, however superficially, by the Sunday Schools, Homes, Reformatories, and such like. And now they would fain forget the frightful root of this evil in their own class and in every other, glorifying their benevolence in so partial a remedy. Relaxation of discipline, or even its abandonment, on the parents' part cannot but breed disobedience in the children; and in the face of such a prevalent snare, all other means of correction are but the feeblest reeds to avert a gathering storm.

Nor should we overlook the next pair of humiliating characters in these last days: "unthankful, unholy". These appear to be as appropriately set together as their two predecessors were, and indeed all those described hitherto: not that those who read them unconnectedly do not glean instruction from each and all, but that the observance of them jointly gives order, and adds to the harvest. Now what an anomaly is a professing Christian who is thankless! He professes to have life in Christ, and the forgiveness of sins; he is baptized to Christ's death whereby he died with Him to sin; he is under grace, not under law, that sin should not have dominion over him; he is in Christ and so freed from condemnation, and has received the Spirit of adoption whereby to cry Abba, Father. For if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. All this individually belongs to the believer. Think next of the precious privileges he enjoys as being of the body of Christ, in the worship, in the apostolic doctrine, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, in the prayers; not to speak of that holy and wholesome and most needful discipline which attaches inseparably to those who keep the feast on the sacrifice of Christ. But why need one set out these countless blessings which all saints share in His Name and by the Spirit of our God with which scripture seems? To be "unthankful" then, while bearing that Name which ensures all to the believer, is the extreme of ingratitude.

"Unholy", or impious, naturally and one may say necessarily, follows at once. For thankfulness cannot but be where the heart dwells ever so little on those precious and exceeding great promises, now made sure in our Lord and enjoyed in the power of the Holy Spirit, whilst we wait for glory unfading and eternal, of which He Who has sealed us is earnest. To profess what we believe not is to play the hypocrite; and if we can speak of natural honesty remaining under a Christian mask, indifference to reality and familiarity with forms both contribute to bring about that contempt of the Holy One, Who is trifled with, and of all that pertains to His service, worship, and will, which constitute the character of the "unholy".

The fact too that the word designating "holy" here is not ἅγιος (separate from evil to God), but ὅσιος (holy in the sense of gracious and merciful), shows yet more how one is justified in classing "unholy" with "unthankful". For grace unfelt soon ends in grace despised, scorned, and trampled on: the consequence of unthankfulness is unholiness, a profanity in this kind.

Christ is He Who concentrates all grace, and is thus designated "chasid" (Ps. 16; Ps. 89; etc.), as men so described are regarded as piously upright. The reverse of this is intended here, and perhaps even these few words suffice to show how true of Christian professors in our day is this apostolic description. It is not merely the lack of gracious affections, proper to those whose profession implies God's mercy in Christ, but the impious presumption that stands in direct opposition. It is a question neither of injustice nor of impurity.

We have now to examine a still more numerous list of qualities that follow: — "Without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, uncontrolled, fierce, without love (haters) of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, pleasure-loving rather than God-loving, having a form of godliness (piety), but having denied the power thereof; and from these turn away" (vers. 3-5).

It is singular that the Authorized Version, alone of the old English translations, gives the simple, full, and unambiguous meaning of ἄστοργοι; which in Wiclif's Version and the Rhemish, following the Vulgate as usual, is rendered by the feebler phrase "without affection". Tyndale, followed by Cranmer, has "unkinde", as the Geneva "without charitie". But beyond controversy these representatives lack precision of rendering.

Now, as to the characteristic itself, it is hard to exaggerate its gravity even among mere natural men: how much more among those who bear the Lord's name! For there is no human centre and safeguard greater than home with its manifold affections and the duties which it involves. The light and the grace of Christ truly known give strength as well as provide a new object which puts each element in its true relation to God and man. There may be occasions peremptory for His glory that all must yield, and then the things that are become as though they were not, rather than turn to His dishonour; but such cases are rare, and His name ordinarily adds beyond measure to all that God has ever owned as His order here below. But here we learn of a dark and ominous change when Christendom in general not only exhibits indifference to all these ties of family life, but tramples them down as contemptible and would rid itself of them as unworthy nuisances. It affects cosmopolitanism as the true ideal, and as this is wholly unreal and inoperative, the issue is unmitigated selfishness, a barren waste without objects given of God for the heart, where self-will can run riot according to its own waywardness.

Very suitably next to this void of natural affection stands the quality "implacable", which, springing from the same root of selfishness, flows into a far larger circle and indeed one without limit. Some few authorities of all kinds invert their relative order; but this would seem strange disorder morally, compared with the true place of each as represented by the best witnesses, though the Sinaitic is not alone in omitting the first of the pair, nor the Peschito Syr. Version in dropping both: all these variations being plain errata. For as the lack of natural affection is a horrible result of spurious Christian profession, so the consequent but wider implacability is next pointed out as its companion, instead of that universal love which is loudest in theory when there is least exercise of it in practice. Nay, the fact is really worse; for ἄσπονδοι goes beyond the breaking of truce attributed to the word in the Authorized Version and other translations, and expresses rather the lawless state which refuses to incur any such obligation. It is bad enough to fail in keeping faith; it is much worse as here when men's hearts say, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us" (Ps. 2: 3).

In Rom. 1: 31 we read that God gave up the heathen to be ἀσυνθέτους, ἀστόργους, as the Text. Rec. adds ἀσπόδους against ample authority of the highest character. There the apostle comes from the more external "covenant-breakers", or (more generally) "faithless", to the want of family affection (ἀστόργους) and the more personal "unmerciful", or pitiless; here as predicting the departure of Christendom he goes from within outwards; only for "covenant-breakers" he gives "implacable" or defiant of bond. And what spiritual eye can fail to see how this impatience of obligation permeates men, who once were rigidly faithful in the observance not of promise only but of all the implied ties of the life that now is? Nothing dissolves more than grace despised; whereas even law is feebleness itself compared with grace reigning through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Optimi corruptio pessima.*

* (The corruption of good is the worst form of evil.)

Then in joint order comes the character of "slanderers", or "false accusers", as in the Authorized Version, the same designation as is appropriated to the arch-enemy, the devil. Is it not a solemn issue that the Holy Spirit should have thus to describe not mere heathen, but men bearing the Lord's name in the last days, It is easy to dissipate and whittle away the awfulness of these charges by the plea so natural for ignorance to make and to receive, that these evil characteristics have always been. In a sense it is so. But the word of the Lord cannot be broken; and, though enough rose up while the apostle lived to make it a practical question then, it is certainly true that, as the departure from the word and Spirit of God went on, these evils grew and spread apace; and that our own days look on an enormous increase of this harvest of shame and sorrow, which all the changes rung on Ecclesiastes 7: 10 are vain to get rid of.

The universality of detraction and evil-speaking is as notorious in our day as is its virulence, and far worse in the religious than in the profane world, the endless divisions or sects giving it an incalculable impulse. Moral worth, Christian character, spiritual intelligence, known service, perhaps for ever so long, wholly fail to disarm malicious criticism, if they do not rather furnish the incentive to activity for those moral levellers envious of all superior to themselves. It is the more base in those cases where the assailed would avail themselves of no natural resource, offensive or even defensive, following Him Who, when reviled, reviled not again, when suffering, threatened not, but committed Himself to His care Who judges righteously (1 Peter 2: 13).

"Uncontrolled" we have next, rather than "incontinent", which usage limits to lack of self-restraint in uncleanliness, whereas the word really takes the fullest range in the indulgence of recklessness of action, as the preceding word does in spirit and speech; so that the moral connection is evident.

This again seems the unforced precursor of "fierce", without gentleness, and despising it, yea, is its marked reverse. How heart-breaking to know that so it is, as the Holy Spirit declared it should be, among those who profess His name Who said in the fulness of truth, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of He; for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matt. 11: 29); or as Isaiah said of Him, "He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard in the street" (Isa. 42: 29). But there alas! they walk, as if to suffer, and above all to suffer wrongfully, were the utmost evil to be dreaded, and as if Christ in His path of trial and rejection and all-enduring grace were a beacon to shun rather than a model that we should follow in His steps. Civilisation boasts of its long and gradual rising up from a savage state, which certainly was not that of primeval man, nor of man under God's government throughout the ages. It is therefore most humbling to note the fall into a truly savage spirit of man after centuries not of civilization only but of Christian profession.

None can wonder that this is followed by "without love for (haters of) good", which appears more exactly and completely to represent ἀφιλάγαθοι than "despisers of those that are good", as in the Authorized Version. It is indeed a very decisive advance in evil; for many, whose unbroken will carries them away passionately, are sincerely ashamed of their intemperance and deplore the excesses of these short fits of madness, as they value and admire those who in patient continuance of good work seek for glory and honour and incorruption, with eternal life — the end (Rom. 2: 7). A heathen could say, I see and approve of what is better, I follow the worse; and an apostle gives as the last degree of evil in such that they not only practise things deserving of death, but take pleasure in (or consent with) those who do them (Rom. 1: 32). Here in Christian professors it is the kindred enormity of a total disrelish for good. Just as among the Jews, impiety destroys the moral landmarks: "woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5: 20). Surely the Lord's name is blasphemed on their account who misrepresent His name.

This introduces another shade of wickedness, the "traitorous", or "traitors", that form of malice which betrays others to ruin without scruple. Of this bitter baseness among the twelve the Lord tasted as none ever did or could; and here we are warned of it as a characteristic to prevail in Christendom, existing even then here and there when the apostle wrote, but like the rest to spread and deepen as the last days linger out more and more. So it was and will be among the Jews before the end comes; as here it will be among those who corrupt the gospel.

"Heady", or "headstrong", again describes those who rush inconsiderately and determinedly in pursuit of their own will, whatever it may cost to gratify it, rather than the habit of abandoning even to destruction others who confide in them. We can easily understand that the gospel, in an unexampled way and measure imparts knowledge to the most unlettered; and that this acts as powerfully as injuriously on those who, really ignorant of themselves and of God, have no living sense of grace toward others, any more than they feel the need of it for themselves. From some such source as this appears to flow .. the "headstrong"; as these are hard by the "puffed-up", or high-minded souls, besotted with self-conceit: no less cruel than contemptible evils in those who, as ostensible heirs of the kingdom, ought to know the blessedness of being poor in spirit, of mourning, of meekness, of hungering and thirsting after righteousness, of being merciful, pure in heart, and peacemakers, as well as counting it all joy when persecuted for righteousness', and above all for Christ's, sake (Matt. 5: 1-11). Alas! headiness and highmindedness leave no room for any one of those precious qualities which our Lord forms in all that are His. Do not both now prevail wherever you look in Christendom?

And who can deny the manifest and extraordinary development, not now for the first time, of course, but more than ever in our own day, of "pleasure-loving rather than God-loving", among those who would be deeply offended if they were not owned as Christians? For when in this world's sad history was ever known such an incessant and wide-spread whirl of excitement, in change and travel, in sweet sounds, pleasant pictures, and sensational tales, to speak of nothing lower in sensuous enjoyment? No doubt, steam and telegraph have circumstantially helped on this eager and universal pursuit of pleasure, rather than a care for God and for His will, but in this closing age of indifference pleasure-loving in Christendom is remarkably confirming His word.

Time was when superstition allied to liking for adventure undertook pilgrimages, and organized crusades, neither of these in the least expressing the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, but either of them nobler naturally than pleasure-trips, private or common, to the most renowned, strange, or distant lands, perhaps round the world even, craving after some new and piquant fillip for minds jaded and listless. Need we add the love of gain and even sometimes of gambling brought into bazaars and the like in aid of avowedly Christian objects, with every natural or worldly attraction to swell the funds? What shall we say, if we may say anything, of the pleas for "muscular Christianity", a phrase which to pious ears may seem a mere worldly jest, but which others take in sober seriousness as a right thing and commendable, though only to be defended by the sheerest perversion of God's word?

For truly the Holy Spirit here says of all these characters of evil, "having a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof." In this lies the peculiar heinousness of it all. None can wonder that the unrighteous should do unrighteously still, or that the filthy should make himself filthy still. The horror is that those who under the name of the Lord put forth the highest claim should neither practise righteousness, nor be sanctified still. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than baying known to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, A dog turning back to his own vomit, and, A washed sow to wallowing in mire (2 Peter 2: 20, 21). If you wish to find all these unchristian evils in a plain and concentrated form without a blush, nowhere can they be so readily found as in that which arrogates to itself the name of "Christian." Yet those who, in our own land as well as over the world have the evidence of this before them habitually, can see in it nothing that defiles, but claim it to be undefiled, because their own mind and conscience are both defiled.

But God is not mocked, and the apostle exhorts to faithfulness. He had already called Timothy to know what the mass of Christians now refuse to learn. But this is not enough: "And from these turn away." It was then the duty, when such persons appeared, to have nothing to do with them; now that the evil is incomparably more developed, that duty is still more imperious. Yet I am grieved to notice the strange error of one* who has written on the subject with surpassing ability. He will have it that the apostolic injunction, rightly translated, means that Timothy was to "turn these away." How any one with any real, however moderate, knowledge of the Greek tongue could so misunderstand a very simple phrase, it is hard to explain or conceive; but such is the fact. No version known to me sustains any such view. The Authorized Version is substantially, the Revised Version quite, correct, unless it be in giving "also" for "and", verse 5, as is done here in connection with "know" in verse 1. It is not authoritative action, still less ecclesiastical dealing, but apostolic direction for the conscience of Timothy (or in principle of any "man of God") who would not endorse what is hateful to the Lord and corrupting for souls.

* J. A. Bengel in his Gnomon of the New Testament.

That the evils of which the apostle forewarned were then at work appears yet more from the description which follows.

"For of these are they that enter into houses and lead captive silly women, laden with sins, led by various lusts, always learning and never able to come unto knowledge of truth. And in the manner that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall not advance farther; for their folly shall be very manifest to all, as theirs also became" (vers. 6-9).

It is not enough in the ministry of Christ that one should have good and holy ends before one; the means ought to be as unexceptional as the avowed aim: where it is not so, where the measure adopted to attain the object are unworthy of Christ, it is to be feared that the real end in view is no better. At any rate, and always, the man of God must consider habitually, and with rigour, as before God the ways he pursues, lest the enemy entrap him into the hateful snare of doing evil that good may come, which is sure ere lone to emerge into the blindness of unmitigated evil in both ways and ends, to the deep dishonour of Him Whose name is made to cover all. Oh, what has not been done "to His greater glory"! The day will declare in Christendom at least as great wrongs against God and man, as in heathenism, and with far greater hypocrisy.

"For of these are they that enter into houses, and lead captive silly women, laden with sins, led by various lusts" (ver. 6). The works of the Christian are not to be ἀγαθὰ only, but καλά, not only animated by kindness and benevolence, but characterized by rectitude and comeliness. Nothing can justify underhand manoeuvres: Christ does not ask such service at the hands of any; He repudiates it. "So let your light shine before men that they may see your good (i.e. honourable) works, and glorify your Father that is in heaven" (Matt. 5: 16). It was to be as the lamp on the stand shining for all who are in the house. The evil-doer naturally shuns and hates the light, and comes not to the light lest his works should be reproved or shown as they are. But he that does the truth comes to the light that his works may be made manifest that they have been wrought in God (John 3: 20, 21). How sad when those who profess Christ, the only true Light, are actuated by the spirit of darkness in creeping into the houses (of the saints, I presume) and leading captive silly women!

The fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth, and its ways are well-pleasing to the Lord (Eph. 5: 9, 10). But to condescend to the path of intrigue, in order to win the weakest ones of the weaker sex, is beneath the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. Even if those who sought thus to advance the truth were ever so pure-minded, to get thus into houses is indefensible as being, of ill appearance and report: still more if the aim there was to make personal devotees of those so exposed to the snare as the ones whom the apostle brands as "silly women, laden with sins, led by various lusts," even though not necessarily of a gross character. In all ages religious officials have found a ready ear in females, who become effective in their influence on families: not truth, but the leaven of doctrine thus spreads with the greatest rapidity till all become assimilated.

The suited material for this subtle working is that which appeals strongly to nature, while it pretends to be peculiarly superior to it; and no rank and file are so pliant and persuasive as "silly women", who thus seek zealously to make up for the sins with which they are laden, whilst they indulge in new lusts differing from those of the past. Thus have been accomplished disastrous changes in primitive times. Has the enemy left off these devices in our day? Some can remember a picture not unlike the original many years ago, when almost all distinctive truth was thus destroyed most extensively. Are we to flatter ourselves that the self-same way of error, so successful in the past, no matter what the circle, will not be reproduced again and again in the present while the Lord tarries?

But their secret and fleshly ways are never those which the Spirit of truth generates; they suit the propagators of tradition and form, in which the sentiment or the intellect of man can find tangible objects by which to distinguish their own set. We can thus understand the divine wisdom in burying and concealing the burial place of Moses from those who were far from appreciating aright that blessed servant of God when he was alive to speak and act for his Master. And the Lord has Himself warned us that it is the same spirit of unbelief which slew the prophet and the righteous man (who spared not their sins), and yet built and adorned their tombs when they were departed. For this the Jewish scribes and Pharisees gave themselves credit in His day; but the proof of His truth in their hypocrisy soon appeared when He sent unto them apostles and prophets, teachers and preachers, some of whom they killed, as others they persecuted from city to city; so that all righteous blood from Abel downwards might fall on that Christ-rejecting generation, as it will ere long on the still guiltier Babylon, before Jerusalem shall once more, and far more truly and fully, be the holy city; and the house shall be no longer desolate nor theirs only, but the LORD God's; and Israel shall behold their long despised but most gracious and glorious Messiah, blessing Him as He that comes in the name of Jehovah.

But, to return to our painful subject, there is another description of those victims and instruments of evil, which deserves to be weighed: "always learning and never able to come unto knowledge (ἐπίγνωσιν, full knowledge, or acknowledgement) of truth" (ver. 7). With all their quickness of apprehension such women fail in spiritual mind, confounding things that differ, instead of distinguishing them, without which true progress and real knowledge are impossible. It is Christ before the soul, to Whom the written word answers by the power of the Holy Spirit; this only opens the truth and gives courage in its acknowledgement to God's glory. Without it there might be constant occupation of the mind, proud of its acquisitions, but no growth or separative power through the word, nor joying in God through our Lord Jesus, nor ever the ability, as is said here, to come to full knowledge of truth.

The magicians of Egypt are invoked as the pattern of the misleaders; and this remarkably by names otherwise in scripture unknown to us: "And in the manner that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith" (ver. 8). Now the manner in which these adversaries wrought was by imitating Moses as far as possible. This they could only do within limits till the power of God rising in its display made it hopeless for them to follow. In Christendom imitation is easier, as it is not a question of miracle, but the semblance of truth; and striking it is that the new and withering seductions of the enemy are characteristically imitations of truth, so close as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect (as will be the case with the Jews by and by). The old bodies of Christendom contain the foundations of the faith in a great measure; those more showy deceptions hold out higher promise as to the hope of the saints, and the church, and Christian privilege, but they sink far below common orthodoxy or they fail in ordinary righteousness. And no wonder, if their guides are "men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith." Soaring far higher and alluring the sanguine and unstable far more in what is less known, they betray ruinously those blessed and vital truths to which all saints cleave, however ignorant or prejudiced they may be otherwise.

Hence God does not fail to raise up a standard against the foe, and His imperilled saints profit by the warning. So the apostle declares here: "But they shall not advance farther; for their folly shall be very manifest to all, as theirs also became" (ver. 9). The comparison tells no less in the dazzling counterfeit, which was calculated to perplex and mislead, than it does in the exposure of the snare itself. This done, its efficacy for mischief is at an end, and the folly of its authors and advocates is too plain to injure more. Have we not known the enemy thus defeating himself under the mighty hand of God? Let us not forget how much we owe to the watchful grace of our Lord, Who thus vindicates His word and Spirit after man's misuse of both. If Satan cites scripture evilly or falsely, the Lord does not leave scripture for argument, but answers in a way absolutely and at once convincing — "It is written again."

From the unmasking of these various forms of evil, then germinating within the sphere of Christian profession, the apostle turns to the very different path and walk of his fellow-labourer.

"But thou hast followed* closely my teaching, course, purpose, faith, long-suffering, love, patience, persecutions, sufferings; what things befell me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that desire to live piously in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted. But wicked men and impostors shall advance for the worse, deceiving and being deceived" (vers. 10-13).

* The main witnesses ACFG support the aorist, the majority give the perfect, as in 1 Tim. 4: 6 (with but small exception), which has greater present force.

It was energy of unfeigned faith and love, acting by the Spirit in the life which is in Christ Jesus, which thus drew out Timothy. Unbelief stumbled and made not only difficulties but opposition to that which attracted and sustained the young fellow-labourer, because it was to his soul the living witness to a rejected but glorified Christ. He was not ashamed, as were many, of the testimony of our Lord or of Paul His prisoner. Whatever might be the timidity of his character naturally, in faith he found strength, giving glory to God. The promise of life was an assured reality, and he too suffered evil along with the gospel according to the power of God, Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before ages of time, but now manifested by the appearing of our Saviour (2 Tim. 1: 8, 9). Christ in short decided and drew him onward in a path otherwise impossible.

Now Paul's "teaching" has justly the first place in that which acted on Timothy: not truth only, but cast in the mould of the apostle's mind, heart, and moral force, where the person and heavenly glory of Christ governed with a power unequalled. And this in the main we also have as God was pleased to give it permanence for our instruction, and' cheer, and warning, and general blessing in Paul's Epistles, to speak of no more, though we cannot have what Timothy enjoyed so largely — speaking "mouth to mouth," as another apostle expresses it who laid great store on such communications, as compared with paper and ink and pen (2 John 12; 3 John 13, 14). Yet each has its excellency, and all is surely ordered in its season; so that, while recognizing what Timothy had for the help and furnishing of his soul, we can own the wisdom of the Lord in our portion.

Then the "course" or "conduct" of the apostle had its great value as a practical expression of the truth which swayed his judgments and feelings habitually. There is no better comment on the inspired word than that found in the walk of those subject to it, whether individually or in the assembly. If this be true generally of all the spiritual and intelligent, so far as they are led in obedience, what a bright illumination of Holy Writ was there not, in one privileged as Timothy was, perhaps beyond all others, with the intimacy of the great apostle so long and so variously!

"Purpose" shone in that life of ceaseless serving the Lord Christ with a splendour which none but the malignant could misinterpret, none but the dark and blind overlook. From the time that there fell from his eyes, as it were scales, and he was filled with the Holy Spirit, Paul was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared to both those of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the country of Judea, and also the Gentiles, that they should repent and believe the gospel (Acts 26: 19, 20). He preached the kingdom boldly; he shrank not from declaring the whole counsel of God. And in the midst of these labours night and day, he could say, as perhaps no other with equal truth, "One thing [I do], forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on towards the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3: 13, l 4).

Practical, present, living "faith" it was that kept alive the holy fire in the heart of the apostle; and this accordingly is here pointed out for fixing its place on Timothy's memory, and stimulating him to perseverance in the like path. For indeed, as there is but one path, even Christ, for all that are His, so it is faith alone that finds and pursues it with patience: we walk by faith, not by sight, as by faith we stand. No other means suits the children of God, and none other glorifies God Himself, Who would be owned immediately by them, as they thus derive fresh blessing in the enjoyment of His light and love. If "faith" be then the ever ready, ever needed, means of direction and power for all, how much more for those who have the added and most trying service of the Lord in the word! What did it not recall to His genuine child in faith of calm reckoning on God against all appearances? What of gracious answers even beyond expectation? For God will not be outdone even by the truest heart, and grace will ever flow beyond the faith which it creates and exercises.

"Long-suffering" too had Timothy seen in Paul as nowhere else. For in truth it is no fruit derived from earthly source but that which comes of Him Who was and is its fulness, now on the throne of God. Least of all was it natural to Saul of Tarsus, who speaks of himself as once a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, that is, a man characterized by insolent overbearing. But boundless mercy was shown, and wondrous "long-suffering" was the fruit, in Paul.

"Love" wrought there, love seen and known and proved in Jesus our Lord, love reproduced by the Spirit as the energy of that nature which is light in its principle. For if all the godly become by grace partakers of divine nature, in him who was given to write 1 Cor. 13, love wrought mightily. Nor if knowledge spoke haughtily and to the stumbling of the weak, did any man deal so trenchantly with it as he who beyond all his fellows knew all mysteries and all knowledge? Timothy truly had a rich sample of "love" before his eyes.

"Patience" therefore did not fail, though put to the proof in the utmost variety of form and degree. As we read 2 Cor. 11, we think a little of what Timothy had beheld or known in so many details. "The signs of an apostle" were wrought among the saints in all patience, by both signs and wonders, and by works of power.

This is followed by "persecutions", and "sufferings", as the trials in which the "patience" or endurance was manifested. And the same chapter (2 Cor. 11) accordingly furnishes in the most unobtrusive way such a roll as no hero of the world could match. Yet the apostle was pained to the quick to say a word about them; "I am become foolish," he said; "ye have compelled me." For him it was a real pain to recount what they should have otherwise learned or remembered; though he could add, "I take pleasure in weakness, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in straits, for Christ's sake."

Timothy was thoroughly acquainted with what things happened to the apostle at Antioch (of Pisidia), and at Iconium, and at Lystra. It was in this order that persecution befell Paul; in the reverse that he and Barnabas made their return journey, establishing the souls of the disciples converted a little before (Acts 14). In all these sufferings and opposition Jews played the guilty part of inciting the Gentiles against the word of life and those who preached it. Hence, when they came to close quarters, stoning was the method employed. What occupation for the ancient people of God! What anguish for him who so loved them, even when not a blow fell on him! But if the apostle recalled the vivid recollections of Timothy, for he was of Lycaonia, and brought to the knowledge of Christ through the apostle at this very time, he could say, "What persecutions I endured, and out of all the Lord delivered me."

A twofold statement concludes this part of the Epistle, which those who look for progress in Christendom as a whole would do well to ponder. For the apostle speaks as generally as he lays down the truth positively. Not a hint does he give of a temporary interruption to be followed by blessing and triumph for the gospel. That the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea, is certain; that the nation shall seek unto the Messiah, and that His resting place shall be glorious, cannot be questioned by the believer; but none of these things shall be before He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips slay the wicked. Till then, however truly the gospel may save individuals here and there, or even affect communities, especially where it is mixed up with law and rendered earthly, — till the Lord is revealed in judgment of the quick, those that are in heart godly must suffer, and evil men must advance to greater impiety. Partial appearances deceive; the word of God abides for ever.

Thus, on the one hand, the apostle declares, "Yea, and all that desire to live piously in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted" (ver. 12). It is wise, and even incumbent on saints, to make up their minds thus to suffer for righteousness, and for Christ. They will then think it not strange concerning the fiery trial among them which comes upon them to prove them, as though a strange thing happened unto them.

On the other hand, they will not be appalled that the world, yea, the professing mass, grows distinctly worse as a whole in the face of every testimony of God's grace and truth. On the contrary, they will cleave the more to the word which the prevalence of evil only confirms, while conversion goes on actively. "But evil men and impostors shall advance for the worse, deceiving and being deceived" (ver. 13). Can words more graphically, as well as accurately, set out the real character of the progress for him who bows to scripture? If we refuse this subjection, a blinding power is already upon us, and we are led astray ourselves as we mislead others in the measure of the error and of our influence.

Timothy was not to be given to change. Truth remains immutable, though the most spiritual have to appropriate it increasingly: not the church, nor an apostle, but Christ is the Truth objectively, and the Holy Spirit as inward power. That wicked men and the jugglers of imposture should shift is to be expected; for all have not faith, which lives and grows and thrives in subjection to the truth. Hence the charge that follows: —

"But abide thou in those things which thou didst learn and wast persuaded of, knowing of whom thou didst learn [them]; and that from a babe thou knowest the sacred writings that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished thoroughly unto every good work" (vers. 14-17).

There is no surer indication of the Holy Spirit's energy than when an active mind (and the revealed truth does give holy freedom and unbounded exercise) abides in the things we are taught of God. Some beyond question are more than others prone to doubt because of difficulties, speculative or practical. Happy the heart which faces every word and fact without a thought of abandoning those things which it was once persuaded of on divine authority, or, as the apostle puts it here, "Knowing of whom thou didst learn them"!

If the plural form (τίνων) be preferred, which certainly rests on very good and ancient witnesses, it was Paul not alone but with the rest of those whom the Lord chose to bear testimony to the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. The inspired men of the New Testament presented an entirely new and deep and heavenly revelation, answering to His displayed person and work, and the relationships dependent on Christ, for which the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven gives energy. Thus the power is to obey. Timothy, like every other, was sanctified by the Spirit to obedience (1 Peter 1: 2). He had a most honourable position, but no licence to act without the word of the Lord, Who sent the Spirit to guide into all truth, as well what was coming as what concerned more directly Christ and the church in actual testimony. He was thus glorifying Christ, reporting all, as only He could, to the saints, and this by chosen witnesses, so that our prime joy, not to say duty, is to believe and obey. Doubtless God has set in the church, as it has pleased Him: first, these; next, those; and so on, in no small variety of place according to His sovereign will and unerring wisdom; but obedience of faith runs through the life of each, if they walk and serve according to God. And this the apostle is here laying down for Timothy with the utmost care. Can we think that the exhortation was not deeply needed? and the more, because it is given in an Epistle intended for the perpetual remembrance, not only of such as might share Timothy's service, but of all who seek to please the Master.

Nor was it now only that Timothy had reverently listened to the words of God. To thousands of saints and to many a minister of the word, from among the Gentiles, it was a new thing; and the gospel received into the heart opened the way for valuing and profiting by the ancient oracles of God. But with him it was a different order, though the result may be substantially similar. But, in fact, the apostle reminds him, "That from a babe thou knowest the sacred writings that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus" (ver. 15).

It is painful to observe the slight done to the scriptures in Christendom, even where Protestant feeling prevails. The importance of the Bible for the poor, many will allow who are far from availing themselves of it on their own account. Not only does Popery proscribe the simple and habitual reading of it (as if the book of God were rank. poison for man because it is so sure to undermine and overthrow Romanist dogma and practice), but not a few who count themselves far removed from the Latin church discourage that heed to it from the earliest years, which is here, by the highest authority, commended in Timothy. It is in vain to decry it as "letter", or to discourage the young as unrenewed. He who was inspired to lay down the safeguards against the difficulties of the last days, does not hesitate unqualifiedly to express his satisfaction in that which their wisdom ventures to disparage. This should be enough for faith, if a Coleridge joins hands with sacerdotal pride on one hand, or with rationalistic indifference on the other, in attacking what they dislike as "bibliolatry."

The true and humble-hearted have but to go on unmoved in the midst of these changing fashions of hostile opinion, cleaving to God and to the word of His grace, while eschewing every plausible plea of man. For the true ground is not man's right to the scriptures, or man's competency to interpret them, but God's title to deal in the Bible with every heart and conscience, which the Holy Spirit alone can guide into any and all truth. Those who interdict the free reading of scripture are blindly striving to hinder God from addressing Himself to man. Let them judge how great such a sin is against God as well as man. They may reason now, but what will they say another day for their rebellion against His rights? Surely the apostle was as far as possible from rationalism. He did not believe in the power of man to make divine truth his own. Even the sacred writings are only able to make wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. This however they are. Without faith in Christ salvation and wisdom from above are alike impossible.

But we are carried a great deal farther in verses 16, 17: "Every scripture [is] God-inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished thoroughly unto every good work." No more suited, valuable, and weighty sentence appears here or in any part of the word of God. There are kindred sentiments of exceeding moment, which do ever fit in most appropriately where they occur; but the one before us is clear, full, and impressive in the highest degree. It gives divine character to every part of the Bible, excluding of course such words or clauses as can be shown on adequate evidence to be interpolations.

First, it is important to observe that the subject of the opening sentence is anarthrous. The sense therefore is not "all", but "every", scripture. If the article had been inserted, the words which follow would have predicated that which is said of the known existing body of holy writ. The absence of it has the effect of so characterizing every part of the inspired word to come, as well as extant. Is it scripture? Then it is God-inspired and profitable, etc. This is affirmed of every atom.

Next, it is known that versions and critics of reputation differ somewhat where the unexpressed but necessarily implied copula should be inserted. It is not always seen that this is a comparatively slight difference. The substantial sense abides. The Revised Version, with several, prefers to render thus: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable...." The Authorized Version with others have it thus: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable...." I have no doubt it is more correctly translated above: "Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable...." What is common here to the Authorized Version and mine is that the apostle asserts inspiration by God and profitableness about scripture; whereas, according to the Revisers, divine inspiration is assumed, and its profit seems rather awkwardly asserted, "is also...." After all, the difference is practically small. In the Revised Version that is assumed for divine inspiration which in the other is directly affirmed in the first place, with defined and varied profit following after.

Scripture then, that is, everything which comes under the designation of scripture, is inspired of God; not merely holy men of God spoke, borne by — under the power of — the Holy Spirit; but every thing written in the Spirit with a view to permanent guidance of the faithful is inspired of God. Thus simply believed must necessarily exclude error from holy writ; for who would say that God inspires mistakes, great or small? Those who so think cannot really believe that every scripture is inspired of God. Time was when God's word was of course inspired but not yet written; now it is in infinite mercy written by His gracious power Who knew the end from the beginning, and would provide an adequate and perfect and permanent standard for every need spiritually on earth. Hence it is written, and, to be divinely authoritative, is inspired of God: not the sacred letters of the Old Testament only, but the writings of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament the foundation on which the church is built (Eph. 2: 20).

Indeed, it is the prophetic character of gift which especially is in exercise for writing scripture. The apostles as such governed as well as began the church. But some were prophets who were not apostles; and the church or assembly was built on the foundation of both. This explains the true source of the authority in the holy writings of Mark and Luke. To attribute it to Peter for the one, and to Paul for the other, betrays the worthless character of early tradition, such as appears in the speculations of Eusebius of Caesarea. For whatever may be the value of his history of his own times, or of those not long before, his account of the apostolic age has more value as a contrast with the inspired record, short as this is, than as a true reflection. It even abounds with plain ignorance and error, and never rises to the spiritual bearings of what he sets before us. The inspired account in what is called "The Acts of the Apostles" is impressed with the dignity, depth, power, and design of scripture, as decidedly as any other book of the Bible. A similar remark applies to Luke's Gospel, as well as to that of Mark. They are scripture, and inspired of God, each having an aim laid bare by the contents, wholly distinct from that of Matthew and of John, yet no less certainly divine; each therefore contributing its own elements of profit proper to each, and found in none other as in them, though others furnish what is not therein. This is characteristic of inspiration, and is found nowhere but in scripture.

It is full of interest to observe that in 1 Tim. 5: 18 the apostle quotes Luke as scripture. Some might hastily affirm that the last clause of the verse was drawn from the apostle Matthew, (Matt. 10: 10). But a closer inspection proves that Paul cites from Luke 10: 7, though he who disbelieves in verbal inspiration might cavil and evade its force. He, however, who is assured on God's authority that inspired men spoke, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth (1 Cor. 2: 13), gladly owns that the apostle of the Gentiles cites literally from the Gospel of his own fellow-labourer. It is as if God meant to confirm the principle by Paul's not only quoting Luke, but quoting his Gospel no less than Deut. 35: 4 as "scripture". He knew and refuted beforehand the sceptical theories which blindly seek to deny the authority of both.

We all know that Peter in his Second Epistle (2 Peter 3: 16) speaks of all Paul's Epistles as "scripture". This again is beautiful in that late communication of the great apostle of the circumcision. But it is not so generally seen, though it is no less certain, that in the preceding verse Peter renders testimony to Paul's having written to the believing Jews, who were the objects of both his own Epistles. Thus we have it on inspired authority that not Barnabas, nor Silas, nor Apollos, nor any other then Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. A few words of inspiration are decisive against endless argument.

Verses 10, 11 had reminded Timothy of his special opportunities and his personal knowledge of the apostle's teaching, course, and life, individual and ministerial, with a solemn supplement (vers. 12, 13) as to the godly and the wicked, whether in resemblance or in contrast. Verse 14 is a grave exhortation for Timothy thereon to abide in those things which he thus learnt and was assured of, based on his knowledge of their character and authority from whom he learnt them, as well as on his familiarity from infancy with the ancient but living oracles of God, which, though of themselves incapable of quickening, or of imparting spiritual power, were able to render him wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus (ver. 15).

Then in verse 16, comes a dogmatic conclusion of the subject, as plain as it is momentous, in the form of an apothegm which most naturally conveys what the Authorized Version reflects, save the opening word which, better translated, enlarges its scope considerably: "Every scripture [is] inspired of God, and profitable...." It thus covers all that might be added by inspiration of-God, as well as what had been so given already. It expels from the field not only the bold cavillers at the divine word, but with no less peremptoriness the unworthy, though professedly orthodox, apologists, who surrender the holy scriptures, either in detail all over the Bible, or, sometimes, in whole books, through a compromise with the adversary.

For what is scripture useful or "profitable"? We must not regard the passage as an exception to the general principle which governs all the Bible. It lays down only what is in harmony with the context. Nor is any other place to be put beyond this in wisdom as well as power and interest. We are thus compelled to eschew partial search, if we would seek really to understand the mind of God revealed in His written word; we must read and study the scriptures as a whole. With Christ before us we shall not peruse in vain. Beginning at Moses and all the prophets our risen Lord expounded in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24: 27); and this said of the Old Testament is yet more evidently true of the New. We err, therefore, when He, the constant object of the inspiring Spirit, is not our object; but the manner is as different as the books which compose the Bible; for each book has its own peculiar design, and all contribute to form a perfect whole. "Profitable", accordingly, is limited by accordance with the character of this Epistle. Other uses are shown elsewhere.

First in order is the profit of every scripture "for teaching", or doctrine. Of this there cannot be a finer or richer instance than the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein the grand truths of the gospel are elicited in a way equally simple and profound from the words and figures of the Old Testament. Can any means be found so well suited to help the believer to its clearer understanding and application in other parts? One truth rightly apprehended prepares the way for another. For no new truth supersedes that which you have already, but rather confirms it and helps to more.

Next stands its use "for conviction". The Epistle to the Galatians may be taken as a salient example. See how admirably the apostle employs "the blessing" and "the curse" in Galatians 3, to illustrate the promise and the law, which these saints were confounding as millions since have done yet more. Take again the Seed, not many but one, in the same chapter; and the principle of a mediator in the law confronted with One God promising and sure to accomplish. Take in Galatians 4 the still more evident application of the two sons of Abraham to deliverance from the law, with prophecy brought in to illustrate, and the final sentence from Gen. 21: 10 to convince the Judaizers of their ruinous mistake.

Thirdly, comes "for correction". Here we may refer to the frequent and telling use of the Old Testament in the Epistles to the Corinthians as a signal illustration. Almost every chapter of the First Epistle furnishes samples, of which 1 Corinthians 10 is brimful.

Fourthly, who can mistake the Epistle to the Romans as the brightest and most palpable specimen of scripture used "for instruction in righteousness"? And in this, as in the others, not only is the Old Testament so applied with divine skill, but its own supplies of instruction are to the same end.

Thus is the aim distinctly and perfectly met: "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly fitted unto every good work." So it was in Timothy's case, so also for every other who follows a like path. It is the Holy Spirit's injunction, expressly in view of grievous times in the last days.

2 Timothy 4

Having thus laid down the sacred deposit, new as well as old, in its divine authority and edifying fulness, the apostle proceeds in the beginning of the fourth chapter to urge the earnest ministration of it with all solemnity.

"I testify earnestly [or, charge] before God and Christ Jesus that is about to judge living and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; convict, rebuke, encourage, with all long-suffering and doctrine" (vers. 1-2).

Here there is no small discrepancy, not only as to the right reading among the ancient witnesses, but also as to the just reflection of the original text. That text which has been vulgarly received accredited a connecting particle with the preceding chapter, or at least with its closing topic. This, a more careful examination, or certainly a more spiritual judgment, would have shown to be uncalled for and out of place; as well as the personal emphasis of the subject. On the contrary, Paul evidently desired rather to put forward God Himself and the risen Man, Who is to deal with mankind supremely in the coming day. The order of His name, and the omission of "the Lord", are sustained by the best authorities of every kind, and fall in admirably with the context. It would seem also that the conjunction before τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν was not understood, and got supplanted by the preposition in order to ease the construction; which really had for effect to alter the connection of the sentence by severing "His appearing and His kingdom" from the verb at the beginning, and attaching them to the judging of the quick and dead as a date.

So it stands in the Authorized and other Versions; but if we connect "His appearing and His kingdom" with the verb, a choice of version lies open to us. For we may regard the accusatives as the complement of διαμαρτύρομαι, and translate as in Deut. 4: 26, which some prefer, in the sense of calling Christ's appearing and His kingdom to witness against Christendom. But this seems far from a just analogy. Heaven and earth we can easily apprehend as thus invoked; but how about summoning Christ's appearing and His kingdom? It would be harsh indeed. How could Paul call Christ's future appearance and His kingdom to witness then, as Moses invoked heaven and earth that day to witness against Israel? The construction is therefore not really the same.

Christ's appearance and His kingdom are therefore suited and most impressive grounds of appeal by which he was solemnly charging Timothy, or others like-minded and responsible, to preach the word. The acuss. object) appears thus quite untenable. Hence most prefer, with the Revisers, to understand the apostle to testify earnestly, without specifying Timothy, before God and Christ Jesus, and by His appearing and His kingdom, as that which gave the charge incalculable weight and awe. If κατά be read, it is hard to see how it can be connected with the verb; for where is the sense of "I charge [thee] at His appearing and His kingdom"? The preposition compels us to make these words dependent on the participle.

Turning from this brief but dry discussion of text and translation, which nevertheless is a duty owing to the proper clearance of scripture, obscured as it has been by defective knowledge and insight, we may now the more intelligently admire the apostolic appeal. That solemn testimony, of which Paul speaks, is before God and Christ Jesus, Who is about to judge living and dead. This is looked at as ever imminent; or, as another apostle puts it, Christ "is ready to judge living and dead" (1 Peter 4: 5). Only our text speaks of the judgment as a continuous process, the other sums it up in its conclusion. The continuous character of our Lord's judging is made if possible more evident in Acts 17: 31, where its object is defined clearly as the habitable earth, not the dead (whose judgment will follow in its season) but the quick: a truth, which, though owned in the ordinary symbols of Christendom, has practically dropped out of mind even for earnest and sober Christians, who are apt to fasten their eyes exclusively on the great white throne (Rev. 20: 11-15).

In this solemn matter they, and the Jews, fall into opposite faults. For the Jews were full of the earthly judgment which the Messiah is assuredly to execute over all the earth, when no nation can escape; whilst they in effect ; thought little or nothing of the everlasting judgment of the dead. But the Lord Jesus, as Peter solemnly testified to Cornelius, is the One ordained by God as Judge of living and dead (Acts 10: 42).

As we know the generality of Christians slur over the judgment of living men on the earth, it is the more important to unfold it somewhat at length. Nothing demonstrates the need of this more than the citation of 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52, and 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17, as bearing on the judgment of living and dead. "We, the living that remain", we who without having fallen asleep shall be changed, are not in the least included in the mere quick and of course not in the dead, of the text before us. "We" are Christian believers, who consequently do not come into judgment, as our Lord ruled in John 5: 24, but shall be changed without death any more than judgment, and brought up with the dead but risen saints to meet the Lord Jesus at His coming.

There is no such thought in scripture as a future judgment of those spiritually alive, though all must be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ. This to "the spiritually dead" will of course be nothing short of coming into judgment; but the saints will be none the less manifested there that they may know even as they are known, and that each may receive the things done in the body, according to those he has done, whether good or bad (2 Cor. 5: 10). Having Christ as their life and His redemption, they were saved even here by grace through faith; they are not to be put on their trial there, as if the salvation of God were a doubtful thing. For such it will simply be manifestation in this solemn but blessed way, and this with special view to the place of each in the kingdom; for there is the revealed certainty among the saved of each receiving his own reward according to his own labour. But judgment by-and-by for him that has eternal life and is saved is not only flat contradiction of the express word of Christ, but irreconcilable with all that eternal blessing which the gospel attests as due to Him and His work for the believer.

The passage then does not speak of the heavenly saints, still less of those privileges of grace which are theirs in Christ, but of the judgment to come which awaits quick and dead when He is revealed to this end according to the scriptures. Other passages of holy writ show that the quick are to be judged, not only when Christ appears in glory, but all through His kingdom, which is said to be "for ever", because it closes only with the dissolution of the heaven and the earth that now are, and the subsequent judgment of the dead, the wicked dead, who small and great stand before the throne. Their manifestation is judgment in the fullest and eternal sense; because, having rejected Christ, or at the least failed to profit by any and every testimony God gave them, it remains only that they be judged each according to his works. Their works being evil on the one hand, and on the other not one found written in the book of life, all they themselves were cast into the lake of fire. Theirs is therefore a resurrection of judgment: so the Saviour calls it in John 5: 29; as that of believers is a resurrection of life — life for the bodies of all who through faith had here below received life in Christ for their souls. The apostle however is here treating of judgment, first of the quick on earth at and during the kingdom of Christ, and lastly of the dead before it is given up to Him Who is God and Father, that God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) may be all in all, in the eternal state.

It will be observed that the contextual language of the apostle is most precise and explicit. When he thus testifies before God and Christ Who is about to judge quick and dead, he adds "and by His appearing and His kingdom". "His coming", or presence, would not at all have suited; for unless it be specially qualified (as by the term "of the Son of man" et al.), it has no proper relation to the divine dealings in judgment, but rather to God's counsels of grace. Hence the presence or coming of Christ is connected with the translation of the saints on high. When it is a question of judicial action, "His appearing" is the exactly right expression as it is here; and either this, or His revelation, or His day, will ever be found in this connection.

Accordingly here "His appearing" is followed by "and His kingdom," with no less accuracy; for "His appearing" alone would not have sufficed for more than the earlier judgments to fall on the guilty living generation of that day. To cover His judging the world throughout His long reign, and particularly the dead which remain to be raised for judgment at the close, we need and have "His kingdom" also. Every word is written wisely; all is required to complete the full picture of His judging. Hence we see the mistake of those who speak of the "modificated eternity" of His mediatorial kingdom (regnum gratiae) to be succeeded by the kingdom of glory to commence at His ἐπιφάνεια, or appearing. Not so; the reign for a thousand years (Rev. 20: 1-7) does begin, to speak generally, when Christ is manifested in glory (as the preceding chapter, Rev. 19 clearly points out). And it may be described as a "modificated eternity", because it introduces His kingdom, a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all previous kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever, i.e., as long as the earth endures (Dan. 2: 44). It is absurd to apply this to the church (or to the gospel) now; for the church, if true to its principles, is called ever to suffer, not to reign, till He appears in glory. The bride is to bear herself in holy separation from the world, cast out like her crucified Master, till glorified with Him at His coming. The eternal scene which knows neither end nor modification is after the kingdom is given up, the kingdom given Him as Man, and shared by Him with the risen saints, reigning together as they suffered together, but given up at the end, when He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For Christ must reign till then; throughout eternity God as such, not the exalted Man, will be all in all (1 Cor. 15: 28).

With this in view, then, the apostle gives the charge, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; convict, rebuke, encourage, with all long-suffering and doctrine." The structure of each verb implies prompt action. This of course is quite consistent with persevering continuance; but continuance might be, and often is, without such intensity of devotedness as is here insinuated by the rapid succession of pressures on Timothy, which did not put even a particle to connect one with another. Proclaiming the word has the first place; urgent heed to the work in season, out of season, follows up the preaching; convicting in the sense of proving home or reproving is enjoined as a wholesome duty, even though irksome to a tender spirit; rebuke comes afterwards as necessary where fault was plain or out? as on the other hand encouragement or exhortation, where this rather was called for. In every case there was to be all long-suffering and doctrine. Who was sufficient for these things? Timothy's sufficiency, as the apostle's, was from God. So may ours be in our little measure!

There is a fresh reason which the apostle now puts forward for urgent and assiduous zeal in every possible way — another grievous feature of the grievous times of the last days.

"For the time will be when they will not endure sound teaching; but according to their own lusts they will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear; and from the truth they will turn away their ear, and will be turned aside unto fables" (vers. 3, 4).

It is not here the leaders whose fault is in the foreground, but the people. Elsewhere we see false teachers, and self-willed chiefs, misleading such as put their trust in them. Here, though the time was not yet come for so widespread evil, the Spirit of God speaks of it as imminent: "For the time will be when they will not endure the sound teaching." This is clearly descriptive of the prevalent state to overspread Christendom, not among Jews nor heathens. It supposes those who were used to hear the truth. But now the truth becomes unpalatable, and "the sound teaching" of it cannot be endured: a truly frightful time for men bearing the name of the Lord. For it is evident that out of an impure heart they must call on Him. Sound teaching is ever welcome to those whose desire is to grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and this that all may issue in a life of increasing obedience and devotedness.

How deep and bold then the enmity of heart when those who have every motive to love the truth, far beyond those of old, will not endure it! "Oh, how I love Thy law! it is my meditation all the day." "How sweet are Thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" "It is time for Thee, LORD to work: they have made void Thy law. Therefore I love Thy commandments like gold, yea, above fine gold. Therefore I esteem all Thy precepts concerning all things to be right: I hate every false way." "Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them. The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. I opened my mouth and panted, for I longed for Thy commandments." "Thy word is very pure; therefore Thy servant loveth it. I am small and despised; yet I do not forget Thy precepts. Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Thy law is the truth. Trouble and anguish have taken hold on me; yet Thy commandments are my delight. Thy testimonies are righteous for ever: give me understanding, and I shall live."

These are but a few extracts from a psalm (Ps. 119: 97-144) devoted as a whole to setting forth the characteristic virtues of divine revelation as possessed by the house of Israel before Christ, and therefore very short of the later and yet more profound communications since redemption, and Christ's ascension, and the personal presence of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, all of which incalculably blessed facts enhance what God has revealed since. Yet we can see, and especially as in a composition which by the Spirit expresses the feelings of the heart, how deeply the sound teaching of that early day was valued; as it will be as much or more when God in the latter day stirs the godly remnant to say in heart, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah." The full Christian testimony comes between the advents of the Lord, and so yet more after the early days of Jewish enjoyment before the children relish the word beyond what their fathers did. In that interval comes Christianity, as well as the corruption of it in Christendom, one of the direct symptoms of which is the disgust at, and intolerance of, "the sound teaching" here announced.

But there is also positive evil, as well as the dislike of what is divine. And whilst both evils have long verified the solemn warning of the apostle, it is easy to understand that the dark sketch of a time then at hand becomes more and more dismal as the Lord tarries and lawlessness acquires audacity and force. The prevalence of education in modern times leads to a great deal of reading even in the humblest class; so that the desire to hear what pleases the mind, the taste, and the natural aspirations of man, modified as all is by the governing spirit of the age, becomes even more active and pretentious. "According to their own lusts they will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear." Can there be a more graphic anticipation of what is found everywhere in our day, at least where the Bible is universally circulated? Even this is sometimes openly left out by men calling themselves Christians. But Satan can, and does, sadly neutralize it where it is nominally in use as a mere suggester of themes for the adventuresome and profane wit of man. Indeed no other book is so fertile in raising and satisfying the most profound enquiries as to God and man and all things. And the intellect can readily cast aside its authority while it enters on its flight of universal discussion, being as doubtful of the divine as it is credulous of the human. Christ, the centre and expression of grace and truth, is practically lost, and the more guiltily because it is in the sphere where once He was all.

What becomes of those who, having once known, turn their back on His glory? First, as we have seen, according to their own lusts they heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear. The full revelation of God, though no longer held in faith, leaves a craving to hear something new; and for this end heaps of teachers are resorted to in profound unbelief of the word of God and of the power of the Spirit to guide into all the truth. The efficacy of neither can be enjoyed, where redemption does not purge the conscience and where Christ Himself is not the object and rest of the heart. God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap; because he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life eternal (Gal. 6: 8). If openly unrighteous man give himself up to pleasure, religiously unrighteous man occupies himself zealously with teachers, both in default of having Christ. In Him alone can God or man find life, objects, and satisfaction; in Him faith finds all fully. Without this all is a waste for one's own lusts to heap up what can never satisfy; and the less if there be departure in heart from Him known ever so slightly: an itching ear can aggravate but can never remedy.

"Heaping up teachers" is but the excessive carrying out of an evil principle which prevails in evangelicals of all sorts, established as well as dissenting. It passes as a maxim among them that one is as free to choose one's teacher, or minister, as to choose one's doctor, lawyer, or any other professional help; and this, on the ground that they are paid for their services. No wonder that superstition revolted from ideas so gross in spiritual things, and clothed ministry with mystic rites in order to elevate it above matters of everyday life and to retain it within a strictly clerical enclosure; as others fell back on patronage to redeem it from the vulgar and keep it as much as possible within more refined hands directly or indirectly.

But scripture rises far above these earthly and contending schemes of men, and shows us that Christ is the source of ministry, not merely at the starting-point, when He chose the twelve and the seventy, sending them forth on their respective missions, but as the risen, glorified, and ever-living Head, Who gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ (Eph. 4: 11, 12).

It is in vain to argue that this mode of working could only be when Christ was here upon earth. The remarkable fact is that the grand revelation just referred to in Eph. 4: 8-13 ignores all action of this kind on the earth, and speaks only of ministerial gifts conferred on the church by our Lord, since He ascended up on high. Now this is to set them on a ground which cannot change till our Lord comes again. Till then He never ceases to be the unfailing spring of supply; and, as if to make this certain and clear even to reluctant ears, it is added, "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (ver. 13). Scripture allows of no other source, and assures of this one for every need of saints now on earth. But we must always bear in mind, what the same Epistle (Eph. 2: 20) distinguishes, that the apostles and prophets constitute the foundation on which we are built; the evangelists, pastors, and teachers, are those gifts which carry on the work. As this is the unforced and unequivocal intimation of God's word, faith reckons on Christ's faithfulness to the wants of souls and love to the church which is His body.

Hence there is no room for men's own lusts in choosing, any more than in rejecting, those whom Christ has given to do ministerial work. The gift is proved by the energy of the Spirit in effecting what it is given for: the evangelist by winning the unconverted to God; the pastor and teacher (not always, though often, united) by leading on and instructing the saints. It is on the same principle as a believer is recognized by his good confession of Christ, not in word only, but in deed and truth. Neither crown nor congregation, neither bishop nor patron, have anything to do with the choice.* All such human gifts or calls are wholly irregular, not unscriptural only, but anti-scriptural, whatever pleas good men may have set up for each of them. Those whom Christ gives for spiritual service the Christian is bound to own, as he has to beware of all whom Christ did not so give. The sheep know His voice in His servants; and they know not the voice of strangers. Assuredly, the sheep may err in this case or in that; for they are in no sense infallible, and they have to act responsibly by grace. But the Lord's eye is on all, and He honours His own word, as He loves His own sheep. The sad and shameful fact is that for centuries the sheep have let slip their looking to Him in this matter, and have accepted one or other of those human ways which ignore His giving the needed supply spiritually. And as some have sinned by the unwarrantable system of one man concentrating all gifts in his person or authority, so others by heaping up to themselves teachers after their own lusts.

* This is quite compatible with the congregation choosing persons to dispense their gifts or bounty, as We see this is clearly of the Lord from Acts 6. Diaconal service is quite distinct from Christ's gifts for spiritual service-in the word. Where man gives, he is warranted in choosing, where the Lord gives, man's title is excluded, it is his obligation to receive. Such is the principle, which all scripture sustains. Again, the choice of elders in scripture was clearly apostolic directly (Acts 14: 23) or by delegates (Titus 1: 5), as being a question of government which the Lord vested in the apostles. Gifts descend from Christ immediately, even though some gifted men might also be elders or deacons; but the gifts themselves are wholly distinct from these charges. An apostle was in the highest sense both an organ of government, and a gift of the ascended Christ.

The only remedy is looking in faith to God, and to the word of His grace which furnishes the true key to the fact that the gifts still abide, rarely indeed concentrated, but as the rule distributed in no small variety and measure of spiritual power. In the present state of God's church they are, like the saints, painfully scattered as well as shrouded and hindered. But no change of circumstances alters the vital constitution of the church, any more than it does the principle of those members of it which are so important for its extension and well-being, namely, the gifts before us. What the faithful ought to do is to judge themselves by God's word to learn how far they have departed, and in order to submit themselves to His will, knowing that he who does so abides for ever (1 John 2: 17). None but Christ's gifts have His title and competency in the Spirit; and no saint can justify himself in refusing such or in accepting other men whom He has not so given; for either way is to deny His rights and to prefer man's will against Him. But heaping up to themselves teachers (and is it conceivable that these could be His gifts when consenting to His dishonour?) is yielding to men's own lusts, to the excess of self-will in despite of Christ.

But there is more still. "And from the truth they will turn away their ear, and will be turned aside unto fables" (ver. 4). Here is the fatal result. Who can measure the dishonour thus done to God and His word? Who can tell the loss to their own souls, not only by their alienation from the truth, but by their actual appetite for imaginative falsehood? So Satan would have it, who likes no one thing so much as a direct affront put on Christ, which all this implies. Thereby evil ensues in every way. The conscience is no longer governed by the sense of God's presence. Grace is unfelt, and thus the constraining power of Christ's love no longer operates. The holy fear of displeasing God vanishes. There is no consciousness of being set apart by the Spirit to the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. As He is altogether a nullity to such, so the god of this world blinds their thoughts that the radiancy of the gospel of Christ should not shine forth. There is no treasure consequently in the earthen vessels, any more than ever bearing about in the body the dying of Jesus that the life also of Jesus might be manifested in the body; still less is there exposure to death on account of Jesus, that His life also might be manifested in their mortal flesh, so that death should work in them but life in the objects of divine love (1 Cor. 4: 4-12).

Hence present things fail not to rush in and fill the void according to Satan's pleasure. The age asserts its influence, and the world is loved and the things that are in it. On the one hand, the poor saints seem vulgar and forward; and the trials of the assembly become odious and contemptible. On the other, how much there is in the world that begins to look fair and pleasant! Then excuses sound plausible for the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. How narrow-minded and weak appear the once decided grounds to stand aloof! Thus as the word of truth is the means of practical sanctification, so the fabrications of the enemy undermine and supplant till there is nothing that the Holy Spirit can use to warn the soul or deliver from this corrupting and malignant power.

The "fables" here are not qualified as "Jewish", as in Titus 1: 14, nor are they connected with "genealogies" as in 1 Tim. 1: 4 which points in the same direction. It seems a sound deduction therefore to regard them as of a larger character, and open to the workings of Gentile fancy no less than Jewish. But it is vain to speculate on what was then impending. Suffice it for us to know that they are here unlimited and are the sure accompaniment of turning away from the truth. One of admirable judgment infers from the structure of the phrase that their being already turned aside to fables leads them to turn away their ear from the truth. [See note in J. N. D.'s New Translation.]

Very different from that melancholy and humiliating picture of the course of Christendom is the stand to which the apostle proceeds to exhort Timothy.

"But be thou sober in all things, suffer evils (hardship), do an evangelist's work, fully perform thy ministry. For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is all but come. The good combat I have combated, the course I have finished, the faith I have kept: henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me in that day; and not to me only, but also to all those that love His appearing" (vers. 5-8).

Here therefore, as in 2 Timothy 2: 1, the charge is emphatically personal. To be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus has its own weighty place. But more is needed for a workman and leader in a day of general and dangerous declension, when intoxicating influences were as rife as they were various: "But thou, be sober in all things." Vigilance (γρηγορεῖν) is not the thought as in the Authorized Version, nor yet a sound mind (σωφρονισμός), however nearly allied, but sobriety of judgment. The Greek answers fully to the English usage, and from the primary sense of drinking no wine comes to the ready metaphor of being sober, or wary, in all things. Timothy was to stand clear of that which might excite or stupefy, in contrast with those drifting into a mass carried away from the truth into fables.

Further, he is called to "suffer evils",* or hardships, and this in the most general way. In 2 Tinothy 1: 8, it was to suffer evil "with the gospel", a favourite personification of the apostle, who was not ashamed of it, and would have the faithful servant identified with its afflictions here below. 2 Tinothy 2: 3 presents the different thought of Timothy's taking his part in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, without expressing or understanding any special comrade. Here all idea of "staring" is left out. Readiness to endure ills in his place and service is what the apostle claims. Paul did not lay a burden on his young colleague which himself had not long and fully borne. It is but fellowship with the Master's sufferings here below: only these, without of course speaking of the unique sorrows of atonement, went far deeper than those of His servants, which differences such as have experienced most would most freely own.

* It is the aorist here and in both the exhortations that follow — the simple act when the occasion arises, not the constant duty as in νῆφε "be sober," which precedes.

The next call appears to be often strangely misunderstood, as if the apostle meant Timothy to do an evangelist's work, when he had not that gift, and consequently was not really an evangelist! For such a construction there is not the shadow of a sound reason. The danger rather was that the increasing difficulties and troubles of the assembly might distract the young and sensitive labourer, calling him to forego the exercise of that which was truly his gift without, though not his only one, because of the demands from within. Work so blessed to which the Lord has called him must not be intermitted. The evangelist is not a preacher only: work of faith and labour of love in quest of souls characterize him who presses the glad tidings on souls individually as well as publicly.

But it is a mistake not to be passed over, that the evangelists did not form a special and separate class. It is more correct so to designate them than even the teachers, for Eph. 4: 11 couples the pastor with the teacher in a way in which he joins the evangelist with no other class; yet is the teacher elsewhere viewed as a distinct gift, though here, as often in fact, combined with pastorship. All gifts were certainly subordinate to apostles; yet neither evangelists nor any others were missionaries of the apostles, but of the Lord. He it is Who sends labourers into His harvest, as He is the Lord or it. The apostles were servants, though set by God first in the church. They could not send; still less could the church in this sense. Nor is it well founded to say that this was the work to which Timothy was called when he journeyed with the apostles. In all probability Timothy evangelized when privileged with that companionship; but the gift in itself had no connection with such a journey. On the contrary, Timothy would properly be intent on learning all he could in such circumstances, as it would be his joy to serve in every way personally and ministerially, if one may so say, to give the greater effect to the beloved and honoured chief, as this is implied in Acts 16: 3; Acts 19: 22.

That this is no question of working as subordinates and missionaries of the apostles is made still clearer by the case of the only one whose course as an evangelist is traced in the Acts. Philip officially was one "of the seven" (Acts 6: 5), but as a gift was an evangelist, and he is so designated (Acts 21: 8). When his office lapsed through the dispersion of all who composed the assembly in Jerusalem, he is seen (Acts 8) in the active exercise of his gift as an "evangelist", and with signal blessing both to a whole city and to an individual. In no case is Philip seen journeying with an apostle, but rather as one of a special and separate class. The apostles, on hearing that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John who put the seal of the Spirit on Philip's work (Acts 8: 14-17); for indeed lowly love had wrought, and rivalry was as far from the evangelist as fording it from the apostles. But the characteristic of what is described is the free and sovereign action of the Lord; and as the two apostles did not think it beneath their exalted place to evangelize "many villages" of the Samaritans during their return to Jerusalem, so Philip went on his unfettered way under the Lord's direction, evangelizing "all the cities" till he came to Caesarea. There was no question of a sphere circumscribed by the presence or the absence of an apostle. The world is in principle the evangelist's province: journeying or abiding is a question of his subjection to the Lord.

Lastly, Timothy is told "fully to perform (πληροφόρησον) his ministry" (ver. 5). It seems more than πλήρωσον (Acts 12: 25; Col. 4: 17), judging by the emphatic usage of the word where it occurs as verb or noun elsewhere. To translate with Beza, to "give full assurance of thy ministry," may sound more literal but hardly suits the subject before us' which wholly differs from faith, hope, or understanding. For these mean subjective enjoyment, the other would be objective proof; neither of which can rightly apply here, but filling to the full the measure of his service. Evangelizing, however incumbent on him who has the gift, was not the whole of the ministry which Timothy had received in the Lord: to fulfil all of it he is here enjoined.

A weighty and affecting enforcement follows in the approaching departure of the apostle: "For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is all but come" (ver. 6). The Authorized Version by no means conveys correctly the form; "now ready to be offered" is in several respects different from "am already being poured out," which exactly reproduces the original. It is not the first time that the apostle employs the same figure of a drink-offering. To his beloved Philippian brethren, he had written a little before, "But if also I am poured out as a drink-offering (libation) on the sacrifice and service of your faith . . ." (Phil. 2: 17). Now he drops all condition, as his release is before his eyes. He speaks as though the libation were already being made. Again, ἐφέστηκεν is hardly the same as ἐνέστηκεν, though the difference be the merest shade, which is sought to be expressed in "is all but come," as compared with "is present," or "come". "Is at hand", as in the Authorized Version, is the true rendering of neither, but of ἐγγύς or ἠγγικεν.

Few even of the apostles could say as Paul does at this solemn moment, "The good combat I have combated, the course I have finished, the faith I have kept" (ver. 7). The imputation of vainglory to the apostle, with death (and such a death!) before his eyes, is unworthy of anyone but a rationalist. It was of the utmost moment, not only for Timothy but for all who might follow, to know what grace can, and does, accomplish amidst the general wreck. Neither 1 Cor. 4: 3, 4, nor Phil. 3: 12-14, is inconsistent; whereas Phil. 4: 13 affords direct ground for its realization.

How are we to account for such inability in some to conceive the power of grace by faith? Is it not that so many excellent men, through a false system, are still grovelling in the fleshy combats of Rom. 7, and ignorant of that deliverance which Rom. 8 proclaims in virtue of a dead and risen Saviour, that is, of our death with Him and the power of the Spirit of life in Him. Under law they look for failure, and failure is theirs according to their unbelief, however grace may interfere sovereignly spite of the error.

But that battle of which the apostle speaks is the honourable combat which befits the soul set free, who has Christ before him, and has to face in his measure what Christ faced in the days of His flesh. It is the holy struggle for God's glory in a hostile world, end not merely the struggling against self in the despairing strife of Rom. 7. The latter we learn experimentally to teach us what we are even when converted, and also that the law aggravates our distress instead of giving us practical victory. Then we find that victory comes solely from giving ourselves up as good for nothing to find all in Christ dead and risen. Thenceforth begins the proper and good combat of us Christians, now not converted only but delivered, those in whom the Holy Spirit works in power with Christ before our eyes, Whose grace is sufficient for us. Paul had triumphed day by day, and so we also are called to defeat the enemy here below.

Next Paul writes, "the course I have finished." There is the general idea of the games narrowed to the race only; and he looks back on the course as "finished". At an earlier day in writing to the Corinthians, familiar as they were with the Isthmian Games in their neighbourhood, he had applied the theme to the life and service of the saints in general, introducing himself as an example of one running not uncertainly, not beating the air but buffeting, or bruising, his body, and bringing it into bondage instead of surrendering it to relaxation, and indulgence, and luxury (1 Cor. 9: 24-27). In Phil. 3: 13, 14, we hear him expressing the utmost ardour of devotedness in that race for the prize. The general reference recurs in 2 Tim. 2: 5, in just the same spirit in which it was first urged in 1 Cor. 9: 25. Now the apostle applies it to his own case, not for self-applause, as a bad conscience and an envious heart might think, but transferring these things in application to himself for Timothy's sake, and for all who afterwards in faith read these words. Boasting was far indeed from one who had one foot in the grave and all his heart with Christ in heaven.

Finally, he adds, "The faith I have kept." This Christendom has sought to make easy and sure by the regular profession of the three creeds. But alas! all who look below the surface know how pitiable is the failure, when the most heterodox leap over all bounds in the solemn and habitual repetition of every word; while godly, but weak souls, are too often stumbled at that in them which they fail to comprehend; and thus on both sides endless mischief ensues. The faith was really kept when creeds did not exist. The word and the Spirit of God are all-sufficient for him whose eye is on Christ by faith. And then keeping the faith to the end, as Paul did, was a blessed test of fidelity to the Master. How many have turned aside, following their own minds and lusts, without creeds at first and now with them! The creeds are but puny and human barriers and of necessity powerless, the inventions of men when the word and Spirit of God were losing power through unbelief.

The sense of all being closed here below is what gives force to his looking onward to the kingdom, and this prospect now follows most appropriately (ver. 8). For responsibility and service are bound up, not with the Son's coming to take us to the Father's home, but to the Lord's appearing, when fidelity to His name on earth, or the lack of it, will be made manifest.

It will be observed that it is the epiphany of the Lord which is presented in these pastoral Epistles rather than His presence or coming; because it is throughout a question of work done in and for the Lord, with its specific reward "in that day" from His hand. It is not heavenly grace with the blessed issues of Christ's love in heaven before the day shines. Here the necessary principles of righteousness and of order, ecclesiastical or moral, are laid down, and the work on that foundation is insisted on, with its reward to the faithful. Both aspects are true and important, each in its place, and can never be confounded by us without loss. Which of the two is before us in verse 8 is beyond controversy: "Henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall award to me in that day; and not only to me but to all those that love (ἠγαπηκόσιν have loved and do love) His appearing." Is not this precious? The promise is sure to the apostle, but he is careful to ensure it to all that love the Lord's appearing, which will put all evil down, judge the indifferent as well as the rebellious, and establish peace and righteousness over the earth, with the display of all the saints in whom He is glorified.

The apostle now turns to his companions in service with varied expression of feeling; and to Timothy first as one specially near to his heart.

"Use diligence to come unto me quickly; for Demas, having loved the present age, forsook me and went unto Thessalonica; Crescens unto Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Luke alone is with me. Take up and bring Mark with thee, for he is useful to me for ministry. But Tychicus I sent unto Ephesus. The cloak which I left behind in Troas with Carpus bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments" (vers. 9-13).

Without doubt, deep solemnity pervaded the apostle's spirit in the thought of his speedy departure and especially of the Lord's appearing; and no wonder: it is the goal of responsibility, the moment when all shall be brought to light and the mind of the Lord pronounced accordingly. Early in the Epistle Paul had expressed his great desire to see Timothy, whom he regarded with especial affection. Now he urges upon him to be zealous in coming quickly to him, and assigns the reason. He was deserted by a fellow-labourer. This affected his heart deeply. He felt, therefore, the greater wish to have Timothy with him. It would be the last opportunity, and as we saw in the first chapter, his mind called to remembrance the past, so here he could not but look onward to the future, as he thought of those who were to continue the work of the Lord here, when he himself was gone.

Not long before, in writing to the Colossians, the apostle conveyed to them the greetings of Luke and Demas, with those of Epaphras and his own (Col. 4: 19-14); and in writing to Philemon, probably about the same time, he conveys the salutation of Demas once more to his dearly-beloved Philemon, distinguishing him with others as his fellow-labourer (vers. 23, 24). Now he has the sorrow to write, as one reason more for Timothy's presence, "For Demas deserted me through love of the present age, and proceeded unto Thessalonica" (ver. 10).

This is sorrowfully explicit. To say that Demas left the apostle to go on an evangelistic tour is to slight the word, blot out the revealed motive, and to confound his case with that of the others who follow. It has been conjectured that the departure of Demas for Thessalonica was due to love for his birth-place. Others have guessed that it was for trading. We are not at liberty thus to speak; and the less because the Holy Ghost stamps the motive as love for the present age. The first was rather the fault of Mark and Barnabas in earlier days; but it had no deep root, and grace had long given self-judgment. The failure of Demas was far more serious, not merely because it was late in the day, but because love of the present age utterly opposes the moral purpose of Him Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age. It is not said that Demas forsook Christ, still less that Christ forsook Demas; but the sin was a grievous one, as is the endeavour to put the stigma of it on evangelizing. This was an insult reserved for folly and bitterness. Preaching the gospel is certainly not everything, but it is the foundation of all, as the evangelist is the gift of Christ. It is mare than probable that the fellow-labourers took their share in gospel work, as we know the apostle Paul always did with the utmost zeal and devotedness; but here it is not expressly said of anyone. To drag it in and connect it with the only one who is named as sinning against the Lord, is a very great affront to Him, unless it were said as an idle jest; but, if so, it is a jest that manifests a heartless feeling against the gospel or its heralds,

Of Crescens, we are only told that he went to Galatia. This is the sole mention of him in scripture. For what purpose he went we are not told, but it can scarcely be doubted that it was in the Lord's service. Tradition, and this the earliest, tells us that he went there to evangelize; but a later one speaks of him as labouring in Gaul. And it is well to note now that two of the earliest uncials (the Sinaitic and the Rescript of Paris) read here Gaul for Galatia, as do several cursive manuscripts, the Ethiopic Version of Rome, and other authorities. So early did ignorance or evil intent tamper with the copies of holy scripture.

Of Titus we are told that he went to Dalmatia. We may gather from this that he had finished his work in Crete, had joined the apostle, and was now gone in another direction. This is the last notice of him which scripture affords. There is not the smallest ground, therefore, for the tradition that he was diocesan of Crete. A singular fatality of error appears to pervade these extra-scriptural notices, which seem to be mere legends of imagination, grafted upon a mast superficial use of scripture. It is altogether an exception to find a single one of the old traditions containing an atom of truth. How deeply then should we feel the blessing of having God's perfect word!

"Only Luke is with me. Mark take up and bring with thyself, for he is to me profitable (useful) for ministry" (ver. 11). It is interesting to observe that the verse brings before us these two inspired writers of Gospels. They were not apostles, but are none the less authoritative. They were doubtless prophets, which gift was in exercise indeed for Matthew and John also, in so writing the prophetic writings, or scriptures, as the apostle designates the Books of the New Testament in Romans 16: 26.

The context of this passage is decisive, not to speak of the absence of the article, that the Authorized and the Revised versions are wrong in giving "the scriptures of the prophets." For the apostle is speaking of the "revelation of the mystery which had been kept in silence through times everlasting, but now is manifested." In Old Testament times the silence was kept; now is the time for its manifestation by New Testament prophets, who, instead of testifying to Israel only, make known that mystery, according to the commandment of the Eternal God, unto all the nations for obedience of faith. It is the gospel in short, and here specifically Paul's gospel in contrast with the law. And it is only confusion to mix this up with what God had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures at the beginning of the Epistle (Rom. 1: 1-5), where accordingly there is no allusion to "the mystery", which is fittingly introduced at the close only.

Luke, then, was the only companion of the apostle. He had been his fellow-labourer during much of his ministry; he abides with him before his death. But, not content with this, the apostle desires Timothy to take up Mark on his way and bring him along with himself, for he adds with exceeding grace, "he is to me useful for ministry." We know how greatly grieved Paul had been with Mark's desertion in early days, and how it had led even to a breach with Barnabas (Acts 15: 37-10). But this was long blotted out by the healing goodness of God. And already the apostle had joined Mark with himself as one of the few fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God which had been a comfort to him; as in the same Epistle to the Colossians he alludes to charges they had received to welcome him if he came to them (Col. 4: 10, 11). But now he goes farther and reinstates him in personal nearness of service to himself, the very thing in which he had originally failed. In nature a breakdown is irreparable, not so where grace prevails; for "we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8: 37).

"But Tychicus I sent unto Ephesus." The Revised Version is right, the Authorized Version wrong; for the apostle draws a slight distinction here, which is expressed by "but", rather than by "and". The others had proceeded on their own responsibility. Tychicus was sent by the apostle to Ephesus. Here, again, it is in vain for us to conjecture the special object of his mission. We may assure ourselves that faith in the Lord and love to the saints were the motives. But it is well to take notice of an authority that sent him, to which none can now lay claim.

Here follows (ver. 13) a new command by Paul of exceeding interest in the midst of these interesting notices of his fellow-labourers: "The cloak which (that) I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments."

Some pious men have allowed themselves the narrow and unseemly thought that inspiration is confined only to matters of spiritual truth. This is to lose a great deal of the grace of the gospel, and to shut out from our souls the interest which the Lord takes in what concerns the body as well as the mind. The truth is that the grace of our God occupies itself with everything that relates to us, and our wisdom is to take up nothing in which we cannot look for the favour, guidance, and blessing of the Lord. Such is the wondrous fruit, not only of the incarnation of the Son, but of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. He makes the body the temple of God. If it were not so, the ordinary matters of this life would be left outside and clothed with nothing but a human connection. We wrong the Lord and defraud ourselves of much where we do not bring Him into even the least of the things that perish: "Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10: 31).

Hence the cloak that the apostle left with Carpus at Troas is not left for an uninspired note. It forms a direct part of this solemn Epistle, written for all times. God led His servant to direct Timothy to bring it, when he came. Winter was approaching, and the cloak would be needed. It is good for our souls to believe that God takes a personal interest even in so small a matter. Where God is left out, even saints become a prey to personal vanity or worldly fashion.

But Timothy was to bring also the "books", "especially the parchments." The latter were probably not yet written upon: as being valuable material and suited to transmit more permanently, we cannot doubt that the apostle destined "the parchments" for the edification of the saints and the glory of the Lord in an especial manner. "The books" may not have been inspired writings, and the indefinite language here used would rather imply the contrary. But they were not therefore devoid of interest to the apostle, even with death and the appearing of the Lord before his soul.

From fellow-labourers gone or sent away and from the desire to have Timothy with him, the apostle turns to an open adversary and to those who forsook him in his recent hour of need.

"Alexander, the coppersmith, did (lit., showed) many evil things against me: the Lord will render to him according to his works; of whom be thou ware also, for he exceedingly withstood our words. At my first defence no one took my part, but all deserted me: may it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and gave me power, that through me the proclamation might be fully made, and all the Gentiles might hear; and I was delivered out of a lion's mouth. The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve for His heavenly kingdom; to Whom [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages. Amen." (vers. 14-18).

We may profitably notice the different form which evil takes in the several adversaries of the apostle. Phygellus and Hermogenes were prominent in personal disaffection (2 Tim. 1: 15). Among those who, in Asia, turned away from Paul, Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2: 17) have a far darker character, for in their case profane folly wrought, and this, advancing to greater impiety. They were teachers, it would appear, but not of God. "Their words", said the apostle, "will spread as a gangrene." The character of their error was the destructive fable that the resurrection has taken place already, which, as it overthrew the faith of some, could not but falsify the walk and testimony of all led astray by it. But even as to these, he does not deal with the same solemnity as John applies in his second Epistle to those who denied the person of Christ; for this demands the strongest reprobation of the Christian heart, as nothing else ought. Of Demas (2 Tim. 4: 10) we have seen enough already. The smith, Alexander, appears rather in the character of an active personal enemy of the apostle; and the more, because he seems to have been once in fellowship, which would give him no small advantage in mischief as in opportunities. The many evil things may not all have come to effect, but he did them and showed what he was in doing them.

Yet one cannot but feel that the critical text, which follows on the highest authority, is a great relief to the spirit: "the Lord will render to him according to his works." That this verb should be turned into the optative, as in the common text, with a few uncials, most cursives, and many of the ecclesiastical writers, et al., one can understand; for man readily falls in with Jewish feeling. On the other hand, that the Lord will render him according to his works is a certain truth which every Christian conscience must feel; while it also is truth in special accordance with these pastoral Epistles which bring into distinctness the Lord's appearing.

Against Alexander, Timothy also was to stand on his guard. It is clear, therefore, that he was an adversary still bent on evil to the saints and on opposition to the work. The gentleness of Timothy's character might expose him to a mistaken kindness, where caution was imperatively required: "for", says the apostle, "he exceedingly withstood our words." More than the apostle had warned or entreated the evil-doer, and it may be Timothy himself among others.

The apostle now turns to his own great and recent trial at Rome, and the experience, bitter in many respects, but not without deep thanksgiving to the only One Who never fails and Who gives us to know that all things work together for good to those who love God — to those that are called according to purpose. "At my first defence no one stood with me, but all deserted me: may it not be laid to their account!" (ver. 16). How keenly painful and humiliating this was to the apostle few can estimate, because so few make the least approach to him either in faith or in love. Not a soul on earth could feel as he felt what such failure was to the Lord Himself; which feeling gave, therefore, immense emphasis to his prayer, "May it not be imputed to them." Psalm 105: 13-15 makes evident what the Lord felt of old when His chosen ones went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people: "He suffered no man to do them wrong, yea, He reproved kings for their sake, saying, 'Touch not Mine anointed and do My prophets no harm.'" Now, He may let any or all men do them wrong, and for the present may reprove neither kings, nor subjects, nor serfs, when they scorn His anointed, and do His servants all the harm they can. Another day He will render to each according to his works. But what does He feel now? What in any place where His own betray and desert those He honours, and those who, for His sake, served them best in the hour of deepest need? May it not be laid to their charge!

Christ, however, never fails. So the apostle in verse 6 says, "But the Lord stood with me and gave me power." This was more than strengthening him personally — "gave me power that through me the proclamation might be fully made, and all the Gentiles might hear." Thus, to Christ's glory, and in suffering for His sake, did the apostle bear witness of the truth, and the gospel, and the Lord, before the highest authorities that govern the world. There was no fawning on great men, no patronage on the world's part. "And I was delivered out of a lion's mouth." Whether this alludes to the Emperor in particular, or to his representative in a more general way, men say they are not able to determine. The phrase clearly means rescued from most imminent or overwhelming danger.

But the apostle enlarges as he looks onward. "The Lord will deliver me from every evil work" — not necessarily out of a lion's mouth another day, but from all real evil, and "will preserve for His heavenly kingdom." Earth might yield still more of sorrow and of human persecution to the uttermost. For the apostle it was no question of flesh being saved, but of preservation for the Lord's heavenly kingdom, to Whom be the glory unto the ages of the ages. His and our every prayer may well end in a continual Hallelujah.

The apostle now salutes some that were dear to him, whose names are familiar to us throughout the inspired history.

"Salute Prisca and Aquila and the house of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren. The Lord [Jesus Christ be] with thy spirit. Grace be with you" (vers. 19-22).

"Salute Prisca and Aguila and the house of Onesiphorus." The two former were early associates, who remained faithful to the last. With them he associates the household of Onesiphorus, of whom he made mention at the close of the first chapter of this Epistle. The apostle deeply felt the identification of Onesiphorus with his own circumstances as a prisoner: "He often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain." He was no longer in Rome, though perhaps not then at Ephesus, his usual dwelling place. When he was in Rome, he zealously sought out the apostle and found him. God prospers earnest love for Christ's sake. It was indeed no other love than what the apostle had proved at Ephesus, and nobody knew better than Timothy what service had been rendered there. These dear saints now receive together the last salutation of the apostle, once more the prisoner of Christ.

"Erastus abode in Corinth; and Trophimus I left at Miletus sick."* There was no compulsion in regulating the labours of his fellow-ministers, even by an apostle. They were servants of the Lord, and none would have pressed this more solemnly than Paul, none have shrunk more than he from setting up a directive authority between the Lord and His servants. There were urgent calls elsewhere, no doubt; but Erastus abode at Corinth. It was he probably who was once treasurer of the city. Very different were the circumstances of Trophimus. Him the apostle left at Miletus sick. Miraculous power was never used by the apostle either for the relief of a brother or even for the progress of the work. Here, again, the Lord only was looked to, and His glory was the sole motive either for working miracles or for abstaining. So we find in the former Epistle the apostle prescribing to Timothy that he should be no longer a water-drinker, but use a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities — just as any Christian friend might do at this present time, but without having the Spirit's inspiration. This abides now in the written word. Certainly there was no miracle in Timothy's case, any more than in that of Trophimus. Miracles as a rule were signs for unbelievers, not a means of cure for the household of faith.

* The following remarks in Paley's Horae Paulinae, chap. xii. No. 1, may interest the reader: —

1. "In the twentieth verse of the fourth chapter [of 2 Tim.], St. Paul informs Timothy that 'Erastus abode at Corinth.' The form of expression implies that Erastus had staid behind at Corinth when St. Paul left it. But this could not be meant of any journey from Corinth which St. Paul took prior to his first imprisonment at Rome, for when Paul departed from Corinth, as related in the twentieth chapter of the Acts Timothy was with him. And this was the last time the apostle left Corinth before his coming to Rome; because he left it to proceed on his way to Jerusalem, soon after his arrival at which place he was taken into custody, and continued in that custody till he was carried to Caesar's tribunal. There could be no need therefore to inform Timothy that Erastus staid behind at Corinth upon this occasion, because, if the fact was so, it must have been known to Timothy, who was present, as well as to St. Paul.

2. In the same verse our Epistle also states the following article 'Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick.' When St. Paul passed through Miletus on his way to Jerusalem, as related in Acts 20, Trophimus was not left behind, but accompanied him to that city. He was indeed the occasion of the uproar at Jerusalem, in consequence of which St. Paul was apprehended; for 'they had seen,' says the historian, 'before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.' This was evidently the last time of Paul's being at Miletus before his first imprisonment, for, as hath been said after his apprehension at Jerusalem, he remained in custody till he was taken to Rome.

In these two articles we have a journey referred to, which must have taken place subsequent to the conclusion of St. Luke's history, and of course after St. Pauls' liberation from his first imprisonment. The Epistle, therefore, which contains this reference, since it appears from other parts of it to have been written while St. Paul was a prisoner at Rome, proves that he had returned to that city again, and undergone there a second imprisonment."

"Do thy diligence to come before winter" (ver. 21). In verse 9 he had said, "do thy diligence to come shortly unto me." The repetition with the defining words, "before winter", is surely not in vain. He had told Timothy in verse 13 to bring the cloak left at Troas with Carpus. But he no doubt would also warn Timothy to start before wintry weather would expose him to such a voyage as he himself had known (Acts 27); and he would give him the opportunity of helping Paul the aged, and now a prisoner also. The Spirit of God deigns to think of the most ordinary things of this life. The body is for the Lord, not merely the soul; and the Lord is for the body (1 Cor. 6: 13). It is, therefore, not only moral debasement which should be far from the saint, but vanity and worldliness. On the other hand, the Lord condescends to think of that which might be a physical comfort. He has no pleasure in His servant shivering with cold; still less does true devotedness to the Master show itself in objects less plain, any more than in enduring vermin. Superstition revels in these wretched ways; scripture is not less sober than it is holy. Tradition is the pride of man and the sport of Satan.

"Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren" (ver. 21).

The apostle was careful to promote love, and he sends the salutations of several by name, not of men only, but of a woman, as well as of the brethren generally. If a woman was put first; and with good reason, in verse 19, a woman is, with no less wisdom, put last of those personally named in verse 21.

The fabulists have spared the first-named. The second it has been sought to identify with the vile friend of the vile epigrammatist Martial, in order to build up the romance of his subsequent conversion to Christianity, and marriage with Claudia, a supposed royal maiden of Britain, here assumed to be the Christian companion of the apostle! One admits the ingenuity of the mosaic formed out of small pieces of Martial 1: 32; 4: 13; 5: 48; 6: 58; 11: 53; and of Tacitus Agric. 14, Ann. xii. 32, as well as of the dubious but possible inscription found at Chichester in 1723 (Horsley's Brit. Rom. p. 192, No. 76). But it will be noticed that in our verse they are not classed together as a pair: Linus separates them; and there is a Linus in the Spaniard's epigrams, as well as a Pudens, and a Claudia, and a Claudia Rufina whether identical or not. That Romanists should seize on the Linus here mentioned as bishop of Rome in apostolic times is natural. But it is certain that the earliest extant record of this is a sentence of Irenaeus which is palpably unfounded on a point far more important than the identity of Linus. Speaking of Peter and Paul, he says, θεμελιώσαντες οὖν καὶ οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν. Now it is demonstrable from scripture that the church in Rome cannot boast like Corinth of an apostolic foundation. There were converts thence from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 10). The apostle Paul wrote to them an elaborate Epistle, wholly ignoring Peter's ministry there, much more his episcopate there for 25 years! according to the Chronicle of Eusebius. Paul himself is only known as a prisoner in Rome, though he may have edified them after his discharge, before he was a second time in bonds and his martyrdom that followed. As for Peter, the apostolate of the circumcision was his allotted province (Gal. 2: 7); and though we do hear of his unhappy visit to Antioch (Gal. 2: 11), not a word is said of Rome. We only know of his labours outside Judaea in the east (1 Peter 5: 13), not in the west. His Epistles are both addressed to the Christian Jews far east of Rome; whereunto if he went at all, it was to die for Christ, not to found the church there, still less to join Paul in ordaining Linus to its episcopate. Even the Benedictine editors confess and do not pretend to solve "difficultates quibus primorum Petri (!) successorum tum chronologia, tum successio, . . ." Eusebius and Theodoret make Linus to succeed after Peter's death; and so Baronius and de Tillemont. The Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 46), and Ruffinus (Praef. Clem. Recog.) hold that Linus was appointed bishop at an earlier date, while the apostles lived and moved elsewhere to the regions beyond; with which the words of Irenaeus are quite consistent; and so Bp. Pearson and Fleury the historian. Epiphanius adds to the confusion by the assertion that it was Clement who was ordained by Peter (!) for the Roman see, while he and Paul pursued their apostolic labours, as Tertullian had affirmed before him. All the differences of the ancients are far from being here stated. The only thing certain, when we leave scripture, is the uncertainty of human tradition.

As to those whose salutations appear in verse 21, their names were too common then to build on personally. One thing is sure, that they were Christians; those of whom Martial writes, were heathen, who never, as far as we know, submitted to the righteousness of God. Martial came a young man to Rome only about two years before the apostle's death, and did not at first take up letters. His epigrams, as far as is known, were after, most of them long after, when his Pudens and Linus and Claudia were still heathen.

"All the brethren" are added by the apostle who would not forget the least, dear to Timothy as to himself. How strange, not to say unaccountable, that the great apostle Peter, if in Rome then as tradition boldly declares, should have no place, even where persons so little known have their names indelibly inscribed by grace! Can it be believed that Peter was at Rome with "our beloved brother Paul" at his first defence, when no one took his part, but all forsook him? or that Paul could have written, "only Luke is with me"? It is too plain that tradition is untrustworthy, and fails wholly in those moral elements which ever accompany the inspiration of God.

There is good and ancient evidence for "the Lord Jesus Christ" in the last verse (22), the Alexandrian and two cursives adding "Jesus" only. Though one or two cursives may omit the clause as a whole, there is no doubt of the "Lord", which, it may be noticed, is the prevailing designation throughout, save where special reasons have "Christ Jesus". But the prayer is that He be "with thy spirit". Such was the last inspired desire of the apostle for Timothy, with "grace be with you" for those in general with Timothy, which is marred in the Pesh. Syr.'s making Timothy the only object in the second wish as in the first. It is the expression of a heart that could feel fervently for all, yet knew how to make a difference.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY

That the Pastoral Epistles should have a common character distinct from those to the saints is easily understood; and that each has its own peculiarity is a plain matter of evidence to the attentive reader. The difference is conspicuous in the two letters to Timothy; for the first is as careful to insist on order as the second is to provide for a state of disorder that even then the godly might have divine directions for their walk, bound as they were, and as we are, to take account of so sad a change. That to Titus comes in character between the two extremes.

THE FIRST EPISTLE

1 Timothy 1. "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus according to command of God our Saviour and of Christ Jesus our hope, to Timotheus, genuine child in faith; grace, mercy, peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord." The prefatory words, as usual, give a clear insight into the scope of what follows. The apostolic title is as important for authority here as for the truths of the gospel and of the church to the Roman and to the Corinthian saints, to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians. "According to command" assimilates this letter and that to Titus, while it differentiates both from the second Epistle to Timothy. "God our Saviour" is also very notable here and to Titus, bespeaking the universal testimony of God's grace in the gospel, and its strong contrast with Judaism. God in love goes out actively to man in the death of the Mediator. Christ is the hope, and is unfailing if cherished. The exhortatory injunction to Timothy was first and foremost to guard the truth from all alien teaching, and specially from fables and interminable genealogies which are such as yield questionings rather than God's dispensation that is in faith (vers. 3-7), the end of it being love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith. It is inseparable from Christ.

These then are the substantial blessings of the gospel, and they are missed by such as turned aside to vain discourse, wishing to be law-teachers. There was the early plague of imagination, and of legalism which assails grace as antinomian while itself tending to that evil, whatever its own contrary claim. It is not that by the gospel the lawful use of the law is denied, which is to convict lawless and insubordinate persons. The gospel alone witnesses of Christ to save sinners (of whom the apostle specifies himself as first, to whom, in his ignorant unbelief, mercy was shown — Christ's whole long-suffering (vers. 8-16). This draws out his praise, after which he repeats the injunction laid on Timothy, that he might war the good warfare, maintaining faith and a good conscience. For such as put away the latter make shipwreck of the former; of whom he holds up Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he had delivered to Satan for their dishonour to God (vers. 18-20). How practical and personal it all is! And what is truth but a sham and a shame if it be not so?

1 Timothy 2. Here we find the public attitude of Christianity. All should breathe of loving goodwill toward man and the chiefs of the world, even if heathen and persecuting. "I exhort therefore first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men; for kings and all that are in authority, . . . for this is good and acceptable before God our Saviour, Who wisheth that all men be saved and come unto full knowledge of truth. For there is one God, one mediator also of God and men, a man Christ Jesus Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times; to which I was set preacher and apostle (I speak truth, I lie not), teacher of nations in truth and love" (vers. 1-7). Grace rises above all natural thoughts, feelings, and ways, and calls on those who believe to bear a living witness of "God our Saviour", Who is willing to save all that bow to Jesus, the ransom for all. Such is the testimony; and now that the cross on man's side proves the guilt of all, Jews and Gentiles, the same cross on God's side proclaims salvation to all that believe.

Paul was herald of this grace, but moreover apostle in full authority, and teacher in patient wisdom, that even besotted Gentiles might believe and know the truth.

Yet reverence and divine order become those who profess the truth. "I will therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up pious [or, holy] hands, without wrath and disputation." All the faithful were holy brethren; and it was no longer the question of a Jewish sanctuary any more than of a Gentile high place. They were free and invited to pray elsewhere. The women were to cultivate modesty and discretion, instead of fashion and finery, with good works as their true ornament. To learn is their place, not teaching, nor authority, but quiet subjection; for which the apostle cites the case of Eve, who, deceived, brought in transgression, whatever mercy may do even in her chief natural sorrow (vers. 8-15).

1 Timothy 3. Then Timothy received directions for the local charges of bishops (or overseers) and deacons. "Faithful is the saying: if one is eager for oversight, he desireth a good [or, right] work." The requisite qualities (vers. 2-7) are moral or spiritual, rather than the possession of an express gift. Free from reproach, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach; not quarrelsome over wine, not a striker, but gentle; not fond of money; ruling his own house well, having children in subjection with all gravity (for how could one command respect in God's house who had it not in his own?). And again, not a novice, nor one destitute of a good report without. All this is of so much the more moment as it has been slighted habitually by the greatest systems down to the least. But we cannot wonder where the office itself is turned to ecclesiastical and even worldly show. Those to be entrusted with the diaconate are briefly described in verses 8-13, and in this case the women or wives, who might be useful or a hindrance, are included.

Occasion is given here, not to a doxology, but to a solemn presentation of that church in which the apostle, Timothy, elders, and deacons, and indeed all saints, each called in his special place, have to walk. "These things I write to thee, hoping to come to thee rather soon; but if I delay that thou mayest know how one ought to behave in God's house, which is a living God's assembly, pillar and support of the truth. And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He Who was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, was seen of angels, was preached among nations, was believed on in [the] world, was received up in glory" (vers. 14-16). Godliness depends on and is the fruit of the truth in Christ, the secret no longer hidden but revealed; which as a whole, therefore, is in ways wholly distinct from and above a Jewish Messiah reigning in visible power, but One known as we Christians know Him. Compare 2 Cor. 5: 16-18.

1 Timothy 4. With this mystery the apostle draws a dark contrast. "But the Spirit speaketh expressly that in latter times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons by hypocrisy of legend-mongers branded as to their own conscience, forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats which God created for reception with thanksgiving by those faithful and well acquainted with the truth; because every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be rejected if received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through God's word and prayer" (vers. 1-5). Asceticism is no more Christian than moral laxity, though it assumes a fairer form. It is a pretentious assault on the Creator and Preserver of man by setting up a superior sanctity, which ends in turpitude against nature. Monachism is unconscious war against God.

Timothy was called to be a good servant of Christ Jesus by laying before the brethren the contrary good teaching of benign and faithful providence, and avoiding what he calls profane and old wives' fables. For piety or godliness is profitable for everything, having promise of the present life as well as that which is to come: our God is Preserver of all men, especially of the faithful. Timothy must not be deterred by such as objected to his youth, but meet the reproach by being an example in word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Reading, exhortation, and instruction are enjoined till Paul came. The gift that was conferred on him he was not to neglect, but to be diligent in these things, and be wholly in them, that his progress might be manifest to all. A divided heart ruins the service of Christ. Self-vigilance, too, is imperative, to save both himself and others (vers. 6-16).

1 Timothy 5. Here we have the proprieties of that work, which cannot be slighted without danger and harm. An elder he was not to rebuke but exhort as a father, younger ones as brethren, elder women as mothers, and younger ones as sisters, with all purity (vers. 1, 2). Widows were to have special and careful consideration (vers. 3-10), and younger ones to be shunned, in which case suited directions are laid down (vers. 11-16). Elders or bishops were to rule, and those who ruled well to be counted worthy of double honour especially those labouring in word and teaching: a scripture important to bear in mind; as it is also to receive no accusation against one, save with two or three witnesses. Those that sin should be convicted before all, that all the rest too should fear. He adjures Timothy solemnly to observe these duties without prejudice and without favour, cautious against haste in sanctioning others, lest it might compromise himself. He even deigns to counsel liberty where his scruples might injure health, before he closes the warning he had begun, lest he should unwarily be a partaker of other men's sins (vers. 1 7-25).

1 Timothy 6 Christian slaves are not forgotten, as to whom grave and gracious counsels are given, in the face of different teaching, which is exposed sternly, though the last clause of verse 5 is a spurious accretion. Godliness or piety with contentment, the reverse of making it a means of gain, is great gain. For as we brought nothing into the world, neither can we carry anything out. Having food and covering, we will be, or let us be, content therewith (vers. 1-8). How true that those who will be rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and perdition! For the love of money is a (not exactly "the") root of every evil, after which some too eager wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. Timothy is then urged, as God's man, to flee these things and to pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, meekness, to combat the good combat of faith, to lay hold on eternal life, according to the good confession he confessed (vers. 9-12).

Then follows a deep and lofty injunction which crowns this Epistle, and urges his keeping this confession spotless and irreproachable till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in its own seasons the blessed and only Potentate shall show, the King of those that reign and the Lord of those that rule, Who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; Whom none of men hath seen or can see, to Whom be honour and might everlasting. Amen (vers. 13-16).

Thereon Timothy is told to charge the rich to rest. not in uncertain wealth, but on the living God, to be rich in good works, laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold of what is really life. Timothy, in fine, is to keep the entrusted deposit, avoiding profane, vain babblings and oppositions of falsely named knowledge (vers. 17-20). How trenchantly the apostle speaks before he wishes him grace!

THE SECOND EPISTLE

The second Epistle to Timothy assumes a deeper character because of the grave disorder of a general kind which was before the eyes of the Holy Spirit. The regular means would not meet that which already and most seriously disclosed departure from God. Hence in the address it is no longer "according to command . . .", but "by God's will according to promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus", anticipating in measure that truth on which the apostle John falls back for the last time. Individual fidelity is the more required, yet there should be in no way giving up but maintaining the divine association of saints.

2 Timothy 1. The value of unfeigned faith rises before the apostle's heart in this last word of his to his beloved child, to whom he again wishes grace, mercy, peace. He thanks God Whom he serves from his forefathers in a pure conscience, with increasing remembrance of Timothy and his tears, and with longing to see him that he might be filled with joy. He speaks even more decidedly of the faith which dwelt first in Timothy's grandmother and in his mother, as in his child also (vers. 1-6). He puts him in mind to stir up the gift of God in him through the imposition of the apostle's hands, and bids him not be ashamed of the Lord's testimony, nor of Paul His prisoner, but to suffer evil with the gospel according to God's power. He it was Who saved us with a holy calling not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before everlasting ages, but is now manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, annulling death as He did and bringing to light life and incorruption through the gospel, unto which Paul was appointed herald and apostle and teacher of Gentiles. For this cause Paul was suffering thus, but not ashamed; "for I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to guard for that day my deposit" (vers. 7-12).

Hence he says. "Have an outline of healthful words which thou heardest from me in faith and love that is in Christ Jesus; the good deposit guard through the Holy Spirit that indwells in us." Scripture alone is reliable, as is afterwards expressly said, not human tradition, of all things the most uncertain. Timothy knew the cowardice of many — that all those in Asia, specifying two, had deserted Paul. How different Onesiphorus! for whom and whose house he asks mercy, because he often refreshed him, and when in Rome the more diligently sought him out when a prisoner, besides his loving service in Ephesus (vers. 13-18).

2 Timothy 2. Faithful as Timothy had been, the apostle is most earnest, "Thou therefore, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things thou heardest from me among many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, such as shall be able to teach others also. [Thou therefore] take thy share of suffering evil as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one on service entangleth himself with the businesses of life, that he may please him that enlisted [him]. But if one also contend [in the games], he is not crowned unless he have contended lawfully. The labouring husbandman must first partake of the fruits" (vers. 1-6). These maxims need only to be correctly represented to carry their weighty sense. It was no rite, but truth which had to be communicated, yet suitably an earnest devotedness is pressed, and subjection to the Lord's will and, as the labourer, first to share the fruits.

"Remember," says he, "Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of David's seed, according to my gospel, wherein I suffer evil unto bonds as a malefactor; but the word of God is not bound" (vers. 8, 9). Royal rights gave Him no exemption. On the contrary, death was His portion, and what a death! Him Paul followed and imitated as far as this could be, as he urges on all in verses 11-13, and on Timothy to put them in remembrance of these things, instead of wordy fights worse than profitless. His earnest zeal cut straightly the word of truth, warned by two others whom he names as samples who had strayed in asserting the resurrection as past, overthrowing faith under so spurious an exaggeration (vers. 14-18).

This gives occasion to an instruction of great and general value. "Nevertheless the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth those that are His; and, Let every one that nameth the Lord's name depart from unrighteousness." From individual comfort and responsibility he goes an-to corporate condition and duty. "Now in a great house are vessels, not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earthenware, and some to honour and some to dishonour. If one therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, serviceable for the master, prepared unto every good work. But flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart" (vers. 19-22). If the Lord's secret is with Himself, responsibility is mine if I call on His name; I am bound to have done with iniquity. No presumed usefulness can justify my persevering in wrong. But does not God's house abound in anomalies? Am I to leave it? No, I dare not cease from the public profession of the Lord's name with all the baptized; but I am here to purge myself from the vessels to dishonour in that house, and, instead of isolation, to follow every Christian duty with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. It may cost much, but it is plain and obligatory in all times and places. And while moral care is ever incumbent, He claims my soul also, with a peaceful and gentle bearing, "in meekness instructing those that oppose, if haply God may give them repentance unto acknowledgement of truth, and that they may wake up out of the snare of the devil, taken as they are by him, for His will" (vers. 23-26).

2 Timothy 3. Next comes a solemn warning of the outlook in Christendom, for many would expect progressive good on earth. "But this know that in the last days difficult (or, grievous) times shall be there. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, uncontrolled, fierce, haters of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, pleasure-lovers rather than God-lovers, having a form of piety [or, godliness] but deniers of its power; and these turn away from" (vers. 1-5). One might have shrunk from a course so peremptory, had the apostolic charge been less plain. It was direct to Timothy, but for every Christian also. The evil was at work even then, and the apostle severely characterizes not only the corrupt misleaders, like Jannes and Jambres, but the misled as silly women laden with sins, led by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to right knowledge of truth (vers. 6-9).

As the false or senseless teachers have their limit set, Timothy is told how he had closely followed Paul's teaching, course, purpose, faith, long-suffering, love, patience, persecutions, sufferings. Such is the ministry of Christ the Lord, with persecutions endured, and the Lord delivering out of all! What is more, the apostle assures that all who desire to live piously in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted, but wicked men and imposters shall advance for the worse, deceiving and being deceived. How sad, yet how true! What is the resource or safeguard for Timothy and for all saints, "Abide thou in those things which thou didst learn and wast persuaded of, knowing of whom thou didst learn them [they were no mere traditions of unknown source]; and that from a babe thou knowest the sacred letters [those of the Old Testament] that are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus. Every scripture [of New Testament or of Old] is God-inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished thoroughly unto every good work" (vers. 10-17).

2 Timothy 4. Not less solemn is the apostle's direct charge: "I testify earnestly before God and Christ Jesus that is about to judge living and dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, convict, rebuke, encourage, with all long-suffering and doctrine. For the time will be when they will not endure sound teaching, but according to their own lusts they will heap up to themselves teachers, having an itching ear, and from the truth they will turn away their ear, and will be turned aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer evil, do evangelist's work, fully perform thy ministry" (vers. 1-5).

Be it observed that Christ's appearing, not His coming as such, is immediately connected with His kingdom. He comes to receive His own to Himself and for the Father's house; He appears to establish His kingdom, and all shall see Him, and then in the same heavenly glory. "For I am already being poured out, and the time of my departure is all but come. The good combat I have combated, the course I have finished, the faith I have kept: henceforth is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me in that day; and not to me only, but also to those that love [have loved and do] His appearing" (vers. 6-8). Here again, as His coming is the expression of sovereign grace, His appearing is the display of His righteous remembrance of faithfulness' and, of course, of the want of it.

Then the apostle bids Timothy be diligent to come unto him quickly; he valued his loving presence, and knew that Timothy reciprocated it. He speaks of Demas with grief. Whatever he might be as known to God, he deserted the apostle through love of the present age. Crescens and Titus had their work, and only Luke was with the apostle. He wished Timothy to take up on his way and bring Mark with him. There indeed he had joy, if sorrow over Demas For Mark, says he, is useful to me for ministry. He had no longer Tychicus whom he sent to Ephesus. How interesting in these ministerial matters, to have the apostle — while writing an inspired pastoral epistle — telling Timothy to bring the cloak which he left behind in the Troad with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments! Hence we learn of the Christian liberty the apostle exercised as to these outward things of body and mind. He preferred to have a cloak brought than to buy another, and he asked for his books there, which had their interest or use for him, though looking for death he knew not how soon. He would not so speak of the scriptures. If he put special stress on "the parchments", or unwritten material of a costly and durable nature, was it to have his Epistles correctly copied and multiplied? (vers. 9-13).

Next, he alludes to the hostility of Alexander the coppersmith, not in a prayer, but in the grave conviction that the Lord would render to him according to his works; for he showed much evil against the apostle, who warns Timothy also to beware of him (vers. 14, 15). Paul pathetically names how all deserted him on this repeated imprisonment when his first defence came on; but the Lord stood by him, turned it for all the Gentiles to hear, and delivered him from most imminent danger, as He also surely would from every evil work, and preserve him for His heavenly kingdom. He wishes salutations to his old friends, Prisca and Aquila, and to Onesiphorus' house. He tells of Erastus at Corinth, and Trophimus left sick at Miletus; for a sign of healing (as the rule) did not apply to a Christian, who came under the Lord's government. He gives the greeting of Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren; he prays that the Lord should be with the spirit of Timothy, and grace be with him and others there (vers. 16-22).

Acts  1 - 7.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles newly translated from an amended text.

Third Edition

Prefaces to the First Edition

[Acts 1 - 14]

The interesting and instructive nature of this inspired book, the complement of the Gospel by the same writer, has drawn out special commentaries not a few in ancient as well as modern times. Nevertheless it seems desirable that it should be set out in the light of the Holy Spirit's presence and action, as well as of our Lord's return: truths by no means adequately represented in any such work known to the author, conscious as he is of his own manifold shortcomings. He trusts, however, that the reader may be helped by such suggestions as are here brought together in His grace Who alone can bless, but Who loves to bless the feeblest through the name of the Lord Jesus which shines in the Acts from the beginning of the book to the end.

[Acts 15 - 28]

The reader has now before him the second volume of this exposition which completes the work. He who has devoted time and labour to this end, as he sought the gracious direction of our God, can but pray for His abundant blessing on His word where His children seek to grow in spiritual understanding and enjoyment of what is alike reliable and precious. The book is rich none the less because we have not much of the Twelve (notwithstanding its traditional title), though a great deal of Peter first, and of Paul last, and truly the last becomes first, whatever man might wish. But everywhere it is the Lord Jesus exalted on high, yet actively working by the Holy Spirit below, whether in the service of individuals in no way confined to apostles, or in the assembly as well as the kingdom of God. May grace recall believers to imperishable truth from the ever-swelling desire for development or invention, from confidence in human tradition or in the progress of the age: soon to be judged by Him Who is coming.

SECOND EDITION

Originally published in two volumes, crown 8vo, the work is here reissued in one volume, demy.

London, May, 1914 [Editor]

EDITOR'S NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION

The Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles by W. Kelly is a series of articles in The Bible Treasury (Vols. xiv-xviii; 1882-9). They were issued as two volumes in 1890, and again as a bulky single volume in 1914.

As these editions are now out of print and inaccessible, a new edition has been prepared for the use and profit of present-day readers and searchers of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly of the Book of the Acts.

The changes and corrections are few, relating mainly to some orthographical and similar details.

Mr. Kelly's translation of his amended text of the Acts which appeared separately in the preface to the second edition (1914) has in this third edition been attached to his comments on the verses as they occur.

The inspired history of the foundation of the church of God on earth at the descent of the Holy Spirit, along with its earliest institutions and practice affords invaluable guidance to those who desire in ecclesiastical matters to be ruled by the will of God rather than by the councils and organizations of fallible men. With this end in view, the new edition of W.K's commentary on that history has been prepared for reissue.

March, 1952

W. J. Hocking

Acts 1

As Luke's narrative of our Lord Jesus was addressed to a Christian convert, so was its sequel which recounts the gift of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, His presence and His operation, more especially in the leading apostles, first of the circumcision, then of the uncircumcision. But we have the ways and working of the Holy Spirit, not only with many others, but also in and with the assembly also: a truth of capital moment, though lost sight of practically to the deep dishonour of God, and to the irreparable injury of the church itself.

It would seem that Theophilus had either ceased to hold a governorship (or whatever other public position of a magisterial kind the inspired historian implies by the title 'most excellent'; cf. Acts 23: 26; Acts 24: 3; Acts 26: 25, with Luke 1: 3), or had become so matured in faith and spirituality as to value title as little as position, though one could scarce conceive a faithful man abiding in it. Further, they are not to be heard of in old or modern times, who imagine the name to be a fictitious designation of any one who loves God. Not only does the comparison of the Gospel with the Acts point to a living Christian to whom the writer inscribes both, but the form of the word would in that case have been φιλόθεος, (as in Timotheus or the like), and not θεόφιλος.

'The first account I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which, having by [the] Holy Spirit charged the apostles whom He had chosen, He was received up, to whom He also presented Himself alive after He had suffered, by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God. And being assembled with [them], He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which [said He] ye heard of Me. For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in [the] Holy Spirit after not many days hence' (vers. 1-5).

Such is the simple opening of this Book, treating of the wonderful works of God in the new creation, which He would have to be testified in the old by a witness no less competent than His own Spirit. In the cross of the Son of man sin was judged by God, not yet on sinners, but in the one perfect Sacrifice, that God might righteously send forth good tidings of saving mercy to Jew and to Greek, alike ruined, that they through faith might be alike saved. And now the Saviour stood in resurrection-life and power, first-fruits of them that are asleep, a life-giving Spirit to all that believe. As He had walked according to the Spirit of holiness in a world of sin during the days of His flesh, so now was He marked out Son of God in power according to that Spirit by resurrection, conqueror over Satan in death as in life, having also exhausted God's judgment in suffering for sin that He might be the righteous Head of a new family who live of His life as He died for their sins. Thus does the Gospel of Luke lead into what is commonly, though not correctly, called 'The Acts of the Apostles'; for it is rather the inspired narrative of the risen Lord working in the energy of the Holy Ghost sent down from on high witnessing to Him there both in the assembly and in His servants, some of the apostles above all.

Even the Lord risen from the dead, though not yet 'received up', is seen here enjoining the apostles through the Holy Spirit (ver. 2). It was not merely before He died, in the new estate of man beyond the grave we have the evidence of the same blessed power. The Holy Spirit acts in man risen. In Jesus we see this truth, as every other. It will be so with us when we are raised from the dead, we shall not lose that divine spring of power and joy when, or because, we enter the final state of man according to the counsels of God. It will be that which is perfect come, but the Holy Spirit will not therefore cease to act in us, rather will He form us for all the worship and service suitable to those glorified with Christ.

That Christ presented Himself alive after He had suffered was the great fact established 'by many proofs' (ver. 3), and so it is the subject-matter of testimony throughout the Book, as it is the foundation truth of the gospel. The God of grace is the God of resurrection in Christ Who suffered for sins once, Just for unjust. The apostles are false witnesses of God if He did not raise Him up, and He raised Him not up if no dead are raised; and if He has not been raised, our faith is in vain: we are yet in our sins. But He has been raised from the dead, as surely as God is true and His word faithful; His grace and power are alike manifested not more in His chosen witnesses, than in the transforming effects of His testimony on others who believe, once sons of disobedience and children of wrath, His enemies. The charge was to the apostles from Him risen.

Nor was it only that He was seen by them, or appeared to them, by the space of forty days; He spoke also the things concerning the kingdom of God, as His servants preached afterwards. This was no less true of the apostle to the Gentiles, as we may learn distinctly and to the end from Acts 20: 25; Acts 28: 31.

His command, when assembled with them, was not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, not many days after then (vers. 4, 5). It is of the deepest moment that this be understood: for many misapply the Spirit's baptism either to miraculous displays or to the new birth; and the more so, as without doubt He wrought largely in both these ways at Pentecost. But the reader has only to consider John 14-16 in order to learn from God's word that it is not a question here of the great primary need of sinful man at all times to be born of the Spirit, still less of those gifts or 'charisma' which were so abundantly distributed amongst those who confessed the Lord at that time, but of the immense and standing privilege of the church in the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down in person to abide with the saints and be in them. Him the Father gave to be with them for ever; Him the Son sent to them from the Father. For this was contingent on the Son's going away: if He went not away, that other Advocate, the Spirit of truth, would not come. But, the work of reconciliation wrought, Jesus went on high and sent here below the Spirit. This would be the accomplishment of the Father's promise. The saints were then to be baptized in the Holy Spirit.

For the believer it is impossible to conceive anything of more commanding importance, whether in itself, for God's glory, for doctrinal truth, or for practical value. Yet what was so soon or so generally forgotten? Without it Christ's place as Head of the church is unknown, and consequently the true relationship of the church as His body. Redemption is enfeebled, the new and heavenly place of the Christian is neither understood nor enjoyed, and the proper hope is levelled down to a Jewish expectation with its signs and dates, its troubles and fears. Still more directly does lack of faith as to the baptism of the Holy Ghost affect the walk and service of the individual, the joint worship and public action of the assembly. There is no surer sign, no more fatal means, of the ruin of the entire testimony to Christ than the blank ignorance, the utter exclusion of this incomparable power and privilege for the Christian and the church, which now pervades Christendom, as it has done since apostolic times. Oh, what a mercy on God's part, what love on His own, what honour to Christ and His cross, that the Holy Spirit has deigned to abide in all certainty to the church. if the church proved thus false to Him! The gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost was the promise of the Father, and the disciples heard it from the Son. John, the greatest of the merely woman-born, baptized with water, the baptism of repentance, the Son of God, but risen and ascended Man, the same is He that baptizeth in (or with) the Holy Spirit. None indeed could but a divine person; yet is it the One Who, become man to accomplish redemption, was received up in glory whence He sent the Spirit down.

'They therefore being come together asked Him, saying, Lord, dost Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And He said unto them, It is not yours to know times or seasons which the Father set in His own authority. But ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you, and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the end of the earth. And having said these things, as they were looking, He was taken up, and a cloud withdrew Him from their eyes. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went on behold, two men stood by them in white garments who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus that was received up from you into heaven shall so come in the manner in which ye beheld Him going into heaven' (vers. 6-11).

As in the Gospel (Luke 19: 11, et al.), the Lord corrects the hasty expectations of the disciples: the kingdom was not immediately to appear. The passover was to be fulfilled in it when it would assume a different shape (Luke 22: 16). The Christian form of the kingdom however is not here spoken of, because the question was about restoring it at that time to Israel. Now the Lord does not at all contradict such a restoration in its season, but the salvation of Israel and the restoration of the kingdom to the chosen people clearly belonged to the ways of God of which prophecy treats; and He lets them know that times and seasons the Father placed in His own authority. Another vista He opens out to them as that immediately before them: 'But ye shall receive power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you; and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the end of the earth.'

These words explain the situation with divine precision and unspeakable grace. It is not yet to be the displayed kingdom which belongs to the age and world to come. Now it is a question of testimony in the power of the Holy Ghost, with Whose mission and presence it is bound up. They were to be witnesses of Christ, not yet reigning with Him, but His witnesses, as rejected yet risen, despised of men, especially of the Jews and Jerusalem, but on the point of being exalted of God in heaven, and witnesses of Him — for all is of grace — both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the end of the earth. Compare with this beginning of the Acts the end of Luke's Gospel, where the risen Saviour commands that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem: 'And ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.' It is not baptism here, but vital blessing, repentance unto life and remission of sins sealed with the Holy Ghost. All has its place and propriety, but the better thing it was the lot of the beloved physician to indite under the inspiring energy of God, Who was (in honour of His Son's person and work) giving life and liberty with the Spirit's seal to all that believe the gospel: its source the grace of God, its righteous foundation the cross of Christ, its character of life His resurrection; its formative object His heavenly glory; and its power the Holy Ghost sent from above.

But the true outlook of hope is wanted to complete the circle of blessing. And this, at least as far as it is connected with the scope of this Book (for there is a divinely perfect system in all scripture and in every distinct part) now follows, the hope of our Lord's return. 'And having said these things, as they looked, he was taken up, and a cloud withdrew Him from their eyes. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went on, behold, two men stood by them in white garments who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus Who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in the manner in which ye beheld Him going into heaven.' Doubtless it is His return for the kingdom to be established over all nations and tongues, for the times of the restitution of all things and not specially for Him to receive His own to Himself and present them in the Father's house. It is the more general aspect of His coming, and not the heavenly side. Still it is the personal object for the saints, the Lord coming again in person as surely as the chosen witnesses saw Him taken up from them into heaven. This the disciples have let slip as a real living hope, not more to His dishonour and the grief of the Spirit, than to their own immeasurable loss. For if faith be the more essential as men say, the true hope cannot be obscured, weakened, or destroyed, without proportionate injury, if we judge by the only full measure of God's glory in Christ. We fall into misleading hopes as soon as the truth ceases to be before the heart; and none is so false as to look for the gradual amelioration of the world or even of Christendom which must be judged in the day of the Lord, instead of our waiting as pilgrims and strangers, the bride separate from the world for Christ to come and fetch us to heaven for the marriage-supper of the Lamb. This is gracious and heavenly separateness to God, above the world's attractions and honours, outside its evils, and unmoved by its enmity. May it be more and more true of us in His grace!

Thus we have clearly set before us the position and expectation of the disciples in these early days. They knew, on the word of the Lord, that the promise of the Father was shortly to be fulfilled in the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, they were to be witnesses of Christ everywhere to the uttermost part of the earth; and they were assured that the Lord Jesus, Who had just ascended, would so come in the manner in which they beheld Him going to heaven.

'Then they returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey off. And when they entered they went up into the upper room where they were abiding; both Peter and John, and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James [son] of Alphaeus, (and Simon the Zealot, and Judas [brother] of James. These all with one accord continued steadfastly in prayer, with [certain] women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren' (vers. 12-14).

Thus did these saints spend their time in the exercise of continual dependence on God. They had been the chosen witnesses of the Word of life, as He had manifested Himself here below, and in Himself the Son had shown them the Father. And now they were waiting for that divine person Who was to be in as well as with them, as the Lord had prepared them for it: 'I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter.' So now they all give themselves up with one mind to persevering prayer.

Believing women were with them. How different their place from that which Jews or afterwards Mohammedans accorded them, and from that of mediaeval flattery or superstition, even when nominal Christianity pervaded the West! There were others beside wives, and hence the general form of the phrase; and one was among them, specifically named, to whom sinful folly was afterwards to bow down in worship, professedly subordinate to, practically more absorbing than, that paid to the Son or to the Father.

It is the first mention of Mary, in this the only sure and divinely inspired history, that follows our Lord's departure to heaven. Highly favoured she had been, blessed among women, all generations thenceforth calling her blessed; yet was she found in all lowliness of mind with other women, as the apostles were with them all, waiting on God for the gift of the Holy Ghost. From the cross she had been taken to the home of the beloved disciple. After the resurrection not a word implies an appearance to the mother of our Lord. Another Mary saw Him, she of Magdala, first of all, other women shortly afterwards, of any special appearance to His mother scripture is profoundly silent. She may have seen Him risen, as five hundred did at one time, but scripture intimates not a word about it. So absolutely was Christ to be known no more after the flesh. He was dead and risen, and the glory of the Messiah born of the Virgin faded away in the brighter glory of the Beginning, the First-born from the dead.

It is the last mention of Mary. Chrysostom may well suppose Joseph to have died, the truth is that he had long disappeared. Of both we heard for the last time in the beauteous scene of the Lord at twelve years of age (Luke 2: 42-51). He too was not yet anointed by the Holy Ghost; yet was He perfect man and true God, the child of Mary, and subject not to her only but to her husband — legally His father. But the incident brings out clearly His perfection as a child feeding on the word of God; but no less His consciousness of being the Son of God (far beyond the thoughts of Joseph or Mary), and withal His subjection to them, 'His parents', in that human place to which He had come down from divine glory in a love no less divine. When in due time, anointed by the Holy Spirit, He enters on His service and His presentation as the Messiah Joseph is gone. This was as it should be. It was through Joseph He had direct claim as the royal Son of David; for Joseph came down from Solomon, and therein lay the true line of promise to the throne. Mary too sprang from David, but through Nathan, who could give no such title. Legally and naturally He was descended from the king beloved of God, as He had a title in His own person above David as surely as above Joseph and Mary, He was God, Jehovah, the Lord God of Israel. Still the word of God must be honoured and verified in every human particular which divine grace had given and made known, for the exercise and the reward, the trial and the joy of faith.

Now Mary, according to scripture, appears for the last time in the holy band of prayer with others, men and women, not prayed to but praying. That the upper room was in the temple is the dream of Dr. Hammond. How strange that grave theologians should conceive such crudities, and that they seem so destitute of kind and faithful friends to efface them lest they should turn to shame or hurt! The last place where the disciples could have had such a place was the temple. It was no doubt in a private house where they then sojourned; whether it was that large upper room furnished where the Lord sat down to eat the last passover, we know not; nor is it of divine moment either, else it had been told us. But such rooms were common among the Jews, and, we may be assured, in Jerusalem especially, where God had His plans for blessing through His Son and to His honour.

'And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a crowd of names [or persons] together, about a hundred and twenty), Brethren [lit. Men brethren1] it was needful that the scripture ,should be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became guide to those that took Jesus. For he had been numbered among us, and received the allotment of this service. (This [man] then obtained a field from wages of [his] iniquity; and, falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem, so that in their own language that field was called Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood). For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, and let there be no dweller in it, and, His overseership let another take. Of the men therefore who went with us at every time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day in which He was received up from us, must one of these become2 a witness with us of His resurrection.

1 So also in Acts 2: 29, 37; Acts 7: 2; Acts 13: 15, 26; Acts 15: 7,13; Acts 22: 1; Acts 23: 1, 6; Acts 28: 17.

2 'Be ordained to be' is the unfounded rendering of the A.V.

'And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, knower of the hearts of all, show of these two which one Thou hast chosen, to take the place of this service and apostleship from which Judas fell away to go unto his own place. And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles' (vers. 15-26).

The hundred and twenty did not comprehend all the faithful in the land, but all in Jerusalem probably. To these Peter speaks with decision, but in the light and authority of scripture. Power from on high had not yet come on him, but there was evidently an intelligence never experienced by him before the Lord died and rose. These two things may co-exist now; or spiritual intelligence may be found where special power may not be given, though the Holy Ghost is, and this to abide for ever. But there we learn the important fact of their distinctness, and so much the more plainly, because the Holy Ghost had not yet been poured out. But Peter applies scripture with clearness. It shone in the light of the Lord's death and resurrection. It must needs be fulfilled, not in Christ only, but in antichrist; and such was Judas, who became guide to those that took Jesus. The Holy Spirit had deigned to speak of evil as well as good, and all must be fulfilled, though spoken by human lips. The unbelief of man may ruin him, but cannot make the written word of none effect; any more than the lot Judas received in the ministry of Christ exempted him from his awful sin and punishment. And the field got from wages of iniquity bore witness in characters of blood, after Judas passed away from his forfeited place in service and apostleship to go to his own place of torment. No wonder then that, as God so solemnly marked His resentment now before all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, He should speak before by the mouth of David of such a sinner against His own Son as well as against his own soul. Psalm 69: 25 pronounced his curse, Psalm 109: 8 called for a successor to his vacated office, and Peter lays down, for such as had gone with the apostles from the baptism of John till the ascension, the essential condition of becoming with them a witness of His resurrection.

Here once more we see what an immensely important place the resurrection was to hold in the testimony of Christ and the gospel, and how it is interwoven with this Book of the Acts in particular. Nor can there be strength or clearness in preaching and teaching without it. In presence of it vain man is annulled; by it Christ is vindicated, God is glorified, and the believer is justified. But even in this Book we may learn more of its power and value in the hands of the Holy Spirit, if we return to the practical use Peter made of the Psalms he had cited.

Two then were put forward, Joseph Barsabbas Justus, and Matthias, who, as far as man could see, possessed equal qualification. Hence appeal was made to the Lord in prayer. It was His work that was in question and it is His to choose the workman. So, in Matt. 9: 38, He told His disciples to supplicate the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into His harvest; and then, in Matthew 10, He called unto Him His twelve disciples, and gave them authority, and sent them forth. It is the same principle here. Elsewhere, in what concerns the assembly of God, His God and Father may be sought most appropriately, but the Lord none the less in what concerns His service and the instruments He may choose for it.

But there is a peculiarity to be noticed, the using of lots. It was in no way the will of man choosing whom he would, as some learned men have erroneously supposed, not without bias from their peculiar habits, nor unwillingness to justify them from scripture. Nor does the last term, translated 'numbered' (ver. 26), warrant here the notion of popular election which is in principle foreign to scripture for the choice of servants in the word. The lot was, as it will be in the latter day, a distinctly Jewish mode of seeking divine direction, and so, in the choice of the twelfth apostle (Matt. 19: 28), it was fittingly resorted to here. For the Spirit's presence the new power, in which Jews and Gentiles are alike unknown, was not yet enjoyed. The Lord therefore was looked to thus, but lots were never cast after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Nor is there just ground for Stier, as cited by Alford, to question the step of choosing a twelfth apostle, which seems to be thoroughly in keeping with the waiting posture of the disciples. Besides, Acts 2: 14, Acts 6: 2, would to most minds imply the contrary, and show that Luke does afterwards speak of the Twelve. To suppose that Paul was the intended twelfth is rather to lower his truly peculiar position and extraordinary call.

Acts 2

The death of Christ, as the paschal lamb, took place punctually to the day; so did His resurrection as the wave-sheaf; yet no saint knew the significance of either till they were accomplished facts. Nor have we proof, notwithstanding the marked intelligence displayed in the use of scripture since the resurrection (Acts 1, cf. Luke 24: 45), that any entered into the meaning of the feast of weeks with its wave loaves, till it was fulfilled. The disciples were together, however, in their true place of dependence and expectation. 'And when the day of Pentecost was in course of fulfilment they were all together1 in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a mighty blast rushing, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues parting asunder as of fire, and it2 sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with [the] Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them to utter' (vers. 1-4).

1 Text. Rec., followed by the Authorized Version 'with one accord', has ὁμοθυμαδὸν with one or two uncials and most cursives; but omou, 'together', is the reading of ABC, et al.

2 Some read with p.m. Dgr, some ancient versions and fathers 'they', but ABCE, the cursives, and other ancient versions support the singular. The plural is probably to suit the tongues' just before.

This was the baptism of the Spirit, though neither the mighty cause is here unfolded, nor are the effects as yet traced out. But the promise of the Father was now accomplished. The Holy Spirit was sent down from heaven according to the word of the Lord to abide with His own for ever, that other Advocate Who answers on earth to Christ in heaven, the Divine manager of all our affairs according to the will of God. As being a wholly new thing, there were accompanying signs, and these of a twofold character; not only the violent blowing which filled all the house, but the disparted tongues as of fire which sat upon each. Thus was manifested the presence of the Spirit in a general way for all the house, in a special way as power of testimony for each: a distinction of importance also found in other forms elsewhere.

But testimony is the predominant point here, for if they were all filled with the Spirit, they also began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Hence the aptness of the form in which the Spirit manifested His action: not a dove as with the Lord when sealed on earth emblem of One holy, harmless, and undefiled, but tongues wherewith now to make known the wonderful works of God in the new creation, every way far beyond the wonders of the old. But the tongues were not one, but parting asunder. The Gentile must hear, no less than the once favoured Jew. Now the mission of grace was to go forth indiscriminately as became a dead and risen Saviour, Whom God exalted on high, after man, especially Israel, had rejected Him as their own Messiah on earth. Further, the tongues were as of fire, that set forth divine judgment intolerant of evil, as just now demonstrated in grace to man in the cross of Christ.

But the languages were as real as they were different from their mother tongue or any naturally acquired one. This fact is as clearly stated as the gift itself was eminently significant and seasonable. What could be so clear a testimony that, if God gave His law to Israel, though in itself the expression of man's moral duty, He was now about to make known His grace in the gospel to every race and tongue? His grace not only forgives all offences, but quickens together with Christ, so as to be a new and everlasting ground for the energy of the Spirit to produce in a new life the fruit of righteousness which is by Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. This witness of divine love, efficacious through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, acts in direction toward all, in effect upon all those that believe. It was not the extirpation of difference in language, nor yet the power which will make once more the whole earth of one lip and the same speech, but grace lifting its objects and instruments above the effects of that judgment at Babel, which by diversity of language confounded the pride of the race, when it sought to combine and exalt itself in a union of human will which forgot God altogether. But God remembered guilty and miserable man, and in His wisdom and mercy availed Himself of the chosen people's hatred of Himself and of His Son (John 15: 24) to go out in the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; and to mark this in a way most touching to every nation under heaven.

'Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, pious men, from every nation under heaven; and when this report [or sound] was made, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because they each one heard them speaking in his own dialect. And they were all amazed and wondering, saying1 Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we each in our own dialect in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and those that dwell in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and the Roman sojourners, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty things of God' (vers. 5-11).

1 Text. Rec., with the Authorized Version, adds πρὸς ἀλλήλοῦσυ, 'one to another', with pretty good authority, but not the best.

If any words were needed to make the nature of the wonder plain and precise, it might have been supposed that these could not fail. But men of this world's science and learning, though bearing the name of Christian, manifest no less incredulity now than the Jews did of old, who foolishly sought to treat it as mere excitement. Some have tried to find in the account the same sort of senseless jargon, or (as Meyer) an entirely new language as its favourers allege,2 which was revived [more than] a half-century ago among the Irvingites; others (as Bleek, et al.) contend for a highly excited or ecstatic style of speech suitable to the communication of the marvels of grace, or (Olshausen) for so low a thought as a magnetic relation between speakers and hearers, or (Wieseler, et al.) for mere inarticulate ejaculations of praise! The older rationalists, as Paulus, et al., supposed no other than their native tongue; others, from Gregory of Nyssa and Cyprian to Erasmus and men of our own day, had grafted on this the strange idea that the multitude of foreigners was caused by the Spirit to hear each his own tongue! But Gregory of Nazianzus rejects the notion as making the marvel lie with the hearers rather than the speakers, contrary to the clear statement of scripture, as indeed are all these vain hypotheses.

2 There can be but little doubt that the interpolation of the word unknown in the Authorized Version of 1 Cor. 14: 2, 4, 13, 19, 27, gave occasion to, and helped to consecrate, the delusion of the enemy. It is no small proof of the evils of these unwarranted additions, but I find another has anticipated me in remarking what occurred independently to my mind.

The truth is that all these ideas, though maintained not only by preachers, but by theologians of the highest rank, are swept away at the first touch of the written word, ever the standard of truth and never more needed than in this day of active and daring intellect. The disciples were enabled in the power of the Spirit to speak the various languages of the earth; but it would seem that there were measures in this gift as in others. The apostle thanks God that he speaks with tongues more than all the Corinthians, so ostentatious of these sign-gifts; but he also insists on the subordination of them all to prophecy, as a gift characteristically for edification, encouragement, and consolation. The great end in the assembly is building up, to which a tongue without interpretation contributed nothing, as their frequency, if not simultaneous also, was an evident offence against order, both of which he corrects as the commandment of the Lord (1 Cor. 14).

Tongues therefore played a very inferior part in the assembly. That they were conferred for the dissemination of the gospel is the supposition of many in ancient and modern times. They were certainly used to arrest the Jews from foreign countries, who flocked to Jerusalem for this feast, or were otherwise staying there. What confounded these strangers from so many lands was, that they each one heard the disciples speaking in their own language, and whatever may have been the prevalency of Aramaic, or of Greek and Latin over the then known world, it is idle to tell one who believes this careful and varied enumeration from the N.E. to the W. and S. (which seems to be the reason why Judea comes between Mesopotamia and Cappadocia), that the inspired writer does not mean to convey more than a few distinct tongues. Not so judged the residents and sojourners in Jerusalem, whose piety gave them weight, yet who least of all were disposed to religious innovation. To them the evidence was irresistible, an impossibility if the variety of languages had not been a plain and sure reality of which they are competent judges. 'Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we each in our own dialect in which we were born? Parthians, and Medes and Elamites . . . we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty things of God.'

Still those that heard and believed the gospel that day were Jews and proselytes only. But the wondrous form of testimony prepared the way for those who glean the mind of God from the mighty workings of His gracious power, as well as from the words of the Lord in His varied commissions to the disciples, the wide-reaching activity in witnessing His love to which they were called. His hands which had been stretched out in vain to a disobedient and contradictory people were already pointing to all the nations, who also would hear. But the Lord had to use, as we shall see in due time, fresh means to reach the ears and quicken the hesitating feet of His own in the grace that tarrieth not for man and waiteth not for the sons of men.

The tongues were, as the apostle explains elsewhere, a sign to the unbelievers. They were intended to arrest and produce inquiry. The presence of the promised Holy Spirit was an incomparably deeper and more fruitful fact. He was sent down from heaven to form the assembly, the new dwelling place of God, the body of Christ. He was to be the power of testimony, of God's good news for the world. He was to be in the believers and with them for ever, that Paraclete Whom Christ after going on high was to send, not only to bring demonstration to the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, but to guide the saints into all the truth announcing what is coming, and glorifying Christ as He too had the Father. Whatever might be the marvel and the gracious suitability of the tongues, the gift of the Spirit Himself immensely transcends them, but His presence and the all-important results of it are beyond the ken of the world which neither sees nor knows Him. The signs and wonders occupy men.

'And they were all amazed and perplexed] saying one to another, What meaneth1 this? But others mocking1 said, They are filled with sweet wine. But Peter,2 standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spoke forth unto them, Men of Judea and all1 ye that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and give ear to my words. For these are not drunken as ye suppose, for it is [the] third hour of the day; but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your elders shall dream with dreams1; yea and on my bondmen and on my bondwomen in those days will I pour out of My Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will give wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below blood and fire and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be changed into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and manifest3 day of [the] Lord come. And it shall be, whosoever shall call on the name of [the] Lord shall be saved' (vers. 12-21).

1 The critics depart from the Text. Rec. chiefly in forms which affect the sense so little that we need not notice them.

2 See note on previous page.

3 Tischendorf omits καὶ ἑπιφανῆ ('and manifest') on the authority of D.

As usual, men arrange themselves in more than one class, some astonished, others hostile and scornful. Peter takes the lead in explaining with gravity and distinctness. He explicitly denies the unworthy thought of intoxication, which the early hour itself should have silenced as against God-fearing souls. It was really what Joel spoke of: not of course the fulfilment as it is to be in the last days, but an effusion of that nature. Indeed, the words of the prophet went in this beyond what that day saw accomplished; for 'all flesh' cannot fairly be limited to Israel, and God, Who was soon about to bring in Gentiles to the name of Christ, will bless the nations in the future kingdom, when all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and all the kindred of the nations shall worship before Him. The gospel now makes good the indiscriminate grace of God even more profoundly than will be under His future government, when He will show that the kingdom is Jehovah's, and that He is the governor among the nations.

In the latter day, when Joel's words will be fulfilled as a whole, the Spirit will be poured out, and if Israel enjoy the blessing freely, it will flow far beyond their narrow limits. God's ways will then be known upon earth, His saving health among all nations. Temporal blessing is then to be vouchsafed to Israel (Joel 2: 19-27), and their great northern enemy is to be for ever disposed of, for Jehovah will do great things for His people and land, whatever the enemy may have prepared to do. 'My people', He says emphatically, 'shall never be ashamed.' Then as a distinct intimation the prophet presents two announcements: the first, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (vers. 28, 29); the second, external signs of judgment ushering in the days of Jehovah, the circumstances of which are detailed in Acts 3, till we come down to the closing account of their blessings once more. As the wonders above and below precede that day, so does the repentance of Israel prepare for their deliverance and blessing, and especially for the gift of the Spirit. We see the same principle here also.

For God, in pouring out of His Spirit now, does thereby associate believers with Christ exalted on high. Given in virtue of redemption the Holy Spirit sheds the love of God in their hearts, seals them for the day of redemption, and is the earnest of their inheritance. He dwells in them now, and will quicken their mortal bodies soon at Christ's coming. Besides, He is the blessed and divine bond, constituting them Christ's body and God's house. And here it may be of interest to not a few if I set before them the judgment formed by the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, Neander, who of course from his Lutheran views had no bias toward the truth of the church. It is not cited as invariably sound or as in any respect authoritative, but as a grave testimony from an able and well-informed Christian in direct opposition to the present state of the church, whether Protestant or Romanist, Oriental or Greek. It is, therefore, as far as it goes, a strong involuntary homage to the revealed truth on this subject.

'What Moses expressed as a wish (Num. 11: 29) that the Spirit of God might rest upon all and all might be prophets, seems to me a prediction of that which was to be realized through Christ. By Him was to be instituted a fellowship of Divine life, which, proceeding from the equal and equally immediate relation of all to the One God, as the divine source of life to all, should remove these boundaries, within which, as the Old Testament position, the development of the higher life was still confined, and hence the fellowship thus derived would essentially distinguish itself from the constitution of all previously existing religious societies. There could, in such a society, be no longer a priestly or prophetic office, constituted to serve as a medium for the propagation and development of the kingdom of God, on which office the religious consciousness of the community was to be dependent. Such a guild of priests as existed in the previous systems of religion, empowered to guide other men, who remained, as it were, in a state of religious pupilage; having the exclusive care of providing for their religious wants, and serving as mediators by whom all other men must first be placed in connection with God and divine things — such a priestly caste could find no place within Christianity. In removing that which separated men from God, in communicating to all the same fellowship with God, Christ also removed the barrier which had hitherto divided men from one another. Christ, the Prophet and High Priest for entire humanity, was the end of the prophetic office and of the priesthood. There was now the same High Priest and Mediator for all, through Whom all men 1 being reconciled and united with God,1 are themselves made a priestly and spiritual race; one heavenly King, Guide, and Teacher, through Whom all are taught of God; one faith, one hope, one Spirit which should quicken all, one oracle in the hearts of all, the voice of the Spirit proceeding from the Father, all were to be citizens of one heavenly kingdom, with whose heavenly powers, even while strangers in the world, they would be already furnished. When the apostles applied the Old Testament idea of the priesthood to Christianity, this seems to me to have been invariably for the simple purpose of showing that no such visible particular priesthood could find place in the new community; that since free access to God and to heaven had by the one High Priest, even Christ, been opened once for all to believers, they had, by virtue of their union to Him, become themselves a spiritual people, consecrated to God, their calling being none other than to dedicate their entire life to God as a thank-offering for the grace of redemption, to publish abroad the power and grace of Him Who had called them out of the kingdom of darkness into His marvellous light, to make their life one continual priesthood, one spiritual worship springing from the temper of faith working by love; one continuous testimony for their Saviour. (Compare 1 Peter 2: 9; Rom. 12: 1; and the spirit and whole train of thought running through the Epistle to the Hebrews.) So too, the advancement of God's kingdom in general and particular, the diffusion of Christianity among the heathens and the good of each particular community, was now to be the duty not of one select class of Christians alone, but the immediate concern of each individual.'2

1 [It should be 'believers', not 'men'; united with 'Christ', not with 'God'.]

2 (Neander's General History of the Christian Religion and Church i. �§2, pp. 248-250, Bohn's edition.)

We need not do more than notice the vague inaccuracy of 'entire humanity' on the one hand and of the 'King' on the other, for we must never expect a Lutheran to know the total ruin of man or the new relations of Christ. That He tasted death for every man is true; but He is King of Israel and of nations, also Head of the church, not of humanity as such. He has authority over all flesh to give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given Him. But this and other passages show that, notwithstanding grave drawbacks, this modern historian understood better than most the peculiar character of that new thing which God had formed for His glory on the day of Pentecost; a character in no wise accidental or temporary, but essentially distinguishing it from first to last, and as distinct from that which God had set up in Israel as from the inventions of Satan among the Gentiles. The new thing was God's habitation in the Spirit.

Such was the preface of the apostle's discourse, a denial of the carnal not to say immoral, excitement imputed, and an affirmation of the power of the Spirit then manifested in the gift of tongues, and in prophesying according to the prophet Joel.

Now Peter enters on the foundation of their hopes as God's chosen people, and sets forth the facts just accomplished in the light of His word, mainly as we shall see in Psalms 16, 110, and 132.

'Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man shown forth from God to you by mighty works, and wonders, and signs, which God wrought by Him in your midst, as yourselves know — Him, given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by hand of lawless [men] did crucify and slay; Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, inasmuch as it was not possible that He should be held fast by it. For David saith as to Him, I kept the Lord in view always before me, because He is on my right hand that I may not be shaken. On this account my heart was cheered and my tongue was exceeding glad; yea more, my flesh also shall dwell in hope [that, or] because Thou wilt not leave my soul to1 Hades nor give thy Holy [or Gracious] One to see corruption. Thou didst make known to me ways of life, Thou wilt make me full of joy with Thy countenance. Brethren, [lit. men brethren] one may speak with freedom unto you about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is amongst us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God swore with an oath to him of the fruit of his loins to seat upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was He left to1 Hades nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof all we are witnesses. Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God and received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured forth this which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens, but saith himself The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand till I make Thine enemies [the] footstool of Thy feet. Let all [the] house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God made Him both Lord and Christ — this Jesus Whom ye crucified' (vers. 22-36).

1 [For the Author's criticism of the text, and his reasons for the rendering here given see his The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison, 1900, p. 133. Editor.]

The apostle addresses them according to their due national title as the chosen theocracy; and, while he in no way hides his Master's name of humiliation, he claims for Him the indubitably proved character of Messiah. It was God, he affirms, Who had shown Him forth to them by mighty works and wonders and signs; it was God Who by Him thus wrought in their midst. They could deny neither the actual display of divine power in every form of goodness and mercy, nor that Israel had so expected the Anointed of God according to the living oracles. The eyes of the blind were opened, the ears of the deaf were unstopped, the lame leaped as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sang. Had all this come without the person to whom Scripture attaches it all? If not yet with vengeance, surely it was in mercy unequivocally divine? Granted that the parched ground has not become a pool, nor the thirsty lands springs of water, and that the way of holiness is invisible save to faith, granted that the unclean abound and are bold as the lion, and the ravenous beasts are still objects of terror, because the people are apostate from their King when He came, as they once gave up Jehovah for every vain idol of the nations (cf. Ps. 35). But God had failed in no attestation that could commend His Servant Whom He upheld, His elect in Whom His soul delighted; and they themselves knew it, though tempted by Satan to impute it to the enemy in order to escape the submission of their conscience to the truth. To the enemy! when Christ's every word and every work directly tend to destroy Satan's evil power and wiles. But what will not the deluded mind of man think or at least say to avoid the grace that pities and would save him if he bowed to God and His Christ?

Did any Israelite stumble at the cross as invalidating His claims? Yet on the cross, man — the Jew — being what he is, God had ordered it all marvellously to His own glory. Unbelief and rebellion and blasphemy on the one hand were allowed to work their unimpeded way, when the fit moment arrived; and Jesus was rejected ignominiously by His own people and the Gentiles were urged by them to crucify Him, that on the other hand He might become a propitiation for the sins of His own that believed yea, for the whole world. If that was man's inexcusable iniquity, this was God's sovereign grace. If they were the instruments of their own spite, He gave One Who had been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Thus in the same cross met creature-will of man and of Satan in deadly enmity to God, divine love turning the otherwise hopeless sin to the shedding of that precious blood which cleanseth from all sin, impossible without the glorious person Who is God no less than man, impossible save by His once in atonement suffering for our sins, Just for unjust. 'Him given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.'

The cross therefore, dreadful as it is as the proof of man's blind guilt and of Satan's power, now that it is seen not only to be necessary that scripture be fulfilled, but also to be the indispensable and only possible door of deliverance for the sinner in God's grace, is owned as an essential and morally the deepest part of God's ways, as it is the highest moral glory of the Lord Jesus. As Himself said on the eve of it, 'Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him' (John 13: 31, 32).

But the resurrection! — what did God say therein? In vain the lie that the disciples came by night and stole Jesus away, while the soldiers slept. Peter does not even notice such an unworthy subterfuge, but simply asserts the grand truth on which the gospel rests: 'Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, inasmuch as it was not possible that He should be held fast by it. For David saith as to Him, I kept the Lord in view always before me....' The word of God by David pointed to the resurrection of the Messiah, and God showed Him openly when risen to witnesses chosen of Him beforehand. But indeed it was not possible that He should be held fast by death to which He, the Holy One, had submitted for sin to God's glory. Nor was it possible that the scripture could be broken which said, 'Thou wilt not leave My soul to Hades, nor give [i.e. suffer] Thy Holy One to see corruption.' Even according to the ancient Jewish interpretation these words of Ps. 16 can only apply to the Messiah (Sch�¶ttgen, 564-8). Here Peter and in Acts 13: 33-37 Paul, declare that it was fulfilled in God's raising Jesus from the dead, not in David, still less in any other. Thus was He shown the path of life through death with fulness of joy in the presence of God His Father.

The apostle in his reasoning on the text cites Ps. 132, the great psalm of the kingdom settled for ever in the son of David. 'Brethren, one may speak freely [with freedom] unto you about the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried and his tomb is amongst us unto this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God swore with an oath to him of the fruit of his loins to seat upon his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ that neither was He left to Hades nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus did God raise up, whereof all we are witnesses.' This, and this alone, explains the peculiarly glorious character of the kingdom even in its earthly relations. Even now the King is risen from the dead. This stamps perpetuity as nothing else could: yet is it the kingdom of a man. Only it is man risen from the dead, for in all things He must have the pre-eminence (Col. 1: 18).

But in fact resurrection was the immediate stepping stone, not to the kingdom which still awaits His appearing in glory, but to His going up into the presence of God on high; and this for reasons most nearly affecting God's glory now as well as those who enjoy His favour, as we shall hear presently. 'Having therefore been exalted by the right hand of God and received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured forth this which ye see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens but saith himself, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand till I make Thine enemies [the] footstool of Thy feet. Let all [the] house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God made Him both Lord and Christ — this Jesus whom ye crucified.'

Again from that most fruitful treasury of God's words is a sentence drawn to prove the bearing of Christ's life, including His resurrection and ascension, where were not only facts of the deepest import, the grounds of truth needed for every day and for eternity, but parts of God's infinite scheme for manifesting His own glory and giving effect to His goodness toward us. If Ps. 132 secures the risen Son of David for the everlasting King on His throne in Zion, with the abundant and suited privileges peculiar to His kingdom on earth and in Israel, the citation from Ps. 110 testifies to His present exaltation in heaven. Of this there was the most conclusive proof in the now accomplished promise of the Father, the gift of the Holy Spirit, of Whose outpouring there was indubitable evidence to their eyes and ears. That gift Christ had received for the second time. Once a man on earth He was sealed, the holy and acceptable One of God's delight: now a man in heaven a second time did He receive the same Spirit as the One Who, having finished the work of redemption, had gone on high, the guarantee and glorious witness of the acceptance of all who believing in His name, are justified and delivered, that they might be united in one, the body of the ascended Head. And on this rests the perpetuity of that gift, the presence of the Holy Ghost, so essential to the church of God. Not only is the outpoured Spirit the fruit of His accepted work in all its unchanging and everlasting love, but He is therefore given again to Christ, though for us. If Christ received of the Father the promised Spirit and poured forth what was seen and heard at Pentecost, how could the Holy Spirit but abide in honour of Him and of His work? No wonder whatever be the humiliating and deplorable provocations on our part whatever the deep griefs on His part as feeling for Christ's injured name, that He abides in us and with us for ever. He is come to testify to God's exalting Jesus, made both Lord and Christ, Whom men, yea Jews, crucified.

The effect of this solemn appeal to conscience, grounded on testimonies of scripture undeniably direct, was both immediate and permanent. The truth of God searched His people unsparingly: His grace met them in sovereign goodness, and established them in the Christ Whom they had so blindly and wickedly rejected.

'And when they heard, they were pricked in heart and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, What shall we do, brethren? And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off as many as [the] Lord our God shall call to [Him]. And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Those then that accepted his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they persevered [continued steadfastly] in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.1 And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all according as anyone had need. And day by day, continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord was adding day by day together those that were to be saved' (vers. 37-47).

1 Some ancient authorities add 'in Jerusalem; and great fear was upon all': apparently a gloss. Cf. Acts 5: 5.

It was a real work of God in the conscience. They were not persuaded only, but pricked in heart. There was submission to His person Whom they had just crucified, and this through faith in God's word. It was not mere remorse, still less a change of mind only, but real judgment of self before God (Whose part they now took against themselves and their unbelieving evil in the past), and a distinct casting themselves on Him Whom they had so bitterly despised to their own ruin. Now they repented, and were baptized each of them in the name of Jesus for remission of sins. Through His name the believer receives remission of sins; in none other is there salvation. He is exalted to give repentance and remission of sins. As they repented, so also were they baptized in His name, according to the charge laid on His servants. They took the place of death with Him: I say not that they then understood its meaning, as they doubtless entered into it more or less afterwards. The Lord directed His servants to baptize; and the new converts simply and without question submitted. It was His way, nor is any other so good, though many a servant of His diverged from His orders, and many a convert seems in effect to think himself, in this as in other things, wiser than his Master. It was a clean final break with sins and sin, with man and religious man, with Judaism. Little or nothing could any one of these confessors be supposed at this solemn epoch of new birth to apprehend with intelligence; but they did feel before God their own nothingness, and the all-sufficiency of His name Who had died on the cross. And they were welcome to the precious privilege conferred on them, as they could in no way have been recognized as disciples of His had they refused baptism in His name. It was the mark of His confession, the sign of salvation; and woe to him that spurns the authority and grace of Him Who instituted it!

But there is another matter of new and immense import that follows. These repentant Jews who submitted to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins are assured of the subsequent gift of the Spirit: 'And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' They were already born of God: without which there could be no repentance nor faith. They were to be baptized with water in the name of Jesus for remission. Not till then was the believing Jew to receive the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; for this is in question here, 'the gift' (ἡ δωρεά), not merely the gifts (τὰ χαρσὶματα) or powers which accompanied and attested His divine presence now on earth. It is the more necessary to insist on the specific character of the truth, because of the widespread confusion in Christendom as to all this. The gift of the Spirit here spoken of, the peculiar and abiding privilege of the Christian and the church, is as distinct from new birth by the Spirit as from the gifts of which we read not a little in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. But there is to be noticed circumstantial difference in the manner. For while the favoured Jew in Acts ii. had to be baptized before he receives this wondrous gift, the hitherto despised Gentile receives the Holy Ghost before being baptized in the name of the Lord: a difference in my judgment worthy of God, and instructive in His ways for His children.

The inestimable gift was not overlooked in Old Testament scripture: not only the new blessings of redemption in general, but that of the Spirit particularly. And Peter could here say that the promise was to them and to their children, yea, to all that were afar off, as many as the Lord their God should call to Him. Now that the time was come for displaying, not law nor government, but grace God would call to Himself the most distant, and bless the needy to the full. It is now no question of a mere external sign, but of the power of God in grace according to His promise.

This was not by any means all the apostle urged on that memorable day but from among more and different words it sufficed the Holy Ghost to recall the exhortation, 'Be saved from this perverse generation'. For now God was about to separate as well as to forgive and deliver, at least, the salvation goes beyond guilt and sin. He would set apart from the perverse generation hurrying on to its speedy ruin, which was rejecting the gospel as it had the Messiah Himself. From the separate people, now proved utterly crooked and rebellious, He would have His own to be saved, for His own glory and after a new way. This the rest of the Book we have entered upon opens out to us; nor can anything of the sort be to us of deeper interest or of more practical value. For we too, though Gentiles naturally, belong to this new family of God and new testimony of Christ.

'Those then that accepted his word were baptized: and there were added that day about three thousand souls' (ver. 41). 'Gladly,' the reading of the Received Text, is rejected on ample evidence by the critics as not found in the oldest and best authorities. It seems to be a perhaps unconscious importation from, or effect of, Acts 21: 17, where it is in perfect keeping. Here it is not. For, precious and comforting as the gospel may be, deep seriousness would characterize those souls so newly repentant, and on grounds suited to sound them thoroughly. A 'glad' reception would better harmonize with a revival movement and its generally superficial results. The Pentecostal work was both profound and extensive: three thousand souls that day were no slight haul, but in every way suited to prove that a Divine person was just come in grace no less than power, both to save and to gather. So it is the Lord's will that we should ever remember and heed His presence from first to last. The Holy Spirit works by the gospel and forms the church here below for heaven.

Further, the Spirit abides evermore, so as to cut off all excuse for not going on with God according to His word and will. So here it is noted that 'they persevered in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers' (ver. 42). Such was the course on which entered the souls just born to God and blessed of Him in Christ. The teaching of the apostles supplied the needed instruction, fitted perfectly as they were not only by the Spirit's recalling to their remembrance all the words of the Lord Jesus, but by His own communication, according to the Saviour's promise, of all that they themselves could not then bear (John 14: 26; John 16: 12, 13). Never was there such teaching for souls whose very recent introduction into divine relationships made them hunger and thirst for all that would satisfy the new spiritual wants and affections of their souls. And they had it not orally alone, but after a while also in forms written by inspiration, that we too might have 'fellowship' with them, taking in now not the 'twelve' only but the great apostle of the Gentiles yet to be called. For 'teaching', however valuable, is not enough without 'fellowship', and few weigh how much they owe to the presence and living commentary on the truth which sharing it all together in practice furnishes.1 Then 'the breaking of bread' has a most influential place, both by keeping the Lord continually before the saints in His unspeakable grace and suffering, and in drawing out the deepest feeling of the heart, where the exercise or display of power might be otherwise a danger, as we see at Corinth, where the true character of the Eucharist was lost, and the assembly became a scene of ostentation (1 Cor. 11: 20-34). Nor are 'prayers', meaning a suppose) the united or common prayers of the saints, left out of this weighty record; for none can neglect 'the prayers' without loss otherwise irreparable, and so much the more of moment were they then as the saints rose to the joy of their new and everlasting blessedness. For power and privilege would be of all things the most fatal if the saints slipped out of the sense of needed and constant dependence on God.

1 Canon W. G. Humphry would, with others, apply κοινωνία here to 'the communication of worldly goods', but this does not suit the immediate connection, and is given in another form subsequently. Besides κοίνωνὶα requires to be modified as in Rom. 15: 26; 2 Cor. 8: 4; and Heb. 13: 16, to mean other than 'communion', as here.

On the one hand, the moral impression was great and immediate (ver. 43): 'fear came upon every soul', and not the less, but the more, because it was the effect of God's presence in grace, not in judgments which alarm for a moment but soon yield to a fatal reaction. 'And many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.' The manifestations of power were not only marvellous, but significant, so as to reveal Him Who wrought by means of His servants in His own character and ways, alas! among a people manifestly treated as unbelieving and apostate: else His word had sufficed and made them out of place.

On the other hand, how lovely the picture the faithful present for a brief moment! 'And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and substance, and distributed them to all according as any one had need. And day by day, continuing with one accord in the temple and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favour with all the people. And the Lord was adding day by day together those that were to be saved' (vers. 44-47). Never before was such a sight among men on earth; never such love rising above the selfishness of nature, not merely in that land and race, but in any other, and all through the power of divine grace in the name of the Crucified now seen by faith on high. It was sweet fruit of the Spirit, as far as possible from a claim or a command, however right be the voice of divine authority in its place. But here was the flow, mighty yet unbidden, of divine love that embraced every one begotten of God, without reserve or stint in hearts which answered in their measure to His Who with His Son vouchsafes us all things.

It was, no doubt, a peculiar hour of transitional character, exactly suited to a state which beheld all the faithful within one city; what, in fact, we never do find when grace called and gathered elsewhere, and especially from among the Gentiles. There love surely was not wanting in the power of God; yet it never did take this shape, but one more adapted to the one body, wherever found on earth. So, too, we may observe the continuing in the temple as yet steadfastly, perhaps more so than ever, whilst they celebrated 'at home' (not 'from house to house') the Lord's Supper: deep and solemn joy in the remembrance of the Saviour, but unabated attachment as yet to the temple and its hours of prayer. Even ordinary meals were lit up with the happiness of His presence: how much more where all His self-sacrifice was before their eyes! Thus did they praise God, and all the people regarded them with the favour with which they viewed Christ Himself in His earlier day (Luke 2: 52). In the last verse, 'to the assembly' appears to be a gloss. 'Together', from Acts 3: 1, should come in here: 'and the Lord was adding day by day together those that were to be saved.'1 It was the church, but described, not yet so designated till Acts 5: 11, where the saints there called out together are styled 'the assembly' or church.

1 It appears to me that σώθητε, in ver. 40. refutes the prevalent mistake that τοὺς σωζομένους means 'those in process of salvation' though this be grammatically possible and easy. But see Luke 13: 23. So Heb. 10: 10 shows that robs ἁγιαζομένους in ver. 14 cannot refer to present process. Not time, but character, is in question.

Thus did God gather to the name of the Lord Jesus, His church began to be built. But He did not therefore forget His ancient people. In word and deed He appealed to their conscience, if haply they might repent, and He bring in the predicted times of blessing.

Acts 3

'Now Peter and John were going up into the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth. And a certain man being lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid every day at the gate of the temple called Beautiful, to ask alms of those that entered into the temple; who, seeing Peter and John about to enter into the temple, asked to receive alms. And Peter gazing on him with John said, Look on us. And he gave heed to them, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, Silver and gold have I none, but what I have, this I give thee: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth walk. And grasping him by the right hand he raised [him] up; and immediately his feet and ankle-bones were made strong. And leaping up he stood and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and praising God; and they recognized him that he it was that sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened to him' (vers. 1-10).

The actual circumstances here recounted agree singularly with the special form the truth assumes. God is showing His long-suffering grace toward Israel though He has commenced an entirely distinct testimony and work in the gospel and in the church. So Peter and John, who were certainly behind none in the new position and testimony, are seen going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth. For the time at any rate they seem the better Jews for being so blessed as Christians. Not even their apostolic dignity, nor the power with which they were just clothed, detached them. There at the Beautiful gate when about to enter the temple, a man lame from his birth (often seen, being habitually laid there) asked of them alms, and got a better blessing. For Peter, gazing on him with John, arrested his attention who expected to receive some little boon. But if discouraged by 'Silver and gold have I none,' he hears of something more indeed: 'What I have, this I give thee: in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth walk.' And if the apostle promptly grasped his right hand and raised him up, immediately his feet and ankle-bones received strength, so that leaping up he stood, walked, and entered with them into the temple, praising God. It was not done in a corner. All the people saw and heard, recognizing him to be the same that used to sit there begging; and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had befallen him.

It was indeed a sign admirably calculated to awaken the Jews, to attest the grace of God towards their utter weakness, to manifest the power of the risen and glorified Messiah, and so much the more as it was not His presence but His answer from on high to the power of His name appealed to by His servant on earth. If such was the instant virtue of the name of

Jesus for the lame man, what would not follow faith in that name if Israel believed?

'And as he held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the portico that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering. And Peter seeing [it] answered unto the people, Men of Israel, why marvel ye at this [man]? or why gaze ye at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him to walk? The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, did glorify His Servant Jesus; Whom ye delivered up and denied before Pilate's face when he decided [lit. judged] to release [Him]' (vers. 11-13). This was no uncertain sound. But all is in keeping. It is the God of our fathers Who glorified the Messiah, His Servant Jesus. 'Son' is not the thought, but Jehovah's 'Servant' as in Isa. 42, 49, 50, 52, 53, Whom the Jews had denied before the Roman judge when disposed, yea determined, to let Him go.

And who is this that so boldly charged the Jews with denying their own Messiah? The very man who not many weeks before had denied Him with oaths. But Peter immediately broke down in a sorrow which wrought repentance according to God, as he judged not only the ripe fruit but the root of his sin. Now restored, his feet washed, he is so completely cleansed from the defilement that he can without a blush or waver tax the men of Israel with the very sin from which he had been so lately freed himself. For redemption by the blood of Jesus had meanwhile come in, and its enjoyment is so much the greater as the believer judges himself before God. 'But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you; but the Author [lit. Chief] of life ye killed, Whom God raised from among [the] dead, of which (or, Whom) we are witnesses, and on the faith of His name did His name make this man strong whom ye behold and know; and the faith that is by Him gave him this entireness before you all' (vers. 14-16). None can preach, any more than worship, dike a soul once cleansed, having no more conscience of sins. How desperate their position! The Holy and Righteous One (Isa. 53: 11) they denied; a murderer they desired as a favour: God was distinctly against them in raising up from the dead the Author of life Whom they slew; and the apostles were witnesses of this; as His name through faith in it made the lame man strong whom they looked on and knew. What and where were they in gainsaying unbelief of Him Who responded to the faith by Him and in Him, that gave such a cripple this entireness in presence of them all?

Then does the apostle explain how so dreadful a deed could be on their part. 'And now, brethren, I know that ye acted in ignorance, as also your rulers, but God thus fulfilled what He announced before by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer' (vers. 17, 18). In one way this might aggravate the degraded condition of God's ancient people; for how came they and their rulers to be so ignorant? They knew neither the scripture nor the power of God. They valued neither grace nor truth. They saw works, they heard words, such as man never experienced before; yet were they more besotted than heathen, duller than their own beasts of burden. But He Who suffered for them on the cross prayed to His Father to forgive them, for they knew not what they did; and now the Holy Spirit through the apostle assures them that so it was, as a plea for divine compassion. That His Christ should suffer was no afterthought of God Who predicted it by all the prophets, and thus fulfilled it. So must the people learn their blind iniquity; so would God manifest His mercy Who gave Christ as a propitiation for their offences.

'Repent, therefore, and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that seasons of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send forth Him that hath been foreappointed for you, Jesus Christ, Whom heaven indeed must receive till times of restoring all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began' (vers. 19-21).

Here we have the condition of blessing to the Jews. Seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord are vainly sought for them as a people, till they repent and turn again for the blotting out of their sins. So the Lord had intimated when He bowed to their rejection of Him, and declared their house left to them desolate: 'Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord' — of Jehovah. Whensoever their heart shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. They will be converted for the blotting out of their sins. They will in heart welcome their long-despised Messiah, and Jehovah will send Him. There will be at least a remnant converted and awaiting His advent, and He will appear to their deliverance and the discomfiture of their enemies, as many scriptures bear witness. Of that godly remnant not a few will be put to death, and these, whether earlier or later sufferers, shall be raised in time to join the saints already glorified, so that they all may reign with Christ during the thousand years according to Rev. 20: 4. Those who escape and survive will become the first and most honoured nucleus for the kingdom on earth, when heaven no longer has within it the Christ foreappointed for them, Jesus, and times for restoring all things dawn on earth.

For God does mean to bless this long-groaning creation, and He inspired the mouth of His holy prophets to speak of it since time began. They therefore do greatly err who deny the immense and universal blessing in store for Israel, the nations, the earth, yea, even the lower creation. They do not know how God intends to crown men here below with loving-kindness and tender mercies, when He shall open His hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing. Judgment, undoubtedly, must fall previously; and Jehovah shall punish the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth on the earth. Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when Jehovah of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion and Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously. For the great distinctive feature is to be, along with the exclusion of Satan and his power, the mighty and beneficent presence and reign of Jehovah-Jesus, Who with righteousness shall judge the poor and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth, after He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall slay the wicked. 'And righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters cover the sea. And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign of the peoples: to it shall the Gentiles seek and His rest shall be glorious' (Isa. 11: 5-10).

What a gap in the thoughts and desires of saints who expect none of these great and glorious changes in honour of Jesus! How defective the outlook where the grand purposes of God for the reversal of the world's ruin and misery since sin entered it are unknown! It will be noticed that here nothing is said of the still more magnificent circle of blessing revealed in Eph. 1: 10, when God will place under the headship of Christ all things that are in heaven and all things that are on earth. In our text we have only the earthly things in relation to Messiah and Israel, not the whole universe put under Christ and the heavenly saints.

Meanwhile the Jews refused to repent, and the kingdom, instead of being brought in, is postponed till they are converted for the blotting out of their sins at a future day, so that seasons of refreshing may come from Jehovah's presence, and Messiah be sent from heaven, according to the prophetic word.

'Moses indeed said, A prophet shall [the] Lord our God raise up from among your brethren as [He did] me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall speak unto you. And it shall be that every soul which shall not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those in succession, as many as spoke did also announce these days. Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God covenanted with our fathers, saying unto Abraham And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. To you first, God, having raised up His Servant, sent Him to bless you in turning away each from your iniquities' (vers. 22-26).

During the interval God turns the time of Jewish unbelief to the gospel call of the Gentiles, as well as to the formation of the body, the church one with Christ, wherein is neither Jew nor Greek. Here Peter is still exhorting them to repent, and in case of it pledging the return of Christ to establish the time of predicted peace and blessing. For Jesus was clearly the Prophet raised up, like Moses, but incomparably greater, as Moses himself bore witness in Deut. 18: 15: none could refuse His words with impunity, but to his own destruction. 'And all the prophets from Samuel, and those in succession, as many as spoke, did also announce these days.' As the Jews were sons of the prophets and of God's covenant with their fathers, according to the promised blessing in the seed of Abraham, so was Jesus, His anointed Servant, sent to them first to bless them in turning away each from their iniquities.

It is not yet the heavenly testimony of Paul, nor even what Peter preached to those converted and believing in Christ, as in Acts 2, but his call to the Jew responsible to hear the final appeal to that nation.

Acts 4

The discourse of the apostle was interrupted at this point, but this is lost to many a reader by the division of the chapters.

'Now as they were speaking unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them, being distressed because of their teaching the people, and announcing in Jesus the resurrection from [the] dead, and they laid hands on them and put them in ward unto the morrow, for it was already evening. But many of those that heard the word believed, and the number of the men became about five thousand' (vers. 1-4).

Religious authority took umbrage. Who were these men to speak within the precincts of the temple? It is true that a mighty miracle had been wrought publicly and undeniably; but officials are sensitive to any invasion of their rights, and are apt to leave God out of the account, speaking as of the world and knowing none else than the world to hear them. But a class came forward now, which had been comparatively in the background whilst the Lord lived and laboured. Then were the Pharisees His active adversaries, the advocates of defective and spurious righteousness, opposing the Righteous One. Now the enemy had ready another and very different body among the Jews, the Sadducees, roused from their habitual calm by a truth which convicted them of utter infidelity and of consequent antagonism to God and His word. Miracles were bad enough in the eyes of the free-thinkers, they brought the power of God too near, they were a sign to unbelievers that they might hear the truth. But the resurrection, exemplified in the person of Jesus, was intolerable; and none so intolerant as those who boast of tolerating every shade, when the truth confronts them. The mild Sadducee outdoes the previously fierce Pharisee, none so disturbed by the announcement of Jesus risen from the dead.

And no wonder. The resurrection of Him Whom man had just slain is the plain, conclusive, and irrefragable proof of God's power according to His word, the most complete refutation of those who admit nothing beyond the natural course of things in this world. Laws which govern that course none dispute, nor the knowledge of such laws as men call science. But the resurrection proves One above those laws, which in no way control or limit His power, as He will demonstrate in the day in which He makes all things new. Meanwhile the raising of Jesus from the dead, while the ordinary course goes on, is the sufficient and striking witness to the power which will destroy the world that now is, and create a new one, wholly different, to His own glory.

Hence the sceptical school took fire at the apostles for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead; for it laid bare their evil unbelief and convicted them of being enemies of the truth. fighting against God Himself. Otherwise they would have inquired into the facts; and, comparing them with the scriptures, they must have rejoiced that He had done so blessed and glorious a thing according to His word. For the resurrection of Christ is the pledge that those who are Christ's shall rise as He rose: He is avowedly the firstfruits of those fallen asleep by Him. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. They are the heads of the two families, the Adam family, and the Christ family, death having come in by the one head, as now resurrection by the other. Those that are Christ's rise at His coming. It is a resurrection from among the dead, as His was, and they reign with Him for a thousand years. The rest of the dead do not live till the thousand years have been completed. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. No one doubts that in another sense they will reign for ever, to the ages of ages, as will all the godly who are to be born of God during the millennial reign. But this period of special reigning over the earth ought not to be ignored because of the eternal blessedness of the glorified after the kingdom is over and the new heaven and earth are come in the absolute sense, the wicked having been raised, judged, and cast into the lake of fire. Theirs is not a resurrection from the dead, for there are no more dead left in the grave, they themselves being the last remainder after the righteous are raised.

Thus it was not merely the truth of resurrection which roused Sadducean spite, but that of the resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of the unjust, of the mass of mankind, is not 'from among' the dead like the resurrection of the just; it is the effect of the power of Christ, the Son of God, when He summons the wicked from their graves to judgment. The righteous have life In the Son now, and rise to a resurrection of life; as the unjust to a resurrection of judgment a thousand years after, when they must honour Him Whom they now despise. So perfectly does John 5 agree with Rev. 20. There is no discrepancy; but there are two resurrections according to Scripture, not one only. 'The general' indiscriminate resurrection of the creeds is according to tradition, but is a fable. There will be a resurrection of both just and unjust, of the just to reign with Christ at His coming, of the unjust to be judged by Him before He delivers up the kingdom to Him Who is God and Father, when He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. Men, and even believers, whose mind is on the things of men, are offended at the grace which discriminates now, as it will yet more manifestly by the resurrection from the dead. They prefer a 'dim religious light', with its vagueness and uncertainty; they shrink from that blessed hope — at least in any definite shape — which is the fruit of sovereign grace for the believer, involving as it does the solemn and dark background of judgment for all who despise both grace and truth in Christ.

But if the apostles were put in ward that evening till the morrow, the word was not bound, the true light was already shining. Many of those that heard believed. The number of men rose to about five thousand. This would suppose not a few women and children. Compare Matt. 14: 21; Luke 9: 14; John 6: 10. No sufficient reason appears for taking 'men' (ἀνδρῶν) otherwise than with its usual precision.

'And it came to pass on the morrow that their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem, and Annas, the high priest and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of high-priestly lineage. And having set them in the midst they inquired, By what power, or in what name, did ye this? Then Peter, filled with [the] Holy Spirit, said unto them, Rulers of the people and elders [of Israel], if we this day are examined as to a good deed done to an infirm man, whereby he hath been cured, be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from [the] dead, in [or, by] Him [or, in this (name)] he standeth before you whole. He is the Stone that was set at naught by you the builders, that was made head of [the] corner. And in none other is there salvation, for neither is there a different name under heaven that is given among men by which we must be saved' (vers. 5-12).

On the morrow flocked together the religious authorities from the highest, including all grades, and the two apostles were challenged. Peter answered in the power of the Spirit Who filled him, that the good deed was done in His name Whom they had crucified, and God had raised from the dead, Whom His word characterizes as the Stone, set at naught by the builders, yet become the head of the corner, the rejected but exalted Messiah. What a situation for the rulers and people of Israel! And what a light on all that had befallen 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth' was afforded by the testimony of scripture to the Stone, the unquestionable figure used of old about the Messiah!

Consider ever so briefly Gen. 49: 22-24; Ps. 118: 22 (the very passage referred to), Isa. 28: 16, Dan. 2: 34, 44, 45, specially with the use made of it by our Lord Himself in Matt. 21: 42-44; to which we may add Eph. 2: 20, and 1 Peter 2: 7, 8. There is first His relation to Israel; then His rejection by the chiefs, but His exaltation notwithstanding; next, Jehovah's commendation of Him to the believer in the face of divine judgment, and, lastly, His establishment of God's kingdom here below, to the destruction of the Gentile powers which had displaced Israel. The New Testament while it of course confirms, supplements all this by connecting the Stone with the two advents of the Messiah, rendered necessary alike by God's grace and His judgment, and by Israel's unbelief now and future repentance in view of His coming again, crowned by Christ's place as chief cornerstone, Who brings even now those of the Jews who believe in Him into better blessings than the nation will by and by receive at His appearing, that is, to be now a holy and a royal priesthood with all that is suited to each of these blessed relationships.

Into this Peter does not enter here; for he was addressing not the believing remnant of Christian Jews, but the proud and bitter enemies of both Christ and the Christian. But he does set forth, to Christ's honour, and in love even to those who had so guiltily cast Him out, the plain and exclusive assurance of salvation in Christ. 'In none other is there salvation, for neither is there another — a different — name under heaven that is given among men whereby we must be saved.' How blessed that, though God has set Him up at His own right hand in heaven, His name is given under heaven among men on earth, by which we must be saved if saved at all! It is here and now that we must be saved; for it is of grace and by faith. There is no other name — our own least of all; and no other way, for He is the way. Faith exalts the Saviour and the God Who gave Him, and leaves no room for works of righteousness of our doing, even were we capable of them, which in our unbelieving state we certainly were not. All is of grace; but grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. How awful that men should neglect so great a salvation — yea, though, on behalf of Christ, His servants beseech them to be reconciled to God!

For the servants of Christ the conflict was now beginning. On the one side worldly power and religion, position and numbers; on the other, faith in His name Whom their adversaries had crucified. What could have seemed more unequal? Yes, to those who leave out God, and His Son, and the Spirit sent down from heaven. But in the believer is not this inexcusable unbelief? Why do we not always reckon on divine intervention, till He is judicially giving up people to their own delusions?

'Now beholding the boldness of Peter and John, and aware that they were unlettered and simple men, they wondered, and recognized them that they were with Jesus' (ver. 13). In none does the Spirit's power shine more conspicuously than in such as can boast nothing of this world's advantages. For high and low cry up the learning of the schools: the high, as making the most of what they themselves have enjoyed; the low, in general as excusing their own deficiency and overvaluing what they have not. But in the things of God nothing has power like faith in the God Who is glorifying Christ. And learning, whenever leaned on as an object, so far from being a help, is apt to become a positive hindrance and a real snare. Man as such is capable of attaining it in the highest degree; and pride generally follows, as well as the applause of men. But the ways of God are not as ours, and He was pleased to humble man, not only by Christ crucified, but by choosing the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise. In the front rank of those stand the apostles who, speaking broadly, had not one distinction in the eyes of the world, not one trait of which flesh could vaunt.

Such certainly were Peter and John now in presence of Jewish rulers who, having rejected Jesus, had lost God, and were putting forth nothing but an arm of flesh against His purposes and His servants. The rulers saw their bold bearing on the one hand, and on the other their lack of polite letters or of any public position which could whet their powers or impart experience and presence of mind. If they could not but wonder, they did also recognize their having been with Jesus. This could only aggravate their uneasiness, especially as an unanswerable witness was present.

'And seeing the man that was healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply' (ver. 14). How solemn the position of men who, bearing the name of God's people, are so entangled by the enemy that they cannot deny the truth to which they are at the same time determined not to bow! To own it would be, they think, their ruin. Not so in truth, but their salvation! It would have been the humbling discovery of their sin, and of God's unspeakable grace, of a rejected but exalted Messiah, Whose name by faith in it brings life and remission of sins. But no: they will not come to Him that they may have life. They love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. They value the glory of men and not the glory of God, Who is in none of their thoughts. It is not only the unbelieving who perish, but the fearful, the cowardly, bent on present interests according to their own reckoning, and for their own pleasure, in contempt of evidence to their consciences adequate, yea overwhelming, that they are fighting against God. Did there not stand before all with the apostles a man who notoriously had never before stood?

Their guilty dilemma they did not disguise from themselves, nor one from another when they got rid of the presence of those who morally condemned them. 'But, having commanded them to go aside out of the council, they were conferring among themselves, saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable sign hath been done through them [is] manifest to all that inhabit Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it be not spread farther among the people, let us threaten them severely [lit. with threat] to speak to no man longer in [lit. on] this name' [vers. 15-17]. Here the unerring word of God lays bare the workings of hardened feeling without conscience among His enemies; and none are so bitter, none so obdurate, as those who, responsible as His people to do His will have made up their mind to do the* own. They fully knew the remarkable deed just wrought by the apostle; they recognized it as not merely a miracle but 'a sign', yet did they strengthen themselves against the Almighty, running on the thick bosses of His buckler. In the face of the evident finger and instructive lesson of God, they deliberately strive together to extinguish its effects. They are well aware that 'these men' claim nothing for themselves, assert nothing but the name of Jesus. But this is the very name they themselves most fear and would banish for ever if they could. How vainly! It is the day pre-eminently for bearing witness to Jesus. This is the true and great business of the believer; this his one unfailing joy and duty: in the gospel, in the church, with friend or with foe, with few or with many, habitually in word, often in deed, sometimes in silence, but always, are we called to be His witnesses. Had not He Himself said to these very men with others, as His last charge, 'Ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you, and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth'? Could those blind, plotting, self-condemned Jewish rulers stifle that testimony? So they hoped in the infatuation of unbelief which hid their own exceeding iniquity as well as God's will and glory from their eyes. But faith vanquishes the world.

The charge not to speak at all nor teach in reference to (or resting on) the name of Jesus, which the council laid on Peter and John, was therefore as bold as it was wicked, and the more so as emanating from rulers claiming the highest authority in religion (ver. 18). How solemn to think that unwittingly they so treated their own Messiah! And why was it unwitting? Had God given them ineffectual light by the prophets? They own at that moment a manifest sign in the man that was healed. This they could not deny, that they would not believe. And so abiding in darkness they knew not the impiety of their enforcing silence about the Messiah Whose loving-kindness was better than life to His servants.

'But Peter and John answering said unto them, Whether it be right before God to hear you rather than God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard' (vers. 19, 20). This reply put the case with unanswerable plainness and moral power. A ruler, especially a religious one, is bound to uphold what is righteous before God, and their charge simply amounted to heeding themselves in preference to God, for they demanded not a word more in the name of Jesus, though God had openly and just now honoured it unmistakably.

As for the apostles, faith in Christ, love to souls, special call, divine authority, and devotedness to His glory, all wrought to open their lips in His testimony and praise. The things they had seen and heard were so bound up with what was due to Jehovah and His Anointed, as well as with the believer's blessedness and the unbeliever's misery, that, woe be to them if they held their peace! A necessity was laid on them no less than on Paul at a later day (1 Cor. 9: 16). They had received a personal command from Him by Whom kings rule in divine providence; only theirs was on the ground of grace and truth unknown to earthly governors as such, and for ends immeasurably higher and more enduring. Were those who claimed His sanction in a lower sphere authorized to set it aside in a higher? They might attempt it, but as surely would it be to their own irremediable destruction, as it would be in vain for those who heard the voice of One on high mightier than the noise of many waters, let the floods lift up their voice never so loftily.

'And they having further threatened them let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them on account of the people; because all were glorifying God for what had been done. For the man on whom this sign of healing was wrought was more than forty years old' (vers. 21, 22).

Threatening, and further threatening, are tokens of weakness and ill-will, not of power which knows how to forbear till the critical moment come. It is the natural resource of such as have not the truth, and can find no plea of unrighteousness in those they would punish. In this case too, as often, the people were feared, not God. Not that they loved but rather despised the people; but they were necessary as an instrument of influence and the loss of this they dreaded above all. What a contrast with that Ruler, Who is just, ruling in the fear of God! Their character is as darkness, and the end death: He, as the light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain.

Government, poor as it may be now, is right and needful; but it is never right when those who should exercise it shrink from fear of the people, instead of acting before God Who authorized them. Alas! it was the religious council that was without God and opposed to Him; and the poor and simple, ignorant as they might be, in this case did all glorify God for that which was done. They were familiar for many years with the sufferer who by divine power was healed; and they had no class interest which was wounded by owning the good hand of God. The Jewish rulers feared not God but the people, and would have punished the holy servants of Christ if they could only have found an excuse plausible before men. They were in the darkness of nature, with the pride of possessing the law of God, and under the direction of Satan. The wisdom of their wise was perishing, and the understanding of their prudent hid. Learned or unlearned were obliged alike to own in the presence of His revealed mind that they could not read it.

Henceforth His word was with the servants and confessors of the Lord Jesus, the Spirit given them was self-evidently not of cowardly fear, but of power and love and a sober mind. The truth of Christ too nearly concerns God and man to be shelved. If truly received, it commands conscience and heart, mind and soul. If the rulers could not deny the sign before their eyes, still less could the apostles refrain from confessing the name of Jesus, the Saviour in heaven for man on earth. For them to withhold God's glad tidings in Christ would have been treason spiritually. Indifference to Christ or the gospel is cousin-germane to infidelity.

Undeniably there was now a power on earth intrinsically superior to that of man beyond all comparison, but not yet at work so as to preclude shame and suffering, above all for Christ's sake. Nor was it merely with dark heathenism that it clashed, but with the highest authority of the Jewish people, now proving themselves as opposed at least as the heathen to the light and truth and power of God manifested by the presence of the Holy Spirit here below. The wonders and signs done by the apostles, the tongues of the Gentiles spoken in a moment by Jewish Christians who had never learnt them, the mighty works of God in redemption set forth, and unselfish grace raising the believers above what not only their own habits craved, but the nature of man universally, did not, rich as they are, constitute the entire testimony for the name of the Lord Jesus.

A particular sign before the temple, done in His name, had roused not more the amazement of the multitude than the jealous fears of the religious chiefs, sore troubled because they proclaimed in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. How blinding is the influence of unbelief! They could not deny the reality of the miracle; they would not believe the gospel. They put in ward and further threatened the instruments of divine power. They have not a word to say about their own Scriptures bearing witness to their rejection and God's exaltation of the Messiah; yet they charged the apostles not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus, desirous of punishing them, but finding as yet no means how to do so, because of the people whose favour they dreaded to lose, without the fear of God. A truly lamentable picture of those who claimed to be exclusively His people on the earth!

Little did they know that God had begun to call a new corps of witnesses from His ancient people, and that He would gather in more from the Gentiles. And so the Spirit is intimating in this very Book as a fact, the ground of which is explained in the Epistles.

'But being let go they came unto their own [company], and reported all that [or, whatsoever] the chief priests and the elders said unto them. And they on hearing [it] with one accord lifted up [their] voice unto God and said, Master, Thou [art] He that made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all that in them [is]; Who1 by [the] Holy Spirit, [by the] mouth of our father David Thy servant, didst say, Why did Gentiles rage and peoples meditate vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Anointed [or, Christ]. For of a truth in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus Whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with Gentiles and peoples of Israel were gathered to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel foreordained to come to pass. And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to Thy bondmen with all boldness to speak Thy word, while [lit., in that] Thou stretchest forth Thy hand for healing and that signs and wonders be done by the name of Thy holy Servant Jesus' (vers. 23-30).

1 The most ancient reading, here followed, seems difficult or at least confused.

What made these believers 'their own company'? What drew the two apostles to them instinctively and immediately on their dismissal from the council? It was the Spirit of God Who had gathered them to the name of the risen Christ. The people of Israel, their leaders at least, were now becoming their enemies as His, a new people was being formed with a High Priest sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man. For He has obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted upon better promises [Heb. 8: 1, 2, 6]. It is not that they then understood their own privileges as they are here put, nor that the statement here cited covers their best and highest blessings; but they knew the One on high Who was the accomplishment and securer of all, and hence they were more and more attracted to the circle of those who confessed Him and detached in principle, as gradually more in heart, from their old belongings and their old boast.

And 'their own company' responded with one accord on hearing their report of all that the religious chiefs of the nation had said. Their utterance is a remarkable outpouring to God, and proves how deeply they err who fancy that there can be no agreement in prayer save through a previously composed and commonly possessed form: a grave interference with, and practical denial of, the power of the Holy Spirit, the only right and adequate spring of all that should characterize the assembly of God. For He it was Who guided in this spontaneous spreading out before God of their then passing circumstances, according to the written word and in striking identification with the Lord Jesus. 'Master,' said they, in the sense of Sovereign owner and disposer of all, 'Thou art He that made the heavens and the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is.' They acknowledge His glory in creation, but turn at once to His prophetic word through David in the beginning of Psalm 2. This they distinctly apply to that unnatural combination, which Jerusalem had just beheld, between Gentiles and Jews, between Herod and Pontius Pilate, against Jesus the Messiah. He Who at first created all, governed all, and He had revealed His will in His word though not yet was it all fulfilled.

For beyond a doubt it was of the Holy Ghost that David so spoke. To no event since the Psalm was written can the opening words apply save to the one just before them, of that strange union and daring guilt they do speak with precision, where Jew and Gentile set themselves with their rulers in array against Jehovah and His Anointed as never before or since. There are great principles in Scripture, but also exclusively personal prophecies. But though the disciples discern in it a Satan-directed conspiracy, in which evil seemed to have all its way without check even to the crucifying of the Lord of glory, they are clear that the enemy with all his hosts has in reality gained nothing but defeat. The others thought it not at all when they held their council and adjudged Jesus to the death of the cross; but they were gathered by Him Who is higher than the highest, to do whatsoever His hand and His counsel predetermined to be done.

And so it ever is, even in this world lying in the wicked one though it be, but not always so conspicuously as the written word made it in that which was and is so infinitely momentous to God and man. But how solemn to see 'in this city', as everywhere, that men who are the nearest concerned, the perpetrators of these horrors against God and His Christ, are the last to perceive the import of their own acts, still less God's gracious and worthy purposes by them! In truth, not one sparrow falls on the ground without Him; and the very hairs of our head are all numbered.

Futile and wicked effort! The murderous violence of man but rivets the bands and cords he would burst asunder. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. But this is far from all in the second Psalm. Then shall He speak to them in His wrath and vex them in His sore displeasure. This, however, is not yet, for, instead of judgments to punish their evil and overwhelm their pride, His grace is meanwhile sending out the gospel — repentance and remission of sins preached in the name of Jesus to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. The promise of His Father is sent forth on the disciples, the Holy Ghost as power from on high to associate those who believe with Himself in heaven. When this work of heavenly grace is done, God will take His place for the earth and in Israel especially. He has in no way forgotten or repented of His promise to Abraham or David. 'Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: Jehovah hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.'

Do any contend that this latter part of the Psalm is now accomplished, 'spiritually' as they call it, under the gospel? It is perfectly demonstrable that such a straining of Scripture is precluded by the context. For it is therein declared that Messiah shall [not save, nor unite to Himself as members of His body but] break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. So Rev. 2: 27 shows that the faithful who are now being called will share in this with Christ at His coming, instead of its being fulfilled in some allegorical way at the present — a sense unworthy of all just interpretation. Hence the final appeal is to the kings and judges of the earth to pay homage to Jehovah and the Son, lest He be angry, and they perish under ever so little a kindling of His wrath. It is not a call to the poor and heavy-laden to believe the gospel; it is a question of the future and manifest kingdom of God when the Son of man comes in power and glory. Compare Psalm 8: and Daniel 2; Dan. 7. Still, whether it be then or now, blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.

In vain do some, following a few Rabbis, limit or even apply such words to the reign of David or Solomon, for the words go beyond their glory, and still more of their successors. Neither attempted to reign to the ends of the earth, or required the homage of its kings as such; nor was any man called to trust in either; nor was lack of reverence visited with such perdition. That Christ has not yet executed the judgment of verse 9 is no proof that He will not, but is rather the solemn assurance that He will.

In connection with our Scripture it is noticeable that those who so definitely use the Psalm for its accomplishment in the uprising against the Messiah stop short there. Not a thought is expressed by them of His asking for Jehovah's giving the heathen for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (ver. 8). Christ is occupied with His heavenly relations and offices now. He will ask for the earth when He is about to come and execute judgment on the living and the dead. Then will be His appearing and His kingdom. Now He is hid in God, the source of gifts for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ, till we all come unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4: 11-13).

Hence the praying saints do not now ask for such vengeance from God on their adversaries, as we find in the Old Testament, and emphatically in the Psalms which reflect the inmost feeling of the godly concerned, whether in their past preparatory accomplishment or in their complete fulfilment at the end of the age. It is not, as many in ignorant presumption dare to think, that these intercessions against the wicked, as in Psalms 6, 10, 54, 59, 83, and the like, are vindictive; they are solemnly judicial when the time and instruments are there to pour out God's wrath on all who despise Him. But now it is the day of grace and salvation, the accepted time: while Christ sits on the right hand of God; and the Holy Ghost is uniting to Him the one body, the church; and sovereign grace in the gospel flows out, overflowing for the time all difference between Jew and Gentile who are called to heavenly glory. In a spirit suitable to this do they pray, 'And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings, and give to Thy bondmen with all boldness to speak Thy word, while Thou stretchest forth Thy hand for healing, and that signs and wonders be done by the name of Thy Servant Jesus' (vers. 29, 30).

It was enough for their hearts that the Lord should look upon the threats of those that sought their injury: He knew best what to permit and what to restrain; and He could deliver. For themselves they besought grace to speak His word with all boldness or liberty. Is this what we are doing or seeking? Do we prize it as our chief joy and duty and business on the earth? Is it merely with Christian companions of like mind, spending an hour or two in the morning with people of leisure, and in the evening with those who have closed their earthly toils? This may be all well; but in such circumstances it is apt to be sitting over the word rather than the word over them, admiring the things which they know, and criticizing those who do not know the wondrous counsels and ways of grace. Far different was the heart of these early saints who had so much to learn; but in their faith they supplied, or added, that moral courage and zeal for Christ and divine love which drew them out to speak His word 'wish all boldness'.

The Lord granted their desire, not merely in setting at naught when He saw fit for His glory the threatenings of His and their enemies, but in rendering free and bold witness to Himself. His word ran and was glorified, as we shall see; and believers were the more added to the Lord multitudes of both men and women. They spoke of Him devotedly, and abundantly did He bless them. It never occurred to their simple minds that they should preach for preaching's sake, with the inevitable and deserved result of absolutely no fruit. Speaking His word, they looked to Him that it would issue to His glory in bringing souls to God and filling them with divine joy in His grace.

It is true that their faith, according to the word of the Lord (Mark 16: 17, 18), counted on more than spiritual blessing. The healing of the sick or infirm, in His name, they desired, as a precious and significant token to unbelievers. So had the Master wrought when here; so would they His bondmen do in witness of His gracious power, as He was risen and in heaven Who had vanquished Satan, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that followed. In the confidence of this guarantee on His part they ask Him to grant them with all boldness to speak His word, whilst He stretches forth His hand for healing, and that signs and wonders be done in the name of the holy Servant Jesus.

This power was seasonable where God was inaugurating the infinite fact of the Holy Spirit sent down in person from heaven and now permanently making the assembly to be His habitation, His temple or house on earth What honour too for Him Whom the Jews had crucified by the hand of lawless men, that these signs and wonders were done 'through the name of His Servant Jesus'! When the name of the Lord was professed throughout Christendom, there would have been no adequate object, or even propriety, in the continuance of such signs, the Scriptures being then accepted in that sphere as the true and full revelation of God. And inasmuch as that profession of acceptance for the most was unreal and superficial and increasingly to the denial by their works of the Lord Whom they professed how morally incongruous would have been the continuance of these external tokens of honour and power!

The more one weighs the matter, the more fitting does it seem that He Who vouchsafed miracles at the beginning should not have bound them as an inalienable heirloom to the church or to His servants. He promised that they would follow 'those that believe'; and so they did. He never intimated that they were to follow perpetually or absolutely. And they then ceased in His wisdom, as they really could not be now without the danger, yea certainty, of ill results to His dishonour; for they must tend to gloss over the present ruin-state of the assembly, to blunt the conscience of all, if all had them, or to inflate a few if only exercised by a few.

The testimony, the word of God, was then the prime desire which they spread before Him, for they sought mercy and blessing for their adversaries, not vengeance; and the seals of power they asked at His hand did not consist of consuming fire from above, or of the earth opening to devour the foe, but rather of 'healing', and, if 'signs and wonders', they besought them 'through the name of His holy Servant Jesus', because their hearts were set on the honour of the Son, even as they honoured the Father. The power prayed for was not for apostolic influence or authority, but for His glory Who made Himself a bondman, and to commend the word that reveals Him. It was the Creator, Who, after predicting through His servant David, had now accomplished His work, even by means of His enemies.

It will be noticed that the critical text differs not a little from the Received, not merely in omitting 'God' in ver. 24, and giving 'in this city' in ver. 27, but yet more in the singular addition 'by [the] Holy Spirit' in ver. 25, given by ABE and other authorities. It is difficult to conceive the ordinary text deliberately changed into that ancient form with its unusual apparent harshness; it is easy to understand that later copyists might soften the phrase. It is not often that the older witnesses give us greater copiousness; but here we have distinct instances of it. Further, in vers. 27 and 30, as in Acts 3: 13, 26, the true counterpart is 'Servant', and not 'Son', nor even 'Child' here, answering to Isaiah 13: 1; Isaiah 52: 13; as indeed the Authorized Version rightly translates in ver. 25. Only in the prayer Jesus is here carefully distinguished from David as His 'holy' One.

A distinct and immediate answer to united prayer was now given, faith as ever, receiving more than it asked. 'And when they prayed, the place wherein they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the1 Holy Spirit, and spoke the word of God with boldness. And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that believed were one; and not one said that aught of his possessions was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power did the apostles render the witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all. For neither was there anyone in want among them; for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold [them] and brought the prices of the things that were being sold, and laid [them] at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each according as anyone had need. And Joseph that by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite a Cyprian by birth, having a field, sold [it] and brought the money and laid [it] at the feet of the apostles' (vers. 31-37).

1 The article is required by the best authorities: a plain proof, if needed, that the Holy Spirit personally is in question, not a mere influence. Bishop Middleton is also mistaken about the converse, or absence of the article, which is quite independent of personality, and simply characterizes.

The voice of Jehovah shakes the wilderness. He looks on the earth, and it trembles. So when He comes to reign, the earth will see and tremble. Here it was not in judgment, but in grace that He gave this outward token of His intervention, not conveying as in an earthquake the idea of some universal and unlimited danger, but by its peculiar form, limited to the place wherein they were assembled, giving the conviction that He heard and watched over them for His own glory.

But there was more and better than any external sign. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke (not now, as far as we are told, with other tongues, but) the word of God with boldness. It was the presence of God manifested most suitably in power but grace withal. It was wholly distinct from that operation of the Spirit where a soul is born anew. It was the energy of the Holy Spirit, shown outwardly as well as in believers: the Spirit not only given, but excluding the action of flesh so that, for the time at least, nothing wrought which was not of Himself. It was spiritual power but in the dependence of faith, uttering not merely strong and original ideas but the word of God with boldness, as became His servants, confiding in His perfect grace, and feeling the ruin of man without Christ. Before this, two of the apostles, when forbidden by the high authorities of Israel, pleaded, 'We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard' (Acts 4: 20). They were all now animated with like faith and fervour in the Holy Ghost. It was no small thing for any to be thus strengthened; how much more to see an entire company of such confessors!

How are they characterized? 'And the heart and soul of the multitude of those that believed were one.' Never before Pentecost had such a time appeared on earth. What is described is, if possible, more vividly spiritual now that opposition came out distinctly against them. All savours of His presence Who deigned to come down from heaven and make the saints the dwelling-place of God. The Holy Spirit it is Whose energy works all that is acceptable to God, all that is edifying for man. Without Him there had been only so many individuals. The Spirit unites to Christ, He also and thereby gives practical unity as here. The heart and soul of those that believed, though a multitude, was one. Undoubtedly such unity could not have been without one supreme and absorbing object, even Christ, but there was also needed the power of the Spirit to exclude the activity of each several will. For flesh loves to differ, and seeks its own things. Next, they all sought the things of Jesus Christ, though without intelligence of union with Christ or heavenly relationships. Yet never before nor since has there been in any communion on earth an equal testimony to deliverance through His name from the selfishness of nature and the pride of the world, never more sustained joy in God or more mutual love through our Lord Jesus. It was the accomplishment of the prayer in John 17: 20, 21, 'that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.' Their heart and soul were one. The expression of the inspired historian is more energetic, as the practical unity in grace was realized with singular brightness before the world. No sign of greater weakness in the church than division of way, feeling, or thought; no more evident mark of the Spirit's power than unity of which Christ is the spring and character.

Next follows, as fresh as ever, that unexampled token of superiority to personal interests which Pentecost first beheld. 'And not one said that aught of his possessions was his own; but they had all things common.' Certainty this was in no sense law but grace; but is it not surprising that any believing the scriptures should elude the plain and blessed fact? It was a state of things beautifully suited to the church when it was all in Jerusalem, and in the full early bloom created by the ungrieved Holy Spirit: when saints were gathered to the Lord elsewhere, we find it no more. Communion of goods, so far as it was carried out in grace, in the nature of things could only be rightly whilst all the members were in one place. When the Lord wrought in other places, the saints were as near in divine relationship as those that dwelt in the same city. That which was peculiar to the assembly in Jerusalem then merged into more ordinary and comprehensive forms of love toward all the saints wherever found, for the church on earth is one, and we are members one of another, even if in the most distant quarter of the globe. We have then instruction and exhortation of the most precious kind about giving, as in Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 16; 2 Cor. 8, 9, Gal. 6; Eph.4; Phil. 4; 1 Tim. 6; Heb. 13, et al., clearly supposing no such state as all things common, but rather rich and poor who were appealed to accordingly. The word of the Lord, though to us always true, was receiving its most marked application: 'Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world (age) to come, eternal life' (Mark. 10: 29, 30).

Here too we are told of the prominent place Christ's resurrection held in apostolic teaching. 'And with great power did the apostles render the witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus.' Need it be urged that the apostles were right, not the moderns who preach the Lord in His service, or in His death, and there practically stop? For thus do these curtail the true witness of its blessed fulness; and all their preaching, not to say their faith, suffers. For why sever the resurrection from the death of Christ? If He 'be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain: ye are yet in your sins'. Without His resurrection there is no proof that our sins are gone, ourselves justified, and God glorified. Where resurrection is not held fast in power, the door is ever open both to ignore man's total ruin, and the full deliverance God has wrought in Christ and is now giving freely in His grace. Some may reason, others may hope; but the resurrection is the grand fact that He Who suffered for our sins is no longer in the grave where man laid His body, but is raised of God, Whose glad tidings concerning His Son are that He is thus proclaimed victorious over sin and death to the salvation of every believer.

And this witness is of all efficacy for the faithful, for 'great grace was upon them all'. It is of all moment to arrest and win unbelievers to God; but faith sees in the resurrection of the Lord the pledge of its own justification no less than of the judgment of all who oppose or neglect so great salvation. The God Who raised from the dead Him Who made Himself responsible for our sins, and went down into death under divine judgment for our sakes, is the Saviour God; and His great grace reproduces itself in those who know Him thus. Love is not the fruit of a command or of an effort to love. His grace has creative power of graciousness in such as know themselves loved of Him.

It is painful that any one should, from Acts 2: 47, reduce this 'great grace' to 'popular favour'. The next verse (Acts 4: 34) does nor give the reason why the people looked favourably upon them ('because they suffered none of their number to be in need', as if the church were a good benefit club!). Verse 34 merely exemplifies a special way in which the great grace upon them wrought; especially as it was no longer the simple immediateness of giving which was originally seen in Acts 2: 44, 45. Now, when lands or houses were sold, the prices were laid at the feet of the apostles, and distribution was made to each according as anyone had need. What a contrast between the spontaneous unselfishness here manifest and the formal rigour of monastic rule — Mendicant Friars and the like!

Among those distinguished by their self-stripping love for the brotherhood stands specially recorded the afterwards eminent name of Joseph, surnamed Barnabas (vers. 36, 37), Son of exhortation, or perhaps of consolation. Later on (Acts 11: 24) he is characterized as 'a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith'. Here, a Cyprian, he is said to have been a Levite, yet possessed of a field, which he sold and laid the money at the feet of the apostles. The express mention of the circumstance here proves how little the practice had become compulsory; for why name Barnabas in particular, if it were a rule absolute and universal? Where men imitate in the world or even in the church, law-work supersedes grace, and the community swamps the individual to the destruction of love on one side and of conscience on the other. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ alone puts and keeps both in their true place, whether the individual or the body, because thus only God is God before man believingly. Popery and communism alike strive in vain to realize the unselfish grace of these early days in the church; for they are, neither of them, likenesses but caricatures, and are as far as possible from having the same source, character, or issue.

Grace is inimitable; only the Holy Spirit can produce it in reality. He it is Who wrought in so rich a measure then; and He abides to work whatsoever is in keeping with Christ at all times, with full consideration of what is due to God's actual ways, and to man's state also. But the interests and activity of the Holy Ghost are no longer in the fold of Israel. He is present, in the fullness of grace and power withal, in a new and different sphere outside Israel no less than the nations, He is there bearing witness of the risen Jesus Whom men crucified and slew, and of the boundless blessing conferred on those that confess Him. He is producing new and suited fruit in those that are His, united as one soul, whatever their old habits or once clashing interests: such now is the sweet effect of their oneness in the Father and the Son, that the world might believe that the Father sent the Son.

Acts 5

Manifestation of grace provokes the adversary, and the flesh would gladly gain the highest credit to itself at the least possible cost. It was early to forget that God had just made the assembly His dwelling-place; and certainly the witnesses to His presence therein were many and plain. But the enemy knows how to lure the soul by degrees into fatal evil; and spiritual pretension is a direct road and a slippery as well as rapid descent.

Barnabas had been singled out for special mention as he was afterwards to be used and honoured of God in the front rank of His servants. Ananias follows, but his heart was not right with God: that moment of 'great grace upon all' was seized for his great deceit, with the aggravation of his wife knowing and taking part in it. How many a Christian woman has been the true helpmeet of her husband in timely warning and instant appeal, condemning any and every evil at the first buddings! How dreadful when the man and the woman aid one another to forget God and His gracious but holy presence! when they agree to dishonour the name of the Lord by lying pretensions to self-sacrificing devotedness!

'But a certain man, Ananias by name, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and reserved [part] of the price, his wife also being privy: and brought and laid a certain part at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to reserve for thee of the price of the land? When it remained, did it not remain to thee; and when sold, was it not in thy power? How [is it] that thou conceivedst this thing in thy heart? Thou didst lie not to men but to God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down and expired, and great fear came upon all the hearers, and the younger [men] arose, swathed him, and carrying [him] out buried [him]' (vers. 1 6).

Sin is aggravated by the position of the guilty, as is carefully shown in Lev. iv. The ruler is distinguished from one of the people, and the anointed priest involved far more serious consequences than both.

But there is another and yet more solemn criterion, the presence of God, and this according to His nature now fully revealed. In Israel it was Jehovah dwelling in the thick darkness, Who governed His people, around Him yet unable to draw near, the Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest. Now it is, by virtue of the blood of Christ, Who has therefore entered once for all into the holies, having found eternal redemption. Therefore also is the Holy Ghost come down to constitute us God's dwelling-place, His holy temple. If sin became exceeding sinful through the commandment, how abominable in the light of the cross! But therein God condemned sin, not only in its fruits but in its root, and this in Him Who became an offering for sin. Such was God's work in sending His own Son, the Holy One yet made sin that we might become God's righteousness in Him. The sins of the believer are blotted out and forgiven the evil nature which could not he forgiven is already condemned in His cross Who died for it; and He is risen, and we are in Him, freed from all condemnation, and living of His life Who is alive again for evermore. The Holy Ghost also is not only witness to us but power in us, and personally here to make good God's presence.

Then, again, the dwelling of God is the true and full ground of the call to holiness. Even in Israel it was so: 'Holiness becometh Thine house, O Jehovah, for ever' (Ps. 93: 5). So shall they hereafter sing in truth of heart when the kingdom comes and Jehovah reigns. And thus, looking back not forward only, it had been when Israel had no more than a temporal redemption by divine power from Egypt, a type of the incomparably more blessed and permanent, yea eternal, redemption, which the Lord Jesus acquired by His blood. Even then, when the redemption was but the shadow of better things to come, the God of Israel manifested His presence on behalf, and in the midst, of His people. Now all is real; because Christ Who is the truth, came to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The full result does not yet appear for the universe till He comes to reign in righteousness, after which shall be the new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. But meanwhile the mighty work of propitiation is not only accomplished but accepted, and the Spirit of truth is come down in person to effectuate the presence and dwelling of God here below in the assembly of the saints as His house.

Hence if the Book of Exodus, above all Books of the Bible, is in its first half the figure of redemption, its last half shows us the consequent dwelling, the tabernacle, of God in the midst of His people; and the ways of the people are regulated accordingly. 'There I will meet with the children of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by My glory. And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar. I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons to minister to Me in the priest's office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God; and they shall know that I am Jehovah their God That brought them forth out of the land of Egypt that I may dwell among them: I am Jehovah their God' (Ex. 29: 43-46).

So it is in the church now. Holiness is imperative individually, for the Spirit of God dwells in each of us as saints purged by the blood of Jesus, alive from the dead, freed from sin and become bondmen to God, that we may have fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life. 'What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost that is in you, Whom ye have of God? and ye are not your own, for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore with your body' (1 Cor. 6: 19, 20). But He dwells in the assembly also (1 Cor. 3: 16, 17), and makes us collectively the living God's temple, responsible as come out from unbelievers to be separate, and to touch not what is unclean. There God dwells; to such He is a Father. 'Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every pollution of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God' (2 Cor. 6: 16-18; 2 Cor. 7: 1). Thus in every way, individual and corporate, holiness is grounded, not on law, but on what grace has wrought and given us through our Lord Jesus; and the Holy Spirit is present abidingly to make it good, or, if there be evil, to raise up a suited testimony against that which the cross has proved to be absolutely intolerable. In His children, in the church least of all, will God make allowance for iniquity. God is there in the power of the Holy Spirit to avenge the wrong done to His grace as being there and to His nature of which the Christian is made a partaker.

Ananias, then, comes forward seeking credit for a display of faith working by love, which the flesh, set on by Satan, sought to emulate without trust in God, nay, seeking to deceive Him too, as if He had no house on earth in which to dwell and manifest His power as well as grace. Part of the proceeds of his sold possessions he kept for himself, part he laid as the whole at the feet of the apostles. The Lord by His servant resents the sin and insult. 'Ananias,' said Peter, 'why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to (deceive) the Holy Spirit and to reserve for thee of the price of the land? . . . Thou didst lie not to men but to God.' What can more simply and withal more powerfully let us know their sense of God's presence? Sin then blinded the eyes of the guilty disciple; in days not so far off unbelief stole the truth away from the church, which thereon set up its own bulwarks, rules, and functionaries, works of its own hands, its calves of gold, in forgetfulness both of Him Who is coming back from on high and of Him Who meanwhile is here to glorify the Son as the Father. There is no ground to suppose that the motive of Ananias was the hoped-for possession of spiritual gifts like Barnabas, or the coveted power to impart them as in Simon's case (8: 19). It is an error to infer that thus his sin was indeed against the Holy Ghost. The truth of God is deeper than any mere product of human reasoning. It is the same verb (ψεύδομαι) in verses 3 and 4, but with a different construction: with an accusative (3) in the sense of imposing on any by falsehood, with a dative (4) as addressing a lie to a person, here to God Himself in the person of the Spirit sent down from heaven.

God was in His holy temple (the old temple being now by the rejection of the Messiah no more than 'their house', the house of unbelieving Jews) and there one bearing the name of the Lord dared to lie to His face. It was no mistake of haste, but deceit with a selfish and hypocritical aim purposed in the heart, and it was so much the more heinous in presence of fresh and boundless grace on God's part, and of its fruit in the unexampled self-abandonment of many saints before all. God of old sternly judged an Achan who coveted the accursed thing, and a Gehazi who enriched himself by a shameless prostitution of the prophet's name. 'Is it a time,' said the indignant man of God, 'to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants?' (2 Kings 5: 26). So, though it be the day of grace, it is on this account all the more solemn in God's eyes that one professedly a believer in Christ should expect his iniquity to pass muster in the house of His holiness.

On hearing the apostolic words Ananias fell down and expired; so that all that heard were overawed. The younger men that swathed and carried out his body to burial had not returned when, about three hours after, his wife entered, not knowing what was done, and Peter, drawing out from her the distinct evidence that she was privy to the imposture, said, 'How [is it] that ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of [the] Lord?' (ver. 9).

This is just what Satan desires and prompts, that those who are, or at least profess to be, the Lord's should not believe that He is among them. To tempt Him is to doubt this in word or deed — to say in heart, Is He among us or not? How unworthy of those who ought best to know His presence, secured at infinite cost as the Christian at least should also know! How awful to think of the prevalence of this sin now, little felt or judged even by true children of God! So completely, in fact, have the saints in general lost sight of the presence and action of the Spirit in the assembly that they notoriously and periodically pray that He may be poured out afresh. They, of course, mean thereby little if anything more than an accession of comfort for believers, and a great increase in the conversion of sinners. But all the while they ignore His actual presence on earth, and seem quite unconscious of the deep slight put upon Him by shutting out His revealed and sovereign working for the glory of Christ in the midst of the gathered saints. They may be waking up to allow more of His free action in gospel work outside for man's salvation; but as for His energy in the church for God's glory and in subjection to His word, they will not hear of it, whatever it may have been, it is out of date and disorderly now! Alas I this is to make the church of man and not of God, though what is of His purpose of grace will last for ever.

But Peter added, to the convicted widow, 'Behold, the feet of those that buried thy husband [are] at the door and shall carry thee out. Then she fell immediately at his feet and expired, and the young men coming in found her dead, and carrying [her] forth buried [her] by her husband' (vers. 9, 10). An infliction from its repetition so unmistakably divine could not but make an immediate and still deeper impression; and we read that 'great fear fell [came] upon all the assembly, and upon as many as heard these things' (ver. 11). It was meant for warning to all within as well as without

This is me first distinct mention of the church or assembly. It is spoken of, not as if just inaugurated, but as a known and already existing body. The church began as a fact on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit (the promise of the Father, Whom Christ sent from the Father as the Father sent Him in the Son's name) baptized all the saints into one body. There had been saints from Abel; now they in the Holy Spirit became one. In Acts 2: 47 it is well-nigh certain that the true words run that 'the Lord was day by day adding together those that should be saved', without calling them as yet the church, though of course such they were. The thing was there, not yet so named. Now, according to the words of the Lord in Matt. 16: 18; Matt. 18: 17, they are thus entitled, when God was establishing in the gravest way the reality of His presence by the action of the Spirit Who dwells there, and had all power and promptness to avenge deliberate wrong to His nature and majesty done within; unless He would be a party consenting to His own dishonour.

The Lord seized the critical moment when Ananias and Sapphira thus sinned unto death, and a death so awe-inspiring, to put fresh and gracious honour on the Twelve. One of their number had just stood prominently before all as the vessel of divine power in judging deliberate and hypocritical iniquity, in which the offending pair had been consenting partners. Now it was according to His wisdom to manifest the normal flow of His goodness and compassion in honour of the Lord Jesus, and in a world ruined through sin and wretched under its dismal effects.

'And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all of one accord in the porch of Solomon. And of the rest durst no man join them, but the people magnified them; and believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women; insomuch as even to carry out the sick into the streets and put [them] on beds and couches, that, as Peter came, at least his shadow might overshadow some one of them. And there also came together the multitude from the cities round about [?unto] Jerusalem bringing sick [persons] and [persons] troubled by unclean spirits; and they were healed every one' (vers. 12-16).

This witness to the supremacy of the rejected Messiah now exalted to the right hand of God we are apt to forget, being so long accustomed to its absence, and, it may be, thinking too exclusively of His grace to us and too little of His glory. What mercy it is that keeps up that which is yet more precious, and even more profoundly wonderful, the unchanged efficacy of His blood, the new creation, union with Him, and the ever-abiding presence of the Holy Ghost in and with us on earth! But we ought not to be insensible to the blessed, even if partial, display of the testimony to His power over all the groaning creation, and those evil spirits who seduced man to his ruin into their own rebelliousness against God, nor should we ignore the humbling fact that such a display so soon faded away, as doubtless it was meet that it should. The God of all grace (and so now pre-eminently is God revealing Himself) would not stay such an answer on earth to Christ's exaltation to the seat of divine power, were there not the wisest and most adequate reasons, not only on the side of His own moral glory, but because the continuance of signs and wonders would be an anomaly in His ways, and an injury rather than a blessing to the saints when the assembly fell more and more from the grace and truth which came by our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is evident that here as on other occasions the apostles were those above all distinguished by doing many signs and wonders. But plainly from Acts 6: 8; Acts 8: 6, 7, 13, the power was in no way confined to those whom God set first in the church, for the martyr Stephen and the evangelist Philip were both remarkable in that way. Nor can there be an intelligent doubt, for the believer who reads 1 Cor. 12, that such sign-gifts might be distributed widely and apart from all public office; even as our Lord intimated in Mark 16: 17, 18, 20, for 'those that believed', not merely for certain prominent functionaries. Here, however, the mighty works were done by those in the front rank, nor were they done in a corner, but in all publicity, for they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch, of the rest no man daring to join them. And the moral effect was immense. On the one hand, the people magnified them; on the other, believers were more than ever added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. 'Women' had been emphatically mentioned in Acts 1: 14, when the disciples, however closely found together, were only so many individuals cleaving to the Lord in faith, and giving themselves up with one accord to continual prayer, before the uniting power of the one Spirit sent down from heaven baptized all into one body. The prophecy of Joel applied to the Pentecostal gift supposes the common share women were to have in the promise of the Father, and its mighty consequence (Acts 2: 17, 18); and now we hear 'women' again named explicitly among the multitudes of believers added to the Lord.

Among the signs and wonders a very special feature is pointed out in ver. 15; their bringing out the sick into the streets and putting them on beds and couches that the mere shadow of Peter as he came along might overshadow some one of them. So did the abundant goodness of God by man in honour of Jesus fill men's hearts with confident expectation. Nor do we hear of disappointment. On the contrary we are told that the multitude also of the cities round about Jerusalem flocked thither, bringing sick people and those troubled by unclean spirits; and healing was vouchsafed to them all. How wondrous the virtue of that Name which thus unfailingly invested His servants with power superior to every demand over evil seen or unseen!

Again come forward the Sadducean party. For liberalism is no more friendly to the truth than traditionalism. And who can wonder? Their citadel had been stormed by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. They felt themselves assailed and pursued in the open field by the proclamation of the gospel, and by the miraculous powers which magnified the Name of the crucified but now risen Messiah.

'And the high priest rising up, and all those that were with him, which is [the] sect of the Sadducees, were filled with wrath, and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in public ward. But an angel of [the] Lord by night opened the doors of the prison, and leading them out, said, Go and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life' (vers. 17-20).

During the ministry of the Lord Jesus here below the Pharisees had been His chief adversaries: their self-righteousness, unrighteousness, zealously held fast tradition; and, veiled by religious forms, waged constant warfare against the Righteous One; and the more, as He was ever the expression of God's grace and truth to those who owned their true condition of guilt and ruin before God. When He presented Himself as Messiah for the last time to the unbelieving people, and was going, as He well knew, to death, not in rejection only but for atonement, all came out in unambiguous opposition, whatever the pretence, chief priests and elders, Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, coming to judge Him, but in result to be themselves judged by the word. Now after He rose from the dead those who said there is no resurrection nor angel nor spirit were naturally the most embittered, notwithstanding their usual self-complacency and wish to pose as the mildest of the people.

But man never knows himself apart from Christ, any more than he thinks or feels rightly about God. The revealed truth detects and lays him bare in his departure from God; and this is so much the more intolerable as he has a religious position to maintain. Hence the excessive anger of the Sadducean high priest and his party at this time. Their boasted liberty of conscience is only for the different forms of error. The truth of God is ever unwelcome, and those who preach it are mere troublers to be punished without hesitation. They 'laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in public ward.'

But the God Who had acted in the assembly with a stroke which slew the guilty husband and wife was not wanting now, and a providential messenger of His power was sent to deliver His faithful servants. 'An angel of [the] Lord by night opened the doors of the prison, and leading them out, said, Go and stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life.'

The intervention then was as sensible as it was striking. God is marking in this chapter the reality and the varied forms of His action for His assembly and those members of it in particular who are charged with His word and who rouse most the animosity of the foe. Angelic care has in no wise disappeared for His servants, though there is no such display of power as of old, any more than the presence and energy of the Spirit within the assembly. It is our fleshly activity, and our lack of spirituality, which hinder. We grieve the Spirit by our self-confidence and worldly wisdom, and we fail to discern the wonderful ways in which God delivers. Were our eyes more truly opened of the Lord we should see that, when beset with seemingly countless and overwhelming adversaries, they that be with us, if really with and for Christ, are more than they that be with them. Are they not all ministering spirits sent out for service on account of those that shall inherit salvation?

Here no doubt there could be no mistake about the matter; for it was no question of men escaping by strength and skill or any earthly means, but of an angel opening the doors of the prison by night, leading them out, and commanding them to speak in the temple to the people all the words of this Life. The source of the deliverance was as plain as the commission to speak. The religious chiefs were in flat opposition to the God of all grace Who would have men that believed through grace to be His chosen vessels in proclaiming all the words of this Life in Christ the Lord. For there is no other Name of salvation given among men, nor any other way than the Son to the Father. Life in Him, remission of sins through His blood, the gift of the Holy Spirit, such are the first blessings which the gospel announces to every soul that believes in Jesus. And God will have it go forth freely and fully, let men say or do as they may. But who shall measure the guilt of thus rejecting every testimony from God, not only despising the message of grace, but forbidding and imprisoning the messengers, that the mercy and truth of God in so speaking to man may never reach his ears? Who can wonder that their judgment slumbereth not? The higher the estate, the deeper the fall.

But God, Who knows best that His words are the seed of everlasting life, will not have the proud and evil will of man to intercept His message of good. He therefore, as in a day of wonders, interfered by an angel to do extraordinarily that which He could have accomplished by more ordinary means, if so it had pleased Him. But the occasion itself then was beyond all that is usual; and it was according to His wisdom that, as His power had been shown judicially within the assembly, and in healing grace by the special envoys of the Lord Jesus, so also with marked superiority over the hostile will of man and authority of the world by the angelic deliverance from the prison. The words of this Life must be spoken at His command that souls might hear and live. One can understand how the courage of faith would be confirmed and increased in His servants by an act so signal; and what a testimony it ought to have been to the consciences of all, especially to the sect of the Sadducees! But unbelief is as hard and as blind towards God, as it is credulous of its own vagaries, and bent on its own will, even with the knell of perdition sounding in its ears.

The apostles, thus miraculously brought out of prison, acted forthwith on the message to the confusion of the enemy.

'And when they heard, they entered about dawn into the temple and were teaching. And when the high priest arrived and those with him, they called together the council and all the senate of the sons of Israel, and sent unto the jail to have them brought. But the officers that arrived did not find them in the prison; and they returned and reported, saying, We found the jail shut in all security and the keepers standing at the doors, but on opening we found no one within. And when both [the priest and]1 the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were utterly perplexed about them whereto this would come. And there arrived one and reported to them, Behold, the men whom ye put in the prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people. Then the captain went away with the officers, and brought them, not with violence, for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And having brought they set them in the council, and the high priest asked them saying, We strictly charged you not to teach on [in] this name; and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and purpose to bring upon us the blood of this man. And in answer Peter and the apostles said, Obedience must be to God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus Whom ye slew by hanging on a tree: Him God exalted with His right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. And we are [His]2 witnesses of these things [lit. words], and the Holy Spirit Whom God gave to those that obey Him' (vers. 21-32).

1 The more ancient MSS. and versions reject 'the priest and' as in the Received Text. But while one can readily understand the omission from ignorance of the phrase, it is hard to see how some good copies, as well as a great many, accepted it unless genuine. 'Proclivi lectioni praestat ardua' is an acknowledged maxim in such matters. The fact is however, that in the Old Testament the use of 'the priest' for 'the high priest' is common. See Ex. 29: 30; Ex. 35: 19, Ex. 38: 21 Lev. 4: 5, 6, 7, 10, 16; Lev. 6: 22; Lev. 13: 2; Lev. 16: 32; Lev. 21: 21, Num. 3: 6, 32; Num. 4: 16, 28, 33; Num. 7: 8, Num. 16: 37, 39, Num. 18: 28; Num. 25: 7, 11; Num. 26: 1, 3, 63; Num. 27: 2, 19, 21, 22, Num. 31: 6, 12, 13, 21, 26, 29, 31, 41, 51, 54; Num. 32: 2, 28; Num. 33: 38; Num. 34: 17. Nor is it only in the books of Moses that we find the use of 'priest thus frequently for 'high priest', for so it is in Joshua 14, 17, 19, 21, 22; so in 1 & 2 Sam.; 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chr. So the Lord is predicted in Ps. 110.; Zech. 6. We are not driven, as Krebs would seem to have supposed, to the Apocrypha (1 Macc. 15: 1, 2), though the usage is there, and in Josephus (A. vi. 12, 1), to whom he refers. In the New Testament itself compare Heb. 5: 6, and (not to speak of Heb. 7: 5) Heb. 7: 3, 11, 15, 17, 21; Heb. 8: 4; Heb. 10: 21.

2 The greater copies exclude 'His'; but the strange reading of B rather strengthens EHP and the mass in holding to it.

In the temple there was no hindrance to instruction in the word of God, the Old Testament scriptures; and as yet none others were written. The apostles therefore used their liberty to teach, as their Master had done before (Matt. 21: 23 - 28; Mark 11: 27 - 12; Luke 20; Luke 21: 37, 38; John 7: 14, 28, 37; John 8: 2-59; John 10: 23-39). So it was too in the synagogues; and the apostles were in no way disposed to forego the opportunity of expounding the scriptures to the people, as we see in the history of Paul especially. There they were teaching at break of day; they were obedient, and their hearts in the work.

But the adversaries were not slack on their side. 'And when the high priest arrived and those with him, they called together the council and all the senate of the sons of Israel, and sent unto the jail to have them brought But the officers that arrived did not find them in the prison; and they returned and reported, saying, We found the jail shut in all security, and the keepers standing at the doors, but on opening we found no one within.' Thus the Sanhedrim met in due form, and in all the confidence of the highest religious authority. But the prisoners were no longer in custody; and, what was the most surprising news of all, without violence from within or from without. The building was found by the officials in all security, the keepers on guard at the doors, but not a prisoner was there.

'And when both the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were utterly perplexed about them whereto this would come.' Conscience could not but whisper, the more inexplicable to them it might seem. Strange things had Jerusalem seen and heard: not only when the Christ was here, but more widely and wonderfully since He died, and, as the disciples affirmed, rose and went to heaven. That God had somehow brought out of prison the apostles, whom Jewish authority had put in, was rather in keeping with all that had been of late transpiring in their midst in Solomon's porch and elsewhere. But unbelief is the rebellion of the heart and may work most proudly in the face of the fullest testimony, without one solid ground of objection or a reasonable excuse. And as it is the heart that is in question, neither age nor sex, neither knowledge nor ignorance, exempts a single person from its poisonous activity. Indeed an active or subtle mind, however much furnished and exercised only gives the larger means and scope for its evil opposition to God. 'Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life.' 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.' 'He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.' Men dread consequences. Faith is subject to God's word, and seeks to please Him. The Jewish rulers were afraid of the issues now. They had no thought of God in the unseen light of eternity.

'And there arrived one and reported, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are in the temple standing and teaching the people.' God took care to give publicity to the defeat of the guilty people in the hour of their seeming power over His servants. Had the council before charged and threatened them strictly not to speak at all nor teach on (in) the name of Jesus? Had they now, filled with envy, put them in the public prison? God had by an angel brought them out from doors ever so secured and guards vigilant as they might be; and there they were in the temple standing and teaching the people. 'Then the captain went away with the officers and brought them, not with violence, for they feared the people lest they should be stoned.' How comforting to faith the witness of the weak strong, and of the strong weak! Hardened as the captain and the officers might be, they were overawed, so that they abstained from violence even to the escaped prisoners; and not these but those feared lest they should be stoned. But it was man they dreaded, not God. The apostles had God before their eyes, the only true deliverance from the fear of man.

'And having brought they set them in the council; and the high priest asked them, saying, We strictly charged you not to teach on [in] this name, and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and purpose to bring upon us the blood of this man.' They assuredly had no wish for or thought of accentuating their own powerlessness in presence of a few poor and weak and ignorant Galileans. Yet they could not conceal from themselves any more than from others that their stern commands were impotent, and that the teaching of the apostles was everywhere prevalent in the city, with the blood of Him Whom they dreaded to name weighing heavily and increasingly on their consciences. But a little while ago Pilate had vainly washed his hands before the multitude, as if he could thus rid himself of his dark blot in delivering Jesus to their will; and then answered all the people, His blood be on us and on our children; and the priests, yea the chief priests, pleaded against the Holy Sufferer, instead of interceding for the Guiltless. Now are they the first to deprecate and feel the guilt of that blood on their own heads, and to shrink from its intolerable burden, and (save to faith) its irrevocable curse. There was, however, no uprightness of conscience: had there been, they would have found a sure and immediate and everlasting resource in the purging efficacy of that blood.

What had the boldest of the apostles proved? Were they ignorant of his denying his Master? Yet was he soon after restored in soul so completely as to be able calmly and earnestly without a blush to tax the people with denying the Holy One and the Just and desiring a murderer to be granted to them! Such is the virtue of Him Who came by water and blood: life is in Him only. So testifies the Holy Spirit, and He is the truth. But what did the Sanhedrim care for the truth, especially from the lips of unlearned and ignorant men in reproof of all the erudition and dignified office in Israel?

Peter and John had before this asked, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you rather than to God, judge ye (Acts 4: 19, 20). Now they all join Peter in his still firmer reply, 'Obedience must be to God rather than men.' This is the great practical principle of faith, as it was the uniform characteristic of Christ in all perfection here below. 'Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God': not miracles, not doing good, not teaching, not zeal, so much as unqualified and unfailing obedience rendered to God. Yet was Jesus a man approved of God unto them by powers and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in their midst beyond past example no less than present doubt. Yet was He anointed with the Holy Spirit and went about doing good, and healing all oppressed with the devil. The people too were astonished at His teaching, and all bare Him witness and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth, and the very officers sent to apprehend Him declared with truth, Never man spake like this man. And for burning jealousy for the Father's glory His disciples could not but be reminded that it was written, 'The zeal of Thine house hath eaten Me up.' But all these instances had their fit seasons. Obedience was always there, as unfaltering as constant, as lowly as perfect.

Nor is there any principle so essential for the Christian. He is sanctified of the Spirit unto Christ's obedience as well as to the sprinkling of His blood (as the gospel is for faith-obedience, in contrast with enforcement of law), and his soul is purified by obeying the truth to unfeigned brotherly love, for God chose him to salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and faith of the truth. Hence, though he may have sometimes to wait on God for light, obedience is the invariable place and duty of the believer. It is never a question of his rights; he is called to obey. He is to be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to rulers as sent by him, free though not having his freedom for a cloak of malice but as God's bondman.

Hence, if collision come between God's word and the ruler's requirement, the believer's path is clear: God must be obeyed, but in suffering perhaps, not resistance to authority. He is always to obey, though in some cases it may be God rather than men. Nothing is so humble, nothing so firm. Naturally the believer might be feeble and timid; obedience by grace gives strength and courage. He might be self-confident and unyielding; obedience gives distrust in self and meekness in doing God's will. 'He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever'; even as sin is self-will or lawlessness, and its end judgment and perdition. Therefore is obedience not only an inalienable duty, but the true pathway of power, and the sure means of extrication from every snare of the enemy. So the blessed Lord defeated Satan, and so the apostles now lay bare the tremendous fact that the Jewish heads and people were as wholly beguiled by Satan, as they themselves were wholly in simple-hearted subjection to God. Once the elect nation had God in the world, as they had the Messiah in hope. Now that they had rejected their Messiah, they were not only without God like the Gentiles but the proved adversaries of God. They were only 'men' like others, and 'obedience must be to God rather than men.'

This Peter proceeds to demonstrate in a few plain, pointed, irrefragable words. 'The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, Whom ye slew by hanging on a tree: Him God exalted with His right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. And we are [His] witnesses of these things, and the Holy Ghost Whom God gave to those that obey Him.' Here the proof is short and unanswerable, the antagonism to the God of Israel in chiefs and people beyond question. The God of their fathers (how unlike them the children!) raised up Jesus Whom ye slew (and with the deepest ignominy too) by hanging on a tree. Here, it is no longer the ambiguous word ἀνέστησεν, but the more determinate ἤγειρεν, not merely raising Him up as a living Messiah on earth, as in Acts 3: 22, 26; Acts 7: (18), 37; Acts 13: 33, but waking Him up after death. Nor was resurrection all: for God exalted Him (not 'to' as in Webster and Wilkinson, but) by His right hand (as Peter had preached, Acts 2: 33, in fulfilment of the undeniably Messianic Psalm 110.). For in what relation to them did He take His place in heaven? As Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. The door of grace was still open. God was waiting to be gracious to His people though guilty of the great transgression; and He could afford by that blood to free them even from their guilt in shedding it. Surely Christ will appear in judgment one day. Meanwhile He is announced as Leader and Saviour to give Israel just what they wanted — repentance and remission of sins.

There was testimony more than adequate — abundant: 'And we are [His] witnesses of these things [or, words], and the Holy Spirit Whom God gave to those that obey Him.' Compare the Lord's own words in John 15: 26, 27. 'But when the Comforter is come Whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me, and ye also bear witness, because ye are with Me from the beginning.'

The Holy Spirit is not only their power of duly remembering the past, but is Himself the Witness of the glory of Christ in heaven. And this blessed Spirit, Who wrought mightily in the apostles and others set high in the assembly, is given of God to those who submit to the authority of the heavenly Leader. Such is the full force of the peculiar word 'obey' (peiqarcevw) employed in verse 32. The distinct personality of the divine Spirit is as carefully guarded here as in ver. 3, though in a different way.

One can hardly conceive an answer more direct than this of the apostles. Israelitish authority was for them a judged system, for were the chiefs not convicted of deadly opposition to the God of their fathers? They might again and again command the apostles to be silent about Him Whom they had hanged, though God had sent Him as Leader and Saviour; nor was it their testimony only, but that of the Holy Spirit also, Whom the Jews could not pretend to have. How awful and terrible their position!

'And when they heard, they were cut to the heart [lit., sawn asunder] and took counsel1 to slay them' (ver. 33). It is always dangerous to oppose the truth, and the more so in proportion to the importance of that in question. Here it was the foundation of all, and so estimated by those whom the Lord called to proclaim it, and as the adversaries were resolved to reject the testimony, they all naturally betook themselves to designs of blood. Convicted yet rebellious, and abhorring the witnesses whom they could not gainsay, they were chagrined to the utmost, and consulted to slay those before them. No compunction, still less self-judgment, as in Acts 2, but they were torn with rage.

1 ἐβουλεύοντο DHP and the bulk of cursives, the Vulgate, Syriac Versions, et al., Lachmann, Tregelles, et al., prefer ἐβούλοντο ('were minded') with ABC, et al. (the addition or omission of a syllable in the middle, easily made, is all the difference between the readings).

Then the God, Who by His angel had just brought His exposed servants out of prison, was pleased to shield them from these more and more guilty murderers, and wrought after another sort of providential interference not now angelic but human. The hearts of all are in His keeping.

'But there stood up one in the council, a Pharisee, by name Gamaliel, a law-teacher, in honour with all the people, and commanded to put the men [or, apostles] out a little while, and said unto them, Ye men of Israel [or, Israelites], take heed to yourselves as to these men what ye are about to do. For before these days rose up Theudas, saying that he himself was somebody, with whom a number of men, about four hundred, took sides; who was slain, and all as many as obeyed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him (this one) rose up Judas the Galilean, in the days of the census, and drew into revolt people after him, and he perished and all as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad. And now I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or if this work be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, ye will not be [or are not] able to overthrow them2 lest ye be found [even] fighting against God' (vers. 34-39).

2 αὐτούς ABCcorr. DE, at least a dozen cursives, the later Syriac et al., as against αὐτό ('it') C p.m. HP, most cursives, versions, et al.

From such a quarter these words of sobriety, as opposed to Sadducean violence, were irresistible. There seems no just reason to doubt that Gamaliel is the same celebrated man, son of Rabbi Simeon, grandson of the once famous Hillel; he presided over the Sanhedrim during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius; his son succeeded to the same chief place, and perished during the siege of Jerusalem. Under Gamaliel, we are told in Acts 22: 3, Paul studied the law, of which he was styled 'the glory', as he was the first to bear the title of Rabban. That he was a Christian publicly, or even secretly, is only the assertion of unscrupulous legendmongers. Scripture gives us not only a perfectly reliable but a most graphic account of the man and of his character, as well as of the way in which he was providentially used at this critical moment.

For his intervention entirely fits in with the entire context, where God is tracing for our instruction how He watches over His own on earth for His glory. There was the manifestation of the Spirit's presence where they were all assembled and all filled with Him (Acts 4: 31), lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, living to the forgetfulness of all selfish interests, whilst the apostles with great power testified of the Lord's resurrection (Acts 4: 32-37). Then follows the display of the energy of the Holy Ghost in judgment of hypocritical deception and covetousness within (Acts 5: 1-11), but along with it the renewed activity of miraculous power through the apostles in grace (vers. 12-16). Next, the Jews growingly oppose themselves to the testimony of Christ, but their measures are manifestly frustrated by divine power through the angel which set free the prisoners on their mission of grace and truth (vers. 17-25). Lastly, when the exasperated will of men would proceed to deeds of blood, God interferes in the ordinary way of His providence to protect His faithful servants by a grave and wise man even in the enemy's camp. The voice of moderation and wisdom, though only natural, prevailed over the rash impulses of pride and passion intermingled with fear. God would still provide a further space for truth to awaken consciences and win hearts among His ancient people, guilty though they were. It was the day of grace, when He would save to the praise of the Lord Jesus. 'Ye Israelites take heed to yourselves as to these men what things ye are about to do' (ver. 35)

Of Theudas, who is in the first instance named by Gamaliel, we know no more than Luke records. 'For before these days rose up Theudas, saying that he himself was somebody, with whom a number of men, about four hundred took sides, who was slain, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered and brought to nothing' (ver. 36). What less likely than that the Theudas, who, according to Josephus, appeared at least a dozen years after Gamaliel's speech in the fourth year of Claudius (A.D. 44), can have been so seriously misplaced even by an historian abounding in inaccuracies, as all competent men acknowledge? If Luke had been only an ordinary godly Christian, is it conceivable that he would put into the mouth of a prominent and respected Jew like Gamaliel a falsehood so egregious as antedating the story of Theudas? If he be an inspired writer, it is needless to assert his immaculate exactness. God Who knows all and cannot lie is the true source of inspiration, whoever may be the instrument. The fact is that, on the one hand, the historical accuracy, as tested by the minutest shades of knowledge in the varying conditions and circumstances of which Luke writes freely in his Gospel, and even more amply in this Book of the Acts, is too well known generally by the most competent to need proof here; and, on the other, the name of Theudas1 was too common (cf. Cicero Ad Fam. vi. 10, ed. Orell. iii. 41; Galeni Opp. xiii. 925, ed. K�¼hn) to provoke the least well-grounded surprise that more than one so called could rise up among the many insurgent chiefs who agitated the Jews either before or since the death of Herod the Great. Josephus himself alludes to many, of whom he names but three, the Theudas, whose defeat by Fadus he places a dozen years later, seems to have had a far larger following than the 400 men of whom our evangelist writes.

1 Abp. Ussher (Works x. 484) identifies the Theudas of Acts 5: 36 with one of those called Judas in the days of Archelaus. 'Cum vero Hebraeorum Yehudah fuerit Syrorum Thudah. indeque Judas et Thaddaeus, multoque magis Theudas idem plane nomen extiterit: non alius videtur fuisse Judas hic quam Theudas ille de quo Gamaliel dixit . . .'

To the believer it is certain that the revolt of Judas the Galilean was subsequent to that of the Theudas of whom Gamaliel spoke. Josephus entirely agrees with the Acts that it was in the time of the census under Quirinus, A.D. 6 (Antt. xviii. sub. init.). And it is remarkable that the Jewish historian, though describing him there as a Gaulonite of the city of Gamala, subsequently (6) speaks of him, just as Gamaliel does in our chapter, as 'the Galilean Judas'. Had this later mention been withheld, the impugners of revelation would have become loud in decrying Luke as they are absurd in their disposition to treat Josephus as infallible. But short as is the inspired report of Gamaliel's speech, we have strikingly accurate information of Judas perishing, as to which the historian is silent, and of the mere but thorough scattering of his most numerous supporters, who did not come to naught like Theudas, but again and again reappeared till the last and for a time successful effort terminated in the death of his younger son, Menahem, A.D. 66. 'After him rose up Judas the Galilean in the days of the census, and drew into revolt people after him, and he perished, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad' (ver. 37). Whether Origen (Homil. in Luc. xxv.) had authority to say that this Judas really pretended to be Messiah may be doubtful; but he drew his vast crowds with the cry, 'We have God as our only Leader and Lord.' The uprising was fanatical as well as revolutionary. But how did it end? pleaded Gamaliel: a question unanswerable.

Then follows his advice of patient waiting for results. 'And now I say to you, Refrain from those men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or if this work be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them, lest ye be found also For, even] fighting against God' (vers. 38, 39). It was the form of toleration which a grave Jew might feel, impressed with recent facts, the character of the accused, and the state of public opinion. But there is far more reference to the issue under God than in the modern doctrine of toleration, which is in general a mere homage to the rights of man, ignoring God and the truth. He may have felt that persecution is a sorry means of subverting error or maintaining truth. Whatever the value or the motives of his judgment, it commended itself to the council, and saved the apostles from a death that seemed imminent.

Perhaps it may not be amiss here to give a specimen of the famous John Calvin's skill in handling the word of God. In his comment on the passage he first of all shows little favour to the sober speech with which Gamaliel swayed the council and extinguished the fiery zeal of those inclined to extremities. 'But if any one weigh all duly, his opinion is unworthy of a prudent man. I know indeed that by many it is held as an oracle; but that they judge badly appears with sufficient clearness even from this, because in such a way one must abstain from all punishments, neither were any wickedness to be corrected longer: yea, one must refuse all helps of life, which not even for one moment is it in our disposal to prolong. Both things indeed are said truly: what is of God cannot be destroyed by any efforts of men; what is of men is too weak to stand. But it is a bad inference that meanwhile we must do nothing. Rather should we see what God enjoins: and His will is that wickedness be restrained by us' (I. Calvani Opp. vi. in loc. Amstel. 1667).

Here breaks out the inflexible rigour which insisted on the burning of the unhappy Servetus, and the excessive punishment of others. Their evil doctrines are not questioned; but what have servants of Christ to do with measures of the kind? We have not so learned Him. The church has no doubt its own responsibility in the spiritual domain; as the world in what pertains to this life. Calvin has confounded all this in the opinion which censures Gamaliel, who meant nothing less than to deny the duty of the powers that be, but rightly urged that men should await the manifestation of that which was doubtful, instead of yielding to the hasty measures of passion and prejudice. To dissuade from extreme violence where the work might prove to be of God was certainly wiser than punishing to the utmost where they knew of no adequate reason. Calvin's logic seems as precarious as his confusion is evident of things spiritual and worldly. But this is not so extraordinary as his judgment that when Luke says, 'After him [Theudas] rose up Judas', he does not mark the order of time, as if Judas were the latter, that Gamaliel brought in his two examples promiscuously 'in disregard to time', and that 'after' means no more than 'besides' or 'moreover'!1 He had said before, 'If we credit Josephus, Gamaliel here inverts the true series of history.' Not so; unless we assume there could be only one insurrectionary Theudas. Now Josephus tells us of four men named Judas in ten years, who broke out in rebellion, and of three named Simon in forty years, and he in no way professes to name all, but on the contrary implies many more as unnamed. The assumption of Calvin is anything but rational and certainly fails in reverence.

1 It is true that Calvin might have pleaded the example of Eusebius (H.E. i. 5; ii. 11) for the same bad preference of a worldly to an inspired historian: so early, so inveterate, is the working of the evil heart of unbelief, and this in men of reputation. Even Th. de B�¨ze seems to be ashamed of all this, and certainly scouts the view of his predecessor as unfounded, though he speaks of Eusebius rather than of Calvin.

As usual, one wrong step leads to many. For Calvin is led thereby into the truly absurd consequence that, if we reckon the time, we shall find that it was at least twelve years since the death of Christ before the apostles were beaten! This blundering computation is founded entirely on confounding the Theudas of Gamaliel's speech with him who, as Josephus tells us, was dealt with by Cuspius Fadus in the reign of Claudius. 'Therefore that space of time of which I spoke is complete, and so the more excellent the constancy of the apostles, who, though ill-requited for the long pains they endured, are in no way discouraged, nor cease to hold the even tenor of their way.' Calvin was a great and good man, I doubt not; but the more striking and instructive is the lesson of boldness and folly when a man, no matter who, abandons the sure meaning of the written word for his own reasoning, which in such a case will ever betray its weak and worthless, not to say presumptuous, character. For what is man when he lifts up his voice against God? We need not dwell on other remarks of the commentator, which let out singular unfairness towards Gamaliel, as there is no desire to defend the latter nor expose the former beyond that measure which seems to be profitable for the reader. But I give his actual words: — 'Ergo conficitur illud quod dixi temporis spatium. Quo praestantior fuit Apostolorum constantia, qui quum post diuturnos labores obitos tam indignam mercedem reportent, non tamen franguntur, neque desinunt cursum suum persequi.'

'And to him they yielded, and, having called the apostles, they beat and charged [them] not to speak in [lit. on] the name of Jesus, and let them go. They therefore went their way from [the] presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name.1 And every day in the temple and at home they ceased not to teach and preach that the Christ [is] Jesus'2 (vers. 40 42).

1 E and many other copies add 'of the Lord Jesus', as others simply 'of Jesus', or 'of Christ', or 'of Him', which last is in the Received Text.

2 The Received Text has 'Jesus the Christ',  Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστυόν, HP, et al., not τόν Χριόστον Ἰησοῦν as in AB and very many more.

Thus, though plucked from death, the apostles suffered the indignity of stripes at the hands of Jews, as Paul was afterwards to experience at least five times. 'The unjust man knoweth no shame.' If the Roman judge scourged the Lord of glory, the disciples were not above their Master, and must bear from Jew or Gentile to be treated as wicked men worthy to be beaten, Deut. 25: 2. Doubtless it was for their alleged disobedience; and they are dismissed with a fresh command not to speak in the name of Jesus. How senseless is the will of unbelief! Impossible for one who knew His glory and His grace to be silent! God is concerned in such testimony supremely, and not man only or chiefly because he is otherwise lost for ever. And what is due to Him Who so humbled Himself, and suffered for our sins, and glorified God as nothing else could? 'They therefore went their way from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name.' Who can doubt the deep and divinely-sprung joy of hearts that answered in their little measure to Him Whose delight is in His Son above all? What an impulse, not discouragement, to their testimony 'in the temple' to all comers (for of course, no proper assemblies would have been permitted there), 'and at home' where the saints broke bread, prayed, edified one another, and the like! But everywhere and every day there was but one theme: teaching or evangelizing, it was Jesus as the Christ.

If the chosen people were blind to the Messiah, if they despised Jehovah the Saviour when here, and crucified Him according to the prophets and His own word, it was the more incumbent on those who believed the report of divine grace to bear witness persistently, in love to their unbelieving persecutors, and in care for such of the lost sheep of Israel as were now saved by faith. And this the apostles did with a zeal not to be put down by prison, scourge, or death itself, as we shall see in due time. And God would in honour of His Son awaken others to imitate them as they imitated Christ.

Acts 6

Persecution of the Christian for Christ's sake is an honour from God (Phil. 1: 29), as grace makes it a blessing to the church and a testimony to the world. The real danger is from within, and this yet more when the confidence of love yields at all largely to an evil eye and a discontented tongue. And so it was now. After God had so signally judged the deception of Ananias and Sapphira, fleshly and selfish complaint broke out among the Hellenistic or Greek-speaking Jews apparently against those of Jerusalem and Judea. It was not the Jews of pure descent jealous of those from elsewhere who profited by the self-sacrificing love which sold houses and lands that none might want. Still less was it the germ of those Judaizing divisions which were to be a source of not only deep, wide, and long-lasting disquiet, but of the utmost danger in denying the grace and corrupting the truth of which the church and the Christian are the responsible depositories.

'Now in those days when the disciples were multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews that [or, because] their widows were overlooked in the daily ministration' (ver. 1).

The murmuring came from those who had more or less of foreign admixture: whereas ill-feeling usually and naturally characterized those who boasted of associations wholly Israelitish. It was the Greek-speaking Jews who murmured against the Hebrews. That the mistake and indeed wrong was with the complainers seems clear, if from nothing else, from the grace evinced by all those who were the object of their murmuring, as the sequel shows. It is habitually the wrong-doer who denounces men better than himself. 'Their widows', they alleged, were being overlooked in the daily supply of wants. We are not told that so it really was, but so they complained. The poor 'widows' are ever remembered of God. The mouth of murmurers should be stopped, if the allegation were false.

'And the twelve, having called the multitude of the disciples unto [them] said, It is not seemly that we, leaving the word of God, should serve tables. Look out then, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of [the] Spirit and wisdom, whom we will appoint over this business; but we for our part will give ourselves closely to prayer and the ministry of the word' (vers. 2-4).

Up to this time the administration was in the hands of the apostles, as we see in Acts 4: 35, though probably they may have employed many brethren in the actual distribution to each needy individual. But that there were already officers whose province it was, is not only without, but against the evidence of Scripture. I am aware that Mosheim tries to prove such a class of functionaries from 'the young men' (οἱ νεώτεροι) in Acts 5: 6 which he will have rather fancifully to be the counterpart of the 'elder' (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) who do not appear till the end of Acts 11, K�¼hn�¶l and Olshausen accepting his thought. But the usage of Scripture nowhere countenances any such official 'younger men', as it does often in the use of 'elders'. On the contrary in the same context, on their return from burying Ananias, they are called 'the young men', (οἱ νεανίσκοι) which cannot be conceived to have such a force and therefore ought to refute it for the previous and corresponding term. They were simply the younger brethren, on whom would naturally devolve any prompt call for a laborious and sorrowful duty of a physical nature. Compare 1 Tim. 5: 1, 2, Titus 2: 6; and 1 Peter 5: 5. That not the Hellenists but the Hebrews had deacons already is the unfounded idea of the same writer, whose history would have small value as to later times if not far better than his use of the inspired source. It would be hard to say where Mosheim is right in his review of the apostolic church.

The fit moment was come for the apostles to be relieved from outer [temporal] work and thus free for what was spiritual. They direct therefore the establishment of responsible men for the daily ministrations in Jerusalem. This service was diaconal, yet peculiar (as Chrysostom long ago remarked) because of the actual circumstances there. Hence it may be that the term 'deacons' is not here or elsewhere given to 'the seven', but this number of theirs even more than 'the twelve' becomes a sort of distinctive badge. As the money came from the disciples in general, on them do the apostles call to look out from among them brethren in whom they could happily confide; yet the apostles, acting for the Lord in order, established them over the business. It was not seemly or proper (for ἀρεστὸν admits of a wider sense than the very narrow one of 'pleasing', or 'our pleasure') that they should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. To this their continuance in that work would otherwise have come. Loving wisdom thus turns ungrateful complaints for good. That it is in this a principle of moment is rendered evident. Where the Lord gives, He chooses, as for all ministry in the word; where the assembly gives, they choose, as in this case.

We see the same thing in 2 Cor. 8: 18, 19, where a brother was chosen by the assemblies as fellow-traveller with Paul and Titus, thus providing for things honest not only before the Lord but also before men. This is the meaning of the phrase 'messengers of churches'. They were selected by the assemblies which sent help to the poor saints elsewhere, as the apostle would not take charge of the collection otherwise. Compare also 1 Cor 16: 3, 4. In the case of 'elders' we find the apostles choosing, and not the disciples (Acts 14: 23), and so Titus is told to do (Titus 1: 5).

The three principles are quite distinct: (1) the Lord choosing and sending those whom He gives as gifts to the church, (2) the apostle, or an apostolic man by express commission, choosing or establishing elders; and (3) the assembly choosing the administrators of its funds, whom the apostles set solemnly over this business.

That 'the seven' were deacons (in the traditional sense of a brief noviciate or apprenticeship to the priesthood) is as unscriptural as that they had previously been of the 'seventy' whom the Lord sent out 'two and two' with a final message through Judea. Their work was not to preach and baptize but the dispensing of help to the temporal need of every day. Philip no doubt did preach, but he, we are expressly told, was 'an evangelist'. It was therefore in virtue of this gift, not of that appointment to care for the poor in Jerusalem, that we find him, in the dispersion of the assembly, preaching in Samaria and beyond (Acts 8). Just as evidently had Stephen the gift of a teacher if not of a prophet, which he exercised in a most solemn testimony before the council. But neither the multitude chose, nor yet did the apostles appoint, a single man to preach or teach. Evangelists and teachers were given by Christ the Head; and so they are still. The church is neither the source nor the channel of ministry: which is the exercise of a gift flowing from Christ at the right hand of God. So it was at the beginning, and so it remains de jure till He comes again.

Here it was but a local charge, however important and honourable, to which, as the multitude chose, the apostles appointed. The distinction is as plain as it is complete, but men are apt to view matters of the kind through the medium of habit and prejudice. Their duty was to carry out the distribution of the means for relieving the wants of the Christian community; which would leave the apostles free for the service of the word of God. Their number was doubtless suitable to the requirements of their work. Their qualifications were that they should have a good report, and be full of the Spirit and wisdom. To make their establishment more or other is as common as it is baseless. It would be unaccountable, if men had not objects foreign to Christ, and so to God's word.

'But we,' say the apostles emphatically, 'will give ourselves closely to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' This is much to be weighed. For that service of the word prayer should take the first place. So it was with the apostles, but not so with the Corinthian saints, who forgot not only that power is to be subordinated to order (1 Cor. 14) but that life according to Christ has to be exercised now in holy and constant self-denial, as the prime duty of him who names the Lord (1 Cor. 9). Prayer is the outgoing and expression of dependence, and is so much the more requisite, that the ministry of the word be not in the will or resources of man, but in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, yet in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that the faith of the saints stand not in men's wisdom but in God's power. In the order of the soul's blessing from God the word takes precedence, as we may see in comparing the end of Luke 10 with the beginning of Luke 11, where we have the moral sequence of these two means of grace. Receiving from God goes before drawing near to our Father. But for the due ministry of the word prayer is the great pre-requisite that flesh may afford no occasion to the enemy, and the individual may be a vessel to honour, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work.

'And the saying pleased [lit. before] all the multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of [the] Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and having prayed they laid their hands on them' (vers. 5, 6).

The grace shown by the apostles had a remarkable answer to it in the multitude, for that all the names are Greek indicates a Hellenistic connection. Persons seem to have been chosen without exception from the ranks of the Greek-speaking believers, the very class which had murmured against the Hebrews. Was not this grace enough to make the suspicious ashamed? There was no human provision of a balance or of a fair representation, as habits of business or the spirit of a law-court would suggest. God was looked to in faith, and the most marked conciliation prevailed. The supposition that there had been already Hebrew caretakers, and that Hellenists were now added to look after Hellenistic interests, is ;to miss and mar this beautiful account of divine love in full activity, by supposing the infusion of a mere worldly prudence.

It is also to be observed that 'the seven' when chosen were presented to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them in token of fellowship with their appointment. Imposition of hands was an ancient sign of blessing, Gen. 48: 14, especially of official recognition, Num. 27: 23, or of commendation to God's grace, Acts 13: 3, Acts 14: 26 (Acts 15: 40). The impartation of the Spirit by that act in Acts 8: 17; Acts 19: 6, or again in 1 Tim. 4: 14, 2 Tim. 1: 6, is distinct, as will be shown in their places. Probably in the establishment of elders there may have been a similar laying on of hands, as some have gathered from 1 Tim. 5: 22. But as Scripture is silent as to the fact, it would seem in order to guard believers from that fatal routine of superstitious form which has overlaid Christendom to the dishonour of the Lord and the hurt of rule. Even if apostolic hands were laid on presbyters, we are not told it; but where the duty was of an outward character, and godly men were chosen by the multitude, the apostles (we are expressly told) did lay hands on them. Not the multitude, but, as we have seen, the apostles chose elders for the disciples (Acts 14: 23), and Scripture does not tell us of their laying hands on them, even if the fact were so. How infirm is the ground-work of ecclesiastical pride! How perfect is the word of God both in what it says and in its reticence!

The measure taken by the apostles in appointing servants for the exterior duties of the assembly, leaving themselves free for prayer and the ministry of the word, was owned by the signal blessing of God. Administration of money is a delicate and difficult task, especially if it be undertaken by such as serve in the word. In a low condition it gives influence of the basest kind to those who otherwise could have little or none. But here we are in presence of the Holy Ghost working in energy, holiness, and love, and in raising souls above the fleshly feelings that threatened danger to the church. None would be more struck by the unselfish wisdom of the apostles than the sacerdotal class, ordinarily apt to be greedy of power and influence, if not of worse still.

'And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem multiplied exceedingly; and a great crowd of the priests1 were obedient to the faith' (ver. 7).

1 It is painful to note how prone men of learning are to parry and pare down the marvels of God's grace. Thus Beza, Casaubon, and Valckenaer would change the text — Elsner, Heinsius, K�¼hnol, and Wolf, the only legitimate use of the last clause — to get rid of this great work among the priests. Is aught too hard for the Lord? Were priests alone a hopeless class? The Peschito (not the Philoxenian) Syriac had already yielded to similar unbelief, and the Arabic also, both omitting all notice of the priests.

It looked most promising surely, when the word of God grew as an object of faith and a distinct power among men, when the disciples so greatly multiplied in the city of solemnities itself, when the very priests were now flocking in, unwonted sight as this was, what could most think but that the scattered and peeled nation were at length learning divine wisdom? Would they not soon repent and be converted for the blotting out of their sins, so that seasons of refreshing might come from the presence of the Lord and He might send the Christ Who had been fore-appointed for them, Jesus? Appearances gave a colour, if not currency, to this thought such as never after that could be claimed for it. The truth was that God was but severing unto the name of Jesus from His ancient people such as should be saved, before He sent His armies, destroyed the murderers of His servants (yea, we can add, of His Son), and burned up their city according to the word of the Lord.

And so, if I err not, God is now doing in the active work of salvation which He is carrying on throughout the earth, in Christendom especially. It is the sure sign, not of the world's surrender to Christ and the cross, but that the Lord is separating His own from the world which is hastening to inevitable, unsparing, and condign judgment. Never till then can there be universal or stable blessing for the earth as a whole, such as we are entitled to expect according to Psalms. 65 - 68; 72; 92 - 107; and to the Prophets generally. The heavens must receive Jesus till the times of the restoring (not the destruction) of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began. It is the corrupt harlot, not the true bride, that wants to reign in the absence of the Bridegroom. If grace convert ever so many or ever so extraordinarily, as with the priests, they were but saving themselves from that crooked generation. Judgment personally inflicted by the Lord must precede His introduction of God's kingdom in power and glory; but this does not hinder the action of sovereign grace in changing His own and translating them to be with Himself on high before the day of His judgment dawns on the earth. For when His day comes they are already with Him, and hence they follow Him out of heaven, and appear with Him for the execution of that judgment.

Another element of moment is now introduced — the free action of God's Spirit even in Jerusalem, where all the twelve apostles were.

The ordination, if we call it ordination, of 'the seven' was for a temporal service, expressly not for spiritual ministry by the word, but on the contrary, by handing over to them the exterior duty, to let the apostles be undistracted in their blessed work. Assuredly, if it be a ridiculous perversion in one part of Christendom to devise a modern answer in the charge of the paten and chalice, it is only a shade better to make it a sort of probationership to the office of a presbyter. Scripture is overlaid and ignored by human tradition. 'The seven' were stewards for the poor, and not a formal noviciate for a full-blown minister. It was reserved for dissent to find a still lower deep, through money to constitute (what one of their own best men called) 'the lords deacons', with power to conciliate or coerce, to pamper or starve out, the minister. How unlike are all these to the holy ways of God and His word!

Yet one of 'the seven' is brought before us as used and honoured of God in a way quite outside the work for which they were appointed. 'And Stephen, full of grace1 and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people. And there arose certain of those that were of the synagogue called2 [that] of the freedmen [Libertines], and of Cyrenians, and of Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia,3 disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke. Then they suborned men, saying, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God. And they stirred up the people and the elders and the scribes; and coming upon (him) they seized and brought him into the council, and set false witnesses, saying, This man ceaseth not speaking words against the4 holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses handed down to us. And all that sat in the council, gazing fixedly on him, saw his face as it were an angel's face' (vers. 8-15).

1 Such is the reading of ABD, of more than twenty cursives, and of the best ancient versions.

2 If we might safely adopt the reading of Tischendorf's last edition (τῶν λεγομένων with A, eight cursives, Sah. Memph. et al), the construction would be easier, 'of those called L'. But the mass of uncials, cursives, versions, et al, is adverse.

3 Lachmann was bold enough to omit 'and of Asia', because of its absence in

4 The best authorities omit 'blasphemous', which the Received Text adds with 'this' against the mass.

Beyond a doubt the levelling spirit of democracy, the unwillingness to recognize those who are over us in the Lord, is very far from the word of God. But even in those days when the church shone in order and beauty as never since, when the highest authorities that ever God set in the church were all there, we behold His sovereign grace acting in a man with no other title than what grace gave him. He was not even a bishop or presbyter; he had been set apart with others to a grave but lowly service. Yet we find him soon after described as full of 'grace' (not 'faith' merely) and power, working great marvels and signs among the people. There was no jealousy in that day of grace and power: for all who could and did glorify the Lord there was room and welcome. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of liberty. Even law, as well as the world and the flesh, gender bondage, and pride, and sin, man being what he is.

The fact is that Scripture knows nothing of ordaining a man to preach or to teach, still less if possible for the administration, so-called, of baptism and the Lord's supper. Superstition has entered, and the power of religious habits of thought founded on everyday routine; so that even pious men fail to see in the Bible what contradicts their theory and practice, and they attach to scriptural acts or words in defence of their own thoughts a meaning which is quite foreign to the truth.

According to Scripture, if a man has a spiritual gift from the Lord, he is not only free as regards others but bound before the Lord to use it. Otherwise let him beware of the condemnation in the parable of the unprofitable servant, who counted his lord hard and was afraid and went away and hid his talent in the earth. It is no question of a Christian's rights but of the grace of Christ, as well as of the obligation on him who has received the gift to use it according to His will to Whom the church belongs and for His glory. So says the apostle Peter, and it were well that men who misuse should hear and weigh his words: — 'According as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God: if any man speak, as oracles of God, if any man minister, as of strength which God supplieth, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, Whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (1 Peter 4: 10, 11).

I purposely press this scripture which is in perfect keeping with all others that treat on the same subject. It seems the more apposite as Peter was there with the eleven when God put forward Stephen to act on it. The free energy of the Holy Spirit in gift is therefore in no way a Pauline peculiarity as some affect to believe. In the Epistles of the great apostle of the Gentiles, no doubt, we have the truth on this head, as on so many others dependent on Christ's headship of the church, developed more profoundly and comprehensively than the Lord was pleased to do by any others. But the principle is the same in a]l. Thus we find James warning the brethren not to be many teachers, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment, not because they were not ordained. And as the Second Epistle of John thunders against receiving a man (ordained or not), who did not bring the doctrine of Christ, so does the Third encourage Gaius (however Diotrephes might oppose) in all loving reception of such as went about preaching the truth. John had authority, if anyone on earth then had, to act for Christ; but he takes no other ground than the character of the doctrine they preached, for rejecting or receiving them. It was a question for him (is it for us?) simply of Christ, of the truth. This we must have if we are to love in truth. Love is of God, and God is love, but we must have the truth in order to love the truth. Otherwise it is the most illusive and fatal of snares.

Nor can one hesitate to say, that whatever might be the great marvels and signs that Stephen was doing (ver. 8) to the glory of the rejected but exalted Christ, the Second Man in heaven, the wisdom and the Spirit by which he was enabled to speak (ver. 10) were a reality yet deeper and more blessed. The one might arrest anyone, but no adversary could withstand the other. And there were many adversaries, here of course all of the circumcision.

Who were the Libertines? It would seem, according to the oldest interpretation on record, Jewish freedmen banished in A.D. 19 from Rome, whither Pompey had carried many prisoners taken in war, but afterwards emancipated by their masters and allowed to adhere to their religion. It is natural, as another has suggested, that men such as these should show strong feeling if they conceive that the religion for which they had suffered abroad was insulted or endangered at home. They are at any rate put into the foremost rank of Stephen's adversaries by the inspired historian. If it be so, it is a Grecized Latin word. This too would account for the expression 'called' as due to the connected 'Libertines'. Some have tried to make out a city Libertum in Africa, and it is known that there was a bishop of Libertum at the synod of Carthage in A.D. 411. But if such a town existed in the days of Stephen, and it was not too small to be noticed, it could never take precedence of Cyrene and Alexandria.

Doubt has been felt whether two synagogues were meant, or five. It appears to me that Winer is not justified in the former supposition, that the τῶν first used would have sufficed to have united the five classes, and that the second is not to indicate only two parties, each possessing a common synagogue, but the difference of such as came out of cities like Cyrene and Alexandria with the freedmen first named from those of provinces like Cilicia and Asia. When we are told that there were then some 480 synagogues in Jerusalem, it seems very unlikely that there should not be a separate place for each, as the Jews were notoriously numerous in most if not in all.

It is of solemn interest to observe how unbelieving men can find a show of reason to fasten the most odious charges on the truth which they hate and on those who proclaim it. Yet why suborn men to inform, if they honestly felt indignation at alleged wickedness? One can understand that to claim for Jesus the title of the Christ, the Anointed, was to imply His superiority to Moses; also to hint at the transitory nature of the temple, which the Lord had said was to have not a stone left on another, might be regarded as blaspheming the God Whose house it was.

However this may have been, they thereby roused the people and the elders and the scribes. Here the Pharisees would be as furious as the Sadducees or more so. It was a general outburst of proper Jewish resentment; and so Stephen was seized and brought into the council. If the words had been said, the witnesses were none the less false. Nothing could be more wickedly untrue than that he said anything disrespectful to God or Moses, to the law or the temple. But wicked men hear with a wicked feeling, and the Spirit pronounces them false witnesses, though Stephen's words might sound as they reported. 'For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and change the customs which Moses handed down to us.'

I know not why commentators should question the singular mark of divine favour vouchsafed to Stephen's person, unless they abjure faith and deny the yet more wondrous privilege at the close of his discourse. It is striking that he who was accused of reviling Moses and God should receive from God a sign like that which His servant Moses enjoyed. The Jews at any rate ought to have felt it to be a solemn appeal to them above all mankind. The occasion was worthy of divine intervention whether in the case of him who received the commandments of Jehovah for Israel, or in his case who bore witness to the rejected but glorified Son of man, and that 'better thing' to which His atoning death was to give birth according to the law and the prophets. The supernatural attestation singularly suited both. But there is no evidence possible which wilful unbelief cannot evade, not even if one rose from the dead, as our Lord warned (Luke 16: 31).

Acts 7

The remarkable testimony of Stephen now comes before us. It was fitting that the devoted Hellenist, rather than any of the twelve, should break fresh ground and pave the way for the wider outgoing of the truth, just after the mention of so striking a witness to its attractive power from the bosom of Judaism in the faith of a crowd of priests (Acts 6: 7).

Stephen was accused of disparaging what was most sacred in Hebrew eyes — the sanctuary and the law. He was charged with attributing to the Nazarene a purpose of destroying 'that place', and of changing the customs delivered to them by Moses. What can be of deeper interest and instruction than his way of meeting so malignant a perversion of his meaning? Grace is never the enemy of law, though incomparably higher, it rather establishes law. The prophetic word did not conceal that of the stately buildings of the temple not one stone should be left on another; but was Jesus a destroyer, because He was a prophet and far more than a prophet? Under His reign the law shall go forth out of Zion, and even in humiliation He came not to destroy but to fulfil it. But unbelief is deaf and blind, and is apt to impute its own evils to those who love the truth. Certainly Stephen said nothing but what the prophets and Moses had declared should come.

'And the high priest said, Are these things so? And he said, Brethren [lit. Men brethren] and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said unto him, Go out of thy land and out of thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee' (vers. 1-3).

'The God of glory' is no mere Hebraism for 'glorious God', but directs the heart from the beginning to One altogether above the world not only in Himself but in His purposes, whatever His ways meanwhile on the earth. 'Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood [river] in old time, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor, and they served other gods' (Joshua 24: 2). It was in sovereign grace that God thus appeared. Even the line of Shem, the father and kindred of Abraham, were idolaters. Grace gives, not finds, what is good. Not only did the God of glory appear: it was to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia and thus when he was at the farthest point of his distance from 'the land', as well as in idolatrous associations. How little the Jews understood the God of glory or His servant Moses! Stephen, full of grace and power, did. Nothing was more foreign to him than 'speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.'

Even Abraham, blessed as he was, moved slowly in the path of faith at first. He did not quit Mesopotamia to dwell in Canaan all at once. Before this he dwelt in Haran. He got out of his land, but not so quickly 'out of his kindred', so that there was a remarkable delay in coming into the land which God was to show him. 'Then came he out of [the] land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Haran; and thence, after his father died, He removed him into this land in which ye now dwell' (ver. 4).

It is rather a daring comment to say (Alford, Greek Testament in loco) that 'the Jewish chronology which Stephen follows was at fault here, owing to the circumstance of Terah's death being mentioned, Gen. 11: 32, before the command to Abram to leave Haran, it not having been observed that the mention is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the same mistake . . .' The truth is that the favourite Jewish hypothesis (Aben Ezra, Rashi) is that Terah did not die till sixty years after Abraham had left Haran. And in all probability the Samaritan Pentateuch has changed 205 into 145 (Gen. 11: 32), in order to meet the supposed difficulty. The source of the error among ancients or moderns is the assumption that Abraham was Terah's eldest son, for which there is no more ground in the order of the names than in the case of Noah's sons, where we know that not Shem but Japheth was the eldest. But, for an adequate divine reason, not the elder but the younger is repeatedly named first. To Terah at 70 years Haran was born, Abraham at 130, who therefore could be married to Haran's daughter, Sarai or Iscah, ten years younger than himself. See Ussher's Works, viii. 21-23; Clinton's Fasti Hellen. i. 289 et seqq.

One may not agree with Bengel's suggestion which Alford quotes, but an upright help towards understanding the word which is held fast as perfect is to be respected: 'truly lamentable' is the pandering to the enemy on the plea of the spirit, not the letter, of God's word. That Terah who had Haran at 70 might have begotten Abraham at 130 is simple enough, dying at 205; that Abraham should at 99 regard it as beyond nature to have by Sarah a son is no less simple. Hagar had borne him a son at 86; and the natural interpretation of Gen. 25: 1-6 is that after Sarah's death Abraham had by Keturah, his wife or concubine, six sons sent away from Isaac while he lived, that Isaac only should be his heir without dispute. There is no handling of the word of God so deceitful as the unbelief which treats it as if it were not His, or as if He could lie.

Terah, as long as he lived, was a dead weight on Abraham's obedience. As we are told, 'Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan' (Gen. 11: 31). But the land, in these circumstances, they never reached. God told Abraham to quit his kindred as well as his country, and till this was done, he failed to reach Canaan.1 It would have scarcely been proper for Abram as the son to take Terah his father. So 'Terah took Abram . . .' This, however, was not at all according to the call of God to Abram. Hence, we read, 'they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.' But when Terah died, 'Abram departed as the Lord had spoken unto him' (Gen. xii. 4). Then the language is pointedly different: — 'And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came' (Gen. 12: 5). There was no failure now that his faith was not hampered by the encumbrance of nature which almost necessarily took the upper hand; therefore the movement had lacked the power of God to give it effect. That gone, the blessing immediately followed.

1 Philo (Ed. Richter, iv. 20) is all wrong in denying that God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, confining the vision to Gen. 12: 7 just like the Jews who assailed Stephen. Dean Alford's remarks are worse than 'inaccurate'.

There is a question in verse 4 whether the subject be Abram or God understood. If verse 43 points to the latter, the construction of 1 Chr. 8: 6 (in the LXX.) favours the former: so that some may and do abide with the Authorized Version, instead of following the Revisers, and the Vulgate, Syrr., Ar., Cop., if not Aeth. The connection with verse 5 would lead one to prefer God: 'And He gave him none inheritance in it, not so much as a foot's tread, and promised to give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when he had no child.'

It is wholly incorrect to say that God did afterwards give him a possession in Canaan, namely, the piece of land which he purchased of Ephron as a burial-place, Gen. 23: 17; for the gift of God is absolute and future, and that it is so is confirmed, not weakened or trenched on, by the purchase of a burial-place from the Hittite. For who that possessed this land or any other would think of buying his own possession? There he lays his dead in land so evidently not his own that he has to buy it for the purpose, the pledge to faith that he will have it another day. So far from occasion to wrest our text here or anywhere in order to produce accordance with the history, the language is as plain and perfect as possible. The fact is stated to show how truly the patriarch was a pilgrim in the very land whose present possession had, to say the least, such exaggerated moment in the eyes of his seed, because they walked not in the faith of their father. God will surely give 'this land' to Abram's seed. They will buy it of no stranger in that day. No intermediate confusion can touch His promise. 'By faith he (Abraham) sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise' (Heb. 11: 9).

Abram and his seed will have the promise in the day when glory is to dwell in that land (Ps. 85.), a truth which Gentile theology makes even believers forget. Indeed all the earth shall then be filled with the glory of Jehovah, but pre-eminently is the glory to rest on Zion, a defence on all, when God shall have accomplished the cleansing of Jerusalem: not by the gospel simply as now, but by the spirit of judgment and of burning. Then shall the children of Abraham, not by nature only but by grace also, enter on the promised inheritance, he himself being in resurrection-glory, when Jesus is revealed from heaven and there come the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, which have been since time began.

There is no ground for regarding 'not', as 'not yet' nor 'gave' and 'promised' as pluperfect in sense, nor 'and' as 'yet', with learned men who did not understand nor believe the scripture before them.

Further, Stephen draws attention to the fact that 'God thus spoke, that his seed [Abraham's] should be a sojourner in a land not theirs, and that they should enslave and ill-treat them, four hundred years. And the nation, to whom they shall be in slavery, will I judge, said God; and after these things shall they come out and serve Me in this place' (vers. 6, 7). It is a free citation of Gen. 15: 13, 14, with a few words, more or less from Ex 3: 12, instead of the closing phrase. The God of glory thought of His people in Egypt and in the wilderness, before the holy place or even the law, and will never give Israel up till He has made good His promise, guaranteed when Abraham had no child. God called Abraham alone, and blessed and increased him. How wrong then they all were in making so much of themselves, and of their privileges, to the slight of His grace and of Himself, the God of glory, Who appeared to Abraham alone when there was absolutely nothing to boast, nothing but sin and shame in man, and Israel as yet unborn! For as with the father, so with his seed. As he went about a stranger in Palestine, so they were first seen in bondage in an alien land; and this for no brief moment — for in round numbers 400 (strictly 405) years intervened from the birth of the child of promise till God judged the nation that had them in slavery.1 When his descendants did come out, it was not even into the land, but into the desert, where they wandered forty years. He had indeed delivered them to His own glory, but His dealings were not according to their thoughts and prejudices. Were they the people to claim indefeasible and even exclusive rights? To do so, they must disbelieve their own history, yea, God's word.

1 It was as exactly as possible 400 years from the dismissal of the Egyptian bondwoman and her child Ishmael, the beginning of that 'persecution of the line of promise which culminated in Egypt and closed in the Exodus of Israel when divine judgments had broken the power and pride of their oppressors.

At first sight it may appear to some singular that Stephen should introduce circumcision. But he, in fact, simply follows the divine record, so that there is not only instruction conveyed, but it is increased by paying heed to the order impressed on the facts, and so on the history, by the wisdom of God.

'And he gave him a covenant of circumcision, and thus he begat Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac, Jacob; and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs' (ver. 8).

Thus does Stephen draw marked attention to the covenant of circumcision given of God to Abraham, instead of slighting the institution incorporated in the law. It was thus Isaac was begotten, and those who followed; all submitting to a rite which indicated the corruption of the flesh, and put death on it as the only deliverance from it. But the promise was already long before the law; and the father of the faithful had enjoyed the election and call of God anterior even to circumcision. The truth is a whole, and only suffers from the misuse of one part to enfeeble or destroy another. The Spirit, using the word in view of Christ's glory, puts all in its place, as He alone can. Hence the speaker, being a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, saw and presented things according to God, whereas the unbelieving Jews understood in no wise the true bearing of their own institutions, misusing them for self-righteousness and pride, and hence blindly rejecting the Light of God to Whom all pointed.

Alas! it is an old story. Their fathers were not really better than they; and God has not told us of their doings in vain, if we have but an ear to hear. For how does Stephen sum up the history of that early twelve? 'And the patriarchs through jealousy sold Joseph into Egypt: and God was with him, and delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house' (vers. 9, 10). A beloved son, or a God-fearing slave, a guiltless prisoner or a wise vicegerent, Joseph had God with him everywhere and in all circumstances. Yet who of the twelve was so tried of his brethren? who so plotted against as he? Who seemed to fare worse in spite — yea because — of his unsullied purity? Nevertheless, even in prison, 'Jehovah was with him, and that which he did Jehovah made it to prosper.'

Was there no voice, from Joseph and his brethren, to the Jews who surrounded Stephen? 'Joseph brought unto their father their evil report. . . . And when his brethren saw that his father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.... And his brethren said, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams and for his words.... And when they saw him afar off, even before he came near unto them, they conspired against him to slay him. . . . And they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver; and they brought Joseph into Egypt' (Gen. 37: 2-28). If so the fathers dealt with the type, who that believes could wonder that they should deal worse with the great Antitype? For it was what was of Christ in Joseph, what the Spirit wrought in and by him, which irritated the fathers of the nation against him. Was it so wonderful, then, that 'this generation' had rejected a greater than Joseph; Who being come convicted them of enmity against God, drawn out by hatred of divine goodness in His own person, ways, and words? Let them not forget that the rejected of his brethren was exalted to the right hand of power for the blessing of others, and even (specially at the end) of his brethren, to whom he was only thus made known after his long separation from them. Thus did he prefigure Christ in His sufferings, as well as in the glories that should follow them.

'Now there came a famine over all Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction; and our fathers found no sustenance. But Jacob, having heard that there was corn in Egypt, sent forth our fathers first and at the second [time] Joseph was made known to his brethren, and his [or, Joseph's] race became manifest unto Pharaoh. And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father, and all his kindred, seventy-five souls' (vers. 11-14).

It was a pathway of righteous suffering which led to glory; and when exalted, Joseph administers in the wisdom of God what the same wisdom exalted him to provide in days of plenty for those of dearth. Under the mighty hand of God, the dearth pressed not only over all Egypt but over Canaan, where the heads of Israel tasted of that cruel affliction, for they found no sustenance, and in divine providence sought corn in Egypt. This, 'at the second time', gave occasion for their great discovery, not without self-judgment when Joseph was made known to his brethren, and the line of promise became no longer a secret to Pharaoh. And the fathers, with Israel their father, went down into Egypt, where they in lengthened and retributive sorrow were to pay the penalty for their heartless wrong to their brother, who was exalted of God where Jew and Gentile had both put him to shame, which he repaid in nothing but grace to all, but especially to Israel.

The bearing of all this on Christ is unmistakable; but Stephen does not apply — he only states — facts, so much the more striking because they were familiar, and now set in a light which shone on Messiah as well as the Jews, that the people might thereby know God and themselves. How little they knew anything as they ought was plain from this, that they had hitherto never thought of seeing in Joseph the Christ, nor in the guilty fathers themselves, the still guiltier murderers of the Lord of glory. Their ignorant boast was their shame. And He that was sold no less than Joseph, and lifted up on high from a worse pit and a deeper dungeon, was waiting to bless them, as they themselves were to taste the bitter fruits of their sin in a dispersion worse than a captivity, whatever the mercy that awaits them in the latter end, when they bow repentant before Him in glory.

It will be noticed that Stephen speaks of seventy-five souls, where the Hebrew has seventy; he cites here, as elsewhere, the Septuagint. Calvin (in loco) considers that this discrepancy came not from the Greek translators themselves, but crept in through the fault of copyists, and that Stephen did not say so; but that seventy-five was foisted in here to make the speech agree with the Greek version of Gen. 46: 27. But this appears to be an unreasonable way of accounting for what is simple enough, and that the apostle's caution against endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1: 4) has nothing to do with the matter. The fact is, that both the original and the Greek version might both be true, the latter reckoning in five sons of Manasseh and Ephraim born in Egypt (1 Chr. 7: 14-27), according to a latitude of various forms, by no means uncommon in such lists.

There is more difficulty in explaining the next verse but one. 'And Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he and our fathers; and they were carried over unto Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in [son, or father of1] Shechem' (vers. 15, 16).

1 The chief various reading in this verse is a question between ἐν and τοῦ : the former supported by p.m. BC, several cursives and ancient versions (and with τοῦ before ἐν corr. AE and three cursives, et al.), the latter (which is the commonly received text) by inferior authorities. The whole phrase is omitted by the Pesh. Syr. and Erp. Arabic.

The late Dean of Canterbury had no hesitation in pronouncing him who spoke, full of the Holy Ghost, as guilty of 'at least two demonstrable historical inaccuracies', which, he is pleased to assure his readers, do not affect the inspiration or the veracity of the writer! On the other hand Bengel, following Fl. Illyricus, et al., seeks to clear the passage up by the supposition that a double purchase and a double burial were intended with intentional omissions on either side. He therefore maintains the integrity of the reading 'Abraham', and declares the conjectural 'Jacob' unnecessary, compendious brevity, when the particulars were all known, accounting for a method which to us seems surprising. The facts are that Abraham bought a burial-place of Ephron the Hittite at Machpelah or Hebron, where the three patriarchs were buried as well as Sarah, and that Jacob bought a field of the sons of Hamor in Shechem, where Joseph was buried. Where the rest of Jacob's sons were laid does not appear in the Old Testament: Josephus says in Hebron; the Rabbis, in Shechem, as Jerome also reports. Moderns argue for some here and some there; and one at least maintains a transfer from Shechem to Hebron.

I prefer to leave the passage; but in the circumstances the least worthy hypothesis is that this blessed and mighty witness of Christ fell into a confusion of Hebron with Shechem, and of Abraham with Jacob, beneath an ordinary Sunday-scholar. Is it not a safer conclusion that we may be ignorant of facts which, better known, would dispel this mist, or of some peculiarity in the mode of reference, as in Matt. 27: 9, Mark 1: 2, to which Westerns are not used, but which is understood without cavil among Jews? One is disposed (when surveying from first to last a speech of surpassing scope, and power of insight into principles of Jewish history) to doubt that the speaker was ignorant of circumstances lying on the surface of the earliest book of Scripture, and familiarly known to every Jew; or that the inspired writer of the Book did not see the discrepancy which must strike the most careless reader. And one may question whether it would not be better, these things being so, to amend our manners instead of assuming to amend the text.

'But as the time of the promise was drawing nigh which God vouchsafed2 to Abraham, the people increased and multiplied in Egypt till there arose another king over Egypt who knew not Joseph. He dealt craftily with our race and evil-entreated our fathers that they should expose their babes to the end they might not be preserved alive' (vers. 17-19).

2 There can be scarce a question that ὠμόλογησεν is the right reading, as in ABC, et al., with most of the old versions; and not the vulgar reading w]mosen 'swore', as in HP, most cursives, the Pesh. Syr., Cop., et al.

It is always thus. There is ever war between God and the enemy, and nowhere does it rage so hotly as where His people are concerned, and when a distinct manifestation of divine mercy is imminent. God's approaching favour to Israel drew out the enmity of Satan, who stirred up a suited instrument for his malice in the prince of the world of that day, 'another king who knew not Joseph'. The verses are a pithy summary of Ex. 1: 7-20, which gives the details of Pharaoh's wily, aggressive, and unscrupulously cruel efforts to depress, yet just as signally to be defeated of God, for, say or do what he might, 'the people multiplied and waxed very mighty'. The edict to destroy the males failed, not only through human pity, but through the fear of God, Who honoured those who honoured Him, and brought to naught His adversaries.

But now Moses is dwelt on at great length by Stephen as before Joseph more briefly. Thus he brought before their minds another and most salient personal type of the Messiah, besides the general testimony to the truth for their consciences.

'At which season Moses was born, and was exceedingly [lit. to God] fair, who was nourished three months in his father's house; and when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up and nourished him for her own son. And Moses was instructed in all [the] wisdom of [the] Egyptians; and he was mighty in his words and works. But when he was about forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the sons of Israel; and seeing one wronged, he defended [him], and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian. For he thought that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance; but they understood not. And on the day following he appeared to them as they were striving, and compelled them to peace, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren: why do ye wrong one to another? But he that was wronging his neighbour thrust him away, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge over us? Dost thou wish to kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday? And Moses fled at this saying, and became a sojourner in the land of Midian where he begat two sons' (vers. 20-29).

The enemy had raised up a suited instrument, another king over Egypt which knew not Joseph. Suffering became the portion of Israel and a deadly stroke was aimed at the promise in the person of their babes. For the commandment of the king was to expose them that they might not be preserved alive. At that critical moment Moses was born, fair unto God, with a glorious career before him, however dark its beginnings. He, too, came under the sentence of death, and, after being nourished three months in his father's house, was cast out like the rest. But we have the highest authority for affirming that it was 'by faith', whatever the natural affection of his parents, that he was hid by them these three months (Heb. 11: 23). 'They were not afraid of the king's commandment.' God interfered for him providentially; and' the least likely of all in Egypt, Pharaoh's daughter, took him up and nourished him for her own son. It was manifestly an intervention of God.

But divine providence is no guide for faith, nothing but the word. Providence brought him in, whence faith led him out. 'By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter choosing rather to be evil-entreated with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; accounting the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked unto the recompense of reward' (Heb. 11: 24-26).

None can deny that Moses was capable of justly estimating the situation. He was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and works. He looked, however, not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. His eye was on the kingdom of God, he awaited the Messiah, he knew that the purposes of God, as they centre in Christ, had Israel as their inner circle on earth. His affections therefore, were not with the court of Egypt, nor upon the most brilliant vista it could open for a man of his energy. Poor degraded Israel he loved, and loved, not so much because they were his people, but as the people of God, yet reserved for Christ, Whose reproach meanwhile their degradation was.

So when Moses was about forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the sons of Israel. Alas! they were fallen, not in their circumstances only, but in their souls. Faith wrought in but few of them to expect a deliverer or to appreciate such as had faith in God. In such circumstances the worst moral condition is apt to be found. An unfaithful Israelite sinks below an Egyptian; and Moses must learn this, as Joseph had learned it before; as One infinitely greater than Joseph or Moses proved it even before the death of the cross. 'And seeing one suffer wrong, he defended him and avenged him that was oppressed, smiting the Egyptian; and he supposed that his brethren understood how that God by his hand was giving them salvation, but they understood not.' They were dark and dead God-ward. The hardness of man they felt. The hope God had given to Israel had almost vanished from their souls. There was certainly no expectation of a deliverance at hand; yet surely they ought to have looked for it. The fourth generation was proceeding, in which, according to the word of Jehovah, they, so long afflicted, were to quit a judged Egypt, and to come into the promised land again (Gen. 15: 13-16).

But God was not in their thoughts, and Moses was misunderstood. Nay, worse than this; 'And the day following he appeared unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another? But he that did his neighbour wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Wouldest thou kill me as thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?' The keenest wound, as the basest blow, comes from God's people: when man rules therein and not God, Satan works underneath it all and at his worst.

Yet was it all profitable discipline for Moses, who 'fled at this saying and became a sojourner in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.' He must learn of God alone in the wilderness. The wisdom of Egypt must be, as it were, unlearned: God deigns not to honour it for His deliverances. The wisdom that He uses must come down from above. We shall see how God wrought when the due moment arrives. Meanwhile Moses is the rejected of Israel, as Joseph before of his brethren. Only as Joseph shows us exaltation over the Gentiles when separated from his brethren, so Moses gives us, in another direction, the complication from the offended power and anger of the Gentiles.

But it is during this compulsory exile from Israel that Moses has a family given to him. So the virgin's Son, Emmanuel, speaks in Isaiah 8: 5-18. There too Israel are unbelieving; there too is a hostile confederacy of the nations; but, 'Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel, from Jehovah of hosts which dwelleth in mount Zion.' Faith waits upon Jehovah that hides His face from the house of Jacob, and it looks for Him. At the worst of times He is for a sanctuary, at the right moment He works out unmistakable deliverance. How solemnly all this bore on the actual circumstances of the Jew! They did not understand that Jesus was their Deliverer. They gradually grew to hate His words, because His words judged them in the secret of their souls, and His parables portended sure destruction for their pride and unbelief. Hence they cast Him out even unto death, but God raised Him up and was now manifesting the children He had given Him, as yet from Israel only, but soon to be from Gentiles also. The hour of Messiah's rejection is but the occasion for a higher glory and a more intimate relationship with those who meanwhile believe, just as the stranger in the land of Midian becomes the father of two sons which he had not when in Egypt with the sons of Israel around him.

Had Stephen invented these remarkable facts and yet more remarkable foreshadowings? No Jew, however prejudiced, could deny them to be the brief, true, and bright reflection of God's word in their own hands. The undeniable truth inspired by the Holy Ghost shone solemnly on that which they had done to One attested by God to them by works of power and wonders and signs which God wrought by Him in their midst, as they themselves too well knew. Such is man on the one hand, and such God on the other: so surprising as to provoke the unbelief and ill-will of all who do not bow to His revelation as well as to the bitter conviction of their own evil. To the believer it is the old but ever new lesson of learning the first man and the Second: where this is learnt, the heart seeks and owns it could not be otherwise, man being what he is, as also God what He is for He cannot deny Himself, though man in his blindness constantly denies both himself and God.

But the correction comes when Christ is brought home to the soul by the Holy Ghost in the gospel: one repents, and believes. Such an one reads his own evil in what man did and is: anything of iniquity in a Jew or a Gentile is not overmuch marvellous, he can find a match for Pharaoh or for Israel in his own breast if not in his own life, or in both. But greater grace assuredly than was ever shown by a Joseph or a Moses, he knows in the Son of God Who came down from heaven not to do His own will, but His Who sent Him — in the Son of man Who came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. So does faith turn all things past or future to present account; as a man's unbelief loses all blessing from every quarter, and will rather destroy his own soul than give honour really to God and His Son.

Thus was Moses an outcast for many long years, not more from the incensed king of Egypt than from his own unworthy brethren, who loved him the less, the more abundantly he loved them, and who were as unmindful of the promised deliverance as unappreciative of him who forfeited all on their account. Israel denied him who was in that day the type of the Holy and the Righteous One. It was no new thing.

'And when forty years were fulfilled, an angel [of the Lord]1 appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of [in] a bush. And Moses, on seeing, wondered at the sight; and as he went up to observe, there came a voice of [the] Lord [unto him]2: I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and3 Isaac, and3 Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not observe. And the Lord said to him, Loose the sandal of thy feet, for the place whereon4 thou standest is holy ground. I have surely [lit. seeing I have] seen the ill-treatment of My people which is in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and am come down to take them out for Myself. And now come, I send [or, will send] thee into Egypt. This Moses whom they denied, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? him hath5 God sent [both] ruler and deliverer, with an angel's hand that appeared to him in the bush. This [man] led them out, having wrought wonders and signs in the land of6 Egypt and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is the Moses that said to the sons of Israel, A prophet will God7 raise up to you out of your brethren, like me' (vers. 30-37).

1 DEHP, almost all cursives and many ancient versions.

2 Most authorities but not the best.

3 'The God of' in the Authorized Version and Received Text on ample, but not the highest, authority.

4 'Wherein' is the more common reading.

5 The perfect has best, not most, support.

6 Probably Lachmann's choice of ἐν τῃ Αἰγύπτω is right (BC et al.), which may next easily have lapsed into ἐν γῃ Αἰγύπτου or ῳ both being well supported but not the oldest.

7 The Received Text adds, 'The Lord your', as in the Authorized Version, and 'him shall ye hear', but not so the oldest.

God ordered the trials for Moses as none else would. For him, at the vigorous age of forty years, spent with every natural advantage possible in that day, who would have planned an equal period in the comparative solitude of Midian, without a project or even a known communication with his race, in patient waiting on God? Yet what wiser, if God were acting in wisdom and power by Moses to His own glory?

Then came a most singular but suited manifestation: an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire of a bush. It was no less significant than that vouchsafed to Joshua at a later day (Joshua 5: 13-15). When conquest of Canaan was in question, what more encouraging than a man seen with his sword drawn, captain of Jehovah's host? When the work was to bring the people through a waste howling wilderness, what more appropriate sign than a bush blazing yet unconsumed, and yet more, 'the good-will of Him that dwelt in the bush'? Moses himself, 'separated from his brethren', could well appreciate its significance, when wonder and fear had yielded to reflection in the light of the divine communications he had received.

'And as he went up to observe, there came a voice of [the] Lord, I [am] the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And Moses trembled, and durst not observe.' Before redemption, even a saint trembled when brought into God's presence. Be it that His voice declares Him the God of promise, of the fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, 'Moses trembled, and durst not observe.' Till redemption peace is impossible. 'And the Lord said to him, Loose the sandal of thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' Before the exodus of Israel from Egypt there was a manifestation of divine righteousness in delivering them and judging their oppressors. And holiness is proclaimed inviolable from the outset, not less is it so when Israel are called under Joshua to uncompromising conflict with the Canaanite dwelling in the land. 'Holiness', it was sung at a latter day for an epoch not yet fulfilled, 'becometh Thine house, O Jehovah, for ever' (Ps. 93: 5). The same prefatory admonition precedes alike the types of redemption accomplished for His people, and of warring in their midst with Satan that they may enjoy their proper privileges. God will be sanctified, whatever His grace in redeeming His own from the house of bondage, or in leading them to victory over the powers which usurp their heritage. Let us not forget it. How often irreverence has crept in, both in learning divine righteousness and in conflict with the enemy! 'These things ought not so to be.'

But redemption was in His heart; and of this He forthwith speaks to Moses, now weaned from self-confidence as much as from worldly association. 'I have surely seen the ill-treatment of My people which is in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and am come down to take them out for Myself.' Who but God would have thus undisguisedly spoken of a poor set of slaves as 'My people'? Others would have delivered and bedecked them first. It is the same God Who as a father falls on the neck of the returning prodigal in his rags and kisses him, before the honours afterwards lavished upon him. But let it be the foreshadowing or the antitypical reality, it is of the utmost moment to apprehend that redemption is the work of God present in some sort, and delivering, not merely from the enemy, but for Himself. His people's ill-treatment must be avenged, their groaning be heard and answered with His consolation"; but, better still, He comes down to take them out for Himself.

'To deliver' was of course verified also but the literal rendering is much more expressive, and gives not mere relief from the usurper's hand, but the positive object, and what can surpass it? If it be often overlooked, both in doctrine and in practice, it is of the more consequence to insist on it. Elsewhere may be put forward liberation, of which it is, of course, right in its place to point out the nature and effects; but here it is God taking Israel out for Himself, as said also of Joseph in verse 10, and not infrequently elsewhere in Scripture, though the emphatic force only comes out fully in redemption. For Christ suffered once for sins, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. It will be manifest when we ate in glory; it is no less true now to faith while we are here on earth. Nor can any truth bound up with redemption be of deeper moment for the soul. True spiritual experience rests on and springs out of it.

'And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.' But how different now the feelings of Moses! When in Egypt, he had gone forward in his own energy, and now, when sent of God, he makes objections and difficulties. How instructive the twofold lesson for us! So it is ever. The man who was not called readily proffered to follow the Lord wheresoever He might go; as ignorant of himself and of the world and of the enemy, as of Christ. The disciple who was called begs leave first to go away and bury his father, but learns from the Lord that there must be no object before Himself. 'Follow Me' (Luke 9: 57-62).

'This Moses whom they denied, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? him hath God sent both ruler and deliverer [or, redeemer! with an angel's hand that appeared to him in the bush.' The language is framed so as to maintain the parallel between Moses, as before of Joseph, with Jesus the despised and denied Messiah, Whom God is to send from the heavens, not only to bring in generally the predicted times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, but to redeem Israel from the hand of the enemy, and to gather them out of the lands, from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south. This is found in not only the New Testament but the Old, as the Lord expounded to the sorrowing disciples on the day of His resurrection, both which teach the sufferings of Christ and the glories which should follow them (Luke 24). 'Ought not Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?' Indeed, He had taught the same before His death. There will be the bright and judicial manifestation in its due season, for as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven, even so shall the Son of man be in His day. But first must He suffer many things and be rejected of this generation. Then indeed will He bless Israel, in turning every one of them away from his iniquities.

Of Him Moses was but a shadow, however honoured of God as both ruler and deliverer, with an angel's hand that appeared to him in the bush. Jesus the Son of man will Himself appear on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory; and He shall send forth His angels with a great sound of trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other. A greater than Moses shall be displayed in that day; but in this day a far greater humiliation was His than that of Moses. Still in both respects the analogy was close, evident, and intentional, for the Holy Spirit in the word was providing for the help of man in warning or in blessing, and the clear intimations of scripture left the Jew especially without excuse, as Stephen demonstrates.

'This [man] led them out, having wrought wonders and signs in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years.' None denies that Moses stands in the front rank of great as well as good men; but it is God Who made His presence signally known and respected in what He did by him chiefly, though sometimes without him, in that long succession of wilderness patience, and of power, fruitful in wonders, abundant in instruction. Stephen's aim is, however, to give scope to an undercurrent of analogy to Christ, and hence the man Moses comes into prominence, the better to furnish it as his solemn appeal to a people who never forgot their oldest folly and never truly learnt from God when again putting them to the test. What could Moses have done in the desert without God for one day, not to speak of forty years? What wonders and signs could he otherwise have wrought in the land of Egypt and in the Red Sea, before Meribah on the day of Massah in the wilderness, when the Jewish fathers tried Jehovah, proved Him, and saw His work?

There was intrinsic power in the person of the Son, Who from everlasting to everlasting is God. Only, subsisting in the form of God, He counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God (in blessed contrast with the first man, who sought to be what he was not, to God's dishonour and in disobedience), but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, coming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. All between His birth and death was alike moral perfection; a Man Who never did, never sought, His own will, nothing but the will of God, till all closed in the yet deeper doing it by suffering for sin in death of atonement, that God might be glorified even as to sin, and we righteously delivered. But in His service, of Him pre-eminently it could be said that God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, Who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with Him. And if that generation denied Him, saying, Who established thee ruler and judge? none the less did God raise Him to be a more blessed Redeemer, a more glorious Ruler of the kings of the earth, as He is ordained of God to be Judge of living and dead, whilst He will also fulfil every hope of Israel according to the prophets.

No wonder therefore it is added by Stephen, 'This is the Moses that said to the sons of Israel, A prophet will God raise up to you out of your brethren, like me.' The difficulties and differences of the most celebrated Rabbis prove what a stone of stumbling is the true Christ, the Lord Jesus, to unbelieving Israel. How otherwise could we account for such a man as Abarbanel perverting the words of Deut. 18: 18 here cited, to Jeremiah? If there be among the prophets, yea, in all the people, a marked contrast with the honoured deliverer from Egypt and the law-giver in the wilderness, it is the mourning man of Anathoth, whose testimony and life show a continuous struggle of grief and shame between his burning sense of God's ignored rights and his love for the people of God who most of all ignored them, as well as himself. Utterly untenable is the theory of Aben Ezra and others, that Joshua is meant, who but supplemented, and in little more than one direction, Moses' work, but in no adequate way stands out as the prophet raised up from his brethren like Moses. Hence the effort of some most distinguished among the Jewish teachers to interpret as a succession this singular prophet! which is as contrary to usage in the language as to the fact in their history. Compare Num. 12: 6-8 and Deut. 34: 10-12. The position of mediator, whose words must be heard on pain of death, points to Moses' peculiarity, only in the highest degree true of none but Messiah. And if the Jews did not then realize the consequence of refusing to hearken to Him, soon did the threat begin to fall on their guilty heads. 'The wrath', says the apostle Paul, 'is come upon them to the uttermost' (1 Thess. 2: 16). And not yet have they paid the last farthing. The unequalled tribulation is still before them, though a believing remnant will be delivered out of it, hearkening to Him Whom the nation opposed to their own ruin.

The parallel is yet further pursued in what follows. 'This is he that was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers; who received living oracles to give us: to whom our fathers would not be subject, but thrust [him] away and turned in their hearts into Egypt, saying to Aaron, Make us gods who shall go before us, for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him' (vers. 38-40).

Moses is presented in his mediatorial position, between the angel of Jehovah on the one hand, and 'our fathers' on the other. In the 'church' is suggestive of thoughts and associations altogether misleading. The children of Israel are meant in their collective capacity. It has not the smallest bearing on what in the New Testament is called the church of God, the body of Christ, indeed this is only noticed here in order to guard souls from an error so grave. The church is part of that 'great mystery' or secret which the apostle was given to reveal, the mystery hidden from ages and generations but now made manifest to the saints. What God was then doing by Moses was part of His ordinary dealings, when Israel so readily overlooked the promises to the fathers and took their stand, to their speedy sorrow and inevitable ruin, on their own obedience as the tenure of their blessings.

Immense indeed was the privilege vouchsafed, not only then in works, but in words of God henceforth given to man in permanence. It was not merely that the angel spake to Moses, but he 'received living oracles to give us' — an unspeakable boon, yet more characteristic of the greater than Moses, Whose coming was followed by a fresh, complete, and final revelation of divine grace and truth. Indeed the citation of Moses' own prophecy in ver. 37 prepared the way for new communications with a yet higher sanction. In vain then would Jewish unbelief idolize the servant in sight of his Master.

But on the one hand 'lively' is too slight here, as also in 1 Peter 1: 3 and 2: 5, on the other 'life-giving' goes too far, and at any rate is not the epithet intended; for this is to characterize the oracles themselves, not their effect on others. I know not why Mr. Humphry should have endorsed the error which K�¼hnol adopted from Grotius. And why 'saving'? This is but to change, not to translate or to expound, any more than the opposite lowering of the sense by J. Piscator and J. Alberti as if received viva voce! 'Living' alone is right and sufficient. And how did the children of Israel treat one thus signally honoured in that day? 'They would not be subject' to him. If the fathers so treated Moses, was it surprising that their children did not receive the Messiah of Whom he prophesied, and was besides so striking a type? Thus the simple recall of scripture history vividly presents the actual guilt of the Jews where any had ears to hear. If their fathers of old thrust Moses from them, what of that incomparably more honoured Prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, so recently delivered up to be condemned and crucified? That their hearts were gone from God and turned to Egypt was plain enough then from their appeal to Aaron and from his shameless compliance. But was it less true now when a robber was preferred to 'the Anointed of the Lord'? 'Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber' (John 18: 40). 'Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.' The difference between the fathers and the children was not in favour of those then alive, ever dull to estimate the present race, and self above all, which it most concerns men to judge aright. Yet is it exactly what the Spirit of God effects in every soul that comes to God: if there is living faith, there is true repentance.

But unbelief craves a present and visible guide. 'Make us gods who shall go before us. For this Moses, who brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.' Israel was rebellious, when Moses was on high; and so is the Jew now that Christ is gone to heaven. But is it only the Jew? Does the Gentile stand in the truth? Only by his faith can it be, as the apostle declares. Is not Christendom high-minded, instead of humbly and heartily hearing? Is it not lifted up with pride, instead of abiding in goodness? And what must be its end? 'Thou also shalt be cut off.' Christendom, little thinking it, is doomed. If God spared not the natural branches, the Jews. He will certainly not spare the presumptuous wild-olive graft; and Israel as such shall be saved (Rom. 11).

Alas! the baptized soon forsook their own mercies and denied the special testimony for which they were responsible to God's glory before the world. They got weary of dependence on an exalted but absent Lord; they ceased to wait for His return from heaven; they practically superseded the presence and free action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, they gave up their bridal separateness for worldly influence and favour, and they swamped grace under a system of law and ordinances: so that the word of God became of little or no effect through tradition, as departure from the truth became more and more the state of those who professed the name of the Lord. Insubjection to Him speedily bred alienation, and the heart soon turned toward that world out of which grace calls and severs to God. Men are even more naturally idolatrous than sceptical, unbelief being the mother of both these enemies to God and His truth. Men love to have gods to go before them. The true Deliverer being irksome passes readily out of mind: 'we know not what is become of him.' Is not the wilderness history prophetic? Did not these things happen as types of us that we should not be lusting after evil things, as they also lusted, nor be idolaters, as some of them? Indeed all the things recorded happened to them as types, and were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come.

'And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice to the idol and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. But God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in [the] book of the prophets, Did ye offer Me victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your [or, the] god Remphan, the forms which ye made to worship them; and I will transport you beyond Babylon' (vers. 41 43). So prone is man, incredulous man, to abandon the living God, in spite of daily standing witness of His power and grace, as well as of His solemn occasional judgments before all eyes; so readily does he take up that idolatry which he had but lately known to dominate the high and mighty the refined and learned — the world, in short, where he himself had been enslaved. So powerful an adversary is 'public opinion' to the will and glory of God, even in the face of the grandest exhibitions of His favour to His people, and of stern unmistakable punishment on their enemies, and, not least, of shame on their gods who could neither help their votaries nor screen themselves. Nor did the 'calf', the abomination of Egypt, satisfy Israel; they craved after objects higher than the works of their own hands whatever the charm of this to man's vain heart. Once yielding to the snare Israel must outdo Egypt. So 'God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven.' Grovelling idolatry aspires to higher things and inflates itself with its heavenly imaginations. Not Stephen is the authority for so withering a charge, but Amos (Amos 5: 25-27). In the prophets' Book it is written: would an Israelite gainsay them too? or tax scripture itself with saying blasphemous things against Israel? The forms of Moloch, 'horrid king', and of Remphan, they made to worship, and they did worship them.

And not the least repulsive feature of this early corruption among the chosen people was that they offered all the while victims and sacrifices in the wilderness to Jehovah. To be lavish in honour of false gods the poorest can afford, who complain of what is due to the true God, as if He were a rigid exactor and not the Giver of every good and every perfect gift.

But divine judgment is sure if it seem to slumber, and the prophet Amos at a far later day pronounces the sentence for the sin perpetrated in the desert. Whatever may have been the aggravation afterwards, it is the firs. sin which decides. Evil never gets better, never works itself out, though it may easily, and always does, wax worse. The evil heart of unbelief departs more and more from the living God. Patience may go on for ages in ways admirable to the eye of faith; but judgment, however deferred is certain, and in due time is revealed though it may be long before it is executed.

Neither Damascus, the head of Syria (Amos 5: 27), nor Babylon, the golden city, is the limit of Israel's deportation from the land they had defiled. 'I will transport you beyond' — saith the Lord. To say that 'Babylon', true in fact was an error in quotation is a statement Mr. Humphry should have left to sceptics.

'Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He that spake to Moses commanded to make it according to the model which he had seen, which also our fathers having in succession received brought [it] in with Joshua. in their taking possession of the Gentiles whom God drove out from [the] face of our fathers, until the days of David; who found favour before God and asked to find a habitation for the God1 of Jacob, but Solomon built Him a house' (vers. 44-47).

1 p.m. BDH join against all other witnesses in reading τῳ ὀίκω 'the house', instead of τῳ θεῳ 'the God', and Tischendorf actually accepts it! — 'a habitation for the house of Jacob'!

Yet all this while of idolatrous iniquity 'our fathers of Israel' had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, made as they were assured according to the model Moses had seen and God commanded. That the heathen who know not God could serve idols is not surprising, however sad their sin and inexcusable; seeing that their fathers once knew God, but glorifying Him not as God, nor thankful, they became vain in their imaginations and with darkened heart in their folly changed His glory into an image of the creature which they worshipped and served rather than the Creator Who is blessed for ever. Amen. And for this cause God delivered them up to vile affections and the most unnatural evil, as well as to a mind void of judgment, so that knowing the judgment of God against all who do such things worthy of death, they not only practise the same but have pleasure in those that do them (Rom. 1: 20-32).

How much more guilty were those who knew far better, who stood in national relationship with God as His own peculiar and favoured people, and had the very tent of the testimony for Him and against their ways! They bore it not only in the wilderness from father to son, but into the goodly land whence God by Joshua drove out the old heathen inhabitants that Israel might be in the possession of it, adding thus gross hypocrisy to their greedy idolatry. There is no corruption so grievous as that of God's people; and therefore His proportionate chastenings 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities' (Amos 3: 2).

In the days of David (2 Sam. 7: 1-17), the favour which God showed him wrought in the heart of the king, who asked to build a house for Jehovah, but had as his answer that Jehovah would make him a house, and that his son Solomon should build a house for His name, as Stephen here recounts.

Here then, thought the Jew, must Jehovah restrict Himself to that 'magnifical' palace of His holiness. For unbelieving man must have an idol somewhere. 'But the Highest dwelleth not in [places]1 made with hands; even as the prophet saith, The heaven [is] My throne, and the earth a footstool of My feet: what sort of house will ye build Me, saith [the] Lord, or what [is] My place of rest? Did not My hand make all these things?' (vers. 48-50). Superstitious exaltation of the temple detracts from His glory Who gives it all its distinctive grandeur. Jehovah did deign to hallow and glorify it, so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud; for the glory of Jehovah had filled the house of God. But Solomon himself at that august consecration had owned that heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him, much less the house he had just built! And so afterward spoke the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 66: 1), long before Babylon was allowed to burn and destroy the object of Israel's pride. It was no afterthought to console the Jew in his subjection to Gentile masters: so had Israel's king spoken to God; and so had God spoken to Israel long before the Chaldeans had become an adversary commissioned to chastise their idolatry.

It was right and pious to own the condescending grace of Jehovah, it was presumptuous to limit His glory to the temple He was pleased to make His dwelling. The Creator had created all and was immeasurably above the universe. From such a point of view what was Jerusalem or the temple? Who was now in accord with the testimony of Solomon and of Isaiah? The accusers, or Stephen? The answer is beyond controversy, and their enmity without excuse.

In these verses we have the conclusion of the address, a most grave and pointed appeal to the consciences of the Jews who, under the form of a most instructive and wonderfully compressed summary of their national sins from first to last, heard of God's unparalleled dealings with Israel. The facts were beyond question, the language (even when most unsparing) that of their own confessedly inspired writers, the accusation therefore as unutterably solemn as it was impossible either to rebut or to evade.

1 The best authorities ABCDE, some cursives, and all the ancient versions save the Armenian, et al., have no such addition as 'temples' in the Received Text and most junior MSS., et al.

'Stiff-necked and uncircumcised in hearts1 and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, so ye. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they slew those that announced beforehand of the coming of the Righteous One, of Whom now ye became2 betrayers and murderers, ye which received the law as ordinances of angels and kept [it] not' (vers. 51-53).

1 There is a question of reading between καρδίαις (with, or without, ταῖς), and τῃ καρδία. A few of the oldest, ACD, with some cursives, support the plural but EHP with the mass of cursives, ancient versions, et al., give the singular. The reading of the Vatican is a clerical error of καρδίας, for καρδίαις probably. Some, as the Sinaitic, add ὑμῶν.

2 The chief uncials ( ABCDE), well supported by cursives, present ἐγένεσθε 'became'; the majority of cursives, with HP, have γεγένησθε 'ye have been' which seems to have slipped, or been put, in to add force to the simple fact.

'I have seen this people' said Jehovah to Moses at the Mount Sinai 'and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people' (Ex. 32: 9), again (Ex. 33: 3), 'I will not go up in the midst of thee: for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way.' 'For Jehovah had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel Ye are a stiff-necked people' (ver. 5). But this very fact is turned into a pica by the skilful advocacy of the mediator: 'If now I have found grace in Thy sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray Thee, go among us, for it is a stiff-necked people, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for Thine inheritance' (Ex. 34: 9). If Stephen repeated the word at the end of their history, it was fully borne out from the beginning. 'How much more after my death?' said Moses (Deut. 31: 27). 'For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days' (ver. 29). The predicted evil was about to be, as it had been already, fulfilled to the letter, and as the latter days are not yet run out, so neither is this evil exhausted: 'this generation' still repeats the same sad tale of unbelief and departure from the living God.

It is Moses again (Lev. 26) who lets Israel know how Jehovah will avenge the breach of His covenant. And yet if thus their 'uncircumcised hearts' be humbled, and they truly accept the punishment of their iniquity, then will He remember His covenant with Jacob and with Isaac and with Abraham, and will remember the land.

But there was another, and the main, fatal charge made by Stephen: 'Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers, ye also.' Before the deluge He strove with man, though Jehovah said it should not be so always, and thus set a term to His patient testimony of a hundred and twenty years (Gen. 6: 3). After that judgment of the whole race, Israel was the theatre of His operations, according to the word that Jehovah covenanted with them when they came out of Egypt. But they rebelled, and vexed His Holy Spirit: therefore He was turned to be their enemy, He fought against them (Isa. 63: 10). Here again Stephen had the surest warrant for vindicating Jehovah and His Anointed, and for convicting the proud stubborn Jews of their old iniquity and opposition to every dealing of His grace. Alas! they were, as Moses told them at the outset, a very forward generation, children in whom is no faith; and without faith there is no life, nor is it possible to please God. Faith working by love seeks His glory and is subject to His word, the expression of His mind and will. Israel without faith was the sad and constant witness of a people outwardly and in profession near to God, their heart ever far from Him and pertinacious in antagonism to Him. Their rejection of the Messiah, their indifference to, or malignant contempt of, the Pentecostal Spirit, were only of a piece with their history throughout. Far yet from being the light of the blind heathen, the instructor of the benighted nations, they are the ringleader of the world's rebellion against God, uniform only in this from father to son throughout their generations.

'Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?' The prophets dealt with the people's sin, exposing it fearlessly in the light of truth righteousness, and God's judgment, while looking onward to the kingdom of God which should set aside all evil, and the suffering Messiah should be exalted and extolled and very high. It was this confronting the wicked will of man with the light of God that condemned it, which drew out the enmity of Israel, and made the prophet an object of dishonour and hostility nowhere so much as in his own country. God was brought near; and guilty man will not have God at any price. Had Stephen gone outside the record, or misinterpreted its spirit? Jeremiah (who was not a whit behind the rest in the bitter contempt and positive persecution he had to bear from priests, prophets, and princes) bears a plain testimony to God's sending on the one hand, and to Israel's rebellion on the other. So in 2 Chr. 36: 15, 16, we read, 'Jehovah God of their fathers sent to them by His messengers, rising up betimes and sending; because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against His people, till there was no remedy.' Was not Stephen then right in asking, 'Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute?'

But did not the Jews delight in the promised Messiah? Did they not eagerly anticipate His kingdom, when they will be delivered out of the hand of their enemies, and all that hate them be covered with shame and dismay, and glory dwell in their land, and blessing chase away the gross darkness of the earth? Whatever their thoughts afterwards, their bitterest rancour broke out against those that announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One. If there was any difference, such 'they slew'. It was a kingdom they wanted with ease and honour for themselves; not a King to reign in righteousness, and princes to rule in judgment. No care had they for the inalienable principles of His kingdom; no love, but heart-hatred, for every quality of the divine nature, and for God's rights, which, if in abeyance, can never be abdicated. He was in none of their thoughts, nor His Anointed; and those who held Him before them were most obnoxious to the nation, so that the occasion failed not to work their violent death. And if their children built the tombs of the prophets, and flattered themselves that they were of wholly different temper and condition, the farthest removed from participation in the guilt of the prophets' blood, they only proved thereby that they were blinded by the enemy, and they witnessed to themselves that they were sons of those that slew them.

For faith does not act in garnishing sepulchres, or in monumental tablets to the holy sufferers of days gone by; faith walks and suffers reproach, if not worse persecution, in the days that are, looking for heaven and glory only when Christ appears. Unbelief, on the contrary, seeks present satisfaction and credit in the honouring of those who render no more a living testimony to their consciences, and it falls under the cheat of the enemy who builds up the higher that hypocritical temple of worldly religion where those once despised and slain as martyrs now fill a niche as idols.

And the Lord tested, as He always does, delusion and falsehood. He sends fresh testimony, and will do so till judgment. He sent His servants when on earth; He sent them from on high, as He continues to send. And the world hates the true and faithful, as it loves its own. But He Himself is ever the most searching of all tests, and how did He fare at their hands? 'Of Whom now ye became betrayers and murderers.'

It was possible to complain of others. No saint, no prophet. was immaculate or infallible. 'In many things we all stumble' — I say not must, but do (James 3: 2). And if it be so now, since redemption and the gift of the Holy Spirit, it was assuredly so in the less privileged times that preceded. The unfriendly eye of man could descry even in the most blessed of God's servants words and ways which were sadly short of Christ and which might be perverted into an excuse for slighting their testimony. But what could they say or think of the Righteous One Who appeals to them, 'Which of you convinceth Me of sin?' 'If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou Me?' He was indeed the Holy One of God, Who did no sin, neither was guilt found in His mouth, yet was He treated with altogether unprecedented and most aggravated scorn; and though lawless men had their hand in the cross, the heart and the will of the Jews were engaged in an incomparably deeper way (John 19: 11). They were betrayers and murderers of their Messiah, God's Messiah; and Stephen only applies to the living Jews around him what the prophets had declared fully of old, what David had written in the Spirit long before Isaiah and Micah, and Zechariah afterwards, to speak only of the plainest.

By one more characteristic does this most resolute witness of the Lord further explain to the Jews their position and their guilt, 'Which received the law as ordinances of angels and kept it not.' That law in which they boasted was their shame, certainly from no fault in itself, for all the evil was in them. But so it is with man, and most of all with man professing to have a religion from God. His boast is his most manifest condemnation. It matters little what he boasts in; it is at best worthless. There is indeed a resource given in God's infinite grace, where he may and ought to boast; but it is in the Lord, not truly in the law which he fondly flattered himself he was keeping, when in fact he had utterly and miserably failed, and in all its parts, Godward and manward, in himself and toward others. The Lord he had definitively disdained; nor in truth does any soul receive Him till sense of sin before God breaks him down overwhelmingly, whilst notwithstanding he casts himself on God's mercy, till he sees the rich and perfect provision made for such as he is in the offering of the body of Christ once for all. Then he does truly boast in the Lord, as it is meet he should.

The apostle's language in Gal. 3: 19 by its similarity materially helps to clear up the words of Stephen here, though it is painful to observe how few seem to have profited thereby. Each word of the phrase (εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων) has been the occasion of strange perplexity and dispute among the learned to the depravation of the sense. Winer (N. T. Gr. xxxii. 4, 6) refers to Matt. 12: 41 as illustrative of the force here too of the preposition, but the difference of the phrases seems to render the desired sameness impossible. 'Repenting at' the preaching of Jonah is very intelligible and clearly meant; not so 'receiving' at ordinances of angels.

Hence Alford, who follows this later suggestion of the German grammarian, understands it as 'at the injunction' of angels. But this departs from the sense we had got for διαταγὰς from Gal. 3: 19, which signifies, beyond just doubt, 'ordained' or administered through angels, not 'enjoined' by them, a very different idea, as also is 'promulgated'.

Now what is the meaning of receiving the law as ordinances of angels? Those who take εἰς here as 'at' are obliged therefore, in order to make sense, to interpret διαταγὰς as 'injunctions', swerving in this from the true force of the participle in Gal. 3: 19. It appears to me accordingly, that, if it be 'ordinances' here in keeping with 'ordained' there, we must understand eij" in the very common Hellenistic sense of 'as' rather than 'at', the accusative of the predicate, to which Winer had inclined in earlier editions, and, as I believe, more rightly. Israel received the law, not as a code drawn up by human wisdom, but as administered by angels, and so through their intervention, from God. Hence the solemnity of their failure to keep what was divine. The allusion seems to be to Deut. 33: 2. Jehovah came from Sinai, rose up from Seir unto them, He shone forth from Mount Paran, and He came from the myriads of holiness (or, holy myriads) — from His right hand a law of fire (or, fiery law) for them. Compare Psalm 68: 17. It is needless to cite Josephus, Philo, or the Rabbis What is of more moment, Heb. 2: 2 quite falls in with the Galatians and with our text. In the Septuagint we find singular confusion; for, first instead of 'holiness' they seem to have understood 'Kadesh'; and yet, secondly, they bring 'His angels' into the last clause, instead of 'a law of fire'; so that their version errs greatly from the text.

The discourse is thus brought to a due conclusion; and this terse and pointed application does not sustain the notion of an abrupt stop which shut out words needful to complete Stephen's answer to the accusation. The facts adduced throughout, and now condensed in the final and most cutting appeal, which laid bare their pride not more than their persistent rebellion and extreme rum, appear to my mind singularly effective and complete. He begins with their habitual antagonism, fathers and sons alike, to the Holy Spirit, so that their prime religious badge had lost all meaning — their circumcision was become uncircumcision. They had persecuted the prophets, they had slain those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One, they had now actually betrayed and murdered Himself; and of course the law (received so solemnly through angels)1 they kept not, notwithstanding all their self-righteous pretensions, as if to have the law were to do it.

1 There is not the least ground to take angels here as human messengers: the corresponding scriptures refute the idea; and the meaning which would thus result is as unworthy of the context as it is illegitimate. Again, 'by troops of angels' is not more opposed to grammar than to philology; as also 'by' (A.V.) the disposition of angels is clearly untenable.

It was man, not left to himself like the nations who were suffered to walk in their own ways, but governed as Israel was by God's law, enlightened by prophets, blessed with the coming of the Messiah, and according to the word that Jehovah covenanted when they came out of Egypt, so His Spirit stood among them: no people till then so privileged, none so guilty, and, we may add, none so convicted; for they had broken the law, persecuted the prophets, slain the Messiah, and had always resisted the Holy Ghost (cp. Haggai 2: 5).

The closing scene of Stephen, and a very momentous turning-point in God's ways, are both brought before us vividly in the verses that follow.

'Now hearing these things they were deeply cut to their hearts and were gnashing their teeth at him. But being full of the Holy Spirit, looking fixedly into heaven, he saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. But they crying with a loud voice held their ears and rushed upon him with one accord, and cast out of the city and stoned [him]. And the witnesses laid aside their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, and stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And kneeling down he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And having said this he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to the making him away' (Acts 7: 54-60; Acts 8: 1).

It is for the truth told in love that those who are Christ's should suffer, for this only; and so it was now. For Stephen's love and faithfulness there was hatred, as with the Master.

But a more blessed picture nowhere appears of the Christian. The Jews resisted — he was full of — the Holy Spirit; his gaze was fixed on heaven, as ours should be, and he was given to see actually, as we only by faith can see, the glory of God and Jesus at His right hand.

It is true, there is a difference. It was as yet a transitional time and Jesus he saw 'standing' there: He had not taken definitely His seat, but was still giving the Jews a final opportunity. Would they reject the testimony to Him gone on high indeed, but as a sign waiting if peradventure they might repent and He might be sent to bring in the times of refreshing here below? Stephen in these last words accentuated the call, as he said, 'Lo, I behold the heavens opened, and the Son of man' (for so He is attested, the rejected Messiah exalted in heaven for a far larger glory) 'standing at the right hand of God'. Thus not only does he look up, as the characteristic outlook of the Christian, but the heavens he sees to be opened (another fact full of blessing to us), and Jesus is beheld as Son of man in the glory of God. He Who came down Son of God in supreme love to die for us is gone up in righteousness, raised from the dead and glorified in heaven, and the believer filled with the Spirit and suffering for His sake sees Him there. Once the heavens opened on Him here as He received the Holy Spirit and 'was acknowledged Son of God. By and by from the opened heaven He will come forth King of kings and Lord of lords to execute judgment on the quick. The place and privilege of the Christian is between these two, and Stephen here sets it forth in its fullest light.

'But they crying with a loud voice held their ears and rushed upon him with one accord, and cast out of the city and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid aside their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul, and stoned Stephen invoking and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (vers. 57-59). Such was religious man, not secular nor heavenly, but now filled with murderous wrath, because he stands convicted of opposition to the present and full truth of God, utterly blind alike to His grace and His glory. And in that guilty scene was one not less dark and infuriated than the rest, Saul of Tarsus, afterward to be the witness of the very Jesus Whom he was then persecuting in Stephen's person, for he not only beheld, but took the part here assigned to him with those that stoned Stephen invoking and saying, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'

There is no ground for the addition in the Authorized Version of 'God', and a questionable need for that in the Revised Version of 'the Lord'. It was on the Lord that His dying servant called, as the blessed Lord dying commended His spirit to His Father's hands.

Each is exquisitely in place, which here is somewhat rudely disturbed by the common version. No one doubts that the usual address is to God to the Father; but as little should it be forgotten that there are special circumstances where we not only may but ought to call on 'the Lord', as we see in Acts 1: 24, and also in 2 Cor. 12: 8. But in no case is it sweeter than when the servant dies for his Master as here, though he rightly puts it as a prayer to the Lord to receive his spirit; not as the Lord Jesus so appropriately, and according to scripture, commended His spirit into His Father's hands.

But this is far from all, blessed as it is. For 'kneeling down he cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.' — There was nothing of consequence in calling with a loud voice on the Lord; for well he knew that He would hear and answer a whispered petition — that He would receive his spirit — as readily as in the loudest tones. His importunate earnestness was for others, divine love for his enemies then murdering him. It was also the reproduction of the spirit of Christ, the practical anticipation of what Peter exhorted later the saints to do: If ye do well suffer for it, and take it patiently, this is acceptable [this is grace] with God (1 Peter 2: 20). It is more than taking patiently, as it was then simple suffering for well-doing and Christ. But it is set before us as the pattern for a believer now; practical grace rising above all injury and malice; present and perfect rest in the Saviour, as became a heavenly man full of the Holy Spirit.

'And having said this, he fell asleep.' Well he might: his work was done and well done; and his cup of suffering filled to the brim, but only so as to bring out his last and fervent cry, the intercession of love to the Lord on behalf of those who were slaying His servant.

'And Saul', it is added quietly, 'was consenting to the making him away' (Acts 8: 1). He was not there accidentally, nor without full participation in the bloody business of that never-to-be-forgotten day. It is not so that man would have chosen him who was to be the most self-denying, laborious, and effective workman the Lord ever raised up in the gospel; the most comprehensive, profound, and elevated of apostles in leading the church into the hitherto unrevealed mystery of its union with Christ the Head over all things. A darker page, we know, has yet to be traced, and never more than the day which dawned on his conversion. But how often it is so in the ways of sovereign grace! 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts' (Isaiah. 55: 8, 9). It is ordered thus that no flesh should glory before God; but he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. So it is written (1 Cor. 1 29, 31).

LONDON C. A. HAMMOND 11 LITTLE BRITAIN, E.C.1 1952

Acts  8 - 14.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles newly translated from an amended text.

Acts 8

Outwardly also the death of Stephen was the epoch when the murderous spirit, provoked by his solemn and fearless testimony, burst out against all who bore the name of the Lord.

'And there arose on that day a great persecution against the assembly that was in Jerusalem, and1 they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the apostles. And devout men buried Stephen and made great wailing over him. But Saul was ravaging2 the assembly, entering throughout the houses, and dragging men and women was delivering [them] to prison. They therefore that were scattered abroad went about evangelizing the word'2 (vers. 1-4).

1 The first hand of the Sinaitic leaves out the copula, with two cursives, which Tischendorf singularly adopts. It is just as necessary as in ver. 2.

2 Laud's MS., E, gives the aorist here, and adds 'of God' at the end of ver. 4, in both faultily, in the latter with several Versions.

Blinded by religious pride and jealousy the Jews were but sealing their guilt irrecoverably. Those who despised the Messiah in humiliation on earth were now rebelling against Him glorified in heaven, rejecting withal the Holy Spirit Whom He had sent down to render a divine testimony to His glory. Man in his best estate is not only vanity but enmity against the God of love. The spirit of the departed martyr they had sent, as one said, to Jesus on high with the message, We will not have this Man to reign over us. So had the Lord once figured the hatred of 'the citizens' in the parable of the pounds (or, minas) (Luke 19: 11-27); and thus were His words punctually verified. That generation has not passed away; nor will it, as He has apprised us, till all things He predicted shall have taken place, and the most tremendous of these woes await the end of the age which He terminates by His appearing in glory.

But the rage then in Jerusalem was so intense and widespread against the assembly there that they were all scattered abroad except the apostles. It was in accordance with the word of the Lord that the testimony of the gospel of grace should begin 'at Jerusalem', and so it did. It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to the Jews, and so it was. 'This salvation of God' must be sent unto the Gentiles, and they will also hear: but it must go fully to the Jews first, and this was now being done; and the Jews rejected it with a persecuting obstinacy as yet beyond all example on earth. It was reserved for Popery to outdo that day in unrelenting opposition to the word of God and in sanguinary hatred of His saints. 'They were all scattered abroad' throughout the neighbouring regions 'except the apostles': a persecution as remarkable for its success in dispersing the objects of its fury, as for the exception specified; for those who stayed would naturally be the most obnoxious of all.

This is the more striking because the charge in Matt. 10: 23 ('when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next') was primarily to the twelve so strange it seems that Canon Humphry should take our chapter as a fulfilment of the command of our Lord, though the closing words point rather to a future testimony in the land before the end of the age. Nor is Calvin more happy who will have it that the apostles remained behind as good pastors for the safety of the flock; for it is evident that the sheep were all gone. Still less tolerable is Bp. Pearson's idea (Lect. in Acta App. iv. x. p. 62, Opera Posth. 4to. Lond. 1698) that the tradition of the second century, mentioned by Clemens Alex. and Eusebius (H.E.), accounts for it; namely, that our Lord forbade the apostles leaving Jerusalem for twelve years! This very chapter later on disproves it. He bade them go and disciple all the nations, yea, go into the world and preach the gospel to all the creation. Remission of sins was to be preached in His name to all the nations, beginning with Jerusalem. They were to tarry in the city but it was expressly till they were clothed with power from on high, without a thought of twelve years.

But for the present, in the face of that great persecution, the apostles abide. Divine wisdom ordered all aright. They remain there together unmoved by the storm which dispersed all others, for important purposes which afterwards appear; and the spread of the glad tidings falls under the good hand of the Lord to His scattered saints. No man beforehand could have foreseen such a result of such an ebullition. God was rejected not alone in His unity as of old, but also in His Son, and now in His Spirit. His truth was counted a lie, His saints as sheep for the slaughter. But if the apostles abode, the dispersed brethren went in all directions announcing the glad tidings of the word. It is just the action of the Holy Spirit in the gospel which we see as God's answer to the people's full and final rejection of His grace; and this was secured in the best and most unmistakable way by the apostles remaining, while all the rest were scattered, with no other external impulse than the last degree of human hatred from rebellious Israel in the city of solemnities itself. The love of Christ constrained: they believed and therefore spoke.

Meanwhile 'pious men buried Stephen, and made great wailing over him' (ver. 2). There is nothing in the epithet to necessitate our regarding these as disciples. They were rather God-fearing Jews whose conscience revolted against the lawless end of a trial that began with the form of Jewish law and was carried on with the corruption of suborned testimony which then characterized the chosen nation. Calvin has missed the point of the account by the assumption that it is for us a lesson of the faithful even in the heat of persecution, not discouraged but zealous in the discharge of those duties which pertain to godliness. Still further did he err in making Luke also commend their profession of godliness and faith in their lamentation, as if they identified themselves with Stephen's life and death, and testified withal what great loss the church of God had suffered by his decease. The force of this history lies in the raising up decent burial and exceeding lamentation on the part of Jews who were not of the assembly, when those on whom it would have devolved were not there to pay the last offices of love. There is no need with Meyer to render the particle which introduces the account as an adversative. The writer was inspired to give it as an additional feature of the scene, not without interest and profit to the believer who sees and values the gracious care of God even in such circumstances. A Gamaliel stands up for righteous wisdom at the right moment, and pious men bury the martyr with great wailing where it could be least expected.

The true opposition is in what is next told us of his fanatical and bitter zeal who was afterwards to be the most devoted servant of the Lord, who had also to experience what it is in the church to be less loved the more abundantly he loved, spending and spent out most gladly for the souls of men. 'But Saul was ravaging the assembly, entering the houses throughout, and dragging both men and women delivered [them] to prison' (ver. 3). Religious rage is of all the most unrelenting; and fresh victims do not satiate but whet its cruel appetite, sex and age being alike disregarded.

It may be well here to remark that εὐαγγελίζεσθαι 'to announce the glad tidings' is ministry of the gospel no less than κηρύσσειν to 'proclaim, or preach', in ver. 5. After Dr. Hammond, Mr. Brewster in his Lectures on this book gives no valid reason for laying stress on the difference, in order to support what he calls 'regular commission'. First, the former word (εὐαγγελίζεσθαι) is used of our Lord Himself (Matt. 11: 5; Luke 4: 18, 43; Luke 7: 22; Luke 8: 1; Luke 20: 1), so it is of the apostles (Luke 9: 6, Acts 5: 42; Acts 13: 32, Acts 14: 7 15, 21; Acts 15: 35; Acts 16: 10; Acts 17: 18; Rom. 1: 15; Rom. 10: 15; 1 Cor. 1: 17, 1 Cor. 9: 16, 18, 1 Cor. 15: 1, 2; 2 Cor. 10: 16; 2 Cor. 11: 7; Gal. 1: 8, 11, 16, 23; Gal. 4: 13; Eph. 3: 8); surely far more than enough to refute the mean or vague use to which he would confine it. Secondly, the latter word (κηρύσσειν) is so little restricted to an official class, that it is applied to the healed leper and demoniac in their proclaiming what the Lord had done for each of them (Mark 1: 45, Mark 5: 20), and so to those who published the cure of the deaf and dumb (Mark 7: 36). Again, it (κηρύσσειν) stands side by side with the former word in Luke 4: 18, 19, 44; Luke 8: 1; Luke 9: 2; Rom. 10: 15; 1 Cor. 1: 23; 1 Cor. 9: 27; 1 Cor. 15: 11, 12; 2 Cor. 11: 4. Further, the latter word (κηρύσσειν), not the former, is used of those at Rome, who during the apostle's imprisonment preached Christ, some even of envy and strife, thinking to raise up affliction for him in his bonds (Phil. 1: 15, 16). Were there an atom of truth in the alleged distinction, there would be just the occasion to employ this supposed expression for mere speaking or irregular work. But it is not so; the apostle describes the preaching of the heartless as well as the true workmen by the term (κηρύσσω)  which Mr. B. will have to be distinctive of the duly commissioned official.

The notion is therefore wholly unscriptural. Difference of course no one denies, for the one means to announce glad tidings, the other to proclaim or publish, but this is wholly independent of the desired confinement of preaching to those ordained for the purpose, an idea purely imaginary and opposed to all the evidence of scripture. Those who had the gift were not free but bound to exercise it in responsibility to Christ the Lord. Elders were chosen by apostles or apostolic envoys, and deacons by the multitude but for other objects, nor did they ever preach in virtue of their proper office. They might be evangelists like Philip. Otherwise they were no more authorized than the rest of the saints, like the dispersed before us. Rules and order even in earthly things are of moment, but quite distinct from preaching or teaching for which ordination is unknown to God's word.

But Dr. Guyse represents another class which limits 'all' scattered abroad to 'preachers'! This he does by misinterpreting verse 2 of 'Stephen's religious friends', and those ravaged by Saul in verse 3, so as to deny the general preaching by the turning it into the 'remainder of the 120 that was called the apostles' own company' (Acts 4: 23), and perhaps including several other later converts that had received the gift of the Holy Ghost and went about as evangelists to preach the gospel!1 How sad these evasions of the truth on the part of godly men! Power makes itself felt; and gifted men should be the last to silence any Christian who can evangelize. For it is a question of divine qualification, not of human sanction, which last is really a restraint on the Holy Spirit, a slight of Christ's grace, and a hindrance, so far as man can be a hindrance, to sinners' salvation. How blessed the grace of God, Who, without design on the apostles' part or even a hint from any, turned the world's dispersion of the assembly into scattering far and wide the seeds of gospel truth!

1 Much truer to the word is Doddridge's note — 'There is no room to inquire where these poor refugees had their orders. They were endowed with miraculous gift; if they had not been so, the extraordinary call they had to spread the knowledge of Christ wherever they came, among those who were ignorant of Him would abundantly justify them in what they did,' (Fam. Expos. iii. 105, 106 Tenth Ed.)

Among the great host of those that were scattered publishing the word of the Lord one is singled out by the Spirit of God, who achieved a signal victory for grace where law had utterly failed as always. Samaria was won by the gospel to the name of Jesus; and the good soldier who fought was Philip. He was one of the seven chosen by the saints and appointed by the apostles to do diaconal work in Jerusalem. But the ascended Lord had given him as an evangelist, as we may learn expressly from Acts 21: 8; and here we find him in Samaria engaged in this work for which he had the gift, not in that office to which he had been ordained now that the dispersion of the saints from Jerusalem no longer admitted of its functions. But as gift is in the unity of Christ's body (Eph. 4: 11-13), so its exercise is above passing circumstances and has ample scope, where a local charge were out of place, as our chapter abundantly testifies. It is the free action of the Holy Spirit exemplified in the details of an individual, as we have already seen it generally in the dispersed.

'And Philip went down to a city of Samaria and preached to them the Christ. And the crowds with one accord gave heed to the things spoken by Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did. For [as to] many1 that had unclean spirits, they went out crying with a loud voice and many palsied and lame were healed. And there was great2 joy in that city' (vers. 5-8)

1 The true text here is a good instance of the tendency in later copyists to soften down a rugged or peculiar construction and so get rid of the difficulty. The older MSS., ABCE, some cursives, and among the ancient versions the Vulg., Sah., Syrr., et al., support πολλοὶ, which gives grammatically an anacoluthon or irregularity of construction by no means uncommon: so 7: 40. We can easily understand the change to πολλῶν in order to make all smooth, supported by but two later uncials (HP) with the mass of cursives et al.

2 The critical reading πολλὴ χαρὰ (not μεγάλη) seems to refer to the extent rather than the quality of the joy.

The worthlessness of tradition is made manifest, though unintentionally, by Eusebius (H.E. iii. 31; ed. Heinichen, i. 261-263), who cites a letter of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome, before the end of the second century, speaking of Philip as 'one of the twelve apostles', 'and his daughters'. But what could be expected of a man who could in the same letter interlard the scriptural description of John with 'who became priest bearing as he did the mitre' or high-priest's plate? See also Eusebius H.E. v. 24. So rapid was the loss of Christ's truth, so inexcusable in presence of plain scriptural facts before all readers. They may ridicule Papias; but what of one bishop who reports the fable, and of another (among the most learned in his day) who uses it more than once in his History of the Church? Such are very early Christian fathers, ignorant of scripture to the last degree, yet idolized by superstitious men who profess to receive the Scriptures as inspired of God.

It is interesting to note that the city in question was the same where the Son of God had made Himself known to not a few Samaritans who confessed Him to be the Saviour of the world (John 4: 39-42).

Now the Christ is preached there by one of whom it could be said in all truth — that after serving well as a deacon, he was gaining to himself a good standing, or step in advance, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 3: 13). It was meet that both should be rather in Sychar (afterwards Neapolis and Nablous), ancient Shechem and Sichem at the foot of Gerizim, the mountain that vainly sought to rival Jerusalem, rather than in the city of Samaria, lately rebuilt or enlarged by Herod the Great, and named Sebaste in honour of Augustus.3 There the Lord deigned to abide two days, deepening the impression produced by the sinful woman saved from death, and giving them to hear Him themselves and to know the truth in Himself.

3 In no part of this chapter or of the New Testament is the city meant, but the country, containing cities and many villages. Sychar was the religious centre ebaste the capital politically.

The enemy seemed now in possession like a flood; but the Spirit of the Lord lifts up a standard against him in the preaching of Philip, confirmed by the signs which he wrought before their eyes. No miracle was needed there when the Lord visited the place and wrought as the great and acknowledged Prophet, though in truth the central object and glorious sum of all prophecy. It was the Father seeking true worshippers through the Son, Who declared Him in a fullness of grace and truth which surmounted the trammels of Judaism; and the word went home in power though not without the Holy Ghost which the Son gives as a divine spring of unfailing enjoyment. But now Satan had sought to efface the truth and set up a rival in sorcery, ever apt to seduce, interest, and alarm those who know not the true God. And the time was also come for God to bear witness in men, the servants of Christ on earth, to His victory over Satan and His glorification on high, as we have seen in previous chapters of this Book. Hence the energy of the Spirit was at work in Samaria in a free herald of the gospel, after the testimony had been refused with an enmity up to death in Jerusalem. On the one hand, the crowds gave heed with one accord to the things spoken by Philip; on the other, from many that were possessed unclean spirits came out with loud outcries, and many palsied and lame were healed. Can we wonder that 'there was much joy in the city'? But with Luke 8: 13 before me I could not affirm so absolutely as J. Calvin (Opera vi. 71) that the joy must be the fruit of faith. At least the 'faith' may not be of God, as we see in the flagrant case which the Holy Spirit brings here before us. Indeed not a few remarks in Calvin's Commentary seem rash.

Yea, such was the power at work that even the main instrument of Satan fell under the general influence of the multitudes he had so long seduced to his lies. 'But a certain man, Simon by name, was before in the city practising magic and amazing the nation of Samaria, saying that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed from small to great, saying, He is the power of God that is called1 Great. And they gave heed to him, because a long time he had amazed them with his magic arts. But when they believed Philip evangelizing2 about the kingdom of God and the name of 3 Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. And Simon also himself believed; and being baptized he continued with Philip and, beholding signs4 and great works of power as they were done, was amazed' (vers. 9-13).

1 ABCDE, many cursives, and ancient Vv., etc. supply καλουμένη 'called', omitted in the Received Text on inferior authority, and probably because the copyists, not perceiving its importance, imagined it was a mere gloss. It is expressive of the egregious assumption of the impostor.

2 On the other hand τὰ 'the things' is an insertion contrary to the oldest witnesses, which enfeebles the sense here, and in Acts 28: 23, though in general a favourite expression of Luke if not peculiarly his.

3 The article, read by a few cursives but adopted in the Text. Rec., has no place here in the best authorities.

4 The best copies and Versions have the order of words here followed as in the margin of the Authorized Version. R. Stephens, Elz., Beza even from his first edition (Tiguri, 1559) are right; not so Erasmus and Colinaeus who read δυνάμεις καὶ σημεῖα, nor the Complut. Edd. who have δ. κ. σ. μεγάλα. It may be added that the MSS. CD from the primary hand join at the end of the verse in the great blunder of 'they were' amazed.

This is the only reliable account of one who prominently figures in the early ecclesiastical writers as a heresiarch most hostile to the truth, but with so much fable surrounding him as to prove how little we can trust their statements. Some object to his being classed with the leaders of heresy, on the ground that he was not a Christian. He certainly was 'baptized', as he is said to have 'believed', and thus had a better title (as far as profession goes) than his Samaritan master Dositheus, who is said to have been a disciple of John the Baptist, but eclipsed in his leadership subsequently by Simon. Even Justin Martyr who had the double advantage of being a native of Flavia Neapolis which arose out of the ruins of Sychar, and of being born not a century after, seems to have fallen into the blunder of confounding the Sabine deity, Semo Sancus (who had a statue erected to his honour), with Simon Magus. Dr. E. Burton in a note to his Bampton Lectures (Oxford, 1829) endeavours to show the impossibility of such a mistake on the part of Justin, and has put together from various learned men what can be said in favour of Simon's deification at Rome. If it were so, it is of small consequence. The alleged contests between him and the apostle Peter whether at Caesarea or at Rome, are too absurd to notice, being evidently legends grafted on the inspired history by the unhallowed hands of men whose mind and conscience were alike defiled. Destitute of the truth they betook themselves to marvels of the imagination, which after all rather detract from the solemn effect of sacred history, and add nothing to the dignity of the apostle's exposure, or to the blind self-condemnatory turpitude of the unhappy man himself.

Whatever the mischievous result of Simon's sorcery and falsehoods leading to his own blasphemous pretensions — and we are here told of his misleading all around small and great (for what avail rank or education to guard from error?) — all vanished like smoke before the light of the gospel. 'The kingdom of God' and 'the name of Jesus' annihilated the vain jugglery and impious frauds of the Samaritan.

But it is instructive to notice that there is a difference in the language of verse 12 as compared with 13, and a difference in favour of the men and women in the former as against the latter. They are said simply to have believed the testimony and to have been baptized; the same is said of Simon with the important addition that he attended closely to Philip, and while beholding the signs and great works of power as they were done, was amazed. This was what transported him, not the love of God, not the truth of Christ, nor the grace of the gospel even to such a guilty deceitful wretch as himself, but the wondrous power which wrought before his eyes. Its overwhelming reality struck none so deeply as Simon. Others had their eyes drawn to the kingdom and its holy glories; others in spirit fell down and clasped the feet of their unseen Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, lost in wonder, love, and praise. Simon was in ecstasies, beholding the signs and great deeds of power, the character of which was discerned by none more clearly than himself. He yielded to evidence and believed what approved itself to his mind irrefragably. Not a word implies self-judgment before God, not a word of any gracious action on his heart. Conscience was not ploughed up; nor did the affections flow under the sense of God's immeasurable grace in Christ to save trim from his sins. On the other hand, it is not said of the men and women in the verses before that they were 'amazed', as Simon was in his close attendance on Philip, not to hear the truth more fully and grow in grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, but 'beholding the signs and great deeds of power as they came to pass.'

The Spirit of God thus lays bare to us in this description, it seems to me, the merely natural source of Simon's faith as distinguished from others. And such is all faith that is founded on 'evidences', which the mind judges and accepts accordingly. It may not be in the least insincere, and those who so believe may be the readiest to do battle, if it seem necessary, for their creed. But there is no life, as there is no repentance, no link with Christ formed by the Holy Spirit through the reception of the word, because it is God's word, discovering God to the guilty conscience and delivering withal through Christ dead and risen.

Still Simon may have fully credited himself with honest conviction of the truth; and, in the warmth and haste of so mighty a work in so short a time, not even Philip saw reason to question his confession. In fact, where it is the mind without conscience, progress is much more rapid, and all outwardly looks promising for a little where a soul thus easily passes into the ranks of Christ. We have not long to wait for the circumstances which betrayed unmistakably the unrenewed condition of Simon's soul, delivered the saints from what had else been a constant incubus, and gave himself the most solemn warning that his heart was not right with God.

The tidings of God's gracious work in Samaria could not but make a powerful impression on all saints; and of these none would estimate its importance so deeply as the personal companions and most honoured servants of the Lord in Jerusalem. His will and glory, as well as love to the objects of His grace that they might be blessed more abundantly, drew their hearts to the spot where God had wrought so manifestly. Indeed the Lord risen (Acts 1: 8) had specially named Samaria as a scene of future testimony for the disciples. What a contrast with Jews having no intercourse with Samaritans!

'Now when the apostles that were in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, the which on coming down, prayed for them that they might receive [the] Holy Spirit; for as yet He had fallen upon none of them: only they had got baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit' (vers. 14-17).

Some important principles of truth, too often overlooked, are illustrated here.

The independency of congregationalism is shown to be as far as possible from the will of God. There was no holding aloof on the part of the chiefs in Jerusalem, though we hear of no request for their intervention on the part of the Samaritans. The apostles felt as members of the one body of Christ for the fresh objects of divine grace; and yet the chosen future exponent of that great mystery was still in his sins and unbelief.

Nor was there the smallest jealousy in Philip, because other servants of Christ came whose place in the assembly was so much higher than his own. Love, the 'way of surpassing excellence', as yet prevailed; and as the members generally had the same care one for another, in none did this appear so conspicuously as in those whom God set in the church first: for Christ's sake and according to His word they were in the midst of them serving as bondmen. Nothing was farther from the heart of the chiefs who ruled, than on the one hand to be called Rabbi, Father, and Master, or on the other to affect the lordly style of either patronizing or despising the Gentiles. It was on all sides the power of the life of Christ.

Again, it will be noticed that the apostles sent two of their number, not James (son of Alphaeus) and Thaddaeus, nor Simon Zelotes and Matthias but their unquestionably choicest pair, Peter and John. Can any believer be so dull as to conceive that this had no far-reaching purpose in the mind of Him Who dwells in the assembly and knows the end from the beginning and would give the sure light of His word to such as look to Him for guidance? Not even Satan, I am bold to think, yet indulged in the dream of an exclusive1 chair for Peter's direction of the church as a whole; still less of a present throne in command of the 'powers that be' with a triple crown of pretensions over heaven, earth and hell. On the contrary, without a thought of these vanities of ecclesiastical ambition and most profane assumption, the apostles in love and wisdom send, to those that had received the word of God in Samaria, Peter and John. Who better qualified, were it needed, to judge and report truly? Who could be the bearer of better blessings from on high? or who in fine be more jealous for the glory of the 'one Shepherd', in dealing with these 'other sheep', which were not of the Jewish 'fold'?

1 The bare structure of the phrase in the Text. Rec. of the Greek, one article for Peter and John, joins both in a common position here. But the great uncials do not favour its insertion.

And what could more become servants of Christ when they did come down? They 'prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit'. God had hitherto withheld this, the great and characteristic privilege of the Christian. But the apostles in Jerusalem were in the current of His will and ways. And Peter and John on the spot perceived the lack and spread it out before God, not out of doubtful mind, but reckoning on His faithfulness to make good the promise of the Spirit. Even at Pentecost Peter was led to look beyond the Jews and their children to all that were afar off, as many as the Lord their God might call to Him (Acts. 2: 39). 'For as yet He was fallen upon none of them; only they had got baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus.'

So plainly then is the situation laid before us that doubt is inexcusable. On the one hand these Samaritans believed the word, as they were also thereon baptized; on the other hand not one of them had as yet been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Jewish saints had at once received on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Yet from the days of the so-called Fathers down to the Reformers, and hence till our own day, not merely the superstitious but men beyond most for godliness, ability, and learning, as to this seem at sea, as if they had no chart. It is indeed one of those deep blanks in traditional theology (Catholic or Protestant, Arminian or Calvinist, being here almost equally at fault), which involves incalculable loss practically as well as in spiritual intelligence, and is nowhere more felt than in the worship of God. The soul's entrance into the truth has commensurate blessing in its train, as those know who have made the transition from ignorance of this truth into the enjoyment of it.

Thus Chrysostom (Cramer's Cat. Pat., iii. 136) and OEcumenius speak of the Samaritan converts receiving the Spirit for remission, but not for signs: a manifest departure from scripture which never designates the first gospel work of the Spirit in the soul as 'the gift of the Spirit', nor consequently as a question of 'reception' (comp. Acts 2: 38; Acts 19: 2).

But leaving the Fathers, one must content the reader with J. Calvin's remarks as well as Dr. J. Lightfoot's as a sufficient sample. The former are purposely cited from Beveridge's edition of the early English version given in the series of the Calvin Translation Society (Acts i. 338-339) 'But here ariseth a question, for he saith that they were only baptized into the name of Christ, and that therefore they had not as yet received the Holy Ghost; but baptism must either be in vain and without grace, or else it must have all the force which it hath from the Holy Ghost. In baptism we are washed from our sins; Paul teacheth that our washing is the work of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3: 5). The water used in baptism is a sign of the blood of Christ; but Peter saith that it is the Spirit by Whom we are washed with the blood of Christ (1 Peter 1: 2). Our old man is crucified in baptism that we may be raised up in newness of life (Rom. 6: 6); and whence cometh all this save only from the sanctification of the Spirit' And finally what shall remain in baptism if it be separate from the Spirit (Gal. 3: 27)? Therefore we must not deny but that the Samaritans, who had put on Christ indeed in baptism, had also His Spirit given them (!) And surely Luke speaketh not in this place of the common grace of the Spirit whereby God doth regenerate us that we may be His children, but of these singular gifts wherewith God would have certain endued at the beginning of the gospel to beautify Christ's kingdom. Thus must the words of John be understood, that the disciples had not the Spirit given them as yet, forasmuch as Christ was yet conversant in the world; not that they were altogether destitute of the Spirit, seeing that they had from the same both faith and a godly desire to follow Christ; but because they were not furnished with these excellent gifts wherein appeared afterwards greater glory of Christ's kingdom. To conclude, forasmuch as the Samaritans were already endued with the Spirit of adoption, the excellent graces of the Spirit are heaped upon them, in which God showed to His church, for a time as it were, the visible presence of His Spirit, that He might establish for ever the authority of His gospel, and also testify that His Spirit shall be always the governor and director of the faithful.'

This is enough to show where pious and enlightened men are in general as to the truth of the Spirit and indeed of redemption also. They are not aware that the gift (δωρέα) of the Spirit, whilst over and above that communication of life which is common to all saints in Old and New Testament days, is at the same time quite distinct from the gifts (χαρίσματα) and more especially from powers and tongues, the sign-gifts which the Spirit distributed in honour of the risen Lord Jesus when inaugurating that new thing, the church, the body of Christ, here below. Nor is Christian baptism a sign of life, but rather of sins washed away and of death to sin with Christ. That is, it is a sign of salvation, the demand before God of a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the present clearance of a Christian, and not merely what the heir had in his nonage under law. Then was a perfectly sure promise, now there is full accomplishment for the soul (1 Peter 1: 9) which baptism expresses as a figure. But this is quite distinct from the Spirit, given to the believer as the seal of redemption and earnest of the inheritance; and this distinction in particular the great French Reformer ignored, as people do to this day. Hence in his great anxiety to guard against sacramentalism (though even here his language is unsafe and has been used for evil by the men of that school), he lowers the reception of the Spirit to transient displays of energy and thus involves himself in hopeless antagonism to scripture. The words of John 14-16 go far beyond miracles, healings, or kinds of tongues. They are to be understood of the far different presence of the Paraclete Himself, Who was to dwell with the disciples and be in them; and this is not for 'a time as it were', but to abide for ever.

The Samaritan believers were saints then, and children of God, but not yet endued with the Spirit, any more than the Old Testament saints who, though born of the Spirit, never received that great gift, which was not and could not be till redemption, when God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into hearts already renewed, crying, Abba, Father. No doubt sensible gifts then and for a while accompanied the Spirit's presence thus vouchsafed, but we err greatly if we either confound the gift with the gifts, or deny the new and abiding privilege with what all saints had before redemp

A brief extract from what our learned Dr. Lightfoot says (Works viii. 125-128, Pitman's edition) will suffice. 'The Holy Ghost thus given meaneth not His ordinary work of sanctification, and confirming grace; but His extraordinary gift of tongues, prophesying, and the like. And this is evident, by the meaning of that phrase, "the Holy Ghost", in the scriptures when it denoteth not exactly the person of the Holy Ghost or the third person in the Trinity.' Here again we have the same confusion of God's new and distinctive endowment of the church, the ever-abiding gift of the Holy Ghost, with the gifts, some of which took a visible form and others not It is admitted that what is called 'sanctification of the Spirit' (1 Peter 1: 2) is different and previous; as it is that vital work of separating a soul to God which takes place in conversion or quickening, and therefore has always been and always must be, as long as God in His grace calls sinners to Himself from among men. This typically is what answered to the washing of the unclean in the Levitical figure; then followed the application of the blood of sacrifice; and lastly the anointing oil, which only is what the New Testament designates the reception of the Spirit, wholly distinct from the new birth (which answers to the water), the blood intermediately being the token of being brought under redemption. The gifts, however important in their place, were quite subordinate, and might be some of them but temporary, though all, of course, were in full force when the Spirit was given at Pentecost.

Are Christians then grown wiser in our day? Let Dean Alford bear witness (The Greek Test., fifth edit. ii. 88, 89), who, like the rest, takes advantage of the accompanying gifts, which might be seen, to ignore the incomparably more momentous unseen gift of the Holy Ghost. Further, he cites the very remarks of Calvin, as 'too important to be omitted', which we have seen to be a heap of confusion that might with justice be exposed more trenchantly still were this the task in hand. They all agree in the great error of reducing the gift of the Holy Spirit to the outward 'miraculous gifts', instead of seeing along with these the unprecedented and transcendent privilege of Himself given to be the portion of the saints for ever. It is the more inconsistent (and error is apt to be inconsistent) in Dean Alford, inasmuch as he owns in his note on John 16: 7, 'that the gift of the Spirit at and since Pentecost was and is something TOTALLY DISTINCT from anything before that time: a new and loftier dispensation'. His own emphasis is given as he puts it.

One of these objections is that the imposition of hands preceded that gift here as well as in Acts 19, where the apostle Paul laid his hands for a like purpose and with a like result on the twelve disciples at Ephesus. But why should this offend them? They may not like the ritualistic effort to base confirmation on a scripture which gives no real countenance to that ceremony; they may feel grieved at or ashamed of a mere form without power, they may justly censure R. Nelson (or any citing him) for untruly referring to Calvin as if he thought confirmation was instituted by the apostles. For in fact in the Institutes (iv. ch. 19: 76) he disproves the very thought attributed to him. But to deny that it was the Holy Spirit Himself that was communicated at Samaria and Ephesus by imposition of apostolic hands is to fly in the face of God's word; to construe it into the gifts, and not the gift, of the Spirit, is to prepare the way for the most withering unbelief and the loss of the spring of all true power. For what is the church without the personal presence of the Holy Ghost? and what is the Christian without His indwelling? That which baptizes into unity does not exist otherwise, there is no power adequate to constitute the believer a member of Christ; for both depend on the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let it be observed that the two main occasions of that gift were to the Jewish believers (Acts 2: 4) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10: 44), on neither of which is there a word expressed or implied about Laying on of hands. Indeed one has only to weigh both accounts (Pentecost being, of course, the fullest and chief) to gather that there could be nothing of the sort on either day. The peculiar cases of Samaria and Ephesus, which some would unintelligently erect into a rule to supersede those more general, were but ancillary as events, though the blessing conferred was of course, as far as it went the same For on each of these where the laying on of hands occurred, the principle was, it would seem, to guard against rivalry, to bind the work of God together, and to put the most solemn sign of divine honour, first on the Jewish apostles, and next on the apostle to the uncircumcision. This was of moment to mark, but we do not find it repeated, save for special reasons and with other features, on Timothy personally (1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 6). But God had taken care at an early day to anticipate and cut off possible misuse by employing a disciple, not the apostle, in the very conspicuous instance of the great apostle himself (Acts 9: 17), as if to break beyond dispute all thought of a successional chain.

It may be well also to say that the effort to make the anarthrous form mean no more than a special gift or particular operation of the Holy Spirit is not borne out by scriptural usage. For we find πνεῦμα ἅγιον employed with and without the article, so as to demonstrate that this expression in no way excludes His blessed personality, but only falls under the usual principles of the language. Where it is intended to present Him as a distinct object before the mind, the article appears, where it only characterizes, the phrase is, as ever, anarthrous. Here, to go no farther, we have πνεῦμα ἄγιον in verses 15, 17; but in 18 to; pneu'ma. Were it merely previous mention, we should have had the article in 17 as well as 18. The true solution, however, is not here contextual, but the intention is not to present objectively. Where this is not so, the accusative of a transitive verb is regularly without the article, as being only the complement of the notion expressed by the verb, where it is sought to present the governed word as an object before the mind, the article is added. The usage therefore is thoroughly exact. So in Acts 19: 2 we have twice πνευμα ἅγιον without the article, but in verse 6 the article in its emphatic duplication; where in seems vain to contend that the Holy Spirit is not meant in all these cases. Is there then not a difference? Unquestionably; but the difference lies, not in the contrast of a special gift with His general influence, as men say, or even with His person, but in the questioned character of what was received in the one case with the definite object before the mind in the other, most suitably accompanying such a phrase as 'came' upon the men described.

This is the true key to Acts 1: 2, 5, not the mere circumstance of the preposition (strangely supposed by some to be exceptional) which serves to define, as the phrase in verse 8 brings the Spirit into an objective point of view. But it is the self-same Spirit in each case; and could a mistake be greater than to allow that Christ only gave injunctions by a particular gift, and that the disciples enjoyed Him in all His fullness? Compare also Acts 10: 38 with 44. So, on the eventful day when the promise of the Father was fulfilled, we find in Acts 2: 4 the Spirit both without and with the article, and there according to the principle enunciated: when used to characterize what filled all, it is designedly anarthrous, when the phrase presents a distinctively objective cast of thought, the article is as correctly inserted. The presence or the absence of the article leaves the Holy Spirit untouched and only affects the aspect meant — person or power. Compare verses 17, 18, 33, 38, Acts 4: 8, 31 (a very remarkable expression in the text of the oldest codices); Acts 5: 3; Acts 6: 5; Acts 7: 55; Acts 8: 29, 39; Acts 9: 17, 31; Acts 10: 38, 44, 45, 47; Acts 11: 15, 16, 24, 28; Acts 13: 2, 4, 9, 52; Acts 15: 28; Acts 16: 6, 7. The Epistles would only add and confirm by further instances.

Thus were the Samaritans sealed of the Holy Spirit and made members of Christ in full possession of the church's privileges, no less than the saints at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

The sight of the blessing brought out the true condition of Simon. He was amazed, before the two apostles entered the scene, as he beheld the signs and great deeds of power wrought by Philip. Now that others from among the Samaritans received like power, Satan prompted his unrenewed mind to evil.

'Now Simon, when he saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, offered them money, saying, Give me also this power that, on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive [the] Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou thoughtest to obtain the gift of God through money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right before God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and beseech the Lord if so be the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee, for I see that thou art in gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. And Simon said in answer, Beseech ye for me with the Lord that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me' (vers. 18-24).

Undoubtedly there was somewhat to be 'seen' but this does not hinder the truth that the Spirit was being given inwardly, and not merely 'gifts', still less only what men call the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. They, however, point to the fact that this was through the imposition of the hands of the apostles. But why should not God give the Spirit thus if He pleased? It is for Him to judge His own best methods; and God, Who gave the Spirit at Pentecost without the laying on of hands, was pleased now to honour the apostles as the channel. It is a question of His wisdom as well as sovereignty. For mere bishops to imitate the form without the power is without any basis of truth, and is real presumption. Simon saw, in fact, a means of self-exaltation, perhaps also of gain. Certainly he offered them money, saying, 'Give me also this power that, on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.' What an insult to God! What is bought with money may naturally be sold for money. But this divine gift, was it to be a matter of traffic among men?

It is a mistake to suppose that Simon wanted the gift for himself. He wished to buy the power of conferring the Holy Spirit upon others. It is very possible, however, that he may not have received the outward gift even for himself, assuredly he was not sealed of the Holy Ghost, which, as we have seen, implies the new birth previously. And Simon manifests not a thought or feeling in communion with God. He was just a natural man, and a man even debased by all his former ways and character, especially those which profanely abused the name of God. The truth he had heard could never have judged his conscience or reached his heart. It was rather stupefaction in presence of transcendent power, and the keen desire to appropriate this power to his own selfish purposes. He judged, as man habitually does, from himself; not, as the believer does, from God. As money is the great means among men, he supposed it must be so with the apostles. Christ was nothing in his eyes; the power that eclipsed his own was desirable to obtain at any price. This was all that he conceived of the Holy Spirit; and it proved in the most conclusive manner where his own soul was.

Simon's offer filled Peter with indignation, who said to him, 'Thy money perish with thee, because thou thoughtest to obtain the gift of God with money.' Christ alone is the procuring cause, and those alone who rest on His blood by faith receive it. The word of Simon betrayed his ruin. He was, as yet, a lost man. There was no real faith, and consequently no salvation in his case. Baptism is an admirable sign where there is life and faith, without these, it is a most solemn aggravation of man's natural guilt and ruin. It is to perish with a Saviour in sight, with sin and God's judgment slighted as well as the Saviour. Simon had no share nor lot in this matter, for his heart was not right before God. This does not mean, in my judgment, a lack of share or lot in the sign-gifts but in the Saviour: the gospel was nothing to him. Had the word of truth reached him, his heart would have been purified by faith, for the grace of God is adequate to save the vilest. But no heart visited by grace could have thought of offering money in order to obtain the power of giving the Holy Spirit. Simon was self-convicted of total strangership to God and His grace. The heart of man, though a baptized man, was as perverse as ever, and had broken out into a more daring sin than was possible before. Outward nearness to grace is of all things the most fatal to him who is not subject to the truth of God.

Yet, as he had taken the place of professing the name of the Lord, Peter calls on him to 'repent'. Repentance is the clear duty and imperative call of God for a sinful man. It was always an obligation since the fall; but the gospel, as it sheds a brighter light upon man's need, so furnishes the mightiest motives to act upon the heart. 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.' The highest of duties, then, is to own and honour the Son of God, confessing one's own sins, which brought Him, in divine love, to the cross. On the other hand, he that believes in the Son has everlasting life; whilst he that disobeys the Son, not subject to Him now fully revealed, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Hence the apostle adds, 'Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and beseech the Lord if so be the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee, for I see that thou art in gall of bitterness and in bond of iniquity.' That there is grace in God and efficacy in the blood of Christ to meet any wickedness of man is certain. Peter would have never thus exhorted him had pardon been an impossibility. But the answer of Simon clearly shows that, though alarmed for the moment, there was no sense in his soul of his shameless sin against God and especially against the Holy Spirit; no real reckoning upon grace in God, according to the revelation of Himself in the death of His Son. Peter did not say, 'Beseech' God, but 'the Lord', for in Him and by Him only can God deliver a guilty soul; and now that He has sent His Son, the only sure and adequate way of honouring the Father is in honouring the Son. 'He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.' Confessing the Father only, not the Son, neither saves the sinner nor glorifies God. So here Peter calls on him to beseech the Lord, Who is 'the way and the truth, and the life'. But there was no faith any more than repentance in Simon, who said in answer, 'Beseech ye (it is emphatic) for me with the Lord, that none of the things which ye have spoken come upon me.'

There was confidence, if we can so say, in the channels of power. He who had no faith in Christ confesses his faith in Peter; as millions since have done in saints, angels, or the virgin Mary. This, however, is not really faith but credulity and superstition; for it has no ground, either in the nature of the persons, or in the word of God. Faith in the Lord Jesus has alone a divine resting-place, for God sent Him, His only-begotten Son, into the world that we might live through Him — through none other but Him. 'Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins.' To all this truly divine and infinite salvation Simon was insensible. But he saw in Peter an instrument of power, without faith in the word he and Philip had preached; and so he entreats the apostles to pray to the Lord for him so that none of the things spoken might befall him. It was future consequences he dreaded, not his present state of ruin and guilt that he felt. Thenceforward, according to scripture, he disappears from our sight; and none could wonder if the worst evil came on the impenitent man. But the reticence of Luke did not suit the ecclesiastical historians who to their own shame detail for their readers accounts which bear the stamp of fable in honour of Peter. And where is the Lord in all this? Wounded, we may say, as so often, in the house of His friends.

But we have a brief word added as to the two apostles. 'They therefore, when they had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, returned1 to Jerusalem and evangelized1 many villages of the Samaritans' (ver. 25). It was not a mere transient act, as the common text has it, but a continuous work. Their hearts were toward the Lord, Who had created in them a right and fervent spirit, and needed no entreaty to spread amongst small and great the glad tidings of His redemption. The villages of the Samaritans, and many of them, were not beneath the detailed and repeated labours of the apostles.

1 The most ancient and best copies present here the imperfect, not the mere historical tense or aorist, as in the Text. Rec. following the inferior authorities.

We have next the history of Philip's evangelistic service resumed, and full of interest and instruction it is.

'But an angel of [the] Lord spake to Philip, saying, Arise, go southward unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza; this is desert. And he arose and went. And behold a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch in power under Candace, queen of [the] Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure,1 had come to worship at Jerusalem; and he was returning and, as he sat in his chariot,1 was reading the prophet Isaiah. And the Spirit said to Philip, Approach and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip running up heard him reading the prophet Isaiah,1 and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I unless some one shall guide1 me? And he besought Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this —

1 Ap.m. Cp.m. Dp.m. followed by the Vulg. and the Sah. omit ὅς (27) though almost all others seem to insert it. It is one of those readings which affect the sense infinitesimally, yet as to which much might be argued on either side. So with other variations in vers. 28, 30, 31, 33, where the numeral is put.

As a sheep He was led to slaughter;

And as a lamb dumb before his shearer,

So He openeth not His mouth.

In His1 humiliation His judgment was taken away.

His1 generation who shall declare?

For His life was taken away from the earth.

'And the eunuch answering Philip said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself or of some other (ἑτέρου)? And Philip opened his mouth, and, beginning from this scripture, preached to him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, Behold water: what hindereth me to be baptized?2 And he commanded the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. But when they came up out of the water, [the] Spirit of [the] Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus, and passing through he evangelized all the cities till he came unto Caesarea' (vers. 26-40).

2 The great authorities ABCHLP, with more than eighty cursives, the most ancient Latin copies, Pesh-Syr. Sah. Memph., excepting Laud's MS. 35, do not read ver. 37, which seems from internal evidence also to be spurious. For 'the Son of God' would have been a wonderful step in advance, as we see really in Saul, Acts 9: 20, but here as decidedly out of keeping with the Ethiopian's ignorance, as with the development of the history. It was an early interpolation; and we need not wonder that those capable of the deed failed in spiritual apprehension of the truth, and overshot the mark.

A fresh step is taken by Philip. Jehovah's angel directs him; for there were two roads, and an evangelist would not have chosen the one that was a desert.3 But the object of God's grace was travelling by this one; and an angel is employed as ever in God's providence, here objectively that we might not forget the truth or take account only of thoughts and feelings. 'Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for service on account of those that inherit salvation?' The ready servant of God's will, Philip leaves the rejoicing multitude to whom he had been blessed in Samaria, and goes promptly, though he only knows the seemingly strange direction of his journey, not as yet its aim. It was a proselyte returning from Jerusalem, unsatisfied but wistful and groping his way in the prophetic word. The blessing is not now in the city of solemnities, the Blesser had been driven away. Samaria is rejoicing in the Saviour of the world. The Ethiopian is soon to stretch out his hands to God, not in prayer only but in praise and conscious blessedness, though Ethiopia must wait till He comes Who is already ascended on high and has led captivity captive. But here it is not an angel but 'the Spirit' that said to Philip, Approach and join thyself to this chariot. Angels have to do with circumstances, the Spirit leads as to souls. So we saw in Acts 5; and so we may see yet more clearly in comparing Acts 12 with Acts 13. The reality is as true now as ever, though it was then manifested and is written in God's word that we be not faithless but believing.

3 All can see that the reference may be to Gaza, rather than to one of two roads which is designated 'desert'. And Strabo is cited in confirmation of the former thought, which seems to have been the opinion of the A.V. if not of the Revisers though both might be understood of the way as easily as of the town. Not so Mr. T. S. Green, who renders the clause, 'This road is a lone one'.

With alacrity the evangelist answers to the Spirit's call, and runs to Candace's treasurer as he sat in the chariot reading Isaiah, and puts the searching question, Understandest thou what thou readest? Alas! it was then as now in Christendom. The vision of Him Who came to make God known, otherwise unknowable, is handed about from learned to unlearned, as if the divine solution of all riddles were itself the one insoluble riddle. The learned man, when asked to read, says, I cannot; for it is sealed, and on the same appeal the unlearned excuses himself, I am not learned. Faith alone can understand: so it is, and so it ought to be. So it was now that grace took up the returning stranger; for the passage was Isa. 53: 7, 8; and when the answer betrayed his sheer ignorance of the gospel, Philip let him hear the glad tidings of Jesus.

It was not without God that the then passage of Isaiah set out the holy suffering Messiah. Other parts of this very strain, both before and after bear witness to His exaltation; but here it is sufferings simply — the main difficulty to a Jew, who thought exclusively of His glorious kingdom. Hence the propriety of the name of 'Jesus' in Philip's application of the prophecy (ver. 35): the more striking because the inspiring Spirit had said (ver. 5) that Philip proclaimed 'the Christ' or Messiah to the Samaritans. Ignorance, learned or unlearned, slights these distinctions, censures those who point them out as refining on scripture, and thus really loses the force of the truth. For God hath not written one word in vain; and spiritual intelligence gleans its sweetest fruit in that too neglected field. The Samaritans needed to hear that the Christ was come: the Ethiopian, to know that the despised and suffering Jesus was beyond doubt the Messiah, whom the prophet introduced with a trumpet note as lofty in Isa. 52: 13, as that which closed the passage in Isa. 53: 12. Everywhere are bound together His sufferings and His glories after these, but nowhere more than here do we find His meek submission to the wanton cruelty of His guilty people. Now 'Jesus' was the right word for this, for on the one hand it expresses what He became in manhood so as to be the object of contempt to rebellious creatures, and on the other it tells out His intrinsic glory Who for us stooped so low. He was Jehovah the Saviour.

The difference in the language from the Old Testament in our hands is due to the Septuagint, or Greek Version then in common use, and especially among the Egyptians and others. The sense remains substantially the same. But we are not to infer that Philip confined himself to this scripture: that he 'began' from it more justly implies and warrants that he did not end there but expounded others also. But this was of extreme importance to one in the state of soul which the whole preceding account gives us to see in the treasurer, and it was blessed to the letting in of a flood of divine light into his heart.

Yet the scripture which detected the darkness of the Ethiopian's mind before Philip sounded the glad tidings of Jesus in his ears that he by faith might ever after be a child of light in the Lord, has fared ill, not merely at the hands of the Fathers of old, but hardly less with Calvin and the like in Reformation times and since. For the great French commentator (to dwell on no others) will have these verses to teach that our Lord was so broken that He appears like a man dejected beyond hope, as is evident, but also that He comes out of the depth of death as a conqueror, and out of hell itself as the author of eternal life.

But to draw this last sense from the words cited in verse 33 (or from the original in Isa. 53: 8) is quite unfounded. The prophet is as far as possible from here saying that Christ should be lifted up from His great straits by the hand of the Father. This is in no way taught by His judgment being taken away. The new beginning of unlooked-for glory is found elsewhere, but not here. Nor does the exclamation of the prophet in the following clause ('His generation who shall declare?') import that His victory shall go beyond all number of years, instead of lasting only a little. Sundry old interpreters were not justified in proving hereby the eternal generation of the Word, any more than others who understood it of His miraculous Incarnation. But no perversion seems worse than the deduction from such words as these that Christ's life shall endure for ever, for the entire passage refers exclusively to His humiliation.

The first clause of v. 33 appears to express the mockery of all righteousness in His judgment, the second, the unspeakable wickedness of that generation, the third, the violent end of His life on earth to which He bowed, which is its proof. Were it a question of Phil. 2: 6-11, or of the whole section (52: 13 - 53), and not of these two verses only, Calvin would have been right as now he is demonstrably wrong. And this is confirmed by the Hebrew, which here no more admits of a thought of exaltation than does the Greek. The suffering Messiah is seen only in Jesus, at all cost to Himself the Saviour of the sinful man who believes in Him, let His own people gainsay as they may the blessed report of the faithful

Baptism follows the hearing of faith. And thus, when they come upon a certain water, the stranger asks what hinders his being baptized, and has the privilege conferred on the spot. So Peter asked, in Cornelius' house, if any one could forbid it, when the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit, even as the believing Jews before them. For the outer mark, worse than worthless without the heart's subjection to the Lord and His grace, has its importance in ways neither few nor small; as the loss of the truth represented is as manifest in those that despise, as in those that idolize it. They fail to see that life is never attributed to baptism, but salvation is set forth in it, the washing away of sins, and death to sin, the blessed portion to which the gospel bears witness in Christ dead and risen for the believer.

Life the Old Testament saints had, when there was no such thing as Christian baptism. Abel and Abram had it, no less than the Christian; but the Christian by virtue of Christ's accomplished work has soul-salvation, as he waits for his body to be saved and changed at Christ's coming. Of this salvation meanwhile, which no Old Testament saint could have, baptism is the sign, to which therefore the believer now submits, as a confession not only that Jesus is Lord, but of deliverance through His death and resurrection. Those who make all subjective, like the Friends, or who make all objective like the Catholics, suffer the consequence of their errors. Neither one nor other owns dogmatically the true present privilege of the Christian as in Christ delivered from all condemnation, freed from the law of sin and death, perfected for ever by the one offering of Christ. This truth to the Quaker and the Papist is dangerous doctrine, both holding, though on different grounds, that whoever is justified is sanctified, and that, as far as he is sanctified, he is so far justified, and no further. Both therefore slight the word of God, and preaching, and faith; as both are wholly ignorant of the gift of the Spirit sealing the believer to the day of redemption, the one crying up ordinances and priesthood to the glorification of the church, the other resting for all on what he calls the inward light, which he contends is given to every man, Jew or heathen, Mahommedan or Christian, whose destiny for ever turns on the use he makes of it. Neither allows eternal life in Christ to faith; neither sees founded on Christ's work, that quittance of our old state as children of Adam, and entrance into the new state of the Second Man, of which baptism is not the channel but the emblem. Hence they ignore, if they do not falsify even in quotation, such scriptures as Col. 1: 12, 13. They are striving to be made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; they are hoping to be translated into the kingdom of the Son of His love. Had they read baptism aright, they would be rejoicing in the sense of a present and everlasting deliverance to the praise of Him in Whom they believe.

If true, they are certainly feeble, believers. With the Ethiopian all was simple and assured. For they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him (ver. 38). There was no thought of going before the assembly in Samaria. Baptism is individual, no matter how many souls might be baptized. The church has nothing to do with it. The Lord directed His servants (not the church as such) to baptize; and for this they are responsible to Him, as they are for the preaching of the word. The church does not baptize, any more than preach and teach; the evangelist does, though he may ask another to do it for him, as Peter when he directed Cornelius and the rest to be baptized in the name of the Lord on a later day.

'And when they came up out of the water, [the] Spirit of [the] Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus, and passing through he evangelized all the cities till he came to Caesarea' (vers. 39, 40). The miracle only established the new convert's faith, as doubtless it was wrought of God to do; for there is not a hint that Philip wished it, still less sought it in prayer. It was God for the honour of His Son in virtue of that Spirit's power which was working on earth; but surely not without a wise and gracious intent for the witness of it (and he was not alone) returning to his native land with the gospel of salvation. Abyssinia was thus to have the glad tidings of God concerning His Son; as Philip transported to Azotus (or Ashdod) abides the same simple-hearted indefatigable preacher of divine grace (ver. 40). For passing through he was evangelizing all the cities till he came to Caesarea. It is there the inspired history shows him to have lived, and his four daughters, long afterwards (Acts 21: 8).

Acts 9

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus follows in beautiful development of the ways of God. For on the one hand his murderous unflagging zeal against the Lord Jesus and His saints made him (arrested by sovereign grace and heavenly glory, in the person of Christ shining into his heart from on high) to be so much the more conspicuous witness of the gospel; on the other hand his call immediately thereon to go as His apostle to the Gentiles was a new and distinct departure of ministry to the praise of divine mercy. For the blood of Stephen, far from quenching the raging enthusiasm of the young zealot 'consenting to his death' had only stimulated him to dare unsparing violence against all men and women who called on the Lord's name; and now his unsatisfied zeal against 'the way' induced him to chase the fleeing scattered saints outside the land.

'But Saul, still breathing threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked of him letters unto Damascus to the synagogues; so that, if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring [them] bound unto Jerusalem. And as he was journeying, it came to pass that he drew near to Damascus, and suddenly there shone round him a light out of heaven, and faring upon the earth he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And he said, Who art Thou, Lord? And He1 [said], I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest1, but arise and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men that journeyed with him were standing speechless, hearing the sound but seeing no one. And Saul arose from the earth, and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing2; but leading by the hand they brought him into Damascus; and he was three days without seeing, and did neither eat nor drink;' (vers. 1-9).

1 The Text. Rec. on inferior authority adds first 'Lord said', then an interpolation from Acts 26 '[it is] hard for thee to kick against goads', and an exaggerated form in the first half of ver. 6 of the first clause of Acts 22: 10.

2 Or, 'no one', which is the reading of most authorities, some of them ancient and good, though Ap.m. B Vulg. Syrr. Sah., et al., give the broader sense of the neuter. It may help some to notice the objective or historical fact in this expression, as compared with the subjective state in the last clause of ver. 7 and the first of verse 9: objective again in the in latter part of 9.

Thus wonderfully was the chief persecutor called, not as saint only but as apostle also. The conversion of the dying robber was a signal display of suited though sovereign grace; that of the living pursuer of the saints to prison or death was higher far. And if Peter followed the rejected Christ from Galilee to His ascension and heavenly glory, Saul began with His call out of heaven till, himself ever afterwards a partaker of His sufferings, he finished his course in becoming conformed to His death. He was apostle, not through the living Messiah on earth, but through Him glorified after God the Father raised Him from the dead. He began his witness where Peter ended it on his part.

Saul's was an unprecedented starting-point, which gave another and heavenly character to his service. There was a complete breach with Israel after the flesh, no longer a question of the earth or earthly hopes. Man risen from among the dead and gone on high has no connection with one nation more than another. The cross broke off all possible claims of those who had the law; but therein also was laid the righteous ground for the forgiveness of all trespasses, for taking out of the way the hostile bond written in ordinances. Heavenly associations with Christ glorified were now revealed as a present fact for faith to apprehend, enjoy, and make manifest practically on earth; and of this, both individually and corporately, Saul was chosen to be a witness as none other had ever been before; and therein none followed, for the case admitted of no succession.

This was the man who, brimful of deadly hatred, desired the highest religious sanction for war unto death against all men or women that called on the Lord Jesus. Armed with the high priest's letter he approached Damascus, when suddenly light out of heaven flashed round him, and fallen to the earth he heard a voice charging him with persecuting Him Whom he could not own to be the Lord; and the astonished Saul learns to his utter confusion before God that it was Jesus, Jesus persecuted in His own, who were one with Him. Overwhelming discoveries for any soul! For the light, 'the glory of that light,' the power, the voice even to him were unmistakable altogether; and the more so, for one like Saul confidently and conscientiously embittered against His name, thinking he was doing good service if he captured or even killed His disciples: so stout certainly his will, so ardent his zeal, so unsuspecting his malice, through blinding religious prejudice.

Never was a conversion so stamped with heavenly glory (2 Cor. 4: 4) and this from the person of Christ speaking thence (Heb. 12: 25). It was emphatically the saving 'grace of God' that appeared to him, in total and manifest overthrow of the highest earthly tradition, though it was also the 'glad tidings (or gospel) of Christ's glory', as not another even of the apostles could say like himself. Hence he speaks of 'my' gospel, and when joining others of his companions, 'our' gospel. It was not as if there was any object or any saving means before the soul but the one Saviour and Lord; but so it was from heavenly character, as well as the fullness and sovereignty of grace, therein manifested beyond all.

Besides, in Christ's words, from that first revelation, lay the germ of the doctrine of the assembly as one with Himself, His body, which the apostle was called to expound and enforce by his Epistles, as by his ministerial work and life, in a way and measure that surpassed 'the twelve', however honoured in their place. And this peculiar manner, as well as heavenly development of the truth, of which the Lord makes him the pre-eminent witness, brought on him unparalleled trial and suffering, from not only without but even from within, as his own writings and others abundantly prove.

Saul was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Judaism and the world were to his soul judged and abandoned for ever by the certainty of saving grace and heavenly glory in Christ on high Who now manifestly exercised divine power and authority, and at one glance pointed out the new and only true path of patient suffering for the witness, in word and deed, of grace and truth, according to His own matchless way on earth, till He come and take us to Himself where He is. On the one hand, not only the Gentiles (Romans, Greeks, and all others) were fighting against God, but yet more keenly the chosen nation, the Jews; on the other hand, the simplest disciple now is one with Christ on the throne of God, and to persecute them is to persecute Him.

This and far more such a mind as Saul's read in the revelation outside Damascus — a revelation to go forth in due time over all the earth, and have its power only in faith and love forming a Christlike life to Christ's glory, but not without notable effects even where it was ever so hollowly professed. It may be drowned in blood or obscured with clouds of creature error and presumption, Jewish or Gentile, or worse than either when both combine to deny the Father and the Son; but none the less in its objects it will rise in heaven with ever durable and unfading glory around Christ, ere He shall be revealed from heaven with angels of His might in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those that know not God and those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in that day, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints and wondered at in all that believed, as well as to be alike the Blesser and the Blessing to all the families of the earth according to promise (2 Thess. 1: 7-10).

It will be noticed that the first effect on his believing and repentant soul was the spirit of obedience. Life was there through faith, and this as ever instantly shows its true character by obedience, which the Lord saw. It is assumed in the latter half of the Text. Rec. which forms the whole of verse 6, 'But rise up and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.' He lets us know in his own account to the Jews (Acts 22: 10) that he had said, What shall I do, Lord? This the inspired historian does not cite here, though he gives it later where it was of importance. But in any case the Lord counts on obedience, even before Saul could be supposed to appreciate dogmatically, and to rest in peace on, the sprinkling of His blood. The new nature lives in obedience, such as Christ's, in the consciousness and affections of sonship, and that blood cleanses from every sin of which the old man was guilty. Even before the new-born soul knows clearance from all guilt, the heart is made up to obey, not through fear of penalty like a Jew with death before his eyes, but attracted by sovereign goodness and submission to God's word. Obedience is the only right place and attitude of the renewed mind, in contrast with the independence of God natural to man shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. Power comes in the gift of the Holy Ghost, when the believer rests on redemption and knows all his evilness before God. But even an apostle must be told, not himself discover, what he must do.

'The men that journeyed with Saul were standing speechless, hearing the sound but beholding no one' (ver. 7). The word often means 'voice', as it is rightly translated in verse 4, where Saul clearly heard what the Lord said to him. Here his companions did not hear one word articulately, as we are distinctly told in Acts 22: 9. Yet they did hear that something was being uttered. Hence 'sound' appears to be a more accurate representation of the fact intended by the expression. And this is confirmed by a nice difference in the form of the Greek phrase; for the genitive (expressive of partition) is used where the physical effect was incomplete, the accusative where the words were sent home in power. In spiritual reception the genitive is always used; for who among men could be said to have heard in full what the voice of the Son of God imports?

On rising up Saul proved to be without power to see, blinded, we may well say, with excessive light. So they led him by the hand into Damascus (ver. 8), and for three days without seeing he did neither eat nor drink (ver. 9). A deep work thus went on in a soul capable of feeling grace and truth as profoundly as he could judge himself according to the light of God, which had exposed the vain wickedness of formalism in its best shape, and brought down the zealous missionary, armed with inquisitorial power, where Job of old was brought — to abhor self in dust and ashes.

Thus was brought to pass a conversion of the highest character and the deepest interest, pregnant with widespread results never to pass away. The miracle found its justification, not only in the moral principles of the case or in the dispensational display at that point in God's ways, but especially in the all-importance of such a heavenly revelation of His Son. Nevertheless Saul, when converted, though designated to a ministry which transcends that of every other man, enters the sphere of Christian confession by the same lowly portal as any other.

'Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I [am here], Lord. And the Lord [said] unto him, Rise up, and go to the lane that is called Straight, and seek in Judas' house one of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he prayeth and hath seen in a vision1 a man named Ananias coming in and laying his hands1 on him, so that he might receive his sight. And Ananias answered, Lord, I heard2 from many of this man, how much evil he did to Thy saints at Jerusalem, and here he hath authority from the high priests to bind all that call on Thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go, for he is a vessel of election to Me, to bear My name before both3 Gentiles and kings and sons of Israel; for I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake. And Ananias went and entered into the house; and laying his hands upon him he said, Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus that appeared to thee in the way which thou camest hath sent me, so that thou mightest receive sight and be filled with [the] Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received sight,' and rising up he was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened' (vers. 10-19).

1 ἐν ὁράματι 'in a vision', though given by most MSS. and Vv. finds no support in A61 Vulg. Sah. Memph. Aeth. There are also several changes of order in the words in these verses, and the oldest MSS. incline to the plural form of 'hands' where the Text. Rec. after most has the singular.

2 The perfect has most MSS., but the more ancient give the aorist.

3 τε 'both' ABCE, eight cursives, et al., but τῶν is wrongly added by B Cp.m.

There is much to learn from the connection of Ananias with the new convert, total strangers to each other as they had been, save that the former well knew by public rumour of the latter's fierce enmity to all who called on the name of the Lord. He was himself a devout man according to the law, of unimpeachably good report among the Israelites of Damascus (Acts 22: 12). Such was the man who had a vision of the Lord about Saul, as Saul had about Ananias: both corroborative, in the most simple and important way, of the miracle put forth on the occasion of Saul's conversion. If we see sometimes an economy of divine power, here the dullest cannot but own a striking affluence; as indeed the end in view was most worthy. For in the testimony of the fresh witness were developed the displays of grace and truth, of the gospel and of the church, of individual Christianity and of corporate blessedness, of the deepest truth for man's soul, of the fullest vindication of divine righteousness, of past wisdom in God's ways manifested, of future counsels of glory for heaven and earth and eternity to the praise of God and His Son: the grounds of all this and more were first laid out, as they had never been before and never need to be again. Who, acquainted with God's ways in His word, can wonder at the special pains taken to furnish outward vouchers of unusual fullness and of unquestionable force, so as to preclude all reasonable imputation of delusion on the one hand or of collusion on the other? The Lord has here seen to this remarkably: let us not overlook it.

Ananias had communications from the Lord (vers. 10-12), which even in vision drew out the expression of his extreme surprise. Nor can there be conceived a more exquisite unfolding of the free intercourse which grace has now opened between the heart of the Master in heaven and that of the servant on earth. Ananias on one side ventures respectfully even to the verge of remonstrance (vers. 13, 14), after being told to seek Saul at Judas' house and recover his sight; as the Lord on the other overrules a]l reluctance by the assurance not only of His own abounding grace, but of Saul's genuine repentance fitting him for the wonderful work to which he was henceforth called (vers. 15, 16). How entirely then may we not pour out our exercises of heart into His bosom, how implicitly count on His loving interest, Who has all things at His disposal, and interests Himself in our history from first to last! For His eye of love is on the praying at such a house in such a street, no less than on the vast sweep of Christian life and service from Arabia to Damascus, from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum, yea to Rome if not Spain, where His own name would be borne before both nations and kings and sons of Israel, when the many doings of Saul over the world of that day would be less than his many sufferings for Christ's name. Truly he was a vessel of election to the Lord, in labours of love most abundant, in sufferings for Christ yet more unparalleled.

1 'Forthwith' is here added in Text. Rec., but very high authority excludes the word, which is needless.

Ananias promptly obeys, goes to the house where Saul lodged, and, laying his hands on him, told out the errand on which he was sent, not only to restore Saul's sight but that he should be filled with the Spirit. The force of the message lay in this that the Lord Jesus, Who appeared to Saul in the way, now sent Ananias supernaturally to convey His blessing. How evident that God was at work, and that the Lord Jesus was the revealer of His mind and the medium of His mercy, as He is the effulgence of His glory and the expression of His subsistence; not more surely man than God, and now the Man glorified at His right hand Who searches the reins and hearts, and controlled Ananias no less than Saul! If the vanity of man in his best estate was manifest to Saul's conscience (and no man had such reason as he to know this experimentally), the grace of God in the Lord Jesus was equally evident. 'And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received sight, and rising up he was baptized, and he took food and was strengthened.' Saul submitted to baptism like any other. He was baptized by a simple disciple; and he himself subsequently taught others to lay no stress on his own baptizing anyone (1 Cor. 1: 14-17).

'I thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius (he wrote to the vain Corinthians), 'lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' The proclamation of the truth is far beyond the administration of its sign. So we shall see that Peter preached at Caesarea, but consigned to others the baptizing of Cornelius with his kinsmen and his near friends. Indeed the same thing appears here; for nothing would have been easier than to have employed an official, at least a 'deacon', if this had been desirable in God's sight, Who surely has no pleasure in breaking down His own order. A 'disciple' baptizes the great apostle of the Gentiles.

But the most striking fact in all the transaction is the gift of the Spirit through Ananias, so decidedly did the wisdom of God in Saul's case break through the ordinary method of conferring the Spirit through the hands of an apostle, if, for special reasons, hands were employed at all. Here the utmost care was taken to mark God laying all human pretensions in the dust. The employment of a disciple like Ananias lays the axe to the root of official pride; and this where the Lord was calling out the most honoured servant He ever deigned to use.

There is another remark to note of still more general importance, which the history of Saul's conversion brings into evidence. We must not confound, as popular preachers and teachers do, the reception of life and salvation. Life is always given immediately; not so salvation. Saul was quickened the moment he believed in the Lord Jesus. But this is quite distinct from what scripture calls 'salvation'; and hence we see, in the state of Saul, during the intermediate three days, a plain testimony to this important difference.

What searchings of heart!1 What deep questions were discussed in his soul during those days and nights, when he neither ate nor drank! Yet divine life was there all the while as truly as afterwards, faith too in the word of God, and in His glory Who had smitten him down and revealed Himself to him and in him. But was this peace with God? Was it rest? Was he delivered consciously from all condemnation? Salvation is found in believing the gospel which presents the work of Christ in all its fullness as God's answer to every difficulty of the conscience and heart. It is not therefore, a mere confiding in the Lord for ultimate safety, but present deliverance enjoyed by the soul. Into this Saul was now brought. It is a great mistake therefore to talk of 'salvation in a moment', 'deliverance on the spot', or any other of the stock phrases of superficial revivalism, which ignore the word of God and spring from the confusion of life with salvation. After truly looking to the person of Christ with its soul-subduing power, a deep process habitually goes on in renewed souls, who are not satisfied with 'life for a look', but face the overwhelming discovery of not only all they have done, but all they are in its evil and enmity against God and His Son. Self is thus judged in the light, and humiliation is produced, without which there can be no solid and settled peace. In the style of preaching referred to this is slurred over to the danger and injury of souls, quite as much as to the slighting of the full truth so due to Christ's glory.

1 Calvin apparently sees only terror, and makes the abstinence part of the miracle. Can one conceive a stranger absence of spiritual perception?

And therein also is seen the practical importance of distinguishing the new birth of the Spirit from the gift of the Spirit, as we have repeatedly pointed out in expounding this Book. The one goes with our believing on the Lord, when first arrested by God's word in the midst of open sins or of proud self-righteousness; the other is, when the soul (ploughed up by the word and learning its hopeless evil before God, humbled as well as troubled, yet not without hope, for Christ is believed in) finds in His all-efficacious work Who for him died and rose, that his evil is all gone, root and branch and fruit, and that he is in Christ, a child of God and joint-heir with Christ, yea, dead and risen with Him, and so freed from all that can be against him that he might live unto God.

Of this, burial with Christ is the instituted symbol to which every Christian submits; salvation is the expression of its standing privilege. Hence in his First Epistle (1 Peter 3: 21) Peter brings in the comparison with Noah's ark, and the passing through the waters of death as the way of salvation; so Christ died personally and efficaciously for our sins, as we in spirit when baptized. The apostle carefully distinguishes between the mere outward effect of the water, and points to the true power in Christ's death and resurrection, of which baptism is the figure. Expressly, however, it is a figure, not of life, but of salvation, present salvation of souls; as we await the coming of the Lord for the salvation of our bodies when we shall be like Him even outwardly, seeing Him as He is.

Calvin will have it that Ananias laid hands on Saul, partly to consecrate him to God [from the context one gathers, ministerially], partly to obtain for him the gifts of the Spirit. It would not be worth noticing in general, for both are absolutely wrong, but the errors of great and good men are proportionately dangerous. The blessed man says of himself, 'Paul, apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father Who raised Him up from among the dead' (Gal. 1: 1). Nor can we too vigilantly reject the error that confounds the gift (δωρεὰ) of the Spirit, or, we may add, the being filled with the Holy Spirit, with 'the gifts' (χαρίσματα). Nor does it appear afterwards by the narrative that Ananias was also commanded to teach him, any more than this was implied in his subsequently baptizing him. How ready even the excellent of the earth to let slip, or add to, and so spoil, the holy deposit of the truth! It would rather appear that Ananias laid hands on Saul to cure his blindness, before he was baptized; after which he was filled with the Holy Spirit, without a hint of any such act subsequent to baptism.

Thus simply is brought before us the call and conversion of the great apostle, containing within the account itself the germ of that which was to be unfolded in his Epistles and called out by the demands of the work which mostly gave occasion to the Epistles.

It may be noticed that to bear Christ's name before Gentiles has the first place, the sons of Israel being put last, with 'kings' placed between them. He was to be 'apostle of Gentiles' (Rom. 11: 13). For this, the call of the Lord from heaven was most appropriate. On earth He had sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When He sends from heaven, Israel ceases to have any such place. All mankind, before this, had joined and been lost in one common guilt. The Jews had even led the Gentiles to crucify Him. Israel's superiority after the flesh was therefore clean gone. Sovereign grace alone governs henceforth; and therefore, if any are to be prominently named, it is rather those who are most needy. Of such Saul was characteristically apostle.

'And he1 was certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately in the synagogues he preached Jesus,2 that He is the Son of God. And all that heard [him] were amazed and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of those that called on this name, and had3 come hither for this thing, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in power and confounded the3 Jews that dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ' (vers. 19-22).

1 The Text. Rec. on inferior authority adds 'Saul'.

2 It is 'Jesus' in ABCE, sixteen cursives, Vulg. Syrr. Memph, et al. One of the Aeth, has 'Jesus' only, the other 'Jesus Christ'.

3 Most copies but not the best have the perfect in ver. 21. Only p.m. B omit the article in ver. 22. Other minute differences may be left.

Hence we have a new departure of at least equal importance. From the very first Saul proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God. This gave a new and higher character to the preaching.

The other apostles knew it but are not said to have preached it. Peter had long ago confessed the great truth with singular strength, and the Lord had pronounced him thereon blessed; for flesh and blood had not revealed it to him but His Father, that is in heaven (Matt. 16: 16, 17). Yet do we never find Peter preaching or proclaiming the Lord thus at Pentecost and afterwards. He sets forth the crucified Jesus as having been made both Lord and Christ. He dwells on His death, resurrection, and ascension. He represents Him as from heaven pouring forth the Holy Ghost, having received of the Father that promised gift. The greatest prominence is given to Jesus as the now glorified Servant of the God of Israel, exalted by God's right hand as Leader and Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Peter preached Him thus fully, but only as the Messiah, Whom His people had rejected, Whom God had raised from the dead and would send from heaven in due time, to bring down all promised blessing. Beyond this he does not preach Christ, so far as the Book of Acts teaches.

Stephen went beyond this at any rate in his last discourse. 'Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God.' Anyone familiar with the Psalms and the Prophets ought to have discovered, at least by the light of the New Testament, the import of this new title. It opens out assuredly a far larger glory for the Lord than the realm of Israel. The Son of man is set over, not all mankind only, but all creation, He only being excepted (which shows its immense range) Who set all things under Him. In Psalm 8: 5 it is intimated that His humiliation unto death was the ground and way whereby the Lord passed into this glorious supremacy, and that we Christians see Him already crowned with glory and honour in consequence, though not yet do we see all things subjected to Him. Daniel 7: 13, 14 shows Him coming with the clouds of heaven in this same glory to the Ancient of days, and receiving dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve Him — an everlasting dominion withal, which shall not pass away neither shall His kingdom be destroyed, as that of all others had been. In this glory, however, before He comes to judge the quick and the dead, Stephen beholds Him through the opened heavens at the right hand of God. No doubt this was a sight miraculously vouchsafed to the proto-martyr, but what he then witnessed on high is revealed for us also to know and profit by even now in the Spirit.

Saul of Tarsus brings us an immense step beyond, for He proclaims Jesus in His proper and divine glory as the Son of God; whilst it was reserved for John, the apostle, to give his most admirable record of the Lord in this self-same way and to show how the intrinsic glory of His person superseded every object hitherto precious in the eyes of Israel, a divine glory, which could not be hid though veiled in flesh, and which manifested itself on departing by sending down from heaven the other Paraclete, though (not less than Himself) a divine person, the Spirit of truth, not only to glorify Him, but that we might have fellowship with those who most of all enjoyed His presence here below; 'and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.'

It is well to notice that Saul thus preached Jesus 'immediately' and 'in the synagogues'. Hence we may see how powerfully, and the more so because indirectly, the account of Luke confirms his own explicit statement to the Galatians (Gal. 1: 12) that he did not receive the gospel he preached from man, nor was he taught it but by revelation of Jesus Christ. How strikingly too all this, so different from what learned and pious men say or think about it, falls in with the character of his preaching so distinct from all before him: the same Jesus, but His glory viewed neither as connected with Israel, nor as conferred because of His sufferings, but higher up and divinely personal!

That he was formed in his peculiar line by Ananias is more worthy of a Corinthian than of a Reformer, though natural in those who lay exaggerated and unscriptural stress on human elements for the training of Christ's servants. God is sovereign in this as elsewhere. The Lord had His own aims in calling Saul and Luke, as in calling the differing cases of Peter and James. He can call from learning and science whether to pour contempt on human pride in such fields or to use them as He pleases; He can call from the land or sea those who have never known the schools to prove Himself superior to that which the vain world inordinately values. But Saul preached 'immediately', and 'in the synagogues'. What a testimony to conscience that he should preach Jesus, and preach Him as the Son of God!

The reader will observe that for 'Christ' in the Authorized Version after the Text. Rec. of verse 20 is here substituted 'Jesus', as it stands in the best authorities, followed by the Revised Version and by others founded on carefully collated authorities. It is not improbable that the later copies which introduced the error may have been swayed by ignorant considerations of a quasi-Christian sort, unless it were a mere slip of memory which crept in and got perpetuated among those who understood not the difficulties and wants of such Jews as were addressed. To preach to them 'the Christ' or Messiah as the Son of God would have served no adequate purpose and have met with little, if any, opposition. They would have all allowed it in terms, even if none really entered into its full import. But the momentous truth Saul affirmed was as to Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth: and that He is the Son of God. What could be graver to a Jew? To accept it as of God was to condemn the people, and especially the religious, and to find himself in the dust before the Crucified (now risen and on high) for Whom this divine title was claimed in the highest and most exclusive sense. It became the turning-point not for time only but for eternity.

The signal change in the preacher also told powerfully. 'All that heard were astonished and said, Is not this he that in Jerusalem made havoc of those that called on this name, and had come hither for this thing, that he might bring them bound before the chief priests?' Such a conversion, coupled with his actual zeal for the truth, could not but be most impressive as grace which had wrought intended it to be. 'But Saul kept growing more in power and confounding the Jews that dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.' Here 'Jesus' would be quite out of place, and the Messiah is the truth meant; for advance in truth received and learnt from God does not cast a slight on a lower level which is equally of God.

But breadth of mind in taking into consideration an immense sweep of varied truth and harmonizing all in the Lord Jesus to God's glory is one of the marked traits of His most remarkable servant. The Messiahship of Jesus must ever be a capital matter in dealing with Jews. Higher glories there are, as we have seen, of surpassing interest and importance, and none ever rose higher, in principle at least, than Saul did from his first testimony as we are told. But the lowest point of view had for its urgent and indefatigable advocate the same devoted man who was the earliest to proclaim the highest. None of Christ's servants has ever shown equal largeness of heart. We may perhaps say of him, in a deeper as well as more heavenly sphere, what God says of king Solomon to whom He gave wisdom and understanding exceeding much, so that God distinguishes him by 'largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore' (1 Kings 4: 29). The question of a Christian woman's wearing her hair long, or her head duly covered, was to him connected with and answered by the vast scope of creation, the theatre of God's purpose in Christ, which put the man and woman in their true relative place, and brought in the very angels as spectators meant to act on the spirit of such as walk by faith, not by sight (1 Cor. 11: 3-16). But who, save Saul of Tarsus, to settle a detail in conduct apparently so small, would ever have thought of such a scope in application of God's order and ways to maintain His moral glory?

The waxing powerful of Saul does not mean that he overcame his adversaries in disputation, but that the Spirit so strengthened him by the deepening of his soul in the divine word, which no doubt did bear down more and more the puny arms of such as opposed themselves. Whatever might have been his vast natural ability, whatever his providential training under Gamaliel, it was in practical dealing with souls in the synagogues or individually that the new nature in the Spirit's power found its true field of unremitting exercise.

So sudden, surprising, and profound, a conversion as that of Saul (by nature, character, attainments, and position, the most zealous of Jewish adversaries), could not but make the deepest impression on all observers especially those of the circumcision. How confirmatory to the disciples at Damascus! How impressive in the synagogues to hear him proclaim Jesus as the Son of God! How suited to confound those who denied Jesus to be the Christ! God's grace displayed in it was such as to amaze all that heard. The very opposition of the restless enemy was for the moment paralysed.

'And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews consulted together to kill him; but their plot became known to Saul. And they were watching the gates also1 day and night that they might kill him; but the2 disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.

1 The Text. Rec. has παρετήρουν τε, but the best witnesses give παρετηροῦντο δὲ καί, and so the chief modern editors.

2 The oldest copies, with ancient Latin copies, have the strange reading 'his' disciples, which appears to be as easy a slip as out of keeping with the account.

'And when he arrived at Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples, and all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took and brought him unto the apostles, and declared to them how he saw the Lord in the way and that He spoke to him, and how in Damascus he preached boldly in the name of Jesus' (vers. 23-27).

The Spirit of God appears to comprehend in the first verses the space of three years which the apostle spent in Arabia, a fact of great significance as following on his conversion and used powerfully in the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 1: 17) to prove how little man, even the twelve, had to do with it. His call was in no way from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised Him from among the dead; even as the gospel he preached was not according to man, nor yet did he receive it from man, nor was he taught it but by revelation of Jesus Christ. It was expressly meant of God to be independent of Jerusalem and the twelve but derived (call, apostolate, and gospel he preached) immediately from the prime source of grace, truth, and authority, the risen Head and God Himself. Thus was secured what was all-important, not only for the Gentile saints then and indeed thenceforward for the due intelligence of Christianity, but for our special profit now so menaced at the end of the age with the revival of the early Judaizing which opposed the full gospel at the beginning, as well as the heavenly independent character of Paul's office and testimony.

Otherwise it seemed even more extraordinary for Saul than for Moses to go to Arabia. But as there was of old divine wisdom in the long shelter there given to the future leader of Israel, so the break with the flesh was complete in the briefer sojourn of the apostle of the Gentiles, where none on earth could imagine he was winning for himself a good degree either in the humanities or in divinity. Such was God's ordering manifestly and wholly distinct from man's ways. He took no counsel with flesh and blood. He went not up to Jerusalem to those that were apostles before him, as all else would have thought most proper if not absolutely requisite. It was designedly on God's part death to the Jewish system in its best shape and to all successional order that Saul should go to Arabia, and again return to Damascus, and then after three years should go up to Jerusalem, not to receive office at apostolic hands, but to make acquaintance with Peter there remaining but fifteen days, and seeing none other of the apostles save James the brother of the Lord. For his ministry was to be the true and fullest pattern of that which according to the will of God was to follow when the temporary Jerusalem order should pass away, and the Holy Spirit would bring out all the blessed and governing principles of a heavenly Christ for the church His one body on earth, as well as for His servants individually; a ministry of holy liberty, the expression of God's grace in the full communication of His truth, centring in the divine and glorified person of Christ, to the utter denial of man's will and of the world's pride.

But the world, as the Lord had previously warned His disciples, hates those identified with Christ as it had hated Himself, and according to His word would persecute them as it had Him. And so Saul now proves at the hand of his old co-religionists, ever the most bitter. The Jews were plotting to make away with him. 'Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do because they have not known the Father nor Me' (John 16: 2, 3). How evidently and deeply true! Nor did any more strikingly and continually verify their truth than Saul of Tarsus. The sword of the Spirit was too incisive in his hands, no matter how great his love and lowliness, not to rouse the unquenchable resentment and deadly enmity of Satan. And when the Jews went so far as even to watch the gates of Damascus both night and day that they might dispatch him, the disciples, much as they appreciated his ardent love of Christ and zeal for man's blessing, took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. Miracle there was none, but an escape ordinary enough, if not ignominious for those who would surround the great apostle with a perpetual halo. How little they know of the cross, of God, and of His ways!

This escape from murderous hands at Damascus he relates in the wonder-sketch of his devoted labours and sufferings which he recounts to the ease-loving Corinthians when set against the blessed apostle by the deceitful workers there fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 11: 23-28). How admirably suited only to shame those who took care to work and suffer the least possible, but to kindle into burning love the feeblest spark in the true servants of Christ from that day to this! At the close of the list of trials which he gives us as 'foolishness' in his confidence of glorying, if others gloried after the flesh, before he says a word of the man in Christ he knows — himself of course, but purposely so put — caught up even to the third heaven, he winds all up with this very incident, in a singularly isolated way, so as to bring into juxtaposition his being let down through a window in a basket by the wall with his being caught up into paradise for exceedingly great revelations (2 Cor. 11: 32 - 12: 4). Strange conjunction, but how instructive withal, the same man lowered from a window in a city wall, and caught up to heaven to hear unspeakable words! Who but Paul had even thought of thus glorying in the things that concerned his weakness? For, if he did mention his most singular honour as a living man, he took care to tell us how, to counteract all self-exaltation, there was given him thenceforth a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet him.

It may be well to note that in 2 Cor. 11: 32, 33, there is the additional information that the hostility be encountered was not confined to the synagogue but shared by the ethnarch of the then king, no doubt to do the Jews a favour, as others in somewhat the like position did afterwards: 'In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king was guarding the city of Damascus, wishing to take me, and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.' This is cited, not to confirm the truth of Luke's account as if the divinely inspired word could be inaccurate or as if it needed support for a believer, but to give a fresh instance of the moral purpose which reigns in all scripture, the true key to that peculiar method of God, which is as perfect for His own glory and the growth of His children, as it furnishes occasion to the unbelief of man who judges all in the self-confidence of his own intellectual powers, at the utmost very limited, great as they may be. Information, important as it is in its place, is one of the least objects in the word of God which lets the faithful into the communion of His mind and love.

But a new and very different lesson now opens in the city of solemnities where not long since great grace was upon all, and the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied exceedingly, and a great crowd of even the priests were obedient to the faith. For Saul, having arrived at Jerusalem, essayed to join himself to the disciples, and all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. How painful on the one hand for that vessel full of divine affections, that channel even then overflowing with a testimony of Christ beyond these doubting brethren whose grace was really so small as to question the largest measure that had ever crossed their eyes! But how helpful on the other hand for us and all saints who have to learn that no one is to be received on his own responsibility, but on adequate testimony from others! A man unknown, or only known by circumstances somewhat dubious, must ordinarily have a wonderful opinion of himself, or be surprisingly blind to the duties of others, if he expect to be welcomed within the holy bounds of Christ on the good account he gives of himself. And God's children must be exceedingly rash or be indifferent to His glory who hold the door open without a commendatory letter, or (if this through circumstances failed) its equivalent in some satisfactory degree. He who cannot present something of the kind ought rather to praise the care for the Lord's glory in His own, even if it call for a little patience or delay on his part, and never was there a time when such vigilance was more due in the interests of Christ and the church than in its present state. Let the saints only bear in mind that here too as everywhere it is a question not of letter but of spirit. Proof of reality Christward is and ought to be all that is wanted, while indifference to Him, and yielding all to the mere profession of His name, when nothing is so cheap, is the most offensive and guilty looseness. Legality is not well, where all should be grace, but it is at least far less indecent than laxity. A letter of commendation too could be, as we should not forget, most readily forged by an unscrupulous person.

Even if saints be ignorant or prejudiced the Lord never fails and soon raises up an instrument to remove the difficulty. For Barnabas 'took him and brought him to the apostles,' (no more, we have seen, than Peter and James) 'and declared to them how he saw the Lord in the way, and that He spoke to him, and how at Damascus he preached boldly in the name of Jesus' (ver. 27).

That this course on the part of Barnabas was owing to previous acquaintance with Saul! that they two had studied together at Tarsus! where both knew nothing of the Lord Jesus, and that either, even if true, could be a ground to satisfy the disciples, is just a sample of human guesswork — not to say of false principle — which disgraces those who cultivate such a style in the interpretation of scripture. But Christendom's hunger after all that tends to exalt the first Adam, as it demands such pabulum, is sure to find the supply where truth is neither trusted nor valued as displayed in Christ to God's glory. Is not the real key furnished by the sacred historian in a subsequent glimpse at Barnabas in Acts 11: 23, 24? When he saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted accordingly; for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith. Nor was it in Antioch only or first that grace wrought mightily in him; for in far earlier days than either he had been singled out for what God had produced in him, in contrast with Ananias and Sapphira who had agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord (Acts 4: 36, 37, Acts 5: 1, 2).

How much one gracious heart can effect, and how little it matters what the circumstances may be through which it seeks to please the Lord and help those that are tried! Yet how often, when such a character is formed and proved, a crisis arises too strong for all but the present guidance of the Lord above all that is of man, and grace in all its fullness must control graciousness quite breaking down! And so Barnabas proved at a later day. How little any then could have anticipated that Saul would be the one to reprove Peter as well as Barnabas (Gal. 2: 13) for the allowance of flesh or law to the jeopardy of the truth of the gospel! Yet so we know it was, and scripture has set it out in glowing and imperishable words to preserve us in our weakness from like error. How thankful should we be for the condescending mercy of our God Who would thus turn to our account the mistakes even of the most honoured, instead of hiding any or palliating all in the genuine spirit of party to the dishonour of the Lord and the irreparable injury of our own souls.

It may be well to note that this visit to Jerusalem (ver. 26 et seq.) is not to be regarded as immediately consequent, being named here in order to complete the history of Saul thus far by the account of his first introduction to the saints there.

Adequate testimony then to the call of divine grace is the true ground of reception: and the peculiar antecedents of Saul brought it out in high relief. There are very different circumstances now where the world in these lands calls itself Christian. But the principle abides, though profession in an easy-going estate where corruptions (moral, ecclesiastical, and doctrinal) abound is as far as possible from calling on the name of the Lord in the face of opposed nature and persecution private or public. It is of the deepest moment that all for each soul should turn on His name, the only passport which ought to be demanded as thus directly magnifying Him, the best of all safeguards against the world, the flesh, and the devil; for His name is the death-knell of all evil, whatever its varying form. To that Name the highest of earth must bow and be indebted for recognition when every tongue confesses Him Lord to the glory of God the Father but the same Name introduces the most down-trodden slave into the fullness of grace now with living hope of heavenly and everlasting glory. And though His name solemnly summons every one that names it to stand aloof from unrighteousness, against none here and at once does it threaten such scathing judgment as when men (no matter what their fame, credit, or pretensions) bring not the doctrine of Christ.

But the assembly, profoundly engaged to care for the common interests of that Name, looks for trustworthy testimony as to each soul that names it. This gives the fullest scope to faith and love in the saints already within who, seeking the glory of the Lord in those that confess Him, are, according to their measure, reliable witnesses, whether for receiving a Saul of Tarsus, or for rejecting a Simon Magus. For if all have communion as saints in what is done, and are free, yea bound, to satisfy themselves, the evidence on which they judge practically rests with such as, enjoying the confidence of all, have love enough to ascertain the truth. The church acts on witnesses it believes. So it is shown in the striking instance before us that we might be guided aright in our own duty, even where the outward features are as unlike as possible. But, the church being a divine institution and not a mere voluntary society even of saints, there is a holy and wise principle which governs (or at least it ought, and will if done rightly), bringing out the Lord's glory, as in Saul's case. Active love, animated by a single eye to Christ, will see clearly and judge aright.

'And he was with them going in and going out at1 Jerusalem,2 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord3, and he was speaking and discussing with the Hellenists4, but they had in hand to kill him. And when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him off unto Tarsus' (vers. 28-30).

1 εἰς ABCELP, et al., ἐν H., Syrr. Pst. & Hcl., Arm. Æthiop.

2 ABC Fuld, Arm., et al., omit the copulative: EHLP Vulg. Syrr. Cop., et al, insert.

3 T.R. with p.m. HLP, et al., add  Ἰησοῦ, but p.m ABE and Versions omit;  Ἰησοῦ only, is read by C, Syr. Pst.

4 A is alone of the uncials in reading  Ἔλληνας, all others giving  Ἓλληνιστάς.

Liberty was thus enjoyed whether for fellowship or for testimony. It is indeed essential to Christianity and in contrast with the law which genders bondage. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty'; or, as He Himself testified, 'I am the door, by Me if any one enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and go out, and shall find pasture.' Salvation, liberty, and food are assured by His grace: and so Saul was proving at this time even in Jerusalem. What could be sweeter than to taste it for his soul, where tradition had so lately blinded his eyes, and zeal for the law led him to persecute the way of divine grace unto death, binding and delivering into prison both men and women?

But there was more than this — bold utterance in the name of the Lord, which well becomes the object of grace. If 'this day is a day of good tidings', and assuredly it is, beyond all that ever dawned, how hold our peace? Not so did the four leprous men, when famine pressed the city of Samaria, and they found the deserted camp of the Syrians full of every good thing for those that were otherwise perishing with hunger (2 Kings 7: 9). And who in Jerusalem more than Saul, its late emissary of bonds or death for all that called on the name of the Lord, could with godly assurance proclaim His name by faith in it to strengthen the weak and release the captives, to give life to the dead and liberty to the oppressed, or (as he said in a later day) to open their eyes, that they might turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, receiving remission of sins and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in Christ? For free and bold testimony in His name is the fruit of His grace, no less than liberty for one's own soul; and in this order too. We need to be set free from every hindrance and weight and doubt and question, we need the liberty wherewith Christ sets free, before the mouth can open boldly to make known His grace and glory to others. It is not to angels that God subjected the habitable earth to come but to Christ Who will give His saints to reign with Him. It is not to angels that He gives the gospel commission but to His servants who were once children of wrath even as others. How soon even Christians forgot His ways and returned to the yoke of bondage and to fleshly successional order, to the rudiments of the world which played their fatal part in crucifying the Lord, now to find themselves, if God be believed, set aside and condemned to death in His cross!

But Saul, as he lets us know, when called by grace to have God's Son revealed in him that he might preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately conferred not with flesh and blood, but went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. Even when he did go up to Jerusalem, it was 'to see (or visit) Peter', not to take holy orders, any more than to go through a theological curriculum, for 'he abode with him fifteen days' seeing none other of the apostles save James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1: 15-19). And on this he speaks with impressive urgency, as a matter of the deepest moment for God's glory that the truth of his independent mission should be established for ever and beyond question, bound up as it is with the gospel revealed by him in a fullness and height beyond all others. In Jerusalem too we see his full liberty and his bold testimony to the Lord's name.

All was ordered that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Gentiles; but with the Jews also he maintains the same principle and conduct. Alas! it was ill appreciated. For on the one hand, the Gentiles have not continued in God's goodness but throughout Christendom have turned back, like a dog to its own vomit; judaizing so egregiously as to give people the impression that the gospel is a sort of half-improved, half-mitigated, law, instead of being the perfect expression of God's grace in justifying ungodly sinners by the faith of Christ in virtue of His death and resurrection. On the other hand, when Saul turned in the name of the Lord to the Hellenists, or Greek-speaking Jews, with the loving zeal of a hater of party, to impart the truth which had set himself free, seeking not theirs but them, they betrayed how little those are subject to God's law who despise and refuse His gospel, for they went about to kill him. They were but Abraham's seed, not his children (John 8: 33 44): if they had been his children, they would have done the works of Abraham. They had really the devil for their father, a murderer and a liar from the beginning; and his works they did.

It is needless to dwell on the error whether of old MS. or of ancient version, which makes the apostle speak and dispute at this early day with the 'Greeks' in Jerusalem. In fact it was with the same class which furnished 'the seven' who had been set over the daily ministration; of whom Stephen and Philip had been so highly honoured also in the word (Acts 6: 1-5). Saul was drawn out the more toward them, as no longer a bigot, but one who sought out the Hellenists the more as he had been the prime energetic leader in the persecution that followed Stephen's death. Now he himself is exposed to their deadly hatred; 'and when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him off to Tarsus.' It seems clear that this was not Caesarea Philippi, but rather the seat of the Roman governor, whence he readily went by sea. Nor is Gal. 1: 21 any real difficulty; for it only informs us that he then came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, which was easy by ship; and the following verse intimates that he was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ.

'The assembly1 then, throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria, had1 peace, being edified1; and walking1 in the fear of the2 Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied' (ver. 31).

1 The singular is read by ABC Vulg. Syr. Pst., Sah. Cop. Arm. Æthiop, Erp Arab., et al., as against the plural of the Text. Rec. HLP Syr. Hcl (and E, ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι).

2 The article is omitted by A, though read by all others.

There seems no good ground to make this verse the concluding sentence of the paragraph, as the state of the church throughout these districts is not meant to be connected with Saul one way or another. It is rather, while attending to their past trial, an introduction to the account of Peter's visit which immediately succeeds, and it can thereon well stand by itself.

Having given us the peaceful and prosperous condition of the church throughout Palestine, the Spirit of God now turns to speak of Peter. He that wrought effectually in him, the great apostle of the circumcision, had just shown us the mighty vessel of His grace called to do work among the Gentiles. But Saul of Tarsus is dropped for the present, and we have the familiar figure of Peter brought before us, not in Jerusalem, nor yet in Samaria as once with John, but alone on a visitation of Judea. If there was peace for the church, there was no less power than at the first in him who was behind none since Pentecost.

'Now it came to pass that Peter going through all [parts] came down also to the saints inhabiting Lydda. And there he found a certain man named Æneas, for eight years lying on a couch, who was paralysed. And Peter said to him, Æneas, Jesus [the]3 Christ heareth thee: rise up and make thy couch. And immediately he rose up. And all that inhabited Lydda and the4 Sharon saw him, who also turned to the Lord' (vers. 32-35).

3 Bp.m. C with half a dozen cursives, et al. omit the article which is supported by the great mass of copies.

4 I presume the Revisers meant to distinguish between the town and the district by 'at Lydda and in Sharon'.

Grace thus used the apostle, not merely for the edification of the saints but for winning fresh souls to God. Lydda or Lod was at this time a considerable town — as Josephus informs us, not behind a city in size. And there God wrought a miracle, to arrest unbelievers, in the person of Æneas. It does not appear that he was a believer, being described as 'a certain man'. Indeed, as the rule, believers were not objects of miraculous power, however often they may have been its instruments. Timothy is exhorted by the apostle to use ordinary means: 'Be no longer a water-drinker, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.' Epaphroditus drew out in his sickness deep exercises in Paul's heart; and Trophimus, the apostle left at Miletus, sick, instead of healing him. The Lord has His special dealings with such: not even an apostle would interfere. But as tongues were for a sign to unbelievers, so, on such, power was free to act to God's glory, and the cure of the long-palsied Æneas became a striking testimony to all the dwellers around.

The manner of Peter's action and his words are remarkable: 'Æneas, Jesus [the] Christ heareth thee: rise up and make thy couch.' And so it was straightway: power to help himself as well as to rise up. The power of God was exercised in this serious case of one palsied for eight years through the true but rejected Christ. Jehovah-Jesus was the healer of disease. It was but a testimony now. What He did on a small scale during this present evil age is only a sample of the world or age to come. Then He will prove Himself the Forgiver of all Israel's iniquities and the Healer of all their diseases, according to Psalm 103: 3, when His kingdom rules over all.

Meanwhile the word of God acts; the gospel is blessed, for 'all who inhabited Lydda and the Sharon saw him, who also turned to the Lord.' Their souls were impressed, so that they gave heed to the truth and turned to the Lord. It was a real work of the Spirit of God, and not simple astonishment at a miracle. But it had also the peculiarity of being very extensive and all-embracing. Whole communities were brought in. Nor was it only that they professed, or were baptised: of this the Holy Spirit says nothing. All in those parts saw the paralyzed man who was on the spot healed in the name of Jesus; and they turned to the Lord. Some who seem disposed to doubt the work of grace in 'households', and anxious to reduce it to a merely intellectual recognition of the Lord, if even so much as this, might profitably consider the great work done at Lydda, consequent on the healing of Æneas. The language here is wholly inconsistent with a sponsorial profession, it was a wide but real action of divine grace, the external sign, which no doubt followed as a conferred privilege, being not even named.

It may be added that K�¼hn�¶l has as utterly failed in the grammar as in the exegesis, when he would have this last passage to mean merely that all the Christians (i.e., all those who had turned to the Lord) saw Æneas restored to health. For though the aorist may occasionally bear or require a pluperfect force in English, in the sentence before us such a rendering is not only uncalled for but destroys the power and dignity of the narrative; whereas the ordinary meaning in the simplest way maintains all that could be desired, crowning the miracle wrought, with a worthy and blessed spiritual result, instead of a close so frigid and feeble as to sink below not scripture only but any writing whatever. Grammatically too the indefinite relative is just the word proper to introduce the statement of a moral nature or character.

But it may interest some to know that Lydda in the New Testament is no other than the Lod of 1 Chr. 8: 12; Ezra 2: 33; Neh. 7: 37, Neh. 11: 35, called Ludd or Lidi to this day, scarcely so 'miserable a village' as Messrs. Webster and Wilkinson think, if we are to credit the popular report of Dr. Thomson, who represents it as a flourishing community of some two thousand persons, evidently thriving and industrious, 'embosomed in noble orchards of olive, fig, pomegranate, mulberry, sycamore and other trees, and surrounded every way by a very fertile neighbourhood.' Ono, Hadid, and Neballat, of old associated with Lod, have still their representatives distinctly enough under their modern disguise.

Further, though Calvin lays it down confidently that the Sharon (or Assaron,1 as he calls it) was a city hard by, and slights Jerome's thought that thereby is meant the plain lying between Caesarea and Joppa, there is no good reason to doubt that the early translator is right, not the reformer. And the minute accuracy of the Greek text affords a striking evidence to the reader in the article prefixed to 'Sharon', not to Lydda. So invariably is it in the Hebrew, where the same district is referred to (1 Chr. 27: 29; Cant. 2: 1, Isa. 33: 9, Isa. 35: 2, Isa. 65: 10), whereas the article is dropped where the same name is applied to a different locality on the other side of Jordan and not improbably a town of the Gadites. 'The Sharon' lay north of another district, 'the Sephelah', which in our Version has fared worse than 'the Sharon' in having been quite stripped of its character as a proper name and reduced to 'the vale' and other vague terms.

l So HLP and many cursives, manuscripts which probably point to the Hebrew article. Cf. Joshua 12: 18 (Lasharon). The Sinaitic indeed erroneously omits the article before the word, but it is added as a correction.

Here then it was that the energy of the Spirit was pleased to win glory to the Lord Jesus and to bless souls by Peter at the very time when sovereign grace was preparing another and yet more favoured servant of Christ, not only to proclaim the gospel in the whole creation, but to complete the word of God, the mystery that had been hid from ages and from generations. Yet another and greater exertion of divine power was soon to follow, and a more distinct testimony of grace to the Gentiles through Peter himself, as we shall see in the immediate sequel, and according to a wisdom that never failed. But one may not anticipate more at this time. Grace would ere long work more profoundly as well as indiscriminately; the heavenly side of the gospel must shine out more distinctly and suitably to Him Who sits the glorified Man, at the right hand of God. But it was from no lack of zealous testimony on Peter's part; nor was it that power from above failed in his ministry to put honour on the name of Jesus, or to shed blessing on the souls that believed. But all the divine counsels must be duly revealed as well as accomplished in their season; and God has His fitting ways no less than His counsels. And we do well to take heed to His word which reveals all this and more, that we may be completely furnished to every good work.

Another circumstance of like kind at a different place gave occasion for the power of God to display itself by Peter still more wonderfully.

'Now, in Joppa there was a certain disciple named Tabitha, which, being interpreted is called Dorcas (Gazelle). She was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days that she fell sick and died: and, having washed, they laid her in an upper1 room. And as Lydda was near to Joppa, the disciples hearing that Peter was there sent two men unto him, beseeching, Delay2 not to come on to us. And Peter rose up and went with them, whom, on his arrival, they brought up into the upper room; and all the widows stood by him weeping and showing the coats and cloaks which Dorcas used to make while she was with them. But Peter, putting them all forth and kneeling down, prayed, and, turning unto the body, he said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes, and seeing Peter, she sat up. And, giving her a hand, he raised her up, and calling the saints and the widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout the whole of Joppa, and many believed on the Lord; and it came to pass that he remained many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner' (vers. 36-43).

1 Lachmann, following ACE (and many cursives), reads 'the', but the best and most ancient copies confirm the common reading with all other editors.

2 The ancient copies give the entreaty more graphically than the Text. Rec.

Will it be believed that a professed and not unlearned translator of the New Testament dared thus to render the opening verse: 'Moreover, there was among the disciples at Joppa a woman named Tabitha, who was always doing good works and giving alms'? I cite from Gilbert Wakefield's second edition ii. 27, though I cannot say (not having its predecessor) whether this is one of its alleged 'improvements' or a mere reproduction of the first. It is the note (on page 375) which is so offensive: — 'I have left out the impertinent explanation in this verse, because, even if no interpolation it must be either ridiculous or unintelligible in a translation.' It is the more shameless from one who allows himself no such audacity in his rendering (as among many like passages) of John 1: 38, 41, 42, with all three of which he deals fairly. Now what is the fact in our case? It is the true Aramaic form of that time and country; so Gamaliel's maid was called; and Josephus (B.J. iv. iii. 5) gives as Luke does the same corresponding Greek name to the mother of a certain truculent John, as the English reader can see in Dr. Traill's Tr. ii. 64. The Hebrew word that answers to it means 'beauty'; but it is commonly used of a 'gazelle', 'hart', or 'roe', as in Deut.; 2 Sam.; Song of Solomon. So in our own tongue men and women are called Buck, Doe, Roe, Stag, and the like. In Lucret. iv. 1154 it occurs as a term of endearment. Where is the 'impertinence' of such an explanation? Only in the empty, presumptuous, and profane mind of Mr. Wakefield. I take the trouble of refuting it, as a caution to the misinformed not to be imposed on by the unconscious impiety of such as believe not the inspired character of Holy Writ. Whenever they assail that word, it would be easy to expose their self-sufficient folly.

Tabitha, or Dorcas, then, is described as a disciple at Joppa, who was a doer of the word and not a hearer only; for her pure and undefiled service before her God and Father was to remember the widows in their affliction, keeping herself unspotted from the world. $he was as full of good works and alms-deeds as of faith. In those days then she sickened and died. Now if washed in the usual way, she was laid in an upper room, a suitable place to await the arrival of the apostle. For it seems not obscurely implied that the disciples looked for more than consolation in sending messengers for the apostle just at that moment and admitting of no delay;1 as he on his part promptly met their entreaty. As usual the scene is livingly before us, though it is with Peter for the central figure, not Paul of whom Luke was the cherished companion. But what mattered this or that if the Spirit inspired him to give us the truth to Christ's praise? He certainly had it all before Him as it was, though Luke was not there: and no jealousy for his leader tarnished one word of Luke's narrative. There they were in the upper chamber, and all the widows stood by Peter, not in tears only but displaying the work of Dorcas' loving hands, the clothes inner and outer which she used to make while she was with them.

1 The marginal reading (ver. 38) of the Authorized Version ('be grieved') is in no way suitable as a rendering here, though habitually used in classical authors for the hesitation of shame, pity, or alarm. They were led to retain it in the margin through their respect for Tyndale, followed by Cranmer. The Geneva V. discarded it rightly. The Rhemites give 'Be not loth', though Wiclif had translated correctly, as they adhered servilely to the Vulgate. Num. 22: 16; Judges. 18: 9 are unquestionable precedents in the LXX., and so Josephus, Ant. ii. 7.

But Peter had not come for condolence only or chiefly, but for the glory of God that Jesus the Son of God might be glorified in her who was gone. So, putting them all out and kneeling down, he prayed. He sought not to display the great work about to be done; he sought the Lord only, and with that grave reverence which became one who walked in presence of the Unseen Who alone could avail. Here again how vividly graphic is the recital! yet no eye of man was on Peter and the body of the disciple. He Who wrought in power through one servant has told us it through another. Some of old in east and west and south have ventured to add 'In the name of [our Lord] Jesus Christ'.2 If they meant honour, they were guilty of a heinous wrong. 'Add thou not unto His words.' The inspiring Spirit has given us the truth perfectly. Enough to know that Peter knelt down and prayed, and turning to the body, said, Tabitha, arise. Spoil not the word of God, O man, unworthy of the name of a believer, unworthy of the task of a translator, or of an expositor, by thy unhallowed glosses. His prayer proved to Whom He looked and on Whom He leaned; but we may not take from His words in Acts 3: 6, nor add to them in Acts 9: 40, nor assimilate either one or other to Acts 9: 34. Let us be assured that each is as God wrote it, and therefore as each should be: our place is to receive humbly, believe confidingly, and enjoy to the uttermost.

2 So in the Thebaic, Armenian, Philox. Syriac; Cyprian, et al.

The power of the Lord was there, according to His servant's prayer, not to heal as before, but to raise the dead. 'And she opened her eyes; and seeing Peter, sat up. And, giving her a hand, he raised her up; and calling the saints [who had the deepest and least interested feeling] and the widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout the whole of Joppa.'

Yet it is to be remarked that the moral or spiritual effect is not to be measured by the comparative character or measure of the power displayed. When the paralysed Æneas was healed, all who inhabited Lydda turned to the Lord, when the far greater wonder was wrought of raising up the deceased Dorcas in Joppa, no such wide or large effect followed, but 'many believed on the Lord'; a blessed result for these souls, and to His glory assuredly, but, as far as we may gather from scripture, by no means so comprehensive now as then. After all it is the word which is the true and right means of conversion to Him, whatever may be the means used to draw attention to His word. For His grace is sovereign, and refuses the plausible reasoning of men.

There is another word which the Spirit adds at the close, and not without its importance: 'And it came to pass that he remained many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.' The veil drops over the recollections of Dorcas if she had any about her recent experience, as in the case of Lazarus and all others raised from the dead. But of the great apostle of the circumcision, through whom pseudo-apostles claimed succession over the uncircumcision! as well as a monarch's patrimony, we are told that he stayed a good many days in Joppa at the house of a certain tanner who bore his own name of Simon. Has this no voice to those who easily believe that they too stand 'first' in the church of God in our day? No true apostle according to scripture ever possessed, ever sought, wealth or rank in virtue of his office. Alas! it is not only power that is departed, but, what is far more serious, the spirit of obedience and the simplicity of faith, which last invests the least thing on earth, that Christ gives or sanctions, with the halo of heaven.

But there is also consistency with Christ to be maintained; and Christ was crucified on earth no less than glorified in heaven. Is the portion we seek, cherish, and defend, in real harmony? It is here and now we are put to the test. Are we allowing the corruption of Christendom to sully our faith or degrade our practice? Do we value, look for, or accept present earthly honour as the fruit of gospel service, and of position in the church? If it be so, let us learn from God's word that this is not fellowship with Christ's sufferings, nor are we in this respect at least in the communion of His apostles. Are we doing well in God's sight if we take conformity to the world so quietly? Christ deserves a better return at our hands. How sad that fidelity to Christ and the cross in our walk of every day should be counted a 'peculiar view'! 'Already are ye filled, already ye became rich, ye reigned without us: yea, and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God set forth us the apostles last, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle to the world and angels and men. We are fools for Christ but ye wise in Christ; we weak but ye strong, ye glorious but we without honour' (1 Cor. 4: 8-10).

Acts 10

The sovereign grace of God toward an men was about to have another and yet more conclusive formal seal. It was not enough that the scattered Hellenists were preaching the gospel in the free action of the Holy Spirit or that Philip in particular had evangelized Samaria. It was not enough that Saul of Tarsus had been called from his persecutions to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles no less but more than before the sons of Israel. The apostle of the circumcision must now openly act on the grand principle of Christianity which knows no distinction between Jew and Greek. As the cross proves them alike sinful and lost (Rom. 3: 22, 23), the gospel meets them alike where they are (Rom. 10: 12), and proclaims the same One to be Lord of all and rich unto all that call upon Him. This was now to be publicly demonstrated by Peter's preaching to the Gentiles, and their entrance into the privileges of the gospel on precisely the same terms of gratuitous, unconditional, and everlasting salvation by the faith of Christ as to the Jews at and since Pentecost. Henceforth there is no distinction for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

The circumstances of a change so momentous bore the unequivocal marks of divine authority; though, long before, the Lord Himself had announced it (Luke 24: 47) to the unwilling and therefore unintelligent ears of his disciples, and Peter had in terms affirmed it (Acts 2: 39), however little he seems to have as yet apprehended the force of what he then uttered. Indeed we are here and now carefully shown how reluctantly he set his hand to the work of indiscriminate grace till God left excuses no longer possible. But He would have the activity of His grace tarry no longer for the dull sons of men: His message of love to the lost must run forth in power; and the great apostle of the circumcision must be the one formally to open the gates of the kingdom not to Jews only but to Gentiles also. The moment was come; the man with whom to begin appears.

'Now a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of a cohort that was called Italian, pious and fearing God with all his house 1giving much alms to the people, and entreating God continually, saw in a vision manifestly about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in unto him and saying to him, Cornelius. But he, gazing on him and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord? And he said to him, Thy prayers and thine alms have gone up for a memorial before God. And now send men unto Joppa, and fetch [one]2 Simon, who is surnamed Peter: he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea. And when the angel that spoke to him had departed, he called two of his domestics and a pious soldier of those in close attendance, and, having recounted all to them sent them to Joppa' (vers. 1-8).

1 τε 'both' is In Text. Rec. which LP support with most cursives, et al., but the most ancient and best reject.

2 Authorities are divided, so that 'one' is here hardly certain.

The Spirit of God is thus careful to make known the godly life of Cornelius. He was already a converted man, though a Gentile. But he did not know salvation proclaimed in the gospel. Therefore was Peter to be sent for, as Peter himself afterwards explained (Acts 11: 13, 14): else he could only have hoped for his soul in the mercy of God. But now the gospel is to teach sinful man, without distinction; and it seemed good to the all-wise God to bless thereby such a one as this devout Roman, as He had already in the same grace paid honour to the crucified Saviour by converting as well as filling with peace the penitent robber who hung by His side. They were as different tributes to the grace which came by Him as could well be conceived; but each was seasonable, each to the glory of Jesus, each a display of what God can afford to do through redemption. The pious centurion was only entitled to know his sins remitted on God's message of grace through the blood of Jesus.

The evangelical school, ignorant of the new and peculiar privileges of the gospel, were wont to regard Cornelius as a self-righteous philanthropist, because they did not distinguish between conversion and the known forgiveness of sins or salvation. But this was their ignorance. Even Bede knew better, when he said, albeit in dubious phraseology, that he came through faith to works, but through works was established in faith. Had Bede said through the gospel, instead of 'through works,' it would have been more in accordance with the truth; but those who cite him approvingly seem not more intelligent than our venerable light of the dark ages. It was really God putting honour on the accomplished sacrifice of Christ; and now that the Jews nationally had rejected their Messiah calling by the gospel Gentiles into equal privilege with believing Israelites.

But the known godly character of Cornelius was suited to silence the prejudices of the ancient people of God. He looked to God and served Him in faith before He knew present salvation. If it were too much to say as Calvin does that, before Peter came, he had a church in his house, we are told on the highest authority that he was devout and feared God with all his household: no idol, we may be sure, was tolerated there. Instead of the rapacity of a Roman abroad, with contempt unbounded for the Jew, Cornelius abounded in alms-giving to 'the people' in their low estate, and this in Caesarea where Gentiles predominated. Best of all he entreated God continually. To suppose all this in one destitute of life is absurd. Cornelius was born of God and walked accordingly, though he had not yet peace; and God was now about to meet the wants and longings of his soul by the full revelation of His grace in the gospel.

An angel of God he sees in a vision not of the night. It was broad daylight, in the afternoon; nor was he asleep, but inquiring learns that God, not unmindful of his prayers and alms,1 bids him fetch Simon Peter from Joppa. As the great apostle of the uncircumcision wrote at the end to instruct the slow mind of the believing Hebrews, so the great apostle of the circumcision was to be employed at the beginning in evangelizing at God's command the Gentiles. Does this beautiful interlacing offend you? If so, it proves how little you have entered into the divine ways which cut off all room or excuse for human independence. Neither in Judea nor in Rome (pace Eusebii)2 nor anywhere else was there to be, if God were obeyed, the unseemly suicidal sight of a Jewish church distinct from a Gentile church. The assembly was on God's part meant to be on earth, let there be ever so many assemblies, the saints composing but one assembly, of which in due time it could be said, even when Corinthians were splitting into divisions, 'all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas' (1 Cor. 3: 21, 22). Here, however, it was a question of getting the gospel, as necessarily this is the true order, though the church follows in its proper course: individual blessing must be known before collective privilege and responsibility.

1 It is not without interest to note the difference of Scripture from the Apocrypha. For in Tobit 12: 12 the angel is made to bring the memorial of prayer before God. in the Acts the prayers and the alms rise up there without intervention, whether or not an angel brings the answer. Canon Humphrey has well reminded us of this.

2 'The reference is to Eusebius (A.D. 264 340), Bishop of Caesarea, who wrote The History of the Christian Church. He has been called the 'Father of Church History' — Editor.

On the other hand, while these messengers were approaching Joppa, about noon of the next day, Peter retired to pray and, growing hungry saw in a trance, into which he fell, a sheet of striking significance, which he soon learnt to apply.

'And on the morrow, when they were journeying and drawing near to the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray about the sixth hour, and he became hungry and desired to eat, and while they made ready, a trance came over him, and he beholdeth the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending2 as a great sheet by four corners let down upon the earth in which were all the quadrupeds and reptiles of the earth and [the]3 birds of the sky. And there came a voice unto him, Arise, Peter, slay and eat. But Peter said, By no means, Lord; because never did I eat anything common and unclean. And a voice [came] again a second time unto him, What God cleansed deem not thou common. And this was done thrice; and straightway4 the vessel was taken up into heaven' (vers. 9-16).

2 Text. Rec. (supported by LP and most cursives) adds 'upon him' — I suppose from Matt. 3: 16, Mark 1: 10, Luke 3: 22, John 1: 32, 33, and, very strangely contrary to the best MSS., Versions, et al.

3 The article here is doubtful, though its insertion in Text. Rec. has ancient authority as well as numbers.

4 The best MSS., et al., sustain 'straightway' as against the Text. Rec. which gives 'again'.

Peter had not departed from that condition of dependence on God which he had expressed on the occasion of choosing 'the seven' to their diaconal service in Jerusalem. 'It is not fit that we [the twelve] should forsake the word of God and serve tables. Look ye out therefore . . . but we will give ourselves closely to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' (Acts 6: 2-4). So he assuredly was doing now when a special mission was being assigned him by God. He had withdrawn to be alone before Him. It was no question of repairing to the temple as once, or even to an oratory. The housetop sufficed; but it is well, when forms vanish, if the Spirit abides and grows stronger as here. We cannot afford to be slack in that which God honours in the apostle. The needy should not grow weary in telling out their need to Him and in counting on Him to act worthily of His great Name.

Peter receives a threefold testimony of God's purifying the Gentiles by faith, instead of separating Israel by circumcision. The cross had changed all, and put no difference between believers, Jew or Gentile. The former had lost thereby their old superiority according to flesh; both were now open alike to incomparably better blessings in Christ by faith. It was no question now of the law or of becoming a proselyte, or even of laying hold of the skirt of a Jew. From the open heaven light streamed on the cleansing power of the blood of Jesus, and grace declared the uncleanness gone which Sinai had denounced for a while with rigour. For all was over with the first man under the law. The Saviour speaks from heaven where such a distinction as Jews or Gentiles has no place, and acts on the efficacy of that blood which has procured everlasting redemption for all believers equally, be they Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian, male or female, bond or free. A Jew hitherto could no more eat of an unclean animal than he could eat with a sinner of the Gentiles. But the sheet, which came down from heaven and was taken up there, taught Peter in due time the immense change which hinges on the cross, answers to the glory of Christ on high, and drew from him on a later day even in Jerusalem itself the gracious confession. 'We believe that we shall be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus, even as they also': not merely the Gentiles as the Jews, but the Jews in like manner as the Gentiles.

How far the saints or even the apostles anticipated the grace of the gospel must be evident to the least attentive reader of the inspired narrative. Even up to this hour Peter had no thought of, and ventured to object in the vision to, what the voice commanded from heaven. So little was the special character of the gospel in its free grace indebted to the hearts or minds of its most blessed preachers; so incontrovertibly does the word of God prove that what concerns us incalculably above all else for time and eternity proceeded from God alone, feeling and acting for Christ in His own love and to His own glory, though for these very reasons to our best and surest blessing also.

Very careful is the Spirit of God to give us full details: so grave a change as the reception of Gentiles on the same footing as a Jew was not made or owned lightly.

'And as Peter was perplexed1 in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that had been sent by Cornelius, having sought out the house of Simon, stood at the gate, and having called were inquiring whether Simon surnamed Peter lodged there. Now while Peter was pondering over the vision, the Spirit said to him, Behold, three men seek thee; but arise, go down, and journey with them, nothing doubting because I have sent them. And Peter went down unto the men and said Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause for which ye are here' And they said, Cornelius, a centurion, a man righteous, and fearing God, and attested by the whole nation of the Jews, was divinely warned by a holy angel to send for thee unto his house and to hear words from thee. Having therefore called them in he lodged [them]. And on the morrow he arose and went off with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa went with him' (vers. 17-23).

1 Such is the true construction, not 'in himself' separated from the verb, as by G. Wakefield and Valckenaer (like the Codex Bezae).

Men were employed throughout after the angelic mission to Cornelius but God is apparent in every part to disarm prejudice, own righteousness, display grace, and put honour on the name of Jesus to the blessing of man and to His own glory, for all which weighty ends the law, of which Israel boasted, had proved altogether unavailing. The great apostle Peter was indebted under God to the Gentile's invitation to solve the problem of his vision. But the Spirit is the agent of all blessing, intelligence, and power in the believer; and so His place is made conspicuous here (vers. 19, 20). It must be a divine impulse, and not a mere deduction of reasoning: for us and all this is a lesson of inestimable value. At first no doubt, sensible signs and extraordinary power ushered in His presence and manifested the new truth of His action in man; but the reality abides, as He abides with us, for ever, though outward signs in divine wisdom are no longer vouchsafed. This draws greater importance than ever to scripture in these last days when unbelievers turn from it more and more to unprofitable and mischievous fables.

It was thus made plain, beyond doubt, that God it was, not man nor yet the church, nor even the apostles, who opened the door to the nations equally as to the Jews. So the gospel intrinsically wrought and proclaimed: but even the believer is dull to appreciate the full import of what he has really received, and is wholly dependent on God's word and Spirit to give him growth and progress. The hour was come for the formal and public owning of believing Gentiles in the enjoyment of full gospel privileges. And it was meet that he who was, beyond doubt, of the twelve should be the one employed, rather than he who, already called, was designated to be the apostle of the uncircumcision. Thus was the uniting bond of the Spirit best maintained in peace.

But it was of all moment that man's will should be excluded as well as man's wisdom. What could be more effectual to this end than the vision of Cornelius on the one hand and that of Peter on the other? The character of each gave special weight to what they saw and heard; and their concurrence, as attested by the 'three men' from Caesarea, as well as the 'six brethren' that accompanied Peter from Joppa, was of high value and unmistakable significance. Men were largely employed, as they were concerned in the deepest way, but so as to demonstrate to every upright mind that God was the moving spring in it all. The 'devout soldier' with two domestics has his lowly but valuable place and was soon to share the blessing, as well as the devout centurion on whom he waited closely; a blessing which is as distinctly characterized by the power of grace that brings down far higher than Cornelius, and lifts up far lower than the Roman soldier, uniting all believers even here below in one heavenly and indissoluble relationship to Christ.

The message delivered by the men from Caesarea was to the point. For a Roman officer in a garrison town to have the good report of the whole nation of the Jews was no small thing; but it was more for his own household to bear witness that he was a righteous man and God-fearing, as his soldier attendant evidently was also. And the prevalence of Jewish Sadduceanism did not lead to any toning down of the divine communication, which was calmly affirmed by men accustomed to frank uprightness. Cornelius, they said, 'was oracularly warned by a holy angel to fetch thee unto his house and hear words from thee.'

What a clear communication to Peter when his vision was followed up by the Spirit's application of it! Nor can anything be plainer than the divine authority with which the Spirit speaks, and acts here as elsewhere — 'I have sent them': He is God.

How vividly too is set forth the value of 'words' in the gospel! Let the law demand 'works' of man to prove his powerlessness and that the offence may abound so as to overwhelm him with despair of himself and cast him only upon Christ. The gospel makes known in its 'words' the true God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent, and is thus the means of life eternal to every one that believes. The Jew might claim the law as imposed on His people in the stern solitude of Sinai, not so God's gospel concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, dead, risen, and glorified in heaven, which is now as open to the Gentile as to the Jew, but to neither save by the faith of Christ and His redemption.

Peter then set out with the rest from Joppa. 'And on the morrow he entered into Caesarea, and Cornelius was awaiting them, having called together his kinsmen and his near friends' (ver. 24).

Dear reader, have you nothing to learn from the zeal now, as well as the habitual piety and devotedness we saw before (vers. 2, 22), in the Roman centurion? Are we to be less zealously affected because we are more familiar with the wondrous grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ? Sorrowful fruit, not indeed of better light, but of fleshly indifference and worldly ease, which hinder the due activity of divine affections that others may live, as well as our own souls grow, by the knowledge of God.

'And when it came to pass that Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, did homage, but Peter raised him, saying, Rise up, I myself also am a man' (vers. 25, 26). It was the more remarkable, as a Roman in general never offered the salaam of prostration to a stranger. But the lowly and pious mind of Cornelius was wrought to such a pitch of expectation by the angelic message that he failed to sever the preacher from the truth he was sent to make known, and was thus disposed to pay more than honour meet to him whom God had directed him to send for. On the other hand the dignity which accompanies the truth is not only compatible with the deepest humility but produces and increases it in proportion to the power which grace acquires over the soul. Impossible not to be humble, if we are consciously in God's presence; and this the gospel is calculated above all things to make good habitually, as it does in the measure of our faith and spirituality. Peter refused such mistaken homage at once.

Oh, you who claim to be Peter's peculiar and exclusive successor, are you not ashamed? Why are you of all men the most distant from his ways the most opposed to his spirit? Silver and gold you have, which he had not; but the faith he preached you deny and corrupt, and the lowliness he practised even to an unbaptized Gentile pronounces the most solemn rebuke on your pride, when you (installed as Pope) seat yourself 'on the very spot where the pyx containing the host usually stands',1 and the cardinal princes of the empire repeatedly adore you, each prostrating himself before you and kissing the slippered toe as well as the covered hand. Can contrast be more complete? And this is 'succession'!

1 So testifies an eye-witness, Mr. Thompson of Banchory.

'And conversing with him he entered and findeth many come together and he said to them, Yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another race. And me God showed to call no man common or unclean: wherefore also without gainsaying I came when sent for. I ask then on what account ye sent for me. And Cornelius said Pour days ago till this hour I was fasting and the ninth [hour] praying in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing and says Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms had in remembrance before God: send then unto Joppa, and call for Simon who is surnamed Peter He lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner by [the] sea. Forthwith then I sent unto thee, and thou hast done well in arriving. Now then we are all here before God to hear all the things that have been commanded thee of the Lord' (vers. 27-33).

Peter, after entering not only the house but the apartment where Cornelius had his company waiting to hear the gospel, explains first what they all knew, then what God had just shown to himself. For their part they were aware that for a Jew to be familiar with a Gentile was unlawful: he on his had it shown of God that he was not to call any man common or unclean. Now that the true light shines, the old distinction is gone. It was not so at the beginning; it is no longer in force. If God was entitled to institute such a difference, He was no less free to annul it; and so He had shown Peter in special preparation for Cornelius whom God had directed to send for Peter, who had come thereon 'without gainsaying', as became him. For what has faith to do in such circumstances but to obey? If Christ Himself was beyond all the Obedient Man, the apostles differed from others not more in their gift and power than in the measure of their obedience. And to this is every saint sanctified by the Spirit — to the obedience of Jesus Christ, as distinctly as to the sprinkling of His blood. Let us exhort one another to this, and so much the more as we see the day approaching.

Cornelius then in answer explains why he sent for Peter. It was not without divine authority. He had been four days also praying, if not fasting also (for the reading is seriously questioned); on that afternoon an angel in a man's guise told him that his prayer was heard, and that he was to call to him Peter, who had well done in coming, as they were all there to hear all the Lord's commands through him.

Hear it, you that desire to honour Peter truly, that you may be saved from the destructive superstitions of his false successors. Were there succession, surely the first in the line is peculiarly to be regarded. See how readily he comes, without a word to say against it, at Cornelius' request. Ah! it is not Peter who demanded or received worldly pomp and human honour; it is you who have lost the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and are under the dominion of dark and evil traditions which make God's word of none effect, and play into the hands of the god of this age who has blinded the minds of the unbelieving that the light of the gospel of Christ's glory should not dawn on them. Listen to Peter, I beseech you, and learn, not merely your error in departure from the living God, but the precious truth which is able to save your souls.

It was a serious moment for the apostle of the circumcision, prepared though he was by God's dealings with himself and with Cornelius. But there could be no doubt of the Lord's will, and the first step in the new departure must be taken then and there by himself.

'And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him. The word which He sent forth to the sons of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all1) —  ye know the matter that came to pass throughout the whole of Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached — Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed Him with [the] Holy Spirit and power; Who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him. And we [are]2 witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem, Whom also1 they slew, hanging [Him] on a tree. Him God raised on the third day and gave Him to be manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses that were chosen before by God, to us which ate and drank with Him after He rose from [the] dead. And He charged us to preach to the people and testify that this is He that is ordained by God judge of living and dead. To Him all the prophets bear witness that every one that believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins through His name' (vers. 34-43).

1 Perhaps 'of all things". The two accusatives λόγον and ῥῃμα are dependent on the verb οἲδατε, 'ye know', the second being in apposition with the first.

2 'Are' is wanting in the best copies, which read 'also' omitted in the Text. Rec. 'We' here is emphatic, contradistinguished from the 'ye', also emphatic, in ver. 37.

The coming and work of Christ have put all things in their true place. Only since then has God Himself been either manifested or vindicated, for during previous ages, since the flood or at least the law, God seemed the God of Jews only, and not of Gentiles also. Now it is made evident that He cares for Gentiles no less than Jews; but it never was evident in the fullness of the truth till the Son of God was come Who has given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true. Not till we know His Son Jesus Christ can we say, This is the true God and eternal life. Nor had anyone more difficulty to pierce through the cloud of Jewish prejudice than the instrument here employed, but God had cast the true light of the cross more fully on his soul; and now he could say, 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons' (even were they Hebrews of the Hebrews), 'but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him.' Of this Cornelius and perhaps others of his house were already to a certain extent a living but hidden example. The principle, however, was now to be extended immensely, and what had been comparatively hidden was to be avowed and made public through the gospel. The very piety of Cornelius kept him from appropriating to himself as a Gentile what he knew God had sent forth to Israel, till grace sent it to him also. Thus should the charge of the risen Lord, hitherto suspended as it were, be applied no longer partially but in all its wide extent: 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.' The law had been proved and declared powerless, and pretension to keep it unto life became the plain proof that no life was there. Christ is all. 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that disbelieveth shall be condemned' (Mark 16: 16). Peter understood all this as he never did before. Legal mist was passing away from his eyes. But nothing was farther from the truth than that there could be among Gentiles any more than Jews one to fear God or work righteousness without real living faith. The Jewish feeling which denied to any nation save their own the possibility of this acceptableness with God, he declares to be unfounded. His mission on God's part to Cornelius was expressly to assert His indiscriminate grace, as well as to begin authoritatively by one whom God set in the first place in the assembly the sending of the gospel to every creature.

Cornelius and those with him already knew the word which God sent forth to the sons of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ. But Peter carefully adds that Jesus is Lord not of the Jews only but of all. That which was a thing spoken of throughout Judea, beginning from despised Galilee of the Gentiles, after the baptism which John preached (as we read in Mark 1: 14, 15, where the Lord Himself called men to repent and believe the gospel) is the only salvation for Jew, or for Gentile when afterwards called as he now began to be. Jesus of Nazareth is the object of faith, Whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and power.1 He was come to Whom all pointed that had in figure been anointed of God. The love of God to sinful man was evident in Him, and that love effectual in deliverance; for He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, because God was with Him. He was the true Messiah, but both in Himself and in His work immeasurably more, and this came out into the brightest evidence on His rejection. Yet was there ample testimony to Him before that rejection; so that man was without excuse. 'And we are witnesses of all things that He did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem, Whom also they slew, hanging Him on a tree.'

1 It is amazing how intelligent Christians can repeat the ignorance of the Fathers, repeated by Petavius (Dogm. Theolog.) and others, confounding the action of the Spirit in the incarnation of our Lord with the anointing and seal at His baptism. But the operations of the Holy Spirit are sadly mistaken by most.

Whatever appearances may say, the will and word of God stands for ever; and faith knows it. 'Him God raised on the third day and gave Him to be manifest, not to all the people but to witnesses that were chosen before by God, to us who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead.' The resurrection is the pivoting and clenching of the gospel. If unbelief hold out against its testimony, what is clearer than that man hates both the love and the truth of God, and will not be saved at any price? The same resurrection of Jesus separates those who believe according to the value of Christ's death before God, making in their measure witnesses of Christ men who bowed to the testimony of the fore-appointed witnesses. He Whom they slew on a tree ate and drank with His own after He arose from the dead: not that He needed the food, but they needed the testimony that He was alive from the dead, a truly risen Man, Who having loved His own that were in the world, loved them to the uttermost.

He it was Who charged His disciples to preach to the people and testify that this is He that is ordained of God Judge of living and dead. Such a testimony clearly goes beyond Israel to take in all mankind within its scope, as the resurrection demonstrated beyond controversy. For if the Son of God deigned to be born of woman, born under law, His rejection by Israel, His death on the cross, broke all links with that people and left Him free for the display of sovereign grace in righteousness now while He is in heaven, as surely as He is determinately appointed by God Judge of living and dead when He comes again in glory. What has the risen Man to do with one nation more than another? He is the divinely defined Judge of living and dead by-and-by, as He is now Saviour of all that believe be they who they may. Judgment and salvation are equally cleared by the gospel and concentrated in His person. The law made nothing perfect. The prophets, on the failure of all, bore their precious intermediate testimony, and Peter appeals to them. 'To Him bear all the prophets witness that through His name every one that believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins.'

To be born again, as has often been remarked, is not a proper privilege of the gospel, as all the ritualistic sects of Christendom suppose: for the new birth was always true for souls that believed (before, within, and without, Israel) since sin was in the world. The O.T. saints were as truly begotten of God as any of the New. Remission of sins is the primary boon of the gospel, though of course the new birth attached by grace to the same persons, and the privileges of the gospel go far beyond that gracious beginning. Here all is confusion, especially in the Christian bodies which boast of antiquity. Nor were even the Reformers at all clear in this fundamental and necessary truth. Lutherans, Calvinists Anglicans and others made baptism to be the means of life! either to all the baptized or to the elect among them. According to God's word they are all wrong, and inexcusably so. For scripture never treats baptism as the sign even of life-giving, but of death with Christ to sin, and of sins washed away for such as are already quickened. Christian baptism is a blessed institution, as the initiatory sign of the peculiar though primary privilege of the gospel. Blinder than the Jews are they who pervert it into a quickening ordinance, denying too, as generally they do, that the life given in the Son is eternal life: so that sacerdotal pretension is as vain as the doctrine is false.

And so we find in this very context: 'While Peter was yet speaking these sayings, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those that were hearing the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, as many as came with Peter, were amazed, because upon the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which (οἳτινες) received the Holy Spirit even as we? And he directed them to be baptized in the name of l Jesus Christ. Then they entreated him to abide certain days' (vers. 11 48).

1 The older MSS. and Versions omit 'the Lord'; some give 'the Lord', only; a few supply both.

It is striking to notice the various ways of divine wisdom. At Pentecost the believing Jews had to be baptized before they received the gift of the Spirit. They must solemnly take the place of death with Christ to all they had previously trusted. And even to this day the Jews feel its force; for when one of them is baptized to Christ Jesus, he is viewed and treated as dead to them and their religion. And so do the Brahmins, Mohammedans, or any who are not indifferent to their own profession. But the believing Gentiles as we see received the Holy Spirit while hearing the word, as most — perhaps all of us — have done; and baptism follows. Who could refuse the outward sign to the manifest recipients of that divine seal? Their gifts in speaking with tongues and magnifying God proclaimed the more precious and the ever-abiding gift of the Spirit. His seal is the true ground why those having it should be owned as members of Christ's body: not ecclesiastical intelligence in them; still less the will or the consent of other men. Our business is to honour God and to obey, not to legislate. If ways unworthy of Christ be done and persisted in, there is the remedy of scriptural discipline.

Here, whatever his old prejudices might have been, even Peter bowed. And they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, it would seem, not by Peter, but at his direction by one or more of the brethren who accompanied him (ver. 48). There was neither vanity nor superstition in getting it done by Peter, though he took care in obedience to the Lord that it was duly done. It was of moment that they of the circumcision should go thoroughly with the mighty work of God's grace in sealing Gentile no less than Jew that believed. It was not too soon to be of moment that all may know that a simple brother may lawfully baptize even in a great apostle's presence, and that the act derived no value from office or gift. Only the evangelist should see that it be done after an orderly sort. No room was left for circumcision or the law. All is of grace reigning through righteousness. But a disciple is not on the external ground of a Christian till he is baptized. It is a privilege conferred on him who confesses Christ, and a sign of salvation through His death and resurrection.

Acts 11

Never had there been so important a step taken by man on the earth; never one demanding faith so urgently and evidently as now. Hence, though the assembly was then in its pristine order and beauty with the twelve acting together, notwithstanding the dispersion after Stephen's death which had scattered the saints generally, the Lord acted by a single servant of His whose own Jewish prejudices were notoriously of the strongest. The assembly is responsible to act together in all ordinary questions of godliness and discipline; it is bound to guard practically the foundations of truth and righteousness according to the written word. But a new departure needed and found a suited instrument, chosen and filled of God to initiate His will, and to take the step in advance, assuredly gathering it to be the will of the Lord.

Peter's faith was severely tried. For the first time since Pentecost he had to encounter doubts on the part of those who stood first in the church, and the fierce opposition of such as knew least of God and His ways. It was now not mere fleshly feeling of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, but the very serious question whether the foremost of the twelve had not compromised the testimony of Christ by the formal reception of Gentiles at Caesarea.

'But the apostles and the brethren which were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also received the word of God. And when Peter went up unto Jerusalem, they of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcized, and didst eat with them. But Peter began and set forth to them in order, saying, I was in the city of Joppa, praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descending like a great sheet, let down by four corners out of heaven, and it came as far as me. On which having fixed mine eyes, I considered and saw the quadrupeds of the earth and the wild beasts and the reptiles and the birds of the heaven. And I heard also a voice saying to me, Arise, Peter, slay and eat. But I said, In no wise, Lord, because common or unclean never entered into my mouth. But a voice answered a second time out of heaven, What God cleansed make not thou common. And this was done thrice, and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately three men stood at the house in which I was, sent from Caesarea unto me; and the Spirit bade me go with them, doubting nothing. And there went with me also these six brethren, and we entered into the house of the man; and he reported to us how he saw the angel in his house, standing and saying Send to Joppa, and fetch Simon that is surnamed Peter, who shall speak words unto thee, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house. And on my beginning to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them as upon us also at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord how He said, John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with [the] Holy Spirit. If then God gave to them the same gift as also to us when we1 believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could forbid God? And when they heard these things, they were still, and glorified God, saying, Then indeed also to the Gentiles did God give repentance unto life' (vers. 1-18).

1 Alford takes πιστέυσασιν as belonging to both 'them' and 'us', and expressive of the communion of the faith in the two parties, but though both of course did alike believe, this is to misconceive the reasoning which turns on the plain evidence of the Spirit given 'on our believing'.

It was undeniable on the face of things that Peter had openly traversed the distinction so long set up by God between Jew and Gentile. This he had to Justify by God's authority; and so he does by the simple recital of the vision already before us in the preceding chapter, which he repeats for the conviction of the brethren in Jerusalem. The moment was come for the seeds which the Lord Jesus Himself had sown to germinate and bear fruit visibly. Had He, Who in Matt. 10: 5, forbade the twelve to go to any way of the Gentiles not also when risen told them expressly to go and make disciples of all the Gentiles? The vision of Peter was merely the reduction to practice of this great commission, or at least a kindred one. For in Luke 24: 47 the Lord about to ascend had declared that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all the Gentiles, beginning from Jerusalem. And so it was. With Jerusalem they had begun. But now the tide was turning. From Jerusalem the saints had been scattered abroad. Samaria had already received the word of God, not by the church agreeing to it, nor even by the action of the apostles. And now God had left nothing ambiguous as to His will about the Gentiles. The gospel henceforth must go out indiscriminately. The holiness of Israel had come to naught in the cross of Christ. By virtue of the blood of the cross God could and would wash even the Gentiles clean Ritual had come to its end. Henceforth there must be reality by faith And as the cross of Christ pronounced all alike ruined, so now salvation was going forth to any that believed, Jew or Gentile alike. Such was the purport of the vision; and grace reasoned with Peter when he in the ecstasy ventured to controvert the Lord Himself. Who then so proper as he to convince the obstinate men of the circumcision? If they were contending with him, could he not tell them truly that he had himself dared to contend even with the Lord, Who had repeatedly and emphatically reproved his prejudices and had forbidden him to deem common what God had cleansed?

Peter told them also how the three men from the Gentile Cornelius appeared in person at that very moment before the house in Joppa, and how the Spirit bade him go with them without a question. Such a threefold cord could not be broken, each part was independent of the other, and all of them from God. For Cornelius in Caesarea had a vision no less than Peter in Joppa. But Peter had in addition, while he thought on the vision the Spirit directing him to go with the messengers of Cornelius before he knew that the three men were making inquiry at the gate.

Nay, there was more than this. God had manifestly used His word as only He could: 'As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as also upon us at the beginning.' It was the gospel of their salvation. To them also the Spirit was supplied, Who wrought powers among them beyond possibility of cavil or question. The promise of the Father was therefore fulfilled in the Gentiles, as much as in the Jews who believed, according to the word of the Lord in Acts 1: 4, 5.

Again, let us remark how clearly this discourse of Peter distinguishes new birth from salvation.1 Cornelius was assuredly born of God before Peter visited him at Caesarea. Nevertheless Peter was to speak unto him words whereby he should be saved. It is a gross mistake to suppose that the salvation which he now found is not far beyond new birth. Present salvation is the first foundation privilege of the gospel. To be born again was always true from Abel downwards. But those who are merely born again do not enter Christian ground until they have received at least the first and most needful blessing, to which the accomplishment of Christ's work entitles all who believe.

1 Another remark must be made here, though it is grievous that it should be needed. When Cornelius was assured that he was to be saved by hearing the words spoken by Peter, how groundless and evil to infer that 'all his house' were to be saved irrespective of faith! Such heterodoxy is the result of the hot furnace and continual hammering on the anvil, of party. The terms of salvation are alike for Jew or Gentile, of grace but by faith. Here it is the more momentous because it is no question of baptism (as in Acts 16) but of salvation: only the sounder view of Acts 11 goes far to disprove theories built on Acts 16. But one error leads to another; and those who divorce the outward sign from the individual place assigned it in scripture, however blessed the number of individuals in a family, are in danger of advancing to a degree of error which would appal even the old and moderate holders of the prevalent tradition in the world-church whence this judaizing notion originated. Nobody is entitled to assume that one in all Cornelius' house was contemplated for salvation, till he too heard the gospel of salvation, unless salvation be by an ordinance.

The remarkable care with which God introduced the new standing-point [of salvation] to the Gentiles makes this confusion inexcusable. Now, while faith never was without suited mercy from God, it is one of the most marked signs of unbelief to ignore the peculiar privilege which God is now giving, and to go back to that mode or means which may have been at a former time. Here, as has been already and often pointed out, the Evangelicals are as dark as the Sacramentarians. For, if the latter party attach exorbitant efficacy to the mere sign of the blessing, the former are as ignorant of what is signified. Both agree in making the initiatory institution of the gospel to be the sign of life or the new birth; whereas it is really of the remission or washing away of sins (Acts 2: 38; Acts 22: 16), and of death with Christ (Rom. 6: 2, 3; Col. 2: 12), i.e., of salvation (1 Peter 3: 21). Cornelius learnt from the apostle that for a Gentile it was no question any longer of God's uncovenanted mercy. He himself, already born of God and acquainted with the Messiah come for the deliverance of His ancient people by faith, had now to learn of salvation's door open to the Gentile believer as truly as to the Jewish. It is not promise, as hitherto even to an Israelite, it is the work accomplished, and soul-salvation henceforth given to all believers without distinction. As the seal of it, the Holy Ghost was manifestly imparted as on the day of Pentecost.

This was conclusive for the objections of the circumcision then. Who was Peter, as he triumphantly closed his argument, who they, to resist God? None but He could give that gift, which He had granted alike to Jews and Gentiles by faith of the gospel.

But the principle is of immense importance permanently, and as much now as ever. The true ground of reception is not the acceptance of certain articles of faith, expressed or understood; still less is it a certain measure of intelligence about the one body and one Spirit, which it is improbable that a single soul in Jerusalem then possessed definitely. It is a far weightier fact, the possession of 'the like gift'. If not so baptized of the Holy Spirit one is not really a member of Christ's body. To be born again never did suffice. One must have, through faith of Christ as the gospel proclaims Him and His work, the Spirit given to one as a believer. Without known remission of sins one may be quickened, but there cannot be what scripture calls 'salvation', any more than the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba, Father. There may be conversion, a divinely-given hatred of evil and love of good, God's word prized, and prayer; there may be conscience toward God, yet a real but imperfect looking to Christ. But till one knows by faith of the gospel, that all is clear between the soul and God through the sacrifice of Christ, the Holy Spirit does not seal the person, when there is submission to the righteousness of God, He does: then the believer is actually made a member of the one body of Christ. Of course such a one is, or ought to be, baptized with water, but in scripture this is never connected with that corporate and everlasting relationship. It is individual and bound up with the simple confession of Christ; so much so, that whatever God may do in sovereign grace, no intelligent saint would think of presenting a soul for fellowship of the church, unless he had previously taken the ground of a baptized person. But baptism of the Holy Ghost is wholly distinct from water baptism; and this is not even a sign of that, but of salvation by Christ or burial unto His death.

Even the stoutest defenders of Jewish exclusiveness were overwhelmed by the accumulated and crowning proof that God gave to the Gentiles also repentance unto life. It was now an incontestable and blessed fact. They were more than silenced, they 'were still'. Grace had triumphed, as it ought to do, over law, in Jerusalem, and among none but Jews that believed. It was not yet a day of ruin, when the least right are apt to tee the most self-confident and jubilant. It was grace made them glorify God in reversing their previous judgment.

But God works variously to accomplish His purpose, and so we see at this point of the inspired history. The action of Peter was of the utmost moment, and its acceptance in Jerusalem by those whom God had set in the highest place in the assembly. A fresh apostle had been expressly chosen outside the twelve, called by the glorified Christ in heaven where all for man is and must be of sovereign grace, given to be apostle of Gentiles in formal and acknowledged contradistinction from those of the circumcision. Nor was this all. The free action of the Holy Spirit receives a full and rich expression in the labours of brethren, who, when driven by persecution from Jerusalem, began to preach, but were bold enough to preach, without trance or vision or personal direction, outside the ancient people of God and even proselytes.

'They therefore that were scattered abroad through the tribulation that took place on the occasion of Stephen passed through as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none but Jews only. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming' unto Antioch spoke unto the Greeks1 also,1 preaching the Lord Jesus. And [the] Lord's hand was with them and a great number believed and turned2 unto the Lord. And the report concerning them came unto the ears of the assembly that was in Jerusalem; and they dispatched Barnabas3 as far as Antioch: who, on arriving and seeing the grace of God, rejoiced and exhorted all with purpose of heart to abide by the Lord. For he was a good man and full of [the] Holy Spirit and faith; and a large crowd was added to the Lord. And he3 went forth unto Tarsus to seek for Saul, and on finding brought him' unto Antioch. And it came to pass that even4 for a whole year they were gathered together in the assembly and taught a large crowd, and that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch' (vers. 19-26).

1 The simple participle is right, not the compounded as in Text. Rec. which drops 'also' and reads  Ἑλληνιστάς after BDcorr. EHLP and most, the Sinaitic giving the strange blunder of 'evangelists' as its primary reading.

2 AB and three cursives give 'that believed turned'.

3 High authorities omit 'to go through', and 'Barnabas' in ver. 25, also the word 'him'. (one or both) in ver. 26.

4 'Even' is omitted in Text. Rec.

It will be observed that the account of this early and free evangelizing, first to Jews, but after a little while to Greeks, is reserved for the introduction of Saul's first connection with Antioch, the earthly starting-point of the great apostle's labours. This is quite in Luke's manner. His order (and none more orderly) is not one of simple sequence, such as we may see in the Gospel of Mark, still less does it linger on giving evidences of the change of dispensation, as in that of Matthew. He was led to deal with moral associations, which, if less patent, present a deeper arrangement, and fuller of instruction in God's ways, than a mere chronological series.

Whatever the value (and it was immense) of the episode we have lately had before us in Acts 9: 32 - 11: 18 (Acts 9: 31 being a sort of transitional link that closes what goes before and introduces it), God took care that the gospel should reach the Gentiles first in a way altogether informal, even while the highest ecclesiastical authorities were there to commence and sanction its inauguration with the seal of the whole apostolic college in Jerusalem. It pleased the Lord that all should be ordered otherwise; and the work among the Gentiles began with not even distinct purpose nor definite intelligence on the part of its promoters, with nothing apparent save the loving zeal that knew the desperate need of the Gentiles as well as the immeasurable efficacy of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It was therefore according to the deepest wisdom as well as divine goodness that the real beginning of the gospel outside Israel should be simply of love flowing out from God only, as far as understanding went, in the circumstances that ensued on Stephen's martyrdom. Then, as we know, the saints generally were scattered through the persecution that set in. In the course. of their passage here and there, Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch profited by their testimony. At first, however, the word was spoken to none but Jews only. Some of them, however, and these foreign Jews, Cyprians and Cyrenians, ventured farther, and in the last of the places named, at Antioch addressed the Greeks also with the glad tidings of the Lord Jesus.

Was not this very bold? Certainly it was of God Who made use of the providential circumstances for His glory. It was love, it was spiritual instinct, in the heart of those who evangelized, whose very names are unknown. God has taken particular care not to name them perhaps lest we should attribute to them a deeper perception of His mini than was really due. The momentous fact was there, and simple-hearted labourers were those to whom God gave this mighty and profound impulse by His Spirit. Let us admire these ways of God, which are higher than those even of His people, as the heavens are higher than the earth.

Man, even the wisest of His servants, would have expected otherwise. But the same God was now at work, Who, if He brought Moses by providence into the house of Pharaoh's daughter, brought him out of it by faith, Who even then did not use him, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, to the deliverance of His people, till he had unlearned man as well as himself, and realized alone what God is, in the wilderness for forty long years: then and then only was he fitted of God to be a ruler and a deliverer. So now did it to God seem meet to begin Gentile Christianity through men of comparatively small account in either the world or the church, before there was the smallest intercourse between Peter and Cornelius. The highest order that ever was established in the assembly on earth could not therefore boast. The Lord is above that or any other grade; to Him none can dictate. Nor has He abdicated His rights over the earth into the hands of a vicegerent any more than of the twelve. This having been vindicated by His sovereign employment of the Cyprians and Cyrenians who first planted the gospel among the nations, He does take care to send Peter to Caesarea and to have Peter's action on according to His direct command formally sanctioned by the twelve in Jerusalem. His own call of Saul to be apostle of the Gentiles was independent of both the free action at Antioch and the formal recognition of Caesarea at Jerusalem; as it was evidently also prior in time, and in many respects superior in claim and power, one may add to both, though this was not yet fully disclosed.

Of such weight it was in God's eyes to found, confirm, and authenticate this work among the Gentiles, so supremely interesting and indispensable to us, who without it were mere sinners, 'without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.' But if to us of such moment, what was it to the glory of His own grace? What to the praise of His Son, the Lord Jesus?

And if these brethren of Cyprus and Cyrene kept speaking to the Greeks also, announcing the glad tidings of the Lord Jesus, the Lord's hand was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. If ever men dared to draw indefinitely on grace without waiting for outward sign or open commission, if any servants of the Lord ever exposed themselves to a seemingly just taunt of going beyond all bounds, more especially as 'the twelve' were not only alive but together not so far off, surely it was these pioneers of grace to the Greeks.

Antioch in Syria was no doubt a suitable place in God's mind. The city was founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator; and there, as the Jews possessed equal privileges with the Greeks politically, great numbers lived under the government of an ethnarch of their own. God never forgets kindness shown to His poor people even in their fallen estate, and knows how to repay with an interest unmistakably divine. Here first the Greeks heard, believed, and turned to the Lord.

It is well known that large and good MS. authority supports the reading of the common text, Hellenists, Grecians, or Greek-speaking Jews. But the sense afforded by corr. A Dpm, and, if not all the ancient versions, by the Armenian, is made decisive by the requirements of the truth stated. For in Jerusalem itself before the scattering not only were 'Grecians' objects of testimony as well as other Jews, but notoriously the murmuring was of that portion against the Hebrews, or native Jews who spoke Aramaic. Nay more, all 'the seven' chosen to allay the unworthy outbreak, and to relieve the apostles from a work that hindered for an incomparably better, bore Hellenistic names, and one of them was expressly from Antioch. Again, it is recorded in Acts 9: 29 how Saul of Tarsus spoke and disputed against these Hellenists in Jerusalem. Thus there would be nothing new or peculiar in similar speech at Antioch; whereas it is declared here that at first none but Jews were addressed, and afterwards 'the Greeks also', and this effectively under the good hand of the Lord. Now 'Hebrew' stands over against 'Hellenist', but not 'Jew', which includes both. So that 'Jew' can only be confronted by 'Greek', not by 'Hellenists', which falls under that category. The point therefore is so far from immaterial, that 'Greeks'1 can alone bear rigid or intelligent investigation, and at once conveys a new and important fact. Further, we must on no account suppose their conversion to the Lord by the gospel to have taken place after the disciples had heard of the call of Cornelius. It has been already stated that it occurred before Peter's visit to Caesarea. Evidently all that our chapter implies is, that the report about their conversion only then came to the ears of the assembly that was in Jerusalem. The fact of the conversion itself had of course taken place considerably before; and we have seen how beautifully its priority contributes its quota to the full scheme of God's grace, which called apostolic authority into action no less appropriately.

1 No wonder that with his usual tact Abp. Ussher (Works, xi. 24) accepted the reading, even though the Vatican supports that which prevails among the more modern copies, and the Fathers seem to vacillate with their too frequent lack of discernment. The effort of Wetstein, et al., fails to make out that Ἐλληνισταί means Gentiles, instead of Greek-speaking or foreign Jews, its real import. Equally vain (as founded on the common mix-reading), is the reasoning of Saumaise, Wolf, et al., that they were Gentiles but proselytes of Judaism. It may be well to note that while in the New Testament the Authorized Version distinguishes 'Grecian' (= Hellenist) from 'Greek', in the Old Testament (Joel 3: 6) the former is used for the latter where the LXX. properly have τῶν Ἑλλήνων. K�¼hnol is quite mistaken in referring ἐξ αὐτῶν (ver. 20) not to the scattered preachers but to the Jews just named.

Barnabas then, who was of Cyprus, though a Levite, comes to Antioch on his mission of inquiry. Nor can we conceive one more admirably chosen, if a genial heart devoted to Christ were wanted to judge fairly of the work in Antioch and to reassure those in Jerusalem adequately. For he, when he came and saw the grace of God, 'rejoiced and exhorted all with purpose of heart to abide by the Lord' (ver. 23). And striking is the comment of the inspired historian, who in no way grudges his true meed any more than Paul would because Barnabas subsequently was betrayed into unbecoming heat for his kinsman's sake: 'For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and faith.' Grace sealed his visit also, 'and a large crowd was added to the Lord.' Can we doubt that the work had still its mixed character, with Barnabas a fellow-workman in what drew out his joy?

Again, there is another trait very characteristic of this 'good man', and not only so but of the real working of the Holy Spirit, both in sending him to Antioch and now in his going off to Cilicia. 'And he went forth unto Tarsus to seek for Saul; and on finding [him] brought him unto Antioch' (vers. 25-26). Is it thus that we feel and act in presence of a large field of service where we are honoured by the Master's use? Do we in the midst of it remind ourselves of another who might be yet more efficient? Or does jealousy still hinder — still play its dark and deadly part to the dishonour of Christ and the loss of souls within and without? It was not so with Barnabas, who had already done a brother's office when all were alas! afraid of Saul (Acts 9: 26, 27). Now having learnt his value as a bold preacher when going in and out of Jerusalem, he bethinks him of the help Saul might render at Antioch, and, acting on it, he is enabled to execute his desire. 'And it came to pass that even for a whole year they were gathered together in1 the assembly, and taught a large crowd, and that the disciples were first called2 Christians in Antioch' (ver. 26). It was Christ's flock, not that of either; and His love animated them both, as others also no doubt, to care for it. In those days not one said that the assembly was his own, but served in it the more lovingly and holily because they always remembered that it is God's, and not man's.

1 'In' seems not more literal than exact and full. 'With' does not convey the intimacy of their relation, themselves a part of the assembly: it might rather imply a place less close. It will be noticed that here first do we read of 'the assembly', or church, in a Gentile city, whence in due time the Spirit sends Barnabas and Saul separated for their work of grace among the nations. Yet God so ordered that Antioch could not, more than Rome, boast of an apostolically founded assembly for, in the simple way we have seen, it began by men who in love preached to all alike the good news of Christ.

2 It is rather bold of Mr. Myers (Norrisian Prize Essay, 1832, p. 16, note) to say as an ascertained fact that 'the apostles gave the heathen converts this name'. The form of the Greek verb is active, no doubt; but what of its real force? The N.T. usage in the sense here required is limited to the occurrence of the future in Rom. 7: 3, which is beyond controversy opposed directly to the assumption. There it means 'shall be called' or 'get the name of' and so it is here. How much more sober is Abp. Ussher on the fact: 'Quod nomen, Latina non Graeca a Christo deflexum, a Romanis Antiochiae tum agentibus impositum illis fuisse videatur'. Where a divine communication is intended, the form is different. The classic use for managing, and hence speaking of, business, does not occur in the New Testament, though one can see how from this people would get a name, and at length a name irrespective of their business.

It is not without interest that the Spirit of God here adds that Antioch, notoriously famous of old for witty or scurrilous nicknames, first gave the designation of 'Christians' to the disciples, who within were styled 'faithful', 'brethren', 'saints', and otherwise 'Christians' was a name which Gentiles gave in reproach, as Jews called them 'Nazarenes', and Julian the apostate at a later day, 'Galileans'. Jews would never think of 'Christ' as the ground of a contemptuous term: what they scorned was that Jesus is the Christ.

'Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem unto Antioch; and there stood up one from among them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that a great famine was about to be over all the habitable [earth]; which came to pass under Claudius.2 And according as any one of the disciples had means, they determined each of them to send help [lit., for service] to the brethren that dwelt in Judea: which also they did dispatching [it] unto the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul' (vers. 27-30).

2 'Caesar' is added in Text. Rec.

It is a joy to see that the free activity of the Spirit which began the work and founded the assembly in Antioch was no more restive at the special gifts that ministered in their midst than it distrusted what the Lord had wrought by simple believers evangelizing as they could. It was not Barnabas and Saul only who laboured there, but prophets came down from Jerusalem, and one of them, Agabus, predicts a great dearth (as we know there was more than once) in the time of Claudius. Is it not of deep interest, the faith and love which responded to this though it was no charity sermon, without waiting for a call from saints already impoverished by their generous love after the great Pentecost which first saw the assembly here below? They believed in the coming scarcity, and thought of the saints in Jerusalem as truly 'one body'; and perhaps we may apply 1 Cor. 12: 26 here, if one suffer, so do all, and as they sympathize, they succour also. So even the Jews in Ezra's day were roused by the prophets to build, before the renewed intervention of their foes drew out the great king's decree that cancelled the usurper's prohibition. It is blessed to act on heavenly motives in earthly duties; and that what we do should be in the faith that ever honours God's word. So the links of love are maintained on both sides between Jerusalem and Antioch; and this, in things spiritual yet more than in the carnal, which it was their duty to repay, as Paul afterwards did not fail to remind others.

The task was entrusted to Barnabas and Saul through 'the elders', of whom we hear for the first time in the associations of the assembly. How they were installed in Judea we know not from the New Testament, but we have definite instruction in the sphere of the Gentile assemblies, as we may see in Acts 14: 23. The term as the office seems indeed to have been derived from Israel, as anyone can observe how it runs through the O.T. even from the earliest times. It was in force fully in the synagogue, as we may see in the N.T. Vitringa (de Synag. Vet.) discusses this at length. 'Bishop' is now everywhere acknowledged as synonymous, but is apparently derived rather from a Gentile source, though frequently found in the LXX., and pointing to oversight or inspection; as 'elder' did to a man of years, and hence apart from age to a senator. In or out of Palestine each synagogue had its 'elderhood'; and the same order reappears in the assembly. It is absurd to confound this fact with 'the minister' of a church so-called in modern times. Their place was to preside, though some might teach. An exclusive title to preach or teach is unknown to the N.T., nay more, it contradicts the fundamental constitution of the assembly in which God sets all variety of gifts for exercise within and without.

Acts 12

The last chapter began with liberty for the Gentiles, vindicated in Jerusalem, and ended with love flowing out to the brethren in Judea from the assembly at Antioch. This drew Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem. God had not forgotten Jerusalem because He was gathering souls in Antioch, nor was He unmindful of the apostles of the circumcision because He had raised up a suited and energetic envoy for the nations. Nevertheless it is not in the same way that His name was to be celebrated even in the same outburst of persecution. The former had scattered the saints except the apostles; the new trial broke out against the apostles, and in particular against James and Cephas, two of the foremost, one slain and the other kept to be slain: so at least the king had purposed.

'Now at that season Herod the king put forth his hands to injure some of those from the assembly. And he slew James, the brother of John, with [the] sword. And seeing that it was agreeable to the Jews, he went on to seize Peter also (but they were the1 days of unleavened bread); whom, having taken, he also put in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep, purposing after the passover to bring him forth unto the people.

'Peter, then, was kept in the prison; but prayer was earnestly2 made by the assembly unto God concerning2 him. And when Herod was about to bring him forward, on that night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and guards before the door were keeping the prison. And, behold, an angel of [the] Lord stood by, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck the side of Peter, and awoke him, saying, Rise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals, and he did so. And he saith to him, Throw thy cloak round thee and follow me. And going out he followed3 and knew not that what was being done by the angel was true, but thought he was seeing a vision. And when they came through a first guard and a second, they came unto the iron gate that readeth unto the city, which of itself opened to them; and having gone out they went forth one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. And Peter, on coming to himself, said, Now I know truly that [the] Lord sent forth His angel and took me out of Herod's hand and all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And, being conscious, he came unto the house of Mary the mother of John that was surnamed Mark, where were many assembled and praying. And when he4 knocked at the door of the gate-way, there came forward a maid to listen, by name Rhoda; and, recognizing Peter's voice, she did not for joy open the gate, but ran in and reported that Peter was standing before the gate-way. And, they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she kept maintaining that it was so; and they said, It is his angel. But Peter continued knocking, and on opening they saw him and were amazed. And, beckoning to them with his hand to be silent, he related to them how the Lord brought him out of the prison; and he said, Report these things to James and to the brethren. And he went out and proceeded unto another place.

1 Some high authorities (Å BHLP, et al.) omit the article.

2 The adjective form is most common in the MSS., as is 'for'.

3 Text. Rec. adds 'him', which the most ancient authorities do not express.

4 The more recent copies say 'Peter'.

'And when it was day there was no small disturbance among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. But Herod, having sought him out without finding [him], examined the guards and commanded [them] to be led away [? to execution], and he went down from Judea unto Caesarea and stayed [there]' (vers. 1-19).

Thus, if one of the sons of Zebedee was to be preserved the last of the twelve, the other fell a victim to the sword of Herod Agrippa, the first martyr among the apostles. The king was in no way a violent arbitrary monarch, like his grandfather, Herod the Great; but as he sought to ingratiate himself with the Romans, so did this grandson of his with the Jews. And those who seemed to be pillars in the church afforded the readiest means and objects to gratify Jewish spite. But God's thoughts are not as man's, and, though the Lord had already shown by what death Peter should glorify God, the time was not yet come: 'When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.' Herod meant not merely to imprison Peter but to bring him before the people, perhaps for sentence, for execution certainly as a public example. But the Passover intervened; and Herod was too scrupulous a devotee to slight the days of unleavened bread.

Meanwhile the assembly made earnest prayer, whilst the king delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep. Deliverance was at hand, which the church scarcely expected more than the king feared it. As usual, it was just before the critical moment. 'At evening time there shall be light.' That night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, not only bound with two chains, but sentinels before the door keeping guard of the prison. All seemed sure on the world's side, and on the other Peter rested in peace through the grace of the Lord Who neither slumbers nor sleeps; when behold, His angel stood by and roused him, freeing Peter of his chains, and minutely directing him, who, as in a vision, complied with each word as he was bidden. Nor did he come to himself till they had passed the two-fold watch, and the iron gate opened of its own accord, not to let the angel in but to let Peter out; and they had advanced one street off, when the angel departed. Then Peter realized his deliverance, and in full consciousness of all went to Mary's, where many were met for prayer — we cannot surely doubt — about him who knocked at the door. Nor was it fear but joy that led the maid Rhoda (or as we would say, Rose), who recognized the well-known voice, to run back and tell the news, that Peter was standing without. Luke, who all through presents the truth vividly, in no way hides the scanty faith of the saints, who could scarcely have forgotten how Jehovah's angel before now opened the prison-doors and brought out the apostles when placed in public custody by the envious high priest and his Sadducean party. Faith appropriates as well as remembers for present need.

Now it was neither the priest nor the people, but the king, to please the Jews; but what of God? If magnified in the death of James, He would be more in preserving Peter alive, whatever the pleasure of the people or their rulers. The testimony had been already fully given, even in the temple; and there was no command now to stand and speak there 'all the words of this life.' They had heard and despised the gospel of Him risen and glorified, Whom they had rejected and crucified. Peter therefore was not to make a similar stand now, though the miracle was as great, but, according to the Lord's ordinary rule, when persecuted in this city, to flee into the other; as, after explaining all to the astonished company, he does at this time.

Cardinal Baronius treats with prudent reserve the story in the Breviary of James's preaching in Spain (where Compostella claims his burial!) with an equally curt reference to what is noted in the Roman Martyrology ('quae consulat qui haec cupit'1); but he has much to say of the alleged history of the other apostles, and above all of Peter at this juncture, as it had practical aims for the papacy. That he went to Rome then, and began his first year of reigning five and twenty years there as Pope, is the wildest of dreams, which is not only without a shred of scripture proof but in the strongest way is set aside by all that scripture does tell us. For God Who foreknew the vain and selfish wishes of men has taken care, not indeed so to speak that superstition and infidelity cannot pursue their several paths of shameless and disastrous self-will, but to give the faithful ample evidence for confuting the adversary and for establishing in truth and peace all who honour His own written word.

1 Which those who desire to do so may consult for themselves.

The apostle Paul, long after A.D. 44 (15 or 16 years), writes to the Romans in terms which imply that no apostle had as yet visited the capital of the Gentile world, in terms expressive of his own ardent desire to impart some spiritual gift to the saints there, as one who built not on another man's foundation but recognized in Rome part of that measured province which God apportioned to him. This, which is but a single testimony out of several, is enough to dissipate the tale into thin air. How can upright Christians attach the least weight even to Eusebius of Caesarea, who retails the fable of 'another Cephas' to screen the apostle of the circumcision from the reluctant but necessary and instructive censure of the apostle of the Gentiles? And this is but a sample of his departure from plain scripture or contradiction of it. The word is silent where Peter went; and though one may not agree with the late Dean Alford that the expression in the end of verse 17 only implies that Peter left the house of Mary and may have stayed secretly in Jerusalem, we can think of intimations of places, not in Palestine only but among the Gentiles, where the apostle, according to the New Testament, was known. But for believers to build on conjectures is worse than idle, and tends to shake solid truth in the hands of those who least of all should allow themselves such a licence. That natural men should have most to say where scripture is reticent one can too well understand: they receive not the things of the Spirit of God, and cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned.

It is beautiful to remark the ways of God with His servants traceable already in this brief Book. First of all (Acts 4) we see Peter and John in custody and no miracle to abridge its short duration. Next, the twelve are imprisoned; but during the night Jehovah's angel opened the door and led them out to bear testimony in the temple to the exalted Jesus: whence they are brought before the council, beaten and dismissed, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name. Now, one apostle is slain with the sword, and another is delivered by Jehovah's angel on the eve of a similar design by a king whose habitual mildness toward the people (if we are to credit Josephus1) did not certainly hinder extreme persecution of the truth when his religious zeal and his political vanity were offended. And his chagrin burst ruthlessly on the guards, as we learn in verses 18, 19, though not a tittle of evidence pointed to any guilty connivance on their part at the prisoner's escape. No wonder he saw fit to go down from Judea unto Caesarea.

1 Much nearer the truth is the account of Dion Cassius (H.R. 59: 24, ed. Sturz, iii. 700), who records the apprehension at Rome that the cruelty and lewd violence of Caius Caligula were not checked but helped on by this very Agrippa and Antiochus (IV. of Commagene) in the art of tyranny — τοὺς βασιλέας, ὤσπερ τινὰς τυραννοδιδασκάλους.

But this is not all. 'And he2 was at bitter enmity with them of Tyre and Sidon; but with one consent they came to him, and, having won over Blastus the chamberlain of the king, sought peace, because their country was nourished by the king's. And on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel and seated on the throne,3 made an harangue unto them. And the people shouted thereon, A god's voice and not a man's. And immediately an angel of [the] Lord smote him, because he gave not the glory to God; and becoming worm-eaten he expired' (vers. 20-23). Such was the last act of this solemn drama, if so one may speak of a succession of scenes as full of interest as of profound instruction for man with God: one apostle slain; and another delivered by an angel: the church's prayers answered beyond their faith; the mortified tyrant next wreaking his vengeance on his guards, not on his intended victim; himself struck at the moment that he accepted the deifying homage of the multitude, when he that gave not the glory to God was given up to worms, even before he gave up the ghost. 'But the word of God grew and multiplied.'

2 'Herod' is read in Text. Rec. after most.

3 It is literally the βῆμα, elsewhere in the Authorized Version translated 'judgment seat', or suggestus, for oratory, formal audience, or honourable reception, as well as for judicial investigation.

What a descent, after this tale so simply but most graphically told and pregnant with moral truth, to read the account of the same circumstances in the statement of the eminent Josephus! 'When the third year of his reign over all Judea was completed, he went to the city of Caesarea, which formerly was called Straton's Tower. There he instituted shows in honour of the emperor, knowing there was a festival for his safety. Thither flocked a multitude of the men of rank and distinction throughout the province. On the second day of the show, having put on a robe wrought all over with silver of astonishing texture, he came into the theatre early in the day. There the first beams of the sun shone on the silver, and dazzled with such surprising lustre as to fill with fear and awe those who gazed on him. Forthwith flatterers here and there, far from good to him, began their loud acclamations, calling him a god, and saying, Be propitious; and if hitherto we reproved thee as a man, henceforth we confess thee superior to human nature. The king rebuked them not, nor rejected the impious flattery; but after a little looked up and saw an owl sitting on a cord over his head, and understood that this was a messenger (or angel) of evil as it had formerly been of good (XVIII. vii. 1), and was struck with grief to the heart. Incessant torment to the bowels supervened with vehemence from the first. Then looking toward his friends he says, I your god am already ordered to depart this life, fate instantly confuting those expressions just now falsely said of me; for I that was called immortal by you am being hurried away already a dead man. The decision that God has willed must be accepted. Yet our life has been by no means despicable, but in a splendour that is counted happy. Saying this, he was tormented with an increase of agony, and in haste was borne into the palace; and rumour spread among all that the king was at the point of death. Then immediately the multitude with wives and children clothed in sackcloth by their country's law were supplicating God on behalf of the king. And all was full of wailing and lamentations. And the king lying in a chamber on high gave himself up to tears as he saw them prostrate below on their faces, but after five days' continual pains in the bowels he departed this life in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventeenth of his reign' (Opera 871-872, ed. Hudson).

Even J. D. Michaelis remarks that this may be better Greek than Luke's, but is far less probable history. I should say it is a Jew's history of what substantially was undeniable fact among the Jews, written to please, and ingratiate them with, their Roman masters. Luke gives us the mind of Christ, as far removed as possible from the taint of ecclesiastical legends. See even the comparatively sober Eusebius' H.E. II. 10, where he tells us that the consequences of the king's attempt against the apostles were not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice soon overtook him after his plots against the apostles. Now it is on the face of the inspired narrative that Luke calmly states the facts (not without laying bare the motive) of James's death and Peter's imprisonment with a like close designed. But all is said with grace and dignity: expressed feeling is wholly absent. The stroke which cut short the self-exalting monarch beyond doubt turns on his acceptance of the impious incense which the unhallowed fawning of his court and the multitude offered to him. People may talk of similar profanity unpunished in Roman emperors or others; but Herod Agrippa professed scrupulous Judaism, and therefore fell under His hand, Who waits for a later day before dealing with the nations that know not God. How different man's word from God's!

But, further, Eusebius goes on to notice the coincidence of Josephus's account with that of scripture, but in citing formally the Jewish historian he leaves out 'tine owl', and simply quotes 'an angel sitting above his head'. Such is the honesty of the Christian father. It is not improbable that 'the owl' was introduced once, or perhaps both times, in the tale of Agrippa to meet Roman taste for auguries, but we can have no hesitation in branding the bad faith of the Bishop of Caesarea in dropping, without a word of explanation, 'the owl' from the cited language of Josephus. It is easy, after this fashion, to make stories agree, and to express one's admiration of it; but such a deceitful handling of things, not uncommon in the early writers, and in full bloom among the medievals, deserves the reprobation of all who love the truth.

How chastened the triumphant note that follows! 'But the word of God grew and multiplied (ver. 24). Compare Acts 6: 7; Acts 19: 20. Its sphere enlarged as its agents increased, the weakness of too many that received it could not hide its own weight and value, any more than the mighty adversaries who had to fall before a Mightier that was behind it.

The last verse is a transition to the still more important movement from Antioch which follows. It shows us two of the highest rank in the assembly not ashamed to render diaconal service toward the poor saints in Jerusalem. Such remembrance had the pillars there; and certainly Paul could say later with truth that he was zealous to do this very thing, as we know how near it had ever been to the heart of Barnabas. We shall hear more ere long of John Mark. 'And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled the service, taking also with them John surnamed Mark' (ver. 25). But we may remark even here that there is no real reason to doubt that he was the future writer of the second Gospel, which traces by divine inspiration the blessed and only perfect service of our Lord Jesus. Mark was now for a while the companion of His servants, one of them to be unequalled in labours and sufferings for Christ. We shall soon see how Mark fared. If he failed, love failed not. And recovery by grace is precious in its way, as is yet more the grace that enables the weak to stand by faith.

Acts 13

Peter, with the exception of his part in the council held in Jerusalem (Acts 15), disappears from the inspired history before us. Another figure comes not merely into prominence, but into centrality even from this, the first chapter of what may be justly regarded as the second volume of the Book of Acts. Not from Jerusalem but from Antioch (already so remarkable for Christian zeal impressing itself strikingly on those without, as well as for the first corporate stand made or mentioned among the Gentiles), we hear of a mission by the Holy Ghost.

'Now there were at Antioch in the assembly that was [there]1 prophets and teachers: Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius the Cyrenean, and Manaen foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said Separate Me "Barnabas and 2Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they let them go. They then, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, went down unto Seleucia and thence sailed away unto Cyprus, and when they were at Salamis, they announced the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they had also John as attendant. And having gone through the whole3 island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a Jewish false prophet, whose name [was] Bar-Jesus, who was with the pro-consul Sergius-Paulus, an intelligent man. He, having called to [him] Barnabas and Saul; desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name interpreted) opposed them, seeking to turn away the pro-consul from the faith. But Saul who also [is] Paul, filled with [the] Holy Spirit, 4with fixed look at him said, O full of all guile and all trickery, devil's son enemy of all righteousness wilt thou not cease perverting the Lord's right ways? And now behold [the] Lord's hand [is] upon thee; and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell upon him a mist and darkness, and he went about seeking persons to lead him by hand. Then the pro-consul seeing what was done believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord' (vers. 1-12).

1 ABD, more than six cursives, et al,, and almost all the ancient Versions do not read τινες 'some', or 'certain', as in the majority.

2 Text. Rec. has τε with slight authority, but τόν before Σαῦλον has large support.

3 ὃλην is authenticated by the best authority, though omitted in Text. Rec. with most MSS.

4 Text Rec. in ver 9 follows many in giving the copulative.

None can deny a plurality of gifted men, five of high rank in full service of Christ, and this expressly in 'the church that was at Antioch.' 'Churches' in the same place, each with its own minister, we see here as everywhere ignored. It is not meant that the faithful may not have met to break bread regularly in many houses here or there, as we know they did in Jerusalem; but none the less did they in that city as in every other constitute 'the assembly' there. Unity prevailed, which only the Holy Spirit could form or maintain; not unity invisible or for heaven merely and admitting of actual diversity or even antagonism, but rather living and manifest unity on earth: which as yet the gifts, and the elders where they existed, subserved, instead of being the instruments of expressing their independency.

It is also to be observed that these five prophets and teachers are named neither in worldly style nor in ecclesiastical rank; otherwise Barnabas had not been first, still less had Saul been last. They seem rather arranged in the order of spiritual birth — at any rate so far as they were known to the saints in Antioch. He who was Herod the tetrarch's foster-brother is neither first nor last. But the gracious power of the Lord according to His word in Matt. 20: 16 was soon to make first in the testimony of His truth him who here occupies the last place.

'Whilst they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me [now] Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.' The ministering to the Lord here must not be confounded with His service in preaching or teaching; it was no doubt mainly prayer and intercession. That the Lord's supper was concerned is a crude and unfounded idea; for this supposes the fellowship of saints in the remembrance of Christ, and in its principle contemplates all saints, whereas the 'ministering' here was simply on the part of the fellow-labourers, it may be presumed, that the Lord might be pleased to direct and bless the work, and that each of them might be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work. This is confirmed by the fasting which accompanied their spiritual action toward the Lord, expressive as it of course is of the outward nature abased that the inner might be the more undividedly before Him, rather than of the chief public occasion of the church's thanksgiving and united praise.

It is probable that the Holy Spirit may have used one or more of the prophets to convey the mind of God as to the work to which He had summoned Barnabas and Saul. So it appears to have been in Timothy's case (1 Tim. 1: 18; 1 Tim. 4: 14), though we see direct action in that of Philip (Acts 8: 29). Here, whatever the channel, the word was not to the church, as Alford assumes, but to the fellow-labourers as a whole to separate those two for the special work before them. The language is very expressive of the Spirit's personal interest and authority as One here below immediately concerned in the highest and most intimate degree. It is the Spirit Who says, 'I have called them.' Neither Barnabas nor Saul was now called for the first time authoritatively to the service of Christ; for, even the younger of the two had laboured notoriously and efficiently for years, both in the gospel and in the church. Ordination by brethren of a rank inferior to themselves would be the result gained by men who are precipitately anxious to extract that rite from the passage. If there was any such thing in the case, the proceedings would be irreconcilable with all its acknowledged principles, and for episcopacy in particular. But the 'separation' here described is of a wholly distinct nature and with a different purpose, as the intelligent reader cannot but see if unbiased. Certain it is that Gal. 1: 1 repudiates, with marked precision, what many ancients and moderns have erroneously founded on the interesting and instructive circumstance before us. Paul declares that he was apostle (not of men as source, nor by man as channel, but) by Jesus Christ and God the Father Who raised Him from the dead. It would have admirably suited his judaizing detractors to have argued that he owed his ministerial title to the three teachers at Antioch who laid their hands on him and Barnabas; but bold as his old adversaries were at Corinth or in Galatia or elsewhere, we are not told that they dared to go so far in their insinuations. Clearly his own statement precludes summarily and for ever all effort thus to lower his apostleship or, what comes to much the same result, to exalt ordination at the expense of the apostle Paul in this place or any other.

The third verse confirms the remarks made on the early words of verse 2, for here we have again fasting with prayer. But though an initiatory ceremony assuming to convey holy orders is not here intended, yet do we see a holy and solemn tone sustained in striking contrast with that which prevails in some modern forms mistakenly built on it. The 'charge' and the 'dinner' suit well those for whom fasting and prayer offer no attractions. 'Ember days' may be formal enough, but at least resemble more and might be morally better. The Lord was the one object then, and the Holy Spirit wrought in power, and a service of self-abnegation to God's glory was the blessed fruit. The outward acts flowed from the life within. So with the laying on of hands. It was a general sign of identification, or of blessing given. In the case before us their fellow-labourers solemnly commended the honoured pair to the grace of God with this seal of their own fellowship in the work.

'They sent them forth' is here objectionable; because it might be, as it has been, interpreted to mean the mission to which they had authorized Barnabas and Saul. But the word chosen excludes such a thought and simply means 'let them go' without a shadow of commission in it. The idea of mission is conveyed forcibly in the beginning of verse 5: 'They then, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, went down unto Seleucia and thence sailed away unto Cyprus, and, when they were at Salamis they announced the word in the synagogues of the Jews; and they had also John as attendant. And having gone through the whole island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a Jewish false prophet, whose name [was] Bar-Jesus, who was with the pro-consul Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man.'

Thus we see Saul, not only called by the glorified Christ from heaven, but now sent out with his elder companion by the Spirit from the city remarkable for being the first directly named assembly among the nations. Here took place the apostle's 'separation' (comp. Rom. 1: 1) unto gospel work, though not his only. All was outside Jerusalem and the twelve. His call was heavenly, his mission toward the Gentiles and from the bosom of the first Gentile assembly; but the energy and direction were of the Holy Spirit, though his fellow-servants testified their communion with' the two in their work. John Mark waited on them in person, and no doubt helped on the work in his measure. To call him chaplain or deacon would be ridiculous, if such perversion could admit of such a feeling. It is humbling that godly men should descend so low. Let modern practice rest on its true basis: scripture is no warrant for it.

We may notice the practice of the apostle which answered to the principle so familiar in his inspired words, 'to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.' When at Salamis they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. It was indeed the only place of a religious sort where any such liberty existed. And such also was God's order till Jerusalem was destroyed, or at least the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, when the 'no difference' which the gospel declares found a yet more manifest and final application. But till then the door was open, and those who possessed a Jewish title were free therein to read or expound the scriptures.

But it was at its capital, Nea Paphos (not exactly the spot so celebrated as the dissolute seat of Aphrodite's worship), that the gospel came into collision, not with Jewish prejudice only, but with this intensified and embittered by religious imposture and sorcery. 'And when they had gone through the whole island unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer (or magician), a Jewish false prophet, whose name [was] Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. He having called to [him] Barnabas and Saul sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is interpreted his name) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith.' Salamis being on the east, as Paphos on the west, they had to cross the island as a whole; as the best copies say, though this is omitted in the common text. The interest of the Roman governor aroused the jealous opposition of the corrupt Jew who had had influence over a mind shocked with demoralizing idolatry but open to displays of power, not without some show of revelation. What could be more overwhelming to the Jewish impostor's influence than the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ? But the pro-consul1 (not 'deputy' or legate, as in the Authorized Version) had a conscience in exercise and by grace an ear for the truth, which soon turned toward that which was of God, when the testimony reached his soul. Bar-Jesus (= son of Jesus, or Joshua) called himself 'Elymas', the wise man, or magician which was a title apparently akin to the Oriental 'Ulemah'. This wickedness drew out the solemn rebuke of Saul (henceforward called Paul)2 accompanied by a sentence from God which the Holy Ghost gave him not only to utter but to execute. The rareness of such judicial inflictions under the gospel makes their occurrence all the more impressive.

1 Wiclif and the Rhemish, guided by the Vulgate, say 'pro-consul'; Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Version give the vague 'ruler of the country'. It is of the more moment to be exact, as Cyprus under the Romans had been imperial and hence governed by a pro-praetor; but not long before it had been handed over by Augustus to the people, which involved government by a pro-consul, ἀνθύπατος instead of the former ἀντιστράτηλος.

2 We need not speculate on the question whether the apostle had always two names, a Jewish one and a Gentile or Roman; or whether the latter may have been now given at this epoch, if not incident, when he entered publicly on his work among the Gentiles.

The apostle then, 'filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his eyes on him, and said, O full of all guile and all trickery (villainy or craft), devil's son, enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease perverting the Lord's right ways? And now, behold, [the] Lord's hand [is] upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell upon him a mist and darkness, and he went about seeking leaders-by-hand' (vers. 9-11).

Sergius Paulius was precisely in the state for such an intervention to affect him profoundly. And we too can mark the difference of God's dealing here, as compared with the Samaritan who offered a deeper affront if possible by the proposal to buy the power of conferring the Spirit on others. For he had been baptized, and is warned of his awful state, but exhorted to pray and repent. Bar-Jesus becomes the striking figure of the Jews, blinded themselves, in their effort to turn aside the blind Gentiles from the light of life. Yet it is not for ever, but 'for a season'; as God will give them in due time to look on Him Whom they once rejected unto death to their own loss and ruin meanwhile.

'Then the pro-consul when he saw what was done believed, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord' (ver. 12)

This is worthy of all consideration. It was not the wonder which struck him most, but the truth he was taught. The miracle arrested him, no doubt, as well it might; but how many like Simon Magus may have been amazed, beholding signs and great powers wrought! Faith grounded on such evidence is only natural, and has no divine root. The senses are struck, the reason is convinced, the mind receives the testimony, and the mouth confesses it. But there is no life apart from conscience exercised about one's own evil before God, and from Christ the object of the soul as the gift of God's love to a guilty sinner in pure grace. This was true of Sergius, not of Simon. The one was amazed at the miracle, the other at least as much or more at the teaching which brought God before his soul and himself into His presence. This only is effectual. It is eternal life

And this is just the difference between a true divine work in the soul and a mind convinced by evidence or earned along by tradition. The latter may be all well in itself, and be a reasonable homage to facts which cannot be got rid of fairly but which compel honest acknowledgment from all who bow to adequate proofs. Yet this may be and is where the soul has never met God in the conscience, where sin and even our own sins are not an unbearable burden, where the love is not trusted that gave His only-begotten Son and laid the burden on Him to suffer atoningly that the believer might have life, pardon, and peace. No displays of power, however wonderful, are so amazing in the eyes of faith as the grace of God in saving the lost through His own Son. This the governor was enabled to receive from God, and not a word more do we hear of the great man. The gospel gives to the greatest on earth; but it receives no glory from man. One Man only it proclaims 'exalted in the highest'. In Him we may and ought to boast, for He is the Lord; and His grace in saving us, yea, in making us one with Himself on high to God's glory, is the wonder of wonders.

Henceforward, save perhaps under the shadow of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 12, 25), Paul has the chief place, as is indeed conveyed by the well-known phrase, not so used elsewhere in the New Testament (Mark 4: 10, Luke 22: 49), but familiar in the best writings of Greece (Plato Crat. 440 C.; Xenophon Anab. vii. 4, 16; Thucydides v. 21; viii. 63), οἱ περὶ Παῦλον (lit., 'those around Paul'), Paul and his company.

'Now Paul and his company, having sailed from Paphos, came unto Perga of Pamphylia; and John departing from them returned unto Jerusalem. But they passing through from Perga came unto Antioch of Pisidia, and having gone into the synagogue on the sabbath-day, sat down. And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying Brethren (lit. Men-brethren), if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, speak' (vers. 13-15).

The defection of John here is remarked by the Holy Spirit. It was not a trifle in God's mind, and the difference it occasioned afterwards, when Barnabas would have joined him again with Paul, proved serious for servants so ardently and justly attached. John had not faith and courage for the work opening before them and returned to Jerusalem where were his mother and the associations so dear to the natural heart. But on the other hand we must not exaggerate with those who affirm that a stumble is fatal. It may be so in a horse; but one might suppose that Christian men better knew both their own probable experience and the teaching of scripture expressly in this very case. Grace turned past failure to future profit, and at a later day the great apostle was as earnest to commend his ministry as he could not but blame the failure when in progress.

We next see Paul and Barnabas at Antioch of Pisidia in the synagogue on the sabbath. It is remarkable what measure of liberty was enjoyed. After the reading of the law and the prophets, a message came to them from the synagogue-rulers to speak if they had any word of exhortation for the people. Can there be a more painful contrast with the habits of Christendom? Assuredly one might from scripture expect more liberty where grace rules than among those born and bred in the trammels of the law. Yet who ever hears of such an invitation nowadays? So completely has the church departed from the enjoyment of that holy liberty, which is characteristic of the Spirit of the Lord. In this case too the visitors were but strangers, unknown to any, it would seem, save as grave godly-looking Jews. Routine governs in modern times on solemn public occasions, were the strangers ever so well known by report for their gifts and labours and life.

It was Paul who rose to address the congregation. 'And Paul stood up and beckoning with the hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God,1 hear. The God of this people chose out our fathers and exalted the people in their sojourn in [the] land of Egypt and with a high arm brought them out of it, and for a time of about forty years bore them nurse-like in the desert, and when He had destroyed seven nations in [the] land of Canaan, He gave them their land for an inheritance, in about four hundred and fifty years. And after these things He gave judges until Samuel the prophet and then they asked for a king; and God gave them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of [the] tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. And having removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also bearing witness He said, I found David, son of Jesse, a man according to My heart, who shall do all My will. From his seed, according to promise, did God bring to Israel a Saviour, Jesus, when John had preached before [lit. before the face of] His entrance a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John was fulfilling his course, he said, What suppose ye that I am? I am not [He], but behold, there cometh One after me the sandal of Whose feet I am not worthy to loose' (vers. 16-25).

1 The place given to Gentile proselytes is here in the apostle's address distinctly marked for the first time.

It is all-important to observe the basis of fact on which the gospel hinges, no less than the hopes of Israel. It is not so in the religious systems of men. In India, for instance, all is but speculation and reasoning as in ancient heathenism, mere fable. So it is with the Buddhist and the Confucian systems. Nor is it different with Mohammedanism, as far as it puts forth any distinctive claim. Nowhere do men even pretend to a substratum of fact such as that on which repose both the Old and the New Testaments respectively. Shake the facts and their foundations are alike gone. If the facts abide irrefragable, the most momentous consequences ensue both to faith and to unbelief. And although there are weighty differences in the history of the Old Testament as compared with the one commanding figure of Christ in the New, there is nothing more marked and unstinting than the seal of truth which the New everywhere puts upon the certainty of the Old in all the wonders it records. This is the more striking because the New Testament has no enemies more determined and deadly than the Jews, to whose custody the ancient oracles were committed. The witnesses of the New Testament, on the contrary, maintain a uniform and unhesitating testimony to the absolute truth of the Old Testament; which they prove to have no adequate result, apart from the appearing and work of the Lord Jesus. And we may add that there is no sufficient key to the present abnormal state of the Jews, without taking into account the rejected and suffering but risen Messiah; on which rock they have made shipwreck through unbelief, however else they themselves essay to explain their actual ruin as a people.

Accordingly there come to view these solemn yet plain facts, which only prejudice can overlook or deny. On the one hand the real, living, priceless value not only of the New Testament but of the Old is found by sovereign goodness in the church of God. On the other hand, alas! the ancient people of God have ears but they hear not, eyes but they see not, and hearts which do not understand at all for the present; else conversion, healing, and glory would doubtless be theirs. For the light and the love of God, inseparable from Him Who sits at His right hand on high, are only enjoyed among those who were once dogs of the Gentiles, but are now, in pure mercy yet according to the righteousness of God in Christ, made free of the riches of His grace and the counsels of His glory in Christ the Lord.

First the dealings of God from His choice of the fathers are at once connected with the exodus of the people from Egypt, and His nurture of them in the wilderness till He gave them to inherit the land. It is the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in miniature, centring in Israel beloved for the fathers' sake. The gospel confirms, instead of annulling, God's love to Israel, though it announces 'some better thing for us' as in Heb. 11: 40.

The reader will notice the beautiful expression of verse 18 weakened in the more favourite ancient MSS. BCcorr DHLP, et al., but happily preserved in ACpm. E, as well as in most of the ancient versions, as it seems truest to the Hebrew in Deut. 1: 31 which the apostle, beyond just doubt, had in view. Here Tregelles and Westcott and Hort1 part from most moderns as well as others of weight.

1 As usual, the note of the Cambridge Editors is ingenious, so much so as to overshoot the mark. But to bear in the sense of 'carry is not the same as 'to be patient with', and both Deuteronomy and the apostle are dwelling on God's favour to His people, rather than on their bad manners, as Chrysostom long ago remarked.

In verses 19, 20 there is a notable difference from the common words. It is not giving by lot which is the point, though in itself true, as (by the least and lowest possible testimony) in the received text, but causing them to inherit their land. But here there is a more united front among the editors of late; for, excepting Dean Alford, almost all accept ABC, et al., and the ancient versions save the Syrr. and Aeth. This connects the date of 'about 450 years' with the accomplishment of the promised inheritance (under law, which made nothing perfect). The common text makes it the duration of the judges.

But it appears to me that the dative of epoch suits the sense of the critical text as distinctly as it disagrees with the common one. Both before and after this phrase the accusative is given to express a term of continuance, here only the dative. Now if the idea intended were the supply of judges for 450 years, the accusative would here also be the natural construction. At any rate, it is a date within which a certain action occurred, and not duration as in the other cases. If the oldest vouchers be accepted, it was in about 450 years that Israel was made to inherit this land, after the promise to 'our-fathers', i.e., from the birth of Isaac as the starting-point. Indeed so Junius and others take the common reading, not as the space for which judges were given but in which God had fulfilled His promise at least provisionally, till judges were given in the low estate of His people. It cannot therefore be assumed that Paul assigns a duration of 450 years to the judges, and so invalidates the date (in 1 Kings 6: 1) of 480 years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's temple. More than one period of considerable duration has been added to the space of the Judges which really fell within other assigned dates. But it suffices here to note that the extended space for judges drawn from the verses before us is illegitimate. Ussher (Works xii. 70; xiv. 340) firmly holds to the integrity of both the Hebrew and the Greek in both these scriptures, rejecting the bold conjectures of Luther and others as wholly needless and of course improper.

The apostle then rapidly sketches God's deep and constant interest in His people till a king was given, but stops with David, the known type of the Messiah as his own psalms abundantly testify. From him easy transition is made to his promised seed, whom, he declares, God 'brought'1 to Israel a Saviour, Jesus (ver. 23). Was not this like Him? Was it not assured in the law and the prophets as well as the psalms? Were the Jews not looking for Him? Did they not miserably need Him?

1 'Raised up', as in the Text. Rec. supported by CD and many other authorities, has a weight far below what I adopt, and was due probably to the language of the preceding verse.

Nor could it be said that God had failed to attest His long promised intervention by renewed testimony, the more impressive because the living voice of a prophet was unheard for more than four centuries after Malachi. And as all took John for a prophet, so did our Lord bear witness to him as more than a prophet, being Jehovah's messenger before Messiah's face to prepare the way before Him: Isaiah and Malachi had previously intimated it. So, before the face of His entering in, John preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel; nor was it moral only, in self-judgment before God, but saying unto them that they should believe on Him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. It was avowedly a token of His manifestation to Israel (John 1: 31). Of the Baptist's meaning which they quite mistook, ready as human nature is to exaggerate man and to depreciate God, no ground for doubt was left by the forerunner: 'And as John was fulfilling his course, he said, What suppose ye that I am? I am not [He]; but behold, there cometh One after me the sandal of Whose feet I am not worthy to loose;' Here again were new facts which could not be disputed. John is spoken of as a known witness, though none knew better than Paul that grace alone gives the truth efficaciously by delivering from the self-will which enables Satan to forge his chains of dark unbelief. But who knew better than he to press the value of a testimony which he too once had ignored like the rest, and would now commend as having proved its worth?

Next comes Paul's appeal, but an appeal grounded on fresh facts of the gravest and most affecting significance.

'Brethren [Men-brethren], sons of Abraham's race, and those among you that fear God, to us1 was the word of this salvation sent forth. For the dwellers in Jerusalem and their rulers, having ignored Him and the voices of the prophets that are read on every sabbath, fulfilled [them] by judging [Him]. And though they found no cause of death, they besought Pilate that He might be slain. And when they fulfilled all things written about Him, they took [Him] down from the tree and put [Him] into a tomb, but God raised Him from [the] dead, and He appeared for many days to those that came up with Him from Galilee unto Jerusalem, the which are now His witnesses unto the people' (vers. 26-31).

1 'Us' ABD et al. The mass support 'you'; but 'us' includes the witnesses benignly. The you' just before may have got repeated.

The sending forth to Israel of 'the word of this salvation' (for no less does the gospel carry) stands solemnly confronted by the stubborn ignorance of those who most boasted, the dwellers in Jerusalem and their rulers; who had the voices of the prophets read sabbath by sabbath, yet fulfilled them in unbelief, knowing neither themselves nor Him Whom they presumed to judge, the Judge of Israel smitten on the cheek, the Judge of quick and dead hung on the tree, the meek and most holy bearer of all curse from God and man on the cross. Yes, they blindly fulfilled all things written by God concerning Him, law, psalms, and prophets centring in Him Whom most of all they ought to have known Whom least they knew; for their eye was not single, and their body full of darkness consummated in the death of their own Messiah extorted from the reluctant Pilate, blind indeed and not without warning and moral witness, the contrary of the false witnesses that destroyed each other, but not so blind as they who said they saw, and so their sin remained and remains alas, to this day!

'But God raised Him from the dead.' Paul differs not from Peter in putting forward this foundation-truth of the gospel. What a fact proved by all conceivable evidence, that grace could, would, and did supply, of which such a thing admits suitably to God's character and glory as well as man's sin and folly! Nor is it only 'the great exception' to rebuke the vanity, pride, and will of unbelieving man; but what a spring and supply of peace, light, joy and blessing to all who believe!

Here, however, it is not the victory of righteousness, which God's grace secures and gives freely to faith, that is set forth and that the apostle loved to enlarge as to the saints, but the demonstration of the world's and especially of Israel's blindness, when they had unconsciously fulfilled all that was written concerning Him till they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. 'But God raised Him from the dead.' It was not only the object of promise come, but also, when all through unbelief seemed lost in His rejection and death, God's intervention in raising Him up from among the dead. To this answers nearly the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans, where the Lord Jesus is presented, first, as Son of David according to the flesh, then, as Son of God in power by resurrection of [the] dead according to the Spirit of holiness. Glad tidings in good sooth! glad tidings of a victory over all that sin could do up to death itself. The victory over evil is won in Satan's last stronghold by God's grace in Christ, that man may believe and be saved before He executes judgment on His persistently unbelieving adversaries. It is therefore no question of man's desert, for righteousness he has none before God, but unrighteousness much in every way. God's righteousness alone avails, God being righteous in His estimate of the efficacy of Christ, and above all of His death, on behalf of those who in themselves are wholly lost.

But here the apostle points out the gracious care and wisdom of God in giving the risen Christ to be 'seen', and this not once or twice only, but 'many days'. Now who could be valid witnesses of this stupendous fact? Comparative or absolute strangers to His person, or those most familiar with Him when alive? Unquestionably the latter; and to such accordingly He appeared when risen, to the slowest of all to believe Him alive again for evermore, in proportion to their deep grief and disappointment over His cross and grave. His enemies remembered His words that He was to rise in three days, and vainly sought to make all sure by sealing the stone that closed the sepulchre and by the watch, which only turned to their own confusion, when the guards trembled and became as dead men through fear of the angel after the Lord arose. But the very slowness of His friends to believe, inexcusable as it was, turned to account when He was seen 'of those that came up with Him from Galilee unto Jerusalem, such as are now1 His witnesses to the people'. The common text with more than one excellent MS. of antiquity omits the adverb, though it is really emphatic and important. They are at this moment, says the apostle, His witnesses to the Jews; and none the less does he insist on it because he was not one of them. Indeed with this class he contrasts himself and Barnabas; for grace provided another character of testimony if by any means the mouth of gainsayers might be stopped. Witnesses were raised up, who were wholly unacquainted with Him when here in the days of His flesh. Nay, Paul himself was bitterly hostile till He revealed Himself to and in His enemy, henceforth His devoted bondman, outside Damascus. What possible testimony other or more could be wisely given or desired? Alas! unbelief of God is as deadly in its nature and working, as in its source its aims, and its results.

1 'Now' is attested by AC, more than twenty cursives, and almost all the ancient versions. Hence even Tregelles goes with modern critics generally, and only Westcott and Hort bracket the word, presumably in deference to the Vatican.

From verse 32 comes the application of the facts as to the Messiah, already given in verses 23-31, especially His death on man's part, His resurrection on God's, not without ample witness of His appearing subsequently among those who knew Him best.

'And we (we, emphatic) declare to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God hath fulfilled this to us their children 1 having raised up Jesus, as also in the seconds psalm it is written, Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee. But that He raised Him from [the] dead, no more to return unto corruption, He hath spoken thus, I will give you the faithful mercies of David; wherefore1 also in another [psalm] He saith, Thou wilt not suffer Thy holy (merciful) One to see corruption. For David, having in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was added to his fathers, and saw corruption. But He Whom God raised up saw no corruption. Be it known to you therefore [men-] brethren, that through this [Man] remission of sins is preached to you; and2 from all things from which ye could not in Moses' law be justified, in Him every one that believeth is justified' (vers. 32-39)

l 'To our children' is the strange reading of the most ancient authorities. So the 'first' psalm (D, et al.) ver. 33, but this may be due to Jewish arrangement combining Pss. i. and ii. in one; and 'because' for 'wherefore' in ver. 35

2 'And' is omitted by the most ancient authorities. Most of the late witnesses add 'the' to 'law of Moses'.

Here the apostle goes over the all-important points doctrinally. The coming of Christ was the accomplishment of the promise to the fathers their children had now the glad tidings of it in His person here below. The raising up of Jesus in verse 33 does not therefore go beyond the Child thus born, the Son thus given. And with this agrees Psalm 2: 7, which refers not to His resurrection from the dead, as many have supposed, but to His birth, as the words simply express it, so that a further or mystic meaning here is not only uncalled for but mistaken. He, the Messiah, born of woman, born under law, was the object, accomplisher, and heir of the promises. For, how many soever be the promises of God, in Him is the yea (2 Cor. 1: 20). So to the Romans (Rom. 1: 2, 3) the apostle describes himself as separated unto God's gospel (which, he adds parenthetically, He had before promised through His prophets in holy scriptures) concerning His Son come of David's seed according to flesh, just as it is treated here in the first place. But then he goes on, 'marked out Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead'; just as here too he proceeds to cite Isaiah 55: 3 and Psalm 16: 10 as prophecies of Christ's proper resurrection.

Indeed it is surprising that any intelligent and careful reader ever understood the passage otherwise. For it is as certain as it is plain that, to God's raising up the Messiah according to promise and the prophecy of the second psalm, verse 34 appends as another and still more momentous truth that God raised Him up 'from the dead'. It is no mere reasoning on the verse before, no epexegetic explanation, but a further teaching of the highest value. Hence it is thus introduced, 'And' or 'But that He raised Him from the dead, no more to return unto corruption, He hath spoken thus . . .' Calvin accordingly is justified in his statement1 (Opera vi. Comm. in loco) that the word 'raised up' has a wider significance than where repeated just after. For it is meant that Christ was divinely ordained and as it were by God's hand brought forth into light that He might fulfil the office of Messiah, as scripture here and there also shows us kings and prophets raised up by the Lord. Acts 3: 22, 26, Acts 7: 37, are clear cases of this usage of 'raised up' in the same Book; so that the Authorized Version in the wake of Tyndale is not safely to be defended in going out of the way to insinuate resurrection into verse 33. 'Raised up' is correct; 'raised again', might have been said, if the text had certainly pointed, as it does not really at all, to the resurrection. But 'raised up again' is unjustifiable. In any case the compound can only yield either 'up' or 'again', not both; and here we have seen on good and cogent grounds that 'up' is right, 'again' inadmissible, because rising from the dead is not intended in verse 33.

1 'Hic suscitandi verbum, meo iudicio, latius pates quam ubi paulo post repetitur. Neque enim tantum dicit Christum resurrexisse a mortuis, sed divinitus ordinatum et quasi menu Dei productum in lucem, ut Messiae parses impleret; sicut passim docet Scriptura, excitari a Domino reges et prophetas.'

It would not have been necessary or advisable to spend argument on the question, if Dean Alford and Canon Cook, following Hammond, Meyer, and others, had not unwittingly played into the hands of enemies who ridicule this very misapprehension of Psalm 2: 7, for which not Paul but his expounders are responsible. It has also been noticed that the addition of 'now' in the English Version of verse 34 is not only needless but misleading, as it might imply a previous turn to corruption. Here too Tyndale misled all the public Protestant versions since his day, even to the Revised one.

Psalm 2: 7 is quoted then for Christ as Son of God in this world. It is neither His eternal Sonship, as some of the earlier Christian writers conceived, nor His resurrection, as the misapprehension of Acts 13: 33 was used to teach. His birth in time as Messiah is the point, 'Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee.'

Psalm 16: 10 is cited (ver. 35) in proof not of His Sonship as man and Messiah here below, but of His resurrection, and therefore stands in close and logical connection with verse 34. Peter had already used this Psalm similarly in Acts 2: 24-32; and it is strange that any who believe the Christian revelation can allow a doubt that Christ's resurrection is the just and only meaning of the tenth verse of the psalm. I do not speak of their modesty in preferring their opinion to Saint Paul's, if they count it becoming to slight the apostle Peter. The question is, is there such a thing as inspiration in any true sense?

The application of Isaiah 55: 3 in verse 34 is no less certain if we bow to apostolic authority, but not so easy, though, where seen, most instructive. But only the death and resurrection of the Messiah could make the covenant everlasting; only so could the promised holy or merciful blessings of David be made inviolable. Thus they are, as the LXX translate, τὰ ὅσια Δαυεὶδ τὰ πιστά. Thus only could the soul even of the Jew live, or the door of grace open widely enough to take in a Gentile. Hence it will be seen that the chapter in Isaiah begins with the call of God to 'every one that thirsteth'. He Who was lifted up on the cross will draw all, not Jews only; and a risen Messiah, though He thereby gives the utmost sureness to Israel's promises, cannot be bounded in His grace any more than in His glory, but will certainly have all peoples, nations, and languages to serve Him with an everlasting dominion.

It is difficult in any rendering short of a paraphrase to mark for the English reader the close link between the 'Holy One' in Psalm16: 10 and the 'mercies' in Isaiah 55: 3. Verse 1 of Psalm 89 compared with verse 19 as in the Authorized Version may help: very far different is the Revised Version of the Psalm here which can only darken. But the reader should know that the true force in verse 19 is. 'Then speakest Thou in vision of Thy Merciful (or Holy) One', Who is the personal concentration of the sure mercies of which the Psalmist sings in verse 1. They are 'the mercies' of David no doubt, but, what is of all consequence, of Jehovah also; and so this psalm also everywhere speaks of David, and therefore confirms the truth in question. Christ beyond controversy is here in the mind and word of the Spirit of prophecy. Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel (in this case quite a distinct word and thought), speaks of Christ as His Holy or Gracious One. It is not the same truth which the same apostle asserts in Rom. 1: 4: Christ declared or determined Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection. The same power of the Spirit in which He ever walked superior to all evil was proved by resurrection. In Acts 13: 34 it is the holiness of grace and mercy manifested and operative in Him risen from the dead. After His baptism of suffering, known by Him as by none else, straitening was over, Jewish barriers righteously gone, the floods of grace could flow for ever and overflow.

The apostle of the uncircumcision, in verses 36, 37, reasons pretty much as he of the circumcision in Acts 2: 29-31; and both with unanswerable power. But one man, the Messiah, was, while tasting death, to see no corruption. David in his own generation served the counsel of God, but saw corruption: as did all his descendants, save that One of Whom he in the Spirit prophesied. Scripture cannot be broken. One man alone does and must fulfil the condition: Who was He but Jesus, the Christ? As a fact the witnesses attested His resurrection on the fullest evidence, apart from the predictions. All proofs centre in Him. God's glory and love are His infinitely; so are man's salvation, blessing, holiness, service in every true way and to the highest degree of which the creature is capable.

And thereon the apostle, though of course limited by the state of his audience, brings out the message characteristically beyond what Peter had done to hearers more informed than those of Pisidia. 'Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this Man remission of sins is preached to you; and from all things from which ye could not in Moses' law be justified, in Him every one that believeth is justified' (vers. 38, 39). Was it not, is it not, grandly, yea divinely simple? What does a sinner supremely need? Forgiveness of sins. This the gospel proclaims: it is no question of a promise only. Remission of sins through Christ dead and risen is preached. It is a free gift of grace, as is eternal life in Christ: the two wants of a sinner are there alone found, and are by Him freely given. To all it is preached; there is no limit to the grace of Christ, any more than to the efficacy of His blood. Among those that hear the gospel it takes effect only upon all that believe. For faith glorifies the Saviour God, as it abases man the sinner; and repentance accompanies it, real if faith is, shallow or deep in like manner, or alas! as unreal as may be the faith. But faith owns God's grace in Christ, and so His righteousness revealed in the gospel. Of faith therefore is the blessing that it might be according to grace; and thus alone can either man be assured of it or God be glorified thereby.

But there is more than remission of sins, that most deeply needed, in itself inestimable but initiatory, boon of the gospel: 'And from all things, from which ye could not in Moses' law be justified, in Him every one that believeth is justified.' How boldly the apostle can speak! and this, not because his preaching or the style of it was any peculiarity of his position in the church, but in honour of the Saviour's victory over every hindrance and all evil. To speak timidly might be well, if it were simply a question of man addressing or of men addressed. But the preacher of the gospel is not only free but bound to forget himself by grace in his magnifying of Him Who died and rose, in order that divine mercy might triumph for the worst, and this without money and without price for the sinner: Christ has paid the penalty — paid it long long ago. Here Moses' law is wholly unavailing, whatever the pride, the unbelief, or the ignorance, of the Jew might think. There is no possibility of justification by that law, holy as it is, and the commandment holy and just and good. Law is all in vain to save. It can give neither life nor pardon, neither holiness nor power. It puts a restraint on, and so alike discovers and provokes, lust; it is the power of sin, and works out wrath, it is thus a ministration of condemnation and death. What possible deliverance can it bring to the needy and lost sinner? Negatively indeed the law is used by grace to break him down, to deepen his distrust of self even when converted, and to cast him wholly on Christ outside and on high, Who gives him to know that he died with Himself, that he might walk and serve under grace, as being alive to God

But the grace of God in the gospel justifies the believer 'from all things'. Indeed, if it were not so, how could the sinner's condition be met in a way worthy of God? If justification were partial, it might no less satisfy man, yea far more readily, than that free and full display of divine goodness in Christ which alone is the truth. Nothing is so excellent, so holy, so strengthening, so God-glorifying as the revelation of His grace in Christ, and this undiluted as well as unadulterated. But it seems extreme to some minds, lax to others, and dangerous to more. Consider Him in and by Whom the gospel came. He was wholly misunderstood and unintelligible to the 'wise and prudent'. As the mass believed not on Him, so many from among the rulers did not confess Him through fear; for they loved the glory of men rather than the glory of God. Even John the Baptist was more reasonably right in their eyes than his Master and Lord; as those that refused Him Who came in His Father's name will by-and-by receive him that comes in his own. Nothing is so condemnatory of fallen man, and especially when he glories in his character or in his religion, as grace; nothing so foreign and even repulsive to his mind and to his self-righteousness. For it levels all mankind, high and low, learned and ignorant, loose or moral, superstitious or profane, in one indiscriminate grave of sin and ruin Godward — of spiritual death, whole it proclaims to faith, and only to faith, a present, full, and everlasting redemption. This is offensive to man's thought and title who can soon find reasons to argue himself into unbelief and rejection of God's word, as if it were but the opinion of fallible and mistaken man, and thus makes manifest his unremoved heart-enmity to God.

The work of grace however goes on, as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. Conscience-stricken souls, hearts pining after God long slighted and sinned against, are won by the name of Jesus, and gladly receive that remission of sins which is preached to them, and adore as they take in the wonder of mercy in Jesus in Whom every one that believes is justified from all things, from none of which could he be justified in Moses' law or in any other way. Justification for a sinner is essentially a Pauline expression; being of faith, not of law, it was open to a Gentile as well as to a Jew. It was a word eminently suited to that great messenger of the gospel of God's grace. And here we have it tersely in the first discourse of his which Luke reports or at least summarizes. So deals God's righteousness which is now manifested apart from law: God just and justifying the believer as he is, the ungodly as he was (Rom. 3: 26; Rom. 4: 4). How truly divine! No wonder man as such misses the truth: Christ is the only key that opens all.

But the apostle does not conclude without a warning, appropriately drawn, for the Jews that listened with reluctant ears, from their own volume of inspiration. 'See therefore that what is spoken of in the prophets come not on you,1 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which ye will in no wise believe if one declare it to you' (vers. 40, 41). It is especially Habakkuk 1: 5 which is in substance cited, with perhaps Isa. 29: 14 and Prov. 1: 24-31 in view. Unbelief is the same evil scorn of God's word, whether of old or by-and-by, and never worse than now when grace beseeches men as they are to be reconciled to God. And whatever the work to be done in the future, none can ever match what God has wrought already, the basis on which the gospel is proclaimed to every creature. The coming execution of judgment by the Chaldeans was sufficient to arrest any soul that heeded the warning voice of the prophet Habakkuk; and a destruction was then about to fall on Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, as the Lord had predicted (Luke 19: 43, 44; Luke 21: 20, 24). But what is either providential work of God or any other than can be gleaned from the harvest of judgment in the future when compared with that which in His rejection and atoning work befell our Lord Jesus?

1 BD, some cursives, and a few Latin MSS. reject ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.

And as the grace to sinners is immeasurable in the work which cost God and His Son all things in unsparing vengeance on sin — our sins, so is the wrath of God not yet executed, but revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and the unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1: 18). If the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? says the same apostle writing to the Hebrew confessors of Christ. Is there less sin, less danger, for those who in Christendom have grown up in the constant iteration of the same gospel, and are now exposed as men never were to the apostate infidelity of the day, which finds its life in nature and sets up physical law as the idol of its worship, if first along with Jesus soon to supersede Him, as none can serve two masters. It must be God, or the creature, not both, even if God were not, as He ought to be, a jealous God, as He is the true, and therefore necessarily intolerant of all spurious rivalry.

Such was the discourse with which the great apostle of the Gentiles opened his missionary labours in the Pisidian Antioch (only about fifty years ago identified as Yalobatch by an intelligent British traveller). The result was cheering. And as they were going out (for the service was over, not interrupted as some have singularly imagined), the hearers besought that they might have these words spoken to them the next sabbath, the great occasion for such a discourse. Later, when the gathering was broken up, many of the Jews and the proselytes, attracted and impressed beyond the rest, followed Paul and Barnabas (for henceforth, at least away from Palestine, Paul has the precedence); as they on their part spoke more freely to them than the synagogue could permit, and urged them to abide in the grace of God. Gentiles there were none as yet to hear, beyond the proselytes but the ensuing sabbath beheld them drawn by the report in crowds; and the effect was as marked on them for good, as on many Jews for evil, as we shall see.

Verse 42 has suffered not a little from both copyists and from commentators. The ordinarily received text instead of 'they' (aujtw'n), has, with some cursives, the interpolation ἐκ τῆς συναγῶγης τῶν Ἰουδαίων, which may have been due to the public lessons of early days, though more common in the passages taken from the historical books than in selections from the Epistles. But this addition, though unauthorized, does not contradict (though it may alter) the sense, like τὰ ἔθνη, 'the Gentiles', which is made the subject of the sentence, to the confusion of the passage as a whole, and without the least to commend it in itself. The verse is quite general. 'And as they were going out, they kept beseeching that these words might be spoken to them on the following sabbath. Now when the synagogue broke up, many of the Jews and of the worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who (οἴτινες) speaking unto them persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And on the next sabbath almost all the city was gathered together to hear the word of God'1 (vers. 42-44).

1 Many ancient authorities, as is well known, concur in reading 'the Lord' for God'.

Dr. J. Bennett conceives that the critical reading of verse 42 points to the sense that they (i.e., Paul and Barnabas) entreated that the same things should be spoken to them (again). But this is quite a mistake. The true reading leaves us open to the people's thus entreating the apostles; which appears to me much more simple and becoming as well as 'delightful'. Even Calvin, who understands the sense to be that Paul and Barnabas went out while the Jews were yet assembled, holds that they (the apostles) were then requested . . ., though he was misled by the misreading to think it was the Gentiles who made request. But what could have brought 'the Gentiles' to the synagogue on the first sabbath? It is easy to understand that they flocked there on the second, and doubtless this it was and yet more their heed, as well as the free grace proclaimed, which roused the envy of the unhappy Jews. But even this premature introduction of the Gentiles though unfounded does not yield so strange and repulsive a meaning as that Paul and Barnabas (!) entreated that their discourse should be spoken on the next sabbath. That souls struck by the truth might beseech that 'these things', blessed yet so startling, so momentous yet solemn, should be spoken to them again, is very intelligible, as it is the unforced sense of the true text.

Tyndale completely missed the point of time intended, for he took εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ σάββατον of the intervening week — 'bitwene the Saboth dayes'. But this was from oversight of the later usage of μεταξύ which signifies 'after', not 'between' only, as Kypke, Ott, and others have noticed with illustrations. Calvin was quite wrong therefore in censuring here the Vulgate and Erasmus who were right; and still more is Beza to be blamed, because he was a better scholar than the great theologian he followed, and he ought to have known how thoroughly Josephus, Plutarch, and Clem., Rom. 44 (twice), justify the text of the Authorized Version against the marginal alternative. Dr. J. Lightfoot plainly confirmed it from his vast Rabbinical learning.

As verse 42 lets us know the general interest in what had been announced which prompted the desire to hear all again, so verse 43 adds that, on the break up of the congregation, many of the Jews and of the worshipping or devout proselytes followed the preachers thereon, who not only spoke to them but urged them to abide in the grace of God, which the gospel declares and they professed to receive. What can one think of a man like Calvin doubting whether it was not these young converts who exhorted Paul and Barnabas that they should not faint but stand firmly in the grace of God! He does not however (as Dean Alford thought) incline so strongly to this interpretation as to decide for it against the common and only correct view, that the gracious speech and confirmatory exhortation came from the apostles to those on whose hearts God's grace had just dawned

Again, in the beginning of verse 44 stands the expression on the 'coming' sabbath, vouched by both the most ancient uncials of highest character and the mass of cursives, and so not only adopted by Erasmus, the Complutensian, Colinaeus, R. Stephens, the Elzevirs, but also by Tischendorf {eighth edition), Tregelles, and by Westcott and Hort. On the other hand at least two of the great uncials with several good cursives testify to the exactly technical word which differs by a letter less, for 'next following', 'ensuing'. Acts 18: 21 used to be cited for the former, till the critics omitted the clause; but there is no doubt that the rival reading is a standing usage of the inspired writer (Luke 13: 33, Acts 20: 15; Acts 21: 26), as it is in the language generally. No wonder therefore that Alford, Bengel, Green Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Wordsworth accept it as right: an instructive instance, by no means uncommon, where a few copies are more accurate than the weight of both antiquity and number combined.

'But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, For you it was necessary that the word of God should be first spoken; but since ye thrust it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn unto the Gentiles. For thus hath the Lord enjoined us, I have set thee for a light of Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost parts of the earth' (vers. 45-47).

How base as well as evil and malignant is jealousy, religious jealousy above all as here! In general they had hailed the joyful sound when it first reached their ears, even though closed with a most serious warning; and 'many' had gone farther than the entreaty to have the truth spoken again. For many of the Jews, as well as of the devout proselytes, followed the apostles who exhorted them to abide as they had begun. But 'the crowds' were too much for religious prejudice which was hitherto dormant and awakened the most malignant feelings in antipathy and abuse. Such is flesh in presence of grace and truth, and at the sight of hearts attracted and consciences touched. Had the gospel been powerless, the Jews had retained their equanimity, where the long preaching of Moses had never so wrought, its immediate effect in winning such large attention was intolerable. But the hatred of grace, ruinous to those guilty of it, only enlarges the field of work, as it also liberates the messengers from an overcareful waiting on the men of tradition and its narrow channels. Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, instead of being shocked into silence by Jewish blasphemies, pointed out how faith denies not but defers to law in its own place, and, now that the ancient people of God were ignorantly spurning the best blessings of grace, announced this matchless road open to the needy and long despised Gentiles (ver. 46).

The application of Isaiah 49: 6 in the following verse is as striking as richly instructive. The theme of the prophet is the Messiah rejected by Israel, Who has this consolation vouchsafed by God: His humiliation opens the door to wider glory. This the slighted servants of Christ appropriate to themselves. Infinite grace, under like circumstances, warrants the men of faith: what was said of Christ is no less true of the Christian. 'Thus hath the Lord enjoined us.' It is a principle of far-reaching application, which faith knows how to guard from irreverence, however much of direction, comfort, and strength may be reaped from it. The reader may see another instance no less bold in the use made of Isaiah 1. 7-9 in Rom. 8: 33, 34. The spirit of obedience, we may add, finds an injunction where no other eye could discern one.

Here first Gentiles as such come into prominence: others in this country who had heeded the apostles were proselytes from among them. Scripture was express as to the principle.

'And the Gentiles, on hearing, rejoiced and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordained unto life eternal believed. And the word of the Lord was carried abroad through the whole country. But the Jews excited the women of rank that worshipped, and the chiefs of the city, and stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and sent them out of their borders. But they shook off the dust of their feet against them and came to Iconium. And the disciples were filled with joy and [the] Holy Spirit' (vers. 48-52).

The tide of blessing in God's grace was now turned to the Gentiles. Christ is a light for revealing them now, as He is the glory of God's people Israel. The nations had been long hidden as well as outside; they are now disclosed to view, the direct object not of law as Israel once, but of divine mercy in the gospel. The righteousness of God is unto all, though it takes effect only upon all that believe. So here they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordained unto life eternal believed.

The evil and the ruin are man's: all the good is of God's grace exclusively, and the believer enjoys it in His sovereign mercy. Thus the word of the Lord was carried abroad through all the country. And this roused a more systematic effort of opposition as usual on the part of the Jews, who urged on the devout women of position and the chief men of the city against the apostles with such a flood of persecution as to cast them out of their borders. As these ladies had been drawn into Judaism to their immense relief from the uncleanness as well as debasing follies of heathenism, one can understand how the sex would be peculiarly open to exciting influence against the testimony which left the law in the shade and they would know how to reach the first men of the city, as being of their own rank and in all probability nearly connected with themselves, so as to get the preachers expelled. But the apostles, bowing to the persecution, acted on the Lord's word not only in fleeing to another city, but in shaking off the dust of their feet against their persecutors; while joy in the Holy Spirit filled the disciples, left behind as sheep in the midst of wolves.

Acts 14

If the Pisidian Antioch has only of late been identified, there is no doubt that Koniyeh, a considerable town of some forty thousand souls, represents in our day Iconium, the changed scene of apostolic labours which now opens to us. It was then an important city, having rapidly grown up from Strabo's estimate in the reign of Augustus, as we may gather from Pliny's account, a few years later than the inspired one, though far below what it became as the capital of the Seljukian Sultans.

Here, as in the city just left, the Jews had a synagogue, to which Paul and Barnabas repaired as usual. Persecution had in no wise daunted their courage or cooled their love and zeal in the gospel.

'And it came to pass in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake that a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the Jews that disobeyed1 stirred up the souls of the Gentiles and aggravated [them] against the brethren.2 A considerable time therefore they stayed, speaking boldly in reliance on the Lord that gave witness unto the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided; and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles. And when an effort was made of both the Gentiles and Jews with their rulers to outrage and stone them, becoming aware of it they fled unto the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the [country] round about, and there they were preaching the gospel' (vers. 1-7).

1 ELP and most cursives support the received ἀπειθοῦντες, but the older give ἀπειθήσαντες, a completed act.

2 DE, et al, add at the end of ver. 2, 'but the Lord gave (quickly) peace'. It has no stamp of truth. He was really pleased to give signs and wonders. It was needless here to speak of peace to the believer.

There was without doubt marked blessing at Iconium, where the Lord honoured and used largely the bold preaching of His grace: 'a great multitude of both Jews and Greeks believed.' This roused the enemy, and the Jews that disobeyed the glad tidings (cf. 2 Thess. 1: 8) stirred up the souls of the Gentiles and made them evil-affected against the brethren. It was not a visit from without but the alienation of the Jews that refused God's message on the spot, as is confirmed by the correct form of the word (ἀπειθήσαντες) in the more ancient witnesses as against the Received Text. But this only drew out a pretty long stay and plain speaking in dependence on the Lord, Who on His part displayed His gracious power not only in the more ordinary testimony to His word but in confirmatory signs and wonders, of which we heard nothing at Antioch in Pisidia. It is a solemn fact, however, that such deeds of divine energy, as the rule, do not turn the stubborn heart. Men judge mainly in accordance with their feelings, whatever be the qualms of conscience; and where the will is set on its own way, none so hardened as those that breathe a constant atmosphere of miracle, as we see in the wilderness history. So here in the face of all, the multitude of the city was rent in twain; and if some held with the apostles, others as decidedly held with the Jews, the hereditary enemies of the gospel, ever ingenious in perverting and undermining what might have told on upright minds.

But the intent of violence, which had oozed out, brought the testimony to a close: for a plan or start of this kind seems to be the force of what is meant here, rather than an 'assault', as may be inferred safely from the context. Had there been an actual 'rush', there seems little propriety in the words 'becoming aware of' what could not be doubted and made escape hard. Nor does the form of the verb admit of the rendering 'was making'; for the aorist must signify a definite fact instead of anything merely in course, which would be rather the imperfect. If they got cognisance of purpose to outrage and stone them so generally formed as to carry along Gentiles and Jews with their rulers, they judged it wise to leave with all haste. And so they fled to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the country around; and there they pursued their gospel work.

'And there sat a certain man at Lystra powerless in his feet,1 lame from his mother's womb, who never had walked. This [man] heard Paul speaking, who, fastening his eyes upon him and seeing that he had faith to be made whole, said with a loud voice 2 Rise upright on thy feet: and he leaped up and walked. And the crowds seeing what Paul did, lifted up their voices in Lycaonian, saying, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermes because he took the lead in speaking. And the priest of the Zeus that was before the city, having brought bulls and garlands unto the gates, would have sacrificed with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard [of it], they rent their garments, and sprang out3 unto the crowd crying out and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like affections with you, preaching [or, evangelizing] to you that ye should turn from these vain things unto4 a living God Who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things in them; Who in the bygone generations suffered all the Gentiles to walk in their own ways. And yet He left not Himself without witness in that He did good and gave you5 from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your5 hearts with food and gladness. And saying these things they with difficulty restrained the crowds from sacrificing to them. But there arrived Jews from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds and stoned Paul, they dragged [him] without the city, supposing that he was dead. But as the disciples encircled him, he rose up and entered into the city' (vers. 8-20).

1 'Being' HLP, et al. (Text. Rec.) but not in the most ancient. The aorist seems best for the last verb of the verse.

2 Lachmann follows CDE et al., in adding, 'I say to thee, In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.'

3 The best MSS. 'out', not 'in' as in the Text. Rec. and most copies.

4 The definite article is probably to be omitted as in the best.

5 'You . . .', not 'us . . .' as in Text. Rec.

The healing of the hopelessly lame man was eminently suited to arrest a rude heathen crowd, besides its being a practical as well as extraordinary witness to the gracious character of God so foreign to the thoughts of man left to himself. All was in contrast with the mysterious mumblings with which their wizards practised their charms. The addition to verse 10 (see footnote) was made early to save the appearance of pretension on the part of him who wrought the miracle. The absence of the clause is the instructive lesson that as such words would be unavailing in another mouth (definitely proved long after at Ephesus), so they are by no means called for where all the life and testimony were set on magnifying Christ. There was no legally required formula. Of all men Paul was most conspicuously, as he loved to call himself, the 'bondman of Jesus Christ'; so that in his case it was the less necessary by a formal declaration to disclaim any virtue to heal by his own power or holiness.

That heathen should conclude as the Lycaonians did in consequence was the more natural, as they had the fabulous tradition made current a little while before by a Latin poet (Ovid) of the Augustan age that these very deities had been entertained in a part of Asia Minor. Physical differences would lead to the respective identification of their superstitious minds, besides the specific reason assigned in the case of Paul: and the proposal to do them sacrifice followed as matter of course. The scene is as usual set graphically before us; the crowd, the priest of Zeus (whose temple, or statue, was before the city), with the oxen and garlands all ready brought to the gates (of the house or court probably, where the apostles lodged). On the other hand we see the indignant and most earnest rejection of the God-dishonouring honour by Barnabas and Paul (for so they are presented in accordance with their assigned place), springing forth with garments rent and loud remonstrance. Their words were no less uncompromising though courteous. And what a difference from Romanist missionaries doing evil that good might come, or rather accepting a gross sin in order to propitiate their way, and to make a new and not less grievous and more guilty idolatry perpetual!

But the witnesses of the Lord Jesus are jealous for a living and true God and refuse to allow a sinful personal influence at His expense. 'Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like affections with you, preaching to you that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God. . . Substantially it was an appeal akin to what Paul afterwards uttered to the Athenians on the Areopagus. How debasing is heathenism! The ignorant Lycaonian and the refined Athenian needed the same sort of discourse. They are set to spell the alphabet of creation. Here, however, it is not so much the unity of God and man's true and near relationship to Him in contrast with his absurd reverence of idols or his god-making, it is God's active beneficence attested to the Lycaonians in rains and fruitful seasons, with their results in plenteous food and gladness.

That the gods are envious at human gladness was the lie and curse of paganism. Not such is He Who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them. Who could deny that in the generations bygone He suffered the nations to proceed in their own ways? If He sent the gospel now concerning His Son, was it not in full accordance with the active goodness He had testified to all lands and times in those bountiful gifts from heaven which overspread the otherwise barren earth with every good thing for man's life and heart? We need not dwell on each phrase; but it would not be hard to prove how telling was every word, and how all the undeniable truth thus conveyed indirectly dissipated the mischievous and destructive and demoralizing falsehoods of heathenism, to which their minds and habits had been inured, not only in their religion but in the whole of their outward relations saturated with that poison, as their own literary remains show and Rom. 1 briefly declares in the burning yet holy reproofs of its latter verses.

So inveterate is the idolatry of the heart that it was with difficulty the crowds were kept from sacrificing to the Lord's servants (ver. 18). How awful to think that Christendom over its largest part pays divine honours to men of like affections as themselves! It is admitted that apotheosis goes beyond canonization; but the dishonour to God and the injury to man can scarcely be said to be less. For the distinctive truth now is the unity, not of the Godhead only, but of the true Mediator; and consequently the peculiar assault of the enemy is not by honouring more gods than the living God, but by setting up other mediators or intercessors, as the Virgin, angels, and saints, no less than nullifying the full and intimate knowledge of God as the Father and the Son by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Here Romanism is the chief offender, though others are not free from the taint, as indeed the tendency is common to. the natural man.

But idolatry was not the only danger at Lystra though others entered the scene characteristically to oppose, calumniate, and persecute. This is mostly the work of men who know some truth, but are jealous of more and better. These are the men who stifle conscience and are athirst for blood — blood of God's saints and Christ's servants, whom their ill-will blinds them to regard as the most wicked of men. So it was, and so it is. 'But Jews arrived from Antioch and Iconium; and having persuaded the crowds and stoned Paul, they dragged him without the city, supposing that he was dead.' These adversaries were not wholly ignorant of God's testimony in the gospel. They knew enough to feel how immeasurably it rose above the law, and that it exceeded in glory was enough for their hard and proud hearts, which disdained to own their ruin, any more than God's righteousness which can and does justify the ungodly through the faith of Christ. To the law they adhered, because it was theirs rather than because it is God's, to the law, even though it can, as such, show no mercy to the guilty, and itself bears witness to the Messiah, the only Saviour of the lost. But to this witness they were wholly blind, being only alive to the pride of possessing it from God to the exclusion of all others. Yet when the gospel went out to others, they were eager to persuade these poor despised heathens that the word of God's grace which Paul preached was nothing but imposture. Alas! they found the crowds there, as ever since, ready victims. And why? That very refusal of homage, which the Lystrans were ready to pay, is most offensive to man, and disposes him to believe the most odious misrepresentations of those he was about to worship. Men exalt themselves by human adoration, and to be balked of it soon turns to the hatred and perhaps death of those who seek the honour of the only God. So it was here. Instead of changing their minds like the Maltese (who from a murderer regarded Paul as a god, Acts 28: 6), they listen to Jewish calumny though ordinarily despised, and stone as a false prophet him to whom they had been so lately wishing to sacrifice, leaving him dragged without the city as a dead man.

But his life was in him, as he himself said later of Eutychus; and as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and entered into the city (ver. 20). Paul's work was only beginning, not done. To abide in the flesh was needful for many sinners as for all saints. It could not be that he was to expire thus, though Jews had incited Gentiles to do their worst, and imagined all was over. Grace had called him to its own great work of salvation, as well as of edifying the body of Christ. Nor was it enough that he rose up; he entered into the city, from which he had just been dragged outside as a corpse. Such was the faith and love of this more than martyr soul. Of him, if of any, we may surely say that the world was not worthy. Christ alone was and is the worthy One Paul could say, as he did, 'To me to live is Christ' — not the work only but Himself, of all things the most elevating, purifying, and strengthening of motives in that work. It is the spring of lowliness as of love, of courage as of faith. So rising up Paul entered into Lystra. Fear would have said, Go anywhere else just now. Self would have whispered, Stay there and see what a future triumph for the gospel! But the thoughts of man in neither suggestion are the mind of Christ, and this the apostle had, and acted upon. May it also be ours in His grace!

The apostle had now nearly reached the extreme point of this the first missionary journey.

'And on the morrow he went forth with Barnabas to Derbe.' This, or the country round about, was the farthest limit westward for the present. It might have seemed an inviting opportunity to have visited Cilicia or even Tarsus, but he that blamed John Mark, who left them and the work to return to Jerusalem, was not the man to allow such a claim; as even Barnabas seems to have done when he took Mark with him and subsequently went to Cyprus.

'And,1 after preaching the gospel to that city and making many disciples, they returned unto Lystra, and unto1 Iconium, and unto1 Antioch, establishing the souls of the disciples, exhorting [them] to continue in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God' (vers. 21, 22). It was in this neighbourhood and during this visit apparently that Timothy was brought to the Lord through the apostle Paul (1 Tim. 1: 2; 2 Tim. 1: 2), for in Acts 16: 1 he is spoken of as already a disciple in Derbe and Lystra, well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Here no reference is made, though grace had great things in store for him. It was enough to add about Derbe that the preaching was blessed to many there as elsewhere.

1 The best MSS. support εὐαγγελιζόμενοι, είς being repeated also.

We next hear of their return, visiting in reversed order Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. The circumstances gave a new character to the work. First, they were 'establishing the souls of the disciples'. For this is a necessary part of the labour of love, and a real need for new-born souls, and many who are blessed in awakening have little power to confirm the young disciples. Here were servants of the Lord fitted beyond all to help on the unestablished; and we are told of their exhorting them to abide in the faith. How much there is to alarm in it if not to seduce from it! But they are also warned of the difficulties in the way, especially of the numerous severe trials which intervene, or, as it is expressed, 'that through many tribulations we1 must enter into the kingdom of God.' So the Lord had told the early disciples who as Jews might and did expect things smooth and bright, now that the Messiah was come. But He was come to suffer and to go on high, rejected of men and of His earthly people; which gives room to a yet deeper aggravation of the suffering path before glory dawn. And if Paul was a great preacher, not less was he a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. Christ was ever his theme; 'Whom we announce,' as he says himself, 'admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, to the end we may present every man perfect in Christ: whereunto also I labour, combating according to His working that worketh in me in power' (Col. 1: 28, 29). He never took any Christian duty lightly, least of all that which lies so near to God's purpose and Christ's affection, even for those who had not seen his face in the flesh: that their hearts might be encouraged, being united together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the recognition of the mystery of God, in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2: 1-3). For those are not wanting anywhere, who, deceived themselves, seek to deceive the saints by persuasive speech. The word dwelling in us, and praise and prayer flowing out to God, with diligent testimony in love within as well as without, are grand safeguards; but withal the mind made up with joy for all endurance and long-suffering, as we wait for Christ and the kingdom.

1 There is no real ground for Dean Alford's notion that the 'we' here implies the presence of the narrator, but ὅτι marks the transition from the oratio obliqua to oratio recta.

Secondly, another task, which the first visit could not effect, still remained. 'And when they chose (or, appointed) for them elders in each assembly and prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord on Whom they had believed' (ver. 23). Naturally the differences in Christendom warp the minds of too many in their impressions of this instructive verse. Jerome, though by no means so extreme as some of the early fathers, interprets the word ceirotonhvsante" (which all the early English Versions as well as the Authorized had rendered 'ordained', Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva adding 'by election') of ordination by laying on of hands, as if χειροτονία = χειροθεσία. This, Mr. Humphry rightly treats as untenable, or at least unsupported by any clear example of such a sense.

But we may go farther than Dean Alford, and must affirm that scripture nowhere points to the churches selecting elders by show of hands or in any other way. Indeed the phraseology before us excludes any such thought; for, first, if χειροτονήσαντες necessarily implied any such etymological import here, the meaning must be that Paul and Barnabas chose elders by the method of suffrage. This nobody holds or wishes, but the contrary. And, secondly, this is confirmed yet more abundantly by the pronoun 'for them', which excludes the disciples from their desired part in the election, and distinctly makes the apostles choose the elders for the saints concerned. Of all interpretations, therefore, none is so bad as the amiable compromise that the apostles ordained those whom each church elected. The words simply teach that Paul and Barnabas chose elders for the disciples in each assembly. No doubt the word may mean to stretch out the hand, and this especially in voting, but it had long been used, where no such form could be, to express choice or appointment. And this is certain in the New Testament without going outside it, and in Luke's usus loquendi, as the most prejudiced must allow in Acts 10: 41, and here too, unless he contends for Paul and Barnabas holding up their hands in each of these cases. This, however, is not what Congregationalism wants, but that the disciples should thus decide their choice of each elder and of one only in each church, whereas the text declares that the apostles chose elders for them in each assembly1: the most distinct and conclusive disproof of popular election which language can convey. And if laying on of hands followed, it is in no way taught here, for the word refers only to the choice of the presbyters.

1 Dr. Bennett says that the more remote antecedent, 'the disciples', may be referred to, which is so certainly wrong that he himself immediately changes this by the suggestion that Luke may have designed to show what no doubt (?) was the fact (!), that the apostles concurred in their election, and held out their hands, along with the disciples (!) in favour of the elected elder.

Nor does 2 Cor. 8: 19 support the idea of an election of the elders popularly, for the question there was solely of brethren acceptable to the assemblies for conveying funds to the saints in distress elsewhere. And it is certain that scripture does warrant the saints at large in choosing those they confide in for such a work, as we see in Acts 6. Still less is there the slightest analogy with the two put forward (not elected) in Acts 1: 23, as to whom they prayed the Lord to choose for the vacant apostolate. The lot is a wholly different principle, on which turned the numbering or enrolment of Matthias with the eleven. In short, the procedure here was, just what Calvin denies, the apostles choosing solely in virtue of their peculiar office, as afterwards Titus was commissioned by Paul to appoint the elders in every city of Crete, without a hint of sitting as moderator of a free election by the consent of all. Not only is this Book thus in harmony, but the New Testament as a whole. Where man gave, man was allowed to choose where the Lord gave, He chooses and sends apart from man; where it is a question of order, the authorized envoys of the Lord appointed in His name, not only directly as here, but indirectly through a distinctly recognized channel as elsewhere.

After the choice of elders for the saints, the apostles prayed with fasting and commended them to the Lord on Whom they had believed. The saints in general were the object in view, not the elders only. And whatever the supplication which assuredly preceded and accompanied the delicate work of appointing the elders, it would appear from the language and connection that the prayers and fasting here specified followed that appointment and concerned the saints cast on the sustaining grace of the Lord.

'And having passed through Pisidia they came unto Pamphylia; and having spoken the word [of the Lord]1 in1 Perga they went down unto Attalia; and thence they sailed unto Antioch, whence they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. And when they arrived and brought the assembly together, they repeated all things God had wrought with them, and how He had opened to the Gentiles a door of faith. And they tarried2 no little time with the disciples' (vers. 24-28).

1 Tischendorf on small but ancient authority gives 'unto Perga'. Rather more of similar character add 'of the Lord', or 'of God'.

2 The more ancient authorities do not give 'there'.

Thus the first great evangelistic journey to the heathen by the apostles was brought to a close, Perga having heard the word on their return, if not on the earlier occasion saddened by the departure thence of John. And now Attalia (the modern Satalia, or Adalias) was touched, instead of Paphos, or any other part of Cyprus; and from that port to the Syrian Antioch, their point of departure, the voyage was readily made.

To the remarks already made it is of moment to add a few words more which may help souls. The latter part of verse 26 defines yet more, if it were needed, the import of that which had preceded this missionary visit. It was in no true sense an 'ordination' of Barnabas and Paul, but, as here described, it was their recommendation to the grace of God for the work which they had fulfilled. Indeed from Acts 15: 40 it would seem to have been repeated on the apostle's second journey with Silas. The notion of holy orders founded on the beginning of Acts 13 is therefore not only false and alien, but it strips what was done of all its gracious meaning. It is part of that judaizing which for most has darkened New Testament scripture, and debased the true grace of ministry.

Next, we may observe that, though sent out authoritatively by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13: 4) and thus placed directly under responsibility to the Lord Whose bondmen they were, they were quick to share all His doings with the saints: they call together the assembly whence they had gone out that all might rejoice in His grace, and especially in His grace to the Gentiles. The church is not the source of mission, but the scene of communion with divine grace using the truth for the blessing of the Gentiles by Paul (not Peter), and from Antioch as a starting-point on earth (not Jerusalem nor yet Rome). Patriarchal jurisdiction there was none, till men forgot that the true spring of the authority, power, and blessing was Christ in heaven, and ere long they began to dream of rival sees and their hierarchs. How soon did the little seed become a tree, so that the birds of heaven, which snatch away what was sown in the heart, came and lodged in its branches (Matt. 13: 31, 32)!

We should bear in mind that the stay of Paul and Barnabas on their return to Antioch was not short.

Acts  15 - 20.

W. Kelly.

Part 3 of An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles newly translated from an amended text.

Acts 15

The Spirit of God next brings before us the first signal working of that judaizing which was destined to play a deep, wide, and permanent portion in the history of the church of God. 'And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Except ye be circumcised1 after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved' (ver. 1).

1 The critical or aoristic form as in ABCD and many cursives, is preferable. The Text. Rec. though largely supported implies continuance or habit, which does not apply here.

In every point of view this was serious. It was an error, and yet it claimed to be founded on the word of God. It proceeded from men bearing the name of Christ, and withal it struck at the foundation. Satan's habitual effort is to insinuate evil, not only under fair appearance and if possible by one part of the word made to neutralize another, but through disciples. No principle more false than to urge the reputation of advocates in defence of their doctrine, which must stand or fall according to scripture interpreted in the light of Christ and His work, for these ever call for the energies of the Holy Spirit, as they command the hearts of the faithful.

It is clear also that the truth of God is imperilled by an unwarranted addition even more than by the manifest opposition of unbelief. These men did not avowedly deny the gospel, nor teach that one could be saved by an ordinance only; but they did insist on the necessity of circumcision in order to salvation. This is to undermine Christianity, which is not merely promise but accomplishment; but mere promises leave the door open, as inspired history shows, for thereby insinuating the law, instead of sovereign grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. It was really ignorance of Christ risen from the dead and glorified in heaven, the proper object of the Christian. He never can thus be by faith before the soul without maintaining the efficacy of His atoning death. What has law or circumcision to do with Him Who is at the right hand of God? On this side of the cross law has its place (1 Tim. 1: 8-11).

But these men were occupied with their prejudices and were looking back at things and persons on earth, not through the rent veil upon Christ above. Hence their pride was wounded. They could not bear to hear that the distinctive mark, the ancient glory of a Jew, was now eclipsed and gone. They had but feebly learned the teaching of the cross. They had not discerned there the sentence of death on the flesh at its best. They would no doubt have acknowledged their need of Him Who suffered once for all their sins, but they saw not their religion (and circumcision was its initiatory and characteristic badge) treated as naught, yea, utterly condemned therein. Error flows from a wholly false measure. Had Christ, the truth been before their souls, had they estimated aright His death on the cross, they had never fallen into a mistake so profound and unworthy.

But they were wrong otherwise also. The Lord had promised the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, to guide into it all and to teach what they could not bear during His earthly ministry. The truth was there in His person; but yet the best taught of His disciples did not understand at all fully even fundamentals till He was risen and glorified. But now the Holy Spirit had been sent down from heaven, and Gentiles without circumcision had received Him, no less than did the circumcised believers. Was this nothing in their eyes? Is it not a solemn lesson that disciples could be so blinded by their religious habits as to overlook a fact so plain, certain and conclusive? For God had taken care that not the apostles of the uncircumcision but Peter himself should be His chosen instrument for the call of Cornelius in the presence of the six brethren of the circumcision that accompanied him from Joppa.

It is instructive also to observe, if faith is ever humble, bold though it may be, how presumptuous error is. For these men who were clamorous for the necessity of circumcision, ventured not to plead that apostolic authority had laid down any such dogma as they sought to impose. Their judgment and their dignity, we may say, proceeded from themselves, behaving in this like the Gentiles who know not God.

Insurrection against the truth was thus permitted to display itself in the face of the apostles that the Lord might give us His own distinct and ever-abiding correction. What a mercy to us, as well as to the church of God ever since, that this question was not suppressed till the apostles disappeared from the earth! We should then have had only an uninspired answer, however sound. Now we have what all Christians own to possess divine authority. That which an apostle writes is really the Lord's commandment (1 Cor. 14: 37).

The troublers came from Judea, which with the weak and ignorant would be apt to lend weight to their words. Of this Satan is ever active to take advantage. Human tradition readily creeps in, and as naturally flatters the flesh. The Holy Ghost falls back upon the word; only we must take care that we do not require the letter which kills when we can only have the spirit which gives life. Subjection to Christ alone keeps us right life in Him is always obedient and holy, and is the way of true intelligence. Human tradition is never to be trusted even among disciples. God is jealous for His word, which bears constant testimony to Christ and therefore against human pride. The men who came down from Judea were imperious nominally for God; it was really for the flesh and self. They would have cut off, if they could, not only the Gentile saints but the apostles of the uncircumcision.

'And' when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up unto Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question' (ver. 2). Here again let us admire the wisdom of God's ways. Paul and Barnabas themselves were unable to settle the dispute. Self-will is invincible, even for apostles. God had it in His mind to interpose in a much more impressive and efficacious manner. It might have been dangerous, however desirable in itself, to have terminated the present matter of debate at Antioch. For the evil, being inveterate as to principle in the nature of things, would surely have broken out afresh subsequently, and elsewhere, probably worst of all in Jerusalem itself. It was true wisdom, therefore, to transfer the further discussion of the question to the source from whence the mischief had come; more particularly as Paul and Barnabas would go there in order that it might not only be heard but there and then settled by all the authority given of God for the governing of His assembly on the earth. All was thus directed under the good hand of God, for the evil was judged in the quarter from whence it emanated, where presumably, not to say notoriously, was its hotbed, where lived those who knew best its promoters, and where all was rather favourable than hostile to them, with on the other hand the immense moral weight that would follow the judgment from such as God had set first in the church to govern in the Lord's name.

1 Text Rec. followed by the Authorized Version and many has 'therefore', and even Lachmann adheres to it, as AEHP and most cursives give it. But the correct particle δέ has the best support and is clearly right. The common συζητήοεως is unfounded.

In Gal. 2: 1, 2 the apostle Paul says he went up 'according to revelation'. Here the inspired historian says that they (i.e., the brethren or the labourers generally without defining more) arranged or decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem about this question. There is no more contradiction here than in Acts 13: 2 where the Spirit called unmistakably and exclusively the same servants of the Lord to a definite missionary work, while they also enjoyed the cordial and holy fellowship of their fellow-labourers in commending them to the grace of God for that tour. They may have had the revelation direct as in Acts 16: 9, 10, or through the prophetic intimation of others as before, what is certain is that 'according to revelation' Paul went up, and not merely as a step appointed by others. Each statement is in perfect keeping with the document where it is given, and the Holy Spirit's design in each, though men as usual have not been wanting to set them in antagonism. Titus was one of these others, and his case at least was of immediate bearing on the question as an uncircumcised Gentile endowed and honoured of God beyond most; but this again is specified only to the Galatians for its importance there, though room be amply and evidently left for it in the Acts. The rationalistic misuse of God's word is an instance of that ignorance or dishonesty, if not both, which characterizes the system. The believer ought to have no hesitation or difficulty, inasmuch as faith adheres to all scripture as divine.

'They therefore, having been set forward by the assembly, passed through both1 Phoenicia and Samaria, recounting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they caused great joy to all the brethren' (ver. 3). Is there any good reason why propemfqevnte" should not be rendered 'set forward' here as in Rom. 15: 24, 1 Cor. 16: 6; 3 John 6? No doubt the heart of the saints was with them, not with the legalists; but there was considerate and affectionate care for their wants by the way, whether or not there was any escort, as in Acts 21: 5, which some conceive here. The picture is a lovely one, the joy in all created by the accounts heard of God's grace outside Israel. What a contrast with Jewish jealousy! Yet are unlettered men and women peculiarly open to superstition, prejudice, and human feeling. But divine love prevailed, in accordance with the truth. Others alas! who for the time ought to have been teachers had again need to be taught the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God and had come to need milk, not solid food (Heb. 5: 12). It is harder to unlearn than to learn.

1 Text. Rec. follows most in omitting τε 'both', which the more ancient authorities insert.

'And on arriving at Jerusalem they were welcomed1 by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and reported all things that God did with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, believers, saying, It is necessary to circumcise them and charge [them] to keep the law of Moses' (vers. 4, 5).

1 The critical reading is stronger than that of Text. Rec.

The heart of the church beat truly, but there were adversaries now within as well as without. It was not yet the conference, but meetings preliminary to it, where the wonderful works of God by the gospel drew out sympathy or opposition among those at Jerusalem who bore the Lord's name. Those who at this time resented the liberty of grace are expressly said to have believed. The crisis, therefore, was grace. Unity — unity not merely by-and-by in heaven, but now on earth — is the blessed privilege and the inalienable responsibility of the body of Christ, the assembly. There was no such unhappy wish as to forestall the due place by dealing with the question where Paul and Barnabas had especial and commanding influence, and then arguing on the church's unity to compel the communion of the assembly in Jerusalem and of course everywhere else. Yet Antioch might have been plausibly set forward as the only proper place to discuss and determine a question which so intimately concerned the Lord's glory among the Gentile believers. For not from Jerusalem but from Antioch were those ambassadors of Christ sent forth who had been the great pioneers in the missionary work of the Holy Spirit. Self or party could have furnished abundant reasons; but Christ held His place, which first sought His will and then made all saints dear, even those who were creating trouble by their lack of grace, lowliness, and intelligence. Thus the snare was avoided by which Satan sought even then to scatter and make a Jewish church apart from the Gentile; or, at the least, by leaving out the assembly in Jerusalem the apostles, and the elders, to begin a separate course at Antioch, which would end in division ere long, if not immediately. But grace and truth prevailed, the respect due to all those whom the Lord had honoured and, as we have seen the particular principle of dealing with evil in its root, and not merely its fruits.

It was, I presume, at this juncture that the apostle, as he tells us in Gal. 2: 2-10, set the gospel he preached to the Gentiles before those of reputation in private. It was then they saw that he had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision; and that James, Cephas, and John gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship according to that partition of the work which the Lord had already marked out for all that had eyes to discern. This was of the utmost moment to state in the Epistle; but it was outside the public history and independent of the council which is the Spirit's object in the chapter before us. The independence of Paul's mission and work does not enter into view here, whereas in the letter to the Galatians it was of capital moment, and the decrees of the council are not named where they could have no just place, and their mention might have wrought only mischief. How truly, in the New Testament as in the Old, to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven! Above, such distinction is uncalled for, where all is light, peace, and love, to God's glory.

It seems evident that much was done before the council. The opposition of the judaizing party had come out fully and distinctly from the time the apostles of the Gentiles had been received by the assembly, as it had wrought since the baptism of Cornelius and his household. Naturally the public recital of what God had done in Asia Minor provoked their prejudices yet more. What occurred privately is not stated here; but we know from the early verses of Gal. ii. that it was of high moment.

What is reported in Acts 15 had for its prime object the repression of Jewish feeling and the distinct recognition of the Gentiles who believed on common ground with the Jewish disciples. The decrees that were ordained by the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem had the greatest weight in that point of view. But, in writing to the Gentile assemblies, the apostle takes the high ground of grace, and proves the incompatibility of a fleshly ordinance, however venerable or instructive, with the truth of a dead and risen Saviour as a ground of justification before God. In that grand scheme, wherein God Himself has wrought for guilty and lost man in the cross and blood of His Son, circumcision made with hands wholly vanishes away. And the Gentile believers, dead in their offences and the uncircumcision of their flesh, Christ quickened together with Him, no less than the Jewish faithful, having forgiven us all the offences. The handwriting written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, He blotted out and took out of the way, nailing it to the cross (Col. 2: 13-15).

We can understand how truly it was of God, thus to confront and set aside all Gentile inclination for ordinances by the teaching of the truth of Christ, which had buried the question in His grave and given the Christian a new place in Him, to which the flesh never had, nor can have, a claim. The decrees had their place and season most suitably while the early Jews who believed were objects of the patience of God: but the apostolic Epistles treat the question on a deeper foundation and with higher associations, which abide for ever. But it is highly instructive to notice that the apostle was not behind others in honouring and using the decrees, which are not even mentioned in the final discussion of the case for the edification of the church in general.

'And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter. And when there had been much questioning, Peter stood up and said to them, Brethren (lit. Men-brethren) ye know how that from early days God chose among you1 that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And the heart-knowing God bore them witness, giving [them]2 the Holy Spirit, even as to us also, and He put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God, that ye should put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe3 that through the grace of the Lord Jesus4 we shall be saved in like manner as they' (vers. 6-11). Here we have the opening of the council. None but the apostles and elders are mentioned as gathered together. It was emphatically for their decision, but assuredly not without the presence and concurrence of the assembly, as we know from verse 22, not to speak of verse 12; and this of course as a reality, not a mere form which Christianity forbids. But God would have the positive seal of the highest authority in the eyes even of the remonstrants. Hence the prominent mention throughout of the apostles and elders, while it cannot be doubted that the assembly was present and free to take part. It was a matter in which every soul had a real interest but in which the judgment of the wisest was particularly needed. And One wiser than any took His guiding part here (ver. 28), Whose personal presence we have seen to be sedulously acknowledged throughout this entire Book, as indeed it is characteristic of the church of God according to the scriptures. The Holy Ghost was there and was counted upon for guidance to the glory of Christ.

1 Most with Text. Rec. read 'us'.

2 The pronoun here is doubtful, the sense is clear.

3 The Sinaitic, et al., have the strange error of the future here.

4 'Christ' in the Text. Rec. has some authority, but neither much nor the best.

This, however, did not preclude discussion. Verse 7 lets us know that there was much debate or questioning. No doubt it was sorrowful and humiliating that there should be such disputation, even in the presence of the apostles, but the fact is plain and is calmly recorded by the Holy Spirit, which should convince not a few how far their notion of ecclesiastical order differs from primitive history. Even in apostolic days we see how liberty prevailed though flesh undoubtedly took advantage of it. To destroy the liberty because of its abuse were a remedy worse than the disease; and thus it is with Christendom bound in fetters of brass for ages, and denouncing true liberty as licence. Human rules have rendered the scriptural state of things just as impossible against good as against evil. But faith, when directed to God's revelation in this, can never rest satisfied short of subjection to scripture, and the rather as the Holy Spirit was promised to abide with us for ever.

The apostles, it is evident, bore patiently with the difficulties and even disputes of their less discerning and more prejudiced brethren. They were strong in the grace that is in Christ. They had His glory livingly before their souls. They sought not lordship over the faith of their brethren, but that others should stand by faith even as they stood. As the grace and truth of Christ faded in men's hearts, ecclesiastical authority became an idol or self-importance a snare. Such was, such is, no small part of the present ruined state of the church: no one contends that there was perfection even in apostolic days, still less can one look for perfection now even within the most circumscribed sphere. But every faithful soul is bound to stand for the Lord's honour according to the written word, and to eschew whatever is opposed to God's order as well as to doctrinal truth and personal holiness. The denial of such a responsibility is in substance not only a sin but antinomian in principle, no matter whose be the names or what the fair-spoken pleas to excuse the unfaithfulness. It is easy to point out grievous shortcoming even where a truthful stand is made. But those who point it out with complacency fail in this very matter to exhibit the Spirit of Christ, and will never be able to justify human methods in God's church, even if they succeeded in carrying them out ever so successfully. How much more worthy to do better according to the word what they blame for being done so feebly! Is it uncharitable to say that to act themselves according to the word is far from their purpose, which is simply to discredit those who do seek it?

Peter then reminds all of his mission to Joppa, where the Gentiles received the gospel through him as God's first and apostolic instrument. Most powerfully does he urge God's dealings with them, 'the heart-knowing God' bearing witness to them in the gift of the Holy Spirit, uncircumcised as they were, nay, further, that He put no distinction between the Jewish and the Gentile believers, seeing that His purification is of the heart by faith. For this a rite avails nothing. 'Now, therefore, why tempt ye God'? Their prejudice, in itself, and specially if maintained, was a real disbelief of God's word and acts. It was putting a yoke of law upon the neck of the disciples, which none in the past or present could bear: a circumcised man was debtor to do the whole law. For, introduced in glory as it was, it is a ministry of death and condemnation. The gospel believed is salvation through the grace of the Lord Jesus, Who bore our penalty and blotted out our sins in His blood. This is grace indeed, where all the guilt was ours and all that availed for our forgiveness and deliverance was His, to the vindication of that God, His God and Father, Whom we had rebelled against or lived without. In reality we knew Him not as He is, believing the lie of Satan rather than the truth of God. We did our own will and gave Him no credit for love, though He so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth should not perish but have everlasting life. But now we have seen the Son and believed in Him. His grace in suffering for our sins, the Just for the unjust, has made us both ashamed of ourselves and acquainted with God; and He is love. 'Hereby know we love, because He laid down His life for us' (1 John 3: 16).

Formed by that grace, it is remarkable that Peter says here, 'we believe that we Jews shall be saved in like manner as they (Gentiles)'. The natural phrase for a Jew would have been, 'They in like manner as we'; but grace reigns and Peter says, 'We, in like manner as they'. How worthy of the gospel! This was not Simon Bar-Jonah left to himself, but it was Peter — a true rock-man. Flesh and blood had not prompted the thought or word but the Father Who is in heaven.

Peter had made an admirable introduction and his argument was the reflection of the grace of the Lord Jesus. It was well and worthy that the apostle of the circumcision should so speak not merely from personal experience but from the sovereign choice of God. We can understand the effect: 'And all the multitude kept silence.' None could doubt the strong Jewish prejudice of Peter, no more could they question now his assertion of liberty from the law for the Gentiles. But there was another reason for keeping silence. 'And they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God wrought among the Gentiles by them' (ver. 12). Here there ought not to be a hesitation that 'all the multitude' must take in not merely the apostles and the elders but the assembly. This seems certain from verse 22, whatever may be our judgment of the true reading in verse 23. It is interesting to note that the signs and wonders are said to have been wrought of God by Barnabas and Paul, whereas in verse 4 the more general work of the Lord is said to have been all that God wrought with them. The signs and wonders were more external and they are viewed as mere instruments. 'With them,' implies more of fellowship and divine association than exercise of mere power. Such a statement must have had the most powerful effect on Jewish minds. God graciously gave in abundance what they would expect peculiarly in so novel a work among the Gentiles. His grace had fully provided for all emergencies beforehand.

'And after they had held their peace, James answered saying, Brethren [Men-brethren] hearken to me; Simeon has rehearsed how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of [them] a people for His name' (vers. 13, 14). This is a most important proposition in its way; it gives a separate character to the present work of God. It in no way denies that God had a line of saints in Israel, and before Israel, and what is more, outside Israel; but it asserts a special gathering 'gut' at this present time, and it leaves no room for the vain thought, that even one nation, as a whole, shall be brought by the gospel to confess the Lord, still less that all nations shall be so changed. The truth is that God only proposes while Jesus is at His right hand to take out of all a people for His name. This is the church of God and it is as distinct from the ways of God before the cross as from those which are to follow the Lord's appearing and reign by-and-by.

'And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written; After these things I will return and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen, and will build again its ruins and will set it up; so that the residue of men may seek out the Lord and all the nations upon whom My name is called, saith [the] Lord, Who maketh [all] these things known from the beginning of the world' (vers. 15-18).

It is an error to suppose that these last words allude to the mystery of forming the believing Gentiles with the faithful Jews into one body, the church. Rom. 16: 25, 26 and Eph. 3: 5, 6 do refer to that mystery, but not our text which simply speaks of God's gracious recognition of those of the nations that believe as His own, though Gentiles still, whether under the gospel now or in the future kingdom. Union with Christ and the Head as His body goes much farther, though said of Gentiles now as of believing Jews, but no Old Testament prophet reveals it. The prophetic writings of Rom. 16 and the prophets of Eph. 3 are New Testament exclusively.

It will be observed that the prophets are referred to generally, though none but Amos is quoted, and the object is general. James draws from their testimony, proved expressly by the one cited, the principle of Gentiles as such having the Lord's name called upon them. So far were they of the nations from having to accept circumcision that the prophet speaks of all the Gentiles. This will be in the days of the kingdom as no Jew could deny. They will not become Jews any more than the Jews will become Gentiles, both will be blessed of the Lord in their respective positions when the Messiah reigns. It was absurd therefore to object to God's grace toward the Gentiles now, under the gospel, and in the church where is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all and in all.

The reading in verse 18 is somewhat doubtful, and even the version, which may mean 'Who doeth these things known from the beginning of the world.' The general sense is plain enough. Accordingly James gives his judgment: 'Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not those who from the Gentiles turn to God, but write to them that they may abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath' (vers. 19-21).

'The pollution of idols' were meats offered to idols, as in verse 29. Cf. Dan. 1: 8, Mal. 1: 7, not to speak of Ecclus. xl. Bentley's conjecture of χοιρείας ('pork') for πορνείας is an instance of the great scholar's audacity and erudite ignorance (perhaps suggested by Bellonius' Observat. iii. 10 whom he cites in ver. 29). We may think it strange to see unclean sin classed with idolatrous sanction; but the Jew felt differently, and to the Gentile they were equally indifferent.

Thus it was going up rather to God's ways with Noah, than enforcing the law of Moses. Noah being a sort of head of mankind generally after the flood, Gentile liberty was thus secured, idolatry was intolerable, and so was fornication, however universal both among the nations. Abstinence from things strangled and blood brought in the recognition of God's taking account of man as fallen. God forbade both: the use of the creature was not forbidden to man, but God prohibited meddling with the special signs of death; life belongs to God, and it was forfeited through sin. As for the law, there was no reason why the church should busy itself in that direction: from generations of old Moses had in every city those that preach him. The synagogues at any rate had the law read there every sabbath. The Gentiles henceforth might well rejoice in the gospel.

It may be noticed by the way that no vote was taken, nor any equivalent measure. For it was no question of the will of man but of God. Who wrought by the Spirit to give holy wisdom and general concurrence.

'Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders with the whole assembly having chosen1 from among them to send men with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, Judas called2 Barsabbas and Silas, leading men among the brethren, having written by their hand, The apostles and the elder brethren3 to the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Whereas we heard that some who went out from us troubled you with words, upsetting your souls4; to whom we gave no commandment, it seemed good to us, having been of one accord5 to choose6 and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, themselves also announcing by word the same things. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these necessary things: to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Farewell' (vers. 22-29).

1 'Chosen', verses 22 and 25, in the Authorized and other Versions is ungrammatical. G. Wakefield is half right, half wrong.

2 Text. Rec. with some authority gives 'surnamed', as in Authorized Version.

3 The common text follows EHLP, et al., as opposed to ABCD et al., and probably was framed to suit verse 22; it was a mere clerical error.

4 Text. Rec. with many MSS. adds 'saying that ye must be circumcised and keep the law'. The most ancient authorities omit.

5 The Authorized Version renders this in a way of no bearing here.

6 'Chosen', verses 22 and 25, in the Authorized Version and others is ungrammatical. G. Wakefield is half right, half wrong.

It will be observed that the most ancient authorities open with a reading which is now accepted by almost all critics. This yields a sense rather more remote from ecclesiastical tradition than the ordinary text, where 'the elders' are distinguished sharply from 'the brethren' immediately following. The 'elder brethren', however, is a formula which exactly agrees with the state of things which was obtaining at Jerusalem. No doubt they were 'the elders' there, as we find them called in Acts 11: 30, as well as in Acts 15: 2, 6. They were the local authorities; but they appear not to have been chosen formally, as the elders undoubtedly were in the Gentile assemblies, by apostolic authority, direct or indirect; they seem rather to have acted simply from their experience and moral weight, as was usual among the Jews. This falls in remarkably with the peculiar expression employed here, 'the elder brethren', and harmonizes with the tone of Peter's address in 1 Peter 5: 1-4.

But there is another remark to make of still more immediate and important application practically. Judas Barsabbas and Silas were sent with Paul and Barnabas, characterized as 'leading men among the brethren'. They were neither apostles on the one hand, nor were they elders or elder brethren on the other, but were for their fitness chosen by the council to visit Antioch. It is the same expression which we find three times (vers. 7, 17, 24) in Heb. 13. The Revised Version, like the Authorized translates it 'chiefs in Acts 15: 22; but 'those that had (or, 'have') the rule' in Hebrews: 'had' for the departed chiefs, 'have' for such as still lived and laboured. They are not spoken of as elders, but seem to have been identified with the ministration of the word (ver. 7), rather than with oversight or presiding like the elders. This fact gives us clear insight, when duly recognized into the far greater liberty as well as variety of gift exercised in the apostolic church as compared with the straitness of modern Christendom I do not speak of sign-gifts, such as miracles and tongues, but of spiritual endowments given of Christ for the perfecting of the saints. Denominational arrangements on the worldly system of a salary, with the claims of an exclusive position, directly interferes with the Lord's wild in this respect and destroys the beautiful liberty of the Spirit to the famishing (not the edification) of the body of Christ.

Yet it will be found by the attentive reader not only of the Acts of the Apostles but of their Epistles, that the principle and the practice of this free ministration in the assemblies is easily vouched for apart from local authority or official rank throughout the New Testament. Rom. 12: 4-8 is plain. 'Teaching' and 'exhorting', and 'ruling', or 'leading', are spoken of as 'gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us' distinct from 'prophecy', as well as one from another. In the church or assembly according to God's word there was and ought to be room for them all. It were the sheerest unbelief to assume that they are now extinct. Woe be to the adversaries of the Holy Ghost who affirm such a falsehood to justify their system!

The reader can compare also 1 Cor. 12 and 1 Cor. 14 throughout, as well as 1 Cor. 15: 1-21, Gal. 6: 6, Eph. 4: 7-16, Phil. 1: 14, Col. 2: 19, 1 Thess. 5: 12, 13, 2 Tim. 2: 2; 1 Peter 4: 10, 11; 3 John 7, 8, which prove in the clearest manner the full opening in the assembly as well as towards the world for those suitably gifted which scripture maintains, and only persons like Diotrephes, as far as God's word speaks, dare to oppose and neutralize.

It is in vain to plead, as unbelief blindly does, that such largeness and liberty were only suited to the apostolic day. For this really gives the highest sanction to such free action of the Holy Ghost. If inspired men, if the highest gifts that God ever set in the church, did not hinder but help on every form of gracious ministry, how can men in avowedly inferior position nowadays justify their opposition? None but the most prejudiced will contend that the ordinary gifts of edification fail. None but enthusiasts will deny that the sign-gifts, which ushered in the present economy, are extinct. Not so those, thank God, that are given by the ascended Christ unto the work of ministering, save such as were for laying the foundation (Eph. 2: 20) which once laid was laid for ever.

We may remark in the letter of the council that the order is 'Barnabas and Paul' (ver. 25) as in verse 12, whereas earlier in the chapter as in verse 2, and later as in verse 35, and subsequently, it is 'Paul and Barnabas'. The feeling of the saints in Jerusalem expressed itself in the former way, as was the feeling elsewhere in the early days of the great apostle's testimony. Compare Acts 11: 30; Acts 12: 25; Acts 13: 2, 7. But Acts 13: 13, marks a great change, as we see in verses 43, 46, 50 (but not Acts 14: 14). The reader of the Old Testament may find a similar principle in Ex. 6: 13, 20, 26 and 27. In the order of nature it is 'Aaron and Moses'; in sovereign grace it becomes 'Moses and Aaron'. The author of the Old and the New is the same, and can only be God Himself working in man through His unerring Spirit.

This was the only council which was entitled to say, 'It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.' If others have imitated the language, it is but profanity. Yet it was not an ecumenical assembly at all, but simply the assembly at Jerusalem where the apostles and local elders met together to consider the matter. The decision was most rightly taken there, whence the evil had sprung, and where the apostles were, Paul and Barnabas going up for the purpose. It was they with the whole assembly at Jerusalem who decided for the liberty of the Gentile converts. How different and disastrous it must have been had it been a council at Antioch, even though the decision had been the same! It is of all consequence that the way as well as the end be of the Holy Spirit and in accordance with the word of God. So it was with this council, and we hear no more of the 'much' discussion or questioning which had agitated the brethren before the council. Judas and Silas were sent as the most unequivocal witnesses of the decision at Jerusalem that Barnabas and Paul might thence have a support above all question. The power of divine grace had thus wrought in truth and righteousness for the name of Jesus; and there was a great calm.

There was no such portentous error as a portion of the assembly (though in Jerusalem exceedingly numerous) deciding for itself alone then, the other portions following suit and lastly, all who objected to the fraud and force of the transaction jostled and declared outside in the city, with the like course pursued throughout the country. No wonder that breaches must be created by so gross a departure from the word, even if the object had not been partiality to a favourite preceded by unrighteous oppression. At the council in Jerusalem, as love wrought for Christ's glory so righteousness was the result, and unity throughout was maintained. Nobody thought of another judgment of the question, either in other parts of Jerusalem or anywhere else. God honoured His own principles in His word, grace triumphed, and the saints at large, however previously alienated, owned and rejoiced in the blessing, where appearances had threatened a storm of evil omen to all who valued the gospel.

But the ecumenical councils anathematized individuals and forced divisions far and wide. In this they succeeded; for nothing is so easy as to scatter the saints. To allay fleshly violence, to conciliate the alienated, to repress party, needs grace and truth wielded by the Lord: what was so rare at these councils (as the patience of Christ)? Will and passion reigned more humblingly and bitterly than in the political sphere.

Even the first and most important of these 'general councils' was convened by the Emperor Constantine, though an unbaptized man! to be held at Nicea. The number of western delegates was ridiculously small, as indeed it ever was at all the councils in the East. Later, when the popes exercised the power of the emperors, the eastern bishops were wholly absent. Thus the claim to be 'ecumenical' was a nullity, and most evidently after the West quarrelled with the East, for thenceforward only the Latin party attended. Thus God took care that, as the departure became complete and evil was enforced by man's will, unity should be manifestly at an end, though none were so loud and arrogant in their claim of it as those who in their blind zeal had done most to destroy the testimony to it.

The scene now changes to Antioch, whither the chosen envoys repair with Paul and Barnabas.

'They then having been let go, went down unto Antioch, and having gathered the multitude delivered the letter. And when they had read it they rejoiced at the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse and strengthened [them]. And having continued a time, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto those that sent them' (vers. 30-33).

At Antioch was the assembly where the Holy Ghost had exercised His sovereign rights in making good the glory of Christ by calling and separating His servants. It was there that Satan had sought to judaize by legal influence derived from Jerusalem. And now that the assembly in Jerusalem had repudiated and cast out that leaven of Pharisaism, Antioch is the first Gentile assembly to hear that grace had triumphed in the very circle whence the evil had spread. The multitude assembled, the letter was delivered, and, when it was read, 'they rejoiced at the consolation'.

Alas! it has been rare in ecclesiastical history when such is the fruit of 'decrees'; for they are in general a dreary record of anathemas, and, like Ezekiel's roll, lamentation and mourning and woe are written there. Here the gracious power of the Spirit was at work, whatever the adversaries; and edification resulted, not destruction. There was no selfish design, still less a purpose to scatter. The word of God was proved to tally with the ways of His mercy, and the Holy Spirit bound all together, great or small, in giving emphasis and freedom to the gospel in its widest range. Those whose prejudice would have fettered and really corrupted its character, stood abashed and silent, however obstreperous they might have been before. Those who simply desired to hold fast grace, 'rejoiced at the consolation', which was the sweeter because the material of it came from Jerusalem.

'And Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren with much discourse and confirmed them.' We cannot but see the blessed liberty of ministry even where apostles were present. Clerical rights, and personal jealousies? had no place yet. The brethren accordingly confirmed all, as might be looked for, through these ample witnesses, whose one desire for all was growth through the truth. It was the same principle at work here? which was developed years afterwards in 1 Cor. 12, 14, as indeed the New Testament knows none other according to God. After some time Judas and Silas were dismissed in peace 'unto those that had sent them'? not merely 'unto the apostles?, as in the later copies and some early versions? the more important of which join the ancient in omitting verse 34 of the Text. Rec. as reflected in the Authorized Version. It was probably an insertion due to an inference from verse 40? which is as easy to account for as it is hard to conceive? the best leaving it out if genuine. Silas may have returned, instead of abiding, which last does not well agree with verse 33.

'But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch teaching and evangelizing, with many others also, the word of the Lord' (ver. 35). Here again we have a plain scripture fully confirming the large and active ministry of the word which characterized these early days. If it be answered that such simplicity was suited to days of testimony before Christianity became an institution established here below, the reply is that the mischief lies there exactly. Christianity ought never to be other than a pilgrimage of faith, and never to have become a thing settled in the earth like judaism. Communion with Christ and separation from the world are the necessary conditions of fidelity. Our only right establishment will be the holy city Jerusalem? coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, in the day of Christ's appearing. Till then neither ease nor honour nor peace nor power in the world, but, as the apostle says, boasting in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom the world is crucified to each, and each of us to the world. Hence ministry is in scripture no question of worldly rank or emolument (though the labourer is worthy of his hire) but of devoted and loving service according to the gift of Christ.

Here we cannot do better than introduce an incident of the liveliest but withal painful interest, the collision between the great apostle of the circumcision and the younger but still greater apostle of the Gentiles (Gal. 2: 11 et seq.). There seems no real reason to doubt that it occurred at Antioch about this very time after the council of Jerusalem and before the departure of Barnabas, and so it is understood by Ussher (Works, xi. 51), as by others of the greatest weight of old as now. Yet as a fact never was a plain matter so distressingly perverted than by respectable ancients, never greater anxiety to alter its time among recent writers, some of whom prefer an earlier, others a later, date. The real moral is the reluctance of men to bow to the truth, which is all the more impressive if we give due weight to the time when it happened. Certainly man is not exalted thereby, but God Who does not fail of raising up an adequate testimony to His own glory.

No less a man than the chief of the twelve, after all that grace had done failed to walk straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel; and having sinned publicly, he was publicly reproved for a compromise so dangerous, and for an inconsistency in his case most glaring. 'But when Cephas came unto Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he was condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself fearing those of the circumcision; and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw them not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou being a Jew livest Gentile-wise and not Jew-wise, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to judaize? We, Jews by nature and not sinners from among Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but only through faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus . . .' (Gal. 2: 11-16).

One can see on the one hand what a handle was given to enemies not only by the circumcision itself but yet more by the indelible page of inspiration; as on the other hand we may be sure the Holy Spirit would never have thus recorded it for ever unless it were due to God's glory and a most needed lesson for the highest of the Lord's servants through all time. And so we learn how Porphyry chuckled over both (Hieron. vii. 371) and Marcion turned it to his Gnostic account (Tertull. Adv. Marcionem, etc.) as the author of the Clementines to his malignant aspersion of the apostle Paul.

But there is incomparably more to humble a serious Christian in the way the truth was evaded save by very few. Clemens Alex. is mentioned by Eusebius H.E. i. 12 as authority for the notion that the Cephas in question was not Peter but one of the seventy (!) a notion which spread of old and has not quite disappeared from modern times. Far more weighty are those who condescended to the still baser idea of Origen that the dispute was a mere feint promoted knowingly by both Paul and Peter in which the latter plays the errorist in order to be crushed the more effectually by the former! The greatest preacher of Constantinople, Chrysostom, more than once advocates this monstrous figment; as did Jerome with his usual keenness. With such a representation Augustine dealt worthily, arguing that to accept inspired men's acting a falsehood was to shake the entire authority of scripture. The correspondence is characteristic of each, and may be seen in the Epistolary portion of their works. Jerome was neither humble nor magnanimous enough to sing the palinode to which Augustine had at first invited him, but his authorities, real or assumed, as well as his threats of crushing his adversary under the weight of his own blows, did not deter the Bishop of Hippo from an overwhelming overthrow of the case alleged and a faithful vindication of the plain bearing of God's word, which in fact ought never to be called into question for one moment.

Thenceforward Peter vanishes from inspired history. This is the last of his acts noticed, though both his Epistles appeared much later. It is affecting and solemn that so it should be; but so it was. People think it strange after being so used and honoured — after Pentecost, Caesarea, and the council in Jerusalem quite recently. But the fear of man was ever a snare to Peter; nor was it the first time that he was rebuked for shrinking from the practical consequences of the truth in this world.

'But after certain days Paul said to Barnabas, Let us return now and see after the brethren in every city wherein we announced the word of the Lord, how they fare. And Barnabas was minded to take with [them] John also that was called Mark; but Paul thought good not to take with [them] him that withdrew from them from Pamphylia and went not with them unto the work. And there arose a sharp feeling, so that they parted one from another; and Barnabas taking Mark sailed away unto Cyprus; but Paul chose Silas and departed, commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the assemblies' (vers. 36-41).

Alas! further sorrow was not far off; and the ardent desire of the apostle Paul to visit the young assemblies in Asia Minor gave occasion to it. For Barnabas, already damaged by the influence of Peter, set his heart on taking with them John Mark, his cousin. Paul had not forgotten his formerly forsaking the work, its toils and its disagreeables, its shame and the self-abnegation it entails, hence he set his face against such a companion, till grace had wrought complete restoration in self-judgment and devotedness without stint. Good a man as was Barnabas and attached to his honoured companion, this proved too much for his present state which resented Paul's estimate as severe and beyond measure. But honey, however sweet in itself, was an element forbidden in an offering to the Lord (Lev. 2: 11), and Barnabas should have remembered that his natural tie was not favourable to a righteous judgment in the point of difference. Certain it is that there arose a sharp feeling between those blessed servants of the Lord 'so that they parted one from another', never more to join in common labours. It is not that there ceased on Barnabas' side earnestness in the work or the blessing of the Lord; and the apostle Paul speaks of him with nothing but warm affection and respect in subsequent allusions. Further, it is the joy of grace to hear of Mark owned in the Lord's service, put forward by the apostle where the lack of such a recognition might have stood in his way, and this with peculiar appreciation in the latest Epistle he ever wrote (2 Tim. 4: 11). Lastly, it was this very Mark who, I doubt not, purchased to himself a good degree and signal honour in being the inspired witness of our Lord's ministry. Who could enter so deeply as Mark into the wonders of a gospel service where glory shone out of the clouds of unequalled humiliation without one shade of failure, where grace reigned unwaveringly in the midst of sore trial and continual provocation with not a single comfort save from above?

So 'Barnabas taking Mark sailed away unto Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.' It seems plain that Barnabas, beloved as he was, failed at this moment to carry the conscience of his brethren with him. Paul on the other hand was once more accorded, and Silas with him, that mark of united recommendation to the grace of the Lord, which he and Barnabas enjoyed on their first mission to the Gentiles from Antioch (Acts 13: 2, 3; Acts 14: 26). It is almost needless to remark how unfounded is the assumption that 'ordination' is in question here: the renewed mention shows how little they understand the mind of the Lord who are in quest of such perverted efforts to sanction old wives' fables, and overlook the grace which identified the brethren that tarried by the stuff with the mightier champions that went down to the battle.

Another feature of interest to note is that, while ministry is of individual faith, this does not hinder one of superior discernment choosing another as companion in work; as the Lord had Himself sent out His servants, both twelve and seventy, two and two before His face. Such a choice is scriptural; election of a minister in the word by an assembly is wholly unknown to the word.

We are meant to observe too that not a word more is said historically of Barnabas, who with his kinsman sailed off to his native isle. Of Paul it is written that 'he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the assemblies' (ver. 41). The 'rite' of confirmation has no real source in God's word; but His servants were diligent in strengthening the faith of the saints. They rightly felt that the truth is best learnt within, where practice illustrates and develops principle. Church action where living and true is the ready comment on scripture, and continual teaching draws attention to details as well as to the truth as a whole in the person of Christ. Thus are the assemblies confirmed according to God.

Acts 16

The apostle has now fully and freely entered on his fresh missionary excursion, as well as on his visitation of the assemblies already formed. Silas is his chosen companion, no longer Barnabas. All things work together for good in the hand of divine love; whilst governmentally each shall bear his own burden: grace does not fail, but moral responsibility is untouched also.

From Syria and Cilicia Paul journeys to Lycaonia. 'And he came unto Derbe and unto Lystra, and, behold, a certain disciple was there, by name Timothy, son of a Jewish believing woman, but of a Greek father; who was borne witness to by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him Paul would have to go forth with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek' (vers. 1-3).

Little is said of the other results from the apostle's visit to Derbe and Lystra. Our attention is concentrated on a 'young disciple' there. He was therefore not converted at this time, but, doubtless, during the former visit of the apostle, who speaks of him as his 'true child in faith'. Timothy he had begotten in Christ Jesus through the gospel. The circumstances were peculiar. He was the son of a believing Jewess, Eunice, but of a Greek father, with an exceptionally good testimony from the brethren in those parts. This led to a remarkable step on the part of the apostle: he circumcised him 'on account of the Jews' there, 'for they all knew that his father was a Greek' or Gentile.

Now this was in no way the requirement of the law, which, on the contrary, in strictness placed Timothy by his birth in a painful and outside position. It was really an act of grace on the part of the same apostle who would have utterly repelled the circumcision of Titus; for Titus was a Gentile. Still less is it inconsistent with the recent council at Jerusalem; for the question there was whether the Jewish yoke was to be placed on the Gentiles that believed. It was decided, we have seen, that no such compulsion was authorized or desirable. Here, it was the child of a Jewess against whom Jews would have had a feeling because of his father. In all probability the father was now dead, of whom we never hear as alive, and who in that case, might have perpetuated the uncircumcised condition of his son. If the father no longer lived, Paul could act the more freely, and the same champion for liberty who refused compulsion in the case of Titus, himself took and circumcised Timothy.

It is of great moment that we learn to submit our souls to the largeness of divine truth. The principles which governed the cases of Titus and Timothy were quite distinct, because their nature and circumstances were wholly different. But there was a centre in which the two principles found harmony. They were alike expressions of Christian liberty; in neither instance was the apostle under law but under grace. What can be more instructive for us? We are always liable to the exact reverse: flesh and law habitually work together, as on the other hand we are called to the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.

We may learn from this to avoid and resist the notion that there can be but one principle to govern our conduct. It is not so, if the relationships and the circumstances of the parties wholly differ. Wisdom in that case would rather seek from God's word the Spirit's instruction for our guidance in each case respectively. Nature and tradition constantly tend to a dead level, which is as far as possible from the wisdom of God, in which we are called to judge and act. A principle however true and sound, as for instance not to circumcise Titus, might entirely fail to meet Timothy's case whom grace circumcised to stop the mouths of Jews though the letter of the law would rather have put him away than circumcise him. Routine is sure to mislead in the things of God. An eye single to Christ and His grace will discover the true way, and grace knows where to be inflexible and when to yield. It was the wise procedure of one who, free from all made himself bondman to all that he might gain the more; who became to the Jews as a Jew in order that he might gain the Jews, to those under law as under law (not being himself under law) in order that he might gain those under law, to those without law as without law (not as without law to God but as lawfully subject to Christ) in order that he might gain those without law.

What an admirable lesson was this, practically, for Timothy, henceforth to be the companion and fellow-worker of the great apostle of the Gentiles, whatever the immense gap between them! The step, too, was taken in connection with his going forth with Paul who sought to cut off occasion from them that sought occasion. Grace where there is no demand can go far to meet such as have honest difficulties; whilst it resents and refuses every effort to impose what is unauthorized by God and is inconsistent with itself (1 Cor. 9: 20, 21).

We may here recall the important facts for which we are indebted to the two Epistles which the apostle wrote long after to Timothy; for they really had the most influential bearing on the course which was opening for his young companion. First, there were prophecies which went before as to Timothy (1 Tim. 1: 18, 1 Tim. 4: 14), and this not only as marking him out but indicating the gift of God to be imparted. The history simply gives us the apostle's wish and mind as to him, but the apostle's letter shows that there were prophetic intimations, presumably from more than one, respecting the work to which he was divinely designated; not unlike the way in which Barnabas and Saul had been called and separated to their first missionary work and journey. Even the apostle did not act without these remarkable interventions, of which he reminds his beloved child when he first wrote to enforce the commission entrusted to him and to define his duties in that charge, 'that thou mightest war by them (i.e., the prophecies) the good warfare', though this would be vain without 'having faith and a good conscience' It would brace his spirit to remember that God had designated him to a work of such difficulty and peril.

Secondly, a positive gift of God, or cavrisma, had been communicated to Timothy by the imposition of the apostle's hands (2 Tim. 1: 6), the elderhood having also joined in laying on their hands at the same time (1 Tim. 4: 14) as not only witnesses but as having fellowship with the apostle's act. The believer in God's word needs no argument to prove that such a power of the Spirit is wholly distinct from any qualities previously possessed by Timothy, though no doubt all he had before was the vessel in and through which the gift wrought. But such a phrase, like so many common among evangelical, as well as Catholic, 'sanctified intellect', is wholly misleading, because it expresses the error of human nature rehabilitated or improved by grace, denies the judgment of the fleshly mind in the cross to which faith thoroughly bows, and leaves out the special energy of the Spirit according to the gift of Christ. This Timothy then received and in the way Scripture describes: which none should doubt because of the powerless, not to say profane, imitation of some bodies in Christendom from early days till now. With Timothy it was a special way for a special work. It is error and ignorance to generalize it, and to assume that others did not receive gifts, carivsmata, without any such laying on of hands; as it is also to aver that the Holy Ghost was given to the faithful only after a similar sort. That He was so given in peculiar circumstances by imposition of apostolic hands is true; that it was always so is to neglect the still weightier instances of Acts ii. and x. So with the gifts; they were given in sovereign grace without any such act ordinarily; and this is of all moment for the saints at all times since, when there were and could be no apostles to lay hands on any. But superstition is as blind as rationalism, though seemingly more reverent.

'And as they passed through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to observe, which had been ordained by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem' (ver. 4). This is particularly recorded of the apostle and his companions; and it is the more to be noticed because, when the questions discussed at the council came up for solution in the Epistles these decrees are never referred to. Here again we have to discern the wisdom of God. The decrees were given where Jewish influence prevailed. They were of the highest value to settle the doubts of those who looked up to Jerusalem and especially to the apostles and elders there. If in Jerusalem the chiefs and the church as a whole condemned wholly the imposing of circumcision on Gentiles, who were entitled to press it elsewhere? Certainly not such as had reverence for those whom the Lord had set up in Jerusalem.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians, the question is argued on the broad ground of the gospel, without reference to the decrees. Here again there is no inconsistency whatever. The decrees were admirably in season and place for those to whom they were given; and Paul was conspicuously zealous in giving assemblies already formed where Jews abounded these decrees to observe. But when he wrote his Epistles in the subsequent exercise of his apostolic power, he solves the question altogether apart from the decision at Jerusalem by the truth of Christ and His work now fully revealed.

'The assemblies then were being strengthened in the faith and increased in number daily' (ver. 5). Thus did the Lord use the action of grace for helping on His testimony. Agitation is eminently destructive not only of the confirmation of the soul but the going forward of the work among fresh converts. Faith is nourished by grace, not by questions gendering strife, any more than 'by meats' as the apostle somewhat contemptuously speaks of Jewish controversies, 'wherein they that walked were not profited' (2 Tim. 2: 23; Heb. 13: 9). And grace is inseparable from Christ Who is 'the same yesterday, and today, and for ever'. Questions apart from Him are met by diverse and strange teachings which only distract the senses. It is good that the heart be established by grace. This was what the apostle walked in to the profit of those that heard him. Faith was strengthened and fresh assemblies sprung up more and more, or, at the least, their numbers increased daily. Such is the beautiful picture drawn by the Spirit of God; and such the encouragement given to the apostle with his companions in labour.

We know how universal was the field opened for the work of the gospel: Go ye into all the world, said the Master to the apostles, and preach the gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16: 15). This general order, which ever abides, does not, however, supersede the direction in detail which the Holy Spirit knows how to supply to the Lord's glory. He will have the servant subject to Christ and exercised livingly about His will: a matter of the deepest moment for all who would serve Him thoroughly, and as obligatory now as of old though we may lack some of the means of intimation. This truth remarkably appears in what follows as it does elsewhere.

'And they1 went through the Phrygian and Galatian country, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and 2having come over against Mysia, they attempted to proceed into2 Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus2 permitted them not; and passing by Mysia they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul by night: There was a certain man of Macedon standing and beseeching him and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia,3 concluding that God3 had called us to preach the gospel to them. Having therefore sailed away from Troas we took a straight course unto Samothrace, and on the morrow unto Neapolis, and thence unto Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, first of the district, a colony. And we were in this city staying certain days' (vers. 6-12).

1 The highest authorities (ABCDE) with adequate support of the cursives and versions, et al, support the finite verb against the participle in HLP and the mass of cursives, and Text. Rec.

2 The more ancient read the copulative against the majority and Text. Rec. as they give εἰς instead of κατά, and add  Ἰησοῦ.

3 The authorities are more divided as to the article here, the best omitting it. So they are between 'God' and 'the Lord', but the oldest support the former.

It is not only in the unconverted that man's will is treated by scripture as evil: the believer now, as living in the Spirit, is exhorted to walk in the Spirit, and the power is vouchsafed in the Spirit given, though His power will not act in positive blessing save to Christ's glory in dependence on Him and obedience to His word. So it is of high moment to remember that it is not otherwise in the work of the Lord, where the labourer is constantly exposed to the danger of being guided by fair appearances or of following what pleases his own mind, or it may be the suggestions of others whom he respects. The Lord is jealous, as valuing our subjection and fidelity and confidence in Himself, that we look to Him Who does not fail to act by the Spirit that His will be known and done. The work is His, and He only is adequate to its direction in gracious wisdom and power: we are at best only His journeymen in that work. How happy to work as well as walk by faith, guided by His eye and succoured no less than sent here or there by His grace! In a world given up to self-will and all its baneful ways, how sweet to Him that His servants do not forget their absent Lord any more than their own blessedness in having Him to make His will plain, that their hearts refer to Him, that their faith expects from Him all needed to glorify Him and to preserve themselves from straying!

So was the work of Paul and his companions ordered of the Lord, and it is here set out in the written word, that we may labour in the same spirit of faith, and neither forego the like favour nor reduce scripture to a dead letter. 'And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian country, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.' The allusion to Phrygia and Galatia as the combined sphere of their visitation is full of interest as a fact; but how striking the absence of detail where our curiosity would have demanded a great deal! In the Epistle to the assemblies of Galatia we have not only the fruit of sowing the gospel seed there but circumstances revealed of high value and solemn warning. Of Phrygia we know scarce any particulars, save that Paul and Silas did then go through that region as well as Galatia, 'having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia'.

Was this province of Asia then wholly barren? Was it hopeless soil? From the beginning of the gospel, witnesses thence (Acts 2: 9, 10) had heard the mighty works of God spoken in their tongue and in that of Phrygia among many others, yet here Phrygia is visited, Asia is not, while in the all-wise direction of the Lord the region of Galatia and Phrygia sees the apostle going through it in order, 'stablishing all the disciples' and not evangelizing only (Acts 18: 23). Also Paul visits Ephesus after Apollos had wrought there not in vain, and to his own learning the way of God more carefully, and there the apostle brings on the little nucleus of disciples into full Christian truth and privilege (Acts 19), and carried on the work for more than two years, first in the synagogue, then in the school of Tyrannus, so that, not the capital only but the province also, 'all they that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks', and that word, not without special powers wrought of God by the hands of Paul, 'mightily grew and prevailed'. He Who knew all hearts, and alone can employ any mouth to God's glory, the Holy Spirit forbade their speaking the word in Asia now. Those who believe in man may show their real unbelief in God by cavilling at the present prohibition; those whose confidence is in His grace will admire His admirable care in leading to the right place of testimony then, and in working later in the place now prohibited when He deigned in His goodness to create a fruitful oasis if not more than one in that desert. He knows infallibly, as even an apostle did not, and He it is Who is still here to guide the work to the praise of the Name of Jesus. As He knows the time to sow, so He ensures a harvest at the right season.

Nor was this the only prohibition about the same time. For 'having come over against Mysia, they attempted to proceed into Bithynia; and the Spirit of Jesus permitted them not' (ver. 7). Here the evidence is as plain as possible to those who justly estimate scripture of the personal action of the Spirit in correction even of the apostle's proposed movements. 'They attempted to proceed into Bithynia', where we know (1 Peter 1: 1) sojourners of the dispersion, i.e., Christian Jews were, as well as in Galatia and proconsular Asia, but this was not now the mind of the Lord for His service. And an expression is employed, more than usually, though by no means uniquely, connecting the Spirit with the Lord, which has therefore so much the more appropriate force in the passage, 'and the Spirit of Jesus permitted them not.' The Spirit is as we all know a divine person and may be spoken of simply as the Spirit, or the Holy Spirit; He may be introduced in a general way as the Spirit or the Holy Spirit of God, or as the Spirit of the Lord, i.e. Jehovah. Again, He may be specially designated, where truth required it, as the Spirit of the Father, of the Son, of Christ, or as here, of 'Jesus', in each case securing an appropriateness not to be reached otherwise. Scarce anything shows or produces more looseness of conception among Christians than the neglect of these fine and wonderful distinctions found in no other books with any approach to scripture, but found in every book of scripture where the subject matter admits of them and in perfection, whoever may be the inspired writer, and whenever written, so as to point to one unerring and divine Spirit, the true Author. 'The Spirit of Jesus' blends the personal interest of the glorified Man Whose Name it was their heart's desire and the great object of their life to make known, subject to His will, with the power of the Spirit Who is the energy that works in the new man.

'And passing by Mysia they came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul by night: There was a certain man of Macedon standing and beseeching him and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. And when he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them' (vers. 8-10).

Thus the Lord helped His servant in a positive manner. They all needed direction for their work, and Paul alone saw the vision: a favour frequently shown him, and of the highest character, which no creature has a right to expect. Grace gave him revelations also. But though set in a very different place in the assembly the condition and wants of which are so far apart from the primitive state, God never fails for present difficulties. It is we who fail in waiting and counting on Him, though the prime directory of His written word is complete as it was not then. But special honour was put on one who was behind none in position, and whose labours were most abundant and blessed. All were immediately impressed by the apostle's vision and turned their eyes and steps toward Macedonia.

But it is well to notice that the language is 'we', and not 'they' as heretofore. Luke thus modestly but without doubt lets us see that he at Troas joined the apostle's company. That the inspired writer was a personal witness from this point is surely not a slight matter; but no error can be more profound in principle than the human notion that a higher character begins to attach to his account. Not so: inspiration excludes all question of degrees of assurance or of authority. It is equally of God, whether the writer witnessed what he wrote, or not. The Spirit of God alone secures absolute truth, which no seeing, hearing, or research could effect. Man cannot rise to the divinely given, save as a receiver. He may be indefinitely exact but is necessarily human. God, as He knows all, communicates what is due to His glory in love to His own.

In fact there is no more minuteness in what is conveyed during the writer's presence. Conversations, differences, journeys, preachings, were given when he was absent, no less than when with the apostle's companions. How comforting this quiet evidence that in the inspired word we have to do, not merely with good men doing their best, but with a God Who cannot err or lie! He provides us with His account through man of these spiritually instructive facts. Later in the history we learn that they made a little stay in the Troad where at least there was an assembly (Acts 20); but there was no indecision now, no tarrying by the way: the gospel must be preached forthwith in Macedonia.

'Having therefore sailed away from Troas we took a straight course unto Samothrace, and on the morrow unto Neapolis, and thence unto Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, first of the district, a colony. And we were in this city staying certain days' (vers. 11, 12). The description is most exact. It would not have been true to call it the chief city or capital of Macedonia; but of that part or district it was: a Roman colony too, not a Greek, which had a somewhat important bearing on the incidents that follow, of which we have so graphic a sketch. There Roman armies had engaged in deadly strife, not with strangers, but with one another. There the fate of the moribund republic was decided. There the coming empire of the world began to dawn, an empire which was to last as no predecessor had done, though it had the unenviable distinction of contact with the Lord of glory not only in His despised birth but in His crucifixion of shame; as it alone, after succombing long and notoriously, is destined to live again for a brief but awful space of lawlessness closing in a vain, blasphemous and destructive opposition to His appearing from heaven in glory.

But there were far other and happier reasons which made the entrance of the gospel and the founding of the church in Philippi full of holy interest. The work began in face of an ensnaring spirit of evil and of an adverse unrighteous world, with singular simplicity, with joy rising high and loudly above sorrow and shame, with a display of divine grace no less than divine power. There was nothing exactly like this at Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Thessalonica, though each no doubt had characteristics of admirably suited and special favour. Philippi too went, not without severe trials and peculiar difficulties but as a whole in spiritual power, to ripe experience beyond known parallel without so painful a brand of declension as we know befell the once fair and bright assembly in Ephesus. God would have us learn how the good seed took root and bore fruit at Philippi. Let others boast in the old almanac of man's tale as vain and unreliable in the ecclesiastical as in the secular sphere. Here the believer can rest in the certain truth of God and profit by that which He Who knows all gives for our refreshment or our admonition. We see alas! how fading was that which grace made so good and true and faithful in its measure, for where is that assembly now? how was it in the next generation after Paul's Epistle to all the saints there? If it had stood as the Latin church, it had like Rome been but a pillar of salt with every truth falsified (save perhaps those elements which the Athanasian creed owns), and every way of grace changed into judaizing. This would have been but deeper dishonour of Christ; and the assembly at Philippi, as in almost all the apostolic plantations, has passed away, that men might learn, were they not blinded by worldly wisdom and the fleshly mind, that the power and even the truth of the church of God rests not in an ecclesiastical succession, but in the living energy of the Holy Spirit working in the bond of Christ's confessors who are worse than nothing as a witness if untrue to Him, who are just of price in God's sight as they do His will and reflect His grace.

The gospel entered Europe apostolically with genuine simplicity. Two inspired men were among those who introduced it, an apostle, the greatest of them indeed, and a prophet not the least of them, or as he is popularly styled 'the evangelist', Luke. Very likely he may have been an evangelist in the true scriptural sense of the term. Certainly upon such as Paul and Luke were built the saints now called of God (Eph. 2: 20), as to them was revealed the mystery of Christ (Eph. 3: 5). The foundation was well laid, even Jesus Christ; yet what a holy absence of pretension do we see here!

'And on the sabbath day we went forth outside the gate1 by a river where2 prayer [or, place of prayer] was wont to be; and we sat down and spoke to the women that had come together. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, that worshipped God, heard, whose heart the Lord opened to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized and her house, she besought, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide. And she constrained us' (vers. 13-15).

1 The most ancient MSS., ABCD, good cursives, et al., give πύλης, instead

of πόλεως, (city), as in the Text. Rec. following most.

2 Some ancient authorities give 'where we supposed there was a place of prayer', as in the Revised Version.

There was no synagogue, it would seem, in the city, once called 'The Fountains' but now Philippi from his name who had annexed the district from Thrace to his ancestral Macedonia, and drew largely the treasures of this world from gold mines in the neighbourhood. By that river-side outside the city gate, among the women that assembled, one at least received richer treasure and so drank as to have within her a fountain springing up into eternal life. The good physician who writes was not a painter save graphically. Think of a philosopher, or even a rabbi, speaking to the women of what God is and gives, of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ! Even the disciples once on a time wondered that the Lord talked with a woman, for He first vindicated the solemnity of a lost soul, the blessed value of a saved one, be it of man or woman. And here the choicest of His servants is found, not alone but with a few of kindred mind and heart, ministering Christ and dispensing the mysteries of God to the assembled women.

Among these one attracts our attention in the narrative, Lydia, of Thyatira, a seller of that dye for which these Lydians were far famed in Homer's day (Iliad. δ. 141), as 'the dyers' may be illustrated by the inscription found in the ruins of Thyatira. She was not an idolater, but a worshipper of God, and so betook herself to the little band of Jews that met on the sabbath for prayer, separate from the heathen corruptions around, at a river-side, a spot convenient for the Jews and made use of for purifying. This seems to decide that it was the little and less known Gangas, rather than the Strymon which was more remote. Lydia was hearing, and the Lord opened her heart to attend to the things spoken by Paul: she received Him that came by water and blood, believing on the name of Jesus Christ.

It is well to observe the special form of the work of grace in souls: two never seem precisely alike. It is not merely that men differ, but that the Spirit of God gives a fresh character in the case, while all had been once alike lost sinners, and the same Christ is all and in all. Each, however, has his own individuality, and God does not withhold honour from the weaker vessel but shares His joy in love by detailing the peculiar circumstances of such a one as here before us. No doubt her conscience was exercised, she repented toward God. If this had not been before, it was now, for there is no vital operation in the soul without that self-judgment which owns our sins and ruined state, and turns to God's mercy as the sole spring of saving hope. But the glad tidings or gospel of God presents the Christ already dead and risen, that the guilty may have remission of sins not promised only but preached to them, and every believer may know himself justified from all things — exactly what the law could not effect for its most zealous votary

But here we are not told of such pungent grief and anxiety as in the Jewish converts at Pentecost confronted with their guilt in rejecting their own Messiah; nor of such great fear as smote all that heard of the judicial death of Ananias and Sapphira nor of the great grace which multiplied disciples in the face of persecutions for such as taught and preached the Lord Jesus. The Lord wrought on Lydia, opening her heart to pay heed to the discourse of Paul. It was not prayer only that day, but God's answer in the testimony of grace which in Christ supplies every want and flows, yea, overflows, evermore to His glory.

Made a disciple, Lydia was baptized as became her (John 4: 1). Such was the Lord's command to His servants. Only the males among the. Jews were circumcised; disciples, both men and women, were baptized (Acts 8: 12). Not only Lydia was baptized but her household also: 'And when she was baptized and her house . . .' What is meant thereby? We do not hear of children or of husband; she may have been a widow. without a family or never married. She had a household, and we hear (ver. 40) of the brethren there, believers therefore, and probably not men only but women. Of little ones we hear nothing; and the divine account, which is full and minutely exact to admiration in other respects, not even implies anything of the kind, so that the temerity of tradition, of intellect, of will, that would from this account extract a ground for supposing infants in this case at any rate, is as bold and manifest as unjustifiable.

Hence Meyer, the ablest modern commentator of the Lutheran body, says honestly, in opposition to all his ecclesiastical prejudices, 'When Jewish or heathen families became Christians, the children in them could have been baptized only in cases in which they were so far developed that they could profess their faith in Christ, and did actually profess it; for this was the universal requisition for the reception of baptism: [see also vers. 31, 33; Acts 18: 8]. On the contrary, if the children were unable to believe, they did not partake of the rite, since they were wanting in what the act pre-supposed. The baptism of children is not to be supposed as an apostolic institution, but arose gradually in the post-apostolic age, after early and long-continued resistance, in connection with certain views of doctrine, and did not become general in the church till after the time of Augustine. The defence of infant-baptism transcends the domain of exegesis, and must be given up to that of dogmatics.' Others of high eminence might be added, themselves paedo-baptist, who frankly own that neither here, nor later in the chapter, nor in 1 Cor. 1 is there the least proof that any were baptized except confessors of Christ, and that the baptism of infants has no scriptural warrant.

But this by the way. Lydia's heart, opened of the Lord, went out toward His servants. She 'besought [us] saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide. And she constrained us.' The love of Christ was there and made her, little knowing the value of her gracious importunity in His sight, to be a fellow-helper with the truth (3 John 8).

Another lesson of far-reaching practical moment ought to be evident: the profound indifference not only to souls but to the Lord in that refusal to 'judge', which pleases the flesh and characterizes the world-church, be it Catholic or Protestant, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or aught else that is not based on the Christ of God confessed and the Holy Spirit given of God (Matt. 16: 16-18; Acts 11: 17). No doubt men plead that we must not judge, or that we must exercise a judgment of charity: both pleas alike are ignorant, perverse and evil. Certainly we ought never to be censorious, never to impute bad motives where evil conduct is not manifest. But it is equally unbelieving and heartless, for such as know that faith in God's testimony to Christ is the turning point of the passage from death into life — life eternal, to abandon or neglect discrimination in this respect. Our solemn judgment, if guided by the word, is that death is the condition of all, our judgment of charity and our joy are, that they only live through and of and in Christ who by grace hear His word; as thereon we exhort them in His name that they should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto Him that for them died and rose again.

From such a judgment as this Lydia did not shrink but rather humbly challenged it as due to the Lord. Paul and his company acted on it, and the Holy Spirit has recorded it for our admonition. There was assuredly therefore no lack of love in Peter's judging Simon the Samaritan from his own words, and this, though a baptized man, to be in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity (Acts 8: 20-23). It was rather indeed the painful side, but in the circumstances absolutely indispensable, in that judgment of love which the knowledge of God entails on His servants; and woe be to those who, to gratify the world or for selfish ease and advantage, relinquish so plain and indisputable a duty to their Master! This did not Peter any more than Paul.

'And it came to pass as we were going unto prayer [or, the place of prayer], that a certain maid haying a spirit of Python met us, who brought her masters much gain by divinations. She, having followed Paul and us, cried, saying, These men are bondmen of the Most High God who announce to you [or, us] salvation's way. And this she did for many days. But Paul, being distressed, turned and said to the spirit, I charge thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out the same hour' (vers. 16-18).

As the better authorities ( ABCE, et al.) insert the article with 'prayer' in verse 16, it is allowed that 'the place of prayer' is the more likely meaning. But if so here, it would go far to commend the same sense in verse 13, the article being there properly absent as it was a previously unknown and unmentioned place. The incident recorded was weighty in itself and in its consequences. Satan essayed a new means of mischief, not assailing the gospel but patronizing it and this for many days. Distressed thereby the apostle at length turned and enjoined the evil spirit to leave her, which came to pass in the name of Jesus.

Alas! not so have the servants of the Most High God acted in Europe They have accepted, instead of eschewing, the favours of the enemy, to their own shame and ruin and to their Master's dishonour. In Asia the gospel was resisted, calumniated, and persecuted. No Python followed its preachers, nor was the cry heard, These men are bondmen of the Most High who announced to you salvation's way. Open opposition, not flattery, was the devil's way. But Europe later had no Paul to cast out the unclean spirit, an unholy compact at last prevailed, and servants of God claimed honour to Jesus from the homage of the world. But it was hollow lip-service, as the event in Philippi soon proved. The world is at enmity with God essentially and always; and nothing is so far from its prince's heart than the honour of His Son. A liar and its father, he hates detection; and his rage came out when the faithful apostle, who had at first slighted his overtures, cast out in Jesus' name the power from its instrument of imposture.

An act of such uncompromising decision as well as power roused the enemy acting on human covetousness. But it is well to note that the apostle did not act in divine energy till Satan's persistence made it a duty.

'And when her masters saw that the hope of their gain was gone,1 they laid hold on, and dragged Paul and Silas into the market-place before the rulers, and when they had brought them unto the praetors, they said, These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or practise, being Romans. And the crowd rose up together against them, and the praetors rent their garments off them, and commanded to beat [them] with rods. And, having laid many stripes on them, they cast [them] into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely, who, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison and secured their feet into the stocks' (vers. 19-24).

1 Literally, 'gone out'; it would seem in allusion to the going out of the demon

Defeated in his effort to mix himself up with God's work, the enemy flees to his ordinary and natural opposition through human interests and passions. Covetousness is a mainspring of the world's activity, 'covetousness, which is idolatry' (Col. 3: 5). Those whose hope of gain vanished with the cast-out spirit lawlessly apprehended Paul and Silas, and dragged them into the market-place, where the local rulers then, even more than now, were found. It may be noticed that here only the inspired historian specifies the magistrates in Philippi with the Greek term which answers to praetors: a striking evidence of minute accuracy, for the city was a colony, and a colony was but Rome on a small scale, with its two chiefs (sometimes modified by need, but in general duumviri). We shall see the city governors of Thessalonica quite differently designated in the next chapter, but there too with similarly characteristic accuracy as here. Compare also Acts 13: 7, 12; Acts 18: 12; Acts 19: 31 for other instances of such exactitude.

'And when they had brought them unto the praetors, they said, These men, being (ὑπάρχοντες) Jews (or, as Mr. Humphry suggests, "being Jews to begin with"), exceedingly trouble our city, and set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or practise, being (ὄντες) Romans.' This was calculated, and no doubt intended, to arouse the mob, the more sensitive on the score of Roman pride and privilege, because they were not unmixedly Roman, and such as might be Romans, though tolerant of other religionists one with another, were jealous of anything like aggression on themselves. The appeal was not in vain. 'And the crowd rose up together (i.e., with the masters of the dispossessed slave) against them, and the praetors, rending their garments off them, commanded to scourge them with rods.' It may not be necessary to hold with Bengel that the duumvirs stripped Paul and Silas with their own hands; but the special expression employed (περιρήξαντες) and the general scope and intrinsic sense, exclude the notion that the magistrates rent (διαρρήσσω) their own clothes. It is certain that they gave command to beat them with rods, though uncondemned: an open violation of Roman law, which exposed themselves to severe punishment, had proceedings been instituted. 'And having inflicted on them many stripes, they cast [them] into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely, who, having received such a charge, cast them into the inner prison and secured their feet into the stocks.'

Such was man, civilized man, high and low, carried away into most manifest injustice, without the form even of trying the holy, harmless, and self-denying servants of the Lord, at the call of the basest who had lived by the oracles or divinations of their female slave under Satan's power.

Had God nothing to do?

'But about midnight, Paul and Silas in praying were singing praises to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and the bands of all were loosed' (vers. 25, 26). Could any facts more dearly indicate Whose purpose and hand had wrought on behalf of His injured ministers? An earthquake, men could readily argue, might happen, and with the most singular coincidence of circumstances; but who ever heard of an earthquake so great as to shake, not windows or walls, not chains or bolts only, but the foundations of an extensive building? And withal so nicely adjusted as to cast down nothing, nor injure a soul! Only all the doors were forthwith opened, and everyone's bands were loosed! It was the same divine power which had delivered Simon Peter, though chained to two soldiers, on the eve of his execution (Acts 12); the same power which had extricated the apostles from a prison-house, shut in all safety, with the keepers standing at the doors (Acts 5).

Here a deeper purpose was in hand, and a great earthquake heralded it; and Paul and Silas, who had been praying to God in hymns, remained in the prison to declare His wonderful works; yea, those whose naturally strongest desire had otherwise been to make their escape and renew their lawless life were so overawed that not one stirred from the opened prison. It was the God of all grace, Who answered the prayers and praises of His prisoners, Who knew how to control the wicked, and Who was guiding His servants for His glory. For He was now about to do more, and most worthily of the name of His Son; and to do this so as to win to Himself as hardened a heart as beat within the prison walls.

Let us too hear. 'And the jailer, being roused out of sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. And he called for lights, and sprang in, and trembling for fear fell down before Paul and Silas, and led them forth, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus,1 and thou shalt be saved, and thy house' (vers. 27-31).

1 The mass of witnesses adds 'Christ' as in Text. Rec., but the most ancient with some good cursives, the Vulg., et al., do not accredit it.

We can understand the horror of the jailer, and his first impulse, as a heathen, to make away with himself, inferring from the open doors the flight of the prisoners, and therefore (according to the stern law De Custodia Reorum) with no other prospect for himself than a violent stroke of judicial shame. But conceive the overwhelming effect on his conscience when the apostle averted his suicidal hand by the loud assurance that the prisoners were all there! Light from God penetrated his dark heart on the instant. with a deep desire for mercy, before he got the lights he called for. He needed no more intimation where to turn for the truth he wanted, no more dealings of God to prove His hand was in all that had just occurred, and that He was really with those who had been so harshly thrust into prison with mockings and scourgings. Had not the Pythoness notoriously designated them as servants of the Most High God, who proclaim salvation's way? The depths of his soul were broken up; and as his sins rose from every hiding place, he felt instinctively that now was the moment to find God. So he sprang in, and, all of a tremble, fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them forth to inquire of the great salvation.

For salvation in any lesser sense is not to be thought of. The earthquake was soon all over, the prisoners were all safe; what had he to fear from Roman justice? But God had awakened his soul, and his sins troubled him. Not death from man, but divine judgment at the close of all was before his eyes, and God's servants, for whom He had just been interposing miraculously, were there to tell him the way of salvation. Whatever learned men may think, who, never having felt the burden of their sins, catch at words, and waste their time on questions dubious or not, the jailer's burning anxiety was about the salvation of his soul. The strange utterance respecting his two holy prisoners could not but rise before him in his then awe-stricken frame of mind. It was really God Who was at work in his conscience, as He had wrought otherwise in the prison. Not a moment was to be lost, so, having led forth the two prisoners, he says Sirs, what must I do that I may be saved?' Eternal salvation was the urgent want of his soul, as he honestly owns.

Nor was the answer of the Lord's servants less prompt. Thanks be to God, it may and it ought always to be so, when the soul is thus in earnest. For the righteous foundation on which salvation rests is already laid, and so perfectly that to add anything, to wait for aught else, is to dishonour God and to hinder the sinner. The atoning work is done and accepted of God, Who therefore sends His glad tidings to the guilty, without respect of persons. It is no question of promises on man's part or of amelioration as a ground of divine favour. Man was once let alone till his violence and corruption became insupportable, and judgment swept all away, save the few who trusted God in the ark provided for them by grace. Man was then tried fully by God's law, with every religious help possible but, as God indicated beforehand, all was vain, save to prove that man could not be saved on any ground of moral worth or religious ordinance. What remained? Nothing but a Saviour sent from God to be a propitiation for sins. The Saviour has already come, has already died, and is now risen and glorified. Yea, God has sent from heaven the Holy Spirit thereon to declare the glad tidings by His servants. Therefore Paul and Silas could say with absolute confidence, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.'

Such is the grace of God in the gospel. It brings salvation for all. It is no longer laid up in shadows. It has appeared to the world. It summons all men everywhere to repent, but none receives the remission of his sins save through faith; and the Lord Jesus is the object of that faith. No doubt He has suffered for our sins: else there could be no sovereign proclamation on God's part, nor such a righteous blessing for man. But faith goes with grace, and excludes any and every desert of men; as the righteousness revealed in the gospel is God's, founded upon the accomplished work of Christ.

But it is all-important to see and hold fast the fact that the gospel presents the person of Christ, and not His work only. The soul is called to 'believe on the Lord Jesus'. This could not purge the conscience without the shedding of His blood; it could not give peace or liberty, unless He were not only delivered up for our offences, but raised for our justification. But it is on the Lord Jesus that we believe. Thus alone is the soul set in a right attitude from the first, and that object of faith abides to the last.

'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.' This gave joy and assurance to the jailer's soul, as we shall see by and by. So it was intended of God, Who is the God of peace, not of uncertainty, and would bring the believer into the communion of His own mind. 'Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.' Faith is the principle, and not human righteousness but God's revealed unto faith; for there is no other ground which grace or truth could accredit Anything else would exalt man, in the way either of his own merits, or of ordinances done by others for him. God's righteousness revealed by faith unto faith excludes everything of the sort. Christ alone is, and abides, the only efficacious ground — the Lord Jesus Who has already offered His one sacrifice on the cross. All scripture on this infinite theme is but the development of that which was made known to the jailer in these pregnant words, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.'

It will be seen that salvation is no less open to the jailer's house than to himself. Jew or Gentile makes no difference, old or young, bond or free, but on the same terms of faith. In scripture there is no such notion, whatever the precious privileges attached to the head of a house, that he believes for them, or that they are to be saved because he is saved by faith. On the contrary the idea is a fleshly licence, based on letter, not spirit, as dangerous for the soul as it is subversive of fundamental truth. No wonder that it shelters itself under the dark shade of ordinance with appeal to feeling and imagination without scripture, though boasting loudly of its own spiritual intelligence. Even Dean Alford forgot the Book of Common Prayer in his allegiance to God's word, and declares that καὶ ὁ οἰκος σου [and thy house] does not mean that his faith would save his household — but that the same way was open to them as to him: 'Believe and thou shalt be saved, and the same of thy household.' So too Meyer, in the face of as great or yet greater prejudices, exploded an error opposed to the gospel and the truth generally, and says that the epanorthosis σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκος σου extends or belongs in effect to πίστευσον and σωθήσῃ. For, be it noted, the verse speaks not of an institution like baptism, but, of salvation, and we do well to speak seriously of what is so serious. But human levity in divine things is as incredibly common as deplorable.

But as yet, as far as I am aware, this heterodoxy is only whispered in private, or at most, taught where the ignorant and blinded votaries of party are present to hear. Its advocates do not venture to affirm it where it would be sifted to their shame, and rejected by those who still hold the truth. It will be seen in the inspired word which follows, how daringly these enthusiasts overlook the context in their haste to avail themselves of the most superficial appearance to give their favourite notion currency. This however we may leave till the rest of this scripture comes before us in due course. But it is the characteristic of error to despise what is most certain, solid, and blessed in a vain chase after shadows, and to rejoice more for one pervert, than for ninety and nine repentant sinners.

Let it be carefully weighed: the question of the jailer, the answer of the Lord's servants, was not about the sign but about the reality of salvation soul-salvation, as Peter calls it (1 Peter 1: 9). And this is here, as elsewhere, bound up with faith; which of all things is personal, as is the repentance it implies. Believing for others, even so close as one's household, in order that they should be not baptized merely, but thus saved, shows not only the poverty in resource of this pretentious school, but their hardihood in advancing questions, so dangerous for souls, on such slender grounds.

The assumption which underlies the theory, in the minds of the more moderate, probably is that the jailer's house consisted only of children, young enough to be irresponsible: otherwise (of which extravagance some are not ashamed) it would be convicted of slighting repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus more flagrantly than any orthodox Christian sect: for which of the sects does not demand some such profession in candidates of riper years? No wonder therefore that all godly, or even sober, interpreters of the divine word repudiate those shifts of hard-driven controversialists. But scripture enables us to carry this disproof to the uttermost; for it is added (in ver. 32) that they spoke the word of the Lord to him 'with all that were in his house', as if the Holy Spirit by express anticipation had designed to leave no possible plea for teaching so strange. Those only who could hear the word were then concerned; none else was by the call itself included within the terms of the blessing, whatever grace might effect afterwards, if indeed any remained to be called and blessed.

'And they spoke to him the word of the Lord' [or, God]1 with all that were in his house. And at that hour of the night he took and washed [them from] their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his immediately. And having brought them up into his house, he set meat [a table] before them, and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God (vers. 32-34).

1 Some ancient authorities read 'God', but the best sustain the Text. Rec., save in preferring 'with' to 'and to', though in sense equivalent.

The jailer took them 'that hour' of the night, however unseasonable it might seem; for such is the force, rather than 'the same' which is not said, though of course the latter also was true. But we must correctly reproduce what was originally written and meant. After washing their stripes he and all his were baptized without delay, it would seem in the precincts of the prison proper. Then he brought them 'up' into his house, apparently over the prisoners' quarters, attended to their bodily refreshment, and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God.

Undoubtedly the Greek phrase for 'with all his house' is adverbial; but this makes no difference for the sense substantially, either here or anywhere else. Thus all the family of every man pertaining to Jacob (Ex. 1: 1) came from Palestine into Egypt: the heads of each house did not come with Jacob in lieu of the members. It was equally true of all, though the heads only were specified. So here the jailer rejoiced, yet not representatively for his family; but they too as really in their measure as he, though his joy as believing in God is duly specified, It is intended that we should understand the joy of faith in the case of all. A beautiful picture of the reality and activity of God's grace in this world, and this with the whole house of a hardened pagan; and of such it is repeatedly predicated. For is He the God of Jews only? Is He not also of Gentiles? Yes, of Gentiles also; since God is one Who shall justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through their faith, not annulling law thereby, but establishing it, for law never was so vindicated as in the death of the Lord Jesus; and hence the believers, once guilty, enter into peace and joy.

Such is the triumph of God's righteousness for all who submit to it, yet it is no promise in suspense, still less a sham, but a reality of blessed and effectual grace for none but those that do submit, whatever may be one's desire and hope for others. It is sweet to see thoughtful love and hospitality at once in motion, when faith purifies the heart. The restraining and controlling hand of law is a great boon in a sinful world; yet what is it at best compared with the working of divine grace, even in one but just born of God?

'And when it was day, the praetors sent the lictors, saying, Let those men go. And the jailer reported the saying unto Paul, The praetors have sent that ye be let go: now then go out and proceed in peace. But Paul said unto them, They beat us openly, uncondemned, men being Romans, and cast us into prison; and now do they cast us out privily? No indeed: but let themselves come and bring us out. And the lictors announced these words to the praetors and they were afraid when they heard they were Romans. And on coming they besought them, and bringing out entreated [them] to go out of the city. And when they went out of prison, they entered into [the house of] Lydia, and when they saw the brethren, they exhorted them and departed' (vers. 35-40).

Another evidence of a Roman colony appears here in the lictors employed as subordinates by the praetors, which is disguised in the vague name of 'serjeants', as the higher officials under that of 'magistrates'.

The passionate or time-serving concession to unjust clamour had now passed away, and word was dispatched next morning to dismiss the abused prisoners of the day before. The jailer naturally repeated his orders, glad doubtless to release them. But Paul was now as firm in a dignified way for the vindication of the gospel, and even of the law, of which they were the unworthy administrators, as he and his companion before in uncomplaining meekness had borne their lawless violence. If there is a time to keep silent, there is a time to speak; and the Spirit alone can guide as to either, for which the word alone suffices, for it warrants both, each in its due season. Here we see the two injunctions carried out in the same transaction, and both turning to the glory of the Lord.

It was not invariably so even with such honoured servants. Their own spirit might, and occasionally did, act without the sure guidance of God; as when the high priest was rebuked and Caesar was appealed to, each time with consequences less or more serious, as it may be shown when the history comes before us. Here beyond controversy the silent suffering of Paul and Silas was a mighty and striking testimony to the practical grace which our Lord would have to characterize His own. 'For what glory is it,' says another apostle, 'if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable [lit., grace] with God' (1 Peter 2: 20). To this saints, as such, are called. Peculiarly does it become those to practise it who teach it, as did the blessed pair then at Philippi. They were reproached for the name of Christ, and were partakers of His sufferings without a murmur, nay, with prayers and hymns of joy that they were counted worthy to bear wrong and shame for His Name.

But now that they had thus endured, it was fitting that it should be proved that Paul and Silas were not evildoers punished justly with scourging and prison and the stocks, but that the guardians of the law had been guilty of flagrant, manifest, and inexcusable unrighteousness against the preachers of the gospel. The time was come when the praetors sent to let them go, and Paul saw this, not at first the jailer. Therefore said the apostle to them, 'They beat us openly, uncondemned, men being Romans, and cast us into prison; and do they cast us out privily? No, indeed; but let themselves come and bring us out.' Their exposure was complete, though only the officials and their victims might know it. There was not the semblance of resentment, not the least desire to injure them, and exact from men who lay absolutely in the power of those they had wantonly injured. But it was unanswerably demonstrated, that, in the conflict between the officials of Roman law at Philippi and the ministers of the gospel, the latter were no less honoured by the gracious power of God than the former had utterly failed to repress the mob, and had even become the ringleaders in cruel infraction of that law they were bound to enforce.

The lictors bring back Paul's words to the praetors, who when they heard the sufferers were Romans could not hide their fear, but came and besought their prisoners. It was a humiliation on their part, as undeniable a triumph for those charged with God's gospel, who had suffered only as Christians with the Spirit of glory and of God resting on them.

Certainly the preachers of grace were not disposed to swerve from grace, least of all now that the truth was clear; nor had they any wish to put dishonour on any human institution, but rather to be patterns in that subjection to it for the Lord's sake, to which they were conspicuous in exhorting others. They were easily entreated, having never thought of a prosecution.

'And when they brought them out, they asked [them] to go out of the city. And they went out of the prison into [the house of] Lydia; and when they saw the brethren, they exhorted them and departed.' They exercised their indisputable title to liberty by a visit, on quitting the prison, to Lydia, where they saw 'the brethren'. These would seem to be her household of whom we heard in verse 15. Of none others in that holy bond of relationship do we read at this time in Philippi. These they exhorted or comforted, as well there might be need, and the Lord's servants could happily do in the defence and confirmation of the gospel. As they had rejoiced in their bonds, they took their leave: a lovely picture in their own persons, of that superiority to circumstances which the apostle in his Epistle at a later day impressed on all the saints there, for their blessing and ours.

Acts 17

We are now brought into somewhat new circumstances. The work of the Lord goes on, the testimony varies in its character, the zeal of the labours is the same, the results differ more or less, and so does the opposition of the enemy.

'Now, when they had journeyed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was the synagogue of the Jews' (ver. 1).

It is remarkable that the more ancient manuscripts (ABD, et al.) omit the article before synagogue, as do the Authorized and Revised Versions; but the testimony to its existence is ample and varied. On the one hand it is well-nigh impossible to conceive its insertion unless it were originally there. On the other it is easy to understand its omission, because of its unusual connection. It would be quite justified if in fact there was but that synagogue in the district, which would give it notoriety. At Philippi we saw that there was none; there was only the place for prayer by the river, where a few used to assemble on the sabbath.

'And Paul as his custom was went in among them, and on three sabbaths reasoned with them from the scriptures, opening and alleging that the Christ must suffer, and rise again from [among] the dead, and that this Jesus, whom I announce to you, is the Christ' (vers. 2, 3). Here the apostle returns to a testimony of pointed application to the Jews. No doubt it is of the highest value to everyone, but the form of it exactly suited the place where his discourses were given. A suffering and a risen Christ was proved out of the scriptures, and this not merely as a truth in what they owned to be the word of God, but the absolute necessity because of man's sin, and the only adequate remedy in God's grace, with the further and clenching conclusion that 'This is the Christ Jesus, Whom I announce to you.' No miracle was needed here to arrest attention. The scriptures are a testimony beyond miracles, and the most permanent of all testimony. Jesus alone, as far as His first advent is concerned, gives full meaning to the word of God, and this it is which completely meets the conscience and the heart of the believer for purging to the one, and giving a blessed and blessing object to the other. But it is not all that the apostle had to say at Thessalonica, as we shall shortly learn, and as it is all which is mentioned here, no more need be added now.

'And some of them were persuaded and added [joined themselves] to Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few' (ver. 4). Thus, as the apostle wrote afterwards, 'Our gospel was not with you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance' (1 Thess. 1: 5). The harvest was considerable, not only from among the Jews, but far more from the Gentiles, including not a few women of rank, In no assembly of apostolic times do we find in fact greater simplicity, freshness, and power of the truth than among the Thessalonians.

But the success of the gospel is ever apt to rouse bitter opposition and nowhere so much as among the Jews, who would keenly feel that rancorous spite which is natural to those who were overwhelmed by their own scriptures, for which they could not account, but to which they would not bow. 'But the Jews, having been stirred up to jealousy, took unto them certain wicked men of the rabble (lit., market-loungers) and gathering a crowd set the city in confusion, and besetting the house of Jason, sought to bring them out to the people. And not having found them, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the city-rulers (or, politarchs), crying out, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also whom Jason has received; and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus. And they troubled the crowd and the city-rulers, when they heard these things. And having taken security for Jason and the rest, they let them go' (vers. 5-9).

Here we see the usual lack of common honesty, which marks the religious assailants of the truth. The Jews, who professed the fear of God did not scruple, through jealousy, to form a party with wicked men of the lowest sort against the gospel. Abandoned heathens were good enough allies against the truth of their own Messiah, Whom worldly lusts would not let them discern in the suffering, but risen Jesus. God was in none of their thoughts; and self-wit/ wrought to darken and destroy the force of His word. Their degradation could not be hidden in the company with whom they consorted to form a crowd and set the city in uproar. Yet were the Jews the exclusive representatives of divine law before all nations They were now alas! the standing proof of utter failure, not because the law was not holy, the commandment holy and just and good, but because they themselves were unholy, unjust, and evil. Even now, their own Messiah being come, they failed to recognize Him through unbelief urged the Gentiles to crucify Him, and now were also forbidding His servants to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved. Thus were they filling up their sins always 'but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.'

The host of Paul, Jason, was the special object of their animosity, his house they beset in their desire to bring forward the Lord's servants unto the people, i.e., the regular assembly of the city. Not finding them, they dragged Jason and certain brethren before the city-rulers,1 a peculiar title of the local authorities, which so much the more attests Luke's accuracy because the term occurs in no known remains of Greek antiquity. But an inscription still extant on the marble arch of the western or Vardir gate of Saloniki proves that such was the title of the Thessalonian magistrates, and that there were seven. By a remarkable coincidence three of the names of Paul's companions found here, or in the Epistles, answer to as many in that inscription given from Boeckh, No. 1967, in Conybeare and Howson I. 395. Sosipater, Secundus, and Gaius are common to both, a fact which points to the prevalence of these names in that region. It was a free city anciently called Therma, which afterwards received its name of Thessalonica from Cassander in compliment to his wife, Thessalonica, sister of Alexander the Great, and it remains a flourishing city of the Turkish empire in our day (1887) under the derived name of Saloniki or Salonica.

1 The Greek noun here, πολίαχος, not πολίταρχος, is a word, with its cognate verb, of common occurrence in Dio Cassius, for praefect or commandant of a city, besides its broader usage in the past as said of a king or prince. But I do not find it applied to magistrates in Greek cities, only to the praefect of Rome.

The outcry of the assailants in verses 6, 7 is strikingly instructive, at least in its latter part. That the preachers of divine grace 'turned the world upside down' was natural to say, and became a standing reproach, however untrue. Yet is it intelligible because the gospel penetrates among high and low, and separates from the world by a divine bond to Christ in heaven. But for that very reason it does not meddle with the authority of the world; to which, on the contrary, it enjoins subjection on every soul as God's ordinance here below. It simply but completely attaches the heart of those who believe to the rejected One, now glorified in heaven. But we cannot look for truth in a foolish cry raised by envious Jews and idle loungers of the Gentiles. They only sought an appearance sufficient to arouse the fears of the magistrates, and therefore drive away the chief heralds of the truth

But they laid another charge of a more definite kind, which has the more interest because of the light on it furnished by both the Epistles to the Thessalonians: 'And these all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.'

The insinuation was unfounded and malicious undoubtedly; but it had a show of evidence in the prominence given to the kingdom of God in which Jesus was to come. For He was gone, among other objects, to receive that kingdom and to return. Now, whatever the ill-willed folly of representing that this expectation is antagonistic to the rights of Caesar, it is plain that the teaching was very far from modern doctrine, which could never be so misconstrued. Paul and his companions held before the saints the constant looking for Christ to come and reign; and this, not as a secret for the initiated, but as a most influential hope which penetrated all walk as well as doctrine, and to be urged from first to last throughout the whole Christian life. We learn from the earliest chapter of the first Epistle that it characterized the Thessalonian converts from their starting point. They turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to await His Son from the heavens, Whom He raised out of the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath. (1 Thess. 1) Their conversion was to wait for Jesus no less than to serve God. That hope, therefore, was suited to the youngest believers as truly as to the apostle. It was independent of prophetic scheme, with which neophytes, especially from the heathen, could not be acquainted. Yet was it so much the more a hope bright and unembarrassed in which they lived from day to day.

So surely was this the case, that the apostle reminds them (1 Thess. 2.) how, as a father his own children, he used to exhort 'each one of you, and comfort and testify that ye should walk worthy of God, Who calleth you to His own kingdom and glory'. What could more prove His kingdom as bearing on present walk? And in fact it is notorious that the lack of it before the eyes of the saints exposes them to seeking ease and honour, and wealth and all worldliness. With His kingdom and glory before us, we can heartily bear present shame and suffering, and the walk is elevated accordingly. Even the apostle looked for his crown of boasting in the saints only before our Lord Jesus at His coming. Then would holiness have its consummation and display at His coming with all His saints (1 Thess. 3). Dead and living saints (1 Thess. 4) would be changed and be with Him on high at His coming; and in due time the day of the Lord should fall with sudden destruction on a thoughtless, unexpecting world (1 Thess. 5).

If possible, more precise is the intimation about the kingdom in the Second Epistle. The saints in Thessalonica, through various causes, did not then enjoy so much of the brightness of the hope, but the apostle joins his fellow-labourers with himself in boasting of their endurance and faith in all their persecutions and tribulations. This is viewed as a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God to the end that they should be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, 'for the sake of which ye also suffer'. Retribution will come in its day at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven: He it is Who makes good, manifests, and administers the kingdom (2 Thess. 1). But that day cannot be (errorists pretended that it was already present) ere the apostasy come, and the man of sin be revealed.

There was already at work the mystery or secret of lawlessness, the upshot of which will be the revelation of that lawless one, who is yet himself to sit down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. This will draw swift judgment on him and his adherents; for the Lord Jesus shall consume him with the breath of His mouth, and annul him by the appearing of His coming (2 Thess. 2). This need not alarm the feeblest believers seeing that God has called them by the gospel to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, though we need the Lord meanwhile to direct our hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of the Christ (2 Thess. 3) It is the second advent, as men call it, the manifestation of the Lord in glory, which introduces the kingdom judicially, when in the language of Daniel. the 'little stone', having executed judgment on all opposing hostile powers here below, will then expand into a great mountain and fill the whole earth. To expect universal spread and supremacy for God's kingdom, before the King comes in personal and public overthrow of His foes, is an error of no small magnitude. The error sought early entrance but met with immediate exposure by the apostle who strengthened the Thessalonians in the truth. He from the beginning pressed the coming of Jesus, and God's kingdom then: a truth as solemn for the world as full of cheer for the saints.

But the world was hostile, though nothing more was done then beyond taking bail1 of Jason and the rest, and letting them go, as the preachers were not found. Persecution soon fell heavily, as the Epistle shows, on the young converts.

1 This is expressed, not in the more ancient Greek technical expression ἐγγύη but in the equivalent of the Latin satisdatio, τὸ ἱκανὸν.

'But the brethren immediately sent away by night Paul and Silas unto Berea, who on their arrival went away into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, being such as received the word with all readiness of mind, day by day examining the scriptures whether these things were so. Many out of them therefore believed, and of the Greek2 women of good position, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews from Thessalonica knew that the word of God was announced by Paul in Berea also, they came thither also, stirring up and troubling3 the crowds. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to proceed toward4 the sea; but Silas and Timothy abode there. But they that were conducting Paul brought [him] as far as Athens; and having received a charge for Silas and Timothy that they should come as quickly as possible unto him, they departed' (vers. 10-15).

2 They were not Grecians or Hellenists, but Greeks.

3 'And troubling' has ancient and wide support.

4 Ignorance of the idiomatic use of ὡς here probably led to ἓως in ABE and some other authorities, and to its omission in D, et al.

It is blessed to mark the unwearied zeal of the Lord's servants. They had barely escaped the ill-will roused by the Jews at Thessalonica, when we behold them undauntedly repairing to the synagogue in Berea on their arrival. Here they experienced such readiness of heart in searching the scriptures as evinced a greater simplicity and real nobility of soul. To bow to the word, to receive it as God's word, which indeed it is, is the truest condition of divine blessing; yet did they daily examine scripture, whether the things preached accorded with the things written. Therefore many from among them believed. There is no way so sure or good. And it is of interest to observe that here also not a few Greek women of rank, no less than men, believed, as well as the God-fearing Jews. It was doubtless an unspeakable deliverance from debasing immorality, as well as from empty fable — from a life of selfishness to serve an only and true God, and to await His Son from heaven.

But Jewish rancour could not content itself with driving the apostles from Thessalonica: from Thessalonica came the hostile Jews to Berea in order to counteract the preached word, stirring up and troubling the crowds there also.

Knowledge of old revelation gives no security for receiving the truth God is actually sending or using most at any given time. On the contrary, as we see in these Jews here and elsewhere, if there be pride in what is already possessed, it will act powerfully in rejecting what is meant of God to test the heart now; especially if grace be at work to open the door of faith to those who had no religious standing from of old. Hence the gospel is of all things most repulsive to the ancient people of God, who madly refused the mercy which waited on them first of all, before it was preached to the Gentiles.

Thereon Paul is again sent off by the brethren toward the sea, whilst his companions stayed there still. Athens was the apostle's destination, whither he had a loving escort, and where he charged Silas and Timothy to rejoin him. But Athens, as we shall see, was not destined to be a fruitful field for the incorruptible seed, the living and abiding word of God.

No! Athens was to be comparatively barren for the gospel: so different are the thoughts of God from those of men. Mere love of novelty, not value for truth, characterized that city once the most renowned seat of the arts, of letters, of philosophy. It was covered with idols: God was not really in their thoughts. Indeed He cannot be known or loved apart from Jesus. But now a herald was come to set the testimony of Jesus before them, yet alas how little heeded!

'Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked in him as he observed the city to be full of idols.1 He reasoned therefore, in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout, and in the market-place every day with those that turned up. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers2 attacked him. And some said, What would this babbler say? and others, He seemeth to be an announcer of strange divinities, because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And having taken hold of him, they brought [him] up to the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching [is], that is spoken by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things unto our ears: we wish to know therefore what these things mean. Now all Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else than either to tell something or to hear something3 newer' [i.e., than the last] (vers. 16-21).

1  Κατείδωλός πόλις Actor. Apost.xvii. 16 quod non est, ut quidam opinantur simulacris dedita urbs, sed simulacris referta.' Zeunius ap. Viger, de pr. Gr. L Idiom. 638, ed iii. Lips. 1822.

2 'Also' has good authority, though omitted in Text. Rec., which inserts 'the' before Stoic, and 'to them' before 'preached'.

3 The most ancient authorities support the double 'something'.

It was an indignant and painful feeling which stirred the apostle's spirit as he beheld idols everywhere. Companionship he loved and valued, and tidings of Thessalonica he longed for, but at once he goes to the synagogue for the Jews and proselytes, as well as to the market-place every day for those that came by. The Epicureans and the Stoics soon encountered him; the former being really Atheists under the plea of chance, and looking for the dissolution of soul and body; the latter, of a sterner school which cried up necessity or fate, and an intolerant and intolerable egotism, being really Pantheists. Some had recourse to banter: 'What would this babbler say?' Others took Paul up more gravely: 'He seemeth to be an announcer of strange divinities [or demons], because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.' So ignorant were these sages as to count the resurrection a goddess, the counterpart of Jesus, a god. The true God was unknown.

But they were no longer disposed to persecute. Intellectual levity survived the loss of their national independence and political power. Mocking or curiosity alone remained. Still they were sufficiently struck by the apostle's preaching to lay hold of him and bring him up to the Areopagus, not to try him for his life, as they once did with Socrates, but that they might know what this new doctrine was. Even they could not but avow how strange the sound was to their ears: 'We wish to know therefore, what these things mean.' The truth, however, enters not through the ear merely, but the conscience also, and what conscience was there in spending their time for nothing else than either to tell or to hear the last news? We shall see that the apostle brought God, as a personal and living reality, before themselves as morally related to Him. Till conscience is awakened, what groundwork can there be? Otherwise the gospel is degraded into another new thing, and Jesus and the resurrection become the latest additions to the Pantheon of heathen vanities.

'And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Men of Athens, in all things I observe that ye are very [i.e., more than others] reverent to divinities [or demons]; for passing through and closely observing the objects of your worship, I found also an altar on which was the inscription, To an unknown God. What [or Whom], therefore, ye without knowing worship, this1 I announce to you. The God that made the world and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands, nor is He served by human2 hands as needing something more, Himself giving to all life, and breath, and all things. And He made of one [blood3] every nation of men to dwell on all3 the face of the earth, having determined appointed4 seasons, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek God5, if haply they might feel after and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and are; as also some of your own poets have said, For His offspring also are we. Being therefore God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divinity is like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. God therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, now commendeth men6 that they should all everywhere repent, inasmuch as7 He has appointed a day in which He is about to judge the world [inhabited earth] in righteousness, by a Man Whom He marked out, having given assurance to all in that He raised Him from [the] dead' (vers. 22-31).

1 The neuter form has more ancient support than the much more general masculine.

2 'Of men' in Text. Rec. must yield in antiquity to 'human'.

3 'Blood' is not in AB, eight cursives, and most ancient Versions, some reading 'every face'.

4 'Foreappointed' rests on D and a few more.

5 'God' has ample support of the best kind.

6 Text. Rec. has 'all men' with many, but not the best witnesses, as in the text followed.

7 καθότι ABDE, et al., διότι 'because', has inferior weight.

Though we have only a sketch of the apostle's discourse, we can readily see its striking difference from that which he was wont to preach to the Jews. He comes down to the lowest point and form of truth, in order, as he had done before (Acts 14) with the Lycaonian barbarians, to reach the Athenian conscience, the Jews having through the law incomparably more worthy thoughts of God and of their own relationship to Him. Nevertheless the address opens with habitual courtesy whilst there was not a particle to flatter their pride. The apostle laid hold of the only object in that crowd of honours paid to truly strange demons, which confessed the humbling fact about themselves and God. 'An unknown God' told the true tale; all else around was but deception and the triumph of the enemy. 'What, therefore, ye worship in ignorance, this I announce to you.'

The God that made the world and all things therein is the Judge of all the world by the same risen Man Who is Saviour of such as repent and believe the gospel, be they who or what they may. Creation was owned by neither Epicureans nor Stoics: the one holding the absurdity of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, the other conceiving a fixed ever-recurring cycle of generation and dissolution in the universe, which was their god if they can be allowed to have had any. But the Creator of all things is also Lord of heaven and earth; He neither rests in apathy, nor is He the mere active soul of the passive world, but supreme Ruler, not of heaven only, but of the earth. He is not therefore to be limited to human sanctuaries, nor to be served by human hands, as though He needed anything, seeing that He Himself gives to all life and breath and the whole of what they enjoy. Some elements of these truths might be accepted here and there, for man has a conscience, but seen fully and simply they swept away the dark clouds of philosophic dreamers, maintaining for God His own place of sovereign goodness towards man, let him be ever so proud, dark, and miserable.

The apostle adds more. He struck next at a well-known theme of Athenian vanity, by no means however peculiar to that race, or land, or time: 'And He made of one [blood] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek God, if indeed they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.' The one origin of man goes with the unity of God, as the pretension to distinct races goes with their respective patrons of polytheism. The Jews as they fell away helped on the falsehood in their self-exalting vanity, though to them only was committed the revelation of the twofold truth, which Christianity alone applied thoroughly and carried out according to God. It was not only the mere passing testimony to His goodness in the gift from heaven of rains and fruitful seasons, to which the apostle here pointed, but also to appointed seasons, and the boundaries of the dwelling of the various nations, all under God's hand with peculiar favours distributed to each, and at least a whisper to seek after (not 'the Lord', which is true neither in the Jewish sense of Jehovah, nor still less in the only just revealed exaltation of the rejected Messiah, but) 'God', if haply they might grope after and find Him, though He is not far from each of us.

It is not however without interest to compare Job's treatment of the same truth generally (Job 12: 23-25): only he dwells rather on the side of the divine sovereignty of Him to Whom the nations, haughtily indifferent about Him though they might be, are 'as a drop of a bucket', and are counted 'as the small dust of the balance' (Isa. 40:15). But the glowing heat of the inspired preacher does not fail to urge the moral aim of His beneficent arrangements on the grandest scale, that they might seek after Himself, if perhaps they might feel after and find Him: teaching quite in keeping with his own Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 1: 20). Even in the darkness of heathenism more than one had owned, if not Paul's fine statement of man's absolute dependence on God for continued life, activity, and existence, God as the source of the race: a truth already given most distinctly in Luke 3: 38, supposed parabolically in Luke 15: 11, and taught formally in the first clause of Eph. 4: 6. The poets among them (the heathen Greeks) had expressed it; not the Cilician Aratus only (whom he cites verbally), but Cleanthes also in nearly similar words, as well as others substantially.

With this acknowledgment of their poetical seers the apostle states the confutation of the folly of idolatry. If man alone of creatures on earth is God's offspring, how maintain that the divinity is like a work of man's craft and imagination in gold, or silver, or stone? 'We ought not' so to think, he says graciously, not forgetting that Israel too had to bear the sterner irony of Isaiah (Isa. 44: 9-20). A lifeless stock that man forms cannot be, or duly represent, the God Who made him and all things.

Yet the God, Who was thus shamefully misrepresented in the times of the ignorance that was past, would no longer overlook as heretofore such delinquency; He is now charging on men that they all everywhere repent (ver. 30). Here was a death-blow, not only for the self-indulgence of the Epicurean as well as for the self-righteous Stoic, but also for the careless and the proud of all mankind, and not least in that city. And the apostle followed it up with the solemn reason for heed and urgency, 'because He had appointed a day in which He is about to judge the habitable [earth] in righteousness by a Man Whom He had marked out, having afforded assurance [or, ground of belief] to all in that He raised Him out of [the] dead.'

Here the prevalent thought of Christendom errs greatly. The Jews used to, and perhaps in some measure still, look for a judgment of living men; the mass of Christians, notwithstanding the Creeds, only look (all but exclusively in fact) for a judgment of the dead before eternity. The apostle here and elsewhere pressed the judgment of this habitable scene at our Lord's appearing to introduce His kingdom in displayed power and glory, as He did Himself in Matt. 24, and 25; Mark 13; Luke 17, 19, 21, and other scriptures. The pledge of His thus coming to judge and to reign is His own resurrection, as ours who believe will be at His coming preparatorily to our appearing and reigning with Him.

This scripture shows how vital and fundamental a truth is His resurrection, which so blessedly involves our own, besides being the witness to His victory over death and Satan to the Father's glory in vindicating His Son to the efficacy of His sacrifice to the believer, and to the displayed condition of man for heaven according to divine counsels. Granted that in the nature of the case it is a fact attested by His own, though with the most abundant and weighty evidence, above all by God's word long before the fact, as well as by fresh revelation immediately after. Could any other fact be shown possessed of grounds to be compared with these? All that on which the soul stands for ever before God rests on the self-same ground of divinely given testimony; and, consequently, as being addressed to faith, purifies the heart through the operation of the Holy Ghost, as nothing else can do.

What was the effect on the Athenians? 'Now when they heard of resurrection of dead [men], some mocked, but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from their midst. But some men crave to him and believed; among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them' (vers. 32-34)

Nor should we wonder at these heathen philosophers and newsmongers being staggered by a call resting on a basis so irrefragable on God's part so crushing to human will and unbelief, as resurrection. For human science never rises above sensible causes and effects, or phenomena arrayed according to natural laws. This is all true and interesting in its own sphere. The folly is in denying what is as wholly different in kind, as grace necessarily is from nature, and in rejecting facts attested by the fullest and surest testimony, the most unreasonable course to be conceived in things which must and ought, as facts, to depend on testimony: a course only intelligible in this exceptional case through the desperate antagonism of fallen humanity to God, even when He is waiting on and speaking to man in the richest mercy.

But man, and not least philosophic man, rebels against resurrection. He might endure a whole night's Socratic discussion of the soul's immortality; for this gratifies the nobler sort, if it be offensive to the morally degraded. But a dead man raised brings in God; and proves God intervening in the midst of a busy world to mark out the Man Whom they crucified, Who is going to judge this habitable world one day, as also in due time the dead raised later, ere all things are made new for eternity. To science as science, I repeat, this fact is repulsive, because impossible for their idol for what can be the cause of resurrection? Certainly not death, but God in the person of the Son.

Bow, proud man, bow to Him, Who in love sent His Son that we might live through Him, true God as He is, and that He might die for us — for our sins, without which the gift of eternal life had been the merest anomaly, but with it the deep blessing of a full and everlasting salvation of His grace, yet righteous, to the glory of God for ever. There were mockers and triflers then as now. Oh! may you, like the others of old, cleave to the apostle, and find your place with the true Dionysius of Luke, not with the Neo-Platonist impostor who borrowed the scriptural name for his fables and rhapsodies of the sixth century manufacture. Doubtless that blessed place must be shared with a Damaris and others, whose names are written in heaven if unknown on earth. May Christ satisfy your soul, as well He may Who is all, and in all!

Acts 18

In marked distinction from Athens is the dealing of divine grace with Corinth, the wealthy capital of Achaia, the southern province of Greece under the Roman empire. Thither the apostle repaired after his brief visit to Athens: with what result the record stands, not in the inspired history alone, but in the two great Epistles to the church of God in Corinth.

'After these things he1 departed from2 Athens and came unto Corinth And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded2 all the Jews to depart from2 Rome. And he came unto them; and because he was one of the same trade, he abode with them, and [? they]3 wrought, for by their trade they were tent-makers. And he was discoursing in the synagogues every sabbath, and persuading Jews and Greeks' (vers. 1-4).

1 Good MSS. add ὁ Παῦλος as in Text. Rec., the Authorized and other Versions but the best omit.

2 The form varies in copies, with the same sense in substance in all the words thus marked.

3 'They' wrought is sustained by pm B, Coptic and Origen, for one can scarce add the loose Æthiopic Version. It seems strange that the Revisers should adopt so precarious a reading in the face of all other authorities.

The ways of grace are wholly above man's thoughts. None could have anticipated that God would raise a trophy to His Son, not in intellectual Athens, but in demoralized Corinth. Was there any antecedent link, or natural suitability whatever, between the Holy One of God and this proverbial seat of impurity? The grace of God gives no account of its matters, but works to the glory of Christ; and most of all where man is most needy. Even so the apostle asked in the beginning of his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 'Where is [the] wise? Where [the] scribe? Where [the] disputer of this age? Did not God make foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom knew not God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe. Since Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness, but unto the called themselves, both Jews and Greeks, Christ [the] power of God, and [the] wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.' The wisdom of this age had proved its folly in Athens; the compassion of God yearned over Corinth in the face of all its dissolute manners and corruption.

'For behold your calling, brethren, how that there are not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, but God chose the foolish things of the world that He might put to shame the wise, and God chose the weak things of the world that He might put to shame the strong things, and the base things of the world, and the things despised, did God choose, and the things that are not, that He might bring to naught the things that are; that no flesh should glory before God.' Never was this more realized than in Corinth, where in due time a numerous assembly was formed from both Jews and Gentiles, for the most part of no great account in this world.

Paul was not long alone. He found in Corinth a certain Jew, called Aquila, who though of Pontus by race (like his namesake of a later date, who, however, was a Jewish proselyte and translated the Old Testament into Greek most literally), had just come from Italy, with Priscilla, his wife. This is their first mention in scripture. We hear of them afterwards in Ephesus and of the assembly at their house. Later still they were found once more in Rome, and saluted as Paul's fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, 'who for my life staked their own necks, to whom not I only am thankful, but also all the assemblies of the Gentiles' (Rom. 16: 3, 4). There also we hear of the assembly at their house. In the last Epistle which our apostle ever wrote he bids Timothy salute them once more and for the last time in Ephesus.

The occasion of their coming from Italy at this time was because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Suetonius, the Roman biographer of the Caesars, states that this emperor, because of a Jewish outbreak, 'impulsore Chresto', expelled them from Rome. The Latin words cited are probably an error on his part, but may allude to violence on the side of unbelieving Jews against those who believed, or may be a confusion (owing to Roman jealousy) with the preaching of the Messiah elsewhere. Bp. Pearson is of opinion that this expulsion happened about A.D. 52, in which year Tacitus (Ann. xii. 52) puts the Senate's decree for expelling the 'mathematici' or 'Chaldaei'; but whether they were identical or connected is uncertain. It is known that Claudius was deeply indebted to Herod Agrippa the First for his nomination to the empire, and did not forget him but rewarded the Herod family: so one could hard]y suppose so hostile an attitude towards the Jews, while Herod Agrippa was in Rome; and we can easily understand that, if enacted in his absence, the decree soon fell through. This consideration clears up the statement of Dio Cassius (Ix. 6), which some have supposed to contradict St. Luke, as well as Suetonius, that the emperor did not expel them, but ordered them not to congregate in Rome. If we distinguish the times, all is clear and true.

But God made use of the edict to bring Aquila and his wife into lifelong communication with the apostle. Whether they were converted or not before they first met is not quite certain. Much stress has been laid on Aquila's description as 'a certain Jew', rather than as a disciple; but this may be satisfactorily enough accounted for, both as qualifying the place of his birth, and as furnishing the ground of his quitting Rome for Corinth. Then we must bear in mind that, as the Romans and strangers in general did not in these early days distinguish Christian Jews from their brethren after the flesh, so Paul repeatedly designates himself a Jew afterwards in this Book (Acts 21: 39; Acts 22: 3). The apostle never speaks of them as his children in the faith, however warmly he may greet or characterize them. Certain it is that they were abundantly blessed through him, as he graciously owns the large debt due to them, not by himself only, but by all the assemblies of the Gentiles.

We never hear of this devoted pair in Judea, they were widely known outside the land among the Gentiles where assemblies met. Their wealth or their trade afforded the means to welcome the gathering of saints at their own house; a circumstance not unusual in those days (or even much later, as we know from the Acta Martyrii S. Justini, Ruinart). So we see also in the cases of Nymphas and Philemon. It abides now a happy resource where a few can only thus be gathered to Christ's name according to His word. That they should first wait for a bishop is either an Ignatian tradition or a notion at the present day flowing from the same unbelieving superstition which gave birth to the tradition in the past. Only the ever-living truth of 'one body and one Spirit' would call for fellowship in such an act. Independency is a denial of true church action.

Another fact in solving a principle of deep practical moment comes out in verse 3: 'And because he was one of the same trade, he abode with them and wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers.'1 God was pleased so to order things that the great apostle, in the wealthiest and most luxurious city of Greece, should carry on an honest occupation for necessary wants. What a death-blow to clericalism on the one hand, and to worldliness on the other! Yet, in the circumstances of both Paul himself and Corinth, it was just the course which was worthy of the gospel of the grace which sent it out. It is unreasonable to suppose that this blessed servant of the Lord failed in ordinary foresight for his missionary journey, or that the assemblies of the saints were lacking in care for him or in zeal for the work, especially in the regions beyond those where the faithful were already gathered together unto Christ's name.

1 It is known that among the Jews of that day it was usual for a son to learn a trade. Some, if not all, of the greatest Rabbis exercised a handicraft. Indeed in the Talmud Rabbi Juda says, He that does not teach his son a trade, virtually teaches him to be a thief; and Rabban Gamaliel compares a man with a trade to a vineyard that is fenced.

The apostle had pushed forward alone without means into a quarter of abounding ease and distinguished elegance, to say nothing of the dissoluteness of morals which followed in their train; and here, labouring with his own hands for the necessities of others not less than his own, as was his wont, he truly represented the Master Who came not to be ministered unto but to minister. It was for the Son of man alone to give His life a ransom for many, it was His exclusively to suffer once for sins, Just for unjust, to bring us to God. But the apostle of the Gentiles was Christ's follower, or imitator, with energy of devotedness unparalleled not among saints or servants only, but among the apostles, whom God set foremost in the church. And grace gave his single eye to discern how best to please and glorify Christ in such circumstances. At a later day he exhorted the presbyters of the Ephesian assembly in his affecting farewell charge at Miletus; for he was not the man to urge on others what he shrank from himself. Neither did he hesitate to commend such a path of gracious self-abnegation to those whose function it is to feed or tend the flock of God.

The labourer is indeed worthy of his food, and of his hire for there are other necessities beyond food; and the Lord forgot none, as is plain from this twofold statement (Matt. 10: 10, Luke 10: 7, as cited in 1 Tim. 5: l 8): so the apostle declares (1 Cor. 9: 14), the Lord ordained that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel, as the law had done before for those that ministered about holy things. But, while insisting on a title so just and true for others, we see the blessed man foregoing it for himself in the same context: 'But I [emphatically] have used none of these things; and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case; for it were good for me rather to die than that any man should make my glorying vain. For if I preach the gospel I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. For if I do this willingly, I have a reward, but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel, I make the gospel without charge, so as not to use for myself [or, to the full] my title as to the gospel' (1 Cor. 9: 15-18). Here was not letter but spirit, not self but Christ, in the full stream of that love which displayed itself to sinners in Christ sent that we who were dead might live through Him and that He might die a propitiation for our sins. It was meet that the highest witness of grace among men should be a manifest giver in his measure as God is infinitely.

So he told the Thessalonians in his earliest Epistle, that he sought not glory of men, 'neither from you nor from others, when we might have been a burden as apostles of Christ.' None ever so well felt the value of Christ's words, It is more blessed to give than to receive. His reason was far more elevated than that which Calvin imputes — because the false apostles taught freely without taking anything, that they might craftily insinuate themselves. In 1 Cor. 9, where his motives are shown, there is no allusion to these evil workers, and in fact there could be no such persons in Corinth when Paul came to preach, and no assembly as yet existed. It was a heart filled with love, and burning to illustrate the gospel in deed and in truth as he proclaimed it in word, without question of adversaries yet to arise and set up cheap and vaunting pretensions to similar grace. In his Second Epistle (2 Cor. 11) no doubt he does speak of his keeping himself in everything from being a burden to the saints in Corinth, and of his determination so to keep himself, that he might cut off the occasion of those wishing for an occasion, that wherein they boasted they might be found even as we [not we even as they].

'And he was discoursing in the synagogue every sabbath and persuading Jews and Greeks' (ver. 4).

The same word means either 'discoursing' in general, or in particular 'reasoning', or even 'disputing', as in Mark 9: 34; Acts 17: 2; Acts 24: 12; Jude 9. Here as in Acts 20: 7, 9; Heb. 12: 5, the more general force seems preferable; in others 'reasoning' may be right as between the extremes. Context alone can decide. As the synagogue was the scene of the discourses, we may gather assuredly that the testimony of the Old Testament was the ample ground-work on which Paul appealed to his hearers, who were not exclusively Jews, for we are expressly told that (not Hellenists but) Greeks were the objects of his habitual persuasion. If they were not proselytes, they must have been men whom the licentious excesses of heathenism drove them there, and no wonder, when, as another has said, their religion itself corrupted man; and he made of his corruption a religion.

Nowhere was this more deeply and conspicuously true than in Corinth, where the worship of Aphrodite with her infamous ἱερόδουλοι prevailed (the counterpart of Venus at Rome, and of Astarte, or Hebrew Ashtoreth in Syria). Abandoning all fear or thought of the true God, they fell below even the natural decency of man, and dishonoured themselves in the dishonour of God. The synagogue cold as it was, attracted consciences which revolted from evil which philosophy indulged in, or at best was far too weak to supplant or restrain, and Greeks there listened with Jews, to the holy and persuasive discourses of the apostle. We shall find a crisis that went farther ere long, but not till the apostle had the companionship of beloved fellow-labourers.

It may be added that too much has been made of the word 'persuade' in verse 4, as if it meant to 'induce by little and little'. It is on the contrary the word by which the apostle himself expresses the preaching of the gospel to win souls in view of the awful reality of Christ's tribunal for the hard or heedless (2 Cor. 5: 10, 11). Paul's word was not certainly in persuasive words of wisdom, as he told the Corinthians in his First Epistle (1 Cor. 2: 3-5), but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, at the very time when he was with them, from his coming in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. He was not there as a philosopher or as 'the power of God which is called great', but as much of a contrast as one can conceive; and this, that the faith of such as believed might stand, not in man's wisdom but in God's power. But, as the effect of his discoursing in the synagogue, he was persuading Jews and Greeks.

When his companions arrived, this was what they found, and more soon followed. Great is the virtue, even for an apostle, of fellowship in labour, and cheering was the news then brought.

'And when both Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was engrossed with (or constrained by) the word,1 testifying to the Jews that Jesus was2 the Christ. But as they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his clothes, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own head; I [am] pure; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And departing thence he went into a certain man's house, by name Titus3 Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house adjoined to the synagogue' (vers. 5-7).

1 λόγῳ ABDE, six cursives, Vulg. Memph. Theb. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.; πνεύματι (as in Text. Rec.) has quite inferior authorities.

2 εἱναι  is read by the best witnesses.

3 Titus, or Titius, is vouched for by BDgr2 E, four cursives, Vulg. Memph. Syr.-Harcl. Arm. Indeed Syr.-Pesch. and Theb. gave Titus only; and a cursive corrects Justus by Titus.

It will be noticed that the two fellow-labourers are said to have come down from 'Macedonia', as the Roman province of northern Greece was called in distinction from Achaia, of which Corinth was the metropolis. Macedonia is the natural phrase, if Silas and Timothy came down from different quarters, and the repeated article would well fall in with this. They were no doubt together at Berea; and Timothy, if not Silas, joined Paul at Athens, whence he was dispatched to Thessalonica with a view to establish them and encourage on behalf of their faith, that none should be disturbed in the afflictions then and there so severe. Both Silas and Timothy now joined the apostle at Corinth, but not necessarily at the same moment, any more than from the same point of departure. 1 Thess. 3: 6. omits all mention of Silas as the companion of Timothy on this mission to Thessalonica, who brought to Paul the glad tidings of the Thessalonian saints, whereas the apostle speaking of the preaching at Corinth joins Silas and Timothy with himself in the address of that Epistle (2 Cor. 1: 19). The apostle had forewarned these young converts of the tribulation that befell them; but this only the more increased his desires for them; and now he could rejoice that the tempter had failed, and that they were steadfast The apostle was then occupied earnestly with the word when the two came down; and assuredly their joint labours with him were as cheering to his heart as the good report brought about his beloved Thessalonians. Not the least ground seems to support the notion that their arrival with supplies enabled Paul to give up tent-making for the exclusive preaching of the word: certainly the verb suneivceto does not mean anything of the sort, but rather that the state of absorption with the word, by which he was characterized, went on, for it is the imperfect, not the aorist as it should have been if indicative of a fresh act or course consequent on their coming.

But there is another word which has to be taken into account, in order to a sound judgment. Were πνεύματι genuine, I cannot but think Erasmus (pace Bezae) right, and that the meaning would then be 'straightened in spirit'. But it is not so. The Received reading πνεύματι ('spirit') is not sustained by the best authorities which give λόγῳ ('word'), πνεύματι having crept in from Acts 17: 16; Acts 18: 25; Acts 19: 21, et al. Hence such a rendering as Wakefield's must be summarily and on every ground discarded, 'the mind of Paul was violently disturbed', and none the less because the translation is commended by its author in his notes as perfectly agreeable to the original. Similarly erroneous is the turn given by Hammond, Mill, and Wolf, as if the apostle's spirit was vexed at the unbelief of the Jews; or the opposite notion of Beza and others, who construe it into the zealous ardour which carried him away. Others again like Casaubon, Grotius, et al., depart still farther and consider 'the spirit' to mean the Holy Spirit by Whose impulse he was borne away at this time: a rendering which is in every way faulty, for the verb cannot bear such a force, and the reading is certainly erroneous. If genuine, it would rather require the article absent (unless ἁγίῳ were expressed): its insertion simply would point to one's own spirit.

It is needless, however, though instructive in some measure, to discuss these departures from the truth, for it may be laid down as certain that the passage intimates that the apostle was occupied in the word when his fellow-workmen came from Macedonia. He was testifying thoroughly (διαμαρτυρόμενος) to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah, the constant stumbling-block of that blinded people. Undoubtedly Jesus is much more than 'the Christ'; and none ever preached His higher glory, both personal and conferred, more than Paul. But none the less did he press on the Jews that Jesus is the Christ, as the break-up of their unbelief, and the necessary hinge of all further light and blessing.

'But as they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his clothes and said unto them, Your blood [be] upon your own head: I [am] pure, from henceforth I will go [proceed] unto the Gentiles' (ver. 6).

With rare exceptions such is the spirit of the Jews, and in it they fulfil the awful warnings of their prophets from Moses downwards. They are a perverse and crooked generation, and very froward withal, children in whom is no faith, moving Jehovah to jealousy with that which is not good, and provoking Him to anger with their vanities; as He has moved them to jealousy with those which are not a people, and provoked them to anger with a foolish nation. Ignorance is bearable and claims patient service in presenting the truth; but opposition is quite another thing, especially in the face of ample and convincing testimony; and speaking injuriously, or blasphemy yet more, is worse still, seeing that it is grace and truth in Christ which is thus outrageously rejected. This is fatal. Those who despised Jesus on earth had a fresh testimony concerning Him risen and glorified and still waiting to be gracious. There is no third, no other, witness to render unto those who reject Him speaking from heaven, as He is now — nothing but judgment for His adversaries when He appears in glory.

The apostle accordingly answered in significant deed as well as word: 'he shook out his clothes, and said unto them . . .' It was the spirit if not the form of Matt. 10: 14, as even more rigidly carried out by himself and Barnabas at the Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13: 51). It was as if the dust of the place they dwelt in defiled, and must be shaken off1 as a testimony against them, Sodom and Gomorrah were more tolerable.

1 Think of Wakefield, while he retains the ordinary version, saying, 'I am partly inclined to think it means here — throwing off his garment: which exhibits a striking image of the conduct of the apostle: As I throw off this cloak, so I relinquish all further concern with you.'

Paul said also, Your blood [be] upon your own head. So, and yet worse, had those cried who actually urged on the Lord to the cross when Pilate would have let Him go, His blood be upon us and upon our children. And so it is until this day. 'I [am] pure,' added the apostle, 'henceforth I will proceed unto the Gentiles.' It was in perfect harmony not only with his own course elsewhere, but, what is of deeper importance still, with the ways of God in the gospel. The Jews were to have testimony first, and so they had and not quite in vain. Some did hear to the salvation of their souls; there is an elect remnant. But when the mass reject the gospel with hatred and blasphemy, the stream of blessing flows, though it is not lost but blessed amid the barren sands of the Gentiles.

It may interest some to know that, even in so simple a passage as the last, men of learning have differed. Lachmann suggested, and Alford followed, a punctuation which yields the sense, 'I shall henceforth with a pure conscience go to the Gentiles.' Wakefield follows the Peschito Syriac in breaking it up thus: 'From this moment I am clean therefrom, I go to the Gentiles.' In his note he says, 'This disposition gives a degree of abruptness to the periods more suitable to an angry man'! The irreverence of the translator seems to my mind as manifest as his lack of judgment, and the ordinary division most consistent, dignified, and impressive.

'And departing thence he went into a certain man's house, by name Titus Justus, a worshipper of God, whose house adjoined to the synagogue' (ver. 7).

Many, from Chrysostom to Alford, et al, have understood that the apostle removed from his quarters with Aquila1; and they have sought to assign motives and reasons in justification of the change. But there is no need to take the trouble, for it was a question of leaving not his lodgings, but the synagogue, and of finding therefore, not new quarters for his abode, but a suited place wherein to continue the testimony rendered previously in the synagogue. And this appears to me strikingly confirmed by the contiguity to the synagogue of the house, the use of which was offered at once by the devout Gentile whose heart was opening to the truth. If it were a mere lodging, why speak of its joining hard to the synagogue, on which Paul was henceforth turning his back? But if a suited room were wanted for testimony, two conditions met in the house of Justus; one, that the owner was himself a Gentile, and hence most proper to win the attendance of Gentiles, as well as to accentuate the grave and new step of the apostle; the other, that it was close enough to the synagogue to attract both Jews who might have a conscience about the rejected truth of God, and Gentile proselytes who had been in the habit of attending the synagogue, like Justus. The school of Tyrannus in the following chapter exactly answers to the change here. There nobody questions that a place for meeting apart from the synagogue is meant. We need not therefore infer that the apostle ceased to reside with Aquila, because the house of Justus furnished a suitable place for preaching when the synagogue no longer served. The apostle was not consulting for himself but for others without allowing Calvin's idea, 'that he might the more nettle the Jews' — a petty and evil motive, very far from his heart who had just forewarned them of their obstinacy and danger of destruction. To remind them of the baneful consequences of impenitence was of God; to 'nettle' them by abandoning the house of his godly friends, Aquila and Priscilla, for that of a Gentile proselyte, seems inconsistent with Christ, with godly wisdom and right feeling. But with the gainsaying and blaspheming of the synagogue it was impossible to go on without constant strife; and therefore to use for testimony the house of one who valued the gospel, became the evidently proper step, particularly as it was hard by the synagogue, whence any disposed or in earnest might the more readily come.

1 Indeed, instead of ἐκεῖθεν the Codex Bezae and a cursive (137) expressly change 'thence' into 'from Aquila's', which marks how strong was the current in this direction. Of course it was a mere gloss, and even a misinterpretation to boot.

Remarkable blessing followed the decision of the apostle not among Gentiles only, but among the Jews themselves.

'And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. And the Lord said by night1 through a vision to Paul, Fear not, but speak and be not silent; because I am with thee, and no one shall set on thee to harm thee, because I have much people in this city. And he settled down a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God' (vers. 8-11).

1 The order of the words differs in the MSS.

It is not a small thing that the Holy Spirit singles out the name of any man for everlasting record in scripture. Thus 'Crispus' is mentioned as believing the Lord; and the rather, as he had been 'the ruler of the synagogue'; nor this only, for 'the whole of his household' believed also, though nothing is said of their baptism. Their faith, the great matter, was no slight cheer to the labourers, and a powerful appeal to the Jews generally. The phraseology is peculiar: not here believing 'on' the Lord as object of faith, though this was true also, but believing what He says. 1 Cor. 1: 14 states that the apostle baptized him, but not a word about his house, yet assuredly they too, also accepting His testimony, were baptized though not by the apostle, who did but little in it, as he tells the Corinthians. Under the Lord's keeping he had been preserved from any appearance of prominence personally.

'And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.' The work now went on vigorously under the blessing of the Lord. It was a time of rich ingathering. These were clearly not Jews but Greeks, but none the less did many of them hear and believe the gospel; and, as became them, they submitted to the outward mark which severs the confessor of Christ from the careless or hostile world. They were buried with Christ through baptism unto death. In that act, had they been dumb, they said they died with Christ to sin; not only that He had died for their sins, now remitted on their faith, but that they were to reckon themselves to be dead to sin and alive in Him to God. Sin, therefore, was not to reign in their mortal body. What a change and deliverance for men once bondmen of sin unto death, now made free from sin, and become bondmen of righteousness, bondmen to God, having their fruit unto sanctification and the end eternal life! For in Corinth abounded fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with men, thieves, covetous drunkards, revilers, extortioners; 'and such were some of you,' said the apostle, to the Corinthians who believed (1 Cor. 6: 11). In no way had they been exempt from those vile corruptions.

Grace does not find, but makes, the saints after a new and heavenly pattern, as will be manifest when they are manifested with Christ in glory. It levels all in an utter condemnation, but it freely and fully sets in Christ all who believe according to the good pleasure of God's will which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved, in Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our offences, according to the riches of His grace. This men hate, because it makes nothing of human distinctions in which the pride of man exalts and loses itself. It forbids all glorying in flesh that the sole glorying may be in the Lord. For there is but one man who is of all weight in the eyes of God, not the first, but the Second, even the Man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times, which becomes the turning-point of every soul: if heard, he lives; if rejected, he perishes in his sins, whatever the appearances or pretensions.

For in believing, man best owns his guilt and God's grace, reversing the world's sentence and endorsing heaven's estimate of the Crucified One. Baptized in His name he becomes His to serve, where he was once Satan's slave, in not a few cases shamelessly. Henceforth by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, he is, whatever the condition, to please Him in all things; if a slave, he is Christ's freedman; if free, noble, royal, none the less is he Christ's bondman. You cannot have the heavenly and everlasting privileges without the responsibility meanwhile here below. Of this, for the individual, baptism is the sign; as the Lord's supper is the sign of communion corporately. And none had the significance of the latter so fully laid open to them, as the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 10, and 11. They needed the instruction and the warning peculiarly; and therefore grace gave them both.

But the Lord was pleased also to vouchsafe extraordinary encouragement to His servant. Paul had a vision, in which he heard as well as saw. At his conversion he had seen and heard the Lord by day (Acts 9); as afterwards in a trance or ecstasy, when he returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, he saw Him Who bade him to get out of Jerusalem for his mission to the Gentiles (Acts 22: 17-21). 2 Cor. 12: 2-4 records his translation (whether in the body or out of the body, he did not know) to the third heaven. Thus visions and revelations were comparatively frequent with the apostle. At this time the design was practical. The Lord said to him, 'Fear not, but speak and be not silent' (ver. 9). The structure of the phrase implies that he was anxious. He needed a spring of courage beyond what his fellow-labourers could supply, and the Lord gave accordingly. Natural boldness is a force wholly unsuited to spiritual warfare, where the rule is, 'When I am weak, then am I strong.' All, to be safe and of God, must be in dependence on the grace of Christ. Then, as He Himself said to the apostle, 'My grace is sufficient for thee, for power is perfected in weakness' (2 Cor. 12: 9). Most gladly, therefore, the apostle could say, will I rather glory in my weakness, that the strength of Christ may spread a tabernacle over me. So it was now: instead of fearing more he was to persevere in speaking and not to hold his peace, of which he was in danger, though (as the form of the phrase implies) he had not begun to yield to it.

In the next verse the Lord condescends to give two reasons: the first, 'because I am with thee, and no one shall set on thee to harm thee', the second, 'because I have much people in this city.' What could be more consolatory to the tried servant? The Lord bound Himself, on the one hand, to give His gracious and mighty presence against all adversaries and, on the other, to open to him a great door and effectual in his work. Rage as Satan's emissaries might the Lord had many to bring to Himself as His own in that depraved an] godless city.

It is lamentable to hear such remarks as those of Limborch, who will have the Lord to mean, not so much objects of mere and sovereign grace to magnify His own mercy in redemption, as virtuous and well-disposed brethren, for this reason called His people here, and His sheep in John 10: 16. To mistakes we are all liable, and not least those who flatter themselves to be most secure from them, but an error of this kind undermines the gospel, as it indicates the feeblest sense of man's utter ruin, and of our need of grace to the last degree. No one doubts God's wisdom in bringing such a one as Cornelius under the gospel, when He first sent it out publicly to the Gentiles by Peter; but the great apostle of the Gentiles tells a very different tale (1 Cor. 6: 9-11) of the characters whom grace deigned to bless at Corinth. Again, the Lord, in the parable of the marriage-feast for the king's son, directs His bondmen to go into the thoroughfares of the highways, and as many as they could find, to invite to the feast. Accordingly they went out into the highways, and, gathered together all, as many as they found, both bad and good, and the wedding-feast was filled with guests (Matt. 22: 1-10). They are men met and, in believing the gospel, saved indiscriminately to the praise of the riches of God's grace; for the 'good' discover through the truth of Christ that they too sinned and come wholly short of the glory of God, while the 'bad' find in His plenteous redemption that His grace justifies freely, the same One being Lord of all, and rich toward all that call upon Him. There is no difference, as at bottom in the ruin, so in result in the salvation, that as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

At Corinth, in the face of all difficulties, the apostle abode longer than we have yet heard of elsewhere. 'And he settled down a year and six months, teaching among them the word of God' (ver. 11).

The result was, not only the salvation of many souls, but the church of God there: holy, catholic, apostolic, if ever there was such an assembly anywhere. It was planted by one inferior to none; it was watered by others who were not surpassed by any, and God gave the increase beyond controversy. Yet how soon the fair scene is blighted, not merely by the presence in their midst of such sin as was unheard of ordinarily among the Gentiles, but by the low, fleshly, and worldly-minded condition of the saints generally! So much so, that the apostle had to vindicate his own office before the self-assumed bar of his own children in the faith, and put off a visit in their dire need of his help, because he must have come then with a rod, and he wished rather to see them in love and in a spirit of meekness; and this could only be on their self-judgment which in fact his First Epistle wrought in them. Men picture the apostles going about and their words received implicitly, and their presence had but to be known in order to secure unhesitating deference among the saints. This was not so. Miracles, inspiration, and the highest place in the church produced no more submission then and there than when an analogous place was given Moses and Aaron in the congregation of Jehovah of old.

But the failure at Corinth in so brief an interval was turned to God to the double end; first, of refuting the folly that a true assembly may not err and become corrupt, even in a few short years, in both doctrine and practice; and, secondly, of drawing from God the suited correction at any time for all saints who are enabled by faith to gather on the footing of God's church according to His word and by His Spirit. No doubt, recovery was the fruit of the apostle's writing, as his Second Epistle bears witness; but how long this lasted, who can say? Certain it is that the second century, if not the first, A.D., saw the assembly everywhere, departed from the very aim our gracious God and Father had in gathering the saints — the glory of Christ therein by the Spirit. Christ's coming was no longer an object of hope but rather of fear, His word became more and more overlaid by human authority and tradition, and the world began to seem a prize to possess and enjoy increasingly, instead of a scene of suffering and testimony, till He come Whose right it is, when we shall reign with Him in glory.

During the apostle's stay at Corinth an event occurred which was of interest enough for the Holy Ghost to claim a place in the inspired narrative and thus to carry on the design of the work given to Luke for accomplishing.

'But when Gallio was pro-consul1 of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul, and brought him before the judgment-seat, saying, This [man] persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If indeed it were some wrong, or wicked villainy, O Jews, with reason should I have borne with you, but if they are questions about a word and names and your own law, ye shall look yourselves:2 I do not intend to be judge of these things. And he drove them from the judgment-seat. And having all3 laid hold on Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, they beat [him] before the judgment-seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things. And Paul having remained yet many days, took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow' (vers. 12-18).

1 ἀνθυπατεύοντος is the Text. Rec. supported by most cursives, but ABD with several good juniors give the two words ἀνθυπάτου ὄντος. The additions of Codex Bezae are numerous here as elsewhere, but hardly call for remark.

2 Text. Rec., supported by four uncials and most cursives, adds γάρ 'for'; but the oldest MSS. and Versions do not give it.

3 Text. Rec. with most adds οἱ  Ἒλληνες, 'the Greeks', but the best authorities are adverse.

The testimony went forth fearlessly; the vision answered its purpose. Paul was not afraid but spoke and held not his peace; and while much people came forth to the Lord's name, none else was allowed to do His servant harm. If not a sparrow falls on the ground without our Father if the very hairs of our head are all numbered, if the Lord Himself will confess before His Father him that confesses the Son before men, there is ground for good courage, not for fear of man. And the impotence of the most exasperated was proved in an unexpected way and quarter, but not without the Lord.

Gallio was notoriously one of the most amiable of men. 'None of mortals,' said the famous Seneca of him, 'is so sweet to one man, as he to all men.' This no doubt expressed the admiring affection of a brother; but the general character of the Roman governor is indisputable. And the Jews hoped to profit for their rancorous hostility by his pliant temper and love of approbation against the uncompromising witness of the one true God the Father, and of one Lord Jesus Christ. But malice defeats itself against grace and truth whenever God is pleased so to order it; and here, as He had distinctly promised to be with Paul and that none should injure him, so it came to pass in a way strikingly different from the apostle's experience elsewhere.

It may be well to notice again the precise position of Gallio. He was 'pro-consul' of Achaia. It is the more striking, because the province under both Tiberius and Caligula had been imperial, and hence under the authority then of a pro-praetor. Claudius, the reigning emperor, had restored Achaia to the senate, which involved the change of its former government to that of a pro-consul. Accordingly at this time Luke speaks accurately not of a pro-praetor, but of a pro-consul. We saw a similar instance in Sergius Paulus the pro-consul of Cyprus, which, like Achaia, had been under imperial authority, but was afterwards transferred to the senate, and thus became pro-consular. The inspired historian made no mistake in these details, where it was exceedingly easy to do so if he had not been under divine guidance, and the more so, as the early Christians notoriously kept aloof from all meddling with political administration. But in scripture we are entitled to look for the truth in things small and great; and this should be recognized by giving as exactly as possible the reproduction of its meaning.

In fact Luke had been supposed in one at least of these instances to have erred by applying the term erroneously according to the state of things which had existed before the transfer to the senate, till a passage was found in an historian not read generally which confirmed the change, and coins with the new title made it still more evident. Had there been no coins, no statement in Dio Cassius, extraneous evidence would have failed, yet the truth would have remained all the same in scripture: only even Christians would have trembled because history did not speak in support of scripture. It is such incredulity which is so deplorable, and this among not heathens and Jews only but the baptized. But how sad that men bearing the Christian name should be swayed in a moment by human testimonies, after showing their readiness to doubt even when they had the inspired word for it! Can anything evince more clearly that men naturally distrust God and His word? These things ought not so to be.

The Jews then with one accord rose up against Paul, and brought him to the well-known seat of the governor whence they counted on a sentence favourable to their desires. 'This [man]', said they, 'persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.' Gallio saw through the case in a moment, and that it needed no defence. 'The law' in their mouth meant the law of Moses. This was enough for the Roman, whose pride was roused for his own. 'And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews . . .' He had heard enough to be sure that neither state law, nor public morality, nor private rights, had been violated, and it was no business of his to inquire farther. The contempt in which Jews were generally held no doubt strengthened his decision, of which the accused reaped the benefit. His amiable indifference did not wish to be troubled with what the apostle had to say. Religious opinion or the worship of God, as a question between the Jews and one they blamed, did not concern him or his office; God was in none of his thoughts, and he preferred to hear no more. The time would come when Christ's servants would be brought before governors and kings for His sake, for a testimony to them and the Gentiles, when it should be given them in that hour what was to be spoken. Here it was not the time to speak, though Paul was arraigned before the bema. The Lord guarded the interests of the gospel, and of its blessed witness, through employing providentially the careless amiability of the judge; who assuredly could not be accused of any real partiality for the apostle, and the less if he entertained views akin to those of his philosophic brother. Seneca's Stoicism was as far from appreciating the faith and humility of the Christian as from receiving the revelation of the Father and the Son, or the eternal life and redemption which the Holy Spirit now makes the known portion of the believer.

The Roman left the Jews to settle their religious questions in their own way. Gallio declined to have his hand forced, he had no mind to be a judge of these things. 'Were it indeed some wrong, or wicked villainy, O Jews, with reason I should have borne with you; but if it be questions about a word and names and your own law, look to it yourselves: I am not minded to be a judge of these things.' The kindest and most courteous may be contemptuous enough when the truth is concerned, of which he knows nothing. 'And he drove them from the judgment-seat' (ver. 16). Even if physical force was not used, there is implied at the least peremptoriness.

Such an issue on the part of an official so exalted would unavoidably act on an impressionable people who shared the prevalent scorn of the heathen towards Jews disappointed of their prey. It is not needful to specify that 'all were Greeks', who assailed the prominent Jew who complained in the case, though there is large and good authority for this addition, adopted in the Text. Rec. Certainly the reading of some cursives, which attributes the assault to 'all the Jews', refutes itself as intrinsically worthless and absurd. Had not Sosthenes but Crispus been said to be the object of animosity, such a reading could be understood. But Sosthenes would seem to have succeeded Crispus in that office, without a hint of his conversion as yet, though he may have been the one who is later spoken of as a brother. The best, though not the most considerably authenticated, variant is that which is found in the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, and Vatican Uncials, and some of the most ancient versions. These witnesses simply say that they 'all' laid hold of Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, and were beating him before the judgment-seat, and that Gallio gave himself no trouble about the matter. Thus did God in His providence bring to naught the malicious attack of the Jews on Paul, while manifesting the unbelieving easiness of Gallio.

It is interesting to note also that the apostle did not quit Corinth at once as indeed the failure of the Jews before the governor left him free. 'And Paul having remained yet many days took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence unto Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow' (ver. 18). It was during his stay at Corinth that the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written, with an interval between them, short but sufficient to show what mischief could befall the saints in a brief time, so mistaken are those who think it was only after centuries that error was able to enter. So it also was, as we know, among the assemblies of Galatia in a more fatal way, and on a subject yet more fundamental. And both occasions were where the saints had the inestimable benefit of an apostolic planting, which Rome had not any more than other places, which vaunted as proudly as with scanty reason. Indeed Corinth itself was to manifest the same liability to go astray, though it was chiefly in ecclesiastical truth and order, though by no means confined to it and yet there Paul stayed many days before the charge made to Gallio, and, as we are told, 'yet many days' after. But at length he bade the brethren adieu and sailed thence unto Syria, and with him his beloved companions Priscilla and Aquila.

There is a clause at the end of verse 18 which has afforded matter for debate. The ancients do not seem to have doubted that Paul himself is in question, the preceding words being parenthetical. Others, especially of late, as Wieseler and Meyer, have been more willing to attach the vow, and shaving of the head, to Aquila. But the great apostle went far in compliance with, and in condescension to, Jewish forms in certain circumstances which left the grace of the gospel untouched. It was the effort to impose the law on the Gentiles who believed, which roused a tempest of feeling and irresistible argument, as indeed his whole soul was engaged with burning zeal at once for the cross of his Master, and for the liberty of the souls imperilled by that effort. Some ancients indeed, not the Aethiopic Version only, gave the sense that more than one shaved the head according to vow; but I see no sufficient reason to doubt that it was Paul; for he is the one before the mind of the inspiring Spirit, rather than to speak of Aquila.

Not only was Paul's head shorn in Cenchreae, and this as a vow, but we ought to gather from the subsequent history, if not from the immediate context, that it was of the Spirit to reveal the fact as important for us to observe in the account He is giving of that blessed man and of his labours. Not that we are meant to infer that Paul in thus acting was at the height of the fresh revelations of Christ given to him, but that along with these he acted thus with a good conscience. He was apostle of the Gentiles and minister of the church, but he was also, as he said, a Pharisee, son of Pharisees, who even after this charged himself to his nation with alms and offerings, and was found purified in the temple. Grace was bringing out its new and hitherto unrevealed wonders in Christ, and in the church, to God's glory; but the most deeply taught and fully furnished witness of heavenly truth heartily loved the ancient people of God and never forgot that he too was an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin; and this, not only within the precincts of Jerusalem and the land, but, as we see here, among the Greeks. This is often a great difficulty to those imbued with the spirit and habits of traditional Christianity, but it is because they are and would be logical, where the Holy Spirit is giving in those most honoured of the Lord things just as they were. Prejudices and prepossession are not so quickly shaken off, even where we behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile. The Lord deals pitifully with a true heart, where a cold intellect can only spy out an inconsistency; but the criticizing mind could not follow that heart for a moment either in its zealous service or in the spiritual might and power which pursues the service to the Lord's glory. We shall see that more follows of a similar character, which in the inspired record points beyond controversy to no less a man than the apostle.

'And they1 arrived at Ephesus, and he left them there;2 but he himself, entering into the synagogue reasoned3 with the Jews. And when they asked him to remain4 for a longer time, he did not consent, but taking his leave and saying, [I must by all means keep the coming feast at Jerusalem;]5 I will return again unto you if God will, he sailed from Ephesus. And landing at Caesarea, he west up and saluted the church, and went down unto Antioch. And having spent some time he departed, going through the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, establishing all the disciples' (vers. 19-23).

1 So read ABE, et al., Sah. Syr.-Pesch. Are Aeth. pp; Dgr καταντήσας, the rest supporting the Text. Rec., as in the A.V., et al.

2 Some ancient authorities omit, or transpose, this clause, to make the narrative more flowing, and there is much conflict of testimony as to αὐτοῦ or ἐκεῖ for there'.

3 διελέξατο has the best suffrages, διελέχθη the most numerous, διελέγετο has a few MSS. and Versions of value, but is hardly consistent with the next

4 'With them' (or 'there'), is added by some, as in Text. Rec., but the best omit.

5 Very weighty witnesses omit the words in brackets; as to which Tischendorf refers to Acts 19: 21, Acts 20: 16.

There is no doubt considerable and good authority in support of the Received Text, followed by the A.V. and most others. But the best witnesses and versions sustain the plural form in the first clause, which gives additional force to the singular in the second, in which all agree. 'And they arrived at Ephesus' is the reading given by the Sinaitic, Alexandrian, Vatican, and Laud's Bodleian, with some cursives. The Greek of Beza's MS. is probably a mere clerical error, as it makes no grammatical coherence, and the Latin agrees with the oldest authorities and several of the best ancient versions. It is certainly true that they all reached Ephesus. It is only a matter of emphasis that the apostle entered into the synagogue and discoursed to the Jews: though he did leave them there, there was no need of giving prominence to such a circumstance. Still less is it implied that they did not accompany him to the synagogue, or that aujtou' if genuine instead of ejkei' suggests that the synagogue was outside the city; which inferences appear alike unfounded.

'And when they asked him to remain for a longer time, he did not consent, but taking his leave and saying, [I must by all means keep the coming feast at Jerusalem,] I will return again unto you if God will, he sailed from Ephesus' (vers. 20, 21). It is well known that the clause within the brackets is not in the Uncials of the highest character, though it is attested by abundant and good authority. Hence it becomes very much a question of internal evidence. Meyer lays stress on the reference of ajnabav" in verse 22; but 'going up', though unquestionably to Jerusalem, need not have been to keep a Jewish feast, unless it was expressly so explained. The only thing recorded as a fact is his saluting the church. This in no way disproves the purpose to keep the feast there; but it undoes the force of the argument founded on ajnabav". The truth is that both may be true; verse 21, if genuine, stating what he meant to do in Jerusalem, though nothing is said of its accomplishment, and verse 22 letting us know that his heart had other objects before him than the purpose he had mentioned to the Jews of Ephesus. And the history shortly after informs us that he did soon return to Ephesus for one of the most blessed services even of his wonderful life.

Such statements as these test the heart of the readers. If vain or proud irreverent or self-righteous, they will probably yield to the snare of thinking and even speaking disrespectfully of the great apostle to the damage of their own souls and the injury of others. For nothing is easier than for persons superficially conscious of their own grave faults to mark with eagerness and self-satisfaction any acts of Paul, a servant of Christ so deeply taught and devoted, which sprang from his excessive attachment to the ancient people of God, and to the habits of their religious life. It is easy also to forget that it is to his inspired writings, more than to all other sources put together, that they owe the means of sitting in judgment on him in this respect. But is this the return that divine grace would produce in hearts which have truly profited? Does it become us? Is it not a wiser and a holier conclusion to see how affections of the sweetest kind may entangle even the most faithful and spiritual, and to watch that we who have it all set before us by the unwavering and impartial hand of the Holy Spirit may learn from it, so that, far behind in self-abnegation and untiring labours and sufferings for Christ, we slip not through less elevated affections into far more serious delinquency?

It was after this visit to Jerusalem that the apostle went down to Antioch (ver. 22). Was it not then, as it was certainly there (Gal. 2: 11-13), that Cephas, blessed man as he was, must needs be resisted to the face? Indeed he stood condemned, for his conduct was no mere lingering respect for Jewish institutions, nor self-sacrificing love for the people of whom, as to flesh, the Messiah came, but a wavering compromise of God's gospel to the Gentiles through fear of the circumcision; and this, after not only a special revelation to him when he went to Caesarea, but his stand with the apostles and elders at the council in Jerusalem. It was not condescension to Jewish feeling, but what Paul did not hesitate to call dissimulation and not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel; and it was so much the worse and more dangerous because of the eminence and influence of the defaulters. True, it was very far from the awful evil which began to rise up against the truth or teaching of Christ in the 'last hour' of John, which this apostle of love vindicated so sternly (1 John 2: 18, 19). But hitherto men had not sunk to the unclean reasoning that heinous sin is to be excused, because it is practised by those who claim to be dear children of God, though even they had had the warning that one who boasted of his readiness to lay down his life for Christ was precisely the man who at that very moment was on the eve of denying Christ repeatedly with oaths.

All that we are told by Luke is that, having spent some time (i.e., at Antioch), Paul 'departed, going through the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, establishing all the disciples' (ver. 23). When the apostle planted the gospel in Galatia, he had entered the country from Phrygia, which lay to its south and south-west (Acts 16: 6). But now coming from a different direction, he traversed Galatia before Phrygia. And as it was a second visit, we hear of his passing through the country 'in order', that is, where assemblies existed, and establishing 'all the disciples' who had already received the gospel. This is of much interest in its bearing on the Epistle which was certainly written not long after their calling: 'I wonder that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel, which is not another' (Gal. 1: 6). Such is man even where the foundation had been laid a little before by the greatest of apostles.

Here is introduced an incident of importance in its bearing on the history of souls passing out of the transition state, which John the Baptist's teaching represents, into the full light of gospel. The episode indeed is twofold, one part closing Acts 18, the other opening Acts 19, both tending to illustrate the same thing in substance: only the former deals with it as a question of truth, the other, of the consequent power of the Spirit which was received on the faith of the gospel. Let us look at each in due order, and first at the conclusion of the chapter before us.

'But a certain Jew, Apollos1 by name, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent [or learned] man, arrived at Ephesus, being mighty in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way2 of the Lord, and being fervent in his spirit he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,3 knowing only the baptism of John, and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla4 and Aquila heard him, they took him up, and more accurately expounded to him the way of God.5 And when he was minded to go through into Achaia, the brethren wrote and urged the disciples to receive him; and he, on coming, contributed much to those that had believed through grace. For he forcibly confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ' (vers. 24-28).

1 The Sinaitic pm, two cursives, the Coptic and the Arm. confound Apollos with Apelles (Rom. 16: 10).

2 Beza's uncial with more than fifteen cursives reads 'word' for 'way'.

3 For 'the Lord' in Text. Rec. (supported by HP, et al.), the best witnesses have 'Jesus'.

4 The order in the inferior uncials, etc., is 'Aquila and Priscilla' but ABE with Vulg. Cop. Aeth. as above.

5 The order, and even words, fluctuate in the copies.

There simply comes before us a Jewish workman, who soon needed not to be ashamed, however unformed at first. He was a native of the city which was afterwards to play a notorious part in the corruption of heavenly truth by earthly wisdom, himself a man of learning, or eloquence (for the word lovgio" is used for both), and able in the scriptures. Nor was he merely a scholar and otherwise competent, but already instructed in the way of the Lord. Born of God, he was as to intelligence in advance of a God-fearing Jew, but short of the fuller truth which the gospel affords as the foundation for the mystery to be revealed, with all its wonderful light on God's counsels and ways. Further, being fervent in his spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things 'concerning Jesus' (for the right reading helps to clear the true sense). He was ignorant of all truth beyond 'the baptism of John'. Nor was he lacking in moral courage or zeal; 'and he began to speak boldly in the synagogue'.

This raised the question, practically of great moment, how souls thus endowed, yet little acquainted with the truth, are to be dealt with? Grace answers and settles all according to its own power. The latest advance beyond the dead level of orthodox tradition is to be hailed and cherished. How lamentable to despise those today who are where we were yesterday! 'Who maketh thee to differ? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive, why dost thou glory as if not receiving?' So at a later moment did the apostle reprove the vain Corinthians (1 Cor. 4: 7). Far different was the feeling of the godly pair with whom he had abode in that very city. 'But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him up and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.'

Nor did the learned Alexandrian resent the private instruction, not only of the Christian Jew, but of his wife, who, as we may gather from the unusual order, seems to have entered into the truth with a more spiritual mind than her husband. Was it inconsistent with the apostolic exhortation in 1 Tim. 2: 12? In no way. A woman might possess the highest spiritual gift, as we find (Acts 21: 9) that the four daughters of Philip did in fact; and assuredly there is room, not to say responsibility, for the due exercise of that and every other gift from the Lord, without collision with His word, nay only carrying it out the more. To him that hath shall be given. Apollos had enough to encourage those who knew the grace of Christ better to set out the truth according to the word, as he had enough true knowledge of the things concerning Jesus to value and welcome for his soul all that Priscilla and Aquila could open from the scriptures. Ought He not to have suffered unto death for our sins and to enter into His glory? 'Thus it is written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer and to rise from among the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all the nations' (Luke 24: 46, 47).

This rises far beyond the promised Messiah which was the substance of John's teaching, with repentance urged on the souls that received it. Apollos knew no more, however eloquently he might proclaim its value and however ably he might fortify its truth by apt proofs from the Old Testament scriptures. It may be argued, no doubt, that John went farther in his preaching because he testified of Jesus as the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. But the conclusion is invalid that John knew or taught redemption by His blood. Not even the apostles did till the Lord rose from the dead. John spoke in the Spirit beyond anything which he personally apprehended. He thoroughly knew that He, Who was standing in the midst of those who knew Him not, was the Christ and Son of God in a sense peculiar to Himself alone. And therefore, did he preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, owning the One mightier, Whose sandals he was not fit to unloose, Who should baptize with the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of His death, the power of His resurrection, the glory of His place on high, John did not enter into as the disclosed and enjoyed objects of his faith; nor did any other till the mighty facts took place, and were set out in the Spirit from the word of God.

Thus the help of the Christian pair was as welcome to Apollos as they were needed to supply the defects of his instruction. And we may observe how distant and different were the means employed of God from the formal methods of a divinity school. Can the moderns boast of superior efficiency? This may well be doubted by those who know what fertile hotbeds of heterodoxy theological schools have proved in all ages and lands, Protestant as well as Catholic or any other. They may be more or less learned, they may cultivate for a few terms Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and the like; they may teach their own peculiar traditions and dogmas, with the commonplaces of theology, they may exercise their students in composition and elocution. But the truth of God must be known by faith, and to faith only can it be entrusted profitably; and these are commodities so rare in the schools as never to be reckoned on, though of course now and then to be found there, but even where they enter, all is unfavourable for growth: so encumbered are they with that which is extraneous and human. The means afforded by grace to Apollos, and recorded for our guidance by the inspiring Spirit, would, I fear, find scant favour in the eyes of the professors, or even of the divinity students, that believe; and would be assuredly scorned by all who believe not, whether leaders or led.

But God has deemed it good and wise to let us know how Apollos fared under his tuition. 'And when he was minded to go through into Achaia, the brethren wrote and urged the disciples to receive him; and he on coming contributed much to those that had believed through grace.' For he forcibly confuted the Jews in public strewing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.' His progress was thus manifest to all; and arrogant opposers were put to shame, as the faithful were built up by his means. For Apollos could work with a force beyond those who privately had led him on. Such is the scriptural way of obtaining a good degree, and much boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Acts 19

Here we have another fact of deep interest as illustrating the state of souls not as yet favoured with the apostolic or even more ordinary gospel testimony. The grace of Christ displays its elasticity in meeting them with the truth which they needed, in order to bring them into the full enjoyment of the Christian condition:

'And it came to pass, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having gone through the upper parts, came [down(?)]1 unto Ephesus, and finding2 certain disciples, said unto them, Received ye [the] Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they [said]3 unto him, Not even if [the] Holy Spirit was did we hear. And he said,4 Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him that was coming after him, that is, on Jesus'5 (vers. 1-4).

1 Text. Rec. ἐλθεῖν, BHL., most cursives and Versions; κατελθεῖν AE, many cursives, Arm.

2 Text. Rec. εὑρὠν . . . εἶπεν, DEHLP, et al. εὑρεῖν . . . εἶπέν τε AB, several cursives, Vulg., et al.

3 Text. Rec. on large authority adds εἶπον, which does not appear in ABDE, et al.

4 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν simply AE, et al. έἰπε τε Text. Rec. with BHLP and most (HLP, et al, adding πρὸς αὐτούς).

6 Text. Rec. has τὸν χριστὸν  Ἰησοῦν HLP, most cursives; as some with several Versions support 'Jesus Christ' but the best τὸν  Ἰησοῦν, D giving only χριστόν.

It is important to recognize what is here clearly made known in the inspired narrative that these imperfectly instructed souls, whom Paul found at Ephesus, after Apollos had gone to Corinth, are owned as disciples. The apostle does not question the reality of their faith. He observed probably a certain legalism in them, which raised the question not whether they were born of the Spirit, but whether they were sealed by Him. 'Received ye the Holy Spirit since ye believed?' Their answer makes the distinction as plain as it is momentous. They had not so much as heard of the Holy Spirit as the apostle asked. They were doubtless not unacquainted with the Old Testament, nor of course with John's testimony, as appears from what followed. They were therefore familiar with the Holy Spirit as spoken of in the scripture, and must have heard directly or indirectly that John declared the Messiah was to baptize with the Spirit. Whether this was a fact yet, they knew not.

The existence of the Holy Spirit was never in question. What they had not even heard was of any answer to the promise, still less had they been made partakers. This raised the further question, To what then were ye baptized? with the answer, To John's baptism. They were not therefore even on the ground of Christian profession, for, as the apostle wound up, John's was 'a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him that was coming after him, that is, on Jesus.' Christian baptism supposes Him to be dead and risen, the work of redemption accomplished, with eternal life and remission of sins proclaimed in His name. They were believers, the Holy Spirit had wrought in their souls so that the word of God had entered, but they were wholly short even of those immediately conferred privileges which faith in the gospel enjoys.

Now the case before us is not without its bearing on souls around us in the present day. How many saints there are who know nothing beyond the new birth, imagining this to be the common blessing of Christianity if they be not also betrayed thereby into the delusion of what they call higher life, holiness, sanctification, or perfection! The last three of these are scriptural terms, but when treated as a goal of attainment, and especially in the sense of the amelioration of nature or the practical extinction of sin within, they veil very grave deflections from the truth.

It is therefore to be noted how careful scripture is to distinguish between the early vital work of the Holy Spirit in awakening souls by the application of the word, and the subsequent reception of the Spirit when the gospel is believed. In the men at Ephesus before us there was as yet no such reception; yet they were born of God, which never is apart from subjection to His word. But it may be far from the gospel of His grace. Any part of the divine word, one might say generally, is applicable to quickening a soul, hardly as in this case going beyond what an Old Testament saint experienced. How many in Christendom rest on promise and have no notion of accomplishment! They of course allow that the Saviour is come, but of salvation come, and of God's righteousness revealed, they are wholly ignorant. They are still in quest of what they have not got as the present gift of God, they if earnest are therefore anxious, tried, groaning after they know not what, if not over their own proved unworthiness and the treacherous evil of their hearts. They quite overlook the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ; still less do they rest on His work of redemption as valid for their own souls. Am I His, or am I not? is the question that harasses them habitually. Attracted by His love they listen to His words and are momentarily bright, then the thought of self rises in their conscience, and they are in the depths, wholly unable to reconcile the love of a holy God with their actual state which they cannot but feel. Hence they are driven, from ignorance of the gospel, to search after as many signs of a renewed condition as they can discover within them; and thus they toil in a life of hopes balanced against fears, having as little sense of total ruin as they have of God's love toward them. And no wonder, for they are occupied not with Christ but with themselves. How then can such escape that sense of internal misery inevitable to the spirit, and the more so if born of God, till they know, by faith, the mighty work of Christ, where all evil is judged, all sins forgiven, perfect righteousness established without us and yet for us immutably, and ourselves brought nigh to God as His saints and children without a question unsettled?

Of all this the Ephesian disciples could know nothing. They were avowedly waiting where John's doctrine and baptism left them, believing on Him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. But they were wholly unacquainted with the blessing that had already come, the glad tidings taking the place of promises, because all that God requires, as well as every need of the poorest of sinners, is already accomplished in the atoning work of our Lord Jesus. And so it is practically with many a believer now, not speaking merely of schools of doubt, where on principle the right state is laid down to be the most painful shrinking from rest in the saving grace of God, but in view of the thousands who, without a doubt of Jesus as the only Saviour, have no idea that God is proclaiming peace to them through the blood of the cross of Christ.

They too are under law in effect; and hence in a state of habitual bondage through fear of death, feelings as to themselves constantly clouding the simple truth (on which the gospel insists) that we are lost, and that all is grace on God's part, Who has been already glorified perfectly as to sin in the cross, so that He can righteously afford to bless the believer fully. Ignorant of this wondrous grace which excludes all thought of self save as evil and lost, what can one do but look for good as a ground of hope with God, while vaguely conscious withal that nothing but mercy will do? In truth all is comparatively vague in such a state, alas! far too common in Christendom, where not the wicked only need the gospel, but many a righteous soul, quickened by the Spirit to feel in a measure for God, but as yet never realizing that it is for the lost the Son of man came and died, that they, resting by faith on His blood, might know their sins blotted out, and their old man crucified with Him that the body of sin might be destroyed that they henceforth should not serve sin, but, freed from it and become servants of God, have their fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life.

Now, in the state described, it is too much to assume that souls, wretched in the present, and drawing a precarious and oft vanishing comfort from the future, albeit prayerful and pious, have received the Holy Spirit, the incomparable privilege of the gospel; and this, because they have not really moved on from the promise to which an Old Testament saint clung rightly as to his sheet-anchor in a storm when the light had not yet dawned. It is sad for a disciple now to be in a similar state, instead of submitting to the righteousness of God and thus having peace with Him, as justified by faith through our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are none of us apostles, but it is no mean part of our work and testimony to meet the true' wants of such souls. Else in vain do you look for an unworldly walk, for worship in Spirit and in truth, in vain, or worse than vain, do you force on these weakly plants into the high region of the church's privileges as Christ's body, or even of its responsibilities as of God's house. Such souls really need the gospel as well as the Spirit in power for their souls. It is after hearing the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, that saints, it may be as in the case before us born of God are on believing sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Then, and not till then, can they thrive, flourish, and bear the fruit of righteousness, which is by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God. The blessing turns on 'the hearing of faith', not on works of law, which works wrath and a curse. 'They which be of faith are blessed' — they only.

It can hardly be supposed that the twelve disciples in Ephesus here brought before us had enjoyed the teaching of Apollos, still less the help of Aquila and Priscilla who unfolded to him the way of God more exactly. If so, they would have been led on, as they were by the apostle afterwards. For it was pure ignorance which hindered their advance in truth, and not either obstinacy or the absurd and wicked error imputed by some to them, which appeared later in the East, and left traces to a recent epoch, as Neander states in the first volume of his Church History. John's baptism, in scripture, went with his call to repent, as we have just seen, and that they should believe on the coming Messiah, i.e., Jesus. In no way was it the blasphemy of accepting John as Messiah. They knew of promise, not of accomplishment: but that was to stop short of the gospel. They are now given to receive the full truth and blessing. Paul preached to them Jesus. What is there for souls which is not through Him and in Him?

'And when they heard this, they were baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied; and they were in all about twelve men' (vers. 5-7).

But here it is well to understand what is taught; for some have inferred from the inspired historian that the original formulary had lapsed, and that the apostles here and elsewhere in the Acts are represented as baptizing only to the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a serious position. It professes to stand on the letter of scripture which cannot be broken; yet is it one which demands and deserves the fullest consideration, for it really annuls scripture. It has been entertained, and even acted on, by not a few whose principle it is to abhor any view or practice which puts a slight on the immediate authority of our Lord. Yet no one denies that He clearly laid down for that institution baptizing to the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28: 19).

So it is laid down in the earliest of the Gospels, where the great commission is given to the eleven. They were told to go forth and disciple all the nations, the Jews having already been made the object of their testimony in Acts 10: 5, 6. But now, Messiah being not only rejected but risen, and themselves associated with Him, the circle is enlarged consequently on His death and resurrection; and it is no longer a question of the rights of Jehovah, the one true God and Governor of Israel, but of God fully revealed, not only in the person, but by the work, of the Lord Jesus; and those disciples His servants are to baptize unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Here in Matthew was the fitting place to make that Name known, for in this Gospel more than any other, we have the consequences of the rejection of the Messiah, and the new witness substituted for the old, all authority being given to Him in heaven and on earth. From this point of view the rejecting and rebellious Jews are left with their house, and, we may add, their city, desolate till grace works repentance in their hearts another day. Meanwhile, in virtue of the accomplished work of the crucified Christ now risen from the dead grace sends out a message of sovereign mercy to all the Gentiles. It is not the Son of David filling the throne of Israel, nor is it the Son of man with His dominion and glory and kingdom given Him, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve Him — His dominion an everlasting one which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

These are glories of the new age when the Lord Jesus is displayed from heaven in power and presence on His return. Here it is the Trinity revealed and testimony to be rendered before that day, when they were to teach (not the law nor the prophets, but) all things whatsoever Jesus enjoined on them. And the Lord said, 'Lo! I am with you all the days until the completion of the age' an age not completed till even the last week of Daniel's seventy is fulfilled. This may not be and is not the revelation of the mystery which was reserved for the Holy Spirit through the apostle of the Gentiles, but it is in contrast not only with the law of Moses, but with the promises given to the fathers and the seal attached to them. And Paul could say, as the twelve could not, that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Yet did he in his place as a confessor submit to that institution of the Lord, as he also baptized from time to time those who confessed Him, as the inspired history abundantly testifies.

But nothing would be less like scripture than to rehearse the formula every time a record of baptism was made in it. The fact was stated, and the mode of statement in scripture is invariably formed according to the character and design of the Book wherein it occurs. Now it lies on the face of the Acts that the Holy Spirit is throughout bearing testimony to Jesus as the Lord. Baptism therefore when predicated of any in its course is so described. This exactly accords with the record, and is as it should be, if the Book be really stamped with that design, as it evidently is to any intelligent eyes. Besides it is in the highest degree probable, that those who administered baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as bound by the injunction of the Lord, would also add the Lord's name as confessed by the baptized. So in some way it is habitually done at this day by those who follow in their steps. Certainly the Book of the Acts has Christian baptism mentioned as 'on', 'in', or 'to' the name of the Lord, each case being in strict harmony with its own character. But this in no way warrants the inference that the twelve, or Paul, or any other dispensed with the divinely given formulary. The form of the history is due to that design equally divine which controls this Book like every other in the Bible.

Another circumstance may be noticed: namely, that these Ephesian disciples received the Holy Spirit through the imposition of Paul's hands as the Samaritans did through the hands of Peter and John. It was a signal mark of God's honouring the apostles. As the work in Samaria was due to the free action of the Spirit in Philip, it was the more necessary to bind all together lest there should have been with God's sanction a church in Samaria independent of that in Jerusalem. The unity of the Spirit was safeguarded by giving the new converts the seal of the Spirit only in answer to the prayers and by the hands of two chief apostles from among the twelve. What simpler proof that, as the Spirit is one, so is the church, however locally severed? So it is now. The Ephesian disciples, baptized to Jesus on hearing the gospel, had Paul's hands laid on them in order to receive the Holy Spirit. It was one body everywhere; and Paul's authority, as of God set first in the church, is attested like that of Peter and John before him.

It is in vain to argue that the Holy Spirit here conferred means only spiritual powers. These powers indeed were included in the divine gift, as the close of verse 6 intimates. But speaking with tongues, or even prophesying, was not all that the reception of the Spirit conveyed, nor yet the best part of the blessing. It is the Spirit Himself Who is given, as well as gifts for sign or for edification, which are both particularly indicated here. Even Bp. Middleton, according to his own too narrow and defective principle, would have been compelled to own the Holy Spirit here personally given. And this gift it is which is never withdrawn, and which indeed makes the Christian and the church to be such. There is neither the one nor the other if there be no gift, nor sealing, of the Spirit any longer.

Nor is it true that this gift depends on an apostle, or an imaginary apostolic succession which is wholly unknown to scripture and excluded by it. For the intervention of apostles, as in Acts 8 and 19, was exceptional, however right and wise on each occasion. The large and typical instances were when He was given, first to Jewish believers at Pentecost and afterwards to Gentile believers at Cornelius' house; at neither of which times does scripture speak of the apostles laying on hands. The Spirit was given directly on their faith of the gospel, a fact made absolutely certain and clear beyond controversy in the case of the Gentiles (Acts 10: 44-46), which of course is especially of interest and importance to us who are not of Israel. Such a fact is decisive for one who believes in the wisdom and goodness of God, not only in so doing then, but in recording it for the comfort of souls ever afterwards; lest they, ignorant of the direct gift to Jewish and Gentile believers, as warrant for the like expectation afterwards, might fall into the error, either of despair because the apostolic order existed not, or of presumption in dreaming of a fresh apostolic choir or band as being necessary for the supply of that gift, or for any other kindred function. The Catholic systems indeed suppose a sort of perpetual apostolicity, and thus solve the difficulty by an error no less portentous, Protestantism believes not in the abiding presence of the other Paraclete so as to make good the promise of the Father for ever; while Irvingism boasts of a new apostolate (well nigh gone) to effectuate an order which would ignore the ruin-state of the church — a gross moral mistake. But the truth is as blessed in its permanence, as these errors are pernicious.

The rather peculiar but instructive case of the twelve disciples in Ephesus being given, the apostle is next seen resuming his service among the Jews at their synagogue. Compare Acts 18: 19-21. He was there according to his pledge.

'And entering into the synagogue he spoke boldly for three months, discoursing and persuading the1 things concerning the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, discoursing daily in the school of 2 Tyrannus. And this was done for two years, so that all those that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord,3 both Jews and Greeks. And God wrought uncommon powers by the hands of Paul, so that even upon the sick were brought from his body handkerchiefs, or aprons, and the diseases left them, and the evil spirits went out' (vers. 8-12).

1 Some MSS. and Versions omit the article, but most insert it, which Luke's usage confirms.

2 Most support Text. Rec. in adding 'a certain', but the most ancient omit.

3 Text. Rec., with HLP and most cursives, adds 'Jesus, but not ABDE, and all the old Versions.

The apostle's patient perseverance was great. For three months he spoke boldly in the circumscribed sphere of the synagogue, 'the things concerning the kingdom of God' (ver. 8) being the matter of his discourse and persuasion, as we can readily conceive of all subjects the most suited to inquiring Jews, who knew the law and the prophets. The godly, as we hear of Joseph of Arimathea, were looking for the kingdom of God (Luke 23: 50, 51). This involved his opening to them the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these. It never occurred to his mind to disparage that kingdom, still less to deny it, because of higher possessions and richer grace in the great mystery as to Christ, and as to the assembly (Eph. 5: 32) meanwhile revealed for the Christian. Even salvation as now opened in the gospel of God's grace has depths beyond the kingdom. But the Jews, from tradition with its darkening effects, and from unbelief which overlooks what is of the deepest import in scripture, were apt to turn from Jesus as the Christ, and thus got blinded in presence of that light which if heeded would have made everything manifest. It is only by light divine in Him that all things have their true character exposed, and His grace not only frees us from all fear of consequences from it, but emboldens us to desire it as the assured blessing of our souls to God's glory. Some there were who did go on in faith and taste that the Lord is good; others stumbled at the word, being disobedient.

'But when some were hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way4 before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, discoursing daily in the school of Tyrannus' (ver. 9).

4 [In apostolic days the Christian faith seems to have acquired the name of 'the Way'; see Acts 9: 2; Acts 19: 9, 23; Acts 22: 4, Acts 24: 14, 22. Peter uses the term, 'the way of truth' (2 Peter 2: 2).]

The truth preached in the synagogue had now brought out plainly those who received the love of it that they might be saved, and with at least as much distinctness those whose hard rejection of it led them to speak evil of the Way in presence of the multitude. To have continued longer could have answered no good end; it would have led to bitterness of altercation and reviling from the adversaries. To withdraw from them at this point was clearly of God. Thus were the disciples separated in the capital of the province, the religious centre of an area far larger still. The synagogue being no longer a seemly place, a room commodious enough was due, not only to the disciples, but to the testimony; and the apostle carried on his work of daily discourse in the school of one who was, as far as we can judge, a rhetorician or a philosopher.

What a contrast in that school, no doubt at different hours of the day, between the Christian teacher and the heathen! The one was filled with the grace and truth which, as a revealed whole, came into being by Jesus and in His person, flowing from the love of God to man, and with not a whit less divine authority than the law pronounced at Sinai more than fifteen centuries before, and last, not least, which brought home to heart and conscience by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven, a Spirit not of fearfulness, but of power, and love, and a sound mind; the other, not perhaps lacking in imaginative thought clothed in attractive language, gave out speculation, being wholly destitute of certainty on all that most deeply concerns God and man, ignorant of all means of his reconciliation with God on a righteous basis, or of forming near and holy relationships with Him, possessing no present assurance of His will nor affections for every day's enjoyment and obedience, and still less able to lift up the veil which hides the unseen and eternal. Yet here each of them addressed his hearers, Paul, if not Tyrannus, day by day; the one presenting a work of art which gave scope for excellency of speech, and the assumption, but not the reality, of wisdom; the other a simple yet deep witness, dependent on the Holy Spirit, to the One Who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times, for God delights in grace.

Hence it is, that the place of testimony was of no moment: all the value, virtue, truth, grace, and glory that we boast is in the One preached. Holy place, or most holy, was nothing now, Jesus only. Had He not been cast out by the people of God, by their scribes and doctors, by Levites, and priests, and high-priests? and when they slew Him by the hand of lawless men, had not God Himself testified by rending the veil from top to bottom? Earthly holiness was utterly desecrated. The temple therefore is nothing, nor Jerusalem, nor the mountain of blessing in Samaria. One sacrifice has swallowed up all others, and is alone efficacious. AH centres in the crucified but exalted Jesus on high, where is the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man; where is the Great Priest, even Jesus Himself.

Hence the same building, which man misused for vanity, faith could use for magnifying the name of the Lord. The consecration of a building since the ascension of Christ is a return to Judaism and one of the beggarly elements of the world; and the grander the building is, the more flagrant its inconsistency with the cross. Popery in all this is consistently but outrageously wrong, in rebellion against God and the truth, resuscitating all that received its death-blow in the death of Christ; for it boasts of its temples, its priests, and its sacrifices for the living and the dead. But where is the consistency of the Anglican who, admitting the one sacrifice as already complete and accepted, contends for earthly priests as well as holy places? where is that of the Dissenter, who, discarding an earthly priesthood, clings to the delusion and pride of his temple, chapel, or miscalled 'church'?

The practice of the early church coincided with and confirms this principle. For those who had boldness to enter into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, the Great Priest over the house of God, what mattered the mere place of assembling themselves together? Alas! indeed, that a place of earthly splendour must cloud the truth and moral glory of the cross. An upper room, a private house, however obscure the quarter, or (if occasion required as here) 'the school of Tyrannus', any place, small or great, according to the exigencies of the time, sufficed for the assembly. If numbers grew in a large town, they might for convenience meet in many rooms, but never so as to jeopard the characteristic truth that it was 'the church', not 'churches', in that town. Where unity is abandoned, save for the foundations, it is no longer God's church, but man's.

At Ephesus as yet things were in their infancy, the disciples were separated (i.e., from the Jews who adhered to the synagogue), and in 'the School of Tyrannus' the apostle discourses daily. 'And this was done for two years, so that all those dwelling in Asia, heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks' (ver. 10). A great and effectual door of testimony lay open to him, if there were many adversaries. Proconsular Asia had the gospel before it. Many may not have listened more than once, for curiosity reigned among the Greeks, which, if easily attracted, is not less easily sated. But if ever an attractive centre existed for Asiatic Greeks, it was in Ephesus. It was a time too, when men, weary of pretentious philosophy and sick of the mental and moral horrors of paganism, yearned after something sure, solid, and good, if they knew not what, which they had found very partially in the synagogue.

They wanted, in the language of Job, 'an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man what is right for him, and God could be gracious to him and say, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom' (Job 33: 23, 24). And in the apostle they had one of the rarest interpreters, and, more than that, one who beyond all men could feel for Jews and Greeks; for no Jew had, in his unbelief, ever hated Jesus more bitterly than he, no Greek more proudly than he despised that name. And who had felt or developed so much the riches of God's grace in Christ? For the space of two years all that dwelt, not in the city only, but in the province (where the seven Apocalyptic churches and others are afterwards known to have been gathered), heard the word of the Lord from one so laboriously zealous and so every way competent to proclaim and unfold and apply it. He was content to go about preaching the kingdom; nor was it enough for him to urge on perishing souls repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. He did indeed testify the gospel of the grace of God; but he shrunk not from declaring the whole counsel of God. Nowhere do we see a spot so favoured; nowhere did this wise master-builder lay a foundation so broad deep, and strong, though indeed it was none other than that only one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. But who laid it so well as Paul at Ephesus, according to the grace of God which was given to him?

In due time God's building in Ephesus comes before us with a wonderful lustre and fulness, not only in the Book now occupying us, but in the apostolic Epistle to the saints that were there and the faithful in Christ Jesus. To no assembly elsewhere does the Holy Spirit so freely bring out the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit, and by none was it revealed as by the apostle Paul and to no saints communicated as to those addressed in that Epistle. Yet in the eyes of tradition the church in Ephesus is of slight account compared with that in Antioch, or in Alexandria, to say nothing of Rome or of Constantinople afterwards. But God's ways are higher than man's ways and His thoughts than those of the sons of men. No more humiliating proof of the departure of Christian profession from the divine estimate than is found in ecclesiastical history, with its ever-increasing homage to the spirit of the world.

But we may notice the honour which God at this time put on the apostolic testimony to the Lord Jesus and the gospel in the new sphere. 'And God wrought uncommon powers by the hands of Paul, so that even upon the sick were brought from his body handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases left them, and the evil spirits went out' (vers. 11, 12). The beneficent power of God in man and for man was thus attested. By-and-by it will triumph in the kingdom where all things are to be put into the hands of the glorified Son of man. But He is glorified already, although we see not yet all things put under Him. Meanwhile the Spirit is here on earth to bear witness of Him and His victory achieved in righteousness over Satan. This is the principle of those early displays of divine energy in man. They were testimonies to His defeat of the devil in man's favour, powers of the world to come, though of course but samples of what will be then universal. Certainly neither the church nor any individual saint has ground for long centuries to boast on this score. But God did work marvellously not only by Paul but in the assembly, as we see even in Corinth, to the glory of Jesus, that man might learn on all sides and in every way the delivering power in His hands, not only over human infirmity, but over all the power of the enemy.

Through the apostle this victorious power was manifested here with no little splendour. The God, Who gave and sent His Son to become a man as well as a propitiation for our sins, is not indifferent to man's miseries, or to Satan's malicious pleasure in rebellion and ruin. And these early days of the victory of the ascended Christ were illuminated with brilliant manifestations that all power in heaven and on earth is in Him Who is at God's right hand, and Who answers to the faith that called on His name. Nor was it only in the presence or at the word of the apostle: what had touched his person did not fail upon the sick who could not approach him. The faith that brought handkerchiefs or aprons from him to them had its reward: the diseases departed from them, and evil spirits (a distinct class) went out. Truly it was delivering energy to the Lord's glory in and for man; and it could not but deeply impress those who are sensitive enough to their interests and feelings in this life. But what is it at the best compared with the still deeper glory of the Son of man when God was glorified in Him dying for sin, that there too righteousness might be vindicated and be for ever on the side of man, of believing man unequivocally and absolutely?

But the Lord was pleased to manifest in another way, negatively indeed but effectively, what His grace delivers from in this present evil age.

'And certain ones of the Jewish exorcists that went about took in hand to call upon those that had wicked spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of Sceva, a certain1 Jewish chief-priest, doing this. But the wicked spirit answering said to them, Jesus I know, and Paul I am acquainted with, but who are ye? And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them and mastering them both,2 prevailed against them, so that they fled out from that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, that inhabited Ephesus. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. Many too of those that had believed came confessing and declaring their deeds. And not a few of those that practised curious arts brought their books and burnt them before all. And they summed up the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. So with might the word of the Lord increased and prevailed' (vers. 13-20).

1 So it stands in the Vatican and other good authorities. The ordinary text has 'certain ones, sons of . . .", and much the larger support.

2 The better reading is ἀμφοτέρων (ABD, et al.), not 'them', as in the common text, a change to suit the 'seven', whereas two only were concerned in this case.

During His ministry (Matt. 12: 24-28), the Lord answered the reproach of the scornful Pharisee by appealing to those sons of Israel who cast out demons; He did so Himself by the Spirit of God. The spirits were subject not to the twelve only (Mark 6: 7), but to the seventy also through His name, nor was there any exhibition of divine energy which more affected their minds (Luke 10: 17). It was the first sign which, when He rose from the dead, He promised should follow those that believe (Mark 16: 17). Whether by sickness or by spirits' unclean possession, there was no case which resisted the power of the Holy Ghost (Acts 5: 16). We have seen a similar record of Philip in Samaria (Acts 8: 7), and especially of Paul (Acts 16: 18; Acts 19: 12).

It is the more important to press the word of God as to those evil possessions, because, on the one hand, the bias of man has set in so strangely in modern times to treat their existence with unbelieving contempt, where, on the other hand, people are not given up to besotted and blinding superstition. For Satan catches men by snares of the most opposite kinds. The truth is the one thing which men do not affect. And as they treat evil spirits in possession of human beings as an exploded old-wives' fable so they no less scout the reality of the Holy Spirit's dwelling in every believer, and working in some by way of special gift, not to speak of His action in the assembly. The Book of the Acts is most explicit in bearing witness to spiritual power, good and evil: to doubt the continuance of both is mere incredulity, and unworthy of the believer particularly.

Here the Lord displayed His resentment of those who, without owning Himself, sought to avail themselves of the apostolic action in His name as a charm to which divine energy must be attached. Seven were concerned in a general way, two (it would seem) directly, on whom consequently the blow fell. Their position too, as sons of a Jewish chief-priest, drew the more attention to so solemn a discomfiture. In vain did they call over any the name of the Lord, indeed their daring to adjure 'by Jesus Whom Paul preacheth' brought out the more distinctly His vindication of His servant, and their own impotence, as well as the reality of the enemy's power. For the wicked spirit attested at once his acquaintance with Paul and his knowledge of his Master, not only with withering contempt for the hollow profanity of those who abused His name, but with the most practical demonstration that the evil power could tread down and put them to shame, instead of submitting to a victory at such unholy lips.

It is interesting to note how the wicked spirit identifies himself with the one whom he possesses, just as the Spirit of God is graciously pleased to work in those who are made, by His dwelling in them, vessels to magnify the name of Jesus. It is He Who effects all that is blessed yet is it all blended with their minds and affections; so that it is as a whole set to their account. Thus here the demoniac, 'leaping upon them and mastering both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out from that house naked and wounded.' It was his doing, though he could not by any means have done it save by that terrible power. The moral impression of this defeat was great on all outside in Ephesus. Nor was it only that fear fell on them all, but the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. It was not simply that God and the enemy were brought before men's consciences; there was a testimony to the Deliverer also.

But there was even more. What became known universally acted with especial power on many of those who had believed. They came confessing and declaring their deeds; and if any went farther still, they gave the best proof of the abhorrence with which they now regarded their tampering with the wicked one. For 'not a few of those that practised curious arts brought their books and burnt them before all.' The price was reckoned up. and it was found not inconsiderable. Living facts brought home the power of the word, and conscience responded at once.

This was one of the many ways in which the Holy Spirit wrought at Ephesus; as we find the varied action of the Spirit one of the most prominent characteristics of the Epistle written to the saints long after. It was the word of the Lord that thus mightily grew and prevailed: not a company of saints merely, but the word of the Lord — that word which He has magnified above all His name. It is now the holiest answer on earth to Christ in heaven; and how precious to see, not merely the fear of His name overawing Jews and Greeks, but those who believed so zealous for His glory as to tell out their own shame and worst degradation in converted days, and to take vengeance on all they had, no matter how costly, which breathed of the enemy's power and wiles!

Yet it is salutary to bear in mind that, whatever be these dark arts and diabolical energies, the god of this age carries on his most widely destructive work by methods of no seemingly unusual character, but suiting his delusions to the passions and the lusts of the flesh, even to the natural affections as well as interests of men, through the meshes of that world of which he is the prince. It is in this way above all that souls are kept blind through the exclusion of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. In Christendom now, as of old in Judea, the mass perish, not in the terrible displays which appear here and there or now and then, but under the placid surface of what is respected and enjoys an unquestioned character of patriotism and even religion, where the Father is unknown, and consequently it is not the true Christ brought home to the heart by the Holy Spirit. But the word of the Lord accomplishes the gracious purpose of Him Who sends it forth, and extensively too in the conversion and blessing of souls, if no longer in the might of apostolic days.

Thus in Ephesus did the word of the Lord grow and prevail 'with might' according to the remarkable expression of Luke. Every testimony had been at full tide there, the evident power and presence of the Spirit, attested by tongues and prophesyings, bold preaching of the kingdom of God for months in the synagogue, and still less restricted discoursing daily in the school of Tyrannus for two years, during which time the disciples took up their due separate position; so that not only they of Ephesus, but, speaking generally, all those that dwelt in the province of Asia, Jews and Greeks alike, heard the word of the Lord. The uncommon powers wrought by the hands of Paul proved even externally where and with whom God was, as the ignominious penalty of the Jewish exorcists demonstrated that even Satan despised their selfish and profane use of the name of Jesus, so as to overawe all inside, and to exercise healthfully the conscience of many within, where it was for the Lord's glory. What need was there for the prolonged stay of the apostle whose heart went out to the regions beyond?

'Now after these things were fulfilled, Paul purposed in his spirit, passing through Macedonia and Achaia, to proceed unto Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there I must see Rome also. And having sent into Macedonia two of those that ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, he himself stayed in1 Asia for awhile' (vers. 21, 22).

1 Dgr has ἐν, but this is evidently to avoid the difficulty of εἰς, which expresses the direction of the apostle, though it was only a question of abiding where he was, a pregnant construction not at all infrequent.

It is not correct to interpret 'in the spirit' here of the Holy Ghost. No more is meant than that the apostle purposed it 'in his spirit'; a frequent phrase of his, not only in this Book but elsewhere. He longed once more to go to Jerusalem after passing through the two Roman provinces of Greece. He felt that his work was closed for the present at Ephesus, and that after visiting Jerusalem he must see Rome also. With this we may compare Rom. 1: 9-13, as well as Acts 15: 22-29, though the journey to Spain appears nowhere else in the inspired writings, and we know not that it was ever realized.

How immense the energy which comes out in these few words! How much more, when we consider how fully he preached the gospel of Christ, not where He was already named, but where the good news had never penetrated before! It was also a spiritual capacity and zeal that embraced not heavenly truth only, and the whole scope of divine counsels for eternity, as well as the Old Testament prophecies of the kingdom, but the most ordinary matters of need for the peace and fellowship of the saints, yea, even for their temporal good day by day. We see too, how with apostolic authority he directed the service of others, and this at all cost to himself personally, for at this very time he sent into Macedonia two of those that ministered to him, not Erastus only, but the fellow-labourer nearest to his heart, his beloved child, Timothy, whilst he himself stayed awhile in Asia.

'And about that time arose no small disturbance about the Way. For a certain [man] by name Demetrius, a silver-beater, making silver shrines [miniature temples] of Artemis, brought no little business to the artisans, whom he gathered together with the workmen of like nature, and said, Men, ye are aware that we2 have our prosperity from this business. And ye behold and hear that this Paul hath persuaded and turned away a considerable crowd, not only of Ephesus, but of almost all Asia, saying that they are no gods that are made by hands. Now, not only is there danger for us that this trade come into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be counted for nothing, and that even she should be deposed from her3 magnificence, whom all Asia and the world [habitable earth] revereth. And when they heard, they were filled with wrath and kept crying out, saying, Great is Artemis of the Ephesians. And the city was filled with confusion; and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized together Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul's fellow-travellers. And when Paul was minded to enter unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And some of the Asiarchs also, being his friends, sent unto him and urged him not to adventure himself into the theatre' (vers. 23-31).

2 Tischendorf has shown the mistake of Griesbach in giving ὑμῶν for ἡμῖν (ABDE, et al.), instead of the vulgar ἡμῶν. This error is faithfully repeated in the notes of Scholz, a very inferior critic.

3 τῆς μεγαλειότητος ABE and near 20 cursives, et al., rather than τὴν μεγαλειότητα as in Text. Rec.

Such was the fresh effort of the enemy, not so much by means of Jews as Gentiles, and accordingly by an appeal to worldly lusts rather than by spiritual power in an evil shape. Nevertheless, religious motives, such as they were, even here threw a certain halo around that which was really selfish and utterly sordid. Nor is any device of the enemy more common or permanent. Satan contrives in this world to interweave debasing and destructive superstition with the present interests and honour of mankind. This being so, one cannot wonder that the mass of men are most readily inflamed by the testimony of the truth which threatens to undermine their religion and their worldly property. It is the same today, in principle, as then at Ephesus. An active leader was easily found to take the matter up and blow it into a flame. The artisans and the workmen engaged in the trade of the silver shrines of Artemis were roused by their employer Demetrius, who appealed to their covetousness and at the same time pointed out that Paul's teaching threatened not only their trade but the discredit of the great goddess Artemis. And the appeal was not in vain; it never is, save where grace makes known the truth.

Man, ignorant of God, will fight for nothing more keenly than for his wealth and his religion. Nor could it be denied that throughout much more than Ephesus, or even Asia, Paul had persuaded and turned away much people from their gods many and lords many. There was no doubt that he really did mean that those are no gods which are made with hands, that to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and we through Him (1 Cor. 8: 6). We ought not to think, therefore, that the divinity is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. And that one God now commendeth men that they should all everywhere repent, because He hath appointed a day in the which He is going to judge the world, or habitable earth, in righteousness by the Man Whom He hath ordained, giving to all proof of it in that He raised Him from the dead. So had Paul openly preached at Athens during his brief visit; assuredly his long abode in Ephesus was not less fruitful in the solemn proclamation of the truth. We need not have wondered if the silversmith had taken fire at the beginning of his stay. But grace knows how to make the wrath of man praise God, as well as to restrain the residue of wrath

It was well ordered, however, that the outburst should come while the apostle was still there. Two of his fellow-travellers were actually seized; and Paul intended to go in to the raging populace in the theatre, but the disciples would not suffer him. And very interesting it is to see the moral effect of Paul's teaching and life on certain of the chief officers of Asia, who while distinguished from the disciples are expressly said to have been his friends. These sent unto him and besought him not to trust himself in the theatre. What is more, the scripture shows that Paul, whatever his own courage or feeling, did not despise these friends, notwithstanding their position. but gave way to the remonstrance of his brethren. He who on fit occasion knew how to wield on earth the power of heaven for the Lord's glory, and who wrote with divine authority for the saints here below till Christ comes, could graciously bend to others, as well as stand alone where this was of God. Only the Holy Spirit can give the discernment at the moment, where the eye is single to Christ.

Such was the uproar which pervaded the crowd in the theatre at Ephesus. 'Different ones therefore kept crying somewhat different things; for the assembly was in confusion, and the mass knew not wherefore they were come together. And from the crowd they instructed1 (or, drew together) Alexander, the Jews putting him forward; and Alexander waving his hand wished to make defence to the people. But when they came to know he was a Jew, one shout arose from all, crying for about two hours, Great [is] Artemis of [the] Ephesians. And the town clerk after stilling the crowd, says, Ephesians, which of men is he who knoweth not that the city of [the] Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great Artemis and of what fell from the sky? Since then these things cannot be gainsaid, you must be quiet and do nothing rash. For ye have brought these men, neither temple-robbers nor blasphemers of our (or, your) goddess. If then Demetrius and the artisans with him have a matter against anyone, court-days are going on, and there are pro-consuls: let them accuse each other; but if you make any inquiry about other things, it will be settled in the lawful assembly. For indeed we are in danger of being accused of riot today, there being no cause concerning which we shall be able to render an account of this concourse. And having said thus (or, these things) he dismissed the assembly' (vers 32-41).

1 συνεβιβασαν is the best reading (ABE and many cursives) and means as above. The vulgar text hardly falls in with προβαλόνῖων following without tautology.

In this Book we have already had the Holy Spirit's account of religious excitement among the Jews, not only when it issued in the death of Stephen, but on other occasions where they were the chief instigators of the heathen against the gospel and its messengers. It was meet that we should have a living picture of a quasi-religious tumult among the heathen themselves, and this in the most capacious theatre of which there are remains to the present day. Assuredly the Gentiles were rather more senseless than the Jews, though their convictions were in no way so deep. 'Some, therefore, cried one thing and some another, for the assembly was tumultuous, and the most knew not wherefore they were come together.' Whatever the selfish motives underneath, their expression of wrath was about the great Artemis, of whom Ephesians boasted. Nevertheless, as we have seen, God wrought providentially through wiser men of high station among them, for the Asiarchs, whose chief or chiefs lived at Ephesus, had the easiest means and best position in the state, and by their very office would be expected most to resent any dishonour done to their religion. But kind feeling, if not conscience, made them tender the prudent advice to Paul that he should not adventure himself into the theatre. God used them to shelter His servant, where zeal and courage would have been unavailing, and might have exposed him to danger.

Here again we find the Jews putting forward Alexander. This, nevertheless, was a move, which however craftily devised, did not benefit themselves, but rather inflamed the multitude so much the more. The instincts of the heathen resented such an apologist. Was it in common honesty possible that the Jews would have more respect than the Christians for their great goddess?

It was in vain, therefore, for Alexander to beckon with his hand in the desire to make a defence to the people. It was enough that they perceived him to be a Jew, and therefore hostile to their idolatry. There was one voice from all, about the space of two hours, as they cried out, Great [is] Artemis of [the] Ephesians. What a true reflection of the world governed by prejudice and feeling in what is of all moment, not only for the life that now is, but also for that which is to come! God, the true God, is not in their thoughts, which are therefore open to any and every delusion.

The town clerk, or recorder, now appears on the scene; a much more important person in that age and country than in most others, as we learn from ancient inscriptions and otherwise. He was a heathen like the rest; but his common sense was shocked by their objectless excesses, and his speech sets forth in plain and pointed terms their own folly and wrong, not as to God but as among men, and more particularly before their Roman governors.

Having stilled the crowd, he says, 'Ephesians, who1 is there of men that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great Artemis, and of that which fell down from Zeus (or, the sky)? As these things cannot be gainsaid, ye ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For ye have brought these men neither temple-robbers2 nor blasphemers of our goddess. If, therefore, Demetrius and the artisans that are with him have a matter against anyone, court-days are going on, and there ere pro-consuls: let them accuse (or prosecute) one another. But if you make any inquiry about other things,3 it will be settled in the regular assembly. For indeed we are in danger of being accused for the riot of today, there being no ground concerning which we shall4 be able to give account of this concourse. And, having said this, he dismissed the assembly.'

1 The γάρ, 'for', not expressed in our version, or perhaps any other, implies, without bluntly saying, Why this ado? For 'which of men is there who knoweth not . . .,

2 All the old Protestant English Versions have the absurdly false rendering 'robbers of churches'. So inveterate is bad habit, even beyond the vulgar. Wiclif and the Rhemish were preserved from it by adhering to the Vulgate.

3 B and many cursives support περαιτέρων, and so Mr. T. S. Green, 'further', which makes good sense, but the ancient versions are adverse.

4 'The best authorities add a negative here. It may be due to οὖ immediately preceding. If genuine, it may be explained by emphatic speech, which is not always logically correct.

Thus is man beguiled. He assumes as unquestionable what is a mere delusion of the enemy. No intelligence secures against the lie of Satan, nothing but the truth brought home by the Spirit of God. For this man, otherwise sensible, the great Artemis and the stone that fell from the sky, were things which could not be gainsaid. On this supposition he insists on calmness as the only state of mind befitting his co-religionists. He urges that those concerned were neither temple-robbers nor revilers of their goddess. Why, therefore, should such men be brought before them? But he is more precise also, and sets before Demetrius and the artisans in company with him, that their procedure was irregular and dangerous for all. A charge must be laid at a proper time and place, and before the suited judge. There alone could there be a lawful result. Any other enquiry must be settled in the lawful assembly, which the present was not. More than that, 'we are in danger', nor they only, but 'we', of being accused of riot for this day's proceedings, no cause existing for which they could render an account of this concourse. The Romans, it is well known, were most jealous of such disorderly assemblages; which they often punished with bloodshed without measure. As his speech thus closed with a most significant hint, he had no difficulty thereon in dismissing the assembly.

Acts 20

It would appear from the Epistle to the Corinthians, that the tumultuous meeting in the theatre was but one incident of a dangerous crisis at Ephesus (1 Cor. 15: 32). Certainly the apostle did not quit the city till there was a lull.

'And after the uproar had ceased, Paul having called [or, sent1] for the disciples, and exhorted and saluted [them], departed to go into Macedonia. And, having gone through those parts and exhorted them with much discourse, he came into Greece. And having spent three months, and a plot being laid against him by the Jews, as he was about to sail for Syria he determined to return through Macedonia.2 And there accompanied him (as far as Asia3); Sopater, a Berean, [son] of Pyrrhus3; and of Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and of Asia Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before waited for us at Troas; and we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened [bread], and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we tarried seven days' (vers. 1-6).

1 Most support the former, the best the latter.

2 In verse 3 structural varieties appear in the copies.

3 A few very ancient witnesses do not contain these words, which are sustained in the great mass; but '[son] of Pyrrhus' is genuine.

In this passage, as in many others of scripture, we have a living testimony to the joints and bands which operated so efficaciously in apostolic times to preserve the saints in unity, fellowship, and love. There was no lack of missionary zeal; but, besides, the Spirit of God wrought much in the exhortation and encouragement of the saints. Thus was the body of Christ built up. It is in this care that we see the most manifest contrast of modern times with the primitive. If the converts are guarded from turning aside, it is in general the most that is now attempted. Zeal habitually goes out towards the conversion of sinners, and those devoted to that work are regarded as eminently faithful and enlightened if they do not yield to superstition on the one hand or to philosophy on the other. Growth in the truth is rare and practically unknown even among the teachers, not to speak of the converts. The consequences are deplorable: teachers and taught in these circumstances are ever liable to the many misleading influences around.

In these early days we see on the contrary the utmost care and zeal in visiting afresh those who had been already brought to God, and gathered to the name of Jesus. Nor was it only by oral instruction. That new and characteristic form of Christian instruction which expressed itself in the apostolic Epistles was now fully in operation. No composition admits of greater candour and intimacy; none gives such scope to the affections of the heart. It was from Ephesus that the apostle wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, as grand a development of Christian and church truth as was the Epistle to the Romans, written not long after as we shall see, on the great foundations of grace in justifying the ungodly, and on the reconciling of the indiscriminate gospel with the peculiar promises to Israel, as well as on the practical walk of the believer in view of all this.

There is no fresh inspiration going on now; but these two modes of seeking the edification of souls ought surely both to proceed. Preaching and teaching have a most unquestionable importance in reaching sours more simply and directly than any other; but there is an exactness as well as a fullness of treatment, which are best conveyed in a written (and, we may add, a printed) form. There is another object also of great value attained in the latter way — that souls can be reached thereby all over the world, most of whom neither could nor would listen to oral instruction of distinctive weight.

In those early days then we see not only the principle of both oral and written teaching, but the highest form of either ever reached on the earth. The apostles and prophets were the foundation on which the church was built. By the gracious power of the Holy Ghost they had immunity from error. It was not men doing their best, but God conveying His mind perfectly through chosen instruments.

Their writings alone constitute the Christian standard. Others at the present day may be raised up to recover what is forgotten, and to propagate this and all truth, the Spirit may work energetically by them, and give reliable accuracy to their thoughts and words in unfolding revealed truth; but they are in no wise a standard. Their writings are not God-inspired and, as they are not entitled to issue their convictions under the authority of 'Thus saith the Lord', for every or any word of theirs, so the saints are responsible to judge all they say or write, and still more what they do, by unerring scripture.

Here then, after the uproar had ceased, Paul sent for and exhorted the disciples, and, after bidding them farewell, departed to go into Macedonia the scene of his former labours. There too we find him passing through those quarters, and, after exhorting the saints with much discourse, he came into Greece. It was during the three months spent there that he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He had long desired to visit Rome in person, but was hindered hitherto. Urgent duties detained him elsewhere; and God had it in His purpose that His servant should enter Rome only as a prisoner. It was not so that even the apostle would have ordered matters, still less the saints themselves. It is good, however, to learn and accept God's profound wisdom in all these dealings of His.

In weakness, and fear, and much trembling, Paul at first testified at Corinth (1 Cor. 2: 3). After much danger and persecution he had left Ephesus. An ill-understood man, his deep spirituality and zeal ran athwart much prejudice at Jerusalem. He could at length only go to Rome with a chain. Such were the ways of God in the unequalled path and service of the blessed apostle.

Nevertheless thorough sobriety pervades the action of Paul. When there was a plot on the part of the Jews against him, as about to sail into Syria, he avoids it by adopting the resolution of returning, not from Achaia direct, but through Macedonia. The Jews had enormous influence in that great commercial entrep�´t, Corinth; and injury or death could easily have been, humanly speaking, inflicted upon him as a passenger in one of the numerous ships of that day. He therefore changed his plan and returned through the northern province. And there accompanied him Sopater, Pyrrhus' son, a Berean, and of Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius of Derbe and Timothy, and of Asia Tychicus and Trophimus.

It was not therefore that merely the apostle laboured in all directions. Here we find not less than seven companions in service, who were in no way restrained to one fixed local sphere. The presbyters or elders laboured and took the lead locally. There were many others besides the apostles who moved about with perfect liberty, seeking the blessing of the faithful and the spread of the gospel. Of these labourers we may discern at least two classes. Some few attached themselves as much as possible to the companionship of Paul. Of these we have a sample before us. But there were others like Apollos who laboured in a more independent way and enjoyed less of his society, though they had his entire love and confidence.

In verse 5 we learn of another deeply attached personal companion Luke, the inspired writer of this very Book. 'And these having gone before awaited us at Troas.' Thus quietly does this honoured man intimate that he too was with the apostle at this time and at Philippi. It will be remembered that it was in these regions that Luke had first become the companion of Paul (Acts 16: 10-12).

'And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened [bread], and came unto them to Troas in five days, where we tarried seven days' (ver. 6). Why the party did not move together, why the others went before, and Paul and Luke waited till after the feast, we can only conjecture. But we see the special association of Luke with the apostle and utterly reject the vain key to it which Wieseler suggests, that Luke travelled with him as his physician. If men cannot trace below the surface of the word with spiritual insight, how sad that they should exercise their wits in such degrading ingenuity! And will even saints learn how deeply the church is fallen when such thoughts are repeated instead of provoking indignation?

The delay of seven days furnished the ever-desired privilege of partaking the Lord's Supper together. That the stay of the brethren for that time had a special and spiritual aim appears from what follows.

'And on the first [day] of the week, when we1 were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed to them, about to depart on the morrow, and prolonged the word till midnight. And there were many lights in the upper room where we were gathered together. And a certain youth, by name Eutychus, as he was sitting2 in the window, being overpowered with deep sleep, as Paul was discoursing yet longer, fell overpowered by the sleep down from the third storey, and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and fell upon him, and clasping him round said, Be not troubled, for his life [soul] is in him. And when he went up and broke the3 bread and had eaten, and conversed with them a long while till daybreak, so he departed. And they brought the boy alive and were not a little comforted' (vers. 7-12).

1 ABDE, some twenty cursives, and all the Ancient Versions, as against the Text. Rec., τῶν μαθητῶν HLP, and most cursives, probably to square with αὐτοῖς. So σἦαν in verse following with the scantiest support.

2 καθεζόμενος seems better than καθὴμενος.

3 τόν pm. ABCD--, which Text. Rec. omits with most.

There is no real difficulty or doubt as to the day intended. It was not the Sabbath or seventh, but the first, day of the week marked out to every Christian by the resurrection of our Lord. So we find the disciples meeting on that day, the first of the week — the very day that Jesus came and took His stand in their midst risen from the dead. So it was eight days after, when Thomas was with them and was delivered from his unbelief (John 20: 19-29). It was the day of new (not old) creation, of grace and not law. There was no transfer from the seventh day to the first, nor is the first ever called Sabbath-day; but as the apostles and others who had been Jews availed themselves of the Sabbath and of liberty to speak in the synagogue, so the first day was unequivocally the special and honoured day for the Christian assembly. When they were all together from Pentecost and onwards in Jerusalem we can understand their being day by day in close attendance with one consent in the temple and breaking bread at home. Here we find among the Gentiles, when time had passed over, that the first day called the Christians together as such. This is made the more marked in the passage before us because it is said that Paul discoursed 'to them'. Twice over it is said that 'we' gathered together (vers. 5, 6). The constant duty for all the family of God as distinct from the Jews was to assemble on that day to break bread; the special object of Paul's discourse then was found in the saints who lived at Troas: 'Paul discoursed to them'.

This is entirely confirmed by 1 Cor. 16: 2: 'Every first day of a week let each of you set by himself a store according as he may thrive that there may be no collections then when I shall come.' 'The first day' of the week was clearly a settled institution for the Christian body.

Not the first day but the Sabbath was the memorial of creation rest, which the law imposed in due time as a most holy commandment peculiarly bound up with God's authority and honour. The resurrection of Christ has brought in a new creation, after having by Himself purged our sins on the cross. Hence the first day is the day of manifest and triumphant life in Christ, our life, when our hearts go forth in worship, communion and service. A bodily rest which one shared with the ox and the ass certainly does not rise up to the blessed associations of Christ risen from the dead. Nor does the canon of the New Testament close without stamping this day as 'the Lord's day' (Rev. 1: 10). Efforts have not been wanting on the one hand to make this a prophetic day with which it really has not one idea in common. For 'the day of the Lord' will be one of ever-increasing and solemn judgments from God on the earth, whereas 'the Lord's day' is one of heavenly grace, bringing us already into the victory of His resurrection from the dead, the pledge of our own resurrection or change at His coming. On the other hand it is to lower the character and authority of the first day of the week beyond calculation, to treat it merely as the day appointed by the church.

Thus neither creation nor law nor human arrangement had to do with it. The first of the week is a day marked out by the Lord's repeated appearing, by the inspired sanction of the Holy Ghost, and by the final sanction of it as devoted to the Lord in the one great prophetic Book of the New Testament; just as the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11: 20) alone shares, as distinct from all other suppers, the same striking and distinctive designation.

Again, some have sought to lower the breaking of bread at Troas, here spoken of, to the love-feast; but there is no ground whatever for such a notion. From the first, the breaking of bread was appropriated to the Lord's Supper: so we see it from the beginning of Christianity (Acts 2: 46). It is there clearly distinguished from partaking of food with rejoicing and singleness of heart. Earlier in the chapter, verse 42, the breaking of bread or the loaf refers solely to the Lord's Supper. This is shown by its surroundings — the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers. These constituted the united holy walk of the saints, and no doubt they had the most powerful influence on the ordinary habits and necessary wants of believers every day; but it is plain that the verse distinctly speaks of that which was most sacred.

Nor is it denied that 'breaking of bread' might be said of an ordinary meal, when the context so demands. So we find on a most impressive occasion where the Lord Himself taking the loaf blessed and, having broken, gave it to His disciples (Luke 24: 30-35). It remains true however, that where the context speaks of the communion in the breaking of bread, the Lord's Supper alone is meant. So it is here; and, in this most interesting way, the Lord's Supper and the Lord's day were thus bound up together. It was no doubt a time when the assembly enjoyed the exercise of gifts, as here Paul discoursed to them, not 'preached' as the Authorized Version says, which might convey the thought of the gospel proclaimed to unconverted souls. 'Discourse' is clearly a word of more general bearing, and quite as applicable to those within as to any without.

But the circumstances of this moment were peculiar. Paul was about to set out on the morrow, and extended his discourse till midnight. This gave occasion to the painful incident which befell Eutychus. It was not done in a corner; for 'there were many lights in the upper room where we were'. The youth so named was sitting on the window-seat; and being borne down with deep sleep, as Paul was discoursing at great length, he fell, overborne by the sleep, from the third storey to the bottom, and was taken up dead. It must be acknowledged that the inspired physician who wrote the account was a most competent witness. It is not merely that he appeared dead, or that he was taken up for dead, as some have said. He was really dead, but Paul went down, fee upon him, as the prophet of old notoriously did, and clasping him said, 'Trouble not yourselves, for his life (soul) is in him.' Assuredly the apostle in these words had no desire to make Light of the power of God which had wrought in this miracle.

It may be well to compare with this Luke 8: 49-56, where 'the spirit' of the Jewish maiden had departed. But the Lord's words were enough; and 'her spirit returned'. Here it was not so: 'his soul is in him', said the apostle, though divine power alone could retain it or hinder the proximate break-up.

Some have supposed that when Paul had gone up and broken the loaf and eaten, it was the interrupted celebration of the Lord's Supper. This appears to me opposed to the intimations of the context. Scripture describes it, not as fellowship, but solely as the personal act of the apostle. No doubt it was 'the loaf' of the Lord's Supper, but it was that loaf now partaken of by the apostle for his own refreshment, after so long speaking and circumstances so trying, about to go forth on his journey. This seems borne out by the word, γευσάμενος, rightly translated 'eaten., or literally 'tasted'. We can readily understand therefore why the Lord avoids such a word in calling on His disciples to 'take, eat', in the institution of His supper. The word φαγεῖν could be, and is, used in the most general way, but it is here γεύομαι. Again, the apostle's 'conversing' with them a long while, tilt daybreak, much better suits a meal than the assembly. So, we are told, he departed; as they brought the boy alive and were not a little comforted. The joy much exceeded the sorrow.

Such was the close of the visit to Troas. At this time the apostle appears to have been deeply impressed that his ministry, in the east at any rate, was soon to close. So he had intimated to the saints in Rome a little before, for he lets them know that as he had been hindered these many times from coming to them, so now that he had no more any place in 'these regions' he hoped to see them (Rom. 15: 22, 23).

Paul was bent on his ministration of the contribution from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. This done, his purpose was to go on by Rome into Spain, assured of coming to the saints in the capital with the fullness of the blessing of Christ. This deep feeling appears to have affected his ministry wherever he went. It was no doubt in the earnestness to which it gave rise that he had discoursed so long the last night of his stay in Troas.

But now the journey must be entered on. 'But we, having gone before on board the ship, set sail for Assos, there intending to take up Paul, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go on foot' (ver. 13). Here was another effect of the same solemn feeling. There is a time for social intercourse, there is a time also for isolation; and the apostle who enjoyed fellowship of heart with his brethren as no saint ever perhaps equalled, realized that it was now a season to be alone. One can hardly doubt that this was by no means an infrequent thing for one so actively engaged in public work as Paul. His habitual piety would dispose him now and then to seek such an opportunity of unburdening his spirit, and of renewing, in a marked and full way, his sense of dependence on the grace of Christ. These secret dealings with the Lord were so much the more needful because the exigencies of the work called for energy and prominence before men.

At this juncture, beyond any question, we see that Paul had appointed to be apart from his beloved companions, who went on board ship, even though it involved his own more laborious progress by land. It is left for us to judge its motive and meaning,1 and we cannot but think that what is here suggested is a better key than the mere notion of a visit to one and another by the way. The general context rather adds to the conclusion that Paul was avoiding all but indispensable visits just then, and that having but a short time for his journey, he gave what time he could spare to the most important objects before his heart. Unnamed visits would scarcely have furthered this aim.

1 Calvin thinks it was for his health, and that his courtesy spared his companions, others for paying visits by the way.

'And when he met with us at Assos, we took him up, and came unto Mitylene, and having sailed thence on the morrow we arrived over against Chios, and on the next day we touched at Samos, and [having remained at Trogyllium] the day after we came unto Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail past2 Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost' (vers. 14-16).

2 'By' (A.V.) is equivocal as it might mean by that way. 'Past' means without stopping there.

There is no spiritual reason to dwell upon the associations which Assos or Mitylene, Chios or Samos, Trogyllium or Miletus might suggest. They are here brought before us simply as the varying points of the apostolic journey, from which it would divert us if we occupied our minds with historical questions interesting enough as to each of them.

Suffice it to say that, although Paul had his heart filled with that which was of the deepest importance for the saints in Ephesus, Miletus was the point of approach, rather than the capital of Asia. Here too the motive seems plain. Had he gone to Ephesus itself, with a strong affection and the many ties he had with the numerous saints there, he could not have left them without a considerable delay. He therefore preferred to sail past Ephesus, that he might not frustrate the object of his journey to Palestine. If one so known and loved and loving as he was had visited Ephesus, he could not have avoided a stay of some length among them. He therefore made Miletus his place of passing sojourn, in order that nothing should hinder the fulfilment of his desire to be at Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost.

On the other hand, it was of the utmost moment that the saints at Ephesus should receive words of wise and gracious counsel at this moment. The apostle therefore adopts a method by no means usual. 'And from Miletus he sent unto Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church' (ver. 17). These presbyters were the fitting medium. They had the regular and responsible ecclesiastical charge in that city. We can hardly doubt from the general impression of the rest of the chapter, that they were not a few in number. As this does not fall in with the usual habits and thoughts (not to say, selfishness) of men, the notion slipped in even from ancient times that the elders of all the churches round about are meant. But such a tampering with the word of God is not to be allowed for a moment. The apostle sent to Ephesus and called to himself the elders of the church there, not of the churches around. There may have been many meeting-places in Ephesus, but, as is well known, scripture never speaks of the assemblies, always of the assembly or church, in a city. Hence, however numerous, they are here styled the elders of the church, and they no doubt cared for the affairs of all. Whilst local responsibility was also preserved in its place, unity was not therefore forgotten. Common action would be the natural and proper result. So it was in Jerusalem, as we know from the revealed notices of that assembly, which consisted of many thousands of saints; and so we see it here in Ephesus, though no details of numbers are given. The grand principles of the church prevailed and were the same everywhere, though at first there were Jewish elements at work in Jerusalem if some of them indeed did not linger still. But such unity was of and for heaven, not of Judaism, being pre-eminently of the Holy Spirit. 'There is one body and one Spirit' (Eph. 4: 4).

Another matter may claim brief notice here, though it may seem somewhat of an anticipation. The elders of the church are designated 'overseers' or 'bishops' by the apostle (ver. 28): 'Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Ghost made [set] you bishops, to feed [tend] the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.' This identification falls in with every scriptural notice we possess. Such is the genuine inference from 1 Tim. 3: 1-7 as well as from 1 Tim. 5: 17-19 and still more plainly from Titus 1: 5, 6, compared with verses 7, 9, as well as from Acts 11, 14, 15, 16, and 21, and from 1 Peter 5 and James 5, no less than Phil. 1: 1. The great distinction which soon reigned in Christendom between bishops and presbyters is wholly unknown to the word of God.

Not one, but more were appointed in each assembly or city, where charges were conferred at all. There was regularly a plurality of elders and bishops. They might be men of gift, teachers, or evangelists; but the indispensable work was to 'rule' or 'preside'. This was the object of their appointment, for appointed they certainly were by apostolic authority direct, or indirect when an apostle could not be there (as for instance by Titus commissioned for the purpose by the apostle Paul (Titus 1: 5). The gifts, on the other hand, were given by Christ without any such intervention. A pastor, teacher, or evangelist, as such, was never nominated by an apostle or an apostolic delegate.

The distinction from elders or deacons, it is well to bear in mind. 'The seven' at Jerusalem, who rendered diaconal service, were chosen by the multitude of the believers before they were appointed by the apostles (Acts 6: 1-6). That this election by the church does not apply to elders is plain from every scripture that treats of their appointment, which lay exclusively with the apostles or their expressly authorized deputies. Still less was there by men an election of those so called gifts: in their case Christ chose. As Christ gave them, they preached or taught on their direct responsibility to Him. Where Christians gave of their means, they were allowed to choose dispensers in whom they had confidence. Such is the uniform teaching of the New Testament, and the only legitimate inference from it. The painful departure of Christendom, nationalists and dissenters, Catholics and Protestants, is so glaring that one only wonders how godly men can overlook the facts in the word which make the will of God manifest, or, how, if they apprehend them, there can be indifference to the truth and to the inalienable duties involved by it.

It is the more important to notice the fact that the elders were of 'the church in Ephesus', because the old error of Irenaeus re-appears, among other moderns, in Dr. Hackett's Commentary on this Book. 'Luke speaks only of the Ephesian elders as summoned to meet the apostle at Miletus; but as the report of his arrival must have spread rapidly, it could not have failed to draw together others also, not only from Ephesus, but from the neighbouring towns where churches had been established' (pp. 334, 335). The truth is that ancient and modern arrangements are alike inconsistent with Scripture. Irenaeus was embarrassed by the prejudice of episcopacy, as were the authorized translators, but the plurality of elders or bishops from the church in Ephesus is not a whit more compatible with the 'minister' of the dissenting bodies. It is certain that neighbouring towns or churches are in this instance wholly ignored, and that the presbyters of Ephesus only were summoned, and are alone addressed. Verse 25 is quite consistent with this. But it will be noticed that the apostle summoned the elders with authority, and that they responded to his call without question. To lower the apostle to the place of an ordinary minister is wholly unscriptural.

'And when they were come to him, he said to them, Ye know from the first day that I came to Asia how I was with you all the time serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and1 tears, and temptations, which befell me by the plots of the Jews; how I kept back nothing of what is profitable, so as not to announce to you and to teach you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ' (vers. 18-21).

1 Text. Rec. adds 'many', supported by CHLP, et al., but ABDE et al., omit.

Here the apostle does not refrain from reminding them of his own service in their midst. This was a habit of his, as we see very particularly in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians and elsewhere; burning zeal and a good conscience before God alone account for it. Nothing could be farther from his character than liking to speak of himself. He calls it his folly in reminding the Corinthians of his labours and his sufferings; never would he have said one word of either, had it not been of the utmost moment for the saints. They knew very scantily what the glory of Christ demands what the walk and service and devotedness of the Christian should be. They had been conversant only with the gross darkness of heathenism, or with the hollow and pretentious hardness of the Jews. They needed not precept only, but, what is so much more powerful along with it, a living example to form and fashion the ways of Christ.

Unswerving fidelity characterized the apostle's course habitually, as he says, 'Serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and tears, and temptations which befell me by the plots of the Jews.' Such an one could well appeal to others who knew him, as he does now with peculiar solemnity to the Ephesian elders. It is not learning or success in ministry which he puts before them, but serving the Lord with all lowliness of mind. How often that service puffs up the novice! What dangers surround even the most experienced! Lowliness of mind is of all moment in it, and the Lord helps by the very difficulties and griefs which accompany it. Paul was not ashamed to speak of his tears any more than of the temptations which befell him through the plots of the Jews, the constant adversaries of the gospel, animated with special bitterness against Paul.

Further, he could say that they knew how he kept back nothing of what is profitable. This needs faith without which fidelity will fail; for the apostle was altogether above the fear of man, and withheld in nothing what was for their good, but announced to them and taught them publicly, and at their houses, testifying both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

Naturally the subject-matter points to his work from the beginning of his arrival at Ephesus, but also to that which every soul needs as the first testimony of the gospel. Hence we hear of testifying to Jews and Greeks. It is what every man wants that he may come to God. Repentance and faith are inseparable where there is reality, and the language is as precise as we are entitled to expect from one who not only had the mind of God but expressed it like the apostle. As there is no genuine repentance without faith, so there is no faith of God's elect without repentance. Repentance toward God is the soul judging itself, and confessing its ways as in His sight. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ is the soul receiving the good news God sends concerning His Son. 'Repent', said Peter on the day of Pentecost to the Jews already pricked in heart, who accepted the word and set to their seal that God is true. 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house,' said Paul and Silas to the Philippian jailer and to all that were in his house. How unfounded it would be to imagine that in the one case there was repentance without faith, or, in the other, faith on the Lord Jesus Christ without repentance toward God! In a divine work both are given and found.

The Holy Spirit, Who works all that is good in the soul, takes care that repentance and faith shall co-exist. There may be difference in the outward development. Some souls may manifest more deeply the sorrow of repentance; others may be abounding in the peace and joy of faith, but wherever it is a true operation of God, there cannot but be both. We must allow for the different manifestations in different persons. No two conversions present exactly the same outward effect, some being more simple, others going through the dealings of God more thoroughly. It is well when the repentance toward God is as deep as the faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ is unhesitating. All then goes happily forward with the soul. But this is far from a common case. In most so far as we can see faith may be somewhat feeble, and consequently the soul is not a little tried with the sense of its sinfulness before God. In such circumstances self-occupation is apt to cloud the heart.

The spiritual eye is to be set on Christ as the object of faith, but with scrutiny of self subjectively before God, and hence comes a real judgment of sins and sin. There may not be peace, and there is not when this self-judgment with sorrow of heart begins; but faith in a God revealed to the conscience is surely there, though not yet rest by faith in the accepted and appropriated work of redemption. When Christ's work and God's grace are better and more fully known, the self-judgment of repentance is so much the more profound. In this case the judgment-seat of Christ, however solemn, is no longer an object of dread. All is out already in conscience, and the flesh is judged as a hateful thing, and so evil really that nothing but the cross of Christ could be an adequate dealing with it, but there it is now known that our old man was crucified with Him that the body of sin might be done away (not merely our sins be forgiven), so that we should no longer serve sin; for he that died has been justified from sin. As surely as death has no more dominion (sin never had) over Christ Who, having died to sin once for all, lives unto God, even so we also may land should, reckon ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 6: 6-11). We died with Him.

Repentance toward God then is not the gospel of His grace, nor is it remission of sins, but is that inward work in the conscience by the Holy Spirit's use of the word, without which the privileges of the gospel are vain and only hurry on the soul the more rashly to destruction. The low views which make repentance a human work as a preface to faith are no less objectionable than the so-called high views which merge all in faith making repentance no more than a change of mind. Neither legalism nor antinomianism are of God, but the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. Truth does not spare the flesh or its works, faith and repentance bow in self-loathing to Christ, and grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Repentance then is not mere regret or remorse (which is expressly μεταμέλεια); μετάνοια is that afterthought, or judgment on reflection, formed by God's working through His word to which conscience bows, self and its past ways being judged before God. It is never apart from a divine testimony and hence it is from faith, God's goodness, not His judgment only, leads to it; and godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation not to be regretted, as the sorrow of the world works death (2 Cor. 7: 10). 'I have sinned against heaven and in Thy sight', 'God be merciful to me the sinner': such is its confession and cry in a broken and contrite spirit. The gospel, the good news of grace, is God's answer.

Next, the apostle turns from his ministry at Ephesus to the prospect before him. He was well aware that the severest trials awaited him (compare Rom. 15: 30, 31), and it would appear, he had no slight presentiment that Jerusalem would prove the source of much that was imminently hanging over him. 'And now, behold, I go bound in the [or, my] spirit1 unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Spirit testifieth to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me' (vers. 22, 23).

l Canon Humphry attaches more importance than is due to the old expositors as Chrysostom, Ammonius, Didymus, who will have the phrase to mean that Paul went 'led captive by the Spirit'. Usage, as well as the distinction τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον in the following verses, point to his spirit, on which Meyer at last fell back after first taking up the notion of the Greek Fathers. Paul was not free in his spirit for any other direction than Jerusalem, cost what this might.

Though he was not aware of the precise shape, he thus lets it be known that he went with eyes open to that coming pressure of troubles, which was only interrupted for a little while before all terminated in a martyr's death. He knew further that, whatever might be the close, bonds and afflictions intervened, and what could be more serious for the testimony of the Lord and saints generally to the heart of one who loved the church? Nevertheless God was in it all, for during these very bonds Paul wrote the Epistles which furnish, as we happily know, the fullest and brightest light of Christ and on heavenly things that was ever vouchsafed for the permanent instruction and comfort of the saints of God. We shall see that loving remonstrances did not fail on every side, which must have added so much the more to his grief in resisting all such appeals.

Indeed the apostle here gives the pith of his answer to every entreaty and dissuasive: 'But I hold not my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus to testify the gospel of the grace of God'1 (ver. 24). Nothing could frustrate such a resolve. It was to him no question of success, as men speak, nor of present effects, however promising. His eye was on the glory of Christ, his ear only for the will of God. Suffering or death as a sequence he would not allow to deter him for an instant. His Master had shown him, in the highest degree and for the deepest ends, how in a world of sin and misery suffering glorifies God.

l There are minor differences in the readings of the text, but nothing of weight enough to detain us here.

Undoubtedly there was that in the cross of Christ which belongs to none but Himself. The expiation of sin falls exclusively to Him, the infinite Sacrifice, but sacrifice, though the deepest, is far from being the only element in Christ's death. There were other sufferings which the saints are permitted to share with Him — to be despised, to be rejected, to suffer for love and truth, as well as for righteousness. These sufferings are not confined to Christ, as it was to suffer for sin; and Paul perhaps more than any other was one who could rejoice in his sufferings for the saints, as well as fill up that which was behind of the tribulations of Christ in his flesh, for His body which is the church. The sufferings of the gospel also were for him to glory in; and no mere man before or since ever won so good a title or those honourable scars (Col. 1: 24, Gal. 6: 17).

Most truthfully, therefore, could the apostle say that he made no account of his life as dear to himself: nor is it merely before the Ephesian elders that he felt transport, or on any transient occasions of like kind. He had it before his heart to finish his course with joy, and the service which he had received of the Lord Jesus to testify the glad tidings (or gospel) of the grace of God. The large-heartedness of the apostle is as refreshing as instructive. Who had such a crowd of daily pressure on him? Who like him bore the burden of all the assemblies? If he had to do with weak consciences, who could be weak like Paul? Who went out in heart toward one who stumbled as he did? Nevertheless the gospel was as near to his spirit as to the most earnest evangelist. There was no one-sidedness in this blessed servant of the Lord. He was here simply to carry out all the objects of His love, to promote His glory wherever His name penetrated, and Christ is not more the Head of the church than the sum and substance of the gospel.

It will be noticed that the gospel is here designated 'the glad tidings of the grace of God.' This appears to be the most comprehensive title given to it in Scripture. Elsewhere the apostle speaks of it as 'the gospel of the glory of Christ', where its heavenly side is meant to be made prominent. Again, he speaks of it as 'the gospel of God', when its source in divine love is pointed out. Furthermore, we hear of 'the gospel of Christ', where He is in view through Whom alone the glad tidings become possible from God to man. In the Gospels we read of 'the gospel of the kingdom', looking on to Messiah in power and glory: in the Revelation, of the 'everlasting gospel', the revelation of the bruised Seed bruising the serpent's head. Each has its main or distinctive meaning; but as none can be, apart from Christ, so none of them appears to be so full as 'the gospel of the grace of God'. Nor is any other designation of it more than this last in keeping with the Acts of the Apostles, as well as with that apostle's heart who was now addressing the Ephesian elders. The person and the work of the Lord Jesus are fully supposed although not expressed by it; for in whom or through whom, can God's grace shine out, save in Him or by Him?

'And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom 1 [of God], shall see my face no more' (ver. 25). It is his farewell. His work, as to presence in their midst, was ended.

1 The best and oldest MSS. and Versions, save the Vulg., etc., read simply 'the kingdom.' Others add 'of God', which is meant if not expressed, others of Jesus', and 'of the Lord Jesus'.

Here we have another and distinct topic, and one that is apt to be overlooked in modern preaching, viz., 'The kingdom'. He who examines the Acts of the Apostles will find how large a place it occupies in the preaching not of Peter only but of Paul, and, we may be assured, of all the other servants of the Lord in those early days. It is a grave blank where the kingdom is left out as it is now. Nor is it only that the future according to God is habitually lost to the faith of saints through the unfaithfulness of modern preachers, but thereby the gospel of God's grace also suffers. For in that case there is sure to be confusion, which, mingling both characters never enjoys the simple and full truth of either 2: for the kingdom will be the triumph of righteousness by power when Christ appears in His glory. A truth it was, most familiar, to those who were bred in the constant and glorious vision of Old Testament prophecy. Christianity, though it open to us heavenly things, was never intended to enfeeble this prospect; rather should it enable the believer to taste its blessing more, as well by imparting a deeper intelligence of its principles as by bringing in the heavenly glory. We can enjoy it in an incomparably larger and more distinct way, and we have its principles explained by a deeper and fuller view of its basis in the reconciling work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.

2 Thus Calvin (Opera vi. 185): 'Regnum Dei iterum vocatur evangelii doctrina, quae regnum Dei in hoc mundo inchoat, homines renovando in imaginem Dei, donec tandem in ultima resurrectione compleatur.' (The doctrine of the gospel is again called God's kingdom, which begins God's kingdom in this world by renewing men into God's image, till at length it be complete in the last resurrection.) Calvin was a pious and able man; but the value of his commentary on scripture has been extravagantly overrated. Of course, not a little turns on the spiritual intelligence of him who speaks.

'Wherefore I testify to you this day that I am pure from the blood of all. For I shrank not from announcing to you all the counsel of God' (vers: 26, 27). The apostle could thus solemnly attest his fidelity to the trust the Lord had confided to him. (Compare Ezek. 3: 18-20). Twice at least (vers. 20, 27) he disclaims expressly that reserve which some bearing the Christian name have not been ashamed to avow as a merit learnt from Him Whose death rent the veil, and Who puts all true followers of His in the light of life, the light which makes everything manifest. Walking in darkness now that the True Light shines is a walk in the flesh without God. With such doctrine no wonder that 'the hungry sheep look up and are not fed.'

It is a mistake that 'all the counsel of God' means no more than the plan of God for saving men unfolded in the gospel. 'The gospel' is indeed the preaching of salvation in a dead and risen Saviour; 'the kingdom', whether morally or in its fully manifested form, has its own distinct force in God's reign, as we have seen; 'all the counsel of God' rises still higher and embraces His purpose in its utmost extent (e.g., Eph. 1: 9-12).

Having thus solemnly set before them his own ministry, he now turns to the elders and their work. 'Take heed1 to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy Ghost set you overseers to tend the assembly of God which He purchased with His own blood' [or, the blood of His own One] (ver. 28).

1 The copula αὖν 'therefore' seems an early addition, but the best copies have it not.

The first of all duties is to take heed to our own selves, whatever may be our position, and this an overseer is more particularly to weigh. For what can be more dangerous than activity about others when there is carelessness as to ourselves? It is not from the word abstractedly, but from its shining on the path of our own experience that most is learnt practically. Undoubtedly we may learn from others, and through others; but how can there be reality, unless we take heed 'unto ourselves'?

Still the object in appointing elders was to oversee the flock and all the flock. There might be, and in general were, several overseers; but the duty of the overseer is to take heed 'to all the flock' where he lives. This is the more important, as it humbles the spirit while it enlarges the heart, for who is sufficient for these things? It tends to neutralize the self-importance of 'my people', as well as the rivalry when one thinks of another and 'his people'. The 'one body' was a new thing then; it is absolutely unheard of in modem Christianity. The saints had to learn that God had but one flock here below. There was unity whether in each place or all over the world. Yet the elders had to do with all the flock where they resided, not elsewhere. Eldership was a local charge.

In this the elders are wholly distinct from 'the gifts' (Eph. 4: 8-11) which are in the unity of the body of Christ. They themselves of course were members like others, and as such consequently belonged not to 'a body', but to 'the body'. But the office of eldership was within definite limits; the charge did not run beyond the particular assembly or city wherein they were appointed. It is admitted, nay pressed, that no one could claim to be an elder unless he were duly appointed; and it is plain from scripture that none could appoint save the apostles, or one positively commissioned by an apostle for the purpose. In other words the bishops, or elders (for they are identical in God's word), depended for their due installation on an apostle, directly or indirectly; but when thus appointed, it could be said, as here, that the Holy Ghost set them as bishops or overseers: His sanction accompanied apostolic nomination.

The Authorized Version has gone a little beyond what the inspired word really says, 'Over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.' It is rightly rendered in the Revised Version, ''in the which'. They were thus made to feel that they were in and of the flock of God like every other saint. Nevertheless no one ought to deny that the responsibility of every elder was to rule. For, as the apostle says to Timothy (1 Tim. 5: 17), 'Let the elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and in teaching.' They might not all labour in teaching: but they were all set to 'rule', or preside, and they were responsible to rule 'well'. They were expressly appointed to the lead, as that which pertained to their office. They were in the flock, but in the Lord they were over their brethren, though they were by no means the only persons who were.

This in no way interfered with the gifts in the body. Some may be pastors and teachers, others evangelists; but both were on a quite different footing from the elders. The business of the gifted men was the ministry of the word, whether to those within or to those without, and they were accordingly to labour entirely apart from a designated charge over any circumscribed or particular spot. Eph. 4 is decisive for this principle and fact. It is not only that apostles and prophets had an unrestricted field of work; the lesser gifts, who were the fruit of Christ's grace to the church, had a similar title, though in a humbler way. Thus all gifts as such are in the unity of Christ's body; none of them is merely a local official (as we have seen the elder to be); though he might also be appointed to a charge, his gift otherwise goes beyond it.

The overseers then are exhorted by the apostle to tend or shepherd the assembly of God. Here again we see how strong is the contrast of scriptural truth with the system, which reigns today, of this congregation for one 'minister' and that for another. For of old the elders were all as overseers to tend the assembly, and here the whole of it in Ephesus. No doubt their duty was to carry on oversight where they resided; but it was to shepherd the church of God there, and not each one a part of it only.1 The largeness of the scriptural truth is as evident as the contractedness of men's arrangements ever since apostolic days. Men, in their wisdom, may have judged it necessary to allot a portion to this one and another to that one in the same city; but earthly prudence, however respectable and useful for present interests, is ever to be distrusted in divine things. When in fact the break-up of the flock of God came to pass, the clerical order which had crept in could not but pave the way for not schisms only, but sects, each with their governing functionaries.

1 We may see the same scriptural fact in Phil. 1: 1, where King James's translators left in 'bishops', instead of adopting 'overseers' as in Acts 20: 28. The cases are exactly parallel, as indeed a similar constitution prevailed wherever the apostles visited and supplied full order. The modern 'minister' of dissent is as unknown as the traditional 'diocesan'.

So completely are the children of God fallen from His mind that the various denominations of Christendom are now supposed even by saints to be a providential arrangement, which only enthusiasts could wish to disturb. But as this is not according to the word of the Lord, so it is far from the path of faith. Human reason can never overthrow the plain, sure, and abiding revelation of God's will as we have it in scripture, the especial safeguard in the difficult times of the last days as the apostle tells us (2 Tim. 3). Difficulties may be enormous, dangers may increase, the trials be immense; but obedience is of all things the most lowly for man and the most acceptable to God. Let every believer weigh these matters as in His sight: His will should be dear to all the children of God.

The apostle then gives the more seriousness to the task which the overseers had before them, by the consideration not only that the assembly was God's rather than theirs, which it is never said to be (however common may be the word in man's mouth), but 'which He purchased or acquired to Himself'.

'With His own blood' is beyond controversy a difficult expression, and especially in the best representation of the text, which deserves careful examination. It is not meant that there is the least cloud over the truth that He Who shed His blood for us was God. If the Saviour here was not God, His purchase would have only a creature's value, and must be wholly insufficient to acquire on God's part the assembly as it was, yea, as it is. Being a divine person, His gaining it to Himself by blood has an infinite and eternal efficacy.

But the expression, as it stands in the Authorized and Revised Versions is unexampled in scripture; and what is more, as already remarked, it is peculiarly embarrassing for the Christian scholar, because the form of it, now most approved on the best grounds, is extremely emphatic instead of being general. Indeed it would be easier to understand the sense as commonly understood, if the form had been, as in the vulgar reading, τοῦ ἰδίου αἳματος. The critical reading, though at first sight it may add to the difficulty, seems however the right one, τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου. But it is suggested that we should take τοῦ ἰδίου in government rather than in concord. The meaning that results from this would be 'the blood of His Own One', i.e., of Christ, His Son, rather than 'His own blood'. This meaning, if certain, would make all plain.

It was in all probability the perplexity here felt which led some copyists in early days to substitute the church 'of the Lord', for that 'of God'. But this reading, though externally well supported (ACpm DE, et al.), is at issue with New Testament usage, and is thus on the whole inferior to that of the common text, though as far as 'God' goes no one need be surprised that Wetstein and Griesbach adopted it; but it is not so intelligible why Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles are not here found rather with Mill, Wolf, Bengel, Scholz, Alford (in all his editions since the first two), Wordsworth, Westcott and Hort, who hold to τοῦ θεοῦ.. It is Alford's mistake that Matthai prefers the same, for in both his editions he follows his Moscow copies, and has the same conflate reading as the Complutensian, τοῦ κυρίοῦ καὶ θεοῦ (C3HLP, some 110 or more cursives). Other varieties there are, scarce worth noticing on any ground, as, τοῦ κυρίου θεῦυ (3,95**), τοῦ θεου καὶ κυρίου (47). Some ancient versions represent τοῦ χριστοῦ, one old Latin 'Jesu Christi', and the Georgian — τοῦ κυρίοῦ τοῦ θεου.

Dr. Scrivener therefore fairly enough says that our choice evidently lies between κυρίῦ and θεοῦ, though Patristic testimony may slightly incline to the latter, as he does himself. But why he should consider that the usus loquendi of the apostle, though incontrovertibly sustaining θεοῦ against, κυρίου, 'appears little relevant to the case of either', is to my mind unintelligible. For the utmost that can be said for the immense weight on one side is that it may not have been impossible to have said the other in this sole instance. Scripture beyond doubt is larger than man's mind; but assuredly he is rather bold or careless who could slight an expression invariably found for one never found elsewhere, and here easily understood to be a change in order to escape a sentiment extremely harsh and unexampled if taken as it commonly is.

It may not be without profit to conceive how the discovery of the Sinai MS., and a clearer knowledge, not only of the Vatican copy, but of other weighty authorities, must have modified, if not revolutionized, the judgment of Griesbach. 'Ex his omnibus luculenter apparet, pro lectione qeou' ne unicum quidem militare codicem, qui sive vetustate sive interna bonitate sue testis idonei et incorrupti laude ornari queat. Non reperitur, nisi in libris recentioribus iisdemque vel penitus contemnendis, vel misere, multis saltem in locis, interpolatis. Sed nec versionum auctoritate tueri se potest. Nulla enim translatio habet qeou' praeter Vulgatum recentiorem, (quam redarguunt antiquiores libri latini,) et Philoxenianam syriacam, . . . Tandem neque apud Patres certa lectionis istius vestigia deprehenduntur ante Epiphanium, . . . Quomodo igitur salvis critcae artis legibus lectio θεοῦ, utpote omni auctoritate justa destituta, defendi queat, equidem haud intelligo.' (N. T. Gr. ed. sec. ii. 115, Halae Sax. et Lond. 1806). It is now certified, not by Birch only, who might have been more heeded, notwithstanding the silence of the collation for Bentley, but by the personal and expressly minute examination of Tregelles, who rather looked for an erasure, but found no sign of it in B, but θεοῦ as also in . Now no sober and intelligent mind can doubt that the weight of and B is at least equal to ACDE.

Among the cursives, as usual, some may be of slight account, but others are really valuable and undeserving of so sweeping a censure. As to Versions, none can be produced of greater value than the Vulgate and the most ancient and excellent copies, such as the Amiatine, Fuldensian, Demidovianus, Toletanus, et al., as well as the Clementine edition, have 'Dei'. It is rather audacious to begin with Epiphanius among the Fathers in face of the well-known allusion of Ignatius (Πρὸς Ἐφεσίους i.) which this verse alone can account for. Greek and Latin Fathers cite the common text, or refer freely to it (as Tertullian Ad Uxorem ii. 3, Clement Alex. ii. 3, 44), though no doubt there is a vacillation which answers to the various readings.

Griesbach also argues on the improbability that Athanasius could have read the text as it stands and deny as he does against Apollinarius that αἲμα θεοῦ occurs, ascribing such an expression to the Arians; indeed many besides Athanasius objected to such language. And it would have been truly impossible if διἄ τοῦ ἰδίου αἲματος had been the true reading. But it is not. The majority of later copies may support it, as they do the unquestionably wrong τοῦ κυρίοῦ καὶ θεου but all late critics agree to follow ABCDE, et al.

It would appear then that the great champion of orthodoxy must have understood τοῦ ἰδίου to be expressive of Christ, as God's 'own' One. Otherwise the emphasis, if we take τοῦ ἰδίου in concord, renders the phrase so intolerable that nothing but necessity could justify it. Is there any such need? In other words, if the true text were διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἴματος, we must translate it as in the Authorized Version and all others which were based on that reading now recognized as incorrect; and we could then understand the phrase only as predicated of Him Who is God by what theologians call κοινωνία ἰδιωμάτων. And Meyer considers that the true reading was changed to the common but indirect one because τοῦ ἰδίον, as it ought to be, might be referred to Christ. Daederlein, Michaelis, and other moderns, when they so refer τοῦ ἰδίου, may have had low thoughts of Christ, but certainly not such was Athanasius, who, it seems, must have so understood the passage. Can it be questioned that the emphatic contrastic force, if we take it as God's own blood, brings the phrase under what he calls the τολμήματα τῶν  Ἀρειανῶν?

It is easy to ask for justification by Greek usage. This is exactly what from the nature of the case could hardly be; for in all the New Testament, as there is no other instance of a noun followed by τοῦ ἰδίου, there is no distinct matter for comparison. But it is to be noticed that, where Christ goes before, what follows is διά τοῦ ἰδίου αίματος (Heb. 9: 12; Heb. 13: 12). It is reasonable therefore to infer that, as the emphatic contrast would be dogmatically extravagant, the rendering most entitled to our acceptance is 'through the blood of His own One'. Dr. Hort indeed suggests 'through the blood that was His own, i.e., as being His Son's' (The N.T. in Greek, ii. 99). It may be doubted whether this will commend itself more than Mr. Darby's.

The general truth is untouched. The question is how best to solve the very real difficulty. The suggested version seems much less objectionable than Dr. Hort's conjecture at the close of his note, that υἱοῦ may have dropped out of the τοῦ ἰδίου at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Conjectural emendation1 in N.T. scripture has never approached a proof of its need or value in a solitary example. He Who gave us His word has watched over it; and we need not distrust Him here.

1 G. C. Knapp, (N.T. Gr. ii. 647, 8, ed. 4th, London, 1824) hazards another guess. 'Primitively perhaps it was thus written — the church, which He purchased with the blood of His own [namely, Son], Rom. 8: 3, 32. Luke elsewhere always speaks simply of the church. Those who referred "purchased" to Christ substituted, from Heb. 13: 12, διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἲματος '. But leaving out his conjecture, he leans to this version, which he preferred to the usual one

The reasoning of Bp. Middleton (Greek Article, Rose's Ed., 291-5) is founded on the erroneous vulgar text, and directed mainly against Mr. G. Wakefield, whose version and notes are here, as ever, devoted to the confirmation of his heterodox views. But Michaelis was not so ignorant as to translate the common text as the Bp. says he did, nor ought a writer on the Greek article to have overlooked an emphasis in the repeated article, as compared with the ordinary form, which would be hard indeed to predicate of God as such, when the unemphatic only is applied to Christ's own blood. It is to be doubted therefore whether Bp. Middleton, or those who cite him in this connection did really comprehend or see the true conditions of the question. For on the one hand the common deduction involves us in thoughts and expressions wholly foreign to scripture, on the other hand, if the Greek can honestly mean by the blood of His own One the balance of truth is at once restored, and the utmost that can be alleged against the construction is that its seeming ambiguity might be supposed improbable for the apostle's mouth. That it is sound Greek to express this meaning will scarcely be disputed save by prejudiced persons who do not sufficiently bear in mind the graver objections to the other version.2

2 See also J.N.D.'s footnote to the passage in his New Translation (1884).

Returning then from the consideration of the passage, one may conclude that the Text. Rec. is right in reading church or assembly 'of God' but wrong in following that form of expression at the close of the verse which would compel us to translate, contrary to all the phraseology of scripture elsewhere, 'through His own blood'. The reading of all critics with adequate information and judgment might, and ordinarily would, bear the same meaning with the force of a contrasting emphasis, which is never used even of our Lord; if said of God, it is wholly unaccountable. It seems that this moral improbability made Athanasius deny the phrase (found in Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian) to be in scripture; which nevertheless has it, and has it in the most pointed form, if we are bound to render διὰ τοῦ αἲματος τοῦ ἰδίου as scholars usually do, without speaking of the Oriental Versions, which cut the knot by giving 'the Lord', 'the Lord and God', and 'Christ'. But it seems only prejudice to deny that tou' ijdivou may be as legitimately in regimen as in concord: if in regimen, the sense would be 'of His own One', and the difficulty of the right text is at an end. In this case the apostle employs unusually touching terms to enforce on the elders to shepherd the assembly of God. which He acquired to Himself through the blood of His own One, special personality being merged in a purchase so beyond measure dear and precious. That the Saviour is the Son of the Father from everlasting to everlasting is certain to the believer, but the Book of the Acts habitually presents the truth from a broader point of view with which the apostolic charge would here coalesce.

Taking heed to themselves as well as to all the flock of God was the more necessary because of the sure and dark prospect which the apostle now puts before them: 'I know that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise speaking things perverted to draw away the disciples after them' (vers. 29, 30).

On earth it has been always thus. So Moses warned Israel, when he was about to depart (Deut. 32: 15 - 33). Those under grace, we now learn from the apostle, would behave themselves in the house of God no better than the people under law. And so it came to pass, as the Old Testament shows us: Israel utterly ruined, everywhere dispersed, despised outcasts, nowhere more than in their own land; and so the New Testament everywhere warns of a like result in Christendom.

The Lord Himself, in the great parabolic series of Matt. 13, sets forth its corruption from the beginning. The tares once sown were never to be rooted up until the harvest, and the time of the harvest will be the judgment of the quick on earth. So, in His great prophecy on the Mount of Olives (Matt. 24 - 25), the Lord does not hide the sad future. The evil servant would say in his heart, 'My lord delayeth His coming', and would begin to beat his fellow-servants, as well as to eat and drink with the drunken. There cannot be, there is not, either recovery, or a general progress for good. Christ's appearing in judgment will deal with the evil effectually. It is not shown otherwise in the beautiful picture of the ten virgins, five wise and five foolish. Was not failure apparent and complete, when all slumbered and slept, while the bridegroom tarried? Grace assuredly awakes the wise, who had oil in their vessels, to trim their lamps, and go in with the Bridegroom to the marriage. As for the foolish, who had no oil and are therefore busied here and there in procuring it — in vain, the door was shut. So with the servants that traded with the talents given: nothing but judgment will rectify the wrong done to the Master. Not only is there to be no such thing as universal prevalence of the gospel, but within its own limited range of profession misrepresentation of Christ and opposition to His will are to characterize it to the last. No one denies that there will be, till He comes, as there ever has been, a witness of Christ and truth in life and suffering for His name; but there is also the sad and ever swelling succession of the evil done to that name, not merely by persecution from without, but still more painfully and shamelessly by every spiritual pravity within.

The Epistles entirely confirm and fill up the dark outline presented by our Lord. Of this declension we have spoken perhaps sufficiently elsewhere, but surely 2 Thess. 2 is the adequate testimony, and from an early day: l Tim. 4, and 2 Tim. 3 fall in with this preparatively. Peter in his Second Epistle (2 Peter 2), and Jude both announce the same in yet more sombre colours; and none goes more to the root of the matter than John, not only in his Epistles, but prophetically in the Revelation.

Here, however, we have the inroad of the declension stated by Paul as a marked starting-point: 'I know that after my departure grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise speaking things perverted to draw away the disciples after them.' There is much unbelief as to this, even among Christians otherwise well disposed. They fail to see that the power of Christianity lies in the ungrieved guidance of the Spirit of God according to His word; and His Spirit can freely work only in Christ's name to God's glory. When men act on human principles, where the spirit of the world prevails, ruin is the necessary result. As long as the apostle was here, the spiritual power and influence to restrain was immense. There was then the most vigilant and the most decided resistance to evil of every kind. He knew that after his departure spiritual energy would decay more and more, and that the glory of the Lord would thus be swamped. So easy, so deadly, among the saints of God is compromise, to which amiability, prudence, desire of peace love of numbers, and similar expedients, would expose them.

The commentators tell us that grievous wolves are not persecutors, but rather false friends. Real foes should enter in among those who bear the name of the Lord and spare not the flock. But the commentators are surely wrong in identifying the grievous wolves with those described in verse 30 'From among your own selves shall men arise speaking things perverted.' Surely these are manifestly different classes of evil men, the first more violent, the second more subtle, the first seeking their own gratification and advantage, and the second doing the deadlier work of speaking things perverted to draw away the disciples after them. To take advantage of the flock for selfish means is wicked; to set up self and error in the place of Christ is yet worse, if more seemly in appearance.

Here it may be noticed that the Authorized Version fails to represent the full malignity of the evil. Every party leader seeks to draw away disciples. Here it is the more aggravated effort to draw away 'the' disciples after them. It was to mislead them all, to subject all saints to themselves. Hence the apostle's solemn appeal: 'Wherefore watch, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not admonishing each one night and day with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all that are sanctified' (vers. 31, 32).

The ministry of Paul in Ephesus at this latter day was just an answer to what it had been among the Thessalonians earlier, first as nurse, then as father (1 Thess. 2: 7, 11). It was for the elders now to watch and not to forget that loving example of love; but love will never abide, never bear the strain, without real faith in God for that work; and therefore the force of his 'commending them' to God and to the word of His 'grace'. It is not commendation to one only, but to both. Without God before the heart the word becomes dry and sapless, and we grow discouraged and impatient, without the word to direct the life, we are in danger from the will and the wisdom, or from the folly, of man. The word of His grace becomes the grand test and resource, while looking to God for every step and in every question. So we find the apostle laying it down by the Holy Ghost in 2 Tim. 3: 15, which passage also, by the way, helps to decide the true reference of what has been questioned: in Acts 20: 32, should it be, 'which' is able, or 'Who' is able, to build you up? The comparison strengthens the former rendering.

The apostle had thus set before the elders a prospect most grievous, which lapse of time has fully confirmed. Indeed, before his departure the signs of coming evils were already apparent everywhere, so that when his later Epistles more especially prophesied not merely of decay, but of utter ruin, even then he had to speak of the seeds of these coming evils as already sown. No greater error was there than that which ere long began to prevail, and most extensively in modern times, the dream of progress. It is directly opposed to these apostolic testimonies, and no less to the plainest possible facts in Christendom.

Even on the loose estimate of bare profession, how far is the Christian faith from having title to that triumph of which men fondly speak? Indeed, if these vain hopes were realized, would they not present a glaring contrast to all that the Bible teaches us of that which is committed to human responsibility? From Adam downwards the history of man is the history of failure. Not that grace has not wrought, and wrought wonders, in the narrow path of Christ here below; but as the rule, everywhere and always ruin has followed every fresh trial of man, and every fresh testimony of God because of man. Look at him in Eden or out of Eden, before the deluge or since it: have truth and righteousness prevailed for the mass? That God has wrought by individuals, that He has blessed families, that He has owned righteousness in a people, as well as faith wherever His own grace made it good in the elect, is clear. As the race as well as its head broke down, none the less did Israel, notwithstanding the singular favour which God showed; and as the people, so the priests, and so the kings, till there was no remedy, and God swept them from His land, not only by the Assyrian and by the Babylonian powers, but still more by the Roman.

That Christendom is no exception we have already seen, and this not from experience only, but from the distinct, and repeated, and complete testimony of the inspired men who laid its foundation; and yet men venture to hope — 'to hope'! Is it their hope that the apostolic words will prove untrue? Is it that men; so utterly fallen as they are now in Christendom, will do better than those in whom the Spirit of God first wrought with a power as much beyond consequent as precedent? But alas! poverty in its lowest state is apt to be the proudest. God will surely be true, and every man who opposes Him a liar. This decline from truth then was briefly and profoundly set forth by the apostle about to depart from Ephesus.

Let me notice again how the ordinary translation of verse 30 weakens the force of the last words. It is not merely to draw away 'disciples' after them: every heretic seeks to do and does this; but the object of the enemy through these perverse men is to draw away 'the disciples, the body of those that confessed the Lord on the earth. Not less than the desertion of the whole flock was the blow aimed at the glory of Christ. He only is entitled to the loyalty of all the disciples, and if it is a serious thing for any one disciple to be drawn away from Him, from His will about His own below, how much more to seek the misleading of all! But self-will is blind to all but its own will and soon learns to confound itself with the will of the Master. But think of the dishonour which is thus cast upon His name!

'Wherefore watch ye,' says the apostle to the elders, 'remembering that for three years I ceased not admonishing each one night and day with tears.' This little glimpse, which necessity wrung out from the apostle's heart, lets us see his entire devotedness. It was not business, nor the spread of truth even, still less the prevalence of his own opinions for good. It was one who loved Christ, and pressed this devotion to Him and to His own above all on those who took the lead. Untiring, tender watchful care filled his heart, with the deepest feeling habitually and at all cost. Such he would have us feel, as well as those he addressed that day. Who is sufficient for these things? The sufficiency is in and from God.

So Paul continues, 'And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all that are sanctified.' Whatever be the days of danger, difficulty, and ruin, God abides faithful, the Saviour unchangeable, Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. If all the apostles, since they and the prophets laid the foundation, have passed away, the word of His grace remains as does the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. He only had divine power even when apostles were there. There is no excuse therefore for unbelief. Faith shines the more in a dark day, and devotedness is called out by the sense of His dishonour Who is dearest to the heart.

Nor is there anything in comparison with the word of His grace in ability to build us up. Boldness of thought and beauty of language are all vain if there be not the truth, and the truth is never so sure, and strong and holy, as in His own word, which is truth. This searches the conscience this strengthens the heart, this nourishes faith and makes the blessed hope abounding and mighty in the love which is the strength of all that is good. For love is of God, and God is good, and as His word builds us up now so it gives us the inheritance among all that are sanctified. The word of God truly received delivers from the love of this present age, from the world and the things of the world.

Hence adds the apostle, 'I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel; yea, yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those that were with me' (vers. 33, 34). Life in Christ is infinitely blessed and it is the portion of the believer by the grace of God; a life wholly and absolutely different from that old Adam life, which meets its doom not in death only, but in judgment without end. For the Christian our old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled that we might no longer serve sin, so that each can say, 'I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live I but Christ liveth in me, but in that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, Who loved me and gave Himself for me' (Gal. 2: 20).

It is ruin no doubt to set aside the grace of God, as the reintroduction of the law must do. But how terrible to give a false unworthy testimony to the grace of God by allowing the desires of that life which should be buried in the grave of Christ! The old man covets silver, and gold, and apparel. All these minister to the lusts of the body as well as of the mind. Love serves others, love with faith alone glorifies God; and it is well when those who teach these things are living ensamples of all they urge on others. How few can say truthfully and throughout with the apostle, 'I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel, yea, yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those that were with me. In all things I gave you an example, how that so labouring ye ought to help [support] the weak, and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He Himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive' (vers. 33-35).

Then let no one who seems or claims to be a leader now forget them; yea, let us all remember these ways of the apostle and these words of the Lord Jesus. This is certainly not after the manner of men, not yet of Israel, nay, nor of Christendom. They are the words of Christ, and His life here below is the most blessed comment upon them. It certainly is not enjoyment, or present honour, but His love in tending and feeding the sheep of His pasture, looking for the day of reckoning when the Chief Shepherd shall be manifested, and faithful shepherds shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.

Yet the account is not complete without the parting scene which proves that faith in the unseen hinders not, but imparts, the love which is of God in this world of sorrow and selfishness. 'And having thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and falling on Paul's neck, fondly kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him forward unto the ship' (vers. 36-38). Such was the bearing of the greatest of apostles. Oh, how fallen from its reality are those who vaunt themselves his successors! How far short are any of us who abhor such pretensions! As truth and love receded, hierarchy in every shape made for itself a throne, as far from the mind of Christ as earth is from heaven. But let us beware lest our love grow cold in presence of abounding iniquity.

Acts  21 - 28.

W. Kelly.

Part 4 of An Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles newly translated from an amended text.

Acts 21

The public course of the apostle was closed so far as scripture informs us. The remaining chapters of the Acts are occupied almost entirely with the personal history of the apostle, especially his collision with the Jews publicly, and through them with the Gentiles. In the first and last of these chapters we have a little of his relations with the Christians. The Book closes with him, the Lord's prisoner, in Rome, though not without liberty to see all who sought him, to whom he preached the kingdom of God and taught the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ. Considerably later traces appear in the last of his Epistles. It was important in the mind of the Spirit to give us the early ministry of Peter, chiefly in Judea and Samaria, as well as in opening the door to the Gentiles. After that Paul fills up the entire scene to the close of the Book.

'And when it came to pass that we were parted from them and had set sail, we came with a straight course unto Coos, and the next day unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara; and, having found a ship crossing over into Phoenicia, we went on board and set sail, and as we had sighted Cyprus, leaving it on the left, we sailed unto Syria and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unlace her cargo. And having found out the disciples, we remained there seven days, and these said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not set foot in Jerusalem. And when it came to pass that we had completed the days, we departed and went on our journey, and they all with wives and children brought us on our way, till we were out of the city, and kneeling down on the beach we prayed and took leave of one another, and we went on board ship, and they returned home. And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day' (vers. 1-7).

Such is the succinct account of the voyage. On the day after (as we shall see) they took their land journey through Palestine; in the previous verses now before us, it was sailing. Nothing more simple, yet on the journey of such a man and his companions the Spirit of God loves to dwell, and that we should dwell. We wrong His grace in thinking that the Holy Ghost has only to do with extraordinary matters, as striking utterances, strange tongues, miraculous signs, and sufferings still more fruitful when unostentatiously borne. Undoubtedly He is the power for all that is good and worthy of Christ; but as Christ Himself lived much the greater part of His life in the utmost obscurity as regards man, perfectly doing the will of God, before and to Whom not a moment was lost, so does the Spirit of God enter into all the details of life in those who are Christ's. Surely if anything could give dignity to the passing circumstances of each day, this must: but do God's children do we believe it? If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be vain-glorious, provoking one another, envying one another.

Let us associate the commonest things with Christ's will and glory. Certainly there is nothing more closely approaching the animal than eating and drinking; yet the word of God would have us appropriate even these things to the highest purpose, and there is no way so simple and sure as by that faith which, looking upward, partakes of them in His name. 'Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.' Thus shall we give no occasion of stumbling either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God. Grace avoids questions, as it abhors sin and teaches us to please all men in all things, but not with a view to one's own profit, but rather in divine love to the many that they may be saved. It was so Christ walked in the ungrieved power of the Spirit; it is so we are called to walk, though alas! we too often grieve Him. But there is no rule of life so true, so full, and so direct; and here therefore the path becomes of deep interest. 'To me to live is Christ' underlies what we are told of the great apostle.

'And when it came to pass that we were parted from them.' The last verb may be softened down sometimes, but the natural meaning implies a wrench. Christian affection is a reality on earth: in all the narrative what an absence appears of turning aside for objects of natural interest! 'We came with a straight course unto Coos, and the next day unto Rhodes.' We may be sure from the character and the capacity and the attainments of the apostle that he had an eye for natural beauty and a mind for every historic association that presented itself here below. 'But this one thing I do' was not more his word to others than his own life — 'to me to live is Christ.' The claims of the new creation altogether outweighed those of the old. So when we saw him alone at Athens with ample leisure to look around on the remains which have attracted men of the old world as well as moderns beyond most spots here below, what was the effect on him? His spirit was provoked within him, as he beheld the city full of idols. It was not sculpture that enchained him, not architecture that blinded him. He measured all around by the glory of Christ, and yet none could show more tact in discoursing to them. If he probed their idolatry to the bottom, he availed himself of the least point of truth which the vain city confessed — the altar with the inscription, 'To God unknown'.

Truly Paul walked by faith and not by sight; should not we? Is it really come to this, that because we have not apostolic authority or miraculous powers, we are to abandon the life of faith? Is not the Holy Spirit sent down, and sent down to abide with us for ever? It were humbling indeed to answer like the twelve men at Ephesus (who could not speak truly otherwise): 'We did not so much as hear whether there is a Holy Spirit.' If we Christians say so now, it is guilty unbelief of the sure and standing privilege of God's church. All we want is to judge ourselves and walk in faith, truth, and love; the Spirit will then manifest His gracious power.

'And having found a ship crossing over unto Phoenicia, we went on board and set sail.' It is good to notice the providential dealings of the Lord. The same heart that abides wholly unmoved by the most violent and dangerous storm, ought to be thankful for a fair wind and a quiet journey; and so it was and is. Circumstances never create faith, though God may use unlooked-for facts to deal with conscience. But the same simple faith it is, which, in rough weather or in smooth, can alike give thanks to God. Certainly it is not indifference; but the known will of God is always good, and acceptable, and perfect; and the heart is kept up in the confidence of His love. So His hand would be seen in their finding a ship crossing over to Phoenicia. It would appear that the vessel in which they first set out did not proceed beyond Patara in the desired direction, and now, having found one bound for Phoenicia, 'we went on board and set sail.' Thus in the outward but gracious ordering of God there was no loss of time.

'And when we had sighted Cyprus, leaving it on the left, we sailed unto Syria, and landed at Tyre, for there the ship was to unlade the cargo.' No doubt the term 'sighted' is technical for mariners, but can we conceive that the apostle passed the island without recalling the scene of his early ministry, and of his elder brother Barnabas, and his younger, John Mark, whom they once had as their attendant? We have already had proof of the goodness of Barnabas, and the Holy Ghost has pronounced upon it; and this was proved at a still later day, when he left Antioch, from the midst of an active work of the Lord, to seek for Saul of Tarsus, and brought him to labour with himself at that great centre of Christian blessing (Acts 11: 22-26). But Barnabas and Mark bad parted from the apostle, yet the apostle's heart sought them both, and felt a love that rose above all their failings, as he proved, not only by word, but by deed to the last.

And surely Syria and Tyre where they landed must have recalled deep reflections to the apostle. Here the Lord Himself had withdrawn during His earthly ministry, and from those borders came to Him the woman of Canaan who drew out from Him, not merely an answer of mercy that she wanted for her daughter, but that praise of her own faith which will never be forgotten.

Here the delay of the ship was no less ordered of God at Tyre than the finding it at once had been at Patara. The unloading of the cargo gave the apostle and his companions the time, not exactly to find disciples as in the Authorized Version, but to find 'out' the disciples. We cannot as in the Greek idiom say, 'found up', though we do say 'hunted up'. It would appear hence that they were the object of search, not of casual discovery. They were the disciples, and 'so they tarried there seven days'. This we have seen before at Troas and remarked on, as giving an opportunity to spend at least one Lord's day for the communion of the Lord's Supper.

From an incidental statement we learn how full the early church was of the power of the Spirit: 'And these said to Paul through the Spirit that he should not set foot in Jerusalem.' Assuredly the apostle lacked not warning, as he said himself to the elders from Ephesus, 'Behold, I go bound in the [i.e., my] spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Spirit testifieth to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.' Evidently however the apostle regarded it rather as a note of danger that awaited him than of personal direction which he must obediently follow. His own mind was made up, whatever the danger, whatever the suffering, to go through with it; as the Master had done in matchless perfection for His infinite work at all cost.

'And when it came to pass that we had completed the days, we departed and went on our journey; and they all with wives and children brought us on our way, till we were out of the city, and kneeling down on the beach we prayed and took leave of each other; and we went on board ship, but they returned home' (vers. 5, 6). It is another beautiful peculiarity of divine affection — the family as well as social character of Christians in early days. This ought to be of great price now, if we are wise. In this cold world the saints are peculiarly exposed to grow chilly, if kept from fleshly excitement and worldly frivolity.

'And when we had finished the voyage from Tyre, we arrived at Ptolemais, and we saluted the brethren and abode with them one day' (ver. 7). Here at a port called Accho in days of yore, now St. Jean d'Acre, they arrived; and though it was but for one day, how gladly they spent it with the brethren! For such there were at Ptolemais, apparently already known.

What we have seen was the voyage of Paul and his companions; that which follows is their land journey. 'And on the morrow we1 departed and came unto Caesarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him' (ver. 8).

1 'Paul, and we that were with him', is a later reading, which slipped into the Text. Rec., the Authorized Version, et al.

The words of the inspired writer are full and distinct. From their precision one might think it impossible that any intelligent mind could fail to discern the person meant; yet no less a one than the father of ecclesiastical history contrived to misunderstand the verse, and to confound Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle. It is no pleasure to point out a lapse so strange and unaccountable in any intelligent reader of scripture; but it becomes a duty to notice the error, and urge its importance as a warning to those who cry up the authority of ancient patristic writers. Indisputably Eusebius was neither better nor worse than most of the Christian fathers. For superstitious eyes he has the advantage of holding a decidedly early place amongst them, for he flourished in the days of the Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-337). No ancient MS. of the Greek New Testament that survives was written before his day, and but two can pretend to be as early. Yet it is plain that, with the text as it stands before him, he grossly erred, not on a point of nice doctrine. but in a plain matter of fact. For we are here in the Acts told that the Philip, with whom the apostle's party stayed, was not the evangelist only, but one of the seven, i.e., one of the seven men appointed by the apostles for diaconal service during the days of first love, soon after Pentecost.

If the unquestionable meaning of scripture could be thus overlooked, and so serious a mistake find its way into Eusebius' history, what confidence ought to be reposed in any alleged facts or statements outside the scriptures? Not that any evil object is imputed to that historian; but the circumstance proves that in those days, as in our own, there is deplorable ignorance of God's word where one might least expect it. Patristic authority in divine things is no more reliable than modern systematic divinity. The value of scripture practically as well as dogmatically is incalculable. It is the standard as well as source of truth.

'Now this man had four daughters, virgins, who did prophesy; and as we tarried many days there came down from Judea a certain prophet named Agabus; and coming to us and taking Paul's girdle, he bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So [thus] shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and deliver him into the hands of [the] Gentiles' (vers. 9-11).

The fact stated in the 9th verse deserves full consideration. Philip had four unmarried daughters, of whom it is declared that they prophesied; that is, they had the highest form of gift for acting on souls from God. Such prophesying was yet more than teaching or preaching. We cannot doubt, therefore, that they used their gift on the one hand; and on the other that it was forbidden to use it in the assembly. 'It is shameful', had Paul written in his First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 14: 34, 35), 'for a woman to speak in [the] assembly.' At Corinth it seems that some were bold enough to attempt this and other innovations: but it also seems to have been at that time a very unusual and unheard of notion.

In general, Christian women understood their place better in these early days. Still, there might arise some such desire here or there. At any rate, the apostle found it necessary in his First Epistle to Timothy to write (1 Tim. 2: 12), 'I permit not a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness.' The word αὐθεντεῖν does not convey the sense of 'usurpation', but the possession or exercise of power, where it does not mean committing murder. The woman is not set in authority, nor is she to act as if she were. As to this, there can be no dispute for subject minds. 'If any one thinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize the things which I write unto you, that it is the commandment of the Lord' (1 Cor. 14: 37). The Lord's will for us is on record unmistakably, if indeed we respect scripture.

But these maiden daughters of Philip did prophesy, if not in the assembly, somewhere else. Decorum would have forbidden it still more to have been in public, if God's order prohibited it for the assembly. No place can be conceived more suitable than one's father's house. 1 Cor. 11: 2-16 renders it plain that the woman, in praying or prophesying, was to see that she bore the mark of subjection, for even in prophesying she must not forget that she is a woman, and that the head of the woman is the man as the head of every man is Christ. The woman, therefore, should be veiled while the man was not so to be. 'Every man praying or prophesying, having [anything] on his head dishonoureth his head; but every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonoureth her own head, for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if the woman is not covered,' says the apostle, 'let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered; for a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, being God's image and glory but woman is man's glory.' Both have their place respectively in the Lord, Who, if He give power, maintains order no less; but each has a place of its own which He has assigned, as all things are of God. So His word regulates all, and we should remember this the more in days when man's voice is loud, and God's word exposed and subjected to increasing slight.

We are not told whether these maidens predicted anything about Paul but we do hear that Agabus the prophet added to the warnings already given him by others. Not only so, but he came and took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, 'Thus saith the Holy Spirit, The man to whom this girdle belongs shall the Jews thus bind in Jerusalem, and deliver him up into the hands of the Gentiles.' This was quite in the symbolic manner of the ancient prophets; and it filled those who beheld and listened with sorrow for the honoured apostle. 'And when we heard these things, both we and those of the place besought him not to go up to Jerusalem; then Paul answered, Why do ye weep and break my heart? For I am ready, not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done' (vers. 12-14).

It is clear that the apostle did not understand that the Lord meant him to turn from Jerusalem. He only heard reiterated by Agabus, as he had been so often warned by others, what he must suffer there. Indeed from his conversion it was intimated how many things he must suffer for the Lord's name's sake. Paul clearly must have concluded that the Holy Ghost spoke, not to dissuade him from his perilous path, but rather to prepare him in it — certainly for prison, and perhaps death. The brotherly kindness of others would have screened him from all that was awaiting him in Jerusalem, but love goes beyond brotherly kindness. So it was working in the servant, as it had with all perfection in the Master.

The apostle now passes on to that city which had so large a part in his affections, or at least to the saints there, little as it might be conceived by those who saw in him only the apostle of the uncircumcision. 'And after these days we took up (or made ready) our baggage, and went up to Jerusalem' (ver. 15). 'Our carriages' would convey a mistaken impression to ears familiar only with modern English. It is possible that at the time of our Authorized Version, the word was used in a double sense, as has been suggested; not only as now for the vehicle which carries, but also for what was carried in it. The Old Testament likewise contains the word in its old meaning, which of course is found in profane writers of that day also.

'And there went with us also [certain] disciples from Caesarea, bringing one Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we should lodge' (ver. 16). An 'old' disciple is certainly not exact, and may not even be true, ἀρχαίῳ expressing not his age as a man, but his discipleship from the beginning. It is interesting thus to find incidentally that Cyprus had been blessed of God, not only through the visits of Paul and Barnabas, but even before.

'And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto lames and all the elders were present, and when he had saluted them, he explained one by one the things which God wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry; and when they heard it, they glorified God' (vers. 17-20). Here we see in full vigour the love and honour which reigned among the saints. Not that there were no trials and special trials in those days: it could not be otherwise. In this world no difference of a religious character could compare for depth with that which severed Jews from Gentiles. God Himself under the law had maintained the separation between them to the full, as our Lord did up to the cross. This closed the old order to introduce the new — the order of grace and of the new creation in Christ which the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven carried out in power and joy and intelligence. Thenceforward Christ becomes all, and indeed He is worthy; as He is all, so is He in all; and the distinction of Jew and Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, bond and free, vanish in Him before God.

Yet is there nothing which Christians find so difficult to apprehend and enjoy and practise as Christianity. Nevertheless the Spirit given to every Christian is not a spirit of fear nor of bondage, but one of power, and of love, and of a sound mind, with Christ before our eyes. The path may be difficult, but as it is true, so is it the exercise of love; and it is all a question of appreciating Christ, and of applying the truth in a spirit of grace. As the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. We have only to believe, not to fear man, any more than to pursue our own thoughts.

The word of God is now revealed as a full answer to Christ, and by the Spirit it will be found to solve every difficulty in detail. In no place, however, were the difficulties greater than in Jerusalem, the natural focus of extreme Jewish feeling. Thither the apostle had come, animated by strong feelings of love and pity for his nation, as he himself explains in Acts 24: 17: 'Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.' This was hardly his proper calling, though the love which led to it always wrought powerfully in his heart, as we know from Gal. 2 and other scriptures.

But there was another reason which made his presence in Jerusalem critical for the apostle. His assigned province was toward the Gentiles (compare Gal. 2: 7-9); and certainly the Holy Spirit had through prophets given many warnings along the road of perils in this city. No man, no apostle even, is strong, save in dependence on the Lord, as he said himself, 'When I am weak, then am I strong.' For Christ's 'strength is made perfect in weakness.' And Paul above all could say, 'Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.' But it is instructive to see that Antioch proved a dangerous place for Peter as Jerusalem did for even Paul. The Lord wrought effectually in Peter, yet it was mainly and conspicuously for the apostleship of the circumcision. He also assuredly wrought by Paul with the Gentiles, if ever He wrought mightily by man on the earth.

But we anticipate. The arrival of Paul and his party in Jerusalem received a hearty welcome from the brethren. It would appear that James's house was the known place for any special gathering of elders at any rate; as we heard of a meeting for prayer at the house of Mary, mother of John Mark (Acts 12: 12). 'The following day accordingly Paul went in with us,' it is said, 'unto James'; and all the elders were present.' There must have been very many groups of Christian Jews in Jerusalem, where their numbers were now to be counted by thousands. Large buildings appropriated to the assembly were as yet, it would seem, unknown. The present occasion, however, was not for the meeting of the assembly, only the elders were present. They no doubt came from those many groups, and their meeting together as elders would powerfully contribute to keep up order and unity, without in the least degree superseding, while truth governed in a spirit of grace, the responsibility of the assembly. We can readily understand that James's house was a suited place for such to meet. The verse does not give us the impression of an assemblage on this occasion only, though it was very likely that the news of Paul coming and come might account for 'all the elders' being present at this time. There are constant wants which would call for the meeting of the elders ordinarily; but this occasion of course had the extraordinary element of Paul's presence.

'And when he had saluted them, he explained one by one the things which God wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.' There was perfect openness on his part. No effort to put prominently forward what God had wrought among the Jews or in the synagogues. He spread before them particularly what had been given him to do among the nations. Doubtless this was intended of the Lord to enlarge their hearts. They were accustomed in Jerusalem to see or hear but little of their Gentile brethren. The apostle put it forward carefully; and when they heard it they glorified 'God' — for this appears to be the true reading, rather than 'the Lord'.

The apostle could say, 'If any man preacheth any gospel other than this which we preach, let him be anathema' (Gal. 1: 9). A different gospel is not another. It is the abandonment of what Paul preached, or a human substitute for it. It may be questioned whether any other apostle could speak so absolutely. Paul preached what they preached, but one may fairly doubt that they preached all that Paul preached. If we bear in mind the special manner of his conversion and truth therein revealed, it helps us to understand this. He commenced with a Saviour in glory, and had the wondrous truth communicated to him from the first that Christ and the Christian are one: 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?' A saint now is also a member of Christ's body. This the others learnt; but the apostle Paul had it revealed to him from the starting point, and he was the Lord's special instrument for carrying it out in the world. It was not 'the gospel of God' only, rich as this expression is, but 'tine gospel of the glory of Christ'.

It was Christ, known no more after the flesh, but risen and glorified. Gentile darkness and Jewish law were left behind, and even promise was eclipsed by a brightness far beyond it. It was grace in its fullest exercise and highest splendour in the person of Christ, with Whom we are associated in the closest relationship — Christ is the Head over all things, but is also the Head given to the church which is His body. The church is not among the 'all things', but is united with Him Who is over all things, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. Hence the apostle preached the gospel of the glory of Christ as none other is reported to have done. This comes out very distinctly in 2 Cor. 3, 4, 5. Substantially it appears in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians; but there it is rather called the mystery of the gospel. 'This mystery is great,' says he, 'but I speak of Christ and of the church' (Eph. 5: 32). He being the exalted Head, she being His body and bride, the church is even now one with Him. For the church He gave Himself up, that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water by the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.

The glory of Christ on high is the answer to His humiliation below, whatever else may follow. Nor is there any witness to it so bright. Hence the apostle speaks of 'my gospel', and 'our gospel' where he names his companions along with himself. The gospel of the glory of Christ was given him to preach it in all its height of blessedness; and hence the danger of letting it slip, if even one that once knew it begins to preach grace at a lower level only, true as it may be. Nothing so completely lifts above the tradition and the thoughts of men.

Hence the danger even to the apostle himself when in Jerusalem. Another atmosphere was breathed there. It is not that they did not confess Jesus to be the Christ, and look for His kingdom and glory; but out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 'And they said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many myriads there are among the Jews of those that believe, and they are all zealous for the law. And they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all Jews that are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs' (vers. 20, 21). This witness was true as far as they themselves were concerned; but what they were informed about Paul was an exaggeration. Whatever his sense of Christian liberty, none was more tolerant of Jewish conscience, on the other hand, none more resolute to teach the Gentile believers that they had nothing to do with law, but with Christ dead and risen. What could Gentile believers have to do with circumcision or the other institutions and customs of Israel? For heaven, as in heaven, all this was unknown.

As the full grace of God preached by the apostle startled not a few of the saints in Jerusalem, a gloss was sought to prove that he was a good Jew notwithstanding. 'What is it therefore? They will certainly hear that thou art come. Do thou this that we say to thee: We have four men with a vow on them; these take and purify thyself with them, and be at charges over them, that they may shave their heads, and all shall know that there is no truth in the things whereof they have been informed concerning thee but that thou thyself also walkest orderly keeping the law' (vers. 22-24).

This was not strange advice for the Christians in Jerusalem to give, but it seems a descending path for the apostle Paul to follow. No one knew better than he to walk as dead with Christ and risen with Him, no one better than he to please the Lord without fear of the opinions of men, or even of his brethren. With him it was a very small thing to be examined of others or of himself. Had he looked to the Lord for His guidance now, perhaps he would have advised James and the rest to judge nothing before the time till the Lord come, Who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the heart, and then shall each have the praise from God (1 Cor. 4: 5). Indeed it is doubtful whether anything done as a witness to ourselves (and this seems the gist of James' counsels to Paul) is ever blessed of God or satisfies man. We shall see what the issue was in this instance.

In their past dealings with the Gentiles who believed (Acts 15: 22-29), the apostles and elders had acted with divine wisdom. So it is here added, 'But, as touching the Gentiles that believed we wrote [or, enjoined] giving judgment, that they should keep themselves from things sacrificed to idols and blood and things strangled and fornication' (ver. 25). These injunctions were clearly understood before the law was even given to Israel. It was not natural religion which ignored sin and the fall. For God man needs revelation; but in such things Christianity only confirms the broad principles God had laid down before Israel existed.

'Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them went into the temple, declaring the fulfilment of the days of the purification until the offering was offered for every one of them' (ver. 26).

The apostle yielded to his Jewish brethren. It was in no way a step which flowed from his own judgment before God; and we shall see that it was wholly in vain as far as the Jews were concerned. No doubt there was misunderstanding on their part; but we can scarcely say, whatever one's reverence for the apostles, that the light of the Lord shone upon the course that was then recommended or pursued. Their conduct might not be without failure in this or that particular; whilst their teaching, beyond all doubt in what was written in the Spirit for the permanent direction of the church, was perfectly guarded from the least error. 'We are of God' (said one of them): 'he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth us not. By this we know the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error' (1 John 4: 6). This is stringent, but it is the truth; and, if so, it is really grace to let all saints know that there is such a standard — not Christ's person only, but the apostolic word. If we truly confess Him, we shall surely hear them: if we refuse them, we do not really own Him Who sent and inspired them. If we reject Him and them, we are irretrievably lost, and guiltier than Jews or heathen, who had not such privileges. For the true light now shines. God is fully revealed in Christ, and the written word makes both known.

It was a singular sight: Paul purifying himself to show that he walked orderly and kept the law. He was evidently walking according to the thoughts of others, which no more glorifies God than it satisfies man. 'And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia when they saw him in the temple stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help. This is the man that teacheth all everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place. For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul brought into the temple.1 And the whole city was moved, and the people ran together, and they laid hold on Paul and dragged him out of the temple; and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they were seeking to kill him, tidings came up to the chief officer (chiliarch) of the cohort, that the whole of Jerusalem was in confusion, and immediately he took soldiers and centurions, and ran down upon them, and they, when they saw the chief officer and the soldiers, ceased beating Paul. Then the chief officer came near and laid hold on him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and inquired who he might be, and what he had done. And some shouted one thing, and some another, among the crowd. And when he could not know the certainty because of the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the castle (lit., camp). And when he came upon the steps, so it was that he was borne upon the soldiers, because of the violence of the crowd. For the multitude of the people followed after, crying out, Away with him' (vers. 27-36).

"Zelotes putantes saepe errant (Bengelius); 'Bigots often err in their suppositions'.

No more devoted servant of the Lord than Paul ever lived. This however did not hinder the effects of a mistaken position. He had departed from those to whom the Lord sent him, out of his excessive love for the ancient people of God. At the instance of others he had sought to conciliate them to the uttermost, but the effect in no way answered to the desire either of James or of Paul. Can we say that, in going up to Jerusalem there was such a following of Christ as he loved to commend to the saints? 'Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.' When the Lord went up for His last and fatal visit, how great the difference! He cast out all them that sat and bought in the temple, He overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and of them that sold doves; He healed the blind and lame that came to Him. There He confounded those that demanded His authority; He laid before the proudest of them their inferiority to the publicans and harlots whom they despised; He set out their past and present history in the Light of God, so that they could not but own the miserable destruction which impended over their wickedness, and the passing away of God's vineyard to other husbandmen, who should render to Him the fruits in their seasons. And whatever their enmity, they feared the multitude because they took Him for a prophet. And when the chief religious leaders came in succession to tempt Him, He silenced them Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians: and wound up the entire scene by the great test-question for the Jews, how David's son could be, as He incontestably is, David's Lord. It is a question which no Jew was able to answer then, any more than from that day to the present. Hence He could only pronounce woes upon their actual state, and on their proved ruin prophesy of the kingdom which He is Himself to bring in as the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Undoubtedly none the less was He rejected and crucified, but He was the faithful witness. There was not a shadow of a compromise: He said nothing, did nothing, seemed nothing, but the truth to the glory of God. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, the high priest of Israel having shown himself baser and more cruel than the most hardhearted heathen who condemned the Lord to be crucified.

Yet assuredly the apostle loved the Lord, and answered to His mind as no man did, even among the apostles; still he was a man; and human feeling in its most estimable shape betrays him into (I will not say a contrast with, but) a deflection from our Lord in Jerusalem. For Christ, whatever the depth of His humiliation, oh, what triumph hung on His decease which He accomplished there!

For Paul it was not death at Jerusalem, but the hatred which threw him into the hands of the Gentiles to be, as yet a prisoner only, not yet to die though ultimately what befell him among the Gentiles was his true glory, and there he suffered simply and solely a witness for the truth. He had his heart's desire, the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, becoming conformed unto His death.

'And as Paul was about to be brought into the castle, he said unto the chief officer, May I say something unto thee? He said, Dost thou know Greek? Thou art not then the Egyptian who before these days stirred up to sedition, and led out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the assassins (or Sicarii)? But Paul said, I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I beseech thee give me leave to speak unto the people. And when he had given him leave, Paul standing on the steps beckoned with his hand unto the people; and when there was great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying' (vers. 37 40).

Here again Paul takes very different ground from that which was his wont, he pleads his Jewish race to the commander. Elsewhere who so firm to hold to the grand truth that Christ is all? who more completely above any human distinction of plea in the service of the Lord? It was Paul the apostle indeed, yet not here in the Gentile province assigned him, but in Jerusalem, seeking to reconcile the irreconcilable. Is it too much to say that here there appeared to be the weakness of one who was strong by grace beyond all others on his own ground?

Acts 22

In the earlier part of this Book we had the history of the apostle's conversion in its historical order, bearing profoundly upon the progress of the gospel and the revelation of Christian truth. Here we have the account of it as a part of his defence before the people of Israel. It has therefore a specific object, marked by the use of the Hebrew language, which accounts for its other peculiarities. Discrepancy there is really none, any more than in other parts of scripture. The appearance of it is due solely to the difference of design, which here is most obvious, as it undeniably is later in the Book. In Acts 26 we have a short account modified by the fact that it was addressed to the king, Herod Agrippa the younger, as well as to the Roman governor. Whatever peculiarities have been observed, they are due to the same cause. The same principle in fact applies to the treatment of every object among men of intelligence. Scripture only adopts the same rule, but in a perfection to which men are unequal. Our place as believers is to learn by that which offends incredulity against all reason.

'Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence that I now make unto you (and when they heard that he spake to them in the Hebrew tongue, they were the more quiet, and he saith), I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, and brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to strictness of the law of the fathers, being zealous for God, even as all ye are to-day. And I persecuted this Way unto death, binding and delivering unto prisons both men and women, as also the high priest beareth me witness, and all the elderhood, from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and proceeded unto Damascus to bring those also that were there, bound to Jerusalem that they might be punished' (vers. 1-5).

There was a providential training in the apostle's case as in others, but strikingly manifest in him who was a Jew, not a Gentile proselyte. He was born in Tarsus, a renowned centre of letters and philosophy at that day. But he was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of the most celebrated Rabbi of his day. Yet if Gamaliel was learned and strict as an orthodox Pharisee, we have already had remarkable proof, quite apart from the apostle, of his singular moderation, when the Sadducees began to persecute the faith. It is not often erudite men are equally known for prudence, still less for the wisdom which brought in God, not formally, but with conscience; and God used it completely to turn away the council from their unbelieving and sanguinary thoughts (Acts 5: 34-40). At Gamaliel's feet was he brought up who was to be the Holy Ghost's witness to the grace of God in our Lord Jesus as no other man was since the world began.

His early training in Jerusalem would have conveyed no such presentiment to mortal eyes: he was instructed according to the strictness of the law of the fathers. If the Pharisees of Jerusalem were zealous beyond all others, he was yet more so; but in truth when faith came, he could all the better realize the complete change from law to grace. Those who never pierced below the surface of the one fail to appreciate the other; they are apt to mingle the two — the great bane of Christianity, whence law is no more law, and grace is no more grace.

Law is the demand of human righteousness. Grace has now revealed God's righteousness, and this only is what the apostle designates the righteousness which is of faith; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. It is not a question of man's effort, still less of his performance. He is not called to ascend to heaven any more than to descend into the abyss. It was Christ Who came down. even as Christ risen from the dead is gone up, and we become God's righteousness in Him. Salvation is wholly of Christ, it is what God loves to do — cannot but do consistently with His character in virtue of the work of Christ. 'The word, therefore, is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart', not the word that man prepares for God, but the word which God sends to be preached: 'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Rom. 10: 8-10). Thus has God indeed dealt, and can afford to deal, with sinners. It is His grace, but it is also His righteousness.

Now the more Saul when quickened studied the law, and entered into its righteous inexorable claims on man, the more were his eyes opened to the impossibility of salvation under law. It was weak through the flesh, and must be bondage, bitter hopelessness could only result when conscience became enlightened. For salvation is altogether a question for God Who, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Thus only could there be salvation. The law was able to do nothing but condemn the sinner. The gospel proclaims sin condemned, root and fruit, and the believer saved and set free to walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

It was exactly therefore such a zealot of law, who, when his heart was opened by grace, could to the full see and appreciate the deliverance of the gospel. The same principle applies even now, though there is no doubt an incalculable distance between the apostle and other saints howsoever blest in our day or any other. Still the men who most enjoy and are best fitted to set forth the gospel, are often those who, in the days of their ignorance were deeply attached to law and ordinances, which necessarily gender bondage where there is an exercised conscience.

And this must have told powerfully upon the Jews who weighed the apostle's address. The apostle had never been a careless light-hearted Israelite! as his training was most strict, so his personal zeal was thorough. Indeed he had given the fullest proof, for he persecuted this Way unto death. None like Saul of Tarsus, who was so active in binding and delivering into prisons both men and women! He was just a sample in the highest degree of those that have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Who therefore could speak like him from personal experience to men ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own? So much the more did he now subject himself to the righteousness of God.

Nor could the high priest himself ignore the fact, but rather bear witness, and all the elderhood too; for they are reminded that he also received letters to the brethren, i.e., the Jews elsewhere, and journeyed to Damascus to bring also those that were there to Jerusalem in bonds in order to be punished. He who was to go out to all the world with the gospel, could not of old rest in his legal zeal within the bounds of Jerusalem or Judea.

The apostle now recounts his own marvellous conversion; and as it was addressed to Jews, it is presented in a way suited to disarm their prejudices, if this were possible.

'And it came to pass, as I was journeying and drawing near to Damascus, that about midday there suddenly shone out of heaven a great light round about me, and I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And He said unto me, I am Jesus, the Nazarene, Whom thou persecutest. Now they that were with me beheld the light1 but did not hear the voice of Him that was speaking to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Rise up, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which it hath been appointed for thee to do' (vers. 6-10).

1 Text. Rec. adds on large authority of MSS. et al., καὶ ἒμφοβοι ἐγένετο, 'and they were affrighted', but ABH, several cursives, and the best Versions leave the words out.

Thus the intimation here is that it was 'about midday', still more precisely than we were told in Acts 9: 3. This makes the vision far more striking. It was not a trance, but an open fact. The light which shone round about him out of heaven transcended the sun at midday, in the presence of men who were travelling with him. Deception was impossible. As far as we know, he, and he only, was converted thereby. The voice addressed no. other at that time; and here it is particularly said that the rest heard not the voice of Him that was speaking to him. The same historian, who gives this as the distinct statement of the apostle, had himself told us that his fellow-travellers stood speechless hearing the voice but beholding no one. This to a casual reader looks like a discrepancy, but a reader must be careless indeed, or bent on evil, who does not perceive that the two statements are altogether in harmony beneath the surface. In Acts 9 we learn that his companions heard a sound, and no more; and in the present chapter2 we learn that he alone heard the voice of Him that spoke to him. To the others it was inarticulate; to him it was not only intelligible, but the turning point of a life beyond all others rich in testimony to His grace Who spoke to him.

2 In Acts 9 φωνή 'sound' or 'voice' is in the genitive, and merely partitive in Acts 22 it is the accusative which has the largest bearing on the object and is not partitive.

For the time was now fully come for a new step in God's ways. The heavenly glory of Christ was to be seen by a chosen witness called by Him in sovereign mercy from on high, the persecutor from the midst of his religiously rebellious career. It is grace no doubt in every case where the soul is brought from darkness into the marvellous light of God. But here all the truth shines with the utmost brilliancy. Stephen dosed his testimony with the sight of Jesus in the glory of God. Saul begins his testimony for Jesus with Him seen in the same glory. It reminds one somewhat of the two prophets of old, one of whom ended his course with being taken up to, heaven, whilst the other commenced it from that glorious sight which gave him thenceforth such a mighty impulse. It was none the less remarkable in the present case, because Saul had been privy to the death of Stephen, and had kept the clothes of the false witnesses who stoned him whose spirit went up to the Lord Whose glory he had just seen and testified.

And if a brief interval elapsed after Stephen's death, it was filled up by Saul still breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord. Nevertheless the light out of heaven suddenly shone out round about him now. Smitten to the earth, he heard the voice say to him, 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?' Embittered though he was with tradition and prejudice, he could not but ask with astonishment, 'Who art thou, Lord?' No man was ever more assured that he was rendering service to God in putting out of the synagogue, or even in killing, the disciples. He had a good conscience, according to the law, in the zeal that persecuted the church (Phil. 3: 6). As yet he knew neither the Father nor the Son. The True Light had never entered his soul. But now the light which shone round about him was but the harbinger of a better glory invisible to human eyes, 'the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ'. His companions saw the outward brightness, they did not behold that which none can see, unless they are, by the power of God, brought out of darkness into it.

To his amazement he learned that He Who spoke, Whom he could not but acknowledge to be the Lord of all, was the very Jesus Whom he was persecuting. For thus He was known in the persons of His own: Christ and the church are one. Immense discovery! and so much the more in circumstances so unparalleled. The erstwhile enemy, broken down and henceforth obedient to the heavenly vision, has Christ in glory, God's Son, revealed, not to him only, but in him. See Gal. 1: 16. He is life, and the Christian is one with Him. If it was true of the disciples whom he persecuted, it was no less true of their persecutor, now himself a disciple. 'He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.' When we see the Lord at His coming again, we shall be like Him, even in body changed into the same image. If we are being transformed now, even as by the Lord the Spirit, we shall be conformed then to the Lord and by the Lord; for we shall see Him as He is (2 Cor. 3: 18; 1 John 3: 3).

These great principles were all involved in the apostle's vision, though of course it is not meant that they were all unveiled to his spirit at the moment. But in due time no one knew better than he, nor so well; though these truths were thus conveyed, and in the most powerful way, in that great fact, incalculable in its bearing on the church, and even for the world. For who of all men ever made good a commission so unlimited as the apostle's? It was felt and acknowledged by the twelve that he was the apostle of the uncircumcision as truly as they of the circumcision. This in no way precluded their seeking the good of the Gentiles; still less did it hinder Paul from labours abundant among the Jews, as every place, we may say, testified where there were Jews. But it did not mark the characteristic breadth of his mission. He might seek to build up the church in entire and heavenly separation from the world; but it was his beyond any man to fulfil the word of his Master, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all the creation.'

What an appeal, too, his own account of his conversion was to the crowd of Jews that were then listening! None could deny the facts; the high priest could not but bear witness, all the elderhood of Israel in Jerusalem would have gladly contradicted if they could. The letters he received to his Jewish brethren could not be gainsaid, any more than his own bitter persecution of the Christian Way unto death, as well as prison. The companions of his journey to Damascus, why were they silent? If they heard not the words of Jesus, they were not deaf to the preternatural sound, and they did see the light above the brightness of the sun shine round about them all.

But all wonders fail to convert the heart to God. It is the voice of Christ that quickens the dead, and now is the hour for quickening souls; as by and by there will come another hour, when the voice of the Son shall summon from the grave those that have done good to a resurrection of life, and those that have done evil to a resurrection of judgment, which last act of Christ solemnly closes the history of this world. But sovereign grace is now awakening the souls that hear the word of the Lord; and as this was in the most extraordinary manner manifested to Saul of Tarsus, so was he called in the highest degree to be a minister of God's sovereign grace, and of Christ's heavenly glory. 'And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lords aid unto me, Rise up, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which it hath been appointed thee to do.'

Here again was a singular break with all the apostolic antecedents. The Lord commanded no return to Jerusalem. Saul must enter Damascus and there, not through a previous apostle, still less the apostolic college, but through a disciple set in no high position, learn what it had been appointed for him to do. So does grace reign: have we really learnt this?

We have already seen in commenting on Acts 9 what an important event took place that day: a distinct and fresh step in the ways of God for bringing out the church (already formed, it is true) into manifestation by his ministry who was then converted so extraordinarily that divines treat it as one of the standing and most striking evidences of the truth of Christianity.

Still all was not yet done even as regards Saul of Tarsus, the basis was laid, but no more. The blindness physically which had come upon him was to be taken away; and assuredly very much more light spiritually was yet to shine into his soul; but the principle that was to be fully developed in due time was already involved in the character of the word of the Lord to him. 'And as I could not see for the glory of the light, being led by the hand of those that were with me, I came into Damascus; and one Ananias, a pious man according to the law, borne witness to by all the Jews that dwelt there, came unto me, and standing by said to me, Brother Saul receive thy sight, and in the very hour I looked upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know His will and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from His mouth. For thou shalt be for Him to all men a witness of what thou hast seen and heard. And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and get baptized, and have thy sins washed away, calling on His1 name' (vers. 11-16).

1 So the most ancient MSS. and Versions, but HLP and most read τοῦ κυρίου 'of the Lord,' as in the Text. Rec.

As Paul was to be, beyond all others, a witness of Christ to the Gentiles so God took special care to remove from every fair upright man all suspicion of collusion on the part of any Jew. Outwardly the vision of glory was unmistakable before many witnesses. What passed between the Lord and His servant was necessarily confined to Saul alone of the company. But divine wisdom apprised Ananias of what had happened, independently of Saul and of every other on earth. We are not told here of his fasting for three days and nights, but the fact was patent that by the hand of those that were with him he had to be led into Damascus. That blindness furnished occasion for a fresh display of divine power. The channel of it was a simple disciple, yet was he a devout man according to the law, and well reported of by all the Jews that dwelt there. Unsought, he came; and standing by him who was blind he said, 'Brother Saul, receive thy sight', and the word was with power: Paul received his sight and looked upon him. In Acts 9 we hear of the vision that Saul had preparing for the visit of Ananias, as the same chapter lets us know that Ananias had a vision in which the Lord sent him, by no means willing, without delay to Saul. For it was well known at Damascus, as well as in Jerusalem, what a zealous persecutor of the church had been the learned Jew of Tarsus — now a man of prayer.

Here, again, we have the beautiful fruit of confidence in the word of the Lord. 'Brother Saul' — how refreshing it must have been to the heart of the converted zealot! The key to what is here stated, and to what is omitted, is the design: the apostle is recounting his conversion to the Jews. 'The God of our fathers' appears here alone. It was He, as Ananias said, and not another, Who had appointed him to know His will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice out of His mouth. It is much more than the simple fact that the Lord, even Jesus, had appeared to him in the way which he came.

Here we learn, too, that Ananias told the apostle before he was baptized that he should be a witness for Christ unto all men of what he had seen and heard. This ought to have prepared the Jews for the wide scope given to Paul's ministry. Would they have him resist the 'God of our fathers' and His known will? There were two witnesses, by whose mouth every word should be established. In Acts 9 his commission is named to Ananias by the Lord, but the historian does not there mention that this was repeated to the apostle. Here we learn that so it was, for he repeats it himself. Everything comes exactly in place and season.

In Acts 9 we are told that, when he received his sight, he arose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened, as well as the all-important fact that he was then and there filled with the Holy Ghost. There is no apostolic succession in this case assuredly. Ananias was but a disciple. God was acting extraordinarily in the case of Paul. Jewish order was quite set aside for the apostle of the Gentiles; yet none but the enemy of grace and truth could deny that he was an apostle, with a calling at least as high as the twelve, and called to a work incomparably more extensive and profound.

Here also we have the interesting fact of the terms in which Ananias called him to 'get baptized' or submit to baptism, on which a few words may be well, as to some there is no small difficulty. The reason of the departure from the Authorized Version, as well as the Revised, however slight, is an endeavour to express the force of the Middle Voice, as it is called, in Greek. This, however, is independent of the (to some) doctrinal difficulty in calling on the apostle to have his sins washed away in baptism. Why should this seem hard? It is what baptism always means, though indeed it means yet more, even death to sin, as the apostle himself treats it in Rom. 6: 3, 4. Baptism is the sign of salvation, as another apostle teaches, who carefully lets us know in the same context that the effectual work rests on Christ's death and resurrection (1 Peter 3: 21, 22). Without faith no doubt all is valueless before God; but, however precious may be that which faith receives through the word, the outward sign has its importance. So much is this so, that no one stands on the external ground of a Christian, who has not been baptized with water to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To refuse baptism is to despise the authority of the Lord, as unbelief slights His grace. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not, even if baptized, shall be damned (or, condemned).

The remarkable vision with which Paul first began was by no means the only one; we learn here of another on his return to Jerusalem. 2 Cor. 12: 1-4 speaks of them also in a more general way. But what happened in Jerusalem he himself now proceeds to tell in detail. 'And it came to pass that when I had returned to Jerusalem, and while I prayed in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw Him saying unto me, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning Me. And I said, Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believe on Thee; and when the blood of Stephen Thy witness was shed; I also was standing by and consenting,1 and keeping the garments of those that slew him. And He said unto me, Depart, for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word; and they lifted up their voices and said, Away with such [a fellow] from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live' (vers. 17-22).

1 The Text. Rec. adds with many MSS. et al. 'to his death,' evidently imported from Acts 8: 1, but the best copies (ABE) and versions do not sanction it.

The incident at Jerusalem is full of interest spiritually, because it communicates the perfect ease and intimacy in which scripture sets forth the relations of the servant with the Master. It would have been easy to have suppressed the account, if it had not been of standing moment and general value. The statement of it had the most distressing effect on the Jews who had listened till then. This excited their indignation to the highest. Nevertheless, as we see, the apostle brought it plainly out to vindicate the direction of his labours without limit as apostle to the Gentiles. We may be quite sure that naturally he had as great a reluctance to go at the word of the Lord on such an errand as the Jews had to hear about it. Traditionally the Jew was everything in the matter of religion; all this feeling and the ground of it was overthrown in the cross of Christ. How true, as the apostle wrote to the Corinthians in his Second Epistle (2 Cor. 5: 17), 'The old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God, Who reconciled us unto Himself by Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation'! The power of such a ministry is especially shown, not in abiding at Jerusalem, but in going out toward the Gentiles wherever they may be; for we are not Israelites, nor yet the lost sheep of that house. We are not the people, but rather in comparison 'dogs' according to the law. Now, however, all is changed. It is the gospel, and all things are become new. As the mission of our apostle is for heaven, so is his direction towards the Gentiles.

No wonder that he himself shrank even in the presence of the Lord; but so Paul is to learn in his trance at the temple of Jerusalem. 'Make haste,' said the Lord, 'and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, because they will not receive of thee testimony concerning Me.' This was very painful to the apostle's heart, others had tasted similar sorrow even before Christianity. Moses knew it in early days, though the stiffneckedness of the Jews then was as nothing compared with what it was proved at the cross. And afterwards Jeremiah and others of the prophets drank enough of this cup to feel the bitterness and grief. But Paul was as remarkable as Moses for the love of Israel, and tasted the bitterness of the Jew more perhaps than any of their prophets. In divine ways he was just the more suited to be sent as Christ's ambassador to the Gentiles. Had he loved Israel less, he had not been so fit for the new and heavenly mission. In everything it must be above nature to represent grace in any measure aright.

How little those that saw or knew of Paul evangelizing the Gentiles appreciated the feelings with which he had entered on the work! 'And I said, Lord, themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believe on Thee.' His heart yearned over Israel, his burning desire was to have laboured in their midst. When the Lord had told him to retire from Jerusalem, because the Jews would not receive of him testimony concerning Christ, he even pleads that he was just the man to go to Jerusalem, that they themselves knew how he had hated the Way, how he had imprisoned and beat in every synagogue the believers. Yea more, he summons up the most terrible tale of persecuting zeal as the crowning reason to be allowed to preach to the Jews, and as a reason why they must surely welcome him if no other preacher of the gospel. 'And when the blood of Stephen Thy witness was shed, I also was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of those that slew him.' It is evident that Paul used all this as standing him in good stead to labour among the Jews. But He that made the heart knew best, better far than Paul, and He said unto him, 'Depart; for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.'

The determining word was thus spoken: whatever might be Paul's feeling, he now learns the will of the Lord concerning his labours. It was not merely now, Get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, but 'I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.' No Israelite more fervently sought to commend the gospel to the Jews; no servant pleaded for it more earnestly with his Master. The freedom with which he appeals is a standing lesson to us of the liberty into which the gospel brings us. 'Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty' (2 Cor. 3: 17). But we should also learn that the gospel leaves no uncertainty for the path and the service. The true light shines. Christ is the way, as well as the truth and the life, and He is not more truly the way to the Father than in Paul's case toward the Gentiles. The gospel is heavenly light shining into the heart and on the path here below.

Early in this Book we had in Peter a beautiful instance of a conscience purged by blood (Acts 3: 13, 14). So complete was it that he could openly tax the Jews with denying the Holy One and the Just. Had he not been guilty of this very sin himself in a more direct way than any other? Yes; but this was now wholly blotted out through the blood which cleanseth from all sin; and so conscious was he that it was gone before God, that he could without a blush charge the Jews with the same sin, without a thought of himself save of infinite mercy towards him.

Similarly, in the verse we last had before us the apostle Paul is another instance, if possible more touching, and no less instructive. He says to the Lord in his desire to preach the gospel to them, 'They themselves know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue those that believed on Thee; and when the blood of Stephen, Thy witness, was shed, I also was standing by and consenting, and keeping the garments of those that slew him.' Not a trace of the guilt remains on his conscience. As Peter proved in preaching to others, so he, Paul, publicly states to the same people how he had spread it personally before the Lord as the ground on which he wished to be sent as a witness to his brethren after the flesh. But the Lord knew all perfectly. Paul was His chosen vessel, not for Jerusalem, but far hence unto the Gentiles. His conscience was perfectly purged; but the mind of the Lord alone is perfectly right and wise; and so here it was soon proved. 'They gave him audience unto this word, and they lifted up their voices and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live' (ver. 22).

Intimately familiar as the apostle was with the feelings of the Jews, he was at this time scarcely prepared for their implacable jealousy of the Gentiles. Yet was it what he himself was too conscious of in his unconverted days: the people were now where he was then. The change in him was so complete that he seems to have failed in realizing their condition. Christ was all to him. That they should so abhor the grace of God, rising above all man's sin, whether Jewish or Gentile, is indeed astonishing, and the clearest proof that man is lost. Hatred of grace is in no way mitigated by intelligence, learning, or religiousness. All these had united in Saul of Tarsus, and they might be found more or less in some of the Jews of Jerusalem. But the same pride of nature and abuse of God's promises which had led the nation to crucify the Messiah, hardened them now to reject and hate the gospel, above all the sending it to the Gentile no less than the Jew.

'And as they cried out and threw off their garments and cast dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the castle, directing that he should be examined by scourging, that he might know for what cause they had shouted thus against him. And when they had tied him up with the thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned? And when the centurion heard it he went to the commander and told him, saying, What art thou about to do? For this man is a Roman. And the commander came and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? And he said, Yes. And the commander answered, With a great sum I obtained this citizenship. And Paul said, But I am also [so] born. Then they that were about to examine immediately departed from him, and the commander also was afraid when he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him' (vers. 23-29).

The exasperation of the Jews is manifest in this striking scene. They were roused to the highest degree of feeling on behalf of their religion as they considered it. It is only the faith of Jesus which gives us to see things in God's light. Had they measured themselves by this standard, they must have been in the dust themselves, and owned that it was all over with them as a people. It was not only that they had failed in righteousness; they had rejected God come down among them in infinite love. Repentance, there fore, of the deepest kind alone became them. They would then have seen that it was not for a guilty people to judge of God's ways. They would have learnt how admirably suited was grace, now that they were ruined in the last trial that God could make: Jehovah rejected of old by His own people, the Son come in love rejected, the Holy Ghost with the gospel, all rejected. It is in vain to talk of law, or even promises, before the cross. Yet God is now free to save the lost who believe in Jesus whatever they may be.

Granted that the Jews had exceeding privileges and a distinctive covenant, but the Jew had been foremost in slaying Him in Whom all the promises centre, their securer and their crown. All relationship with God for man on the earth, and we may say for Israel especially, was broken and gone, but grace could shine from heaven, and call to heaven all who believe in Christ, and this is exactly what the gospel is now making good. There is a new head and a new calling; but all is in Christ above; and consequently earthly distinctions, as well as disabilities, are alike vanished away. If man universally, Jew or Gentile, is lost, the Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost. This, by the gospel, is effected for those who believe; and Paul's mission being both the highest and the widest, was pre-eminently to the Gentile world. It was for this heavenly and indiscriminate task he was really fitted when awakened to see his intensely Jewish zeal, now judged in the light, not only of the cross, but of the heavenly glory of Christ. He was the apostle of the uncircumcision. It was therefore a mistake to put himself forward specially before the Jews in Jerusalem, as before with the Lord in the vision.

But there is another element of interest in the passage. The commandant had given orders to examine the apostle by scourging, in order that the cause of the clamour against him might be found out. Paul has resort to a plea most natural, in order to escape pain and ignominy; for it was a serious breach of law that he, a Roman and uncondemned, should be tied up for scourging. Nothing can be calmer too than the manner in which he put it forward. There was no excitement, still less the smallest approach to the assertion of right, which was not unknown then, but has taken an extreme hold of men in our days. The centurion names it to the commander, who inquires and learns that, whilst he had bought his own citizenship, Paul was a Roman born. This, of course, put an end to all thought of torture, and the commander was afraid because he had bound him. But was it the accustomed height of Christian truth on which the apostle stood? Where do we find an approach to it in his Epistles? And where does heavenly and suffering grace shine as in these? Present oneness with Christ effaces all our natural conditions: Jew or Greek, Scythian or barbarian, bond or free, what matters it? Christ is all, as He is in all that are His.

It would appear that what excited the alarm of the commander and the centurion was the tying up Paul with the thongs. This was a great offence against a Roman citizen. 'Because he had bound him', I understand to be for this purpose, for in an ordinary way it appears that he was not absolutely loosed. 'But on the morrow desiring to know the certainty why he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him, and commanded the chief priests and all the council to come together, and brought Paul down and set [him] before them' (ver. 30). Whatever Jews might do or wish, the Roman law was equitable enough to insist, that an accused person should have his accusers face to face, and be allowed to answer for himself as to the charge laid against him. First, however, the commander sought to learn what the accusation was.

Acts 23

'And Paul, fixing his eyes on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by him to smite his mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God is about to smite thee, whited wall. And dost thou sit judging me according to the law, and breaking the law commandest me to be smitten? And those that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? And Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people' (vers. 1-5).

It is scarcely to be supposed that this was a regular assemblage of the Sanhedrim, it was done hurriedly to meet a crisis. A military commander had no authority so to assemble the religious chiefs of the Jews. This may serve to explain what ordinarily would seem scarcely intelligible. Paul appears not to have known that the high priest was present. Had he been in his official robes, this could scarcely be understood; especially as we are told that Paul looked steadfastly at the council. If it were an informal meeting, neither high priest nor other may have worn any distinctive raiment.

Ananias is quite distinct from Annas the high priest in the earlier days of which the Gospels treat; nor had he been so long appointed that Paul must have remembered him. He may have been a comparative stranger to the apostle, especially in his official capacity. But, what is of more importance to remark, the apostle's testimony was that he had lived before God in all good conscience unto this day: not a word about Christ or the gospel. It was thoroughly true. Even of his unconverted days we know that he could say, 'Touching law, a Pharisee; . . . touching righteousness that is in law, found blameless' (Phil. 3: 5, 6). Of this he thinks and speaks as he confronted the council. Surely it was not according to this new calling and that which was his life now. For Christ was all to him. He was thinking of the Jews, he declared what seemed thoroughly calculated to meet their thoughts. But it utterly failed, and the high priest Ananias commanded those that stood by to smite him on the mouth. This was an injurious insult, perpetrated by the judge, and in the teeth of the law. But it is not surprising that the apostle's words provoked the high priest, and none the less, because he was as far as possible from the conscientiousness of a Gamaliel.

But the apostle resented the contumely and reproved it severely. 'God will smite thee, whited wall.' In every respect this was true. Ananias was no more than a hypocritical evil-doer. Our Lord had made an allusion in Matt. 23: 27 which will help us to understand this; and it appears that God did smite the hypocrite not long after.

As high priest he was sitting to judge Paul after the law, and there contrary to the law he commanded him to be smitten; but did Paul rise in his quick rebuke to the height of grace any more than of truth? The apostle is thoroughly righteous, but he descends rather to the same ground on which they stood; he had spoken with warmth however truly, so that the bystanders could say, 'Revilest thou God's high priest? And Paul said, I did not know, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.'

The apostle hastens to acknowledge the error, as far as it was such, whatever might be the unworthiness of the conduct and of the language that occasioned it. Still Ananias was high priest that day. This Paul owns. He ought not to have spoken so of one in that position. The word is plain, 'Thou shalt not speak evil of a ruler of thy people.' Overruled of God and prophetic, was it Christ-like? Was it not rather the immediate resentment of a righteous man at an unrighteous deed? He at once apologizes, when he learnt the official state of the judge however unjust. 'I did not know' . . . But God loves to guide those who are kept immediately dependent on Him, even when they know nothing of the circumstances.

The apostle throughout scarcely seems to be breathing his ordinary spiritual atmosphere. This comes out still more plainly in what follows. 'But when Paul perceived that the one part were of Sadducees and the other of Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees1; concerning the hope and resurrection of [the] dead I am judged' (ver. 6). Here the root of the matter appears. The apostle avails himself of a rent between the two great parties of the Jews, to take the ground which would enlist the more orthodox and God-fearing in his favour. 'I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees,' he cried. Was this again according to the height of the truth he preached and loved? It was incontestably true; but was it Christ all in all? Was it not rather a prudent appeal sure to split up the crowd before him for himself to fall back on a ground altogether lower than his wont?

1 Such is the reading of the most ancient MSS. with the Vulgate and Pesch. Syr.

Nevertheless there was truth and important truth before all here. 'I am judged concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead.' This thoroughly falls in with the Book of the Acts. Luke begins here as his Gospel ends with the resurrection and ascension, and gives full scope to the testimony of the risen Lord throughout. The apostle everywhere consistently urges the hope and resurrection of the dead. It was bound up with Christ, the Son of man; but he does not directly introduce the full truth of His person any more than he puts forward at this time the resurrection 'from' the dead. The resurrection 'of' the dead is a great and needed truth notwithstanding; and to this, not the Sadducees who now were in power, but the Pharisees in their way held firmly.

The apostle knew resurrection in an incomparably larger measure. To him it was inseparable from the glorified Christ, the Head of the church Who really was his life and his testimony; and for this he endured habitual rejection and suffering. But in Jerusalem the apostle is not found in the same power as elsewhere. The spirit of the place had its influence; in all this business we find him by no means according to that heavenly light which so shines throughout his accustomed orbit.

The high priest Ananias was too truly a representative of the people as a whole. They were no better than a whited wall; and they too in due time afterwards fell under the smiting of God. The apostle turns to the audience as we saw, when he perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, and cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees, touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am judged. 'And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but Pharisees confess them both. And there arose a great clamour, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees' part stood up and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man; and [what] if a spirit spoke to him, or an angel?' (vers. 7-9).

We have seen all through the Acts of the Apostles that the Sadducees were as prominent in opposition after the resurrection of Christ and the descent of the Spirit, as the Pharisees had been while the Lord was on earth. There seems a certain fitness in this. The Righteous One was intolerable to the earthly-minded champions of human righteousness, ever found wanting when weighed in God's balances. When He rose from the dead, the Sadducees were naturally roused to action, more especially as at the time they were in outward power. The high priests successively seem to have been of that party. The resurrection of Jesus was a death blow to their system, as it is to infidelity at all times. For it is God's intervention in power whilst the world goes on as it is, the pledge that the risen One will come and judge it, for He it is Who is of God ordained Judge of quick and dead. Resurrection is the sole and final condition of man which answers to the counsels of God, and which will manifest His glory.

Paul, therefore, perceiving that if one part of his audience were Sadducees, the other were Pharisees, avails himself of the truth held by the Pharisees, which ought to have lifted all above personalities and prejudices. In all cases grace loves to do so, even as flesh finds its wretched pleasure in continual strife and self-seeking. Here too it was of moment to press resurrection as a conditional truth of Christianity, resurrection being not merely at the end but before the end comes. Not that the apostle here refers to resurrection as specifically from the dead; he is content to speak of that which every God-fearing Jew acknowledged — the hope and resurrection of the dead, which was certainly not for judgment of the wicked. Resurrection was not disputed but held from the beginning. Old Testament saints waited for it, not merely Israelites but those who were outside like Job, as may be seen in Job 19: 25-27, when the Redeemer stands on earth at the latter day. Christ personally becomes, as every believer in Christ knows, the seal of the truth of resurrection, for in His case it is not only the dead man raised but raised from among the dead, and so it will be for those raised at His coming.

No Pharisee doubted the resurrection of the dead. Paul was not only a Pharisee but a son of Pharisees, a stronger expression than that which obtains in the Received Text or the Authorized Version. He belonged to a family of Pharisees, who rejected free-thinking and held to the common faith of God's people.

The effect was immediate. There arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. No doubt the apostle was not here preaching the gospel nor rendering that testimony to which his heart turned habitually. Christ resorted to no such measures when He was being judged; but it was surely righteous in itself if not according to the height of grace in Christ. Yet it was the means of no deliverance to Paul, on the contrary his adversaries were divided, but power was on the side of those who felt the blow struck at their infidelity. 'For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but Pharisees confess them both.'

The Sadducees were the sceptics of that day and of the lowest kind; they were blinded by materialism, the poisonous error which is now prevailing everywhere throughout Christendom. How solemn that the worst unbelief of Judaism should now pervade an immense part of the baptized in Christendom! Catholic or Protestant, high church or low, or dissent makes little difference. The great expansion of experimental science has in past days fed this distemper far beyond the effect of pure or mixed sciences. Even the discoveries which have added so much to personal ease and selfish enjoyment, all tend to help it on. Man in his present life becomes everything: God is excluded, not to say denied, because He is unseen.

The resurrection of the dead, and yet more from the dead, is the grand weapon of faith against prevailing error and in favour of souls in danger of destruction. The God Who raised up Jesus from the dead is sending remission of sins through His name. To Him give all the prophets witness (how much more the gospel!), that everyone who believes on Him shall receive both the forgiveness he needs, and the life in Christ without which there can be no living to God. This alone is the true deliverance from Sadduceeism then, or from that which is akin at the present time.

'And when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul should be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them and bring [him] into the castle. And the night following the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer,1 for as thou hast fully testified concerning Me at Jerusalem so also must thou testify at Rome' (vers. 10, 11).

1 'Paul' is not in the best authorities.

The Gentile in chief command was not used to the gusts of violence that blew among the Jews when a question of religious difference sprung up and roused them. At this time indeed religious indifference prevailed excessively among the heathen. It was not so among the Jews, though their modal condition was wretched in the extreme. The chiliarch, therefore, being alarmed at the agitation, had Paul removed from the midst of men who seemed excited enough to tear him in pieces.

It was a time when the apostle might have been much tried. He had appealed to orthodox feeling against the Sadducean unbelief that sought his destruction, but he was a prisoner still, though safely guarded by Roman soldiers. It was not the happiest position for one who valued nothing but Christ. So much the more gracious was that which we last read, 'And the following night the Lord stood by him and said, Be of good cheer, for as thou didst fully testify the things about Me at Jerusalem, so must thou also testify at Rome.' Truly the Lord is good: not a word of blame, nothing but assurance of help, and this by so remarkable a manifestation at the very time when discouragement would have been natural. The apostle's visit to Jerusalem had not resulted in the least as he himself desired. He might have regarded it as only a failure. The Lord noticed nothing but his faithful testimony; and He adds that so he must testify at Rome also

This was evidently then the corrected and proper scope of Paul's allotted sphere: Jerusalem was outside it. For Peter had been entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision, as Paul was, beyond all controversy, with that of the uncircumcision, under which came Rome as the then metropolis of the world. Thither the apostle was to go, not free but in bonds, a prisoner, as suited the Lord, whilst it was a part of His moral government because he would go to Jerusalem. The greatest representative of the gospel was to enter Rome in a chain!

Has the gospel ever been otherwise at Rome? It is not that God had not work there already done. Many souls there were before this, calling on the name of the Lord, both Jews and Gentiles, as the Epistle to the Romans lets us see, but the great witness of the gospel was to enter Rome as a prisoner. If released afterwards, he returned, a prisoner again, to die at Rome for Christ. It was indeed a solemn type, as foreshadowing what Rome would ever prove to the gospel of God.

'And when it was day the Jews, having made a combination, put themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And those that made the conspiracy were more than forty, who therefore (οἵτινες) came to the chief priests and the elders, and said, We have put ourselves under a great curse,1 to taste nothing until we have killed Paul. Now therefore do ye, with the council, signify to the commander that he bring him down unto you,2 as though ye would judge his cause more exactly. But we, before he come near, are ready to slay him' (vers. 12-15).

1 'We have cursed ourselves with a curse' it is literally; which may be correctly rendered, 'a great curse'.

2 'Tomorrow', though read by HLP and most, is not in the oldest witnesses, but implied of course in the story.

It is sorrowful to read the dark conspiracy of the Jews at this time. They were no better than the heathen, but rather worse as knowing better. So it ever is where light shines in measure without grace; it becomes deeper darkness. Deceit and violence characterized them, especially where the gospel was concerned, and none was so identified with it as Paul. God's word in the Law and the Psalms and the Prophets was too truly verified in their case. Their feet were swift to shed blood, and with their tongues they used deceit. They did not know the way of peace, but hated most him who preached and lived it. Alas! there was no fear of God before their eyes. And it is evident that the ecclesiastical chiefs were quite as much implicated as the blood-thirsty rabble, the prey of crafty leaders who taught that religion sanctifies murder (John 16: 2). It is therefore said to be 'the Jews' not merely 'some of the Jews', as in the softened words of the Received Text. Accordingly, when the conspirators told the religious leaders their plot to murder Paul on his way to the council, not a word of remonstrance or horror! The chief priests and the elders were really therefore the more guilty. Dr. Hackett and others cite from Philo a passage which remarkably illustrates such conduct as a principle calmly laid down without the smallest sense of its atrocity. Now Philo was a contemporary Jew of Alexandria.

But God knows how to defeat wicked efforts against His servants. As He had comforted Paul's heart privately, so now He wrought providentially and, singular to say, through a relative of Paul himself who was there. 'But Paul's sister's son heard of the ambush, and having come and entered into the castle, he reported it to Paul. And Paul called to [him] one of the centurions and said, Bring this young man to the commander, for he hath something to report to him. He therefore took and brought him to the commander, and saith, The prisoner Paul called me to [him] and asked me to bring this young man to thee, as he hath something to say to thee. And the commander took him by the hand, and going aside privately asked, What is that which you have to report to me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to ask thee to bring down Paul to-morrow into the council, as though they would inquire somewhat more exactly concerning him. Do not thou therefore yield to them; for there lie in ambush for him more than forty men of them, who put themselves under a curse neither to eat nor to drink till they have slain him, and now they are ready, looking for the1 promise from thee. So the commander let the young man go, charging him, Tell no man that thou didst show these things unto me' (vers. 16-22).

1 Not 'a', but what they counted on already.

Whatever may have been the haste of Lysias at first, he appears to have waked up thoroughly to his duty on behalf of the prisoner against his relentless enemies, and to have sought at last to make up in kindness for the wrong then done.

It is instructive also to observe how far the apostle was from fanaticism in his proceedings. For, although the Lord had miraculously guaranteed his preservation that he might have the desire of his heart in bearing witness of Christ in Rome, he did not count it beneath him to advertise the military chief of the plot against his life. Confidence in the word of God does not despise or dispense with legitimate means. Perhaps men are not wanting who flatter themselves that they may be more faithful or spiritual than he.

The commander was prompt in action, as we have seen him considerate with Paul's young kinsman. 'And he called unto him some two of the centurions and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers, that they may go as far as Caesarea, and seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen,1 at the third hour of the night. And [he bade them] provide beasts that they might set Paul on and bring [him] safe through unto Felix the governor, having written a letter in this form: Claudius Lysias to the most excellent governor Felix, greeting. This man when seized by the Jews and about to be slain by them, I coming up with the soldiery rescued, having learnt that he was a Roman. And wishing to know thoroughly the cause for which they accused him, I brought [him] down unto their council, whom I found to be accused about questions of their law, but to have no charge laid worthy of death or bonds. And when it was shown to me that a plot would be against the man, I forthwith sent [him] unto thee, charging his accusers also to speak against him before thee. [Farewell]' (vers. 23-30).

1 'Spearmen' is rather a guess for δεξιολάβους, which has been variously but not yet satisfactorily explained. Meyer cites Const. Porphyrog. who distinguishes the δεξιολάβους from bowmen and targeteers. Grasping the weapon with the right hand is not very distinctive.

How the letter became known to the Evangelist we cannot say; but there it is with every mark of genuineness, and so much the more, because we can readily see that the commander was not scrupulous as to truth, and sought to commend his own zeal and services to the governor. God is not straitened as to means, knowing all without means, and ever and anon communicating what is good for us to know as He sees fit. The commander in fact only learnt that Paul was a Roman after he had caused him to be tied up for scourging, a serious infraction of the law as against a citizen. But it is quite natural that he, a heathen, should do what he could to hide his past fault by professing zeal exactly where he had failed. Little did he anticipate that a letter meant only for the eyes of Felix was to stand on the indelible page of Holy Writ with the falsehood rendered evident by the history without a word of comment, as is the manner of Scripture. Nor was there the smallest wish in the blessed prisoner to expose the wrong. But God would give us to learn thereby what man is, and what God is, confiding in His care in abhorrence of evil and cleaving to good.

The immense guard provided for the safe conduct of a prisoner, confessedly not guilty of punishment, proved the commander's estimate of Jewish perfidy and violence; and this on the night when his information of their plot was received. How sad to see vindictiveness and deceit in the Jews abhorred and thwarted by heathen resoluteness to stand by earthly righteousness and order' Truly the foundations were out of course: not that the Romans were not evil, but that God's people, the Jews, were yet more deplorably bad.

Nor was Felix, the procurator of Judea, ignorant of their moral state, though himself a man of more than usually mean, cruel, and abandoned character. Not only was he married to a Jewish wife, but he seems to have been a joint-governor for years before his promotion to the sole dignity, though herein Tacitus and Josephus clash not a little. During his office he had ample experience of insurrection and of intrigue, of bloodshed and of plots, in dealing with which his servile origin gave only, as is usual, a haughtier tone and stronger impulse to his ruthless policy. Still he easily understood on what slender grounds the Jews might pursue to death an object of their unrelenting animosity. A Roman governor too was not to be less firm in upholding Roman law in the presence of Jews who boasted of a divine revelation. All this God's providence used in favour of His servant. The notion that so large a retinue was intended as a special honour of Christ's minister is a blunder, from not seeing that the true glory of the Christian is in his conformity to Christ's cross.

'The soldiers therefore, as it was commanded them, took up Paul and brought [him] by night unto Antipatris. But on the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him and returned to the castle; and they, when they entered into Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, presented Paul also to him. And when he had read [it] and asked of what province he was, and understood that he was of Cilicia, I will hear thee fully, said he, when thine accusers also are arrived. And he commanded him to be kept in Herod's praetorium' (vers. 31-35).

The description is vivid, as we ordinarily find in the narrative of Luke. Kefr-Saba was the ancient name of the city whence the foot-soldiers returned, as all danger of ambush or pursuit was then past. When Herod rebuilt it, he called the new city Antipatris, in honour of his father. It was some twenty-six miles from Caesarea, but considerably more from Jerusalem, even by the direct route through Gophna, discovered by Dr. Eli Smith, with many a mark of Roman use. The Jerusalem Itinerary makes the distance of Caesarea from Jerusalem sixty-eight miles, but this was the more circuitous route by Bethhoron and Lydda. Nowhere did Herod lavish such effort to render a city magnificent. It is now an utter ruin. There the apostle remained a prisoner for years before he was sent on to Rome. But of this we are to hear more in the history that follows.

Acts 24

Religious rancour is prompt and indefatigable. Disappointed of its prey by lawless violence, it loses no time in availing itself of legal processes, where unscrupulous abuse may succeed, even if the judge were not venal but only disposed, like human nature in general, to take the popular side against the righteous and godly.

'And after five days came down the high priest Ananias with certain1 elders and an orator, one Tertullus, and they [the which] laid an information before the governor against Paul. And when he was called, Tertullus began to accuse, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great peace, and by thy providence reforms2 are made for this nation, we accept [it] every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But that I be not further tedious to thee, I entreat thee to hear us briefly in thy clemency. For we found this man a pest, and moving imsurrections3 among all the Jews throughout the world [inhabited earth], and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes, who also attempted to profane the temple; whom we also seized (and would have judged according to our law. But Lysias the commander [or chiliarch] came and with great violence took [him] away from our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee); from whom thou wilt be able, by examining, thyself to take knowledge of all these things of which we accuse him. And the Jews joined in the attack, asserting that these things were so' (vers. 1-9).

1 τινῶν ABE, et al.

2 διορθωμάτων the more ancient reading, rather than κατορθωμάτων as in the Text. Rec.

3 The plural form is best attested, though Dean Alford will have it to be a correction.

The importance attached to the trial is evident from the going down of the high priest so great a distance and with so little delay, though we may well receive the more ancient witnesses which speak only of certain elders, instead of the Sanhedrim as a whole as in the Received Text. But the more modern copies in this case present without doubt the more difficult reading. Had the authorities been reversed, the critics would probably have regarded τινῶν as a softened correction of τῶν.

The orator from his name (a diminutive of Tertius like many others so formed in Latin) seems to have been one of the young Romans or Italians found wherever there was a court of justice in the provinces, and the Jews in all probability employed him as being versed in the methods of procedure before the governor. Certainly his opening is as servile as his statement is false and scurrilous. The flattery of Felix is in flagrant contrast with the grave censure of the historian Tacitus (Annales xii. 54, Historia v. 9, as naturally referred to), while there was enough in the vigorous putting down of plotters and rebels to give some semblance of reason. What the alleged ameliorations or good measures were does not appear. Josephus does not differ from the Romans in an evil report of Felix, who only escaped condemnation for his misgovernment in Syria through the influence of his brother Pallas with Nero.

'Providence' is given here, rather than 'forethought', as it was apparently borrowed from the application of the more high-sounding term, common on the imperial coins, as Eckhel shows in his 'Doctrina Vet. Num.' passim.

Having thus and yet more grossly sought to conciliate the governor, Tertullus after verse 4 turns to the calumniating of Paul. He represents the apostle not merely by the vague but most injurious appellation of a pest or pestilent fellow, but more definitely as moving seditions among all the Jews throughout the world, notoriously open to such mischievous excitement beyond all others through their untoward circumstances as well as their presence everywhere since their dispersion. Next, he taxes Paul as an heresiarch, or rather sectarian chief, employing (here only in the New Testament) against the Christians that name of contempt which they fixed on their Master — 'a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.' Lastly, he renews the old accusation of profaning the temple: the unfounded rumour which had originally set on the Jews to slay Paul in Jerusalem.

The bracketed passage in verses 6-8 may be questioned fairly. It is omitted by the witnesses of chief value, and consequently is not received by the Editors, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, nor by Mill and Bengel before them. Alford writes undecidedly. Undoubtedly the variations are great in the manuscripts which have the substance. De Wette represents a class of men usually bold: but here it is admitted that it is hardly to be supposed that Tertullus should have said so little, or that Luke should have omitted if he said more; and again it is plain that to stop at the seizure of Paul by the Jews, without explaining how he got rid of them and came into the custody of Lysias before being taken to Caesarea, leaves the speech remarkably abrupt. But Alford sees in verse 22 a strong argument for the genuineness of the words in debate, because γαῤ οὗ, if the words be inserted, refer, naturally to Lysias, and we find Felix there putting off the final hearing and decision till the arrival of Lysias. If the words are not genuine, γαῤ οὗ would rather refer to Paul which the Dean considers unlikely. Others on the contrary allow that at an anacrisis, or first hearing, this is quite correct, and altogether independent of torture, which in the case of a Roman was of course illegal. More might be added in evidence of the uncertainty which hangs over the bracketed words; but it seems unedifying to say more, if one cannot adduce proof enough to clear up the question either way. Abridgment is at least a rare fault in the copyists, who were more prone to venture on insertions in order to ease the sense when it seemed obscure.

It is sad to see how contemptible the Jewish party, high priest and elders. made themselves, even in Roman eyes, through spite against the gospel (ver 9). There they all were not only assenting to the base servility and downright falsehood of Tertullus (indeed they had instructed him), but now they joined in his attack against all truth and justice. And so the Lord had forewarned His followers. 'Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for My name's sake; because they know not Him that sent Me' (John 15: 20, 21). Yes, there is the secret. The people who claimed to be His witnesses, and were so responsibly knew Him not, and proved it by rejecting Him Who is the image of the invisible God, the true and faithful Witness, His only and beloved Son. Hence their enmity against a servant of His, who made their consciences feel the truth they could not overthrow and would not believe or confess. Deadly hatred ensues: the way of Cain against the accepted and righteous Abel, which stops not short of death. Therefore the Lord went on to say in John 16: 2, 3, 'They shall put you out of the synagogues, yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor me.

It has been not otherwise in Christendom, and from the same source. Men have gone back to Jewish elements (now no better than Gentile idols as the apostle tells us in Gal. 4: 1-9), and lost all true knowledge of the Father and the Son, as well as of every gospel privilege and blessing. This has ever led to enmity against those who abide in the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ. For man is at bottom the same everywhere and at all times. But far be it from the Christian to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to him, and he unto the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God (Gal. 6: 14-16).

The defence of the apostle is characterized by straightforward truth and courteous dignity, as the accusation had been by servility to the governor and abuse of the accused. It is noticed, on the one hand, as the Jews joined in their venal advocate's assault, affirming that his falsehoods were fact (ver. 9), that, on the other (ver. 10), there was no haste to reply till the governor gave the sign to that effect.

'And when the governor beckoned him to speak, Paul answered, Knowing that since many years thou art judge to this nation, I 1 cheerfully make my defence: as thou canst ascertain2 that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship at Jerusalem; and neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with anyone or making a tumult of a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor throughout the city. Neither can they prove to thee3 the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to thee, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I serve the God of the fathers believing all things that are according to the law and that are written in the prophets, having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that a resurrection4 is to be of both just and unjust. Herein also do I exercise myself to have a conscience without offence toward God and men continually. Now after several years I arrived to bring alms unto-my nation and offerings; in which they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult but5 certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had aught against me. Or let these themselves say what6 wrong they found in me when I stood before the council [other] than for this one voice that I cried out standing among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you' (vers. 10-21).

1 'The more' is not sustained by the best copies (ABE, et al.).

2 'To know fully', 'recognize', or 'ascertain', is the preferable reading (ABE, et al.).

3 'To thee' is omitted wrongly in the Text. Rec.

4 The best MSS. (ABC et al.) omit νεκρῶν 'of dead'.

5 'But' is in verse 18 read by the better authorities, as in verse 16 it should be omitted.

6 'What', not 'if', is right.

The length of time that Felix had passed in official relation to the Jews was a plain matter of fact, of which the apostle justly availed himself. Their feeling, habits, and prejudices were thus necessarily more familiar than to a new procurator. On this circumstance the apostle grounds his cheerfulness in making his plea. Flattery is wholly absent.

As to himself, it was so brief a space since he went up to Jerusalem that his course there could easily be traced. And when he did go — but twelve days before, it was 'to worship', the very reverse of moving sedition or other pestilent conduct, least of all to profane the temple. On the contrary he brought 'alms to his nation, and offerings'. Could anything be more opposed, either to riot, or to profanation? He was at liberty to discourse if he had judged meet, but in point of fact 'neither in the temple did they find me discoursing with any one, or making a tumult of a crowd', common as this was in a people so zealous and so excitable, 'nor in the synagogues', numerous as they were, 'nor throughout the city'. What could be less like an agitator? 'Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me.' More than this distinct challenge, or at best denial, of the vague and general calumny the apostle does not allege. The facts stated, of which the evidence was easy and ample, refuted the talk of Tertullus.

But far from denying what was said of 'the sect' (ver. 5), he avows it openly. 'But this I confess to thee, that according to the Way which they call sect, so I serve the [or, our] fathers' God.' This was of moment for the governor. Tolerant as the Romans were toward the religious convictions of the nations they ruled, they were stern in disallowing innovations, especially such as tended to stir up civil discord. The apostle accordingly prefers here, as on two other occasions not quite similar, to depart from the usual phrase, and says πατρώῶ θεῳ rather than τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν as K�¼hn�¶l and others have noticed. As the heathen, without God themselves, called the Christians godless or Atheists, because they had no idols, so the Jews called the church 'a sect'. Yet was it the only institution on earth that could not be a sect while true to Christ. The apostle goes farther however, and confesses his faith in all things according to the law and in the things written in the prophets. There is no hesitation in declaring boldly his faith in all the ancient oracles before the high priest and the Sadducean party, who notoriously slighted the prophets, as they had no real reverence for the law. If any Pharisees were in alliance with them as 'elders' of Israel, what a position in confederating with infidels against a more thorough believer than themselves!

Further, there is nothing left indistinct here. For the apostle adds, 'having hope toward God, which they themselves also look for, that a resurrection is to be of both just and unjust.' This could hardly have been said if there had not been then present Pharisees who confessed the resurrection of the dead. They must therefore have made up their difference with the heterodox Sadducees in their eagerness to put down and punish Paul. The tendency among the Jews seems to have been to regard resurrection as the privilege of the righteous simply, which would be sure to degenerate into the reward of Israel in the kingdom of Messiah. But the apostle, guided of the Holy Spirit, shows its universal character 'of both just and unjust'.

So this was to be inferred even from a book so ancient as that of Job, which was of the deeper interest in this respect as evidence of the faith of Gentile believers before the law. Yet it is certain that in Job 14: 12 Job speaks of man's resurrection (i.e., of man, as such) when the heavens are no more and eternity begins, contradistinguished from the rising of the righteous like himself, to enjoy their hope when the Kinsman-Redeemer shall stand on the earth, which is clearly for the kingdom. Naturally the resurrection of the just, the resurrection from among the dead, the better resurrection, and other kindred phrases, are more frequent as a cheer and incentive to saints in present suffering; but John 5: 28, 29, and Rev. 20: 4-6, 12, 13, give doctrinally and prophetically the twofold resurrection, severed by a thousand years, to which Paul here alludes as that which had roused so much feeling on the part of his Sadducean adversaries.

Nor this only, for he lets them know by the way that on himself the hope of resurrection was most influential practically. 'In this [Therefore, or Accordingly] I also exercise myself to have a conscience without offence toward God and men continually.' Here not only were the Jews, but Christians for the most part are, weak indeed, rising in faith but little beyond thoughtful heathen who reason on the immortality of the soul. No doubt the God-inbreathed soul, the inner man, is immortal; but as this is no security against sin, so neither does it involve immunity from judgment. Indeed it is rather the ground why sinful man, alone of beings on the earth, has moral responsibility, from which he cannot disengage himself; for, if he refuse life eternal in the Son, he must be judged by Him at the last, as Scripture abundantly testifies. The believer of course needs no such awful measure to vindicate the rights of Christ, but, what is far better, honours Him now in the day that follows His cross, honours Him not by that tremendous and irresistible constraint, but with a ready mind as the One Who for him died and rose that he might live no longer to himself but to Christ.

People may reason, as alas! not a few in Christendom have not been ashamed to do, that the blessing of the soul is of a more spiritual nature and that any hope associated with the resurrection of the body is external. But they are beguiled of the enemy in thus preferring their own thoughts to God's word which insists on the fullest blessing for the soul now, even salvation in the richest way, but on resurrection or change at Christ's coming as our proper hope. Then only shall we be like Him when the body of humiliation is conformed to the body of His glory. It is this hope which gives power in the Spirit to mortify our members on the earth, instead of indulging the common dream of present ease and honour here before the soul goes to heaven for its glory. Never does Scripture so speak It does declare the superior blessedness of departing to be with Christ, as compared with remaining here. But it never stops short of Christ's coming for our everlasting and glorious change as the true hope which purifies us meanwhile on the earth.

The apostle next states that after a lapse of several years he arrived bringing alms to his nation, and offerings. Was this the action of a seditious pestilent man? 'In which [business of the offerings] they found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor yet with tumult.' Was this again profaning the temple? 'But certain Jews from Asia' — they were the true culprits in the matter. It was they whose guilty rashness imputed the false charge. For the four men under the vow were not Greeks, but Jews; and with these only was Paul associated in the temple at the instance of James. Why were these Asiatic Jews not here face to face, as Roman law required? 'Who ought,' as the apostle here quietly adds, 'to have been present before thee, and to have accused, if they had anything against me. Or let these themselves (the Jews then present) say what wrong they found in me when I stood before the council, [other] than for this one voice which I cried out among them, Touching the resurrection of [the] dead I am judged this day before you.'

It was irrefragably and solely the Jews themselves who made the riot (stirred up by the blunder about those brethren from Asia), who were not there to be convicted that day, as Felix could not but see. Even though the witnesses were not present, those actually there were challenged to state any wrong whatever done by the apostle, unless it was his putting forward the great truth of the resurrection: as really embarrassing to the Pharisee elders now as before; for they assuredly would regard such a cry as true and right, and in no way a fault. But 'evil communications corrupt good manners'; and those who at first felt sympathy for the truth at stake, now give their support to the enemy against the great representative of the gospel, even when they all were convicted of the grossest mistake, and of unfounded calumny. So hard is it for men engaged in a campaign, above all a religious one, to stop short of glaring injustice when arrayed on an evil side. When men are right, they can afford to be gracious. Wrongdoers and malicious men add turbulence also.

The procurator had more now to help him than his considerable experience of the Jews in the past. He had just heard an eminently and transparently truthful reply of Paul to the speech of Tertullus. He could well enough have decided on the merits of it, had it pleased him. But he was a governor as well as judge, and had to do with a people ever refractory. Policy dictated his course, not justice, as too often happens in this world, to say nothing of the heathenism of the Romans and the unscrupulousness of Felix in particular. Bright the day, when judgment shall return to righteousness. Even now' though Christianity has raised the moral standard of men in certain respects, we are far from that state when a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes rule in judgment.

Nor does the gospel indeed propose any such present amelioration of the world. It is the proclamation of grace to the ungodly in the name of Jesus, which shows us the heavens opened for all that believe made one with Him glorified above. The Christian is called therefore to glory in nothing but the cross of Christ, whereby he is crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to him. There is no common ground therefore possible between the world and the Christian if consistent. For the world adjudged to a death of guilt and shame and suffering Him Whom the Christian confesses as the Lord of glory, alone righteous, holy and true. The world would cease to be the world if in deed and in truth it confessed Him. Not only so: the Christian sees in the cross not only the world's misjudgment of the only worthy One, but God's judgment of himself as only and altogether evil before Him, but that evil laid on Christ to be not only judged but effaced righteously. And he sees further the unbelieving world judged with its prince, though the inevitable and irreversible sentence be not executed till the Lord Jesus appear in His glory, and we too along with Him in the same glory, Thus separation from the world is alone according to truth for the Christian, as the world abides the sure object of divine vengeance. 'Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?'

It was this that made Felix unjust toward Paul, as it had decided Pilate to let the Lord Jesus suffer. 'But Felix, having more accurate knowledge concerning the Way, adjourned them, saying, When Lysias the commander [or, chiliarch] is come down, I will determine your matter. And he ordered the centurion that he should be kept in charge and should have indulgence, and not to hinder any of his friends from ministering to him' (vers. 22, 23). The latitude allowed indicated not obscurely the mind of the unjust judge, if he had chosen to judge according to his convictions. But we learn also how God took care of His servant, and, while granting him to suffer for Christ's sake, assuaged the captivity through the judge himself, not on His servant's petition. Truly all things work together for good to them that love God, Who is honoured by their faith.

'And after certain days Felix, having arrived with Drusilla his wife being a Jewess, sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ Jesus. And as he reasoned concerning righteousness and temperance and the judgment to come, Felix became terrified and answered, For the present go, and when I get a convenient season, I will send for thee, hoping at the same time that money would be given him by Paul; wherefore also he sent for him the oftener and communed with him. But when two years were fulfilled, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, and Felix, willing to gain favour with the Jews, left Paul in bonds' (vers. 24-27).

The essence of unbelief is that, even if God be owned in word or theory He is in fact wholly excluded. And so it was evident in the next incident, where Felix with the beautiful wife of Azizus, king of the Emesenes, whom he had seduced and taken as 'his own', had the apostle before them to hear of the faith in Christ. Little was the guilty Roman prepared for the many sides of the truth, which the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven turns to deal with the hearer as he is. Paul discoursed, not on the prophets as with Jews, nor on the resurrection as with Athenians, nor on the cross even as at Corinth, but about righteousness, and self-control, and the coming judgment. A bad woman, they say, is more shameless than a bad man. Certainly if Drusilla knew more than Felix, she appears to have felt less. The inspiring Spirit records the alarm of the man, not of the woman. But it was no more than a passing terror. There was no repentance toward God; else he would not have got rid of the searching, yet saving, word of the gospel; he would not have been content to wait for a 'more convenient season', which never really comes.

But a baser motive rises up to prompt frequent interviews afterward — that love of money which is a root of all evil. Therefore was it Paul's lot to remain a prisoner for two years of enforced separation from those active and free and wide labours of love so precious to his spirit, because Christ filled him to overflowing. But the same Christ strengthened him to accept his bonds patiently, as Felix fully proved his depravity. Indeed, Felix was only screened from the just punishment of his manifold atrocities by the influence of his brother with the emperor.

Acts 25

The new governor, Festus, gave a fresh opportunity to the Jews. Morally more respectable than Felix, he knew not God and therefore could not be trusted for man. Faith to him was quite unintelligible, an enthusiasm. But he soon learnt enough of the Jews to make him guilty in his willingness to gratify them in the sacrifice of Paul. Policy is a sad destroyer of conscience.

'Festus, therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, asking a favour that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait to kill him on the way. Howbeit Festus answered that Paul was being kept at Caesarea and that he himself was about to depart [there] shortly. Let them therefore saith he, that are of power [authority] among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him' (vers. 1-5).

The providence of God is still in action. On the one hand the Jews sought under colour of favour to have the apostle waylaid on the road to Jerusalem; on the other the governor stood to the dignity of his office, and would not have it lowered. As Paul had already been sent to Caesarea, he declined moving him back to Jerusalem. It is possible that he knew little or nothing of their murderous designs. If so, it was the secret care of God for one unjustly assailed. But rumours would easily get currency as to any such plot. At this time the governor was not prepared to surrender a Roman citizen to the malice of his enemies, especially of a Jewish sort on a religious dispute. The Lord in any case watched over his servant. The accused was in Caesarea, and if anywhere in that land the supreme seat of judicature was there in Roman eyes. The governor by his decision hindered the execution of their plot. He was returning to Caesarea himself shortly: if therefore any wrong was in question, they had their opportunity to come down and accuse the prisoner.

'And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Caesarea, and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. And when he was come, the Jews that had come from Jerusalem stood round about and laid many and grievous charges which they could not prove; while Paul said in his defence, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I sinned at all' (vers. 6-8). The case was as plain as could be. The accusations were without proof; the defence was complete. The Jews were simply bitter enemies. The apostle had not transgressed as to any of the many serious charges they had laid to his account.

But Festus was really little better than Felix. The change of judge was only slightly in favour of justice. There was the same selfishness which had counteracted equity before. Impossible to expect the fear of God in a heathen man, though some may have been more depraved and unjust than others.

'But Festus, desiring to gain favour with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?' (ver. 9). So little can man be reckoned on. Festus had refused this very favour to the Jews in Jerusalem; he could scarcely be in the dark as to the reason why Paul had been hurried down to Caesarea. His motive was to curry favour with the Jews. 'But Paul] said, I am standing before Caesar's judgment-seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou also very well knowest' (ver. 10).

The apostle must have had cause for speaking so plainly. 'If then I am a wrong-doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. But if none of these things is [true] whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up [or grant me by favour] unto them. I appeal unto Caesar' (ver. 11). It is clear that all the righteousness of the case lay with Paul. He therefore avails himself of his title as a Roman citizen against those who would have infringed Roman law. He agitated no change of law, he sought nothing for himself, he employed no lawyer. The law had already ruled, and he pleaded it before one in office to administer it.

Thus so far the difficulty was terminated. The governor was bound by the appeal. 'Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Thou hast appealed unto Caesar: unto Caesar shalt thou go' (ver. 12). The king, or emperor, was to hear, no less than subordinate magistrates, and this not by fawning on, or seeking access to, the princes of this world, but as holy sufferers with Christ and for His name (Matt. 10: 18).

It was Paul's purpose to visit Rome after going to Jerusalem (Acts 19: 21), and God gave effect to it, for it was God's purpose (Acts 23: 11). But how different was the way under His hand from the apostle's expectation! He must go a prisoner to Rome. This befell him through his appeal to Caesar — an appeal by no means always granted, as it was evidently liable to abuse. If the guilt were manifest, it was refused: so also if the case were frivolous enough to be unworthy of the emperor's hearing. Paul, whose innocence was unquestionable, while the case was rendered in the highest degree serious through Jewish illwill, appealed when he saw the procurator trifling with justice to gratify the Jews. This decided matters for the present.

But the Spirit of God saw further testimony needed by man, and this was brought about by a visit of distinguished visitors to the Roman governor soon after.

'Now when certain days passed, Agrippa the king and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to salute (or, having saluted) Festus. And as they were spending several days there, Festus set Paul's case before the king, saying, There is a certain man left prisoner by Felix, about whom when I was in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the Jews filed information, asking for condemnation against him. Unto whom I answered, that it is no custom for Romans to give up any man before that the accused have the accusers face to face, and have had opportunity of defence concerning the complaint. When therefore they came together here, I made no delay but next day sat on the judgment-seat and commanded the man to be brought; concerning whom when the accusers stood up, they were bringing no charge of such evil things as I supposed, but had certain questions of their own religion, and of one Jesus dead as He is, Whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And I, being perplexed in the inquiry concerning these things, asked whether he would go to Jerusalem and there be judged of these things. But when Paul appealed to be kept for the decision of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I should send him unto Caesar. And Agrippa [said] unto Festus, I also should wish to hear the man myself. Tomorrow, saith he, thou shalt hear him' (vers. 13-22).

The royal personage here introduced was son of Herod Agrippa I., whose awful fate was described in Acts 12. Too young to reign at his father's death, he was by Claudius given Chalcis, the principality of his uncle, with certain privileges in Jerusalem; and Philip's old tetrarchy and more were added by the same emperor soon after, with the title of King. Bernice was his elder sister, Drusilla his younger, and each of them famous or infamous in that day with reason too grave. As Felix and Drusilla had a most solemn warning from the prisoner, so now were Agrippa and Bernice with Festus to hear an appeal which leaves no soul as it is found. The truth before the conscience carries with it a responsibility which eternity, not to say the judgment-seat of Christ, will fully manifest. Yet the man involuntarily forced to feel its power can ask, What is truth? and goes out hard and wretched from His presence Who alone can give the adequate answer. But wisdom is justified of all her children; as she learnt, who had been till then a child of folly: Jesus was of God made to her wisdom and every other good she lacked (Luke 7: 35-50). Why was it not so with these high estates?

The governor's motive for bringing Paul before Agrippa appears to have been his own doubt what to report to the emperor. Festus was just a man of the world. Of grace, of truth, he had no notion. The invisible and eternal realities were to him only imaginative ideas. Present things, changeable and fleeting as they are, were his life and all. God was in none of his thoughts, apart from the Lord Jesus He remains unknown.

There was another obstacle in his way, even his good opinion of himself, and his endeavour to claim from others the highest character for honesty and honour, energy and prudence. This runs through his speech, as we saw it pervading the self-applauding letter of Claudius Lysias in Acts 23: 25-30. What is man to be accounted, whose breath is in his nostrils? One look at self in God's presence puts in dust and ashes, as in Job's case when approved of Him, for his three friends were not. How can ye believe, said our Lord (John 5: 44), receiving as ye do glory one of another, and the glory that is from the only God ye seek not? Where there is no self-judgment, the Saviour is but 'one Jesus', like any child of man. He who so speaks is a sinner ripening for judgment.

What the sentiments of Festus were about the mythological reveries of the Greeks and Romans, bound up with their paganism, we know not. Scepticism, ever the fatal dissolvent of society and the body politic, as it is the reaction from idolatry, was then all but universal among the educated class. It is clear that, with the contempt usual in such men, they never conceived of the truth outside themselves. Above al] appeared the strange tale and great stumbling-block of unbelief, Jesus dead and risen, and this in the midst of the busy heedless world, among a despised and subject race. It is just named incidentally (ver. 19) as a psychological phenomenon in Paul and as singularly rousing the animosity of the Jews, an ever-turbulent race.

Unable to give the emperor any reasonable account of the prisoner who had appealed, Festus states the case to one whom current report declared to be, on the one hand well versed in all Jewish questions, and in some respects the more zealous religiously because he was not of Israelitish lineage, as on the other he was notoriously devoted to the Roman interest. So indeed Agrippa continued throughout the great war that demolished the Jewish polity, their 'place and nation', and throughout a long reign to the first year of Trajan. To hear the case might gratify the curiosity of Herod Agrippa and perhaps also relieve Festus of some perplexity.

The explanation to the king was not unskilful. It was in truth, as he intimated, a matter of Felix left over for him. Paul was a prisoner when Festus entered on his province, who could not therefore be expected to know all from the first. Next, it was certain that the leading Jews were grievously incensed against him, which could not but weigh with a governor of little or no experience locally. Roman self-complacency breaks forth in the assertion of their policy of inflexible and impartial equity: an excellent principle by no means the rule in the provinces, any more than at home, but convenient to lay down by a governor as a cheek on flagrant injustice, which Felix and Festus surely saw in the actual prosecution. Again, who could reproach himself with lack of zeal in the public cause? The Jews had been prompt enough in coming down from Jerusalem to accuse in Caesarea, and the governor had lost not a day in sitting to judge the case, if there had been one according to Roman law. But there was nothing tangible before the court; no infraction of the public peace or propriety, any more than private wrong in violence or corruption. It was absurd to bring before a Roman tribunal such matters as occupied Paul's accusers. Facts there were none; only questions for it of a visionary nature.

It is improbable that even a Roman procurator of Jud�¦a would be so uncourteous as to speak of the views in controversy as a 'superstition', especially in speaking to king Agrippa; any more than that Paul so characterized the Athenians, when he was setting before them Jesus and the resurrection. It seems better therefore to avail ourselves of the better or at least colourless, sense which the word undoubtedly bears in authors of that day still extant. 'Religion' is therefore here chosen, while 'system of worship' has also been suggested in a similar sense.

But when one knows the infinite truth that the Son came to bring God into the world and put sin out of it, how shocking is the dark incredulity that slurs over facts so transcendent in the words, 'one Jesus now dead, whom Paul asserted to be alive'! The vindication of God's moral glory and the display of His love, and the proof of coming judgment, all turn on it. Without it sin reigns in death, and destruction for sinners without exception or hope. There is no kingdom possible of righteousness and peace, only hell filled with the wicked and accursed. Jesus alive from the dead for evermore has changed all.

Nor need we wait to see the glorious results. The Christian sees and walks by faith, not by sight. We rest, not only on a God that cannot lie, but on the fact already accomplished that Jesus died as propitiation for our sins, rose from the dead, and has taken His seat at God's right hand in heaven. We rest on the accomplishment of God's will in Christ's one offering of Himself for sins; and now He sits as truly man on the Father's throne, as He came down from God to become man and bring in new and everlasting glory to God by His death. He therefore is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; and we who believe are of God in Him, as once we were only in Adam, heirs of sin and ruin. When the Lord appears again, the results will appear before the universe, and the creation, all the creation that now groans in bondage and corruption will be delivered: for He is the Second man and Last Adam, and we shah reign along with Him in glory.

But the wisdom of the world is folly, which slights the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, Who came to His own things, and they that were His own received Him not. He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. So Festus showed now, as did Agrippa afterward in the same blindness of unbelief which pervaded other princes of this age: for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And Christendom is returning to the darkness of heathenism. Never among the baptized did naturalism so govern men's minds; never before did nominal Christians manifest such incredulity in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, or even in creation. If the dead Jesus is alive, He has the keys of death and hades; and where is then philosophy? Where is natural law? What has natural law to do with creating? Still less can it apply to grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

But to return; when Festus mentions Paul's declining to go to Jerusalem and his appealing to Caesar, Agrippa expresses the wish himself to hear; and an audience is fixed for the morrow. This leads to a yet fuller testimony as we shall see, before not a governor only but a king.

The purposed hearing of the apostle before Agrippa wholly differed from that before Felix and Drusilla. This was private, and the apostle availed himself of it in divine love and holy courage to strip the guilty pair of their vain show, and to let them see themselves as God regarded them, as He will judge by and by through our Lord Jesus. Were men not insensate by the wily power of Satan, they would feel how gracious it is of God to send one faithful and able, willing and loving, to tell them the unerring truth, that, believing, they might be saved. But if they hug their sins, it cannot be. True repentance is the inseparable companion of true faith. From both, the enemy finds plausible excuses to hold souls back. Conscience may tremble: but there is no repentance till self is judged before God, and faith alone produces this.

Here it was even more public than the indictment before Felix or Festus. And the appeal to the emperor, though it relieved Festus in the main, embarrassed him in that he had no tangible rational explanation of the case to lay before Nero. Hence when Agrippa expressed the desire in person to hear the accused, Festus gladly caught at it and fixed the next day for the purpose. Agrippa's known familiarity with Jewish affairs was too good to be lost, besides gratifying the wish of so exalted a guest.

'Therefore on the morrow when Agrippa came, and Bernice, with great pomp, and they entered into the audience-chamber with the commanders and the distinguished men of the city, at the command of Festus Paul was brought. And saith Festus, King Agrippa, and all men that are here present with us, ye behold this man about whom all the multitude of the Jews applied to me both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer. But as I found that he had done nothing worthy of death, and as he himself appealed to Augustus, I decided to send him about whom I have nothing certain to write to my lore Wherefore I brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, king Agrippa, so that, after examination had, I may have what I shall write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable in sending a prisoner not also to signify the charges against him' (vers. 23-27).

Our Evangelist as usual presents the scene most graphically; for which reason probably tradition gave out in error that he was a painter, whereas scripture is positive that he was a physician: a fact abundantly confirmed by evidence in both his Gospel and the Acts. The king and the queen are before us with great pomp; military chiefs add to the show, as well as the most distinguished civilians; the governor gives the word of command and the prisoner is brought into the hall of audience. Festus opens the proceedings. It is hardly to be allowed that the courteous Roman meant to insinuate a slur on Bernice when he said, 'King Agrippa, and all men that are here present with us.' Undoubtedly the word is not the general ἄνθρωποι but the precise ἄνδρες, expressive of men as distinguished from women (γυναῖκες), The truth is however that ἂνδρες is used regularly in addresses as more respectful, though women may be present (cf. Acts 1: 16; Acts 2: 14; Acts 3: 12; Acts 13: 16; Acts 15: 7; Acts 17: 22), and in this sense only is it here employed. Out of courtesy the distinction is ignored for the time. That the queen's presence was implied to be improper is not the thought.

Festus addresses himself directly to the point. 'Ye behold this [person] about whom all the multitude of the Jews applied to me, both in Jerusalem and here, crying out that he ought not to live any longer.' There was no doubt of the general and vehement antipathy of the Jews to the noblest man of their stock and the most honoured servant of the Lord. Their cry in the holy city and elsewhere was that he ought not to live longer. He, the governor, found that Paul had committed nothing which deserved death, but does not explain why he himself had occasioned the appeal to the emperor by the proposal that the prisoner should go to Jerusalem for judgment. Paul knew too that worldly religion is of all things least just and most cruel, and, declining such a change from Caesar's tribunal, appealed to Augustus. To this Festus agreed, as we know, and he repeats, 'I decided to send him.'

But thereon arose a difficulty. What was he to write to send with the appellant: 'About whom I have nothing certain to write to my lord'? This was his main motive for the hearing before Agrippa, versed as he was in Jewish customs and learning and prejudice. 'Wherefore I brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, king Agrippa, so that, after examination had, I may know what I shall write.' The governor naturally considered it senseless, as he adds, to forward a prisoner without signifying the accusation laid to his charge. We shall find however that the issue was a true and fresh testimony to Christ far more than a solution of the governor's perplexity.

Acts 26

Luke sets the scene vividly before us. The king, whose opinion the governor sought, and who himself was desirous of hearing, gives courteous leave, and the prisoner enters on his defence with out-stretched hand. Orators no doubt used the same action to engage the ear of their countrymen, rhetoricians in their schools; but Paul's heart went out thus in desire over souls about to hear that message from God which, in whatever manner put, is the turning-point of salvation or perdition to all in contact with it. No doubt the soul is beyond all price for everyone in view of such everlasting issues. Yet it was no light thing even for the apostle to confront, without his seeking it but at their own desire, the great ones of the earth with all that swelled their train.

'And Agrippa said to Paul, It is permitted thee to speak for1 thyself. Then Paul stretched out his hand and entered on his defence. Touching all things of which I am accused by Jews, king Agrippa, I count myself happy that I am to make my defence before thee today,2 especially as thou art skilled in all customs and questions that are among Jews. Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.

'My manner of life then from my youth which was from the beginning among my nation and3 at Jerusalem know all Jews, knowing me before from the outset, if they be willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which our twelve tribes earnestly serving night and day hope to arrive. And concerning this hope I am accused by4 Jews, O king4. Why is it judged incredible with you if God raiseth dead [men]?' (vers. 1-8).

1 Here and elsewhere in these verses occur several readings scarce affecting a version.

2 Beza alone adopted εἰδώς (in his edition of 1582 and afterwards) 'in uno codice peruetusto — certainly an error, for the three cursives that give it are comparatively modern. Had he known ἐπιοστάμενος there would have been better reason, as AC, et al., have it. But either is a gloss.

3 ABEgr., et al.

4 των and  Ἀγρίππα omitted by the best authorities τῶν by almost all.

It may be a small matter, yet it is well to avoid the mistake of confounding the apostle's act here with what he did in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13: 16), or what Alexander did in the tumultuous assembly at Ephesus (Acts 19: 33). This was 'beckoning with the hand', quite different in character and aim from stretching it forth, here too with a chain. What a witness of the world's enmity to God's infinite grace in Christ! For, to say nothing of his loving labours, wherein had His servant done wrong? He was sharing the sufferings of Christ.

It will be observed that the apostle graciously passes by the various calumnies of the Jews which had been put forward by their venal orator and the unscrupulous men who supported his charges. He expresses his satisfaction at having to speak before one so exceptionally competent as the king in all the ways and controversies of Jews, as he does not fail even in this acknowledgment to preface it with an allusion to such accusations coming from Jews, not 'the' Jews.

In this connection there is no article in the text of verses 2, 3, as there should be none in verses 4 and 7, though in verse 4 there is much conflict among the MSS. (even the best uncials), and only Lachmann, and Alford, Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort, follow BCpm. E, et al., here, against the rest in omitting the article. Nor is it to be wondered at that Tischendorf who had dropped it in his later editions up to the seventh, went back in his eighth to that of his earlier issues in 1841 and both of 1842. The fact is that the sense required in this phrase here seems without example in the New Testament, where in other cases πάντες οἱ Ἰουδῖιοι is the correct form, and the article, as far as I have noticed, could not be omitted without damage. Here there is a distinct and unusual peculiarity; for 'all the Jews' are not meant, but all Jews knowing Paul before from the outset. This accordingly requires πάντες Ἰουδαῖοι προγινῶσκωντές με ἄνωθεν.

All Greek Testament students know of course the late Dean Alford's note on verse 2, which seems a long-standing reproach to scholars and ought to have been repudiated far and wide: for I cannot doubt there must be not a few besides the late Bishop of Durham, who are aware of the fallacy. 'There is no force in Meyer's observation that by the article before Ἰουδαίων, Paul wishes to express that the charges were made by some, not by all of the Jews. That omission is the one so often overlooked by the German critics (e.g., Stier also here), after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. �§ 1, and compare κατὰ Ἰουδαιόυς in the next verse, of which the above cannot be said' (Greek Test. ii.. 276, fifth ed. 1865).

Now it is admitted that the celebrated German expositor's remark is imperfect, even though in many cases true. The omission of the article is due here and everywhere to presenting the word or combination of words characteristically, whilst the use of the article presents it as an object before the mind. There may be a very few exceptions, but these only prove that the rule is otherwise universal. And prepositions are in no way an exception, though they admit freely of serving to define the characteristic design of the anarthrous construction, which has been overlooked by English scholars quite as much perhaps as German. This is exactly one of the great defects of Bishop Middleton's able treatise, which has for effect the making imaginary exceptions as numerous as the rule. This of itself ought to have indicated failure in generalization. John iv. 9 is a plain illustration of the principle: not only πῶς σὺ  Ἰουδαῖος ὤν which every one sees, but Ἰυοδαῖοι Σαμαρείταις where the article for either would be out of place if the object were, as it certainly is, to mark both characteristically.

It is no question of 'some' no doubt. And the article might have been with truth prefixed to both; but the meaning would have been altered. The two peoples would then stand contrasted as objects, not characteristically as they are now. Compare for this a selection from the book of the Acts: Acts 2: 5, 7, 9-11; Acts 11: 19; Acts 14: 1, 5, 19; Acts 18: 4; Acts 19: 10, 17; Acts 20: 21; Acts 25: 10. Again, any intelligent examination of the Greek Testament cannot fail to convince that the preposition makes no difference whatever. The article is or is not used with the word in question like every other, in accordance with its principle of insertion or omission.

Thus in Matt. 28: 15 character is the point, and therefore it is παρὰ Ιουδαίοις. In John 4: 22 the Jews are the object, and hence it is ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων: so in John 10: 19, and John 11: 54, ἐν τοίς Ἰουδαιονς; in John 11: 19, ἐκ τῶν Ἰουδαίων; in John 18: 38, πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαοίυς. It is really a total oversight of the nice shades of thought in the Greek language to conceive that there is the least laxity or exception after prepositions. Perhaps the notion is due to the difficulty of always representing the distinction in English, which sometimes compels us to use our definite article where there is none in Greek. But this is no right reason to deny that there is invariably an intended difference. Weigh Acts 23: 8 where we have Σαδδουκαῖοι and Φαριοαῖοι without the article, though there is no preposition. If οἱ had been prefixed to each, it would have been true; but the absence of the article makes them characteristic, however hard it may be to express it in English.

And there is an analogous difference in the cases before us, alike when with or without prepositions. 'I am accused by Jews' in verses 2 and 7 is far more forcible than if the article had been inserted. It was not lost on Agrippa or Festus or the Jews that heard it. Of all men Jews were the last to have accused Paul for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection that is from among the dead. Sadduceanism had alas! withered up their old faith. As a fact too, which may have weighed with Meyer and Stier, the Pharisees diverged in Acts 23 from the dominant faction which persecuted Paul. The preposition clearly gives no licence, (ὑπό) Jews, not the Jews, being meant. Nor is it otherwise with κατὰ Ιουδαίους, however confidently urged. Doubtless 'according to the Jews' would have been true in fact but it is stated characteristically, and here again as 'Jews', not 'the Jews' is the force intended, so it is evident once more that the preposition does not really affect the question. The article is inserted or omitted with prepositions on its own principle. Lastly, to be correct, πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι would require οἱ προγινώσκοντές qualifying the subject, πάντες Ἰουδαῖοι προγινώσκοντές is correct as it is given; for it means only all such Jews as previously knew Paul from the outset. In a word it is characteristic and therefore anarthrous. Not only is πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι the more usual expression, but quite distinct in sense; for it means the whole Jewish people as a known, definite and complete object, whereas the phrase here means all Jews qualified by the peculiar and described knowledge of Paul.

Returning from this digression, we may note that the apostle begs for a patient hearing from one so skilled as Agrippa, and dwells (vers. 4, 5) on his known early life under strict Pharisaic belief and discipline 'among my nation and at Jerusalem', as all Jews cognisant from its outset could testify if willing.

But the question, he insists, for which he stood for judgment was the hope of the promise made by God unto our fathers (ver. 6), unto which our twelve tribes earnestly serving, day and night, hope to arrive (ver. 7). How strange and flagrant that, of all men, Jews should lay accusation against him for that hope! Certainly his testimony to the risen Jesus did not weaken faith in the promise of the Messiah or in the resurrection of the dead. Yet the whole nation in their public and earnest service of God night and day bore witness of their hope of attaining to that promise. Why is it judged incredible if God raises dead men? The prisoner assuredly did believe what the service of the chosen nation confessed night and day. Were Jews then gainsayers of their own boasted faith?

The apostle returns from argument to the account of his own life, from which he had turned aside for a moment.

'I therefore thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus the Nazarene; which things I also did in Jerusalem; and I both shut up many of the saints in prisons, having received the authority from the chief priests, and I railed against [them] when they were put to death; and throughout all the synagogues, often punishing I was compelling them to blaspheme, and being exceedingly mad against them I was pursuing them even as far as to the outside cities' (vers. 9-11).

We have repeated allusions in the Epistles to Paul's life before conversion. Thus to the Galatians he wrote, 'For ye have heard of my manner of life at one time in Judaism that beyond bounds I was persecuting the church and ravaging it, and was advancing in Judaism beyond many of mine own age in my race, being more exceedingly' a zealot of my ancestral traditions' (Gal. 1: 13, 14). To the Philippians his language is, 'As to law a Pharisee, as to zeal persecuting the church, as to righteousness that is in law found blameless' (Phil. 3: 5, 6). Lastly, to Timothy (1 Tim. 1: 13) he says, 'Though formerly a blasphemer, and a persecutor and an insulter; but I obtained mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief.'

Here he lets us see how unsafe a guide conscience is for the natural man, no matter what may be his religious helps. He considered it his duty to oppose the name of Jesus and zealously persecute all who called on Him. Nor does God accept such a plea. He had sent His Son with adequate proof of His Messiahship for all who would compare His written word with the facts of Jesus the Nazarene: prophecy accomplished, miracles wrought not only by Himself but by His servants, and of a character quite peculiar, yet harmonizing with a teaching altogether unexampled; and a moral power of holy life ending in a death of deepest shame on the cross, which He ever held out as not man's sin only, but God's grace as the ransom for sinners, to the reality of which all sacrifices pointed from Abel downward. Paul therefore had acted ignorantly in unbelief, as do others who refuse all revelation or misuse one part to reject another still fuller and more glorious.

The greater the religious zeal in such a state of unbelief, the farther it carries the devotee from the present testimony of God. Hence it was that Paul gave himself up with all his soul to opposing the faith of Jesus as the Christ in Jerusalem, which he would feel was outraged by His claims. Here, before Agrippa, he does not hesitate to confess to his own shame that he shut up 'many of the saints' in prisons. To the Jews he had employed the more vague expression, 'this Way' (Acts 22: 4); as Luke in the history spoke of 'the disciples of the Lord' (Acts 9: 1). How little he so thought when he received the requisite authority from the chief priests! Nor was it only imprisoning. When it was a question of putting them to death, had he not given an adverse vote? Notably it was so in Stephen's case, as this Book records. Had he not visited all the synagogues, often punishing souls and forcing out blasphemy if possible? And had he not in his excessive madness pursued them even into cities outside the land?

But a mighty change was at hand. Not a hint of relenting appears here or elsewhere, not one emotion of pity for the victims, not a trace of self-judgment or hesitation in his own course. Who verified so conspicuously the Lord's own words? 'They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh that whosoever killeth you shall think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor Me' (John 16: 2, 3). This is the new revelation of the Messiah come and rejected; and on that rejection bringing to light the Father and the Son, wholly unknown to those who in their zeal for the law broke out into hatred and persecution of what was beyond them and condemned their unbelief.

'On which [business] when proceeding unto Damascus with authority and commission of the chief-priests, at midday on the road I saw, O king a light above the brightness of the sun shining round me and those that were proceeding with me. And when we all fell to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? [It is] hard for thee to kick against goads. And I said, Who art Thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest' (vers. 12-15).

Never was sovereign grace so signally demonstrated. I do not speak of the wonder. But now evidently the Lord was giving a typical case, in the letter it would seem for the Jews by and by, in spirit for the Christian now. For what could more completely prove that Christ is all to him that believes? To a man up to that moment blinded by his legal zeal against the grace of God in Christ, that very Christ reveals Himself, sweeping into nothingness all that a Jew boasted of and rested in, and identifying Himself in the glory of God with the One Who died, between two crucified robbers, the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

On earth Messiah is to be set God's King on His holy hill of Zion. This is the decree. Judgment will surely silence all that oppose, be they kings or nations, rulers or peoples. Their rage is as vain as all their imaginations to the contrary. Execution of judgment will make all plain to every eye. Then will Messiah ask and receive the nations for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. Then will He break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. It will be no longer as now grace preached, but the kingdom established by divine power seen and felt beyond question; and the kings of the earth will be wise, and the judges instructed, serving Jehovah with fear and rejoicing with trembling (Psalm 2).

Now Christ sits in heaven on the Father's throne, and has a new object of love and a new testimony carried on here below by the Holy Spirit suited to His glory on high and that object of love is the church which is His body. This mystery is great, as it must be, for we speak about Christ and about the church; concurrently with which goes forth the gospel of God's grace to every creature under heaven, all distinctions of Jew and Gentile vanishing meanwhile.

Paul was called to be a minister, both of the church and of the gospel, as he says himself in Col. 1: 23-25. And the special manner of his conversion was exactly suited in the wisdom and goodness of God to this ministry. For it was not only unmistakable grace in its deepest character, but from heavenly glory entirely above the distinctions so important on earth. And Paul alone was there personally favoured, though the truth of it was to act most powerfully on souls all over the earth. This may help to show the immense importance of what the apostle recounted that day, in substance recorded now for the third time in the brief Book of the Acts.

Impossible to doubt that a divine person speaks out from the brightness beyond that of the sun at midday. If all were prostrate and heard but a sound, Paul could not mistake the voice of His lips, saying to him (and in the Hebrew language), 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?' How overwhelming, yet how blessed, to hear in answer to his question of astonishment, 'I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest'! Thus even from the starting-point he heard the truth that the saints are one with Him. To persecute them is to persecute Jesus.

Doubtless the blessed apostle had revelations of the Lord, and from Him, not a few afterwards; and the bearings of the mystery, as well as its consequences were made known to him by the Spirit. It is, however, full of interest to learn that the germ of all was planted in him, as we see here, from the moment that grace wrought in his soul and brought him into God's marvellous light. He obeyed the truth immediately. It is hard to kick against goads, on the one hand; and on the other the Lord had drawn his heart into the love of the truth, whatever it might cost.

He was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, which thenceforth gave its impress to his life, his faith, and his testimony. 'And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that He is the Son of God.' He was Messiah, but far more; eternally the Son; now exalted and given to be Head to the church in the heavenly places; universal Lord to the glory of God the Father, in virtue of Whose name all things shall bow; as indeed He is our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Henceforth Saul could and did say, 'For me to live is Christ'.

The decisive words, 'I am Jesus,' were uttered to one who could not doubt the utterer was the Lord; nor this only, but 'I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest', the germ of that mystery (and it is a great one) which the astonished hearer was to develop beyond all others, even of the apostles. Thereon follows what is of the deepest interest.

'But rise up and stand on thy feet; for to this end I appeared to thee, to appoint thee a servant and a witness both of what thou hast seen and of those things wherein I shall appear to thee, taking thee out from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness unto light and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith that is in Me. Whence, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but reported both to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and through all the country of Jud�¦a and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to slay me. Having therefore obtained help that is from God I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said should come, whether Christ should suffer, whether He first by resurrection of [the] dead should announce light both to the people and to the Gentiles (vers. 16-23).

Such a vision to such an end stamped on Paul the apostolic title in its highest character. It was from heaven in the power of resurrection life and ascension glory; and this not only by one determining act, but with the guarantee of all that was to be made known from him personally in the future. We should not know from this account that he was blind for three days and that Ananias was sent directly by the Lord to heal as well as baptize him. Nor have we particulars of his testimony either in Damascus or in Jerusalem, any more than of his going away into Arabia. Each fact is set forth where it was called for; all was stated not only with truthfulness but according to holy and divine design, as is invariably the case in scripture. The Lord led either Luke or Paul according to His will to say what was fitting. Here the apostle gives summarily what was of moment for his audience, and for all that should read and weigh the words afterwards.

It was not only to convert and save him that the Lord had spoken to Saul of Tarsus. He was to arise and stand on his feet; for the Lord had appeared to him to appoint him a servant (ὑπηρέτην) and a witness both of what he then saw and of those things in which He was to appear to him. A work lay before him of immense magnitude and unprecedented character. And the Lord's revelations then and afterwards were of all moment. He was to be a typical servant too, though his own calling might be unique; for no such appearing of the Lord was to be the portion of those who should follow in the faith and footsteps of Paul.

Verse 17 is not well given by either the Revisers or the Authorized Version. Though the word may bear 'delivering', as it often signifies, its simpler meaning of 'taking out' is far more suitable to the context and the truth intended and verified in the apostle's career. It is admitted on all hands that the Lord's taking Saul out from the people (or the Jews) is suitable, but De Wette and Meyer allege that it does not chime in with the Gentiles. This seems quite a mistake. Separation from both is most appropriate to characterize his position, and there is no need to extend 'unto whom I send thee' beyond the latter. He was to be apostle of Gentiles or uncircumcision, and as such magnifies his function in Rom. 11: 13, 14. The 'I' is emphatic, and the adverb 'now' only added by inferior witnesses.

The difficulty these scholars feel is owing to their ignorance of Christian position, and even of Christianity according to scripture. For the Jew believing in Christ is not levelled down to a Gentile, nor yet is the believing Gentile raised up to that of the Jew; but the Holy Spirit unites both to Christ in heavenly glory, while at the same time the gospel of grace goes forth indiscriminately, but to the Gentile practically, as the once favoured nation is given up to temporary blindness in God's just judgment. Never was there a more striking representative of both than the apostle, minister of the church and minister of the gospel (Col. 1: 23-25). Stier has only noticed half the beauty of the contrast; for if Peter declares himself a witness of the sufferings of Christ and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed', Paul was a witness of the glory of Christ and a partaker of His sufferings; and it is him we are called to imitate, though we only by faith see Christ glorified. To share His sufferings is the Christian's and the believer's moral glory.

Then follows in verse 18 a vivid description of Paul's work among the Gentiles: 'to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness unto light and the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith that is in Me'. Doubtless Jews needed these operations of grace no less really than the nations; but in the latter case the necessity was far more conspicuous, besotted as they were not only in shameless immorality but by gross superstitions which darkened and demoralized them more than if they had had no religion at all. If, as the Jews say, it was reserved for the Messiah to open the eyes of the blind literally, here we see how He sent His apostle to do the work not physically alone but, morally. And this was manifested by Gentiles, when they heard the call of the Lord, turning from darkness into light, and (defining yet more their sources) from the power of Satan unto God, followed by the great characteristic privileges of the gospel, the reception of remission of sins and allotment among the sanctified by faith in Christ. For there was now a new, deeper, fuller sanctification, not fleshly or by ordinance merely as Israel's was; but living and genuine by believing on Christ, the permanent result of an accomplished separation to God from the Christian's starting-point.

The effect of such an announcement of sovereign grace, not only for Paul himself but in his mission, was immediate and Immense 'Whence, king Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but reported both to those in Damascus first, and in Jerusalem, and through all the country of Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance' (vers. 19, 20). Undoubtedly, it had been not only rebellion, but madness and destruction to have slighted such a vision and call; but this voucher the apostle gave, which nothing but self-willed folly could evade or escape, a life of unequalled sufferings as well as labours in bearing witness of its truth — truth so all-important to every child of man. Hence his burning zeal in reporting to all near or far off that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. For as the ground of the gospel consists of a Person revealed and facts accomplished (not merely a promise as of old), no call to believe can be agreeable to man's heart, and grace only can effect aught vital or acceptable, the conscience being bad and the will estranged from God, yea enmity against Him.

There are doctrines infinitely deeper elsewhere, and beyond comparison nearer to man's heart, to say nothing of their essential furtherance of God's glory. But all the doctrines flow from Christ and His work, and a renewed child can rest confidingly in both and be drawn out in wonder love and praise, as well as in a life of devotedness and self-sacrifice. This, however, never can be apart from repentance and turning to God. As surely as there is the faith of God's elect there is a divinely wrought repentance, which through the confidence which Christ inspires wins the soul to God in self-abhorrence and earnest pursuit of His will, doing works worthy of repentance.

It would be incredible if it were not the most certain fact that a faith and life so formed are abominable in Jewish eyes. 'On account of these things the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to slay me' (ver. 21). But none of these things swerved or even moved the blessed apostle, save to sorrow over them. 'Having therefore obtained help that is from God, I stand unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying nothing but what Moses and the prophets said should come, whether Christ should suffer, whether he first by resurrection of [the] dead should announce light both to the people and to the Gentiles' (vers. 22, 23).

It is not that the Jews erred in looking for a glorious kingdom of Messiah, of which Israel should be the centre on earth, but that the law and the prophets were clear that the Messiah should suffer and die as a sacrifice, as well as in rejection by man and even Israel, and thus risen from the dead bong in blessing of grace and mercy to faith before the glory be revealed publicly. For it needs no reasoning to prove that the suffering and death cannot be after the glory; 'but first must He suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.' 'Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?' So Christ, beginning from Moses and all the prophets, interpreted in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke 24: 27).

The truth was fairly set before the king. The prophets and Moses had told out what was now accomplished in the Christ that Paul preached. If their testimony was divine, He Who had suffered and risen from the dead is their sure fulfilment, however much may remain. The question whether the Christ should suffer, and whether He first by rising from death should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles can admit of no answer but the most distinct affirmation. The Messiah to suffer, die, rise, and so shed light on man universally, is the surest force of the law and the prophets. This alone gives meaning to sacrifices, this explains the cleansing of the defiled. No doubt there is the kingdom to come, and the judgment of the world as well as of the dead, but the basis even of all the rest lay in the dead and risen Messiah, the object of faith for salvation to every believer, Jew or Gentile. Here, however, the apostle does not go beyond present facts.

'And as he thus defended himself, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad, much learning doth turn thee to madness. But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king is cognizant of these things, unto whom also I speak with openness; for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him, for this hath not been done in a corner. Believest thou, king Agrippa, the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa [said] unto Paul, With little [pains] thou art persuading1 to make me a Christian. And Paul [said], I would to God that both with little and with great [pains]2 not thou only but also all that hear me this day should become as I too am, except these bonds. And 3the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them; and when they had retired, they spoke one to another, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or bonds. And Agrippa said to Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar' (vers. 24-32).

1 A reads πείθῃ, 'thou art persuading thyself', which Alford adopts, but BEHLP, et al, support πείθεις as in the Text. Rec. Only instead of γενέσθαι AB and four cursives with several ancient versions sustain ποιῆσαι.

2 μεγάλω AB, six cursives, and almost all the ancient versions instead of πολλῳ, as in most copies followed by the Text. Rec.

3 The Text. Rec. adds 'when he said these things' with the mass, contrary to the most ancient and best copies. The ancient text gives the impression of an abrupt closure on Agrippa's part; the addition takes it away.

Festus, ignorant of God and His word and bewildered to the highest degree by the assertion of Messiah's resurrection, forgot the gravity of the occasion and of his own office, and branded the apostle as a madman, though softening the term by imputing it to his much reading. Calm in the sense of God's presence and of the truth which alone gives true freedom, Paul shows the only moral elevation discernible in that splendid throng, and so with real courtesy rebuts the senseless charge with words bearing the stamp of the 'truth' he testified, and of the 'sobriety' in which he laid all before others.

Love gives a single eye. With that keen discernment which characterized him, he turns from the benighted heathen who saw nothing beyond the present life and therefore saw it only as a question of power and pleasure and fame, an utter degradation for the undying soul, consistent only in shutting out the light of the truth and even the warning of conscience not wholly ignorant of sin. From the heathen he turns to the Jewish king who, immoral though he was, knew what altogether condemned himself as well as the glorious visions of which Messiah is the centre in Holy Writ. 'For the king', said he, 'is cognizant of these things, unto whom also I speak with openness, for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him: for this hath not been done in a corner.' It was notorious that no man living was more interested in or familiar with all that affected the Jews than the younger Herod Agrippa. But how little such acquaintance with facts avails, unless the Holy Spirit bring the word of God home to an exercised conscience! unless a soul bow to God in the overwhelming sense of its own sin and ruin, yet clinging to the hope of mercy in Him! Still to one that owned scripture as divine the apostle could speak as he could not with the same degree of freedom to another who denied and scorned it.

Therefore he turns in the most unexpected way with an appeal to the king's conscience: 'King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.' Surprised out of his imperturbable self-complacency, and endeavouring to cover his confusion by a jest the king replies for it is no answer, 'With little pains thou art persuading to make me a Christian.' Thus appears to be the sense if we take into account the critical reading μεγάλῳ in what follows. Were the Received Text justified which gives πόλλῳ, 'much', this rendering could hardly stand, for the more natural force would then be 'in a little while', distinguished from 'much time'

It is plain that Agrippa had no answer to what had been shown from scripture and the gospel facts. It is equally plain that the conclusion was irresistible, which he strove to parry. The truth is no question of reasoning but of faith in the testimony of God: only there is no root save in the conscience that owns sin and looks to God's grace in spite of it. And Christ and His work on the cross give the troubled soul confidence; because God sent His Son into the world for the twofold blessing, blessings equally needed by the sinner and flowing from God Himself, that we should live through Christ, and that He should die a propitiation for us. Faith in God's testimony of His love Who therefore gave His Son receives these infinite blessings in Christ. But it is not mere mind that makes the discovery; and if it were, it could avail nothing. It is only to the babe, to the broken in heart? to the consciously ruined sinner, that the truth comes from God. For He is calling souls to the knowledge of Himself, not training theologians. It is salvation made known in Christ, not religious science which the world builds up for itself out of it.

So the apostle takes up the king's word to escape further parley, and takes it up with a love and dignity suited to the Holy Spirit that dwelt in him. It is the simple but deep utterance of a heart supremely happy in the Saviour, and in the assurance of grace in Him that could embrace not Agrippa only but all that composed his audience that day, What mercy to man! What goodness of God! What inexhaustible power and fullness in the name of Jesus! Even in the most general form such an ardent wish of blessing had been much. But the more clearly we regard his words the wonder grows. 'I would to God that both with little and with great pains not thou only but also all that hear me this day should become as I too am, except these bonds.'

This largeness of heart suits admirably Paul who made known God's righteousness unto all and upon all those that believe. This readiness to take all pains is in keeping with the debtor both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and to foolish, who working night and day not to burden any, preached the gospel to all. But the perfect happiness of his soul flows over when he wishes to God for them that they might be as he too was. What! the man who had been beaten for dead, and in prison for years, known to be innocent by successive governors, yet chained to a soldier night and day to please a people whom these governors despised and hated. Yes, this is the man who wishes for them all, by little pains and by great as the case might be, that they might not be forgiven or saved only, good a wish as this is, but far far more, that they might become even as he, filled with the conscious joy of being blessed with Christ and enjoying the present cloudless favour of God. Indeed nothing less is normal Christianity. Yet he adds, 'except these bonds': this he could not, did not, wish for one of them. Truly it was a soul that kept itself in the dove of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

Was there one heart that responded, one conscience pierced? We know not, but only that forthwith the court retired, yet owned that the prisoner's cause deserved neither death nor bonds. Agrippa especially, and he was the most competent to speak, declared that he might have been set at liberty but for his appeal to Caesar. How little the king knew God's purpose or ways! Paul, as he suffered with Christ, was called in due time to suffer for Him. In due time he was to have his wish to become conformed to the death of Christ (Phil. 3: 9-11).

Acts 27

Thereon follows the voyage of the apostle to Rome, a narrative full of interest in every way. What believer can fail to find refreshment and cheer as he ponders its details and sees the prisoner as perfectly master of the situation on board ship in a storm and wreck, as before in the presence of judges and a king who attested his guiltlessness? But what reader of any version, even if believing, could anticipate, what every scholar ought to know, that here is more of real information about an ancient merchant ship, quite simply and incidentally conveyed, than is found perhaps in all the extant remains of Greek and Roman authors? So the late Dean Howson owns in Smith's Bible Dictionary, as indeed the soundness of the judgment is notorious.

'And when it was determined that we should sail away for Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other-prisoners to a centurion named Julius of an Augustan cohort. And embarking in a ship of Adramyttium about1 to sail to2 the places along Asia, we put to sea, Aristarchus of Macedonia, a Thessalonian, being with us. And the next day we arrived at Sidon, and Julius treated Paul kindly and permitted [him] to go unto the (or, his3) friends and receive attention. And thence putting to sea we sailed under the lee of Cyprus because the winds were contrary. And having sailed across the sea that is along Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came unto Myra [a city] of Lycia. And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy, and put us on board. And sailing slowly many days and coming with difficulty abreast of Cnidus, as the wind did not further suffer us, we sailed under the lee of Crete abreast of Salmone, and coasting it with difficulty, we came unto a certain place called Fair Havens, near to which was [the] city of Lasaea. And much time being spent and the voyage being already dangerous because the Fast was already past, Paul admonished them saying, Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship but also of our lives. But the centurion believed the master and the ship-owner rather than the things said by Paul. And the harbour being ill-suited to winter in, the most gave counsel to put to sea thence, if by any means they might arrive at Phoenix to winter in, a harbour of Crete, looking north-east and south-east. And when a south wind blew softly, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and coasted close by Crete' (vers. 1-13)

1 μέλλοντι (i.e. the ship) AB, some 30 cursives, and the ancient versions. μέλλοντες (i.e., we) Text. Rec. with which agrees HLP and most MSS.

2 εἰς is doubtful, but the sense remains.

3 The article is genuine, though omitted in the Text. Rec.

We see at once that Luke is with the apostle on his voyage, and Aristarchus also. 'One' (ver. 1) in this case is quite uncalled for, as in all the Protestant English Versions from Tyndale. The fact is that he has been before us from time to time in this Book as the companion of the apostle. See Acts 19: 29; Acts 20: 4; as he is afterwards named in Col. 4: 10; Philemon 24. Neither appears to have been at this time a prisoner. Both became partakers with the one that was so used. Love led these to Join him in the face of shame and danger. They did not therefore cast away their boldness which has great recompense of reward.

Of Julius the centurion nothing more is certainly known than what is here recorded? but we are enabled to see at least his amiability, and the moral respect inspired by the apostle from first to last, hindered, one may say perhaps, at one point which must in the sequel have increased it more and more as we shall observe. It would seem that there was no special Augustan cohort, nor does the text say more than that he commanded a cohort which bore that designation. It is known that the emperor Nero had a body-guard organized at this very date, consisting of veterans specially called out for service. Julius may have been an officer among them. They were called Augustani (Tacitus Annales xiv. 15). Why he was in Palestine does not appear: if there, we can readily understand the prisoners and soldiers being under his charge on his return to Rome.

It seems amazing that there should be the least doubt about 'Asia' in verse 2. Neither the continent, nor even Asia Minor is meant, but the Roman province, which was but the western seaboard of the latter according to the usage of the Book.

'The [or his] friends' were the believers in Sidon, a mode of speech which we find in the Third Epistle of John (ver. 14). Evil times made them manifest: false brethren turned aside, ashamed of the cross. What the 'attention' was that is meant is conjectural, and may be expressly left so to meet any case in future.

The lee of Cyprus was in this instance to the north of the island, the winds being contrary. Hence they coasted along the south of Cilicia and Pamphylia. Otherwise the direct course must have been south of Cyprus. But it would seem that the ship had to touch at places (ver. 2). which called them north. Myra lay due north of Alexandria; so that the ship from this port met the one of Adramyttium1 in that Mysian harbour. Both ships were in their right course according to the winds then blowing. Where the first was bound we are not told. But the centurion avails himself of that from Alexandria, which had a cargo for Italy, and transferred all his company accordingly (ver. 6).

1 It is a strange oversight of Grotius, followed by not a few commentators, that Hadrumetum on the African coast is here meant. Even to this day Adramyti retains its old name, though reduced from an important seaport to a poor fishing village.

Great difficulties speedily follow; but disciples need not be agitated if the Lord seem not to heed. 'Scarce' as in the Authorized Version (ver. 7) does not give the thought intended, but 'with difficulty'. The wind being about N.W., as Mr. Smith shows in his interesting Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, made it slow and hard work to bring up the ship from Myra and Cnidus, even though with the advantage of a weather shore and a westerly current. The wind did not allow them to go on (not, to put in); so that their course lay under the lee of Crete, and this time its south side after sailing abreast of its eastern point, Salmone (called Sammonium by Pliny the elder, as by Strabo Σαμὠνιον). And it may be mentioned that Fair Havens to this day bears the same name corrupted — Kalolimounias, five miles west of Cape Leonda, in the immediate neighbourhood of which inland, lie the ruins of Lasaea, as distinctly identified by our countrymen lately.

The insurmountable delay from adverse winds and other circumstances brought them to a season of no small peril in that sea (ver. 9); and the apostle gave counsel on which events soon after, but too late, impressed the seal of indisputable value. Nevertheless he seems not to claim divinely given foresight for his warning: the terms employed in verse 10 are rather his own judgment simply, in apparent contradistinction from the prophetic intimation announced in verses 21-26. 'I perceive', introducing a general admonition of danger, differs widely from 'I believe God' with a precise assurance of the loss of the ship but of no life among the passengers and crew, which last he was unable to guarantee when he first spoke out.

But the shipmates and the shipowner were opposed to the warning words of the apostle; and we can easily understand why the centurion paid more heed to the opinion of men accustomed to the sea (ver. 11), themselves no doubt disposed to regard cheaply what a landsman might think or say. Then again, whatever its title promised, Fair Havens was beyond doubt inconvenient for wintering in, as the bay is open to almost one-half of the compass; and as all could see this, the majority advised to put to sea also from there, as from other places before (ver. 12): not that they meant to pursue the voyage to Italy in such weather and at such a time, but hoping to reach the unquestionably better port of Phoenix,1 now identified as Lutro, though well aware of their risk in attempting it.

1 This harbour on the south of Crete ought to have been distinguished by its true name from Phoenice or Phoenicia (Acts 11: 19; 15: 3; 21: 2), the Canaanite land of Tyre and Sidon: the one deriving its designation from the palm tree that flourished there; the other from the famous dye, or shell fish, that produced all shades from red to violet, generally called purple.

It may interest some to know that competent men declare Fair Havens to be a better harbour than its exposed look conveys at first sight. Mr. Smith who studied the whole question on the spot with minute care and professional skill pronounced it to be 'so well protected by islands and reefs, that though not equal to Lutro, it must be a very fair winter harbour; and that considering the suddenness, the frequency, and the violence with which gales of northerly wind spring up, and the certainty that, if such a gale sprung up In the passage from Fair Havens to Lutro, the ship must be driven off to sea, the prudence of the advice given by the master and owner was extremely questionable.' (Smith's Voyage etc., p. 88, 2nd ed.) Hence we may learn that there is such a thing as divine guidance in the ordinary things of life, short of inspiration, no doubt, but superior to man's experience and wisdom. Are we so unbelieving as to deny its reality save in an apostle? Blind indeed must we be, if we do, to the facts of every day among God's children.

The value of a close adherence to the text is remarkably shown by the numerous mistranslations of this chapter, which had introduced confusion and insuperable difficulty for exposition. A striking instance occurs at the end of verse 12, where the Authorized Version represents this haven of Crete, Phoenix or Lutro, as lying 'toward the south-west and north-west.' What the clause says is that the harbour looks 'down' (κατὰ) south-west and down north-west. But looking down a wind means along or with the direction in which it blows, and not to the quarter whence it came. The meaning therefore is that the port of Phoenix looks north-east, and southeast, the points precisely opposite to those which have been understood. Now this (says Mr. Smith) is exactly the position of Lutro, which 'looks' or is open to the east; but, having an island in front which shelters it, it has two entrances, one looking to the north-east, which is κατὰ Λίβα, and the other to the south-east, κατὰ Χῶρον.1

1 The translators not only mistake κατὰ in this connection, but they omit the precision of the repetition of it from Tyndale downwards, as others did before them.

Hackett, who does not think it safe to give up the common interpretation, objects to this view of Mr. Smith that it involves two inconsistencies. First, it assigns opposite senses to the same term, viz., south-west as the name of a wind and north-east as the name of a quarter of the heavens. Secondly, it destroys the force of βλέποντα, which implies that the wind and the harbour confronted each other, and not that they were turned from each other. But the reasoning is faulty, because the fact is misunderstood. The harbour in question does look with the wind in each case, so that the force of 'looking' is preserved intact; and again the winds in question are preserved in their exact force and not confounded with aught else. Only looking down south-west wind and down north-west wind means in fact looking north-east and south-east. The Authorized Version confounds κατὰ with πρός or εἰς. The direction toward the source of the wind is expressed by the latter; whereas the nautical phrase of down the wind means whither it blows. Hence Phoenix looked north-east and south-east. The look of the harbour signifies the direction to which — not from which — these winds blow. The harbour looked down the southwest and down the north-west winds, i.e., in both directions; and hence to the north-east and south-east quarters, as the resulting force. The winds are only to mark the outlook definitely. Nautical phrases abound in the chapter. Josephus uses κατὰ λίβα just as it is here (Antt. Jud. xv. 9, 6). See Liddell & Scott on κατὰ B.I. 1.

But appearances often deceive, as they did here. For when a south wind blew softly they thought to gain their purpose, and weighing anchor ('lifting' is the technical phrase), they coasted close by Crete. Here the Vulgate misled Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer to give the imaginary port of Assos (the true place was away in Mysia, compare Acts 20: 13, 14), instead of 'close', rectified in the Geneva Version after Beza who refuted the proper name with ability, and proved the necessity of understanding the adverb.

The result justified the apostle's advice notwithstanding a fair start. But seamen ought to have remembered how apt a mild southerly breeze, in those seas especially, is to shift to a violent northerly wind. So it was now.

'But not long after there beat down it a tempestuous wind that is called Euraquilo1; and when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave up and were driven. And running under the lee of a certain small island called Clauda2, we were able with difficulty to secure the boat: and when they hoisted it, they used helps, frapping the ship, and fearing lest they should be cast upon the Syrtis, they lowered the gear and so were driven. But as we were exceedingly pressed by the storm, the next day they began a clearance overboard; and the third [day] they3 cast out with their own hands the gear [or, furniture] of the ship. And when neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small storm lay on, at last every hope that wished us saved was taken away. And when they had been long without food, then Paul stood forth in their midst and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened to me, and not have put to sea from Crete, and have gained this injury and loss. And now l exhort you to be of good courage, for there shall be no loss of life among you, only of the ship. For an angel of the God Whose I am and Whom I serve stood by me this night saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must stand before Caesar; and, behold, God hath granted thee all that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good courage; for I believe God that it shall be as it hath been spoken to me But we must be cast upon a certain island' (vers. 14-26).

1 So in the oldest MSS. and Versions; but most have Euroclydon.

2 In the Vatican and Vulgate it is Cauda.

3 Most MSS., et al., have 'we', but not the most ancient.

The hurricane that caught the ship 'beat down' from Crete, which appears to be the true force of κατ᾽ αὐτῆς, not 'arose against it', i.e., the ship, as in the Authorized Version (ver. 14). This is confirmed by Luke 8: 23, though ἔβαλε κατὰ is a far more forcible expression than κατέβη . . . εἰσ as indeed the case here demanded. Compare also, as Mr. Smith suggested, κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ in Luke 8: 33. Other ways of taking the words are unnatural in the extreme. Tyndale, after Luther probably, refers 'it' to 'their purpose' in verse 13. The version of Geneva (1557) should be noticed: 'But anone after there arose agaynst Candie, a stormye wynd out of the north-east.' Now this was not the fact. The wind blew down from Crete, not against Crete, which it could not do. Besides the accusative not the genitive would have been employed in that case. The Authorized Version, with most, understood the ship, which however is in the context always πλοῖον, and therefore ungrammatical. Only in verse 41 is ναῦς employed. The beating of the tornado down the highlands of Crete seems a far more graphic account than its striking against the ship, which was a matter of course in that sea when exposed to a rushing east-north-east wind.

And here it may be remarked that Euroclydon is no known appellation, nor is there any satisfactory source of the word. The more ancient εὐρακύλων is to be preferred, testified by the best MSS. and Versions. J. Bryant's objections to the compound are not well grounded. Euro-Auster is a similar hybrid. A north-easterly wind fully accounts for the course of the ship. 'Bear up into' is more literally to 'face', a term often applied to the collisions of warfare and of common life. Some have attributed it to the practice of painting an 'eye' on each side of the prow, so common of old and not unknown still in the Levant.

The small island to the leeward of which they drove before the wind is now called Gozzo. Chlavda they say on the spot, which is the Romaic pronunciation of Clauda; so that the identification is certain. It was under this lee that they got the boat on board, though with difficulty (ver. 16). When ἄραντες was used absolutely as in verse 13 (cf. Thucydides ii. 15), it meant weighing anchor, here in verse 17 it has its ordinary force of lifting or taking up. The 'helps' in question were means to counteract the violence of the gale, rather than the aid of the passengers as some have thought. 'Frapping' is the technical English expressed by 'undergirding'. It is done by passing a large cable four or five times round the ship's hull. It was common of old, but has been practised in recent times and on British ships, mercantile and naval. The precariousness of mere scholarship in explaining such a thing may be seen in the learned A. Bockh's notion that the cable was applied horizontally. Indeed on his authority Dr. L. Schmitz so gave it in the article on 'Ships' in Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.

What is rendered in the Authorized Version 'the quicksands' ought really to be 'the Syrtis'. Two Syrtes are spoken of. This was the greater or eastern, now the gulf of Sidra, which Admiral Smyth was the first to survey adequately, as shown in his Memoirs on the Mediterranean: an object of great and natural dread to ancient seamen.

In this same verse (17) occurs one of the most serious of the many mm takes in the older versions, even Meyer and other moderns perpetuating them. Had they 'struck sail', the ship must inevitably have been driven directly into the Syrtis. 'It is not easy (says Mr. Smith) to imagine a more erroneous translation than that of our Authorized Version "Fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, they strake sail, and so were driven." It is in fact equivalent to saying that, fearing a certain danger, they deprived: themselves of the only possible means of avoiding it.' Some sail, as the authorities lay down and as common sense feels, is absolutely requisite to keep the ship steady, and hinder her from pitching about and rolling so deeply as to strain and work herself to pieces. Hence the measures necessary were that storm-sails should be set, and the ship go on the starboard tack. 'Lowering the gear' is the right translation. Kypke who was a sensible man and sound scholar, is surprisingly loose in his annotations here. He will have it to be 'letting down the anchor'! as βλέποντα κατὰ in verse 12 and elsewhere: he illustrates by βλέποντα πρός. It is singular that K�¼hn�¶l, De Wette, and Meyer followed in this wake, so inconsistent with the context.

In verse 18 we see them reduced to the very frequently adopted resource of getting rid of cargo, ἐκβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι being the proper terms employed, as we may see in the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux. In verse 19 they go farther, and 'with their own hands' the seamen threw away — what they would not have done save in imminent danger — the ship's furniture, spare gear, etc. The inability to see sun or stars added to their danger, and also the violence of the weather so prolonged.

But now leaving the details of the voyage, interesting though they are in the decisive proof they afford at every turn of the absolute reliableness of the divine word, and of its incomparable superiority to all the versions and the commentaries of the learned and pious, let us turn to the devoted servant of the Lord, who stands forth in the hour of need and danger and darkness. If he gently recalls their former slight of his counsel, it is neither to pain them nor to exalt himself. Dwelling in love, he dwelt in God and God in him; as every Christian should; and thus he is enabled to use wisely what grace gave.

He confesses openly the secret of favour from on high, a favour that extended to them; for the true God despises not any, while He loves perfectly those whom He adopts as sons to Himself by Jesus our Lord. Yet He does not overlook His offspring, as the same apostle once preached to the Athenians, idolatrous though they were. It is of no small moment that we too should remember this; for evangelical men are apt to think only of the relations of grace. These are of all importance, and only too feebly held by the saints in general. We can scarcely exaggerate what sovereign grace has given us in Christ. But we do not well to slight what scripture reveals of the place man has, as man, and sinner though he be, in the divine mind and compassion. It is the more to be remembered in these days when infidel dreams of development or evolution entice and defile real believers. Truth ignored or neglected by the faithful is the constant resource of Satan for those who know not God and His Son.

Man has a relationship to God which he alone of earthly beings possesses. Other creatures here below began to live when they were organized. Not so man, till Jehovah Elohim breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the ground of his immortal soul and of his immediate responsibility to God. Therefore, when for him death came in through sin, he alone is to rise again and to give account to God.

Undoubtedly another than Adam was in the counsels of God, the Second Man and Last Adam, infinitely higher than man, even the Son of God, no less than the Father, in due time to become the new Head of divine blessing to God's glory, far, far, more than retrieving in obedience unto death what the old head had lost through disobedience; so that mercy might rejoice over judgment, and grace to the sinner be a display of God's righteousness in virtue of the blood of Jesus.

There are three considerations of no little moment to hold intact and without confusion. First, the moral nature of God abides in its invisible purity and honour. He loves good and hates evil. His will alone is entitled to guide and govern. The creature is responsible to obey Him. Secondly, the race being fallen and sinful (for Adam innocent had no child), grace in Christ alone produces what suits God's nature according to His word and by His Spirit; as grace alone provided an adequate and everlasting redemption in Christ's blood and gave that life in Him which is ever holy, dependent, obedient as He Himself was in all perfection. But, thirdly, God does not for all this give up His place as 'a faithful Creator.' He is the Saviour (i.e., Preserver) of all men, specially of those that believe. Not a sparrow falls on the ground without our Father; yea, the very hairs of our head are all numbered. Surely there is no reason to fear those that kill the body but are unable to kill the soul. He only is to be feared Who is able to kill both body and soul in hell. Not only are others not to be feared, but, as the children and servants of God, we are in a position, and ought to have the heart, to make supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings for all men; for kings and all that are in high places. no less than for the wretched, and suffering, and degraded, whom their fellows avoid and despise. Grace not only elevates above all the present glory of the world by uniting us to Christ at God's right hand, but sheds abroad in our hearts the love of God through the Holy Ghost given to us.

All these elements we may see here full, and active, and in harmony. Christ before the heart delivers from mere and barren theory as well as onesidedness. Not only is there the union of humbleness and dignity, but faith and love with the unflinching confession of Him Whose he was and Whom he served. There is no seeking to please or win men as his aim. He abides the Lord's bondman. He testifies a direct revelation sent at that very time. He declares the witness it bore to God's compassion toward them all, united to His special favour to His servant; and all this in the midst of this busy, blind, selfish, ungodly world.

Two things are to be noticed in that divine message to the apostle, while a prisoner in the hands of the Gentiles through the malice of the Jews. First, he can speak of all his fellow-voyagers given him by God, not of course for eternal life, but for present security. Secondly, he predicts that they must be cast on a certain island, without pretending to know more. God had not disclosed its name: and he faithfully follows. Revelation was given to exalt not man but God.

'But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven to and fro in the Adriatic, about midnight the sailors surmised that they were drawing near to some country, and on sounding, found twenty fathoms, and after going a little farther and again sounding, found ten fathoms; and fearing that haply we should be cast off on rough places, they cast four anchors from the stern and wished that day were come. And as the sailors were seeking to flee out of the ship and had lowered the boat into the sea, under pretext as though they would lay out anchors from the bow, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved. Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat and let her fall off. And while daylight was about to come on, Paul exhorted them all to partake of food, saying, [The] fourteenth day today ye wait and continue without food, having taken nothing. Wherefore I exhort you to partake of food for this is for your safety; for not a hair from the head of any of you shall perish. And when he said this, he took bread, and gave thanks to God before all, and having broken, he began to eat. And all were of good cheer, and themselves also took food. And we were in the ship, all the souls, two hundred and seventy-six. And being satisfied with food, they lightened the ship by throwing out the wheat into the sea. And when it was day, they did not recognize the land, but perceived a certain bay with a beach, on which they took counsel, if they could, to drive the ship. And casting off, they left the anchors in the sea, at the same time loosening the lashings of the rudder and hoisting the foresail to the wind, they made for the beach. And falling into a place where two seas met, they ran the vessel aground; and the bow stuck and remained immovable; but the stern began to break up by the violence [of the waves]. And the soldiers' counsel was that they should kill the prisoners, lest they should swim out and escape; but the centurion, wishing to save Paul, hindered them from their purpose, and commanded those able to swim to cast themselves off first and go to land, and the rest, some on planks and some on things from the ship. And it came to pass that all got safe to land' (vers. 27-44).

A fortnight's drifting under such a storm brought the end near, which is set as clearly before us as their previous course and efforts. The sounding of the lead indicated the approach of land, and no small danger imminent, which the night made more felt. There is no real difficulty in the Adriatic (ver. 27); because it was often used in a much wider application than to the sea between Greece and Italy, as has been shown in Ptolemy and in Pausanias. Modern usage confines the Adriatic to the gulf only. There is no ground, therefore, on this score to conceive of another Melita (that is, Melida) instead of Malta, as generally understood. The breakers (which are characteristic of the point of Koura, near St. Paul's Bay, as Mr. Smith has shown from Smyth's view of the headland), gave occasion, probably, to the surmise of the sailors, confirmed as it was by their repeated soundings (ver. 28). Anchoring from the stern (ver. 29) was the safer course under such circumstances; and ancient ships had many anchors. It is shown from the sailing directions that the ground is exceptionally good there; so that there is no danger as long as the cables hold.

The unworthy design of the sailors was defeated by Paul. It was not exactly 'casting out anchors', which would not require the use of a boat. Under pretence of extending anchors from the prow, which was no unusual measure, they meant to desert the ship (ver. 30); but his word of warning to the centurion and the soldiers sufficed: 'Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved' (ver. 31). With the promptitude of their class, they cut off the ropes and let the boat fall off (ver. 32). God had given His word to save all, but it must be in His way; and He Who promised the end insists on His own means. We have only to be subject and obey.

Nor was the apostle vigilant only thus; he sought, and not in vain, to comfort all and animate them with courage and confidence in God on the eve of the utmost apparent peril. He besought all to partake of food after their long abstinence, assuring them absolutely of preservation (vers. 33, 34), and he set the example himself after thanking God before all (ver. 35). There is no ground for the observation of Olshausen that it was, for the Christians, the celebration of the Lord's Supper or of an agape. For though the terms are just such as were so employed, they are no less expressly applied to an ordinary meal in Luke 24: 30, and elsewhere. Indeed, there is no small superstition in the sense too often attached to them. It is the object of the Eucharist which gives it its character; and this was quite out of place here. But the most ordinary food should be sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and the apostle here acts on his own instructions to Timothy (1 Tim. 4: 5, 6). No wonder that all became cheerful and took food (ver. 36) after long dejection and disinclination with death before their eyes! Their number (ver. 37) is carefully added as two hundred and seventy-six, and then the lightening of the ship (a fresh nautical expression) by casting out the corn (ver. 38). They had eaten their last meal before the wreck, which is minutely described in the closing verses.

Wonder has been expressed that none of the sailors knew the land (ver. 39), but we are told by those competent to judge, that, remote from the well-known harbour of Valetta, this spot possesses no marked feature by which it might be recognized.

The Authorized Version here (ver. 40) is far from accurate. They did not take up the anchors, but cast them away (lit., round), and abandoned them (not 'themselves') into the sea. The loosing of the bands of the rudders, attached to the stern on each quarter, was a necessary act; for when a ship was anchored by the stern, the rudders had to be lifted out of the water and secured by lashings, which again were loosed when the ship got under way. Further, it was not the 'mainsail', but the foresail, which they raised to the wind. Possibly the French term misled here, but the weight of practical or circumstantial evidence, as in Smith's Dissertation iii., seems decisive. In this sense ἀρτἑμὼν occurs in no ancient Greek author. We see a foresail in an old painting of Pompeii. Luke alone designates it here. It is remarkable how the master and the pilot vanish from notice at all these times of danger, and for wise measures. The apostle really guides at the crisis. The sailors are only mentioned as meditating ineffectual treachery. The centurion takes action, with the soldiers on one occasion, on another preventing a cruel deed to secure themselves from risk as to the prisoners.

For now the supreme moment had arrived. The ship must be stranded, as it was impossible to save it any more than its lading. Making for the beach, they fell into a place where two seas met, apparently through the island now called Salmonetta, in St. Paul's Bay; and there they drove the ship aground (ver. 41). In few spots, save there, could the fact have been as here described, owing to a deep deposit of mud, where the bow stuck and remained fast, whilst the stern began to break up, exposed as it was to the force of the waves.

The soldiers' counsel was to kill the prisoners (ver. 42). They were responsible under the severest penalties not to let them go, as even this Book itself shows on more occasions than one. But the centurion, not so much out of pity for the rest as through regard for Paul, interfered to save him at all cost (ver. 43). 'Wishing' is the force, not merely 'willing'. His order was for such as could swim to cast off and get to land; as the rest did, some on boards, and some on parts of the ship now going to pieces. They all got safe ashore, as verse 44 tells us. The promise was made good, to God's glory, as a living God and faithful Creator.

Acts 28

The land to which they escaped they subsequently learnt to be Malta. This ought to be beyond controversy. Yet it has been contested even to our own day. The first who argued for the islet in the Gulf of Venice called Meleda seems to be Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who hazarded this opinion in his work on the Administration of the Empire, one of the Byzantine historians and of weight in what he personally knew. But he, like the few who adopted his view of the scene of the apostle's shipwreck had not duly considered the revealed account, any more than the actual facts of the two places as fitting in with that account. The direction of the wind favours Malta, as it blew them from Crete and Clauda toward the dreaded Syrtis. This could not have driven toward the north of the Gulf. Nor is there any need to narrow the Adriatic to that gulf; for it is well known that in ancient usage, and by such careful writers as Claudius Ptolemy, the famous geographer, it comprehended the open sea where the ship really drifted to Malta, and considerably farther. Then again there is nothing in the local features, soundings, anchorings, 'rough' or rocky places, creek with a beach, place with two seas, which can apply to Meleda as to Malta. And the argument founded on 'the barbarians' is quite invalid; for the Romans like the Greeks applied the term to those who were, not savages, but speakers of a language strange to themselves. Nor am I aware of any proof, even if the word meant 'savages', that this then applied to the inhabitants of Meleda more than to those of Malta, though it is difficult to suppose that that insignificant isle would have such residents as Publius, his father, and those that honoured Paul and his friends with many honours and kind supplies, to say nothing of the universal kindness to the soldiers and ship's company. Malta, from its position and value from of old to this day, has been an important island, never Meleda.

Scaliger and Bochart with their usual discernment and massive learning had no hesitation in refuting the mediaeval mistake, and vindicating the claim of 'St. Paul's Bay' in Malta as the true scene of the wreck and the escape. Bryant's reasoning, and later still S. T. Coleridge's pleas in behalf of Meleda against Malta, have no real ground-work.

'And when got safe we then ascertained that the island was called Melita. And the barbarians [or, natives] showed us no common kindness; for they kindled a fire-heap and took us all in because of the then rain and because of the cold. But when Paul gathered a certain quantity of sticks and laid [it] on the fire-heap, a viper came out through the heat and fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging from his hand, they said one to another, Certainly a murderer is this man, whom though got safe from the sea, justice refused to let live. He, however shook off the  beast into the fire and suffered no harm. And they expected that he would be inflamed or fall down dead suddenly; but when they were long expecting and beheld nothing amiss happen, they, changing their mind, said that he was a god' (vers. 1-6).

Mr. Smith has well explained that there is no difficulty in understanding how the crew and the officers failed to make out the locality, even if ever so familiar in a general way as an Alexandrian ship with the great harbour of the island. They had drifted there in the dark, and there is no such definite landmark on the adjacent coast as to make identification easy; and whatever peculiarity may be there, they only discovered when they got close in before the ship ran aground. But the barbarians, or men of a foreign tongue,1 behaved with unusual philanthropy, which puts to shame what has too often been experienced on British shores and other coasts alas! since Christianity. They lit not a 'fire' merely, but one so large that the term employed is one usually applied to a funeral pyre (πυρά), as indeed would be needed to meet the urgent need of such a dripping crowd with rain falling heavily, and severe cold.

1 Their tongue was then Punic fundamentally, as springing from Phoenicia, the great source of eastern enterprise and commercial marine. So it was in Carthage also. But Malta has seen radical changes, and in nothing more than its race of inhabitants and consequent language, which is now and has long been an Arabic patois, however much they flatter themselves on their descent from the Phoenicians.

This gave occasion to the incident related so graphically in verses 3-6. The apostle, with his usual earnestness and lowly love, gathers a faggot of sticks near the spot and laid it on the fire-heap, when a viper, no doubt before this dormant in the neglected wood, was roused as well as irritated by the heat and seized on the hand of Paul. It was ordered of God to verify the promise of the Lord Jesus (Mark 16: 18), and as a sign to the kind heathen, and so much the more as they quite mistook its import at first by leaving out God as unbelief habitually does. For when they saw the noxious creature hanging from his hand, they were assured that he must be a murderer, escaped from the sea, only to meet a just retribution. But when he shook off the serpent into the fire without suffering anything out of the way, and they looked long in vain for either virulent inflammation or sudden falling dead, all was changed, and they called him a god. Such is the worth of human opinion outside its own sphere. Little could they conceive that he was a man of God, a prisoner in heathen hands because of the deadly hatred of God's people, the Jews, and this really because of the good news of Christ he preached to the Gentiles. But moral enigmas in this world are more surprising than the greatest of intellectual difficulties. Of one thing we may be sure, that the natural man is here invariably astray.

Nor was this all. The signs of Christianity are characteristically beneficent, samples of that power which in the age to come will banish the evil one and chase away the dire effects of sin, when mankind as a whole, and pre-eminently Israel, shall sing, 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who heareth all thy diseases' (Psalm 103: 2, 3). That day has not yet dawned on Israel and the nations, but meanwhile for the inauguration of the gospel and in honour of Him Who was crucified by men but now exalted of God in heaven, there was, wherever it seemed fitting, a display of the powers of the coming age, not only over a vanquished enemy, but in pity for his poor victim, suffering man. Thus another of the signs to follow those that believed was soon after added: 'they shall lay hands on sick persons, and they shall be well' (Mark 16: 18).

'Now in the country surrounding that place were lands belonging to the chief1 of the island, by name Publius, who received and entertained us three days courteously. And so it was that the father of Publius lay ill of a fever2 and dysentery; unto whom Paul came in and laid his hands on him with prayer, and healed him. This then being done, others also that had sicknesses on the island came and were cured; who also honoured us with many honours, and on sailing put on board [or, laded us with] things for our need' (vers. 7-10).

1 There is good reason from more than one ancient inscription to regard 'the first', or 'chief' as a title and not a vague distinction.

2 Fever is in the Greek plural, being a malady of renewed attacks. No writer in either the Old or New Testament abounds in such medical technicality as Luke; and nobody has so elaborately evinced this fact as Dr. W. K. Hobart in his Medical Language of St. Luke, an interesting volume of the Dublin University Press Series.

Here then we have the gracious healing power attached to the Lord's name, but no pretentiousness on the apostle's part. He prayed and laid his hands on the sick man. The healing of one so prominent arrested attention. Many others in the island came with their sicknesses and were cured also, for grace is no respecter of persons. Nor did Paul or Luke decline their attentions and kind offerings, though assuredly they sought nothing at their hands. Indeed it is of all consequence that the Christian, while valuing as our Father does even a cup of cold water given in the name of a disciple, should render a simple and true testimony that the gospel, the grace and truth of Christ, has everything to give; it is never to gain what self seeks in this world. God is a Giver Himself, the Giver of the best and indeed of all good, and He loves that His own keep up the family character in this respect as in all others (2 Cor. 9: 7). On the other hand, it is very far from the ways of Christ to cherish a narrow, hard, and unappreciative heart where kindness is meant, especially because of His word and work. It is only the Holy Spirit keeping Christ before the eye of faith that can enable us to discern the path in the midst of difficulties and dangers on all sides.

'And after three months we sailed in a ship of Alexandria after having wintered in the island, with Dioscuri3' for a sign. And landing at Syracuse we tarried three days; and thence having gone round we arrived at Rhegium, and after one day when a south wind sprung up we came on the second day unto Puteoli, where we found brethren and were besought to tarry with them seven days; and so we came unto Rome. And thence the brethren having heard about us came out to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae, whom when Paul saw, he thanked God and took courage' (vers. 11-15).

3 These were Castor and Pollux, the fabulous patrons of seamen among the heathen, as is familiar with those who have read the Greek and Latin poets.

We have seen how the Lord attracted hearts by His gracious power to that truth which is for heaven and eternity, but received here only by faith, and here productive of good and holy and godly fruits to His praise, the comfort of love among His own, and no small testimony to His name among those that are not His, if peradventure they might be won and called out of darkness into His marvellous light.

In the early spring they took ship again, this time also of Alexandria that had escaped the storm which had wrecked their former ship because the master and crew had slighted the warning of the apostle. We do not hear of preaching, though we may be sure that the grace of Christ and the love of souls did not slumber in the hearts of His servants. But we see the place given to them, and to Paul in particular, by their past experience rising more and more as God saw fit to use each occasion where man's wisdom or power was unavailing.

Syracuse, a famous city of Sicily, was soon reached, but after a stay of three days they compassed the coast and came to Rhegium and the next day to Puteoli. The former was in the south-west extremity of Italy, a port of Bruttium on the sea. The latter, in the Bay of Naples, was celebrated for its thirty-three mineral wells which indeed gave it its name, as well as for its earth valued even to this day for its uses.

Here brethren were found who entreated that the apostle and the rest should remain with them seven days, the old term of a visit so natural among Christians who valued, above all, the joy of fellowship on the Lord's day and at His Supper, along with the manifold opportunities of edification, prayer and the word, meanwhile. 'Then we went unto Rome.' What a contrast with the great ones of the earth, victor or vanquished, who had so often taken the same road! 'His be the Victor's name' was their life-song and brightest triumph — His Who 'trod all our foes beneath His feet By being trodden down.' His servants tread in His footsteps, though it was His alone to suffer for sins.

But ere they reached the metropolis of the world, a fresh witness of love greeted the apostle and his company. How refreshing to his spirit! From Rome, when the brethren heard of their arrival in Italy, 'they came out to meet us as far as Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae'. The former was less than forty miles, the latter more than thirty miles from the great city. Neither place enjoyed a good repute even in heathen eyes. A classic poet has left a lively record of his passing through the more distant of the two with its low yet extortionate taverns and squabbling bargemen. How different the meeting of the apostle of the Gentiles with those saints of Rome to whom he wrote not long before he was taken prisoner! He was nearing brethren he had longed to see that he might impart some spiritual gift for their establishment, or, as he humbly and beautifully put the matter, that he with them might be comforted in them, each by the other's faith, both theirs and his.

And now two companies had come forth to welcome him; for this is made plain by the mention of places distant by a few miles, but no short way from Rome in days when travelling was far from so easy as it is now. None of these was troubled by the badness of the water, nor complained of mosquitoes or marsh-frogs or bantering slaves or lazy boatmen; no elation in the company by great friends or good cheer, still less by the wordy wars of buffoons while they dined. But debtor to Jew and Greek he that prayed for fruit to God's glory through Christ the Lord gave Him thanks and took courage when he saw those whom love in the truth had brought from Rome to welcome him. And what a joy for men delivered from the false glitter of the world and their selfish profit from its grinding tyrant, the many-headed Beast, to recognize by grace in Paul the prisoner the most honoured servant of the Lord, the inspired writer to them of an Epistle yielding to none in depth and comprehensiveness of treating and enforcing the foundations of a saint's relationship with God, and the walk and service proper to it now!

It will be noticed that there is not a trace of Peter either now or subsequently, any more than in the Epistle more full of personal notices in its last chapter than any other in the New Testament. How unaccountable if the great apostle of the circumcision were then at Rome in any capacity whatever, still more if he there held the position assigned by some traditionmongers! And if Peter did not found the church in Rome, certainly no other apostle had a hand in it. Indeed, Paul near the beginning and before the end of his Epistle to the Romans, gives us two statements irreconcilable with that ancient fable. In Romans 1: 13 he evidently regards the head of Gentiledom as falling within his province, no less than heathen lands east of it, whilst the Epistle itself from the first chapter to the last is the fullest proof of a large number of saints already there, even both Jews and Gentiles. Then again, in the chapter before the last, he lays down what was the regular and constant aim of his ministry — his labours where Christ was not named and his avoidance of building upon another man's foundation. For, as already noticed, there was a lack in Rome of what an apostle could best supply (Rom. 1: 11), which it is inconceivable to suppose asserted if Peter or any other apostle had visited the city before Paul wrote or went. We may therefore dismiss absolutely what Eusebius states in the Armenian text of the Chronicon, followed as it is in the main by Jerome (Catal. 1) and by heaps of Romanists, that Peter visited Rome as early as A.D. 42! and stayed there twenty years! (Jerome et al. say twenty-five years): a statement as impossible to stand with what scripture tells of Peter as with what we learn there of Paul.

Yet we do see Paul needing to take courage, as he drew near the city he had so longed to visit in the Lord. He seems as deeply conscious of weakness and fear and trembling as when preaching at Corinth years before. His experience of the Lord's gracious care on the last perilous voyage and wreck, also the proofs of His power accompanying him with their effects on all at Malta, did not hinder this. Indeed it is in weakness that the Lord proves the sufficiency of His grace, as He had taught the Corinthians after no less real experience of delivering power in Ephesus (2 Cor. 1 and 12). And here the Lord works not by such a vision as had sustained Paul when in danger of yielding to depression (Acts 23: 11) but by the faith and affection of the brethren from Rome. For it would seem that the delay at Puteoli, due to brethren there who would have him stay a week in their midst, gave occasion for the tidings of his arrival in Italy reaching the saints in Rome and of their coming to meet him. And no difficulty, it is clear, was interposed by the authorities, who held him a prisoner, such was the moral respect inspired among the Roman officials, and not least in the centurion who had witnessed his ways and words all the journey from the east to the west.

But how sweet and wondrous the dealings of grace to know from indisputable authority that the saints he was going to help so mightily were used of the Lord for the cheer of the apostle himself on the road: the best comment on his own words written to them beforehand — his desire to have mutual comfort among them, each by the faith that was in the other, both theirs and his!

How practical is the truth that the body of Christ is one, and has many members set each one in the body even as it pleased God! 'And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay much rather, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary: and those parts of the body which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness, whereas our comely parts have no need. But God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it' (1 Cor. 12: 19-26). Such is the church, called to be on earth the answer to Christ in heaven. Oh, how soon the declension, how far the departure, and how universal the ruin! Do we feel it, judge ourselves, and seek His will?

Thus the apostle comes to the metropolis of the world a prisoner. Such was the will of God. There were saints in it then, as we know from the Epistle written to them from Corinth (Rom. 16: 3). Many assemblies were apostolically founded, not that in Rome. So did God anticipate by condemning the pride of man which later on indulged in this tradition, as groundless as are most others. The chief city of the Gentiles, which lay within Paul's province, not Peter's (Gal. 2: 8), could boast truthfully of no apostle as its founder. But more, there the greatest witness of the gospel came in bonds. So was the gospel to fare even more bitterly in the torture and at the stake when the pagan Babylon became the mystery of impiety, the papal Babylon. Yet the word of God was not bound, any more than crueller fiats consumed it later, even when a pseudo-Christian priest sat on the throne of the Caesars, and men masqueraded in the garb of the Lamb's followers who were ravening wolves, and really heathen in heart and unbelief.

'And when he came to Rome [the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the praetorian guard, but]1 Paul was allowed to remain with the soldier who guarded him. And it came to pass that after three days he2 called together those that were chief of the Jews; and when they were come together he said unto them, [Men] Brethren, I, though having done nothing against the people or the customs of our fathers, was delivered a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans; who, after examination, wished to release me because there was no cause of death in me. But when the Jews spoke against [it], I was constrained to appeal to Caesar, not having anything to accuse my nation of. For this cause therefore did I call for you to see and to speak with, for on account of the hope of Israel am I bound with this chain. And they said unto him, We neither received letters from Jud�¦a concerning thee, neither did any of the brethren on arriving report or speak anything evil concerning thee. But we beg [or, think well] of thee to hear what thou thinkest; for concerning this sect it is known to us that it is everywhere spoken against' (vers. 16-22).

1 The most ancient copies do not recognize the bracketed clause.

2 The Text. Rec. wrongly reads 'Paul' here on insufficient evidence.

Two things appear in the apostle: entire superiority to the rancour that had hitherto pursued him from the Jews, and also untiring zeal to seek that they should hear the truth, and not judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. Nor was there the least underhand work. He invited their chief men, not the less informed, and he explained that, without wrong to the Jews or to their hereditary customs, he was a prisoner from Jerusalem among the Romans, who after examination were minded to acquit him but for the opposition of the Jews, which forced his appeal to the emperor. But he points out the real offence — his stand for the hope of Israel. He might have exposed their conspiracy to murder him when in Roman hands, a fact which, if published in Rome, would have as completely served himself as blasted the Jews. But not a word escapes him, save of unselfish love, saying he had no charge against those that had so persistently sought his death. It was truly for the hope of Israel he wore the chain — for the Messiah fraught with blessings of every kind, never to wane, for Israel. And if Jews turned a deaf ear, those sure mercies (before which Israel one day will melt in true repentance) must find suited objects, if not in the favoured land, in the barren wilderness where open outcasts now live to God's glory, the objects of the grace of Jesus

Of this grace to Gentiles, however, which had roused the hate of Jews elsewhere, the apostle does not yet speak, but simply of the fact that it was for the Christ, the hope of Israel, that he was a prisoner.

The fact is that the Jews, having failed, with successive governors, and even with king Agrippa, were shrewd enough to apprehend the folly of carrying their complaints of Paul to Caesar. They had no true criminal charge. And what would a Roman emperor care for their religious accusation? The Jews therefore replied that neither letters nor visitors had laid any formal complaint before them against Paul, but that they wished to hear what he had to say of the sect so universally spoken against as Christians. This was precisely what the apostle's heart desired.

'And having appointed him a day, many came unto him into the lodging, to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them1 concerning Jesus, from both the law of Moses and the prophets from morning till evening. And some assented to the things that were said, and some disbelieved. And being disagreed one with another they left, Paul having said one word, Well spoke the Holy Spirit through Isaiah unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people and say, With hearing ye shall hear and in no wise understand, with seeing ye shall see and in no wise perceive. For the heart of this people became gross, and with [their] ears they became dull of hearing, and [their] eyes they closed, lest they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears and understand with the heart, and return, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you that this2 salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles: they also will hear' (vers. 23-28). Verse 29 in the Text. Rec. as represented in the Authorized Version is not found in the ancient Greek MSS. To cast out an innovation is the reverse of innovating.

1 The Text. Rec. adds 'the things'.

2 The Text. Rec. inserts 'the': 'this' is the reading of AB, good cursives, and many of the most ancient versions.

Thus God gave His servant an open door to the very people whom he loved so well and whose brethren's malice made him a prisoner, and so much the longer because there was no one to lay a definite charge. It was a moment of exceeding solemnity to the apostle's spirit, as there in Rome he laid bare the truth of God's kingdom and of the Person of Jesus from the law and the prophets for one long day; and with the result that some were persuaded of the things that were said, while others disbelieved, a stronger expression than their simply not believing. The word of God in the light of Jesus comes to put them to the proof, as it does and is intended to do.

But if disagreeing among themselves they took their leave, Paul reiterated the long suspended sentence, already pronounced by the Judge Himself in John 12: 37-41 seven centuries and more after Isaiah was inspired to utter it from the vision in the temple in the year when king Uzziah died (Isa. 6). What a witness of divine patience as well as of sure judgment on His own people! Jehovah, the God of Israel, sent His prophet with the message originally. Then Jehovah-Jesus toward the close of His rejected testimony of love and light in their midst departed and hid Himself, after having done so many signs which manifested the Father and the Son at work in grace. Yet they believed not in Him, according to Isaiah 53, yea more, they could not believe, for the judicial spell was taking effect, fruit of despising every word and proof of God Himself, the Son, on earth

'These things said Isaiah, because he saw His [Christ's] glory, and he spake of Him' (John 12: 41). Such is the comment of the inspired Evangelist. Now the word is again cited by Paul, only with this emphatic reference — 'Well spoke the Holy Spirit.' He Who of old gave the prophet to see, hear, and write, was now sent down from heaven to make good Christ's glory, and is declared to be the One Who then and thus spoke. The Spirit had been rejected by the Jews as the witness of the glorified Son of man, as truly as the Son on earth had been, and Jehovah as such of old On the ground of responsibility all was over with the chosen people, who, having failed in righteousness, abhorred sovereign grace in the gospel. But the mercy they despised will be their only ground in the latter day, when the last empire of the Gentile rises up to oppose the returning Lord at His appearing in glory, in alliance with the Antichrist in the land of Israel. These are the Beast and the False Prophet of the Revelation.

Meanwhile the Jew is finally cut off, and before the apostasy is come and 'the man of sin' revealed, the gospel goes forth on its errand of heavenly mercy to the Gentiles. 'They also will hear,' said the messenger from his bonds in Rome. And so it has been; so it is; though the shadows deepen as the end of the age draws near. Then an ungrateful Christendom will cast off the faith, and more and more return to naturalism, in love not only of present things but of idolatry, and in man set up as true God, that wrath may come to the uttermost on all, whether Jew or Gentile, who spurn grace and bow down to the creature lifted up to destruction by Satan in the despite and denial of the Father and the Son.

But meanwhile 'this salvation of God was sent to the Gentiles.' For the grace of God goes down to the lowest when the light of the knowledge of His glory shines, as now in the gospel it does in the face of Jesus at His right hand. Thus Israel is cast off, the Gentiles hear and the apostle was in bonds. So the history ends.

But the apostle, a prisoner in Rome, sent thence to the Jews the deepest message they ever received from God, as also Paul sent to the saints at Ephesus and Colosse the fullest words on the body and its Head, and on Christian experience to the Philippians, and personally to Philemon: so fertilizing was the stream that flowed through him in his captivity.

'And he remained two whole years in his own hired lodging, and received all that came unto him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, with all boldness unhinderedly' (vers. 30, 31).

Such is the simple, solemn, and dignified close of inspired ecclesiastical history. Some speak of it as abrupt, because it does not tell us of the subsequent imprisonment of the apostle and his death. It is the same spirit of unbelief which complains of the two Gospels that do not set before us the ascension scene, as if God did not know best how to reveal His own truth. Paul is a prisoner, yet not so as to hinder the going forth of the truth even in Rome. To know more of the apostle we must read closely the word; yet even so nothing is there to encourage curiosity, superstition, or hero-worship, but everything that God in all things may be glorified by Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Paul to the  Colossians.

W. Kelly.

W. K. Translation

Colossians 1. (1) Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ by God's will, and Timothy the brother, (2) to the saints in Colosse and faithful brethren in Christ. Grace to you and peace from God our Father.

(3) We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, continually praying for you, (4) having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which ye have unto all the saints, (5) on account of the hope that is laid up for you in the heavens, of which ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, (6) which is come unto you, even as in all the world it is producing fruit and growing, even as also among you, from the day that ye heard and knew the grace of God in truth; (7) even as ye learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-bondman, who is for you a faithful servant of Christ, (8) that has also manifested to us your love in [the] Spirit.

(9) On this account we also, from the day that we heard, do not cease praying for you, and asking that ye might be filled with the full knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; (10) to walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit, and increasing in the full knowledge of God, (11) in all power empowered according to the might of his glory, unto all endurance and long-suffering with joy; (12) giving thanks to the Father that qualified us for sharing the inheritance of the saints in light; (13) who delivered us from the authority of darkness and translated [us] into the kingdom of the Son of his love: (14) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; (15) who is [the] image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation; (16) for by him was created the universe, the things in the heavens and those on the earth, the seen and the unseen, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities. The universe has been created through him and for him. (17) He is before all things, and the universe in him subsisteth. (18) And he is the head of the body, the assembly; who is [the] beginning, firstborn from among the dead, that he might be in all things pre-eminent: (19) for in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell; (20) and by him to reconcile the universe unto him, having made peace by the blood of his cross — by him, whether the things on the earth or those in the heavens. (21) And you [who] once were alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, (22) yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death to present you holy, and unblamable, and irreproachable before him, (23) if indeed ye abide in the faith grounded and firm, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel (which ye heard, that was preached in the whole creation under the heaven), of which I, Paul, became servant; (24) who now rejoice in sufferings for you, and fill up what is wanting* of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly, (25) of which I became servant, according to the stewardship of God that was given me for you, to complete the word of God, (26) the mystery that was hidden from ages and from generations, but now hath been manifested to his saints; (27) to whom God wished to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: (28) whom we preach, admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ, (29) whereunto also I toil in conflict according to his working that worketh in me in power.

*Or, "the deficiency."

Colossians 2. (1) For I wish you to know how great conflict I have for you and those in Laodicea, and as many as have not seen my face in flesh; (2) that their hearts may be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding unto full knowledge of the mystery of God, (3) in which are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (4) And this I say that no one may beguile you by persuasive speech. (5) For if even in the flesh I am absent, yet I am with you in the spirit, rejoicing and seeing your order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. (6) As therefore ye received the Christ, Jesus the Lord, in him walk, (7) rooted and built up in him, and confirmed in the faith, even as ye were taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. (8) See that there shall be no one that readeth you a prey through philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ. (9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; (10) and ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and authority; (11) in whom also ye were circumcised with circumcision not wrought by hand, in the putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of the Christ; (12) buried with him in baptism, in which ye were also raised with [him] through faith in the working of God that raised him out of the dead. (13) And you, being dead in offences and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he quickened you together with him, having forgiven us all the offences, (14) having blotted out the handwriting in ordinances [that was] against us, which was contrary to us; and he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to his cross; (15) having stripped the principalities and the authorities, he made show openly, triumphing over them in it. (16) Let none therefore judge you in eating and in drinking, or in respect of feast or new moon or sabbaths, (17) which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (18) Let no one defraud you of your prize, doing his will in humility and worship of the angels, intruding into things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh, (19) and not holding fast the head, from whom all the body, ministered to and knit together by the joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God.

(20) If ye died with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as alive in [the] world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances? (21) Handle not, neither taste, nor even touch (22) (which are all for destruction in the using), according to the injunctions and trainings of men; (23) which have a reputation indeed of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and unsparingness of [the] body, not in any honour to satisfying of the flesh.

Colossians 3. (1) If therefore ye were raised with Christ, seek the things above, where the Christ is seated on [the] right hand of God. (2) Set your mind on the things above, not on those on the earth. (3) For ye died, and your life is hid with the Christ in God. (4) When the Christ, our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also be manifested with him in glory. (5) Put to death therefore your members that [are] on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry; (6) on account of which things cometh the wrath of God [upon the sons of disobedience]: (7) in which ye also once walked when ye lived in these things.

(8) But now do ye also put off the whole:* wrath, anger, malice, blasphemy, vile language out of your mouth. (9) Lie not to one another, having put off the old man with his deeds, (10) and having put on the new that is renewed in full knowledge according to [the] image of him that created him; (11) where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free, but Christ the whole,† and in all.

* "The whole" here (as "the universe" in Colossians 1: 16, 17) not very exactly represents ta panta, but in my opinion is better than "all."

†See preceding note.

(12) Put on therefore, as elect of God, holy [and] beloved, bowels of compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, long-suffering; (13) forbearing one another, and forgiving each other, if any should have a complaint against any; even as also the Lord forgave you, so also [do] ye; (14) and in addition to all these, love, which is [the] bond of perfectness. (15) And let the peace of the Christ rule in your hearts, into which also ye were called in one body; and be ye thankful. (16) Let the word of the Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing each other with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, in grace singing in your hearts to God. (17) And everything, whatever ye do in word or in work, [do] all in [the] name of [the] Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father by him.

(18) Wives, be subject to the husbands, as was fitting in [the] Lord. (19) Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter against them. (20) Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing in [the] Lord. (21) Fathers, do not irritate your children, that they be not discouraged. (22) Bondmen, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but in simplicity of heart fearing the Lord. (23) And whatever ye do, heartily work as to the Lord and not to men, (24) knowing that from [the] Lord ye shall receive the recompense of the inheritance: ye serve the Lord Christ. (25) For he that doeth wrongfully shall receive what he did wrongfully, and there is no respect of persons.

Colossians 4. (1) Masters, justice and equity accord to your bondmen, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

(2) Persevere in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving; (3) praying at the same time also for us, that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am also bound, (4) that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. (5) Walk in wisdom toward those without, buying up the time.* (6) Let your speech be always in grace, seasoned with salt, to know how ye must answer each one.

*Or, "opportunity."

(7) All my affairs shall Tychicus make known to you, the beloved brother and faithful servant in [the] Lord; (8) whom I sent unto you for this very thing, that he may know your concerns and comfort your hearts, (9) with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother who is of you. They shall make known all things here.

(10) Aristarchus, my fellow-captive, saluteth you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas, about whom ye received injunctions (if he come unto you, receive him), (11) and Jesus, that is called Justus; who are of the circumcision. These [are the] only fellow-workers for the kingdom of God who have been a comfort to me. (12) There saluteth you Epaphras, who [is] of you, a bondman of Jesus Christ, always striving for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all [the] will of God.* (13) For I bear him witness that he hath much labour for you and those in Laodicea and those in Hierapolis. (14) There saluteth you Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas. (15) Salute the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the assembly in their house. (16) And when the letter hath been read by you, cause that it be read also in the assembly of Laodiceans, and that ye also may read that from Laodicea. (17) And say to Archippus, See to the ministry which thou didst receive in [the] Lord that thou fulfill it. (18) The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace [be] with you.

*Or, "every will of God," everything that is such.

Colossians 1

It is hardly possible for the most careless reader to overlook the kindred truth set forth in this epistle and in that to the Ephesians. Union with Christ, the Head of His body the Church, has a place here beyond all other scriptures; for though 1 Corinthians may present the same doctrine (1 Cor. 12), it is evident that there is a question of the assembly of God on earth, in which the Holy Ghost is actively at work through the members, distributing to each as He will, much more than of the saints viewed in Christ above, as in Ephesians, or of Christ viewed in them below, as in Colossians.

Nevertheless, distinctions of great moment and full of interest characterize these two epistles, the chief of which lies in this, that, as in Ephesians we have the privileges of the body of Christ, the fullness of Him who filleth all in all, so in Colossians we have the glories of the Head, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. This difference, like others, was due, in the wisdom of the Spirit, to the moral condition of those addressed. In the former case the Apostle launches out into the counsels of God, who has blessed the saints with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; in the latter case there was a measure of departure into philosophy and Jewish traditions, not an abandonment of Christ, of course, but such an admixture of these foreign ingredients as threatened fatal results in the Apostle's eyes, unless their souls were brought back to Christ, and to Christ alone, in all the rights of His Person and work. Thus the epistle to the Colossians, in consequence of their state, does not admit of the vast scope and development of divine purposes and glory for the saints seen in and united to Christ; whereas in writing to the Ephesians there was then nothing in them to arrest or narrow the outgoing of the Apostle's heart, as the Spirit led him to apprehend with all the saints the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ. Here it is largely a question of exhortation, of recovering their souls, of grave warning. Hence the human element is more prominent here. Writing to the Ephesians the Apostle associates none with himself in the address; yet was Ephesus the capital of proconsular Asia and well known to his fellow labourers and associated by a thousand tender ties with himself and others. The assembly at Colosse as such was among those that had never seen his face in the flesh. This makes it the more marked when he joins Timothy with himself in their case.

"Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ by God's will, and Timothy the brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colosse: grace to you and peace from God our Father." vv. 1, 2. For himself, he was not unauthorized, nor was his title human. He was an apostle, not of the Church, but of Christ Jesus by divine will; and Timothy stands with him simply as "the brother." Again, the assembly at Colosse is characterized not only as "saints and faithful," as the Ephesians were, but as "faithful brethren." It is evident that here again, while all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, this term "brethren" brings out their relations to one another, as the others suppose God's grace and their faith if not fidelity.* His own apostolic place is named with quiet dignity and with evident appropriateness for all that follows.

*The omission of "and the Lord Jesus Christ" in the best texts is particularly to be noted; for the drift of the epistle is to give especial prominence to the glory of Christ. Some excellent copies which contain the words may have naturally fallen into this mistake; for the scribes would not without an effort abstain from the usual formula in these epistles. On the other hand, it is difficult to account for the absence of so familiar an ending in first-rate witnesses of various ages and countries, and for the express statement of early commentators that it was not found here, if the words be genuine.

It has been well observed that the Apostle quite omits anything answering to the magnificent introduction with which he begins his Ephesian epistle (Eph. 1: 3-14). There was a check on his spirit; he felt the danger that threatened the Colossians. How could he then at once break forth into an unhindered strain of blessing? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and deals with hearts and consciences. Still, if that high tone of worship could not find a place here with propriety, there is immediate thanksgiving. "We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ always when praying for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and love which ye have toward all the saints, on account of the hope that is laid up for you in the heavens, of which ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel that is present with you, even as also in all the world it is bearing fruit and growing even as also among you, from the day when ye heard and knew the grace of God in truth: even as ye learnt from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-bondman, who is a servant of Christ, faithful for you, that also declared to us your love in the Spirit." vv. 7, 8.

The Apostle had heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus that was in the Ephesians, and their love toward all the saints, which drew out his heart in thanksgiving and prayer. He knew them personally and well, having laboured with deep blessing in their midst; but it was sweet to hear of the working of the Spirit among them. So of the Colossians, though not known thus, he had similar tidings, for which he could thank God always in his prayers for them.

But is not the difference striking between the two as exemplified in his manner of presenting the hope? In Ephesians it is the hope of God's calling, the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints. What can be more profound or boundless? Here he could scarcely say less. Their hope was laid up, it was safe, it was "in the heavens," not (spite of philosophy or of ascetic ordinances) on the earth. Of all these they had to beware, whatever their looks and promises. Of their proper hope he would remind them, recalling them to the heavens where Christ is, the true and only deliverance from all the workings of mind in divine things and from earthly religiousness.

This heavenly hope, blessed as it is, was nothing new to them, they had heard it before in the word of the truth of the gospel. What the Apostle taught would not weaken or undermine, but confirm that which they had heard in the good news which converted them originally, or (as he here styles it, to give it all possible weight in presence of their straining after novelties) "in the word of the truth of the gospel." It was not intellectual groping, but "the word" definitely sent to them, God's revelation; it was not dabbling in legal forms, but "the truth," the truth of the gospel. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. The gospel came to them, yea, was there present with them, no more changing than He does who is its sum and substance. Real truth, even when new, never sets aside the old, but on the contrary supplies missing links, deepens the foundations and enlarges the sphere. Had their philosophy, had their novel restrictions (Col. 2) increased their sense of the value of the gospel? Had these things exalted Christ? There is no doubt what the effect of Paul's teaching would be either in general or in this epistle very especially.

Further, the gospel being thus the display of God's goodness in Christ, not the measure of human duty nor a system of religious shadows, its theatre according to God's intentions is not a single land or family, but "all the world"; and its operation is not condemning and killing, but producing fruit and growing, even as among the saints at Colosse. Was there this fruit bearing, and expansion too, since they had taken up their newfangled notions and legal ways? The gospel is both productive of fruit and has propagative energy. This addition of its growth (kai auxanomenon) is lost to the common text, having been omitted in inferior copies. That it is genuine cannot be fairly questioned. Certainly both traits were known from the day they heard and really knew the grace of God in truth. And this gives the blessed Apostle opportunity, as was his wont, to strengthen the hands of one who was Christ's minister and faithful on their behalf, "Epaphras, our beloved fellow bondman," as he is here affectionately called. The speculative views, the Judaistic forms, had, no doubt, their exponents, who would seek to ingratiate themselves at a faithful labourer's expense. We can readily conceive that the word thus commending Epaphras was needed at Colosse.

In the last portion we saw how the Apostle could speak of the effects of the gospel from the day they had heard it and knew the grace of God in truth. Grace is not like the law. The ten words are chiefly negative. The law, for the most part, deals with what is evil and condemns it; but the gospel reveals Christ as a quickening power, and a strengthening and fruit-producing power. Being a principle of life, it expands and grows as well as produces fruit, as the Apostle describes it, "and bringeth forth fruit [and increaseth] since the day ye heard it," etc.

But now he says, "For this cause we also, since the day we heard it [heard of this living witness to the power of the gospel], do not cease to pray for you." This is a beautiful expression of the Apostle's love which, spite of fear which he justly entertained about the tendencies of these Colossian saints, still only drew him out in prayer for them the more. "And to desire (or ask) that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will." They had shown rather the reverse of this; they had proved a void in their hearts, which they had in vain sought by legal ordinances and philosophy to fill up. Nothing but an intelligent and growing acquaintance with Christ can satisfy the renewed heart. The very mercy that delivers a soul becomes a danger unless Christ Himself be the maintained habitual object. Alas! the freedom which the gospel brings may be used to take things easily, and, more or less, retain or gain the world; but where this is the case, it is seldom a soul possesses any large measure of spiritual enjoyment, and it is never accompanied by solid peace. The soul becomes thus unsettled and uncertain. These oscillations may go on for a certain time, until God carry on the work more deeply in the heart. The Colossians were in some such state; they had not steadily advanced to a fuller knowledge of God's will; consequently Satan found means to trouble them. They had seen the first precious display of grace; it was real but not deep; for knowing the grace of God in truth is not the same thing as being filled with the knowledge or full knowledge of His will.

The law never gives that in the least degree; it is a righteous interdict upon man's will. Thus there is only one of the commandments — I mean the law about the sabbath day — which has not distinctly this character. Negation never can form a Christian's ways. We want the bracing of the man morally to all that is good. How is this to be effected? As there is in Christ the communication of life, so also from Him comes the filling with the knowledge of God's will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. The believer is not treated by God as a horse or a mule which have no understanding, but as an intelligent and loving being who is brought into fellowship with God. He would not be a delivered man if his own will ruled him; but this is the very reverse of being filled with the knowledge of God's will, and therefore it is that the Apostle prays for them that they may be.

In Ephesians, though we read in wonderful terms about God's will (Eph. 1), the Apostle did not as here require to ask the knowledge of it for them. There was an apprehension of heart in them that did not need that the Apostle should thus pray for them. He does desire for them both a deeper knowledge of their standing, and a richer enjoyment of Christ within, that they might be filled with the fullness of God — "strengthened with might by his Spirit." But to be filled with the knowledge of His will, as we have it here, evidently has to do with practical walk, "that ye might walk worthy of the Lord." In other words, in the Colossians there is an important practical bearing upon the walk; it is more the forming of the child; it is the strengthening and guiding of one that can but feebly walk, to help it along. In Ephesians, it is the communication of the God and Father of Christ to His children, who are now no longer babes, but full-grown men. Hence, there we have the family relations, feelings, estates, interests, responsibilities, and very fully. The Colossians had been misled by the thoughts of teachers who were themselves far astray. Though the saints there were earnest, still there was something t hat blinded their eyes. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." They must have been governed by their own thoughts, else they would surely have rejected these false notions. It is a simple truth, but very important to observe, that what is presented as God's will necessarily forms the mind, and consequently the walk, of a Christian man. If I am misled as to the mind or objects of God, the effect will be most fatal practically; and the more earnest, the farther one goes astray. But the Apostle had prayed for the Colossians, and still continued, "that they might be filled with this full knowledge of him." I do not the least doubt that in this passage there is a contrast with the walk of one who, however well-disposed, is under law. The more the Christian knows about God's will, which is gracious as well as holy, happiness grows and strength too; whereas law works so as to produce misery and convince of utter weakness. No doubt, if there were a deep sense of the presence of God, it would make but little difference with whom we might be, worldly men or children of God. Of course there would be a difference in our bearing to them according to their relation to God or ignorance of Him; but as a fact, we are always deeply influenced by the company which we keep; we affect and are affected by those we are thrown with. Therefore, it is evident that when Christ was a revealed Person before the soul, and just in proportion as the believer realized his right relationship to Him, so would his walk be. If I know my place as bound to Him and Himself as my Head and Bridegroom, having Him as the object of my heart, it is clear a totally different walk will be the result. The measure and character of the walk among the children of God is formed by the measure of our acquaintance with Christ, where the flesh is sufficiently judged to enjoy it.

But mark again that all through, until we come a little farther down, the Apostle does not touch upon the matters in which they had been faulty. In the middle of chapter 2 he tells them plainly wherein they were to blame. This is very important for us to observe; because, if our aim be really the good and deliverance and help of souls, we should see what God's way is of meeting souls and enabling them to escape the snare. And this we best learn by observing and cleaving to the guidance of the Holy Ghost as shown us in such scriptures as these. It is a rebuke to one's own too frequent bearing toward others, when we think of the marvelous grace and the slowness of the Apostle in coming to what people call the point. I have no doubt there is much to learn in this; and so much was it the case, that from the beginning of this epistle we might almost think these Colossians were in a very delightful condition. The Apostle is most careful to approach gradually that which pained him and must pain them. He is sapping and mining, as it were, to take the citadel; but it is slow work, though sure.

There is another expression here that is well worthy of our notice: "That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing." It is not worthy of the gospel, neither is it worthy of our calling, etc. These are not the form of the exhortation here. The Ephesians were sufficiently clear of this evil influence and could be instructed freely in the calling of God to which they were called; and therefore he says there "that they might walk worthy of the vocation," etc. But he says to the Colossians, "worthy of the Lord." It would not be so easy for them to get rid of the effects of occupation with philosophy and ordinances. The Ephesians had been kept quite clear of this error, and therefore they are exhorted to walk worthy of what they knew to be their place.

As the Lord Jesus is pointed to here, so "unto all pleasing" is the measure; it is not as pleasing us or others, but pleasing Him. Now this is wholly different from the law, which just asked so much and no more. The ways of grace were to be unlimited, "worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing." Therefore he adds immediately, "being fruitful in every good work." It is all positive and not merely negative like the requirements of the law. "Increasing by the full knowledge of him" here appears to be the thought. It refers to the means of Christian growth. I think the "wisdom and spiritual understanding" means a perception of what is good and wise in God's sight, apart from its being His express command. I might do a thing simply because another wished it, and of course this is quite right where there is due authority. For instance, my father may bid me do such or such a thing, and I may do it without knowing why; but here it is my Father who at the same time shows me the importance of it. Thus "wisdom" sees the beauty and propriety of any given thing, and "spiritual understanding" takes the right application. One seizes the cause; the other is occupied with the effect. In this then the gospel differed from the law. Whether a person entered into the meaning of the law or not, he obeyed simply because God ordered. This does not rise to the nature of the Christian's obedience, which enjoys the unfolding of the mind of God in Christ, so that one not only sees His authority, but also its admirably perfect character and its gracious effects. It is quite right that a subject, a servant, a minor, should learn to obey, if it were only for the sake of obedience. But this is not the Christian principle. The obedience of a Christian is not the blind leading the blind, nor is it the seeing leading the blind, but rather the seeing leading the seeing. But there is very much more in this. It is not merely that people are quickened and bear fruit; but, besides that, they grow either by or into a deeper knowledge of God Himself. That deepening acquaintance with God, which goes along with the knowledge of His will, is a very important thing in the path of obedience. One knows God better, one enters into His character better, one learns Himself intimately. Another thing which is of great importance is, that there is not only the growing knowledge, but the being strengthened with all might according to the power of His glory; for this is the idea — it is not "his glorious power," but the power of His glory. It supposes that the glory of Christ has a most decided effect, as the way in which strength is formed or communicated.

If I look at Christ here on the earth, I see Him in weakness and shame and rejection, but in the deepest grace withal, and nowhere so much as on the cross; we cannot do without it, we would not if we could (indeed Christ everywhere is unspeakably precious and absolutely necessary for us); yet for the Christian the place of strength is to look at Christ risen and glorified. No doubt this thought of Christ as one down here in this world is what draws out the affections, even as the cross meets the need of the conscience; but neither gives strength in itself, neither is intended of God to give all that we want. Hence while those who know Christ at all will surely find in Him life and blessing, yet they are never strong where His earthly path is all that occupies their hearts. What then supplies our need as to this? Such should weigh what is said in 2 Corinthians 3: "We all with open face beholding, as in a glass, the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory." This gives practical power. So here the question of power connects itself with His glory. If sympathy be in question, it is always connected with His life down here; for instance, in Hebrews, though Christ is spoken of at the right hand of God, etc., yet it is as One who was once tempted in all points like us, sin excepted, and hence touched with a feeling of our infirmities. This is most comforting as to the power of sympathy. Eternal life and strength are two very different things. The only idea with many is following Christ as an example. Of course it is admirable; but what is to give power? I must be in relationship with God first, a possessor of eternal life, and then power is wanted. I am not in the position till I know redemption through the blood of Christ, and power is only found in Christ risen and glorified. The spring of power is not in looking at what He was down here, but having the consciousness of the glory that is in Him, the power of that filling my own heart, and making the certainty of being with Him. I shall thus not shrink from the rejection that was Christ's portion down here, being strengthened . . . "unto all patience and long-suffering with joyfulness." It is an evil world that we are passing through; but we have this wonderful secret: we have the consciousness of better blessing we possess in Christ. Therefore, let me observe, it should be the very opposite of a man going through trial with his head bowed down. Let it be according to the power of His glory with joyfulness, "giving thanks unto the Father which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light."

This is a present meetness. Sharing the portion of the saints in light is a most wonderful favour; but the Apostle does not hesitate to predicate it of these Colossians whom he was going to rebuke with all solemnity in the next chapter. Still he says the Father has qualified us for sharing the portion of the saints in light. It is purposely put "in light" to show how absolute is the effect of God's work in Christ. It is not simply the inheritance, because that would not of itself present the idea of unsparing holiness, as light does. Again, the portion of the saints in light is not upon the earth or in the heavens merely, but in the light where God dwells as such. Wondrous place for us! Our Father has made us meet for this. The effect of law is always to put God at a distance. Therefore here the Father is put forward.

There are many persons who only look at God as the Creator and the Judge. Although they admit life in Christ, yet are they not at home with the Father. They make of Christ what the Papists make of the virgin Mary. It is all false. This was what made the necessity of bringing the Father especially forward. In Ephesians it was not necessary to do so; they were intelligent in the truth. Here, although the great object is to make Christ, the unqualified glory of Christ, to be that which shuts out ordinances, etc., yet the Apostle brings in the Father, showing that the Father was acting in His love. The combination of perfect love and our being made meet for light now is a wonderful truth. As to the light, the Christian is always in the light; but he may not always walk according to it. A Christian, if he sins, sins in the light; and this is what gives it such a daring character. He may be in a dark state himself practically; still, he is always in the light. And it is precisely this which makes a Christian's sin to be so very serious. He is doing it in the presence of perfect love and in the presence of perfect light. There is therefore no excuse for it.

This blessing depends upon two things: first, upon the effect of the blood of Christ in completely atoning for our sins; and next, upon the fact that we have the life of Christ communicated to us, which life is capable of communing with God in the light. Both these gifts of grace are absolutely true of every Christian. He has the blood of Christ cleansing him as much as he ever can have, and he has life in Christ communicated to his soul as much as ever can be. That which follows in after experience as regards this (for I speak not of service, etc., but of growth in intelligence) is simply having a deeper estimate of what Christ's blood has done and what He Himself is, who has shown us such infinite favour and done so much for us.

Our Father has done more, as the Apostle shows further how we are thus qualified: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness." It is not merely a question of wicked works, but of the power of darkness; how could we, then, be delivered from Satan? He says they were delivered and, more than that, "translated into the kingdom of the Son of his love." It is all perfectly done. The deliverance from the enemy of God is complete, and so is the translation into the kingdom of the Son of His love. "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." "Through his blood" has been inserted in the vulgar text and followed in our version, but it really belongs to Ephesians. I do not doubt the copyists put it in here because it was there. There is greater fullness in Ephesians than in Colossians. Hence the former shows us how we can be so blessed, spite of our sins entering into the statement of the account there. But here it is just summing up the blessing, "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God."

The object evidently is not so much to dwell upon the work of Christ as to bring out His personal glory. Christ is never said to be the likeness of the invisible God, because it might imply that He was not really God. This would be fatally false; for He is God (and without it God's glory and redemption are vain), but yet He is the image of the invisible God, because He is the only Person of the Godhead that has declared Him (see John 1: 18). The Holy Ghost does not manifest God. He does manifest His power, but not Himself; but Christ is "the image of the invisible God." He has presented God in full perfection; He is the truth objectively. He who has seen Him has seen the Father. He was always the Word, the One who made God manifest. The word "image," as has been remarked, is continually used in Scripture for representation. Such is the first thought. Christ is the image of the invisible God.

The next glory is that He is the first-born of all creation. This seems obviously contrasted with His being the image of the invisible God. Christ as truly became a man as He was and is God. He was made flesh. He is never, nor could be, said to be made God. He partook of flesh and blood in time, but from everlasting He is God. Having shown that He was the image of the invisible God, the Apostle then speaks of Him as the first-born of all creation. How could this be? Adam was the prototype; we might have thought he was first. But here, as elsewhere (Ps. 89: 28), the title of first-born is taken in the sense of dignity rather than of mere priority in time.

Adam was the first man, but was not nor could be the first-born. How could Christ, so late in His birth here below, be said to be the first-born? The truth is, if Christ became a man and entered the ranks of creation,* He could not be anything else. He is the Son and Heir. Just so we are now by grace said to be the Church "of the firstborn," although there were saints before the Church. It is a question of rank, not of date. Christ is truly first-born of all creation; He never took the creature place until He became a man, and then must needs be the first-born. Even if He had been the last-born literally, He must still be the first-born; for it has nothing to do with the epoch of His advent, but with His intrinsic dignity. All others were but the children of the fallen man Adam, and could in no sense be the first-born. He was as truly man as they, but with a wholly peculiar glory. What makes it most manifest is, that He is here declared to be first-born of all creation, "for by Him were all things created." This makes the ground perfectly plain. He was first-born of all creation, because He who entered the sphere of human creaturedom was the Creator, and therefore must necessarily be the first-born. This is the plain and sure meaning of the passage, in the strongest way confirming the deity of Christ, instead of weakening it in the least, as some have conceived through strange misunderstanding. Hence these have changed the rendering to "born before all creation." It is unnatural to take it so, spite of some ancients and moderns. But indeed there is no need for a change. God's Word is wiser than men. There is no scripture which assumes His dignity more than this.

*Christ is not, and I think could not, be called (KTISMA); for this would be derogatory to the Creator. He is called the first-born of all creation (PASES KTISEOS) and also the beginning of the creation (KTISEOS) of God.

First, then, He is said to be the image of the invisible God. Then we have His human place, in which He was first-born; because, being God, it could not be otherwise. In Hebrews, He is said to be constituted heir of all things, as the Son of God. But here it is said, "all things were created in virtue of him"; it is not merely "by" Him, but in virtue of His own divine power.

"For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created by him and for him." All this reaches to things of which we know little, or even beyond our ken. As we had before what was in virtue of His power, so now it is by Him, because Christ was both one who acted in His own divine right, and also one who acted instrumentally for God the Father's glory. All things were created by Him. The word "created" is different; in one case it is a past action, but in the other it is the present effect of what is past, the first expressing the power that made to exist, the second rather the present result of it. "And he is before all things," etc. Not merely was He before all things, but before all (God only, of course, excepted). Nor was it merely that all things were, but they were created for His pleasure. "And by [or, in virtue of] him all things consist." In virtue of Him gives a clearer and more intimate idea. The object here is to take away all vagueness in exalting Christ.

But, again, "He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." We shall find a reason for this in what follows. It is interesting to see that there are two very distinct first-borns: first-born of all creation, because He is the Creator; and first-born from the dead, as a new, plain and weighty matter of fact. Thus Christ is not only the Head of creation as man, but He is first-born from the dead as risen. It is in connection with this that He is Head of the Church. He was not in this relationship upon earth; He was not so simply as taking humanity. Incarnation is an entirely distinct truth from His headship of the Church, which involves the further truth of union. It is evident that His headship of the body, the Church, is introduced by His being risen from the dead, and by the place given to Him in heaven.

But Colossians does not at once begin with the heavenly place of Christ. Ephesians presents Him plainly as risen and seated as Head. Here it is more general, and does not speak of His being in heaven; He is "the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." Many confound union with incarnation; but union is not His taking flesh and blood here below, but our being made members of His body, now that He is risen and glorified. There could have been no union with Him until death and resurrection, and the Holy Ghost was given to unite us with Him in that risen condition. Then and not before we have the body, the assembly. He had a human body, of course; but the mystical body is formed by the Holy Ghost sent down after He rose from the dead. The one, as woman-born, was connected with the earth; the other is with heaven.

With the pre-eminence of Christ in all things, two great considerations stand before us. First, all fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. It was not a partial nor ever so full manifestation of God; this might have been in any man; but here all fullness was pleased in Him to dwell. This is the truth of Christ's Person, the glory of the incarnate Lord. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, the kingdom of God is come unto you." "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." Yet we know it was always by the power of the Holy Ghost that everything was done and said. So truly was all the fullness pleased to dwell in Him.

We observed in an earlier verse that it was because of His being a divine person that He could be said to be the first-born of all creation. It was founded upon the fact that He was God who created all and sustains all. But here there is more. In Him all fullness was pleased to dwell. It was not alone a question of acting, but of dwelling, whether He acted or not. Thus it is a very precise and rich statement indeed.

But again (v. 20), there is another unfolding of the truth which sets forth His glory, another reason assigned for His indisputable pre-eminence. By Him, the Christ, is reconciliation effected. All fullness of the Godhead was pleased in Him to dwell and by Him to reconcile all things unto God. There is a peculiar phraseology in the passage which may have led the English translators to put in "Father" in verse 19. If the conjecture be correct, they did it not so much because of this verse as of the following, the 20th — "to reconcile . . . unto himself." They could not make out how it could be unto Him unless it were the Father; but I think the context is purposely so framed, because it is intended to show us, unless I am greatly mistaken, that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ, not one person of that divine fullness acting to the exclusion of the rest. They all had one counsel, not barely similar counsels, as so many creatures might, but one and the same. Hence the object is not to contrast one person with another, but to state that all the fullness was pleased in Him to dwell. It is put in this general form purposely. Then the Spirit of God glides with a scarce perceptible transition from His being the God-man to the work God has done by Him; so you cannot separate clearly the two thoughts, as far as the construction goes in (ELS AVTON). Afterward, as before, the Person of Christ is distinct and prominent.

But man was utterly gone, hostile, dead. No moral glory even of the Godhead in Christ could win him back. A deeper work was needed. "Having made peace by the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself." All creation was ruined in the fall; and here we have the vast plan of God first sketched before us, the reconciliation of all things, not of men but of things. It was the good pleasure of the Godhead to reconcile all things unto God. Even the Word made flesh, even all the fullness dwelling in Him, failed to reach the desperate case. There was rebellion, there was war. Peace must be made — it could only be made by the blood of Christ's cross. In a word, reconciliation is not the fruit of the incarnation, most blessed as it is; for it was altogether powerless, as far as that is concerned. It brings before us grace and truth in Christ — God Himself in the most precious display of holy love. Nothing is in itself more important than for a person who has found Christ to delight in and dwell upon Him and His moral ways here below. Everything was in exquisite harmony in Him; matchless grace shone out wherever He moved. All was perfect, and yet would it all have been fruitless; for man was as the barren sand.

Therefore we have another and wholly distinct step — "by him to reconcile all things unto himself." All the fullness dwelling in Him was insufficient; it brought God to man, not man to God. All the Godhead was pleased to dwell in Him, and not as a mere passing thing. This was quite independent of the anointing in due time by the Holy Ghost. It was the continual delight of the whole Godhead to dwell in Him as man. But so far gone was man that this could not deliver him; sin cannot be thus got over. Even God Himself coming down to earth in Christ's Person, His unselfish goodness, His unwearied patient love, not anything found in Christ nor all together, could dispel sin or righteously recover the sinner. Therefore it became manifestly a question of reconciliation "through the blood of his cross."

All things then are to be reconciled, as we see; peace has been made "by the blood of his cross." It is sweet and assuring to think that all has been done to secure the gathering of all things round Christ. It is merely now a question of the time suited in God's wisdom for the manifestation of Christ at the head of all. As far as the efficacious work is concerned, nothing more is to be done. Meanwhile God is calling in the saints who are to share all along with Christ. As it is said in Romans 8, all creation groaneth, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. They are the first fruits. All was subjected to vanity by sin; but now He who came down, God manifest in the flesh, has taken upon Himself the burden of sin, and has made peace by the blood of His cross. Thus He has done all that is needed for God and man. Morally all is done, the price is paid, the work is accepted; so that here too we may say "all things are ready." God would be now justified in purging from the face of creation every trace of misery and decay; if He waits, it is but to save more souls. His long-suffering is salvation. The darkness and the weakness will disappear when our Lord comes with His saints. For the world, His appearing with them in glory is the critical time. The revelation of Christ and the Church from heaven is not the epoch of the rapture, which comes first. The revelation is the manifestation of the Bridegroom and the bride then glorified before the world.

Thus having brought in the universal reconciliation of created things, the Apostle turns to that with which it was so intimately connected: "and you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled." I do not doubt there is an intended contrast. The reconciliation of all things is not yet accomplished. The foundation for all is laid, but it is not applied. But meanwhile it is applied to us who believe. Us who were in this fearful condition, "now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." Again, observe, the body of His flesh, the incarnation in itself did not, could not avail; no, nor all the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily. For guilty man it must be "through death." It was not through Christ's birth or living energy, but "through death" — not by His doing, divinely blessed as it all was, but by His suffering. "The blood of his cross" brings in much more the idea of a price paid for peace. His "death" seems to be more suitable as the ground of our reconciliation. At any rate "in the body of his flesh through death" contradicts the notion that incarnation was the means of reconciliation. This brings in moral considerations and shows the most solemn vindication of God, the righteous basis for our remission and peace and clearance from all charge and consequence of sin.

"To present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight." Blessed as the death of Christ is, so that God Himself can find no flaw in us or charge against us, which is the meaning here — so perfectly efficacious is this death of Christ in our favour, yet still it supposes our holding fast: "if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." Now I take that word "if" decidedly as a condition and nothing else.

It is quite different from chapter 3, "If ye then be risen with Christ," etc. It is the same word, but there should always be a regard to the context. Here, I believe, there is a condition implied, whereas Colossians 3 simply reasons and exhorts from an allowed fact. This would not make sense in Colossians 1.

Unless under specially modifying circumstances, every man, almost every person before conversion, is naturally disposed to be an Arminian (that is, to build on his own righteousness); but when he finds himself undone, yet justified by faith of God's pure grace in Christ, there is often a tendency to rebound violently over to the opposite extreme. When he becomes more matured in the truth, it is no longer a question of party views, but of that which is infinitely larger, even of God's mind as revealed in His Word. The unconditional parts should be taken in all their absoluteness, and the conditional should be pressed in all their force. The Apostle does not bring this in as a condition of our justification. There grace justifies the ungodly; a condition cannot enter. It would be a denial of grace. For all that, there are unquestionable conditions; but in what? God does not let us certainly know who they are among those who profess the name of Jesus that really believe in Him. Some there were even in those early days who followed the truth for a season and then gave it up. Others gradually slighted the pure gospel for philosophy and ordinances, or at least were disposed to add them to it. Hence the Apostle says, "If ye continue in the faith." There he warns those born of God that they should continue in the faith; but along with this, other things have to be borne in mind. May not real children of God waver and even slip for a season into error? Now I cannot say of any who abandon the faith that they are holy and blameless in the sight of God. One may have a hope from previous facts perhaps; but as long as a soul is thus led of the enemy away from fundamental truth, I cannot, I ought not, to speak too confidently of him as of God. It would be a trifling with such unbelief and increasing the danger to his soul by making light of it. Therefore the Apostle says, "If ye continue." A similar principle applies to him who lives under a cloud of unjudged sin.

So in 1 Corinthians 5 we see that a man guilty of gross sin and therefore put away is to be treated as a "wicked person," although the Holy Ghost in the same chapter speaks of the aim that his spirit might be saved, etc. And the second epistle proves that, spite of all, he was a true believer and on his repentance to be restored to fellowship. The Holy Ghost of course knows perfectly, but we can only judge what God permits to be brought plainly before our eyes. This is of practical value to our souls, for it is often difficult to behave rightly to a person out of communion. We are apt to think too slightly of such cases, and what is the effect of thus treating them? They drag on outside. There is feeble power within of restoration. The sin is superficially judged. If we feel it much, we desire earnestly to get the person back. It ought to be a pain, a deep grief, whenever souls are put away from the Lord's table. Our desire would then be continually to know they judged themselves and see them restored.

It is not, If ye continue in faith, but "in the faith." When Paul speaks about the common faith, he means the thing believed. So when he speaks about the "one faith," he does not refer to the reality of our faith, but to the objective truth received. Real believers or not, if they forsook the faith, how could they be owned as such? Modern times have greatly thrown people upon what is inward or subjective; whereas "the faith" is the revelation that is offered to faith, outside the man. It is a great mercy that in these last days, to truth, the truth in the Person of Christ, great prominence has been given. One cannot absolutely pronounce on an individual's faith; but we can judge of the faith he owns, and tell whether what he professes is the truth or not. Love would assume, if a man professes the faith and there is nothing clean contrary to it in his words and ways, that it is real faith. A person may be sincere in what is wrong, or insincere in what is right; but the truth is an unbending standard. If one judged on the ground of an individual's heart, one could never speak at all; for of that who can pronounce but God? If one acts on the ground of the faith, the moment a man goes against the truth, giving up what he professed, we are bound to judge it, leaving the question of his heart's faith in God's hands.

The Apostle urges also, "and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel." The Colossian saints were in danger of slipping away; for they were striving to make themselves holier by asceticism or other efforts, not by the application of Christ to judge themselves. But no, says the Apostle; it is in the body of His flesh through death that ye are presented holy and unblamable, if ye continue in the faith, etc., and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye have heard, etc. What is "the hope of the gospel"? It is in a heavenly Christ who died for us, giving us the assurance of being with Himself there. The hope of Israel (one can hardly say of the law) was the earth; this "hope of the gospel" is above. The Colossians were most unwittingly but practically losing sight of their heavenly hope, because the thought of adding to Christ philosophy or ordinances tends to deprive one of Christ. He calls it the gospel which they had heard; he would not admit of any other. It was that which had been "preached to every creature which is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister." How the Apostle puts forward that which some then, as now, would make cheap — the being a minister of the gospel! He does not regard what would exalt himself in the eyes of the would-be professionists, but what gives glory to God and His grace in Christ. There is a stress accordingly upon "I" here.

I should judge that there was a slight put upon the gospel by some of those who were exercising an evil influence at Colosse. They may have thought it good in its place as awakening the unconverted; but what had Christians to do with it? The Apostle insists not only on the dignity but also on the depths of the gospel. No doubt, a Christian does not need it in the same way as the unconverted; for he is the one who has found rest, has remission of sins, justification, sonship, etc., while the other has no real link with God. A Christian, therefore, does not listen to the gospel as if it were an unknown sound, or as if he had not certainly received it. But he rejoices in it still, and admires with increasing fervour the matchless display of God's grace therein. The Apostle therefore takes particular pains to say that he, Paul, was made a minister of the gospel. He did not consider it a thing merged in his apostleship, but emphatically declares himself a minister, not only of the Church, but of the glad tidings to every creature under heaven. It was evident then that if any at Colosse had been induced to regard that message as a thing too elementary for the saints to occupy themselves with, the Apostle did not sympathize with such feelings. He served and gloried in the gospel.

It is wrong, of course, to put myself on the same ground as the unconverted person, as if I needed it; but it is also depriving myself of much if I do not delight in it, for its own sake, so to speak, as the vindication of God Himself. No other part of the truth brings out such a display of grace and divine righteousness as the gospel. As far as the testimony to souls is concerned, it may be more what relates to their need as lost sinners; but for Christians it is of no small importance to have the heart engaged with its active grace, and the mind filled with its vast scope, and the conscience invigorated by the truth which proclaims how perfectly the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. It is impossible to see how the gospel vindicates God until a soul has peace with Him. This is practically important. A person that barely knows God's mercy in Christ, has relief, has the remedy for sin; but such a remedy does not always bring in the sight of God fully vindicated. It is more the idea of the scapegoat, than of the goat that was killed. In the gospel we see not only the resource of our sins, but God's truth and majesty and love and whole character glorified. It is not only a question of evil judged and sins forgiven, but a testimony to His rich grace in Christ.

But the Apostle adds here, "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church; whereof I am made a minister." vv. 24, 25. It appears that the two ministries, the connection of them, and the assertion of the Apostle's relation to both, are intimated. As to the gospel, he says, "Whereof I, Paul, am made a minister." So also it is here; but, inasmuch as this was a more intimate thing, it is added, "According to the dispensation of God," etc. The gospel of which he was made the minister leads him at once to speak of his sufferings for them, not exactly the sufferings of the gospel, but his sufferings for them. Next, he speaks of filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, etc., for His body's sake, which is the Church. No doubt there was that which pertained exclusively to the Saviour in substitution for us. But in all other respects Christ did not suffer, however perfectly, so as to shut out others, His saints, from fellowship with Him. His sufferings were absolutely perfect, as the witness of righteousness, as man upon earth and the witness of grace as on God's part. But there was far more than testimony in the cross when made sin for us, and all that God was as judging it fell on Him there. Righteousness and grace were the occasion of His sufferings in life here below; the holy judgment of sin was that which characterized His sufferings upon the cross, that God might be able righteously to show His grace to us who believe without any question of judgment remaining.

Again, the Apostle rejoices in his sufferings, instead of thinking them hard or shrinking from them. What a contrast with Peter in the close of Matthew 16! Christ did not monopolize them, as it were; He left some for others. The sufferings spoken of here are mainly sufferings of love for the Church, for the saints of God; but they also include what the Apostle suffered as being a witness for Christ in this world. They were real external sufferings from enemies, as he says, "in my flesh." He does not make it merely a question of his spirit; although, if this had not gone along with the trials, there would have been no value in the suffering. But he did not take it easily even as to his body. Some at Colosse, we know from the end of Colossians 2, were contending for ascetic practice in mortification of the body, which, the Apostle lets them know, is quite compatible with thorough puffing up of the flesh. But, as for him, he would fill up the afflictions of Christ for His body's sake. Paul was pre-eminently a minister of the Church, in a sense in which others were not. No doubt, the mystery was revealed by the Spirit unto the holy apostles and prophets. But God had entrusted it to Paul to complete His Word.

There are two great parts in this hid but now manifest mystery (v. 26). The first is that Christ should be set in heaven above all principalities and powers, and have the entire universe given to Him, as Head over the inheritance on the footing of redemption — Himself exalted as Head over all things heavenly and earthly, and the Church united to Him as His body, He being thus given as Head to the Church over all things. Then the other side of the mystery is Christ in the saints here below, and in such a sort as to bring in the Gentiles with the utmost freedom. "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles [or nations], which is Christ in you the hope of glory." v. 27. The hope of glory is the hope of all the glory that flows out of His heavenly place as now at God's right hand.

In Ephesians the Apostle dwells more upon the first of these aspects, in Colossians on the second. Hence the point here is not our being in Christ as Head over all, but Christ in us, the hope of all. But it is in contrast in both cases with Jewish things. The Messiah's reigning on earth over Israel, with the nations rejoicing also, is a true expectation gathered from the Old Testament prophets. In Colossians it is Christ now in us, but the glory not yet come. Christ in us is the hope of the glory that is coming by-and-by when we shall be glorified and appear with Christ. This was a state of things entirely foreign to Jewish anticipations. Christ in heaven and the saints not yet with Him there, but waiting to be with Him, and meanwhile Christ in them the hope of glory, but of a glory not yet come. There was nothing like this in the older oracles. Then they could not have expected that Christ would be in heaven and a people be one with Him there, still less that Christ should be in them, Gentiles or not, here.

It is well to weigh the expression, "to complete the word of God" (v. 25). It is not the mere idea of writing a book; for James and Peter and John had done this, and yet they could not be said "to complete the word of God." It was not only bringing out truths already revealed, but adding a certain portion that was unrevealed. Even Revelation did not do this in the same sense. We have there a fuller development of what had been previously referred to, a giving further revelations as to prophecy, but all that was not completing the Word of God. It does not mean that Paul was the last of inspired writers; for if he had written before the others of the New Testament, it would still have been true that he completed the Word of God.

Christ is said to be in us here, not dwelling in our hearts by faith, but actually the hope of glory. The hope of glory is contrasted with the Jews having Christ to reign over them in Palestine, bringing in manifested glory. The Apostle speaks of saints as now down here, but Christ in them the hope of the glory they will have with Him by-and-by above. It is Christ's life in us in its full risen character of display. The epistle to the Colossians never rises above it.

The Holy Ghost, it has been noticed, is hardly spoken of in this epistle. In their then state the introduction of Him would not have been good for them; they would have used the Holy Ghost apart from Christ, as something to draw the eye away from Christ. A religion completely of forms makes much of the Holy Ghost, but it puts the Holy Ghost in the clergy as dispensers of blessing, and thus Christ is dishonoured. Again, there are Christians who have no forms at all and who consequently make much of the Holy Ghost but apart from Christ. There was much of the old legal feeling that had come in at Colosse. therefore the Apostle presses upon them the truth of the riches of the glory of this mystery being among the Gentiles. God did not reveal this mystery when the Church was at Jerusalem; indeed it was only fully brought out among the Gentiles. That is, the full heavenly character of it is only properly known when the Gentiles are in the foreground. Hence Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, is the very one who especially handles it. The full gospel is not mere forgiveness, but deliverance, liberty, and union with Christ above in Spirit.

"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." Perfect in Christ means full grown. A man may be very happy, may enjoy the pardon of his sins, etc.; but without the unfolding of this heavenly secret (that is, Christ in the saints and the heavenly glory connected with it), he can hardly be said to be full grown in Christ. This "every man" is very striking here; the repeated individualizing is the more beautiful in connection with the body. The two truths are singularly characteristic of Christianity, which unites the more opposite things in a way that nothing else does. In the Millennium, individuals will not have such an important place as now; nor will there be "the body" on earth. Now "he that hath an ear" comes in as well as "what the Spirit saith unto the churches"; there is the richest place of blessing given both to the individual and the Church, the body of Christ; and both are brought out in the fullness. The human way, on the contrary, is that if what is public and corporate be much pressed, the individual suffers; so also vice versa.

Christianity makes every individual of eternal value to God, and also shows the Church's place wherein you find the large feeling of desire and self-sacrifice and seeking the good of the whole. Paul who brings in the Church so prominently, says pointedly, "every man." "Warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." "Whereunto" has reference to the need. "I also labour striving according to his working which worketh in me mightily." Strong words are used here, to show what it cost him. It all supposes great difficulty, and the need of a power entirely beyond himself. It proves the necessity of Christ working in it all. It was not only for those who had seen his face, but for others, too, as we see from Colossians 2: 1. What is to be noted is this: while the Apostle loved those whom he had seen, there was no such thing as oversight or insensibility as to those whom he had never seen. It was for the Church he felt, for the saints as such, whether known or unknown; and more than this, he had a keen conflict for them because of their difficulties.

Colossians 2

Now he commences showing them their danger, but he first wished them to know what a combat he had for them, and for them also at Laodicea, and as many as had not then seen his face in the flesh (v. 1). "That their hearts might be comforted." They were not happy now; they were oppressed; they were getting clouded in their thoughts, and losing the clearness of view they had, "being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, in which mystery [for that is the point] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." vv. 2, 3. There were hindrances to their apprehension of this mystery. His great desire was, nevertheless, that they should understand it well. A person may be a Christian, seeing the grace of God in Christ, and yet be comparatively poor in his thoughts and very feeble in his apprehension of the counsels and ways of God. He may never have been led into this fullness of the understanding of this mystery. Without this it is impossible to have all these treasures. "In which [mystery] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." This brings us into another atmosphere, as it were. Failure in apprehension shows a moral hindrance. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light."

To some minds there may be difficulty in the strong language on the one hand, in which the Apostle speaks of the Colossians' faith and order; and on the other, in the solemn warnings with which the epistle abounds. It might seem hard at first sight to reconcile the steadfastness of their faith in Christ with the warning we have seen given them — "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled." All we have to do is to believe both. What it really proves is, that no blessed order or steadfastness can guarantee a soul that admits wrong thoughts and corrupt principles that shroud, weaken, or lower the glory of Christ. Thus, the seeming incongruity makes the danger more apparent and striking. The fact of their order and the steadfastness of the faith in Christ that had characterized them (v. 5) were in themselves no effectual bulwark against the evil that menaced them. The Apostle felt, and lets them know, that, though they were so blessed, yet by admitting the enticing words of others, their souls would be injured and undermined. No soul, no matter what the blessing in time past or present, can afford to trifle with that which upsets the Person or glory of Christ The Colossians had been remarkably favoured, and the Apostle rejoiced in beholding their order and steadfast faith in Christ; still in the very verse before, he cautions them "lest any man should beguile you with enticing words" (v. 4).

What he presses upon them is, that as they had received the Christ, Jesus the Lord, they should walk in Him (v. 6), abiding as they had begun. Speculation, covered over with plausible language, was what they had to guard against. Therefore, though absent in the flesh, the Apostle says he was with them in spirit, joying and beholding their order, etc. For this very reason they were to be warned of what would mar the Saviour's glory in their testimony. The finest fruit is most easily injured. They would thus practically lose Christ. He does not the least call in question their real blessing thus far. On the contrary, he reminds them of it, and tells them to walk in Christ, "rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught"; not downcast because of perils, but "abounding therein with thanksgiving" (v. 7). It is very close work, the object being to exclude the persuasive speech of false men that, if received, would steal them away imperceptibly from Christ.

When we are at rest in Christ before God, we can enter in and behold the manifestation of Himself in Christ, after the most blessed sort. It is very important to see Christ not only in His work of reconciliation, but as revealing the Father. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." The Holy Ghost does exalt Christ, no doubt, but then the Son is never exalted, so to speak, at the expense of the Father, any more than the Father can accept honour where the Son is degraded.

The important thing for Christians is to be true to what they believe and confess, or rather to what God has revealed for their faith and confession. Whatever takes us away from the grace and truth which came by Christ, always tends to subvert even Christ Himself. The Colossians had been heretofore happy and really steadfast in their faith in Christ; but they were now allowing doctrines among them which, if not rooted out, would infallibly lead them away from Christ. Here lay their danger. It is astonishing how eagerly and easily Christians are apt to admit something new. The Apostle in this case refers to philosophical speculations, which seem to have been brought in at Colosse, as well as Jewish elements, if indeed they were not combined.

It was not enough for them to have Christ; they were to walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him, assured in the faith, and not caught by these novel dreams, whether of an intellectual or a religious kind. It was thus an early error, that philosophy might be united to Christianity in order to make divine revelation more palatable to earnest, thoughtful minds. It had been all very well, they thought, to preach Christ at first simply; but now that it was no longer a question of a few lowly Galileans, why not address themselves to the great and wise of the earth, sick as many were of heathenism, and repelled by cold Judaism? And, if so, why not meet them as much as possible on their own ground? Why not engraft into Christianity some of the common sense of Aristotle, or, still better, the lofty aspirings of Plato, or yet more readily such high and noble sentiments as Philo represents in his Biblical essays?

Philosophy is one great bane of Christianity now as in these early days. The whole scheme of God's truth and ways is blotted out or has no room left for it in the teaching of philosophy. They overlook creation and the fall. They defy conscience, which man acquired by the fall. They ignore sin and God's judgment of sin. So also God's grace is unknown and the atonement its fruit. Rationalists would reduce divine truth to a mere set of inferences that people draw. But truth is never a conclusion. The moment I draw a conclusion, I am on the ground of science. Thus logic is a natural science, the handmaid, one may say of all others, which submits facts to it; but what has this to do with submitting to the truth of God? Revelation may pronounce on things as they are in man, as it also gives us things as they are from God; it does not merely show us that such or such a thing must be, which is the province of human reasoning; the truth reveals to us that a thing is. A poor soul might be perplexed to understand what must be; but no one that hears the testimony can avoid receiving or rejecting, if God declares that a given thing or person is. Hence the vast importance of faith.

The Colossians were beginning to let in two snares — a reasoning mind, and certain ascetic mortifications of the body. The one was in connection with philosophy, the other had its root in Judaism. These were the two great errors then slipping in, of whose real character and source they were not aware. The Apostle warns them (v. 8), though he had just told them he rejoiced in their faith and order. How sad in them to slip! But this is not all. He as good as says, Take care of what you are doing, of letting go what has produced such fruits, for the fair promises some are holding out to you. They tell you these new thoughts and ways can be held along with Christ; but let me say that you are embracing and taking up that which will frustrate, sooner or later, the truth which you now profess. The effect invariably is, that those who are not really born of God receive these inner dreams and outer forms instead of Christianity, while true believers are seriously damaged, and lose their delight in Christ and their testimony for Him. The one error suits the speculative, the other would meet those of a more practical turn of mind. No wonder, therefore, he exhorts them to be "rooted and built up in Christ, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving." This last word is much to be weighed. I suppose their thanksgivings were beginning to wane, for such is the immediate effect of other objects intruding into the place of Christ.

"See lest there shall be any one that leads you as his prey through philosophy and vain deceit according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ." The earth gives clouds and not light. Man promises and undertakes much, but he can really give nothing but the blinding deceits of the master he is enslaved to. There is the deepest possible necessity for these warnings. Speculation about the origin of things, or about the eternity of matter, for instance, in which the Orientals, Gnostics, etc., delighted, might not have seemed directly dangerous. People are ready enough to say, Our philosophy is one thing, our religion another. They might reason then, as since, that the world must have been made out of something always in existence. This may sound plausible to some minds, but it has a great flaw for the believer; it makes nothing of God and gives His Word the lie. Matter becomes the great circumstance before the mind, and God is made like man — a mere active mind, a manufacturing power.

How grandly the scripture of the Galilean fisherman rebukes all such dreamers! "All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made." How aptly the error had been already met in Colossians 1: 16! "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him." The idea of the eternity of matter brings in from the first something outside God, independent and antagonistic; for this was the further deduction from the actual state of the world. Hence they reasoned of the two first principles, the one good, the other evil. This was the very error which was so much followed out in and interwoven into heathen philosophy, especially in the east, as indeed to this day. It is evident that the principle as to the eternity of matter, once admitted, leads the way to an abyss of falsehood and moral evil; and he would soonest fall into these inward or outward excesses who reasons most from his false starting point. Faith repudiates philosophy, not only as a rival but as an ally; it rests only on God's Word; it accepts that Word as absolute and exclusive. Therefore had the Apostle the best reason for warning them against philosophy and vain deceit, "according to the rudiments of the world and not according to Christ." They savour of, as they spring from, man as he is, not Christ; they suit the world, not heaven, nor those who belong to it, even while they are upon the earth. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (v. 9).

What gives a more wonderful view of Christ than this truth which the simplest believer know", or ought to know, however little able to explain it? There is nothing like it. There alone we have the truth. We know God now; and how? Not by reasoning, as if thus we could search and find Him out. We know Him in Christ as a living Person who lived once bodily in this world, who still has His body above the world. We know from God, from His Word, that in the Person of Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," not merely in His spirit, but really in Him bodily, though He be now glorified. He had a real, true body from the incarnation; but He had all the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him thus.

Nor is this all. The Apostle adds, "Ye are complete in Him" (v. 10); so you do not want philosophy even if it contained anything good, still less since it is positively bad. What we want is to enjoy Christ better and to walk more according to Him — not to glean other things from man as if they could enrich Christ, whereas they do but corrupt the truth. Man fallen is away from God, and under the power of the devil. This is the fact that makes these human notions so false and ruinous. Philosophical principles spring from death and can only produce death. In all heathenism (and perhaps one might say as much of Christendom) there is nothing more deadly than its philosophy. It is only less deceitful than the world's religion. It sounds reasonable, and a man gets charmed with the beauty or boldness of thoughts, imaginations, and language. Faith destroys both superstition and infidelity by the truth of God, and this by the revelation of Christ. The fullness of the Godhead never dwelt in the Father bodily, or in the Holy Ghost, but only in Christ. He was the only One of whom this wonderful reality could be affirmed. The whole fullness in Him dwelt and dwells still. "The Father that dwelleth in me [said He here below], he doeth the works." Again, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils," etc. Here we have not only the Son, but in and by Him the three Persons of the Godhead active in grace in this evil world. And faith receives what Scripture says of the unseen and eternal; faith acts on God's revealed mind as to the present. Unbelieving man refuses what is above himself and draws inferences from what he knows or does not know; but God will destroy both him and them. It is not only that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, but we are (not that fullness, but) filled full in Him. We may be and are said to be the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1), but never, of course, of the Godhead.

Hence we "are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power: in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body [of the sins] of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." vv. 10, 11. This is expressly in contrast with the external ordinance of circumcision. It should be "putting off the body of the flesh," not the body "of the sins" of the flesh. The true reading makes it a more complete thing; it is not a question of sins, but rather of sin in the nature. "Sins" would hardly be in keeping with the scope of the passage or phrase. It does not refer to the literal act of circumcising, but to Christ's death. When we believe in Christ, we have all the value of His death made true of us. This is here called circumcision not made by hands, in contrast with the ancient ordinance. The meaning and spiritual thought of circumcision is the mortification of human nature, man as he is being treated as a dead thing. It is Christ's death that gives us this privilege. We are brought into association with His death and have all its value in parting with our own ruined condition, "the body of the flesh," when we receive Him by faith. This circumcision supersedes all others, which in no way stripped off our evil state as man in the flesh.

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith of the operation of God who raised him out of the dead." This brings in not so much Christ's personal glory, as His work. The first chapter gives us chiefly His personal glory; and even though it spoke of His work, it was the reconciliation of all things, and of the saints withal, meanwhile, before the glory is revealed. Colossians 2 presses His work upon the saints. I have no doubt the wisdom of the Holy Ghost is shown in this; we have first Himself and His work in general, then the specific value and effect of His work for us and on us. There His headship is doubly unfolded with precision; here the fact of His being the Head of all principality and authority, is just alluded to, giving emphasis to our completeness in Him.

The reference to circumcision is clearly bound up with Christ's death, etc. — not the legal act to which He submitted, nor a question of His Person, but of His work applied to us. This is entirely confirmed by the statement of our being buried with Him in baptism, in which, says he, ye have also been raised with Him. The great point is the linking us to Christ. By Him alone the work was done; but when we believe in Him, we are brought into its efficacy and acquire by grace a common position with Him. It is not merely that it was by virtue of Him, but in Him this great work was wrought, whereby we have a place in and with Him. The initiatory institution of Christianity sets forth this immense distinctive blessing of the Christian. We owned in baptism that we died in Christ's death out of the condition in which we naturally lived; and now we are raised with Him by faith of the operation of God who raised Him out of the dead. We are thus entered on a new state (not, of course, our bodies yet, but our souls). The practical application of both death and resurrection with Christ, we shall soon see in the hands of the Apostle.

Much as the Spirit of God brings out the quickening power of Christ in this epistle, He never pursues the ultimate or highest consequences of the work of Christ. Quickened or raised up by Him, or rather raised together with Him, is the utmost we find here; hence there He stops. Again in Colossians 3, although He says, "Seek those things that are above," He does not say we are there, but, on the contrary, looks at the saints as being on earth, while seeking the things that are above. Thus, this epistle never goes so far as the Ephesians; it nowhere says we are seated in heavenly places. As we have seen and as is clear, the current of the communications of grace was interrupted; there was a hindrance before the Apostle. The Holy Ghost cannot freely show the saints the things of Christ, where He has to show them their own things. He turns aside to occupy Himself with the truth practically, and apply it to them, which is never the sign of souls being thoroughly bright; for there ought not to be such a need for arresting the flow of grace and truth. In Ephesians, on the contrary, the work of Christ is carried out to all its fullest consequences; the healthy state of the saint is unfolded, and exhortations follow proportionately high.

We have an instance here of the way in which the Apostle, having brought in a general principle, turns to them and says, "you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses"; then in verse 16, he goes aside to show how very pointedly and completely the work of God would take them away from the things of the flesh and law — "Having blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us," etc. Yet you want to get ordinances again! The only effect of this handwriting must be against you; it is very strongly expressed, and the Apostle repeats it in a double form.

These Colossian saints were not so far gone in legalism as to put Christians under the ten commandments as a rule of life. To bring in ordinances even, was not so ruinous, because they at least derive their entire value from the truth of Christ, couched and shadowed forth in them; whereas, there is nothing like making a rule of life of the law for awakening the spirit of self-righteousness in the confident, and of distrust and despair in more diffident souls, reversing exactly the way of grace with both. The Apostle insists, that even to let in the principle of ordinances now is to renounce the fundamental truth of death and resurrection (that is, of Christianity), because they suppose men alive in the world, not dead and risen in Christ. Those led aside may not mean to do anything of the sort, but the enemy does who misleads them. It is going back to dealings of a preparatory kind, into flesh and the world, and is in effect a forsaking of the glorious privileges of Christ to do so. The Apostle does not dwell here as in Galatians on the consequences of our being made debtors to fulfill the whole law, if we venture under it at all; but he shows, that it is a denial of Christ, as we know Him, if we allow of going back to law in any form, ordinances or not. It is the folly of making a merit of a return to the discipline of the rod and to the value of the letter game and of the dissected map and of the toy rewards for full grown men.

It is evident that, in the handling of men of philosophic tone, the rite of circumcision might be made a much more spiritual thing than any man could work out of the law as a rule of life. For they might say, as men have said, that circumcision was pressed only as the emblem of what we have in Christ, an ancient and divine, though of course, outward sign of spiritual grace. But the step was fatal; for if they admitted that sign, it was a recurrence to shadows when the substance was come; it was a relinquishment of grace too for the principle of law. The fathers had circumcision, no doubt, before Moses, which was then especially connected with promise. Still, although it was originally before the nation's responsibility to the law was pledged at Sinai, it was after that so embedded in the law that they cannot be separated. Take up circumcision now; and if you do not put yourself, the law puts you, under its whole system, and separates you in principle from Christ as an exalted heavenly Head who has accomplished redemption.

Thus, if there was one ordinance that more than any might symbolize with promise and grace, it was circumcision; yet so strong was the Apostle, that he tells the Galatians, that, admitting it all, they became debtors to do the whole law. To the Colossians he goes farther, and shows how it contradicts and sets aside the work of Christ, and the place of association with Him, into which we are thereby brought before God. Hence he here intimates what sort of circumcision we already have as Christians; it is of divine operation and not human: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the flesh," etc. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him," etc.

In Galatians, the law is in connection with justification; in Colossians, with Christ risen from the dead and in heaven. Christ, at any rate, is there; and although we are not seen to be in Him there, His exaltation to God's right hand really decides our place as dead with Him and risen with Him; not merely as justified by His blood, but dead and risen with Him. Of all this exceeding rich roll of blessing, subjection to ordinances is the denial; for what has Christ to do with the law now? And it is with Christ as He is, not as He was under law, that we are associated. In Hebrews we have another thing; it is not our death and resurrection with Christ, but Christ now appearing in the presence of God for us in glory, which is founded upon the perfection of His work, His one offering, which has forever put away sin. He is there at the right hand of God because He has by Himself purged our sins. The law as a code or system for us is inconsistent with Christ's place in glory as the bright exhibition of our triumph through God's grace; and such is the Christian way of looking at Christ. We do not, it is true, find our association with Christ dead or risen in Hebrews; still less is it the display of our union with Him above; neither is it justification, as in Romans and Galatians; but the value of His work measured by His position in heaven shines there with special lustre. Any allowance of ordinances now is proved to be a gainsaying of His work and of the glory He has in heaven, in danger too of leading to apostasy.

From verse 13, then, the Apostle takes great pains to set before the saints at Colosse their condition without and with Christ: "You being dead in your sins . . . hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." The very life we have received as believers is the token that our trespasses are gone. If God has quickened us with the life of Christ, He has forgiven us all trespasses. It is impossible that life in Christ dead and risen could have anything against it. There was everything against the believer once; but the possession of life in a risen Saviour necessarily attests that all is righteously forgiven to him who believes. It is a remarkable way of putting the matter, an exactly parallel case to which you can scarce find in any other part of Scripture.

In general, as we too well know, recourse is had to ordinances for meeting shortcomings, whetting spiritual appetite, etc. It is never in Christendom the open or despite denial of Christ, but the supply of certain aids to faith (!) or feelings besides Christ. This is precisely what the Apostle affirms to be so unbelieving and evil. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us," observe, not against you, but against us. When the Apostle comes to speak of the operation of the law, he will not say "you," but "us"; as, again, "which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." The fact is, the Galatian saints, being Gentiles, had never been under law at all; and therefore he does not say "you"; but when he spoke of sins just before, he said "you"; "You being dead in your sins," etc. This makes the distinction very striking. "You" occurs in verse 13, because it applies to any sinner now, Jew or Gentile; while it is "us" in verse 14, because none but Jews, strictly speaking, were under law. The allusion to handwriting was very notable also; for the Gentiles had never put their hands to it, whereas the Jews had affirmed "all that the Lord hath spoken we will do," and thereon had been sprinkled with the blood as a seal of the legal covenant they had signed under the penalty of death.

The Apostle declares this was contrary to them and only brought in, as we know, condemnation, darkness, and death. What has Christ done in respect to all this? He has blotted it out, taken it out of the way. Do you want, like the Colossians, to bring it back again? Christ nailed it to His cross — an expression of entire triumph over it. "And having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it."

It is very interesting to see the way in which the power of evil is viewed according to the place we are in. When the Church appears, it is not so much Satan's power on earth (which was the way the Jews felt it chiefly); but we have the special disclosure, that he is the prince of the power of the air, and that the wicked spirits are in heavenly places (Eph. 2 : 6). This in no way clashes with what we have in the Old Testament! only now it is brought out more fully, and shown to be the position in which they are as opposed to the Christian. In Revelation 12 we see them (the dragon and his angels) ejected from heaven. They wanted to keep the heavenly places; they desired to hinder the Church, and dishonour God in His saints, that they might have a righteous claim over them, as it were. It was intolerable to them that such as had behaved badly on earth should be at last with the Son of God in heavenly places.

Alas! how many here below of the very race whom God so distinguishes in His mercy betray that they are of their father the devil, by love of falsehood and by hatred of God's grace and truth. Here we have the effect of the work of Christ upon these powers — leading them in triumph on the cross. It is not so high a tone of triumph as in Ephesians 4, where it is said, Christ led captivity captive. The powers that led believers into captivity were themselves vanquished. The reason is manifest. It was when He ascended up on high. Here we hear of what was done on the cross, the power of the cross; but there it is the public manifestation of the victory, in ascending up on high. The great battle was won. Christ had forever defeated the powers of evil for the joint heirs. This ascending up on high, and leading captivity captive, is the witness that they are powerless against the Christian. The language is always adapted to the point of view which the Holy Ghost is taking — whether it be of earth or heaven, whether of Israel or the Church. More than this, it depends on how and where He looks at the saints now. If they are viewed as in the wilderness, there is a different style and figure. Satan is spoken of as "a roaring lion," which suits the wilderness; and hence this is not the way he is spoken of in Ephesians, but in 1 Peter.

Now comes the practical turn to which the Apostle applies this. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast, or new-moon, or sabbaths; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." vv. 16, 17. A Christian man who knows the victory of Christ for us should not surely entertain the idea of going back to these elementary forms of working good. Hold fast your actual place in Christ, act consistently with it. As to eating and drinking or ordinances relative to the year, month, and week (and the Apostle takes particular care to speak not merely of feast or new moon but of sabbaths) remember that these things but prefigure the body or substantial good found really and only in Christ. In fact, these times and seasons point chiefly to what God will give His people by-and-by. The new moon was a remarkable type of Israel being renewed after fading away, as the sabbath was the type of the rest of God which He will yet enjoy and share. But whether it be peace or drink offerings or the feasts in general, they are connected as the shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. This we have. The Jew had the shadow, and he will have the things to come by the grace of God under the new covenant by-and-by. We are given the substance of Christ now. It is a question here of Jewish days. The Lord's day has nothing to do with Judaism; it is not only apart from, but in contrast with that system.

The Lord's day is as distinctly a Christian institution as the Lord's supper, the Jew having nothing to do with either. It is very important to see that God has put honour upon the day of resurrection and grace. When people are radically loose or begin to slip away from the Lord, an early symptom is carelessness about this day. There ought to be an exercised conscience about it, not only for our own selves, but also as to servants within and others without our houses. It is of very great consequence that the sense of liberty and grace should not even have the appearance of laxity or selfishness.

It is not exactly said the body is Christ. It is said "the Lord is that spirit," not that body, which was within the letter of the law. "The body" is used in contrast with "the shadow." There is no substance in a shadow, but we have the body which is of Christ. The twofold idea is that, while the substance is of Him, He is the spirit of all. Verse 16 deals chiefly with a Judaizing character of evil; but verse 18 goes farther and shows a kind of prying into the unseen, not so much the religious use or misuse of the seen, which was the Jewish snare, but dabbling with philosophy, specially of the Orientals. There was a great appearance of humility in all this, as there always is in false systems. The worship of angels seemed right and due, especially as no term peculiar to divine worship was used. Let it be ever so modified, still the Apostle speaks of it strongly. "Let no man deprive you of your reward, doing his will in humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen,* vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh." The Orientals indulged in abundant speculation about angels. It is true there are such beings; but it is the prying into such subjects that is so evil. They have to do with us, but not we with them. Our business is with God. Now it seemed to be a reasonable inference that if angels had to do with us, we must have to do with them; and inasmuch as they had to do with God immediately, why should we not have recourse to them with Him? It was not an unnatural thought; what then makes it so grievous an error?

*Some of the best authorities omit the negative and are followed by Lachmann, Alford, etc., but in my judgment mistakenly. The sphere of angels was invisible, and the saint is not to pry there but believe in what God reveals.

It is the setting aside of Christ who is the Head of all and so above angels. Christ is the One who determines our relation before God; and for all our need with God, we have Christ the great High Priest. Thus the putting angels in this place is a double dishonour to Christ. Such a speculator was "vainly puffed up by the mind of his flesh." It might be plausible, but it injured not only the soul's enjoyment of Christ but His nature and glory to indulge in thoughts of the kind. "And not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, by joints and bands being ministered to and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." v. 19. It was false teachers who were thus depriving the saints of their blessing. These men habitually and instinctively seek to ingratiate themselves with the children of God, whose unsuspecting simplicity exposes them to be carried away by them. The worship of angels was one method in which the evil showed itself there and evinced its false character. The Holy Spirit is come down to glorify Christ, not angels. He who we-et beyond Scripture after angels, certainly did not hold fast the Head. The reference here to ministry is not at all the same as in Ephesians, where the Apostle enters into it copiously and shows the spiritual gifts in their chief forms from the highest down to the least, by which the body works for itself the building of itself up in love. Hence, if souls came together in a very simple way, it might still be for edification. Here all is put together, not expanded and distinguished as in Ephesians.

If God has led such into the place where Christ's headship (I may add, too, the Holy Ghost's presence) is held and acted on, how can they expect blessing from those who do not see nor act upon it? These truths are fundamental for the Church, ministry, etc. We have to hold to the will of God; and God has His own will as to all this, and His own wisdom and way, which ought to be something in our eyes. Here we are told of joints and bands — the various means which Christ employs for the spiritual blessing and profit of His people. It enables the body to work better; it concentrates the saints around Christ, and for His glory. It is well to seek the diffusion of blessing to others; but for the saints, the truest thing is the power of gathering to Christ Himself, not merely sending out servants, but gathering to Christ as Lord where there is need of spiritual power to hold together. This is to increase "with the increase of God." There is then enlargement, comfort, and consolation. The power that is expressed is not in conversion only, but works within in positive blessing and self-judgment.

Here we have the application spiritually of these two great truths, the death and the resurrection of Christ. They had been already put together in verse 12. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." "And you, being dead in your sins, hath he quickened together with him." v. 13. Now, from verse 20 to 23, we have the consequences of being thus dead with Christ, as in Colossians 3, from the first verse onward, we have the meaning of the resurrection of Christ — that which it secures and to which the Holy Ghost calls us as thus risen with Christ.

The use that is made of our death with Christ is not that we are redeemed. In this point of view the blood of Christ is ever made prominent. It is not that the forgiveness of all trespasses is omitted, but the death of Christ and our association with Him goes much farther here and introduces us to another line of truth altogether. We might have seen the offering of His body, the shedding of His blood, and there might have been no presentation of death with Him. What is here founded upon our being dead with Christ is the having nothing to do with nature or the world in the things of God. The whole force of the world's religion denies death with Christ; it does not see and will not admit the total ruin of man as he is. What the world thinks of in a religion is that which will suit people in every variety of condition. Human wisdom provides for each and all, for the becoming religious observance of the entire population of a land. Thus all decent people, all who are not scandalous livers, etc., are made worshippers, and have a religion adapted to their thoughts of themselves and God, mainly occupied with what man essays to do for God. It is a mixture of heathenism with Jewish forms, and finds its element in certain abstinences as its holiness. As there can be no positive enjoyment of Christ, the negative must be its essential characteristic. God embodied these very elements in Judaism, which was a religion of the flesh and a worldly sanctuary. He Himself made the experiment, so to speak, of an immense system of restrictions, which is the only conceivable plan for a man as such to be holy to the Lord. Hence we find the trial under every advantage of this kind of worship in the Levitical law. Besides the restraint put on man's will morally in the ten words, particular meats and drinks were forbidden. They were not even to touch certain ceremonially unclean objects. All this had to do with man in the flesh, though I doubt not that every ordinance in the Jewish system had a weighty meaning as shadowing better things in Christ. There were always precious truths couched under these forms and ceremonies. The letter kills (that is, the mere outward husk of the system), but the Spirit gives life, wherever there was faith to lay hold of the spiritual import.

Now if we are "dead with Christ," where is the application to us of "touch not, taste not, handle not"? Such injunctions disappear entirely, because, if already and really dead with Christ, I am outside this kind of language and ideas. You may as well exhort a dead man as to his old wants or duties. The old religious system for man in the flesh is absolutely done with for the Christian. It is to contradict the foundation on which he stands, yea, his very baptism. In Christ he is dead to the world. Hence, if a Christian mingle with the world's religion, he invariably loses the sense of being dead with Christ, as well as the true judgment of the world and man. The only means by which the world could ever be religious is by a resort to the law, as we see in every national system, and indeed in every effort to win the acceptance of man as such. But this is now to give up Christ dead and risen, little as men think it.

Here the Apostle seems to allude to the general system of human restriction in religious matters rather than to any particular part of the Old Testament. When a man dies, he leaves behind him his wealth, rank, ease, reputation, energy, that constituted his enjoyment in this life. So does the Christian from the starting point, by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection. Thus it is a great truth on which he is called to act while he is still on the earth. In Christ he is now dead to the world. There is in many Christians the entire overlooking of this truth either as a privilege for enjoyment or as a reality for practice. To them it is a mere mysticism, the idea of being dead and risen with Christ, which they are too humble and reverent to look on and think about. Let me add that it is not the same thing as having life in Christ, for this was of course ever true of believers before there was or could be such a standing as that of being dead and risen with Christ. After the death and resurrection of Christ, such was the great change in this respect that then came in.

It is thus evident that to be dead with Christ takes a person not only out of the world in spirit, but out of the whole system of its religion. "If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?" Such had been the condition of men, at best, before Christ. They were at the letters, so to speak; the rudiments or elements had their place and trial. But now, the Son of God being come and having given us to know Him that is true, it is the substance and fullness of the truth that we know in knowing Christ. The work of Christ rested on by faith fits the believer now for this place where old things are passed away and all things are made new. "Why, as though living in the world" is a most remarkable expression. It shows that we are not true to our standing, as well as to Christ, if we are as men alive in the world. We have a new life, which is the life of Him who is dead and risen; and this has now brought us into the condition of death to all that is of the world. Hence as to the religion of the world, the Christian has in principle as really done with it as Christ Himself had after His death. What had our Lord from His cross to do with the fasts and feasts of the Jews? Absolutely nothing; neither ought we; and by "we" I mean every real Christian. The time of patience with the Christian Jews is long passed away; there is no longer the smallest ground of excuse in Christendom.

I admit that the great mass of Christians will not hear of such a breach with the world; and thus comes one severe trial of those who see it thus a foundation truth of Christ. Have they in grace made up their minds for His sake to be counted fanatical, foolish, proud, hard, narrow, committing these and all other calumnies to Him who loves them, and knows the end from the beginning? The taking up the rudiments of the world is then a flat practical contradiction to our death with Christ.

The Colossians were in danger of this snare. They did not see why, because they were Christians, they should leave off what seemed good enough done among the Jews or Gentiles. They wanted to hold on to the truth of Christ, but to keep up, or adopt along with it, religious forms which had been observed in olden times. No, says the Apostle, it is Christ who is all our good, and nothing but Christ; we need nothing else. Christ is all. Nothing was so exclusive as Christ and the cross, and yet what was so large? "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." But He was rejected. Since then Jewish forms and principles had lost all their ancient value.

In Galatians the Apostle speaks even more strongly than here. He charged those who would observe days and months and times and years with going back to heathenism. "Howbeit then when ye knew not God, yet did service to them which by nature are no gods" (that was their old Gentile condition); "but now after that ye have known God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" They thought that it was to improve on the early simplicity of the gospel, if they borrowed from the law. How little did they expect the apostolic rebuke, that it is as bad for Christians to take up Jewish elements as to turn back to idolatry! It is in truth now shown to be the same principle; such is the light in which the cross of Christ puts these worldly elements. Before many years are over, there may be seen a strange amalgam not merely between the churches, so-called, but between Christendom and Judaism. The loss of the temporalities of the Roman See is no unimportant step in the chain of events. In due time Rome will be left free for the beast to display his power in, Jerusalem becoming the central seat of religion to which Christendom will turn. There will not only be idolatry, but the abomination of desolation; the man of sin will be set up and worshipped in his time. All works on toward a worse evil than even popery itself.

But if such will be the end, the way now is "living in the world," which means that the heart is here, that one has settled down to the world's religion. A Christian, on the contrary, is one who belongs to heaven. The error of embracing these Jewish elements practically denied this, and especially the being dead with Christ. The only sure way to judge of anything is to bring in Christ. The question here is, How stands Christ in view of the world's religion? When He lived here below, He, undoubtedly, went to the temple, owning and practicing the law (however truly the only begotten Son of the Father), for God did; He had not yet given up Israel, man, the earth, all things here below. But where and how is Christ now? One cannot, again, have and keep truth unless it be followed out; and God does not mean that we should possess it otherwise. He gives a testimony; the light shines; but the truth only fills a soul when acted on, else the light that is within becomes darkness; and then how great is that darkness! Need one hesitate to affirm that if a man professed to understand what it is to be dead with Christ and yet went on with the world's religion, he would show himself to be a thoroughly dishonest man? It is more than a want of intelligence. What more solemn, save sacrificing Christ's Person? Those who seem to have the truth but refuse to act upon it, will ere long become enemies of the truth which they do not follow.

The religion of the world has to do with this creation; it belongs to those things of which people can say, "Touch not, taste not, handle not." Take the principle of consecrated buildings, holy places within the holy, sacred vestments, anything of that kind which perishes with the using, all is connected with the world; and the flesh is capable of enjoying it. To say it does not matter where or how we worship God is as bad as any evil. There is nothing worse than indifference in the things of God. Those who are thus careless in what regards God, are not wanting in vigilance as to what concerns themselves. I speak, of course, of the general facts, not of individuals. If we did not know ourselves associated with Christ dead and risen, our worship ought to be a kind of accommodated Judaism, which was the religion of a people living in the world.

Now, on the contrary, all that is entirely judged in the cross to be enmity against God; and Christians are called to have nothing to do with it. There is wonderful blessedness in realizing where the death of Christ puts us. It has quite closed with whatever is alive in the world, with all that a man in the world might value. Living in the world takes two great forms, one superstitious, the other secular, self being necessarily the root of both. Being dead with Christ delivers us from both. Take the American churches as the secular form in religion; the one idea is to make themselves comfortable even in devotion. The idea of worshipping God is gone. They have no notion what it is to be dead with Christ. The greater danger, however, lies on the other or superstitious side, because that has a fine show of humility, piety, and reverence. But those who are truly, wonderfully, delivered through death and resurrection with Christ ought to avoid all reproach of lightness and negligence. Unbecoming behaviour is nowhere so painful as where the Christian standing is known, and the ground of God's Church is taken.

Then the Apostle gives us a sample of what these ordinances are. It is not the power of the Spirit of God unfolding the things of Christ, but something that relates to self, chiefly of a negative character. Such of old was the dealing of law with flesh in an evil world. Faith is now entitled to look on Christ in heaven. "Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh." This is not God's will, but man devising means of pleasing Him out of his own head. All this clothes itself with a great apparent lowliness, and cherishes asceticism. It is exactly what philosophy has done — denying the proper place of our bodies. How strikingly, on the contrary, does the New Testament bring out the vast importance of the body! It proclaims, for instance, that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost. This is most important, and, itself the effect of redemption, is the true ground of Christian morals. "Yield up your members as instruments of righteousness to God"; "Present your bodies a living sacrifice," etc.

The philosophic mind of Corinth went on the principle that it mattered not about the body, provided the spirit was all right. The Apostle insists that the body is the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 6: 19, 20). Further, there is the truth of the resurrection of the body, and not merely the immortality of the soul. The emphasis is upon the body; so that although the body is fallen under sin, the power of the Holy Ghost is there, who is said to dwell in each believer. You cannot reclaim the flesh, you cannot improve the will. The old man has to be judged, denied, treated as vile; but the body is even now made the temple of the Holy Ghost. Adam, before he fell, had body, soul, and spirit; but directly he fell, he acquired self-will — the loving to have his own way. This is a thing we should always treat as evil, and judge ourselves if in any way we allow it to act What can give a man such power against it as Christ known thus in full delivering grace? Like the captured sword of Goliath, "of weapons there is none like that." If I am dead and risen with Christ, where is the old man? It does not exist in the sight of God; therefore we are not to allow it in the eight of men.

The prime thought of worldly religion is correcting the flesh, and improving the world. The mind finds greater glory in itself by ascetic efforts. Neglect of the body may be at the same time a puffing up of the flesh. It was a heathenish idea, the foster child of philosophy. They willingly believed that the soul was holy if not the body, some contending that the soul came from God and the body from the devil. This was productive of frightful evil, to the destruction of an morality. Is there not an answer in Christ to all these wanderings of the human mind? Receiving the truth in Him, you get that which defeats the object of Satan; but the Holy Ghost alone, if I may so say, makes it to be truth in us. May it be received in the love of it, that thus there may be abundant fruit of righteousness by Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.

Colossians 3

We have seen death with Christ and its consequences applied to the danger which menaced the Colossian saints, judging the evil into which Satan was trying to draw them back. But the effect of this death with Christ was there regarded chiefly in a negative point of view. Why were such as they subject to ordinances? They ought not to be, for in Christ they were dead from the rudiments of the world and had consequently nothing to do with ordinances. These might be all well enough for men alive in the world, but necessarily cannot apply to dead men. It was a total spiritual contradiction. Now the Christian is dead by virtue of the cross of Christ. This is all a matter of faith. Of course, he is alive naturally; he is disposed also, if not occupied with Christ, his life, to have old thoughts and habits revived, etc. As a believer I ought to distrust every judgment, every feeling I have had as a natural man, remembering that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.

But now the Christian is looked at as a dead man, aye, dead to the world doing its best, even the religious world. The best the realm of nature can pretend to is in not touching, tasting, handling. Such is its only way of getting the victory, which is really no victory at all, but merely abstinence from certain things, or a system of fleshly restrictions. That is wholly distinct from the principle of the Christian. He looks for the victory of grace. For the death of Christ has delivered him from the entire ground of nature in not touching, tasting, or handling. This was Jewish in principle, and not this alone, for it was the natural religion for man. It is only thus that men try to avoid evil in the world. Christianity does not merely avoid the evil within and around, but brings in death to it all. Christ has died to it, and the Christian should know himself dead to all that is of the world, moral or religious, as decidedly as gross, intellectual or infidel.

In chapter 3 we advance a step farther. The Apostle reasons from our being risen with Christ. It is not merely that we shall die and rise, but that we are dead and risen. Even many Christians who use the words constantly, do not really enter into the meaning of this language, and for the obvious and sufficient reason: they are not living in the truth of it practically. They are too habitually mixed up with the world to understand such absolute separation from it. It is not that they are dull of understanding in the things and interests of nature. But their speech and their ways betray them, proving how far they are from intelligence of the Scripture itself. They substitute mysticism for the truth.

Before Christ came, God had appointed a system of ordinances. Judaism was the world's religion in its best shape. Those who were formed in that school, till they underwent a total revolution by grace, never understood the distinctive features of Christianity. Its character was hidden from them. The Jews had no notion of the flesh being utterly ruined — sense of sin, understanding of the grace of God, small indeed. As a nation they were put under law, under Levitical priesthood, under outward sacrifices, under carnal ordinances. All this was a part of what they had to go through, great truths being concealed under these rudimentary pictures. Christendom has taken up the things that were right enough for a Jew, but which are now called "the elements of the world," as in truth they are. They were not so judged when God was dealing with Israel. It was, however, what the world is capable of. Now they are treated as elements of the world, but it was not so before Christ died.

There are many, for instance, who think you cannot have fit worship for God without a sacred building and ceremonies in accordance; and the more beautiful the building, and imposing the ritual, the more they count it acceptable to God. Now all this is part of the elements of the world. Again, there are those who think you cannot have the Lord's supper without an official ordained for the purpose of administering it. There is no such custom in the Church of God. The Apostle repudiates the entire system. It is an invention of the enemy. New Testament Scripture, which reveals the Church, excludes all this. Not only is it not a good thing, but all such thoughts and ways are evil now, being opposed to the cross and the heavenly glory of Christ.

Scripture remains unchangeable (whatever the changes of Christendom), and what we need is to betake ourselves to the light of Scripture. This is a simple but immense safeguard — let us go back to God's Word and cleave to that alone. The devil was at this judaising work among the Colossians; his great aim was to lead them away to ordinances, Jewish forms which had their lawful place once, but were not in force now. Christianity treats them as of no account; and, indeed, so far from retaining any value, they are treated as childish, and even idolatrous for the Christian. That was naturally a very serious difficulty for a Jew. All that Moses, David, Hezekiah honoured as religious observances, were they asked to abandon now? Yes, but Christ had come; and were they not to "hear Him" now? Redemption, the substance of their figures, was wrought; was this to be slighted,

The great error of Christendom has always been a going back to ordinances. Take the principle of a consecrated order of men; what is it but the same thing? It is true, all Christians have not the same gift or place; there are only a few gifted to help, lead on, and instruct the many. What seems a difficulty to some is, that up to the cross of Christ was of course bound up with the Jewish system. But this closed with His cross, resurrection, and ascension. The Christian's connection with Christ is since then founded on the cross, which rent the veil and thus dissolved the Jewish system. Therefore it is said, "Seek the things above where Christ is seated on the right hand of God." v. 1. It is very beautiful, the allusion to Christ's place on high outside the world. Thus His settled peace in glory is our keynote. Not that we are here said to be seated in Him there. In Ephesians that side of the truth is pursued and enforced. But the epistle to the Colossians never carries the believer so high! it shows Christ there, but it does not, so to speak, set us there. The resurrection of Christ, or, rather, our being risen with Him, is urged as the ground for our seeking the things above.

"Let your mind be on the things above, not on the things on the earth." v. 2. Who can loyally have divided affections? As our Lord Himself said, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." The Lord put it as a moral impossibility. But here it is urged as an exhortation founded on the immense grace that has raised us up with Christ risen. In vain do you essay to be occupied at the same time with things heavenly and earthly. Our calling is to have our mind on the things above, not merely now and again, but at all times. Suppose a person to be engaged in business; is he not to attend to it? Surely; yet not to set his mind on it, but simply to go through all as a duty to the Lord. Ought he not to do it better than another man who has not Christ? I am assured that such would be the fruit of looking to the Lord, while the same single-eyedness and faith would preserve him from the snares of covetousness, as well as vain glory. The Christian thus taught and walking has an object before his soul which alone is adequate to raise a man above self and the world. Of course, if he is thus labouring day by day to the Lord, the consciousness of the grace in which he stands would deliver him from the carelessness, or self-indulgence, or speculation, which expose men to get into debt or to act in other dishonourable ways. For this is to sink beneath even decent worldliness. Yet, if a Christian does not walk with exercised conscience before the Lord, he is in danger of doing worse and going farther astray than an ordinary man. Humbling and grievous as this may be, it is not surprising. The main object of Satan is put forth to dishonour Christ in those who bear His name, and the power of the Spirit is only with those whose heart is toward Christ. It is not, then, Have your mind partly on things above and partly on things on the earth, but have it not at all on the things that are on the earth.

Whatever the Lord gives you to do, you can take up as service to the Lord; but even here there is need to watch narrowly and, not the least, spiritual work in the gospel or in the Church. There is no security in anything but in Him who sits at the right hand of God. Take, for instance, research into the Scriptures. One might be absorbed in the niceties of the language, the prophecies, the poetry, the history, the doctrine, etc. Any or all these might become a snare. Where is safety for us but in Christ Himself — Christ as He is above?

Moreover, there is added a remarkable statement of the reason why we should have our mind upon things above — "for ye have died." It is not moralizing, like men, even heathen that we have to die, but the fundamental Christian truth that we are dead. All mystics, old or new, have, as their object, to die. Hence it is a dwelling upon inward experience and human effort — the endeavour to crucify themselves — not "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts." What was suitable for a Jew, so far from being necessarily for a Christian, is on this side of the cross; our foundation is Christ who is dead and risen. The fact that a thing is in the Bible does not warrant the conclusion that it is God's will for the Christian. We must seek rightly to divide the word of truth. What was formerly right for the Jews is for us nothing but the elements of the world. These forms pointed to a reality that is now come; the body is of Christ. The blessed portion of a Christian is, that he is dead even to the best things in the world, and alive ta the highest things in the presence of God; for Christ is his life.

To have our mind, therefore, on the things which accord with Christ in glory is what we are called to — first of all, Christ Himself, then the mighty work of Christ in redemption viewed in its heavenly effects. What objects to have before us always! The hopes too that we are connected with Christ thus known, spiritual wisdom brought into exercise thereby, the affections kindled and in play; in short, all the fruits of Christ's work in relation to heaven are comprised in these things above. "For ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God." v. 3.

The prevalent notion with many is, that the Christian is just the better qualified to fill a place in the world, because he is a Christian. But this is in truth to deny the primary and precious truth of God, that I am dead, which my very baptism confesses. And it is remarkable that the impression of the world about any one who receives Christ is, that he is as good as gone. They feel that he is lost to his former objects; and if he takes his place in any full measure as belonging to Christ, he does justify the instincts of men; for he ceases to act as one alive in the world. Alas! Christendom soon accustoms him to be false to Christ. But the truth is that "ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." As yet it is hidden; Christ has not yet caused His glory to be seen by the world. Therefore should a Christian be content to be for a little while an object of rejection and scorn. Faith and patience are thus put to the proof; God allows it to be so; and a Christian ought not to wonder at it, for Christ had just the same portion. A single eye is not deceived; selfishness is blind to God's glory. We would be true to the moral power of the cross — the night is far spent. The reason why we are despised is thus a blessed source of joy in our sorrow. Then the time is short. All will soon be changed.

There is the further truth, "when the Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." v. 4. Christ is not always as now to be hidden; He is about to be manifested; and when He is, we too shall be manifested with Him in glory. God will bring us along with Him, as we learn elsewhere. We shall have been translated to Him, in order that, when He shall be seen by every eye, we may have the same portion with Him. The expression "hid with Christ in God" is a much more emphatic one than simply saying, He is absent in heaven. In John 13 it is said, "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself and shall straightway glorify him." It is not merely glorification in heaven, but what Christ has now in Himself. It is while He is hidden in God, as was said in verse 3, and in contrast with the display of His glory when He comes by-and-by, as in verse 4.

The Colossians had lost sight of this truth in great measure and were in danger of getting on a track that would have deprived them of all enjoyment of peace and confidence in God. The theory was to add what they could to Christ in order to increase the saints' blessing and security, and make a present display to His glory. The Apostle shows them that their life is hid with Christ in God. Consequently, though they possess the most perfect security, it is in accord with Christ's place, hidden and not displayed yet. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness," etc. v. 5. Because ye are dead, because ye have this new life, even Christ, and so are dead and risen with Him, mortify your members which are upon the earth. What were they? Fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Such is what they — what we — really are. It is a wonderfully strong and pointed way of presenting the truth. God is not mocked. Grace does not hinder His judgment either morally in His Word or by-and-by when it shall be executed. "On account of which the wrath of God cometh on the sons of disobedience: in which things ye also once walked, when ye lived in them." vv. 6, 7.

"But now do ye also put off these all, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, base language," etc. It is sweet to see how the truth of being dead with Christ is brought in as deliverance from nature in all its forms, no matter whether corruption or violence. It is the judgment of the first Adam as a whole; nothing is spared. The "ye" is emphatic in verse 7. "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, renewed unto full knowledge according to the image of him that created him." God would have His children enjoy the fullest comfort; and indeed it is impossible for a person to be practically holy until he is happy. There may be godly desires and the Spirit be at work, but there is not power till the soul finds its peace and deliverance in another that God gives in pure grace. Then, when he is made happy through Christ and His work of redemption, he goes to God as his Father and has the Holy Ghost as power, and all the other practical results which flow from that new relationship. "Where there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all and in all." v. 11.

How beautifully in keeping is the Christian motive seen in this, that we should not lie, etc., not only because it dishonours God, but because we have put off the old man and have put on the new man! An appears in a strikingly characteristic light. God in His very instructions to us fails not to remind us here of our blessing. If we are therefore called to put off anger, wrath, etc., it is because we are dead. If we are told to walk no longer in uncleanness, it is on the ground that, though we once lived in it all, we are now dead to it and alive in Christ. If we are exhorted to speak the truth, it is because we have put off the old man and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him. In Him is no darkness at all. He is the true light that now shines.

It is imperative on us as Christians to value nothing but Christ. I speak simply of our place as Christians; but what does not this embrace? As Christ is all and in all, so we have to seek to act upon this always, only prizing in one another what is of Him. If I love and prize Christ, such will be my feeling toward Christians, even as I shall want myself and all Christians to feel that Christ is the only thing worth our thoughts, affections, labour, and life. There is continual danger of the Christian's sinking into thoughts of natural qualities, of those things that make men attractive. The point of faith is to rise above all this. "Let your light so shine," etc. Where Christ is not steadily adhered to as an object and motive, nature will break out as bad as ever. But before God and to faith I am entitled to treat it as dead; and I owe it to Him who died for me and rose again to act upon the great truth that God has passed sentence upon the old man. To this end I must judge myself with my eye fixed upon Christ. Otherwise there is no failure in which I may not dishonour Him. No man ever walks inconsistently while his eye is on Christ. Nor is it merely sense of his own weakness, but the consciousness that the old man is judged and gone from before God. What a blessed standing is the Christian's! The Old Testament saints were kept from sin by expecting and desiring Christ; but we look on Christ now, being dead and risen with Him who has already done all for us. Is it not an incalculable progress? And there is difference quite as marked as the progress, but on this I dwell not now.

In Ephesians the ground for not lying is because we are members one of another. Here it is treated as inconsistent with our having put off the old man and put on the new man. Thus it is an evident contradiction of the new nature, as well as of the judgment and setting aside of the old one. The judgment doubtless took effect upon Christ; but then faith in Him supposes it has been applied to us, and that we have, through Him, renounced self, yea, put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new. The old man is supposed to account for lying; the old man is false, full of deceit. There is not, there cannot be, thorough truthfulness in nature as it is now. We see this from the first; Adam was false directly he sinned. Cain was false also. There may be other evils, such as violence, shown betimes in some and not in others; but all are false — lying one does see in all. The ordinary forms of social intercourse are founded more or less upon deceit in the present state of the world. Men say what is agreeable to others without thought. Men subscribe forms, especially in religion, which they are not expected to believe, and, sad to say, the best men least of all. This all shows how universally falsehood follows the old man — here it is a question of Christians, and therefore we have the new man.

In Ephesians we hear of the members of the body; here it is the nature. In Ephesians also they are to put off the old man and put on the new; but here it is said, "which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." In Ephesians it is as a fresh thing that they had not before, without any reference to being renewed; it is absolutely new-created; whereas here they have received the fresh blessing, but at the same time there is renewing. Both ideas are in the two epistles, but put so as to prove the complement of each other. In Ephesians it is said that the new man is after God created in righteousness and true holiness. What is the difference between the two? Righteousness brings in the idea of authority; it supposes an answer to a just claim; let it be man that meets it, or God, a right to demand underlies it. Holiness is His nature alone and intolerant of evil; it has in itself nothing to do with the claim of justice. To the believer Christ is made righteousness, which is grounded on God's judgment, though it may be entirely settled in our favour; whereas holiness would have been true apart from the question of His authority; it is the essential nature and character.

The angels are said to be holy, but are never said to be righteous or just. The new man rejoices in both. There is entire acquiescence in the authority of God, and delight that the judgment of God has been so met in Christ that He is glorified more than ever. Besides that, there is the moral nature that feels with God. Righteousness is more a bowing to God, holiness is the participation of His own feelings about good and evil. In us the two feelings often mingle. Righteousness is a true balance, the maintenance of what is just in relationships of all kinds. For instance, it is right for a child to obey its parents; it is not merely holy but "right" to do so. The one belongs to the nature quite apart from relationship, or anything of duty, apart from anything that is a sort of obligation which brings in the idea of righteousness.

Hence, we see, Rationalists admit the value of holiness, but they seldom talk of righteousness; for righteousness supposes judgment. Righteousness is a terrible word for a man until he has got hold of Christ. Righteousness, I repeat, proclaims the authority of God. God was holy before sin came into the world; but who could speak of His righteousness before there was the judgment of evil, spite of conscience, and against His express authority? Under the law, therefore, which was the formal assertion of that authority in dealing with men in the flesh, Jehovah, as a righteous God, is continually set forth. "The righteous Lord loveth righteousness," etc. There was neither righteousness nor holiness in Adam before he fell. We have both and become both in Christ. Adam was made upright, but that is not the same thing as being righteous or holy; it was the absence of evil; he was innocent, unfallen.

Righteous and holy is the description that God gives of the Christian. Adam knew nothing of evil as yet, neither was there any question of God's righteous claim upon him, save so far as the forbidden fruit tested his obedience; yet there was no limit of doing this and living, but rather of not doing lest he die. Adam was in a place of privilege, and the point was simply to enjoy it in obedience to God, on penalty of death if he disobeyed. We are in a wholly different position, being in the midst of evil, and acted on by a good outside and above us. Hence we are said to be called by glory and virtue; "by glory" as the object, the condition in which Christ is, and "by virtue" as a restraint upon us and practical conformity to Christ (2 Peter 1).

It has been well remarked that in Ephesians Christ is never spoken of as the image of God; He is so, very expressly, in Colossians. If we may discriminate, what we have in Ephesians is more Christ showing me what God is — not His image, but His moral likeness reflected in Christ. Hence it is said, "Be ye imitators of God, as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us." It is more the notion of resemblance than representation. Still, although you can say of Christ, He is the image of God, He is never said to be in the likeness of God, just because He is God. In Colossians we hear repeatedly of the image of God. Here, for instance, the new man is said to be "after the image of him that created him"; as in the first chapter Christ is said to be the image of the invisible God. The two ideas of likeness and image may often be confounded in our minds, but not so in Scripture, where likeness simply means that one person resembles another; image means that a person is represented, whether it be like him or not — both of course may be together.

"Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering." v. 12. These are the positive, moral qualities of Christ — the tone, spirit, and inward feelings of our Lord. It is not exactly as children, but "as the elect of God, holy and beloved," that we are called on to manifest the same. We are to feel and walk as the Lord walked here.

There is this character about Scripture, that, being divine, it never can be mastered by intellect alone, but always appeals to the affections and conscience as well as mind. It needs the power of the Holy Ghost to connect it with Christ in order even then to feel, judge, and act aright. "Forbearing one another and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." v. 13. Christ is looked at as Head of everything in this epistle. He is viewed as the ideal of all that is good and lovely which God looks either for or from us. "And above all these things, love, which is the bond of perfectness." v. 14. There is more in love than simple kindness and forgiveness; it goes beyond these. Love always brings in God, being the activity of His nature. His nature morally is light, but the energy of it is love that goes out in goodness to others.

Thus, love tends to bind together, whereas self or flesh is the very opposite, the one as decidedly removing difficulties, as the other brings them in. Love not only bears and forbears but overcomes evil with good. "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts." The peace of God is that perfect calm in which He rests as to all circumstances in this world and into which He brings the believer who looks up to Him, committing all circumstances into His hands without allowance of will or anxiety. Instead of our way of escape, which is what man's mind loves to take, because he has always a notion of governing for himself, faith enables a man to look up to God, and brings in the Word of God to bear upon what passes around us. But our epistle speaks of a peace more intimate. It is the peace that Christ has now, the peace He ever had when here below. Thus Christ Himself met all difficulties, as He saw all perfectly, resting in perfect peace about all; and so should we. No sense of evil without, no sense of weakness among His own, disturbs His perfect peace about everything.

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body, and be ye thankful." v. 16. Thus it is peace, but not an isolated spirit, not as having done with one another, but, on the contrary, cleaving to all, spite of all. Supposing, for instance, something painful troubled me about one in communion, am I to be troubled by this so as to be hindered from going to the Lord's table? That would be adding wrong to wrong; for if it were right for me to stay away, it would be equally incumbent on others also. I am never warranted to yield to trouble about such matters, but entitled to have the peace of Christ ruling in my heart. There is always a way of Christ in everything, and this is very important for our souls to remember. "And be ye thankful"; not anxious nor fretful, but thankful. Everything that is wrong may be matter for judgment; but the best preliminary for judging soundly is to do what is according to God — perhaps to judge ourselves. It is our privilege to think of Christ in all that we enter on.

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to God." v. 16. This is a remarkable contrast of the gospel with the law. The law decided this and that; and not this only, but the obedience of the law is definite; it does not leave room for a growing measure of spirituality. Now, in Christianity, there is an elasticity which leaves room for differences in spirituality. This does not suit the thoughts of human nature; it is too vague for it; but it is perfection in the mind and ways of God, who thus forms the affections and judgments. It is precisely what leaves room for the word of Christ. Here there is growth in every kind of wisdom, and also room left for the exercise of spiritual judgment. In the first chapter there is a similar principle, only there it is "being filled with the knowledge of his will, that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing." Here it is "That the word of Christ may dwell in you richly in all wisdom"; it is not a question of walk, but of enjoyment and worship. Hence, immediately after we have "teaching and admonishing one another," etc. By speaking of enjoyment and worship, its public exercise is not meant, but the spirit of it in intercourse with one another.

As to the difference between psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, I suppose a psalm was a more stately composition than a spiritual song, which admits more of Christian experience and expression of our feelings. This may be very good in its way and season, but it is not the best or highest thing. A psalm, then, is more solemn; a hymn is a direct address to God and consists of praise. By psalms, of course, I do not refer to the Psalms of David, but to Christian compositions.

The exhortation, again, to sing with grace in their hearts was because the Colossian saints were far from the excellent state in which we may gather the Ephesians, for instance, were. "And whatever ye do in word or deed, do everything in [the] name of [the] Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." v. 17. This exactly meets what has been already remarked about bringing in everything as a matter for blessing the Lord, instead of finding only sorrow. Doing all things in the name of the Lord Jesus includes not the mere thought of belonging to Him, but of perfect grace. Still it is the Lord Jesus, not Christ simply, but the "Lord Jesus," which involves our relation to His authority. Whatever grace may be shown us, the authority is not weakened, and the effect is that we give thanks to God and the Father by Him. A Christian man, woman, or child dishonours the Lord by yielding to the thankless spirit of the world. "Whatever ye do in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus." Thus our tone and speech, as well as ways, should testify our subjection to Him before whom all heaven bows.

Hitherto, the exhortations have been entirely general. Now the Apostle enters upon special relationships. The Spirit begins, as a rule, in these exhortations with the subordinate ones, with those under authority, rather than with those who are called to exercise it. The wisdom of this is manifest. If the one who should be subject behaves with humility, there is nothing more conciliating to such as are in authority. First of all, then, we begin with the most important of earthly relationships, that of wives and husbands. The wife, in accordance with that just principle, is exhorted before the husband. The emphatic word for the wife is to submit herself. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in [the] Lord." v. 18. Where she is not submissive, it is unseemly even in nature, but more especially in the Lord. The wife's subjection is fitting in the Lord, though no doubt "in the Lord" acts so far as a preservative, that if a husband required anything wrong, submission could not be right. The point here, however, I think, is rather the suitability of it as a Christian principle without entering into the question of how and when it should be made.

Some have inferred that as we are all one in Christ Jesus, there is now no submission due from the wife; that it was part of the curse and woman's special lot in and by the fall; but that now, when she becomes a Christian, the inferiority vanishes, and the woman stands absolutely equal with her husband. Now it is true that Scripture shows us a place and relationship in which the question of man and woman disappears. Thus, "if ye then be risen with Christ" applies in a manner quite independent of age or sex; Christian man and woman and child are equally risen in Christ. But the moment you come down to special relationship, there are distinctions. If a person indulge in wrong thoughts about this, he is in danger of destroying weighty principles. The husband would abandon his right seat of authority; the wife as a matter of course would lose her only happy place of subjection; and where would the Christian child be if the scheme were followed out? As children of God, no doubt all stand on a level; father, mother, child, if believing, enjoy like spiritual privileges. The differences as to flesh and the world entirely disappear in Christ; but the moment you think of earthly relationships (and this is what we have here), there are differences, neither few nor unimportant, in what pertains to our present life and the shape of our walk as Christians. The difference between man, woman, and child, was not destroyed, and still less was it originated, by the fall; it existed before there was sin; the fall did not touch it in any respect. So far is Christianity from taking these differences away, that it strengthens them immensely.

When the Apostle forbids a woman to teach, etc., he does so on the ground that a woman is more likely to be deceived than a man. Adam was not deceived; he was no better for this, for though not deceived, he sinned boldly with his eyes open, while the woman was led away weakly. What the Apostle infers thence is that the woman should not teach nor rule, being stronger in her affections than in her judgment. A man may be worse, but is less likely to be deceived. The woman is governed by her affections instead of judgment guiding her. A woman is not so apt to fail on that side. A wise woman would show her wisdom in not putting herself in the place of, still less above, her husband. If she compared herself with him, she might be easily misled; but if she thinks of the Lord, she would rather put her husband forward. The principle of submission to the husband is here without any guard. "As it is fit in the Lord" does not mean so much acting as a measure, but that it is a seemly thing in the Lord for wives to submit themselves.

Next comes the word to the husbands. "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter against them." v. 19. The wife needs not to be exhorted to love her husband; it is assumed that therein her affections are all right. But it is very possible the husband might allow anxiety and outward pressure of life so to occupy him that he might not take sufficient care of his wife or interest in her anxieties; accordingly, this is the exhortation for him. The wife is necessarily thrown upon her husband; she leaves father, mother, and all, and is cast peculiarly upon her husband; and if he be not watchful, he may fail in thoughtful love, in the attention of every day, not sufficiently guarding his temper, which seems to be what is meant by being "bitter." There should be this affection for the wife, this vigilance against the influence of circumstances; the outward world might often occasion irritation, and then the husband is liable to vent his spleen at home, especially on his wife. This is human nature and what we know too often happens; but it is not Christ; and here it is guarded against. "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter against them." Let none presume to think it needless.

In the same order parents and children appear, the fathers, however, more particularly. "Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing in [the] Lord." Here this also is put quite absolutely. We know elsewhere there are landmarks to guard us. It is evident neither a father nor a husband has any title to insist on what is contrary to the Lord; but accordance is assumed here. What the Apostle urges is that the children should in all things obey their parents. And how good is obedience! Scripture elsewhere brings in a limit, but not here. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" furnishes a very important restriction; at any rate it defines the sphere of obedience; it determines how and how far one ought to go. As a rule, even a bad father would like to have a good child. Many who drink or swear would be very sorry for their sons to do the same. "Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well pleasing to or in the Lord." This directs us simply to the Lord as the One to whom this obedience is acceptable, but well pleasing in the Lord goes a great deal farther. It is not the bare fact of regarding the Lord as the ultimate judge, who then will be pleased; but the Christian has the consciousness of the Lord's love now and of His interest in all his ways and trials day by day. No doubt He will manifest His judgment of all that was done in the body by-and-by; but this should only strengthen the Christian now to do that which is well pleasing in the Lord. The best authorities are unanimous that it should be here "in the Lord" rather than "to the Lord." It is well pleasing that children should obey their parents, not naturally only, but (for the Christian, let it be) in the Lord. "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." v. 21. The mother is not thus exhorted, for as a rule her general fault is to spoil them. There is nothing that more discourages a child than a parent's continual needless fault-finding. Again, where a child is punished without deserving it, what can be more apt to create distrust, and so weaken the springs of love and respect?

We now come to the lowlier members of the household. "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God." v. 22. It is absolute in every one of these cases in Colossians; not so in Ephesians, where there is more of a guard brought in. I should think this attributable to the happier and better tone of the Ephesians. They required rather the limits than the pressure of the duty. The Colossians, on the contrary, stood in need of exhortations to obey. Thus, for instance, if a man had to do with a well-ordered family, he would not have to urge obedience in the same manner as if they were disorderly. Strange to say, you will always find self-will the companion of a legal spirit There is never true obedience without the power of grace. Who were the most stiff-necked people in all the world? The Jews, the same who boasted of the law. You will find, since the law has been taken as a rule of life for Christians, they too are less obedient and think nothing of going against the Scriptures. This was one danger for the Colossians — a spirit of ordinance and legality.

No person becomes obedient by good rules. What is it then that produces it? The heart must be filled with right motives; and what brings this about? Love for a person gives a sense of duty to him, and acts upon the heart. This makes obedience easy. Rules are never the power but only the tests of obedience in certain cases. This is even true of Christ's commandments. He keeps them who loves Him, and he only. This induces obedience, and then what Christ says lies upon our hearts and minds and memories — not only His commandments but His word — whereas if we love not, how readily all is forgotten! This is an important difference in John 14. First the Lord speaks of His commandments, then of His word. The truth is, where there is a loving heart, any expression of will, even without a positive command, governs the affections.

"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." This is very important. Feelings, habits, etc., no doubt, have been brought in by Christianity — difficulties also (not that these ought to have been, but by reason of a fleshly mind) all these arose. A bondman found himself suddenly a brother to his master; if he did not watch, he would soon begin to judge his master, whether he ought to say this or do that. If his master blamed him for anything, he might consider his master to have acted in a hard, fleshly way. How easy it is to slip into a wrong spirit, especially for a servant in presence of his master's infirmities daily before him, and in danger of judging his master according to the evil thoughts of his own heart! But surely a man ought to do all better after, than before, he knew Christ. The notion that, because they have to do with Christians, the latter ought to put up with ill-done duties is all selfishness. The fact that servants are not bondmen now in no way alters the matter. In those days they had often to serve heathen masters. In any case the great thing is to remember the Lord Jesus and His will in every place. We belong absolutely to Him to do His bidding in all things. In order to walk well with God, let me take care that I am in a position according to His will where I have no qualms of conscience. A scrupulous conscience however is dangerous, though far preferable to a burdened or bad conscience; but it is dangerous, for the strain tends to break and to end in a bad conscience. There is no place in this world where one may not glorify God, sin of course excepted.

"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as to the Lord and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ." vv. 23, 24. But not so occupied with the fact that you are serving an earthly master; remember, "ye serve the Lord Christ." Thus will you be the more subject to your earthly master, doing heartily whatsoever ye do, not as being right only but with heart. The Apostle adds a remarkable word here, "he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done, and there is no respect of persons." v. 25. This takes in both the present and the future, as I suppose, being a general principle.

The condition of the Ephesians was such that the love of Christ to the Church could be developed and urged on them. The Colossians, not being in so healthful a state, are exhorted on a lower ground. Conscience needed to be exercised.

Colossians 4

It is evident that the first verse of chapter 4 belongs to the special exhortations which occupy the close of chapter 3. Consequently, chapter 4 ought, if the division were accurate according to subjects, to begin at the second verse.

The exhortations to wives and husbands are correlative, also to children and fathers, and to servants and masters, making three pairs of such appeals. There is the difference to be noted that husbands and wives existed from the very first; not so the relation of master and servant. It is clear also, that though children were contemplated from the beginning, in point of fact they did not exist in Paradise. God took care there should be no race, no parent and child, before the fall.

It was when Christ had glorified God perfectly, that Christ became the head of a family. The contrast in this respect is very interesting and beautiful. What confusion, if some had been born in a state of innocence, and others in sin! God ordered things that there should be no family till man was fallen. To increase and multiply, however, was the intention and word of God even then. The relation of masters and slaves (as they are here supposed to be) was solely a result of the entrance of sin into the world. We do not hear of bondmen before the flood, though Noah predicts it of Canaan soon after. I presume that the mighty hunter, Nimrod, was the first that essayed his craft or violence in this direction.

If this be so, there is a remarkable gradation in these relationships; husbands and wives in Paradise, children born after the fall but before the flood, servants not heard of till after that. I do not mean at all that Scripture does not recognize this latter relationship — far from it — only it is well to see that it was one which followed not only the fall, but even the great judgment of God executed on the earth. Thus it is a condition of things very far from being according to God, that men should have their fellows as their property or slaves. And yet even so, "masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." v. 1. In our countries it is a relationship voluntarily entered into on both sides, and there are corresponding privileges and duties; but here, though it was a case of slaves, the call to masters is to be impartial in their ways with them. And this refers not only to equity as a matter between the master and a slave, but between the slaves generally. There might be much confusion and injury in a household by disturbing the equilibrium between the slaves. The wisdom of God thus provides for everything, even for what respects the despised bondmen. It is here said, "just" — not grace.

You can never demand or claim grace. In writing the epistle to Philemon, the Apostle brings motives of grace to bear upon the case; he does not dictate what Philemon was to do, but reminds him of his heavenly relationship, and leaves it to Philemon's grace. Though the runaway slave was justly liable to be put to death, Roman and indeed any other masters having the right to punish them thus, yet would he have Philemon now receive him again no more as a slave, but as a brother.

Here, however, it is a question of what was "just and equal." For the expression, "just," shows a sense of right; grace in this case would not have been suited, as it would have left the door open more or less. Justice maintains obligations. In Ephesians it is said, "forbearing threatening." It was wrong even to threaten a slave with violent measures. The Colossians, being in a lower condition, are plainly dealt with, and told to be just and equal; it is the recognition of certain responsibilities in which the masters stood to their slaves. Do not you, masters, imagine all duty is on one side; you have yours toward your slaves. This, often forgotten, seems implied in the word "just"; and "equal" forbids the indulgence of favouritism.

The rationalistic philosophy is mainly founded on the endeavour to blot out the word "duty." I have known persons even in the Church disposed to deny anything in this shape as obligatory on the Christian. But it is a fatal error. Grace no doubt alone gives the power, but moral obligations ever remain binding.

The broad-church class talk of holiness, they do not like righteousness. That bias of mind ever tended to explain it away from Scripture. So Grotius used to say that the righteousness of God means His mercy — an idea as dreadful in its way as the common error that the righteousness of God means the law fulfilled. Such entirely deny the standing of the believer; for the law was not made for the righteous, but for the ungodly. Thus theologians are infected by a double error, either that of confounding the righteousness of God with the righteousness of the law, and making this to be both the standing and the rule of the Christian, or that of denying all righteousness in any shape by making it to be merely divine mercy. Both are quite wrong, and one error leads on to another; as truth hangs together, so does error. "Grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." "This is the true grace of God wherein ye stand."

"Persevere in prayer, watching in it with thanksgiving." v. 2. The habit, the persevering habit of prayer, is of immense moment. And as Luke 18, so this chapter presses it strongly, though the Apostle does not look for such far extending and thorough spirit of supplication as in Ephesians 6. Their state did not admit either of like depths of desire or of such large affections for all saints in the bowels of Christ. Legalism, ordinance, philosophy, savour of the creature, not of God rightly known; they are not Christ and are far short of comprehending all that are His. Nevertheless, he does count, here as there, on a mind on the alert to turn occasions of difficulty or blessing, joy or sorrow, anything, everything, into matter for spreading before God; and this in a spirit not of murmuring anxiety, but of grateful acknowledgment of His goodness, and confidence in Him. How blessed that even the groaning of the Spirit in the believer supposes deliverance, and not mere selfish sense of evil! Not of course that the deliverance is complete or evil yet put down by power from on high and actually cleared out of the scene. But we know the victory won in Christ's death and resurrection, and having the earnest of the Spirit, feel the contrariety of present things to that glory of which He gives us the sense in Christ now exalted, the hope for all saints at His coming.

The consciousness of the favour already shown and secured to us in Christ makes us thankful while we ask of God all good things suitable to it now, worthy of it in result by-and-by when evil disappears by His power. Yet it is remarkable to see how the Apostle values and asks for the prayers of saints — "praying at the same time also for us that God may open to us a door of the word to speak the mystery of Christ, on account of which also I am bound." v. 3. The value of united prayer is great; but God makes much of individual waiting on Him and very especially as in the interests of His Church and the gospel — of Christ in short — here below. How little the Apostle was discouraged even at this late day! He writes to the Colossians, from his bondage because of his testimony to that very mystery of Christ which he still desired to be the object of their supplication on his behalf with God, "that I may make it manifest as I ought to speak" (v. 4).

Next, he reverts to their own need of walking wisely, considering those outside, and seizing the fit opportunity, though I doubt not the service of prayer such as we have seen, would have issued in their own blessing as truly as in good to others. "Walk in wisdom with those without, buying up the time. Let your speech be always in grace, seasoned with salt, to know how ye ought to answer each one." vv. 5, 6. Grace gives us the rich glow of divine favour to the undeserving, the display of what God is in Christ to those who belong to this guilty ruined world; salt presents the guard of holiness, the preservative energy of God's rights in the midst of corruption. It is not said, "always with salt," seasoned with grace, but "always with grace, seasoned with salt." Grace should ever be the groundwork and the spring of all we say. No matter how much we may differ, righteousness must be maintained inviolate.

It is this combination of divine love in the midst of an evil world, with uncompromising maintenance of what is due to God's holy and righteous will, that teaches the Christian not merely what but how to answer each one as he ought.

Next come personal messages (vv. 7-18). Observe the remarkable care of the Apostle to sustain and commend true-hearted labourers, knowing well the tone of detraction natural to men who can see the failings of those whose service left themselves far behind. ``Tychicus, my beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-bondman in the Lord, all my affairs shall make known to you, whom I have sent to you for this very purpose, that he may know your matters and may comfort your hearts; with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is [one] of you: they shall make known to you all things here." vv. 7-9. This exuberance of affectionate commendation is greatly to be weighed. The lack of it tends to loosen and dislocate the bonds of charity among the saints. Remark further, that love counts on the interest of others in our affairs quite as much as it feels a real concern in hearing of theirs. Among men such a feeling is either unknown, or where it exists is but vanity; but then love, divine love, is not there. And love must exist and be known in order to understand its workings and effects. Truly it is called in this epistle the bond of perfectness.

"Aristarchus, my fellow-captive, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received orders (if he come to you, receive him), and Jesus that is called Justus, who are of the circumcision: these [are the] only fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God which have been a comfort to me." vv. 10, 11. There is a singular change in comparing the notices here with those in Philemon. Aristarchus is here a sharer of the Apostle's captivity, as there Epaphras is; while there Aristarchus is a fellow-labourer of the Apostle with others, as Epaphras is here spoken of — at least as a bondman of Christ. They may have shared the Apostle's imprisonment successively, as some one has suggested. It is certain that Aristarchus was his companion not only in Asia, but during his voyage to Italy. This would tend to show, I think, that this epistle to the Colossians was written at least a little before that to Philemon, though both may be supposed to have been written at the same general date and to have been forwarded by the same hands from the Apostle, a prisoner at Rome.

How beautiful too is the grace which enjoined distinctly the reception of Mark! Remembrance of the past would else have forbidden a cordial welcome to himself, and so must have hindered his ministry among the saints. Thus, if here we learn the secret of Barnabas's leaning (for he was his kinsman), when the breach occurred with the Apostle in earlier days, we learn that real love is as generous as faithful, acts at all cost for the Lord, and where requisite, spite of paining nature, but rejoices to praise aloud and heartily where the grace of God has intervened to the removal of the impediment. Of Jesus called Justus we know no more than that. Like Mark. he was of the circumcision; and, like him too, consoled the Apostle as a fellow-servant — a rare thing among those who had been used to the law and its prejudices. The Justus of Acts 18: 7 was a Gentile proselyte. Barsabas, the candidate for the apostolate, who was a Jew of course, was so surnamed, but not called Jesus like the one in question.

"Epaphras saluteth you, who is [one] of you, a bondman of Christ Jesus, always striving for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all [the] will of God. For I bear him witness that he hath much toil for you, and those in Laodicea, and those in Hierapolis." vv. 12, 13. It would be a joy for the saints at Colosse to know that Epaphras, himself a Colossian as well as Onesimus, did not stand higher in the love and value of the Apostle (Col. 1: 7) than in earnest remembrance of themselves in his prayers for their blessing before God. Remark too that the doctrine of the epistle (that we are filled full according to all the fullness that is in Christ), far from excluding, is the basis of desire and intercession for the saints, that they may be practically perfect and fully assured in everything about which God has a will. There was no such narrowness as shut him up to a single assembly, though there was the affectionate recollection of need where saints and circumstances were specially known to him.

"Luke, the beloved physician, saluteth you, and Demas." v. 14. The occupation of Luke was not blotted out because he was a saint and a servant of Christ, and even an inspired writer. Demas, I should gather, was even now distrusted by the Apostle, who mentions his name with an ominous silence and without an endearing word — a thing unusual with the Apostle. Even to Philemon, about the same time, he is "my fellow-labourer." In 2 Timothy he had forsaken the Apostle, having loved the present age. The steps of declension were rapid; no testimony tells of his recovery. But a more extensive falling off was at hand (2 Tim. 1: 15); for, the ice once broken, many were ready to slip through. As for the Apostle, he had fought the fight, he had finished his course, he had kept the faith. The men who were little known for building up were active for leading astray; as one of this world's sages has said, The hand that could not build a hut can destroy a palace. Nevertheless God's firm foundation stands.

"Salute the brethren in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the assembly in his house. And when the epistle has been read among you, cause that it be read also in the assembly of Laodicea, and that ye also read that from Laodicea." vv. 15, 16. Whether this letter be that commonly known as the epistle to the Ephesians (and having a circular character), or that to Philemon (who may probably have resided in or near Laodicea), or whether it refers to a letter no longer extant (possibly a letter from Laodicea to Paul, literally), have been questions much contested among learned men. Two remarks may be made which seem clear and certain. 1) The epistle from Laodicea would be indeed a strange way of describing an epistle written to the church there. It would be natural enough, if it meant a letter which was then there and intended for the Colossian saints also, to whomsoever it may have been addressed. 2) There is nothing to forbid the view that more letters were written than we possess, God preserving only those which were designed for the permanent guidance of the saints. But that the one alluded to here is a lost letter, addressed to Laodicea, is wholly unproved. It is also obvious that the Colossian epistle was directed to be passed on to Laodicea. The letter the Laodiceans were to forward to Colosse may have been addressed to them, but the description necessitates no such conclusion.

What links of love and mutual profit among the assemblies!

"And say to Archippus, See to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill it." v. 17. The brethren cannot forego their responsibility and exercise of godly discipline; but ministry is received from and in the Lord. The assembly never appoints to service in the word, but Christ, the Head, though apostles or their delegates (never the Church) acted for Him when it was a question of local charge.

Finally comes "the token in every epistle" — at least in his regular province as Apostle of the uncircumcision: "The salutation by the hand of me, Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you." v. 18.

Ephesians 1 - 3.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Ephesians with a new translation.

The Epistle to the Ephesians.

1 Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by God's will, to the saints that are in Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus. 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ that blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, 4 even as he chose us in him before [the] world's foundation, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love; 5 having predestinated us for adoption through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 unto [the] praise of [the] glory of his grace, wherein he made us objects of grace in the beloved; 7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of offences, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he caused to abound toward us in all wisdom and intelligence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself 10 for [the] administration of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him 11 in whom we have also obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to [the] purpose of him that worketh all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 in order that we should be unto [the] praise of his glory, that have fore-trusted in the Christ; 13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom having also believed, ye were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is earnest of our inheritance, for [the] redemption of the purchased possession unto [the] praise of his glory.

15 On this account I also, having heard of the faith that [is] among you in the Lord Jesus and the love that [ye have] toward all the saints, 16 do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, would give you [the] spirit of wisdom and revelation in full knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling; and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints; 19 and what the surpassing greatness of his power toward us that believe, according to the working of the might of his strength, 20 which he wrought in the Christ in having raised him out of the dead, and seated [him] at his right hand in the heavenly [places], 21 far above every principality and authority and power and lordship and every name named not only in this age but also in that to come; 22 and put all things under his feet, and gave him as head over all things to the assembly, 23 which* is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. II. And you, being dead in your offences and your sins, 2 in which ye once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; 3 among whom we all also had our conversation once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were children, by nature, of wrath even as the rest; 4 but God, being rich in mercy, on account of his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even us being dead in our offences he quickened with the Christ (by grace are ye saved), 6 and raised together and seated together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, 7 that he might show forth in the coming ages the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace ye are saved through faith; and this not of yourselves — God's is the gift: 9 not of works, that no one might boast. 10 For his workmanship we are, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God before prepared that we should walk in them.

* Or, 'the which' (though this is rather antiquated), 'inasmuch as it, ἥτις, not ἥ, i.e., character, not fact. Comp. Eph. 3: 13,

11 Wherefore remember that once ye, the nations in [the] flesh, that are called uncircumcision by that called circumcision in [the] flesh made by hand, 12 that ye were at that time without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 but now in Christ Jesus ye that were once far off have become nigh by the blood of the Christ. 14 For he is our peace that made both one, and broke down the middle wall of the fence, 15 having annulled the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commandments in ordinances, that he might create the two in himself into one new man, making peace, 16 and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity in it. 17 And having come he preached peace to you that were afar off and peace to those that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have * access by one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then ye are no longer strangers and foreigners, but ye are fellow-citizens of the saints and of the household of God, 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner-stone, 21 in whom all the building fitted together increaseth unto a holy temple in [the] Lord, 22 in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God in [the] Spirit.

* I had hesitated whether I should not, with several translators, say 'our' access (and so bis in Eph. 3: 12, and in Eph. 3: 17). But it appears to me that our possessive is too strong an expression of the Greek article here; and that the force, in one case at least, is rather technical.

III. For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of the Christ Jesus for you nations, 2 if indeed ye heard of the administration of the grace of God that was given me toward you; 3 how that by revelation was made known to me the mystery, even as I have before written briefly, 4 in accordance with which ye can, in reading, perceive my understanding in the mystery of the Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it hath been now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in [the] Spirit, 6 that the nations are fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and fellow-partakers of the promises in Christ Jesus by the gospel, 7 of which I was made minister according to the gift of the grace of God that was given me according to the working of his power. 8 To me who am less than the least of all saints was this grace given to preach to the nations the unsearchable riches of the Christ, 9 and to enlighten all as to what [is] the administration of the mystery which hath been hidden from the ages in God that created all things; 10 in order that there might be known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly [places] by the assembly the manifold wisdom of God, 11 according to [the] purpose of the ages which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord; 12 in whom we have* boldness and* access in confidence by the faith of him. 13 Wherefore I entreat [you] not to faint at my tribulations for you which is your glory. 14 For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom every family in [the] heavens and on earth is named, 16 that he would give you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power by his Spirit into the inner man, l7 that the Christ may dwell through *faith in your hearts, 18 being in love rooted and grounded that ye may be fully able to comprehend with all the saints what [is] the breadth and length and depth and height; 19 and to know the love of the Christ that surpasseth knowledge, that ye may be filled to all the fulness of God. 20 Now to him that is able to do above all things far exceedingly above what we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 to him [be] glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus unto all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen.

*See note to Eph. 2: 18.

IV. I exhort you therefore, I the prisoner in [the] Lord, that ye walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, 2 with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love, 3 using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, even as ye were also called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, that [is] over all, and through all, and in [us, or, you] all.

7 But to each one of us was given grace according to the measure of the gift of the Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, Having ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts to men. 9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended into the lower [parts] of the earth? 10 He that descended, he it is also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the perfecting of the saints, unto work of ministry, unto edifying of the body of the Christ, 13 until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a fullgrown man, at [the] measure of [the] stature of the fulness of the Christ; 14 that we may no longer be babes, tossed and carried about by every wind of doctrine in the sleight of men, in craftiness for the scheming of error, 15 but, holding the truth in love, let us grow up unto him in all things, who is the head, Christ, 16 from whom all the body, being fitted together and compacted by every joint of supply, according to [the] working in [the] measure of each one part, worketh the increase of the body for edifying of itself in love.

17 This then I say and testify in [the] Lord that ye should no longer walk even as also the rest of the nations walk in vanity of their mind, 18 being darkened in the understanding, estranged from the life of God on account of the ignorance that is in them, on account of the hardening of their heart, 19 who, as being past remorse, have given themselves up to lasciviousness unto [the] working of every uncleanness with greediness. 20 But ye have not thus learnt the Christ, 21 if indeed ye have heard him and been taught in him even as [the] truth is in Jesus,* 22 that ye should put off, according to your former conversation, the old man that is corrupt according to the lusts of deceit, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new man, that according to God was created in righteousness and holiness of truth. 25 Wherefore having put off falsehood, speak truth each with his neighbour, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and sin not: let not the sun set upon your wrath, 27 nor yet give room for the devil. 28 Let him that stealeth steal no longer but rather labour, working what is good with his own hands, that he may have to distribute to him that hath need. 29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but if [there be] any one good for edification of the need, that it may give grace to those that hear. 30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God by whom ye were sealed for redemption-day. 31 Let all bitterness and passion and wrath and clamour and evil-speaking be removed from you with all malice; 32 and be to one another kind, compassionate, forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ hath forgiven you.

* Or, 'in Jesus — your having put off.......and being renewed and having put on,' etc.

V. Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, 2 even as the Christ also loved us and gave himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for an odour of sweet smell. 3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not be even named among you, even as becometh saints; 4 and filthiness and foolish talking or jesting, which are not becoming, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For this ye are aware of, knowing that no fornicator nor unclean nor covetous [person], who is an idolater, hath inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you by vain words; for on account of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Be not therefore fellow-partakers with them; 8 for ye were once darkness but now [are] light in the Lord: walk as children of light (9 for the fruit of the light [is] in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 proving what is agreeable to the Lord; 11 and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather also reprove; 12 for the things in secret done by them it is shameful even to speak of, 13 but all of them,* when reproved by the light, are made manifest; for everything that maketh manifest is light. 14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise out of [the] dead, and the Christ shall shine upon thee. 15 See therefore how carefully ye walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 buying up the time, because the days are evil. 17 On this account be not foolish, but understanding what the will of the Lord [is]. 18 And be not drunk with wine, in which is dissoluteness, but be filled with [the] Spirit, 19 speaking to each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and chanting in your heart to the Lord; 20 giving thanks always for all things in [the] name of our Lord Jesus Christ to him that is God and Father, 21 submitting yourselves one to another in fear of Christ.

* Here the Auth. Version is doubly wrong. To justify it, there should be no article with πάντα, and there ought to be one with ἐλεγχόμενα. I have done the best I could (though the result is poor) to represent the text.

22 Wives, [submit yourselves] to your† own husbands as to the Lord; 23 for a husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ [is] head of the assembly: he [is] the saviour of the body. 24 But as the assembly is subject to the Christ, so also the wives to their own husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your own wives, even as the Christ also loved the assembly and gave himself up for it, 26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed [it] by the washing of water in [the] word, 27 that he might himself present to himself the assembly glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things; but that it should be holy and blameless. 28 Thus ought husbands to love their own wives as their own bodies: he that loveth his own wife loveth himself, 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Christ also the assembly: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 Because of this shall a man leave father and mother and shall be closely joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I speak as to Christ and as to the assembly. 33 Nevertheless, ye also every one, let each so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife fear the husband.

† Some excellent authorities read, "Let the wives be subject to their" etc. Others do not express the verb.

VI. Children, obey your parents in [the] Lord; for this is just. 2 Honour thy father and thy mother, which is a commandment first in promise, 3 that it may be well for thee, and thou shalt be long-lived on the earth. 4 And, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in [the] Lord's discipline and admonition.

5 Bondmen, obey your masters according to flesh with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to the Christ; 6 not with eye-service as men-pleasers but as bondmen of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul, 7 with good-will doing service as to the Lord and not to men; 8 knowing that whatever good each shall do, this he shall receive of [the] Lord, whether bond or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things toward them, giving up threatening, knowing that the master both of them and of you is in [the] heavens; and there is no respect of persons with him.

10 For the rest, my brethren, be strengthened in [the] Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the panoply of God, that ye may be able to stand against the stratagems of the devil; 12 for our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against the principalities, against the authorities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places]. 13 On this account take up the panoply of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having fully done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having girt about your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with [the] preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all, having taken up the shield of faith with which ye will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one; 17 and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is God's word; 18 with all, prayer and supplication praying in every season in [the] Spirit, and "hereunto watching with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints, 19 and for me that utterance may be given me in [the] opening of my mouth with boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chain[s], that in it I may be bold as I ought to speak.

21 But that ye also may know my affairs, what I do,* Tychicus shall make known all to you, the beloved brother and faithful servant in [the] Lord, 22 whom I sent to you for this very thing, that ye may know our matters, and [that] he may comfort your hearts.

* Or, 'how I fare.'

23 Peace to the brethren and love with faith from God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ; 24 grace with all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.

NOTES OF LECTURES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

CHAPTER 1.

It must be manifest to the most casual reader of the epistle that we are upon very high and holy ground here. Let none suppose that this is to impeach other portions of the inspired scriptures. But who can deny that in revealing His mind, God has been pleased to employ different instruments and with various measures? He could, if He pleased, have written all by one. He could have revealed Himself by all according to the full height of His own glory and nothing else. But we may be quite sure that the ways of God are as admirable in the forms which His revelation takes, as in all other things which He has made for His praise. These diverse manners of developing His nature and character, His counsels and ways, display His glory in an infinitely more blessed light than if there had been one unvarying blaze of brightness. And the same wisdom which works best for His majesty and praise, is precisely that which is suited to the wants, and efficacious for the blessing of His children. Need I say, that a revelation, while it is from God is for His people? No doubt, it does glorify Him; but God, when He speaks, has an object in view, and provides graciously for those to whom He addresses Himself. The revelations of God, therefore, while they flow from God, and are worthy of God, necessarily pre-suppose, and are adapted to, the condition of man. Now this, far from, in the smallest degree, lessening the divine glory which manifests itself in the successive parts of God's word, on the contrary, enhances it infinitely, and proves that it is His, by nothing more than its wonderful suitability to poor sinners, brought out of their low estate, in His rich mercy, and adopted into His family by faith in Christ Jesus.

Now, of all the epistles of St. Paul, I am not aware of any one which rises so high as this to the Ephesians; and one cannot doubt that there was a harmony between the condition of these saints themselves, and the manner and measure of the Spirit's communications to them. We find it so elsewhere. In addressing the saints at Rome, they were not called a church; they were, indeed, in an infantine state. There were blessed saints of God there, but the assembly was not founded by an apostle. Years passed before ever an apostle went to Rome. God saw well that this very city of Rome would arrogate to itself enormous claims of a spiritual character. Therefore He took care that more inconsiderable places, such as Corinth, etc., should have an apostle to found churches and labour there for a considerable time; while the great centre of the world's glory was unvisited by an apostle till there were many assembled there, through persons going thither from one cause and another. When we consider the circumstances of the Roman saints, we can understand the propriety of addressing an epistle to them which strongly resembles a comprehensive scheme of christian doctrine from the very alphabet of truth. And, hence, the very first thing that we have proved there, after the introduction, is the total ruin of man, and of man looked at in every point of view — man examined, and weighed in the balances of God, from the flood downwards. After man had possessed a knowledge of God of an outward sort, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God. In fact we have the origin of idolatry shown; and also the time after the flood before idolatry came in. The verses I have referred to in Romans 1, bear upon the time when there was simply the race possessing the knowledge of God. But man departed from it, corrupting himself; and we have the awful picture of human depravity traced in the early chapters. Next, we have philosophic man; and then man under the law — man in every point of view — before the subject of redemption is treated of, or anything is said of the way to be justified. The reason is this: the apostle never having been there, the saints at Rome were comparatively ignorant, and required to be instructed in the nature and fatal issues of the fall. They needed to learn what the history of man is, as God looks at and thinks of it. Therefore, we have him seen as ruined in every way, and no help for him in the creature, the law, or anything else. Hence the result is, that all are gone out of the way: "there is none righteous, no, not one." In a word, every mouth is stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God. Then, and not till then, we have the provision God has made in His righteous mercy for man, in Romans 3 and Romans 4; and from Romans 5, consequences shown and difficulties met, winding up with the triumphant conclusion of Romans 7.

What a weighty summary of christian doctrine, beginning with the actual condition of man, Jew or Gentile, and leading up to the firm footing God has given in Christ, dead and risen, to him that believes! But in all this you have, most important as it is; only the individual. It may be man lost, or man saved; but you have nothing about the Church. It is what pertains to those who are members of the Church, but no such thing appears as the assembly of God treated as such. Man's ruin and redemption is the theme, with the effects of redemption, and the order of the dispensations, and the practical duties flowing from all. But in Ephesians how totally different! Here, comparatively speaking, man disappears, and God is viewed as acting from Himself.

Hence there is no preface nor proof of what man's state is. This was not necessary, nor is it the starting-point of the teaching there: in Romans it is; and nothing can be more simple. But in Ephesians, instead of our being raised up from the pit of corruption, in which man lay buried, the very first thing the apostle does is to speak of God in heaven. It is God showering blessing upon man, and not man brought up to God. It is God shown in the ways of His grace and the thoughts of His heart, before even there was a world at all, entirely apart from all questions of Jews or Gentiles. It is God forming a scheme of glory and blessedness for His own praise; God delighting in the display of His goodness, and this for the purpose of blessing, and the very highest, fullest character of blessing. Hence you will find that it is not simply God as God acting towards man, but He has Christ before Him, and hence there is no limit to the blessing. He would have some channel of grace toward us to the full content of His own heart. Now there is no object that could draw out and sustain the delight of God, none that could be in itself an adequate object to look upon with complacency but one, even Christ. As for the angels, He charges them with folly, and yet were they holy. If He scanned lower than the angels, what is there but a world lost in sin? Thus there is but one capable of satisfying the heart and affections of God — Christ Himself.

Having therefore this great truth in hand — God blessing, and Christ the object before God, through whom God is going to bless, according to all that is in His heart, we also find that He is named as a Blesser in a twofold manner. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." These two titles are really the key to the epistle. And I must be permitted to press strongly the importance of weighing words in Scripture. When we have to do with mankind, we must not make a person an offender for a word. But God needs no excuses for His word. Whatever allowance we might make for the slips of one another, with Scripture the occasion can never arise. When we draw near and listen to Him, the only proper attitude is to bow and worship. And, therefore, in this epistle, which is so full an expression of His love, the apostle opens it thus, "Blessed be the God and Father," etc. He could not write to the Ephesians without breaking out into the praise and worship of God. Elsewhere you will find him blessing God, but where he does so, as in 2 Corinthians 2: 14, there were special circumstances that called it out. But not so here. At Corinth there was a blessed intervention of God's grace, breaking down the proud hearts of wayward disciples there, making them ashamed of themselves. But in Ephesians it was apart from passing circumstances, save that he saw them in such a condition of soul that they were capable of going on with God, entering into His thoughts and counsels. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" was not because of some peculiar mercy, or comfort; but it flows from what He always is to us. For this very reason many saints may be unable to enter in. Some are apt to be particularly alive to, and touched by, sensible tokens, from day to day, and now and then extraordinary providential interventions of God. Perhaps they are in great trial, and God brings them a fresh blessing too out of it. But here the Ephesians were so simple and willing to go on with God that the apostle, instead of being detained by their state, could but speak in praise and thanksgiving. It is very blessed when there is such happy communion given in having to do with one another.

It is true, again, that before he enters upon what I shall endeavour to develop, he introduces himself as an apostle. He does not say "servant" here; in writing to the Romans he does. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ." He was indeed Christ's bondman. Why should Paul be writing to them? He was His servant. Did not they belong to Jesus? There was no such thought as "independency" sanctioned in those days — no such practice as little districts or assemblies belonging to this man or that; but the Church everywhere the loved object of the Lord's servants. He is a true servant who is able to realize that he is the bondsman of Jesus Christ; and he will serve souls best who most realizes what it is to serve the Lord. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle." He was an apostle by the calling of God. At this time there was no such thing as a congregation giving a candidate "a call." Paul was an apostle called of God, and they were saints called of God, and they knew it. It was very sweet for them to think they had been thus called. They were in their measure treading the path of Christ, and the apostle was His servant and an apostle also. His object was to bring his apostleship into relief. But they at Corinth were in danger of beginning to stand in doubt of him and of thinking that to Jerusalem they ought to look. He thoroughly owns the common place of a brother; but if persons like the Corinthians were raising their heads too high, he says, "an apostle" simply, without adding "servant." If a dispute arose about the point, he proves the reality of his call. In addressing the Galatians I have shown elsewhere what peculiar force there is in his introduction of himself. "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man)," etc. Here you have controversy at once, but of divine temper and strength. There were false principles in Galatia, and therefore he uses energetic, urgent language in writing to the saints They were adopting Jewish notions about earthly succession. The apostle, therefore, takes the very highest ground, and shows that while he fully acknowledged the twelve in their place, he would not, in what touched the truth of the gospel, give place by subjection, no, not for an hour; so that the whole epistle bears the stamp of the unqualified re-assertion of the call of grace and its heavenly character, founded upon the death and resurrection of Christ.

In Ephesians he has no object of a controversial kind, nor of laying down the christian foundations of truth, as in the case of the Roman saints. But he does put forward his apostolic function — "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ." He shows fully out of what it sprang; that same "will of God," out of which flowed their own blessing. He is about to trace, first the individual blessing, and then the corporate. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the former is a deeper thing than the latter. On the contrary, our highest blessings are connected with what we have as individuals. Fully acknowledging the blessedness of what is corporate, what we have individually is higher still; and it is the way of God's Spirit to begin with this before entering upon what is common. Hence I think he here addresses "the saints which were at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus," as such. They were the, Church there, not only gathered formally, but intelligently so. They had had the Apostle Paul there, who had been God's instrument in that work. There were twelve men who believed before Paul went there; but they never received the Holy Ghost after the Pentecost sort till Paul's visit. It is the personal presence of the Holy Ghost, founded upon our faith in Christ dead and risen, that brings us into this church character. But the Holy Ghost, besides making us members of Christ's body, the Church, also gives us the consciousness of our relationship as sons with His God and Father. He addresses "the Church of God at Corinth" as such, when he is speaking of points that concern order and discipline. Here he is going to look at the Church in a far higher point of view; yet he begins with what is individual: "To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Then he introduces the twofold title of God already referred to — the same that our Lord announced when He rose from the dead, and sent the first message given to His disciples, by Mary Magdalene: "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God" — not "to the Almighty God," or "to Jehovah."

Our Lord stood in a twofold relation to God; He was Son of God, not only as a divine person, but as man in the world (Luke 1); besides His highest personal glory which shines through John's Gospel, etc. "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This last title refers to Christ, viewed in humanity in this world; and it is therefore stated only in the Gospel of Luke, which is pre-eminently the human biography, if I may so speak, of Christ. But it might not have been known, unless God has told us, that He carried that same relationship as man into His resurrection. He teaches us that death and resurrection gave Him title in God's righteousness to put us in His position. So that He could for the first time say, in the fulness of meaning which those words convey, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." He is now not merely "my Father" and "my God," but "your Father" and "your God."

The death of Christ had completely obliterated all that was against the children of God: the resurrection of Christ, after redemption was effected, enabled Him to give them His place of resurrection and sonship before God. And what a wonderful place is this! To think that now, even while we are in this world, our Lord would have us to know that we are sons, in and through Him, before our God, and that we are instinct with resurrection-life — "alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord;" that we stand before God without a single charge or condemnation, and this, because He had taken by grace the "same condemnation" with the guilty on the cross. He was the "holy thing" — we unholy, altogether undone. But on the cross He was made sin for us, and entered the same condemnation — made it His own on the cross; and now there is none for me. I am brought into the same place that He had as the risen one before God. Of course I am not speaking now of His divine glory. The notion of the creature, no matter how blest, being in any other position than that of looking up to God and worshipping Him, could not enter a renewed mind. The Lord Jesus was Son in His divine nature from all eternity; but as man, too, He was Son; and also as risen from the dead. And by His death and resurrection, He brings us in before God and His Father, having the same position as Himself, so far as to be sons, absolutely without sin in our new nature, and freed from condemnation before God because the old nature is already judged. The new nature requires none to die for it, but the old did; and all is done. In Christ crucified, God condemned sin in the flesh, and to faith all the evil is gone: The blessedness of Christ is now made ours, and we can look up and say, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." One great mischief that is done to the practical power of Christianity is the putting off the blessing, which the Holy Ghost attaches to us now, till we leave this world and get to heaven.

Suppose you were to tell the great mass of God's children on the earth, You are "blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ," they would think it rank enthusiasm or mysticism. They are not prepared for such truth, and in general either do not enquire what the verse means, or attenuate it into some mere emotional sentiment. They have no notion that it is a present fact true of all Christians. Though we are not displayed in it yet, it is no question of feeling. May we believe it! Feelings may deceive me, but faith never can. If I see a thing, it is merely my eye that sees. If I believe a truth on God's word, I am looking at it, in a measure, so to speak, with God's eyes. The world has a notion that faith only implies confidence as to a thing which is not sure. This is not the meaning of "I believe" in the things of God. My own vision is a poor range of sight; but what of God's eye? The believer stands upon the highest ground; he rests upon the certainty of what God says. Happiness, too, is the result; for when you believe, you soon begin to feel. If you believe that God has blotted out your sins, you ere long, if not at once, begin to enjoy it. If I look at myself, I shall always see something wrong. How is this? My sins all gone; and yet, if looking within, I see so much that is painful, loathsome, humiliating. The putting away of sin is not a thing that goes on in my heart, but a mighty work that God wrought in the cross of His beloved Son, on which He calls me to rest, because on it He rests. Am I looking for a sign and token in myself? If so, I shall never have an assurance of it on the right ground. If I think that my sins must be forgiven because I am a changed character (as men speak), can I ever have an hour's real peace? The result must be, that the more one judges himself, the less happy he will be. What God puts before His children is this — that they should be thoroughly happy in the certainty that their sins are gone, through the blood-shedding of Christ, and yet that they should spare nothing they find within them; judging themselves day by day, because Christ has been judged for them, and God has blotted out their sins, and they cannot endure trifling with that which cost the blood of His Son.

Here, however, the first great thought is that "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." It is not redemption, though of course based upon it. I am here upon the earth, and yet I know that I am blest there where Christ is at the right hand of God. Not only have I blessings there, but I am blessed "with all spiritual blessings." The highest blessing God can confer is that which He gives every child of His in heavenly places in Christ. In these few words we gaze at the height of God's wonderful counsel about us and love for us. He has thus blessed us according to the fulness of His value for Christ.

The expression "heavenly places" is in contrast with the portion of the Jews, who were blessed in earthly places. If we look at Ezekiel 36, it may bring out more distinctly the character of our blessing in contradistinction to theirs. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean . . . . And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." Thus, there are spiritual mercies mingled with their blessings; but they will be in the land of their fathers, which God is to make good to the generation to come. It is chiefly learned but unspiritual men who make confusion about these matters. If readers were only simple about Scripture, they would not fall into such mistakes. The prophets says, "Ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers." Nothing can be plainer than this. He is to bless Israel on the earth — in their soul too, no doubt: but the sphere of this blessing is the holy land. It is His earthly people, not the Church, as we shall see lower down. "I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen." Evidently the blessing is in earthly places. I should not find fault with good men trying to give this a spiritual turn and to preach the gospel from it, provided they did not blot out from it the hopes of Israel by and by. Primarily the people there are Israel, and they are to be blessed in this manner. We see the land of Palestine now desolate like a wilderness; but "the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose" in that day. There are certain blessings that apply to the believer now, it is true. To the "water" and "Spirit," in a wonderfully enlarged and deepened scope, our Lord alludes thus in John 3. But I object to the inference that God has abandoned His people, and that this prophecy about the earthly places should be confounded with our heavenly title. The earth and earthly blessings are here dwelt upon by the Spirit of God. Why should we be jealous about the Jews or the earth either? God has shown us such overflowing and surpassing favour that we may well delight and thank Him that the earth is reserved for His ancient nation.

Now if we turn from this — the predicted blessing of Israel upon the earth — to our own proper blessing in Ephesians, how totally different it is! "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." It is God revealing Himself in the fullest manner conceivable. Who was it that knew God pre-eminently? who was the object of God's love as none had ever been before? If ever there was one who fathomed the full meaning of the words, "My Father," it was the Lord Jesus. And who but He sounded the depths of "My God?" Yet now, that Blessed One, by redemption and the gift of the Spirit, has capacitated the believer in Him to enjoy the same privilege with Himself. Just in proportion as we receive it with simplicity and judge the old nature (which never enters into it, but only comes as a thick cloud over our blessing), shall we enter into the realization of our blessing.

Israel's hope is not inward only but outward, in earthly places to be made the most exalted people here below. The scene of our blessing, on the contrary, is in heavenly places, and we are blessed there now in Christ. In a word, a Christian is as one who belongs to the family of the sovereign. There might be reasons of state to make it desirable for the Queen's heir to pass as a stranger through a foreign land, unknown and unregarded. So with the Christian. He is not of the world nor of the age. His body is of the earth, but that which makes him to be what he is, as a son of God, has nothing to do with the present scene or circumstances. He belongs altogether to a glorified Christ. When God begins to deal with Israel, it will be another thing. The attention of the whole world will be directed towards them. There was a time when, even in the midst of all their sin, the people of Israel exercised an enormous influence in the world, spite of their being a small nation and having only a narrow slip of land to dwell on. Their priests and kings gave up the true God, who thereon made them to be the sad evidence of His judgments. But the day is fast coming when they that smote will acknowledge their rejected Messiah, and then will shine the full splendour to which Israel is destined of God. He will crown them with blessing of every kind here below. All the nations of the earth will bow down to Israel; kings and queens will be their nursing fathers and mothers. Christendom, despised as a proud and effete political engine, and more and more degenerating into apostacy, will be set aside like Vashti; God will bless His people of Israel, the Esther of the great King, with all outward blessings in earthly places, not revealing Himself as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, but as the Lord God, Jehovah, Most High, identified at length with the lowly Jesus of Nazareth.

Is this the way in which we are spoken of here? Not at all. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. A Jew has nowhere in the Old Testament the hope of being blessed in their Messiah. To be joint-heirs with Christ, not only blessed by Christ, but in Christ, is an idea that could not possibly enter the most intelligent Israelite's mind. In a word, their portion will always be under their Messiah, to be ruled by Him as an earthly people. But ours, who believe in Christ now, will be to have the same blessing which God the Father confers upon Christ risen from the dead. What has He done for Christ? He has raised Him up, and put all things under His feet. This glory He will not take alone. He is waiting for His bride — for those who are now being called out of Jews and Gentiles to the knowledge of His name. So that our Lord, while personally exalted, holds it in abeyance because He is waiting for His companions to share it with Him; heirs by His grace, not merely of the fathers, but of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.

Nothing can be larger or higher than the blessing spoken of here. Christ will have His heavenly ones above, and His earthly ones below; each fully blest though in different spheres. May I commend the truth brought out in Ephesians 1 to the serious study of God's children? While it becomes us to hear the word of God, it claims from us earnestness of purpose and searching into it as for hidden treasure. We must not expect to be really and fully blessed through the word of God, unless there be diligence of soul.

We have already seen the twofold title in which God blesses His saints now; in both the form of the blessing being found only in Christ. Had God merely revealed Himself as the God of Abraham or Isaac for instance, He would not ensure a blessing beyond that promised to the fathers. Now He does. Instead of having merely the Jewish blessing before Him, He has Christ in His eye, whom He raised from the dead and set at His own right hand, where He never put David nor any one else. It is a place that belongs to Him in virtue of His personal glory and His suffering unto death. We may sit with Christ on His throne, but this is a very different thing from Christ's sitting at God's right hand. Now it is as the God of the Lord Jesus Christ that He blesses — it is the full blessing that would be suitable to Christ Himself as the object of blessing. Grace puts us as common objects with Christ in order to be blessed by God who blesses after this manner and measure. Nor this only. He is the Father of the Lord Jesus, and as such also He blesses us. So that these two characters, the very highest possible in which to look at God, are those according to which we are blessed. The characters of God, both as God and as Father, as they deal with Christ, issue in a blessing, a commensurate blessing, which He gives to us. Hence there is no limit. He has blessed us "with all spiritual blessings," and moreover too, as we saw, not on the earth, the comparatively lower part of the universe, but in the highest scene of God's power, "in the heavenly places;" and in order to crown and complete all, it is "in Christ;" all is secured in His person.

Verse 4 particularly belongs to the first of these characters in which God has revealed Himself, as verse 5 belongs rather to the second. "According as he hath chosen us in him (that is, in Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." Now it is as the God of Christ that He thus blesses us; not as Father, but as God. In verse 5 it is as Father, because we there read, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself." The style and character clearly answer to the character of the Father. Special relationship to Him is brought in. "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children" — not merely chosen, but — "predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." Now that language was not used in verse 4. He does not say that He has predestinated us to be holy and without blame before Him in love. Neither does He say that He has called us into this wonderful place according to the good pleasure of His will. And the reason is most manifest. When we hear of the good pleasure of His will, we have language suitable to sovereign special love — that which He displays in order to manifest His own favour. But when we hear of "holy and without blame," it is God who has chosen us for it: it could not be otherwise. If God would have any brought near Him, and so near as to be in His presence in heaven, if chosen in Christ at all, somehow they must be holy and without blame before Him in love. And all is really of His grace.

The one blessing is from the necessary character of God as God; the other flows from the special relationship into which He enters towards us through our Lord Jesus. Choosing us is a necessary part, because it is evident there was no one but God to choose. It was before the foundation of the world, when God alone was. Man had no voice nor choice in the matter. It was purely God acting from Himself. It was a matter of God's own choice, that He would have others to be in heaven besides Himself. But if they were to be near Him and before Him, how could they be so with sin upon them? Impossible. How could God sanction souls, even in the most distant part of His dominion, with sin upon them? Still less could it be in heaven, the throne of His Majesty. The day is coming when all evil must be banished into the lake of fire. How then could He tolerate sin in those who are to be brought into the nearest circle of His presence? It was the positive necessity of His character and nature, that if He chooses to have any with Himself in heaven, they must be there "holy and without blame before him." But that is far from being all: it must be "in love," because nothing could be more miserable than that they should not be able to enter into His own affections. Merely to be in the most blessed place of creatures without taint, without anything that could sully the presence of God, would not be enough. Man was made to have a heart, to have affections; and there could not be happiness in creatures, who know what affection is, unless there were that on which affection could rest. If God had such beings brought into His presence, and necessarily without sin in any form, it must be in love also. He will give them a nature not only capable of being before Him without reproach and fear, but also answering to His own love. "We love him because he first loved us." In Christ alone that love is known; but St. John so speaks of God and Christ, that there is great difficulty in deciding which is meant. He uses "Him" thus, not indiscriminately, but sliding from one into the other. This flows from their oneness: "I and my Father are one," which is said by John only.

Here we have God's choice of us personally. For it is not merely to have a people, as if it were some vague thing, a certain number of niches in heaven to be filled up with so many souls. There is no such notion in the Bible. It is persons He chooses. There cannot be such love without a person distinctly before it. And if it is true even among men, that love is not an uncertain feeling — which is rather a fancy, much more is it true with God. He loves us individually. Hence He has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, to show how entirely it is a choice independent of our character and ways; and if so, it must always flow back to God in a way according to Him. And so it does. If there is this choice of God in Christ before the foundation of the world, He will have saints before Him in such a way as God alone could. He will never have what is unworthy of His love and presence. Hence then it is said, "that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." This is not merely holiness, or blamelessness, or love — any or all in part. Hence it does not refer to what we have been. If we examine any person we may find grievous faults in him. Even as a Christian, he is very far indeed from being what is due to God. He is ashamed of himself, grieving over the little his heart responds to the favour God has shown him. And would this suit His presence? Will God be satisfied with that which even a Christian finds fault with? Impossible. The verse looks not at the complex man here, but at what He makes us in Christ, His Son.

In the saint now there is that which is very unsaintly indeed, unlike God and His beloved Son: pride, vanity, foolishness, all kinds of evil ways and thoughts that never flow from Christ, and have no kind of resemblance to Him. But for all this, are they not saints? God forbid they should not be. And yet this is the steady thought of God. He has chosen us in Christ that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. How can that be? The answer is, because God looks at us here according to that which He gives us in Christ, and nothing less. All is ignored in this verse, save that new nature which flows from His grace to the objects of His choice. He has chosen us to be so, and He will have us so perfectly, and nothing else, when the time comes for us to be in His presence. But even now it is true in the essence of the thing, inasmuch as we are in Christ and have His life in us. Can I find any fault in Christ? If Christ is without blame in love, in the very nature of God Himself, He is precisely the life of every Christian, let a man be called by what name he may among men.

But even this is not all. Blessed as it is to answer to the holy character and nature of God — and that is what every saint will do by and by in the glory, and what every saint really possesses as a new creature in Christ now — yet this is not enough. We might be there holy and without blame before Him in love, yet simply as servants. Her Majesty the Queen may surround herself with servants to do her will; she may bring one and another into her presence, and they ought to think themselves greatly honoured by being thus made the ministers of her pleasure, though no family relationship, of course, exists between them. But nothing less than this will do in heavenly things. Such is the wonder of God's grace. In the very next verse we have the fact that God is not alone acting from Himself to call us into this wonderful place — to be the reproduction of His own moral nature and character. God is holy and without blame, and He is love in His own nature. This belongs to our life now, and will belong to us altogether when we are brought into heaven, by the power and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, shortly. But it is not as mere servants, but as sons, we shall be there — consciously as sons; not even standing there, like angels, as ministers of His pleasure, but as those who take an interest in all that He is interested in. We shall feel not merely for Him, but with Him. We shall have a common interest with Him — the same kind of feeling, if I may use the same illustration, that members of the royal family have with the crown.

This is what the Holy Ghost brings before us in verse 5. The Christian is planted in Christ before God, and has a holy and a loving nature. But besides this, there is a positive relationship formed; and that relationship, in which we are brought to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is nothing less than being sons according to the pattern of the risen Son of God. As the eternal Son of the Father, none could have such a place with Him. The very thought would be repulsive to a renewed mind; But Christ was pleased to call us His brethren when He rose from the dead and not before. And it is on earth, the place of our sins, where we have been servants of Satan — it is here that through the faith of Christ, we leave behind us all that we were, and enter into this blessed and glorious and most intimate relationship with God. "He hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children." The word predestinated is a more special one than "chosen," which signifies God electing us out of the world. None but an unbeliever could fancy that every one is to be in such a place as this, or that men who have lived in blasphemy against God all their days are to be holy and without blame when they die. God has a choice, and our business is to bless God for His great love — not to judge or find fault with His ways. "Who art thou that replies" against God?" That is the answer of God to all vain thoughts and: reasonings. But then if He chooses according to His nature and holiness, He has predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto Himself. So that now we find the special privilege and glorious relationship of sons before God in His presence by Jesus Christ. He might not have done it, but it was "according to the good pleasure of his will."

Not merely He would have, and therefore chose persons; but here is a peculiar display of His pleasure, and therefore He puts them in this blessed place, "to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved." Verse 6 shows us that which answers to both the verses before it. The clause, "to the praise of the glory of his grace," etc., takes in both the choice of verse 4 and the predestination of verse 5 — the character of the choice of God, and the special favour of the predestination of the Father. "To the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved." "Accepted" is rather a cold word to express what is meant here. It is not what persons doctrinally call acceptance, which is rather more of the nature of reconciliation. But here it seems to me there is the fulness of divine favour, which goes far beyond bare acceptance. In short, God makes us objects of favour according to all that is in His heart, and, in order that this should be most fully brought out, He says "in the Beloved," not merely "in Christ." There was one object that satisfied God, that met every thought, every desire of His heart; and this was Christ, the One beloved, of course, in a sense in which no creature could be so in itself. In order to bless us fully, God has made us the objects of His favour in this Beloved One, and all is "to the praise of the glory of his grace." This takes in all the heights and depths of His grace who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, blessing us in Christ. In fact, He could not go farther. Could He show favour to any one so much as to Christ? Just so He loves and blesses us. He could not do more, and He will not do less. He has risen up to the fullest character of love and blessing in the grace wherewith He regards us in the Beloved.

But, then, what was our previous state? Verse 7 says, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." It is only alluded to passingly, but it supposes that we were wretched slaves of Satan. In the same person, in whom we become the objects of such favour, we have redemption. God does not in the least degree forget what our condition was when He thus blessed us. He is aware that we had to be brought out of all we were, for indeed we had nothing but sins. With only the previous verses, there might have been the idea that such blessedness and glory could not have been mixed with such as we were. But we have redemption, we are told, in Christ. Still, he never touches on redemption and forgiveness of sins till he has brought us into the height and depth of all privilege flowing from God Himself: so entirely is all question here of what man is out of sight, that we only, as it were, incidentally get hold of the sad truth of his condition. It might not have been known from the first few verses, that persons so blessed had ever been guilty of a single sin. But here we find that they needed to be redeemed, to have their sins forgiven; and the same Christ, in and through whom we have all our other blessings, is He in whom also we have "redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace."

It may be noticed here, that there is a difference between "the glory" and "the riches" of His grace. "The glory of his grace" takes in all these privileges referred to before. The Holy Ghost has brought out in the seventh verse the riches of His grace — the means and provisions for us as poor sinners. But this would not suffice for God, if He is acting so as to show, not merely His rich resources in dealing with the most wretched individuals, but the glory of His grace. He would display His own character — what He is, and not merely provide for what we were. The praise of the glory of His grace flows from what God feels, and in consequence will do, in order to manifest Himself for us.

Observe, moreover, before we have done with this, that later on we have another redemption, that "of the purchased possession," and a very different thing. We have redemption as far as the forgiveness of sins is concerned: we are waiting for redemption as concerns the inheritance, which depends on the coming of Christ in order to take it actually under His government. The purchased possession has to do with the inheritance, not merely with what affects our souls. As for the soul, we have redemption now as completely as we ever can have it; which we do well to bear in mind. The believer cannot be more forgiven than now, nor could God do more to put away sin than He has done already. He has given His Son, and the blood of His Son is shed, and it is impossible that God Himself could do more to blot out sin from before His face. What a comfort for our souls! If we think of our sins, we may also enter into the comfortable assurance that all our guilt is gone from before God. We may fall into sin, for it does exist; but it remains a source of self-judgment, instead of a fearful looking for of judgment by and by.

There is just the real difference. As a matter of divine judgment, sin is gone in Christ; as a matter of self-judgment, it is always to be confessed if we slip into it. Nor is self-judgment ever thorough until we know that God's judgment of sin is ended for us on the cross. Under the Old Testament there was no such self-judgment because of sin, as there ought to be under the New. We find, accordingly, that although God never did or could treat any sin with indifference, yet is it often left without a word of comment. But this is not light dealing: God lets the thing speak for itself. He exercises so much the more the hearts of His children. If they are in a wilful state, they may use the record of sin to make light of their own evil ways; otherwise conscience is brought into exercise. It is not until the full condition of man comes out in the cross of Christ, that we see what God's judgment of sin is. Since then we first hear of "the flesh" in the sense in which the New Testament speaks of it. You may find the expression in the Old Testament, but it never wears the same strong, determined, full character of wickedness as it does in the New. It had not yet proved itself, and God always waits till a person or thing proves its real character, before He pronounces judgment. And we ought to learn from God as to this. The patience of God in judgment is one of the most marvellous of His ways; and we ought to be as to this imitators of God. He awaited the cross of His Son before the true character of man's iniquity was fully brought out. Under the Old Testament we read of things borne with because of the hardness of men's hearts; but in the New Testament there is a different measure, and no evil tolerated for a moment. The mind of God is pronounced upon evil: the darkness is passing, the true light now shines. There is no hiding either of God or man. All is out. Man is lost. God is known not merely as a lawgiver, but as a Saviour-God; and if I do not know Him thus, I do not know Him at all. "This is life eternal: to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

From all this we learn that the final character of evil has only now come out. The Old Testament commanded that evil should not be done; but, as we shall see in the next chapter, the full issue of the trial comes out here: and what is the verdict? That man is dead — morally, spiritually — dead in trespasses and sins. God perfectly understood the character of man before, but He wants us to understand it. We needed redemption, and we have it — forgiveness, and we have it. But we are waiting to have the redemption of the purchased possession This takes in the whole creation of God, including; perhaps, our bodies too, as a part of the creation of God. But the redemption of verse 7 is a closer thing, and we are put in a position now of thoroughly judging ourselves, because we know that we shall not be condemned with the world. God puts us thus into a common interest with Himself; puts us on His own side, to take His part against ourselves. And this is what repentance means, and therefore it is called repentance towards God.

But the next verse opens up another subject: "Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence." It is not said, "abounded toward us in forgiving us," because full forgiveness is a positive need. But when we hear of "wisdom and prudence," it is a question of God's counsels about His Son, over and independent of all thought of necessities. He says, as it were, You are able now to enter into My thoughts, and understand them when I speak. You are delivered from anxiety about your sins, and are free now to enter into My purpose. "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself." And this secret of His will is, "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance." (Ver. 9-11.) We have clearly here, in these central verses, the fact that we are capacitated (the question of sin being settled in our souls) to hear what God has to say to us about all other things. He has not now merely to tell us what He is going to do upon the earth, as He dealt with Abraham. The relationship is higher than that which was made known to the patriarchs. At the beginning, when the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, He brought them to Adam, the lord of creation, to see what he would call them; and whatsoever he called each living creature, that became its name. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field." (Gen. 2: 19, 20.) This was conferred wisdom in the domain of nature. But now it is far more profound and comprehensive; for it is a question of the supremacy of the second Man and of the discernment which suffices for and suits its boundless heights and depths. Accordingly, God has made His grace to abound towards us in every sort of wisdom and intelligence. Whatever displays His character and Christ's glory, He makes known to us. He treats us, not as servants, but as friends. He has one thing nearer than aught else — what He is going to do for His Son: and He imparts to us the secrets nearest to His own heart.

If any person say, I do not want to understand mysteries, I answer, You do not want to know what God wishes to teach you. Unbelief always shows itself in some character of hostility to God. He, in His perfect goodness, gives the comfort of salvation, and then opens out these other truths. "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will." This does not mean something you cannot understand, but what you could not know before God told you. Do not turn away and say, All I want to know is to be saved. We ought to desire to learn all God deigns to teach us. The word "mystery" means what God was pleased to keep secret — something He had not before revealed, but quite intelligible when it is unfolded. "Mystery," in a popular sense, is totally different from its use in the word of God. There are many things very wonderful in the prophecies, but they are not called mysteries. Brought out now for the first time, it is the mystery of His will. There are many mysteries explained in the New Testament as those of the kingdom of heaven. Babylon, too, is called a mystery. The mystery here is, that God means to unite all things in heaven and in earth, under the headship of our Lord. He does not mean to have the heavens, as they are now, completely severed from the earth, but to have a united system of heavenly and earthly glory, all under Christ — this is the mystery of His will.

But there is more than this. He means that we should share the glory along with Christ. Thus there are two great parts in the mystery of His will. The first is Christ, and the second is the Church: and therefore it is said in this very Epistle, "This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." It is not "the Church," of course, that is the mystery, but "Christ and the Church." The Church, however blessed, is but a subordinate part of it. That she is so at all is solely because she belongs to Christ, the heavenly Head of all things. God's purpose is for "the dispensation of the fulness of times." Then the hours of shame and sorrow that are now running on will have exhausted their course — the time of the creature's subjection to vanity, the time for Israel to be blinded judicially, the time for the Gentiles to rule as if God neither intervened nor noticed, the time when the Church of God lies in weakness and broken, the time of Satan's liberty to deceive and torment men. These things are now going on — man, the chief, through sin, subject to sickness and death, and all creation groaning. But God Himself will put an end to everything of the sort. He means to bind Satan and deliver man from his seduction. He will have Israel blessed and united under their Messiah — the Gentiles blessing God, who will be sanctified among them — the earth itself no longer the poor, groaning, miserable scene that it is, but the curse removed, and the wilderness rejoicing and blossoming as the rose. All these things God will yet accomplish; and when the suitable times according to God are complete (πληρ τ. κ.),* He will change all, bringing forth Christ as the Head, centre, and means of every blessing. Christ is the stronger man that is to bind the strong, the bruiser of the serpent's head — the Lord of heaven and earth — the Messiah of Israel, and Son of man ruling supremely over all nations. All these things are to be accomplished most simply and efficaciously, but not by the power of man — not even by the spread of the gospel. Christ in person will administer and uphold the glory of God in the universe.

*As the verse contains several words and clauses which are not generally understood, it may be added in this note that the word "dispensation" (οἰκονομία) has no reference to a particular period or age (which is in the New Testament expressed by αἰών). It means "stewardship," or rather "administration," the particular form here meant being the summing, or heading (ἀνακεφαλαίωτις) up of all things, heavenly and earthly, under Christ. This will be in the age to come, when Christ shall be displayed as Head over all things, and the glorified saints shall reign with Him. It is neither this age, during which Satan is still permitted to reign as the god of this world the prince of the power of the air; nor is it the eternal state, when all government is over, and Christ will have given up the kingdom, that God may be all in all. It is the intervening millennium. This will he the fulness of the times, previous periods having been the necessary preparation for it. Meanwhile, redemption through Christ's blood having been effected, the Holy Ghost seals the believer, and is the earnest of the inheritance.

If men had a just sense of the present state of the Church, they would put on sackcloth and ashes instead of blowing their trumpet. What we have to do is to humble ourselves before God, because of what we are and see around us, even in the best. It requires a great deal of patience not only to bear, and be borne with, but to go on in love. If we really have a heart for God and for His children, we shall feel these things deeply, and shall seek the blessing of those who are led away by it — yea, thoroughly and heartily — remembering that the blessed day is at hand when Christ will be exalted as the Head of all things, heavenly and earthly. While it becomes us to chasten ourselves, we need not be disheartened. We know that our hope is one that maketh not ashamed. It is not founded upon what the Church or any society is going to do, for our hope is Christ. We know that God has made known unto us the secret of His will. Where there is not an exercised conscience, this truth may not be rejected; but it is not realized nor applied in such a state. God's blessed cure for the world's disorder is Christ brought out from His present hidden position; and the moment that He is so, what a change! All things in heaven and earth will be united in Christ; and when that day comes, we shall enter visibly on our inheritance. We have the title already, but are not in manifest possession. "In whom we have also obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will; that we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ."

We have, first of all, (verse 5) our predestination as children. "And if children then heirs" — heirs of a glorious inheritance, Christ being made the head of the universe. (Ver. 10, 11.) The prevalent interpretation is to apply verse 10 to Christ's position now. They imagine that "the fulness of times" here means the same thing as in Galatians 4. But "the fulness of the times" differs widely from "the fulness of time," which last means the space which closed with the incarnation of Christ, or was completed by it. Christ's birth is a very different thing from Christ's exaltation, as the head of all. Deadly error is at work when men put the Son's incarnation in the place of redemption. Our union with Christ is made to depend upon His bare incarnation, not upon His being risen from the dead and entering upon His headship thus. But if our union with Christ be confounded with His being a man, He unites Himself with human nature, and there is no special union between the Christian and Christ, because humanity belongs to the whole race, i.e., to man in sin. This naturally leads to the further heresy of making Christ take up humanity in its fallen condition.

It is said, again, "That we should be to the praise of his glory, we who first trusted in Christ." The allusion is, before the Jews (of whom it specially speaks) behold Christ in the appointed time and way. "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Now, he says, we are those who have fore-hoped in Christ. Our hope was founded upon Christ before He is seen and believed in by the rest of the nation. The "we" in verse 12 does not go beyond believing Jews. "In whom ye also" is in contradistinction. The "we" and the "ye" refer, the one to Paul and his fellow-believers out of Israel, the other to believing Gentiles, such as the Ephesians. If this be so, the meaning is "that we [Christian Jews] should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ." The nation of Israel will not be fore-hopers "to the praise of His glory." They will be the subjects of His glory. "Arise, shine, for thy light is come and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." His glory will embrace their salvation; but to "the praise of His glory" it will be that there are those out of that unbelieving nation who received Christ before they saw Him, and who consequently will appear with Him in glory. Blessed are they who receive Christ when they behold Him; but still more blessed those who, though they have not seen Him, yet have believed! (John 20)

We have thus seen that the apostle, in verse 12, introduces the believing Jews as now brought into all the blessings spoken of in the previous portion. Then, addressing the Gentile saints at Ephesus, he says, "In whom ye also having heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also having believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."

It may be profitable, here, to enter into a further development of the Holy Ghost's presence and action. Men soon departed far from the truth of God. Before the three last centuries we know that a thick cloud of darkness hung over Christendom. But even since the light that shone at the Reformation, Christians have been struggling to realize in their own souls that they were born of God and justified in Christ. One fully admits the immense importance that a soul should be thoroughly established. But were regeneration and justification intended to be the sum and substance of the Christian's research, efforts, and desires? On the contrary, are they more than the very threshold, or, at most, the foundation on which a Christian has to build? Does not God look for it, that, being born again, instead of occupying ourselves with continual searching after signs and tokens that we are so, we should be making progress in Christ? To be born again is the first essential work of the Spirit of God, without which there is no life towards God, no possibility of advance in the things of God. It is the universal want, the indispensable condition in order to any soul's having part in the blessing of God at any time and in all dispensations.

Hence, when Nicodemus came to our Lord, wishing to be taught of Him, our Lord at once begins there. The Rabbi owned that Jesus was a teacher come from God, by whom he wanted to be taught. But our Lord stops him in a peculiarly solemn manner: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus, astonished, asked how such a thing could be? Our Lord, however, meets his unintelligent question with a re-assertion, only in still stronger terms: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There we have clearly the explanation of what it is to be born again. It is to be born of water and of the Spirit. Nicodemus still expresses his amazement at this; that a Jew, a moral, religious Jew, who was no heathen, who had the law, and seemed to have been peculiarly honoured of God, should need to be born afresh; that he himself, a master in Israel in a pre-eminent sense, should thus be met by what was really a rebuke, to him, that pressed the necessity of a vital change which, so far from having realized, he did not even think to be necessary! This was indeed a blow that arrested Nicodemus at the very start. Our Lord, however, shows that he ought to have known these things (i.e., of course, from the prophets). Mark this, because it is a thoroughly satisfactory answer to those who wish to connect the being born of water with baptism. He who is acquainted with the views here taught, cannot fairly think that there is any depreciation of that institution of Christ. For I hold, that nobody ought to be owned on christian ground till he is baptized with water. I do not mean that he may not be a believer; but if he have not submitted to baptism in the name of the Lord, he is not yet ostensibly off Jewish or Pagan ground. And our Lord elsewhere insisted on the necessity of being baptized as well as believing. (Mark 16)

But important as baptism may be as the appointed sign of death and resurrection in Christ, yet our Lord did not directly refer to the rite with Nicodemus. For He says — not, Art thou a disciple of Christ, but — "Art thou a master of Israel and knowest not these things?" That is, as a Jew he ought to have known this. How could he know christian baptism as a Jew? To such an one this was a novelty; it did not even exist at the time. How could that be known which was not yet brought out? He ought to have known what was meant by being born of water and of the Spirit, and to have felt the absolute necessity of it. What then was meant? This: that no matter where, when, or who, everyone who should see or enter the kingdom of God must be born of water and of the Spirit, must have the Holy Ghost communicating a new life to him. And how is that life produced? By an ordinance? No. By christian walk? No. By what means, then? By prayer? Nay; but by the reception of God's Word revealing Christ. Therefore it is written, that we are born again, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." With the testimony of Peter there is that of James also: "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." The instrument employed for God's begetting us, is "the word of truth." So that water is clearly used in this passage in John 3 as figurative of the word of God applied by the Spirit. The two are joined together that it should not be supposed it is merely an ordinance or the word, but the Spirit applying God's word with quickening power to the soul. Therefore, when speaking about believing, it is said, "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" It is necessary the Word should be preached. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Compare also 1 Cor. 4: 15. It is no matter what positive passage of Scripture you take up, all teach the same thing. Our Lord insists that every one who enters the kingdom must enter by that door. What, then, is to become of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Some may say that circumcision is equivalent; but do not believe the dream for a moment: if so, what would become of so many before or outside both circumcision and baptism? All these explanations are mere clumsy guesses at Scripture. Even if there were no real difference between baptism and circumcision, when our Lord lays down the new birth He refers to neither. He does not insist on a rite with such large exceptions, but an absolute and universal spiritual necessity. He is not speaking of the comparatively modern rite of baptism — of that which, as it came late into the world, will not always abide in it. For there is no ground, that I know, to suppose that during the millennium baptizing people with water will proceed. It is a rite peculiar to the time, at least, between the two advents — baptism into Christ's death.

But John 3 speaks of what every person must pass through without qualification or exception, if he is to see and enter the kingdom of God — what was as true of the thief upon the cross as of Saul of Tarsus. All children of God, past, present, or future, are born again; all have this new life given to them. There is the communication of divine life to them. But as far as regards those who hear the word, it is plainly through the Holy Ghost using the word as a means of life. It is emphatically the representation of Christ. In John 4 we enter on another operation of the Holy Ghost. "If thou knewest the free-giving of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." The living water is plainly the Holy Ghost, whom Christ gives. Here it is not the quickening operation of the Spirit, indispensable for all times and under all circumstances, if any souls are to belong to God; but it is a special privilege that Christ bestows personally. And you will find in the discourse of our Lord which follows, and is connected with what He had said to the woman of Samaria, that the Holy Ghost is given to believers now as the means of worshipping their God and Father in spirit and in truth. Thus we have in John 4 a totally different operation of the Spirit from what was urged in John 3. And to whom did our Lord disclose this? To a poor, wretched, abandoned woman; not even a Jewess, but a Samaritan. Our Lord is there showing the grace that goes out to the very vilest. God was now no longer, as before, putting the law forward. He displays Himself as a giver. Under the law God is rather a receiver; He asks, demands, insists that the creature render Him the honour due to His Majesty. In the gospel, God is the giver of His own Son. Instead of seeking something from guilty, lost man, He confers His very best on one who did not at first ask Him. "If thou knewest the gift — the free-giving — of God, (what a new sound to the Samaritan!) thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." This is what He does — He is giving the Spirit, the power of eternal life. The consequence of this most precious opening out of the truth is, that we know the Holy Ghost to be in us as the spring of communion and power of worship. It is not so much as using the word of God to deal with us in our natural uncleanness and to communicate a new life which cleaves to God and hates sin, with new feelings, new desires, new wants, which are only answered in Christ, and which every regenerate soul must have, if it were a poor nun, or a superstitious priest going through the mass. Yet if one were born of God, he could not but have a yearning after what he had not, and find, in the long run, Christ the object that attracted his soul — Christ the contrast of all that was found on earth or anywhere — Christ the only One that suited him, and the One, too, whose glory it was so to bless him. Of what would this be the proof? That he was born of God. For there is no proof but what may turn out a delusion save this — that my wants turn me to Christ, and make me find in Him the only One that can satisfy the soul.

But in John 4 it is not the case of a proud ruler of the Pharisees who is made to feel the need of regeneration, but a depraved woman, that had lost her character, to whom no one would care to speak, except — wonderful to say — the Son of God! It is to her that the Lord brings out this great truth, the gift of the Spirit: no longer merely acting morally on the soul or quickening, but Himself dwelling in the heart, the Holy Ghost the power of divine fellowship and worship. What a joy! the Holy Ghost dwelling in believers, the Father seeking such to worship Him. Do you know this? Or are you still tramelled by what is now passed, what once existed and then had the sanction of God? by the role of a past dispensation for an earthly people? by rites which no longer have the slightest value in His sight who reveals Himself as Father? The day of forms and ceremonies is entirely gone. How often people say, We do not attach importance to such things! The truth is, that they are now a very bad thing, and contrary to God's actual order. It is not only that fine sights and sounds should not be an object in worship, but it is a positive sin to seek or admit them. It is, in principle, a going back to idolatry and a condemned world. Therefore, in John 4, our Lord brings in, "The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." There is the truth enunciated about worship. At Jerusalem the splendour of ceremonials had been at its height; but now all this is over, and any one fighting for it now unwittingly rebels against Christ. Our Lord shows that it is no longer in that mountain nor at Jerusalem that God should be worshipped. There was just about to dawn a new condition of things. And what does God value now? The true worshippers adoring the Father in spirit and in truth. What are they? His children. "The Father seeketh such to worship him." He is gathering children, forming them for His own praise, putting the Holy Ghost within them to give the consciousness of their relationship with Himself, and, having this, to draw near to Him as their God and Father.

It is plain, then, that the notion now of having a mixed worship of people, some converted and some not, is a direct contradiction of Christianity. It could not be otherwise before the cross. There was then no such thing as God separating His children from those that were not thus related to Him. It would have been a sin for a believing Israelite to have said to an unbeliever, I cannot worship with you, because you are not born of God. But now the sin is to join in God's worship with those who are not His children; and for this simple reason, that the Father is seeking true worshippers, and none but such, to worship Him. I do not mean that it is a sin for those not converted to be in the same place as spectators and hearers. But the attempt to join everybody in the worship of God is a fatal delusion, dishonouring to Himself and destructive to the souls of those that are not true worshippers. But people have not faith to stand separate from the world. They like to have the countenance of men; and, of course, it is trying to have to act decidedly. We are warned of God that, if we seek to please men, we should not be the servants of Christ. We must run the risk of paining them, but faithful are the wounds of a friend. Some confound hearing the gospel or other truth with worship. But they are totally different. In worshipping God, Christians offer up to God services of praise and thanksgiving. Worship is what goes from the believer to God; whereas, in the gospel or other ministry, it is a message coming down from God for the good of souls, for the instruction of believers, or for the conviction and salvation of unbelievers. But whether one or other be addressed, it is always that which comes from God to them, and not what goes from them to God; so that the confounding of these two things is a serious evil. Among many the thing which makes them attached to the old walls and routine is not the prayers, but because they hope to hear something good in the sermon. They entirely thus pass out of the condition of worshippers. Worship is the true expression of the heart's praise and thanks by the Holy Ghost, whether by an illiterate man or not. We know in the case of the apostles that they could not speak correctly (Acts 4); but, for all that, they were the chosen vessels of such a power of God as never visited this earth before or since, in men of like passions with ourselves. And I believe it is so still and always will be so. God chooses the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty Although there may be a Paul brought in occasionally, this is the exception, and God never intends that the exceptions should become the role.

Thus, beside regeneration, which is the first operation of the Spirit of God, there is the further gift of the Holy Ghost. "In whom ye also . . . . after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." They were born of water and of the Spirit. They heard the word of truth, which we find in this very epistle set forth under the figure of water — "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5: 26.) It is not only that the Church is washed by the word, but the poor sinner is born of the word when he believes the gospel — born of water and of the Spirit. But was it merely that they were born of water and of the Spirit? "In whom also, after that ye believed (or having believed), ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." It is very startling to many to find that, after they have been born of the Spirit, there is such a thing as being sealed by the Spirit. Others, again, seeing both facts, invented confirmation. They felt from the Scripture that there is something over and above being born of water. Therefore a religion of forms first made baptism to regenerate every one, and then confirmation to crown it. But forms are no better than idolatry: it is putting something in the place of Christ. After the apostles left, this grew apace. Ceremonies, done by the hand of men, were substituted for the power of the Holy Ghost acting on the souls of men. Finding from the word of God that there were these two things, regeneration first and then the subsequent gift of the Holy Ghost, they adopted two different ceremonies — in one sense very properly, if there must be a religion of forms at all. But it is a total mistake as to the very nature of Christianity.

Yet the truth remains that there were two different operations of the Holy Ghost. The first is, when a man is brought to a sense of sin. What makes a man abhor himself? He is born of God. He has no happiness at all perhaps, but a real sense of ruin; yet his heart cleaves to God. That man is born of God — truly converted: no comfort as yet perhaps in his soul, but his heart is open to listen further to the word of the truth, the gospel of salvation. He believes it. What then? He is sealed of the Holy Ghost, as a believer, not only in Christ, but in the gospel of our salvation — the work that Christ has done. For I do not think that you can have a soul sealed with the Holy Ghost, unless he enters into the work as well as the person of Christ. This accounts for the fact that there were persons born of the Holy Ghost who never were sealed. For instance, the Old Testament saints were believers in Christ; they all looked for Christ. All were born of God, but not one was sealed with the Holy Ghost. To be born of the Spirit and sealed with the Spirit are very different things, which may or may not be united in the same person. All must be born of the Spirit, but it is never said that all must be sealed with the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God. Wherever the Holy Ghost speaks of the sealing of the Spirit, it proves the clean contrary. Who was the first person said to be sealed with the Spirit? Our blessed Lord Himself. He had it in a way peculiar to Himself. When was He sealed? When redemption was accomplished and He went up to heaven? No; but when He walked upon earth. "Him hath God the Father sealed." It was as Son of man He was sealed, and as Son of man on earth before redemption — without bloodshedding, because He knew no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. He was absolutely sinless: He could have the Holy Ghost abiding on Him entirely apart from blood, because He was the Holy One — the Saviour. He needed no work — no blood — no redemption; but yet He died, and there was blood shed and redemption effected. Why so? That we might be sealed — that we, who had no natural title to be brought nigh, that we, in whom the Holy Ghost could never take up His abode, might have that same Holy Ghost who dwelt in Him abiding in us.

This is what our Lord gradually brings out to view. "Thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." Therefore it was that the Lord taught the disciples to ask for the Holy Spirit; and this, after they were already regenerate. Yet He tells them to ask the Father for the Holy Spirit. (Luke 11) Is it the same thing now, seeing that He has given the Spirit? Am I to ask for the Holy Ghost when I have Him dwelling in me? It would have been the most flagrant unbelief, after Christ was in the midst of the disciples, had they asked God to send Christ. And now, when the Holy Ghost is sent from heaven, and given to be in us a well of water springing up into everlasting life, was it for such to entreat the Holy Ghost to be given them? for Christians to be praying for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit? It is a practical denial that the Holy Ghost is sent down from heaven, and is dwelling in us. It is quite right to pray that we may not grieve Him, and that we may not quench Him. To pray that we may be strengthened with all might according to His Spirit in the inner man, is according to the word of God; but we ought not to say one word that implies the Holy Ghost is not here when He is. A most grievous cloud of darkness rests on the minds of many children of God as to this subject. They do not believe their privileges, they do not know that the Holy Ghost dwells in them. Does not the Holy Ghost feel this? If you had one caring for you day by day, and you were habitually to question your relationship to him, or doubt his care of you, it would show that you were morbid. There is a mist over your eyes, and you are asking for the very mercies that are already given. This is neither wisdom nor faith. It is quite true that we may ask God to bless the gospel to the unconverted and to regenerate them. But people pray for a pouring out of the Spirit — a different thing from conversion, and only mentioned in connection with the Holy Ghost's being given, first to the Jews, next to the Samaritans, and, thirdly, to the Gentiles. From that day to this, there is not the smallest ground to ask God for an out-pouring of the Holy Spirit. It is an unintelligent prayer, founded on unbelief of the truth that the Holy Ghost is sent down. Even God Himself could not add to the blessedness of the gift He has already given. There was a great difference between a Jew, a Gentile, and a Samaritan; and therefore it is mentioned expressly in relation to the three. The Holy Ghost never will be poured out again upon the Church. It is ignorance of the ways of God to look for it. He has been poured out for the Church as truly as it is possible for God to give. But when the heavenly saints have been taken to be with Christ at His coming, there will in due time follow an outpouring of His Spirit on a new people, when the Jews and Gentiles will be brought as such distinctly to the knowledge of Jesus. But as long as the Church is on the earth, there never will nor can be such a thing. Can it be repeated, any more than there can be another mission of the Lord Jesus to work again for us? Nor is this a mere matter of speculation. It is connected in the deepest possible way with our worship and even our peace.

You will find that faith in the presence of God's Spirit, or unbelief of it, is that which puts to the test saints in the present day. It behoves us to consider well whether we really do enter into the mind of God about it. Let us understand that what constitutes us Christians is not only that we believe in Christ, but that we are now sealed with the Holy Ghost. He regenerates an unbeliever by faith in Christ; He seals none but believers. This was the decisive proof of man's being a Christian. Peter thus alleges the fact: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" It was not merely that they had believed; but God had given them the Holy Ghost, and could they dare to refuse persons in whom that divine Person dwelt, on whom God had conferred such signal grace? Such, too, is the ground of all christian unity — the presence of the Holy Ghost. The question is not merely, Is there life? but, Have we believed that the Holy Ghost dwells in you? It was the possession of the Spirit, and not life merely, that was made the turning point. It was not until they had received the Holy Ghost that the Gentiles were acknowledged as part and parcel of the Church of God. (Acts 11) The Church is not only bound to look for life, and to believe that there is life in the soul, but is also authorized from the word of God to wait till there is such a manifestation of it, as to plainly manifest that the man has the Holy Ghost dwelling in him. There never was such a thing as owning as an assembly till there was a recognition of their being on common ground with the Church by the reception of the Holy Ghost.

All this makes the true way of dealing with saints now very evident. The Church would be justified in expecting this manifestation of the power of the Spirit. It is not true charity which does not look for it. "In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory." Without dwelling on this last verse, I would make the remark again, that as the seal of the Spirit could not be till the work of Christ was done (the Son only being sealed upon earth who needed no redemption, but who came, on the contrary, to redeem us to God), as we now, on the footing of redemption, receive the Holy Ghost to dwell in us, so we receive the earnest of the inheritance.

This last, I believe, to be just as peculiar to the Church of God since Pentecost, as the sealing of the Spirit. As the disciples were not sealed with the Spirit, so neither had they the earnest of the inheritance till the Holy Ghost was sent down from heaven. This earnest is the power of the Holy Ghost giving a believer now present joy, present anticipation of the glory to which he is going. This may be hindered in many a believer's heart by a want of knowledge of the truth, or by the workings of the flesh, worldliness, etc. But still it remains true, that, now that the Holy Ghost is given, a believer ought to look up and pray to God if there be anything that hinders his entering into the joy of his blessed inheritance, that it may be detected and put away. I am quite sure that the caring only for being born of God has acted greatly to the injury of the children of God; it has stopped them short, as if the only object were to learn that they were children and no more. But our business is, having believed, to go on and learn other truths, and above all, Christ Himself. So it is precisely that the Holy Ghost's regenerating a soul is not to arrest the soul with the fact that it is regenerate; but being born of God, we have to go forward, to enter into the blessed truths of God, which cluster round both our redemption and our future glory, and find their centre in Christ's person and work.

As the seal, the Holy Ghost is the witness of the perfectness of our being cleansed from our sins — the effect of the work of Christ. That operation of the Spirit is meant which supposes the work done, and that we are set apart to God on the ground of redemption. We are sealed because redemption is finished. If I look at glory, it is not arrived. Therefore the figure is changed when he speaks of our inheritance. "Sealing" would not do in connection with that, because we have it not as a fact; we wait to be put in possession of what we are to have along with Christ. Hence the Holy Ghost is spoken of as "the earnest of our inheritance." The same Spirit who seals us is the earnest of our bright future "till the redemption of the purchased possession." First of all, we have the privileges of divine grace that chose us in Christ; predestined us to the place of sons; took us into full favour, without a single question, "in the Beloved;" gave us redemption already in Christ through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. But no sooner has the Holy Ghost thus established us in the full knowledge of God's love to us, and the present effect of it in putting away our sins, than He brings before us the inheritance. Hence comes in the relation of the Holy Ghost to these two things. And as there are two great parts in God's choice of us personally, so the Holy Ghost takes a double relationship. He is the seal of the grace and blessing that we have in Christ, and He is the earnest of the glory we are going to have with Christ. These are the relations of the Holy Ghost to the individual believer. All the corporate dealings of the Spirit have a secondary place compared with His ways with the soul individually, which, though susceptible of a far fuller development, have received a measure of notice sufficient for my present purpose.

We have now the Holy Ghost leading the apostle into a remarkable prayer flowing out of the subject (or, at least, a part of it) already brought before us. It will be found that all is in the most orderly connection which it is possible to conceive, even when revealed to us; an order that we never could have conceived, unless God had made it known, but which, once communicated, approves itself immediately to the spiritual judgment. For the blessing which the enraptured apostle had poured out in the earlier verses flows, we have seen, from a twofold title of God: "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Accordingly in this epistle there are two prayers, answering to this double title. The first prayer is given in the portion now before us, and pertains to His title as the God of our Lord Jesus Christ; while in Ephesians 3: 14, we have a corresponding prayer, which answers to the second title, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Both, clearly, have Christ as the foundation and centre; but, then, Christ regarded in a wholly different point of view. In the former of the two, Christ is viewed as man, and one who calls God His God; in the second of them, Christ is regarded in His still more intimate relationship as Son, who therefore brings before us the Father. We, too, have communion with God in both respects; we have to do with Him as God and as Father. It is said in John 4, "The hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." But then our Lord adds, "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." There is an immense difference between the two things. As the Father He is seeking worshippers, communicating the unspeakable favour of bringing them to the knowledge of His love. He forms their hearts after the display of Himself in Christ, causes them to overflow with thanksgiving and praise, and thus constitutes them worshippers in spirit and in truth. But then it is added, that God is a spirit, etc. Whatever the form in which He might have manifested Himself in Judaism, for special reasons — whatever displays of His judicial majesty, in tangible ways, Himself properly hidden, He is a spirit, and consequently He must have spiritual worship. Thus it is not merely the exceeding love that is seeking and making and gathering out worshippers, but it is the necessary character of the only worship that He admits now. From the moment that He reveals Himself fully, He can own nothing but real worship in the Spirit. The day of forms, rites, and ceremonies is totally passed. Hence it is not only that He does not look for them, but He scorns them; He treats them as a libel upon His nature, a slight on His Son, and Satan's substitute for the power of the Holy Ghost. They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. I think it important to bring out the connections of the blessed word of God so as to show that the distinction pointed out is not imaginative. Alas! that men should be beguiled to invent, in presence of the untold treasures of the Bible. All we have to do is to bow before what is given us there. We may have, no doubt, to learn; but where the truth is known, what a mercy to be entirely delivered from the vain desire or the need of any invention! It is natural to unsatisfied man to seek out exciting novelties. But God is infinitely above man, and His word rich beyond all thought; so that all we have to do is to submit our souls to Scripture, assured, too, that the revelation of God, old as it is, offers practically that which is ever new to the heart.

In our epistle, then, we have these two prayers; the first of them introduced by the apostle, who says, "wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints." Now inasmuch as our love would bring in the thought of something on man's part that would give importance to us, although he is about to speak of love to the saints, he introduces the matter by "faith," because this throws us not so much on our love to Him as His love to us. "Wherefore," he says, "I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus," and then gives the consequence of this, "and your love unto all the saints." This is a very important word in judging of our love. We are all apt to form a circle even among the saints of God — to have those that we prefer, those that suit us best, whose thoughts, feelings, habits, are more or less the same as our own, or, at least, are no great trial to us. But, then, this is not love to the saints. There is more love to ourselves in it than loving them. The flesh likes what is agreeable to us — what does not cause us pain, what is, perhaps, a gratification to the amiabilities of nature. All that may be where there is really no exercise of the new nature, no mighty power of the Spirit of God working in our hearts. We have always to test our souls, and ask how we stand in this. Is the prominent motive and objects of our hearts the Lord Jesus? Is it with Him and for Him that we think of and feel towards all the saints?

I fully admit that love towards the saints cannot, and ought not, to take the same shape towards all. It must be in the energy and intelligence of the Spirit, varied according to the call upon love. While one ought to love even a person who is under discipline, it would be a very great mistake to suppose that your love must be shown in the same way as if he were not. You do not cease to love him; indeed you never are in a position and spirit to exercise discipline with the Lord where there is not love — righteous hatred of the sin, indignation it may be, but real charity to the person. It would be better to wait upon God if it be not so in our hearts, till we can take it up in the spirit of divine grace. There must be, of course, a dealing in righteousness; but even in dealing with one's child there ought not to be such a thing as chastening it in a passion. Anything that merely arises out of a sudden impulse, is not a feeling that glorifies God about evil. Therefore, in cases of discipline, there ought to be self-: judgment, and great patience, too, unless it be something so flagrant that to hesitate about it would be culpable weakness, or want of decision and jealousy for God, for there are some sins so offensive to God and to man that they ought, if we are sensitive to His holiness and obedient, to be met with grave energy and as it were on the very spot. The arena of the sin, God would have to be the scene of its judgment according to His will.

Supposing something done in the public assembly, false doctrine in the midst of God's people, if there were the power of God, and a heart for His rights, it might be due to His majesty to deal with it without delay. This is sufficiently plain from the word of God, where in a case of direct hypocrisy and lying against God, we find the promptness of the Holy Ghost, through the apostle, in the very presence of the Church, which at once judged the fraud that was attempted to be practised upon Him who dwelt there. I deny there was want of love in this: rather was it the necessary accompaniment of divine love acting, through the Holy Ghost's might, in the assembly, or at least, by Peter, as the special instrument of His power therein. It was a stern judgment, doubtless; but it was the fruit of intense desire for the saints of God, and of horror that such a sin should get a footing and shelter among them, and the Holy Ghost should be thus foully dishonoured, and be grieved with the whole Church if it were connived at. But in ordinary cases the same love would wait, and let time be given for the fault to be owned and repented of. In nine cases out of ten mistakes arise from precipitancy, because we are apt to be jealous for our own reputation. O how little have we realized that we are crucified and dead with Christ! We feel the scandal, or something that affects the public mind: this is not the power of the Holy Ghost, but the selfish egoism that is at work in our hearts. We do not like to lose our character, or to share the sorrow and shame of Christ in those who bear His name. Not of course, that one would make light of what is wrong: that never could be right about anything either great or small. We ought never to justify the least wrong, whether in ourselves or in others, but accustom our souls to the habitual clearing of the name of the Lord, even if it be about a hasty word. If we begin to be careless about little offences, there is nothing to preserve us from great sins but the mere mercy of God. If love unto all the saints were working in our hearts, there would be less haste.

We sometimes misconstrue things, and endeavour to give, as we take, a very sombre impression. where evil was but in appearance. Let us beware of judging according to the first blush, where the reality may prove to be otherwise: it is not righteous judgment. We should seek to judge things by a higher standard, and in the light of God. In these serious matters we are bound to be sure, and never to yield to suspicion. All judgment, if it be according to God, must proceed upon what is known and certain, not upon what is a surmise — too often the effect of an unfounded pretension to superior spirituality. We find the importance of this constantly; and, were our souls more simple about it, fewer mistakes would be made.

Christ has the first place where the heart is true; and next, "all the saints" become the object of our love. If there are two cases of persons in fault, and the one were a prime favourite, and the other but little liked, the latter is in imminent danger, I need hardly say, of going to the wall. My object of aversion would labour under a cloud which obscures the truth, no matter how evident it might be to the dispassionate; whereas, on the contrary, the favourite would derive that which outweighs the proofs of guilt from the unwillingness on the part of his friends to pronounce anything wrong about him. Both these feelings are thoroughly at issue, in such circumstances, with the mind of God. Indeed, both favouritism and prejudices are plainly condemned by His blessed word. "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." (James 3: 17)

"Love unto all the saints" is enjoined because they are saints. To love them, because God has separated and brought them into an eternal relationship with Himself, is the only true and christian love to such. Our great difficulty always is that our thoughts, feelings, actions, should flow from this ground. Do not mistake me. I do not mean that it is wrong to have friends. Our Lord had. He loved John as He did not love the others, and there was a sense in which He loved them every one alike; as His saints, they were beyond comparison precious in His sight. He might prize the faithfulness of some of His servants; He might have to encourage, reprove, correct all round; and we must leave room for all these things. There is the grand basis of love to all the saints; but it is clear we are not bound to open out matters of a personal nature to every one because he is a saint. For example, saints are not always the wisest of men; and while we are not to disown their saintship, we are not bound to lay bare our difficulties, or to seek counsel in what may require ripe spiritual judgment from those who could render no help whatever in the case. Love there must be always. This brings in the value of that divine principle, "esteeming others better than ourselves." This I hold to be true of all saints. It might be a man that had not two ideas and yet had Christ before his soul. He might be very ignorant and very foolish — hasty perhaps in spirit, strong in prejudice, weak in sympathies, and worthless as a counsellor; but if there is evidently a soul that cleaves to Christ and values Him above everything, can I not, should I not, esteem him better than myself? Do not I see there is that which admonishes my soul — which refreshes and edifies me, much more than if he were merely the staunchest friend and the wisest adviser? In the least saint of God there is that which both cheers and humbles the heart. I am not to esteem a person for a quality which he may not possess: God does not, could not, put such a phantom before us. On the other hand, it is well to bethink ourselves of the preciousness of every saint as such. Show me the very weakest and most trying of them all; yet we may and ought to cultivate a real, genuine respect for them as God's children. There is not only God for them, but what is of Christ in them; and this may commend them above all other considerations to him who values communion with the Father and the Son.

On the contrary, in thinking of ourselves, ought we not to feel how much there is that is unlike Christ? May we ever be specially alive to that in which we break down and grieve the Spirit of God! This would have the effect of lowering and putting down our own self-esteem. Could we think so highly of ourselves, if we felt as we ought our exceeding and, alas! frequent failure, in presence of the rich, perfect grace of God to our souls? Whereas, if we had before us in others, not their failure, but Christ's love to and His life in them, and the glory to which they belong, what would be the effect? "Love unto all the saints." It is Christ discerned in the saints, which is the power of the love He would have going out towards them. Under certain circumstances, with a person whom you trusted God might bring out as a saint — whom you have prayed for, and whose good you have sought in any way, yet at a given time it might be a sin to associate as a Christian. I am speaking of one who had by filthiness of flesh or spirit brought dishonour upon the name of the Lord. But though we may for the time abstain from all the expressions of loving intercourse, yet love always finds a place in which to show itself, though sometimes it may be only in the presence of God, and not manifestly to the human eye. So that, as to the manner of showing love, we must search the word of God. But the general principle cannot be doubted, that God would lay upon our hearts all the saints. He has them all upon His own heart, and He will have us to cultivate this largeness of family affection.

Accordingly Paul, who entered into this in a measure which even the saints addressed perhaps knew little of practically, adds, "Wherefore I cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him." There is the title so often referred to — "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." He is about to speak of the divine dealing with man and even with Christ as man; for of course it is only in that sense that one could so speak. But if dealing with us accordingly, working mercies through the risen man and fresh blessings suited to this character, yet He is "the Father of glory" as being the great Head and Fountain of all heavenly blessedness, the One from whom it all came to His own name and praise. This at once lets us into the secret of the prayer. Glory is the main thought — not the only, but the most prominent, feature of the prayer. Hence then the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, purposes and works by Him to give certain blessings to us; and it will be found that the basis of the bright pillar of blessing is Christ risen and glorified at the right hand of God. If you look at the prayer in chapter 3 there is not a word about His being there exalted "far above all principality, and power, and might;" for its subject is not glory at all, nor what God has done: it is not anything conferred upon Christ, but Himself and His love, the sum and substance of my blessing; as it is said there "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." Here the prayer in Ephesians 1 is the contrast in every way of that in Ephesians 3. In the latter, love is the parent idea, and not glory. It is well to bear in mind always this wonderful connection of love and glory; because the one would not do without the other. And although glory be its bright manifestation and effect, yet love is still deeper and is never fully known except in the immediate presence of our Father. The kingdom is not the evidence in our case of the love of God; the proof of it on our behalf is that we are to be with the Son in the Father's house, and that we shall appear with Christ in glory. Who brings us there? The world knows nothing about the Father's house. It is a scene outside the earth, that no eye of man here below can possibly enter into. But He will also display us to the world.

Hence it is that, in John 17: 22, you will find that the glory which the Father gives the Son and which the Son gives to us because of His all-perfect love — this gift is in order that the world may know that the Father sent the Son and loved us as He loved the Son. To prove the love, the glory there, as here, is set prominently forward. As we have the prayer of glory in Ephesians 1 and the prayer of love in Ephesians 3, so the glory that is given in John 17 is to prove what otherwise would not have been so clearly made known to the world. Men here below may see the glory, but they cannot enter into the love. The world will gather from our being in the glory with the Lord Jesus that we were loved with the same love wherewith the Lord Jesus was loved. Glory expresses itself outwardly, but love goes deeper still and brings one into the scene where the Father reveals Himself in His beloved Son. This is what l may call an intimate, family scene outside the world, the heavenly rest and home. It is not merely brightness, glory, majesty, or power. All these things will have their full display; but there is something deeper than all and which lies at the root of all. It is the love, which, though it be the least entered into, yet at the same time was really before all, and that to which all will turn. It is the highest of all, and it is eternal. The kingdom may terminate — the love never. The display before the world will have a beginning and an end. But as the love will never end, so it always was in the bosom of God the Father.

Thus we have the prayer that "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the full knowledge of him." There might be a little difficulty if it were simply "the knowledge of him." The proper meaning of the word is "the full knowledge of him." They already knew Him, but Paul prayed that they might know Him more. He wanted them to be fathers in Christ, and what constitutes a father is a deep and growing knowledge of Christ Himself. The Spirit of God alone could give them this entrance into it; but it was in the full knowledge of Him. "The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe." We have three things here brought before us, which call for particular consideration.

First, there is "the hope of his calling." Now I conceive that there he is referring in measure to what we have already found in the early part of the chapter. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." At any rate, I think verse 4 is before his mind's eye here. Verse 5 brings in His place as Father. "The hope of his calling" is founded on the full blessedness that pertains to us according to that purpose of God which is already ours in Christ — already made known to us and received by our hearts — the calling of God that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. But then if this be the hope of His calling (for everything is made to flow from God Himself), he adds, "and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." (Ver. 12.) There clearly he refers to what we found in the body of the chapter: the inheritance and not only the calling. The calling was the effectual work of God's grace, and the riches of the inheritance rather the glory suited to such a calling. But, besides this character of glory, there is, first, the hidden portion suitable to being chosen to be holy and without blame before Him in love — called to be the reflection of His own holy, loving nature, which, of course, we have got in the life of Christ, and which we shall have perfectly developed when changed into His image, from glory to glory. For His calling has its own proper hope of what we shall enjoy in His presence.

Thus there is, secondly, the inheritance. He wished them to know the riches of its glory, to know it better. But he uses a remarkable expression — "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." You must carefully guard against a prevalent error on this subject, namely, that the saints mean the inheritance. This is not at all the force of the phrase: nay, I have no hesitation in saying that it would falsify the chief blessedness of the Church's calling. If we look at the Old Testament, we find that Israel were His inheritance and His people; and that God, by virtue of Israel, took possession of the land. When the day comes for God to be king, and more than king, when He takes under His government the entire universe, how will this be done? Will it be by Israel? No; but by virtue of His heavenly saints — the Church of God. The expression seems to be purposely large. Most decidedly it means the saints changed or risen, so as to be in the likeness of Christ, in an entirely heavenly condition. Such is the mode in which God will challenge and assume the inheritance by and by into His own hand. When He took Canaan, He did not come down and possess it by heavenly power, but by means of His people. But when God expels the wicked spirits from any connection with the heavenly places, when He puts down all power upon the earth — everything that contradicts Himself, and reduces the whole universe into subjection to the name of Christ, who are destined to take it in His name, as Israel entered on the land of Canaan? The risen saints. Hence the meaning of the words, "the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." The common notion that the saints constitute the inheritance is unscriptural. For most carefully throughout the New Testament, the saints are always represented as (not the inheritance, but) the heirs, "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ." They are nowhere treated as the inheritance, but, on the contrary, what is revealed as the inheritance means the things in heaven and things on earth; and the Church is ever and sedulously separated from them. This I consider to be a point which cannot be left as an open question; the testimony of the word is too abundant and precise. We ought never to allow what is clearly revealed in Scripture to be debatable or uncertain, because doubt always has an injurious effect upon the spirit, no less than it insults God and grieves His Spirit. Another's certainty will not do for us; but we need not hesitate to speak plainly where we have no doubt of God's mind upon a subject. And when looked at in this point of view, it quite falls in with the structure of the chapter. As we have found "the hope of his calling" in the first clause answering to what we had in the earlier verses, so the "glory of the inheritance" answers to the middle verses of the chapter. God means to have the whole universe blest and happy under Christ; not merely glory given to Him in heaven, or a people subject to Him here below. We have here an incomparably larger view of what God intends. Christ is to have universal blessedness and glory, all things in heaven and earth being put under Him; and we have obtained in Him this inheritance.

The remaining point is, "the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places." (Ver. 20.) Why not draw attention to the power that was put forth when He made the world? When Israel are addressed, He speaks of Himself as the Jehovah-God who clave the Red Sea, and brought His people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.

But what to us is the Red Sea crossed? The resurrection of Christ; not the incarnation nor even the cross of Christ, though we could not do without either. The cross, though the most essential of all things for God's glory and our need, does not give us the power of God. It shows us what God calls His weakness, and if I look at Christ there, He was "crucified through weakness." It was One who submitted to everything, who put Himself in the power of His creatures; who went down under the judgment of God and sank even under the puny hand of man. But when we look at the resurrection, all trace of weakness is for ever past away and nothing is seen but the most triumphant power of God; a power far beyond anything connected with either the law or creation. It was a question of going down into the grave, not merely of a man, but of that man who had borne in His person the sins of every soul that believes in Him. And so completely was God glorified about these sins that He takes up the despised, rejected, forsaken man from under the unheard of burden, and puts Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places. We have there the astonishing contrast between the grave in which Christ lay and the glory into which He is now exalted, still as man — the glorified man — far above all creatures, be they ever so high or blest: above creatures which were far above man in one sense and had never known taint or fall: above the principalities, authorities, dominions, powers on high, the heavenly orders, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but in that which is to come. (Ver. 21.) There will be the display of angelic hosts then, when the Son of man shall come in His glory and all the holy angels with Him. But He is raised above them all now. To be above them as God would be nothing new; He is so always. But He has carried humanity above them; He is there exalted in our nature — risen, of course, but still the nature of man. He has given us present association with the throne of God. For the application of all this is given to us here — "the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead." It is not merely the exceeding greatness of His power towards Christ, but towards us in Christ. The power that wrought in our deliverance from Satan, that gave us our place as saints before God, is the self-same power that raised up Christ from the dead and put Him in the most glorious place in heaven. Is there anything difficult after this? If we knew we had at command the power which called the world into being, should we not laugh at impossibilities?

But we have an energy greater than that which was put forth in creation — no less than what raised up Christ from the dead. The word of God positively tells us so. Why then are we so weak? Because we so feebly believe it. The great mass of God's children never hear about it at all. But even they who, through the mercy of God, have heard, how little do they enter into it! It is one thing not to deny it doctrinally, another to apply it and live in it, not only for great straits or heavy blows, but for the ordinary train of daily duty, of that which becomes us as saints, subjecting ourselves to the will of God. We forget, if we are in circumstances of difficulty, if in the midst of foes, if we have to do with unseen enemies, what it is the apostle prays for us. That we may know the exceeding greatness of His power towards us who believe, which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead. If the power of the Holy Ghost so wrought in Paul, it was but the answer of the servant to the Master's heart, who was so pleading above, that we might know the power that is above all obstacles. No saints could know this till after the resurrection was accomplished. It is to usward who believe — strictly to the New Testament saints, called in after the Lord's death and resurrection.

Alas! how are the mighty fallen. How feebly they now realize their own privileges. Thus, supposing that a deliverer were expected for anything at all, it would be perfectly right to cry for that deliverer — to feel that he was long in coming. But when he came, do you think it would be proper or suitable to urge him to come? It is the mistake people make now. They take up the language of the Psalms and apply it to christian experience. But you could not have in the Psalms the revelation of that which we have here. God's mercy you surely have previous to the resurrection of Christ; but there was no such thing as that power at work which raised up Christ from the dead. The mistake is profound who pervert the Old Testament so as to make it the language of our experience. It would be sin if one did not use the Old Testament for our own profit and good; but that would be abusing, not using, it. It is unbelief to confound anything of old with the heavenly power of Christ's resurrection.

This, then, is the measure of the power at work towards us — the same power that wrought in Christ. How are any of these things to be known according to God? "In the full knowledge of him." You will never learn any truth aright excepting in the deepening knowledge of Christ. It is the lack of this which is the cause of weakness among us: bare doctrine is not connection with Christ. When the flower is separated from that which is its source, its sustenance and support, it is thenceforth doomed to decay and death. We have that which is lovely and full of blessing in Christ; but if we are to know it such, to prove its truth, to enjoy it always, it must be in taking these things as connected with Christ. Let me look at Christ, and I see there the very life that God has given me, and the hope of it too, even as to the inheritance. Who would dare to say, it is presumption for Christ to have it? Nay, but it is what is due to Him. God loves and delights in Him as man so well, that He could not keep back a single thing that He has made from Him. He is the heir of it all; and we, hidden in Christ, can enter into the fulness of His calling, and into the inheritance, because we merge into union with Christ. And as you can only know the calling and the inheritance in the full knowledge of Christ, so it is also with "the exceeding greatness of his power."

The height of that power is what God put forth when He raised up Christ "from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places," etc. He has given Him the supreme seat of glory. No matter what could be conceived of the highest angel or archangel, Christ has received a higher dignity, and this place. He holds in present association with us while we are here. It is One who not only owns us and is kind to us, and uses the greatness of His glory for our good, but far more. He who is at the head of a vast empire can turn the throne to the good of his subjects and the glory of those whom he desires to honour; but there is no positive, immediate, personal association with him. This is what the Christian has with Christ. Nothing less than to be one with Christ is what we have here.

Therefore it is added, that this blessed One, under whose feet God has put everything, has been also given to be head over all things to the Church. It is not said, "head over the church," but "head over all things to the church." (Ver. 22.) The Church shares His place of headship over all; but as His body, in inseparable union with Him. The glorified Man has universal exaltation over all the creatures of God; and this He shares with us, and will soon manifest as our portion with Him. The Christian is now a member of Christ's body — now, therefore, by the Holy Ghost, in the most intimate association with Christ, not only as having life in Him, but as enjoying oneness with Him who is the supreme exalted Head over all. He is a member of His body; and although it was not to Eve directly that God gave the dominion, yet did she share it by His will. It was given to Adam, but by association Eve had it along with Adam. So the Church has it as the dependent and associated Eve of the heavenly Man, the last Adam. This gives us at once a bright view of what our calling is, and why God looks for complete separation from the world. In the time of the Protector in this country, it would have been improper for any one that held to the royal family to seek or even accept a post of honour. So with the Christian now. We belong to One who is hidden away from the earth — exalted now into this universal headship. The world that we see is not yet put under Christ practically, though to faith all things are; but we know that He is exalted, "head over all things to the church."

We belong to Him, and He would have our hearts lifted up above all the present scene. The Church is "His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." (Ver. 23.) It is the complement, or that which fills up Christ, looked at as man risen from the dead. As Son of God He, of course, requires nothing to complete His glory; but as man He does. He would no mare be complete in His resurrection-glory without the Church, than Adam would have been without Eve. And God has, in the counsels of His glory, so ordered it. He meant, from all eternity, that when His Son became this blessed, glorified man, He should share for His own honour and praise all the glory He had as the risen man with those who were by nature poor, dead sinners, but now delivered from their sins, and made one with Christ on high. By the Spirit now given He communicates the knowledge of it to them while in the world, that they may be in spirit and ways entirely above the world.

Ephesians 2.

We now enter upon a new portion of our epistle; is not so exalted in its tone as that which we have glanced over in chapter 1, equally important in its place and of the utmost moment to us. But then we must carefully bear in mind that what is of interest to us is not an adequate measure in looking at either the word of God or His ways. God never acts for anything short of His own glory. So that although we find many parts of the word of God which in the very closest way touch our condition, wants, blessing and glory, we invariably fall short of the just scope and standard of the truth of God, if we limit our thoughts by its application to ourselves. Never do we reach the full extent of any truth in its bearing upon us, unless we also take into account its infinitely higher range as the revealed display of God's glory, character, and purposes. Hence it is, that although we find in the Scripture grace already shown to us, and glory that we are soon to participate in, yet how infinite the blessing when we no longer look at it as that which is directly toward creatures so limited and feeble as ourselves! When we realize that it is the grace and the glory of God, how all is changed completely! We then hear and find out this grand truth — He does speak of us and feel for us in ways, forms, depths, and heights suited to Himself. He enters into all our little wants as well as all our greatest. But still, if it were the least thing He meets in us, the supply of that want flows from One who has no limits; and if it be suited to our capacity for the present moment, it will not be always so. God will never rest in His love till He has not only given us by the Holy Ghost now to taste in measure the sweetness of the display of His own character. but made us in every way worthy of it. He has called us to be His children. The day is coming when not merely His love will not be ashamed so to call us, but when there will be no reason why it should be: when, on the contrary, everything that pertains to the family of God will savour just as much of what He is as, alas! now our poor, pitiful, worldly ways often tell a painful tale of self and not God.

In this chapter then it is, not the unfolding of God's counsels and magnificent purposes as they flow from His own mind — consequently going back to the beginning of time, and before creation had a place at all as a matter of fact, when all was but God Himself in the eternity of His own existence. Even then, as Ephesians 1 told us, before His hand had been put forth in anything, there was this blessed thought in His heart: He meant to have a people, yea, sons, out of the scene that was yet to be created, gathered by His own sovereign grace out of sin, to be the partakers of His love and of His holiness, along with His beloved Son. This was His counsel. Chapter 1 showed us this, not only what was in God's mind from eternity, but the answer to it in the day of glory that is coming. For two great thoughts were brought before us there: first, the calling of God; and next, the inheritance that is yet to be displayed in the bright display of glory when Christ shall take everything that God has made, and will be the acknowledged, glorified Head of it (all things, whether in heaven or on earth, being put under Him); and when we who believed in Him shall be called to the place of sharing that inheritance along with Him, our Lord and Bridegroom. Thirdly, we saw an added and most weighty point — that the same power of God which raised up Christ from the dead is at work toward believers now. This was only alluded to passingly in the prayer of the apostle at the end of chapter 1. What we have here is, to a certain point, a kind of development of it. Chapter 2 is mainly based on His resurrection-power; nay, not this only, but, if I may so say, ascension-power. The energy which raised up Christ and set Him at the right hand of God, is now put forth on behalf of and working in those that believe in Him. We shall see the consequences of this. But now let us weigh for a moment what the Holy Ghost here brings out. It is the application of the mighty power of God to the believer. It is not, therefore, simply the purpose of grace, nor the execution of that purpose in glory by and by, but it is the exercise of His power after the pattern of Christ risen and glorified, and the application of it to the believer even now.

Hence we have necessarily first brought before us the condition of those in whom the power is put forth, what they were when it began to work in them. Accordingly it is only in chapter 2 that we begin to have any development of the actual condition of those with whom God is so nearly linked. Chapter 1 is mainly occupied with what God had in His mind, and what He will yet accomplish. Now we have the question raised and answered, Who are these people, and what was their state when God could so deal with them? And it is most marvellous, that, when we come to hear His word, there is in no other epistle any portion that gives us so deep, searching, humiliating a picture of the desperate, degraded state in which those were whom God destined to be joint-heirs with Christ. The laying bare moral corruptions we have in Romans, fully proving what man is if he take the ground of anything within him. Whether the favoured Jew under the law, or the Gentile with his conscience, all is thoroughly discussed there, and every pretension of man is ground to powder. But in Ephesians the proof of guilt is needless. Man is viewed as so completely dead, that it is but the removal of the cloth from off the corpse. Therefore the apostle says, "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." It is not simply, How is a sinner to be forgiven, justified? but "You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." The words "hath he quickened" are inserted, it is true, in italics, but it is the evident and necessary sense; without it, to an English reader, the sentence would be embarrassed. It is not till verses 4, 5 that we have the completion of the thought. It is plain that the quickening affects those that are called — "you," as well as those designated "us." I shall hope to show the meaning of the distinction presently, but I only refer to it now in order to guard against the notion, that there is no sufficient reason for inserting in English the expression, "You hath be quickened;" whereas it is implied in the language that the Holy Ghost used, or at least in the sense.

The grand fact remains. It is not merely a question of disease in the moral state of man; but they are "dead." What a blow to all the thoughts of man — to the notion that he is in a state of probation — that he is in a mere sickly state of soul; and if you only soothe and comfort and educate him, after all he is not so bad! Some people think there is a difference between believers and unbelievers in their unconverted state: this I deny. As to men being born, some of them more worthy of having mercy shown them than others, the idea is contrary to every word of God that treats of the subject. On the contrary, what the Holy Ghost insists upon is the real death and equal ruin of all. In Romans it is said that we were "without strength," but here we were "dead." The only way in which death is spoken of in Romans is as a privilege, the happy condition into which faith brought us when baptized unto the death of Christ. We are thus viewed as being dead to sin and alive to God.

In Ephesians, on the contrary, death was our misery. It was the expression of God's mind about the extreme ruin in which we lay. We have both Jews and Gentiles (neither now first or last) — man as such — morally dead; so that it becomes a question of what God can do. God above, and man here below, are in the presence of each other; and if man is dead, thanks be to God! He raises the dead, and can and does quicken souls. The immortality of the soul is certain. However, what Scripture calls "life" is not bare existence, but a blessed spiritual nature given to a man who naturally was without it and merely felt or acted after a nature under sin. Such is the condition of every person until the Spirit of God has wrought this good work upon the soul.

Our Lord reproaches Nicodemus for not understanding this. Even as a Jew he ought to have done so; but as a "master in Israel" was it not a shame that he should not know these things? When he heard of the necessity of being "born again," or on an altogether new principle, he imagined that the Saviour might speak of some repeated natural birth, which, if possible, would have been but the old thing over again. But the word "afresh" (ἄνωθεν) is exceedingly emphatic; and so is the opening out of the truth. Hearken to this: "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Flesh never can become spirit. There is no such thing as spiritualizing the old nature, and making it new and holy. What the unregenerate soul wants is a new nature, or, as the Lord explains it, to be "born of water and of the Spirit." It is the word of God, figuratively presented thus, and applied by the power of the Holy Ghost to the soul, which is the meaning of the passage. Baptism may set forth that which is conveyed by it, but it is a figure of a reality. Our Lord shows that there must be a new life imparted; and, as we are told elsewhere, "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth." And this is brought out not only by James, but by Peter also, where he declares that we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever." We know positively from the Apostle Paul, that the washing of water by the word is God's own explanation of the figure.

Again, what could Nicodemus have known about christian baptism? It was not then instituted; and the disciples' baptism was only a sort of modification of St. John's rite, i.e., the confession of a living Messiah, coming or come on earth. But proper christian baptism is founded upon the death and resurrection of our Lord. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his death?" Christian baptism is the confession of the death and resurrection of Christ, and was instituted by our Lord when He rose from the dead. Then, and not before, He told them to go forth, baptizing all nations, or Gentiles, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He laid down the grand, full, christian revelation of the Godhead, into the confession of which the believer is brought by his baptism.

In the Scriptures just alluded to, we find clearly that, where unfigurative language is used, the means of giving the new life is said to be the word of God applied by the Holy Ghost; and that, when figures are used, water is what is chosen. But the sum and substance of the entire teaching is, that the testimony of God is the divine means of communicating life to the soul when applied by the Holy Ghost — that is, by faith. And if we want still further to know what specially in the truth of God is used to quicken those who are dead in sins, it is always, more or less, the revelation of Christ. My believing that the creature was made by God will not quicken my soul. I might believe any facts in the Old Testament, and be assured of all the miracles, discourses, and ways of Jesus in the New, and yet my soul might still be unquickened. But believing in Christ Himself is a very different thing from not doubting things about Him. It supposes that I have, more or less, come to an end of myself; that I have bowed to the humiliating sentence of Scripture upon my nature, and that I own myself to be only a poor, lost, dead creature in the sight of God.

All this is beyond nature. Some men are proud of the affections we share with the brutes, and some still more deify themselves because of conscience; but even conscience was acquired by sin. Adam, before the fall, could not have told what good and evil was. He did not avoid eating the forbidden fruit, because he knew it was in itself evil; nor was there indeed anything morally wrong in its own nature in eating the fruit of that tree. But the command of God made it a test — a moral test that Adam would have known nothing about unless God had told him, "Thou shalt not eat." Thus, for the purpose of exercising a child's obedience, it might be said, You are not to go out of this room: it might have been all right before. It was only after eating of the forbidden fruit that Adam obtained the distinctive and intuitive knowledge of good and evil. Thus he knew evil only by being under its power. Had it been said to Adam before the fall, "Thou shalt not lust or covet," he might have said, What does it mean? I do not understand. But the moment he listened to the devil, and took the fruit that God forbade, there was another element infused into Adam's nature that had not been there before. Unfallen, he had body, soul, and spirit; after the fall, he acquired what Scripture calls "the flesh." This is not mere "flesh and blood:" our Lord had these, (else He could not have been truly a man,) but not "the flesh," which is the principle of self-will, or liking our own way, and not God's. This is sin, and what Scripture means by sin — that strong, restless craving to have what we wish, whether God wills it or not. Satan blinds the soul as to what is God's will, God's mind. The love of one's own will was not in the original nature of man. "The flesh" was gained through the fall, and shows itself in love of our own will and independence of God. St. Paul constantly dwells upon it, as it is also what St. John (1 John 3: 4) really calls "lawlessness," rather than, as we have it, "transgression of the law." It is the wish for our way in despite of God's will and way, whether expressed or implied. It is the essence of sin, the sad inheritance of sinners, from which, thank God, the believer is delivered. So that, when a man receives Christ, he has still his old nature, not only body, soul, and spirit, but even "the flesh" — for this, too, he has still, and it may be, alas! the occasion of many a slip and sorrow, if he be unwatchful. Besides these, there is for the believer a new nature that he had not before.

God has given us a new life, and this is just as distinct in its workings as the old life is. But God has quickened us and given us a new life. Look at a man: what is there? Self-love; a little bit of pride here and of vanity there; love of one's own will everywhere — the characteristic of the sinner under all circumstances. Search and see, and you will not have to search long before you find that which betrays not Christ, but Adam. Look at the history of man, as given in Genesis, and there see what he is. He might be enticed by his affections. But why allow his affections so to work as to carry him into disobedience against God? Had God told him to listen to his wife? He ought to have acted as the head, and have reminded her of what God told them. And God's order is never forgotten with impunity. So man, having allowed the wife to take the lead, soon reaped the bitter consequences. But in Christ I have the exact contrary. What more remarkable feature morally can be than this? — A person, who, while He was everything, was content to be nothing; who, while He was man here below, never acted upon His own independent title; who always, under every circumstance, great or small, sought and was subject to His Father's will. "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" says He, in Luke 2, when only a child. It was not only when He came publicly forward, but He had the consciousness of it always. And if I want to know what our Lord was as He grew up to mature years, there, too, I find it. And wherever I look at Him, this crowning feature shows itself in all times and circumstances — One that never sought and never did His own will.

There, do you not see, is another sort of man altogether? No wonder the Holy Ghost says about Him, and Him only, "the Second man." All other men were only just so many reproductions of Adam, so many sons in his own likeness, after his own image. As far as they were men, viewed simply as such, they bore that one common character of Adam. But now comes forth another man; and from and in this dead and risen stock we become new creatures, having His life communicated to us by faith in Him. As by natural birth we have the life of Adam, so we have what would naturally flow from such a frightful beginning — the same self-will, weakness, boastfulness, dread of God, dishonesty and insolence towards Him, etc. Such is man: such, too, is just what I find in my own self; and if I read the Bible aright, God will force me to own it. When quickening a soul, He always obliges it to take up the picture and say, That is myself, black as it is. Then, when a person is broken down under the awful discovery of sin within, and judges it according to God, this is what Scripture calls repentance. It is owning not only what we have done, but what we are also. How is it to be remedied? "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The Spirit has given a new life, and in this world, through the knowledge of Christ. Hence it is by the word of God ("faith cometh by hearing," etc.), not by baptism, or any other institution of the Lord, blessed as they are. We must take care that we put things in their proper places. It is the word brought home by the Holy Ghost that produces faith, and this not by mending the first, but by revealing the last, Adam. God has come down from heaven to accomplish this great purpose — to give me this new life — to deliver me from sin and self: and how is it done? It is the Holy Ghost who effects it by the word of God, which makes Christ known to the soul.

But here the apostle does not enter into the detail of it; he is merely telling out the grand facts: "And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins (the worst of all deaths); wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." Does it not show how active in evil was this kind of death? These dead were at the same time walking according to the age of this world; which, indeed, was the proof of their moral death. They had no desire to shape their walk according to God's word. As Job says (Job 21: 14), "Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways." And was not this the condition of our own souls? Can we not remember when it was a painful thing to have to meet God about our sins? I must have to do with God. And here is the solemnity of it. If I do not meet God now about the Saviour, I shall have to meet Him about my sins. And if I despise meeting the Saviour about my sins, meet God I must in my sins — to be lost for ever. You put a sort of honour upon an enemy by paying attention to him; but you cannot more deeply insult a friend than by paying no heed nor notice. So it is as to indifference about Christ. Perhaps we try to settle accounts with God once or twice a day — what a wrong to God and a wrong to my soul! If I have sins upon me — and in that condition we all are and have been naturally — what is to be done? It is easy to say what we have been doing — walking "according to the course of this world." This is not merely gross things. Supposing that people were all as courteous and kind as possible — that there were no such things as jails and judges, nor convicts punished: supposing that men could be reasoned out of their wickedness, what would still be the condition of men?" That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Man, as such, never can see the kingdom of God. The only way by which I can be brought into His kingdom is by being born anew, and having that new nature which is of Christ and not of Adam. Baptism is the sign of it. Paul had already believed on the Lord when Ananias said to him, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." There is the figure of washing; but the only effective means or instrument in the sight of God is the blood of Christ. "To him that loveth us and washed us from our sins in his own blood."

The thought, then, of quickening leads the apostle to bring out the condition from which they were delivered. They were walking according to this world's age; and not only so, but according to the arch-enemy. The title, "Prince of the power of the air," was to set forth his all-permeating influence. As the air surrounds and penetrates everything, so does the devil the realm of nature — "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." This was the way they showed that they were under his power — by their disobedience. "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past." Why is it "we?" Why this change from "you" to "we"? When addressing the Ephesians, who had been Gentiles, he uses the word "ye;" but he includes now in this moral sentence, "dead in trespasses and sins," Jews as well as Gentiles. When God was measuring man by Christ, this was their state — not a single being that was not dead. And there can be no degrees of death. If a man is dead, there is an end of him. So that, although, if you look at men morally, you may draw distinctions, and say, There is a man going farther and faster on the downward way than others, yet, if you look deeper still, these distinctions vanish, and they are all indiscriminately ruined, yea, dead, in the sight of God. So he says, as proving this, "Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts." No matter who we were, or what, he calls it all "the lusts of our flesh." But some of them might have been philosophers, and some benevolent and moral, some gross people living in open and atrocious wickedness. But take the best of them, and judge them by this: — was it their life-breath and governing motive to do the will of God? Not at all. They might have been gratifying their own kindly nature; but God was not in their thoughts; or it was a kind of bribing God to let them off. For in heathenism there was a tradition that a sacrifice was necessary; but it was corrupted, and degraded, and perverted in all sorts of ways.

Here, then, we have the common condition in which all, Jews and Gentiles, were by nature. Yet he distinguishes "the desires (or wills) of the flesh and the thoughts," by which he means the grosser tendencies, and the more refined, intellectual workings. Supposing a man devoting himself to science, and making it his object, is this to do the will of God? Nay, but rather the indulgence of the desires of the mind, and as thoroughly self as with others who might be given up to the coarser appetites of nature. The grand thing is, that I have no right to myself — I belong to another. Am I doing His will? Then, when we enter the relationships of faith, we are not merely the Lord's creatures, responsible to do His bidding as a natural duty, but bought with the blood of Christ, and alive in Him from the dead, that we should henceforth live, not to ourselves, but to Him who died for us and rose again. Let it be the choicest men that the world can boast of: this is their state — "by nature the children of wrath even as others." What a word! Even the Jews, who had the light of God as far as outward light was concerned, were "by nature" the children of wrath, as much as the degraded, idolatrous, stock-and-stone-worshipping Gentiles. So that there can be no more complete annihilation of all man's religious privilege as well as creature-standing, than what we have in this verse. It is not only that people have done wrong, but they were by nature the children of wrath. God did not make man so: it was man who chose the path of disobedience, who gave up God for the devil. He did not, of course, intend this; for Satan comes in as an angel of righteousness; but however he may work, this is the one result to which all are reduced without exception — "by nature children of wrath." And what does God? For there is the absolute necessity that God should act in order to bring in one ray of light into the midst of this hopeless wreck and ruin. But people will not believe that they are ruined; they will think that it is a good world after all, and a state of things God has given man to cultivate, forgetting that God "drove out the man," and that all the inventions of man are only expedients to cover his nakedness, and to lead him to overlook that he is an exile from Paradise. Of course these inventions we can use, if we do not abuse them. But let us bear in mind that, as Christians, our life, our home, is not here; we belong to another scene, where Christ is. We are not of the world; we are purchased to do God's will, sanctified to obedience, to the same kind of obedience as our Lord's. Do we weigh and apply this earnestly, assiduously, conscientiously, within the bosom of the family of God, or wherever we may be placed? In our Lord was life, and He was ever happy in the consciousness of His Father's love. The believer, too, has life in Him, and is loved as He was loved. God may use the ten commandments to crush a man in the flesh; but as a believer, he is called to obey as Christ obeyed, to walk as He walked; for He left us an example that we should follow His steps.

Here, then, we have this mighty intervention of God, who, "rich in mercy, because of his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved); and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness upon us through Christ Jesus." Not only are we quickened — this would have been true, looking at any saint that ever lived on the face of the earth. But could you have said that all were raised up together with Christ? seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus? Is it not a fuller statement of the blessing that belongs to us as Christians now, which could not be predicated of any till the resurrection and ascension of Christ were facts? Our Lord says, "I am come that ye might have life, and that ye might have it more abundantly." Why does He draw the distinction between life, and life "more abundantly?"

On what principle, then, is it that Christ quickens at all? Because in Him, the Son, is life; and this life becomes the portion of the believer in Him. "For the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live." He was always the source of life to the soul, no matter when or where, though it was, of course, only in virtue of foreseen redemption that sinful men could receive it. Before His death and resurrection, however, it was simply life. But our Lord added, "and I will give it more abundantly." The disciples who then surrounded Him already had life because they believed in Him. But when our Lord rose from the dead, the first time He appeared among the disciples, He breathed upon them and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." What was this? The Spirit as the power of life more abundantly (not as gift yet). He gave them life while He was here, and when risen He imparted it more abundantly, life in resurrection.

What is the difference, people may ask, to us? Immense. But the difference in the mind of God is the main thing and how it bears upon His glory. Therefore, whether understanding it or not, I desire to bow and bless God, perfectly sure that there is a wise and good reason for everything He does and says. We are to be raised by and by from the dead: our bodies are still unchanged. The body of the believer decays and crumbles like the unbeliever's, yet he has the resurrection-life of Christ, this life "more abundantly." "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," was not a word merely for the twelve. No doubt they had a mission that none of us has. But while this is true, and none now can be put on a level with them as apostles, yet at the same time I maintain that they also had administrative functions, apart from their special apostolic character, and in those, not in this, they have successors. Our Lord met, on that day when He rose, "the disciples," which embraces a far wider thought. It was the then christian company, all that were there, whether men or women, if they were disciples. It was upon these He breathed. They were all to have His more abundant life. The effect is, that all are brought into liberty. (Comp. Rom. 8: 1, 2.)

I do not enter farther into the very blessed accompaniments of this new life, but only remark that, as to being raised and sitting together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, all is spoken of as being now true of the believer. There is no such mystical notion meant by this as that we are not on earth or in our bodies here. Everything in Scripture is the very reverse of extravagance. Mysticism is the devil's imitation of God's mysteries, and the mere mist of men's fancies. "Mystery" in Scripture means nothing vague, but truth the human intellect would never discover, which, when presented by the Holy Ghost to the new nature, is perfectly intelligible. Some things are of a profounder character than others, and there may be that which is beyond all knowledge, as, for instance, the nature of the Son of God. "No man knoweth the Son but the Father;" and it is not said of the Son, "he to whom the Father shall reveal Him." The Father maintains with holy jealousy the inscrutable glory of the person of His Son. But apart from this, the mysteries of Scripture are truths once locked up but now revealed and intended to be known, and in fact the portion and joy of the believer.

We have already glanced at the strong contrast drawn between man's condition in the first three verses, and the mighty intervention of God's grace that follows. We have seen the Gentile brought out in the dark portrait of abject moral corruption and senseless idolatry, the Holy Spirit laying everything bare in a few mighty touches. They were "dead in trespasses and sins," thoroughly subject to the prince of this world. They were merely pursuing the course of this age, children of disobedience, without reference to God in their ways. There is no thought of bringing out in detail the frightful forms of human impiety, or the depravity and degradation into which man has fallen under Satan's instigation. Nevertheless we have a far deeper view of the hopelessly evil condition of man here, than even when all the details of impurity, superstition, and rebellion are entered into at full length. In the word of God, how little the energy depends on seeming strength of language! Still less is it what we find with men when they wish to put a thing forcibly. Of violent, exaggerated expression there is nothing in Scripture.

We have simply (and what a fact it is!) God Himself sounding the condition of man, no longer looking at the heart as if it were a question of restraining its desires, which He did under the law. But now it is the utter death of nature in the presence of God — the power of Satan substituted instead of God's government — man himself evidently and hopelessly ruined. But into this scene of death God enters — God who is rich in mercy. And the great love wherewith He loved us is just alluded to as the spring of all that He has done. "God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love wherewith he loved us, eves when we were dead in sins" — "we," whether Jews or Gentiles, but more particularly referring to the Jew here. At least he had contrasted the two in verses 2, 3. In verse 5 he may possibly be bringing them both in; but if any be particularly alluded to, it is the Jew, for he is as dead as the Gentile — there is no difference as to this. "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace are ye saved), and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." Having already entered into the general subject of regeneration, I would only just add, that although, now that Christianity is divulged, we have regeneration going on at least as much as ever, we have in fact the Holy Ghost stamping upon the regeneration of the present time a deeper character. For it is not only that there is life given, or souls born again, but they are quickened together with Christ. Language like this could not have been used before Christ's death and resurrection. There can be no hesitation, that all the life which any saint ever received from the beginning of the world, was of and through Christ. "In him was life." He is the eternal life that was with the Father, and other life there is none for a sinner. There was a tree of life before man fell; not only a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but a tree of life. But this was only creature-life, that might have sustained an innocent creature to the end. But what, if the creature fell? What, when Adam became a sinful man? Would the tree of life avail for him then? Not for a moment. "So he drove out the man." God would not permit that man should touch the mere natural tree of life. For supposing he had eaten of it after sin, what would have resulted? Only a perpetuation of evil in a wretched, remediless condition of sin — an eternal existence in a condition alienated from God, from which there was no escape. So that, although death came in as the sentence upon a guilty man, there is in a sense mercy in it, now that man is born into a sinful world, and is subject to every kind of misery, which an enemy has brought in, and which, if you look at death as a part of it, may be the just sentence of God upon man's iniquity. But all this is laid hold of by Satan, and turned to his purposes, mingled with bad conscience, on which Satan works, so that a man is filled with dread and horror of God. From this God, by presenting Christ, delivers the soul. It is not only that the soul finds a life that is suited to its every need; it is not at all a mere perpetuating one's existence in misery; but life in Christ ensures deliverance out of evil and all its effects and curse, flowing from God in His grace, founded upon holiness; and a holy blessedness in the presence of God is in that same Christ who brings in this life. There is also God recovered by the soul, as surely as He recovers it to Himself. It was not only that man by sin lost natural life, but he lost God; and it is not only that Christ gives me now a new and better life than the tree of life could give, but He gives me God; He brings me to God and puts me in the presence of God. He makes known God to my soul, and gives me to be sure of His love, of His interest in me, of His deep pity and even complacency; for God cannot only love in a natural way, but with a love of complacency and special relationship.

This, then, is what we find in Christ; and although life could be spoken of in connection with all the Old Testament saints ere Christ died and rose, still I doubt much that the Spirit of God could speak of the life which they received, as being life with Christ. Life by and in Christ it could not but be; but quickening with Christ goes a great deal farther. And this is what we have now. For God points us to Christ under the burden of our sins, under the whole consequences of that which my nature deserved because of its distance and enmity to God — its spirit of disobedience and self-will. All the evil was charged upon Him, and He was treated as if He were it all; as if He, suffering for us on the cross, had the entire sum and substance of the evil of human nature in His own person. Of course, had there been a single particle of it in Himself, He could not have atoned for others — the judgment of God must have been upon it; but the total absence of it in His own person was what indicated His perfect fitness to be the victim. God was dealing with the whole height and length and depth and breadth of sin in the person of Christ upon the cross. But God raised up that same blessed One who went down under the wrath of God, and who, when He had tasted what it was to be forsaken and God's face hid from Him, did not and could not depart from this life without saying, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," which showed the perfect confidence of His heart and delight in God. "Our fathers trusted in thee . . . . they cried unto thee and were delivered." But He could not be heard till the full trial was closed. He was only heard from the horns of the unicorn. He must go through it all — unutterable sorrow and anguish, intolerable to all but Him; and yet to Him, what was it not? — all the wrath of God if the deliverance was to be complete and according to God. But He has done so; and He lets us know, in departing from the scene, that however He might suffer, yet His heart truly rested in God; and He confessed unwaveringly, not only that God continued holy, but that the Father was full of love. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."

But now we have another thing altogether — God interposing to deliver to the uttermost. He would not say that He quickened Christ absolutely. It is always qualified somehow, because Christ was life Himself. He was the eternal life with the Father, in due time manifested on the earth; and how say anything that would imply that He owed His life to another? He might say that, as man put to death in the flesh, He was quickened of the Spirit, but His intrinsic personal glory abides, which indeed gave its value to the whole extent of His humiliation and suffering unto death. The Father, too, gave Him as a man to have life in Himself. This was the perfection of Christ here below: He would not take it as His own right; He would not speak a word nor do a work that He had not heard from and in God. He was the perfectly dependent man. The same Gospel that dwells, as none other does, on His divine glory, shows us also His absolute dependence on God. On the other hand, how sweet to see in Scripture how God the Father watches over the glory of Christ! He would not say one word that could in any way impair the dignity of His Son.

Here, therefore, it is said, He hath "quickened us together with Christ!" It was we that needed the life. Christ might have gone down into death, but He has quickened us together with Him. Christ had died in a more solemn manner than any mere man could die. He was emphatically the Holy One of God, the only holy man, and yet even so had He died. Of course, no unholy one could die as He died. He knew what it was to taste death in all its bitterness, God's judgment and wrath, as none other could; and yet He was one who felt it so much the more because He was essentially in the bosom of the Father. But this blessed One having gone down thoroughly under death as the judgment of God upon our nature and our sins, thereon ensues the mighty power of God, who has quickened us together with Christ. In a word, the life is in the most intimate association with Christ, and we are in union with Christ Himself, put to death in the flesh, but now quickened by the Spirit. As to the life that He had here below, it was given up and gone; and now He rises in a new condition of life, in resurrection. It is therefore immediately added that God not only quickened us together with Christ, but raised us up together; and more than this, He made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Thus the full value that belongs to life, as it is now in Christ, is also given to us; so that we can be spoken of, even while we are in this world, according to the complete blessedness of life as it is now seen in Christ at the right hand of God.

Let us consider what such a marvellous thought as this involves — what it brings us into association with. We know what our old nature loves, and does, and is; we know too well what the life, or rather the death, of Adam, dragged us into. What have we derived from our first father — what have we deserved and brought on ourselves, but sin, sorrow, suffering, sickness, death, a bad conscience, and a fearful looking for of judgment? All these things we have as the workings and effects of that existence which we have inherited, our sad heirloom from the first man. But now comes the new and supernatural source of life in the Second Man; and where shall we best know its character? Let us look up at Christ. How does God the Father regard Him? Is He delighted in Him? He was always so; and surely never more than when He traced Christ's steps as He walked a Man among men. But there was the terrible question of sin — our sin. Is it an unsettled question now? Or has Christ in very deed answered it for ever in the cross? Yes, it is the very thing that has given occasion for God to show His love as nothing else could. How should I have known how much God loves me if I had not had such depth of need as an enemy of God, fathomless save to His saving mercy in Christ? I do not say it to lighten the sin of my enmity to God, nor to allow the notion that there was or could be the smallest title to the favour of God. But my hopeless evil becomes a measure of the depth of His love; and this because it brings Christ into the scene, yea, Christ as a Redeemer and Saviour on God's part — Christ the infinite gift of God's grace — Christ, who would be turned aside by nothing — Christ, who endured everything from man, Satan, and God's righteous judgment, that we might be saved after a divine sort. And so in truth we are. And what do we not owe the Saviour and the God who gave Him? But what did not Christ bear? Our frightful ruin and sin has just brought out what God is in His great love to us, and what Christ is in His value, and the mighty power of the life in which He is risen and gone up, seated, and ourselves in Him, in heavenly places. Do you still ask what the character of the life is that the Christian possesses now? Look at Christ, and see how precious He is to God — how He cannot have the Blessed One, who is the full expression of that life, too near Himself. He has raised Him up and set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places. In Ephesians 2 it is simply "made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." It is not added here, as in Ephesians 1, "at his own right hand." I am not aware that such words are ever said about the children of God, nor do I think they could be. Do they not rather seem to be the personal place of Christ? But it is said "in the heavenly places," because it is to them, and not to the earth, that we belong. Israel, as such, in their best days, belonged to the earth (as did we, far off, in our worst); but now it is not only that our names are written in heaven, though that very expression shows the wonderful love of God which destines and enrolls us to be above — which connects us with heaven while we are upon the earth: all that is true; but we have much more in Ephesians. There we find that, in virtue of our union with Christ, we are said to be not only raised with Him, but seated with Him in heavenly places. In a word, what is said of Christ Himself is true by grace of us, only excepting what may be personal in Him as God the Son, or used of the Lord in a necessarily pre-eminent degree. For after all there is a distinction between the Head and the body, even as such; though, on the other hand the very difference shows the closest possible association: we are His fulness or complement.

We learn, then, from this that we have Christ's own title while we are in this world — nay, more than that, Christ's own life is ours, by virtue of which we are said to be quickened with Him, yea, raised and seated in Him in heavenly places. But let us carefully bear in mind that all this is never said of any in purpose or election, but only where faith exists. It is not applicable to us before we believe: it would not be true of any person before there is positive, living association with Christ. What is commonly called Calvinistic theology, much truth as it embodies, is totally false on this head. One of its main features is the endeavour to make out that, the love of God being from everlasting to everlasting, our relationship is always precisely the same; that because God has the purpose of making us His children, He always regards us as His children; that if a man be elect, supposing him still an infidel or a blasphemer, he is as much a son of God as when he is regenerate of the Holy Ghost and walking in the ways of God. It maintains that God loves him with exactly the same love (while he is, for example, a sot or a swearer) as afterwards. What among believers can be conceived more dishonouring to God and destructive to man than this doctrine? Manifestly the apostle is speaking here, not of persons elect merely, though, of course, they were elect, but quickened. That is, they had actually life. Not only was there a purpose of God about them, but they were then living to God as those who had faith in Christ. You could not say that a man has life before he has faith. It is the reception of Christ by the Holy Ghost which, on the one side, is called faith, and on the other, life. You could not rightly put one before the other. If you could scarcely say that faith was before life, certainly life is not before faith. The first exercise of faith is the first also of life. It is the power of the Spirit of God presenting Christ to the soul. Hence it is said, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live." The living is there, if there be any difference at all, the effect of hearing, rather than the hearing the effect of living. This is very important; because none can affirm that persons are quickened with Christ until they are here to be called; and it is impossible to say that they have life till they have heard the voice of the Son of God. The first proof that a man is a sheep is that he hears the good Shepherd's voice. He is not thrown on certain (or rather uncertain) indications, of life within himself, but on the grand, objective test and evidence which God demands — not merely what I am doing, or not doing (the law asked this), but whether I receive and rest on the Son of God. Am I drawn away from all the sounds of the world? and is His voice attracting my soul? As sure as this is so, you have life. "He that believeth hath everlasting life." "He that hath the Son hath life." I prove that I have it by the very simple, sure, and blessed fact that I hear the voice of the Son of God. Thus only I have life — then only am I assured of being quickened and raised with Christ. Mark, it is association with Christ after He had gone under death for our sins, which is the christian character of quickening. We are also said to be seated in heavenly places, because we have the life of Christ who is there, and we are spoken of according to the place which He has entered who is our life. So that Scripture does not merely mean that we are so in God's decree or thought, when it says that He has raised us up and made us sit together in heavenly places. The reference is not to our future resurrection, but expressly to the present association of the believer by virtue of union with Christ, who is in the presence of God. And, in alluding to this first part of it, the apostle says, "By grace ye are saved." This is the source of all the blessing. Hence the expression is very strong. For what the form of the word implies is that the salvation was complete, and that they were now enjoying its present result. Salvation in Scripture is not always thus treated: there are whole Epistles where it is never so spoken of. Thus, particularly in Philippians, salvation is regarded as a future thing — as not complete till we see Christ in glory. Salvation, there, is a solemn but not precarious process, which is now going on, because it is plain that we are not with Christ in glory, but in our natural bodies. And accordingly Christ is therein seen as a Saviour, not merely because He died and rose, but because He is coming back for my full deliverance and joy. This explains the meaning of the text which has perplexed some so much — "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;" because, in the sense intended there, we shall only get salvation when we are glorified with Christ. Meanwhile, we are working it out with fear and trembling, remembering that Satan hates us because we are to be in glory with Christ. We are viewed as persons in this world, who know that there is not the slightest doubt that we are to have the prize, but we have to fight and run for it, though we ought to hold fast the assurance that we shall have it when we see Christ coming for us from on high.

But when we take up the language of the Ephesian Epistle, all is different. There salvation is regarded as an absolutely past thing: "By grace ye are saved" — not merely that it is going on, and is to be completed by and by; but we are saved and cannot in Christ be more so than we are. Whereas, according to Philippians, Paul himself had not his salvation yet: "not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect." The perfection there spoken of entirely and solely refers to the time when we shall be changed into the glorious likeness of Christ; then, not before, we shall be saved. If you apply the same sense of salvation to both Epistles, you make the doctrine contradictory. Take again the Epistle to the Hebrews. There, too, salvation is always represented as a future thing. "Wherefore," it is said, "he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him." God's people are meant, not the unconverted, as coming unto God by Christ. For whom is He a priest? For the believer only. Thus it is the saint that requires to be saved in the Epistle to the Hebrews; because salvation there applies to all the difficulties of our wilderness-journey. The whole doctrine is founded on the type that we are now, like Israel of old, going through the desert, and have not yet entered into Canaan; whereas, the characteristic teaching of the Ephesians is that Christ has gone into Canaan, and that we are in Him there. It is because we are occupied with a part of the word of God and not the whole, because we see one truth strongly and not the truth generally, that we get confused and faulty views which lead to wrong practice.

The reason of these differences is most interesting. You have exactly in each epistle what is suited to its own character. In Ephesians the revelation is not of Christ as one interceding for us before God: this we have in Hebrews. Why is He a priest? That He may have compassion on the ignorant, and on them which are out of the way. This is exactly, as we journey here below, our danger: we are ignorant, and always exposed to the temptation of slipping aside through an evil heart of unbelief. Therefore we need the Epistle to the Hebrews. The doctrine of Ephesians would not of itself suffice to meet me in my weakness, difficulties, and sorrows. Supposing I had wandered, what is there to recall and comfort my soul in Ephesians? There I read, "that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." Nay, but I have gone astray, and I cannot get any relief to my anguish thence. I may try to stay my heart on God's election and high counsels, but, if I have a tender conscience, these alone will make me more miserable. If God really loved me so much, how comes it (the heart will reason) that I should so dishonour Him? In Hebrews I find nothing at all about my sitting in heavenly places, but Christ at the right hand of God, and pleading for me, after He had by Himself purged my sins. The very first chapter starts with the glorious truth — that Christ took His seat on high only when He could go there on the ground that He had completely blotted out our sins, and this "by Himself," i.e., to the exclusion of all other help. It was His own task, and He has accomplished it, and would not rest even in that, to Him, familiar glory, save on this ground. Therein we have a most sure foundation. But although we have the purging of sins through Christ, we are in a place of temptation where, through ignorance, and weakness, and a thousand things that may arise, we are in constant peril of turning aside and slipping. What is to become of us then7 What is to sustain and carry us through? God reveals the blessed Priest who cares for the soul — One who has the full confidence of God the Father — who has given the most entire satisfaction to Him — One who is seated at the right hand of God, and who there is unceasingly occupied with our need, on the ground that we belong to God and are already redeemed, and have no more conscience of sin. We can perhaps hardly make out how it is that persons who are so blessed of God should be so weak and wretched; so little like Him who, at His own cost, has bought and secured us our blessing. But faith receives and asks of God what He intends to be our strength and comfort in the midst of our weakness and dangers. His answer is, that Christ is there to plead our cause, as surely as the Spirit is here to render us sensible of it. And it is through Christ's intercession at the right hand of God that we are brought to feel our need and failure. For we never judge it, without getting moral blessing through that judgment. All power of Christ resting on us is in proportion to the depth of the moral estimate produced in our souls by the Spirit of God in answer to the intercession of Christ; and it is part of Christ's intercession for us that we are made to feel, when we have in mind and fact gone astray. In Hebrews, salvation could not be spoken of as a past thing. We know that we shall be fully saved, and that Christ is coming for it. But although it is appointed unto men to die, it is not necessarily so for the saint. We know that they may never fall asleep, as for certain they will never be judged, though all they have done will be surely manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ. But He has gone through death for them, and therefore there is no necessity that they should die; and He has endured judgment as none other could, and we have His own word for it that into judgment, at any rate, we shall never come. He that believes on the Son of God "hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment." (John 5) The consequence is, that though we look for Him to come, we know that when He does appear the second time, it will be without sin unto salvation. He has so perfectly put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, that when He is thus seen the second time by them that look for Him, it will be "without sin" (apart from all question of sin, as far as they are concerned), "unto salvation," and not unto judgment. Salvation and judgment are the two things above all others most in contrast. You cannot have judgment and salvation exercised upon the same individual. In Hebrews, then, you have salvation connected with our Lord's appearing the second time.

In Ephesians, on the contrary, we are saved already, and there Christ's return to receive His people is not throughout referred to. In the Epistles where salvation is said to be consummated by and by, there we have Christ coming to finish it. In Philippians he says, "Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." There we have our Lord changing this body of humiliation into the likeness of His glorious body, proving Himself to be the Saviour; because it is not a partial deliverance, but a complete salvation for the whole man. But in Ephesians, where our Lord's coming is never introduced, this links itself with the fact that salvation is already supposed to be an accomplished fact, which we now enjoy. This is a way of looking at salvation rare in Scripture: it is generally looked at as something we have before us. People confound salvation with justification or reconciliation to God; but in Romans the evident distinction is drawn — "If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Thus, we have the reconciliation, but not the salvation, in the sense spoken of there. "We shall be saved." He is living for us, and, as a consequence, we are being saved. The salvation is going on; and when Christ comes again in glory, then salvation will be complete. Hence, in Romans 13 we have the doctrine applied again: "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." We have not got it yet; but it is nearer; and we shall have it all perfectly by and by. Before we believed, we were enemies and lost; then, believing, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Now He lives for us; and soon He will come again for us, and then all will be complete.

Again, take Corinthians, and you will find the same teaching there. Salvation is not regarded there as complete. Hence the apostle says that he is keeping under his body and bringing it into subjection. He will not allow any evil lust to gain the mastery over him. He might preach to all the world; but if evil got the upper hand of him, how could he be saved himself? He puts it in the strongest possible way of his own case; and shows that preaching (of which some apparently thought more than of Christ) has nothing to do with a man's being saved, but life in Christ; for the grace of Christ manifests itself in holy subjection to God and self-judgment of evil. These are the inseparable consequences of having the life of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost in the soul. "I keep under my body," says he, "lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." This last word I take in the strongest, and, indeed, the only scriptural, sense — i.e., of reprobate. A castaway in the New Testament means not merely that a man was going to lose something, but to lose his own soul and lose Christ. There are no instances in the Epistles where the word is used in a modified sense: it invariably means lost for ever; and it is neither faith nor intelligence to modify its force. It was not that Paul had any fear of being lost; but he transfers the case to himself to make it more energetic, supposing that he were to renounce Christ and holiness. What is the consequence? He might have been ever such a preacher, and yet be a castaway; but no man that ever was regenerate could be a castaway; and so he does not say, Though I were born of God, I might be a castaway. Such a thing could not and might not to be supposed. But he does illustrate most seriously what, alas! has been far too common, that a man might preach to others and be a reprobate. We know that one of the apostles preached and wrought miracles; but the Lord never knew him.

This will show the importance of leaving room for salvation in every way that Scripture looks at it. In the largest part of Scripture it is not regarded after the Ephesian manner, but in the way I have been describing in Romans, etc. No question is fairly raised of falling away when the apostle speaks of salvation in this sense; but the fact is, that all the result of the blessing — all the fulness of the deliverance, is not yet our portion. And who can say that it is? Here we are suffering still: then we shall be out of the scene of temptation altogether. In Ephesians, when looking at the character of our life, he says, it is entirely outside all danger, all temptation, and everything of the sort. "By grace ye are saved." By this he means that we have been and are saved; that is, we have the present enjoyment of that which is already past and complete before God. It is a fact accomplished, because it is in Christ, and everything here is regarded as being in Christ, as, for instance, our peace. Hence He is called "our peace" further on. Hence, too, so truly is the salvation viewed as being in Christ, that, the Saviour being seated on high, we are said to be (not in process of salvation, but) completely saved, so as to need nothing more as far as this is concerned. In full accordance with this it was added, that God "hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." What plainer than the completeness of the salvation? How manifestly it has a character of association with Christ, that is entirely beyond all human conception! It is easy to conceive that such a blessedness might be by and by; but the wonderful thing is, that this could be predicated of poor, weak Christians in the world now. If we dwell much upon human things, they become cheap and common, and we cease to wonder; but with this glorious work of God in His beloved Son, the more we think of it, the more we stand amazed before it. Observe, too, it is for this very purpose: "that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." That is, it is not merely God looking at us, and giving us what we need, but God acting for the indulgence of His own affections through His Son. God says, as it were, I want to show what I am, not merely to supply what you want. Thus it is God rising up to the height of His own goodness, and acting from what He is, entirely irrespective of what we are, save that we become the occasion for God to show His matchless love; and this, not merely now, but "in the ages to come," or, as I suppose, for unlimited time.

Nor is this all. There is a fresh guard against certain misconceptions by taking up or repeating the expression, "For by grace are ye saved," with the addition of "through faith," a strong confirmation of what has been already said. We are not saved by the electing purpose of God, true and blessed as it is, but through faith in our hearts, through that divine persuasion which the Holy Ghost works in the heart of a man once an unbeliever. "By grace are ye saved through faith." There is no such thing as God introducing one into the relationship of a child without the action of his heart and conscience. The Holy Ghost gives such a man to feel his own condition as seen of God and yet know what God is toward him in Christ. A cold parchment-deed, mechanical salvation there is not, any more than such a change of the old nature as could be a ground of hope toward God. But if human feeling cannot be trusted, neither can ever so orthodox a recognition of God's decrees. When God speaks in and of His Son, it is a real thing, and he who hears must more or less deeply have the consciousness of its solemnity. He is no longer unwilling and indifferent to Christ. He may feel sin and hate himself as he never did, just because he is under the hand of God and under the teaching of God. Thus the very thing that you bring to prove that you are not one of God's own, is rather a proof that you are. If you were dead to God, would you feel what grieves Him? It is when Christ has begun to dawn on the soul that you begin to realize that you have been lying in all that is dark and loathsome, though a glimmer of hope may break through the clouds. You are seriously conscious of evil things to which you were insensible before. This is an effect of God's mighty and gracious operation; but there is no such thing as life without faith or with unconsciousness. There will always be something that awakens new thoughts and feelings about God, a fear and a desire after God, a horror of sin, and a hatred of self. All these things and more will pass through the spirit of him that is born of God, and what produces all these feelings by the Spirit of God is Christ — nothing else will. Otherwise a man in vain attends a church or chapel — going to the best or the worst testimony; but he is there on this principle — he thinks it is his duty to attend perhaps every day — it is the notion of a religious service which he thinks he ought to pay to God, and that, if he does it diligently, God will remember him on his death-bed and in the day of judgment. Such is one part of the duty man pays in the hope of escaping hell. But all this goes on the ground of man's putting God under a kind of obligation to himself. Man is doing something because of which he thinks God ought to show him mercy. What can more flagrantly deny both sin and God's grace? Now, it is "by grace ye are saved, through faith." And the meaning of being saved by grace is by what God is toward me in His Son, apart from a single thing deserving it in me. Are you willing to trust your salvation to God only, in His beloved Son? This is faith. "By grace we are saved through faith." If I mingle a particle of my own, it is properly neither grace nor faith; for faith renounces self for Christ, and grace is God's pure favour to me a sinner on the cross. When I listen to Christ, then the word of God begins to deal with everything in me that is selfish and contrary to God, and I must not attempt to modify or accommodate the word of God to my own thoughts, and thus to make provision for a little indulgence of the flesh.

I maintain, therefore, that the salvation spoken of in Ephesians is already complete for him that believes; so absolute indeed, that none can add anything to it, because it would be adding something to Christ, and to what Christ has done. And this may not be, cannot be, seeing that it is all the free, unmerited, unmingled mercy of God. And this is the great thing for the soul. Am I able, without question of what I am, or what I hope to be, or what I ought to do for God, to trust Him now? Can I rest all that I have been and am upon Christ, without any promises or pledges of mine — without any hope or thought of what I may do, because God might take me away in a moment? Can I rest entirely and implicitly in Him? Think of the case of the dying thief, which is a living and notable testimony of salvation by grace throughout all ages. Others may have a work to do afterwards; but there we have one who was an object of grace in the last hours of his life. And there is no other way. Had he lived for a thousand years afterwards, he would not have been a whit more secure by grace than he was then. It is of great moment to bring our souls to the touchstone from time to time — whether we are resting solely upon the grace of God toward us, not upon what people call grace in us, i.e., our faithfulness toward Him. For this is a common notion of grace. They mean a great change that has taken place in the heart in respect of God. This, however, is not what God calls grace, but what He has given gratuitously in the work that Christ has done for sin. "By grace are ye saved through faith." The Spirit shuts out all thought of man's contributing the faith or taking any credit because coming to Christ; for He says immediately after, "And that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." This probably refers, not only to the salvation, but to the faith; it was all the gift of God, and not man's production: "Not of works, lest any man should boast." On the contrary, instead of being a question of our works, we are God's handiwork, the new creation for His own praise. "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." There you have a most plain proof that there could be no carelessness as to the walk of the believer; but the same verse cuts off all thought that man's doing can be the ground or means of salvation.

Here, then, we have the believer the workmanship of God in Christ, and this "unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." This is a very remarkable expression, and one that we cannot too much weigh. It is not the good works of the law — not those which might seem so in human judgment, but an offering of a new character, heavenly and of grace, which was in God's mind and all determined about us before the scene existed into which we are now brought. The same God who had a purpose of saving us and blessing us with Christ before the world was made, had a certain line of walk, a special course of action, in which He expected the recipients of such favour to walk. It is not the thought of the good we ought to do as men, as a means of showing that we are willing to obey God under the law. It is not loving God, and one's neighbour as oneself simply, but another type and display of love altogether. It flows from our new relationships, and if it be exercised in loving God and loving those around us, it is according to the rich love which God Himself has shown us in Christ. It is not merely duty, let it be the very highest form of obligation. If a man were to walk merely in this, though ever so well, he would fall short of what a Christian ought to be, and they are not the "good works which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." The law was brought in by Israel's presumption and self-conceit; it was not something that God had before ordained for His people to walk in. Therefore it is said in Romans, that law came in by the way (περεισῆλθεν). It was a thing that entered incidentally, as a sort of parenthesis brought in for a special but very momentous purpose. And it has done its work, and the believer, even if he had been under it, is brought clear out of it and made alive to God. He has a new husband, and is dead to the old one. But here the truth is put in a very beautiful form, in harmony with the character of the whole epistle. As the calling and the purpose and all that God thought about us were before the world was, so even the character of the believer's walk was ordained before ever we came into the world and is in its own nature entirely above it. It is a question of our manifesting God aright, as He is now displaying Himself. "Be ye followers of God as dear children."

What a wonderful place is this that we are put into! We have been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God before prepared that we should walk in them. We have a new character of life altogether that the law never contemplated, and we have a correspondingly new character of good works.

Here opens a very distinct section of the epistle. It is not God's thoughts of grace unfolded, reaching forth from before the world's foundation unto the inheritance of glory, when all things shall be subjected to Christ, the Church being one with Him in His supremacy over them all. Neither again is it the means whereby God takes up souls that were dead under the power of Satan and by nature children of wrath, one as much as another, quickening them with Christ, raising them up and making them sit together in Him in heavenly places. We have had this in the earlier part of chapter 2. But now we have the present working of the plans of God in the world. Ephesians 1 gave us the counsels of God about them; Ephesians 2: 1-10, the way in which He wrought in them; but now we have the manner of His plans upon the earth. Accordingly, this brings into very distinct relief the condition in which man had been before. There had been already dealings of God here below. After the flood, when the whole world had departed from God, and set up a new form of peculiarly malignant evil — the worship of false gods, the true God called out one man into a place of separation from all others, and made him to be the depository of His promises and testimony upon the earth. This was Abraham, and Abraham's seed. Accordingly there it was that from the call of Abraham we find the scene of the workings of God's power, goodness, and government, though government was afterwards severed, because of Israel's hopeless evil, and handed over to the Gentiles. But the cross of Christ terminated these trials. God might linger for many years after, as we know, in forbearance, but the fate of the Jewish nation was sealed in the cross of Christ; and from that very moment God began to bring out these much deeper purposes of His love. For the Jewish people, at the very best even, had they been converted and received the Messiah, could never have been more here below than an earthly people. They might have been regenerate, but they must have been earthly. The promises that were so fully and richly accorded them in the Old Testament had to do with the earth. I do not say that faith had nothing deeper, or that there was not in the hidden mind of God something outside this present scene. But, let me say again, they were an earthly people; they had the "earthly things" of the kingdom by the distinct gift of God; and it is in reference to this very circumstance, that God declares that His gifts and calling are without repentance. He had given earthly blessings to the Jews, and He had called them out for the purpose of enjoying the land. It will be in a condition of glory under their Messiah. He will never repent of His purpose, nor withdraw His gift. But meanwhile the whole history of Israel's rejection of God has come in; their worshipping of idols, and finally the crucifixion of their own Messiah; and for the time being they are dispossessed of their land, and scattered over the face of the earth.

But during the time of the dispersion of Israel, and even before it began, from the moment that their guilt was consummated, this heavenly purpose of God was gradually manifested upon the earth. But we must remember that the Church, besides being the object of God's eternal counsels, and having a glorious portion in heaven along with Christ, for which we are waiting, has also an existence upon earth, and enters into the dealings of God here below. This is the point at which we are arrived in this epistle. We have had the deeper thoughts of God; but as the epistle does touch upon the ways of God on the earth, we should not have had a full view of the Church's place if it did not give us the dispensational succession here below. Accordingly we have the elements which compose the Church: "Wherefore remember that ye being in times past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands." Here we are on totally different ground. It is no longer "children of wrath," persons that were by nature one as bad and dead as the other; but here men are distinguished on earth — the uncircumcision on the one hand, and the circumcision on the other. So that you are on earthly ground, the ground of dispensational dealings, where you have God separating one part of mankind from another by His own will; not because the one was better than the other, but for the display of His own wisdom and purpose. The great mass of the Jews were just as evil in the sight of God as the Gentiles; and some of the Gentiles were converted, such as Job, while there were many of the Jews that perished in their sins. But for all that, God did put a difference between Jew and Gentile; and He says, "Remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh." You were among the rest of mankind, left out of the call of God; you were not brought into a place of separate witness for God as Abraham was; you are called the uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision. "At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel." They had no part in the polity of God set up in Israel; and they were "strangers from the covenants of promise." God gave glorious promises in the form of a covenant, and bound Himself to accomplish them. The Gentiles had no part nor lot in them. There were promises about Gentiles, but none to them. Israel were the direct parties concerned in the promises — they, and they only. And we must carefully remember what these promises meant. They were not made to Abel or Enoch, much less to Adam and Eve, though it is common to speak of the promise made in the garden of Eden. But Scripture never talks of promise there. And if you examine Genesis 3, you will find the wisdom of God in this; for it could be in no sense a promise. To whom could it be a promise? To whom was it uttered? To that old serpent. No believer could imagine a promise to him. It was a threat of the extinction of his power. God was judging the sin which had just entered the world: is this the suited time when promises are made? It is strictly a revelation of God, not in the form of a promise at all, but a declaration which comes out in denouncing judgment upon the serpent, and which showed that the Seed of the woman was to bruise his head.

"The promises," then, do not go up higher than Abraham: they are connected with the dispensations of God. It may be asked; Have we not promises? I answer, We have all the promises of God; but how and where? They are yea and amen in Christ Jesus. If we have Christ, we are Abraham's seed, and inheritors of the promises, though in a way totally differing from that in which the Jews had them of old or will have them by and by. We come in on the ground of pure mercy, and as altogether outside covenant. There is no such thing as a covenant with the Church, or with us Gentiles. I do not mean that we receive not the blessings that are in the new covenant: we have all that is blessed in it, and better too; but not as Israel. They come under them as subjects of the promises of God; whereas we are sought, and reached, and blessed by sovereign grace — having a title to nothing, and yet some better thing provided for us. We come in as filling up the gap between the rejection of the Messiah and His reception by Israel by and by; and we form part of this parenthesis, rather than of the dealings of God here below, in a very interesting manner, as I hope to show.

Here, then, the difference is first brought out. He wants us to know what was our condition. We have right to nothing; we have not the smallest claim upon God; we had no such prescriptive place conferred upon us as Israel had through the promises. They had a place even as unconverted men in the world; and the day is coming when, being converted, they will have a signally conspicuous position in the world, an earthly distinction and glory which never was and never will be our portion. Do not suppose that we shall not have far better, but we shall never have such a place on the earth. We shall have one with Christ over all things; but it will not be while we have our natural life here below. It is in the resurrection-state that the Church's glory is destined to be brought out, in all its fulness, as far as manifested to the world. So that here the Ephesian saints are reminded of what their condition had been as Gentiles: "At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." They had no hope They were not expecting any divine intervention to deliver them on the earth: they might dream of what people dream still — a perfectibility of man upon the earth. They had no connection with God in the world; whereas the Jews had Him to direct all their movements — how they were to live and how their inheritances were to be settled. God entered into all their domestic affairs as well as their worship: everything was entirely under the distinct ordinance of God. If they had God thus in the world, the Gentiles knew nothing of the sort. Out of this miserable condition, what are we brought into? Into the position that Israel had? That is treated of elsewhere. In Romans 11 the great point is to show that the natural branches of the olive tree were broken off, that we who were wild branches might be graffed in. The subject there is not the Church, but merely the possession of promises, and the place of testimony to God here below. These are distinct things. Every baptized person — that is, every one who outwardly professes Christ — belongs to the olive. All such have a special responsibility, as not being heathen (nor Jews either), but in possession of the oracles of God, and as bearing the name of Christ in an outward manner. But in Ephesians 2 there is a far deeper line: the apostle treats of the body of Christ and the assembly of God. And we must remember, that at the beginning of Christianity these two things closely approached each other: in other words, the assembly consisted of hardly any others than the members of Christ's body, true believers united to Christ by the Holy Ghost. But soon individuals crept in, not born of God, and of course not members of Christ, who nevertheless entered the assembly of God. Thus, by a Christian now is meant one who is not a Pagan nor a Jew. Hence, in Romans 11, you read of branches being cut off; hence the branches that are grafted in are said to stand in the goodness of God, and warned to continue in it, lest they also should be cut off. It is a question of profession, of its danger, and its sure doom if faithless. But in Ephesians there is no such thing as cutting off, because there the main subject is the membership of the body of Christ. Some now talk of not rending the body of Christ; but there is no such phrase or idea in Scripture. You will find passages that insist much upon the firm standing of true believers, and others which warn of professors coming to nothing of themselves or being judged of God. There is no such thought as cutting off a member of Christ's body. There are solemn warnings to Christians for preserving them from evil, but no such a thing as their insecurity.

Proceeding with the chapter, the positive side of the question appears. The Gentiles did not possess the privileges of the Jews by nature "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one" — both Jew and Gentile — "and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." There we have it plainly set forth that the very institutions God set up in His dealings with the Jews are now cast down. God Himself has destroyed the middle wall of partition. He alone is competent so to do. It would have been a sin for any one else to have attempted it. On the other hand, you will find persons who, in their ignorance of Scripture, will argue that, because God had commanded these things once, He must sanction them always. Nothing can be more unfounded. It is entirely limiting God, and shutting their eyes to the plainest statements of His word. Throughout a large part of the New Testament God Himself sets aside the Jewish institution, in all its parts. Doubtless there are moral principles that were true before the law — revealed ways of God from the first, that always must regulate man's conduct with God; but these have nothing necessarily to do with the law. Under the legal institution they might be more or less embodied into the law and take the shape of commandments; but their roots lie far deeper than the law given to Moses. It is founded upon this misconception, that when you speak of the Christian's deliverance from the law, some think you are going to destroy morality, and overthrow God's holy standard of good and evil. But it does not become us to judge what is most for the glory of God. Humility is found in, and proved by, obedience; and obedience depends on subjection to the word of God. The same act in different circumstances is a duty or a crime: the only unerring test for the believer is God's word. It was a sin in the Jews not to destroy all the Canaanites: God commanded them to do so — the only One competent to judge, and entitled to command of His sovereign will. For a Christian now to do the same thing would be to mistake His mind. The world is bound to deal with murderers as stringently now as ever: God has not revoked in any wise the word He uttered as to the sanctity of human life. That is what God had set up long before the law of Moses, or any distinction between Jews and Gentiles. It is annulled neither by the law given to Israel, nor by the gospel that now flows out in grace to the world. Government among men stands upon its own foundation and was involved in the commission given to Noah; but the Christian is outside and above it all. He is called unto a new calling and this we have here. "Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Our task is not the preservation of the world's order or the punishment of its disorder; but a new building grows up on the blessed, holy, divine ground of the blood of Christ, by which we are brought nigh to God. Nor is it only what we shall be by and by, but what we are now. We "are made nigh by the blood of Christ."

Nothing can be more distinct, "For He is our peace;" a most wonderful expression. Our peace is not merely a thing of enjoyment within us, but it is Christ outside us; and if souls only rested upon this, would there be anxiety as to fulness of peace? It is my own fault entirely if I do not rest in and enjoy it. But even so; am I to doubt that Christ is my peace? I am dishonouring Him if I do. If I had a surety whose riches could not fail, why should I doubt my standing or credit? It depends neither on my wealth, nor on my poverty: all turns on the resources of him who has become responsible for me. So it is with Christ. He is our peace, and there can be no possibility of failure in Him. Where the heart confides in this, what is the effect? Then we can rest and enjoy. How can I enjoy a blessing before I believe it? And I must begin with believing before I enjoy. The Lord in His grace does give His people betimes transports of joy; but joy may fluctuate. Peace is or should be a permanent thing: that the Christian is entitled to have always; and this because Christ is our peace. He is not called our joy, nor God the God of joy, but of peace, because He Himself has done it: and it rests entirely upon Christ. "He is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us."

There prevails a notion (unknown to the Bible) that Christ was making out our righteousness when He was here below. Now the life of Christ was, I do not question, necessary to vindicate God and His holy law, as well as to manifest Himself and His love; but the righteousness that we are made in Christ is another thought altogether — not the law fulfilled by Him, but the justifying righteousness of God founded on Christ's death, displayed in His resurrection, and crowned by His glory in heaven. It is not Christ simply doing our duty for us, but God forgiving my trespasses, judging my sin, yea, finding such satisfaction in Christ's blood that now He cannot do too much for us; it becomes, if I may so say, a positive debt to Christ, because of what Christ has suffered. It is not seen that the law is the strength of sin, not of righteousness. Had Christ only kept the law, neither your soul nor mine could have been saved, much less blessed, as we are. Whoever kept the law, it would have been the righteousness of the law, and not God's righteousness which has not the smallest connection with obeying the law. It is never so treated in the word of God. Because Christ obeyed unto death, God has brought in a new kind of righteousness — not ours, but His own in our favour. Christ has been made a curse upon the tree; God has made Him sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Were the common doctrine on this subject true, we might expect it to be said, He obeyed the law for us, that we might have legal righteousness imputed or transferred to us. Whereas the truth is in all points contrasted with such ideas. Surely Christ's obeying the law was not God's making Him sin. So, in the passage that is so often used, "by His obedience many are made righteous." How is His obedience here connected with the law? The apostle does introduce the law in the next verse, as a new and additional thing, coming in by the way.

Further, Adam would not have known the meaning of "the law," though undoubtedly he was under a law which he broke. What, for instance, could Adam in his innocence have made of the word, "Thou shalt not lust," or covet? No such feeling was within his experience. Accordingly, as we see, it was only after man was fallen that the law in due time was given to condemn the outbreak of sin. But Christ has died for and under sin — our sin. And what is the consequence? All believers now, whether Jews or Gentiles, in Christ Jesus are brought into an entirely new place. The Gentile is brought out of his distance from God; the Jew out of his dispensational nearness; both enjoy a common blessing in God's presence never possessed before. The old separation dissolves and gives place by grace to oneness in Christ Jesus. When did this begin? An important question, for it is really the answer to the question: — What, according to Scripture, is the Church? Ask many of God's children. Would they not say, The aggregate of all believers? But is this the body of Christ as shown us here? There were saints from the beginning, all who were born of God; but were they formed into an united assembly on the earth? Did anything under the Old Testament correspond to one body? It never was heard of, excepting as a thing promised, till the day of Pentecost. It awaited the cross of Christ. Therein God abolished the enmity. Before that God had commanded the Jew to be apart from the Gentile; and our Lord maintained it most strenuously when He was upon earth. He forbade His disciples to go into any city of the Gentiles. He told the woman of Syrophenicia that He was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. She had gone on the ground of promises, but He shows her that she had no part or lot in the promises. Had she addressed Him as Son of God, would our Lord have kept her waiting? She appealed to Him as the Son of David; and as such His connection was with Israel. She had to learn the mistake of going on the ground of promises that she had no title to. And this is often the reason why people do not enjoy peace. They plead God's promises; but what if I cannot say that they are promises to me? Need I wonder that the answer tarries? Hence, too, there is in general little solid peace. How well for the poor woman, how well for us to know and confess what we really are! She owns that she was not a child nor a sheep at all. "Yet the dogs eat!" She sees why it was that she could not get what she wanted on the false ground of privileges she did not possess. She is brought to own herself as having no promises at all; and then there is no limit to the blessing in the grace of Christ. "O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee even as thou wilt."

The two instances in which the Lord admires the faith of those who came to Him were of Gentiles — the centurion and the Syrophenician. Our Lord cannot gainsay His love, and they knew it. They pressed their suit consequently. It was in the midst of dense ignorance: but then the eye was single in the main, and the object on which it rested was a blesser beyond all thought. The blessing consequently could not be lost, and though it might be delayed, it was infinite.

So in this epistle we have the Gentile in a most deplorable condition of distance from God, and separation from all that God had chosen upon the earth. But the cross of Christ has annihilated all such distinctions. It has proved that the favoured Jew was, if possible, more iniquitous than the poor Gentile. They had rejected and crucified their own Messiah; and if there were any among the Jews more urgent for His death than others, it was the priests; and so it always is. There is nothing so heartless as the religion of this world; and if it was so then, still more now. What so bad under the sun as a spurious Christianity? It may be fair-spoken, and have a good deal of truth mingled with it; but it is without a purged conscience and without divine affection; and the more fearful will be its end. We need take care what we sanction at the present hour: the time is short. The Lord has brought out what His Church is. The will of man has raked up the law of commandments out of the grave of Christ, and enacts it over again. This is what is found throughout all Christendom. It is inconceivable, except through realizing the power of Satan, how Christians can take up the peculiar institutions of God to His people, curses and all, in the face of such a chapter as this, where we find that all this is gone, even for Jews who believe, by the authority of God. It is a practical denial of the blood and cross of Christ. What a solemn proof of the ruined state of the Church of God! The truth is plain indeed: "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." To this figure of one new man Christians answer. You will find that such a state of things never was known during the Old Testament times, nor even during our Lord's life on earth. It is only after the ascension that Jew and Gentile are united upon earth, and worship God on the same level. This is the Church. It is not merely that they are all believers, but they are members of Christ and of one another on earth. Of course, when we get to heaven, it will still be the Church; but it begins here, and that with Christ crucified and ascended to heaven. When He thus takes His place there, the work follows of forming the body in union with the Head. All distinction is gone, as far as its own sphere is concerned. The nature of the Church is most plain from this: "That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby" — which enmity was in the commandments of the law, which straitly and wholly separated one from the other.

But Christ "came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them which were nigh." All is attributed to Him, because founded on the cross; and it is Christ, by the Holy Ghost, who now proclaims this heavenly peace to the Gentiles once afar off, as well as to the hitherto favoured Israel. Where this truth is unknown, men may preach Christ more or less, may be descanting much in general on the promises of God; but a Jew would do that; and to them especially it will be given by and by to sing the song that "the mercy of the Lord endureth for ever" — the great burden of the millennial Psalms. The practically Jewish position taken by most Christians makes them turn the Psalms of David into the staple of Christian communion, and the expression of their own condition before God. All Scripture is, of course, given of God for the profit and blessing of the Christian. But am I to offer a bull and a goat, because of old it was commanded? To imitate Leviticus is one thing; to understand it is quite another. "By faith we establish the law," but we are not under it. So, speaking about my walk as a Christian, St. Paul says that sin shall not have dominion over me, for I am not under law, but under grace. How sad to see that the Evangelicals as a body now diligently preach the contrary! They may preach a measure of truth about other things, but they cannot preach the gospel, and they deny the Church of God. A Christian is under the law for nothing whatever, because he is under Christ dead and risen. Christ was under it once; but then I had nothing to say to Him. He passed out of it on the cross; and my association with Christ begins thenceforward. I am united with Christ in heaven, not on the earth. What has Christ in heaven to do with the law? Hence we are said to be under grace, not under law. Further, this doctrine is most practical. The walk is amazingly lowered where a mistake is made about it; and Satan tries to bring in the law after believing, if he cannot pervert it to hinder believing.

Here, then, it is peace that is preached "to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." There, instead of the law, which drew a distinction between Jew and Gentile, the Holy Ghost unites them on a common ground, and puts them in a common relationship as sons, having to do with the Father. This is our position. When God was acting as a governor, He chose a nation, He had His own servants. But now, when He has a family, all that order of things vanishes. He has His children, and wants to have them near Him. The end of all the Jewish forms of holy places and days, of priesthood and of sacrifice, was the cross of Christ. God has fully tried and given up any working upon men by a religion that is visible, or by sight and sounds that act upon the senses. The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven leads the children of God to draw near to the Father. How can a Christian acknowledge that this is what God has given to guide him, and yet be found taking part, were it only by his presence, in that which is positively Jewish? What God has provided for the Jew, and what He enjoins upon the Christian, are very different things. We are not Jews but Christians. What He presses upon Christians is far more cutting to nature and more honouring to Christ than anything that He ever did or will give to Israel. He has brought us as His family to Himself, and through Christ we have access by one Spirit unto the Father — we both — Jew and Gentile. How far are we carrying it out? Are we to sanction the unbelief that turns back to the weak and beggarly elements of the world? or are we cleaving only to Christ, worshipping God in the Spirit? We may suffer, if faithful to grace and truth; but happy are we, if it be so.

He adds further, "Now, therefore, ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." They were brought out of all that condition of distance, and made part of His household, "and are built upon the foundation" — not of the law — but "of the apostles and prophets." What prophets? Of the New Testament only. God was not taking up an old foundation, but laying down a new one; and this new one He begins in Christ dead and risen. It is the foundation, not of the prophets and apostles, but "of the apostles and prophets." The phrase in Greek means that both classes, the apostles and prophets, were united in this joint work. They were together employed in laying this common basis. We read (Eph. 3: 5) of the mystery of Christ, "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." These words set aside all controversy; for they prove that it is a question only of the present. So in Ephesians 4: 11, "He gave some apostles and some prophets." Some of the New Testament writers were not apostles, and yet they were just as much inspired. We are said, then, to be built upon this "foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." It is not merely prophecy or promise, but "Jesus Christ Himself" — His Person. It is what the Apostle Peter learned from the lips of our Lord: "Upon this rock I will build my Church;" that is, upon the confession of Christ as the Son of the living God. And so here you have Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. But it is not here, as in Matthew, Christ building; but these apostles and prophets are used (of course subordinately) because they were the instruments of revealing the Church. Thus Scripture confines the Church to that which followed the death and resurrection of Christ, and makes it depend on the Holy Ghost sent down to form them into one body upon earth. "In whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." It is not yet complete. "In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." God had once a dwelling-place on earth — the temple; and there He dwelt, not by the Spirit, but in a visible manner. Now God dwells on earth in a more blessed way still, even through the Spirit. The Holy Ghost constitutes the saints the divine habitation and unites them as one body. He dwells in the Church, making it thus the temple of God. It is not His indwelling in the individual that we have here. This also is most true and important; but, besides, He dwells in the Church: He makes the Church to be God's dwelling-place. What a truth! It is plain that God looks for it, that we should be walking faithfully in the truth, and according to Christ.

Ephesians 3.

We have here a remarkable instance of the parenthetical style of the epistle; for the whole chapter on which we are entering is an example of it. We shall find parenthesis within parenthesis, the want of seeing which increases the misunderstanding of the epistle; but once observed, all is easy, and the moral fitness of such a form of describing what is in itself a sort of parenthesis in God's ways has been and should be noticed by the way. We can seek, by the grace of God, to learn and consider the reason for these digressions, which form an episode of unusual length. The whole of Ephesians 3 comes in between the doctrine of the close of Ephesians 2 and the exhortation at the beginning of Ephesians 4, which is founded upon that doctrine. What is the meaning of this turning aside? The Holy Ghost stops short in the midst of the unfolding of the doctrine to lead us into — what? The answer, I think, is very plain. He has just alluded to that which must have seemed a great stumbling-block to a Jew; namely, God's forming one body, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Among many Christians now, I am sorry to say, the difficulty is not even felt, still less is the truth understood. The reason is, because they have so little hold of the faithfulness or the purposes of God. For it is a real trial of faith to a devout mind, when one part of the truth of God appears to clash with another. There cannot be any real discord; all must be in perfect keeping and harmony. But we are not always able to understand how the different parts of truth hang together. While thus ignorant, we ought to wait in faith, neither doubting on the one hand nor indifferent on the other.

Let us for a moment seek to put ourselves in the position of the Jewish believers, who inherited the thoughts and feelings and prejudices of the Old Testament saints. And let such an one have words of this kind clearly pressed upon him — one body, neither Jew nor Gentile, the enmity slain, the middle wall of partition broken down. What a truth for a Jew! How extraordinary that God should destroy that which He had been building up, and had so long sanctioned; that God who had formed and insisted on the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, on peril even of death to those slighting them — that He Himself should reduce them to nothing, and bring in what is totally different from and irreconcileable with the old order! No wonder all this should be a difficulty, if put together as the mind of God for the same time. But there is a key to the whole enigma. They are not instituted of God contemporaneously. Hence all the difficulty amounts to, is, that God, who at one time ordained the distinction between Israel and the Gentiles, is pleased now for a season to abolish it and to bring in an entirely new thing. Now the early part of Ephesians 3 is devoted to the explaining of this special part of the mystery of Christ, whereby the Gentiles are brought forward and put upon exactly the same level with the believing Jews who now received Christ, so that in this world they form one and the same body. But the more that a man adhered to the truth of the law and prophets, the more insuperably hard this was, because the Old Testament never speaks of such a state of things. In fact, for a person who only knew the ancient Hebrew revelations, it was a wrench without precedent, and that for which he must have been altogether unprepared. There was the difficulty of apparently going contrary to the plain word of God. This it is, accordingly, that the Holy Ghost here removes out of the way. And first of all, observe the wisdom of God in laying an admirable foundation for the bringing in of the new doctrine. We have seen the counsels of God from all eternity centring in Christ, and embracing the glorious thought of souls gathered out from this world to be the sharers of the same love and glory in which Christ is now found in the presence of God. (Eph. 1) Next, we had the means employed to meet souls in their ruined state upon earth; this we had in Ephesians 2. And now in Ephesians 3 we have a digression for the purpose of explaining fully the nature of this part of the mystery in special relation to Gentiles.

We must, however, guard against the notion that "the mystery" or secret means the gospel. The gospel in itself does not and never can mean a mystery. It was that which in its foundations always was before the mind of God's people in the form of promise, or of a revelation of grace not yet accomplished. But nowhere in Scripture is the gospel called a mystery. It may be connected with the mystery, but it is not itself a mystery. It was no mystery that a Saviour was to be given; it was the very first revelation of grace after man became a sinner. The Seed of the woman was to bruise the serpent's head. A mystery is something that was not revealed of old, and which could not be known otherwise. Again, you have in the prophets a full declaration that the righteousness of God was near to come; the plainest possible statement that God was going to show Himself a Saviour-God. So again you have His making an end of sins and bringing in reconciliation and everlasting righteousness. All these things were in no sense the mystery. The mystery means that which was kept secret, not that which could not be understood, which is a human notion of mystery; but an unrevealed secret, — a secret not yet divulged in the Old Testament but brought out fully in the New. What, then, is this mystery? It is, first, that Christ, instead of taking the kingdom, predicted by the prophets, should completely disappear from the scene of this world, and that God should set Him up in heaven at His own right hand as the Head of all glory, heavenly and earthly, and that He should give the whole universe into the hands of Christ to administer the kingdom and maintain the glory of God the Father in it. This is the first and most essential part of the mystery, the second, or Church's part, being but the consequence of it. Christ's universal headship is not the theme spoken of in the Old Testament. You have Him as Son of David, Son of man, Son of God, the King; but nowhere is the whole universe of God (but rather the kingdom under the whole heavens) put under Him. In this headship over all things, Christ will share all with His bride. Christ will have His Church the partner of His own unlimited dominion, when that day of glory dawns upon the world.

Hence, then, as we know, the mystery consists of two great parts, which we have summed up in Ephesians 5: 32; "This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Thus the mystery means neither Christ nor the Church alone, but Christ and the Church united in heavenly blessedness and dominion over everything that God has made. Hence, as we saw from Ephesians 1, when He was raised from the dead, God set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, "and put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the church." It is not said, "over the church," which would overthrow, not teach, the mystery. He will be over Israel and over the Gentiles, but nowhere is He said to reign over the Church. The Church is His body. I admit it is a figure, but a figure that conveys an intense degree of intimacy, full of the richest comfort and the most exalted hope. The saints who are now being called are to share all things along with Christ in that day of glory. Hence it becomes of the greatest interest to know what the nature of the Church is. When did its calling begin, and what is the character of that calling, what the responsibilities that flow from it?

The Epistle to the Ephesians is the capital seat of the doctrine of the Church; and if the Spirit of God here departs from the current of the doctrine, it is to give us a view of what was one of the chief difficulties connected with it; viz., the Gentile believers being brought with believing Jews into the unity of Christ's body. A Jewish mind would not feel it so strange that God should bless a Gentile; but he would suppose that the blessing must be inferior to that of a Jew — that a higher place must be reserved for Israel and a lower one for the Gentile. The doctrine now brought out overturns all this. To a mind bred in Old Testament thought it was the apparent undermining of the plain word of God. How was so natural and strong an objection to be removed? It was a new thing for heaven, during Israel's rejection for the earth. Further, it is from not understanding "the mystery," and what the Church really is, that the Popish or antichurch system has sprung up. But not only so: Protestants too have departed from the word of God on this subject through unbelief of our heavenly relationship to Christ and through love of the world — love of present honour and worldly greatness. They have not the faith and patience to wait for the day of Christ. A Christian is called upon to suffer now, to be cast out as evil, waiting to be glorified with Christ — not merely by Christ, but with Christ, to be with Christ Himself where He is. This supposes our place "without the camp," i.e., every form of worldly religion. Does not the world now take the place of being the Church of God? This is the part of Babylon; and though the strongest expression, and the centre, if you will, of Babylon be found in Popery, that system of confusion is not confined to Rome. We do well to come nearer home, to examine what we are about ourselves, to look whether we be not drawn away into a grave misunderstanding of what God has saved us for. Do Christians generally realize that they are saved at all? Are they simply, thoroughly, abidingly happy in the consciousness of God's salvation? Look at the hymns that are sung — think of the prayers that are offered. They are the aspirations of anxious, uneasy souls, who call themselves miserable sinners, because they have no conscious possession of the blessing, but only desires after it. Is it possible that it comes to this, that souls count it humility to doubt God? that it is a becoming and boasted part of the worship of God to express the misery and the bondage of redeemed souls on the day which proclaims that their sins are blotted out and their peace made? Where, in all this, is the simple, hearty rest in the knowledge of redemption as a completed thing? of sins being entirely done with for the Christian, as far as regards the judgment of God? Assuredly there remains always the need of our acknowledging our sins, and of judging ourselves; but this is quite another kind of judgment and of confession, the confession of souls which blame themselves so much the more because they have not a doubt that they are sons of God — hearts which are perfectly at peace and which express their happiness in songs of praise and thanksgiving to the God who has for ever saved them.

Upon the foundation of salvation as a complete thing, the Holy Ghost leads on to the understanding of the Church. If you do not know and rest in Christ's redemption as accomplished, yea, and accepted for us of God, you cannot have a single true idea of the Church. This shows the exceeding wisdom of the Spirit of God in bringing in the doctrine of the Church here, after all question of salvation has been fully met and settled. "For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles." He was a sufferer even to bonds for the sake of the Gentiles. Wherever a person takes his place truly as a member of the body of Christ, how can he have honour, or escape reproach and trial in the world? The proper home of the Church is in heaven; but on earth he who brought out this blessed truth is content to be a prisoner. "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." Dispensation here means "administration" or "stewardship" — that for which he was held responsible to God. The Apostle Paul was the instrument chosen of God for bringing out the nature, calling, character, and hopes of the Church. Mark the ways of God. He would not develop it among the Jews, nor would He reveal it by Peter or James. It was revealed to them no doubt, but not by them. The Apostle Paul was the only one of the inspired writers by whom God made it known. Hence if there were the smallest truth in apostolic succession, Paul ought to be the root or channel through whom the succession comes, and not Peter, who was expressly an apostle of the circumcision. Paul's apostleship was directly from the Lord and with the uncircumcision as its sphere. He was the grand witness that all true ministry must be direct from Christ. The Lord may work by means. He may call a person to preach, and there may be persons whose gift is developed by means of teaching. The same apostle who derived his gift from the Lord, and who insisted upon it so strongly, used to teach others. He communicated the truth to Timothy, who again was enjoined to teach others that which he had himself received. The Lord works by those who understand the truth well, to communicate the truth to those who understand it less. But still the principle remains, that all gift is immediately from Christ, and not derivative from man. There were outward and local appointments, such as elders and deacons; but that was another thing altogether. The elder might teach or not, and might do so formally and publicly, if he were a teacher; but his eldership was purely a certain charge communicated by the authority of the apostles, distinct from the question of gift. I only refer to the underived character of gift properly so called, which the Spirit distributes in the Church. It comes immediately from Christ on high (Eph. 4), and not through a human channel, save in an exceptional and miraculous instance, as when the apostle laid hands on Timothy and imparted a χαρισμα to him according to prophecy.

In this further statement the Apostle Paul says, "By revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in a few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.)" He had touched upon it in Ephesians 2, but now he is entering upon it more fully. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men." Here you have a positive statement that the secret was a something not revealed in other ages — not that it was obscurely intimated or badly understood, but it was not revealed at all. It was a secret kept hid, as the apostle lets us know in Romans 16. "Now to him that is of power to stablish you . . . . . according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest." It was only now divulged. It was not that the thing had been predicted by the prophets, and only now laid hold of by faith. In truth it was now made manifest, now published and taught; it never had been before. "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." There is no doubt that the "scriptures of the prophets," alluded to here, are New Testament scriptures. It is, properly speaking, "by prophetic scriptures," not referring to Old Testament prophets at all; and for this reason — "Now is made manifest, and by prophetic scriptures . . . . . made known to all nations." Had the meaning been Old Testament prophets, what could have been more extraordinary than such an expression? He might have said, It was revealed to the prophets, but now it is understood. But he says, It is now made manifest. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." There were inspired men, not apostles, who were prophets. To both of these it was now revealed; but we cannot say that "prophetic scriptures" in Romans 16 extend beyond the writings of Paul, which develop this blessed secret of God. The unfolding of the Church ensued when the Holy Ghost was given after a new manner. "The Holy Ghost was not yet [given] because that Jesus was not yet glorified." The Holy Ghost had wrought before, but He was to be poured out personally; and this is identified with the calling of the Church. At Pentecost, for the first time, we have an assembly that is called the Church of God. "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." There we find what is called the Church, or the assembly: a body where God intended to have Jew and Gentile without distinction; which state of things never existed before the day of Pentecost. And now we have Jews and Gentiles brought into this new order, new to both of them, to which the former revelations of God no longer applied as a direct description of their privileges.

And here let me warn you to beware of so taking the Scriptures as if everything God says there is about you and me and the Church. The Church is, comparatively, a new thing in the earth; it is exclusively a New Testament subject. If I said that saints were thus new, it were false; but if you say that the Church embraces Old Testament saints, you neglect and oppose the word of God, which confines the Church of God to that which began with Christ set at the right hand of God, and the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven to baptize all who now believe into this one body. What is meant by "the church?" The assembly of souls gathered by the knowledge of Christ dead and risen, and by the Holy Ghost united to Christ, as the glorified man at God's right hand. Such a state of things did not exist before Pentecost. There was no redemption accomplished before the cross. Christ stands alone as Son of God from all eternity — a divine person equal with the Father. But He became man in order to die for men upon the cross; and risen from the dead, He enters upon His new place of headship to the Church, His body; the Bridegroom of the Bride. Atonement has been made and sin put away by the sacrifice of Himself; and there could be no such thing as becoming a member of the body of Christ till this was accomplished. The Church is founded upon the remission of sins by the blood of Christ already shed, and consists of those that are united with Christ to share all His glory, save that which is essentially and eternally His own as only-begotten Son of the Father.

Then comes in this especial part of the mystery — "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." The promises of God to Abraham, and this promise of God in Christ, are two things not only different but contrasted. For if I look at the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12, "I will make of thee a great nation," is this the Church's expectation? When Christians become great in the earth, it is when they have slipped out of their proper blessing in fellowship with Christ; but when Israel is made a great nation in the true sense of the word, they will be blessed and a blessing as they never were before. The promise was given to Abraham, and will be accomplished in his seed on earth by and by. "I will make of thee a great nation . . . . . and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Here you have room left for the going out of blessing to the Gentiles; but, mark, they are to be blessed in Abraham, and afterwards in his seed. In Genesis 22, the promise is renewed to Isaac; and this is what is referred to in Hebrews. "By myself I have sworn, saith the Lord. . . . . . That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Is this what we are looking for? I trow not. We want to be in heaven with Christ, and we shall be there through His love and the favour of our God. But Israel is to possess the gate of his enemies, and to be exalted above all people of the earth. In the Psalms we have a sort of commentary upon these expectations of the godly in Israel. Thus in Psalm 67 we have the prayer, "God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause His face to shine upon us (Selah); that thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations." The preliminary of the blessing to other nations is the answer to Israel's cry, "God be merciful unto us and bless us." All hope for the world as such depends upon the blessing of the Jews.

It is not so as to the Church, which God is now calling out. Its blessing does not hinge on the promises or the blessing of any people. Hence these Psalms do not apply; yet persons persist in diverting them to present circumstances. No wonder that they are bewildered. The fault is in their perversion of the word of God. "Let the people praise thee, O God; yea, let all the people praise thee." Now it extends to others. "O let the nations be glad and sing for joy; for thou shalt judge the people righteously and govern the nations upon earth." When that day dawns, instead of the groaning and travailing which as yet prevails, "Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us." Anything like this is very far from being the case now. It is the millennial state that is expected here, when the power of God will be put forth triumphantly, and God will acknowledge His people Israel, and other nations will be blessed in them. Now the Gentiles are "fellow-heirs and of the same body." Fellow-heirs with whom? With Christ, and with all who are in Christ. Whether Jews or Gentiles, they are fellow-heirs. Grace has put them on common ground. It is not now the Jews set on the pinnacle of the earth's blessing. On the contrary, as a nation they are dispersed, and God is judging them, not showing mercy: there is a complete obliterating of the old landmarks. And for this reason: the Jewish people were the real leaders in the world's enmity against Christ, and in the crucifying of their own Messiah. The cross of Christ terminated the distinctions between Jew and Gentile; and, founded upon that cross, God is building the Church. The vilest sinners upon the face of the earth, whether Jew or Gentile, God takes up; and, out of their condition of sin and distance from God, He puts them all upon one common heavenly level as members of the body of Christ. This is what God is doing now, and it is of immense importance to understand it, in order to enjoy fellowship with His ways. Besides, the whole Bible becomes practically a new and yet more precious book when this is understood. Truth cannot admit of compromise, however rightly we may seek to be patient; the revealed mind of God necessarily excludes the notion of people having their own private judgment. Neither you nor I have a right to an opinion on matters of faith. God is the only one entitled to speak on these things; and He has spoken so plainly that it is our sin if we do not hear Him. But you cannot sever truth from the spiritual affections. Hence, if people do not carry out the truth of the Church practically, they lose it, and become bitter against it. God's mind about the Church always brings him who knows it into the world's enmity, and the special enmity of Christians who do not understand it. It was so with St. Paul pre-eminently, and it has been the same tale ever since, as souls have laid hold of his testimony; and so it must be. The doctrine that Paul held, if taught by the Spirit of God, never can admit of a party, because the very centre of it is Christ in heaven.

The apostle goes on with his statement; and this is the particular phase of the mystery that he brings out here — "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel; whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power." What is the effect of this truth? The most humbling possible. "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ." It brings out the value of Christ as nothing else does. He adds further, "And to make all men see what is the administration [not, fellowship] of the mystery." He shows thus, that besides the aspect of the mystery towards the saints, it has also its application to all men, without distinction — to those outside the Church. Persons who preach the gospel necessarily preach Christ; but there are few who understand the character of the grace which unites the soul with Christ in the relationship of members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. This was a main part of Paul's work. Therefore he adds, administration of the mystery, "which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." Mark, it is not hid in the Scriptures, but "hid in God." "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."

Let us consider what a wonderful place this is — that God is now making known a new kind of wisdom to the angels above by His dealings with us; and, by us, I mean all the saints of God now on earth. For let them be called by whatsoever name, every saint of God is a member of the body of Christ. All belong truly and equally to the Church of God. One cannot but sorrow that so few understand or care what the Church of God is, and to act upon it. We ought to know what God intends, and how He intends His Church to walk. Christ is equally possessed by all; but all do not equally understand what the will of God about His Church is; how He would have us to worship Him, and to act upon His word together; how to help one another to carry out this glorious truth — God is manifesting by the Church His varied wisdom. Are we walking so according to the will of God for His Church, that He can point to us as a lesson to the angels of God? Such, and no less than this, is God's intention. You cannot, surely, get rid of the responsibility connected with it, by refusing to act according to it! It is not by and by, when we reach heaven, that God will manifest by the Church His manifold wisdom to the heavenly hosts; but now on earth while the members of the Church are being called. "That now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God." Does not this bring in serious considerations? It is not a question of what men think about us, and whether we are loved or disliked here below. Very sure I am, that if we are walking according to Christ, we never can be anything but hated by the world; and it shows that we value the world if we wish otherwise. It is a most painful thing to feel that so it must be; but if I believe Christ, I must believe this, and I ought to rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer in the least degree. But besides this, the Church is called to be the lesson-book for the angels of God. When we think that God is overlooking with the angels that surround Him; that He is occupied with such objects as we are; that He sees in them the dearest objects of His affections; that He has given them Christ to be their life; and sent down the Holy Ghost, that blessed person of the Trinity, to take up His dwelling-place in them, and make them to be His temple, while they are in this world, what a calling it is! If an angel wants to know where His great love is, he must look down into this world and see it thus. You cannot sever Christ from the Church. But the wonderful thing is, that, before the angels of God, the astonishing conflict is going on — Satan and all his hosts endeavouring to mislead them by putting them on a false ground, preaching righteousness in a thousand forms, in order to lead them away from grace and from the cross of Christ. On the other hand, there you have God working by His word and Spirit to bring His people to a consciousness of their privileges. But whether the children of God are faithful or not, perfect love dwells upon them and acts toward them (it may be in discipline); God is occupied with them, caring for them, always keeping this before His mind, that He will have them perfectly like Christ. Nothing can cloud this. Weakness may for a time dishonour the Lord, and destroy our own comfort, and help on the delusion of the world. All that may be; but the purpose of God, it shall stand; what God has spoken must be accomplished. Our weakness may be manifested, but God in His mighty love will complete His purpose. And this is the way in which He is teaching the principalities and powers in heavenly places a new kind of wisdom, that never was seen before in this world. They had seen God's ways in creation and at the deluge, and in Israel. But here was something that not even the Scriptures of God hinted, that was not promised to man — a thing entirely kept secret between the Father and the Son.

Now it is come out. The Holy Ghost is the One who develops and makes good this glorious truth of the Church of God. How far have our souls entered into it? How far do we content ourselves with vague guesses at it, thinking that it is of no great importance? Willing ignorance of this truth arises from a secret love of the world. There is the feeling in him who declines it, that you cannot take it up in heart and walk with the world. You must thoroughly break with everything that the flesh values under the sun. You have a place above the sun with Christ, and the consequence is that you are called on to submit to the sentence of death on everything here, to glorify the name of Christ and rejoice in Him, whatever may be the will of God about us. For no circumstances shut us out from the responsibility of being the witnesses of a glory that is above this world. The world ought to see in the Church the reflection of Christ. You may find a monk or a nun sweet morally, but all this may be mere nature and not Christ. I do not say that Christ may not be there too, in isolated cases, spite of an outrageously wicked system. To faith, however, it is a question of doing the will of God and of glorifying Christ in the place of earthly reproach. God looks for the confession of the name of His Son at cost of all dear to us. If the world heed it not, is it in vain for the principalities and powers in heavenly places?

On the closing verse or two of the portion just before us, I did not comment. A few words now, therefore, on verses 12, 13. The apostle having alluded to Christ as the One in whom, exalted on high, the eternal purpose of God has now been revealed by the Spirit, adds, that in that same person "we have boldness and access, with confidence by the faith of him. Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory." Now it is very sweet to find how, even in so vast a subject as that which was occupying his heart and which he was desiring to press upon the saints, he can link on with the highest and deepest counsels of God the very simplest of the fundamental truths on which the believer rests. This is most instructive: because while, on the one hand, we saw before now that it is quite in vain to enter into the nature of the Church without having a simple, clear, and full understanding of the peace which Christ has made and which He is for us in the presence of God; on the other hand, when we do seize in any measure the character of the Church, when we see the astonishing privileges which are ours as being made one with Christ, we regard with a more intense enjoyment the first elements, and we realize the amazing stability of the foundations on which our souls are privileged to stand. Thus one sees God would take care that peace of conscience, and of the heart too, should be kept up practically. There is nothing that is merely given for the wonder of our minds. I do not say that there is not endless matter for admiration or that there is not an infinity to learn; but every step, and indeed the highest attainment of the knowledge of God's purposes in Christ, is intimately linked with the confidence of our souls in His love. So that while we cannot apprehend aright the nature of the Church until we have known simple peace with God, when we do enter into it, that peace is brightened in the heavenly light of the privileges into which the Holy Ghost has been leading our souls. We come back with renewed understanding and deeper enjoyment of the boundless grace which is ours in Christ. Hence it is that having ushered us into this wonderful expanse of God's love and purposes, he for a moment glances at certain practical consequences in us. "In whom," says he, "we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him." It is not only peace, but "we have boldness," which refers more particularly to our speech in addressing God; being able, as it were, to say anything to Him, because of our confidence in His love. And "access with confidence," which is not merely what we utter, but the drawing near to Him, even where there may be no positive going forth of heart in the way of formal prayer; but there is the enjoyment of nearness, "access with confidence by the faith of him." "Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory." Here is another practical fruit of this blessed truth. We saw before how he introduces the unfolding of the Church along with the fact that he was a prisoner of Jesus Christ. At the very moment when he was under the hand of the power of this world, and with the possibility of death before him, the Lord is pleased to bring out through the apostle the glorious calling of the Church. And he reminds them of this again. They might have been cast down at his sufferings. He says, on the contrary, you should not faint; tribulation ought to be rather that which would exercise and strengthen your faith. In 2 Corinthians 1 the apostle speaks of being pressed out of measure, above strength, so that he despaired even of life. But when the Corinthians needed comfort, he had it from God and was able to give it out to them. Now he was under the world's power and in prison, and there God unfolds the glory of the Church. They would, no doubt, be called to suffer too, and would have to know what tribulation was. So that the apostle, in the fulness of his own enjoyment of the truth which enabled him to rejoice even in his sufferings, calls upon them not to faint. So entirely has the Spirit of God united together the saints, not only with Christ, but also with one another, that what Paul was suffering was their glory, not his only. They had a common interest in it as being members of the same body.

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." (Ver. 14-16.) Here we are on perceptibly different ground, and I may say, higher than that of Ephesians 1. It is one of the two great relationships in which God stands to Christ, and, consequently, to us. For God now acts toward Christ, in view not merely of His person, but of His work. The consequence is that the work efficaciously puts us in the same place before God which belongs to Christ as man, yea, to Christ as man risen from the dead and in heaven. I carefully guard against saying all that Christ is, for this would not be true. We never can share what pertains to Him as the Son of the Father, from all eternity. It were impossible: the very conception of it would be irreverent. No creature can overpass the bounds which separate him from God, neither would a renewed creature desire it. For in truth it is the joy of the most exalted creature to pay the lowliest homage to Him who is above him. Therefore I have little doubt that, in heaven among the angels of God, the highest is he who shows the deepest reverence. So, in earthly things, it is plainly the duty of every one to mark respect to the sovereign; but the one who has the place next to the sovereign has the largest opportunities and the strongest obligation to prove what the sovereign is in his eyes. So with us now in things spiritual.

In this portion, then, we have the second of the two great titles of God in relation to Christ and to us. It is not here, as in Ephesians 1, the God, but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The God of Christ brings out Christ more as the glorious man, which He is — the glorified man in God's presence, the centre of all the counsels of God's power, who is even now exalted in the highest seat in heaven, and all things put under His feet. But it is plain that Christ has that which He values more than all that is set under His dominion — the love and delight of His Father in Him. Even our hearts are capable of understanding and enjoying this in the Holy Spirit. Indeed the time comes in most men's history, even where the world has counted them greatest and happiest, when they find a void that nothing can satisfy. But in Christ's case glory will not be the withering plant that human handling makes it. We know that in His hands it will be equally bright and holy, because God will be the object of it all; and everything, consequently, will be turned to His praise; as it is said, "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." But then no possession of the universe, no expulsion of evil, no righteous judgment, no blessed control of every creature to the glory of God, could possibly satisfy the heart. There will be the salt of the everlasting covenant of God in it: the constant maintenance of God's will and glory will be felt. But there is something sweeter than any power, let it be ever so glorious or howsoever administered; and this we have here. It is the Father's love which is above all. The effect of the first prayer is, that you look down upon the immense scene that is put under Christ; and it is intended of God that you should. But the effect of the second is rather, you look up in the enjoyment of the love that is the secret of the glory, the glory being the effect and fruit of the love, and that which evidences what the love must have been, that has given such glory. But blessed as glory is, the love that gives the glory is still deeper and better. And hence when our Lord in John 17 prays for the saints — when He says, "The glory which thou gavest me, I have given them," what is it for? "That the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." This is the object of it. All are made perfect in one in that glory; but the end of this manifestation of glory is that the world may know how much the Father loved them. Thus, the glory that is seen, blessed as it must be, is not the end of everything. There was love before there was glory. And while I would not assert that there will be love after there is glory, still I do say that what produces, gives, and maintains the glory, is better than the glory itself. Ay, and there is nothing in all the thoughts of God more wondrous than that God can love such as we are with the same love wherewith He loves His Son. And He does so love us; I know it for myself, and dishonour His word if I do not know it. If He says it, is it not that I may believe it and take it home to my heart, and enjoy it now in this world? — that I may use it as my constant buckler against everything that flesh, or world, or Satan can insinuate against me? He loves us as He loved Him. Do not say it is too high a thought. I know nothing so humiliating — that so convicts us of being nothing — as this that, so loved, we should so little feel it; that, so loved, we should so feebly return it; that, so loved, we should yield to the cares, the vanities, the thoughts, the pursuits, anything, in short, that is not according to such love. It is the delight and, if we may so say, the desire of God that those who are His should enter into the greatness of His love. For no glory, nor sense of it, nor confidence in it, nor waiting for it, ought to be enough even for such hearts as ours. It is a wonderful thing to think that we are to share the glory of Christ: but more so that we have the same love. The same God who gives us the glory of Christ, will have our souls enter even now by the Holy Ghost into the community of the same love; and such is the grand central thought of this prayer: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The Father of Christ is that relationship which brings out the love, just as the kingdom of Christ is connected with His conferred or human glory. In the one case it is what He is going to do for us. If we think what He did for Adam, what His purpose was about man, what will He not do for the last Adam, even Christ? And all that He does for Him as this blessed, glorious man, He will share with us. But more than this. The love that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bears to Him, He bears also to us. We know how He expressed it when His Son was here — at what striking moments He brought out His love — how jealous He was lest man should suppose that He was indifferent to His beloved Son. Suffering allowed is no proof that He does not love; yea, rather, the contrary — it proves how much, not only He trusts our love, but how much also He would have us to trust His — confiding in Him, that, spite of all appearances, He loves us as He loves His Son. We may be exposed to all that Satan can array against us; but we are only in the same scene which the Son of His own love has trodden before us. But when men might have thought from this or that, that Jesus was no more than any other man, see how God vindicates Him. Thus, it was not only that John the Baptist tried to hinder the Lord Jesus from being baptized, as if He needed to confess anything — for that baptism was a confession of sins; and therefore did John show his astonishment that there should be even the appearance of confession on the part of such an one as Jesus. But God had deeper thoughts, and allows that there should be that which unbelief might torture into the insinuation of evil, but which faith lays hold of, and for which we only adore Him and the Lamb yet more. So it was that the Father, when His beloved Son rose out of the Jordan, where all others were confessing unrighteousness — where He was fulfilling all righteousness — where He who had no unrighteousness to confess, still would not be severed from those who were doing that which became their unrighteousness, who were owning the God whose rights had been forgotten — when, in sympathy with the holy feeling that led them there, He would be with them there: then it was that the Father declared, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It was just at the right moment, and with the fullest wisdom; but with what love the Father uttered these words! He that served Him as He never was served before — He that glorified Him as God never had been glorified on this earth — He that finished the work which God had given Him to do — was God likely to betray the smallest turning aside of His heart from Him? But yet we know that at the moment when He most of all needed it, when all else was against Him, then, crowning all, God forsook Him. If sin was to be judged and put away for ever, it must be judged in all its reality. There must be no sparing, nor mitigating the wrath of God about sin. The whole judgment of God fell upon Him. The work was done: sin was put away by the sacrifice of Himself.

And now all the love which the Father had towards this Blessed One can flow out to us on the ground of that work. It is there that the apostle puts us, brought into the place of sons with the Father; and he bows his knee to the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom every family in heaven and earth is named." The expression "the whole family" is jumbled up with people's notions about the Church, as if part were supposed to be in heaven and part on earth. But the real force is "every family." There is no reference to the unity of the Church here. On the contrary, he means that when we look at the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, we rise sufficiently high to take in every class of creatures that God has made. Supposing you look at God as He made Himself known of old, it was as Jehovah to Israel. Does every family in heaven and earth come under this title? Not a single family in heaven, and only one family on earth. Under the title of Jehovah there is a separate relationship in which God reveals Himself to the Jews. He was their God in a sense in which He was not the God of any other people. As Creator, He is the God of all; and thus in some scriptures the term "God" is used, not Jehovah, because of a certain dealing with Gentiles. But where it concerns the ancient people of God, he uses the term Jehovah. Nay, in the second book of Psalms, when the Holy Ghost is contemplating the godly Jew cleaving to God far from His temple, we have not Jehovah prominent, but "God;" for they are not able to enjoy what is specially given to Israel. He never will cease to be God; and they find their blessing in this — come what may — God cannot deny Himself. They are outside the special place in which He had promised to bless them; but God was God everywhere. So that, if they were cast out of the Holy Land, and could not go up to the temple to worship according to the law, God could never cease to be God. It is the very same principle of grace that Christ was bringing down the poor Syrophenician woman to; for we must always come to our true position; and the same thing in substance is verified in every real conversion. I must always be brought down to the truth of what I am, as well as receive the truth of what God is; and then there is no limit to the blessing.

I have just referred to this, by the way, for the purpose of illustrating by contrast the phrase "every family in heaven and in earth." When God was revealing Himself in special relationship with Israel, it was as Jehovah. In Daniel we hear not of Jehovah, but the God of heaven, clearly in contradistinction to God revealing Himself on the earth to a certain people to which He gave a peculiar land and privileges that no other nation shared along with them. They go after false gods: He takes His place in heaven, and falls back upon what never could be denied, and as "the God of heaven" He says, I will choose now whom I will; I will take the very worst people in the whole world, and will give them the empire of the earth. So He chose the enemy of the Jew — the Babylonians. If God is acting thus sovereignly, as the God of heaven, the vilest may have the power here below. But "there is a God that judgeth the earth;" and when the day comes to verify this, it will be in the midst of His people as Jehovah. Looked at in this way, He has only one family that stands in covenant relationship to Himself: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth." But here we have the contrast. He is revealed not merely as Jehovah, having Israel, His people, upon earth, but as "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The moment He speaks in such a relationship as this, it is expressly in association with One who made everything, as was said before, "who created all things by Jesus Christ." All creatures therefore come into view, and find their due place with Him as the Father, because the Lord Jesus is He who formed all, and for whose glory all was made. Hence all families in heaven and in earth, let them be principalities and powers, angels, Jews or Gentiles, as well as the Church of God — all come under "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The title of Jehovah is restricted to a particular race: the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is unlimited in its range and brings in every class of beings that God has made.

This puts the Church in a most remarkable position, taking us away from all that is local or temporary. We ourselves may have the most special place within this display of divine glory, but still we have to do with a God and Father who is the proclaimed and supreme source of everything else. We may be, we are, if we understand the calling of the Church, near to Him, in a place that none can share, a nearness that no angel enjoys. I mean by "we," all the members of the Church of God. We have by grace a place of association with Christ before God, which none others enter. But as He is revealing Himself in connection with Christ as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, so He brings in other classes of beings that He has made for the purpose of His giving blessing in their suited measure. He has brought out the heir and centre of all His purposes, and there is not a single class of beings that He has made for His praise, but what are put in their proper place before the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is in contrast with the peculiarity of the Jew as being the sole possessor of the privileges God gave to them as Jehovah. The Father is Jehovah, and so is Jesus; but it is not thus that we have to do with Him; nor is this our intelligent character of address to Him. It is to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ that the apostle is here bending his knees. And we ought to be conscious that we are drawing near to Him in the full nearness that such a title implies. He takes within His eye and heart all the creation as that which He means to bless with Christ. But there are those that have rejected Christ; and, remember, God's very same love of Christ which means to bless the creation through Christ, will maintain His glory against those who despise Him. This is a solemn truth. There is nothing more intolerant of evil than love, and the gospel of God has, as its background, the eternal condemnation of every soul that despises Jesus, the Son of God. It must be so. The same disciple that was the favoured one of God to bring out love as none other had done, is the one who brings out the eternal death of those who refuse His love. The revelation, therefore, of the endless ruin of those that despise Christ, is in the closest possible connection with the love that brings out the everlasting blessedness of those that cleave to Him. Thus we have this universality brought in, "Of whom the every family in heaven and earth is named."

But there are, by grace, those who will have that which is most peculiar, which in nearest to His heart in the midst of this scene of love and glory. For these the prayer is, "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; being rooted and grounded in love, that ye may be fully able to apprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height." The prayer in chapter 1 was for a deep and real apprehension of their standing before God; here it is rather for practical, inward power by the Holy Ghost. That was that they might know better their place in Christ, as to the call of grace and the inheritance of glory; this is that Christ might have His place in their hearts by faith. In a word, it is here a question of actual state, of the affections having Christ within, of being rooted and grounded in love, that they might be thoroughly able (for so it means) to apprehend that which is indeed measureless. The apostle does not say of what — he leaves you there without any ending to the sentence. He brings you into infinity. I do not believe that it means the breadth, length, depth, and height of the love of Christ. The passage is often quoted so, and oftener so understood; but the "and" of the next verse indicates another sense distinctly: — "And to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge." The love of Christ is evidently an additional thought. What then is the meaning? If it were not too bold to fill up an outline which the apostle has left thus vaguely, I might venture to think that what he puts before us here, with such singular marks of undefined grandeur, is the mystery of which he had been speaking, and assuredly not Christ's love, which he immediately adjoins. He had shown how every family in heaven and earth is ranged under Him who is the Father of the Lord Jesus. In connection with this he prays, that they might be able to apprehend with all saints "what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height." It is in relation to the heavenly counsel of God the Father, once a secret, but now disclosed. All things were for the glory of His Son — the whole creation, heavenly and earthly; and the saints are to have the very highest place with Him over it all.

But there was something still deeper than this, and which needed to be known along with it. Therefore he adds, "And to know the love of Christ which surpasseth knowledge, that ye might be filled to all the fulness of God." Glorious as all these prospects are, what can compare with His love? The best wine is kept to the last. "To know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge." It may seem to be a paradox to say so, but a blessed one. He does not mean that we shall ever know it perfectly. But there may be the knowing more and more of that which surpasses knowledge. He supposes us launched upon that sea where there is no shore: we can never reach the end of His love. Yet he speaks of knowing the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ; "that ye might be filled to all the fulness of God." You could no more get to the end of the love, than you could get to the end of God Himself. Nothing can be more wonderful than such a desire for us, feeble creatures as we are, "that ye might be filled to all the fulness of God." And yet it is for the saints now that the apostle thus prayed; not that we might know ourselves to be Christ's body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all, but practically enlarged entrance by the power of the Spirit into God's fulness. It is the heart's condition, and real growth in communion with God that is before us here; and this most appropriately after the standing has been treated, and before the exhortations as to walk and conduct.

Hence further, "Now unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think." He does not say, above all that we can ask or think. The Holy Ghost takes particular care not to say so. There is some difference to be remarked between what we do and what we can ask and think. There is no limit to what we may ask, save that God is above anything that can be asked of Him; yet He loves to hear us asking more and more. He would exercise us in asking more abundantly.

Thus there is dependence on God, "according to the power that worketh in us." Whose power is this? It is God's, who Himself dwells in every Christian. It is God Himself who makes every saint now, every Christian, to be His temple. Therefore, however poor and weak the believer may be, looked as he is, yet what cannot God make such an one to be? He is the temple of God. God will always be above him, higher than any man's expectations of His love; but it is taken into account that there is a power which now works in us, as well as a power which has wrought for us, to which we can set no limits. As to the power that wrought for us, we see it in Ephesians 1. This was the power which raised up Christ from the dead. Yes, it is the same power that wrought to usward, that has raised us up from our death, and that raised up Christ from the dead. But now He goes farther, and points to the power that works in us to give us entrance into His love and God's fulness. Do we remember that this is precisely the thing in which we most fail? For there is many a soul constantly proving how little it thinks of this power; how apt it is to be murmuring, and tried by the very things which, if it only had the sense of His love, it would bless Him for. "To him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." In what a special point of view the Church appears! He intimates that there will never be a time when the Church will not have its own peculiar place. But it is not only true that the saints ought to have a wonderful introduction into the love of Christ and the fulness of God, by His power that works in us now; but it would appear also that there never will be a time, in all the ages to come, when there will not be an unique and blessed character of relationship between the Church as such and God Himself — the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is confirmed by the beautiful scene in Revelation 21, where we have no longer nations and kings, but God with men. There it is not said simply, "Behold, God is come to dwell with men," but His tabernacle. It is not only that God then deigns to dwell with men, but "the tabernacle of God is with men." It seems exactly the same thing that is here called the Church. God, dwelling in the Church, will take up His place with men; so that the peculiar dwelling-place of God in the Church will continue, even when the scene is an eternal one. Thus, when the heavens and earth have passed away, after the great white throne, and when all the saints will be in their resurrection bodies, then not only will God be in face of men, but "the tabernacle of God" will come down to be with men — God dwelling with them in His own tabernacle, which tabernacle can hardly but be that which is here called the Church. So that the Church, even in eternity, when all enemies and things shall be subdued, will enjoy the sweet and amazing privilege of being the home or dwelling-place of God. What manner of persons, then, ought we to be in holy conversation and godliness!

Thus there is dependence on God, but it is One who is able to bless us unlimitedly, "according to the power that worketh in us."

Ephesians 4 - 6.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Ephesians with a new translation.

Ephesians 4.

Before entering upon the subject of ministerial gifts, which is brought before us later on in the chapter, the Holy Ghost dwells upon the unity that belongs to the saints of God in Christ now. It was necessary that this should be laid down as a grand platform upon and in connection with which ministry takes its course. For ministry rather brings into prominence individual members of Christ and not so much the entire body. For although it is a common statement that the Church teaches, it is really and entirely unfounded. Indeed the notion leads to the pretence of infallibility; and this finds its most open expression in Romanism. The truth is, the Church never teaches, but, on the contrary, is the body that is taught. There is no such thing as a body that teaches. The Church, no doubt, contains within itself the husbandmen that are employed of the Lord; but itself is God's husbandry, or the scene on which God labours to produce fruit unto Himself. This is an important truth practically; because it destroys all pretension on the Church's part to create or even define doctrines. The Church is called to be the pillar and ground of the truth; it is bound to take care by holy discipline that nothing contrary to the truth should be tolerated within it: God's assembly cannot relieve itself from this responsibility. But while this attaches to the entire christian community, that it should be that body which on earth holds out the truth before men and within which we must come if the truth, having been believed, is to be acted on at all; yet the way in which God has been pleased to work for the spread of His truth upon consciences is by individual members of His Church who are qualified for this particular purpose. Power to teach depends upon the gift conferred by sovereign grace. It is no question of an abstract right that any man can teach or preach if he likes. There is no such license in the Church of God. The Lord Jesus has a right to call and to communicate power in the Holy Ghost as He pleases. The Church is not a society of men who hold particular views on this or that: still less is it the gathering into one of the world. It is the assembly of God, of those He calls and wherein He dwells. And as this is true with regard to the whole — that it all belongs to God — that it is God who forms, and guards it, and maintains His own holiness and glory in it, so is it in respect of ministry, which is one very important function that is maintained in particular members of the Church. That is, there is the unity which the believers now have in Christ Jesus by virtue of which there is the assembly of God — the common unity of blessing in which all believers now stand and which is the groundwork, if I may so say, of everything. But in connection with it you have ministry at work, which pertains to particular members rather than to the whole Church. The gifts are in and of some for the good of all.

This divides the earlier portion into two parts. In the opening verses, to the end of verse 6, we find rather the unity of the Spirit; from verse 7 the diversity of the members of Christ. First of all, observe that the Holy Ghost has brought us now to the ground of exhortation. We have doctrine in the first three chapters; now we come to practice. "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called." This vocation consists of two parts more particularly. First, the saints, all who know the Lord Jesus now, compose one body in Him; secondly, they are the habitation of God through the Spirit. Thus, although the assembly of God is a body existing upon earth, yet it is founded upon heavenly privileges, the body of Christ showing us our corporate blessedness, the habitation of God through the Spirit rather bringing before us our responsibility as having God dwelling in the midst of us. It is too clear that these two things are very feebly entered into even by true children of God. When they hear of the body of Christ, the idea is scarcely more than that they are forgiven, are children of God, and are going to heaven. How very little all this is a measure of what is implied in the body of Christ! Many true believers suppose it to mean the aggregate of those who are reconciled to God — the objects of His favour who are not left to die in their sins. But one might have all these privileges without any of the characteristic features of Christ's body, or God's habitation through the Spirit. It would have been quite possible, if God had been so pleased to order it, that Christians should have been children of God, conscious of their redemption, knowing their sonship, fully expecting to be glorified with Christ in heaven, and yet never have been joined together as one body in Christ, with God dwelling among them by a special presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. This was a superadded privilege over and above redemption through the blood of Christ. And this is so true, that if you search all the Old Testament through, you will find that never are the saints of God spoken of there as members of Christ's body, the habitation of God through the Spirit.

But more than that. The prophets are full of a glorious scene yet to be enacted on this earth, when the Lord will put down Satan's power. There is a time coming when evil will no longer be permitted to go unpunished, nor good to suffer here below; and when that day comes, Scripture is plain that although God will have a people for Himself upon earth, they will not be joined together as one body, nor will they form His habitation through the Spirit. It is between the two advents of Christ, between the grace which has appeared, and the glory which is going to appear (Titus 2: 11-13,) that we hear of the special vocation wherewith we are called. For let us consider what the body of Christ is — His body, of course, I mean, not as predicated of Himself personally, but as composed of and applied to those who believe in Christ now, that spiritual corporation to which belong all true saints of God now found upon the earth and ever since Pentecost. What are the blessings which constitute it? What does the Holy Ghost mean by membership of this body? I answer, the cross, being the witness and expression of the guilt of the Jews more especially (the guilt, doubtless, of all men in general, but pre-eminently of the Jews), gave occasion for God to dissolve completely, for the time being, the peculiar place of favour which the Jewish people had previously possessed. God Himself blotted out the landmark which separated Israel from the Gentiles; and instead of making Israel to be the one channel of His promise, on the contrary, the tide of blessing turns decidedly and conspicuously towards the Gentiles. He gathers out of Jews and Gentiles a people for His name, and joins together this election out of them both, who believe in Christ, in order to the possession of new privileges that never had been tasted in like mode or measure before.

One most remarkable feature of the blessing is, that the distinction between Jew and Gentile is gone. In the cross they united in wickedness before God. But what does God use it for? He says, as it were, I will take that very cross which man has made the scene of his outrageous rebellion against Me — which proved that My ancient people were grown violent in hostility against Me in the person of My Son; and I will make the cross to be the pivot on which will turn fuller, richer blessing than had even been hoped for by believing men in this world before. Thus, as the cross was the rallying point of Satan to gather men in an unholy union against God and His Son, so God makes it to be the precious centre where He forms the Jews and Gentiles that believe in His Son into a new body, where all such distinctions are blotted out for ever. And if God is pleased to call out a people for the purpose of giving a practical testimony to this new display of His love, who is to gainsay it? The law is righteous; and it would be an outrage upon God to put the smallest stigma upon the ten words. But while the commandment is holy, just, and good, grace brings in what is higher and better still. It is right, of course, if I do well, that I should be rewarded for it; but is it not more blessed, if I do well, suffer for it, and take it patiently? This is grace, acceptable with God, and the practical principle on which He is calling His children now to act. It was not the public rule of government in Old Testament times, but the contrast of it. Does God, then, contradict Himself? Far from it. God may have one way of dealing with the Jewish people; and then He may lay down another mode of action with Christians. Indeed, who can deny that He has? The Jew would have been guilty of a grievous sin if he had not been circumcised; and I believe that, as far as the earth is concerned, even in the bright day that is coming, the Jew will have his land, city, priest, and temple, etc. The will of God for the Jews will remain substantially unchanged. I find in the prophecies a state of things not yet accomplished, when all these outward ordinances of God will be fulfilled. Am I not to believe God till I see the prophecies thus realized? It is not thus we treat the word of a good man. But if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And for a man to receive Samuel and Kings, and not to believe Ezekiel or Hosea, is to treat God as you would not treat an ordinary man. But if I believe all that He has said, there are peculiar principles of God for the Jews which are still to be carried out by the Messiah reigning in power when the devil is bound. God will accomplish all that He has spoken of in the prophets in the days of heaven upon the earth. But meanwhile the Messiah that was promised to bring in the glory came, and has been rejected. Instead of having a throne, He had the cross; and far from taking the earth for His inheritance, He was cast out of it and went up to heaven. A new state of things consequently was opened; and for this order, altogether different from that contemplated generally in the prophecies, we have the New Testament revelation. Therein we find what meets little intimations here and there in the Old Testament, but at the same time introduces, as a whole, a scene without precedent or successor, where God unfolds privileges that were never tasted before, and looks for a walk that He did in no way demand even from saints of old.

There are, of course, certain plain, fixed principles always obligatory. God never sanctioned a lie, or covetousness, or malice: no dispensation can neutralize or weaken the grand moral distinctions between right and wrong. But the God who wrought in earthly power to protect His people, and would have protected them had they been faithful under the law, now, on the contrary, calls His people to suffer in grace. The same God who shielded them and brought them through the Red Sea, and who would not allow any power to gain universal supremacy in the earth till Israel had proved themselves unfaithful, then, when they did manifest themselves altogether unworthy, permitted Babylon, the very worst of the Gentile powers, to overthrow them; and then one empire succeeded another, till finally, under the Romans, both Jews and Gentiles united in crucifying the Lord of glory. Then the world's doom was sealed; the knell of its judgment sounded from the cross of Jesus. You might have expected, had God been then acting upon principles of righteousness, that at once the universe of God would have been convulsed, at least Jerusalem and Rome destroyed in His fiery indignation. Far otherwise. Heaven opens, but it is to receive the crucified Jesus, not to judge His murderers: it is furthermore to send down the Holy Ghost on earth, to form by grace this new body the Church of God; it is to bring those vile murderers of Jesus, if they only received Him, into a place of blessing, whose breadth, and length, and depth, and height never had been enjoyed or known before. And this is grace. "The law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." The gospel of God's grace goes out; but it does not merely save souls — it gathers them, unites them to Christ, makes them members of Him and one of another. The Old Jewish vantage-ground has disappeared; the Levitical privileges are completely eclipsed as far as the Church is concerned. The Gentiles were sunk in idolatry, and the Jews self-complacent under God's law which they kept not; but both are brought through the Spirit, by faith in Christ, into this one body, and worship God on the same common ground of grace. They are "builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." This is "the vocation wherewith we are called."

"I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord," etc. He again points to that honourable scar from the world's enmity, because he is bringing out in a practical way what the consequence was in this world even to the greatest servant of God that ever lived (next to Christ). After all, he was the Lord's prisoner. What a wonderful honour? There were no fiery chariots to surround him, as with Elijah; no power put forth to preserve him. He is suffering from the same empire that crucified the Lord of glory; and out of his prison he is cheering the saints to walk worthy of that same calling! Even now the world is overmatched: what will it be when Christ comes?

Nevertheless, the word is, "With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love." There was a danger of the contrary: spiritual privilege might be misused to puff up the saints. He therefore meets this, and shows them the only proper tone that becomes the Christian. "With all lowliness and meekness." It is a blessed thing to find zeal; but what can redeem the walk of a Christian which fails in lowliness and meekness? There is a time to be firm and a time to be yielding, but neither gift nor position can justify those who seem to think that in their case the exhortation to meekness and lowliness has no place. We must take care, on the other hand, that it is not meekness in manner or lowliness in word only, for God looks in us for what is real. Too often, such humility but covers the deepest pride, as love and the spirit of Christ are most talked of where they least exist. Let us beware of this vain show.

But supposing there is that in others which you cannot overlook, as being contrary to the mind of God, how are we to act? No doubt there should be the fitly spoken word of reproof, if needful; but there is to be "long-suffering" also; and if in any place long-suffering be specially called for, it is where evil touches ourselves. We are not to tolerate evil against the Lord; but wherever it is that which injures us, long-suffering is the word, "forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Here it is not only the lowly grace and patience which the Christian has to cherish, but the spiritual diligence with which he is called to hold fast what is most precious and divine here below.

"Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." How perfect is Scripture! It does not say, "the unity of the body," although including it. But had it been said, "the unity of the body," people might have built up (as indeed they have) an outward institution and made it a point of life and death not to separate from that. But what the Holy Ghost lays upon those belonging to Christ is, "endeavouring" — showing all needed earnestness — not to make, but "to keep the unity of the Spirit." It is something already made by the Spirit which we have to maintain or observe. It is not merely that we are to have feelings of love towards our fellow-christians. This might be in a thousand different bodies; but if ever so well heeded, this would not be keeping "the unity of the Spirit." What is meant then? The unity of the Holy Ghost, which is already formed, embraces all the members of Christ. And where are the members of Christ to be found? In one sense, thank God, everywhere: in another, alas! anywhere. Wherever Christ is preached and souls have received Him, there are His members. And what have we to do? Diligently to maintain the unity that embraces everyone belonging to Christ — "in the bond of peace." Here we find peace spoken of, not so much for our own souls with God, but rather for enjoying and furthering practically union among saints of God. The flesh is anxious and restless: a peaceful spirit is the fruit of the Holy Ghost, and mightily contributes to the binding together of hearts in practice. God's Spirit is not occupied with merely giving right opinions about points: deeper purposes are His. He is bowing souls to Christ, and exalting Him in their eyes. But to bring one soul out of darkness into light, or out of a little into deeper light, is surely precious; and this is what God Himself is now engaged with. We do well, while holding fast our liberty for Christ, not to allow the barriers that men have brought in, but to treat them as null and void.

But, then, it will be, as is often, said that every man has a right of private judgment. I deny it totally. No man has a right to an opinion in divine things; God only and absolutely is entitled to communicate His mind. What one has to do is to get out of the way, that God's light may shine into the hearts of His children. Men, in their self-importance, only cause their dark shadows to pass over themselves and each other: they thus hinder instead of helping the communication of divine truth. Whereas, when the desire of Christ's servant is, that God may lead on and strengthen His children, is it in vain? Never. The moment you begin to gather people round a particular person, view, or system, you are only forming a sect. For this is a party, though it may contain many members of Christ, which forms its basis of union, not on Christ, but on points of difference, which thus become a special badge and means of separating between the children of God. The apostolic Church never challenged a convert's faith as to an establishment or dissent — never asked, Do you believe in episcopacy, voluntaryism, or even the Church of God? The true and God-glorifying enquiry ever was and is, Do you believe in the Christ of God? It is true that in early days, if a man confessed Christ, he was cast off by Jews and Gentiles, and became an object of enmity to all the world; and this was no slight a guard then against people confessing Christ, unless they really believed in Him. But if a man had received the Holy Ghost, through the hearing of faith, he was at once a member of the one body, and acknowledged as such.

Why should this not rule now? Am I not content with the wisdom of God? Would I then supplement His word, or do without or against it? It is no sect if you act upon the mind of God; it is a sect if you depart from it. The question, therefore, is, what is God's intention about His Church? How would He have us to meet? Am I willing to receive all real Christians — persons whom all believe to be converted? Doubtless there is such a thing as putting them out if they prove not to be so; for there is no possible case of evil but what the word of God applies to, so that there is not the smallest need for any rules or regulations of men. Unless men are spiritual, they will not keep the unity of the Spirit long; they will soon find abundant ground for fault-finding. But those who hold fast and firm to Christ as the centre of the Spirit's unity, as they are no sect, so they never can become one, whatever be the schisms, divisions, heresies, of their adversaries. It is very sorrowful that any souls should go away in self-condemnation, but it is the more blessed for those who, spite of all, have faith and patience and grace to stay. The apostle said, in writing to the Corinthians, "There must needs be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest." These were the men who in that day clave to the Lord with full purpose of heart. May the same thing be true of us now! I deny that the word of God is made of none effect, or that I am in any way bound to sin now more than then. The unity of the Spirit which the Ephesians had to keep, is the unity which God lays upon all His children. If the word has regenerated my soul through the Holy Ghost; if through it I know my Saviour and my Father; if to it I am indebted as the means God uses for cleansing my soul from day to day, am I to say that I need not follow His word as a member of Christ's body in the assembly of God, where He dwells in the Spirit? Surely, if my soul owns its divine authority, woe is me if I do not seek to follow it in all things. God calls on us to be diligent in maintaining "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." It is not the unity of our spirits, but the unity of the Spirit.

When we reflect that it is the Holy Ghost who forms this unity, is it not a solemn thought? Ought we not to guard against anything that would grieve Him? Our Lord attached special importance to what touched the Holy Ghost; and so should we, if wise. If the Holy Ghost is here for this purpose on earth, He becomes a divine test for souls, whether they are prepared to honour Him or not. But people might say, if you receive all Christians without requiring them to give a pledge for the future, tacitly, if not expressly, you may accept a Socinian or an Arian. But I do not acknowledge such to be Christians at all: do you? What is the Church founded on? "Whom say ye that I am," says our Lord in the very chapter in which He first notices that He was going to build the Church. "Thou art the Christ," said a disciple, "the Son of the living God." And what does our Lord reply? "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Hence there ought to be the strongest, strictest dealing with souls, whether in deed and in truth they believe and confess the divine glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. The smallest compromise as to this allowed would be a reason for standing in doubt of any soul. You have no ground to receive as a Christian him who tampers with the purity, glory, or integrity of the person of Christ. The Church is founded on Christ the Son of God: if this rock be shaken, all is gone. "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?" To touch Christ is to touch the very basis on which the Church of God rests.

But where a soul confesses Christ really and truly, confesses Him in such a way that it commends itself to your conscience as divine, receive him; for God has. He may be Baptist or Paedo-Baptist: never mind, receive him. If he is living in sin, need I say that Christ and drunkenness, etc., cannot go together? Faith in the Son of God is incompatible with walking in darkness. No matter how a man may talk about Christ, if he joins with that confession a disregard for the moral glory of God, he proves by this fact that he is not born of God. Simon Magus thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money. It was a mistake that he made, some will say. Yes, but that mistake was vital, and proved that he could not have life from God; and therefore, though baptized, he was not received as a member of the body of Christ. We have no reason to think that he broke bread at all. Baptism would be no reason, in the face of such circumstances, why the assembly should receive him whom they do not believe to be a saint.

This will show in some degree the character or limits of the unity of the Spirit. For the Holy Spirit, while He calls souls and empowers them to confess Christ, never leaves them to walk in the mire of their own wickedness. If a believer falls into sin of a certain character, he ought to be put away. What is merely personal should be dealt with in a private way; it would be monstrous to put all failures on the same ground. The first and deep feeling of the soul ought to be, in vindicating God, to get the person right. The Church is a witness of divine grace, and has to seek the blessing of the unconverted and the restoration of Christians who have gone astray. Are we endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit? How is it that Christians are formed into different associations? If the word of God be that which they at all cost seek to carry out, why do they require human rules and modern inventions? If God gives a rule, I do not want another; I do want to have His in all its strength, so as to bring forth the truth to a man's conscience, and say, That is God's will. Is it well or wise to yield this up? God has written a word that bears upon everything moral, by which He intended His children to walk: are we doing so? Some may ask, Are you, then, perfect? I answer, We are endeavouring to hold fast and in peace the Spirit's unity, we are honestly seeking subjection to the will of God: are you doing the same? This is the main question for every child of God — Am I endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit? And am I doing it in God's way or out of my own head? Have I surrendered myself to do His will? Our business is to be dutiful to Him. We have our orders, and our responsibility is to carry them out, subject to Him whose we are, and whom we are bound to serve.

But further, this unity is to be kept in the bond of peace. God is forming His Church of all those who belong to Himself. It is not Christian persons holding particular views of this or that; but the Spirit holding to His own unity, or to what Christ is to them, not to the points in which they differ one from another. If I want to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, I must have my own soul settled upon this: the Holy Ghost is glorifying Christ alone. You cannot please the Father more than in exalting the Son; and you cannot touch Him more nearly than by slighting His Son. All is secured in maintaining Christ. This brings it to the simplest possible issue. What have we to do with forcing people to give up their views and adopt ours, let them be ever so correct? God's word furnishes a ground, in the name of Christ, on which you can embrace all saints, let them be ever so weak or prejudiced. Let us beware of being more careful of our own reputation or ease than of His will. Let us not be vain of our little knowledge, or of the point we have attained to in practice. Let us look up to the Lord for faith and patience to own every real member and servant of Christ, wherever found. Let us cleave to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and be diligent in maintaining it, whatever the difficulties may be, and surely they are great. Faith does not see many bodies and one Spirit — it knows but one body. Bearing with others who in this see dimly or double, let us be rigid in holding fast the name of Christ, and for ourselves be careful to accredit nothing contrary to it. "There is one body and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling." This is our most essential, vital blessing in Christ; "for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." "One Spirit" is added immediately, because it is the Holy Ghost who makes it good; and what we are now, by the power of the Holy Ghost, we hope to enjoy by-and-by with Christ. We shall have it fully and perfectly in the presence of God in heaven. This is the first unity.

There is a difference between this and the following verses. The fourth verse is one character of unity, the fifth another, and the sixth a third; and these concentric unities enlarge respectively. "There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling." Nobody enters into this who is not born and baptized of the Holy Ghost. This one body is on earth, no doubt; but then it is a real thing and of God now, whatever may be the glory proper to it hereafter. But in verse 5 you have a more outside unity, an area of profession, larger than that of real spiritual power. Here "the Lord" is made prominent; and there are many who will say in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?"

Hence we hear next of "one faith," by which is meant the christian faith. If I talk about faith in the sense of its being the medium by which we lay hold of Christ, and are saved in the grace of God, it is never called one faith. By the phrase is meant the common faith that all Christians profess, in contradistinction to the religion or law of Jews and the idolatry of Gentiles. Accordingly, "one Lord, one faith," is followed by "one baptism;" because whoever professed to believe in Christ was baptized with water. Simon Magus received Christ nominally, and was baptized, though he soon proved to be no Christian. Thus, verse 5 gives us, not the unity which is real, and holy, and enduring, but that of the christian profession.

Last of all, we have "one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." (Ver. 6.) Evidently in this we stand before a still vaster compass. There is an immense mass of mankind that does not profess Christ at all. The bulk of men have gone on with their idols, spite of law and gospel. Are there no claims there? We own "one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." That is, it is a personal God: not at all the idea that everything is God, which is infidelity in its worst shape, or Pantheism. We own "one God," not a number of divinities, like the Gentiles, but "one God and Father of all." The Jew did not believe that He was the Father of all, nor even properly Father for the chosen nation, but rather their Governor, even Jehovah. The Christian revelation brings out God in an infinitely larger, as well as for us more intimate, character; but larger, too, as embracing all creaturehood — "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all" (His supremacy and providence, but more than these), "and in you all." There is His near connection with some, and not with all. For it is not said, "in all," but "in you all." The Holy Ghost is speaking of the Father's peculiar relationship to the Christian. Thus nothing can be more full, and beautiful, and orderly than these unfoldings of unity in and around Christ our Lord.

We have now closed the statement which the apostle has given us of the unity of the Spirit, the common place which pertains to all the children of God who are being called through His grace by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. We enter now the special ways in which the Lord calls upon the various members of His body to serve Him — not so much the common position which all must have who belong to Him, but the peculiar privileges and responsibilities of each individual member of Christ. And thus the seventh verse opens: "but unto every (or each) one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." This is the basis. Christ, according to His own good pleasure, as Head and Lord, is giving certain gifts. It is important to observe that this is the point of view in which the Holy Ghost presents ministry in Ephesians. There is no one brought, I need hardly say, into such unequivocal prominence as Christ. In Corinthians, on the contrary, the Holy Ghost is more prominent than Christ. Both aspects are necessary to God's glory and equally perfect in their place; but they are not the same thing. There is the wisdom of God in each epistle suited to the special object that God Himself aims at.

It is impossible for any spiritual mind to look back upon the Epistle to the Ephesians without perceiving that the great truth of it is the fulness of blessing which belongs to the Church in virtue of its union with Christ. This, accordingly, brings Christ into relief. On the other hand, we cannot study the Epistle to the Corinthians, and particularly that part of it where the subject of spiritual manifestations is treated of, without seeing that it is not so much a question of Christ exalted at the right hand of God, as of the Holy Ghost sent down here below. The consequence is that in Corinthians we have rather the assembly upon earth and the divine person who is pleased to dwell and work in it. Thus the Holy Ghost is brought there into view; whereas, in Ephesians, it is Christ as the Head of the Church, who is regarded still as the giver of these gifts. Indeed in no part of Scripture is the Holy Ghost represented as properly the giver; and I doubt much, with another, that the expression "gifts of the Spirit" is an accurate phrase. You may find, in Hebrews 2: 4, a text which seems to imply as much; but it is the "distributions of the Spirit." Wherever giving is simply and distinctly spoken of, it is Christ who is regarded as the giver. So our Lord Himself says of that which lies at the source of all, "the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water," etc. The water here represents the Holy Ghost. Hence, He is viewed in this place as the gift and Christ is the giver. And as this is true of that great foundation-truth, namely, the presence of the Holy Ghost Himself, so is it of all the details. Christ, the Head of the Church, is dealing in the individual members according to His own gracious affection; for this is the blessed side of the truth which is held up here. "Unto each one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ." He is speaking about ministerial gift; but it is called grace here because it is regarded not so much as a position of authority (though some of these gifts involve it) but of One who loves His Church and cares for each member of it; and He cannot fail to supply whatever is suitable and worthy of Himself and His love. "Unto each one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

And this leads to another remark of a general kind. The Epistle to the Corinthians gave you an ampler field in which the Holy Ghost is presented as working; you have miracles — tongues — healings — the remarkable ways in which the Holy Ghost acts in outward power. All this is left out here. To what principle are we to attribute it? For God does nothing arbitrarily; but always with a love and wisdom worthy of Himself, and surely intended for our profit. What He has not revealed, it becomes us not to inquire; but what He has made known in His word, we are clearly free, nay bound, to seek to learn simply and thankfully. Why then have we also the more eternal operations of the Spirit in Corinthians? And why, in writing to the Ephesians, are the outward manifestations left out and only those spoken of which pertain to the growth of the soul, the founding of the Church, and the carrying of it on, the keeping up holy growth and fellowship and godly order among the children of God? For to these alone the statements of this chapter apply. The key, I believe, is found in what we have already hinted. In Corinthians the prominent thought is the Holy Ghost present in the Church, and whatever He does comes before us. And as the Holy Ghost may work in an extraordinary manner and is the power of that which is sensibly supernatural as well as of that which meets the wants of the soul, hence all is brought before us there. But in Ephesians, where Christ is viewed in immediate relationship to His Church, and where it is His love and the care for the members of His body which flows out of that love, it is plain that whatever merely deals with the world and is a witness to unbelievers would be not needed but superfluous: only that which has to do with the members of Christ is in place and season. Oh that we only had more patience and confidence in God and His word! We should find the answer to every difficulty in due time. God owns the heart's reliance upon Him. By examining a particular part in the light of the whole book where it occurs, how often we discern that which gives us the right clue to its meaning.

But before looking at the gifts themselves, I would just draw attention to what is of still deeper interest and importance, the basis on which the giving of these gifts by Christ depends. For we have all suffered immensely from mere traditional views of ministry, regarding it as in general an honourable profession among men, or a certain position which has a status attached to it. These things entirely falsify the nature of ministry; and the consequence is that the full blessing and meaning of the word are so far lost for the soul. Do not mistake me. I deny not that God works where much is unscriptural. He is always right, and the failure of the Church, or of ourselves individually, cannot touch His sovereign goodness, who always watches over all and each member of Christ for blessing. But then He allows failure to show itself and permits that we should suffer the consequence of it to humble us and make us feel that all the good is from Him, that all the evil is on our part. Throughout the whole history of Christendom appear these two things: — man corrupting his way upon the earth, and God showing Himself above the evil that His light judges. This is true of ministry as it is of all else.

Hence if we turn to Scripture and see the ground on which ministry rests, we shall find that nothing can be more glorious; but, alas! nothing more contrary to that which ordinarily is its form among men. For its basis is not short of the redemption that Christ has accomplished by His blood, and of His ascension to heaven. Christian ministry flows from Christ at the right hand of God; it did not exist before. I do not deny that God had His ways of acting in Israel. But there His dealings partook more of the character of priesthood, from which ministry differs totally in character. Earthly priesthood is a caste of men who deal with God on behalf of those for whom they are priests: that is, they undertake the spiritual business of persons unable for one reason or another to transact it with God directly, and consequently dependent upon these mediators between God and them. The priest goes where the people cannot go, enters the holy place, presents the blood, burns the incense, deals with God in short for each spiritual want of those whom he represents. Ministry starts upon quite different ground, being an action, through man, from God toward men, and not from man toward God. The two are clean contrasts of each other. As to the servant of God, if truly one whom God raises up, who has a message from Him and a work to do for Him, that message or work is by God's authority for the blessing of men. Hence, if you take an evangelist, what is he? One who, himself taught of God for his own soul's need, not only knows the way to be saved, but has a power, which he did not possess before, given him of Christ, to act upon the souls of others. Every Christian ought to be able to confess truth, to confess Christ; yet this does not make one an evangelist, but so to state the gospel as to act powerfully on souls, specially of the unconverted, and thus awaken, clear, or establish in the grace of God. The spiritual action is by the Holy Ghost; but it is from God and His beloved Son, Christ our Lord, toward man. Thus, the gift, under the Lord's hand, is exercised in love of souls to seek their good, and implies or is rather power from above to act upon them.

Take again the gift of teaching. There you have another form of the power of God. Many understand the truth for their own souls' enjoyment, but they cannot help others: they are unable to put the truth so convincingly before believers, or so to deal with the affections, as to carry home the truth with energy to the soul. Where this is done, there is the gift of teaching. But I have only referred to it for the purpose of contrasting the nature of priesthood with ministry, and of showing that the confusion of the two things is a lamentable consequence of the state of the Church. If people go to hear a sermon, they say they go to worship. Men are so habituated to confound teaching with worship that the two things are supposed each to involve the other.

I admit there is such a thing as Christian priesthood: still ministry is wholly distinct. All Christians, without exception, men, women, and children, are priests; for the priest is one who has a divine call and qualification, which gives him access to the presence of God. Priesthood, in a word, gives the title of the soul to draw near to God. This is always its distinguishing character. On the other hand, ministry in the word is a varied service; but it is only by particular members of the body that Christ thus acts for the good of all. Hence while priesthood is universal, and no person can be a Christian without being a priest, it is only a few among the many who are what Scripture calls ministers of the word or public servants of Christ. I am not speaking of the vague sense in which all ought to be serving Christ every day of their lives; but the question now is of proper ministry in the word; and it is plain that all have not the power to preach the word of God profitably for the souls of others. The great mass of God's children require to have the path of God pointed out and difficulties removed, the right handling of which things depends upon, or constitutes, ministry in one form or another.

Ministry, then, as said before, is from God to man; priesthood is from man to God. When we meet to worship God, it is an exercise not of ministry, but of priesthood. Perhaps one or more of the persons who take part in it might be ministers; but for the moment they are not ministering, but worshipping. Worship is the exercise of christian priesthood, the offering up of praise and thanksgiving. This is from man towards God — it is the direction of priesthood. Hence where there is an outflow of praise and thanksgiving, you have the highest character of priesthood. Intercession and prayer are a lower form, though intercession be blessed indeed, because it takes up the wants of others. But, strictly speaking, worship rather consists of praise and thanksgiving. Hence it is that the Lord's Supper, the Eucharist, forms so central a part of christian worship. It is that which most powerfully, and in solemn joy, calls out our souls in the remembrance of Jesus and thanksgiving to God. And hence, though, of course, the taking the bread and wine cannot be regarded as in itself worship, yet it is that which acts upon the soul and draws out the heart, by the Holy Ghost, in the worship of God. Where the Lord's Supper is regarded as a means of grace, persons repair to it for comfort, or at least the hope of it. It is never so presented in the word of God. On the contrary, if the communicants did not enter into the mind of God in the Supper (i.e., did not discern the Lord's body), it became a means of judgment to them. "He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." By this were meant not spurious Christians, but Christians ever so real, who were taking the Lord's Supper in a light spirit and without self-judgment. Where a soul, therefore, is walking in known sin, and comes to the table of the Lord, the effect is that the hand of the Lord is stretched out in one way or another, and it is impossible to escape when thus trifling with God. Again, if one put himself outside to avoid this, he is proclaiming his own sin and practically excommunicating himself. Thus, there is nothing for a soul but to go straight forward and to look up to God for grace to watch against sin, yea, the least risings of it, and in self-judgment to lean on the Lord who alone can strengthen us to walk worthily of Him. To such an one the word is, "So let him eat;" it is not, Let him stay away; but let him judge himself and come.

These two things, then, worship and ministry, ought never to be jumbled together. There may be a word spoken at the table of the Lord, helping on communion; but this can scarcely be called the ordinary exercise of ministry. A regular discourse there would be, I conceive, most irregular: it would distract from the prime object which the Lord intends. There may be the unfolding of the affections of Christ, or in particular circumstances there might be even more, such as one visiting for a limited time, as when Paul continued his discourse till midnight. But the Lord's Supper having no connection with ministry, but rather with the members of Christ remembering their Lord, and with their worship coming together to praise Him, it is plain that the formal exercise of ministry, properly speaking, finds its place elsewhere, not at the table of the Lord. A brief word that would awaken the soul's affections and gather them up to Christ whom we are remembering, is most comely and seasonable, if the Lord so give; but it is important to see the scriptural place, and order, and aim of the two things. In ministry you have the Lord providing for the spiritual supply of His people's wants. And on what is this founded? Upon the fact that Christ has gone on high as Head, having first put away sin and glorified God on earth; and from His present seat of heavenly glory He is communicating the needed gifts. By what title has Christ taken His place? Not as God, nor simply as man. Neither did Christ enter into the presence of God, because Satan had not been able to touch Him, when tempted in all points. There was a still more solemn scene — the great hour for which He came — the bearing of sin — the cross, where He made Himself chargeable with every failure, with my sins and with your sins. He has done so. Christ has only taken His place at the right hand of God on the ground of His having put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Upon this basis ministry is founded. God's righteous judgment has been borne and vindicated; sin and Satan are completely vanquished for us by Christ. The testimony of divine grace, yea, the fulness of it, can be the portion of the believer now without hindrance. The victory for God in behalf of the most guilty sinners is won. And Christ has taken His place in the highest seat of heaven as the victorious man. As such He has carried humanity to the throne of God, and is there, as man, set down far above all angels, principalities, and powers. From thence it is that He gives these gifts.

Christian ministry, therefore, owes its very origin to this — the full remission of sins on God's part and the heavenly glorification of man in Christ's person. They are fruits and witnesses of complete victory. Yet is it all and only made known to faith, save so far as miracles once were a sign to unbelievers. What is the consequence? Man goes on in sin. Satan still roams about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. The judgment of God is hanging over the world. What then is the value of the death of Christ, and of His victory? Immense, but immense only for those who believe in Christ; and, therefore, in the midst of this ruined world, and while sin and Satan are there, the judgment of God impending, there is this wonderful link between Him who is at the right hand of God and those who were once poor, lost sinners in the sight of God. He sends down gifts; He calls out this one and that one, and makes them to be the witnesses of His power, who has won all this and more; who has, in short, left nothing undone that is needed for the glory of God and the blessing of man. The world hears the sound only to slight the good news, and even the child of God sees it dimly if he reasons about it; but if I believe what God tells me His beloved Son has done, I ought to know that all these things are gone as between my soul and God with as simple a certainty as if they had never existed at all. I ought to be as sure that sin is blotted out, as if I had been guilty of none — that Satan is as thoroughly judged as if he were in the lake of fire — that God's righteous judgment is completely stayed, and that nothing but His grace remains for me. It is true of all His children. It is the only thing that becomes a Christian, because it is what God provides for him. God does not own christian people in their trouble or hesitation whether all is finished for them. To doubt that all which Christ undertook is settled in their favour, is practically to deny redemption; and if all this is done and accepted, what more can I want? Did not Christ know better than myself what was needed? Did not God feel what was due to His holiness more than you or I? And yet He who was and is God said, "It is finished." Who or what am I to doubt it? To Christ, therefore, I owe it to bear this witness.

Ministry is founded upon Christ's work and exaltation. There were the twelve and the seventy sent out, no doubt, before Christ went up to the right hand of God, but their mission during the days of Christ's flesh is excluded from Ephesians 4. Apostles are mentioned of course, but not in virtue of their call while He was the Messiah on earth. On the contrary, "when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Not that those who had been appointed apostles when Christ was here below, were not also brought into this new place, Judas excepted; but that their being apostles of the Church is founded upon their having this gift of Christ after He had ascended on high. Therefore it is here said, "He gave some apostles." Why had there been twelve? In relation to the twelve tribes of Israel; and so, when our Lord sent them out, He forbade them to go into any city of the Gentiles. But the apostles of the Church, are they sent only to the Jews? Every one knows that it is not so. After Christ was crucified, the links with Israel were broken. The rejected, suffering Son of man ascends to heaven, and from His heavenly glory He sends down the Holy Ghost, and calls out from the world in sovereign grace, constitutes members of His body, and endows with power to serve Him in whatever way seems good to Himself.

Hence what is called succession, is completely disposed of. In Jewish priesthood there was successional order, and all earthly ministry forms itself on this model. But christian ministry is not of human appointment, but divine in the fullest sense; and therefore the whole source of man's thoughts on the subject is a manifest and total fallacy. Are we to abandon the clear word of God for the passing opinions of men? If so, I shall never know any certainty at all. The Dissenter will say a church must call a man to be their minister. He may have and be a ministerial gift from Christ; but what makes a man to be their minister is their own call. Thus, it is founded on a particular church electing whom they please to be their particular minister. He is their choice and therefore their minister. But what if there be no such thing in Scripture? What if such an idea be foreign to the word of God? There is not even a hint of it to be found there. We have the appointment of men to take care of the funds and of the poor, and this with the concurrence of the assembly. No person ought to undertake such a work unless he have the just feeling of satisfaction in the whole christian assembly. The Church gives what she can, and therefore is entitled by God to say who shall take care of their trust; that is, who shall transact the outward business of the Church. But in spiritual gifts, in teaching, preaching, exhorting, ruling, can the Church give? Clearly not. The word of God contains nowhere such a notion as the Church choosing or appointing, except in such gifts as the Church can confer. The Church gives money, and can appoint persons to administer it. The Church does not give ministerial gifts, and has no title nor room to interfere. Who has? It is Christ alone who gives, as we find here: "According to the measure of the gift of Christ." "When he ascended up on high, he gave gifts unto men: some apostles, some prophets." This excludes even the true Church of God from any claim of power to appoint; and if it be examined, you will see how the scriptural history agrees with and confirms the principle. Who but the Lord chose Matthias? Who appointed Peter or the rest? Who addressed the multitude on the day of Pentecost? It could not be the Church, for the Church was only formed on that day. Peter preached, and by his preaching the Church was gathered. It was the Lord thus brought such as should be saved; so that ministry precedes the Church, as the atonement and ascension of Christ precede ministry. The Lord from on high calls the vessels of His grace, communicates power, leads forward by His Spirit's guidance, working by and controlling all circumstances, so that His servants shall be more or less faithfully doing His work. The consequence is, souls are gathered and the Church is formed. Thus ministry in the word never flows from the Church, but from Christ, and the Church is the result. Ministry is therefore antecedent to the Church, instead of being founded on its authority. Hence it is that you have not only the dissenting principle of popular election entirely put aside, but every other human device. It was not the apostles, but Christ who gave gifts. And has He ceased to give them? Is He at the right hand of God still? Then, I ask, is He there as the Head of the Church? Does He not remain now as perfectly and efficaciously the Head of the Church as before the day of Pentecost? Then He was there, bringing the Church into being; and now He is there, to perpetuate the Church and supply all its need. It is as impossible, therefore, for ministry to fail as for Christ to leave the right hand of God before the body is complete. But He is there as the giver of all needful gifts; and the exercise of these gifts is what we call ministry.

But if we look further, there is a most magnificent parenthesis of the apostle on this subject. "Therefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men." That is, He led those captive who had led the Church captive. We were led captive of the devil, and Christ going up on high passed triumphantly above the power of Satan. The fallen spirits were completely defeated and by Christ as man. Man has conquered Satan in the person of Christ, and we can look up as those that are one with Him who has defeated Satan. We ought never to treat with Satan as if he had power against us. We are entitled always to bid a detected Satan depart from us. We may and should always resist him: and we are told that, if so, he will depart from us; not because we are strong, but because He to whom we belong has gotten Him the victory by death and has given it to us. "Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth." This supposes the glory of His person. He that is gone up is the One that first came down.

It is indeed the constant principle of God; He is always the first to come down. We require to be lifted up and have nothing of our own to come down from. Christ, being God, was the only man who had glory proper to Himself and above all creaturehood. He descended first into the lower parts of the earth. His very humiliation is the proof of His own personal dignity. From His natural supremacy, so to speak, He descends first to do His work here below. "He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." Thus we have here a most magnificent sight of our Saviour. The Holy Ghost gives us in two short verses the grand sweep of His glory and triumph, who condescended to be a man and a servant. He that is gone up now is the same that first came down, and who only would go up again into glory when He had completely put away all that must have for ever kept us from Him. But He came down to put it away and would not return on high till it was done. He so loved us, with a love according to the glorious counsels of God, that our sins, gross and fatal as they were, only gave Him the opportunity to show what God is, and is to us, in His own person. And now it is a question of God's righteousness, not only to Him but to us, because of Him. What a difference" He might come down in love, but that of itself would not give us a place in the presence of God; but He is gone up in righteousness; and this is the reason why our Lord says that, when the Spirit was come, He should convince the world of righteousness, "because I go to the Father." You have the full display of righteousness now in Christ seated at the right hand of God. Righteousness toward Him in this world was nowhere found, but the foulest wrong and indignity. Where must I look for it? At the right hand of God. I see One there to whom God, with reverence be it spoken, is indebted for the display and vindication of His moral glory, to whom He owes the only adequate exhibition of all that which manifested and maintained His character before men, even in the man Christ Jesus. God never had His character at all fully retrieved since sin came into the world till Christ died on the cross. When His blood was shed for the glory of God and the deliverance of man, God shone out in a new light before this world. God was no longer regarded as the hard master that Satan's lie misrepresented Him to be. The veil was rent; the truth could no longer be hid that there was no proof of love the creature could have asked of God but what God had surpassed it in His Son, dead, risen, and glorified above. Up to the death of Christ God's righteousness must have destroyed every creature that had a sin upon it. Now, on the contrary, it is the righteousness of God to justify me, a believer, though I have been a vile sinner; and for this reason, that, although my sins in the one scale must have sunk myself alone down to hell, yet there was, in the other scale, Christ and His blood far outweighing all and raising me up to heaven. What is the consequence? My sins are clean vanished before that precious blood, and the scale of Christ proves itself to be the only one that keeps its weight before God. Upon this now hangs the very righteousness of God. It is no longer a question of legal righteousness; but now He has Christ, and this is what God owes to Christ's obedience unto death, even the death of the cross; by virtue of which God righteously clears the guilty, which, as dealing according to the law, He could by no means do. "By him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." What was known of God in creation contained no provision for sin; what was known of Him under the law would have only blasted the smallest hope of the sinner. Whereas now, the more I see what God is in Christ's cross, the more confidence and peace I have. "This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

We see, then, in these verses, the heavenly source of ministry. It is not a position which, according to God, gives importance in the world. The labourer, we all know, is worthy of his hire. But do you not see that the Apostle Paul would not use the title to support that the gospel gave him? He would not have what he calls his confident boasting made nothing of; for though he had power, he preferred to work with his own hands rather than be burdensome. And this is the wonderful liberty of grace: under it there is nothing we cannot do, except sin. But though all things are lawful, they are not all expedient; and, no doubt, it was in the wisdom of God that the great apostle did what many servants of Christ would be ashamed to do. What a fearful declension there is from the whole spirit as well as letter of Christianity! How complete the change from the character of the gospel, that men — Protestants or Catholics, Churchmen or Dissenters, Presbyterians or Methodists — should alike consider as a blot and matter of censure that which was the boast of the apostle? There was a weighty principle involved in his conduct. He received a gift from the Philippians; help was sent to him in prison as well as out. He desired fruit that might abound to the account of the saints. If the apostle had not occasionally received from them, it would have been loss to their souls. Christianity does not mean that saints should use for themselves what they owe to God, and what grace loves to do for all and any one. But the apostle never acted either so that it could be said that he served himself by the gospel, or that he was indifferent to the saints. God took care that it should be so in Paul's case. The smaller gifts there would have been the danger of despising. But the gracious effort of the apostle was to maintain the less; the greater less needed his ample shield. But where any gave themselves up to gospel service, the apostle takes the utmost care to affirm their title to live of the gospel. Let those who so live take care that in this they serve the Lord Christ.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets." I apprehend that the apostles and prophets are clearly what might be called the foundation gifts, such as God used for the purpose of laying a broad and deep platform on which the Church was to be built. This was done by those whom God empowered in a special manner. The apostles and prophets were the two classes that first of all entered as instruments into the calling of the Church of God. Evangelists were at work from early days, also pastors soon after. But the first two, apostles and prophets, were peculiar in their full force to the original laying down of the Church of God. There is no ground to suppose that, in the strict sense, apostles and prophets were meant to continue, or do so in fact, though something analogous to an apostle may be raised up at fitting times. Take Luther, for instance. There was a partial recall of the saints of God generally to fundamental truth, which had been long lost sight of. This answers, in a little measure, to what an apostle did. A prophet, again, was one who not merely expounded the Scriptures, but who so brought home the truth as immediately to connect the soul with God.

At the very beginning, men of God appeared who were not apostles, nor necessarily inspired communicators of truth, such as Mark and Luke; but prophets, like Judas and Silas. (Acts 15: 32.) The Scriptures were not all written when the Church began, nor were the apostles everywhere. God, therefore, raised up prophets, who, in certain cases at least, were the means of revelation. And why is it that we have not such channels now? Because revelation is complete: we have the word of God, and want no word more. To suppose another revelation now, would be to impair what we have; so that the need for these prophets in the highest sense is closed with the canon of Scripture. In a subordinate sense, what would answer to the prophetic work in question is the revival of truth and powerful action on saints at large by recalling what was once revealed, but completely evaporated. Take, for instance, the capital point of the coming of the Lord as the hope of the Church. This truth has suffered a long and almost total eclipse. Within our own day it has again shone out with a certain measure of power from God. In what writing, since the days of the apostles, do you find the nature and calling of the Church set forth? where the unfolding of the Church's hope — the Lord's coming to receive the Church and to give it a heavenly place? These truths had slipped away from the minds of men, until recovered within the last thirty or forty years. Justification by faith had been partially known by Augustine and Bernard. The Waldenses possessed great faithfulness but not clear doctrine. But the nature of the Church as the body of Christ, and the character of the Christian's hope, were most completely lost sight of, as far as I am aware. They had vanished from the Church. And it seems to me that the recovery of these truths resembles prophetic work in this particular, though one might hesitate to call any used in the work either an apostle or a prophet.

When we come to the next classes of gifts, namely, "evangelists, pastors, and teachers," it is plain that we have these still at work, more or less, in the present broken state; and not confined to these believers or those, but distributed throughout, as the Lord pleases. Men confound ministry with local charges. It may be said, that I have slurred over a part of Scripture — the apostles laying their hands on the elders, etc. With the most entire recollection of it, let me say that elders are not the same thing as ministers. Ministry is the exercise of a gift from Christ; elders were appointed by men, but never except by apostles or apostolic delegates, such as Titus was. How do we stand with reference to that question now? Where are the men who are duly authorized to appoint elders today? Do you know any better than I where they are to be found? Some people, no doubt, pretend to the power of appointment, but the pretension does not make their appointing valid. In civil things, if one man were without full authority to appoint another to be a magistrate, he would run the risk of being punished severely. Is it possible that in the things of God interference with the authority of our Lord is of less moment? It is not, that some sections have apostles and some have not, for no one has them more than another. I do not see that much is gained by assuming to do the work of an apostle, where it is only assumption. It is surely more humble not to pretend to apostolic work, if we are not apostles. We cannot legitimately ordain elders, because we want for it apostolic authority. Is it not most in accordance with the lowliness that becomes us, to abide within the limits of our powers? I do not admit that any one living is entitled to choose elders, or anything else of the sort, because there is neither an apostle nor an apostolic man commissioned by the Lord for the purpose. If men assume to ordain, they should prove their title.

But ministry and eldership are not the same thing; they are almost always confounded, but they differ totally. These two things are found in Scripture: local charges, duly ordained by apostles or their delegates; and ministerial gifts, which never required human authentication. In Scripture, no person was ever chosen to be an apostle, nor called to be a prophet or an evangelist, except by Christ. It was precisely the same with pastors and teachers, as we see in our chapter; and why should it not be the same still? Christ has not vacated His office; and it is His office to call and give pastors, evangelists, teachers, etc. But there is another principle quite distinct from that involved in these gifts, namely, that Christ warranted the apostles to act in the way of authority. In virtue of this, they appointed persons to be elders or deacons, as the case might be. We cannot do what apostles did unless we are clothed with like authority; but we have Christ ever abiding the immediate giver of ministerial gifts: this is always true. Ministry does not and never did depend upon apostles or the Church, but upon Christ; and therefore it cannot lapse. But as the appointment of elders, according to Scripture, hung upon the apostles, and as there are no apostles now, the rightful power to appoint elders is necessarily and evidently at an end. Scripture may intimate the continuance of gift, but not of authority to ordain. Elders, or rather officials, of the various religious bodies abound; but what is their appointment (I do not say their gifts) worth? Let any one that knows the Bible, say whether I am treating fairly this weighty matter according to the word of God.

The question, then, for us now is, Are we carrying out the will of God? Many have a notion that there is some special value in a human rite of ordination in making a man a minister. But in the days of the apostles themselves, no one ever thought of being appointed to preach the gospel. If a person could preach, he was bound to do it; if he did not, he was like the slothful servant, hiding his talent. If a man took the ground of having a right to preach or to speak in the assembly, you may safely deny his right. None but God has a right to proclaim glad tidings to the world, or to speak to His assembly by whom He will. He, therefore, may call men and put them forward, one to do this work and another to do that work. And here comes in the searching question, Is the Lord to be acknowledged honestly and thoroughly as the Head over His own Church? In ministry, properly so styled, it is not a question of men appointing men, but whether Christ is allowed to be the Head of His own Church. Do not, then, acknowledge that it is the Church's business to appoint ministers in the word. The Church is not my Lord, but Christ; and we ought never to put the Church in the place of Christ. This has been one of the main and most mischievous sources of Popery.

It follows that we ought to acknowledge all those the Lord appoints. If a man preaches the truth in this or that body, I am not to ignore, but own the servants of Christ everywhere. They may not thoroughly carry out the truth; but in all cases it is not the brethren, but Christ who gives gifts. But does it follow that I am to go to mass, even if a Romish priest preaches a measure of truth? I must examine whether he who may be ever so real a servant of Christ, is doing the will of God in the matter. We are not called to follow this or that one, except so far as they follow Christ. We are called on to do the will of God; and "he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." Nothing, therefore, can be more simple than the path of the Christian. Let him value the servants of Christ in their place, but not necessarily all that they are doing, unless it be according to the will of God. But is it not said that we are to obey them who have the rule over us? Yes, and it is as true now as ever it was. But supposing you are converted to God and there is a priest of Rome who says that you must obey those who have the rule over you, and that they have this rule, am I not to question what he means and what he is using the text for? Is it to induce me to disobey God? If so, am I not to say, I "must obey God rather than man?" Thus a path always appears for the saint of God who desires to do His will, and that path is simply obedience. It may sometimes take the form of what mistaken or self-willed men might call disobedience; but certainly it will be the obeying of God rather than man. Nothing can absolve us from the positive. invariable duty of obeying God.

This will show that whatever may be the value of ministry, it was never intended to bind down the children of God, and to make it a question of mere blind acquiescence. Ministry, where it is true, manifests what is the will of God wherever there is a simple mind. It puts the truth in so convincing a way as to bring the conscience into the light, making it feel its responsibility to follow that light. If you do a thing merely because a minister of God says it, influence is at work and not the power of the Spirit of God. Christian obedience is neither the blind leading the blind, nor the seeing leading the blind; but the seeing leading the seeing. Every believer has power in the Spirit to see the mind of God for himself; and he who is called of God to the place of guiding others will, as a general rule, be enabled to bring the mind of God so completely to bear upon the conscience that the simple-hearted cannot but see it. But let us remember that it is serious for any one to acknowledge the truth and not to follow it. "To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

I have already explained that the first two of these classes of gifts brought before us in verse 11, had for their aim the originating of a new work and testimony. They were destined for, and employed in, laying a foundation for that previously unknown building, the assembly gathered in one out of Jews and Gentiles in the confession of Jesus, the Son of God. The apostles were used not merely like the prophets as the inspired communicators of the mind of God which had not been before revealed, but also as invested with authority in the Lord's name. Hence there was a competent governing power, as well as a sure medium of communication from God to man. The prophets as such had nothing to do with government, properly so called. They did not visit as authoritative agents (1 Cor. 4, 11; 2 Cor. 12, 2 Cor. 13), nor did they lay down institutions here and there for regulating the Church as the apostles did. (See 1 Cor. 7: 17.)

Nevertheless, the prophet was used in what was of the deepest importance, in bringing out directly and immediately from God truth that had never till then been known or even disclosed. They were, consequently, connected very specially with the revelation of truth, it might be by word of mouth or by writings; and this is the meaning of Romans 16: 26. Any one who is able to examine the language which the Holy Ghost employed, will see that the expression is not strictly "the writings of the prophets," but prophetic writings. These refer exclusively to the New Testament Scriptures, which were not all of them written by apostles. Two of the gospels were not apostolic, but they are just as much inspired as if they were. This is as true also of the oral instruction that was given in the apostolic days. For the Church began before any part of the New Testament was written. The misuse of this fact is a favourite argument of those who contend for a sort of inspiration in the Church. They insist that the Scriptures are not so essential as we allege. But I answer, that if the Church at first had the presence of inspired men, the Church afterwards had the holy deposit of the apostles and prophets committed to writing, under the perfect guard of the Spirit of God. Here, then, we have the only standard of divine truth: the Old Testament being the original revelation of God as given to Israel — the New Testament being that supplement of His truth which is necessary to the Church. But before the canon of Scripture was closed or even begun, it is evident there was needed a class of men who should bring out the mind of God in the rising difficulties of the Church. This was supplied in the apostles and prophets. It appears that, among the saints at Corinth, there were such persons as prophets.

Hence we have a remarkable word in 1 Corinthians 14, that I would advert to for a moment. The Spirit of God laid down there as a rule (ver. 29) that in case any one were speaking in an ordinary way in the assembly, if a revelation were given to another, the latter was entitled to stop the former, and to bring in the revelation. Persons may reply, Supposing you had such a thing now, there would be confusion. But I answer, God is no longer now giving new revelations. While you had the state of things in which the full unfolding of the mind of God was not given, and while there were these inspired persons on the earth, God maintained His right, even to interrupt a person by a communication of some fresh truth from Himself. But now, if any person were to plead a fresh revelation from God, he would only prove himself deluded if not an impostor. We have the full communication and standard of God's mind, now that these inspired persons have passed away. Thus the Church is cast, not upon apostles and prophets, but upon the written word of God as a criterion. Of course, there are the more ordinary means that the Spirit of God used then and still uses — gifts just as really as apostles and prophets, but not of the same authoritative character in action as apostles, nor having the title to communicate new revelations like the prophets. Now everything is subordinate as compared with these. Whatever measure of authority there may be at present must prove itself to be from God in its character and end; and it must not pretend to be some fresh revelation of the divine mind, but the right use or application of what has already been given.

On the other hand, the gifts which the Holy Ghost still raises up for the good of the Church, are here called evangelists, and pastors, and teachers. These are not the only gifts that abide, for Scripture in no single passage gives, as men would like, a complete list of them. We must search all Scripture. And a wholesome, blessed thing it is for us, that we never can find anything complete from the word of God, by merely examining some particular part of it. God necessitates our searching His word through and through, in order to get at His mind with any measure of fulness. Were it not so, we should be disposed to make favourites of certain portions and to leave the rest alone. This is the reason why many Christians practically neglect a large part of the word of God, as if it no longer applied. On this very subject of ministry there is a great deal of ignorance and infidelity at the present moment. The idea is that you have merely sanctified intellect. Now, I admit, God gives and forms intellectual power. That is what is called in Scripture "the ability." But examine our Lord's parable where He alludes to this very thing, and you will find that He distinguishes between "the gift" and "the ability" — "He gave to every man according to his several ability." God in calling men to serve Him, even before they are converted, fashions the vessel for His purposes. His providence singles out a person from his very birth, and He orders all the circumstances of his after life. Perhaps he is educated as a priest, or as a lawyer. Thus Paul so thoroughly knew all the resources of self-righteousness that he could fall back upon grace, and judge what it is that man's righteousness loves, lives in, and leads to. His own experience proved that even when cultivated to the highest degree, it issues in direct antagonism to the Lord of glory. Still you have in Paul a most remarkable natural character, as well as no ordinary training and acquirements. All this was providentially ordered in Saul of Tarsus; but besides, when called by the grace of God, a gift was put into him, that he did not possess before, a capacity by the Holy Ghost of laying hold of the truth, and of enforcing it on people's souls. God wrought through his natural character, and his manner of utterance, and particular style of writing, but everything, though flowing through his natural ability, in this new power of the Holy Ghost communicated to his soul. Thus there are these two things, the ability which is the vessel of the gift, and the gift itself which is, under the Lord, the directing energy of the ability. There is no such thing as gift apart from the vessel in which the gift acts.

But now let me make another remark. In this epistle the gifts are not regarded as merely spiritual powers. They are regarded as such in Romans and Corinthians, but in Ephesians they are always persons. He gave apostles — not merely the apostolic gifts. I find the gift of teaching in Romans and the gift of a teacher in Ephesians. The two truths are perfectly harmonious. There is a divine reason for the difference, which seems to be this. In Ephesians the love of Christ to the Church is the key-note to the whole epistle — it is the fulness of blessing which Christ's body, the Church, has by virtue of union with the Head. What acts upon the affections of the Church is not a mere power. You can love, not a power, but a person; and a person through whom the gift flows evidently acts upon the affections of those for whose good it is used. All through the epistle it is Christ, and not (save exceptionally) the Spirit. In Corinthians the Holy Spirit is made prominent. Here it is Christ; and in accordance with this, you have these persons who act from Christ for the good of His body. In this is a beautiful instance of the harmony of the truth of God. The active love of Christ is represented in this epistle as the spring of all the blessing of the Church; and so with the personal gifts of Christ, whom He Himself loves, and uses to keep up His own love in others.

The difference between the evangelists and the pastors and teachers is obvious. The evangelist is the ordinary means of gathering souls to Christ. It may be said as a gift to be wandering in its own nature; not confined to one spot, but called to be here and there wherever the Lord by the Spirit might lead him out for the need of souls. Timothy, who has been by clerical sleight of hand metamorphosed into an archbishop, is called in Scripture an "evangelist." He was marked out by prophecy to a particular work, and a certain gift was communicated to him through the apostle, accompanied by presbyters. He goes at the apostle's command to a certain place, and there he takes a cognizance of things. But neither he nor Titus were stationary, like a modern diocesan. Still less was there a provision made for successors. Timothy was to commit what he had heard from the apostle to faithful men who should be able to teach others also; that is, the charge concerns the conveyance of truth, not of authority or holy orders, as men perversely say.

The fact is, that a plurality of bishops were appointed in every Church where there was a certain number of saints gathered together — at least, after a certain time of testing and experience. They were chosen there by an apostle, or one commissioned by the apostles. As it is usurpation for gifted individuals to discharge the functions of the Church, so it is equally usurpation for the Church to assume the functions of the individual gifts. Of course, if there were anything immoral in the conduct of a servant of Christ, he is as much responsible as any other, and more so. The children of God and himself are bound to watch with holy jealousy, because his sin would bring a greater shame and scandal upon the name of Christ than a less conspicuous member of the body. But, except in matters of a moral nature, in the exercise of his ministry, there ought not to be the slightest interference between him and the Master who has called him to serve Him. Herein dissent is thoroughly and radically unsound, because the Church is supposed to appoint a minister, and, of course, has the power to discharge him if they like. This makes the minister to be the minister of their church; but Scripture never speaks, as all do now, of the minister of a particular church. There is no such thing as "our" and "your" minister. What Scripture shows us is, that all gifts are gifts in the unity of the body of Christ. If a man is a pastor or teacher at all, he is set as pastor or teacher in the whole Church. As far as this goes, it matters not where he may be; wherever he goes, he has a call, if walking scripturally, not from a congregation but from Christ, to exercise his ministry fearlessly, of course humbly, and not pretending to more than he has got. For a person setting up for more generally destroys credit even for what he possesses; and, in general, the tendency of the children of God is not to discredit ministry, but to give an undue place to it. But Satan, who is always working to dislocate the means of helping the body on, stirs up the saints to give credit where they ought not, to be captious and to discredit where they ought to be thankful. All these things require to be regulated by the word. The thoughts of men in general are founded upon the Old Testament and not upon the New: hence the notion of ministry being a kind of honourable profession, or something known as a title in the world. But if we examine such a portion as this, or all others in the epistles, it will soon appear that there never was such a thing recognized in the world as an apostle, etc. They were despised by the world. Peter was not more honoured in his day in the world after he became an apostle than he was before. The world might recognize that he wrought miracles, which is another thing altogether. Many fleshly men wrought great miracles. In Corinth they were mere babes in understanding, because they were so taken up with miracles and the display of external gifts. They liked, too, to hear themselves talk; and the apostle shows that to bring out even a few words for the good of the Church, was far higher and better than any signs and wonders they performed. He could work more miracles than they all, yet he says he would rather speak five words with his understanding "that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." Thus, if the Church is shorn of the miraculous powers which strike the eye of the unbeliever, what is even more important abides, save the fundamental gifts, which did not require to be continued.

The foundation was so perfectly laid that apostles and prophets are not needed. This is intimated here. The Spirit of God does not prepare the saints for the long continuance of things in this world. Christ gave "some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The believers in those days could not have known but that the whole work of the Church was to be completed in that very generation: there is no such idea as a succession taught here, though now we may see it is implied. Ministry is the exercise of a spiritual gift; and these gifts depend upon Christ always abiding the Head of the Church, never terminating His office as a high priest might, whose office would devolve upon some successor by reason of death. But Christ is in heaven after resurrection, and these apostles are what He gave when He ascended on high. We stand so far on the same ground now as they did upon the day of Pentecost. Christ had left the world then, and it was thence that He gave these gifts here described. The Holy Ghost abides in the Church, and by the Holy Ghost He empowers men on earth for whatever the Church may need. We have evangelists, the great agents the Lord uses for recruiting His spiritual army. Then we have pastors and teachers whom the Lord raises up and gives for the purpose of leading on and guiding and ruling those saints of God who are brought in. All these gifts abide as much as ever. I am not speaking of measure of power, for things are weak indeed; but inasmuch as they depend upon Christ above and the Holy Ghost below, and as Christ never can cease to be Head there and the Holy Ghost does not leave the Church here, these gifts necessarily abide also. So it is added, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith." There is no divine warrant for the continuance of miracles, but it is implied for the continuance of these edification-gifts for the good of souls.

Our Lord, then, gave these gifts "till we all come." It does not say He will give them, because the early Church was set in the posture of expecting the Lord Jesus Christ again. Paul and the other apostles directed the saints to be always looking out for Christ. There was no intimation that Christ must come, but they were to expect Him constantly. Hence, there is no such thing in connection with ministry as preparing for a long lapse of ages. But Christ is at the right hand of God, supplying what is necessary. "He gave some . . . . . till we all come in the unity of the faith." If Christ had come in the apostolic generation, this would have been true. Christ has delayed; but it abides true, "till we all come." So that, with the exceptions already stated, we are warranted to expect a perpetuation of ministry of the same character, and flowing from the same source, as the apostolic Church had. Whatever is necessary for the gathering in of souls, and caring for them when gathered, abides till Christ comes and completes all.

What a blessed thing it is to know that we can accept from God that ministry, which in man's hand has been so proud or servile or both — that we can look for it from Him and recognize it as a divine thing — that we are not driven to the notion that we have only a human ministry now instead of a divine, as of old, but that we have the certainty that these gifts flow from Christ, who cannot fail in His word and work! But how are we to know a minister, an evangelist, a pastor, a teacher? I ask, How do you know a Christian? Every Christian, who is conversant with Christians, has a general idea. I do not say there is any infallible discernment of it. But although nobody can pronounce unfailingly, and we are necessarily dependent for our measure upon God's present help, still we know as a general rule there is that in a Christian which commends itself to his brethren in general. There is that in his confession of Christ which harmonizes with the word of God more or less. The spirit, the tone, the general life and ways, after they have been a little inured to the trials of the way, may either strengthen or weaken the conviction. It is just so as to judging of ministry. And we are bound to prove all things. A person is used of God to move souls powerfully and with blessing; to gather them in and to bring them to Christ. There is an evangelist clearly. On the other hand, you may see one whose heart does not go out so much in putting the gospel before souls, but who enjoys and loves to make others enjoy the truth of God, and to develop the character of God. Is not he a teacher? Others may know the truth of God as well, but they cannot bring it out so as to act thus upon others. But if a third person attempts to deal practically with souls and yet habitually makes grave mistakes, can I say, There is a pastor? When there are difficulties, he is at his wits' end, knowing not what to do nor advise. He may be able to explain the Bible, but when it is a question of applying it to the practical life of Christians, there are endless blunders. Again, a pastor supposes not only knowledge of the truth, but the power to urge it day by day on individuals: it involves a dealing with conscience and affection in a way that a teacher does not necessarily imply. A man might be a teacher without being a pastor (and vice versa), or he might be both. An apostle might be a teacher, and an evangelist and pastor too. You will find a particular gift in one man and another of a totally different kind in another. Again, there may be a person who cannot bring out truth powerfully, but he can exhort; he can deal with the conscience. This is an invaluable gift not alluded to here; but in Romans 12 we find it. Here are the more prominent gifts for adjusting the saints in their proper order and functions. But while I believe the indwelling Spirit of God is the only power of discerning with the measure of certainty that God pleases, whether a person is a Christian or not, and whether he has a gift or not, of course the degree of discernment depends upon our hearts being above the flesh and its activity. It demands spirituality, and this supposes self-judgment. The whole Church is responsible to judge. An evangelist might make a mistake, thinking a person to be truly converted, and he might baptize him. But something comes out which leads the Church to refuse him. Supposing a person confessing the name of Christ and baptized seeks fellowship, the assembly of God in that place are bound to examine. No one has a right to come: who has rights now but God? We are to be under obedience instead of talking about rights. The Church then examines, and if there be a general fellowship or such a measure of satisfaction as would lead them to say, We believe that this person has received Christ, we should not be justified in refusing his profession to be a member of Christ; the person is then received into the assembly, and then comes the trial — dependence upon God after one is received. Christ is absolutely necessary for a right walk. Those even that are born of God will not be kept unless they walk in real lowliness and looking up to God.

The Spirit of God works in the assembly. One man manifests ability to preach, another to teach; some to serve the Lord in private, and others in public. What is the power for judging of these? The same Spirit of God. And after all, it is a simpler question than many imagine. Just as a human being knows the food that is good for it, whether it be a babe or a man: so is it inseparable from the saints that they should know in the main what is for their spiritual blessing. If persons are low and fleshly they will be taken with showy trash; but you will find in the main a right and sound judgment from the most matured spiritual judgment down to the mere babe. Although all are not able to point out the right thing, all who are guided of God in any measure are able to find out the value of what is ministered. And as to heresy. How can the assembly judge of false doctrine? Christ is the standard. Whatever scripturally exalts Christ is true; whatever lowers Christ is false, and of the devil. Christ is the power of God. and the wisdom of God. But God works by means, and if there is a false teacher who brings in what is evil, there are true teachers who are able to discern it; and though he may try to wrap it up in pleasing forms, yet the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Church works against Satan, and by different members He unveils and brings out the true character of the evil thing before the assembly of God, and all are able, who are walking with God, to pronounce a divine judgment upon it when once it is exposed. If we had to make a railway we should not know how to begin the work; but when the railway is made, we can tell perfectly well the use and value of it, and can judge well enough for practice whether it is a good one or not. So with the Church of God. Though all may not equally discern and expose what is evil, God gives some who can, and afterwards all readily form a judgment upon it. These gifts are indispensable to the Church as a whole, though I do not say that wherever there is an assembly of God, it is absolutely necessary for their walking together that there should be such or such persons raised up in their midst. But we can bless God for this provision for the wants of His Church, as long as He has a Church here below. The existence of the Church and of ministry rests on the same ground; they both flow from Christ's love, and as long as we have the one we shall have the other; it is the same love of Christ that sees His body and that supplies certain members with the requisite spiritual power for the well-being of that body. All men of God, no matter where they are, acknowledge that God must have to do with ministry, and therefore the Dissenter, when he puts his vote into the urn, does not deny that the Holy Ghost must capacitate a man to be a minister. If he was a minister before, he is, of course, a minister after; but they say we want to make him our minister. Would it not be better to drop this unscriptural form and own him as a minister of Christ always? You thus leave him on his own proper ground as one who is bound to serve God at all cost and in all ways.

I admit that we find in the word of God bishops and deacons; but they are not referred to here. It is not said that He gave some bishops and deacons. But I maintain from the Scripture that these bishops and deacons required an apostolic or quasi-apostolic appointment. Is it not becoming for us now to say that, not being apostles, we do not pretend to exercise their functions in ordaining, though we do heartily recognize men possessed of the requisite qualifications for these local offices wherever we find them?

But the prevalent system not only assumes an authority which is not really possessed, but it introduces the utmost disorder and the most guilty confusion, if we judge it by Scripture, or even by its practical results; and this too in every human association — Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregational. For what can be more fatal to blessing or the Lord's glory than to see an ardent evangelist tied down to a limited sphere and vainly essaying to meet the wants of a body of Christians who need to be built up in Christ? or to know that a mature teacher, just adjoining, is compelled to abandon his proper gift, because his congregation consists almost exclusively of the unconverted? What can be more painfully calculated to hinder the Spirit of God than this network of canons, ecclesiastical etiquette, etc., which degrades ministry into the bondage of man and disposes of souls as if they were the serfs of the soil on which they live?

On the other hand, where Scripture ground is taken with conscience toward God, things may be weak, still there is room for the Holy Ghost to enter and work by whom He will. The enemy, no doubt, has his special wiles for distracting, and, if possible, perverting those who are there; nor do any need more watchfulness and prayer, not to say humiliation. But thank God it is the arena of faith; it honours the word of God; it gives the Spirit His proper place; and it recognizes the Lordship of Christ, welcoming each member of the body where the Head has set it; and because of this, if men plead that there must be order, I ask of what sort it is to be. Is it an order of our devising or God's that you really wish? If we are subject to Scripture, we shall allow no claim, howsoever specious, to set aside the on]y order which God sanctions for His children now on earth, i.e., His assembly, guided by the Holy Ghost, present in their midst to maintain the glory of Christ and to work sovereignly by whom He will, though, of course, only for edification and with the comeliness that befits the presence of God. Disorders there may be through want of spirituality, and this on the part of gifted men as well as the ungifted. But, assuredly, Scripture is a safer and mightier rule to correct all disorders by, than the wisest regulations of men, though nothing will avail without present dependence on the Holy Ghost.

The Apostle Paul, however, whilst meeting fleshly abuses. supposes the fullest opening for every gift of the Lord within the christian assembly, subject only to His own express restrictions. (See 1 Cor. 14) If this was God's order then, when did it cease? or has the Church of God no longer divine landmarks for its public services? I cannot envy those who, abandoning God's system for one of their adoption or invention, do not scruple nevertheless to cite scraps here and there, such as verse 33, 40, to support human arrangements directly opposed to both letter and spirit of the inspired word from which they are so abruptly taken. What God has laid down for the Church's worship and service, is and ought to be as obligatory on the conscience as that which He has written for our individual walk and conversation. In a certain sense, indeed, it seems to me that public corporate disobedience is even more insulting to God than any individual's failure, grave as this may be. And what is the present state of Christendom? God's people, with the world mixed up together, have departed from the word of God. I do not speak of them as men or of moral duties; but the Spirit of God is not allowed His own proper place in the assembly, or even its members individually. His power is not owned as a divine person come down not merely to convert sinners, but to be the guide of the christian assembly. How is it everywhere with the meetings of the Church (nay, does it meet at all as such?) and with the exercise of the gifts of Christ in the assembly of God, separate from the world? When Christians ordinarily come together, is there not an unscriptural method set up, one thing here and another there, instead of leaving God's assembly in holy subjection to the Holy Ghost, and trusting Him to work freely, and fully, and mightily by the members as He will, for the good of the whole? Is not the revealed word of God, as to His assembly, like all other truth, eternal for the Church's conduct here below? I maintain that it is; and believe those who dispute its constant authority and their own present responsibility, will have a serious question to answer before the judgment-seat of Christ; while such as stand by the will of God in His word, will surely have His blessing now and His approbation in that great day.

But to come out from what is ostensibly evil is not all. Separation from our associations ought to be a pain to us, and should never be done except as believing it to be the clear will of God. And though one ought not to refuse the weakest Christians that come from elsewhere, yet I do not think that a person ought to be quick to receive what is new to them, unless they believe that it is assuredly of God. If they only come because of some happy circumstances, it will not stand: if they say, "There is so much love, truth, union, simplicity, etc., among these Christians that we must go there," by and by some trial comes, and then they are ready to say, "There is no love at all among them — how changed they all are!" These spiritual effects may act upon the affections and win attention; but they are not an adequate ground-work for the Christian in presence of the revealed will of God. Nay, supposing you could assemble a company of happy believers, all of the same mind as to the Spirit, and the Church, and the Lord's coming, beside fundamental truth, I would not belong to it, if adhesion to their mind were a condition. It wants and ignores the divine foundation. Be it mine to cleave only to the name of the Lord Jesus, the sole and sufficient gathering-point for the entire Church of God; and this if those who gather to it are ever so few and feeble and whatever the cost. Perhaps my dearest friend may get astray or I may myself. Of course it is painful and humiliating for one to be judged by others, because of failing to judge self. But I dare not stay away because I know the will of God is against it. We are not free to make of the Church a religious club to suit ourselves. It is God's to choose and to call as it pleases Him for the glory of His Son; it is ours to obey from our hearts. In the present broken state of Christianity we have learnt that God's principles always bind the conscience, and we have come together to be where His word is free to be carried out by the Holy Ghost. If some one amongst us falls into sin, our adversaries cry, See! they are no more perfect than their neighbours. But who ever talked of personal superiority? We arrogate nothing to ourselves, only desiring to be led of God to walk individually and collectively as He would have us do.

Are you willing to be like the people who gathered round David in the cave of Adullam? Though they were distressed and miserable when they came, they did not continue so. He who attracted them to himself was the centre of God's counsels, and God wrought in them and formed their hearts, and put honour upon them, and the day came when those despised ones became the heroes and champions of the Lord's cause when everything was broken in Israel. May it be our lot to serve Him faithfully! I believe that we are ecclesiastically where we ought to be — where the Spirit is free to open and wield and apply that truth which is calculated to separate us in heart and practice to God and His objects from the world. It is now our own fault only when we do not get on. If all that hindered us once (when bound up with the systematic dishonour of the Holy Ghost) is removed, may we feel deeply our personal failure! Our principle is no longer a human motive but divine, because it is neither more nor less than carrying out the word of God as to His Church in faith, and this as He vouchsafes light and power. If any others could show us wherein we could do His will more perfectly, should we not greatly thank them, and bless God for the help? May we hold fast truth in subjection to His Spirit, desiring the good of all believers, let them be where they may, and not anxious to bring them out or in one moment sooner than God gives them to know His mind! I do not acknowledge that any human society, great or small, has the least right to a single child of God. It is only a question of His will. To obey His word, to urge it upon others, is neither presumptuous nor uncharitable, but faith in God. May we abound in it with thanksgiving!

Although we have already dwelt upon the more remarkable forms in which the grace of Christ has displayed itself in the way of gift — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, we have not yet touched upon the object that our Lord had in view, i.e., the general aim of ministry. This is said, in verse 12, to be "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Now you will observe, in the very first expression of the Spirit of God, that which corrects one of the most prevalent fallacies of Christendom at this moment: and not merely of Christendom in its darker forms (for I am not speaking so much of Latins or Greeks), but where there is the orthodox light of Protestantism, and even strong evangelical sentiments. No one who is acquainted with the state of feeling that is now so general will doubt but that, even among Christians, the prominent notion of ministry is the bare calling in of souls to the knowledge of their own salvation in Christ.

But this is not the Lord's ultimate design in ministry. The winning of sinners to the Saviour is a necessary part, but is only a part of the blessing. Evangelists, like the rest, are given "for the perfecting of the saints," which goes much farther. It is clear that they must first become saints; but that which the Holy Ghost makes to be the proper end in view is the forming the saints according to Christ; adjusting them according to the Lord's call and sovereign will touching them; the bringing them out adequately and rightly and freely, so as to find their proper action toward God and one another. This seems to be implied in "the perfecting of the saints." Then we have rather the mediate forms which this end assumes, "unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ."

God always makes of prime moment His saints individually considered — their right condition before Him, their being thoroughly fashioned recording to His standard. Their being gathered together and working as an assembly, important as it is, comes after. Thus, the subject of the body, the Church, does not appear till the close of Ephesians 1. What is the early part of that chapter filled with? That which is necessary for the perfecting of the saints. God Himself reveals His truth precisely in the same order, and to the same primary end. Here again the gifts of Christ are found to be just after the pattern of His own dealings. The perfecting of the saints is the nearest object to His heart; and then follows the means used to bring into the knowledge of common privileges, and the working of the Spirit in the assembly, which is bound up with His glory in the earth. Thus, whatever may be the condition of the Church, whatever the blessed ways of God in dealing with the Church, whatever the affections of Christ towards His body, after all God makes His saints of most immediate account, makes their perfecting to be the first and most prominent object. And this He always holds to. Whatever the fluctuations of the work, whatever the character of His testimony at any given moment upon the earth may be, the perfecting of the saints is the unceasing object before Him.

There is something exceedingly sweet in this. Come what may, God will accomplish the perfecting of His saints, and turn even the things that are sorrowful and afflicting into a means of blessing for them, if not always to their credit. Where we need humbling, it is plain we are not humble; where we are not low in our own eyes, God must Himself make us so. The process does not give room for our importance; but God keeps His own blessed end in view, and never fails to accomplish it. So that we may always adore Him for His goodness; though it may be in that which is distressing for the time, still God never fails; He is bent upon the perfecting of the saints; He is faithful and will do it. He puts this forward before His saints as the practical object of Christ. There we have ministry taking these different forms according to His own sovereign disposition.

But the Lord has to do with ministry, directly and immediately, without the intervention of the assembly. There is no such thing in Scripture as a ministry flowing from the Church, though there is ministry directed to the Church. St. Paul speaks of himself as a minister of the Church: that is, not as derived from it, but serving it: for the Church is formed by ministry, instead of ministry flowing out of the Church. The gifts are for the perfecting of the saints. The ministry may fail, but the Lord never fails in accomplishing His end. It may be in a slower way, and there may be that which is utterly weak and even afflicting; but He accomplishes His purposes. He gives these gifts "for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the edifying of the body of Christ." These two latter clauses come in as subordinate to the first. It is most blessed to see the saints acting together; but however the work of the ministry may fail or be impaired in man's hands, the great end to which the Lord commits Himself, and for which He has given these gifts, is carried through spite of all. And more: this is true, "till we all arrive at the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at a perfect man, at the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The "perfect man" here does not refer to resurrection, but to our being thoroughly grown up into the knowledge of Christ.

This is observable in St. Paul. Although his great work was unfolding the redemption of Christ and the counsels of God's glory founded on redemption, yet he cannot but insist on this full growth of the saints in connection with the deepening knowledge of the Son of God. It is the person of Christ that rises up before the soul; and this is very much more a test of spirituality than any acquaintance with His work. It is with Himself, as a divine person, that we become more and more intimate through the truth that God ministers to our souls. This is what is put before us — "Till we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at a perfect man." Knowledge of the past ways of God would not do now. The Old Testament saints did look to the Messiah in the way of hope; but the present form in which the Spirit of God presents the object to us is the knowledge of His person, as the Son fully revealed for our joy and praise and worship. So that we have here the great christian object and form of knowledge that God has in view with all His saints now. The comparison with verse 14 gives the force of the expression, "a perfect man;" it is in contrast with being children, "the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more babes, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." What God designs for us is that we should be full-grown, and this "unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." It is in contrast with this condition of weakness and exposure to all the craft of men, and their changing, scheming tactics of error.

Then we have the opposite practical way in which our growth is carried on. "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, who is the head, even Christ." The expression seems deeper than what we have here. It is "being truthful in love," not merely "speaking the truth in love," though, of course, this is a very important part of being truthful, but it is not everything; and we all know that it is very possible not to be truthful in thought and feeling, where the words are quite correct. "Being truthful in love" implies truth in the inward parts.

We find here the two essential features of godliness which were found in Christ in infinite perfection. He was the light. Whatever He might say, He exactly reflected the full truth from God Himself; nay, He was it. We find a remarkable expression when our Lord was dealing with the Jews and bringing Himself out as the light of the world, in John 8. They asked Him what He was, and He says (according to the English version), "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." But the true meaning is," Absolutely what I speak unto you." There should be neither "at the beginning," but "absolutely;" nor "what I said," but "what I am speaking." If these words are weighed, you will find the force of them. Our Lord is exactly and absolutely what He utters; His words convey with infallible certainty what He is. He certainly was truthful in love. Our Lord's words so completely gave out the inner man, He was so perfectly transparent, that not one thing in Him deflected from the truth; nothing seemed to be but exactly what He was. And this because there was no sin in Him neither was guile found in His mouth. There was no object but God before His soul, as He says Himself: "I do always those things that please Him." And you may rely upon it, that it is having Christ before us as the object of our souls in everything practically, which alone gives us power of truth. The moment we have anything of our own as an object, so far we slip aside, and that comes out which is not the full truth, for Christ alone is the truth, and He alone gives us the truth in perfect love; and it is only in proportion as we are filled with Him, and have Him to the exclusion of all our own evil, that we ourselves walk in the truth. Let us have our hearts fixed on any one thing or person save Christ, evil slips out, and it is good for us to know and own this. It was never so with our Lord. He could say, "I have set the Lord always before me." And He has given us Himself always to set before us.

Our Lord's meat and His drink was to do the will of His Father; still, of course, He had to meet God about our sins in a manner that none is called upon to do. We start upon a redemption accomplished by Christ, which has brought us into the presence of God, and which calls upon us to walk according to the grace which has brought us there and which keeps us there. We may not all realize it, but we have done with ourselves by virtue of the work of Christ; we are brought near to God, brought to be at home with God, and from that place we are called upon to take up everything that becomes us here below; and here we have to judge what is the will of God, for we are palpable weakness if we are not doing His will distinctly. It is not only that God will have us conformed to Christ by and by, but this is what He has in view now. And in spite of all, wherever the heart is true and Christ is before the soul, though there may be immense differences, yet this is God's delight with His children. The child does not remain always a child, but becomes a man: and so should it be with the family of God. He would have us all to grow.

This, then, is the object in the gifts of Christ. He is bent upon blessing souls even now in the world, and such is the object of all ministry. It is not something left for our thoughts and arrangements, but it is all in the hands of the Lord. It is He who loves His saints, who will bless them, and who makes His individual servants, that have to do with the saints, to be immediately connected with Himself, and to have His objects before their eyes in a duty which they have to discharge to Him and not to them. For directly the Church becomes the great object before the soul, the blessing is of a lower character altogether, inferior in all its spiritual lineaments. There may be right feelings toward one another, but there is that which is much higher than loving one's brethren, divine though it be; and if you know nothing above brotherly love as the object, you will fail to walk in love. God is higher than love, and this is precisely the point of difference so much needed for the moment. One of the main things that we have to guard against is Satan's endeavouring to persuade people that, because God is love, therefore love is God. But it is not so. If I say that God is love, I bring out what He is in the active energy of His holy nature. But this is not all that God is. He is light as much as He is love; and I should own His love without the denial of His light. What prevails among many now is the deifying of love in order to strip God of His light. But where we have it clearly before us, not that love "is God," but that "God is love," love will not be the less, but in fact more true and pure. While it will be the active spring of our own hearts, it will not be found at issue with His character, but will leave room for God to display Himself according to all that He is. God is truthful in love. Take it in the case of His dealings with my soul, for instance, in conversion. Is faith the only thing produced by the Holy Ghost? What is the first effect of His breaking in upon a sinner? Making nothing of him. Is not this love? Yes; but it is God's love that deals with me in the truth of what He is, and of what the sinner's awful condition is. So the effect produced on the heart of him that is renewed is not merely faith in Christ, but repentance toward God; it is the judgment of his whole moral condition in His sight. And as you find both connected in God's dealings with a soul from the first, and in the moral answer produced in the soul of the saint, so it is true all through. Where the action of a saint is healthful in the presence of God, the room will surely not be less open for divine love, yet there will be the maintenance of the holiness and majesty of God. We should not wish to be spared pain for the purpose of slipping through at God's expense. There never has been one trial of heart gone through with God, but we have been blessed by it. We might have the blessing in a still fuller way without so much failure or letting out of what we are. But supposing we do not so lay hold of Christ as to be lifted above ourselves, then we must learn painfully what we are. Yet God turns it all for blessing. This is the great thought of the chapter. He has brought us into a blessed place. First of all, we are in Christ before God; and next, God dwells in us: the one is our great privilege, the other is also our solemn responsibility, which flows from the fact that God has made us His dwelling-place.

At once all contracted ecclesiastical notions are shut out by the truth of His dwelling-place. If we merely meet as a church, such a connection with God disappears. But if it were only two or three, I must meet on the ground of the Church or it has no truth in it before God; and two or three Christians thus gathered would do God's will and would have Him dwelling in them. There Christ is, and there God dwells in a special way. God can bless where He does not sanction; He can bless even in Popery. His grace is so rich and free, and above all the wicked ways of men, that He can use the name of Christ in the most untoward circumstances; but this is very different from God's putting His seal to what we are about. In order that He may Himself be associated in it, we must be in the truth of things, and acting according to the divine mind. I believe that only in our own days, since the time when the apostles, Paul especially, were raised up, has this great truth been brought out by the Holy Ghost so as to bear upon souls according to God. I am not aware of any adequate testimony to it since the ruin of Christendom. There were in abundance efforts of men to improve the present and imitate the past; but either is a very different thing from God's provision in the word for saints in a fallen state. If you see a man who is striving simply and ever so earnestly to get better, you say justly that he is under law and does sot understand the gospel. Just so, when a number of Christians are trying to ameliorate Christendom by new plans and efforts, I should say that, if they understood the nature of the Church of God, and the Holy Ghost's relation to it, they would feel that mere union is a poor substitute for unity; they would humble themselves in the sight of God because of the state of the Church, and would fall back upon the word of God to see whether there is not a real and lowly but divine direction for the actual state of things in Christendom. May God deliver His saints from the unholy as well as unbelieving but very general notion, that we are obliged on account of present circumstances to go on in sin! To men of spiritual discernment the thought is just making God such an one as ourselves. If I give up His holiness in one thing, how can I stand up for it or trust Him in another? Contrariwise, let us maintain that there is no emergency as to which God can lower His holiness, or sanction the lack of it in us; and if His will be perfect in other things, is it less in that which so deeply and nearly concerns the glory and name of Christ as the Church? People argue from the fact that things are not in order and beauty now; they go so far as to deny the responsibility of saints, as if Christians were not in one way or another connected with these public departures from God. Will it be urged that they are to be adhered to because they themselves or their fathers have been brought up in them? Surely the one question for us is this: Do we desire to learn and do the will of God? Is this our governing object? Or is it merely, Where can I get enough comfort or blessing to keep my head above water? Of this, too, I am fully assured, that if you are found doing the will of God, you will have the most and best blessing; but it is not the true christian motive, and it is an unsafe guide. We may go here and get a little blessing, and then go there hoping to get a little more. But, as it is said here, growth is, "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine." He would guard us from all the cunning craftiness of men whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Is there, then, no means of having certainty in the midst of the confusion that reigns? Assuredly there is, and where the soul is sufficiently broken down to feel what is due to God, He will make all plain. We never ought to join in a single thing that we know to be wrong, whether privately or publicly. Of course, there may be everywhere things done or said that one may not be able to approve of, but this individual failure is different from joining in public acts of worship, the order of which is known beforehand to be systematically unscriptural. There I am identified with the guilt of what is done contrary to the word of God and so fixed by human authority. But this shows us the importance of nothing being done in the assembly but what will carry the weight of the whole assembly along with it. Hence, too, the evident desirableness of keeping out of the assembly all debatable questions. We may speak of them to a servant of God, to a wise brother; but even that which I may individually enjoy is not a thing that I am entitled to occupy the assembly of God with, unless I believe God would have me say it, especially when there may be room for a just doubt on the mind of the simplest believer there. Minor matters of discipline never ought to be brought into the assembly. When anything appears of fundamental false doctrine or of a grossly immoral character, let it be what it may, there it is plain that all saints must be assumed to have the very same judgment. All would feel that they could have no fellowship with blasphemy or drunkenness, or any fatal manifestation of evil of one kind or another. Then we have cases which claim the united judgment of the whole assembly. Supposing a saint were what is called a Churchman, or a Dissenter, and little versed in scriptural thought or action ecclesiastically, still, if he were really born of God, there could be no material difference of judgment about such matters. The power of the Spirit is mighty; the Lord knows how to work; and the common spiritual instincts of all the children of God, guided by His word as to such matters, find their expression in the renouncing and judgment of all such evil. But public discipline in the Church is so serious a matter, that it ought never to be resorted to till the evil rises up to such a height that all unbiassed believers would be united about it. There is a tendency among righteous and active minds to make, out of every matter of difference, questions for the Church to decide on and deal with. This is a grave mistake, fraught with ill for all concerned, and to be resisted with all possible earnestness. Even saints are apt to be prejudiced or prepossessed in what concerns one another especially in small things which can at all admit of party feeling. Besides, it would become an instrument of torture for many souls, if every private matter were liable to be brought into public. Thanks be to God, He has made His own landmarks for our guidance, and has shown us clearly that to bring anything into the open arena of Church discipline, ought never to be till every means has been taken to hinder it. The desire of our hearts ought to be the glory of the Lord in the blessing of one another's souls; and we all know that needless publicity must add largely to shame, pain, and difficulty. But when it is needful, let it be done, so that it be to the Lord, with the utmost gravity and real love. The destroying the true notion of the Church, and of its action, has tended to reduce it to the level of a mere club, sometimes lower than the world, though with the highest pretensions.

But when we lay hold of the truth that the Lord has that on earth with which He links His name, although only two or three souls may have gathered unto that name, renouncing their connection with what is of the world and of man; when we have come to learn from God that He who saved our souls is the only One competent to form and keep and guide the Church, when we know that He has made us members of His own Church, all we have to do is to act upon the ground of the Church that God has made. If we now belong to God at all, we belong to His assembly, and we are called to follow it out practically. If I know ever so few that act upon the word of God which applies to this, I am free, yea, bound in the liberty of Christ to meet with them. Of course, it would be matter of thankfulness, if there were hundreds of thousands meeting thus, though this might in other ways entail more sorrow and trial; but the trial will not be mere trouble of flesh; it will be, if we walk with God, the exercise of grace and patience; it will call out the real love to Christ that seeks the good of others, and this is always drawn out into intercession by the pressure of evil on all sides.

Supposing, then, two or three come to the point that they cannot acknowledge a human church, any more than a human salvation; are they to sit still, dishonouring God and ruining their conscience by persisting in known evil; or are they not in faith to meet in the Lord's name? By all means let them come together, following the word and trusting the Spirit of God. They will find trial, but true liberty and the Holy Ghost working in their midst. He is given to abide with them for ever; let them believe it and not fail to count upon it. They may be very weak, but the Holy Ghost is not weak. On coming together, perhaps there is no one to speak at length, with profit, to them; but the assembly of God does not come together for sermons. Much or little speaking, their object is to do the will of God, to remember Christ, to act scripturally on the faith of God's aim and glory in His Church. If there were twenty thousand Christians round about, but meeting on human principles, what believer can maintain that these two or three would not enjoy the special presence of God among them in a way the others could not? The more we have the sense of the ruin of the Church, the fuller our confidence that God's principles always remain intact and as obligatory now as on the day of Pentecost; the more happy the soul in the Lord, the more it will be drawn out in love to all saints. May it be ours thus by grace to "grow up unto him in all things, who is the head, even Christ!" This does not depend on the number of communicants, nor on the forms and means of ministerial power, but far more on our own souls being with God, and doing His will, not only in individual service and life, but also as His assembly, which ought to come together according to His word.

There are, then, these three things: first and prominently, the perfecting of the saints individually; subordinately, next, the work of the ministry, where other persons act upon me; and, lastly, the building up of the body of Christ. The full aim and desired result of it all is the growing up unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up unto him in all things, who is the head, even Christ." Allow me to point out a practical proof of it. You are aware that at an early date, false doctrines and heresies of all kinds came in. What was the resource of good men in those days? They invented creeds and confessions by which they endeavoured to try suspected persons. But where was the authority for this course? Or was it found that these bulwarks kept the evil out? In no wise, time, or place. There is only one power of maintaining truth and love — even Christ; and where Christ is really held up and to, without the devices of men, there may be weakness and ignorance at first, but the result will be that Christ's strength will be made perfect in their weakness. The power of Christ will rest upon those who, feeling their own weakness, cleave to Him alone. On the other hand, while you often stumble weak consciences in good men by imposing creeds, you can rarely, if ever, thereby shut out bad men; nor would spiritual men, alive to the honour of God's word, and aroused to see their unwarranted character if ever so correct, deem it right to own them. Thus you hamper the weak and you exclude the strong among the children of God; you have a crowd of thoughtless or bigoted subscribers; and, as to dangerous men, what thief or robber cannot leap over a creed? Human restraints may clog and dishonour the work of God, but they avail not to hinder the evil of man or Satan. What you find in Scripture is the saints led on and the body knit together by the different joints and bands and thus having nourishment ministered. This is the exercise and fruit of ministry exercised in all its extent; for there may be the Spirit of God giving a word by one who has not a permanent gift, though God ordinarily makes a man an evangelist or a teacher; so that a stated ministry is a truth of God, while the truth goes much farther.

But exclusive ministry, I am bold to say, is an interference with the rights of Christ and with the action of the Holy Ghost. God has caused to be felt in these last days the ruin of the Church more than at any epoch known to me in its past history; but He has also made souls learn and feel that no ruin of the Church destroys a divine principle. What was the truth for the Church is the truth for him who believes. The original principle of ministry ever abides the only principle which He sanctions or we ought to follow. If there was nothing like modern practice in apostolic times, it is a human thing (and why should a saint hold to or justify it?) in our days. It is absolutely due to the Lord, that the Church should not interfere with those who are scripturally doing His work;* and also, that all should leave room for Him to raise up others as He pleases. No workman, skilled or blessed as he may be, has all gifts in his person. There might be some member of Christ in the congregation qualified of God to edify by a word of wisdom occasionally, or able to preach the gospel, to exhort, or to minister in some mode or measure, according to the word of God. What we find in Scripture is the door kept open in principle and practice for all that God gives. Surely this is not to disparage ministry; it is, on the contrary, to assert it, and the rights of the Lord in it. But the ground on which ministry is exercised at the present time, is so wholly, certainly, and transparently human, that the effect is inevitably to accredit a number of persons as ministers who are not even Christians, and to discredit all real ministers, who, for the Lord's sake, refuse unscriptural forms, old or new. This is an evil that no godly man, who desires to be obedient, ought to tolerate, or even make light of, for an instant. It seems to me a good reason why it is wrong to become a minister of any denomination that follows (as all do) these baseless traditions. If you are a minister at all, you are a minister of Christ and of nobody else. This the word of God makes as plain as light. The action of the assembly, as such, is entirely distinct. While the minister is, of course, a part or member of the assembly, yet must he act, if he act rightly, from Christ, and from Christ alone. He may strive to edify believers by discourses, exhortations, etc., addressed to them; he may seek earnestly the conversion of unbelievers; but ministry or no ministry (in which last case there would, of course, be loss), yet the assembly goes on, competent and bound to perform its own functions in subjection to the Lord. Again, not ministry but the presence and operation of the Spirit constitute the power of the assembly. This is as important for the assembly to bear in mind, as it is for the servants to remember that they have immediately to do with Christ as their Lord. Of course, abuse of ministry, like any other sin, necessarily brings him who is guilty under the judgment of the assembly. No man can ever be beyond the Church's judgment, where he gives occasion for it by the allowance of evil in his conduct. But the Church's interference never ought to appear, save in the case of known evil doctrine or practice.

*If honour to those that labour and help to maintain them or their families in case of need are supposed to involve a title to interfere, the worldly and evil source of such a thought becomes apparent. Would they purchase the gift of God with money, or reduce a servant of Christ into the hireling of men? On the other hand, let us beware of mere human independence, which is simply pride, where it is least becoming and most injurious.

This may help to show the practical bearing of the passage. What God does and Christ gives, the mutual service of the various members of the body, joints and bands, — all is that we should "grow up unto Christ in all things; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." There we have the theory of the Church, because God, in laying down these blessed principles, does not bring in the mere accidents of evil. There is no such thought as a screw being loose here or something else being wrong there. All is supposed to be moving on harmoniously for the great end for which the Lord has established it. Disciplinary action, resources where evil reigns, must be looked for and are provided elsewhere.

There is a difficulty that people often bring forward — that you cannot have a perfect church on earth. What do they mean? If it be a condition where there will not be a soul ever doing or saying anything but what is quite according to God, they are asserting, doubtless, a simple truism, if it be not rather mere foolishness. But what is insinuated is, that you cannot on earth get any association of saints according to the will of God. I deny this, believing that you may readily find the path of His will, and that every believer ought to find that path. You are responsible to learn the will of God about His Church, if you are a member of it, and to be doing nothing else. If I know two or three Christians in a place, seeking to walk according to the Scriptures, there should be my lot. One may be a forward man naturally, another might have strange notions and ways. There might be something faulty in each of the individuals. All this is not to deter me for an instant, because my owning them as being that part of the Church which is acting where they are according to God does not depend upon an immaculate ideal in this or that. The question is — are they doing the will of God according to His word? God's will at least is perfect, and he who does it abides for ever. Is not His will about His Church as absolute as about anything else? If this be allowed, there, I say, is the ground of action. Must we not be about our Father's business as to this? Hence the one question for all who desire to please God is, what is His will? Not surely to meet as the flock of Mr. So-and-so, (for where do we read anything of the sort in Scripture) but to meet as Christians who are simply cleaving to Christ, and counting on the Holy Ghost to teach all the will of God? Is not this, and this alone, the true basis on which Christians should corporately act? Where, then, shall I find believers so meeting? Are there any who have had the faith to come out of that which is merely human, so as to stand on the ground laid down in God's word? The same Scripture that tells me how I am to be saved tells me how to walk in His house, the Church of God. Neither the assembly nor ministry is left to human wit or caprice; as to both, we must search, and be subject to, the word of God. God's system (for He has one, as revealed in Scripture) is what we have to learn and act upon; and though we may encounter great trial and difficulty, and find ourselves in the same straits the early saints experienced, yet, even this confirms the truth to us. Surely we shall have joy and strength if simply dependent on and obedient to the Lord. The very trials will become a means of fresh blessing; and we shall prove how truly God can give us to use for His own glory much of His word which was once practically useless to us, and which we supposed merely referred to apostolic times. We thus begin to find a present application of the word of God in our corporate position, just as much as in meeting the wants of our souls day by day. If this be so. may we have the happiness, not only of knowing these things but of doing them steadfastly unto the end!

The reader now enters upon the general walk of christian men, as suitable to, and connected with, the doctrine of our epistle. Indeed there was already an exhortation in the beginning of Ephesians 4, to walk worthy of the vocation wherewith we are called. But the apostle here descends to particulars. And, first of all, there is a solemn injunction to the saints, that they should not henceforth walk as the other Gentiles walked, in the vanity of their mind. The Spirit of God guards us against what we perhaps might think needless — the walk of those who surround us — the walk that was our own before we were brought to Christ. And yet, the moment that we reflect, the wisdom of such an exhortation is apparent; for Christians are ordinarily liable to be much influenced by the tone of thought and feeling-current in the world outside. The ruling passion that carries the world on for the time being is always apt to be a snare to those, at least, who shrink from the cross day by day, and so much the more because they do not suspect themselves. Whatever be that which occupies its energies, especially if philanthropy, moral progress, or religion be the form that it takes, there is always a liability to be thrown off our guard. Besides, and this is the immediate point here, old habit is strong; so that the apostle does not hesitate to warn these saints who stood out, not only in the fresh joy of faith, but also in outward position, very separate from the world (and the lines were at that time strongly defined); and yet, in this opening word of exhortation, the Holy Ghost very solemnly guards the saints against being drawn into the ways and practices of the Gentiles. There is often a danger of this with Christians, because they do not like to be singular. There may be peculiar people among the children of God. Of course, the apostle does not speak of eccentric individuals, to whom it would be no difficulty but a pleasure to differ from everybody else — men who affect originality in word and deed, and in their strain after it are only odd. But he is guarding against the common moral danger, when faith has lost somewhat of its simplicity and freshness.

On the other hand, the apostle has shown elsewhere — and we should always endeavour to remember it — that it is a wise and important thing to meet souls in grace as far as possible, not to impose upon others what they have not strength to bear. In writing to the Corinthians the apostle had insisted on this, as his ministry exemplified it. He had become a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews. He was made all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. There was no kind of pressing points. There was the hearty desire for the good of souls; for we may have this without the pressure of our own particular thoughts and feelings, however right they may be. It is the elasticity of the Christian if established in grace. We rarely can pull the cord too tightly in dealing with our own souls, or be too stringent in our vigilance and prayer against slipping here and there. But it is a totally different thing in having to do with others. We have to bear their infirmities, if, in truth, we are strong; it is for their good that the Lord lays them upon our hearts. We find that, even with His own disciples, He went not beyond what they were able at that time to bear. But the very desire to meet souls, and not to raise questions that would gender strife, might expose a gracious Christian to be taking the colour of those outside himself, and giving up his own principles. On every side he has to watch.

There is no doubt, then, of the forbearance in which we are called to walk with one another; nevertheless, we need to beware of turning grace into levity or licentiousness. "This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their minds, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart." (Ver. 17, 18.) Here he begins with the inner thing. You will find that our tendency is to occupy ourselves and others with something outward. But the apostle goes to the root of the evil walk of the Gentiles. Their minds were vain and empty, as all must be who have not God distinctly and positively and intelligently before them in any matter, whatever it may be. As to these Gentiles, in nothing had they God before them; they were "without God in the world." Consequently, there was nothing but the empty vapouring mind and mouth of man, imagining one thing and expressing another. What was the effect? The understanding was darkened. "They were alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that was in them, because of the blindness of their heart." These are various descriptions, not of the outward walk, but of the root of all the evil fruit they bore. God was not in all their thoughts. They were "alienated from the life of God." How indeed could it be otherwise? The life of God is only found in His Son; and Him, and, consequently, it they had not. Far from having relish, or a just sense of need, they were estranged from good; and this on account of the blindness or hardness of their hearts. Thus far is the evident tracing of what the evil walk of these Gentiles sprang from; the sum and substance is that it arose from their ignorance. And their ignorance was because their hearts were hard, not from mental dullness. What a solemn and practical truth for every soul of man, converted or not! Our conduct flows from our judgment, and our judgment from our affections. Thus, the state of our heart becomes most important in practice. We find here that all the outward man finds its source in the inner man, and the inner man is formed by that which governs the heart.

Hence the all-importance of having Christ for the heart's object — yea, exclusive object. For nothing is more common than to have divided affections. Indeed, it is the great thing against which we all have to watch. Had we an eye more single, and a heart more thoroughly and self-judgingly devoted to Christ, what would be the consequence? The heart always gives direction, colour, and energy to the judgment. There never would be a waver individually, and there would be nothing but peaceful walking together in the light of God, without slip or stumble of any kind. And this is the theory of a Christian. (Compare Phil. 1 and Col. 1) Practically there are difficulties. Who of us has not had to confess grievous failure and sin? Who has not had to say, I do not know what the mind of God is as to this or that? In a word, the understanding has been too often darkened, and the walk unlike His whose we are. Of course they differ from what we have described here. But is it not a solemn thing that the Christian has to watch against the very same evil which, in souls that know Him not, denies and outrages the character and will of God? And yet this is what we all have to feel and confess as to ourselves. How often we have been without divine light! This ought never to be in a saint. It never was so with Christ. He was the light; so that it would utterly fall short of His glory to say that He was always not only walking in the light, but according to the light. Consequently He never knew what it was to have a shade of doubt. If He waited, it was never doubt but simple dependence on His Father's will, as in John 11. It may be our path to wait; and it is well to do so, when we have no such assurance. The development that follows is a description of the awful depravity of the Gentiles; as he says in the next verse, "Who, being past feeling, have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." No doubt it is the lowest moral degradation of which the life of man is capable. But the wholesome thing for us to see, and to apply for our own souls' help and guidance and guard too, is that all the excesses of this outward evil were the result of the heart being darkened, and this because it was without the life of God. There was nothing but what Satan drew from a man's own mind, and the consequence was the falsifying of his judgments and feelings. Hence men became a prey to every kind of evil. They had given themselves over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

But now comes the Christian in contrast. He says (although we are in danger of all this, and the very sense of our danger is what God uses to keep us from falling into the danger), "Ye have not so learned Christ." As all the practical evil of the Gentiles arose from their ignorance of God, the heart, the mind, the walk, all wrong, and increasingly evil; so now God's deliverance from all evil, root, branch, and fruit, is Christ. And what a blessed, simple, holy, God-glorifying deliverance it is! It is not that He enters into anything of the various processes He may use in leading to this result. Besides, Christ is the way, as well as the truth. The one grand means that applies to every case, and that gives the surest deliverance, is Christ Himself. "Ye have not so learned Christ." He purposely makes Him to be the person who has to do directly with the soul. It is a remarkable way of connecting us with our Lord, though common in John, "My sheep hear my voice." But here, though the union of the members with the Head and not life only is the point insisted upon, we approach closely to the teaching of "the elder." It is as if we listened to Christ ourselves. "If so be that ye have heard him" — not about Him; they were taught in Him also, "as the truth is in Jesus." Is there not great emphasis in this expression? It is not as the truth is in Christ. We all know that Jesus is Christ, and Christ is Jesus. But God never uses one word in vain. And I think that the difference is the greater because both are used. He first of all puts the word Christ — "Ye have not so learned Christ;" because there he brings the whole mass of my privilege before the soul. Christ is the special name, when I look at Him as the risen, exalted man. In Him I have got my blessing. The word conveys to my mind the thought of One in whom all is concentrated as dead, crucified, but now in heaven. Jesus is the personal name that He bears on earth. The Spirit had been revealing in previous chapters the great name brought before us in Christ. But when He is about to speak of the practical knowledge which would apply to the duties of their walk here below, He says, "If so be ye have heard him, and been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus." There, I apprehend, He is more speaking of Him as that person who, in the eyes of men, as well as before God, was the blessed example of all light and purity in His ways here below. Thus, I conceive, any spiritual mind will at once appreciate what a blessed way it is of bringing this before our souls. He places before us the living presentation of all we have in Him; but we see it in the ways of that blessed Man, Jesus, here below. By the "truth that is in Jesus," does He not mean the truth that we see and hear and know carried out in every word He said, in all His ways and obedience and service, in every kind of suffering that He passed through on the earth, in His patience, in His earnestness, in His zeal for the glory of God, in His tender care for those that belonged to God, and in His compassion for perishing sinners? And yet, look where you will, behold His intolerance of that which is contrary to God. All these, and infinitely more, we find in Jesus, and no where else, in perfection.

It is only in the person of Jesus that we have all truth fully out. I may learn truth through the Holy Ghost, and He is the only power of my knowing the truth, and is therefore, I suppose, called "truth" in 1 John 5: 6. Neither God, as such, nor the Father, is ever called the truth; nor could it be. When you speak of the truth, you do not mean merely either the divine nature in its perfectness, or His person "from whom cometh down every good gift." But why is it that Jesus should be emphatically the truth? Jesus is the One who objectively has presented to me that which shows me the bearing and relationship of everything to God as well as to man. If I want to test any one thing, I never can arrive at its full character till I view it in connection with the person of Christ. The Holy Ghost is the truth subjectively, because no man can behold Jesus or find the truth in Jesus without Himself. The Holy Ghost is the revealer of Jesus; our own mind cannot see Him. Even the new man cannot of itself understand Jesus, or enter into the things of God. And you will observe how strikingly this was shown when the disciples themselves, already born of God, had to wait till the Lord opened their understandings to understand the Scriptures, and after that for power to act on them. After they were converted, they needed the power of the Spirit to enable them to apprehend the Scriptures. Besides, again they must wait for power to testify the truth from the Scriptures to others. They required to have the power of the Spirit, distinct from the new nature, for the purpose of entering into the things of God. Mere human nature never understands the things of God, the new man does. But in order to do it, the Spirit's leading is requisite. The new man is characterized by dependence. The Holy Ghost acts in His own power. So that we do not merely need dependence upon God but power from Him in order to enter into the truth. I am not now speaking of being converted merely, but of the practical entering into the mind of Christ, and the ways of God as brought out in the ways of Jesus.

Let me illustrate the value of the truth as it is in Jesus. Take any truth you like, as, e.g., man. Where shall I learn the truth about man? Shall I look for it in Adam — a man that listened to his wife after she had listened to the devil — a man who, when God came down, ran away from Him, and even dared to insult God by laying the blame upon Him? Shall I look at his sons — at Cain, his firstborn, or at Abel, whom Cain slew? The beautiful grace in Abel was what was of God, not what was of himself. If you pursue the history of man as such, you only find evil and pride and presumption increasing upon him, till you give up the whole tale in shame and disgust. And so it would all end, but for the Second Adam. I find here in every step that He took, in every word that He said, in everything that flowed from His heart and was reflected in His ways, One that never did His own will. Now I learn the beauty and the wonder of a man subject to God upon the earth — the only One who ever walked in perfect, moral dignity, though He was despised of all, and most of all hated by the religious leaders of the world in that day. But how did not God delight in Him? Here, then, the humbling truth is told. Man has shown himself thoroughly out: Jesus, the cross, tells the tale in full.

But supposing another instance: if I look up and think of God, where shall I, of a surety, find Him? In creation? It is all ruined. Besides, to read Him only in the book of nature, is but to have glimpses of power and beneficence, But in the midst of all these large and shining characters of divine majesty, and wisdom, and goodness, scattered up and down through everything that He has made upon the earth, I should also have to face other characteristics, as of weakness, decay, suffering, death, etc. The question arises, whence do these come? They are as crooked as the others were straight; the latter as full of misery as the former were the impress of wisdom and power. The result of all is, that, for the mere reasoner in the vanity of man's mind, the understanding gets darkened; and all that can thus be learned, even from the consideration of that which comes from the hand of God, completely fails to give the knowledge of Himself. I see the effects of another hand there as well as His own — the hand of a destroyer and liar; and instead of rising up from nature to nature's God, as poets vainly sing, you are apt to sink from nature to the devil who has ruined it all; you fall into the snares of the enemy by the effort to find out God in your own strength. I want some other way wherein to learn what God is. To gather an evidence of His being is one thing; to know Him is another. I can delight in anything that He has made, but what are His thoughts, feelings, ways, especially to a sinner? If you talk about providence, is there not an Abel suffering and a Cain prosperous? Great deeds were done in the family of the proud murderer; while those who had whatever then shone of the light of God, were disliked and scorned by the world; often weak in their own eyes too, but suffering and cast out wherever faith made them odious to those who had it not. This is an impenetrable enigma to man. How can he, in the face of such facts, discern the superintending power of a God as conscience tells there is? Constant difficulties arise; and the reason is very plain; — it is not in circumstances around, any more than in my own mind, that I can find the truth. Not that there are not traces and indications in providence as in creation; but I want the truth and cannot find it in either.

Then I may come down to the law. Does it give me the truth? In no way. It is not that the law was not good and holy, but it is never called, nor in itself could it be, the truth. Its design was more for making the discovery of man than of God. Its operation was that man might thereby learn what he is himself. It runs like a ploughshare, when directed by the Spirit, into the heart, and lays bare many furrows, and discovers what man never knew was there before. But none of these things shows what God is to man in grace. Not even the law can give the truth as to this. I cannot at all learn by it what a Saviour-God is, nor even fully what man is. At the best it declares what a man ought to be as well as do; but this is not the truth. What I ought to be is not God's truth but my duty. Law was the standard for man in the flesh; and hence it never was given till man was a sinful man. "The law was given by Moses," and not to or by Adam. The commandment laid upon Adam is never called the law, although it was, of course, a law.

Further, you will never find truth, even in the Bible, if you sever it from Jesus. But the moment the same blessed One, who has shown me in His own life and death what man is, has also shown me in the very same what God is, then all the clouds break and the difficulties vanish. Now I know God, beholding Him in Jesus. New thoughts of God dawn on the soul, and submitting to Him, I am made perfectly happy; perhaps not all at once, but as surely as my soul has received Jesus, and learnt what the true God is in Jesus, I have eternal life, and shall find unbroken peace; but in Him I receive all that I want, all that God intends for my soul, because the truth is in Jesus. Thus, then, as a believer, I know God; I know that which the heathen never did nor could reach. Their understanding was darkened. Having no knowledge of Jesus, they had no full or saving means of knowing God. But this is precisely what the gospel brings close to every poor, needy soul who hears it now. And what is it then that I learn of God, when I look at the truth as it is in Jesus? I learn first this — a God that comes down to me, a God that seeks my soul to do me good, a God that can follow me with love, selfish as I am, and pity my ignorance, and not this only, but One that can instruct me, and is willing to do it, spite of my wilfulness and stupidity; in short, a most gracious and faithful God He makes Himself known in Jesus. I find One who, after using other means, spent Himself in love upon me, that I might know Him; One who undertook to bear the judgment of my sins. For Jesus came and took all sins upon Himself for every soul that believes upon Him. I learn now that even the hateful self which has so refused and slighted Him — for this He has suffered, and completely deals with it. It has been judged in the cross of Christ; and if my soul believes that God is good enough to do all this for me, to suffer all this for me, to take and bear the whole consequence upon Himself in the person of His beloved Son; if I see this and bow to it, and receive it from God, what can shake or harass my soul more? My sins? Certainly if anything ought to trouble my soul, they most of all. But what is the cross for? What has God done there? What has He told me in the gospel? If it was God revealing Himself in His beloved Son, if it was Jesus the Son of God that was made sin there, why should I have a single doubt or anxiety upon that score? All depends upon this: Have I bowed to what God has wrought and given me in the cross of Christ? If I am despairing about sin, it is in effect making the cross of Christ of none effect, and the work of Christ a vain thing. He has perfectly done His task, and I am entitled so to rest upon it, as to know that my sins never can come up against me more. Ought I not to be a happy man, and to rest in the most perfect peace because of what Jesus had done and suffered? Here faith can repose. Christ's death has such value in the mind of God, that He loves to give this peace in consequence. Such is the truth as it is in Jesus. What a wonderful depth and breadth of truth there is, if you look at it thus! What a poor thing my own experience is, compared with the truth as it is in Jesus! Spiritual power is much more proved by discerning Jesus in others, than by measuring or comparing what people are in themselves, which, indeed, is far from wise. But yet what a disappointing thing it is to see Him merely as He is reflected in others! I must look at the truth as it is in Jesus: in what He was here below, as One who has shown me all through His life and up to His death what God is and man too, Himself the model-man.

In the same person of Jesus I alone see the full truth about anything at all. And you will find the value of this not merely in the great lessons of what God or man is, but if you have to do with any particular trial or difficulty, what is the one test of anything right or wrong? The truth as it is in Jesus. It is the power of using Jesus to meet that difficulty, and of seeing how His name bears upon it. He has expressed His will about it — where I am to be quiet, where I am to act, how I am to walk, and how to bear. He has given me an example that I should follow in His steps. The secret of the power of being like Jesus depends upon the measure of spirituality we have in applying His name. I am still assuming that there is honesty of purpose, and that we are desiring to walk before one another as we are walking in truth before God ourselves. It is in proportion as we turn to Jesus and use Him, and view things in Him; this is the rule and spring of real spiritual power. It is this which constitutes strength and maturity in Christ. It was not the amount of zeal or of overcoming the world, or any great knowledge of this thing or that, but it is found in knowing Him. "I have written unto you fathers, because you have known Him that is from the beginning." Who is this? Jesus. The knowledge of Jesus, then, is the practical power, growth, and wisdom of the Christian; it is, as well as shows, advance in the things of God. This is in truth what all have to learn, more or less. But to know it deeply, and so as to apply it and bring it out, was what specially characterized the fathers. Everybody talks in his own tongue. The dullest soul can use intelligibly the words of his vernacular language. But there is an immense difference between the capacity of different persons in wielding their own tongue. It is not every one who can speak according to what the subject calls for. A man who has a mastery of the language proves it by applying it appropriately to all variety of subjects. So all saints must have laid hold more or less of the truth in Jesus, but then the power to know it well, to use it rightly, to bring it out on fitting occasions and turn it to profit for ourselves and others — this is the true secret of our progress in the things of God, and what tends to the blessing of souls and the helping on of the cause of God. The importance of such growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus cannot be over estimated.

Then we have stated to us the practical object of it all — "That ye put off according to the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the lusts of deceit." It is not a question of improvement. There is no bettering our old man. The heart may be purified by faith, but in itself it is "deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." Faith may work the new life, and the Spirit; but the flesh never can be changed or renewed. And here we find what is to be done with our odd nature: "That ye put off," etc.* The apostle is speaking to Christians. They have the old man, and need practically to put it off. We must beware, remembering that we have still this incurably evil thing, accustomed to indulge its bad ways before conversion, and still tending to drag one, if unwatchful, into evil.

*Some suppose that the truth in Jesus is, "that ye have put off, as concerns your former conversation, the old man . . . . . and have put on the new man," etc. (Ver 22-24). so Dr. Eadie and Mr. Peile, whose rendering seems to me quite consistent with the context, notwithstanding the depreciatory notice of Alford and Ellicott. Mr. Darby takes the version and connection to be that the truth in Jesus is not exactly "that ye should," nor "that ye have," but "your having put off," etc. I have not, however, altered the rendering and the comment, which remain here as before. The reader can judge for himself.

But now begins the positive part. There was, first, the putting off the old man, the moral judgment of it, grounded on God's judgment in the cross of Christ, where it was definitively done with. Then comes the renewing of the spirit of the mind, which we cannot have unless there is the judgment of the old. The renewal is intimated to be a present process going on gradually, as the spirit of the mind is imbued with Christ. The putting off and putting on are not viewed as present, but as the act in itself once for all. "And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; that ye put on the new man which, according to God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth." They had the new man of course; but it is the putting on the new man practically, the outward manifestation of the new man that was already within them. It is well to bear in mind that this is "righteousness and holiness of truth." It is the truth here again that produces it. Such is the full and real meaning of the expression.

Righteousness and holiness differ in this respect. Righteousness is the true perception and, of course, the walking in our relative duties as men of God, holiness is rather the rejection in heart and way, according to God's nature, of what is contrary to Him. Holiness, therefore, is a far more absolute thing than righteousness, which takes up what we owe relatively to God and man. It is in contrast with the first man. Adam was good as a creature, but he had no right apprehension of God Himself, or of what evil was according to God. He did not then know sin; there was no evil to know. If one had talked about lust to Adam in the garden of Eden, he must, I believe, have avowed his ignorance of what it meant. Therefore, if the law had been given to Adam, "Thou shalt not covet," he would not have comprehended its meaning, having no experience of sin till afterwards. We have hearts which crave what we have not got, but Adam had not. He was just the sample of creature-goodness in a man. It was not after God, created in the righteousness and holiness of the truth. God made man upright; but uprightness is a different thing from being created in holiness. Upright he was created, and innocent; but the new man is much more, knowing right well, through the Spirit's teaching, what evil is and what good is. Adam only learnt what good and evil are when he fell, never before; he then became conscious of a good that he lost and that he was not, and of an evil that he had fallen into, which God hated and must judge. So when a man is brought to the truth as it is in Jesus, he knew good and evil before with a bad conscience, but now he knows it with a purged and good conscience. There is nothing that could make a conscience so clean as the sacrifice of Jesus. Supposing that any of us were able to live without iniquity to the end of our days, would this make our conscience good? Not in the least. There would always be a bad conscience, because of the consciousness of past, unremoved, unforgiven sin. No human process, nay, nor giving us a new nature, can get rid of the evil we have done. The sacrifice of Christ has done it perfectly. My evil is there judged according to God. The evil of the old man is dealt with in His death before God. Christ rises from the dead and gives me His life, which is the new man. Christ in resurrection is the very source of the new man in my soul. If this be so, we must deal with the old man. It is to faith a thing done with. Jesus has shown me it as a judged thing in His cross, and I must judge it, and in no way allow my old pride and vanity and folly. I have all still within me, but I must treat it as dead: else I shall grieve the Lord, and bring myself under His hand. We have each of us to watch earnestly against the former conversation; but then it easily happens that a person might be enticed by an evil never fallen into before, because he imagined it was impossible for him so to fall. There is nothing so exposes one to fall, as the notion one could not so turn aside. Self-confidence leads away from dependence on God, and has often been the ruin of a christian man, as far as His glory is concerned.

Thus, the new man is spoken of so as to bring out its contrast with what man was even in his best estate. Yea, Adam, when he came from the hand of God, could not be described in the terms of blessing which are true of every believer now. There is no such thing as restoring to an Adamic condition. A soul when converted now has the place of the second Man; and as He, the Lord, cannot fall, so the Christian has a life that never can be touched. It is as impossible for a Christian to be lost, as for Christ to be removed from the right hand of God; because He is the life of the Christian. If you say that people can fall away from grace, nothing is more certain than that they may. But if you mean by this, that the life of the Christian can perish, you flatly contradict the word of God. It is a question, then, of understanding the Scriptures. Christ Himself is the life of the Christian: can He fall? Thus it is a virtual denial of Christ Himself, that there should be a doubt allowed about it. All these exhortations are based upon this; that they had learnt Christ, and knew the truth as it is in Jesus. They were already in living relation to Him, and upon this ground all christian exhortations come. Is it even or ever a reasonable thing to talk about fruit till the plant has thoroughly taken root? It would be no use to talk to a baby about the duties of a man. The man must be there, as such, before you can expect to see the discharge of the duties of a man. And so with the Christian, before you can rightly insist on the duties of a Christian. But now that the truth as it is in Jesus is known, you must not allow the old man. He is speaking of practical fruit and walk, because of already being in Christ, and knowing the truth in Him. This ought always to be a great encouragement to a soul. Even if God is exhorting me to self-judgment, it always supposes my previous blessing as a possessor of life everlasting. It is on this ground that God, as it were, thus addresses us. Is it possible that when I have done so much for you, you can be so careless of my will? It is to touch the spring of grace in the soul, in order that we may go on with Him and do His will.

Now some of the results are pressed upon them. "Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour, for we are members one of another." (Ver. 25.) As they had learnt the truth in Jesus, the shame of falsehood was the more manifest. What is the ground that we have here? We are too apt to take falsehood rather upon the human basis of honour. Many a man would not do it on moral grounds; or he would be too proud to tell a lie; and he that had a certain sense of the fear of God before his eyes, would not do it, because it was a practical denial of God. It is as good as saying that God does not hear. So that whether you look at a mere man in his natural pride, or at a godly man, like a Jew, there you have the grounds on which many would act. But this is not enough for a Christian. It is of great importance for our souls, not only that we should walk well and righteously, but that the motive, character, and extent, should be according to God too. Not only is this exhortation necessary, but there is that coupled with it which we rarely think of in our intercourse one with another: we are here exhorted to speak truth every man with his neighbour, "for we are members one of another." It is looking at Christians only. None but such are members evidently. He wants to connect with Christ the most common duty, which we are in danger of putting upon a lower basis, and the ground he takes is this: — that it is as preposterous and uncomely for a Christian not to tell the plain simple truth to a brother Christian, as for a man to deceive himself. They are part of ourselves. "We are members one of another." Do we realize this? If we did, what would be the effects? Assuredly, one would be perfect plainness in dealing with that which is wrong; another would be a real, hearty desire to set right those who are wrong. It is evident that we could not wish to injure ourselves. And if I regard another as a part of myself, I ought to act towards them accordingly. In the same way, also, we ought to feel what is contrary to God in another. And as one would greatly desire if awakened to feel one's own sin, to go to God about it, and have our souls set right there, so it should be in having to do one with another. The deeper realizing of this truth would give a stronger desire for the well-being of our fellow-Christians. And yet if it is to be in accordance with God's glory, it is not merely that we should judge what is wrong, but that we should seek to get what is right and according to God. We are apt, where persons have been, for instance, put away from fellowship, to think only of getting rid of the evil; but do we find this where the membership one of another is felt and owned in the presence of God? Even where it comes to the extreme degree of so dealing with one whom we had believed to be a member of the body of Christ, the end of all discipline is to remove the evil, in order that that which is of Christ may shine forth.

"Be ye angry and sin not; let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Ver. 26.) I take this to be a most important and holy intimation for our souls. There is a notion often that it is wrong for a Christian ever to feel displeased or angry; this and other Scriptures show it may be right. But we must take care what the source, as well as the character, of the anger is. If it is merely about something that affects self, and it therefore takes the form of vindictiveness, this is of course beyond a doubt contrary to all that is of Christ. We find in Him (Mark 3) that He looked round about upon certain persons with anger, showing clearly He had the strongest feeling about that which was contrary to God. It was not merely that He denounced the thing, but the people who were guilty of it. I find the same analogy in the epistles. We are told not only to cleave to that which is good, but to abhor that which is evil. Man's thought is that it is not for a Christian to judge and to be angry with what is wrong. The word of God tells us there are certain things we ought to judge and others we ought not. I am not to judge what is unseen; I am to judge positive, known evil. There we have plainly and clearly the line drawn by God. You will find that men say, if you speak strongly about the wrong of this thing or that, you are uncharitable. But not so; it is real charity to denounce it, not to let it pass. True love as to this consists in always having the feelings of God about what comes before us. That is the one question. What God has fellowship with, we can have fellowship with; and what God hates, we are not to love or allow. But we must take care that we are in the intelligence of God's mind. "Be ye angry and sin not." There is the greatest possible danger of sinning if you are angry, and therefore is this added. The simple emotion of anger toward one who has sinned may and ought to be a holy feeling; it is provided it rests there. Thus it is felt in God's presence. But how am I to know that I am not sinning in my anger? "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." If there is irritation kept up in the spirit, impatience, dislike, or scorn betrayed, who cannot see that it is not of God? When the sun goes down, it is a time either for your peaceful communion with God, or your indulgence of resentment away from Him. Therefore it is added, "Neither give place to the devil." (Ver. 27.) Where there is the nursing of wrath or the keeping up of grievances in the mind, Satan easily comes in and is not easily dislodged.

In these exhortations, as in the doctrine of the epistle, there is no notion of bettering the nature of man. A new nature is shown to belong to the Christian: Christ is his life. The practical aim follows that this should be exercised and manifested.

Nevertheless, there is a serious hindrance, for the old man remains, the flesh is still in the Christian; and as the new creature is in no way the result of improving the old, so the old nature is incapable of being absorbed or exalted into the new. They are irreconcileably opposed. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The only course and comfort and duty open to the faithful is to deny and mortify the flesh, so that the new man may be left free to do the will of God.

On the last portion which occupied us, we saw the danger of yielding to anger; it easily degenerates into hatred, and this gives occasion for the devil to enter. We have now another exhortation, which to some might seem hardly called for among Christians. "Let him that stole steal no more." It is not exactly "him that stole," but "the stealer." "Thief" would be too strong; and "he that stole" is too weak. The apostle was led to choose a term so large as to take in every shade of such dishonesty. Do you think the caution needless? Beware lest your self-confidence, and the slight of any word that God has written, ensnare you. There can be no doubt that the Spirit, who inspired the epistle, judged the admonition necessary for all saints, as well as for the Ephesians; yet nowhere do we find an assembly more happy, flourishing, and blessed of God, than the Church in Ephesus. Yet even for them, quickened and raised with Christ, and seated in Him in heavenly places, the Holy Ghost saw its suitability. God knows us better than we know ourselves; and let saints be ever so instructed, devoted, or earnest, in none of these things, apart from the enjoyment of present communion, apart from actual dependence on God, is there any adequate safeguard. Besides, if a soul, through unwatchfulness, had slipped aside into that which is so degrading even in human eyes, we can readily conceive the force of such a word to the heartbroken and ashamed, in danger of being swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. How little the heart felt its perils, or knew either its own weakness or the power of Satan! Now, restored to judge itself according to God, it owns the value of words like these, which it had once deemed well-nigh useless for the saint. Now, too, it feels how exceeding broad is the Spirit's appeal, comprehending every kind of worldly, professional, or trade custom (no matter how respectable) that is fraudulent, as well as the grosser forms of dishonesty. God is training the new man according to His own wisdom and grace.

How strikingly also such a precept shows that the Christian is on larger, higher, firmer ground than that on which Israel after the flesh stood or rather fell. Never do you hear the law say "Let the stealer steal no more;" its voice must rather be, "Let him die." The law is good if a man use it lawfully; and its lawful application is expressly not to form, guide, and govern the walk of the righteous, but to deal with the lawless and disobedient, ungodly and sinful, unholy and profane, and, in short, with whatever is contrary to sound doctrine. Sin, we are told in Romans 6, shall not have dominion over Christians, "for ye are not under the law, but under grace;" and this in a chapter where the question is the holy walk of the saint, not his justification. Yet in the face of this, the clear and uniform teaching of the New Testament, the tendency of most in Christendom habitually is to go back to law, especially where there is feeble separation from the world. But it is easily understood. For the world does not receive or understand the grace of God, whereas it can appreciate in the letter the righteous law of God. Hence, when the world and the saints are mixed together, the will of man soon takes the upper hand; and as the saint cannot elevate the world to his standing, he must sink to that which he holds in common with the world; and thus both meet once more on Jewish ground, as if the cross of Christ had never been, and the Holy Ghost were not sent down from heaven to gather believers out of a mixed condition into the assembly of God apart from the world. Even for the individual Christian, as well as for the Church, and most of all for God's truth, grace, and glory, the loss has been incalculable. For the ordinary walk has been reduced to a string of negatives, save in public acts of philanthropy, religions activity, or ritual observances, which the Christian shares with any and everybody that will join him. It is not occupation with good according to God's will; still less is it suffering for the sake of Christ and of righteousness from a world which knows them not. This is not Christianity, though it is the state and the system of most Christians. Did Christ ever obey from the fear of judgment? Was not His life a surrender of Himself to the holy will and pleasure of His Father? So our souls must be occupied with God's grace in Christ, if we are to find strength in pleasing Him. The mere avoidance of evil, the not doing this or that, is below our calling. Do we indeed desire to know and to do His will as His children? Are we zealous in learning to do well, no less than careful to cease from each evil way? If not, the day will come when we may begin to do evil again, and with a conscience the less sensitive, because we have learnt truth which we do not carry out.

Very beautiful, therefore, is the apostolic exhortation on the positive side. "But rather let him labour [idleness is neither right nor safe], working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to distribute to him that needeth." (Ver. 28.) Thus does the Spirit cheer and direct the man whose hands were once put forth in unworthy ways; thus does He open a happy path where grace can vindicate its power, spite of a dishonest nature and habit; and he who was the stealer before he knew the Saviour's name, may now have fellowship with the spirit and practice of the great apostle (Acts 20: 33-35), yea, and of the Master Himself, remembering His words, how He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. To live is the worldly man's object in labour; to give is the christian motive. It is not a mere question of chance surplusage, but an express object, especially for him who has the consciousness of the mercy that delivered him from covetous sin and its shame and judgment. Only the toil must be about what is good and honest. In vain will you plead a benevolent or religious use of ill-gotten gain! No employment that is contrary to God's will is good for the Christian, but should be given up at once. The covenant of Sinai never enunciated such a motive for toil as this. To talk about the ten commandments as the rule for the Christian's walk now, is to go back from the sun which rules the day to the moon which rules the night; it is to eclipse Christ by Moses under the delusive profession of doing God service. In general, what the law exacted from those under it on the principle of right, the Christian is responsible on the principle of grace to exceed in every possible way. The scope of obedience is immensely increased; the inward motives are searched out and laid bare; the very tendency to violence, corruption, and falsehood is judged in its roots, and suffering wrongfully and withal in love takes the place of earthly righteousness for the disciples. Such is the unquestionable teaching of our Lord and of His apostles; it is darkened, undermined, and denied, by those who insist on judaising the Church by putting the Christian under the law as his rule of life. Truly, they "understand not what they say nor whereof they affirm."

Next, it is not our deeds only that have to be considered, but our words. "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers." (Ver. 29.) Worthless language is to be eschewed as one rejects good-for-nothing fruit; if it were on the tongue, let the unprofitable word proceed no farther. Unclean allusion we shall find specified and forbidden in the chapter following. Here I conceive the circle is more comprehensive. Many who would neither utter nor hear impure conversation may often have to bemoan the utterance and the sanction of unsavoury discourse. Better to be silent if there be not (such is the force) something good for needful edification. The need measures the service, and love builds up instead of puffing up as knowledge does. It is equally true that "in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin," and that "the lips of the righteous feed many;" they "know what is acceptable;" and those who hear are refreshed and blessed.

Hitherto we have had grounds of holy action, as well as guards against sin, found in the features of the new man. But this, we know, does not give us the full character and power of the christian man. The holy Spirit of God dwells in him. This blessed but solemn truth is now pressed in its practical bearing. We are said (Eph. 2: 22) to be built together for an habitation of God in Spirit; and therefore do the apostles exhort us (Eph. 4) to walk worthy of the calling wherewith we have been called. But there is an individual indwelling of the Holy Ghost, as well as His relation to the house of God. We have been sealed by the Spirit, appropriated thereby to God on the ground of accomplished redemption. The precious blood of Christ has washed away our sins; in Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of offences, according to the riches of God's grace. Thus, His sacrifice has effaced before God and to faith all our evil, and a new nature is ours in Christ; so that the Holy Spirit can come and dwell in us, and seal us for the day of redemption, when our body shall be transformed into the likeness of the glory of Christ, as surely as our souls are now quickened into His life. In presence of this infinite present privilege and pledge of glory for ever, the apostle adds, "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." He is the spring of energy to strengthen the saint unto all that is well-pleasing to God. But this supposes that there is self-judgment and dependence on God. Otherwise we grieve Him, and are made to feel, not His power, but our own wretched unfaithfulness.

Again, it seems strange that any Christian should be so unintelligent as to confound the word here with "quench not the Spirit" in 1 Thessalonians 5: 19. The context (ver. 20) there shows plainly that it is a warning not to hinder the smallest real manifestation of the Holy Ghost in a saint, no matter how feeble he might be; and the history of Christendom to the present hour proves how much the precept was needed, and how little the apostolic injunction has been attended to. But the passage in Ephesians 4 is a personal concern for every saint and his own conversation every day.

Another thing to be noted is the difference from the language of Psalm 51: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." But the apostle, even when he presses that we should not grieve the Holy Ghost, never hints at His being taken away. On the contrary, he in the same breath assures us that we were sealed by Him for the day of redemption. Where can there be a fuller way of intimating our personal security than such a sentence? To what are we to attribute this difference? Not, I need hardly say, to a higher inspiration in Paul the apostle, than in David the king; but to the necessary and revealed modification of the Spirit's relation to the saint, since Jesus died and rose and went to heaven. Till then there was no such thing as the Spirit given to abide with the believer for ever. He blessed souls then, wrought in and by them, filled with joy and power betimes; but indwelling, as the Christian has and knows it now, there was and could not be till the glorification of Jesus, because of sin put away by His blood. Hence we are told not to grieve the Spirit, but are never, since He was given, supposed to deprecate His departure. Unquestionably, this aggravates the sin of a Christian and imparts poignancy and bitterness to his self-reproach in that case; but even this is intended of God for the graver warning of His child. The verse, therefore, clearly proves, on the one hand, the danger of sinning and thus of grieving the Spirit; and, on the other, the security of the saint even in and spite of such sorrowful circumstances. He is brought to God, reconciled, washed, sanctified, justified; he has eternal life and shall never perish; he is sealed of the Spirit, and that seal, who can break? If he fall into sin, assuredly God will see to it and chasten, yea, unto death; for He will neither make light of his evil nor condemn himself with the world. So Peter exhorts the godly to walk in holy obedience, and while they called on Him as Father who, without respect of persons, judges according to each one's work, to pass their time of sojourn in fear; at the same time, far from weakening their confidence, he proceeds, "forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold . . . . . . . but with the precious blood of Christ." Thus, the truth of God has the effect of attracting and strengthening the affections, even when it sets us with our faces in the dust, while human error, as it weakens the full grace of God, so it fails thoroughly to humble the soul. But what a truth it is for the believer, that he has within the constant presence of a divine person, the Holy Ghost, the witness of all that passes these! How careful should we be that we grieve Him not! But it is not a truth for conscience only, but pregnant with consolation; for He dwells in us evermore, not because we are worthy of such a heavenly denizen, but in virtue of the worth of Jesus and the perfectness with which His work has cleansed us in God's sight from our sins; and He is in us for our joy, and strength, and blessing evermore, through and in Christ the Lord. May we be enabled, always confident, always to pray, and not to faint!

The doctrine of the Holy Ghost's presence in the individual believer, sealing him for redemption-day, has been already seen, and seems to be bound up in the closest way with practical holiness, as a motive and a guard, no less than as the power. For what more solemnly affecting than the remembrance of such an inhabitant ever dwelling in the believer's body? and what more certain than that He is the Spirit, not of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind? We may be utter weakness, and the natural heart deceitful and treacherous beyond human conception. But this is not the only truth. The Christian is characterized by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Is He weak? Or if ill might be His, is He in the believer the passive, inactive witness of every fault and infirmity? Is He not, on the contrary, within Him to associate his affections with Christ, to glorify Christ, taking of the things of Christ and showing them to him? Doubtless, He may be and is grieved by allowed folly, and carelessness, and evil, and as to this we have just been seriously cautioned; but it would be well for such as speak incessantly of the good-for-nothingness of the flesh (which is most clear and certain) to bear in mind that the believer, the Christian, is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, seeing that the Spirit of God dwells in him. Meet it is, therefore, that sin, all and every sin, should be confessed and judged; but it is neither genuine humility nor the faith of God's elect to ignore the blessed and encouraging as well as serious fact, that the Spirit of God is in us to give all strength in revealing Christ to our souls. It may be wholesome, unquestionably, to learn the painful lesson of Romans 7: 7, and seq.; but to rest there is to prove that it has been ill learnt. For the proper place of the Christian is, as to this, the end of the chapter, ushering him into the still deeper exercises and the more unselfish sufferings of Romans 8, with the liberty, and power, and hope, and security which it so abundantly shows to be our portion through grace. The redemption of our body and of creation outside is not yet come; but He who is its earnest is within us.

This being so, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking be put away from you with all malice." (Ver. 31.) The very nearness into which the family of God is brought may become a snare unless there be watchfulness and a simple looking to Christ. But the Holy Ghost gives quarter to no evil feeling whatever. These are the breaches of our nearness; in the next chapter (ver. 3 and seq.) we shall find the abuses of it.

If we come to particulars, "all bitterness," I think, denotes every form of the sharp, unsparing mood which repels souls instead of winning them, and makes the most of the real or imagined faults of others. The "wrath and anger," next following, refer to the outburst of passion, and the more settled vindictive resentment, to which the indulgence of acrimony gives rise, a "clamour and evil speaking" are their respective counterparts in words: all flowing from the deep-seated fountain of "all malice," which is finally condemned in our verse. Thus, as we were warned against dishonesty in word and deed, before the allusion to the Holy Spirit's seal, so now, after it, hatred in its various parts and expressions is denounced. It is, alas, natural to the first man Adam — the same corruption and violence which brought the flood on the world of old, but, spite of God's judgment, renewed itself, and will, till Christ deal with man and Satan in person.

But, as was observed in the previous verses, bare abstinence from the mind and workings of the flesh suffices not. There is the activity of good in Christ, the second Man, and this the Spirit produces as well as demands in the Christian. Hence it is added, "Be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you." Clearly, therefore, It is a question of showing grace; and the pattern of it all is God in Christ, not in the law, holy, just and good as the commandment is. But good as the law was and is, Christ is the best of all, the genuine and only foil and perfect expression of what God is. And leaving the law to deal with the wicked (1 Tim. 1), as the apostle expressly declares is its lawful use, we who are dead with Christ are not under law but grace, which, by the power of the Spirit, strengthens us according to its own character and gives communion with Him who is its source.

The reader will notice that there is a departure from the Authorized Version of verse 32. It is done advisedly. Why king James' translators deserted the Greek, followed by Wycliffe, Coverdale, and even the Rhemish, it is hard to say, especially as Beza, who often influenced them, is here accurate. The erroneous rendering obscures the very grace of God which is set before us as our spring and pattern, and tends to countenance the error that Christ was the procuring cause of His love, instead of being the blessed and infinite channel of its communication to us, the only possible means in which even His love could holily and justly avail for us. It is a part of the same error to think of God as "our reconciled Father," or to say that Christ "died to reconcile Him to us." Atonement was necessary beyond a doubt, the expiation of our sins by the blood of Christ. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities." But God was in Christ reconciling; it is we (not He) "who have now received the reconciliation." "And you that were sometimes alienated, and enemies in your mind by wicked works. yet now hath he reconciled." Such is the uniform doctrine of Scripture. How blessedly all is put and kept in its place! The atonement is that aspect of Christ's work, which is toward God, to put away sin by suffering the divine judgment of it in His own person; reconciliation, contrariwise, is toward us, to bring us back in Christ unto God. Both are most true; to confound them is to lose much and weaken all; and what is more serious, it is more or less to misrepresent the character of God, as if He were turned by Christ from an angry judge into a loving Father. God is love as truly as He is light. It is what He is, not what He is made.

Ephesians 5.

What a mighty principle opens here on the saints! "Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children." (Ver. 1.) What limits can there be if we are exhorted to imitate God Himself! Nor is it in any way now an assertion of claim, as the law was, on man, standing on his own responsibility before God as a creature. God has revealed Himself in grace; still He is God and none other; and if He has communicated to us His own nature, a lesser, lower standard there could not be. It would dishonour Himself and the very grace He has shown us, and nowhere more fully than in the earlier parts of this epistle. It would be, too, the most grievous loss to His children beloved, whom He would train and bless yet more and more even in this scene of evil and sorrow, turning the most adverse circumstances into an occasion of teaching us what He is in the depths of His grace and filling ourselves with the sense of it so as to form our hearts and fashion our ways, as we forget ourselves and live above our own habits and the conventionalities of men in the truth of Christ.

Neither law nor even promise ever opened such a field as this. The very call so to imitate God supposes the perfect grace in which we stand: indeed it would be insupportable otherwise. No doubt, it is most humbling to reflect how little we have answered to His call; but even the sense of our previous shortcomings where it is deep, if we do not lose sight of His grace, is turned to precious account, and we are growing and going on with Him when we may little think it. The law demanded what man ought to render to God: to love Him and our neighbour is no more than our plain and bounden duty. The promise held out the hope of a Seed of blessing, not to Israel only, but to all families of the earth. But now, after promise was despised and law was broken, God has displayed Himself in Christ, and, while accomplishing all in Christ, has brought out higher counsels in infinite grace to us in such sort that His own character, thus displayed, becomes the only suitable pattern to which He would conform His children even here. "Be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved children; and walk in love as Christ also loved us, and delivered himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour." (Ver. 1, 2.)

To forgive one another, even as God in Christ forgave, is blessed; but this, though after His own heart and ways, is not enough. It is surely divine in its source, and impossible in its full character and extent to flesh; but it is in view of man and man's failure, and of the outbreaks of an evil nature. He would cherish this in us. It is the fruit of His grace, and most needful, in such a world as this; most wholesome for His saints in their intercourse and dealing with each other. But it is far from being the expression of all He is and would have us enjoy and reflect. There is the outgoing of good according to His heart, where there is no question of evil to be forgiven, which is in a certain sense only negative, however real and sweet it may be. Here all is positive, flowing fresh as it were and above human thought. Hence the word is, "Walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered himself up for us," etc. To be forgiven was our abject, urgent need, if we were indeed to have the smallest comfort from God or hope of deliverance from wrath and of blessedness hereafter. It was grace, of course, the grace of God, but addressed to, if not bounded by, man's need. But now we stand on the new ground of the excellency of Christ and the exercise of that which is proper to God in the activity of His own nature. Hence it is not the sin-offering that is here alluded to, nor is it simply the blood or the sufferings of our blessed Lord, but His delivering Himself for us, in matchless love, "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour."

One would not be mistaken on such a theme, nor weaken for a moment the certainty that in the Lord's sufferings on the cross there are depths found there only; but these are not and could not be put before us as a pattern, seeing that they pertain exclusively to Him who bore our sins in His own body and was made sin for us, meeting that judgment of God, which no man, nor angel, nor creature, nor new creature could share with Him, however blessed through it, and filled with thankful, adoring delight in Him who was thus alone, not only for us, but for God's glory, the object of the wrath of God felt and must execute against sin. But here it is a question of that which sets forth the admirable love of Christ in all its positive fragrance and beauty; and this in order to call out, in the energy of the Holy Ghost, the answering ways of the new nature in the saints; for indeed Christ is our life, and what bounds are there to the power of the Spirit who dwells in us? Love lends to service in self-abnegation, whether in Him perfectly, or in us according to our measure; but surely it gives and forms the spirit of service, as we see in our blessed Lord. (Phil. 2)

Nevertheless, the more sweet and blessed, the nearer it is to evil, unless it is maintained in divine power and self-judgment. It brings together; it awakens spiritual affections; but what is begun in the Spirit may end in fleshly corruption, as we see at Corinth, no less than it may seek fleshly perfection of a religious form, as we see in Galatia. Accordingly the apostle proceeds to warn the Ephesian saints against the dangers to which free familiar converse might expose, unless sustained by the Holy Ghost. "But fornication and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be even named among you, as becometh saints." (Ver. 3.) These lusts of the flesh were not only not to be allowed, but not even to be named. They were God's holy ones, saints; and the question now was of that which becomes (not mere men but) saints.

Nor does he confine his warning to unbridled licentiousness or the covetous desire of that which might gratify man, but extends it to unholiness of language too, whether openly shameful or under the veil of refinement — "and [no] filthiness, and foolish talking, and jesting, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks." (Ver. 4.) Here again, not merely the absence of what is indecorous in the Christian, but the positive side is brought in and the heart's reference to God's goodness, which breaks out in thanksgiving. "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, or unclean person, or covetous man, who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." (Ver. 5.) It is most important to remember, that let sovereign grace do what it will let it go out to the vilest, let it cleanse the most defiled, the moral ways of God remain inflexible. His nature does not change. He hates and never can tolerate iniquity. His love may find and has found a glorious solution of the difficulty in the cross of Christ; but God and sin never call walk or dwell together.

The children of God have opposite dangers to this, and need to watch against their feelings. They may be quick to exclaim in some flagrant case that there can be no life there; they may be too precipitate in giving their confidence where there is a fair show in flesh. Some of the most solemn departures into the world have been where few, if any, doubted; as on the other hand, who has not known the comfort of seeing the painful appearances which repelled one fade away so as to let the grace of Christ shine out more and more, or flesh was judged by the truth in the sight of God? Thus those, of whom most doubted because of untoward looks, at last won the confidence of all. Sometimes it may have needed a serious dealing of God: severe sickness, reverses of fortune, domestic sorrow, before the soul was set right; still it was, though late in the day. Both these extremes teach us the need of waiting on God, instead of trusting our own impressions, that we may judge righteous judgment. The natural heart may take advantage of grace, but ere long will manifest its unremoved evil. Perverse men may rise up, wolves may enter, and sheep may for a while be deceived. But God abides, and the word of His grace: why should we be disquieted? Let us have faith in God, imitate Him as children beloved, and walk in love, not only because, but as Christ loved us; and, whatever the result, we shall have the comfort of pleasing God, meanwhile kept from haste one way or another. Watching for evil is very far from "giving of thanks," and indeed incompatible with it. But then let us never lower the standard of the ways which God looks for in His children. If no corrupt person have an inheritance in His kingdom, never treat such sin lightly now. "Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." (Ver. 6, 7.) To be partners with such in any way is grave for a saint. Let us take heed.

The eighth verse of our chapter gives another ground of appeal. The exhortation to walk is neither in view of the calling wherewith we are called (Eph. 4: 1), nor specially in contrast with other Gentiles, alienated from the life of God (Eph. 4: 17, 18), nor yet in love only (Eph. 5: 27), but "as children of light." "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord." The change being thus complete, the word is "walk as children of light." Be consistent with what you are, not merely with what you ought to be. We are light, yea, light in the Lord — at once the ground, and character, and measure of that which becomes our ways as Christians: let us walk accordingly. How comforting is the call of grace to holy ways! The most solemn appeal reminds us of our blessing, and its security, even when urging us on with ever such closeness. How holy is our standing in Christ that God Himself should be able to say of us, "Ye are light in the Lord." If He does; should we not say it of ourselves, both in privilege and responsibility? Let us look to Him that, thus set outside all taint (for there is nothing purer than light), we may go forward, showing that light which we are now in the Lord. It is in the light we walk, and by it we should judge all, for light we are. God would repudiate a lower standard or an atmosphere less pure. He is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, if we are His children, we are children of light. We are never said to be love (which is God's nature and prerogative), though surely called to love as born of Him and knowing Him in Christ. How completely law disappears as the motive or the mould of our walk.

"For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth." No doubt these are the characteristics of the gracious operation of the Spirit; and this may have led to the substitution of "the Spirit" for light in the common text. But there can be no reasonable question that the true thought and word in verse 9 is "the light," which is not more borne out by external evidence than by the scope of the context. In Galatians 5 it is the fruit, not of the light, but of the Spirit, because in contrast with the works of the flesh — ways of uncleanness, violence against God and man, tampering with and subjection to the deceits of the enemy; whereas the Spirit's fruit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against which, as the apostle emphatically says to the law-affecters, there is no law. Here it is in contrast, not with legal proclivities and the workings of flesh, which the law alike provokes and condemns, but with the darkness which we once were when without the Lord. But now we are called to walk as children of light, which is our very nature in Him, and we are reminded that its fruit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth. God's exceeding riches and grace in no way weakens, but rather confirms, the display of His moral principles, and makes them good even in us His children, whatever we may have been and are naturally. The new life He has given us in Christ answers to His own goodness and righteousness and truth. It could not be — it ought not to be — otherwise; nor would the renewed heart calmly bear that He should be dishonoured or even misrepresented in the objects of His favour. He implants in us the desire of pleasing Himself, and He watches over us that this desire should be neither vague nor uninfluential, but bear fruit — the fruit of the light, "proving," as it is added, "what is acceptable unto the Lord." (Ver. 10.)

Again, it is not enough for our souls to refuse to be partakers with the children of disobedience, as in verses 6, 7. We must have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even expose them. (Ver. 11.) It is all a part of our marvellous place and responsibility as being children of light. It is not law, simply condemning as by an applied outward standard, but an inward and most searching divine capacity, which, whatever the love that is the source and end, spares evil even less, but brings in good by the Holy Ghost in Christ. "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret [i.e., the doers of the fruitless works of darkness]; but all things when reproved [or exposed] are made manifest by the light; for whatsoever doth make [or is made] manifest is light." (Ver. 12, 13.) It is the property of light to manifest itself and all things else; and this is quite as true spiritually as in nature.

But there is more in the Lord's mind here concerning us. He would have us in the full enjoyment of the blessing, and not content to possess it only. There are dead things and persons around us, and their influence when allowed is most injurious. "Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead and Christ shall enlighten thee." (Ver. 14.) It is not giving us life as if we were dead, nor even light as if we were not light already, but rather shining upon us who are light in Him, yet slumbering carelessly in the midst of that which is dead and deadening. How vigilant His love which thus thinks of us, that our cup of blessing may run over and our souls may be delivered from that which degrades Him and even us in Him, that we may be full of that which we are as His own! How every word of His, how every circumstance of ours, calls us to see how carefully we walk (ver. 15), not as unwise but as wise, redeeming the fit opportunity because the days are evil! We are furnished indeed; but constant watching and dependence are needed. The due season must be, looked at and sought, let it be ever so costly, if, in these evil days, we would not be senseless, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. (Ver. 16, 17.) Worldly excitement must be avoided, and those incentives to nature which jaded man craves, wherein is excess. Yet we may and should be absorbed with a power above nature, which excludes not only what is evil, but the power of present things. "Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; giving thanks always for all things to him who is God and Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ." (Ver. 18-21.) Speaking "to yourselves" means, I suppose, and might be translated, to one another, as in Ephesians 4: 32; speaking to one another in every form wherein the joy of the Church expressed itself. I understand them all to be the sacred metrical compositions of Christians, outpourings of worship and praise, or of holy feeling, the word "spiritual" being added to the last or lowest class of them to mark even their consecration to the Lord. This is true and holy joy. May we cultivate it in simplicity. In truth, we have a goodly portion. What can we not thank Him for, who is our God and Father, in the name of our Lord Jesus? What else makes us so happily submit to one another in His fear?

We now enter upon the special earthly relations. The general exhortations we have had, which concern the saints of God as such — children of God and members of Christ's body. But now the Holy Ghost shows that He is not indifferent to the relations which these saints may sustain, either towards one another, or towards others upon the earth. There might be, for instance, husbands and wives, both of them Christians; or there might be only one in this relationship converted, the other being still a Jew or a heathen; and so with the relation of fathers and children, masters and servants. For the present we have only to do with that which pertains to the nearest tie upon earth, that of husband and wife. And we shall find that the Holy Ghost most amply provides for the wants of the children of God bound thus together; so that whatever may be their difficulties, they may find gracious instruction and grave exhortation, and not merely commands in reference to the circumstances in which they stand before God — for this is not strictly the form in which christian regulation comes before us. Of course, there may be and are, precepts and commandments throughout the New Testament. Indeed the one who most brings out love presses commandments most; for it is in the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, where the greatest stress is laid upon such injunctions; and yet we all know that there is no part of Scripture which brings out God's love to us more strikingly and constantly. It is, therefore, the greatest possible mistake to suppose that there is any inconsistency between God's love, and the strictest injunction that His authority lays upon His children.

Still it is undeniable that as the general character of christian instruction does not take the shape of commandments of a legal shape, so we are not set under the Mosaic commandments to form our present thoughts and feelings and course as Christians. Nay, we have got nothing analogous to the law, but a decided and complete contrast, according to Scripture, for "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Commandments we have; but they suppose and regulate life, and are calculated to bring the obedience of Christ (1 Peter 1) into exercise; and there is nothing more beautiful to the soul, nor more glorifying to God. Ordinarily the way in which instruction comes in the New Testament is thus: there is a relationship formed, and according to its character, amply unfolded and enforced in the word, we have to glorify God. As this is true in natural things, so the Spirit of God uses an every-day relationship as the occasion of bringing out the spiritual one that answers to it. And our hearts being occupied with the exceeding grace that has formed the new and eternal tie, we may find not only a motive, but a pattern and power to glorify God in the natural as well as the spiritual one. There is one place where this comes out more strikingly than in the first of these relationships on which the Holy Ghost here expands peculiarly. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." The opening comparison which He uses, before entering into the spiritual relationship which is brought before us after the figure of marriage, the very first thought is to present the headship of the man, as having special force in married life. We all know that, apart from marriage, the man is the head of the woman. That is, if there were no such thing as marriage, man has a place which woman has not — a place entirely independent of character. We may find a man imbecile, and a woman with firmness and wisdom; but nothing can alter God's order. We may find a child endowed with great prudence, and the parents unwise and weak. Still the relationship is altogether apart from the peculiar character, and state, and condition of those either in the superior place or in the subordinate. And it is of great importance that we should have the thing settled in our souls, that no circumstances whatever warrant a breach of Gods arrangements. There are trying circumstances which make the difficulty immense in either relationship. But it is of deep consequence to remember that the rights of God's order always abide; that nothing ever justifies disobedience of His will. There may be cases where obedience of the natural order of God would be a sin: there are none where disobedience is a duty. You cannot be required to disobey under any circumstances. But there are crises where you must obey God rather than man. It is an exceeding mercy that the times are few indeed, where obeying God involves an apparent breach of natural order and moral duty. But it may be so. You will find, for instance, in the beginning of the Acts, Peter and John charged, by the powers of that day which governed in Israel, not to teach in the name of Jesus. What could they do but fall back upon the authority of God? They could put it to those very rulers that their consciences were bound to God before men. Thus the first great principle remains and is plain, before we enter upon particulars, that obedience is always the part of the Christian.

Hence, flowing out of the general call to submission in the fear of Christ (for Christ is the one brought before us with continual honour in this epistle), the Spirit takes up this first appropriate place for a christian woman, and lays down the word, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." Although this may appear extraordinarily strong language, when we remember what husbands are or may be, still it is a great thing to be always certain that God is right. To human prudence it may seem little guarded. Perhaps you have even to do with an unconverted husband! But only bring in the Lord, and at once you see the power that will make submission easy, and you learn the measure to which submission is to be carried. But more than that, you have the guard against the abuse of the principle; "Submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." The Lord is brought in, and this sets everything right. If it is a question of trial or suffering, still the word is the same. The Lord may put us through great difficulties and dangers. What is the proper place of the Christian under such circumstances? Unqualified submission. Because I ought to be sure that, whatever may be the breaking up and down which these trials may occasion to one's spirit, yet whatever the Lord does is the best and happiest and most strengthening in the end to my soul, the Lord being incapable of any one thing for me that is not for enduring good to the praise of His own name.

In this epistle it is not merely God's control that is brought out, but special relationship. Here it is the Lord loving His own, with a love that has sacrificed everything for their sake. How can I doubt the blessedness and value of submitting myself to the Lord? The Christian wife may have a husband; and it may be very painful and hard to bear all. Perhaps he makes nothing of you, and asks often what is unreasonable. But what will make the burden light, though felt? "Submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." I am to submit unto my husband as unto the Lord: let me only see the Lord in the matter, instead of his inconsiderateness and bad temper, and my path is plain. It is made a matter, not of mere duty, but of confidence in the Lord as above everything in His love, care, and government. This is what the Holy Ghost first starts with, and makes to be the basis of all the various instructions that He is about to bring forth. He begins with the grand truth, that the christian woman is entitled to submit to her husband as unto the Lord. So that it is not made a question simply of affection, which would be human: this is a most necessary thing as a natural element, but it would be true if a person were not a Christian at all. Neither is it a question of that which the husband expects, or of what I might think to be right. All these things belong to the region of proper feeling and morality. But the important thing is that God cannot be with a christian woman who walks in the habitual slighting of His ground for her in her relationship as a wife. He will not allow a Christian to walk merely on moral or conventional grounds. They may be right enough in their place, but, if I am a Christian, I have a higher calling; and then, no matter what may be the difficulty — even if the one to whom I owe my subjection be not a Christian — here comes in the blessed direction, "Submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." He entitles me to see Himself behind the person of the husband; and I have got to follow Him and to submit myself to Him. In this thought there would be great comfort for the christian wife who is ever so tried. But then the limit of the trial comes in — for there is a limit in every path — and it is this: that God never puts me in any circumstances where I am free to commit a sin. Therefore, supposing a husband were to command that which would be positively sinful, thence at once I learn that I am not bound, because I am told to submit to my husband, as unto the Lord. The Lord would never sanction what is sinful. He may put me through the sieve, and I may not at first understand the goodness or the need of it; but faith constantly finds its strength and guidance in the Lord's wisdom — in trusting Him, and not my wisdom in understanding Him. And you will find that we grow in wisdom by being content to take the place of having none. If my confidence is in His wisdom, I shall gather wisdom and grow in it. Our Lord was perfectly man; and although always perfect in every condition of life, yet the great mark of His perfectness lay in this — He was ever the dependent One who looked up to God, and who could say, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" There was at once for man the lowest, but in truth, the highest place. He understood the secret of His own relationship to God the Father. And although this was true of Christ as of none others, yet it is surely true of every believer in measure.

But we have most carefully to watch ourselves in this matter. Wherever there is the smallest tendency to slip out of the path of submission, we have to search and see, if we are wise according to God. Nature never likes to be subject. And wherever there is a danger of pleading the truth of God for any act that might seem to be a want of submission to the authority of another, I have need to watch myself with greater jealousy than in any other thing. When we are found in a path where submission is the word, let us leave room to bring in the Lord. In order to give power and faith to our obedience, and a holy character to it, I should see that it is the Lord I am obeying, even while there is an earthly authority to which I am subjected. The blessed truth that the Lord was about to introduce begins to open to us. "For a husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is head of the Church: he is Saviour of the body." (Ver. 23.) In this we have an allusion to the near relationship, which is intended to show us how we ought to walk towards one another in this respect. Although He, and none but He, is the Saviour, there is no taking the Church or the saint out of the place of subjection, but expressly the reverse.

"Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything." Such is the general principle. But then, you will observe, there is always a measure and a guard in every such word of Scripture. It is not simply said, "Therefore, let the wives be subject in everything to their own husbands," but "Therefore, as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be," etc. There I find that Christ's own blessed way of caring for the assembly and dealing with it in its due subjection to the Lord, is brought in as the pattern of wives towards their own husbands. But it is when we come to the higher of the two relationships, that we have the Holy Ghost bringing out its character more clearly. "Husbands, love your wives." Here we find what the snare of the husband might be. First, the wife is to look to her temper, that she discipline her spirit in thorough submission to her husband. It is not said to her, to love her husband, but to submit herself to him. But Satan might take advantage, and (they being in the relationship) the husband might be wanting in tender care and affection. There is the ruling and guiding the wife; but what he is exhorted to here is that which his circumstances most need, and which would be most for his own soul's good and the comfort of his wife. So that the word is, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." What a holy standard! What a most unselfish, considerate, pure, and heavenly Exemplar is brought before us, in order that the relationship, which might be easily degraded, should have and keep its due elevation; and that even the poorest saints on earth, so bound together, might have the light and love of heaven shining upon them.

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Thus we have the love of Christ to the church set forth as the model according to which the christian husband is to seek that his own love to his wife should be conformed. Look at its source and character: "Christ also loved the assembly." All flows out of this. Need I, even as a man, say, that love, as it is what ought to precede a marriage, so is the only secret which, in nature, makes the marriage happy when it is formed? The love of Christ that is shown us here is taken in from first to last, as one unbroken whole. It is well to remember it in married life: the love that was true before the tie was formed, is a love that abides when it is formed, and that should grow unto the end.

Certainly it was so perfectly in our Lord. He loved the church. It is a question of a very special affection here on the part of Christ. It is not the general truth of God's love, who loved the world even; but no relationship was formed with the world. The important thing to look at here is that, although it is a love that exists before the relationship, it finds its proper exercise in it, and ever continues its real strength and joy. And if we turn aside from looking at the earthly thing to that which is set forth by it, how great the grace, and how rich the blessing! Once it was a joy for our hearts to realize that God could love sinners, and so love as to spend His Son upon us, sinners as we were. But there is another kind of love that we know now. God has taken the relationship of a Father to us; at any rate He has brought us into that of children by Jesus Christ to Himself. We are "children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Accordingly the Father loves us with a father's heart; it is not only that He loves the creature as God, but He loves us as a father — yea, as the Father of our Lord Jesus loved Him, and not only in the measure in which a human parent regards his children. In such a circle there might be complacency and delight; and when we think what and who we are, to think that such an one as God the Father could delight in us now in this world, is most wondrous! that He should infinitely more love us than an earthly father does the child that he loves best, and that this love should extend towards the weakest and most needy of His family! There is also a conditional love towards those that are walking faithfully, and St. John brings this out in John 14, 15. But now I am speaking of unfailing, personal love in the relationship in which God stands as Father to His children, as such; which does not only pity, but look with pleasure upon and take delight in them now, spite of everything that is calculated to turn aside or weaken His love. Ought I not, as in Christ, to be as sure of this, as I am of my own existence as a man? yea, to have a better knowledge and certainty of what His love is towards me, than of anything that affects me as one living on the earth? I have that in me which is not proof against the deceptions of the world outside. But in the things of God, where faith lives, it is not so. There is, there ought to be, divine certainty.

Where God clearly reveals Himself, the soul should receive it in humbleness of mind; and the more humble, the more sure, because the ground of the assurance is that God has revealed it to us. It is a question of Himself and not of us at all. If this be so, what a wonderful place it is to be in Christ! It is quite true that Christ loved me, but here it is the Church — "the assembly;" and Christ has a special love for His assembly, which I am entitled to appropriate and count on. This makes the gathering together of the children of God as the assembly to be so precious, and shows the all-importance of not reducing it to a voluntary society, small or great. The moment you bring in the will of man, you virtually and at once destroy the divine ground which Scripture assumes. Whereas, if you see that God has formed a certain bond in the Holy Ghost for the glory of His Son among those who belong to Him on the earth now, and that Christ regards those who are within that bond with a perfect and most peculiar love; then it is the greatest possible joy that our own souls should enter into His love, and next that we should seek to act by His word upon the other members of the body of Christ, that they may believe and enjoy it also. It is not a part only, but He "loved the assembly." The reason why I use the word "assembly" is that people often have a very vague notion about the Church. The word is usually and completely misapplied in the present day. It is said of a religious building, or of a particular party, in particular of what may be dominant anywhere. But bring in "the assembly," and understand by it the whole body of those that God calls out from this world by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; and there you learn the special love that God has revealed in Christ, not merely to the soul, but to the assembly which is His body on earth.

Of course, the death of Christ was essential, in order that the gospel should now be preached to the world. This, too, is the ground on which the heavens and earth will be cleared of all that now pollutes and defiles. Everything for the justification of God in the past, and for the outflow of the love of God in the future, is founded upon the death of Christ. Hence the momentous value of His redemption, for earth and heaven, for Jew, Gentile, and Church of God, for time and eternity. But, besides, there is great force in the word, "He delivered himself up for it." There was nothing in Christ that He did not give. It is not what He did, nor only what He suffered, but He gave Himself. Of course, it implies all that was in Him and of Him, but it goes a great deal farther, because it is absolute self-renunciation in love for the sake of the object that He loved; the perfect pattern of the very fulness of love, which it is quite beyond any human relationship to emulate. Justly does the Spirit, in addressing the christian husband, show us that Christ in all things has the pre-eminence; "He delivered himself up for us." What is the consequence? The Church is without sin before God — sins are blotted out for ever — redemption is effected — Satan is defeated — divine wrath and judgment borne — ordinances, which were against those that were under them, are nailed to the cross — the enmity is gone — the new man is formed; and all this, and much more than this, founded upon Christ's surrender of Himself. The effect for us is that here we have, in unclouded light, without doubt or question, Himself in love, as the object of our souls to delight in and submit to and serve and worship evermore.

I have no more right to believe that Christ gave Himself for me, than I have to believe that my iniquities are completely purged out by His precious blood. If I believe the one, I owe it to God to believe the other; and the ground of my faith is God's testimony to the perfectness of what Christ has done according to the glory of His person. God sets such value upon His work of suffering on the cross, that He can perfectly love me. We are free. We have redemption through His blood. But it is in Him, not only through His blood, but in Him; as it is said in Ephesians 1, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." So that it is of great importance that, while we hold redemption, we should not hold it, if I may be allowed so to say, apart from but in Him. And what will enable me to estimate, and hold fast the preciousness of this work, is His person; we must remember not only what was done, but who He was that did it. If you in self-judgment, cleave to Him and to these two blessed truths in Him, there never can be a cloud upon your soul as to your own perfect deliverance from all charge before God.

But now comes another thought. If Christ has completed this, if it is a past thing, never requiring to be re-touched, we enter upon the second proof of His love "that he might sanctify it, having cleansed [it] by the washing of water by the word." I take it that the sanctifying the Church spoken of here, though connected closely with its being cleansed through the word, is a distinct thing. These are two operations and there is an important difference between sanctifying the Church and cleansing it. This sanctifying does not merely refer to our growth in grace, it is connected with Christ. It is not the Spirit of God merely working in the believer. Men talk as if it were the business of the Son to justify, and of the Spirit to sanctify. But we are washed, we are sanctified, we are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. All that by virtue of which we are washed, and sanctified, and justified, is Christ; and it is by the Spirit of our God. The Spirit of God is the active agent in the justification, no less than in the sanctifying; but it is always by using Christ. Hence there is a great danger in disconnecting Christ from sanctification. Christ gave Himself for the Church, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it." His blood is involved in His giving Himself, though this is more than that.

In fact, all that which flows into and from redemption, properly so called, is supposed in verse 25: "He loved the church, and gave himself for it." This is a past thing, followed by that which is going on all the time of the Church's existence upon the earth. As the fruit of His love comes the death of Christ for us — His giving Himself for the Church. And now you have, founded upon the cross, the sanctifying and cleansing that goes on continually. But how is it wrought? In both cases it is by the washing of water by the word. This shows us the immense importance of the word of God. Of what moment it is for every child of God to value that word and to seek to grow in acquaintance with God through it — to increase in the knowledge of God! So far from our belonging to the Church, or rather to Christ, being the sum and substance of all we have to learn, it is only the foundation; and it is after we know this, that there follows all the sanctifying and cleansing by the washing of water by the word. So that it is clear we have got three fruits of the love of Christ that are very distinct indeed. The first is, that He gave Himself (that is, unto death); the second is, the present work of His life. Since the cross, He is occupying Himself in heaven about the Church; He is taking care of His members, working by the Holy Ghost, and applying the word of God. And all is connected with Himself, because the whole starting-point is Christ's love to the Church. He is sanctifying and cleansing now by the washing of water by the word; but we know that our sins were put away by His blood.

Before we turn to the third effect of His love, allow me to say here that a fresh application of the blood of Christ is unknown to Christianity. There are Christians, no doubt, who tell you that you must have fresh recourse to the blood; but they have no Scripture for their thought. On the contrary, it weakens the fundamental truth of the efficacy of Christ's own sacrifice, which it is intended, after a human fashion, to commend and exalt. Such is the effect of forming our own thoughts of the use that is to be made of any truth, instead of simply bowing to the word of God. The moment we take a truth out of His connection for us, it is like rooting up that which has its own due place in the garden of God, where it produces its proper, abundant, and precious fruit, but which becomes a withered thing when man takes it into his own hands. Repetition as to this would prove imperfectness. This foundation has been laid so completely in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that it never requires to be laid again. There is no more the possibility of a fresh sprinkling of Christ's blood, than there is room left for His dying once more to shed His blood. When a soul has found Him and been washed from sin in His blood, there it abides for ever. This is what makes the sin of a Christian to be so serious. If you could begin again, what is the effect? Not very different from that which his confession before a priest has upon the Romanist. People soon learn to trifle with sin, and to get hardened by its deceitfulness. Although it is a different thing where Christ is looked to, still the moral effect is much the same, as far as the making light of sin is concerned. If a person can again and again start afresh, as if a trifle had happened, and begin over and over again for every new downfall, sin is never felt nearly so deeply. For on one side we are bound to bring no stain upon that which is washed in the blood of Christ, yet, on the other, we are conscious of constant failure.

Is there, then, no resource? Is there no renewal of access to the cross? It would be a tremendous thing if there were no provision against our failings and falls, no means of dealing with these departures: but there is a resource, and we have it here — "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." You have similar truth set forth in its individual application to John 13. There it was on the ground that the disciples were His own; that He loved them, and that whom He loved He loved unto the end: and then we find that, being exposed to defile themselves in the world, the Lord would guard them against two things; first, the anxiety lest He should cease to love them because they were unfaithful; secondly, the danger of their using His faithfulness as a reason for trifling with sin. Christ will never cease to love, nor will He trifle with sin or allow us to trifle with it. He keeps us always resting on His blood. But, then, supposing one is guilty of sin after receiving remission of sins, what is to be done? Let us go and spread it out before God. The veil is not set up again because you have acted foolishly outside it. You are entitled to draw near and spread out your failure before God — to come to Him on the very ground that you are washed in the blood of Christ. What is the effect of this? and what is this the effect of? It is because Christ is sanctifying and cleansing, keeping up the washing of water by the word. There may be this corporate aspect of it, as well as the individual — both are true. It is true for every soul and for the Church at large. Christ is always acting in the presence of God on behalf of the Church; and the consequence is the needed reproof and chastening. A man is brought to feel what he has done. Some word of God, either in his own meditation, or through others, flashes upon his soul. He is convinced of his folly; the will has ceased to act; the word of God is brought home with power by the Holy Ghost; the man bows under it to the Lord.

This is the washing of water by the word. It is the effect of Christ's priesthood at the right hand of God. The application of the word of God to the soul is the effect of the intercession of Christ to put away failure wherever it has been. The work that He is doing at the right hand of God has an intercessional character. A great deal of that which goes on in the soul is not provision for failure, but to guard against failure. God does not count upon sin — He does not look for failure in His child. On the contrary, there is a most solemn injunction against sin. "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not." He had been telling them, that if any man say he has no sin, he deceives himself, and the truth is not in him. Then the effect of that on the corrupt heart of man would be, that some would infer sin to be not so much matter after all. "My little children," he says, "these things write I unto you that ye sin not." We are never free to sin. We are always inexcusable when we do sin. "But," it is added, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." There you have what answers to the Scripture before us. It is not that the position of Christ is the same, but the effect, as far as regards the soul, is similar. Christ is carrying on His blessed action of love, and the effect is that there is that in the word of God which applies itself, by the grace of God, to our fault; so that the sanctifying spoken of here is the practical setting us apart according to our proper calling as God's assembly — the making it good in our souls by the word of God. This is done by the revelation of Christ, and of Christ as He now is in the presence of God. And this is what is referred to in 2 Corinthians 3, where it is said, "We all with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." We find that the Holy Ghost, revealing Christ as He is glorified now before God, separates us from the world which knows nothing of His glory, but is bent upon its own glory connected with present things. God reveals to us Christ on high, and the effect is that we are weaned from the false glitter of this evil age.

But this being the complete account of what Christ does, there is the cleansing, as well as the sanctifying, the Church. All defilement requires to be removed; and in both cases it is the washing of water by the word which God uses. But there is a third and future fruit of His love — "that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing." There we have clearly the complete blessing of the Church, when there will be no question of cleansing it any more; when all the love of Christ will have its perfect effect, and when the Church will be glorious according to His own likeness, "That he might present the church to himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Thus we have the full, divine account of the love of Christ. But mark, it is not introduced merely in a doctrinal form, but in a most practical way, for the purpose of illustrating the place of the christian husband towards his wife. The husband can only act properly towards his wife when the relationship is regarded on higher ground than a natural one. A Christian must act upon heavenly principles, in order to act well in a natural relationship. You might have a husband attached to his wife, and a wife ever so much attached to him; but if this is their whole ground in married life, it will never have the power, blessing, and honour of God. Though it is all quite right, yet more than this is needed; and the something more that is needed is just the constant reminding of our souls how Christ feels and carries Himself toward the Church. There is always blessing and power in believing the word of God. If not using the word, we shall not have His strength in the natural relationship of this life; yet we ought to have it. If we have it not thus, are we not so far doing without that which would give power, and which God would own and honour?

The Spirit applies it, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." He is now taking up the common instinct that men naturally avoid pain and take care of themselves. He is speaking only of the fact, and says, Look upon your wife as a part of yourself; and that anything that would wrong her is so much wrong done to your own body. It would teach you affectionate care, "for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" a beautiful and sweet addition to the truth that was already brought out. All the rest had shown redemption, the present practical cleansing, the future glorification of the Church. But now he adds, that Christ "nourisheth and cherisheth it." There is the special entrance of His mind, His careful interest in those that belong to Him. It is a great comfort that we know this to be true in the present state of the Church, when we think of the ruin of all around. Does Christ ever cease to nourish that which belongs to Him? Impossible. Spite of all the ruin, He has the same care for His people. We never can pray too much for the Church; but it is another thing to be troubling our minds as if the Lord forgot her, and were not taking adequate care of the saints in their need and sorrow. The Lord has never failed; and what He here tells us to do in our earthly relationship is no more than what He perfectly does towards His Church. He loves the Church; He nourishes and cherishes it, and He does this because "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Just as Eve was a part of Adam, so the Church is of Christ. The Lord took out of Adam's side that which He built into his wife. So we stand in this nearness of relationship to Christ.

The verse is sometimes applied to Christ's becoming man; but it is the converse of this. It does not mean Christ taking our flesh and bone, but our being made members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. It is our relationship to Christ risen from the dead, and not Christ's relationship to us as a man upon the earth. I only refer to it to guard souls. There is no allusion to our Lord's taking flesh and blood, which we know He did: this is taught in Hebrews, but not here. We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. We are really a part of Himself, united to Him as He now is in the presence of God. It is our union to Him, not His incarnation.

The case of Adam is then quoted, and of Eve, in language of allusion to Genesis 2. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband." Thus we have the subject summed up with this practical word. I need not say that everything contrary to the most entire confidence in such a relationship is excluded by this verse. The husband, if acting in the spirit of it, has no secret from the one that is part of himself: but as to the wife, let her see that she reverence or (literally) fear her husband. It would not be the mere familiarity of love, which is wrong in a heavenly point of view. Whatever the confidence of a wife in her husband, it is surely a becoming thing for a wife to fear him. Nor is this the least incompatible with love. We are told to hold fast grace; and what is the effect? That we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. There is an immense difference, of course, between God and man; but it may serve to illustrate. Here it is the fear that dreads to offend, and seeks earnestly the husband's honour. This holds true in every case. Supposing you take the case of a stupid husband who has a clever wife; if he shows what he is from day to day, so much the more has the wife to guard her own spirit, that she should use what she has for her husband without seeming to do so. And now comes in the very important thing, that in these circumstances she should honour God and her husband, instead of a word to himself or to others that would wound or show a want of care. It is in such circumstances that the wisdom and spiritual feeling of a godly woman should shine, and shine by not shining: for the blessing of the married pair supposes that the man should appear and not the woman. Where the heart is simply looking to the Lord, there would be this result: and although it might look unseemly that such should be linked together and it would make their path more difficult, still there is nothing impossible to God. And if the christian woman sought the mind of God, honouring Him in the circumstances, God would use her in a very blessed and happy way for the helping of her husband, and for the covering of that which would be mortifying to him. But the principle always abides. As nothing justifies a husband in not loving his wife, so nothing justifies a wife in not reverencing her husband. The Lord grant that we may bear in mind His holy and gracious admonition.

Ephesians 6

Let us briefly look at the relations of children and fathers, as well as of servants and masters. Here, obedience is the grand point pressed on the inferior in each case. As all saints are called to submit themselves one to another in the fear of Christ, and wives especially to their own husbands, subject to them in every thing, so children are to obey their parents in the Lord. (Ver. 1.) It is not that the Holy Ghost has not a suited and a serious word for their fathers; but, in general, how easy is the flow of a christian household where the young obey — above all, where they "obey in the Lord." Natural affection is sweet, and the lack of it is a sign of the perilous last days; but it is not enough; nor is conscience, all-important as it is in its place, an adequate guard, nor can it be a spring of power; but the Lord is. And how blessed, where duty is clothed with and absorbed in Him! This, and nothing less than this, is pressed by the Holy Ghost.

It was so with the Lord Himself when He was here, and knew what it was to be in the place of a child. "And the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him." Nor are we left to a vague, general statement; we are shown a living picture of His ways. "And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" Thus, He, even as a child of twelve, had the consciousness of His own proper relationship. The. humanity He had taken, as born of a woman, in no way weakened the sense He had of His Father's love and business, but rather gave a new occasion in which He had to make it good. At the same time, we see what is so beautiful — how His eye, absolutely single, saw that which became Him on the earthly side, in striking contrast with Joseph and even His mother, who "understood not the saying which he spake unto them." Hence we read immediately after that, "He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them." Such was Jesus, the Lord of all, during much the larger part of His earthly career.

The same principle is true of the christian child; save that Christ's relationship to the Father was essential, ours to Him and to His Father is, of course, the pure gift of grace. But still we, too, are children, conferred on us as the title surely is in and through our Lord Jesus. "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God . . . . . Beloved, now are we the sons of God." And this, by the working of the Holy Ghost, is the secret of happy obedience in the earthly relationship. Conscious of what we are to the Lord, we can obey in Him. "In the Lord" is both the encouragement, the safeguard, and the limit. The parents might be Jew or heathen, or they might bear unworthily the name of Christ; but christian children (while thoroughly owning their relation to their parents, whatever they might be) have the sweet privilege of obeying "in the Lord." How it simplifies questions otherwise perplexing! How it determines also where and how far one ought to go! For if they are to obey "in the Lord," such a call cannot rightly be made a reason or excuse for sin.

In the Epistle to the Colossians, where the saints were in danger from a misuse of legal ordinances, the ground urged why children should obey their parents in all things, is "For this is well-pleasing unto the Lord." Here the faithful were free from that snare, and the Holy Ghost could freely use a principle embodied in the law, and hence adds "for this is right," or just. Nay, He can follow it up with a quotation, slightly changed from the decalogue, drawing attention parenthetically to its special place therein. "Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be long-lived on the earth." (Ver. 2, 3.) If such was God's estimate of filial piety under law, was it less now that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ unfolds His nature and calls us to the relationship of sons unto Himself? If respect to that word of old found its approval and recompense in the righteous government of God, if He then watched over and prospered such as honoured their parents, did the revelation of Himself in grace relax the obligation for His children, or make the love that prompts and sustains such honour less precious in His own eyes now? No intelligent Christian would contend that it is other than a precept from the law, but so applied as to insinuate, if I mistake not, a kind of à fortiori conclusion to the New Testament believer. Certainly, to be well and live long on the earth is not the form in which the proper portion of a saint, since the cross of Christ) is usually set before him.

To the fathers is the admonition (more needed by such than the mothers, perhaps, though in principle no doubt intended for both), "Provoke not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Ver. 4.) What knowledge of the heart of both old and young! What tender consideration, after the pressure of obedience, lest a too stringent and capricious use of the parental authority might exasperate! The bringing them up, or nourishing, is, on the other hand, to be with the Lord's discipline and admonition. As the Christian knows His ways, as they are in exercise toward himself and others, so is he to train up his children for Him — an all-important principle for the parent's own heart and conscience. Do we desire the Lord alone for them, or the world too?

Next (ver. 5-8), the christian slaves are exhorted to obey their masters according to the flesh (such they were, whether converted or not), to obey them with fear and trembling, in singleness of their heart, as to Christ; not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul, with goodwill doing service as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each doeth, this he shall receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. Is it not worthy of all note the extent and depth of the liberty that is in Christ? There is nothing violent or revolutionary; and yet the change is complete, absolute, final in its principle and character, though one has to grow in the appreciation and manifestation of it. And this growth is important morally, being part and parcel of Christianity practically viewed, where the very first blessing which God's grace bestows upon us in Christ appears not save to faith, has to be realized all through in the power of the Spirit through self-judgment, and is only ours in actual possession and display when that which is perfect is come in resurrection-glory. Still, how blessed, that if in one sense we have nothing, in another and just as real a sense we possess all things. On this truth faith has to lay hold and act; and among the rest, what a boon to the christian bondman! What a mighty motive for him, who, already consciously free in Christ in a liberty entirely superior to circumstances, has for that very reason such a scope for triumphing over his fetters and serving Christ in obeying the worst of masters if it were the Lord's will so to try him! Doubtless, the master too has his duties; but if he fail, what then? Is the slave absolved from his responsibility? How can this ever be a difficulty, if he obeys in simplicity as unto Christ? Does He fail? What a deliverance from every shade of dishonesty! — "not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ [how honourable the title which one shares with an apostle!], doing the will of God from the soul;" for such is the true word here. More than this: not only is there the call with goodwill to do service as to the Lord and not to men, but they are reminded that the day was coming when each, whether bond or free, should receive of the Lord for whatever good he might do. Ample wages then, be assured; for He, at least, is not unrighteous.

Then, in turn (ver. 9), the masters are called to impartial equity, doing as they would be done by, and abstaining from the threats so natural toward a poor slave. They were to know that the Lord both of masters and slaves was in the heavens, and that no respect of persons is with Him: — both of them weighty considerations for a master, and, with delicate propriety, laid before him rather than the slave.

We now enter on the final exhortations of the epistle, no longer occupied with the several relationships of the saints in their earthly circumstances, and hence looking at distinct classes, but addressed to all. "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might." It is the opening of the solemn subject of proper christian conflict, viewed, naturally in Ephesians, as carried on at the height of our heavenly privileges in Christ. In 1 Peter the scene lies, so to speak, in the wilderness, where, most appropriately, sobriety and vigilance are enjoined on the pilgrims and strangers who pass onward to the incorruptible inheritance; because their adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour. Here the enemy is regarded as on high, where the saints are blessed with every spiritual blessing, where their Head is exalted, where they are seated in Him, where the principalities and powers are learning by them the manifold wisdom of God; there, too, is the real struggle with the prince of the power of the air and his hosts.

But if, on the one hand, there is no keeping back from the believers the formidable conflict to which they are inevitably committed, there is, on the other hand, no weakening of their hands. On the contrary, the trumpet, which here summons to the battle, gives the most certain sounds of good courage, without presumption, in the saints, and of the amplest provision for their victory in the Lord, who has called them to warfare at His charges. What was His name by faith in His name to him that was lame from his mother's womb, whom they laid for daily alms at the gate of the temple? Is it less for our need? Far be the thought. All that is needed is the faith which is by Him; and faith comes by a report and this by God's word; and what more inspiriting to us than such words as these, "Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might?"

Nevertheless, the mighty contest with the powers of darkness admits of no negligence on our part. We cannot afford to be unguarded anywhere. We have to stand, not so much against the strength of the devil (Christ did this) as against his wiles. In truth, he is to us a vanquished foe in the cross; and we are entitled always to treat him as such. Therefore, says James, (James 4: 7), "Resist the devil and he will flee from you." It is his artifices that are chiefly and always to be dreaded; and to resist these we need to put on the panoply of God, as it is added here: "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places."

Well might we tremble if we stood in any resources of ours against such an array. But it is not so. The battle is the Lord's and our exposure but draws out His mighty hand and unfailing wisdom. Still we have to fight. It will not do to plead our weakness or His strength in order to shirk our responsibility. We must not merely look at, or point to, the panoply of God as our possession, so to speak, but must put it on at His bidding.

Another thing must be borne in mind. It is no question here of our wants before God. For He has no conflict with us; but having delivered our souls, He calls us to wrestle for the mastery with the unseen armies of His enemy. As naked in our lost estate once, we needed to be clothed; and His grace did clothe us with the best robe, with Christ. This is our clothing as before God: nothing less, nothing else, would suit His presence as His guests. But here it is a question of fighting the enemy, after we are clad with Christ; and we needed armour of divine tempering to stand aright and securely. On the details of this armour we shall enter by and by; it is only on the general truth that I would insist now.

How remarkably we are here reminded of Joshua in verse 10, and Israel's foes in verse 12! To Joshua the word was, "Arise, go over this Jordan, thou and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses . . . . . There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee nor forsake thee. Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them. Only be thou strong and very courageous." (Joshua 1. Compare also verses 9, 18.) Again, it is clear that if the Canaanites were but enemies of flesh and blood, they are types of the still deadlier foes we have to fight — foes whose effort it is to hinder the Christian from taking possession, in present enjoyment, of his heavenly inheritance.

It is not here, note it well, the Red Sea crossed, and then the desert, where we have to learn what God is and to be proved ourselves. The wilderness is the great scene of temptation; though, no doubt, there are occasional battles, as with Amalek and with Midian, still it is the place where we have to go or stay at God's bidding, in need of daily, heaven-sent supplies, where there is nothing else to sustain, ever marching onward with the heavenly land before us. But the wrestling here, as in the Book of Joshua, supposes the passage of the Jordan and entrance into Canaan, where the day of conflict begins, rather than that of temptation in the wilderness.

Is the evangelical school right in making Jordan to be the act of death at the end of our career when the saint departs to be with Christ? Clearly not; for in this case what would answer to the wars in Canaan? No! excellent as Bunyan was, in this he was mistaken, following the mistakes of others before him and perpetuating them far and wide to this day. Indeed, this is one of the tests of where the soul is and how far it is emancipated from traditional theology, which limits its disciples to a minimum of truth. Elsewhere, as for instance in their use of the Passover and Red Sea, there is defectiveness; here there is absolutely nothing, or error. And this I say, singling out the author of "Pilgrim's Progress" as a noble and most advanced specimen of popular views. The best of their day in the religious world are but his commentators — some of them literally so. Can there be a better proof how completely the gist of this epistle is ignored? The truth is that in the Red Sea we have Christ dead and risen for us; in Jordan, we have our death and resurrection with Him: the one ushering us into the world as the dreary waste of our pilgrimage, the other putting us in view of our heavenly blessing, which we have then to appropriate by victory over Satan. The distinction is as clear as it is important, though both are true of the Christian now. When the glorious day comes for the inheritance to be ours, not by the force of faith which thus in practice defeats the enemy and makes good the land God has given us, we shall not have to wrestle with these principalities and powers in heavenly places: the conflict will be closed for us and for ever. The expulsion of the dragon, "that old serpent," is not our work, but that of Michael and his angels. With overcoming him we have to do, but not with his forcible ejection from heaven. All the time the Church is here below, our conflict goes on with these spiritual wickednesses in heavenly places; when the actual casting out by God's providential power takes place, we shall not be here, but above.

After the Passover and the Red Sea there was no return of Israel to the slavery of Pharaoh; their taskmasters were overthrown and gone; "there remained not so much as one of them." "The Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptian, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea shore." But circumcision did not characterize the redeemed in the wilderness. No sooner were the children on the Canaanitish side of Jordan than they rolled away the reproach of Egypt at Gilgal. The knife of circumcision was applied to deal with Israel before they draw the sword on the doomed inhabitants of Canaan. They were in Canaan and had nothing more to do to get there: their work was to make the land their own.

Has this no instruction for us? Have we consciously laid hold of our union with Christ on high? Do we know our place is there in Him, and that we have there to stand? Is nature, root and branch, a judged thing in us? Do we render a heavenly testimony — not only righteous and holy, but heavenly? Are we then and thus advancing on the enemy and making good our title by present victory to enjoy the boundless blessings above which we have in Christ? Or are we still, as far as realization goes, ransomed, but in the wilderness, with Jordan uncrossed and the old corn of the land for us untouched food? Are we merely guarding against the flesh breaking out here or there, against worldly temptations overtaking us in this or that? If so, need we wonder that verse 12 sounds mysterious, and that we question what is meant by the wrestling with the enemies in heavenly places? It was probably the total misapprehension, or non-apprehension, of the truth here revealed, which led our English translators into the unwarrantable change of heavenly into "high" places in this passage only. It behoves ourselves, however, to consider whether our own souls have proved and are proving the panoply of God in this conflict, where, above all, it is plain that "the flesh profiteth nothing."

In these verses, after a prefatory resumption, we come to the particulars of the Christian's armour. "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and, having done all, to stand. Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth," etc. (Ver. 13-17.)

The first thing to be noticed is that the Holy Spirit calls on us to take up the panoply of God. Neither strength nor wisdom of man avail in this conflict. As we have to do with the hosts of Satan on the one hand, we need on the other "the whole armour of God." Our natural character and habits may not signify, where the Spirit of God is at work to save our souls in His grace; but they are of vast moment in presence of a foe who knows how to take advantage of every unguarded opening. Even to those at Corinth, carnal as they were, and only fit to bear the food of babes (not the solid meat which is set before the Ephesian saints), he had shown that, walking in flesh, we do not war according to flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but divinely mighty to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Not flesh, but the Spirit of God has power against Satan.

Here, too, the character of the time in which the conflict goes on is designated as "the evil-day." Evil indeed is the entire period since Christ was crucified and the enemy acquired the title of "the prince of this world." Hence, in chapter 5, we are expected to walk with carefulness, not as fools but as wise, seizing every good and suited opportunity, because "the days are evil." But here we have something more precise, "that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day." For there are occasions when the power of evil is allowed to press more closely and the danger is great for the careless soul. It is emphatically then "the evil day;" and it is well when the Christian has anticipated it; for the point at such a time is not to take up the panoply, but, having already taken it, "to withstand." "The evil day" should find us already and fully armed, if we are to make effectual resistance. Nor is this enough. For how often the victory of faith is too great for the faith that won it, and a saint who has long and afresh vanquished the enemy, may tire of the struggle and turn aside into a seemingly easier path, to prove his own folly, and his exceeding danger, even if in the end delivered by the pure mercy of God! To resist, then, does not suffice, but "having done all," having thoroughly accomplished all things requisite, "to stand." The fight — the fights — may have been keen, the victory complete through the Lord's goodness and might; but the war is not over. Our place is still to stand our ground.

"Stand, therefore, having girt your loins about with truth, and put on the breastplate of righteousness, and shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace." I have changed the English Version slightly, so as to adhere more closely to the true sense, which supposes not only a settled position, but the soul in activity according to the summons of the Holy Ghost. Much mischief has arisen from regarding this passage as if it treated of standing, whereas, in truth, it is essentially different. It is practical arming and conflict, founded on the most blessed standing anywhere revealed in the New Testament, and suitably closing the epistle which reveals it.

To know the truth and be set free by the truth is one thing; to have girt about our loins with truth is another. It is the intimate dealing of truth with the soul, so that there is no laxity of heart or indulged will, but, on the contrary, the affections and judgment braced up to Christ and the things of Christ. Thus the saint cleaves to the Lord with full purpose of heart; and, self being searched and judged by the truth, there is vigour imparted through the revelation of His mind and grace, which are now more than ever enjoyed. It is the power of truth in keeping the soul, delivered in God's rich mercy, and too thankful to be under an authority so comprehensive and penetrating and absolute, as to leave nothing, let it be ever so inward, outside the range of God's will and the saint's obedience. To bear and delight in this, however, assumes that the heart is established in grace; it can then welcome the truth in all its energetic claim and control.

Next follows "the breastplate of righteousness" put on. This is quite distinct from the righteousness of God, which we are made in Christ. The latter we need before God; the former we want for successful wrestling with our adversary the devil. As the Spirit, in the girding round our loins with truth, shows the first piece of armour to be the thorough application of the word to us in self-judgment, and, withal, in moral energy, so the next demanded is that we put on practical righteousness as our breastplate. Nothing exposes a saint in conflict more readily than a bad conscience in his ways. I do not mean a conscience unpurged, but where evil, after the knowledge of redemption, has been allowed and communion is broken.

Connected with this is the having "the feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." This, again, is evidently a matter of practical power and enjoyment, the effect of maintaining a good conscience, as the latter can only be where all is held and guarded by the truth. Then the soul goes on in peace. "The fruit of righteousness," as another apostle says, "is sown in peace of them that make peace." Where there is laxity, the conscience gets bad; and the result is trouble, and making trouble; where truth governs, the conscience is kept bright, and, happy ourselves, we shed happiness around us.

Verse 16 introduces another and quite as necessary a part of the divine armour, but, doubtless, justly put subsequent to what we have seen. "Above [or, beside] all, having taken up the shield of faith with which ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one." This means that confidence in God Himself which the soul is entitled and encouraged to cherish: I say, in Himself, because, though inseparable from the godly and righteous state the previous portions of the panoply intimate, it is a confidence springing only from what God is known to be in His own nature and character. All the envenomed efforts of the wicked one are futile where God is thus known in the power of the Holy Ghost ungrieved within us; all his darts not only fail to produce despair and distrust, but they are extinguished by the shield of faith.

But there is more (ver. 17): "and receive the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God." The shield of faith is more general confidence; the helmet of salvation is rather the bold and joyful consciousness of the full deliverance God has wrought for us in Christ. This crowns the various parts of the armour already noticed, and is therefore followed, not by further means of defence (for it is complete), but by the instrument of offensive energy against the adversary, the sword of the Spirit, even God's word. How wisely it is thus placed in the last place of all, will be apparent to the instructed mind! Indeed, if there be not this order known practically, the word is made a mere toy of, or perhaps a scourge for self, rather than to have the character of the sword of the Spirit; it is misused and powerless. Handled in the Spirit, what deliverance it works! What disabling of adversaries and what a detector of Satan! It is for conflict.

We have had the details of the panoply of God, active energy following that which pertains to the state, practical security and the confidence of the soul. But there is a hidden spring of power without which nothing avails — the expression of weakness, strange to say, but of weakness in dependence on God. Hence the word is, "praying always with all prayer" — praying at every season. There is nothing the enemy more dreads, nothing that flesh more seeks to hinder, or to make amiss if there be the form. But so much the more need we to bear in mind the call to habitual and complete dependence.

Besides, there is the exercise of spiritual desires, and not dependence only; as it is said by our Lord elsewhere, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it." "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." (John 14, 15) In a word, there is encouragement and exhortation to every kind of prayer and at every opportunity, while there is also that character of petition which is sustained in the power of the Holy Ghost, "supplication in the Spirit," which all prayer of the saints is not.

Another weighty word is the call to "watch unto this very thing;" for this supposes the activity of love which is quick to discern in the fear of the Lord and in the bowels of Christ that which might tarnish His glory on the one hand, and on the other whatever would contribute to the exaltation of His name in His saints and testimony. What a deliverance this is, not only from self-will, but from anxiety and from self-importance! And what a field for gracious affections to turn everything of good or ill into occasions of intercourse with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to turn all — otherwise transient, or food for gossip — into channels of everlasting blessing! How wise and good is every word of our God! May the thing itself, as well as His word about it, be precious in our eyes! Where this is so, there will be watching in the habit of prayer, "with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." For where God's presence is thus realized, there is no straitness in the affections, but love goes out energetically to Him and in communion with Him concerning all the saints. It is the service of love before Him who is love. But as having at heart the interests of Christ, there is the special remembrance of such as gather with Christ. So here the apostle speaks of their supplication on behalf of himself; and, as it appears, with a link of greater energy than that which spread desires about the saints before the Lord — "and for me" (not merely περὶ, but ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, as indicating particularity among the general objects of the action), "that utterance may be given unto me that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, on behalf of which I am ambassador in chains; that therein I may be bold as I ought to speak."

It is blessed to find such a practical evidence of the apostle's own sense of the value of intercession, the intercession of saints, for his ministry. His consciousness of its dignity rather increased than diminished his wish to be thus remembered.

But again, he reckoned on their love, not only in thus praying on his behalf, but also in their desiring to know matters concerning him, how he fared; and, therefore tells them that "Tychicus, the beloved brother, and faithful servant in the Lord' shall make known to you all things: whom I sent unto you for this very purpose, that ye may know our affairs, and that he may comfort your hearts." What a contrast with the spirit of men is the mighty, gracious working of divine love in the heart, which counts on the tender concern of the saints in him who served and loved them in the Lord! Man, as such, would either be indifferent and hard, or would fear the imputation of vanity, as if his matters could be objects of interest to others. But Christ changes all for the hearts of those that have received Him.

"Peace to the brethren, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: grace with all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption."

Galatians.

Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians.

W. Kelly.

The Epistle to the Galatians: a new translation.

Galatians 1. Paul, apostle, not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him out of the dead, 2 and all the brethren with me, to the assemblies of Galatia. 3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 that gave himself for our sins, so that he might deliver us out of the present evil age according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

6 I wonder that thus quickly ye are being removed from him that called you in Christ's grace to a different gospel 7 which is not another, but* there are some that trouble you and desire to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel out of heaven preach to you contrary to what we preached to you, accursed let him be. 9 As we have said before, now also again I say, if one is preaching to you contrary to what ye received, accursed let him be. 10 For am I now conciliating men or God? or do I seek to please men? [For] if any longer I were pleasing men, Christ's bondservant I should not be.

{* Or, 'another gospel, which is nothing else than,' etc.}

11 But I let you know, brethren, that the gospel that was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For neither received I it from man nor was I taught [it] but by revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye heard of my conversation formerly in Judaism, that I was excessively persecuting the assembly of God and ravaging it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many contemporaries in my nation, being very exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God,† that set me apart out of my mother's womb and called me by his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, that I should preach him among the nations, immediately I took not counsel with flesh and blood, 17 nor went up to Jerusalem to those that were apostles before me; but I went unto Arabia and again returned unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up unto Jerusalem to make the acquaintance of Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days; 19 but no other of the apostles I saw, save James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now what I write to you behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22 but I was unknown personally to the assemblies of Judea that are in Christ: 23 only they were hearing that our former persecutor now preacheth the faith which formerly he was ravaging 24 and they glorified God in me.

{† Or, 'him.'}

Galatians 2. Then after fourteen years I again went up unto Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with [me]; 2 and I went up according to revelation, and laid before them the gospel which I preach among the nations, but in private to those in repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain; 3 (but neither was Titus, that was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised;) 4 and [this] on account of the false brethren brought in stealthily, who came in stealthily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring into bondage, 5 to whom we yielded in subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might abide with you. 6 But from those reputed to be something, whatsoever they were maketh no difference to me — God accepteth no man's person — for to me those in repute imparted nothing; 7 but, on the contrary, having seen that I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter [with that] of the circumcision 8 (for he that wrought in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also toward the nations), 9 and having known the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, that were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right-hands of fellowship, that we [should go] unto the nations, and they unto the circumcision, 10 only that we should remember the poor, which very thing also I have been diligent to do.

11 But when Cephas came unto Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was self-condemned;* 12 for before that certain came from James, he ate with the nations; but when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, being afraid of those of the circumcision; 13 and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walk not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, livest nationally and not Jewishly, how forcest thou the nations to judaize?

{* Or, 'had been blamed.'}

15 We, Jews by nature and not sinners of the nations, and 16 knowing that no man is justified by works of law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith of Christ and not by works of law; because by works of law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, ourselves also were found sinners, then is Christ minister of sin. Let it not be. 18 For if the things which I pulled down, these I again build, I constitute myself a transgressor. 19 For I, by law, died to law that I may live to God. 20 With Christ I am crucified, yet I live, no longer I, but Christ liveth in me; but that which I now live in flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God that loved me and gave himself up for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness is by law, then Christ died gratuitously.

Galatians 3. O senseless Galatians! who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I wish to learn from you; received ye the Spirit by works of law, or by the report of faith? 3 Are ye so senseless? Having begun in Spirit, are ye now being perfected in flesh? 4 Suffered ye so many things in vain, if indeed in vain? 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by works of law or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. 7 Know then that they who are of faith, these are sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith announced beforehand to Abraham: "In thee shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So that they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of works of law are under curse; for it is written, "Cursed is every one who doth not continue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them;" 11 but that in virtue of law none is justified with God [is] evident, for "the just by faith shall 12 live;" but the law is not of faith, but he who hath done them shall live in virtue of them. 13 Christ bought us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, (for it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,") 14 that unto the nations the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak according to man: a ratified covenant, though man's, no one setteth aside or supplementeth. 16 But to Abraham were addressed the promises, and to his seed; he doth not say "and to seeds" as of many, but as of one "and to thy seed," which is Christ. 17 Now this I say: the covenant ratified beforehand by God, the law, which took place four hundred and thirty years after, doth not annul so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance is of law, it is no more of promise; but to Abraham by promise God graciously gave [it]. 19 Why then the law? For the sake of transgressions it was added, until the seed came to whom the promise was made, being ordained by means of angels in a mediator's hand. 20 But the mediator is not of one, but God is one. 21 [Is] therefore the law against the promises of God? Let it not be. For if there had been given a law which could quicken, in very truth by law would have been righteousness. 22 But the scripture hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were guarded under law, shut up unto the faith about to be revealed. 24 So that the law hath been our tutor unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But faith having come, we are no longer under a tutor; 26 for ye all are sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized unto Christ, put on Christ. 28 There is no Jew nor Greek, there is no bondservant nor freeman, there is no male and female; for all ye are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

Galatians 4. But I say, as long as the heir is an infant, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he be lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time fore-appointed by the father. 3 So also we, when we were infants, were held in bondage under the principles of the world; 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under law, 5 that he might buy those under law, that we might receive our sonship. 6 But because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father. 7 So that thou art no longer a bondservant but a son; and if a son, an heir also of God through Christ. 8 But then, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods; 9 but now having known God, yea rather being known by God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly principles to which ye wish again afresh to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest somehow I have laboured in vain as to you.

12 Be as I, for I also [am] as ye, brethren, I beseech you: ye have in nothing wronged me; 13 but ye know that in weakness of the flesh I preached to you the first time; 14 and my temptation which was in my flesh ye slighted not nor loathed, but as an angel of God ye received me — as Christ Jesus. 15 What then was your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if possible, plucking out your eyes, ye would have given them to me. 16 So that have I become your enemy by being truthful to you? 17 They are zealous about you, not rightly; but wish to shut you out, that ye may be zealous about them. 18 But [it is] right to be zealous in a right thing always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My children, with whom I again travail, until Christ shall have been formed in you, 20 yea, I could wish to be present with you now and change my voice, for I am perplexed about you. 21 Tell me, ye who wish to be under law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham bad two sons, one of the maidservant and one of the freewoman. 23 But be that was of the maidservant was born according to flesh, and he that was of the free-woman through the promise. 24 Which things are given allegorically, for these are two covenants, one from Mount Sina, gendering unto bondage, which is Agar. 25 For Agar is Mount Sina in Arabia, but correspondeth with the existing Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother, 27 for it is written, "Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break out and cry, thou that travailest not; for the children of the desolate are many more than of her that hath the husband." 28 But we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born according to flesh persecuted him that was according to Spirit, so now. 30 But what saith the scripture? "Cast out the maidservant and her son. For in no wise shall the son of the maidservant inherit with the son of the free. woman." 31 Therefore, brethren, we are not children of a maidservant, but of the freewoman.

Galatians 5. Stand fast in the freedom with which Christ hath freed us, and be not again held in a yoke of bond age. 2 Behold, I Paul say to you, that if ye are circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing 3 And I witness again to every man if circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Ye have derived no effect from Christ, whoever are being justified by law; ye have fallen from grace. 5 For we in the Spirit await by faith the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision hath any force nor uncircumcision, but faith working by love. 7 Ye were running well: who stopped you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 The persuasion [is] not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 I have confidence as to you in the Lord that ye will be of no other mind; but he that troubleth you shall bear the sentence, whoever he may be.

11 But I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why am I yet persecuted? Then is done away the scandal of the cross. 12 I would they would even cut themselves off * that are unsettling you. 13 For ye have been called for freedom, brethren: only [use] not your freedom for an opportunity to the flesh; but by love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, see that ye are not consumed by one another.

{* Or, 'were even cut off.'}

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall in no wise fulfil flesh's lust. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these things are opposed one to another, that ye should not do those things which ye would; 18 but if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are under no law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strifes, jealousies, bursts of passion, contentions, divisions, parties, 21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revels, and things like these, as to which I forewarn you, even as also I forewarned, that they who do such things shall not inherit God's kingdom. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control: 23 against such things there is no law. 24 But they that are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and its lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk. 26 Let us not become vainglorious, provoking one another, envying one another.

Galatians 6. Brethren, if a man be even taken in some offence, do ye, the spiritual ones, restore such an one in a spirit of meekness, looking to thyself lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so completely fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For if any one reputeth himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4 But let each prove his own work, and then he will have his boast as to himself alone, and not as to the other; 5 for each shall bear his own load.

6 But let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, this also shall he reap; 8 for he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life eternal. 9 But in well-doing let us not be fainthearted, for in due time we shall reap if we do not faint. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all, and especially toward those of the household of faith.

11 See in how large letters I have written to you with my own hand. 12 As many as wish to have a fair appearance in the flesh, these are compelling you to be circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted through the cross of Christ. 13 For neither do they that are being circumcised themselves keep the law, but wish you to be circumcised that in your flesh they may boast. 14 But be it not for me to boast, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk by this rule, peace [be] upon them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. 17 For the rest let no one give me trouble, for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body. 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

NOTES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

Galatians 1.

I trust to be enabled to show, in looking at the Epistle to the Galatians, that this portion of the word of God is formed with the same skill (as, indeed, a revelation of God must be) which we have found occasion to remark in other books of the Old and New Testaments; that it is stamped with the same evidence of divine design; and that, having a special object, the Holy Ghost subordinates all the details to the great thought and task that He has in hand.

Now, it is plain, from a very cursory glance, that the object of the epistle was not so much the assertion of the truth of justification by faith in contrast with works of law, as the vindicating it against the efforts of the enemy who would merge it under ordinances and human authority; in other words, it is the antidote to the Judaizing poison of many who professed the name of the Lord.

In Romans, it is more the bringing out of positive truth; in Galatians, the recovery of the truth after it had been taught and received, the enemy seeking to swamp it by bringing in the law as the conjoint means of justification. The Holy Ghost sets Himself, by the Apostle Paul, thoroughly to nullify all this force of Satan; and this gives a peculiar tone to the epistle.

As usual, the first few verses bear the stamp of the whole, and show what the Holy Ghost was about to bring out in every part. We have, of course, the choicest collection of words, and the avoiding of irrelevant topics, so as to reveal in short compass the mind of God as to the state of things among the churches in Galatia. This accounts for the comparative coldness of the tone of the epistle — the reserve, we may say, with which the apostle speaks to them. I think it is unexampled in any other part of the New Testament. And the reason was this: the bad state into which the Galatians had fallen did not so much arise from ignorance, as it was unfaithfulness. And there is a great difference. God is most patient towards mere want of light; but He is intolerant of His saints' trifling with the light He has given them. The apostle was imbued with the mind of God, and has given it to us in a written form without the slightest admixture of human error. He has given us, not only the mind, but the feelings of God. Now man reserves his bitter censure for that which is immoral — for a man guilty of cheating or intoxication, or any other grossness: every correct person would feel these things. But the very same persons who are alive to the moral scandal may be dead to an evil that is a thousand times worse in the sight of God. Most people are sure to feel immorality, partly because it affects themselves; whereas in what touches the Lord, they always need to be exhorted strenuously and to have the light of God brought to bear strongly upon it. Satan is not apt to serve up naked and bare error, but generally garnishes it with more or less of truth, attractive to the mind. Thus he entices persons to refuse what is good, and choose what is evil.

We learn from God how we ought to feel about evil doctrine. Take the epistle to the Galatians, as compared with the Corinthians, in proof of what I am asserting. There you would have seen, if you wont into a meeting at Corinth, a number of people, very proud of their gifts. They were fleshly, making a display of the power with which the Spirit of God had endorsed them. For one may have a real gift of God used in a very carnal manner. At Corinth there was also a great deal that was openly scandalous. In the early christian times it was usual to have what is called a love-feast, which was really a social meal, or supper, when men had done their work, or before it, and they could come together. At Corinth, if not elsewhere, they united this meal of love along with the supper of the Lord. And one can understand that they might easily get excited: for we must remember that those believers had only just emerged from the depravities and darkness of heathenism. Drunkenness was most common among the heathen: they even made it a point of honour to get intoxicated in honour of their gods. These Corinthian saints must not be judged of by the light that persons afterwards received; and indeed it is in great measure through the slips of the early believers, that we have learnt what christian morality is or ought to be. They were like babes coming out of the nursery, and their steps were feeble and faltering. There were, too often, ebullitions of nature that showed themselves among them like the heathen. There were, besides, parties among the saints. Some were ranging themselves under one banner, and some under another. They had their different favourites that they followed. Some had even fallen into most flagrant evil, and others again were standing up for their rights, and going to law one with another. There was looseness of every kind in their wall. All these things came out in their midst. There was a low moral order of things. Had we not the writing of an apostle to such as these, we might have considered that it was impossible for them to be Christians at all. Whereas, though there is the most holy tone and condemnation of their sin throughout the epistle, yet the apostle begins in a manner that is more and more striking, the more you think of it and bear in mind the state of the Corinthian believers. He begins by telling them that they were sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called as saints. He speaks to them, too, of God's faithfulness, by whom they were "called unto the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." What a contrast with the natural impulse of our minds! We might have been disposed to doubt that any, save a very few of them, could have been converted.

Now, why is it that to the disorderly Corinthians there were such strong expressions of affection, and none to the Galatians? Writing to the former, he calls them the church of God. "Paul, called an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . . unto the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints . . . . I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God that is given you by Jesus Christ; that in everything ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge . . . . so that ye come behind in no gift: waiting for the coming [revelation] of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. And then he begins to touch upon what was wrong, and continues it throughout. Writing to the Galatians, on the contrary, he says, "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ." Not a word about their being in Christ or in God the Father! Not a word about their being saints in Christ Jesus and faithful brethren. He just simply says the very least that it is possible to say about Christians collectively here below. He speaks of them as "the churches of Galatia:" he does not associate them with any others, but they are put, so to speak, as naughty by themselves. On the other hand, the apostle takes care, to say, "All the brethren that are with me unto the churches of Galatia." If he does not speak of the saints in general, he does universally of the brethren then with him, his companions in service, whom he joins with himself in writing to the Galatians. He had a reason for this. He was not along in his testimony, whatever the false teachers might insinuate. All the brethren that were with him identified themselves, as it were, with his present communication.

Looking at the manner in which he speaks of himself, shore is something very notable in it. "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," etc. He begins controversy at once. The very first words are a blow at the root of their Jewish notions. They found fault with the apostle because he was not with the Lord Jesus, when He was upon earth. What does Paul reply? He says, I accept that which you mean as a reproach; I am not an apostle of men nor by man. He completely excludes all human appointment or recognition in any way. His apostleship was not of men as its source, nor by man as a medium in any way. Nothing could have been more easy than for God to have converted the Apostle Paul in Jerusalem: it was there he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel; it was there that his first violence against the Christians broke out. But when God met him, he was away from Jerusalem, carrying on his hot persecution of the saints: and there, outside Damascus, in broad daylight, the Lord from heaven, unseen by others, reveals Himself to the astonished Saul of Tarsus. He was called not only a saint, but an apostle; "an apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." And to make it the more striking, when he was baptized, whom did the Lord choose to make the instrument of his baptism? A disciple who is only this once brought before us as a godly old man, residing at Damascus. God took special care to show that the apostle, appointed to a signally important place, the most momentous function of any man that ever was called to serve the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospel — that St. Paul was thus called without the intervention, authorization, or recognition of man in any shape or form. His baptism had nothing to do with his being an apostle. Every one is baptized as a Christian, not as an apostle. He immediately goes into Arabia, he preaches the gospel, and God at once owns him as Christ's minister in the gospel, without any human interference. Such, indeed, is the true principle of ministry, fully illustrated in the call and work of Saul of Tarsus, henceforth the bondman of Jesus.

It may be objected, however, by some that we do read of human setting apart and laying on of hands in the New Testament. We own it fully. But in some cases, it is a person who has already shown qualification for the work, set apart in a formal manner by apostolic authority to a local charge, and clothed with a certain dignity in the eyes of the saints, perhaps because there was not much gift. For the elder, it will be observed, is not said to be "a teacher," but simply "apt to teach." External office is not so needed where there is power in a high degree. Power makes itself felt. Saints of God will always, in the long run, be obliged to own it. Hence, when a man has received a gift from the Lord, he ought to be the least anxious about it for his own sake: God knows how to make it respected, if men fail to see or hear. But when there are men who have grave and godly qualities without power evident to all, they need to be invested with authority, if they are to have weight with unspiritual people. Therefore, it seems, we read of an apostle, or an apostolic delegate, going round and taking the lead in governing, appointing, advising, where there was anything amiss or lacking among the saints.

The fact is, people confound eldership with ministry. Elders were appointed by those who themselves had a higher authority direct from Christ; but there never was such a thing as ordaining a man to preach the gospel. In Scripture, the Lord, and the Lord only, calls men to preach. There is not, in the entire New Testament, one instance to the contrary. It is positively disorderly, and contrary to the word of God, for a man to seek a human commission in order to preach the gospel, or for taking the place of a teacher in relation to the Christian assemblies. In apostolic days there never was such a thing as a person appointed a teacher any more than a prophet. But among the elders there might be, some of them, evangelists, teachers, etc. Therefore, it is said, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." The presbyters, or elders, whose business it was to role, even if they were not teachers, were in danger of being despised. But they were to be counted worthy of double honour, if they ruled well. They were to be honoured as a class, and specially they who laboured in the word and doctrine. Several of them, besides being elders, might be also teachers, and such would have superadded claims on the esteem of the saints. There is no wish to set aside the fact, that there were persons set apart by man; but what I deny is, that such was the case in the ordinary classes of ministry — pastors, teachers, etc., etc. These were never appointed by man in any shape whatever. The whole body of scriptural ministers is entirely independent of ordination. The assembly's choice entered in the case of deacons, who looked after external things: they were appointed by apostolic sanction — at least, such was the practice in setting the seven men over the business of the tables in Jerusalem. So, too, the stewards of the bounty of the Gentile assemblies, spoken of in 2 Corinthians 8: 19, 23. They were chosen to the work by the various churches whose contributions were entrusted to them. The elders were called rather to take the lead and govern locally, though it is nowhere intimated that they were elected of the assembly. Nevertheless, they were formally chosen by apostles or apostolic delegates; and the weight of those who chose them was no doubt intended to give them a just importance in the minds of the saints generally.

The case of Timothy is, no doubt, peculiar. He was designated by prophecy to a certain very peculiar work — that of guarding doctrine. And the apostle and the presbyters laid their hands upon him, by which a spiritual gift was communicated to him which he did not possess before. It is evident that there is no man now living who has been similarly endowed and called to such a work.

It may be said that, in the case of the Apostle Paul, there was the putting on of hands, which we have in Acts 13. What does this show? Not, certainly, that he was an apostle chosen by man; for the Holy Ghost declares here that he was "an apostle, not of men, neither by man." That which took place at Antioch was in no sense ordaining him to be an apostle. It is evident from many scriptures that, for several years before hands were laid on him, he had been preaching, and was one of the recognized prophets and teachers at Antioch. (Ver. 1.) I believe that the point then was the setting him and Barnabas apart for the special mission on which they were just about to go out — to plant the gospel in new countries. Assuredly, when the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them," it does not mean, that hitherto either one or the other had been preaching of their own will, without the Lord's authority, and still less that the great apostle of the Gentiles was now constituted such by his inferiors. It was, then, purely and simply a recommendation to the grace of God, for the new work on which they were about to enter. Some such thing might be done at the present day. Supposing a man, who had already been preaching the gospel in England, felt it much laid on his heart to go and visit the United States of America, and his brethren felt that he was just the man for that work, they might, in order to show their concurrence and sympathy, meet together, with prayer and fasting, to lay their hands upon the brother who was going thither. This, in my opinion, would be quite scriptural. It is what has been done in such cases. But it is not ordaining. It is merely the recommendation to the grace of God of persons already gifted for the work, who have some new path marked out for them.

But what I believe to be unscriptural, and indeed positively sinful, is the insisting on a certain ceremony through which a man must pass before he is recognized as properly a minister of Christ. This, general as it may be, is traditional imposture, without one shred of Scripture to cover itself. It is merely something that man has brought in, chiefly founded upon the Jewish priesthood. If one belonged to the priestly family, before he could enter upon his priestly functions, he had to go through a number of ceremonies. These the Roman Catholics, above all, imitate in their measure. But the astonishing thing is, that men, who in words denounce popery, have continued to imitate one of the worst parts of it; for it is in this very thing that I believe the Holy Ghost is most grieved. The effect is this, that it accredits a number of men who are not ministers of Christ, and discredits a number of men who are His ministers, because they do not go through that particular innovation. It has the effect of doing all the mischief and hindering all the good that is possible. This is an evil which, derived from the core of Judaism, is the greatest conceivable check to the energy of the Holy Ghost in the Church at the present or any other time. Some may look grave at this remark, and say it is not charitable so to speak; but such persons do not know what charity means. They confound it with indifference. And indifference is the death of charity. If you saw your child with its hands over the burning coals, you would not be hindered from the most earnest cry, or any other energetic means to rescue it, by people telling you that a loud voice or a sharp snatch were wrong things for a Christian. So, as to this very subject, there is that which is bound up with the blessing of the Church on the one hand, and the curse of Christendom on the other. How many horrors come out of it? The pope himself is a product of it: because if you have got priests, you naturally want a high priest; if you have the sons of Aaron, you need Aaron also represented. The pope was set up on this very ground, and the whole system of popery depends upon it. Alas! it is a demon which Protestantism has failed to exorcise.

"Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by men," entirely excludes man, as being either the source of his ministry, or the medium in any way connected with it. The great thing that we have to remember with regard to ministry is, that its spring is in the hands of Christ; as he says here, "by Jesus Christ." He does not say of Jesus Christ. I regard "by Jesus Christ," in this particular connection, as much stronger, for this reason — that the Judaizing teachers would have said, We fully allow it to be of Jesus Christ, but it must be by those who were chosen and appointed by the Lord Himself when He was upon earth; the apostles must be the channel. God was striking a death-blow at the notion of apostolic succession. He was most graciously shutting out, for every spiritual man, any pretence of this evil thing. The Galatians were probably troubled and perplexed that, avowedly, Paul should be an apostle entirely apart from the other twelve. Why did they not all cast lots about Paul, if he was to be one of the apostles in the highest sense? This is what he is meeting here. He connects his apostleship not only with God and our Lord as its source, tent also as the medium — "by Jesus Christ, and by God the Father who raised him from the dead." Here there is another blow at the successionists. They had been drawing a contrast between Paul and the other twelve apostles, to the disadvantage of the former. But the apostle shows that if there was any difference between himself and them, it was that he was an apostle by Him who raised Christ from the dead. The others were only called when our Lord was here upon earth, taking His place as a man here below. Paul was called by Jesus Christ risen from the dead. There was greater power, greater glory, greater distinction, as far as any existed, in the case of Paul's calling to be an apostle, than in that of any of the others. The apostle puts all their theories to the rout, and brings in his own special place with great force. Paul is the pattern of ministers to this very moment. In speaking about ministry, he loves to put it upon this ground, the ground upon which he was called himself. When it is a question of his preaching, he says, (2 Cor. 4) "We believe, and therefore speak." He takes it up upon the simplest and the best basis — if a man knows the truth, let him speak of it. There was no need of waiting for anything. It is to that the Lord works in the Church. Hence, in speaking about ministerial gift in Ephesians, where we have it in the highest possible forms, on what does he found it? On Christ ascended up on high, and giving gifts unto men: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come, in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." The whole of ministry, from its highest functions to its lowest, is put upon the same principle. If it be urged, It is all well what you have been saying about Paul, but it does not apply to ordinary ministers, I reply that it does; because the Holy Ghost teaches us through the Apostle Paul, that when you come down from apostles and prophets, to pastors, teachers, or evangelists, they are all set upon the very same basis; all are gifts from the same Lord, without the intervention of man in any shape or degree.

But, then, it will be said by some, What about elders? There you are wrong: you have not got them. I answer, We have not elders formally, because we have not, and are not, apostles. It is plain that in this we are not worse off, to say the least, than any of the so-called churches or sects; because I am not aware that any have apostles. So that the true difference between those who meet round the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and others, is, that we do not pretend to have what we have not got, whereas they do who pretend to appoint. You cannot have appointed elders without apostles; yet we may have certain persons that possess the qualifications of elders, and such ought to be owned; but to imitate the appointment of presbyters, now that apostles no longer exist, is sinful. This may suffice for the subject of ministry.

And what were the Galatians about now? What were they bringing the law on Christians for? If the Lord had already given Himself for our sins, and settled that question, to suppose that He should have given Himself for our sins, and yet the sins not be blotted out, is to deny the efficacy of His work, if not the glory of His person. He is showing them the very elementary truth of the gospel, that Christ gave Himself for our sins. So that it is not at all a question of man seeking to acquire a certain righteousness, but of Christ who gave Himself for our sins when we had nothing but sins. And this is not for the purpose of putting people, under the law again, and making that to be their proper standard as Christians, but He "gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world." What is the effect of men taking up the law as Christians? It makes them worldly. There is no exception. There cannot be such a thing as a man separate from the world, when he is under the law. We are not in the flesh, but in spirit. That is the standard of a believer: not of some particular believers, but of all. We are "not in the flesh." There is that which is of the flesh in us, but we are not in the flesh. The meaning of the apostle there is, that we are no longer looked upon nor dealt with by God as mere mortal men with our sins upon us; but we are regarded by God according to Christ, in whom there is no sin: and if we look at our standing as Christians, there is none in us; for our nature has been already condemned in the cross, and God does not mean to pass sentence upon it twice. What we have now to do is to live upon Christ, to enter into the blessedness of that truth — He "gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world." The law spoke to citizens of the world. Christ gave Himself for our sins, that He might redeem us or take us out of the world, even while we are in it. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." We are regarded as separated from the world by the death of Christ, and sent into it by His resurrection; but sent into it as not of it, yea, not so much of it as an angel. The death of Christ puts us completely outside the, world. The resurrection of Christ sends us into it again as new creatures, messengers of the peace He gives, entirely apart from what is going on in the world. Our Lord says, "Now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world  they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world." He puts the same measure for both; and therefore, when He rose from the dead, He says, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."

The apostle puts himself with them before Christ, "who gave himself for our sins." It is the common blessing of all believers, "that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father." The remarkable thing is, that when God reveals Himself as the Giver of a law — as Jehovah — He does not undertake to separate men from the world. The Jews could not be said to be separate from the world. They were separate from the Gentiles, but they were the most important people in the world; and they were made so for the purpose of maintaining the rights of God in the world. They were not called to be outside the world, but as a people in the world. Therefore the Jews had to fight the Canaanites; and hence, too, they had a grand temple. Because they were a worldly people, they had a worldly sanctuary. But this is altogether wrong for Christians, because Christ "has given himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father." When God brings out His will, no longer merely His law, but revealing Himself as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been given to die for our sins, there comes out a totally different state of things. We enter into the relationship of conscious children with God our Father: and our business now is to honour Christ according to the position that He has taken at the right hand of God. People forget that Christ gave Himself for our sins in order to deliver us from this present evil world. They sink down into the world, out of which redemption ought to have delivered them; and this is because they put themselves under the law. If I have to do with the will of God my Father, my privilege is to suffer as Christ suffered. The law puts a sword in man's hands; whereas the will of God makes a saint to be willing to go to the stake, or to suffer by the sword for Christ's sake: as it is said, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us:" but it is by suffering, not by what the world glories in. God is glorifying Christ after the pattern of the cross, and this is our pattern; not Israel, nor the law; but the cross of Christ. And now He says, as it were, I have got Christ in heaven: 1 am occupied with the only One who has ever glorified Me, and that is the One you are to be occupied with.

Nothing can be more exact and full, nor more thoroughly calculated to meet those dangers of the present day, which take the form of reviving succession and religious ordinances as a means of honouring God. Scripture meets every case; and a remedy is given for it in the blessed word of God. Our wisdom is to seek to use it all, to be simple concerning evil, and wise unto that which is good.

There is a remarkable abruptness in the way the. apostle enters at once into his subject. He had just alluded to our Lord's giving Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world; and this had drawn out a brief thanksgiving unto "God, to whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen." But now he turns at once to the great object that he had in hand. His heart was too full of it, so to speak, to spend more words than need required. There was that which was so fatal even to the foundations on which the Church, or rather individual Christians, must stand before God, that he could not linger. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel." "So soon removed" seems to me to be a somewhat stronger expression than what the Spirit of God makes use of. It means, in process of removing. They were shifting and being changed "from him that had called them into the grace of Christ." The evil and danger were not yet so settled a thing but that he could still look up to God about them. When we think that it was the Apostle Paul that had evangelized these souls, and that the time was short since he had preached to them, I do not know a more melancholy proof of the ease with which Satan contrives to lead astray. Take children of God that have been ever so well instructed, and yet one sees the symptoms, which hardly ever fail to show themselves, of inclination to that which is weak and wrong, a readiness to follow human feelings in the things of God, diverted from the truth by appearance, where there is no reality. These things you will find, unless there be extraordinary power of the Holy Ghost to counteract the workings of Satan. The rubbish which may enter with the foundation, of which the apostle speaks in 1 Corinthians 3 — the "wood, hay, and stubble" — all this shows us how it may come to pass that although God it was who had formed the Church, yet there is another side of the Church to take into account, and that is man. St. Paul speaks of himself as a wise master-builder. In one point of view it is God who builds the Church; and in this there is no failure. What the Lord has taken in hand immediately, He maintains infallibly by His own power. But human responsibility enters into this great work, as it does into almost everything, save creation and redemption, where God alone can be. But elsewhere, no matter how blessed, whether the calling in of souls to the gospel, or the leading them on after they have known the Lord, or the corporate gathering of the children of God into one — the Church, man has his part in it; and he too surely brings in the weakness of his nature. The history God gives us in the Bible is that, whatever He has entrusted into the hands of man, there he is weak and fails. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." Now this is, after all, but the history, not only of the Old Testament, and of the various ways in which God had tried man; but even where you have the far more blessed subject of the New Testament, (what God is in His Son and in His ways with men by His Son, since the Lord went up to heaven and the Holy Ghost was sent down,) even in respect of these things, we have man's weakness surely showing itself. And it is not merely that unbelieving men have managed to creep into the Church; but the. children of God have got flesh in them too. They have their human feelings and infirmities, and that which Satan can find in every Christian whereby to hinder or obscure the power of God. It was by this means that the Galatian saints were led astray, and that all are in danger of it, at any moment. I gather two important lessons from this. The first is, not to be surprised if there be departure in the saints of God. I must not allow myself for a moment to think that it shows the slightest weakness in the truth itself or in the testimony committed to us, or that it puts a slur upon what is of God; for God may be suffering what is contrary to His own nature and permitting for a time that man should show what he is. But as surely as there is that which is according to God, He will vindicate Himself in it, and allow what is not of Him to prove its true character. But another thing we learn is the call for watchfulness and self-judgment. To these Galatians, who once were so earnest, who would have plucked out their eyes in their love for Paul, that very apostle has now to write, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ." Observe the choice of expression — "the grace of Christ." Because what Satan was using was the mixture of the law with grace, of legalism and Christ. The characteristic of their call had been simply and solely "the grace of Christ."

God had made known to the Galatians that they were poor sinners of the Gentiles, that there was nothing for them but mercy, and that mercy had come to them in the person of Christ. And if this is the one thing that He invites souls to — to receive the mercy that He is giving them in Christ, it supposes that they feel their need of mercy, and are willing to look to Christ and none other. But still it remains true that it was alone the grace of Christ which had acted upon these Galatian believers; and of this he reminds them. What were they removing to now? A different gospel, which is not another. In our English version it is a sort of paradox — "another gospel, which is not another." But in the language in which the Holy Ghost wrote, there was sufficient copiousness to admit of another shade of language. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, which is not another." So that if the grace of Christ was the spring and power of their calling, the gospel was the means of it. But now they had left this for something different. Observe, it does not say, contrary to it, but a different one: and for that very reason he says, it is not another. It is unworthy to be called another gospel. God owns but one. He permits no compromise about the gospel; neither ought we.

It may appear strange and perhaps strong to some; but I am thoroughly convinced that the same Galatian evil that was active then is at work now universally in Christendom. It may take a somewhat different form in one place from another; but wherever you turn, wherever you have either the word spoken on or the profession of Christ maintained in the way of Christian institutions, you will find the mingling of the law in one form or another along with the grace of Christ. It does not matter what people are called, it is the same thing in all. There are differences of degree. Some are more open, some more intelligent, some more systematic about it; but the same poison, here diluted, and there concentrated, is found everywhere; so much so that the truth on this subject sounds strange in the ears of men. As a proof of this, I take one simple expression that will come before us in the various epistles of St. Paul, the misapprehension that prevails as to "the righteousness of God." One may rejoice to know of persons preaching Christ, or even the law; because God uses the preaching of the law to convince many a sinner. Yet we are not to suppose, because God works even where there is a perverted gospel preached, that the children of God ought to make light of error. It is one thing to acknowledge that God works sovereignly, but it is another when the question for us is what is His true testimony. There we are bound in conscience never to allow anything except the simple and full truth of God for our own souls. One ought never to listen to anything short of that, and truth can avoid hearing error. I am not speaking now of mistakes that may be in preaching. A slip or ignorance is not a perversion of the gospel. It is one thing to listen to what may be a mere mistake; but to go where one knows beforehand that the law is mingled with Christ, is sin.

People may say, This is unjustifiably strong language. But am I going to set myself up to judge the Holy Ghost? For we must remember that what the apostle wrote was not as a private man, but that which the Holy Ghost wrote for our instruction. And what he tells us is this: "There be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ; but though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which I have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Let a fair person weigh such a word as this, and then judge whether any language of mine can too strongly insist upon the duty of a christian man in reference to a perverted testimony of the gospel. For this is what was coming in among the Galatians.

Perhaps you will tell me that it was more — that, there, it was the mingling of the ceremonial law with grace, whereas now the moral law is held up. I can only say that this is worse still, and more deadly, because the ceremonial law may be represented as typical of Christ; but the moral law brings in one's own doing in some form or other; whereas the only meaning of any of the Jewish forms and ceremonies is invariably as connected with Christ. If I look at the christian institutions now, I say there is no virtue in the water of baptism or in the bread and wine, save in what they represent. The foundation is gone if anything is brought in to justify a man except Christ, who ought to be dearer to me than all other things — dearer even than these means. To care for Christ is the very best evidence of a saved soul. But I do not admit that there is a lively care for Christ, where a soul knows His will in anything, and does not make it of the very first importance. When saints of God have learnt the truth with simplicity, and are enabled to hold it firmly, a time of trial comes. Perhaps there is a great deal of weakness and unfaithfulness among those that hold the truth; and persons say, I do not see that those who hold this truth are so much better than their neighbours; but there is this difference between the weakness of people's conduct who hold the truth and those who do not — that it can be remedied, while there is no turning falsehood into truth. All the power on earth could not root out legalism from the state of things in Christendom. The religious systems that are established must cease to be earthly systems if they give up the law. You cannot reform that of which the foundation is totally unsound. The superstructure can be removed, but if the foundation is worthless and false, it never can he remedied. There is one right course, and that is to quit it altogether. I say that those who see these things, owe it to our Lord and Master — owe it to the truth and to the saints of God — to show an uncompromising separation from all that destroys the full truth of this grace of Christ. We may bear with individuals who may not know better.

On the other hand, if you see a person very worldly in a religious body, I think it is an unworthy thing to fasten upon individuals, and take up such an abuse as a hunting or an intoning priest. We have much better employment than making remarks upon dancing clergymen. Such a thing may be worth the world's notice. But it is very different where falsehood is preached. There we ought to seek to deliver every child of God from the evil influence. How painful to think some are bound to preach the law, so bound that it would be a dishonest thing if they did not! God gives, not a help merely, but a deliverance from this static of things. If we believe the word of God, if we believe what the Holy Ghost says about it in the most solemn manner, we ought to have done with it altogether. There may be very good men concerned who are fettered; but we speak of the danger of mingling the law with the gospel, and that is the Galatian evil.

Let us consider what is the warning of the Holy Ghost to the souls that were being ensnared by it. People may tell you, that they know how to separate the good from the bad; but God is wiser than men, and a spiritual man would discern a going back of soul where such things are allowed. This accounts for the extraordinary strength of the apostle's warning. They were his own children in the faith; and as to those who perverted and troubled them! he stood in doubt of them What he says is — no matter who it may be — "If he preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Yea, if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." They might have taken refuge in this: no doubt it was what Paul preached, but we have additional truth, beside what Paul gives. But he says, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." It is not only what I preached, but what you received. It is not only that there should be no mixture with what he preached, but no addition to what they had received. We have what the Apostle Paul wrote as clearly as they had what he preached. There is no difference, except that what is written is even of greater authority, instrumentally, than what was spoken. In the latter, too, that which is of nature might come in. The apostle had to confess on certain occasions that he had spoken hastily; never that he had so written. It was not a question of taking away the gospel, but of adding what was of the law to the gospel.

"For do I now persuade men or God?" That is, was he wishing to gain them over or God? "Or do I seek to please men? for if I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." He was perfectly aware that this kind of uncompromising testimony rendered him particularly obnoxious to men, and even produced ill-will among real saints of God. So now the same thing would be called want of charity. In fact, it is not want of charity to speak uncompromisingly; but it is to judge those who do. He says it is the way not to please men but to please God. It was in that very way that Christ had called him to be a servant. "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." There was something, no doubt, extraordinary in the manner in which the Apostle Paul had had the gospel made known to him. He was not converted by the preaching of the gospel, as most are. Peter's case was a similar one. Flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but the Father which was in heaven. Peter was the first person who was taught the glory of the Christ — taught that glory, not as connected merely with Jewish prophecies, but the deeper glory of Christ, as Christians ought to know Him now, as the Son of the living God; not connected with earth exclusively. Peter was the first to whom the Holy Ghost revealed the grand truth that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but the on of God in a heavenly and divine sense. Peter, therefore, was honoured by God, and put by our Lord in a very special place. He was the one to whom our Lord first named His Church. In the case of St. Paul, the truth went farther. For if we have the Father revealing the Son to Peter, Paul goes yet beyond, and says that God revealed His Son in him. Peter could have said, It pleased the Father to have revealed the Son to him; Paul could say, in him. St. Paul was led of the Holy Ghost into a gradually increasing knowledge of the grand and most glorious truth of the oneness of the believer with Christ. But this is not brought out here. Yet the expression, "revealed his Son in me," is one that could hardly have been used by one who did not know this truth. As in Hebrews, the apostle speaks about believers having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, though the epistle to the Hebrews does not reveal that we are members of Christ's body; yet we could not be exhorted to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, unless we were members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones; so only Paul could have said, "It pleased God to reveal his Son in me." It is connected with the truth of which Paul was the chosen witness — the union of Christ and the Church, intimated at his very conversion. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" He was persecuting the saints; and the Lord says, To persecute them is to persecute Me. They were one. The Church and the Lord are united. We are not members of Christ's divinity, but of His body. It is only as man that He has a body. But while He was a man upon earth, we were not members. The corn of wheat, unless it died, must abide alone; "but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit:" that is, it is founded upon the death and resurrection of Christ, that He is able to associate others with Himself as the members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Christ in heaven and the saints on earth make one body. That is what Paul learnt at his conversion. Having the substance of this in view, the apostle says, "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man."

And just allow me to state another word or two in connection with the gospel of St. Paul. He is the only one who characterizes his gospel as the glorious gospel. And one may be interested to know that when the apostle uses that phrase, he does not say, "glorious" merely as we use it; he means the gospel of the glory. And the true force of that expression is this: it is the gospel of Christ glorified at the right hand of God. It is the glad tidings that we have a Saviour who is risen and glorified. We are called to all the effects of His glory as well as of His death upon the cross. Other apostles never wrote of the subject of the Church being made one with Christ; Paul alone did. Possibly, then, Paul was the only one that was in a position to say, "If one add anything to my gospel, let such an one be accursed." Although Paul added something to their gospel, they could add nothing to his. The apostles announced Christ as the Messiah and made known remission of sins through His name; but they did not bring out the heavenly glory of Christ as Paul did. He brought out all these truths, and more which they never touched on. That is the reason why he so constantly speaks of "my gospel." Because while, of course, as to the grand truths of the gospel there could be no difference between what Paul and the other apostles preached, there was a great advance in that which Paul preached beyond them. There was nothing contradictory; but Paul being called after the ascension of our Lord to heaven, he was the one to whom it was peculiarly appropriate to make any addition. Till Paul was called, there was something still needed to make up the sum of revealed truth. In Col. 1: 25, he says that he was a minister of Christ to complete the word of God, to fill up a certain space that was not filled up. Paul was the person employed by the Holy Ghost to do this. John brought out prophetic truth — prophecy entirely outside what we have been speaking of, for it reveals the dealings of God with the world, and not with the Church. Therefore, the apostle can insist strongly upon the danger of attempting to swerve from what he had brought out, or of adding anything to it. This is very important. Others might not preach all the truth, but that is not what he so strongly denounces. No person ought to be condemned because he does not unfold the higher truth of God. What we ought to set our faces against is the bringing in of something contrary to the gospel, or mingling the law with the grace of Christ — putting new wine into old bottles. Some may refer to the Epistle of James; but James never presents the law so as to clash with the gospel, although what he says may put a guard upon souls making an improper use of the solemn warning of the Holy Ghost against mingling the law with the gospel in any shape or form. There will be many occasions for showing how the Apostle Paul refers to it in this epistle.

The next point to which he alludes in his argument is his previous conversation and life. He says, speaking of his gospel, that he neither received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. They might have raised a doubt about this; but he shows that all his previous life was opposed to the gospel. There was not another such antagonist of Christ as he had been. "Ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it," (there may be a little word for them, because they were beginning to persecute all who opposed their notions about the law, and were getting into a bitter spirit,) "and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of the fathers." There was no doubt, therefore, of the sincerity of the apostle's use of the law in his unconverted days. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."

There he at once brings in a mass of truth, which, if they had only understood its force, as no doubt some did, ruined their whole system from top to bottom. He shows that it was God who had called him away from the law: when he was in the very midst of what they were beginning to take up afresh, he was an enemy of Christ. He gives full allowance to his providential history. He had been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and had profited in the Jews' religion above his equals. But though it pleased God to separate him from his mother's womb, yet to call him, he insists, was much more; this call was of grace. "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." There he both positively and negatively overthrows their legalism. He had been called to preach among the Gentiles, where there was no law known. There was no word of God at all as to their going up to Jerusalem. And yet this was the sort of thing to which they were desiring to return. So it is at the present day. The smallest sect under the sun has got a find of Jerusalem, a centre for the minister to be sent up to, in order to qualify him for what he has to do. But where it is sought for the purpose of bringing out the glory of Christ, it proves but death. Many a person has conferred with flesh and blood, has gone up to "this mountain" or that city, and his soul has got completely lowered and taken away from the cross of Christ; and he becomes now exceedingly zealous of this very law that he had been delivered from; but the simple walk is the path of dependence upon the living God. So that however valuable these training schools may be for the world, however admirable for giving men a certain place, it ends merely in what man can teach, and not what God gives.

Moses thought that, when he had spent forty years in Egypt, he was fitted to deliver the people of God; but he had to learn that not, until he had been taught of God in the wilderness, was he competent to lead the people out of Egypt. God has generally to put souls through a sieve, and break them down in their own conceit, if He is going to use them in a really honour able way.

Here you have God Himself, when He calls a remarkable man to a very special work, instead of summoning him to the apostles at Jerusalem, sending him away into the desert. There is such a thing as not only helping the saints, but those that preach in the truth; and the Apostle Paul presses upon Timothy that the things he received, he was to commit to faithful men who should be able to teach others also. There is human instrumentality in helping on those who are younger in the work of the Lord. Thus we must leave room for the various ways of God, only steering clear of human innovation and presumption, which can never edify man any more than honour God.

"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again into Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." He mentions the number of days for the purpose of showing that it was not a course of instruction that he had been receiving. "Now the things which I write unto you, behold before God I lie not. Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but they had heard only that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me." The facts were of moment for the purpose of evincing how little time he had spent in Jerusalem; yea, that he was unknown to the churches of Judea generally. But these churches, instead of blaming God, (which was what the Galatian conduct amounted to,) instead of finding fault with his testimony, had glorified God in Paul. The early churches of Judea, that the Galatians were looking so wistfully at, were glorifying God in him; while they themselves were quarrelling with the rich mercy God kind been showing the Gentiles. He had preached to them the gospel more fully than the other apostles had presented it; and yet they were already slipping from it by seeking to bring in the law. Paul felt it was so deadly in its own nature that, although the souls drawn aside by it might not be lost, yet was there deep dishonour against God and incalculable mischief to His saints. No doubt they thought theirs a much safer course; but the apostle affirms that he had brought them the truth of the gospel, and that to mingle the law therewith is to subvert it altogether.

How applicable is all to the need of souls in this day of ours! We ought not to fancy that there was a deeper evil in Galatia than there is at work now. On the contrary, those were but the germs of that which has developed far more since then. The Lord give us to set our faces as a flint against all that would damage conscience, and keep us from allowing anything that we know to be contrary to His will and glory!

Galatians 2

We have still the apostle appealing to certain facts in his own life and history, as giving conclusive evidence upon the great question that had been raised: whether the law, in any form, is that under which the Christian lies? He takes it up fully as to justification, but it is not limited to that question. We see in chapters 1 and 2 the divine call to minister, so strikingly exemplified in the apostle himself, in opposition to the successional claim; and we shall find towards the latter part of the epistle, that he applies grace in all its breadth, proving that in Christ God has brought in another principle altogether, which works efficaciously, whereas the law can only curse the guilty. In short, God has established the grand basis of His own grace; and while His grace is perfectly consistent with the moral government of God, it utterly sets aside the law as powerless through the condition of man, not as if the law in itself were not holy, and just, and good. But in Christ, God has brought in such energy of life in resurrection, and a new justifying righteousness of His own, that He for ever sets the Christian on the wholly different ground of grace. In this epistle, the apostle enters into it with so much the greater strength, because the devil was attempting to bring in a particularly evil misuse of the law.

This is, I conceive, the key to the difference of language in Romans and Galatians. In the former, there is a certain tenderness in dealing with such of the brethren there as knew the law before they knew Christ, and had been under it as Jews. Hence, in speaking of their days, and meats, and drinks, the apostle shows that the Spirit of God called for the utmost forbearance. "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he regardeth it not. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks." The reason was, that the saints at Rome consisted largely of those who had been Jews, and, of course, also of many who had been Gentiles. The important point therefore was to exhort to mutual respect and forbearance one with another. The Gentile brother, that knew his liberty, was not to despite his Jewish brother, because he was still giving heed to certain distinctions, keeping days, etc. Nor was the Jew to judge his Gentile brother, because he did not abstain from meats and observe days. Remember, in speaking of these days, we are not to imagine that the apostle is alluding to the Lord's day, for it is an entirely new thing, having no connection either with creation or the law. The Sabbath was the rest of creation, and also the divinely-appointed and well-known sign between Jehovah and the Jewish people for ever, given them as a perpetual covenant, and separating them from all other nations. But the Lord's day has an entirely new character, spoken of in Scripture as the first day of the week. It belongs to the Christian only: Adam, man, the Jew, had nothing to do with it. So that when the apostle says, "He that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he regardeth it not," let us beware of allowing the evil thought that the Lord's day is included, and the keeping of it an open question. As for days or meats, Levitically distinguished, they are left to be regarded or not, according to spiritual intelligence. Not so the Lord's day; it may not fall under the form of an express command, but it is none the less obligatory, because it comes to us stamped with the Lord's will and recognition in various solemn and touching forms. It is the day on which He rose from the deed, the day on which He sanctioned, by His special presence, the coming together of the disciples, as the Holy Ghost afterwards led them thereon regularly, to break bread. So that there should be no question that the Lord's day is of the gravest importance, the understanding of which always goes with right thoughts as to the true grace of God in which we stand. The confusion of it with the Sabbath may have been adopted to strengthen its institution by deducing it from the law; but this is a complete fallacy, lowers and weakens its character, and is the fruit and the evidence of ignorance of the ground on which the believer now stands with God. In Galatians, instead of the exhortation to brotherly forbearance, which we find impressed on the saints at Rome, there is, on the contrary, amazing strength and vehemence, as is plain in chapters 3, 4. But of this more in its own place.

The apostle refers to his going up to Jerusalem. When he says, (chap. 1: 18,) "After three years I went up to Jerusalem," it refers, I suppose, to his conversion as a starting point; and the "fourteen years after," in this chapter, would date from the same period. The important thing for the Spirit of God was to dispose of all pretence for connecting Paul's mission or ministry with Jerusalem. The principle of apostolic succession is thus cut off by implication. The years which elapsed before these visits, and yet more their character when he did visit Jerusalem, absolutely exclude all idea of derivation. "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation." This last circumstance is not mentioned in the Acts. It is the same occasion which is referred to there, (Acts 15,) though in a different manner. In Acts we are told, "certain men, which came down from Judea, taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." But when they arrived at Jerusalem, they found there the same party. "There rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses," clearly showing that it was within the bosom of the Church. And then we have the conference of the apostles and elders in presence of the whole Church about this matter. In Galatians 2 the Holy Ghost brings out the fact, not distinctly mentioned in the Acts, that on this occasion Paul took with him Titus, and went up by revelation: he had positive communication from God about it. In Acts, we have the christian motives that were brought to act upon him by others; but in Galatians he lets us know something deeper still — that he went up by revelation, beside his taking Titus. Whatever may have been the case with the others, this was also a fact of immense importance, because Titus was in no way a Jew. He was not even like Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess. Titus was a Greek. Timothy was something between the two; and therefore there seems to have been wisdom and grace in the apostle's very different line with regard to Timothy. He certainly stopped the mouths of those who might have raised questions about that young disciple founded on the law, though I do not say that, strictly speaking, Timothy would have come under it. It must be allowed, that it was not according to the law for a Jewess to be married to a Gentile. Titus, however, was, beyond doubt, a Greek. The apostle, in face of the twelve apostles, and of every one, brings up to Jerusalem with him this Greek who had never been circumcised. He was acting, in the boldest manner, on the liberty that he knew he had in Christ. And he adds further, "I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which are of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." And then he merely drops by the way, in one of his pregnant parentheses, "But neither Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised."

Let us pay attention to the manner in which the Holy Ghost refers to Paul's communicating his gospel to those in Jerusalem; for this was a death-blow to the insinuation that Paul had received it after an irregular fashion. He adds also, "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." There was sufficient advance in truth in what the apostle taught, but he would not run the risk of making a split among the saints in Jerusalem. Had he been indifferent to the state of the saints, he would have brought out all the heavenly truth in which he was so far beyond the others. But there are two things that have to be taken account of in communicating truth. Not merely should there be certainty that it is truth from God, but it most also be suited truth to those whom you address. They might have needed it all, but they were not in a condition to receive it; and the more precious the truth, the greater the injury, in a certain sense, if it is presented to those who are not in a state to profit by it. Supposing persons who are under the law, what would be the good of bringing out to such the hope of Christ's coming, or of union with Christ? There would be no room for these truths in such a spiritual condition. When persons are still under law, not knowing their death to it in Christ's death and resurrection, they require to be established in the grace of God. This appears to be one reason why, in the epistle to the Galatians, the apostle never touches on those blessed truths. The wisdom of omitting them is apparent. Such truths would be unintelligible, or at least unsuitable, to souls in their state. To have developed them could have done them no good. There requires to be first the understanding of the complete putting aside of the law, and of our introduction in Christ into a new atmosphere altogether. The Lord had many things to tell the disciples when He was with them, but they were not able to bear them then. So the apostle tells the Hebrews that they had need of milk and not of strong meat: "for every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe; but strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even to those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." But they needed to be taught the first elements over again; yet that epistle was written not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Nothing hinders the progress of saints so much as legal principles. The Corinthians had not been long converted, so that their ignorance was not surprising. But the Hebrews had been many years converted, and yet they were only occupied with the alphabet of Christianity. So that the real reason which hindered these Hebrew believers was, that they did not enter into their death to the law, and union with Christ risen. They were not even stedfast on the full foundation of Christian truth — the complete, eternal putting away of sins in the blood of Christ, They were not above the condition of spiritual babes.

The apostle, then, having referred to these facts, (to his having communicated his gospel to them, privately to those of reputation, and, withal, to his taking Titus with him, who was known to be a Greek, and yet not compelled to be circumcised) — leaves all this to have its weight upon the mind of the Galatians, giving also the reason, "And that because of false brethren, unawares brought in." If you read the third verse parenthetically, it adds to the clearness of the passage. He had gone up to Jerusalem, and communicated his gospel in this manner to the apostles, because of these false brethren unawares brought in He did not wish to go into controversy about truth which they were not able to bear, and yet he wished not to keep it back from those who could appreciate it. But he hints plainly what these false brethren aimed at, "Who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." This clearly shows the connection between legalism and the untruthfulness of such as come in privily to spy out the liberty they do not understand. "To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

But now he goes farther, and refers, not to false brethren that were at work undermining the gospel by the law, but to those who took the most prominent place at Jerusalem "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person; for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter: (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles:) and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." All the insinuations of these Jewish teachers, that there was not a substantial agreement between Paul and the other apostles, were thus disappointed. It turned out that Paul was the communicator, not Peter; and that the three chiefs there had given the right hand of fellowship to Paul.

They in no way controlled his ministry, but perceived the grace that was given to him. They felt, in fact, both as regards God and His power that wrought in Paul, that he and Barnabas were the most fitting persons to deal with the uncircumcision. The vast sphere of the heathen world was evidently for Paul and those with him, while they remained confined to their narrow circle. Paul is here destroying the effort of the enemy to put the Gentile believer under the law.

Next he takes yet another step. For while he shows the respect that Peter and James and John in Jerusalem had to himself and to his work, he does another thing still more disastrous to those who would impose the law on Gentiles. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." So far was Paul from being withstood by Peter at Jerusalem, that Peter gave him the right hand of fellowship. But when Peter was come to Antioch, Paul withstood him to the face. And this clearly was a thing well known. "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles," which was a mark of communion with them, even now and everywhere the well-known sign of what is equivalent. I am not speaking here of eating the Lord's Supper, which is the highest symbol of communion; but, in ordinary life, to take a common meal together is the token of friendly feeling, and with Christians it ought specially to be so, for they are called to walk in everything with godly sincerity. Hence the importance attached to the act with people among Christians, and more especially in the face of Jewish separation from Gentiles, which, under the law, was God's command. Peter had been in the habit of eating with the Gentiles, a thought which no man, acting on Jewish principles, could have entertained; but when certain persona tame from James, "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." How marvellous is the influence of prejudices, of legal prejudices especially! Swayed thereby, Peter gives up his liberty, and no longer eats with the Gentiles: and this was the very chief of the apostles! Trifling as the act might seem, it was a weighty one in the eyes of God and of His servant. Paul was given to see that in this seemingly little thing the truth of the gospel was surrendered.

Let us consider how solemn and how practical a thing this is. In some simple matter of every-day life there may be a virtual abandonment of Christ and the truth of the gospel, a lie against His grace. It is well to bear in mind that, in a commonplace act, in a thing that might seem to be of no comparative importance, God would have us to look at things in their sources, as they touch the truth and grace of God. We are apt to make light of what relates to God, and to make what affects ourselves of great account. But God in His goodness would have us feel deeply what concerns Christ and the gospel, passing by what affects ourselves. Why should Paul thus rebuke Peter publicly! Was there not a cause? Was there not a crisis come in the history! Where Peter was acting as the apostle of the circumcision, there Paul speaks privately. But now, when the foundation of grace was concerned, the same man is bold as a lion, and withstands Peter to the face because he was to be condemned. There was no compromise, no timidity, no mere human prudence about the matter, no consideration of lids own character or Peter's, but there was the looking at Christ's glory in the gospel. It was in the very field where Peter was peculiarly responsible to his Master to maintain the truth, and there he had failed. Therefore the Apostle Paul stood on firm ground here, and acted fearlessly. He withstood Peter to the face, who did not show himself at all according to the Lord's new name, in this business. He was more like Simon-Barjonas than the rock-man, which he should have been. He had fallen back into his own natural ways; for ardour of nature is constantly given to reaction. What gave such strength to the apostle's remonstrance, was that this took place after that solemn conference at Jerusalem, where Peter took an active part to prove the liberty that God had given to the Gentiles; where he showed that God had made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe it; where he had wound up his declaration by the remarkable words so galling to Jewish pride, and strengthening the Gentiles who might have been uneasy: "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." He had taught, yea, in the face of the Jews, not that the Gentiles should be saved even as they, but that the Jewish believers should be saved even as the Gentiles. So that nothing could be stronger. He had no thought of treating the Gentiles as if they were only now blessed on some irregular and disputable tenure of mercy; for in truth, God was bringing out salvation to the Gentiles more clearly, if there was any difference. "We believe, that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." The Gentile salvation was made the very pattern of those who should be saved among the Jews. And what a sorrow that after all this, Peter should, even on this head, go astray! And Barnabas himself, not the companion of Peter, but of Paul — who had first discerned his worth and devotedness, and had joined him in so many labour.) among the Gentiles — who had been specially named as one of those who should go up to Jerusalem to set at rest this grave question; he was drawn away by the dissimulation of Peter and the rest! The Apostle Paul was not wanting to the occasion, and soon discerns that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel. But wherein had they shown this lack of uprightness? In ceasing to eat with the Gentiles. Thus, on a dinner depended the truth of the gospel. The simple act of eating or not eating with the Gentiles betrays one's heart as to the question of deliverance from the law.

So fatal a point was this, if allowed, that Paul says to Peter before them all, "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" What had Peter been about? He had not, in any wise, maintained the law as a rule for the Jewish believers. Why, then, did he yield to an act which implied it among the Gentiles? If it was not so in Jerusalem, where God had of old bound it upon their conscience, what a turning away from the truth, that one who knew his deliverance should practically insist upon it at Antioch! This was the serious matter for which Paul rebuked Peter. And now he reasons upon it: "We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles," (the force of "we," as compared with "you," is necessary to be remarked in this epistle and elsewhere,) "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Bear in mind, also, that when the Apostle Paul dwells upon law, he does not confine his remarks to the Jewish law, but reasons abstractedly. He says and means not merely that you cannot be justified by the works of the law, but by no law at all. If there was a law that could justify, it must be the law of God divulged by Moses. But Paul goes farther, and insists that "by works of law" you cannot be justified. The law-principle is opposed to justification instead of being the means of it. He takes up the fact, that by these works of law no flesh can be justified.

But he proceeds to argue the point, and asks, "If while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." That is, if professing faith in the Lord Jesus, you go back to the law, the effect is necessarily to bring you in a sinner. You have in truth sin in your nature, and the consequence is, that if you have to do with the law at all, this is the very condition in which you are left as a sinner after all. The law never gives deliverance from sin: as the apostle says elsewhere, "The strength of sin is the law." So that, if while you seek to be justified by Christ, you are found a sinner, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? This is the issue to which the law necessarily leads. It lays hold of sin. And therefore, if after you have got Christ, you are only found after all through the law to be a sinner, you, in effect, make Christ the minister of sin. Such is the necessary consequence of bringing in the law after Christ. The soul that has to do with the law never realizes its deliverance from sin; on the contrary, the law, merely detecting the evil, and not raising the soul above it, leaves the man powerless and miserable and condemned.

Some people talk of "a believing sinner," or speak of the worship offered to God by "poor sinners." Many hymns indeed never bring the soul beyond this condition. But what is meant by "sinner" in the word of God is a soul altogether without peace, a soul which may perhaps feel its want of Christ, being quickened by the Spirit, but without the knowledge of redemption. It is not truthfulness to deny what saints are in the sight of God. If I have failed in anything, will taking the ground of a poor sinner make the sin to be less, or give me to feel it more? No! If I am a saint, blessed with God in His beloved Son, made one with Christ, and the Holy Ghost given to dwell in me, then I say, What a shame, if I have failed, and broken down, and dishonoured the Lord, and been indifferent to His glory! But if I feel my own coldness and indifference, it is to be treated as baseness, and to be hated as sin. Whereas, to take the ground of a poor sinner, is really, though it may not be intended, to make excuses for evil. Which of the two ways would act most powerfully upon the conscience? which humbles man and exalts God most? Clearly the more that you realize what God has given you, and made you in Christ — if you are walking inconsistently with it — the more you feel the sin and dishonour of your course. Whereas, if you keep speaking about yourself merely as a sinner, it may seem lowly to the superficial, but it only becomes a kind of palliative of your evil, which in this case never humbles so thoroughly as God looks for in the child of faith.

Take another instance from forms of worship, which are constructed on that principle. The first thing is that they quote Scripture about a wicked man turning away from his wickedness. But if you can begin again every Sunday afresh as a Christian, and yet needing priestly absolution, it leaves room for the heart to act treacherously to the Lord all the rest of the week, beside being a virtual denial of the efficacy of His work. This is a very serious matter. The week's preparation for the sacrament is the same kind of thing. It is the wicked man turning away from his wickedness, renewing his vows and endeavouring to amend. Even in the third and fourth century, when they spoke about the Lord's Supper, they called it a "tremendous sacrifice," etc. All that completely ignores the very basis of Christianity, which is, that "by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And by "them that are sanctified," I maintain that the Holy Ghost is speaking of all Christians, — of that separation which is equally true of all believers, whether churchmen or dissenters, or of those who, renouncing sectional ground, understand better, as I believe, what God wills about His Church. This will tend to show how very serious is the question of the law. There is no deliverance, where and while it is maintained, from the condition of a sinner. Christian worship is an impossibility under such circumstances. If this be the case, Christ becomes the minister of sin; because I am supposed to be left by Him under the bondage of my sin, instead of being delivered from it: "for if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." That is, in going to Christ, I give up the law virtually; and if after all that, I go back to the law, then I make myself a transgressor. It is plain that if I am right now, I was entirely wrong before. Who was it made me give up the law? It was Christ. So that if I go back to the law, the gospel of Christ is the means of making people transgressors, and not of justifying them. The Galatians had never thought of this. But the Holy Ghost brings the light of His own truth to bear upon them, and shows what they were doing involved. The effect of enforcing the law was, virtually, to make Christ the minister of sin, instead of the deliverer from it!

But not so. "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." There he shows how it is that he was dead to the law. It was through the law. It was not mercy a thing done outside his own soul. He had gone through the question within most thoroughly. He had been under the law: and when God had quickened him, and conscience awoke under divine light, he realized what he had never dreamt before — his own utter powerlessness. "I through the law am dead to the law." He had felt truly his position as a sinner, and owns the killing, not quickening, power of the law. But then, this was of grace now, not judgment by and by. Hence, says the apostle, if I am dead by law, I am dead to law, and completely outside its reach. I am dead, and need die by it no more; I am dead to it that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live, "yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Thus, in the soul of the apostle, we have law upheld in its utmost strength, and yet himself set free in Christ, and outside it In grace. So in Christ we have the same thing, at the end of Romans 3. "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law." How is it maintained? Christ's death was the strongest and most divine sanction the law ever had. It was the law laying hold of the Surety, and carried out to the full, in the person of Christ; so that its authority, as faith knows, has been perfectly made good in Him. It is fully carried out, and far, far more, too, in the death of Christ. But if you apply that Scripture to prove that the law is to be established over Christians as their rule of life, it is as ignorant as it is false. The law is the rule of death, not of life: and that is what Paul's experience proves. "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." How did he live unto God? Not in that old life, to which only the law applies, for he says he was crucified with Christ, who suffered in his stead. But Christ is risen, as well as dead, and risen, that Paul, that I, might live to God: no longer I indeed, but Christ lives in me — a wholly new life. The law touches the old life, and has no authority beyond it. The moment that I believe, I live, and the life is Christ, and it is founded upon the cross. And moreover, says he, "The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I have, of course, my natural life here below, but that wherein I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God. The believer does live by looking, not at the law, but at Christ. Thus, there cannot be a more definitive setting aside of the law in every shape and form. The believer is ushered into a new state of being altogether — a life nourished by the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. It is Christ, not only characterizing the new creature, but as a living, loving person before the soul. Therefore he can say, "I do not frustrate the grace of God." But those did, who maintained the law for righteousness in any shape. "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." The effect of the law, even upon the believer, is, that he never rises by his own confession above the feelings and experiences of a sinner. He is always in that condition — always crying, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Whereas, when he enters into the glorious place that he has in Christ, he is able to say, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." He ought to say, O happy that I am! Christ has delivered me! "There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Such is the true and sure place of the Christian. Christ has indeed not died for nothing in such a case.

Galatians 3.

The first section of the chapter is devoted to the contrast of the principles of law and of faith, not exactly of promise, but of faith. The part which follows takes up the subject of promise, and shows the mutual relations of law and promise; but the early verses are devoted to a wider domain. For we must bear in mind that faith has a variety of sphere and operation, beside the promise of God. There is no doubt that the promises belong to faith; but then it may embrace and profit by much more than what was (not revealed, but) promised. For when we talk of promises, it is not merely the general blessings God speaks of, such as His grace to guilty sinners, but certain definite privileges which were assigned beforehand to Abraham, and are now "yea and amen" in all their spiritual power in Christ — promises which will, in a future day, be fulfilled to the letter as well as in spirit, when it pleases God to convert His ancient people. Then there will be the wonderful display of all blessing, heavenly and earthly, made good through the same glorious person, the source and centre of it all, the Lord Jesus Christ. But in the part of the chapter before us, it is not so much a question of promise, but rather how the blessing is to be got at all.

The Galatians had been brought, not long since, under the immense privilege of the apostle's preaching, into the enjoyment of the power and blessing of Christianity; and now, sad to say, they were in danger of slipping away, and they had lost the sense of grace in their souls. By what means had they originally received blessing from God? This question was raised by the last verse of the chapter before. Because the apostle had there pressed home the great point the Holy Spirit is illustrating in this epistle, namely, that it is not the law, but the grace of God in Christ, that freely gives all the blessing the Christian enjoys. He had brought us up to this already, that "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." He showed how this came to pass in his own case, who was a Jew, and was therefore necessarily under the law of God in a way in which no Gentile, as such, could be; how it was that he had been delivered from it and could now adopt such different language. He says, "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." So that, in one point of view, he speaks of himself as dead, in another as alive; but that life in which he lived now, was Christ in him. The old "I" he treats as a dead thing. All that constituted his natural character, the old self which was amenable to the law, is treated as crucified. The reason is obvious. What is the spring of a man's energy and the end of everything in this world? What mingles with and corrupts all thoughts and desires? It is self. Whether you look at courage, or generosity, or care for one's family, and country, and religion — all these things had been found in Paul before conversion; but one thing lay deeper than any other, and that was self. Yet was it all slain in the cross of Christ, which judged his whole moral being as being founded upon that which was corrupt — i. e., himself. Paul's character was dealt with from its inmost depths. Henceforward he starts from the principle of having now another for his life, even Christ; and while he was found entering into His love, and carrying out His will, it was Christ, an object before him, who was the power of life, through the Holy Ghost, in him.

Nor is this peculiar to some; on the contrary, Christ is the life of every Christian, but it may not be always manifested. You may find the old man breaking out in pride, vanity, love of ease, the force of old habits. Where this is the case, it is, of course, the old nature allowed to show itself afresh through lack of occupation with Christ and the exercise of self-judgment.

There can be no such thing as Christ dead in us, so to speak; but when, practically, we are not living on Christ, this soon works out, and betrays itself in our ways, which brought Christ to the cross. The apostle had come to this point: it was Christ living in him, not the law. "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." All that the law could do was to bring in its killing power upon them that were under it. There was no striving, as we often see in these days, to keep the law in a spiritual way now that he was converted; but "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." That expression, "live unto God," is very serious and beautiful. The law never produced life in a single soul: it kills. Whereas here you find Paul dead to the law, but alive unto God on a totally different principle. The question was, How did this life come? If all that the law did was to bring conscious death upon his soul, (which refers to his going through the sense of condemnation before God,) what is the spring of the new life? Not the law, but Christ. He has done with the law, in Christ, and he is left free, yea, and has life in him to live unto God. Hence he says, "Not I, but Christ liveth in me." So that this shows us not only the source and character of the new life, but that it is all sustained by the self-same thing which gave it existence. As it was the faith of Christ that produced the life, so it is the faith of Christ that is its power. A person may admire what is good and lovely, but this is another thing from being it. And what gives power? Looking to Christ; the soul feasting itself upon Christ. The objective means is Christ "The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God" — they did — "for if righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." It was their principle that righteousness came by the law, and not alone in Christ dead and risen. Then, says he, if it be so, "Christ is dead in vain." Were it merely a question of the law, all the necessity would have been that Christ should live and strengthen us to keep the law. But He is dead. Their doctrine, he insists, makes Christ to be dead gratuitously; whereas it is in truth the essential thing, the very and only way in which the grace of God comes to the soul.

Having touched upon this great truth, he cannot refrain from an abrupt and startling rebuke, as he feels, by the contrast, how grievous the loss was. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you [that ye should not obey the truth]?" The expression, "that ye should not obey the truth," is one brought in from Galatians 5: 7. "Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" There it is most undeniably and properly inserted, but here it is left out in the best copies of the epistle. I am not founding anything upon it, but merely state the fact by the way, because it is right to do so on fitting occasions. One main form of this meddling with Scripture consisted in transplanting a text, or phrase, that is perfectly true in its right place, from some other part of Scripture. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? "It is plain that he draws particular attention to the cross of Christ — not merely to His blood, or His death, but to His cross. And you will observe, if you examine the word of God, that the particular form in which Christ's death — is set forth by the Holy Ghost, is invariably in connection with the use which has to be made of it practically. Throughout the Hebrews the point, with a little but weighty exception, is not the cross, but the blood of Christ; while in the Romans it is mainly His death, the blood often, but death the grand staple of the argument. Why does the Holy Ghost here say, not merely that He shed His blood, (which is the thing that a Christian, happy in the knowledge of forgiveness; would dwell upon,) but "crucified among you?" There is nothing in vain in Scripture: there is no bringing anything into prominence without a divine reason for it. The crucifixion puts shame upon man, and upon the flesh more than any other thing. The effect of Christ's death, simply, does not give me man made nothing of, end the utter worthlessness of human nature as before God. When the apostle wants to show the absolute separation of the Christian from the world, he says, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Now it is plain that this is a much graver and more forcible way of putting the case. There is nothing the world counted so foolish as the cross. Philosophers scorned the notion that a divine person should thus die: it was something that seemed so weak and objectless. They had no just sense of the horribleness of sin, of man's positive enmity to God, and of His solemn, eternal judgment. The cross is the means of bringing all out. But more than that; the cross not merely shows what the flesh is, and the world, but it also proves the hopelessness of looking to the law to bring in blessing, save in a negative way. There is such a thing as the power of the law to kill, but not to quicken; Christ alone does this.

The apostle puts it to their own recollection and experience, how it was that the Spirit had been received, and miracles wrought, and they had got blessing. Was it by the law? The Galatians were heathens, worshipping stocks and stones, and it was out of this state that they were brought, not by the law, but by the knowledge of Christ. This puts it in a very pungent, as well as effective, form. Had it been God's way to have used the law as a means, would He not have employed the Apostle Paul to bind it upon them? But nothing of the kind. He had brought forth God before them in His holy, saving love. In the sermon to the Athenians, on Mars' hill, he had demonstrated the folly of their idolatry; he had shown that it was contrary even to their own boasted reason to worship what they had made. There was that above them and around them, every day and everywhere, which indicated the finger of One who had created them. Even one of their own poets had said that they were His offspring, not making God our offspring, or, yet less, the work of men's hands, which is just what idolatry does. The apostle always goes to the conscience of men, and shows the evident way in which the devil had perplexed their minds, and taken them away from the patent facts outside them, which ought to have shown a God above them, and to have furnished proofs of His beneficent goodness. Then he brings out the solemn truth, that God is calling all men everywhere to repent; to bow to Him in acknowledgment of their sin, (which is only another way of expressing repentance,) on the ground that He had "appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness, (not the law, but all in righteousness,) by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." It is Christ that is put before them, and not the law. This was the truth habitual with the apostle. So in the case of these Galatians. He recalls them to the way in which they had received blessing; "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?" It is an important advance upon the chapter before, which only speaks of life; but Galatians 3 introduces the Holy Ghost. Down to the end of verse 15, you will find that, as he begins with the Spirit as the proof of God's blessing men, so he ends with the Spirit. The argument is to prove that the connection of the Holy Ghost is with faith, and not with law which has only a curse for guilty man. Christ is our life, and He gives the Spirit.

It is important to distinguish life and the Spirit; because when a soul receives the gospel, though there be ordinarily the reception of life and of the Holy Ghost at the same moment, yet we must bear in mind that the two things are quite distinct. The new life which the Christian receives in Christ is not God, though of God; but the Holy Ghost is very God. The believer's life is a new creature or creation, while the Holy Ghost is the Creator. It is not because we have a new life that our bodies are made the temple of God, but because the Holy Ghost dwells therein. Hence, when Christians do not properly distinguish this, it is very possible to use that life as a thing to comfort oneself with and set us at ease, leading us to say, I know that I shall be saved; and all spiritual exercises may close there. How often souls settle down to rest in the satisfaction that they have got life, or exercise that life only in the desire to bring souls to Christ! But, blessed as this zeal is, it is a very inferior thing to loving Christ; as love to Christ is an inferior thing to the enjoyment of His love to us; and I believe this to be the true order in the souls of the saints of God. The great thing that God calls upon me for, is to admire and delight in and learn more and more of the love of Christ. What is the effect? Love to Christ is produced in the very same ratio that I know His love to me. What is it that judges self and keeps it down, and raises a person above all grovelling ways and ends? Entrance into the blessedness of His love. Being filled with the sense of it, we love souls in a different way, because we see them in His light, and we view them out of His affections, and not merely as having some link with ourselves. This is the true secret of all spiritual power, at least, in its highest forms.

Take, again, any little suffering we undergo for Christ's sake, any work undertaken for Him — whatever God calls us to: in all these things the true blessing of the Christian is not to abstract them from Christ, but to have Christ Himself as the spring and pattern and measure of all our service, so that all our service should flow from our enjoyment of Christ. In one way, worship is a nearer thing to God, and ought to be a dearer thing to the child of God, than even service; whereas it is no uncommon thing to find zealous servants who know very little of true worship. I say this, not that we should serve Christ less, but that we should enjoy Him more, and serve Him in the spirit of enjoying what He is, apart from all circumstances. What is the basis of this measure of enjoyment? It is the absolute peace and rest of our heart in Him and His work. We see how completely every sin is met and every need of our soul supplied in Christ. We are put as children in the presence of a father; one knows that his father uses all his resources for the good of his child. In the poor sinner there is the sense of need, and the soul must go through that first. In the experience of almost every regenerate soul there is a state where there is life, but in the midst, perhaps, of the greatest ignorance, yet with deep feeling of sin. This is not properly the Christian state; which, when rightly apprehended, supposes rest in Christ, with the consciousness that all is given me of God in Him. I have received the Spirit of adoption, not the spirit of bondage. It is not merely that my soul is awakened to feel sin, but the Holy Ghost dwells in me; and the result of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, is that I know I have received this full blessing from God.

In Galatians 2, as we have remarked, life is in question; but now, in the beginning of Galatians 3, he speaks about the reception of the Spirit. This was not merely a matter of enjoyment, but also accompanied by miraculous power. When at that time the Holy Ghost was given, there were outward external ways in which He showed Himself, which were not continued in the Church. He puts the two together here. "Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" or, "are ye being made perfect by the flesh?" It was a process that they were hoping to be perfected by; because flesh can easily be satisfied with itself. "Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain." He will not give them up; he will not suppose that the enemy is gaining such a victory over them but that they may be recovered from this state. "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" This refers to Paul himself. It was God that gave the Spirit, but He worked by means: by those who had been preaching the gospel had they received the Holy Ghost. It is the hearing of faith that is followed by the gift of the Spirit, after we have received Christ; but there is always a distinction between the two things. You will find in Scripture that the reception of the Spirit was, at least sometimes, after believing in Christ. Take the instance of the Samaritans. Was not the Spirit communicated to them some time after conversion? And so, not to speak of Cornelius, was it with the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19.

Thus we see many a soul that hears the gospel filled with joy, but it passes away; and perhaps they will have to go through a very painful process afterwards, because they had not really understood the application of Christ's work to their souls. They have simply embraced the reality of a blessed divine person who is full of love, even the Lord Jesus; but then, when they have received that, the sense of failure comes up, and they go through much heart-breaking and ploughing up. I could not say of such persons, that they have received the Spirit of God as One dwelling in them, the seal of the blessing they have found in Christ. But when they are brought to rest in Him, with all the sense of their sin and of what they are, and yet, in spite of it all, to rest in the redemption that is in Christ, so that, in the face of everything, knowing what God is, what Satan is, what they themselves are, what the law of God is, — still, being justified by faith, they have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; such persons have received the Holy Ghost; they have not only life, but the Spirit of God. In early times this distinction was brought out very clearly; but the same principle is, of course, true now. There are no souls that have looked to Christ but what God will give them the Spirit of adoption, and they will thus be brought into full blessing. But often this may be upon a deathbed, which ought not to be the case with a Christian.

There is such a scanty measure of truth preached even among real Christians in the present day, that souls have not the consciousness of their relationship nor of the completeness of redemption. Hence it is that they may be kept from their proper comfort and enjoyment for many a day. It was not so with these Galatians; and the apostle refers to their full blessing. At once they were brought into the possession of the Holy Ghost. They had received Him by the hearing of faith: and I take it, that this means His reception in every way; not only with a view to miracles and powers, but the Holy Ghost yet more as One dwelling within them. Where souls were not born of God, but had merely outwardly professed Christ, they might receive the Spirit for gifts of power, but not in the way of communion. Thus in Hebrews 6 you have persons who were once enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and who yet had fallen away. It is nowhere said that they were quickened, or that they had life; but they were enlightened and had tasted of the heavenly gift; they had been baptized and had the powers of the world to come: all these things were true of them, yet they fell away — they deserted Christ; they went back from Him to Judaism in order to make their conscience easy with God. Where this was the case, the apostle says, "It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance." They are apostates, and that is the point of the question. For on a large scale, similar will be the means of bringing in the worst doom, which must inevitably follow the denial of Christianity. And necessarily so, for God has nothing better to bring in; nothing whereby He can act upon man when He rejects christian revelation and the grace of Christ. These Galatians were convicted by this very thing. They knew that they had not heard about the law, and yet they had received the Spirit personally. Let them think what the reception of the Holy Ghost involves — that it is not only the manifestation of power, but the deeper blessing that abides now. And how good of God that it should be so, that He has not taken away the spring of enjoying Christ. We might have thought that, so deep has been the failure, if anything had been likely to be taken away, it would be that enjoyment of Christ.

At Pentecost the saints were all, or most, at any rate, babes. It is a moral misunderstanding of that day, as well as of the previous state of the disciples to suppose that the wonderful display of power there was then, showed a deeper enjoyment of Christ vouchsafed then and there, than elsewhere afterwards. And so one sees now that there is a danger of persons fancying that the richest harvest-time of peace and joy possible is at the hour of conversion; whereas, at best, it is the enjoyment of a babe. There is a mighty sense of deliverance; but sense of deliverance is not necessarily Christ, nor the sweetest way of tasting Him. It is connected with our sense of the love of Christ, and this we assuredly are privileged to enjoy; but there is a knowledge and delight in Christ Himself which is a deeper thing still, and it is based upon a growing acquaintance with His personal glory and love, as well as His work.

These Galatians were getting under the law, and the apostle brings the folly of it all before them. They were seeking to be made perfect by the flesh. This is mere nature, working upon what has to do with self, and not with the unfolding of Christ. There were certain things they thought which were quite necessary for them to do. Well, he argues, that is the flesh. "Have ye suffered so many things in vain?" Then he shows that it had all been by the hearing of faith, and he goes up to Abraham himself. "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." There is great force in his reference to Abraham; for every Jew would appeal to him as the root of circumcision; and the mode in which the law was brought in among the Galatians was by attaching great importance to the right of circumcision. It would appear that the argument of these Judaizing men was this: — You cannot have the inner blessing of circumcision without going through the outward form of it. The apostle summons Abraham to prove the contrary. In his case, it was a question of faith, and not of law, or of circumcision. When was it that Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness? Before circumcision came in; for the rite, as is evident from the history, was enjoined, we are particularly informed, after Abraham had believed God, and God had accounted it to him for righteousness.

"Know ye, therefore," he continues, "that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." This is the deduction he draws from it. If Abraham was brought into this place of blessing by faith, all his seed are blessed similarly. He begins with the natural seed, the Jew; but he brings in the Gentiles also. "And the scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." We shall find afterwards that he does not argue on the promise to Abraham himself only, but to his seed; but he purposely leaves out the seed here. He refers to the first promise to Abraham, because, when that was made, there was no thought of circumcision. He says, "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." It showed that they would be blessed as Gentiles — not by becoming Jews virtually; for the blessing would flow out to them as Gentiles. "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." There he closes that part of the subject, proving that the blessing depends upon faith, and not upon the works of the law or circumcision. Abraham was blessed by faith, and God had promised him, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" — not in circumcision, but in Abraham; so that we find in Abraham's case the principle of a promise comes in. In fact, he was an idolator at the time when God revealed Himself to him, as we learn from Joshua 24: and true blessing is always the effect of God's revealing Himself to the soul. The effect of this revelation to Abraham is, that he leaves his country and his father's house, and goes forth at the word of God, not knowing whither he went. He counted upon God's goodness towards his soul. He receives from God the promise of blessing, and of blessing for others, too; as it was said, "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." And here is the manner of it: "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." As blessing depended upon faith, so, he argues, does yours.

Then, in a most solemn and sweeping sentence, which bears the very stamp of God upon it, he adds, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." Would that those who desire to be teachers of the law, only understood such a word as this! Not as many as have broken the law, but as many persons as take their stand upon legal ground are under the curse; whoever attempts to please God on this principle is fallen under it. And why? Because there is such a thing as sin. And if man with sin upon him, or in him, essays to make good his cause by the law, as far as the principle goes, he is under the law's curse. We need not await the proof as a matter of fact; he who does so is condemned. If God were to deal with men as they deal with God, they must be adjudged to death; and there could be no help or deliverance for them. Regeneration does not deliver, and cannot be urged as a plea. If they are governed by the law as their rule, it necessarily condemns those who break it. Nothing can be more conclusive: "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse," etc. So that, if I stand upon this ground, there is not the slightest provision made for failure, unless I also plead sacrifices and offerings for sin. If I do not continue in all things as they are written in the book of the law — if I do not succeed in observing them all faultlessly, I am accursed. Could such a standing ever do for a Christian? Impossible; and therefore all is inconsistent with those who so speak; for they do really rest after all on Christ. But what says St. Paul? "That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident;" because, as another scripture announces, "The just shall live by faith." It is a total mistake to suppose that it is by law, as its source, its power, or its measure. "And the law is not of faith: but the man that doeth them shall live in them."

In verse 13 he closes this part of the subject, and shows that our position as Christians is entirely different. He begins with the Jew. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." It is exceedingly blessed to find that, as in 2 Corinthians 5, it is said that Christ was made sin, so here it is said that "He is made a curse for us." In Corinthians Paul is merely putting himself with the believers — he is not drawing a contrast between us and the Jew; consequently the "we" in Corinthians includes all. But here the "us" means the Jewish part of the believers; for he refers particularly and distinctly to the Gentiles afterwards — "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." And then he puts them all together — "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." The "us" there is emphatic; whereas in verse 14 the word "we" is not so at all, but is used in a general way of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. So that the point is very plain. First, if Jews were concerned, he would say, We equally needed Christ; because we had not continued in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them; and Christ came and redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. Then, as to you Gentiles — you who never had anything to do with the law, are you seeking to be blessed on the very ground where we can only expect cursing? The apostle quotes from Deut. 27, where we have a very striking disclosure, as has been well remarked by another. Half of the tribes were to stand upon one mountain to bless, and the other half upon another mountain to curse. But when, immediately after, the provision comes out, only the curses are mentioned, and there is no blessing at all! Why? "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." God had spoken of the tribes being divided for blessing and cursing; but when you come to the fact, only the curses follow, and not the blessings. What a very solemn confirmation of the truth we have been looking at! God did not positively provide for any thus to get the blessing. As sure as they took legal ground, they could only get a curse; and accordingly the curses alone are heard.

The apostle, therefore, triumphantly closes this part of the subject. After coming to the full acknowledgment of the law's curse because of sin, then through the grace of God can the believer say, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." It is not merely that He has been made accursed for us, but "a curse." What could more forcibly convey how fully He identified Himself with that condition as a whole? The consequence is, that those He represented in grace are completely delivered from it; yea, and the blessing, once flowing, bursts far beyond the old channel. So he says, "As it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." First of all, God must remove the curse out of the way; and when that was holily done for these believing Jews, the same cross of Christ overflows with mercy to the Gentiles. Christ had accomplished the work of redemption; and though its primary application was to the Jew, yet surely the efficacy and glory of it could not be hid. The blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ — "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

This concludes the argument based on the promise of the Spirit; and the points decided are these: — the law never brought a blessing upon those who were under it, even though they were Abraham's seed, and this, because they were sinners; nor was it ever the means of their receiving the Holy Ghost as the power of enjoying Christ. On the other hand, the hearing of faith, as of old for Abraham himself, is the one simple means that the Holy Ghost uses for all real peace and blessing; and this avails, through redemption, not only for the proud but accursed Jew, but even for the poor Gentile, now expressly contemplated in the blessing, and in the richest part of it, the promise of the Spirit.

In the former part of the chapter, we saw the contrast between the portion of faith and that of law. We found that the law necessarily brings in a curse; not that the law is bad, but because men — because Israel — were sinners. The law, therefore, just because it is holy, just, and good, must condemn those that were not good, but evil. The conclusion of the law, for such, accordingly, was a curse. It was the law of God; but all that His law could or ought to procure for sinners was condemnation and a curse. On the other hand, God loves to bless. How can these things be? How was it possible that God could bring in a blessing for poor lost man? The answer is, that "they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Abraham got not a curse but a blessing, and this because of faith and not law. The apostle thence proves that since the law, no matter how good in itself, can only bring a curse upon every soul who takes this ground in its dealings with God, "as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." Nothing could be more universal or more conclusive. The law involves nothing but a curse upon every child of Adam who attempts to take his stand on it as a means of relationship with God. Am I seeking and vowing to obey God in order to gain a blessing from Him? I only earn a curse. I ought to obey; but, I being a sinner, the effect of the law is to bring out my sin and curse me. On the other hand, faith brings me into a blessing, yea, all blessing through God's grace.

Now we come to the question of promise, which is a very different thing. Faith involves, at any rate, the condition of soul in the person who believes; the promise looks at the dealings of God; and although we have seen that those who have faith are the only receivers of the blessing, and not those essaying to do the law, now we have to consider God promising, as well as law given. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made" — not the law given. Abraham knew nothing about the law, neither did his seed or son; yet they could not deny that Abraham got the blessing. So that here he stands on a new ground. It is not only that souls which have faith will get the blessing, but why not have faith in the law too? The latter part of the chapter takes up this question, and shows that God has given promises; and the question is, how to reconcile God's law with His promises. What did He give these two things for? Were they meant to produce the same end? Were they on the same principle? The Holy Ghost settles these questions. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ." Here it is plain, that the allusion is to two distinct and signal occasions in Abraham's history. These two occasions were first to Abraham alone; (Gen. 12;) and secondly, to Isaac, or rather in Isaac alone. (Gen. 22) In the last chapter, both the numerous seed and the single seed are referred to. With the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies — that is, Jewish supremacy, But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles. In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct. Where the seed is spoken of without allusion to number, the blessing of the Gentiles comes in; but where they are said to be multiplied as the stars and the sand, then the character is unequivocally Jewish precedence. Such is, I believe, the argument of the apostle. Where Christ, typified by Isaac, is meant, it is "thy seed" simply, without a word of seed innumerable as the stars or the sand. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;" namely, of the blessing of the Gentiles, and not merely of the putting down of the Gentiles. The promises were made first to Abraham, and then were confirmed in his seed. "He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and of thy seed, which is Christ." He takes Christ as the one intended by Isaac.

Let me recall the circumstances under which God made the promise in Isaac as a type of Christ. In Genesis 22 Isaac is ready to be offered as a sacrifice, and Abraham did not know till the last moment but that his son was to die. For three days Isaac was, as it were, under the sentence of death. Abraham had confidence in God, who had promised that in Isaac he should possess the land; and he was, therefore, certain that in this very Isaac the promise must be accomplished. It was not a question of Sarah having another son, but of this son, his only son. He was perfectly assured, therefore, that God would raise him up and give him back again, to be the head of the Jewish family. A beautiful type this, of God's sparing not His own Son. Abraham had as good as offered up his son, and God not only gave Isaac back again, but then and there gave the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Thus it is in Christ risen from the dead that our blessing comes. Christ dead and risen again is perfectly free to bless the Gentiles. As long as He was merely living on the earth, He said, "I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but, when risen, all is changed. Accordingly, He commissions His disciples, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations." And so He predicted the gospel must be published among all nations. The apostle draws attention to the fact, that this early oracle does not connect the numerous seed when God spoke of blessing the Gentiles, but the one seed, Isaac, as the type of Christ, and of Christ after He had been under death and had passed into resurrection. The importance of this is immense; because, while Christ was upon the earth, He was under law Himself. Risen from the dead, what had He to do with law? The law does not touch a man when he is dead. The apostle argues that the Christian belongs to Christ in resurrection. When any one is baptized into Christ, this is what He confesses: — I belong to Christ dead and risen, taken out of my old place of Jew or Gentile. The Jews had to do with a Messiah who was to reign over them on the earth; the Gentiles in that day shall be the tail and not the head, and kings shall be the nursing fathers of Zion, and queens the nursing mothers, bowing down to the earth and licking up the dust of Israel's feet; but we, Christians, begin with Christ's death and resurrection. All our blessing is in Christ raised from the dead.

"And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ," (or, as it should be rendered, "to Christ,") "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." God took care that, between the promise given to Abraham and Isaac and the law, there should elapse a period of more than four centuries. Had He given the law a short time after, they might have said it was all one and the same thing. But how could this be thought, seeing that four hundred and thirty years passed between? The promise has its own special object, and the law its design also; and we are not to mingle the two things together. Not that we are to set aside either. On the contrary, I maintain that no man has a right value for the promises of God who could despise His law. I own the exceeding value of the law; but what is its object? This we have here, and are not left to our own conjectures. The covenant of the law, that came in four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham, cannot disannul what God had said before. If a man in holding out a reward annexes a condition, it is all fair. But supposing you said to another, I intend to leave you my house and garden, without adding any condition; if, after a year or two, you should say to the man, You must pay me a thousand pounds for the house and garden, he might answer, What do you mean? Do you repent of your promise? You gave the property to me unconditionally, and now you call upon me for payment! There was God's absolute promise to Abraham; this must ever remain untouched. But four hundred and thirty years after conditions come in. "If ye will obey my voice indeed, . . . . . . then ye shall be," etc. Then it was, God made the blessing to depend upon obedience. Is it, then, that God sets one principle against another? In no wise. He permitted the lapse of time, among other things, to show that the two things are perfectly distinct, as their object also. Therefore, as the apostle reasons here, the principle of condition that came in with the law cannot disannul that of grace, which came in with the promise. When God said to Abraham, "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession," He did not add, If you will do so and so. The Lord was to give him certain blessings there, which depended entirely upon the goodness and undeserved favour of God. This was the way of God in the promises. But in the law all hinged on its observance by him who was put under it. The voice of the law is for the righteous a blessing, and for the guilty a curse. "The man that doeth these things shall live in them." "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the law to do them."

The apostle next proves that, if the inheritance "be of the law, it is no more of promise." If a man possesses a thing through something he has given or done for it, it is no more of promise, but what he deserves. It is like a person doing so much work for so much wages. Of course, if a master makes his servant a present, the man is thankful for it; but where it is only an equivalent for positive work done, it is clearly a matter of debt, and not of gift. The law is the principle of what is due, if there could be such a thing found among men; but all that was deserved was a curse, because man was a sinner. "But God gave it to Abraham by promise," not by the law. Then comes the question, What is the good of the law? If God meant to give the inheritance by promise, why bring in the law? As this is a most Important question, I would call attention particularly to it. If you examine the dealings of God with His people in early days, God promises them a blessing, and they take it from God without looking at themselves to see whether they deserve it or not. This unquestioning confidence is all very blessed; but it is not for a man's good not to know what he is. It is of great moment that I should learn what my state really is. Now the object of the law was to bring out the sinner's true condition of soul; not at all to bring him into blessing, but to bring out the fearful ruin into which man had fallen by sin. The law was not meant to be the rule of life; indeed, it is rather the rule of death. If a man had no such thing as sin, it might be the rule of life; but he being a sinner, it is an absurd misnomer to call it the rule of life.

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions." It is not said, Because of sins. God never would do anything to make a man a sinner — but "it was added because of transgressions." What is the difference? Sin is in every child of Adam; sin was in man before the law, as much as after. When the whole world was corrupt — when all flesh became so violent — that God was obliged to judge it by the flood, it is too clear that they were all sinners. After God gave the law to Israel, they were no longer merely sinners, but became transgressors. Rebels against God's authority, they became the actual violators of His law. The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient. And whoever was made righteous by the law? Is he an honest man who merely refrains from taking your watch for fear of being transported? The only really honest person is he who has the fear of God before his eyes. The law has the effect of punishing those that break it; but it is not what makes a man honest, even in a human sense, still less in the divine. Through the faith of Christ one becomes a new man, the possessor of a new nature which is dependent and obedient, loving to do the will of God, because He wishes it, and not merely through dread of going to hell. It is quite right to have the consciousness that we deserve hell; but were this the source of the motive for obeying, is such an one really converted?

Here, then, we have the law's object: it is to prove that men were sinners by bringing out the fact that those under the law broke it and earned its curse. "The law entered that the offence might abound" — not exactly that sin might abound. God could never do this; but men being already sinners, the law by its very holiness provoked the sin so as to make it manifest to themselves and to all. The children of Israel were sinners like all others; but they would not acknowledge their sin, and therefore God brought in the law by Moses. Before the ten words, they might have said, We do not see the evil of worshipping images, or of not keeping the Sabbath day. The law was enough to leave an Israelite without excuse. And therefore, as the Apostle insists, "It was not made for a righteous man," though this is what people apply it to in our days; that is, for a rule of life. But then, besides justifying the believer, Christ is the means of making him righteous and keeping him so, or restoring the soul; there is no other efficacious way. Just as Christ is the life and the truth, so is He the way. There is no path nor power of righteousness and holiness but Christ revealed by the Holy Ghost. If you take the law as well as Christ, you become at least half a Jew. We are called to look at Christ, and Christ only, (2 Cor. 3,) as the one who creates, and fashions, and constitutes every particle of righteousness that the Christian possesses. So the apostle prays that they might be more and more "filled with the fruits of righteousness," etc. The natural man would allow the need of the works of righteousness which are demanded by the law; but he knows nothing of those "fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God." The law was the rule of death for a sinner; Christ is the rule of life for a saint. "Wherefore then serveth the law?" Everyone ought to admit both the end and the limits here set forth. The law "was added because of transgressions, till the seed (i.e., Christ) should come to whom the promise was made." God was pleased to use this platform negatively, at any rate for a time; but now the seed is come, and the platform is gone for the Christian. It is all-important for convicting the sinner, the standard of what a sinful man ought to do for God. But it is neither the reflection of God nor the pattern for the saints: Christ is both, and Christ only.

Besides, "it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." This is to show the contrast with the promise, which was direct and immediate between God and man, without the intervention of angels or any mere creature daysman. In the case of the law, creature mediation is prominent. Hence the immense superiority of the promises as con pared with the law. All showed distance between God and the people. But in the promises, God comes, speaks, works personally and in dove. He has as directly to do with every converted soul as He had with Abraham: nay, now that redemption has been effected and Christ is risen, we have to do with God in a still nearer way.

"Now," he adds, "a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one." Under the law you have God and man as the two contracting parties, and you have also a mediator between the two. Moses stood thus between God and men, and what is the result? God's part was safe and sound, but man broke down. And so it was, is, and must be; and this not from any fault in the law, but from man's guilt and evil. The law is like a bridge that may be ever so strong, but, resting, at one end, on no foundation. There can be but one issue. So with man's trial under law. The law does not depend upon God alone, save as exacting; but, thanks be to God, the promise does. Under law, man is, in one sense, the chief actor. He is rendering to God, not God to him. Whereas, when God promised the land to Abraham, He did not say, It must depend upon what you do. It was His own free, absolute gift. In the law there are two parties, and the whole thing comes to pieces, because man is the one on whom practically all turns; and what is he to be accounted of? In promise there is but one party, and there can be no break-down, because God cannot fail or lie: His promise must be accomplished. This then is the apostle's conclusive reasoning, "a mediator is not a mediator of one;" that is, where legal mediation is required, there must necessarily be two concerned, one of whom is the sinner, and so all is lost. "But God is one." Such is the character and the strength of promise. God stands alone, brings about all He says, and the believer has only to give thanks, enjoy the blessing, and seek to walk worthily and consistently with it.

"Is the law, then, against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin." There the children of Israel were, and the law had locked them all up together under sin. And this, "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." Not to the Jews, as such, but "to them that believe." "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ." "To bring us" has no business here. The meaning is that the law was a schoolmaster dealing with these Jews, until Christ came; as it was said before, "It was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made." It is not a question of bringing people now to Christ: the effect of the law is rather to minister death and condemnation, as we are so clearly told elsewhere. God may let people thus come under sentence of death, and afterwards by Christ bring them out of it; but no man can say that a killing power is in itself the means of bringing people to Christ. "The law was our schoolmaster." It did the office of the slave who had the charge of children under age. It dealt severely with those under it till Christ came. The Galatians were Gentiles who had never been under the law, to whom Paul is describing the manner of God's dealings with the Jews that were. Speaking of such he says, "The law was our [not, your] schoolmaster unto Christ." When Christ came there was a new object manifested, and the negative process of legal discipline closed, "that we might be justified by faith." The law made souls feel their state; but God opened their eyes when in that state to see that the only hope of righteousness was in Christ. "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Not even Jews who believed were any longer under the law! The moment they had Christ revealed, they passed from the dominion of the law and owed their new subjection to Christ. Christ is the Master and Lord of the Christian. The Jew had had the law for his tutor. When he received Christ, the law's office terminated, and he entered a new domain altogether.

Observe the remarkable change from verse 26. It is no longer "we," but "ye." "For ye are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus." Now he is addressing the Galatians, who had, of course, been sinners of the Gentiles, and yet they enjoyed the nearness of sons of God. You, be implies, are brought into this high relationship by faith in Christ Jesus, without the intervention of the law, which, after all, deals with bondmen, or at least treats its subjects as if they were slaves. Paul did not preach the law first and Christ afterwards, but rather "Jesus and the resurrection." This was the sum nod substance of his preaching; and these Galatians had at first received it accordingly. They were all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus — Gentiles as well as Jews.

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." The great point of the whole argument was, that the seed was risen, the seed Isaac, after he had been appointed to die, and actually under the knife, but now risen from the dead in figure, to show that this is the condition into which we Gentiles are admitted as having to do with Christ. Was Christ under the law when He rose from the dead? Nothing of the kind. So, says the apostle, it is with us Christians now. You have nothing to do with the Jewish schoolmaster. Faith has come in alike for us, and for you Gentiles; you have become sons of God without passing under the law at all. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Do you not know what your baptism meant? What does a man confess when he is baptized? That he belongs to a Saviour who died and rose again. "So many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ (says our apostle elsewhere) were baptized unto His death." And the death of Christ is that which for ever dissolves even a Jew's connection with the law. Up to death, the law had a righteous claim upon the Jew, but the moment he confessed Jesus dead and risen, even he at once passed out of it into a wholly new condition. With a Saviour who is risen from the dead as his life and Lord, his business is to walk as a man that is united to Him: the connection is broken with the old husband, and he belongs to another. Were he to attempt to have Christ and law together afterwards, it would be like a woman having two husbands; that is, spiritual adultery. The effect of it, too, is most palpable. Who has not seen a Christian one day joyous, the next day very much cast down in spirit, not sure whether he have eternal life or not; trembling at the thought of the Lord's coming; and yet that same man admiring, loving, adoring Christ? How comes this? He knows not death to the law. No wonder, then, he is in a miserable plight. The law presses him to death, and Christ is only known enough to keep his head above water, but with constant tendency to fall under it. How good for his soul to learn that God has broken all such ties by the death of Christ! My very baptism is the confession that, even had I been a Jew, I am dead to the law — "being dead to that wherein we were held." "Wherefore ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead." Of course, if dead to the law, it would be a most unhappy state not to be married to another. How great would be the danger of thinking oneself at liberty to do what one liked! But if belonging to Christ, then come the new feelings of one who is thus near to Him. Now, I belong to Him, and I am to do what He likes; our husband gives us liberty to do His will, not to do our own — "to bring forth fruit unto God." This is what baptism sets forth in a Christian; it is the confession of the death and resurrection of Christ. The believer should know, then, that he has done with the law, and is called to live unto God. "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" — not the law, but Christ.

The object of the whole is to show that, important as the law was for bringing people's transgressions plainly before them, yet now that a Christian has Christ, he has already confessed his sins, and has to do with another state of things altogether. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female. He takes up the grand distinctions of men naturally, and shows that these things did not characterise them as Christians. That which alone stamps me as such, is that I have Christ, and have put on Christ. "For ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." That is to say, they had not to pass under circumcision, or any other rite of the law, in order to get the promises. The Holy Ghost brings into these promises by having Christ. If you are striving to gain them by the law, you lose them; if you receive Christ, they are assuredly yours. He is the true seed of Abraham, and, having Christ, I have all the promises of God. "For all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him amen, unto the glory of God by us." Thus, you see, he is giving the final touch to the great argument of the Holy Ghost throughout the whole passage: that the Gentile believer has nothing whatever to do with the law as a means of blessing from God; that he may use the law as a weapon against the ungodly, but that in Christ he has done with the question of law — has emerged definitely out of it all, and now he is in Christ. And if I am there, I have all that Christ can give. The point is, to give all the glory to Christ. The force of the passage must strike any thoughtful mind in looking round upon the present time. The evil against which Paul was warning them has now become overwhelming. In one shape or another the law is mingled with Christ; and therein you have poor Christians endeavouring to keep the two husbands at the same time. It is not something that we merely describe about others, but most of us know it from experience. We have proved both its misery and the blessing of deliverance from it. And may God be pleased to vouchsafe the same deliverance to every child of His who has tasted as yet only the misery and not the deliverance.

Galatians 4.

We have already reviewed the admirable contrast the Holy Ghost has given, in the latter part of the previous chapter, between the promises and the law, showing their entire distinctness, not only in date and circumstances, but also principle, character, and purpose. In this, of course, they agree, that both came from God. But, then, the object for which God gave them was as dissimilar as possible. His promises were the fruit of His own love — His purpose to bless, His joy in blessing, and this not Jews only, but Gentiles. And we have seen that particular stress was laid upon those promises which were made to Abraham first, and then to Isaac, in which the Gentiles were expressly to be blest of God. The remarkable fact the Holy Ghost takes up is, that where there is unqualified promise of blessing to the Gentiles, there is no reference to the numerous seed of Abraham, so frequently mentioned in Scripture; but where the seed as numerous as the stars or the sand, is spoken of, the Jews are meant. And when we examine still more closely, we shall find that the time when the "one seed" meets us, was after the type of death and resurrection had been gone through in the person of Isaac (Gen. 22): emblem of Christ who, risen, lets in the Gentiles to the full blessing of God apart from the law. And I am persuaded that this is so little understood that it will not be in vain just to give this slight passing notice now, in addition to what has already come before us. There is no one part of foundation truth on which Christians are generally feebler than in their apprehension of the place into which the resurrection of Christ brings the believer. It is the death of Christ that terminates all our questions. If it were our own death, it would, as judgment, be ruinous; but the death of Christ has precisely as much, yea, infinitely greater, efficacy in the way of grace. And Christ rising into a new condition, where there is no possible condemnation, the believer passes, before God into the same sphere. The power of God in the death of Christ puts away evil; the power of His resurrection brings us into the good of which He is the centre and the head. In this fourth chapter the apostle takes up another subject. If the law and promises were opposite in their nature — not contradictory, but totally different in scope and object — what was the, state of the believer under the Old Testament? It is answered in the beginning of Galatians 4, and this particularly with a view to the condition in which any of the Jewish believers had been, and what their present relationship to God is in virtue of redemption.

"Now, I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant though he be lord of all." This is a principle true of believers under what we may call the old covenant. They were heirs, no doubt, and blessing is to be their portion; but the heir is no more than the bondman or slave, as long as he is, an "infant," which is the force of the word "child" — the word that was used among the ancients, as our legal term is still, for a person who is under a legal age, and incapable of entering into contracts and engagements or of acting for himself. That was precisely the position of an elder under the law. He was not arrived at full age; he was really an heir, destined to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There was no difference as to this. Conversion and regeneration are the same in all times and dispensations. There may be greater fulness, simplicity, and joy now; but as to the substance of the thing, even from the fall, before the flood and after it, either with law or without it, the heir was in truth lord of all. He really is to have a part in the kingdom of Christ, to reign with Christ; but if we enquire into his condition while he is in this world, we have it here described as servantship. God's purpose is, that when glory comes, he shall have a bright, blessed place; but while in this world he was an infant, "under tutors and governors, until the time appointed of the father:" the first word, I suppose, referring to the person, the other to his possessions. He is under these till the time appointed of the Father. "Even so we, when we were children," — he applies it particularly to what they had been as Jewish believers — "were in bondage (servitude) under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

Nothing can be clearer than this. All is adjusted with divine perspicuity and force. The blessing of the Old Testament saint is in view, or of one who knew Christ in the days of His flesh, because there was no substantial difference between them: Peter, James, and John, all were then infants. It was true, Christ was present in person, and there was an immense accession of blessing; their eyes saw, their ears heard, what prophets and kings had desired to see. Nevertheless, they were still infants; they were not delivered from the law; they were as yet kept bound down by its injunctions and ordinances; and the terror arising from it always kept them in a measure of uncertainty and darkness; and it ought to have been so. A man under the law was not entitled to be thoroughly happy. If I have to do with the law at all, I ought to feel the law: if I am conscious of having failed under it, I ought to have the pressure of its condemnation on my spirit. It was so with the saints under the old covenant. They were under bondage, because they were under tutors and governors. "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." It was quite necessary that Christ should be a man and a Jew. If He had not been a man, there could have been no basis for meeting any child of Adam, under any circumstances; and if He had not been a Jew, where had been the law or the promises either? But being both, now comes in an infinitely greater thing — redemption. He came as a man and under the law, but the object was, that He might redeem them that were under the law. God had chosen to put the Jew in a special place for particular purposes; and the issue of that experiment was that the Jews brought greater dishonour on the name of God than even the "sinners of the Gentiles." We know that, if ever there was a people bent on destroying themselves, and forsaking their own mercies, it was Israel. If there was an idol among the Gentiles, they took the pattern of it; and King Ahaz even went so far as to command that all the offerings were to be offered upon the altar that he had devised after the pattern of the heathen one that he had seen at Damascus, thus insulting the altar of God. The great crime for which Israel were carried away at the last was, that they set up the golden calves. In Jerusalem, in the temple, the Jews re-enacted the old sin, for which God had smitten them in the wilderness. They were unfaithful to God, but they stuck to idolatry as a heritage too precious to give up. The Jews, who had been called out to be the special witness of God against image-worship, were not satisfied with following idols of their own, but must adopt those of their heathen neighbours around them — and God swept them away. Hence it is that we read in Kings and Chronicles of the sin of Jeroboam, wherewith he made Israel to sin. That was the one thing which God had in remembrance. All sorts of new dynasties were continually arising in Israel; but no matter what, if it was only a man reigning for a month, it was always the same uniform sin, the sin of Jeroboam, that God bore in mind, and that most insulting of all idolatries, the golden calf. It was deliberate sin before His face: "These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." So far we see what Israel was; and if we look at the prophecy of Jeremiah, we shall find God reproaching Judah, that backsliding Israel had justified herself in the presence of Judah, because Judah was far more guilty.

But we must not confine this tale of evil to Israel; we must read the Bible as a lesson of the heart, the lesson of what man is to God. And when we hear of Israel and Judah, let us apply it to ourselves. This is what God shows me that I am; this is the kind of stuff that my heart is composed of; this is what human nature does when God puts it to the proof. Idolatry, then, governed; and, as we know, calamity after calamity came upon His people. They were carried away captive into Babylon, and the remnant were afterwards brought out of captivity to receive the Son of God. When He came from heaven, it was in the fullest grace. Sin had entered in by the woman, and here we have the Saviour. And the law having brought in what was crushing to the hopes of the sinner, Christ comes, made of a woman, made under the law; but it was to redeem them that were under the law. The mere keeping of the law could not have redeemed any one: it was essential to the vindication of God that the Lord should show He was perfect man under the law, perfect Son of man, perfect Israelite, perfect Son of God above law — in all things perfect. But whatever might be His glory, and whatever He might come down into, the end of all was redemption — by Him to redeem them that were under the law. God was waiting that He might bring them into the place that He intended His people to have. It was no pleasure for God to see children trembling. He was waiting for the blessed moment when Christ's death would give the righteous title to deliver His people from that condition, to bring them into a new state of things, when the bond of the law would be for ever broken by the death of Jesus the Son of God. And so it was, He therefore redeemed them that were under the law.

And here comes out another thing. No negative deliverance will ever satisfy God. It was "to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." But even that does not satisfy Him; for there might still have been the thought that the adoption of sons was only for the believers in Israel — that this was what they were brought into now. But the apostle turns round to the Gentiles, and says, "And because ye are sons," changing the person, and addressing the Galatians in a very pointed manner. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Here we learn most clearly that the Jew by the law only got into a position of bondage: that was all the law could do for him. It was impossible that it could be otherwise. Law could condemn what was. wrong, and no more. But now Christ came, and in Christ there is power to deliver, and this is what ruined man wants. There is delivering power, and God introduces it in Christ. "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son." It was God Himself, introducing this blessed work indeed it is what He delights in. When the law was introduced, though God gave it, yet He simply says, "it was ordained by angels." He merely puts servants to the work, comparatively distant servants, who never had the link of life and the Spirit, the link of Christ Himself, which we have. Angels may be holy, but an angel never rises out of the condition of servant; they are even servants of the saints, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. But now, when we come to hear of redemption, God is made most evidently and thoroughly the source of it. "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons And because ye are sons, (ye Gentiles,)" etc. Of course, believing Gentiles along are meant, but without any question of our being put under the law, without the least thought of putting us under the disciplinary process which the Jews had known.

The Jewish believer had been in the condition of an infant, a bondman under the law; the Gentile never was. It is true he was a bondman, but of a totally different character. His bondage was to idolatry; the Jew's bondage was to the law. The one, therefore, was under that which, in itself, was intrinsically good, but destructive to him; the other was under bondage to that which was of Satan, and had nothing which linked him to God. The more religious the Gentile was, the more thoroughly was he the slave of Satan. We shall find the force of that shortly. In the case of the Jews, they had been under this system of guardians and stewards: they had known what it was, though really believers, to be only at a distance, far from God' unable to draw near to God and pour out their hearts before Him as children. They were able to cry to Him, to groan to Him: that is what you have in the Psalms, which are full of this blessed confidence in God; but it is the confidence of servants who count upon God to interfere for them, who hope in God, but who are not able to praise Him yet — they are not brought near to Him. Even in some of the brightest of the Psalms they pray that God's anger may not burn against them for ever. They do not know that it is entirely put away for them. On the other hand, they enter into the judicial feelings of God against His enemies: they look forward, as if it were a privilege to put down the enemies of God, and ask Him to make them as stubble before the wind — to use them and their dogs that they might drink the blood of enemies — to us a thought full of the most painful associations which all Christians would turn from. Many are even in danger of condemning the word of God because such desires are in it. The language is exactly suited to souls under the law; but now are we under grace, and no longer under law, and we pray for persons that despitefully use us and persecute us; whereas the whole tone of the Psalms, where they speak of the happiness of dashing the children of Babylon against the stone, is anything but returning good for evil: it is evil meeting with its just doom. I maintain that every word in the Psalms is of God — that all these imprecations are divine. Each curse, threat, and warning, all this sympathy with divine retribution, is as much from God as the Christian's now interceding for his enemies; but they are not suited to the same time nor the same persons, nor is God accomplishing the same end. As long as God carries on the day of grace, all these things are entirely inapplicable. They are not what God is bringing out now. They remain true for ever, each always in itself a right thing. But the fact is, that God has now, in Christ, brought in full, sovereign grace; and therefore God puts those who belong to Christ in a position to show forth, not earthly righteousness, but heavenly grace. Righteous rule is in reserve, and yet to be accomplished to the letter; and God will use His people Israel to be the special instruments of executing these divine judgments.

Let us look at the Revelation. Righteous dealing appears after the Church is taken to heaven — after the twenty-four elders are enthroned and crowned before the throne, representing the heavenly redeemed that God is now calling out of Jews and Gentiles. God then begins to work upon His ancient people Israel, who understand and cry to God and ask Him, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Is not this the counterpart to the tone of the Psalms? Yet are they saints of God. But mark the consequence of confounding these dispensations now. The Bible requires to be rightly divided. If you take up parts of Scripture and misapply them, one way or the other, you will be a workman that needs to be ashamed. Alas! how men pervert the Sermon on the Mount. They see certain words laid down by our Lord for His disciples; they find Him insisting that they were not to resist evil, not to return a blow for a blow, nor to use any earthly means for asserting their claims or vindicating them against personal violence, spoliation of their property, etc.; the very things men resent as an infringement of their right. Were a Christian to make out of this a code for all men now, what could be more contrary to the mind of God? It would be to attempt governing the world on principles of grace. If you experimented thus on men as they are, it would become a far more dreadful bear-garden than even in the times of the great Rebellion, when they tried to act out the retribution of the Psalmist. There. Christians were put under the spirit and principle of the law; but the attempt to put the world under that which was intended for the guidance of God's children would be still worse confusion. The knave and rogue would be pardoned and caressed, the thief allowed to help himself to as much more as he liked. Evidently such principles never would do for the world, neither were they intended for it. The uninstructed may cry out that this is to take away the Bible, or much of it, but it is a totally false alarm. It is only an effort to lead them to understand the Bible; to teach them the real meaning of its various parts.

The practical point is, that Gentiles, such as ourselves, have been taken clean out of all the condition of sin in which we were. We were not under law, but we were under sin — in total insubjection to God — under every kind of evil. It might not be necessarily open, moral evil, but we lived to self, and lived without God, and that is a very gentle way of describing the condition in which all of us have been. These Galatians were under the grossest forms of ignorance and idolatry; but such is the spirit of grace, that they were taken quite out of it all, and, by faith in Christ, made sons of God, without passing through any intermediate steps. They repented, they received the Gospel, they became children of God. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father:" — the very word which He, the blessed One, in full communion with His Father, uttered. Think into what a place we are brought! That he who was but the day before a wretched, defiled, idolatrous Gentile, is empowered by the Holy Ghost to utter the same sweet expression of relationship — Father! What a place has God given His children now! And it comes out, not in speaking about the Jews, who were expressly said to be redeemed from under the law, and brought into sonship; but the Holy Ghost expands when He speaks about the Gentiles. There might have been the notion that the Gentile, as he had known nothing about the law, could not be brought into so blessed a place, all at once, as the believing Jew. But not so: the Jew had to be brought out, not merely of sin, but from the law. The Gentile had nothing but his sin to be brought out of; and therefore in him the work was done, if I may so say, far more simply. The Jew had to unlearn, the Gentile merely to learn. All that the Gentile had was mere corrupt nature, till he was converted, when he was brought at once under the shining of God's grace; whereas the Jew had to be brought out of the law, and was hampered — perhaps fettered — by what still clung to him of the legal system.

Remember, that he who understands grace never weakens the law, which is a very great sin. The doctrine of faith establishes the law. If you think the Christian is under the law, and yet can be saved and happy, you really destroy the authority of the law. Jewish believers under the law never had the full peace and joy which the gospel now brings; and where you have souls now under the law in spirit, they may be saved, but they never have the full rest to which the work of Christ entitles them. The reason is most simple. Though they received Christ, they do not apply His work. If they did, they would see that one of the effects of redemption is to deliver a person — not from subjection to Christ, but to make him more than ever subject to the will of God, and yet not put under law. Therefore the apostle shows that what they were brought into is the place of sons. Now the position of the son is intelligent subjection to his Father: the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of His Son, teaches to cry, "Abba, Father;" but not to say longer, "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" That is the cry forced out of the heart of one under the law, crying out in anguish of spirit, always having the sense that there is something to be delivered from; comforted a little sometimes, and then down under the pressure of the law. Whereas, where the fulness of blessing that God has given us in Christ is known, the heart is prompted by the Holy Ghost to cry, Abba, Father. The flesh is done with in the sight of God, and we are entitled to say that we have done with it ourselves. God cannot trust me, nor can I trust myself; but I know that I can trust God in His beloved Son, who has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, so that there is perfect rest for the heart. The cry of the Spirit is Abba, Father; thus is the child of God led out into the proper language of relationship with God. Other people may admire His creation, may dwell upon the wonders of the heavens and earth; but the cry of the Spirit is Abba, Father; and you can feel it far more than you can express it. What is the gladness of dwelling upon the attributes of God, or the outward effects of His power, compared with the joy of the heart that feels divine relationship? Thus we have the Galatian saint here reminded of his relationship; it was the cry which the Holy Ghost produced; and suited to the relationship, into the consciousness of which he was brought out of his idolatry. For all depends upon this — the simplicity with which my soul receives the great truth that, as to all that I am, it was judged on the cross; and now there is a new man before God, and a new man before me — Christ risen from the deed; and I am entitled to say, that is the One in whom I stand before God. Can we cry anything else than "Abba, Father?"

But then there is a warning as well as a conclusion. The conclusion is, "Wherefore thou art no more A servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Just as in Galatians 6, where he says, "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." The Holy Ghost then puts it to each individual's soul — "considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." So, if God gives a warning that is individual, He gives a comfort, and this before it. "Wherefore," it is said, as the result of all the reasonings, "thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." Observe, it is not what they shall be; not that they are always infants in this world, and shall get their blessing in heaven, but "thou art no more a servant but a son." If you were a Jew, you would be the servant of the law. But now, no matter what you were, if you had been an idolater, you have passed, in receiving Christ, into the fulness of the blessing that is due from God to His beloved Son. God has no blessing too great for the heart that bows to Him — "if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." He enlarges the sphere: it is not merely heir of this or that, but heir of God. What God possesses, what God will have in the blessed day that is coming, He will share with His children. And that is the meaning of the last clause in Ephesians 1: 18. See also Romans 8. Such and no less, is the place for which God destines us; He does not mean to keep anything back. As grace has been, so the glory will be, God's answer to the devil's insinuation in Eden.

Now for the warning. "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods! But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God," etc. It is plain he means the Gentiles; he does not say, when we knew not God, because the Jews had a certain knowledge of God under the law; but "when ye knew not God" clearly is about the heathen. "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" Weigh that expression well. There cannot be a more solemn statement as regards the present state of Christendom. What does he mean by saying that these Galatian saints were returning again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which they desired again to be in bondage? They must have been perfectly shocked. Turning again to idolatry! How could this be? They might say, We are only taking up the principle of the law: do you call this the weak and beggarly elements? Why, says the apostle, when you were unconverted, you worshipped false gods — idols; but if you, Christians, go and take up Jewish principles, even these feast-days or other principles of the law, you are in principle idolaters, turning back again to that idolatry out of which God delivered you. How is this? The reason is plain. It was not that the law in itself could be idolatrous, or that God did not forbear toward the prejudice of those that were Jews. But here were the Gentile believers resorting to these legal elements. Who told them? These things had lost all their meaning, and a Gentile had nothing to do with them; they had their value as a shadow of Christ, before Christ came; but to turn back from Christ risen from the dead, to these mere shadows, was in God's sight going back to idolatry. Whenever professing Christendom takes up the law, with its external ceremonials and shadows, (quite right as all this was under the law,) and adopts them as christian worship, it has unconsciously but really fallen into idolatry.

Supposing a person were to say, I find myself very cold in worshipping God, and I want something to arouse my soul; what more proper than to have a picture of my Saviour, that as I look upon Him and the crown of thorns, I may feel more deeply His love, and have my heart's affections more drawn out to Him? That is idolatry now, if it would not have been so at any time. But there were certain of these things allowed under the legal system, because of the hardness of their heart; they had sacrifices of beasts and an earthly priesthood; but for a Gentile to turn to these things is going back to idolatry in the sight of God. The Holy Ghost presses this upon these Galatian believers, for the evil was only in the germ. If this be true, what a sin to take part in, to countenance or sanction, in any way, that which is idolatry in God's judgment! The evil is increasing most rapidly. It is not confined now to popery; but the stride which has been made of late years towards Catholic principles is the same thing. If it has any religious element at all, it is an idolatrous one, making use of certain feelings of awe in our fallen nature to make people feel more reverent in worship. That is precisely the thing that is opposed to faith. The essence of our blessing lies in the soul's enjoying Christ by the word of God — the Holy Ghost giving this enjoyment of Christ apart from everything that acts upon the natural eye or mind. For it is precisely this very abuse that the apostle here so strongly denounces, and which he calls the weak and beggarly element. What God prizes in worship would now be generally considered meagre and poor; for it supposes the absence of outward decoration and of excitement, in order that it may be the real power of the Holy Ghost acting among the saints.

"Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Not to do this now is the wonder. Alas! the Galatian evil is thought a proof of religion. He marks this observance, not merely as an error, but as a proof of idolatry. In heathenism these festivals were of great account; and God permitted them in Judaism because the Jews had a means of religion suited to their state and the worldly sanctuary. But now all is completely changed, and the observance of special feasts and seasons as a means of pleasing God is put down with a high hand by the Holy Spirit. "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Is it not most solemn, that, whatever might have been the evil of the Corinthians, he never says of them, "I am afraid of you?" Had we known an assembly with so much flagrant moral evil in its midst — some, too, seeking to overthrow the resurrection, — should we not have said, there never was so pitiable a thing as their state? But the apostle writes to them in confidence, that they would be brought out of their evil. Not but that he deeply felt it, and puts before them their critical condition; but he writes to them, assured that God would touch their hearts. "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son." And then he begins to deal with their conduct after he teas touched that great chord in their hearts. But when he writes to the Galatians, there is no such expression. Afterwards the Holy Ghost gives him comfort about them, but it is far short of what he feels in writing to the Corinthians. Legalism is an insidious thing, because it looks fair. When this is the case, men fancy that they become practically more holy; but the contrary is the fact. What produces true holiness is, that it is not merely the name of a day, or of an hour, or of a season, or place, but God working in the soul, both to will and to do of His good pleasure; and this, because "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ." God brings the believer into His own presence, and puts him there as a child.

Persons may be really breathing the very life-breath of popery who think that they have the most wholesome dread of it. Let us search and see for our own souls. We can always look up to God and count upon victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Let Satan rage as he will, yet God will always be God — will always be true to His own word and Spirit.

The apostle now turns to his own relations with the Galatian saints; and the very reproach which the legal teachers had been inciting them to against himself, he takes as an additional ground for the truth. They, by their representations, had stirred up the Galatians to feel aggrieved with the apostle, because he had, as it were, ceased to be a Jew, avowing that he had completely done with the law. This is now met. It is important to understand how the law is thus done with. It was not that the apostle did not use it; but then the point is, as he tells Timothy, that a man should use it lawfully, for dealing with the ungodly, the unrighteous, etc. But they found fault with him, because he did not stand up for his Jewish privileges. He could and did use the law of God for moral principles and for dealing with men; but neither as a title nor a rule for himself. It would have been lowering his ground and character of blessing, had he condescended to speak about anything that belonged to him after the flesh. Grace had brought him into a far better place. In man the law and the flesh always go together. The cross of Christ was the end of both in the sight of God. The flesh was judged and condemned there; it was treated as a dead thing before God — dead and buried: and the law which deals with the flesh we are dead to. We have passed out of both, we are not in the flesh, and are no longer under law. The flesh being that in us with which the law grapples, and the flesh being now by faith accounted a dead thing, there is no more for the law to lay hold of. We pass out of its province into another country and atmosphere.

The apostle accordingly seizes this very reproach and turns it into an unexpected argument for the gospel. "Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am:" that is, be free from the law, as being dead to it in Christ; take your place boldly and with firmness, with the certainty that the will of God is that you have no direct relationship to it. "Be as I am." I am free from its tenure and obligations. They say that I do not assert my legal rights as a Jew; I know and proclaim it. You were Gentiles after the flesh; you were never in a Jewish position at all: do not seek it now that you have, by and in grace, a better. "Be as I am; for I am as ye are." You are Gentiles, and have never been, and are not, under the law at all, and "I am as ye are." If you only understood your place of liberty from the law, how could you wish to pass under its yoke? This is put in a concise and highly elliptical form; but I believe it is to be understood by taking it in connection with what goes before and after. "Ye have not injured me at all." They were apparently afraid that in letting the apostle know that he was foregoing his own proper place, they were doing something to pain his feelings. Not at all, he says: "Ye have not injured me at all." I fully acknowledge that, whatever I was as a man in the flesh, I have entirely abandoned that ground. As a lineal descendent of Abraham, without a single evil thing, the law kept perfectly, I should not be so blessed as I am in Christ. Then, remembering what he said in Galatians 3: 10, (" as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,") we see that all which could be got by taking legal ground is a curse. Well, therefore, could the apostle triumphantly urge, "Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are." You were only Gentiles and had nothing to say to the law; and now I am brought outside it as much as you — not, of course, by becoming a Gentile, but by being delivered from law in and through Christ. There is the blessedness of the christian position. It is not merely absence of law, but the being brought into union with Christ, which raises us above the law, while it secures obedience and draws out love to God and man as the law never could. Thus, what the law aimed at is accomplished, (Rom. 8: 3, 4,) and far more fully than it ever could otherwise have been, through the love of Christ constraining the soul. And this is done, not through the mere negative process of telling a man that he has not the law as his rule; but by putting him under Christ; (i.e., under grace.) This is what faith does for the soul.

"Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel to you at the first: and my temptation that was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." So far from coming in anything that savoured of fleshly confidence and authority, he came as a suffering man. This is just alluded to here, but it is more particularly brought forward in 2 Corinthians 12. And very sweet it is to consider how it was, and when it was, that the apostle had this humiliating mark in his flesh. We are not told what it was. It might have been some peculiarity in his speech, look, etc. We know it was something connected with his bodily state: it was "in his flesh." But it is quite clear, as it is affecting, to know, that the more the apostle was led on of God and blessed, only the deeper marks did he wear of suffering, weakness, and shame in his person. The thorn in the flesh followed his being taken up into the third heaven. This messenger of Satan buffeted him, and God turned it to excellent account, that the apostle might be kept low in his own eyes, and even in those of others. It was thus made manifest, that what wrought such wonders in Paul was the power of the Holy Ghost, in spite of the sentence of death being passed upon all the energy of nature The day is coming when God will restore the Jews, and will put them in the position of "the head," and the Gentiles of "the tail;" and then all will be established in due order according to the mind of God. But now, he, as it were, says, it is not so at all. Being a Jew is nothing It is all gone. I have come here as one suffering and despised, and in nothing asserting what I am as a child of Abraham. I am dead to it all; and as a proof, he refers to the well-known circumstances of his first preaching to them. Did they not remember that when he came to them, it was not with might or show, but deeply tried? Instead of outward attraction attached to his person, there was that which could not but be grievous trial to himself and to them. But what did they think of it then? They were so full of the gospel, so happy in finding the grace and the blessedness of the truth preached, that they regarded Paul as one would an angel. "Ye despised not, but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."

"Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me." Their affections had been completely alienated! which is always the effect of false teachers working on the mind. The enmity grows, and every circumstance tends to swell it. The apostle presses this home urgently on their conscience. "Am I, therefore, become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? They zealously affect you, but not well. Yea, they would exclude you," or us; for it was really shutting out the apostle from the saints — making a barrier between him and them. "They would exclude US, that ye might affect them:" that is, that it might all be a matter of flattering one another; for the law is invariably perverted to the puffing up of the flesh, when it is not used recording to the purpose of God. "But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you" The experience of Paul with the Galatians was the exact opposite to what was found at Philippi. You may remember a well-known passage in Philippians 2 where the apostle speaks of them as having always "obeyed, not as in his presence only, but much more in his absence." They were remarkable for their obedient spirit when he was present; and it is always the spirit of grace which produces this, as the law begets servility and fear. When we are happy in God's presence, we are united in one common object, and that object is Christ. There is thus a motive that governs every affection and action; and happiness, peace, and submissiveness are the proper and natural effects of grace working among the children of God. let Philippi, then, they had always obeyed, not only when Paul was there, but much more in his absence. They were working out their own salvation with fear and trembling, conscious of the mighty conflict in which they were engaged. They did not allow the fond dream that, because they were Christians, all the difficulty was over; but, on the contrary, having been brought to Christ, they nevertheless found themselves in the presence of a powerful enemy, and hence they were thrown upon God. The apostle was gone, but instead of being cast down thereby, it made them look up to God more and more; not in any pride of heart, but in the felt need of dependence on Him. The same feeling of owning God would have made them use and value the apostle when he was there; when he was not there, it threw them directly and immediately upon God. Whereas the pride of heart that would have despised the apostle, exposes one to self-idolatry, to such as flatter self, and so to every cheat of Satan. The great point for the Philippians was, that God wrought in them. Why be downcast, as if they had not the confidence that He who loved them best was working in them, and would care for them so much the more because they were engaged in such deadly strife?

With the Galatians it was not so. Taking advantage of the apostle's absence, they had soon fallen into a fleshly use of the law; and with teachers who humoured it, they were fast losing all real affection for him, and the blessedness they had once enjoyed. Although it would have been better that they should have looked up to God, and found strength to stand for Him when left alone, yet, considering the state in which they were, he could have wished to have been with them. Their faith had been shaken, and they were slipping from Christ, to make things more secure by ordinances; and as the apostle had gone through an immense deal about them in their first coming to the knowledge of Christ, — had known, as he expresses it himself, deep painful throes about it, so he went through all, in spirit, again now. "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." Legalism had so disfigured the truth in their souls, that they needed to be rooted and grounded in the first elements of grace over again. They had lost their hold of the cross, and the apostle stood in doubt of them. Outwardly they might be very zealous; but as far as testimony for Christ, and their souls' enjoyment of Him, was concerned, all was gone. The apostle desired that the work should be renewed from the very beginning in their souls. "I desire to be present with you and to change my voice, for I stand in doubt of you." The meaning is, he wished to deal with them according to what he found their condition called for. There might be an effect produced, and he would speak softly to them; or they might be light, proud, and hard, and then he must deal sternly: he would change his voice, as he says to the Corinthians: "What will ye? shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the spirit of meekness?" Here the apostle was perplexed as to them.

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" He uses the word "law" in two different senses in this verse. Ye that desire to be under the principle of law, do ye not hear what the books of the law say? That is, the early writings of the Bible. "Law" is sometimes said about the word of God in general as then revealed, as in Psalm 19, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." But when spoken of as that which the Christian is not under, it is the principle of the conscience being put under certain obligations, in order to acquire a standing with God. This is the fallacy which St. Paul is laying bare. Therefore, says he, "Ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise." There you see the connection between flesh and law, promise and grace. The Spirit has to do with the promise, the law with the flesh. This he illustrates from Genesis.

The Holy Ghost has taken particular pains to lay hold of facts in the Old Testament which we should never have thought applicable, in order to bring out blessed truths in the New Testament. Who would have discerned the difference between law and promise in Hagar and Ishmael striving with Sarah and Isaac? The Spirit of God not only saw it, but intended the record of the circumstances to be the beautiful foreshadowing of the two covenants; that of law, which has only a child of the flesh: and that of promise, which, on the contrary, brings forth in due time the child of the Spirit. The apostle does not leave us to our own imaginations. He shows that Hagar answers to Jerusalem that now is — the city of scribes and Pharisees, poor, proud, miserable Jerusalem, that had no liberty towards God, groaning under the Roman bondage, and the still more bitter slavery of sin. The apostle applies this to what was then going on among the Galatians. Let them beware of becoming virtually the children of Hagar. Did they not tale the place of being zealous for the law? Yet after all they did not understand its voice; "desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." The law was thoroughly against them. It clearly showed that God attached the promise not to the mere offspring of the letter, but to the children of the Spirit.

Every religious system which takes its stand upon the law, invariably assumes a Jewish character. We need not look round far to understand this, nor to apply it. Why is it that men have magnificent buildings, or the splendour of ritual in the service of God? On what model is it founded? Certainly they are not like those who gathered together of old in the upper-room. The temple is clearly the type, and along with this goes the having a peculiar sacred class of persons, the principle of the clergy being founded upon the notion of the Jewish priesthood. The service, where that is the case, must depend upon what would attract the senses — show of ornament, music, imposing ceremonies, everything that would strife man's mind, or that would draw a multitude together, not by the truth, but by something to be seen or heard that pleases nature. It is the order of what the word of God calls the "worldly sanctuary." Not that the tabernacle or temple had not a very important meaning before Christ came; but afterwards their shadowy character became apparent, and their temporary value was at an end, and the full truth and grace of God were manifested in the person of Him who came from heaven. When Christ was rejected from the earth and went back to heaven, all was changed, and the heart-allegiance of God's children is transferred to heaven. The true sanctuary for us is the name of Christ. What the Old Testament connected for an earthly people with the temple, the New Testament does with Jesus. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." If there were ever so few true to that, they would reap the blessing. It is of great importance to trace things to their principle. When the apostle wrote to the Galatians, only the germs were showing themselves; they had not got to the length of consecrated buildings and castes of men, with all the pomp and circumstance of religious worship suited to the world, which we see around us now, the result of the gradual inroads of error upon the Christian professing body. But still there was the beginning of the mischief, the attempt to bring in the principles of the law upon Christians. And what is the effect? You only fall into the position of Ishmael, out of Isaac's. To be thus identified with the law is to be an Ishmael, to forfeit the promises and to become a mere child of the bond-woman. This is the argument that the apostle uses to deal with the Galatians, who were flattering themselves that they had made immense progress; but it was really a slip out of liberty into bondage.

"But Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all." The word "all" has been added to this verse. The true text ends with "us," and obviously the sense is fuller and better without it. "All" was added, probably, by those who thought to strengthen the connection of all the children of God; whereas the inspired writer particularly refers to those that had been Jews. He says, We are no longer children of Jerusalem which is below, but we belong to Jerusalem which is above. As to the earthly Jerusalem, we owe her no allegiance now; we belong to Christ, and consequently to the heavenly Jerusalem. For it is written — and now he refers to a passage in the prophets — "Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband" The meaning may be a little obscure at first, but adds much, when understood, to the force of what the apostle insists on. It is connected not so much with Hagar and Sarah, as with the reference to Jerusalem. See Isaiah 54, where Jerusalem in a future day is looking back upon her past trials, and God makes a remarkable reckoning of grace. He. is speaking of the time when she was long desolate, of her present season of trial, when she is reft of all her outward privileges; but of that very time it says, she has more children than even when the Lord was her husband. In Hosea Israel is spoken of as one most guilty, and the Lord about to put her away. Then she is the desolate one: the Lord has forsaken her because of her sin; but in due time, before there is any outward deliverance from under Gentile captivity or oppression, grace begins to work, and all those who are brought in under Christ now are counted in a certain respect her children. But all is connected with Jerusalem that is to be — Jerusalem that will have ceased to be Hagar and have taken the ground of grace. So that when she looks upon the Christians who will then be in their own heavenly place, the Lord will count them as children of the desolate wife. He will say, "Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband." It is a comparison of herself during her time of desolation with herself when she had a husband. The latter was the time when she was owned in her earthly standing, and she had few children then; but now, in her desolation, there is a mighty outpouring of God's grace, and a wide ingathering of souls, who are counted, by grace, as her children.

The Epistle to the Galatians never takes up the standing of the Church properly, not going beyond the inheritance of promise. There are certain privileges that we share in common with every saint. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. We too believe and are justified. Substantially, faith has so far the same blessings at all times. We are children of promise, entering into the. portion of faith as past saints have done before us; and this is what we find in Galatians, though with a certain advance of blessing for us. But if you look at Ephesians, the great point there is that God is bringing out wholly new and heavenly privileges. This is in no respect what is taken up in Galatians. There we are ml the common ground of promises. "' If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." But in Ephesians there are certain distinct and superadded privileges that Abraham never thought nor heard of: I mean the formation of the Church of God, Christ's body, the truth that Jews and Gentiles. were to be taken out of earthly places, and made one with Christ in heaven. This was the mystery concerning Christ and the Church, hidden from ages and generations, but now revealed through the Holy Ghost. So that, in order to have a right view of the full blessing of the Christian, we must take the Ephesian blessing along with the Galatian. The special time is while Christ is on the right hand of God. Even as to the millennial saints, do you think they will enjoy all that we have now? Far from it. They will possess much that we do not, such as the manifested glory of Christ, exemption from sorrow and suffering, etc. But our calling is totally different and contrasted. It is to love Him whom we have not seen; to rejoice in the midst of tribulation and shame. If a man ware to form his thoughts of Christianity from Galatians only, he might confound the saints now with those of the Old Testament, always remembering the difference that we find here, that the heir as long as he is under age differs nothing from a servant; whereas we are brought into the full possession of our privileges. But there are other and higher things in Ephesians, called, or at least flowing from, the eternal purpose of God. So that it is well to distinguish this double truth — the community of blessing through all dispensations, and the speciality of privilege that attaches to those who are being called now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But, as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was horn after the Spirit, even so now." There he shows the practical fruit; nevertheless, he adds, "What saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." What a death-blow to all who maintain that the child of God has anything to do with the law, as that which determines his own relationship to God! The law is a powerful weapon for probing the ungodly; but in our own standing we have done with it. "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." Such is the conclusion of the apostle's argument. And what could be more conclusive? Out of the law itself he contradicts all they were using the law for; and before the law was given at Sinai, we have, set forth in this remarkable type, the true position of the Christian in contrast with the legalist. The Jew answers to the child of the bond-woman, and was then in bondage too. The apostle shows that such is the inevitable portion of the Gentile also who desires to take that place, and who must suffer even more the consequences of his own folly in it. He is leaving freedom in order to be a slave. "But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." So that we have, in the clearest manner possible, God resisting all this attempt to foist in the law among the children of the free-woman. On the contrary, to the child of the free the promises are firmly bound by God Himself in Christ risen.

Thus, then, it is of the greatest importance that we should seize clearly our position, and understand what it is that God has given us. He has called us, even had we been Jews, into another condition than subjection to the law. He has made us to be children of the. free-woman and brought us into liberty

Galatians 5.

It is well to remark the different way in which the Holy Ghost brings out the liberty which the believer now enjoys. In John 8: 32-36, it is attributed to the Son' and the Son of God acting by the truth; and both points of view in contradistinction to the law. The whole chapter, indeed, is most striking in this respect. For we have the case of a woman taken in adultery, in the very act; and man scrupling not to use this for selfish purposes: and, observe, religious man! He puts himself, as he might suppose, on God's side, to judge the, gravest, plainest, most positive guilt, and this without mercy and without self-judgment. Nay, further: he would turn the case of man's sin and shame, and God's law, not only to exalt himself and claim a righteousness which he has not, but to dishonour God's Son. Now this is the thesis of the chapter, and it has brought out triumphantly the glory of Christ. For He never came to sully the law. But then there was a glory that surpassed, and it was come — a glory before which the dignity of the law grew pale; and Christ showed it most clearly. Not that He uttered one word to lower the law, which indeed could not have been of God. But, nevertheless, He proved the utter powerlessness of the law to meet the sinner's case, save only in the way of a destruction which goes much farther than those who cite it expect. Law destroys the guilty hand that wields it, as well as him against whom it is aimed. It is two-edged in its character when Christ speaks; and those were forced to feel its keenness most who appealed to it against the abashed adulteress. Not she, but they, retired in utter confusion from the presence of Christ, — but mark this — of Christ using the law! nay, not this; but Christ, as divine light, dealing with conscience. Nevertheless, He did most completely expose the folly and sin of their recourse to the law. He showed that one without sin could alone righteously throw the first stone. The law never had raised such a question. But Christ brings in a power and comprehensiveness and searching character which never had shone before; and which can be seen now only in and through Him. The law simply said, Thou shalt not do this; but this is not, "He that is without sin." And who was the sinless? He alone who had not come to condemn. The law might denounce, but there was none to execute it. For had its sentence been carried out, they were all dead men — all left equally under the penalty, though from different 'causes. They retire in hopeless confusion; and the woman was left in the presence of the Son, who shines with the word of God as light upon the soul.

In the whole chapter they who stood upon the law are manifested as the slaves of sin. They might boast about being children of Abraham, but they did not his works. And certainly Abraham, who did not even know that law of which they boasted, did know Christ's day. He had seen the light of God, and rejoiced to see that day. So here, when proud, guilty man is banished from His presence, He meets one who was outwardly more guilty, and with nothing but mercy. This flows from His divine rights as Son of God, using the word of God and not the law. The law, on the contrary, always condemns and kills, and can only put bondage on the soul. But it is Christ's prerogative, and Christ's only, to give true liberty. It is the Son who makes free. The liberty we get flows from His word. Hence it is through faith; because "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." These things always go together — the Son of God working by the word, and that received by faith into the soul.

But there is another point of view, which it is especially the Apostle Paul's to bring out, that Christ has wrought a work by virtue of which even those who were under the law are completely brought outside its domain; and those not previously under it, i.e., the Gentiles, are proved to sin against their own mercies, if in any way they pass under its yoke. To this the Apostle Paul has come in our epistle: "Stand fast," he says, "in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Bear in mind this, too, that, among the Galatians, the character of the bondage was not so much what is c ailed the moral law as the ceremonial. I am aware that many would think the latter much more serious shall the former. But, on the contrary, the Christian's subjection to the moral law argues a far deeper departure from the truth than if it were the ceremonial; because the ceremonial law, every Christian must feel, derives its whole meaning and value from being a type of Christ. Not so the ten words, which are not a type of Christ, but the direct demand upon the strength and righteousness of men' if he have any. And, therefore, one can understand a Christian's getting entangled with types and shadows. A reasoning mind might say, Is it possible to believe that circumcision, on which God insisted so much with Israel, is to be given up now? If there were no value in it ever, why was it enjoined on Abraham's seed? And if it were so significant and obligatory then, why not now? Besides, does not Christ teach that it was not of Moses, but of the fathers?

All this might furnish a plausible platform for human feeling and argument; but the apostle was led of the Holy Ghost to deal with the question of introducing the thinnest wedge of the law. Take circumcision, the type of having our nature mortified: every believer has this verified in the death of Christ. But believers might have said, There ought to be the outward acknowledgment of it too: why not retain the rite which connects us with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! We are feeble and forgetful; why should we not keep up that which "the elders" prized so deeply, while we also enjoy the blessing that is new? But the apostle deals with it decisively in this epistle. Whatever the use to which God applied circumcision before Christ, it vanishes now. "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" — that is, if you should be circumcised after this: it was not a question of those who had already been. But if they, as Christians, sought it, "Christ shall profit you nothing." He does not mean that, supposing any one had made the gross mistake of being circumcised, this could not be forgiven; but that, if they now passed through that ordinance as necessary to their complete justification, His efficacy was for them made void. Thus, not only is Christ a complete Saviour, but He is an exclusive one. The attempt to add to Christ is in fact to destroy salvation by Christ.

This principle is very important; because you will find it is constantly the resource of ignorance to say, Well, we all hold the same thing to a certain degree; the only difference is, that I believe something more than you do. Yes, but that "something more" is to extinguish faith, and annul the worth of Christ. Bring in anything, no matter what, necessary to be done by you — necessary as a means of "being justified in the sight of God," and I say unto you, warns the apostle, "Christ shall profit you nothing." Nay, look at circumcision, which God once instituted with peculiar solemnity, threatening with death him who did not submit to it; and now see how that same God, having given Christ, puts a stop to it all. It had done its office; and now to bring it in again would be to obscure, dishonour, and even destroy the work of Christ. God had shown by it, in a figure, that the old man was to be treated as a vile and dead thing. But Christ is come; and there is not now a mere disciplinary process on the old man, but a "new creature;" and the idea of mixing up something done to the old, along with the new, as a means of justification, is most offensive to the Spirit of God. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." You may distinguish between the ceremonial part, that had such a blessed meaning, and the moral part, by which, you allow, man cannot be justified; but you know not what you do. You cannot separate circumcision from the law. God has embodied that rite so formally in the whole structure of the law, that though it had existed before, it became an integral part since, and henceforth amalgamates so intimately that you cannot separate the rite from the entire system. If you acknowledge any portion of the ritual as that under which you are, you are responsible for the universal legal system; you are debtor to all its demands. And I would call your attention solemnly to this — "a debtor to do the whole law."

Is not then every Christian thus a debtor? God forbid! It is false doctrine. If he were, he would be a lost man. I am aware there are those who do not understand this; who think that Christ, besides bringing pardon, is simply a means to strengthen them to keep the law. But this is sad and fundamental ignorance of Christianity. Is a Christian then at liberty to break the law? Still more loudly do I cry, God forbid! It is one thing to be a debtor to do the whole law, and another that God can make light of any breach of the law. Is there then nothing possible between these two conditions — debt to the law and freedom to break it? Neither consists with a Christian. He who is free to do his own will, is a lawless, wicked man. He who is under the law to do it, describes the proper condition of the Jew and nobody else. The Christian stands on an entirely different ground. He is saved by grace and is called to walk in grace; and the character of righteousness that God looks for in him is of another sort altogether; as it is said to the Philippians, "being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are" — not by the law, but — "by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God" — by Christ under grace and not under law. And this is not a question solely of justification. I am speaking now about the walk, about the responsibility of the Christian to do the will of God; and I say that Christ, not the law, is the measure of the Christian's walk; which makes all the difference possible.

It may be said, Was not Christ under the law? Yes, assuredly, but He was above it too. The Christian, the Gentile, never was under it; and being set in Christ, now that he believes, he stands on other ground, to which the law does not apply. For this reason, every Christian (no matter who or what) is regarded by God as alive from the dead, to bring forth fruit unto God. The law only deals with a man as long as he lives; never after he is dead. "But ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." And that, it is remarkable, is not at all what is said of us, after a "second blessing," extreme unction, or any other step of imaginary perfection. We begin with it, and our baptism declares it. What this sets forth is Christ's death and resurrection. And if it has any meaning for me, it says that I am identified with Christ dead and risen. It is no longer the law dealing with me to try if it can get any good out of me. I have relinquished all by receiving Christ, and I take my stand upon Christ dead and risen again, and am baptized into His name, as one alive from the dead, to yield myself to God.

Nor is this some abstruse doctrine that ought to require deep acquaintance with the word of God. It is not hid away in some trope or figure of a hard book, but plainly set forth in the Epistle to the Romans, and this is the invariable doctrine. So, wherever you look, this is the foundation-truth of Christianity, that God has done with mere dealing with the flesh. He has another man, even a new man, Christ risen from the dead; and the Christian has received Him. This is practically what God has to make good in the heart of the Christian. "Walk ye in him." A young Christian may be cast down after receiving Christ, through the sense of evil he finds in himself. He wonders how this can be. He knows how Christ deserves to be served, and is conscious how little he serves Him as he ought: he is filled with sorrow about himself, and perhaps begins to doubt whether he be a Christian at all. He has not yet learnt his lesson. He has not mastered even what his baptism set forth, the value of having a Saviour who is dead and risen. He is occupied still with something of the old man; he looks at it and expects to get better, hoping that his heart will not have so many bad thoughts, etc., as he used to have; whereas the only strength of the Christian is being filled with Christ, with all that is lovely in Him before God. The saint, in proportion as he enjoys Christ, lives above himself. There is the exercise of that by virtue of which the Christian is said to be dead and risen — the new life which the Holy Ghost communicates to all who believe. Only the believer feels what is unlike Christ; but he rests in what Christ is to God, and this makes him happy. When he becomes engrossed with what takes place within him, he is cast down. It is not that he should not judge himself for what is contrary to Christ, but that he should treat it as vile and bad, as that which flows from man and not from Christ; and then, having confessed it to God, he should turn away resolutely from it to the Saviour. The believer has acquired the title in Christ not to be cast down because of what he finds within him; not to be disheartened, because there dwells no good thing in his flesh. Is not this what the revealed word of God tells him so constantly? And yet how many go on months and years, expecting some good thing to come out! I do not, of course, mean that they are not born of God; but they are so under the effect of old thoughts and notions, acquired by catechisms, books of divinity, and sermons, that they do not enter into the full liberty wherewith Christ makes free.

Nothing can be plainer than the Holy Ghost's decision in the matter. He shows that the very smallest insisting on the law, in any shape, brings you in a debtor to do the whole of it; and if so, where are you before God? You are lost and hopeless, if you have a conscience. The question of the law generally comes up now as connected with sanctification. In the case of the Galatians, it came out strongly in the matter of justification. But the Christian has no more to do with it in one form than another. In verses 1-4 it is connected with justification. In the latter part of the chapter its link is with sanctification, which is the connection, and the only connection, in Romans 6, where justification is not touched upon, but only the believer's walk. As to this, he is not under law, but under grace. What a blessed thing it is to stand in this true grace of God! If I look at my salvation, it is all His grace; and if I think what is to give strength to my walk and service, it is just the same. Grace is the spring all through. God does not alter, now that He has revealed, the fulness of grace in Christ. Launched into that ocean, He will not go back into what had to do with exposing and scourging the old man, needful as the task was. Is He not rejoiced to have done with that which never wrought anything else, as far as mall was concerned, but the mere crushing of those that had a conscience, and an opportunity to make out a self-righteousness for those that had none; those, that were conscientious, groaning and miserable; and those that were not, full of themselves and of their fancied goodness? How sad, then, the departure warned of here! "Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." By these last words, he does not mean that they had slipped into immorality, or were openly gone from Christ. But they had joined the law along with Christ as a means of justification; and the moment you have done this, you have let slip the only principle on which God can possibly count you righteous. For God justifies sinners. What a glory of God! "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted to him for righteousness."

How is it, then, one may ask, that any ungodly are not justified? Because they do not believe that God is as good as He is; because the gift of Christ is too great for them; because their confidence is in themselves, or at the least they have no confidence in God. And the reason why they have none is, from not believing what Christ is for the sinner. When I know His glory and His cross — that He has turned it all now into the scale of the poor soul who goes to Him because of his sins, then I see that it is impossible that God could not save him who stands in the same scale with Christ; and this is what the soul does that believes in Christ. He may he as light as a feather, but it is not his own weight that he depends on, but on what Christ is and Christ has done. God has confidence in the work of His Son, and he has; that is faith. A man is a believer who no longer trusts in his own works, nor in his own feelings, but in God's estimate of the cross of His Son, God being not only gracious but righteous in that very thing. I want to know that I have got through Christ that whereby God is glorified in thus blessing me. And therefore He is what He is — righteous in justifying my soul. If I have Christ, God is equally righteous in justifying me, as He would be in condemning me if I had Him not. The righteousness of God that would condemn the sinner is the very thing that in Christ justifies the sinner, but, then, it also secures holiness. It is not merely a robe over him, but there is a new life as well; and I receive that new life in receiving Christ: in a word, we have justification of life in Him. And of what character is this life? Not the same as Adam's. That would not do, because Adam fell after he had life. But Christ laid down His life, that He might take it again in resurrection; and hence we never lose the life that He has given us — a life stamped with His victory over the grave: in fact, our life is Christ risen from the dead. No wonder, then, that it is everlasting, and that we can never perish. It is the life of One risen, over whom death has no more dominion. And such, consequently, is the position of the believer. Of course there may be the physical act of passing through death; but we are speaking about life before God communicated to the soul; and that life is the everlasting life of Christ, after He had put away our sins on the cross.

Accordingly, the apostle concludes the whole matter with, "We, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." It is not that we, through the Spirit, are waiting to be justified, but "we, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." And what is this hope? It is the glory of Christ. We have the righteousness, but not yet the hope of it. We have Christ Himself, but the hope of righteousness is the hope that righteousness in Christ entitles me to. We have become the righteousness of God in Christ. But what is the hope of righteousness? It is the hope of the glory of God: as it is said in Romans 5, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." In the first verse is the righteousness, in the end of the second, the hope — "the hope of righteousness." And what is that? That I shall be with Christ in the very same glory that He has. For this the believer is waiting. And meanwhile he has the Spirit of God, not merely to work in his soul, but that we through Him should wait for the hope of righteousness. We have not that hope seen and possessed yet; and therefore it is entirely a question of faith. But the Spirit of God who dwells in us gives us to know that, possessing the righteousness, being already justified, we shall have a hope suited to that righteousness. As we have the righteousness of God, we shall have the glory of God. So that nothing can be more blessed than the position in which the believer is set here by the apostle. The Galatians were hoping to be justified; but he says, You are justified already; and if you think to make things more sure by circumcision, you lose everything, and become debtors to do that which ensures only a curse: whereas "we, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." We are waiting for glory — the hope of righteousness.

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." Now he shows, just passingly, that there is a very great reality in the believer's moral condition. It is not only that he has justification, and a hope in character with it by and by; but the selfsame faith which makes him know that he is justified, and gives him also to be looking onward to the glory he is destined to, meanwhile works by love, not by law. To this he is going to bring us, the question of practical sanctification; and he shows that the believer has no need of going under the law; because, if his faith works by love, it accomplishes that which the law sought, but never effected or received. He does not at all mean to say that, though the believer is thus justified and waiting for glory, there is nothing meanwhile operating in his soul. It is a mighty and influential thing; but, then, it works by love. Its origin and its rest are in God's love; it knows salvation springing from that love. The love of God shown in Christ fills the believer's heart. He has a hope that makes not ashamed. And why not? Because the love of God is shed abroad in his heart. And I take that love of God in its largest possible meaning first of all, as God's love to us; and next, as ours to Him. It is the fulness of the sense of God's love in us; and the effect is, that it enables us to love God and every one else. If persons are thoroughly happy themselves, they cannot help loving others.

This, then, is the principle upon which the believer stands — he is already justified; he is waiting for the glory; and meanwhile there is faith that worketh by love. Therefore it is no question of circumcision. We are Christians; and the whole basis of the law, therefore, and of these questions, is gone. How comes this to pass? For a very blessed reason. "For," says he, "in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." The first availed a good deal to the flesh, and there was an important lesson taught by it. But he speaks of what is "in Jesus Christ." That is the position of a Christian. He is not in the flesh: he once was. And "when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death" — an expression that shows as strongly as possible that we are not in the flesh now. Do you not understand this? If you tell a person that you were in the country once, it implies that you are not there now. So, when the apostle says, "when ye were in the flesh," he means that he was in the flesh before he knew Christ: but now he is in the flesh no more, though he has the flesh in him. God views us in another condition. We have the old nature, but we have got another nature, by virtue of which God says, "Ye are not in the flesh." When we were in the flesh, we were not delivered: we had not laid hold of Christ. But now that we are His, we are no longer in the flesh. We ought firmly to hold fast this truth, and to rejoice in it. If a person fails, that is the more reason why he should not yield to the further suggestions of the enemy. We ought always to hold fast to the truth that we are not in the flesh; the more especially as it is not for our own praise. On the contrary, it is the very thing that aggravates our sin, and that makes us the more ashamed of ourselves. If you are in the flesh, no wonder that you act after the flesh. But if you are not in the flesh, then be ashamed when you act as if you were. God presses upon us this blessedness, for the express purpose of making us feel more deeply our failure, if we do fail. We are not in the flesh, and therefore we ought never to give way to the flesh. But when we do, we should feel it, and confess it with humiliation before God, but not let go Christ nor His truth. This is true of every Christian; though I am aware that there are many Christians who would say that they could not receive a word of it — that it is all mysticism, etc.: but it is a comfort to think God says every word of it about them. They may not be able to take the comfort of it for themselves; but what a blessed thing it is that Christians have to do with God, and not with themselves! This is the reason why they are not consumed. We prove ourselves to be just as weak and foolish as Jacob was, giving way to the flesh so often, and allowing our own spirit to work too; but we are, in a still higher sense, Israel. We have prevailed, because of Him in whom we are before God.

"Ye did run well. Who did hinder you, that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." He reproaches them with having listened to these false teachers, who had pressed circumcision. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Is it not solemn to find that the very word "leaven" which is used in 1 Corinthians to describe frightful mural corruption, in Galatians characterizes the introduction of the legal system among the children of God? God treats it as a most offensive thing. Indeed, the tone of the Holy Ghost in writing to the Galatians is even more severe than in addressing the Corinthians. Because, although the Corinthians were guilty of what was far more blameable in the sight of men, the Galatians had fallen into an error that struck more deeply at the foundations of God's grace; and a spiritual man invariably judges sin, not by that which man thinks of it, but by what it is in the sight of God. Having brought out the character of it, he says, "I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded." He could not say that about all of them: he says it in a general way; and adds, "But he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." He wants to separate them and give a sense of horror about those who had misled them. "Faith which worketh by love" does not hesitate to use strong language about the corrupters of the Church of God — denounces them most earnestly, and as a duty to God and man. "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." He that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." There were several engaged in that bad work. "And I, brethren, if I preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?" They had made the Apostle Paul to be a sort of evidence in their favour. They may have taken advantage of his circumcising Timothy, in order to make a show of inconsistency between his acts and his preaching. But St. Paul was not acting contrary to these principles when he circumcised Timothy. It was the elasticity of a man who could stop the mouths of objectors; and Paul, to silence Jewish slander, ended that question most unjewishly — by having Timothy circumcised. But he would not suffer it in the case of Titus, (who was a Greek,) whom he took up to Jerusalem with himself. This might appear capricious, but grace knows the time to be firm as well as to bend. There seems here to be an allusion to this, in his argument with the defenders of the law. It requires the wisdom of the Spirit of God giving one to know where one may use our liberty, or where it is a duty to stand as firm as a rock; and Paul did both. If Timothy had been circumcised, it was grace stopping mere fleshly questions, and not law, for his father was a Greek. But as to preaching it, such a thing was far from his mind. Had he ever pressed circumcision, he would have had their favour and countenance in every place that he visited. On the contrary, he was persecuted because he would not allow the flesh nor the title of circumcision.

The latter portion of the chapter takes up the other subject, namely, the law as ruling the walk. What we have had already is the denial of circumcision and of law in every shape as entering into justification. Admit the principle of it in a single particular, and you are a debtor to do the whole law.

At this natural division the Spirit of God recurs to the thought of liberty with which He had opened the chapter. It is put forward in a twofold point of view. Liberty as a question of justification we had in the early part; liberty now we have as that which leads into, and ought always to be connected with, practical holiness. For we must remember that this is the subject-matter of the remainder of the chapter. Now there are many persons who more or less understand that Christ has brought us liberty in the matter of righteousness, or the standing of justified men in the sight of God; but they do not know liberty in the daily walk with God. And when I say "many," I mean many Christians, or real saints. Practical holiness, in such cases, invariably suffers. Where there is, along with this, much conscience, it necessarily takes the legal form of ordinances, restraints, and the like. Or where souls have not the same internal exercises, it takes the shape of laxity to a greater or less extent: that is, they see that they are delivered by the grace of God, and they consider themselves free to use the world, and to allow, to no little a degree, the inclinations of nature; because, as they say, there is evil in the nature, and, as they suppose, God, in His tender mercy, makes allowance for it. Now both these things are totally wrong. One cause of all this mistake lies in the misapprehension of a very important truth — the effect of the presence of the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. Yet, in the Acts: and Epistles, all the exhortations, the walk that is set forth, the worship that the New Testament inculcates, the whole experience — in a word, of Christians that is there portrayed and insisted upon — everything is built upon the presence of the Holy Ghost. Where this is not entered into, the consequence is, that children of God must either suppose that there is a certain latitude allowed them by God, which is only another word foe indifference, or they must fall back upon the righteous curb that God has put upon our nature, and that is only another expression for the law of God. Now, the gospel supposes that, good and holy and perfect as the law of God is, it is entirely powerless either to justify or to sanctify. It cannot in any way make the old nature better; neither is it the rule of the new nature. The old man is not subject to it, and the new man does not need it. The new creature has another object before it, and another power that acts upon it, in order to produce what is lovely and acceptable to God — Christ the object, realized by the power of the Holy Ghost. And although, of course, the Spirit can use every bit of the word, (God forbid that I should say that God's righteous law was not brought within the range of the Spirit to turn to account!) I maintain that the law does not give the form, nor the measure, nor the character, any more than the power, of christian Holiness. It is a misunderstanding of God's design in giving it, and of its right present uses, to suppose the therein is the mould in which God now is fashioning the souls of the saints.

This is the subject that the apostle takes up and handles henceforward in our epistle. We have seen the question of justification entirely settled; now we have the walk or practical holiness. Again he insists upon liberty. We might suppose that he had said enough about it, after having charged them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. But no. In the domain of holiness this liberty is needed, just as much as for justification; and therefore says he, "Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty." That is, it characterizes our calling. Only, says he, it is not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, or you are not to use license: do not turn this liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. There he showed that there is a faith that works by love, (as said a few verses before;) so now he shows that the object of that love should be the helping one of another. It is not for the purpose of putting you under the law, but that you may serve one another" "for all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Had they not been trying the law? And what had been the result? He says, You have been biting and devouring one another: that is not fulfilling law, but lusts. When persons talk about it, or desire to be its teachers, do they ever fulfil it? It begins with confident words, and ends without deed or truth. Whereas, on the contrary, when Christ is the object of the soul, though the law does not occupy the mind, yet is it fulfilled. Christ is the power of God; the law is the strength of sin. I have exactly the same word of God to tell me of Christ and the law; and both are in the same epistle. (1 Cor.) But it does not matter where the subject is entered into; the great point that the Holy Ghost insists on is, not that the law was not a good thing, but that, our nature being horribly bad, there never can be any good got from bringing the law to bear on our evil nature, save condemning it. The question is, What will strengthen my soul for what is good? The answer is, not the law, but Christ. The law, I admit, is excellent. But you have been talking about the law as a means of walking well: what sort of holiness have you been producing? Biting and devouring one another! This is not love. But it is the effect of your use of the law you boast of. "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Such is the result. The law is a killing, destroying power; not because of its being bad, but because our nature is. And remember that the law beared upon our nature. The law was given not to the new man, but to the old.

There was the wisdom of God. Law was for the purpose of provoking the latent sin. But what is to give the new life strength, and draw out its affections? What is to nourish the new creature, and call it into lively exercise? Not the law. But he tells us more. He had shown that love is the sum and substance of the law. If, then, love prevails, the law is fulfilled; but among you, on the contrary, there is contention, strife, and every evil work. What a blow to their legally-engendered self-conceit! Now, going farther, he gives them a positive word. "This I say then, walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." The action of the Holy Ghost is not merely as a convincer of sin, nor as the energy of regeneration; all Christians hold this: far as they are parted on other topics, they cannot but hold the same fundamental truth, that all the power of having this new nature communicated to us is by the Holy Ghost. Some may hold the truth more intelligently and carefully as to form; but all necessarily own the Holy Ghost as that which convinces them of their evil and gives them this new life, which is of God.

But this is not the question discussed here. The Galatians had new life, but what was to be the power for producing Christian holiness? They were bringing in the rule of the law as a means of holiness; and the apostle entirely puts this aside "Walk," he says, "in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." There we have the divine guard; nay, more than that, it is not merely admonition against this or that evil, but what will give us power for what is good. "Walk in the Spirit." The Holy Ghost has been sent down to dwell in the believer. It is not the truth of our being builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit, as in Ephesians, where we have also the body of Christ brought out, the corporate relations of the children of God. The Epistle to the Galatians never gives us what is corporate, but always what is individual. And the walk being an individual thing, or what concerns each soul, if there were not another in the world, this is what you want. The word is, "Walk in the Spirit;" he does not say, Walk in the law. On the contrary, he had dealt sharply with the men who were so zealous for that rule. "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." You want power against the lusts of the flesh: the Spirit is that power, and there is no other. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, in order that ye may not do the things that ye would." This, I believe, is what the Holy Ghost wrote and meant. What we have in our version is, as many of us have long known, positively wrong. I wish not to pass it over, nor to bring it in by an underhand way: but wherever there is anything plainly mischievous in this version, which is but a human one, it is a christian duty to call attention to it; and the more so, as I am always ready to maintain its general excellence and to defend the common Bible we have got against adversaries who would do it dishonour. But it is not a friend's part to justify a real mistake that may have slipped in through human infirmity, or worse.

Here, then, is one of the most serious mistakes, practically. When I insist upon this, it is not a matter that I admit to be open to a question, or that there should be any doubt about. No person acquainted at all intimately with the language in which the Holy Ghost wrote, could hesitate, save through the effect of strong prejudice. I would also observe, that the best men — the ablest scholars, who perhaps differ from my own views as to much I deem important — nay, persons who are dignitaries in the very church which had the principal hand in the production of this version, — admit candidly and with one consent, that the version I have just given is the true one. There is no doubt of it on the minds of persons of the most opposite ways of thinking on other matters, as to what is the true meaning of this verse. The Holy Ghost, then, says, "In order that ye may not do the things that ye would," The very point of the verse is this. He was showing them why they were called upon to walk in the Spirit; and what was the true preservative against the lusts of the flesh. For the two are totally opposed: they are contrary to one another in every way. It is not said, You have got the law that you may not fulfil the lusts of the flesh; but, having a nature that will always be prone to do its own will, you have not merely the law to restrain it, but the Holy Ghost is given; not like the law, a thing outside one; but the Holy Ghost is an inward power, identifying Himself with the affections of the soul, and giving strength to desires after what is good, and against natural lusts, or any way in which the flesh may show itself.

He quite admits that there was the flesh — pride, vanity, everything that is evil, at work. But, as Christians, you have the Holy Ghost, and walking in the Spirit, "ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." Though the lusts of the flesh are there, you have the Spirit, too, in order that you may not fulfil those lusts. If what we have in our version, "so that ye cannot do the things that ye would," were correct, it would be like blowing hot in the one verse and cold in the other. He would be telling them in one verse that they must walk in the Spirit, and in the next that they cannot do it after all. Such a rendering carries its own refutation on its face. I press this the more strongly, because it is a practical point to christian people. On mere critical questions, I should never think of disturbing people's minds. There is so much of the deepest moment for our souls with God every day, that the less we have to do with points of curious learning the better. But when it comes to be a matter of correcting what every christian scholar knows to be an error, it is evident that I should be guilty of keeping up a serious mistake if such a point as the present were slurred over.

One thing that has led, I apprehend, to the confusion on the subject, is that many have assumed the doctrine to be the same as in Romans 7. But in that chapter, after the first six verses, the Holy Ghost gives us the experience of a person troubled under law. Accordingly we have not there the Spirit of God introduced at all. This is a remarkable fact, which accounts for the difference between that scripture and what we have here. There, it is a renewed man — a soul really born of God, but one who, while he hates sin as no unconverted man does, loves righteousness because it is of God, has a horror of evil; yet, spite of all, the evil that he would not he does; and the good he desires is never done. He has learnt the evil of sin, and sees the good of righteousness, but he is utterly powerless. What is the cause? The Holy Ghost shows the reason to be this — he has only the law before him. It is a man converted, but struggling under law; and the effect is that it entirely unnerves the man. So far from giving him courage, and drawing out what is in Christ, it is merely detecting him here and there, putting in a probe in one part and stabbing him in another so that he is bewildered to find in himself such an amount of evil as he never thought could be in the heart of a converted person. We all know something of this. We have not been long following Christ if we have not known some bitter struggles. The consequence is that all the poor soul is able to say is, "O wretched man that I am: who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" We might have thought that a Christian would have said, I have been delivered long ago. But observe this — he is not resting with his eye upon the Deliverer. He is converted, but he does not know liberty. He has faith in the Saviour, but he does not uncle. stand the application of His death and resurrection to his condition. He does not know that he is no longer viewed in the flesh, but in the Spirit — that he is entitled to have done with his old nature altogether, and to see himself in Christ before God The moment he comes to this discovery, that it is a mistake to apply the law to his soul, he gives thanks. Before this, he cries out in the intensity of his agony, "O wretched man that I am!" And yet, just then comes this new thought from God, "Who shall deliver me?" 1 have got it now; I see that it is not my own struggling with the law to overcome the evil; I see there is another, a Deliverer. — Therefore he can turn with thankfulness to God the very next moment, and say, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." After this he is happy, perfectly happy, spite of the consciousness that there is the old nature still within him. What makes him happy? He sees that there are two distinct things — the old nature which, if it is allowed to work, always serves the law of sin, and the new nature, which always seeks the will of God, whatever it may be. Now, then, he is enabled to enter into the great truths of Romans 8: "There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus;" and intelligently, too, "for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." He does not leave it in the vague way, "made all free," but it "hath made me free." It is not a general creed, but the truth is applied in the most positive manner to the personal need of the once struggling soul. There is no longer any bondage, now that he sees Christ is risen. What is He risen for? As the head of a family, risen to give me a new name and standing altogether. He has gone down under the sea of my sins, and he is risen above them. What was of mine led Him below; and if He is risen above, it is to raise me with Him too. The resurrection of Christ was not to give Him a standing, but to give us, to give me, a standing. The death of Christ was for us, to put away our sin; the resurrection of Christ was to bring in a blessing that nothing can touch. The effect of the first coming of Christ is, that our souls enter into this; the effect of His second coming will be, that our bodies, free from every trace of sin, will enter into it perfectly, as our souls should now. If we rest upon Him, we ought not to have a single doubt. It is not at all a question whether I find any flesh in me; it would be rather a proof that I was not a Christian if I did not. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." This is a darker case, because there is a plain, positive declaration of Scripture against it.

What marks a Christian is, then, not that he has not sin within, but that he has a new nature, which none has except he that believes in Jesus by the Holy Ghost. In virtue of Christ, God regards him as one who has entirely done with sin as a matter of divine judgment on us. God has quite closed with it thus; not as a dealing with us day by day. There is where confession of failure comes in; and thus, it is a good and right thing for a Christian to judge and confess his evil. A man's being entirely forgiven all trespasses does not put aside the need and duty and privilege of confessing the truth about ourselves to God, day by day. It is a very blessed thing that we may do it with the confidence that God is interested in us — that God loves we should go to Him about all. We should have sufficient reliance on His own love, to bring out our every failure, and tell it out before Him.

The law said, Stand back. If even a poor brute touched the mountain, it was to be stoned or thrust through with a dart. What the law said to one, it said to all. It did not say, Any of you that are believers can come near. The law does not draw distinctions between believers and unbelievers. It does not make allowance for human infirmity. Are people sinners? If so, then they are cursed. There is the sentence of the law. It never made a man righteous, any more than a human law produces honesty. There never was a man made honest by an act of parliament since the world began What makes people obey is Christ entirely above the law. The just dread of wrath may awaken, but it gives no power. So, in earthly things, there must be a principle above the fear of being sent to the house of correction. If it be only that dread which keeps a man from stealing, he is a rogue. So it is precisely with the believer. What makes a man a Christian, keeps him walking as a Christian. It is the power of the Spirit of God revealing Christ. Are you going back to the law to keep your soul in order?

It would have been much better that you had been filled with Christ, walking in the Spirit. For what does the Spirit do? He is glorifying Christ. This is always the true test. The power of a thing is not the test of it. If a man talked a great deal about the Spirit, and at the same time was serving sin, and not Christ, who could have confidence in the case? He might be self-deceived. A man may make the most exorbitant pretensions to have the power of the Holy Ghost acting in him or the body; but how am I to know that the claim is a real one? Let us look at the Epistles of John, who tells us to try the spirits. The great criterion is just this — the Holy Ghost invariably exalts Christ. The object is not to aggrandise the Church or a minister. All these things flow from man's misuse of the things of God. I am not denying that the Church has a most important place; but it is as being the subject vessel of the Spirit of God — the scene where the Holy Ghost sets forth Christ. If human pretensions are allowed, or the world made much of, it is not the Church of God led of the Spirit. It may be man's church, or the world-church, but it is not the Church of God. What characterizes the Church is the owned, recognized, carried-out truth of the Spirit's presence.

There may be failure, as there is in an individual Christian man, who may show temper, pride, or vanity; still he will feel it, when he is brought to his senses, though the Lord may have to break a person's bones sometimes, like Job, to make him know what he is. The true action of the Holy Ghost, whether in the individual or in the body, is in the exaltation of Christ. And if you have the individual failing, or the Church, it will come to the same thing. God will never allow an assembly that He owns to go on in evil. He knows how to chastise a Christian assembly as well as a Christian man. He will deal with them if they are honest. We ought to be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication make our requests known unto God. We need not be restless and tried about this or that. We often fail in thinking what we may do in talking to people; whereas if we spoke a good deal more to God, and less to man, others would not be losers, and we should be gainers, and God would be far more glorified.

However that may be, what we find here is that the Spirit of truth is the power of holiness — that the Spirit of God it is which enables a Christian man to walk aright, not the law. That is the point he brings them to: and so he concludes the matter, "If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law." It is plain that if to be under the law were the means of Christian holiness, it would have been said, "If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are under the law," rather than, ye are not under the law."

But men are blinded. Though they constantly take up the commandments, repeat them and teach them, yet they say they are not under the law! How could persons be more under the law than when they adopt the language of the Ten Commandments, as the expression of their own relationship before God? It is done as literally and definitely by Christian people, at the present-day, as it ever was even by the children of Israel themselves. For persons to say that while acting and speaking thus in their public worship, they are at the same time not under the law, is evidently to cheat their souls in a very fearful manner. What is meant by being under the law? That I acknowledge myself under that rule as what God has given me, the rule by which I have to live. If a person were to use the law for the purpose of convincing a poor, ungodly man of his sins, that is not to be under the law. But if I take up the ten words, and ask God to enable me to keep each, this is to confess myself under the law.

Then may I break the law? God forbid. Such an alternative could only emanate from one who understands little indeed of the grace of Christ. All admit that the law is good and righteous. The question is, whether the God that gave the law to Israel has given the same to Christians, as the rule by which they — we — are to live? I deny it. He gave it to Israel. What He has given to the Church is Christ. Christ is unfolded in the whole word of God; and what the Christian has to walk by, is the entire word of God; and so taught as to manifest Christ. If it is taken up in mere letter, what does the Scripture say? It kills; but the Spirit gives life. One may take up Exodus 20 and draw from part of that chapter a statement of the grace of God. When God gives the law, He tells them that He was the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage. One might show how we, too, are delivered out of our bondage. This is quite grace, as far as it goes. But the moment you put Christians under the law as that which they have to walk by, like an Israelite of old, you are doing the very evil that the Epistle to the Galatians was intended to correct, and what the Holy Ghost says those led by the Spirit do not. "If ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law." So men are doing at the present time — taking up the language of the commandments that were intended for Israel, and this not merely to convict of sin; but they undertake them as the directory of their own obedience to God every day. Yet they are obliged to explain away a great deal of the law; for instance, the sabbath-day. They keep, and very properly, the Lord's-day; and I keep it too. But I deny it to be the sabbath-day, and maintain that the first day and the seventh day are not the same thing. Scripture always contrasts the first day with the seventh. The one is the first, the other is the last day of the week. The first day is a new thing, altogether apart from the law. People think that the keeping of a seventh day is the important thing. But this is not what God says, but the seventh day; and we are not at liberty to alter Scripture. This is not hearing the law, but destroying it. Who gave any man liberty to change the for a? specially as the change makes an all-important difference. Let us only beware of tradition and seek to understand the word of God.

The denial that the law is the Christian's rule of walk is far from impairing holiness. The Holy Ghost brings in a deeper character of holiness than was even tasked in the Ten Commandments. When our Lord said, "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," He did not mean righteousness imputed to us, but practically true. The Christian has a righteousness that is real. It is true that we become the righteousness of God in Christ, but that this is the only righteousness of the believer, I dispute. The Holy Ghost produces a real work in his soul, founded upon the work of Christ — separation from the world, devotedness to God, obedience, and love; and all these things, not merely according to the Ten Commandments, but according to the will of God as it was fully displayed in Christ. If any man hold that because the Lord kept the law, He did nothing else, one pities him. The keeping of the law was a small part of His obedience; and we are called to be like Christ in His devotedness to God at all cost. A first principle of practical Christianity runs thus: "If when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." This is a thing guise unknown to the legal system. In the Ten Commandments we find, if a man obeyed his parents, he should live long on the earth. That this is not the principle on which God now deals is most evident; for we have all known most obedient children taken away in early days. Am I denying that there is an important spiritual truth for me to gather from that very word? Quite the contrary. St. Paul himself refers to this promise, not at all, as it seems to me, as a motive why a christian child should obey its parents, but as the general indication of God's mind. It was the first commandment with promise.

The spiritual instincts of Christians, let me add, are beyond their system; and although they are doctrinally under the law, they desire to walk in the Spirit. I have not a single unkind feeling against those who maintain that state of things. But the Spirit of God does speak of it as a very great error and peril. What we have to do, then, is to understand the mind of God, to give utterance to it and obey. "If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law." The Jews were. Whenever we see the people of God in Scripture under the law, it always means Israel. If a man now puts himself in a Jewish position, he takes upon himself that responsibility. In his faith he may be a Christian; but in outward forms and ordinances he is at least half a Jew,. We ought to seek that they may be Christians, and nothing else — to have done with that which covers and obscures the character of Christ, and for which they have to pay the sad penalty either of carelessness of life, or of having their hearts cast down and doubting, instead of enjoying the liberty with which Christ has made us free.

After this the apostle draws out the contrast of the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit.

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest" — there was no difficulty to discern them — "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like." Thus you have human corruption and human violence. You have idolatry and witchcraft brought in, and on the other hand, seditions and heresies, which refer to the party-spirit that might be at work even under a christian profession. A child of God might slip into any of these evil things for a time; but there is a solemn sentence pronounced upon them — "Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." He warns them now, as he had while he was with them, "that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Whatever the difficulty may be, let us never doubt, but most firmly receive it as from God, that Christ is the power of God to every one that believes. He is the power of God not merely to justification, but to salvation; and salvation, while it includes justification, goes far beyond it, because it takes in all the course of a christian man till he is actually in the resurrection state along with Christ. This is the meaning of the verse, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" — not your own forgiveness, but your own salvation. It is said to those who were already forgiven. Thus, salvation, in the sense spoken of there, implies the whole conflict with the power of evil we are passing through. We know that we have to do with the common enemy; but God is at work in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. We know the deep concern and regard which God feels for us, as committed to this conflict. We are fighting under His orders — doing His will in that thing as well as in others. So far is God from leaving us in any way, that He assures our soul He is pledged to see us through to the end; but He will have a solemn sense of the war with Satan in which we are engaged.

Then we have, on the other side, "the fruit of the Spirit is love." He begins with love — that which is of God, and flows directly from God, and which is the knowledge of God's character more than any other thing. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith." Such are the first and weightiest effects produced by God's love. Then he gets down to what would more particularly deal with one another: "meekness, temperance," because these suppose the bridle put upon the evil nature — the self-control which the Holy Ghost works in the soul for the Lord's sake, as evidently being set in this world to be an epistle of Christ, so that we should not give a false character to Him whose name we bear. But all these are the fruits of the Spirit; and he adds, "against such there is no law." When did law ever produce these? So the law will never condemn those who walk in these things; as he says to the Roman saints, Romans 13, speaking of governors and rulers, "Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good." So here, "against such there is no law." If you are producing these fruits of the Spirit, there is no condemnation against them.

Is the old nature then forgotten? Or is the law needed. for disciplining it? The belief so thinks; but the word says, on the contrary, "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts." He shows that all that are Christ's have gone through the great question of what was not His: they have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. They have submitted, by faith, to the sentence of death on all their nature — they have "crucified the flesh." We know, of course, that it is only really and fully done in Christ — that it is in the cross of Christ that the crucifixion of the flesh, with all its lusts, has taken place. Hence, too, it is true of every believer. The flesh, with the affections and lusts, is a thing already done with in God's sight. If we are Christians at all, we have crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts If it were only a person just born of God, he might say he has "crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts."

But it may be asked, Have not I the flesh to crucify? I answer, it is done already: you have to believe it, and to walk in the strength that faith gives you. What a comfort to know that the flesh is a judged thing — that sentence of death has been executed on it! What will strengthen more than, that you are not alive in the flesh now, but living in the Spirit? And "if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." Let this be the standard by which you desire to be directed — that you have the Holy Ghost dwelling in you, and willing to strengthen you in Christ. Let your aim be to walk in that fire of things.

The Lord grant us to have wisdom from above, to know what we are, and what we are not: that we may believe, whatever be the evil, whatever its strength or tendencies, there is the power of the Holy Ghost to strengthen us against and above every evil thing. But the Holy Ghost will not put forth His power, except as Christ is before us. If we seek to please self in anything, we shall only find that God will turn the self-pleasing we choose to our chastening. And therefore what a happy privilege that, in submission to God, we may, as we should, give ourselves to the glory of Christ in everything.

Galatians 6.

The close of the last chapter had shown us the works of the flesh on the one hand, and the fruits of the Spirit on the other, with the very solemn injunction to the children of God that if they lived in the Spirit, (which they necessarily did, if they were children of God,) they were also to walk in the Spirit. It was in vain to speak about privilege, if there was indifference to practical ways. We cannot have life in the Holy Ghost, without also being bound by the most solemn sanctions that the Holy Ghost should also be the grand directing force of the walk. The act is but the outward expression of the inner principle. The life can only be absolutely known to God: the walk is that which is manifested before men. But now, besides exhorting them to beware of vain-glory, whatever form it might take, whether of provoking, or of envying one another, (Gal. 5: 26), we have fresh ground taken at the beginning of chapter 6.

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Supposing a person goes altogether wrong, and is positively surprised into what is plainly evil, what then? Still the Holy Ghost presses that the spiritual should "restore such an one in the spirit of meekness." A very weighty word indeed. For, first, in case of a fall, through want of watchfulness and dependence upon God, we learn who are most adapted to meet the need. It is the obligation of all in a general way; but who are those that the Holy Ghost urges to deal well with such a case? "Ye which are spiritual." Now it does not follow that he who is born of God is spiritual. To "live in the Spirit" is a very different thing from being "spiritual." A spiritual person not only lives, but walks in the Spirit. Of course, he has the infirmities of other men, and may at times show nature; but in an obvious way, taken as a whole, through the grace of God, he has learnt to judge, not to spare self, to detect, especially in himself, departure from the Lord, and to own it frankly and humbly before God. In consequence of this habitual self-judgment, there will be far greater tenderness in dealing with sin in others. They may have a keen discernment; but where it comes to that which is real and most serious — which perhaps many would give up as making the case hopeless, and think that the person could not be a Christian at all — they, knowing more of the subtlety of the flesh as well as of the grace of God, are able to count upon His goodness, and are the very persons to deal with the evil and to restore that soul. So that you will always find in cases that call for gracious handling, it is for the spiritual, not those that are the most used themselves to trip, not those that are apt to indulge the flesh and depart from the Lord. These men some might think the most like]y to deal pitifully with such as stumble; but on the contrary, those are called for who walk circumspectly and in self-judgment, as a general rule, and who are thus kept from slipping, through habitual leaning on a faithful Lord; because the very power that preserves them from going astray is what gives them to understand the grace of God and to use that grace for others. Accordingly these are told to "restore such an one in the spirit of meekness."

He adds further, "Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." This would justly be before the mind's eye of a spiritual man. He has the deepest sense of his own weakness; and hence would he most readily esteem others better than himself. How is that? Not of course that he who has made progress in the ways of God is to count a babe's knowledge greater than his own. Not that there are not, on the one hand, in the Church, those who are least esteemed, and on the other, men of tried and spiritual judgment. Not that we are to suppose all alike wise, strong, and honourable. This would be not faith, but fanaticism, and contrary to every right thought. In what sense then are we to esteem "others better than ourselves?" When a soul that is in any measure spiritual, thinks of himself, what he feels is his immense falling short of Christ. He has habitually before him how greatly he fails, even of that which he desires in his ways before God. But when he looks at his brother-christian, let him be the feeblest possible, and sees him as a beloved one of Christ, in full acceptance in, and the object of, the Father's tender affections, this draws out both love and self-loathing! Thus, if grace be at work, what is Christ-like in another saint rises at once before the heart, and what is unlike Christ in himself. So that it is not a question of striving to cultivate high feelings about one's neighbours, and to think them what they are not, but really believing what is true about them, and feeling rightly about ourselves too. If one thinks of what a saint is in Christ and to Christ, and what he will be through Christ, then one's heart takes in the wonder of His love, and how much the Lord makes of him: but when the eye is turned to oneself, all the unworthy ways and feelings and shortcomings come up in humiliating remembrance. So, in considering "thyself, lest thou also be tempted," with this difference, that it is not so much looking at what we have been, as at what we have to fear and watch against.

But, further, in the next verse he presses upon them the bearing of one another's burdens. There are difficulties, trials, sorrows; there are things in the shape of infirmity; there are circumstances of the most variedly painful nature that press upon the children of God. Now, if we wish to show our value for the saints, opportunity need not be lacking. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." Stoop down, and take up that which your brother groans under. The Ten Commandments may not demand it; but so you will fulfil the law of Christ. This is the law for us Christians. It is not a question of the law of Moses; because although that was the law of God, and always must be the measure with which God deals with the natural man, He is dealing here with those who were living in the Spirit; and the law at Sinai was never given to the spiritual man, but to a fleshly people, even to Israel. The law deals with the natural man, and therefore with what is evil in him. Who can tell the new man, "Thou shalt not kill;" "thou shalt not steal?" Does the new man ever lust, or commit adultery? The very notion carries upon its face the evidence that the whole theory is false. The law of the Ten Commandments never was addressed to the new man at all. The new man can make use of it; but this is a very different thing from taking it up as the language of its own responsibility before God. If we are saints, we are not doing to live, but living to do our Lord's will without such a thought as death or the curse.

You who contend for a legal rule, what, I ask, is this "law of Christ?" Christ was always occupied about others. He never did, in one act of His life, His own will. This is precisely to be holy in love, which Christ was: obedient and truthful in love was what characterized all His existence here below. Supposing we were to do any and every duty merely because we thought it right, it would be always wrong. As a Christian, I should have failed in what is nearest to God, and for this simple reason — that merely doing duty because it is duty, does not put the soul in the attitude of obedience, but may be only proud self-pleasing, and homage to the innermost idol of the heart. To do what I judge right may therefore be no better than a subtle rebellion against God. I have no right to choose my own path. I am under obedience, if I tale the place of being His creature; and still more, if I am and own myself His child. The question, then, is, What is my Father's will? How beautifully our Lord showed this, even before He entered upon the public part of His ministry! He had always, and in the highest sense, the consciousness of His own relationship. "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?' And so it was in every case. Take Him afterwards in His ministry. Even in a matter that had so strong an appeal to His affections as a man, when Lazarus was a-dying, why does He stay in that place two days after hearing that he was sick? He acts not only not on the ground of mere right, but not on the ground of mere love to the person He loved; He must have the Father's command before He goes.

This is what we need to bear in mind. If you take the law given at Sinai, you have God requiring that which condemns a sinner. God was not manifesting Himself there as Father. Take, again, the sovereign of this country: she sends out her army to attack some foreign enemy, or a word of authority to deal with some rebellious province. Who would argue that she was acting as a mother in these cases? Who would conclude that thus we view her in relation to her children? It is as a sovereign, and with rebellious subjects, that she so acts. At Sinai there was a nation, God's rebellious subjects; and He was laying down in thunder and lightning, and with a voice more terrible than either, what He could not but require from guilty Israel. But when God, who spoke thus terribly, speaks now, how is it? By His Son. It is the same God, but His voice how different! God always maintains His right and title, not only to make good that which He uttered in connection with Israel of old, but to bring in that which is new. What means a new covenant, if it does not antiquate that which went before?

So here, we have the law of Christ, in pointed contrast with the law of Moses, which dealt with rebellious flesh. The law of Christ directs those who live in the Spirit, and ought to be walking in the Spirit, but who have got, nevertheless, an evil nature still. And how are they to be strengthened in the new nature, and to overcome the old? He points them at once to Christ, and says, "Bear ye," etc. Such is the loving, unselfish way to fulfil the law of Christ. Interest your soul about saints in need and distress; and even if there is that which is positively evil, it will cast you upon God to bring out something from Christ suited to lift up the soul that has slipped into the mire. He first introduces the flagrant case of a person falling into sin, and then he enlarges it. If you want to know what is the path of Christ now, and the will of God, this was what Christ was doing. He came into a world full of evil and opposition to God — full of pride and vanity, and what was He doing? "He went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed of the devil," etc. Though we may not be able to work miracles, yet in all that is in spirit like Christ, the moral principle of the life of Christ here below is precisely that which every believer has. If you have Christ at all, you have Christ not only for atonement, but as your life. He that believeth on the Son has everlasting life; and the everlasting life is Christ, just as truly as by being born into the world from Adam I have got an old natural life that loves evil, and which, as it grows in strength, grows in capacity for self-will. Even so, if I believe in Christ, there is this new life produced, which is developed in proportion as Christ is fed upon and looked to, and as Christ's words and ways are pondered over by the soul.

There is an assimilating power communicated thus to the believer by the Holy Ghost. The words of our Lord are spirit and life. It is not only that they produce life in the first instance, but they sustain the life, and are the means of its vigour. And this is what the Apostle Peter shows us. (1 Peter 1) He speaks of the incorruptible seed, the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever. But then he shows that the same word of God which is the means of first imparting the life through the revelation of Christ, is also the provision for strengthening and refreshing it. Therefore he exhorts them that, as new-born babes, they should desire the sincere milk of the word. The word of God which is first used to introduce the life into the soul, through the making known of Christ, is that which now keeps up the life, draws it out, brings it into healthful exercise. And here is one way — "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." This is what Christ was doing when He was here below. He did not please Himself. He never chose the path of ease; but, on the contrary, every case of wretchedness and sin and sorrow was what occupied the Lord Jesus, provided it were the will of God. When He took His place as man on earth, there was the continual exercise of communion between the Lord Jesus and His Father, the spirit of dependence upon the living God that never acted without His Father's direction. And so it should be with our souls. If we are thus laying ourselves out to bear one another's burdens, we need to wait upon God about it to know what the will of the Lord is. It is not the law nor ordinances, but "bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."

"For if a man think himself to be something," etc. This is the invariable effect of law acting upon the spirit. It supposes a man to have power — at any rate, to be still alive as a man in the world. But this is the very thing which, even in our baptism, we declare is no longer our confession. For what does the baptism of a Christian man set forth? It is the acknowledgment of the Christ who is dead and risen, and that, in Christ's death, I am dead to sin and the world, and God's judgment too. I have passed out of the scene of living men upon the earth, and am introduced into a new condition before God; I have entered upon a new life; I am dead to what I formerly lived to, and alive to that which I was formerly dead to. Into all this Christ brings him that believes.

Manifestly, then, "If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." The law never crushes the pride of man; and man will bear with anything that supposes he can do something. The law works upon the mere nature of man, and puffs him up, unless it be used of the Holy Ghost to slay him in his conscience. Nature perverts it to the notion that it can do something; and people love this, and are the more pleased with themselves. This is what the gospel destroys by the very roots. And hence persons who are uncommonly self-satisfied when put upon the ground of doing great things for God, would be deeply mortified and offended if told plainly that they are not capable of serving Him. How few would bear to hear that they had never worshipped God all their life, and cannot till born of God! They are offended at such a doctrine as this, because it males self nothing and God everything; it brings before them what an awful peril they are exposed to — lost indeed. If they believed it, they would cry out to God about it, and look to God to give them new life. But as long as men are dealt with on legal principles, the distinction between what is of the first man and the Second is, more or less, merged. Man is addressed as such, and not thoroughly as a sinner, or as a saint; but the two things are confused together: so that souls do not know clearly whether they are saved or lost, whether they have passed from death unto life, or are still under the wrath of God. This is the reason why we find so many, even some who are true believers, frequently suffering from clouds and eclipses. The root of the matter is the abuse of the law. It was what worked among the Galatians; and what has tied and bound with the chain of their sins so many thousands of God's children ever since. Thus it was acting upon their flesh and it made them think themselves to be something, when in truth they were nothing; and if a man does, evidently, as the apostle adds, "he deceiveth himself." Nothing can be more cutting than the words here.

But if they bowed to the word and were willing to be nothing, but that God should work, he adds, "let every man prove his own work." God begins upon the ground that we are nothing; that the wise man must become a fool, in order that he may learn to be wise. Man does not like it, and kicks against it; and the consequence is, that he always remains in his own imbecility. Whereas you will never get a man in the truth of his own ruin without finding God there in the truth of His love, giving him eternal life in His Son. And what then? Let him "prove his own work; and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another." Supposing one really to examine everything, thus thoroughly to prove his work, then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. There the apostle is giving a home-thrust: let him put it to the proof. No doubt the Lord will own true service; but wherever a man honestly examines and proves his work, it is never a subject of self-gratulation, but most humiliating in every possible way. But, at least, when the true time comes, there will be the reaping, if we faint not.

The apostle winds up this part of his subject by another word, and one that might appear to be paradoxical, if compared with the second verse. "For every man shall bear his own burden." In fact, we have here the two great practical principles of Christianity: the one is active energetic love, which bears the burdens of others; and the other is personal responsibility. "Every man shall bear his own burden." Observe, this is not speaking about salvation. If a man had to bear his own burden in the matter of justification before God, it would be to destroy every hope. "Enter not," says the Psalmist, "into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." If in this question God enters into judgment with me, I am lost. He says, "Enter not into judgment" (not with a sinful man, but) "with thy servant." It is a converted or regenerate man. Therefore it is that our Lord brings out, in the question whether a man shall not be left to perish in his own death, or be delivered by the power of the life of Christ, a totally different principle. He says, "Verily I say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." You will observe that in this passage I have altered the word "condemnation" to judgment;" I have done it advisedly, because it is the only true meaning of the word. "Condemnation" is a positive mistake. That which is rightly translated "condemnation" elsewhere, is totally different from this. Thus, "there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus," is not the same word at all. But sometimes where our Lord and the Holy Spirit say "judgment," the translators have ventured to depart from the word of God, and have introduced "condemnation."

Nor is this confined to one passage only. In the remarkable revelation about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, a very similar mistake occurs. The translators have introduced a word and idea of their own, unequivocally erroneous: and have ventured to say, that "he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself." It is not true. God says, "he eateth and drinketh judgment to himself." There is no competent judge, no christian man acquainted with the language of the Holy Ghost, that could deny it, if he fairly examined the evidence. Human tradition accounts for the proneness of persons to put aside plain principles of the truth. For it is not so much a question to be decided on critical grounds; but such an alteration contradicts the whole object of the Holy Ghost in the passage. What is the apostle telling these Corinthians? You have been treating the supper of the Lord unworthily, by making it a common thing. Some of you have gone so far as to forget yourselves in open, gross sin. There is a peculiar solemnity about the Lord's supper as about the Lord's day. He who pretends that the Lord's day is the Sabbath, and that the Lord's supper resembles a Jewish ordinance, does not know what the two most characteristic christian institutions mean. The Lord's day differs from every other day, the day of grace and resurrection (the Sabbath being the token of creation and law). So with the Lord's supper: in it the Lord sets before the believer his perfect deliverance, the blood and the broken body of Christ, and gives the witness to his soul that he is free from all condemnation. Now, says the apostle, you who have eaten and drank as at a common meal, you have been participating unworthily. For a converted person might eat and drink unworthily. These Corinthian saints took it lightly, and the devil got advantage over them, and some had even become drunken. This, says the apostle, was to eat and drink judgment to themselves, not the Lord's supper. The consequence was that some of them were sick, and others were dying. He lets them know that the Lord was judging them, and laying His hand upon them. But this most unquestionably was judgment, not "damnation." And what was the end of the Lord in all this? "That we should not be condemned with the world." "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world." It is that we should not have damnation; whereas the common version makes it out that they were exposed to this very doom. Read the word as "judgment," and you will find that an entirely new light is thrown on the passage. Introduce the wrong word, and you disturb the balance, beyond all recovery; but the moment you return to the true sense, suggested in the margin, all is made plain. What before was dark, and troubled your soul, now you see to be simple, and solemn, holy, and withal comforting. If you have been treating the memento of the Lord's sufferings lightly, you are in danger of thus coming under His hand. Some had even been taken away; but it is, "that we should not be condemned with the world." The intimation is, that they were such naughty children that they could not be left in this world any longer. Therefore He put sickness upon them, and took them away by death.

The meaning of the word (κριμα) in 1 Corinthians 11 is closely akin to that in John 5 (κρισις). What our Lord is teaching in the gospel is that men must have one or the other thing from Christ — either life or judgment. The main difference is, that in John 5 the judgment is the final and eternal act of judging; whereas 1 Corinthians 11 speaks of a disciplinary process in this world. But the right word is "judgment," not "condemnation." Our Lord shows Himself to be the giver of life in communion with the Father, and the exclusive executor of judgment. He is giving life now: whoever believes in Him, has life; whoever refuses Him must come into judgment. For no person can be the object of both life and judgment. The reason why people shall come into judgment, is because they reject the Son of God and eternal life in Him. "He that hath the Son hath life." This is the point of our Lord's words. They might ask, How is this life everlasting to be had I Is it by obedience? or by an ordinance?

Neither the one nor the other. "Verily I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life." He that so hears and believes, knows that God is interested about souls — that He wishes to have them happy and without sin through the Lord Jesus Christ. But further, "he shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." It is the very same thing in Heb. 9: 27. "As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." It is the same word. This is man's portion, from which he cannot escape. Man as such must die, and must be judged. But mark, it is he who lives and dies as a mere natural man. It is not said that it is so appointed for the Christian. On the contrary, there are many Christians that will never die; and no saint will ever be judged eternally.

I must prove what I am saying by other passages. "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." That is, the living saints are caught up with the dead that are risen already. But take another scripture. "We shall not all sleep." Men must all die; but "we shall not all sleep." We shall not all necessarily die; but we shall all be changed. Whether they be dead Christians, or living ones, all must be changed, conformed to the image of the Firstborn, glorified in their bodies. But all saints will not have departed this life, nor need resurrection; for those Christians who will be found alive when Christ comes, will be taken up to be with Christ, and changed into His glorious image, without passing through death at all, like so many Enochs, at once transformed into the likeness of Christ's glory. This is what all of us as Christians ought to be waiting for, without knowing when it may be. Therefore it is said, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."

But what will become of those who have refused Christ? They must all be judged. "It is appointed unto men once to die; but after this the judgment." But more than this — "as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." There you have the two portions: — man's, death and judgment; the Christian's, Christ, the one offering for sins, and about to return in glory for their full salvation, not judgment. The question of sin had been so completely settled at the first coming of Christ, that not a single question will ever be raised about it. When He comes again, "He will appear the second time without sin [i.e., apart from sin, having nothing to do with it] unto salvation." He had suffered for sin Himself — put it away Himself; and the consequence is, every believer, no matter where he is, no matter what his ignorance may be, is entitled to wait for the Lord, who will come for him, and come for all that have slept in Christ before him; he is entitled to know that Christ will never call him into judgment, because, having been judged for him, and having for ever put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, He shall appear to such the second time without sin unto salvation. But those who refuse Christ, so far from not coming into judgment, will be raised expressly for it from the dead afterwards. This is the "resurrection of judgment." Its effect, doubtless, will be damnation, but its scriptural designation is "judgment." It is the same word as before. The object of raising the evil will be for judgment. And what is the character of the believer's resurrection? Life — that the same life which is now given to our souls should have its full course and display over our bodies — that we should be perfectly filled with the life of Christ, body and soul.

Such is the Christian's expectation. Hence, in this fifth verse, ("Every man shall bear his own burden,") it is not the least a question of bearing each our burden in judgment. If this were so, not a soul could be — not one deserves to be — saved. For who has not been guilty of sins, dark and deadly sins? — sins that God could not possibly forgive, unless He had a perfect way of His own, and He has. But that way cost Him His Son, and the cross of His Son; and the cross is the triumph of God. In it Christ has put away sin for ever for every soul that believes in Him. Therefore when He says, "Every man shall bear his own burden," it is simply in view of the difficulties and trials in practical life. Mind, he says, that you bear one another's burdens; — but, after all, every man must bear his own burden. Every one of us must have to do with God for himself. We cannot get any one else to answer for us. Some make Hebrews 13: 17 (" they watch for your souls as they that must give account") to teach that ministers answer for the souls of others; but this is nonsense, or worse. The principle is false. There is no such thing as a person giving an account of another's soul. Each must give an account of himself to God. The sinner must be judged; but every saint, as well as sinner, must give account of everything unto God. The believer, says our Lord, shall not come into judgment; which means that a man is put upon his trial to see whether he shall be saved or not. This can never be the case with a Christian man. Everything will be opened out before the Lord — not only the sins we may have done since we were believers, but what we committed when we were unconverted. We might suppose this would be inexpressibly terrible. But let us remember that the condition in which the believer will give account of himself to God, is when he will be like Christ — when he has not one feeling which is not of Christ — no desire but what will be for the glory of Christ; all sense of shame will be gone, and only that will abide which is according to Christ. The thought that Christ will set us all perfectly, like Himself, in glory, is at once an answer to every anxiety of the soul. But while this is true, it is important to bear in mind that now there is a very active judgment going on. The Father is watching our ways and dealing with us; and we ought to be examining our ways day by day. Every one, saint or sinner, must render to God an account of himself: His power will accomplish it in both; in the one, to his utter condemnation — in the other, that he may learn how absolutely he is indebted to the grace of God. But this is a different thing from judgment. We cannot too strongly press, that to appear before the judgment-seat of Christ is not necessarily judgment. No word of Scripture can ever set aside the truth that "he that believeth ..... shall not come into judgment." God never contradicts Himself. Every man bearing his own burden has to do with our responsibility. What a wonderful thing is this! — that we have done with our responsibility as men; and having got Christ, a new responsibility is begun for us. We have now to behave ourselves as those, who have eternal life, who belong not to ourselves, but to Him who died for us and rose again. Now commences our responsibility to live to Christ — to devote to Him the new life that God has given us, conscious that along with this the Lord sifts day by day our ways.

Then comes another thing, and it would appear that these saints had forgotten it: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth, in all good things." I think there is a little danger of ourselves forgetting this kind of relationship to all those whom the Lord has raised up for the good of the Church. There are certain landmarks never to be obliterated. One is this very thing — the privilege and obligation of the taught to remember Christian teachers in love. It is not said, To him that teacheth them; but, "To him that teacheth." What blessed largeness of feeling this! Supposing you are free from such a need in the particular place where you live, are you to be so shortsighted as to overlook the claims of the Lord elsewhere? This would be selfish indeed. Nothing could be more degrading for Christians than, when they have abandoned evils here or there, and do no longer what was almost compulsory, that they should take advantage of the name of the Lord to have what one might call a cheap Church; forgetting that they belong to the Church of God as a whole. "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Let none suppose that this was given only for early days; or that any circumstances can alter the responsibility of the saints in this respect. It is well for us to remind one another of it, that we are members of the body of Christ. Take the case of persons labouring abroad: has not that a voice for us? What a claim upon our love and sympathy! The Lord looks for far greater self-denial and service of love now than when it was a question of law. Let us not content ourselves with ceasing to do evil; but also learn to do good.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption." Evidently there it is a question of self-indulgence in one way or another. If there is a heart for the Lord, a way will soon be found wherein to serve Him fully; but that way often demands much self-denial. No circumstances set this aside. "God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." This is very strong, yet most true. A person might say to me, I understood you to teach, that those that believe had life everlasting already; but here it is said, He that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Both statements are of the utmost value; but the point of view is totally different. If God is exhorting His people to a holy walk, He shows that life everlasting is the crown of that walk, and the end of it. Whatever may be the salvation that grace brings in, it never sets aside the value of holy devotedness to God. And, therefore, those who have true faith, manifest also real holiness; and only those. The two things coalesce. The believer in Christ receives everlasting life. What is the consequence? He sows to the Spirit, and reaps life everlasting. The life everlasting here is evidently what we are to have in glory. The everlasting life spoken of by John is what the saint possesses on earth. Both are tree. In glory he will find everlasting life without alloy. I receive it now as a believer from Christ, and I find it in heaven, pursuing the path of the holy will of God. The life-resurrection of believers consists of those who have done good here below. "Let us not be weary in well-doing; for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." There is often a great danger of relaxing in the course. A man starts well and graciously; but after awhile he finds that he has been taken advantage of by so many people, that he becomes reserved and suspicions. This is to be weary in well-doing, or its effect. He is determined to be duped no more. The truth is, there is a great deal of flesh in that kind of talk and feeling. Where souls are occupied with the grace of God, they are not so easily worn out. Because another has been selfish, is that a reason why a saint should become selfish too? The becoming state for a Christian is to have an open, generous heart, and to be active in looking out for suitable ways of doing good. The Lord does not say, Give what they ask; but the principle remains true, that the Christian is to keep the blessed vantage ground of being the giver. If I am on the standing of law, I shall merely be a bargainer; but if on the ground of grace and faith in Christ, I shall have the more blessed place; and it is more blessed to give than to receive. This reaping, plainly, is in glory. We are not to expect it here. We may meet with that which is sweet and grateful, but we are not to be surprised if we do not, and if there is much from men that is painful. Let us remember, it is to the Lord we are lending. Is there anything disappointing there? He that looks to the Lord is never disappointed. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men." This is the business of the Christian — doing good, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith." There is a special connection with saints; but we are not to stop there. "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, specially unto them who are of the household of faith."

It is important to bear in mind, in reading every part of the word of God, that there is nothing brought in without the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost. There is one particular passage in 1 Corinthians 7, where the apostle asserts expressly, that it was not the I,ord, but himself, who gives a certain judgment about the natural relations of believers. But even the apostle did not write thus without the Holy Ghost. He was inspired to say it was not the Lord, but himself. Hence there is not the slightest contrariety, even in so exceptional a manner of speaking. Again, take the Book of Job, where you have Satan speaking, as well as elsewhere. But then, while no intelligent person would assert that what Satan said was inspired, yet the writer of the book was inspired to give it to us perfectly; the writer was thoroughly led of God to present just so much of what those concerned said, good or evil, man, Satan, or the Lord Himself, as would accomplish the divine object in that writing. Thus there is no exception whatever in the Bible to the grand truth that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." This is not a mere deduction of man, but the positive doctrine of God Himself. Everything coming under the designation of "Scripture" (πᾶσα γραφή) is inspired of God. Such is the express statement of the Apostle Paul in his last epistle, (2 Tim.,) not limiting it, I apprehend, to what was already extant, but leaving room also for what was to be written; such as the Apocalypse. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," etc. Whether what had been given, or the little that remained in order to close the canon of the Bible, all was equally from God; not all is equally lofty in its character, not all taking the form of doctrine, not even all revelation — for revelation and inspiration are two different things. In giving the account of our Lord's life, the writers occasionally, of course, reported what they themselves saw and heard. It was inspired, but a revelation is that which man never knew. When the Apostle Paul says, It is by the word of the Lord I declare unto you, that the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, that is not merely an inspired portion, but a revelation. So, of course, all prophecy is necessarily a revelation; and it was only in case of a positive revelation that there was any licence to hinder a person who might be speaking; no matter how important what he was communicating, if something was revealed to another who was sitting by, he was entitled to stop the speaker. This is necessarily, it seems to me, at an end now. Revelation being complete, any attempt to act upon it would be not only irregular and indecent, but a virtual pretension to a new revelation, which is positively false, and a dishonour to the old. When there was still a part of the mind of God yet to be imparted, God maintained the sovereign right of His Spirit to introduce a revelation. But when all the mind of God was thoroughly revealed in His word, such a line of conduct would naturally terminate. Accordingly, although a person might have what was most truly from God, it would be his duty to wait till the due time came; flesh, Satan, might hinder, but God is above all difficulties. I make these general remarks in reference to the verse which is about to come before us.

It might seem somewhat surprising in an epistle so full of statements of doctrine, and appeals to the conscience and heart. In the midst of all this, the apostle says, "Ye see how large a letter I have written to you with my own hand. Or if you take the phrase, as it may very well be taken, "Ye see with what large letters," etc., it is still more striking. Writing was somewhat unusual, even for the Apostle Paul. To write an important document was not common, save through a secretary; it was a trade or occupation to itself. Therefore it was the habit of those occupied actively and arduously otherwise, to employ some one to write for them. In this instance! however, the apostle wrote himself, and, from not being used to writing, he drew attention to the large characters in the epistle. It was comparatively a short letter, but it was all written by him; and, from not being used to write his own compositions, the letters seem to have been in this large handwriting, executed probably with considerable difficulty to himself. For we must remember that there was a great difference in the facility afforded for writing then, and at the present time. But there was something connected with the manner and bearing of the whole epistle in this simple fact. It is not a mere isolated circumstance, but the apostle lays stress on it, because of the state and dangers of the Galatians whom he was addressing. The Holy Ghost led him out in the strongest and most ardent desire for their deliverance. He therefore put aside any thought of employing a medium between them and himself; no matter what the difficulty, he will write to them himself. On other occasions, he might employ Tertius; but the case in hand was so urgent, the question at stake so all-engrossing and momentous, that every other task must give way. It was an hour so full of grave peril, that he tales no account of time, trouble, or anything else. It was a testimony of his intense interest in these Galatian saints, and so much the more striking, because of the marled absence of his customary greetings of personal, brotherly kindness. There we have a beautiful confirmation of the remarkable way in which the Holy Ghost mentions facts that bear the impress of God's own mind, His care and love for His people, His deep concern in them. The apostle himself draws attention to the circumstances of this epistle. He had written by others, and to others, far more freely; for, as I said before, there is not a single salutation in the epistle. Not that he was straitened in desire before God; but he could not let out his Christian affections toward them. There was that in their conduct which, though it might be mingled with good, was so disastrous and contrary to Christ's glory, that he stood in doubt about them; he hoped about them, and that was all. He had confidence in the Lord touching them; but if he looked at themselves — at what they were doing and saying — he could have none.

The two facts, then — the absence of personal salutation, and his writing the letter himself — both bear a remarkable testimony to the manner of God's love working through man's heart. All the mere interchange of the fraternal amenities is at an end. People would have said, How unkind of Paul! But brotherly kindness is not love, though people often confound them. Had the apostle, as things were, sent friendly messages to one or another, it would have been merely human, and not of God. He could do that in writing to the Romans, and even to the Corinthians, but not to the Galatians. What an idea this gives of their state! And yet there were to be greater abominations than these: things incomparably worse must creep in, but these were reserved for John. And though of all others, he was (may I say it?) the conspicuous champion of love, yet so far was John from direct personal references in his first epistle, that it is not addressed to an assembly at all, but introduced without heading in the most general form; and therefore it is commonly called a catholic or general epistle. It was perhaps so written that it might be pre-eminently a sort of circular letter to the whole Church. I gather from this, that where there is that which torches the work of Christ, as in Galatians, or the person of Christ, as in St. John, all personal considerations must give way. As the Lord, in His final mission to Israel, (the Seventy, Luke 10) forbade the disciples to salute any man by the way, so here the Spirit carries out something analogous, because Christ's glory was at stake, and the foundation of all blessing was menaced. Another thing to be observed is, that the children of God generally do not understand how the mingling of the law with Christ lies at the root of a thousand difficulties. It is a rare thing now to find a Christian who is not in principle where the Galatians were. In the present state of Christendom, we have been all trained to it from our' childhood. We shall not see it only in particular spots, here and there; but in one form or another it is the universally prevalent, the settled, chronic, fatal complaint in Christendom, insinuating itself into men's thoughts and ways, and everything.

Having so spoken, with that remarkable abruptness which marks his character — for we must all have noticed the exceeding rapidity of transition from one subject to another which so frequently characterizes the writings of the apostle — he turns to the subject that agitated his spirit, and sums up in these last verses both the danger and the blessing. "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." He does not mind what people may say. They might call it imputing motives, but no matter. It is in vain to deny that legalism fraternizes with the world, and loves its own ease, loves present reward, boast as it may of piety; it is, after all, only a desire to make a fair show in the flesh. This is very important; because, I ask, What is it now that men look for, and that men would be gratified with? If you had all the world attending churches and chapels — persons walking soberly and in a decent, orderly way otherwise — what universal rejoicing over the improved state and prospects of Christendom! And what would all this be in the sight of God; I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, that, if there were no more, it would only be "a fair show in the flesh." What we, as Christians, are entitled to look for, and what we ought never to be satisfied without is, that souls pass from death unto life" — that souls should be delivered from the power of Satan and be translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Until they have passed the boundary, from the regions of men into the presence of God, what has been done that could be a positive ground of Christian joy and thankfulness? It is not a question now merely of society or the world. We know that the world is under condemnation, that ever since the cross of Christ, judgment has been impending, as decidedly as after a criminal has been tried and found guilty; as ha is waiting in his condemned cell for the sentence to be executed — such is man's condition. Do Christians realize it? Most imperfectly. If they did, could they be upon common ground with the world? Could a person go into the convict's cell and talk to him as if nothing were the matter? We must think such a speaker destitute of all right feeling. So it is in a far more awful way than the execution of a single criminal. We know well that in the day which is coming, there will be no escape then nor for eternity. "As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank. they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: they did eat, they drank, they bought they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot wells out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." God looks that all His children should bear their testimony in the world that they know from Himself that all hangs on the uncertainty of a thread; that judgment is suspended over it; that Christ is ready to judge the quick and the dead. He awaits the will of His Father. All simply turns upon that. But we are told and know that He is coming, and coming shortly; and we wait for this. Yet in the midst of this scene of a condemned world, with the Lord coming to execute judgment upon it, there is such a thing as a number of souls who have passed through the faith of Christ into life everlasting, and who know it — at least who ought to know it. They belong to Him who is going to judge, not to the scene that is going to be judged.

What is the effect of all this? They have in spirit abandoned the circumstances in which men are striving to keep up a vain show; they have repented towards God; they have bowed down to the Saviour, the Lord Jesus, and have found eternal life and peace in Him. All is settled between their souls and God. With Christ the light, the truth, the life, the fair show has vanished. And while this great transaction is going on, a large part of the world seek to be as religions as they can; i.e., to reconcile religion with the world. And as the effect of this strategy of the enemy, and of their own unwatchfulness, very many of God's children descend to it, because great names are there, appearances are there, and even the word of God may be quoted to show that it is right to walk there. This is commonly done by taking what God says to Israel, who were God's people after the flesh, governed by the law, and applying it to those who are God's people now, called to walk under grace and Christ alone, who have the Holy Ghost that they may walk in the Spirit, and not yield to anything of the flesh. The mingling of the two things beguiles Christians into what is, after all, only the religion of the flesh. They think that an earthly system of religious forms must be right now, because it had His sanction in the Old Testament. They see that God acknowledged "a worldly sanctuary" once, and they reason thence for all times and places. Thus they get drawn into the "fair show in the flesh;" the more easily, as it habitually entails an absence of persecution, nay, credit with the world. People are sensible that you cannot raise the world to walk with you above its own level of sight and reason. But the moment you come down to meet the world, you are off Christian ground. A new nature is required. Faith is indispensable. The world has not this. You must descend to the world's path, if you will take common action with the world. It is not that the world becomes Christian thereby, but that Christians thus become worldly. Such is the only issue of the attempt to join Christians with those that are not Christians in the service and worship of God.

Hear the solemn sentence: — "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." They want you to submit to these religious forms. The reason is that they dread suffering for Christ. The cross is the term of the old world, where the flesh was acknowledged; and the introduction of the new state of things where nothing but what is of the Holy Ghost is of value in the sight of God. He shows that selfishness, after all' is at the bottom. When persons are walking with the world, there is never au easy conscience. Nothing so much pleases the world as to get real Christians to walk with them. How humbling is the success of Satan in this. What God called out Christians for is to manifest a people happy in Christ, and yet having nothing but tribulation in the world. I am not speaking now of our common, every-day trials. If saints do foolish things and suffer from them like others, they have their share of the results of their own folly. But there are the trials that come upon a Christian because he is a Christian — to be despised and rejected, evil spoken of and calumniated, because he walks with God and has taken the side of God against the world; because he is a sharer of Christ's cross and waits for His glory, refusing therefore not only the world's bad, but its best things. This it is that the world is so angry at. They may talk about the faults of Christians; but were the same faults committed by the world, how soon and easily they would be got over! But where it is a Christian, there is that which makes them feel that, though the person may be weak and foolish, yet there is something above the world; and it is really this which makes them uneasy.

If the Christians in question here would only have submitted to be circumcised! But any one could be circumcised, even if unconverted. Only take a pledge with a worldly man, and he will be pleased, because you come down to a level that he can occupy with you. I am not meddling with the world's trying to reform the world; but I have much to say about the sin and the shame of Christians joining with the world in their efforts to stay the plague by means of man's promises and vows. It is altogether false ground and contrary to the gospel, which starts upon the utter badness of man's nature. Whereas the moment you do a work to improve that nature, which the worldly man can equally do, (and he can sign the pledge as well as you,) it is plain that you have reached ground where the Christian gives up Christ as his one divinely-tempered weapon for dealing with man in the flesh, and is gone back to the bow and arrows, if I may so say, of moral restraint. Indeed, I cannot but view it as a lower thing even than circumcision, which was the type of a most blessed truth — the entire putting away of the flesh. But when Christ died, all that had been merely types, and had entirely failed as adequate remedies, were buried in His grave; and now He is risen and there is a new life in resurrection, which has nothing to say to the old, save to mortify it. The reality of life has come out, and this is what the Christian has to do with now. Christ has become his life and his object too. It is the great aim of the devil to get Christians to write some other name along with Christ on God's children: so that no matter what it is, whether you take circumcision as type of spiritual blessing, or the mere natural moral restraints of the present day, it is altogether a mistake as to the object for which God has called us out in this world. The Christian is outside that sphere; he is called into the place of grace. The magistrate's place is not one of grace, but of government, which, of course, calls for the punishment of evil. That is not grace. Grace is not law, but "If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." There would be an end of all justice if magistrates were to attempt to act thus. But while the Christian has no business out of the place of grace, he is boned to respect the government, and never to speak loweringly of dignities in the world. The better he knows his own privileges, the more he can afford to maintain the honour of the magistrate. He owns it so much the more, because he does not covet it himself. He has a much better place himself; but if he knows the secret of his own joy and liberty in this world, let him at the same time acknowledge the higher powers which God has ordained in earthly rule. When persons are in the same sphere, there may be more or less rivalry; for men prefer to rule others rather than to be ruled themselves. But when a soul is entirely delivered from the world, he can the more heartily own what is of God here below, and see the wisdom of His order there. It is on this ground that the Holy Ghost always presses the Christian's obedience of the law, and honour to the king or other governor he may be under.

But to return to our subject. The apostle further shows that, after all, these zealots for circumcision did not keep the law. They only observed it in part, with no little inconsistency, however hot their feeling against the advocates of Christian liberty. This is always the case. Those who insist on the perpetuity of the sabbath, how do they keep it? It is not only that they never heed the true day; but supposing the Lord's-day were really the same as the sabbath, do they observe it according to the law? Not at all. They will tell you that Christianity, besides changing the day, has modified the mode of its observance, that the gospel mitigates the severity of God's law, etc. If this be not to make void the law through unbelief, it is hard to say what is. I deny their facts, doctrines, and conclusions. Christianity, so far from attenuating the law, or reducing its sanctions, is that which alone gives the law its full value — "By faith we establish the law." (Rom. 3: 31) The doctrine of faith, instead of weakening the law's obligation, illustrates and maintains it to the utmost. But the establishment of the law, of which the apostle speaks in Romans 3, has no reference whatever to the question of a rule by which the Christian has to walk. The chapter treats of man's ruin and God's righteousness, not of practice, and shows that faith upholds the authority of the law in the cross of Christ, which owns men's just and total condemnation, and is the basis of divine justifying righteousness, which is revealed to and becomes the portion of the believer. The law's curse fell upon Christ, which has thus been magnified to the uttermost, its full sentence having been exhausted upon the head of the Son of God. Hence, whether you look at God or man, or the Saviour, faith establishes the law, as nothing else could. But as to the Lord's-day, far from being the same as the sabbath, it is the first day of the week, not the seventh, and rests on quite different foundations. When you come to test the would-be teachers of the law, their zeal is soon seen to break down in practice; and they are easily convicted of introducing changes and modifications in order to suit the time, country, climate, and people, i.e., to suit themselves in the things of God. This theory of mitigation, and of a flexible law, can never stand a fair scrutiny. On the other hand, those who hold that the Lord's-day is a new thing, in no way connected either with creation or with the law, are under no difficulty; because they see that the same God who sanctified the sabbath originally, and gave the law to Israel, was pleased to put special honour on the first day of the week, in commemoration of redemption accomplished in the death and resurrection of Christ; but they see it as having its own proper character, and not as confounded with the sabbath. The Lord's-day calls for no mere rest which you may share with your ox or your ass; and so far from its due honour consisting chiefly in bodily quiet, I believe that if a Christian were on that day enabled to walk twenty sabbath-days' journeys on special services for the Lord, he would not only be at liberty to do that work, but that it would be most acceptable to the Lord. Each day is separated from other days by divine authority; but in other respects they differ as decidedly as law from grace, or the old creation from the new.

"For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law, but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." That is most true in the present time. The truth is not the test in the religious world, nor Christ Himself, nor His service. Refuse their party or their idols, and be prepared for reproach, calumny, scorn, and hatred. Yield to their Judaizing, and you may hold blasphemous doctrine with impunity as far as they are concerned. Touch their abuse of the law, and their cry is, "They have taken away my lord, and I know not where they have laid him." The law is their lord yet more than Christ. I am now alluding to a literal fact in the most popular organ of the so-called Evangelical, but in truth the legal, party of the day.

And now the apostle, having spoken of the evil, turns to the blessed side: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." They were glorifying in what would exalt human nature; because in that way they could get the world and its multitudes to unite with them. In chapter iii. the cross of Christ is viewed as deliverance from the law, because Christ was thereon made a curse for us. A man who believed in Christ, who owns Him as the Son of God — would you deny that he had everlasting life? But unless such an one receives tee doctrine of the cross intelligently, and applies it to his position, he is still more or less under the law, and does not understand that he is completely brought out of the old condition of things into a new ground.

In Galatians 5 the apostle applies the doctrine of the cross to the flesh, and shows that they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Here I find that my flesh is a thing I am entitled to regard as done with before God, no less than the law.

Now, in Galatians 6, comes in the third thing, the world. You have a regular gradation — freed from the law which would affect the conscience of a godly person. Then, when a man is free from that anxiety, comes in the question of the flesh, with its affections and lusts. But this, he is told, was all judged in the cross of Christ. Therefore, as a part of the comfort God gives me, I am entitled, as a matter of faith and not of mere feeling, to know, "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts." It does not say, "They are crucifying it," as if it were something going on; but it is done in receiving a crucified Christ. In God's sight, and now to faith also, their nature was nailed to the tree, and is done with before God; anti now they have got a new nature: as St. Paul says, "Not I, but Christ liveth in me." The old nature that we have still exists, of course; but to faith God has already done with it in the cross of Christ; so that the business of the christian man is to occupy himself, not with mere restraints, but with Christ; which fills the soul, by the energy of the Spirit, with all that is good, draws it out into what is lovely, and, in short, is the true power of Christian holiness. If a man is occupied with what is good, he will hate his flesh; but it is only occupation with Christ that gives the soul power thus to put the sentence of God upon the flesh. Now comes the third and last thing in Christian experience; for you will find men who know somewhat of deadness to the law and to the flesh, but who still think that it is the duty of the Christian man in this world to serve God in his generation. But how would God have Himself to be served now? Never by anything that contradicts the cross of Christ. The service of the Christian is to be founded on the cross; and what does the cross declare about the world? That it is now at open war with God. Ever since the cross of Christ, God has no alliance with the world. Before that, the world was allowed: and therefore it was not wrong for Joseph to be governor in Egypt, nor for Daniel to sit in the gate of the king of Babylon. But it is utterly ignorant to reason from what was tolerated then to what pleases God now that the cross of His Son is a fact.

God does not ignore the cross, if Christians do. The very same cross of Christ that is my salvation, my deliverance from the law and the flesh, shows me that I have no part with this world, save as a blessed stranger passing through it. We may have occupations that are all quite right; but that is not at all what you can call a thing of the world. The Lord lived here, died here, rose here, eat and drank in this world; but He never was of the world: and so it is and should be with the Christian. Our Lord did not form such a part and parcel of this world as that His appearance in it or departure from it ruffled the stream for a moment. He would not have been missed in the world; and the moment that a Christian becomes an integral part of the motive power which carries on the wheels of the world, all is out of course, as far as his allegiance to Christ goes. A Christian ought to be the means of constant blessing in this world. But how, and of what character? Bearing the testimony of Christ, of his Saviour; but as He never sought His own things — was always doing good, yet doing it as the will of His Father — always acting upon motives that were not of the world, but from above — never uniting with men's plans for the purpose of bettering man, but realizing that the world was God's enemy, and yet that God's love was sending Him into it to do them good: such was Christ, and so should it be with the Christian. A Christian's business is to be the epistle of Christ. So that the one clue and test for what comes before a person, is this: will my doing this or that be acting as an epistle of Christ? But in order to know what is consistent with an epistle of Christ, I must search His ways in the words of the Holy Ghost. There is always light in Scripture to show what is His mind for the present moment, and what it is that has passed away with the olden time, which belonged to the law and the world and to Israel, who were God's ancient witness in the world. But the Christian is the present witness of Christ, and is not of the world, although in it. This is the great means of trying our ways, and thus finding out how far we glory in the cross. That is, you have them on totally opposite principles. The cross of Christ is that which first of all crucifies the Christian to the world, puts him entirely outside it as one saved out of it; but also the world is crucified to him. There you see the world with all its unremoved guilt, ignorant of the Father, spite of the coming of the Son. So there cannot be the least common ground between a Christian and the world; any more than there could be for this country if it were at open war with any of its neighbours. If this be true, does it not show how little God's children realize their Christian position, as thus defined by the cross of Christ!

Peace made by the blood of the cross is more or less preached; but as to the moral power of the cross and its bearing upon the law, the flesh, or the world, there is hardly an atom save in the way of motive. The consequence is, that such Christians can, with a good conscience, talk about the cross, and, at the same time, still maintain what God has already judged and put away for ever. Hence the importance of full Christian deliverance is unknown — the ground-truths which ought to be understood by the babe. For the Epistle to the Galatians does not take up the highest branch of Christian truth, but rather the indispensable foundations of Christianity.

The apostle now brings in another point. To speak merely of being crucified to the world would not have been enough. There is more than that in Christ. "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." People may boast about their forms or their no-forms; but whatever it may be, it is all wrong, unless you have got positive, substantial blessing from God; unless you have the cross of Christ and the new creation. As a Christian, I belong to a system already set up in Christ, in the presence of God. I know what my new nature is when I think of Christ. I see Him risen from the dead and in glory; the perfect delight of God and of all who surround God. And there all Christians are going to be; and this in substance they have got now, the Holy Ghost Himself being the earnest of glory. For it is not merely what they are going to shine in, but they have the blessing before the blessing is manifested. The Christian possesses the new creature in perfection in Christ. "He that hath the Son hath life." It is called here the "new creation;" because it is not merely looked at as life found, but contrasted with the old, which had to do with the world. This implies not only the person, but the work of Christ. The grand work of redemption is accomplished; God's law had its free course, and righteousness is established; the voice of condemnation is never to be heard again by virtue of the cross of the Just One, who suffered for our sake. But then He is risen from the dead, and has entered upon a new and blessed existence as a risen man before God. And this is the nature which He communicates to us. "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." The consequence is that, having died but being risen, He communicates that very life which was in Him. "I am come that ye might have life, and that ye might have it more abundantly." The more abundant life is this "new creature," or life in resurrection.

"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." In the first expression, "as many as walk according to this rule," he specially looks, I think, at the Gentile believers, such as the Galatians were. "this rule" is the rule of the new creation — Christ Himself. He adds, "peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." The only part of Israel acknowledged consists of the real believing Jews. "Israel of God" seems to be used here, not as a general phrase for every saint, but for the believing ones in Israel — those Jews who had repudiated their own works and found shelter only in Christ Jesus. Two parties are spoken of, and not one only. "As many as walk according to this rule," are rather the Gentile believers; and the "Israel of God" are the Jewish saints, not the mere literal Israel, but "the Israel of God;" the Israelites indeed, whom grace made willing to receive the Saviour.

He then adds, "From henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Their fleshly wisdom had brought in confusion and every evil work, law instead of love, questions about his ministry, etc. "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." He had been scourged and put in prison. What mark of indignity had not been put upon him? These, and not circumcision, are "the marks of the Lord Jesus." Just as a slave in olden time used to bear the name of his master burnt into his flesh, so, he means, he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. — Let others bear or seek what they may, these are marks that I value. — They were the sufferings that he had endured for the sake of Christ and the gospel. Nothing more sweet and touching, but, at the same time, what a sweeping condemnation of those self-exalting men, who took their ease, in the presence of one whose life was suffering for Christ!

"Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." It is indeed most gracious and dignified. He asks not that they might feel the thunders of that law under which they desired to put themselves; but that "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ should be with their spirit," showing how thoroughly he felt the vantage-ground which grace gave him — how he could meet all these attacks upon himself — how he could point to the scars of his honourable warfare, if they talked of their circumcision, though he would boast of nothing but Christ's cross. Our wisdom is Christ, as our folly is ourselves. The Lord grant then that we may learn better to know our true wisdom and to walk in it; and while holding fast the truth, that we may desire earnestly the blessing of those who oppose it, and seek the deliverance of every soul around us. The Epistle to the Galatians is the death-blow to the religions world, root and branch, as it is to the revival or continuance of the same system, which the Apostle Paul was then so strongly denouncing, and which he shows to be the enemy, not of the saints only but of the cross of Christ.

Hebrews 1 - 6.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews with a new version.

Preface.

Not a few works of less or more value have been written on the grand Epistle to the Hebrews. Nevertheless room seemed to be left for an exposition, not occupied with the discussion of details, and demanded more than ever by the unbelieving spread in our day of ritualism, which it was written to supplant by the exhibition of the grace and truth in Christ's person, work, and office as Priest in the heavenly sanctuary. I therefore commend the work, notwithstanding every shortcoming, to Him who sent His Son in pitiful mercy to every creature, and in triumphant blessing for all that believe, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

W.K. London, May, 1905.

Introduction.

From the absence of an address it has been doubted whether this is an epistle. The closing chapter however, with not a few confirmations less marked throughout, is proof positive that it has a real epistolary nature, though, like the letter to the saints in Rome, somewhat of a treatise also. Its contents demonstrate beyond just question that the epistle before us was directed to Jews professing the name of the Lord Jesus. For all would be truly applicable if not a Gentile were called at this time to believe. Beyond all other books of the New Testament it is as to every point of doctrine and even exhortation based on the ancient scriptures familiar only to the people chosen of old. And the believing remnant of Jews as being the true "people" is strikingly kept before us throughout in Heb. 2: 17; Heb. 4: 9 (as the people of old in Heb. 5: 3; Heb. 7: 5, 11, 27); Heb. 8: 10; Heb. 9: 7 (29 bis; Heb. 10: 30; Heb. 11: 25; Heb. 13: 12); as in 1 Peter 2: 9, 10 bis (2 Peter 2: 1; Jude 5). So indeed it is with the apostle Paul (Rom. 9: 25 bis; Rom. 10: 21 Rom.; 11: 1, 2; Rom.15: 10 (21 pl.); 1 Cor. 10: 7; 1 Cor. 14: 21; 2 Cor. 6: 16). The only exception is Titus 2: 14, where "people" is used morally.

This stamps it with a character different, whoever the writer might be, from every other. It appeals to the Old Testament from first to last as no other epistle does. Yet the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets are made to speak, as it were, with new tongues. They all render a distinct, united, and glorious testimony, once earthly in the letter, now heavenly in spirit, to the Lord seated at God's right hand, His proper position for the Christian. To lead on the believing Jew to know and enjoy Christ where He is, to worship and walk in this faith, is the prime object of the bright, glowing, deeply interesting, and instructive Epistle that claims our attention.

It is therefore the inspired exercise of the teacher's gift rather than of the apostle and prophet announcing absolutely new revelations. There is no such language here as "I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery," as in Rom. 11: 25. There is not a word about his apostleship here, as in the two Epistles to the Corinthians; of the mystery of Christ, as to the Ephesians and the Colossians; nor even "this we say unto you by the word of the Lord," as to the Thessalonians. The writer speaks of others as "those that heard" the Lord; he himself is here a "teacher of" Israelites "in faith and verity." He simply cites and reasons on the ancient oracles as well as histories; he applies prophecies and expounds the types of the law but rarely, if ever, does he unveil the magnificent scenes of the latter day, when Israel shall be blessed, under Messiah and the new covenant, and the nations also in a circle, concentric indeed but not so close. He writes with the utmost fulness of Christ's exaltation on high in view of the heavenly calling and those who now partake of it before that day. In Heb. 4: 9 he touches on the broad fact of "a sabbatism" which remains for the people of God when the wilderness is past, though without detail, when we who now believe have our "better" portion on high. We may also compare Heb. 12, when the circle of the future glory, earthly and heavenly, is grouped as that to which we have come by faith already, though only to be established and displayed when the Lord appears.

Christ is never spoken of as the Head, nor consequently is. the one body wherein the old differences vanish, nor that new man wherein is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all. The nearest approach to unity is that the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one. The assembly is of firstborn ones, viewed as an aggregate of individuals and not as the body of Christ. Those who composed it were heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; but joined to the Lord as one spirit and of His body is not said here.

This may be conceived by some as implying another hand rather than Paul's. But the inference is baseless. For though he alone develops the mystery concerning Christ and concerning the church, it is only in the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, with the First to the Corinthians practically and in that to the Romans allusively. In the rest of his epistles we find "the body" no more than in that to the Hebrews; and this as distinctly in the ordering of the Holy Spirit, as in those which contain it fully. Our individual relationships are no less important than our corporate. The divine design regulates the topics introduced as much as their appropriate handling. Each epistle or other book of Scripture is perfect for the purpose God had in view when He inspired each writer. As the main object in that to the Hebrews is Christ's priesthood with its necessary basis, due adjuncts, and suited results, and as this is for the saints individually, the one body of Christ could not fittingly fall within its scope, if it were a divinely inspired composition, whether by Paul or by any other. Its central doctrine is, not we one with Him as members of His body, but He appearing before the face of God fog. us. Abiding for ever, having His priesthood unchangeable, He is able to save to the uttermost those that by Himself approach God, as He always lives to intercede for them. The same persons compose the body of Christ; but the associations are wholly distinct and only compatible through the fulness of Christ.

Some have wondered why Paul, if the writer, should not have given his name at the beginning. The peculiarity is at least equally true of any writer. It would in fact be more strange in one who had written no other epistle. If the great apostle wrote, its analogue is in the First Epistle of John, who does not prefix his name there, though in the two lesser he addresses himself "as elder" in a style unmistakably his own. In the Revelation, where the difference of the subject-matter calls for a manner of writing wholly distinct from either his Gospel or his Epistles, his name appears alike in the preface and in the conclusion. Is not this self-evidently as it should be?

Now supposing Paul to have written the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is not difficult to suggest weighty motives for his putting forward, not his own name and apostolic authority, but such a treatment of the Old Testament scriptures as must carry divine light and firm conviction to all who weigh them before God. That the Hebrew Christians were prejudiced and disputatious even in early days is a fact beyond question for one who reads Acts 11, 15, 21, to cite nothing else. They could not but feel that the doctrine of the apostle had a depth, and height, and comprehensiveness which for those so long swathed in Jewish bands made it a strain to follow him. He was apostle of the uncircumcision, in itself no small trial to ordinary minds of their mould, as we may assuredly conclude even from the apostles Peter and Barnabas, favoured as they had personally been of God toward Gentiles. Therefore does the writer, supposing him to be Paul, approach them with the most consummate delicacy and tact, as his burning love for his brethren — doubly brethren, both after the flesh and now after the Spirit — would dictate. He becomes as a Jew that he might gain the Jews; to them that were under the law as under law, though being himself not under law, that he might gain those under law. The omission of his name had thus at the starting-point a special propriety in his case beyond that of any other man.

Another ground for its omission is plain from the unusual task before him. The force of the appeal lay in its coming from the first and throughout with the authority of God; and to Jewish Christians this could be effected in no way so telling as that here employed. "In many measures and in many manners God, having spoken of old to the fathers in the prophets, spoke to us in a [or, the] Son whom He constituted heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds" (Heb. 1: 1, 2). How enfeebling would have been the apostle's introduction of himself in such a connection! Even we who were of the Gentiles, and who are of the church, would feel it in either way out of place, aesthetically in the one instance, spiritually in the other. For the Hebrew Christian no method so impressive, welcome, and authoritative. It was the true end of controversy. Impossible to evade or to gainsay that which carried in itself the evidence of God's mind revealed in His word — at least to a believer.

Hence all flows on the ground of what is confessedly divine; and any living man's authority, however truly conferred of God and admitted by believers, would be felt rather to interfere than to be seasonable. Therefore we hear in Heb. 2 of the word which, having had its commencement in being spoken "by the Lord," was confirmed to us by those that heard, even thus God also bearing witness both by signs and wonders, and manifold powers and distributions of the Holy Ghost according to His own will. In like beautiful accordance Jesus is shown in Heb. 3 to be the Apostle as well as High Priest of our confession. Clearly therefore it is superficial in the extreme to reason on Heb. 2: 3, 4, as evidence against Paul's authorship. Those who were designated apostles by the Lord on earth are merely "those that heard "; and as Saul then was but an unbeliever of Israel like the mass, he graciously sinks himself among the rest as "to us." Just thus, long after he was an apostle by call, he could say on meet occasion, "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia," and even "I am a Pharisee, son of Pharisees," and "according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." It would have been self-importance, not gracious wisdom, to have asserted his apostleship in this place, writing as he was by the will and inspiration of God, but evidently outside his special field of the nations, as laid down in Gal. 2: 7-9 and elsewhere. It was a final warning to the Christian Jews; and who so fitted in love no less than in everything else as one who had ere this testified to the Roman Christians that he loved the ancient people as much as Moses, when he asked Jehovah to blot him out of His book if He would not forgive their sin? As the apostle of the circumcision had been employed, and not Paul, to open the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles (Acts 10), so did the only wise God use the apostle of the uncircumcision, and not Peter, to summon for the last time the Hebrew Christians, whose attachment to the old and earthly system He had so long borne with, but would not any more.

No doubt there were not a few who had learnt better than the amalgam which had hitherto prevailed in Jerusalem among the baptised. But the time was come, and the most suited instrument ever raised up on earth, to bring to a close a state of things abnormal to the spiritual eye, and dangerous for the carnal: who, even if they love the Lord at bottom, are apt to fluctuate and more prone to palliate and foster natural and educational inclinations than to judge them by the word. Jerusalem was about to pass visibly away with the temple, ritual, and priesthood. It was of moment that, before the external blow of judgment fell, the faithful in Palestine should learn what they had been too slow to apprehend. Jesus is not only the Saviour and the Lord, but the great High Priest Who has passed through the heavens, and to this end both Son of God in the supreme sense, owned as God and as Jehovah by Him Who is God and Jehovah, and thus as both divine and human in one person seated at God's right hand on His throne where no creature ever did or can sit.

Hence the Epistle starts with Christ in that glorious condition; and we know who it was that saw this great sight to his conversion from Judaism as well as sin — who it is that above every other even of inspired men was given to seize and preach and write down permanently the great truth of a Christ known no longer after the flesh, but dead, risen and exalted in heaven; who accordingly writes death on all that flesh and even religious flesh gloried in, that he and we might find life, righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, in a word all we and all that God wills us to possess in Christ at His right hand. We are thus heavenly, as is the Heavenly; and have the assurance of safe keeping and ultimate triumph over every foe; for as we have borne the image of the earthly (Adam's), we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly (Christ's).

This was the apostle's great ministry of the church, and thus he was enabled by the Holy Spirit to fill up the word of God, even that blank which was left for the revelation of the mystery that had been hid from all ages and generations. Here it is circumscribed, no doubt, as was necessary because of the infantine state of the believing Jews, who little suspected that their adhesion to the old things, and mingling them with the new, hindered progress more than aught else could. Hence the aim of the Epistle is to show the substance, force, and perfection of all the ancient forms in the truth of Christ's person and office, work and position, thus raising the Jews who believed to heaven in faith, affection, worship, service, and hope, and making it easy and even happy for them to see the old covenant passing away, the Aaronic priesthood giving place to a better, and earthly sacrifices of no account, yea of exceeding peril if they became rivals of that finished work by which the faithful have been and are sanctified, and perfected in perpetuity, as surely as Christ sat down in perpetuity at God's right hand.

Thus again "the camp," once the place so favoured of God's people, is a place for the Christian Jew to leave. For the blood of atonement has been carried into the holiest for us, and He Who shed it suffered "without the gate." Our place therefore is now within the holiest before God, and without the camp before man; for it is effectively and ought to be only with Christ in both. "Having therefore, brethren, boldness for the entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus, a new and living way, which he inaugurated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us approach with true heart in full assurance of faith, sprinkled as to our hearts from an evil conscience, and washed as to our body with pure water" (Heb. 10: 19-22). But let us not forget the other side and present duty: "Let us go forth unto him without the camp bearing his reproach; for here we have not an abiding city, but we seek after the coming one" (Heb. 13: 13, 14).

It is impossible to conceive anything equal to this Epistle, whether in the most winning approach to the Jewish Christians where they were, or in the no less admirable deliverance from the ritual yoke, by the proof from God's word that Christianity alone yields the true and intended and complete meaning of all they had been well-nigh idolising in the letter.

It ought not to surprise any that scripture has settled the authorship of the Epistle; and this not by men reasoning on the reference to imprisonment and release in Italy, and the relationship to Timothy, but by a sufficiently determinate statement of Peter in his Second Epistle, addressed as we know it is to the elect Jews of the dispersion (cf. 1 Peter 1: 1, 2; and 2 Peter 3: 1), as the Epistle to the Hebrews contemplates those in the land. In either case believing Jews are contemplated. What then can be plainer than the apostle Peter's word? "Even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you; as also in all epistles speaking in them of these things" (2 Peter 3: 15, 16). Now this Epistle repeatedly speaks of the day of the Lord, with some things as usual hard, especially for Jewish minds, to understand, as in 9, 10, 12. Thus it is certain that Paul as well as Peter wrote to the Hebrew Christians; and that these are spoken of as "scriptures" by implication in the words that follow. Either then the Epistle to the Hebrews is what Paul wrote to them — or that portion of the "scriptures" is lost. It has been shown already that the scope of truth is eminently that of Paul; and the peculiarity of his task to any reflecting mind would readily account for an elaborate handling of types, most desirable for Jews but out of place in his writing to Gentile saints.

The contents and connection of the Epistle are plainly defined; which from its nature is less coloured with personalia than the other letters of the writer. The personal glory of the Lord Jesus is the basis of all, Heb. 1 Son of God, Heb. 2 Son of man. Thence follows in Heb. 3 the superiority of the Apostle and High Priest of the Christian confession to Moses and Aaron. He was the divine Builder of all, Son over God's house, Moses being but a ministering servant, though faithful. And this introduces the wilderness as the scene through which we are tried, with promise of entering into God's rest — glory at Christ's return. Hence not only is God's word needed by us, but a great high priest able to sympathise with our infirmities, as in Heb. 4. This leads in Heb. 5: to the contrast of Christ's priesthood, God's Son according to the order of Melchizedek, with that of Aaron taken from among men, and able to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring, since he himself was clothed with infirmity, and was bound to offer for sins, as for the people, so also for himself.

But here the apostle turns aside, as his manner is, to lay bare the hindrance through Jewish elements, still pertinaciously clung to, yet incompatible with the everlasting and heavenly things which suit our relation to that great High Priest Who has passed through the heavens and set Himself in a seat so glorious. The word of the beginning of Christ, however good, is quite insufficient; and the Christian must go on to full growth (Heb. 6); for as it is expressed elsewhere, we are no longer under law, suited and given as it was to man in flesh, but under grace, as should be self-evident. How else could we be heavenly, as is the Heavenly? Sovereign grace, reigning through righteousness, alone accounts for it. And hence the danger of going back from the heavenly privileges now revealed to those elements which are nailed to the cross and vanished away to faith in the light of Christ on high: a danger to which none were so exposed as Hebrews. He therefore desires that each might show diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end, having God's oath as well as word with a forerunner in Christ within the veil.

Heb. 7 proves how immeasurably and in all respects the priesthood of Jesus, the Son of God, surpasses that of Aaron bound up as it was with the law which made nothing perfect. The ancient oracles which fully prepare for it intimate also a new and better covenant (Heb. 8), before which the first grows old and ready to vanish away, instead of possessing that immutability with which rabbinical pride and imagination clothed it. And this leads to the great truth of sacrifice according to God's mind and will (Heb. 9, 10), which has found alone its adequate force in the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself spotless to God. Therefore its unity is insisted on, as its completeness is attested by His sitting in perpetuity on God's right hand, the work finished, and those that are sanctified perfected, not merely for ever but in perpetuity or without break also, by that one offering. Here too the warning of abandoning for sin such a sacrifice is solemnly rendered, while it is allowed that we have need of patience in faith, till Jesus come.

This is followed (Heb. 11) by the striking roll of Gods worthies, all being testified of for their faith, before the law and during it, culminating in Jesus the Leader and Completer of faith, Who, infinitely above all in person, suffered immeasurably more and differently, and is alone now in commensurate glory at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 12). And here is beautifully shown that for believers suffering flows from His love as the Father of our spirits, and not now of a nation. Our standing is in His grace, not the law of Sinai; and we are come in faith to the glorious results anticipated for heaven and earth, as the kingdom will display when at His appearing He will cause not the earth only but the heaven to tremble and shake.

Brotherly love, hospitality, and compassion are urged, with the sanctity of marriage, and freedom from avarice through trust in the Lord (Heb. 13). Departed leaders are to be remembered, as living ones to be obeyed. Jesus abides the same. Serving the tabernacle has no more value: all is found in Him, His work, and His offices. "Let us therefore go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." Such is Christianity as here shown from divinely handled Jewish types and Old Testament teaching. Prayer for the writer and those with him is asked, as he beseeches of the Lord peace for them, saluting all their leaders and all the saints.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

I. In many measures and in many manners of old God having spoken to the fathers in the prophets 2 at [the] end of these days spoke to us in a (or, the) Son, whom he constituted heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being effulgence of his glory and expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made [by himself] purification of our, sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become by so much better than the angels as he hath by inheritance a name more excellent than they. 5 For to which of the angels did he ever say, My Son art thou: I this day have begotten thee? and again, I will be to him for father, and he shall be to me for Son? 6 But again, when he bringeth in the firstborn into the inhabited earth, he saith, And let all God's angels worship him. 7 And indeed as to the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire 8 but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever (or, unto the age of the age); a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst lawlessness: for this reason, God, thy God, anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy companions. 10 And, Thou in the beginning, Lord, foundedst the earth, and the heavens are works Of thy hands. 11 They shall perish, but thou continuest; and they all shall grow old as a garment, 12 and as a covering thou shalt roll them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. 13 But as to which of the angels hath he ever said, Sit at my right hand until I set thine enemies a footstool of thy feet? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth for service on account of those who are about to inherit salvation?

II. For this reason we ought to give heed more abundantly to the things heard, lest in any way we should be carried (or, slip) away. 2 For if the word spoken by angels was made firm, and every transgrression and disobedience received just retribution, 3 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which, having begun to be spoken by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by those that heard 4 God joining witness with both signs and wonders, and various powers, and distributions of the Holy Spirit according to his will.

5 For not to angels he subjected the inhabited earth that is to come whereof we speak; 6 but one somewhere testified, saying, What is man that thou rememberest him? or son of man that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him some little less than angels; thou crownest him with glory and honour land didst set him over the works of thy hands]; 8 thou didst subject all things under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, he left nothing unsubject to him. But now we see not yet all things subjected to him; 9 but we behold Jesus that was made some little less than angels on account of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour; so that by God's grace he should taste of death for every thing (or, one). 10 For it became him for whom [are] all things and by whom [are] all things in bringing many sons unto glory, to perfect through sufferings the leader of their salvation. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and those sanctified [are] all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, 12 I will declare thy name to my brethren, amidst the congregation (or, church) will I sing thy praise. 13 And again, I will trust in him; and again, Behold, I and the little children which God crave to me. 14 Since then the little children are partakers of blood and flesh, he also in like manner took part of the same, that through death he might annul him that hath the might of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might set free all those who through fear of death were through all their life subject to bondage. 16 For verily not of angels doth he take hold but of Abraham's seed he taketh hold. 17 Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people; 18 for in that himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to help those that are tempted.

III. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus, 2 faithful as he was to him that appointed him, as also Moses in all his house. 3 For he hath been accounted worthy of more glory than Moses by how much he that built it hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things [is] God. 5 And Moses indeed [was] faithful in all his house as an attendant, for a testimony of the things to be spoken, 6 but Christ as Son over his house, whose house are we if indeed we hold fast the boldness and the boast of the hope firm unto the end. 7 Wherefore even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today, if ye will hear his voice, 8 harden not your hearts as in the provocation, through the day of temptation in the wilderness 9 when your fathers tempted [me], proved [me], and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was wroth with this generation and said, They always err in their heart, and they knew not my ways: 11 as I swore in my wrath, If they shall (or, They shall not) enter into my rest. 12 See, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you a wicked heart of unbelief in falling away from a living God. 13 But encourage yourselves each day while it is called Today, that none of you be hardened by [the] deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are become companions of Christ if indeed we hold fast the beginning of the confidence firm unto the end. 15 In that it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation. 16 For who having heard provoked? But did not all that came out of Egypt by Moses? 17 And with whom was he wroth forty Years? [Was it] not with those that sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest but to those that disobeyed? 19 And we see that they could not enter in on account of unbelief.

IV. Let us therefore fear lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you might seem to have failed (or, come short) of it. 2 For indeed we have had glad tidings presented to us, just as they also; but the word of the report did not profit them, not having been mixed with faith in those that heard. 3 For we that believed enter into the rest, even as he hath said, As I swore in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest, although the works were done from the world's foundation. 4 For he hath said somewhere of the seventh [day] thus, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; 5 and in this again If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Since therefore it remaineth that some enter into it, and those who first had the glad tidings entered not on account of disobedience, 7 again he determineth a certain day, saying in David, Today after so long a time, even as it hath been said before, Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Joshua (or, Jesus) had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a sabbatism for the people of God. 10 For he that entered into his rest himself also rested from his works as God from his own. 11 Let us therefore use diligence to enter into that rest that no one fall in (or, after) the same example of disobedience. 12 For living [is] the word of God, and effectual, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge heart's thoughts and intents. 13 And not a creature is unmanifest in his sight; but all things [are] naked and laid bare to his eyes with whom [is] our account. 14 Having therefore a great high priest, passed as he hath through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the (or, our) confession. 15 For we have not a high priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but tempted as he hath been in all things alike apart from sin. 16 Let us approach therefore with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help.

V. For every high priest taken from among men is constituted for men in things relating to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; 2 being able to forbear with the ignorant and erring, since himself also is compassed with infirmity; 3 and on account of this he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself to offer for sins. 4 And no one taketh the honour to himself but called by God, just as Aaron also. 5 So the Christ also glorified not himself to be made high priest; but he that spoke unto him, My Son art thou: I today have begotten thee; 6 even as also in another [place] he saith, Thou [art] priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek; 7 who in the days of his flesh having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him that was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears, and having been heard because of his godly fear, 8 though being Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered, 9 and, perfected, he became to all those that obey him author of salvation everlasting, 10 addressed by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. 11 Of whom we have much to say and hard to be interpreted in speaking, 12 since ye have become dull of hearing. For when on account of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and have become such as have need of milk, not of solid food. 13 For every one that partaketh of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness for he is an infant. 14 But solid food belongeth to perfect (or, full-grown), those that on account of habit have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil.

VI. Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us go on to perfection (or, full growth), not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith Godward, 2 of teaching of washings, and of imposition of hands, and of resurrection of dead [men], and of judgment everlasting; 3 and this will we do if God permit. 4 For [it is] impossible to renew again unto repentance those that were once enlightened 5 and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit and tasted God's good word, and powers of an age to come, 6 and have fallen away, while for themselves crucifying and making a show of the Son of God. 7 For ground (or, land) that drank the rain coming oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for those for whose sake also it is tilled, participateth in blessing from God; 8 but if bringing forth thorns and briars, [is] worthless and near a curse, whose end [is] for burning. 9 But of you, beloved, we are persuaded things better and connected with salvation, if even thus we speak. 10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work, and the love which ye showed unto his name, in that ye ministered to his saints and do minister. 11 But we desire earnestly that each of you should show the same diligence unto the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 that ye become not sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and long-suffering inherit the promises. 13 For God when he made promise to Abraham, since he had no greater to swear by, swore by himself, 14 saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee, 15 and thus after long-suffering he obtained the promise. 16 For men, indeed, swear by the greater, and to them the oath for confirmation [is] an end of all dispute. 17 Wherein God willing to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, 18 intervened by an oath, that by two unchangeable things in which [it was] impossible that God should lie we might have strong encouragement that fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us, 19 which we have as the soul's anchor both secure and firm and entering into the inner [side] of the veil, 20 where entered forerunner for us Jesus, become for ever high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

VII. For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, that met Abraham returning from smiting the kings, and blessed him; 2 to whom also Abraham divided a tenth from all, first being interpreted King of righteousness, and then also King of Salem, which is peace, 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but assimilated to the Son of God, abideth a priest continuously. 4 Now consider how great he [was] to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth out of the spoils. 5 And they indeed from among the sons of Levi that receive the priesthood have commandment to take tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham; 6 but he who hath no genealogy from them hath tithed Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises. 7 Now apart from all dispute the less is blessed by the better. 8 And here dying men receive tithes, but there one witnessed of that he liveth; 9 and, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi that receiveth tithes hath been tithed. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek. met him. 11 If therefore perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, for [based] on it the people had the law, what further need that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be said according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed there cometh of necessity a change of law also. 13 For he of whom these things are said hath part in a different tribe from which no one hath attended to the altar; 14 for [it is] evident beforehand that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priests. 15 And it is yet more abundantly evident if according to the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth a different priest 16 who hath been made not according to law of fleshly commandment but according to power of indissoluble life. 17 For the witness is, Thou [art] priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. 18 For there cometh a setting aside of foregoing commandment on account of its weakness and unprofitableness 19 (for the law perfected nothing), and an introduction of a better hope through which we draw near to God. 20 And by how much not apart from oath-swearing 21 (for they indeed apart from oath-swearing are become priests, but he with oath-swearing by him that saith unto him, The LORD (Jehovah) swore and will not repent, Thou [art] priest for ever [according to the order of Melchizedek]), 22 by so much Jesus hath become surety of a better covenant. 23 And they indeed are become many more priests, because by death they are hindered from continuing; 24 but he because of his abiding for ever hath the priesthood untransferable. 25 Whence also he is able to save completely those that approach God through him, as ever living to intercede for them. 26 For such a high priest became us, holy (or, pious), guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens, 27 who hath no need day by day as the high priests, first to offer up sacrifices for his own sins then [for] those of the people; for this he did once for all when he offered up himself. 28 For the law constituteth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath-swearing that [was] after the law, a Son perfected for ever.

VIII. Now a chief point [in connection] with the things said [is]: We have such a high priest who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man. 3 For every high priest is constituted for the offering both gifts and sacrifices, whence necessity [is] that The also have something which he may offer. 4 If then indeed he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, as there are those that offer the gifts according to law; 5 being such as serve for example and shadow of the heavenly things even as Moses is oracularly told when about to make (or, effect) the tabernacle, for, See, saith he, thou shalt make all things according to the pattern that was shown to thee in the mountain. 6 But now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is mediator of a better covenant which hath been enacted upon better promises. 7 For if that first was faultless, no place had been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault he saith to them, Behold, days come, saith Jehovah, and (or, that) I will make (or, consummate) a new covenant on (or, with) the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in a day when I took their hand to lead them out of Egypt's land; because they continued not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith Jehovah. 10 Because this [is] the covenant which I will covenant to the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah, giving my laws into their mind, I will also write them upon their hearts, and I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people. 11 And they shall not teach each his fellow-citizen and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord, because all shall inwardly know me from little of them unto great of them; 12 because I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will never remember more. 13 In his saying, New, he hath made the first old; but that which groweth old and aged [is] near disappearing.

IX. The first then also had ordinances of service, and its sanctuary worldly. 2 For a tabernacle was constituted, the first, in which [were, or are] both the candlestick and the table and the setting forth of the loaves, which is called Holy; 3 but after the second veil a tabernacle that is called Holy of holies, 4 having a golden censer and the ark of the covenant covered round everywhere with gold, in which [were] a golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron that sprouted, and the tables of the covenant, 5 and above over it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat, concerning which things it is not now [opportune] to speak in detail (or, severally). 6 Now these things having been thus constituted, into the first tabernacle indeed the priests enter at all times accomplishing the services, 7 but into the second the high priest alone once the year, not apart from blood, which he offereth for himself and for the errors (or, ignorances) of the people: 8 the Holy Spirit showing this that the way of the holies hath not yet been manifested, while yet the first tabernacle hath a standing: 9 the which [is] a parable for the time present, according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices, unable as to conscience to perfect the worshipper (or, him that serveth), 10 only with meats and drinks and different (or, divers) washings, ordinances of flesh imposed until a season of rectification.

11 But Christ having come high priest of the good things to come by the better and more perfect tabernacle, not handmade (that is, not of this creation), 12 neither by blood of coats and calves but by his own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having found an everlasting redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and 'bulls and a heifer's ashes sprinkling the defiled sanctifieth for the purity of the flesh, 14 by how much rather shall the blood of the Christ, who by [the] eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve (or, worship) a living God? 15 And for this reason he is mediator of a new covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under (or, upon) the first covenant, those that are called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. 16 For where a testament [is], the death of the testator must be brought in; 17 for a testament [is] valid after men [are] dead: since it in no wise hath force while the testator liveth. 18 Whence neither the first hath been inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment was spoken according to law by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of calves and of coats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, This [is] the blood of the covenant which God enjoined on you. 21 And the tabernacle too, and all the vessels of service he sprinkled alike with the blood; 22 and almost all things are purified with blood according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding cometh no remission. 23 Necessity therefore [was] that the examples of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For the Christ entered not into handmade holies, figures of the true, but into the heaven itself now to appear to the face of God for us; 25 neither that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies yearly with blood not his own, 26 since he were bound often to suffer from [the] world's foundation. But now once on consummation of the ages he hath been manifested for putting away of sin by his sacrifice. 27 And forasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, and, after this, judgment; 28 so also the Christ, having been once offered to bear sins of many, shall appear a second time apart from, sin to those that look for him unto salvation.

X. For the law, having a shadow of the coming good things, not the image itself of the things, can never by the same sacrifices, which they offer yearly continuously, perfect those that approach. 2 Since would they not have ceased being offered on account of the worshippers once purified having no longer any conscience of sins? 3 But in these [is] a calling to mind of sins yearly. 4 For blood of bulls and goats [is] incapable of taking away sins. 5Wherefore entering into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou willedst not, but a body thou preparedst for me: 6 in whole burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hadst no pleasure. 7 Then I said, Lo, I am come (in the book-roll it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above saying Sacrifice and offering and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou willedst not nor hadst pleasure in (the which are offered according to the law), 9 then he hath said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second; 10 by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering and offering often the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins; 12 but he having offered one sacrifice for sins, continuously sat down on God's right hand, 13 henceforth waiting until his enemies be set as footstool of his feet. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected continuously the sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also witnesseth to us; for after he had said, 16 This [is] the covenant which I will covenant unto them after those days, saith Jehovah, Giving my laws on their hearts, I will also write them on their understanding; 17 and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will never remember more. 18 But where remission of these [is] [there is] no longer an offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness for the entrance into the holies by the blood of Jesus, 20 a new and living way which he inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, 21 and having a great priest over the house of God 22 let us approach with true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and our body washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of the hope unwavering, for [he is] faithful that promised; 24 and let us consider one another for provoking love and good works, 25 not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together as [is] a custom for some, but encouraging, and by so much rather as ye see the day drawing near. 26 For if we sin wilfully after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there no longer remaineth a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful. expectation of judgment and heat of fire about to devour the adversaries. 28 Any one if he set at nought Moses' law dieth apart from mercy on two or three witnesses: 29 of how much worse punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy that trod down the Son of God, and counted common the blood of the covenant whereby he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that said, To me [is] vengeance; I will recompense, saith Jehovah; and again, Jehovah shall judge his people. 31 Fearful [it is] to fall into a living God's hands.

32 But call to mind the former days, in which enlightened as ye were ye endured a great fight of afflictions, 33 on this side made a spectacle in both reproaches and afflictions, and on that 'become companions of those so used; 34 for ye both sympathised with prisoners and accepted with joy the plunder of your goods, knowing that ye have for yourselves a better and abiding substance. 35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, the which hath great recompence. 36 For ye have need of endurance, that having done the will of God ye may receive the promise. 37 For yet a very little while: he that cometh will have come and will not delay. 38 But the (or, my) just shall live by faith; and if he (or, one) draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. 39 But we are not of drawing back unto perdition but of faith unto soul-saving.

XI. Now faith is substance (or, substantiating) of [things] hoped for, demonstration (or, test) of things not seen. 2For in (virtue of) this the elders were witnessed of. 3 By faith we apprehend that the worlds were framed by God's word, so that the [things] beheld have not derived their being out of [things] apparent (or, phenomena). 4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain by which it was witnessed that he was righteous, God witnessing in respect of his gifts; and through it he, having died, yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and was not found because God translated him; for before the translation, it hath been witnessed that he had pleased God. 6 But apart from faith [it is] impossible to please [him], for he that approacheth to God must believe that he is, and becometh a rewarder of those that seek him out. 7 By faith Noah, oracularly warned of things not yet beheld, moved with fear, constructed an ark for saving his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of righteousness that is according to faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when called, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance, and went out not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as not his own, dwelling as he did in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the joint-heirs of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city that hath the foundations, of which God is architect and master-builder. 11 By faith also Sarah herself received power for deposition of seed even beyond season of age, since she counted faithful him that promised. 12 Wherefore also there were born from one, and that one become dead, even as the stars of the heaven in multitude, and as the countless sand that is by the sea-shore. 13 All these died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them from afar, and greeted (or, embraced), and confessed that they were strangers and sojourners on the earth. 14 For they that say such things make plain that they seek out a country. 15 And if indeed they called to mind that from which they went out, they might have had opportunity to return; 16 but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for he prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham when tried offered up Isaac, and he that received to himself the promises was offering his only-begotten 18 as to whom it was spoken, In Isaac shall thy seed be called; 19 accounting that God [is] able to raise even from out of dead [men], whence also he received him back in parable (or, figure). 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. 21 By faith Jacob when dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped on the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph when ending life called to mind the going forth of the sons of Israel and gave commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses when born was hid three months by his parents, because they saw the child beautiful; and they did not fear the order of the king. 24 By faith Moses when become great refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be ill-treated with the people of God than to have temporary pleasure of sin, 26 counting the Christ's reproach greater riches than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked off unto the recompence. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not afraid of the wrath of the king; for he persevered as seeing the Invisible. 28 By faith he hath celebrated the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, that the destroyer of the firstborn should not touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Fed Sea, as through dry land, of which the Egyptians made trial and were swallowed up. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been encircled seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the harlot perished not along with the disobedient, having received the spies with peace. 32 And what more do I say? For the time would fail me telling of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets: 33 who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped lions' mouths, 34 quenched fire's power, escaped sword's edge, were strengthened from weakness, became mighty in war, put to flight armies of aliens. 35 Women received their dead again by (or, out of) resurrection; and others were tortured, not having accepted their deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection; 36 and others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea and of bonds and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they died by slaughter of sword. They went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 38 (of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and the chinks of the earth. 39 And these all having been witnessed of through their faith received not the promise, 40 God having foreseen some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be perfected.

XII. Therefore let us also, having so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, laying aside every weight and the readily besetting sin, run with (or, through) endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking, off unto Jesus the leader and completer of (or, the) faith; who for the joy set before him endured cross, despising shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider well him that endured so great contradiction by sinners against himself, that ye weary not, fainting in your souls. 4 Not yet unto blood resisted ye, wrestling against sin. 5 And ye have quite forgotten the exhortation the which discourseth with you as sons, My son, regard not lightly Jehovah's chastening, nor faint when reproved of him: 6 for whom Jehovah loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 For chastisement ye are enduring: God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son [is he] whom a father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye are apart from chastisement of which all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons. 9 Then indeed we had fathers of our flesh as chasteners, and we reverenced them: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of the spirits and live? 10 For they indeed chastened for a few days, as seemed good to them; but he for profit in order to the partaking of his holiness. 11 Now no chastisement for the time seemeth to be of joy but of grief; yet afterward it yieldeth peaceable fruit of righteousness to those that have been exercised thereby. 12 Wherefore lift up the exhausted hands and the enfeebled knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet that what is lame be not turned out of the way but rather be healed. 14 Pursue peace with all, and holiness apart from which no one shall see the Lord, 15 looking carefully lest [there be] any one falling short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up give trouble and through it [the] many be defiled; 16 lest [there be] any fornicator or profane one as Esau who for one meal sold his own birthright; 17 for ye know that even when afterward desiring to inherit the blessing he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it earnestly with tears.

18 For ye have not approached to a palpable thing and all aglow with fire, and to obscurity and gloom and tempest, 19 and to trumpet's sound, and a voice of words, which those that heard deprecated that a word more should be addressed to them; 20 for they could not bear what was enjoined, And if a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned; 21 and, so fearful was the appearance, Moses said, I am affrighted and trembling all over. 22 But ye have approached to mount Zion; and to a living God's city, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels, a universal assemblage; 23 and to an assembly of firstborns, enrolled in heavens; and to God judge of all; and to spirits of just ones made perfect; 24 and to Jesus mediator of a new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel. 25 Look that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if those did not escape, refusing as they did him speaking oracularly on earth, much more we that turn away from him from [the] heavens; 26 whose voice then shook the earth, but now hath he promised, saying, Yet once will I shake not only the earth but also the heaven. 27 But this Yet once signifieth the removing of what are shaken as being made that what are not shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore let us, receiving a kingdom not to be shaken, have grace by which we may (or, let us) serve God acceptably with reverence and fear. 29 For also our God is a consuming fire.

XIII. Let brotherly love abide. 2 Be not forgetful of hospitality; for by it some unawares entertained angels. 3 Remember prisoners as bound with [them]; the ill-treated, as being yourselves also in a body. 4 [Be] marriage in all [things] held in honour, and the bed undefiled; but (or, for) fornicators and adulterers God will judge. 5 Free from love of money [be] your course of life, satisfied with present things for he hath said, I will not leave thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee: 6 so that we courageously say, Jehovah [is] my helper, and I will not be afraid: what shall man do to me? 7 Remember your leaders the which spoke to you the word of God; and considering the issue of their conduct imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today, and unto the ages (or, for ever). 9 Be not carried away with divers and strange doctrines. for [it is] good that the heart be confirmed with grace; not with meats, in which those that walked were not profited. 10 We have an altar of which they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Therefore let us go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For here we have not an abiding city, but we seek after the coming one. 15 Through him then let us offer sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, fruit of lips confessing his name. 16 But to do good and communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 17 Obey your leaders, and be submissive, for they watch over (or, in behalf of) your souls, as those that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not groaning, for this [were] unprofitable for you.

18 Pray for us: for we persuade ourselves that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to walk well (or, honourably). 19 And more exceedingly I exhort [you] to do this, that I may be more quickly restored to you. 20 But the God of peace, that brought again from among [the] dead our Lord Jesus the great Shepherd of the sheep in virtue of blood of an everlasting covenant, 21 perfect you in every good work unto the (loin(, of his will, working in you [or, us] what is well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages (or, for ever and ever). Amen. 22 But I exhort you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation, for also briefly do I write to you. 23 Know that our brother Timothy is set at liberty (or, let go); with whom if he come soon I will see you. 24 Salute all your leaders, and all the saints. They from Italy salute you. 25 Grace [be] with you all. Amen.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

Hebrews 1.

The opening words are worthy of the great theme. In Christ only is the perfection of all that Israel gloried in. Every other person and office, every other walk or object, honoured in God's living oracles, had it most of all in and for preparing the way for Him. He is the one comprehensive aim of the Holy Spirit, open or understood, positively or negatively by contrast, throughout scripture.

Here that which was comparatively obscure of old is set in the light; for Christ is the true light. It is He who, once dimly discerned, now stands fully revealed, and thus illumines what once seemed dark, what without Him is and must be dark indeed still. Thus is all scripture knit together into one whole. There is the Old Testament; there is also what is called the New Testament, even if the Spirit avoid so characterising it. Together they constitute the Bible, whose unity turns on Christ, once promised, now come and, after accomplishing His work on earth, exalted at God's right hand in heaven. It is above all God revealed in the Son.

Hence it will be apparent, when once pointed out, why this Epistle does not unfold the mystery of Christ; for this would involve the introduction of what was absolutely unknown to Israel, yea, not then revealed by God. The revelation of the mystery supposes the rejection of the people of God, to make way for an entirely new and distinct purpose where a Jew as such is no more than a Gentile; and the church of God becomes the absorbing scene of the Holy Spirit's operation to the present exclusion of Israel. The church therefore in its full character implies a break in God's dealings with His ancient people, not merely because of idolatry which let in the times of the Gentiles, but because of the rejection and cross of the Messiah, His only-begotten Son, which let in the new and heavenly purpose of God in the church, Christ's body.

Here it is rather the continuity of divine testimony culminating in Christ, Who has laid in His blood and death the unchangeable basis for everlasting blessing, and gives the most glorious expression to its character in His own session as man on the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. For this reason, from the first chapter to the last of this Epistle to the Hebrews, we have the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets cited more fully than in any other part of the N.T. So also the ritualistic services, the vessels, and the holy places are turned to direct account in an elaborate way; and the persons whom the Holy Spirit could employ from the beginning are either detailed or taken in the gross (Heb. 11) till we are brought to Christ, the crown and fulness of all. With this will be found to agree the particulars, which we now proceed to consider.

"In many measures and in many manners God, having spoken of old to the fathers in the prophets, spoke to us at [the] end of these days in a Son."

The words that compose this grand exordium are most pregnant, as well as undeniable truth. They briefly, yet distinctly, convey the character of the O.T. communications. It was not in their nature to be complete or final. They were essentially piecemeal. No doubt the prophets wrought "at sundry times," and the modes in which God dealt were "divers": but neither phrase of the A.V. conveys the force of πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως. The common translation is borrowed from the Version of Geneva in 1539. Wiclif, in this not faithful to the Vulgate, had dropped altogether the first words, though he rightly gave "in many manners." Tyndale and Cranmer unite in "diversly and many wayes," as does the Rhemish with a chance in the order. "In time past," or "of old," πάλαι, is the sole expression of time. It was the same God and the same Christ; yet the object is to prove an immense change of His dealing: God speaking in a Son, after having spoken to the fathers in the prophets; also Christ no longer connected with the earth but in heavenly glory. Then He spoke "in many parts." His word was but fragmentary, perfect in its object, but in no wise that fulness which it was in His purpose to bestow when the due moment arrived. As a variety of persons were employed in that work, so "many ways" or methods of revealing, as open speaking to Moses, but visions, and dreams ordinarily. "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. And by a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved" (Hosea 12: 10, 13).

How mighty the advance now! God, though He be not here revealed in the elevation and intimacy of the Father, "spoke to us at the end of these days in a Son." The apostle in no way dissociates himself from the chosen nation, though he takes care throughout to show that only the Israel of God the true believing remnant, have valid title. But writing to those who were dull to appreciate that which was absolutely new and above this creation, he gives full weight to all previous revelations, however partial and short of what was now come. not only does he record the honour from God put on "the fathers," but ranges himself with their sons, as among the "us" to whom His word had now come in a completeness beyond all given before.

"In these last years" (as Tyndale began, followed by all the Protestant English) is too vague a rendering, and apt to be confounded with the different phraseology of 2 Peter 3, Jude 18, or even the more distant phrases in 1 Tim. 4 and in 2 Tim. 3. Still more objectionable is the Rhemish text following the Vulgate. Wiclif is nearer the mark, "at the last in these daies," though not quite right. "At [the] end," or [the] last of these days is the literal and true force, the close of these days of the age under the law, when the Messiah comes.

God who spoke to the fathers in past days spoke to us at the last of these days in a Son. The omission of the article has to do neither with the preposition going before nor with emphatic position, as many learned men have said. That there was intention is obvious; for ἐν τοῖς προφ. would naturally call for ἐν τῳ υἱῳ. Yet the phrase is anarthrous, and therefore does not present the person as an object before the mind, but brings character into prominence. The prophets were, like Moses, only servants; He in whom God spoke at the end of these days was Son. Compare Heb. 5: 8, etc. Such was the quality, such the relationship to Himself, of the One in Whom He now spoke. Our language does not so well bear the absence of the article; but it is regular in Greek, and at once the most forcible and the most accurate form of expressing character, which is precisely what was wanted here. Not in the prophets any longer, nor in angelic guise as often, but as Son God spoke now.

This adds a fresh reason why a man's name, however blessed or in whatever a position, would be unsuitable; and we have already shown grounds why the author in divinely given wisdom and grace preferred his name in particular not to appear, though the character of the truth and the final notices ought to leave no doubt who he was, without any external voucher, inspired or not. This is much confirmed by the next chapter (verses 3, 4), where our Lord Himself is introduced, the Prophet that should and did come, though Son. The apostles themselves, the twelve, were but His hearers, God joining in the attestation both with signs and wonders and divers powers, and distributions of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. How out of place would have been the introduction of his own apostolate! The Son of God, the Christ, had deigned to be the Apostle of our confession (Heb. 3: 1).

Was there aught in this justly to offend the warmest love and reverence for the O.T.? Rather does the O.T. bear it out and even require it to seal its own truth. For Law and Prophets bear their consenting witness that One would come, even a prophet like unto Moses, only greater as he himself testifies; who should speak in God's name, but so that whosoever would not hearken must bear the penalty from God. Then should be made on God's part a new covenant, not according to the former one when they were brought out of Egypt — a covenant which they broke no less than they idolised it; but a new one marked by God's grace and power, as the former one was by man's responsibility and total failure.

This Epistle proves that the Blesser is come, if not yet all the blessing, and appropriately opens with God's speaking in the Son. His silence after Malachi made it all the more impressive, since that last messenger of Jehovah sealed the O.T. canon. Then the interval of four hundred years, not without marked and varied premonitory signs, is closed by a prophet and more than a prophet in John the Baptist, disclaiming to be more than a "voice," yet proclaiming One standing in their midst whom they knew not, whose shoe-latchet he was not worthy to unloose, the Lamb of God, who baptises with the Holy Spirit. "This is the Son of God."

With the same truth we start here. God speaking was no new thing; for He had in many parts and in many ways. Now there was no limit; for it was in a Son Only-begotten, full of grace and truth. It was therefore no mere assemblage of revelations from God, divine but partial and suited to the instruments and the circumstances; it was God revealing Himself. His Son was the sole competent One for this purpose. In the beginning of the Epistle it is God so speaking when He was on earth; toward the close it is He that speaks from heaven (Heb. 12: 25). Everywhere it is God revealed, and not merely communications from Him. This therefore gives the utmost force and impressiveness and authority in the last resort to every subject that is handled, especially to that change which it is the main object of the Epistle to make known. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of law" (Heb. 7: 12).

The immeasurable superiority of Christ, and consequently of Christianity, comes out in this respect at the starting-point, and the more strikingly, because no Christian questions the divine inspiration of all the ancient oracles. Yet every true Christian feels the different and surpassing character, not only of Christ's words in the Gospels, but of the apostolic writings and the N.T. as a whole. It is truly Christ speaking in them all; it is God revealing Himself in Him as Son, with an intimacy peculiar to Him alone and in all its perfectness. And this superiority we may see running through the entire Epistle. He is above all men and angels; He is God and Jehovah, seated though man where no creature could be. He is the true captain of salvation, not Joshua. He is far above Moses the apostle of the Jewish confession, far beyond Aaron the Levitical high priest, more than filling up the wonderful picture of Melchizedek too. And no wonder; for Moses and Aaron were but servants in that house of which He was the builder, as indeed of all things. They were all brought into, being by Him, and without Him was not one thing brought into being of the created universe.

Nor is it only above all persons and offices that we see Jesus; but He alone gives a fuller and more divine meaning to every institution God set up in Israel. Take covenant in Heb. 8; and sanctuary, sacrifice, and offering in Heb. 9, 10. Everywhere His incontestable superiority is no less apparent; so as in Christianity at least to involve and prepare the way for their passing away, as the shadows and signs of that substance which now abides in all its preciousness to God, in all its efficacy for the believer.

If we look at faith, on which in every way the N.T. lays the utmost stress, others of old may and do show its beautifully refracted colours; but away from so great a cloud of witnesses we must look stedfastly on Jesus if we would see the Leader and Completer of faith. He is the full and pure light of it all. Therefore are we come in spirit even now to such an assemblage of glories (Heb. 12: 18-24) as not only eclipses but contrasts with the earthly and terror-inspiring associations of Sinai, whence dates the national distinction of Israel as God's people on the footing of the law. It is ours, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, to have grace whereby let us serve acceptably with reverence and godly fear. Others, however to be remembered and imitated in their faith, pass; but another blessed superiority is that Jesus Christ, God and man now glorified, is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. And He defines our place with Him both before God and man: within the veil through His blood, without the camp bearing His reproach. What God has joined, let not man's unbelief and selfishness sunder. The force of this for the Jewish Christian was immense: do we now make them both good in our souls and ways?

It is the voice of the Christ all through if on earth to gain the ear of the remnant and attach them to Himself, to God in a Son; in heaven to detach from all the earthly elements of Judaism which had done for the faithless their worst in becoming a rival through Satan's wiles, their best in spelling His name who is all and in all them that believe. And here is another superiority which we shall trace in detail, that what He gives us is in each case declared to be "eternal," in contrast with the temporary good things of Israel. He is the author of "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5: 9). He has found an "eternal redemption," and we receive the promise of the "eternal inheritance" (Heb. 9), even as He by the "eternal Spirit" offered Himself without spot to God, and the covenant consequently is "eternal" (Heb. 13).

The personal glory of Christ, Son of God, and His work as profound as His dignity is of high account for all, when we see Him to reveal God and give effect to His grace beyond all thought of man. This would, if anything could, draw Jews out of Judaism, when made willing to grow by the knowledge of God. And this we shall find to be the practical gist of our Epistle from first to last; nor was any so suited for the work as Saul of Tarsus, nor any time so seasonable as before Jerusalem was swept away, and the temple with its priesthood and sacrifices came to an open end as already defunct.

The peculiar form of the phrase then "in a Son," difficult without loss or a paraphrase to convey adequately in our language, is simply to characterise the relationship, not who but what, as in Matt. 4: 6, Matt. 9: 29, Matt. 27: 40, 43, 54; Luke 4: 3; John 1: 1 (last clause θεὸς), John 5: 27, John 8: 54, John 10: 33, 36, John 19: 7; as well as in Heb. 3: 6, Heb. 5: 8, Heb. 7: 8, 28. Where the person is the object before us, the article is invariably inserted, as may be seen in the context of these texts and in Scripture generally. "In the person of the, or His, Son," or"' in Him who is Son," would therefore require ἐν τῳ υἱῳ. A subordinate sense where the article is absent is in no way the truth, in the mind either of' friends or of foes. Where character is predicated, the article is excluded as here. Only in English we must say "a" or "the," which so far enfeebles the expression of what is here intended: "a" as capable of implying others, which is not at all meant but the reverse; "the" as presenting Christ objectively, where is meant predicatively that character of intimate relationship to God which is proper to Him only in eternal title and right. Some only have it subordinately by creation, as angels; others again, as the faithful, by sovereign grace through faith in Christ and eternal life in the Son.

Next comes His heirship. "Whom he constituted heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds":* testimonies to the glory of Christ of exceeding moment, to which we shall return after citing the passage in full. "Who being the effulgence of his glory and the very impress of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high, become so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a name more excellent than they" (verses 2-4).

* τοὺς αἰῶνας, in general "the ages," but also beyond just dispute used by Hellenistic Jews for the universe (perhaps as the theatre of the divine dispensations or ages) as here and in Heb. 11: 3. See Eccles. 3: 11 in the Sept., and elsewhere.

As in Rom. 9 to Gentile saints, so here to Jewish, the apostle proves that Christianity reveals the Messiah in a grandeur far surpassing the imagination of the former or the tradition of the latter. He is Son as none else. He is Heir of the universe; and no wonder. For as He created the worlds, so He upholds all things by the word of His power. Yes, the very Man whom they crucified by the hand of lawless men, who was crucified through weakness! At the moment He bowed His head and expired, He was sustaining all creation. It were absurd to think or say so, had He been only man; but He was God; and the dissolution of the tie between the outer and the inner man in no way touched His almighty power.

Jesus then is not merely the Messianic Heir of the nations as in Psalm 2. He is the Heir of all things as He created all. Compare John 1: 3. All things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, are to be summed or headed up in Christ: such is God's good pleasure which He purposed in Him (Eph. 1: 9, 10). He is exalted accordingly to the highest seat, the pledge of all that is to follow for now we see not yet all things subjected to Him, but we behold Himself crowned with glory and honour. And we know from elsewhere why He does not yet enter on the immense and glorious inheritance. He awaits the calling out of all the joint-heirs whom He will invest with the inheritance at the same time as He takes it Himself; for if children then heirs, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Such are the wondrous counsels of God, through his Son and to His glory, both before the world for a while, and afterward for ever.

He, Who is the appointed inheritor of the universe, and also fully entitled as being the Creator of the worlds, is yet more set forth in verse 3: being the effulgence of God's glory and the very impress of His substance or being, and upholding all things by the word of His power. He is in the highest sense (as intrinsically there can be none other) a divine person no less than the Father, and the Holy Spirit. But He is specially the displayer of Godhead, as in power and providence so in goodness, and in grace even to the lost. Compare 2 Cor. 4: 4 and Col. 1: 15. And this comes into the utmost prominence in the words that follow: "having made," or when He made, "purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"; where we may observe that, even omitting "by Himself" with the oldest uncials and good versions, etc., the participle carries in itself the remarkable force of having done it for Himself. He took His seat on high on the accomplishment of His work for the purification of sins. For this He had come as being the will of God, and only goes on high to take that place of glory when He had Himself done the work, whereby believers were to be blessed.

It will be observed that Christ is said here to be the outshining of God's glory. In our Epistle it is not the Father (as in John), but God. Both are true and each has its own importance. And it is scarcely needful to say that "person," borrowed in the A.V. from that of Geneva, is a mistake. It is "substance" or essential being, as in Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rhemish from the Vulgate. The doctrine of course is one hypostasis and three persons, as is commonly known: both truths are made evident in Isa. 6 compared with John 12 and Acts 28, as indeed by many other scriptures.

Christ's maintenance of the universe presents His divine glory in a striking way. "By Him all things consist," as the apostle affirms in Col. 1. They were created by Him and for Him, and they subsist together in virtue of Him. This becomes all the more remarkable because He deigned for the deepest purposes to become true man. This, however, trenched not on His deity; for the incarnation means not Godhead swamped by humanity, but this taken into everlasting union with itself, each nature abiding in its own perfectness, not metamorphosed but constituting together the one person of Christ. As He therefore brought all into being, so does He sustain all the universe, and ever did so.

There is another and profounder element of His glory, His effecting in His own person the purgation of sins. To create needed but His word; to sustain, His will; but not so redemption. To command in this case would have been wholly insufficient. The purging of sins could not be without the shedding of blood, without sacrificial death, for which the O.T. prepared men from the beginning. The earthly sacrifices could neither suffice for God's glory, nor cleanse man's conscience, as we are taught fully later on. But they were weighty testimonies from the days. of Adam downward, though only elaborated into a system of types most full and instructive by divine inspiration under Moses. Christ's was indeed

"A sacrifice of nobler name,

And richer blood than they."

Christ alone gives the full meaning and the true dignity to sacrifice, as is here briefly shown and bound up with the glory of His person. Sin is rebellion against God; it is lawlessness. God therefore is the One invariably concerned, whether it be also a human wrong or not. "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight ": yet he who so cried had been guilty of blood as well as of the worst corruption. As God's majesty and character are thus intimately in question, it is He who undertook to settle all in His Son. But here nothing less could avail than His death, yea, death of the cross, where God Himself laid the sins on the spotless Victim's head (Isa. 53) that they might thus be borne, and borne away. Not otherwise could there be forgiveness of sins according to God. There must be the purification of sins; and it is the "blood of Jesus Christ His Son" that "cleanseth from all sin," from every sin.

No wonder this deepest work of God is treated here as part of the divine glory of Christ. He must be man on behalf of men, He must be God to be available with God; He is both in one person; and thus as the justification was thus perfect, the result is unfailing for all who believe. Once cleansed thereby the worshippers have no more conscience of sins; and He, having offered one sacrifice for sins, "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high," sat down in perpetuity, as Heb. 10: 12 tells us, not only for ever but without a break in the efficacy of His sacrifice. How could it be otherwise if God in a Son undertook that work? And as this is thoroughly reasoned out and applied in the latter part of the Epistle, here we have the great truth stated clearly at the start: a truth "hard to be understood," by a Jew particularly, accustomed as he was to the routine and repetition of sacrifice as well as of all other Levitical observances. But the Holy Spirit of God does not keep it back, giving it a foremost place in the introduction.

It was scarce needed to say that Christ "by Himself" made purification of sins. For He alone suffered for sins — He alone was sacrificed for us. The Father had His will in giving Him for the purpose; and the Holy Spirit bears testimony to the complete efficacy, as He previously held out types and predictions and promises. But it was for Christ alone to suffer for sin; and this He did to the uttermost. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . . It pleased Jehovah to bruise him; He hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," etc. "He poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors, yet he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors" (Isa. 53).

And this is the basis of what the apostle elsewhere calls the "righteousness of God," that righteousness, not of man which the law sought yet found not in the sinful, but of God Who in virtue of Christ's propitiation can fully bless all that believe, and freely plead with and call on all men as they are. The purification of sins effected by a divine person is not limited and cannot fail; but it necessarily can take effect on none that hear the gospel unless they believe: God would be consenting to the dishonour of the Son if He made light of men's unbelief. Besides, the word received in faith has a morally cleansing power, as all believers are born of water and the Spirit. But here it is the work, not in man but efficacious before God, which occupies the apostle; and this is the purification of sins by Christ before He sat down at God's right hand.

What an attestation is that seat of His to the perfection and completeness of the work He undertook! When Jehovah laid our sins on Christ, He was made sin for us, and treated as it deserved at the hand of God. For what did man, or even saints, know then of that infinite task? God indeed marked it by a darkness for which nothing in nature can account, and Christ confessed it in that cry of His inapplicable to all others but Himself: "My God, My God, why didst thou forsake Me?" This was the necessary accompaniment of sin-bearing: absolute abandonment by God. Though He were His God, yet Christ was made sin; and it was no make-believe but real if anything ever was; no slurring over the least sin, no leaving out the greatest. It was Christ bearing the judgment of sin, the sole righteous way for the purification of sins. And the work was done and finished in such perfectness, that the only adequate seat for Him who had borne all was at the right hand of the Majesty on high. David's throne will be taken another day when blessing dawns for the earth on Israel. And when the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the angers with Him, then shall He sit on the throne of His glory; and before Him shall be gathered all the nations. But here is a seat incomparably more august, and in fact proper and possible to none but a divine person. yet is it also presented as the place suited to Him who had just made purification of sins. In this He suffered and wrought; on that He sat down, the work completed and thus accepted. What more glorious for the humbled Messiah? What more blessed in its fruit for the believer? A sacrifice to God, He gave Himself up for us.

There is another word added here, the bearing of which is no less evident on Jewish minds. They thought much of angelic glory. The law they received as ordained by ministry of angels (Acts 7: 50; Gal. 3: 19). They were wont therefore to regard with awe and wonder those obedient messengers of God's power, of which there can be no stronger proof than John's temptation in Rev. 19, 22. Hence the gravity of the further testimony to Christ's glory here, "made so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a name more excellent than they" (ver. 4).

It is Christ who renders evident the ground of God's counsel to raise from among men those destined to a place incomparably higher than that of angels. If the Son of God became man, it was at once intelligible, becoming, and necessary. And the redemption that is in Christ, and our consequent nearness of relationship into which grace brings the believer, make plain our association with Him and our elevation above angels. For they *are not called but kept. Not sunk into moral ruin, they have no experience of the mercy that saves and unites with Christ. Hence angels are never said to reign. They serve, instead of sitting on thrones. We are to reign with Him, yet shall we serve then as we serve now, and all the better through grace, because, delivered from the lowest estate of guilt and evil, we are objects of His ceaseless and infinite love, and shall share His glory as surely as we now rest on His grace. Angels know not either extreme, as we do; but all we boast is through Him who became so much better than the angels as He hath an inheritance more excellent than they. It is the Messiah of whom we are hearing.

Next comes a series of quotations from the O.T. pertinent to the Sonship of Christ just laid down. This fulness of citing the ancient oracles, though found elsewhere in the apostle's writings and conspicuously in the Epistle to the Romans, is nowhere so rich as here. Nor could we well conceive it otherwise, if he were writing to believers from among the chosen people, and anxious in his loving consideration for them to rest all on God's word, already known to them familiarly, rather than on his own fresh prophetic communications.

"For to whom of the angels did he ever say, My Son art Thou: I this day have begotten Thee? And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstborn into the habitable earth, he saith, And let all God's angels worship him. And indeed as to the angels he saith, "Who maketh his angels winds and his ministers a flame of fire; but as to the Son, Thy throne, O God, [is] unto the age of the age, and a sceptre of uprightness [is] the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou lovedst righteousness and hatedst lawlessness: therefore God, thy God, anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy fellows" (vers. 5-9).

As Jews they were accustomed to think much of angels, who were seen often on critical occasions by the fathers, and took a most distinguished part in bringing in the law, as well as in heralding or accomplishing, deliverances afterwards, as everyone can see who reads the Law and the Prophets with attention. This tended to produce no small veneration in the minds of the just, and superstition too in such as went beyond Scripture. Christ alone gives and keeps the truth in us by grace. And here we have a clear instance in point, as throughout the Epistle. Not only was the Life the light of men rather than of angels, but the Son of God becoming man really, as He had often anticipatively intervened in human guise, gave proof that the good pleasure of God is in men, and prepared the way for the revelation of the glorious counsels He has ever had for such as believe, in the day of Christ, when even angels are to be in a subordinate place as indeed throughout eternity. This assuredly could not be without redemption, as redemption in the full sense could not be without incarnation, supposed in Heb. 1 and openly stated in Heb. 2, as we shall see. As the Son is incontestably above the prophets, so is He now proved far above the angels and He is the foundation of all our blessedness.

The first scripture quoted is from Psalm 2: 7: "My Son art thou: - I this day have begotten thee." Never was such a word addressed to an angel. It applies only to Christ. But how? The apostle John loves to expatiate on His eternal Sonship. Again, elsewhere in the epistles of Paul He is often shown as Son of God in resurrection (Rom. 1: 4, Rom. 8: 29; Col. 1: 18), as of course also when He returns from heaven (1 Thess. 1: 10). How is He regarded here? As Son of God born in time: so we see Him in Luke 1: 32 and yet more definitely in verse 35. The assumption of flesh in no way lowered His Sonship: Son of God eternally, He was still and no less Son of God when born of the Virgin, as He is in resurrection and evermore in glory; He only, and in virtue of divine right acknowledged of God, and to Jesus solely by the word magnified above all Jehovah's name.

It is the more important that this should be seen clearly and irrefragably, because even the learned Bishop Pearson, in his famous work on the Creed, over and over again gives countenance to the mystic view * of this verse of the Psalm cited in Acts 13: 32, 33, as if the apostle had so definitely ruled. But this is quite an oversight. On the contrary, and beyond controversy, the apostle distinguishes in verse 34 the Lord's resurrection (attested by Isa. 55: 3 and Psalm 16: 10) from His Sonship in the days of His flesh as in Psalm 2: 7. The raising up" (not "up again," as in A.V.) in 32, 33, is as Messiah on earth; with which is contra-distinguished in 34 God's raising Him up from the dead.

* "As He was raised from the dead, out of the womb of the earth unto immortal life," etc. (Exposition i. 57, Oxford, 1797). "The grave is as the womb of the earth: Christ, who is raised from thence, is as it were begotten to another life," etc. (i. 173). "Upon the morning of the third day did those words of the Father manifest a most important truth, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee" (i. 400).

Hence there is no need or even room for swerving from the simple yet grand truth that, as the Psalmist, so the apostle, in preaching at Antioch of Pisidia and here in writing to the Christian Jews, speaks of what Jehovah said of His Son when born a man. It is therefore His birth in time: "I this day have begotten thee." But it is of all moment for the truth and His own personal dignity, to remember that His Sonship when incarnate as well as in resurrection is based on His eternal relationship as Son, the great theme of the apostle John, without which the other two could not have been. Here too many Christians have fallen short.

The next citation appears to be from 1 Chron. 17: 13 (2 Sam. 7, where the same words occur, being more historical): "I will be to him a father, and he will be to me a son." This is the assertion of the perfect and mutual affection that reigned between the Father and His Son, now a living man; not what became an accomplished fact as in Psalm 2: 7, and what should subsist when He was born of woman, "Son of David, Son of Abraham" (Matt. 1: 1).

As to the second text there has been little discussion among orthodox men. Not so in the third, which stands in our Epistle identical with the Vatican (not the Alexandrian) Septuagintal text of Deut. 32: 43, and in substance with Psalm 97: 7). But it has been keenly urged as to the prefatory words that "again" (πάλιν) belongs to εἰσαγάγῃ, and denotes a new and second introduction of the Messiah, instead of being as in the A.V. and many others the mark of another citation. Not a few ancients, mediaevals, and moderns have so understood, though they differ widely as to the alleged second introduction. But the Pesch. Syr. found no such difficulty as the Vulgate; nor did Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Wolf, any more than the fullest of modern commentators, Bleek. It is assumed that πάλιν would not stand where it is in the Greek if it introduced another citation; yet the good scholar who so speaks allows that in point of interpretation the rendering of the A.V. is much to be preferred! Is this really safe? That a false version yields better sense than the true? That the true is not justifiable grammatically?

The fact is that the collocation stands alone, as far as I can see, in the N.T., and that there is nothing either way in the LXX. Now in the other instances of the N.T. there is no case precisely like this before us, not only no o{tan de; , but nothing analogous. I do not admit (until a real case is produced adverse to what is confessed by a candid and competent man, Canon Humphry, to be a much preferable resulting, sense) that we are driven to deny an elasticity to the Greek, of which our tongue is perfectly susceptible. Englishmen are certainly not tied down to such an order, as "Again, when he bringeth in." What proof is there that the far more pliant Greek is more restricted? Not infrequently there are solitary examples of collocation or construction even in the N.T. as in other writings. If we may say, "And when, again, he bringeth in," etc., I know not why the writer may not with equal liberty have adopted a corresponding order, even though there be no other instance of or call for such a variety.

What then is the grammatical principle or the usage which is supposed to be traversed here? "In this epistle, when it is joined to a verb, it has always the sense of a second time, e.g. Heb. 4: 7, Heb. 5: 12, Heb. 6: 1, 6." Is it not unfortunate that the very first is adverse? It is no more joined to a verb there than in the verse debated. It means "Again, he limiteth," not "He limiteth a second time." No one doubts that in verse 12, like 6: 1, 6, it means iterum (not rursus, particularly when used as a sort of parenthesis, as in Heb. 1 and often elsewhere). Indeed, the very first occurrence in the N.T. refuses this imaginary canon of grammar. Our Lord said (Matt. 5: 33) πάλιν ἠκούσατε, of which the unequivocal and universally allowed sense is, again, ye heard, and not, because a verb follows, Ye heard a second time. To say "joined to a verb" begs the question. Is it really so? We may be assured it may not be.

The fact is that the apostle's object appears to be, not defining time when God ushers the Firstborn into the world, but (whenever it shall have been, past or future perhaps) proving the universal homage of all God's angels to the glory of the Son. And surely Luke 2: 13, 14 is a beautiful witness to it. Nor is there the smallest ground to limit "the firstborn" to resurrection. As any reader may see, Col. 1: 15 points out the Lord Jesus as the Firstborn of all creation, quite distinctly from His subsequent and still more glorious position of Firstborn from the dead" in verse 18 (cf. Rev. 1: 5). "Firstborn as such is therefore more suitable to Him simply as incarnate; which tells, as far as it goes, against construing π. with the verb as "a second time." At the same time it is frankly allowed that the fulfilment of Deut. 32 or of Psalm 97 as a whole awaits the Lord's second advent.

We have, after this, words cited from two psalms, Ps. 104: 4 as to the angels, which no Jew would dispute, and indeed such messengers and servants cannot but be angelic, whatever Calvin may argue to the contrary; Ps. 45: 6, 7 as to the Lord Jesus. I have no right to pronounce on the true objects and the true predicates in the Hebrew. But it cannot be doubted that the Epistle to the Hebrews cites from the Sept. as in the Vat., save in the form of the last words; and there the true order admits of no question. So the meaning of the earlier psalm is beyond just controversy. The glorious beings of heaven, its natural denizens, are made to do God's will in providence and to act in wind or flame. But instead of making Christ this or that, He says, Thy throne, O God, is for the age of the age (for ever), and the sceptre of uprightness is sceptre of Thy kingdom.

Here, be it remarked, that it is a question of the time of fulfilment no more than in Deut. 32 (or Psalm 97); for it is very certain that the judicial kingdom described in Psalm 45 is still future, having had no real accomplishment yet. But none the less is the recognition of Messiah's glory most available even now for the object of the Epistle. For God owns the Messiah as no less than Himself — and, if God, it cannot be a mere question of time, whatever of glorious display may yet be in store.

The past too is not forgotten, nor ever can be by God. "Thou didst love righteousness and didst hate lawlessness." Such was Jesus as man here below; for in truth He is both in one person, neither more truly God than man, nor man than God. Compare Phil. 2 "Therefore God, thy God, anointed thee with oil of gladness beyond thy fellows."

How beautiful to see the largeness of grace and truth. After this lofty owning of Messiah as God by God comes the fullest acknowledgment of others. He Himself is no more ashamed to own us His companions or fellows than God is to own Him God. He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one. Yet He is God no less than the Father, Who will have all men honour the Son even as ]Himself. What have infidel dreams of progress to compare with simple and sure Christian truth?

The quotation from Psalm 45 was most distinct and conclusive. No Jew then, if now, could doubt that the psalm refers throughout to the Messiah introducing and maintaining His kingdom on earth in association with the godly Jewish remnant. Christ is seen as King, not Head of the church (though godly Jews are now anointed as His partners, before He appears in His royal glory). But the one object for which it is cited is to prove that God recognises the Messiah as God. It is not men only nor angels, nor Jews nor Gentiles. It, is "God," the divine title, not of special earthly relationship, but of essential nature in contrast with the creature. What an answer to reproach and rejection!

It might be supposed impossible to find any ascription beyond this in honour of Christ; but it is not so: the next witness exceeds. Here is another and higher testimony to the Son from the fourth book of Psalms (Ps. 102: 25-27): "And, thou in the beginning, Lord, didst found the earth, and the heavens are works of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou continuest; and they all shall grow old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou roll them up, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail" (verses 10-12).

The "And" simply connects this fresh quotation with the former as said to the Son. But the divine title differs. It is the name which every Jew owns as incommunicable and supreme. "God" may be used subordinately in peculiar circumstances of those who represent His authority as kings or judges. Compare Ex. 21, 22; Psalm 82. But Jehovah, in the LXX., translated "LORD as here used, is never applied otherwise than to God in the highest sense, and this in special or covenant character of relationship with Israel as the Everlasting and Immutable. It is therefore anarthrous.

The force of this application of the closing words in the psalm is immense. It is Jehovah's answer to the prayer of the afflicted, the humbled, cast off, and suffering Messiah, and especially to His petition in verse 24. No language can more thoroughly show Him man when overwhelmed and pouring out complaint before Jehovah, yet the Holy One of God, so born and so sustained under unparalleled temptations in unbroken dependence and obedience. In verses 1-11 Messiah spreads out His distress, His heart smitten like grass, His enemies' reproach, Himself taken up and cast down because of Jehovah's indignation and wrath — certainly not against Him but for Israel's sake — so that His days were as a shadow. Then from verse 12 He contrasts Jehovah's permanence and fidelity to His covenant as the security of Zion, whatever her desolations, even in the set time to have pity on her, with the results sure and blessed, not only for the generation to come, but for the peoples and kingdoms and nations in that day of fearing and serving Jehovah. Lastly, in verses 23, 24, He spreads before Jehovah His own strength weakened and His days shortened, and begs not to be taken away in the midst of them, while owning that Jehovah's years are throughout all generations. Thereon follows the glorious answer to the self-emptied and suffering Son: "Of old didst thou lay the foundation," etc. "They shall be changed, but thou art the same," etc.

It is Jehovah from above who thus answers Jehovah below in the midst of His entire submission to sorrow and humiliation "crucified in weakness." Jehovah will arise and build up Zion; and when He does, He will appear in His glory; but Zion shall not be without her humbled and afflicted Messiah, whatever the weakness He bowed under for the glory of God and the deliverance of His people; for the Son is as truly Jehovah as the Father. "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy Elohim is one Jehovah." Such is the meaning of Psalm 102, as interpreted by one no less inspired than he who wrote the Psalm. Without Heb. 1 we might not have found it out; with it we at once see that no other interpretation gives adequate meaning to the Psalm. But what a proof of Christ's supreme deity, and this grounded on His possession of the ineffable Name from Him Who has it confessedly! The divine glory of Christ is the answer to all appearances and every dilemma.

If it be argued that the word "Lord" (κύριε) in the LXX. has no counterpart in the Hebrew, the answer is that the truth meant in no way depends on the insertion of that word, but on the attributes of creative and judicial glory, as well as divine unchangeableness in His changing all creation ascribed to the Messiah by Jehovah. He was man, and crushed to the uttermost, as must be if He made good the errand of grace on which He came — righteously vindicating God in the face of sin and delivering the people on whom lay indignation and wrath; and this He did in suffering weakness, not in power, but He is owned in that suffering as ever the same, the Eternal: not only as having an everlasting kingdom, but as the One who was and who is and who is to come, the Ancient of days albeit Son of man, as John testifies in Rev. 1. We may compare also Dan. 7: 13, 22, where the Son of Man, who came to the Ancient of Days, is Himself also identified with the Ancient of Days. So careful is scripture while exhibiting His manhood to mention His deity.

The contrast of perishable creation with the permanence of Christ (really Jehovah) deserves to be weighed. For the assumed perpetuity of the world is a root principle of infidelity, and never more than in the matter worship of modern philosophers, the revival of ancient heathenism. Scripture, on the contrary, insists on the certainty of a God of judgment, and not less physically than morally. All depends on His sovereign and holy will. It is not only that science is obliged to confess divine intervention in creating and destroying (I say not annihilating, for this is false) the earth many times and through many periods, ever so long between its original call into being, and its being made the dwelling of man. But since Adam's children lived on it, a judgment both moral and physical has borne witness, however scorners may be willingly ignorant, that God is not indifferent to wickedness breaking through creature bounds; for the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished; as it will surely meet with a more signal doom, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. Now all judgment is committed to the Son. He has executed it, as He will execute it.

Nor is it only that these or those subordinate parts of creation shall perish. But as the earth and the heavens were the works of the Son's hands (John 1: 3), so they all shall wax old as a garment. Nor is it from creature's defectibility, but from the Creator's righteous will: "as a mantle shalt Thou roll them up." The unchangeableness of the heavens and of all that is visible or invisible in them is no more true than that of the earth and of all in it that men aver to continue as they were. The astronomers, the geologists, the chemists, the physicists, the physiologists, to speak of no more, are apt to swamp all recognition of the true God in sole occupation with His works, and thus sink into an atheism so much the more guilty, because it is apostasy from the only true Light that revealed Him. Yet not more truly are they to die than they must rise. For the resurrection of Christ gives the pledge of clearance from judgment, yea, of present justification to His own, and of sure judgment to follow for all who despise Him. Christ's resurrection proves the succession of cause and effect to be in fact under God's absolute control — as is true of every real miracle. There will be a grand change to inaugurate Christ's coming; a complete and final one as the result when the kingdom gives place to all thinks made new for eternity.

This series of quotations closes with words taken from the opening of Psalm ex., which is again Jehovah's utterance to Messiah on His rejection.

"But unto which of the angels hath He said at any time, Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool of thy feet? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of those that shall inherit salvation?" (verses 13, 14).

Psalm 110 is the more striking as immediately following the psalm which describes the son of perdition, Messiah's betrayer. Here the rejected of Israel and of man is told to take His seat at God's right hand, a fact alluded to or quoted throughout the N.T. perhaps more than any other O.T. statement, unless it be to His sacrifice or His kingdom. Nor need we wonder at this. Christ's present glory is asserted therein. It gives occasion to the bringing in of "the mystery of Christ." It is the starting-point of the gospel in its heavenly character. It explains the enigma of Christ exalted above, whilst rejected outwardly and having nothing of His rights as Yet here below. It equally falls in with the mystery of Israel's eclipse while unbelieving, and with Satan's claim as the god of this age.

No angel was ever invited as He is to sit on that throne. Indeed, though the saints are to sit with Christ on His throne in the age of His display, no angel will ever be. Angels were made to serve, not to reign; they never did, nor will. Dominion was given to Adam, the type of Him that was to come. God ever had the Kingdom in view from the foundation of the world. Of this kingdom Christ is the destined King. But as He will have in His grace the changed saints to reign with Him, so also He will have saints unchanged set on His right hand and despisers on His left, when He sits on His throne of glory and judges all the nations according to their treatment of His messengers (His brethren) to be sent forth just before He appears again.

Never will the church sit where Christ sits now, nor any member of it, even apostle or prophet. It is peculiar to God Who calls Christ there: because Christ is also God and Jehovah (as we have seen no less than He who sent Him), Christ sits there. During the Apocalyptic period judgments from God fall successively and with increasing intensity on guilty man, especially in Christendom; and at length, when His enemies are set a footstool, Christ personally appears to tread them down. Then when in association with His ancient people, Jehovah sends the rod of His strength out of Zion, and Christ rules in the midst of His foes. But such no longer are the Jews, who once constrained the Gentiles to crucify Him; they offer themselves willingly in the day of His power. He will have then the dew of His youth, the generation to come. "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children." Men corrupt themselves more and more, whatever they vaunt of progress. Nevertheless under Christ there will surely be the best wine for the earth kept till then. And then will the blessedness be shown of Jehovah's oath about the great Melchizedek; for though Christ is so now as to order, only then will it be exercised. He will bring out the bread and the wine for the victors in all their meaning, blessing man on the part of God most high, and blessing God on man's part. For indeed will it be the good age, and every one and thing in its due place, which He only can accomplish. No doubt that day will open with wrath, as we know it will close with judgment when time melts into eternity.

But then again the aim of the Spirit is not to open out the coming glory for the earth, but to demonstrate the singular dignity proper to Christ at God's right hand in contrast with angels who at best are all ministering spirits sent forth on service for those that are to inherit salvation. Higher than this they never rise. Christ might and did become David's Son; but He was also David's Lord, as our Lord Himself put the case to the Jews, and unanswerably, because their lips were held fast in unbelief.  But faith here answers at once. He was God equally with the Father. Where else then should He sit but at God's right hand? Surely none the less because man or Israel would have none of Him. The first of Israel's royal line, the father (after a long succession then to come) of Him whose is that kingdom everlasting, though yet awaiting it, owns his Son by the strangest reversal of nature as his Lord: a thing unaccountable, unless He were God, the Root as well as Offspring of David. The holy angels are sustained of the Lord. It is ours to know salvation, whether as now seen complete in Christ (as in Eph. 2, etc.) or as completed in us at His coming and therefore future (as here and elsewhere).

Hebrews 2

From the foregoing cluster of O.T. quotations this conclusion is drawn:-

"Therefore we ought to pay the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply [or, ever] we should slip away.* For if the word spoken through angels proved stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? The which having begun to be spoken through the Lord was confirmed unto us by those that heard, God also bearing witness with [them] both with signs and wonders, and varied powers, and distributions of [the] Holy Spirit according to his own will" (verses 1-4).

The danger set before these Hebrews is of the gravest. They had known the Jews' religion originally. They had now professed to believe the gospel. Woe to such, above all men, if they slipped away from Christ; for the truth of God and the blessing of man centre only in Him. Christianity and Judaism are as different as heaven from earth; but as the heavenly things are not yet displayed, all enjoyment of them must be by faith of God's revelation, crowned by the standing facts that Christ is come, has accomplished redemption as far as remission of our sins is concerned, and so glorified God in it, that He has now glorified the Son of man in Himself, the Holy Spirit being already given the believer as unction, seal, and earnest. If the believer look away from Christ, he is like his forefathers in the desert without the living God and nothing but the barren sand. Now a Jew naturally expected a bright path of honour and prosperity on earth. The cross stumbled him when Messiah came. "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this, the Son of man?" (John 12: 34) If they got occupied with trial and disappointment, not only did murmuring set in but faith was emperilled. And if self-judgment did not work restoration of communion, what could the end be but total drifting away? Where could this end? How could it be otherwise?

* The real force of the verb is intransitive, not transitive as in the A.V. Prov. 3: 21 (LXX.) means, "Do not slip away," not "Let them not pass from thee." Though the context modifies that rendering a little, the usage is uniform. Wiclif seems nearest ("fleten meie"), Tyndale and Cranmer "peryshe," Geneva the worst of all. The margin is far from satisfactory.

God had spoken fully and finally in a Son, the Heir as Creator too of the universe, to whom even the preparatory testimonies of His word bore witness as His Son, God, and Jehovah; whose position after He made purification of sins was unique in heavenly glory, the object of angelic homage according to God's will and word. The greater His grace and glory, the more solemn the responsibility to heed the testimony. For this only it is as yet: the time is not yet arrived, nor can it be under the gospel, for His power to compel absolute submission, as it will do by-and-by (Phil. 2: 10, 11). It is the day for obedience of faith. But the word was nigh them in their mouth and in their heart, the things read as well as heard. To grow light, cool, or listless exposed them to the danger of slipping away, not for the truth only but themselves also. God would not be mocked in His Son and in His grace. To have once owned His glory binds the soul ever to heed His word and person.

Here again angels are introduced as the occasion for a stronger call. "For if the word spoken by angels was made stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglected so great salvation?" (vers. 2, 3).

The Jews were not mistaken in boasting of the singular honour God had put on the law, introduced as it was by angelic ministration. The N.T. is as clear in this attestation as the O.T. Nor were they wrong in maintaining the inviolability of the law in itself. How could its authority waver, if it be as it is, God's law? It is not only in great things, but in small as man would think and say, that we see God vindicating it. Every transgression and every refusal to hear received righteous requital. Other ways of God came in no doubt, whereby mercy could rejoice against judgment; but unsparing judgment of evil was the principle proclaimed and enforced throughout. It was a ministry of death and condemnation.

Incomparably more serious is it to despise grace brought in by the Head of all glory. No notion more contrary to truth than that grace makes light of evil — that the gospel is a sort of mitigated or attenuated law. It was when man, and man under law, was proved wholly bad and irreparably ruined, that God sent His Son and laid on Him the entire burden. Salvation is the fruit for him that believes. There is and can be for sinners no other way. It is entirely Christ's work, exclusively His suffering. His blood cleanses from every sin — if not from all, from none. Such is the grace of God that has appeared in Christ, and especially in His death. But man is the enemy of God through listening to an older and mightier rebel than himself; and grace is far more alien and offensive to man than law. In the law his conscience can but bow to righteousness, even though thinking himself righteous; for he knows and approves what is right, while he follows what is wrong. Grace is beyond all his thoughts, all his feelings, all his hopes, because it is divine love in God rising above all His hatred of evil, which He lays on the only sacrifice capable of bearing it before Himself and taking it away righteously.

This the gospel proclaims, not promises only but preaches, because the Saviour has come and finished the work given Him to do on behalf of sinners to God's glory. And hence the supreme danger of neglecting so great salvation. For its immensity is proportionate to His dignity who came to save sinners, and to the unparalleled work in suffering at God's hand for all our sins what they deserved. His divine person gave Him competency to endure as well as infinite efficacy for His work. He became indeed man to suffer for man; but He never ceased to be God, even when for sin forsaken by God.

Such is the doctrine here and uniformly in scripture where it is treated. It is a salvation on which the Holy Spirit never wearies of expatiating. And how gracious of God toward those who have His word and yet are in danger of neglecting "so great salvation"! not only neglecting to receive it but negligent of it when professed. This snare of a religious people like Israel is just the danger of Christendom now yet more.

It will be observed that "we" is emphatic in the first part of verse 3, and that the writer includes himself too in its occurrence before the close. This is one of the stock arguments against Paul's authorship of the Epistle. But it appears to be quite superficial from an oversight of its character. For, supposing Paul to be the writer, his merging himself with the Hebrews he was addressing outside his special apostolic province is precisely in keeping with the task in hand. To make this inconsistent with Gal. 1: 12 seems petty indeed; for the latter is distinctively personal, and Heb. 2: 3, 4 has evidently a studious generality. He is setting forth the claim of that word which began to be spoken by the Lord Himself in contrast with the law of old, august as its introduction may have been, which he would have been the last to deny. But the Lord was here in the midst of the Jews to bring us not the law that kills the guilty, but His own great salvation for the lost. The first person does not at all mean that he had heard it, but that when it thus began to be spoken it was confirmed "unto us" by those that heard. Indeed he distinguishes himself rather from those ear-witnesses, without at all branching off to his own peculiar and long subsequent privilege outside Damascus. But he does identify himself with those whom the Lord addressed at the beginning without in the least implying that he had himself heard Him. Was he not a Hebrew of the Hebrews? To cite Eph. 3: 2, 3 is therefore wholly beside the mark. Both are true, and manifestly so.

The great aim of all indeed is to put forward the Lord as the Apostle no less than High Priest of the Christian profession, as He is styled in Heb. 3: 1. This accordingly leaves out not only himself born out of due time but the twelve as apostles. In presence of Him they are only "those that heard." The Lord began the word of this salvation; they heard and confirmed it to the people responsible to receive the

Christ of God; and God also bore witness with them in a way beyond all example. The object in view excluded all mention of the extraordinary Gentile apostleship, to say nothing of the grace in Paul that sought to meet the Jews as God did, that He might disarm them of their prejudices, and give all glory to the word from His Son.

Nor can any description be conceived more exact and guarded than the language here used, while at the same time intended to impress the believing Jews with the superiority of the gospel to the law. "The which [salvation] having begun to be spoken through the Lord was confirmed unto us by those that heard, God also bearing witness with [them], both by signs and wonders and varied powers and distributions of [the] Holy Spirit according to his own will" (verses 3, 4).

Salvation took only a beginning of publication in the days of His flesh. For the work of atonement was not yet touched, as it was and could only be accomplished by His death at the close. Yet salvation assuredly began to be spoken of, when the Lord entered on His public ministry. Of this Luke 4: 16 et seqq. is the beautiful witness, founded on His reading Isa. 61: 1, 2, on the sabbath in the synagogue of Nazareth, and stopping with the acceptable year of Jehovah. The day of vengeance, surely to come in its season, was not to be till He comes again. It is salvation now. "Today hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears." Earlier still Simeon saw in the Babe the salvation of God. Now a further step was taken: the Lord had begun to speak of it. For indeed the Spirit of Jehovah was upon Him, and He was anointed to preach good tidings to the poor. Jehovah had sent Him to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering sight to the blind, to set at liberty those that were bruised, in short to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. And so to weary, heavy-laden souls He gave rest in His grace from first to last, as the cross itself testifies to the utmost.

Certainly when in due season Christ died for the ungodly, when He rose with "peace be unto you," and again "Peace" in sending by them, that salvation was confirmed by those that heard. Nor did God fail to bear His joint testimony, if those sent out were weak indeed. The Spirit given was of power and of love and of a sound mind. And His operations were such as to arrest the most careless and even hardened, while they did not, as they could not, fail to awaken unbelievers however prejudiced. Such was the effect of the Pentecostal signs and wonders and manifold powers and distributions of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. The tongues of scattered man's speech were spoken in a moment, as the Lord had promised (Mark 16), not only a "wonder" but a "sign" to Jews gathered to the feast from all nations, as the "varied powers" were displayed in healing the sick, casting out demons, and the like. "Distributions of the Holy Spirit" find their explanation in such a scripture as 1 Cor. 12. They all were forms of divine attestation that accompanied or rather followed the great salvation confirmed by those that preached it.

The glory of Christ has, however, another side. He is Son of God before the worlds, Son of God incarnate, Son of God risen from the dead. He is God; He is Jehovah. His position suits and attests His divine dignity. But He is Son of man also; and the moral glory of His humiliation is answered by His conferred glory, as the Epistle proceeds to develop, but with marked reference to the present exaltation of our Lord since the cross on high, and not to the millennial day, though this is assured for the earth by-and-by.

"For not to angels did he subject the habitable [earth] to come whereof we speak, but one somewhere testified, saying, What is man that thou rememberest him? Or son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than angels; with glory and honour thou crownedst him [and didst set him over the works of thy hands*]: thou didst put all things in subjection beneath his feet. For in that he subjected them all to him, he left nothing unsubjected to him. But now we see not yet them all in subjection to him. But we see him that hath been made a little lower than angels, Jesus, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that by God's grace he should taste of death for every thine," (verses 5-9).

* B, etc., omit this clause, for which A D P. etc. vouch.

Here the angels are not only surpassed beyond comparison, but have no place whatever. It is a question of subjection and of rule; but this is not for angels. They serve; they never reign. Man is called to rule, to have dominion. God was looking on to His Son, the Son of man. For Him the habitable earth is destined. God has not made it in vain. He knew from the first that the first man would fail. His counsels ever centre in Christ. But He must reign alone, if this were all; for all sinned and do come short of the glory of God. Yet rest for man with God in glory was ever His design. This could only be by death, the death of the Lord Jesus. His death is therefore the sole possible meeting-point, the solution of all hardest enigmas, the conciliation of perfect love with inflexible righteousness, of grace to the sinner with the untarnished glory of God, of man's weakness and of Satan's power, of judgment borne and of peace made, of the Highest taking the lowest place in obedience that He might receive the highest on a ground on which He could have the vilest now sanctified with Him, the sharers of His joy through redemption. Such the counsels, such the ways, of God in Christ.

It will be observed that man, the Son of man, comes into the greatest and most fitting prominence. It was only the name of shame and sin, if He to whom it specially belongs were not Son of God as no one else is, as divine. But this held fast, what can be sweeter to man if he believes God? For its true force and ways we have His word, the only sure standard. Now it is never applied to Him vaguely. It is His title when He is the consciously, evidently, rejected Messiah.

In the N.T. it first occurs in Matt. 8: 20. So He speaks of Himself to a scribe that proposed to follow Him "whithersoever thou goest." This might be all well for a Jew subject to the Messiah, the King, the fountain of dignity and reward. But the Lord even then realises His position. "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the sky nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." He had come to His own things, but His own people received Him not. This was about to be fully and awfully demonstrated; but He knew it then, and speaks as already outcast and having nothing. The death of the cross would be ere long the undeniable and absolute proof; but He realises it and expresses it, not only by the title but by what accompanies it, if any were ignorant of its import. Again, "the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins," and proves it by enabling the paralytic at a word to arise, take up his bed, and walk (Matt. 9). He will have come before His envoys shall have gone through the cities of Israel (Matt. 10) — a mission to be resumed before that day. At the later stage of Matt. 11: 19 the transition is plain; as in the solemn charge of Matt. 12: 32, 40, preparatory to His bringing out the mysteries of the kingdom of the heavens, the earth and earthly people were morally judged and found good for nothing. It was now a question of "the Sower," of a new system which He was to begin, though Satan again would ruin it as far as public result on earth appeared, yet would He secure the good and judge the evil.

Still more emphatic is the testimony of Matt. 16, where the utter unbelief of the Jews forms the background, in contrast with which shines the faith of the chief spokesman of the twelve, who receives a new name from the Lord, and learns that, on the rock of the Father's revelation of the Son, the Son of the living God, Christ was to build His church. It was then He charged His disciples to tell no one that He was "the Christ," not Jesus (which is absurd and not authentic, the addition of copyists ignorant of the truth). From that time forth He began to show them that He must suffer many things and be killed and raised again: His manifest chance to the full meaning of Son of man, as is pointed out expressly in Mark 8: 29-31: Luke 9: 20-22. The Gospel of John in his personal way sets out the same truth of transition for the Lord in John 12, where, after being presented as the Christ as is written in Zech. 9: 9, in the face of the Pharisees more hostile when He raised Lazarus from the grave as the quickening Son of God, His word to Andrew and Philip speaking for the Greeks is, "The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say to you, Except a corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (verses 23, 24). All judgment is committed to the Son of man, Who must be honoured thus by those who, not believing in Him as Son of God, despised Him as man: He will judge all such (John 5). So He appears to the Jew coming in the clouds of heaven (Matt. 24); so He deals with the Gentiles in that day (Matt. 25).

Nor is it otherwise in the O.T. It is the same Spirit, as the truth is one. For it will be observed that, as Psalm 2 is a weighty testimony to His Sonship as incarnate in Heb. 1, Psalm 8 is the no less appropriate citation here in Heb. 2. Nor is this casual, but the kernel that they respectively bear. The first Psalm speaks according to the Jewish covenant and contrasts the righteous with the ungodly, as the judgment will manifest. Psalm 2 introduces the Christ, Jehovah's King on Zion. Such is the decree. For He is Son, begotten in time, as we are told here for His kingdom, before time and all things (being their Creator) as we are told elsewhere. When He asks, He will receive not Judea merely but the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. But this is characterised by judgment executed publicly, in His breaking them with a rod of iron, and dashing them to pieces like a potter's vessel. Clearly this is postponed by His rejection on the part of the unbelieving Jews and lawless Gentiles; and when it is fulfilled, the church will be with Him and share His rule in a glorified state, as is explicitly declared in Rev. 2; 26, 27. Now this further stage of His rejection and its blessed consequence in a higher elevation and larger sphere, not as the Messiah only but as the humbled and glorified Son of man, is precisely the truth taught in Psalm 8 as we are instructed in our Epistle.

Thus the prefatory Psalms 1 and 2 give us the righteous man and the Messiah according to Jehovah's purpose, spite of opposing kings and peoples; the Psalms that follow, Ps. 3 - 7, point out how His Spirit works in the circumstances and sorrows of the righteous while He does not reign; and Psalm 8 closes this series by Christ as the humbled Son of man set over all things. Though the habitable earth be not yet subjected to Him, as our scripture tells us, yet when we look at Him crowned with glory and honour on high, we behold by faith even now the divine glory set in Him above the heavens, the pledge that His name will soon be acknowledged excellent in all the earth, as it really is. Without Christ man is indeed feeble and fallen. Angels excel in might; and we naturally look up to the heavens, the moon, and the stars, though but the work of Jehovah's fingers and His ordinances. But look at man in Christ! His shame and suffering on the cross are the ground of the highest glory even God could confer on the Man that went down below all, now exalted above all far beyond the oath to David or the promise to Abram. It is the glorious dénouement of His abasement for the ' suffering of death, as it is here explained, and that God's grace might have its fullest exercise. His present place is in heaven, in no way the subjection of the habitable earth which is "to come," as the scripture itself says; still less is His seat on the Father's throne the assumption of His own throne. It is God straightway glorifying in Himself the Son of man Who glorified Him as to sin in death. For the rest we await, as He does, the times and seasons the Father has set within His own authority. He is Himself, and as man, in the highest; and we seeing it by faith bear witness to Him, to His sufferings and the glories that should follow. His immeasurable superiority to angels as man is not to be doubted, though the time is not yet for seeing all things subjected to Him. From 1 Cor. 15 we learn that it awaits the resurrection at His coming. So absolute and universal is the supremacy over the universe He had created as God, that it seems good to the Holy Spirit in the Epistle to the Corinthians to except Him who subjected all to Christ; as here it is affirmed that He left nothing that is not put under Him.

How blessed and precise the appended words, "that He by God's grace should taste death for every thing!" This last rather than "man" appears best to suit the bearing of the context. It is the sphere not merely as a universe but including "every thing" brought under the reconciling power of His death. The following verse brings in persons, and different language is used.

What gives peculiar force to "the habitable earth * to come" is the undeniable fact that the main object of the Epistle is to develop and maintain the present glory of Christ as He sits, on the accomplishment of redemption, at the right hand of God on High From first to last this is obvious and all-important. The Jewish Christian, disposed to abide in or glide away into earthly hopes with the Messiah or His throne for their centre, needed to be continually recalled to his actual relationship with Christ in heaven. At the same time there is no lack of testimony throughout, to the rest of God that remaineth for His people (Heb. 4), to the age to come, of which the powers vouchsafed in apostolic era were a sample and pledge (Heb. 6), to the new covenant to be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Heb. 8), of which we have now only the principle, not the letter but spiritually, in the blood shed which is its basis, to the appearing of Christ a second time (Heb. 9), to the day approaching (Heb. 10), to the blessing concerning the things to come when the promise shall be received in fact instead of in faith (Heb. 11), to the full and ordered scene of glory in heaven and earth (Heb. 12), when the Lord shakes not earth only but also heaven, and to the city actually come and continuing (Heb. 13).

* That ἡ οἰκουμένη means "the habitable earth," or the world, whether as it is or as it will be in the age to come, and neither heaven nor eternity, nor a gospel or church state, will be plain from an examination of its occurrences: Matt. 24: 14; Luke 2: 1, Luke 4: 5, Luke 21: 26; Acts 11: 28, Acts 17: 6, 31, Acts 19: 27, Acts 24: 5; Rom. 10: 18; Heb. 1: 6, Heb. 2: 5; Rev. 3: 10, Rev. 12: 9, Rev. 16: 14.

Here we have the most distinct evidence that, whatever may be the displayed glory of the heavens in that day (and no one intelligent in Eph. 1, Col. 1, and other scriptures, would enfeeble but insist on it for Christ and the risen saints), yet it is an irreparable blank to leave out of that day's blessedness "the habitable earth." Abundant strains of the prophets anticipate it with assurance, joy, and praise, as the Law had of old, and the Psalms afterwards. Nor does the fullest light of the N.T. omit the earth in the proclamation of the coming kingdom, though the opening of heaven as the characteristic faith and hope made the higher naturally predominant. If the Lord taught His disciples to pray that the Father's kingdom should come, He did not fail to add as the next petition, "Thy will he done, as in heaven, so on earth." The revelation of new things does not blot out the old; as indeed Christ will be the centre and head of both in that day to the glory of God the Father. So is His outpouring in John 17. He asks what assuredly will be fully answered in connection with His giving to the saints the glory which the Father gave Him (not, of course, what was personally intrinsic and eternal), "that they may be one, even as we [are] one; I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and lovedst them even as Thou lovedst Me." In the day of glory it will be a question of "knowing," not as now an appeal to "faith" (cf. verses 20, 21). But there is undeniably "the world" to know when they see those truly divine counsels of grace fulfilled in the manifested glory of Christ and His own. There are earthly things no less than heavenly in the kingdom (John 3), which is as different from the present time of the gospel as from the still more remote eternity with its conditions of total and fixed change.

And how suitable is it that "the habitable earth" where the Lord was born, where He laboured, suffered, and died on the cross, should be subjected to His government, and behold His glory, and experience more blessedness under His sceptre than it groaned in misery and corruption under rebellious man misled by a mightier rebel than himself! It is His due, not only as Creator of it all but as Redeemer. There He was put to shame, there He will triumph. There man and Satan brought in death and the curse; there God and His Son will fill the earth with peace and glory. How sad the blank if this were not to be!

In vain do ancients and moderns err from the word and pervert this scripture to the state of the church under the gospel. On the face of it "to come" distinguishes the world into which God brought in the Firstborn (Heb. 1: 6). Such is its state in the future; as no mystification or argument can make it legitimately mean a heavenly and spiritual system. Such as our condition of gospel and church privilege. Nor is there any difficulty in the clause that follows, "whereof we speak." For the matter treated of is the future subjection of this habitable world to the Second man, and not to angels. Undoubtedly it is not the eternal state when He shall deliver up the kingdom to Him Who is God and Father. It is His reign till He has put all His enemies under His feet, death last of all. It is not the time when He ministers as the High Priest in heaven for those who on earth suffer and need His succour and sympathy. It is not the gospel state, but the millennial kingdom which intervenes between the gospel as now and the eternity which closes all. It is the world or habitable earth under the manifested power and kingdom of the Lord Jesus, the rejected Messiah but Son of man exalted to reign over all peoples, nations, and languages.

Certainly the death of Christ is not here associated with God's law. What possible boon was law for the guilty? For such it can bring no blessing nor pardon, but a curse, and this righteously. Compare with Deut. 27; Rom. 4: 15; 1 Cor. 15: 56; Gal. 3: 10; 1 Tim. 1: 9. But here it is grace, God's grace; and by it Christ tasted death for everyone, if it be not rather "everything." Compare the verses before. What more, what so, expressive of outspreading mercy, with glorious consequences to the universe, from His personal glory who thus deigned to die by God's grace! God could not but have worthy purposes of goodness to accomplish rising over sin and ruin by such a death. Where sin carried the first man and his race, the Second man went by God's grace. By it He tasted death; but it was for everything.

"For it became Him for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the leader of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both the sanctifier and the sanctified [are] all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name to my brethren — in [the] midst of [the] assembly will I sing thy praise. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children which God gave me. Since then the children have a common share of blood and flesh,* He also Himself in like manner took part in the same, that through death he might annul him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all those that by fear of death were through the whole of their life subject to bondage" (verses 10-15).

* The great weight of the best MSS. supports the less usual order ( A B C D E M P, some cursives, and many ancient versions and fathers). The same order occurs in Eph. 6: 12, and even in Polyaen. Strag. iii. 11.

The grand truth first before us, and justly, is that it became God — Him for whom and by whom is the universe — in bringing (not everybody but) "many sons" unto glory, to make the Leader of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Where sin is, in God's righteous government there must follow suffering. Undoubtedly in Christ was no sin, not only no sin done but none in Himself. But He became the responsible Man to retrieve God's honour, outraged everywhere by the creature above and below. Satan and his angels had left their first estate. Man was disobedient. All was ruin. The Son of man goes down in obedience and bears all the consequences, glorifying God infinitely even as to sin, and on the road endures sufferings in every shape and decree as none else could, according to His moral perfection and personal glory, till all was exhausted in the cross, so that it was for God's righteousness to exalt Him as now in glory. Thus was His course finished, that He in glory might bring "many sons" to glory; but the path lay through sufferings. Thus was He perfected: not that He was not ever the perfect One, but that so only could it be if God were to be vindicated and Himself the Leader of salvation for the many sons to share that heavenly glory. The work is done which gives Him a title to "everything" by redemption, as He had also the rights of Creator. He died, having made peace by the blood of His cross to reconcile all things. whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. But He responded entirely to the gracious purpose of God which would also have "many sons" reconciled to share the glory with Him, and therefore He accepted all the sufferings which were the necessary condition. Judgment must have closed the door irrevocably on all men as on all angels that sinned. Where would grace then have been? The sufferings of Christ made it righteous to have many sons in the same glory as Himself, not derogating from God's glory but enhancing it and giving it a new, larger, and higher form than ever. Where would judgment, have been otherwise? What did the "sons" deserve?

"For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one." No thought can be more opposed to the truth than confounding this blessed association of the saints and incarnation, so as to bring in all mankind. Beyond controversy without incarnation it could not be; but their association is founded on His death and displayed in His resurrection. Incarnation means not Christ's union with all the race, nor yet the union of the saints with Him, but (what was essential to redemption as the basis for this union) Deity united with humanity in the Word become flesh. Sinful man could not be sanctified otherwise. Incarnation was now the state of His person: henceforth God and man indissolubly joined, in order to His suffering for sins once, as He did atoningly on the tree; but it is as risen and glorified that He is said to be "made perfect," and to have become the author of everlasting salvation to all those that obey Him (Heb. 5: 9).

Christ is thus effectually separating us to God. He is the Sanctifier; and both He and the sanctified are all of one. The Epistle does not rise to the unity of which we learn in Eph. and Col., or even in 1 Cor. He and they are not here said to be one, but "of one." There is efficacious and blessed association, yet the unity of the body of Christ is not the truth which is here opened, but rather heavenly calling, as we read in Heb. 3: 1. Nothing can be conceived more unwise, irreverent, and childish than therefore to slight its aim. No Epistle is more adapted than this to the Hebrews to exalt the Lord or to draw out the renewed affections of the saints. So far from being Jewish, it is the final word to deliver the too slow disciples from earthly thoughts and fleshly hopes and worldly religion to Christ in heaven.

But it is false that He and mankind are "all of one"; only He and the sanctified are.* And sanctification is not union but separation to God. Therefore is it that in John 17 our Lord speaks of Himself, not as sanctifying others, but as sanctifying Himself. This He did not at all in the moral sense (for He was ever the Holy One of God, and even demons confessed Him so), but as setting Himself apart in heaven the model as the glorified Man to form and fashion us now by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; and this expressly in absolute separation from the world of which we are not, as He is not nor was. There was grace toward the race in all perfection. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. But the world proved itself irreconcilable, though there He was rising above human sin, selfishness, and misery, "not reckoning their trespasses to them." But they despised the reconciliation and rejected Himself. In His rejection on the cross God made Him sin — laid on Him atoningly its awful consequences — that the believer might become God's righteousness in Him. Thus both the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one. They are one set as set apart to God.

* It may be well to observe how that οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι here does not mean the process going on, although the phrase in itself is quite capable of such a force. The present in Greek, as in other tongues also, can express character apart from time, as every scholar knows and every person of intelligence must own on reflection. This is rendered certain of "the sanctified" here by comparing Heb. 10: 10, 14, which could not be said at the same time if sanctification were here viewed as only in progress. In other words, if we were only being sanctified, we could not also be said, as we are, to have been now sanctified (ἡγιασμένοι) as a distinct and enduring fact, and further that He has perfected without a break (τετελείωκεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς) τοὺς ἁγαζομὲνους. It is not true, as Dean Alford said, that the perfect expresses God's purpose respecting these objects. It is on the contrary present standing, the actual result of a past action.

This truth, so often gainsaid by some and undermined by others, is set forth by apt quotations from the O.T. introduced by the words, "for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren." As God was not ashamed to be called the God of the fathers, so Christ is not ashamed (I say not to be called Brother but) to call us, the children, brethren. It is His relationship which He nowhere extends to man as he is, nor even to His own disciples though born of God, till He rose from the dead. Before then the utmost He uttered was altogether vague: "Behold, my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father that is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother." As risen, He sends the new message, "But go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God," followed the same day at evening by His characteristic act of inbreathing and saying, Receive the Holy Spirit. Henceforth they had life in resurrection power, life abundantly as indeed He had promised.

But Psalm 22: 22 intimates more. The time was not yet come for Messiah's praise of God in "the great congregation" (verse 25) of Judah and Ephraim in their twelve-tribed fulness (Acts 26), when all the ends of the earth also shall remember and turn to Jehovah, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him. Verse 22 is pointedly different, and applied now by the Spirit that inspired the Epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed the truth of it was made good that evening when Jesus came (though the doors were shut for fear of the Jews), and stood in the midst of the assembled disciples, and said, "Peace be unto you," showing them withal His hands and His side, the marks of that death in which He was made a sacrifice for sin. The Psalm impresses on the scene, not the mission of peace as in the gospel, but the united praise of the assembly which Jesus Himself leads as "in the midst." And how deep and high and truly of divine savour is that praise which Jesus hymns! How unbelieving to doubt that, as He is in the midst where two or three are gathered to His name, we may count on His leadership of praise! May we be not faithless but believing!

Is this to lower the Lord? It ought to strengthen us in the grace that is in Him, drawing out the proof how truly the Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one. Hear further, "And again, I will put my trust in Him; and again Behold, I and the children which God gave me." The first of these truths occurs repeatedly in the O.T., but it would seem that it is cited with a suitable modification from the same prophecy which furnishes the second, Isa. 8: 14, 18. The original passage is full of interest, and affords a strikingly pertinent application to the Christian Hebrews. For the Son of David had been just before predicted as to be born of the virgin, yet called Immanuel (Isa. 7), and owned (Isa. 8) as a child born to the Jews, yet Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, unquestionably the Messiah. Before the day when He increases the nation and breaks the rod of the oppressor, He shall be for a sanctuary, but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon and fall and be broken and be snared and be taken. Still more remarkable language follows. "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait for Jehovah that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts who dwelleth in Mount Zion."

This has been accomplished to the letter. The day is at hand for the display of His power and glory in the deliverance of Israel. Meanwhile it is only a remnant of them that is in relationship with Him; and they are more than ever favoured spiritually. The testimony is bound up, the law or teaching sealed, among His disciples to whom He is a sanctuary, while His face is hid from the house of Jacob generally. So that He and the children given Him of Jehovah, the Sanctifier and the sanctified, are for signs and for wonders while He is a rock of offence to both houses of Israel. It is just the place of Him who became man to trust in Jehovah, and of those given Him by Jehovah from the Jews (as in principle true of all Christians) meanwhile. He was as truly man as Jehovah; and we who are given Him reap the blessing of both facts united in His person. The dependent man was the Lord God of Israel, the sanctuary of the remnant when the nation stumbled at the Stumbling-stone.

Here is the deduction. "Since then the children have a common share (κεκοινώνηκεν) of blood and flesh, he also himself in like manner took part in the same, that through death he might annul him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all those that by fear of death were through the whole of their life subject to bondage" (verses 14, 15). The Son of God became man, as the children were men, in order to meet Satan in his last stronghold of death, and thus by dying exhaust his power for those who being under law were harassed all their life long by fear in their conscience. It is plain that the enemy is here in view, as God was in verse 10, and as the sufferings of Christ vindicated God's holy nature and character, leaving His love free to act in saving us and bringing us to glory, so did His death break Satan's power to nought and deliver from fear the troubled saints, henceforth in peace, for He was raised for their justification. Satan is no longer to the believer the King of terrors. Christ has disarmed the enemy by submitting to death, and his power is gone for ever for His own. His resurrection proved the seal of death broken for us, as for us He died; and our resurrection will be the demonstration of its truth, not to us that believe who have in ourselves the witness of His grace and glory, but to all who disbelieve, rejecting Christ and the gospel.

"Since then the children have a common share of blood and flesh, he also himself in like manner took part in the same, that through death he might annul him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those that by fear of death were through the whole of their life subject to bondage" (verses 14, 15).

Here we have indeed the Incarnation set out more definitely than anywhere else in this Epistle or perhaps in any other. Here then those who base their theology on that immense and to us most affecting truth, considering Who He was that was thus made flesh, should compare their deductions with the revealed mind of God. The Holy Spirit brings before us its true objects and design. Far be it from the heart to seek to limit its scope. Let other scriptures be taken into account, and no ray of heavenly light from any be shut out. Only let it be the divine truth, and not human speculation; for no one fully knows (ἐπιγινώσκει) the Son but the Father. Be it ours therefore to hear, and to adore.

Clearly then "the children" are in immediate view, and not a vague and vain thought of all mankind. As they had blood and flesh as their common portion, He also in like manner took part in the same. Blessed a proof as it may be that God's good pleasure is not in angels, however near Him and in themselves glorious, but in men, weak though they are, yea, worthless and wretched through sin, His eye is on them for good, His heart toward them in mercy, and so much the more because misled and oppressed by a powerful and relentless foe. But it is no ineffectual testimony that we hear. Jesus had come in grace, or, as we are told elsewhere, "anointed of God with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." But man would none of Him, however welcome at first; least of all His own people. Jew and Gentile conspired to reject Him even to the death of the cross. In that death God broke the power of the devil, wrought deliverance for His own, and laid an atoning and eternal basis, not only to meet but through faith to save the foulest sinners on earth. Nothing but the death of Christ could bring to nought him that had the power of death; nothing else deliver all those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Incarnation is a blessed truth, but it is only the means to the end here specified — and where misused as it often is, it clouds and shuts out that death which defeats the enemy and delivers the captives, as being the true ground of God's righteousness, because there only was sin judged definitely and in grace toward the guilty. Infidelity denies God and His Christ altogether: His deity and His incarnation are to it nothing, as God is in none of its thoughts. But with fallen Christendom the controversy habitually is, whether deliverance turns on a living Christ on earth? or on a dead and risen Christ exalted to heaven? Tradition and humanitarianism affirm the former. Scripture alone asserts the truth, because it alone, while declaring incarnation fully, leaves room for the vindication of God and the annulling of Satan, the judgment of sin and the deliverance of the believer, as well as the glorifying of Christ.

The same death of Christ lays doubtless a ground for all men, as we see in Rom. 3 and elsewhere. In virtue of the blood on the mercy-seat God's righteousness is "unto all," and "upon all that believe." Here it is the last only. It is "the children" who are in question, whom Christ is not ashamed to call "brethren." The world at large does not therefore come into this account. We must be subject to the word of God, and receive truth as God reveals it: else we fall into confusion.

Now we come to those in whom the Saviour is directly and blessedly interested. Here again is nothing vague, but all is made carefully precise.

"For doubtless not of angels doth he lay hold,* but of Abraham's seed he layeth hold. Whence it behoved him in all things. to be made like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to help those that are tempted" (verses 16-18).

* Wiclif, following the Latin, says simply "He took "; Tyndale, better still, "He taketh on Him," though wrongly giving "in no place": so Cranmer. The Geneva V. gave the past tense and "in no sort" wrongly. The A.V., though right as to "verily," went farther astray by inserting "the nature of."

The rendering of verse 16 is faultily given in many versions, in none perhaps worse than our own A.V. The sense is totally changed, and a preterite form assigned to the verb, instead of the present tense, the natural consequence of such a change of sense. "He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took," etc. This, it is evident, ἐπιλαμβάνεται cannot bear. It is expressly a present. Again the word means to lay hold of, especially when with a genitive as here in the middle voice. Such is its force, even when uncompounded; and the preposition defines or emphasises. Never does it mean to take a nature, though the A.V. seems to have been led into this, partly by Beza,* chiefly by certain Greek commentators,† for whose mistake no excuse can be made. They were occupied with controversies which misled them to catch at straws. The incarnation was the chief one in this case. But this had been fully treated and just closed. The Holy Spirit here goes on to Christ's making a special object, not of angels but of Abraham's seed, which of itself ought to have guarded reflecting minds from the error. Why Abraham rather than Adam? It is evidently owing to another truth, no longer the assumption of human nature, but their cause he undertakes. Incarnation was the necessary means, in order to accomplish this and other ends according to God. Here the seed of promise comes into view, a truth palatable to those who valued their descent from Abraham; but, as our Lord showed (John 8), they only are Abraham's children who do the works of Abraham; and none do his works who share not his faith; which, as it did not go with mere fleshly descent, so it was open to those who had like precious faith. For they that be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham (Gal. 3: 9).

* The substance of his annotation I transcribe from the fifth and last edition of his N.T., dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, 1598. "Angels, that is, angelic nature. . . . He a little before said κεκοινώνηκε instead of κοινωνεῖ!, so now on the other hand he employs the present for the past!! which exchanges of tenses everywhere occur with Hebrews. Vulg. apprehendit not badly, but a word unusual in setting out the hypostatic union of the two natures. Abraham's seed that is, the real nature of man, especially of Abraham's family. . . . Wherefore the more to be execrated is the audacity of Castalio, who renders ἐπιλαμβάνεται by opitulatur [helpeth], an interpretation not only false but irreverent, since ἐπ. never expresses this among the Greeks," etc., etc. Now it is true that Dean Alford, etc., who agree with C., go too far. With the dative the verb does mean to help. But the fact is that the French divine was blinded by theological prejudice, to say nothing of feeling against a rival translator, who here, if not quite accurate, was nearer the truth, would not swerve from grammatical requirement, and gave the sense substantially. There is on the one hand no enallage, as Beza says, but a clear and correct statement of a manifest and indisputable truth; on the other, it is untrue that Castalio invented a meaning new and unheard of, but pertinent to the unfolding argument of the chapter, whereas Beza offends against correct language, and destroys the truth here intended, confounding it with what was already laid down.

† Take the best of them, J. Chrysostom, who comments as follows on the passage: "What is this he says? He took up an angel's nature, not a man's. But what is, He layeth hold? Not that nature of the angels, says he, did He seize, but ours. And wherefore did he not say, He took up, but employ this expression, He layeth hold? From the metaphor of those that pursue persons that turn away and do everything so as to catch them though they flee, and lay hold of them though bounding off. For He pursued closely and caught human nature in its flight from Him and flying far, for we were far off. He showed that this He has done by kindness to man alone, and love and guardian care" (In Epp. Paul. vii. 63, ed. Field, Oxen., 1862). Theodoret adds nothing of real value, as he repeats the same exegetical mistake. He notices the peculiarity of Abraham's seed in such a connection, and tries to explain it as a reminder of the promise. Quite true; but incarnation and promise are wholly distinct, though this could not have been without that.

The uncertainty that has prevailed is extraordinary as to almost every word. "For" is the only right sense, not "moreover" as Macknight says, nor "besides" with M. Stuart. The word δήπου was quite mistaken by those that followed the laxity of the Vulgate. The Syriac Versions early and late pass it by altogether. It occurs nowhere else in the Greek Testament nor yet in the Septuagint, but its force is unequivocally in the ordinary usage of the language, as "doubtless," "I presume," "forsooth." We have already seen that "to take up" or "undertake the cause" is the meaning of the verb so emphatically repeated, negatively and positively. Angels He has not as the object of His care, but Abraham's seed He has. It may be applied to laying hold or arresting with hostile intent: where a gracious aim is plain as here, the sense is no less certain. Assuming a nature is without example and in no way involved in the word itself. Nor does it suit the verse either; because for our Lord to assume Abraham's seed had no nature distinctively. Of blood and flesh it had been already declared He partook, but this is humanity; and the reason assigned is that, as the children, or Abraham's seed, had a common share of the same, He is no doubt undertaking their cause, not that of angels. When it comes to the question of espousing a cause, not of incarnation, we hear not of human nature, but expressly of those separated on the ground of divine promise, the objects of grace.

Hence the moral necessity that He should be "in all things made like to his brethren." Even though deigning to become man, He might have been in wholly different circumstances from most or all. Yet Adam never knew what it was to be a man, as the Lord of glory did from birth onward. From what trial or suffering was He exempted, sin only excepted? and this that He might in due time be of God made sin on the cross, bearing its bitterest consequences? And this we see as the end in view in 18, "That He might be a merciful and faithful high-priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

The allusion is plain to the exceptional position of the high-priest on the day of atonement. He and he alone was the actor on that day, and this typically. Christ and Christ alone was the one sufferer also in the antitype. What was wrought on the cross goes far beyond the "shadow," though the shadow was constructed to indicate a great deal. But Christ alone gives us the full truth of atonement or of anything else, because He is the truth. His person, unique and divine, made the superiority in every respect.

It was not at all the normal action of priesthood in the holy place. The high priesthood on that day was representative of the people before God in their sins. This was quite extraordinary. A far deeper need was in question than intercession that followed, or representing them within in their acceptance. If sin was to be adequately dealt with even in type, and only for the purifying of the flesh, and but for a year, no other way lay open. It is not application, but God met according to His nature: even the people's lot was putting the confessed sins away out of His sight in the form. The momentous reality appears in all its moral glory and efficacy in that work of Christ's death for sin and our sins, which has perfected and glorified God, and brought in eternal redemption.

The English versions are various, and none of them exact, yet there is no uncertainty as to the sense. Wiclif is the most paraphrastic — "that He schulde be made merciful and a feithful bischop to God, that He schulde be merciful to the trespassis of the puple." Tyndale is closer, "that He myght be mercifull, and a faythfull hye preste in thynges concernynge God, for to pourge the peoples synnes." And so Cranmer and the Geneva Bible. The Rhemish has the barbarous Latin servilely reproduced, "that He might repropitiate," etc. The A.V. gives "to make reconciliation for the sinnes of the people": an awkward misrendering. Reconciliation is of persons, as well as of creation; but for sins is not justifiable. Propitiation or atonement for them is correct.

Here too it will be noticed that the Spirit of God does not warrant that unlimited extension for which so many contend. And such is the frailty and caprice of man's mind that those who without and contrary to the text would widen the sphere of "the people," and "the children of Abraham," and "His brethren" to all mankind are often the same who on shallow grounds would expunge the universality of the outlook of divine righteousness in Rom. 3: 22, and chance the beautiful distinction of "unto all, and upon all those that believe," into the indiscriminate and feeble generality of "unto all them that believe."

The propitiation of Christ is the basis of His priestly action on high. Save the exceptional work of atonement, there was and could be nothing of the kind. For heaven alone is its regular sphere; and this runs through our Epistle from first to last. It was when made perfect (and this was clearly after His sufferings were complete), that He became the cause of everlasting salvation to all that obey Him, being addressed or saluted of God as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5). But the basis of an all-sufficing, God-glorifying propitiation must first be laid and accepted; and then He takes His place in heaven to intercede for those whose sins He bore.

But there was another necessity fully met. He must know not sin but suffering. He must be tempted to the uttermost, sin excepted (Heb. 4), in order to succour the tempted. "For in that he hath suffered when tempted, he is able to help those that are tempted," (verse 18).

Temptation means trial; never in Christ's case, what is in fallen man's inward solicitation to evil. This is what the Holy Spirit expressly denies of Him, and what no one who believed in His person ought to have allowed for a moment. Lustful experience or sin is incompatible with the Holy One of God; and, so far from being in a single instance predicated of Him, it is wholly excluded: χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας could be said of neither Enoch nor Elijah, nor of John and Paul, but of Him only. The blessed endurance of temptation (James 1: 2, 12) He knew beyond any; but what James describes in verses 13-15 of his first chapter was foreign to Him, and a blasphemous imputation, as it proves fundamental unbelief of Who and what He is. We are too familiar with the human and selfish argument that He could not sympathise with us adequately if exempt from those internal and evil workings, bemoaned in Rom. 7 and bitterly known by every soul born of God, at least in the early days of his awakening. But if we needed the Lord to be similarly harassed in order to feel fully with us, we should on that ground want Him to have yielded, as we alas! have often done, in order to sympathise with us in our sad failures. No! that ground is wretchedly and absolutely opposed to Christ; and what the word reveals as the remedy for evil within and without in every form and degree is not Christ's sympathy, but His propitiatory suffering for us. He sympathises with us in our holy, not in our unholy, temptations. For our unholiness He died; the cross alone has met it fully in God's sight. Had there been in fact the least inward taint of sin, His sensibility of evil had been impaired, His sufferings diminished, and His sympathy hindered, to say nothing of the deadly wound to His person, unfitted by such an evil nature to be a sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 3

Hebrews 3 follows 1 and 2 in beautiful order. For "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession" answers to the chapters before: the first of these titles of Christ being specially connected with His being Son of God, as the second is with that of Son of man. He comes from God to man on earth; He goes from man to God in heaven. And this is largely, though not entirely, the reason why the writer was led not to speak of himself as an apostle. He had it as his task to present Christ as the Apostle. This might have been enough for one whose reverence was guided unerringly by the Holy Spirit. We can understand why he forebore to speak of himself or any other when so speaking of Him; even if there had not been the gracious reason of not so introducing himself beyond his allotted sphere of the uncircumcision. And we may notice the further and not unimportant or uninteresting fact that, in writing to the Hebrew believers, he is exercising the function of a teacher rather than of an apostle, however truly he was this. He is unfolding the treasures of the O.T. in the light of Christ, of His blood, and His presence in heaven most particularly. And thus we are indebted to the exceptional circumstances in which the Epistle was written that it is the richest specimen of inspired teaching in the Bible, more than any other affording and applying the key of Christ's work and position and offices, and grace and glory in all; to unlock what had otherwise been to us hard and obscure. What an incentive and aid to encourage us to follow in the same path in our poor measure, by His grace who so enabled him! Were all the commentaries that are extant on the O.T. to be effaced, is it too much to say that it would be a real gain if the Lord's servants betook themselves afresh to its study with a believing use of this single Epistle to the Hebrews? Certain it is that few have adequately profited by it, because they have so much tradition to unlearn; and that the mass even of saints are so steeped in preconceived ideas that the simple yet profound truth it presents is foreclosed and escapes them.

Christ's apostleship leads to the comparison with Moses, as His high priesthood with that of Aaron, the main topic in a large part of the treatise.

"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; faithful as he is to him that appointed him, as also [was] Moses, in all his house. For he hath been accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as he that built the house hath more honour than it. For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things [is] God. And Moses indeed [was] faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things afterward to be spoken; but Christ as Son over his house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the boldness and the glorying of the hope firm to the end" (verses 1-6).

There is emphasis, of course, in the unusual combination, "holy brethren." Since the Jews as such were accustomed to be called "brethren" after the flesh, there was the more propriety in designating Christian Jews "holy brethren," however truly it applies to any Christian.

Again, as the chosen nation was partaker of an earthly position and hope, we can understand well the force of describing the believers in Christ from its midst as "partakers of a heavenly calling." Such indeed they were. They entered the new privilege not by a tie of birth but by call of God; and this, as it was from Christ in heaven, so it was to heavenly glory, bearing earthly rejection, suffering and shame, as the Epistle shows from first to last. The calling upward or high calling of Phil. 3: 14 answers to it.

Truly we must distinguish the heavenly calling from the calling in Eph. 4: 1, developed in that Epistle which is still more intimate and precious. For it is bound up with the mystery concerning Christ and concerning the church. Accordingly we do not hear of the oneness of the body with its Head in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as we do not hear of Christ the High Priest in that to the Ephesians. Even when church is spoken of in our Epistle (Heb. 12: 23), it is regarded in its individual components, not in its unity: so distinct is the design of each. Hence we are not viewed here as quickened with Christ, raised up together with Him and seated together in Him in heavenly places, but as represented by Him in heaven, where He appears for us and gives us while here below access into the holies.

Christ is shown to surpass Moses and Aaron next, as we have already seen the angels left behind in Heb. 1, 2. The contrast with Moses is traced in Heb. 3. That with Aaron begins in the latter part of Heb. 4. But it is well also to notice "our confession." It leaves room for such as turn out mere professors; for it is not even said "our faith," though this might soon become a lifeless creed. And this is borne out by the solemn warnings not to neglect, to hold fast, and the like, which abound throughout our Epistle, as we find similarly in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and in that to the Colossians.

It will be noticed that the name of "Jesus" stands here in its simple majesty. For a Jewish Christian it was all-important. Every Jew owned the Messiah or Christ. The Christian Jews confessed Him already come in Jesus. And the aim of this Epistle is to open even from the ancient oracles the varied glories that centre in Him with all the store of blessing for those that are His.

Nor is it only that Jesus "was" faithful, though this is true. But "is" goes farther as the more general and absolute term. Only it seems strange that reverent minds should venture to apply to Him ποιή, in the sense, so liable to misconstruction and error, of making or creating Him, when the context clearly points to constituting Him officially.

If Moses was a messenger of God singularly honoured as all confess, he was after all in an inferior position, however faithful in all the house of God. But Jesus was not only a Man approved of God among the Jews beyond all by miracles and wonders and signs in their midst, not only anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power, going about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, unequalled in word and deed yet withal the lowliest in obedience and love and holiness; but "He hath been accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, by so much as He that built the house hath more honour than it" i.e. the house. And in this case the reason has no limit. "For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things [is] God." The allusion is evident to the argument and the proofs of Heb. 1. Jesus, whatever office He may fill, is God. He sheds glory on the position He takes, though assuredly the way in which He administers each office redounds to the glory of Him that appointed Him.

It is interesting to see that the axiom of the fourth verse is the morally irresistible argument from design, which has been more or less ably applied by those who have written on the evidence of creation to its Creator. Prof. M. Stuart labours in vain over this verse, and gives up its relevance in the context as hopelessly obscure. But as in Heb. 1 and 2 we have seen the universe in relation to Christ, so it is here. God formed it all, but Christ created it as the divine person active in the work, for He is God no less than the Father, and set over the house not as servant like Moses but as Son, and this in the closer sense of the house wherein He dwells, besides the broader one of the universe which He established. The Jews were apt to confine their regards to His choice of themselves. God does not forget, nor would He have us to forget, Christ's supremacy as Heir of all things.

But there is a truth also of the deepest interest to believers. The house or dwelling-place depends on redemption. Whatever might be the ultimate end of God in what He made, sin came in at once through the creature's lack of dependence. God could only dwell on the ground of redemption. Hence it is that in Genesis we have no dwelling of God here below. He might visit Adam, or yet more and more touchingly Abraham; but even with Abraham He does not dwell. In Exodus God has His dwelling in the midst of a poor unworthy and failing people; but it is solely in virtue of redemption. No doubt it was only partial and provisional, alike the redemption and the dwelling of God, each the type of that which is perfect and everlasting. And the wonderful fact in Christianity is that both are now verified by the coming and work of our Lord Jesus. No redemption will ever surpass or even equal what is already. With (or by) His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained everlasting redemption. Hence, as Ephesians teaches, we are builded together for God's habitation in Spirit. The Holy Ghost sent down from heaven makes it good. What an incomparable privilege is God's dwelling, and Christ's body, as the same chapter had shown, to say nothing now of the many and yet fuller testimonies! Redemption of the body and of the inheritance will be more evident., but the redemption of our souls now, while only in Christ before God, which is attested and enjoyed in the Holy Spirit's power, bringing the deepest knowledge of and communion with God for heaven.

Here, however, it is first the general truth of the universe as God's house, with which we do well to compare Rev. 21: 3. It is in the eternal scene fully that this will be vindicated and manifested. Our Epistle does not here develop that perfect rest of God, but pursues its present aim of comparing the great chief of the legal economy with the still greater One Whom the Jews had crucified by the hands of lawless Gentiles. "And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as an attendant for a testimony of thinks afterward to be spoken; but Christ as Son over His house, whose house are we" — we emphatically, as the Epistle never confounds the "sanctified" with mere Jews or all mankind. It states carefully those that are set apart by the Sanctifier, even Jesus, the test of God for man. Moses never rose above a servant, nor is the creature in any case, were he Gabriel in heaven or yet Michael the archangel. Jesus is the Son, the eternal Word, the Only-Begotten who is (not was merely, but is) in the bosom of the Father from everlasting to everlasting. In His case therefore it was not merely for a testimony of what should be spoken. His was and is glory intrinsic and personal. He was the Faithful Witness, as in all things He has the pre-eminence; and so He is here and now spoken of as Son over His house, the house of God, as it ought not to be doubted. There is no sufficient ground for "His own" house as in the A.V. It is the house of God throughout, even though its present application is immensely and necessarily modified by redemption in Christ. Hence His confessors really constitute this house, with the implication in the serious words that follow, "if we hold fast the boldness and the boast of the hope firm to the end."

The Spirit of God foresaw the danger of those addressed. Freshness of enjoyment is apt to pass, and souls are thereby exposed, under trying circumstances, to turn toward what was left behind when grace and truth wrought in power. The course of time, with distractions within (for so it will be till Christ come, in presence of an enemy who hates all that is of Him) and with attractions for the flesh without, tests souls. It is well when we hold fast firm to the end the boldness and the glorying which the hope forms and entitles us to. But it may be very different even with real children of God; and it will assuredly prove those that are unreal. For the same things which injure those born of God are the ruin of those who have not life in Christ. Hence the grave caution here enjoined, peculiarly needed by those addressed, and in no small measure by those drawn to the Lord's name out of a professing mass, when clouds gather, difficulties increase, and desertions are frequent.

Is it not an extraordinary deduction from verse 6, that the Christian is in danger from confidence in his soul, and from the boast which glory before us inspires? Yet such is the perversion that prevails among those who shrink from enjoying the revealed riches of God's grace in Christ. It is plain and sure that the Holy Spirit here takes for granted that the Christian has the confidence to which Christ and His redemption entitle every simple-hearted believer, and that the glory of God we hope for is a happy and settled boast. Those who think otherwise have been defrauded of their proper portion by ignorant, perhaps false, guides. The real danger against which the Hebrew confessors are warned is giving up that confidence and boast. They are urged to hold it fast. This is the reverse of cautioning them against such confidence. The Christian dishonours the Lord by not cherishing true confidence and abounding hope; and yet more by giving them up, through difficulties or trials, when once possessed. This is the dangerous unbelief against which they are admonished.

It is clearly not our standing which is in question; for this being wholly of God and in Christ is settled and sure and unchanging. There is no "if" either as to Christ's work or as to glad tidings of God's grace. All there is unconditional grace to faith. The wilderness journey is before us, flowing very simply from the allusion to Moses. And this is followed up with evident suitability in the quotation from Psalm 95. Here it is that "if" has its necessary place, because it is our walk through the desert, where there are so many occasions of failure, and we need constant dependence on God.

"Wherefore even as the Holy Spirit saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation in the day of temptation in the wilderness, where your fathers tempted [me] * by proof and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was displeased with this * generation, and said, They always err in their heart, and they ignored my ways: as I swore in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest. See, brethren, lest there be in any one of you a wicked heart of unbelief in falling away from a living God; but exhort yourselves each day while it is called today lest any of you be hardened by deceitfulness of sin" (verses 7-13).

*Text. Rec. follows the later copies, as they with the Septuagint add me and read ἐδοκίμασάν με.  The more ancient give the text adopted in this version. A similar remark applies to "this" rather than "that" as in the common text.

Now Psalm 95 is in its open force a final call from the Spirit of Christ to Israel in view of the great morrow when the kingdom is introduced for the earth in the power and glory of Messiah's presence. They are therefore to hear His voice "today" (verse 7). Hence it is truly applicable since the apostles called souls to believe the gospel in view of Christ's appearing. But nowhere is it more apt than as here urged on the Hebrews.

To hear His voice is the characteristic of Christ's sheep. So the rejected Son of God puts it Himself in John 10: 3, 4, 16, 27: compare John 5: 24. On this depend the most blessed issues; as the rejection of His voice is to lie down in sorrow, the prey of a mightier rebel than man. It is the work of the Spirit to give one hitherto deaf to hear Him, according to His will who spoke on "the holy mount" (Matt. 17: 5; Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 35). It is life, eternal life.

Alas! it was easy to hear with the outward ear only, and to harden the heart, even as Stephen warned. "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye" (Acts 7: 5 1). Sin is in the measure of truth heard and despised; and what testimony can God present to those who refused the voice of Christ not only humbled but glorified, who died for sinners? The very blessedness of the gospel, "so great salvation," marks the desperateness of the need, and the imminence of the danger.

So, but not at all to the same degree, it was with Israel of old "in the provocation, in the day of the temptation in the wilderness" (verse 8). The allusion is to Meribah and Massah which the Septuagint thus translates. Compare Psalm 95: 8: The Septuagint, however, in Ex. 17: 7, gives not "provocation" as in the Psalms, but "reviling" as in verse 2 also. Elsewhere Meribah is rendered ἀντιλογία, contradiction. Massah is uniformly translated πειρασμός, temptation, and this against God as the strife or reviling was against Moses more immediately. Tempting Jehovah in the desert was saying, Is Jehovah among us or not? This may seem to unbelievers a small offence; in the eyes of God and of faith it is heinous. Had He not broken the pride and power of Egypt on behalf of His poor unworthy people? Had He not brought them out of the house of bondage. triumphantly, their Guide and their Rearguard, to dwell among them and be their God?

"For ask now of the days that are past which were before thee" (says Moses to Israel, Deut. 4), "since the day that God created man upon the earth and from the one end of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God essayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation by temptation, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors according to all Jehovah your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?" And was He less toward them all the wilderness journey in daily manna and rock-flowing water, in sheltering care and guiding mercy, notwithstanding their too constant murmuring and waywardness, their disobedience and stubborn rebellion every now and then? Righteousness indeed there was in Him, and holy abhorrence of evil; but O what unwearied compassion and unfailing goodness! Truly they tempted by putting Him to the proof in the midst of unceasing tokens of His faithful presence. It was bad for heathen blinded by lusts and Satan's power to say, because of the chastisements of Israel's sins, Where is their God? How much worse for themselves to ask, Is Jehovah among us or not? And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. . . . How often did they rebel against Him in the wilderness and grieve Him in the desert! And they turned again, and tempted God and provoked (or limited) the Holy One of Israel (Psalm 78: 18, 41, 42). The least that became such a people before such a God was to judge self and go forward in the assurance of His gracious power. But not so did Israel, though they "saw His works forty years" (verse 9).

"Wherefore I was displeased with this generation, and said, They always err in their hearts, and they ignored my ways" (verse 10). It was just because He is just and true that God felt so deeply the refractory and deceitful rising up of Israel against His will. Their error lay not in their understanding but in their heart: hence they never got to learn God's ways but ignored them. Moses truly feared and loved Him: thus only are His ways discovered and delighted in. as it is written in another psalm (103), "He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel." Above His palpable doings they did not discern. "As I sware in my wrath if they shall enter into my rest" (i.e. they shall not). A solemn sentence of exclusion. In man's mouth it is elliptical, God do so to me and more, if — ! In God's lips the condition of man's entering is the moral certainty that it is all over with him. Good is only and wholly of grace. There is no entrance into the rest of God, if it depend on man's deserts. If they shall enter means for unbelievers, that they shall not enter.

It may be well here to say that God's rest is for us future and in glory. We lose the force of the teaching in these two chapters, especially Heb. 4 in which it is so conspicuous, if we conceive it to be anything given to us on our first believing in Jesus, or found experimentally in submitting to His easy yoke and light burden. Both of these are real and important now, as we know from Matt. 11: 28-30. But the rest of God is when work is over and burden is no more; when the enemy deceives not and creation no longer groans, when judgment is executed on earth and righteousness reigns, and Jehovah alone is exalted in that day, Heaven and earth shall be united in a chain of descending goodness and universal blessing, when Christ is no longer hid in God, and His sons are revealed for the deliverance which the long enthralled creation awaits. Till that day God works, because there is still unremoved sin and misery; and we work in the communion of His love. When it comes, we shall be in the rest of God.

"See, brethren, lest there be in any one of you a wicked heart of unbelief in falling away from a living God; but exhort yourselves each day while it is called today, lest any one of you be hardened by deceitfulness of sin" (verses 12, 13).

Here the root of the mischief is touched. It is "unbelief." This hindered Israel of old from setting their hope in God (Psalm 78: 7). This exposed them to forget His works and to break His commandments, neither the heart prepared aright nor the spirit stedfast with God. It is impossible that He should lie or be not faithful, yea gracious. Faith is invited and may be bold to rest on Him confidently, now especially that He has raised Christ from the dead and given Him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God. None, however, were so liable to stop short and ask for signs as the Jews, accustomed as they were to a religious system of rite, ceremony, and symbolism. As Christendom has largely fallen back from faith into a resumption of these rudiments of the world, which the work and glory of Christ now condemn as weak and "beggarly elements" (Gal. 4). there is like danger of unbelief. It is in truth departure from a living God for forms which He used to do service before Christ came and died atoningly, when redemption from under the law was effected, and the believer passed from bond-service into the status of a son and heir of God, receiving the Spirit of adoption so as to cry Abba, Father. Anything short of this is not Christian relationship; and it is in evident contrast with Jewish subjection to ordinances, to which the Catholic bodies (not Romanist only) have turned back again. It is a deceptive form of unbelief, a going away from the living God to dead forms, because the heart lacks confidence in His grace in Christ.

So it was with Israel; so it is with Christendom. No wonder that it is denounced as "a wicked heart" of unbelief. For what else is or can be distrust of such a God? The more His love is revealed, the more is the heart convicted of wickedness that refuses to receive His grace, or (worse still) gives it up. Nothing more false than to regard faith as a mere process of the mind, involving nothing moral, but on the deep principle of subjection to God's word. To believe, to bow to Christ Whom God has sent, is the first and most imperative of calls. What obligation to compare with being at the feet of the Son of God, Who became incarnate to suffer for my sins? God too was glorified in Him and His cross, as in nought else. Hence the Father's glory raised Him from the dead, that believing in Him I should know myself and all who have been brought nigh to God. Is it not a wicked heart of unbelief that neglects so great salvation? It is this even in a worse degree, after confessing Him, to depart from a living God thus proved for any other object: for here only is He known truly by a sinner and best honoured. For us love, service, worship, and all that is good follow faith and cannot exist without it.

Hence the call to encourage, not exactly one another, though this is included, but "yourselves," which seems rather more pointed than the former phrase. They were to encourage each other day by day as long as it is called today (the day of grace), that none should be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. For which of us knows not by humbling and bitter experience its luring character and slippery paths? A little evil allowed is the beginning of very great evil. The heart is hardened as we look off from Jesus, and self-pleasing takes the place of doing God's will; and only mercy's intervention hinders the end from being, according to the way. Truly sin is deceitful.

It is the wilderness which is ever before us in this Epistle; not Canaan, the type of the heavenly places, which is the ground of the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is here therefore the scene of trial and danger through unbelief, with the fleshly and worldly lusts to which it exposes. Hence here too the early exhortations are interspersed with doctrine. Further, as in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, profession has prominence. For though reality is assumed, room is left for those whose minds only accepted the truth which their lips confessed, but they were not born of God, and hence fell away through fear, external attractions, revival of their religious habits, or other causes of a natural kind. For this reason we have responsibility urged with grave warnings, and as the Gentile saints are so dealt with in Corinth, so here are the Hebrews that bore the name of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, as has been often remarked, the "ifs" which so abound in this context as elsewhere. Faith profits by the admonitions which flesh takes lightly to its fall in the desert. Where the tie of life and love was never formed between Christ and the soul, the need of grace and mercy is not felt; glory on high, fades into nothingness, as the earth rises before the heart as a place of present enjoyment in desire, if not effectively.

"For we have become companions of Christ, if indeed we hold fast the beginning of the assurance until the end while it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For who on hearing did provoke? Nay, did not all that came out of Egypt through Moses? And with whom was he displeased forty years? And to whom swore He that they should not enter into His rest but to the disobedient? And we see that they could not enter in on account of unbelief" (verses 14-19).

The word often translated is the same as is quoted from the Greek version of Psalm 45 in Heb. 1: 9. "Companion" would be more modern English, but the same rendering is kept up here as in the Psalm to which the allusion is made. "Partakers" not only breaks the thread of connection, but suggests what might easily mislead. There is no lowering of Christ's glory in applying the word to those who confess Him. For when first used, the Holy Spirit carefully recalls how God owns Messiah as God, and even when grace adds companions of His people, He is anointed as man above them all. He that sanctifies and they that are sanctified are all of one, and to be manifested in the same heavenly glory. But some who seem to begin well stop short or turn aside. It was faith of mere mind and feeling, not the Holy Spirit's living work in the conscience; and such in the strain of trial, or weary of habitual self-judgment, or turning again to the mirth and pleasant enjoyments of the world, abandon first the path and then the word and the name of Christ. The dangers of the Hebrew confessors found its parallel in their fathers' snares during the journeyings of the wilderness, and we now in Christendom are exposed to like danger. The possession of the heavenly privileges is evidenced and conditioned by holding stedfast to the end the beginning of the assurance of the Christian.

How then say some who assume to teach that it is presumption to have any such "assurance"? For the assurance here insisted on as proper, incumbent, and necessary from first to last is grounded on the glorified Lord Jesus, our propitiation and our high, priest, on the divine dignity of His person and the accepted efficacy of His work for us, leading, as He undertook, many sons to glory. One can hardly therefore find doctrine more opposed to the gospel than a preliminary denial of that assurance which every Christian is solemnly exhorted, not merely to have but to hold fast, yea firm to the end. If assurance be founded on anything in ourselves, the sooner the better to abandon what was really self-righteous and unbecoming and spurious. The confidence which dispenses with continued dependence on God is worthless and a delusion of the enemy. But if we rest on Him by faith, we are bound to have and cherish by faith what is only His due. And it may be that the Hellenistic sense of "confidence," while certain from the usage of Polybius (4: 54, 10; 5: 16, 4; 6: 55, 2; Diod. Sic., etc.), as cited in modern commentaries, flows from its primitive meaning of subsistence, substance, and the like. Compare Heb. 4: 3; Heb. 11: 1. It points strongly to an objective base in the Christ, instead of a mere sentiment in the soul which might easily change and fade away. But the Spirit, where there is life, keeps believers true to the Lord.

Doubtless "today" is a serious and trying time (verse 15). We are in the wilderness, and without God what is there but difficulty and danger for His people, weak as spilt water in themselves? But there especially He speaks in His word; and even when the kingdom comes, the prophetic word calls His own to hear His voice. If they were bitterly provoking, He was patient and gracious. And if there be difference now, as there is assuredly, since Christ accomplished redemption, and took His seat at God's right hand, and sent down the Holy Spirit to be in us who believe, it is still said, "Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts as in the provocation." What He has done and revealed and made ours, so transcending all wrought of old in Egypt and the desert, ought to be the most powerful stimulus, as well as firm foundation, in heeding His revealed will against our treacherous hearts, so sure to grow hard if we slight His word or tamper with sin. "Today" is till Jesus comes, the point so constant in N.T. expectation. Is He your expectation, my brother?

"For who on hearing did provoke? Nay, did not all who came out of Egypt through Moses?" (verse 16).

The A.V. followed the indefinite pronoun, not the interrogative as is here preferred with the R.V. Thus the appeal has all force. It was not "some" only but the mass, as is put immediately afterwards, a shameful answer to Jehovah's favour toward Israel. And it is of painful interest to observe how the Spirit employs the same scenes with yet more detail in 1 Cor. 10 to warn the Gentile faithful at Corinth, as here for the Jewish. What made the case so grave is that it was after they heard they fell into the provocation. So sin is worse far in a baptised man than in a mere Jew or Gentile; and the idolatry of Mary or Peter or an angel worse in the sight of God than that of Zeus or Venus. "All that came out of Egypt by Moses!" O what power, judicial and delivering, had they not witnessed! What continual goodness and withal solemn dealings with rebellion and profanity! The Christian profession is admonished to beware of similar departure. "And with whom was He displeased forty years? Was it not with those that sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?" (verse 17.) It was no mere sudden slip, but the grave evil of habitual state that aroused His strong displeasure; alas! the whole period of His unparalleled intervention in the wilderness, where their stay gave occasion to His constant and wondrous tokens of mercy before all eyes. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, or walk in obedience, holiness, and love. Without it there is but sin continually; as they sinned, and their carcases fell. For God is not mocked, nor His righteous government which was then visibly displayed.

"And to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to the disobedient?" (verse 18.) Disobedience, and above all disobedience such as this, God abhors and judges. It is not meant in isolated acts, but insubjection to Himself; just the opposite of what Rom. 1 calls the obedience of faith, now especially as He has in grace revealed Himself in the lord Jesus. It is yet deeper than obedience to His commands, however important this may be in its place, and the proof not only of love but of divinely characterised faith, and therefore of life in Christ Such as are insubmissive to Himself, especially now that the Son has declared Him, shall assuredly not enter into the rest of God, the heavenly glory at Christ's coming. So He swore then; as His wrath is now revealed from heaven against all such ungodliness, even if after a sort they hold the truth ever so fast in unrighteousness.

The next verse closes this portion with a word on the root of the evil thus disclosed. "And we see that they could not enter in on account of unbelief" (verse 19). Their having disobeyed God in the sense of hearkening not to His word, and thus of insubjection to Himself, pointed to their inward unbelief. Present, palpable, visible things were their all. God was in none of their thoughts really; for it is no question of idle dreamy sentiment but of spiritual life. How could unbelief or those marked by it enter His blessed glorious rest?

Hebrews 4

The all-important point for a just interpretation is that God's rest is here before us, His glory with Christ. It is not at all rest for the conscience or for the heart, which the believer has or Ends now in Christ. "The rest of God" is exclusively future.

The perfect word of God distinguishes even outwardly what may be and ought to be now enjoyed from what is only in hope, however sure. Our Lord in Matt. 11:, 28, 29, speaks of what His grace makes good while we are here; Heb. 3, 4, only of what the believers enter at His coming. Hence ἀνάπαυσις is the word for rest in the Gospel, κατάπαυσις in the Epistle. Jesus, rejected as Messiah, does not only fall back on the heavenly and universal glory He looks for as the Son of Man, but unveils Himself as the Son of the Father, and invites to Himself all that labour and are burdened. To those that come to Him the Son gives rest. It is free and sovereign grace, present and full relief from the toil of law and the burden of sin. This rest He gives to conscience, the starting-point by faith to all holiness. But He also adds, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls." This is rest for the heart of the Christian day by day, and found only in obedience. It is not help, as men say, nor peace exactly, but rest of heart in the submissive acceptance of God's will. So Christ Himself bowed and was blessed here below so all that follow Him. But He gives rest to the conscience (without here explaining how) before we find rest for our souls in judging self and doing God's will.

Faith makes both our own now; but we are called also to exult in hope of the glory of God. This is His rest; and we are going on toward it, as Israel to Canaan. Such is the text here applied. It is God resting in what satisfies His love and holiness, when righteousness reigns and sorrow flees away, κατάπαυσις being stronger than ἀνάπαυσις. The former is applied in Gen. 2 (Lxx.) when sin and death had not yet entered the world. It is used here also for the scene and time of glory, when they will be manifestly vanquished.

"Let us fear therefore lest, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short. For indeed we have had good tidings borne to us, as they also [had]; but the word of the report did not profit them, not having been mixed with faith in those that heard" (verses 1-2).

It is impossible to understand the entire context, if we regard the rest here spoken of as any other than the future rest of God into which Christ will introduce us at His coming. Wrest it to the primary need of the soul as men are apt to do, and all is confusion. Would the Spirit say, "let us fear" if it were a question of believing in Christ to all joy and peace? The word of the Lord to the troubled soul is "Fear not"; "I will: be thou clean"; "Thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace;" "Daughter, be of good comfort," and the like: never a syllable to induce a doubt of the Saviour's grace, or of the believer's salvation. For indeed He came to seek and save that which is lost. But here the warning is given to those that bear His name who, like Israel, were stopping short and weary of the pilgrimage through the wilderness. There is danger on all sides. It may be the desire to go back into Egypt, or despairing of Canaan — the pleasant land, and murmuring against Moses and Aaron meanwhile. In every case it is unbelief; and Israel paid the penalty. "Let us therefore fear lest, a promise having been left of entering into His rest any one of you should seem to have fallen short."

Fallen unbelieving man is ever in quest of this or that. He is restless, and knows no happiness (or rather, pleasure) in this world but change, the pursuit of what he has not but wishes to have. Had he the gift of God's love, the water that Christ gives would be in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life, of which he drinking shall never thirst again. Even so he needs to have always before his heart that heaven to which he now belongs, his new fatherland, where Christ is gone before. If Israel had a hope, we have assuredly no less, but in far richer measure and brighter light. The hope of the future according to God has a mighty effect in delivering from the power of present things opposed to Him. The renewed heart needs it and has it clearly set before us in Scripture as here. Let us fear therefore lest anyone of us should seem to come short in this respect. What is destructive where there is no faith is injurious, and may be so to the last degree, to the believer. Therefore do we hear of "seeming" to have come short. There is no rest of God now, nor for us is it here but in heaven. Let us fear even the appearance of settling down on earth; which indeed is not our rest or hope.

Hope was natural to a Jew's feeling and expectation, especially if Messiah were come. But He is rejected, gone up, and is glorified on high. There with Him will be our rest, and what is far better, the rest of God. Let none of us (for surely it is no less true and weighty, for the Gentile believer) — let none of us seem to have come short of that rest. The Christian Jew was in nothing behind his fathers; if the elders had  good tidings, those who cleave to Christ in heaven had yet more. But if the word be not mixed with faith, it can no more profit the hearer now than of old. Then the fathers saw wonders  and heard the Voice more awful than thunder or earthquake; yet they fell through unbelief, and disobedience its effect. So now, when it is no question of sight or sound, the word mixed with faith for those that heard is indispensable: else the ruin is still more irretrievable than falling in the wilderness.

I am aware that the mass of ancient MSS. favours the strange reading adopted by the Revisers, as well as by most modern critics, "because they were not united by faith with them that heard." So almost all the uncials and cursives and many ancient versions. Here I cannot but agree with Tischendorf that the Sinai MS. () is right, as are a few cursives, the Peschito Syriac, and some good copies of the Vulgate, etc. The externally best-supported reading seems hardly sense, if not wrong doctrine. And this is no solitary instance.

The rest then is God's rest, made by Him, and suited to Him, which He will enjoy in perfected glory with those who believe in Christ, who alone by His work could fit sinful men to share it, perfected as they are through His one offering.

"For we that believed enter into the rest, even as he hath said, As I swore in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest, although the works were done from [the] world's foundation. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day thus, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works, and in this again, If they shall enter into my rest" (verses 3-5).

The present tense of verse 3 is not historical but absolute, a usage most frequent in Scripture and in ordinary speech too, especially as to principles of truth. Believers are the enterers into the rest of glory: not all men, nor yet all Israel, but "we that believed"; for the past participle adds to the definiteness of the class accepted for the blessing, not simply those who believe as if they might later or when they pleased. There is no thought of an actual entrance now; for the whole argument shows the rest here is future, whatever rest may be for faith to apprehend before God shares His rest with all that are His own. This Epistle always regards the believer as on the way. The sabbatism here in view is not yet enjoyed by the saints, but "remaineth" (verse g). It is for those that believed, and none else. Of those that did not believe, how true it was, as God swore to give it all the greater solemnity and assurance, that they should not enter into His rest! Their unbelief of Christ made it conditional on themselves; and they were ungodly, as all such are and must be. For Christ only is the source of life as well as forgiveness, the one strengthener of the weak and guide of the erring, the sole Saviour either of sinners or of saints. For what could even saints be or do without Him? As unbelievers trust themselves or certainly do not trust Christ, they shall not enter into the rest of God. The "if" is their death-knell. If self is the sinner's condition, it is all over with him; and as with Israel, it is no less sure in Christendom. "If they shall enter into my rest," practically as in principle for those who know what unbelief is, means that they shall not.

Yet God had revealed His rest from the beginning. Only the Adamic world is spoken of, only those "works" of God which were effected on the six "days." The vast operations of creation in geologic time are outside consideration and have nothing to do directly with His rest. But His works in view of man immediately conduct to it. Therefore it is said in Gen. 2, "And God rested on. the seventh day from all his works," as He had in Psalm 95 thousands of years after, "If they shall enter into my rest." The first scripture proves that He had a rest Himself the second, that even His people had not yet entered into it. Sin came in for Adam and his race at the beginning. God could not rest in sin, nor could sinners as such enter into God's rest. God indeed did not then speak of any entering in. But He did, in thus speaking, imply that the unbelievers who provoked Him in the wilderness should not enter. Preferring self to Christ they, as all like them, must reap the ruinous consequence. And this He records in a psalm which not only recalls the ruin of the rebellious people in the desert, but looks on to the future day of glory when Israel are invited to come with songs of joy and thanksgiving before Jehovah, not only the Creator (as the gods were not, but mere demons and impostors) but their Maker and God. They having believed at length, after ages of judgment because of their unbelief, shall enter into His rest. How welcome and sweet for that people, His people, after such a history of sorrow, shame, and unrest, through sin and the unbelief that barred all escape or deliverance! For "today" will be then, not merely a persevering call of grace (as more pre-eminently in the gospel), but God's power in salvation; "and so all Israel shall be saved" in that day.

"Since then it remaineth that some should enter into it, and that those that had first good tidings borne did not enter because of disobedience, again he defineth a certain day, saying, Today in David after so long a time, even as it hath been said before, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Joshua made them rest, he would not have spoken after these things of another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbatism for the people of God. For he that entered into his rest, himself also rested from his works, as God from his own" (verses 6-10).

The inference is drawn that some would hear and believe, whilst the mass were unbelieving and perished; and both were verified in the type: Israel fell as a whole; Joshua and Caleb entered Canaan. It was a sad issue then with which grace would point the moral to the Jews that professed the name of the Lord, and indeed to any now in Christendom. God's mercy would not be hindered by human opposition or indifference. If those first appealed to refused the glad tidings, He persists in calling He again fixes a day, and in David, long after Moses and Joshua, "Today" is the word (as it has been said) "Today, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts." He is coming, and Israel will not harden their hearts in that day, but will say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah. But the Christian and the church now say, Come, for they at least have proved His infinite grace. They dread not, but long for His presence. But withal the call goes on to the unbelieving while He tarries. For He is a Saviour as well as their Bridegroom (Rev. 22).

It is impossible to maintain that Israel's entry into Canaan was God's rest or man's entrance into it. The failure is as evident in Canaan as in Eden. Neither was His rest. But in that reasoning His word is definitive. Long after Joshua made Israel rest in the land, God by David speaks of His rest not yet realised, as sure to be lost by unbelief as of old, as open to faith as ever — we may say now in the gospel more than ever; but this is scarcely the object in this part of the Epistle. It is a final call to the people, and a solemn warning against unbelief to such of them as called on the Lord Jesus. Whatever measure of rest Joshua then gave Israel, it was not the rest of God, for this in David is still held out prospectively. There remains therefore a sabbath-keeping for the people of God.

So in Rom. 8 we are said to be saved by hope, for the salvation spoken of goes beyond the soul, taking in the body (verses 11, 23) and creation generally (verses 19 et seqq.). But hope, says the apostle, that is seen is not hope; for who hopeth for that which he sees? But if we hope for that which we see not, we do with patience wait for it. It is thus with the rest God will have prepared for those that love Him, where even He can see no flaw, and which, when all work is done, He will give us to enjoy with Himself. Hence it is wholly future., it remains for His people, whether for those above or for those below. For Christ is the Heir of all things, and we are joint-heirs with Him. All things in heaven and all things on earth are to be under Him, not in title only by personal exaltation at God's right hand, but by actual possession in indisputable and acknowledged power when He reigns on His own throne. Such is the rest of God, as His word presents it, but alas! many that bear Christ's name feebly believe if at all. It is as sure as His death, which is the ground of hope as of so much else infinitely precious; and shown carefully in Heb. 2.

No present rest then is the rest of God — and the futurity of that rest is a grand safeguard against the snare for any Christian, most of all for a Jewish one, to seek it now here below. As God cannot rest in sin or misery, neither ought we to allow it even in our desires, still less make it our life. Now is the time for the labour of love if we know His love, now to seek true worshippers of the Father as He is seeking Himself: as the Son loved to do here below, so the Spirit does now sent down from heaven. Thus should we show that we have fellowship with the Father and the Son downward and all around in grace, as upward in praise and thanksgiving; while we wait for the rest of God to come, and this when it comes is everlasting.

Verse 10 is an added word very characteristic of the inspired writer. It asserts the general principle, by the case put, that we cannot be working and have rest in the same things and in the same sense. When one is entered into his rest, he also has rested from his works. It is not at all the common notion of resting from bad works when a man gets peace with God. However true this may be, it has nothing whatever to do with what is here written. And this is demonstrable, not only from the whole passage treating, not of the soul's spiritual rest by faith of Jesus but of God's future rest in glory, yet by the comparison that follows, as God from His own (works). Now assuredly His works were never bad, but always and perfectly good. Nevertheless He is to rest even from the activity of His love to enjoy the glorious results. Such is the case spoken of. He that is entered into his rest is no longer busied with his works. It is a necessary principle and a blessed application to the matter in hand, and in no way a moralising on a sinner ceasing from his evil works and finding rest in Christ. Now is the time for the saint not to cease from his good works. Soon he will enter the eternal rest of God. The prevalence of sin and misery calls for unremitting labour while it is day; in this too we have communion with the Father and the Son (John 5: 17). When they rest, so shall we; and eternity, as the active Arnauld d'Andilly said to Nicole, will be long enough to rest in. The A.V. is very faulty in its mistaken emphasis, which helps on the popular misapprehension.

The eleventh verse concludes the caution against present rest for the Christian, followed by a statement of the means grace supplies to safeguard us through the wilderness.

"Let us therefore be diligent to enter into that rest,* that no one fall into the same example of disobedience. For the word of God [is] living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing to dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and a discerner of thoughts and intents of [the] heart. And there is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things [are] naked and laid open before the eyes of him with whom we have to do" (verses 11-13).

*I had overlooked the late Dean Alford's adoption of objections to the evidently trite sense of verse 10, which led to the idea that it means Christ entering God's rest. But it is an error that the aorist has really a perfect force in the former case, It is ethical and suitable as an aphorism.

We are exhorted to earnest striving now; for there is much that invites us to ease and relaxation. The very mercy of God to our souls might so dispose us, especially if brought up in a previous school of legal thought. For deep and full is the peace with God into which faith in Christ introduces; and so much the more is it enjoyed, if we have been toiling to better our case by self-denying efforts and a round of religious observances. Immense is the deliverance from bondage and doubt and dimness by the simple yet profound gospel of God. Yet the danger of reaction is not small. We are saved that we may diligently serve Him. We are put into fellowship with God's feelings as to all that surrounds us as well as what surrounds Him. This is not our rest, but our scene of labour where people and things are estranged from God. We shall rest when we enter what is perfectly according to His nature and purpose. Hence now and here below is the strongest call to diligence, not to rest. The rest for our conscience sets us the more free to labour in presence of sin, misery, and death. For we are now by faith in the secret of God, and our eyes are opened to discern the deceptions of the enemy. The world no longer appears a pleasant place, 'but the great snare to hinder progress and to turn from the glory of God where Christ is. It is the scene of His rejection and sufferings; it had the guilt of crucifying Him. And from this guilt no one is purged, save by faith of His blood which brings us nigh to God, whose love too calls us to be witnesses of Christ to sinners and saints, as our Lord was when here.

Let us then be diligent to enter into that rest, refusing every other. Israel is the great example of falling through not hearkening to the Lord. This is the fatal disobedience here spoken of. They stumbled at the word, being disobedient. And such is the danger of all Christians now, as well as of those immediately addressed. We stop short, grow weary, make difficulties, get preoccupied, distracted from God's objects, attracted by things that are seen and temporal. We are called now to the work of faith and labour of love, while we patiently wait for rest in glory at Christ's coming.

Unbelief may work in us as in Israel as to both the way and the end. They were weary of the one, and they despised the other. Let us take heed that none of us fall into the same example of disobedience. Therefore had that generation, instead of going peacefully into the inheritance of Jehovah, to wander forty years in the wilderness that the unbelievers might fall, and a generation to come be led into the goodly land.

The word of God is the needed correction, as we see it here. Indeed it is the revelation of God to the soul. Hence it is spoken of in terms which so approach the person of Christ that many take the language here as pointing to Him. And beyond doubt there is the closest connection between the word written or spoken and the Word personal. Scripture habitually has Christ as its object direct or indirect, for it may be an analogy of contrast as well as of resemblance, as we see in Adam or Aaron, David or Solomon, or any other person or thing spoken of, as the Epistle largely exemplifies.

Now it is the flesh, self in one form or another, which, when unjudged, exposes to falling in the wilderness. If we walked in the Spirit as we live in it, we should be kept straight and go forward. For the Holy Spirit ever glorifies Christ, and acts by the word in us, as Christ when here lived by the word. It is the true path of dependence and obedience, which glorifies the God who gave it. So the Lord defeated the enemy and did the will of God. Nor was it so only in the activity of His blessed life; but not less, yea, much more, in that death which pre-eminently accomplished the will and word of God.

And we are now following His steps in the same world which hated and cast Him out. As here we are kept by the power of God through faith, so it is His word that acts on and in us by the Holy Spirit. For this alone applies to us the revelation of God's nature as seen in Christ, which nourishes the life we have received in Christ, and detects the working in us of all that is outside the life which would dishonour God and would defile and endanger us. "For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword." There is no instrument so exquisitely keen and cutting to deal with what is opposed to the mind and grace and holy purpose of God about us.

Therefore do the true-hearted 'believers welcome the application of its edge; for, if not pleasant to nature, it is profitable to us and due to God. As we are further told, it penetrates "even to dividing, of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and capable of judging heart's thoughts and intents." No word of man has any such effect. It may be instructive, or pathetic, or alarming to say nothing of its lighter qualities; but the word of God has the energy of its source and its own unmistakable character. It arrests the conscience, it sounds the heart, so that feelings and motives can no longer be hid. Christ, its great theme, shines as the True Light and makes everything manifest that is not like Himself. And how much there is in that horrid thing, self, which was never for an instant in Him!

Thus God's word acts "to dividing of soul and spirit," two things so closely allied and so resembling as to yield to no other discriminating means. "Of both joints and marrow" seems to be a figure of close physical conjunction, which are beyond the reach of human instrument, as "soul and spirit" still more impalpably. It is possible that both phrases go beyond severing one from the other, and mean that each is pierced by the word of God as nothing else could. For it is the life of the Spirit, and in no way an instrument of death, save to that which it expels as foreign and evil.

The word of God is also said to be able to discern "heart's thoughts and intents." Every working within the heart is thereby judged. There is no sparing of our own will. This the believer can hail, having a new nature which hates evil and feels according to Christ, the only One who, though man, never did His own will, and who is applied as a test and pattern. Thoughts before they are articulated in word, intents not yet reaching action, are sifted and vanish. Now where spiritual integrity exists, this is just what is wanted and desired; for we, from our new birth, are sanctified by the Spirit to the obedience of Christ; nor could it be otherwise, if Christ be our life. For life is prompt to act according to its nature, as we cannot fail to see, even in the bent of any animal according to its kind. Only in our case we have still the old Adam in us, which is never good and in the Christian to be always refused, now that we have a new and eternal life in Christ, which alone the Spirit exercises and directs, strengthens and cheers.

Even an O.T. saint ignorant of the superior power and privilege of the gospel could say, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting" (Psalm 139: 23, 24). How much more should we not welcome that word which makes it good in us! The germs of mischief are thus detected and destroyed; what can be more gracious, though the probe may be sharp? It is just because we are redeemed out of Egypt, but not yet in that rest where all will be according to the perfect love and glory of God. We are still in the view of this Epistle journeying through the desert, where God in His goodness is proving us to know and let us know what is in our heart. It may be humbling, but nothing can be more wholesome.

The final words are very impressive. "And there is not a creature unapparent before him; but all things [are] naked and laid open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do." This is exactly what unbelief hates and shirks at all cost; anything but the presence of God, and the consciousness of all out undisguisedly and without reserve in His sight. How much there is that we fail to discern within us! Self-love, will, haste, zeal, constantly tend to blind us. He with whom we have to do acts in His absolute knowledge of all, and uses this or that to discover what is the moving spring or the hidden aim. Not only in vain is the snare set in the sight of any bird, but we have the comfortable certainty of God as it were speaking, to us, and this in the most safe and solemn manner; for He has magnified His word above all His name. Those who slight His word, treating it as dead and powerless, unless you have an erring, man to enforce it, forget that we have to do with a living God, who abounds toward us in suited helps and mercies even in this day of weakness, declension, and scattering. And if all other things and persons fail, He cannot, but watches over us in a holy love that acts for His own glory. His word puts us morally before Him when His eyes deal with our consciences. And as there is not a creature hidden from Him, all things are bare and laid open to His eyes with whom we have to do. It is verifying in us now what manifestation before Christ's tribunal will do perfectly by-and-by; and the effect is to deliver from settling down into a present rest of our own, that we may pursue our pilgrim path and labour of love, intent on His rest in glory to come.

The word of God, above all price and powerful though it be, is not the only declared means for our safe conduct through the wilderness. No instrument is so effectual to sift and deal with not outward ways only but all that is of man. Yet we need and have far more: even the active grace of Christ's priesthood, occupied with us in every sorrow and trial of our pilgrimage.

"Having then a great high priest passed as he is* through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession. For we have not a high priest unable to sympathise with our infirmities, but having been tempted in all things in like manner apart from sin. Let us then approach with boldness to the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help" (verses 14-16).

*I know not how better to represent two things apt to be overlooked; the absence of the article and the perfect tense of the participle. "Who," or "That" hath passed implies the article and is designative "Passed" simply would answer to the aorist.

It is not surprising that Tyndale made Hebrews 5 to begin with three verses which ordinarily conclude Hebrews 4. For such is their direct connection. Nevertheless, following up as they do the power of the word in detecting the flesh even in its subtlest forms, which is the death of the spirit practically, one can understand their more usual position.

Here the "great high priest" is presented in His normal position, not exceptionally as in Heb. 2: 17. That extraordinary action, the effecting of propitiation, was the basis of all for God's glory and man's salvation; but here we have the only due place of His intercessional functions. We see Him gone on through the heavens, not simply "entered," as in all the old English versions, save Wiclif who adhering to the Vulgate was here kept fairly right. Christ's immense superiority to Aaron and his succession is thus set out for the Christian's assurance. Hence is the great High Priest enabled most effectually to meet our every need, He being before God evermore on high, we encompassed with infirmity in the wilderness, and exposed to trial, danger, and sorrow. But it is the same "Jesus the Son of God," who made purification of the sins He bore in His body on the tree, before He set Himself down on God's right hand. The question of our slavery and guilt is therefore settled everlastingly for all that believe; as there was no claim of Egypt or its prince on Israel after passing through the Red Sea.

Yet the wilderness was full of snares and perils, as is our Christian path through the world. Only we, in a higher meaning and the fullest sense, are the redeemed of the Lord, needing no more for the soul's redemption, and awaiting that of the body at His coming. Still we are here in this wilderness, with nothing but the dreary barren sand if we have not God with us. Therefore to sustain us and sympathise with us in our weakness He has given us a great High Priest, whose love to us we have already proved when there was nothing, to love in us, whose blood cleansed us from every sin, whose death and resurrection set us free, and raised an impassable barrier against our old enemies to be seen again no more for ever. We are not of the world, as Christ was not, slaves of Satan never more through His victory.

But we are not Yet as He is in the heavenly land. We are journeying through the dry and howling wilderness, and though we are not in the flesh (Rom. 8: 9) but in the Spirit as the Spirit dwells in us, none the less the flesh is in us ever ready to listen to the tempter, if our eyes be not set on Christ so as to walk after the Spirit. Hence the all-importance of our blessed Saviour for us on high, to which the presence of the Holy Spirit in us answers here below. Without both we should fall in the wilderness, as in it all flesh is judged and perishes. Nor do we as saints want sympathy with the evil thing in us. We have learnt to discern it by the word of God, and to hate the mind of the flesh as enmity against God and death. We have learnt too, that self and will are always and only evil; and therefore by grace we sit in judgment on ourselves, as now able each to say, "I am crucified with Christ, and live no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and that which I now live in flesh, I live by faith in [lit., of] the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me" (Gal. 2).

Here then we now need constant vigilance and prayer, as we submit to that word which divinely scrutinises us and calls us to cut off every snare. But we have His gracious oversight where it is of chiefest efficacy, who feels for and with us, the Sanctifier with the sanctified, in every difficulty, danger, and suffering, as at the commandment of God we halt or march. But the cloud of the divine direction, however precious, is not enough, nor the warning or winning and cheering voices of the silver trumpets. We need a living person, inflexible for God's glory, unerring as to God's will, unfailing in gracious power for us in our weakness and exposure; and all this we have, and incalculably more, in Jesus the Son of God passed through the heavens as a great High Priest. He is man as truly as you or any. He was not alone perfectly man but the perfect man. He knows therefore by experience what the world is, what Satan is; but that evil in the flesh, which He by His supernatural birth never had, He by dependence on God never let in for a moment. "The Holy Thing" born of Mary, He was and ever lived the Holy One of God.

Hence Him only could God make sin for us on the cross that we might become God's righteousness in Him. Hence now as the ever-living, High Priest He is exactly and exclusively the One to intercede for us and to sympathise with us. Had there been (I say not the blasphemy of sin or failure on His part, but) ever so little of what Scripture calls the mind of flesh or indwelling sin in Him, it would have both tainted fatally the offering for sin and blunted that heart of holy love from its sympathies with us in our desires and opposition by, the Spirit against the flesh. But there was absolutely none. Taking part in blood and flesh as we had both, in Him was no sin as in us there is: not merely no acts, but no root, of evil. Satan found nothing in Him (John 14: 30), nor God (Psalm 17: 3). Therefore could He die effectually for our sins and for sin; therefore does He live to plead no less efficaciously for us and sympathise with our infirmities. Death, and His death alone, could avail against sin; and God has accepted it in the fullest way, setting Jesus (who glorified Him in all things and in this the deepest of all) at His own right hand, and sending down His Spirit that we might know His estimate of its effectual value for us now and henceforth and for ever.

But we want One who lives and every moment interests Himself in all our difficulties and weakness as now living to God in an evil world, and not yet divested of that evil principle, the mind of the flesh, which was never in Him but in us. This draws out for us His sympathies so much the more, because we have not only to resist Satan as He alone did perfectly, but an inward enemy, or traitor which He had not. And He is absolutely competent, being God and Man in one person, and this after Himself treading all the way through as completely as none else ever did or could in heaven or earth. For us then, passed as He is through the heavens, He pleads and feels with us perfectly. "Let us then hold fast the confession." Such is the demand and the cry of the new man against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Had the Son of God been simply above the heavens, there could have been no such motive to simply hold fast, no such comfort in our trials as Christians. But here He lived, suffered, and died, knowing each and all as no one else ever did or can but Jesus the Son of God. Hence He was fitted, being man, and of unrivalled experience. He is able as none else to sympathise, not with our sins which as saints we dare not seek but most heartily repudiate, but with our infirmities. Not even a Paul, who gloried in these (certainly not in sins!) could do without His sympathy. Nay, it was because he knew and appreciated His sympathy so much better than we, that he could exult when we are too often depressed. It is not however in flesh or on the earth that He exercises these functions for us, but as passed through the heavens where neither sin nor infirmity can ever come. Thus does He bear us up, and with tenderest feeling for us, for each as truly as if none other existed to share it, being God no less than man. To allow a priest on earth, yea, to conceive Him such, is to judaise. Save for the wholly different work of laying the foundation of all in atonement, His priestly work is exclusively on high, as we are partakers of a heavenly calling, and are called to hold fast that confession and none other.

But in order to such a priesthood Jesus had been tempted in all things in like manner, sin excepted. Here we need to be on our guard. For the foisting in of "yet" in the last clause is apt to convey a notion wholly contrary to the truth and most derogatory to Christ. Most readers would gather thence that, though Christ was in all points tempted like as we are, yet He never sinned. Now one may boldly affirm that this is altogether short of the true meaning, and indeed quite another thought, so as to miss the mind of God in the passage. It is not sins or failures excepted, but "apart from sin." We have evil temptations from within, from fallen humanity; Christ had none. This was absolutely incompatible with His holy person. By a miracle He was even as to humanity exempt from taint of evil, as no one else was since the fall. And it is of these holy temptations that the Epistle to the Hebrews treats, not of our unholy ones.  The Epistle of James distinguishes them very definitely in James 1. Compare verses 2, 12, on the one hand and verses 13-19 on the other. We know the latter too well, Jesus never. But He knew the former as no other before or since. He was in all things tempted according to likeness i.e. with us, with this infinite difference, "sin apart." He knew no sin, He had no inward sinful temptation. He is therefore the more, not the less, able to sympathise with us. For sin within, even if not yielded to, blinds the eye and dulls the heart, and hinders from unreserved occupation with the trials of others.

Having then such tender and efficacious intervention in our ever-living Intercessor at God's right hand, we are exhorted to draw near with boldness to the throne of grace. Carefully observe that it is not coming to Christ to plead for us, which supposes a soul not at ease before God and doubting the grace in which we who believe habitually stand through redemption. Christ did not go on high till all was cleared for us on earth, and ourselves, as we know from John 20, placed in the enjoyment of His own relationship with His Father and His God (His Deity of course always excepted), children and saints quickened together with Him, being forgiven all our trespasses (Col. 2: 13). "Let us approach therefore with all boldness unto the throne of grace." This is what we now need and have.

We are entitled thus to come with all boldness to God on His throne. To us, through the redemption of Christ, it is a throne of grace. Early in the Revelation we see a throne whence the expressions of judgment proceed. Toward the close it is a throne of glory, the throne of God and of the Lamb, whence issues a river of life clear as crystal; so will it be known after the marriage of the Lamb is come and His wife has prepared herself. Need we add the solemnity of the great white throne of everlasting judgment The throne of grace, though of the same God, has a totally different character toward the many sons that are being brought to glory.

To this then we are now told to approach with all boldness. Some prefer what they call "a humble hope." But this is mere human sentiment or worse. In ourselves we have no ground even for the faintest hope; if we have Christ by faith, we wrong both His work and God's grace, now righteously and perfectly vindicated, if we do not approach with all boldness to the throne of grace. Is this to exaggerate the word of God? or is not that unbelieving? Alas, the unbelief of believers!

Observe what the aim is when we thus approach: "that we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help." Our weakness needs this mercy; and God's pleasure is that we, engaged with the difficulties of the way, may find grace for seasonable help. He sits there and invites thus that we may depend on Him for help in good time. Having such a Priest let us approach the throne of grace boldly. God and His Son Are pledged to bless us, as also we can look to Him without doubt or fear. Such is His word, no less than His will.

Hebrews 5

We now enter on the main doctrinal development of the Epistle, the detailed comparison of the priesthood of Christ with that of Aaron, pursued with collateral truths to the middle of Hebrews 10. The aim evidently is to prove the incontestable superiority of Christ in this as in every other point of view. It was of the utmost moment for such confessors of His name as were Jews; it is of scarcely less importance for souls accustomed to the traditions and practices of Christendom, where an order of officials has been set up, not always sacerdotal in name but ever tending to fall back on that Aaronic order, though according to God it grew old and vanished away when the substance was established for ever in Christ by redemption.

"For every high priest, taken as he is from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining unto God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, being able to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is compassed with infirmity; and on account of this he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself also to offer for sins. And no one taketh the honour to himself but when called by God even as Aaron also" (verses 1-4).

The description is general, but with Aaron in view in order to bring in the glorious contrast of Christ. This has not always been seen, and the consequence is often disastrous. Such an oversight is inexcusable, because God has clearly revealed the infinite dignity of Christ's person and the grace of His work. Were these foundations of the faith held fast, they afford an invaluable safeguard for souls. Where it is not so, what is there to preserve from error of the deadliest kind? Christ is the truth. This scripture upholds Him, as the Holy Spirit is here to glorify Him and will never be a consenting party to His dishonour. And the Father's love is never tasted otherwise. For His complacency was ever there, and especially expressed to Him as man on earth, that we who believe in Christ might hear the Son and have fellowship with the Father no less than with Him.

Assuredly Christ is only viewed as priest, and only became such after the assumption of manhood, and indeed much more. As little can it be questioned that He entered on that office for the partakers of the heavenly calling, to sympathise with them, as well as appear and intercede for them in God's presence. But the language here employed does not refer to Him; rather is it to give point, by way of contrast as a whole, with that earthly priesthood whose highest representative was Aaron. Hence the language, however comprehensive, leaves out what is most distinctive of Christ, and expresses a ground in verse 2 and a consequence in verse 3 which faith ought to have regarded as intolerable in His case, because it is opposed to the truth of both His person and His work. The fact is that it is simply every case of human high priesthood which is set before us here, and not that of Christ, which follows subsequently and is placed in marked contradistinction. Indeed the basis laid at the beginning of the Epistle refutes the inclusion of Christ; for He is carefully shown to be Son of God as well as Son of man. His divine glory is carefully maintained from the first and throughout. It is this, as well as the accomplishment of redemption, that gives infinite efficacy to His office no less than to His sacrifice.

The opening verses of our chapter therefore set out the ordinary requirements of any and every high priest, however truly the Lord may have possessed some and superseded others by His surpassing and unique dignity. The real aim is to evince the necessary inferiority of a human high priest, great as the privilege was in divine things, even if the high priest were Aaron the most honoured of all; and thus to enhance the incomparable glory of Christ's high priesthood.

Every high priest was "taken from among men." This would be most inadequate if applied to Christ, but perfectly true of Aaron and his successors. They were but men, though taken from among them. So to speak of the Lord is to forget who He is. The Word was made flesh. He became man, but God He was and is from everlasting to everlasting, the Eternal. An angel had been wholly unsuited, and is only employed in prophetic vision when the object is to express distance without losing the fact of priesthood, as in Rev. 8: But in fact, a high priest was of necessity a man, though taken from among men. He was to represent man before God, and to represent God before men. His appointment was on behalf of men in things relating to God, and more definitely to "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins." What a meagre statement, if Christ were in view, who gave Himself up for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour! It is, on the contrary, precise and full if the inspired writer were treating only of human high priesthood as distinguished from that of Christ.

Still more evident is the other side of high priestly functions, "being able to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring, since he himself also is compassed with infirmity." He can feel and make considerate allowance for the ignorant and erring, being no more than a weak man himself, whatever be the exalted character of his office; he himself also is beset round about with infirmity. How true this is of every high priest without qualification needs no proof. But what guards and limitations and reserves are necessary if a believer essays to bring Christ within the range! That the Son deigned to become man is truth only secondary to His being God, perfectly man and perfect man. That He knew hunger, thirst, weariness, is certain, that He was crucified in (or of) weakness* is so revealed to us. Were this or its like that which is conveyed here, none ought to hesitate; for it is a wrong to the truth to detract from His real humanity, as of course from His proper deity. But to my mind the passage speaks of a mere man, such as every other high priest is necessarily, and grounds his ability to exercise forbearance toward the ignorant and erring on his own besetment with weakness; whereas, when He is without doubt referred to, He is spoken of as "Jesus the Son of God" and thus shown in the power of divine nature and relationship, though partaking of ours to sympathise with us fully, in fact tempted in all things after a like manner with the momentous exception of sin. Of that class of temptation He had absolutely none, as it was incompatible with the integrity and holiness of His person as well as the efficacy and acceptance of His work.

* Calvin in his Commentary argues on Christ bearing our infirmities, though free from sin and undefiled. The reference is of course to Matthew's application (Matt 8: 17) of Isa. 53: 4. But it is erroneous. The manning is, not that He took our infirmities and bare our sickness as in His person, jut that thus He acted in healing diseases and expelling demons. It was not mere power; but He felt before God in grace the weight of all the evil that He removed.

But what absolutely precludes and expels this loose, erroneous, and Christ-dishonouring application is the pendant in verse 3. "And on account of this [infirmity] he ought, even as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." This is bound up with the verses that precede, and rigorously pertains to "every high priest" intended in them. All well-read men are aware that some scholars have dared to apply even this to Christ, following out logically the mistake that applies the passage to Him generally. They ought to have judged rather that, as it is a blasphemous falsehood that Christ offered for sins on His own account, the verses that precede describe high priesthood in general but not His, which has a higher ground in His deity and in His humanity Son of God as born of woman, and thus a more glorious character with power and efficacy intrinsic and eternal. The contrast here cannot be fairly denied. And it is the more striking because of the only point where resemblance is expressed immediately following. "And no one taketh the honour to himself but when called by God even as Aaron also." The call of God was essential, and one might have thought indisputably clear in Aaron's, and all the more after the gainsaying of Korah was answered in the destruction of himself and his rebellious companions. But the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, and Christendom is apprised of that very woe in the solemn warning of Jude, no less prophetic than that of Enoch which he cites.

It is evident from the last verse under consideration that the priest is viewed according to God's mind and statutes, not as the facts had long misrepresented this in fallen Israel. For notoriously intrigue, corruption, and violence had reigned for many a year in Jerusalem, and the civil power had taken the place of God as things at length grew irretrievably evil. If the priests did not take the honour to themselves, it was because the power of the sword forbade any save its own nominee. Hence the disorder that prevailed when the word of God came to John, the forerunner of the Messiah, "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests," not only two but such a pair! Far different was the will of God even for the time of shadows.

From Scripture we know that the early uprising of Korah the Levite with others not even of that tribe disputed the priesthood of Aaron. This gainsaying, however, God settled publicly and solemnly by a destruction without parallel of the ringleaders, and by a plague that cut off thousands of the guilty people only stayed by the gracious and effectual intervention of Aaron at the bidding of Moses. Nor was this all. For Jehovah directed twelve rods to be laid up in the tabernacle of the congregation before the testimony, one for each house of their fathers, that He might cause that man's rod to blossom whom He chose to draw near to Himself on behalf of all the others. On the morrow the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi alone budded, and blossomed, and yielded almonds: the figure of a better priesthood, of life out of death and fruit by the evident grace of God, of the One that ever liveth to make intercession. From Aaron the descent was fixed in his sons, not without striking dealings in good and evil that modified the succession according to the declared will of God. With Phinehas in the desert was the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; as it was manifest later when Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest and set Zadok in his stead, thus fulfilling the prophetic word about the intruding line of Eli. God alone was entitled to order it; and this He did, as He will by-and-by in the new age when all Israel shall be saved. Then the sons of Zadok reappear to minister to Jehovah, and stand in His presence to offer unto Him the fat and the blood, saith the Lord Jehovah. Ezek. 44: 15-31; Ezek. 48: 8-14.

But of this future restoration when temple, priesthood, and sacrifice shall be in force, never more to be misused but rather to remind Israel under the new covenant of their accomplished blessing in the Messiah, we hear nothing in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The habitual aim is to bring out what the believer has now in Him Who died and is risen and exalted at God's right hand. There are hints here and there of the age and habitable earth to come, of the rest that remaineth for the people of God, of good things to come, of the day approaching, and the like. There are those intimations which look onward to another state and for blessing to the elect nation. But it would have undone the object of the Spirit to have expatiated on these earthly glories, though enough is said to prove that they are in no way effaced or forgotten, but await their fulfilment when Christ appears. Yet the evident and earnest and urgent task in hand is to bring out a "better thing" already verified in Christ on high, for those who believe while He is hidden in God and have the Holy Spirit to show us the efficacy of His sacrifice as seen in the light of glory, and the present application of His priesthood to the partakers of a heavenly calling, and the heavens themselves as the only true and adequate sanctuary, into which we are invited to draw near with all boldness in spirit. Hence the regeneration and its assured earthly privileges for Israel by-and-by stand in the background that the lustre of present heavenly associations may be undimmed, and that those who now believe in Christ while the nation rejects Him may see and enjoy their portion as incomparably deeper and higher.

Accordingly, whether for vindicating God's glory on the one hand or for the soul's complete blessedness on the other, we are waiting for no work. The mightiest for both is already done and accepted; as the person who has wrought all is the guarantee of its absolute and eternal excellency. And it is all the more precious and admirable, because He previously came down into the reality of a race and a scene ruined by sin, suffering for it yet perfectly free from it. This place He accepted loyally with an entire submissiveness and an unswerving obedience, whatever it might cost. Never was such a servant. Divine dignity, infinite love, unfailing devotedness, met in Him who took a bondman's place all through His life on earth, yea, in the end was made sin where none could follow.

"Thus the Christ also glorified not himself to be made high priest, but he that spake unto him, Thou art my Son: I today have begotten thee: even as he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek" (verses 5, 6).

Truly He glorified not Himself in any respect, even when the atoning work was done. For His kingdom He waits, though Ruler of the kings of the earth. He is gone into the far country and on receiving it He will return. Meanwhile we have in Him a great High Priest, as we have seen. But in this too He "glorified not Himself to be made high priest." He waited on Him that sent Him, It was for God to speak, as He did. And here Psalm 2: 7 is again cited. The dignity of His relationship is acknowledged. "Thou art my Son: I today have begotten Thee" (verse 5). Others were lifted out of their nothingness. God conferred as He would on such as were but men compassed with infirmity like Aaron. Christ too deigned to be truly born of woman, but even so God owned Him His Son as none else. To partake of blood and flesh through and of His mother was in no way to forfeit His title. Son of God from everlasting to everlasting, in time also as man He has God declaring "I today have begotten thee." His personal dignity, His relationship as Son of God, we hear repeated in connection with the office of priest. Such is the true ground in contrast with every other. Undoubtedly the Word was made flesh to be made high priest; and He has been already shown truly Son of man in this very connection (Heb. 2). Still there is the utmost care to reiterate the words of the second Psalm, though cited long before, that we may remember the more distinctly who He is that was made high priest in contradistinction with the highest human one of God's own appointment.

Not till then have we the direct and explicit prediction from Psalm ex. "As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek" (verse 6). "For ever" is of course here qualified by the necessity and the existence of priesthood. In the eternal state, where sin and suffering are no more, it will cease in the final result of grace triumphant in glory.

Farther on we shall have before us the detailed application of this remarkable oath of Jehovah, the oath of which, it is added, He will not repent, the key to the scene historically introduced in Gen. 14. Suffice it here to say that the Spirit appears in this allusion to be simply drawing attention to the singular honour of the Christ, as in no way sharing in the order of Aaron but giving force to that of Melchizedek, who comes before us long before as sole priest, without successor, predecessor, or subordinates. The order of Aaron was essentially successional, and for a reason that attaches to man as he is, subject to death because of sin. Melchizedek is strikingly brought before us as a living priest, alone in his blessing the faithful man on God's part, and in blessing God most high on man's part: the eloquent type which the Spirit so often uses of the Christ, as the sole and ever-living Priest on high.

We have had the first reference to the order of Melchizedek, which is repeated so often in the Epistle as to prove to any one who reverences Scripture its immense importance in the mind of God. It is a striking part of the typified glory of the Messiah, foreshown in Gen. 14, predicted and declared with divine solemnity in Psalm ex., applied and expounded with care and fulness in our Epistle, which can be examined as each reference comes before us. In the present chapter it is the peculiar and personal dignity which is insisted on in distinction from Aaron, however eminent by God's choice and appointment. But the Christ was God's Son, begotten too in time according to Psalm 2, as in John's Gospel Only-begotten before time and above dispensation, being eternal no less than the Father. Such was His person; and His office was no less singularly glorious even if typified by a royal priest of early days. For, as the psalm cited puts it, He is a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. As Melchizedek stands alone, without predecessor or successor so far as the record speaks, the negative in his case becomes the positive in the case of Christ. And this the unimpeachably divine authority of the Psalm lays down with all simplicity and assurance. And such will be the exercise of His priesthood for the earth when the days of heaven shine upon it in the future kingdom. Meanwhile, as our Epistle urges, He is priest after this order now as for ever. As He alone is Son, so He is exclusively royal priest without end, yet not glorifying Himself any more than Aaron, but a thousand years before so addressed by God, as the typical shadow met Abram not far from a thousand years before the Psalm.

Here we are first directed to His earthly path, then to His heavenly place, and the blessed results. "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him out of death, and having been heard for his pious fear, though he were Son, learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, he became to all those that obey him author of everlasting salvation, addressed by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (verses 7-10). Suffering was to be distinctively His portion. It had no place in Aaron any more than in Melchizedek. In the Christ it was altogether pre-eminent and peculiar.

Glory intrinsic and conferred is His beyond comparison yet this is not all that grace gives in Him, nor yet all that we need, not merely as sinners but here especially as saints. Our sin and our misery but furnished the opportunity to divine love, and this is only shown and learnt in Christ, in Him that suffered infinitely here below — and Christ alone from the mystery of His person was capable of such suffering. Thus has He glorified, and thus reached hearts opened by grace to feel in our measure the wonders of His love. In the days of His flesh we behold the surface and hear the sound of His sorrows which God alone was able to fathom. For this as for other reasons essential to the purpose of God and the blessing of man the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us, and obeyed unto death, yea, death of the cross. And if ever prayers and supplications, if ever strong crying and tears, were realities for the heart before God, His were. For His divine nature screened Him from no pain, grief, or humiliation, or suffering, but rather gave competency of person to endure perfectly, while all was accepted in absolute dependence on, and subjection to, His Father.

Not a particle of hardness or insensibility was in Christ. It was no small thing for His love to have hatred and contempt, to be despised and rejected of men; not only not to be honoured by the people of God and His people, but to be esteemed stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; to be deserted by all His disciples, denied by one, betrayed by another; and, far the most terrible of all and wholly different from all, to be forsaken of God just when He most needed His consolation and support. But so it must have been if sin was to be duly judged in His sacrifice, if our sins were to be completely borne away, and God to be glorified as to evil adequately and for ever. Gethsemane and the cross, or the first part of Psalm 22, are the best comment on verse 7. It was equally in keeping with God that He was not heard while atonement was in accomplishment, and that He was heard when He poured out His soul unto death, and Jehovah made it an offering for sin. For He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

Christ therefore, besides that which fell exclusively on Him as the propitiation for our sins in vindicating God at all cost sacrificially, knew as no saint ever did all that can befall holiness and love in a world and in the midst of a people alienated from God, yet claiming all the more that privilege as theirs only. As at the beginning Satan sought to attract Him from the path of lowly suffering and absolute obedience, by temptations subtly suited to the circumstances, so he assailed Him at the end with the terrors of death, and of such a death! But all was in vain. He suffered but did not succumb. Though prayer characterised Him at all times, then especially in His sorrow and deep depression He is alone with His Father (even His chosen three left behind about a stone's throw), and fallen on His face deprecates that cup, yet in meek submission; and this a second time (while others could not watch one hour with Him), and a third time from that agony in which He prayed more earnestly. And if an angel appeared to strengthen him, none the less did His sweat become as great drops of blood falling down on the ground. He endured the temptation and was blessed, suffering to the utmost. they slept for sorrow and, instead of praying entered into the temptation and fell. And He was saved not from dying but out of death. Whatever His inward and unwavering confidence, He could have no public answer till resurrection, when He was saved and out of death. To be saved from dying had left man in his sins, and Satan's power unbroken, and God's judgment in suspense, and His grace impotent. But the Son of man was there to deliver from all evil and to set all good on an immutable foundation to God's glory, even while saving the lost. He was heard for His pious fear,* but after unsparing judgment had taken its course. Though Son of God, He learned † obedience from the things which He suffered. We learn to obey as God's children, who were once sons of disobedience; He being Son was used to speak, and it was done; He knew not what obedience was. But when He became man, He took loyally this place: in the volume of the book it is written of Him, not of the first man, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God." Indeed He suffered it to the uttermost as well as did it in all perfection. His "having learned obedience" is only "difficult and much agitated," because of weakness in holding fast His personal glory as true God, used only to command till He became man, and then "learned obedience" in all perfection as the perfect Servant, absolutely submissive to what He subsequently suffered.

* Not only Calvin and Beza of the Reformed, but the old Latin versions, followed by Ambrose, and by moderns, especially Lutherans, strangely render this "delivered from fear," or the like.

† Dr. Whitby fell into the perversion of rendering the verb "taught"!

This expression "perfected" means the completeness of His course through sufferings in resurrection and heavenly glory, as we may see far beyond controversy in Heb. 7: 28, where the word has a form to express permanent result, instead of only indicating the fact accomplished as here. Neither "sanctified" nor "consecrated" is the true force: other words signify these correctly. Nor would either suit this place when His completed work of suffering is in view, by which alone salvation could be. And the result is here affirmed in terms of triumph: "He became to all those that obey Him author of everlasting salvation." Thus on the one hand is His glorious position maintained, and on the other everlasting salvation is assured to all who own Him. He is none other than the prophet like unto Moses whom Jehovah promised long ago to raise up. But He is far more, and more blessed. For instead of only the threat of God's retribution to him that hearkens not, He is become author of salvation to those that obey Him; yea, in contrast with legal uncertainty, "of everlasting salvation to those that obey Him." How indeed could it be otherwise if we believe in the glory of His person and the efficacy of His work? But all have not faith; and faith — obedience is the root of all other obedience precious in God's eyes, who disdains to accept the homage that is proffered to Himself while making light of His Son and of His infinite sufferings. "He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who sent Him." "Whoever denieth the Son hath not the Father either; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also."

The rest of the chapter, and the following one, compose a long and instructive digression on the state of those addressed, the more to be blamed because they had had time to become mature. This it was forbade opening up the subject of Melchizedek, which otherwise might have been happy. It even exposed souls to the danger of going back from Christianity, though better things were expected of themselves, seeing that grace already had wrought practically in them. Hence on the one hand they are encouraged to be imitators of those that through faith and patience inherit the promises; and on the other God is shown to have given strong encouragement to the most tried and feeble by Jesus within the veil, the Forerunner gone in for us.

"Concerning whom [or, which] we have much to say and hard to be interpreted in saying, since ye are become dull of hearing. For whereas on account of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye again have need that some one teach you the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and have become in need of milk, [and] not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk [is] inexperienced in word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food belongeth to full-grown [persons], who on account of habit have their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil (verses 11-14).

There is no such hindrance to spiritual intelligence as traditional religion, and hence none exposed to it so much as Jewish believers. The wisdom of the world is another great impediment, which drew out the censure and warning of the apostle to the Corinthian saints, especially in 1 Cor. 2, 3, and in terms somewhat parallel. Both are hostile to that faith which is only nourished by the divine word, and is impaired by any human admixture. But of the two the religious rival is the more dangerous, because it has more seeming devotedness and humility, and so appeals, however groundlessly, to conscience instead of to mere mind. The effect is that growth in the Lord cannot but be arrested. Instead of becoming spiritual, souls abide fleshly and infantine. For the Holy Spirit is grieved, and reproves the state, instead of being free to lead on and strengthen by taking the things of Christ and showing them to such. We learn thereby how much the moral condition has to do with God's training of the saint; and we may well thank Him that so it is. For nothing is more dangerous than advancing in knowledge where flesh and the world are unjudged: the devil at once seizes his opportunity to overthrow the unwary and careless, and seek His dishonour whose name they bear. But it is no remedy for the evil to be dwarfed by tradition or diverted by philosophy. The Holy Spirit has ample matter to convey; but if we are dulled and darkened by seeking to glean in other fields, the word of God becomes hard Of interpretation to us. Hence it is added "Since ye are become" (not simply "are" as in the A.V.) "dull in your hearing" (the dative of reference, and naturally thence in the plural).

Our Lord had touched on the same difficulty and danger for His Israelitish hearers in the first Gospel. From every hearer of the word of the kingdom, if he understand it not, the wicked one comes and catches away what had been sown in his heart; as on the other hand the seed sown on the good ground is he that hears and understands the word (Matt. 13: 19, 23). In Mark, as with a view to service, it is a question of reception or not; in Luke, as looking on to strangers of the Gentiles, the point is "believing" and being "saved," keeping the word and bringing forth fruit with patience. But the Jew, as being in continual contact with religious prejudice and tradition, was in peculiar danger of not "understanding" what was new and of God, the present test of faith.

The apostle now expostulates because of their backwardness in the truth (after professing it so long). "For whereas ye ought on account of the time to be teachers, ye again have need that some one teach you the elements," etc. Christendom lies open to the self-same rebuke, and from similar causes. Rom. 11 had pointed out a danger peculiar to it, and tending to as great if not greater self-complacency, the danger of conceiving itself secure for ever, and so perverting the obvious admonition from the excision of the Jew into the proud assurance of immunity for the Gentile craft. It is indeed the very snare into which the Romish system has fallen beyond all others — and is it not striking that the Spirit gave this warning there in particular? Here it is only the stop put to their learning the things of God that is noticed. Instead of being teachers now, after so long bearing the Lord's name, they had need again to be taught the very rudiments. So in similar conditions it ever is. No man ever became mighty in God's word by the study of theology, though some theologians have in a measure grown in spite of what is calculated to obstruct and blind. It is the general effect which proves the character of what works for profit or loss. Now who can doubt the lamentable ignorance of God's word in Christendom at large? And is it not certain that the darkness is greatest where men are most shut up to tradition and least search the Scriptures?

No doubt when souls are in this state, they need a powerful means to set them free; and this Epistle is a fine sample of the truth grace employs to that end. The person of Christ has to be clearly presented, and their distinct and blessed association with Him through His atoning work, as well as His position and gracious functions for them on high. This alone dispels all earth-born clouds, and extricates from the din and dust of human schools. Therefore was the apostle ministering these fundamental truths throughout in order to their deliverance. He implies, nay affirms, that they were spiritually infants needing to learn the elements over again. These, qualified as "of the beginning of the oracles of God," mean what God gave in Christ here below, short of His redemption and His heavenly place, with the gift of the Spirit, which lend Christianity its true distinctive character and its power. The eyes of the disciples were blessed because they saw, and their ears because they heard, what many prophets and righteous men desired to see and hear but did not. The accomplishment of redemption and the new place of Christ in heaven went far beyond. Here they were utterly dull, not so much about the facts as respecting their blessed import and results to faith, as well as for God's glory. The issue was that the very rudiments were rendered obscure and uncertain: so little can the Christian afford to waste his time in seeking the living One among the dead, and so injurious is the issue of turning from the actual testimony of God on our relationships to a vague and dreamy sentiment about the past. Not one thing is understood aright. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." It is never so, if we look not to Christ where God is now pointing us. In His light we see light. Failure here exposes the Christian now as then to become a person Having need of milk and not of solid food — of fare for babes rather than for adults: a state quite anomalous since redemption.

This figure is unfolded in the next two verses. In no way is milk slighted in its due place. It is the most wholesome and suited of all nourishment for the infant; but the grown man requires quite different food for his developed state and appropriate duties. "For every one that partaketh of milk [is] unskilled (or, without experience) in the word of righteousness, for he is an infant; but solid food belongeth to full-grown persons that have by reason of habit their senses exercised for distinguishing both good and evil." By "partaking" is meant having milk for one's share in ordinary use, as a babe takes it not for partial or occasional fare, as any one might. The word translated "full-grown" is literally "perfect," and given in the A.V. so repeatedly that some lose the true force, which is simply those come to maturity.

Now this is the present aim of the gospel, and its effect wherever souls submit to God's righteousness in Christ. We may see the same truth in substance set forth in Gal. 3, 4. Faith having come (i.e. dispensationally), we are no longer under a child-guide, as the law had been unto Christ; "for ye are all," says the apostle to the Galatian saints, "God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus." "Now I say that the heir, as long as he is an infant, differeth nothing from a slave, though he be lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. So we too, when we were infants, were enslaved under the elements of the world. But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under the law, that we might receive our sonship. And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."

We may gather therefore that to stop short of liberty and sonship is to abide in the bondage of law, and to undo the privileges of the gospel. Further, we may note how indigenous to the heart is this fear of God's grace, which, even when the gospel is sounding freedom to the slave through faith in Christ, is ever prone to go back to what is annulled (2 Cor. 3); and this among Gentiles as well as Jews: a retrograde tendency which the apostle was combating always and everywhere. Whatever its source, whether worldly wisdom or legalism, it is an evil to which no quarter should be shown, more particularly as we have rarely to do with it now in Jews, for whom old and fond habits might be pleaded. But for the ordinary Christian, what extenuation can be offered? The risen and ascended Christ supposes the work accepted of God whereby peace was made; and every believer is justified from all things from which none could be justified by the law of Moses.

The Hebrews addressed had not gone on with the gospel. They were as infants needing milk, and unable to digest solid food. It was not God's will, but their prejudices and unbelief which thwarted their growth. The believer if simple passes, we may say, at once into sonship; if occupied with self, with his ordinances, with his church, or with any object to engage his soul other than Christ, he remains an infant like those Hebrews, and in no real sense full-grown any more than they. God is not mocked, nor does He suffer even saints to slight or doubt the gospel with impunity. It is to prefer bondage when grace is proclaiming liberty; and to need milk instead of that solid food which suits the full-grown; yet every Christian ought to be full-grown. Christ redeemed him, even if a Hebrew of Hebrews or a Pharisee of Pharisees, to know the sonship of God in the power of His Spirit.

Hebrews 6

It is of the highest importance then that the believer should wake up to his due place according to the call of grace. Christ as He now is makes His relationship evident. By Him and to Him where He sits at God's right hand we are called. It is therefore in the fullest sense a heavenly calling. Old things not evil things only, are passed away. We are by faith associated with the glorified Christ who, having accomplished redemption, is on that ground gone into heaven, so as to confer on the faithful a heavenly relationship. All that is distinctive of the Christian accordingly is in contrast with the ancient people of God, whose position, associations, worship, and hope were earthly, though ordered of God. The danger of the Christian therefore, and especially for the Hebrew Christian, was a lapse into earthly things which was the more easily done as the O.T. was no less divinely inspired than the New, and hence might plausibly be pleaded to justify such a return.

"Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us press on unto full growth [lit. perfection], not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith in God, of teaching of washings and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of dead [persons], and of everlasting judgment; and this will we do if God permit" (verses 1-3).

We could not be exhorted in any just sense to leave "the principles" of the doctrine of Christ. For first principles never become antiquated. Nor does the text really say so here, any more than it does in truth speak slightingly of, "the first principles of the oracles of God" in Heb. 5: 12. "Principles" or "first principles" of Christianity it is of all moment to apprehend and hold fast; and in fact the Epistle insists on this from first to last. It was here the Hebrew confessors of Christ were weak. They had faintly if at all realised the truth that was wrapped up in the person of Christ and in the facts on which the gospel is based. They were occupied with whatever lay short of His death, resurrection, and ascension, with a Messiah known after the flesh. But these were such "rudiments" as were in keeping with Him on earth, when the Holy Spirit was not yet given and the words the Lord spoke were dimly understood. Indeed many things He had yet to say which they could not then bear. This was but "the beginning of the oracles of God"; whereas the principles of the doctrine of Christ would better express that profound connection of truth with fundamental facts and Christ's person which characterises the Epistles of Paul and John. What is really meant here is "the word of the beginning of Christ," that which was revealed in the days of His flesh and in due time recorded as His ministry in the Gospels. To limit the soul to this, perfect as it was in its season and in itself, is to do without that blessed use of His redemption and heavenly headship which the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to preach and teach, and which we have permanently in the apostolic writings. His cross totally changed the standing of the believer. To ignore this is in fact to stop short of full and proper Christianity, to remain infants, where the Lord would have His own to reach their majority. Let us not slight the riches of His grace.

"Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of the Christ, let us press on unto full growth." The new status of the Christian depends on Christ dead, risen, and in heaven. The infinite sacrifice is already offered and accepted; and only so has Christ taken His seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. We cannot therefore go to elements before the cross for that which forms and fashions the Christian. We, if full-grown, need the corn of the land, now that it is no longer a question of raining manna in the wilderness.

The various English versions are disappointing. Wiclif seems to have read or mistaken "immittentes" for "intermittentes" in the Vulgate, for he has the strange error of "bringing in," etc., instead of leaving off. And Tyndale is loose indeed: let us leave the doctryne pertayninge to the beginninge of a Christen man." In result it is not far from the general sense, though intolerable as a translation. Cranmer's Bible and the Genevese followed Tyndale less or more closely. The Rhemish, save in its servile adherence to the Latin, is more exact than any; for even the A. and the R.Vv., as we have seen, might mislead in the text, though precise in the margin. The Revisers rightly gave "full grown" for perfect in Heb. 5: 14; consistency would therefore demand "full growth" here. For it is not the quite ignorant who fail to understand that "Perfection" means only this, the adult standing of the Christian as compared with infancy before redemption. But the enemy has a hand in keeping believers back now, while this Epistle chides the Hebrews for the same culpable dulness in early days.

The statement in the chapter before, that Christ having been made perfect became, to all those that obey Him, Author of eternal salvation, helps much to see what perfection or full growth means here. Till then the saints could not rise above promise. Now whatever, or how many soever, be the promises of God, in Him is the Yea, and in Him the Amen for glory to God by us. Till redemption the Spirit of prophecy could say that God's salvation was near to come, and His righteousness to be revealed. But the gospel declares that His righteousness has been manifested, and that the believer has eternal life and receives the end of His faith, even soul-salvation, though we have to wait for that of the body yet. Meanwhile those that are Christ's are cleansed once for all, not only sanctified through the offering of Christ, but perfected in perpetuity (εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς), as Heb. 10 tells us unhesitatingly. The Holy Ghost, instead of keeping our guilt continually before us, testifies that through Christ's work God will remember our sins and iniquities no more. Thus for the Christian, with full remission, there is no more offering for sins; and hence he has boldness to enter the holies by the blood of Jesus. Those that by faith seize this, the truth of the gospel, are no more under age, held in bondage (as the apostle says elsewhere) under the rudiments of the world. By the faith of Him who died and rose we receive the adoption of sons, and through His Spirit cry, Abba, Father. So we draw nigh.

It was here the Hebrews were slow to hear and learn of God. They did not doubt that Jesus was the Christ; but they were dull to own both the full glory of His person and the present eternal efficacy of His work. This failure in faith kept them babes, and for this they are blamed; for God could not reveal more distinctly the dignity of Christ, nor could Father, Son, and Holy Ghost add to the fulness of what His cross is to God as well as to the believer. The Holy Spirit is come down from the glory of heaven to attest what Christ is there, and what His work has done for all those that believe in Him. Entrance by faith into this portion is full growth.

It was really going back from heavenly glory and eternal redemption on the part of all who refused to go forward into the full privileges of the gospel, content to know no more than what the disciples had before the cross. All they had then did not give them peace with God, for it did not cleanse their consciences. The middle wall of partition stood unbroken. There was no access for them into the holies, nor had they the Spirit of adoption. Neither the sting of death was gone, nor the power of sin annulled. Full growth implies, on the contrary, all this blessedness, and more; and to this the Hebrews are here exhorted to go on. It is not attainment, but simple faith in the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, in a word Christianity. Alas! how many who call themselves Christians, as sincere believers as the Hebrews addressed, are no less than they looking behind, instead of moving on to the enjoyment by faith of the risen Saviour, and of their nearness to His God and Father!

The next words give a sample of the things that occupied those who were not full grown, from which they are here dissuaded: "not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in God." It was all well to have laid such a foundation once; it was childish to be ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. Repentance is indispensable for a sinful man; faith in God must ever be in a saint. But eternal life is now bestowed, Christ sent as propitiation, and the Holy Ghost given to us. Is all this to leave believers where they were? Take again yet lower things, "of doctrine of washings and imposition of hands." These had their place, as we know, and many heed them much now as then, external though they are and in no way perfecting the worshipper as touching the conscience. The "washings" may include John's baptism, or that of the disciples, though the word slightly differs in its form; and the laying on of hands was certainly an ancient sign of blessing, which we see practised in various ways even after the gospel. But those whose hearts dwell in such signs and set not their mind on things above betray the symptoms of their infantine condition. God has provided some better thing for us. They are among the things whatever their teaching might be, which the light of the glory now revealed in Christ leaves in the shade. So again with the still weightier doctrine "of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment." No Christian denies either for a moment, but acknowledges both truths; yet he looks for his blessing at Christ's coming, as he knows from His own lips that judgment awaits only those who reject Him, and that believers are to rise in the contrasted resurrection of life and do not come into judgment.

Let souls beware then of labour in vain that diverts from better blessing, "And this we will do, if God permit." For yet another and urgent danger is set before the Hebrew Christians, not a little connected with obstinate clinging to old things however infantine, or a yet more ensnaring return of affection for them after being apparently weaned.

God had put honour upon the Son of man, not only here below (Acts 2: 23. 10: 38), but yet more when redemption had vindicated Him, and overthrown Satan, and made not only righteousness but heavenly glory available for man in sovereign grace. The consequence was an outburst of divine light and a display of power of the Spirit in man, such as had never been, and such as could never be otherwise. The time for the public deliverance of the world is not yet come, though Jesus the Lord of lords and King of kings sits at God's right hand. In fact another and still more intimately. blessed work is in hand, the call of the heavenly saints, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, His body and even to be His bride, though the marriage be not yet come. These He is gathering by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Meanwhile the Spirit could not but bear witness of the victory over evil and death and Satan already achieved by the risen and ascended Christ Hence the power that wrought at Pentecost and afterward according to the promise of the Lord, a promise amply fulfilled.

For His was title, not only to give eternal life to as many as the Father gave Him, but over all flesh. And the Lord manifested power not only in the apostles, but in multitudes of others. It was never guaranteed to be all the days till the end with His servants, as His presence was. If we in these days cannot speak of it, let us have grace at least to feel and own why this is, and how little His saints know deliverance from that which dishonours Him and makes it morally questionable whether such a display could be now without compromising the truth. For how consistently could there be such a divine energy shed on all Christians after being gathered in one when scattered again to the shame of His name? How could one company be singled out to have such an honour conferred without the most imminent danger of self-satisfaction or of despite done to others? That grace works by God's word and Spirit, wherever Christ is preached, is a proof of His faithful goodness and unfailing purpose; as also that faith may and ought to see His will for His own to walk together according to His immutable word and with becoming lowliness, so as to please Him, is ever true and binding. But it must be owned that the church is stripped of her ornaments, and justly.

Now this system of power and privilege had naturally great attraction in early days for the Hebrew saints, as for others, notably the Corinthians, as we may gather from the First Epistle. And those not born of God, who therefore could not appreciate aright either their own evil and ruin or the immense grace of God in Christ and His work, would naturally dwell much on that which so distinguished the Christian confession. Hence the Holy Spirit leads to a setting forth of a real and fatal peril for all who idolised visible power and slighted the far deeper wonders of unseen things. All other displays, though subserving the glory of the Lord, were altogether subordinate to the grace of God in which He tasted death, annulled Satan's power, made propitiation, and thus laid a righteous and everlasting basis for all blessing to God's glory, but to each purpose in God's time, yet for ever.

"For those that were once enlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted God's good word and powers of [an] age to come, and fell away, [it is] impossible to renew again unto repentance, crucifying for themselves as they do and putting to shame the Son of God. For land that drank the rain that often cometh upon it, and bringeth forth herbage meet for those for whose sake it is also tilled, partaketh of blessing from God; but Yielding thorns and thistles [it is] worthless and near a curse, the end of which [is] to be burned" (verses 4-8).

It is observable that we read here of enlightenment, not of new birth or eternal life. Undoubtedly the heavenly gift comes before us; and so it is not earthly like the associations of the Messiah, but "heavenly" because of contrast with Canaan hopes. How great a boon that God is now revealing heavenly grace! Further, it is not the old and essential truth of the Holy Spirit quickening a soul by the word, still less of now sealing the believer and for ever dwelling in him. We must not forget that He was sent down also to constitute the assembly God's habitation; so that all introduced therein were in a general way partakers of the Spirit. Whoever bowed to the gospel tasted God's word as good, and received it with joy as of far different savour from that law which was a ministration of death and condemnation. Then the powers exercised in casting out demons, healing, and the like, were samples of the age to come when they will be fully displayed, under the reign of the Son of man.

Now the substance of Christian privileges remains, and must as long as the church lives on earth and the gospel of Christ's glory is preached. There is real light of God shining on souls, not the dark or the dimness which could not but be before the gospel. It is still a heavenly calling, not an earthly one. Again, it is not of God to put forward His law when His Spirit is here still more fully to demonstrate sin, righteousness, and judgment to the world. And His word showing (not law nor promise only, but) accomplishment in Christ is surely "good"; as it is for all the baptised at least to taste that it is good, even if there be no longer the powers of the coming age, as we see them notably absent from the seven churches of the Revelation. But to give up all this, after having once profited by its wondrous excellence in the name of the glorified Jesus, is fatal. For what more can grace do or give to act on souls? If the Jews rejected the Messiah on earth, the Holy Spirit could and did meet them with a call to repentance and remission in His name exalted by and at God's right hand. But after having confessed Him on high and shared these privileges and powers, as members of the heavenly firm (which the baptised are, in privilege and responsibility), to fall away is to forfeit all. Yea too, there is no more resource in the treasures of grace. God has no fresh and higher way of presenting Christ to act on such for recovery. Therefore is it added for those that "fell away" that it is "impossible to renew such again unto repentance, crucifying for themselves as they do and putting to shame the Son of God." There had been Christ here in humiliation; there is Christ in glory above: what more, deeper, higher, has God to win the heart by?

There is no such hope now as a Messiah after the flesh. Him the Jewish people definitely cast out. If any had known Him so, henceforth He was thus known no more. He is the Christ dead, risen, and glorified in heaven. This is the Christian faith. To this the believer must go on, to Christ not on earth but on high with its blessed consequences. To lay hold of Him thus is "perfection" or full growth.

Carefully notice how the scripture before us guards us from confounding light and power with life. Not a word implies that those that fell away were ever quickened in the Christ, or sealed with the Spirit, or baptised in His energy into the one body. It is simply the case of disciples walking no more with Christ, stumbling at the truth or its consequences. So it was when He was here; so it followed when He sat on high with aggravation of guilt, as is here shown, for those that since fell away. Light shone, goodness was tasted, evidence abundant and undeniable; yet they fell away, through (not ignorance but) selfwill which could not bear God's will. They undoubtedly and fatally shrank from the tribulation through which we must enter the kingdom.

The illustration that follows confirms this fully. It was bad land, fruitful only in thorns and thistles, instead of a good return for the rain drunk in from above. Only grace in an evil world makes the heart good soil to bring forth herbs or fruit meet for those for whose sake also it is tilled. The Spirit uses the word to deal with the ungodly, ploughs up the soul, as well as sows the incorruptible seed of the word of God which lives and abides. This is a wholly different thing from seeing the beauty and reasonableness of "the plan of salvation," and still more the unanswerable proofs from evidence: from both people may and do fall away on pressure.

So it is now in Christendom. What is it generally but land* that has drunk the rain that comes oft upon it, but, instead of bringing forth meet herbs, bears thorns and thistles? By God's word it is therefore rejected and nigh unto a curse (Luke 17: 28-37; Rom. 11: 21, 22; 1 Cor. 10: 1-15; 2 Thess. 2; 2 Tim. 3, 4; Rev. 17). Is not its end to be burned? See 2 Thess. 1: 7-10. The power displayed has long vanished to zero; but the awful fact is that the classes and the masses are alike departing from the truth of the gospel into a superstitious aping of effete and condemned Judaism, or into a still more audacious return to heathenism in the form of its unbelieving philosophy. And the retrogression both ways in our day is amazingly rapid and unblushing

*It is not "the earth" as a whole as in A. V., nor yet as in R. V. "the land," etc., as that particular one objectively viewed, but characteristically "land"; for here English idiom as often coincides with Greek.

But the apostle did not so think of those who stand, be it ever so feebly, while others go away. Continuance in good is of God, who had not left His own without other tokens of life. For the trees are not dead which bear a little fruit. And to this we are directed in the encouraging, words that follow.

"But, beloved, we are persuaded of you things better and akin to salvation, if even we thus speak. For God [is] not unrighteous to forget our work and the love* which ye showed to his name, in that ye ministered to the saints and do minister. And we earnestly desire that each of you may show the same diligence in regard to the full assurance of hope till the end; that ye become not sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and long-suffering inherit the promises" (verses 9-12).

* The Text. Rec. adds "labour of," probably from 1 Thess. 1: 3. The best authorities ( A B D S P 6, 17, 31, 37, 47, etc., and almost all ancient Vv.) are adverse.

That we renounce all other dependence save Christ as our lord and Saviour is the faith that saves the soul, the one unchanging resting-place for every one conscious of his sins and of the evil of the nature that bore them, as ready as ever to break out unless we be kept by God's grace in the secret that we died to sin with Christ, and hence are free to live unto righteousness. Others cannot see this, but they may and ought to see in the Christian the fruits of the Spirit; as here the apostle, after so solemnly admonishing, could cheer the saints by the "better things" he was persuaded concerning them.

"Next" is a frequent sense of the term (ἐχ.) employed. Here it is modified by the context, as often in ordinary Greek, and means not "following," but "pertaining to" or "connected with" salvation. God is love, and "love" is of God, who has pleasure in reality of "work" rather than in the ideas which begin and end with man; and what is he to be accounted of? Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils. He who alone avails is near to all that call upon Him. But if faith is the inlet of all that is divine, it works by love, and thus affords testimony to others. Nor is it only those that believe and love who hail every good fruit, but God is not unjust to forget what His grace produces in "your work and the love which ye showed toward his name, in that ye ministered and do minister to his saints." So will our Lord when He sits on His throne as Son of man say to the Gentiles that are on His right hand, "Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these my brethren, ye did it to me."

But it is false and foolish to say that love can be without faith. Yet the acceptable work is what is shown toward His name, and very especially in service to His saints. One may have all faith as a gift, so as to remove mountains; but without love one is nothing. Yea, if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if in courage and zeal I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me to nothing Christ is the true touchstone. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." Then "whosoever loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him as on the other hand "hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do His commandments." This may not be Aristotelian logic; nor is it science; but it is the sole true and divine charity. And as it had been known in these Hebrew saints, so the apostle sees it going on. For the love which is of God is not blind but discerns clearly, as the eye is single.

Yet was there a lack which he longs to see filled up. "And we earnestly desire that each of you may show the same diligence as regards the full assurance of hope till the end." He was far from slighting hope any more than faith, because love is the greatest, abiding in fullest exercise when faith and hope vanish in the brightness of heavenly and everlasting fruition. For we are yet here below, though free of the sanctuary by faith, and entitled to regard heaven as our proper fatherland; as Christ is there our life, and the Holy Spirit is here to give us present enjoyment, the earnest of the inheritance. Therefore do we need to be kept from the present things that are seen, by our eyes fixing on the glory that is eternal and unseen (2 Cor. 4). And we reckon wrong if we do not reckon with the apostle, that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward. Hope that is seen is not hope — for who hopeth for that which he seeth? But if we hope for that which we see not, with patience we wait.

It was here also that a failure was discerned, though pointed out with the delicacy of love, that they might show the same diligence as in what he delighted to own. So he here longs for the like "as to the full assurance of hope till the end." So only does hope exercise its power. Earthly hopes indulged are as destructive to the divine hope God gives, as other objects trusted are wholly inconsistent with living faith. Nothing less than the full assurance of hope could satisfy the apostle's heart for the saints; as he adds, "that ye become not sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and long-suffering inherit the promises." We need all whereby the Holy Spirit acts on our souls; and in this, as He employs the written word of God, so He is ever glorifying Christ and endearing Him to our hearts. We cannot afford to let our souls turn aside from what is revealed, nor even to make such a favourite of a part of what is revealed as to slight the rest. And assuredly the glory Christ gives is bright enough to call for full assurance of hope and to keep the blessed end in full view. Otherwise we become sluggish or dull where we ought to be earnest and keenly awake, "imitators" of the saints of old, "of those who through faith and long-suffering inherit the promises." The present here, as often elsewhere, is not the mere historical force, but the ethical or abstract. The inheritors of the promises have their faith put to the proof and their longsuffering in habitual exercise. "Blessed is he that endureth temptation; for, when he hath been proved, he shall receive the crown of life, which he hath promised to them that love him."

The desire that the saints should imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises at once recalls the father of the faithful in a way intended to strengthen their confidence.

"For God having made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, swore by himself saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee; and thus having patiently endured he obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater, and to them the oath [is] an end of all dispute for confirmation: wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of his counsel, intervened by an oath that through two unchanceable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have strong encouragement, who fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before [us], which we have as anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast and entering into the [part] within the veil; where as forerunner for us entered Jesus, become for ever high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (verses 13-20).

When faith grows dim, earthly things take the place of the heavenly objects that once filled the heart. The danger for these believing Jews remains for others, and indeed is urgent in the actual state of Christendom. A religion of antiquity has great attraction for some; so has social position for others. Both are of the earth, and irreconcilable with Him who was crucified by priests and governors (the highest that the world then knew), but is now crowned with glory in heaven. The faith of Him thus presented (and it is the essence of the gospel) is intended to form the heart and life of all that bear His name. When the truth shines brightly within according to the word, the Holy Spirit makes it energetic; and the world is judged alike in its religious pretensions and in its external case and honours. Doubtless there is far more revealed by and in the Saviour than the patriarchs ever knew. Yet substantially the sight of Abraham a pilgrim, as Scripture points out, was an appeal of no small power to act on the soul of a believing Jew, in danger of retrograding to that which was once his boast through losing sight of Christ in heavenly glory and the hope of sharing all with Him. Abraham possessed nothing in Canaan, having to buy even a grave; he hung on the promise of God. The Christian Jews were so far in a similar position; they were waiting to inherit the promises. Abraham and his son and his son's son (the most honoured of the fathers in general estimation, and surely ancient enough to satisfy the most ardent of those who affected antiquity), all died in faith, not in possession. They saw and greeted the promises from afar and confessed themselves strangers on the earth. Why should Christians repine when called to a like path? It is unbelief that despises the hope and craves some present enjoyment of an earthly sort.

Now God had even then given good ground of assurance to Abraham, who led the way. He had added His oath to His promise: a blessed confirmation for the tried, even though they were far from being gainsayers. Only theorists would think lightly of such a gracious provision only those who dream of pilgrimage in a palace and have no purpose of heart to live out the truth. When conscience is in earnest, our own weakness is felt, and the way of Christ seems difficult, dangerous, and repulsive. Hence the gracious wisdom of God gave His oath in addition to His promise, as we may read in Gen. 22: 17, 18: a precious cheer to him who at that very time received back his son as from the dead in a parable.

Nor was it for Abraham's sake only or those who immediately succeeded that God gave this twofold solemn guarantee. He was minded thus to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His counsel. Therefore did He mediate or interpose with an oath to lift up the eyes of all who believe from present and seen things to that hope which rests on His word confirmed by His oath. What. loving condescension to those who march through an enemy's land! Such are clearly the "two unchangeable things in which it was impossible for God to lie"; the application of which is made, not to the fathers of old, but to the children now, "that we might have strong encouragement, that fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."

Thus the chapter opens with a most serious warning. On the one hand the brightest light, the highest testimony, the participation of the Holy Spirit, the sweetness of the gospel, the powers of the age to come in token of Christ's triumph, are the chief external privileges of Christianity. Yet men might have them all, and utterly fall away so as to have no renewal to repentance possible. They are not life, eternal life in Christ; they include not the love of God shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that was given to us. Neither illumination nor power is the same as being born again, which is not said or supposed here. On the other hand, when the good cheer of divine grace follows, these closing verses point out the lowest faith ever described in gospel days, "those who fled for refuge" (an allusion to the beautiful figure of the man-slayer only just saved from his pursuers) enabled "to lay hold of the hope set before us": a truly "strong encouragement" for the weak and trembling faithful.

Nor is this all. The hope set now before the believer far transcends all that could be for the saints in O.T. times. We have it as "anchor of the soul both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil, where as forerunner for us entered Jesus, become for ever high priest according to the order of Melchizedek." Here the security is enhanced and crowned by One who is God no less than man, Jehovah-Messiah the Saviour, who is gone back to heaven for us, after having made the purification of sins and found an eternal redemption.

In Him and His work all is made sure. The rights of God are conciliated with His grace. Sin has been judged so as to vindicate the nicest regard for injured majesty and holiness. Mercy can flow freely yet on a basis of righteousness, no longer sought in vain from flesh and guilty man, but established by God as due to Christ (John 12) and ministered by the Spirit in the gospel (2 Cor. 3). He Who is exalted in heaven is the promised Messiah, the object, securer, and dispenser of all the promises of God. Thus will the earth be best blessed in due time: but meanwhile those who believe in Him before He appears are associated with Him in a heavenly relationship even while they are here, that they too on clearer and fairer ground than Moses could occupy may account the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt. He as forerunner for us has entered within the veil — heaven itself: which none could know or claim till He had come here, suffered for sins, and been received up in glory. If this does not win the believer from an earthly mind, from a sanctuary of the world, nothing else can. He who has loved us, our forerunner in heaven, though rejected of men, draws and binds our hearts to Himself where He is; and God reveals Him to us there for this express end.

Hebrews 7 - 13.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews with a new version.

Hebrews 7

The portion on which we enter develops the type of Melchizedek as far as it applies to Christ in heaven and the Christian portion. The future earthly part is but hinted at and in no way opened out.

"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the* most high God, that† met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham assigned a tenth Of all, first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace, without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abideth a priest continuously" (verses 1-3).

* I know not why Dean Alford spoke of the second article here omitted "with B"; for the Vatican gives it as all do, save a few cursives. The Complut. omitted it, followed by Beza and the Elzevirs; but Erasmus, Colinaeus, and R. Steph. duly inserted it; and so the modern editors.

†  Ὃς is read by the great Uncials, and so one cursive known to us; yet 6 seems right (C L and most) and to have got the σ from the word following. The relative supposes a needless anacoluthon. No wonder that Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort here desert Lachmann and Tregelles.

Here the Spirit of God gives us a fine sample of unfolding an incident of the O.T. in the light of the New. The glory of Christ as ever is the true key, without which the mind of God in His word is never apprehended. And it is striking to see that the reticence of Scripture is only less instructive than its disclosures. All has to be weighed; but who is sufficient for these things? Our sufficiency is of God, who now works in us that believe by the same Spirit who inspired both Testaments, and works to glorify (not the Christian nor the church, blessed as both are, but) Christ, Whose grace and glory are the substance of our best blessings.

In Gen. 14 we have the last notice of the public life of Abraham as chosen and called out to walk in faith of God's promise; for Gen. 15 begins the dealings of God with him personally. The occasion was the rescue of Lot carried away, family and goods, with the rest of his neighbours whose worldly advantages he had coveted. The man of simple faith and self-sacrifice, of whom Lot had taken advantage (Gen. 13), unhesitatingly pursues and vanquishes the victorious kings of the east. Thereon appears Melchizedek, the more unexpectedly as there seems scarcely any ground to doubt that he was a prince akin to the guilty race that soon after were punished by the most solemn judgment of God. Yet was he not an idolater but priest of the most high God. "And Melchizedek, king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all" (verses 18-20).

The all-important truth to grasp is that the Epistle reasons solely on "the order." of Melchizedek in contrast with that of Aaron. When it speaks of the exercise of priesthood, Aaron is the type and not Melchizedek; and then we hear of sacrifice and intercession, of blood-shedding and a sanctuary, with the Levitical ritual in general. Self-evidently all this has no relation to Melchizedek, only to Aaron as typifying the Lord's present action above grounded on His atoning work for sin.

The exercise of the royal priesthood looks on to the earth in a future day, when the Man whose name is the Branch shall build the temple in truth (Zech. 6: 13). Even He shall build the temple of Jehovah, and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne; and a counsel of peace shall be between Them both. Of that day Hosea 2: 14-23 is a bright witness: only here it is according to His title of Jehovah. "And it shall be in that day, saith Jehovah, thou shalt call me my Husband, and thou shalt call me no more Baali [my Master]. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth [He will be in fact and affection El-Elyon, the Most High God], and they shall no more be remembered by their name. And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and With the birds of the heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break bow and sword and battle out of the land, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know Jehovah. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith Jehovah, I will hear the hleavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn and the new wine and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the land, and I will have mercy upon Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Lo-Ammi, My people thou., and they shall say, My God."

This will be the kingdom of God, not in the moral sense which applies now and always, of which our Lord (Matt. 6: 33) and the apostle Paul (Rom. 14: 17) speak, but in the future display when adversaries are put down. Our Epistle alludes to it as the habitable earth or world to come (Heb. 2), and as the age to come (Heb. 6), as indeed in other forms most expressive. It is the great goal of prophecy whether in the O.T. or in the N.T. Great must be the cap for his soul who does not look onward to triumph for mercy and truth, for righteousness and glory, not in heaven only but on this earth, placed under our Lord Jesus, when Israel shall be by grace repentant and subject, and thus fitted to fill their allotted place in that day as God's people, His son, His firstborn (Ex. 4: 22); and the Gentiles, humbled by divine judgments as well as by unmerited and inexhaustible goodness, shall know that Jehovah sanctifies Israel with His sanctuary in their midst for ever. The glory of the Lord manifested here below will be the answer to His sufferings and shame; and those who in faith and love have shared the latter shall enjoy the former, reigning with Him over the earth. This is not the eternal state, but the kingdom for a thousand years before eternity begins or that judgment of the dead, the wicked dead, which precedes it.

Nor has anyone an adequate conception of the coming Kingdom of God, who does not look for it administered by the risen Lord in person, the glorified saints being on high, Israel and the, nations here below. For there are earthly things as well as heavenly. Of this the Lord reminded Nicodemus, teacher of Israel though he was (John 3: 3, 5, 12); and many more in Christendom need to be reminded of it now. For men are ever apt to be occupied with their own things, and easily confound this purpose of God for Christ's glory with a vague and general view of eternity. But doctrinal scripture is as distinct and indisputable as the prophetic word. "For the earnest expectation of the creation" (expressly distinguished from ourselves also having the firstfruits of the Spirit) "waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God"; which without doubt is when we follow Christ out of heaven and are manifested with Him in glory (Rom. 8: 18-25; Col. 3: 4; Rev. 17: 14, Rev. 19: 14). This indeed is the regeneration (Matt. 19: 28), that age, and the resurrection from the dead (Luke 20: 35) when the Father's kingdom is come from above, and His will is done on earth as in heaven. Yet it is not the end when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, but His reigning till He put all the enemies under His feet. And it is plain that death as last enemy is not annulled till just before the great white throne. For the millennium, however blessed beyond example, is not absolutely perfect like the eternity which it ushers in. See Isa. 65, 1 Cor. 15, and 2 Peter 3.

One of the most distinctive marks of that day, a dispensation of the fulness of the seasons, is God's heading or summing up all in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. No doubt as we are children of God, so are we His heirs and joint-heirs with Christ, the Heir of all things. Hence we are here said (Eph. 1: 10, 11) to have obtained inheritance, which will be manifested in that day; for the glory that the Father has given Him He has given us, though we have to wait, in a hope that does not make ashamed (John 17; Rom. 5: 5). He that descended is the same that ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things. By Him the sacrificial work is done to reconcile all things to God, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens; and meanwhile we have been already reconciled, so as to await with joy His coming in glory. But when He does come, He with His glorified bride will take the universe, heavenly and earthly, as the scene of His glory. To make His kingdom the earth only is as false as to confine it to heaven. Scripture excludes the narrowness of either view, one of which obtained in sub-apostolic times, as the other in modern. The truth, as usual, is larger than all; and the truth demands both, worthily to magnify the Lord who is the true Melchizedek and will bring forth bread and wine to refresh the returning victors. For there and then too captivity will be led captive. The faith that unselfishly refused the world conquers the world that had for a while the upper hand.

Such is the action of the Royal Priest in that day: not offering sacrifice, nor burning incense, but with suited refreshment when the victory is won at the end of the age, and God proves Himself the Most High, the highest rivals being overthrown. It is emphatically blessing, as that day will be its irrefragable evidence. And the word of blessing is twofold: Abram (representing Israel as their father) blessed on the part of the Most High God, "the possessor of heavens and earth"; and on the other side, "blessed be the Most High, who delivered thine enemies into thy hand," Melchizedek thereon receiving tithes as duly and gratefully rendered.

But in Hebrews, as we may see, what is future exercise is barely alluded to. It is beautifully pointed out how significant is the name and place first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem which is king of peace." For this alone can be according to God, whether for heaven or for earth, for the Christian now or for Israel by-and-by: no true peace save on a basis of accepted righteousness. How blessed and sure this is every believer ought to know. What is dwelt on mainly is the "order" of this priest, in contrast with Aaron's order where limits of age and succession were indispensable. Here it is one sole ever-living priest: "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life." Not of course that as a matter of fact Melchizedek had not parents, forefathers if not descendants, birth and death, as other men. For the notion of an angel, or divine power, or Christ, are as absurd as that of Shem, etc. Scripture intentionally veils all these; and the priest-king suddenly appears on the scene and vanishes from the inspired history, so as to furnish the typical shadow of our Lord as the Royal Priest. Hence he is said to be "likened, or assimilated, to the Son of God": language quite improper, if the Son of God had then really appeared. All we see of him is that "he abides a priest continuously." Nothing else is recorded. There is no preparatory record, and no sequel to the story. He is a king-priest without a hint of terminating his office or devolving it on a successor. He abides a priest in perpetuity, or without a break, the contrast of the Aaronic line.

The sketch hitherto given is wonderfully graphic and comprehensive. We come now to closer points of comparison between Melchizedek and Aaron.

"Now behold how great [was] he to whom [*also] Abraham the patriarch cave a tenth out of the spoils. And those indeed out of the sons of Levi that receive the priestly office have commandment to take tithe of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren thou oh having come out from the loins of Abraham. But he that hath no genealogy from them hath tithed Abraham and hath blessed him that had the promises. But apart from all gainsaying the less is blessed by the better. And here dying men receive tithes, but there one hath witness that he liveth. And, so to say, through Abraham Levi also that receiveth tithes hath been tithed; for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him" (verses 4-10).

*The "also" or "even" is doubtful, though it has good and ancient evidence.

The facts recorded in the close of Gen. 14 are made the groundwork of weighty teaching. On the one hand the patriarch, whom every Jew locked upon as the historic head of Israel, cave Melchizedek a tenth of all the spoils taken from the vanquished kings. On the other hand Melchizedek as priest of the Most High God* blessed Abraham most solemnly and significantly. But circumstances were the more notable because they stand out in marked isolation from the ordinary life of the fathers, save where an inconsistency is recorded for our profit and that no flesh might glory. Thus Jacob vowed that if God would be with him and keep him, so that he should return in peace to his father's house, Jehovah should be his God, and he would surely of all He gave him render the tenth to Him (Gen. 28). Yet in the land of the stranger Jacob the pilgrim blessed Pharaoh, king of Egypt though he was (Gen. 47): a simple but real testimony to the superiority of faith over all earthly honour.

*We may notice, by the way, the utter ignorance of the Pentateuch evinced by the different document system. For the names of God, Elohim, Jehovah, El-Elyon, El-Shaddai, are required by their context to express the truth adequately, instead of the nonsensical assumption of various, strung together at a date long after Moses. The scheme is not only superficial but false and sceptical.

But here all is seen reversed to furnish an adequate type of what was due to Christ, however repulsive to Jewish pride and the petty reasoning of man's mind. There was a personage, a king-priest, so great in dignity that Abraham gave him a tenth of the spoils at an epoch when God had just crowned himself with singular honour. From this is deduced the undeniable inference, according to a style of teaching which no pious or intelligent Israelite would question, that not Levi only but his priestly sons, the house of Aaron, entitled to tithe their brethren by the law, paid tithes in the person of Abraham to Melchizedek; to one who derived no succession and was absolutely void of genealogical link with the tribe, the priestly family, or with the lineal chief of them all. There stood the fact in the foundation book of holy Scripture, and of that law to which even the incredulous party of Sadducees clung tenaciously. It was no question of a new revelation, or of a doubtful reading, or of an interpretation that could be challenged. In the plainest terms God had revealed a fact, the bearing of which may never have dawned on any until the Holy Spirit now applied it to Christ so unexpectedly.

Nor was Levi, any more than Aaron, degraded by pointing out the decisive act of Abraham recorded for permanent use in divine revelation, which proved a priestly office superior to the Aaronic. For He to whom Melchizedek stood as type was their own Messiah, Jesus the Son of God. To His mere shadow the father of the faithful, the "friend of God," bowed down, acknowledging the highest representative of the Most High God, Possessor of heavens and earth, and involving in that willing homage all that sprang from him, even Levi and Aaron. Thus according to God it was shown that Aaron and his house had paid tithes to Melchizedek in their forefather. And herein was no failure of Abraham but an act of faith, of which God has made much, as we all see in the O.T. as well as in the N.T.

But we are directed to more than this. Abraham was a receiver from Melchizedek, who "hath blessed him that had the promises." These might seem to exempt from the blessing of man the one who had the promises of God more characteristically than any other of the sons of men. But not. so, this royal priest, who had no connection of flesh with Aaron and his sons (whom Jehovah ordained to bless the sons of Israel, putting His name upon them to secure His blessing, Num. 6), Melchizedek blessed Abraham with all publicity and in the most special manner He blessed Abraham on the part of God Most High, and blessed God Most high on the part of Abraham. But beyond controversy, all gainsaying apart, "the less is blessed by the better." So in Luke 2 Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary, but ventured not to bless the Babe, even when in another sense he blessed or gave thanks to God. In that Babe his eyes had seen God's salvation; as in like spirit, though with beautifully suited difference of act, the magi from the cast fell down and worshipped, not the mother but the young Child, and, opening their treasures, offered unto Him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh (Matt. 2). Well had it been for the men and women of the west had they pondered the lesson, instead of lapsing into idolatry.

Melchizedek then blessed Abraham; how much indeed is He the Blest and the Blesser of whom that mysterious priest was but the foreshadowing! But another hint is given, more developed later, on which the less may be said now: "And here dying men receive tithes, but there one having witness that he liveth." This is what we hear of Melchizedek; not a word of his birth or of his death. He is simply presented a "living" priest, with nothing before or after; whereas death is written on Aaron and all his sons, yet are they priests receiving tithes according to the law. But, so to say, the same law attests that through Abraham as the medium Levi too who receives tithes paid tithe in principle — for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him and received the tenth of the spoils. Had Levi been born previously, he might plead independence and exemption. As it was, Israel, Aaron, and all were united in that one man's homage, the father of the chosen people.

Thus far in our chapter the Scripture unfolded is that given in the close of Gen. 14; and therein is shown a priesthood incontestably superior to that of Aaron, royal in character no less than in place, expressly in relation to God's supremacy, and exercised at the moment of the victory of faith over the hitherto victorious powers of the world. It is distinguished by blessing, emphatically by blessing downwards and upwards, the father of the faithful blessing God Most High, and God Most High blessing him; and we can add from the ancient oracle, as "possessor of heaven and earth": to say nothing more now of the varied points of contrast with Aaron, which can be realised only in that Man who is God, the sole Man of whom the Spirit could say, "The same yesterday, and today, and forever." If Melchizedek in the type abides a priest continuously, the Son of God so abides in very deed.

Three proofs of inferiority in the Levitical priesthood appear. Melchizedek received tithes of him whom all Israel acknowledged as their father and chief. Abraham, the original depositary of the promises and heir of the world, was blessed by the same august personage; and indisputably the less is blessed by the better. Again Levitical priests without exception up to Aaron are but dying men, whereas we only hear of Melchizedek living, without one word of his death. And none can deny that the patriarchal head of the tribe which boasted of the priestly family, if he receive tithes from the people, paid tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek, whose superiority was thus indelibly marked in God's word.

But the scripture quoted already (Heb. 5: 6) from the Book of Psalms (Ps. 110: 4) is distinct in predicating of the Messiah this highest priesthood of the Most High God. Here only is found perfection of priesthood. His person and His work alike warrant this confidence. Nowhere else is it, or can it be even conceivably. Jesus only is saluted of God as high priest after the order of Melchizedek, as the inspired psalmist spoke of Jehovah, in the most solemn way, owning Him in this style, alone and for ever. Hence our Epistle deduces another proof of Levitical inferiority. Nor is it to be overlooked that the Most High has a prophetic reference to the day when all hostile power in the world shall be vanquished, and all false gods vanish before Him who is ever the only true God, and will then enforce His claim as Creator and Possessor of heavens and earth. The Lord Jesus, the Royal Priest, will administer the entire universe to the glory of God, at His appearing again. This, however, is not opened out now, as pertaining to the future exercise of the Melchizedek priesthood, instead of its "order" on which the Holy Spirit is expatiating now as the truth here needed.

"If then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for upon it the people have received the law), what further need that a different priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called [or said to be] after the order of Aaron? For the priest changed, there taketh place of necessity a change also of law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to a different tribe, from which no one hath given attention to the altar. For evidently out of Judah hath our Lord sprung, as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests (verses 11-14).

If Moses testifies of a prophet to come like himself but greater far, so does David in spirit of an ever-abiding priest according to the order, not of Aaron but of Melchizedek. This is and secures perfection. It is Jehovah Himself that announces it, long after Aaron, longer still after the historical king-priest of Salem. It unequivocally points to Messiah, but Messiah on the one hand to sit on the right hand of Jehovah, and on the other to strike through kings in the day of His wrath and to judge among the nations. The bearing of this is immediate, powerful, and beyond mistake. Aaronic order gives place to a far surpassing one, of which Melchizedek was but the shadow, in the person and offices of Christ, the centre of all glory, intrinsic and conferred; with the momentous basis of His redemption work, that He might be free to bless righteously, according to all the love and counsels of God, those who could have no other claim, but contrariwise had sin, guilt, and curse. But Ps. 110 also points onward to the future day of His triumph when Israel shall be willing, instead of disobedient as now, and the mightiest kings shall be for the Lord Jesus when He sends the sceptre of His might out of Zion, instead of sitting patiently as now at the right hand of God.

Perfection thus is manifestly not through the Levitical priesthood, which is but provisional, from first to last characterised by infirmity and even sins. and indeed it was to make propitiation for the one and to intercede for the other, with imperfection everywhere attending its transitory nature. How different in every way the true and great Melchizedek! How glorious His place on high! How unfailing too the blessing, not only for those who now believing follow Him in Spirit where He is at God's right hand, but for those spared on earth when He smites through kings in the day of His anger, and blessing flows here below as the exercise of His priesthood. God Most High will be then the manifest possessor of heavens and earth; as the rejected but exalted Messiah will be the channel and guarantee of blessing, the King as well as Priest in the displayed glory of that day.

But Israel had the law given them under the condition of the Levitical priesthood, and on no other footing could it be. A faulty people could not draw near to God as things then were with no more than a figurative redemption and sacrifices. A failing priesthood must intervene tremblingly and with rigour of rite and ceremonial, on pain of death if transgressed. There was clearly nowhere in that system perfection": yet perfection there must be to meet the mind, love, and holiness of God. It is attainable and found only in Christ, as it is here shown in Him "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Therefore, as is argued, is the further need of a different priest arising as the Holy Spirit had predicted, according to that supreme order of blessing without fail, the glorified Messiah, and not said to be after Aaron's order. Now the change of the priest necessitates a chance also of law. This is the true statement of inspiration here not of "the law," as has been said by a lively but often erratic commentator, but "of law." There is a totally different principle henceforth. Grace only can save a sinner, not the law, nor a mixture of law and grace, which only the more condemns the guilty as being the less to be excused. It is by grace alone that the believer is or can be saved; through righteousness indeed, but this exclusively in Christ, however truly the faith of Him produces its fruit abundantly through Him unto God's glory and praise. It was when He had made purification of sins, as we read at the beginning of the Epistle, that He set Himself down on the right hand of the Majesty, though it is only in Hebrews 10 that we learn fully the perfected status of the Christian.

And the change is shown further by the fact which is next noticed, that He of whom these things are said belonged to or had His pare in a different tribe, not Levi but Judah, from which no one had ever been officially attached to the altar. For it was plain before all that our Lord, as it is added, "hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing about priests." The break was as clear as decisive. Messiah was to be born of David's line, of a virgin espoused to a man of the Solomonic branch: so prophecy declared. And as He on high, after His sacrificial death and His resurrection, was saluted of God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, it was undeniable that the change from Aaron's family tribe was divinely marked beyond all controversy.

Thus Christianity is essentially different from Judaism; for no doubt man's rationalism and ethics are radically worthless and false. There is in both, there was for the Jew visibly, a priest and a sacrifice, a sanctuary, and an altar; but their nature wholly differs by the intention and word of God. Therefore there is no excuse for ignorance; for the O.T. prepares for what the N.T. propounds with all plainness of speech. The essence and substance of all blessing to faith is in Christ, rejected of men and of the Jew especially, but risen and at God's right hand, and we who believe belong to Him for heaven, as this Epistle elaborately proves. He is coming to bring us there in His own likeness. Every Christian is already not sanctified or hallowed only but perfected by His one offering. But in these days of declension and self-complacency, is there aught that Christians need to learn of God more than their own Christianity as He has revealed it, unless it be Christ Himself on whom all depends? Even saints are slow to believe the grace and glory of His cross, as they instinctively shirk the crucifixion of the world to them and of themselves to the world which it entails. But this is the word of the Lord for His own now (Gal. 6: 14).

It has been shown then that a change of priesthood (and consequently of the law also) was involved in the priest addressed by God in Psalm ex. As the subject of the Psalm is confessedly Messiah and so of necessity David's son, He must spring out of Judah, not out of Levi as did the house of Aaron. But there is another and far weightier difference to which he next proceeds; He was David's Lord. No wonder that singular dignity of office attached to a person so glorious. He was no priest according to the law.

"And it is yet more abundantly evident if (or, since) according to the similitude of Melchizedek ariseth a different priest who hath been made, not according to the law of fleshly commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life. For it is witnessed, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. For there is a putting away of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law perfected nothing), and an introduction of a better hope, through which we draw nigh to God" (verses 15-19).

It was conceivable that a more exalted being might have taken up, in the sovereign will of God, the priesthood of Aaron, and shed new lustre on it according to His superior glory. But the Holy Spirit here leads the writer to press, not only the change already urged, but the still more striking distinction of a different (ἕτερος, not ἄλλος merely) priest to arise according to the likeness of Melchizedek. This leaves Aaron or any successor of his, and the law with which they were bound up, completely aside. Thus the great weight of the testimony extracted from Psalm 110 comes more and more into evidence. Of Messiah it speaks beyond controversy, of His intermediate position at the right hand of God, of the divine recognition of His priesthood after the order, not of Aaron but of Melchizedek, and not only of His kingdom, introduced as it is here and elsewhere shown to be, by divine power and judgment of His foes. And the more intelligently that Psalm and others are read, the more convergent the light on Christ, and the more indubitable the inference in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the truth alike of Jewish hopes for the future and of Christianity at present.

For it is the rejected Messiah that we see all through the Psalms, opposed by the nations and peoples, by kings and rulers; but God declares His decree not only to set His anointed on Zion, but to give Him the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession, when He will rule them with a rod of iron and break them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Clearly this is not yet accomplished; nor has Messiah yet asked for it. He is waiting on the Father's throne. He will at His coming sit on His own throne, when those who are now being called shall reign with Him in glory. Meanwhile we have to pray that our hearts be directed into God's love and Christ's patience (2 Thess. 3: 5). We now keep the word of His patience (Rev. 3: 10). As He is waiting on high, so are we below, knowing that He that shall come will come and will not tarry. If made a little lower than the angels, He is because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour in a higher and larger sphere than David's Son in Zion. He is the suffering but exalted Son of man in heavenly glory, and about to come with the clouds of heaven, invested with universal dominion, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him: an everlasting dominion and a kingdom which shall not be destroyed.

But while He waits on high, He is active as a priest in sustaining His own suffering ones, tried as they are on earth. And the order of His priesthood is not after the likeness of Aaron but of Melchizedek. It was not the day of His power when He came the first time. He was crucified in weakness then. So only could there be reconciliation to God by His blood. Redemption otherwise was impossible, and that glorification of God concerning sin without which there could be no righteous, no stable, blessing for anyone or anything. Now the infinite work of atonement is wrought and accepted; and He who was delivered for our offences was raised for our justification, is at the right hand of God, and also maketh intercession. He died for the nation too, as well as to gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad, though the application of His work to "the nation" awaits the hour of their repentance and faith in Him, their own Messiah, whom they slew by the hand of lawless men. He will sit as a priest on His throne when Jehovah shall send the rod of Messiah's might out of Zion.

But He discharges priestly functions, a priest for us now, and He only is competent and all-sufficient and must needs be so; as the very essence of His order is that, like Melchizedek, He stands alone with no companion in it nor subordinates, with neither predecessor nor successor, the one sole Priest after the order of Melchizedek. The day of His wrath is future and introduces His kingdom; for He is Jehovah as well as Messiah. Thus it is that Jehovah shall be king over all the earth; in that day shall Jehovah be one and His name one: never till then a universal religion and universal kingdom, but all this then for the God of Israel in the person of the Lord Jesus as the word makes plain.

And the heavens shall no longer be aloof, but be united in homage to the King of kings and Lord of lords. Then He will have the glorified, who shall reign with Him. The suffering church will be manifested in His heavenly Bride. Nor is anythine, more opposed to all truth than that they are so reigning* now one of the evil roots of popery and of other self-exalting delusions. On the contrary now is the time to suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. It is an error as old as the ease and honour loving Corinthians in the germ at least. See how nobly the apostle dissipates it as chaff in 1 Cor. 4: 8-16; comparing 1 Cor. 6: 1-9; 1 Cor. 7: 29-31; 1 Cor. 9: 24, 25; 1 Cor. 15: 23, 24, 42-58. But in fact where is not this truth underlying if not on the surface? The reign of Christ and His heavenly ones will take in the heavens, but be over (not, on) the earth.

* I am aware of the reading of A B and some 26 cursives in Rev. 5: 10. But undoubtedly the external counter-evidence of P and 30 cursives, some of no common weight, and of the best Latin copies, preponderates. If it were otherwise even, the believer standing on the analogy of the faith can distinctly pronounce present reigning an error. Compare the absurd reading of the excellent Alex. MS. in Rev. 20: 5. We must beware of idolising the witnesses. "On" the earth too is not grammatically sound after βασ. It should be "over."

But to return to our chapter, the reasoning is conclusive. The chance to a different priest of unique and surpassing glory is the teaching of that O.T. which every true Jew owns to be divine. The infirmity of the Levitical priesthood is thereby demonstrated, and Christ alone answers to the type of Melchizedek. He is beyond controversy the other and different priest that arises, who has been so made or constituted, not after a law of fleshly commandment but after a power of indissoluble life. For He is testified of, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek. What can be conceived plainer or more conclusive? Even the royal priest who blessed Abraham was but typical and shadowy. The body is Christ's. Aaron's priesthood was fleshly, Christ's according to power of an imperishable life. It is as risen and in heaven that He is Melchizedek Priest.

Our chapter however draws a still larger deduction, not only an incomparably higher priesthood, to which Aaron's gives place, but disannulling of a foregoing commandment as weak and unprofitable; for, as is added parenthetically, the law perfected nothing. Christ is not only perfect Himself "but brings in perfection, and in every way. And this is what was implied in Heb. 6: l — "let us go on unto perfection." It really is Christianity in contradistinction from Judaism, wherein even the heirs were under age (Gal. 4: The Christian is a son and heir of God, and we know it by the Spirit of His Son sent forth into our hearts and crying, Abba, Father. Compare also Rom. 8.

Thus the change of the priesthood from the order of Aaron to that of Melchizedek is shown to be exceeding deep and wide and permanent. Even now, whatever glorious results are in the womb of the future, there is on one hand an abolishing of antecedent injunction because of its weakness and unprofitableness, but on the other an inbringing of a better hope, the parenthesis simply summing up and clenching in a few pithy words the failure of the law to perfect anything. Perfection is in and by Christ alone. and this by grace so fully as to glorify God and meet the believer's need in everything — even as to the body at His coming again.

But meantime "we draw near to God." How blessed! It is the standing truth of access: never true even of Aaron save once a year, and then with solemn rite "lest he die." Now it is alike and always true of the Christian family. For here is no question of differing gift or of special position or local charge. It is the common blessedness of all, due to the work and blood, the person and priesthood, of Christ. "We draw near to God." To assert difference in this is to resuscitate the abolished injunction, and to despise the introduced better hope. It is to set aside the gospel and go back to that law which, if God's word is to be believed, made nothing perfect. This is what is seen in much the greater part of Christendom. It was the wedge of Tractarianism; it is the flag of Ritualism. And it is the weakness of true Christians which leaves the door open for all such dark rebellion against divine grace and truth. For to say that there are no priests now on earth is but half a truth. The truth is that Christ is the great Priest on high, and that believers now on earth and since Pentecost are free of the sanctuary. "We draw near to God." How so if we have not priestly nearness of access? To claim or allow that some have it for others virtually denies Christianity.

But the perfection goes far beyond our being now made of age, in contrast with legal minority, as we shall find throughout this Epistle and in what remains no less than in what we have had; so that this need not be more than noticed according to the brief allusion in the text.

Only it is well to observe that the A.V. of the passage is untenable, and so are the various antecedent translations. 'Thus Wiclif muddles the entire context, though he is right as to the last clause. It is the more curious as the Vulgate is correct, which helped the Rhemish, though their English is here clumsy and their punctuation cuts all thread of sense. Tyndale, by failing to see the parenthesis, led the way into the strange error of understanding (seemingly, for it is preposterous) that "the lawe made nothing perfect: but was an introduction," etc. Cranmer followed in his wake. The English version of Geneva erred in another way of like misapprehension by giving, "the law made nothing perfect: but the bringing in of a better hope made perfect," etc. The A.V. followed this by inserting "did." The truth is that no verb is needed other than the text supplies in the beginning of verse 18, which stretches over to verse 19 also. There is a doing away of a foregoing commandment, and an introduction of a better hope, by which we draw near to God: the legal state is annulled, and a better hope supervenes now. It is Christianity, and by it we draw near to God, instead of standing at a distance as being essentially Jewish. There is nothing more characteristic of the gospel, as the result of Christ's cross and blood-shedding by which we are brought to God. All priesthood for us save Christ's vanishes away; and Christ's is to maintain us in that nearness which His work gives us even now, all Christians being priests spiritually.

Another proof of superiority for the priesthood of Christ over Aaron's is found in the oath which Jehovah is declared to have sworn in the former case, as attested in the same fruitful verse of Psalm 110. We have already had this argument drawn from His dealings with Abraham after he was tried and found faithful as to the sacrifice of Isaac (Heb. 6: 13-18). It was God's appreciation of the faith that surrendered His dearest object, and in the most painfully trying way, to Himself trusted absolutely. For the divine oath was added to the word of promise that, by two unchangeable things in which it was impossible that God should lie, we might have a strong encouragement who have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us. Here it is yet more solemn as His appreciation of Christ's priesthood which is final and for ever, as being perfectly satisfying to His nature, love, and glory, in His Son as well as the Man who had alone glorified Him even as to sin, competent alike as God and man in one person and perfect in all His work.

"And inasmuch as [it was] not without swearing of an oath (for they have been made priests without swearing of an oath, but he with swearing of an oath by him that saith unto him, Jehovah swore and will not change his mind, Thou [art] priest for ever*), by so much also hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant" (verses 20-22).

*The best copies and versions omit the rest of the citation here; as B read καὶ in 22.

The very term employed in this case, swearing of an oath, is more full and formal than the short and familiar word previously and generally used. It would seem that the utmost weight of solemnity is expressed thereby. The only occurrence in the Septuagint is in Ezek. 17: 18, 19, where was decided the lot of the profane prince. The Apocrypha has it once (3 Esdr. viii. 93 (90)). In Acts 2: 30 the phrase is composed of the two words here combined. The critic Julius Pollux has the word in his Onomasticon (i. 38), not Plato, who uses the plural form differently accentuated therefore, for asseverations on oath (Phaedr. 241 a, ed. H. Steph.), a form also expressive of the accompanying sacrifice among the heathen like ὅρκια, as the Lexicons cite.

Thus did God mark the incomparable honour of Messiah's priesthood: as the Aaronic was transitory, His for ever. How strange at first sight that a Jew should overlook what was so distinctly involved in this solemnity on Jehovah's part in that dignity peculiar to His own Messiah! But it ceases to be strange, if one reflect on their habitual history, not as they flatter themselves in modern times but as God has recorded it imperishably in His living oracles, where we see them ever stiff-necked and rebellious, ever forsaking their most needed mercies and their brightest glory. All this would be inexplicable if one did not remember the wily adversary, the old serpent, who has wrought with not less ruinous success in Christendom now than in Judaism of old. Nor will that sad history close for either, till Christ appears in His glory for the judgment of both.

But no mark of God's estimation of Christ's priesthood above the Levitical is simpler or surer than swearing as He did when inaugurating Messiah in that position. The deduction is equally irrefragable: "by so much also hath Jesus become surety of a better covenant." If He took aught in hand, if He became responsible, heaven and earth must sooner pass than His word or His work. The Second Man stands for ever. And "blessed are all they that put their trust in him." The old covenant cannot be but death and condemnation to the sinner. The new covenant rests on His blood shed for the remission of the believer's sins, and is truly "a better covenant "; as the Jew will one day be the loudest to proclaim, whatever may be his obstinacy now, proud of what has ruined him and his fathers blind for ages.

"Testament" is here quite out of place; for what has a giver of security to do with making a will? Heb. 9: 16, 17 is the sole passage of scripture which requires or even admits of such a sense; and it is there due to "eternal inheritance" in the verse immediately preceding. The word in itself is capable of either sense, meaning in human relations a disposition, especially of property by will, and in divine things a covenant, which naturally predominates in the LXX. and the N.T. The context decides with certainty. Thus in Matt. 26: 28, Mark 14: 24, Luke 22: 20, remission of sins is expressly bound up with the "new covenant" (not testament) as in Jer. 31: 31-34. Even the Vulgate has here "novum foedus," not testamentum, which ought to have sufficed to have kept Jerome right in the Gospels. And what has "blood" to do with a "will"? That it should be the basis of a covenant is a familiar truth. A will or testament is unknown to the O.T. Not less clearly is it the God of Israel's "holy covenant," as it is rightly rendered in Luke 1: 72: testament can have no relation to the oath sworn to Abraham; though the Vulgate gives that word followed by Wiclif and the Rhemish translators, as it misled all the English in the three texts first referred to in the Synoptic Gospels. Acts 3: 25, Acts 7: 8, are equally plain for "covenant"; and there all the English versions are correct, save Wiclif and the Rhemists, servile as usual to the Vulgate. But they were all inexcusable, particularly as to Acts 7: 8, which directly alludes to Gen. 17, where the Vulgate has uniformly "pactum," never once "testamentum."

The Epistles are just as unambiguous. Thus in Rom. 9: 4, "the covenants" (cf. Gal. 4: 24 and Eph. 2: 12) can be the only right sense, referring to Jer. 31: 31 for the new, and to Ex. 24: 8 for the first or old. Here the Vulgate follows the erroneous singular, as in B D E F G, etc., against the true text in and the mass of uncial and cursive copies, etc. (save that A and L omit so as to be out of court), and all critics except Lachmann, who, great a scholar as he was, can never be reckoned on for a spiritual judgment. The English are right, save Wiclif and the Rhemists and the margin of the A.V. In Rom. 11: 27 the meaning is beyond doubt "covenant," as in the English with the same exceptions; where the error of the Vulgate is the more flagrant, because in Isa. 59: 21 it gives "foedus" rightly, yet mistranslates as usual in the N.T. citation. 1 Cor. 11: 25 falls under the remarks on the Lord's Supper in the Gospels, as already seen. 2 Cor. 3: 6-14 can only mean a new covenant" and "the old covenant," the reference being indisputable; yet here the influence of the Vulgate misled all the English discreditably. Even Beza had corrected himself; for while wrong in his editions of 1559, 1565, and 1582, he abandons "test." and substitutes "pactum" in his last two editions of 1588 and 1598, though without a reason given in his notes. The connection of Gal. 3: 15 is conclusive for the more general "covenant" even though human only, rather than the narrower 'testament," which is here more excusable in the Vulgate Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the version of Rheims, while the Geneva rendering of 1557 led the A.V. to "covenant," with "testament" in the margin. This is confirmed by verse 17, where a last "will" or "testament" cannot rightly be understood, though here again we have the same parties similarly ranged. In Heb. 4: 24 the A.V. alone of English is correct, with the marginal alternative for which there was no good reason. In Eph. 2: 12 the Geneva V. was the forerunner of the A.V., Beza being right all through.

This brings us, according to the usual arrangement, to our Epistle, and to this the first mention of the word, where "covenant" has been shown to be right. In Heb. 8: 6, 8, 9 (twice), and 10 it is unmistakably and uniformly "covenant"; for what has a "mediator" to do with a testament? Other proofs are so obvious as to need no further pointing out. So in Heb. 9: 4 the ark was of the "covenant," with which a will or testament had no congruity and with the "tables" too in the same verse. It has been remarked also that "a mediator" goes with "a covenant," not a testament (verse 15), and the bearing of the "first covenant" is determined by O.T. reference. "Testament" it cannot be. But the inspiring Spirit, in the parenthesis of verses 16, 17, avails Himself of the signification so familiar to all who spoke or read Greek, in order to impress the place that death has for introducing and giving effect to the blessing of the Christian. A covenant does not imply in any case the death of the covenanter to give it validity; a testament invariably supposes the testator's death to bring it into operation. All learning or argument to set aside "testament" and "testator" here is but beating the air. Equally vain is it to establish "testament" in verse 15, or in 18 and 20, where "covenant" alone suits and alone warranted by the O.T. God enjoined a covenant, not a testament, and that by blood. The same proof applies no less stringently to Heb. 10: 16-29, Heb. 12: 24, and Heb. 13: 20, as also to Rev. 11: 19.

Now these are all the occurrences in the N.T.; and the sum is that "testament" is out of place everywhere save in Heb. 9: 16, 17, where alone special contextual bearing gives occasion to that sense; whereas the universal O.T. force prevails in every other. The question is here gone into fully, that no reader may allow the unbelieving notion of the least uncertainty hanging over the usage. It is in vain and even injurious to parade a crowd of the learned men opposed to another crowd not less learned, save to prove that our faith ought in no case to rest on man but on God's word and Spirit. Thus regarded, the uncertainty of men confirms the 'believer in the value of the provisions of God's grace and word.

Another proof of superiority over the Levitical priesthood is claimed for our Lord Jesus in His abiding triumph over death, from which neither Aaron nor his successor had exemption any more than other men. They all succumbed to death, which rendered their priesthood necessarily successional in order to its very existence.

"And they have been made priests more in number, because they are hindered by death from continuing. but he, because he abideth for ever, hath the priesthood unchangeable:* whence also he is able to save completely those that approach to God through him, ever living as he is to intercede for them" (verses 23-25).

*It is ἀπαράβατος. Theodoret and other Greek fathers interpret it as "unsuccessional," which makes excellent sense. But usage points rather to "unchangeable" or intransmissible, untransferable.

The text had already been applied twice in this chapter (8, 16): the first time, in reasoning on the type of Melchizedek paid tithe to and testified of only as "living," Scripture being as silent about his death as about his birth (whereas under the law none but "dying" men received tithes); the second time, in contrasting the respective principles, a law of carnal injunction, weak and profitless on the one side, and on the other, power of indissoluble life through the perfection of which we draw near to God. Here, as has been remarked, we have the Holy Spirit noticing the appointment of numbers of priests Levitical, because death hindered continuance; whereas the high priest of our confession, because of His abiding for ever, "hath the priesthood unchangeable." The personal contrast of His abiding for ever, with the many sons of Aaron who could not but pass away through death, emphasises the priesthood in His case as indefeasible.

Nor can any demonstration be conceived so convincing and irrefutable. For death tells the tale of man's weakness and sin; and the more as he was constituted to live with suitable provision for it, had he obeyed God. Nevertheless Jesus did taste of death, but in no way by sin, yet for it as a sacrifice. BY the grace of God He tasted death for every one (or, thing). And this infinite act of His love not only availed for us before God in a way and measure with which nothing else Pan compare, but gave occasion to display the power of an imperishable life in Him. "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." When Scripture records its remarkable list of antediluvians (Gen. 5) living 930, 912, 910, 895, 962, 969, 777 years, the solemn words follow in each case, "and he died." Had Jesus lived as many as any, or double the oldest, men might still have said, Wait and see what the end will be. But He, after living as man just long enough to do the will of God perfectly, at its climax laid down His life in a single generation, that He might take it again in resurrection. Thus was marked out, on the one hand, the annulling of Satan's power in his last fortress of death, on the other the victory of the Son of God after full submission to God's judgment of sin. It was His resurrection that proclaimed death defeated. He only is the Living One, who became dead and is now alive again for ever more, in possession of the keys of death and Hades. And as thus living again He carries on His priesthood on high.

Therefore is there but One. Death has no more dominion over Him, as sin never had. No successor is needed, none to replace Him who ever abides. Vain search! for none else had the qualification. Through death there was no continuance. Hence is He in manifest contrast with Aaron's sons who followed in a family succession more numerous than the sons of David, till He came, the promised and predicted Son, who is the King after God's heart not in type alone but reality, as He is the Priest, the one Mediator whose love and effectual love has been proved to the uttermost in dying for our sins, and who now lives to sustain, guard, and sympathise as well as intercede on our behalf who believe.

And the power by which He lives for ever is the guarantee of a commensurate salvation (verse 25). For if the priests, the sons of Aaron, could not save themselves from death, still less could they save others. Christ only when His work was done, which made His death necessary for sinners, having been perfected became author of everlasting salvation to all that obey Him. "For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved in his life," i.e. in virtue of it. He abides for ever, and because it is so He has His priesthood unchangeable Thus also He is able to save completely those that approach to God through Him. In His case it is not the cold or poor plea of a divinely ordained office administered by an unworthy occupant, which brought death on many a son of Aaron as we may see in early days, and which filled with grief and shame far more "Israelites indeed" to the end of the sad story. If the law made nothing perfect, still less did the numerous priests as they succeeded one another supply strength and profit.

But here the glorious presence of God's Son gives a fresh and unfading and incalculable lustre to the office, enhanced as  all is by an unwavering obedience which glorified His Father absolutely. He therefore is the sole priest able to save completely (εἰς τὸ παντελὲς) those that approach to God through Him, since He ever lives to intercede for them. As their need here below is great and unceasing so is He above always free, competent, and efficacious to interpose on their behalf. Do they approach by Him to God? He saves them throughout and entirely. Divine love and righteousness are thus at one in carrying through to God's glory and salvation in the face of every difficulty or danger. Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven that is given anion(, men whereby we must be saved.

The superiority of the true Melchizedek is thus shown in every respect incontestable and manifest; and in the unjealous ways of grace His purity and His glory are bound up with the heavenly dignity of the believer, as it is here expressed.

"For such a high priest [also*] became us,* holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, who hath no need day by day, as the high priests, first for his own sins to offer up sacrifices, then [for] those of the people; for this he did once for all, having offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high priests having infirmity; but the word of the oath-swearing that [was] after the law, a Son perfected for ever" (verses 26-28).

* A B D E, and both Syriac versions, add καὶ "also." It may be noticed that by a misprint Tischendorf gives ὑμῖν "you," instead of "us." By a similar inadvertence heaps of various readings arose among the copyists of old.

The reason assigned (for the sentence takes that shape) is made all the more striking when compared with a designedly similar one in Heb. 2: 10. "For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." The glory of God, His truth, His justice, had been compromised if sin were not judged unsparingly in His person Whose grace made Him responsible for all its consequences. Therefore did it become God to make Him who knew no sin sin for us. Here no less wonderfully does the Holy Spirit say that "it became us" to have a high priest in every point of view and beyond comparison superior to the Aaronic line. "For such a high priest became us," not only of purity unexampled but made "higher than the heavens," the glorious place in which the Epistle loves to regard Him, due to His personal and divine dignity, but taken as the result of His atoning death before God for a heavenly family and their need through sin.

The word "holy" should be considered. In Greek as in Hebrew two expressions are employed: one (ἅγιος) to imply separateness for God from evil, the other (ὅσιος) graciousness, which said of God means His mercy, said of man means his piety. It is the latter term which is here rendered "holy," a holiness full of loving-kindness. Next, ἄκακος is poorly translated "harmless" as in the A.V.: and "guileless" as in the Revision answers to ἄδολος. In Christ it rises to a total absence of evil found in none else. "Undefiled" declares Him untainted by the corruptions that surrounded Him when here below, where His moral beauty shone on all who had eyes to see, above all in His Father's who bore witness from heaven.

Appropriately therefore is He next said to be "separated from sinners," not from sins only, as the Pesch-Syriac says, but from sinners. What was ever morally true was crowned in His leaving the world behind, the enduring effect of a completed age, and so leads on to the only place befitting Him, "made higher than the heavens." There He exercised His high-priestly functions, having laid the ground in His propitiatory work on the cross. It should surprise none to hear that such a place became Him. Revelation declares that such a high priest "became us." Divine righteousness does not justify us only but sets us in and as Christ before God (John 16: 2 Cor. 5); or, according to the doctrine of our Epistle, constitutes us holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, and (as we shall see) exhorts us to approach with a true heart, as having boldness for entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus. It is not then because we were anything good of ourselves, but on the contrary because we are so blessed, objects of perfect favour, and bound for glory under an unfailing Leader, that "such a high priest became us," in contrast with the earthly people who had high priests like themselves.

In verse 27 is a brief exclusion of the shortcomings of earthly priesthood, leaving its full discussion to a later moment. Aaron and his successors needed day by day to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, then for the people's — Christ once for all when He offered Himself, which is the clearest token of absolute sinlessness, and according to the worth of His person was infinitely effectual for others, as He needed nothing on His own part. This the previous verse demonstrated, if proof were asked, though it ought not to be. And the whole is clenched by verse 28: "For the law constituteth men high priests, having infirmity." All here was imperfection. "But the word of the oath-swearing that was since the law [constituteth] a Son perfected for ever." "Son" is characteristic, and hence has not the article, though He be the Only-begotten but not here a designated object; so that the language is perfectly correct. Its insertion would make Himself prominent rather than His near relationship to God. The perfect participle passive here as in verse 26 points to the permanent character acquired, and not to the simple fact as the aorist would express. As in His severance from sinners, so in His having completed all for His priestly place, it is the lasting result of either terminated act. In Heb. 2: 10 it is the act itself on God's part.

Hebrews 8

The truth of Christ as high priest, most important for the Christian and especially for such as had been Hebrews, has thus far been richly unfolded accorded to the order of Melchizedek, but not without a glance at its exercise after the type of Aaron, yet even here immeasurably superior even to frequent contrast. This however demands further development, and first as connected with "a better covenant which was established upon better promises." The contrast of the first or legal covenant with a second and new one, never to grow old or vanish away, occupies our present chapter for the most part. But it opens with a reproduction of what has been laid down already under a brief heading.

"Now, as a summary on what is being said, we have such a high priest who sat down on [the] right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens, minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man" (verses 1, 2).

The glory of Christ's person, Son of God and Son of man, is developed in Heb. 1 and 2 and in both with His work (not only for purging us, but) to vindicate God, annul the power of evil, reconcile all things, succour the tried, and bring many sons to glory. This is the admirable introduction, followed by His office of Apostle and High Priest for those who are pilgrims passing through the wilderness of the world to the rest of God, as we see in Heb. 3, 4; and it is precisely to such, no longer in Egypt but with Canaan in view, that the priesthood of Christ applies, as is shown in 4, 5, 6, along with the hindrances by the way, the awful peril of going back, and the grounds and motives for the full assurance of hope to the end. Heb. 7 is an elaborate proof from first to last of the Melchizedek priesthood, fulfilled not yet in its exercise but in its order in Christ, altogether and incontestably beyond that of Aaron.

If therefore a Hebrew Christian were in danger of pining after a Levitical high priest as drawing near to God for a moment on behalf of the ancient people of God, could he fail to see the infinite superiority of Christ in this very respect? It is not that Israel had one, and we Christians have not. Their own scriptures attest another and far higher coming, mysteriously bound up with the Messiah, to which their God was pledged by an oath, and this to abide for ever. There stands the promise in Psalm 110, and now it is beyond cavil accomplished in Jesus dead, risen, and glorified. It is inexcusable unbelief to evade this word of God. What a blessing to receive it as our assured portion in God's grace! "We have such a high priest" to maintain us consistently with all that God is and loves as fully revealed, and with Christ's work already wrought and perfect, to sustain us in our weakness, to sympathise with our every trial and pang. His position declares His unique and incomparable dignity, His intimate nearness to God in glory. His seat is "at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens," a stronger statement even than what was given at the starting-point of the Epistle (Heb. 1: 3). "Throne" is added now, and in the "heavens" take the place of "on high." Could the most prejudiced Israelite fail to perceive the superior dignity and efficacy of such a high priest far above Aaron or the most favoured of his line? Nor could he deny the absolute authority of the scripture which reveals the divine intention now carried out in it. Is it for Jews to doubt the glory of the Messiah or the blessing achieved and secured to those that are His?

There has Christ taken His seat. It is calm and permanent intimacy where no believer can dispute the greatness, and the power, and the glory, any more than the love, and tender interest, and unfailing support. — He is "minister of the holies," in no merely typical sense to bring truth down palpably to infantine minds. It is the house of heavenly worship and divine glory in its fullest reality and grandeur. Therein Christ ministers according to the nicest consideration of the living God, as the sole person suited to Him and to us equally and in perfection, true God and real man, who obeyed unto death (yea, of the cross), that God's honour should be retrieved and His love meet with a love like His own who died for our sins when we were as powerless as ungodly, and thus again proved divine love to the uttermost no less than holiness and righteousness. Such is the minister of the holies, that God in the heavens and the saints on the earth should be adequately conciliated, even in the time of our present infirmity and exposure to temptation.

Thus the high priest we boast is exactly in keeping with "the tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man." For less  and other than He would not suffice for the majesty of God, or for His grace. And as "the Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand," so does He delight in having  Him ever nearest to Himself, that He may give us to enjoy His own ineffable satisfaction in Christ's laying down His life that He might take it again (not merely laying it down for the sheep, John 10: 15 compared with 17); so too in all the efficacy of His office maintaining us in harmony with Himself in heavenly glory, notwithstanding our pitiable weakness and the rude storms and hostility of the world we pass through.

We have noticed already that the ground of the Epistle is the wilderness, not the land; and so here is the "tabernacle," rather than the temple which would suit the rest actually come, not the pilgrimage. This is full of instruction which Christendom has overlooked and abandoned. Great is the spiritual gain for such as seize the truth by divine teaching and are practically faithful. For nature chafes at the walk of faith and craves what is "settled" or "established" (2 Sam. 7), on the specious plea that the world is Jehovah's and the fulness of it, for any present enjoyment as well as to adorn His sanctuary; as the royal and rich adorn for themselves a house of cedars. Whereas in truth since redemption to this day He had walked in a tent and in a tabernacle, nor had ever spoken a word to any, saying, Why build ye not Me a house of cedars? This is reserved for His Son, the Man of peace, when the sharp sword proceeding out of His mouth shall have smitten the nations in revolt, and the Man whose name is the Branch shall grow up out of His place and build the temple of Jehovah. Even He shall build the temple of Jehovah; and He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both (Zech. 6). It is still the tribulation and kingdom and patience in Jesus, not yet Himself come to reign in power and glory over the earth. We are nothing if not heavenly, as He is for us in the heavens, minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man.

Even the tabernacle of old needed its gold and silver and precious things, as the Levitical high priest his varied jewels on his shoulders and breast. Ours is the true tabernacle on high where all is the glory of God and of His Son in the power of redemption. There created ornaments have no place. There Christ ministers, and thither we approach by faith, looking not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. And no less than the Holy Spirit of God is given us as God's children to make this access real and full of peace and joy. How sorrowful for any thus blessed to "turn again to the weak and beggarly elements" of earthly sights and shows and seasons like Israel, or to conceive that corruptible things as silver and gold can be acceptable in the hour now come, when God must be worshipped, if at all, in spirit and truth — worshipped also as the Father, Christ's Father and our Father, His God and our God.

The immeasurable superiority of Christ as High-Priest will appear in Heb. 9, 10. with the fullest evidence. Here the Holy Ghost only lays down the principle in a few words that His is a real active function and not a mere title, His heavenly glory only giving additional force to His functions.

"For every high priest is constituted to offer both gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] necessary that this one also have something to offer. If then* he were upon earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are those* that offer the gifts according to* law, such as serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is divinely warned when about to complete the tabernacle: for See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mountain. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also mediator of a better covenant, such as [since it] is enacted upon better promises" (verses 3-6).

The Rec. Text has γὰρ, but the critics οὖν on ancient authority: so also τῶν ἱερέων is rightly dropped, and the article before νόμον.

Thus the very aim of high-priesthood is presentation of what is acceptable to God and needed in the highest degree by man. Ministry of the word is essentially different, the communication to man of what God reveals. As the former characterised the Jewish system, so does the latter Christianity, and, it may be added, most distinctively the gospel of God's grace proclaimed in the whole creation that is under heaven. Ministry of the church also could only be when the church was called into being Here it is not in question, any more than the "great mystery" of which it is part.

But there is another consideration, to which the type in the Book of Numbers gives marked and repeated expression (Num. 3: 9; Num. 8: 19; Num. 18: 6, 7), which ought not to be overlooked. The Levites as a whole, whatever their distinctions of ministry, were given to Aaron and his sons; they were wholly, absolutely, given to serve Aaron on behalf of the children of Israel. Thus was the ministry of the tabernacle made essentially dependent on the Aaronic priesthood; and it had no place or propriety otherwise. The outward service entirely hung for its value and acceptance on the inner worship. The tribe of Levi was joined to Aaron and ministered to him, and had no other reason of existence. Undoubtedly the priesthood being now changed, of necessity a new change of law takes place. But the principle abides. After the likeness of Melchizedek there stands up a different priest, who has been made after the power of an indissoluble life, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man. All real service, as it flows from the Lord, so depends on Him in the sanctuary and refers to Him there. Otherwise it becomes false, if the source be made human or the motives be of the world. The Lord can be no party to His own dishonour. How all-important for His servants to test themselves by what is not merely an O.T. type but the plainly revealed truth of the apostolic Epistles! The Holy Spirit is the power of all true ministry; but He works in us that we may serve the Lord Jesus, and there is the same Lord whatever may be the diversities of ministrations. On Him within the rent veil hangs all the worth and efficacy of what is ministered here below.

He who in personal dignity and official honour surpasses both Aaron and Melchizedek did not fall short in what He had to offer. He offered up what neither one nor other could on their part, what He only could — He offered up Himself (Heb. 7: 27); and it was once for all, for therein alone was the perfection of gift and sacrifice, as God marked His acceptance of all by seating Him at His own right hand in the heavens. It is no question here of propitiation but of His service in the true tabernacle. Propitiation was exceptional, and in it the high priest represented the people as well as his own house. None but he could do it, as the type of Christ lifted up from the earth on the cross; yet it was not his regular priestly service as setting forth the Lord's ministry now on high.

"If then he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are those that offer the gifts according to law, such as serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things," etc. (verses 4, 5). Christ is characteristically to the Christian the heavenly Priest. On earth He could have no sacerdotal place: God had called Aaron and his sons in succession to minister and to serve therein; and, when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, such there were still offering the gifts according to law. Christ's priesthood was wholly different, of sovereign grace and exercised in glory, as was due to His person and His work, when the first man had fully displayed his failure, sin, and ruin, in the rejection of the promised Messiah, the Son of God, come in divine love to bless. But the chosen people, priests, and rulers would have none of Him; and in His death by lawless hands propitiation was wrought; and the risen Christ entered that sanctuary on high, where ever living He alone maintains His own in their weakness here below according to the efficacy of His sacrifice which has made purification of their sins. As yet the earthly Aaronic priesthood carried on their service, which was but a representation and shadow of the heavenly things, "according as Moses is oracularly told when about to make the tabernacle. For See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mountain."

In Christ all is real and enduring, as it is divinely and humanly perfect, the person, the work, and the priesthood, as indeed all else. No one beforehand could have conceived any one of them; yet when the facts came out, he who believes is thenceforth satisfied that not one of them could be otherwise, if God were to be glorified and man blessed now and evermore. A human priesthood on earth for Christian people is apostasy from the truth of the Son perfected for ever and ministering high according to power of indissoluble life; it is to rehabilitate the defunct Aaronic order, disannulled because of its weak and unprofitable nature; it is virtually to deny the very gospel of salvation which announces to all who believe that the blood of Jesus at once blots out their sins, and brings themselves nigh to God in a constant nearness, far beyond what the sons of Aaron and Aaron himself ever enjoyed (Heb. 10: 19). And if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. For He is able to save completely those that approach through Him unto God, always living as He is to make intercession for them.

We see the importance of Aaron's intervention in the Pentateuch when the people and his own sons had sinned (Lev. 10; 16), to say nothing of the beautiful type of the budding priestly rod which grace conferred on him to bring through the desert those for whom Moses' authoritative rod could only have assigned and executed death. "But now hath he (Christ) obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also mediator of a better covenant, the which (or, such as) is enacted upon better promises" (verse 6). Of this covenant we shall hear more and of its promises in the quotation from the O.T. which follows.

The object of the Holy Spirit is to prove the inferiority of the first covenant, to which Jewish unbelief was clinging, as pertinaciously as their fathers of old were prone to abandon it for any idol. Such alas! is the selfwill of man, from which no favours from God deliver, short of redemption and a new life in Christ. But as in Heb. 7 we had the Levitical priest set aside by One after the order of Melchizedek according to Psalm 110, so Heb. 8 with no less conclusiveness sets before us a new covenant promised in the unerring word.

"For, if that first had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For, finding fault, he saith to them, Behold, days come, saith Jehovah, and I will consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Judah" (verses 7, 8).

It is in vain for men to reason in an abstract way against the word of God. It was He that inaugurated the covenant of Sinai which confronted the self-confidence of fallen man and, if it had been used aright, would have convicted him of his evil and compelled him to look to Christ, the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. But Israel, like other natural men, perverted the law to make out a spurious righteousness of their own, and to cloak their sins under the smoke of their sacrifices; the end of which things is death, as the Jews were soon to prove even outwardly.

God is free to set aside the old and bring in the new. This He never does arbitrarily, but in goodness, wisdom, and holiness worthy of Himself. But the idea of absolute law is a common delusion of Judaism which some even of their Rabbis repudiated and disproved from Scripture, though Christian theologians, even such a man as Hooker (Eccl. Pol. i. 2, Keble's ed. i. 204), have not failed to defend and use it controversially. But it is false, the fruit of man's pride and perversity. God is sovereign: the blessed resource of His nature, to vindicate His name when wronged and insulted, no less than to deliver guilty man from his own evil and Satan's power. And never was absolute law more mischievously employed than now by sceptics who avail themselves of theological errors to promote their own darker and more deadly unbelief, while concealing the source from which they derived their poisoned shaft. For they reduce God to nature, and insist on absolute law to deny miracle, prophecy, and revelation generally in any true sense, whatever the fair words in which the milder men deceive themselves and the unwary. But the idea is really heathen (and so Hooker quotes Homer, Merc. Trismegistus, Plato, and the Stoics), however much it delighted Jews and Christians, to say nothing of free-thinkers. For God is light and love, not law, and whatever He may have imposed on the creature, He left Himself entire liberty to work in sovereign grace for good; as He could not but judge what was inconsistent with His nature and majesty, and what rebelled against Him. To send His only-begotten Son to die is not law, any more than through the faith of Him to save sinners that deserve condemnation. It is grace, but through righteousness not ours but His in Christ.

Hence God, as He saw fit to bring in the first covenant, which condemned the sins of the first man, or more definitely of guilty Israel, is no less free to promise a new covenant, bringing out "Jehovah's righteousness" in the Messiah, the Second man, by whom He can afford to pardon and give the knowledge of Himself to His people, however undeserving. How sad that those who need to the uttermost such saving mercy, should turn a deaf ear and prefer their own foolish reasonings to His word who cannot lie, and who is a Saviour God no less than a judge!

But the Jew objects, so long alas! the leader of the world's incredulity, that it is the gospel which so proclaims; and this they believe not. Nay, son of Abraham, hear Your own acknowledged and inspired prophet. It is Jeremiah that speaks, full of sorrow over Judah's apostasy from Jehovah, on which he pronounced speedy and severe judgment. But he divinely comforts by the vision of the final and everlasting restoration in His grace, people and land blessed under the true Beloved their King. He who had unsparingly chastised them for their iniquities, He will rejoice to bless both Israel's house and Judah's house as never of old, and will assuredly plant them in the land then truly glorious with His whole heart and with His whole soul. "Behold, days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to kindle meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season, then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne: and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith the LORD, If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them" (Jer. 33: 14-26).

From a previous chapter (Jer. 31) of this very portion our Epistle quotes. Its bearing on the future and still unaccomplished blessing of all Israel that shall be spared in the latter day is direct, unambiguous, tender, and beautiful.

"Behold, days are coming, saith the LORD, and (or, that) I will consummate a new covenant in respect of the house of Israel, and in respect of the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in [a] day of my taking their hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt, for they continued not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the LORD" (verses 8, 9).

Equally vain is the dream that the church, or the Christian, is here contemplated. On every sound principle of interpretation the same people, and in its divided houses, is reserved for future blessing, whose iniquities the prophet bewailed and denounced. The truth always suffers by tampering with its integrity or by ignorance. Israel only had the first covenant; Israel by grace will have the second. Israel lost their privileges and land under the old; Israel will be restored and blessed more than ever and for ever in their land under the new covenant.

Meanwhile we, once Gentiles, who had neither the adoption, nor the glory, nor the covenants, nor the law-giving, nor the promises — we are called by sovereign grace in the gospel to privileges higher far as God's children, and members of Christ's body wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile, blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ, as Israel will be blessed in their land, when this age gives way to the new age of Christ displayed in power and glory.

But the death of Christ, which laid the basis for the gospel and also for the church united to Him glorified on high, is the ground of the new covenant also; as the Lord emphatically shows in the institution of His Supper (Matt. 26: 28; Mark 14: 24; Luke 22: 20; 1 Cor. 11: 25), and as the apostle characterises the ministry of the gospel in spirit, not in letter. Hence the application here and in Heb. 10 is as full of comfort to the believing Hebrew, as 1 Peter 2: 10 in applying Hosea 2: 23. The believer now anticipates all the blessing as far as the higher calling of Christianity admits of it. The earthly part awaits the earthly people; and the days are not yet come for the chosen nation as a whole to be blessed according to the strict and full terms of the prophecy in their own land. Heaven is to us what Palestine will be to Israel, and they will be seen there under Messiah.; as the Christian Jews are now to walk as pilgrims and strangers, waiting for an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and unfading reserved in heaven for them. Israel, not we, are to be sown to Jehovah in the earth; and this not before the day when Jehovah answers the heavens, and the heavens answer the earth.

But it is instructive to consider the terms of the new covenant as here cited from the prophet, though from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew, and not without change even from that.

"For this [is] the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, Giving my laws into their mind, I will also write them upon their hearts: and I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people. And they shall not teach each his [fellow-] citizen and each his brother, crying, Know the LORD, because all shall know me from little one unto great of them" (verses 10, 11).

The essence of the new covenant is that Jehovah undertakes its accomplishment. The first covenant could not but fail, because it depended, not on God but on the Israelite; and the Israelite was already a sinful man. This the law made evident. As long as men only hear, and speak, and judge others (perhaps satisfactorily to themselves), they may keep up a claim of their own righteousness. It is quite another thing when they strive seriously to obey. Then they find out that they are without strength, enemies of God, and ungodly. Christ comes from God to meet the need, giving them life on the faith of Himself, and dying for their sins that they may be remitted of God, never to be remembered more.

But while there was evident propriety, in writing to Hebrew confessors, to quote from the inspired words of Jeremiah, it is an error to assume that the gospel as preached now is the fulfilment of the prediction. It is perfectly legitimate to apply the words to privileges conferred by the gospel without denying that the prophet has in view the days when the house of Israel and the house of Judah shall alike be blessed under the reign of the Messiah; whereas during gospel times the Gentile is as open to the call of grace as the Jew, the cross having proved that all sinned and come short of the glory of God. There is now no difference any more in sinners than in indiscriminate grace. Salvation is preached to them both alike.

But in the days which strictly the prophecy contemplates, God will own His ancient people again, and never more shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before Jehovah for ever. In those days shall the city be built to Jehovah from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goah. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse-gate toward the east, shall be holy unto Jehovah; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down, any more for ever. It is the restoration of the people and the land and the city, when Messiah reigns on His own throne of which the reader can find more in Isa. 11, 12, 35, 65, 66; Jer. 3: 16-18, Jer. 30, Jer. 32: 37-44, Jer. 33; Ezek. 40-48; and in the minor prophets, especially Zech. 12 - 14. Allegory is vain as to all this.

Application of part to gospel times is not denied; for grace now reigns through righteousness by Jesus Christ our Lord, as then a King shall reign in righteousness. But judgment shall return to righteousness at that epoch, and the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness so as they never do now. All the earth shall be filled with the glory of Jehovah in that day, which it never can be in this day. To the believer now the principle of the new covenant applies, as far as his soul is concerned. but Israel will enjoy its terms directly and unqualifiedly, when the Branch of righteousness, crown to David, shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land, and all nations are blessed in Him.

The first blessing here specified is that Jehovah not only gives His laws into the mind, but also writes them upon the heart. It is in pointed contrast with the first covenant written on stones. The law as a system was external, and was characterised by an elaborate ritualism, visible and palpable, when anointed priest, Levite, ruler, and ordinary Israelite had his defined place, with meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances, as well as specific gifts and sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience. The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, could not do more than sanctify to the purifying of the flesh. The laws were outside the Israelite; they were not written on his heart. Far different is the work of grace now. God gives them into the mind and writes them on the heart of every believer. There is for the Christian a renewing of the mind, and the love of God shed abroad in the heart 'by the Holy Spirit given to him. The principle of the new covenant is not only verified but in a richer way spiritually than Israel can have by-and-by, whatever their wondrous privileges in the exclusion of Satan and the presence of the Christ, and the whole creation delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God then reigning with Him.

Next, "I will be to them for God, and they shall be to me for people." As this will be Israel's portion in that day, so it is ours now. More yet is ours, because we can say by the Spirit "Abba, Father," Christ's Father and our Father, Christ's God and our God. As before, it will be no longer an imposed ordinance or a possibly vain title of relationship. All now is by His grace made real, intrinsic, and abiding. All the blessing that is involved in what God is to His people is secured, as His people are secured in their due place toward Him. But we can add our Father, though this did not fall within the design of the Epistle to unfold as we find it elsewhere.

Further, "And they shall not teach each his [fellow-] citizen, and each his brother, saying, Know the LORD, because all shall know me from little one unto great of them." This is another privilege in which we more than anticipate the blessings of Jehovah's manifested kingdom. The Son of God is come and has given us an understanding that we may know Him that is true. And no wonder; for the Christian has eternal life in the Son, as he has also the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, both capacity and power that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. So it will be when the new covenant is established with both the houses of Israel. "In that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness. . . . They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine." As it is elsewhere written, which also explains it, "All thy children shall be taught of Jehovah; and great shall be the peace of thy children." Hence it will be no question of teaching, each his fellow-citizen, and each his brother. The salvation which Israel enjoys in that day so illustrates the scripture, that there will be no need of objective knowledge (γνῶσις) for the ignorant, because all shall have intrinsically possessed conscious knowledge (εἰδήσουσι) from little even to great of them. The universality of the result testifies that God it is who ensures it for under human teaching, however good, we see every degree of proficiency and at best knowledge far from perfect. Compare also Joel 2: 28. The Holy Spirit gives understanding and power.

Here too in Christianity we may observe remarkable analogy. It is in addressing the babes (παιδία) of God's family that the apostle John declares "ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written to you, because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." This is of course true of the "fathers" and "young men" in Christ; but it is said expressly to those who most needed such encouragement, exposed as they were to seducers who boasted of their knowledge and undermined Christ "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2: 20, 21, 27). Teachers there are, and those that rule or guide, while Christ is on the throne of God; but they should be the first and the most in earnest to maintain the privileges of the simplest believer.

But there is a further and most needed gift of mercy to which God stands pledged in the new covenant. This too the apostle does not fail to cite as now applied to the believer; though to the Israelite it is set in the last place, whereas the Christian enjoys it as a starting-point, as we may see throughout the Acts of the Apostles.

"Because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins* I will remember in no wise more" (verse 12). It will be noticed that the words "and their lawlessnesses" disappear. They are not in the Septuagint any more than the original Hebrew, which indeed has also the singular form, where the Greek gives the plural. It would seem that the words in question were inserted from Heb. 10: 17, where beyond doubt they occur, but without "their unrighteousnesses." In any case grace meets the once guilty but now renewed souls, and comforts those who feel and own their sinfulness with the assurance of divine forgiveness.

*A few of the most ancient MSS. and Vv. support this as the true text, many later copies adding "and their lawlessnesses" as in Text. Rec.

How different the terms of the first covenant, even when Moses went up on high the second time, and saw not Jehovah's glory but His goodness pass before him, and heard Him proclaim Jehovah, Jehovah El, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy unto thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but by no means clearing the guilty, visiting, etc.! Now it is precisely clearance of conscience, or guilt, that the awakened soul longs for and seeks from God; and what the law could not do, God does in the gospel by virtue of Christ made sin for us. So our Lord spoke and dealt with Zacchaeus, chief publican though he was, and so most offensive in Pharisaic eyes. But the rejected Messiah, the Son of man, came to seek and to save that which is lost. His coming and work of expiation deposit an infinite fund of mercy toward the guilty, which God in the gospel uses to clear and justify all who believe.

"Merciful" here is not mere pity but "propitious." Undoubtedly unrighteousnesses are hateful in God's sight and abhorrent to His nature; so too they become to a soul when born again. For as that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is spirit, as our Lord ruled. The old nature does not become new but remains evil and never to be allowed. But a new one is given, which finds not relief only or even pardon but deliverance in the death and resurrection of the Saviour. Here we transcend the terms and ideas of the new covenant which go no farther than God's mercy in remission and remembrance of sin no more at all. This the Christian has, but in a far surpassing mode and measure. For he is entitled, as we know from other scriptures, to know that he died with Christ to sin, as set forth even in his baptism; that he is risen with Christ, and seated in Him in heavenly places. But as this pre-eminently exalted aspect of the believer's present blessing is not in the most distant way couched in the promises of the new covenant, so it nowhere appears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And this rightly; for the Holy Spirit is therein drawing out the force of the O.T., and at most what was latent in it, rather than going on to the wholly unrevealed fulness alike of Christ as head, of the church as His body, and of our individual Christian standing too.

An important inference is now drawn from a word. "In saying 'new,' he hath antiquated the first [covenant]: now what is being antiquated and growing aged [is] near disappearing" (verse 13). It is in vain therefore for Jews or other men to reason abstractly for the perpetuity of God's law: His word has already decided the question. The prophet Jeremiah declares in the Spirit that Jehovah will make a new covenant, and an everlasting one, with all Israel. This, as is here shown antiquates the first or legal covenant. The new one is evidently not of man's will or weakness, but of God's gracious power working in His people. And those who believe now, whether Jews or Gentiles, anticipate Israel for whom it was made, but to whom it is not yet extended. But it is sure to Israel in due time, for the mouth of Jehovah has said it.

Hence it is added that what is being antiquated (not "decayeth" as in the A.V.) and growing aged is near disappearing. The cross fulfilled and annulled the legal covenant. the destruction of Jerusalem and of its temple was its grave.

Hebrews 9

The apostle proceeds to draw out, in contrast with the principles of the first covenant, that which the prophet declared should take its place, or rather that which is the Christian's portion now that Christ is dead, risen, and ascended. It is the way into the holies now made manifest; the conscience purged by the blood of Christ from dead works to serve the living God; and the eternal inheritance of which they that are called receive the promise.

"The first [covenant] therefore also had ordinances of divine service, and the sanctuary a worldly one. For a tabernacle was formed, the first in which [were] both the candlestick, and the table and the setting forth of the loaves (or, the show-bread), which is called Holy [place]; but after the second veil a tabernacle that is called Holy of holies, having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which [were] a golden pot holding the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant, and above over it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; of which things one cannot now speak in detail" (verses 1-5).

Ordinances of divine service the first covenant had in abundance, and most instructive; yet the sanctuary was and could not but be a worldly one. For God was not manifested in flesh here below, nor was man received up in glory. The infinite sacrifice for sin had yet to be offered, in which God is glorified, and whereby He can bless the believer to the uttermost, sin being fully judged in the cross. The veil therefore was still unrent, and the way into the holies neither available nor manifest. As the sanctuary was of the world (verse 6), so the ordinance was carnal (verse 10). All was of the first creation, shadowy and provisional, at best the witness of good things to come, as the tabernacle itself was of testimony, not one thing there of intrinsic excellency or divinely efficacious.

Such is ritualism. Only it is now beyond measure evil for faith and practice: because it is condemned and annulled by the cross of Christ It is despite of the Spirit of grace sent down from heaven; it is the gainsaying of Korah against the true Moses and Aaron — even Christ now on high. The Jewish system had divine sanction till Christ came, accomplished His work, and took His seat on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. Ritualism in the Christian congregation is not only ignorance "but contempt, however unwitting, of the gospel as well as of the church, and what is graver still, of Christ's work and priesthood. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ is virtually denied, yea, and destroyed by it, so far as falsehood can.

When we come to particulars, the character of the first covenant which we have traced generally is no less evident. Thus attention is here drawn briefly to its two divisions, the Holy place (verse 2), and the Holy of Holies, each severed by a door or veil, as we read for the holiest of all, "after the second veil." Door and veil barred the entrance of man as such. Even the high priest could only enter where the cherubim of glory overshadowed judicially, to put blood on and before the propitiatory, and not without clouds of incense "lest he die." How contrasted with the bold access by faith we have as a settled title into this grace wherein we stand! For now the veil is rent in twain from top to bottom, ever since Jesus yielded up His spirit on the cross: the unambiguous proof on God's part that the first covenant is ended, the barrier gone, and the way into the holies laid open to faith.

Not that either part of the tabernacle ceases to yield its instruction to faith: whether the outer, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the show-bread; or the inner, with golden censer and the ark of the covenant and its significant contents and surroundings. Of these it was not the Spirit's purpose here to speak severally. Their import indeed is not uncertain when viewed in the light of Christ, to whom each and all bore witness. For He in the first was attested as both light in the sevenfold power of the Spirit, and nourishment in administrative fulness as Man and for man. In the second, to say nothing of that which maintained intercession, was the display of God in judgment and sovereign government, with the testimony of executive power to make good His will. Within the ark, underneath the throne where His glory shone, were the memorial of His people's food when passing through the wilderness, the authoritative sign of that power of life and fruit in priestly grace which preserved from judgment, and the tables of the covenant which expressed the rule that menaced transgression with death.

How transcendent the chance when God no longer dwelt in thick darkness — but revealed Himself in Christ, the true Light, having sent Him not only as life but as propitiation for our sins!

The aim of the Holy Spirit, in referring to the first covenant with its ordinances, and especially its sanctuary, becomes now apparent. It was not to speak in detail of the contents of the tabernacle exterior or interior, however symbolically instructive, but of its distinctive contrast as a whole with Christianity. For this, not the church, is the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it abides a primary truth for any soul, Gentile no less than Jewish, without which (held simply, clearly, and intelligently the doctrine of the church is apt to be a danger rather than a blessing, as it surely is in itself instinct with the love and glory of Christ according to the counsels of God and made good by the indwelling Spirit who baptised all into one body. But where there is repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, the soul under the gospel becomes the object of that grace reigning through righteousness, which gives the access into this favour wherein we stand, as Rom. 5: 2 puts it, or, as in our Epistle, the way into the sanctuary, not the holy place but the holiest also, made manifest.

So characteristic of the gospel is this privilege that we find it since the cross almost everywhere, and claimed for all that now believe as their assured portion, by none so much as by the apostle Paul, set as he was for the defence of the gospel and its minister in all the largeness of its scope. Rom. 5 we have just heard. 2 Cor. 3: 18 is no less explicit, contrasting the Christian with Israel who could not gaze even on the reflected glory which shone from Moses' face and required a veil to hide it; whereas we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed accordingly even as from the Lord the Spirit. Again in Eph. 2: 13, 14, 18, "But in Christ Jesus, ye that once were far off are made nigh by (or, in) the blood of Christ; for he is our peace . . . for through him we both have the access through one Spirit unto the Father." No less plain and decisive is Col. 1: 12, 13: "Giving thanks to the Father, who made us meet for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." 1 Peter 2: 9 declares that God called the Christian Jews "out of darkness into his marvellous light even as Christ wrought, who suffered for sins once, that He might bring us to God. Nor is 1 John 1: 7 less to the point, where he lays down that, as walking in darkness is the status of those who falsely profess Christ and do not practise the truth, we (Christians) walk in the light as God is in the light, have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin. No doubt he says "if "; but this condition is simply if we are real, not nominal merely, in following Christ, and so not walking in darkness but having the light of life (John 8: 12).

"Now these things having been thus formed, the priests enter continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services: but into the second the high priest alone once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and the errors of the people, the Holy Spirit this signifying that the way of (or into) the holies hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle had Yet a standing the which [is] a parable for the present time according to which* are offered both gifts and sacrifices, unable as to conscience to perfect the worshipper, [being] only with meats and drinks and divers washings, ordinances of flesh imposed till time of setting right" (verses 6-10).

*Text. Rec. has ὃν with several later uncials and most cursives, etc., meaning "in which" time; but the critics read JP with A B Dp.m. many cursives, etc., as in the version. In verse 10 the Text. Rec. or even B is unreliable.

It will be noticed that it is the present, which the Vulgate and the A.V. alike neglected, though Beza rendered it correctly; yet the present not historical but ethic; for the tabernacle in the wilderness is before the writer, not the temple: so we saw in Heb. 3, 4, and so it is here and throughout. This is evident in the early verses of the chapter, summed up in "these things having been thus formed" or prepared, not only the tabernacle but its furniture; which differed in some essential respects from the temple, for it was the figure of the millennial kingdom and rest, as the tabernacle is of the resources of grace in Christ for the wilderness and its pilgrimage. Hence the ark when set in the temple had neither the golden pot with manna therein nor Aaron's rod that budded (2 Chron. 5: 10), which we find carefully named in verse 4. With such wisdom markedly divine was the scripture inspired in the O.T. as in the N.T.

Nevertheless the law, whatever shadows of heavenly things it afforded, made nothing perfect. And this is demonstrated here by the fact that the priests in their continual entrance go no farther than the first tabernacle or holy place; into the holiest only the high. priest once in the year, and then not apart from blood which he offers for himself and the errors of the people. How far from the gospel which goes out to the ungodly and lost, reconciling to God all that believe in the virtue of the death of His Son!

When Christ came, God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself; but Him both Jew and Gentile rejected and crucified. Under the law God did not reveal Himself, but barred even His people absolutely from His presence; for how could God, if He were dealing with them on the ground of their conduct, make them free of His presence? He dwelt in the thick darkness, and allowed the priests to approach no nearer than the holy place, the high priest alone (type of Christ) entering the holiest but once a year, and then (for he was but a type, and in fact a sinful man) with blood to offer for himself and the people's sins of ignorance. The barrier was still maintained. But now, and only by the death of Christ, is the veil rent; and the Holy Spirit signifies thereby that the way into the holy places has been and is manifested. It was the death-knell of Judaism, but the foundation of better and heavenly blessing; and as man is put to shame in it, having no part but sins, God is glorified and can thereby work freely in sovereign grace to save alike Jew and Gentile. This is precisely what He is now carrying out in the gospel.

Thus the incarnation was God come to man in Christ; but by the cross man who believes is brought to God, and the way into the holiest in now manifested. In the incarnate Word was divine love and absolute obedience; but the work of atonement was solely in His death. For God was not before glorified as to evil, nor was sin judged to the full, nor consequently the righteous basis laid so that God could be just in justifying the believer: to say nothing of what was of the nearest interest to Himself the Father, raising Christ from the dead and setting Him, the glorified Man, at His own right hand on high, Head over all things to the church which is His body. Hence the notion that the Incarnation was the reconstitution of humanity is a fable opposed to and destructive of the truth: hence no less available to the rationalist than to the ritualist. For it is the alleged ground of blessing without Christ's sacrifice, or God's righteousness, or sin's judgment, or the triumph of grace over evil and Satan in the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Saviour. But it is His death which Scripture reveals as the true groundwork of redemption, though no doubt the glory of His person, true God and perfect man, gave Him the competency, not only to redeem sinners, but to be the Head of the new creation and indeed over all things. Only as raised from the dead and exalted in the heavenly places, is He appointed Head over all things (Eph. 1; Phil. 2; Heb. 1, 2); and this, because, sin having ruined both the heirs and the inheritance, there could be no vindication of God, no adequate and everlasting deliverance for man, without the suffering of death (Heb. 2). It is only thus He became the efficacious centre (John 12: 24, 32). He is Son of God, and Son of man.. but all true faith stops not short of His death: else (whatever the motive) it would make light of sin and of the judgment. of God. Compare John 6: 35 with 53-56, etc.; 1 John 5: 6.

So here we see (verses 8, 9) that, under the law, as the way into the holiest was not manifested, so its gifts and sacrifices could not make the worshipper perfect as to conscience. Now the work, and nothing short of the work, of Christ meets both God and the worshipper, nay the darkest and most distant and defiled of sinners. "Such (or, these things) were some of you; but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by (ἐν) the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6). The provisions of the law, however admirable as a witness of man's sinfulness and of a coming Redeemer, were but superficial and temporal, conditioned only by "meats and drinks and divers washings" of an external sort; and consistently they touched no deeper wants than "the errors of the people" (verse 7). They were, as here, styled "ordinances of flesh imposed till a time of rectifying."

Thus the Holy Spirit pronounces the Levitical institutions, however instructive in their season, essentially provisional and temporary, adapted to man in his weakness, ignorance, and probation. Christ is the intervention of God in man, yet God's own Son revealing Himself and saving the lost. As John puts it, the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ. Nor was it word only, even if this were, as it really is, God's word. God has wrought in Christ. Instead of responsible man, tried in every way, and proved failing and guilty in all, we see now by faith the Second man in heaven set down on the right hand of the throne, sin judged in a perfect sacrifice, death vanquished, Satan's power annulled, God glorified, and the way into the holiest now manifested, to the present blessedness of every believer here below. And these are and are declared to be everlasting realities, in contrast with Israel's natural and transient privileges in the past, and before the day when they too, repentant and renewed, enter by divine mercy into their portion, even Messiah and the new covenant, which shall never pass away.

"But Christ having come high. priest of the good things to come,* by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), nor yet by blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having found an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and a heifer's ashes sprinkling those that are defiled sanctifieth unto the cleanliness of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Christ, who by an eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, cleanse your† [or our] conscience from dead works to serve a living God (verses 11-14)!

* Some ancient witnesses have already "come," γενομένων, which seems a correction to make the phrase exclusively Christian.

†Some authorities add "and true"; but this appears to be imported from 1 Thess. 1: 9, where it is quite appropriate for souls once heathen, while those who had been Jews needed to think of God as "living." Copyists and Editors are divided between "our" and "your."

The great, sure, and plain basis of the Epistle is Christ, not reigning yet as Son of David, but arrived at His actual heavenly position. He is High Priest not here below but in the heavenly places. It is no longer a figure in the hand of mortal man on earth, but God's work of everlasting efficacy in His Son, yet man risen and ascended, by virtue of an atonement, the perfection of which God thus attested, as well as the glory of His person who suffered to the utmost in achieving it; for sin could only thus be absolutely judged and Satan triumphed over by such a sacrifice. Yet while the blessing is fully made known to the believer now, in order to place him in immediate access to God according to the rights of Christ's glory and of redemption actually accomplished for the soul, the phraseology is purposely such as to hold out and ensure "the coming good things" for His people another day, like "the world to come" in Heb. 2, "the rest that remaineth for the people of God" in Heb. 4, "the age to come" in Heb. 6, and the implied exercise of the Melchizedek priesthood in Heb. 7, to say no more now. They were familiar as promised in the O.T. For the Christian the direct aim is to place him through Christ in present, known, and settled relationship with God in the holiest above.

Accordingly the text runs "by the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not hand-made, that is, not of this creation." We may make allowance for the difficulty of presenting the force of both this clause. and the preceding one in Latin, which wants the definite article — but Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and the Authorised ought to have adhered to the sense. The Rhemish, singular to say, has "the" good things to come, but "a" more ample and more perfect tabernacle: why they should have thus halted, it is hard to conceive. "The" greater and more perfect tabernacle is in contrast with the earthly one reared by human hands. High priest and sanctuary are in exact keeping. Christianity is "not of this creation" but divine and heavenly, though for believers here below; as Judaism could not rise above sinful dying man and the earth, whatever its solemn sanction or its rigid separateness. Hence it perfected nothing and could satisfy neither. God when He revealed Himself, nor man when the depth of his need on the one hand and the resources of grace on the other were fully made known. "Due time," or "season of rectification," came when Christ., rejected of man, became by His blood-shedding the ground of God's righteousness. who thereby and forthwith proceeds to justify the believer through faith of Him. And this is here stated in terms of the Epistle to the Roman saints, that the thorough identity of the truth with that set before the Hebrew confessors may be shown without argument.

There is a curious erratum (almost certainly the printer's) in the middle of Tyndale's version of verse 12: "we" entered, for "he," as it unquestionably should be. The error involves the deplorable connection of our having "founde eternall redemcion," an idea as remote as possible from that faithful translator's mind. Of course no ancient reading, or version, led to it, but a mere slip of typography overlooked in revision of the proof.

The "blood of goats and calves" was a grave object-lesson for Israel in the days when God condescended to deal with the ignorant and erring by the law and a worldly sanctuary and earthly rites and a high priest compassed with infirmity like the people. Now they slight the grace and truth which came 'by Jesus Christ, and are pronounced, fruit as well as root and branch, the weak and beggarly elements to which some bearing Christ's name desire to be in bondage Now the entire system is unbelief and ignorance of Christ who "by his own blood" entered once for all into the holies, having found eternal redemption (verse 12). "For us" is the gratuitous addition of the Geneva Version, followed by the Authorised. Abstractly the statement is no more than is in substance taught elsewhere, notably and yet more forcibly in Heb. 10 of this Epistle. But here it is not only uncalled for as not so written, but improper as going beyond the actual aim of the Holy Ghost who is setting out the intrinsic value of the infinite sacrifice, not its application to any, which follows in its own due time and place.

It may be added that there is no good reason here to give the preposition translated "by" the mere local (10) or instrumental (12) notion of "through," though capable of either when contextually required. But διὰ may and does when needed express the circumstantial condition, as in Rom. 2: 27, and elsewhere. So it is best understood here. Into the holies (the veil being now rent) He entered once for all. There He abides without change or the need of repetition, indeed contrasted with any such thing; and His own blood was not for Himself, as if He required any sacrificial means of entrance: therewith it was an eternal redemption He found.

There had been of old a provisional value attached to the Levitical offerings. "The blood of goats and bulls," on the day of atonement, etc., had an impressive significance; so had a heifer's ashes sprinkling those that had been defiled in the wilderness (Num. 19). But if these things sanctified "unto the cleanness of the flesh," how much more shall the blood of the Christ cleanse your [or, our] conscience from dead works (as all the acts of a sinful nature must be) to serve religiously (λατρεύειν) a living God? Only consider the Christ, glorious in Himself, in the character of His offering, "who by an eternal Spirit offered Himself spotless to God." As He stands alone, so does that offering. of Himself and the Holy Spirit's part in it is marked here as "an Eternal Spirit": so does eternity characterise this Epistle, and so was the Christ as ever dependent on God thus, while offering Himself up without spot to bear our sins. For here it is the previous act: not ἀνήνεγκεν but προσήνεγκεν. Compare verse 28, where both occur and in their due relation of course.

Here the Holy Spirit reverts to Christ's mediation, but avails Himself also of the revelation of inheritance in the close of verse 15 to introduce what was familiar to all, the allusion to a testamentary disposition or will, inasmuch as the Greek word for "covenant" had equally the sense of "testament" in ordinary usage. This accordingly serves to illustrate and confirm the all-importance of Christ's death, as the hinge of present and everlasting blessing from God, alike the end of the old covenant, and the basis of the new, with the added truth that death as a fact is essential to give validity to a will, which has no operation as long as the devisor is alive. Such is the digression by the way in verses 16, 17.

"And on this account he is mediator of a new covenant, that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those that are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], the testator's death must be brought in; for a testament [is] valid in case of dead persons, since it is never of force while the testator liveth" (verses 15-17).*

* There is no need in Hellenistic Greek to make the last clause a question, as Bengel, Lachmann, and Delitzsch; still less should one misconstrue the adverb like the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Cranmer, the Genevese, and the Rhemish versions.

It will be observed, that notwithstanding the doubt cast on the rendering of "testament" in the last two verses by many eminent Christians and able scholars, there need be no hesitation in deciding for this sense, as here the sole tenable one. That "covenant" is meant everywhere else in the N.T. as in the O.T. is clear from contextual requirement. The same reason of the context here excludes "covenant" and demands "testament," but here only. As there has already been given a general view of the other occurrences throughout the later scriptures, it is not needful to repeat it. Let it suffice, without a shade of disrespect for other commentators, to examine these three verses, with what follows them immediately, and judge if there be not proof, that the meaning in either case is certain from evidence as it were on the spot, ample and convincing for every soul subject to Scripture.

For as to verse 15 there ought never to have been a question that "a new covenant" is the real sense, not only because "new" is beyond controversy a reference to the prophecy of Jeremiah, who speaks of a "covenant" and not a testament, but without going from the same clause, because it has a "mediator." Now a mediator was familiar to the Hebrews in connection with a "covenant." Nobody, in any people, place, or age, heard of a mediator to a "will." There is the further disproof in the same verse that we hear of "the first covenant," which furnishes the reason for an explanation of "a new covenant" if there was to be redemption from the guilt and misery under the first. For the first covenant, as we are elsewhere taught, was a ministration of death and condemnation, as the new is of the Spirit and righteousness (2 Cor. 3).

On every ground "testament" would be here out of place, indefensible, and misleading. "Covenant" alone satisfies every condition of the verse. Death (and what a death!) met "the transgressions that were under the first covenant," and effected a redemption that answered to the glory of His person and the efficacy of His sacrifice. By virtue of His death Jehovah said according to the prophet (as we have it already cited and shall have it again), Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. such is the voice of the new covenant, in contrast with the old which could only claim obedience, and on failure sentences to die. But His death having taken place, so that law's authority was established to the uttermost, grace could act freely and grant remission of sins, instead of keeping up their remembrance; yea more, it could righteously vindicate God's forbearance in the past "for redemption of the transgressions" under the then legal condition, with its penalty of death for the offender. Now on the contrary, death having come in, Christ is Mediator of a new covenant, that the called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. All hangs on Christ and His efficacious death; and those that are called pay earnest heed to the glad tidings of God and await the eternal inheritance that is promised. For the blessing comes of faith, that it may be according to grace: no other way honours Christ to God's glory, or puts man in his true place.

No less determinate is the meaning of what follows in verses 16, 17, the idea of the inheritance naturally suggesting a will, which comes into force by the death of him who made it. The general principle is laid down in the broadest terms — and these can only mean, without strain of known phraseology, a "testament," not a covenant. "For where a testament [is], the testator's death must be brought in; for a testament [is] valid in case of dead persons, since it is never of force while the testator liveth." Now this, which is an axiom and universally applicable to a will, is notoriously untrue of covenants in general; so much so, that it would be hard to point out a single covenant so established among men. For it would assume the necessity of everyone's death who made a covenant to ensure its operation. Who ever heard of such a covenant? Yet the rendering would imply that it is true of any covenant, and of all. Hence to understand "covenant" in these verses has led many from the appropriate sense of "the testator" to substitute for "the covenanter" (here obviously impossible) "the covenanting victim . . . . . that which establishes the covenant," or some equivalent phrase; a sense which appears in no writing sacred or profane, and is easily shown to be ungrammatical, especially as being inconsistent with the middle voice. Quite as great violence is done to ἐπὶ νεκροῖς in verse 17, which cannot, express "over animals slain," but "when men are dead," or the like meaning.

Now our Lord in Luke 22: 29 (to say nothing of John 14: 27) prepares the way for the technical term here twice given as "testator." There He was in the act of devising; here it is in its regular form and force, though of course not that exclusively. But no Greek, if he read the sentence simply as it stands in these two verses, would hesitate to take it substantially as given in the A. and R.Vv. It is the equally sure sense of covenant in verse 15, as before also; and no less clearly is covenant understood in verse 18 and expressed in verse 20 (as it should be) and in 10: 20. "Testament" here is through neglect of the context, which in every other place of Scripture, save verses 16, 17, needs "covenant." What has a testament to do with blood-shedding? A hard and fast uniformity has its snares as well as a too great facility of change; both are to be shunned as unfaithful to the written word, which is as profound as it is simple, being God's word.

From the digression, which avails itself of a testamentary disposal coming into force only after death to bring out the blessing from Christ's death, we return to the far more usual notion of covenant in the verses which follow. Accordingly "blood" again resumes its place. This of course is quite foreign to the associations of a will, but most familiar to all acquainted with the ancient covenant of the law.

"Whence not even hath the first [covenant] been inaugurated without blood. For every injunction having been spoken according to law by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the calves and the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This [is] the blood of the covenant which God enjoined as to you. And the tabernacle too and all the vessels of the ministry he likewise sprinkled with the blood. And almost all things are purified by blood according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding no remission taketh place" (verses 18-22).

There are here three distinct uses of blood in the Levitical economy, all of them solemn and momentous, the last of them leading the way into the fundamental blessing of the new covenant which the gospel announces to every believer.

1. The first covenant was inaugurated with blood, as we read in Ex. 24. This is not redemption, but in the strongest contrast with it. The type of redemption had been already given (Ex. 12, 14) in the blood of the paschal lamb, followed by the passage of the Red Sea: the blood which sheltered from the judgment of God; and the power which thereon set the people free from their enemies destroyed for ever. But now Israel far from God had accepted to stand on the condition of their own obedience, Ex. 19; and God had spoken those ten words which would put the people to the proof. Here accordingly (Ex. 24) the covenant receives its seal in blood. "And Moses took half of the blood and put it in a bason; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that Jehovah hath spoken will we do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant which Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words." It was the old covenant, not the new; the law, not redemption. The blood which, as this Epistle states, was sprinkled on the book and all the people, simply set forth death as the penalty of disobedience. Hence it was in no way propitiatory but penal.

2. Attention is drawn to Moses sprinkling the tabernacle also, and all the vessels of the ministry in like manner with the blood. That this is distinct from the inauguration of the law should be clear, if only from the fact that neither the tabernacle nor the vessels appertaining to it yet existed. There was of necessity this provision against the defilement of the meeting-place with God, and the vessels for service: without the sprinkling of the blood all must have contracted defilement, because a sinful people were concerned, and God was holy. And this was so true that it is added as a fact that with blood almost all things are purified according to the law. Yet it is not stated absolutely, for water was employed in some cases, fire in others; both figurative of death, and the latter in its extreme form as divine judgment. How blessed for us is the gift of grace where judgment was felt in a perfection unknown and impossible elsewhere! "This is be that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by (ἐν) the water only, but by the water and by the blood." He expiates as well as purifies, and both by virtue of His death. Out of His pierced side came blood and water.

"And apart from blood-shedding no remission taketh place." Here we come in type to the grand truth which vindicated God in all His moral being and brings effectual blessing to guilty man if he bow to God. It is not sprinkling with blood here, but shedding of blood without which remission cannot be. It is the efficacy of the blood shed once for all, presented to God, and bringing to man remission: the ground of divine righteousness, when human righteousness had been proved wholly at fault — the righteousness of God unto all, and upon all those that believe, rolling away every distinction, that God may bless any, as He surely does all that believe.

We come next to most important inferences from the intervention of God in Christ, His death and blood-shedding. The typical institutions of the tabernacle are judged in their true character, as man is. The most solemn and instructive shadows, which confessed sin in man and looked for mercy in God, pointed to but were absorbed in the reality that is already come in Him, who suffered for sins on the cross, and is now risen and entered once for all into the true and heavenly sanctuary, having obtained everlasting redemption.

"[It was] necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ entered not into holy places made with hand, figures of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear before (to be shown to) the face of God for us; nor that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy places year by year with blood of others: else he must have often suffered since [the] world's foundation. But now once at a consummation of the ages he hath been manifested for putting away of sin by his sacrifice. And inasmuch as it is laid-up for man once to die and after this judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear [the] sins of many, shall a second time appear apart from sin to those that await him for salvation" (verses 23-27).

When God gave Israel under law a tabernacle of witness, it was of necessity, unless He would compromise His holiness, that the need of sacrifice should be everywhere impressed. Not only could not the Israelite approach God without a burnt-offering, even if he needed no sin-offering, but the earthly copies of the heavenly originals, which Moses saw on high and followed in the construction of the sanctuary and its contents, required purification. Yet the blood of earthly victims was but formal. It could not purge the conscience, only the flesh. Its purification was for a time and of an external character. It was therefore provisional at Lest, and could satisfy neither God nor conscience awakened to see sins in His light. Hence the veil subsisted, which signified that man could not draw near to God. But the death of Christ rent the veil, which signifies that the believer is free and invited to draw near boldly; for instead of his sins, the blood of Christ is before God.

This changes everything, not yet to sight as it will "be when Christ returns in power and glory, but to faith even now and for ever. For the everlasting effect of God's work in Christ is a cardinal truth in this Epistle, as also is our association with Him on high. Hence there is defilement on that sanctuary as the effect of our connection with it whilst we are passing through the wilderness. Every need is met by the blood of Christ, which purified the sanctuary as completely as it cleanses us from all sin. Whatever sin or Satan could do to sully has been counteracted by sacrifices better than creature ever offered. And Christ entered heaven itself to be presented manifestly to the face of God on our behalf. There He is for us before God in all the efficacy of His work, in all the acceptance of His person. In Him God came out to replace shadows of good things, and alas! realities of evil, by His own work of redemption; and now in Him man is gone within the holiest. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him" (John 13: 31); as our Lord added, "God shall glorify him in himself, and shall glorify him immediately." This was done, and is true ever since His ascension, instead of being deferred to the day when His world-kingdom shall come, as come it will in due time (Rev. 11: 15). Such is our unchanging representative in the presence of God.

Mark also the pointed contrast with Jewish sacrifice in verses 25, 26. Repetition was the inevitable fact even in their weightiest rites, as on the great day of atonement. It is the blessed truth of the gospel that Christ's one offering is complete and everlasting in its effect for everyone that believes. Indeed the Holy Spirit deigns to show the impossibility of a repeated offering on His part, because. it would also involve His often suffering. Even the feeble believers who crave a fresh work for each fresh failure must resent as intolerable all thought of His suffering again. Anything of repetition in His case is therefore a merely natural and unbelieving sentiment. The essence of the truth of His work is that now once at a consummation of the ages He has been manifested for putting away of sin by His sacrifice.

"In the end of the world" is surely as misleading as unwarrantable. All the older English versions are vague, if not precisely alike. Wiclif and the Rhemish would have done better if they had adhered yet more closely to the Vulgate; though it is pretty clear that Jerome did not understand the sense more than they. The Revisers have rightly given "of the ages." These ages were the dispensations in which God had been putting to the proof sinful man, who had been tried in every possible way, and failed in each and all. There had been the promises, the law, the prophets, the kings, etc. God had sought fruit; but instead of paying His dues, His servants had received rebuff, mockery, and murder. Last of all He sent His Son. This gave occasion to a worse iniquity. Not only did men fail in duty, and spurn His envoys in contempt of Himself; they rejected the Christ of God, they turned God in His person out of the world, they crucified Him who was not only their own Messiah but divine love in Him, God in Him reconciling the world, not imputing their trespasses.

On that very cross where man slew the Lord Jesus, God by Him wrought redemption. His love rose above the world's enmity, and now sends the glad tidings of His grace to His enemies: such is the virtue of Christ's sacrifice, that it can bring to God the foulest without spot or stain. Yet so much the more ruinous will it be for those that believe not. Far better to be a heathen that never heard the gospel than to be a christened man neglecting so great salvation. The day will come when the new heavens and new earth will display the reconciling power of Christ's sacrifice, for every trace of sin will then have vanished from the world. And this is the full force of John 1: 29, as of our verse 26 also. Yet the gospel meanwhile is the message of God to any and there is no difference of Jew or Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all that call upon Him. The more you hate your sins, the better for your soul if you are at the feet of Jesus. The Holy Spirit in quickening discovers to us our exceeding evil, where previously we may have deceived ourselves and gone on hard or haughty. But through the sacrifice of Christ God can afford and loves to send forgiveness commensurate with His person and work. It is well to judge oneself for one's sins; but God will act according to His own estimate of Christ's death for us.

The last verse is little understood in general. There is a striking contrast between "men" as such and believers. Hence "judgment" is necessarily to be taken as destruction to the false hopes of nature. Compare John 5: 22-29, where it will "be apparent that anarthrous or not makes no difference in respect of its unutterable solemnity to the unbeliever. Not to see the opposition between men" as they are now naturally, and "those that await him is to be wholly unintelligent of the context. For it sets the portion of "men," with death and judgment before them, in the most forcible comparison with those who have Christ once for all offered to bear the sins of many, and about to appear a second time apart from sin to those that await Him for salvation.

It is untrue that believers are all to die. 1 Cor. 15: 51 explicitly contradicts it; and 1 Thess. 4, 2 Cor. 5, imply the reverse. "We shall not all sleep." Equally certain is it that the believer does not come into "judgment" (John 5: 24), where also the word is anarthrous, as the meaning indeed requires in both scriptures. The believer shall be manifested, and give account, but come into judgment. of no kind whatever. His resurrection, if he die instead of being alive and changed, is "of life," not "of judgment" like that of the wicked. So the prayer of Psalm 143: 2 expresses far more of truth than these low traditional views which confound men as such with believers, who await the Lord apart from sin for salvation. Christ's one offering at His first advent was to bear the sins of many, i.e. of the believers. Hence when He comes a second time, He has no more to do with sin, having already been a sacrifice for it; but apart from it He shall appear to those that await Him, solely His own and not mankind indiscriminately, not for judgment. but for salvation, which is in contrast with it as distinctly as eternal life is in John 5

Hebrews 10

The grand distinction between the legal economy and Christianity was set forth luminously in Heb. 9, with the facts which made the contrast clear, and above all His person, work, and place who closed the one and introduced the other. In the first half of Heb. 10 we have the truth triumphantly applied to the conscience in order to our enjoying the presence of God where Christ is gone.

"For the law, having a shadow of the coming good things, not the image itself of the things, with the same sacrifices which year by year they offer in perpetuity, can never perfect those that approach: else would they not have ceased being offered, because that those who serve, having been once purified, would have no more conscience of sins? But in them [is] a recalling to mind of sins year by year; for [it is] impossible that blood of bulls and goats should take away sins (verses 1-4).

The law had a shadow, and but a shadow, of the coming good things, not the very image. There is even contrast in what is most characteristic. The law made nothing perfect. The work of Christ as now made known perfects the believer, not of course in his state or conduct, but in his standing before God. It was never so under the law. People or individuals, all they got was temporary relief. Finality they had none. They had to offer the same sacrifices: the greatest year by year, the lesser as need arose from day to day, they had to offer without a break. It was only provisional, at best a witness of good to come. But now in Christ and His work the best is come. The Second man is the Last Adam. None shall rival, still less supersede, Him; and the efficacy of His work is in keeping with the perfection of His person. The constant repetition of the old sacrifices tells the tale of their intrinsic shortcomings. Christ's own sacrifice bespeaks its everlasting worth. Of old, sins if renewed as they were demanded a fresh offering. Where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin; and this is only and precisely true, now that Christ has been once offered. He obtained eternal redemption: for it the believer does not, like Israel, await the day of His appearing. While He is still on high, the Holy Spirit is sent down and he that believes the gospel, purified in his conscience before Him, beholds Him on the right hand of God. No need for Him to offer Himself again; else must He often suffer. But this were an insult alike to Christ and to God, to the Spirit intolerable. Where faith is, God sees not the believer's sins but the blood which blots them out for ever. There is no renewal, because he has been once purified and has no more any conscience of sins.

But men in Christendom have so receded from the gospel of salvation to a mingled system of half-law and half-gospel, that we rarely hear this truth proclaimed, or this privilege enjoyed. Even saints on either hand wonder at the sound. Right well they know when awakened that the Spirit wrought by the word and laid their sins heavily on their conscience; and they cried to God in distress of soul, and called on the Lord — surely not in vain. Still their experience has been very like the saints of old, seeking fresh recourse to His blood on every fresh occasion of need. To use the truth before us, they have still a conscience of sins. They believe in Christ, but do not apprehend the efficacy of His work. Of old it could not be otherwise, for it was not yet accomplished. Even the most evangelical of prophets, as he is called, was not given to say more than "My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed."

Now in the gospel, God's salvation is come, His righteousness is revealed (Rom. 1: 17); and believers receive the end of their faith, salvation of souls; not yet of bodies, but of souls by a work divinely perfect, which perfects those that approach. How could it be less? God Himself could not add to the perfecting virtue of Christ's blood. By Christ "all that believe are justified from all things" from which none could be in the law of Moses (Acts 13: 29). It will be known better, enjoyed fully, by the saints in heaven; but God will never estimate it more highly on our account than He declares already to is; and faith now rests on His word. Without Christ's blood it were impenitent and obdurate presumption to pretend to "no more conscience of sins." But it puts shame on His work for one who believes on Him to doubt that God beholds him washed in the blood that purifies from every sin. The only true title to believe that any sins are cancelled ought to assure one that all are gone.

How sad it is that those in Christendom who have least pity for the poor guilty Jews are themselves in their faith more Jewish than Christian! Let them test themselves by this capital truth of the gospel. Do they draw near as worshippers once purified having no more conscience of sins? Is this the ground they take in private and in public, in their prayers and in their praises? Do they believe that their guilt is quite gone and for ever by Christ's sacrifice? Read how the inspiring Spirit lays bare the total failure of the Levitical sacrifices, "In them is a recalling to mind of sins year by year"; and the reason is no less evident, "for it is not possible that blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." Christ's work is God's intervention to do away with the believer's guilt. This He has done once and for ever. Every wrong deed, word, or feeling calls for humiliation on the Christian's part, as other scriptures show; but no scripture enfeebles the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice for him that believes. To doubt it is a sin which exposes to other and all sins; as it may end in total ruin and prove that the doubter never was born of God.

Intrinsic and everlasting value there was not nor could be in those creature sacrifices, which, far from purging guilt effectually, testified by their necessary repetition that the sins were still there and ever coming into remembrance before God. But He had in His purpose a sacrifice of nobler name and richer blood than they yea, in the midst of the Levitical system He had expressed His dissatisfaction with what fell so short of His own nature and of His people's need. All really depended on One to come, not the first man but the Second. Both are plainly taught in the next citation.

"Wherefore, when he entereth into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for me; in whole burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou tookest no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come, in heading (or chapter) of a book it is written of me, to do thy will, O God" (verses 5-7).

It was His not only to make known but to effectuate the will of God. That which had been set out previously was suited to man's estate then, partial, earthly, and temporary. From the first God had held out the sure prospect of what was divine and enduring, yet in man and alone perfect for man. This unbelief never saw, because man's will is always opposed to God, dreads His judgment, believes not His grace, and seeks self-satisfaction. But faith looked to Christ and, in the sense of sin and ruin, found rest nowhere else. And when He enters into the world, His eye is single, His whole body full of light, according to Psalm 40. He speaks truth, whatever the cost to Himself; and it cost Him everything. He recognises that His work, itself the most stupendous of sacrifices, must take the place of those that God had provisionally instituted; more than accomplishing each of them, but superseding them all, because perfection only now was found in it. Peace- (or thank-) offerings did not meet God's will any more than oblations or meal offerings: instead of either He prepared a body for His Son, the Messiah. This exactly suits the revealed facts of the Incarnation. He was to come by the woman, more fully man thus than Adam, but conceived of the Holy Spirit, as was neither Adam nor any other: so truly did God fit a body for the Son, that even in human nature He alone should be the Holy One of God. Nor otherwise would it have suited the Son, either as the constant object of the Father's delight all through the days of His flesh, as the adequate vessel of the Holy Spirit's power in service, or as the sin-offering at last. How different from us, who even when born of God are anointed only as under the efficacy of His blood! His body was the temple of God without blood.

Dr. Randolph, unless memory fail me, in his elaborate examination of quotations from the O.T. in the N.T. gives up the attempt to account for the chance in the LXX. from the Hebrew form of the last clause in verse 5; and so does the late Dean Alford "leave the difficulty an unsolved one." There is no sufficient reason to suppose a misreading gave rise to that Greek version, with Abp. Ussher (vii. 517) followed by Ernesti, Michaelis, Semler, etc., down to Bleek in our day. That the Epistle to the Hebrews adopts it, not as the literal rendering but as the substantial sense, is of deep instruction and interest; and this has commended itself to the most reverent and competent readers to the present time. The allusion is neither to Ex. 21: 6, nor to Isa. 1. 5: Psalm 40: 6 (7) is distinct from both, though all three centre in Messiah.

For (1) the Holy Spirit in the Psalm refers to the assumption of human nature in a condition wholly different from fallen man, even from His virgin mother. Of this the figure of "ears digged" not merely opened or bored, is the striking expression. Other ears were deaf through sin; His only God dug for Him, as He only ever heard and obeyed, living thus "not by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." "A body didst thou prepare for me" well answered to that, and gives the meaning which all might not so easily draw from the Hebrew phrase. (2) Then comes the application of the prophet who speaks of the Messiah morning by morning wakened to hear. "The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear." It is not alone holy humanity given Him at the outset, but His habit of daily dependence as "the Servant." (3) The type in the law completes the case; for this conveys that at the end of faithful service, when He might have gone out free, He (in love to His master, His wife, and His children) submits to have His ear "bored" through with an awl, as the sign of serving for ever. It is His death for the glory of God, and the life and blessing of all that believe. Thus consistency marks all, while each is distinct; and our text refers to the divine preparation of a body for Messiah, suited for His worthy work.

"In whole burnt-offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou tookest no pleasure." The last words are still the energetic rendering of the Septuagint, not an exact reflection of the Hebrew, Thou didst not ask. Men easily satisfied themselves and trusted that God was satisfied with offerings of free will when they prospered, and no flagrant evil required sacrifices for sin. But God ever looked on for His will to be done — what is quite impossible to the first man fallen as he is, and far above him even when unfallen. For this appeared the One who was alike Son of God and Son of man according to what was written in a roll familiar to the Father and the Son. It was a purpose indeed before man or the world existed, the fruit of which will abide in the new heaven and new earth, when time melts into eternity for weal and woe.

"Then said I, Lo, I am come (in heading of a book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God" (verse 7).

Such was the place Christ took here below. Adam surrounded by all that was very good, failed utterly even when tried by the slenderest test. The race had not even the wish nor yet the notion. Self-will characterised all nations, most strongly (perhaps it is that we know them best) Greeks and Latins. All sinned, these boldly: nothing more preposterous in the eyes of either than to give up one's own will to do only God's. And what can we say of English, French, Germans, etc., since Christ marked out that sole path of perfectness for man here below? Ah, the Second man is also the Last Adam. Not that many, many thousands have not followed His steps in faith and love by Him who strengthened and directed them but how feebly and afar off, even those nearest? For, as was the glory of His person, such was His devotedness,, whatever the trial. Though He was Son, yet learned He obedience (previously and absolutely new to Him as truly divine) by the things which He suffered. Being in the form of God He counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondman, made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. Others had done miracles, to His own He promised works greater than even He had done, because He went to the Father; but what man ever obeyed as He? Who, even as a saint, could say like Him that he had never done his own will? He, and He only, was entitled to say, "Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God."

As the person was most glorious, and the body fitted as only God could fit by a miracle of holy character and power, we shall find that the end was worthy of that wondrous path, whereon the Spirit of God descended as a dove and came upon Him, and the Father's voice out of the heavens at length saw meet to break His hitherto ineffable silence with the words, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I found my good pleasure." Freely He had come to glorify His Father; but when He is come, He keeps the position of man unswervingly to do the will of God.

Attention is drawn to the wondrous fact in the unseen realm, disclosed of old,, now set before us with emphasis, where the Son proffers Himself at all cost to effect, for God's glory and for man's blessing, what was wholly beyond the creature. Thus only could purpose and obedience meet in Him who deigned to take manhood, save the fallen by the sacrifice of Himself, and glorify God in all respects. "Saying above, sacrifice and offering and whole burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou wouldest not, neither tookest pleasure in (such as are offered according to law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first that he may establish the second; by which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth day by day ministering and offering often the same sacrifices, such as can never take away sins. But he, when he offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down continuously at God's right hand, henceforth waiting till his enemies be set as a footstool of his feet. For by one offering hath he perfected continuously the sanctified" (verses 8-14).

Even in the O.T. enough was said to intimate the divine estimate of the sacrificial system. It kept up the wholesome acknowledgment of man's need and guilt. The remembrance of sins never actually effaced the witness of God ready to accept it, but in creature offerings altogether inadequate. It pointed to One who, in the body prepared for Him alone, could and would do the will of God, not an angel but man though infinitely more. Law was wholly unavailing to glorify God on the one hand, and to deliver man on the other. Only the Son of God could do both; and He on this account becoming not only man, the woman's Seed, but in grace obedient up to death (which had otherwise no claim whatever on Him), a sacrificial death for sin not His own in the least decree but ours solely; and this after a life of unswerving faithfulness and absolute devotion to His Father's will and glory in a world of sin, sorrow, suffering, and death.

Verse 8 sums up the result in a few pregnant words: "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." The sacrifice of Christ was alike the consummation and the close of the Levitical economy. It was no longer requirement of man, but God's will done perfectly; so that He could in virtue of it bless weak, failing, guilty man, if he believed, according to all the love of His heart. For this He had waited — O how long! God's will was now done. How different from the will of man in pride or vanity, in violence or corruption, as the race had done since Adam! This wrought curse and ruin; that, blessing without measure or end, and worthily. For, having done the will of God in a life of goodness, He suffered notably throughout life but above all in His death, as from man for God, so from God for man at last crowning all, when for us made sin that we who believe might become God's righteousness in Him. Between the Father and the Son it was settled ere man or time began; in due time, when all was moral wreck and man had failed under all circumstances, after every trial on God's part among the chosen people as outside them, He became man to do it, and He did it at all cost to perfection, glorifying God withal in that sacrifice of Himself which was to abolish sin for ever.

The highest angel is but a servant; the Son became one. This very fact implies His personal glory as true God. For the archangel could neither empty himself of the glory God gave without sinning against the God who gave him his position; nor did he need to humble himself in becoming a servant, for this he was and could be nothing else. But a divine person could and did. As written elsewhere, He emptied Himself, having taken a bondman's form, being come in likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient up to death, yea death of the cross. To the Christian the religion of signs is for ever gone. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Thus did He establish God's will, "by (ἐν) which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (verse 10). Once God set apart Israel to Himself after a fleshly sort, which involved. in it nothing spiritual, though the figure of the mortification of the flesh. Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles previously, have been and are set apart through that body offered up once for all; and it is in virtue of God's will by means of Jesus offered up that we are thus sanctified. Men as such have 'been, and been proved, utterly sinful. Later in the Epistle (Heb. 12: 14) we are exhorted to practical holiness, the holiness apart from which none shall see the Lord. But here it is a divine operation already accomplished in the Christian, the effect of which abides; for it is once for all, like that offering which supersedes all others and can never be repeated. God rests in all its completeness and perfection, and sanctifies us accordingly as a settled permanent state. Theology does not accept or confess this great boon, any more than the Spirit's sanctification of every saint in a new life given as in 1 Peter 1: 2; both distinct from, and the grand basis of, that holiness in practice which ought to be progressive, and on which the Lord insists as here in Heb. 12: 14.

But there is yet more, which calls for a further contrast with Judaism. "And every priest standeth day by day ministering, and offering often the same sacrifices, such as can never take away sins: — but he, when he offered one sacrifice for sins, continuously sat down at God's right hand, henceforth waiting till his enemies be set as a footstool of his feet. For by one offering hath he perfected continuously the sanctified" (verses 11-14). The immeasurable superiority of Christ's sacrifice is here demonstrated in the clearest way. The Jewish priest "standeth," being necessarily called to constant readiness of service day by day, and offering often the same sacrifices, because they were intrinsically ineffectual and needed habitual repetition. Not so the Saviour: His one sacrifice for sins is so efficacious that He took His seat in perpetuity at God's right hand. "It is finished." The will of God as to this is done. Christ offered up Himself, God has accepted it, the believer is perfectly blessed thereby. It is once for all, and attested by His unbroken sitting at God's right hand, whence He will rise by-and-by to execute judgment when God gives the word to deal with His enemies. There meanwhile He sits, having done and suffered all for His friends, once His foes but now believing in Him. And the reason assigned for His continuous seat there is full of blessing for us: "For by one offering hath he perfected continuously the sanctified."*

* It is singular that any believer should fail to see that τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους here must be "the sanctified" as a class apart from time, because the same persons are in ver. 10 declared to be already ἡγιασμένοι. For this means that they were now sanctified, and therefore not a process going on. Both could not be true if ἁγιαζομένους were taken in its temporal usage. But they are both true without doubt all the same where the abstract force of the present is seen, as every scholar ought to know.

It is not enough then to assure the Christian that he has been sanctified or set apart by Christ's effectual offering once for all, though this surely is immense in itself. By the same one offering has He perfected in perpetuity the sanctified. But εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς is not the same as ἅπαξ or ἐφάπαξ, as M. Stuart says. "Once" or "once for all" might have been joined with προσενέγκας θυσίαν, but not "in perpetuity" which demands to go with ἐκάθισεν, "sat down." There the sense fully applies; whereas by the loose rendering "for ever," followed by a comma as in the Auth. and Rev. versions, the true force is lost, and help given to the falsehood of a mass going on for ever, though this would require προσφέρων to make it accurate. Perfected Himself as risen and glorified, He has perfected those set apart to God. Both the perfecting here and the sanctification in verse 10 are completed actions, the effect of which does not pass away. They err who teach that either is a process going on. Both are blessed effects of Christ's offering, to which nothing can be added for their end. Nor is this at all weakened, as some argue, from the form of "the sanctified" in verse 14; because this expresses the class in an abstract way, not at all as to time: if it did, it would contradict the form of the statement in verse 10, which does express time, and declares that we enjoy the settled result of God's having thus set us apart. Such a contradiction is not, and could not be, in the inspired word. Our bodies of course await the glorious change at Christ's coming again. Meanwhile we ourselves, our souls, are perfected without a break through the work Christ has done for us. The Father and the Son could do no more for our sins than is already accomplished in the sacrifice of Jesus, and revealed to our faith in the written word. There is growth, there ought to be advance, and there may be declension, in holiness; but this is not the question here, which treats of the Christian standing through Christ's offering. And this admits of no degrees. It is always perfect for every believer. But practical holiness is quite another thing, but imperfect even in the most pious, and ought to progress. This is not the question or sense in the context.

We have had the will of God as the source of our salvation, and the Saviour's work as the efficacious means. There now follows the no less indispensable witness of the Holy Spirit as the unfailing power of bringing our souls into the possession and knowledge of the blessing. Thus each person of the Godhead has His appropriate place, and all contribute to this end as worthy of God as it is needed by man.

"And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This [is] the covenant which I will covenant with them after those days, saith Jehovah. Giving my laws, on their hearts and on their mind I will write them: and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more. Now where remission of these is, [there is] no more an offering for sin" (verses 15-18).

The dignity of Him who testifies is an essential part of the boon conferred on the Christian. None less than a divine person was in accordance with the purpose of God or the accomplisher of His work, His own Son, for whom, with whatever imperfect light, all saints had waited from the first. Now that His will was done by Christ to the glory of the Father, a competent and suited witness was requisite; and this was no other than the Holy Spirit who ever cave energy, to what God took in hand. Nor was it less imperative if we were to receive and to enjoy that certainty of acceptance with God which is essential to Christian communion, worship, and walk. Faith had ever been the condition of all that pleased God in men now that Christ is in heaven it has a pre-eminent value. "We walk by faith, not by sight." But faith is only another way of expressing divine certainty in us. It receives on His word what He reveals. And He who came to glorify God by His death on earth is now glorified by and in God in heaven to make heavenly those who behold Him there.

It is interesting also to observe how carefully Scripture avoids the error of assuming that the new covenant expresses our standing. The blood of it is shed; the spiritual blessedness of it is ours who believe. But its strict and full import awaits the house of Israel and the house of Judah at a future day, as we saw in Heb. 8. Then all its terms will be verified.; not only what the heart needs and the mind, with full pardon its principle, though the Jews have not yet bowed to the Messiah. But as His work is done and accepted, so the Spirit attests the full remission of sins in His name: God will remember them no more for those that believe. And where this remission is, there is no more an offering for sin. Such is Christianity in contrast with Judaism. It is founded on Christ's sacrifice, which has so completely taken away the sins of believers that no offering for them remains.

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness for entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus, a recent and living way which he dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh; and [having] a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and our body washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of the hope unwavering for he is faithful that promised; and let us consider one another for provoking unto love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, even as [is] customary for some, but encouraging, and so much the more as ye see the day drawing near" (verses 19-25).

But Christ's work avails much more. It gives present entrance into the holies. What took away our sins rent the veil; and those who believe are invited and free of the innermost sanctuary even now. Boldness to enter there on any pretension of our love or holiness, of new nature or even divine ordinance, would be mere and shameless presumption. Here it is calmly claimed for Christians, who are exhorted in the strongest terms to approach by faith to God's presence without a doubt or a cloud, now that their sins are gone. Boldness to enter there is due to the blood of Jesus. Only unbelief hinders. It is a new and living way which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh. We honour Him by using it in the fullest confidence that it pleases God.

Nor this only: we have a great Priest over the house of God. His is the title. He is Son over God's house, which even Moses was not but only a servant in it: and His house are we if we hold fast our boldness instead of doubting or giving it up. In heaven itself Christ now appears before the face of God for us, who through His sacrifice have no more conscience of sins, as He there is the proof that we are perfected unbrokenly. He is above to maintain us, spite of our weakness and exposure here, according to the cleansing of His blood and the nearness it confers on those who believe.

Hence we are told to "approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith." Never could we deserve such a privilege. His glory and His work alone entitle us, but they do so completely; and we honour Him and appreciate the grace of God by approaching not with fear or hesitation but with a true heart in full assurance of faith. God Himself has wrought by His Son and in the Spirit, that we might be fully blessed even here and enjoy already this access to Himself in the sanctuary. What an indignity tradition puts on every person of the Godhead alike, on the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, when it drags souls back to the dread and distance of Judaism! For there is no humility so genuine as that which is the fruit of faith, sees itself so unworthy as to deserve only condemnation, and bows in everlasting gratitude to God and the Lamb, whom the Holy Spirit teaches us to be worth all our thoughts and affections, our worship and service.

The figures employed are drawn from Levitical institutions, but express a settled condition which far transcends what could be then: "having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and our body washed with pure water." The sons of Aaron outwardly were washed and sprinkled for priestly service. Elsewhere we find provision for failure, as in John 13 and 1 John 2: 1; here we have only the fundamental ground which abides, as is indeed expressed by "washed" or bathed, in John 13: 10. This it was the more necessary to insist on, as in an epistle for those who had been Jews ever used to failure and provision for it, to whom the new and living way was unknown with its eternal and fullest blessings. And now souls in Christendom need to be weaned from those Jewish elements to which they have been so long in bondage. Even Christians generally need the truth of the gospel to deliver them from human thoughts and ways. When they are established in grace, other wants claim their place, where there is much to learn.

Again the word is, "Let us hold fast the confession of the hope unwavering," that is, firm and stedfast, not through our strength or courage, but "for faithful is he that promised." Power of continuance is in looking to and for Christ. In the A.V. of verse 23 "faith" is a strange if not unaccountable mistake. "Hope" is here right as "faith" in verse 22. Promise connects with the future, and hence calls for hope.

Then comes the call to "consider one another to provoke unto love and good works." When set right before God as to the present and the future, we are in a condition and are exhorted to seek the good one of another. And, in order to promote the affection and deeds worthy of Christians, it is important to hear the caution, "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is customary for some, but encouraging." For this is well, rather than an objurgatory tone which provokes neither to love nor to good works. Our gathering together is of great moment: none can neglect it without snare and loss. And we need mutual cheer in the midst of difficulties, sorrows, and dangers. Isolation may be a resource in special circumstances; but it is never to be desired like fellowship as the rule.

As responsibility is here in view, it is "the day" or appearing of the Lord that follows, when our fidelity or the lack of it will be manifested. Conscience should be the more in exercise, because of the grace wherein we stand; but flesh would take advantage of grace for carelessness. The assembly has its serious place and claim according to God's word, as well as the soul. Difficulties increase, as the day approaches; but His word is authoritative for such as fear Him, and never misleads where the eye is single. The Holy Spirit effects this by directing us to Christ. Then Scripture tells on the heart as well as on the conscience; the new man answers to the word of the Lord, and lives in obedience.

There follows a most solemn warning, as much in keeping with the one perfect sacrifice of Christ, as that given in Heb. 6 is with the displayed power of the Holy Spirit in honour of His person. To abandon Him or His work is fatal; and such is the question in both warnings, not personal failure or practical inconsistency within or without, however grievous and inexcusable, but apostasy from the power of the Spirit to forms, or from the only efficacious work of the Saviour to indulge in sin wilfully and habitually. Either is to prove oneself the enemy of God's grace and truth, though the two paths may diverge ever so widely. But faith, and the faith, are alike abjured, whether for religious vanities or for reckless unholiness. It is man in both, fallen man preferred, God and His Son rejected, however seemingly far apart as the poles. Both paths of ruin, not without votaries in apostolic days, are at the present crowded and ever increasingly.

"For if we are sinning wilfully after we received the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but t certain fearful expectation of judgment and fierceness of fire about to devour the adversaries. If one set at nought Moses' law, he dieth without compassion on [evidence of] two or three witnesses: of how much worse punishment, think ye, shall he be thought deserving that trod down the Son of God, and counted common the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him that said, To me [belongeth] vengeance, I will requite, saith Jehovah; and again, Jehovah will judge his people. A fearful thine, [it is] to fall into a living God's hands" (verses 26-31).

It is a serious consideration to read "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as the custom of some is in such proximity to apostasy. But so it is. The habit is not only unworthy of Christians but perilous. It is to neglect, if not to despise, one of the greatest means of edification and comfort. It is indifference to the fellowship of saints. It is independence and slight of His presence who not only loves us but is pleased to be in our midst for blessing ever fresh and growing. Are these privileges of little account in opened eyes and to ears that hear? Then weigh what follows in the light of "the day drawing near," when motives as well as ways will be laid bare. Little as the beginning seems to some, it is the beginning of a great and possibly fatal evil. "For if we are sinning willingly after we received the full knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins." Giving up any assemblage which has the Lord's sanction for ease, or private reasons which are not imperative duty, may embolden many if not all to give up, and so end in callous contempt and fleshly self-indulgence.

It might seem incredible, did we not know as a fact, how many unestablished young get worried by the enemy when they find themselves so far below the standard of Christ, and particularly when through unwatchfulness they have found themselves guilty of sin, But their state is wholly in contrast with the apostate boldness described in this chapter as well as in Heb. 6. There is nothing really in common. The apostate is as self-complacent as haughty toward Christ, and hates the truth the more because he once professed it. The tried and shaken believer condemns himself unsparingly and desires above all things fidelity to Christ. Confidence in His grace through a fuller sense of His work in judgment of sinful flesh (Rom. 8: 1-4), not remission of sins only, is the great remedy so little appreciated generally, as well as His advocacy in case of special failure (1 John 2: 1, 2).

The reader should observe that "sinning" in verse 26 is the present participle and does not relate to an act or acts of evil (as in the last text referred to), but to the habitual or continuous habit of the person. And this is strongly pointed out in a Greek Scholiast which Matthaei quotes. It supposes souls not born of God; which is in no way inconsistent with "we" or with having received objective knowledge, however accurate, full, or certain. On the contrary, both here and in 2 Peter 2: 20, this is expressly allowed to be Within the range of flesh's capacity: the lesson which is lost for all that assume like Alford, that this can only be by those who are real possessors of life or spiritual grace.

In the face of such reasoning it is a plain and instructive fact that not a word in any of those scriptures implies that they ever were begotten of God. They were mere professors of Christ, never children of God. Thus they might have had the highest external privileges of the Spirit and powers of the age to come (cf. Matt. 7: 21-23), which only aggravated their defection from the Lord, but in no way intimated, as Delitzsch fancied, "a living believing knowledge of it [the truth] which laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself." It is a gross error that thus verse 29 becomes unintelligible. Those who speak so only prove how far they themselves were from a sound intelligence of Scripture as to God or man. Another form of misunderstanding appeared of old in the Novatian controversy from misuse of baptism, for which the curious reader may consult of the Greeks Chrysostom and of the Latins Augustine, as well as later writers, or the still lower because more human school of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

It is clear that, abandoning Christ, they must forfeit sacrifice for sins, His only, being effectual and writing death even on what had pointed to His. There remained therefore for such as renounced Him "a certain expectation of judgment and fierceness (or, heat) of fire about to devour the adversaries," into which apostates necessarily pass. And this is confirmed from God's dealings in the past, allowing for the vast superiority of gospel over law. If one set at nought Moses' law and dies apart from compassionate feelings, in case of two or three witnesses, how much worse punishment, think ye, shall he deserve that trampled down the Son of God, and counted common the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace? One cannot conceive thoughts or words more energetic, and a doom implied more awful. And so it must be: for a blessing spurned, after being received on the fullest proof and the surest attestation, becomes the measure of the guilt of abjuring it. As in verse 26 we saw the eagerness of some to infer the defectibility of grace and the denial of eternal life, so here we have to face the straits of pious men trembling for the truth sacred and dear to their hearts, and conceiving strange evasions, instead of trusting absolutely God's word. Thus Dr. John Lightfoot, followed by Guyse, etc., argues that Christ was sanctified by blood! (verse 29) as others refer the sanctification in question to the covenant! Here again the contending parties overlook that the Epistle to the Hebrews contemplates, as does 1 Corinthians, Christian profession; which ought to be real by divine grace, but may be only external and thus admits of a "sanctification" not necessarily inward but positional only.

The citation of Deut. 32: 35 ought to strike those who question the apostle's hand; because it differs from both the Hebrew original and the Sept. version, and is identical with Rom. 12: 19.

There evidently had been ground for the extreme warning given us in Heb. 6 also; and of course the danger of apostasy is always real among those who name the Lord's name. Only those who become partakers of divine nature by grace surmount the difficulties and overcome the world through faith. Yet here as before the actually bright side is not forgotten, but enlarged on for the comfort of those who held fast.

"But call to remembrance the earlier days in which, when enlightened, ye endured much conflict of sufferings, partly being made a spectacle by both reproaches and afflictions, and partly also having become partakers with those thus conversant. For ye both sympathised with those in bonds, and accepted with joy the plundering, of your goods, knowing that ye have for yourselves a better substance and abiding. Cast not away therefore your confidence, since it (or, the which) hath great recompense. For of endurance ye have need, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. For yet a very little while he that cometh will be come and will not delay. But my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure in him. But we have no shrinking back unto perdition, but faith unto soul-winning" (verses 32-39).

Relaxation is ever a danger for soldiers when on service, as Christians always are here below; and those who had been Jews were exposed to it as much at least as Gentile brethren, which we may see for these last in 1 Cor. 4 and 15. The Hebrew believers had begun well; they are here urged to continue enduring the fierce conflict of the enemy. All the old English versions save that of Rheims (1552) narrow their sympathy according to the Text. Rec. to the bonds of him who, now wrote. but the better reading seems to be "the prisoners" i.e. those of the Lord in general. To some of feeble faith this is. no small trial; to others the plunder of their property. These saints had shone in both respects. "In heaven" appears to be a copyist's addition, as is "in" (ἐν) just before. Still the great guard is against casting away their confidence or boldness of soul, the root within of outward suffering as of service. Patient endurance is needed as ever, of which the love of Christ is the spring, glory with Him the hope alone, the road, where the will of God is for us to do as it was done by Him perfectly. The recompense assured is inseparable from His advent; which here as elsewhere is kept immediately before the Christian.

The application of Habakkuk's words is modified in accordance with our hope by the same divine Spirit who inspired the prophet. "For the vision is for a time, and it shall shoot forth at the end, and not in vain: though he should tarry, wait for him; for he will surely be come and will not delay." So runs Hab. 2: 3 in the Sept. Christ's first coming and work give occasion for the beautiful and true modification in our paraphrase, while the prophecy abides in all its undiminished force for those who received Him, and others like them up to the end. For the Christian the known person of Christ shines; He is all. Death is in no sense our hope, but the coming of the Bridegroom, not the mere fulfilment of the vision. If we depart to be with Him meanwhile, it is far better than remaining here absent from the Lord. Present, or absent, we are still waiting as He is, who will surely come and not tarry. Times and seasons have to do with "the day of the Lord," when execution of divine judgment, comes on the world, not on the dead yet but the quick. "The coming or presence or the Lord," as the hope of the heavenly saints, is altogether independent of the revelation of earthly events, as it is before their accomplishment; and therefore is that hope precisely the same for us now as for those in apostolic times, allowing time for its full revelation by the apostle Paul.

Christendom fell away, though never so much as in the last century and half, into the dream of the church triumphant, not suffering, and of a world-wide victory for the gospel during the Lord's absence. All distinctive truth and heavenly hope are surrendered by an error as stupendous for principle as for practice. For it levels the N.T. to the footing of the O.T., and obscures, where it does not destroy, the characteristic force of both. The result for thoughtful minds, we say not for believers, is an enormous impulse given, both to superstition which in its blindness seeks to amalgamate Judaism and Christianity, and to rationalism which has no faith in the word of God, and no divinely given perception of Christ; who is little to both. Scripture, it is plain, speaks of the gospel of the reign, Christ's reign, which goes out before the end of this age comes, never of the reign of the gospel, the delusion of the worldly-minded.

But the language of the prophet in the verse (4) that follows is also turned to suited and serious use: "If he should draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him; but the just one shall live by faith in (of) me." It is plain that in this Epistle the order is adapted to the object in hand, which is not to enforce justification by faith as in Rom. 1: 17, nor to set aside the interpolation of the law in opposition to grace as in Gal. 3: 11, but to insist on faith as the power of life, and this too practically, as in all else; of which the chapter that follows is the weighty, full and interesting illustration.

If the true reading here is, as it appears to be on adequate authority, "my just (or righteous) one," it is excellent sense" as testifying God's appreciation of the one who walked in faith and righteousness, the godly principle of power. In contrast is his soul which is lifted up," instead of dependent on God and His word. Like Cain, there was no uprightness in him, but evil works and hatred, the end of which is drawing back to perdition nothing more offensive to God. The notion for which Delitzsch rather improperly contended, that "thy righteous one" is the necessary subject of the sorrowful supposition that here follows, is quite unfounded, as ought to have been plain from verse 39 which encourages every believer. Never does the Holy Spirit lead such a one to a doubt; but many a professor does draw back to his ruin.

Thus, if it was natural for Jewish saints when dispirited to look back at their old association of visible splendour, the danger of abandoning all God had now wrought in Christ and given to faith is solemnly applied; and they are called not to cast away their confidence and its great recompense. True, they needed endurance. But let them remember that the end of everlasting joy is at hand; for He that cometh (and it is yet a very little while) will come and will not delay. What blessed grounds to persevere in faith! They had long walked in Christ's path: a few trials more might be theirs. All above is glorious, and He is coming quickly. Is the saying of the soul even a small thing? And what of joy and blessedness and glory does not follow?

Hebrews 11

The close of Heb. 10 leads naturally into the rich unfolding of the power of faith which follows in an order truly remarkable. It was the more in season here, as there had been defection through the absence of it; and its value for God's pleasure as well as man's salvation is evident and undeniable, as had just been pointed out. The Jew was peculiarly exposed to overlook its virtue, surrounded as he was by a ritual which appealed to his sight every day; and the Christian Jew had to watch against his old habit, and needed to learn that the great distinctive principle of blessing now as of old lies in faith. Did he value antiquity? Faith distinguished all whom God honoured from first to last; not the law but faith. "Thy faith hath saved thee," said the Lord; whilst the law is but a ministration of death and condemnation.

Undoubtedly the source of all blessing for sinful man is in the grace of God working by His Son and in the Holy Spirit; as this Epistle shows the ground of it all to be in the glorious person of Jesus our Lord and in His efficacious work of redemption. Still it is by faith that we receive the blessing; and faith is never without repentance to God as its accompaniment, never without love as its fruit, with works and ways suitable and inseparable in the Husbandman's care. It is of God's will, but through faith, that we were begotten by the word; it is of faith that we have been justified; it is by faith that we have had and have access into this grace, the true grace of God, wherein we stand; it is through faith that we are all sons of God, as through faith we received the promise of the Spirit; by grace have we been saved through faith, as the believer only has eternal life in the Son of God, and boasts in hope of the glory of God. This is far from all that Scripture attaches to faith but how immense is the blessedness even here intimated!

"Now faith is substance (or, confidence) of hoped-for things, conviction of matters not seen. For in virtue of this the elders were testified of. By faith we apprehend that the worlds have been framed by God's word, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things that appear" (verses 1-3).

Thus is laid down, what every intelligent believer knows to be true experimentally, that faith realises things hoped for, is a demonstration to the soul of matters not seen. It is no new principle, though it shines as all that is morally noble does in Christianity. All of whom the world was not worthy, all who honoured God and looked above the present and the visible, were marked by it. The O.T. as the N.T. is full of its blessing, and the lack of it opens the door to all ruin. As it inspires with present confidence in the future we hope for, so it affords demonstration of matters not seen: we look, according to the word and in the Spirit of God, at the things not seen and eternal. There is not only certainty but present enjoyment.

Some have made a difficulty for themselves by the mistaken assumption that we have here a definition of faith. This is clearly not the object, but rather a description of its power, range, and effect. Faith scripturally in itself is simply believing God, accepting His word because He says it, not on visible evidence or on reasoning but on God's authority. Now, under the gospel because of its all-importance, it is receiving the testimony of God which He has testified about His Son (1 John 5: 9), believing (not exactly "on," but) Him that sent the Son (John 5: 24); or, as in John 3: 32 it is expressed, he that receives His testimony sets to his seal that God is true., while he that does not believe God has the awful guilt of making Him a liar (1 John 5: 10).

Before presenting the bright array of believers, the great truth of creation is set out as a question for faith. And so it truly is. Among the heathen all was as confused as the chaos they generally made co-eternal with deity. Yet the fact was once known but got corrupted and lost, notwithstanding the testimony to God's invisible power and divinity in the things that were made. It might seem a necessary inference that there must be an Almighty Creator; yet who drew it plainly? Nothing but Scripture reveals it simply, suitably, and solemnly; and faith received it of old as now. And it becomes all the more needful to heed it, when the course of this evil age runs strongly toward the darkness of heathen thought, and men find their Bible in science which knows not a single truth of God, being too self-satisfied to sit at Jesus' feet and hear His word. Yet even the proudest and most hostile of these modern philosophers is constrained to confess, that they can only investigate phenomena, and are absolutely ignorant of the originating power which gave birth to them. Only the mind cannot but own that such there must have been. It is an "unknown God" still, though they are hardly as candid as the Athenians in erecting an altar and inscribing their ignorance. Yet there is no excuse now, where not only the Scripture is read, but the Son of God come has given the amplest proof of the truth.

The inspired statement will reward the closest scrutiny. By faith we apprehend that the worlds have been framed by God's word, and that what is seen has not been originated out of things apparent. This leaves ample room for whatever changes can be adequately shown to have followed the original creation of the earth; while it also maintains that what is seen did not derive its being from what appears. That all was made out of nothing is what no Christian would say; but that, where nothing existed, God created all things out of His own will and word is just the truth alike simple and profound; and all other hypotheses are as unwise as they are uncalled for and untrue. Evolution may not openly deny God, but at best it robs Him of His personal action and concern in the wisdom, power, and goodness of His will in every part; and its tendency is manifest to exclude Him altogether in contradiction of His word which attests His deep and direct interest in the whole.

It is natural enough that science should boast of what it has discovered and can teach of material phenomena, the laws which govern them, and the results that flow from them. Nor is science to be blamed, because from its nature it cannot rise to moral truth, still less to the knowledge of God. Only those who speak for it are out of court when they venture to deny that anything higher and far more momentous can be learnt in a way incomparably surer than any teaching of man. They are wholly wrong and illogical even, when they affirm that there is nothing to be known beyond the blank wall where all science necessarily stops, unable to lead or go farther. The most thorough-going, the grossest, of materialists must and does confess that science can give no account of the originating cause of all, or, as they say, "the origin of the permanent causes themselves."* Science, says another of these sages, "is wholly powerless to penetrate the mystery which lies behind." But if science cannot discover, God can reveal. And the Bible begins with His revelation in words simple, clear, and worthy of Him. God would not have His people ignorant of the origin of all things through His power and goodness and wisdom, having called them into relationship with Himself, unworthy as they are, till the only Worthy One bring them to Himself in mercy and truth, then to walk in His light.

*Mill's Logic, eighth edition, 398-400.

Meanwhile, during Israel's unbelief, grace has provided "some better thing" in Christianity with its heavenly association, wherein we who now believe, while Christ is on high, have our blessed portion. And this epistle does its part to that end.

We may just notice how readily even commentators stray, who speak without entire subjection to the words of Scripture. Thus one who objects justly to those who trust not only the ascertained facts of geology, but the changing and uncertain hypotheses of its teachers, cites "In six days God created," etc. But this is erroneous. The Bible never speaks so. See Ex. 20: 11: "For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea," etc. This is the express testimony of the Holy Ghost. The creation proper (Gen. 1: 1) was before the six days when particular objects were no doubt created for the Adamic earth. Again, others err by confounding the original creation with the empty and confused state into which (not the heavens but) the earth is shown us in Gen. 1: 2; where the idiom as other scripture (Isa. 45: 18) rejects the assumption of God's originally creating a chaos: an idea natural to paganism. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The break-up described in verse 2 was a subsequent state, in contrast with the original order, and with the final one detailed for man.

None should be surprised that God's creating should be an object of faith. For as creation brings in the activity of God, so the denial of it, which is the darling of modern speculation, excludes God, and exposes souls to the debasing delusion of materialism. But creation is not all, though it supposes God and, as we are here told, by the word of God, without which all is uncertain reasoning. By faith we understand not only that God created the world, but that the worlds have been framed by the word of God. His word therefore reveals the power of that word, which man knowing the impotence of his own word is apt to despise, as if God was such a one as himself. This is much, but not all, for man is fallen, a sinner departed from God. Creation is here declared to be His work; but sin demands of Him a new work. Man needs a Saviour, and a Saviour by sacrifice, that he may be brought to God. This accordingly is the next truth presented to us.

"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which witness was borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts, and through it he, being dead, yet speaketh" (verse 4).

No need is deeper than this. Abel felt the truth of it by faith, having weighed the testimony of God to a coming Saviour as well as the solemn effect that His parents, our parents, having rebelled against God, had brought in for themselves and their posterity. There is no way out of sin to God, except through sacrifice. But the only sacrifice that could efficaciously deal with sin before God was that of Christ. For Him therefore all saints waited in faith and had witness borne to them. Meanwhile Abel offered by faith a sacrifice in witness of death for sin, the confession of his own guilt, the confession of the grace of God that would righteously deliver from guilt.

No sense of this had Cain, an unrepentant, unbelieving, unconverted man, who brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. "Of the fruit of the ground!" What could this avail for sinful man? "Cursed is the ground for thy sake" had the LORD God said; thenceforward it should bring forth to man thorns and thistles, but no salvation. Of the ground was man taken, for dust he is, and unto dust he shall return. But the Last Adam is a life-giving Spirit, the Second man is of heaven; He only could avail for fallen man. Alas! Cain looked not to Him but to himself, as natural men do and perish. Believing Abel looked for the woman's Seed to bruise the serpent's head, and "by faith offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which it was witnessed to him that he was righteous."

There is no righteousness without repentance, and there is no repentance without faith. Abel had both; and, as he looked for the Saviour in due time, he meanwhile offered his sacrifice by faith. Thereby a righteous one confessed himself a sinner; therein God saw the witness of the sacrifice in Christ, and bore witness to his gifts. It was a serious thing for the soul of Abel, and God appreciated the gifts that attested the truth as to both God and man: as to man acknowledging his sin; as to God about to send the Son of man the conqueror of Satan. "And through it he being dead yet speaketh;" for who that believes and heard his voice, has not profited by it? God Himself heard that voice from the ground, though he had died and to every believer it never ceases to speak. Even if Adapt had been after the fall a believer, his voice is not heard: he hid brought in sin and death for all men. But Abel died for his faith, as the witness of righteousness in all the power of sacrifice and of its meaning in the word of God.. and through it he though dead yet speaks. Without sacrifice according to God is no salvation.

But as faith does not always assume the same shape, although it be the same divine principle working in man by the Spirit of God, so in the next witness we see the power of life, not the sense of death. Both are true in Christ, in whom alone they appear in their fullest character, but believers enjoy according to the measure of their faith. "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and was not found, because God translated him; for before the translation he hath had witness borne to him, that he had pleased God; and without faith it is impossible to please [him], for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of those that seek him out" (verses 5, 6). To the same Messiah Enoch looked. There is no ground to suppose that he did not see death written on all, and sacrificial death the only way of deliverance, as Abel did. He knew as his predecessor that the woman's Seed must be bruised; but he knew also and felt assured that He would bruise the serpent's head. He saw life triumphant over him that had the power of death; in that faith he walked, and was well-pleasing to God. And his close on earth was accordingly, not by death like Abel, but by a power of life peculiar to himself. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and was not found because God had translated him."

We may therefore say that to him it was according to his faith, the witness to that truth a little before the deluge, as was Elijah long after it. Both lived in times of great and growing wickedness; both were prophets of judgment that should not slumber; both were translated on high without death, in witness of the great translation which will be the portion of all the living saints that remain, when the Lord Himself shall descend for them from heaven, and they shall be caught up together with the dead saints, raised to meet the Lord in the air. Enoch testifies of the chancre that awaits Christ's coming, the mystery shown us in 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52. The Holy Ghost comments on this well-pleasing walk of faith as concerning every believer, and possible only to faith — faith day by day in our walk with God, faith receiving that He is and becomes a rewarder to those that search Him out.

The next case attests rather God's government of the world than the heavenly grace displayed in Enoch. "By faith Noah, oracularly warned concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world and became heir of the. righteousness that is according to faith" (verse 7). Enoch had warned others, himself caught up to heaven, before the deluge came and took away all save those in the ark. Noah had an oracular warning about things not yet seen, was himself warned and moved with godly fear. So the godly Jewish remnant will be at the end of the age, who pass through that solemn time of divine judgment, and emerge to inherit the earth as well as the righteousness according to faith, for lack of which the world was condemned. It would have been Noah's ruin, as it was theirs, not to have believed the prophecy till it was accomplished; and so it will be with the world again in a day that hastens.

Any Christian can see that the faith of Enoch is of an evidently elevated character, and aptly finds its answer in our awaiting the Son of God from heaven to take us there; as the godly Jewish remnant corresponds to Noah, looking by-and-by for deliverance through judgment. But we have surely to share his faith also in testifying of that day and the world's doom, a revealed element of separating power. However offensive to the false hopes of men, we are the more bound to proclaim the approaching judgment of the quick as Noah did. The wise and prudent may mock; but faith owes it to God to be outspoken, and love to man should add vigour to the warning, now in particular that we perceive children of God blinded as to the revealed future by unhallowed commerce with the world and the influence of its philosophic incredulity. For men wilfully forget what God has already done in judging the race, and the Saviour's solemn warning that so it is to be again shortly when He is revealed suddenly and unexpectedly as Son of man.

These are the great general and fundamental principles of truth to which faith bows. The universe is not self-existent, but God's work; which if not believed exposes to atheism, as unbelief of His sustaining care and power leaves one a prey to deism. But sin came in through man's unbelief and Satan's malicious wiles — and only a divine Saviour, yet man, can avail by the sacrifice that shadowed His. Again, Enoch shows us the walk that pleases God and is associated with heaven. And Noah teaches the believer of the judgment which awaits the world, himself not only condemning its evil but preserved to be in another world founded on sacrifice. Hence Noah represents the earthly saints, as Enoch the heavenly.

Among the elders attested in virtue of faith Abraham has a most honourable place. Of him first is it written in the O.T. that he believed [in] Jehovah, and He counted it to him for righteousness; and in the N.T. he is called father of all that believe; in both, the "friend of God."

Abraham gives occasion to a large and varied scope of faith, and stands at the head of those who illustrate its patience, rather than its energy which wrought in Moses and those that follow. And this is the true moral order: first, waiting on God who had promised; secondly, overcoming difficulties and dangers in His power.

"By faith Abraham, being called, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise as one not his own, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob the joint-heirs of the same promise; for he awaited the city that hath the foundations, whose artificer and maker [is] God" (verses 8-10).

Abraham is the first sample of God's call as a public principle. Whatever the secret working of grace in all the saints heretofore, as in Abel, Enoch, Noah, no one had ever been called by God to quit his country, kindred, and even father's house, as Abraham was. It was the great and new fact of separation to God, and in a land which He would show, sustained by His promise of blessing to himself, yea, of blessing in him to all the families of the earth. It was the more remarkable, because after the deluge God had instituted government to repress evil; and in the days of Peleg the earth was divided by the sons of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, after their families and tongues, in their lands and nations. In Abraham's time even Shem's progeny served other gods — an evil most portentous, and unknown before the deluge. Out of this was Abraham called of God. The rest of the world was left to itself. God called the man of His choice not to attack or reform the evil, but to Himself and a land He would show him with blessing assured. Separation to God on the call of His grace we see in the man, the family, the nation in which He will be magnified for ever.

This, if believed, involved obedience at once; and so it is here written. The old relationships remained for all but Abraham, in the sphere of divine providence, as of judgment at the end of the age. But the separated man was to follow as God in grace led. He is the depositary of promise, and thus his faith was tested, not at the start only but continuously. The land to be shown in due time was as yet unknown, so as to cast him on simple-hearted confidence in God. He went out in subjection to God's promise, not knowing whither he went. God would show the next step when Abraham took the first. He did not ask, Whither? He trusted God implicitly. Thus his faith was unmixed with calculations of self, resting solely but fully on His word who loves and never deceives.

It was the wise and wonderful working by ways suited to His glory in a world departed from God into idolatry, where present ease, wealth, honour, power, are the bribes of the enemy for all misled by him. Faith gives up all at God's word with not one thing gained for the moment, but the certainty of His guidance and ultimate blessing in the richest manner. Yet in the history of Genesis it was not faith unmixed: in Haran they halted till Terah died; then "they went forth into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan they came." The Canaanite too, the vessel of evil devoted to God's curse, was still in the land while Abraham moved about a stranger. Even after this, faith failed under pressure of famine, and Canaan was left for the plenty of Egypt, but the denial of his wife through fear, and the treasures of the world which followed. Yet God was faithful, judged the prince of the world, and brought back the pilgrim to the land he ought not to have left without His word who had brought him there.

Then verse 9 points out a fine and new trait of the Spirit's working. "By faith he sojourned [not in Egypt, but] in the land of promise as in one not his own, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob the joint-heirs of the same promise; for he awaited the city that hath the foundations, whose artificer and maker [is] God." As faith led him into the land, unnamed and unknown to him, so when in it faith not only looked to have it another day from God, while he was content to be an alien without a foot of it as yet, but learnt to await a brighter and better scene. For the city here described stands in contrast with all that is earthly or can be shaken and removed. It is the scene of heavenly glory. Compare verse 16 and Heb. 12: 22. The word he heard gave him to look up; and believing he made no haste nor should he be ashamed. Returned from Egypt he has his tent, as had Isaac and Jacob in due time. What did Egypt know of the tent? still less of the altar unto Jehovah. Even the called-out man had neither there: back in the land he has both. The spirit of the' world is incompatible with either strangership or worship. And both helped him to draw, from His word who is now before his soul, higher things than those he saw, more durable than the earth, and more worthy of Him who devised and effectuated the universe but is above it all. "The God of glory," as Stephen says of him, became far better known than at the first. Abraham walked by faith, not by sight.

Yet men have not been wanting to say that the city which God here designs and forms is the earthly Jerusalem. It is impossible to conceive an idea less spiritual or more ruinous of the truth intended. The Epistle as a whole assiduously raises the eyes of those addressed to the city out of sight and on high, which Abraham saw by faith and was glad. Here we have no continuing city, whatever the Jews may receive by-and-by.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, at this point of setting before us the worthies of faith, to present the lesson taught by a woman who had learnt from God. And it is the more instructive to us, as perhaps no one without the inspired comment would have drawn it from the inspired text. We are quick to discern failure. It needs great grace to appreciate a little grace. How slow to admonish the disorderly, to encourage the faint-hearted, to support the weak, to be long-suffering to all!

"By faith also Sarah herself received power for deposition of seed even beyond seasonable age, since she counted him that promised faithful. Wherefore of one, and that become dead, were begotten even as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the innumerable sand that is by the sea-shore" (verses 11, 12).

Here is made good the fresh victory of faith. It surmounted utter weakness aggravated by lapse of time far beyond the due age; and on both sides, though the mother is named in the first place, and the father described so as to heighten the wonder of such an overflowing progeny from one as good as dead. If any looked at the parties concerned, if they considered themselves or each other, there were the amplest materials for doubt. And it is evident from the history in Gen. 17 that even Abraham at first had no confidence to boast in an accomplishment so unprecedented, and prayed at that very time that Ishmael might live before God.

Sarah, however, persisted longer in her unbelief; and when Jehovah at a subsequent day set a time for Sarah to have a son, she laughed incredulously and stood gravely reproved — the more because she denied it. But all this makes the grace of God so marked and cheering, as we find an entire oblivion of these early failures, and the later triumph alone here recorded. How undeniable the proof that He loves to speak well of His own! "Is anything too hard for Jehovah?" He overthrew all the thoughts and reasonings of her mind. Her doubts, her equivocations, deepened her self-judgment. His own word carried its own convincing light along with it; henceforward she "counted him that promised faithful." May we not ask, Is anything too good for Jehovah? Abraham appears to have been peaceful in faith before the turning-point came for his wife. But come it did; and God singles it out for the permanent blessing of souls, tried with doubts as she had long been, that they may rest as she at length did on the word of Him who cannot lie.

And it may be added that, if ever a people passed through difficulties and dangers, distresses and destructions, calculated and planned to defeat the promise of God, even on the comparatively narrow question of their numbers, it was the lot of the Jews. Who knows not the express design and cherished policy of nations great and small, near and far off, often reappearing in the ages, to cut them off from being a people? But even when the power of Rome took away their place, scattering them as captives over the earth, it could not absolutely destroy their nation. Long, long have they abode without king and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim. Yet scattered though they be after this anomalous sort, they are perhaps as numerous as ever. Not yet indeed have they returned into the land of their possession. they are in the city of refuge grace has provided for them, however little they think so or understand His way with them. But the day hastens when, freed from their pollution of blood, they shall look on Him whom they pierced, and be planted in the land that Jehovah gave their fathers, and their blessings be as countless as themselves in that day. For He is faithful that promised. "Thus saith Jehovah, If ye can break my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me."

That Abraham now has children spiritually in Christians is quite true, as the Epistle to the Galatians demonstrates; but that God has cut off His ancient people Rom. 11 expressly and solemnly denies. His word on which we rest by faith is no less certain for Israel by-and-by, whom He will surely restore and bless nationally, and through them all nations. Psalm 67 with a crowd of other scriptures teaches it, whatever Gentile casuists may argue to the contrary. But the same Rom. 11 had forewarned the professing Gentile, grafted into the olive-tree of promises instead of those Jewish branches broken off through unbelief, that they have no indefeasible claim but stand through faith. And as they are now high-minded and without fear, dishonouring God and His word, in pride of privilege no less than erst the guilty Jews, so shall they be cut off for God to ingraft again the godly remnant of the future "into their own olive-tree"; and "so all Israel (after judicial pruning) shall be saved."

But "that day" is not yet come; and we return to their fathers. From the rising above difficulties insuperable save to God on whose word they relied (verses 11, 12), we have a summary in verses 13-16, which brings out the patriarchs refusing all temptation, and by faith holding on their pilgrim way to death consistently with the accomplishment of promise. This is the reason why the phraseology chances in the beginning of verse 13. It is no longer "in" faith, that is, in virtue (or the power) of faith as in verse 2, where such a force is requisite, and not the mere notion of element or matter as in 1 Cor. 11: 20 and very often. Nor further is it the proximate cause, the dynamic or instrumental dative as in verses 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and again in 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 31. Still less does it distinguish faith as the means "through" which, as in 4, 7, 33. Here (verse 13), if we say "in," we mean according to faith, contrasted with sight or possession of the things promised. What indeed would be the sense of saying that "by" or "through" faith all these died? Nor is it "in" i.e. in virtue of faith, but according to faith as in verse 7 of our chapter, where the precisely same phrase occurs. The Vulgate gives "juxta fidem" here, "per fidem" in verse 7. We may see it again in Titus 1: 1, and modified by "common" in 4, in both of which the Vulgate has "secundum." Conformity with faith is here predicated of Abraham and those patriarchs that followed, not for perseverance to the end though this was the fact, but in being content to wait for God's fulfilling the promises in due time.

"According, to faith died these all, not having received promises, but from afar having seen and saluted [or, embraced] them, and confessed that they were ["are," historical] strangers and sojourners on the earth [or, land]. For they that say such things clearly show that they seek after a fatherland. And if indeed they were* calling to mind whence they went out, they would have had opportunity to return; but now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly. Wherefore God is not ashamed of them to be called their God; for he prepared for them a city" (verses 13-16).

* Tischendorf and Tregelles read the present, others the imperfect.

The aim in these verses is to present vividly that common pilgrim path in which the patriarchs walked, even to their death, before the Spirit takes up characteristic workings of faith, even in Abraham as well as in each of those that followed, as far as it bore on the subject in hand and the special help of those virtually addressed. How timely and needful it must have been we may gather, because they expand the truth already set forth briefly in verses 9, 10.

Neither death, nor the unseen state that succeeds, was the accomplishment of the promises. On the contrary their death without receiving what was promised was in accordance with faith, and the witness of its single-eyed integrity. And the accomplishment of the promises supposed, what they could not as yet understand any more than anticipate, the second advent of the Lord even more than the first, although the first was the far more solemn in itself, and the righteous basis of the blessings and glories which await the second. Hence the force of our Lord's word in John 8: 56, "Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day, and he saw and was glad." Neither technically nor substantially was the first mainly in view as has been thought, but that day when God's word and oath shall be vindicated before a wondering and rejoicing world. The patristic dream, which some dream over again, that it refers to what Abraham beheld after death when our Lord was here, is as unwarranted a perversion as the Socinian interpretation which Meyer justly stigmatises (Abrah. exultaturus fuisset, si (ἵνα!) vidisset diem meum; et si vidisset, omnino fuisset gavisurus). The design of our Lord and of that chapter is to prove Himself the Light and Word and Son and God Himself; and hence the contrast between Abraham who believed and his seed who did not. Whatever glimpse Abraham may have had of the truth to which the sacrifice on Moriah pointed, it was to the full accomplishment of the promise he looked, and saw by faith what still awaits fulfilment, the period of Christ's manifested glory, "My day." In this hope brightly breaking through the clouds Abraham exulted, and he saw, as faith ever sees, and rejoiced. He, like the rest, saw the promises in their accomplishment from afar off.

And so died these all in accordance with faith as they lived, looking forward to Messiah's day for making good the promises. The additions of "and were persuaded" in the Received Text has scanty support of no account, though Dr. J. Owen makes much of it in his Exposition as have many others since. It really enfeebles the truth. It is a delicate question whether the next clause keeps up the figure of "greeting" as well as seeing from afar, or adds the different side of truth in their warmth of taking their hope by faith. But the practical result is as weighty as undeniable; they confessed that they were strangers and sojourners on the earth.

The land even of promise was not their home, still less Chaldea which Abraham left at God's word. They looked higher — to heaven. Life and death alike bore witness that nowhere were they dwellers on earth. Even as they dwelt in tents as pilgrims strangers in the land of promise as a land not their own (yet theirs in hope that makes not ashamed), so they declared plainly throughout that they were in quest of a fatherland on high. Many an opportunity presented itself to return to their old country, had such been their mind. Though they knew not Jesus as we, nor had they as yet known redemption or the Holy Spirit as the Christian, yet their path may well engage us to sing more stedfastly the well-known lines slightly modified-

We're bound for yonder land

Where Jesus sits supreme;

We leave the shore at His command,

Forsaking all for Him.

'Twere easy, did we choose,

Again to reach the shore;

But this is what our souls refuse —

We'll never touch it more."

We look for Him who is not here but risen. It is the world, and we are not of the world as He is not who is coming to receive us to Himself and give us mansions in the Father's house. For His rejection unto the death of the cross and ascension to heaven have made the earth to us His empty tomb. But we await the glory to be revealed when all the groaning creation shall follow suit of God's heirs, and our bodies changed into the likeness of Christ's body of glory shall herald the regeneration in the delivering power of the Redeemer at that day.

No interpretation is farther from truth than that of Grotius and his followers who cannot rise above Judea and Jerusalem in a better state. Had this been all God saw in the life and death of these fathers, He would have been ashamed of them to be called their God. But it is not so. They were men of faith, and looked above, not as a mere sentiment but in living power, as their detractors did not. And God is not the God of the dead but of the living. They live to Him, and shall appear in glory with Christ, when the promises too take effect fully in that day of reprisals. God prepared for them a city better than man's eye looks on.

Last of these instances which set out the patience of faith comes the crowning trial of Abraham; and worthily does it close the list.

"By faith Abraham, being tried, (hath.) offered up* Isaac, and he that accepted to himself the promises was offering up* his only-begotten son, as to whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called, having counted that even from the dead God [is] able to raise; whence also in a figure (parable) he received him" (verses 17-19).

*It is difficult to express in English the force of the Greek perfect and imperfect. The one gives the result of the act as if accomplished, the other the historical fact that it did not actually take place. "Hath" here is not really admissible in our tongue; yet it may be in a bracket to enforce the truth.

It was indeed putting the father of the faithful to the, severest test conceivable, not only abandoning to the altar his only son and heir, and sacrificing him with his own hand, but jeopardising to all appearance the promises both for his seed and in it blessing for all families of the earth. Alike natural affection, and religious hope when raised to high degree and wide extent by God's word in Isaac, seemed to reason by such a command arbitrarily, distressingly, and irrevocably lost. But we can see with James (James 2: 22), that faith wrought with his works, and that by works faith was perfected. In earlier days in hope against hope he believed to his becoming father of many nations, "According, to what had been spoken, So shall thy seed be (Rom. 4: 18). Now that the child of the promise was given, how tremendous the wrench at the summons of God so true and gracious! Yet he hesitated through unbelief no more at the surrender, in its form to him most painful, than before at the promise in spite of its utter improbability. Such is faith in which Abraham found strength, giving glory to God, as true faith does.

But there is somewhat more precious and specifically instructive in this instance reserved to the final place for Abraham after the general notice of the patriarchs. Nowhere in the O.T. do we find such absolute trust in God, as when the father was proved willing to sacrifice his only son, with whom were bound up all God's promises and his own expectations. To man death is the end of hope; to God it is but the occasion to exercise the power of resurrection; and in the assurance of His power on behalf of Isaac, Abraham confided without a waver. He rose early in the morning, he took Isaac his beloved son, and "on the third day" he saw the place afar off. Arrived there he built the altar, set the wood in order, bound Isaac, laid him on the altar, and took the knife to slay him, when the angel of Jehovah interposed at the last moment. The proof was complete. Faith then could to no farther. God was absolutely counted on to make good in resurrection the seed (with the promises in the seed) given up at His word to die. What fresh gain for Abraham, as for those who, doing His will, give up all that is dearest after the flesh, to receive all better than ever in resurrection! In a figure Abraham recovered his son as from among the dead.

God Himself beheld in that solemn transaction the figure of His own gift of the only-begotten Son of God, whom He spared not but delivered up for us all. For Him no substitute was or could be found, if our sins were to be judged and borne and blotted out. In the antitype, far more truly and fully than in the type, God did provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, in His Son the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. In His case the death was as real as the resurrection; and the efficacy of the Saviour's death such that, while the special promises remain for the numerous seed on another day fast approaching, in Him the one risen Seed is blessing come, as the apostle showed the Galatians (Gal. 3), to Gentiles as freely as to Jews. It was outside flesh and beyond law, of God's grace, founded on sacrifice and declared in resurrection, heavenly glory being its issue and proper display.

See how Christ has made the truth plain in this case as in every other; for indeed He is the truth. He was the true grain of wheat, which, if it fell not into the ground and died, abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit. He came that believers might have life and might have it abundantly. He is the Good Shepherd and laid down His life for the sheep. And on this account the Father loved Him, because He laid down His life that He might take it again. No one took it from Him, but He laid it down of Himself. He, and He only from the glory of His person, had title as well as power to lay it down; as He alone had just the same authority to take it again. Hence He, the Son of man, was glorified in death, and God was glorified in Him. And as God was thus morally glorified in Him, God also glorified Him in Himself, and glorified Him immediately after redemption at His right hand, instead of still waiting for the day when He shall come again in power and glory for the world-kingdom. It was Christ cut off and having nothing (Dan. 9: 26); but if He thus gave up His rights as Messiah and accomplished redemption in His death, God raised Him, not only to secure all that seemed lost but "some better thing," to be Heir of all things in heaven and on earth, and to have heavenly joint-heirs, as well as His ancient people and all the nations here below.

To the Hebrews addressed, what could be more telling and instructive? Was it hard to see a light that bedimmed the golden lamp of the temple, and all the splendour of the law? God has provided for us some better thing through Christ dead and risen and ascended.

The next portion is a kind of supplement to the setting forth of that patience of faith, which had its fullest illustration in Abraham. Yet each case has its own distinctive lesson for the disciple.

"By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. By faith Jacob when dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped on the top of his staff. By faith Joseph when ending life made mention of the departure of the sons of Israel, and gave charge concerning his bones" (verses 20-22).

The structure of the phrase in verse 20 draws attention to the difference in the objects of the blessings; for each of Isaac's sons has the article in the Greek. There might have been no article at all, in which case the mention would have been simply historical. There might have been but one article for both names, the effect of which is to associate as a company at least for this occasion. The repetition has of course the opposite aim of marking their distinctiveness, even though both were blessed concerning things to come. And this is precisely what Gen. 27 clearly indicates, a chapter not a little humbling throughout. Of Esau nothing more need be said than to recall his profanity in selling his birth-right for a pottage of lentiles (Gen. 25), and in his Hittite marriages which caused bitterness of spirit to Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26). Yet Isaac loved him because of his venison, as Rebekah loved Jacob as to whom Jehovah had given her a remarkable word before the twins were born (Gen. 25: 23). This Isaac slighted at a critical moment (Gen. 27) when his faith failed at first, no less than his dim eyes. Rebekah was the instigator of Jacob to deceitful ways, instead of both crying to the Lord who would surely have heard Rebekah, corrected Isaac, and honoured Jacob. Alas! sin wrought shame all round but grace did not fail to secure the purpose of God, while chastising each in His moral government, for all were grievously to blame. Yet the full blessing of promise fell to Jacob in spite of some bad ways, and Esau got through his father's blessing more than he deserved. Isaac's trembling very exceedingly (verse 33) was on the discovery, not only of the guilt of Jacob, but of his own will against God who had overruled him; whereon he says emphatically that he had blessed him, "yea, he shall be blessed." Nature in Isaac sought to bless otherwise, and had seemed all but to prevail; but "by faith Isaac, blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come" according to God.

What a contrast appears next! "By faith Jacob when dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped on the top of his staff" (verse 21). When young, he was a sorry saint, a supplanter of his brother, a deceiver of his father, an outcast from his too fond mother, a wanderer to Padan-aram, cheated of Laban though cheating too, living a chequered and sorrowful life once more in Canaan, and a stranger in Egypt, loving his family, yet almost all at home one way or another a source to him of grief and shame. His closing scenes were lit up with brightness, himself kept and blessed of God in spite of himself, that it might plainly be not of him that wills any more than of him that runs, but of God that hath mercy. He is just a miniature of the people, of whom he was progenitor, and to whom he gave his own name of honour through grace. Yet he, the aged pilgrim, blesses the greatest king then on earth, and without any dispute the less is blessed of the better. Now when dying, he blessed each of the sons of Joseph, though not at all so sundered as Jacob and Esau, yet with a distinction which at the moment displeased Joseph usually so quick to discern and interpret the mind of God. But Jacob's eyes, dim as they were and unable to see naturally, were illuminated then with light divine; so that Joseph's arrangement of his sons according to nature, with Ephraim toward Israel's left and Manasseh toward his right, embarrassed not the patriarch for a moment. For he laid his right hand upon Ephraim's head albeit the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly or crossing them, for Manasseh was the first-born. It was of God to set Ephraim before Manasseh. But how worthy of grace that he who in his youth used such base means to gain the blessing he valued, should ere he died resist, in calm and believing earnestness, the importunity of his godly and honoured son, their own father!

Nor was this all; he "worshipped on the top of his staff," clearly leaning on it in his weakness. It is remarkable that this act really preceded the blessing of his grandsons and is recorded in Gen. 47: 31, as given in the Septuagint. No doubt both the Hebrew "bed" and the Sept. "staff" are alike true; and the Sept. gives "bed" in Gen. 48: 2. He reminds Jehovah in Gen. 32 of first passing the Jordan, before he recrossed it when he had become two companies. And what changes he had proved since that day, God ever chastening Jacob's ways and ever faithful to His purpose, even then blessing him afresh while He crippled his thigh. Now his eye of faith anticipated His glory who would make all good when pilgrimage should yield to dwelling in the land; and he worshipped.

As Jacob's blessing of Joseph's sons is put immediately with Isaac's blessing, so Joseph's faith follows immediately Jacob's worship (compare Gen. 47: 29-31). "By faith Joseph when ending life made mention of the departure of the sons of Israel and gave charge concerning his bones." Only it seemed good to the inspiring Spirit to record it here of Joseph; who also impressively charged his sons not to bury him with his fathers, as Jacob sought and had, but to embalm him as the pledge of their quitting Egypt in God's time for the land of promise. No splendour in Egypt dimmed the light of promise to his faith: the nearest to the throne of the world, he is a stranger, looks for resurrection, and anticipates Israel's restoration to the land according to the divine oath to their fathers.

Now comes a fresh series in the display of the power of faith no matter what the enemies, the dangers, or the difficulties; Moses has a place as marked in its power as Abraham had in its patience.

"By faith Moses, when born, was hidden three months by his parents, because they saw the child [was] beautiful; and they were not afraid of the edict of the king. By faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to share ill-usage with the people of God than to have temporary enjoyment of sin, deeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking away unto the recompense" (verses 23-26).

Patriotism and family affection could have little play in a strange land; but be as it might, all alike were defied and trampled under foot by the cruel mandate of Egypt's king; and neither feeling, though benumbed by oppression and slavery, could be lacking to a race called and guided and kept as the seed of Abraham had been in and out of Canaan. But a still deeper principle lay underneath the promises made to their fathers, which bound together with these grand family expectations a hope still more ancient, mysterious, and wonderful. From the beginning of man's sinful and sad history the revelation of the woman's Seed shone as a star from the darkened heavens, the sure pledge of the serpent's destruction one day; and the blessing, not of their own line only but of all families of the earth in one of their line might be dormant, but could not be forgotten, no, not even in a day of affliction. And had not the word of Jehovah come to the first and greatest of their fathers, telling, him that his seed would be a sojourner in a land not theirs, in bondage and affliction four hundred years, but that the nation which oppressed them should be the object of divine judgment, after which the chosen people should emerge with great substance? Was not the fourth generation to see them return to Canaan?

Faith is ever by the word of God; and by what He had spoken of old, supplemented by the dying but inspired words of Jacob and Joseph, faith wrought in the parents of Moses. Nor was the extraordinary beauty of the child a vain sign to the mother's heart. Much more was felt by both than either their own natural instincts of parental love or the horror produced by the merciless command. They looked for the people's deliverer from Egypt ere long; they looked for the Deliverer from Satan they knew not when. Might not this very babe be the leader out of Egypt for Canaan in the fourth generation? Certain it is, they believed in God's intervention for His people and judgment of their enemies, and acted on their faith in hiding their child for three months. It Was no slight matter to keep the little one so long despite the unscrupulous monarch's edict, and apparently near his palace. When the mother could no longer hide her son, she took for him an ark of papyrus, and daubed it with bitumen and pitch, and laid it with the child therein among the flags of the river's brink, as we are told in Ex. 2. How God used Pharaoh's daughter, and little Miriam, and the mother for the child's care, is known from the same source. Stephen could add that he was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in his words and works. Never was there a case more strikingly providential.

But faith wrought in Moses himself, and in a way full of instruction to us, who need to stand on our guard in a world of appearance and unreality. "By faith Moses, when grown up, refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter." If providence brought him into her house, faith led him out. It was assuredly from no want of ability to estimate the advantage of his position. If the object, again, had been merely the relief of Israel by influence, or even their peaceful migration to Canaan by the skilful use of circumstances, no one could have a fairer opportunity or be better fitted to accomplish the event diplomatically or otherwise. But this would have redounded to the praise of Moses, not to the glory of God, as faith ever and rightly seeks. Accordingly Moses turned his back on all natural and worldly advantages, that God might act for His people and against His foe and theirs.

Here too we are briefly but distinctly shown how it was: "Choosing rather to share ill-usage with the people of God than to have temporary enjoyment of sin" (verse 25). It is, till the kingdom come, an undying claim, and even more imperious since Christ's rejection, and the intimate mutual relation of the members of His body. But Moses is declared here to have entered into its spirit by faith. He apprehended what the people of God are to God, and the responsibility that attaches to the privilege, as he himself was one of them. They were at the lowest ebb, debased, oppressed, hated, feared, and persecuted. He was the nearest man to royalty, and fitted in mind and manners and opportunity to enjoy all that was in and of the world in that day. But he read the sorrows and shame and sufferings of Israel in the light of God's choice, and the intentions of His goodness for a day of power and glory; and he saw the pleasures and pride and pomp in the same light which wrote death and judgment on all as alien from God and hostile to His nature, will, and plan. This is faith; and it was that of Moses, and facts made it clear in due time. For as he went out to his brethren and saw their burdens, he saw an Egyptian smiting one of them, and smote him, supposing that his brethren understood that God by his hand was giving them deliverance. In this he was premature, as fleshly zeal mingled with his faith; and he and they had to learn experimentally ere deliverance came. The day following taught him a serious lesson, when he would have reconciled two as they strove: vainly appealing to them as brethren when he that did his neighbour wrong, as usual, thrust Moses away as more intolerable still!  Yet God made the repulsed peacemaker a ruler, judge, and deliverer.

Here however it is faith which is notified, as not only refusing the grandest associations of the world but, harder still when the people of God were so unworthy in their own spirit and ways, choosing to share ill-usage with them rather than to have temporary enjoyment of sin, were it glossed over not only as position in a court quite unsought, and the duty of gratitude to a benefactress, but with prudent regard for the interests of his brethren, as well as the plea of providence rarely heard under trial, rarely missing when flesh and blood are flattered. When will saints learn that God tries the heart now, and often allows overtures most alluring to test not conscience only but the heart purified by faith? If therefore thine eye be single, said the Saviour, thy whole body shall be full of light; and no man call serve two masters. We have to seek first God's kingdom and His righteousness, "deeming"" (as Moses did) "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of* Egypt" (verse 26). It is faith's reckoning which is sure of the end, and thus makes the narrow path pleasant as well as safe. "For he was looking away unto the recompense."

* It is scarce needful to point out how superior in moral force is the critical reading "of Egypt" ( D E K L P) to the Text. Rec. or Lachmann's strangely elliptical form.

But here it is not without importance to remark that the reward, even in glory, is never the motive which wins the heart to God, but His grace in Christ, when nothing but this could suit God or save us. It is only grace that puts us in our true place or gives God His place. Grace does both fully, whilst it maintains the truth from first to last. But when grace has called us, looking away to the recompense comes in happily and mightily to encourage the heart in the path of trial. Otherwise it would be a balance of other-worldliness set against this world, playing into thoughts of self at bottom, to the exclusion of Christ's will and glory.

The faith which rises above difficulties, and is strong in the power of God in face of the apparently overwhelming and adverse resources of man, is next set out.

"By faith he forsook Egypt, not afraid of the wrath of the king; for he persevered as seeing the Invisible" (verse 27).

It is the more striking and instructive, because we know at first how far it was otherwise. Then he consulted his eyes and "looked this way and that way; and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid hint in the sand." When an unjust and heartless Israelite gave him soon to learn that it was no secret, "Moses feared and said, Surely this thing is known" (Ex. 2: 12-14). Such is the most heroic man, that no flesh may glory; but he that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. So we see in one that seemed to be a pillar and was named of the Lord honourably in accordance: yet did Peter fail miserably wherein he was most confident, and grace, when natural force was gone, intervened to effect all he vainly hoped in himself and let him know long beforehand that so it would be for his cheer. How wholesome these lessons are! For the believer too readily assumes that he acts in faith when he is trusting his own thoughts and feelings, and so falls under rebuke. We need to look to and lean on the Lord habitually and in detail. So did Moses at length when he forsook Egypt, not, afraid of the wrath of the king. The great secret is added; for he persevered as seeing the Unseeable. It is something to realise that He sees me; but there is far more in my seeing Him.

"By faith he [lit. hath] instituted the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them, By faith they passed through the Red Sea as through dry [land]; of which the Egyptians made trial and were swallowed up" (verses 28, 29).

A previous difficulty is now faced, the most solemn which can arise between God and the creature; for it is about sin. And the creature when awakened owns its sins, and accepts now in faith His judgment of them as He reveals it; while unbelief palliates and puts off till destruction falls. This was the question raised for Israel in view of Jehovah smiting the firstborn throughout Egypt. Were not the sons of Israel obnoxious too? Could God slur over sin in their favour? Impossible: God cannot deny Himself. Sin must be judged, adequately in His eyes. Thus only can He righteously secure from judgment, which otherwise must surprise the guilty to, their inevitable ruin.

Therefore was the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood. Its standing value lay not in the mere rite, but in the truth it attested; for its most unique feature, the putting of the blood upon the door posts, was never repeated. What a witness to the one offering which avails for ever, in the midst of a system of many and manifold sacrifices till He came whose death vindicated and fulfilled all! Sin was only judged with absolute perfection in the Lamb of God; and herein was God glorified.

So here "When I see the blood, I will pass over you." Jehovah then executed judgment (pledge on a small scale of what is to be complete by-and-by); and the seen blood of the lamb staid His hand. He that destroyed the firstborn did not touch those who hid it for a token on their houses. Faith is not our estimate of the Lamb's blood, but rests on God's perfect estimate. How blessed for every believer!

But God has given us more comfort still, though nothing can be morally deeper than what the Passover expresses. In it, however, God was judging sin and kept outside by the sprinkled blood. But in Christ's death and resurrection we have more: God intervening manifestly as Saviour, and not only as Judge. He turned the waters of death which overwhelm the enemy into ramparts of victory, where He is for us in van and rear. Such is the force of the Red Sea typically: not God staid and kept outside by the Lamb's blood, but now, with that basis laid, His power on our behalf in Christ dead and risen. We believe on Him that raised up from the dead our Lord Jesus, who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification. The type of redemption was not complete till the passage of the Red Sea was added to the Passover.

Many souls stop short at the Passover and lose consequently the assurance of God for them. No doubt it is faith, but "the gospel of our salvation" goes farther, and they should receive it simply and heartily. So even, in the type of Exodus, however safe Israel was on the paschal night, only at the Red Sea do we hear "Stand still, and see the salvation of Jehovah." Truly Jehovah "saved that day." Salvation in the gospel sense goes far beyond safety or life, though many to their own loss make it less — and how does not Christ's work in death and resurrection suffer unwitting disparagement thereby? The word of truth corrects all defects of ignorance or of prejudice.

How impressive too is the Holy Spirit's allusion to the Egyptians essaying to cross the Red Sea and drowned. It is just what a large form of unbelief answers to in Christendom. They have adopted the idea of salvation, and we may add of heaven, and strive without faith, without Christ, in their natural state, to claim the hope — at any rate on a deathbed. We do not hear of a single Egyptian sprinkling his door-post with a lamb's blood. People would like to be saved, without confessing their sins or God's judgment of them in the cross of Christ, which is the sole righteous ground of their remission. There could have been no triumph for Israel across the Red Sea without the Passover which preceded.

It is instructive to observe, how the passage of the Jordan is entirely omitted in this Epistle which notices so many persons and facts in the line of faith; how notably the Red Sea is crossed by the sons of Israel. The omission of the one is as characteristic of the truth in hand as the mention of the other. They both illustrate the divine wisdom of inspiration as carrying out the design of God, often if not always beyond the cognisance of the writer. Thus is all scripture truly God's word. If the Jordan had to be introduced in any of the Epistles, that to the Ephesians would have been the place; as in fact the last chapter does distinctly allude to the main scope of the Book of Joshua, the anti-type to Jewish conflicts with the Canaanites. But this is not the theme here, which has in its foreground the wilderness and the tabernacle, and the High Priest, and the sacrifices, especially that of the day of Atonement. Here therefore the Passover and the Red Sea have an all-important and emphatic place, because they present in figure redemption as far as it is accomplished, not yet of course that of the body or of the purchased possession. It is not only shelter under the Lamb's blood, but bringing out to God from the power of the oppressor. Those who hitherto had been slaves were set free to hold a feast to their Deliverer in the wilderness. The answer to these shadows of the past is in the death and resurrection of Christ, who was delivered up for our offences and was raised for our justification. On this, grounded of course on His personal glory, rests the doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews unfolding Christ in the presence of God on high for its.

But the Epistle to the Ephesians goes higher and brings out our death and resurrection with Christ, and characteristically our being seated in the heavenlies in Him. In the Passover God was a Judge, in the Red Sea a Saviour; He brought Israel not only to be screened from inescapable judgment but to Himself by a deliverance manifest and complete. So for the believer it was His work in Christ dead and risen for us. But in Ephesians we learn that, when we were dead in offences and sins, God quickened us together with Christ and raised us up together, and seated us together in the heavenlies in Him. This is what Jordan prefigures: not redemption, completed at the Red Sea, the figure of His death and resurrection for us, but our death and resurrection with Him and our place in Him on high before we are actually with Him. Hence conflict follows in its season with the principalities and the world-rulers of this darkness — in short, the spiritual (hosts) of wickedness in the heavenlies. This clearly answers to the main contents of the Book of Joshua; not the future rest in heavenly glory, but our wrestling against the wiles of the devil who would hinder our taking possession (in the Spirit of Christ) of our heavenly privileges now, as one with Christ above. Here Puritanism failed no less than Catholic tradition. Neither Augustine nor Chrysostom surpassed John Bunyan or John Owen. Nor were Bishops Hall or Jer. Taylor quite equal to the learned or unlearned nonconformists.

Although therefore it fell not within the divine plan to develop here what we find thereby elsewhere, two illustrations of the power of faith follow of deep interest.

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell, having been compassed for seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with the disobedient, having received the spies with peace" (verses 30, 31).

Jericho was the first city that confronted the host of Jehovah; it was the key of the land, and a fenced town with a wall such as to admit of a house upon it. It was of all moment that Israel entering on the promised land should learn, that, however they might have to fight, victory depended on Jehovah, and their place was unqualified obedience of His word with confidence in His power. Hence the directions were such as tried the faith of His people and cast them wholly on His intervention; nothing could be devised less reasonable to the eyes or mind of man. The circuit of the city made once for six days by the men of war, following seven priests blowing seven trumpets of rams' horns after the ark, was a strange sight to the warriors within, each day increasing their scorn. Then came the seventh day with its seven circuits, and the long blast of rams' horns followed by the loud shout of all the people. Who ever heard of a siege so conducted? Yet was it suited above all to impress not Israel only but their enemies, that He was there to make them more than conquerors. For the city wall fell down in its place, so that the people went up into the city, each straight before him, and took Jericho devoted to utter destruction. It was evidently and unmistakably before Jehovah, prince of His host. It was only His doing in power; it was theirs in faith subject to His word. It is ours to notice, to believe, and obey now.

And this was the very time when grace wrought conspicuously, where no man could have looked for it, if God had not revealed it there. "By faith Rahab the harlot perished not with those that were disobedient, having received the spies with peace." The people of Jericho were no more ignorant of Jehovah's doings in the midst of Israel than Rahab. "I know (said she to the spies before the approach of Israel) that Jehovah hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you. For we have heard how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea before you, when ye came out of Egypt, and what ye did to the two kings of the Amorites," etc. Grace wrought in this disreputable woman, and gave her to believe the bond of goodness on Jehovah's part with a people utterly unworthy. Grace found not but produced in her the fruit of righteousness by faith, and gave her a place in Israel, Gentile though she was, in the direct line of David the kin(, and so of One incomparably greater, at once David's Son and David's Lord. If the king and the people as a whole perished, it was not through ignorance but disobedience of the testimony which she believed, and because of which she risked her life, receiving the spies with peace. For real faith is energetic and dares to please God in the face of death, deaf also to the pleas of nature and the reasonings of unbelief. Therefore has she her place, not only in the noble army of faith here, but with Abraham himself in the record of the works of faith in the Epistle of James. But these works. were not what men call "good," they were καλὰ (comely) rather than ἀγαθά (benevolent). They were works which were not only impossible without faith, but owed all their virtue to faith; for apart from faith Abraham's act would have been heartless murder in its worst shape, as Rahab's would have been treason against her king and country.

After Rahab the Holy Spirit leads to a summary of the faithful without drawing out individual cases as before.

"And what more do I say? For the time will fail me relating of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah; of David too,* and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped lions' mouths, quenched fire's might, escaped sword's edge, were strengthened from weakness, became powerful in war, turned to flight camps of aliens. Women† received their dead by resurrection, and others were racked, not accepting their deliverance (or redemption), that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and scourgings yea, and of bonds and imprisonment" (verses 32-36).

*Later editors reject the copula after David on small but ancient authority.

† Lachmann adopts here the evident blunder of A Dp.m. (to which we can now add p.m.) which strangely made "women," not the subject as it is, but the object, and, stranger still, in apposition with "their dead."

It is remarkable and surely not without purpose that historical order is not observed in the names enumerated, any more than in the acts or sufferings of faith which follow. Thus in time Barak comes before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before David; and again the known instances of lions' mouths stopped, and of fire's might quenched, were long after women received their dead by resurrection; as others making trial of mockings and scourgings, and bonds and prison were before the conspicuous cases of those racked or tortured, refusing the deliverance they might have had, that they might obtain a better resurrection.

In the Judges as they are called, who succeeded Joshua before the kingdom, faith shone in times of crisis during the ever-advancing declension; and individuality becomes prominent. Gideon's faith stands justly before that of Barak who shared it with another — a woman — to his reproof; and the captain of a freebooting troop has no such place in divine history, as the mighty Nazarite, morally feeble though he was, alone against the Philistines at their zenith. Had he been truly separate, instead of guiltily seeking marriage and evil intercourse with the enemy, what had not God wrought by him! But what a proof of the state of Israel, that all the witness for Jehovah their God then hung on that most failing man! Still Jephthah, especially by his terribly rash vow, so clouded the testimony of faith that one cannot wonder he finds here a place after Samson. It is impossible, if there be any force in what is now suggested, to accept the view that Jephthah, David, and Samuel constitute a second group as compared with the previous three, on the common text which shows a connective particle after Barak, as there really is after David.

It would appear most correct that David only is thus distinguished, to introduce a new character, and Samuel named after him not only as less marked but to connect him with the prophets. Compare Acts 3: 24; Acts 13: 20. For notwithstanding dark blots, none was so conspicuous a type of Messiah in both His sufferings and the glory of the Kingdom.

In what follows verse 32, where in allies begin to disappear, we have the converse of the earlier order in our chapter. For examples of the power of faith are first given in verses 33, 34, and the first clause of 35, while the patience of faith is celebrated thenceforward. The introductory "who" passes from those already mentioned down to the latest times of O.T. inspiration if not later still.

We need not particularise, where the scripture before us recounts only signal acts without further specification. But it may be profitable to remark that the energy of faith in subduing kingdoms, being made strong in war, and putting to flight armies or camps of aliens, however in keeping with the time which preceded the gospel, is in no way the model of what the Christian is now called to. Working righteousness must ever rule for man on earth, even when "promises" shall be fully accomplished instead of "obtained" as of old, miracles or no miracles, such as lions' mouths stopped, fire's might quenched, or the edge of the sword escaped. "Made strong out of weakness" has quite a different application in ordinary Christian experience from its meaning of old as here referred to. The ground of our difference is plain. Grace is now revealed and reigns as it did not till Christ came, died, rose, and took His seat in heaven. This, as the N.T. shows throughout, chances the whole state of things. To faith old things are passed; new are come. Who can wonder that believes the grand truth even of personal privilege, through Christ dead, risen, and ascended? If one is in Christ, he is a new creation, though the body awaits His coming to change it to the likeness of His glory. But already even it is the Holy Spirit's temple. Our bodies are Christ's members. With this go new and heavenly relationships and responsibilities. We are not of the world as Christ was not, and we are called to suffer with joy from earthly enemies as He did, our conflict being with the spiritual powers of darkness on high.

After the transitional first clause of verse 35, we find an array of sufferings in which faith triumphed of old. Here is what is more akin to what the Christian may have to face at various times and places.

If the sketch of suffering in faith is pursued still further in these verses, it is the Spirit of God delighting to set out the endurance of the saints for the truth's sake in the worst of times, to encourage souls thus persecuted after Christ came, which Jewish disciples least of all expected. The solution of the enigma lay in His coming again, we who now follow filling up the cap chiefly, though not exclusively, as the prophetic part of the Revelation clearly shows Hence verses 39, 40 point out the connection and withal distinction of the Christian calling, that no intelligent saint might confound things which differ not a little, whatever their partial agreement.

They were stoned, were tempted, were sawn asunder;* they died by slaughter of sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, evil-entreated (of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and dens and the caves of the earth. And these all, having been witnessed of through their faith, received not the promise, God having foreseen some better thing for (or, concerning) us, that apart from us they should not be perfected" (verses 37-40).

* The order differs in MSS. Dgr. L P, etc., have "tempted" before "sawn," the rest in the more common way.

Stoning was a punishment enjoined by the law for Jews guilty of idolatry, blasphemy, or other forms of profane rebellion against Jehovah. Hence the peculiar enormity of the death of Naboth and of Zechariah, the wickedness being wholly in those high in authority who perverted it to hurt saints. Nor can we conceive ordinarily a grosser and more daring wrong than that the pious should suffer the death of impiety at the hands of impious rulers, whether by crafty falsehood or in ungovernable rage.

"Tempted" has perplexed the commentators. Some, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the text, have dared to invent readings out of their own heads; as the Syriac (Pesch.)* has wholly dropped it. No believer ought to question the wisdom of God in giving so striking a place to a sort of trial peculiarly dangerous to certain souls, as the history of even Christian martyrs recalls to mind: some inflexibly resisting at all cost; others alas! that had run well yielding to their shame; some again, who did yield strengthened to suffer triumphantly at last.

* The Philoxenian Syr. Version fails after verse 27.

"Sawn asunder" was indeed a brutality unknown to the Levitical institutions. David was in a wretched state when he dealt thus savagely with the Ammonite prisoners; as the Syrians retorted at a later day with the inhabitants of Gilead. That the heathen should be cruel was no wonder; but it ill became the generous king, himself long schooled in adversity. Power and prosperity proved greater dangers than to be hunted for his blood by his royal father-in-law.

Massacre by the sword was a common death for the prophets in Israel, if we only hear of Urijah thus slain in Judah.

Next follows the more prolonged suffering in life of those who for one reason or another were not slain. "They went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, evil-entreated:" to some a still more trying test of their faith than if suddenly despatched, whether law or violence might do the deed. The apostle himself had experience of both beyond most — perhaps all. But so it was when the faithful had not the same privileges.

Still before or after Christ the substantial fact remains: God has ever had a line of sufferers that believed. And it was their faith which made them objects of dislike and persecution. Nor was it so much their denunciation of the world, its pursuits, pleasures, iniquities, or impieties, but the most quiet and most telling of all testimonies — separation from it to God and His word. Now we can add distinct and positive witness of Christ crucified, yet glorified. This is above all things offensive, especially when backed by the solemn assurance of His coming to judge the world, but surely (as being true) due in love and compassion to it as to His glory, too. Hence the deepest hatred underneath the placid pretensions of today's liberalism. But it will break out afresh, as the Revelation proves. They are those whom the world cannot overcome, say or do what it may. "Of whom the world was not worthy," though they were counted unworthy of a place in it or even of life. But, as has been said, in condemning them it condemned itself; and God forgets neither.

Hence they were outcasts often, roaming in deserts and mountains, and dens and the caves or chinks of the earth. How this was repeated in pagan and papal persecutions since the Epistle was written needs no evidence here. In the world's eyes they were implacable and impracticable. Nothing won them, wealth, ease, or honour; nothing subdued them, detraction, hatred, prison, or death. They refuse present glory, They remember who was crucified and by whom; they await His day and see it approaching.

"And these all, having been testified of through their faith, received not the promise, God having foreseen some better thing for (or, about) us, that they apart from us should not be perfected."

Whatever the differing circumstances, enemies, or sufferings of these saints, this is true of them all. However attested through their faith, and receiving promises to sustain them they did not receive the promise fulfilled, for which all wait. For God had meanwhile to bring in a new and better thing on our behalf, while Christ, having been rejected, is at the right hand of God on high. Hence, though the ground was laid for all blessing when Christ came the first time, the fulfilment of all awaits His coming again; and when God's provision for us is complete, they will be perfected, not before.

Verses 39, 40 are all the more striking because they are the conclusion of a chapter remarkable for the honour which the Spirit of God puts on the faith of God's witnesses from the beginning of the O.T. But there is the preliminary correction of the Jewish tendency to begin with Abraham and confine their regard to the father and the sons of the chosen people. Abel, Enoch, and Noah occupy each a bright place in the goodly roll. Again, at the close still more care is taken to impress on the Hebrew believers the special privileges peculiar to the Christian. This the Spirit itself throughout shows that they had not as yet duly estimated; and even those who had once known it are apt, under stress of trial and little faith, to forget if not slight it,. Where these new blessings have never been understood by divine teaching, how common it is to hear objectors ask, Do you mean to say that such as you are more blessed than faithful Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Is your portion richer than that of Moses or Joshua? Of Samuel or David? Of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Daniel? Such thoughts quite overlook the incalculable change brought in by the world's rejection of the Christ the Son of God; by the redemption He accomplished for those who believe; by His glorification at God's right hand is the pledge of ours; by the Holy Spirit sent down meanwhile to abide in us as unction, seal, and earnest.

The apostle does not here enter into the details by the way, but he does allude to the incomparable riches of grace now made ours through Christ's cross, and displayed in Him risen and seated in heaven. These the objectors ignore in the unbelief which would reduce all to a dead level, and leave no room for the working of sovereign grace to the praise of the crucified Lord of glory, and of the Spirit's personal indwelling presence to reveal divine counsels previously hidden. That "God foresaw some better thing for us," as compared with all that of old obtained witness through faith, is thus briefly summed up. There are other Epistles which develop our heavenly standing in Christ yet more than this to the Hebrews.

But what could any saint of the O.T. have made of such language as we find given here throughout? He "having made the purification of sins sat down on the right hand of the Majesty, on high"(Heb. 1: 3)."Both he that sanctifieth and the sanctified [are] all of one" (Heb. 2: 11). "Christ as Son over his house, whose house are we, if indeed we hold fast the boldness and the boast of hope firm to the end" (Heb. 3: 6). "Having therefore a great high priest, passed as he is through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession" (Heb. 4: 14). "Though he were Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered, and having been perfected, became author of everlasting salvation to all that obey him" (Heb. 5: 8, 9). "Anchor of the soul both secure and firm, and entering within the veil where Jesus entered, forerunner for us, became high priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 6: 19, 20). "Such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, made higher than the heavens" (Heb. 7: 26). "Now he hath obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is mediator of a better covenant, such as hath been established on better promises" (Heb. 8: 6). He "by his own blood entered once for all into the holies, having found an everlasting redemption" (Heb. 9: 12).

These wondrous facts of His atoning work and priestly office involve commensurate blessings for those to whom they are now made known. Take this example from Heb. 10: 2: "the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins." How could any saint before redemption have conceived such a boon? The difficulty is to find one since apostolic days who really appropriates truth so opposed to natural thought. Another from verse 19 of the same chapter may suffice: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness for the entrance of the holies by (or, in) the blood of Jesus, a recent and living way which he dedicated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, and a great priest over the house of God, let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, as our hearts have been sprinkled from a wicked conscience, and our body washed with pure water," etc. Truly if these known blessings had been all, God provided "some better thing for us," which the most intelligent saint before Christ's work was done and the Holy Spirit given, could not even have apprehended.

But God was pleased for His own glory, and to the honour of His crucified and exalted Son, thus to bless believers now, as those of old were not nor could be. Meanwhile His heirs and Christ's joint-heirs are being called according to purpose, before the Lord comes, when we and all the O.T. saints shall be perfected in the likeness of His body of glory, and go to meet Him on high.

Hebrews 12

The distinctly hortative part of the Epistle now follows, though we have had exhortation interspersed almost from the first. But henceforth it greatly predominates with weighty words of instruction also in both the closing chapters. The object throughout is to deepen the faith of those used to religious objects of sight, to establish souls in the unseen and heavenly through the word and Spirit of God, and to unfold Christ's glory in person, work, and offices. He is here accordingly introduced not as the object of faith as before, but as the Leader, fulness, and crown of all who from the first trod the path of faith here below.

"Wherefore let us also, having so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, lay aside every weight and the readily besetting sin, and run with endurance the race set before us, looking off unto Jesus the leader and perfecter of faith; who for the joy lying before him endured crucifixion, despising shame, and is set down at right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that hath endured such contradiction by the sinners against himself, that ye be not wearied, fainting in your souls" (verses 1-3).

The witnesses who lie all around are those described and summarised in the chapters before, not spectators of us as some have unintelligently imagined, but men that obtained testimony from God in virtue of faith. Now and then, here and there, mainly of the chosen people, but carefully shown to have lived and suffered in faith before Abraham, they form a grand cloud, each characterised by some proved fidelity to God's will, a few by more than one, none by more than "the friend of God." But what was he, variously tried and faithful, compared with "Jesus," as this Epistle often and with divine intent calls our Lord? In His path, in His testimony, for this is what is here in question, the light shone full and unrefracted. Its unwavering equality marks its unity of perfection. Yet never had been, never can there be again, such depths and such comprehensiveness of trial, apart from that which it was His alone to bear, in His suffering once for sins. to effect everlasting redemption.

Hence the saints are urged, laying aside as a settled thing every weight and the sin that so besets and entangles them, to run with endurance the race lying before them, looking with full view on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. To be sanctified through the offering of His body is a divine act of grace with an abiding effect (Heb. 10: 10). Reconciliation to God and justification, as in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere, are not a gradual process, like growth or practical holiness. But even in practice we are called on, not to be getting rid of every weight that encumbers and the sin that besets in continuous detail, but to have done with such and all as a fixed principle and an accomplished act. There are habits and superfluities that hinder the Christian, anxious thoughts and cares that oppress and distract the spirit. To run well in such circumstances is as impracticable as if the sin broke out which demands self-judgment and humiliation. Parley is fatal, delay dangerous. Both weights and sin therefore are to be put off absolutely. It is in vain to trust our moral power. We must look away, from every one and every thing without or within, to Him who is as mighty to deliver as He graciously waits on our need. Power is not in the first man but in the Second; and even here, surely we may say, that God is thereby as in all things glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory and the might for the ages of the ages, Amen.

But it is not without importance to understand that our Lord is here presented, not as the objective channel of the grace we ever need, but as the unrivalled leader and completer of faith in the whole extent of its course. "Our" faith misleads, especially with "author and finisher," as if the Holy Spirit were here setting Him forth as beginning faith in our souls and carrying it on to the end, its source and sustainer. Not so: He is viewed as leader and perfecter in the race of faith in its entirety. In that race let us run. It cannot be without endurance any more than faith right through. But "through" or "by means of" endurance is here inadequate. The apostle uses the preposition also to express condition, as in Rom. 2: 27. "With" in this case is right. In a world departed from God the believer's course lies through persecution, detraction, and hatred; and thus he must make his way with endurance or patience.

Herein our Lord was proved to the uttermost: "Who for the joy lying before him endured crucifixion, despising shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Compare Matt. 11 at the end, and John 13: 31, 32; 14, 17, as testimony of the joy in His view; but love, yea the Father's glory, was His motive, however the future joy cheered Him along the way. Even for us it is the same thing in principle; and the new nature, in the knowledge of God and His Son, renders us capable of it. Reward, however glorious, is never the motive; yet is it most animating in the face of danger and trial.

"Crucifixion is here used to express the character of what the Lord endured, as we cannot say "cross" in English without an article, though we can speak of "shame" in being despised. The answer to it is His seat at the right hand of the throne of God. The suffering and the glorious issue are alike His only. No one sits there but Himself who vindicated the glory of God compromised utterly by man. Now is man in His person set on an immutable foundation by the death of the cross. God is glorified in Him, as He glorified Him in Himself, and this immediately, without waiting for the day when the world-kingdom of Him and His Christ shall come. The Son of man is set down at the right hand of God's throne. He has carried manhood into that glory whence He came down in love to do the will of God, accomplished redemption, and gone back again in God's righteousness which we are made in Him.

Therefore the word is, "consider him that hath endured such gainsaying, or contradiction, by the sinners against himself, that ye be not wearied, fainting in your souls." To flag is a great danger, and never excusable; for there He sits to cheer and bless who once endured such gainsaying as none other did or could. They were sinners against themselves undoubtedly, as read the Sinaitic and the Clermont MSS., etc. But the far more solemn fact is that they were "the sinners against himself," who endured all in love to win them to God. Who ever met with a people (His people!) so rebellious? Disciples so fearful and cowardly? Betrayed by one, denied by another, deserted by all the most trusted! It was not only that sinners contradicted, or that saints fled, but God Himself forsook, as it must be if sin was to be judged fully. O, how little have the saints to weary them in comparison! and why faint in their souls who see Him on high, their sacrifice and priest, life, righteousness, and glory?

From persecution causing saints to suffer the transition is easy to the needed discipline of our God as the Father of spirits.

"Not yet did ye resist unto blood, contending against sin; and ye have quite forgotten the exhortation such as discourseth with you as with sons, My son, despise not Jehovah's chastening, nor faint when convicted by him; for whom Jehovah* loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. For† chastening ye endure: God is dealing with you as sons. For what son [is]‡ he whom a father chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastening, of which all have been made partakers, then ye are bastards and not sons" (verses 4-8).

* "Lord" here means Jehovah, and therefore excludes the article in Greek.

† εἰς A D K L P and some 50 cursives (the Vat. B. and Rescript of Paris, C, failing); εἰ has but some cursives, Euthal-Cod. and Theophylact, all the ancient Vv, and Ff. being adverse.

‡ In A P, etc., ἐστὶν is not expressed.

There is danger of relaxation and shirking the consequences of fidelity to the Lord and the truth. It was very far otherwise with Him, who, when He had finished His work of living testimony, Himself the substance of it necessarily alike from His glory and His love in humiliation, gave Himself up as willing captive and victim, that the will of God might be done in every way to His glory. But the saints were not yet resisting unto blood, whatever had been the case with some in early days of whom we hear in the Acts of the Apostles. And they had utterly forgotten the, fatherly exhortation such as speaks to us in the Proverbs, as to sons expressly. It has a two-fold character that we should neither despise the divine chastening, nor faint when so dealt with. He never causes a needless tear; He acts towards us in perfect love. Can we not trust Him? Contending against sin in an evil world entails suffering, and in the same suffering without chastisement. But they may and do sometimes coalesce; and in every case we wrong Him who watches over us in love, if we either slight His hand or repine under it. How often His action which calls us to suffer is to guard us from what would grieve the Holy Spirit of God, rather than because we have sinned! And it is happy for us when it is so. He who was employed to write to these Christian Hebrews knew it in his own experience better than any other, though many in their measure have proved how true it is still. So in the Gospel of John our Lord speaks of His Father purging every branch of the Vine that bears fruit, in order that it might bear more fruit. We need to believe His word that we may interpret His dealings aright.

The commonly received text which substitutes the conditional "if" (εἰ) for the preposition "for" (εἰς) is an unquestionable mistake, resting on few and late witnesses opposed to weight and antiquity, and due apparently to a presumed simplifying of the clause. Tischendorf who had wavered returned to the true reading, as do all critics who adhere to diplomatic evidence, unless a motive for chance were probable. Here the motive wrought the other way in the modern copies; for it seemed to balance the seventh verse better with the eighth. Whereas in fact the ancient reading preserves the application of the O.T. citation simply and with far more directness and energy. Erasmus led the way wrongly, following a Greek MS. of not much value, and others followed the Dutch scholar. The Vulgate too had the mistranslation of in disciplina," which should of course have been the accusative as in its Fulgentian copy. The Velesian forgery made the Greek to match the error. The sense is, Not for harm but for good, for chastening ye endure. It is the unfailing portion and token of God's family here below. Therefore the challenge follows, What son is there whom a father chastens not? To be without such dealing, of which all have become partakers, would rather warrant the inference of being spurious, not legitimate sons.

How blessed for the believer that as grace saved, so it abides; not in the least to hinder the moral government of God, but to bind up inseparably His holy watchful oversight and discipline of our souls with His unfailing love! Easily might we all, as many a one through unbelief does, misunderstand His ways in chastening us, as if they indicated nothing but His displeasure and our own danger of course still; and the more, because of having tasted in a small measure that He is gracious. But such a doubt really wrongs both His love and His truth, and loses sight, of the relationship He has established between Himself and us, and of His faithfulness if we have to mourn any faithlessness to Him. It is utterly a mistake that, where life is, a bright sense of His unchanging grace, even in scourging every son whom He receives, enfeebles our practical devotedness to His will. On the contrary, His word calls on every child of His to cherish confidence in His grace, as our standing before Him (Rom. 5: 2; Heb. 12: 28; 1 Peter 5: 12), that we may the more deeply judge ourselves, our inconsistencies, and our failures. So even the irreverent and careless Corinthian saints were told that we are chastened by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world; as all unbelievers must be, for their works are only evil, and faith in God null.

The general principle and the necessity for present chastening, have been shown which every Jew would but recognise as a familiar truth from that great repository of divine wisdom applied to the life on earth, the Book of Proverbs, so characterised throughout by the O.T. title of relationship. Certainly this is not enfeebled but deepened by the more intimate name in which God has now revealed Himself by and in His Son. Here, however, all as to this is intentionally general. It was through the Gospel and Epistles of John that the Holy Spirit brought out the Father In relation, and the divine nature in all the fulness of God.

Now we have a development, closely connected with and following up what has been already considered. "Further, we used to have fathers of our flesh as chasteners, and to pay reverence: shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they for a few days chastened as seemed good to them; but he for profit in order to the partaking of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be of joy but of grief; but afterward it yieldeth peaceful fruit of righteousness to those that have been exercised thereby" (verses 9-11).

These words appeal to what nature itself teaches to be inherent in the relationship of father and son. We could not but know in our own experience, when the folly bound up with the heart of a child had to meet a father's discipline. Yet did we stand in awe of them. Thus has God constituted man. Shall we not then be much more in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? For this is a grand aim of the Epistle; not only faith in the person, work, and offices of Christ, but living by faith, instead of drawing back: so Heb. 10 urges, and Heb. 11 illustrates, crowned by the beginning of Heb. 12. The superior dignity of the Father of our spirits over the fathers of our flesh is evident; but not more so than the unfailing character of His training, and the worthy end no less sure. Many an earthly father vacillates, some are manifestly unwise and unworthy, none absolutely and in all things reliable; yet we used to pay them, respect during the "few days" of their authoritative training, whatever might be the failures now and then through the infirmities of the flesh. For they could not rise above what "seemed good to them"; and they might be and were mistaken sometimes. Not so the Father of spirits, God alone wise, who is good and does good, acting unerringly for our advantage in order to our partaking of His holiness.

This is a high standard undoubtedly; but it could not be other if He undertakes the charge of us, as He does. Even with His ancient people His word was, Be ye holy, for I am holy; and so the apostle of the circumcision cites and urges on the elect of the dispersion. The same truth our Lord Himself impressed on the disciples when He compared Himself to a vine, the true Vine, His Father to the Husbandman, and them to the branches. Every branch bearing fruit, said He, My Father purgeth, that it may bear more fruit. Here it is the discipline God carries on in every son He receives to Himself. The child-training may seem, while it goes on, not joyous but grievous; but the end is as sure here, and not merely in an after-state, as the loving wisdom that directs it for profit. What can there be comparable (we being what we are, and the world so perilous and unimprovable and ensnaring) to our partaking in His holiness? What a practical privilege!

It may be noticed that Hellenistic literature, in none of its copious and varied remains, uses this word ἅγιότες. Yet is it the simplest derivative that expresses quality from ἅγιος, holy. It occurs in the apocryphal second book of Macc. 15: 2, but is not correctly rendered in the Vulgate, followed by Wiclif and his follower, and the Douay, etc. For "with holiness" qualifies "him who beholds all things," rather than the day forehonoured by Him. Some may not be aware that Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt it in the text of 2 Cor. 1: 12, where others have ἁπλότητι, a word easily confounded with it by a hasty eye. It is adopted without even a marginal question by the Revisers.

Verse 11 closes this part of the subject with the effect of chastening in another form, which is still more nearly akin to John 15. Afterward chastening yields peaceful fruit of righteousness to those that have been exercised by it. God effects the profit in such as have submitted to the trial: it is lost so far as we slight the trial or doubt His love in sending it.

The apostle resumes his exhortation after the episode of divine discipline which had occupied the previous verses, wholesome for any but especially for such as confessed the Lord Jesus from among the Jews. Christianity deepens that personal training which Job opens to us from early days and on the broadest ground; as the Book of Proverbs, which is here applied, carried it home with minute care and sententious wisdom in Israel, where Jehovah's name was known. But the figure is now enlarged, from running the race to the straight paths for the walk, specially desirable for the weak in the way; and we know from Rom. 14, 15 whence these came, and wherein weakness consisted of collision with Gentile brethren who boasted of strength.

"Wherefore lift up the exhausted hands and the enfeebled knees; and make straight paths for your feet, that what is lame be not turned out of the way but rather be healed. Pursue peace with all, and holiness without which no one shall see the Lord; watching, lest any one lack the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble [you] and through it many* be defiled; lest [there be] any fornicator or profane person as Esau, who for one meal sold his birthright. For ye know that, even when afterwards wishing to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place for repentance) though he sought it earnestly with tears" (verses 12-17).

* A few very ancient witnesses give "the" many: so in Mark 6: 2; Mark 9: 26.

We see here the all-importance of faith for the walk, as Heb. 11 had illustrated from of old, and the Epistle throughout had urged as the spring of power and hinge of blessing for the Christian. It is failure in this respect that exposes to all feebleness; and confidence in God and the word of His grace is. what kindles the spark into a steady flame. To sight the Jews were peculiarly prone from their system and the thought it. nourished disposed them to look for immediate effects and displayed power. As Greeks seek wisdom or philosophy, Jews ask for signs; and this was apt to affect unconsciously the baptised; for disappointed expectations which had no warrant from the truth left them jaded, weary, and weak. Hence the call to restore the exhausted hands and enfeebled knees; and to make straight paths for their feet, that what was lame should not turn aside but rather be healed. The joy of present love and of future glory are set before us with the strongest assurance; the needed sorrow in our experience is turned into blessing by the way; and our chastening shown to be the fruit of divine love for profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness who loves us. For so we read here of that which we are apt to regard only in the light of requirement. Such is the object and end of His discipline for profit of the best kind.

But if His love be lost sight of, the hands hang down and the knees are paralysed. Faith has no energy save in the confidence of His grace. So it is everywhere as a matter of teaching from Romans to Hebrews, and from Hebrews to the Revelation. It was always true; it is clear as light since Christ came. He Himself is the unflagging witness of it in sufferings beyond all comparison. And none can forget it without immediate loss.

Further, the word is "pursue" (which is stronger than "follow") "peace with all and the holiness without which none shall see the Lord" (verse 14). Having peace with God through our Lord Jesus, we are exhorted to seek it diligently in practice, where there are so many sources of disagreement; and this not only with one another but with all. God Himself is the God of peace; and His children are to reflect His character. But there is a still more imperative warning attached to the exhortation to "holiness," "without (or, apart from) which none shall see the Lord." Here it is ἁγιασμός, not merely the quality in its abstract form, but in its action or its result as applied to us; and so found throughout the N.T. (Rom. 6: 19, 22; 1 Cor. 1: 30; 1 Thess. 4: 3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2: 13; 1 Tim. 2: 15; and 1 Peter 1: 2). There is nothing to alarm the most timid in this, more than in all the scriptures which insist on conformity to God's will in all that are His (Rom. 2: 7-11; 1 Cor. 9, 10, 1 Cor. 9: 27; Gal. 5: 19, 20, Gal. 6: 7, 8; Eph. 5: 5-7; Titus 2: 12, Titus 3: 8; 1 Peter 1: 14, 1 Peter 2: 3; 2 Peter 1, 2, 3; 1 John 2, 3; Jude; Rev. 21: 8, Rev. 22: 15).

This is only strengthened by what follows: "Looking to it lest any one lack (or, fall short of) the grace of God." Without the heart's resting on His grace and consequently on Christ and His work, all is vain; because all is man, and fallen man, presuming otherwise to seek acceptance with God. In such a condition there never can be an adequate sense of sin any more than of holiness. Grace, the grace of God, enables the soul to judge itself unsparingly, and to delight in the unsullied nature of God. because it gives in Christ the life which suits God perfectly, and the propitiation which blots out our sins. This indeed is love, not ours (though we do love) but His in its blessed fulness. It is sovereign grace; of which souls fall short, who dare to approach God in virtue of their own doings or of acts done for them by mortal man, to both of which Israel had recourse, perhaps as much as the heathen.

If self-righteousness be excluded, and outward rites be in lieu of Christ, more evidently hateful to God is "any root of 'bitterness" which springing up should trouble, and thereby the many or mass be defiled. For such is the effect of evil, as is shown in 1 Cor. 5 and Gal. 5 under the figure of leaven, as here by a root of bitterness. It might take a variety of forms; and here we have specified carnal impurity and profanity, both intolerable where God is and is known. Of the latter evil Esau is the instance, who for one meal sold his birthright. Every Hebrew was familiar with a tale humbling indeed for all concerned; but Esau stood on unhallowed ground, where God's promise yet more was despised than any such birthright. What a warning to those Hebrews in danger of giving up incomparably better blessings with Him whose kingdom did not immediately appear, as they fondly hoped! It was not repentance that Esau earnestly sought with tears, but the blessing which his father even had wished wrongly to alienate from Jacob, the heir designated of Jehovah from before their birth.

From the unbelieving, despisal of grace in Esau and from its sad issue, we turn on the one hand to a tremendous yet undeniable view of the law with its menacingly fatal accompaniments, and on the other to a comprehensive assemblage of the bright objects which grace will effect and display, into which faith even now introduces those who believe. Both parts of the contrast powerfully carry on the argument and aim of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Were any disposed to slip away from Christianity and return to the Levitical system of their fathers? Here they are invited to look on the two sides of the picture sketched by the unerring hand of the Holy Spirit, where every element is derived from scriptures which no Jew could dispute. 2 Cor. 3 gave a similar antithesis admirably suited to enlighten and admonish the church of God in the capital of Achaia, where Jewish boasting was at work to act on those who came from the Gentiles. Here the mode of dealing is not less skilfully directed to warn and win those of Israel who were tempted to return to Judaism. Let us look at the dark side which comes first.

"For ye have not approached to [a mount]* palpable and aglow with fire, and to gloom and darkness and tempest, and a trumpet's sound and voice of words, which [voice] they that heard entreated that no word more should be addressed to them; for they could not endure what was charged: And if so much as a beast touch the mount, it shall be stoned; and, so fearful was the appearance, Moses said, I am affrighted and trembling all over" (verses 18-21).

*The best and most ancient witnesses omit ὄρει here, which is understood from verse 22, where the positive object is found. But Mr. T. S. Green goes so far as to give up the contrast of the two mountains, and has, "You have come to a fire touched," etc.

The Christian position is not the Jewish one improved, but contrasted with it distinctly and fully. Israel did approach to Sinai. There they received the law in which they boasted over the Gentiles who know not God, who have no polity from Him nor covenant with Him. As for the nations, their judgment and their dignity proceeded from themselves. Might and craft were their deities, with demons behind them. Therefore they sacrificed to their net, and burnt to their drag. The Jew, instructed out of the law, was sure he himself was a guide of the blind and a light of those in darkness; whereas in truth through his transgression of the law he habitually dishonoured God. The name of God was blasphemed among the Gentiles because of the Jews, as their prophets attested.

But here we are given to see God in the most solemn way at Sinai intimating the end from the beginning. The law of God is and must be crushing to the pretensions of man as he is; for Israel were sinners as others, and the law could only be to such a ministry of death and condemnation. If law be the ground of action, how could God acquit the guilty? Here therefore our attention is drawn to the entire scene from the first as one of the most awful signs on God's part, of abject terror on His people's. The mount to which their fathers had approached was palpable, like the rest of their system; but, more than that, it was all aglow with fire, the symbol of God's destructive judgment. And, adding to the horror, gloom was there and darkness and tempest, not light and peace serene and bright but just the opposite. Above the glare and the black obscurity and the storm, an unearthly trumpet sounded its alarm, and a voice of words more awful still: so that those who heard that voice deprecated its reaching them more. Most ominous was that which is charged: who of mankind could endure it, when even if a beast touched the mount it was to be stoned? If such 'Must be the doom of the unconscious brutes, where should the sinner appear? Yea, the very mediator of the law, honoured of God and familiar with His presence, could only say at that fearful vision, I exceedingly fear and tremble all over.

Such was the characteristic approach of Israel to God when about to hear the law. Their own scriptures declare this and the like only to have been God's aspect towards them — this their feeling and state before Him. Assuredly it is not so that the confessors of the Lord Jesus approach God in the gospel. There we hear of the gift of His love in His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth may have eternal life — in Him who suffered for our sins on the cross. It was He who bore the judgment and went down into death. The gospel reveals the Saviour as life and propitiation, God sending His own Son for both purposes; that as we live through Christ, so through His stripes are we healed. We are saved by grace: but the cost was God's through the reconciling death of His Son; and grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now if any of the Jews who confessed such a Saviour were growing weary and turning back to Judaism, let them weigh what they give up in the gospel, and to what they must return under the law.

We have been shown what does not stamp the Christian confession but the Jewish. Here we are told in a few expressive clauses what is our portion, though in hope.

"But ye have come to mount Zion; and to a living God's city, heavenly Jerusalem; and to myriads of angels, a universal assemblage; and to an assembly of firstborn ones enrolled in heaven; and to God judge of all; and to spirits of just men made perfect; and to Jesus mediator of a new covenant; and to blood of sprinkling better than Abel" (verses 22-24).

This bright statement was pre-eminently suited and intended to disabuse and raise the hearts of the unbelieving Hebrews, as it is admirable for the instruction of any and all saints who desire to learn. The conjunction simply and effectively introduces and connects each of the objects in a remarkable order after the first, as we shall see. This was overlooked in the A.V. following other translators, to the ruin of the meaning between the latter clause of verse 22 and beginning of verse 23.

No mountain in the O.T. stood in such formal contrast with Sinai as Zion. The one was, as just noticed, the never-to-be-forgotten scene of national responsibility to the law; the other the intervention of Jehovah in grace for His king when all was ruin, people and priests alike wicked, the ark taken by the Philistines, Ichabod confessed, Israel's king and his sons slain, and the Jebusite not only in the centre and stronghold of Jerusalem but defiant and insulting. Then it was that Jehovah, as He chose David, so also chose the mount Zion which He loved. And there will He set His king, upon His holy hill of Zion. "I will declare the decree: Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; I this day have begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them, in pieces like a potter's vessel." These Psalms and others speak of a future day, of a new age when Messiah shall reign over Israel and the nations. But our Epistle simply introduces mount Zion compared with Sinai and its legal associations, as the expression of divine grace interposing to establish the kingdom after a scene of grievous sin and long humiliation. "This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it." "There Jehovah commanded the blessing, even life for evermore."

To mark this aim, we may notice how the Holy Spirit connects with Zion, not as a Jew might have expected, the well-known city of David, earthly Jerusalem, but "a living God's city, heavenly Jerusalem." If Zion was morally the highest to be descried here below, we now leave earth behind and by faith behold the city for which Abraham looked, as God prepared it for such as were pilgrims and strangers on earth, a city which hath the foundations, whose maker and builder is God. It is the seat of glory in the heavenly places for the holy sufferers with Christ who shall also be glorified together; and He who is a living God is bound in love and honour to give it thus effect.

Then follows the mention of "myriads of angels, a general assemblage." They were the natural or indigenous denizens of heaven, all God's hosts that excel in strength, that do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word. Here they are presented in their fulness of various order. Another inspired writer tells us that he heard their voice, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands.

Further, the Christian Hebrews are said to have come "to the assembly of firstborns enrolled in heaven." There need be no hesitation in identifying this heavenly company. It is the church of God, of which we hear so much and of the deepest interest in the Acts of the Apostles and the other Epistles, as the Lord when here below spoke of it as about to be founded (Matt. 16: 18), so that Hades' gates should not prevail against it. The day of Pentecost (that followed His death, resurrection, and ascension) first saw the new sight. It is described here according to the divine design of the Epistle. This accounts for putting forward the aggregate of those who compose it, firstborn ones, rather than the elsewhere familiar figures of the body of Christ, and of the temple of God — His habitation by the Spirit. And those. who compose it are here characterised: (1) in relation to Him who was carefully shown us in Heb. 1 to be the Firstborn, the established Heir of all things; (2) in relation by grace to our proper and destined sphere of glory, heaven, and not earth where Israel as such rightly look for their blessedness and triumph under Messiah's reign. Those who are holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, being children, are heirs also, heirs of God and Christ's joint-heirs. He is Firstborn, alone in personal right and result of His work; but they are also firstborn truly though of divine grace. And further, they are enregistered or enrolled in heaven by divine counsel and the same grace, citizens of heaven which justly pales every other citizenship and lifts above it.

When this glory is presented, we can have none higher than what rises before us, the due and necessary summit of all, "and to God, judge of all," to whom the various objects preceding are an ascending scale. It is God in His judicial, His universally judicial, glory, not of His people only as in the magnificent Psalm 55 but here "of all" without exception. The millennial era will be the grand display of this, as doctrinally set forth in Eph. 1: 10, Col. 1: 20 (cf. Phil. 2: 10, 11), and prophetically in Rev. 21: 9 et seqq.

Thence we of course descend, "and to spirits of just made perfect." These are the O.T. saints. They had had to do with God before grace reigned through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ as we know it in the gospel. When faith rested on promise, they looked for the Coming One; and they will have blessed part in His kingdom (Rev. 20), when they too shall judge the world (1 Cor. 6: 2). The like distinction from "we" may be seen at the end in Heb. 11: 39, 40; and it is remarkable, as this instance proves, that they are shown not as they will be but as they are, "to the spirits of just made perfect." They will not be in the separate state when "that day" is come; they will be raised from among the dead at the presence of Christ.

Next we read "and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant." This is the pledge of the enduring mercy which awaits the two houses of Israel. Of this all the ancient revelation speaks fully, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets; so that there is the less need of now dwelling on it particularly, even if the Gospels and the Acts, and the Epistles and the Revelation did not also confirm it. It is only necessary to say here that "new" means "fresh" or "recent," a quite different word and thought from the usual "new" covenant, which means covenant on a new principle, not letter but spirit, not man's responsibility as at Sinai but God's grace in Christ. Here the added comfort is given that when in days to come Jehovah makes the new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, when He will put His law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and be their God and they His people, with other blessed and abiding consequences, it will also be as "fresh" as when the blood was shed by which the great Mediator founded it on His death before God. The Christian Hebrews had come to Jesus its Mediator, not yet to its actual connection and establishment with Israel, but to Him who has done all for this purpose in due time.

But the prospect makes the way for another consequent blessing: "And to blood of sprinkling speaking better than Abel." If a new covenant points to Israel put under new and sure and everlasting covenant mercy in virtue of Jehovah-Messiah, the voice of the blood of sprinkling does not cry for vengeance and curse as Abel's did (Gen. 4: 10-12); it speaks of reconciliation for the earth (and indeed all things) assured by that blood which is alone precious and efficacious with God. It is clear, however, that this, however truly a guarantee, is like others we have seen, not yet in actual accomplishment; if we have come to them in hope, yea in full assurance of hope, we do not yet see them, and so with patience wait for them all, surely to be manifest in the day we see approaching.

It could not be, save by the power of faith, that Hebrews would fail to boast of the early wonders of Israel, and recall with pride the fervent words of Moses: "What nation is there so great, that hath God so nigh unto them, as Jehovah our God is in all that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day? Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God essayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm, and by great terrors according to all that Jehovah your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?" (Deut. 4)

Yet the force of Christianity shows itself in lifting believing Jews no less than Gentiles, above all that was or can be seen on earth, to the incomparably higher glories of Christ on the right hand of the Majesty on high revealed now to our faith. Such is the keynote of the Epistle before us. And as the Gentile enamoured of philosophy needed to be delivered from his vain dreams, we may apply to the Jew what the apostle said to the Corinthians in his Second Epistle (2 Cor. 3: 10), "For even that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect on account of the glory, that surpasseth," not to speak of its abiding in glory, instead of being done away in Christ as the Mosaic economy is.

"See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that divinely warned on earth, much more [shall not] we that turn away from him that [doth] from [the] heavens; whose voice then shook the earth, but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once will I cause to quake not only the earth but also heaven. Now the Yet once signifieth the removing of the things shaken as having been made, that the things not shaken may remain. Wherefore let us, receiving a kingdom not to be shaken, have grace (or, thankfulness) whereby let us serve God acceptably with godly fear and dread. For our God [is] a consuming fire" (verses 25-29).

The Lord Jesus, the Son of God, is regarded as speaking in the N.T., and speaking from the heavens. So it is in this Epistle, Heb. 1: 2: God has spoken to us in a Son, not merely in the prophets. The person and the place give His speaking the highest authority and immeasurable value; especially as it is on the ground of that eternal redemption, and the purification of sins made by Himself before He set Himself down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Hence the danger of refusing Him that speaks. It is not excusing ourselves because of our inability to meet divine requirements as in the law. Now "the will of God" is done by the Lord Jesus, the Son — done so perfectly in His death as a sacrifice that God is absolutely glorified; by which will we who believe have been sanctified through the offering of His body once for all — nay more, perfected continuously (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές), without a break. Man, weak and guilty man, is excluded from this immense doing, this infinite suffering. It is God acting for His own glory in His Son, that the believer might be perfectly blessed. He is therefore called, in the sense and confession of his evil, to bow to God in His grace, who, having thus wrought His will, speaks that man may hear and live, may believe and be saved, blessed now and evermore.

Those who trust their own thoughts and feelings do refuse Him that speaketh. They strive to find a reason in themselves or in the nature of things; and they strive in vain, for no answer can man or nature give why unclean and depraved man should be thence taken up for sharing the portion of the saints in light, and entering boldly even now into the holy of holies. They believe not Him that speaks: they credit not the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. The reason is not in man, still less in nature, but in the grace of God who has brought a new and everlasting glory to Himself by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Thus can He not only afford righteously to save all that believe, but to find His joy in saving the most unworthy, yet only on their heeding Him that speaks, His Son. See that ye refuse Him not!

Just because it is God coming forth in His Son to do the work, after man (tried in every way with the utmost patience on God's part) had failed in all, it is fatal for ever to refuse to hear Him and bow. The law was the grandest possible experiment for testing on the score of duty to God and man; and the cross of Christ ended it by man's greatest sin against both God and man. But that very cross saw God's will done for ever by Him whose death completed and closed all sacrifice for our sins before God. It was Christ's work: it was God's will; and the Holy Spirit testifies its efficacy for ever. Thereby is remission of our sins; and where this is, there is no longer an offering for sin. What is a bloodless sacrifice but a mockery and worse?

Hence if you refuse Him that speaks, you have nothing but your sins now and the wrath to come. The Jews had in earthly sacrifice no remission, only a calling to mind of sins. An unbloody sacrifice is a nullity and no better than Cain's, and now that Christ has died for sins, still more presumptuous and guilty. And all other blood is incapable of taking away sins. Christ, once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear to those that look for Him the second time apart from sin for salvation. For such He will have no more to do with sin, having ended that question by His sacrifice the first time. The second time He will appear to His people for salvation, when their bodies will be saved as their souls are now. But if you refuse Him, destruction awaits you, everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might not annihilation which is but an ungodly dream of perdition. And is it not just?

"For if they escaped not when they refused him that divinely warned on earth, much more shall not we that turn away from him that [doth] from heavens; whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once will I cause to quake not only the earth but also the heaven." How plain, conclusive, and overwhelming! It was wicked to refuse the divine warning of the law; it is incomparably worse to turn away from Him that speaks from heaven. For He speaks, not of the yoke which neither the fathers nor the children were able to bear, nor yet of their rebellious restiveness under it, but of redemption through His own blood who was wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their iniquities, of peace already made through the blood of His cross, who sits at God's right hand in witness of full acceptance for all who believe. To turn away from His voice is the gravest sin and the surest ruin.

Do you ask a proof? His voice then shook the earth when the law was given; for the Son was ever the One that spoke and acted even of old, no less God and the one Jehovah than the Father. And soon His voice will be heard again still more tremendously. Then Israel heard, by-and-by every creature must hear. For yet once, saith He, will I cause to quake not only the earth but also the heaven. Yet such is the efficiency of His work that for those who believe it is a" promise." What can harm those that are His own? If God. be for us, who is against us? He who has not even spared His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who shall lay accusation against God's elect? It is God that justifieth: who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather was also raised up, that is also at God's right hand, that also intercedeth for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Hence what is an awful menace to unbelievers is a promise to faith. Even the quaking of the universe "he hath promised"; it is no threat to us, for His love will rest on us then as much as ever, and we shall peacefully enter into all that is for His glory. From other Scriptures we know that we shall be then with Christ on high, but the words may be a special comfort to the godly Jews who follow, as we have shown elsewhere.

"Now the Yet once signifieth the removal of the things shaken as having been made, that the things not shaken may remain." It is only creation that passes away under His rebuke, that the new creation may alone stand. "For he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new." And no words are more true or faithful. They will surely be verified in their season. But the wonder of the Christian is that this is in principle true of him even now; not a promise merely but a fact, no doubt spiritual but only for this cause the more real and abiding and unchangeable. For if anyone be in Christ, there is a new creation. And this is a great advance on an O.T. saint who was begotten of God, born anew, a blessed and divinely given subjective reality. But we have not this only but our part in the objective reality. We are in Christ risen, the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead. It is true of every Christian; if anyone be in Christ, a Dew creation. The old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new: and all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5).

Hence we look as a promise for the removal of the things made, of this creation, that the things not shaken may remain, God's purpose is to head up all things in Christ, to reconcile all things to Himself; but He has reconciled us already in the body of His flesh, yet not through incarnation but through His death. Compare Eph. 1; Col. 1; Heb. 2. We died too with Christ, and reckon ourselves therefore dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. The removal of the things shaken, of the things not in Christ, awakens no terror but rather satisfaction; and we exult in the glory of God.

"Therefore let us, receiving a kingdom not to be shaken, have grace (or, thankfulness), whereby let us serve God acceptably with godly fear and dread. For our God is a consuming fire." See the beautiful picture of this in Rev. 4, where the glorified elders are wholly unmoved by the lightnings and thunders and voices which proceed out of the throne; but when the living creatures render glory to Him that sits on it, they are all activity, leave their thrones, fall before Him, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O our Lord and our God. And this is revealed to act on our souls now. For we are qualified already, true worshippers in the hour that now is to worship in Spirit and truth. By grace we fear yet love Him, and would serve Him. Undoubtedly "our" God is a consuming fire; notwithstanding is He our Father who loves us perfectly. And He loves us equally as "God." None the less does He hate sin, as He has proved in the cross of Christ; and He has given us a nature that hates sin, even Christ who lives in us as He died for us. Nothing more opposed to truth than making grace a veil or excuse for sin, as every believer confesses. Therefore says the apostle to the saints in Rome, "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law but under grace." If we were under law, it is powerless for holiness, and can only condemn, being a ministry of death. Christ is the rule of life working on and in us by the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 13

Next follow exhortations of a practical kind for holy brethren of a heavenly calling on the earth. And first the word is, "Let brotherly affection abide" (verse 1). This is very needful in the long run; and the Epistle was among not the early but the latest ones. It was easy enough in the glow of first love, and was strengthened instead of checked by prevalent persecutions for the sake of the faith. But when these trials do not so much press, the very nearness of the saints to each other, as God's family here below, exposes them to danger. For the less grace souls have personally for daily difficulties, the more they expect from others, and the harsher the judgments they hastily form. In the world there is distance kept up by mutual consent, and reserve is cultivated as to the affairs of one another, without which things could scarcely go on decently for any space; but the closeness of spiritual relationship, where it;.S loyally felt and in lively exercise, as it was and ought ever to be, soon brings to light self-will and worldliness at work, unless there be a walking according to the light into which we are brought in Christ. God is love; and he that abides in love abides in God, and God in him. When this fails in the practice of the saint, brotherly affection will ere long give way, and hasty speech engender variance, or suspicion cloud the light of love. In Heb. 6: 10 the love they had shown to His name was recorded in having ministered and still ministering to the saints. In Heb. 10: 34 we see how it wrought in deep trials and afflictions. Here the word is for the continuance of brotherly affection. There is much to try such love.

The verses that immediately follow give the direction that was more particularly needed. "Forget not hospitality; for by it some unawares entertained angels. Remember the prisoners, as bound with [them], the ill-treated, as being yourselves also in a body" (verses 2, 3). To entertain strangers is a happy form of exercising brotherly kindness. Yet is it especially liable to be imposed on, were it not that the Lord's over-ruling eye is over all, and He permits nothing that does not work for good to those that love God. The danger for the believer is that he should be vexed at advantage taken, and lest he should slacken in consequence. But if men abuse kindness thus, the Lord accepts the good and forgets it not. The encouragement assigned is that some, as Abraham and Lot of old, entertained angels unawares. To receive God's children now is assuredly no less honour in His eyes. Another mode of brotherly kindness is in active remembrance of those who, as early Christians, had to bear the stigma of public bonds or prison. If we failed to realise the uncomeliness of holding aloof from brethren thus put to shame, the affecting reference of the apostle to Onesiphorus in his own case at Rome, which we find in 2 Tim. 1 and with less detail elsewhere, may give a just sense of its sweet seasonableness and value before the Lord. Then again how many are the "ill-treated" though not in a prison! Let us not forget such, as being ourselves also in a body.* Compare Heb. 10: 32-34.

*The notion that this refers, not to the earthen vessel but to Christ's body, the church, is the more untenable, as this relationship is never once touched in the Epistle.

A new topic comes before us in verse 4: "[Let,] marriage [be] honourable in all things and the bed [be] undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Here the Jewish Christian is called to stand the more on his guard, as the law allowed a latitude which the Lord showed to be far from God's mind. The A.V. is faulty in two respects. It is not a mere affirmative sentence stamping the relationship with dignity, but an exhortation in the imperative calling us to carry it on worthily, and to guard it from all taint of unchastity or impureness. And we are bid to set it in honour, not in this respect or in that, but "in all things." Thus it is in no way a certificate of respectability which all people possess because they are in wedlock, but a solemn charge to married saints that, their use of the relationship be thus pleasing to the Lord in every detail. To say it is honourable "in all men" overlooks, if it does not destroy, the force of the scripture for the Christian's conscience. and this is the more evident as we hear next that God will judge every violation of its sanctity whether in neglect or in misuse.

Then comes the call, "Let your course of life be free of avarice, contented with things present. For he hath said, I will in no wise leave thee, no, nor at all forsake thee; so that we say confidently, Jehovah [is] my helper, land] I will not fear: what shall man do to me?" (verses 5, 6.) Avarice, sordid and unworthy of moral men, is peculiarly beneath those called to follow Christ in faith and love, with their eyes opened to their better and enduring substance where Christ is. Discontent with things is natural to unbelievers. It is good and due that we confide in His word to one, although no less meant for all His own. The vulgar text falls far below the impressive promise and challenge the O.T. furnished: and God as a Father only gives it more force.

The hearts of the brethren are next recalled to their departed guides, who, as they had been remarkable for their faith, had closed their course faithfully to the Lord's praise.

"Be mindful of your leaders, who were such as spoke to you the word of God and, considering the issue of their course, imitate their faith. Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday and today and for ever. By teachings various and strange be not carried away; for [it is] good that the heart be established with grace, not meats; in which those that walked were not profited" (verses 7-9).

It is well that we should distinguish in our tongue what the Holy Spirit had distinguished in verses 3, 7: the former (compare Heb. 2: 6) is practical remembrance of need, trial, and suffering; the latter is calling to mind those apt to be forgotten who had passed away. Hence the text of the A.V. is not in accordance with the truth; nor is the margin though more literal. But in this case we must say were, not "are," your guides, for their course was closed, as the verse itself intimates. They had been "leading" men among the brethren like Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts 15: 22), whether elders or not, for those so named had a larger and higher sphere than a local charge. And the saints are exhorted to hold them in honoured memory; as the clause that follows characterises them as having spoken to them the word of God, not the bare fact that they had so spoken in their day. It is probable that some of their "leaders" had the rule among the saints; but this is not the force of the word here employed, which is of a more general import, and may not have been other than prominence in teaching and exhortation.

There is another word it is well to observe (προι>στάμενοι) of similar import, as we may see in Rom. 12: 8, 1 Thess. 5: 12, which these scriptures show not to have been restricted to elders, though of course applicable to the exercises of their office. It means "presiding," and has its importance in its due place. But the great present value, as in the past, is that it depended on the spiritual strength which God supplies, and not on official position to which an apostle or an apostolic delegate had appointed: a thing also to be fully owned where the fact was so, as Scripture clearly proves. However this may have been, they had been their leaders, and the brethren are told, considering the issue of their course of life (in old English "their conversation"), to imitate their faith. Some among the Hebrew confessors were in danger of drawing back, as others seem to have actually done. There had been in earlier days a noble stand and severe endurance for it; and here they are exhorted to that which shone in departed guides, some at any rate of whom, it would appear, had resisted to blood.

But a far higher object follows: the great Sufferer, He of all glory who always abides. "Jesus Christ [is] yesterday and today the same, and for ever (unto the ages)." Such is the true meaning. There is no real ground for viewing it in apposition with "the end (or, issue) of the conversation" that precedes, which not only violates grammar but destroys the bearing of both clauses. It does beautifully introduce Him who not only remains alive again for evermore, but changes not. It is the creature's weakness to change. And of all creatures none more given to change than man, though he be head of all and endowed beyond all on earth; yet most changeable, like a reed bending to every wind through his will and his passions. But here we have real man, and tried as none other ever was, yet the Unchanging One, as indeed He was and is God no less really. What a stay for our faith! For we who believe on Him have still the fallen nature; and who so competent as He to deliver us from our liability to swerve from the good, holy, and true into some snare of the enemy! To look to Him, depend on Him, delight our souls in Him, follow Him, is an immense safeguard, given of grace to this end; and He knows how to keep and hold the least stedfast of saints that wait on Him. Truly He is the rock that never moves, to sustain such as without Him must be the sport of wind and wave.

Of all men the Hebrews had shown themselves of old the most ready to adopt the strange and false gods of the nations. So their own prophets reproached them with a folly beyond example; yet were they the only people favoured with the living God, Jehovah of Hosts, deigning to be their God. But they rebelled against Him, people, priests, and kings, till there was no remedy; and except He had left them a very small remnant, they had been as Sodom and like Gomorrah. None but the Messiah could meet their desperate case, when they had become Lo-ammi, and even He only by the sacrifice of Himself when they had rejected and crucified Him. But now He was risen from the dead and glorified, crowned with glory and honour, and all things put in subjection under His feet, as David sung in spirit. True, now we see not yet all things put under Him. But we behold Himself exalted on high, the pledge of all that will surely be displayed at His appearing. To this blessed object of faith and hope are the eyes of these believing sons directed, that they might cleave to Him with purpose of heart, as their fathers never did, through unbelief no more tossed to and fro. "Be not carried about by various and strange doctrines." Such is the connection of thought, such the preservation in fact from that great danger. By this all saints may be blessed. "For it is good that the heart be established with grace not with meats," however much the lovers of tradition discuss and commend them, "in which those that walked were not profited." How indeed could it be? Meats perish in the using, as those do who look not to the Highest. He is now dealing in nothing but sovereign grace, that the weakest may be sustained, and that the most wicked be saved through Christ and His redemption.

The Holy Spirit is not content with repudiating various and strange teachings, and such ordinances of flesh as He had already shown to characterise an imperfect system and a provisional time. (Heb. 9: 9, 10) when the way into the sanctuary had not yet been made manifest. He affirms for the Christian the positive realities which the Jews might have thought non-existent. So He had proved throughout the Epistle. What Judaism had in form and shadow, in an earthly measure, those who are Christ's even now possess as heavenly truth in unfailing and abiding virtue, while ample scope was still left for the power of hope. The purification of sins was already made (Heb. 1: 3), the great salvation confirmed unto us by most ample and excellent witness, God Himself deigning to testify in the powers of the Spirit (Heb. 2: 3, 4). He even declares that, though we see not yet all things subjected to Jesus, the Son of man, as we surely expect, we do behold Himself, because of the suffering of death too, crowned with glory and honour (Heb. 2: 8, 9). We are invited to consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus indeed (Heb. 3: 1), but Jesus already shown to be unique, Son of God and Son of man (Heb. 1, 2), passed through the heavens (Heb. 4: 14), a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5: 10).

O the folly, if we have Him, of hankering after a blasphemer like Caiaphas, or a Sadducean persecutor like Ananias. Nay, was there to be ever so ideal an heir of Aaron, "such a high priest became us" (said He, Heb. 7: 26), "holy, harmless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and become higher than the heavens." For He has sat down on the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens, as befits the surpassing glory of His person and His office, thus proved incontestably superior to Aaron's at his brightest; as He is become surety of a better covenant, which the prophets declared was to supersede the first and faulty one (Heb. 8: 13) of which the Jews boasted. Now only was the work of God done by the Son, and witnessed by the Holy Spirit (Heb. 10), but also God provided for us some better thing (Heb. 11: 40). So He speaks now:-

"We have an altar of which they, have no right, to eat who serve the tabernacle." So run the words, not only because the Epistle ever looks at the wilderness way and its accompaniments, but because they were to know that "these great buildings" had no longer glory but shame, and that shortly should be left not one stone upon another. What altar of copper or gold can compare with Him through whom we draw near to God and approach boldly even unto His throne of grace?

Let them understand better the figures of the true. "For the bodies of the beasts, whose blood is brought for sin into the holies by the high priest, are burned without the camp." It is only in Christianity that the two-fold truth is realised; in Judaism. it was unknown, still less enjoyed. The two extremes meet in the true sin-offering, which points to the blood which fits for the holiest, and to the body burnt in the place of rejection outside. The Christian has access into the sanctuary, but along with this he shares the place of scorn here below. So it was with the Master and Lord. "Wherefore also Jesus, that he might sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered without the gate." Here is not type only but fact, the ground of the exhortation so needed then by the Jewish confessors, so needed at all times by the Christian: way we not add more urgently now, when men revive Jewish elements in that disguise?

Therefore let us go forth unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach; for we have not here an abiding city, but we seek after the coming one" (verse 14). We are not of the world, as our Lord was not; and as He never sought its ease or honour, but accepted its shame, so are we called to follow His steps "outside the camp," the scene of religious respectability; as Heb. 10: 19, etc., sets forth our boldness to enter the holies by the blood of Jesus. We are now constituted meet to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith. The Jewish system by its nature not only offered no 'such privilege but denied it to all, even to the high priest who could approach but once a year its figure, and then with awful fear lest death should avenge any failure on his part. It was the then via media.

And where are God's children now as to all this? Are they not in general, as far from availing themselves in practical ways of approach to the holies, as they run after man's mind and the world's honours? In fact, as in doctrine, the two things are closely tied together. And as grace makes us first free of the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, we are the better strengthened next to obey the call to go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.

Soon the unbelieving or half-believing Jew had to learn that here he had no abiding city. But this should be ever true to a Christian's faith, if he dwelt in Rome or in London, as then in Jerusalem. Like Abraham we look for the city which rests not on sand but "hath the foundations." But it is "to come," and will never be built of human hands, let men vaunt as they may. Its architect and maker is God; and Christ has prepared us for it. "Through him therefore let us offer sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, fruit of lips making confession to his name. But of doing good and of communicating be not forgetful, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (verses 15, 16).

However serious our souls may well be, as we justly estimate the enmity of the world to God, His grace, truth, word, and ways, as well as our own danger of compromise or of sin in any form, we are exhorted to offer sacrifice of praise continually to Him. It is through Christ. This prepares and accounts for it. For He is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever; and our blessing through Him is as complete as it is everlasting: salvation (Heb. 5), redemption (Heb. 9), inheritance (Heb. 9), and covenant (Heb. 13), all everlasting. No wonder we are called to praise God, not as Jews now and then, but "continually." So in 1 Thess. 5: 18 the apostle bids us "in every thine, give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning, you." Here it is appropriately said to be a sacrifice of praise which we offer to God continually. Is it, can it be so, where souls are under law? Are we not under grace? It is making confession to His name, and in no way our own righteousness any more than a form. But the Holy Spirit carefully reminds "of doing good and communicating" (i.e. of our substance to others in need). It is a real exercise of love and in faith, that it be a sacrifice, if of a lower sort than praise to God. "Forget not"; for there was danger of overlooking. These acts were also acceptable: "with such sacrifices God is well pleased," although those of praise have the higher place.

In verse 17 it is no question of remembering the dead leaders (as in verse 7), but of the attitude which becomes the saints to their living guides. And this is shown by an obedient and submissive spirit.

"Obey your leaders and submit, for they watch for your souls as having to render an account; that they may do this with joy and not groaning, for this [would be] unprofitable for you. Pray, for us; for we are persuaded* that we have a good conscience, desiring in all things to behave well. And I more abundantly beseech you to do this that I may more quickly be restored to you" (verses 17, 18).

*The common reading πεποίθαμεν, followed by the Vulgate, Armenian, the A.V., etc., has numerous support, but of inferior antiquity and weight as compared with πειθόμεθα which is more suited to a subjective state.

Reaction from new truth is a danger at one time, and at another a return to old ways when the new become irksome. So these Christian Jews are exhorted to that which is a constant duty for us no less than for them. Self-will increasingly characterises this present evil age; and self-will is always sin. Elsewhere, as in Rom. 12, 1 Tim. 3, Titus 1, those called to preside or take the lead, elders or not, are exhorted how to fulfil their work in the Lord. Here, as in 1 Cor. 16, and 1 Thess. 5, the saints are reminded of what God looks for on their part. Scripture sanctions neither assertion of human right nor arbitrary claim of divine authority in the church of God. All are bound to serve, all responsible to obey the Lord who has made His will sure and plain in the written word. But there is such a thing as spiritual wisdom, and experience which grace forms by the word of righteousness; there is practical power which faith gives by the action of, the Holy Spirit, which is eminently serviceable to those less exercised in discerning the path of Christ

Hence as one must feel in the intricacies which so frequently beset the saints in such a world as this, and with a nature on which the enemy can readily act through present things, there is ample room for constant need of godly counsel, serious admonition, or even sharp rebuke: and as to all this the word is "obey your leaders and submit." How often a real guide can point out what a perplexed saint saw not before it was set before him, but, when so set, at once perceives to be of God! For if there be a word of wisdom given to the one through the Spirit, the same Spirit dwelling in the other appreciates the true and the right, through the grace of Christ which sets independence aside as well as worldly lust or any other evil thing. Thus is the Lord honoured in the chiefs no less than in those who submit to them. Sacerdotal claim is now excluded; and lawlessness is judged as hateful to God. Christ Himself led the way here below in this path of invariable and unswerving obedience; and those that guide will only guide aright if walking in the revealed ways of God which they urge on others; as these are only blessed as they walk in obedience and submission, instead of a vain clamour for their own rights, which if realised would be Satan's slavery. We are, every one of us, bondsmen of the Lord Jesus.

But it is well to note that the Vulgate has fallen into the perversion, so natural to the official mind, that the guides will have to give an account of the souls under their supervision. Such is the strange reading of the Alexandrian MS. followed by Lachmann in his Greek Testament of 1831. Tischendorf who noticed this should have seen that L. corrected the error in his larger ed. of 1840-50. Certainly there is no excuse for anyone failing to recognise the overwhelming testimony in favour of the ancient copies as well as of the Received Text, which speak of the guides exercising their wakeful care on behalf of the souls of the saints, as having to render an account. But this means not of other men's souls, but of their own conduct in relation to them. For each shall bear his own burden; and whatever, or whoever, comes between the conscience and God is of the enemy. Herein Romanism is the chief but far from the only offender in availing itself of a transparent error, and pursuing its most evil consequences. As the saints are shown the solemn responsibility of their leaders, they are told to cultivate a gracious readiness to obey and submit, that the guides might do their watchful work with joy, and not with groans over their refractoriness, which would be profitless for the saints. Compare for the other side 1 John 2: 28, and 2 John 8 and for this side 3 John 4.

There is a fine link of connection in the request of the next verse: "Pray for us; for we are persuaded that we have a good conscience," etc. How many more ask prayer because their conscience is bad! But the inspired writer could ask that the hearts of his brethren might plead with God for sustainment in his work, as the Spirit was leading him on without the sad need of getting morally restored from this or that evil which burdened him. For the fact is that of all saints none more need prayer — their own and of others — than such as are very prominent and active in the Lord's work. Habitually occupied with preaching and teaching others, how great the danger is of going on with a conscience not good about themselves! And what can more decidedly defile or harden? The apostle, in writing to his brethren, does all the more ask their prayers, because he exercised himself to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men, as he could say before the governor Felix and the high priest Ananias, both of them grievously and notoriously far different in this respect.

There is added an appeal to their affection. "But I more abundantly beseech you to do this, that I may be more quickly restored to you" (compare Philem. 22). It is beautiful and cheering to know that he counted on the love of the saints in the evil day, and that their prayers were so highly valued as efficacious with God.

The closing prayer is as worthy of this great Epistle as it corresponds with its character.

"Now the God of peace that brought up from [the] dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, in [virtue of] blood of an eternal covenant,, perfect you in every good work to the doing of his will, doing in you what is well pleasing before him through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] the glory, for the ages of ages. Amen" (verses 20, 21). There is no blessing of the gospel, no need of the unbeliever, more characteristic than peace. As to the Roman saints peace with God was assured, so here to the believing Jews as well as the believing Greeks of Philippi, God is proclaimed as the God of peace. The peace of God has its suited limits; the God of peace is illimitable. The departure of some disheartened others. Ere long, city and temple would be destroyed. But wants, difficulties, and dangers only furnish Him the occasion to bring His children through, purged of earthly associations and more than conquerors. The proof and pledge they see in our Lord Jesus, whom God brought up from the dead, not only the "good" and "chief" but "the great Shepherd of the sheep," whose blood is of no temporary covenant but of an eternal, avails not only for the present redemption and heavenly nearness of those who believe, but as their sure title to be similarly brought up from death at His coming.

Nothing can move such a Saviour, standing, and hope. The "better thing" we possess rests on the God of peace and a Shepherd so great that those of Israel are utterly small and weak in comparison. And God is no otiose or capricious being such as pagans feigned, but active unceasingly according to the perfect and perfecting work of His Son. He lends an ear to His own in their perilous pilgrimage, and is ready to fully adjust them in ever good work to the doing of His will, even as Christ has shown us the example unfalteringly. Thus only can be what is well pleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ; as He is the One who does all the good in His saints who deny self and depend on Him by faith. To Him then be the glory for ever and ever, Amen. For an end so holy, what can others, what can self do? "There is none good but One, God." And the Son is the way to the Father, the truth, and the life. So the Holy Spirit works in glorifying Him, whom the Father will have all to honour even as they honour the Father. Thus only is His will done in principle and in detail.

"Now I exhort you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation; for also in few words have I written to you. Know that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty, with whom if he come soon, I will see you. Salute all your leaders and all the saints. Those from Italy salute you. Grace [be] with you all, Amen" (verses 22-25).

The Epistle as a whole abounds in exhortation, based as ever on the truth of Christ, His work, and His offices, drawn from the. O.T. with a skill and power and simplicity which the Holy Spirit alone could give the inspired vessel; yet vast and profound and far-reaching as the result is, in what few words comparatively has all been conveyed! What scope for others to enlarge and enforce in their exhortations! and without controversy how subversive of all that Rabbinism loves to hear, not only hiding the waste to which their unbelief has reduced "the pleasant land," but shutting out from their disciples the more than fulfilment of their highest aspirations in Him, who as concerning flesh came of Judah and of David's lineage doubly, but is infinitely more, for He is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen.

The Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets are seen in a N.T. setting, self-evidently intended to be so understood when the due time came, which also saw the blotting out even of the returned remnant, and most righteously; for had they not hated and rejected their own Messiah? Marvellous is the way in which all the unfolding of His person and work and offices is turned to practical profit in detail; so that it is with the best right styled "the word of exhortation," about to yield unfailing subjects and varied appeals for the ministry of His servants, whose eye is simple to His glory, whose heart appreciates His grace, whose faith in the crucified Christ follows Him on high and approaches God in the holiest. And this is Christianity, the present living truth. with its heavenly and everlasting issues. By-and-by a remnant in the latter day shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah; and the Lord Jehovah too shall say to the dry bones in the open valley, Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live. Yes, they shall surely live, those dry bones of Israel in that day, stand up an exceeding great army, and be placed in their own land. Yea more, the twelve tribes shall be one in Jehovah's hand, one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel, and one king shall be king to them all; and that king the trite Beloved, great David's greater Son. and there shall they dwell for ever, and the Beloved, Jehovah's Servant, their prince for ever. This will be His kingdom, for His world-kingdom is not yet come but will assuredly. But those who now share His rejection and wait for heavenly glory have "the better thing."

The reference to Timothy suits the apostle Paul fully, while the omission of his own name is quite intelligible, as writing outside his province of the uncircumcision, yet just the expression of his heart always toward his brethren after the flesh, and characterised by the knowledge of Christ dead, risen, and ascended as became him beyond other men. The allusion in 2 Peter 3 is decisive that the apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the believers of the circumcision, to whom Peter addressed both his Epistles. That letter of Paul can only be the Epistle to the Hebrews, unless we suppose God allowed such a unique document to perish and someone else to do that work over again for a permanent place in the canon of scripture. Only speculative rationalism could receive suppositions so harsh, capricious, and unworthy; but those who do not give its true value to God's word as it is are proverbially credulous of fancies such as these.

No doubt the style differs strikingly; but even men of genius only have often shown themselves equal to some such difference in their works. But here all concurred to give a new and deep character, if indeed the apostle Paul was the one employed by the Holy Spirit for this great Epistle to the saints in Jerusalem, in view of the impending catastrophe, as well as their defective apprehensions which exposed them to such serious danger spiritually. We can understand how this and more must call out his heart who reciprocated God's mingled pain and pity over Israel, as well as the grief of the Spirit over their comparative insensibility to the superiority of their Christian privileges, and to the glory of Christ in the heavens above any Davidical hopes, bright as they surely are. Who can wonder that duly weighs all this, that a final divine message from one who so tenderly loved them, and who felt for the honour of Christ in person, work, and office, faintly seen by true yet feeble saints, should engage his heart profoundly, and give scope, elevation, and power to his language in a way as uncommon as the occasion which drew it forth?

No doubt the absence of the writer's name is quite sufficient to show that God is here pointing to the importance of the teaching rather than to the teacher. And the blessedness of the truth, if the most prejudiced of the Hebrew Christians heard to the end, would so disarm him of such unworthy feelings that he could not but own that he had never realised the gospel and Christ Himself and his Christian standing as he did now. Thus he would be fitted, and enabled to thank God heartily for what the apostle of uncircumcision wrote to them of circumcision. The sore point would be thoroughly healed; and as faith and hope were strengthened, love would prevail to the praise of grace.

It is probable enough that the Epistle was written in Rome. But if so, we may admire the wisdom that withheld any such mention to swell the pride of a later day. The saints there had a great and suited Epistle written to them; and well had it been if the truth conveyed had ever been their confession in deed and in word. But the silence here precluded a boast of the emptiest kind in Rome's fall from the truth. But from the end of verse 24 it would appear that saints from Italy, not of Rome only, were with the writer when and where he wrote. They would be sure to flock round him before his departure; and he would rejoice to communicate the salutation of love to Jews, no longer despised but beloved in the Lord, from such a centre of the world's pride and selfishness.

The greeting here desired embraces "all your leaders and all the saints." This was emphatically called for then, but seasonable always. How many are apt to be narrow, if not alienated! Not so was his heart who wrote, "Grace be with you all, Amen."

LONDON, T. WESTON, 53 PATERNOSTER ROW 1905

Exposition of the Epistle of James.

W. Kelly.

With a translation of an amended text.

Publisher: C. A. Hammond. (First published by F. E. Race.)

Editor's Preface

This Exposition of the Epistle General of James was written, and appeared in serial form, some fourteen years ago. It is now for the first time presented complete in one volume, with a translation of an amended text as rendered by the author, prefixed, for the more ready convenience of the reader.

It is hoped that the work as now published may find access to a yet larger body of readers than was reached by the long-known Monthly in which it originally saw the light. That it may, in the goodness of God, be graciously used of Him to the better understanding of this portion of Holy Scripture is the earnest prayer of the Editor!

London, October, 1913

James 1

1 James, bondman of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that [are] in the dispersion, greeting. 2 Count [it] all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into various temptations, 3 knowing that the proving of your faith worketh out endurance; 4 but let endurance have a perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing. 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all freely and reproacheth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting. For he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea wind-driven and tossed 7 (for let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord): 8 a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 9 But let the lowly brother glory in his elevation, 10 and the rich in his humiliation, because as flower of grass, he will pass away. 11 For the sun arose with its scorching, and withered the grass, and its flower fell away, and the comeliness of its look perished: thus also will the rich one fade in his goings.

12 Blest [is] a man who endureth trial; because, having been put to the proof, he shall receive the crown of life which He promised to those that love Him. 13 Let none when tempted say, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted by evils, and Himself tempteth none. 14 But each is tempted when by his own lust drawn away and enticed; 15 then lust having conceived bringeth forth sin; and sin when completed giveth birth to death. 16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation nor shadow of turning. 18 Having purposed He begot us by [the] word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of His creatures.

19 Ye know [it], my brethren beloved, but let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20 for man's wrath worketh not God's righteousness. 21 Wherefore, having laid aside every sort of filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls. 22 But be word-doers, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. 25 Because if any one is a word-hearer, and not a doer, he is like a man considering his natural face in a mirror: 24 for he considered himself and is gone away, and straightway forgot of what sort he was. 25 But he that closely looked into perfect law, that of liberty, and abode close, being not a quite forgetful hearer, but a work-doer, he shall be blessed in his doing. 26 If any one thinks he is religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart' this [man's] religion is vain 27A religious service pure and undefiled before Him that is God and Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James 2

1 My brethren, do not with respectings of persons have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory. 2 For if there come into your meeting (lit. synagogue) a man gold-ringed in splendid clothing, and there come in also a poor one in vile clothing; 3 and ye look upon him that weareth the splendid clothing, and say, Sit thou here well (or, in a good place); and ye say to the poor one, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool, 4 did you not make a difference among yourselves and become judges of evil thoughts?

5 Hear, my beloved brethren; did not God choose the poor as to the world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those that love Him? 6 But ye dishonoured the poor [man]. Do not the rich oppress you, and they drag you before tribunals? 7 Do not they blaspheme the worthy name that was called on you? 8 If however ye fulfil law royal according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; 9 but if ye have respect to persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors 10 For whoever shall keep the law as a whole, but shall offend in one [point] is become guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. And if thou commit not adultery but killest, thou art become a transgressor of law. 12 So speak, and so act, as about to be judged by a law of liberty; 13 for the judgment [is] merciless to him that showed no mercy. Mercy glorieth over judgment.

14 What [is] the profit, my brethren, if one say he have faith, but have not works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or a sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 and one from among you say to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but ye give them not the things needful for the body, what [is] the profit? 17 So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in (or, by) itself. 18 But some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith apart from works, and out of (or, by) my works I will show thee my faith. 19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well; the demons also believe and shudder. 20 But art thou willing to learn (know), O vain man, that faith apart from works is dead (or, idle)? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when (or, in that) he offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works faith was perfected. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called Friend of God. 24 Ye see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 And likewise was not also Rahab the harlot justified by (out of) works in that she received the messengers and sent [them] out another way? 26 For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

James 3

1 Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment. 2 For in many things (or, often) we all offend. If any one offendeth not in word, he [is] a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also. 3 Now if we put the horses' bridles (or, bits) in their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. 4 Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by rough winds, are turned about by a very small rudder, where the impulse of the helmsman may purpose 5 So also the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. See how large a wood how little a fire kindleth! 6 And the tongue [is] fire, the world of iniquity; the tongue cometh to be in our members that which defileth the whole body, and setteth in a blaze the course [lit. wheel] Or nature, and is set in a blaze by gehenna. 7 For every nature of both wild beasts and birds, of both things that creep and things in the sea, is tamed and hath been tamed by the nature of man; 8 but the tongue is none of men able to tame; an unsettled evil, full of deadly poison 9 Therewith we bless the Lord and [the] Father, and therewith we curse men that are made according to God's likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth cometh blessing and cursing. Not so, my brethren, ought these things to be. 11 Doth the fountain out of the same opening pour forth the sweet and the bitter? 12 Can, my brethren, a fig tree produce olives, or a vine, figs? Neither [can] salt water produce sweet.

13 Who [is] wise and understanding among you? Let him show out of his good conduct his works in meekness of wisdom. 14 But if ye have bitter emulation and faction in your heart, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, natural, demoniacal. 16 For where envying and faction [are], there disorder [is] and every bad deed. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, uncontentious, impartial (or, unfeigned). 18 And righteousness' fruit in peace is being sown for those that make peace.

James 4

1 Whence [are] wars and whence fightings among you? [Are they] not hence, from your pleasures that combat in your members. 2 Ye lust and have not; ye kill and are jealous, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war; ye have not because ye ask not; 3 ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend [it] in your pleasures 4 Adulteresses, know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore shall be minded to be friend of the world is constituted enemy of God. 5 Or think ye that the scripture saith in vain? Doth the Spirit that took his dwelling in us long unto envy? 6 But he giveth more grace; wherefore he saith, God setteth himself against haughty [men], but giveth grace to lowly 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse hands, sinners, and purify hearts, ye double-minded. 9 Sorrow, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned unto mourning, and [your] joy unto heaviness. 10 Humble yourselves before [the] Lord, and he will exalt you. 11 Speak not against one another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against law and judgeth law; but if thou judgest law, thou art not a doer of law but a judge. 12 One is the law-giver and judge that is able to save and destroy; but who art thou that judgest [thy] neighbour?

13 Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go to this city here, and spend there a year, and traffic and make gain, "whereas ye know not what [will be] the morrow. Of what sort [is] your life? Why, it is a vapour that appeareth for a little and then disappeareth, 16 instead of your saying, If the Lord will, we shall both live and do this or that. 16 But now ye glory in your vauntings; all such glorying is wicked. 17 To one therefore knowing to do a comely [thing], and not doing [it], it is a sin to him.

James 5

1 Come then, ye rich, weep, howling over your miseries that are coming on. 2 Your wealth is corrupted, and your garments are become moth-eaten. Your gold and [your] silver are rusted through, and their rust shall be for a witness to you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye laid up treasure in [the] last days. 4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who reaped your fields, that is kept back of you [or, from you], calleth out, and the cries of those that reaped entered into the ears of Jehovah of hosts. 5 Ye lived luxuriously on the earth and indulged yourselves; ye nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. 6 Ye condemned, ye slew the just one; he doth not resist you.

7 Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient for (or, over) it, until it receive early and latter rain. 8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 9 Murmur (or, groan) not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged. Behold, the judge standeth before the door. 10 Take brethren, [for] an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spoke in the name of [the] Lord. 11 Behold, we call them blessed who endured. Ye heard of the endurance of Job, and saw [the] Lord's end; for the Lord is full of compassion, and merciful.

12 But before all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and nay nay, lest ye fall under judgment.

13 Doth any among you suffer trouble? Let him pray. Is any happy? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any sick among you? Let him call to [him] the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save (heal) the sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins [or, offences] to one another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed. A righteous [one's] supplication hath much power if it work. 17 Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed prayerfully that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth sprouted forth its fruit.

19 My brethren, if any among you should err from the truth, and one turn him back, 20 let him know that he that turneth back a sinner from the error of his way shall save a [or, his] soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

Exposition of the Epistle of James

Introduction

The Epistle by the title as well as by its contents proclaims its peculiarity. It addresses the twelve tribes that were in the dispersion, not the elect strangers of the dispersion, but the mass of the old people of Jehovah. Nor is this quite unexampled even in the apostle Paul's feeling and phrase; for on the occasion of his speech before king Agrippa and Festus the procurator of Judæa he speaks of "our twelve tribes, earnestly serving day and night," hoping to attain to the promise made by God unto the fathers (Acts 26). There is thus, as has been remarked, a striking counterpart between the Old and N.T. in this, that one book in the New is devoted as a testimony to Israel, as one in the Old (Jonah) is devoted similarly to the great Gentile city of that day (Nineveh), both exceptional and proving the rule.

Hence only is accounted for in this Epistle appeal (James 4: 1, 4, 9; James 5: 1-6) to unbelievers in Christ or unconverted Jews, interspersed with addresses to those Jews who did believe (James 2: 1, 5, 14; James 3: 1, 13, 17; James 5: 7, 8). There is no ambiguity as to his own confession of the Messiah. From the very first verse of the Epistle he announces himself bondman not more of God than of the Lord Jesus Christ; and he begins with the blessedness of enduring trial or holy temptation in a way that applies clearly to Christian Jews, while he proceeds to warn against sins which go beyond the faithful to mere profession in chap. 2 and afterwards farther still.

As a whole the Epistle consists of exhortation from beginning to end; even its doctrine bears closely on moral ways, as in James 1: 13-15, 16-21; James 3: 5-8, 15-18. James is pre-eminently a teacher of righteousness; and was used of God in Jerusalem to meet the transition state between the old state that was about to close and the Christianity that was known more simply and fully among Gentiles. Accordingly his teaching, though as truly inspired of God as that of Paul, does not develop redemption in itself, its source, its objects, or its effects, but connects itself with the new birth, and the life we have from God by the word of truth, as opposed to outbreaks of temper and tongue which are the workings of fallen nature.

For this reason no one brings out more clearly than James "the law of liberty" (James 1: 25; James 2: 12), which is indeed his own phrase, in evident contrast with letter and its bondage. This, we shall see, supposes the new life which God's grace gives the believer, and which finds its pleasure in the things which please Him as shown in His word.

Nor is there the smallest excuse for imagining discrepancy between the teaching of Romans 3, 4, and James 2 on faith, however common the idea was of old as it is now. The object before each writer is wholly different. The apostle Paul unfolds to the Roman saints how an ungodly man is justified, and declares that it is by faith. The apostle James lays down to the twelve tribes that a dead faith, destitute of works, is vain, and that the only faith of real account is that which is displayed in ways which glorify God. Living faith produces living works. He is exposing the worthlessness of an intellectual reception of the gospel, which had even then grown up among the Jews. We see the same principle during our Lord's ministry, and His repudiation of such faith. See John 2: 23-25; John 6: 66; John 15. Nor is the self-same truth lacking even in the Epistle to the Romans, as in Rom. 1: 18 (latter half), and also Rom. 2: 5-11. He is destitute of living faith who does not walk in the ways, and by the word and Spirit, of God. "For if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" (Rom. 8: 13). So thoroughly is the great apostle of the Gentiles at one with this pillar of the circumcision, when the occasion of a godly walk calls for notice in the very Epistle which ignorant haste conceives to stand opposed. All the truth of God is in harmony, whether doctrinal, or ethical as this Epistle is eminently.

It may be well to add that, whatever the doubts of Alford, Neander and others, the writer was no other than James "the little," son of Alphaeus or Clopas (really the same Aramaic name rendered into Greek somewhat differently)*: the same man who took the lead after the martyrdom of the son of Zebedee, as is plain in the Acts (Acts 12: 17; Acts 15: 13; Acts 21: 18). Compare 1 Cor. 15: 7, and Gal. 2: 9, 12. His words and ways elsewhere are strikingly in agreement with his letter. Patience and purity, love and lowliness, characterise the apostle and his writing for the sphere he laboured in. It is remarkable that his language, and style, consist of excellent Greek with great energy. But the work given him in the Lord was, not to unfold divine counsels or to insist on redemption, but the urgent assertion of the moral consistency day by day, in affection, speech, and ways, of those who are called to endure patiently the various temptations of this world. This becomes such men as look for the crown of life, being already begotten of God by the word of truth according to His sovereign will.

James 1

The title taken by the writer deserves our consideration: "James, bondman of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ." It expressed his absolute devotedness to God as well as to the Lord Jesus Christ. He was bondman of both equally. He honoured the Son even as he honoured the Father. He avowed from the beginning his unqualified subjection to both. This was just what was most needed by the Israelites to whom he wrote. He sought the everlasting good of them all, as the style of his address attested: "to the twelve tribes that [are] in the dispersion, greeting" (ver. 1). The last word reminds us that it is in the letter which the apostles and elders with the whole assembly sent to the brethren from among the nations in defence of Christian liberty (Acts 15). But here the letter is directed only to the ancient people of God in their entirety, now a long while in a state of dispersion. For the return from Babylon had not hindered this, as only a small minority had returned from their exile. To all the twelve tribes he wrote, as being of the circumcision, even more widely than did Peter when he addressed his two Epistles to the sojourners in Asia Minor. For he qualified it by terms of vital Christianity, "elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." No such restriction appears here, though James without reserve confesses his own self-abnegating service of the Lord Jesus Christ no less than of God, and specifies living faith in Him among those to whom he writes.

But the Epistle is characteristically moral and hortative, not basing its appeals as the apostles in general did on an unfolding of grace and truth, so much as revealing by the way now and then the sovereign goodness that comes down from above, from the Father of lights, Who alone is reliable in a world of incessant change, and has quickened us by the word of truth, and has promised the crown of life to them that love Him.

Hence it opens with a cheering call to such as were in danger of being faint-hearted and cast down by their trials. The Jews naturally looked for outward marks of divine favour; yet psalms and prophets revealed deeper things. James goes farther still.

"Count [it] all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into various temptations, knowing that the proving of your faith worketh out endurance; but let endurance have a perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing" (vers. 2-4).

It is the counterpart of our Lord's beatitudes in Matthew 5. For the blessed in His eyes and mouth are, not only of no account in the world, but sufferers from it for righteousness' sake, and for Christ's, poor in spirit, meek, mourners, hungerers after righteousness, merciful, and more. They are called to rejoice and exult, for great is their reward in heaven. So here, "count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into various temptations." In this world of sin and ruin, God not only works in grace but carries on a discipline of souls, and turns trials of all sorts into an occasion of blessing for all that own Him and seek His guidance. Selfwill hardens itself against each trial, or yields to discouragement and even despair. Faith recognises the love that never changes, and judges the self that resists His will or despises His word; and, as faith bows submissively, it reaps profit, and grows by the knowledge of Him.

Hence is the believer entitled and emboldened to think it every sort of joy whensoever he falls into varied trials, as indeed they may be of all kinds. It is not that Christians are exempt from sorrow — far from it, or that we should not feel the sorrow, any more than forget God's grace. Thus the trial throws us back on Him without Whom not a sparrow falls on the ground and by Whom the very hairs of our head are all numbered. Affliction comes not forth of the dust, nor does trouble spring out of the ground. All is under His hand Who has made us His for glory, and meanwhile puts our faith to the test in this present evil age, habituating us not only to patience but to endurance.

So it was that Christ walked here below, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps. His meat was to do the will of Him that sent Him and to accomplish His work; His joy was in His love and the glorious counsels which He knew, and which will soon be the manifest issue. He indeed endured the cross, as was only possible to Him; but He suffered all through in a way proper to Himself, and learned obedience through it (for before, He had only commanded); yet what was not His joy, man of sorrows though He was and acquainted with grief beyond all others! He could and did upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not; for their guilt was worse than the worst judged of old. But at that season it was that He answered and said, "I praise thee [I confess to Thee], Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to babes: yea, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight. . .Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls."

Here, too, the ground of joy in sorrow is explained, knowing that the proving of our faith worketh out endurance, as the apostle in Rom. 5: 4 speaks of the saints "knowing that tribulation worketh out endurance." Both are equally true; but it is plain that tribulation could produce no such effect unless there was the faith that stood the test. And such was his prayer for the Colossians that they might be "strengthened with all power according to the might of His glory unto all endurance and long-suffering with joy." The character of the inspired writings may differ ever so much in suitability to God's design in each; but there is unity of spirit also beyond all doubt in His revealed mind. He cannot deny Himself.

There is an important caution added. "But let endurance have a perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing." The contrast of this we see in Saul, king of Israel, who did not wait out the full time and lost the kingdom (1 Sam. 14). Even in David we see failure of endurance when, fleeing from Saul, he sought Achish in Gath (1 Sam. 27-29). Christ alone was perfect in this as in all else. Endurance has a perfect work, when we judge our own will and await God's. Then and thus only are we perfect and entire, deficient in nothing. It cannot contradict James 3: 2 for all that.

When a soul has fairly entered on the path of trials, which faith never fails to experience in a world departed from God, he soon finds his lack of wisdom. But his comfort is that He with Whom he has to do is alone wise, and ready to guide those that wait on Him. How much better it is that wisdom should be in Him that we may be dependent on His guidance, than if it were a possession vested in us, exposed to the danger of our setting up to do without Him! Therefore comes the exhortation to pray (cf. Luke 18: 1); for our need is all the greater because we are God's children in a world where all is opposed to God. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all freely and reproacheth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing doubting. For he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea wind-driven and tossed (for let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord): a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (vers 5-8).

It is of the essence of the new nature that the believer has to live in dependence on God, and to find its present exercise in the midst of trials by cultivating that confidence in Him which finds its proper expression in prayer. Hence it is that, if any one becomes sensible of deficient wisdom in presence of the many difficulties of this life, he is directed to ask of God that gives to all freely and upbraids not. How full of cheer and re-assurance! Even Christ, Himself God's wisdom, habitually waited on God, prayed at all times where men least look for it, and spent the night in prayer when the occasion called for it. If He then Who never lacked wisdom so lived, how much should we be ashamed of our failure in so drawing near to God and drawing from Him what He so readily gives!

The expression employed to encourage us is striking. He "giveth to all freely and reproacheth not." Wisdom no doubt is primarily what is sought, as it is in our trials peculiarly requisite; but the Holy Spirit is pleased to enlarge our expectation, that we may know better "the giving God," "the unreproaching God." And a word is used here to characterise Him, to which the apostle Paul exhorts the Christian in his giving (Rom. 12: 8): "He that giveth, in simplicity." For how often do mixed motives seek entrance into the heart in giving! Liking rather than love here, dislike hindering there, self-importance, regard for character, sympathy with others on the one hand, and on the other prudential or unbelieving fear under questionable pleas. Hence the call on the giver among us to give with simplicity. Singleness of eye here as elsewhere promotes love, as it ensures light; and the issue is liberality. And so the various English versions agree, from Wiclif to the Authorised. For both Wiclif and Purvey give the primary meaning "in simpleness," Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva, "with singleness"; Rheims "in simplicity," and the Auth. "with simplicity." Again, Wiclif, and the Wiclifite have in our text "largeli," Tyndale and Cranmer "indifferently," Geneva "freely," Rheims "abundantly," and the Auth. "liberally": all of them a secondary meaning. Of these "freely" seems to suit God best, as flowing readily from the primary force which hardly befits Him, while it well becomes us. And it may be added that these respective meanings are in excellent keeping with the writers; of whom Paul looks at the inner source, James rather at the result.

That God in giving freely does not reproach the receiver is no small favour. How often in man's case the fact is, that the grace is accompanied with such a drawback express or implied! God acts worthily of Himself Who is good.

But if a petition is thus freely and graciously given of God to him that asks, there is the requisite condition, "let him ask in faith, nothing doubting." God will be enquired of suitably; and the least of all does it become man, so favoured, to fail or to doubt in anything. "He that spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?" Even in the very trials which are most painful — "in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us."

"For he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea wind-driven and tossed (for let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord): a double minded man, unstable in all his ways." Here is the contrast, alas! not uncommon even of old. Collectively "surge" is a known sense of the word rendered "wave," which is not the ordinary term (κῦμα) though this occurs repeatedly in the N.T. It is rather a billow singly, but here the sport of winds to and fro. How could it be otherwise in him who in his weakness does not lean on the Lord? Whatever may be given, there is no real receiving from the Lord on his part who does not trust Him. If in one way he speaks, in another he feels and acts, being of double soul. Instability marks all his course. Is not God ashamed to own such a one? (Heb. 11: 16).

There is indeed no excuse, for him that confesses the Lord Jesus Christ, to be a double-souled man. Without the knowledge of Him a man may easily be unstable in all his ways; and it is no real credit to him if he be firm in the pursuit of self, braving trial instead of bowing to God with profit and joy to his soul. Christ alone is the true measure of all; and such was His manifestation here below in absolute superiority not only to every circumstance but to all evil. He and He only was the Faithful Witness. In Christ is God's secret of stedfastness for man in a world of sin. And there is more, yea all, in Him to fill the heart with joy and give needed wisdom.

"But let the lowly brother glory in his elevation, and the rich in his humiliation, because as flower of grass he will pass away. For the sun arose with its scorching and withered the grass, and its flower fell away, and the comeliness of its look perished: thus also will the rich one fade in his goings. Blest [is] a man who endureth trial; because, having been put to the proof, he shall receive the crown of life which He promised to those that love Him" (vers. 9-12),

Here again it is Christ Who alone sheds the full light of God on the inequalities of position on the earth, and turns them into a ground not of acquiescence only, but of pleasing God in exercising suitably the new nature. In the world covetousness is the universal idolatry, and mammon its idol. And the Jew fell under a similar condition readily, as he looked for blessings on his obedience, in the city and in the field, in the family and in the flock, in the basket and in the kneading trough. But the day is coming when God will put down all evil, stilling the roaring of the seas and the tumult of the peoples, and lifting Israel out of their low estate, when at the feet of Messiah they truly own the God of their salvation. Then will the outgoings of the morning and evening rejoice, when God visits the earth and waters, when He crowns the years with His goodness, and His paths drop fatness, and the hills are girded with joy, and the valleys, covered over with corn, shout for joy and sing.

For God will have blessed Israel then, and thenceforward will for ever bless them, and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him. It will be the day, not of man, but of Jehovah, when a king shall reign in righteousness and princes shall rule in judgment, Jehovah (yet Man) the judge, Jehovah the lawgiver, Jehovah the king, when the inhabitants of His land shall not say, I am sick, for the people dwelling therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. Yea, the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon. And no wonder: for they shall see the glory of Jehovah, the excellency of our God. And Jehovah will answer the heavens, and they the earth; and the earth the corn and the wine and the oil; and they Jezreel. And Jehovah will sow her to Him in the land, and will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy, and will say to Lo-Ammi [not My-people], My-people thou, and they shall say, My-God.

But now the Holy Spirit, sent from heaven, is bearing witness to the church in one way, to the world in another. Christ is not ruling, as He will in power and glory during the age to come. It is the present evil age, out of which Christ, having given Himself for our sins, is delivering us who believe and constituting us members of His body for heavenly glory. We shall be displayed with Him on high when that day dawns on the earth. Thus, being called into God's marvellous light, it is our privilege to have the mind of Christ, and judge all things according to God in this scene of confusion.

Hence the lowly brother can glory in his elevation, for the glorified Christ is not ashamed to call him brother; and the rich one can glory in his humiliation, in fellowship with Him Who emptied and humbled Himself to the death of the cross. Whatever our natural place, we are now by grace not of the world as Christ is not. Thus we are enabled to read glory in the humblest believer; the wealthy and honourable can write nothingness on what the flesh values highly. For indeed as the Lord said, That which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16: 15). Truly and beautifully is the evanescence of all that men think great and stable, here compared to the fleeting bloom of grass, put in the past tense of transiency: as the Lord put his case who abides not in Him (John 15: 6). So certain is the passing away of that which flows not from life in Him. As flower of grass perishes before the scorching heat of the sun, "thus also will the rich one fade in his goings." What is surer, or sooner forgotten?

From this parenthetical comparison in vers. 9-11 we return to a kind of summary of the previous exhortation; and happy is pronounced a men who endures trial. So it was with men of marked faith of old, Job, Abraham, David, and the prophets; so it is now for every believer, and made plain by Him Who endured more than all, and as He alone could. And what an encouragement in the path of trial for him whom grace has called! "Because, having been put to proof [or approved], he shall receive the crown of life, which He promised to those that love Him." Faith receives the word of God that reveals God's holy love in giving us a divine Saviour Who died for our sins; and we love Him Who first loved us; but also how sweet while pilgrims and strangers to have so cheering a promise in the trial we endure! The new nature is exercised in trial and drawn out in its affections by God's love, and becomes more conversant with the things above and the coming glory.

There is another class of trials, with which souls are everywhere conversant in Christendom, even though they know but little of the blessed ones, which our Epistle heretofore has brought before us. It is ridiculous to deny the evident distinction. How could it be said, Count it all joy, when ye fall into various temptations in the form of inward lusts? or, blessed is the man that endures solicitations to evil from his corrupt nature? We have already seen that thus far the trials are from without. Our Lord knew then not only as do others, His saints, but beyond any, as we hear not only in the three earlier Gospels, but in Heb. 2: 18; Heb. 4: 15, where it is expressly treated for our consolation, yet with the all-important reserve, "apart from sin." He was tempted in all things in like manner, without sin, not without sins or sinning, but sin excepted. Of sinful temptation He knew nothing, for in Him was no sin. His nature as born of Mary was holy. It was so constituted from the womb; and therefore it was said by the angel Gabriel, "The holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God."

But the believer, though born of God, has another principle — what the apostle calls "the flesh," which is not subject to the law of God, for neither can it be. Its mind is enmity against God. Not that the Christian is excusable if he allow it to act, now that he has a new life, and the Holy Spirit also given to dwell in him expressly that he may in no way fulfil flesh's lust but oppose it, and not do the things which he naturally desires. For "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control: against such things there is no law. But they that are of Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and its lusts."

From this, our naturally deplorable state, the person of our Lord Jesus was wholly exempt. He was the Holy One of God. Even the demons owned Him thus, though men are not wanting who have dared to blaspheme His moral glory by imputing to Him the same fallen nature with its proclivities as we have. And such as thus lower His person are only too consistent with that fundamental error by obscuring or even annulling the true sense and power of His atonement, thus in their ignorance and unbelief humanising alike His person and His work. It is the working of the antichrist, of which we have heard that it comes, and now it is already in the world; nor is any error more dishonouring to God or more deadly to man. It is the more dangerous because with it is often mingled a good deal of truth apparently in advance of what is commonly known, which some perceiving are enticed to accept the error. But no lie is of the truth; and no lie more sure or evil than that which denies the Christ, the Son of God.

It is blessedly true that Christ died to sin once for all; but this was not for Himself but for us who had sin in the flesh. To teach that Christ could say till the resurrection, Not I but sin that dwelleth in me, is apostasy from the truth, and is Satan's enmity to it, in order to degrade His person and to exalt ours; also to insinuate that sin in the flesh was conquered in Him as it may be in us, instead of being condemned in Him made sin. Never therefore is it, nor could it be, said, that the Lord mortified His members that were on the earth, never that He reckoned Himself dead to sin and alive to God. Precious as all this or more is for the Christian, it would be to the last degree false and derogatory to Him Who knew no sin but was made sin for us.

The Epistle then turns from our holy trials to our unholy ones, and shows their source to be, not in God, but in sinful man. "Let none when tempted say, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted by evils, and himself tempteth none. But each is tempted when by his own lust drawn away and enticed; then lust having conceived bringeth forth sin; and sin when completed giveth birth to death" (vers. 13-15).

The distinctness is evident when we read on the one hand that God tempted or tried Abraham (Gen. 22: 1, and Heb. 11: 17), and on the other that Israel tempted God (Ps. 78: 18, 41, 56, compared with Ex. 17: 7). Never does God tempt any one to evil, but He may and does so bring out their faith and fidelity; but it is alas! too sadly common for His people to tempt Him by doubts of His mercy and active care. Hence the word in Deut. 6 16, "Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God," the Lord's answer to the devil suggesting that He should cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple on the strength of Ps. 91: 11. But the Lord utterly refuses to test God, as if His protection were doubtful in the path of obedience. God is not to be tempted by evils, any more than He so tempts.

The evil temptation comes from within man, though Satan may act on him, for he ever evilly tempts to evil. So it was man at the beginning was tempted when his nature was not evil; but instead of repelling it as the Lord did, he allowed and received it; so that henceforth the race was contaminated like its fallen head. The precise contrast is seen in Christ, to Whom the prince of the world came at the end, and had nothing in Him then any more than when first tempted. But it is wholly different with us, conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity as we are naturally, though now by grace born anew. Therefore have we an altogether distinct class and character of temptation, which the Lord had not, as incompatible with His person as with His work. In Him was no lusting against the Spirit, no contrariety in Him, because He was, as no one else could be, the Holy One of God. The Word became flesh (John 1: 14). Incarnation was true of Him, but of Him alone. But the believer, though having life in the Son, has the fallen nature, and hence is liable to evil temptation.

"But each is tempted when by his own lust drawn away and enticed." The Lord though tempted in all points similarly could not be in this way, because it would have denied and destroyed His moral glory, and it would have frustrated the purpose of God in saving us to His glory. That the Lord was in like manner tempted in all things has this immense limitation, "sin excepted," not sinning only in fact, which is true of course, but "sin" in the nature from which He was absolutely exempt He had not and could not have such evil temptations from a corrupt nature, because His was expressly holy. There was no lust of His own to draw away or allure. Evil suggestion from without He therefore uniformly rejected with indignation, even if an honoured apostle, shocked at the suffering before Him as inconsistent to his mind and feeling with His glory, repudiated His death and such a death as an impossibility, and received rebuke stern beyond example. With the believer too often is it likewise, when like Peter his mind is not on the things of God but on those of men. Christ sought His Father's glory, and unrighteousness was not in Him, but He did always the things pleasing to Him. Self-will there was none. He was come to do God's will, and did it perfectly and at all cost.

Far different is the saint when thus off his guard and ceasing ever so little from dependence on God. "Then lust, having conceived, bringeth forth sin; and sin, when completed, giveth birth to death." How graphic and true! But it is the strict line of James who looks at the moral effects," and does not occupy himself or the reader with that deep sounding of "causes" which we find in the Epistles of Paul. It is scarce needed to say that both views are invaluable, and alike given by inspiration.

There is no small danger of error on the subject of man's nature as it is, and the new nature which the believer receives by grace. Mistakes abound to this day, as they ever have since very early days. How many speak of the original Adamic state as holy? It was merely one of innocence, which was lost at the fall irrecoverably. Through the word applied by the Spirit in the faith of Christ we become partakers of a divine nature. It is not restoration to the primeval creature estate, but an incomparably better life in Christ the Son of God, the ground of fellowship with the Father and the Son, and of a holy walk with God. Christ Himself and alone was the manifestation of this eternal life on earth; and chosen witnesses were given to see and hear and come into the closest contact with Him, and enabled to bear witness by inspiration that we too might have fellowship with them. Never was there such intimacy, never such testing, never such scrutiny, that we might behold and know life eternal in every variety of circumstances, in the simplest as well as the most profound here below; and this is the life we have in Him.

But while we have in Christ an incomparably higher and sure standing, there is the effect of the fall in our old nature which abides for the present life with its lusts which Adam innocent had not. It is not a change merely, but a new life never possessed before. The disciples were born of water and the Spirit; and what is so born is "spirit," not flesh improved, changed, or annihilated. They were purged already because of the word which Christ had spoken to them before the gift of the Holy Ghost in power at Pentecost. The heart is purified by faith, yet there is a new life, life eternal, given in Christ; and there is progress and growth through the truth. But besides, we are in Christ, and freed from all condemnation, as we are purged by His blood from our sins once for all. Our being perfected in perpetuity (Heb. 10) is true of all Christians, as it is by His one offering in Whom and in which we believe. The notion of an attained state where no lusts work for a few superior souls is a mere delusion; it is the real unholiness of denying sin in them and excusing evil because the will does not consent. The apostles Paul and John are no less opposed to the dream than James, though he is occupied with the process and result, rather than with its origin and spring as they.

"Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation nor shadow of turning. Having purposed He begot us by the word of truth, that we should be a certain first-fruits of his creatures" (vers. 16-18).

Men's thoughts being so far from the truth, as it is a subject altogether beyond his mind, we are the more bound to see that we be not misled, but subject to scripture. Here there is no obscurity, but all is light; for God is light, and His love has communicated all that we need to know. As man's nature is defiled and sinful, the God (Whom we know by faith and with Whom grace has given us the nearest relationship) is good. He cannot be tempted by evil and tempts none in this way. He is so absolutely good that our Lord laid down that none is good save one, God: not of course as Himself disclaiming it if owned as God, but refusing it from him who saw no more than humanity in Him.

But God is much more; He is the source of all good. He gives freely and fully to those who were evil and enemies. So we are here told that "every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights." In Him is no darkness at all; in the world it is so dense that, though Christ His Son was here, the true Light, and shining in the darkness, the darkness comprehended it not: so much did moral darkness exceed the natural which is dispelled by natural light. It is humbling that man, with all his boasting, should be proved thus evil. But Christ solved the difficulty, the giver of a life in Himself risen from the dead, after being made sin to annul it righteously. Thus of His will or purpose (for nothing was more remote from man or more opposed to his will) did God beget us.

There is another consideration added, full of comfort. The greater the blessing, the more is the sorrow if it be exposed to loss or change. Now in our relationship with God we are assured that the goodness displayed suffers no diminution, nor eclipse. Even the greater light that rules the day, which men adored early and long, the bright orb of the sun to which they applied the epithet here predicated of our God, is liable to the variations of nature all day long, and is the salient example, in its apparent motions, of shadow that is cast by turning. But it is not so, as here declared, with the Father of lights, Whose unchangeableness is as perfect as His goodness, and His goodness to us who deserved nothing less, still in our weakness, and still in a world of evil.

But His purpose is to have the world governed righteously. This cannot be according to God till His Son, the Lord Jesus come forth to make good the kingdom, the world-kingdom in power and glory; as He has already vindicated His God and Father in obedience and suffering that He might save to the uttermost. Of this the Old Testament prophets have spoken amply, and the New Testament reiterates the truth in all plainness of speech, as it shows also the more distant and glorious vista, when all evil shall be done away and the new heavens and a new earth shall be, not in measure and pledge only, but in fulness. For government shall yield to everlasting righteousness dwelling in unbreakable peace, after all judgment is executed by Him to Whom it is given. Of this we are a certain first-fruits already, for we are begotten by the word of truth, and this nature is holy. But there is another which we ought never to ignore, and which, if not judged, breaks out into sins; so that, till we are changed at Christ's coming, we can only be called "a certain first-fruits." We follow Christ's steps and ought to walk as He walked; but we shall be like Him when we see Him as He is.

The critical correction which opens verse 19 rests not only on excellent authority, but on internal evidence of no small weight; while the common reading followed by the A.V. seems a rather obvious change of transcribers who failed to apprehend the force of the verb here.

"Ye know [it], my brethren beloved; but let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for man's wrath worketh not God's righteousness" (vers. 19, 20).

It is characteristic of Christianity to know not only the privileges and experience of saints but the depths of God, as we are told in 1 Cor. 2: 10, and not simply as revealed objectively, but in inward spiritual consciousness, as being born of God and thus having a new nature derived of Him. Of this we were fully told in the verse before; and, as knowing it, we have important consequences now urged on us. It is not that saints of old were destitute of that nature, as answering to faith which is the ground of all divine affections and of everything that pleases God in holy conduct. But it would be difficult to find, throughout the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, so simple an enunciation of it as our Epistle lays down; and this not as a novel communication to those addressed, but as a truth so known to them that there was no need of enforcing the fact or enlarging on its importance. We are therefore led at once to weighty practical results.

Others were given to set forth the work of redemption in Christ, or His personal glory, which are outside the believer and of all moment for purging the conscience and filling the heart. But it was the place of James writing to those peculiarly liable to be content with objects of sight only, to instruct in that interior dealing with the heart which is no less essential to the Christian, and secured to faith, both by a life given in Christ and by the gift of the Holy Spirit consequent on His blood-shedding and ascension. Here James had taught them in the clearest terms, that of His own purpose God gave us birth by the word of truth. So in the Fourth Gospel the apostle told us that "as many as received Him (Christ), to them gave He title to become children of God, even to them that believe on His name: who were born, not of blood nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God." It is inexcusable to mistake so plain an intimation, or (if seen) to lower its importance. The believer has already this new life, knows it, and is called to manifest it accordingly. Christianity is not only the revelation of a Lord and Saviour not less truly divine than the Father, but this inseparably from a new nature now imparted to the believer, who is responsible to walk suitably in the practical exercise of that life.

The exhortation therefore here is: "let every man be swift to hear." Christ Himself is the model of this, as of all else that is good. Though the Holy One of God, never was any so swift to hear God's word. So the prophet distinguished Him, "The Lord Jehovah hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to speak a word to him that is weary. He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward." Nor was it, otherwise with His bearing in presence of the tempter: the word of God was His constant resource, and only the more if Satan perverted it. "It is written again" was His lowly God-honouring answer. And so it is, and has ever been, with His sheep. They hear His voice, and follow Him; they know not the voice of strangers.

The word of truth abides in its value. By it they were begotten of God; by it the new life is fed, formed, directed, and strengthened. All the written word is prized as well as authoritative; but for special instructions God has been pleased to furnish those communications we call the New Testament. If we rightly heed all scripture, we assuredly shall welcome every word that explains the new life and its duties, and His glory and grace Who is its spring and fulness.

But we are told also to be "slow to speak." For we have another nature which is self-confident and impulsive; and there do we need to be on our guard, that, knowing ourselves weak, ignorant, and naturally prone to evil, we may look up to God and wait dependently on Him. As born of Him, it is ours to be jealous that we may neither misrepresent nor grieve Him. And therefore are we warned of another danger, when it is added "slow to wrath." How often it is impotent and hasty self-will! We are now sanctified to do His will, to obey as Christ obeyed. There is of course a right occasion for wrath. So the Lord looked round about on those that misused the sabbath to oppose God's grace in an evil world. But we are exhorted to be slow to wrath, and to let it soon be over. "Be ye angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath; neither give place to the devil" (Eph. 4: 26, 27).

A weighty reason is added which calls for explanation, because the similarity of phrase might lead the hasty to confound it with the well known but little understood language of the apostle Paul. The two writers can only be rightly appreciated by giving due weight to their respective aims. In Romans and elsewhere in that apostle's writings, it is God's consistency with what is due to Christ's work in redemption. God therefore justifies him that believes in Jesus according to the value of His atoneing death in His sight; and so we are made (or become) that righteousness in Him risen and ascended. But James is occupied with our practical ways in consistency with God's sovereign will in begetting us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruit of His creatures. And He looks for conduct according to that new nature He has given us by faith. Submissiveness of heart becomes us in hearkening to Him, and in avoiding our natural haste of speech and proneness to wrath; for, he adds, man's wrath worketh not God's righteousness. It is practical, not our standing according to Christ's work as in Paul's epistles; and it recalls our Lord in Matt. 6: 33, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness." This again is not our standing in Christ by virtue of God's righteousness, but the power of His kingdom and character in our souls and ways.

Conduct is bound to be according to relationship; and this flows from what God our Father has already formed by the acting of His own purpose and mind in giving us birth by the word of truth; a fact which it was the more important to press on saints who were used to take their stand on being sprung from Abraham as their father. They were now taught how much higher and holier was the new descent; and this not only from God but in the most blessed way which gave full place to the Son as well as the Spirit, and had its title-deed indisputable in the written word. So the Lord had Himself laid down to the Jews, "If ye abide in My word, ye are truly My disciples; and ye shall know the truth; and the truth shall make you free If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." How little do souls, that loudly boast of their liberty, suspect that they are bondmen of sin and thus in Satan's chains! Even the believers, whom Christ has set free, are but a kind of first-fruits with an evil nature in no way set aside as a fact by the new nature which is ours through the word and Spirit of God. In virtue of this we have by grace to judge and refuse every working of the old nature, living on the Living Bread whereof we have eaten, yea, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and so living not merely by reason, but on account, of Him, as He did when here below on account of the Father. No character of life for purity can compare with that which the word of truth conveys. How different and inferior is the being of blood or of flesh's will or of man's will, which we once sadly knew, as our only experience, and still know to be productive, if allowed, only of evil, even since we were born of God!

But it is not enough, though it be much every way, to be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath. The exhortation follows definitely against imminent dangers. "Wherefore, having laid aside every sort of filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word which is able to save your souls. But be word-doers, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves" (vers. 21, 22).

It is well to take note of the aorist in ver. 21, as compared with the present in ver. 22: in the last a constant continuous call, in the former acts done once for all. Pollution might be, as the apostle tells us in 2 Cor. 7: 1, of spirit no less than of flesh, and the more ensnaring because more subtle. But the call is to have once for all put every kind of filthiness away, as also of that rank growth of wickedness which. is inherent in fallen nature. It would be indeed a hopeless call if we had not a new Life in Christ; but this every believer possesses, and the Holy Spirit's indwelling to work suitably to Him Who is its source, fulness, and standard. The flesh is still there; but in the cross of Christ it has already received its condemnation in Him Who was the one and efficacious offering for sin (Rom 8: 3). Thus there is no excuse for the believer allowing its evil working in himself or others: God condemned it fully when Christ thus suffered, that we might have even now this immerse comfort for faith as a settled thing.

"The word of truth," which first reached us when under the dominion of the falsehood of sin and Satan, and delivered us through faith in Christ and His mighty work, is spoken of also as "the implanted word" which we are told to receive as an accomplished act. It is in contrast with a merely external rule that could only condemn what was opposed to itself. It works inwardly in that life which the believer has, being perfectly akin to it and congenial with it, as both are of God. Hence there is nothing strange in the call; and the call is to receive it "with meekness," as becomes those who have already tasted that the Lord is good, and desire to profit more and more. For indeed only that word is "able to save our souls" (compare the end of 1 Peter 1, and the beginning of 1 Peter 2). The God who began so gracious a work does not forget or relinquish His care. He exercises and disciplines our souls, He spares no fault; but He has proved fully in Christ that those whom He loved that were in the world He loved unto the end. Still He works not by rites or forms, but by our faith in His word (compare 1 Peter 1: 5). We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

But as this exceeding value of God's word is capable of being abused into a school of dogma, and consequently of mere knowledge, the next verse summons us habitually to reduce the word to practice. "But be word-doers, and not hearers only, deluding yourselves." This is the great business of every day. Our Lord had already enforced His most solemn warning against the same self-delusion. "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens; but he that doeth the will of my Father that is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out demons, and in thy name done works of power? And then will I avow unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work lawlessness" (Matt. 7: 21-23). The word must not only be heard but produce fruit accordingly. To hear the Son is the urgent call of the Father, but it is to form the new life in obedience; otherwise it is to mock God and delude ourselves. And hence the grave caution here.

Reality is indispensable. It was so of old and always; much more is it now due to God, who has done such great things for us in Christ. Begotten of God with the word of truth, we are called to walk accordingly. The higher or holier the speech, if it go no farther, the more are we self-condemned and inexcusably guilty. Life is given to the believer for exercise in every way pleasing to God.

"Because if any one be a word-hearer, and not a doer, he is like a man considering his natural face in a mirror; for he considered himself and is gone away, and straightway forgot of what sort he was" (vers. 23, 24).

It is a privilege of no small value to have the word, which is of God; and as it was that which revealed Him in Christ to the soul, so also it was made the means of quickening. It therefore is the appropriate nourishment of the life that was given, as the Holy Spirit used it thus efficaciously. So He does to the end, making us know that the Trinity is no mere idea nor objective dogma, but a living truth in active operation day by day for those who believe. Hence conscience is continually exercised; for we have another nature, not only human but fallen and prone to evil, as previous verses in this chapter fully notice; and we pass through a world which is wholly opposed to God and His glory, having already been tested from the beginning and proving its enmity by crucifying the Lord of glory. Inwardly and outwardly therefore is the most real danger, especially when we take account of a subtle and sleepless power of evil, one who secretly avails himself of every means to compromise the saint and draw him into the dishonour of the Lord.

Nor is there any way more perilous than ensnaring the believers into a merely formal reading of the revealed word. For the conscience may be satisfied that the word is heard, while the heart is unmoved; and thus all becomes powerless. Yet therein God has communicated the most solemn truths, and of the nearest interest to Himself as well as to us; so that reading them there perfunctorily inflicts deep moral loss on the soul, and leads into a hardened state that lays one open to a thousand snares.

Therefore does our epistle urge us to be not hearers of the word only, but doers, comparing him who is a mere hearer to a man considering in a mirror "the face of his birth," as it literally runs. For, it is added, he considered himself and is gone away, and straightway forgot of what sort he was. A similar warning, we have seen, had the Lord given in the close of what is called the sermon on the mount, as it is indeed not only for all that turn away from what they hear for the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, but expressly for such professors of His name as content themselves with reading or hearing His good word, which is able to make wise unto salvation. Life is not only receptive but energetic; it is holy and works by love, for it is inseparable from the Son of God, Whose words are profitable indeed: "they are spirit, and they are life," as He has told us. So also had He said, "That which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." This no external institution, however important, can possibly effect; nothing but a divine person giving the soul to believe the word and Him who made it known.

Thus is the truth kept sure and safe on all sides, without room for superstition or fanaticism. For the Holy Spirit ever employs the word which witnesses to Christ and His work, and thus brings into communion with God; and as one is thus born of God, so does he grow and work practically. Where only the mind is reached or the affections, it is no more than a sight of the natural face in a mirror. There is no abiding self-judgment, no going out after Christ, no delight in God's will intimated in His word. It was seen for a moment but forgotten.

Approaching the close of this contrast which verse 22 began, we have a phrase of much and weighty import, which lets us into, or at least flows consistently with, the truth here insisted on, especially and expressly in verse 18. The law given by Moses was in no way a law of liberty but of bondage. It forbade and condemned the transgressions to which the flesh was prone. The curb it applied to man's will provoked the old man, and the offence consequently abounded instead of diminishing. The law therefore could not but work out wrath; as it is the strength of sin, not of holiness.

But here the Spirit of God presents, as the gift of God's will and grace, the new nature which characterises the faithful, the effect of God's giving birth to His own by word of truth. Christ, as we know from elsewhere, is this life, which he has who believes in Him. And this life, as in Him so in His, shows itself in obedience as its primary action. "What shall I do, Lord?" is the ready answer of the quickened soul to the revelation of "I am Jesus of Nazareth." We are sanctified to obedience no less than to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. The word of God has His authority over us; and feeling our ignorance and the goodness of His word, we prize and welcome all that He gives to direct our way. And the indwelling Spirit of God, glorifying the Lord Jesus, is our power, now that we confess Him Lord and own Him as the Son of God, resting on His redemption and beholding Him on high.

Hence the word of truth, by which God begot us, is also our divine directory, and is here designated "a perfect law, that of liberty," exercising faith and effecting obedience by grace. For those that are thus called by the gospel are made conscious of their new and holy relationship to God, as the Spirit of adoption gives them to cry, Abba, Father. Christ was the perfect expression of God, as well as perfect example of man; and He, being our life, as well as righteousness from God and before God, forms us here below accordingly. Begotten by the word, we have a new nature which loves the word as well as God Himself; and thus we in virtue of it wish to do what He wills, as communicated in His word, now fully revealed. "As the living Father sent me, and I live on account of the Father, he too that eateth me shall live on account of me" (John 6: 57): how blessed, elevating and mighty the motive. May it be ours who follow Him!

"But he that closely looked into perfect law, that of liberty, and abode close," as living faith achieves, "being not a quite forgetful hearer but a work-doer, he shall be blessed in his doing" (ver. 25). He has a nature in accord with the word which communicated it to his soul. It is not a law from without that forbids what he likes and demands what is irksome. He knows God's love inwardly, and finds His word enjoins what the life he professes takes pleasure in. He delights in obeying God; and this is just what the word points out, what to do and how to do it, with Christ revealed Whose light shines and Whose love cheers and strengthens him. And thus it is the "law of liberty." His heart purified by faith not only accepts but rejoices in the will of God — His good and acceptable and perfect will. This we behold in its untainted and unfailing fulness in our Lord Jesus. He that keeps His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected. And as there is no fear in love, so neither is there bondage therein; yet no chains are so mighty as its silken cords. The one obedient is accordingly blessed, not in his end only but in his ways — blessed in his doing. A real and great and vital truth it is, that Christ deigns to be our way by faith in a wilderness world where is no way. Only the eye single to Him can see that way; but God is as faithful in this as in all else to the soul that is true to Christ's word and name.

Certainly the believer is not said to be blessed for his doing, but in it. The true light already shines; as it did perfectly in Christ when here, so now the Holy Spirit effects this in those begotten of God. He will have reality, now that the day of shadows and forms is past, grace and truth having come through Jesus Christ. If He is not here to maintain all, the Holy Spirit is sent forth and abides for this express purpose to the glory of Christ. No doubt, it is a day of knowing what God has revealed, and He has revealed nothing more fully than Himself in His Son. But it is a day of obedience for the faithful, no less than of life and peace, and of fellowship with the Father and the Son. Knowledge without obedience is a sad and shameful reproach. "If ye know these things," said the Saviour, "happy are ye if ye do them."

But there is another way in which we may glorify God, or do Him great dishonour; not by our activity but by our speech. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. As our Lord added, "The good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and the wicked man out of the wicked treasure bringeth forth wicked things. But I say unto you, that every idle word which men shall say, they shall render an account of it in judgment-day; for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned" (Matt. 12: 35-37). On scarce anything are men, and even Christians, more distant practically from the mind of God than on the use and in the licence claimed for the tongue. On the other hand who does not know the dead and gloomy and resentful silence when the name of the Lord Jesus is brought into any general company? It matters not how reverent be the spirit in which it is uttered, or how apt the application, or how necessary and conclusive for the truth's sake: man cannot forgive it. The name is inopportune save from a pulpit; it is an offence to the world, high or low, which cast Him out and crucified Him. Notwithstanding the desperate effort to make out that all is changed for so many ages, and that the adornment of the tomb, the picture, or the sculptor, proves the heart's homage in our day, the implacable enmity underneath does not fail to betray itself; and God is not deceived by a vain show. With the heart it is believed unto righteousness, and with mouth confession is made unto salvation. God will have His Son honoured as Himself where He was rejected; and those who honour Him by hearing His words and believing Him Who sent Him have life eternal; while those who disbelieve Him must perish, their ways being as bad as their words to His dishonour.

The same principle applies all through "If anyone thinks he is religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his heart, this [man's] religion is vain" (ver. 26). The word "religious" here used refers to the manifestation. It is neither εὐσεβὴς, pious or godly; nor is it λατρεύων rendering a religious service or worship to God. It means religious practice outwardly paid. Compare Acts 26: 5; Col. 2: 18, 23.

Again, the form is hardly "seemeth" but "deemeth," or "thinketh himself." It is not what appears to others that is in question, but his thought of himself. Wiclif and the Rhemish are right, following the Vulgate; Tyndale misled Cranmer, the Geneva V. and the Authorised, The very fact that it is not deeds but only the indulgence of speech gives occasion to self-deception. But he who calls on the Lord's name is bound to follow His steps, and not to misrepresent Him, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth; Who, reviled, reviled not again, and, suffering, threatened not. On the contrary as He was fairer than the sons of men, so grace was poured into His lips: therefore God blessed Him for ever. But each of us has imperative need to "bridle his tongue "; for we have an old man which was wholly absent from Him. If we do not, the evil of fallen nature finds a ready exit there; which, if we fail to judge, deceives the heart. And this man's religion is as vain as his is faithful who abides close to the perfect law of liberty.

The verse before us concludes this part of the Epistle. As the preceding one denied the weight or value of practical outward service, where an unbridled tongue betrayed a heart outside God's presence, here we have a sample set forth positively. It is in danger of being overlooked; yet this cannot be because the sight is infrequent in this world of sin and sorrow, of want and bereavement, where gracious sympathy does much to bind up and together wounded hearts. "Who is my neighbour?" said a lawyer who had no care to see one.

"A religious service pure and undefiled before him that is * God and Father is this, to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep himself unspotted from the world" (ver. 27).

* There is ancient and excellent authority p.m. K L and more than 50 cursives, etc., for omitting the article, which would give a characteristic force, "before a God and Father." In either case "our" goes too far.

Wiclif has it thus: — "This is a clene religioun and unwemmyd anentis God and the fadir, for to visite pupilles, that is, fadirles or modirles, or bothe, and widewes in her tribulacioun, and for to kepe him silf undefoulid fro this world." The Wiclifite gives, "A clene religioun and an vnwemmed anentis God and the fadir, is this, to visite fadirles and modirles children, and widewis in her tribulacioun, and to kepe hym silf vndefoulid fro this world." "Pure devocion and vndefiled (says Tyndale) before God the father, is this: to vysit the frendlesse and widdowes in their adversite, and to kepe him silfe vnspotted of the worlde." Cranmer and the Genevese V. follow Tyndale save the latter in the word "religion" for "devocion," and for "frendlesse" both giving "fatherlesse." That of Rheims has, "Religion cleane and vnspotted with God and the Father, is this, to visite pupilles and vvidovves in their tribulation; and to keepe him self vnspotted from this vvorld."

There is often an exaggeration lent to these wholesome words, as if such duties as are here enjoined, or even the first part without the second, constituted the substance of "religion." The absence of the article here too is not without meaning, especially as it was prefixed to the same word only in the verse before. "The religion," or the religious service, of the man there described is vain. Here its absence indicates that it is but a part of it, however weighty and becoming. For we have to do with God, not only as the patriarchs knew Him (an Almighty protector in their weakness), nor yet again as the Lord Jehovah of Israel (the moral governor of a people called to do His commandments), but as the Lord Jesus revealed Him, and as He alone perfectly enjoyed the relationship of Father. It is here that we find the richest display of love in the nearest way possible for the creature to know God. And this is quite in keeping with what the Epistle had already explained, the communication of a life to the believer capable of entering into His thoughts and affections, and of obeying His will as being begotten thereby.

It is a service then pure and undefiled before Him Who is God and Father, to look after the fatherless and widows. Compassionate love is thus drawn out. It is indeed in its measure the reflection of God's own character.

So the Lord called him, who would give a dinner or supper, to ask not relatives nor the rich but the poor and wretched, assured of blessing all the more because they could not recompense him; but this too will come in the resurrection of the righteous. Our Epistle pursues its given line of blessing now in the doing or practice.

But the latter clause benevolence cannot imitate; and one finds it generally drops. Yet is it an exhortation eminently christian, and essential to spiritual well-being, "to keep himself unspotted from the world." Never do we hear any word quite as full in the O.T., though at all times God has in His own sought love, and piety, and holiness; and His children have walked in them all, because they walked in faith. It is the Lord Jesus Who has fully brought out what the world is. Its thankless departure from God, its ready forgetfulness of Him and His manifold and persevering goodness, its setting up of grand material objects, like the sun, moon, and stars, its adoption of departed heroes to adore, its degradation in worship by the invention of imaginary beings as bad as themselves, its bowing down to the most ordinary creatures of earth, air, or the waters, even to reptiles, did not constitute its worst guilt. Plato yearned after some superhuman being to come and enlighten and raise up the fallen race. But when the Father sent the Son, and (wondrous condescension!) in the reality of man while most truly God, hatred of good came out as it never did nor could before; and they rejected Him alike in His words and His works. It mattered not that these all were light and love, as He was. But they brought God in Christ's person the Holy and the True; and man would have none of Him: neither religious man, nor philosophical, nor political; Jew, Greek, Roman, despised and abhorred Him. As it was written beforehand, they hated Him without a cause, even those that had His law; they hated both the Son and the Father.

This is the world; and the great standing proof is the cross of Christ. Hence our Lord, looking on to it, declared His own not to be of the world, as He is not; not merely that they ought not to be, but that they are not. And the Epistles follow this up, when the Holy Spirit was given, with the utmost care for corresponding ways. Nor is there anything in which Christendom is more false and guilty than in seeking and courting it, and congratulating itself on possessing its countenance and its good things if it has them, or in coveting them when it has not. Popery is flagrant but not alone in this.

Yet there is the plain and holy call of God to every child of His, "to keep himself unspotted from the world." This cuts very closely indeed; and we do well to suffer the word of exhortation if any can help us to steer clear; for its spirit may enter in subtle ways. But let us look to Him, Who loves us and discerns perfectly, to work in us by His all-searching word; that we may be strengthened to judge it unsparingly, and thus to keep ourselves unspotted from the world.

James 2

Our chapter opens with the distinct confession of Christ; so that we are in advance of the pious but general ground taken before, which, though quite compatible, to say the least, with faith in Him, does not expressly put His name forward, beyond the mention of it that was made in James 1: 1. We shall see that there is good reason for this new step when it is duly weighed.

"My brethren, do not with respectings of persons have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory" (ver. 1).

The tendency was strong to sever faith from practice, and this quite as much among Jewish professors, this chapter shows, as among Greeks. It is the levity and selfishness of human nature. But the preceding chapter took a distinct and positive step in asserting the blessedness of enduring trial; and yet more, that of His own will God the Father begot the believers by the word of truth. This is incomparably more than holding sound views. It is not orthodoxy alone but a communicated "divine nature" as 2 Peter 1: 4 expressly calls it, and as 1 John throughout teaches with fulness and precision.

Here the warning is against the inconsistency of spirit and ways. The case first specified is "in respectings of persons." For it might occur in many forms and in various degrees. But allowance in any shape is not to be indulged, as being an affront to "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," emphasised as it is here too, by speaking of "the glory" that belongs to Himself.

No soul that believes in Christ can be ignorant of the death-blow He in His entire practice gives to such feelings or conduct. Mary of whom He deigned to be born was a Jewish maiden in the humblest position; so was Joseph the carpenter, His legal father through whose descent He derived His title to the throne of David and Solomon; and this was essential as a perfect claim to Messiahship. For Mary, daughter of Heli, was descended from David's son Nathan who gave no such right. Again, when born, He was laid "in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." So He grew, advancing in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and man. One lovely episode excepted, He abides in entire obscurity, going down and dwelling with Mary and Joseph, in subjection to them and in despised Nazareth; yet was He King of kings and Lord of lords.

When His public service called Him to speak out, what so uncompromising! "Blessed ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled. Blessed ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach and cast out your name as wicked for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice in that day and leap [for joy]; for, behold, your reward is great in the heavens, for in the same manner did their fathers to the prophets. But woe to you the rich! for ye have received your consolation; woe to you that are filled now! for ye shall hunger. Woe, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe, when all men speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6: 20 26).

To a similar effect might one transcribe our Lord's habitual teaching; and His ways were in unwavering accord with it. He and He alone, when asked, "Who art thou?" could truly answer, "Absolutely (in the principle of My being) that which I also speak to you" (John 8: 25). His speech and His conduct — Himself — exactly tallied. He was in every way the truth: not a word to recall, nor a way to question. All was genuine — this always in Him Who was the Holy, the True, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God.

And what shall one say of that mighty work of His which in depth exceeded all that was possible even throughout His days here below? Happily we have the Holy Spirit to pronounce unerringly. He, "subsisting in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, becoming in likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross" (Phil. 2: 6-8). "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. 8: 9).

Such is "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Lord] of glory." Can any considerations, can any words, rise up to the simple overwhelming strength of what God thus tells us of Him? Has He not said (Luke 9: 23, 26), "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me?" and "whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he cometh in his own glory, and of the Father, and of the holy angels?" Again, has He not laid down, "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest haply they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee? But when thou makest a feast, bid the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind; and thou shalt be blessed, because they have it not to recompense thee; for thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14: 12-14). What more withering of the world's glory than "what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16: 15)? Do we truly believe it? And where was respect of persons then in His sighs? It never had a moment's place; nor should it have with us, who believe in Him. His glory may well and for ever eclipse every rival — that of the world especially which crucified Him.

Respect of persons is the instinct of self, and the reflex of the world; but it denies Christ in practice, and the reality of that intimate relationship which grace has formed between all that are His. The inspired writer singles out a particular case which he had probably witnessed, though put here hypothetically.

"For if there come into your meeting (lit. synagogue) a man gold-ringed in splendid clothing, and there come in also a poor one in vile clothing; and ye look upon him that weareth the splendid clothing, and say, Sit thou here well (or, in a good place); and ye say to the poor one, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool, did you not make a difference among yourselves and become judges of evil thoughts" (vers 2-4)?

One can easily understand "synagogue" used by the writer to those addressed, not literally, but as applied by a ready transition to a Christian company. It is therefore here rendered "meeting" as perhaps the nearest analogue. No one could be surprised at so worldly a spirit in a literal synagogue; it was a grief if it passed to a Christian congregation. What was less congruous with Christ than a gold-ringed man in splendid clothing? Never was He bedizened save in the bitter mockery of those about to crucify Him. Yet could He have called in a moment all the wealth and grandeur of the world around Him, had it been seasonable either for Himself or for those that represent Him here below. On high He is crowned with glory and honour, as they will be at His coming. But faith recognises the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that, though He was rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich. Now, however, is the time to follow Him on earth, indifferent to all that flesh counts desirable, and counting all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord.

Suffering for righteousness' sake, yet more for Christ's sake, ought to be precious in our eyes as Christians; and we might appropriately honour such as have won a good degree in any spiritual way. But to slight one for the garb that bespeaks his penury, and to honour another because of his gorgeous raiment attesting his wealth, is a two-fold contradiction of Christ. Even the law taught far higher principles than those that the Jews had fallen into, and that govern the Gentiles who know not God. For in the days of law it was touching to read the solicitude of God for the poor and afflicted, and the earnestness with which He urges on His people to consider them. But how much more deeply His compassion was shown in Him Who was His image! And forgetfulness of His example was serious in the eyes of James for those who owe all to His grace, Himself the Lord of glory.

Not that the scripture warrants the spirit of disrespect to the noble or the exalted. Render, says the apostle Paul, to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour; even as every soul is called to be subject to the higher authorities, being set up by God in His providence, a terror not to a good work but to an evil one. Thus is the Christian relation to the powers that be in the outside world. But love is due to one another among all who bear the Lord's name, and tender compassion to such as are in danger of snare through their trials and poverty. Contempt to the poor Christian is as far from the mind that was in Christ as can be conceived.

Hence we see, before this uncomely offence is touched, how this Epistle in the very first chapter exhorted brethren to count it all joy when they fell into varied temptations; which to unbelievers are nothing but sorrow and disappointment to be got rid of by all means possible. Hence the brother of low degree was to glory in his elevation, and the rich in his humiliation, because as the flower of grass he was to pass away. More than this he who endures temptation (he declares from God) is blessed; for it is not only that grace works moral profit now, but, having here been proved, he shall receive the crown of life promised of the Lord to those that love Him. If we endure, we shall also reign with Him, as assuredly as if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him. The cross of Christ is correlative to heavenly glory; and so here His glory precedes this rebuke to the worldly spirit that despised the poor and cringed to the rich, unworthy anywhere, most of all where those showed it who professed the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory.

Dr. Whitby and others labour to explain this of judicial assemblies which the Jews held in their synagogues; and they infer the probability that this was transferred by the converted Israelites to their meetings. This of course reduces the rebuke to partiality in case of trials between a poor man and a rich, instead of seeing that we have here a great principle universally applicable, and all the more necessary when ease and wealth and luxury began to flow in among professing Christians. So too Doddridge follows Beza in his lowering of ver. 4 ("judices male ratiocinantes"), as he also makes the opening words to mean, "and distinguish not in yourselves" according to the different characters of these two men, but only regard their outward appearance, "you even become judges who reason ill." What is really intended is an evil moral state, out of all sympathy with our Lord, in making a difference among themselves, and becoming judges of evil thoughts, i.e., characterised by having evil thoughts, instead of weighing and feeling as in the light of God and His love by faith. It was a worldly mind.

Nor is it only that fawning on rich persons, even when believers are gathered together, is inconsistent with faith in Him Who in His grace became poor though Lord of glory. It is opposed to the law, and still more to the gospel and Christianity. It denies in effect relationship with Him as a secondary thing to the circumstances of the day and the lowest distinction in the world; and it is as far as possible from God's mind, as His word shows and Christ impressively interpreted and livingly endorsed it. "The poor have the gospel preached to them." What were they that received it in His eyes? To the pungent contrast already given we have an earnest appeal added.

"Hear, my beloved brethren; did not God choose the poor as to the world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those that love Him? But ye dishonoured the poor [man]. Do not the rich oppress you, and they drag you before tribunals? Do not they blaspheme the worthy name that was called on you" (vers. 5-7)?

Attention is drawn first to the plain and characteristic fact everywhere manifest in the church that not only is the gospel preached to the poor, but that the poor are those who as a class are chosen by God. So the apostle strongly set before the ease-loving intellectual Corinthians who liked to be on good terms with the world to the Lord's dishonour and their own loss and danger. How little they had read aright the word of the cross which is to those that perish foolishness, but to the saved God's power! For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the intelligence of the intelligent. Here it is the still more debased assumption of the rich. But in any case the foolishness of God, as they count Christ crucified, is wiser than men, and the weakness of God in the same cross is stronger than men. "For behold your calling, brethren, that [there are] not many wise according to flesh, not many mighty, not many high born. But God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame the wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the strong things; and the ignoble things of the world and the despised God chose, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are; so that no flesh should boast before God" (1 Cor. 1: 26-29).

The humble estate of the poor is by grace made their decided advantage when they are called. For there is no bondage more imperious than that which "society" imposes on its votaries, nothing more at issue with the Lord of all Who judged it root and branch by being outside it all and ignoring its pretensions, and pursuing His path of holy goodness to all in unswerving obedience. This the poor believer sees, rich in faith, and escapes the will of his class to rise in the world by religious means as by every other way. His insight may not be profound or extensive, but he accepts with joy the gospel which elevates him spiritually, and he seeks no other now, looking onward confidently for the kingdom not of this world, which He, Whose it is, promised to those that love Him.

The poor "of this world" of Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, and the Auth. V. supposes a text which extant MSS. do not warrant, unless it be the exaggerated rendering of the article, without the demonstrative pronoun. This "of the world" has considerable support of both uncials and cursives, as well as ancient versions, etc., and is the text of Griesbach, Matthaei (both edd.) and Scholz. They were probably misled by the Vulgate, followed by Wiclif who preceded them, and by the Rhemish that came after them, "in this world," which has one cursive (29) to this effect with the venerable Bede. "In the world" has the support of three junior MSS. (27, 43, 64). The true reading adopted by the latest critics is that of the most ancient and best uncials, though neglected by the ancient versions save the later or Philoxenian Syriac. It is τῳ κόσμῳ, and appears to be the dative of reference, i.e. poor in respect of, or as to, the world — a not uncommon usage.

It may be remarked that "rich in faith" is the simple contrast by grace with their lowly circumstances here below, and qualifies them as a class without any question of different measure of comparison individually. Faith made them all rich if they had nothing otherwise; and faith as well as love would honour them accordingly now, as God surely will and before the universe in due time. Christ gave their confidence in Him, and love to Him. His promise encourages and strengthens them along the road.

In open opposition is the haughty contempt which wealth naturally engenders. How strange and deplorable that the rich as a class should be of any account in Christian eyes? What is "the poor" man (whether in the case described in vers. 2-4 or in any other) but dishonoured by their unbelieving self-complacency? More unjust and selfish still is their attitude and habit. "Do not the rich oppress you? and [is it not] they [that] drag you into courts of justice? Do not they blaspheme the excellent name that was called on you?" As a class, and so it is our Epistle speaks, they were hostile to the name of the Lord, which was everything to the poor that believed and confessed Him; as they were heartless toward themselves whose poverty exposed them to all manner of evil surmise and detraction, and so to persecution.

In riches the enemy has a ready means of keeping up the spirit of the world against Christ and His poor. But what is here aimed at is the guilty tendency on the part of any Christian, and especially the poor, to honour "the unrighteous mammon," and those who have nothing else to boast. Friendship with the world is enmity with God. Scripture is dead against coveting their goods, or yet more wronging themselves. Neither this Epistle nor any other countenances levelling. Faith gives the only exultation of value in the spiritual realm; and this the church surely is, or it is worse than nothing, even salt that has lost its savour, and proper neither for land nor for dung. He that hath ears to hear let him hear.

It is characteristic of this Epistle to employ the expression "royal law"; nor is it the only peculiar phrase that fell to it with striking propriety. We have already "the perfect law of liberty" in James 1: 25, and we have "law of liberty" again in James 2: 12.

"If however ye fulfil law royal according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye work sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors" (vers. 8, 9).

This is admirable. The feeble saints of the circumcision, most of them poor, had so forgotten early fervour of faith, as to cringe before the wealthy, and this even in their assemblies if a rich man entered therein. Yet were they not rich in faith, the poorest of them? Were they not heirs of the kingdom which He who chose them promised to those that love Him? What inconsistency to give themselves the air of valuing a little money, of closing the eye of faith to their own hopes of glory, though the least recollection of the Lord of glory dispelled those natural thoughts and brought back the promise which detects the false glitter of the world as it is.

The third book of Moses had from early days asserted that great moral principle as far as Israel were concerned; but where was the heart to prize it? where the nature capable of carrying it out unswervingly? Certainly it is not in the mind of the flesh, which is enmity against God and is no better really for man. "Love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love." Nothing more true or trenchant. The fulness and the manifestation of it is in Christ sent into the world that we might live through Him. This we cannot do till we receive Him from God, believing on His name. Then we live, and live to God; for he that believeth on Him hath life eternal. There is no other way. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the witness that God gave of his Son. And this is the witness that God gave us life eternal, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

The believer then alone has this life, and loves according to Christ, Who, when challenged gave the first place to loving God, but also pressed in the next place loving one's neighbour. Here in this world of need and misery even the law-teacher had not obeyed it, and asked, Who is my neighbour? To the Lord it was all plain enough. He came in love to seek and save the lost at all cost to Himself. Now that He is on high, His love is active in His own, and in them only. For as the apostle shows in Rom. 8 those that are in Christ walk according to the Spirit, not according to the flesh which is lawless and selfish, the very opposite of love or of any other good. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus it is that freed the believer from the law of sin and death. Sin is no longer a law, the power of death was broken by Christ risen from among the dead; and He is our life. Such is one reason (ver. 2) why there is no condemnation for those in Christ. God cannot condemn that life which is now ours in Him. But then what of our evil nature, the flesh? The second (ver. 3) meets this. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin (i.e. as a sin-offering) condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law, its righteous import, might be fulfilled in us who walk not after flesh but after Spirit. For it is only the believer who has the new life and the efficacy of Christ's death in annulling his evil nature that walks according to the Spirit, loving God supremely and loving man so as to suffer or even die for his good.

It is not that James brings out what was left for the apostle of uncircumcision. But he does characterise this grand moral claim of God as regards the neighbour as a "royal law." Before it respect to persons is sentenced to death. The command to love one's neighbour towers above any transient or artificial distinctions among men. Who or what are the rich to wish it set aside in their favour? And what mean any rich in faith among the poor by ignoring it? It is a royal law, says our Epistle. Those who fix the eyes of their heart on our Lord Jesus, will not fail to fulfil it. It were a sad descent to look away from Him in glory, as He is, to the gold-ringed man of wealth. Even Jacob before the Lord Jesus came did better when brought into the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. He was not dazzled, any more than he petitioned for his family. But "Jacob blessed Pharaoh." "And without all contradiction," says Heb. 7: 7, "the less is blessed of the better." May the poorest of the saints be strengthened to cherish undimmed the consciousness of his blessedness and the hope of the glory where the Lord is, and whither he himself is bound!

Respect of persons is a violation of love and a transgression of the law that insists on love, as is added in the verse that follows. If a believer be poor, there is no ground in this why he should pander to worldliness, despise his poor brethren, puff up the wealthy, and dishonour the Lord of glory Who has shown us the clear contrary. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich" (2 Cor. 8: 9). "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." Weigh Phil. 2: 5-9. As our Epistle declares, to have respect of persons is to work sin and to be convicted by the law as transgressors; as the Epistle says, Love worketh no ill to the neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.

There is hardly a fact more characteristic of the natural man than condemning another for the evil to which one is not addicted, while extenuating one's own sins by every excuse possible as a peccadillo. Truly man is not only fallen, but his nature is utterly unjust, and God is in none of his thoughts. One may plead the universal failure of mankind, and the inconsistency of the faithful. But Christ puts all such apologies to the rout, and shows us Man on earth in Whom was no sin and no guile in His mouth, now in glory, the Lord of glory. He, not Adam, nor Israel, is the standard here below as well as in heaven. Who can stand beside Him as He was, or be with Him as He is?

Here, however, it is the law which is used to crush self-righteousness; and the law, being of God, cannot but be inflexible and resents all the evasions of men. "For whoever shall keep the law as a whole but shall offend in one [point] is become guilty of all. For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. And if thou commit not adultery but killest, thou art become a transgressor of law. So speak, and so act, as about to be judged by a law of liberty"(vers. 10-12). Were there true obedience, one claim of God would be as binding as another, violence as hateful to us as corruption. To offend in one point violates God's authority and brings us under the guilt of breaking all. The appeal reminds us of the apostle's reasoning in Rom. 2: 17-29, where the Jew is convicted of folly in resting on law and boasting in God and teaching others as babes while failing to teach himself, and dishonouring God by the transgression of the law in which he professedly gloried. All attempt for sinful man (and a Jew made no difference) to acquire righteousness by the law, and stand on any such ground before God, is but fatal ignorance of self as well as of God. By deeds of law shall no flesh be justified in His sight.

On the other hand the believer in the Lord Jesus is begotten by His word of truth. It is not only an operation on conscience and heart, but a new nature is imparted, which is of God, as indeed those who thus believe are declared to be born of God, and His children. As the life of the Spirit is by the word of truth, so it is formed, and nourished, developed and exercised in that word, which has for him who is thus begotten a character of holy freedom in entire contrast with the action of the law on the natural man. In this case it is an instrument of bondage, because the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good; whereas the mind of the flesh, the natural man, is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; only self-will is the law of its being. The law therefore, when truly applied, discovers to the sinner his essential alienation and can give no quarter but condemn and kill. It is no better in those born of God than in any other, as the latter half of Romans 7 elaborately shows. Flesh does not change into spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh.

But as the word was used in God's will to beget the believer by the impartation of a nature akin to Himself and His word, so it remains valid and intended for the need and admonition, refreshment, direction, and strengthening of the new life all through. This it is which is called a "law of liberty." Its authority was recognized by the soul in hearing Christ's word and passing from death unto life. Then ensued repentance toward God as truly as faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ: self was judged as evil, grace and truth in Christ became most welcome. Then the word which communicated the knowledge of such a blessing is valued and confided in, to guide the soul through the mazes of a world departed from, and to lay bare the devices of the enemy to ensnare along the way. Light divine surrounds one's going. It is accordingly a "law of liberty" which we love; as indeed we now know the God Who gave it us first and last as our best and truest Friend, proved and manifested in the Lord Jesus.

It is of much interest to observe how the apostle Paul shows in Rom. 8: 3, 4 the way in which he contrasts with the law that worketh wrath, and slew him who sought thus to establish his standing, what he calls "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ," which was characterised by emancipation, not bondage, and issued in a life of obedience pleasing to God. Each inspired writer has his points of difference; both agree in testifying to a similar blessed result.

Men easily satisfy themselves before a God who no longer manifests Himself visibly, Who does not act now as when the law ruled, or government was displayed in immediate rewards and punishments. And the error of men is apt to be so much the greater when they regard the gospel as introducing a mitigation of legal severity. They fancy that a little sin here and there, now and then, will meet with mild dealing, so that there is no need of over-righteousness. The circumstances of those addressed in this Epistle would naturally expose souls to this snare, which is itself laid bare and torn to pieces in the verses already before us. No notion was more derogatory to His authority Who had spoken at Sinai, none more subversive of the law itself, which is necessarily inflexible. If broken in a single point, righteousness under it is gone, and the honour of the whole is compromised. If infraction in one respect were tolerated, licence would go on to expect more and more, till perhaps every point but one was surrendered, if indeed even one on such a principle could escape the encroaching will of man. But all such tolerance is unknown to the law, which demands nothing less than absolute, uncompromising, subjection.

Is it argued then that the condition of man under it, no matter what his privileges and helps, is and must be hopeless? The answer is that so it is assuredly, because man is a sinner. Evil is there since the fall in his very nature, a law in his members, warring in opposition to what is holy and just and good. The apostle Paul goes to the root, and shows that death to the old man is the sole divine deliverance, amelioration of ourselves gradual or sudden being alike human and vain, the nostrums of theological empiricism, and not the remedy proclaimed to faith in God's word. Again, were it simply our death, it would be unavailable for us here below, and the blessed fruit would only be after death when we should be with Christ; and thus the victory that God intends now through our Lord Jesus would be shorn of a great part of its lustre and power. But it is not so. The death and resurrection of Christ gives far more now than most Christians believe, to their own loss. For it is not only that He died for us — for our sins, which are therefore blotted out and forgiven — He died also to sin, He Himself wholly without it. He knew no sin; yet God made Him sin for us; and we who believe are associated with Him in that death of complete deliverance from sin in principle, root and not fruits merely, as the apostle so elaborately discusses in Rom. 5: 12; 8. Our very baptism signifies, not only that we washed our sins away, but that we died to sin and are justified from sin as well as sins. Hence we are called to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Our Epistle does not penetrate to such depths nor rise to such heights, as it was given to the great apostle of the uncircumcision, minister of the church no less than of the gospel, as he designates himself in Col. 1. But it is no less inspired of God, no less necessary to man, in order to test mere profession where it most abounded and was most dangerous, to maintain the true character of that law which must be a ministry of death and condemnation to the guilty, and to insist on "a law of liberty" which exactly suits the new nature of those whom God in His purpose or will begot by the word of truth. The law was not accompanied by the rainbow, the beautiful sign of divine mercy in the covenant with creation (Gen. 9), after Noah began the post-diluvian world with the burnt-offering, the sign of Christ's sacrifice. Lightning and thunder, unearthly trumpet, and God's voice more terrible than all to sinful man, inaugurated the law. It is Christ here below Who first shows us the law of liberty in all its fulness and perfection.

This portion closes with the next two verses: "So speak and so act as about to be judged by a law of liberty; for the judgment [is] merciless to him that showed no mercy. Mercy glorieth over judgment" (vers. 12, 13). James as ever was led of the Spirit to press in practice the manifestation of God's will on those that have or say they have, the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he resents, as we ought, the shame which a lax and spurious profession puts on the Lord "of glory." Can any appeal be more wholesome now as then? They are indeed to be pitied as well as blamed who think it beneath scripture; and it is to be feared, that, even if at bottom true believers, they find the edge of the sword, as James wields it, too sharp for their ways. Otherwise it seems incomprehensible that they should not welcome his words as of great and permanent value for themselves as for others.

Nor is it true that the Epistle is absorbed in the outward conduct. Speaking and doing are its exhortation as covering a very large part of our practical life; but it is carefully defined that both were to be of such a sort as was suited to those that are to be determined by a law of liberty: a principle of the inner man, and inscrutable to such as, having no faith, have no new life from God and no knowledge of His grace. As mercy is the spring of all we profess as God's children, God is indignant at its absence in those that by grace claim kindred with Himself. They surely, of all mankind, are responsible to delight in mercy and to manifest it in word and deed, as having to do and to be judged by a law, not of bondage, but, of liberty. For God is not mocked but sanctified in those that come nigh Him, as all do who are begotten of Him; and He will be glorified in the solemn judgment of those that set Him at nought. As we here read, "for the judgment [is] merciless to him that showed no mercy." Is not this as it should be?

Say not in a depreciatory way, It is a sentiment suited to James the Just. Read on, and learn that God gives us much more through him: "Mercy glorieth over judgment." Are not we who believe witnesses of it? Was not our Lord Jesus the proof of it, so exhaustively that there is no need, no room, for more? For all the vessels of mercy derive it through Him. Mercy is God's habitual and congenial work; judgment is His strange work, yet most righteous, against those who, having the utmost need, despise His mercy and most of all in the Lord of glory. Yet He has shown and proved it in its richest resources and its most affecting form, emptying Himself, yea, the true God humbling Himself, to save His ungodly enemies. But how blessed for those that believe! Beyond doubt "mercy glorieth over judgment" in Jesus Christ and Him crucified. But are not we who bear His name responsible to have it bright within us, that our practical conversation may be filled with it and governed by it?

Thus the spirit of grace has been upheld, and a law of liberty which accompanies it, in contrast with a judicial spirit which avails itself of the law of bondage and ought to be as alien from an object of mercy as it displeases God. How solemn the warning of merciless judgment to him that showed no mercy! How sweet the assurance that mercy glories over judgment! Life, liberty, and grace go together for blessing.

Thence the transition is simple and intelligible to the snare of setting up a bare creed. Israelites were above all exposed to this danger; so that the dealing with such a case is peculiarly appropriate to this Epistle. In judgment they had been used to a brotherhood after the flesh, as the seed of Abraham. When professors of Christ, they were liable to regard their new brotherhood as founded on no more than their common recognition of the Lord of glory. But it as plain in fact as it is in scripture that such a recognition of Him might be no more than intellectual, having no root of divine life because it sprang from no work of conscience through the Holy Spirit's application of the truth in revealing Christ. For we are not brought to know God save through our wants and guilt, not as students of science, but as poor sinners in need of His mercy in Christ. A mental profession of faith was of no more value than the schools of differing thought, under different names as leaders to which Greek vanity was ever prone. It was even more fatal and in itself "natural," as their contentious zeal was "carnal," for so the apostle made the distinction.

"What [is] the profit my brethren, if one say he have faith, but have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or a sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one from among you say to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but ye give them not the things needful for the body, what [is] the profit? So also faith, if it have not works, is dead in (or by) itself" (vers. 14-17).

When the apostle Paul declared the gospel, he insisted on faith in Jesus Christ as justifying, apart from works of law; because it is God's righteousness, not man's, unto all, and upon all that believe, Jew and Greek being lost sinners. It is a question of being justified freely by God's grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Now, for our Epistle, it is the quite different question of a practical life in accord with Christian profession. Indeed Paul insists on this moral reality in Rom. 2 as strenuously as James does here. It is a worthless faith which does not produce fruit of righteousness that is by Jesus Christ unto God's glory and praise. The scripture before us does not answer the question how a sinner is to be cleansed before God, but what conduct befits those that have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To this end of necessary consistency are the questions. What is the profit for a man to profess faith and have no works as its witness? Can faith save him? This is illustrated by the heartlessness of dismissing a naked and hungry brother or sister with the words, Be warmed and filled, without any corresponding gift to help them. Does Christ own a faith that does not work through love? Here again we may observe how the apostle Paul's words in Gal. 5: 6 energetically express the practical aim of James. The tongue may be active, the heart cold, the walk selfish as before; but are these the ways of a nature begotten to the Father of lights by truth's word? Are such unreal talkers a kind of first-fruits of His own creatures?

There is no need, however, to give the Greek article with Wakefield the force of "this," nor with Bede and the Revisers the emphasis of "that," nor yet the more legitimate possessive sense of "his." Faith is entitled, even apart from previous mention, to the article in Greek as an ideal object, the thing faith, or as we in English say "faith," as much as if it expressed the different sense of "the faith" required in many scriptures. The context can alone decide in which shade it is employed. Hence also we may observe that in ver. 17 scarce any person thinks of translating the same words, ἡ πίστις, save as "faith"; and rightly so, for it is still used in the same general sense. This is not at all invalidated by the anarthrous form in ver. 14, where the insertion of the article would be improper. For in such cases the accusative is complementary to the transitive verb, and expresses the character of the action that resulted, unless it be intended to denote that which through some reason becomes a specific object before the mind; both of which cases may be seen again in ver. 18.

The principle is stated concisely in ver. 17: "faith, if it have no works, is dead in itself." If it were divinely given (Eph. 2: 8: Phil. 1: 29), it would manifest its mighty and gracious effects. For Christ is its object, and His love above all thought of man, but influential beyond anything in us or around us to raise the soul accordingly. He is not only an example that powerfully acts on all He loves and loving Him, but a motive and a source, to form the affections and the walk of His own here below. It is easy for those who are no better than James describes in their human faith to decry its energy where the Holy Spirit has wrought livingly. In fact they know nothing of its divine reality. Their faith is dead in itself; and any works so wrought are no less intrinsically dead.

We have now another saying in order to bring out the reality, as we had in vers. 14 and 16. In the First Epistle of John we may see the contrast pursued more deeply. "But some one will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works. Show me thy faith apart from works, and out of (or, by) my works I will show thee my faith Thou believest that God is one, thou doest well: the demons also believe and shudder (vers. 18, 19).

The fact in the spiritual realm, which lies under the question here discussed, we have seen to be laid down with the utmost simplicity and clearness in chap. 1: 18. It is the possession of a new life, which is given to all who are begotten by the word of truth. No intellectual process can amount to such a boon, though a spiritual understanding never in operation before accompanies it, as there are also new affections proper to it. We can readily apprehend how unpalatable such teaching must be to those that were attached to the ancient system of ritual and law for a nation chosen as a whole, as well as to the still wider snare of crying up human powers, with no adequate sense of God or His kingdom on the one hand, or of man's sin and ruin on the other. It was therefore urgently requisite that all should learn on divine authority that in christianity a mere action however powerful on a man's faculties is altogether short of the truth. For there is communication of a life in Christ which he never possessed before, as well as the Holy Spirit thenceforward dwelling in him in power, the gift of God's grace; so that he might know the things of God and the revealed objects, as the old nature was capable of knowing the things of man and of the old creation subjected to him.

This new nature, attaching to the family of God, and of course to every member of it, involves with such a relationship the responsibility of a corresponding walk as well as inward communion with the source and giver of its blessedness. It was the allotted and appropriate work of James to charge home this all-important truth and its practical consequences on those he addresses, and indirectly but none the less really on all that have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here he is resisting an abuse easily understood, and as dangerous as evil. He censures and repudiates a mere doctrinal scheme without life, and hence destitute of the works which attest a new nature from God. John, who was given to set forth the glory of Christ's person beyond all others of the inspired, shows us life in Christ which the believer even now has, and the gift of the Spirit, the other Advocate. But here the same truth of the divine nature whereof we become partakers is no less truly revealed, the basis of all works acceptable to God, of all godly practice in word, deed, or feeling.

"But some will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works:" a supposition that divorces what God joins inseparably, an evident fighting against His word and nature, as also His will. For had he not affirmed in the Spirit, that God, the Father of lights, of His purpose begat us by the word of truth? To be doers of the word, not hearers only who are not so begotten, is our consistent and blessed place, a perfect law of liberty in which we by grace continue because our new nature loves Him and His word. Those who sever work from faith have no living association with God and simply deceive themselves.

Hence the refutation in the next words: — "Show me thy faith apart from works, and out of my works I will show thee my faith." It is an answer in both its parts conclusive. Faith is as it were the soul, and needs works as its body to be shown. To "show" faith separate from works is therefore an impossibility. He who believes by the Holy Spirit shows his faith by his works, as the rebuker rejoins.

This very word "show," as it falls in with the great aim of the Epistle is the key to the difficulty, which from of old till now so many uninstructed and unestablished souls have found in comparing the teaching of Paul and of James.

Inasmuch as both were inspired, there can be no ground for it. The appearance is due solely to the ignorance of unbelief. The one is occupied with the root, with what is "before God" (Rom. 4: 2); the other, with the fruit, and therefore "show me" before men. Both agree that, where faith is divinely given and souls are begotten by the word of truth, good works are the fruit and the outward witness of faith. There is nothing in fact to reconcile, because there is no real variance. The one insists that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law; the other, that he who claims to have faith is bound to show it by his works. In the one, the question is how a sinner can be justified by grace; in the other, what God looks for from him who professes faith.

But the refutation goes farther. "Thou believest that God is one; thou believest well: the demons also believe and shudder." It was well to own the unity of God, and wicked to hold a multiplicity of gods, which were no better than demons. Even these were not so insensible as those who boasted of their faith but had no works corresponding to show. For the demons shudder, as we see in the Synoptic Gospels. The mere professor of faith may not have as much feeling, though God's word solemnly warns that such as he have no inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and God.

The allusion to the demons is a powerful illustration of the point in hand. None believe more decidedly than they; none anticipate their doom more surely or keenly. But such faith has no link with a new nature from God, nor does it issue in works that please Him. The demons ere subject to the evil will of their chief, the devil. Man alas! plays his part in a way most offensive to God, boasting of a faith with even less feeling than the demons, and without the works testifying to a life received from Him. There is nothing to "show," as there ought to be and must be if the gospel were accepted as it is truly, not men's but God's word, which is also energetic in those that believe.

"But art thou willing to learn, O vain man, that faith apart from works is dead (or, idle)? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when (or, in that) he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" (vers. 20, 21).

As to the difference of reading in the first of these verses, the great majority of MSS. gives "dead"; but the witness for "idle" is, ancient and excellent. The shade is but slight, the substantial sense remains as before. Only there was here as elsewhere the danger of assimilation, for the chapter ends with the conclusion that faith apart from works is "dead." If "idle" were the true text in ver. 20, the language of ver. 26 would not be a repetition but a striking and effective climax. Hence Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, with Westcott and Hort, prefer it.

Then we are confronted with an appeal to Abraham's case, always of the greatest weight with his descendants, and in the present instance an overwhelming disproof of the evil that is combated, "Was not Abraham our father justified by (or, out of) works when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

It is the more decisive, because the work of Abraham here adduced had nothing in common with the benevolent or philanthropic works which men mean by "good," and boast of as sure to weigh with God. To be willing to slay his son Isaac, on the contrary, this class of men would consider atrocious in Abraham, and only worthy of Moloch as they blasphemously add. They do not believe that God ever put Abraham to such a test, and become more and more bold in treating it as the Syrian legend of a barbarous age and of a heathen superstition.

Our Epistle, and it is not alone in this (for the Epistle to the Hebrews, wholly distinct as it is in character, is emphatically in accord), cites it as a deed of the highest moral excellence, and proving Abraham to be justified by works. It was characteristically an act contrary to every instinct of a father. It was enhanced by the fact that Isaac was "thine only son, whom thou lovest," as God said in putting Abraham to this extreme proof. There was, on the face of the demand, the apparent frustration of those blessed hopes of blessing, long promised by God, "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed," to say nothing of making of him a great nation, and making his name great. How could this be if Isaac must now die, and this so unaccountably by his father's hand, as an offering to the God Who had wrought wondrously in giving him, and now strangely required his sacrifice? Doubtless God could give another son, and by Sarah if it so pleased Him; but this would not meet the case. For had not God said in calling his wife not Sarai but Sarah (Gen. 17) that the son of her, to make her mother of nations and of kings of peoples, would be this very Isaac, with whom He would establish His covenant for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him? There in fact it was Abraham's faith rested. He laughed, we may say, at impossibilities, in contrast with Sarah's laughter incredulous at first. The real impossibility was for God to lie. He was sure therefore that if Isaac had now to die, God would raise him up from the dead in order to make the promise good. Abraham's faith was now, not as before, that God would give him a son of Sarah, but that He could not fail to raise this son from the death now required, in order to fulfil all He had promised. Never such a trial of faith; never such a triumph by grace.

Long before this event, if late in Abraham's fruitful course, it is written that he believed in Jehovah, and He counted it to him for righteousness (Gen. 15: 16). This is the most express acknowledgment of him as justified by faith. And scripture uses it beyond controversy in this way and to this end, as in Rom. 4. But in Gen. 22, as referred to in our Epistle, we behold the believing man "showing" his works and thereby justified. Nor can any thing be more certain than that Abraham's work in offering Isaac his son on the altar derived all its value from his faith in God's call; so much so that without this it would have been heinously evil.

But the reasoning goes farther, and the weight of Abraham's example is urged yet more in a way as telling as simple. So did our Lord Himself when here below in divine wisdom and grace dealing with the Jews; so did the great apostle of the Gentiles repeatedly and in the power of the Spirit.

"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called Friend of God. Ye see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only" (vers. 23, 24).

It is a striking arrangement that the offering up of Isaac is introduced before the statement of Abraham's believing God. This departure from the order of fact and of the inspired history was of course not only intentional, but essential to the question in hand. For it is asked in the first place if Abraham our father was not justified when he offered Isaac his son upon the altar.

Greater trial than such a demand never was laid by God on a believing father. For many years had passed after the promise to make of him a great nation, to bless him, and to bless in him all the families of the earth (Gen. 12). This was ere long enlarged by defining the land or visible scene of the blessing with a promise also of his seed made as the dust of the earth beyond number (Gen. 13). Later on, when there appeared to the childless man no possessor of his house but Eliezer of Damascus, Jehovah assured him that one to come forth from his own bowels should be his heir, and that as the stars (for He bade him look up) should his seed be. And he believed Jehovah, Who counted it to him for righteousness. Long years after this was the son born, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And not a few years elapsed during which Isaac grew up, the object not only of the tenderest love but of hopes far deeper and higher than filled any other heart on earth. God then proved Abraham. It was not to resign him in death, as many a father has sorrowfully known. It was not to have another son as a substitute for Isaac. For, in the bitter trial of Ishmael sent away with his bondwoman mother, Abraham knew from God that in Isaac should his seed be called. In him only was the line of promise. Yet God, in no way softening the blow, "after these things" said, "Take now thy son, thine only one, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of" (Gen. 22: 2).

What! God, the true God, the God of grace, lay such a claim on His Friend — the demand on such a father of such a son, the surely and solely expected channel of blessing so immense and hopes so glorious! And not this only, but in a way so unexpected and so terrible, as a burnt offering to Himself, and from his father's hand as the slaughterer! Yes, it was a trial beyond example, heightened by all that nature could feel, by the very faith that received the word of Jehovah so implicitly, and by the hope so fed by promise, and matured by experience of divine mercy beyond all he dared to ask when interceding. It was just to prove the faith unqualified which His grace had given to Abraham, and this not in word only but in deed and truth. Truly it was faith perfected by works. This could not be deduced from Gen. 15. It was manifest to the highest degree in Gen. 22. And hence we see the ground which requires that this should take here the first place.

But it is carefully added, "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness," as the earlier chapter has. For this was the joint result of a faith proved to be of God. The works had nothing in common with those activities of benevolence which fill the horizon of man and are the boast of such as make the creature all, but God nothing. Here it was one who looked death in the face and in a form incomparably harder to bear than if he had been called to die for his son, — to smite with the knife at God's word his only and well-beloved son on whose life hung the promises of blessing for all mankind! It was not only to trust God for his own character who would seem the worst of murderers, but for raising from the dead him who must live again to make good the promised blessings for Israel and for man.

Yet, however differently applied at the last, it was the same divinely-given faith on which God at the first had pronounced. "The scripture was fulfilled." No wonder he was called God's Friend. So Jehovah treated him in Gen. 18 when He disclosed His secret intentions. "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing?" So Jehovah treated him when drawing out his heart there in intercession. Hence in due time the pious king of Judah (2 Chr. 20: 7) and the prophet friend of another pious king (Isa 41: 8) called Abraham Jehovah's friend.

But it was a work that man would never have thought of, a work deriving all its virtue from absolute trust in the God Who demanded what He alone was entitled to ask, as He alone could have availed by resurrection power to conciliate it with His love, His truth, His character, and His purposes, turning it too, spite of appearances, to such experimental blessing as Abraham had never yet enjoyed, and to like blessing for the family of faith in their turn. We see from such a case how far Abraham was from a bare faith of the mind, when justified out of his works, and not out of the empty assent there denounced. How could it justify any one? Surely we may here apply the Lord's word, Wisdom is justified of all her children.

Another example is cited from the O.T. in support of faith not bare but working by love, so needful to impress on the Jewish mind. Rahab's case is in its circumstances as different as can be conceived from that of the father of the faithful; for it is a woman a Gentile, of the accursed race, and of previously bad character; yet after believing she entered the line of great David, and hence became an ancestor of David's greater Son. It was, therefore, no less pertinent and powerful.

"And likewise was not also Rahab the harlot justified by (out of) works, in that she received the messengers and sent [them] out another way?" (ver. 25).

Apart from faith the work of Rahab was no better than Abraham's trial. If done without God as the object and spring and authority, both were not only of no value but abominable. Viewed humanly, one was willing to kill his own son and heir, the other to betray her king and country to their destroyers. As faith wholly changed the character of their respective acts, so those acts proved the divine principle and the living power of their faith. This has been pointed out in the former instance. Wherein did it consist in the latter?

Rahab believed the two men to be the messengers of Jehovah's people. "I know," said she, "that Jehovah hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you." How did she know this? Not a city was taken in Canaan, not an inch of its territory was annexed, not even a blow had yet been struck. Jordan ran its barrier against Israel on the other side, and it was at that time overflowing all its banks. How did Rahab know what neither king nor people of Jericho knew? It was by faith. "For we have heard [and faith comes by hearing] how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond Jordan, to Sihon and to Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. We heard and our hearts melted, and there remained no more spirit in any man because of you; for Jehovah your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath" (Joshua 2).

The rest of the inhabitants had heard no less than Rahab; but the word of the report did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those that heard. It reached Rahab's conscience, and she bowed to God in the face of every natural reason and feeling. She rightly judged the folly and the sin and the ruin of fighting against the God who had delivered His people from the power of Egypt, and crushed irretrievably their Amorite foes. His purpose to give Israel Canaan was notorious; and therefore she hid the two spies as the representatives of the people to whom God gave the land by promise and oath: two immutable things in which it was impossible that God should lie. Her faith lay thereon. Could any anchor be more secure or firm?

Yet Rahab did not despair for herself or others; she counted on mercy in Jehovah's name, as true faith does. "And now, I pray you, swear to me by Jehovah, since I have dealt kindly with you, that ye will also deal kindly with my father's house, and give me a sure sign, that ye will save alive my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our souls from death." The sign was given as solemnly as it was kept. As she received the messengers in faith, she sent them out by another way in the same faith.

Thus Rahab's faith, was self-evidently fruitful. She had swamped all patriotism in her fear of Jehovah. As she believed in the bond that attached Him to His people, she looked, and not in vain, that assuredly as He should destroy Jericho, He would rescue her and hers. In spite of her habits hitherto impure, notwithstanding her unscrupulous readiness to deceive and baffle where her heart was engaged, faith was energetically at work; and the heart-knowing God bore her witness. "And likewise was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works?"

For her it was no barren acquiescence that Jehovah was the God of Israel. It was the living active faith that He would work on their behalf in Canaan as in Egypt, in the wilderness, and in the borders of the promised land. Hence she acted in a faith which issued in works exactly and highly suited to His purpose for His people. Unbelief might suggest failure for herself as well as for them. But her faith overcame all fears and rose above all difficulties. It was easy to conceive hitches, and to apprehend the indignant and cruel destruction which must follow their discovery of her treason. But her faith was simple and strong in what Jehovah was to His people; and it expressed itself not in words only but in deeds which she well knew exposed her naturally to the most suffering and ignominious death. Her faith laid hold of the sound principle that the highest of all rights is that God should have His rights. Therefore she dreaded not the wrath of king or people, gave to the wind her fears, and endured, as seeing Him Who is invisible. Was not she too justified by works?

The witnesses of faith and works here adduced are the most powerful that the O.T. affords; and from it this Epistle in God's wisdom cites them as the weightiest and most conclusive for the purpose. Those of Israel who had the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ were as responsible as all others to manifest righteousness practically. It was the more relevant to press the godly walk which becomes faith, because, being brought out of a system of letter, they needed to be especially cautioned against relapse into what they had left behind. If they lived in the Spirit, they should the more seek to walk in the Spirit. For so is the will of God that with well-doing we may put to silence the ignorance of senseless men, as well as guard against our own tendencies. But there was more still in the cases before us; for even where works are most insisted on as evidence and proof of divine reality, these works owe all their value to the faith which gave them being. Without faith they would have been detestable, instead of being as they are the most solid testimony to their faith in God at all cost.

"For as the body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (ver. 26).

In ver. 17 it was said that faith, if it have not works, is "dead by itself"; in ver. 20 faith without works is "barren"; here at the end of the discussion faith without works is pronounced absolutely "dead," and so it surely is. Where the manifestation of living reality is sought, what can be more offensive than a dead body? Emphatically it is so under the gospel, where the Lord Himself declares that He who believes has life eternal. To lack holy vitality is fatal. It is not to have the Son of God, Who is the sole spring of all that glorifies God. For what else is the believer left here below but to walk and serve and suffer and worship, while waiting for the Lord? For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God before prepared that we should walk in them.

Even in writing to the Thessalonian saints, recently brought to God from heathenism, the apostle remembers without ceasing their work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope. With them the gospel was not in word only but also in power. The very world outside was telling the effect of the truth shown in their turning to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to await His Son from the heavens, Whom He raised from the dead, Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath. Israelitish confessors yet more required to be warned against a lifeless formalism. And here this is fully given.

James 3

We are here directed to a weighty matter in the believer's practical life, already but briefly noticed in James 1: 19, 26, now treated in full. It is opened with remarkable exhortation about "teachers," as it unequivocally ought to be. The connection with speaking confirms the required meaning, independent of philology though this of course admits of nothing else It would seem however that, in stages of our tongue now obsolete, "master" had not only the general sense of "superior" which is here quite out of place, but the special force of "teacher." So it was used in the English versions of the Gospels as the counterpart of the Hebrew "Rabbi." And so it is rendered here by Wiclif and a Wiclifite (Oxford, iv. 599), Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, as well as the A.V. It was as natural for Jews to claim external honour in that position, as it became Christian teachers to follow their Master in the lowly love which led Him to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. Nor did our Lord leave this to spiritual inference from such words as these; He enjoined it explicitly on the most honoured of His disciples. "Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you; but whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant (or, minister), and whosoever would be first among you shall be your bondman" (Matt. 20: 25-27).

"Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment" (James 3: 1).

No Epistle in the N.T. is less ecclesiastical than this; no one has less before it the gifts of the Lord for the perfecting of the saints. The task which the inspiring Spirit enabled the writer to perform was to warn against empty profession and to insist on holy practice in speech, walk, and affections, conformable with the new life begotten by the word of truth. This makes it all the more striking, that he, like the great apostle of the circumcision, should in this hortatory preface use language which implies that liberty of ministry among the confessors of Christ, which fell to the greater apostle of the uncircumcision to develop with certainty, precision, and fulness. The Acts of the Apostles historically presents the unspeakably momentous fact which accounts for and explains that liberty.

Again the Epistles make plain that it was also a question of responsibility to the Lord Who gave to His own bondmen His goods, to each according to his several ability; as He will, when He comes, reckon with them on the use they made of His trust; and woe shall be to the wicked and slothful servant who traded not with the talent given, because he was afraid and distrusted the grace of the Master.

Here the openness of the church in apostolic times to receive instruction from all competent to impart it is beyond controversy. As gifted men were by that privilege bound to give it out, so were the saints bound to profit thereby. Thus we are taught in the capital seat of this fundamental truth for the assembly, 1 Cor. 12 - 14. There Paul lays down, in that great epistle of ecclesiastical order, the correction of their abuses about women's place, the Lord's Supper, and the assembly also. "If any one seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." Human societies naturally fall into the inventions of men; not so those that believe God has revealed His mind for the church as authoritatively as for every other thing on which He has spoken.

If the Holy Spirit abide no longer with and in us, we are left orphans indeed. But it is not so. The Father, who in answer to the Son's request sent another Paraclete or Advocate, gave Him to abide with us forever. So abides the one body like the one Spirit. In 1 Cor. 12 we have this power shown in His varied activity in the members, as His presence is their uniting energy. Not of course that all is given which once abounded as signs of Christ's victory. Tongues and interpretations, powers and gifts of healings, did follow those that believed, as the Lord promised. But He never intimated that these were to continue "till the end of the age," or in any equivalent phrase elsewhere. But the gifts needful to complete what the apostles and prophets began. as the foundation, are guaranteed in Eph. 4: 12. In 1 Cor. 13 divine love is notably introduced, as requisite for the right exercise of this new relationship, and having its blessed scope there pre-eminently. And 1 Cor. 14 closes the teaching by the authority of the Lord in His word, directing and controlling the action of gifts in the assembly; so that an unbeliever might report that God was indeed among those gathered, and the believers be responsible that all should be done to edification, comelily and in order. Nor is there any other order for the church as such sanctioned of God. Can the church change it or correct Him?

But 1 Peter 4: 10, 11 also furnishes a word of great price. "Each according as he received a gift, ministering the same one to another as good stewards of God's manifold grace: if any one speaketh, as God's oracles; if any one ministereth, as of strength which God supplieth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory and the might unto the ages of ages. Amen." Here is the same liberty and the same responsibility as elsewhere. Each gifted one is bound to act as a good steward of God's various free-gift. But the speaker is to speak as God's mouthpiece, as God gives then and there; and service of another kind is to be full of strength which He supplies, that (not man but) God be glorified through Christ Jesus Only the power of the Spirit could make either good. No creature ability could avail. It is alone through Christ to His glory.

Our text adds another and characteristic lesson. Though the door be open, the solemn caution is heard: "Be not many teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive greater judgment." Conscience is appealed to here, as faith by Peter. Let there be no haste, no levity, no self-confidence, no vanity in seizing the opportunity; but there lay danger, the capability of ready abuse. The guard however is no official restraint, as in Christendom generally, to shut out liberty, but the counsel in this case unmeaning, against many teachers, knowing as we do that we shall incur greater judgment Our Lord, denouncing every idle word and the account thereof to be rendered in the day of judgment, said "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned;" so His servant here reminds us, that by thus speaking responsibility is increased. God is not mocked and remembers words lightly said, which might be urged on others, with little or no thought of our need. "Thou then that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" In every way judgment becomes heavier if teaching flow not from love and in the fear of God. But the inspired writer never thinks of closing the open door as a divine remedy.

From the over-eagerness to teach, gift or no gift, we come in the next verse to a far wider range of caution, which is illustrated in the usual practical way, but with singular aptitude and force.

"For in many things [or, often] we all offend. If any one offendeth not in word, he [is] a perfect man able to bridle the whole body also" (ver. 2).

Thus the Spirit of God turns from the vain readiness to teach in public to the irrepressibility of speech in general. "For in many things we all offend." The word translated "offend" passes from physical stumbling to moral failure, as in James 2: 10, the transition already being marked in Rom. 11: 11. Compare also 2 Peter 1: 10 with the double occurrence in our verse.

Without doubt each saint is responsible in all humility as regards himself, to speak for the Lord where His glory and will, grace and truth, are plainly revealed. Alas, how much is said that has no higher source than self, however veiled it may be! But self when opposed is apt to break out into strife and party-work, with all their deadly accompaniments and results. Nor are any souls more deceived than those who accredit themselves with the best motives, and fear not to assail with odious imputations those who reprove them. It is clear that James knew this deplorable evil but too well, as indeed the other inspired writers; nor did anyone perhaps suffer from bitter experience of the evil so much as the apostle Paul. It could not be otherwise, when we read of the state of the Galatians on the one hand and of the Corinthians on the other, and of his own responsibility to pronounce on such early departure from both divine truth and the ways of the Lord. For they are ordinarily associated with a self-exalting and rebellious spirit.

But these servants of the Lord did not refrain from the most trenchant denunciation of both errors and moral condition, any more than He Himself when here in perfect love, and because it was perfect. Who but He called Peter "Satan"? For he was an offence to Christ, because in the most amiable way he was minding the things of men, not those of God. How often too He had to mark and rebuke the rivalry of men, whom grace alone caused to differ from others, craving after their own honour, where He pointed the way to shame and suffering now (Himself alone entering its unfathomable depths), but to heavenly glory with Him shortly! Even after He rose, what could He say to the sorrow-stricken doubters, but "O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all the prophets spoke?"

Not less cuttingly does Paul remonstrate with the Corinthians as carnal and walking as men, to whom he gave milk, not meat as being not yet able to bear it. These were the men ready to sit in judgment on the apostle's authority and practice! Were not the signs of an apostle wrought out among them in all patience? The humbling thing to his heart was that he should have one word to say about it to saints so deeply indebted to him. But he does not fail to speak with severity, whatever the anguish it might be to himself. How little they knew what it cost him, when they winced under the reproof! How far from feeling the love according to God that lay beneath the truth, which did not flatter them but laid bare their lofty thoughts and low ways!

Just so the apostle reproaches other children of his in the faith, "O senseless Galatians, who bewitched you? . . . I am afraid of you, lest indeed I laboured in vain as to you .... of whom I again travail in birth, until Christ be formed in you .... The persuasion is not of him that calleth you."

Let us not forget what spirit it was that resisted of old such faithful men as Moses and Aaron, or taxed them with taking too much on them, "seeing all the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and Jehovah among them." It was their own self-sufficiency that left out His will and word in their eagerness to lift themselves up. And such gain-saying is not obsolete. It is the spirit of the age increasingly, and displays itself religiously yet more than in the profane world.

Yet even the most spiritual have to watch habitually and to judge self in this respect at least as much as in any other. "For in many things we all offend. If any one offendeth not in word, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also." It is trying to hear men talk of matters which they are incompetent to judge. And it is easy enough to overshoot the mark of a true and deserved horror of what no godly mind should tolerate; and all the more because true discernment is rare. Christ is the pattern. A perfect man is he who offends not in word, able to bridle the whole body also. May our word as the rule be always with grace, seasoned with salt. May we also, if by God called to the duty, be brave to overthrow reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God, and to lead every thought into the obedience of Christ.

The figure of "bridling" in verse 2 suggests the illustration in verse 3, which again is strengthened once more in the verse that follows In the received text we appear to have an error exceedingly frequent among the copyists, who are apt to confound εἰ and ἰ where it does not affect the sense, and where here it does. Probably ἰδοὺ in the beginning of verse 4 led to the idea of commencing verse 3 with ἴδε; but it ought rather to have induced hesitation, for why then vary the adverb? It would seem that εἰ δὲ was thus mistaken, and the more because the apodosis might easily be overlooked by being made part of the conditional protasis.

"Now if we put the horses' bridles (or, bits) in their mouths, that they may obey us, we turn about their whole body also. Behold, the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by rough winds, are turned about by a very small rudder, where the impulse of the helmsman may purpose" (vers. 3, 4).

The instances chosen energetically tell for the purpose in hand, being homely and familiar. It would be a palpable mistake to doubt the power of a given object, because its size is diminutive. Such are the bits we insert into the horses' mouths. Impetuous the animal may be; but thereby as the rule it is reduced to obedience. Nor is it only the mouth or head that is governed, but "we turn about the whole body also." Thus is complete contrast secured.

It is true that we ought not to be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, whose trappings must be bit and bridle for restraint, or they will not come near unto thee (Psalm 32). But this is restraint, and our shame where it is needed, as in the case supposed; for it is our joy, when walking in the spirit of obedience, to know God's guidance in the way we should go, counselled with His eye upon us. But if it be needed, He knows and fails not to restrain and to chastise.

In another form is pointed out a like principle on the sea, as we have had on the land, and in an inanimate object of immensely greater proportions. Let the ship be of ever so vast bulk and driven sometimes by a wind however rough, yet is it turned about by a very small rudder, whither the steersman's impulse may direct. The steering, if it could be questioned, is made evident in the sequel.

We may notice by the way how little avails either a powerful mind or ponderous learning for the just interpretation of scripture, when such a commentator as Grotius could understand "the body" in these verses as said of the church. No inspired writer but the apostle Paul ever employs that figure. James means simply the outer man. He is still dealing with the extreme liability to fail with the tongue. If one does not fail in word, this is a perfect man; for he had owned that we all do fail. This he follows up by two illustrations, which show the influence of a small thing in controlling a great even in the most difficult circumstances, to impress the importance and the duty of governing our speech. Blessed indeed is it, when the tongue, under the guidance of God, testifies to the whole body under His control! He who more than any other urges works, in evidence of reality in those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus, warns us of licence in our words, so influential for evil if not for good; and all the more seriously as indicative of the inner man and involving the outer.

Many there are in all ages disposed to take account of nothing but deeds. Freedom in speech seems a necessary prerogative of a man, and its excess of all things most venial. Far different was our Lord's estimate of words (Matt. 12), which yet more than deeds express the feelings and bent of the inner man And similar is the language of His servant here, couched in terse, severe, highly figurative, but all the more unsparing, terms. "So also the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. See how large a wood how little a fire kindleth! And the tongue is fire, the world of iniquity; the tongue cometh to be in our members that which defileth the whole body, and setteth in a blaze the course [lit. wheel] of nature, and is set in a blaze by gehenna" (vers. 5, 6).

That the tongue should be physically diminutive only gives the more vividness to its capacity for mischief beyond reckoning or measure. Who can conceive the destructive effects of an evil word? Yet the tongue, little as it is, boasts habitually and also great things and is so much the more readily enticed to persevere and grow bolder, if sin is limited to deeds of the body. It may be observed that the word ὕλη (here, as generally, translated "wood" or "forest") is often in philosophical writings used to express "matter," and by historians or others, like "materia" in Latin authors, the stuff or material of anything, timber, etc. The A.V. had ground for its rendering, even if the preponderance lean to that view which is presented here.

How energetic is the opening of ver. 6! "The tongue is fire." It is not only that a mighty conflagration ensues from an apparently trivial spark; but the tongue itself is "fire" morally. However free from open acts of unrighteousness he may be who gives it loose rein without God before his eyes, it is, without going farther, "a world of iniquity." He Whose ears are open to the cry of the righteous does not fail to mark unbridled licence of speech, which shrinks not from any imputation, however unjust, that ill-will can dictate.

The best witnesses, both MSS. and Vv., omit the "so" which smooths the way for the second time "the tongue" is introduced. It is most forcible as it stands simply. "The tongue cometh to be in our members that which defileth the whole body," and this is a sense which, prevailing in the best authors so that no detailed justification is necessary, seems to suit the clause, better than the bare "is" of the A.V. or "is constituted" as it frequently means. Here it is liable to give the erroneous notion of being divinely arranged to so evil an end; which is a thought impossible to a good conscience and wholly opposed to the truth. It is through the fall, and the self-will or lawlessness which characterises sin, that the tongue comes thus to be such a burning power of evil in the members. It is the defiler of the whole body, for there is no limit to its unrighteousness; "the world of iniquity," deeming itself to have immunity as long as it only injures in word.

But the latter clauses both enlarge the sphere of the evil, and deepen our sense of its source to the highest degree. For we are next told that "it setteth in a blaze the course of nature, and is set on a blaze by hell." The wheel or course of nature extends far beyond the whole body; and such is the inflammatory range for the malignant tongue. What then must be the spring? It is, as we lastly hear, "set on a blaze by hell." The evil one is a murderer as well as a liar; and unceasing antagonism to Christ in both respects is its flagrant proof.

Another consideration is now urged, and not a little humiliating to set souls on their guard in the allowance of the tongue, and to hinder surprise at the extravagance of its outbreaks.

"For every nature of both wild beasts and birds, of both things that creep and things in the sea, is tamed and hath been tamed by the nature of man; but the tongue is none of men able to tame: an unsettled evil, full of deadly poison" (vers. 7, 8).

Here the inspired writer alleges an indisputable fact. What savage brute has not yielded to the dominion of man? What has not been subdued and become his pet or playmate? What bird of the air fierce or timorous has not bowed to his superiority and obeyed his will? Serpents even, however wily, powerful, or venomous, have been often taught harmless familiarity; while creatures of the sea have made friends and rendered homage or service to him.

But where is the man that has truly tamed either his own tongue or another's? Here one can appeal to universal observation, though not less forcibly and painfully to personal experience. It may and ought to be a heart-breaking confession; but is it not most true? Who does not know how rapid and ready is the tongue to break bounds; how slow to seek or keep the peace? How vehement its invective, how irritating its insinuations, how bitter and unmeasured its revilings! Is any one too obscure or feeble to escape its assault? Is any so venerable or exalted as to overawe its audacity? What piety or godliness can suffice to shame its insolence, or to silence its malice?

It is indeed, as it is here called, "an unsettled" or unstable "evil, full of deadly poison." Nor is the poison ever more attractive and dangerous than when administered in a gilded pill. Good words and fair speeches to make the worse appear the better reason is a favourite device of the enemy, and peculiarly fitted to deceive the hearts of the guileless.

Does this seem a too highly coloured picture of the tongue? It is from One Who knew what is in man, and needed none therefore to bear witness of him. And He Whom James served in this Epistle as in his life-ministry knew what it was to have a human heart and tongue, both bearing good and sweet fruits continually to His God and Father. It is to Him that the believer looks and on Whose grace he counts. For underneath the gloomy description of a still gloomier reality, there is a streak of light divine. Is it written that absolutely none is able to tame the tongue? By no means. None "of men" can tame it. Ah! we can thank God. He is our desire, our expectation, and our strength. It were a wholly unchristian thought to subjugate our own tongue. It is our confidence to look up to God for that which is altogether beyond our capacity. And He works His wonders in every thing through Christ our Lord. If all the rude men of Nazareth bore Him witness and wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of His lips, does not our God and Father use these to humble and to transform and to invigorate, so that the tongue, that once was our shame, should be by His grace truly our "glory," according to the Hebrew phrase? Christ indeed was here perfect. "Never man spoke like this man," said the officials who were no friends, to their superiors who were His foes. But we are His; and as He is our life, may we learn of Him in this respect as in every other.

From this point our Epistle takes up the ground of manifest and gross inconsistency. None but the most heedless can regard lightly a fault so self-condemnatory; nor can God either originate or sanction so plain a disorder and misuse of that excellent possession, the speech, conferred on man by His Creator. Least excusable is the inconsistency in such as own their relationship with God and the Lord.

"Therewith we bless the Lord and [the] Father, and therewith we curse men that are made according to God's likeness. Out of the same mouth cometh blessing and cursing. Not so, my brethren, ought these things to be" (vers. 9, 10).

There is the article, and but one, to "Lord and Father." Grammatically therefore the phrase admits of meaning "Him Who is Lord and Father," no less than "the Lord and (the) Father" brought together under that link of objects united here expressly though in themselves distinct. This they could not be fittingly unless there were a common nature and glory. So we may see in such a phrase as "the kingdom of Christ and God." Far be it from the heart or mouth to question in the least that Christ is God, which is declared comparatively so often. But ask for instance if we must, whether Eph. 5: 5 means this, though the single article brackets together both terms. So we may see in "the apostles and prophets" of Eph. 2: 20, combined for the foundation, but given separately in Eph. 4: 11.

The idiom is common enough even with proper names, as when the man in Acts 3: 11 held fast "Peter and John" thus united, though in vers. 1 and 3 both names are presented historically without the article to either. Such is the reading of ample and good authority. But the Sinai, the Vatican, and the Alexandrine with half-a-dozen cursives insert the article before John, which if right would individualise, instead of combining in a special way, the two apostles. In Acts 4: 13, 19, there can hardly be a doubt that they are thus joined together. Both cases occur with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13, 14. Acts 15 is instructive from varieties of form, each employed with exquisite propriety. Ver. 2 presents Paul and Barnabas, first severed, and then without emphasis as simple fact, as also in ver. 12. But in ver. 22 they are expressly combined in unity as in 25 (the order changed), as in ver. 35 the fact is merely stated historically.

There seems no sufficient ground then for doubting that "the Lord" in the usual acceptation of the term is here combined with "the Father" as objects united in our praise. That it is unusual, all admit; but so it is in many a phrase of holy writ, that our narrowness of thought may be corrected and enlarged out of the fulness of divine truth. On the other hand no one should stumble at predicating "Lord" of the Father, if such were the aim of the inspiring Spirit here. For though the crucified Jesus was made by God both Lord and Christ (Acts 2: 36), and He is in distinctive office one sole Lord, as the Father is simply in His nature one sole God (1 Cor. 8: 6), it does not follow that "Lord" may not be applied to the other Persons in the Godhead. Thus in 2 Cor. 3 it is predicated of the Spirit in the last clause of the last verse; as it is of God rather than of Christ (Who is distinguished as His Anointed) in Rev. 11: 15. It was the rarity of the combination, however taken, which no doubt led to substituting "God" (as in the common text, following the more modern MSS.) for "the Lord." But if we accept the ancient reading, our language, we must bear in mind, does not, like the Greek, admit but one article.

The grand principle is plain beyond all question, that no inconsistency can be more gross than to employ the tongue, now in blessing the Supreme, now in cursing men that are made according to God's likeness. We are objects of His loving counsels, begotten of Him by the word of truth, and should be the last to curse any, as being blessed ourselves of mere mercy. It is not that fallen men have any intrinsic moral worth, as we above all should know from our own humbling experience. So we at least should never forget how they were brought into being as in God's likeness. How unbecoming in man, how shameless in us who bless the Lord and the Father, to curse men so made! Time was, beyond doubt, when we lived in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another; but the kindness and love of God our Saviour broke down our pride and purified our souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, and gave us a heart touched with divine grace toward all mankind. Instead then of cursing others, we want them to obey the truth, share the blessing, and join us in blessing Him Who is the source and giver of it all.

The incongruity is heightened by the figure of the next verse (10), "Out of the same mouth cometh forth blessing and cursing;" and by the quiet but pungent appeal, "Not so, my brethren, ought these things to be." The consistency of the Christian in its perfection is ever and only in Christ; and He is the sole and constant standard for us. What love in Him even for the vilest and bitterest of His foes! Called to inherit a blessing, may we not render evil for evil, or railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing, knowing that we are thereunto called. This is surely, dear brethren, what it ought to be.

Now we have, following, fresh illustrations to impress on the readers the incongruity and the enormity of injurious speech, all the worse for utterances of piety and propriety interchanged with it, and beyond just question condemnatory of it, as indicating the lack of the fear of God and of regard for man. The inspired writer's sense of its evil kindles into glowingly indignant questions, to which expostulation he himself supplies the answer in a few pregnant words.

"Doth the fountain out of the same opening pour forth the sweet and the bitter? Can my brethren, a figtree produce olives, or a vine figs? Neither [can] salt water produce sweet" (vers. 11, 12).

Here as elsewhere, the homeliness of the examples lends the more force to the reproof. To take the first instance; who ever heard of the fountain from the same slit emitting sweet water and bitter? Nature itself rebukes so shameless a mixture, and issues so contradictory, in those who praise the Lord and the Father; The great apostle of the Gentiles drew weapons from the same armoury in 1 Cor. 11: 14, 16 for divine order, and in 2 Thess. 3: 10 also; as he did repeatedly to his confidential fellow-labourer Timothy in his First Epistle (1 Tim. 2: 12-15; 1 Tim. 4: 3-5; 1 Tim. 6: 6-8). But nowhere have we more telling thrusts of this kind than in the Epistle before us; where the impossible in nature is made to expose and castigate the ethically inconsistent, especially aggravated as it was by the profession of relationship to God and by the claim to enjoyment of His favour. Is the new nature to be disgraced by that which the old universal nature repudiates even though fallen?

In the second the demand is still more peremptory. It is not, Does, but "Can a figtree produce olives, or a vine figs?" And we have the repetition of "my brethren" in this second case, though so soon after its dignified affectionate introduction just before in verse 10, in order to send the appeal home to their bosoms. One of the learned men who, setting up to interpret the words, set at nought its spirit, dares to compare the figure with our Lord's in Matt. 7: 16-20 in order to disparage His servant here. But it is only another sample of ill-willed ignorance which so constantly appears where erudition is not subservient to faith; that is where man assumes to judge God, instead of seeking to profit by His word. For the Lord was there laying down the error of expecting good fruit from a bad tree; whereas His servant in order to rebuke the glaring inconsistency of calling on the Lord of glory and indulging evil speech confronts it with the natural impossibility of a tree producing any but its own proper fruit. Both are plainly true, and each exquisitely adapted to its purpose. Unbelief blindly errs, but only betrays its sinful presumption to those that know God and bow to His word.

It is possible that the first word of the last clause (οὔτε, neither) may have through hasty misapprehension given rise to the added οὕτως ("so") of the Text Rec. Then came an effort to make the phrase more pointed by reading οὐδεμία πηγή (no fountain). The Sinaitic Uncial has οὕτως οὐδέ. But even Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort decline to follow; for they with Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, and Wordsworth read the text which yields the translation given above. There is, it would seem, a certain strangeness in reading οὔτε rather than οὐδέ. But this appears to be explicable by the writer's carrying on in his mind the preceding clause. The insertion of the conjunction (καὶ, "and") in the last clause is opposed to the weightiest of the ancient witnesses, both MSS. and Vv. and loses the point of the true text, which varies the figure by a negation which is indisputable.

From the preceding illustrations, so pungent and powerful, against the inconsistency and unnaturalness of unloving and unworthy language in lips which were avowedly consecrated to the glory of Jesus according to the character of a new nature, the Epistle turns to and raises the question of the wisdom and understanding which becomes His followers.

"Who [is] wise and understanding among you? Let him show out of his good conduct his works in meekness of wisdom" (ver. 13).

It is the opening of a new paragraph which continues to the end of this chapter, and passes indeed into the following one by way of contrast. The appeal here is searching. For assuredly those who set up so zealously to teach others did not doubt their own wisdom and understanding. Yet are they not rare and precious qualities?

1 Cor. 12 speaks of the "word of wisdom" and the "word of knowledge" as given through the Spirit, and presents them in the front place when he particularises the forms which "the manifestation of the Spirit" takes, as given to each for the common profit. On the other hand he puts in the last place "kinds of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues," of which the light-minded and unspiritual Corinthians had shown themselves vain and had made a disorderly use. He is far from denying the divine source and character of either; on the contrary he declares that "all these things" (after giving a considerable list of powers then in action) "worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each in particular as He will (or, pleaseth)." For He is sovereign as a divine Person. But they had not all the same spiritual value. Some gifts edified the assembly by revealing God's mind and counsels; others nourished and directed the new life of individuals in His will; some strengthened for service, others issued in praise and thanksgiving. Again, some were for a sign to the unbelievers, while others were directed distinctly to the believers. And as prophesying had this latter character peculiarly, so tongues and the former had a lower place, though to outward appearance far the more extraordinary of the two. But here we may notice, as in 1 Cor. 12: 28 too, the apostle's uniform guard against an estimate altogether human and erroneous. Why not desire earnestly the greater but less showy gifts? "Brethren, be not children in mind, but in malice be babes, but in mind be of full age" (1 Cor. 14: 20).

In our Epistle however there is no development of that which is so prominent in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, but a moral dealing with the danger there and then prevalent among those addressed. The aim is to correct the haste and the character of speech generally, and the readiness to teach in particular. From the beginning, not only of the Christian confession, but of Israel's history, we may observe what importance was given to wisdom and understanding. Weigh such plain instances as Deut. 1: 13, 15, and Deut. 4: 5, 6. "Take you wise men, and understanding, and known, according to your tribes, and I will make them heads over you." "So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, and captains of fifties, and captains of tens, and officers, according to your tribes." "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." Indeed the spirit of it runs through that remarkable book, as obedient heed to the word of God forms it. What else can be the condition of blessing for all in relationship with God, be it for earth or for heaven?

Here a similar object appears in the enquiry, "Who is wise and understanding among you?" and in the counsel that follows, "Let him show out of his good course of conduct (that becomes such a man, in deed and in truth) his works (not self-complacently or ostentatiously, but) in meekness of wisdom." What more holy, sober, or pertinent? What more sad than when wisdom seems assuming or harsh? It is abiding in Christ that produces fruit acceptable to our God and Father. But we need His words too, and prayer.

Having exhorted him who was reported wise and understanding to show in the reality of comely works, not mere words, his good conduct or practical life in meekness of wisdom, not in superstitious criticism or self-conceit, the Epistle turns to warn of the dark side.

"But if ye have bitter emulation and faction in your heart, do not boast and lie against the truth" (ver. 14).

Such is man: self is his idol, self-will his way. The profession of Christ in no way eradicates it, but makes it all the more sad and inconsistent, in Jew even more than Greek. As we see in 1 Cor. 1, 3, so we read here. "Bitter emulation" in the disciple of the crucified Lord of glory! Alas! it was no hypothetical case, but a fact. "But if ye have"; and this not in the hasty speech, but "in your heart." So early and everywhere did the Christian confessors slip away from the reason of their being, and rival the failure of Israel. So quickly did they forget that Christianity, while emphatically "faith" (Gal. 3: 25), in contrast with the law (the previous tutor), depends on life from God, or a divine nature partaken of, as we have noticed in this Epistle and may in every other. Now what room is there in that new life for "bitter emulation"? Christ condemns it, root and fruit. In Him was none of it, but meekness of wisdom, and zeal for God. First and last the zeal of His Father's house ate Him up. When or where else do we hear of His taking disciplinary work in hand, expelling outrageous offenders, and pouring contempt on their profane trade? Though the Holy and the High, when does He contend for His own glory, when and where does He resent the slight and scorn of guilty man?

If Christ be, as indeed He is, the Christian's life, what is it for him to have "bitter emulation" in his heart? Is it not the indulgence in an evil work of the old man, and the dishonour of the Master by the servant? This was bad, but "faction" is worse; because it is not only the individual gratifying the vanity of an evil nature, but its spread to others too ready to exalt self and depreciate such as ought to be loved and honoured. For is it not to this we are called here below? "Let nothing be (said the great apostle) according to faction or vain-glory, but in lowly-mindedness each esteeming one another more excellent than themselves" (Phil. 2: 3). We are entitled to regard them as saints beloved of God; though by grace the same, we cannot but feel our own unworthiness. What do we know of them as we know of ourselves? On every ground bitter emulation and faction be far from our heart. So pleads meekness of wisdom, that we may show out of our good conduct the works that now become that excellent Name by which we are called.

But if we have in our heart these unclean things, bitter emulation and faction, "do not boast and lie against the truth." Love, we know, is not emulous, nor does it rejoice at iniquity, but rejoices with the truth. But the vaunting, which accompanies emulation and faction, is against the truth; for the truth wholly exposes and condemns it as of the carnal mind which is enmity against God. He was the truth, Who was meek and lowly in heart, and bids us take His yoke upon us and learn of Him, and we shall find rest to our souls. For His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

If we cherish these evils so contradictory of Christ, while called by His name, what is it but "lying against the truth"? So trenchantly does the Epistle denounce what the enemy ever seeks to introduce under cover of zeal for the truth.

Wisdom, like faith, shows its character by the spirit and conduct that accompanies and reflects it. Every good gift and every perfect giving cometh down from above, from the Father of lights, Who of His own will begot us by the word of truth. What is the source and character of any wisdom, however pretentious, that coalesces with bitter emulation and faction? Is it not a lie against the truth? Does it flow from anything higher than hearts governed by self-will, instead of being purified by faith?

"This wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, natural, demoniacal. For where envying and faction [are], there disorder [is] and every bad deed" (vers. 15, 16).

To describe it thus was to brand it as thoroughly evil and of the enemy. The tone of James differs from that of John and Jude, of Paul and of Peter; but all agree in testifying that Christ alone is, and shows us, the wisdom acceptable in God's eyes and suitable for His children. Man's wisdom is in truth his folly, for it is in disobedience of His word, and seeks independence of His will. The Lord of glory was the obedient man and gave the pattern of One on earth Who did not merely live through or by the Father but on account or by reason of Him. So perfectly was He the servant (and this is the perfection of man Godward) that He had no other motive in His living; and He lays this down for him that feeds on Himself — even he shall leave on account of Me (John 6: 57). He is the Bread that came down from heaven and gives life to the world; but more than this, He gives His flesh for the life of the world. Less than this would not suffice to meet its ruin and accomplish the blessing God had in His heart for the believer. To eat His flesh and drink His blood is indispensable, if we are to have life in ourselves, as was His purpose of grace about us. He that thus eats and drinks has the communion of His death, and has life eternal, with the assurance of being raised by Him at the last day, yea more — of abiding in Him, and of His abiding in him, this day.

No other wisdom therefore suits the believer. The wisdom of the first man, and of the world, has no link with heaven. It is at best earthly, and either seeks glory from men or yet more proudly tramples on other men as unworthy of a thought. The sage thinks he is the king, and will have not fellows but slaves, in the fulness of his self-complacency and disdain. The most offensive condition to his mind is to be a servant, to be God's bondman This is love's place, and Christ took end filled it unfailingly; and by His redemption we can follow in His path, having Him as our life, which He truly is, and are free to cultivate this wisdom coming down from above. For we too can love one another, because love is of God; and as every one that loves has been begotten of God, and knows God, so he that does not love never learnt God, because God is love.

Further too, it is not only "earthly" wisdom, but "natural." It has no true sense of God's mind any more than of His love. As the apostle tells us in 1 Cor. 2, a natural or soulish man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot gain knowledge of them, because they are spiritually discerned; whereas the spiritual man discerns them all, while himself is discerned by none.

Another word completes the sad picture of wisdom outside Christ; it is "demoniacal." It is quite enough to render it accurately; for though demons may be distinguished from their prince, yet they are the emissaries of Satan and the instruments of his malicious power. How little do men believe that the wisdom of self, so coveted of mankind, is "demoniacal"! How little do the children of God seek that which is of Christ, the best proof that it is of God's Spirit! For He is here to glorify Christ; and this He does by receiving of Christ's, and announcing it to us.

But are not God's children exposed in their weakness to danger and evil? They are not in the flesh, but the flesh is in them; they are in the world with all its snares; they are the object of the evil one's incessant and subtle seductions. But greater is He that is in them than he that is in the world. Have they not Christ? And Christ is God's wisdom no less than His power. Far from them to boast of wisdom or aught else in themselves. Indeed God chose the foolish things of the world to put to shame the sages. And of Him are they in Christ Jesus, "Who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."

Yet God does not fail to set even the weakest on their guard against the assumption of a wisdom that is not of Him. Its moral character betrays its evil source, when smooth language and fair speaking might easily ensnare the unwary. The least intelligent of saints who keeps the Lord Jesus before him can discern "envying and faction"; and these allowed bring in speedily "confusion and every bad work." By their fruits therefore the earthly wise become manifest ere long to those who are neither intelligent nor spiritual enough to discern otherwise. They are thus warned and kept by divine grace.

In the next verse we have the qualities of divine wisdom drawn out for our cheer and profit; as in James 1: 5 we were exhorted to ask it of God that gives to all liberally and without a reproach, though indeed even His own deserve blame.

"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, uncontentious, impartial (or, unfeigned)" (ver. 17): few words but sound and deep, pregnant and penetrating, inspired of God as they really are.

Now that grace has given us Christ, that we are begotten of God and have His Spirit, how suitable to look unto the same source for wisdom that springs not up from the earth or from man! But we are encouraged already, by the goodness proved when we deserved judgment and everlasting shame, to ask for all we need in our new responsibility because of our new relationship. Earthly as we once were, our hearts rose not then above it; alas we were prone to sink below it through the wiles of the enemy. Now that we are "heavenly" as the apostle Paul intimates (1 Cor. 15: 48) we constantly want a wisdom that is from above. Nor is there any other good gift from the Father of lights of deeper moment for His children. Will He not give it liberally to all that wait on Him in faith, and refuse all doubt? The love He has shown us, and the assuring word He has written for us, rebuke every such questioning. If we have not, it is because we ask not. If we ask and receive not, it is because we ask amiss, that we may spend it on our pleasures. How could God consistently impart heavenly wisdom to those who mind earthly things? He gives in honour of Christ for His own glory.

What then is the Spirit's delineation of this wisdom? It is "first pure." How worthy of God and of the Lord Jesus by Whom we know what He is! Let God's child advance as he may, he cannot claim this. How much there is always to mortify in our members on the earth! Assuredly "whosoever is born of God doth not practise sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin (ἁμαρτάνειν, the course and character of our fallen nature), because he is born of God" (1 John 3: 9). Hatred of sin and living to God characterise all His family. But it is only when Christ shall be manifested, that we shall be seen to be like Him. We shall see Him as He is; then and thus shall we be conformed to His image. We shall bear the image of the earthly; not till then shall we bear that of the Heavenly. But everyone that has this hope founded on Him purifies himself, even as He is pure. We, though bathed all over, need the habitual washing of the word to wash our feet. We have to purify ourselves, because we contract defilement, and are not pure as He was and is.

The wisdom from above savours of Him to meet our wants. It is first pure, "then peaceable," an order much to be borne in mind. Even saints are apt to make peaceableness their prime object. But this would compromise the character and glory of God, Who will have the exclusion of all that defiles. Sanctified to Jesus' obedience and the sprinkling of His blood, we are bound to see first that His will be our aim and purpose of heart, however important it is also and next to promote peace. Such certainly is the spirit and working of the wisdom from above. So in the Gospels we see invariably in the words and ways of the Lord; and not otherwise do we read the Holy Spirit's teaching in the Epistles.

Again, it is "gentle," and "easy to be entreated." What a contrast with human wisdom, so apt to be stern and proud, so impatient of question or difference! Where was its perfection ever seen, ever maintained without a flaw, but in our Lord Jesus? Therefore could He say, even at the close, "I am among you as he that serveth." So He called on the greatest of His followers to be as the younger, and the leader to be as the servant. Heavenly wisdom feeds and fosters this gracious lowliness and waiting on others.

Next, it is said to be "full of mercy and of good fruits," a precious help in the midst of faulty souls, and their evil ways. For of all men those who feel and act with divine compassion toward wrong-doers require themselves to walk in communion with Him Who is good to the ungrateful and the evil. There must be no real ground for insinuating that they are soft toward other offenders, because they would smooth over their own inconsistencies.

Lastly, it is "uncontentious, impartial" (or, it may be, "unfeigned"): eminently called for in their place. For if children of God, are we not to walk as children of light, not only personally but in our bearing toward others and our converse with them? How is not the light dimmed by yielding to contention and indulgence in party work! How contrary to Christ when we give occasion to any just charge of insincerity or hypocrisy in our spirit! Heavenly wisdom eschews all such tendencies, earthly wisdom lives in and avails itself of such ways. The spirit of strife is apt to draw even an upright soul into feelings and conduct altogether unworthy of the new life and relationship.

The beautiful description of the heavenly wisdom which the Epistle commends to the saints closes with its result in peace along the way,

"And righteousness' fruit in peace is being sown for those that make peace" (ver. 18).

In the practical walk of the believer the fruit of righteousness is the prime requisite, but "in peace"; as we have seen the wisdom from above is "first pure, then peaceable." In the natural man, as in the world, self-will reigns, the enemy of all righteousness, in an overbearing spirit, the seed of an ever-growing harvest of contention, as the beginning of the next chapter clearly indicates.

Even in the Lord Jesus we find the same order, as in Heb. 7: 2, "first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace." Such is the application of Melchizedek, king-priest of Salem. It is indeed a type more than fulfilled in the order of Christ's priesthood even now, about to be fulfilled by-and-by in its exercise, when the battle is won over the Beast and the kings of the earth and their armies at the end of the age.

When we look at redemption, if grace reigns as it does, it is through righteousness unto life eternal through Jesus Christ our Lord. Only then, through Him dead and risen, could we, justified by faith, have peace with God. Therefore are the saints everywhere called on, walking righteously, to be in peace (if possible, as much as hangs on them) with all men. Nor do the Epistles to the Corinthians differ from that to the Romans: God hath called us in peace, says the First; rejoice, be adjusted, be encouraged, be of one mind, be in peace; and the God of love and peace would be with them. Such is the exhortation and promise in the Second. So to the Galatians the apostle writes for as many as walk according to the rule of the new creation, peace be on them and mercy; as to the Ephesians, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, he would have their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. What a place peace has in the Philippian Epistle every reader ought to see; nor is it less deep in that to the Colossians where he would have Christ's peace rule in their hearts; as he prays for the Thessalonians in the First that the God of peace would sanctify them wholly, and in the Second that the Lord of peace Himself would give them peace continually in every way. And the Epistle to the Hebrews exhorts to pursue peace with all, and holiness, giving this however the primary and peremptory place in accordance with the doctrine elsewhere.

But the fruit of righteousness in peace, though acceptable to God, a blessing in itself, and a comfort to fellow-believers, is far from welcome to men in general, who know not God and do not obey the gospel but unrighteousness, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating each other. It is sown, as we are here told, "for those that make peace." The will of man, any more than the wrath of man, works not God's righteousness. Discord and every evil issue are the sad effect. "Blessed," says the Lord, "are the peace-makers; for they shall be called God's sons." But in that wondrous outpouring of blessing from His lips on the mount (Matt. 5), we may notice that the four descriptions of the blessed are of the righteous class (vers. 3-6), before the three of the gracious sort (vers. 7-9); with a blessing super-numerary on the persecuted for righteousness' sake, and another yet richer on those persecuted for His own sake. Righteousness necessarily precedes. For it is vain to think or speak of walking in grace, where we fail in consistency with our relationship. The fruit of righteousness in peace is being sown for those that make peace. Such are evidently walking in a spirit which grace produces; but the fruit of righteousness in peace is sown for them. Some contend strongly that we should understand "by" rather than "for." Grammatically the clause is susceptible of either sense; but the former seems hardly so suitable to the bearing of the context. Let the Christian reader judge for himself.

James 4

The new chapter turns to the source of the bitter contention against which from the first its warning lay — "slow to wrath," to its disastrous result.

"Whence [are] wars and whence fightings among you? [Are they] not hence, from your pleasures that combat in your members? Ye lust and have not: ye kill and are jealous and cannot obtain: ye fight and war: ye have not because ye ask not: ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend [it] in your pleasures" (vers. 1-3).

These violent workings sprang from self unjudged. If deliberate and continuous they are called "wars"; if passing outbreaks, they are called "fightings" or "battles"; but they describe not effects of violence in the world, but among those addressed. The humiliating fact remains, that terms to describe them are drawn from the uncontrolled ways of men who knew not God. What a contrast with Him Who says, "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matt. 11: 29, 30). "Blessed" He pronounces "the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed they that mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed they which hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled. Blessed the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed the peace-makers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed the persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens. Blessed are ye when they shall revile and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake" (Matt. 5: 3-11).

Next the proximate cause is stated. "[Are they] not hence, from your pleasures that combat in your members?" It was the gratification of fallen nature. The members of the body in this case play their part, unchecked by the will or fear of God: the throat, an open sepulchre; the tongue, deceitful; the lips, with poison underneath; the mouth, full of bitterness; the eyes, full of adultery; the hands, ready for rapine; the heart, prone to covetousness; the feet, swift to shed blood. How hopelessly evil, if grace had not given another nature through and according to the word of truth (which is indeed, as the apostle calls it, Christ our life)! And the new has its pleasures after its source, hating what God hates, and delighting in what pleases' Him. His word is then the law of liberty.

But where Christ is not before the eye of faith working by love, how mournful the issue! "Ye lust and have not; ye kill, and are jealous, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not; ye ask and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend [it] in your pleasures." Here the evil is traced to that unhallowed desire that is called "lust," whatever may be its object, and whether corrupt or violent. It is wholly in contrast with subjection to God and His word. It is therefore antagonistic to the affection and mind of the Holy Spirit, as is said in Gal. 5: 17, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these things are opposed one to the other, that ye should not do the things that ye would."

Here therefore we have, traced in unerring lines, the inevitable failure of such a course. There are desires which come to nothing; there is violence to an extreme, and envy or jealousy to the full, yet still dissatisfaction; there is contention ever growing worse; there is no asking, and no answer of peace. If there be asking apparently, there is the reserve of selfishness; it is evilly done to squander on their pleasures.

Violence was denounced in the opening of the chapter. Hence we have corruption indignantly rebuked to the face.

"Adulteresses,* know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore shall be minded to be friend of the world is constituted enemy of God. Or think ye that the scripture saith in vain? † Doth the Spirit that took his dwelling in us long unto envy? But he giveth more grace; wherefore he saith, God setteth himself against haughty [men], but giveth grace to lowly" (vers. 4-6).

The shorter text as given here is attested by the great witnesses, both manuscripts and versions. The addition in later copies we can understand from the temptation to round the phrase and comprehend men and women; and this has tended to a literal sense instead of understanding it as a forcible and solemn appeal, the gender being easily apprehended from the nature of the offence. For the first duty of every Christian is fidelity to Christ; and assuredly there is no question of failure on His part. With the saints it is far otherwise.

* So run pm A B 13, and, only in the mass., Syrsch Copt. Aeth. Arm.

† The punctuation and translation of ver, 5 may be questioned; but I have faithfully given what seems best.

Thus wrote the apostle to the Corinthians, "I espoused you to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." Here each individual is more in view; but the principle is the same, and the figure of departure quite intelligible. The world corrupts from simplicity as to Christ many who would turn from immoral ways at once. For it looks fair enough, and offers a variety of attractions suited to our nature. And the question is often raised, What is the harm of this? Is there any wrong in that? But this Epistle lays bare the character of the enticement. Are we seeking or accepting the world? Now friendship with the world is enmity with God. Did not the world crucify the Lord of glory? Is it Christian then to value its approbation, or to court its honour? Is it loyal to the Lord to walk in familiar ease with the system which shed His blood and put Him to the vilest ignominy? No one clears himself of that guilt save he who believing is washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Those who profess the name without the power are sure to weary of separateness to Christ and to hanker after earthly things. But the word is plain: "Whosoever therefore shall be minded to be friend of the world is constituted enemy of God."

The written word of God is as distinctly opposed to such unholy commerce as the Spirit Who dwells in us revolts from its spirit. "Or think ye that the scripture saith [it] in vain? Doth the Spirit that took His dwelling in us long unto envy?" What did our Lord teach on the mount or in His discourses habitually, and in His answers to men? Separation from the world is everywhere enjoined, or presumed. And what can be more adverse to the envy which characterises the world than the mind of the indwelling Spirit of God? Subjectively therefore as well as objectively what God gives in no way countenances friendship with the world.

No doubt the difficulties and the dangers are great for the saint here below. "But he giveth more grace"; and all need it. Not content with imparting settled "access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" (Rom. 5: 2), where is the Epistle, speaking ordinarily, which does not begin with "grace to you and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ? "This is general, of course; and so much the better for its purpose that so it should be. Here it is suited to the trial, and therefore appropriate to need. "But he giveth greater grace." The more severe the strain, the greater is His outflow of goodness for seasonable help. "Wherefore he saith, God setteth himself against haughty [men], but giveth grace to lowly." Not only 1 Sam. 2 and Luke 10, but the Psalms and Proverbs furnish abundant testimony to both its parts.

The assurance that God giveth grace to the lowly leads to the next exhortation.

"Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse hands, sinners, and purify hearts, ye double-minded. Sorrow, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned unto mourning, and your joy unto heaviness. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you" (vers. 7-10).

There is much that helps the soul, as it is due to God, that we submit ourselves to Him. Undoubtedly it becomes one that knows Him to cherish obedient lowliness in His sight; and were we ever in our watchtower, we should be habitually thus submissive. But in fact a little thing is apt to excite, and the uprising of another too often rouses our own pride, instead of being only a grief to our souls as it should be. Hence the need of subjection to God which quiets the spirit and leads to gracious affections.

But there is an adversary ever at work with whom we are called to have no terms, no compromises, even where appearances are put forward ever so plausibly. "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." Christ is the test: the devil always works to thwart and defame the Lord Jesus. He may preach righteousness, he may stimulate zeal; but he never exalts Christ's name in truth, any more than leads to suffering for His sake. Detested and resisted he will flee from us. To gratify flesh and the world are his ordinary snares. Let us never forget that to faith he is a vanquished enemy. Let us resist him in dependence on the Lord. On the other hand, we are called to "draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you."

The new and living way is now open to Him Who sent His Son that all obstacles might be removed in the love that wrought and gave us a redemption worthy of Himself and of His Son. His written word now imparts the revealed certainty of His will in thus putting us in relationship with Himself, as we were shown early in this Epistle. As He speaks freely to us in His love, so does He encourage us, "always confident," to draw nigh to Him. Our asking of Him, whatever the need, the danger, or the difficulty, is grounded on His having addressed Himself to us in grace. And Christ, as He was "the faithful witness" of Him to us, is no less of us to Him, so as to keep up faith's assurance alike when we draw nigh to God and when we resist the devil.

But the thought in the next words seems an example of the peculiarity of an Epistle addressed to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion. "Sinners" and "double-minded" persons are appealed to as such. Such appeals are nowhere found in the Epistles addressed to the saints in the N.T. Here the scope is so wide as to include souls not yet converted, though we have also seen a great deal in the Epistle which supposes the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. But there is more here and to come in accordance with its being written to the ancient people of God as a whole, in whatever degree each believer may draw profit from all. The difficulty of the exhortation is thus accounted for, and the authority of the word maintained, without yielding to any strained interpretation. Nevertheless it is a call to faith in all these verses, and not to the slow process of human effort; for cleansing of hands and purifying of hearts, no less than for submission to God and drawing nigh to Him before, or for sorrowings that follow. The verbs are all in what is called the aorist, and therefore imply that God calls for each and all of these calls to be done once for all as a settled thing for the soul. This grace alone could effect. Man otherwise must labour in vain. God gives to faith what He demands.

Still where faith is, there is repentance also; and God will have evil felt and judged in those who are blessed of Him. Hence the summons, "Sorrow, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned unto mourning, and your joy unto heaviness." As the Lord said, "Blessed they that mourn; for they shall be comforted." The Epistle of James will no more allow the moral side to be forgotten than the apostle Paul in showing us the characteristics of genuine repentance. How could it be otherwise, if we stand in faith before God confessing our sins? To make repentance only a change of mind is a serious dereliction from the truth. Sin is ignored as it is in God's sight, and any divinely-given sense of our ruin.

But a larger call follows, and of deep practical moment, "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you." This too is a call to have it done once for all, like the rest — an accomplished act, and not a mere process going on. But as in the other cases, so in this, the believer is bound ever after to watch against every inconsistency with what is so done.

The next admonition is on evil speaking and the judicial spirit which is so often its root.

"Speak not against one another, brethren. He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against law and judgeth law; but if thou judgest law, thou art not a doer of law but a judge. One is the law-giver and judge that is able to save and destroy; but who art thou that judgest thy neighbour" (vers. 11, 12)?

Here was the suited place to apply particularly what the Epistle had guarded against in a general way in James 2, when on all it impressed slowness in speaking as well as in wrath. This was pursued again in James 3 to the strict government of the tongue from over-readiness to teach; seeing that fair words and foul from the same lips ought not so to be, and may easily prove occasion of stumbling. Here it follows the exposure of the inward spring of selfwill in violence and corruption, without duly heeding scripture and the Spirit Who leads to prayer with subjection to God, and confidence in Him and His grace.

The exhortation is as to our ordinary but God-fearing intercourse. The necessities of godly discipline are not in question. Holy love is bound to rebuke what is wrong in those guilty of it, and to warn those who may be endangered by the evil example. Wrong in these cases must be laid bare though it ought to be in sorrow; but it is due to the Lord, and for the profit of those concerned. If there be a public snare and peril, this makes a corresponding admonition to be a duty, and is love in truth.

But to spread disparagement or discreditable imputations without a call from God according to His word, and with no effort to seek the good of the alleged evil-doers, is not only far from Christ, but beneath even a Jew. There is neither truth nor love in detraction, but constant liability to false witness: a multitude must not be followed to do such uncomely turns, any more than to favour a poor man in his cause. The nearness of our relationship is apt to lend occasion to freedom of speech, but it clearly ought rather to enforce on us the greater caution. "Speak not against one another, brethren." Entreaty or remonstrance may be called for; but angry and especially habitual depreciation is unworthy of those that bear the Lord's name. Is it to injure? How does He regard it? "He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against law, and judgeth law; but if thou judgest law, thou art not a doer of law but a judge." Not only the uncharitable act, but the judicial assumption which it must involve, are here exposed with transparent soundness. The brother spoken against may be innocent; the evil speaker is certainly in a false position and an injurious state. The authority which all acknowledge condemns him, at least of being censorious, usurping the seat of judgment, and disputing the authority he invokes. Nor is God mocked: for we reap as we sow, if of flesh corruption; if of Spirit, life everlasting.

"But if thou judgest law, thou are not a doer of law but a judge." How true it is that the readiest to blame others are the least careful over themselves, and need most correction for their heedless ways and their hasty judgments!

How solemn too the appeal to conscience! "One is the law-giver and judge, that is able to save and destroy." How grave is the rebuke to any who so offend! "But who art thou that judgest thy neighbour?" Grace and self-judgment can alone enable us to abhor the evil and cleave to the good. may we cultivate both.

Thence the Epistle turns to that unbelieving spirit and inconsiderate speech too often borrowed from the world by those who know and ought to feel how all things hang on God's will.

"Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go to this city here and spend there a year, and traffic and make gain, whereas ye know not what [will be] the morrow. Of what sort [is] your life? Why, it is a vapour that appeareth for a little and then disappeareth, instead of your saying, If the Lord will, we shall both live and do this or that" (vers 13-15).

It is plain that the levity of the sentiment goes deeper than the words, and betrays the readiness of man's mind to leave God out of the ordinary round of life, especially in the affairs of business. But to bring Him in and to refer to His will with integrity would cover the greater part of every day. Christ, yea Christianity also, shows that as there is nothing too great for us to receive from God, so there is nothing too little for God to direct us in. His will embraces all that is humble, all that is glorious. Christ is not the witness only but the fulness in both. Who ever came so low? Who is now gone so high? And He is the fife of every Christian, who is therefore called to walk as He did. But there we fail, as Christ never did; in Whom nothing is more wonderful than His unwavering obedience; He is indeed the only Man Who always did without exception the things which pleased His Father.

It is then our duty, as it is our privilege, to consult the will of our God and Father day by day, and throughout each day. In our prayer and in His word we find the means; or, as our Lord Himself put the case perfectly, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done to you." For He begins with our constant reliance on Him, and He ends with the assurance of our having what we ask; for, so doing, one only asks what is according to God's will.

After knowing so blessed a reality as Christ's walk on earth, leaving us an example that we should follow His steps, is it not then a dead loss and a deep wrong, that any Christian should walk as the heathen that know not God? One can understand Elijah taunting the recreant Jews who followed Baal, and especially Baal's priests who vainly called on that demon to answer by fire. "Cry aloud: for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is gone aside, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked." But he who believes on Christ knows Him active in the richest love to bless now and evermore, God revealed too as His Father and our Father, His God and our God. Are we not then to lay before Him every difficulty and every desire? Are we not to respond to His grace by our devotedness? Are not we too sanctified by the Spirit unto obedience, and this obedience, not of a Jew under the law, but under grace, yea expressly to an obedience like His own, of sons with the Father? As children of obedience, it is not for us to fashion ourselves according to our former lusts in our ignorance; but as He that called us is holy, so may it be with us in all manner of living. Now the main spring of this practical course is seeking to walk in His will.

But Christian profession, and perhaps especially among the Israelites, was fast slipping into worldliness and naturalism, as we hear it pungently described in these verses. Not only is it unworthy of God's child; it is practical impiety. Who and what is a man that fears God to talk of his plans for to-day or to-morrow without a thought of Him? Who and what is he to leave where he is and go to this city here, to spend there a year? And how? To traffic and make gain! "Whereas," says our Epistle, "ye know not what will be on the morrow." How simple yet withering! "Of what sort is your life? Why, it is a vapour that appeareth for a little and then disappeareth." Of course no more is here spoken of than our earthly existence, our life in the world. Instead of that we ought to say, "If the Lord will, we shall both live and do this or that." Impossible to resist the force of this appeal. Our living here below falls as much under the Lord's will, as our doing this or that. How wretched to ignore Him! How happy to know His will and to do it!

The closing verses disclose the root of this practical leaving God out of daily life and language, but deepen the censure by pointing to that unselfish goodness to which every one is called who has the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"But now ye glory in your vauntings: all such glorying is wicked. To one knowing to do a comely thing, and not doing [it], it is a sin to him" (vers. 16, 17).

The only befitting state of a creature is dependence on God; with this all vauntings, as if our life were within our power and every act of it free for our own disposal, is wholly at issue. Bought with a price, we with such feelings and ways defraud Him to Whom we belong; and all the more, if according to God's own will we derive our new nature from Him by the word of truth. We are called to keep up the family character. Of this He Who had sovereign rights has set us the perfect exemplar; for Lord of glory as He is, He came down to be a bondman and was to the uttermost. Love animated Him in an obedience which never flagged; as love sent Him on our behalf, not only to save us when lost, but to conform us in heart and to fashion our ways and words. What can be more opposed than vauntings, unless it be to glory in them? Instead of it, let us be ashamed when we consider what we are in such godless pride, and what He was, Who, though rich, for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich, but rich only in the unseen and eternal. Are we any better in ourselves? Is it not solely in Him? How senseless, unworthy, and inconsistent to glory in our vauntings! Truly "all such glorying is wicked"; it savours not of Christ, but of the devil's inflation.

But we cannot, as confessors of the Lord Jesus deny what we have by faith seen and heard of Him. In virtue of life in Him we know the thing that becomes the Christian; for we are not ignorant of that which was manifested in Him, Who was its fulness and never allowed the entrance of the least foreign element. It is not here goodness in the form of benevolence (ἀγαθὸν), though we are surely to follow Him in that path also (Gal. 6: 10). Here it is what is honourably right (καλὸν) in one who professes not to be a man only, but to be born of God. If knowing it therefore, we are engaged to do it; and if one does it not, to him it is sin.

It is evident that this goes far beyond the Puritan and even more widely human perversion of 1 John 3: 4, which pervades systematic divinity. It ought to be absurd in any intelligent eyes to think that James penetrates more deeply than the beloved disciple. No law is in question but "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"; it is the law of liberty, not of bondage. John however does not speak of "the transgression of the law," which has its own proper expression elsewhere; he presents the true and faithful character of sin, even where law was unknown: "sin is lawlessness." It is the principle and exercise of self-will, and not only breach of the law. Being a reciprocal proposition, lawlessness is sin as truly as sin is lawlessness. Here our Epistle applies the truth on the positive side. God's will is that we should do a thing that is right or comely when we know it: if we know and do it not, we sin. It is our own will that hinders; and this is always sin.

James 5

The address at the beginning of the Epistle helps not a little to account for the peculiarity of the denunciation of the rich with which our chapter opens, as well as other passages afterwards and before it. If directed to the twelve tribes that are in the dispersion, there is no difficulty; if it contemplated like Peter's two Epistles only such as are saints, not a little would sound harsh, to say the least. But as the inspired writer was led to take wider ground from the start, the true key of interpretation is put into our hands thereby.

"Come then, ye rich, weep, howling over your miseries that are coming on. Your wealth is corrupted, and your garments are become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted through, and their rust shall be for a witness to you, and shall eat your flesh as fire. Ye laid up treasure in [the] last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who reaped your fields, that is kept back of you, [or, from you] calleth out; and the cries of those that reaped entered into the ears of Jehovah of hosts. Ye lived luxuriously on the earth and indulged yourselves; ye nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye condemned, ye slew the just one: he doth not resist you" (vers. 1-6).

The day of the Lord could not but be prominent before a godly Israelite imbued with the reiterated warnings of the prophets; and it is still hanging over man on the earth. The covenant people of old were prone to regard themselves as exceptions; but for their delusion they had no warrant or even excuse from scripture. The more privileged, if faithless, are the more guilty. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." The gospel brings in grace, and through faith deliverance; but the moral principles of divine government are immutable. God's wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness.

The poor are sinners no less than the rich; each have their special snares and dangers. But it is far harder for a rich man than for a poor one to follow Christ truly. Therefore, said He to His disciples, "Verily I say to you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of the heavens. And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Here however they in a general and unsparing way are warned solemnly of their miseries that are coming on. The reader may profitably compare Isa. 2: 7 to the end: only idols are not set forth by the Epistle as in the prophecy. But that day will deal with every one that is proud and lofty, and with every one that is lifted up, with every high tower, and every fenced wall, with all the ships of Tarshish and with all pleasant works of art. God is against their cherished wealth, and their endless store of raiment. To his eye that saw under the surface all was corruption, their gold and silver rusted throughout, the rust a witness to them and to eat their flesh as fire. The selfish unbelief that laid up treasures in closing days was no trifle in God's sight.

But they are charged with wanton cruelty and fraud in their dealings with the labourers who reaped their fields. Their very wealth tempts the rich to withhold payment of wages to the poor; their own things are alone of moment in their eyes, while they postpone to a convenient season the claims of such as live from hand to mouth. But the debt cries aloud to Him Who ever feels for the poor, as He showed Who alone made Him fully known. Yes, the cries of the reapers, which may not have reached the rich, entered into the ears of the Lord of hosts, and His blow would fall when least expected.

The rich are next arraigned for their luxurious living on the earth, as if the God of heaven regarded it not. In a world of wretchedness and want, they indulged themselves, as if they were not stewards and had no account to render; they nourished their hearts in a day of slaughter, as heedless as the beasts slain for food of man.

Another charge follows, still more tremendous: "Ye condemned, ye slew the just one: he doth not resist you." This made their guilt less excusable. "He did no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth; who, when reviled, reviled not again, when suffering, threatened not, but gave [himself] up to him that judgeth justly."

At this point the Holy Spirit brings in the coming of the Lord. It is indeed a truth of the utmost moment and of the largest application practically; and all the inspired were led to interweave it into their communications.

"Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient for (or, over) it, until it receive early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur (or, groan) not, brethren, one against another, that ye be not judged. Behold, the judge standeth before the door. Take, brethren, for en example of suffering and of patience, the prophets who spoke in the name of [the] Lord. Behold, we call them blessed who endured. Ye heard of the endurance of Job, and saw the Lord's end; for the Lord is full of compassion, and merciful" (vers. 7-11).

What motive to long suffering so powerful as the Lord's coming! Good shall then be at ease, and evil be smitten down all over the earth. He will have the glory to Whom it is due. The heavens and earth shall be united under His head ship Who is Heir of all things. His own, even in the body conformed to His image, as they once suffered with Him, shall then be glorified and reign with Him. Israel no longer idolatrous, the Jew despising no more their Messiah, shall have Him their King, Jehovah's anointed King on His holy hill of Zion. All the nations will bow in willing subjection to His righteous sceptre, envious no more of His choice: all that see the elect people in that day shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which Jehovah hath blessed. In their Father's kingdom on high shall the righteous shine forth as the sun; and, below, the Son of man shall send forth His angels, who shall gather out of His kingdom all stumbling-blocks and those that do iniquity. Then Jehovah will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the corn, and the wine and the oil; and they shall answer Jezreel. And Jehovah will sow her unto Him in the land, and will have mercy on her that had not obtained mercy; and He will say to them which were not His people, Thou art my people, and they shall say, My God. And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child too shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the basilisk's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain. For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.

Such are the consequences of that glorious event. But His presence is more than all the rest to those that love Himself. Nor is there any truth which has a mightier effect (next to faith in His person, His love, and His death) in detaching from the world and its snares on the one hand, and in sustaining under its hatred and persecution on the other. Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. It is not the providential dealing with Jerusalem and the Jews, any more than death ridding sufferers from the troubles of this life. These are the misinterpretations of fallen Christendom. The truth is the hope of His own coming, which will first act on all the saints dead or living to give them consummated blessedness, and next on the land and people of Israel, as well as on all the earth.

Doubtless we have to await the moment of the Father's will. So does the farmer for the good produce of the earth, till it receive the needed rain from above, both early and later. How much more should we stablish our hearts in patience, whose hope is so much more excellent, till the last believer is called! for the Lord's coming hath drawn nigh. Can we not trust Him Who gave us His Son, and with Him all things?

There is another danger, besides impatience, which it corrects. We are apt to murmur, or groan, one against another. How unwise, ungracious, and unbelieving! With what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again. To judge is to be judged. How much better to wait in patience, overcoming evil with good! Why should we judge? "Behold, the judge standeth before the door." The time is at hand.

Incredulity says that this was the error of the apostolic church. On the contrary it was the simple strength of their hope; and they reaped the blessing it gave them. If they fell asleep, it was also to wait with Christ, instead of only for Him. It is the true, intended, and constant hope of the Christian, as living now as from the day of Pentecost. Christ Himself is waiting for that moment; so all saints were once, and all ought to be now.

Nor is our Lord the only pattern for us. "Take, brethren, for an example of suffering and of patience, the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord." We tread the same path with yet brighter hope, though in substance the same. Yet another incentive is added, of no slight force. "Behold, we call them blessed which endured. Ye heard of the endurance of Job, and saw the Lord's end; for the Lord is full of compassion and merciful." A whole book of scripture is devoted to this aim. How fully Job was vindicated against the detraction of friends! And how blessed of Jehovah, when self was judged! Let us be of good cheer, not hearing only, but truly profiting.

From the need of patient endurance we are next warned of the danger of light or thoughtless asseverations in ordinary speech: a common habit among both Jews and Greeks, but wholly unworthy of Him Who is the truth, the great exemplar for all who confess Him Lord.

"But before all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your yea be yea, and nay nay, lest ye fall under judgment" (ver. 12).

As sinning with the tongue is throughout denounced, so here in particular the lack of reverence. For though the oaths in question refer to the creature rather than to God, though they may affect care for His name by substituting other forms for His; who entitles men to adopt anything of the sort in daily intercourse? He is the Judge, Who has assured us that of every idle word that men speak they shall give account in the day that comes; "for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Indeed on the mount, in the great series of discourses of which the first Gospel gives the summary, the Lord had pronounced on the same wrong. "Again, ye have heard that it was said to those of old time, Thou shalt not perjure thyself, but shalt perform to Jehovah thy vows; but I say to thee, Swear not at all: neither by the heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. No more shalt thou swear by thy head; for thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your word be yea, yea; nay, nay; for that which is more cometh of evil" (or, the evil one). The self-same duty is enforced as in this Epistle.

It is a total mistake to conceive that by either a judicial oath is forbidden. The specimens given preclude such an inference. They are not such as the magistrate puts in a court or other occasion; they were, or might be, the common phrases of every day. The sense therefore is clearly given by the A.V. rendering of "your communication." It was not an answer to the demand of one entitled to ask in God's name. This every one is bound to give. So our Lord was silent till the High Priest adjured, or put the oath, with that authority; as the O.T. claims it in Lev. 5: 1. Here it is only the case of man with man. Even without a magistrate, but on an adequately solemn occasion we have the apostle confirming what he taught the saints by an equivalent as in Rom. 1: 9; Rom. 9: 1; 2 Cor. 1: 23; Gal. 1: 20; Phil. 1: 8; 2 Thess. 3: 5; so he adjures his brethren in 1 Thess. 5: 27.

It is quite enough that in our converse with brethren or other men, our yea should be yea, and our nay nay. "That which is more cometh of evil." The believer is as responsible to speak as to act as in the presence of God. This is his habitual privilege, and safeguard. It may be forgotten by others, or by himself to his loss. The evil one is a liar and the father of it. No small opportunity would it be to him if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such expletives to gain credit for it.

From this earnest exclusion of an approach to profane speech, we are next exhorted to the course that befits in suffering or in joy, as well as sickness.

"Doth any among you suffer trouble? let him pray. Is any happy? let him sing praise. Is any sick among you? let him call to him the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save (heal) the sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him" (vers. 13-15).

We are short in Christian intelligence if we do not know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to those that are called according to purpose. God often sends trouble as chastening for the good of His children. Sometimes as in 1 Cor. 11 it is because of positive sin; but they totally mistake who suppose that it is restricted to that. Heb. 12 puts it on ground quite independent of so sorrowful an occasion, and treats it as flowing from His Fatherly love, and for profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. It is as much or more to hinder sin as in consequence of its indulgence. It often is a trial of faith and an honour from the Lord, as the apostles so well knew, and many a simple saint in no such prominence. For the disciples as such are called through many tribulations to enter into the kingdom of God.

But in any case "doth any among you suffer trouble? let him pray." God is the resource in trouble; and the saint, instead of only bearing it or sinking under it, is exhorted to "pray." He is encouraged to expect blessing in crying to God about the trouble. It is a practical victory over the enemy who seeks our loss by it, if our mildness or forbearance be made known to all men, and our requests be made known to God. With unbelief it is the contrary: insisting on our rights as and with men, as if God entitled any to such a plea; and making demands or requests on men, instead of looking only thus to God.

Then there is a time when one experiences circumstances of joy. "Is any happy? let him praise." For gladness has its dangers no less, perhaps more, than trouble. It is apt to elate the spirit, throw us off our balance in the Lord, and expose us to levity in feeling, word and deed. The resource is to turn to Him in praise. Singing is not only due to Him Who gives happiness, but a safety-valve for His feeble ones, who easily at such a time slip from dependence. His praise recalls us to Himself.

There may also be the general or special need created by sickness. "Is any sick among you? let him call to him the elders of the assembly, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of [the] Lord." It is good where any dealing of the Lord leads us to turn to Him, expecting not evil but good. In those days too, elders of the assembly were there, men of moral weight and spiritual judgment, whose place it was to intervene in difficulties of a personal as well as public nature. They might not be evangelists or teachers; but apt to teach they were required to be, men able to take up in love and truth and faithfulness the burdens of their brethren. The sick man is exhorted to summon such as they are to pray for him with that application of oil which Romanism has distorted so wholly from God's mind. Extreme unction is a mere invention of superstition, to smooth the way when hope of recovery is gone.

It is remarkable that the inspired writer, though encouraging honour to the elders, attaches healing virtue, not to their official place or special art, but to prayer, and this of an efficacious sort through faith. He says "And the prayer of faith shall save [or, heal] the sick, and the Lord will raise him up." What a contrast this is with the gloomy superstition which sends "a priest" to absolve him and give extreme unction, because his death is regarded as inevitable! For if he recover, he will need the same hateful parody over again. Yes, unclean and drunken harlot, dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return, with no resurrection as being without life, nothing but a system of darkness and death.

Then comes the special character of the sickness, carefully discriminated from the common, "and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him." It is a nice and notable point in the true rendering of the clause that the sins are in the plural, the forgiveness is in the singular. It is right that each and all should be judged in order; but grace gives the forgiveness in full.

Verses 14, 15, fully present the blessing which rested on the assembly, and the honour God put on the elders. They were encouraged to pray for the sick and assured that the prayer of faith should heal him, and the Lord raise him up. The added clause took notice of sins done, which might trouble the heart, but it assures forgiveness. This leads to a more general statement which follows.

"Confess therefore your sins [or, 'offences' as in the common text] to one another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed. A righteous [one's] supplication hath much power if it work. Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed prayerfully that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth sprouted forth its fruit" (vers. 16-18).

Here we find Christians exhorted, where failure came in, to confess their sins mutually, and so to pray, that healing might be granted. For there is a divine government which has ever thus dealt with the saints here below, as we may see in the Psalms as well as in the history of the ancient people of God. So there was outside Israel, as in the book of Job. Neither the gospel nor the church has changed this. The saving grace of God has appeared, as it did not till Christ and His work; but as surely as we call on a Father, He judges without respect of persons according to each one's work, as the Lord taught the disciples in John 15. Sovereign grace abides in all its efficacy; but God does not fail in faithfulness to deal with us if unfaithful. We are therefore enjoined to pass the time of our sojourning in fear, not as if we doubted, but on the contrary, as knowing consciously that we were redeemed with Christ's precious blood as of an unblemished and spotless lamb.

This is the more consolatory in the present anomalous state of Christendom, where tradition has wrought boundless havoc with the truth, and ecclesiastical order has been swamped with inventions of men to please human activity and hide the ruin which lawlessness has everywhere brought about. Properly, elders needed apostolic authority, direct or indirect. Where this was not, and elders were lacking, or even men not easily found who had the qualities on which the apostle insisted to Timothy, the saints could and ought to confess their sins to one another with prayer; nor would the Lord's grace fail toward the need. A righteous one's supplication avails much, where really at work.

For this Elijah is cited, as one of like nature with ourselves, as indeed his inspired history reveals. But it also reveals how, as a judgment of God, rain should not fall for three years and six months because of a people rebellious and even apostate. Here we have, not the solemn sentence the prophets pronounced from God, but the inner work in the soul which preceded it, for which we are wholly indebted to this Epistle. He prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth sprouted forth its fruit; but we learn this second praying in the history as well as in the Epistle. Miracles it is a proud unbecoming thought to expect in the actual confusion that exists, yet with God and His word acknowledged. But God hears prayers with fatherly pleasure, and never fails to answer that which faith pours into His ears.

It is faith, practical faith, which has been urged, faith exercised in energetic prayer. The Epistle does not close without an earnest pressure of love in a similarly active way, and indeed in manifest connection.

"My* brethren, if any among you should err from† the truth, and one turn him back, let him know‡ that he that turned back a sinner from the error of his way shall save a [or, his||] soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins" (vers. 19, 20).

* The omission of the pronoun, as in the Text. Rec. according to the more modern copies, against the ancient and best authorities, both MSS. and Vv. detracts from the tenderness of the appeal.

† "The way of" the truth seems an enfeebling addition, as in the Sinaitic and good cursives, besides venerable Versions. The weight of testimony is adverse.

‡ The Vatican Uncial, etc., give the plural "Know ye."

|| AP, some good cursives, and ancient Versions give "his."

One of the saddest results of spiritual weakness among Christians is the rarity of restoration. Discipline even in extreme degree is no less due to our Lord, to our sacrificed Lord (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8), than requisite in the best interests of the saints. For true love of our brethren is inseparable from loving God and keeping His commandments (1 John 5: 1, 2). But our God attests often and clearly and strongly His deep concern in the recovery of the straying and fallen; where self-righteousness displays its bitterness and indifference. Zeal for the credit of a sect or party and anxiety to stand well morally are as far as possible from the love we owe to Christ's body and every member of it.

For we are exhorted to forgive (or, show grace to) one another, as God also in Christ forgave us (Eph. 4: 32); yea, to be imitators of God, as beloved children, and to walk in love, even as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us. But this love divine is meant to arm us against fellowship with the ways of darkness, seeing that we are light in the Lord to walk as children of light, the fruit of which is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth (Eph. 5: 7-9). Hence the spiritual, in a spirit of meekness, are to restore one taken in some fault, "considering thyself lest thou also be tempted." Hardness is unworthy of a Christian. "If thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he should sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times return to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him" (Luke 17: 3, 4).

So here, if one brought back him that erred, or was led astray from the truth, let him know that in such a recovery he that brought him back from his way of error should "save a soul from death." Here it is not a striking answer to the prayer of faith, but a rich cheer to the love that sought and won the wanderer. To have the sick healed and raised up as the fruit of prayer may strike the eye more; but how blessed to "save a soul from death"! Thus would our God encourage a spirit of grace in the thankful knowledge that love has its victories in a world of self and hatred and evil; and this, not only in regard of him that erred from the truth and its way, but in furnishing occasion, for that which is so pleasing to God in His government — to "cover a multitude of sins." If love do not flow, wrongs multiply, and God chastens, it may be severely; for where is Christ in such a case? But if love prevail through His grace, God is glorified, and love covers a multitude of sins, which otherwise must draw out His rebukes.

John — Appendix.

Editions of Authors used.

N.B.-Foreign works existing in English translations are recorded under the titles of such; all are cited in the notes by English titles. An asterisk is attached to the name of any Roman Catholic writer, a dagger to that of any professed Unitarian.

British.

ABBOTT, Dr. E. A.: Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., vol. x. (1879).

Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopædia Biblica, §§ 8-107.

From Letter to Spirit (1903).

Johannine Vocabulary (1905).

Johannine Grammar (1906).

ANGUS, J.: Bible Handbook, revised by S. G. Green (second impression, 1907).

ARNOLD, M.: Literature and Dogma (1873, cheap reprint, 1903).

God and the Bible (1875, cheap reprint, 1906)

*BARRY, DR. W.: The Tradition of Scripture (1906)

BELLETT, J. G.: The Evangelists: On the Gospel according to St. John (ed. of 1900)

BENN, A. W.: The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (1906).

BERNARD, T. D.: The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ (1892).

BRUCE, A. B.: The Kingdom of God (1899).

BURKITT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel History and its Transmission (1906).

CARPENTER, BISHOP: Introduction to the Scriptures (1903).

†CARPENTER, PROFESSOR: The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (1903).

CASSELS, W. R.: Supernatural Religion, 7th ed. (1889).

*CLARKE, R. F.: The Pope and the Bible (1889)

DARBY, J. N.: Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853; reissued, abridged, 1890).

DODS, Dr. M.: The Expositor's Greek Testament: The Gospel of St. John (1897)

†DRUMMOND, PRINCIPAL: Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1903).

EDERSHEIM, DR.: Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (eleventh impression, 1901).

FIELD, Dr. F.: Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899).

GARDNER, PROFESSOR: Exploratio Evangelica (1899).

GARVIE, PRINCIPAL: Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907).

GLOAG, Dr. P.: Introduction to the Johannine Writings (1891).

GORE, BISHOP: Bampton Lectures-On the Incarnation (1903). The Creed of the Christian (1905).

GOVETT, R.: Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (1884).

GREEN, T. E.: Works, ed. by Nettleship (1885-1888).

HORTON, Dr. R. F.: The Teaching of Jesus (1895).

Inspiration and the Bible (1888)

The Commandments of Jesus (1898)

ILLINGWORTH, J. R.: Christian Character (1904, cheap reprint, 1907).

Doctrine of the Trinity (1907).

INGE, PROFESSOR: Bampton Lectures-Christian Mysticism (1899).

Studies of Christian Mystics (1906).

KINNEAR, J. B.: The Foundations of Religion (1905).

KNOWLING, PROFESSOR: Literary Criticism and the New Testament (1907)

LATHAM, H.: The Risen Master (1901).

LIDDON, DR. H. P.: Bampton Lectures-On the Divinity of Our Lord (1867)

Elements of Religion, 7th ed. (1890).

LIGHTFOOT, BISHOP: Biblical Essays (1893).

LOCK, DR. W.: History and Character of the Fourth Gospel (Interpreter, July, 1907).

MACLAREN, DR. A.: Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (1907).

McCLELLAN, J. B.: The New Testament-vol. i., The Gospels (1875).

McRORY, PROFESSOR: The Gospel of St. John, with Notes (1897).

MANSEL, DEAN: The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries

†MARTINEAU, DR. J.: The Seat of Authority in Religion (1890).

MEYER, F. B.: Exposition of John: Love to the Uttermost (1898).

MILLIGAN, DR. W., and MOULTON, DR. W. F.: Commentary on the Gospel of John (reprint, 1898).

MOULE, BISHOP: The High-priestly Prayer (1907)

NEWMAN, F. W.: Phases of Faith (1850)

NORRIS, ARCHDEACON: The New Testament, with Notes (1880).

ORR, PROFESSOR: The Christian View of God and the World (Kerr Lectures,

*PALEY, F. A.: The Gospel of St. John, from the Vatican MS., with Notes

PLUMMER, DR. A.: The Gospel according to St. John (ed. of 1900).

REYNOLDS, DR. H. R.: Exposition of Gospel of St. John (Pulpit Commentary,

ROBINSON, DEAN: Advent Lectures on the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, reported in Guardian (December, 1907)

RYLE, BISHOP J. C.: Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of St. John (1873).

SADLER, M. F.: The Gospel according to St. John, with Notes (1883).

SALMON, DR. G.: Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (1885)

The Human Element in the Gospels (1907).

SANDAY, PROFESSOR: The Gospels in the Second Century (1876).

Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905).

Art. "Son of God" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

SCOTT, E. F.: The Fourth Gospel: its Purpose and Theology (1906).

STANTON, PROFESSOR: The Gospels as Historical Documents (1903).

STRONG, DEAN: Art. "John the Apostle" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

TRENCH, ARCHBISHOP: On the Miracles, 13th ed. (1886).

Synonyms of the New Testament, 7th ed. (1871).

Studies in the Gospels (1867).

TURTON, COLONEL: The Truth of Christianity, 6th ed. (1907).

WATKINS, ARCHDEACON: Bampton Lectures-On Modern Criticism in its Relation to the Fourth Gospel (1890).

WATSON, DR. F.: Inspiration (1906).

WESTCOTT, BISHOP: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 6th ed. (1872).

Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (1882).

The Historic Faith (1883, cheap reprint, 1904)

WILLIAMS, I.: The Gospel Narrative of our Lord's Ministry (second year, 1848),

American.

ABBOT, DR. E.: Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1880).

ANDREWS, S. J.: The Life of Our Lord upon Earth (1892).

BACON, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (1900).

The Johannine Problem ( Hibbert Journal, 1903-1905).

The Defence of the Fourth Gospel (Hibbert Journal, 1907).

The Beloved Disciple (Expositor, October, 1907).

BRIGGS, PROFESSOR: New Light on the Life of Jesus (1904).

DU BOSE, PROFESSOR: The Soteriology of the New Testament (1892).

The Gospel in the Gospels (1906).

GREGORY, PROFESSOR (at Leipzig): Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907).

JAMES, PROFESSOR: The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

*KENRICK, ARCHBISHOP: The New Testament, with Notes, 2nd ed. (1862).

McGIFFERT, PROFESSOR: A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1897).

NASH, PROFESSOR: A History of the Higher Criticism (1901).

STEVENS, PROFESSOR: Johannine Theology (1894).

German.

ACHELIS, DR. T.: Sketch of Science of Comparative Religion (1904). Ethics (1904).

BEYSCHLAG, W.: The Johannine Question (1876).

Theology of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (1895).

BLASS, F.: The Gospel according to John (1902).

Grammar of New Testament Greek (1905).

Philology of the Gospels (1898).

Paper in Expository Times, "St. John" (July, 1907).

Papias in Eusebius (1907).

BOUSSET, PROFESSOR: Commentary (Meyer's) on the Apocalypse (1896).

Art. "Anti-Christ" in Encyclopædia Biblica.

The Jewish Religion, etc. (1903).

Clemen, PROFESSOR: The Origin of the New Testament (1906).

DELFF, H.: Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth (1889).

The Fourth Gospel (1890).

DELITZSCH, FRANZ: Art. "Passover" in Riehm's Handbook of Biblical Antiquities, 2nd ed. (1893).

EWALD, H.: The Johannine Writings (1861).

GERDTELL. VON: Is the Doctrine of Christ's Atonement still Tenable? 2nd ed. (1905).

Are the Miracles of Primitive Christianity sufficiently Attested 2nd ed. (1907).

The Christian Miracles before the Forum of Modern Thought, 2nd ed. (1907).

HARNACK, PROFESSOR: History of Dogma, 3rd ed. (1894); (English trans., 1899).

History of Old Christian Literature. Two Parts (1893-1904).

HEITMÜLLER, W.: Exposition of the Gospel of John (1907).

HERMANN, PROFESSOR: Faith and Morals (1904).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR H.: Manual Commentary on the New Testament, 2nd ed. (1893).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR O.: The Gospel of John (1887).

Life of Jesus (English trans., 1904).

JÜLICHER, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (English trans., 1904; 6th German ed., 1906).

LOTZE, H: Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion (English trans., 1892).

LUTHARDT, PROFESSOR: The Johannine Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1874). Exposition of the Gospel of John (1886).

NEANDER, A.: Life of Christ (American trans., 1871).

PFLEIDERER PROFESSOR: Primitive Christianity (2nd German ea., 1902

REUSS E.: History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (English trans. of 5th ea., 1884).

*SCHANZ, PROFESSOR: Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (1885).

SCHÜRER, PROFESSOR: The Fourth Gospel (Contemporary Review, 1891)

STAERK, DR. W.: The New Testament Period (1907).

VON SODEN, PROFESSOR THE BARON: History of Early Christian Literature (English trans., 1906).

WEISS, PROFESSOR B.: Introduction to the New Testament (English trans. 1887, 1888).

Ninth Edition of Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament (1902),

Manual Commentary on the New Testament (1902, American trans., 1906).

Life of Christ (English trans., 1885).

Theology of the New Testament (English trans. of 3rd ea., 1882,

WEIZSÄCKER, C.: Investigations respecting the Gospel History (2nd German ea., 1901, English trans., 1905).

The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (from 2nd ea., 1894)

WELLHAUSEN, PROFESSOR: Interpolations and Alterations in the Fourth Gospel (1907).

WENDT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel of John (ea. of 1900, English trans., 1902).

WENTSCHER, PROFESSOR: Introduction to Philosophy (1907).

ZAHN, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (1899).

Art. "John the Apostle" in Hauck's Encyclopædia for Protestant Theology, etc. (1901).

The Gospel of John Expounded (1908).

Dutch.

SCHOLTEN, PROFESSOR: The Gospel according to John (1864-1866).

French.

D'ALMA: The Fourth Gospel Controversy (1907).

*LEPIN: Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1907).

*LOISY, A.: The Fourth Gospel (1903).

RENAN, E.: Life of Jesus (1863). The Gospels (1877).

REVILLE, PROFESSOR A.: Jesus of Nazareth, 2nd ed. (1906).

REVILLE, PROFESSOR J.: The Fourth Gospel (1901).

SABATIER, A.: Art. in Lichtenberger's Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, vol. vii., pp. 181-193 (1880).

Swiss.

BARTH, PROFESSOR: The Chief Problems of the Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. (1903).

The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (1905).

GODET, F.: Commentary on the Gospel of John (English trans., 1886; 4th ed. of French, 1905).

SCHMEIDEL, PROFESSOR: Art. "Son of Zebedee" in Encyclopædia Biblical Jesus in  Modern Criticism (English trans., 1907).

WERNLE, PROFESSOR: Sources of the Gospels (English trans., 1907).

John — General Index.

{Partially prepared for re-typesetting, as yet unproofed, page numbers will require changing or checking.}

N.B.- References to the "Exposition" including  notes there are in heavy type; those to the Appendix (numbered notes), in small type.

Abarbanel, 423

Abbot (Dr. Ezra), 1

Abbott (Dr. E. A.), 1, 6,17, 46, 62, 64, 85, 89, 114, 205, 226

Aben Ezra, 423

Abiding in Christ, 146, 322

Achelis (Dr T.), 9

Æschylus, reference to, 336

ajgapa'n, filei'n,  467 ff., 357, 386

Agnosticism 7, 328

ajqetei'n, 245

aijevw, 237, 303, 363; 276, 277

ajlhqhv", ajlhqinov", 160 283, 312b

Alford (Dean) 12 14,. 183, 256, 411

Allegories, 213 214

"Alogi," 9

Alsbech, 423

American revision, 164a

Altruism, 290b

ajmnov", ajrnivon, 24

tma, rabbinic use of, 122

ajnabevbhken, proleptic perfect, 59f.:

ajnasthvsontai 108

Anderson (Sir R.), 1, 8, 12a, 16, 22, 32, 115,

Andrewes(Bp.), 159a, 336

Andrews (S. J.), 247

Annas, trial before, 397,

328

ajntiv, 24

Antichrist, coming in his own name, 126

Antinomianism, 140, 271

a[nwqen, 64

Aorist, force of, 284, 376,107

ajpeiqw'n, 79

ajporouvmenoi, 258

a{ptou, a{fh/, 444

Aquila, 424, version of, 20

Arianism, 26, 199

Aristion, 379

Arminianism, 274, 319, 321

Arnold (M.), 1, 68, 284

Ascension, none in the fourth Gospel, 3;

of Son of man, climax for faith, 152

Asceticism, 417

Athanasian Creed, 112,

280, 366

Athanasius, 26b, 107, 366

Augustine, 3. 176.184, 266, 257, 460,

Bacon (Prof.), 1, 61,161, 260, 379'

Baedeker (Dr. F. W.), 185

Baptism, John's, 21, 47; Christian, 23 47ff; of the Holy Ghost, 28; sign of death 48 ; misapplication of 266

Baptismal service, the 48, 321

Bar Abba, 406

Bar Kochba, 113

Barry (Dr. W.), 1. la

Barth (Prof.), 1, 68, 149

Basilides, 18,

1, 13, 88

bastajzein, 224

Bauer (B.), 205

Baur (F. a ), 1a, 876

"Believe," 59, 115,138, 814, 321f

Believer,

gives account, 66

Bellett (J. G.), 127a, 816, 34.9, 853, 864, 370

Bengel (J. A.), 60, 184, 414; 436

24, 32, 64, 77, 111,, 112, 154, 216, 330, 346, 351, 392

Benisch (Dr. A.)

423

Benn (A. W.), 61, 278b

Bernard (T. D.), 61, 270, 277a, 280, 312c, 317a,336

Bernard of Clairvaux, 278

Bethany, 29

Bethlehem, 151

Bethsaida, 40, 282

Bevan (Mrs.), 278b

Beyschlag (W.), 1a108, 111, 312

Beza, 363,112,154

Birks, (T. R.). 114

Blakesley 184

Blass (F.), 1a. 10, 21, 49, 53, 18, 101, 111, 154,

Bleek (F. ),1a, 330

Blindness, spiritual, arising from sin, 211

Blood and water, 266, 421f

Bloomfield, 376

Body of Christ, the Vine and the, 319, 321

Boanerges. 1

Boothroyd, 423

Born of water, etc., 66

Bousset (Prof.), 1,1., 43, 45, 113

bovskein, poimaivnein, 386

Brethren of the Lord 167,

137

Bretschneider (C. G.), 1;

Briggs (Prof.), la, 83, 64, 73, 75, 76

Bruce (Dr. A B.), 7

Bunsen (Chevalier), 1, 7

Burgon (Dean), 111, 112,127, 317, 346

Burial of JESUS, prophecy fulfilled in,

Burkitt (Prof ), 127, 149, 160, 173, 205, 210

Buttmann (P. C.), 353

Caiaphas, " high priest of that year " 217

trial before, 334, 344

Cain, the way of, 137

Caius of Rome, P

Calvin, 12, 23 272, 319, 321, 330, 448

Cana, 47

Carlyle (I.), 9

Carpenter (Bp. Boyd), 127

Carr (A.), 18, 21, 26, 34, 88, 96, 112, 137, 150, 184, 18, 220., 300

Carson (A.), 126

Cartwright. 47

Cassels (W. B.), 1, 8, 29,168,183, 187., 197, 205, 212., 215

Censure of others, 276

Cerinthus, 1, 9

Chagigah, 336

Charles (Prof.), 65, 322

Chase (Bp.), 310.

Cheetham (Archd.), 61, 2,sb

"Chief priests," 153

Chiliasm, of the Evangelist, 394

Christ, the Person of, 1, 9Jf, 301f as personal Name, 312c, pivot of everything 28; sole centre for His people on earth, 29ff; not detached from "Jesus" before death, 18, 23; in contrast with law, 67, 107; His heavenly intercession as Priest 132; as glorified known by the Christian, 442, abiding fellowship with, eating His flesh, 146: confession of, 261; Lordship of, 276: Advocate with the Father, 274; glorification of, central fact for Christian 294; absent, would prove himself divine, 303; obedience to words of, 310, dwelling-place of the soul, 318. His death, and going to the Father, 369; sanctifying Himself,

Christadelphianism, 281

Christendom, 42, 439

"Christian Science," 23

Christianity, characteristics of, 444; that usually styled, 446

Chrysostom, 184, 380f., 14, 26b, 111,112, 164., 223, 330, 331, 366, 394

Church, always distinct from Israel 221; heavenly relationship Of the, 319, idea of, 291b

Chwolson, 347

Clement of Alexandria 1, 7 26

"Coming into the world, i' i3

Coit (Dr. S.), 9, 290b

Communion in one kind, 151; as condition of fruit-bearing, 322, maintenance of, 268

Comte (A.), 9

Congregation, the great, 452

Conscience, awakened for sense of grace, 87; purged, 91

Conversion, constituents of, 42

Copyists ignorance of, 177

Corn of wheat, in recent researches, 232a

Correggio, 341

Cosmogony, Biblical, 9.

Courage, true Christian, 291

Creation, by the WORD, l0f., 9A

Credner (C. A.), 1

Creeds, 21, 112, 280, 374

Cross, necessary for eternal life, 61ff.; God glorified In the, 285f.

Cyril of Alexandria, 184, 381

D'Alma, 174

Darby (J. N.), 15, 52, 61 , 78, 79, 112, 183, 195, 270, 271 290, 298, 330

Darkness. 13. 68

Darwinism, 9.

Davidson (Dr. S.), 1

Da Vinci, Leonardo, 259

Death, words used by Evangelists of the Lord, 418; JESUS Divine in His, 418

f.

; the second, 69

Dedication, the Feast of, 197

Deissmann (Prof.), 277

Delff (11.), 61, 330

Delitzsch (F.), 53 232A, 336

Demiurge, 12, 18

Dependence, living in constant, 361

De Rossi, 423

Development, excluded, 27

De Wette (w. M. L.), 1, 33, 106,112, 893

diav, use of, 9b, 271

Dion Cassius, 184

"Disciple whom Jesus loved," 1, 260, 381 5;

Discipleship, 187

Discourses, the Johannine compared with Synoptic, 61

Dispensational ways of God, 7; design in the Evangelists omissions, 93,

Dispersion, Jewish, 166 1 Divine Sonship displayed in resurrection power, 231, nature needed by man 4 46

Divinity systematic, a jargon of Jewish and Gentile notions, 446

Docetœ, 18

Dods (Dr. M.), 34, 237

Dogmas, 874

Dorner (A.) 9

Dove, the baptismal, 27

Drummond (Dr. J.), 1, 6, 9, 29. 260, 3gO, 3P3

Du Bose (Prof.), 170, 298

Duty, as substitute for God, 9

Ebion, 1

ejblhvqh, 287

Edersheim (Dr. A.), 413, 9, 51,176,184

ejdoxavaqh, 287

ei\den, 362.

ejk, 235, 237

ejkavqizen, 345

ejlevgxein, force of 346, 297

Ellicott (Bp.), 4i2, 331, 346

Emanation, 9,18, 293

Emeth, Jewish use of, 122

"Encyclopædia Britannica," 9.,187a

e|n, e\rga, 62

ejntetuligmevnon, 361

Ephraim, city of, 220

Epiphanius, 1

ejriv, 4

ejrifavneia, 322

Erasmus, 436, 77, 111

ejpauna'te, 112

ejrcovmena, 299

ejrcovmeno", 13

e[rga, 52

ejrwta;/n, 237, 302. See under aijtevw

Error, possession of Christ arms against, 214

Eternal life, 222, 226, 366ff., 69,112, 312, 312a; connected with Cross, 63; connection with Kingdom, 366, 65; manifestation in man, 2; present gift of, 115, 160. See also under Life

Ethical legion, 9

Eucharist, not in Ch. 6, 147,162,127

Eusebius, 172, la, 82,100,154, 893

Euthymius Zigabenus, 184, 307, 363, 421, 424,

9~, 112

Evangelists, not to be regarded as forensic witnesses, 433; à priori

hypothesis as to their method, 434

Evanson (E.), 1

Evidence, belief on, 41ff.

Evil whether made by the Word, 10 Ewald (H.), 184, 423, 456, 1, 6

Faith, not logical inference, 46, 437, 439; not a natural growth, 76; accompanied by repentance, 75, 87; essentials of, 76 I:, from the heart, 77 ; certainty attaching to, 77; in relation to scripture 116, relation to knowledge 133, 314a,f., Christ glorified the living object of, 314; working by love, 329, creeds, merely human, 374; Tridentine treatment of, 438, Romanist rule of, 438; in Scripture vital, alone of moral value, 439; love and Joy the elements of, 439

Farrar (Dean), 137

Father, declared by Christ, 20; known in the Son, 300, access to, for prayer 354ff.; known through the Spirit, 360 glorified by Christ, 367; His name manifested, 368; submission of JESUS to the will of the, 395J:

Fatherhood of God, 16, 304

Fathers, spiritual intelligence of so-called, 256, ignorant of future restoration of Israel, 461

Ferrar MSS., 154

Ffoulkes (E.), 392

Field (Dr. F.), 57, 83,112, 225, 272, 277

Fig-tree as symbol, 33f.

Flesh, relationship in, abolished, 2

Flesh, self the source and object of activity of the, 179

Flock, one, 221

Fold, the Jewish, 220 f; none now, 220 forgiveness of sin as presented in the fourth Gospel, 186

Frazer (Leroy), 232., 339~, 340

Free-will, 140

"Friend of God," 329

Fritzsche, 184

Fruit-bearing secret of, 320; believer appointed for, 317

Gabbatha 843

Galilee, ministry In, preceded by Judean, 99ff.

Gardner (Prof. P.), 61

gevgonen, ejgevneto, 9b

Garvie (Princ.), 27

Gellius, Aulus, 412; 326

Genealogy, none in Fourth Gospel, 4

Generation, this, 259

Gentiles, millennial ingathering of, 458

George the sinner, Chronicle of, 3~3

Gerdtell (L. von), 52, 70, 182 374

Gethsemane, not fulfilment of Isaiah's winepress, ; allusion to agony in,

Gloag (Dr.), 1a, 393

ginwvskein, 345

glwssovkomon, 224

Glory of Son of man dying 122, 324

Gnosticism, 18, 69, 328, 11, 35, 56, 122, 293, 324, 383; in "Christian Sciences" 23

gnwstov", 330

God, His existence everywhere assumed in Scripture, 1; the Truth not coextensive with 20, 338 unknown under modern philosophy, 429, made known as Father, not merely Jehovah, 444

Godet (F.), 86, 412 1 6 9 9b, 13,

Goebel (Prof.), 1

Goethe, r;1

Godhead, Persons of, 9

Good confession of JESUS, 405

Gore (Bp.) 7, 9, 14, 16, 18, 115, 126, 127, 133 236, 361 3,4

GOSPEL OF JOHN, exhibits God on earth, 1, 4; manifests the Father in the Son, 1; written when Christ's Person was being undermined, 2; authorship, 475 i., 1`l; date, 2; compared with Synoptists, 359, 36, 61, 358 whether supplementary to them, 6; historical character 7, components of Evangelist, 61, 1.9, 37i; alleged interpolations 374; alleged Paulinism, 61, 129; alleged inconsistencies, 76f.; errors met by, 374. the Greek of, 226; real close of 466 376, 385, 394

Doctrine:

Ascension of Son of man, 152

Blindness, spiritual, 211

Blood and water, 266

Centre, Christ His people's 29ff.

CHRIST, s. tit.

Christianity, characteristics of,

Church, heavenly relationship of, 319

Communion with Christ, 148 322

Conscience, awakening of, 87 purging of, 91

Conversion, 42

Creation 10f.

Cross, truth of the, 61 Off.,, 285f. Darkness, light, 13J:, 68

Discipleship, 187

Eucharist s. tit.

Faith s, tit.

FATHER, the, s, tit.

Flock, fold, 220 f.

Free-will, 140

Glorified Christ the Christian concerned with 442

Gnosticism bearing on, 18, 328 GOD, GODHEAD, s. tit.

Government, Divine, 198, 319, 328 Grace, s, tit

Heavenly things, 71 ,f.

HOLY SPIRIT, the, i. tit., Paraclete the, s. tit.

Incarnation, a. tit.

Israel and the Church, 131 221

JESUS, s. tit.

Judaism, overthrow of, 181

Judge, Christ the, 179; judgment, 66,113 it., 347

Kingdom of God, 46:., 67 Knowledge, s. tit.

Lamb of God, 24ff. Law, s. tit.

Life, eternal, i. tit. Love, s. tit.

Messiah, s. tit. Miracles, s. tit. New birth, 46

Obedience, s. tit.

Oil and blood, 27

Person of Christ, the, 1 f, 9 ff 301f.

Prayer, 366

Profession, Christian, 319 Prophetic Word, the, 360

Religion, s. tit.

Remission of sins, 460 f.

"Remnant," the Jewish, s. tit.

Responsibility, 319

Restoration, mutual,

Resurrection, s. tit.

Righteousness of God, 346

Sabbath, the, 107.tF.

Sanctification, 378.1:

Scripture, interpretation of,

Second Coming of Christ, 219

Shepherd, Christ as, s. tit

Sin, tit.

Son of God, s. tit,

Son of man. s. tit.

Testimony to Christ 122ff.

Truth, s. tit,

Unity, s. tit,

Vine, Christ as the, 319, 321

Water figurative use of, 148, 266 f.

Word  s. tit.

World  s. tit.

Worship, s. tit,

Gospel of Peter, the Apocryphal, 18

Government, Divine, 198, 319; communion and God's moral, 322

Govett (R.) 13 24, 46, 63, 66, 67, 88, 88a, 90a, 96, 103, 112 123, 132, 141, 151, 192, 248, 271, 298, 300a, 311, 325, 356, 361

Grace, activity of love in midst of evil, 17; without limit, 18: precedes truth, 17; produces confidence, 84: relieves where

Law powerless, 106; abused, 281

gravmmata, 140

Green (S. G.), 10.

Green (T. H.), 7, 14, 52, 215, 374

Gregory (the Great), 460

Gregory (Prof. ), I

Grimm (C. L. w.), 264

Grove (G.), 82

Hall (Bp.), 271

Hammond, 345

Hardening, judicial, 283

Harnack (Prof,), 1 1a, 8, 9, 16, 127, 3800, 393, 394

Hartmann (E. von), 124

Hatred of the Father and the Son, 365 f.

Hanussleiter (Prof.), Is,

Heavenly things, and Son of Man, 66f.

Hegelianism, 10

Heitmüller (W.), 6, 26, 119, 127a, 141, 185, 321, 338, 398

Hellenistic Jews, 165

Hengstenberg (E W.)' 1a, 133a, 199, 269, 346, 376, 382

Heracleon, 1

Hermann (Prof.), 116

Herodotus, 183

Hilgenfeld ( A.), 1a, 353

Hofmann, 68, 98, 122, 127, 271, 300b

Holtzmann (Prof. H.) 1, 1a, 2, 7, 34, 74, 76, 96, 119, 120, 149

Holtzmann (Prof. O.),1., 6

"Holy One of God," Jesus the, whether Johannean, 154

Holy Spirit blessedness of presence of 2; operation in conversion, 46 v; not given in measure to Christ, 77 communion with Father and Son in the energy of the. 89,166; living water, So, in power of testimony. 166 95.; Advocate, 304, the "porter," 213; personality of 299, abiding presence, 305 in Church. the spirit of truth, 338. proceeding from the Father, 33S; jealousy of action of the, 342; inaugurating Messianic reign, 348; serves and glorifies the Son, 360; as energy of Christ's risen life 460

Homilies, line, second book of, 37i

Homœoteleuton, 407, 272

Hooker (R.), 47,199

Hort (Dr.), 26, 61

Horton (Dr. R. F.), 55, 58, 91,128,129, IG9, 173, 198, 237, 312

Hours, in the Fourth Gospel 346 essential difference in two of Ch. 5,

Humanitarianism, now substituted for Kingdom, 131

Humility, misuse of, 266

HyperCalvinism, 123

Ideas, Platonic doctrine of, 11

i[dia, i[dioi, 16

Illingworth (J. R.), 12, 14 61, 263, 27sb, 290i

Immanence of God, 14, 2 sb

Incarnation, 60; and Death, 144: to save, needs regeneration, 1991., union in, 126

Inge (Prof.), 9,14,115, 278b, 312.

Inquisition, 333, 29~

Irenæus, 3, 1, 1., 26, 100, 324

Irvingism, 170, 281

Isaac (Rabbi), 423

Israel, the Church not to be confounded with, 31, 221

James (Prof.), 278b

Jerome, 256, 412. 100, 137

Jerusalem, moral Judgment of, 104

JESUS, no record of childhood in fourth Gospel, 4; manifestation to Israel, 26; following, 31, Prophet, 33, 204 omniscience or 33 104; omnipotence of, 36, King, 43, "the Lord" 80. sinlessness, 62 170, making Himself equal to GOD, no self-exaltation, lll,t:; identifying Himself with His speech, 182 the Truth, 191; pre-existence of 195 c.; bearing reproach | of, 203, Divine in His death, 418: full humanity emphasised, 6, 83

"Jesus Christ," 312r

Jews, those specially so called in fourth Gospel, 250. 28, 54, 56, s6, 139~, 142, ungodly future, 54; darkness falling on the, 260

John the Apostle, writer of the Gospel 2, 475 f. an eye-witness. 2 249, ~13' 822 328. career of,1. called "Theologos," 1 alleged Paulinism of, 61; alleged martyrdom of, 393

John the Baptist, the lamp, 13; testimony of 13,18, 71

John the Elder, 1, 61, 379

John, father of Andrew and Peter, 12

Joseph, the name, 42

Joseph, of Nazareth. 32, 38, 42; a brother of the Lord, 42; a brother of

James the Little, 42

Josephus 414 t.. 57, 108, 17S, 217, 217b

Jowett (B.), 9, 2ti9

Judaism, overthrow through departure of Jesus, 181

Judas, the name, 135

Judas Iscariot, treason of, 278; why chosen Apostle, character of, 374

Judges, whether in "His own country," 96

Judæan ministry, the early, 71, '79

Judge, Christ to be, 179

Judgment, exemption of believer from, 65, 66. 113; the Spirit's demonstration of, 347

Jülicher (Prof.), 1, 63, 61, 164, 19d Justin Martyr, I

Kaftan (Prof.), 7, 8, 218, 278, 278b

katavkrima, 114

kaqivzein, s4s

Keim (C. T.), 1, 205, 217 376

Kennedy (Dr. B. H.), lie

Kenrick (Archbp.), 96,112

Kephas, the name, 39

Khodadad (lo. B.), 262,336

Kimchi (David), 423

"King of the Church," unscriptural 405 f.

"King of Israel," 43

Kingdom of God, 45 A, 57; new birth needed for, 45; connection with Life, 66; "entering into," 66~; earthly department of, 61, 56, of the Father. 57; of the Son, 57; mystical idea that Gospel or Church is the, 130; antedated by unbelief, 131: in mystery, misapplied by Roman Catholic sect, 459

Kinnear (J. B.), 9, 137, 374

Knowledge, Jewish and Christian, 57; Christ's supernatural, 80., relation to Faith, 133, 314, 321 f.

Knowling (Prof.), 232.

kovsmo", aijwJn 234

krivsi", 1147

Kuinol, 183, 376

Lake (Prof.). 362b, 367

lalei'n, levgein, 299

Lamb of God. 24 If.

Lampe. 437

Lapide, Cornelius a, 112 "Last Day," the 245

Latham (H.), 36i

Law, misuse of, by Puritans, 66f.; the Person of Christ in contrast with, 67, 107; not rule of life, 266

Lazarus, raising, 20s

Legates à latere, true, 449

Leeser (J.), 424, 205

Leonardo da Vinci, 269

Lewis (Mrs. A. S.), 334

Liberty, comes from Truth, 189

Liddon (Dr. Fl P.), 9, 298

Life, In John's writings, 16, as possessed by Old Testament saints, 49: Christ the, 299; abundant, 217; of Christ regarded as redemptive, 367, 192

Light 13, Quaker inward, 14; no excuse for lack of, 68

Lightfoot (Dr. John), 411, 92, led, 336, 351., 3~7

Lightfoot (Bp.), 1. 7, 9, 39, 53, 67,116, 127, 137, 209, 277, 345 Lindsay (Prof.), 9 "Little while," the, 351 Liturgies and the Word of God, 25 f. Logic of facts, 206

lovgo", 9

Loisy (A.), 1, 63, 6L 172, 2d0

ejndiavqeto", proforikov", 10 n.

Lord's Day, the, 447

"Lord's Prayer," the, 356

Lord's supper. the, 477

Lotze (H.) 9,374

Love of Jesus to His own, 264; disciples' mutual, the badge of Christians, 289, 326; consciousness of the Saviour's, 323; resting in the Father's, 368 f.

Lucian, reference to, 239

Lücke (G. C. E.), 14,184, 466,1, 33

Luthardt (Prof.), 1, 9, 26, 34, 63, 64, 67, 68,

Luther, 13,112, 300b, 312., 334, 353

Maclaren (Dr. A.), 190, 212, 300b

M

acrobius, 412

Magistrate, Christ did not act as, 177

Mahomet, claimed to be the Paraclete, 27U

Maldonatus, 96

McClellan, 183, 467,100,137, 268 McCosh (Dr J P. 133

McGiffert (Prof.), 133, 286

McRory (Prof.), 13, 67, 112, 346

Man, ruin of, 41; pride in what is learnt from, 161 Manichees, 14. 189

Manning (Card.), 112,128

Mariolatry 37

Martensen (H. L.), 298

Martineau (Dr. J.), 1,133, 374

Mary, mother of the Lord, 417, 48 others bearing the name, 48; of Cleopas, 351

lf;m;, meaning of, 367

Mayor (Dr. Joseph B.), 137, 351 llede, 378

Memra., 9

Men of God, not God's Word, 434

Messiah, title peculiar to forty, Gospel, 37; Death of Son of man in contrast with reign of, 288; Baptist's recognition of, 34f., disclosure of person of, g9, 198

Meyer (H. A. W.), 184, 257 412, 466.

Meyer (F. B.), 278b

Mill (J. S.), 9

Millennium, net not breaking, 460, 463f.

Milligan (W.), 6, 7, 8,14, 34, 53, 77,

Milton, i93.

Ministry, degenerated into worldly

institution, 276; length or the, 53; Judæan, 53; Galilæan, 100, Persian, 53

Miracles, in general, 41f., 104, feeding the Five Thousand, 1281F., 117, resurrection of Lazarus, 206, 219 as testimony to disciples,

Moffatt (Dr. Jas.), 81

Monod (Adolphe), 886

Moses, honour put by Christ on writings of, 126J:

"Mother of Jesus" the, 48

Moule (Bp.), 7, 316., 319A 3B6, 388

Moulton (Dr. B. G.), 394

Moulton (Dr. W. F.), Ub, 68 Muratorian fragment, 1

Mysticism, 9, 278b

Mythology, Indo-Aryan, 9 f.

Nash (Prof.), 52

Nathanael, 41

"Nazarean," force of. 394

Neander (A.), 412, 466, 1, 100

New birth, 45

Newcome, 423

Newman (Card.), 61, 78,115

Newman (F. W.), 1, 9, 61

Nicene Creed, 21

Nicodemus, 62

Nicolaitans, 18

Nonnus, 182, 412

Norris (Archd.), 96,100, 188n, 293

Nouvelle (A.), 1.

Obedience of faith, 286, to words Christ, 311; characteristic of saint

324, the Christian badge, 473

oi\da, use of, 253

oi[damen, 394

oijkodomhvqh, 67

Oil, not preceded by blood, in case of Jesus

Olive-tree, sets forth privilege, 322

Olshausen (H.), 24, 90, 106,112, 270 393

Omissions in fourth Gospel, 361, 393 4v0, 433, 206, 236

"One hundred and fifty-three," 382

"Only-begotten," 21, 26

Oosterzee (J. van), 69 Op9V, 300

Ordinances, lifeless, 266

Origen, 114, 363,17, 26, 26b, 64, 93, 9s, 96,

Orr (Prof.), 18, 218

pai'",

used of JESUS 19

Paley (F. A.), 26,131;

Pantheism, 10 Papists 1, 154

Paraclete, the, 304, 337 Of.; sent by Christ from the Father, 338

paravklhto", meaning of, 364

parabolhv,

214, 381

parakuvptein, 360

parousiva, 271, 322 367

Passover the last 336

Passovers, s3

Paul, the doctrine Of, 61, 129

Peace, settled. 325f.

Pearce (Bp.), 378

Pearson (Bp.), 363.

Pearson (T.), 318

Penitence, Romish, 273

Persecution, out of fashion, 342

Pentecost, Feast of, 100

Persia, ministry in, s3

periv, uvpejr, 315

Pfleiderer (Prof.), 1, 6, 9, 61, 64,113,127, 192,

fagei'n, 336

Pharisees, jealous of Christ, 178; as equivalent to "Jews," 28 ' and life eternal, 108

filei'n, 467ff 367, 386

Philip the Apostle, 42

Philip of Sidé 393

Philonism, id. 9

Pilate, trial before, 335; policy as judge,

pisteuvein eij" to; o[noma h, 17., 69

pisteu'sai,

Platonism, 14

Pliny, 412, 346

Plummer (Dr. A.), 1, 12, 77, 96,

poiei'n, pravssein, 72

Polycrates 330

Polycarp, i69

Porphyry, 138

Positivism, 9

pravssein, 72

Prayer in Christ's name, 366

Prayer Book, Jewish, 92~, 1q7

Præteritio, 368

Preparation, the Paschal, 412

Present tense, use of, 106

prov", force of, 9. ~

Priest, Christ as, 132

Probability, faith does not draw conclusion from, 76

Profession, Christian, 319

Prolepsis, 69, 388

Prophecy, vicious maxims as to, 279 fulfilment in burial of JESUS, 426

Prophet, functions of a, 88

Prophetic Word, the, 360

Pullan, (L.)

Purim, Feast of, 106, 339~

Psychology as applied to fourth Gospel, 61

Pusey (Dr.), 228, 371

Qoran, 18, 2~9

Quenstedt (Prof.), 9.

Quesnel, 92

µWq, 108

Quotation, manner of, 30; Septuagint disregarded, 424

Ramsay (Sir W.), 346

Randolph (Dr. T.), 422

Raphelius, 184

Rashdall (Dr.), pa

Rashi, 423

Rationalism, Christ with, 127

Reaping, day of grace characterised

Reception of Christ's sent ones, 280

Reconciliation, Calvin on, 272

"Reign of Law," 233

Religion, essentials of, 9. worldly, 202 traditional, 202; breach with earthly

rJh'ma, 37s; Philo's use of, 9

Remission of sins, administrative, 450 {.

Remnant, the Jewish becoming the Christian, 444; the future, 1321:,

Renan (E. ), 1, 6, 7, 61

Repentance, faith worthless without,

Reproach, bearing Christ's, 209

Reprobation 140

Responsibities, 319

Restoration, mutual, 276

Resurrection, fundamental truth of Gospel, 40. 427f., opposition of unbelief to, 428; bulwark against philosophic scepticism slighted by fleshly-minded Christians 428, 429. 448 of body, not emancipation Of spirit, of; points to power of God. 423, 448 how treated by Evangelists. 433 3s6; attitude of Apostles towards 434; Popular idea of general,

Reuss (E.) 6, 7, 33, 150, 237

Réville (Prof. A.), s3

Réville (Prof. J.),

Reynolds (Dr. H. R.), 6, 96, 23s, 293, 37s~

Righteousness of God, 346

Ritschl (A), la, 278b

Robertson (F. W.), 7, 16, 325

Robinson (Dean) 7

Routh (Dr. M.), 1

Ruin of man, 41

Ryle (Bp.), 13, 90,162, 230, 356, 39s

Sabatier, (A.), 1

Sabbath, alleged desecration by JESUS,

Sabellianism, 199

Sadler (M. F.), 1, 70, 77, 96, 127

Saint, obedience characterises a, 229

Salmon (Dr. G.), 1, 6, 61, 137,153, 217

Sanctification by truth, 378f

Sanday, (Prof.), 412, 1

Schleiermacher, 1.

Schlottmann (A.), 8

Schmiedel (Prof.), 1 1. 2 7 34 74 76

Schofield (Dr. A. T.), 14, 171, 196, 278b, 312,

Schor (8~), 36, 100,115, 213, 350

Schürer (Prof.), 1~, 393

Scott (E. F.) 9, 26~, 41, 52, 61, 66, 66 338, 3ri7, 394

Scribes, 155

Scripture, as interpreted by tradition,

Scrivener (F. H.), 154

Second Coming of Christ, 25ti, 474, 271

Seeley (Sir J. R.), 8, 66, 156

Ségond (Dr. L.), 15

Self-judgment, 274

Seven, the number, 46

shmei'a, 52

ˆkç, 20

Shekina, 20

Shepherd, the rejected Christ, 213 voice of the good, 214 f., mutual

knowledge of himself and sheep, 219 lays down His life, 220

Siloam, 17

Simcox, (Miss E.), 135

Simcox (W. H.), 108

Simon, the name, 28

Simon Peter, self-confidence of, 290 467 natural zeal, 395

Sin, of the world, before birth, 193 non-imputation of, 266, Spirit's

demonstration of, 346

skhnou'n, 20

Sleep, not used of soul. 235

Smith (Prof. G. A.), 29, 32, 232

Soden (Prof. the Baron von) 1, In, 80

Son of God. heavenly origin of, 60ff given. 63f; rejected by the Jews, 64f. gives life, 66; disobeying the, 66 ff. conjoint working of Father and, 112 alone judges, 113 Christ quickens as 116, 118 i:: in connection with Son of man, 210

Son of man. 34. 54, 45, 122, 3s7, lifted up 61; suffering, 63; glorified, 253 284 f.; as Judge, 65,119, sealed of the Father, 136f.; rejected Messiah, 185,

Spencer (H.), 9

Spinoza, 205

Spiritual understanding, conditioned by desire to do God's will, 161

Spiritualism, 281

Staerk ( Dr. W. ), 40

Standing in grace, 325.f

Stanley (Dean), 371

Stanton (Prof.), 1, 393

Stier, 436, 456, 88,112 15q. 164~, 2~0, 271

Stevens (Prof.) 14, 61, ;61, 268

Strauss (D. F.) 1, 61, 268, 376

Substitution, 32s

Superstition, 417. exalts its Church 214

Swedenborg 130, 165 199, 207 35s

Swete (Prof.;, 113, 13;, 3sG, 36i

Sychar, 82

Synoptic Gospels, Contrast of fourth Gospel with, 3'i9

swthriva, 90

Tabernacles, Feast of, 157, 167, 100

Talmud on execution of capital punishment 337

Targums, 9, 20

Tatian, 1, 376

Tauler, 273b

Taylor (I.) 14 318

Teaching of Christ given Him by the Father

tevknon, not used of JESUS, 16

Temple, desecration of the, 39; building of the

Tense, the historical: see under "Aorist"

Teresa 278b

Tertullian, 1, 137, 375

Testimony, none receiving Christ's, 74 to Christ fourfold, 122 .ff

tetevlestai, 419

Text, the Greek, 10, 218 T~pt[V, 225

threi'n, 9

qeiovth", qeovth", use of, 387

Theodoret, 14, 10U

Theodotion 424

"Theologos," 1

Theology, panders to human science,

Theophilus Of Antioch, l,.

Theophylact, 67, 346

Theosophy, 312

qeov", etymology of, 390a

qewrei'n, oJra'n, 300

qewrei'te, 220

"Third day," typical of millennial day 36ff.

Tholuck (A), 456, 70, 77, 111, 112, 175, 271,

Thomas, type of remnant believing when seeing

Thomson (W. M.), 40

Tiberias, Sea of, 377

Tolstoy (L.), 185

Torrey (Dr.), 361

Touchstone, Jesus the, 191

Tradition, danger of trusting, 474

Transcendence of God, 14

Transfiguration, 20

Tregelles (8. p.), 154, 396

Trench (Archbp.), 363, 40, 42, 52, 283, 302,

Triad, Hindu 9

Trinity, the Holy, 277

Triplets, 46

Truth, revelation. 17, God not Said to be the. 20, 26~; Christ is the, 20,183 191, 298; the Spirit guiding into, 349 twofoldness of Divine, 140; apprehension of dependent on faith, 214

Turton (Col.;, 1, 9, 9., s2, 106, 120, 357, 3;D

Types, German dislike of, 420

uiJov",

use of, 15f.

Unbelief, already judged, 65, not as being under law. 67. in condemnation, not a question merely of, 67 t of the brethren of the Lord, 158 clings to earth and self, 181, exalts man, 214: in saint no better than in sinner. 432

Union in Incarnation, 304

Unitarianism, 173, 312c 313b

Unity, 322; discipular (apostolic), 372fff 383f.: future, 384 Universalism of the fourth Gospel, 12a

Usher, 346

Varro, 346

Valentinus, 18

"Verily, verily," significance of, 134,

Victorinus, 3

Vines the body of Christ and the, 319,

Vintage, harvest And, 283

Virgin Birth, 21, 4P

Wakefield (G.), 184. 453

Walpole (Canon), 312.

Watkins (Archd.), 9

Washing of feet by Jesus, 266ff., self; hindrance to, 276

Water, figurative use of the word 48 265 f.: does not quicken, 49

Way, Christ the living, 84 If., 297

Wellhausen (Prof.), 61, 81, B7i, 380

Weiss (Prof. B.). 412, 1 6, 13 24, 33, 63, 63 77, 100,

Weizsäcker (C.), 1,9, 61, 302, 353 391

Wendt (Prof.), 1, 55, 68, 96,130, i51, 237, 245,

Wentscher (Prof.), 9,14

Wernle (Prof.), I, 9, 35, 61, 75, 280

Wesley (J.), 413

Westcott (Bp.), 466, 1, 6, 33 34 61, 62, 64, 67, 70, 77, 88 9G,

Wetstein, 436,141a

Williams (L), 3,127

Winer (G. B.), 24, 68, 164~, 287

Wiseman (Card.), 128

Witness, frequent use of, 109 of God in His Word, 123; in His Work, 20

WORD, the, 1, 9. 9

Word, cleansing effects of God's, 226 18; cleaving to God's 89, of Christ as distinct from His commandments,

Words, Christ's

lovgo"

explains His

laliva

,

Wordsworth (Bp. Chr.), 112, 127, 277, 317,

Works of Christ, 233

World, the, its hatred for those confessing Christ ~79.f. Christians mission to , no amelioration of the, alienation from God , meaning in this Gospel, 378, the religious 217; Judgment of the,

Worldliness, 168 376

Worship, Christian, 89ff. national , a delusion, 92 in millennium, 93; the Father the object of, 921

Worshippers, true, 92f.

Wright (Dr. A.), 128

Zahn (Prof.), 1, 1a, 8, 9b, 13, 14, 2G,

Zebbaca, Talmudic treatise, 33G

Zebedee, sons of, 378

John — Index of Scripture Quotations.

{Partially prepared for re-typesetting, as yet unproofed,

page numbers will require changing or checking.}

N.B.-Heavy type is used for  pages of the "Exposition"; the smaller type, for the numbered notes of the Editor.

Genesis 1: 1-2. 11; 1: 9

13: 4. 18

20: 7. 88

25: 22. 198

40: 13, 19. 237

49 212

Exodus 7: 20. 54

12: 3. 227; 5. 339, 46. 422; 48. 386

17: 6. 147

25: 8. 20

39: 30

Leviticus 6:

12-21. 348

16: 23. 362; 27. 348

20: 10 156

23: 10-14. 352

24: 10 200; 16. 342

Numbers 4: 3. 172

8: 3-4. 172

9: 2. 336

14: 21. 386

20: 7. 88;

11. 147

27: 17. 190

28: 16-18. 336

29: 12. 146

30: 270

43: 18. 20. 182

Deuteronomy 6: 4. 206

13: 6- 11. 157

16: 1. 336

17: 1. 339 2-7. 159

18: 15. 6, 161; 18. 23; 118

19: 15. 157, 161

22: 6. 325; 22. 156

29: 4. 174

32. 15. 278 20. 239; 39ff 164; 39

Joshua 7: 19. 180

13: 26

1 Samuel 30. 208

20: 291a

1 Chronicles 17:

12. 238

Ezra 5:. 16. 57

9: 7-9. 187

Nehemiah 9: 30. 36f., 188

Job 36: 26. 312a

Psalms 1:. 5. 108

2: 8. 34; 371, 43; 9. 371

8: 35. 152, 185

16: 10. 58a

22: 18. 192; 18. 416; 22. 444; 314; 25. 452

23: 186, 192; 5. 222

24: 192

22: 33; 7. 176; 9. 270

36: 9. 11

40: 6

f

.; 62 14. 324

41: 9. 278

43: 54

45: 7. 9a

46: 4. 177

51: 2. 251

55: 6. 55

66: 18. 182; 21. 223

67: 6f. 460

68: 31f. 460

69: 4. 11; 4. 336, 8. 137, 351a; 21. 418

73: 54

77: 412

78: 11. 200, 239

80: 152. 212;

8-16. 283

82: 229

85: 10f. 64

89: 118a; 24-29. 238; 24-29. 48. 195a

102: 25f 164; 27. 173

105: 15. 88

107: 23-31. 120

110: 152; 4. 238

110: 2. 173

118: 251; 22. 409

132: 131

133: 3. 262

139: 16. 353

143: 23

146: 7f. 194

Proverbs 1: 1

8: 9. 168

15: 29. 182

30: 4. 60

Isaiah 1: 15. 182

6: 9f. 241; 10. 259

7: 163; 9. 115

8: 6. 177

9: 7. 73, 238

11: 2-4. 58; 9. 386

12: 3. 148

24: 21. 347

25: 309; 8. 210

26: 9. 454; 19. 210

27: 1. 347

28: 9-13. 176, 184

31: 8. 324

32: 15. 348

35:

6. 148,

8. 298

40: 212; 186, 5. 52; 6-8. 728; 11. 220, 469; 29. 31. 96

41: 4. 164

42: 19. 184

43: 1. 187; 11-13. 256; 13. 199

44: 1-6. 43; 3. 50; 148

45: 218; 7. 90; 17-19. 332

48: 10. 164; 12-18, 332

49: 194, 218

53: 1. 259; 3. 20; 4. 240; 5. 453; 8. 238; 9. 426; 10. 254, 427

55: 1. 51; 148

58: 11. 148

63: 3. 392

Jeremiah 2: 21

3:. 17f. 466

10: 7. 405

17: 21. 102

23: 5. 118a

25: 7

Song of Solomon 8: 7. 249

Ezekiel 1: 3. 202

34: 212; 11-23. 193

36: 23f. 51, 55f.

37: 25. 238

47: 1. 148

Daniel 7: 152, 185;

14. 238

7: 2. 365; 210

Hosea 1: 10. 369

13: 14. 210

Joel 2: 29. 348

3: 13. 148

Micah 4: 7. 238

5: 2. 33; 163, 172, 453;

118a, 145; 7f., 464

Zephaniah 3:

13-20. 43, 228

Habakkuk 2: 14. 386

Zechariah 9: 9. 228, 251; 13. 404 ; 212; 186

11: 8. 181; 12. 227

12: 10 422, 453

13: 212

14: 227

Malachi 2: 10. 167a

4: 23

Ecclesiasticus 48: 1. 110

Wisdom 7: 23. 166

1 Maccabees 3: 40

2

Maccabees 6:

26. 108

13: 26. 166

Psalms of Solomon 17:

42. 277

Matthew 1: 1. 312c

2: 23. 394

3: 14. 34

4: 12. 79; 21f. 1

5: 15. 221. 287; 44. 290b

6: 10. 57; 22. 32, 23. 297

7: 21. 255; 22. 106

8: 17. 240

9: 15. 77; 30. 239

10: 5f. 70 ; 10. 221; 16. 193; 17-22, 291a; 39, 234

11: 2ff. 35; 3. 118; 4ff. 52, 148; 14. 22; 23. 274; 27. 388; 31f. 170f.; 41. 108

12: 19. 144; 39. 97

13: 98; 41-43. 57; 47. 464; 48. 221

14: 133; 22, 118a; 28-31. 380; 33. 120

16: 16f. 257;

17. 312c; 19.

272; 21. 402; 25. 234

17: 11f. 22; 12.

22 f. 402

18: 3. 66a; 18. 105, 371

19: 11. 395

20: 17-24. 220; 23. 393

21: 15. 118a

23:

40; 10. 312c; 37. 53; 39.

251

24: 40

25:

21. 66a; 31-46, 120

26: 6. 248; 18. 336; 39. 212a, 327; 65. 343; 71. 394

27: 419, 425; 19. 412; 24. 347; 46. 308; 50. 243; 51. 354a; 52. 205

28: 432;

1. 351; 365; 5f. 365; 19. 59, 312c

Mark 1: 1. 312c; 13f. 75; 14. 79; 20. 1; 21. 97; 24. 394; 30. 287; 43. 239

2: 8. 60; 10. 45

3: 13f. 134; 18ff: 73

4: 13. 188a; 36. 83

6: 4. 96; 45. 118a

7: 4. 50

8: 12. 97; 29. 37; 35. 234

9: 7. 126; 43, 45, 47

10: 13-16. 212; 30. 312a; 32-52. 220a; 38. 393; 43. ff. 65, 393; 46. 220; 47. 394

11: 15. 227

12: 30. 9; 35-37. 161a; 37. 227

13: 32. 252

14: 3ff. 12, 336; 5. 239; 42. 282, 284; 58. 57; 61f. 312c ; 62. 11; 64. 343; 67, 394

15: 25. 412, 419, 427; 34. 208; 40. 1, 351; 43. 354a

16: 343; 6. 394; 357, 365; 14. 123; 15. 427; 16. 59; 17f. 275

Luke 1: 32. 118a; 35. 118

2: 34. 18

3: 15. 34; 2. 202; 7. 79; 15ff. 1, 380

4: 15. 103; 16. 140; 19. 53; 23. 31; 29. 219; 34. 394

5: 4-9. 464; 8. 254; 9. 1

6: 13f. 134

7: 1-10. 98; 18-23. 35; 19. 118; 36ff. 222

8: 51. 1

9: 14. 195a; 19. 31; 24. 234; 28. 1; 51-56. 80

10: 16. 245

11: 13. 84; 21. 185; 29. 52; 34. 297

12: 4. 291; 51. 152

13: 7. 283; 32f. 157: 34. 53; 37. 249

14: 26. 234; 32. 277

15: 11-32. 187a

16: 9. 287; 15. 427; 19-31. 205

17: 25. 228; 33. 234

18: 18. 65; 30. 312a; 31ff. 220a; 37. 394

19: 9. 90; 14. 304; 41, 212a; 45. 54

20: 25. 403

22: 7-13. 346; 15. 264; 21. 263; 31f. 400; 43f. 195a; 71. 343

23: 403; 2. 338; 11. 340; 27. 301; 50. 354a; 51. 54; 53. 354; 54. 432

24: 1-10. 365, 12. 436; 369; 25. 268; 26. 66a, 238; 34. 466; 41. 301; 52. 302

Acts 1-5: 428; 1: 14. 137; 22. 330

2: 4. 275; 22. 394; 33, 38f. 177; 39. 187; 41

3: 1. 330; 6. 394; 2f. 277

4: 10. 394; 27f. 403

5: 14. 386; 19. 448

6: 5. 1a; 14. 394

7: 59

9: 5. 394

10: 38. 394, 428; 4. 183

11: 9. 183

12: 10. 448

13: 428

16: 7. 293; 24. 140

17: 31. 428

18: 24. 9

19: 1-7. 23; 31. 217

20: 7. 447; 28. 192; 29. 193

22: 8. 394; 15

23: 2; 5. 217

24: 5. 394

26: 9. 394

28: 25-27. 260

Romans 1: 3. 161a; 5. 122; 18ff. 376f.

2: 6-9. 125f.; 12-16. 67; 24. 55

3: 4. 312b; 25. 287

4: 6. 137

5: 10. 192

6: 48; 16-23. 61

7: 7f. 137; 24. 107

8: 23. 325, 350; 1-3. 82, 325; 3. 170; 7. 41; 16. 450; 394; 18. 320; 21. 465; 30. 71; 32. 217; 70

9: 5. 91

10: 9. 77; 276; 10. 261

11: 12. 460, 463, 15. 463; 17. 322; 26. 337

12: 9. 327

13: 10. 327

14: 19. 319a

1 Corinthians 1: 22f. 14

2: 14. 54, 345, 350

3: 15. 322

4: 15.

48

6: 11. 251; 17. 310

9: 27. 155, 322

12: 350

13: 327; 12. 388

14: 149; 24f. 88; 37.77

15: 35; 5. 467; 15. 428; 34. 312; 51. 237; 57. 309

16: 2. 447

2 Corinthians 1: 13. 394

2: 10. 451

3: 350; 10. 149; 17. 149

5: 7. 454; 17f. 444; 19. 334; 20. 272; 252; 21. 111, 286; 170, 195

8: 9. 283

9: 15. 70

11: 4. 7

12: 5. 446; 8. 354

Galatians 2: 469; 6. 61; 19. 1; 20. 49

3: 13. 218

4: 6. 216; 293; 25. 54; 30. 61

5: 1. 189

6: 1. 276

Ephesians 1-4: 350

1: 35; 10. 30, 57; 18. 305; 300a

2: 5. 246, 6. 322; 16. 305; 17. 307; 18. 300

4: 13. 321; 20. 7; 30. 126, 277

5: 26. 48; 66; 14. 244

Philippians 1: 9. 293; 21. 147

2: 6f. 119; 9. 280; 10. 255, 394; 11. 394

3: 3. 92; 21. 367

4: 13. 319

Colossians 1: 15. 13; 9f. 311; 12. 273; 16f. 11; 18. 53; 19. 23; 20. 57; 27. 286

2: 48; 9. 23, 367

3: 4. 388

1 Thessalonians 2: 18. 394

4: 9. 327; 16f. 238

2 Thessalonians 1: 3. 37; 8. 404 .

2: 1-12. 113; 8. 322; 10-12. 244

1 Timothy 4: 1. 299

6:. 13. 404; 238; 19. 286; 20. 23

2 Timothy 2: 18. 106

3: 376f.; 16. 299

4: 8. 286, 322

Titus 1: 16. 312;

2: 11. 22

3: 5-7. 200

Hebrews 1: 3. 53; 199

2: 35; 3. 19; 17. 252

4: 12. 9

5: 7. 195a

6: 1. 9

7: 14

9: f. 267

10: 2 273; 5-7. 62; 5-10. 344; 14. 223; 20. 188

12: 10. 317; 22-24. 57

13: 8. 394; 12. 348; 20. 192

James 1. 18, 48, 93

1 Peter 1: 8. 439, 454; 373, 386; 12. 53; 19. 192, 339; 23, 48, 93

3: 48

4: 1. 170, 195; 11. 299

5: 2f. 469

2 Peter 1: 4. 16; 126, 387; 5-11. 286; 11. 191; 14

3: 18 285

1 John 1: 1. 18; 1-4. 14; 3. 385, 454; 25; 5. 239

2: 1. 7, 304, 344, 375; 2. 33 ; 4. 276, 7. 130; 8. 14, 290; 12-14. 133; 14. 14; 15. 291b; 16. 285; 17. 72; 18. 2; 20. 215; 23. 341; 113

3: 1. 29; 3. 292; 9. 28; 16. 277; 17f. 328; 19. 338; 22f. 246

4: 2f. 18, 130; 13. 71; 6. 455; 70. 292; 7. 277; 9f. 61, 286; 14. 99, 290a; 19. 77

5: 1. 50; 5. 362; 6. 49; 11-13, 125; 13. 314a, 321, 363b, 374; 18. 317a

2 John 7. 18; 9. 289

3 John 1. 394

Revelation 1:. 25; 19. 297; 10. 447

2: 13. 236

4: 63

7: 9 ff. 227

10: 7. 284

12: 10

13: 1. 24; 11. 24

14: 18. 283; 20. 392

15: 3. 405

20: 1. 196; 4. 394

21: 6. 88a: 8. 261, 11. 385; 23 f. 385

Epistles of John — Addresses 1 - 9.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, with a new version.

Preface.

The Christian reader will, I trust, bear with a few words rather personal. For no one living has nearer or deeper reasons to praise God for these Epistles than he who presents this exposition. The First of the Three was exceedingly blessed to his soul more than sixty years ago. He had been converted to God without human instrumentality, but was still cast down under the sense of indwelling sin. The witness of God in 1 John 5: 9, 10, was suggested by a Christian friend as His answer to the questions which harassed me; and the Holy Spirit used it to give rest thenceforth in the Son of God and His atoning work.

Since then it has been a great delight, first to learn, and as learnt to teach other Christians in my little measure. For almost all the believers I knew found it particularly hard to make this precious portion of Scripture their own. This was not from any difficulty in the language, which is of the simplest, but partly from their own spiritual lack, and partly from the depth of the truth in unfolding the Saviour's personal dignity and the fulness of His grace toward the children of God. Thus they were slow even to apprehend, still more to enjoy, the fellowship to which the apostle invites with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

After the labours of many a year, and in most parts of Great Britain, and a little abroad also, in helping souls to search especially into these Epistles by the Spirit's grace, I am thankful to send out the volume, however short of what one could wish. But He who inspired this written word will not fail to guide into the truth those who wait on Him for it. May the reader count on divine love in Christ, and have his joy made full, as what John wrote was given for this express end.

W.K. London, April 20. 1905.

Introduction.

THE FIRST EPISTLE.

The plan or structure of this short but great Epistle is simple. Its foundation is laid in the four opening verses of 1 John 1, the incarnate Word of life. For the eternal life, the which. was with the Father, was manifested to chosen witnesses in the fullest way possible; and what they had seen and heard they reported to the believers, that they might have the same fellowship as the apostles (Acts 2: 42). And indeed that fellowship was without a rival: fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write "we" (as it were in the name of all) to you, that your joy may be made full.

With this manifestation of God in Christ goes inseparably the message of Christian responsibility in verses 5-10. It brings, God's character in light to bear on the walk of all who call on the Lord's name, and shows the radical inconsistency of those who say without doing.

A supplement is added in 1 John 2: 1, 2, where the Father's name, omitted in the testing part of 1 John 1, reappears. For though till are charged not to sin, if anyone does, divine love works to restore; and we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ not only righteous but the propitiation for our sins, and in a more general way for the whole world.

How then is reality in the Christian proved? This is shown in 3-11. Primarily in obedience (3-6), but as necessarily also in love (7-11), evidencing positively the genuine, negatively the spurious.

Next we have an episode on the differing degrees of maturity in the family of God from 12 to 28. They as a whole are the dear children (τεκνία) as in 1 John 2: 1, 12, 28, 1 John 3: 7, 18, 1 John 5: 21, to whom the apostle writes, because their sins, have been forgiven them for the sake of Christ's name. But within this instructive parenthesis the family has (1) "fathers," because they had known Him that is from the beginning, the eternal Word manifested in flesh; (2) "young men," because they were strong with the word of God abiding in them, and they had overcome the wicked one; and (3) "the little children," because they had known the Father. The apostle goes over the ground again, simply repeating the same for the fathers, but enlarging for the young men, and still more for the little children as being specially objects of antichrists seeking to mislead, and therefore specially guarded.

Then from 1 John 2: 28 the general address is resumed with exhortation to the "dear children" as a whole to abide in Christ, that if manifested as He surely will be, the labourers with whom the apostle puts himself should have boldness, instead of shame through their defection. Hence righteousness in practice is the witness of being begotten of God (ver. 29). Here again the apostle turns off into a short but seasonable digression in 1 John 3: 1-3 on the Father's love, the necessary motive and power to strengthen and cheer the soul in the strait path of practical righteousness. Then fitly follows in verses 4-7 Christ's person and work in absolute separateness from sin, and efficacy in taking our sins away, to impress that everyone that abides in Him sins not, and that everyone that sins has not seen nor known Him. The rest of the chapter is devoted to the contrast with those of the devil, first, of the righteousness in principle and practice of God's children, secondly from ver. 11 of their mutual love, unlike Cain and the world where hatred reigns. Only God looks for reality even to the utmost, and in small things as well as great; as we ought to cherish boldness of our hearts before Him which call only be in obedience and believing the name of His Son Jesus Christ. And where one thus obeys, he abides in God and God in him of which the Spirit given is the power.

Here however is special need of discernment; and the truth is essential that we be not misled. Accordingly the guard is furnished in 1 John 4: 1-6. The first test against error is Jesus Christ come in flesh whom the Holy Spirit always glorifies; whereas the spirit that confesses Him not is not of God. The second is not the law and the prophets (divinely inspired is they were), but the new testimony of Christ by apostles and prophets. He that knows God hears us; he that is not of God does not hear us. The New Testament also is indispensable to guard against the spirit of error.

Then from 1 John 4: 7 the subject of mutual love is resumed in the fullest flow, as shown to be of God, and inseparable from loving and knowing Him. This brings us the manifestation of God's love in our case, because He has sent His only-begotten Son that we might live through Him, for we were dead, and yet more that He might die as propitiation for our sins, for we were indeed guilty. Surely then if God so loved us, we ought to love one another: and if we do, God abides in us and His love is perfected in us, instead of being hindered. As Christ at the beginning declared the God that none saw, this is the call on us now. And there is adequate power in that He his given us of His Spirit; and this in every confessor that Jesus is the Son of God, according to the testimony that the Father sent the Son as Saviour of the world: His love in us which we have known and believed. Nor is this its full height. For the love is made perfect with us that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because even as He is, so also we are in this world: a statement all the more amazing when compared with 3: 2. Thus is fear expelled by perfect love, and it call be fully said, We love, because He first loved us. The chapter ends with exposing the false pretension to love God and not one's brother: they necessarily go together.

1 John 5: 1-5 supposes and answers the question, Who is our brother? "Everyone that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God." Thus the apostle points to the higher side of the relationship, but he is no less explicit that loving the Father involves loving the child, and that the proof of loving His children is, in loving Him and keeping His commandments. Loving Him is to obey; and His commands are not grievous but good and full of blessing and comfort. Nor need one wonder; for whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world; and faith it is which has gained that victory. Do you ask for more precision? "Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

In verses 6-12 we have the three witnesses and one testimony to Jesus and the truth in Him, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: not purification and atonement only, but the Holy Spirit the realising power. In the first man were sin and death; life eternal is in the Second so as to enjoy in the Spirit, the Father, and the Son; which could only be, because He has given and we have it in His Son.

The conclusion is from verse 13. As the apostle the incarnate Son as the object of faith and means of this wondrous fellowship unto fulness of joy, so he ends with saying that he wrote these things that we might know in our inner consciousness that as believers we have life eternal. He again speaks of the boldness such grace inspires in asking what consists with God's will; only he excepts the case where a brother is under the discipline of God for sinning in special circumstances, and therefore left no more here below. In the closing words from 18 the apostle meets the rising vapours of Gnosticism, ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth, with the deep and bright inward consciousness of the saints, first in an abstract way in preservation against sin and Satan, for everyone begotten of God; second in our personal knowledge that we are of God, and thus contrasted with the whole world in the power of the wicked one; and third, in the same personal knowledge of the great object of faith, the Son, with the understanding He has given to know the True One, and to be in Him, in His Son Jesus Christ: He is the true God and life eternal. He too is the safeguard from idols.

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES.

These are so simple in their object and structure, however important for the truth and those that love it, as to need but few words. The sister, all unnamed lady, is solemnly warned not to receive one untrue to the doctrine of Christ, i.e. of His person, the foundation and the substance of all truth. The brother, who of course is named, is exhorted in the face of personal or party opposition to persevere in the love which had characterised him, to receive faithful souls, though strangers, who went forth for the Name. The wisdom as well as the value of these letters is great. Women in particular might feel no small difficulty in refusing plausible men who seemed zealous in the Lord's work. It might be an evangelist once blessed in winning souls; or an elder like some in Ephesus of whom Paul spoke as getting astray. But when the spirit of error is abroad, truth decides and not office merely can avail. On the other hand the good brother is not to be alarmed by the anger of a Diotrephes but is to welcome such as go forth truly for the Lord's name, and thus encourage a Demetrius who might otherwise be frowned down. How admirably the Holy Spirit led to counsels for guiding us in the evil day!

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

ADDRESS 1

1 JOHN 1: 1-4.

What was from [the] beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we looked on, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, the which was with the Father and was manifested to us); that which we have seen and have heard we report to you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us; yea, and [or, and also] our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things [we] write [to you] that your joy may be made full."*

*The unlearned reader may be assured that there is no variant in the ancient and best authorities of the least significance doctrinally here. "Also" is added after "to you" in ver. 3, not because it is certain, but in deference to the Uncial MSS. and some of the Old Versions. But it affects emphasis only, as it may be due to the same form in the next clause. There is more doubt as to the emphatic "we" and "to you" in the beginning of ver. 4; but the more common "of you" is retained in the last clause with excellent witnesses (and the Text. Rec.), though recent critics lean to the well-supported "of us" (with the text of Stephens). Both are certainly in sense true. The question is which suits best the context as helping to decide where the external evidence is nearly balanced. But these pronouns are sometimes confused in the best copies, as they differ by one letter only. — The italics express, not a supplied word (as in the A. V.), but the personal pronouns used with emphasis.

A nobler opening than this has no Epistle, though that of the Epistle to the Hebrews may fairly stand by its side, however different in style for good reason from all the other Epistles. Those both, and without preface of any kind, at once introduce the incarnate Son, the Word become flesh: the one to fix the eye of faith in the Jews who confessed Jesus as the Christ on His glorified person and His office in heaven, founded on His work of redemption; the other to guard the believers everywhere from all innovation of doctrine or practice by recalling them to "What was from the beginning" in the unchanging grace and glory of His person as He manifested Himself on earth, as truly God as man united in Him for ever. It is the Man ascended to heaven which characterises the one; as God come down in Christ giving life eternal — is no less characteristic of the other. Nevertheless the Epistle to the Hebrews is rich in its unfolding of His person also, as this First Epistle fully presents His atoning work throughout.

It is notable too that both Epistles dispense with the name of the writer as well as of the persons addressed respectively. For this the supremacy of Christ before their own hearts, and to impress it the more on their readers according to the will of God the Father, may well account, though other reasons too may have concurred. The apostle to the Gentiles had not failed, even in his direct sphere among the nations, to say, and act on it, that the gospel is God's power for salvation to every one that believes, both to Jew first and to Greek; here toward the close he sends his last message to such as believed, and with blessed self-effacement. For as he presents the Lord as Apostle no less than High Priest of the Christian confession (uniting the types of Moses and Aaron, whilst far above them), he speaks neither of the Twelve nor of himself by that designation; and writes throughout rather as a Christian teacher expounding the Old Testament might write, (though none but an inspired man could) than as revealing fresh truths with the authority of an apostle and prophet.

Then, again, his love for his brethren after the flesh might readily, at least at the beginning, suggest keeping his name in the background, knowing their prejudice against one so jealous of any infringement on Gentile liberty; whilst his allusion to Timothy at the end would point to his great friend that wrote the Epistle, when itself had prepared the way, and the truth had filled their hearts with Him who was speaking to them from heaven.

Another consideration may have had its influence: the principle in our Lord's charge (not to the Twelve in Luke 9, but to the Seventy in Luke 10: 4), Salute no one on the way. It was a final mission. Times of serious danger and imminent ruin call for urgency, and the amenity of salutation on the way ought to yield to the solemnity of such a message as entails the deepest woe on those who despised it. This, too, may have weighed with these inspired servants of God. For one was giving his last words to his Jewish brethren, in view of the destruction of the city and the temple, that they might henceforth have their hearts set on the heavenly sanctuary, and also go forth unto Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach, before the judicial crisis compelled them. The other wrote to the family of God with quite as great importunity in face not merely of evil flowing in, but of the still more awful character of the "last hour" come for Christians, and "many antichrists" going out in open antagonism who had once been among them, but "not of us, for they would have remained with us."

However these things may have been, of this every believer is certain that the Holy Spirit had the best reasons for guiding both writers to a course so unusual as withholding each his name from these two Epistles. Let us now turn to the beginning of the Epistle before us.

The first verse implies that the Gospel of John was already written and known to the readers. How else could the Word of Life be understood? Such phraseology as this would be unintelligible if we had not John 1, where a great deal is revealed concerning Him. But if the Gospel alone prepares the way for the opening words of the Epistle, yet there is also a marked difference which is not only full of interest, but of immense value as a testimony to the truth.

In the Gospel we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This unique unfolding of grace and truth was due to, and is worthy of, Him whose glory had never been revealed so simply yet profoundly. The contrast is striking with the philosophic mysticism of Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, contemporary in part with the apostle who is most distinct to the believer. None of the Gospels has an introduction like the first eighteen verses of that chapter. The first title of Christ in it is "the Word." "In the beginning" (vers. 1, 2) means before creation. This is clearly proved by verse 3, which attributes to the Word the existence of all the universe. He gave all things their existence so absolutely that none existed apart from Him. But go back as far as you may in thought, He was in being with God, yet having His personal subsistence as God, in contrast with every creature. There is no point of duration that could be taken in eternity before the work of creation began, but there He was "in [the] beginning." The absence of the article in Greek is a nicety for conveying the truth which our own tongue here fails to express. If inserted in Greek, it would have fixed attention on a known point; whereas the very aim is to exclude such a thought and to characterise His uncreated being by a phrase which admits the illimitable. "In the beginning God created," etc., begins time; "In the beginning the Word was," leaves the door open for the eternal. It is therefore well said that John 1: 1 is before Gen. 1: 1. But if we are there told that "In [the] beginning was the Word," ver. 14 tells us that "the Word became flesh" in time. The First Epistle starts with the fact so wondrous on God's part, so rich in blessing for saints, and for sinners too as all once were. Not only the Word eternally was, but in due time the Word became flesh. Consequently, in the Epistle it is not "In the beginning," but "From the beginning."

This very expression the inspired Luke employs to give his characteristic exhibition — though, of course, by the Holy Ghost — of the Lord's life here below. He does not begin, as Mark did, with His ministry of the gospel, the "beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God." Luke goes farther back, having followed up all things from the outset. Accordingly, he is the one who, beyond any other, brings before us the Lord in His early days of youth. As His holy humanity is specified, so we see the Babe in the manger and in the temple, object of homage to Simeon and Anna, and of testimony to all that looked for Jerusalem's redemption. Then what a glimpse of His growth at home, before and after the touching scene in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them and asking them questions! All His hearers, for so it was, were amazed at His understanding and His answers. Thus, in short, Luke presents the Lord "from the very first" as a man on the earth more fully than anyone else. Even if he speaks of others who delivered to us the matters fully believed among us, he describes them as those that were "from the beginning" eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word.

Here then we may next notice a singularly expressive term, "The Word of Life." It is, indeed, in the closest connection with the main object of the Epistle; but at the first mention not the smallest preparation is made for it, without the introduction of John 1. We are suddenly and at once introduced into the august, the divine, theme that the Holy Spirit deigned to take up and give us. Can we not see what a testimony to the Lord it was, there to begin with the Word, an eternal Name, but now with manhood entered into His person? The little children, and even the apostle John, must retire, no one must be mentioned save the object of faith for man. The Word, the Word of Life, is at once ushered before the believer's view. Could anything show so well the reverence that filled the apostle's heart, or that is due from ours? But here we begin, remarkable to say, with the Word of Life Man, and, it may be added, as another thing of importance, the Word of Life Man not in the heavens but on the earth. The glorified Man on the throne of God above has its great importance with the apostle Paul. Here, on the other hand, the greatest possible care is taken first to show the Word when He walked here below, not before He was made flesh, as is done in ver. 2, nor after He died and rose again, as elsewhere in the Epistle. Those positions or states of our Lord appear appropriately in their due place; but here he is treating of eternal life manifested on earth with its just and full proofs, and its all-importance for giving fellowship with the Father and the Son, to the fulness of joy of all who share it in the grace of God. Hence it is that he forthwith brings us to hear the report of the Word of Life as the disciples saw and heard Him on the earth.

"What was from the beginning." This was true before any saw Him. "Which we have heard." This was the way in which the tidings of the Lord Jesus reached their ears. The earliest apostles were disciples of the Baptist; and John's privilege (though not here specified) was to be one of the earliest to betake themselves to the Lord Jesus. They, like others also, heard from His herald before they saw Him. In fact, it was the Baptist's testimony to the Lord which led two of his disciples, leaving himself at least afterwards, to follow the Christ. The other was not Simon Peter, but Andrew, Simon's brother. We need have no doubt or difficulty who his companion was — the writer of the Gospel and of the Epistles. It of course lends no little interest to all when we know that John was so early in the field along with Andrew. He was therefore, though for still better reasons, pre-eminently suited to tell us of the Word of Life. But he was led of the Spirit to speak of "us," the chosen witnesses, in quite general terms: "What we have seen with our eyes." It is exactly what they had heard: "Behold the Lamb of God." They had heard that testimony, they had seen with their eyes that blessed Person; they "followed Jesus" and "abode with Him that day." Such was the beginning of that divine link between the Lord Jesus and the disciples. Who more, and if we take into account his special place in the Lord's affections even among the Twelve, who so suitable to bring all out, in the power of the Holy Spirit, as John in his own peculiar style?

But the delay is also remarkable. For we might have thought that the best time to furnish the saints with such intimate reminiscences was when all was fresh in his heart and memory. But God directed that the truth should be, not indeed hid in his heart, but held back from his pen for fifty years at the least. And His way is ever wisest and best for all, though vain man likes to have his. [It seems, as it is, too empty]. But the Holy Ghost was here to give the more intelligent waiting on God that His will might be done. And it was His time and way that the apostle John who was at the first should abide to be the last witness. It was his lot to convey to the Angel of the church in Ephesus (so bright when the apostle wrote to it late in his day) the Lord's call to repent and do the first works; else He would remove their lamp except they repented. It was his to convey to the Angel of the church in Laodicea the Lord's threat to spue it out of His mouth, without condition of repentance, though summoning to repentance. It was before the Lord's letters to the Seven churches of Asia were sent that the last apostle writes of the fatal evil rising up, and the "last hour" coming with its "many antichrists."

This gives character to the Epistle before us beyond what we have in those of Peter or James. The antichrist is portrayed in an early epistle of Paul, though not so designated, but as the man of sin, the son of perdition, and the lawless one. The apostle John alone writes of "the antichrist," as of many antichrists already, forerunners of the great coming one, who figures in Rev. 13: 11-18, etc., as the Beast of the earth with his two lamb-like horns, the false prophet. We can understand that he who was given to present Christ so vividly in His divine dignity should be given also to set out His human adversary, filled and governed by His spiritual enemy Satan, and under the name of the antichrist. If there was a heart on earth that would resent a blow struck at the Lord Jesus, it was our apostle, who enjoyed His love beyond others, and loved Him, perhaps, beyond all. As a rule, the sinner that feels his sins most deeply enters accordingly into the love of the Saviour, as He proved to and by the man who had no right sense of either: he loves most who has most forgiven. But who can doubt that the beloved disciple had had an exquisite sense of His Lord's love to him personally, and also a correspondingly deep sense of sin? The apostles Peter and Paul estimated and felt His love in another way, but hardly in the same way. One wonders not therefore that John was chosen to write words to us of fervent love and deep solemnity, words of grace and truth pre-eminently adapted to secure the believer under the worst perils for Christians on earth, the most insidious efforts to subvert and deny the name of Jesus. This is exactly what we are contemplating in these Epistles, especially in the First.

Thus is brought before us the person of the Lord Jesus, and that not as received up in glory. Admirable object before us is the glorified Man for lifting the believer above the false glory of the world, as the power of His resurrection is suited for giving a firm hold against earthly pretensions in religion. Saul of Tarsus was converted by the sight of Christ in glory by the power of the Spirit: this became his distinctive theme, not only in the gospel, but for setting forth Christ as head of the church, the great truth that is found in him beyond any other of the inspired writers. But, for reasons sufficient and wise to the Giver of every good gift, our apostle goes back to Christ down here, as true man as He is true God. His object was not so much to show Him heavenly but to prove that really man He is a divine person. The heavenly Man has given glorious privileges in God's grace; yet, after all, the heavenly must give place to the divine. Heavenly relationship God uses to deliver the saints from the tendency to be earthly-minded; but divine life in power thoroughly uproots man's pride, lusts, and will to set himself up, and thus fall under Satan against the Father and the Son. The mind of the flesh not only resists the Lordship of Christ, but is utterly blind to the deeper glory of His person in His own right far above that which was conferred. The apostle Paul dwells more on the glory that was given Him. John turns peculiarly to the glory that belonged to Him eternally, not as the firstborn from the dead, but as the only-begotten Son. There He is alone. Paul speaks of union with Him for members of His body; John, of the Father's love to those who are even now His children. No wonder that it is now the hour to abandon earthly service, even in the sanctuary of Jerusalem, and as true worshippers to worship the Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeketh His worshippers of such a sort.

Let us seek then to be true to the Lord, to keep His word, and not deny His name. Indisputably, as involved in the Lord's personal glory, the truth in the Epistle which we are now entering, on is intended to set out the positive side of life, as in Him, so in those that are His, on the earth. No spiritual person acquainted with error as to this at work of recent years can fail to discern how the truth in the Gospel and the Epistle of John leaves not the smallest excuse for it, but peremptorily excludes it. It is a sorrowful fact that some of us have known two assaults on the Lord, one in the forties, the other in the nineties of last century, as we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

As of old, so now, there is the like urgent ground for children of God to cleave to the Lord with purpose of heart, and to deepen in their consciousness of eternal life in him, so that they may the better help the simplest believers to know it as theirs. Thus is Satan's wile turned to the good of those that love Him, the called according to purpose. Be not deceived by such as try to persuade themselves and others that in what was quite plain one mistook its nature and bearing. Such is ever the cry when heterodoxy is seen through. Then follows the effort to gloss it over, to disguise the evil, if they cannot deny it wholly, in order to avoid detection and discredit. It is never so where there is honesty before God. If a true-hearted saint was betrayed into error, he would be too thankful to have it laid bare in order to repudiate it with grief and humiliation. But hiding, minimising, and excusing error so fundamental is unworthy of those who once suffered the loss of not a little in this world for the truth. It exposes themselves to the danger of falling into what they tamper with, or the loss of spiritual discernment. Is it not the working of the spirit of error?

The first verse describes our Lord Jesus here below as an object of near and thorough inspection, with the closest familiarity to the disciples. His way was as far as possible from that of the potentates in the East particularly, who affect honour and glory by keeping even their grandees at a distance. It was death, as all know, of old without a summons to approach "the great king." Life depended on his holding out the golden sceptre that they might touch it and live. But here the Higher than the highest came down in humiliation of grace to the least and lowest. Never sinner that came to Him did He reject. He touched as well as healed the leper. He wept at the grave of him whom He raised from the dead. Who accessible as He always and to all? But what opportunities of seeing with their eyes, of looking on Him, and even of handling Him, He gave those expressly chosen "that they might be with him!" Impossible to doubt that the Holy One of God was veritable man.

Yet it is well to notice "seen and heard" in verse 3: "what we have heard," in verse 1, precedes "what we have seen." The truth always comes through the ear first, not the eye. They "heard" and believed. Faith for their own souls was by hearing, not by sight. Nevertheless Christ was to be seen with their eyes, and to be contemplated too for their witness to others, not once in a way but "What we looked upon and our hands handled." How wonderful the truth, the Creator of heaven and earth becoming a man, and allowing even such evidence of His humanity that their hands should handle Him! He also did so when raised from out of the. dead; not to Mary of Magdala for special reasons, but to the women of Galilee, and to the incredulous apostle Thomas — "Reach hither, etc." And so it had been when the Lord was here below, because He well knew, and by anticipation provided proof against, the fearful system of evil which dared to deny the reality of His human nature. Therein was His grace even to death for us.

On the other hand, the opposite form of evil is quite as sternly denounced, or more so, which denied that He was God, counting Him but a man endowed with unequalled power but to the exclusion of His Godhead. He was truly God and man, and in one person. Accordingly He is called here "the Word of life." All the different clauses of verse 1 are "concerning the Word of life." For "life," and in this case the highest spiritual life, belongs to God alone. It is distinct from, and higher than, creative power, as we are taught in the comparison of verses 3 and 4 of 1 John 1. Here His designation combines "the Word" and "life" for the scope of the Epistle. "And the life was manifested." This was the truth to state here. To whom is not said, but the simple and general fact. It was for anybody to see, for all that beheld Christ our Lord; not believers only, but unbelievers. To the latter it was casual, and without vital effect, because they were not taught of God through their need of Him; for to real purpose and blessing we must come in the truth of our sins; but they could. see how wonderful He was, if not in Himself, in His dealing with every man, woman, or child that drew near Him. Yet to their blind eyes He did not discover God and Himself as to the sinful woman in the house of Simon the Pharisee, to her of Samaria, or to the robber converted on the Cross. They could not fail to discern that there was something far beyond man in Him. Each of them at that crisis of their life was enabled effectually to hear the Word of Life. It seems indubitable, if the first woman was already a believing and repentant soul, then brought to pardon and peace, that the words of the Saviour were what quickened the Samaritan as well as the crucified robber, who discerned the infinite grace and dignity of the Lord Jesus in the hour of His greatest shame and contempt.

"And the life was manifested:" such is the keynote of the Epistle. Here it was manifested, "and we have seen and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, the which was with the Father, and was manifested to us" (ver. 2). There is nothing said about "hearing" now. It takes for granted that they were already intimate with the Lord, and "we have seen and bear witness." It is not, as at first, hearing and seeing, but now seeing and bearing witness, and reporting to the saints the eternal life, which had the character of being with the Father [i.e. in eternity], and was manifested to us in time when He lived here below.

Many are aware of a strange effort made to draw a distinction even in the New Testament, between "life" and "eternal life." Is it not refuted here? While "the Word of life" is the expression in the first verse, and we simply hear of "the life" in the beginning of the second, soon after, in the same verse, we find "the eternal life." Surely, then, "the life," and "the eternal life," denote precisely one and the same thing, looked at in a slightly different way. It is bound up with the person of the Word, and manifested in the Lord Jesus Christ. What can be plainer? In the parenthetical verse 2 we are informed of the other great truth that Eternal Life was with the Father before He was manifested in the flesh here below. He was not only the Word and the Only-begotten Son, but also "the eternal life"; as much the eternal life then as when afterwards He deigned, for God's glory and man's redemption and blessedness, to be born of woman, and so display what He gives to the believer.

It is remarkable that here eternal life is expressly predicated of the eternal Word, the Son of God, before He came into the world; but it never became the known portion of the believer till Christ was manifested. When He went up to heaven, this is not manifestation, but, on the contrary, to be hidden in God. No, it was here in the world of sin, sorrow, and misery; it was here where the first man utterly failed unto death, that the second man displayed life eternal, obeying unto death, and by His death defeated Satan, and found an everlasting redemption for all that believe. And those who believe have life eternal in Him, that they may live now of His life, not of their own fallen life.

The manifestation of the life is precisely in this world and nowhere else. Heaven is not the scene of its manifestation; still less could manifestation be said of it when that life was with the Father. Certainly, as far as men are concerned, the manifestation was when the Son of God became man, and was seen and heard as the faithful and true witness of God the Father. When the Son of God became man, then, and then only, was manifested the eternal life, the which was up till then with the Father. Life was in His concrete and manifested person here below, as hitherto it had been in Him above. A certain chosen number of disciples who heard beheld its presence in Him, under all possible tests of reality, to report to others God in man with the eternal life of Christ in its unsullied perfect excellency manifested among men on earth.

How blessed for us, even though with felt weakness, yet looking to our Lord's grace, we take up the task. Our title is Christ Himself, as good now as for those to whom the Epistle was written. The apostle herein writes to his "dear" or" little children," the family of God now as really as then. Does not the self-same relationship abide as long as the list hour endures? Whatever our shortcoming today we humbly receive the apostle, believe in the love of the Father, confess the grace and the glory of His Son, the Lord Jesus, and reckon on the indwelling Spirit of God, that we may now reap profit by what had been already communicated when that hour began. We acknowledge our deep need and the pitiful goodness of Him who directed them, as He does ourselves, to find in Christ the unfailing reserve of faith and the answer to every want.

"What we have seen and have heard we report to you also that ye also may have fellowship with us." Is not this a precious legacy of divine love in presence of such declension and danger? Is not the fellowship of the apostles a blessed fellowship or association in such circumstances (compare Acts 2: 42)? "And also our fellowship [is] with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ" (ver. 3). Soon the last apostolic hand would cease; but if he had survived till now, what could be written more comforting and reassuring than that the Pentecostal fellowship of the apostles abides; yea and the fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ abides for our enjoyment by faith today in virtue of life eternal in the Son, both theirs and ours? The declared purpose, then, of this divine communication is that we might have the same fellowship as the apostles had with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, and the gracious aim thereby to fill our hearts with joy. If such a blessedness at all fail, nothing conceivable could effect that result. Is there not beyond comparison far more to fill our hearts with joy than in any other boon that could be given us? Eternal life manifested in our Lord Jesus as the new and divine nature in us who believe for fellowship with the Father and with His Son, expressly to fill us with a joy that bespeaks itself divine in its source and character! Let us then consider, with the heed that is due, the grace and the truth in Christ set before us in these the opening words of the Epistle. This is its fundamental principle and design.

The central truth of Christianity is here briefly laid down, and its avowed object in the darkest hour is to fill the saints with God's own joy; when Satan was active as never before in undermining Christ. It is not a summons to guard souls by exposing argumentatively the various heterodoxies and their baneful issue. Still less is it turning the energies of God's servants to preaching the gospel to all the nations. Nor yet is it the revelation of woes imminent on Christendom and the world at large, as at length came in the Apocalypse, with the glories to follow, not "the things that are," but coming judgments. The Old Testament prophets had things communicated, which they learnt were not for themselves but for us (1 Peter 1: 12). And so the saints to follow the church will have accordingly the Spirit of prophecy as the testimony of Jesus to them: a remarkable expression, which means the Spirit, not as the power of present fellowship, but "of prophecy," as of old, casting the saints on the future when Jesus comes in power and glory.

In contrast with that is the action of the Holy Ghost now. What is revealed is revealed to us, and what is revealed to us is for our knowledge of God in the Spirit, and enjoyment of fellowship with the Father and the Son. It is for God's children not only to enter in but enjoy to the full even in the evil day. Everything revealed to us is intended to fall in a continual shower of blessing on our hearts. To be born again and be forgiven through Christ and His work is the only right start; for we know God by the Spirit thus awakening the conscience. But to abide there, no matter how devoted to spread the glad tidings, falls quite short of God's mind about us. It is not Christ leading us, on possession of life eternal, into the fellowship here so distinctly announced to fill us with joy. Naturally we are but sinful creatures going blindly on to judgment; but in receiving the Lord Jesus we are born of God, and resting on redemption we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and are thus anointed and sealed. We are thus capacitated by that life and empowered by the Spirit, as acknowledging the Son, to have the Father also. Our bright privilege is to have this fellowship as ours, with unstinted and joyful assurance by the will and word of God.

Listen not to those who count such blessing beyond you on earth and now. He that had the best robe for the returned prodigal would have you as His child to enjoy communion with Himself and His Son. It is, without doubt, wholly above man's nature. It is for partakers of a divine nature. The love of the Father and the Son is its spring, working by the Holy Spirit sent down to be in us and with us for ever as the power. It therefore peculiarly concerns the Christian; and all the more when the outward aspect of the Christian profession is filled with falsehood and evil. Undoubtedly he that denies the Father and the Son would treat it as a myth and a delusion. But why should you, a Christian, stop short of your proper portion?

The children of God, even the little children or babes of the family, are all included in this blessedness, as truly in their measure as the more vigorous and the most mature. The babes are therefore invited to enter in and enjoy this fellowship to the full. On what ground? Eternal life in Christ. Justification by faith is precious, and conscious salvation, with the question of sins and sin settled for our souls with God; but here the positive side of eternal life is the truth insisted upon. The apostle Paul brings out not only the justification of each believer individually, but membership of the one body of Christ and its heavenly privileges as no one else does. To the apostle John was given in the days of decay to set forth eternal life, as even the great apostle of the uncircumcision did not so fully.

What is the source of the feelings of joy here commended to us by the Spirit of God? What is the basis and the substance of that fellowship with the Father and His Son to which we are called? What is the spring of this divine enjoyment? What gives the Christian to hate evil and to love the good according to God; to have doubts and fears for ever dissipated; to draw near to the Father with full confidence, and to delight in the Son? It could not be without faith in the Saviour's propitiation, but its receptive faculty lies in life, eternal life, the life of Christ.

If we look, however, at the children of God, we see one measure here and another there. If we could survey all the children of God, we should perceive a different measure in each. We are just as different in manifesting our spiritual life, as far as its exercises go, as we are in the natural life of man. It is of course the same in all, but the old life mixes, as it ought not, to produce these differences. Impossible to find satisfaction in a scene so shifting. One may find a little more of what the new life is in this one as compared with that. But for the truth of it one must turn to Christ as eternal life itself without the least alloy or obscurity. There only we behold it in all its perfection, as we follow the Lord Jesus as He is brought before us in the Gospels. There do we not find righteousness and grace, dignity and subjection, gravity and tenderness, burning zeal and lowliness of heart, purity in Himself and pity for others, love to His Father, love to saints, love to sinners, and withal the obedient man yet the divine Word and Son? This then all that shone through the veil of flesh, was the life eternal; and nowhere else can you find its fulness but in Him.

What could be more momentous, if we have life in the Son, than that we should clearly and in all variety of circumstance know what that life really is? For it is our life, and the rule of our life; inasmuch as the Holy Spirit has given it with a particularity beyond parallel in Holy Writ. He would impart to us, in the word of God, the fullest insight into that which formed the delight of the Father, that we might have the joy of knowing in communion that it is our very new life, and also a constant standard for self-judgment as well as example. Thus the joy would be made full, and ourselves made nothing in our own eyes by the sense of our shortcoming. This is what the Christian needs from God; and this is what our Father has provided for us in Christ.

What a lesson for us His maintenance of the bondman character! And this ever going up to His Father as a sweet odour of rest! If there be one thing which never fails in Him, it is obedience; obedience to His Father at all cost; obedience in every word and work, in the smallest as in the greatest. "The zeal of Thy house hath consumed me." Power others have shared: who but He never did His own will but the Father's? So in the afflictions, the contempt, the detraction, which try the heart, the meek Lord of glory stooped to the uttermost; and, though He deeply felt the woes which such unbelief entailed, He turns to His Father at the same hour with thanksgiving and entire submission. If the favoured but haughty people blindly refused Him, grace would reveal to the babes what was hid from the self-satisfied wise and prudent. These are the exercises and unfoldings of eternal life. If all were written out one by one as they deserve, not even the whole world itself, as our apostle says in the close of his Gospel, would contain the books written. The Bible contains the selection made by the Spirit of God. Who else is sufficient for these things? He gives us therein the food of God as our food; for therein we have in fellowship: what the Father has in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and this the fare not of the apostles only, but of the Christian, of the family of God.

Look at Moses, who had a most unusual place in his relation both to Israel's redemption and legislation, and as the writer of the Pentateuch. How little, after all, we know of Moses himself! How he kept himself in the background, the meekest of men till Christ came! But what was Moses in comparison with Him?

Then again Paul fills in unequalled part among the apostles and in the New Testament. Yet we have but glimpses of himself. How much men have wished a more intimate acquaintance! But the strong individuality of him, and of Peter and John, among the more known, separates them from Him in whom every characteristic was in harmony; in them things did stand out singly or distinctively as they did not in Him who was perfect man to God, and perfect God to man, besides as Son in the ineffable circle of the persons of the Godhead.

Eternal life then is not merely Messiah in the perfection of man; — but the Word and Son of God in a body prepared for Him, albeit Son of the Virgin. It was the union of Godhead with the manhood of the Lord Jesus that constituted the wonder of His person here "below, and the blessedness of the manifestation of eternal life in Him. This is the character of the new life to those that believe, to you and me. As we read of Him in the Scriptures of truth, honouring Him as we honour the Father, and finding in Him peculiar grounds of love which every Christian feels, do we say, as His grace and truth shine into our hearts, This is my life; this is your life, my brother? Have we not thereby fellowship with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ? And does not this incomparable blessing fill our hearts with joy unspeakable and full of glory?

Through faith in Christ it is that we all are common sharers of the blessedness in virtue of life eternal. First there is communion with the Father. How have we this? Because we have His Son Jesus Christ; and the Father's delight is in the Son: so is yours; and so is mine. The Father and His children have the depth of their joy, their joy together, in the Son. The Father hath sent and given us the Son; we have the Son. He that hath the Son hath the life; we have this wondrous life, because we have the Son; and He being what He is must be the delight of those that have life eternal. Only the Father knows perfectly the Son. He therefore appreciates the Son as He deserves. This we dare not say, though we have the Son, and love Him and delight in Him; and all this by the Spirit of God in our measure. And this is fellowship with the Father in the Son Jesus Christ.

But how have we fellowship with His Son? It is in the Father, who is His Father and our Father. The Son was in eternal relationship as such with the Father; and He was pleased in communion with His Father's will and grace to make Him known to us as our Father (compare John 20: 17). It was not enough to show us the Father. This would have sufficed the apostle Philip, but not divine love. He would be our Father, and have us His children; and so we are now, and thus have fellowship with the Son by grace, as the Father has the Son in the rights of Deity.

Thus we have fellowship with the Father in the possession of the Son, and fellowship with the Son in the possession of the Father. How could our joy but be full? Even heaven and glory everlasting dwindle in comparison; but we have these too. If we knew of such fellowship, and had it not, could our joy be as full as it is? We do not wait till we depart to be with Christ, or even for the change of our bodies into His image at His coming, to have this fellowship. Only unbelief hinders any child of God from enjoying it now and here on the earth. And we have the Holy Spirit personally given that divine power might effect it in us. Here the Son came down on earth. But for His coming we could not have had it as we have, if at all. With His presence on earth to this end the apostle began his instruction, and laid the basis of the divine fellowship in eternal life, which is the only true and adequate medium of having it as our portion. Without eternal life it had been impossible: else was only the flesh with which there could be no fellowship. Therefore the Lord over and over again announced its present known possession as essential to Christianity, and to this fellowship, its richest boon in virtue of life eternal, which is in Himself, the communicator of it to us.

ADDRESS 2

1 JOHN 1: 5-10.

"And this is the message which we have heard from him, and announce to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth. But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus [Christ]* his Son cleanseth us from all [or, every] sin. If we say that we have no sin, we mislead ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all [or, every] unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

*Testimony of weight casts doubt on reading "Christ" here; the usage of John rather favours it.

We have already seen that the opening verses give us the manifestation of God, and here expressly as Father, in His Son the Man Christ Jesus, the Word of life. For the utmost care is taken that while implicitly and supremely acknowledged as God, the all-importance of His taking manhood into union with His person should be distinctly laid down. So indeed it must be to reveal His grace, and to lay the needed and full basis for all that we boast in Christ the Lord. This is really Christianity on its positive side; for as yet we have nothing here said of the necessity for His bearing our sins, and God's condemning sin in the flesh on our behalf. Indeed the difference is striking.

May one not assume that hardly a Christian in the world, if he were writing on Christianity, would not begin at the starting-point of needy and guilty sinners? How infinitely more blessed to commence with Christ in the fulness of His grace! That is what the Spirit of God does here. He is not writing to let lost sinners know how to be justified in God's sight. The Epistle is to God's children, that they maybe filled with joy; and who or what is there that can fill with such joy as God in Christ produces hereby?

Clearly Christ is presented in this astonishing scripture as the manifestation of eternal life, Himself called personally "the eternal life which was with the Father," as before "the Word of life," because He expressed it to His own, that they too might have life in Him.

Such is the ground for the wondrous privilege of which He speaks — "fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." This is impossible to be had unless we have Christ as our life. So momentous is the cardinal truth of the present possession of eternal life by faith. It is no doubt in Christ. But it is life now bestowed on us; and to deny or even weaken this is to do the enemy's work in a subtle and effective manner.

But the grace, however to our joy, is not all. It is of urgent moment for us never to forget, from the very beginning to know, that He who is our Father is God, and that, however the grace may flow, the truth of His nature, His holy nature, is brought into immediate association with our souls; and if it were not so, what are we? At best sounding brass or clanging cymbal. But this is "the message" which cannot be severed from "the manifestation," the manifestation of God in man in the person of Christ, bringing us into fellowship with the Father and with His Son. Assuredly we cannot have the joy flowing from that fellowship, or the life eternal on which it is grounded, without sharing the moral nature of God. Grace and truth are come through Christ. And the truth is that He is a God who reveals His hatred of sin, incomparably more now when He is known as Father than when He was adored by His people as Jehovah.

For of old He dwelt in the thick darkness; with many results excellent in exercise, as goodness, and righteousness, besides His power in government, pitiful and long-suffering, promises with blessed predictions and glorious hopes which He will assuredly accomplish in due time. For Jehovah is the everlasting God of Israel, and will make good to the children His promises made to the fathers. But before that day dawns on the earth, comes the total ruin of the Jew and all the world from the rejection of Christ. Christianity supposes this. What proof of ruin could be more complete than in the Lord Jesus slain by Jew and Gentile? Then man turned God in the person of Christ out of His own world, and did so with the utmost hatred and contempt, spitting in His face and nailing Him to the tree. Was not this the world, and the world even at its best? Not Rome, nor Babylon, the golden city of Chaldea, primarily; but Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, now crucifying thine own, Jehovah's own, Messiah!

Yet (on that overwhelming proof that there is no good in man, and that the most guilty of the race which had the best religious privileges for man in the flesh had but turned them to the worst account through their own unbelief) unto all the nations was to be proclaimed in the name of the Lord Jesus repentance and remission of sins, "beginning at Jerusalem." What unfathomable grace to those who deserved condign judgment! Grace is not confined within the small and feeble barriers of Israel, but now breaking forth on every side to every nation and land and tongue. For God will have His house on high filled with guests in virtue of the manifestation of life eternal that was thenceforth to be made known. The Life Eternal had been there; but how few then knew it! And those that did, knew it most imperfectly. Nosy it was announced plainly when the church indicated in all ways a ruin, as great for it as the world had already shown, though not at all in the gross way to which it has come now, but in a subtle and yet real way. For even the worst was sprouting then; every evil that was afterwards to be developed was there in germ before the apostles slept. For this reason came this blessed Epistle that the hearts of all the faithful might be established in grace and truth, and know that whatever the failure in responsibility, whatever the declension that had set in, Christ abode the same, unchanged and unchangeable, "What was from the beginning" never to fail for faith, whatever the shame to those that compromised His name, whatever the deadly loss to such as turned away. For it is a strange and perilous thing to trifle with Christ. How sad that any one could be so careless, how deplorable that any Christian should be so misled, as to become an instrument of such evil!

But along with the manifestation of perfect grace comes the inseparable message of holiness. This is alike due to God, and necessary for the saints. What does it convey? "This then is the message which we have heard from him." They had heard it from Christ Himself; not exactly "of (περὶ) him," but "from (ἀπὸ) him," — "and report," for this is the exact word in our tongue — we "report to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." We see the distinctness from the manifestation, This was about or concerning the Word of life, the unmixed grace of God in Christ. Here it is not "concerning" but "from," not a manifestation of love, but a message against sin. It is also the first occurrence of the apostle's habit to mix God with Christ, because He is God. So here, after saying so much of Christ, he gives a message from "Him." This might mean God, but he had just been speaking of Christ. Such a transition perplexes the commentators; but it is a beauty, not a blemish. The message from Him applies God as light (and this too was in Him) to our standing and state.

Natural enough that the heathen should make Chaos the parent of Erebos and Nyx. Darkness essentially characterised some, moral darkness all that they called their gods. They were indeed divinities of gloom, and lust, and lying. But not so is our God: in Him is no darkness at all. And it is Christianity that brings this out distinctively in essence, principle and fact; Judaism but partially. For there He avowedly dwelt in the thick darkness. Thence He menaced with death him that ventured of himself to approach, or otherwise infringed His law. Yet the law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7: 19). We can say without reserve that God is light. He has fully proved His love. What can compare with His grace in Christ, as we read in the prefatory verses? But He is light also. We all know how common it is for men to descant on God as love, even to an extreme exaggeration in effect, not merely that God is love, but that love is God. Much less do we hear of the message that He is light. This, no doubt, is the ultimate folly of man's mind, that makes a mere idol of God. But if it be a truth that God is love, He is a great deal more than love. "Light" is a burning word, expressive of His intrinsic and absolute purity of nature; "love" of its sovereign activity to others as well as in Himself. There is no sacrifice of His light to His love; indeed if it were so conceived, it would entail the greatest loss on His children. But it is as untrue, as it is impossible. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." Therefore is He intolerant of darkness in His own, who are made free of His presence, and have fellowship with Himself. What could be more contrary to Christ and to Christianity? We are told elsewhere, that we were once darkness who are now children of light. No doubt this did not belong to John; it had been already taught by the apostle Paul.

But what John here says is also of the utmost possible moment, because he proceeds to touch on what is no less than some great inconsistencies of Christendom, and quite opposed to Christianity. There are in verses 6-10 three "if we says," all of them important in the extreme. First, "If we say that we fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." Can we name a more evident or flagrant departure from the very nature of Christianity? It is saying, but not doing. This was bad enough in Israel; but how sad when and where, to us begotten by the word of truth, the light and the love have come out so truly and perfectly! "If we say that we have fellowship with him": in this and the other two cases the word "we" is used in a general manner, whereas in many scriptures it is said of the faithful.

We may learn from this that it is a mistake to found a canon of criticism on the partial use of a word. How many persons, as I have heard many myself, assume it as a matter of fact that "we" must always mean the family of God! So it is often, and we may say generally; but it is not always true. In Him "we" live and move and have our being, the apostle Paul applied to mankind universally, as he said it of heathen Athenians. Again, there is such a thing as God dealing with persons according to their profession; and the apostle John speaks here of these alienations from the truth which had begun then and pervade the Christendom of our day. Even Christianity admits a profession far more widely than Judaism could. For a man must ordinarily be a Jew to be accredited as such, being an outward fact; whereas one who is not a Christian might long pass himself off as one. Without being a deceiver he might deceive himself, and think he was a Christian. Now the message that the apostle here gives was intended even then to put to the proof the spreading profession of Christianity. Therefore, as they named the Lord's name, the apostle does not drop the word "we," but the state of not a few was such as to raise the most serious question of their reality before God.

Hence it is that, in order rightly to interpret the word, we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is important too that we take the word with its context, which helps to the meaning that comes out for the most part as satisfactorily as if it were all defined. Thus it is far better for our souls and more to God's glory than if it were technically determined. Again God deals with us as His sons; for we are now arrived at our majority if we are in the true status of Christians. We are no longer babes at the A B C; we can now not only spell the words, but read them intelligently by grace, when somewhat more advanced in the knowledge of God and of His ways. And He looks for real progress. Is it not then deplorable to find so many Christians content to remain all their life at the elements, quite satisfied with the hope that their sins are or will be forgiven?

But besides this it is to be feared too often that when souls content themselves with the first privilege of God's grace, they may be gravely self-deceived. The gospel proclaims remission of sins, and faith receives it on God's word. Life eternal is given and the Holy Spirit, when one rests on Christ's redemption, in order that there should be enjoyment of our Father's love to us. And if we live of that life which is Christ, ought there not to be growth in the inner man, shown not only in outward service but in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? It is plain that the later Epistles are solemnly occupied with warning against this very danger. But there is no one who takes it up in so profound a manner, as far as I can pretend to judge, as the apostle whose Epistle we are reading, and indeed in this Epistle pre-eminently.

"If we say" — how often only saying! — "If we say that we have fellowship with Him," it is the fruit of receiving Christ and in Him the gift of life. For eternal life is the basis of true fellowship with the Father and with the Son, the enjoyment of which necessarily leads to our souls' appreciation of its virtues, not only for the Christian walk, but in Christian worship, and in Christian converse with the living God is our Father and with His Son. "If we say we have fellowship with Him" claims that we have entered into the new relationship with God in grace, and that we share His nature, His mind and His affections. This is an immense thing where we need His true grace to stand in the light as well as the love of God. It is "God" here: "the Father" was said where the grace was shown out in fullest volume. But here an utter contradiction to its genuineness appears. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness": what is this? Walking in darkness is what a man of the world does; it is the description of one who is entirely unrenewed. It means a vast deal more than that a person has fallen into a sin, or got into an unhappy state of soul. Thus it was that the Puritans used to interpret this thing. Though they were truly pious men and worthy of all respect, they were rather narrow-minded, and savoured more of the Old Testament than of the New. They were in spirit under the law, which always dims and deranges spiritual judgment. It is only grace that enlarges the heart and that gives the mind, under the Spirit's guidance, to enter into God's heavenly counsels, and His ways for the earth. They were short in these weighty respects, and were led into that self-occupation which is the inevitable effect of the law upon a saint.

Here the class described were not at all so occupied; they had never judged themselves before God. They were no doubt baptised; they had come into the Christian association of the church, and they seem to have thought of little more. The failure was not in the good seed, but in the soil. Even if the word were received at once with joy, "such have no root," says the Lord, because of no divine operation on the conscience. They may believe in a human way for a time, and in time of trial fall away, or if they linger as here, they are dead while they live. Yet as they confessed in a sort the Lord's name, they were baptised with water for the remission of sins and joined their Christian associates. Was not all finished? Further exercise of soul was laid to rest, and nothing good could be said about them. Even in John's day here they were! Even then were persons walking in darkness who claimed nevertheless to have fellowship with God, for this is what the Christian really has. It is the proper confession of a Christian that we are now brought out of sins, and self, and Satan's power; that we have left the darkness behind; that even here we are called into His marvellous light. In that light we walk. These unrenewed souls claimed to be in fellowship with God. "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." Neither baptism nor eucharist can remedy this in the least. They were entirely unawakened; they had never met God in Christ about their sins; their faith was as fleshly as their repentance. Not even conscience before God had wrought, still less any true sense of their need of His grace which faith gives.

Every relationship involves commensurate responsibility. The sayers, who were not doers, had not only responsibility as men which ends in sin and death and judgment, but the immensely greater one of naming the name of the Lord. They were by their walk in darkness denying really the new responsibility of confessing in deed as well as word the second Man, the last Adam, Christ Himself, and could have no fellowship with God as God, to say nothing of fellowship with the Father and with His Son, the high Christian expression of fellowship. For in truth they were walking in darkness; just as if Christianity was only a creed or a dogma which the mind of man is capable of acknowledging and understanding in an outward and natural way. But what total blindness to the word of God! Was darkness compatible with life eternal? Not in the least. Eternal life is that we should know the Father, the only true God, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom He sent. If you, by God's teaching, know Him, it is divine love bringing you thus into fellowship with them both, with the Father and the Son.

Here were those that pretended to have it, but without any living effect on their daily walk, their objects, ways and ends here below. Have you ever seen Christians of that sort? Have you not seen a great many? Is not this a serious fact for every professor's conscience? Have you yourself thoroughly faced the truth? When God's grace wins the soul, the truth is welcomed, wherever it leads and whatever it costs within and without. Walking in the light, means that you walk henceforward in the presence of God fully revealed; you have so to do with Him in the light at all times. There is undoubtedly danger of inconsistency; and who is not ready to own that we all fail in always walking accordingly. But this is another thing. For be it observed here that it does not say, as many misunderstand, "If we walk according to the light." There was but One who ever did so, and perfectly. He alone when asked "Who art Thou?" could answer, "Absolutely what I also speak to you" (John 8: 25). It was the Saviour, the Son of God, yet Man. He walked according to the light; as indeed He was the light, the True Light, the Eternal Life.

But we too who now believe are brought out of darkness into that marvellous light. Is not this predicated of every real Christian? And if you are brought into that marvellous light, does God deprive you of the light because you fall? In no wise. Therein we walk. Thenceforth we shall have the light of life, and not walk in darkness. Through unwatchfulness you may act unworthily of Him; you may be drawn awhile into some false principle or into wrong conduct; but neither drives into darkness nor takes away the light. if you are real and brought out of darkness, in the light you walk; only you lose the enjoyment of communion for the time, you need also to be restored, as we shortly shall see how. But here were professing Christians, who as a principle claimed to have fellowship with the Father and the Son, with God Himself, and yet were unconcernedly walking in darkness, just like any unconverted man. Yet there might be great differences superficially: some decent and morally respectable; others very much the contrary. Some may claim to be strictly religious, like the Pharisee in the Temple who despised other men, particularly "this publican" (or tax-gatherer). What did God think of the two? What did the Lord pronounce on them? And is not that for us now? We may not be publicans so-called, and we must in faith enter into the holies, if we would approach God; for I do not doubt that an earthly temple is all a mistake, now that Christ is gone up on high, and opened for us the heavenly sanctuary.

But we have to do with the same God, only fully revealed, which was and could not be then, till the veil was rent. But since Christ's death His love and His light are come out in perfection for the soul's deliverance, not yet for the world's, nor even for Israel as a nation, but for the Christian. Here were persons calling themselves Christians, who walked in darkness while they claimed the high and holy privilege of fellowship with God, and yet denied responsibility for the practice of His will. And what does He say about them? He says, if so we do, "we lie, and do not the truth." The whole life is a lie, because it denies the essential principle and necessary character of a Christian, who not only is the object of divine grace, but walks in the light of God. You can no more get out of that light really than a man who in the hours of day walks where the light of the sun shines. Such is what real Christianity means.

Next we have, on the contrary, the other and blessed side in verse 7. The apostle states the real place of the Christian, and puts it in a striking point of view. As there are three different ways in which professing Christians may belie Christianity (for this is just what he is showing in these latter verses, and what has come out now near the harvest of what was then only being sown by the enemy), here we find three great and essential marks of the true Christian. First of all is walking in the light — "But if we walk in the light." We may illustrate the truth by the figure here employed. Consider one in an entirely dark room, how he flounders about, fails in what he seeks, and injures himself and the things he knocks against. Let a full light enter, the perplexity ceases, and he walks with ease, comfort and certainty. So it is with the spiritual light which shines on the Christian's walk, and there in Christ it shines. It is here a question not of "how" but "where." Every real Christian by grace walks in the light It is therefore of high moment that all such should be aware (far as it is from the mind of many) that they do so. It is a great universal Christian privilege. It is not a mere sentiment or idea, but a conferred reality; and also a practical reality that God would have appropriated and enjoyed by every Christian. There may be, and there is, falling short in detail as already said; and we are responsible to feel our failures, and to acknowledge them all the more because we walk in the light.

"But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light" (meaning as God is in the light), "we have fellowship one with another." There is the second distinctive mark. Not merely do we walk in the light, but because of this very thing, we have fellowship with one another in the Christian circle. When we meet with a child of light, if we only heard on the street a few words from a man or a woman which revealed the fact that God had shone into that soul, and that it was no mere dream or theory but one walking in the light as a real Christian, our hearts are at once attracted. We are drawn together more by far than to our own brothers or sisters who do not walk in the light. For many know this sorrow too well. The nearest to them may hate the light, and Him who is it, instead of walking there by grace.

Here clearly it is a second distinctively Christian privilege, the mutual fellowship of the saints, and neither fellowship with the Father and with the Son on the one hand, nor, on the other, what may be called church fellowship. One may be the. basis of all, and the other the consequence in order to the last; but we may not force the meaning. We have nothing ecclesiastical in this Epistle; it is all deeply personal yet eternal truth, the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ. The fellowship here flows from apprehending this in one or another. You may not even know their names perhaps, but you have fellowship. "We have fellowship one with another," that is, we enjoy exactly the same blessing of grace. In nature if I have a prize, you have it not; and if you have it, it is not mine. But it is wholly different with spiritual privileges as Christians. We all have them fully as our own, yet share them as fully in common; and that you and all other saints have them as much as myself adds only the more to the joy of love which fills all our hearts.

The privileges of an Englishman or a Frenchman, or anything that men talk so much about, are small and for a little while; but here we begin with fellowship with the Father and with His Son. The Holy Ghost alone can sustain us in enjoying that fellowship, is He gives us by faith to make it our own. To that divine person's work we are not come yet in the Epistle; we shall hear of it abundantly in due course. But here we find the effect of His grace in the believer when he meets ever so casually with a fellow-believer: "We have fellowship one with another." Is not this a blessed victory over the severing power of self? And is it not true, even in the appalling state through which we are passing now, when greater differences scatter, and are perhaps more keenly felt, than even among the Jews, who were for the most part fleshly men? Yet their contentions and their parties were hardly to be named in comparison with that which we witness every day around us, even in this favoured land, and in its chief city.

O beloved friends, we ought to feel the burden of Christendom's state. But there is a deeper burden in realising how little Christians, rising above all failure, appreciate the truth that we have fellowship one with another. Who need doubt that every true Christian has a certain sense of it, and according to the measure of his sense of divine grace he answers to it; but it must be in a feeble manner, unless accompanied by entering into spiritual intelligence of the grace and truth made known in Christ for the very purpose of bringing us all into a manifest state of mutual love now. "We have fellowship one with another." We recognise the Christ that we have in each other to our deep joy.

There is the third privilege, without which there could be no good permanently possessed, nor anything of power to vanquish and take away the difficulties. For sins are the otherwise insuperable difficulties, "and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" — from every sin, if you will have the exactness of the phrase, which makes it particularly pointed. It is an error to lower its force by reducing it to a question of time. The apostle presents the truth in that abstract form which characterises his writings. He tells us here of the great abiding comfort of the Christian. None could or did know the efficacy of that blood until after the cross. But you have it there and thence. And as the light in all its power of manifesting it shines the brighter, the more it shows the cleansing power. Walking in the light (and there we are brought when we receive Christ), we have mutual fellowship and know the value of Christ's sacrifice. He is the light; and, in consequence of having eternal life, we enjoy fellowship with the Father and the Son; and further we have fellowship one with another. There can be no true fellowship above or below without Christ thus possessed and known. There may be gracious association in a religious society, kindly association in a worldly one; but Christ establishes us in what is not only real but divine, even now on the earth, and in face of ecclesiastical confusion.

The great thing that hinders fellowship is self, the sinful egotism which. pervades every man, woman and child in the world, since, all these are fallen. Do not men instinctively grasp what, as they hope, will meet desires for themselves, for their likings and alas! their dislikings? This is not fellowship, but its reverse in sinful nature. Yet into this guilty world, this unhappy dying world of sin awaiting judgment, comes He that created it, whose love was before creation, and whose love was made the more manifest when all creation rose up against Him and cast Him out. His love, God's love, has brought us to share all that He has, except what is absolutely divine, and therefore incommunicable. But in unjealous love, He shares with the Christian everything that He can communicate; and as He has all things with the Father, no difference is there too. If we have fellowship with them, we have fellowship one with another. Life eternal was manifested in Christ, who also gave us the same life to be our life. This was the supreme blessing that fitted us for fellowship, guarded and maintained as it is by His death that effaces every sin. Not that Christian responsibility is not maintained here on earth in those who are thus blessed. And for this there is the need of continual dependence: that if living in the Spirit, we may walk in the Spirit; for the Spirit is now given to glorify Christ in all things, as this particularly does. Here is therefore our new responsibility. "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."

But here we have our standing in grace; here is presented the three-fold Christian blessing. This triple cord that cannot be broken is walking in the light, fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanseth from all sin.* From other parts of Scripture we know that for the Christian there is but one offering, but one sacrifice, but one shedding of blood, but one application of blood. Where people err is in not seeing the washing by water as well as by blood. Now the washing of water needs repetition indefinitely — the blood of Christ was once and for all. Take that perpetuity away from it, and you get into uncertainty. Never otherwise can you have the solid peace of knowing that your sins are completely blotted out before God.

*It is sad ignorance of Greek, or English, to think that this tense only expresses historically present time. It has, where required, its abstract sense independently of time. This is what the apostle means in all the three clauses of ver. 7, and in this, the last as well as the rest; it is what Christ's blood does. It cleanses from every sin. It is no question here of the time when.

The greatest pains are taken, particularly for the Hebrew saints, to bring out this great truth: the unity of the offering and of the sacrifice, in contrast with the religion of the Jews, who always had the priest standing to present a fresh oblation, etc., day after day. But for us He has taken His seat, not only for ever but without a break. The word that is translated "for ever" (Heb. 10: 12, as also in 1 and 14) means continuously." This is much stronger than merely saying for ever"; because "for ever" might mean in the main, and admit of His being up and down every now and then, though the mercy might last for ever. The word here however means without interruption. Do you think that this is generally believed by the mass of God's children? The consequence of not knowing it is that they take upon themselves to interpret this verse in a faulty manner. They interpret it to mean that His blood goes on to cleanse as we have fresh recourse to Him. This is not the doctrine of Scripture. In their sense of its cleansing always, in order to meet our fresh need, Christ's blood is reduced very much to the Levitical sacrifice when the Jew sinned.

The apostle speaks of our privileges in an absolute way. John more than any other was led to put truth in an abstract manner and with an absolute force. Hence, if we apply this to the verse, walking in the light is an abiding reality to the Christian, even if we be here or there inconsistent. "We have fellowship one with another" no less remains absolutely true, though we may fall now and then; but this is the real abiding principle which we are called to practise. Are we not prepared for it by our common share, not in worldly circumstances, but in eternal blessings? It is just the same thing with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Cleansing from every sin is what it does. It is not saying when He did it, still less that He is going to do it, or least of all that He is always doing it. Revelation never speaks thus, rather of its complete effect; for by one offering He hath perfected in perpetuity the sanctified. But as to the washing of the water by the word, we need it whenever we fail, and how often, alas, we do fail! This is the feet-washing by the Lord in John 13, which answers to what there will be occasion to consider presently. So we need not enter on it now, as it comes in its own place for a full inquiry. It is only referred to here to clear away positive error and misinterpretation of the word of God.

We may observe too that ecclesiastical fellowship, important as it may be, is in no way meant here. In the declension of the outward profession the apostle speaks of the spiritual fellowship of real Christians, one with another, which ought to survive all failure, and which does as a fact in the measure of our walk in communion with God. Here again it is an abstract truth, which we are bound to reduce to practice.

Now we are come to the second "if we say" of Christian profession. "If we say that we have no sin" is a very astonishing position for a Christian; yet there are those that appear to say it, of whom one should be sorry to think that they are not Christians. In this particular it is not implied that they may not be. It is said that "If we say that we have no sin, we mislead ourselves." All! this is easily done We mislead ourselves easily. So thinking we do indeed err. How can those who have life eternal in Christ delude themselves so as to say that they have no sin? If they said that Christ had borne away their sins, it is true; if they said that the old man was crucified, it is also true; if they said that God condemned sin in the flesh, on their behalf, it would be true beyond doubt. But to say they have no sin, to look into their hearts first, and to raise their eyes to heaven afterward, and then say, "Having examined myself, I say that I have no sin," is strange delusion in a saint of God. In a Pantheist it is intelligible, because he and his god are equally blind. Low thoughts of Christ go with high thoughts of our state. The Pelagians at a later day seem guilty of this error.

Let us weigh the verse. It is not here sin carried out, but inherent sin, which ought to be felt as a constant tendency ever prone to break out; and, when one is unwatchful, sure to appear. For though we have a new life in Christ, we have also our old and evil nature, whose shoots we are bound vigilantly to nip in the bud. We have the blessed basis of comfort that our old man was crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin. Yet are we called to mortify by the Spirit the deeds of the body. And God will be with us to strengthen, as He always does when there is dependence and subjection of heart. But to say that we have no sin! It is a self-righteous theory; and the theory can only have an appearance of force by making sin to be something very vague, through self-deceit and ignorance of the truth, into saying that we have no sin. It has been the delusion of many a dear soul; and as they are much to be pitied, so ought we to prove that it must be an extremely low standard of sin, as well as of truth, for such a theory to get empire over the mind.

There was One indeed of whom it could be said truly: "In Him is no sin;" in every other there is, not excepting one saint that ever lived. For there is still the old nature; and this nature is sure to break out where we do not keep it thoroughly under the power of Christ's death by the Spirit of God. But here it was a fleshly and false boast. All these "if we says" describe the growing evil among professing Christians. They suppose systematic error in speculative men. "If we say that we have no sin, we mislead ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This is so strong a statement as to make it doubtful whether those so deluded could be Christians indeed. But "the truth is not in us" appears to be a somewhat different thing from the truth not at all known by us. No doubt every Christian is presumed to know the truth by God's teaching. At any rate here attention is drawn to the peculiarity of the phrase; for the self-deception is imputed to the truth not being ours inwardly. The truth should be "in us," not merely believed and owned by us. Who doubts that there are persons not a few who hold these theories, of whom it would be wrong to think that they were not Christians? They mean probably that they never yield to sin: even this however is a bold thing for them to say. At best it evinces a very good opinion of themselves, which is far from what the more spiritual saints have ever felt or uttered.

In verse 9 the apostle puts the believer on wholly different ground, as led by the Spirit of God. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." "If we say we have no sin," how can we expect self-judgment and confession? There is no need or place for it. A perfectionist dream has a blighting influence on the soul. Here on the contrary we have no "If we say." To confess sins indicated a living reality, just as walking in the light, having fellowship one with another, with the blood that cleanses from every sin. It was not a question of If we say." Those who are real do not parade their portion they enjoy it. Christ lives in them, and as they were begotten by the word of truth, they do the truth. The truth is in them. Is not this what we are all called to, who really have Him as our light and life and the truth?

Here the Christian is characterised by a spirit wholly different from first to last. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from every unrighteousness." If we have been betrayed into sin, what do we do then? It is so at conversion; it remains so throughout when the need arises. For our God cannot bear sins. We do not hide them; we confess them to God, and, where it is necessary or edifying, to man too. Thus the pride of will is broken; and by grace one renounces his own poor reputation. We care for Christ's character whom we bear. It is His name henceforth; and what is ours compared with it? If we confess our sins therefore, He is faithful and righteous to forgive. What an encouraging word this is, and true from the very time of first turning to God! Here again it is in principle true; and there is no limit to particular time here as in other cases. It is a first principle, and a standing one, for the Christian; it is meant to govern his new walk from the start to the end, a living fact always in the Christian.

To go to God about our evil when all was evil became us when in the dust as lost ones. He is the God of all grace, whatever the need, right through. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us," not merely from every sin, but "from every unrighteousness." For defilement is the unhappy result from sin; it is the rule apt to make a soul dishonest, and sure to work out if he hides it like Adam. Concealing sin in his own bosom, one gets away farther and farther from God. The only right thing is to cast oneself on Him, and confess the sins at His feet. This remains abidingly true, after we know Him as our Father. For the government of our Father is as true and reliable for the saint as His mercy when we first knew the remission of our sins. And this is the bearing of the petition in the Lord's prayer, as it is called. It does not properly refer to the ungodly man in conversion; it looks rather at the daily want of the disciple, like the rest that our Lord taught on the Mount. It is important to know that He was in no sense then preaching the gospel to win sinners to God's grace. But if the believer should sin (John 15: 1-10; 1 Peter 1: 14-17), it is a matter with which our Father deals in His moral government of our souls. He takes notice of everything because we are His children and Christ's disciples. His love and honour, His grace and truth are all concerned in it. The word cleansed and cleanses us. But not only does this cleansing mean from sins but from the consequence of sin — from every unrighteousness, from the lack of integrity which sin naturally entails.

Lastly comes the third and closing case of these "if we says." "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." Here is the most daring form of all. It appears to describe a class debased to this extreme rising against God by a no less extravagant theory. Nowhere are these strange doctrines so rampant as among professing Christians. For the corruption of the best is the worst corruption. It was not so much found even among the Jews, though they abounded in noxious traditions which profoundly defiled them and dishonoured God. But Christendom is a thoroughfare filled with fables piled upon fables, ever rising and provoking God's wrath.

This last "If we say" was one of the filthy dreams which issued in gnosticism, alluded to throughout the Epistle, and not merely so, but by Paul before our apostle. It was only beginning its evil course; and it developed rapidly and more when the apostles were gone. But these unfounded and unhallowed reasonings of man's mind in the things of God trifle with the great foundations of morality; there it is that they betray themselves, and thither all false doctrine tends to work. Not only does it weaken the spring of Christian responsibility, but denies or destroys it altogether.

Here we may notice that the ethics of philosophy, modern and ancient, cannot find a stable footing. They fail to seize the truth that duties flow from relations, and above all from relationship to God. In this irreparable defect they blindly follow the heathen, who, knowing not God, ignored relations with Him and His Son. Here all was still more guiltily wrong with those nominal Christians who even denied their past faith. This in effect left no ground for His grace in Christ. "If we say that we have not sinned." Oh what complete darkness must have enveloped their souls! Oh how the light that was in them had become darkness! And what darkness can be deeper or more hopeless? So it is still, and in many instances — too many.

The very worst, you must remember, the antichrists, had once their place in the church, and were recognised, while an apostle lived, in the family of God. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us, but that they might be manifested that none are of us." If these, in verse 10, were not antichrists, they were adversaries of the truth, even the self-deceivers. But the worst of them are the last; because it is the defiant rejection of God's word to say that we have not sinned. It was bad enough to say that we have no sin, now that we are Christians; but that we never sinned is flat contradiction of every testimony of God in the Old Testament as well as the New. This is what is denounced here. It is shamelessly to give God the lie. And such persons in Christendom are met with every now and then (thank God but rarely); but such there are who deny there is any such thing as sin, as all Pantheists do as a matter of course. They claim to be part of God, as they say; and accordingly, if so, how could God sin?

This is no doubt spurious and mad philosophy; but the awful thing to the Christian heart, the awful thing in God's eyes, is that those who began with His Son, the Saviour, and the remission of sins through His blood, should have sunk into, such an abyss as totally to deny their having sinned. "If we, say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." Had they forgotten their confession, when they first took the place of turning from effete Judaism or the no-gods of Gentilism? But this was not the worst. Oh think of making God a liar! To "mislead ourselves" was bad in presence of the light that ought to make us manifest; yet it was a trifle compared with making God a liar. There you dare to blaspheme; there you assail God wantonly in the nicest point of His honour. For what is more to God than His veracity or His holiness? "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

It is not only the "truth," which is, one may suppose, the same thing more generally expressed. But here it is a direct rejection of His plain "word," which could scarcely have found lodgement in such souls. Where His word is in us, how gladly as well as humbly we acknowledge that we have sinned. This will Israel say in the future day, "all Israel that shall be saved" in the day that hastens to the joy of all the earth. And we that, if anything, belong to Christ on high, what do we say? What did we say in emerging from darkness into light? Did not we begin with that? Yes, we began with what we never forget. All truly converted souls say, "We have sinned." But here the apostle, writing this Epistle very many years after grace and truth came through Jesus Christ, and when the Christian confession was witnessed so long, solemnly tells us of this egregious evil. It is not the Jew nor Gentile, but professing Christians of that day or of any other; certainly unreal, if not yet apostate. "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

Here let me correct the error of the Puritans in applying Isa. 1: 10 as they did to the Christian. For this directly clashes with what we have had in the first of the apostle's "If we says," in vers. 6, 7. The error is still rampant among those called Hyper-Calvinists, not to name others. It is expressed plainly in the "Child of light walking in darkness" of an old and eminent divine. But in no way is it implied that this divine used the one to contradict the other; nor do I remember that he refers to the apostle at all: he may not have seen that the application involves confusion and error. The fact is that the Puritan had in view cases common enough among souls in the long degenerate state of Christendom, where even real Christians do not possess settled peace, and lose whatever measure they once had through a variety of causes, the most prevalent of which is looking within for that rest which is found only in Christ and His work for us. It is this painful lack of assurance to which that school refer as "a child of light walking in darkness." But this is a third use of the terms "light" and "darkness," quite distinct from either the prophet's or the apostle's. Neither the one nor the other bears on the case, which is the strange fact now and lone, so common, of a believer's yielding to unbelief, instead of judging it as sin against the Spirit's witness, the Saviour's work, and the Father's will. Such souls never duly received the word of truth, the gospel, and need to begin there, whatever else they may have to judge themselves for. If they get before God in the truth of their sins, they will find Him meeting them in the truth of His grace to their deliverance.

Now the prophet spoke, not of the Christian, but of the future godly remnant, in contrast with the apostate mass to perish described in verse 11. "Who is among you that feareth Jehovah, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of Jehovah and stay upon his God." It ought to be self-evident that the Jewish prophet and the Christian apostle do not employ "darkness" and "light" in the same sense.

The prophet uses the words in reference to the appalling circumstances of that exceptional hour to come, the chastening of their national sins, not only idolatry but their still worse rejection of Messiah. Herein the godly, whether martyred or preserved, suffer extremely, have no light, but await their Deliverer who destroys their adversaries within and without. But the apostle treats of Christian truth, answering to God's eternal nature in His children, and rises far above a prophetic crisis or dispensational peculiarities. The Christian walks, not necessarily according to the light, but always in the light is God, is in the light revealed by Christ. It is the moral character proper to the new nature, God's nature, who is light, and in whom is no darkness at all. True, the Christian has the old nature still, but is set free, as having died with Christ, never more by grace to indulge it, but to condemn what God condemned in Christ's cross at all cost to Himself. For indeed we have a full salvation not only from sins but from sin, justified from the bad fruit (Rom. 5: 1), justified from the bad tree (Rom. 6: 7).

It was for the apostle Paul to treat of this two-sided justification, unknown to theologians of every school; but our apostle, more thoroughly than any, speaks of life eternal, our new and divine nature, and contrasts its reality in true Christians with its falsity in those whose walk denies that life and the truth. To talk of fellowship with God, while walking In the unremoved darkness of fallen nature, is a living lie or rather the lie of death. The Christian from his start leaves darkness and walks in the light. There is no presumption in this, but faith. "I am the light of the world" [Israel never did or could say so]: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (John, 8: 12). He may slip by negligence, he may yield to self-will, or be carried away by lusts of the flesh or of the mind: all sinful and inconsistent with the light. But serious as this is, divine love in Christ that forgave him when an enemy, and saved him when lost, provides restoring grace, as we shall see in next chapter, and never calls any such sad inconsistency "walking in darkness." The relationship abides with our erring children: how much more with God's? Those who walk in darkness, according to our apostle, lie and do not the truth. They have neither life nor light and need to be awakened and quickened. The fallen Christian needs only to repent and have the fellowship restored which was interrupted. Instead of forfeiting the light, it is in the light that he thoroughly humbles himself for his offence.

Ver. 7 is clear as to all this, for therein we are given a grand view of the new ground on which grace sets every real Christian. "If we walk in the light as He is in the light" is what begins and goes on with every one called out of the dark. With the true apprehension of God's nature, whereof such partake, we also "have fellowship one with another," the action of divine life toward our brethren, as the former is toward our God. Then comes the precious basis and support for both in its most necessary privilege, "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from every sin," without which we could neither receive nor be kept in the wondrous portion of Christians. But it is, as a whole, the status of all such.

To regard the last clause, as is too generally done, as provisional for failure is to ignore its substantive place and real connection, to divorce it from its fundamental object, and to substitute it for the divinely-given provision of 1 John 2: 1, 2. Such a misuse is every way mischievous. The verse (7) is a summary of the general estate of the Christian and, when taken as it stands, is adverse to the end desired. For in order to suit this end, surely it ought rather to run: If we do not walk in the light, etc., and have not fellowship one with another, the blood of Jesus will cleanse us from our particular sin. If this fairly expresses, as I think it does, the provisional notion, it is in manifest opposition to the general and abstract statement of Christian privilege which is the genuine and intended meaning. This sense alone suits its contextual position, the contrast of that bright and full roll of essential Christian privileges with the varied forms of evil profession which dishonour the name of the Lord, depart from the truth, and lead to everlasting ruin. Provision for failure requires, as it has, a wholly different place and treatment.

ADDRESS 3.

1 JOHN 2: 1, 2.

My dear children, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin. And if any one sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ [the] righteous; and he is [the] propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the whole world."

These two verses properly belong to the first chapter; they are its necessary supplement. Though there is the connecting particle in the beginning of the third verse, it loads to a new subject — the application of the truth that is in the first chapter, in ways of the greatest importance and of deep interest, to guard souls from self-deception and error. These verses remain untouched at present. But we have ample matter for our searching into the word, and the meditation of our souls, in the two verses immediately before us.

We have seen that the first chapter consists of two parts: the outflow of the love of the Father in the Incarnate Son flowing from divine grace, without cause from without — save our sins! The energy of His nature is love; and the purity of His nature is conveyed by the expressive figure — word "light." What word could suit His purpose so well? Thus it was written for our instruction, and meant not to be beyond our comprehension under the Holy Spirit's succour. For there is no element which refuses corruption more than light, as it is also in itself absolutely pure; at any rate, the light of God's nature is. Such is the portion in God's grace, His nature, we receive as Christians; and this is what the apostle was led to tell them when the church outwardly was becoming a wreck. Here we see that it was so then: this Epistle itself proves it. The worst form of evil that can be conceived in Christendom is what is called "antichrist;" and at this time there were "many antichrists." There are many more now. Thus God took care that at any rate the germ of the very worst evil should be thoroughly out before the last apostle wrote, in order that there might be a divine pronouncement on its evil and its danger. It was not to be left to spiritual judgment alone, although this is surely required for any profit through the word of God. But we have God's authority expressed in His word: no inference even, no argument of men, no result of the saints' experience; but what directly commends itself on God's authority to the conscience and the confidence of every child of His. He by His word therefore took care, in His wisdom, that as all these evils were to be, the very worst of them should be in existence for God to designate and condemn it before His saints.

Hence it is that this Epistle has a very peculiar character. It is not like the Second to the Thessalonians, looking to another epoch which is not present, at that which had not arrived but must be before the day of the Lord — the apostasy or "the falling away." The apostasy means the abandonment of Christianity altogether, and as this will surely come, one of the evil factors in bringing it to pass is what is strangely called the "higher criticism." It is the preparation of men for that unbelief which will be far more thorough, complete, and undisguised. And where is the honesty of officials, whose very position is to maintain the authority of God's word, reaping earthly honour and emolument from the very thing which they are undermining, and which they ought to, if they do not, know they are undermining? But that apostasy is future; whereas antichrists were already come. It was the "last time," and the sign of the last time was "many antichrists;" and here they were. It was not merely the future evil. The antichrist is coming, but many antichrists are the precursors of the antichrist.

But in the verses which are now before us it is a much more general evil. It is, alas! what has to be taken into account as to every professing Christian. The flesh is enmity against God, a near and constant danger, because it affords a ready handle to the enemy to act upon, and to act upon it not merely in those that have nothing but flesh, but in those who, although themselves in the Spirit, have the flesh in them. It is true that they are distinctly said not to be in the flesh, that is, they are by faith in Christ delivered from the flesh; they have got another nature altogether new, and are not left helplessly in the old. There is adequate power in the Holy Spirit to keep every saint of God from sinning.

We know as matters of fact that we may sin, and that we all often stumble; but it is our own fault. Hence the believer is the one that ought to be ready, and I might say glad, to vindicate God against himself. It is humiliating, truly; but, dear brethren, have we not derived blessing, and great blessing, from what humbles us? There is not a single trial of the sort, however unhappy it may be, however painful, however unjust sometimes, but, if accepted from God, is by His grace turned for good. "All things work together for good to those that love God, to the called according to purpose." And we know that as every good gift and every perfect giving come from the Father of lights, so we are inexcusable when we misrepresent Him; for we are His children, and are called to keep up the family character.

Hence therefore the apostle ought not to be mistaken when, in the second part of the first chapter, he shows the marvellous starting-point of the believer. For the seventh verse, so much and widely misunderstood, really refers to the standing of the believer. It is constantly turned to his de facto conduct, to the actuality of his walk; whereas it is the character of the walk that is normal to us, because we have eternal life; and further, because that eternal life has both the powerful guard and the ground of infinite comfort in the sacrifice of Christ. "But if we walk in the light:" it is an abstract statement applicable to the Christian if he is one. This is enough to show the perversity of such an understanding of it. In reality no question is raised of an actual point of time or fact in a believer's walk, but of its character according to God.

This is precisely what our apostle is so happy in presenting, and so constant in applying to us. "If we walk in the light" means in effect if we are Christians, if we have seen the light of life, if we are following Christ. It is the Lord who says, "He that followeth Him shall not walk in darkness" (John 8: 12). Does He mean that this belongs only to some saints? He asserts it to be true of every one that follows Him; "he shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life." Great as the privilege is, it is wholly of divine grace, and in no way attainment through our fidelity; it is solely the fruit of God's incomparable goodness, that even now as believers we have to do directly with God as He is. And where is God known as He is? In the light; certainly not in the dark but in the light. There it is that we not only have eternal life, but along with it we walk in the light, instead of in darkness like a heathen. Fallen man walks in the darkness necessarily, because he does not know God. The believer walks in the light, because he does know God, having seen Christ, the light of life; and this light of life is not merely a little gleam which soon vanishes away; it is a perfect and a constant light. The true light already shines, and where does it shine? On the Christian, and into his very heart. The apostle Paul even adds "the light of the glory," because he is occupied with Christ on high; but here it is rather the light of life in Christ, the true light of the divine nature. Hence, when we are converted and rest upon redemption, where are we brought? Not yet to heaven, but "brought to God" (1 Peter 3: 18). And is God darkness? "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." Therein it is that we walk.

People confound walking in the light with walking according to the light; but this is quite another thing. For if you say "we walk according to the light," it means practical conduct; but if it is said "we walk in the light," it is where we are brought by our Lord Jesus Christ — to God, walking from that moment till we are with Him where that light has absolutely no hindrance more. Here we are surrounded with till kinds of drawbacks, obstructions, and dangers from the flesh, the world, and the devil. Yet by faith we walk in the light of God's presence already.

The Enemy has what one may call a personal spite against the Son, the Lord Jesus, in particular. From the first too Satan had a spite against man, as God had a compassionate and tender feeling for man. And no wonder, since it was the purpose of the godhead, that the Son would become Man. But besides mere man was of interest to God. He was a creature of dust only, till God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life — into man alone, and into no other creature on earth; none but the earthly head received in this immediate way the breath of God. Other creatures began to live without anything of the kind, and consequently they perished in death. But not so man; he in dying certainly returns to dust; but what about the breath of God? Therein is the ground for the immortality of the soul. One is not now speaking of the new life of believers, but of the souls of men. If any person denies the immortality of the soul, is he not thus far (and it goes far) an infidel, because he makes man's soul in this respect no more than a dog's? Can anything be a greater affront as well as unbelief, in face of what God has done even to man and for man? No other animal is made in God's image, or after His likeness. So much the more unbelieving and ungrateful in putting a shameless slight on God and His word — the God who has been so good to him, and put such remarkable honour upon the entire race in its head. Man is made to rule. Not even an angel is allowed any such position; they are all servants. No angel will ever wear a crown or sit on a throne, no matter what poets or theologians dream; but those who believe undoubtedly shall. The saints are to reign with Christ.

There is thus what is extremely important even in the creation of man; and Satan's work is to make him a mere creature for present things, shutting his eyes to all that is coming, and thus denying God's word and judgment. Many no doubt are, especially in our day, the varying degrees of infidelity; but its first degree, we may assume, is denying Scripture as God's word, if it be not rejecting His testimony to Christ in the preached gospel; then lowering his immortal soul to a brute's, effacing hell and heaven; and so throughout all the ever darkening clouds of infidelity. But here there is also and always a danger of presumption, for the flesh will abuse anything and everything. The flesh most of all strives to pervert grace, and likes to do so unless there be a new nature. And even where there is that nature, the believer is only kept right by dependence upon God in faith of Christ's work.

On the other hand God is active. If light be the moral nature of God, love is the energy of God's nature going out in goodness, and working with the deepest affection and concern. It is not, abstractly speaking, the case with anything but love. Undoubtedly it is an easy thing to abuse love; and we should not only abuse it occasionally, but go on from bad to worse, were it not that God in Christ is not only life and light, but love. Yea, the Saviour in it died for us and shed His blood to make us whiter than snow in the sight of God, as He is the Advocate that we have with the Father, who is holy and righteous.

You may notice here that the writer is not now pursuing the nature of God as in the latter part of the first chapter. We return to His character as Father, the gracious name of relationship with a Christian. For the grace shown to the Christian is the highest grace that God has ever shown or ever will. His word is now complete. No more revelation is given by God, no further revelation has man to gain. Not only has God brought out His last word and deepest in Christ His Son, but also now the Holy Ghost is here to supply present power. We have not to go to Jerusalem or Samaria, to Rome, Canterbury, or anywhere else, to know the word of God or its meaning. As the Scriptures are the sole standard of the truth, so the Holy Spirit abides in every Christian for this express purpose — to guide into all the truth.

But also this supposes a suited condition of the soul. The high and blessed condition that we find looked at in the early part of the first chapter is fellowship or communion. And Christian communion means sharing the Father's mind and affection, His work, and His purposes, whatever their extent, as concentrated in the object of faith set before us. They are all in the Word personal and in the word written, and they are there for us to apprehend. We learn thus what God has done for us in Christ was what He had in His heart before anything was done; and this as revealed in His own Son, and applied as only the Holy Spirit could. We have the best God could give us, His own everlasting delight in His Son, and that delight now communicated to us. For when He said "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased," is it not, as another has observed, much more wonderful than to say "In whom you ought to be well pleased?" Even this would have been a great favour as we ought to feel; but there He shares with us the chief joy of His own heart. For God's complacency centres in the Lord Jesus, and all the more because the Son was born of woman, because He deigned to become man — as necessary a thing for our blessing as that He had always been God. There could have been no link with man except through the incarnation of God the Son. And what is it not for God's glory?

It was so not merely that the Lord Jesus Christ came to die. This no doubt is what brings us in, superior to all the disabilities from our sins, and all the consequences of our fallen nature. Yet to enjoy God as He is, to have fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, is notoriously left out for the most part by the modern Christian; and is it not the best part? Is it not where believers come short? They think it quite enough if they are saved; or even have a humble hope of being so at last. It is there Calvinism is so incurably hard and selfish. "If I am saved, this is the great matter. To he elect, or not to be, that is the first of questions to be settled." All circles round self. The first question with God is that I should believe on the Lord Jesus. Then the heart can go out fully, naturally to the Father and the Son in the power of the Spirit, not only to all saints, but to all sinners, that they too may believe and be saved.

No; the first question is not my safety. Blessed as it is to be saved, my safety is a small part of what Christianity really is, and still less of divine glory. It is doubtless essential for the believer to begin with, when he receives Christ; and that beginning suffices to show that he had not the smallest desert for any blessing; God gives it free and full to him. But to enjoy His own love, and His delight in the Son of His love, what could give higher joy than this? What is there in heaven greater than that? There will be the absence of all the bad, and the presence of glory; but nothing in heaven exceeds fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. Is it not an enigma how a Christian could actually put down on paper that we shall have no fellowship in heaven? Of course, "ecclesiastical" fellowship was not meant; for it would be mere idiocy to talk about such a thing in heaven, however precious on earth. He meant what he said, "No fellowship "; and we may leave it to be, weighed. The wonder is that fellowship with the Father and with the Son should be given us on earth; yet it is only one of God's crowning mercies that we should here be fitted to enjoy it in the Spirit.

But, however blessed the fellowship of the Father and the Son may be, it is easily interrupted; a single foolish thought or word interrupts it. For how could the Father and the Son have fellowship with sin? And we need restoration. For this reason here we have this gracious supplement: "My dear children, these things write I to you that ye may not sin." It was not fear lest they might be lost. There the Calvinist, hard and narrow as he may be, is perfectly right. Life eternal means eternal life, nothing less; but a great deal more than what is commonly drawn from the two words thus put together. They contain far more than many saints and martyrs drew out of these words of God in compass and depth. On the very surface of the words, it is not a question of mere safety. We all know that not a few lively Christians think it is even less than safety; and we are sorry for them. But is there anything too foolish, even if contrary to the word, to gain currency with Christians, save the foundation truth of Christ Himself? God watches as to this the heart and the mind and the tongue of His children. Here it was necessary that there should be no abuse of His incomparable grace, no slight of His adorable person.

The communion with the Father and with His Son, based on eternal life in Christ, fits us for the light, making us capable of walking in the light; and God graciously imparts not merely intelligence but peace, and also fills us with joy. Do you think that most of the children of God really believe that such is their title now, and that this is the mind of their Father about them? Does their practical Christianity at all approach it? "Fulness of joy!" And it is not only here; the same thing is true of Paul's experience and witness.

Look at that experimental Epistle written to the Philippians; yet none other has such joy overflowing on every hand. The apostle both had it in his own heart, and looked for it in the hearts of these saints so beloved of him as he was of them. Indeed he had carried on the work at Philippi, as one may say, in a prison at midnight, and under a great deal of abuse from man, and suffering and shame inflicted upon himself and Silas. In no place did the gospel work commence so manifestly with triumphant songs to God in the midst of sorrow. And God heard them, not only the prisoners as  we are told, but God heard; and he answered by an earthquake, the like of which, one safely presumes, never appeared in any other spot since the world began. The effects that followed had a character altogether unprecedented. It loosed all their bands, yet nevertheless not a prisoner escaped, nor was there a life lost, or a limb injured. But the gaoler, waking up, was awakened not only to learn that all his charge was safe, but to something incomparably better: to the Saviour and his own salvation in sovereign grace. Evidently he was a rough, hard, reckless man, as gaolers so often are naturally, in those days undoubtedly. But there he was,  a mighty trophy of divine mercy, and a witness of God's answer, not merely in rebuke of abused authority, but to the patient faith of His servants who sang His praise in the prison. And thence rose up to His ear acceptably their songs of joy, which their many stripes made to be all the sweeter. Surely in ordinary circumstances, and in the midst of all the peaceful enjoyment of divine grace and truth, songs ought to be every moment accompanying them in spirit. Not that one means every Christian always singing, but praise going up at all times from their hearts; and so it would surely be if saints had Christianity as it was once for all delivered to their faith, and enjoyed in the spirit, themselves separate from the darkening embargoes of unbelief.

Our verses open with the touching appeal to the loving confidence of those at length addressed as "My dear children." He had abstained from any such endearing term before; now he uses it. "These things write I unto you." Nor is it any longer the appropriate form of joint testimony, "write we;" but here his speech becomes definitely personal; he was writing to each and all of them, as God led yet from himself individually. No doubt he was inspired just as much to say "We write," in the first chapter, as "I write" in the second; but in the first chapter it was what chosen witnesses testified by divine grace, and what all the saints were meant to enjoy to the full. If they could speak to Him in songs at midnight, surely they sang their spiritual songs in the light of mid-day also.

But here it is a serious warning that he enjoins These things write I to you that ye may not sin." Who can wonder that this becomes a personal appeal, and not without need? Why? Sin deeply touches, especially if a saint of His be the one who might thus compromise Him. If we know the gospel, we should believe that eternal life goes right through till time is no more, and eternal life the Christian has, the now communicated life of Christ; as he also has the everlasting redemption of Christ (Heb. 9: 12), not temporal as that of Moses of course was in coming out of Egypt. Like our other Christian privileges, ours is everlasting redemption. In 1 John 2: 1 it is no question of such a fear arising as for an Israelite. By grace we are made to feel, as alive with Christ's life and character, for what lowers Christ's name, and grieves the Holy Spirit of God in virtue of whom we were sealed for a day of redemption. And we go further here: "the Father" as such is alleged. For not merely have we now partaken of a divine nature, but we stand in the relationship of children to the Father.

If you think of a poor orphan that never livingly knew its own father or mother, seeing with pain its loss of a tie which bound others together, you could better judge the great blank that must be felt there. Here we are precluded from any such feelings. Not only have we a divine nature which is given by grace to abide through every strain and difficulty; but our title holds good as having received Christ to be children of His Father and ours. And what is sin in His sight? Nothing less than a direct stroke at God's nature. The nearness of our relationship only aggravates the insult done to God. It is one acting in his own will, against God's will, for that is the true character of sin; not a transgression of the law, as wrongly in the Authorised Version of 1 John 3: 4. So theologians have mistakenly made him say, because they are all apt to sink more or less under the law. What the apostle really wrote there is, that sin is lawlessness. This is both larger and deeper than a breach of the law. Such breaches might be by a Jew under carelessness or provocation without realising God's authority in it; whereas lawlessness has an awful character. Hence Gentiles who know not the law are characteristically thus guilty, so that "lawless" is used to describe them. But this is the definition of sin revealed to the Christian: "Sin is lawlessness." Transgression of the law is sin; but the converse is not true; for sin has a far wider bearing; it is lawlessness, unrestrained self-will.

Here therefore, after all this unfolding of a divine fellowship and divine nature, the apostle with earnest affection writes to his dear children that they should not sin. If I sin, far from the exercise of life eternal, I affront in the deepest may the love of the Father and of the Son; and I violate the moral nature of God Himself. It is not merely a broach of the law given by Moses to Israel, momentous as this is in itself, and of deep value for everybody that knew it. The commandment is holy, just, and good; but we, even if we had been Christian Jews, died with Christ to the law, and are brought into another standing altogether; for we are under grace, and not under law. Such is the revealed position of the believer since our Lord died and rose. And consequently, as Satan is ever alert to entrap the Christian to His Lord's shame, we read, "These things write I to you that ye may not sin." Few, but very solemn words! and the marked simplicity and tenderness with which they are introduced add to their weight. "And if any one sin." "Man" might give the idea of a generality not at all intended, for there "man" is not expressed in the case at all. "If any one;" if any saint, if any having this relationship and divine nature should sin.

It is supposed to be only an act of sin. It is never contemplated that the Christian deliberately lives in sin. Scripture affords no reason or excuse for such laxity. There may arise in some minds a vicious theory whereby sin is denied to be in us; but, as we have seen, it is ruled to be misleading themselves. The truth is not in those who thus theorise. But to deny that we have sinned goes a great deal farther it evinces a seared conscience, and a total absence of that divine light which makes manifest our entire life of self-will. What. idea can there be more opposed to the word of God about us? "If any one sin (that is, shall have sinned), we have an Advocate." Is not this last clause a singularly beautiful expression of a comforting truth? It is not that "he hath an Advocate," but that "we" have. Nor are we warranted, great as this boon may be, to confine the advocacy of Christ to annulling the sorrow and shame of a believer's sin.

"Advocate" is a word of much more general value than simply meeting a particular act of sin, though this is the case here raised; and as in a Christian, so much the greater dishonour to God for the Advocate to meet. What did not the bearing of sin and sins cost Christ? It was when "made sin" that He went down under all depths and endured at the hand of God its judgment, that we might not have it to endure. "But if any one sin, we" — the entire Christian company, all the objects of divine grace, "have an Advocate." There He is on high to meet this need. There as He is for us always, so we too have Him. As we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, as we have eternal life in Him, no less have we Him as Advocate with the Father. It is a wondrous provision of grace. "Advocate" is the same word (παράκλητος) that the apostle John applies in the Gospel to the Holy Spirit, which is conveyed not so correctly there as "the Comforter." This would require παρακλὴτωρ, as in the Sept. Version of Job 16: 2. Whereas the very formation of παράκλητος, and above all its meaning as understood from its application in Scripture, rather signify one called on our behalf who can perfectly do for us what we are and must be incapable of doing. This alone shows that we must not put a narrow limit to it, and imagine that the only thing for the Advocate is to meet sin; He is also the Comforter, and sees to our every want.

Evidently comfort, though the gracious issue, would be a strangely imperfect way of meeting a Christian's sin; perhaps a human device, and a way that the flesh would like, that is, "Say as little as possible about the sin: spare the feelings of our poor failing brother, who could not help it." An upright soul, on the contrary, wants the sore to be probed, prays that the insidious mischief may be thoroughly sifted out to the bottom, and is self-judged before God because he had been drawn into a wrong so unworthy of the Father and the Son, and such a grief to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, before the sin was yielded. to, and to turn so sad an occasion to the best account, we have an Advocate with "the Father," Jesus Christ the righteous. It is not in His quality of "God." This would have been properly said, if we had lost our place as Christians; but, sad as the sin was, we do not lose the relationship of grace. We are entitled still to hold it as ours. Indeed, there is no time that we need more to remember our place as Christians than when we have fallen through our folly into sin. For how else could we be made profoundly ashamed of ourselves without despair? How overwhelming that, after having God's incomparable mercy and blessing, we should have tampered with iniquity, guilty of forgetting both the love and holy nature of our Father, and the sin that we have still indulged in, the old man!

For is not indwelling sin like a wild beast within, that must be kept under lock and chain in order that it may not break out? It is indeed a deadly enemy; which, nevertheless, we are entitled to keep under death — the only efficacious death — the death of Christ and our death with Him. Therefore, what exposes to the fall is a lack not only of watchfulness for ourselves, but of faith in Him, our present exercise of faith in what Christ has done for us on the Cross. For it was not merely to clear away the sins, but also to have sin in the flesh sacrificially condemned in Him whose flesh was altogether holy. God condemned it there, and such is its end to us by grace, to be condemned, not pardoned. Sins need to be pardoned, but sin God condemned in Christ made sin. Sentence was executed on sin in Christ crucified, that we might be set free in Him. And this is what we wanted, and we have it by grace (Rom. 8: 3). Therefore are we always to be on our watch, for power to condemn the flesh whenever it shows itself, or consciously works within without being shown to others.

But here it is sin committed. The saint, the child of God, myself, you, or another, has sinned; and what then? The nature of sin is to get worse and worse, to work unto greater ungodliness; and it must do so, were it not that we have such an Advocate. But the Advocate works, and the effect of His working is that we are brought to feel and judge the sin with humiliation before our God and Father. It may seem to many very remarkable that it should be said not if any man "repent," but "if any one sin, we have an Advocate." The former, we need not question, is the way in which legalism in its unbelief of grace would put it. For does it not seem right, "If any man repent, we have an Advocate"? But the word is, "If any man sin." Surely God hates the sin with an infinite hatred; but He loves the saint, and as Father loves His child with a love rising above every difficulty. Further, His object is to bring that saint into His own thoughts, His own hatred of that very sin. We have an Advocate therefore, and not merely with "God," as if one had to begin again, and lost everything by the sin. No; but I have brought shame upon His grace and His truth; and He is bringing me to condemn it and judge myself accordingly. And who is He that effects so gracious an end? The Advocate above. He works in us too by another Advocate who is here below, the Holy Spirit.

It will thus be apparent why one ventures to affirm that the right translation in our tongue for the word (παράκλητος) is "Advocate," and that it is as much required in the Gospel for the Holy Spirit, as here for the Lord Jesus with the Father above. The "Advocate" is meant to cover everything we cannot do ourselves, even in the extreme case of a sin. It answered (as has been often shown as far as a poor earthly illustration might furnish it) to the "Patron" among the early Romans, when they were not so selfish, luxurious, and corrupt as they became afterwards; but when there was among them at any rate a moral feeling strong for heathen people. Their clients could look up to their chiefs, the various members of the family, of the "clan," as they call it in another part of our country. The "clan" could claim the aid of the "Patron," and he was bound, by the very fact of being their chief, to take a personal and active interest in every one needing his help that belonged to the clan. At any rate this was the theory; for we must not expect it fully in practice, which is quite another thing in man and this world. But advocacy was the idea. And now in the Lord Jesus, what was an idea greatly failing among men, the Christian finds its perfection.

Nor is it merely in the Advocate with the Father, but also. in the Holy Spirit who has come from the Father and from the Son to be the advocate within us. Part of His action is that He carries on intercession for saints according to God. It is not precisely in the same way; but there is constantly going on the intercession of the Spirit, as we read in Rom. 8: 26, 27, no less than Christ's above in ver. 34. The twofold divine advocacy covers all our need effectually. Wherever we have a difficulty, wherever a trial, a sorrow, the Spirit never fails. Wherever we are weak or ignorant, the Spirit comes to our rescue; working one way or another, not always directly in ourselves, but through one another. Is not this a way most happy? Far be it from us to be independent of one another. We are made now in the power of the Spirit, as members of the one body of Christ, members one of another too. And it is the will of God that we carry this out here below; but how are we doing it? At least we know that the Advocate above never fails, any more than the Advocate below; and thus, in the wonderful grace of God, we are doubly encouraged and cared for, that we may be faithful, however feeble. These two provisions are disclosed one in the Gospel of John and the other in this Epistle of his. Oh, how doubly we are indebted to God for such support!

The apostle Paul did not supply all, though there never was a greater steward of God's mysteries, never a mightier labourer in the gospel and in the church, among those that wrought and lived and suffered for the name of our Lord Jesus. Still the apostle John had a place that none could fill but himself, inspired by the Holy Ghost for it. And no wonder! He did not lie in the bosom of the Lord for nothing. There were grounds and reasons why he should enjoy so blessed a privilege; and we reap blessing through the disciple that Jesus loved, thus formed and fashioned by divine grace for the work given him to do so many years after, in the most distressful circumstances that the church of God knew till then. What is it now? Are not those distresses heightened, deepened, and multiplied since? Yet abides the Advocate above, and the other Advocate abides in and with us. Do we simply, truly, fully believe in both?

It is important to see the difference between the advocacy and the priesthood of the Lord. We never have him brought forward as Priest by John, at least now for Christians. The Advocate partakes of a more intimate character by a great deal. The Priest had a most necessary place; and it is particularly brought out, where it ought to be as most needed, to the Hebrew Christians, who (many at least) had been hankering after the old priesthood and ritual. The needed truth they were taught, singular to say, by the apostle Paul. He was not their apostle; and his Epistle takes the shape of a teaching, rather than of apostolic authority, brought to bear upon the Hebrews. He effaces himself not giving his name, and will have all the help by passages, wrought with incomparable skill, out of the Old Testament. But that skill was what the Holy Spirit gave him for the purpose. No doubt he too was a suitable vessel for this work of Jesus, the great Priest on high; as John was for the other task we have been looking at — the more intimate form of the advocacy.

But one can see clearly what is very helpful to the difference of these two Epistles, the one to the Hebrews, and this one of John with which we are now occupied; for the distinctive line of truth is not merely in a single point, but runs through each of the Epistles. The Epistle to the Hebrews treats of our approach to God, access to His sanctuary. It is not relationship to the Father. There is indeed reference in Hebrews 12 to God speaking to His saints as sons, and of fatherly chastening as the Father of spirits reserved to those real. But the character of the Epistle is to speak throughout of "God," as far as saints are concerned; hence it is a question of how, being what we are, we can approach to God in the holies. Consequently here we have the sacrifice of Christ brought out most strikingly, and in its perfect efficacy. It is shown to be peculiarly marked by one feature, and in constant contrast with Israel — "one offering" accomplished once and for all; for there is the utmost care to stamp unity upon it, and completely exclude all notion of a fresh application of the blood. And why must it be so? Because Christ's blood has a character that no other blood did or could possess. It does its work perfectly, and therefore once for all. But this truth is exactly what it would be hard now to find anywhere fully and unqualifiedly believed.

Different forms of church government are in evidence, and also different shades of doctrine; but they all agree, even among evangelicals, in maintaining fresh recourse to, or fresh application of, the blood of Christ. Substantially this is to be like a Jew, and it amounts thus far to a revival of Judaism, after being hunted out more particularly by the apostle Paul. Not the least trace of it appears when he wrote to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians or Philippians. To the Jewish believers, the Hebrews, he peremptorily excludes such a thought. As he says in Hebrews 9: 26, in such a case He must have suffered often. He was offered once, not often. And there not only the error, but the folly, of the Roman mass betrays itself. It is avowedly sacrifice without blood; a sacrifice continually repeated day by day for the remission of sins. It is a sacrament which declares that Christ's blood has failed; and that offering of the Mass is needed to effect remission. But it is a mere sham; and an invention of the most blundering kind, the most pretentious for the earthly priest, and the most dishonouring to the Lord Jesus both here and in heaven. But even among the keenest Protestants, are they not all under the mist of a constantly needed recourse to the blood time after time?

Shall I tell you how the error rose, and with what it is connected systematically? Because the washing of water by the word is habitually left out. They do not see this truth, except so far as they apply it to baptism. But Scripture applies it to the constant need of the saint after he rests by faith on the blood of Christ. And that washing of water takes two forms in Scripture. The washing of regeneration we have at or about the same time that we rest upon Christ's blood. This too is never repeated. There is no such thing as re-regeneration. There is no repetition of regeneration any more than of the sacrifice of Christ. It is and can only be once. So too Christ's blood always abides in its efficacy with God and for us; indeed if it did not always so abide, we are lost; Christ cannot die again for us. But after resting upon Christ's death for us, men suppose that its efficacy is interrupted by sin, and that a fresh application of the blood is required to cleanse us. If it be so, where are you to find it? He died once and for all, and its value remains for ever, and even without interruption or in perpetuity (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές). But there is also the washing of water by the word continually, wherever there is need.

The necessity for our being habitually cleansed is set forth in a very striking manner, not in the Hebrews, nor in the Gospels generally, but in that of John only. Our Lord took basin and water and towel, to wash His disciples' feet, showing in that symbol what He is now doing in heaven whenever our feet get defiled here below; as He also intimated that they should understand it afterwards. It is to meet the defilements in the walk of the Christian. There we have the Advocate, as is plain. The Lord gave its sign in stooping down, not to die for them, but to wash their defiled feet, astounding Peter and no doubt the others too. Peter let out their common ignorance, and showed how foolish he was in trusting his thoughts to preserve the honour of his Master. His deepest moral honour is in that humiliation which He accepted in His own love, and that the Father's love should be gratified to the utmost, and for the saints to enjoy fully also. Thus the washing of the feet in John 13 answers to his own words here, "We have an Advocate with the Father." It is not blood but water; and "this is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in the power of the water only, but in the water and the blood." So writes our apostle in 1 John 5: 6, referring plainly to John 19: 34, 35. Christ's death both atones for and morally cleanses the believer: the blood once for all, the water (typifying the word, John 15: 3) not only at the first but to the last here below; but the word applying His death for purifying us by faith.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews, as explained, access to God is secured by a perfect sacrifice, "the blood of the cross," and by His entrance into the holies as the Great Priest over the house of God, the Forerunner is for us gone in, that we may enter boldly. But His priesthood is to succour the tempted, and to sympathise with our infirmities, that we may receive mercy, and find grace for seasonable help. In heaven He appears before the face of God for us. Thus He cheers and strengthens us against all the trials of the wilderness, and in our weakness and exposure. But nowhere is His office as Priest above applied to our sins. Here it is that His advocacy applies expressly. If any one sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, the same Jesus, but in a different function, and this to restore the interruption with the Father through sin. It is to restore that communion which is interrupted by a sin.

But there is another thing to which your attention is drawn. The Advocate here is Jesus Christ the righteous. That is very significant. More than that; "and He is the propitiation." Notice the double ground. First, the advocacy is founded upon His being the righteous One. We had no righteousness; He is the righteous one, and from God made to us, not only wisdom, but righteousness. Secondly, He is the propitiation for our sins, and sent by God the Father for this very end. He bore all that was necessary to expiate our sins in divine judgment once for all. But as Advocate He meets the Christian's sin that interrupted his enjoyment of communion with the Father and with the Son. This has nothing at all to do with His suffering once in divine judgment (for all that is finished on the cross), but everything to do with restoring communion with the Father and the Son when interrupted, as is easily done. Oh how sad, beloved brethren, when we slight that communion, so as not to feel these interruptions, to which any levity of word or deed in our folly exposes us! But "we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Christ is above in all His grace. Righteousness remains in all its undiminished worth; and so does the propitiation through His blood. It is the joy and boast of the Christian that nothing touches either the risen Christ or the efficacy of His work on the cross for us. If the earth is blind and deaf, heaven never forgets what these are for God's glory and our purification. Only here we have another thing to observe. The apostle says that the propitiation of Christ is not for our sins only. It is also "for the whole world." Now we never find the propitiation for sins, except definitely for those that believe, as of old; now for those that are God's children. Christ is a propitiation in a general way for the whole world, but only "for our sins." There is a marked distinction, when he speaks of the whole world. This makes the putting in of "the sins" objectionable, when the world is in question. It is going beyond Scripture. If the Lord had been the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, the whole world would get its fruit and go to heaven. If He bore their sins in the way He bore ours, what has God against them? He is the propitiation for our sins; He has annulled them for ever, blotting them out with His blood. Were it thus for the world, it would stand clear.

There Calvinism again is shallow, hard, and wrong. Propitiation is not merely a question of God's children. God Himself had to be glorified as to sin, apart from our salvation, His nature in love vindicated as to His worst enemies. We may see the instruction afforded on the two truths by the type on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). On that day there were two goats for the people of Israel. One of those goats was Jehovah's lot; the other was the people's lot. Now it was only in the people's lot that all their sins were confessed. This was not the case with the first goat; and it was sacrificed. In this there appears a marked difference. As to one goat, Jehovah's lot, it was for His glory, tarnished in this world by sin, by His grace, to satisfy the exigencies of His nature. He must needs be glorified about sin. But this did not as yet take up definitely the burden of the sinner. For his remission the sing must be confessed distinctly and positively; and so Aaron did, laying both his hands on the head of the live or second goat, the people's lot. The first goat was killed, and its blood brought into the sanctuary as everywhere, within and without. Here is the propitiation in a typical way, which so far makes it stand good for the whole world, that the glad tidings might be preached to every sinner.

The doctrine is here and elsewhere. The type of it helps to illustrate the marked difference. The sacrifice of Christ has perfectly glorified God's nature, so that He can rise supremely and send forth glad tidings to every creature. But there is something more needed for sinners to be saved. "Christ bore their sins in His body on the tree." This is never said about "the world "; there is always a sufficiently careful guard. But because God has been perfectly glorified as to sin in the sacrifice of Christ, He can by His servants, as it were, beseech and entreat even His enemies: Be reconciled to God. God's love is the spring. Christ's death is the way and basis for the gospel. It does not necessarily save every creature, but declares God is glorified in Christ. If there were not a soul converted, God would be glorified in that sweet savour of Christ.

But it is well to note that the difference is great between the two. If God left all to man, not one could have been saved. It is by grace that we are saved. To the elect He gives faith; and there is where the propitiation for our sins comes in. None with the fear of God thinks all are to be saved, or denies that grace makes the difference between a believer and an unbeliever. The Day of Atonement bore witness that the first thing was to glorify His own nature; and this apart from effacing the sins of His people. It was of still higher moment that His truth should be vindicated, His holiness and His righteousness, His love and His majesty in Christ's cross. Therein as nowhere else good and evil came to issue, for the judgment and defeat of evil, and for the triumph of good, for the reconciliation not only of all believers to God, but of all things (not of all persons), and for new heavens and a new earth throughout eternity. The basis of this was laid in what the slain goat (Jehovah's lot) typified. But in order to extricate the people from their sins, He would show them His great mercy; and so they are in the second place taken up definitely, and their sins laid on the live goat, which carried them away into a land of forgetfulness, that they might be remembered no more. It is the distinction of propitiation and substitution.

Here we read that our Lord is the propitiation for our sins, "and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." Particular care is taken not to identify God's children and the world. Hence it is not said "for [the sins of] the whole world." There the translators were rash.* There is the danger of adding to Scripture, and the duty of believing Scripture only. Man's addition makes the difficulty; adhering to God's word solves it, while it says enough to proclaim divine mercy to the whole world. There God's nature and love are vindicated. That He is a Saviour God appears to all men. He sends the message of grace to every creature. He charges all men everywhere to repent. But in order to be saved, first is the effectual call of the sinner according to the divine counsel; secondly, the working of the Holy Ghost, in the heart of the believer in receiving Christ. This is not the case with "the whole world"; and it is vain to deny that which is a fact. But here we have the Scripture that explains it.

* The Revisers give the difference correctly.

When you believe in our Lord Jesus, we too can say, following the word, He bore your sins away; but we are not entitled to say so to the unbeliever, nor to "the whole world." Faith only is entitled to speak thus.

The fact is that this type is only a particular witness to the great principle of Scripture, dogmatically laid down in the clearest terms of the New Testament. Take the distinction between "redemption" (Eph. 1: 7) and "purchase" (2 Peter 2: 1): the true key, which opens the Calvinistic and Arminian dilemma. For they both confound the two truths, so that each is partially right, and partially wrong. The Lord by His death "bought" all creation, and every man of course, "false teachers" and all. It is at their everlasting peril that they deny His rights and rise up against their Sovereign Master. But none are "redeemed" save those who have through faith in His blood the forgiveness of their trespasses. Hence the Calvinist is as right in holding particular redemption, as the Arminian in maintaining universal purchase. But they are both in error when they fail to distinguish purchase and redemption. By His death on the cross the Lord added to His creator rights, and made every creature His by that infinite purchase. All are His, and not their own, as the believer only and fully acknowledges. But redemption delivers from Satan and sins: and this is nowhere the portion save by faith.

Take again another form of the truth in Heb. 2: 9, 10. Christ by God's grace tasted death for every thing (ὑπὲρ παντὸς), including of course every man (compare vers. 7, 8). All were purchased. But the language quite differs from ver. 10, where we hear of God, in bringing "many sons" to glory, perfecting the Leader of their salvation through sufferings. When the two distinct truths are confused, not only precision is lost, but the truth suffers from the heart's lack of enlargement through knowing universal purchase, and from evaporating into vagueness through ignorance of the speciality of redemption.

May God bless the truth which has been before us for the Lord Jesus's sake.

ADDRESS 4

1 JOHN 11: 3-6.

"And herein we know that we have known (or, have the knowledge of) him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I have known him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily the love of God hath been perfected. Herein we know that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought, even as he walked, himself also to walk."

Every Christian who reflects must be conscious in reading these words that the verses come in singularly to outward appearance where they do. The word that introduces them might give the semblance of continuance with what went before. There is indeed a vital connection; but it is not in the ordinary way in which men bind their various subjects together; for it speaks clearly of quite a distinct thing from what preceded. Nevertheless there is a link, and a most interesting link, between them. It is expressed by one word, "life." It is not any longer simply the divine life, but His nature in the absolute purity of the image-word "light," into which the Christian is brought from his conversion.

This light it is that thenceforth acts powerfully upon the conscience, for not merely it is awakened but purged conscience; and the new nature responds to the light of God, all the more because of being made painfully conscious how evil that old nature is in itself. But one already has a new nature which is of God. We who believe are declared by the apostle Peter to have a divine nature, and this is from the first moment that the life of God acts in our soul, and it does act from the very time that we are converted to God. We might not have peace yet; it might even be rather long before we enjoy it fully. But there is no little joy in believing that God has solemnly spoken to our souls; and there is immense relief in thoroughly bowing to the light of God which manifests and condemns our life in the past.

But how is this? Because a new life is ours from God, and life in Christ is the light of men. Elsewhere is it called eternal life; but His are not two lives. There is a significance and an impressiveness in "life eternal," but it is the selfsame life; there is none other for the believer. And we see how fitting it is that so it should be, because Christ is Himself the eternal life, as is spoken of Him in the second verse of the first chapter. Nor does the apostle Paul in his Epistles hesitate to say (Col. 3: 4) that Christ is our life. and again (Gal. 2: 20) no more I live, but Christ liveth in me. Thus there can be no doubt about the truth. Christ had not two lives, neither has the believer: I say this only of the life spiritual, not denying the natural. In Him was life from eternity; and, coming down from heaven, He gives life, through faith, not to Jew only but to the world (John 6: 32). It was to be given to Gentile that believed as fully as to Jew. Hence the believer has that life; and when he is a little more awakened to understand, it is a great joy to know that it is eternal life.

In 1 Peter 1: 2 we find the same substantial truth in the sanctification of the Spirit there spoken of. This has been ill understood by the theologians of every school, ancient and modern, Romanist and Protestant, Calvinist and Arminian. They almost universally interpret it of practical holiness, and this in turn misled Beza, for instance, into the grossest mistranslation. Error once sown ends in a crop of confusion. But the context renders it plain and certain that the Spirit's sanctification here can only mean that setting apart of the believer to God which is effected in his being born of God, because it is "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" That is, it precedes, instead of following, an obedience like Christ's and His sprinkled blood, in contrast with the law and its sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24). We are called from our first start in the new life, by which the Spirit set us apart to God, to obey as Christ obeyed, sons in all holy liberty, and with the sprinkled blood which proclaims our sins cancelled and forgiven. Israel, on the other hand, began their effort to gain life by obeying the law under penalty of that death which the victims' blood attested, as sprinkled on book and people. The same sense explains why the apostle in 1 Cor. 6: 11 puts "washed and sanctified" before "justified," instead of after, as must be if it were here a question of practical holiness. The Spirit's sanctification, of which the two chief apostles treat, means the separation to God which takes place when we are born of God (John's way of speaking) before the sprinkling of Christ's blood applies, and in order to our obeying God as He did. Archbishop Leighton is almost the only one known to me as having an inkling of its real force.

Under the law life was offered to the Israelite conditionally on his obedience. Yet it was not really his, but forfeited, and must pass under the power of death, as the first Adamic life did. It is not said to be under the power of annihilation; for who knows anything of extinction for man, but the contrary? All the power of Satan could not annihilate the feeblest human being. No doubt there were things created that were not intended to live again. There is but separation of soul and body in man's death. Guilty man must die and be judged; and is it not just that he should suffer for his iniquity against God and man? But believing man learns from God that the eternal life he has here in the Son is the same life that he will have when he is changed or raised from the dead; it is that which fitted him for communion with the Father and the Son while in this world, as it will fit him for enjoying the Father and the Son throughout all eternity.

The Spirit of God too is the divine power as well as person who works for good in this life against all that opposes it. He thus glorifies the same Christ who in grace gave it to us. For we need the Lord Jesus always, as the object and strength of our souls, as we did as the life-giver; and we shall need Him for ever to serve, adore, and enjoy. But in heaven He lives now for us; so that we cannot say that we want Him as if we had Him not. We would ever delight in Him who laid down His life for us; we now would, above all things, please Him; and as we love to carry out God's will on earth, so it will be above when all opposing influences are done with for ever.

But we begin here already with what is eternal while we are in the world of time. Is not this blessed for us, not to look at eternity as merely the future, but to know from God that he who has eternal life has in a real sense entered on what goes on for ever? We look not at the things that are seen, which are but for a time; we are privileged to look at the things that are not seen, the eternal things. The unseen things faith knows to be much more real and unchanging than all we see. Evidently the link of our association is that the same Person who is Himself Eternal Life is our life; and how is this life to be known? Here we know that Satan often endeavours to bring one down into what a believer ought never to allow — a doubt. But we who believe God's revelation ought to treat doubt as a sin. For what is the doubt about? Surely not about ourselves. Till we heard the voice of the Son of God, were we anything but sinners? As such we were lost: so scripture tells us. Neither, again, is there any doubt about God's love. The proof is — Christ given for us, yea, and crucified; not merely in all the value of His blood to blot out our sins but risen and in glory, where He is not ashamed of us but owns us as His brethren. By grace we have Christ now, and Christ evermore: so at least He assures us (John 10: 28).

Life eternal is like everlasting redemption, the wondrous boon in Christ that remains essentially unchanged. Christ went down under death to give it the blessed character of being life risen and not only eternal. Quickened together with Him, we know that our offences are all forgiven (Col. 2: 13). "Risen with" means that He who died is alive again for evermore; and we now are entitled to stand according to His position, and to know that grace makes it our present portion. But if challenged by the Devil, we give him occasion by our negligence, unwatchfulness, lack of prayer and of making the word our daily food. People feel the need of meals for the body; but has not the soul as much need or yet more, to say nothing of its incomparable importance?

What then is the bread of life? It is Christ revealed by the word; the word making Christ our food in the Spirit. Nothing save Christ so feeds the soul. Still, when a soul has yielded to temptation, and fallen into sin, then is the enemy's opportunity. This he generally uses for dragging one down to doubt God's word, under the frequent plea of doubting himself. But in truth it is doubting God. It is to doubt His grace in Christ. How shameful such doubts are, though the Lord stands evidently crucified before our eyes! There He is, presented in God's word to our faith as the crucified One, to completely abolish doubt. Was it not for ungodly and powerless enemies that He died (Rom. 5: 6-10)? Indeed if we were not so bad as we are, we should not have needed such a divine Saviour. In point of fact it is because we were so bad that it is difficult to conceive we could be worse. Moreover we know the treacherousness of the flesh in the believer. This it is which troubles many a saint: not what he did in the days of his darkness and death, but his too often failing in grace and truth, in outbreaks of self-will or folly, in vanity, pride, or worldliness, or whatever else may grieve the Holy Spirit, after all the mercy God has shown him. How sad, after experiencing grace so plenteous, to be sharp and unkind, or careless and light-hearted! Thus it is that the failure of the believer produces difficulties in his soul about himself before God. Nor this only; but if one compromises the Lord by sin of which other people know, they are ready enough sometimes to raise a question.

Therefore, after the doctrinal basis of the Epistle was laid down in the first chapter, with the supplemental two verses of the second chapter, we have the question broached: How can I ascertain the true tests of life? Certainly the philosophers say much but know little about natural life: why wonder if Satan can readily raise doubts about spiritual life, particularly after one has been ensnared and the conscience is not clear?

From verse 3 we have searching tests applied in order to make plain to ourselves, and to others also, how life manifests its reality or its absence. The object of faith was first fully presented in Christ; next the necessary working of God's nature in such as are His; then (after the brief supplement of grace to restore the fallen) we come to the revealed tests of life. Verses 3-6 furnish the first test. What is this primary test for any soul? That which distinctly and at once, from the very beginning, stamps a man as having life, and which, if he lack it, means the absence of life, is obedience. "And herein we have known (or have the knowledge of) Him; (it is a continuous result that we have the knowledge) if we keep His commandments." This is none other than obedience. It is not the only form in which the spirit of obedience is proved; but as a rule it is the earliest. It begins without delay. It suits the youngest saint. He is sure to be forthwith tested by the question of obedience. And it is exactly what the new life prompts to.

Observe this in him that was to become the great apostle of the Gentiles. Directly that the voice of the Lord reached his soul, and identified the true God with Him who died on the cross, He could not but cry, "Lord, what wouldst Thou have me do?" He judges his error, and wants to obey This is the instant spiritual instinct of life. Converted in heart, his mind is to obey Him whom he without hesitation calls the Lord. Accordingly, if we look at it throughout the word of God, we see how comprehensive obedience is, and how all-important. Take the case of the soul's submission to the righteousness of God: it is what is called in the Epistle to the Romans "obedience of faith;" by which is meant, not the practical obedience which faith produces in the walk, but the prime act of believing God's word. This is really the heart's obedience. It is the person's obeying the truth, the soul's acceptance of God's testimony to His Son. The man hitherto ungodly owns it truly, bows to the word of God, accepts the truth of Christ's person and work, and is justified. Therefore is the gospel preached to all nations, not like Israel for obedience of law, but for faith-obedience. Such is the true force in order to make the scope somewhat more clear: not an obedience produced by faith, but submission to the gospel in faith. And this is in many forms carried out throughout the Scriptures.

But there are other signs and proofs of its importance; and we do well to look to the very beginning of mankind. What have you there? The first Adam, the father of the race. Alas! the beginning of man's moral history was the fact that he disobeyed. For the command in Eden was simply and entirely a test of obedience under penalty of death. Eating of the tree of knowing good and evil was not an intrinsically moral or criminal act like stealing, murder, covetousness, or any of the various breaches of the Ten Commandments. These prohibitions suppose an innate evil proclivity; but it was not so then. Adam was as yet innocent and upright; and God told him not to eat of the fruit of that tree. This prohibition had nothing at all to do with the quality of its produce, nor implied in the least that the fruit was a poison. This is the way that man likes to look at it: how would it affect himself? But the command asserted the LORD God's authority. It was meant to test man's obedience, his trust in God's word and goodness, in short, his absolute submission as a creature of God. For Adam as yet could not be called by grace a child of God. He was son of God like the Athenians, the offspring of God. That is, he was not a mere natural animal without reason, a brute beast; he had from the first his soul from God's inbreathing, an immortal soul. In that sense of course he was God's offspring; but he was not yet a child of God born of Him by grace through faith. Such a birth is never the fruit of anything but of His grace in Christ. Thus only one receives the life in His Son; and Adam had nothing of that kind, whilst simply an innocent man in the paradise of Eden.

But the plain fact which quickly appears and characterises his ruin is his disobedience. He disobeyed unto death; the grand contrast of which is the Second man, the Last Adam, who became obedient unto death. Yet in His eternal being, in His proper position, in His inalienable personal dignity, the Son was a divine person, and, as such, had nothing to do with obedience. For this very reason it is said in Heb. 5: 8, that He learned obedience from (or, by) the things which He suffered. He did not know what it was to obey till He came down to be man. He knew perfectly well what it was for others, for every creature; but He was no creature but Creator. Nevertheless, having become man, He loyally undertook the duties of man; and the very first duty of man is to obey God.

The Lord manifested obedience as no one ever did, and glorified His Father in every feeling of His heart, as well as in every word of His mouth, and in every step of His way. He overruled John the Baptist by "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." He met Satan's temptations by nothing but obedience. This indeed is the profound difference between the Lord Jesus as Man and every other man. Never was there another who invariably obeyed. This is a much greater distinction than working miracles: anybody could do miracles if God gave him the power. Judas wrought miracles; and many will say to the Lord in that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy name, and by Thy name cast out demons, and by Thy name do many works of power? And then will I avow to them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work, lawlessness" (Matt. 7: 21-23). To work miracles only is in no way a necessary sign of moral excellence. As a general rule it did go with those righteous servants of God who inaugurated His revealed will, or vindicated it when apostasy betrayed itself. But God, for His own wise purpose, shows us the most wicked of men working great signs, even the traitor to the Lord Jesus, as already mentioned. Another indeed is to be referred to presently but the first one of those called "the son of perdition" unmistakably showed that he had not the slightest appreciation of Christ. He was invested with power, but there was neither obedience nor the faith that leads to it.

Therefore one naturally looks from that first son of perdition to the last — the antichrist. And what is it that stamps the antichrist, what is it that fits him to be a vehicle for Satan's taking possession of him to the most exceptional degree? Nothing could be a greater affront to God than the way in which Judas showed his revolt in betraying the Beloved of God. So the antichrist will be the ruin of both Jews and Gentiles beyond any man that ever lived. What is it that marks him before that power of Satan is allowed to work in him so mightily for a little while? What prepares him for it? His self-will, the spring of disobedience. He is described therefore as the king that shall do according to his will (Dan. 11: 36), not the will of God but his own and Satan's. He is "the man of sin," the "lawless one" (2 Thess. 2: 3, 8). Alas! whenever you do your own will you become Satan's slave; but he pre-eminently will be so.

Thus we see in the most opposite way what an essential place obedience has from first to last. At the beginning the first man abandons it, and all ruin follows. And then the Second Man, when He came here, is just the obedient man, Who brings in not only blessing, for man, freely and fully, but also atonement and peace by the blood of His cross. For He blots out the sins of sinners on faith completely and perfectly; and from heaven is sent the Holy Spirit as the witness of Himself and His work for everlasting redemption, and the reconciliation of the universe when He comes again. Hence obedience is the soul's bent and resolve and joy when Jesus is known and confessed. The proud, careless, dark heart is arrested by the word and the Spirit of God, who fills him with horror at his wickedness, presents Christ with the goodness of God in giving Christ for his soul, and he bows to his Lord and Saviour, earnest to obey from that moment. As the all-importance of obedience from the first beginning of life in the soul is evident, so it is in all the public ways of God, as we have. seen even to the future antichrist at the end of this age.

The principle is thus shown to be of the widest extent and of the deepest moment for God's glory and for man, and indeed far beyond man. Consider that the angels who fell were once heavenly beings. It was through their disobedience, through their pride, that they left the place God had given them, and assumed another that God gave them not. Obedience of God, on the other hand, is everywhere and always true blessing.

Therefore we cannot be surprised that the Spirit of God introduces it at once in our Epistle and in this part of it. If a man doubts his relationship to God, or if other people doubt him, the Spirit applies obedience as the first great test. Has that soul the spirit of obedience as his own? In our dark days we know how justly we were described as "the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2); but when the turning-point of conversion to God comes, we become "children of obedience" (1 Peter 1: 14). It is from the first the real expression of the heart purified by faith. Thenceforth the inward and fixed desire is to obey God, long perhaps before one may have solid peace; though this might come in a comparatively short time. There is the hatred of sin, the judgment of self, and the grace of Christ making one not only desirous but capable; because nobody is ever converted without some little gleam of grace. Alarm will never convert, though it may arrest and point the way. No terror ever converted a soul, though it may induce one to hear the gospel. There must be more and other than such fear to win us to God. It may be ever so little of Christ, but there is this, as we doubt not, in order that faith should have divine light and eternal life. And this life works in obedience; and shows its reality by the inner man set on obeying God, as a law of liberty, not of bondage. The life of Christ in us, as in Him perfectly, delights to do His will and nothing else.

Hence the remarkable divergence, as it might appear, from the previous part of the Epistle. But to press obedience here is just in its right place. We have seen the divine source of the blessing in the Father made known by the Son, and fellowship with them becoming ours. We have had the message from Him of the character of God in all its purity accompanying this necessarily. If we receive the blessing, we cannot avoid but welcome the responsibility of having the light of God, and walking there. How is this effected in us? The eternal life which He was in Himself is also the life to us. And both light and life show themselves in obedience. And as obedience shone all through Christ's walk, so it is essential in the saint, and holds the first place as a test here below. "And herein we know that we have known him, if we keep His commandments."

It is not zeal in preaching. This is often put forward in modern practice. Directly a soul is converted, the person wants sometimes to become a preacher; perhaps he is only a little boy; and it appears that there is a young boy parading in this capacity just now. Nor is it cultivating what some call "a gift of prayer," and especially in public, where a keen observation of others suggests a fluent rehearsal of wants to be supplied and faults to be corrected all over the world. However these things may be, altogether different are the revealed ways of God. We know that, in particular, preaching is a snare to the vain. It seems to be a service that many covet, if one may judge from the prevalence of the desire without the power. But where there is the gift, it is an admirable work of faith and love. Only there should be a proper basis for it, and love. of souls rather than of preaching impels, after God has wrought in the heart to know what we really are, and, above all, what God is in Christ toward the lost.

Here the apostle begins with obedience; what is more due to God, more meet for us? It is distinctly personal; it applies to everything and always. It demands and maintains lowliness while it gives firmness. It requires dependence on God, and guards against self and undue influence of other creatures. There must be a personal dealing of the soul with God to have real value and avoid self-deception. But we have first the form of "keeping His commandments." This brings in a notable feature of the Epistle before us. Very frequently you cannot tell whether "He" is God or Christ. The apostle glides from the one to the other: and the reason is because both are true for though Christ became man, He never ceased to be God. And, therefore, if you say "God's commandments" it includes Christ's. Often, if he clearly begins with Christ, he as clearly passes on to speak of God. But Christ is God, and the Word of God, the One who personally brings out the mind of God, as His great declarer, in deed as in word. The Holy Ghost, as He ever wrought in Christ, makes it real in the believer also; that it should not be merely his own mind, still less his will taking all up, but that he be guided of God; for such is the function of the Holy Spirit in this and more also.

Thus we begin to learn, so far as babes naturally do in this life. They may understand little at first; but it is of the greatest moment that, before they understand fully, they should learn to obey. And if they are taught to obey, it must be in a plain manner to suit their opening mind. You cannot expect a child to apprehend easily an abstract principle. Nor can one look for the force of example to tell always on a child. It might be quick enough to say, "That is all very well for mama or papa, for this man or that woman;" but it is another thing to see how it concerns its own little self.

Accordingly the first form of obedience is simply, properly, and necessarily — bowing to His commandments. Yet they do not mean the Ten Commandments of the Law. This is never what John refers to when he speaks about commandments as here. For it is all connected with Christ, vitally bound up with Himself. One may briefly say that the difference between the trial by the law, and the test of these commandments, lies in this: that the law was the proof of what man is; whereas the gospel is the revelation of what God in Christ is. Under law, therefore, man was put to the proof whether he would give up his own will and do God's demands in order to get life. Life was proposed to those under law on their obedience of the law. But this is a contrast with what God now gives the believer. The life is supposed to be already possessed on faith, as truly as the life was in Christ before He came into the world. He was the eternal life with the Father; and, when He took manhood, He was the eternal life still. And here He was manifested not only as a divine person come to show love as the true God and God's Son, but as life eternal to give life to those that have nothing but death, and sin which brought death in. It is thus manifest that the commandments here direct the given new life, instead of being a moral standard to obey in order to gain life. They are the exercise of the life in Christ which grace has already imparted to the believer. But the form of obedience first taken is, "If we keep His commandments."

God graciously puts things in an authoritative manner in order that the child, the babe-like child of grace, should feel the solemnity, the importance and the need of it. God therefore in many cases lays it down, one perhaps may call it, peremptorily, certainly with all plainness and authority. Is not this good and right? How could any thoughtful or sober creature imagine that God could speak otherwise than with absolute authority, or that God's authority is not concerned in all that He thus imposes upon man? Do not assume that the commandment of God is always something for man to do. Has He nothing that He has done for man to believe? In 1 John 3: 23 to believe the name of His Son is made a matter of commandment, no less than to love one another. That is, He commands people to believe the gospel in fact, as well as the saints to love each other. Thus He makes it a matter of commandment, so as to show how thoroughly His authority is concerned, not only His love but His title to command. It is evident that obedience is incumbent on man according to God.

Take another instance: the apostle Paul, in Acts 17: 30, told the Athenians that God enjoins men that they all everywhere shall repent This corresponds with believing on His Son Jesus Christ. It is not a question of Nineveh's escaping destruction, but of sinners to be rescued from hell. Neither Jonah nor the men of Nineveh thought of deliverance from eternal judgment, or of receiving life eternal to enjoy fellowship with the Father and the Son now, and to be with Christ for ever on high. But we have His commandment now to this express end, and with a right state of soul it would have and has the greatest possible weight. For thereby is shown how earnest God is about us. And is it not good news to a soul in dust and ashes about his sins, to know He is in earnest to bless freely and fully of His own grace one that so deeply needs to repent and believe? At the same time His own majesty is concerned: this He cannot give up to please vain man, as poor as he is proud. Men must be utterly blind to their own sins and enmity against God through their whole life, and thoroughly vicious in their self-will, to find fault with God — the God who gave His Son to save the vilest.

Where we love a person, we delight to do what might be put in the form of a command; and where there is authority, a command is the shape that it takes even among men. But how much more so with the God who never lies nor in the least deceives, the God who is full of goodness, mercy, and long-suffering, even to the careless and rebellious? Here it is for the soul's blessing, and for ever, if we keep His commandments. Indeed the sinner long inured to evil needs everything that is good. The whole course of life is meant to be changed when one really repents toward God and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. And God graciously makes His will and mind to be clearly and positively stated. But this care on His part makes man's self-will and indifference to His commandments the more evil, especially if he bear the Lord's name professedly.

In the next verse (5), the apostle opens to us something deeper. "But whoso keepeth His word." This is a different thing from His "commandments." It advances the nature and scope of obedience. For it supposes spiritual progress to have been made, and that there is growing intelligence as well as purpose in exercise; so that it is not merely a plain "commandment" that governs the soul's obedience, but "His word." His word might not take the shape of a definite command, but would undoubtedly disclose what pleased Him, what He valued. It would therefore, where the spirit of obedience was strong, be sufficient intimation to be faithful in this also, even though He uttered nothing like an express command in the matter.

Is it not painfully curious how the legalism of the heart works in the opposite direction? In Christendom, and among Baptists in particular, what is more prevalent than to reckon Baptism and the Lord's Supper as His commands? But they are nothing of the kind. Where is His command to the person to be baptised or to take the Lord's Supper? A command puts things altogether in a wrong point of view. Christian baptism is a favour conferred upon the soul on the authority of the Lord Jesus. The Ethiopian asks, "What hindereth my being baptised"? and Peter in the case of Cornelius, etc., says, "Can any man forbid water"? It would be strange to talk thus if it were a command. Who would think of hindering or forbidding a command of the Lord? But here they of the circumcision did vehemently contend against it. Nevertheless, search where you will, it is never presented as a command. No doubt he who had the case of the Christian confessor in hand might baptise or direct the candidate to be baptised. But this is not their meaning: they make it the command of the Lord Jesus to the candidate. But the Lord does not put it thus. It is a favour that He is pleased to confer according to His own word, and therefore it is no question of a command in the moral or legal sense. It is the same with the Lord's Supper. The Lord says, "Take, eat." Does this make it a command? Suppose me to be dying, and some dear friend came by the bedside, where my Bible lay, and I said, "Take, and keep my Bible." If you call this a command, you must be simple-minded or perhaps crooked-minded. It is not a command; but a mark of love. No doubt it has the effect of a command, yet a great deal more and different. It is associated with the affections and the remembrance of one that was loved long and tenderly till his departure. So it was given from a dying bed, and it was taken in that spirit, and so must it be understood by men of discernment.

A case which I have often used before will perhaps make it to be clearer. We will suppose a humble little family dependent on daily labour. The head of the family, the breadwinner, has to go to his work very early in the morning. I am not at all sure that it is a common demand in these easy-going days; but it used to be so at any rate. Let us however suppose that he has to leave early in order to reach his factory or wherever else he toils. But the mother of the family is on a, sick-bed, suddenly taken ill. Then occurs a great difficulty. She that used to rise so gladly to prepare his breakfast, and perhaps also what he needed in the course of the day, is too sick even to be spoken to. What is to be done at this sudden strait? One child of that family appreciates the dilemma at once. She has not been commanded in any way, yet she sees through it all; she knows that circumstances are quite changed; and as there is no mother to take the lead, she does. She had often helped her mother, and now she takes the initiative. herself. Accordingly she is up early, makes the fire for the father, puts the kettle on, and has the coffee or the tea all ready hot for him, with the other necessaries for the time of his absence from home. Here too there was no command; but it helps to illustrate "His word." As the word though not a command expresses the will of God, so she knew what was wanted to do the will of her mother, if she had been able to speak. The father was so overwhelmed with the illness of the wife that he could do little or nothing toward his meals; and yet he was bound to work as usual. She understood it all, and without more ado there she is doing the work that her mother would have done. This was not keeping a commandment, but it shows what "keeping His word" means.

Thus the believer grows in the knowledge of God, and delights in pleasing Him. It is not merely what is put in the shape of a command; but if we know what the good will of God is in any way, this is enough for the obedient heart. It is not seeking a director of one's conscience without, any more than consulting something that is within you. No: I am called to be subject to God, and this by keeping His word. I am to do the will of God; and this is now given in His written word, the Scriptures. They are written for our admonition as well as our comfort. So the apostle commended those who were no more to see his face to God and the word of His grace. If we seek that all saints should do the will of God, let us see to it that we humbly begin and do it ourselves. There it is all plainly laid down in His word. The best of all means for reading it aright is to see Christ Himself as God's object throughout. It does not mean merely what Christ said, though this is immense; nor what He commanded, which is of the highest worth; but what Christ manifested every hour. There you find Him up, before it was day, with God. Has this no voice for you or for me? Observe Him how, when something serious had to be done on the morrow, He was in prayer all night to God. Surely this ought to tell on our souls. We may not, ought not, to think we can carry it out in such a way as Christ did; but who can deny that in this He was leaving an example? An example is not a command; but none the less is it meant to act powerfully on the soul's heed and obedience.

Accordingly "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (ver. 4). There is the total absence of the spirit of obedience. It is not merely that he does not keep His word; he does not even keep His commandments. He violates his obligations; he sets aside divine injunctions, and this not merely in the Old Testament, but — what particularly bears upon him — the New. For these new commandments are the first form of the prescribed test of his Christian profession. And if he has no conscience to keep His commandments, we need not inquire how he treats Christ or the New Testament as a whole.

In ver. 5 we come to quite another step. "But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected." Therein is evident heed to the whole mind of God, and it is carried out, because His word is loved. It is a heart that proves its obedience by keeping not merely His commandments but also His word. The word is not only authoritative and energetic on the soul, but precious. All the word is therefore sought into with delight and profit; and, where this is the case, John does not hesitate to say that the love of God is perfected in such a man.

This again affords opportunity to remark in a general way about the manner of the apostle not in this Epistle only, but indeed in all his writings. He looks at things according to the revealed divine principle, without occupying himself with hindrances and shortcomings according to the man's state and behaviour. He does not treat of the failures that are incident to our carelessness. When the genuine Christian is before him, he regards him as carrying out God's mind. He therefore does not impair and weaken principle by bringing in a little drawback here and a little caution there. He says plainly out what is pleasing to God and becomes His child; and this even for the youngest is to keep "His commandments;" whereas for those that are no longer immature but spiritually experienced, it is not merely His commandments but "His word" generally, that which fully and in any form expresses His will.

Therefore it is that we read, looking at our Lord again, "Lo! I come to do thy" — Law? No. Thy commandment? No. Yet He assuredly kept His law and did His commandment; but withal He honoured, vindicated, and gave such a scope to His law as none else ever did. But He came to do God's "will." Nor does He merely say thus much, but, "In the volume of the book it was written of Me." It was the roll of a book (for God figuratively uses the terms of human habit) that only the Father, the Son, and the Spirit knew; there it was, in His secret counsels, the mind of God; what afterwards was written in the Book of Psalms. What is said is rather in contrast with the law and its ordinances; but there it was always. And when He came as man, this is what He came to do — the will of God. And the will of God went far beyond what people knew as the Ten Words or Commandments. Ineffable grace was its announcement. Nor was His work merely doing but suffering the will of God. For He obeyed unto death, even the death of the Cross. When did the law ever ask or look for such a sacrifice as that from the righteous? Did it even think, or conceive, such a thing as the Holy One of God dying for the unrighteous? But no less than this was the will of God; and He knew it before time began.

It was useless to talk of creature sacrifice and offering. God says in effect, that "These will never do." The blood of ox, sheep, or goat, cannot take away sins, can effect no escape from the lake of hell-fire, cannot deliver a wicked man from the judgment of God. No rite can ever change a bad man into good or bring him without a spot to God, as white as the snow. What then? "It is written of Me." And so it was that He even abolished the first, the law, and established the second, the will of God. The will of God in infinite grace here is to save the worst of sinners through the death of the Lord Jesus. Does not this show what wonderful power there is in that which God has given in the Scriptures? It was therefore a cherished purpose of God before everything. And the Lord knew it in eternity, and, when the fulness of the time arrived, came to do it, and in doing it suffered to the uttermost. No work of power, however great, could suffice for it. Was He willing that God should make Him sin, and endure all the consequences in order to glorify God even about sin, and make it just on God's part to grant plenary forgiveness, yea, to justify and glorify us? He must suffer for sins under the holy hand of God Himself, armed against sin, and dealing out what sin deserved. Yet He bore it all with perfect submission, whatever it cost Himself. Thus between law and grace is the complete difference most marked.

For the Christian it is the same principle as for Christ, save only that He is God and wrought atonement for us. We have life too before we enter on practice, as the Lord had it in Him throughout eternity. Ours is therefore acting from life, not for life as a man under the law. Christian walk is the exercise of the new life, impossible for any who have not life, and only possible for the one who has that life by his eye being fixed upon Jesus. Otherwise the eye is no longer single; it may be occupied with this one or that thing, when the walk can no longer be according to the light. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light"; and it is only Christ that makes the eye single.

This is intimated clearly enough here, but John adds more. "Herein we know," not "that we know Him" only, but "that we are in Him." This supposes a great accession of privilege; and such is the way in which God encourages those that are truly obedient in spirit. Not only do they know Him, but that they are in Him. Oh what a wonderful thing for a saint to be assured that he is in Christ! He infinite, we finite and very feeble, however blessed of grace. Life here hangs in dependence on God and His Son. And the Spirit of God strengthens the sense of dependence, and uses the word to confirm us in that very attitude. And what do such words show? His pleasure in assuring the obedient saints that they may know they are in Him. What happiness then for us, knowing what He is to us and has been for us! What cheer and strength does it not give in our sense of weakness!

If we compare John 14: 20, we learn that to be in Christ is part of the rich cluster of Christian privilege which He assured to the disciples in and from the day that the Holy Spirit was given to be in and with them after He went on high to the Father. "In that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in Me, and I in you." There is first the wondrous yet righteous position of the risen Lord in His Father, not wondrous that He the Only begotten Son should be there, for this was inherently His in the Godhead, but now first disclosed to them as true of the risen Man as He was and will never cease to be. It is His place on ascension, His righteous award on the world's rejection of Him (John 16: 10); and we who believe know by the Spirit of the Father in His name that He is in His Father there, a position far transcending His place as Messiah on David's throne or even as Son of man ruling all the nations of the earth in the future kingdom. This is His place and could be His only as a divine person one with the Father, yet risen man after accomplishing redemption; and this gives Christianity its unique grandeur.

But next they should know that they were in Him. It is not only that, in virtue of His death and resurrection, they were to be part of the much fruit springing from the grain of wheat that fell into the ground and died. They should have intimate and heavenly position in Him as far as this was possible to the creature, not risen life only but the place of assured nearness in Him there, known as ours now while on the earth. And again they should know Christ in them: a truth as characteristic of the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 1: 27), as their being in Christ is of that to the Ephesians (Eph. 1: 3, Eph. 2: 6, 10, etc.), save that the apostle treats it as individually true, Paul as connected with the unity of Christ's body, the church. It is the portion of every genuine Christian; and not to know it is the disgrace of unbelief in Christendom. This alas! clouds the apprehension of many a saint now, and almost ever since the apostle's death, who shows here that its realisation depends on keeping Christ's word, and God's love perfected within. But this is no more than what becomes every Christian, and the lack of it grieves the Holy Spirit of God by whom we were sealed into redemption's day, that is, the body's redemption. Lack of faith or fidelity dims the spiritual eye to our best privileges.

"He that saith he abideth in Him." Here is a further thing which might be only a boast, and an empty boast. This he meets in a way quite different from that in which he dealt with the careless despiser of God's authority. For he pronounced him a liar and the truth not in him. He was stamped as having nothing of God really. But where the profession of abiding in Him is made, how quiet and yet how conclusive is the inference! Do you say that you abide in Him? Then you ought to walk as He walked. Here is no pretence of having no sin. But if we say that we abide in Christ, the effect of abiding in Christ is immediate and powerful on the walk. The walk is the expression of life in the light of God; and if I abide in Him that is the Life and the Light, what is there to hinder my walking as Christ walked? In His presence we do not sin; out of the sense of it we do. By grace it is the same principle of walk, though far from the presumption of the same measure. Not the law but Christ is the standard.

Now we know as a matter of fact how easy it is to slip out; how readily we forget the Lord for a little; how apt to allow the activity of our own nature. This is not abiding in Him; but the apostle does not turn aside to bring in these modifications. He looks at principle; and a principle is absolute. As for any who refuse to look at the absolute truth because man is in a mixed condition, it is to give up faith for feeling and sense. How can such understand the truth of Christ here and elsewhere? It must be absolute in Christ and in His work. Grace must be absolute for a ruined sinner to profit by it. If God gives me justification, it is not a questionable one. If God justifies the ungodly, it is as absolute as His giving eternal life in Christ. And the believer has eternal life in order to obey as well as to enjoy fellowship with the Father and His Son. So here we read, "He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked." He leaves this to act upon the conscience; for no higher claim is here made than to say that one abides in Christ. It is not the blessedness of knowing that I am in Him, but that I profess to make Him the home of my soul for every joy and sorrow, for every danger and difficulty. For this is to abide in Him. If it be verily thus with me, I ought to walk as He walked. But is it so in deed and in truth? The failure in real abiding in Him is shown in the shortcoming of our walk. But as Christians, we own Christ as our true standard, however it may humble us. Nor do we pretend that one ever walks in the measure of Christ's walk, but seeks by grace to walk after that manner.

ADDRESS 5

1 JOHN 2: 7-11.

"Beloved,* no new commandment I write to you, but an old commandment, which ye had from [the] beginning: the old commandment is the word which ye heard.† Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in him and in you; because the darkness is passing, and the true light already shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in the darkness until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in the darkness, and walketh in the darkness, and knoweth not where he goeth, because the darkness blinded his eyes."

* The best authorities in every kind warrant this reading, not "brethren," as in many later manuscripts.

† So it is here also. The preponderance of weight rejects the addition. The sense is implied as in the previous clause.

We have already seen in the verses preceding these, that obedience is the first and most essential sign of possessing divine life. Its essence is not merely doing what is right in itself but doing it on God's authority and to please Him. One need not hesitate to say that, if a man were always to do what is right simply because it is right, he is always doing wrong; because he leaves out the most important element of all for God Himself and the believer too as His child. The first of all rights is that God should have His rights; whereas to leave out God is exactly what a man does if he acts only because he himself judges what is right. Who, in such a question, is he? What is man to be accounted of? No; God's will is in question, and therefore the fear of God is always the beginning of spiritual wisdom. Obedience accordingly is the first test of the new and divine life, as just given by the apostle, and particularly in view of lawlessness at work even then among the Christian professors. When man considers himself to be the person to judge, forgetful of the God that is not seen, the entire ground of sure and holy judgment is abandoned. For even supposing him decently moral and correct outwardly, a man walking simply on his own judgment of what comes before him is necessarily without obedience rendered to God. And without obeying Him all is wrong, and radically inconsistent with the responsibility of a Christian.

But there is another moral principle that comes after that in point of treatment here, but goes along with it also from the first. The reason is plain: both flow from Christ. For He is the life; and Christ's expression of it here below in word and deed gives the standard for knowing what life eternal really is, but does not speak merely of a theory or a doctrine. Life is the most intimate of all things for the creature, the most absolutely necessary in order to feel or judge, be anything, or do anything in spontaneous existence. All men have the natural life of man fallen under the power of sin and death; what can this avail with God or for us? It may do a deal of evil, but it can never lead to what will please God. Christ alone and always pleased Him perfectly; and it is the life of Christ which is our life now. He is the giver of life to everyone who believes with the heart. The first man brought in death; the Second Man is a quickening spirit. It was in the eternal Word; and as man He received from the Father to have life in Himself, but He gives life to those that receive Him. He quickens equally with the Father.

There is nothing that more characterises God than creating and giving life; but the philosophers that lack faith have not yet got to know what life is, or where it is. Some are looking with eager desire for its trace in the crucible. They expect to learn the secret from chemical experiments. Metaphysicians are not a whit wiser in interrogating reason, excellent for testing inference, but incapable of discovering the truth. But these and the like devices of men may be all well enough in matters elemental which belong to the material or the mental domain. But think of life, and what the judgment is worth that expects or at least longs to discover it as the result of any such research!

No; the life of man originally and immediately came from God; it was given by the inbreathing of God. This is the reason why he alone has an immortal soul. Other animals had a suited soul and life, but this did not come from God's breath; it was merely of God's will and power. He allowed their temporary existence; but this is wholly different from breathing personally into the nostrils of man, a way never applied to any other creature on the earth. Man only was thus favoured. The recognition of this difference clears up the ground of man's moral being and accountability; namely, the immortality of his soul.

But there is a privilege immeasurably greater than simply being immortal in the sense of the soul's perpetual existence. For it may have an issue unspeakably awful. Think of a perpetual existence in the lake of fire! Every one must come under the everlasting judgment of God, if he reject His Son: never-ceasing existence to suffer, and to suffer at the hand of God, because one stubbornly and wilfully refuses to believe that He in grace suffered thus judicially that the guilty might never suffer from Him, but only be blessed for ever! How rich God's mercy to proclaim salvation to the lost because Christ bore sin's judgment on the cross! And if I believe not on Him, nor in the glad tidings of what God wrought by Him, where am I? Under the power of Satan, the unrelenting power of the enemy that hates both God and man. But man cannot have non-existence. This becomes the terrible guilt of the sinner who would if he could make himself non-existent. He may commit suicide; but he must give account of it to God. For God gave him life; and who gave him licence to make away with that life by his own hand? How could such wicked folly work for any good? If murder in any shape be such as to denote a dark and deadly crime, self-murder is one of its worst forms, and a direct and extreme insult to God. As Jesus was ever the perfectly obedient One, it flowed from a life expressly eternal. In us who believe this does not always act, because flesh may work to our shame; but the new life, being eternal, always remains for due activity. The old life may break forth through unguardedness and lack of watching to prayer; for the old life, or mind of the flesh, is there too, and enmity against God (Rom. 8: 7). It is man's own will; and whom is he obeying then? Satan. For man's will surely becomes Satan's service. Such is man's boasted free-will.

We must never cease to reiterate that life eternal every believer receives at once from Christ. Its first breath in us is when faith begins in the soul: when the sinner bows to Christ as given of God's grace. Even this, as we have seen, He makes a matter of obedience to our God. It is pointedly His commandment that I shall believe the gospel as well as repent. There is thus true subjection to God in the soul; obedience in this case does not refer to what I am henceforth to do for Him, but from the first time my soul bows to God as a Saviour God through His Son. How blessedly He is giving me life! How wondrously He makes me the object of His love! And what love could be greater than giving His Son to live here for me, that I might have life eternal, except it be giving me the same One who was eternal life to die for my sins, that they might all be completely effaced by an everlasting redemption?

But this new life is the spring not only of obedience but of divine love. For the love here looked for is not merely to God. This last cannot but be when the soul really knows that God in sovereign grace has given him both eternal life, and propitiation too for his sins, in His Only-begotten and beloved Son. But loving one another is what is pressed here, the love of our fellow-Christians.

When saints are young and like the Corinthian Christians not spiritual, they think it an easy thing to love one another. One could wish that they would only try in earnest day by day. If they would but search themselves before God, they might soon learn how much passes for love that is only with word and tongue. It is all easy enough perhaps where everything goes smoothly the right way in our eyes; but when things go contrary to our wishes, there is the rub for such as count it easy to love. This kind of love you may find in any amiable human being, nay in a dog or a cat; but there is nothing divine whatever. But loving our brethren is in the face of a vast deal in us to hinder, and a great deal, it may be quite as much, in them too. It is not with the Christian as it was with Christ. "In Him is no sin." Sin is exactly what now is in us by nature. It is a pity for any who do not believe it; for they are living in a fool's paradise about themselves, when fancying themselves perfect now in the practical sense. They are far from perfect in this way. They have not even learnt the Christian perfection of abandoning self, and of finding everything in Christ; and still more when you come to practice every day. We shall never have perfection in ourselves till absolutely conformed to His image. When we judge ourselves in the light, we soon have to grieve over our failure, and with good reason.

Nevertheless the Lord laid it as a solemn injunction on His disciples to love one another. Faith in Him did not stand up for the Jews more than the disparagement of all nations. The love of one's own people has no small pride in it. We identify ourselves with what we consider peculiar merits, and shining honours. Certainly the Jews were as proud as any nation could be; nor can it be disproved that they had far better appearance for it than their foes. The truth is that no man has any just reason to be proud, but in the dust for his sins against God.

If one may abundantly wonder at what God has wrought, without doubt Israel had incomparably more than any other people. But the truth remains, that the moment we regard things in the light of God, if faithful, we cannot but be humbled for our unworthiness before Him. We find sin in ourselves and in one another. Therefore it must be of the Spirit of God to lift one above all that provokes and tries, all that is contrary not only to what we like but to what we seriously judge to be wrong.

Then comes the severe test of love. Do we persevere in loving even so? We ought not to be indifferent to Christ's dishonour, nor to the betrayal of God's truth, nor to unrighteousness, or to any other form of overt sin. But we are called to bear and to forbear, strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, to suffer hardness as His good soldiers, to endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. And this is what love really does. There is a rising up to share God's patience, what Christ proved to the uttermost, as He showed it every day, in almost everything through the day. This did not hinder His denouncing evil against God; nor was this any failure in love. Not to have hated evil would have wronged God's nature and word; for indifference to evil is the very reverse of holiness. The love of what is good, and the honour of what is righteous, is part of the practical holiness of everyone who is born of God.

But love rises superior to that which is ever so trying to us personally, ever so opposed to our mind or wish. This we in faith can leave to God, and ought to leave it in love. We may reprove, and ought to reprove, what is wrong, save in cases where our doing so would be uncomely; but no matter what may be deplorable, we are called to keep ourselves in the love of God (Jude 21). Nor is this for our own spirits only, but will assuredly flow also toward one another.

It may be also just mentioned that the first word here shows the tendency of man to slip away from the exactness of the word of God. In our Authorised Version the seventh verse begins with "Brethren." But the apostle does not bring in that designation yet. He will and does say "Brethren" time enough, and but once (1 John 3: 13). Our mutual relationship is not his prevailing thought. "Dear children" and "beloved" are his common terms. Here his word of address is exquisitely adapted to the love of which he is going to descant. The true reading means "Beloved." "Beloved, I write no new commandment." Can we not see the propriety of it? He is going to speak not of their relationship one to another, though of course this is true in its place; but the form here employed reminds them that they are beloved. It is not necessary to say by whom, though indeed grace had made them dear to the apostle. God Himself also loved them, as Christ manifested it; they were objects of His love who changes not. What so mighty for drawing out love toward one another, the objects of the same love! "Beloved, I write no new commandment, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning."

This old commandment we have in the Gospel of this inspired writer. It is he that brings it out more than any other, if not he only in terms. The. Lord laid it as His fervent injunction on the disciples that they should love one another. This He enjoined in the first of those remarkable chapters of the Gospel wherein He speaks to His disciples in view of His quitting the earth and going to the Father. In John 13: 34, 35, we have the new commandment. Let us refer to the context for a moment. "Little (dear) children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said to the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you." His going away is a necessary condition of Christianity. The absence of Christ is from earth in heaven. Till then Christianity did not properly begin, as far as the relationship of the disciples was concerned; though the root of the blessing was in Himself. But their true position as to the Lord and everyone else consequently, their full relationship, was new and learnt consciously after the Lord died, rose, and ascended.

As He intimates His leaving them, He expresses what He desired to be in them and from them. "A new commandment I give unto you" (plainly the reference is direct to the Gospel of John), "that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." That is what is applied here in the Epistle. The Lord gave a commandment which John had already made known in the Gospel. It was given by our Lord when here. Thus we see the ample confirmation of what was said in expounding the first words of the Epistle, that "from the beginning" is altogether distinct from "in the beginning." Yet there could have been no such "from the beginning," unless there had been first the Word and Son "in the beginning" before the heavens and the earth. But "from the beginning" means from the time that the eternal Word was here, and in fulness of grace and truth with the disciples, the Word become flesh and tabernacling or dwelling among them. He refers to that very time, "an old commandment which ye had from the beginning." "The old commandment is the word which ye had from the beginning." "The word which ye heard" certainly was not "in the beginning."

They heard it from Christ. There never was such a command given before. It was not loving one's neighbour; the measure and manner as different as its objects, whatever its source. His was divine love going out from and to those that had received life eternal in Christ, and were about to obtain everlasting redemption through His death, objects alike of this divine love. It was a new company, the individuals of which were being prepared for all that was to be theirs, formed as far as could be then in accordance with the eternal life which each possessed in Him. But there was imperative need of His death and resurrection to give it a divine basis which would meet all difficulties and wants, and warrant all privileges whatsoever. But these counsels and ways of God are not particularly the province given to our apostle: we must search the Epistles of Paul for them. John looks at the abstract principles for saints personally and without modification, though modification there is to some extent because of what we are, and because of what the world is. The principles abide however in their own place, and John fully leads the faithful into them. He insists on the divinely given principles to which we are intended to hold fast; and we must depend on a faithful God to get all the difficulties solved by the word through him who wrote for this purpose, chiefly the apostle Paul.

Here our apostle takes his stand on the command to love after the pattern of Christ's love to us. It was "an old commandment," because before the death and resurrection of Christ He was still alive and with them on earth. They were as yet Jews; but they had received in their souls that which was infinitely above Judaism. Outwardly they continued going up to the temple. They might offer sacrifice and pay vows Levitical. The disciples went on in that way for a long time after — many, if not all, in Jerusalem. We even read of the chief apostles (after receiving the Holy Spirit of promise on the day of Pentecost) going up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, just as they used to do before and after they followed the Lord on earth.

"The old commandment is the word which ye heard" ["from the beginning" being rightly not repeated here]. This cannot refer to eternity. It was not commanded "in the beginning"; nobody heard it in eternity. It would have been altogether out of time, place and person, when there was nobody to love then existing. In short it is an evident mistake to confound "from the beginning" with "in the beginning," as so many perversely do.

But now in the next or eighth verse we read what sounds somewhat paradoxical. John never minds this, because what seems a paradox may be perfectly true. The uncircumcised ear counts it intolerable and contradictory. But the way to understand the Scriptures is always to believe them; then we begin to understand. If we do not believe them, how can we understand? It is simply the natural mind which prefers self to God, and refuses to learn what is immeasurably above its span. It is wholly incompatible with faith in God's inspiration to prefer our own mind, our own way, and our own word, to God's word.

The only thing that becomes the believer is resolutely to take his side with God and His word. He may feel that he cannot explain this difficulty or that. He believes God and distrusts himself. Therefore he waits. He believes the Lord will give him light on the enigma if it be good for him. If the light never comes, he is confident that the Lord has excellent reason for that. God, he is sure, is always right; but as to himself, how has he not been wrong! Here then the apostle says, "A new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in him and in you." What looks hard at first sight explains all exactly. One has not long to wait, nor far to seek, to understand how the old commandment could be the new commandment. Very probably the mere scholars could never find out the sense till doomsday. They would understand without believing; and consequently they remain dark and dull, no matter what their learning may be. The old commandment was true in Christ. When He said it, He loved them all, as none could love but God. He loved them perfectly. Do you conceive that they loved one another at that time? Were they not as jealous of each other as you could well imagine pious people to be? We find them ever apt to quarrel, certainly and keenly striving which of them should be greatest. Was there any love in this? Such rivalry is the antithesis to love, and indicates the activity of flesh.

Love would have felt that it was for God to decide the place of each. And scripture shows that God sets in the church as it pleases Him. But they each. and all wanted to be greatest, which of course they could not be. Can any desire be more opposed to love than everyone to be greatest, wanting the best place for himself? How contrary to the mind of Christ as set out in Phil. 2!

Here then it is shown that what was the old commandment when He was there is now a new commandment, because now it is true not only in Him but in them. And what was it that made it to be true in them? The death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This it is that makes all things new. Resurrection could not be without death; nor could the old things pass away without Christ's death, any more than the new things come without His resurrection. But He is the resurrection and the life. And such is the great and glorious principle of Christianity. It all turns upon the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This it is that made the old new; this made it true in them as in Him. He indeed was and is the truth; but how is it with me or you? Are we in the Spirit? Or am I still looking out for myself? If so, it is neither Christ nor love.

How blessed that the old commandment is now new, and true in Him and in His own! And why so? Because Christians all stand alike, as having life in Him; but now that evils are dealt with on His cross, all things that hinder the working of divine life, the exercise of it in love, and its free display one with another — those evils have been all judged in the cross of Christ; and as the word reveals this, so the Spirit makes it good in each. The apostle speaks here again according to the principle. He does not take into account any passing qualification through the particular state of a Christian; which has its own corrective in the word elsewhere. But John gives us the true principle in all its absoluteness for faith to enjoy, and by grace reduce to practice in the measure of our spirituality. He declares it is true in us, that is, in all Christians as well as in Christ.

This is a cheering, yea, astonishing fact in the spiritual realm; but never is the blessing of it effectually known unless it is believed on God's word, and believed about others as well as about one's own soul. "Which thing is true in Him and in you." The old commandment was powerless till He died and rose; but when He died and rose, the fulness of the blessing being shown in Himself, it was then communicated to His disciples. The corn of wheat abode alone until it fell into the ground and died; but if it die, said the Lord, it beareth much fruit. And where is that "much fruit"? In all Christians, in everyone that is real. Modifications may come in sadly to hinder; and it is important that we should learn how the things that hinder us can be overcome, and how we may and ought to rise above them. Never should we allow ourselves quiet, never seek any relaxation of earnest crying to God, and of using the means that His word and Spirit supply to meet the difficulty in ourselves, or, it may be, in others. For Christ has given us the example: we also ought to wash one another's feet.

Here then we have the principle, Christ's commandment in power. It was ever perfect in Christ. When it was but the old commandment, He alone carried it out. But when He died and rose, behold the difference among them. "Then stood up Peter with the eleven," just like one man: no more carnal strife, rivalry, or self-seeking. We never hear of this before; never was such a change during the days of our Lord's ministry in the flesh, or what is called here "from the beginning." It was only true in Him. Now through His resurrection power it was true in them as well as in Christ. See the reason given: "Because the darkness is" not exactly past. Here again one must regret to appear critical; but bear with me if it is the truth, which I know and declare it to be. For it is no mere guess or subjective feeling or opinion. The word which the Spirit of God employs here means "quite passing," but not "past." To say the darkness is past says a great deal too much. The darkness will never be past till Christ comes again. "Arise, shine! for thy light is come." Then shall be light for all the earth. It may be more brilliant in Jerusalem, but it will reach the whole world, as His glory shall fill all the earth.

It is clear that such is far from being the case now. There is and will be heathenism and Mohammedanism in the present age. There will be Babylon as there is now, even Rome, besides all kinds of special enormities even in Christendom. And worst of all the lawless one impends, who will sit in God's temple, showing himself that he is God. Even now think of the scepticism that is preached every Sunday in London, and this notoriously in the Anglican body, among Baptists, Independents, and Wesleyan Methodists, etc; and not by eccentricities but by some of their most eminent men. And there are few to say a decided word against this guilty trash, except some troublesome people who make themselves more and more disliked by their sounding the trumpet of alarm. For no matter how separately and simply they conduct themselves, their testimony is that all this unbelief is the deception of the devil, and the harbinger of the coming apostasy, and of the man of sin to be destroyed by the Lord's appearing in glory.

The darkness then is not past, indeed far from it; but it is passing. Where? In every added Christian. There might be some to believe in Kamtschatka; there might be more in Japan, or even in poor and proud, tricky and aggressive Russia. But wherever grace acts, and no matter where, if there be fresh saints of God, the darkness so far passes away. It passes effectually in every Christian. The apostle here too looks at the principle. He is not examining how far it has been realised; for this is not his work. He looks at things as they ought to be in the Christian, acting and carrying out the divine principle that his soul has received.

But he adds, "and the true light already shineth," to give the force as exactly as possible. There are Christians who do not like accuracy. But is it not better to have the truth as simply and clearly and fully as any can help? The important point here to remark is that this comes in after Christ's death and resurrection. Did not the world quench that light in His death? As far as it could, so it sought. But His resurrection gave the lie to the world's effort; for the light shines more powerfully than ever. "The true light already shineth." The saints, so weak before, become strong, and forget themselves and their follies in their joy at the risen Saviour. The Spirit given thereon is one of power and love and sobriety. Hence we may see how true the command to love is in Him and in them. For "in them" lay the difficulty. It was undeniably in Him, but how could it be true in them too? Risen to bear much fruit we see the darkness quite passing away and the true light already shining. Christ banishes the darkness for each Christian, and Christ is already shining for and in them all more than ever.

Accordingly in ver. 9 the reply is to him who says he is in the light, and yet hates his brother. "Saying" has a bad character in this Epistle. The true saint of God does not talk lightly of being in the light. He knows he is, he blesses God for it, but he is serious about what is so solemn. He leaves it to others to say boastingly — "I am in the light" when he means of a real saint, "You are in the dark." What can be more derogatory to the Lord, or less worthy of a Christian? The right and true course is not saying but manifesting that one walks in the light by a godly conversation. "He that saith he is in the light and hateth his brother" manifests that he is not in the light. The hatred toward his brother is incompatible, not only with love, but with light and life. For these all go together and cannot be separated. The life is shown in obedience, but so it is in love; and the true light which already shines makes such darkness visible. Certainly if a brother be hard, impatient, or otherwise faulty, this is meant to test yourself: be all the more careful, if anything in him is grievous in your eyes. But why should not your heart go out to win him? Why give up love where it is so much needed? You ought also to pity, if you believe a brother has done serious wrong. Should he not be an object for your earnest supplication to God, however you may reprobate the evil?

"He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now." How summary and trenchant! So it is with loving John; nobody more tender, but who more decided? Here is the bright contrast with indifference. He does not say, "I love my brother;" but he does love him. "He that loveth his brother abideth in the light;" and he loves, even though there were painful inconsistencies to make a heavy demand on his love. Thereby love is only the more proved; "and there is none occasion of stumbling in him." It was a trying case; but he loved. Such a one "abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him." Had retaliation wrought, or ungracious desire of evil to one that had failed, there would be an occasion of stumbling. Such is under provocation the natural feeling of a man, but it is the negation of Christ, and consequently of the Christian.

"But he that hateth his brother" (ver. 10). Here we have the evil thoroughly shown out in its violent character. "He that hateth his brother is in the darkness." This is his state, which really decides the matter. One that hates his brother is a murderer in principle, as John shows afterwards (1 John 3: 15). "He that hateth his brother is in the darkness." It is not merely what he does or how he walks, but he is in darkness. This he manifests by his ruthless behaviour. Words and deeds proclaim his state. What are his words? "He hateth his brother." And what his deeds? "He hateth his brother." "He walketh in the darkness." The walk brings in the reality of the man, just as it flows out of being in the light that we walk in the light. It is not a theory but a deep reality. Nothing less is conveyed by the word "walk." "And knoweth not where he goeth." He deceives himself. Unhappy but seared, he does not realise that he is a prey to the enemy. He is not aware that he is going into perdition. But there he is bound; and all the more, because he blindly took the place of a Christian. For if nothing can be more blessed than to be a Christian, nothing is more miserable than to take the place without being one truly; yet how many are thus misleading souls today?

How then can one be sure? I am sure that I am a lost sinner; and I am sure that God welcomes the lost sinner in the name of Jesus; for God gave the Son of God to be the Son of Man, to seek and to save the lost. I need Christ for my salvation, and believe on Him because of God's word concerning Him. Am I not entitled therefore to take the place of a Christian? If we receive Christ, we receive His life; and He is to faith the only propitiation for our sins. The title is thus given, children of God, to those that believe on Christ's name. Only He secures to all such the Christian portion and blessing. All the privileges of grace in Him come practically together.

On the contrary, if one merely takes up the Lord's name lightly, without just consideration of one's sins and the abject need of deliverance and salvation, clearly one walks in darkness all the while. It is to be in darkness and to walk in darkness and not to know whither one goes because the darkness has blinded one's eyes; and all the worse because of taking the place of a Christian. "For if the light that is in thee be darkness, then how great the darkness!" saith the Lord. One is born, not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's will, but of God. It is through living faith in Jesus.

This is not said to discourage the weakest believer. Why should it? There is not a word in all the New Testament, or the Old either, to make persons doubt; everything is said to engage them to believe. If they believe, if they submit to God's revelation — the word of His truth and of His grace, the blessing is theirs. The word of truth is the gospel of salvation. Only there you have that which lays you bare as a wretched sinner, at the same time that it removes every stain, blots out your every sin, and gives you to stand consciously possessed of life eternal, and justified before God. It is not self that justifies me; I condemn myself. God justifies the believer in the Lord Jesus. It is only Christ that could make my deliverance from all condemnation a reality. If I have Christ, I can let myself go altogether; everything of which I was vain or proud, whatever may have been the form of my folly, I dismiss it all as utterly false and wrong. Oh the bliss of finding that all God's blessing is in Christ, and that He gives it all of His own free grace! not of works, lest any man should boast. But here is a person that ventured under that holy Name without any real sense either of his sins or of God's grace. It was mere presumption and self-deceit; or nowadays clerical pressure on giddy masses and classes. He passes somehow into the brotherhood but fails entirely; he hates his brother. He is just a natural man, and so is in the darkness; and he walks in the darkness and knows not where he goes, because, as it is said, "the darkness blinded his eyes."

But we see clear after we believe. Faith in Christ takes away our blindness, as it removes every other impediment. For the grace of God gives us Christ not merely as life and propitiation, but for every day's walk and for every day's danger or difficulty. Oh what encouragement there is in the simplest yet deepest way in which the apostle urges those two tests or signs of the real Christian: first obedience, and then love; in both no longer walking in darkness like the world, but having the light of life; because we follow Christ believingly and obediently, we also walk in love.

Accordingly we learnt first of all that obeying God is the primary and most essential mark of the Christian. To obey is meant to cover every act of our life, connecting what is set before us with our intentions or our wishes, or the like, and judging them all by this standard, Is it God's will? would it please God? In this is God calling me to do or bear, whatever it may be?

To be subject to His word settles all questions; and so Christ ever walked. Absolute submission to His Father's will makes it sweet for us. As He says, "Take My yoke on you and learn from Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls; for My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." My brother, do you accept it loyally? Oh how comforting! For what makes it easy? Nothing but Christ. If the eye be upon Him, His yoke is easy if the eye be off Christ, whether on myself or on anything else, His burden becomes intolerable, and under unbelief one wholly breaks down.

We can see also the Spirit's wisdom in giving both tests, and in the order in which they stand; first obedience, then love. You may generally find as I have done, that when Christians talk about one another, they are apt to give love the first place in their practical scheme of Christianity. Their confidence rests on their opinion that such a one is a most loving brother. It would be wretched indeed not to be a loving brother; but what about his obedience? Is he, once self-willed, now marked by obeying God?

All may recollect in the early trial of the apostles (Acts 4, 5) this was their one plea — they must obey. Their preaching and teaching Jesus as the Christ gave great offence to the Jewish high-priest and the Scribes, the Elders, and the Sadducees. Hence they were commanded not to speak in that Name. But God appeared for them when imprisoned to the astonishment of all that had their charge. For out of prison an angel brought them, and commanded them to speak again in the temple. It was not like Peter alone led out, wonderful as that miracle was. But previously the whole of the twelve were rescued, whilst the guards walked up and down without the least perception of what God was doing. For well He knows how to blind eyes, and rescue from bonds if it pleases Him. Directed to the temple, there they delivered His message; yet, insensible even to this sign, Jewish leaders insisted on their silence. But the apostle Peter could say that God must be obeyed rather than men. This is the all-important claim of God, and the Christian's inalienable duty — obedience. If we do not obey God, we do Him utter wrong.

It is allowed that there are those here below who are entitled to command, as there are those who ought to obey. A child for instance should obey its parents; and every soul is to be subject to the civil authority. But their obedience differs greatly from the character of obedience here laid down for the Christian. External or natural obedience may be rendered in spite of repugnance. This never entered the obedience of Christ, nor ought it ever to be in the Christian's. He is sanctified to Christ's, obedience. He is exhorted to fix his view on a perfect law of liberty, as having a new nature which loves to do God's will as revealed in His word, in contrast with Israel under a law of bondage and the penalty of death. The new nature finds its motives in God's will, as Christ was the perfect pattern.

We may suffer for obeying God, but this is then an honour; as the apostles were scourged because they were resolute to obey God, and meekly bore the consequence. It was counted a great disgrace for a Jew to be whipped in the council. But they bore it quietly, and went out even rejoicing that they were counted worthy to be dishonoured for the Name. This was not "passive resistance" but saintly obedience, and suffering the consequence without a murmur and full of joy. Obedience then supposes the will broken and submissive to God's word, and thus to Himself. There is no true lowliness without it; yet it arms the soul against all counter-attractions, and gives firmness to the weakest against every adversary. So we see in Christ Himself, who honoured Scripture as none ever did before, and fashions the Christian after His own model. It concentrates the moral mind on God's will, and is jealous to maintain His authority in whatever fell from His mouth, knowing that He has that divine perfection of majesty, holiness, truth, faithfulness, which was fully displayed in Christ, His image.

But love is not that purity of nature though altogether consistent with it, which light expresses so vividly, which manifests itself and manifests everyone and everything else where it shines. Love is the energy of the Godhead in intrinsic goodness, not only where relationship and congeniality with Himself exists, but rising and going out actively above all barriers, and in sovereign grace rescuing the vilest who receive Christ from the worst evils by virtue of redemption through His blood, and with eternal life, which is in the Son but given to the believer as his new life, with the Holy Spirit henceforth to guide him as a son of God, and to work in and by him in the unity of Christ's body, the church, as he awaits His coming to receive him to Himself, and introduce him, with all heavenly saints, into His Father's house on high. It one may be allowed the phrase, as obedience in the light is the centripetal force, of the Christian, love is the centrifugal, in being imitators of God as beloved children, and walking in love, according as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for an odour of sweet smell.

May the Lord grant that not merely this, the first mark, may be true in us, but also the second mark, even love, the energetic principle of the divine nature. It will be borne in mind that the Thessalonian saints were young in the faith. Yet the apostle told them, "Concerning brotherly love ye have no need that we should write to you, for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another" (1 Thess. 4: 9). We have been ranch longer in the way than they. The Lord give us grace that we, taught of God, may abound in love still more. Thankfulness always accompanies love. Anything else is but "good-nature," as people call it, a kindly benevolent spirit that does not like to trouble or be troubled, and is willing to let everyone have his own way; and this is accounted love! May the Lord enable us to discern the things of the Spirit of God.

ADDRESS 6

1 JOHN 2: 12, 13.

"I write to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven you for his name's sake. I write to you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from [the] beginning; I write to you, young men, because ye have overcome the wick one; I write* to you, little children, because ye have known the Father."

*There is preponderant witness for "I wrote" here, as there is occasionally for as evident blunders of early date in copyists. So it is here, where the context utterly forbids it, and its introduction brings in nothing but confusion, as is abundantly clear from the commentary of Dean Alford swayed by it.

Here we have an evident departure from the course of the tests applied to the question of spiritual reality as to life eternal, and fellowship with the Father and the Son. For it is evident that an analogous line is resumed in another form from the 28th verse of this chapter. There we have a strain substantially akin to that which was before us from 1 John 2: 3 to ver. 11 in discussion of the two grand principles that distinguish a real Christian from everybody else. The first, as already seen, is obedience, and the second, love — both of them capital and indispensable. They are not wisely comparable for a moment one with another, except that obedience properly takes the first place; because it means obeying God and He must and ought to have the pre-eminence. The love, on the other hand, that is looked for here is not love to God, but love of our brethren. Though this is a cardinal principle of Christianity, and its absence fatal to anyone's Christian profession, nevertheless obeying God has a necessarily prior claim to loving our brethren, and in certain circumstances may seriously affect its claims. In point of fact they both begin at the same moment, when the soul receives life eternal through faith in our Lord Jesus. From that beginning it is no longer the old "I" that lives, but Christ who lives in me, which is true of every Christian without exception.

But here we turn, after the introductory ver. 12, to the spiritual gradation between Christians; and this is pursued from ver. 13 down to the end of ver. 27. First of all he carefully prepares the way by setting all on a common platform by saying "I write to you, dear children." Thus he addresses them altogether, and purposely brings in their universal privilege as introductory to the different classes among believers, because of their varying development spiritually. For although the word of God is now complete, and there can be no development in Christ who is absolutely perfect, there may and ought to be growth in the Christian by the knowledge of God. But in the spirit of grace, before entering on these special differences among Christians, we are shown the necessary foundation on which the faith of the gospel puts us, where we are all alike, and this too from the very threshold of our confession of Christ. Surely it is helpful and interesting to see what is laid down as the first step that the believer takes after he has received life, and has had the principles of obedience and of love implanted in his soul, along with life and in fact of essence inseparably involved in it. Who that knows the Lord Christ can doubt that He was always obedient, and always walked in love? Now the Christian cannot in principle be separated from Christ, being one spirit with the Lord. He owes everything to Him, and Christ is his all, and in all (Col. 3: 11).

Now there is a privilege of the greatest moment which ought to be known and enjoyed from the earliest days. This may not always be from various causes, though the gospel proclaims present and complete forgiveness to the believer through faith in Christ and His work. Yet many saints fail herein, as we too well know; and so it has been for very many years, one might say ever since the apostles left the earth. The grace of God in salvation soon yielded here to human reasoning, and so to legal conditions; thus to impair even the plenary forgiveness of sins, and gradually make it the end for the Christian instead of his starting-point. In short the Galatian error, in spite of the Epistle that denounces and refutes it, overspread the Christian profession; and the gospel fell under law, which always presents life as something for which we must work in order to earn or keep the blessing. On that ground one retrogrades to Judaism, having abandoned the distinctive grace of the gospel. For it is God's glad-tidings that a Christian starts with divine grace, giving to faith both life in Christ and also His propitiation for our sins. If the life cannot be extinguished, the exercise and enjoyment of it may be much hindered by the error which puts off or hides the forgiveness of sins by making people labour for it, and groan because they have not got it, and are troubled with natural doubts and fears.

"Am I His? or am I not?" is unworthy of Christ and deplorable for the Christian. Yet, singular to say, it is held by earnest Christians. And it is surprising that not merely Arminians cherish this hesitation about it, but the highest Calvinists also. There are those who go as far as to say, "If you do not doubt about yourself, I doubt about you." Can there be a narrower or more extreme school? One hardly conceives of a Roman Catholic darker in his thoughts than that. Yet some of these are hyper-Calvinists, pre-occupied with self-inspection and judging every one save themselves. But the fact really is that, if they did judge themselves, they would be forced to fall back on the grace of the Lord Jesus, and forget themselves in the riches of God's goodness in Him.

His grace does strengthen as nothing else can under the Spirit's teaching of the soul. The forgiveness of our sins Christ has secured to us by His blood which cleanses us from every sin. This is what the gospel proclaims to every creature that he may believe. The worst sinners on the earth can be truly and righteously, earnestly, lovingly, and perseveringly addressed with a call to believe on Christ and His precious blood for the remission of their sins. Scripture declares this to be through Christ's work, not God's grace only but His righteousness. Yet as a matter of fact there are very many Christians who do believe in the Lord Jesus, but do not apprehend that His work on the cross entitles them to present and full forgiveness. Believing in Him they put their sins between Christ and themselves. Besides and in particular they are troubled by the sense of indwelling sin. The latter one readily understands: sin in the flesh is a great difficulty to believers at and after the start. They find that, though truly converted, their experience is of a deeper evil within than they ever suspected before. They are surprised that then should be the time when they realise it with grief. Yet it is the light of life in their soul, which makes them conscious of that self which inheres intimately in their old nature.

The soul by grace comes to the knowledge then, as he is led on, that there is not only the new man which he expected to be alone in him, but the old too, and lively. For it constantly seeks to break out, and needs therefore to be kept by faith in the place of death to it, the cross of Christ, wherein God condemned it. Nothing else could completely settle the account of the old man; only Christ's death. When His blood is spoken of, it is rather applied to our sins or our guilt; but Christ's sacrificial death covers far more than acts of sin. There the mind of the flesh was judicially dealt with. There sin in the flesh had God executing sentence on it by sacrifice for sin; not for sins only but sin indwelling. This is learnt not only by faith but experimentally also.

For many, when they are converted, perhaps almost all more or less, are shocked to find indwelling sin after they believe in Christ. Full of joy at having received a perfect Saviour, they do not apprehend that their sins are completely blotted out, and they have to experience an evil within which never so troubled them before. But if it is not met by the death of Christ, what is there to add for it? What more fully dealt with sin? There is a powerful examination of Christ's work in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the gist of which is that, as there is but one divine Saviour, so there is only one efficacious sacrifice; if more be required, He must suffer often. But this seem to subvert and deny the truth of Christ's cross; it annuls His work who died once for all. "Death hath no more dominion over Him;" as sin never had. But sin, that dwells in us, even after we believe by grace, had to be and was condemned in His cross. What is needed for sin indwelling is God's condemnation of it; and this we have in Christ's death on the cross. The fire of judgment in the sacrifice for sin must consume sin before God according to the well-known figure. The New Testament gives us the full truth of what the Old Testament gave partially in the type. All these figures, with a great deal more that no figure could set forth, centre in Christ and His work.

The apostle alleges a blessed issue in plenary forgiveness as his reason for writing the Epistle, on which he builds much more. He does not call it his only reason, but it is his reason for writing to them; and we may add, that his reason for writing to them remains in all its profit to us. All Christian doctrine, all teaching of the saints, is grounded on this basis: that we have by grace the forgiveness of sins. We are not on proper Christian ground till we accept from God that in virtue of Christ our sins are forgiven. "I write to you, dear children" (thereby embracing the entire family of God, of which there is a good deal to say presently), "because your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake." Can anything be more simple? In order to be fully blest there is nothing, to begin with, more necessary to know personally. It is for the Christian to begin the day with it, and with it to go through each day, and to retain its comfortable certainty as our last waking thought. For indeed our sins are forgiven for His name's sake. There is no miserable fear that something remains in the dark or uncertainty to cloud: the glad tidings which we received in our ungodly state declared on God's part our sins remitted on our faith. Hence it is a great slight to the gospel, and a very great dishonour to the Lord Jesus, to doubt it. Clearly such a feeling sets aside the plain words of God; for what can be clearer than what is before us? Does not this ground abide? Are we under temporal and conditional promises like Israel of old in the law?

Peter proclaimed the forgiveness of sins in early days. "To him bear all the prophets witness that every one that believeth on him shall receive through his name remission of sins'; and the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to all that believed among the Gentiles, as before on Jews. There is indeed no reception of that divine seal without the known forgiveness of sins (compare Acts 11: 17). Somewhat later and in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia Paul preached just the same. "Be it known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man is preached to you remission of sins, and from all things from which ye could not be justified in the law of Moses by (or in) him every one that believeth is justified." Thus the two great apostles, of circumcision no less than of uncircumcision, thoroughly corroborate what the last surviving apostle propounds at the close to counteract the seducers growingly at their evil work. It is not even that he announces the privilege for them to learn it, that their sins were forgiven for the sake of Christ's name; he writes the Epistle to them, because their sins are forgiven them. If they were not forgiven, the ground presupposed and essential for the Christian is taken away. Without its known certainty there could be no peace with God, nor fitness of soul to receive or profit by further divine communications.

There is no "if" brought in here. The "ifs" in Scripture are important, and not to be explained away where they occur. But here there is no "if;" because an "if" in the gospel would bring entire ruin on its nature, character and aim. For the blessing of redemption (whatever the grace it brings, and the new responsibility it creates) depends not on the redeemed but on the Redeemer. Nothing can be simpler than this truth, which seems its essence in a few words; and faith receives what God declares about it. He has taken the greatest pains, not only by the two great apostles Peter and Paul, one of the circumcision and the other of the uncircumcision, but here also by John, the last of all. The truth of the gospel remains "in the last hour," as fresh to the end as at the beginning. In scripture it is entirely unimpaired by the practical ruin of the church and by the awful intimation which the apostle Paul gave comparatively early, that there is to be "the falling away" before the day of the Lord in judgment. This was made known in one of his earliest Epistles, the second to the Thessalonians, the first to them being the earliest of all his Epistles. The second was written not long after, perhaps within the same year; and there is predicted the awful climax of lawlessness, apostasy from the truth, and this not for Jews nor for heathen, but sad to say for Christendom. If reunion come, this will be its character.

The Jews had already apostatised when they gave up the Lord God of their fathers for idols, and crowned it with the rejection of their Messiah, the Lord Jesus. This we may call their apostasy, though they will proceed to greater enormity before the end. The heathen had been always in a state of apostasy from God from the time that they set up false gods. But the awful end disclosed in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is, that the apostasy is to fall on Christendom before the day of the Lord comes. And you have only to look at the daily papers, or the monthlies or the quarterlies of our time, and you will find evidence in the religious organs as much as in the worldly journals, that the apostasy is impending. They cannot hide but betray the preparation for it.

"Higher criticism," falsely so called, is the devil's device to throw dust in people's eyes about scripture. Where is the word of God left for faith? If scripture be denied to be the word of God, where is the church, the believer, or the lost sinner? Where is Christ the Lord, or God's testimony to His grace and truth? No ground at all abides for faith. Make it an uncertain thing, the word of man (Elohists and Jehovists senior and junior, with redactors too!) really rather than the word of God, and you lose God's saying love, grace, and controlling power which kept infirm and erring man from a single error, that there should not be a flaw in all Scripture as originally given of Him. This is what God intended;. as it is what the apostle Paul pronounces authoritatively in his latest Epistle (2 Tim.). That too was the proper time for it. He says that not merely all Scripture in a general way is given by inspiration of God, but "every scripture," every part of the Bible, each part of the Old Testament, and each of the New Testament, every bit of it is God-breathed. Blessed be God that so it is. Can God lie? Has God any need to repent, or alter His mind?

Oh the wickedness of man, and in particular of Christendom! For it is most distressing to see this scepticism unjudged in all the denominations, great and small. Not one of them escapes its withering influence more or less, and especially in their leading or energetic men.

Here then, in ver. 12, we have the commonplace or initial privilege which every Christian is supposed to possess. It is not merely to have life, for all the Old Testament saints had life; but none of these, though having life, could say, "Our sins have been forgiven for His name's sake." Christ had not yet come, and still less had He yet suffered. The atoning work was not yet done; the full proclamation of grace could not yet be made. Now all things are ready, even for Him to judge living and dead; and "I write to you, dear children, because your sins are (have been and are) forgiven you for His name's sake." It could not be before He came. The words "His name's sake" are all-important. It was not necessary to express more fully who "He" was; every Christian understands it at once. They particularly apply when He is not here. The revelation of His grace and truth is come and abides. "His name" means what God has revealed of Him and His work. It takes in not only what the Lord was when here, but what He suffered and accomplished before leaving the world for the Father. And the Spirit of God came down at His request, and also on the Father's part, not only for rich blessing of the saints but to His glory, that the proclamation of the gospel might go forth to every creature in His power. Nobody was shut out from its blessed sound. Many individuals, through their hostility or their carelessness, might refuse to bear. This is their sad affair, for which they must give account. But it goes out to all: Jew or Greek, circumcision or uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or free; not one is excluded from God's word of reconciliation. It is His righteousness and not grace only; whereas conscience work, if we stray, is a question of holiness in the soul's state and practice. One needs to have the fellowship restored which sin interrupted. Nevertheless none derive effectual blessing from the reconciliation except they believe on Christ by divine grace; and this requires the action of the Spirit of God in conscience and heart. Yet it is by the faith of God's word that the Holy Spirit thus works livingly.

But among the saints in the church of God, wherever it may be, it is ever assumed that all within knew their sins forgiven. How else could there be happiness individually before God? How else singleness of eye to discern His will and courage to do it in the face of all the snares from the world, the flesh, and the devil'? How could there be real fellowship in worship? How fitness to take their part in the assembly's obligation to deal with evil, and in the last resort to purge it out? They could not otherwise bear to know, and firmly act on it, that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump." For the lack of enjoyed forgiveness implies not merely a bad conscience, but one never in fact purged from dead works to worship a living God, so that spiritual power falls and uncertainty cannot but darken and enfeeble the soul. When the grace that gives the cleansing by Christ's blood is seized by faith, the Holy Spirit makes it known as a primary corporate duty to "purge out the old leaven that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened." Practice must be ruled by divine principle: else the assembly becomes an offence to the Name, and exists only to deny and disgrace it. "For also our passover, Christ, hath been sacrificed. Wherefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of malice and wickedness, but with unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth." There might be sad failure where, as among the Corinthians, there was no question that all Christians have, through the faith of the gospel, their sins forgiven; but without that forgiveness the Epistles in general fail to apply. The unforgiven are not addressed in them. They are not on the ground of Christianity, still less of the church.

Where is even this now insisted on? The Reformation did not require it for the assembly (if we can speak of "the assembly" then); for it did not in the least set things in church order. It did what was a far more needed and important work; for it gave people the Bible, which had been taken away, particularly by the proudest of those religious corporations which call themselves churches without the right to it. Scripture had long been hidden away. A priest might give leave, but he rarely cared to give leave; and people could not get it otherwise.

A person in London was extremely anxious to read the New Testament. Being a Romanist and what is called "a good Catholic," he would not break the law of "the church," which as the rule forbade it. But it did not forbid reading the Greek Testament; and so he in a roundabout way attained his end. Although foreman in a factory (and you know what such a post implies, what a responsibility rests on his shoulders and how his time is taken up), the man learnt Greek for the express purpose of enjoying God's word direct in the New Testament. The fact was told me by the master, who was a well-known and respected Christian and had all confidence in his zealous and conscientious servant. It was Christian feeling in a Romanist struggling against the impious and tyrannous zeal of its misbegotten authority. If he had not light to judge the wickedness, it is evident that he had a conscientious desire after God's latest word; and he took no little trouble to get it; and we may hope it was blessed to his soul. No more can I say than was told me, except that in all his workmen none was more reliable than the poor Romanist who learned Greek in order to enjoy the New Testament as it came from God. Who can wonder that he feared God and loved His word?

At length we come to the different grades, after being shown what is common to them all. The first is, "I write to you, fathers," that is, the most mature in spiritual power and knowledge. Is it not worthy of our grave attention? What saith the Scripture? Notions of government or of doctrine have nothing to do with this. It is depth of spiritual entrance into the mind of God about Christ. It is a higher measure of apprehending the Lord Jesus which constitutes a father spiritually, the first of the three classes in God's family distinguished by the apostle. First there were "fathers"; secondly "young men"; and thirdly "little children." As "dear children" correctly rendered includes all the three, it is necessary to use some such word as "little children," or "babes" definitely for those least mature. For it must be remembered that quite different words are employed and kept up throughout. In the 12th verse the term "dear children" (tekniva), as is invariable, means all the family; and as this word introduces the parenthetic portion, so in the 28th verse the selfsame word introduces the resumption of what follows all these various classes. For, this done, he again turns to the ordinary course which was interrupted in order to show that, on the same ground-work of grace, differences there are among the children of God in spiritual maturity, the only kind of difference that is recognised. But within the parenthesis (viz. the last part of verse 13), "I write to you, little children" (παιδία), it is a different word.* This occurs nowhere else in the Epistle except here, and a second time at the beginning of ver. 18, where its repetition commences. There are just these two occasions. Our Lord in a general way used both these terms, as given in John's Gospel; but we do not enter into that now, as it seems to have no bearing on the special usage of the First Epistle, of which the importance is made perfectly plain. No man is asked to give an opinion when God has told us the truth with all clearness. There need therefore be no doubt about it. Nor can one allow the validity of, or room for, difference of judgment; because God in His word is, and ought to be, the end of all controversy.

* It is extraordinary that any Christian of the least intelligence should blunder, as Dean Alford did here. In the third edition of his last volume p. 440, he still talks of "three classes of readers, denoted the first time by τεκνία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, and the second time by παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι. But this is mere oversight of the common portion of the τεκνία, followed by the three divisions into πατέρες, νεανίσκοι, παιδία, which is repeated with greater detail (except for the πατέρες) in verses 14 to 17 for the νεανίσκοι, and in verses 18 to 27 for the παιδία. Afterward τεκνία is the address to all from verse 28, as he addressed all in verse 12. What misled Alford was one of those mistakes (too often in the oldest uncials, A B C L P, etc.) which give ἔγραφα in the last clause of verse 13, from the scribe's confusion with what follows. It is not even true in fact; for the apostle had not written yet to the παιδία. The true reading, though not so well supported, is γράφω, for all three on the first mention, ἔγραφα, for all three on the second. Muddle is the result for the exposition founded on an evident misreading. To say that παιδία is here "addressed to all the readers" is to ignore words, context and sense.

Here then in verse 13, as in 18 only, the "little children mean the babes of the family. After the "fathers" and "young men" come the "little children," if one may so render, this being the triple division of the "dear children" or God's family in general. It is necessary in some way to distinguish them; and all the more, because the lack of it has exposed excellent and learned men to error here. It must ever be so where erudition is not subject to the revealed truth, and consequently does not enjoy the guidance of the Holy Ghost according to the word. Where this is unhappily the case, learning instead of being useful may do a great deal of harm, and can do no good. For where is the good spiritually of anything into which the Spirit of God does not enter and guide? But if the Spirit of God speaks in words taught of Himself, we must be submissive to the word. Then we have the blessed certainty of revelation, but not otherwise.

It is obvious how far reaching this verse is, and like the one preceding in the simplest and clearest form. Here the three distinct classes stand out with remarkable brevity. But the Spirit of God goes over the ground again, when He enlarges, with one marked exception, in a truly instructive manner, which will come before us in its own place.

Now let us be content to take the few words which the Spirit of God gives on their distinctive differences.

The "fathers" are so designated here "because ye have known him that is from the beginning." Who can mistake Him? It is Christ, and none other. But He is not here called by His usual name. He was the Word and Son, before the time described as "from the beginning." He was Only-begotten of the Father through all eternity. The Eternal Son of the Eternal Father no human mind can fathom; and the incarnation necessarily adds to its inscrutability. But this is not the least ground for not believing what is infinitely above and beyond us; it is revealed without a doubt. And the reason why men break down upon it all is that they reason from man up to God, which is always false. You must reason down from God to man, if you are to be in the truth; for who knows the truth but God? And who can reveal the truth but God, as He has done in Christ? In the Gospel John is most careful to say that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It matters not how far one essays back in thought into the depths of eternity. Imagine millions of years! These are not the beginning, though of course one cannot with propriety talk of "years" before the measures of time apply. But go back in imagination into these unmeasured depths, there He subsisted. No beginning had He who is eternal, and in His own personality also He was "with God."

Again, not only was He with God as a distinct person from the Father and the Spirit; but He was God. Nor is there any property of God more distinctive than His being eternal; if not eternal, not God.

But quite a different thing is referred to here. It is not knowing Him that was in the beginning with God, but knowing "Him that is from the beginning." It is the beginning of His taking flesh, the incarnate Word, in this world Such is the absolutely new fact. From the beginning is reckoned from His manifesting Himself as Emmanuel, the God-Man. This was He whom the "fathers" knew. What can you know about the Son in eternity except that He was the Only-begotten Son in the Father's bosom, the object of His everlasting delight as even Prov. 8 tells us? Such He was when not a creature existed above or below, neither angel nor man nor lower being. There was only the blessed God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as we know now; and there were divine counsels which were afterwards to be divulged to us who now believe. What do we know more than this? But if we look at "Him that is from the beginning" there is, one may say, almost everything to learn and know.

And where do we find this illimitable subject? In the New Testament generally, in the Gospels particularly. There we have Him on earth, there shown as man, not a mere human being, but God and man in one person, truly a divine person. There was He born of the Virgin, not only Messiah but God's Son, Elohim and Jehovah (Matt. 1: 21, 23). Oh what a deal there is to learn even at His birth! For we here only touch the fact of His person when He became incarnate. If we are told a good deal about Him as a babe, we have even more about Him when He was a child twelve years old. And what significant silence is kept over all the years thence to thirty! There were no trumpets blown, no beating of drums, no pomp or ceremony, no such thing as the birthday remembered by a single soul except His real mother and His legal father, and perhaps their acquaintance; nothing of further recognition now; just as at the inn there was no room for Him at His birth. Who takes a shrewder worldly measure of a person of consequence than a waiter at an hotel? He soon appraises the person that appears; he guesses well who is good pay for the house. No; the manger will do very well enough for such folk. The stable is at hand, but "no room for them in the inn."

One wonder is the entire obscurity in which He moved who was the Father's delight, when simply working at the carpenter's bench with His legal father. But there and then He was doing the will of God. "Must I not be in my Father's things?" And here He was in the temple, hearing the teachers, and asking them questions. He did not mount a chair to preach, like some of the foolish boys put forward by more foolish men and women. But there He was, in the most lowly and lovely manner, hearing them and asking them questions, with far more knowledge than all His teachers. And was it not a testimony to their consciences, to learn how this could be? For there was no pretension: become man He remained as yet simply a boy, but this boy the Lord God, the Creator of the world. Such was the One on whom the Father looked down to find what met all His mind and His affections, not merely as a divine person but peculiarly a divine person become man. Become man! The Word become flesh! What? Entered the family of man! Yet man as he is and has long been is the most wicked, the vainest, the proudest of all creatures in God's creation. Other animals stick to their habits from the time that man's sin wrought havoc even with them. But man only goes out of one wickedness into another, always getting worse and worse as time went on; and the more light they received outwardly, the more they perverted it really.

After much, when the world as a whole was at the worst point at which it had ever arrived, the Lord was born in the fulness of time. And when He entered upon His public service, what did every day disclose to Him! What lessons fell from His lips and His life! With men, women and children, He was familiarly conversant; with elders and lawyers, with Scribes and Pharisees, and with Herodians and Sadducees, with hypocrites and with the self-righteous, with wicked women and wicked men, and habitually with pious men and pious women. For the Lord had to do with every class. Never was any one brought more variously into contact, never one taking such loving pains with everybody, none showing divine grace and truth as He to everyone that came. Nothing is here said about His miracles, wonderful as they were, and signs of yet deeper things. Nor need one now enlarge on His words; though He spoke as never man did. He could say, when asked who He was, "Absolutely (κατ᾽  ἀρχὴν) that which I also speak to you" (John 8: 25). He was what He said. He is the truth, as no other man. And who are those that relish all this, who enjoy it, who appreciate Him thus presented and know how to apply it? The "fathers." "No one hath seen God at any time: the Only-begotten Son that is in the bosom of the Father — He declared [Him]." He too showed the Father. Their hearts were filled with Christ.

As you know well, this is not what generally satisfies even real Christians, nor can it be expected as things have been since primitive days. Without a total breach with man and the world it can never be for the Christian, who must have personally and in the Spirit gone through all kinds of difficulty in himself and all outside him. How often the Lord's work becomes all-absorbing to some devoted souls; as the church becomes to others, though by no means so frequently. But Christ, known as He was, detects and disperses all that is undue, and abides better known and with deepening sense of the fulness that dwelt in Him bodily.

Of course the "father" had once been "a babe," and "a young man," before he could be a "father." He had fully tasted the early joys in all their freshness; he had taken part in the conflicts which demand spiritual energy and courage. But after passing through every kind of experience as a man of faith and love, the result of it all is this: nothing but Christ, and Christ all. But, let it be repeated, it was knowing "Him that was from the beginning." It was not merely the Son in heaven throughout eternity, however owning the eternity of His person, but He, man on earth among men. What particularly characterises the fathers is knowing the Son incarnate, the Christ as He was seen and heard every day of His public service in Galilee, Judea, or Samaria. It was Himself, God and man, God in man, the Son revealing the Father in all He said and did. This is what won and fixed and filled their hearts. It is what delighted God's heart. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I found my delight" or "my complacency." It was here in His grace (Matt. 3) and in the witness of the coming glory (Matt. 17) that the Father's voice was thus heard; and it is in Him manifested here that a "father" enjoys fellowship with Him. For they had truly fellowship with the Father and the Son, and in the most profound and practical way. Those are the "fathers."

One might have a great gift, and not at all be a "father." One might be not only a great preacher of the gospel but also a powerful teacher, yet not a "father." It depends not on gift in any way, but on that spirituality which has learned the valuelessness of everything but Christ. Profit there had been by other things; profit even by what humbled and inflicted the keenest pain. One might have entered with wonder, joy, and gratitude into our blessing in Christ in the heavenly places, members of His body who is the Head at God's right hand; into union also with all the saints which flows from our union with Him. But the issue of all that mystery, and of all profitable experience is to find that the all is in Christ Himself; in the Christ that our Father loves and honours. The same is He who occupies and delights our hearts too; and this, as He was manifested in the world. This is to know "Him that is from the beginning," the last and the best portion of the "fathers."

The apostle turns to the second class. He says, "I write to you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one." They are characterised by energy, energy that went out in faith and love. They had thoroughly discerned and judged sin, to which they knew they died with Christ. They knew that they were also risen with Him, to set their mind on Him and His things above, and to mortify their members on the earth. They had got beyond occupation with self. They had learned the power of Satan, and they faced it. They resisted the devil, and he fled from them. Thus they overcame the wicked one. But they were in the midst of that kind of conflict, and they were strong. They too had profited by the first place. Everyone of course begins as a "babe," and goes on perhaps to be a "young man;" but very few reach the place of a "father." Perhaps it may be allowed me to say that, knowing a great many Christians, I have known few "fathers" in my pilgrimage, nor have I even heard of them except very rarely. But "young men" happily it is not so uncommon to find. But it is very little if at all found in the religious world. Indeed even the full and proper character cannot be developed where the world necessarily exercises the influence it does there. Hence it is, as it remains to be shown that not even babes have the proper stamp of "little child" as affixed by the apostle. How sad not even to possess or recognise distinctly the signature that God gives the "little child!"

But we have had the second class sufficiently defined, we may hope, for every Christian to appreciate and understand, even if he can hardly claim it himself. It is vigorous Christianity, upright and decided, and knowing well that contention with flesh and blood, with which most are familiar, is short of what Satan's power is. They need the whole armour of God, and they put it on as essential to such warfare. They know both how to withstand, and, having done all, to stand. They have overcome the wicked one. Their conflict is clear enough in a general way. They are not ignorant of the enemy's devices, but resist him resolutely and are enabled to overcome. It is a vigorous Christianity with power in faith and in practice. Here too gifts are not in question. It is purely spiritual attainment. The forgiveness of sins has nothing to do with attainment, any more than the possession of life and light in Christ. It is a matter simply of faith in the gospel. But the world and man being what they are, the believer, when he receives the privileges of grace, cannot be without the experience of self and the world, and of Satan also put to the proof and silenced. They are not deceived by the secrecy or the silence of the great enemy. But they set themselves firmly by grace on the ground of His unaided victory who is their Saviour and Lord, and thank God who gives us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ. We thus prove that in all the things which seem against us we more than conquer through Him that loved us. Thus have the young men overcome the wicked one.

Thence we come to the very interesting and far more numerous third class — the "little children." "I write to you, little children," that is, the least ones of the "dear children" (in ver. 12, as in 1 and 28), "because ye have known (or, have the knowledge of) the Father." Have you ever tested how far this character belongs to the children of God whom you have known? It is to be supposed that many of us have met not a few children of God in the course of the Christian life. But if you had made it a point to ask, "Have you known the Father," what answer would be most frequent? Is one going too far to anticipate that most would feel it too much to claim? "Know the Father! Alas! I could not presume to say such a thing of myself." Most Christians evidently think that this would be a really wonderful attainment on earth — to have the knowledge of the Father! Who can have such knowledge in this life and world? For it means that they do know themselves to be His children now; that they have no hesitation about it; that it is a truth received from God, settled and sure in their souls, not because of dreams, feelings, or ideas; and as far as possible from any merit on their own part. This they have been taught of God, and they gratefully believe it for their own souls. They already knew their sins forgiven, as we have seen. They could not know the Father without resting on redemption in Christ. But how few saints thus rest always in peace on His redemption!

Holding the soundest doctrine on redemption is in no way your soul at God's word resting on Christ's redemption. It is very possible to receive the truth of redemption abstractly, and to say "I have no hold of it before God for my sins. Sometimes I have a humble hope; but at other times I am utterly cast down as to my soul." Clearly this is not real peace; still less, settled peace. Settled peace is that which, being founded upon the blood of His cross, never changes, because its ground never changes. There is also the known relationship to the Father, which is by the Holy Spirit given because we are sons. Even the babe is characterised by more than known forgiveness of sins. This is a vital truth of Christianity. Plenary remission of sins through the blood, no matter how assuredly realised by faith, does not constitute what the "babe" in God's family is expected to know. Were this all, he is without the essential blessing of relationship, and of known relationship, to the Father.

Hence another apostle (Gal. 3: 26) insists to the Galatians, "Ye are all God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus;" as here our apostle says, "I write to you, babes, because ye have known the Father." This they could only know. because they were sons, and God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father (Gal. 4: 6). None can so feel and utter it to God, unless they have received, not a spirit of bondage unto fear, but a Spirit of adoption. Then as divine power works the sense and affections in us as in that intimate relationship, so the duties flow out of it toward our Father and according to His will. Thus is this blessed privilege given and stated with all simplicity. Many in our day have faith in Christ Jesus, who are afraid to believe that they are sons of God, and that they abide so. The Holy Spirit is grieved at such unbelief, and can but reprove it while it lasts, instead of giving them the joyful liberty proper to such a relationship.

But here you have the youngest portion of the family of God in known relationship with the Father. Never can any one have this constant sense of being a son of God unless he have the Holy Ghost sealing him. There He dwells, because our sins have been forgiven us for Christ's name sake, and thereby the babes know the Father. So the apostle says to the Ephesian saints (Eph. 1: 13), "in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." These were not then advanced Christians. They had not as yet made progress in the truth. They had only just received the truth of the gospel as God sent it to them. They believed. in the efficacy of Christ's death, and accepted the fulness of His grace; and that fulness included both their sins blotted out, and themselves made sons of God, and receiving the Holy Spirit, so as at all times to cry, Abba, Father. And Christian blessing is not conditional or temporary like a Jew's. Legal thoughts swamp Christ's work for us under the Spirit's in us, and thus shake the peace made through the blood of His cross.

Assuredly that is a wondrous place for one to enter by faith who had been, perhaps a short time before, nothing but a lost sinner. Now by virtue of Christ's redemption the believer has the knowledge of the Father. This changes all to him, and leads him to the confiding intercourse of a son with his Father. If a father after the flesh is dear to his children, particularly if he is an affectionate and faithful father, there is near and bright intercourse. There can be no doubt about the Father. There all is blessed and considerate; for He is as tender as He is true and faithful. There follows then loving intercourse between the sons and the Father. And who is sufficient for these things? Our sufficiency is of God. It is not merely crying, Abba, Father; but as many as are led by God's Spirit, they are sons of God. And the Spirit bears witness with their spirit that they are children of God. Thereby too they taste the comfort and the certainty that their Father loves and blesses them day by day, though if need be chastising for profit, that they may partake of His holiness, called to His everlasting glory in Christ Jesus. Thus then we see the babes of His family; and in this way they are characterised, "They have known and knew the Father."

It is not merely that you look in vain through Christendom for "fathers" in Christ, and that very few "young men" appear with the true stamp of God; but where can we find the "little children" or "babes" thus according to revealed truth? Is it not most saddening? For when were men more self-satisfied? How one would hail "little children" such as the apostle describes, and seek to cheer them on their way, to become valiant against the foe, and to learn more and more of Him who suffered unspeakably for our sakes! But it is hard to find them. From the first century, if we may judge from the earliest Fathers, things got sadly wrong; and one plain proof of the departure is the want of fully appropriating even the truths that "Your sins have been forgiven you for His name's sake," and "I write to you, little children, because ye have known the Father."

Take the prevalent idea of a frequent recourse to the blood of Christ to restore from failures. How could men speak thus if they believed that Christ obtained everlasting redemption? or that the worshippers once purged have no longer conscience of sins? They cannot have the truth of the gospel in their soul, else they never would think after such a fashion. Christ bore our sins in His body on the tree, not merely those before we believed; His blood cleanses from every sin, not from some only. The saints ought to know that there is the washing of water by the word to meet any defilement in the Christian by the way, but no annulling of redemption through Christ's blood. "For by one offering He (Christ) hath perfected" not only for ever but continuously (εἰς τὸ διηνεκές) the sanctified. There is no such thought in God's gospel as our needing a fresh propitiation through His blood after the first; for it was plenary and all-sufficient. But we need to have our defiled feet cleansed by Christ's word and advocacy. And we confess any sin wherever we act inconsistently with Him; we confess our sin in that particular to God, and judge in ourselves that which exposed us so to fail. That is quite true and right; but not to shake the ground of His one sacrifice and of redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our offences.

If our sins were not all effaced, what would be the value of any? If only one were not forgiven, it would be fatal. But to the believer, forgiveness or remission of our sins means a complete clearance of the sad burden. Only if one should sin, conscience acts under the Spirit's dealing, and there follows a real humbling of ourselves due on any failure; for every such thing is a shame to us and a grief to the Holy Spirit of God whereby we were sealed unto the day of redemption. This however cannot touch the accepted work of our Lord Jesus. Author as He is of everlasting salvation. So also the knowledge of the Father and of our relationship as His children are quite unshaken. For "we have an Advocate with the Father" who is on high expressly to meet effectually all these difficulties, otherwise insuperable. We are thus ever indebted to Christ; but His advocacy is not His bloodshedding, nor is His blood again His advocacy. Risen and in heaven with the Father, He lives to intercede for us. His blood had quite a different aim and effect. His sacrifice has done its own work perfectly; and His advocacy has its proper place for our need afterwards; and woe to all those that ignorantly unsettle the truth, and insinuate what undermines the gospel of Christ, even though they believe in His person!

ADDRESS 7

1 JOHN 2: 14-27.

"I wrote (or, write, the epistolary aorist) to you, fathers, because ye have known Him [that is] from [the] beginning.

"I wrote to you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loveth the world, the love of the Father is not in him: because all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride (or, boasting) of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world is passing, and its lust; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

"Little children, it is [the] last hour, and even as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now many antichrists have come, whence we know that it is [the] last hour. From us they went out, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have abode with us, but [they went out] that they might be manifested that none are of us. And ye have anointing from the Holy One, and know all things. I wrote not to you, because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that [or, because] no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is the antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son. Every one that denieth the Son hath not the Father either; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.* As for you, let† what ye heard from [the] beginning abide in you: if what ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise which He promised us, life eternal. These things I wrote to you concerning those that lead you astray. And as for you, the anointing which ye received from Him abideth in you, and ye have no need that anyone should teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye (or, do ye, or, ye shall) abide‡ in Him."

* The last clause is unquestionable scripture, and sustained by the best witnesses. It was probably omitted from having the same ending as the clause before; a common source of error in the MSS.

†"Therefore" should here be dropped, as relying on inadequate testimony.

‡The best MSS. and Vv. give "abide ye," or "ye abide," rather than "ye shall abide."

Here we have clearly the same ground trodden again: the different stages in spiritual growth which mark the family of God. Their threefold distinction is here enlarged on. But the remarkable fact that meets us at the start is this: that the fathers, whom we might think properly entitled to have what concerned them still more fully stated, as being able beyond the others to enjoy the truth of God, have just the some words said over again. This is the more striking because repetition is in no way a rule in Scripture. There are some cases where similar or the same words are repeated, but they are quite exceptional, and this is one of them.

The reason is of a very touching kind. In verse 13 we read, "I write to you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning" — Christ as He was manifested here. He does not enter into divine counsels from all eternity, nor look forward to future glories of Christ, or even to His place at the right hand of God which is a central truth for the apostle Paul. But the beloved disciple was directed to meet the declension which had set in, and to minister best to the fathers, the most advanced of all spiritually, by simply repeating "I wrote (or, write) to you, fathers, because ye have known Him that is from the beginning." There is not one word different but in the verbal form: in verse 13 he says I "write," and in verse 14 he says "wrote," referring to what he had already said. And why this? Why has he no more to say to them? Because not emanations from God as men conceived, but here all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. It was now in Him, a Man, that God embodied and manifested the fulness of His grace and truth in a way that never had been, and as it never needed to be here again. The very notion of something more denied that fulness, and was a lie of Satan.

Here we are in presence of that which is infinite. And having the infinite, not merely in the divine nature of the Godhead, but in the divine person of the Son become man, we find therein its chief wonder; for it is His manhood that has given its necessary element to the wonder. It would have been little indeed without the Godhead; but God, as really manifesting Himself in man and as man, presented that which is above all other marvels, unless it be His death and this in atonement. In Him it was that the "fathers" found their all. Characteristically they had been once "babes" as knowing the Father; they had been "young men" in the vigour of spiritual power, a new, intimate and blessed privilege, which, it is needless to say, is never lost; for through this experience they reaped a blessing which does not pass away. But after passing through difficulties and dangers of all kinds, leaving its rich profit of growth by the true knowledge of God, that which most attracted them, and fixed their affections for ever, was the Lord as He walked up and down, spoke and wrought, manifesting God and His Father in every motive and act, in every word and deed of His life here below. Such is the force of knowing "Him that is from the beginning." We can find outside Christ thus proved nothing so deep and real, we can learn nothing so high and holy and immediate. It is not the exalted Man in heavenly glory; which is Paul's special teaching, and of all moment for spiritual energy. Here it is God manifest in the flesh here below, Jesus full of grace and truth in the midst of evil to separate us from it, and to act according to Him in us by the Holy Spirit's power.

Then we come to the second stage — the "young men and here the Spirit of God does enlarge somewhat. "I wrote (or, write) to you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one."

Observe, first of all, that there is an addition not found in the 13th verse, giving the real secret of their strength. The word of God abides in them. This is a weighty truth, which yields immense courage and spiritual power. It is not merely repairing to the word on emergency under pressure of difficulty and trial, but His revelation they had always abiding in them. This is exactly and perfectly what we find in the Lord Jesus. It did not matter whether one was friend or foe; it made no difference whether he appeared high or low: what people heard from Him was God's word. Even if the devil tempted Himself, the word was His answer; and if the enemy quoted it for evil, He replied with scripture for good and truth. If the disciples needed to learn what they were to expect, He brought out the word of God. Never was one who showed the word of God abiding in Him at all times, and for all persons and circumstances, like the Lord Jesus.

We do not find it so even in the apostles, though there were apostles, as John himself, who treasured the word most deeply; and Peter too with his abundant and fervent love; but none like the Lord, not even the apostle Paul, though we may be perfectly sure there never was any mere man that honoured God's word more than he. Notwithstanding in this respect as in others no one equalled the Lord Jesus. Indeed subjection to the word characterised Him peculiarly, and makes therefore the Gospels, which show the Lord in daily life, so richly profitable and humbling, and for this reason beyond most of the children of God in their actual state.

Most when converted are apt to betake themselves to the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, and some of them never advance much into Romans either. They are attracted by and delighted with the strong foundation which God has given in its earlier chapters; they wonder if they find that it is not only His grace but His righteousness. They stand on the ground of accomplished righteousness. They apprehend Christ Himself as their righteousness. For they are taught to distinguish this as their standing, from their holiness in practice. This is what the Spirit of God works in us because we are Christ's. But righteousness is what the unrighteous sinner needs, as well as the mercy that assures of the remission of his sins; and in Christ it is in all its fulness for him. He has only to take the place of a lost sinner, and cast himself on the Lord Jesus, who is made to him righteousness. This he can take to the very throne of God; he can henceforward in faith stand securely there; and while he condemns himself utterly for all Ins sins, he has in Him a righteousness that satisfies and glorifies God. For it is His own justifying righteousness, because of what Christ has done and suffered for the poorest of sinners; and he is one of them. Perhaps he like the tax-gatherer might say, "I am 'the' sinner, if ever there was one"; but even so the apostle did say that he was chief; and this was true. The very fact of his legal righteousness made him to be more abundantly the Lord's enemy, and the hater of all that called upon His name. It was purely the religion of man in the flesh, to use his own phraseology. It was a Hebrew of Hebrews assuming his competency to keep it, and walking most conscientiously according to his darkness, which made him so bitter against the Lord Jesus and all that were His. What could be more opposed to the righteousness of God in Christ?

In John 16 is shown that it is not the question now of the law for either sin or righteousness or judgment. So great is the change of standard created by His presence and rejection, that, as He tells us, the Spirit when come will make proof to the world in respect of sin, righteousness, and judgment: of sin, because they believe not on Me; of righteousness because I go to the Father, and ye shall behold Me no more; and of judgment, because the prince of this world hath been judged. The proof of judgment is not in some outward display of divine retribution as in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, or Rome. It is in the judgment pronounced on him that led the world to crucify the Lord of glory. Thereby has the prince of this world been judged: execution is deferred, but the case is decided finally. The great sin is not to believe on Him; the true righteousness is in the rejected One going to be with the Father. The world has lost Jesus. He came into the world to win sinners wherever He went; and they would not have Him; and the worst in refusing Him were His own people. This ended in the Cross; and because of the Cross not only is God exalted, but in receiving Him into glory is the real righteousness against man, Satan and the world with Israel to boot.

The next display of God's righteousness is in His glad tidings of salvation to the poor sinner coming in His name, the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. Therein is God's righteousness manifested through faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all those that believe. After justification begins practical holiness. For life is given in His name as well as the forgiveness of sins; and this new life is that which produces good fruit. This however is a matter of holiness. What meets and saves us as sinners is Christ and Christ's work for us with God; but what works in our souls self-judgment and honouring God by confessing our sins thoroughly is part of his holiness who is now accounted righteous in Christ and for Christ's sake.

Here then we have the secret of these young men being characterised by vigour. It was not natural energy, for there is nothing of grace in that. It was spiritual courage and power; and what maintained and regulated it was the word of God abiding in them. They so loved the word that they had it always not merely by them but abiding in them. They never pretended to what one has heard some dear brethren say: to spend an hour or two over the word. These had the word always over them. This is the true way, not ourselves sitting over the word which often ends in a good deal of talk; but the word over us puts an end to our thoughts, and strengthens as much as it governs us, and rebukes our presumption. Thus were the young men marked, as we have read, by the word abiding in them. It was not the mere searching of it, nor looking into it for curious questions, nor trying to know what perhaps is not the will of God for us to know just yet, if ever in this present time. But there they were, subject to all the word. Depend upon it that the Scriptures were pondered prayerfully from beginning to end as far as they had them; for it was a more difficult thing then than in our day. But in our day, if you look at any one's Bible, you may find it is well marked in a few parts, but rather too clean in others. Is this the word abiding in us? In such a case all the word is valued and diligently sought, for we never know what word we may want next. Therefore the pious, wise, and due thing is to have the word abiding in us.

But more than this follows. "Love not the world." Why is this warning particularly laid on them? It is not said either to the fathers or to "the babes." We shall find a great deal else said to the babes, but to the "fathers" not a word more than to repeat what he first said. Their special characteristic was like Mary's to sit at the Lord's feet and hear His word. Was not this to be absorbed and filled with Christ? The word of Christ dwelt in them richly in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. But it was not merely that. Christ Himself, as He was manifested here, was habitually before them as the prime object of delight and of fellowship with the Father. But these young men are warned "Love not the world." Does this seem strange for souls spiritually so vigorous? Nay, this very vigour, albeit spiritual vigour, creates a danger. They went forth earnestly desiring to spread the truth; fearlessly testifying of Christ by the word that abides in them, and in the Holy Spirit working through them. The very victories won prove a danger, and commerce with men exposes to loving the world before knowing where they had got. For we are not to suppose that loving the world is merely a taste for show and pleasure, music, or the drama, hunting, shooting, horse-racing, gambling, or perhaps what is even grosser than any of these things.

The world is a subtle snare far more so than the flesh. For many lusts of the flesh a man despises himself, and others that are intensely devoted to the world might be ashamed of such ways. But worldly lust is quite another thing. It looks eminently respectable; for is it not what is done by everybody of consequence? It is to covet what society likes; what is thought by those of light and leading and sweetness to be the proper thing for men and women. This has an immense influence, especially on the young and the vigorous young who know the Lord, and have sincerely at heart to spread the knowledge of the truth. But this leads them boldly to venture here and there, thinking that they can go anywhere, one may say, because they have got such glad news to tell. At least they know the Saviour who is not known; and where may they not go? In this zeal they are guarded particularly as to the world.

But not in that sense had God made the world. "The world," morally speaking, was what the devil made after man fell. The first beginning of "the world" was in Cain and his line. For what do we see in Cain? Sentenced to be a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, he strives to efface it, and built a city: not content one to live here and another there, they must all herd together. Union is strength, say men. Besides, a man of ability soon manages to get at the top; and this many a man hopes to get some day or somehow, at any rate in a measure. God and sin are easily forgotten in such efforts. Accordingly Cain builds a city, and calls it after the name of his son. Pride comes in directly, and self-pleasing or pleasing others without a thought of Him. In that family began the great inventions. A man of spirit none found in Abel; nor yet in Seth who is substituted for Abel, but abundantly in Cain and his progeny. There the verses of society commenced — Lamech writing in tasteful form to his wives; for the same man brought in polygamy, and justified killing in self-defence in what we may call a sonnet to the objects of his affection. Not God was in his thoughts even at such a sad event, but his wives; and the dealing with Cain he made not an apology alone but a ground for sanction in his own case. Again there we find the bold nomad life originated, and the more civilised delights of wind and stringed musical instruments: so very early was "the world" at work. Is not this "the world"? Undoubtedly many conveniences found in the world can be used by a Christian. But one black mark stamps it — the absence of a despised but all the more beloved Christ. Tell me one thing of it that Christ puts His sanction on. Where is all that Christ valued? all that Christ lived in and loved?

There is the criterion which will prove sharp enough to cut off a great deal, as, on the other hand, all that is outside Christ can be an object for the heart of fallen man; and such is the world. Some as we know take up science; some prefer literature; some affect politics. Alas! it is possible even to take up religion, the work and the worship of the Lord in a worldly spirit and a selfish manner, seeking either profit or fame out of it; and in how many ways do not men court popularity therein! Is not this too the world? The Lord's name apart from His will and glory carries no safeguard with it. This has been done by some of the wickedest poets that ever lived. They have written on scriptural subjects, but were none the better for it, as they still remained altogether without God, and often enemies of Christ without doubt.

Therefore it became a serious peril for the spiritually young, vigorous as they might be, if they did not retain an ever-growing sense of their relationship to the Father; for this knowledge even the babes had. They were characterised by the sense of that blessed relationship, and they enjoyed it. They as all had the assurance of forgiveness. Even as babes they added to this joy that they knew the Father, which is indeed a precious privilege, as we may see from so many Christians who think themselves and are thought advanced, yet not venturing to take any such way. They are not quite sure; and for the most part they call upon God, but not as Father in the fullest way, but as the Almighty, as Jehovah, and as the God of Abraham, etc., just as if they were Jews. All ought to see such is the state of Christendom now, especially in those who boast in antiquity and multitudinous religion. It has a Jewish character. But Christ in Christianity takes one out of everything that is earthly, whether of Jews or of Gentiles, and stamps His name on him from the beginning of his new life and throughout its course. As He says Himself of the men given Him by the Father, They are not of the world as He is not. Therefore it was the spiritually "young men" in particular who were to beware of the world, lest, in their ardour, it might become a valued object. They might say that they only wanted to win the world to Christ; that their motive was making Christ and His gospel known to the world. But do you not need dependence on Him and His Spirit's guidance when and where and how you go? It is not enough that our design or aim should be ever so good. The chief danger we have to watch against is in the manner of doing things. In "how" we do it we are apt to fail. The object may be right, but the means too must be according to God's will and word. And who can guide us and guard us in the means to be adopted? Only He to whom we belong, working in us by His word and Spirit.

Now it is not merely in general that we find the "young men" put on their guard another caution to them follows. They are told to love not the things that are in the world." This may be even more insidious and subtle than the world itself. Take the religion of the world, of the multitude, of the great, the noble, the wise, the learned.. What natural man avoids this snare, unless he be utterly profane? Even Cain had his worship no less than his world in his darkness and his distance from God. And is not this most ensnaring to many a saint, and inviting to his vigour? For many a Christian would say, "I dare not love the world; but here is an eligible offer whereby I may be enabled to do very much more good anywhere and everywhen, and even be allowed to speak, no matter what the circumstances or the company may be." But it involves compromise of the truth. It is therefore one of the things "that are in the world" which we are not to love. Again, what more common than the mistake of having a peculiar object that attracts us, a hobby of one kind or another, which has no real link with Christ? All such things become idols, because, along with known duties and relationship, Christ is entitled to supreme love.

Christ is the object our Father sets before us; and if we have the eye single to Him, we may be quite sure that the body will be full of light. It is impossible for a soul to be true in looking to Christ and making Christ the object of his everyday work and walk, if he take up that which He does not approve. The word of God must abide in him. If one is content to undertake only what pleases Him, He would surely help. But there may be the world's blinding influence, and zeal may run into self-importance and our own will. Hence real earnestness lays us open to danger; and therefore they are cautioned, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world," followed by a most solemn warning, "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." John loves to present a thing in its absolute principle without noticing circumstances which modify. In laying down, "If any one love the world," he introduces no alleviation. There stands the principle; and if loving the world be your principle and practice, the love of the Father can hardly be yours as a reality.

But in having to do with Christians, as they now walk, there is often a sad mixture. There may be good and bad motives at work. Here we do not look at such a picture. Other parts of God's word may deal with it; but the particular task assigned here is to present the thoroughly right principle, and the thoroughly wrong one. Hence it is settled that if one love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. This is sound and true; because it supposes the principle on either side carried out. Then he comes to the special differences of the desires after the world. "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh" (what works in one's self), "the lust of the eyes" (what attracts me outside myself), with the third snare, "the pride, or boasting, of life." It may be the maintenance of station and habits and feelings belonging to it, in the world. Supposing, for instance, one a nobleman or a gentleman, or of the much larger class that would like to be such. Where such is the case, where is Christ? Is it assumed that Christ sanctions in His disciples the natural rank or the place that one may acquire somehow or other? What did the Lord mean when He said, They are not of the world as I am not of the world? Is the world what the Christian is to preserve as an offering acceptable to Christ?

Many a Christian thus keeps his dignity, and gives it, as he says, to Christ, as if He valued it! Is this what our Lord laid down, or how the apostles and other faithful walked? To the unsophisticated heart purified by faith what so appeals in practice as Christ's separateness from the world to the Father? That the very reverse is seen in many Christians is but too well known, as it has ever been a deep sorrow and burden to those who feel for His name and word. The pride of life in a Christian is heartless to man and hateful to the Father. It was not so that He sought high and low in the midst of sins and follies, vanity and pride, or whatever else ruled men; not so did Christ meet us but to uproot and put sentence of death on all vanity. Was any one of these things spared in His Cross? Hence His servant says here that not one of them in particular, still less as a whole, is of the Father, but is of the world which hated Him and His Son. What pleasure has the Father in any of the things which men think so much of, and adhere to with such tenacity, whether envying them in others or seeking them for themselves? In few words the pride of life is not of the Father; but, what is more, it is of His enemy, the world.

For what is the world? It is the system that Satan planted amongst fallen men to blot out the memory of a lost paradise; and it has gone on enlarging, embellishing, and progressing ever since, in spite of the awful catastrophe of the deluge, until it rose up rebelliously against the Son of God and crucified Him on the tree. This is at length what the world did, with all its arts and letters, its religion and philosophy. The world then consisted of both Jew and Gentile. They both loved the world, and they both united in rejecting with the utmost ignominy the Lord of glory. Is the world then an object for a Christian's love? or anything that is part and parcel of the world? anything that is its boast and its delight? Is it not treason against the Father and the Son?

But the world here has another characteristic that is pressed. It is evanescent, having God's sentence of death upon it. It is wholly to pass away. It is passing and its lust, for who can keep it? It does not matter whether it be riches or rank, pleasure, power, or aught else; it comes to nothing — its pride sometimes even in this age finding itself in a workhouse. For all that, men are devoured with the desire to be something greater than they are, so that under the surface lies unhappiness which pleasure cannot dispel.

"The world passeth away and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." It is not only that the word abideth for ever, but he that does God's will. This is of far more importance than any doctrine deduced by men, any article of faith, as it is called. It is no doubt needful to oppose what is false and evil, and we are bound to submit to the revealed word and will of God. But error easily glides into the doctrines which the best men formulate, against or for which men contend. But here we are told that the doer of God's will abides for ever. This none does without cleaving to Christ, and loving the Father. Surely "the Son abideth for ever." The Christian may fall asleep, but he abideth for ever. The Lord is coming to wake him up from the sleep of death, or to change him if he then survive, into His glorious likeness manifestly then for over. But he is called to recognise it now, and to act on it every day, that he be not drawn into the defiling paths of the world that are thought so pleasant, but are, on the contrary, each and all covered and filled with evil and ungodliness.

Now we come to "the little children" in verse 18. It is not the whole family, but an inexcusable error to confound the family with that particular part, the youngest class or grade of the whole, the babes. Yet these, the least mature group of God's family, are they who are said to know the Father. Think how far saints now are fallen from such knowledge! And is it not worthy of note that for them the Spirit of God takes the fuller room to enlarge? There was not a word more for "the fathers"; there was but little more for the "young men"; but far the most for "the babes." Can we not feel the good way of grace therein? It is not the manner of man; but God by His Spirit enters most of all into the requirement of the "little children." They need it most, and they have most. It is with them that the Spirit of God dwells with a great deal more detail than even with the young men. The little ones were exposed to great danger.

"Little children, it is the last hour," for is it not well to keep to literality here? Evidently this is beyond "latter times" (1 Tim. 4: 1), and "last days" (2 Tim. 3: 1). Yes, it is a "last hour:" a very long hour doubtless; and the reason is not delay but the long-suffering of God not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Grace has some more souls to save and bless, some more to make members of Christ's body; and therefore God waits. But from the apostle's day it is the "last hour." What made it so? Not Christ known, but "many antichrists." Christ's coming the first time is said to be "at the end of these days," the days that began with God's dealings with His people on earth, and at the end of them, in the consummation of the ages, Christ. So we read in Heb. 1: 2, 9: 26, "when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son."

Here it is a peculiarly solemn phrase: it is the "last hour." The time is short. The Lord is at hand. He is ready to judge the quick and the dead, as the apostle Peter said; ready not merely to take us up to heaven, but, as far as He is concerned, to execute judgment on the quick and the dead. But even so God prolongs His blessed grace in saving more. When the last member of Christ is added in, what then? The Lord will come and take on high those that are His, and then begin to work among Jews and Gentiles too as such, and especially to prepare His people for their place on the earth. They were unprepared the first time; the Lord will accomplish it the second time. There will then be a people made ready for the Lord and His Kingdom. He will do what John the Baptist failed to do; He will do what the church has not done; He will turn the heart of Israel to welcome their long-rejected Messiah, whom to their amazement and grief they find to be none other than Him whom they crucified. Therefore in that day will Jehovah assign Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; whereas now it is the foolish and the weak and the base things of the world that God chose to exalt His grace in Christ. But in the day of His appearing He will have mercy on the long-abased Zion, and the nations shall fear the name of Jehovah, and all the kings of the earth His glory. Some may anticipate that discovery; others will learn it when He appears; for there will be differences among them.

But now is the "last hour" for us: not the prevalence of Christianity, nor the mission of the gospel of the kingdom to all the nations, but the arrival of many antichrists. There is to be a mission of converted Jews to all the Gentiles; and they will find their way where Christians did not (for divine grace will strengthen them); and then the end of the age will come.

But is this the Christian hope? It is not for the end that we are waiting, but for Christ, and for Christ to take us up to be where He is now. They also await the Lord to come down and bless the earth, as He surely will. But this is another and an after thing. It may not be long, but still there is a little interval between the two parts of His coming — the heavenly part and the earthly.

Here it is the solemn announcement that the last hour is come. "Little children, it is the last hour." How this must have sounded in their souls and made them wonder! Many think that such truth is not at all the right food for babes. It is much to be wished that Christians would read their Bible, and not only read but in all simple confidence believe it. What they will find there puts an end to these human thoughts and theories. "Little children, it is the last hour; and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now are come many antichrists." This stamps it as the "last hour." No evil is so flagrant as antichrist. It is direct, personal, antagonism to the Lord. He may imitate the Lord Jesus, yet to oppose Him; he may claim what belongs only to God, but to exalt himself and deny God. Certainly it is the worst and most audacious of all evil against Himself; "and even now are come many antichrists." There are many antichrists in London, as throughout Christendom; and they preach and teach there with crowds to hear them, who have no suspicion that they listen not to Christianity but to anti-christianity. The reason that real Christians take all this lightly is that the Bible is so little pondered with the Spirit of God working in them.

What helps on this evil is the German adoption of old English Deism; for this much of the "higher criticism" is. It is old English Deism, drummed out of the country some 200 years ago, but of late come back again burnished and brightened up by German ingenuity and show of learning. This is what people swallow as something new, great, and advanced. Alas! it has taken captive alike the old and the new seats of learning, and made them a citadel against the Lord Jesus, centres for propagating unbelief to ruin with its poison the young men destined as many are to be the clergy or ministers of one sort or another. For there is little difference as to this among the denominations. Broad-churchism and Dissent are perhaps equally corrupt in this matter, and becoming more and more destructive. High church, which with Pusey, etc., once resisted, now caves in. People do not believe this, and the consequence is they too get corrupted in all directions. Even believers are deeply injured thereby. But the Lord knows how to deliver, as He works to clear dim eyes, and will make them sensible of the snare. For it is plain enough that learning is no check to nor barrier against the evil. Yet God will guard "the babes" in His grace. To this their knowledge of the Father supplies a blessed foundation. What do those critics care for this? Have they the word of God abiding in them? Do they look to the Spirit of God for power to receive His truth and to walk in it? How could this be in those who deny Scripture to be His word? Yes, many antichrists have come, "Whereby we know that it is the last hour."

What intelligent Christian does not know this now? Many can remember the time when there was no such prevalence as there is now, nor anything to be compared with it. Incredulity is rapidly growing. But its germ at the least has shown itself ever since the apostle was here. "They went out from us, but they were not of us." For this is its apostate character Some of the leaders of present antichristianity were once professing Christians. One or more of them was known among us — a clever and scholarly man, eminent since in this religious scepticism; yet (what commended him to many) a vegetarian, a moral man, a teetotaller, and a revolutionary. How ready many are apt to think there must be something good in such a person! But no, it is an antichrist.

"For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that they might be manifest that they were not all of us."

This last is a very strange and incorrect rendering: "they were not all of us." But really it has no just meaning whatever. It should be regarded as only a slovenly translation, or rather mistranslation. For what the Greek text actually says is that "they all were not of us"; and the English idiom of this is that "none of them were of us." But if you say, "they were not all of us," it would imply that some were. Some of these antichrists were of us! This the apostle expressly contradicts. The fact is that we see in this how the most learned men, when they come to the Bible, seem to close their eyes. It might be interesting to search into the cause which exposed men of piety and learning to so strange all error. But it suffices to say positively that the only right sense is the quite different thought that none of them — none of these antichrists — "were of us." The unlearned reader may be assured that such is the true meaning on the strictest grammatical ground, which scholars certainly ought not to fail in, as they sometimes do and have ever done.

"But ye have anointing from the Holy One." This is their new endowment from on high, which even the "little children" possessed, on whom a dead set was made by one or other of the many antichrists. They were anointed by the Spirit of God given to them, an unction from the Holy One, even the Lord Jesus. But what about you that read? For you it is of great moment whether you are thus anointed. For this is distinctive of the Christian, not only to be established in Christ but anointed by the Spirit, as we read in 2 Cor. 1: 21. Immature as the little children were, this was true of them. Is it so with you? Do not waste your time in thinking about others till you know this privilege yours from the Holy One; then with good conscience and happy heart you are fully entitled to seek their good. But if we are safely and wisely and zealously to labour for others, let us first consider our own need and state before God.

Here take notice that "ye" is emphatic, though addressed to the spiritually youngest of Christians, which of course proves it to be the privilege of them all. "And ye have anointing from the Holy One, and know all things." Is not this a very remarkable word to say about "the little children "? But why should it be doubted when we recollect that they were members of God's family? They were God's children who had received already in common with all the rest the blessed certainty that their sins were forgiven. This removed guilt and dread, the necessary hindrance of happiness and progress. Till our sins are known to be forgiven, how can we enter into all the truth? Only with an unpurged conscience. Even men admit that a bad conscience makes cowards of us all. The conscience once divinely purged gives boldness. See it in Peter, who was known to have denied his Master. Yet when restored and resting on redemption, he could charge the unpurged Jews, "Ye . . . denied Him in presence of Pilate, when he judged to let Him go." The soul being sin-laden shrinks from hearing, the truth which must condemn self more and more. We must be consciously clear before God before we can grow by the knowledge of Him, or have true courage with others.

Hence the Epistle was written to all, because their sins are (or, have been) forgiven for His name's sake. It was not to make it known first. They knew it since they believed the glad tidings. Christ had procured it for them through His blood; and thus it is a settled state for all saints. It is in vain to reason and talk about forgiving all your sins before conversion. What then becomes of any sins committed afterwards? The Lord is surely not to suffer again; nor did He suffer for some of our sins merely but for all; and this is the meaning of the remission of sins. Christ's sacrifice availed not to a certain point but for the entire body of our sins, which once and for ever were borne by Him. This indeed constitutes the blessedness of that primary boon of divine grace. It is not a doctrine hung up as a prize to be attained, or a truth outside to be rehearsed publicly or to admire, but a personal privilege of faith taken home to our own conscience, applied to our own soul, and received from God as His incomparable favour with which we start on our Christian confession.

But, as we have expressed it, "the little children" were characterised by an advance on that which was the common portion of all Christians. The very speciality that they began with was the knowledge of the Father. They were His children. It was not merely that they knew (or had known) God as Creator; or as the Almighty God that cares for poor pilgrims, or Jehovah God as the Governor; but they knew Him as the Father. The risen Lord Jesus had made Him known as His Father and theirs. They knew that He was their Father and their God, as truly as His Father and His God. And they had it on His own word, as well as in the power of the Holy Ghost sent into their hearts, crying, Abba, Father. How can Christians overlook a truth so nearly concerning them, which runs through the greater part of the New Testament? It is distinctive of Christianity. Through Christ all the evil gone is judged in His cross; and unworthy as a Christian may be, he is from that early moment of faith in the gospel given to know Him as His Father. Even the babes knew that this is no temporary blessing, such as the law held out on obedience to Israel. In the gospel God gives to faith an abiding gift. This is what the law could not do. The law is conditional: "If you obey the law of God, you shall live, and not die." But the gospel is not that if I love God He will be faithful to me (on which ground no sinner could be saved); but that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life."

There is the great spiritual fact confronting all; and if I disbelieve God as to His Son, I ensure perdition for my soul: the wrath of God abides upon me. But if I receive that immense and direly needed boon, God's love in giving the believer eternal life, and thus bringing me not merely into the pardon of my sins but into the relationship of His son by faith in Christ Jesus, I am on the only and truly Christian ground as a babe. Yet here, as being babes, they are warned of their danger. There abound seducers and antichrists. We shall find a little about the special features of their leading astray lower down; but let us proceed with what comes before it, the gracious provision to forewarn and forearm. "I have not written to you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth."

Without anointing from the Holy One (i.e., the Spirit of God from the Holy One, Christ), they could have had no fitness to withstand snares so subtle and perilous. The gift of the Spirit characterises the Christian. The Lord spoke of it as "living water," which He would give the believer. It was not Himself only. He gives the Holy Spirit as the continually fresh source of living water within us springing up, not exactly "a well" but "a fountain" of water springing up into life eternal. Thus it is not only that we have life eternal at the beginning of faith; but we have in us for a glorious condition the power of the Spirit which we have now in a condition of grace.

The apostle, having here shown that this divine privilege already exists, tells the "little children" that they "know all things." How can this be said of them? They have Christ as their life, who is the power of God, and the wisdom of God. "They shall be all taught of God." To have Christ is to have the key to open all things. More than this, they are anointed by the Holy Spirit to realise the truth, making it their own with all certainty and liberty. And wherefore such favour as this? To separate us from the world unto the Father above its human thoughts, and our own among the rest. For what are we apart from Christ and dependence on Him?

"I wrote not to you, because ye know not the truth but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." How full of cheer and comfort! The teaching of tradition is ever vague, and leaves the soul uncertain, even as to what we most need — assurance in order to abiding peace with God. But the pretension to new truth where Christ is simply received and fully enjoyed opens the door to the evil one; and he soon appears. This is a sign for the babes to beware: because no lie is of the truth, and one manifest lie may betray the falsehood of the entire system, as the truth is a consistent whole; and God makes it known even to the babes. But these misleaders denied any such knowledge to them; they themselves alone knew the truth. "We have the new light, you have no more than the elements we have quite left behind. All that you have from your old teachers is but the scraping of the instruments for the concert; but now we have the music in earnest: no tuning more; but the full score and chorus." Such is the self-complacent spirit which the men always feel who yield to the deceit of the enemy. "Who is the liar?" says the indignant apostle. "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" In one or another way they undermined and destroyed His person. How awful that such a lie should be counted a new and great truth among those who once confessed Him! For "the liar" here is not Satan, but such as once passed for a Christian. They now deny that Jesus is the Christ.

But the apostle traces the lie farther. "He is antichrist that, [not only denies Jesus to be the Christ, which he does, but] denieth the Father and the Son." An antichrist supposes more truth abandoned than Jews knew. In a general way even the Jew, that heard of but rejected the Lord Jesus, might be "the liar." The Law, the Psalms, the Prophets all pointed to Jesus. But the Jew would not have a Messiah who, instead of establishing His world-kingdom, suffered for sins on the cross; he preferred what the devil offered and the Messiah then refused. The pseudo-Christian might be the liar in a subtler way. But there is more in "the antichrist." His place had once been with the Christian profession. He had heard the truth of the Father and the Son, but now rejected and denied it.

No Jew ever hears anything of the eternal relationship in the Godhead, but remains a stranger and an antagonist to the truth and privileges of Christianity. For its principle is involved in those words, and indeed more explicitly in the words expressed in Christian baptism, the only authoritative formula for which is "unto the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Not that one would leave out the name of the Lord Jesus; but the right form is so clearly stated by our Lord that one may doubt that their omission leaves valid baptism. It appears anything but the reverence due to the words of our risen Lord. The argument founded on the historic mention of baptism throughout the Acts of the Apostles is without bearing, because none of these professes to give the actual formula employed. The only apparent exception which ostensibly supplies it has not the smallest authority. For it is certain and commonly acknowledged that Acts 8: 37 is spurious. There at least Philip is supposed to ask of the Ethiopian treasurer a confession of his faith, which the latter renders. But all this must be given up as a gloss of an imaginary kind, and not really in the ancient MSS. It was probably a marginal note which crept into the text by a later scribe who fancied it to be part of the original. But in the Acts of the Apostles there is really no formula of baptism, and therefore no right ground for dispensing with our Lord's injunction. And the hypothesis of its being provided for a future Jewish remnant consists neither with "all the nations" concerned as said immediately before, nor with the spiritual condition of that remnant whose knowledge it quite transcends.

Here he that professes Christ denies the Father and the Son; doubtless he had too much contempt for the Spirit to need a word said about it. But he denies the Father and the Son: to spiritual souls no greater mark of antichrist. And the solemn announcement is that out of the Christian body came these antichrists. None should wonder therefore that where grace has given a large and special measure of truth, and zeal too in making it known, and in carrying it out practically, if it be lost by yielding to notions subversive of it, such wanderers are beyond the common. As runs the well-known adage, the corruption of the best is the worst. What can be so terrible as to apostatise from the highest and fullest truth? This characterises the antichrists.

But if we have the warning that "Everyone that denieth the Son hath not the Father either," there follows also the cheer to "the little children" that "He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also." This, on each side, is much to be weighed both for its own importance, and for the light cast on the wiles of the devil. The Unitarians profess to honour the Father, but they deny the Son; the consequence is that their profession of the Father, according to the scripture before us, is utterly worthless. Not the Father is the test of the truth, but the Son. Therefore, if one acknowledges the Son, he hath the Father also. They go together; but the Son is the sole criterion, and the one Mediator. If you deny the Son, the Father rejects altogether your acknowledgement of Him to the dishonour of the Son. The Father owes the vindication of His glory to the Son who emptied Himself of the glory due to Him, and humbled Himself not only to become man and a bondman, but to the death of the cross. Therefore whoever slights Him does it at his penalty for eternity. For ample testimony has been given by God to man who is without excuse.

It may here be added that the words printed in italics (in the latter half of ver. 23) are authentic and genuine scripture.* It is the more remarkable, because, in 1 John 5: 7, 8, the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" have no real warrant, as is well known to those versed in the grounds of the text. Thus the Epistle suffered doubly from the faulty text which our translators had before them; for they did not know the true readings here when they made the Authorised Version of 1611. The italicised words in this verse are real scripture; whilst the words indicated in 1 John 5 have no authority worth notice and are beyond doubt spurious. But this last awaits fuller explanation in its own place.

* The oldest MSS. (technically designated A B C, P) and some 35 cursives with the better ancient versions, and ample citation by the early ecclesiastical writers, leave no doubt as to it.

Next we come to a point of some interest, on which a word must be said here. "Let that therefore abide in you, which ye heard from the beginning." It is not "Him that is from the beginning," but "what (or, that which) ye heard from the beginning." He goes back so far to the opening words of the first chapter. The difference between "Him that was from the beginning" and "that which," etc., is very small; and in point of fact they are both true, each perfect in its own place. But there is an emphasis lost in the Auth. V. which ought to be reproduced at the beginning of ver. 24 in some such way as the Revisers and others do. "As for you, let that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you." What he presses is this: abiding in what they heard from the beginning.

There is no new thing admissible. If new, it is not Christianity: development is Satan's work. Whatever is added to the revelation of God in Christ is a falsehood. Man hates to be subject to God's word. Hence the effort to get rid of divine authority not only in the Old Testament but in the New. The "higher criticism" is mere rubbish, and even worse; it is poisonous and destructive to the faith. Take also the opposite school who talk of "the church teaching"; though some combine the two errors. But where in scripture have we any such thing? The church teaching! According to God's word the church is taught through apostles and prophets, and then ordinarily through teachers, etc., the gifts given by Christ the Head for the purpose. The church is taught, but never teaches; it believes, and enjoys the truth, and is responsible to walk and worship in truth. The church hid better see whether itself believes the truth in these days of incredulity.

But it is a dangerous phantom that the church teaches. We are bound to hear the church in discipline. But teaching is quite another thing. The church needs the truth. but the idea of the church teaching soon leads to men hearing what is not revealed in the scriptures. Thereby are they given up to the working of their own mind and imagination in human theories or in legendary additions to the Bible; in dreams about the Virgin and the saints, apparitions and the like; or in rationalistic hypotheses, on which sceptical men live or rather on which they die. But God is the sole infallible teacher; as His prophets wrote, His children, believers, shall be all taught of God whom the Word declared, without the church pretending to teach. There is no development of that which was heard from the beginning. All such "development," which is now the rage of the day in religion as well as in science, is a myth and a very bad one, particularly on the religious side. One scientific myth we may leave to die by the hand of the next which succeeds to its place; but religious lies have a Satanic power, not only of corruption but of permanence over souls.

Where then is the truth, and what? It is Christ; and it is Christ as He was manifested here. How can there be development of Him? or of God's written word which reveals Him? Nothing can be added to make the truth more perfect than it is; nor can anything be plainer than what they heard when our Lord was here, or the Holy Spirit wrote beyond what they could then bear. For all was spoken, not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spirituals by spiritual (i.e. the truths and the words equally of the Spirit). How blessed the result practically! It is the same word. "If what ye heard from the beginning abideth in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and the Father." The truth is inseparable from Christ, and from Christ as God had revealed Him in His word. "And this is the promise which he promised us, life eternal," and this in as impressive a phrase here as is used about its personal source in 1 John 1: 1, 2.

"These things I wrote (or, I write) to you concerning those that lead you astray." The babes need and receive the most vigilant caution against innovators that subvert the truth by promises as false as God's promise is true. Take the contemptible error against which so many of us had to contend, and all true-hearted saints felt so deeply, during the last decade and more. Is it not about this very thing — life eternal? The recent seducers endeavoured to persuade themselves and others that, instead of having (really having now) eternal life in the Son, they can only receive it at the resurrection. But this is to forget and abandon what we heard from the beginning; it was a lie, and no lie is of the truth. The passage before us shows that these and all novel ideas about it are untrue; the Lord's word proves them to be false; for this is "that which we (the inspired witnesses) heard from the beginning." What can be more sure or momentous? The seducers therefore are not dead but still go on to reproduce the falsehood, whether they pretend or not to apostolic succession (Rev. 2: 2).

But the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you." The "ye" is emphatic, as in vers. 20 and 24. He had said that the word heard was to abide in them: the sole and written standard of the truth. Now he repeats the other blessed truth. The holy unction, the Spirit given to them, abides. His anointing abideth in you, "little children": this He faithfully continues. Now the anointing of the Spirit is to understand and enjoy in power the truth of God in Christ.

"And ye need not that any one teach you." They had received Christ, the truth no less than the way and the life. They knew it already from God the Father by the Holy Spirit. "But as the same anointing teacheth you about all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, abide ye (or, ye abide) in him." It is not merely what they had; but there He was in them to teach all else which the word contained in detail and application, by God's gracious care over the babes. They need not heed or fear seducers. They did not depend upon men who were only preaching themselves and not the Lord Jesus. Oh what assurance, what blessing even for the spiritually young of God's family! It was for them to abide in Christ as He taught from the beginning.

ADDRESS 8

1 JOHN 2: 28-3: 6.

And now, dear children, abide in him that, if he be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be put to shame from before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness hath been begotten of him.

"See what (or what manner of) love the Father hath given us, that we should be called children of God [and we are]. For this reason, the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we God's children, and not yet was it manifested what we shall be. *We know that if he should be manifested we shall be like him, because we shall see him even as he is. And everyone that hath this hope on him purifieth himself even as he is pure.

"Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. And ye know that he was manifested that he might take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Every one that abideth in him sinneth not; every one that sinneth hath not seen him, nor known him."

* "But" here lacks authority.

We return to the general doctrine of the Epistle. After the remarkable parenthesis of the varieties among God's children, we come to His children all grouped together. So it was before the parenthesis introduced by ver. 12, and now in what addresses them all; ver. 28 leads us forward again into the ordinary and regular course of the Epistle. The word to all here is, "And now, dear children, abide in him."

This is the true condition of Christian practice. It is faith in His person, which leads to abiding in Him; not merely in truth, work or doctrine, but in the living and divine person of Christ. For it is all the more magnetic (if one may so say), because He is Man as well as God. Yet it is not in the way some are disposed to look at it, that when He is man, it is apart from His Godhead, or when He is spoken of as God, that it is apart from His manhood. There is in truth but one person, two natures united in His person: herein lies its immense peculiarity; for this makes it impossible for man to sound its depth. He Himself tells us, "No one knoweth really (ἐπιγινώσκει) the Son but the Father." Let us remark indeed that it is not so said of the Father, though the Father never became man as the Son did. But the Son reveals the Father; yet it is not said that the Father reveals the Son. Compare Matt. 11: 27; Luke 10: 22: John 17: 3 means process of learning. In the Lord Jesus is the inscrutable; and therein is the peril for the mind of man, in all else proud and daring, and particularly so where it is irreverent presumption, in the things of God — the very realm in which the first man is nowhere; without righteousness, without understanding, not even seeking after God. Therefore man as he is only flounders about from one error into worse. "For who of men hath known the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him? Thus also the things of God knoweth no one except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2: 11). And the Holy Spirit is given us as believers in Christ to glorify Him. For the Lord Jesus is the truth; and the Lord in this two-fold way, God and man yet in one person. If we believe, our wisdom, our happiness, our power for service or worship, our very safety is to "abide in Him."

No divine person was revealed when God constituted Israel as a people. There were commands which came out from the majesty of God, suitable to the terror that God inspired in an earthly people, for the most part not even converted. Yet the law was for every one of them; but in it was no such thing as the revelation of a person. Righteous commandments came from Him; and institutions were established by Him. Rites and ceremonies were imposed of a most impressive and important kind, which spell the name, offices and work of the Lord Jesus. Still there was no revelation yet of any divine person. The law stood on the authority of God who dwelt in the thick darkness. But the essential truth of Christianity lies in that the Son of God comes to man from the Father. We know the things freely given us by God in One who is Himself God and man, He might thoroughly represent man as he ought to be to God, and thoroughly make known God as He is to man; and that He might, after redemption, send the Holy Ghost. Is not this sovereign grace?

Such is the incalculable blessedness dependent on the Lord Jesus. It was not the law, though He came under it. It was not promise, though He was the accomplishment and accomplisher of promise. It was Himself, the Son, and the Son deigning to be veritable man. Only, as is said later in this Epistle, "In Him is no sin;" not merely that He did not commit sin, or as 2 Cor. 5: 21 says, He knew no sin but no sin was in Him. His nature was holy and in no wise sinful. He was therefore born in a manner altogether singular. Without doubt He was born of the Virgin, but not this made Him sinless: for the Virgin was in herself sinful like any other. She was however a believer of remarkable simplicity too and purity of character; yet she needed a Saviour, and she had the same Saviour as we in her own Son. But well she knew that her Son was unlike any other son in the way in which He became flesh. It was by the power of the Holy Ghost. He, not she, was therefore immaculate. It is well to adhere to the truth. For in daring to add to revealed truth, superstition only invents a falsehood which gives Christ's unique place to another; and God will surely judge the blasphemy.

There was a miracle about the incarnation of stupendous nature; as there was another about His death and resurrection. There is nothing more human than being born and dying; for this is the condition of man as he is now. And the Lord knew these conditions, but in all God was manifested. On the cross He was pleased to lay down His life: none could have taken it, if He were not pleased. He laid down His life; like Him nobody else could. If you or I were to lay down our life, it would be a great sin; but in the Lord Jesus it was most precious grace in vindication of God against all sin. Thus in the two things wherein He most approaches man He is infinitely above him, as became a divine person. Here man's intellect entirely fails, because his self-confidence and ignorance of God make him reluctant to own that there is any mystery above him. He assumes his own competency for any difficulty, and likes it, urged on by the great enemy to trust himself and not God, who would humble him into the dust as a sinner, and calls him to look only to the Lord Jesus; for all blessing flows to faith through Him. But this is exactly what man's pride resents to the rejection of God's grace in Christ. Faith is the gift of God.

Here then having shown who and what this wonderful person is, He that was from the beginning, He that united God and man in one person, the apostle says "abide in Him." And indeed we do not know any One for such as we are to abide in except in Him who is the truth, that is, Christ. The Spirit of God dwells in us to give power; but the revealed object of faith all through is the same One with whom we begin. Hence it is that the "little children," as we saw, have anointing from the Holy One. It was not merely that they were converted. A Christian is a good deal more than a soul quickened and turned to God. An Old Testament saint was simply thus converted: he did not receive the Holy Spirit, for this peculiar Christian gift followed known redemption. Christ received the Holy Spirit without redemption, without propitiation; because He only was the Holy One of God, the righteous One. But we needed redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Hence, after we are converted, and believe the gospel, we receive the Holy Spirit. It is then properly that we become Christians (compare Acts 11: 17). The gift of the Spirit is the real and distinctive mark — "anointing from the Holy One." We must not confound with it our being born of the Spirit. Now he says, Ye [not those antichrists] have this great gift from the Holy One; and as Christ is the One from Whom the unction comes, "Abide in him."

Was there anything abiding for the Israelite under law? They had no divine person manifested. The object of the law was to await redemption (save in figure); they had not received Christ, still less His propitiation. The mission of the Lord Jesus was to manifest God and the Father to the believer in the Son, and the gift of the Spirit was only after He died and rose and ascended to send Him from heaven. It was therefore altogether unprecedented even for converted men. In general too false religions do not even pretend to it. Whatever playing into lusts and passions, with high-flown rhapsodies there may be in the Koran of Mahomet, there is no revelation of God Himself; there is the revelation of a bundle of lies. So it was in all the ancient "Vedas," as Hindus call their sacred books; and still more with the Buddhists, who were atheists though trifling with polytheists. Brahmanism is polytheistic; but Buddhism is a system of atheism in its pantheistic form, and therefore avowedly has no personal God to reveal any more than its rival has the one true God.

But Christianity is essentially God revealed in His Son; and that too as Man walking in holy love on the earth, above all the evil and falsehood which surrounded Him, that it might not be merely a revelation in word but in deed and in truth. All His ways and His words revealed God the Father; all His miracles made Him known in a way far beyond others, be they who they might. There might be signs as well as powers; but they were of a different nature when wrought by Moses, Elijah, Elisha, or by any other. But here we have the unique Christ Jesus, the one Mediator between God and man; and now therefore as they had received Him, they were to "Abide in Him." There alone is safety and blessing; there alone is the light of God and the love of God, and the known life eternal that God bestows on the believer. It is all in Him and inseparable from Him.

People have talked lately of our not having life in ourselves. Let them beware of over-shooting scripture in their thoughts. So far as they insist that life is in the Son, it is perfectly true; indeed it is its precious peculiarity that eternal life is in Him. And God be thanked that so it is; for thus it is that it remains safe, immaculate and unchanging. In Him it is and abides perfectly secured, but also given, to every believer to be his new life. If we had it severed from Him, should we not soon lose or turn it to the same sad account as we have our other favours from God? That we have it, and that we have it in Him, are both true, the latter enhancing the former. But He is our life.

But we proceed "And now, dear children, abide in him" — the whole family of God — "that, if he be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be put to shame from before him at his coming." This is a sentence we ought to consider, as it is often misunderstood. In general, those who make use of the verse think that it means that we, or any other Christians, should not be thus put to shame. What the apostle really says is, Abide "ye" in him, that "we" may not be ashamed, those of whom they were the work in the Lord. For it would have been no small affront to the truth, and a very great pain to the workman, that any who had appeared to receive the truth should give it up. He therefore puts it in the form of an appeal to their affection. If the apostle personally had so wrought, he would have been still the blessed and holy and faithful apostle; but in itself it is a shame to the labourer when those supposed to be brought into the truth abandon it.

Remember that this departure was then going on. It began with Judas, or, if not exactly with Judas, with many of His disciples who went away back and walked no more with Him from the time He disclosed His incarnation and His death as the indispensable food of faith, long before the apostasy of Judas. There were also many among the rulers who believed but because of the Pharisees did not confess Him; for they loved glory from men rather than glory from God. O beloved friends, beware of this! Confess Him if you believe; confess Him if your hearts rest on Him for life eternal. And not merely confess Him, but, whatever the pressure, abide in Him. The apostle here puts it in a way exceedingly tender: "That if he be manifested, . . we may not be ashamed from before him at his coming." Would not their defection be a shame to us rather than an honour in that day?

But there are other suggestions also of much instruction from the verse. Observe that there are two terms used which are not precisely the same. "That, if (the correct word, not "when" as in the Received Text) he shall be manifested." This last is one of them; the other is, "at His coming." "Coming" here, as often elsewhere, is not precisely the word that expresses "coming" and nothing else, as in John 14: 3, 1 Cor. 11: 26, and Rev. very often. He says, "I am coming (ἔρχομαι) again." This means the act of coming. But there is not merely this act, but the fact or state of His presence (παρουσία). It is His presence when He comes, and therefore it may lawfully be translated "coming"; but it often means not exactly when He was coming, but the state that ensued after He came. Take for instance the resurrection of those saints who were put to death in the early and in the later times of the Apocalypse; two classes of saints that are to be raised even after the Lord appears judicially in glory (Rev. 20: 4). These form part of "those that are Christ's" raised at His coming. "At His coming" would there mean not the act of coming but the state of His being present instead of absent. There is another difference between them. The word "presence" or "coming" in that sense may be either for the heavenly people or for the earthly. For instance in the Epistle of James "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh" is the earthly side, as when the Lord says "The Son of man at his coming." The connection of His presence with "The Son of man" decides this in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; and so with the Epistle of James who says "The judge standeth at the door." This relation of the Lord must be connected with His day or appearing. His "manifestation" also is that further effect of His presence, and His "revelation" too.

But the word "presence" does embrace the act of His coming to receive us to Himself for the Father's house before He is manifested; in other words, when the term παρουσία is not qualified by anything that indicates manifestation, it is the Lord gathering us to Himself above by His presence, as in 1 Thess. 4, 2 Thess. 2: 1. Unmodified, it is applied simply to His presence in grace; for this is indeed sovereign grace. But where our responsibility comes in, there is always not merely the coming but the appearing or manifestation. So it is in this verse, only both terms are employed; for the manifestation supposes also His presence, but His presence may not yet be His manifestation.

Observe another thing. It is not exactly "when" He shall be manifested, but is "if," though the reverse of a doubt. This may sound a little strange to those not used to read Scripture as God has revealed; but we may always expect that His way is the best. What God says is sure to be the most accurate form in which it could be notified to us. Now the word "if" does not refer to the time "when" but to its reality, whenever the time comes for Christ's manifestation; for there is no doubt about the future fact. It is not a question in suspense whether it is to be. But if He be manifested as surely as it must be, He would have the saints to abide in Him, instead of being turned aside, that we may have boldness and not be ashamed from before Him at His coming. It is the apostle's feeling about it, expressive of his love for those that bore the name of Jesus, and therefore a pain that any should be carried away from the truth. Whatever his love even to children in the faith, he loved Christ's name even better than the saints. and so must seek that none should be a source of shame to him at that blessed time.

"If ye know that he is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." Like obedience, it flows from life. As He is righteous, so every one that doeth righteousness hath been begotten of Him. There is thus the communication of righteousness because of the new nature. Here we come to the question of practical righteousness about to be discussed in the verses that follow, with a slight exception to be also pointed out. It is not now love, nor yet is it obedience is such, already treated in this 1 John 2: 3-6 and 7-11. In the latter part of 1 John 3 we have, after righteousness, love again, just as in 1 John 2 we had obedience first and then love in the general course of the Epistle. There is thus an important link between obedience and righteousness respectively with love; which is indeed the bond of perfectness, as we read in Col. 3: 14.

It is interesting to inquire what is the difference between our obedience and our righteousness. Yet is not the answer sufficiently plain? Although righteousness is always obedient, in itself it is an expression not only of submission to divine authority but of consistency with relationship. This seems to define its own proper meaning. Even if the force of God's righteousness be sought, it is no less applicable than else. where; it means the consistency of God with His relationship; just as it is with Christ's righteousness or with man's righteousness, greatly as they all may differ otherwise. In His case there is the perfection of Christ's consistency with His relationship; in our own case we have to lament the shortcoming of our consistency with ours as Christians.

Is not this a solemn reflection for each one of us? Yet God's grace in Christ has left no ground whatever for distrust; and the main object here was to establish the saints in Christ. Not a word is said anywhere to create questions or doubts personally. This seducers do yet more than other unbelievers, in order to propagate their own errors and lead astray the simple who enjoy the truth of God. And we have just seen that one of the great objects of the Epistle is to arm even the youngest believers against their evil and dangerous arts; just as one way wherein these seducers went to work was to make the immature doubt whether they had the full truth. The antichrists maintained that there was much altogether beyond what was known before, and that this new light of theirs was the grand prize, the lack of which raised the question whether they could be real Christians at all.

On the contrary the object of the apostle was that the young saints should be assured that they themselves were anointed by the Spirit, and that for themselves they let abide in them that which they heard from the beginning. They were to judge, young though they were, every pretension to new light by the old truth. Therefore the talk about new light ought to be a danger signal to every saint, especially to the young; for they are too apt to believe the promise of something very fine and high which other people have not got. But suppose that it turns out to be a lie; what then? This is exactly what one ought rather to expect — a lie of the enemy, because God has nothing new to tell us about His Son; He has brought it all out already; and they had received the truth in His Son from the beginning. He is the truth, which consequently was complete in Him. Therefore all the promise of new truth was a mere deceit of Satan. Some of us have seen the spirit of error at work more than once even in our lifetime; and we had not to go far to find it.

Here then he presses the subject of practical righteousness as being deeply momentous, because it is based on relationship. Is not this a very great lesson to learn? Christians in general are but feeble therein. They do not appreciate the new relationships in which grace has set us. Who but the Lord Jesus brought in these new privileges? To whom on the higher side belong these relationships? To Himself and to His Father, the Holy Spirit being come as the divine power of our realising them by His indwelling in us who believe. We shall find that this last begins to be taken up at the end of 1 John 3, and carried forward in the chapter that follows; so that the Epistle is evidently and strictly systematic, though couched in the simplest language, but with the utmost depth of thought and feeling according to the grace and truth of God.

Some may remember the time when "system" used to be freely condemned amongst us. What drew it out was the contrast of stiff denominational innovation with the holy liberty of the Spirit as seen in the church of the scriptures. There may have been some wildness in the denouncing of "system" throughout Christendom; because it gave the idea that the only right thing was to have no system. Assuredly those who had no system were to be pitied, if it really came to that. The true question was and is, What is God's system? Man's must be wrong. Far from us, that we should not bow to God's system. It does not matter wherein it may be; for He has always a system of His own, and man always misses it. Only His word can exhibit and only His Spirit can enable us to carry it out. Assuredly we must feel and acknowledge that nothing but His grace by the mighty working of His Spirit through scripture enabled us to find His way out of the labyrinth of error, ancient and modern, outside man's traditions and his inventions. To those who are therein entangled God's way looks hard, uncertain, narrow, Pharisaical, and one knows not what else. But what largeness of heart it gives, what liberty and boldness with humility before Him, when we truly judge man's systems in the light of God's system! for this is what we have revealed in the word. So a blessed system runs through every book and chapter in the Bible, as it remarkably characterises this Epistle of John, and all the more as not lying on the surface, yet deeply interwoven. It is the same everywhere for its own purpose; but the purpose here is very penetrating and of peculiar interest in, and leading us into, the heights and depths of truth in Christ's life, such as is rarely if ever found elsewhere even in the New Testament.

"If ye know that he is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness hath been begotten of him." The righteous practice proves the source of the new life that so walks. We may ask, who is "He"? Probably there is not a Christian here but would say "Christ," and surely he is quite right. But there have been not a few who answer that here it is "God" who is called "righteous," because to be born of Him in the same connection points naturally to God. Nor can one deny that the reason ordinarily would have great weight, as none denies that God is righteous. But it has been overlooked that a very striking peculiarity of this Epistle is that one cannot absolutely say whether it is God or Christ; and the ground of this is very precious, because Christ is God. There is no exclusion of the Father, but the divine nature is shared by the Son equally with the Father, which no Christian denies. Therefore the apostle, who above all others dwells and delights in the nature of God, keeps, if one may say it reverently, moving in that adorable circle from Christ to God, and from God to Christ, then to God, in his use of "He" or "Him" throughout the Epistle, We have found it already in the early part of 1 John 2. Here we see it again toward the close, as it occurs again in the beginning of 1 John 3, and so on to the last; where he does not hesitate to say of Christ, "This is the true God, and life eternal." It may look confused to an erudite though unawakened eye; it is the beauty of truth to those who know that it is and could only be because Christ is the Son, equally God with the Father. Hence in John 5: 23 the Lord Himself points to the Father's doing, "that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." It is just because Deity characterised both, that it is impossible to lay it down in an absolute manner whether it be either the one or the other. As both are persons in the Godhead and active in love, the apostle purposely thus passes imperceptibly as it were from one to the other. "If ye know that He is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten of Him." Granted that we simply incline in the beginning of the sentence to say "He" is Christ, with equal simplicity we would say at the end that by "Him" is meant God.

Such an unusual style of writing must have a divine motive in the inspired writer, as it is not a casual circumstance, but a habit in the Epistle so pursued as to prove that it is done purposely. No hesitation is shown We know it is what any careful writer on usual topics would sedulously avoid. The man of letters prides himself as the rule on his style being so pellucid that even a dullard cannot well confound one "him" with another in the same sentence. And the apostle was far from the affectation of such as write darkly in order to appear very profound. But his ground, one cannot doubt, was the Deity which was equally shared by the Father and the Son. On this truth, where is sage, scribe, or disputer of this age? John would not put the Only-begotten Son on a level with a mere man, just because He is God. Though He became man in infinite grace, he would not draw the line definitely; but by his apparent confusion and real intermixture he leads us to see how he loved to present God and Christ so joined that man cannot sever them in his language.

"If ye know that he is righteous, know that every one that doeth righteousness hath been begotten of him." How can he thus speak? Because the saint has been begotten of God; he has the life of Christ. This is the constant underlying truth of the whole Epistle. From Christ giving us His own life results "Christ our life." One of the marked characteristics of life in Christ, as manifested in all His walk, is absolutely perfect righteousness; and His is the life that became our life, the only life that we dare boast of. It is divine life, because it is from God in His infinite grace who has given us the very best life, the highest, dearest, most perfect life that ever was. It was from all eternity in the Son; and He imparts that life to us now, that as He is righteous, so everyone that does righteousness shows its source to be in Himself.

It is sad to know that there are those who doubt this; but it is really to doubt Christianity. For this in practice is what it means. And it is no use to make excuses, because the error is too plain as well as fundamental to be explained away as defect of style, or a different side of the truth which others mistook. It is an error so deep and deadly as to demand repudiation, and to call for earnest seeking to deliver every one drawn into so destructive a snare. Here, in righteous walk, life is shown to be derived from community of moral nature with Christ; that if He is righteous, those that walk righteously are said to be begotten of God. For all can see that it is no question of being justified in the verse; it is practical righteousness here. That, in virtue of God making Christ sin for us sacrificially, we become by faith the righteousness of God in Christ is absolutely true; but it is our standing by grace. In our text it is conduct when thus justified. The apostle is pressing, as a matter of all importance, that practical righteousness is consistency with Christ and inseparable from being born of God.

Such is the character and nature of the new relationship that is brought before us. We are born of God, we are His children; and can you conceive such a thing as the smallest unrighteousness either in God or Christ? As whosoever doeth righteousness is born of God, so we may say that whosoever is born of God doeth righteousness. It is a question of doing, not of mere saying or profession. It is not at all a position formed by a sign or rite, but what grace secures by a new nature in our conduct which points to that source and no other. What could more effectually act on the conscience, where there was a new life from God? And it was written for faith, not doubt, though assuredly intended to act on the conscience strongly. For righteousness means consistency with a relationship which admits of no trifling with sin.

But the very next verse shows that we need grace of the fullest kind. The more the conscience is meant to act freely and truly, the more we need the rest given by perfect grace. Here it is brought in with apparent abruptness, but in order to set out our new relationship in the Father's love. It is not merely to lay the requisite basis of our relationship for conduct; this relationship is also for enjoying His love beyond all thought of man, even to its most glorious results. Hence, though it may seem an abrupt transition as we sometimes find in the writings of our apostle, it is divinely wise and just what we ourselves need every day. "See what manner of love the Father hath given to us." It is not only the measure but the manner of it which are so wonderful. For it shows itself in this, that the Father has given to us this illimitable love "that we should be called children of God." "Children" is the correct term, not "sons." John regularly uses the word "son" only about Christ. Not only is it because he is jealous for the glory of the Son, but his God-given care for the truth revealed led him to say that we are God's children rather than to speak of our sonship. After all to be a child of the family is more intimate than the position of an adopted son. We are sons by adoption, but we are children by the nearest family tie to the Father, though both are through the Son. This wondrous manner of love then has been given to us that we should be called children of God.

"Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not" (verse 1). What an honour for us to share with Christ the world's ignorance! Our place and nature and nearness to God are unintelligible to the world. Perhaps it is well to say that some of the oldest manuscripts that are known agree in the addition "and we are" after "we should be called God's children." This small clause is not given in the Authorised version, nor am I prepared to speak with decision about it. Of many things one may judge with certainty; but I do not presume to speak so in this case. Only we may note this, that these very old manuscripts occasionally join in what is certainly wrong. There is however a peculiarity in this clause unlike their erratic readings. What they convey here is "that we should be called children of God; and we are (so)." Now this last is in itself certainly true, and in fact said with emphasis at the beginning of verse 2. Sometimes their readings, where they differ from others, are certainly false; but this at least is true. The only question is whether it is drawn from the next verse and put in here as a gloss of man.

But there seems enough importance in it to deserve a notice. It is remarkable enough that the Latin Vulgate, which, you may know, is accepted by the Romanists as authentic Scripture though only a translation, is here in error. It gives the clause like the old Greek Uncials, but goes wrong where they speak consistently with truth. But in this case it gives a natural thought "That we should be called the sons of God, and should be" (or, may we be). The Latin is not "we are," but that we "may, or should, be." Now this is not true; because it denies that we are now children of God, and seeks it as a future thing (perhaps it is to be supposed dependent on our good behaviour), inconsistent with what follows, and intrinsically indefensible and untrue.

So, without recounting many such instances, in Luke 2: 14 very ancient copies read "in men of good will," a class hard to find in this world; and a strange gospel that peace on earth is for men of goodwill, glad tidings for such as He has nothing to find fault with. Where are these to be found? Surely this is a prodigious reading, hanging on one added letter, and accepted, not by Rome only, but by Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and others.

But, however this may be, the clause here is indisputably true in itself. Whether it is an actually inspired part of the text is an open question. But its statement stands at the beginning of the next verse.

"Beloved, now are we children of God," an assurance important for souls to know, and going beyond the questionable clause; for "now" is highly significant. It is not merely "we are," but "now are we," which is well worthy of our heed, as that immediately before it, "For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not." What a striking identification with the Lord this imports! The world did not understand Christ, nor does it the Christian. Man never can truly comprehend Him, however he may pretend to it. None but the Father knows Him perfectly. But the world knew enough from His lips and from His life to hate Him. He was, for this reason and others, unknown to the world as an object of reverence, honour, and love. He was to it a mere nobody; and such is the way in which it regards the faithful Christian. Grace gives us His relation to the Father; and consequently we share His nothingness here below. As He was an unknown power in the world, so are we: ought we not to esteem it a high honour?

The world, all know, struggles exceedingly for its power and fame, Its ease and pleasure. What is there that most people value more than much money or somewhat of the world's honour? Is it harsh to say that so it is with too many Christians? Christ never did; not only did He never seek but He always refused it. He was always the true Servant here below, and could say, "As the living Father sent me, and I live," not "by" but "on account of the Father, he also that eateth me [the food of faith] shall live on account of me" (John 6: 57). Hence the love of the Father is directly opposed to the love of the world. Where the love of the Father is not, there is the love of the world; and where the love of the Father abides, the love of the world is excluded. The world ignored Him; and so it does the faithful, as God's children should surely be. Could the world's feeling be more simply or strongly expressed than by completely ignoring? The world believes itself perfectly able to do without Him and His: they are really and only a trouble to the world.

"Beloved," for the word is again used significantly, as we saw it before. He is treating of our present high relationship, and our future glorious hope, which nothing short of the Father's love could bestow. "Beloved, now are we children of God, and it was not yet manifested what we shall be. But we know that, if he were manifested, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (ver. 2). There we have "if" again; it is not "when" but a different word; which it would be hard to show ever means "when" under any circumstances. But the word "if," though it may sound a little strange from lack of use, will be found exact. For instance here "When He shall appear" might give a wrong idea as to the time of our being like Him. Many, one may venture to say, may have been embarrassed by it. For we know from 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52; 1 Thess. 4: 16, 17; 2 Thess. 2: 1, that our change will be at the moment of His coming or His presence for us. Then is our body conformed to His, and we become like Him. And if we become like Him at His presence, we shall certainly, or à fortiori, be so when He appears or is manifested. This is what is here said and meant. The world will see us manifested with Him and like Him. The manifestation in the same glory will be for all the world to see (John 17: 22, 23; Col. 3: 4), and when this manifestation takes place, we shall be with Him and like Him. But the change was not at that time but before it. There lies the importance of the change from "when" to "if." And this is not said in the least in order to assume anything which ought to be proved by Scripture, but simply because it is the meaning of the particle: If He be, as He surely will be, manifested, we shall be like Him. From elsewhere as cited we learn that we are to be like Him, before He brings us to heaven, and even to the Father's house. For He comes out of heaven with these saints following Him; and when thus manifested, we shall be like Him, yet not for the first time but when we saw Him coming for us. Thus the word "when" in this case might seriously mislead. We shall be like Him for entering heaven as well as for coming out.

What privileges these are, beloved brethren! What can we say of our fidelity and devotedness now? Yet our heart's decision is, hearing His voice, to follow Him; meanwhile transformed by the Holy Spirit, as we behold Christ by faith and are occupied with Him. But we are never said to be like Him now. We may imitate Him who suffered for us, leaving an example that we should follow in His steps; and the apostle Paul, as far is he imitated Christ, we are called to imitate; but we are never said to be like Christ yet. We shall be like Him when we are changed and caught up, not before. It is a great presumption to talk of anyone being like Christ now; by-and-by what is perfect will then have come for us, and we shall be in His glorified estate, and unlike Him in no way. It is therefore a very full and rich expression of the great change that awaits Christians when the Lord comes for us; and if He be manifested, as He surely will be, so will it be with us, for we are to be manifested in the same glory. All the world will see it then; but we are changed when we see Him, for we shall see Him as He is. Is it not clear that our seeing Him was not in the day of His manifestation to the world, but when, as the first stage of His presence, He came to receive us to Himself on high? Then we see Him as He is; then too we shall be like Him. But when He is manifested, and we with Him, in glory, it will be for every eye.

Yet there is a present spiritual effect of this hope that is here manifested, the importance of which for the Christian cannot be too deeply sought or urged. "And everyone that hath this hope on Him purifieth himself even as He is pure" (ver. 3). It does not mean hope in the man, but on (ἐπὶ) Christ, this hope founded upon Christ. For the word, properly speaking, is "upon" Him, not precisely in Him. It is a hope directed to Him and settled on Him. Thereby the Christian "purifieth himself." This very result shows that we are not like Him yet. Christ never had to purify Himself. He sanctified or set Himself apart in heaven, in order to be the great model for us on earth, that we too might be set apart to the Father by or in truth (John 17: 19). But we have also to purify ourselves here below, because, besides having the life of Christ, we have what is natural to contend with, to mortify and keep down, that it shall not break out into its evil ways. We have therefore to purify ourselves from defilement through unwatchfulness and failure in prayer, and "even as He is pure," for Christ is the standard. He always was absolutely pure. This again is perfectly applicable to God, for God is light, purity itself, as no believer call doubt. But Christ here meant is pure too; and this is the more wonderful, however certain, because He was truly man. In spite of being born of woman, He is pure in the highest degree. A great deal is lost to all who do not apply it to Christ, and take away a little from the honour due to Him by denying Him in this place as learned and pious men have done.

This leads into the very opposite of purity, the grave and important discussion of what sin really is (ver. 4). One hardly knows a verse of the New Testament more perverted if one may so call it, or more productive of widespread misapprehension. Take the generally excellent Authorised Version for a plain and painful departure from the evident mind of God in its only legitimate meaning. The reason that led to the error, and gave to it general acceptance, was the prevalent Judaising of Christendom. Do not all its differing sections regard the law of Moses is the rule of Christian life? This Christ is really, and His word for every detail. Does not John 1: 17 contrast with law "the grace and truth which came through Jesus Christ "? The law, on the contrary, is the ministry of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3: 7-9). It is the rule of death to a sinner, and so it proved to the Israelite; not the ceremonial only but expressly the ten words graven in stone, as the apostle Paul says.

But the fact is, as a question of rendering, there is nothing about transgressing the law in the verse; whereas there exists not perhaps a single catechism, no matter what its source, which, misdirected by this wrong rendering, does not define sin to be the "transgression of the law." But it is all entirely false definition, and not at all what the apostle says. Lawlessness is a great deal deeper and subtler and wider than violating the law; not wicked work merely but the activity of an ill-willed nature, which therefore fully applies to such as never even heard of the law. They yield to their evil will without restraint. How can you speak of people transgressing the law who never so much as heard of its existence? Their evil can hardly be called "transgression"; for this surely means violation of a known law. The fact is, however we may look at it, that "transgression of the law" is expressed by its own proper phrase, and quite distinct from "lawlessness," the only right rendering here, whilst the former misleads.

It is to be presumed that almost every intelligent Christian has heard what the real sense is, for many servants of God have insisted upon it for more than seventy years. Sin goes beyond the fleshly and worldly lusts warned against in 1 John 2: 16. The sentence here is reciprocal: "sin is lawlessness," and "lawlessness is sin." It is self-will, whether ignorant, or regardless, of God's will. The meaning of verse 4 is "Everyone that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." This is its unadulterated and simple force. Some for "doeth" prefer the word "practiseth"; but, without insisting on that change of rendering here, it may be enough to say "do," if understood in much the same sense of practice, which one can hardly doubt to be its real meaning. It is not committing a sin but "doing" sin. It is what a sinner always does. If a man is a sinner, what can he do but sin? How avoid it so long as he remains simply a sinner? because sin is the state of his nature. Now that he is fallen and no more, he only sins. He does not do righteousness; he is as far as he can be from holiness; he does nothing but sin. "Everyone that doeth sin" says he, (whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, it makes no difference here) "doeth lawlessness." The Jew added to his guilt because he violated the law also; but the Gentile did lawlessness and thus was a sinner, though he knew nothing of the law and could not fairly be called a transgressor of the law. Scripture does not call them so, but "sinners of the Gentiles." Where are they ever called transgressors of the law, as the Jews were? But they were all guilty; they all did their own will, and this is the essence of lawlessness. It is leaving God altogether out of the case, and a man just doing what he pleases and because he likes it. Who is he to speak against God? But God is not mocked, and He will bring him into judgment for it. This he may close his ears to now; but it will be unutterably awful for him another day.

Thus "lawlessness," as it is the true mind of God, gives a far reaching sense to the word that is commonly rendered here "transgression of the law." It is quite a different expression and differently applied. Transgression of the law does occur in Scripture, as, for instance, in Rom. 2: 23 (translated "breaking the law" in the English Bible), and "transgression" in the same sense without "the law" is expressed in Rom. 4: 15, Gal. 3: 19, Heb. 2: 2, Heb. 9: 15. But the word in our verse is "lawlessness" simply with a sense distinct from "transgression of the law."

The end of the verse makes this sense plain, as it takes in every sinful person and all his life. It is a course of lawlessness. But such evil was the exact opposite of Christ, who, in verse 5, is therefore brought in without naming Him. "And ye know that He" (emphatically) "was manifested that He might take away our sins;" not "bore," as in 1 Peter 2: 24, but "take away," and both by one act totally. There can be no doubt who He was that thus suffered. It was not God the Father; but exclusively the Son, the Lord Jesus. He only, He for ever, bore and took away our sins on the cross. A prolonged action over His life is precluded: it was a transient act but of everlasting efficacy. "And in Him is no sin." This applied to His person all His life from His birth till He died and rose and went into heavenly glory.

There could be no question of it in His simply divine estate as the Son throughout all eternity. Doubts alas! have been raised because of His being born of Mary, and in spite of the miracle of the incarnation (Luke 1: 35). But "in Him is no sin" — never was and never can be. In Christ here below we have the exact opposite of what the sinner is. The sinner has nothing but sin. Even in his affections God is not in his thoughts but himself. This is not the love that was in God and in Christ, from whom Christians derive it. That kind of amiable affection you share with even a dog or a cat; for some are truly amiable dogs and cats, they are not all spitfires. The immortal soul gives affection a higher nature in man; but man is sinful, which brutes are not! Yes, man has an immortal soul, no matter what he or she may be; and for that reason will surely come into judgment; which no dog, or cat, or other animal will — man only of earth. One does not speak of angels, though the fallen ones will be judged too; but of beings on the earth man is the only one so constituted, and directly responsible to God.

Here then we have this true and unique picture of Christ. He not only had no sin in Himself, but came at all costs to take away our sins. What then do we not owe Him? and what practice consists with the relationships of grace which are ours now? "Every one that abides in him sinneth not;" but if a man does not there abide but turns aside to devious paths, can we wonder that he sins? He is not walking as a Christian, if he does not abide in Christ. Nobody sins who thus enjoys conscious dependence and confidence and delight in the Son of God. What else can keep us so surely from sinning? "Every one that sinneth hath not seen Him nor yet known Him." Here he is speaking of the nature and the character: he looks at the man solely according to his new nature. The other, the old, nature is his shame and sorrow; he utterly condemns any allowance of it in himself or in fellow Christians. But the new nature is characterised by Christ, and does not, cannot sin.

"Every one that sinneth hath not seen Him, nor yet known Him." Sinning is incompatible with truly loving Christ. Sin is supposed to be a state that mere man lives in: what he does is to sin habitually. But the sinner has neither seen Christ nor known Him. Had he really received Him as the Son of God, he would have believed in Him. If he had thus known Him, he would have received life in Him, and hence would have hated sin; he, possessed of that new and holy nature, would have looked to and depended on Christ to keep him from evil, righteous even as He is. Apart from Him, one can do nothing, can bear no fruit Godward. A converted soul may be in bondage, weak and wretched, as in Rom. 7: 7-24; but when by grace he gives self up as utterly and hopelessly bad for Christ in His delivering power, he is freed from the law of sin and death into Christian liberty. The apostle Paul alone enters into the emancipating process. Our Epistle passes it by, and views all the family of God as having settled peace and on proper Christian ground, even the babes. The new life in Christ is the main theme.

Hence the precious aspect in the apostle John's testimony is what he gives from our Lord in John 14: 20: — "At that day [now come since Pentecost] ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." Now, when this is really our known portion, it is the new "I," no longer in the flesh and dreading judgment because of my failure, but Christ risen is my life in the Spirit. But we must beware of thinking that this change is only an apprehension of the mind; it is a real possession of the mind of the Spirit. Still less is it the law demanding what is right from me; but the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which freed me from the law of sin and of death.

It is evident that our apostle in these verses goes beyond the lusts and the vainglory of men without Christ, as traced in the chapter before. Christ is set before all the saints in His absolute sinlessness, and in His work of taking away our sins. So also the root of sin is thoroughly laid bare, the personal chief of sin being therefore brought forward with all directness, whose pride and rebellious independence of God is reproduced in those who are said to be "of the devil" (ver. 8). He that was manifested to take away the sins of those that are His was no less manifested to destroy the works of the devil, an undoing which goes far beyond man's sins and includes all malicious energy in dishonouring God and injuring man. We cannot overlook that here the Son of God is opposed personally to the evil one; as in 1 John 2 the love of the world stands in manifest antagonism to the love of the Father.

In ver. 9 the secret cause of the radical difference comes to view. "Every one that is (or, hath been) begotten of God doeth not sin, because his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is (or, hath been) begotten of God." It is in no way a question of the first man, of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man. Flesh and blood have nothing in them to be a source of the new life. Moral suasion is as powerless as a religious ordinance; for "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." One must be born of God; but this is through faith in His Son objectively, and by the operation of His Spirit through His word livingly. Thus is the believer born of the Spirit; and here it is equally true that what is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3: 6). There is no interchange, no ameliorating, no modifying: each nature remains according to its source.

Thus it is no question only of being justified by faith, nor yet only of purifying the heart thereby. The atoning work of the Lord for the sinner, and the work of the Holy Spirit in him, are most true and real; but there is also a new life, not of the first man but of the Second, then for the first time communicated to his soul, dead spiritually as he had been till then, as the Lord clearly taught in John 5: 24, 25. It is this which explains the apostle's language here, how the begotten of God does not sin. He is regarded according to a divine nature of which grace had made him a partaker (2 Peter 1: 4); and he is assumed to abhor his old self of sin, and to live of the new life which he has in the Son, on his guard against the wiles, temptations, and instigations of the devil in every form to act on the old man.

As having Christ's life, his responsibility is and must be to discern, hate, and disallow the working of the old. Here however it is not responsibility urged, but a nature true to itself, as natures are made to be. And as the new nature is his now from God, so he lives accordingly. It is doubtless wholly different from the old fallen creation; but his faith recognises that it is no less real and incomparably more momentous. On this ground, and it is most true, it is said not only that "he doeth not sin," but that "he cannot sin, because he hath been begotten of God." The reason is given why he does not sin, "because his seed remaineth in him," the life of Christ communicated by God's gracious power, which is not subject like the old creation to decay and death; it is his seed and remaineth in him. The new nature is incapable of sin, and he who has it in Christ is characterised by it only, sin in the flesh being here wholly ignored, as already condemned of God on his behalf in Christ made a sacrifice for it on the cross. But of this way of divine deliverance, nothing is here said any more than of our sinful nature. We only hear of the believer characterised by the new man. But the new man lives in and by dependence on Him who is its source. When the believer ceases to walk by faith, leaning on the Lord, the old nature slips or breaks out into sin.

Yet whilst we have life only in Christ, it is of all moment and interest to see the care which the Holy Spirit takes to keep the Son before us objectively, so as to guard us from mysticism and self-admiration, so prevalent a snare for pious souls. He fixes our eyes on the supreme hope of being like Christ when we shall see Him as He is; which certainly was not when Jerusalem fell, the fantastic and unholy dream of the J. S. Russell school, however important an event providentially. See too the emphatic statement "In Him is no sin"; so precious to the believer's heart as he looks on the Man, Christ Jesus, the bright contrast with every other. How abhorrent to his spirit the effort of Satan to found a pretended sympathy with us on the lying assumption that Christ was peccable because He, the true God, deigned to unite human nature with His Deity! Sin in His nature was a most wicked insinuation; but was it any better to teach that He was by birth of woman in a necessary relation of distance to God? Both the mother error and the daughter are incompatible, not only with true atonement but with His divine person.

ADDRESS 9

1 JOHN 3: 7-10.

"Dear children, let no one lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous. He that doeth sin is of the devil, for from [the] beginning the devil sinneth. To this end was manifested the Son of God that he might undo the works of the devil. Every one that hath been born of God doeth not sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he hath been begotten of God. Herein are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil."

The opportunity is here taken to review briefly what was last considered with the verses before us, in order to set forth its great principles more fully and less cumbered with detail. On every side they are of immense importance, though the manner in which the apostle brings in the second of the two seems peculiar; but it is in the wisdom of God. Only our ignorance makes it appear strange. What God does or says, we may be perfectly assured, must be the best way for either.

We have seen that, in the last verse of the chapter before, is first introduced the subject of our righteousness. For here begins our righteousness in principle and practice: because we have had God righteous in 1 John 1: 9; and a wonderful truth it is that God is there declared faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from every unrighteousness. Man's notion of His righteousness would be His strictness in condemning evil. But Christ has changed everything for the believer by His atoning death, and made it not merely a question of grace in God but of righteousness to forgive him. The ground of this is Himself — Jesus Christ the righteous, and His death for our sins; the effect of which is that God is able to act not merely graciously in our favour when we do not deserve it, but righteously to forgive that which is so offensive to Him as sins. It is true that when born of God we too abjure sins; we have learnt to condemn sin itself, and ourselves for having been guilty of sins. Is it not verified in the believer from his first turning to God? He abhors himself and his sins as before Him. He knows very little, but he knows it personally and truly by God's teaching. When the work of the Lord Jesus is received in the Spirit's power as well as His person, then even the young believer sees things clearly as they are in the sight of God. He begins to know not only things in God's sight, but God Himself in His feeling of perfect love towards those that are His.

Here however our righteousness is asserted as inseparable from our new birth. This often alarms any one immature in faith; because he at once naturally turns to look within. He does not find ground for satisfaction there, and, what is more, he never can. What we have to do is in the first place to rest on Christ made to us righteousness. This therefore is the direction of faith. There is no object of faith in looking at ourselves; it brings experience of our utter weakness. Only when Christ fills the spiritual eye is His strength made perfect in our weakness. Then indeed follows practical righteousness.

Now this is the part in which he returns to the whole family of God, laying down the principle that, "If ye know that He is righteous, know (or, ye know) that every one that doeth righteousness is begotten of Him." It has been already remarked that righteousness, in respect whether of God supremely or of ourselves as begotten of God in our little measure, is in every case consistency with the relationship. For this very reason, although in the last verse he had introduced righteousness, he immediately seems to turn away from it in the opening verses of 1 John 3, where he suddenly bursts out into those wonderful words, "See what manner of love the Father hath given to us," etc. Thus he takes in the Father's present love, and the future glory in the same surpassing favour to the children of God in being like Christ, "because we shall see Him as He is. And every one that hath this hope in Him" (Christ), founded on Him, "purifieth himself, even as He (Christ) is pure." It is clearly not the Christian pure, else he should not require to purify himself; but Christ being the standard, and He being absolutely pure, the incongruity of impurity in a follower of Christ, that is in one having Christ as his life and his righteousness, makes him feel that he cannot but purify himself from all unworthy of Him. Needless to say, that when we look into daily conversation, there is failure too often. But John is not occupied with the shortcoming as a general rule, but with the principle, and therefore he puts it in all its simplicity as he was entitled to do.

For this is the true way to look at a principle, apart from possible or actual complications. If we get into paring away on the right and the left and all round, we can never face a principle really. It is apt to be lost in our looking at the circumstances. But a principle is above all circumstances if it is a principle of grace, and a principle of grace made ours in Christ whilst here below. Does not this help us to see why he turns to the unfolding of the richest grace and glory after beginning on practical righteousness. "See what manner of love!" Why does he so speak here? Because all that grace is needed for practical righteousness. For how could this righteousness hold on its even way without that mighty spring? How could the Christian find adequate cheer, in the midst of the world without and the flesh within, to persevere in God's will with joy and confidence, unless he had the assurance of His perfect love? His wondrous love is brought in exactly at the right time and place, though it may seem a singular departure from the righteousness of which he had been speaking before. It is to supply in the Father's love what best strengthens practical righteousness.

We never perform our duties rightly to God or any other unless we are by grace above our duties. If you sink under your duties, you will always fail. There will necessarily in that case be something that you cannot reach. And many saints are content to jog on in that shambling way. They are quite satisfied if they can fairly hope they shall not be lost. "By God's mercy I humbly trust that He will not cast me into hell; I hope for Christ's sake to get to heaven." With this he goes on quietly, as if the gospel gave no more. But is this consistent with the child's relationship to his Father? How utterly short of what is here revealed to faith and meant to fill the Christian with unwavering delight and fulness of joy even now? A Christian is entitled to nothing less. Why? Christ! Everything turns upon Him for the believer. Consequently it is an appeal to his faith, and so it ought to be. Through no other channel have we ever derived any blessing Godward since sin came into the world. Who ever obtained testimony except from faith in what God in Christ is; and what God is in Him to the believer is a delivering God. Only He delivers, but never will He consent to deliver in any other way than through the Lord Jesus; and the Holy Spirit, who glorifies Christ, works in the Christian to make him realise it. For the truth, however blessed in itself, is outside of him without the indwelling power of the Spirit of God. But the Holy Spirit, if one rests on Christ and His redemption, makes it to be real internally, turning even the severest affliction to our exceeding joy. We are not to suppose that it was a privilege peculiar to the early Christians that they could have fellowship with the apostle Paul when he bids them "Rejoice in the Lord always: again I will say, Rejoice." Little of this is now tasted by the children of God; but we do well to challenge our own souls whether we do. Let us seek that what we read in the word may be verified in us and our brethren, according to the grace of Christ both theirs and ours.

Hence then we find the new relationship glowingly urged, and to what does it amount? Is it merely that we are become strangers and pilgrims like Abraham? No; we are, or ought to be such, but is there not far beyond that measure? Abraham was separated from the nations because they were idolatrous. He and his family were called to walk apart to God. They required for this no small bulwark, to have Himself for their shield in the midst of enemies that hated them because of their separation to His name. If they had only intermarried with them like decent fellow-citizens, and entered into community of pursuits, taking their part in their friendships and their wars, it would have been all well! The same principle applies now. But Christians have lost immensely by association with the world, excited no less than worldly men by the Boers and the Germans, by the Japanese and about the Russians, and such like. What have we to do with such associations? If we were only Englishmen, we might and ought to have a great deal to do with it all. If only men in the flesh, it is a natural duty clearly, as far as one can talk about the duty of a sinful, guilty, and lost man. Now as Christians we are not our own but bought with a price; we are saved and brought to God for the purpose of living no longer to ourselves, but to Him who for us died and was raised. We are called to do God's will during the little while we are here on earth in the midst of an evil world. Consequently we have a relationship far superior.

Abraham needed protection, and Abraham had it in God with the blessed name of the "Almighty." What a suitable name of relationship for him and his! His enemies were all near and around him, it would easily leak out that his seed were to dispossess the Amorite and the rest. No doubt many an Israelite might report that God gave Canaan to the fathers and their line for ever. At the least the very fact of Abraham's coming and settling in that land must have been an omen to the Canaanites and the rest that were there. Was it not notice to quit, and a warning of judgment? Do you suppose they would take this quietly? The chosen race were long but few, but the truth would make itself felt as they increased and got stronger; more particularly after the mighty work of their deliverance out of Egypt, where their numbers multiplied in spite of all the efforts of the wicked king to destroy the males.

Next the sons of Israel were brought to Sinai; and indeed even before they reached it, in the process of their being redeemed out of Egypt — externally of course — God intimated that He was going to give Himself a new name. What He gave to Israel was the name of Jehovah. "Father" would not have been true, because the great nation for the most part consisted of unconverted men. It was not at all a question of renewal by grace. They were as a people taken up by God to govern; and government does not necessarily require that people should have divine life in them. Government supposes evil to be repressed; and God took the name of a divine governor, the God of their fathers but also now "Jehovah." At Sinai as His nation they undertook to obey His law as the condition of their standing and of His blessing. But He well knew that they would not be subject, but depart more and more into rebellion. Alas! the fleshly mind has but the principle of self-will and is never subject to God. On the contrary it is enmity against Him and dislikes His will. Therefore it was as certain as possible — and Moses was quite conscious of it — that all would go to ruin; that they would abandon Jehovah and follow greedily strange gods; so that they must be chased out of the goodly land. How solemn to all the nations the lesson of a people which once had God doing the mightiest and kindest things for them, but now become not rebels only but apostates and consequently punished in the most severe and public manner before all the world under their worst enemies the instrument of their degradation!

But all this was brought out in Jehovah's dealings with the Jews' relationship till the Son of God appeared; and more soon followed, and still more is yet to be fulfilled. But He appeared as Man, the only way in which He could appear in grace and to purpose; the way in which, according to scripture, it was absolutely necessary He should appear. For in that nature, which constantly and in every form in others had wrought evil, He came not merely to bring God into the world but to put sin out of it. Only in fact this was not all to be done at once. Meanwhile still worse was to be the display of the unbelieving wickedness of the Jews in refusing Jesus as Jehovah's Messiah; whereas He had given them overwhelming proofs of the truth. Nevertheless their inveterate and rebellious self-will would not have it. They were therefore the chief instruments in bringing Him to the cross. The idolatrous Romans even did not wish it. Pilate's name had been known for a name of hardness and severity even among Roman governors; but Pilate quite shines in comparison with the High Priest of the Jews, their elders and scribes and all the rest of them. Masses and classes made no difference; they were all full of enmity and spite against their own Messiah, blinded by fleshly will. Such is what people call "free will."

Yes, it is Satan's and the sinner's free will. As a man, what possible title can he have to a free will? Is he not bound, as an intelligent creature, to be a servant of God? Consequently the claim to exercise free will is really preposterous. As fallen, is he not a slave of Satan? And is not this the condition of what you and I and all other men were born and lived in till God gave us to take the place of the sentence of death for our souls, and to receive by faith a new life in Him that came down from heaven? And He, the Son of God and Son of man, made known to His disciples while He was ministering on earth, that there was a new name which God reveals as His to believers, the same name as He knew and loved Himself not only then but from all eternity — the Father; He in divine right, and we by sovereign grace.

Such is the fruit of the love that has reached to our once dark hearts which is here referred to: not merely that we should be forgiven and justified, but that we should be called children of God. The second verse, if not the first, distinctly says that we are so now. It is not only a name that will be made good in heaven or in the resurrection state. "Now are we" children of God. It has been already pointed out that "sons" is not the term that the apostle here applies to us, but "children." Our translators were admirable scholars; but we require the truth in our soul to translate scripture properly, and constant dependence on the same Spirit who wrote it. If they had had to do with any other book, they would have translated it correctly; but their theological prejudices hampered them here and there as to the Bible. Their mistakes seem to have chiefly arisen out of habit. Their failure lay not in lack of learning but in traditional bias. They had found others of name before them translating in a certain way, and they followed in the same rut. "Children of God" — what can be a nearer relationship to Him? Man could not make a stranger outside himself to be his child

God can, and this is what He does. Such is now the relationship of grace. It is not only that Christ called God His Father, but His Father is our Father; and He adds that "His God is our God," after He had borne atoningly the judgment of our sins and rose from out of the dead. For it is full of interest that Christ did not speak ordinarily to Him as God but as Father. When He rose from the dead, the work of redemption being accomplished, He says not merely "your Father" but "your God." The force is made exceedingly striking by comparison with the time when the Lord said "My God, My God." In the days of His flesh, and before this on the cross, it was always "Father" whether He spoke of Him or to Him. After being made sin, and hence forsaken by God, He comes to the "Father" again, even before death, that we might know that all against us was settled. For He had gone down with our sins laid on Him under that infinite judgment; and in His spirit He had the consciousness that it was finished and accepted so that He could say "Father" before the moment of death, because it was virtually ended. The resurrection was the public proof that all was peace; but before He departed, He said "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."

Accordingly here we have this wondrous privilege, "The Father hath given us" the title of "children of God." There we have its character; and to make it more plain that it is a really given nature and not merely a title, he adds, "Beloved, now are we children of God." In a general way it was said before that the righteous one, as He is righteous, is "born of God."

This is all exceedingly important in order to lay a firm and sure basis for our righteousness; for it is not at all that certain duties have to be fulfilled in order to our attaining righteousness. This was the ground of an Israelite. The law set before him certain duties that he was bound to accomplish to gain life. Nevertheless these he never fulfilled. The law therefore could only condemn him. It is altogether a different thing with the Christian. This is made plain when we are assured that we are children of God, and that He is our Father according to the way in which Christ knew Him; He in the right of His own divine person, we solely by grace. But have we no duties of ours? and what are they? They are the duties of children of God. We are brought into a relationship higher than any duties. What can we accomplish by any fulfilment of duty comparable with the place of a child of God? We are therefore always above our duties. We are brought into a nearness to God which no duty done by us could ever gain. We received the title by sovereign grace when we were at our worst, children of wrath even as others. He gave us life in the Son.

This for many is a blessed truth to learn, that our duties flow out of an existing relationship, instead of being done to win it. Our duties do not bring its into the relationship; but the relationship decides the kind of duties which become it and are owing to it. Our near and blessed relationship — and we could have none nearer — flows out of our being now His children. It is a standing fact which nothing can alter, except when one who has professed to be a Christian shows that there was no root of the matter in him, because he has given Christ up; even then it will tell against him in the judgment. But evidently it is a general principle and easily understood by looking at natural duties. Hence the world is always wrong in its ethical notions, because they do not at all base duty upon relationship. On the contrary they make duty to flow from the man's moral power. They suppose that man is able to do his duty if he will; and therefore there is nothing in a man's duty but what he can do if he choose. The sorrowful fact certainly is that man fails in his Godward duties utterly; but philosophers think little of that. The error shows how the system of ethics has no source in revelation but is merely of fallen man. There is neither the truth of God nor the reality of man, as in His sight.

Look, for illustration, at a parent. What is it that is the ground of the child's duty to the parents? It is the relationship. It is because he is the child of his father that he is bound to love him who begat him, and to obey him. No other can stand in a father's place. Should the child begin to regard others as equally near with his father, or to let them usurp his place, it is clear all must be false and wrong. There is again the relationship of a husband and wife; and here what more evident? The man's duty is to love her, as is due to none else, though she may be sometimes a little trying; and it is the woman's duty to obey him, though doubtless she may have to endure sometimes.

Duties are quite independent of mere passing circumstances. Nor are they a question of the man's will or of the woman's. Whatever be their thoughts or their feelings, the obligation of duty flows out of the relationship. Whether one does the duty or not, relationship is what creates and calls for it. In a servant there is a little of the same principle, but more distant and feeble from its nature, especially in our day when they are prone to getting tired of their masters, as the masters and mistresses are not at all unwilling to part with their servants, sometimes on small occasions. In itself it is indeed, as we read in John 8, not an abiding but a temporary relationship. But the others abide for this life, and therefore they can better illustrate the relationships which grace has established never to end.

We are entitled by God's word to believe this. But while the flesh remains in us, we need grace,("but He giveth more grace") to accomplish the duties proper to our relationship whether to God or between us and our brethren. The least one involves corresponding duty. But the all-important depend on the supreme rights of God. And here God has taken the place of incomparable love: "See what manner of love." It is entirely beyond any affection that man ever conceives. It was only possible for God; and He gives to us under the Father's name, as the Lord Jesus knew Him and communicated after He died and rose, not more truly His than ours. Therefore the blessing, above all thought of man, being ours now encourages us to fulfil the obligations which that relationship calls into being.

Has not the relationship then a great deal to do with righteousness? If so, cannot one perceive at once the great propriety and beauty as well as the peculiar force thereby given to sustain righteousness — that is, our consistency with our relationship? For here if anywhere the relationship is brought out in all its reality, and its present rich grace; also carried right through to the presence of the Lord, when we seeing Him as He is shall be like Him. Thus it furnishes a very complete and divine light on the subject, and in a way as unexpected as indispensable, meant and adapted to give energy to the duty of practical righteousness, and to minister unfailing joy and comfort under all circumstances.

Take the danger that ensues when we give up our relationship and begin to doubt whether we are children of God: are we not ripe for the world, for indulgence in sin? No wonder that we should turn into evil ways if we do not enjoy present, living, and everlasting relationship with God; but if we do, there is no excuse for sin. There is the new nature, the near tie, and the love of the most powerful kind as the motive. For the new nature may be viewed in connection with relationship, or as it acts by itself apart from it. But the full and proper way is to bring both nature and relationship to bear on our conversation in this connection; and this is what our apostle is doing in his own remarkable manner in the parenthesis of these three verses between the first and the renewed treatment of righteousness.

Having thus brought in the Father's love and our relationship as children, with its bright hope, he turns again to the moral side and probes sin to its root, as he had not yet done. He does not call sin "the transgression of the law," and for the best of all reasons. He is going to treat it in a far larger way than in connection with the law or the Jews. They were accustomed to unrighteousness or righteousness in a measure, although they superficially misunderstood it through their unbelief. Still they read of it habitually in their Scriptures; and they could but wonder at the depth of the word of righteousness from the Lord Himself as He the true light shone when here.

But the heathen, what did they know about righteousness? They had no conscious relationship with God who was to them an unknown God. If they had any moral feeling in the presence of their spurious objects of veneration, it was fear. But they had not the smallest idea that God was a God of love. Their gods were patrons of vice and villainy, never rising above selfishness. If ever they came down to the earth to man, it was perhaps to make a pet of this one or that one, and it might be something far worse than a pet; because they were really disgraceful in their immoral ways. Did Hellenism ever attain to anything in religion higher than disgraceful gods, without a particle of either holiness or love? Which of them was not bad from Zeus down to the lowest of them? Their gods were just the exaggerated reflection of themselves. But here we have the truth of God, and that truth working in the way of sovereign grace to bless us without the smallest desert on our part. The Christian can only take the ground of utter ruin and evil in the first man, and of perfect righteousness and grace in Christ. All the virtue, efficacy, and blessing came from God who gives all freely to faith in Christ. What could our God and Father do so well to the believer for renouncing self and every hindrance, as to confess the name of his Lord and Saviour, and to enjoy the blessed nearness of his relationship to the Father, in a new life given by grace?

That the believer is righteous as being born of God, and consequently sharing with Christ God's hatred of sin, was much; for doing follows being. And every one that doeth righteousness is born of God, and thus knows that he has nearness of relationship from being the object of the Father's spontaneous and perfect love. Thus the nature and the relationship join hands and go together, and this is what the apostle here explains to us. But now, having brought in all the bright side, and alike its present reality and its surpassing hope also, he proceeds to insist on the necessary contrariety of God's nature, whether in Christ or in us, to all sin.

"Whosoever doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (ver. 4). "Committing sin" is generally used for a particular act, as when one says that a man has committed a sin. But "doing sin" as here means that it is both the principle of the man and his practice too; for there is nothing else really but the man's doing sin. It is his nature. Of whom does he speak? Of every man naturally. This is exactly what man does as in God's sight. It is not merely the Gentile but the Jew; for in that light there was no difference, though they might ever so much oppose one another, and habitually indulge in mutual hate and scorn. Before God fully revealed in Christ what possible room for any thought of pride? Man's place is in the dust as a sinner.

Who then is the sinner but every man as such in his natural state? Was not this your life and mine before we learned Christ? God was unknown to our souls except in a certain dread of Him — a fear that He would cast us into hell some day. If God was not in our thoughts, sin was. What is its true character then? Lawlessness, the principle of self-will and of total independence of God. Man finds it not so easy now to be independent of his fellow; he has no difficulty in being thoroughly indifferent to God. How mad, wicked, awful a state! God is in none of his thoughts; this is sin. The moment you bring in such a definition of sin as is here revealed, it applies to everybody whether Jew or Gentile. The Jew had a claim of righteousness, because he was under law; but the consequence if he sinned was the additional guilt of breaking a known law, and that law the law of God. He was therefore a "transgressor," which the Gentile could not be, because the Gentile knew nothing about the law as a general rule; most of them had not even heard of it. it would be therefore quite a misapplication of terms to talk about the Gentiles as if they were transgressors. Scripture never does so speak, but calls them lawless or sinners; as for instance Gal. 2: 15 says, "sinners of the Gentiles."

But now we have lawlessness brought to bear upon the Jew, and if he believed not on Christ, he also was lawless with all his boast in the law, because his sinning proved him to be really living without God. While the temple stood, he went up and brought his offering; any Jew might do that. Men, even the worst of them, like to have a little bit of religion. Cain had not merely the world to love as he began it, but he had the world's religion in man's idea. He was not at all one of the sort that have no church or chapel of their own. He was strict in bringing an offering of his particular device to the Lord; but there was nothing in it except a real insult to Him who alone can say how He is to be worshipped, with an absolute ignoring of his own sinfulness. He brought the fruits and flowers of the earth. People do something like this at funerals. It is a great day for flowers, as we know, even at the grave; and a more monstrous thing than flowers on a coffin it is hardly possible to conceive as far as principle is concerned. It utterly blots out the solemnity and the consequences of death. What is death for the saint but departing to be with Christ? And what is death to the sinner but the knell of inevitable and righteous judgment) And what for either are flowers? Can one wonder that even sensible people of the world now give notice to their friends "No flowers by request"? At any rate it is hard to conceive any fashion more heartless or foolish, though it is natural enough for the gardeners, and good for taste perhaps and trade but for nothing else.

"Whosoever doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness?" This is a very different rendering from that of the A.V.; but as it was dwelt on previously, little more is called for now. Sin is not breach of law but lawlessness. This is the true sense. No other rendering is possible legitimately. What has ruled here is an utter mistake, founded on making the law instead of Christ the rule of life for the Christian, as people do who understand not the scriptures. "And ye know that He was manifested that He might take away our sins; and in Him is no sin." The apostle introduces at once the exact opposite. Where shall we look for one utterly free from lawlessness? There was but One, and He so evident that it was needless to name Him. Yes, we know that the Lord Jesus was manifested to take away our sins. How suited to a divine person, but withal truly man! He indeed abhorred sin; and, as is said immediately after His work, "In Him is no sin." It is not only "was" before His advent, and "will be" now that He is risen, but "in Him is no sin." It is an absolute truth. As it never was at any time, so it never could be. Yet the sinless One was just the One whom God made sin, that we — who were indeed sinners might become God's righteousness in Him. The one refers to the unique act and aim of His atoning death; the other refers to the immutable and holy character of His life, so peculiarly displayed and tested particularly in this world. There it was manifest to every eye, unless they were blind or saw crooked.

"Every one that abideth in Him sinneth not." There is no other remedy against sin than abiding in Him, constantly dependent and confiding. The guard or preservative is not in that one has called on the name of the Lord. This is excellent to begin with; but many that today say "Lord, Lord," must be ignored in that day. To abide in Christ is the test of living faith in Christ, which is not empty or vain but works by love, as the law-affecting Galatians were told. Nor could it be otherwise. "I am crucified with Christ, but live, no longer I (the old man) but Christ liveth in me; and that which I now live in flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, that loved me and gave Himself for me." He is not ashamed to call us brethren; He has proved His love for us to the uttermost in a way proper neither to the Father nor to the Holy Spirit, yet essential. They never became incarnate to display absolute obedience in life, and in death to endure the judgment of our sins at God's hand. He did. Therein is for us a motive of exceeding power, particularly as there is a righteous nature communicated, as well as a relationship of such nearness to God, as only the supreme love of the Father could conceive and confer.

Then we come to the verses not before cleared. "Dear children, let no man lead you astray." Where is the subject on which there is more frequent mistake? Where any in which men are more apt not only to err, but to mislead others who trust them? There is no help for it but in Christ, His word, and His spirit. What can learning avail herein? Even piety can do little unless there is also true abiding in Him. "Apart from Him we can do nothing." Hence it is that if we so abide, the wicked one cannot harm us, though we are always exposed to his wiles, yet not ignorant of his devices. Not of us is he afraid, but of Christ his vanquisher. But our faith and abiding in Christ puts Him between us and the devil, who thus resisted will flee from us. It is not our old nature, the flesh, turned by grace and truth into a good nature. The flesh, the very mind of the flesh, is incurably evil; and on this God executed condemnation on our behalf who believe in Christ a sacrifice for sin. And now that He is dead and risen, He gives us of His own risen life, a new creation, not the old improved but set aside for ever and judged in Christ's cross. What is His life? Was there ever a single sin to tarnish it? Did the smallest defilement ever enter Him? This is the life that we now have; and hence the joy of the Father's love rests upon us as His children — children of God the Father. We have therefore the new nature, which is a righteous one, before we are to do righteousness which is the course of that nature, as unrighteousness is alien to it.

With the Israelite it was a man addressed in the law as having a sinful nature. The law supposed such proclivities in him; he was therefore surrounded by prohibition on every side. He was not to own false gods, nor to have an image of the true God. Worship was exclusively due to the unseen but only true God that brought Israel out of Egypt, whose name he might not take in vain. He was not to take another's property, nor even to covet any one or thing that belonged to his neighbour. He was to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day, and to honour his parents, all under the severest sanction. Why? Because having aversion to God's will in his nature he was unrighteous. The law held out life and death — life to the obedient, death to the disobedient. Cursed be the man that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them; and all the people shall say, Amen! Accordingly death passed upon Israel long ago. But the day is coming when they too shall live; and "doing righteousness" will follow. The soul that does righteousness, the nature that loves it, has a new life in Christ which God gives of His grace independently of anything on our part. His Spirit it is that works in us to repent and believe the gospel. With this new life the new and Christian responsibility begins. We are called to walk consistently with Christ, whose is the righteous life given to our soul. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous" (verse 7). It is His nature, just as a mere fallen man sins.

Now he gets much stronger, and looks at the source of the mischief. "He that doeth sin is of the devil." He had shown the source of the blessing; now he looks at the ultimate source of sin. It is not merely what Adam and Eve did but what the serpent infused into their hearts. What has the devil been about ever since but adding to the sin of the head fresh unrighteousness for each of the race? Here, it is said, "He that doeth sin is of the devil." He is the leader that man belongs to. He may boast of his ancestors, but there is another who was not literally his father; but fallen man has made Satan practically his god. So scripture calls him the god of this age, and the prince of the world. How true it is "He that doeth sin is of the devil"; not as flung out in man's haste, but nothing less than the truth of God. Not only is he a sinful man, but "he is of the devil." "For the devil sinneth from the beginning," that is, from the time that he was not content to be an angel of God but set up independently of God in his pride. From that moment was his beginning as the devil. This of course was after the time when he was created an angel. Here again we see that

"From the beginning, "does not mean" In the beginning." This is said of the Word, the Son, in eternity before the creation, or as "In the beginning" of Gen. 1: 1, pointing to God's action, not His being. "From the beginning," no matter how or where it occurs, is from the time that the person spoken of manifests himself. "From the beginning" of Christ was from the time when Christ manifested Himself. "From the beginning" of the devil was when he manifested not his angelic qualities but his pride against God first, and his malice afterward, the sure effect of pride in others also.

"To this end the Son of God was manifested, that he might undo the works of the devil." This does not seem to mean exactly the same thing as to take away our sins. It is not to be doubted that this great object also points to the self-same time; but we must remember that the death of Christ had far more in it than simply taking away our sins. This is everything to us; or at any rate everything of God's grace practically begins with His work to take away our sins. But He became the bondman of God, and so His champion against Satan, the ceaseless adversary of both God and man; and Christ was manifested not only to reconcile us to God by His death, but to undo everything that Satan had wrought in all his malignant history. And so He will. Satan has a great deal to do with wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilences, etc., as is to be learnt from the early part of Job and elsewhere. Meanwhile God overrules for good all these things that Satan does for evil. But there is mischief in him at all times, restless mischief to injure; as there is the unceasing love of God to do good to all that listen to Him, especially in what He reveals of the Lord Jesus. "Every one that is born of God doeth not sin." Righteousness is his life for practice, as it is for piety. The believer is characterised by the new nature that does not sin. Supposing a man had been a slave from the time that he was born, but that in the course of time some kindly Englishman interposed and delivered him from his captors. The man becomes a free man directly, by the law of this country, no small boon to the slave. When he thinks or talks of himself after that moment, does he still think of himself as a slave? Not at all: this is far from his thought. Such he was once; but now he is a free man. It may be objected that the old man still exists in the Christian; but the answer is that God set him free from it by Christ's death. So that there remains enough true in this illustration to justify its use here. Alas! what is spiritual is not so easy to understand and feel as the natural.

"Every one that hath been begotten of God." This is the starting-point. To be born of Him is the real beginning, not in divine counsels but of His effectual work in the soul. Of the other life he does not speak, but distinctly of every one born with a nature that never sins. Our business is not to let the old nature out but to keep it under the power of Christ's death, mortifying all that belongs to it, and never by grace allowing it to work actively. We may fail, and we do through our own fault; for we have the Spirit dwelling in us to oppose the flesh, and are always inexcusable when we thus break down. But righteousness is our principle from the first, and a blessed fact too, because we have it as our new nature. We are not waiting for it as a prize outside us, like an Israelite. Sovereign grace has already made it ours, not only for us as to justification as the apostle Paul says, but in us a new nature as we see here. God has given us the blessing; and therefore we are to act consistently with it, looking up to God the source, and the Lord Jesus through whom we have it to abide in Him, that we may bear much fruit to the Father's glory all the way through.

"Every one that hath been begotten of God doeth not sin, because his seed remaineth in him." It is not merely that he ought not, but he does not. Every creature acts according to its nature; and the Christian's new nature is that he cannot sin; for judging by that new nature, it assuredly never sins. sin is the sad inconsistency of allowing the depraved nature to work its way; which was clearly contrary to God's will, who would have it kept under Christ's death. Did we not die to it from the first, when we passed out of death into life? Did not our baptism testify to this? The unclean and dead thing ought to be out of sight, even completely put away from us. "And he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God." It is clearly in virtue of the new nature that he thus speaks so peremptorily.

"In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil: everyone that doeth not righteousness is not of God." But there is the further test of love, and he adds, "Neither he that loveth not his brother" (ver. 10). If this absence of love be one's character, it shows that he never had the new nature which loves righteousness and lives in it.

Let me call attention to the language of extreme decision in speaking of these two classes. It is the habit of many an excellent Christian to deny the title of saints to exercise such a judgment; and to this they cite our Lord's prohibition in Matt. 7: 1-2: "Judge not, that ye may not be judged; for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you." Now in this application they are not wise; for the Lord here does not at all blame spiritual discernment of persons or things, which is a clear and weighty privilege of the Christian for his own guidance and the help or warning of others. And so the apostle lays it down (1 Cor. 2: 15) that the spiritual (in contrast with the natural) man judges, or examines, all things, and he is judged by no one. What the Lord warned the disciples against is the bad habit of censoriousness, which so often leads to suspecting evil motives without ground and contrary to the holy instincts of love. But love would be stifled by the notion that we ought not to judge who God's children are. If we are debarred from discerning them, how can we love them? Yet the very context proves that we can and ought to judge; for the Lord supposes it not only practicable but right and necessary when He says, "Give not what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before the swine." If we are thus bound to discern the unclean, how much more is it our happy place to recognise the sheep and the lambs of God's pasture, and help them lovingly in their need according to our measure!

But we need not go beyond the verse before us to see where the truth lies in this matter. "In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil." The apostle regarded the difference as plain enough. He looks as usual at broad, clear, and practical proofs; he does not encumber his aim with a hypocrite here or there who might for a while be allowed to evade detection; he is earnest in drawing the heed of God's family to what is of constant moment and interest for them all. There is no real difficulty in forming a sound judgment among those whose conduct is known to us, whether these are walking righteously or those unrighteously. It is unwarrantable to suspect of a hidden evil where no evil is apparent; as it is to accredit others with an excellence which is imaginary. Righteous judgment proceeds, especially in an application so general as this, on grounds which no upright and gracious soul could question.

Though man walks uncertainly and with vain show, it is not, it ought not to be, so with the Christian, who has the clearest duty from his own relationship to God and his brethren for suitable action. For he has to do, as the rule every day, with men who are either the children of God or the children of the devil. Divine love that works in him cannot be indifferent about either; but it takes a wholly different shape to each. The apostle at any rate saw no obstacle in the way, and encourages him to act for God as well as for them, and would keep him from the rashness of framing a judgment on obscure and uncertain grounds. "In this are manifest the children of God and the children of the devil." Righteousness and love are not without visible effects before all. They are both manifest in the children of God; and it is equally manifest that they are not in the child of the devil, but rather their opposites.

It is of painful interest to inquire how saints should slip into so serious a mistake as to draw them into perverting one scripture and neglecting others. For how many are the words of God which take for granted that even the simplest believers recognise their brethren, as also they love them; whilst they also feel bound to win the heedless from their fatal insecurity, and to warn those who scorn and mock. It is the ruin of the Christian profession which accounts for an assumption so destructive of the Christian's duty. The world is churchy, and the church is yet more worldly; so that confusion is stamped on the actual state of the saints mixed up with those who, necessarily having nothing spiritual in common, cannot but drag down into more or less of their own darkness those who ought to be clear and free for the Lord. For who can doubt that the saint cannot lift his unconverted associate into communion with God's mind? Or what is more certain and common than that, if the natural be yoked with the spiritual, the dead weight of the former must sink the latter into more or less conformity with his own bad thoughts and ways?

Epistles of John — Addresses 10 - 20.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, with a new version.

ADDRESS 10

1 JOHN 3: 11-17.

For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another: not as Cain was of the wicked one, and slew his brother; and for what did he slay him? Because his works were wicked, and those of his brother righteous. Wonder not,* brethren, if the world hateth you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not the brother abideth in death. Every one that hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath life eternal abiding in him. Herein we know love, because he laid down his life for us; and we ought for the brethren to lay down our lives. But whoso may have the world's means of living, and behold his brother having need, and shut up his bowels from him, how abideth the love of God in him?"

* "My," of the common text, is wanting in the best copies.

The last clause, as was noticed, is the link of transition from righteousness to love. Men set these two things in opposition one to another: but they are perfectly united in Christ, the perfection of both righteousness and love. Hence it is thoroughly applicable to the Christian, since Christ is the life of the Christian. We really and truly receive by faith that life which was in the Lord Himself; not the life of Adam that all men have, but a new life possessed by none of us until we believed in the Lord Jesus. Being life, it is not capable of any outward mark of a sensible nature; still less is there a visible presentation of itself to us, though we know where it exists by its operations and effects. If this be so with the natural life, how much less could it be expected of the supernatural or spiritual life? We ought not to ask for it, and thereby show that we do not know what life is; yet however difficult it may be to define life, everybody knows that, when life departs, death sets in. There may be the working of death before we depart, and there is, since sin came into the world. There is mortality, but death is when mortality has come to its issue. Everyone can tell is the general rule when a man, or any other animal, is dead. We know exceptions occur now and then: there are exceptions to every rule probably, and there are difficulties as to all truths. But there is no difficulty about God's word to make any real hindrance to spiritual intelligence. Doubtless an insuperable difficulty exists for those who have no knowledge of God; but this knowledge is communicated by the faith of Christ. "This is life eternal to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou didst send."

Who have got the new nature? Every Christian, and from the beginning; and now in the fullest form for Christians, for even our Lord here below spoke about our having life abundantly. "I am come that ye might have life, and that ye might have it abundantly." There is no need to say "more abundantly abundantly" is all that the Lord really did say. But what a. difference that makes! The life that the disciples possessed when our Lord was here never tended openly to break with the temple and with the Jewish system. But when our Lord Jesus, Who deigned to be, subject to the Jewish system as to the law generally, died and rose, what had He to do with the law? It would have been an absurdity to speak of the risen Christ going up to the temple, or partaking in any ceremonial of the Jew, such as the feasts or anything whatever. This is, exactly what was intended in doctrine for the disciples. They did not realise it all at once. We are apt to be slow in learning these great changes. But the risen life of Christ was in the believer, whereby he died to all these things. Christ died not merely for our sins but died to sin which He never had in Himself, but in which we were deeply concerned. He had no more to do with it; He died to it once for all. Himself was all the while perfectly unaffected by its working. All that it drew out in His life was His grief and pity for those that were misled. But when He died, the mightiest work that God could do was done by the Lord Jesus.

Even when He comes again in His glory, it will be only drawing out, as it were, for that day in a public and powerful way the virtues involved in Him crucified. So this new life, although not at all of an outwardly sensible nature, is a life of indissoluble power. And power is given to it by the Holy Ghost. He is a spirit, not of cowardice, but of power and love, and of sound mind. The apostles were to receive power. They were to be not only witnesses to others, but they had to learn for themselves also much greater things which they could not then bear. These things came out when there was not merely risen life but the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. We ought never to confound these two things, nor confine His action to tongues, miracles, or any of these powers, which were only outward vouchers. The inward power of the Spirit was much greater than any of the external signs that accompanied it. The external signs were withdrawn as the church failed and broke down in love, truth, and light. How could God continue His stamp of approval on an unworthy state of things? We find that even the church in Ephesus was threatened, for it had fallen from its first love when John wrote. This was really what became the general state after John departed. For the apostles were a great cheek upon the declension which was setting in so strongly.

We may well dwell on the new life thus, for it is what unites the practical righteousness and the active love of the believer. He is here speaking not of God's love, though this comes in, but of our love; just as he speaks not of righteousness in Christ, which is outside ourselves for justification, but of our righteousness. It is clear that this righteousness consists of good fruit. And how can there be good fruit without a good tree? Certainly in our natural state there was anything but a good tree; ours then was only a bad tree which bore bad fruit. For good fruit we must have a divine nature communicated to us, as it is with the bad tree, by introducing a good graft, in order to produce good fruit. It cannot be otherwise, and with this life, life eternal, John is occupied. It is not righteousness for us who had none, which we become in Christ, but righteousness within which produces our righteousness day by day. People may not like the truth, but here it is in the apostle's words.

After all it is too solemn for any to trifle with, because no man is a real Christian without both righteousness outside us in Christ, and the righteous nature within us, which is the new nature in virtue of what is proper to Christ. We have therefore the two things; what is called "objective" outside, and "subjective," or what we are; and this because Christians have necessarily the life of Christ. And this life does not differ from Himself. It is life He gives us to live in and by, the very same life that Christ had and was.

Thus he begins, "For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning." You will remember perhaps, that in verse 5 of the first chapter we had the same phrase: "This then is the message which we have heard from him." Here it is still more precise. It was not before the beginning, but "from the beginning." Both make it decisive. What men added is of no account. This abides, the unchangeable truth of practical Christianity, and it is all the more important, because it is dead opposed to the prevalent ideas of men. In particular it openly contradicts the notion of what is called development. And development is utterly false, and more evil in divine things than in natural. It is a heathen guess reproduced of late as to nature. It denies God's power and will in determining species. For species, as fixed as in other natural laws so-called, is the true principle of Zoology, not human classification on superficial resemblance. It therefore is at issue with creation in any real sense — that is, with the rights of God in creation; but how humbling that such a daring idea of the heathen should revive It was quite natural to the benighted "who knew not God." They had it long before Darwin or his coadjutors. It now seems to be the craze of the so-called "philosophers" and their hangers on, the humble servants of a purely fanciful idea. But if bad in the lower creatures, it would not much matter, unless for the rights of God, how a mouse or a monkey or any like creature was thought to be developed. But when it touches man and man's relationship to God, the idea that he could have come out of seaweed or anything else they are pleased to make primary in nature, it is serious so to swamp conscience and responsibility, and God's claims in mankind, His offspring. The infidelity of the theory makes it intolerable, and therefore it is far better to speak out plainly.

Here is matter of fresh interest, because this is "the message," as well as that in the introductory words of 1 John 1, which follow the manifestation of divine love and life in the Son of man on earth. There it was a message that God is light, bringing this to bear upon us, which is as certainly the truth of Christianity as that God is love; indeed it was so stated before the actual announcement that God is love. Yet that God is love was clearly implied in the early four verses; still it was not announced in actual terms till later. But it was all important that man, if brought to God in sovereign grace, should never forget that God is light. Our receiving life eternal in Christ was not to make our practical holiness an optional matter. Our new blessing from God was intended to make sin as hateful to our souls as God proved it to be when He forsook the Lord Jesus bearing that intolerable burden. If He has given us already inestimable blessing, we cannot escape the moral responsibility of walking as in the light. It is a great privilege too. How blessed that, as we were creatures of darkness through sin we are translated into that marvellous light, not when we get to heaven but now in this world, and are called to walk accordingly. Were we sent forth to walk without the constant watching of our Father over us, it would be quite beyond us, because we should break away from God every time we sinned. Sin does interrupt communion, but it does not destroy the life of Christ. His life differs from all other life in that it cannot come to nought. It is of its own nature eternal. Herein we have the greatest comfort, although we have a solemn appeal to our hearts and our consciences.

Again the apostle says, "For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning." Then Christ came in love; then He gave us life; and the call followed, not only that we should believe in God's love in Him to us, but that we should love one another as He did.

It was a blessing, and a wonderful call worthy of Christ; and it supposes a complete change for and in us. If there is any one thing which stamps a fallen man, it is that he is always the centre of his thoughts and feelings. We are what we seek and value. Self certainly is not love. Therefore what the world calls it in its own slang is "Number one." For man "Number one" is not God, but poor wretched fallen self every man his own god. For the One, the Supreme is and ought to be God. "Number one" ought to be assuredly God's place to my soul; and it would be if I were not a fallen, sinful man. Now the Lord puts an end to all that distance by the call of grace. At any rate it is the fruit of God coming down in Him to be our Blesser; and our Blesser not only by a work done for us but in a life given to us. Thus practical Christianity becomes a living to God and according to His word, not only resting on Christ and His work outside but having Christ in us also. Both are true, and true from the earliest days. From this no change can be but for evil. But "from the beginning" this message was heard. How plainly "from" is not "in the beginning" when the Godhead alone existed! There was not even an angel to hear them, much less a man. But "from the beginning" ye heard it, evidently from the time Christ was here. Yet neither was it a mere call to love one's neighbour as one's self. This was the law.

"Our neighbour" then, as it must be interpreted, meant the Jew primarily. They did not love the Gentiles. They might perhaps have a little difficulty about the Gentile that came to take refuge under the wings of the God of Israel. Such might be counted their neighbours in grace. These Gentile neighbours were comparatively few, putting them all together, in comparison with the rest of mankind. Ruth came under the protection of the God of Israel. Though she was not of the stock of Abraham, she was married to a not inconsiderable Israelite, and one too who gave her part with himself in the very line from whence was to come the Shepherd of Israel, the Lord Himself. Such persons were practically Israelites. However we need not discuss that. For all know that "loving our neighbour" till the Lord came was made sadly narrow. The Lord gave it enlargement when the scribe to whom He spoke started the difficulty, "Who is my neighbour?" So it is, when the truth is made plain and the hearers cannot easily get rid of it, they ask questions which they think will perplex. The Lord therefore uttered the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan. How cutting to Jewish pride! Not the "Good Israelite," but the "Good Samaritan!" Wherein lay its force? It was not another Samaritan that he saw needing his help, but an Israelite from whom every one turned away except the Samaritan. Even if a Levite beheld the sufferer, or if a priest, — Oh! it was not his business. These quite ignored their neighbour; and they did so because the distress called for love and compassion. But not so the Samaritan. He bound up his wounds and provided for him. Was it not the apt figure of the Lord Himself? and how blessed if the Lord in giving it meant it so to be! He that came down to be a "bondman" did not mind couching under the guise of a "Samaritan." He had come to bear their sins in His body on the tree, alone to bear them, to suffer for them, Just for unjust, and to blot them out for ever. No wonder He was not ashamed to be a Samaritan in the parable: what baseness for Jews to call Him so!

But now it is another kind of love. It savours of God's own love. To whom is His love fully shown? To His children. The little perception of such loving as this shows how far souls in Christendom have departed. The most feeble of Christians have no little feeling for sinners in danger of perishing. But they are very little concerned about the saints of God, whether they are glorifying God and His Son or not. That sinners should be converted is the great desideratum: all else is quite secondary. How sad to stop so short! Is this what God feels? Was this all that His own Son cared for when upon earth? He was the revealed object of divine love and favour all through, before He bore our sins on the cross; but how did not He love the children of God?

And now, save in atonement, we have His place. We are children of God, and the love that rested upon Him rests upon us, as our Lord tells us in the end of John 17. That is entirely beyond what most of the children of God contemplate for themselves. Of course they do not deny the words; but do they seem to understand them, or speak and act as if they felt them, as conveying the model of their privilege and duty? And the consciousness of being so loved goes out in love to those who are as much its object as ourselves.

But it is also important that we should understand that such love as His was an entirely new thing. Only then was it charged that the children of God should love one another. The Lord laid it down as the "new commandment." Indeed it was a, new thing to learn that God was now to form a family, and a family to be gathered together in one — the children of God that were scattered abroad. This had never been till now. But it is what God does in two particular forms. In the writings of John it is family unity; in those of Paul, the one body of Christ. Both at any rate coalesce in being divine unity in two different ways: the one because Christ brought God's nature to give it down here, and those that receive it His children to be gathered together in one, the other, of the body because Christ is glorified in heaven, and we are by the Spirit united with Him on high. It is the unity of the Head and the body. The Head of the body is the glorified Man, and the centre of the family is Jesus the Son of God; and Christ above is both.

Here then we have the limits of that love — loving one another. It is not love in the gospel going out to man as lost; it has nothing whatever to do with the law, or with one's neighbour; it is love in divine relationship towards God's family. Love to God's children is equally valid for the ends of the earth, as it is for those that surround as in England. They are alike members of Christ's body. These truths are meant to be carried out in one far off as truly as in another near; and you cannot set them aside except at the peril of fighting against or slighting the word of God, and of grieving the Holy Spirit who is in us in order that God's will should be carried out thenceforward.

Now this gives an opportunity for the apostle to pierce more deeply. He contrasts the children of God and the children of the devil strongly, tracing both to the root of the matter. Not content with calling them evil, children of wrath like others, he says here "children of the devil." This comes to a decided point of awful significance. And, singular to say, he points to the earliest days of fallen man on earth, after the children were born to Adam and Eve, and begins with the very eldest one of the two sons. "Not as Cain was of that wicked one," for this is the proper way to render it. The "who" has no business there, and only weakens. Cain is not to be our pattern but to be shunned. And wherefore? He "slew his brother." There his wickedness carried him. Certainly this was not love but hatred; and it is what John wants to show. He will not allow any middle ground between love and hatred. He will not endorse any mixed thoughts with which some seem to be greatly charmed. All such sentiment to excuse Cain is a compromise of the truth; and it is of the greatest moment that we should know that there must be a clean breach between what is of God and what is of the devil. This is where we are brought here.

Now it is remarkable as showing the far-reaching truth here, that Cain was the one who took the lead in two innovations. He was the first to set up natural religion. Gain was not what people call an irreligious man, if thereby be meant that he had no religion. He was what answers in our day to a man that goes regularly to his church or his chapel. It was simply the religion of nature, and raised no question in his soul whether his offering became his own state or was according to the mind of God. People generally do not consider this at all. "Their fathers went there that is enough for most. They were christened, confirmed, and took the sacrament; or they became members, as others call it, of the church and congregation. It was all assumed to be the proper thing for a decent man. The Jesuits go rather farther, as they say, for God's greater glory: the alleged ground for their heartless, unscrupulous, and wicked ambitions. For they are sworn to obey their General, if he declares that any means promote that object; as the General acts for, and not merely with, the pope; sometimes far in advance of the pope, but still it is all nominally to promote their lord the pope's glory.

So Cain for an act of homage had his idea of what befitted himself in approaching God. "Well," he seems to have thought, "there is nothing so fine here as the flowers and fruits that God has made in this fair world." Yet it was already a fallen world; and all were outcasts from paradise. Oh how soon this was forgotten; and still more its cause! Cain forgot the rebellious sin which morally compelled God to pronounce exile on the first pair. Was it not his religious duty then to offer what he thought the very best of earth's produce? No doubt he was horrified at his brother Abel's sacrifice. "Think of him; only think what a stupid he is. Why, he is going to offer a little lamb and kill it before Jehovah! Think of that! How shocking to Him, how cruel in itself! What harm has the lamb ever done? Why the firstlings of the flock, and of their fat? Surely he has quite mistaken Jehovah's character. Has He any pleasure in blood or fat? Has He any delight in the slaughter of a poor innocent creature to which He gave being?

There was here in particular, what there is generally, a great deal to reason on; and this is exactly the basis of natural religion of any kind and at any time. It is a religion that man reasons out as becoming himself and others with God. But as man is its only source, there is nothing of God in it, only man's pretension and profession.

And how about Abel? In faith Abel had pondered these things deeply. He at least had found out the awful fact of being a sinner in the sight of God; for Abel, we may be very sure, had learnt from his father and mother what God said about the fall. He learnt too that God spoke of another who was to intervene, the woman's Seed to accomplish the work that no creature could do: the destruction of the serpent and of his seed, enemies too. But more than this; it was not a light thing for Abel to hear that God clothed his parents with coats of skins, instead of fig-leaves. This was of no moment to Cain. But Abel assuredly recognised that there is a great truth in it. Death! therein he saw its bearings. Death! to be clothed with the fruit of death; and not my own death, wages of sin, but the death of another and such a mysterious other! For, as we too believe, Jehovah in His grace pointed to the only clothing for fallen sinful man and woman, who in spite of fig-leaves (nature's clothing) were in every sense naked in their sin. Before that their nakedness was in all innocence, but now their daring transgression lay bare. Their quick repairing to the covering of fig-leaves betrayed that they too were at a device no better than Cain's. Only God corrected it for them; and they accepted the correction. "Jehovah Elohim made Adam and his wife coats of skin, and clothed them": a clothing founded upon death. Hence Abel was taught by faith to put these things together, and brought accordingly the firstlings of his flock. Without faith it is impossible to please God; faith rests on God's testimony. It is not for me or you to define how far Abel's faith carried him; but his was the intelligence of faith, and Cain had none. It may be small but distinct as far as is revealed; and this is the great point: that faith should be real and of God.

There was great simplicity in Abel's faith, but spiritual perception. He brought of the firstlings of his flock, a lamb to die. It was no offering of power, not a wolf nor a lion nor a bear to fight the serpent; but on the contrary a little lamb to die. "And Jehovah looked upon Abel and on his offering." Did not He see, as ever before, what was as yet dim in the sight of any believer even? The Lamb without blemish and without spot, foreknown before the world's foundation, but to be manifested in Christ and His blood for our sakes? There and then the germ of divine truth appears, to this Abel held, abjuring human notions; but Jehovah had no respect to Cain or his offering of the fruit of the ground.

A little before it was noticed how Cain gave the first impulse to the world; but much more than the outside is hinted at also, for he introduced the world's religion. This last seems to be very prominent to the mind of the Spirit in the Epistle of Jude, which is more akin to the First Epistle of John than any, even bearing in mind its remarkable analogy in the way of contrast with 2 Peter. The strong resemblance is with John in this respect, that they are alike Epistles of the apostasy. Such is the dark, the ominously dark, streak which marks both of them, that evil at the core, apostasy working in spirit (which could not be hidden from Him who abides in the church), the harbinger of the future apostasy; and in our apostle's letters many antichrists, the harbinger of the antichrist.

But Jude, the brother of James and bondman of Jesus, speaks of "the way of Cain." One does not confine this to his murder of his brother, but sees rather religious wickedness in it as well as in Balaam and Korah, especially as this was the immediate occasion of the murder. Besides he was a bold, presumptuous, and wicked man in his general character. "His works were wicked, and his brother's righteous." He was just the man to become founder of "the world" and of natural religion. What wonder that he was not content to live in his own home! "No, no! union is strength: we must combine." Being a man of energy, he got people to agree. His will was more powerful than theirs. He was the first builder of a city; and you may depend upon it that he ruled the city too when it began to rise. Such is the nature of man and of his will. He likes power; and so it seems with Cain. But before that he pretended to religion too; and this was more particularly the open occasion of his downfall. For it was the great breach with God, and its murderous result which is now before us. Indeed the world's religion and its civilization pretty well march together. Adam and Eve were very far from being savages, as bad men say, but who would speak of their state as a type of civilization It is a reality incomparably above civilization to live according to the will of God. And what is the worth in His sight, or for the soul and spirit, of all the progress men boast of?

The world is jubilant as to progress nowadays. There it began; and ere long in the same family the invention of wind and stringed instruments of music, and of all kinds of tools or cutting things in brass and iron: luxury and convenience in the earthly life. Progress could not well be without metallurgy, and Cain's family was in active work soon enough. In Lamech's day polygamy came, and the first verse of which we hear was addressed, not to God in praise or in penitence, but to his wives. A little bit of song goes forth to Adah and Zillah, to excuse and to exalt himself, and to quiet their fears, in sufficiently defiant strain, and not without impious claim of God's sanction. If Cain was to be avenged sevenfold, Lamech surely seven-and-seventyfold. Lamech turns all to his haughty self-reliance.

Such is the world, and such the world's religion in its early buddings. But here the truth comes plainly out. "And wherefore slew he him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous." It does not say exactly "own": "his" is quite enough. The moral condition of both is stated before either the offering or the city. Cain's works were "wicked" (for that is the proper rendering), and his brother's "righteous." "Wicked" has a stronger force than "evil" in some respects; it implies purpose and toil in them. There is here assiduity in evil; not merely bad acts, but an activity therein that is not necessarily implied in "evil." His works were wicked; his brother's, on the contrary, righteous. Both these things were habitual before the occasion which roused Cain's resentment. Yet it is instructive to note why this broke out. Jehovah accepted Abel and his offering, and rejected Cain's offering. Cain could not endure this. His pride fired up at it; his resentment had no bounds. As he could not do anything against Jehovah personally, he flew at his own brother. It was striking really at Jehovah. God's rejecting him was far worse in his eyes than his brother's acceptance, though this inflamed his rage. Sin was no more in the conscience of Cain than God was: therein in fact and principle they both go together. For it is the sense of sin that brings God before the soul, and God as judge of sin. What then must be the issue of our guilt in His eyes? But is there not mercy for the sinner? Yes, His mercy endureth for ever, as the Christian knows, and Israel will surely learn through His grace. And this Cain had never believed, and so turned from obduracy to despair. Wicked himself, he had no notion of goodness in God even to a wicked man who turns to God at the call of grace. He knew very well if anyone offended him, there was small hope of mercy from himself. And as he never felt his need of a Saviour, and gave God no credit for grace in the woman's Seed, he judged God by his own thoughts to be like himself, or even more, implacable to the guilty.

Next this is applied. "Marvel not, brethren;" not exactly "my" brethren. "Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you." This is a turn to be well weighed. We have had "little children" in general, and twice also "babes." Then we had "beloved" and now we have "brethren." It is not hard to see the propriety of each of these. He is going to speak about love of the brethren, and he appropriately addresses them as "brethren." We ought never to pass over a word of Scripture without consideration, and seeking to learn why God uses that word rather than any other. Faith can say that it is always the best. One does not of course forget the carelessness of man and its effect. Thus we understand how it arises; we can account for its slipping in, and in general have full evidence to correct it, though this may not be possible in every case.

Here then comes what is very plain. Marvel not, brethren, if the world hateth you." Now, who composed the world; and who were these haters in particular that the apostle had in mind? Chiefly at least those that had once been in the communion of the church and had abandoned it. These are always the worst. Such as go back from the truth particularly hate not only the truth itself but those who hold fast to it. They cannot bear either, and why? For the same reason as Cain could not. It is self-condemnation. There is nothing so provocative to a wicked apostate as that he should be condemned; for he tries to banish all suspicion of his own wickedness, being utterly blinded by the enemy. And as he is under Satan's lie, he also shares his murderous spirit.

This then is the spirit of the world; and more particularly of those in it that have given up the truth they once professed. Such are the persons so painfully prominent throughout this Epistle. They had once, as it seemed, left the world behind; they now went back to that world which they had outwardly denounced. It was only a superficial severance; the bond was not really broken; and they went back where their heart no longer attracted by the novelty of the truth led to its old love. The name of Jesus never had won them to God. Yet it has apparent influence sometimes even on the unconverted.

It is remarkable just to show the effect of the Saviour upon what is most worldly. Take the case of artists. Piety is not what distinguishes them as a class. On the contrary in general they are singularly given up to self-indulgence and worldliness of every kind. Of course one knows there have been not a few Christian painters; so that there is no thought of going beyond indisputable fact in thus speaking of painters as a class. Our excellent friend W. Cowper, the poet, had a very bad opinion of his fellows; he said poets were a bad lot as the rule, and nobody is better entitled to characterise them than Cowper. Though he was a genuine poet, he was glad to clear himself from any kind of complicity with his unpleasant associates. They, like the painters, are apt to flatter the vanity of men and women, and in fact many live by it, for parents have of course great care for the pictures of their children. Yet painters were immensely affected by even the tradition of the Lord Jesus. If anyone knows the statuary of the ancients, he admits that the sculptures of the Greeks were sensuous. They were like themselves. But the paintings of the Middle Ages, and particularly later ones of fame which have come down to our own day, were affected surprisingly by such a poor representation of Christ as Popery affords. What a difference there is between theirs and those of the ancients! Even there the beauty of holiness is reflected as far as a worldly man could set it forth in idea. There you have the meekness of humility, and the expression of dependence on the invisible God. There too the woman no longer represented as a trap for man, nor man in his will and lust on the other side. There is not a trace of the Aphrodite or the Apollo which so carried away the Greek and played into nature's corrupt ways. The Virgin and the Child drew out homage to purity never before conceived by such men. Far from me to think of this effect as more than superficial. On the contrary such is the evil heart of man that it fell in with the idolatry of the mother to the dishonour of the Son of God. It was the powerful but outward effect of the name of Jesus upon those that rose not above the human without real faith in the Father and the Son.

We cannot therefore be surprised that the self-deceived who entered the church were yet more deeply affected by all their surroundings, and by the spiritual influence of that blessed Name; but it never pierced deeper than their mind. Christ was not their life, else they had never left Him; still less would He have left them. "For if they had been of us, they would have abode with us," and if they did not so abide, what was the issue? That they gradually rose up implacably when outside, especially when the Christians refused the name of Christianity to such renegades as these? "Marvel not, if the world hateth you." They were just part of that Cain-world, which ever began with religious pretension and ended with murder.

But here is the striking contrast of true Christianity. "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." That is a sentence the more to be weighed because it at once connects itself with words of the greatest weight in the Gospel. In John 5: 24 the Lord Himself employed, without the emphatic "we" and to the individual believer, the same words in its last clause. "Verily, verily, I say to you, He that heareth my word and believeth him that sent me hath life eternal, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." I am giving it with more precision than in our Authorised version. But this is the real import of that wonderful verse which has been blessed to so many souls, even when a little obscured.

Yet we must never be too much affected by resemblance. They say that what shows a wit is that he finds resemblance between things that differ, to the surprise and pleasure of many. But there is another quality far better than wit, even a sound judgment. Now a sound judgment is marked by seeing difference in things which seem to resemble. This is just the opposite of wit; and there people generally fail.

What then is the difference between the two texts? Is it not that the Lord is there showing how a man receives eternal life now through believing God about His Son; so that he does not come into judgment, as everyone without Christ must. So He says. For in truth whoever comes into judgment can never come out of it. The reason is plain; because "judgment" means that one incurs what he deserves. Now what do you or I really deserve? Were we not guilty, powerless for good and ungodly, till saved by grace? Do not think then that any man as he is can go into judgment and come out. No; it can only be into the lake of fire. But it is not so that God deals with those that believe. They have life eternal, and they do not come into judgment. It is not merely that they do not come into "condemnation" for this is not the word any more than the thought intended by it. The Lord declares in the plainest terms that the believer does not come into judgment; it was He that bore the judgment of our sins on the cross. The notion of judgment with life eternal is perfectly monstrous, and really has no sense. To confirm this grace yet more, He said that he "hath passed out of death into life." Death was his lost condition through sin; but he now lives of His life. This change has taken place already for the soul, though not yet for the body which is assured in the resurrection of life as ver. 29 tells us.

Ver. 24 is therefore a very blessed word for the poor sinner that wants to know how he is to get life eternal. But this is not at all the case here in the Epistle. It is not a question of believing in order to gain the blessing. It is what "we," the brethren, know, and their loving the brethren is the practical proof. Of this they were incapable without life eternal, as the divine nature which loves according to God. Hence he says "we," and speaks of brethren only, and of such emphatically. It is therefore quite distinct from John 5: 24. Not that this is always the sense of "we." The context alone decides what the "we" means. For "we" is so differently applied in scripture, that to make a canon of its being always the same is mere ignorance of its use there. Here too "we" is emphatic. "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren." How plainly the difference must strike when both are weighed "We know (Consciously)."

What does the unbeliever know of this change? How could he possibly know it? The unbeliever is in death and sins, and he goes into judgment. Faith alone receives the blessing which Christ here gives. But the brethren as such love one another as of God's family and as having already believed. "We" are not therefore called to believe here. It is assumed that we who believed unto life eternal love our brethren and, having passed out of death into life, our love to them confirms that fact. We have this conscious knowledge, and ought to have it, in contrast with those who made empty knowledge of high speculation without one divine affection. Of all men on the earth only believers, only brethren in the Lord, only "we" can say that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren. This love is the testimony to it and the practical evidence of it; but faith alone through Christ's grace brought us into the blessing. We neither received life eternal, nor passed out of death into life, because of loving the brethren. At that time we hated the brethren, being dead in sins; but, believing God, we passed out of death into eternal life, and only then knew the brethren to love them ever after.

Hence the apostle lays down as an axiom of Christianity, "He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." How solemn the conclusion! There is no life, nor passing out of death, if one does not thus love. But why does he say "brother"? It is an abstract statement, because of his profession of course. The apostle delights in that kind of statement which pedants carefully avoid: but the apostle is far from mere letter. The apostle takes the man on his profession, and pronounces that "he who does not love his brother abideth in death;" which proves that he is no true brother by that very hatred. Remark the pointedness of his language. He does not say merely that he is dead, but that he abideth in death. Whatever was his profession, he was always dead spiritually, and he abides in death. The proof is that he never loved the one he was called to love as of God's family. He had no love; but he must have if he possessed the life of Christ in his soul.

He next puts the case even more strongly. "Every one that hateth his brother is a murderer." There he comes down with greater severity. It is not merely one that does not love, but the positive activity of hating. More outspoken in word and outrageous in conduct, he betrays his hatred, and is called a "murderer." The apostle here goes down to the root of things. As hatred is found to mark his spirit when tried, he is a murderer in principle; just as the Lord pronounces a man to be an adulterer in principle who indulged in lust which he ought not to allow, but to judge and be ashamed and humbled for it. God deals with the heart and not the externals only in Christianity. It is the inward working, as well as what comes out, which stamps the professor, however inadmissible and impossible in a court of law. "And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." It is the very opposite of Christ, and the closest correspondence with the devil. For what can be more like our adversary, the liar and murderer from the beginning?

"Herein we have known love, or the love, because he laid down his life for us." The words do not in fact go beyond "love." He does not say "of God." It was with good intention put in; but it is best to cleave to the simple truth. "Because He laid down His life for us." Here again the "He" is remarkable. Without doubt it is the love of God too; but he purposely mixes up God and Christ, although Christ alone laid down His life for us. That is what we have repeatedly found before, as another has pointed out. This is the great and irrefutable proof of infinite love, and of a love that was clearly of God, though Christ was the One who alone manifested it. He laid down His life for us. It is mere illusion, and to miss its force, to compare with it a man's dying out of his great affection for his friend, or risking it to, save a stranger. Only consider the One who for us was dying thus! who became man that it might be done in the most harrowing of sufferings! and this for us when we were lost and had nothing but sins!

"And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." His was the unfathomable depth, and nothing can match it in any way. Still it becomes the model for those that are His, however short of atonement. What limit can be set to it? Love is intended to surmount every difficulty now. God's love to us in our sins creates love not only to God but to His children, our brethren. "And we ought." He does not say that "we do": though there have been saints that have died not only for Christ's sake but for their brethren. He is content to say "we ought"; our love, being of God, is capable of doing it. And in point of fact, if our dying would be of real use to our brother, we ought to be willing. It is however a rare complication that would make it a duty.

But we are also taught that without pressing this extreme proof there is an appeal to our hearts at the door. We have not to go far without finding calls on the exercise of the love that is in our hearts. Come now; look at everyday matters. To lay down our lives for the brethren might befall us rarely here below; but there is all ordinary lack that often occurs, and we know it frequently where our lot lies: a brother or sister in abject need. How does it present itself to your soul? How does our love answer to the suffering of the poor brother or sister?

"Whoso may have the world's means of living" is what is called here its "good." Nor does he say merely "seeth," but contemplateth, beholdeth, hath a full view of his brother's need. He perhaps has not made the slightest sign, has not complained at all, nor mentioned his trial to another. This silence ought to be all the stronger appeal to our hearts. He has been bearing the pressure without a murmur; she has been enduring and only telling God about it. But there with our eyes wide open, beholding our brother's affliction, we hesitate. One has the means of helping and relieving, but instead of this he "shutteth up his bowels" from him, the sufferer. There is no need to add "of compassion," which is plainly enough implied. "How abideth the love of God in him?" The apostle puts it cautiously and calmly but earnestly and searchingly: "How dwelleth the love of God in him?" He does not ask me to die for my brother; he does ask me that my love should go out, with means beyond my own real wants, to one who is suffering whether from the cold or sickness, hunger, or other pains. One can relieve the brother, and one does not: "how abideth the love of God in him?"

Love, as it is the energy of God's nature, so it is of the new nature of His children, and meant to be in constant flow to others, not only on great occasions but in the least things of this life. Let us not miss the exquisite propriety of the apostle's language. In ver. 16 it was quite enough to say love, or the love, and to leave it thus open, when the words that followed made evident whose love it was that laid down His life for us. Again, in 1 John 2 it is not "love" only that is contrasted with the world, nor yet "the love of God," but "the love of the Father." But here "the love of the Father" would not have suited. It is "the love of God" so considerate of the least of His creatures, which so deeply rebukes His child that shuts up his compassion from his tried fellow.

In conclusion note how variously the chapter applies Christ's death. In ver. 4 it was that He might take away our sins sacrificially; in ver. 8 it was that He might undo the works of the devil; and in ver. 16 He laid down His life for us as the model of love to us and for us. All this united in His death; as we may see yet more in Heb. 2: 9, 10, 14, and 17.

ADDRESS 11

1 JOHN 3: 18-24.

"Dear children, let us not love with word nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth. And herein we shall know that we are of the truth, and shall persuade our hearts before him, that if our heart condemn us, [it is] that God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not. we have boldness toward God, and whatsoever we ask we receive from him, because we keep hi,; commandments, and do the things pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, that we believe the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, even as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him. And herein we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he gave to us."

We now enter on a new subject not touched before, but connected with the mutual love of the children of God which we have had already. The apostle appeals first to them in the quality of dear children, meaning here as always the entire family. There is no need for "My": it is not supplied by the Spirit of God, and therefore is illegitimate. "Dear children" is his general term of endearment, and this is the reason why he calls them not merely children, but "dear children." Both terms took in fathers, young men and babes, the whole family of God.

Here then he calls us to love not with word nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth. He is thus leading forward into the new subject. He adds "herein we shall know." It is not "know" but "shall know." This has its importance, because it does not refer to what they already were in Christ. For instance the eternal life which they now possessed in Him was settled knowledge; but here he looks on to the boldness or confidence of heart given by walking uprightly before God in daily practice, and very particularly in love. For this is a duty as to which many deceive themselves. Nothing is easier than to call for love and complain of others wanting it; but some that are loudest in the complaint are very short of it themselves. They are or count themselves desirous of being objects of love; but the right way is for ourselves to love, if indeed we would be loved. The going out of heart in goodness without a selfish aim draws out other hearts, whereas the lip too readily learns to talk about love and ends there. The Epistle is therefore guarded in these words that serve as a connecting link between what went before and that which follows. "Dear children, let us not love with word nor with the tongue." This of course a Christian, no matter what may be his state, would know he ought to detest; but if not in a practically good state with God, his love must be shallow and powerless. Therefore it is here said "not with word nor with the tongue" — to give it as exactly as one can. There is a slight difference in losing the "with" in both places and the article in the second. We are to love, "but in deed and truth." The natural man in Christendom talks of love in his way. Christ proved it in all its genuineness, and we who confess Him have to walk in the same simplicity and reality.

All this evidently flows out of the life eternal which we have if we believe on Him. This it is which is called in an unusual expression "the life of God" in Eph. 4: 18, but "Christ our life" in Col. 3: 3, 4, and similar language in Gal. 2: 20. For that matter John so remarkably intermingles God and Christ, that one can hardly say which of the two is precisely intended. But this is done expressly and for excellent reason: the Son is as truly God as the Father; and we are not allowed to forget it. His so writing is not from any want of care. The apostle John knew well what he was doing, and meant to say as he wrote. Only foolish men that have great confidence in themselves would dare to think otherwise of an inspired man. It is because the Father and the Son are God. Christ though become man remains just as truly God as any other in the Godhead. By His humiliation to vindicate God and bless man He never forfeited His divine glory for an instant. He was the true God when He deigned to be born of woman. Yet we know what a new-born child is, how entirely dependent upon its mother or its nurse. Is there any creature in the world so indebted to loving care as a human babe? But Christ even then was the true God just as much as when He raised Lazarus or any other from the dead. And when He died He was just the same, though on the opposite side of circumstances. He could not cease to be true God; this was not touched, nor at all affected by His dying. Even in a man the soul and the spirit are not affected by death; it is but severing the link between the body and the inner man. So for the Lord Jesus, He was always the Son. Jesus Christ no doubt was His name after He became man; but He is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen; just as truly as the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who never became incarnate.

Now love is what characterises the energy of God: how blessed in itself and for us! Judgment is not His nature neither had it any exercise on man till sin appeared; there was no question of such a dealing but through sin. But He was always love. And when the fit moment came for Him to put in action His love, particularly in the incarnation of Christ and the work of Christ, all came out in ways beyond parallel. His beneficence to the creature was left far behind; His wise and kind arrangements, from the greatest to the meanest of animals, wondrous as they all are, were eclipsed; still more evident it became as we consider the goodness of His provision for man.

We do well to consider what surrounds us. The Lord sometimes pointed to objects outside with an à fortiori to us. Witness the weighty lessons even for the disciples from what was seen in the birds of the sky, or in the lilies of the field. They do indeed show not merely divine power but wisdom, benevolence, and oversight that thinks of them to the least degree, goodness that pervades and abides in the face of man's sin and wickedness. For when man fell, God might have turned the green of the field to an offensive red as an alarming sign of the judgment that was coming; but there was no such change. The green field remains the green field, and the flowers are still beautiful and sweet. We do not say that they are all that they were in paradise, for certainly all things here below were profoundly affected by the fall; but incontestably there remains an ideal beyond anything that ever man can reach. Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like the flowers of the field without any cultivation of man whatever.

But it is important to see that divine love is an affection entirely outside creation, and essentially above mere human nature. It is just as supernatural as the life which is the new nature on which the Spirit of God acts. There must be a nature to bear fruit fit for God's acceptance. Indeed, you cannot have any fruit without a living spring. Whence comes this source of such new feeling and action as wholly to transcend in the exercises of the soul anything of which man as man is capable? What is the spring in the believer of all that is love Godward or manward? It is eternal life. Without this there is no nature to bear good fruit. Are not we ourselves ample witnesses of its truth? We once were men in the surprising qualities which God confers on man; for they are very great, apart from the new creation and its special privileges. Of these we had none then; and we could not have understood what has been spoken of grace. It would have seemed rant and nonsense to the natural man, as it always does, though there may be sense enough to hold the tongue and not to say so. But men feel that they do not enter into God's mind, and cannot. Not even man's spirit, the best part of man, can take it in. His spirit soars far above the lower nature of man, but the highest part of man's nature cannot enter into the things of God (John 3: 3-6).

The spirit of man cannot rise above the things of man (1 Cor. 2: 9-11), any more than a dog can understand the working, say, of a watch. For the dog has only the nature of a dog, not the nature of a man, who has far superior intelligence improving itself, profiting by others, working to a new but definite end, and guided by reasons as well as mechanical power in the making of a watch. In course of time it may become mechanical enough; but there was no little exercise of thought and skill on the part of him who made the first watch. Probably it was big and clumsy too, and often required mending. Still the first was a greater effort of mind than the later skill which wrought up the best watch that England could produce. For its maker has the advantage of all the numberless improvements made ever since in this detail or that to make a record watch. Yet with all this activity of mind there is a consciousness of responsibility to God and a far higher moral sense than that of intellect, which belongs to man alone on earth.

The gist then is that the things of God are as much above the best man after the flesh and the highest part of that man as a watch or other such work is above the nature of a dog or any instinct it possesses. How morally debasing to forget it! This is surely an all-important difference, and cannot but, where it is truly felt, draw out our thanksgiving, whilst it also vindicates and displays the depths of God's grace. For He has given us who believe a life capable of entering into His thoughts and His affections, into His counsels and His mind, enabling us by His Spirit to search all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For it is admitted that we need for this the Spirit of God also. It is not enough to be born of the Spirit. The Old Testament saints were so born; but they could not as yet receive the indwelling Spirit from on high. To no saints was He given till Christ's redemption was effected. And only when the converted soul rests on redemption does one now receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The lack of this is the reason why converted persons are found spiritually dull. They cannot go beyond the elements of divine truth because, though having the new nature, they have not yet the power of the Spirit; and if probed, they would be found not to have settled peace yet. The real fact is that they are not really resting on Christ's redemption, and so have not that fruit of redemption. They are looking for what they want. They are, as they say, striving earnestly to get what they have not got. They have to learn that liberty in Christ is only to be had by giving up altogether self and its efforts, to rest only and altogether on Christ and His work of redemption. The atoning work is done.

This shortcoming or shallowness of faith came in as a flood after the apostles passed away. In the early days it was not for anyone to enter the church except those sealed by the Holy Spirit. But when the church began to settle down in the world, and persecution became only a temporary outburst, when many wise and rich people came in, powerful and noble, there was an object in consequence to become acquainted with personages who in Christian love became more intimate than they ever would as in the world. It was an inducement to not a few to follow them; as some of late found from the same cause in their little history. Love soon decays in such circumstances. So that we readily understand the necessity for the words, "Let us love, not with word, nor with the tongue, but in deed and truth."

"And herein we shall know that we are of the truth;" that is, if walking in love. This is immense comfort to the believer; but what a mistake to put it before an unconverted soul as the way to get forgiveness! Who that knows the gospel could ask such to show these fruits of love? But it is what saints ought to feel in what is justly called the moral government of God. For, when brought to God, we become objects of God as Father to judge us every day (1 Peter 1: 17). The Lord presented it figuratively in John 15, and declared Himself the true Vine, as the disciples were the branches. This is not the figure of being born again (which is really in John 3: 3-6); nor still less has it to do with union, as many mistakenly imagine. In neither case is there such thing as losing life eternal or Christ's members cut off. This difference suffices to disprove such misapplications. The Vine teaches the necessity of communion with Christ practically. To abide in Him, and He in us, is the power of fruit-bearing. For what enables the disciple to bring forth fruit? Is it not dependence on Christ, His words abiding in us, and prayer (ver. 7)? It is Christ who is the source of all the fruit, and the branches bear it by hanging on Him. Apart from Him they can do nothing. And it is the Father who prunes the branch that it may bear more fruit. But it is the Vine that supplies all the sap to the branches that attach to Him.

Our Lord did a great deal more; but for fruit-bearing this is what He does. If you disconnect the branch from the vine, what then? Will it bear grapes again? Can there be any more fruit? Not the least. There were those once following Christ who walked no more with Him. They cut themselves off. They were no longer branches of the Vine. It is not denied that one here and another there might repent and seek restoration. Far be it from us to deny or discourage a soul. But those that leave Christ in general become hard and antagonistic to a decree. In fact, it is comparatively rare for such as turn their back on the Lord to return to Him again. If real repentance work, who so ready to receive? There is no limit to His love. But those contemplated here, instead of self-judgment, have hard thoughts of Christ, and abandon all reverence, lowering His person, and trifling with His work, so as to manifest that they had only notions, and not life eternal.

Therefore it is of deep importance to remember that the moral government of God foes on with souls now and has a double action. On the one hand God watches over every saint, and judges every fault, but in faithful love. On the other hand, there are those who, distrusting Him, cannot bear His dealings. They resist or despise the trials which God employs as a means of recovery. For He chastens; and no chastening at the time seems pleasant. Joy would altogether deny His character; but it is for profit, and afterwards yields peaceful fruit of righteousness to those exercised thereby. It is God as Father now judging according to the work of each; in short, His moral government. He thus deals with those that are His children, or at most those that profess so to be. For God concerns Himself thus according to men's profession; and in a way quite different with those who have never borne the Lord's name.

It is therefore incumbent on everyone that names the name of the Lord to withdraw from iniquity, and thus wake up out of the snare of the devil lest he get a constant advantage over his soul, and an overwhelming advantage. The longer any wait the worse it becomes. It is bad enough for those who believe to remain units; and it is to be feared that not a few are content with isolation, as if they escaped responsibility, in the present growing disorder here below. They look at the faults of other Christians to justify their isolation, and shun the trials of walking together as brethren, whose shortcomings they are very quick to discern, and without mercy. But there is no real conscience as to God's glory in their own state. How wretched it is to justify ourselves by the faults of others! But is their own walk really better than that of such as never made profession of Christ? Is it not sadly like walking in the light of their own fire and in the sparks of their own kindling? Let them beware lest they lie down in sorrow. Their course is one neither of righteousness nor of love; and Christianity unites both according to the truth of Christ.

Now, in our walk when we are brought to God, the secret of power is dependence on Christ. Does not the vine teach us this more than any other figure? It would be hard to find in all the realm of nature a tree so impressive as the vine to mark the need for the branches to keep up their place in the vine in order to bear fruit. And as certainly it is the same principle between Christ and the Christian. So it is here. If love be merely with word and with the tongue, if not in deed and truth, can it but displease God? Is it not an insult to the Spirit of God? If we walk as children of light, we also carry out the divine principle of love, i.e., we seek the good of one another without a selfish purpose. Such is the love we know in God; and Christ became man to show it in a way that even God as such could not. And who can wonder that He so deeply feels any slight to the name of His Son, Jesus our Lord? It was the humiliation of Christ in becoming a man, and bearing the sufferings which His sacrifice of Himself entailed, even to enduring God's judgment of sin laid on Him. This could not be in God as God; but it is exactly what we have from God in Christ's propitiation for our sins. Therein all the light and the love and the truth of God shine in a way beyond thought of man; and this is Christianity.

But a necessary part of practical Christianity is not merely righteousness, as we have been seeing, or obedience. It is love; only let it be real, he says; and if it be so, "we shall know." In this he classes himself with the rest, which contributes to the beauty of his words. "Herein we shall know that we" — you and I, the apostle and the saints — "are of the truth." But when there is a bad conscience, the exercise of love and of everything else which flows from divine life, dwindles away. One does not in this refer to those who are not children of God, but only to those who are. It is they that are crippled by it; it is they that suffer from what they have lost; and there is always a suspension of enjoyment when communion with Him is thus interrupted. Some might think it remarkable that, while the life that God gives In Christ is eternal, the communion that we enjoy by it is most sensitive to any evil on our part; it immediately ceases through indulging in ever so little a folly. And why? Communion means that the blessing is shared in common. How could God share even a little folly with us? With any sins He cannot possibly have communion; nor can we be walking in Christ. Enjoyment of communion is "broken at once. Far from Him to say that it is so lost that it cannot be regained. But we can praise Him that there is no regaining life eternal, because it is eternal; yet there is the necessity that we be restored to the communion interrupted by evil of any kind. It might be only a bad thought or feeling; but communion is broken till it is judged. If it is allowed, it hinders no less than any outward or open evil.

So he says, "Herein we shall know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him." To be "of the truth" is the basis of truthfulness in practice; to lose or neglect the truth is soon followed by untruthful ways, which expose one to love with word and with the tongue, instead of in deed and truth. It was not looking back to see that they were converted, still less that they were baptized. Neither is meant of God to give us comfort when He is thus dishonoured in such circumstances, but rather to put us to shame. Is it not grievous that I, who have been brought to God and not merely have its outward mark, should have behaved so ill? If on the contrary we are kept watchful and earnest before God, loving too and lowly withal, "we shall know that we are of the truth." This inspires boldness or confidence before God. And such really is the sense here. The force intended is not standing, nor assurance of faith; but the heart's boldness before God in a walk of unaffected and active love. "Therein we shall know that we are of the truth, and shall" — not exactly assure, but "persuade our hearts before Him." This is the simple and literal meaning; which seems to me better to take as it is, seeking to understand what the Spirit meant by it. A different form of this word and other words express assurance, one of which would have been employed if "assurance" had been meant here; but "we shall persuade our hearts before Him" seems well suited to act powerfully on our souls, and to express the boldness inspired by simple-hearted sincerity in a living Christian walk.

There is much in these words to encourage and strengthen a godly Methodist. Their weak point is in not apprehending life eternal in Christ, and assigning too much to their own emotions. The grace of God in the gospel leaves ample room for the warmest and deepest affections. Spiritual feelings have a just place, but far more the grace and truth through Christ which create and elicit them; yet all saints should be sound according to the word and Spirit of God. Nor ought we to be like a rigid Calvinist, who thinks the one thing is to have come to the conclusion that we are the elect, and therefore entitled to all comfort. Thus he swamps the moral government of God before us by his absorption with election. Now election is an admirable truth for which to praise our God; but it is not meant to serve as security against the unhappy certainty that we have dishonoured God. Why should we want to be comforted in presence of the fact that we have displeased Him? He wants us to be humbled on that account; and this is what is brought in immediately after. "For if our heart condemn us"; this is just what our heart does, when we walk badly, and there is that which grieves the Spirit of God, and we have not duly judged ourselves before Him. And if we know that our heart condemns us, we infer rightly how much more God knew to blame. "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." Some of the Calvinists turn it in this way: if our heart condemn us, God in His grace does not. How sad it is to lose the profit of His word by any systematic departure from its plain sense! His mind is that if I condemn myself, God is greater than I, He knows all where we only know in part.

They fear to shake our standing thereby. Now this has nothing whatever to do with our standing in Christ, but with our state day by day. It is a question of loss of communion; and we are called to judge ourselves in His sight, instead of falling back on election or standing. Election as well as standing abide; it is all wrong for a believer to doubt of either. But if his heart condemn him, we may be sure that God knows far more: he should be in the dust before Him, and thus have divine help to search all out and hate his carelessness, because he is an object of such grace. We are to judge our bad state while holding fast the standing in Christ which God has given us. This remains firm; but our state has been wrong, and God would have us, not to hide from it nor excuse it, but condemn ourselves unsparingly.

What a pity to fall under these systems of men, as one may call the peculiarities of Calvinists or Arminians! For one only blames their peculiarities, not the truth which they hold as Christians. There are dear saints of God among both; but they both suffer not a little, from the Arminian not giving sufficient glory to God's grace in life eternal, and from the Calvinist not leaving sufficient value to communion, which is often followed by uncertainty about his own election. As one of them said, "If you do not doubt about yourself, I doubt about you." Their tendency is to slur their sins or to set up a school of doubt. It was a pious man who so spoke, and he wrote many hymns; and I can but hope the hymns are better than the doctrine. For such doubting is abominable, unworthy not only of a Christian but of Christ still more. It practically denies the gospel, which proclaims salvation by God's grace, and calls for our peaceful enjoyment of it. Hence in point of fact Calvinists generally, though with bright exceptions, are weak. as to the gospel. They are occupied with election, rather than with God's love to the world, to say nothing of the provision of grace for their own souls. Election has a too absorbing place in their creed, which makes it a sort of servant-of-all-work. But all this falls miserably short of God's grace and truth. In Christ there is room for everything true that both Calvinists and Arminians hold, and for a good deal more which neither holds. It is a pity that saints of God do not drop these partial schemes of doctrine, cleaving only to God's revelation, accepting it wholly, and eschewing every substitute for it. Christianity has ample room for the widest feeling and for the soundest judgment, and in short for everything that faith is bound to receive from God, or that love is free to achieve for His glory.

The heart's condemnation here is from the consciousness of failure in our ways, and the conviction of still more known to God in His moral government of our souls. This too is implied in "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgave our debtors." Here too it is a question, not of plenary forgiveness in faith of the gospel, but of God's watchful and constant oversight of His children's ways. This has nothing at all to do with the poor sinner's need; for it is plain that the gospel offers no forgiveness of sins on the condition of a forgiving spirit to others. Grace gives remission of sins on the faith of the Lord Jesus. Here is nothing to do with that; but if you — a Christian — fail to walk in a forgiving spirit with others, God is displeased with you. Thereby you no longer enjoy communion with Him, and He will not restore it till you truly judge yourself for the wrong. This lack is what produced the saint's self-condemnation, and the indication of censure on God's part.

Evidently then it is of great importance to distinguish between the ground of grace on which we stand for life eternal and redemption, and the application of God's moral dealing with us every day, where He must judge our faulty ways, and He is chastising us that we may become partakers of His holiness. This leads us truly to condemn our inconsistencies and conform our practice to God's mind in His hatred of sin, and in furtherance of what is loving, righteous, and true.

The apostle says, "Beloved, if our heart condemn not, we have boldness toward God" (ver. 21). His heart responds to those who walk normally before Him. It is no longer merely "'Dear children." He delights in seeing love realised, and encourages the activity of love in prayer where things thus go well. Where the Spirit of God has to occupy us with our failure, we cannot be free to ask new favours. We must submit to the humiliating sense, that if we condemn ourselves about our ways, God condemns us yet more. Where by His power there is quiet enjoyment of communion, our hearts can earnestly ask for more grace. "Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, we have boldness toward him, and whatsoever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments, and do the things pleasing in his sight." There is nothing in this case to arrest the activity of love. Grace has its unhindered way in what is good, because we are walking happily in the light of God, so that the heart turns not to self-reproach. We can freely have done with self to enjoy Christ.

Such is clearly the right state for every Christian to walk in day by day. It is what we have to seek; but alas! where we sadly fall short perhaps; but assuredly it is that to which we are called by grace. A peaceful, single-eyed and confiding state can only be by walking before God according to our life in Christ. To comfort ourselves under failure, because we have life eternal, does not rightly meet what is due to God, any more than to our own state. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. There is not only faith but experimental reality in the soul's following what the apostle tells us of what was wrought in him. "I am crucified with Christ, and no longer do I live, but Christ liveth in me; but that which I now live in flesh I live by the faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2: 20). Tradition is vain, ordinances fall. The power of Christ's cross is brought home. He for his old life was identified by faith with Him — who actually suffered it; and he now lives in Him who is alive for evermore; and it is a life of faith in His love. This individualising is not a very common phase in Scripture. Generally "Christ loving" and "Christ giving Himself" is said for Christians as a whole as in Eph. 5: 1, 2. But it is very precious to have it personally also, though short indeed to have it no more than personal, whereby we fail to appreciate our communion with the Father and with the Son in the blessedness of all the family of God.

Peace with God, peace of conscience, indispensable as it may be, is not all the blessing that His grace would have us enjoy; still less is the assurance that we are forgiven all our offences. This we have as believing God's glad tidings; but it is not what is spoken of in vers. 19-22. It was a very necessary and great mercy for each soul at his beginning. Then in faith it is wrong to allow a question whether he really believes or not. Scripture knows nothing of such a doubt in one who believes in Christ; he is nowhere thrown back on what he finds within. It is because he is lost that God points to His Son as Saviour, as to whom no question of failure could arise with him. Here it is for Christians in their walk of every day; and the question now is of practical confidence in the heart. We are in such nearness by grace that anything unsuitable in us toward our God and Father is intolerable, and provided against with all care.

Many of us know in our own families what it is to have a child sometimes naughty. Does not this make a difference if the child has real affection? Even if the father and mother do not know why, the child is ill at ease. Instead of being able happily to meet its parents as usual, something has gone wrong; and the more upright the child, the more that is felt. It is just so with our God and Father; save that He never fails, and all is known to Him. Hence the vast importance of self-judgment, which we need because of what we are. Where this is applied to our failure, the soul returns into the enjoyment of the communion, which to our sorrow had been lost. The right state is the boldness toward God. It is not the standing which the Christian has permanently; but the heart's state liable to interruption by carelessness. While we walk in the Spirit, this boldness God-ward is our happy state; and it is the only becoming state for a Christian. How sad to settle down into the lack of it habitually! Surely there ought to be an earnest crying to God to find what has taken it from the heart; if so, one will not have to cry long. It flows from the love of the Father that He would have us taste its comfort, and feel its deprivation through any unjudged fault. But we have in Jesus as Advocate with the Father the provided resource, instead of seeking an earthly director who supplants the Lord and cannot suffice for a function so delicate and difficult. It is our privilege readily and at once to repair through Christ to the throne of grace, nay to the Father's love, assured that no failure can be there.

Hence here it is beautifully added, "Whatsoever we ask, we receive from Him." It is another sample of the absolute way in which John loves to speak. He does not speak of any modification through occasional circumstances, or of any particular hindrance that may arise. He does not allude to a possibly inconsistent state. He assumes here that the heart does not condemn; that one has boldness toward God; that we are in the enjoyment of communion with Him. And what is the effect of communion? It excludes wrong petitions. We do not then seek anything alien to the will of God. We ask for that which is according to His will; and He grudges us nothing good. He delights in our enjoyment of all that is for His glory; and all this we have found in Christ; for He is the ever attractive and sustaining link. It is Christ who chooses everything for us. There is no light nor spring in our heart without Christ thus depended on. Accordingly this is just what God has given us. Whatsoever we ask we receive; for in that state we shall never ask anything amiss. Our apostle supplies here the reason, "because we keep His commandments." Those who fail to see that it is a question of God's moral government of the Christian's state fall into the error of confounding it with the ground of salvation, and make it conditional. But this annuls sovereign grace in saving sinners. Here it is not grace, but government. And government is necessarily conditional. But God's grace which saves our souls and effaces our sins is absolute, free, and sovereign. The only condition here, if it is to be called a condition, is to give up ourselves as ungodly, and receive what His love gives us freely in Christ.

Here is another subject altogether; and its mixture with grace is the common vice of so-called "theology." Who can wonder therefore, that simple, sound, and intelligent Christians distrust and repudiate so unreliable a guide. They have good reason to beware, for it habitually darkens and perplexes many believers who, immature in the truth, thought themselves on the right line by listening to it. But systematic divinity is like what is called a hortus siccus; that is, flowers and leaves, or the like, plucked from the plant and dried, so that not a particle remains of freshness or life in one of them.

Such is "theology"; whereas Scripture is "spirit and life." So is the Lord Jesus, the living One who died but is alive again for evermore; and again the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth that quickens, the One given not only for life but to keep every truth fresh and powerful; and so it is in the ever-flowing love of God the Father. Man makes, or strives to make, revelation into a science. Can two things more thoroughly differ? Who ever found life or peace in systematic divinity? It is always guarding this and guarding that with human weapons, and framing its uncertain and defective doctrines into imaginary fortresses of the faith, which must be Christ's working in us by the word and Spirit of God. Only in the Bible we have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and we have the Holy Spirit who wrote all to guide us into all the truth. Therefore we have confidence in God and the word of His grace.

Scripture is the standard, and the Holy Spirit is the power sent down to abide in and with us for ever. What ample privileges, to say nothing of the gifts of Christ's grace in ministry from the highest to the least! We are commended to this, and God would have us judge everything that hinders; and this is what occupies the apostle in these verses. And if we profit in faith and love, he says, "Whatsoever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." Only think of applying this to the gospel! The last clause is just what our blessed Lord said He always did (John 8: 29). He is the perfection of all He undertook. "I do always the things that are pleasing to him." But there is where we fall. We neither do nor say always the things that please Him. As God sees and hears everything, He takes special notice of His children, not as against us but for us; and if God be for us, who against us? Therefore, as He slurs over no fault, we need not take up John 17 or Rom. 8 as a hiding place, but do well to humble ourselves for all that has grieved the Holy Spirit of God by whom we were sealed for redemption's day. Our hearts thus return to the enjoyment of boldness toward God. This gives liberty and impulse to prayer, as it is said here, "Whatsoever we ask." Surely, if we ask for dependence on Christ God will hear, seeking more continuance in prayer, more profiting by His word: these are according to God's will, as well as the means of exercising and enjoying eternal life. For that life is the substratum of all this Epistle.

"And this is His commandment, that we should believe the name of His Son." This is here rendered "on"; but the Greek admits of no "on." Now it maybe more difficult to understand it according to what the Spirit of God unquestionably wrote; but if we do not understand the phrase, are we not to receive it implicitly as written? We need not force a meaning on it, but be content to accept what is His word without understanding it, and wait till we do. But there it is written to the family of God, though it be an unusual phrase. In Scripture ordinarily it is "believing God and believing God about His Son; and, when Christ is introduced, it is "believing on or in Christ." Such is the general language of Scripture. Here the form used, is "believing the name." When it is said one believes God about Christ, it is believing God's record of Christ; it is believing what God tells me of Christ. When then it is said "believe the name of His Son," does it not mean believing what that Name imports? The Name is God's revelation of the Lord, that is, of what He is, and has done, and a beautiful expression it is. It is not merely that His name as a man was Jesus, one need scarcely say, nor only His title is the Lord, or any of His offices. Here it is believing the Name, the divine revelation, or God's testimony to His Son Jesus Christ. For He pre-eminently is the object of faith; and here and now it is that we shall believe His name, as if it personified Himself. It is not only what we begin with when once we believed. We believed on the Lord then; but the apostle loves to speak of the person and all that comes in and through Him is believed. Hence he employs this singular expression, "believe the name of His Son Jesus Christ." There is dependence upon Christ; but here it is believing the Name of His Son Jesus Christ, what that blessed name conveys as revealed by God in His word. We believe His Name.

There is a difference of reading nearly balanced that is worthy of notice. The form of the word "believe" in the ordinary text with high authority implies continuance in faith; in others of great weight, it is believing once for all, the fact summed up in its conclusion. But when we come to "love," it is the actual loving of every day. This is plain and sure. But the two things are blended into one commandment. It is the great commandment of Christianity in contrast with the commandment of the law. There it was to love God and one's neighbour. Now it is to believe the name of His Son Jesus Christ and to love one another, even God's children. How deplorable the blunder to confound the children of God with our neighbour! This is not its meaning; but those are to be loved whom the world knows not, as it knew Him not whose Name is believed. All this was far beyond the thoughts of man, What would you think of one who told you to love all the children in London in the same way as you love your own children? You would think such a person demented. This may help to show how much higher is "His commandment" here. As we said before, there is all possible difference between the children of God and the children of the devil. A man might be my next door neighbour and the greatest enemy to Christ. To such a one the command that I am here to love has no application. One ought to have the love of compassion for him, to desire and to seek from God that he might receive the word of truth, the gospel of salvation. His hardened opposition, his very defiance of God, might only the more draw out our supplication that he might become a monument of mercy. And God has hearkened to prayer in such a case, and has honoured the persistent cry that entreated in faith and humility for a guilty soul. It would require no little courage to enable one so to seek and labour for our next-door neighbour of such a character. Yet even so this neighbour in no way falls under the commandment before us, which applies only to loving "one another, as He gave us commandment." It is strictly and solely mutual Christian love.

Here again is another example of the way in which John mixes up God and Christ. In the beginning of the verse the last person spoken of is God; and we were to ask and receive of Him, and to do those things that are pleasing in His sight. "And this is His commandment, that we should believe the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He gave us commandment." Now we know very well it was Christ who gave the commandment. Yet it is the same "He" apparently all through. Such a style could never have become possible unless Christ were as truly God as the Father. This is the secret of its peculiarity. And John's writing is done purposely in honour of the Son even as of the Father, instead of a negligent slip. There is no inadvertence in Scripture; as there may be in the most celebrated classic. Divine purpose and perfect wisdom reign in the written word.

"And he that keepeth His commandments abideth in Him." It is one of the drawbacks of our beautiful authorised version that the translators cannot let the same word go on unaltered even in the same context; so fond are they of, ringing the change on the same word. Most who know only the English version would suppose that there must be some shade of difference between "dwell" and "abide." But the Greek gives only the same word. It is the more regrettable because there is a distinct word for "dwell" which has its own propriety of application. Is it not far better for the English reader also to have the same word? Here it signifies little save to remember that the "dwelling" and the "abiding" mean the same thing. In John 5 it is of much consequence to adhere to "judgment" all through, and not allow "condemnation" or "damnation" unless distinctly expressed.

Here we have the transition to the new subject of abiding in God, and God in us. There is no vagueness as to it. Without obedience this wondrous privilege cannot be. "And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in him." Exegetically, he abides in God, and God in him. But it is applicable to Christ also, and is so said elsewhere. In itself therefore it is perfectly true whether you say "abide in Christ" or "abide in God." When you abide in Christ you abide in God; and when you abide in God you abide no less in Christ. But there may be a contextual propriety which chooses one rather than the other in strict interpretation. That is often important to see; yet it is simple. But it is helpful to avoid mistakes as to Scripture and seeing distinctions without a difference.

"And herein we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he gave us." There the gift of the Spirit is the power and proof of God's abiding in the Christian. It is in this way that God abides in him. He gave him the Spirit. But abiding in God is a matter of spiritual dependence on Him in practice; and it could not be unless the Spirit abiding in the saint wrought so as to keep in ungrieved looking to Him, and drawing from Him. If I were grieving the Lord at the time, I am no longer abiding in Him; I have slipped away out of His presence, and am for awhile perhaps pursuing my own thought and way and will. But whether it be but a passing slip, or for a certain time, I am out of the enjoyment of His presence, and not abiding in Him.

Yet it may be noticed that in the last half we hear, not as in the first half of the two truths, but only of God's abiding in us, which is simply by the Spirit given to us. On this alone depends God's abiding in us. It is founded on redemption, and abides as redemption also abides. But our abiding in Him is a question of spiritual state; and is only taken up for full explanation in the latter part of 1 John 4. The early verses, 1-6 are a parenthesis of the utmost moment as a basis for both the one and the other.

It is in 1 John 3: 23 and 24 that the apostle enters on the exposition of the proper and full place of the Christian, and this with the least reference possible to the negative side, which had such prominence in the previous discussion. Here the positive blessedness of our privileges is set before all the saints with the same simplicity, but depth also, characteristic of his letter from first to last. In verse 23 it is the plain and easily recognised trait of the Christian; in verse. 24 it is the less cognisable but no less real inner exercise of life by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God working on or rather in that life. And special notice, as we have seen, is taken of the blighting influence of a careless walk on the enjoyment of the heart's boldness before God which ought to be our portion habitually.

ADDRESS 12

1 JOHN 4: 1-6.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God because many false prophets are (or, have) gone out into the world. Herein ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus* is not of God; and this is the (spirit or principle) of the antichrist whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is already in the world. Ye are of God, dear children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that [is] in you than he that [is] in the world. They are of the world: for this reason they speak [as] of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God doth not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error" (vers. 1-6).

*On ample ground of external witness, backed up by internal considerations, almost all the later critics seem to be right in dropping the words here omitted, which were probably inserted from the clause before. The MSS. differ much as usual in such cases. — There is a reading, alluded to by ancient writers ὃ λύει instead of ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ. But it is authenticated by neither ancient MS. nor Version, save the Vulgate's "qui solvit."

Before the apostle proceeds with God's abiding in us, known by the Spirit given to us (1 John 3: 24), he turns off to the grave subject before us. Therein he would guard us, against the inroads of the enemy on the foundations of the faith, by the truth of Christ's person, and by God's authoritative revelation of Him through the inspired apostles and prophets given by the ascended Lord, and embodied in the Scriptures of the New Testament.

It is not, as in his previous teaching, the tests which sever the real Christian from the spurious or self-deceived. The introduction of the Holy Spirit leads him into a digression, as we have seen his manner to be, of extreme value on what is most fundamental, the divinely given tests of the truth itself. These tests are two: the person of Him who was manifested in flesh; and the revelation of Him through the chosen witnesses in order that, as He was truly divine and perfectly human, we might have a no less divine communication of what is so transcendent a blessing stamped with God's authority through men inspired for the purpose. He is the One on whose reception depends life eternal with all the privileges of the Christian, and of the church, of which the apostle Paul was the minister beyond all others; He is the One whose rejection entails God's wrath to abide on all those guilty of it (John 3: 35, 36). As He came down from heaven, Himself the truth in sovereign grace, so God took care to give us the surest revelation by man and for man, — whether he hear or refuse, adapted to the conscience and heart of man, but guarded and guided by the God who cannot err.

If God in virtue of redemption was pleased to give the Holy Spirit to the Christian in a measure and way which was not nor could be before Christ's death, resurrection and ascension, Satan set himself to counterfeit the heavenly gift, and thwart the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He acts by apostates, the many false prophets who not only mislead others to perdition, but incur themselves vengeance more severely than the guilty Jew or the dark Gentile. Hence the care to present the two-fold criterion of the truth in the simplest and most direct form for the help of every Christian who needs it.

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits if (or, whether) they are of God." It is a question of discerning, not Christians, but the real character of those who claimed to speak. in the Spirit. This the enemy simulated; and his power of subtle persuasion has ever been great since man's first temptation in paradise. "He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh falsehood he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and its father" (John 8: 44). Evil spirits were more than ever at work to oppose the Spirit of truth, as very many unclean spirits in the possessed were cast out by the Holy One of God when here. In the Gospel of the divine Servant of God and man, it is the first miracle recorded; Christ's word had power to bless man, and expel the demon. And now that the intrepid and unflinching apostle to the uncircumcision was gone, his warning to the elders of the church in Ephesus was being rapidly verified: "I know, that there will come in among you after my departure grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; and. from among your own selves shall arise men speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20: 29, 30).

This outbreak of evil was aggravated before the eyes of the last apostle. He appeals to every saint on his faith in Christ and in the word of God; and strips the true question of all the gloss of reasoning and sentiment by which the enemy obscured what was at stake. It was really giving up God and His word under pretension of new and higher truth. Some antichrists denied the real humanity of Christ, others His true deity, and others their union in one person. In any of these ways the truth of His person, and of His work consequently, was abandoned and sought to be overthrown. They knew the Father and Jesus Christ whom He sent; and they had the Spirit to help them. Thus they were as simple children of God not only responsible but by grace adequate to prove what sort of spirit wrought in these new lights. They were bound for His sake and for their own souls to sift their novelties, "because many false prophets were gone out into the world." Were these men such? Christ had given true "apostles and prophets," who conjointly form the foundation of the church dogmatically. Hence we have Mark and Luke, to say nothing of writers of Epistles, who were not apostles but prophets. Satan imitated this, and availed himself of these unbelievers in going out into the world to lead astray and destroy. There were "many false prophets."

The first test is as to the Spirit. "Herein we know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God." The common rendering fails to give its real force; for the introduction of "that" and "is" is not only uncalled for, but makes it to be mere confession of a fact; whereas the apostolic word means the confession of His person. Is it true that an evil spirit would deny the historical fact that Jesus Christ is come in flesh? Do not Mohammedans admit this fact without hesitation, if the Jews do not? And assuredly some of the most extreme and pernicious sceptics allow the fact, and eulogise the Lord after their fashion as the best of men.

But there is no true confession of the person of the Lord as here laid down by the apostle save by the Spirit of God. For, few as the words are, they go to the essence of the matter. Many a man was called "Jesus" between the son of Nun and the Son of Mary the virgin. The first, as far as Scripture speaks, was truly but only a type of the Joshua immeasurably greater than himself. Others may have been so named, but quite unworthy, notably he whom the Jews preferred to the Lord of glory, if we attach any credit to some twenty manuscripts which say so. Certainly he was surnamed Barabbas (son of the father), the devil's counterpart to the true Son of the Father.

The Spirit in Matt. 1 gives us His interpretation of the name: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." Joshua led Israel into Canaan in the face of enemies which swarmed there; but the Antitype alone could save His people from their sins. He was Jah, Jehovah, the Eternal absolutely, the Eternal relatively and historically; and as they were His people, He it was that should save them from their sins, as none but He could who was also Immanuel, God with us; and who but He could claim this title as Himself 2 If His people reject Him to their own loss for awhile, His grace turns to the besotted nations, to such of them at least as hear His voice. To Gentiles, as we were, this salvation was sent meanwhile; but the Gentile, puffed up in unbelief and pride, must be cut off, as in part the Jews were to let us in. At length, turning to their crucified Messiah, then exalted and lifted up and very high, and cleared of all inward fear as well as of outward, "So all Israel shall be saved." His love had waited long, unexhausted and faithful till they will have got to the bottom of their evil and their sufferings; His mercy endures for ever, as His gifts and calling admit no change of mind.

This is the "Jesus Christ" whom every spirit that is of God confesses. Only He is now known in Christianity far more profoundly as well as more intimately than when presented to Israel, who shall know Him in the visible glories of the coming kingdom. He who came in flesh was Jah the Saviour, as He was also God's Anointed or Christ. It is He whom the Spirit of truth honours, as the spirit of error hates Him. For there is the dark side: "Every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God." What confirms the shorter reading here is the article before "Jesus" in the latter clause. It is in its common usage of reference, and can hardly be expressed in English translation. But the explanation is clear and sure: "Every spirit which confesseth not (the) Jesus (already described)." It supposes no repetition of the words here omitted, yet implies that predication as true.

The name of Jesus is the expression of all that He is as revealed of God; and as we need, so we have it all to our everlasting joy. Nor does it avail only for the supreme excellency of all that is in Him and through Him: He and He only gives us the truth of every one and thing as it really is; and thus He proves Himself to be the truth objectively, as the Spirit is the truth in the inward power of giving us to realise and enjoy what is in and by Christ (1 John 5: 6). He alone leads into any adequate knowledge of God. He shows us the Father. He makes known to us, as not to the world, the Holy Spirit. He reveals the Trinity. In Christ we know light and life and love, as of God, and nowhere else. In Him we know obedience, righteousness, holiness, reverence, dependence, faithfulness, humility, meekness, absolutely and in all perfection. In Him is displayed man the worthy object of God's delight; and man under Satan's power in his enmity to God, the truth of man naturally as he is. So through Him we know what Satan is in hatred as well as deceit. Without Christ we have only the shadow of redemption and propitiation, of sacrifice and offering, of priest and sanctuary. He only is the substance and fulness, setting everything in its true character and true relation to God, Himself the centre of all. Do you doubt as to the truth of anything? Bring Christ into the difficulty, apply Him to the question; and you will find the truth in each and every case. Is not He manifestly and justly the criterion of the truth?

Thus it is that, while the reasoning soul loses itself in the labyrinth of speculation in quest of the truth which eludes the strongest natural mind, grace provides the truth in Christ to the simplest believer who looks to Him as his all. For there is the solution; Christ is the truth objectively, as the Spirit is in power to his spirit. Those self-seeking and self-vaunting "false prophets" may tell "the little child" that he cannot do without them, and that they alone have "the spirit," he no more than "the letter." The believer knows that he has Christ, the Son manifested in flesh, and refuses to let go what was "heard from the beginning" and is now in the written word of God. He does not pretend to have all realised; but he knows that having Christ the truth, he has it all perfectly in Him, and counts on the unction of the Spirit for application as the need arises. He therefore feels the all-importance that what was heard from the beginning should abide in him, that he too should abide in the Son and in the Father. If Christ thus revealed is given up, Christianity is gone. And when the enemy was undermining Christ under pretence of higher truth, the Spirit of God recalls to Him Who was and is the truth. He therefore admits of no development, which is no more than the lie of Satan, and has no truth, but betrays itself by denying known life eternal as His present gift. The lie offers only "ideas."

Grace then furnishes a sure criterion to know when it is the Spirit of God teaching the truth, or when an evil spirit insinuates the great lie. The Holy Spirit glorifies Jesus; the evil spirit cries up the world, being the instrument of the devil to deceive as far as he can. If he cannot deceive the elect, he accuses them, and makes them appear narrow, morose, and bigoted; because they are not misled by the fine colours with which Satan invests his evil doings. They believe God concerning His Son. This is quite a different thing from confounding with faith credulity, which is but believing man. But no link with God is formed save in believing God; and this is by His word, and since the apostle passed away, His written word. The Holy Spirit bore witness to the Lord as the incarnate Son of God. One accordingly believes on the Lord Jesus Christ at God's word for life eternal. A fact about Him, however true and important, is not believing on and confessing Himself. Life is in His Son. And He came in flesh; for this was essentially "Jesus," the marvel of divine grace, the test of divine truth. Confessing Him means that one owns the truth of His person thus come in flesh. The difference is not only important but vital. It is not the fact of His birth, but His person so born to confess.

Many think that here it is only the fact of His incarnation. Assuredly the incarnation is pressed, because it is a cardinal truth of Christianity, of rich grace; and there were some then that denied it and reduced it to a mere semblance. A little book of great antiquity was discovered recently called the Gospel of Peter, not only spurious but utterly heterodox, evidencing deadly error in early days; a most sorrowful thing that it should ever have been written. For it was as false in itself as it was a vile imposture, no more coming from a Christian than from Peter. But Peter was a marked favourite because of his fervour; and many who could not fully take in Paul's teaching exceedingly enjoyed Peter's preaching. The wicked forger took advantage of the apostle's repute (probably after his death) to gain acceptance for his own Gnostic legend. For its purport is to represent that Christ did not come in flesh so as to die on the cross, that He merely took flesh as one lives in a house; that flesh did not really form part of His person; that, after living in the body for a time, on coming to the cross He left it and went up to heaven.

It seems like the doctrine of the Moslems, who imagine that, at the critical moment, God, by an exercise of His power and retributive justice, substituted Judas Iscariot for the Lord Jesus, and took Him up on high. In short this class of Gnostics and the Mahomedans held that the Lord did not die on the cross. Indeed the Mahomedans believe that the Lord will come again to judge the world, and that He will find all the world then in an apostate state. There are ignorant men preaching worse everywhere in Christendom, who look for a state of growing perfection for man on the earth without Christ. Is it not humbling to think that a kingdom without the King is the idea of vast numbers, alike Nationalist and Dissenting? Some, no doubt, look for another and greater outpouring of the Spirit to bring it about. But He will thus be poured out again in honour of Christ's reign over the earth. The Mahomedans, blind as they are, own that in the coming crisis they themselves will have given up their Koran (their sacred book, as they call it), that the Jews will have given up the Old Testament, and that the Christians will have given up the New Testament. To such an apostasy Scripture shows that Christendom is rapidly hastening; and the strongest force toward it is in the sceptical theories which deny true inspiration, so prevalent in Christendom even now.

But here is the test, the touchstone of truth. "Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God." This is the simple and proper way to render the words. The true spirit confesses Christ's person. It is of all moment to understand this, because laying the stress on "coming in flesh" may overlook Who came thus. Undoubtedly His coming in flesh is very important, yet far more momentous is He who thus came. Who was He that came in flesh? persons in their senses would not say that you or I came in the flesh. Take the mightiest monarchs that founded world-powers — Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar. Take the greatest names in letters, philosophy, oratory, science, and what not. Nobody could with propriety speak of their coming in flesh. The reason is because we could not appear at all unless we came in flesh. The wonder, the truth, the infinite grace, is that He came in flesh. It was a divine person, the Son of God, the Creator. That He came in flesh is a most glorious thing morally for God and for man. Nothing in eternity past can compare with it save His death on the cross; nothing in eternity future.

Evidently the grand point is not merely what He became, but Who He is that thus came. Surely He might have come otherwise. He might have come in His own glory, He might have come in angelic glory (as in this guise He had often appeared for a little). He was pleased to come in flesh to glorify the Father, to vindicate God as such, to bless those who believe, to judge those who dishonour Him, to restore creation, and to destroy the devil and his works. All turns on His eternal being and divine glory. This is the doctrine of John all through the Epistle as well as the Gospel, and prophetically in the Book of Revelation; and here it is comprised in the criterion of God's Spirit distinguished from the spirit of error.

No evil spirit will ever confess Him. They have the most awful dread of the Lord Jesus; and this natural dread is because they never doubt that He is a divine person, and that He is the appointed One not only to judge the world but in particular to punish them as the constant, active, and subtle instruments of antagonism to God and of endless mischief to man. Hence, whenever they were in the presence of the Lord, they showed the utmost terror. As the Epistle of James puts it, "The demons also believe and shudder." Alas! this is what man does not; he neither believes nor shudders; but the day is coming when he must.

Therein we have the first test. It is the glorious person of Him that came in flesh. The truth of Jesus Christ runs from the first chapter to the last of this Epistle. It is here presented in few and plain words as the test of the Spirit of truth who is come down to glorify Christ.

Next we have the counterpart. "And every spirit that confesseth not Jesus"; such is the shorter and, as I believe, the true reading, in which the best critics agree. The acceptance of this text confirms the genuine sense of what precedes, and makes it perfectly plain that it is the confession, not of a mere fact, but of the person. For in the detection of the evil spirit there is nothing expressed as to Christ's coming in the flesh, though implied of course. It is simply "Jesus," while here the article appears, "the" Jesus of whom more had just been said. "Every spirit that confesseth not (the) Jesus is not of God." He is adequate to detect every evil spirit. It is not only that He came, was truly man, and will come again. The Mahomedans believe all this; yet they themselves are, what they call others, unbelievers. For they do not believe in the glory of His person. Their unbelief makes them hate Christians, and join with the Jews in a measure against Christians. They only look at Him as a prophet, a wonderful man, excellent beyond all the sons of men, and the appointed Judge of the world when he comes to reign for seven years! But they do not believe in His divine nature, or that He put aside His divine glory to manifest God's grace.

But if the critical text be certain, it makes no difference at bottom to the text on the negative side as compared with the positive, yet it confirms in the strongest way that the confession which the Spirit of God requires is not of tiny mere fact but of the person of our Lord, for in the negative case only the person is named, though the fuller expression is implied. It may be of interest to know that manuscripts are not wanting which departed from the right text in ver. 2 and made it to express simply a fact, and that the Latin Vulgate followed that error, with a few early fathers Greek and Latin. But no editor of the slightest weight follows their mistake.

This terminates the first test of the Spirit of God. It is the confession of the truth, Jesus Christ come in flesh. Every spirit which confesseth Him is of God: every spirit which confesseth Him not is not of God. "This is that [spirit, or, principle] of the antichrist whereof ye have heard that it cometh, and now it is in the world already." It was not men only who were active but evil spirits; and the apostle speaks in real love but peremptorily. If a divine person in love to man deigned to be born of woman, how could it be an open question? Not to confess Him is to fight against God.

Thus closely connected with the first test we have the second test of the truth communicated to the Christian. Undoubtedly He personally is the truth (John 14: 6), the Word become flesh who tabernacled among us. But God has given a fresh revelation of which He is the centre; and this is His word and the truth. It is this which is taken up here. It is the Father's word, and it makes known the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit. Do you ask where? It is what is commonly called the New Testament, the collected teaching of His holy apostles and prophets. Even then the false prophets claimed to have the fuller light of God. They did not admit that "the doctrine of the apostles" was God's word. It was all well as a beginning: they alone had the truth. They were like the Quakers, who are fond of testifying; but it is their own thoughts and talk. Others too are not wanting, down to such as lay more stress on a dream to show them Christ, or their duty is Christians, than on the written word of God. Now we have the rationalistic school, who deny that Scripture is the word, although some allow there may be words of God in it. But they all deny it as a whole to be God's word. Yet this unbelief unsettles everything in Scripture; for who then is to decide? Who is to say what is the word and what is not, if you are thrown on uncertain writings? This the sceptic likes, because he dreads the authority of Scripture, and the peril of which it warns all who do not bow to God. If it is the word of God, what an insult to God, and to the Holy Spirit especially whom the Lord declares it is unpardonable to blaspheme!

Those who are addressed no doubt felt the seriousness of what he had already said. He immediately adds another criterion of a kindred sort: the new word of God, His final communication, founded on Jesus the Lord and His work of redemption accomplished and accepted of God. "Ye are of God, dear children." It seems preferable to render this term τεκνία generally "dear children." For τέκνα all translate as "children" and "little children" (παιδία) is appropriated in 1 John 2: 13 and 18 to the third class of the "dear children" or tekniva, which is the general designation of all the three classes, and so runs through the Epistle. Hence "children" in 1 John 3: 1, 2 includes all the family. We are all called "children of God," and we are so now; and it is a mistake to say "sons" of God, though we are also His sons. But here it is expressly "children" of God, not sons adopted but born of God, and so His children. But τεκνία is a diminutive term closely connected with "children "; and the reason for its use is as an expression of affection; as when a parent, not content to say to his little one "my dear," calls it "my dearie." It is meant for fondness of expression. This illustrates its force here; and therefore it seems best to say "dear children," in order to distinguish from "children" (τέκνα) on the one hand, and the little children or babes (παιδία) on the other.

"Ye are of God, dear children," is the address to the whole family. It is also the emphatic "ye." The false prophets said they were the reliable guides. No, he means, they are enemies of Christ, emissaries of Satan. "Ye" are God's children, in contrast with these pretentious and false guides that despise the dear children. God in Christ is to you the source of every blessing, life eternal, forgiveness, relation to Himself as Father, and the gift of His indwelling Spirit. "Ye are of God, dear children, and have overcome them," that is, the false prophets. But it was not because you have anything to boast of your own wisdom or power or holiness; but "because greater is he that is in you." The Christian's source of power is the Spirit of God abiding in him. God Himself abides in him; and this He makes good by His indwelling Spirit. Therefore he can say "because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world;" or as in 1 John 5: 19, "The whole world lieth in the wicked one." Here it is clearly the devil working by these evil spirits.

Thus the emphasis on "Ye" is exceedingly cheering and establishing: to be told that they distinctively were "of God" in the sense of His being the source of all their blessing. Also, if God is the giver of the blessing, He does not change. The gifts of God are without change of mind on His part. When it is not a gift or a calling of God, He may repent. So He repented of creation (Gen. 6: 6), as we are told; and He destroyed it. That was not a gift; but simply an act however immense. But when in sovereign love He calls to Himself poor guilty men to make them His own, when He makes a gift of eternal life, for instance, or forgiveness of our sins, or the place of a child, such boons are the gifts and calling of God; and they are without repentance. Here His mind never changes. The children may be too often foolish and sadly wrong, but He does not change.

What the apostle says here has great force without doubt. It is not only that they had received all these blessings from God, but "Ye (emphatically) are of God." They were born of God, loved as such by Him, and so abode as their new being. And if they "have overcome them," the instruments of Satan's deceit, it was "because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world," albeit its prince and god. These false prophets go boldly on with their spiritual wickedness, but "ye have overcome them." Christians were not attracted to them but held aloof; they heard the voice of the good Shepherd and followed Him. They knew that only He could give life, liberty, and food (John 10: 9), and that He had come and was sent of the Father on this errand of God's love, and of His own love to them. Only the Son of God could utter such words; as only He laid down His life for them in atonement. They believed on Him who calls His own sheep by name, and they follow because they know His voice; they do not know the voice of strangers, but flee from them, and will not follow such. And now, as resting on Christ's redemption, God Himself was in them by His Spirit and abiding in them.

Next he describes these false prophets in the most trenchant terms, and lays another and awful emphasis on them. "They are of the world." The source of all their teaching as of all their conduct and aims was not God, but the world which is enmity against Him. It is therefore all under Satan's instigation, who is at the bottom of all the lies which pretend to be the truth. "For this reason they speak out of the world," as it literally runs: "(as) of the world" would be our idiom. The world which cast out God in Christ, and crucified Him was the spring of all they taught. The sense is not that they spoke "about" the world, and it was in order to distinguish from this that it has been paraphrased in the way just expressed. The world is the source, not the subject-matter, out of which they spoke. "And the world heareth them." The world loves its own; and therefore the world, having no knowledge of God, nor of sin which needs His intervention in the Lord Jesus in both life eternal and everlasting redemption, is content with the grandiloquent speculations of the blind, which leave out God and exalt man as he is. They never truly heard the voice of the Son of God. They are dead; and things of death are their realities.

Then he turns to another emphasis. "We are of God" is another and distinct thing from "Ye." "Ye" means the body of Christians, and real ones only. Besides what "we" share with "you," God is the source of the divine power which makes us the mouthpieces of His word, so that you hear Him in hearing us. "We" means apostles and prophets sent of Christ, and given for the blessing of His saints. They were inspired of God, and so taught the truth as it is in Jesus. The New Testament consists of these divine communications in a permanent form. As they taught, so the inspired wrote; and as they wrote; so they gave out orally. As the New Testament consists of a number of pieces which were gradually added together, and all was not completely gathered into a single volume as now, there might have been a difficulty for some. The Lord's authority was the end of controversy for the Old Testament to all men of faith. It might have been urged in early clays that the new words were so different from the Old Testament, so comparatively simple here and so profound there, that it was hard to say of all the little books then in circulation, the Gospels and the Epistles, that they were certainly inspired of God. It is then of this new word of God that the apostle treats, embodied in the so-called New Testament. This is the further criterion. What the apostles and prophets testified in the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son in due time contributed this new deposit of inspiration; and the apostle refers to their testimony as being the truth as well as Christ. Christ, is the truth personally. The New Testament, giving the oral testimony of these chosen witnesses, is the truth in the written form. Therefore of these he says, "We are of God." We have in the Holy Spirit set out to you the truth of Christ from first to last; we are of God in and for this work: "He that knoweth God heareth us."

It seems a portentous mistake to apply the like to every Christian that preaches, no matter how truly, or to every teacher of the truth, no matter how well instructed he himself may be. What evangelist or teacher could claim such a place? Far be it from such so to exalt any gift the Lord may give today; nor have I ever known any true servant claiming such language for himself. It belongs only to inspired men. Consider seriously what the apostle says, "He that knoweth God heareth us." Could any minister on earth expect this absolutely? It is not only that in the divided state of Christendom no man could look for such a hearing, but it never was true beyond the apostles and prophets. The apostle speaks only of those who shared a position like his own in those days when the foundation of Christianity was laid down. It was right and necessary that believers henceforth should know the divine authority which God insists on for the apostolic teaching. But it is restricted to the inspired of the New Testament as it had been to those of the Old Testament. There is now, as there was then, gracious guidance in the Spirit to every one that preached or taught the truth; but inspiration has the special character of exemption from error in what was given as the rule of faith.

Further, though they are gone, God took care that we should have their Spirit-taught words, not only their testimony but in the very words which the Holy Spirit gave them to utter, that what they were as of God then should never be lost, while a Christian remains to profit by them. This Epistle for instance we have as truly as those to whom it was written, and we have the same Spirit of God who abides for ever. But here it was for the inspired to lay the foundation. No such category of God's servants is on earth now. But we have the work done by inspired writers. It is the written standard of Christianity and the church. He simply speaks of what they gave out, and the saints heard. It was for the most part written then, though somewhat remained for himself to add. But he hesitated not to say that "he that knoweth God (that is, every Christian) heareth us." He rejected the false prophets as of Satan, and not of God. "He heareth us" as the men exclusively raised up of God to give the truth, now contained in the New Testament.

His words are as important as of the deepest interest. Men have dared to say there is nothing in the New Testament that claims the authority of God for itself. It is only their ignorance that has blinded their eyes to what God does say there. Nor is this the only witness to the same truth; for there are several more in the New Testament. The first of those scriptures we may look at is 1 Cor. 11. For demons had been at work even in those early days, and the apostle took pains in 1 Cor. 12 to guard them from any spirit which refused to call Jesus Lord. But 1 Cor. 11: 13 comes to us from God, "revealing" by the Spirit things hidden of old even from the prophets of early days. The time had come, for the Son of God had come, to reveal to us by the Spirit even "the depths of God." Next, he adds their inspiration, or communication to the believers: "Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit." It is not that the Spirit only conveyed the ideas, for by this notion even many undermine inspiration. They assume that the thoughts came from the Spirit of God; but that for the good men were left to do the best they could. No wonder, if so, that men fall into mistakes. But this notion of theirs is exactly what is false. He says here that the things revealed they also speak; and this in words Spirit-taught, instead of being left to human infirmity. In short the Spirit who revealed the truths was equally careful to safeguard the words, "expounding (or, communicating) spiritual things in spiritual [words]." The medium of conveyance, the words were Spirit-taught, not left to feeble man. Thus the passage expressly tells us that the words were inspired, and not the thoughts only.

Take another witness to the same effect from the last Epistle that the apostle Paul ever wrote, his Second Epistle to Timothy. He shows that, in the perilous times of the last days, the main safeguard lies not in uncertain traditions of unknown source, but in abiding in the truth which we have learnt with full conviction, knowing their source, and now in the written word. Consider the persons that speak and how they stand in their ways, their conversation, their life. He says therefore, "But thou hast fully known my doctrine" — in contrast with these bad men, whom he calls impostors, comparing them to the magicians in Egypt. "But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, long-suffering, charity" — or love — "patience, persecutions" — not popularity — "persecutions, afflictions which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured; but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Such is the great mark of the real Christian now as it has always been. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou," he says to Timothy, "in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." Their character, you see, being sustained with the truth is of all moment; for no matter what a man may say, however clever or smooth or with fine sentiments, it is all worthless unless he lives the truth now to the conscience of God's elect.

"From a child thou hast known the sacred letters," the Old Testament so described in ver. 15, "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ, Jesus" But next in ver. 16 he comes to "Every scripture" — not exactly "all," but "every scripture, is given by inspiration of God" (or, God-breathed). This is meant beyond doubt to cover the New Testament; and therefore purposely "every," because some part — at least John's writings — was not yet written. If he had said "all scripture," it would have meant "all that is already written but when he says "every scripture," the door is left open for any thing yet to be inspired. "Every scripture" is therefore the correct phrase, if any additions should be made to the Canon. Nor is it only that the men were inspired. What the apostle says here is that every thing coming under the character of Scripture is inspired. Here again it is not merely the ideas but what they wrote; Scripture necessarily means their words. The words were inspired just as much as the truth intended. Nor could anything be satisfactory unless it were so.

Let those who will compromise, so as to allow inspiration along with errors and inconsistencies, we who believe that God's inspiration excludes such failures are exhorted to cast away theory and accept the facts. But we deny that their objections are well-founded, though we do not overlook the difficulties (many of them from the copyists, and therefore apart from inspiration).

Assuredly too of all these theories, none is so inconsistent and irreverent as their view of a divine inspiration with error and discrepancy pervading what is so vital a part — the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. How call so motley a product as this carry with it the authority of God, or be entitled to the name of God's word? In fact the apparent discrepancies can be shown to flow from the distinct purpose of God by each of His instruments, each fitted specifically by grace for His work, and altogether effecting the more richly their combined testimony to the glory of the Lord Jesus beyond the thoughts of the writers themselves, but extant there for Christian use when required. But to admit that God inspired the various writers for His purpose of glorifying Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and then to argue that they were allowed to make not a few mistakes (some of them gross and puerile) is surely of all theories the most unsatisfactory and the least defeasible even logically, not to say that it is wholly unworthy of the Holy Spirit as well as of Him who is the truth. For this halfway theory, like all compromises in divine things, cannot approve itself to any but its inventors, and in all probability not to them. We all know that the Lord promised the power of the Spirit to teach the apostles all things, and to recall to their remembrance all the things He said to them. This halting hypothesis is that the Spirit only brought them to their memory in a way or measure which exposed them to these alleged defects. The believer, without pretending ability to clear up every difficulty, is assured that what He promised the Holy Spirit performed, and that every scripture is worthy, not of the writers merely but of God, its real Author.

Clearly then if "he that knoweth God heareth us," every Christian accepts the New Testament as of God; and again he who does not is no real Christian but a sceptic. For hearing the apostles and prophets of the New Testament is inseparable from knowing God now. This, the second test of the truth, goes farther than whether a man be a Christian. To profess Christ and reject plenary inspiration indicates the work of evil spirits. Infidelity as the rule begins with the Old Testament, but it will surely attack and reject the New Testament also. Singular to say, a gentleman who had filled a very important position with the world's honour, active in Sunday School work, and regarded as a devoted Christian, suddenly disclosed one day when we talked together, that, although he fully believed in the Old Testament, he did not believe in the New! The avowal could not but wound a believer beyond measure. To kill another with a revolver seems to me a far less sin against God. Is it not awful to think of such audacious infidelity in one accepted as a Christian teacher? "Herein know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

It is well here to observe how far goes the principle here stated peremptorily: "He that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God doth not hear us." It cheers the Christian, who finds his richest spiritual food not in the Old Testament though just as truly inspired, but in the New Testament where Christ is no longer veiled or distant, but manifested in all the fulness of His glory and His grace, in the majesty of God and the meek tenderness of the lowliest Man that ever trod the earth. We hear God speaking in the prophets His servants, but as Father in the Son, His Father and our Father, His God and our God. This judges man, religious no less than profane; this gives Him His place, and puts me in mine. As unbelieving it condemns pious superstition as thoroughly as profane infidelity, and every one of the many shades of unbelief in not hearing the voice of God in the words of the inspired, and here of Christ's apostles and prophets in particular. And we may notice by the way that the apostle Paul claims for himself not a whit less than the apostle John for them all. "If anyone thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him recognise the things which I write to you, that they are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant" (1 Cor. 14: 37, 38). What a reproof to vain Christians like those Corinthians — who enter on ground so slippery without knowing it!

"For the word of God is living and energetic, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and capable of judging thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is not a creature unmanifest in his sight; but all things are naked and laid bare to his eyes with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4: 12, 13). Do we need the church to tell us that the sword of the Spirit is God's word when it pierces us through as nothing else? And as our Lord said in His last discourse to the unbelieving Jews, "If any man hear my sayings and keep them not, I am not judging him; for I came not that I might judge the world but that I might save the world. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my sayings hath one that judgeth him: the word which I spoke, that shall judge him in the last day" (John 12: 47, 48). And here in 1 John 4: 6 the Holy Spirit inspired our apostle to assert the equivalent of the word that came through the apostles and prophets. Does one need the church to tell me that he spoke the truth of God to the blessing of the believer, to the ruin of the false prophets, and of all that despise what God authenticates? The inspired were servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries; but the word they spoke, or wrote, was no less God's than if He had uttered it audibly to each that heard.

The church, the individual Christian, is directly addressed by His word. This is evident from the Epistles of the New Testament on their face. They were with a slight exception written to the general mass of the faithful, save the very few and short letters to fellow-labourers for work of which the faithful are not capable, but only such as had adequate authority. They remain for the faithful now as really as then; and if they find difficulties as the early Christians did, they have the same living Interpreter as their brethren of old. But the essential principle for faith is to have God speaking to His children immediately in His word. To interpose church or clergy between His word and His children is rebellion against God. It is false ground (too common among Protestants) to plead man's right to hear His written word it is thoroughly true to assert His right to address, instruct, console or rebuke His own family; yea, more, to speak to the conscience of any and every man, as the Lord did and His apostles, and indeed His servants in general.

Nor is there a falser principle than that which has lately overspread the country through the Oxford revival of popery without the pope. They may base it on a saying of the famous Augustine bishop of Hippo; but it was unworthy of his piety. For it robs God of His due, to say that he would not believe the gospel, if the authority of the catholic church did not move him to it. Great a man as he was, here he did not realise what he said; for if one does not believe God's word because He says it through the inspired, one does not truly believe God but rather His vouchers: a real and manifest insult to God. Believing God Himself makes my faith to be of divine source and character. No other faith is acceptable to God. Even to believe on Christ because of the signs He wrought and they beheld was human faith, and unacceptable: "Jesus himself did not trust himself to them" (John 2: 24). To look for, or allow any one or body to accredit God's word is a grievous sin against God and a deep injury to man; yea, it would be fatal unless it were a blunder, and the man had really better than such humanly grounded faith.

If any resort to the subterfuge that the apostle speaks only of the oral word, let them know that they are wholly and ungratefully in error when they thus slight the written word. The Lord Himself has ruled that, as bearing authority, Scripture is superior to anything merely spoken, even if He was the speaker who spoke as none else ever spoke. Therefore said He to the reasoning Jews, "Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, Moses on whom ye have your hope. For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my sayings?" Both were the unimpeachable word of God, one spoken and the other written in the Holy Spirit; but as God's authority to man, the Lord undeniably gives the highest place to the written word, the permanent witness of the divine mind, which allows of meditation and consideration before God as no oral words could. With this we may compare the apostle's statement in Rom. 16: 26, which is wrongly translated by the Revisers like others "the scriptures of the prophets," in flat contradiction of now manifested "just before, and of "made known unto all the nations," as well as of its own anarthrous form, "prophetic scriptures" (in contrast with Rom. 1: 2). The phrase really applies to New Testament scriptures which had begun to appear in the widest known Gentile tongue, and were going forth as the gospel did to all the nations.

These words close the subject; and they are an admirable close. Whether it was the confession of Christ as He really is, the truth of His person, or whether the authority of the word that revealed Him, here we have in the simplest form the truth in Himself, and the truth that flowed from Him. This is the Spirit of truth. But there is the spirit of error also. The devil is its active source in its deadliest form. It is natural that those who believe not in the gracious presence of God's Spirit should be no less incredulous of the immense part Satan takes in all the mischief of the world on a great scale generally; in the miseries of men individually as well is of nations, and of the savage races. But the worst part of the devil's evil is what he does in Christendom; what he insinuates against Christ and the revealed truth of God. There it is called not exactly the spirit of malice, but "the spirit of error"; and this is the most dangerous. It is not gross corruption, nor sanguinary violence, but outwardly plausible and subtle inwardly, with a little truth in front of a great lie, openness to will but no room for conscience, Jesus not confessed but perverted, and the Father unknown. Such is the working of the spirit of error. Thence will be the apostasy and the man of sin.

How great the grace of God, in face of the declension of the Christian profession and the revealed utter ruin and judgment without one promise of recovery, to provide for the safety and joy of the faithful, however tried: Jesus truly confessed and believed on; the word of God; and both by the Spirit of truth. This is the substance of the solemn parenthesis now before us.

There is a cry often raised among those who rest for security and guidance on outward ordinances and on official position, not on the words "hear the church." But it is striking to observe that they never think of applying these words of our Lord in Matt. 18: 17 as He directs. It is His prescribed discipline where one brother sins against another, and it would seem on an individual matter between the two, at first unknown to others, which at length comes out through the offender's refractoriness, so that the assembly or church becomes the last resort. Is this ever the way with those who cite it for what the Lord contemplates neither here nor anywhere else? As everyone knows, "hear the church," in the right case as well as the wrong, means in their lips to hear the priest, or the priests collectively, or, among the extreme, the arch-priest, the Pope. But this is either sheer error or fraud, if they know they are without doubt misapplying His words.

Scripture however goes much farther, and shows that before the last apostle passed away declension had set in so decidedly that the Lord told John in the Spirit to write to the seven churches selected for the last letters to such on earth. They begin with that in Ephesus, so bright in earlier days, — but here threatened with the removal of its lampstand, and end with spuing that in Laodicea out of His mouth as intolerably nauseous. The Lord is not seen ministering in grace but judging in the midst, and therefore as Son of Man with garment flowing to the feet, not tucked up or taken off to do service. Now to every one of these churches chosen to set forth as a mystery the church on earth before it is seen no more here below, the Lord's final word is (with a promise before or after), "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." Since the apostle's day the Lord has a grave controversy with the churches. Even then they were veering to ruin as assemblies, and He menaces at last with repudiation. The prophecy in the very next chapter shows the outer frame no longer an object of His communications; and the overcomers are seen glorified in heaven around a throne of divine judgment on Jews and Gentiles, with spared remnants from "both: no church more is apparent on earth, but strokes of displeasure on the nations. These are the things which are about to, and must, take place after "the things which are" (the church period).

Now such a message from the Lord "to him that hath an ear," is of unspeakably solemn power. It negatives the perverted cry "hear the church." It calls on every faithful soul to "hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." The church never was a standard of truth, but God's word only. Assuredly the church (not Israel, nor Mohamedanism, nor the heathen) is the responsible witness of the truth by fidelity to it in word and deed. No where, and no when, but in the church was testified "the mystery of godliness," great as it is; the church is not the truth but its pillar and pedestal. Christ is the truth objectively, and the Spirit the power to work inwardly and bring it home. But when decay and heterodoxy set in, the outward professing church ceased to be even a reliable witness. And the Lord commands him that has the obedient ear to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

The authority of the truth lies in Him whose words are divine; not so the pillar and pedestal which once hold them up to be seen and heard (1 Tim. 3). The pillar may be injured or defaced, but the truth remains for ever in Christ, the Spirit and the word. Yet 2 Tim. 3 speaks of men having a form of godliness but denying the power, and enjoins turning away from them. Ere long rival churches began, and not this only but also anathematising each other. This compelled all but the heedless to see the necessity of knowing the truth, in order to judge which of the two was the true church, or it might be neither. Thus the sevenfold call of the Lord to hear what the Spirit says to the churches, always true but now applied judicially and individually, became of increasing value. Assuredly it did not lose its need of application after the Reformation, when not only kings and nations claimed title to set up their own churches as distinctive religious corporations, but leading men asserted a similar right for their societies. Thus the very notion of the church got lost for most in the chaos of Christendom.

Nor can one be surprised that, having long ceased to believe in the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the assembly, they lost along with that the authority of the word, not only in practice but in principle, so far as to deny its self-evidencing light to the conscience of man, and to assert the need of the feeble falling church to make its authority valid But their crookedness in this is as clear as their presumption; for they avail themselves of every semblance of misunderstood Scripture to accredit their own systems. But the principle of using the church to authenticate God's word is infidel, and convicts those who deliberately affirm it of departure from God's authority. On the very day of Pentecost the apostle Peter vindicated the gift of the Spirit by the word of God. It never occurred to him nor any other apostle to appeal to the church. God's word needs no vindication. To pretend that it does verges on blasphemy. The apostle Paul puts honour on the Old Testament in praising Berean Jews, not only for receiving the word with all readiness of mind, but also for searching the Scriptures if these things were so. They knew the old oracles to be of God, and did well to test the oral preaching of one whom they did not know, whose testimony they found by constant research corroborated by those Scriptures. The old written word was the standard which led them all the more to receive the new word with in readiness of mind.

ADDRESS 13

1 JOHN 4: 7-10.

Beloved, let us love one another; because love is of God; and every one that loveth hath been begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knew not God, because God is love. Herein was manifested the love of God in us (or, in our case), that God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us, and sent his Son [as] propitiation for our sins."

After the episode, as we may call it, of the first six verses, we return to the new theme that was introduced by the apostle it the end of the third chapter. He had shown the love of our brethren as a divine affection, not merely to be desired but of such solemn import that it really decides whether we are Christians or not. This accordingly makes it of very particular interest for us to beware of self-deceit. "Beloved, let us love one another; because love is of God; and every one that loveth hath been begotten of God, and knoweth God."

If this divinely drawn inference is a sure and strong thing to say, there is no excuse for failure in love. But we must remember that love is not merely kind to a fellow-saint; it is also faithful to God. And sometimes the faithfulness of love is resented instead of being acceptable. In such a case the brother who is ruffled by being reproved for his failure whatever it be, and who regards the other's faithfulness as inconsistent with love, has need to beware. For if that resentment overcome him — and it sometimes does — the issue may prove that there never was the divine gift of life in his soul. We find too often that departure from love even in a small way, if yielded to, is an extremely grave sign. It may be a symptom of what may be called the moral leprosy of the man. For, as we are here taught, there is nothing really of God, nothing truly sound, in the man that does not love.

In principle too can anything be plainer? Hatred certainly is not of God; love is, being the reflex of the active energy in God's nature. Light is, if we may so say, the moral principle of His nature; that which is perfectly pure, which detects and rejects all evil; because in God absolutely it goes with holiness, and really in the Christian too, wherever there is life eternal. But love is the active outgoing of the divine nature, the seeking good without any motive whatever in those that are loved, but in its own spring of goodness. God's love not only gives all, but also forgives all. This is only possible toward us through the Mediator. For God is consistent in His ways; and, where sin is, there must be a ground of righteousness. Where is this to be found? Certainly hot in sinful man. But God in Himself knew where unfailing righteousness would be found, even in days when unrighteousness prevailed.

Jehovah before the flood and after the law was looking onward to His Christ, and in an evil day spoke by His prophet of His salvation to come, and of His righteousness to be revealed (Isa. 56: 1). Nowhere on earth could it be seen; but faith ever waited for it. There was no ground anywhere in man, not even in a true saint of God, not in Enoch nor in Elijah, to say nothing of others. They too looked forward to it in hope. But it was not yet an accomplished fact. The reliance of every saint was entirely on the One that was coming; for, as you know, He was proclaimed to man directly after he became a sinner. This was what Jehovah Elohim presented to the guilty pair, and in a, most impressive way; for it was not in direct address to the fallen but in the judgment of the serpent. Who but God would ever have thought, in a sentence pronounced upon the enemy, of also embodying the revelation of a Saviour? Thus did He in all holiness intimate the revelation of a Saviour to crush the power of evil for the deliverance of its victims, but also in love to endure anguish in the accomplishment of that deliverance. For who but an unbeliever fails to see that this is clearly the meaning of the heel being bruised? But the woman's Seed, though thus suffering, should crush the serpent's head; thence is fatal destruction from which the evil one shall never recover.

The "love" here meant has no source in the creature; it "is of God"; and if God were not the spring and power, not a soul could be saved, nor a saint walk in His love. For love knows how to bring out all the resources of grace where man lies in utter ruin. See it in Christ who died for our sins, and lives to be Advocate with the Father. What love in both ways! It is not merely said that the believer's sins are forgiven: were this all, it might have meant that if a saint fell, he had to begin over again. Nor are Christians wanting who think that if a believer sins, he loses all and has to recommence; but those who so think evidently do not believe in life eternal as the present possession of the believer in Christ. It is humbling to say that others, have denied life eternal, though in a rather different way; but, however it may be denied, it is to sin against a foundation truth of Christianity.

Next we are told that "everyone that loveth hath been begotten of God." To be of Him thus involves love in the children also. They have His nature. He that does not love never was born of God. But one may perhaps be badly instructed, and may feebly have learnt to judge the risings of the flesh, and consequently be not aware that a feeling of hatred is entirely incompatible with the Christian. The reason is its incompatibility with God and the life he has in His Son. "Love is of God, and every one" — nothing can be plainer — "that loveth hath been begotten of God, and knoweth God." Is not this a wonderful thing to say about a man on earth? We know but very little of one another; and one evidence of our ignorance even of near friends and relatives is that we are surprised from time to time by little things which cause immense difficulty and surprise with no end of pain and sorrow here below. Well, if we knew one another, and possessed a loving nature, these things could not be. How astonishing, then, that we, who are so ignorant even of our next-door neighbour, should be capable of knowing God! We may know far too little of our brethren; the reason of which is the feebleness of our love. Were our love strong by faith and the new life in unhindered exercise, we should be intimate with them all and enter into their sufferings with Christ and for His sake in ways as pleasing to God and comforting to them as blessed to our own souls. For confidence is the child of love; and known love begets confidence, as we saw with God as well as His children. And who does not know the comparatively little confidence even among those that are children of God? Lack of love is indeed a matter of deep reproach, and most inconsistent on the part of God's family. But here we have His mind in few and plain words.

There are immense difficulties in this world aggravated by the ruin-state of Christendom. There is a most subtle and restless enemy at work. We saw this when looking into the previous verses, "Believe not every spirit," etc. The Holy Spirit was sent down by the Father and the Son. As before to harass the Lord Jesus when on earth, so Satan in no long time sent out evil spirits to imitate the Spirit of God. It was not merely in demoniacs, but by false teaching, subversive of Christ Himself. Christ gave apostles, prophets, teachers, in the power of the Holy Spirit for edifying the members of His body; Satan counterworks all. "Believe not every spirit." And then followed the tests we have considered. But here it is our walking in love. It is not assaults on the truth, but the practical life of a believer which God would have instinct with love more than any other thing in those whom He has begotten with the word of truth. Righteousness is assumed, and obedience; but there must be love; and as love is the energetic power in God's nature, so is it also the indispensable power that works in the Christians' life one with another, coming out more saliently perhaps than anything else. Is it so with you, my brother? Do I fail in love?

He enters on this subject as he did before, saying "Beloved." it was a call particularly for their affections, though then a warning; he was very much in earnest about the danger. Here were these evil spirits; and there is apt to be much unbelief as to either the Holy Spirit on one hand or Satan and his emissaries on the other. There are more than ever evil spirits at work in Christendom; for therein particularly they work. It is not merely in heathen countries, with their dark and cruel superstitions; in Christendom the spirit of error takes a fair form and pretends to highest truth. "Have we not truth of which none ever before heard, and withal of the utmost value? It was all very well to have had God's righteousness, the heavenly calling, the mystery of the church, and so on; but now we have got something far better. Then it was but tuning the instruments; now the concert is begun in earnest, and we are the men!" No doubt it is utterly false, but such is the spirit and the blinded feeling of those animated by evil spirits. What evident vainglory in contrast with the meek Lord of all! It is for the destruction of the truth and not the edification of the souls that trust them, even worse than what Scripture calls "serving their belly." They are of the world, and out of it they speak. They have their own motives from self.

But the precious fact as to the love that is of God is this the entire motive is His own goodness; as man has the reverse of that in his nature. The believer receives grace as a lost sinner in all its sovereignty as its object, and having life eternal in Christ his it flowing out habitually. It is therefore of the Spirit acting on the new nature, as being begotten of God. He is entitled to boast in God as well as in God's love without any motive but the good that He is, which He delights to communicate to others. Such are Christians who by the faith of Christ are filled, firstly with being loved of His love, and secondly, carried out in the exercise of that love to their brethren (for this is the direction here) by the Spirit of God. But the principle is quite clear: to love is inseparable from being born of God; and so he that loves proves by this very fact that he is a child of God. It has nothing at all to do with natural affections, which everybody ought to know may be strong in the most wicked men and women. Deadly enemies of God, given up to base lusts and passions, yet they may have much natural sweetness and warm benevolence too. None of these things is His love, nor in the least spoken of here, nor anything but that which shone in the Lord Jesus. "Love," says the apostle, "is of God." Whatever is of ourselves is not of God. But this love is not of ourselves, even in a believer. He derives it entirely from above; he is born of the Spirit; and what is so born is spirit and not flesh. He is born of God; and God is love.

The connection here is with what was introduced at the end of the third chapter, where, for the first time in this Epistle, we hear of the Spirit of God. The form there taken is of God's abiding in the believer; and the proof is the Spirit which He gave us. The Spirit given to the believer abides in him, and is the proof that God abides in him. This is a great advance on having the new life. Great as is the boon of a divine nature that we partake, it is much more to have God abiding in us. Yet this is effected and provided by that gift of the Spirit which is the distinctive mark of a Christian.

The aim then is to enforce the mutual love of Christians by the source whence it flows, and by the nature which, if it acts, must accord. But hindrances there are which run strongly against love, within and without; so that the saints need God to abide in them in order that love should work freely and fully. We therefore require not only to be begotten of God, but also divine power, nay, God's abiding in us, in order that we should love one another according to God. If we were only born of God, there would still remain a mighty hindrance, which the new birth does not so much as touch. And what is that? The ignorance of redemption. There must be faith in the work of Christ for us, in the blood of Christ that cleanseth from every sin. There is a divine work in the soul before one rests on the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Take any scriptural case given to us.

Let me present one from the Gospel of Luke: the female in Luke 7, of whom the Holy Spirit says so much in the few words, "a woman in the city that was a sinner." Yet she came, much to the astonishment of Simon the Pharisee, into his house when he had the Lord and the disciples dining with him. Even under such deterrent circumstances this woman Came, who would have dreaded at any other time to enter that man's house. What emboldened her? Looking to the Lord in faith, nothing could keep her back from intruding (as it must have appeared, and as everyone would naturally say) into such a house under such circumstances. But the power of faith breaks through no small obstacles. Yet at that time she did not know her sins forgiven; nor were they forgiven. But she was on the way. She loved the Lord. It would be too much to say that she loved the disciples; still less that she felt for Simon any more than for other such souls. Another mighty work of God produces this too. But the Lord drew her to Himself by a new force of divine attraction. This is the effect of faith working by love. His grace created an affection she never before knew. She was perfectly sure the Lord was filled with holy love. Why was He thus going about all the country? What was the motive power of all His life, words and ways? Was it not divine love?

Life already wrought in the hitherto sinful woman, full of defilement, who had heretofore a character of infamy. But she believed in the Lord already; and she loved much, as He testified to Simon and them all. She found in Him a new life, and a new character formed by this blessed One. She might never see Him again nor have a like opportunity, however inopportune to other eyes. It was now or never for her soul; and so it is when simple faith actuates the heart. There is no loss of time, no allowance of any excuse for putting off; but in she goes, and "stood behind at His feet weeping." Her unconscious bearing was morally beautiful; certainly she had not learnt it from her former life: it was entirely the effect of faith in Christ on her soul. There she began to wash His feet with her tears, and was wiping them with the hairs of her head. The Lord knew it all, and needed no turning round to look at the one behind. He knew it all perfectly, nobody so well as He. But it only drew out the contempt of Simon; for the ill-feeling of the unbeliever is against the Lord yet more than against His followers; he does not always say so, and perhaps he does not always recognise that so it is. It is possible that even Simon would not have allowed that; but it is evident that such was the moral of it all for him — the devil's moral. "This [one] if he were a prophet, would have known who and what the woman is that toucheth him, for she is a sinner." So he said in himself; but the Lord heard and answered. Had He not come to save the lost? and if Simon had broken down as she, to save Simon too? But to take the place of a sinner truly and before God is a harder thing for a proud self-righteous Pharisee than for a woman who had no character to lose.

But grace and truth can break down a Saul of Tarsus on the one side, no less than give a thorough sense of sin to a dissolute on the other. What was it that here produced brokenness as well as love? It was Jesus to faith, divine love in Jesus. But she needed more; and grace gave her more on the spot. For it is an immense accession for the heart to know that the sins are forgiven. And the Lord would not leave this to be implied only; He pronounced the word of God which the soul craves, Thy sins are forgiven. He was entitled to do so. The work was not yet done on which it is grounded; but the Judge of living and dead can never say what is not perfectly right, any more than the Judge of all the earth can do anything but right. Thus the Lord therefore pleaded her cause, and refuted the Pharisee's unbelief; for He showed Himself the Lord of the prophets, and forgave sins as only God is entitled to do. Out of the fulness of His grace He brought the woman into the knowledge that her faith had saved her, and sent her away in peace.

Now, till we know that our faith has saved us, and that our sins are forgiven, this question must always occupy the mind. It is necessarily the great question for the soul when awakened. How can a quickened soul find rest till he knows that his sins are effaced, and that he is saved? All the while that there is hesitation and uncertainty herein, there must be pre-occupation of heart; and necessarily if we have no assurance that our sins are forgiven, we are not in a condition to let out the heart in love toward those who are thus at rest. Till then we cannot properly take the place of children of God. As the woman received it from the lips of the Lord, we have by faith to get it from or by the written word of God. If we have not forgiveness certified by the word of God, if we have not our new relationship carried home by Scripture to our souls, we must act on our own feeling, our own thoughts, or perhaps those of a man who knows no better himself. But even if it were the best preacher conceivable, who preached nothing but the truth, one is bound to receive the witness of God which He has witnessed concerning His Son. And "he that believes on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." Nobody but God can avail, and there is no rule of faith but His word. The truth we must have therefore from God, and how am I to get it from God? By the word now written.

Therefore you cannot lay axe more wickedly to the tree of truth than by denying the divine authority of Scripture. One of the prevalent signs of unbelief now is that Scripture contains the word, as the more modest freethinkers say. But what the Lord and the apostles taught is the word. Again, as "every scripture is inspired of God," so they authenticate what was written for the church of God. In these "prophetic Scriptures" they may incorporate what the devil says, and what bad people say. Of course these things are not given for us to follow but to learn, as far as God pleases, of enemies. Only unbelief makes a difficulty; but the believer accepts from God what He tells of evil as well as of good. What is thus written is really the word of God to profit by His wisdom, that me may the better avoid and be on our guard against every snare that comes from Satan or from mere nature. But Scripture is the written word of God.

Ever since the blood of Christ was shed or, to speak more generally, since He died and rose, the way in which souls enter into peace is through faith in the glad tidings. The Spirit proclaims the saving grace of God in the gospel message. Faith finds in Christ not only life but peace. This is the true preparation not only for obedience but for loving those who believe, children of God like ourselves. There is no doubt that the new nature loves. Life eternal given to us has the capacity of love; but flesh not duly judged is a hindrance in the way. Grace calls us to feel the inconsistency before we can go forward. There may be a steam engine and its various parts ready for use, but the steam must be there in order for it to work. This illustrates what is communicated in the verses before us.

There is again the dark side. "He that loveth not knoweth not God." It does not matter what may be a man's gift, or what may be his activity, or what reputation and influence he may possess, if he does not love he does not know God. The word is unsparing of self-deceit. He that has been begotten of God loves his brother, and knows God. His new divine affections have a definite sphere; and he has that knowledge of God which is distinctly said by our Lord to constitute life eternal. What He presented to the Father in John 17: 3 is virtually reproduced here in a brief dogmatic statement with its negative. "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." Where no love is, there is no knowledge of God. The reason is as plain as it is decisive; "for God is love."

The verses that follow set forth God's love in its sovereign grace and fulness, the stream that fills the void heart for loving. The Spirit speaks of His love in its bright display in Christ the Son, sent in infinite grace into this world of sin, self, and darkness. It would be hard to match its simple grandeur even in Scripture. "In this was manifested the love of God," not exactly "toward us," or "toward all" as the apostle Paul says in Romans 3: 22. The love of God is manifested toward everybody in principle. Here it is more definite, and rather looks "upon all that believe," as is said in the same verse. It "was manifested in us." It speaks thus of its taking effect. It was manifested in our case. The "in" therefore seems quite the proper word. "In this was manifested the love of God in us" or "in our case." Here, as being the more extended mission of our Lord for life eternal, it is not merely God "sent" but "hath sent." It expresses the permanent result of the past act. In the following ver. 10 it is simply "God sent"; for though it expresses simply the fact, it was far the deepest, greatest, most momentous end which ever engaged the Father and the Son in time or eternity. The difference is but slight, for it is only another tense of the same verb; but as all differences of Scripture are by divine wisdom, it is well for us to enquire into their respective meanings. "Sent" expresses simply the fact. It may be, and this is, of the utmost possible consequence, and the single act enhances it in this case. But "hath sent" expresses the present result of a past action, which suits His mission that we might live through Him.

"In this was manifested the love of God in us (or, in our case), that God hath sent his only-begotten Son." What care to state the glory of His person in this case "His only-begotten Son," it was not necessary to repeat in the next verse, though of course "the Son" is the same. But here it was wise to signalise a work of such weight and lasting consequence in language of the simplest character that its immensity, unadorned and unfathomable, might fill the heart to overflowing with the love of God. "God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." This is the first action of divine grace, essential as the first need if we were truly dead spiritually. So it remains for each soul now. The first requisite and primary proof of God's amazing love is that those who were the objects of His love, and positively dead Godward, should be given to live. They had no sense of their own state; they had no acquaintance with God; and in their moral ruin they were wholly indifferent to either. Intellectual notions of man's mind might be there, but not a pulse of life toward God. They had conscience to make Him an object of more dread than the most furious demon.

Yet in the face of such depravity "God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world." What a truth! How wonderful the bare fact! especially as it was in nothing but love. It was not something done in heaven. The Only-begotten Son He had sent to give a life in this world to fit for God there whence He came. But no work done even by the Son on high could suit either God or man. The way of love was that the Son should become man to glorify God, and give life in its highest nature to dead man by faith. Jews there were, and nations; but they were alike dead in their offences and sins, by nature children of wrath. As men they were dead while they lived. They had no hatred of sin, no love of grace; not one trait inwardly or outwardly was right in them. The mind of flesh in circumcision and uncircumcision was really and only enmity against God. Nevertheless God has sent His Only-begotten Son, the delight of the Father through all eternity, into the world, that we should live through Him; and the life given was His life.

The Old Testament tells how the race, whether Jews or Gentiles, had behaved toward God for thousands of years; the New Testament tells a still worse tale. Yet He who knew all beforehand has sent His Only-begotten into the world; and for what? Was it for judgment? It was for the very opposite; it was to quicken dead souls with the life eternal that was in His Son. For no less is meant in the words "That we might live through Him." There was a new life that man has not as man, no, not Adam innocent in the paradise of Eden, who disobeyed when all was good in him and around him, bringing in death and judgment. Life was proposed to natural man, to Israel in the law: if he obeyed it, he should not die. But the only result of this was that it became a ministration of death and condemnation; because the introduction of the law provoked the will of man, and he became a transgressor, and thus a worse sinner after he had it than before. Sin that it might appear sin was thus working out death by what is good, in order that sin might become exceeding sinful. There was not even the prolonging of his old life. The upshot to the sinner under law was total ruin.

But there was another life, life eternal, and this life was in the Son; in the Only-begotten Son whom God's love had sent into the world. No doubt the Father raises the dead, and quickens: it is the prerogative of God. Therefore the Son also quickens whom He will. But in becoming man, though He never ceased to be God, He in perfect humiliation receives all from God, as becomes perfect man. Hence even as the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself (John 5: 26). The Son was the One sent to become man and conversant with man. He was the object of faith always; and when become man He is still more evidently and urgently its object as Jesus Christ yet the Son, and in one person. So too it was increasingly evident for whom He had been sent in God's love. It was for man, not for angels. "The life was the light of men." But no illumination suffices for man's need; and so, though coming into the world He lightens, or is light to, every man: there was far more requisite, and He was the life to him that believed. To as many as received Him He gave title to become children of God. They were born now and thus of no creature source, but of God. But there is no believing and no new birth without the word as well as the Spirit. There must be God's word, because the very essence of faith is that, instead of trusting my thoughts or those of others, I believe God in His word (Rom. 10: 17, James 1: 18, 1 Peter 1: 23-25). Christ is the incorruptible seed by God's living and abiding word.

When Adam and Eve sinned in paradise, it was because they were oblivious of, and not subject to, God's word. Eve was deceived by the serpent's temptation, Adam not so but more boldly transgressed. The word of God did not govern their souls. The subtle foe insinuated distrust of Him who forbade them to eat of a tree which held out to make them know good and evil like God. Then the lust for it followed, when the woman was not afraid to parley a moment longer with a creature whose aim became evident to entice her to disobey the positive prohibition of God, and doubt that death would follow. "Oh, dear, no; God not be so hard as that. Look at the beautiful fruit! so desirable also to make you wise. God wishes the knowledge of good and evil to belong to Himself alone. You will find it a new status altogether when thus enabled yourselves independently to judge between good and evil. You know nothing about this now. But when You eat the fruit of that tree, from your own conscience you will know whether a thing is good or evil. Why not rise to independence of Him who slights man, and assert your own rights as monarchs of all you survey? "

It was self-will, the sad root of evil. In love the Son of God came in order to stand in the breach. The first necessity is not atonement through the shedding of the Saviour's blood. Nobody ever believes the gospel without having a nature from God that craves and cries to God for what the gospel supplies. In every case one is born of God before he really rests upon the propitiation of Christ. For, having thus a new life, he soon enters into its necessity, and also its preciousness; he in faith eats Christ's flesh and drinks His blood. And therefore it is said that he believes in his heart (Rom. 10: 9) that God raised Him from out of the dead. This does not mean a certain fervour of feeling. It has nothing to do with throwing the soul on his emotions; it means that, instead of resisting the truth, his heart goes along with the glad tidings God sends him. With heart it is believed to righteousness, founded on God's estimate of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus; as with mouth confession is made to salvation: thus is God honoured, and His Son, the rejected Lord.

But the first desideratum is the want of life, life eternal in the Son. Till he gets life, what adequate sense of his sin? till then, how can he know God's holy nature in any real way? He has no more than a dread of God. A heathen might have this; and the evil spirits believe and tremble. So we are informed on divine authority, and revealed facts are explained by it. The reason is that they know too well there is no forgiveness for their rebellion. Although they believe Who Jesus is, it does them no good: they are sentenced to destruction. They sinned irreparably. There is no possibility of salvation for an evil spirit, for a fallen angel.

But it is a totally different thing with man. Christ's birth witnessed complacency in men; how much more His atoning death! But in order that the shedding of His blood should purify the heart and conscience, there is a new nature given by receiving the Lord Jesus. It is not yet resting on His work, but believing in His grace as come in flesh, and the glory of Him that came on this marvellous mission of love, God's love. As surely as the heart receives Him thus from God, at that very moment the life is imparted to the soul. Life is always an instantaneous thing, whereas it is not so by any means for peace with God. As a matter of fact there may be not a little of going through experiences, whereby souls keep themselves without peace for months and even years. Yet all the while they partake of a divine nature through bowing to the Son of God, though without solid peace. They have life from the moment that the heart receives Him. And thus they acquire a divine perception of evil within, as well as of their past ways; not only of what one had done, but of what one is. Such is the effect of having divine life. It is therefore introduced here perfectly in the true and proper place. It comes in before the propitiation is applied to deliver from the burden of guilt.

"In this was manifested the love of God in us" (or, in our case), "that God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." The reason we have seen to be that till then we were spiritually dead before God, absolutely without any living tie with God whatsoever, only the awful responsibility of being naturally God's offspring, but nevertheless enemies of God by wicked works. Having been by God's constitution of man His offspring (in contrast with the lower animals) does not help us, when ruined by sin, to have our soul saved. Man fell when under responsibility, and the Jew's undertaking to obey God's law only aggravated his responsibility, and could in no way deliver him from the wrath to come. Then the world consisted either of man without the law pursuing his own will, or of the Jew under law trying to recommend himself to God. But the grace that saves is not in the sinner but in the Saviour. "God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." This is the gospel. It is not our love to Him, but His love to us while still sinners, His own spontaneous and gratuitous love to us.

Here too is afforded this second display of His love. The apostle shows us how God's love acted in view of our load of guilt, and not only our state of spiritual death. God's love wrought in what to Him was beyond all things severe to His heart and to His Son's. Man cannot conceive what it was for Jesus to bear the judgment of our sins at God's hand. It was also wholly beyond the thought of saints; even the apostles saw but the outside of the cross till the Lord opened their understanding to understand the Scriptures.

Yet Scripture had prefigured the Lord in atoning grace and infinite suffering in the Law, and the Psalms, and the Prophets. No disciple then but had witnessed the solemn ritual of the Day of Atonement; none who had not heard the unique Psalm 22; nor one who had not been perplexed by Isaiah 53, yet from no obscurity of language, but from truth so strange. Jesus making propitiation for our sins is the solution of the riddle in all three Scriptures. No words of His before the cross gave the key; no sight even of Him crucified brought the truth into their hearts. The blood of His cross made peace in God's mind; to theirs as yet it was bitter anguish and cruel disappointment; for His words had fallen on ears yet deaf to the meaning of His death, and they had not known the scripture that He must thus suffer that they or any might have redemption. On the resurrection day the downcast pair on the way to Emmaus told out the state of all, when they said to Himself, "We did hope that He it was that should redeem Israel" — the very thing for which He hid laid the efficacious and everlasting basis (ver. 21) But what said our blessed Saviour in reply (vers. 25, 26)? O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets spoke! Ought not the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?" Yet He had told them not long before (Luke 17: 25), "First must He suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation."

Let us look into one of these in the light of the risen Lord and as the Holy Spirit bore witness. What meant that cry, not from the robbers on either side but from the rejected Messiah in their midst? "My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake Me?" This was the bitterest of that suffering without parallel, the righteous Servant, the beloved Son, forsaken of His God, when abhorred of His people, scorned by the Gentiles, deserted of His disciples. Why, after enjoying uninterruptedly the light of His Father's face throughout every step of His path of trial and sorrow, why was it hid from Him now when He needed most its cheer and consolation? Well He knew; yet He left it for faith to answer it from those that were once dead, but now enabled to confess that they had nothing but sins, through His grace who bore them in His body on the tree. Oh how deep was our guilt! yet deeper far His love who sent His Son, not only as life to the dead, but as propitiation for our sins, whatever the cost; and it was immeasurable. Reproach, despite, laughter, scorn, jeers were there to wound Him from all high or low, religious, civil, military, even the crucified criminals; many bulls, Bashan's strong ones, surrounded Him: dogs, and evil-doers in a crowd; physical suffering all the more felt by His person, instead of less, because of His perfection, when poured out like water, all His bones out of joint, His heart like wax, His strength dried up as a potsherd, His tongue cleaving to His palate. But what was all this together compared to being abandoned by His God, as He Himself felt and owned?

Many a saint of His had suffered to the utmost of bodily anguish from heathens, ay, and from Jews, yet filled with patience and joy. Many more of His disciples have suffered still more hellish tortures under the misnamed Catholic Church, and especially by its child, the abominable Inquisition; but they too triumphed in His name over these worst of earth's persecutors. Yet He confessed Himself forsaken of His God, confessed it to God in the agonies of the cross as the deepest woe, so that His enemies might hear, though they understood not more than His friends till the risen Lord set all clear, and the Holy Spirit made the truth realised in power of peace as well as of testimony to all.

But the meek Lord did more. Even when realising the horror to His holy and loving soul of being forsaken, He fully vindicated Him that smote and bruised in a way beyond all creature thought, "And Thou [art] holy, that dwellest amid the praises of Israel." And more still, He owned that God's abandonment of Him was the one exception: "our fathers trusted in Thee; they trusted in Thee, and Thou didst deliver them. They cried unto Thee, and were not confounded. But I [am] a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and the despised of the people." Yes, so it must be, if He was propitiation for our sins. For we the guilty could not be saved righteously, unless God made the Sinless One sin for us that we might become God's righteousness in Him. This, and this only, is the true answer to His "Why?" this the sole and complete solution of the enigma. But it is still impenetrable to all unbelievers, to Israel more than to any, but yet to be their song of everlasting praise when the veil is taken away which still lies upon their heart. So the latter half of this very Psalm reveals with all plainness and certainty, beginning with the Christians' little flock, before the light of heaven dawns on "the great congregation" (ver. 25), leading the right way for all the ends of the earth to remember and turn to Jehovah, and for all the families of the nations to worship before Him, in the days (not of Christianity and the church, but) of the Kingdom, when He rules among the nations as He is not in the least doing now.

It is the more important and indeed imperative to have the clear truth of Christ forsaken of God in atonement for sin; because thus alone is the ground of God's grace and of our peace taken firmly and with divinely given intelligence. And thus alone can we estimate aright, however feebly, the unfathomable suffering of the Man of sorrows and suffering, for God and for us, glorifying Him and saving us who believe. Here the theologians, even the truly pious, are shallow and faulty; and their own souls lose proportionately, and those who confide in their guidance as much or more. One does not think merely of the Greek communion or of the Latin where the poverty is extreme. But take the most evangelical of the Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed; or of the Nonconformists who boast of their freedom from tradition and prejudice. Of these none better could be adduced than — not dull Thomas Scott, but — genial Matthew Henry, the devout son of a devout father driven out by the "Act of Uniformity" in 1662. Yet that most respectable of English Commentators, from whom not another* differs in this, unmistakably shows himself unable to seize the gist of God's forsaking Jesus on the cross. For he says, "A sad complaint of God's withdrawings, v. 1, 2. This may be applied to David, or any other child of God, in the want of the tokens of his favour, pressed with the burthen of his displeasure," etc.† Of course Henry believed it did apply to Christ crucified: else he could not be owned as a Christian. But even where he does, it is superficial, as it must be in all who extend its application beyond Christ. The Psalm speaks throughout of Him alone as its personal aim, and of Him in the opening forsaken only as atoning for all saints before or after. Not one ever shared that abandonment, which He alone could bear, though infinitely more to Him, the Holy One of God, than to any saint who ever breathed. He explicitly denied it of all before Him; the Holy Spirit in the New Testament excludes it from every Christian. He was forsaken of God for our sins, that they and we who believe might never be. It is utterly false that "this may be applied to David, or any other child of God." It is, without their knowing it, a serious weakening of the gospel. Even where the believer's sin calls for the severest chastening, God deals with him as a father, chastens whom He loves, and scourges every son whom He receives, for in many things we all stumble; but He has said, I will in no wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee. It is all absolute truth of His grace; and as it applies to earthly difficulties, so still more evidently to those of our divine relationship through the efficacy of Christ's propitiation.

* The pious Bp. G. Horne on the Psalms wrote in just the same mistaken strain. I should hail with delight a single divine who knew and wrote better as to this fundamental truth of the gospel; but such are absolutely unknown to me.

† Exposition of the Old and New Testaments with E. Bickersteth's preface, in six vols. 4to. London, 1839.

To the day of atonement's typical witness, one need not refer more now than to point out the beautiful distinction between the two goats, which together shadow the one atoning offering, for the children of Israel, one lot for Jehovah, and the other lot for Azazel (the goat that goes away). The first goat was slaughtered, and its blood brought within the veil. Over the second goat, the complement of the first, the high priest confessed all the iniquities of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, laid as it were on its head, and then sent it away by one standing ready into a land apart, into the wilderness never to be seen again. It is the witness of Christ's substitution to bear our sins away into a land of forgetfulness, as the slim goat is of propitiation for sin judged before Jehovah in vindication of His nature and majesty and word dishonoured by evil. Together they foreshadowed Christ's atoning work, in which God was shown not sparing the Saviour, His own Son, that He might spare guilty sinners as we have been. Was not the love of God in both the Father and the Son fully manifested in Christ's sacrifice to God for us that we might be for ever saved?

Of Isa. 52: 13-53 we may say the less, because it speaks itself so plainly of Messiah to be exalted and very high, but first suffering for sins sacrificially for His sinful people, that they might share the blessing and honour thus won for them by His grace. We share His life sufferings, and some too His martyr sufferings; but He is absolutely alone as the Propitiation and the Substitute. And these only are typified in Lev. 16. These only brought on God's forsaking Him in the opening of Ps. 22. None But He endured God's judgment of sin, and of our sins; and nothing but this judgment brings God's forsaking. We may endure severe discipline of our faults, but it is in His love; He and He only, as our sin-offering. What means His being wounded for our transgressions? bruised for our iniquities? the chastisement of our peace upon Him? What means Jehovah laid upon Him the iniquity of us all? "For the transgression of My people was He smitten" (not on Israel, as the Jews say). Still more decisively "it pleased Jehovah to bruise him." He put Him to grief (or, suffering). "When Thou (Jehovah) shalt make His (Messiah's) soul an offering for sin," what does this mean but His atoning work,? What again "He shall bear their iniquities"? and "He bore the sin of many"? Only blind and obstinate unbelief can evade what God thus reveals as clearly as words can make it.

"Herein is love, not that we loved God." This the law of God demanded but never received, any more than loving his neighbour. And man easily deceives himself in estimating his love. How many Jews were trying to make believe that they did love God as well as man! But it was sadly short of the divine standard, as the Lord Jesus made evident when here below. Till the heart is set free by Christ's redemption and has peace with God, it is impossible for love to break through the "barriers and integuments of death. Even saints under law are like Lazarus with his grave-clothes about him, alive but needing to be loosed and let go. How is the heart won? "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as propitiation for our sins." The more conscience there is while under law in spirit, the less happy we are. Exercised souls do not walk slipshod before God. They feel their shortcomings, and are grievously downcast about themselves. They are afraid that God has the same uncertainty about them that they cannot avoid about Him. That He justifies the ungodly through Christ's propitiation for our sins is the full proof of His love to us when sinners.

Life, as we have seen, must precede peace. By many a scripture, perhaps by God's solemn words as to sin and sinners, a person might be truly awakened. This is set out in the parable of the prodigal son, following the lost sheep, and the lost silver. In the intermediate parable the Lord presents the lost one dead, as before in the sheep actively straying. There is an evil life in which man is active, and goes astray; there is another life to which he is. dead. These aspects of death are in the earlier parables. The foolish sheep slipping heedlessly away and exposed to all mischief is man active in departure from God. The lost piece is one dead in sins. The Shepherd heirs all toll in quest of the stray. The light shines by the Spirit's work till the lost piece. is found. This is far from being all. The prodigal son is required to complete the picture; and therein a double work of God appears. First, the prodigal "cometh to himself," he is brought to repent. He judges himself a sinner; he acknowledges that he has sinned against heaven and in his father's sight, according to the language of the parable. He is now going the right way; he seeks after God. He had been seeking his own lusts and passions before; now that he is brought to himself, "he rose up and went unto his own father." But he has not yet peace. He is still in spirit under the law. "Make me as one of thy hired servants." This is exactly what the law does; instead of leading into freedom, it can only put under bondage. The gospel alone can tell of all bonds broken by the Saviour, and the slave brought into the liberty of Christ. See this set out in the way of grace with the prodigal. "While he was yet a long way off his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck, and covered him with kisses." He, no doubt, was troubled about himself, and forecasting how the father would receive him. It is the father, not the son, who runs to meet him; it is the father who embraces him, notwithstanding his evil and his rags. What a melancholy sight is the son, to which he had reduced himself by folly and sins! In the father, all-overcoming love! But the father does not allow him to say, Make me as one of thy hired servants; he has the best robe brought for him, a ring put on his hand, and sandals on his feet, the fatted calf killed, and such a feast as never was before in that house. It was for a son dead but alive again, lost and now found.

We learn thus graphically what is also taught dogmatically in scripture, the goodness of God leading to repentance, drawing from the wrong to the right direction, with self-judgment of the soul, sure marks of life Godward. But there was no deliverance from fear or law till he was in the father's arms, and the full sense of sonship by grace. Thus, and only then, he knew that all was clear. The father's embrace made this perfectly plain, and the father's ways with him were all the fruit of it. It is just so in the gospel, but many stop at the threshold. They have got out of the land where no one gave to the most abject want, but not to the Father who with the Son grants us all things. And here too it is. "Herein is love," life for the dead, and propitiation for the guilty. Is it not more blessed than if one had never been a sinner? Adam in paradise had nothing like it. Adam had no such life as Christ's. It was not given for paradise. He may have got it afterwards, like others who believed, the Old Testament saints; but he had it not then or there. It is really therefore when man has come to his worst, that God brings out His best. This is Christ not merely coming to give us life, but dying as propitiation for our sins.

When we think of the glory, and the sufferings withal, especially at God's hand of the One who thus died; when we think of all the sins and iniquities of those that He bore sacrificially, — Oh what a wondrous filling of the gap that nothing else could till between God and the sinner! This is what is implied here. "Not that we loved God" — we may have tried, but if so, we failed totally. That was the law; here is the gospel — "He loved us, and sent His Son as the propitiation for our sins." It was all done in His one act, in His one suffering. "Christ once suffered" ("once" was enough) "for sins, just for unjust, that he might bring us to God" (1 Peter 3: 18). He was man; but was He not God? He was the Son; and He is risen. There is the glorious proof that He triumphed. Indeed He could not fail. How could God fall? And was He not the Only-begotten Son of God? If we believe the Scripture, we ought not to question it. Fear and failure are natural to fallen man. He is a sinner, and he therefore dreads God's judgment. But He does not ask you to trust yourselves. He tells you to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. He knows too well that you do not love Him; He bids You to believe in His love manifested in Christ, and in dying as a propitiation for you. Do not say that You are too bad; indeed You are as bad as can be, and far worse than you think. Take honestly the place of being "lost"; and this will end all your talk about badness. Yet for the lost He came and died.

The prodigal thought he had got down low when he proposed to ask for that place. In fact he was not fit to be a servant. Think you that any man would be taken as servant with such a certificate of his life? There is no question of our character at all. Sovereign grace rises above every sin and iniquity. Let the soul take the place of being nothing but a sinner; and therefore leave it to God to show nothing but His love. What He does is not merely that He gives me the life to feel what is due to God, and what becomes His child, but also the propitiation which meets and clears away all my sins. And remember, if not all sins, none; if any, all. Such is the way of the gospel in which God settles the matter; and this is what every believer is called to rest in.

O dear brethren, are you resting thus in Christ? Do any of you that believe in Jesus the Son of God, the Only-begotten, say, Make me as one of thy hired servants? He that came as man, yet bringing life eternal, by that very gift of life makes you feel your sins, but also believe that He is the propitiation for them. Under the Jewish system there were constant sacrifices, and repeated sin-offerings; but now in the gospel, since the Son offered up Himself, there is remission of sins, and no longer a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10: 18). For by one offering He hath perfected for ever (or, in perpetuity, which is stronger still) the sanctified. By "sanctified" is meant those that are set apart to God, not by law now but by Christ's blood.

Beloved brethren, is this your faith? May the Lord grant that so it may be; and that you may delight in the apostle John's unfolding of the love of God manifested in the sending of His Son with its declared two-fold aim. Can any thing so perfectly display the true character of the love that is of Gods that it has nothing at all to do with any effort of our own. It is out of God that it springs. But, if begotten of God, we share God's nature; and if we share His nature, He has provided to take away all that hinders the proper exercise of that nature. Our old man is still there as a matter of fact, though we know it crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin.

Yet if our eye be off Christ, the old nature certainly does hinder. We need therefore to know how God has dealt in Christ with our sins, and with sin, their root. There may also be a hindrance through inconsistency, so that love cannot flow out according to God toward those that God would have one love. His love inspires love to all that are His, to His children; and He has provided for this by our faith, the new life, and the Spirit who abides in us. It is not a question of whether one likes this quality or that behaviour, or the like; but in the face of all difficulties He counts on our loving them with that love which is of God. And He brings in these two immense manifestations of divine love, to which we owe our new relationship and the clearing away of our sins, in order also to fit us for loving one another as of God's family.

This is not all; but it is where we now stop. If the Lord will, we shall find that He has more to say, and of exceeding great moment as the crown of His love. We have had love coming down in the Son from its heavenly height, and going down into fathomless depths for us; and we are to look at its carrying us up into that height. Let me meanwhile cite the following sonnet by a famous agnostic converted to God before he died. How sad that he had no one from the Word to assure him of the love of God in Christ, and thus banish till his doubts! J.G.R. needed Luke 15 rather than Ps. 27.

"I ask not for Thy love, O Lord; the days

Can never come, when anguish can atone,

Enough for me were but Thy pity shown

To me as to the stricken sheep that strays

With ceaseless cry for unforgotten ways.

Oh send me back to pastures I have known,

Or find me in the wilderness alone

And slay me as the hand of mercy slays.

I ask not for Thy love, nor e'en as much

As for a hope on Thy dear breast to lie

But be Thou still my Shepherd — still with such

Compassion as may melt, and such a cry;

That so I hear Thy feet, and feel Thy touch,

And dimly see Thy face ere yet I die."

ADDRESS 14

1 JOHN 4: 11-16.

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love hath been perfected in us. Herein we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given to us of his Spirit. And we have beheld, and testify that the Father hath sent his Son as Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we have known and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God in him."

We have seen that in order to give the love to which we are called its proper character, the apostle, in the verses already gone through, recalls the manifestation of God's love in Christ; first, when we were dead, to give us life, secondly, when we had life and felt the burden and evil of our sins as we never felt them before, to accomplish the propitiation which bore all our sins away. Such is the true order of God's acting on the soul. It enables us to see how very important is the reception of life; for without life there is nothing adequate to hear or to answer in divine things. There is still unremoved death in the soul; and the notion of the Spirit of God doing the part of life, or rather without it, is really monstrous. The Spirit of God could not consistently thus act if there were not life to act on.

Christ is, no doubt, the believer's life; and by faith the old "I" is treated as no longer existent before God. It is there in fact, but by grace of Christ it has no right. As Christians we deny it in His name; we own it as wholly worthless; we abandon it as altogether evil now in our sight as it ever was to God, no matter what a man might be thought by his fellows. He might be a great genius; he might be of the most wonderful energy conceivable; but self is all without and against God, and never could therefore enter into His presence. How then could the old man ever be all object for the Holy Ghost to take up and sanctify to God? Therefore Scripture speaks not of sanctifying the depraved old life, But Of the old man crucified with Christ; of sin in the flesh condemned by God in Christ as a sacrifice for sin, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin. It is no longer the sinful "I," but "Christ liveth in me."

There is thus a new life, to which, in virtue of redemption, the Holy Spirit could attach Himself. Hence, as without a new life there is nothing but the old man, the necessity for the new life in Christ is apparent. In point of fact, all the Old Testament worthies, like every saint now, had life; and what believer knows of any life for sinful man but one — the life of Christ? Like incorruption for the body by and by, it is brought to light through the gospel, but it wrought in all believers before the gospel; nor could they be saints without it. Whatever difference in form has been effected, it is all the better for those that followed when our Lord became man. Then it was made plain, as never before, what the new life is, and who those are to whom He imparts it in believing. It was for men, not for angels. "The life was the light of men" only, as far as Scripture intimates. Angels never fell; their elect being kept from sin do not require a new life; nor is there repentance, or gift of grace, to fallen angels. They have a life, whatever it may be, which is not explained to us, nor is it our business to pry into. What have we to do with such inquiries'? (see Col. 2: 18.) It is always a vain pursuit when men get occupied with the angels. Yet I have known a Christian so full of it that he encouraged himself in the visionary idea of angels good and bad seeing him every night, so that he fancied he knew their names; but all this was mere feeling and imagination, though in a true saint of God. There are few greater follies than such speculations about the unseen.

But here is the blessed reality of God's deep concern, His active love in the case of man. First of all it is in its sovereign character, when we were dead, to give us life; and when we received life, that we should be delivered from all guilt; for the same Lord Jesus who brought us life became the propitiation for our sins. For that holy life made our sins an insupportable burden to us. But by His blood once shed for sins, atonement is made; and we are called to believe God's grace, and enjoy the blessed truth of it all.

But there is more than this, though the apostle has moved very gradually in coming to what remains. He began it in the last verse of 1 John 3, "he that keepeth His commandments abideth in Him, and He in him." The one thus blessed is obedient, and who now obeys? None, of course, but the Christian. Only it is not some Christians, but all that are real. They obey God, as having His nature, the life Christ is and has given them.

Yet he does not explain more here, but just leaves it for its due place. Only he adds a small but important intimation in the latter part of the verse. "And herein we know that He abideth in us, by the Spirit which He hath given to us." You perceive that the word "abide" is preferred to "dwell," as avoiding equivoque, besides that it is the proper equivalent. There is another word for "dwell" (οἰκεῖ), from which this word (μένει) differs. God "abideth" in us. This is the simple and certain force. It is not a passing act or a visit for a little while. In "abide" we have one of the distinguishing words of Christianity, its perpetuity. Israel knew too well of something that was very good for a while; but it was taken from them; or, as was said to the Hebrews, what becometh old and aged is ready to vanish away. Such was Judaism, which had to give place to the permanence of Christianity in itself and in faithful souls. To abide is the stable character of every Christian blessing except a conditional one, and there are such too. But eternal is stamped on the new thing, particularly on the life we have in Christ; for this reason it is called by that striking term, and we do well to delight in it. At any rate so we used all to do, when we had in proclaiming it and giving thanks for it in no stinted measure many companions, who are silent now to our sorrow as to "eternal life."

But there is more than eternal life, though the essence of our blessing is characterised by life in Christ. And was it not Christ displayed constantly in every act of His here below? Dependence on God in unfailing obedience. If He calls upon as to obey as He does, if He lays down commandments, these have nothing whatever to do with the Ten. The law was an appeal to flesh; therein life here below was held out but never gained this do, and thou shalt live." But the commandments of Christ are directive precepts for those to whom new life is already given of grace by faith. They have now therefore the greatest of all blessings in having Christ their life. Nothing is more certain than that God has given the believers Christ, and that Christ has also given Himself for them. Wonderful truth, yet most simple! It is the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation. But the truth of the gospel is soon lost when people speculate instead of believing.

For this very reason, as being a life simply of dependence, we want besides the presence and power of God; for there are immense dangers and difficulties in the way. Spiritually we need power, besides the capacity of life. If there be no such momentum, we fail to overcome the obstacles. Otherwise we find out our inertia, or adopt fleshly energy. However blessed dependence may be, it is not power. The true energy of the Christian is the abiding Spirit of God, not life abstractedly, though for our new place life in Christ is essential. He is needed for the working of power in us. When everything was created, the Holy Spirit did His part. When everything was thrown into chaos, the Spirit brooded over the scene of confusion and of darkness. So when God would have a tent in the midst of His people, He did not suffer Israel to frame one according to their own wisdom. Everything was arranged of Himself. Besides precept, God gave power by His Spirit even to the artisans who had to do with it. Perhaps one is not respectful enough, and ought to say goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewellers, joiners, upholsterers, etc., who had to do with constructing the different parts of the sanctuary. But nothing was left to man's own device; the Spirit of God expressly wrought by man.

But the Spirit of God has now an aim incomparably higher. It is no question of an earthly tabernacle or even a magnificent temple, although we know that the inspiration of God directed as to both. But now the Spirit of God deigns to abide in those who believe. He is the One that seals every Christian till the day of redemption. The Old Testament saints had no such privilege; and though they had life, they seem to have known little or nothing about it. The peculiarity of Christianity is that now we can say, We know God has revealed what was hidden from them. "What eye had not seen, nor heart conceived," He now reveals by His Spirit. He is not so much to us the Spirit of prophecy but of communion; certainly too a spirit not of cowardice, but of power and love and of a sound mind. Accordingly as this is just what was needed, so also it is what God has given us. "Herein we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us."

Here the apostle prepares the way for the requisite truth not yet set out in the call to love. "Beloved"; for here too such is the word of address. So it was before when God was warning them against the false prophets energised by evil spirits. This had been done in the earlier verses. He tells the saints lovingly of a great danger through the persuasive power of evil spirits if opposed in the confidence of the first man, instead of in faith of the Second. Jesus only is the conqueror of Satan; and the believer too conquers, but only through Him that loved him and died for his sins. No evil spirit confesses Jesus. Only the Spirit confesses Him come in flesh. There is the safeguard against false prophets: they cry up fallen man, they level down the Word become flesh. But he repeats "Beloved" when he exhorts the saints to love one another from ver. 7, both because "love is of God," and from the evidence it furnishes that he who loves has been begotten of God and knows God; as also whoso does not love does not know God, because God is love. Here, in pursuance of the theme, is reiterated "Beloved" in ver. 11.

"Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." He never says that we ought to love God, but everywhere assumes that we do love Him. And so it is with every believer who knows God's love to him when he was in his sins and enmity against Him, and learnt in the gospel that sovereign love to us in our guilty and lost estate which gave Christ His Son to die for us. "For when still without strength Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5: 6). The "due time" for love so needed by us, so immeasurable in itself, so worthy of God and His Son, was when man, both Gentile and Jew, joined hands to crucify the Saviour, and thus cut themselves off from mercy on every ground save His boundless grace. The Jew boasted of the law, but violated it everywhere, and never so shamelessly as then. The Roman boasted of his law and government, but, bold as he claimed to be, through fear of the spiteful cry from the people he scorned of losing Caesar's friendship, condemned the guiltless, as he well know Jesus to be. Jew and Gentile united in the atrocious iniquity against God. Then and there it is that God commends His love unto us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Oh how foolish to fancy that He wants the sinner to commend himself to God by doing some good or great thing! and to forget that it is He who in His Son has wrought the only, the best and the greatest thing that even He could, in that all sufficient sacrifice for him that believes! When this is received, the heart that was proudest and darkest does not fail to love.

Nor is this the sole reason why the Christian loves God. In reserving Christ he receives life eternal. He is begotten of God; he becomes His child. He loves God as His Father. If in ordinary circumstances a child loves his parents, spite of many a fault on both sides, how much does not the new nature prompt the Christian to love not only his All-good and gracious Father, but those who have the same life, the same Spirit?

"Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought to love one another." It is easy to see that all Christian exhortations in Scripture presuppose divine grace already possessed. God did not call us to love till He proved His love toward us in Christ, and gave us to know His love. And the two-fold want of the sinner which has been just shown to be met from other Scriptures, we have seen briefly and touchingly set out in the verses 9, 10, last before us in this chapter. It is not an exaggeration that he who is born of God and redeemed by Christ's blood cannot but love God, and it gives a plain and sufficient reason why he never exhorts us to love God or Christ.

It is a very different else with the natural man, as it was with us in our unconverted days. Any of us who had the favour of believing parents, and the word of God and prayer from early years, had a bad conscience till the truth was brought home to our hearts; we dreaded God because of our sins, yet neglected so great salvation, and trembled at death and judgment as they flashed on us for a little. Impossible for souls in that state to love Him whose everlasting judgment alarmed now and again our guilty souls, still in quest of pleasure, advancement in the world, wealth, and of whatever else of vain glory we aspired to. Any love we had then at best was of nature without the smallest reference of the heart to God. Such love was only higher than the affection of a dog or a cat, as man's nature is higher than the brute's. But the love of the new nature is supernatural, and has its character, motives, and source in Christ. Hence the mistake and danger of attributing natural benevolence to grace. Christian love is akin to the love of God to us, when  in us there was nothing to be loved; for as we read "we were aforetime foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." So says he who as touching righteousness that is in law was found blameless. But the light of Christ's glory which shone into his heart exposed its rottenness; and these things and all else in which man glories he counted and went on counting but dung in comparison with Christ, so that he minded no path of suffering on the way to the resurrection from among the dead — in short to Christ in glory.

Our apostle says that, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. For though we share the same blessed life in Christ, and the same propitiation for our sins, the flesh and the world make many great and varied difficulties. It is the sheerest unbelief to shrink from our God, even when we seek to unbosom any folly and wrong into which we may have slipped; for He holds to His relationship of Father and to ours as His children, while the enemy seeks to estrange us from Him. But God's children are exposed to snares through the flesh. They are is prone, when off their guard, to espy the faults in their brethren as to gloss over or hide their own faults. This is not loving one another at all, still less as Christ loved us, the standard for the Christian, as the law was to Israel to love their neighbour as themselves: a difference which ought to be seen and felt. They were a people in the flesh, and under law; we are in the Spirit (Rom. 8: 9) and under grace (Rom. 6: 14), if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in us. Then comes love to God's family, flowing out of God's grace to us personally. The law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7: 19); nor was it made for a righteous man but for lawless and unruly and the like to condemn them, and drive to the only refuge for sinners. The use by fallen Christendom, ancient and modern, is to put the righteous under it, which the apostle declares to be unlawful. We are as expressly under grace which, notwithstanding all hindrances, strengthens us to love one another.

We cannot but love Him who first loved us, even when we were in rags and degraded among swine, and it may be found no pity from those who enjoyed our plenty in sin and folly; but when we came to want, none gave to us. Such is the world; but not such the father. When the prodigal judged in a measure his evil ways and their distressing results, his heart turns to the one he had so long left and forgotten I will arise (said he) and go to my father, and I will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee; I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. But while he was yet a long way off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and covered him with kisses." This is God's love as He told it who knew it best, and was then displaying it to the tax-gatherers and sinners who drew near to hear the wondrous tidings of grace among murmuring Pharisees and scribes. Not content with forgiving, nor allowing the prodigal to propose his place among the hirelings, the word is, "Bring out the best robe and clothe him in it, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fatted calf and kill it; and let us eat and make merry; for this my son was dead, and is come to life, was lost and is found." This is grace, not law, showing what God is as Father in the worthy words of His Son. And if such He is to the most abandoned sinner that comes to Him, how sad to question the grace wherein the believers stand, or to doubt His pitiful love toward an erring Christian, His child!

Alas! if He never changes, His children did and do; so that it was very right and necessary to call them to love one another, as the apostle did with humility, "we also ought to love one another." He put himself among the rest as called to an obligation, which is not so easy at all times as some think. Love according to God is not mere "brotherly affection," however excellent this is when truly applicable. 2 Peter 1: 7 draws the line, and puts love beyond it is deeper and higher. Where brotherly kindness gives the hand, love might decline, because it sees a dangerous snare and a grievous sin, which brotherly kindness was too pre-occupied to discern in the light of God. Divine love looks at the divine side, instead of yielding to mere emotions. We must stand at the fountain, as it were, to be fresh ourselves, and able to refresh, single-eyed dealers in the love that is of God. Nothing can be more opposed than the human amiability which tries nobody's conscience and allows everybody's will. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth and so it is with our love according to God. As it is of God, it feels and acts for God. But if He "so loved us, we ought to love one another." He knew all the drawbacks and shortcomings in us as His children, as He knew and felt all our sins and iniquities when we were children of wrath; yet He loved so as to give His Son for us. Surely then we ought to love one another as objects of the same love.

So says the apostle Paul to the Ephesian saints "Be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love, even as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, an offering and sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour." There is nothing that draws out love so much as love; nor any love so efficacious and fruitful as the love of God in Christ the perfection even of His love. And this we know, not as spectators like the angels, but as ourselves the objects of it downwards and upwards to a degree stupendous in their eyes. For were we not in the depths of degradation and aggravated guilt and impotent daring? Yet Christ His Son went down below all our sins in God's judgment on the cross. And is He not risen above all heights in heavenly glory, angels and principalities and powers being subjected to Him, to whom we are now united by the Holy Ghost, one spirit with the Lord?

Ver. 12 is a word worthy of all consideration. It recalls John 1: 18: "No one hath seen God at any time." How was so great a want for man supplied? Did not the God of all goodness feel for man's lack? He made Himself known most gloriously for Himself and His Son, most efficaciously in itself, and most considerately and lovingly to man in sending His own Son become Man among men. "The only-begotten Son that is in the bosom of the Father, He declared [Him]." If every soul of man since Adam had been asked how God could make Himself known in the best and surest way, and in the fullest love to man in all his need and misery, never would one have ventured to propose a way comparable with God's way. Yet Satan found the means, through man's lusts and passions, through his will, his supposed interests, and his invented religions in particular, to ignore and reject the Son of God to his own ruin.

But the Son of God who came in divine love is gone back to His Father. And the apostle again says, "No one hath seen God at any time," in the plainest reference to similar words in the Gospel. Yet the Son, the rejected Son, is not here to declare Him. What is the answer to the same want now? "If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us." Is not this a striking and solemn means of supplying the need? Does it not address itself in a direct and powerful way to you, my brothers, to me, and to every other child of God? We are here and now through the Son not only washed from our sins but made sons of God, and by our mutual love according to God to know and witness Him in a world that knows Him not. The children are now to reflect here the love of God. This the Lord did perfectly when here; how are we, or are we really knowing and abiding in His love thus?

But we have only looked into the first words of the apostle's answer now. Let us hear what remains: "If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us" (verse 12). The love of Christians mutually is the proof and the power of communion that He abides in us, and that His love is perfected in us, instead of being choked by the flesh or enticed by the allurements of the world. Evangelising the incredulous or perishing sinner is no answer to the question raised. Where and how is God to be seen now? In face of every effort of Satan to set the children of God against one another, their loving each other as God loved and as Christ manifested it declares that God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. What an encouragement to walk humbly and unobtrusively in the love that is of God! What a reproof to any who think little of its importance and blessing! Yet 1 John 4: 12 could not have been without John 1: 18, and more too — Christ's death for us and the gift of the Spirit to us. Christ must be the life in order to such a reproduction. Yet when the disciples saw its perfection in Christ, how little they realised God in Him! When He died and rose, they understood it better. But when anointed with the Spirit they enjoyed best of all, and walked as they abode in that love, which is the energy of God's nature. It is so with us now in principle and in fact too according to the measure of our spirituality.

The so-called evangelicals think that their chief love should go out in seeking the conversion of souls. It is indeed a good work if done in faith and love to Christ; but this is not what our Lord enjoined as the love so near His heart; nor can it be doubted that zealous evangelists and their allies are often not a little insensible to the new commandment that we should love one another. They are apt to be so absorbed in their own work as to measure love not a little by the support given to what interests them. And the modern system of special societies craves similarly for new methods, as if the words of the Lord had become obsolete. Far be it from my heart to say an unkind word of anybody; still we must look at facts as they are, and I refer to things that seem irrefutable.

We can readily see how much this love of God in us toward our brethren rises above moral duty. If the Holy Spirit had not so written through the apostle, we might have thought it a grievous exaggeration to give it such value, as to say that if we love one another, God abideth in us, and His love is perfected in us. May we simply and fully believe His word, that we may be enabled thus to love, and assure our souls that as love is of God so He abides in us to walk in it, apart from the world which can mix only to destroy its character, instead of His love being perfected in us. None can share or understand this love unless they are born of God, and even then only as walking by faith of Christ and so seeing the unseen and eternal. The sight of our eyes or mind destroys its character.

Now we are responsible for knowing God, and we who believe in Christ base the joy of knowing God. Every word, every work, every look of His recorded in the word lets us into that intimacy; for the inspired have much to tell us even in all these ways of Christ about God. They all reveal Him, the least thing as well as the greatest. But now the Lord is gone. He that declared God is in heaven. Is there no present living witness of God? The apostle repeats here in the Epistle, "No man hath beheld God at any time." His love was in all perfection in Christ, He was seen in contrast with all human imperfections. Where is the resource? "If we love one another." Is it not very solemn that God points to Christians for letting this dark world behold what God is? We are called especially by the action of divine love in our souls and ways to be the witnesses of God to the world that doubts all certainty about Him. When Christ declared Him, He was as perfect as Himself; but how is it in our case, spite of every infirmity? "If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us." The apostle here too looks at the principle, not at how far saints fail; and this we have seen to be the way of John. He never forgets the source in God, and the channel in Christ who manifested it; and he sets before the saints the outflow of grace in accordance with the new nature.

Why settle down with the continual confession that we are not doing the truth? Where Christians do so, is there not something that grieves the Spirit of God? That is what we do well to search out and judge before God. We are warned against grieving Him. It is the flesh which especially opposes the Spirit. "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall in no wise fulfil flesh's lusts (says the apostle Paul). For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit [is] against the flesh; and these are opposed one to the other in order that ye should not do those things which ye desire." It is not, as lamentably said in the A.V. "So that ye cannot;" which too naturally affords an excuse for sin. There is no ground whatever for such a misconstruction. The flesh is always the great opponent of the Spirit. The flesh may work sometimes amiably, which is not really love, sometimes with open rudeness and impropriety, which no one could imagine to be love. But here, if we love one another, in the face of all the subtle efforts of the spirit of falsehood and malice, it is only the more truly and manifestly the love of God, not founded upon what we see in one another, but what we all have received from God Himself in Christ. Think of what we once were that are now God's children, as wicked as any who still neglect so great salvation, some of us once more daring and notorious than most. Such were we; and if we were moral or religious according to flesh, proud of that which was no more than a veil, and in God's sight because of the pretence worse than the openly evil. "But we got washed, but we were sanctified, but we were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." So the apostle wrote, owning what God's love had wrought in many of the corrupt city of Corinth, yet in sharp reproof of their grave inconsistencies. And he had the joy of learning that his faithful love (which pained himself more than them) was not in vain, but grieved them to repentance, yea repentance to salvation never to be regretted; though in his conflict of feeling he did regret his own letter passingly, by grace to remember it with abiding joy. For the great love that was in him reached through the conscience and the truth to the little love in them; and then what diligence it wrought in them! What clearing of themselves! What indignation, and fear and ardent desire, and zeal and avenging, in every way proving themselves pure where they had been so deeply to blame! This is a trying and painful form of loving one another; but it is a real one, though happier far the heeding of the word, so as to be kept from all evil.

"If we love one another, God abideth in us." This is the normal way, where faith works, and not flesh. And this leads to the opening of the great truth of the Spirit given to us, whereby God abides in us; nor is this all that he says, for he adds that "God's love is perfected in us." This he had said earlier and in another connection. In 1 John 2: 5 he stated that "Whoso keepeth his word, truly in him hath the love of God been perfected." For to keep His word indicates the highest and deepest character of obedience. Whoso not merely keeps His commandments in detail, but keeps His word as a whole, "in him verily is the love of God perfected." Of course it does not mean the strange error of the man's own perfection. The flesh is never extirpated while we live; but God dealt with it in Christ's cross, and we, as having life in Christ, mortify our members that are on the earth. But the flesh is in us, though we are no longer in it. The flesh is never changed into Spirit, nor will it disappear whilst we are here in the body but by grace bound never to let it act, but to keep it by faith under the power of Christ's death. Thus His love is perfected as in him that keeps the word, so also in that we love one another. We are subject to His word, and we walk together in love in spite of all difficulties. Thus is God's love perfected in us; it is carried out according to the mind of God. We have nothing to boast; but we heartily obey and love through the power of His love toward us and in us. Undoubtedly it supposes that habitually we have been looking to God, and that He has answered our prayers, and so His love is perfected in us. Obedience is carried out and love too according to His mind.

Now he enters on the gift of the Spirit. "Herein we know that we abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."

The advance is marked above 1 John 3: 24. It is not merely "the Spirit." God wrought by the Spirit in many a one where it could not be said to be "of His Spirit." We often hear of the Spirit working, as we have seen, in the Old Testament, and still more in the New. We find partakers of the Holy Spirit and powers of the world to come spoken of in Heb. 6: 4, 5, where they fell away fatally from God. These are never said to have been born of the Spirit, still less that God gave them "of His Spirit." This implies real communion with God; and the New Testament gives a deeper force to the expression "of His Spirit" than the Old. It is in this way that God abides in the Christian. Yet even when there was an external purpose God wrought by the power of the Spirit in one way or another. In every case it was the Spirit of God; and the Spirit is a spirit of power. Consequently there was an effect altogether above man, and above what even life eternal could do without the Spirit.

God abides in us, as he says, and we abide in Him. He begins with abiding in us; not with our abiding in God, but with God's abiding in us. It will be shown presently that it is of importance to discern the difference. That God abides in us is His grace to us when resting on Christ's redemption. That we abide in Him is the fruit of the confidence in God that His grace inspires in us. Thus, as it were, we retire from self as well as from all around us of the creature, and we make God the home of our hearts even while we are here below. This is abiding in God; and it becomes us to look to God for grace habitually thus to abide in Him. When we so abide in Him, He acts in us in the way of power in communion. In accordance with this therefore it is written that He hath given us of His Spirit. "Of his Spirit" has a particularity in the manner of its expression which plainly indicates that what we share is with Himself. It is "of his Spirit" that we are here said to partake.

Yet there is no small danger lest we mistake so great a privilege. There are many pious persons who confound a certain happiness in their souls with God's abiding in them. This danger is generally of a mystic character. They are self-inspective and emotional. Anyone who has read writings of the celebrated William Law on the soul would know what is meant. He was one of these mystics, but altogether wrong in hiding or even losing God's grace in Christ under sacramental efficacy and man's inward feelings. He did not apprehend in the least degree man's total ruin, nor the fulness of redemption, still less life eternal in Christ. It was an effort to love God and a readiness to accredit the effort; not the faith of God's redeeming love and unsparing judgment of the flesh, to find an infinitely better portion in Christ the Lord. Since then a community is distinguished by what they call "Christian sanctification," which is not Scriptural sanctification; but rather a good opinion of their state founded on a bright feeling in their souls; the cause and effect of which is that they are exceedingly occupied with themselves and their experience, which they tell out to one another for mutual edification. This has so important and fixed a place in their eyes that they have a regular meeting in classes, with a leader in each, for communicating one to another what they think the Spirit of God has produced in their souls from week to week. They cannot point to any institution of the sort in the New Testament.

But the Spirit of God glorifies Christ by receiving of His things and announcing them to us. He was to guide into all the truth. This kind of mysticism glorifies self; it is occupied with our own feelings. It is therefore directly exposed to leading to self-worship in some souls and to dejection in such as are not easily satisfied with their attainment. It is wholesome to learn that there is nothing in ourselves to yield spiritual satisfaction, so as to make Christ our all, as He really is. But to be thus occupied with one's own heart, save for humbling ourselves on account of it, is as dishonouring to Him as it is dangerous to ourselves. Occupation with ourselves is not merely unprofitable, but hinders growth in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Yet there is not a doubt that many real Christians have been drawn into this invention of man which necessarily substitutes occupation with ourselves instead of with Christ Jesus, and rejoicing in our own joy, instead of rejoicing always in the Lord.

Observe the care with which inspiration has guarded against the mystical school in the next verse. The blessed truth of Christ, the facts which the Gospels reveal, is the best corrective of this abuse of introspection, because it sets and establishes the heart on its divine foundation, and the fulness of joy in Christ excludes dwelling on ourselves or our good state, as we estimate it. Here the Holy Spirit brings us back again to rest on what God has wrought for us, to the very ground of the gospel itself. What can more thoroughly correct any such looking within? "And we have beheld" — there is the emphatic word of the inspired witnesses — "and testify that the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world." Whatever others may occupy themselves with (and they pretend to many a high thing), "we have beheld and testify that the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world."

What is, what ought to be, the effect of such a truth? Does it not fill us with the praise of the Father and the Son? Does it not shame us into nothingness as to ourselves? There we are shown that we were the merest sinners, yet as surely saved by faith through grace. Timid faith questions whether we were so bad, or God so good. But if through the Holy Spirit we simply believe, we cannot assuredly find anything in ourselves worth talking of in comparison of grace so rich, and for ever too. Thus does God wean us from ourselves, the world, and every other object, to delight our souls in Himself and His Son. Even knowledge may and does puff up; but love, the Father's love and the Son's, builds up.

It equally delivers from another and opposite school, who are occupied with themselves as under law, and who, instead of looking for good in themselves, think that they please God and are all the better themselves for a sort of despairing pessimism, rarely rising above "Oh wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me out of this body of death?" They quite ignore what the apostle declares to the believer in virtue of Christ's work. Instead of working like a hired servant with the muck-rake in their dark and filthy heart, they are through the Saviour of the world entitled to the "best robe" and the "fatted calf," and share the Father's joy to the glory of the Son. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8: 2). And it makes the comfort of deliverance all the more impressive, when it is observed that the "me" now freed when we turn from self to Christ is the same "me" that was groaning under law just before (Rom. 7: 24). How much better than the emotional or the groaning schools, occupied with self in such different ways, to condemn flesh out and out, as God did on the cross, and to find Christ worthy of all their thoughts and the spring of unfading peace and joy! There we prove that it is the Father's will and the Son's work and the Spirit's witness that we are called to rejoice in, as we shall for ever.

It is an interesting connection of scripture with this, that the first place where the Lord found Himself acknowledged as the Saviour of the world was in Samaria. It succeeded the wonderful scene at the well, where the poor woman that had had five husbands, and had one now who was not her husband, was given life eternal through faith in the Lord Jesus. He also told her of the passing away of the contending religions of Palestine. The mountain of Samaria was to pass, and even Jerusalem. Henceforth there was to be another character of worship altogether, the kernel of which was divulged by the Lord even then. "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him."

Thus was fulness of grace revealed to a poor Samaritan woman in whom the truth had begun to work. She was smitten in conscience, and awakened in soul; but it was after this that she learnt who He was, that (she was assured) spoke from God to her heart, now received with all simplicity of faith, as she became a messenger to others of the One in whom she believed. And the Lord graciously dealt with these Samaritans, and did what we do not find Him doing in any other place during His ministry: He abode with them two days. And they testified of Him, that it was not because of what she testified of Him, as telling her all things that she ever did, but "we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is truly the Saviour of the world." The copyists put in "the Christ" too, but this is not the authentic or appropriate word. It was owning at that early day the very title here given, save one thing necessarily absent from it — the Father's sending the Son. This they knew not nor could they venture to anticipate. Neither they nor any others had the Holy Spirit given "whereby we cry Abba, Father"; but they acknowledged, and were the first to acknowledge, the truth that Jesus, is "the Saviour of the world." It was not a question of Jews but of sinners, and therefore for Samaritans or any one else. This was before the Lord had entered on His public ministry. These chapters of the Gospel of John show the Lord's acts before John the Baptist was delivered up, and His own going to Galilee; which have the greater interest when we find so grand a truth as Himself owned "the Saviour of the world."

This was a bright anticipation of the gospel through a true sense of the Lord's grace personally. It is not only a Saviour, and this not merely for the people of Israel who expected the Messiah, but "the Saviour of the world." Even then the truth broke through the clouds, the light shone into the hearts of the despised and ignorant Samaritans, and they were the first so to confess Him. Here it is the apostolic testimony. "And we have beheld and testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."

But how are we to know that a sinner has made this, the grace and truth of Christ, his own? How are we to be satisfied that the saving truth of God has entered into anyone's soul, and introduced him into the intimate association with God of which the apostle has spoken? This is answered in the next verse. "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God."

Now is not this a most amazing assurance to receive? For we have just had the true but simple believer bowing to the glad tidings, that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. It is not merely subjection to the Messiah, the coming King of Israel, but believing Him to be the Son of God. "Whosoever shall confess." Nothing can be wider than "whosoever." He does not only "believe" but "confess." He has surmounted all difficulties, doubts or fears. He has weighed the truth, felt the grace, judged himself, and has no longer hesitation. And now the blessing of the Lord comes richly on his head. So the apostle said, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised Him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved," pressing God's answer to Christ's work. Here, as is usual, our apostle dwells on the glory of the Son's person, but in the fulness of His grace toward the lost in the gospel. And the sinner, turning from himself and every prop of creation, confesses that Jesus is the Son of God. What then ensues? "God abideth in him, and he in God." Not, I presume, that any person ever truly confesses Him to be the Son of God, without also believing in the work of redemption that He wrought and God accepted. It is all vague to unbelief. Men might use the words, but they do not realise the truth they express. Of course it is supposed that the confession is truly made according to God. He confesses that Jesus, the Man that multitudes took to be only a man however great, is the Son of God. Who then can doubt the efficacy of His redemption? The striking fact here conveyed is that whoever confesses Jesus to be. the Son of God has not only life, and the remission of sins, and the Holy Spirit, but the highest spiritual privileges conceivable. For what can be higher than God abiding in him, and he in God? No doubt the more spiritual your state, the more you realise it. But the apostle here tells the confessing Christian that this is his portion. May we cherish and enjoy it! May He cut off everything that comes in to dull our sense and value for it!

The apostle follows up in verse 16 its application. "And we have known and believed the love which God hath to us." There is no uncertainty in the answer to the general principle: "we (emphatically) have known and believed the love which God hath in us." His love is not only "toward" but "in" us. We value and delight all the more that His love in us first flowed toward us when children of wrath. Again he repeats "God is love," but now he connects with it "He that abideth in love abideth in God." This is an altogether new way of speaking of it. If I am abiding in the love that comes from God, I cannot but be quite at home with God. His love, flowing from His own goodness and giving Christ to die that there might be a perfect grant of righteousness, forgives my sins, makes me His child without desert on my part, and leads Him to abide in me. The love in Him (and no wonder) produces love in me; and abiding in love I abide in God, and God in me. It is not merely a visit now and a visit again, but there the Christian abides; it is his habit and his home to dwell in love. Can any blessing be more precious? Yet how simple it all is, if we believe. It casts down every high thing that lifteth itself up against the knowledge of God. The apostle is writing not to theologians nor philosophers, nor to scientists in religion, but to God's children, that none might come short, and all might better know the love of God they began with, and enjoy increasingly the God of love.

But it is well to point out certain distinctions in "our abiding in God" and "God abiding in us," of some importance to distinguish. There are three separate forms of the blessing. The first of these in order of time is that God abides in the Christian, and we have just had before us that whosoever confesses Jesus to be the Son of God, has it in a double way (ver. 15); God abideth in him, and he in God. How does God abide in him? By the Spirit He gave us, as in 1 John 3: 24, we know that God abides in us. Then 1 John 4: 13 goes further: "Herein we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He hath given to us of His Spirit."

Here we have our abiding in Him, which cannot be unless He in sovereign grace deigns to abide in us by the gift of the Spirit, which draws us to abide in Him as the effect. How then account for the order which 1 John 4: 13 presents? It is therein implied that by virtue of the Spirit given God did abide in him, but through power of communion in partaking of His Spirit, not only did he abide in God, but God in him in the third form of special power. And this is confirmed by the other special intimation in ver. 16, "he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God in him," like ver. 13, implying the previous blessing of God abiding, but adding the two others. It is spiritual power as the third result, which is special. In the general case to every confessor that Jesus is the Son of God we have only the first and second form of blessing, God abiding in him and he in God; but the third is only added here. It is here not merely the Spirit but "of His Spirit," and this way strongly marks communion.

The manner of God's abiding in the Christian is by the Spirit being given to him. Herein we know that God abides in us, a wondrous fact, yet not all the blessing. The apostle is our warrant for it, and this is enough. It is God abiding in us. Then there is an attractive effect upon us, so that we knowing His love abide in Him. The first we may call the sovereign operation of God, in honour of the work of Jesus confessed to be His Son. He seals us with the Spirit as His own redeemed by blood, if we may refer to the language of the apostle Peter on this theme. That means God abiding in him. The second is the answer of the Christian's heart, which habitually counts on God in the submission and confidence of love, instead of turning to self or to others to meet difficulties. This is to abide in God, bringing everything to Him whose love has made. him His home. And as He has thus drawn so near, we too at His welcome make Him our home. This appears to be the difference between God's abiding in us and our abiding in God.

Thus there is the third form of divine privilege in the power that follows this communion. The first is sovereign operation; the second is the reflex effect and experience in confiding in Him; and the third is the power of the Spirit in spiritual power as the consequence of so great a blessing. And here it is where we are weakest of all. We are indeed apt to stop short of the full result in this failing world, as we ought not. This makes it humbling to us. For if you or I have little to show of devotedness and spiritual power, we are well aware why it is, and that the fault is entirely and only our own. Faults in others are not the cause nor a just excuse, but our own failure. If provoked, there must have been something to be provoked; and this could not be were we abiding in God and God abiding in us in power. But if God's abiding in us and our abiding in Him are the portion of every Christian, as the apostle makes plain, how sad if it were only true in principle but in fact great shortcoming! Let us exhort one another that the principle may issue in fruitful practice. There is the utmost encouragement if we are simple and steadfast in looking to God, and that His grace may make it real and manifest in us to His praise, yet prompt to be in the dust when conscious of dishonouring Him. It ill becomes those so blessed as Christians are to have little but self-reproach. May we have the joy of proving that God is faithful to H's word in making good privileges so wonderful that few saints believe that they are not only ours by title, but ours for enjoyment and practice!

ADDRESS 15

1 JOHN 4: 17-21.

"Herein hath love been perfected with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because even as he is, we also are in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth hath not been perfected in love. We love, because he first loved us. If any one say, I love God, and hate his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, that he that loveth God love also his brother."

As the word last considered may have presented, from the nature of its subject, more than usual difficulty, the present address furnishes the opportunity of regarding the connection with what now claims one's heed, divested of its many details, and thus in its simple and broad lines. Who can doubt that it was meant by its divine Author to attract and fix the interest of every Christian in that which they are wont to consider so far above their reach as to be practically unattainable? As it is part of an Epistle more immediately than any other appealing to all God's children, and the more so as addressed formally to none in particular, ought not they, ought not we, every one of us, to pay the more marked heed? We shall surely find that the true faith of Christ entitles every true Christian, in virtue of life in the Son and of the indwelling Spirit of God, to read and weigh it afresh in God's presence, and count on His love to give us not only enlarged spiritual understanding, but the realisation of the blessing He spreads before us to appropriate and enjoy. Many of us have tasted the sweetness occasionally of finding this or that part of Scripture opening out its varied treasure under the Spirit's power, where our eyes had previously seen little or nothing. And herb it is the more to be sought, as it is avowedly to enlarge and deepen our communion with God.

After the twofold tests of truth against false prophets in the first six verses of our chapter — Jesus come in flesh, and the apostolic revelation (i.e., the New Testament) — the great theme of love is brought out in our apostle's characteristic manner, though with just as much weight as in the Pauline episode of 1 Cor. 13. God's children are to love one another, because love is of God, and every one that loveth hath been begotten of God, and knoweth God. We see at once that he regards love as inseparably linked with the great truth of life eternal in Christ, relationship therefore with God Himself, and intelligent spiritual knowledge of God. It is thus a sphere for the Christian on earth not only above human knowledge but above natural affections, having to do with fellow-saints here below, yet on grounds not only supernatural but divine, and directly, as we shall see, with God and His presence. Yet every Christian has an immediate concern in it all, not affecting superiority and wishing to shine as a lonely star apart, but in full intimacy with God's abiding in him and his abiding in God, to walk not simply in the light but in the love of God which is His own nature, the source of the Christian's new nature.

Now as this tends to the subjective or what acts in the soul, and might tend to puff up (for indeed it is as wonderful as it is true), a marked step is taken wholly outside the Christian. Therefore he is confronted with what is altogether objective. "Herein was manifested the love of God in our case, because God hath sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins." An "imitation of Christ" is utterly insufficient. We needed the infinite reality of God's love in Christ, first, that we who were dead might live through Him; next, that He might be made sin sacrificially for us who were guilty and defiled. The love that wrought so efficaciously was solely in Him, not ours. We are therefore disciples of Jesus only, not of the à Kempis school or of any other mystic. The express aim is to found the truth on what God was to us, not on what we are or desire to be for God.

This being made admirably clear, the apostle urges that if God so loved us, we ought to love one another. We do love God, and we could not but love if we believed His immense love in Christ to us; but we ought to love those whom He loves as He loves us, alike His children. This is followed by the remarkable allusion to the substantially similar application to the Son in John 1: 12, and to God's children in 1 John 4: 12. Christ declared the unseen God perfectly: how does our loving one another? If we thus love, "God abideth in us and His love is perfected in us." Without having life in Christ it was impossible: but even more was wanted and given, even "of His Spirit" (ver. 13). For the same Spirit that descended and abode on Christ, in virtue of His personal and intrinsic perfection, now abides in us, in virtue of His work for us on the cross. Thus it is that as God abides in us, we too are enabled to abide in God, and to know that we abide in Him and He in us. Thus only are we kept from thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought to think, while by grace made free of divine intimacy to the utmost.

That very word which is shown to be above man's nature, not only seeing but beholding, is now predicated of the witnesses in ver. 14. "And we have beheld and testify that the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world," not as a vision or external sight, but by faith realising it in the Holy Spirit. And therefore "whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God" steps thereby into the blessing — "God abideth in him, and he in God." Such is the order of God's operation in grace. This is remarkably confirmed by ver. 16, where the apostle again joins himself with all other Christians in adding, "and we have known and believed the love which God hath in us" (ver. 16). For who could limit this to the apostolic choir? — this exposition of Christian communion with God, founded on the new life and accomplished propitiation, but by the Spirit consequently carried on into sharing God's delight in love as His children, with the words, "God is love, and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God in him." This is the order of spiritual experience and power. Every part is most real for the Christian's intercourse with God, and each is here stated in its exactly right place; as encouraging to the simple saint as it reproves the indifferent or negligent of such divine favour and joy. And what a marked absence of anything like a dream or a vision, or of aught that could make a Christian conspicuous in the eyes of others or in his own!

It might be thought impossible to add anything beyond what has been so richly spread before us. For (1) we have the source of all the blessing traced to the love of God in giving us the value of Christ's life and death when we lay dead in sins; and (2) divine love shown to work in us toward one another as surely as we have been begotten of God and know Him, the Holy Spirit abiding in us to confirm and elevate by enabling us to abide in God, and enjoy its fruit in spiritual power. The utmost care is taken to show that such is the title of grace to every Christian: only to make it effective our souls must be in communion about it. But there is a further and crowning favour set before us in ver. 17, "Herein hath love been perfected with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because even as he is, we also are in this world."

This is a notable accession of blessedness, which, is now revealed to the Christian. It is divine love not merely manifested in our case, when utterly worthless and incapable of any good; nor love working in us God's children according to His love one toward another. It is not so much here the Holy Spirit groaning with us who groan as saints delivered in bodies undelivered, in the midst of the whole creation, groaning to be delivered as it will surely be when the Lord Jesus appears in power and glory. But here John tells us of the Spirit even now and here working in God's children in the power of divine love, and in the enjoyment of God's presence. This was love. perfected in us. Now the apostle speaks to us of the transcendent favour, that the love has been perfected with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment. This "boldness" rises wholly above the thought of anyone who believes coming into judgment, that is, of course, a judgment. of everlasting consequence, a judgment of righteousness dealing with guilty or even failing man. For divine judgment, which the Lord Jesus is to execute, will take cognisance even of the secrets of the heart and the words of the mouth, as well as all the deeds of the body. And what child of man can enter into that judgment and come out acquitted and unscathed?

Hence even in the Old Testament, which has very little light on the judgment of the dead, compared with what was given in the New Testament, we hear the Psalmist (Ps. 143: 2) say: "Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Thus we are taught that if not merely a careless sinner but "Thy servant (a saint, of course) has Jehovah entering into judgment with him, not even he nor any man living can be justified. For judgment must not evade the facts, nor excuse the sins, and no mere man has ever lived without sins. How then can any sinful man be justified or saved?

Our Lord, when here, dealt with this awful difficulty in language perfectly simple and clear (John 5). He speaks of Himself, the incarnate Son of God, as having life to give to everyone who believes on Him, and as having judgment to exercise on all the wicked who reject and despise Him. He gives life to the believer; He will judge the unbeliever. But the words which make the way of deliverance immediately plain are in ver. 24: "Verily, verily, I say to you, he that heareth my word, and believeth Him that sent Me hath life eternal, and cometh not into judgment, but is (or hath) passed out of death into life." The A.V. was very faulty here in the rendering of "condemnation" to suit the common error of Christendom as to a universal judgment of saints and sinners. "Judgment," which is the only true sense, precludes this idea: and the Lord pronounces here that he who hears His word (the Ten Commandments, or the like, would not avail), and believes Him that sent the Saviour (for it is essential to bow to God in that great mission of His love), hath life eternal, and doth not come into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life.

The believer therefore is never put on the trial of his guilt like the unbeliever; he has already, if we believe the Lord, passed out of death into life; because in receiving Christ he receives life eternal. This was to honour Christ; but as the unbeliever dishonoured Him and His word, and disbelieved God's sending Christ on His errand of love, he must be raised for judgment ("damnation" is not the right sense), as the believer will receive a resurrection of life, which is plainly here set in contrast with that for judgment. Notwithstanding he, when raised, will give account of all things done in the body to the Lord Jesus. He is taken on high when he renders it; but this is wholly incompatible with judgment into which, as the Lord assures, he does not come. The Lord on the cross bore the judgment of his sins: therefore this question is settled by grace; but he will be manifested (not judged) before the judgment seat of Christ, that he may know as he is known; and it will fill to the full his sense of the grace of God in his salvation.

Another scripture that bears on this point is Heb. 9: 27, 28, where man's portion of death and judgment is contrasted with what Christ does for the believer; instead of his death is Christ's offering to bear his sins in His death; and instead of judgment, Christ's appearing without sin (having no more to do with it) for salvation. That is, salvation stands instead of judgment to those that look for Him the second time.

Indeed the Christian has only to consider what justification by faith is according to scripture generally, in order to see that the notion of a common judgment of sinners and saints, or of the saints in the real sense of judgment, is an error irreconcilable with the gospel, though I am not aware of a single Father that held the truth in this respect, still less any article of Councils. Not one of the creeds confesses this distinctive truth of Christ. Yet the anomaly which results is manifest; for as none can deny that our Lord will come for the Christian, the church as a whole, and the Old Testament saints too, and will not only receive them to Himself in the air but take them to the Father's house, the notion of a universal judgment (commonly based on the Lord's dealing with the good and bad of the nations at the end of the age, in Matt. 25: 31-46) involves the strange confusion that the justified by God (for it is God that justifieth), are to be put on their trial after they are already in the glorified state, and to be judged by their Saviour whether they are not after all to be lost. If this alternative be denied, as, no doubt, every sound believer should repudiate it, do they not perceive that they make a judgment of believers nugatory, if the sting of its awful truth is extracted, and it is construed into no more than proclaiming them saved?, They would do well to search and see whether the scriptures, if rightly interpreted, do not fully agree with the Lord's authoritative word, that the believer does not come into judgment, which is reserved only for man, for man without Christ, guilty and lost as he is.

The universal judgment, accordingly, though it may plead the well-known canon of Vincent of Lerins as confessed by the catholic church, eastern and western, is in this directly opposed to His word, which (as He declares) shall judge at the last day who now do not receive His words. It breeds darkness all around. It deprives those who heed it of the comfort to which Christ and His work entitle their faith. It dishonours the Father no less than the Son, Who would have the believers assured of their grace and enjoying the fruits of their love, both in life eternal and in redemption. It forgets that resurrection and ascension will be the triumphant separation to Christ in heavenly glory of those who are now in a world of mixture.

Our apostle does not put God's exceeding favour here on the ground or with the character of righteousness, as the apostle in 2 Cor. 5: 21, when he says: "Him that knew no sin He [God] made sin for us that we might become God's righteousness in Him." The Judge will never sit to question the value of God's righteousness made ours in Himself. He will judge all who pretend to a righteousness of their own, for it is a falsehood and a fraud. He will judge all who despise Him in the opposite way of reckless unrighteousness and pleasing themselves in defiance of God. He will. deal even more severely with men's unrighteousness, however fast they hold the truth in unrighteousness, as is common in Christendom or in its measure among the Jews. But on those who of God are in Christ Jesus who was made. to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and holiness and redemption, He will never blow the chilling blast of judgment in heaven, after effectually by His Spirit filling our hearts with the warmth of His grace. That the Judge would challenge Himself our righteousness in that day is egregious as well as unfounded.

The entire preceding context explodes it. For the earlier half of 2 Cor. 5 is devoted to prove the power of resurrection life in Christ in delivering the Christian from the two great terrors of the natural man, death and judgment. "For we know (he says) that if our earthly tabernacle be destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this we groan, earnestly desiring to put on our house that is from heaven, if indeed when also clothed we shall not be found naked. For even we that are in this tabernacle groan being burdened, not for that we wish to be unclothed but clothed that the mortality may be swallowed up of life. Now he that wrought us for this very thing is God, who also gave to us the earnest of the Spirit. Being therefore always confident, and knowing that while present in the body we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight), we are confident then and are well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore also we are ambitious (or, zealous), whether present or absent to be acceptable to Him. For we must all be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive the things [done] in the body, according to those which he did, whether [it be] good or bad."

Here we have the great apostle treating it as a matter of Christian consciousness that all dread of death and judgment is removed, since God wrought us for the self-same thing as Christ that He might be the first-born of many brethren, alike conformed to His glorious image. He has by His work disarmed for us death of its terror, that reigns over the race. We being burdened by a body yet unredeemed do therefore groan; and we groan the more, but in a gracious way, because we are ourselves reconciled to God with its cognate blessings. Our longing is to be clothed with the changed body; but we are always of good courage, and recognising that to depart and be with Christ, as he wrote to the Philippian saints, is very much better than to be absent from the Lord, we are well pleased rather to be present with the Lord.

Nor does the judgment of Christ, undoubtedly solemn as it is, bring anxiety, because He bore our judgment. Even here God gives occasion in sickness, and other ways, to review our state and conduct apart from engrossing labour and occupation of any kind; nor does He fail to probe wounds and penetrate the most hidden recess of the heart. He enables us to cry, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts; and see if wickedness may be in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." Such self-judgment is eminently wholesome; and if we had it not, we should miss not a little blessing by the way. Now, what this is now to the Christian is but a part of what will be fully before Christ's judgment-seat; to lose which, if possible, would be to lose its vast blessing. So far from awakening alarm, or shaking our constant good courage, the apostle only speaks of us as downcast in deep feeling for the unawakened, and stimulated to persuade mankind from their obduracy to turn to the Lord. "Knowing therefore the fear (or terror) of the Lord we persuade men." They had fear for all others, not for themselves or their acceptance. "For ourselves," he says, "we have been manifested to God, and I hope also that we have been manifested in your consciences." Grace gave this submission even now to the inshining of God's light in Christ. Into this the grace which brings to God brings us. This is or may be hindered; it will be perfect when we are manifested before the judgment seat, without false shame, being in the glorified state, and able, without a cloud, to see all His glory, so humbling to us, so glorious to the God of all grace, to the Son who alone made it a fact of blessing for every believer, to the Holy Spirit by whose effectual and constant power it was brought home from first to last in every saint.

But the less needs to be sought from elsewhere, since the verse before us utterly demolishes the strange and hoary error which has inflicted equal wrong on the testimony of the truth and on many a godly soul who has suffered for want of the truth known to others. "Herein hath love been perfected with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment." Think of such words, ye that boast of "the church's teaching," and have never suspected that it was "a different gospel, and not another." So the apostle denounced the selfsame school that glories in the cross as an idol, and has never known God's teaching of Christ crucified to their deliverance from man and his vain traditions, philosophy, science or what not, rising up against the Bible and Christ's work to save the lost. The love of God was manifested to sinners in His life given to be our life, and in His death as propitiation for our sins; that love might be perfected in us as saints by His Spirit working in us. But even this was not enough to satisfy our God in honour of His Son. Love has been perfected with us, "that we may have boldness in the day of judgment." "What!" do I hear you say, "can there be such words in the Bible? Is it possible that they mean what they say?" I should not be in the least surprised if these were your thoughts, and you hardly dared to express your unbelief of God's word.

Yet can words be clearer than those in which our apostle attests love perfected with us, Christians, that we may have, not trembling, nor doubt, but boldness "in the day of judgment?" To rest this on aught but the work of Christ would be blasphemy. But in Christ it is the triumph of divine love — the same love that clothed the prodigal in his rags with "the best robe," not like Adam in his innocency but such as don the marriage robe in honour of the King's Son, the wedding garment. It is Christ we put on, and Christ dead and risen where sins and sin were completely settled for faith. O ye that have drunk yourselves stupid by drinking of the stagnant and defiling waters of the Fathers, why do you not listen to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and take life's water freely? Christ has so glorified God, not only in living obedience but in His death, that He can deliver from fear of the hour of death and the day of judgment even you who have too effectually instilled it into those famished ones who look up to you and are not fed. Yes, these are God's words for all to ponder. Love has been perfected "that we may have boldness in the day of judgment." We see the spring in God through His Son, and the aim for His children in view of that day. What a contrast with that miserable elegy, or lamentation (call it not a hymn), the "Dies Irae" which some cry up as a Christian composition! His love would chase away fear from the heart of every Christian.

But there is much more. He gives the reason or ground which immensely enhances the boon: "Because even as He (Christ) is, we also are in this world." If God had not revealed this, one might venture to say that such a pronouncement would have been voted the most frightful presumption that ever fell from the lips or pen of man. But there is no indiscretion in thinking that in all probability its force is so absolutely unrecognised in the schools of divinity, that no one is disturbed by the astonishing truth conveyed to us. For the apostle declares that even as Christ is, so too are we, we Christians, in this world. He says this according to his uniform doctrine in the Epistle, "which thing is true in him and in you." For now He is dead and risen, and bears much fruit like Himself. Our old self exists of course in fact, but "in that day (now and long come, since Pentecost) ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." This was never true before, and never will be in the coming age, but is true now in Christians here.

Accordingly our standing and pattern is no longer in the first Adam but in the second Man, and He is the last Adam. Never will there be another head. The Son of man glorified God even as to sin in death, the only way of deliverance; for in His death it was fully judged to God's glory. And now God glorified the Son of man in resurrection and ascension glorifies Him in heaven, glorifies Him in Himself, as here no other ever was nor could be. He does not wait to crown Him on David's throne in Zion, or as the King over all the earth. But on the very resurrection day He sends to "His brethren" the message, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God." He takes us in our new being out of the fallen Adam, and sets us in the ascending Christ. Thus as He is, even so are we in this world.

Mark it well. It is not as He was. The church teaching, fairly enough set out by the late Archdeacon R. Wilberforce, and hundreds or thousands like, is utterly false. Incarnation is a blessed truth, essential to the faith; but it is not our union with Him. It is true no doubt, but not Christianity. While living He abode alone; dying He bears much fruit. Union with Him could not be till He died for us and our sins. It is in resurrection, after God's judgment had passed on Him for man's evil, and not till then does He say, "My Father and your Father, my God and your God." The veil was not rent before He died, and priest and sacrifice and earthly sanctuary still had God's sanction. But His death was their death: and His resurrection is His life in power. Christianity succeeds, and the Holy Ghost comes down to seal those washed in His blood. "As He is, we also are in this world." We repudiate any standing before God save in Him; and this is our standing now" in this world." Do you think that anyone taught this by the Spirit could ever be content with the impostures of Popery, the dim religious light of Puseyism with its via media, or the varying compromises of Protestant denominationalism? Have we solid Christian standing in its positive blessedness? Higher there cannot be; and it is ours, every true Christian's, "in this world." It only remains that we believe God as to it for our own souls, and look to Him for grace to love and live it — Christ as our all.

The verses which follow show the immense import of what we have gained in ver. 17. "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear." How these words of God speak to the heart! It is not mere sentiment, but the God of light and love who would help His children against all doubt, that they might enjoy them with all simplicity and assurance. The fear spoken of here is inconsistent with love. Apply to this the common error that God is going to judge His children, but the elect will get through. What tormenting anxiety this creates for godly souls, who can measure? For the gleam of comfort is hidden under the impenetrable secret of the elect, instead of the true light shining brightly and steadily in Christ for all that come to God through Him. I doubt not any more than the Calvinist that those that come are the elect; but his way of putting it is apt to cast souls on a hopeless reef, whereas the Christian truth ever points the needy soul to Him who can and will reveal salvation to the sinner and give him rest by faith in Himself.

If we look at a Christian who is under this question what can more hinder and stifle his proper affections than the fear which is inevitable with judgment at the end of his course? Is it possible to love thoroughly or at case one who, as you thus cannot but fear sometimes, may cast you into hell? "There is no fear in love," says the apostle; "there is fear in my love," says the simple believer, conscious of many a failure, and some serious enough to produce anguish as he thinks of that day. At the least, if his view keeps him in trepidation now and then, he sees enough in Christ to yield him what he calls a humble hope; but he is very sure that he can never profess to have boldness in the day of judgment. On the contrary, he dreads to think or hear about an object so fraught with terror. I put the case as truly as I know how, in order to convince such that they are under the influence of thoughts quite irreconcilable with God's revelation. If you say No, they cannot be reconciled with what the apostle says here, let me assure you that you do not improve your case by such an insinuation, but endanger your soul by the unbelieving impression that Scripture can be inconsistent with itself, or that another portion may modify or get rid of what troubles you here.

It is the error you have somehow imbibed or allowed which is at fault, not the word before us which is intended to take away fear, not to create it. Christ only, as the divine witness and proof of God's perfect love, can banish your fear. This is the invariable aim of the Holy Ghost; He leads into all truth, but it is by glorifying Christ, taking His things and announcing them to us. He may indirectly help us by taking our things that we may be humbled and grieved before God; but even here it is to occupy us with Him through whom came grace and truth, and who is the fulness of all in His own person.

There is another danger for those who are not yet delivered from fear. They fall back on baptism or betake themselves to the Lord's Supper as a resource against fear. But Scripture gives no countenance to such a delusion. On the contrary, the apostle Paul is careful, in writing to the Corinthians his first Epistle when many were in a bad and dangerous state, to warn them of any such misuse. In 1 Cor. 1: 14 he thanks God that he baptized none of them unless Crispus and Gaius, that none might say that he baptized unto his own name. He baptized also the house of Stephanas, and did not know that he baptized any other. For Christ, said he, sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel. Think of his writing thus if baptism be the means of life eternal! On the contrary, Christ sent him not to baptize (which he left to others to do for the "many" Corinthians who "heard, believed and were baptized" in that city (Acts 18: 8). And he tells them in 1 Cor. 4: 15: "In Christ Jesus I begot you through the gospel." The gospel, the word of truth, was and is the means of being begotten of God, never baptism whatever its value in its place.

But he goes further still in 1 Cor. 10, for he warns the Corinthians, and all Christians ever since, from the pattern of Israel, though all passed through the sea and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink, yet God was not pleased with the most of them, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. "But these things happened, types of us, that we should not be lusters of evil things as they also lusted." And as to the Lord's Supper, even upright and capable Romanists, like Cardinal Cajetan, rejected the false interpretation of John 6: 53-56, as to the Eucharist. It is Christ Himself in death the object of our faith, as the living bread was of Him incarnate before death. Applied to the Lord's Supper it falls doubly. For then it would teach that none could have life without the Supper, and again, that all who partook of it have life: two execrable untruths. Applied to Christ in life and death they are both of them precious truths. Thus is the word of God proved stronger than all the arguments of men. Christ is the all to the Christian.

It is now made known that God by His word assures of His love all that believe, and He sets it forth in Christ incarnate, Christ dying in atonement, and Christ in glory, winding all up with the declaration that "even as He is, we also are in this world." For it is here only that His grace and truth are present; and as Christ was full of grace and truth, to receive Him is to receive of His fulness, as every Christian does. This then is the question for you, dear doubting fearing friend. Do you believe, as a poor guilty sinner, on Him? Do you believe that God out of His own boundless love. gave Jesus His Son? Cast away the vain hope of any good thing of your own fit for God; receive on God's authority and in His grace Him who has all good not only for God but for you, and who was sent to be the propitiation for sins. Then, as receiving God's glad tidings, you are entitled to say, as you weigh it all before Him, "By grace I do believe that I have life, and peace, and am His child." Then you know that you are elect. Any other way of claiming to know it is human and dangerous, uncertain and evil, the devil cheating you to ruin. Christ is the truth to settle all election that is true and good. Believing on and confessing Him you are entitled without an atom of argument to say, God has chosen me: else, left to myself and my reason, I had never believed after a divine sort. Thus it is that "perfect love casteth out fear," and gives me by faith peace with God, instead of that punishment or torment which my spirit knows too well.

Hence it is very certain that "he that feareth hath not been made perfect in love." While you are uncertain of God's love, you cannot really love Him; when you believe the reality of His love in giving His Son for the ungodly, for His enemies, is He not coming down to meet you? Take again the once abandoned woman (Luke 7), and the violent robber on the cross (Luke 23); why are these extreme cases recorded, but to encourage you on God's part? Otherwise they had been passed over in silence. But they are written expressly to meet doubting men and women, as hard to believe God's love as the most outrageous sinner, or even more so.

Do not be disheartened because you come to the conclusion that you do not love God. This is not the true question, but does not God point to Christ and His death for sins as the best proof even He could give of His love to you and me? When you bow your reasoning mind to such an overwhelming proof to satisfy you of His love, you will surely love, though you may be slow to allow it: others will see the chance in you. When you rest on Christ's sacrifice for your sins, your heart will open to the God that thus cleanses you by Christ's blood from every stain; and you will be ready then to say, I have found Him, and soon learn that it was He who found you. Come just as you are, that He may have all the glory. And if He loved me with so mighty a love of His own without one single thing or thought in me worthy of His love; if He so loved me notwithstanding my entire being and all my life full of sins, will He cease to love me when I am His child, His son by faith in Christ, and by the Holy Spirit cry, Abba, Father? Assuredly not: even my father would not cast me off even if erring, thoughtless, and foolish. But God does then as Father judge my conduct as His child by day, and discipline me when I need it. And is not this the fruit of His persevering and faithful love to me in the wilderness?

There is also immense comfort as a child of God in knowing that whatever the want, the sorrow, the shame, the fear, He wants me to go to Him freely and without delay to cast all my care on Him, for He cares for me and loves me. See that Satan sows no distrust of Him in your heart; for it is a lie to injure me by dishonouring Him. Let me think then of Christ, and what this tells of His love to me, and the hateful spell is broken. No, I am not made perfect in love if I dread Him; and the more I have been beguiled, the more need of telling all out in His presence in the confidence of His love.

What then explains the root of the whole matter? The few words in which the apostle sums it all up in ver. 17: "We love, because He first loved us." Short as it is, and shorter in the critical text, supported by the best authorities, it is a divine source of rest to the believer. And it appears to me that the natural mind would have been more ready to insert "Him" than to leave it out. If "Him" was there originally, it would have been a daring act for any even nominal Christian copyist to have struck it out; but if the omission preferred now on sufficient external grounds be correct, we can easily understand a well-meaning scribe conceiving the first clause sounding rather lame for want of in object, and venturing to insert "Him," because it is without doubt intrinsically true.

On the whole then it appears to me that the reading left absolutely is both impressive in itself, and gains rather than loses by the absence of an expressed object which would tend to limit rather than enlarge the sense. For as it thus stands, it means that we love [both God and His children], because "He loved us." Christ was the source in our souls of divine love, whatever its object or direction. It sprang up not from ourselves in any wise. Love is of God. We in unbelief think that it must begin in us to draw out His love. But not so: we were dead, we were sinful, and in any case love was not, nor could it spring up from us. Our spiritual history, our being in reference to love and to God, is simply this: — "We love, because He first loved us." We own it to be the truth to our shame; we gladly acknowledge it the truth to His glory and to our blessing for ever. The Spirit opened our hearts by the word to the Son sent by the Father to give us life and salvation through His atoning death, and now to be one spirit with the glorified Lord, to be as He is in this world, now and henceforth abiding in love, and so in God and God in us.

Next in ver. 20 we have the last of the false professions, and here individualised as in 1 John 2. "If anyone say, I love God, and hate his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" Such language and conduct betray unreality; and the apostle does not scruple to stigmatise that person as a liar. Our feeling toward a brother tests the truth or falsehood of our profession Godward. It is a present and tangible case. Here is my brother at my door, endowed with life in Christ, and cleansed from his sins by Christ's blood; and do I allow on any pretext hatred in the heart, and talk of loving the unseen God? It is a falsehood: Satan has closed my eyes. Were there living faith, the life would attract, and God's love draw out love from me. Nor does the Holy Spirit of God abide in the saint for nothing; and where the heart treats Him as nothing in another, is it not the plain evidence that He cannot be there to give the enjoyment of fellowship one with another through the Son, by whom all the blessing comes? If "liar" is a character most ignominious among men, what is it in the mouth of an apostle and in the eternal things of God? Thus does the only wise God in the evil day provide means that His children should not be deceived. For the more blessed is the love that is inspired by divine grace, the more important it is that we should not be imposed on by what is untrue. It is a part of God's moral government of His children that they are tried here below in a great variety of ways. But the love that is of God confides in God, abides in love whether others do or not, and has the Spirit's abiding power to make good God's own presence in our souls, that we may be calm and subject whatever happens.

Here again the same care is taken, as we have seen in other cases, to establish us in obedience as to loving a brother. For what is so lowly as obedience? What so counteractive to pride or vanity, to passion or light wit? And what gives such courage and firmness even to a timid soul as the consciousness of obeying God? Hence the importance of its application to loving a brother who might from this or that slight fault be regarded as anything but a persona grata. "And this commandment have we from Him, that he that loveth God love his brother also." Our God does not leave us to our own thoughts or discretion. We are sanctified unto obedience, and to an obedience after Christ's own filial love, not at a Jew's distance from God under law. He enjoins on him that loves Himself to love his brother. For indeed if God loves His child, am I, are you, not to love him? Is this not enough to make one ashamed of exercising one's will against God's will? Listen then to His word. He therefore lays it down as an authoritative commandment, that if I resist still I may have the sting in my soul that I am fighting against God, and all the more on my part because He reveals Himself as the God of all grace. Do I persist, in the face of an injunction so plain, following truth and love so precious? Had I not better judge myself, what I am, and whither I go: for is not this flat self-will against the God and Father of the Lord? The brother may have ways or words not pleasant to me; yet it may be that I am quite wrong in my estimate, and the fault in me rather than him; but if I demur to His plain commandment, how can I trust myself in anything else? Is not this rebellion? and against whom?

It is the moral glory of Christ that He ever applied obedience in every demand and every difficulty. If it were at the beginning before His public service, on this He stood, to this He submitted, and by this defeated the enemy in each one of the three great temptations. "It is written," "It is written," were His answers of entire submission to His Father. Did Satan dare to cite Scripture, the Scripture referring to Himself, He does not argue but answers, "It is written again." He did not doubt Jehovah's care nor His charge to angels; but He was here not to do Satan's bidding, and He refused to tempt God as if He doubted His word. Just the same unswerving obedience we find publicly at the end: "Because I did not speak from myself, but the Father that sent me Himself gave I e commandment what I should say and what I should speak, and I know that His commandment is life eternal. What things therefore I speak, even as the Father hath said to me, so I speak" (John 12: 49, 50).

In giving His last instructions to His own it is the same obedience, — the clearer too, in the most solemn of all things then approaching, His death. "I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world cometh and in me hath nothing. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and even as the Father commanded me, thus I do." He was about to lay down His life, not only of His own free love but in obedience to the Father (John 14: 30, 31). Indeed even before that He had said (John 10: 17, 18), "On this account the Father loveth me, because I lay down my life that I may take it again. No one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again. This commandment I received from my Father." What can be clearer than that our blessed Lord brought everything within the scope of His obedience? And this is the highest spirituality which the Holy Spirit can work in any saint. Therefore do we heed His solemn words: "He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If anyone serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my servant be; if anyone serve me, him shall the Father honour" (John 12: 25, 26). Blessed Lord, to serve Thee we would follow Thee; but Oh with what unequal steps! Oh how great the grace indeed that Thy servant also shall be with Thee, and have the Father's honour!

Here God's authority enters, as in all the rest of Christian life, into loving; and as loving one's brother is peculiarly liable to cheeks, if not evasions, He makes it a matter of command, joining our love even to Himself with love to our brother. Yet in this the same blessedness controls the manner and all involved in it. His word alone can surely and safely guide, whatever the circumstances which very greatly modify how it is to be done. Who is sufficient for these things? Our power is in the Spirit according to our new life in Christ, and in obedience to God speaking to us in His word.

After having set forth with great fulness the working of divine love in our case as sinners, and in us now we are saints, and this right on to the day of glory, the discussion is terminated with the words, "We love, because He first loved us." No doubt "we love Him," but if the critical omission of "Him" be true, which it appears to be, then our love is put into a general form ("we love," and not only "we love Him"); it takes in not only our loving Him, but loving all that are His around us. "We love." There was no real love in our hearts till we knew His love. This is the more important because of its sentimental abuse. It may not be known to all that a school of pious persons, by others called Mystics, and found more particularly in France, Germany and Holland, who had their followers in England, invented the theory that there was no real love of God unless wholly independent of self. That sounds very fine, but there is no soundness and little reality in it. It never was fact for a soul since the world began. Not that me may not in spiritual experience rise to a love of God independent of self, and leaving self behind, if we may, to lose ourselves in the sense of His perfect love, and our delight in His nature and ways.

But we always begin with the fact to the praise of His grace that God loved us when we were dead and guilty. It was His pure mercy that saved us (Titus 3: 4-7). It is the grossest ignorance, unbelief and presumption, unless we truly find in Christ and His work the love of God toward us when in our utter ruin and sins. To shirk this in its depths, and strive to rise into unselfish love of Him, is not only worthless, but an unbelieving wrong done to the truth as to God and His Son, as well as ourselves. It is only a disguised working of the "self" which they disclaim and would spare, and which leads to no small admiration of themselves, their ecstasies over their state. Yet after all it utterly falls short of the communion described by the apostle, based on Christ's life in us, His atoning death in full efficacy, and the consequent abiding of God in us by His Spirit given to us; and all this is the common portion of Christians, however few they may be who realise it as all ought. It is deplorable indeed that any of God's children should descend so low as to think that the love they can feel toward God is the grand thing, and to find such pleasure in it as if this were the best state for the saints of God on earth. It is His love in Christ which is the source and fulness of all, and makes ours so small in comparison.

How simple, how sweet and how strong is His word here! "We love, because He first loved us." Assuredly if His children, we do love, and the change is vast for those, once filled with self in one form or another, to be brought to love with a love which is of God. But we do love Christ, and God who gave Him, and the children of God who received Him like ourselves. All is included in "we love." Yet none of it had been possible unless we begin in the dust of death, where and "because He first loved us." These words are therefore a corrective, much needed by our hearts, to strip us of self-occupation and self-admiration, of the folly of imagining that we have got rid of sin by a leap of special faith into a state of moral perfection. The notion that we are perfect in such a sense as this is the plainest and surest proof of our imperfection. It convicts us of great ignorance of Scripture, which is characteristic of all the classes of the introspective school.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that the effect of occupation with Christ, in the word and Spirit of God, makes Him all and ourselves nothing in our own eyes. And this way and ought to go so far, in the delight our souls find in Him and in God Himself, as to drop ourselves altogether. Some Christians, wise and prudent, do not like this, and say that we cannot in spirit be always on high, and must descend into the valley. But are they wise, spiritually, after all? No saint is puffed up when he is consciously in God's presence. When he leaves it, the danger ensues of being proud to have been there beyond others. Brethren, if we believe the apostle, we are entitled to know by His love shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit given to us (and not by our feelings, which change like the moon, and are apt to give credit to us, poor foolish creatures), that we abide in Him and He in us. The blessed effect then is that we in all simplicity "boast in God," as the apostle Paul says, "through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now received the reconciliation."

Observe too how characteristic of our apostle it is, after he has presented what is of the highest nature, to add a word of the most practical kind; and we need this. It is good for the soul, and it is what God has written, knowing best what is for His glory in us.

"If a man say, I love God and hate his brother, he is a liar." The thing that was precious in the apostle's eyes was doing the truth, not talking about it, but the holy reality. Now if he hate his brother, he is a liar. Nobody spoke more plainly and without respect of persons, when needed, yet none can deny that even among the apostles his love was conspicuous. Ought not we to do so, when it is due to God? But how very different from that which passes for love in these degenerate days, aping the world where the great aim seems to be, allowing everybody's and trying nobody's conscience. How far was this ideal from him, who among Christians would have no mincing about evil matters!

Now, what works in a false professor fully may work partially in a true confessor, if not walking circumspectly and with vigilance. Wilful sin carries away the unbeliever as Satan's prey. But if a believer sin (not goes on sinning), he is weakened and the Spirit of God grieved; and in that state he might act unworthily of Christ to his brother, or in some other uncomely way. We have seen how grace intervenes and restores, though not always very soon. There may be thus grievous inconsistency till his soul is restored. It is however a grave inconsistency, or, to use Levitical language, a rising in the flesh but not leprosy, as it is with the man that hates his brother. And God can use for the good of others, what is so evil; as the Psalmist says: "The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart [not in his own] that there is no fear of God before his eyes." Grace makes the inconsistency a warning. All things work together for good to those that love God. It becomes therefore a practical point, an impressive lesson to beware of saying and not doing. "For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" Logic never wrought love, nor rises above a mental inference. But the new nature, with Christ acting on it, produces the result according to God.

It is all beside the mark to talk about things that do not try the heart; but God so arranges matters that we have practical tests around us. How are we carrying ourselves towards those that are our brethren? The apostle's divinely-given sense of truth utterly discards evasion. He brings in an illustration, almost childlike in simplicity (anything but childish), but holy and wise. The pride of man would regard it as insignificant. They consider themselves perfect, and claim for self liberty to vent displeasure and dislike as it thinks proper. Circumstances may make it trying even to a saint, for a brother may act wrongly. Am I not to love him? Certainly I am. His conduct may give a different shape to your love, but love has always to be exercised as in the sight of God. It may not go forth in the same way, but can anything show more absence of love than turning away from even my faulty brother with scorn or dislike, with unwillingness to bear his burden or with indifference? It shows love, that you share his sorrow, even if he failed to be as really humbled as he ought. Reproving him simply might provoke, and therefore love would act otherwise. For we need God in nothing more than how to walk in love.

But those that love know where to turn in difficulties, and have through the Spirit the guidance of God in this respect as in others. Love does not behave in an unseemly manner, it does not seek its own. It knows how to bear or cover all, to hope all, to believe all, and to endure all. Hence what is so persevering as love? and if other things fail, love never does. To this we are called in Christ, and we have ample opportunities for its exercise. There are our brethren that we have seen, and many we see around us. If I put myself in circumstances where I do not see nor care about them, occupy myself with other objects that please me, this is not love; and if I yield to such a state habitually, it is assuredly a dangerous case. It is certainly a thing to judge, and to cry to God for deliverance. Let brotherly love continue.

There is another important thing connected with it here The subject is fully discussed indeed, and according to the wonderfully near relationship into which we are brought with the Father and the Son. Here it is applied to the ordinary matters of daily life in order to test the reality of love; but there is another form of impressing it. "And this commandment have we from Him, that he who loves God love his brother also."

Many Christians look on commandments as necessarily legal. They therefore associate the word with the law, a ministry of death and condemnation. But those who have weighed the Gospel of John, and this Epistle under our consideration ought to know better. As applied now, it is a profound mistake. The Bible abounds with commandments of another tenor, New Testament as well as Old. The difference is plain. The commandments of the law addressed man in the flesh, in order to prove his perversity and rebelliousness; and thus the impossibility of any standing before God for a moment on such a ground. But when the saving grace of God appeared, Christ gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all lawlessness and purify to Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works. Then it is that we need and receive these commandments in order to guide us, as a sort of divine clue, through all the intricacies of life. Here in this world, if there is distress and suffering, God commands love, laying it on His own children.

Supposing a husband lays any word strongly on his wife — call it a commandment or not; do you think she would find it irksome to obey? If she loved him it would be a joy to her. Another who was not his wife might and would resent such a command which he had no right to impose; but there is a vast difference between the two. It is the relationship which explains it. Now we Christians are in the nearest relationship to God, who lays it on our hearts as His command to love our brother.

It is to be supposed too, that some things a husband ought to know better than his wife; and at any rate he is there to guide his wife. The responsibility is his, and he cannot without sin forfeit it. Of course he is bound to take care that he is guided of God in what he says; and when he does, as he is bound to see that his wishes are carried out, so she also to find not only her duty but her pleasure in it. If this be plain among men, it is yet more incumbent on the child of God. Here is One who loves me perfectly, made me His child, One that spared not for me what was most precious to Himself, His own Son, when there was not a single thing in me to love. He now loves me no longer as a guilty sinner but as His child: am I to count a commandment anything but a matter to receive with glad confidence? In His case there could be no question of the entire goodness and wisdom of His ways. We cannot infallibly count on such a thing in either husband or father. But as we were bound to honour our parents, to obey unless in direct contrariety to God's plain word, how much more are we called to be the ready servants of God's will, and with all love as His own children?

There can be no real exception in our relationship with God. We are called absolutely to obey. Luther in his haste, who had so much to learn because of his Romanist ignorance, never liked, because he did not understand, the Epistle of James, which would have done him much good if he had. It is true that James was given to write of justification before men — not to be "believed" but to be "shown." But therein he speaks admirably of that which guides and controls the child of God now as the "law of liberty." It is in contrast with the law of Moses, the law of bondage. That which God lays on His child is a law of liberty. How is this? Because the new nature desires above all things to do the will of God; and consequently, when told what that will is, the heart goes thoroughly with it. There is of course need of prayer, and vigilance against the flesh; and there may be as many hindrances as Satan can muster; but when once we know what our Father lays upon us, we judge any reluctance as evil, and cherish His will as a law of liberty. This is what the new nature delights in, and James speaks of the new nature rather than of redemption, on which Paul is so full. You will recollect in the same chapter from which I have already quoted the words, we are told that "of His own will God begat us by the word of truth that we should be a certain firstfruits of His creatures." It is substantially what John calls life and Peter a divine nature. It was given to the apostle Paul to develop beyond others Christ's redemption, and the mighty motive which the knowledge of the constraining, self-sacrificing love of Christ gives the heart. But James tells us of the new nature going along with what comes as the will of God, and thus from all we get a great convergence of light for our souls.

Here it is impressed that loving our brethren is not merely the instinct of the new nature, but what God insists on as obedience to Himself. What is there for us holier than obedience? What humbler? Is anything more becoming, more Christlike, than obedience? It is the place which Christ fulfilled in all its perfection, even to giving up His life in Ills perfect love to us. "This commandment have I received of my Father." Did its being the Father's command make it irksome to Christ? No, whatever it cost, this was an added and immense delight to our Lord Jesus. His perfect love and the commandment of His Father coalesced in it; and the same sort of appeal comes to us in loving the children of God. "And this commandment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love also his brother." Not only should our hearts go out in love, but we know that we are pleasing God and doing His will. Now "He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever," as said our apostle earlier. Let us not forget that He binds together loving Him and loving His children, and will not have the first without the last. If it be His love and honour, so let it be our love and duty, because He loves us each and all with the same perfect love.

ADDRESS 16

1 JOHN 5: 1-5.

"Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God, and every one that loveth him that begot loveth also him that is begotten of him. Herein we know that we love the children of God when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous. For all that is begotten of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory that overcame the world, our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

Here the apostle lays bare the root of the matter in hand. There is in the case another relationship of far deeper significance than that of "his brother," that is, of one brother to another. How is my brother related to God? For it is the same subject as in the last chapter carried into the present one. And it is very important to have all answer from God to the question now raised, Who is my brother? There are many serious and pious persons who seem to have great difficulty in answering this. No doubt the scattering of God's children, who were once gathered together in one, adds to the perplexity. Are my brethren the persons who compose the same religious communion? For any that think so, the love that God expects goes out to those in the same community, whether right or wrong. The community may be wrong or according to God; but even were it right in itself, the present state of ruin in the church is a reproach Godward, and makes the path slippery for most. The reason is that it may shut one up to a party fellowship, instead of looking to God's mind, the grief I ought to feel at confusion and disorder in divine things, and the danger of swerving from His will.

Let us not forget the essential feature of what becomes a saint is his separation to God, by His grace, from the world; not only from evil but to Himself in Christ. Sanctification is altogether imperfect if we leave out God, and only dwell on the avoidance of this or that evil. For clearly one might be separated from five hundred evils, yet in one thing drawn into fatal compromise, and thus not be truly in communion with God and His will. The separation might be ever so well intended, but not trustworthy, though likely to make the separatist self-satisfied. For when souls leave out God and His word as a whole, they are apt to have too good an opinion of themselves. But where Christ and God Himself are before the heart, what leads to more real humility?

This is exactly what we all need: to be perfectly happy by grace, yet nothing in our own eyes. Nothing but Christ for ourselves consciously in the presence of God harmonises these two blessings. You may find a person humble apparently but not holy, and a person apparently holy but far from humble. Neither is according to God. It is but affecting humility in one case, and sanctimoniousness in the other. They are self-deceived; Christ alone gives reality. Never trust those who accredit themselves as humble or holy. They remind one of the Old Testament description, "righteous over much." We have such always with us, but we need not trust them. For the most part they are those who say and do not.

But here we have the all-importance of knowing who they are that one is called to love. The apostle answers the question when things were becoming more and more difficult; and we need to be assured of God's will. Although the state was critical yet compared with our days orderly, where now it is anomalous, the test given is not that of outward communion. Today we see children of God, some here and some there, and Satan too successful in making them share ecclesiastically with almost every evil under the sun, so that real fellowship according to God's word is utterly swamped. Even God's children for the most part shirk the consequences of fidelity. So much the more do we want an absolutely unfailing, test who they are whom we are called to love, and here it is: — "Every one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loveth Him that begot loveth also him that is begotten of Him." He is God's child, and my brother. We are to love every one begotten of God, even "whosoever believeth."

Further, the way in which this faith is here described is remarkable too. The apostle John does not here look at Christ in glory, as he did in 1 John 4: 17. He does not even dwell on Christ's death and resurrection. There is no statement of redemption. It is the person of Jesus, and the person put in the simplest possible way as "the Christ." How good and wise on God's part! There are many that know a vast deal about the Lord's sayings and doings, who overlook His person. Such are not true believers. Here much is made of the simplest believer, if true to His person; and he who does not believe that Jesus is the Christ is no believer at all. He who does truly confess and believe Him thus might be quite ignorant of His many offices, and ignorant of God's purposes and counsels of glory, but he has the right object of faith before his soul as far as it goes. He might feebly apprehend Christ's priesthood, or His advocacy, and not at all His headship of the body the church, and His supremacy over all things, and any other grand truths and ways of the Lord, of which the New Testament is full. Such lack of knowledge is no proof that he is not a child of God; he has gradually to learn these things.

Here is a test in order to set our relationship to God on its right basis, and give our love its due direction. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ — the Anointed of God — whom He sent into the world to give life and be a Saviour, he is our brother. The apostle was inspired to come down to the lowest step on which one could rightly look at our Lord. It is not at all the particularism of Christ in glory, any more than of appreciating what is presented to faith in His work for our sins. The apostle does not warrant the thought that those and those alone are true Christians who are led at once to the gospel of Christ's glory; nor does he allow that those are the sole objects of love, who have believed as Saul of Tarsus did on the road to Damascus. John was inspired at the last epoch, when this Epistle was written to encourage the faith of the simpler souls who had never as yet heard of these things; but he would have them on God's part recognised as His children, and entitled to that love which is here urged on every saint.

Narrowness here is precisely what the Spirit of God detects and sets aside as dishonour to God. It is divine life, not ecclesiastical fellowship, which commends him who is begotten of God to the love of all alike begotten by Him. He lays down a quite opposed principle of the largest grace. If God has opened the heart to believe that Jesus is the Christ, perhaps of one placed in difficult circumstances and rarely hearing the truth of God, we are to welcome and heartily own and love him as begotten of God. As Jesus the Christ has become the object of his faith, our place is to gladly acknowledge one thereby brought out of darkness and death to life everlasting. It may be very little in point of knowledge; but our duty is to make the most of a real work of God. For so it surely is if the soul rests on the blessed person of Jesus as the Christ. He is born of God just as truly as this brother who seems to have entered rapidly into some of the deepest truths of the New Testament. We are called to love the one no less than the other. We are to love them both simply, truly and divinely. Such is the manner of the love enjoined; though we dare not speak of our measure in it.

And this is of practical moment; for some Christians are by no means so pleasant or agreeable as others; but all such natural difference is quite outside this love of which the Holy Spirit speaks. Christ gives and forms the objects of grace independently of the old nature and character; and if love then prevail, it is all the more to God's praise, where there was much to repel and dislike naturally. But life in Christ rises superior through the Spirit to all that is of flesh; and this is to God's glory, not man's. Many a Christian however has been misled by wrong thoughts instead of being properly confirmed in the truth. One soul has never been taught that we only begin, after conversion, to learn God's mind in His word. Another has been unhappily led to admire, like a Jew, fine buildings, and grand music in His worship, and thinks his prayers are more acceptable in a cathedral. If you do not know any one, even as a believer, so dense and ignorant of gospel liberty, there is at least one here who remembers it in himself.

The fact is common and beyond doubt that there are very many children of God altogether unacquainted with the ways of God who know no better. Now am I to slight a soul in that condition? Certainly not. If he be one who simply and truly believes in Jesus as the Christ, my heart is to go out to him as unfeignedly and warmly as to another ever so familiar with the truth and faithful in the ways of God. Only love is to be exercised according to the state. It needs the Spirit's guidance with discernment and consideration. Is he a weak one, easily to be hurt and east down? Is he so strong as to be able to bear plain speech and profit by it? It is rather a dangerous thing to uproot a habit of religion from a believer and destroy it without implanting the due truth to fill up the vacuum. They shall be all taught of God, says the Old Testament as well as the New. We need His guidance to act wisely as instruments of His grace in supplying the lack by a better knowledge of Christ and of God. Is not this the true way?

Perhaps if one began by attacking the pomp and show and natural attractions of the cathedral, it might shock the immature believer, used to these "beggarly elements" as the right thing. On the other hand one ought not to give the least appearance of accepting these Jewish things as Christian; that would be uncandid and unfaithful, mere pandering to the person's flesh and superstition. But all shows how much grace one needs to meet a saint who knows yet but little grace. How often one fails here! If we have to do with those who really stand in grace, they bear readily with much weakness; but with those who have little sense of grace, we need much grace to treat them according to God. Since God loves them, there is no reason why we should not, and every reason why we should. God loves all that are begotten of Him. There is the ground of our love, and the clue to all the difficulty. "Every one that loveth Him that begat, loveth also him that is begotten of Him."

We have not far to search in order to see that principle in the case of a family. If one goes into a household where he has a great regard for the head of it, what effect will that have on him as to the children? Assuredly to love them all. One child may be rather trying and noisy, liking to tease and apt to be turbulent, and too often falling out with his brothers and sisters. Another may be gentle and attractive above all the rest. But the question is, Do I love them all? Certainly I love every one of the children if I love the parents.

Divine life discloses goodness in the children of God, viewed with a single and loving eye. Nor, as the rule, is there more than a little trial for the love that we owe them; but on the other hand also we have to remember the trial that our shortcomings may give to them. Yet if these were tenfold more than they prove in fact, here is His word to me and to you: If we love God, we shall surely love His children; not merely those that we see from day to day, but those that we do not see. Whatever the strange appearances, the mistakes or even the wrongs to be blamed, all that only alters the way in which we are to show the love. Never allow the thought for a moment that we should not love them. Perhaps circumstances may be so bad that we can only pray, but let us pray in love before God. Let us also reflect how far our love stands the test toward the saints we believe to be in the wrong. Do we seek their good? Are we earnest that the truth should reach them so as to deliver them from any prejudice or prepossession? We can always make good our love in God's presence. There is little love if we be not exercised about these things and using means, both with God and ourselves, in whatever way He may lay it on our hearts. It seems to me that this is the clear consequence from the principle that the apostle here lays down in this verse.

Another principle comes before us in the second verse. "Herein we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." One can hardly conceive anything less logical according to the system of the schools. They would call it arguing in a circle, which is counted bad reasoning. But what has logic to do with the truth, with the grace of Christ, with the love of God and of His children? What has logic to do with life eternal? It is not a question of reasoning but of faith. Who can wonder that men who cannot rise above logic or learning or science are misty, yea, blind and lost before any characteristic truth in God's word, and find His love and its fruits all unintelligible or false according to dialectic rules. For there is no food for the soul in disputation; and if man could find bread for this life, "man liveth not by bread alone, but by everything that goeth out of the mouth of Jehovah doth man live" (Deut. 8: 3). The Christian has found the way of life and of divine love, and the workings of the Holy Ghost through God's word. He therefore bows to this remarkable word. "Herein we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep His commandments." Thus are the various truths bound up together in one. It is the reasoning of the heart purified by faith, not only down from God, but up to Him again, blending obedience with the love of God and of His children. This is a most wholesome guard against deceiving or being deceived.

If this way of apostolic appeal be going round in a circle and sounds strange to Peripatetic ears, what can be more truly divine and worthy of God? Man cannot understand it, "because love is of God;" and we must have the love in order to understand such words. Never can one understand the practical ways of God without having the new nature which He communicates to the believer, which lives in both obedience and love. The life in Christ is given to him that believes on Him. When the believer is assured of this, intelligence follows, of which the Holy Spirit is the power that works in the new man. But the more we appreciate such grace toward us, the more the truth strikes, and fills us with praise as we see how it comes of sovereign grace in Christ, and all the Godhead shares in it, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We can see how grace passes from the simple believing in Jesus as the Christ to the depths of God's nature, and constrains us not to take the truth without weighing the wonders of grace in it, nor to go on with our souls unexercised from day to day.

Is there any epistle more calculated to act on the believer's heart than the one now before us? If read in faith, there is certainly nothing to disturb our abiding in love. Christ has made this to faith a settled thing for ever. The truth of the gospel is the basis for God's abiding in us and our abiding in Him, no less than for the practice of loving the children of God which we know when we love God and keep His commandments. Divine love in Christ shines on a poor sinner, and gives him confidence that he is the object of perfect love, totally different from human affection at its best. For he is made not only a saint but a child of God. Only God could so love; and Christ His Son came to show it fully, and in order to do so, and blot out our sins, died as a sacrifice for us. This was not as man or the world gives; and it was made perfect, not only by the Holy Spirit coming to abide in us and with us, but in that we now in this world are as Christ is before the Father. For all the evils of us and in us are met and cleared by His death, and we have His risen life as our life, His Father our Father, His God our God; while we are in the world that crucified Christ. Soon is He coming to receive us to Himself that where He is we also may be. Meanwhile there are others who are God's children as we are, and He calls us to love them as He does. As they are in the same relationship and position, all is made plain. If God loves, so do we His children; and He makes it a matter of command to love our brother and to love them all. If we love not them, we do not love Him but deceive ourselves. This then is an end of that question.

But how is the love to the children of God to be shown? It is inseparable from loving God and keeping His commandments. It is not true love to them, if we fail in love to God or in keeping His commandments. Is not this a remarkable and heart-searching turn given to loving them? Is it not a matter for serious consideration? What a cheek to easy-going indifference! Suppose a child of God to be entrapped in an offence against God, either in false doctrine or in any practical way, what then? Is it love to sanction the evil thing, to make light of it, or to join one in it though a brother? "Herein we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments." It is not loving God's children when we show how little we love God by indifference to His injunction. Thus we have the principle of obedience affirmed in a new way to cheek the abuse of loving those who are sinning and call for censure. If we trifle with sin, if we slur over evil and wrong against God under the pretext of loving the children of God, we cannot know that our love to God's children is a reality, but a snare to us and to them. If through any cause we slip into disobeying God's will, all is wrong in our souls, and we have no certainty in our paths; for we have ceased to enjoy communion with Him, and we are in danger of humouring instead of loving the children of God. It is no longer true that we love them in a divine way. But if on the contrary we by faith introduce God into the question as One that the heart loves, then keeping His commandments follows, which forbids human yielding where He is concerned, and we have confidence that we love His children as in His sight. This is therefore an important test to judge our souls before Him. It is a truth which goes deep indeed, and closes the question by His word.

"For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous." Thus the Holy Spirit gives not only a test in ver. 2 but a counter-test in ver. 3. It is not the love of God, or of His children, if we are disobedient. True love of God obeys, while it also shows itself in loving His children, and not our set or party but all His own. We cannot separate obedience from love. If it is not obedience, neither is it love. If it is divine love, obedience accompanies it. "And His commandments are not grievous." It is the estimate of the apostle and of all who are before God with confidence in His grace. It is the truth pronounced by the Holy Spirit. So the Lord Himself, in Matt. 11, declared His yoke easy and His burden light. But there is in the way of the children of God a constant hindrance, greater perhaps than anything else. At first sight you might think of the flesh. But no: near as the flesh is to us, there is a more serious difficulty. When the flesh in Christians breaks out, they are conscious of shame and sensible that they are wrong. But the world is a subtle malaria around us; and, when it affects us insidiously, we may remain unconscious what it is that produces spiritual dimness and inability to enjoy the Father's love or to return it. This again is what alienates the children of God one from another in various ways, and corrupts in proportion as it influences. If the heart values the world, it is stolen away from God's children as those whom God would bind together with the nearest of family ties, and would have love to be ever flowing in the Spirit's power. This the world utterly forbids; for it loves its own in its poor selfish and heartless way. Thus no small danger arises for the saints who seek its ease and honour. It is a pitfall for these and other reasons. If a Christian wants to stand well with the world, he must please it to the grief of the Spirit.

Men cannot tolerate the love of God's children, because it condemns the world. They are unwilling to associate with such as love the brotherhood, and ask if these low people are really your companions. How can you make such folk your special friends? If a saint wants to keep up a position in the world, the difficulty is at once felt. The gentlemen and ladies you court refuse to let you shame them with those of your intimacy they despise. This is and must be the spirit of the world. Yet you, a child of God and heir of heaven, wish to stand well in their eyes who crucified the Lord of glory! In their presence therefore you seek to avoid even a brotherly notice of poor children of God who are to reign with Christ and before the world too! Is this love to God and to His children? Is it loyalty to Christ, this anxiety of yours to be on good terms with the world? Then His commandments are more or less grievous. Is this not so? Where do you drift? These gentlemen and ladies, are they God's children? You do not say so; but they are nice people! Even if you hope they may be God's children, know you not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? "Whosoever therefore is minded to be friend of the world is constituted enemy of God." Do they not pursue the same principles and the same practices which cast out the Son of God from the world?

This is how we ought to look at the world because God so looks at it. It matters not how long ago it is since the world crucified the Lord. The sin is just as fresh now before God as when the fatal deed was done. No real change has come for the world since that day of guilt. It either claims the Christian relationship, or it denies it to those who believe. "What presumption to call Him your Father!" "Righteous Father," said the Lord, "the world knew Thee not." They might think it serving God to persecute those presumptuous men whom Christ is not ashamed to call His brethren, and who claim God as their Father. "Worst of all, they say He is not our Father, only theirs." What is more offensive to the world than drawing the line — presuming to have heavenly blessings and privileges which the world has not?

Do you plead that it is not exactly for yourself? But you have a son or daughter, whom you desire to have a fair place in the world: you have given it up for yourself, but there are the children! This is often the way in which the worldliness of a parent's heart is shown. It is not the earnest desire for the child to be in Christ, and God's own child. The practical aim first is to secure a good place in the world, though they pray that the child may be saved too. Meanwhile the unceasing effort is to advance the children in this present life. What is this but the world, no matter how it may be put in different shapes? It may not always be said, but the actions prove where the heart is. This seems to be the connection between vers. 3 and 4.

God's commandments are grievous chiefly through the evil influence of the world. "For all that is begotten of God overcometh the world." This is a searching appeal when we think how the children of God pander to the world. In general there is an utterly vague sense of what the world is. One has often been shocked among sober and real Christians to find on asking them what is the world, that they avow themselves unable to tell. Not a few think, since even the masses are baptized that, with the exception of open infidels, the world is gone and that Christendom has replaced it to the glory of God, if not for individual exactitude, at any rate in the moral sense of the expression. But let us not be deceived by Satin or appearances, were it incomparably better than it is. Christ is always the touchstone of truth. Is Christ now the life, the object, of mankind in any country under the sun? Where He is all this and more, simply and truly, it is not the world. Christ gives living consciousness of and rest in the Father's love; and where this is enjoyed in the Holy Spirit, it is not the world. But where other objects than Christ attract and govern the heart, and the Father's love is unknown or counted an impossibility, the world remains in unchanged opposition. Can any question be of greater moment, if we have not already decided it by faith, than that we should examine ourselves and test our conscience, heart and ways? For it is an easy thing to let the world gain advantage in detail, even where in the main we seek to be faithful. Is it not dangerous, if we feel ourselves hazy, to shrink from the scriptural test? Divine love assuredly binds us, if we see more clearly, to help one another, instead of yielding to the unloving habit of spying out inconsistencies in this one or that, is an excuse for being mixed up with the world in divine worship and ways. There is nothing of Christ in anything of the sort.

Here we have the assurance that it is not the mystic  recluse, nor the highly spiritual only, but that "All that is begotten of God overcometh the world." Does not this stimulate is well as encourage the simplest child of God?  Have not all such been begotten of God? There is the principle laid down plainly. Not a single real Christian is exempted from the privilege any more than the responsibility. As every believer now is an object of God's love and in the relationship of His family, so he "overcometh the world."  "And this is the victory that overcometh the world (not service, not sacrifice, nor even love, but) — our faith." Do you believe this, Christian? Be not faithless here but faithful. It is by faith in our Lord Jesus that we are brought to God; so too that we are kept of God; it is so that we discern and repel the enemy; and so do we obediently rest in His love who deigned to call us His friends.

Faith is the victory that overcame the world; but how? This he next adds. It is "he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." It is now not as "the Christ" simply. It is the same Jesus, but the apostle goes farther in the expression of His personal dignity. And it is always so with the real soul. One might well begin with believing that He is Jesus the Christ, or one might have had presented to faith yet more than this, — though it was glad tidings to hear on divine authority that God anointed Jesus, having sent Him into the world for the everlasting good of those who believe; and this is the Christ. But here we are told of His glory above the world as the eternal Son of God. Is not this far beyond His being the Christ or Anointed on the earth? He was Son of God before the world, and however the world or His earthly people reject, His glory as the Son of God will survive heaven and earth. He that came down was God humbling Himself in love; and He that went up was Man after redemption exalted above all the universe, Jesus the Son of God. He, who is God and man in one person fills the Christian's heart, and shall fill all things. We no longer look at Him only as the Anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power who went about doing good and healing all those domineered by the devil. We see Him in heavenly glory, we are. enabled to appreciate Him in His eternal relationship to God, no less than to ourselves and to all else.

This is His title to explain the character of the faith that overcomes the world. How could it be otherwise? Grace in Him attracted our hearts when lost, gave us life, and died for our sins; then the new life is called into exercise in the knowledge of a divine glory that dims and annuls the false glory of man and the world, and of a love that brings us into actual relationship with the Father and the Son, creating kindred duties, according to the entirely new place into which sovereign grace has now brought the Christian. The life we receive cannot but rise to its source, and as the grace better known gives it more power by the Spirit, we rise in our appreciation of Christ and of His word. Hence is seen the bearing of the truth that He is not only the Anointed coming into the world on His errand of divine mercy but the Son of God with a personal glory irrespective of any such mission, which is only enhanced by the world's ignorant contempt of Him to its own ruin. He is the Son of man who went down into all the depths to glorify God even as to sin and to save the lost. But as He was the Son of God before the earth and the heavens, so He abides when they shall perish. Hence this glory of the Lord Jesus is brought forward as that which strengthens faith against all difficulties from the world. For "Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

It is a soul that did not settle down in the truth received when first converted, but having tasted its preciousness was led on by the Spirit to know Him better in relation not only to its own circle but to God and His glory. "To him that hath shall be given"; and the diligent shall be made fat, yet better still have the joy of apprehending His love and His perfections. This therefore gave power over all the world could do in hatred and frown, any more than in its attractions, ease, or honour. Faith ever sees in the world the murderous hatred of the Son of God. Are we then to fear what we must abhor? "In the world ye have tribulation; but be of good cheer (be courageous): I have overcome the world" (John 16: 33).

The ever deepening faith in the glory of Christ is the main preservative against the world. As Satan is its prince with no end of wiles to mislead and injure, we need all that our Lord is even as Son of God to overcome in the conflict to which our very blessing in Him exposes and commits us. To be assured that the God of peace will bruise Satan under our feet is excellent; but to rest on that final victory alone would be a snare for our souls. We are here to defeat him now and always, as Joshua exhorted Israel; and we must be faithful in little things every day if we are to overcome in great difficulties.

Hence we may see how the Lord in His epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia expects it in every one of them, and gives special and suited promises to invigorate the faithful individuals when He could not count on the declining assemblies. See too how, when it was not only the Balaam spirit with Nicolaitanism as in Pergamos but the yet more audacious Jezebel in Thyatira, it is there that He presents Himself as the Son of God, the rock on which He builds His church superior to the power of death. It is life in Him that fits us for fellowship with the Father and Himself; but in order to overcome the world and enjoy the fellowship, faith in the Son of God must be fresh and firm by grace, and the Christian world so-called (as many are not ashamed to call it) becomes more painful and disgusting than the gross and open heathen world. So it is to the Father and the Son. The Patristic corrupters of the truth used to teach that if people got baptized, even if living wickedly, their sufferings in hell would be mitigated through their baptism; but the Lord had ruled the contrary if they had only an ear to hear. "That bondman who knew his own lord's will, and had not prepared [himself] nor done his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]; but he who knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few" (Luke 12: 47, 48).

Oh let us see to it that, simple and strong in the faith that Jesus is the Son of God, we too may overcome the world!

ADDRESS 17

1 JOHN 5: 6-12.

"This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by (or, in the power of) the water only but by the water and the blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. Because three are those that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; because this is the witness of God which he hath witnessed concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he hath not believed in the witness which God hath witnessed concerning his Son. And this is the witness that God gave to us life eternal, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

The verses last before us in the beginning of this chapter indicate both those whom we are to love according to God, and that this love is inseparable from obedience. Divine love in the Christian cannot be without obeying God's commands. It is not so with natural affection, as this too is entirely independent of obedience. Christian love is the spiritual activity of the new man, and as it goes out to all that are God's children because they are His, it cannot go out to any apart from subjection to God's will. Love must take a different shape if dealing with the disobedience of such as are bound to obey God. In every case divine love and divine obedience are supposed to be inseparable in the believer.

Then we learn that there is a present enemy against us in both respects, an enemy which children of God are apt to overlook in its insidious character. The youngest have reason to feel that what is called in scripture "the flesh" is a source of hateful and selfish evil, though alas it is easier to detect its uncomeliness in another than in oneself. Indeed it is part of its deceivable working that we are as quick to discern (if not imagine) its offensiveness in another as we are slow thoroughly to judge it in our own case.

But the world is often a subtler snare. It has its own code of decorum, while it offers many an object which is pleasant to human nature, and to many real Christians; its religion (the worst part of it in God's sight) has powerful attraction. The world therefore is a far more dangerous enemy than the flesh. An outbreak of the flesh is not only disreputable but humbling and a distress before God, even to a comparatively small measure of spirituality. But the world to a large extent seems respectable, and consequently, where not a saint would fail to discover the ordinary works of the flesh, most are apt to make excuses for the indulgence of the world. Now the world is the direct enemy of the Father, so much so that the love of the Father as such can never have power or be enjoyed where the spirit of the world prevails. It has often been remarked and is evidently true, that in Scripture as the world is opposed to the Father, so the flesh is to the Spirit, and the devil to the Son of God. But opposition of and in this triple evil to the Trinity Satan works for mischief through the world and the flesh; and we have the comfort that God the Father works for good through the Lord Jesus by the Spirit. We may distinguish the different forms of evil, but in fact they often coalesce in practice, and so also it is in the working of the Godhead; and greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world.

This brings before its the testimony of God in the world, which appeals to man and forms His own family. It is therefore through faith in the word which reveals Jesus the Son of God. It is not a matter of reasoning nor of affection, any more than through a rite applied by a special class of men. It is through God's testimony dealing with the conscience of the sinner, purifying the heart by the faith which rests for atonement on the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus. "This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood." For God gives special witnesses in order to act on man under the pressure of uncleanness and guilt, whether believers or unbelievers — unbelievers that they may bow to Him and the truth; believers that they may be purged in conscience, enlarged and strengthened in their faith.

Here then we are led from the person of Christ, which had just been before us, to the work of Christ characterising His person. For His work it is which furnishes the witnesses. God deigns to give us more than sufficient testimony. Two witnesses were required in the things of man with man, two sufficed, three better still. Here God provides fully. He presents to man three witnesses of the greatest conceivable weight for leading into the truth. "This is He that came," neither by human birth, might, or wisdom, nor yet by divine power or glory. It was not through His incarnation nor through His unequalled ministry. "This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ." He who was the true God and life eternal came to die as truly as any man, yet as no other could die, He by God made sin to save sinners and wash them, not only purified inwardly but in God's sight whiter than snow through His blood. Yes He came to die, for His death alone could blot out our sins or glorify God as to sin (John 13: 31, 32). The allusion is unquestionably to our Lord on the cross, dead already, pierced by the soldier to make sure of His death, out of whose side flowed blood and water. In the history the blood is that which caught the eye first of course, and so there first named. The water was observed however to flow also. Whoever saw or heard of a fact so extraordinary that blood and water should issue out of the side of a dead man? Yet so they did here.

The Gospel of John (John 19: 33-37) had drawn attention to it more than to His most stupendous miracles. "But when they came to Jesus they broke not his legs; but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath witnessed, and his witness is true, and he knoweth that he saith true that ye also may believe." It was really from the dead Man. God furnished this preternatural sign of a work peculiar to the incarnate Son of God alone; and the Spirit of God thought it so significant for His glory and man's reconciliation as first to record it signally in the last Gospel, and next to apply it to us in the Epistle before us.

"This is he that came through water and blood." Adam did not become father of the race till sin entered and death began its work. So our Lord became Head of the new creation when He rose, having borne our sins, the Firstborn of many brethren. Through "death" (not birth, as Puseyites, Irvingites, Rationalists, and other errorists are alike now asserting) He annulled him that had the power of death. Till then the Levitical system with priests, sacrifices and earthly sanctuary had God's sanction. Then only was the work finished, and Christianity began on the basis of one efficacious offering and a risen Saviour, soon to be glorified in heaven. Hence as Paul, in restating the gospel to the volatile Corinthians, began with Christ dying for our sins according to the Scriptures, so in enforcing God's testimony the apostle John passes all else by and comes to the Lord's death for purification and atonement. Here he begins with water, the well-known figure of the cleansing power of the word, as we read among other Scriptures in John 3: 5, there the Spirit co-operating, as here "blood" follows. The word of God first deals effectually with souls. God speaks to our conscience thereby, and brings us in guilty. His word, never tradition or any rhetoric of man, proves us deaf, stubborn, sin-defiled in His sight. But how precious it is henceforth, so to speak, as flowing from Him thus!

Consequently the washing of water is from the riven side of Him that died for sinners. This enhances its force immensely. So before He died the Lord laid down, "He that is bathed (i.e., washed all over) needeth not save to wash his feet." The person receives but one bathing; the feet need to be washed throughout the earthly pilgrimage. Christ's advocacy is what really meets the daily failures, not the Lord's Supper (a profane as well as an ignorant misuse of it); and the Holy Spirit applies His word on the ground of His death, whenever the need arises; but there is once only for the Christian "the washing of regeneration." Nothing but the death of Christ gives us clearance from sin. We may indeed feel and hate the sin, and judge ourselves because of it; but there is no clearance of the soul apart from Christ's death. "This is he that came," etc. Such is the grand truth that was before God in Christ's death. And Christ is here summed up for the testimony of God in His death. How deep the truth! How incomparable the grace which could so speak to us!

But it is not only true that this is the purifying power brought to bear on us from the threshold of Christianity; His death was as absolutely needed on God's side as on ours. Here of course it was not for cleansing but for expiation. Sin had dislocated and thrown all here below into a moral chaos. The cross established divine order for ever. Without it how could love and light, grace and truth work together? How could love bring to heaven the sinner whom light disclosed to be only fit for hell? If grace pleaded for mercy, what could gainsay the truth that he is a heartless ungodly enemy? In the cross God's nature and attributes find perfect vindication and harmony. There God is glorified in the Son of man; and it is His righteousness thereby to justify the merest, yea the worst, sinner who truly believes in the Lord Jesus.

Hence it is that He came through "blood," and it is added, "not by water only, but by water and blood." God's majesty, His authority, His word, His holiness, His righteousness, no less than His love, were all concerned. But now in the death of the Son of man all are harmonised and glorified in absolute perfection, as could be in no other way; and if God there rests in everlasting delight, He is working by the Holy Spirit sent forth from heaven to reveal it by His word to all that receive Christ, and His word by faith.

But what did the Lord's having come (for it was the end of His earthly life) by the water and the blood tell concerning man? The awful truth that man was so utterly bad that even a living and divine Blesser, who deigned to become man in His love to man, did not and could not draw man out of his evil and enmity. It must be a dying Saviour. "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life" (John 5: 40); "Except the corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone" (John 12: 24) 1, if I be lifted out of the earth, will draw all to me" (John 12: 32). Christ's death is the overwhelming proof of man's moral death, and now is by grace the basis of the best blessings of God. How it demonstrates that the law of God could only condemn man! It no less proves the total ruin of human nature in every class. Though all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily, even it could not deliver man from his sins short of Christ's death, who thereon risen is the fulness and pattern of the new and heavenly estate of man according to divine counsels of grace.

It is not easy to render adequately the two prepositions in ver. 6, which are nevertheless alike rendered "by" in the Authorised Version. For the first used once (διὰ) is here given "through," in order to distinguish it from the second (ἐν) which has a stronger force expressed fully by "in the power of," but perhaps sufficiently as "by." The first, looking symbolically at water and blood as the means of meeting man's extremity, conveys that the Lord Jesus came to make this good for the believer's deliverance from defilement and from guilt. In the next and emphatic clause "in" is employed, which here as often would mean "in the power of," and hence "not in the power of the water only, but in the power of the water and the blood." So lost was man that Christ come on his behalf, though God and man in one person, was unavailing through anything but death to purify and atone. And so did He in fact come in or by His death in this full power. There was His death infinitely efficacious in itself for the foulest and guiltiest of sinners, even if not a soul had believed. But God's grace would and did work, so that there should be faith in Him, and hence "by the water and the blood."

But there is another addition of great moment. "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." All know that the Lord Jesus speaks of Himself as "the truth." How then is the Spirit also called the truth, though God the Father never is? The word, as the written or verbal answer to Christ, is also so designated, which we can readily understand, the word which the Holy Spirit employs for glorifying Christ to and in His own. But the difference seems to lie in this, that Jesus the Son is the truth objectively before us, the Spirit as the power that works inwardly in the saint to realise and enjoy Christ. Two deep wants must be met in order to be blessed of God. The truth we need from God for conscience, heart and mind; and it is given fully and perfectly in our Lord Jesus, the truth objectively. But there is "sin" in the old nature which resists what condemns; and even when a man is begotten of God, vigilance against its working out is always necessary here below. How is this met? By the Spirit of God, who is therefore the truth as the inward power for bringing home and applying the truth which is found in Christ outside. The Holy Spirit makes the object of faith received and intrinsically prized. He is the appropriating energy to the new man, life in Christ. In this which is a very needed and real thing He too is the truth inwardly, though we cannot quite correctly say subjectively. In simple English, we look on the Lord as set before the eye of faith; and the Spirit is the power within our hearts. As the truth is the revelation of every one and every thing as they are, we can understand why the Son and the Holy Spirit can alike be called the truth, but neither God as such, nor the Father, because in neither is the revealer, though by the Son and the Spirit fully revealed.

If you listen to theology (that is, the attempt to make revealed truth a "science," as rationalists and ritualists love to do to God's dishonour and to their own grievous loss), they talk of God as the truth. I remember, years ago, meeting a celebrated but sceptic foreigner of the Romantic school who, though to me he discarded the Voltaires and the Rousseaus, laid his main stress on God being the truth. To a mutual friend he tersely if not reverently reported the difference, in that he saw God for himself, I only "through the spectacles of Jesus Christ." Yes, he deceived himself that he saw or knew Him in any real way. God in Himself is entirely above creature ken. Man requires a mediator who is man no less than God, in order that we should be enabled by the Spirit to know Him. Thus only can truth be known. God as such is not the revelation of God (nor man's conscience, nor his reason), but Christ as object, and the Spirit as the inner power for the new nature. How is God revealed? In Christ. Christ is the Revealer outwardly, as the Spirit works inwardly, and the word is the revelation of God or the truth. Christ might be before us every moment of our life, and we no better for it, unless the Holy Spirit co-operated with the word in enabling us to receive it by faith and thenceforward in the new life.

But the apostle had more to say in his few but pregnant words. "For three are those that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one." It will be noticed that the order is here reversed. Historically it was the blood, the water, and the Spirit sent from heaven in honour of Christ's redemption, to give the saints the abiding Paraclete, and to spread the glad tidings universally in God's power, not in man's, though working through man. God gives three testifiers, which agree in one testimony; but in spiritual fact the order is, "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood." Of course, literally speaking, the personal witness is the Holy Ghost, and He too is the present living power. The water and the blood are but figuratively called witnesses, and so are personified. But the Holy Spirit is a true person in the Godhead; and one of His special functions, like the Son's, is to bear witness on earth, He of Christ, as Christ of God and the Father. "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."

But the text here has suffered, whether by inadvertence or by design. Be it said briefly that from "in heaven" in ver. 7 to "on earth" in ver. 8 is not scripture but an interpolation. It may have been at first a mere marginal note, copied afterwards as the text by men that did not understand the truth. The history of the case has been fully and minutely traced, the result of which is that the same grounds which make the New Testament text certain elsewhere prove this insertion as certainly to be a human accretion. Let me however show that any Christian who does not know one Greek word ought to be satisfied that it is spurious. Such a one requires neither men of learning nor even the fruit of their researches to decide the question for himself. The word of God itself is amply sufficient and perfectly conclusive.

First, what is the meaning of bearing witness "in heaven"? When you weigh the thought, is it not (I will not say unscriptural only, but) rather folly? How could there be such a need or fact as to "bear witness in heaven"? The natural denizens in heaven are angels who never needed witness borne to them. They were elect and holy. In their case witness is superfluous. The fallen angels are irreparably lost, having left their first estate, some delivered to chains of darkness, others as yet allowed, like Satan, to accuse the saints whom they tempt, and to deceive the whole inhabited earth. Neither is witness for them. The spirits of the saints gone to be with Christ, what possible witness can they require?* It is on earth that witness is needed and is given by God's grace, because men are steeped in darkness and lack the truth. Pilate only expressed the ignorance of all the world in his question, What is truth? He was otiose, and like most waited not for the sure answer. None could find it exit unless God gave competent witnesses; and here they are, His three witnesses, "The Spirit, the water, and the blood."

*There is another internal proof that the three who bear witness in heaven is human error, and not the revealed truth of God. No inspired man ever wrote, "The Father, the Word." They are not correlative terms. In scripture we have the "Word" with "God," and the "Son" with the "Father." The editors of the Complutensian Polyglot first printed the unauthorised words from some recent MS. of no account, even if not written since printing came into use, and perhaps to authenticate the Latin Vulgate for Romanists use against its old and best MSS. One of the Greek MSS. represents it in such bad Greek as only an ignorant and non-Hellenist can have written, omitting the article where required.

By the way, it may be well to advertise any limited to the English Bible, that the "record" is the same thing as the "witness." Both mean God's testimony to man; as in John 5: 22, 23, the same word rightly rendered "judgment" appears wrongly as "condemnation" and "damnation." It is a loss that the word was not, especially in the same context, translated in the same way, because it leads people to fancy there must he some difference, as indicated by two or even three English words. "Three* are those that bear witness," but without "on earth," the last words of the interpolation. These words were unnecessary, because only there does God give His witnesses; and the object is to present the truth to those who do not know it. Thanksgiving and praise characterise heaven, not witnessing. But here, if we receive the witness of God ourselves, the love of Christ constrains us to bear witness to others who are still sinners as we were.

*It was a blundering idea after all to make six witnesses, three for heaven and three for earth. It supposes the Spirit in heaven answering to the Spirit in earth. It is as awkward to conceive the Holy Spirit an earthly witness also, as to imagine Spirit in the second triad to mean another, as some defenders of the importation contended. But it is needless to say more than that the Codex Ravianus as well as one of the Wolfenbüttel copies (in Berlin), is an evident forgery which Copies the Complutensian Polyglot in its misprints and the peculiar letters. The Codex Regius Neapolitanus (173 in Scholz' list) confirms the true text, and gives the clause in a correct shape only in the margin. The other two (Cod. Ottob. or Vat. 298, and Cod. Montfort. or Trin. Coll. Dubl. G. 97) grossly omit the article and are otherwise quite in error.

Now let us come to what the Spirit wrote. There is nothing but the truth there.

It has been already shown. how right the order is in verse 6, which puts the Spirit last, because the presence of the Spirit as the divine witness on earth not only followed Christ's work on the cross, but also is given individually since on the faith of the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation. Consequently the water and the blood preceded, as in fact so in the dealing of grace with the believer. Is it not so that one receives the truth of the gospel? First the word of truth enters through an awakened conscience, and one comes to God as a sinner in the name of the Saviour. Then the blood of Christ is privately presented or publicly preached to him as the perfect sacrifice to meet his case; and, if he submit to God's righteousness instead of his seeking to establish his own, the Holy Spirit is given as a Spirit of liberty and communion. This last he could not have without resting on the all-cleansing blood of Christ. Thus the order in the soul's blessing by grace answers to the water, and the blood, and the Spirit, just as in the terms laid down in verse 6. So in the consecration of the sons of Aaron, the priests, first came the washing with water; then the blood of the ram of consecration put on the right ear, on the right thumb, and on the right toe (the organs of reception, of work, and of walk); and in the last place the anointing oil with blood from the altar sprinkled on them and their garments. What believer can fail to see how the type conforms to the New Testament reality in Christians now constituted a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, the only priests and the only sacrifices in worship on earth now acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

But we come now to the witnesses looked at in the order not of God's dealings historically but of the operation in the Christian. individually. Now when we speak of three as bearing witness, the Spirit necessarily comes first, because He it is who not only has His crowning place but makes known in power the water and the blood for the soul's blessing. That is the reason of the difference in the next verse. "For three are those that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water and the blood, and the three agree in one" — three witnesses, jut for one united testimony. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." May I recall the divine relief and deliverance these words gave more than sixty years ago to a soul converted but harassed and deeply exercised through sense of sin which clouded his soul's rest on Jesus? These words chased away all doubt, and made him ashamed to question God's witness. It became God's application of the truth to him and no longer his applying it to himself, though not at all doubting the intrinsic worth of Christ's death for the sinner. It is not my seeing as I ought the efficacy of the blood, but resting by faith on God's seeing it, and God's valuing it as it deserves.

What then is God's witness spoken of in the beginning of verse 9? The answer is, "Because this is the witness of God which he hath witnessed concerning his Son." The troubled spirit just because no longer dead is intensely anxious for His witness about itself; and this agitation hinders it from hearing God about His Son. But this is the whole matter when one has given up oneself as good for nothing before God, a mere and lost sinner. Christ thus received on God's witness enables me to have done with myself altogether. What Christ is and has done gives peace. The Lord's death is the best proof that there is no life in the first man or his race. From Cain to the cross, bad as fallen man is elsewhere, his worst is when he professes religion and makes it his dependence and boast; as from the blood of Abel to the infinitely precious blood of Jesus we learn man's hatred to the grace and truth of God in Christ. But all becomes clear, though not always at once, to faith. "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself; he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he hath not believed in the witness which God hath witnessed concerning His Son." Can any witness be simpler, clearer, stronger than God's in these few and plain words? Are they not meant for anyone brought to feel his need of such mercy? Oh the unbelief of calling faith presumption! of doubting that one is entitled by God's word to take Him at His word, to own Him true and faithful in receiving His witness concerning His Son! Can any seek a more thorough proof that man, however religious after the flesh, believes Satan and disbelieves God? Ordinarily nobody would think of doubting a grave man's witness. Everybody just as ordinarily doubts God's witness for himself, and runs down the believer as presumptuous if not a hypocrite.

How foolish too to listen to the enemy's whisper that you are too great a sinner for Christ to save. He came to save the lost: can you be worse than "lost "? What does not "lost" include? Think of the Samaritan; of the sinful woman in a city; of Mary of Magdala: all desperate cases, each different from the other; all saved, and given to know it; and all recorded that you too may believe and be saved. They were each saved "by grace," God's grace and not theirs, and "through faith," not feelings, or love, or service, or sacraments. The apostle thanked God that he had baptised few of the many Corinthians that believed and were baptised. Christ, he said, sent him, the apostle, not to baptise but to preach the gospel. It was in Christ that he begot them through the gospel, not through baptism, excellent for its own end as it is. But baptism never gave life to a single soul; Christ is the life-giver to all who believe, working in each individually by His word and Spirit, as He will judge all who reject Him to their ruin. What will He say to those who mike void His word through a tradition, and in place of believing God, put a rite to give life to His deep dishonour and to magnify their own office, as if they were mediators between the living and the dead? This is the real presumption, not faith which gives God the glory.

Eternal life is in the Son of God, the Second man. Such is the prime doctrine of the Epistle. To this we come round once more after the very striking use made of the blood and water from out of the dead Christ, with the gift of the Holy Spirit given in consequence, to the chief characteristic of the Epistle — eternal life in the Son of God. It is indeed one of the greatest truths in all Scripture, and of capital importance for the saints in our day. We have learnt by experience the mischief done by such as lapsed into undermining or obscuring it, under the vain pretext of new truth, while it was no better than old trash revived, a frequent device of Satan to accomplish his malicious purposes.

Well then, "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." — What is so good, and wise, and sure? what so satisfying as God's witness? He knows all truth, and as the God of all grace has given His Son both to declare it and to make us capable of receiving it in a new life; and further, after redemption His Spirit is divine power both to enjoy it and make it known to our fellows. Therefore one can understand the weight of such a word as "the witness of God," greater than all difficulties.

And this triple witness of God is first of death written on all mankind by Him who drank the cup to the dregs, but His death issuing in a life without sin for us, though this for Him was always needless. That eternal life did not require any work for itself. It was our state of sin and death that needed His death for victory over all evil to God's glory.

"For this is the witness of God [which] he hath witnessed concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." "Ye receive not our witness," said the Lord to Nicodemus. Man must be born anew; he is incapable otherwise of learning according to God. Faith in God's word alone leads to being taught of God. The church ought to have been, like the Lord, a faithful and true witness But its state had already become such as to make it untrustworthy. What unfailing comfort then especially for the believer to have the witness, God's witness "in himself!"

But here, where was absolute need, and where by grace we have "the witness of God," how barefaced and faithless it is to call any soul to "hear the church"! Nay, the same word of God, which shows what the church was called to be in the world, equally shows that the church was to fall into all sorts of disorder. And remarkable it is in the two Epistles to Timothy that these two views are given: in the first Epistle the church in order, "the pillar and pedestal of the truth"; in the second Epistle, the church in a state of sad disorder. But the church is not the truth which the Christian is bound to hear and receive, though the corporate witness to it, as the Christian is the individual witness. Both the church and the Christian are called to hear as the truth nothing but the authoritative word of God. In 2 Timothy we learn that the Christian profession has become like a great house full of vessels to honour and dishonour. Therefore when the leaven was accepted and enforced instead of being purged out (1 Cor. 5), it became a question of purging oneself out from these radically settled evils, in order to be a vessel unto honour. Yet it is not for isolation, but "with those that call on the Lord out of a pure heart."

But so far is Scripture from allowing such a claim that we learn from its final book, the Revelation, that each faithful soul is charged to hear, not what the church says, but "what the Spirit saith to the churches," and this expressly in each of the Lord's messages to all the seven churches. Can anything be conceived more opposed to the Lord's mind than such an assumption, as Christendom sinks into ruin?

But whatever be the state of Christendom the word of God remains ever true and applicable to the Christian, "He that believeth . . . hath the witness in himself." Were the believer in a land where he could enjoy no fellowship with saints, where he had no opportunity to hear a Christian teacher, where he knew of not a single brother in the Lord, the Son of God on whom he believes remains just the same; and he has the witness in himself as surely as if surrounded with every Christian privilege possible on earth. He is not dependent on any one under the sun; he has the Son. How profoundly wise and gracious is this witness on God's part! For in such a case how many might cry out, What audacious presumption! But "he that believeth hath the witness in himself," says God Himself. The audacity is in the infidelity which rejects it: "He that believeth not God hath made Him a liar, because he hath not believed the witness which God hath witnessed concerning His Son." What could be worse than that? It is bad enough to lie about oneself, like a full-blown Brahmin saying that he had not sinned, though it gives the lie to the word. It is worse, not negatively only but positively, to make God a liar, and this every one does who rejects God's witness to Christ His Son.

"And this is the witness that God hath given to us life eternal; and this life is in His Son" (ver. 11). Can anything be more plain or precise? "God hath given to us," to every Christian, "life eternal; and this life is in His Son." Even an infidel, hardened as he is, cannot hear without emotion the calm and bright assurance which this faith and confession impart. He knows his own misery if he thinks at all. The believer's peace turns wholly on having God's Son, and life eternal in Him. Some of late have made much of life being said to be "in His Son" and not in us. They seem pleased with the idea, because they draw from it the desired inference that the Christian has not life eternal. Why this should make them happy it is hard to understand without remembering the blinding power of the enemy; and, sad to say, I do not forget when their joy seemed to be in the truth they now deny. Is it not horrible to pervert one Scripture into the contradiction of another? Here it is written that this "life is in His Son;" because the Spirit would comfort the believer with its security independently of himself and every other creature. In the Son is this life, where no evil can reach, no danger approach. It is his joy to know his life, the life eternal, in Him who is not only its unfailing spring but its divine preservative against all the wiles of Satan; and yet more, that he is in fellowship with God the Father, the object of his love and honour more than ever since redemption.

But John 5: 24 equally assures us that we have this life, and that God has given it to us here; as a crowd of Scriptures show that with redemption it is essentially ours as the only life which the Spirit finds suitable to work on and in. The natural life may help to explain. Life acts from the crown of the head to the extremity of the fingers and toes. But they are not the seat of life, nor even an arm or a leg, which may be removed without injury to that seat. Only in Christ there is no such loss. There the new life rises far above the natural. Christ is the central seat of life eternal; but even the babes have it most truly, and shall never perish. Our blessedness lies in the certainty that the life is in God's Son. This maintains it in all the confidence it inspires for every believer; but to turn it into a proof that the believer has not now eternal life is not only to evince personal unbelief but misuse of the word of God.

"He that hath the Son hath the life." It is inseparable from the Son. None can have the life unless he has the Son, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Not only is He God to give it, but as the glorifier of God, the Son of man who was also the Son of God. And God witnesses it of Him and of none else. The believer honours the Son by believing, and receives life eternal. The unbeliever dishonours Him and rejects the gift of life to his own perdition, but must bow when he is raised for judgment. Could life have been detached from the Son of God, so as to be in us only and not in the Son, it might conceivably be injured or decay; but inasmuch as it is in the Son, it abides holy and imperishable; and so it is that we have it, and know that we have it on His word. Every good work, every right affection, all true service, and acceptable worship, flow from eternal life in the power of the Spirit. It is impossible that the Christian could please the God and Father of the Lord Jesus without the action of life eternal; for now that life is come in the person of the Son of God, the Father too delights in our having this life and repudiates any other; for this life has its joy in knowing, serving, and worshipping the Father and the Son, as led by the Holy Ghost.

But let none forget the other and solemn side. "He that hath not the Son of God hath not life." If you who read these words be an unbeliever, beware, I beseech you. Why perish everlastingly? Why reject the love of God in giving and sending His Son? Why reject Him who tasted death for you? Yet He never did you anything but good, and what have you ever shown to His name but neglect, dislike, and despite as far as you could? Oh believe what God tells you of His Son. If you believe on Him, you have Him. It is impossible to have the Son of God and not have eternal life; but "he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." This is no less true than terrible: the unbeliever "shall not see life." "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things in his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath life eternal; and he that disobeyeth (or, disbelieveth) the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3: 35, 36).

Before closing let me remark two things of interest and moment. The first is the care to present life eternal objectively in the Word of life, the Son of God, in the first chapter. The apostle had freely given in the Gospel the Lord as giving life eternal to the believer in John 3, 5, 6, 10; but here he begins with the Word Himself as that life without one hint as yet about its communication to us. Yet it had been known as a truth familiarly before this Epistle was written. There was therefore a blessedly divine purpose to serve by saying not a word here about ourselves receiving, though the writer and the saints knew it already. Here then the aim seems to be to present Him as an object, so that we might delight our souls in Himself as the eternal life in divine being with the Father, and manifested in its perfection when manifested to us here below as Man among men. How immense the loss if there had not been in fact this objective manifestation of eternal life, the peculiar charm through the Gospel of John! So doctrinally there would have been in this Epistle if Christ had not been the starting-point and basis. And it is very gradually that we come to the open treatment of the communication of life eternal to us; in fact, it is only explicitly handled in 1 John 5 before us, the close of its teaching, as its objectivity in Christ was the beginning.

The second point appears also very suggestive. If there be any part of Scripture more than all the rest devoted to unfolding life eternal in Christ, and in those that are His by grace, it surely is the Gospel and the First Epistle of John. Yet Christian baptism is as absent as the Lord's supper from both. They are occupied with life eternal in all its fulness and power in Jesus the Son of God beyond all other Gospels and Epistles; and more than all they bear witness to its communication to the believer. Yet neither one nor other speaks of that Christian institution to which the declension from the truth in East and West, in ancients and moderns, in Episcopalians and Presbyterians, attributes it. The only shade of difference in Presbyterians from the rest is that their code of doctrine makes the life-giving efficacy of baptism contingent on election, but equally with the rest depending by divine appointment on baptism. The Scotch statement is as distinct as Calvin's for the Reformed abroad; and of course Luther went as far or farther.

But if Christian baptism be really, as tradition has taught wide and long, the means of quickening souls, how comes it that the Scriptures which are the fullest on life eternal and life-giving never notice it, and dwell exclusively on its being In immediately divine operation by the Spirit's using the word to reveal Christ to the believer? For it must be said plainly that it is as glaring a mistake to foist baptism into the "water" of John 3: 5 as into "the water" of 1 John 5: 6, 8. The apostle absolutely leaves institutions to dwell on truth vital and of everlasting consequence, and only alludes passingly to the baptism of the disciples during the days of our Lord's ministry in John 4: 1, 2, with the careful comment that He Himself did not baptise, He, though quickener of the dead. And the baptism before His death and resurrection was so distinct from what He commissioned after He rose, that persons so baptised were baptised in the Christian way even by the great apostle (Acts 19: 5), who thanked God that he baptised but few in Corinth, avowed that Christ sent him not to baptise, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor. 1: 14, 17), and declared that in Christ Jesus he begot them through the gospel. Christian baptism is really to Christ's death, as Rom. 6 clearly teaches, and if we believe God's word; it has nothing to do with the impartation of life to the soul dead in sins.

ADDRESS 18

1 JOHN 5: 13-21.

"These things I wrote [or, write] to you that ye may know that ye that believe on the name of the Son of God have life eternal. And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he heareth us. And if we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked of him. If anyone see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he will give him life for those that sin not unto death. There is sin unto death: I do not say that he should request for it. Every unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not unto death.

"We know that everyone that is begotten of God sinneth not, but the begotten of God keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God came, and hath given to us understanding that we should know the true one; and we are in the true one, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life eternal. Dear children, keep yourselves from idols "

It is noticeable how the Spirit of God repeatedly presses on believers not only that they have eternal life, but that they know they have it. It would be possible, as it was the fact before Christ, to have eternal life without knowing it, and assuredly even now there are plain workings and effects of that life where its possession is unknown to not a few who have it. Nevertheless the lack of discerning a deleterious influence always exposes him who is ignorant of so great a privilege, not only to a great loss of happiness in his soul before God, but to the practical result of lowering his standard of walk. How can such a one without the peaceful certainty of having life eternal avoid anxiety when the conscience summons as it were the heart to search and see whether he is after all a Christian after so much failure in his ways, and having to do with the tempter continually seeking to draw him into dishonour of the Lord, and then to produce distrust of God's grace?

Another reason why the Spirit of God so urgently and so repeatedly presses, not only the knowledge (γιν.) but the conscious knowledge, as here (εἰδ.), Of having life eternal, is that in and since the apostle's day there have ever been adversaries of the truth who disputed the possibility of the knowledge of eternal life, so as to make it a very uncertain thing indeed. Such is the common road taken by unbelief in all ages, clouding certainty, often on the specious plea of our ignorance, unworthiness and liability to err, which is undeniably true enough. This however is not the question, but whether Christ has not fully and clearly revealed His gift of life eternal now to the believer. It is wholly false that this privilege is merely for certain favoured and highly spiritual members of God's family. The New Testament reveals it as meant for all who believe on the Son of God to know it as theirs.

Now nothing can be more certain than that God's love is toward every child of His family. Therefore is the word of God most ex licit that this privilege was meant to be inwardly known, enjoyed and exercised in personal communion, worship, and walk of every Christian, however immature; just as the other life, the flesh, always utterly hateful to God, is now more than ever, through Christ and the given Spirit of God, made hateful to the saint. Hence the Christian has to disown and set aside the fallen life, and to walk by faith according to the only perfect model of Christ in his new nature, called here and in the corresponding Gospel "eternal life." It is the life of Christ, and now by grace "our life."

The apostle John had as his allotted task to unfold, not so much the Saviour's work of redemption — though he does speak of it, for heavenly glory, and God's great future purpose for the universe, or His counsels — as the personal dignity and grace of Him whose glory gave its value to the life He imparts as well as to His work. God could righteously and according to all that is in Him have delight in those counsels that are yet to be accomplished. Consequently all ground for dwelling on either worthiness or unworthiness on our part is taken away. It is no longer a question of the first man, but entirely of the Second, Christ the Lord. Our ground is what Christ is and has wrought as given us of God. What do His person and work claim from God, who above all appreciates Him aright; and for whom? Not for Himself certainly, for He needed nothing, as being the Son one with the Father, the object of God's love from all eternity. He came and gave up Himself to vindicate the glory and give effect to the perfect love of God as the answer to Satan's lie, who having rebelled against God himself sought to bring man under God's displeasure, and succeeded to all appearance. But His counsels could not fail, and God will surely accomplish them on the ground of redemption. For redemption was no after-thought, nor were God's counsels formed because of failure in anything He had instituted. They are indeed made known to us who believe after man's total failure here below. But as God's love, so His counsels were before even creation, as the apostle Paul shows in Eph. 1: 3-14, Col. 1: 26, 2 Tim. 1: 9, Titus 1: 2.

John in particular was given to enter deeply into the nature of God, and consequently dwells much on the Lord's eternal person as well as His incarnate condition, so as to stay the heart and raise the believer above the sad fact of the church externally departing to utter confusion, ruin, and the approaching judgment of God, who begins with His house. The still growing defection of Christendom is no reason why our confidence in Christ should be shaken or wane one iota. How then does the Spirit of God ever strengthen the heart? By pointing us to the eternal life with the Father before a creature existed and God came down, true Man in the person of the Lord Jesus, that eternal life might be our known portion not less really than in the day of glory. Of course it is now ours in Him by faith. But it is a strange doctrine that a "present" thing is not ours now by faith as truly as the "future" thing for which we wait (1 Cor. 3: 22). Only the case is still stronger for life in Christ.

Words could not be clearer than the Lord's in John 5: 24, or the apostle's in ver. 12 before us. We might acquire the knowledge (γιν.) of what we expect to receive, but could not be inwardly conscious of what we do not actually possess. No Pelagian ever went so far as to deny that any Christian could have eternal life now, though he might explain away that eternal life. But to explode it altogether was reserved for a modern resuscitation of some Gnostic heterodoxy to which this Epistle gives no quarter. No orthodox sect ever adopted the deadly error.

But deadly error is now more rampant than ever; and infidelity knows no shame in our day. It would be difficult to mention a society of professing Christians having the reputation of being an ecclesiastical denomination, that has not scepticism as to the Scriptures at work more or less actively in it at the present moment. Even I can recollect when so fatal an evil was unknown save outside them. Nor had infidelity then covered their opposition to God's authority in Scripture with the veil of "the science of literary and historical investigation." They openly rejected His word, refused to sign articles of faith which asserted it, and renounced office and emoluments as the penalty. The present race relinquish common honesty and retain earthly honour and profit. Where will it all end? In the apostasy and the man of sin, as the ritualists in Satan's mystery, great Babylon, the mother of the harlots and the abominations of the earth.

Let us now consider the concluding remarks of the apostle. "These things I wrote [or, I write, as the epistolary aorist] to you, that ye may know that ye who believe on the name of the Son of God have life eternal." Grace found in us only sin and death: grace gives us the best God could bestow, and this by faith on the Lord Jesus His Son. And what so fitting or needed as life eternal, a divine nature that loves God and His Son and all that is good and holy; that hates sin and loves righteousness according to the perfect law of liberty, obeying God, not as a Jew under restraint but as our Lord did filially. And how ominous the school, who abandon their old convictions for novel and wild ideas, and say not only that you cannot know that you have life eternal, but that it cannot be for any now! Life eternal is the good ground indispensable. for what another apostle calls "good works which God fore-prepared that we should walk in them." Far from leaving any excuse for the doubters or disbelievers, the apostle here, as from the first, says all that should establish in Christ against any misleaders. He had shown. the supreme excellence and fulness of that life in Christ as the object of faith and love for souls at the beginning; now, in the last chapter, he insists on the believer's possession of it, and here in conscious knowledge. Is not this just as it should be? It is due to the Son; it is the delight of the Father; and it enhances the boon all the more to the believer. If it be the first gift of grace to souls heretofore, if it be that on which fellowship with the Father and with His Son depends, if it be that on and in which the Holy Spirit the Paraclete acts in power at every conscious moment of our Christian life, how immense the loss, how incalculable the mistake of all who imbibed the poison, and of all who for any pretext made light of it if they did not dissemble and try to excuse!

The reader has a close rendering of the best text ascertainable of what the apostle here wrote. As ver. 12 stands in the Text. Rec. and the A. V., it is deplorably confused and even misleading. Here it is as simple as it is important, so much so that there is no need to criticise what any Christian reader can do for himself by the bare comparison of the two. The Revisers give what is substantially correct.

Then comes another point of moment, confidence or boldness for the heart in our intercourse with God as His children. Without the consciousness of having life eternal, and the relationship of children, it would be impossible. No wonder that those who do not believe in either, as existing privileges now enjoyed, decry any such boldness as highly improper. How can they seriously read these words, and many more to the same effect, and fail to learn that God expects it from His children, and had such words as these written to encourage them in it, and to judge themselves for allowing any obstacle in its way? It is the main animating principle of Christian prayer. It ought to imbue our every petition. Not that where confident boldness is lacking anyone should suspend prayer. For we must not forget the Lord's parable (Luke 18: 1- 8) spoken to the disciples that they (not "men" in general as in the A.V.), should always pray and not faint. But a different entreaty is not the proper spirit for a Christian's prayer. He ought earnestly to seek that such a dead weight be removed, and that holy boldness be given him. The very fact of having life divine and redemption, as well as the nearest possible relationship to God in the midst of a world of unbelief (which has no real part in any of these privileges, yet deceived into thinking their religious position assured corporately if not individually) creates a constant crowd of dangers, difficulties and wants for ourselves and our brethren. The resource is prayer, which God encourages, even if it be not always the prayer of faith, but too often of sheer perplexity. We should, if the eye were single, pray more freely in the Holy Spirit; but we may ever encourage ourselves in crying to Him as our Father, who loved us when there was nothing to love, and loves us now as His children arrayed with the best robe, even as Christians are here in this world. If we had been left to choose the strongest proofs of His love to us, could we have asked anything to compare with what His pledged word declares He has given us in Christ?

Let us then, abiding in love, abide in God, and God in us. This through His grace expels hindrances great or petty, and gives us to have boldness through the love that is unchanging in the midst of all change. God is pleased with this boldness in counting on His care for us in the midst of our trials, our weakness, our need, in the sorrow that sickness brings, in painful circumstances, in all the ways in which we are put to the proof from day to day. What then should be our feeling? Have we boldness of faith in our present intercourse with God and reckoning on Him through the grace that delivered us from death and sins, that give us life and the Holy Spirit? and are we trembling and doubtful in the little troubles of this life? Is not this unworthy, and a strange inconsistency? Let us, by faith bold about the best blessings, have no less boldness about these least things day by day. Doubt not that He who loves us enters into all allowed or sent to prove us. Here are the words: "And this is the boldness which we have toward Him, that if we ask anything according to His will He heareth us." Surely we should be ashamed to ask anything against His will. His word lets us know what is His will, and what is not. But there is more: "And if we know that He heareth us, we know that we have the petitions which we asked of Him" (vers. 14, 19). Oh let us not doubt Him in these comparatively small trials, after having proved His infinite love in the deepest wants that can be! What a proof is 1 John 4 that in Christ is nothing too great for man, and in these verses of 1 John 5 that nothing is too small for God's love. How easily we forget to act at the moment when it might be for His answer, and then calls come in when it cannot be! Prayer is due to our God, and a rich blessing to us and for others. But it is not as it should be without the boldness which honours God's love to us.

Knowing that we are His children, and having life and redemption, let us judge every obstruction. In spite of sin and Satan we have even now these incomparable privileges, the harbingers of everlasting glory, and, better than all, we have the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit. We are blessed with the Blesser. Those believers who defer this blessedness to the day of glory may be right as to that day, but are utterly wrong in excluding their proper joys till then. Now is the time when we need those blessings: they are wanted most in the evil day for God's glory, and for His children too. When the day of glory comes there will be no need of exhortation to boldness in prayer, for all will be praise. There is urgent call for such prayer now in this world with its difficulties and perils; withal it is the day of the richest blessing for the Christian when we know that Christ is in the Father, we in Him, and He in us. It is therefore just the time for this practical boldness in asking God for anything and all things according to His will: aught else we dare not wish. And we know that He hears us. How wrong to doubt it! Has not God proved His perfect and constant love to us? He may see good to prove us by a hard trial. He may let a Christian (perhaps caring for money as he ought not) lose every half-penny in a world where every half-penny is useful. He may not know whence his breakfast is to come. But is he to doubt God after all he knows of His goodness and wisdom, as well as of his own folly? He is to ask Him to do as He will, assured that He hears him, and that we have the petitions which we have asked of Him.

I remember, perhaps a half-century ago, a godly ex-clergyman asked in the open street by a friend how he lived, and his family. His answer was that he could not well say how, yet they did live by God's grace. Up came the postman with no words but a banknote, which he showed to the inquirer with the remark, "This may, perhaps, tell you how I live." Our God is a living God, and answers faith as He sees fit, whatever the circumstances. Heavy trial is an honour to a Christian now as to Abraham of old. There may be those whom the Lord tries little, because they are weaklings in faith and cannot bear more. But he who is strong in the Lord is sure to be put to the proof, and for blessing. "He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous." But we are surrounded with need and misery and sorrow. We are not to be self-occupied with a lively sense of our own trials, and dull about others. We know others brought into the same relationship of grace suffering severely in one way or another. Am I not to ask of God as heartily as for myself, and to act as becomes a brother in Christ?

But bold confidence in God practically according to His love is for each and all. Accordingly we learn to distrust our own will, and ask only what we know is according to His. And with what result? "He heareth us." Privileged, yea pressed, with confidence to ask of Him who loves and knows all, we are taught to count on His answer of grace. And if we know [it is knowledge, not objective but inward and conscious] that He hears us, whatever we ask we know [it is here the same inward knowledge] that we have the petitions which we have asked of Him. What could so much embolden the believer? It may not be our thought, but His answer in a wiser, deeper and more intimate way.

All is founded on the love of God, who gave Christ for us as sinners and to us as saints, with the Holy Spirit to make it good in our hearts and our ways. But if God encourages us to ask with boldness, we are constantly exposed to miss asking according to His will unless we grow in the knowledge of His word. Here lies the practical value of cultivating a deeper spiritual understanding of the Scriptures. The word of God He magnifies above all His name; so did the Lord and the apostles; and so should we. What a wretched return for His love, and the abundance of truth in Scripture, and the gift to us of the Spirit who inspired its writers, to look for little else than personal salvation, and consign ourselves to spiritual starvation, blind to revealed riches of grace without end!

In vers. 16, 17 the apostle touches on the delicate case where we may or may not do well to ask of God. "If anyone see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask. and He will give him life for those that sin not unto death: there is sin unto death; not for that do I say that he should request. Every unrighteousness is sin; and there is sin not unto death."

This passage often raises difficulties, because of preconceptions imported into it by such as forget the moral government that ever holds good for believers. It is the question discussed in the book of Job, where his three friends failed so conspicuously. The New Testament sets it out plainly: see, among others, John 15: 1-10, 1 Cor. 11: 27-32, Heb. 12: 5-11, and 1 Peter 1: 17. It is so here. It is no question of the second death, but of a saint cut off in this world for a sin of such a character, or in such circumstances, that God chastises it by death. It might be, as we see of old, the removal of saints previously in high honour, as Moses and Aaron who greatly displeased Jehovah in Kadesh (Num. 20), or its immediate execution, as on Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). But the principle is explained by the apostle to the Corinthian saints, many of whom not only were old and infirm, but a good many had fallen asleep. "But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged [as all these were judged in varying degrees]. But when judged, we are chastened by the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world." This then was sinning unto death, the Lord's chastening of erring saints, expressly that they should not be condemned to the second death as the world is.

Hence it would have been quite a mistake of the Lord's mind to pray that a brother should have his life prolonged, when he had so sinned that the Lord meant him to die as a chastisement. The world, which does nothing but sin and refuse the Saviour, is reserved for that awful second death, the everlasting judgment. To bring this into these verses is nothing but confusion to the spiritual understanding. But in another way they mark the gracious way in which God deigns to keep our boldness unbroken and free, only guarding us from a mistake to which otherwise we were liable.

A lie is a great sin, particularly in a Christian. But it has too often been since early days without entailing death. The Spirit first given, and the great grace in all, and the marked power which prevailed gave a lie in that day its special evil in God's sight. The hypocrisy and deliberate agreement of the pair too, each denying Peter's solemn charge to each, so aggravated the case as to make it a marked sin unto death. For it was a lie made the more intolerable by the wondrous blessing which God was just giving in honour of His Son. How odious then in particular to pretend to a degree of devotedness that was utterly false! And so it was at Corinth: they were profaning the Lord's Supper besides by their misconduct.

This recalls a striking case that occurred years ago within my own knowledge. A brother who appeared to be in strong bodily health was suddenly laid aside; and I went to see him. As a medical man, he was a better judge probably than others. But he calmly told me, not without gravity and feeling, that he was about to die. There was no appearance of disease, nor could he say what it was; but he was quite sure his last on earth was come, and he added: "I have sinned a sin unto death," thereon disclosing to me what it was. He had no wish to live, neither praying nor asking me to pray for it. He bowed to the Lord's chastening, only grieved that his sin called for it, and quite happy at departing to be with Him. And he did fall asleep. He owned the Lord's righteous hand, and died without a cloud as to his acceptance.

This is a solemn way of the Lord, no doubt; but there is no reason for confining it to any particular age.

What then is the great difference? Not the enormity of the sin, but that the sin is committed under such circumstances as to make it egregious in the eye of God; and it just becomes a question for spiritual intelligence either in the man (the subject) himself who does not wish himself prayed for, with no desire to live whatever. In the case I mentioned he knew it was wrong to pray for him. I do not recollect any prayer made for him: indeed he died quickly. In ordinary cases it is the very thing we are called to do. Our affections go out towards a person who is ill. We love to think of them being here with us a little longer. We delight to know their Christian character, to hear of their faith tried in one way or another, and their patience under it; so that we need correction.

"There is sin unto death": rather than "a sin." "Every unrighteousness is sin." Every act of inconsistency with our new relationship is sinful. We are now left here to do the will of God. But it is only when aggravated by special circumstances of affront to God in private or public that such an evil act becomes sin unto death. Ordinarily it is not so.

Vers. 18-21 form a conclusion worthy of the Epistle. In those early times, when some who at first seemed to run well proved their lack of faith and life by abandoning Christ for knowledge (γνῶσις) falsely so-called, and ended in hostility to the Father and the Son, the apostle takes his place with the believers whom grace enables to say, "we know" (οἴδαμεν). Theirs was inward knowledge, though first learnt from without. With those not, born of God it never became the inwrought consciousness of their spirit. But so it is with every child of God. They had neither value nor desire for that external knowledge which beguiles and enchants the natural man. They were simply Gnostics; and what is really a shame was their glory, fable and philosophy, which characterised not only the antichrists but early Fathers, such as Clemens of Alexandria and the like. But not so true disciples, who find in Christ, viewed either on the earth (or in the heavens where "the mystery" appears as in the Pauline Epistles) all the treasures once hidden of divine wisdom and knowledge. And in this pursuit they have the Holy Spirit guiding them into all the truth, the old but ever new, and always fresh as no earthly knowledge can be; for he only receives of Christ's things and announces to us, as it is now in the written word.

"We know that every one that is begotten of God sinneth not, but the begotten of God keepeth himself, and the wicked one toucheth him not." Here it is the divinely wrought conscious knowledge for every individual which is of immediate and deep concern for the Christian's heart, that it be kept up bright in his soul. In form it is a general and abstract statement, and no more, however faith may enter in and apply it. There is a shade of difference in the expression of "begotten" in the first clause and the second, though they equally belong to the same person, the Christian. The first is the continued effect of being thus begotten, the second the simple fact without question of continuance. If sin was a slight matter to Gnostic eyes, ignored by them or accepted as an unpleasant necessity (for these men differed not a little among themselves), it was a grave thing to God's children as it is to God. And it was alike a comfort and an admonition to be solemnly told that being begotten of God he does not sin, and the wicked one does not touch him. For God's word is living and energetic, unlike every other word; and the Holy Spirit abides in each Christian to give it power. Communion and walk, service and worship, fill up the life here below.

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one (or, wickedness)." There is nothing indefinite here, no toning down of the absolute contrast firmly and unhesitatingly drawn between ourselves, as the family of God on the one hand, and the whole world on the other in its awful subjection to the wicked one. With the same inward consciousness the Christians knew that their new being had its source in God Himself, and that the whole world lay in the power of the wicked one. What more distinct on both sides? God the source of all on the one; subjection to Satan as complete on the other. It is not the church, opposed to and by Jews and Gentiles; but "we are of God" in our own consciousness, and the whole world unconsciously under the wicked one's thraldom, as we too well know. This belongs to the new life to realise, appropriating by faith the known blessings to ourselves as is God's will.

"And we know that the Son of God came and hath given us understanding that we should know the true one, and we are in the true one, in His Son Jesus Christ. This [or, He] is the true God, and life eternal." The consciously known object of faith, as already come, is as momentous as the new nature, and its divine source; and here it is declared to be ours fully. We have here the same inward knowledge as before; "we know that the Son of God came," in clear contrast with the Jews who look for another to come wholly inferior in every respect; and with the Gentiles, who not knowing God and worshipping demons are still more ignorant, if this may be said. But He, the Son of God, who gave being to all things, did in infinite love become man, to give not only life eternal to us but Himself in atoning death for our sins, as is testified elsewhere.

"'Twas great to speak a world from nought,

'Twas greater to redeem."

But here it is said that He came to give us understanding to know the true One, the true God. For He alone was capable of being the perfect image of the invisible God in a world of darkness and shame and shadows, with invisible powers of evil behind them to give colour to falsehood and blind men against the truth. His is no idea so dear to deceivers, but a real divine person, life eternal as a living fact, on which is based the deep and high and holy truth which is known in Christ, of whom the church is the corporate and responsible witness-falling even then, and how much more since. But there is a resource for faith in the darkest day, and this Epistle has a large part in pointing it out more clearly and fully than ever, with divine authority in Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and unto the ages, to the individual believer as in Himself.

Here this unchanging privilege is briefly but powerfully expressed: "And we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ." Thus it is explained that the manner for us to be in the unfailing security of the true God is by being in His Son; and this we know from His own words in John 14: 20: "In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father and ye in me and I in you" — not only to be in Him, but to know this and all else here stated. "That day" is now this day. Now could more be done than to give us divine nature in Christ, and give us to abide in God by His Spirit abiding in us? and it is all the more striking, because those who go on, content or not content with worldly Christendom, never seem to have even the notion that these wondrous privileges are meant for every child of God to realise and live. How full of meaning and blessedness are the closing words of this paragraph! "This [Jesus Christ His Son] is the true God and life eternal." He, of whom we are and in whom we are, is the true One, as against all false gods, or the falsehood of not having God; but as a fact He is unknown save in His Son Jesus Christ, for through Him only will He be known, who gave up all to accomplish it and fit us, through His nature given, to be in Him. He is the true God; and He is also eternal life, without which, given to us, we could know neither the Father nor Him whom He sent. In Christ risen we have the full character of that life for our souls now; in our resurrection or change at His coming we shall have it for our bodies.

Along with the truth and the grace thus impressively presented is a short and solemn warning: "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." Every object outside Christ, that man's heart sets up and cleaves to, Satan makes into an idol. They may not be for the present gold or silver, or stone or wood, but of a subtler nature. Yet the day hastens when the mass of the Jews, little as they deem it possible, will return to their old sin; and so will Christendom, even where they have boasted of their Protestantism, and of their invincible hatred of Romish idolatry. They will even amalgamate in the coming apostasy, and as both will adore the Man of Sin, the Antichrist when he sits down in the temple of God showing himself as God, so be hurled to perdition with his great political ally the Roman Beast of that day. The Lord is at hand.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN

ADDRESS 19

2 JOHN 1-13.

"The elder to in elect lady* and her children, whom I love in truth, and not I only but also all who have known the truth, for the truth's sake, which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever. Grace shall be with you, mercy, peace, from God [the] Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

"I rejoiced exceedingly that I have found of thy children walking in truth even as we received commandment from the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment but that which we had from [the] beginning that we should love one another. And this is love that we should walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment even as ye heard from [the] beginning that ye should walk in it. Because many misleaders went forth into the world, they that confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh. This is the misleader and the antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we may not lose what we wrought but receive full reward. Every one that goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of the Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine, he hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh to you and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not at home and greet him not; for he that greeteth him partaketh in his wicked works.

"Having many things to write to you, I would not with paper and ink; but I hope to come unto you and to speak mouth unto mouth that our joy may be made full. The children of thine elect sister greet thee."

* There have existed from post-apostolic times till our day all sorts of differing views as to this address: Some for Eclecta as a proper name; others for Kyria; a third class for "the church" in more senses than one adumbrated thereby, to say nothing of the Virgin Mary. It appears to me that it was a living sister in Christ to whom the Holy Spirit would have the apostle write without giving her name; and that her "elect sister" in the last ver. (13) strongly confirms this, as it explodes the notion of "the church," which pleased Jerome (Ep. 123 ad Ageruchiam), the Schol. i., in Matthaei and Cassiodorus; and among moderns, Calovius, Hammond, Michaelis, etc. I am disposed even to think that the more literal rendering was really intended "to an elect lady," etc., though I shrank from acting on what seems not to have occurred to any one else.

It ought to strike any careful reader of Scripture as remarkable, that we have an apostolic epistle avowedly addressed to a lady and her children. Considering the reserve of the apostles and the unusual character of such an address, surely we ought to inquire why the Holy Spirit here departs from His ordinary way, and the more so as the first Epistle of John is so expressly general and large; for it is addressed, if to any, to the whole family of God. It has no local association, nothing personal in the usual sense of what is individual, that is to say, belonging to specified persons. 1 John is so open as to take in every member of God's family wherever they may be, more so than any other save perhaps the Epistle of Jude. Yet the same John, and it would seem at a subsequent time, was led by the Holy Spirit to address one individual, and this not a man but a woman and her children too. Later still he writes to a man in his Third Epistle, and we may readily see the propriety both of this and of the topic there handled for his good and ours. His name is given, but in the Second Epistle before us the lady is addressed as such without indicating her name, wherein we may perceive a delicate suitableness. Although no doubt the lady's need was met, nevertheless she was spared needless pain and publicity, whilst an Epistle inspired and of the utmost value was meant for saints then and at all times.

At any rate these are facts, and we are entitled to form a judgment which none need accept who are not convinced that the explanation fairly approves itself to their intelligence. We have a brief letter, but one of the most solemn Epistles in the New Testament, more fundamental than the very interesting and instructive one addressed to Gaius afterwards. Yet this was written to a lady and included her children. Reasons therefore of permanent and urgent importance must have outweighed ordinary considerations for the Holy Spirit through the apostle to send such a peculiarly serious Epistle to the elect lady and her children; and so we cannot but discern from its contents. For they entirely corroborate this fact, that the Holy Spirit went out of His ordinary path, and here for reasons of commanding moment addresses a lady and her children, making them immediately and in the highest degree responsible to act on the truth conveyed in this letter.

A true Christ or a false one was in question. In all the Bible what is more important than that, especially since the manifestation of the Christ? Before He appeared it was the enemy's aim to occupy the minds of believers with present and subordinate objects. But now the true Christ was presented according to promise, now the Son of God was attested with irrefragable testimony and in personal grace and truth, and has given understanding that we should know Him that is true, Himself too declared to be "the true God and life eternal." It was a bold step of Satan who knew this well, to engage professing Christians to falsify the truth about Christ, to make an idol against Christ, as of old he made idols against Jehovah, when He dealt with Israel after the flesh under law. For one so subtle it became, now that the Son of God had come in grace and truth, a congenial enterprise to decry the truth as but elementary, and to present a wholly false Christ, so as to pollute the source of all blessing, and destroy souls misled to the wrong Christ instead of the One not only true but the truth.

This is exactly what Satan was there and then attempting by the many antichrists, and it is what accounts for the extraordinary appeal of the Holy Spirit in this Epistle. "The elder," says the apostle. Thus does he descend from the first place in the church of God, which he was fully entitled to fill, but love instinctively takes the more excellent way, and here the Holy Spirit inspired it for the special need. So the apostle Paul did now and then; and so did our apostle in all his Epistles. It is thus we have God teaching us even by the smallest change in scripture, by everything said and by everything not said, something more perfectly than in any other way. Hence we may not doubt that there was a particular wise and worthy reason why the apostle John should introduce himself under the name of "elder," rather than apostle, both to the elect lady and to the beloved Gaius.

Yet observe another point. He does not say to the well-beloved lady. Some Christians are fond of warm expressions to individuals without any sufficient occasion for them. It is not a good habit, particularly where a lady is in the case. There is no indiscretion in so writing to a brother. When one thinks of what men and women are, one apprehends the wisdom of God that "the elder," old as he was, avoids these terms to the lady, and sets a good example to others in this respect. Had he ever so holily done otherwise, many would have imitated him. But, as it stands, all was wisely ordered; and it is well for us to profit by what we read here.

"The elder to an elect lady." He is careful to write with respect but without adulation. There is no commending of himself, no self-seeking. He might be considered cold rather than erring on the score of strong expressions. "The elder to an elect lady." Her position was not slighted, but what both valued was the title of divine grace, not what she owed to providence. She was elect of God, one chosen in Christ by and for God Himself. What consideration is nearer to the heart purified by faith? The apostle was led to use the term which owned the sovereign action of God. God hid chosen her out of all her natural associations, and the apostle delights to recognise that she was brought even on earth into new and divine ones. How blessed to know that so it is still for every true Christian! But even in these introductory words we may notice how true each Epistle is to God's object in it. The aim here is to guard the elect lady and her children from the seductive snares of an antichrist. The aim in the Epistle to Gaius is to encourage him in the face of obstacles to persevere in the path of grace as he had begun. "Elect" brought God before the lady, as "The beloved" cheered Gaius not to mind the frowns of Diotrephes. People often grow weary in well-doing when they find themselves deceived by those whom they might have lovingly served, and ruffled a little by the criticism of such as habitually oppose without any serious effort to help in difficulties. These enigmas Christ enables us to solve.

"The elder to an elect lady and her children." Who can doubt in ordinary circumstances that, when the apostle John saw these children, he accosted them affectionately, and that they knew his tenderness of feeling for them. But he was writing on a very solemn subject, in presence of which a lady and her children of themselves dwindle into insignificance, were it not for the Lord's name, and the title grace had given. Here the apostle puts before them in the most forcible manner their obligation to care and jealousy for the glory of Christ. It admitted of no compromise. Satan's undermining of the truth of Christ was a fact going on then. They were in danger; the apostle knew it, and writes to put them on their guard. Everything usual became subordinate to God's honour in the case. It is now a question of a real Christ, and John has before him their danger of unwittingly slighting Christ's glory. Therefore his words are comparatively few, plain and decided. He soon reaches the point, and he speaks in a manner that ought never to be misunderstood by any Christian. He does, however, assure them of his love in truth; for this failed wherever Christ was lost. "Whom I love in truth." Oh how weighty and searching! It was not because of personal qualities that he loved. He may have seen ever so much sweetness in them; but of this he says nothing, only of "love in truth." This goes beyond loving "in the truth"; he loved "in truth." No doubt they had the truth. While of course there never can be truth without the truth, in truth means truly.

The apostle felt it of importance, in the midst of hollowness through waning of the truth, to assure them of divine reality in his love. They were souls whom God had brought to Himself through the truth; "And not I only but also all who have known the truth." What a wonderful thing it is to count on the love that is of God in such a world of vain show as this! John can warrant every Christian's love without any modification. As having Christ their life, he can assuredly count that every Christian loved this elect lady and her children, as he himself did. His apostolic authority in no way hindered his loving these children with their mother — They were God's children, and not merely hers, whom he says "I love in truth;" and he could say further that not he only loved them but also all those who have known the truth. Are not these the links to rivet and value, dear brethren? The apostle then could count upon all those that knew the truth loving the lady and her children in truth. It could not be without life in Christ, and the Spirit given to us after redemption to carry it out in the face of all obstacles. Seen in the fullest perfection in Christ, it is reproduced in the Christian.

"For the truth's sake, which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever." This is a very striking way of speaking of the truth. The apostle here personifies the truth as Paul did the gospel in Phil. 1. The apostle was a minister of the church as well as of the gospel, and although he wrote of the church as none ever did, nevertheless he preached the gospel too as no other ever preached. He delighted in the glad tidings of God's grace and of Christ's glory. He never set either against the truth of the church. On the contrary, he ministered both in the depth of grace and in the height of glory. He felt as the apostle John here expresses it "for the truth's sake which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever." Neither would have said this for any Christian institution however significant. An institution has its place which none can despise or overlook but to their real loss; but what is it compared to "the truth"? The institution is only for a little, and might terminate for ever in a moment. But the truth! Why, it abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever. It is meant to have growing power over the heart all the time we are here below; and we shall only have it perfectly to enjoy in heaven and through eternity.

Then follows his suited salutation, "Grace be with you, mercy, peace:" "Grace," the fountain of divine love toward sinners; "peace," the fruit of Christ's work for believers, both generally wished to the saints; "mercy" meeting individual need in weakness and trial. So here it is for the elect lady and her children. We can see its suitableness here, for the very writing to her and them implies it. Whenever we think of ourselves individually, the need of mercy from God is felt. When we speak about the church and her privileges and the height of glory to which she is destined in and with Christ, the need is swallowed up in the glory of God's grace. But the individual has wants still calling for "mercy" in evident ways.

Grace and peace are for the church as a whole while here below. "Grace shall be with you, mercy, peace from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father," must have been all the more cheering to the lady and her children, as it took the form of an assurance rather than a wish or prayer. "The Son of the Father" is also said here only. Why? The denial of His glory by the enemy was answered by an unusual assertion of it. The Spirit of God waves the bright banner in Satan's face for the strengthening of this Christian family summoned to stand loyally. "The Son of the Father!" What a glorious title! Christians are often called sons and children: none but our Lord is called "the Son of the Father." All is assured to them in truth and love. He alone secures. Without Him we never could have been brought out of darkness into the light of God. To Him we are indebted for the knowledge of the Father and of Himself. He was the fulness of truth and love, and has by His grace and work made us to know, possess and enjoy it all in our souls.

"I rejoice greatly," he continues, "that I have found of thy children." He does not say thy children, and why? Because there may have been one or more of them who not yet had confessed the Saviour and Lord. Possibly one or more might have slipped under the evil influence of the misleaders. He, for some sufficient reason, only goes so far as to say "of thy children walking in truth." This is the grand point, because of a necessary limitation even then, not merely knowing the truth but "walking in truth," or as the same apostle says in the Gospel, "he that doeth the truth" (John 3: 21). But he proceeds, "According (or, even) as we received a commandment from the Father." As some Christians are apt to think that a commandment must necessarily be legal, it is well they should be disabused of the mistake. No one speaks more of commandments than our Lord, and this too in the Gospel of John, who repeats the same word frequently in these Epistles, wherein the law is completely left behind and never alluded to. There the Son of God shines as nowhere else; yet the Son of God loved to speak of commandments both for Himself and for us on principles wholly distinct from the law, as in John 10: 18, John 12: 49, John 13: 34, John 14: 15, 21, 31, John 15: 10.

And why so? Because He had taken the place of man, that is, of entire dependence and even obedience. Albeit the Son of the Father, He emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form as He took His place in the likeness of men; and being found in figure as a man He humbled Himself, "becoming obedient unto death, even death of the cross." It was not that He gave up or could give up Deity, but He renounced the glory proper to His personal dignity in order to vindicate God and bless man; and in order to accomplish this work, He as the perfect servant, He a dependent man, received everything from God His Father. Consequently, as is said of Him in Ps. 40 "Mine ears hast Thou opened" (or, dug) in becoming incarnate. More than this, His ear was open daily, morning by morning, as in Isa. 50, He listened to what His Father had to say. Finally, as the true Hebrew servant, Ex. 21, instead of going out free, He abides servant for ever, of which the ear bored before the judges was the sign, to the Lord the still deeper sign of death. Such was He alone. But we, once lost sinners, by faith have received the life of Christ, as well as the anointing of the Holy Spirit; we love His commandments, as He loved His Father's; and we are thus meant to show forth His excellencies. For what else are we left here? The Lord Jesus always hung upon the commandment of His Father. In Him the love and the obedience were absolutely perfect; and we follow Him, but Oh how unequal are our steps!

The Lord Jesus learnt obedience by the things that He suffered. We learn to obey, judging our reluctance; and the Holy Spirit makes it liberty through the grace of Christ. He learnt obedience because, as God, it was quite a new thing to Him. We have to learn it because we are naturally disobedient, which is quite another thing. By grace we love the word, and honour the God that loves us with all our hearts. Now we thankfully receive a commandment of the Father. Is there anything good that is not based upon divine authority? And the blotting out of divine authority would be an unutterable loss. No doubt there is more than authority, there is divine love; but while love was ever in God and manifested to us when godless and evil, we when converted always begin with divine authority and submissiveness of heart, horrified at our old rebellious spirit. In conversion a man truly submits to God for the first time in his life; and this, as God wills, in bowing to the Lord Jesus.

"And now I beseech thee, lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we should love one another" (ver. 5). On this, one may say the less because we have had it so much before us already. Still it is always good to remind ourselves, not only of its being a great characteristic of the new nature and of divine teaching, but of its inseparableness from obedience, an equal characteristic of being begotten of God, as we have it laid down in ver. 6: "And this is love that we should walk according to His commandments." It is only the wicked self-will of fallen man that he seeks to sever. Not only are both God's commandments, or Christ's as is true also, but they are identified in these striking words so far that they are inseparable from the life we have in Christ. And again in the rest of the verse all are bound together in what Christ enjoined on His disciples. "This is the commandment even as ye heard from [the] beginning that ye should walk in it." These words "heard from the beginning" are carefully annexed; and the reason is to remind all then, as now that the injunction was from the time that Christ was manifested here.

Adam was the beginning of the human race on earth. But Christ is the beginning for the Christian: with Christ came grace and truth, and the spring of Christian obedience and mutual love. Before Christ came and was manifested here below, how could anyone know the truth about Him? The faithful surely looked for His coming for blessing to man and the earth; but how little was definite to their faith? All distinctness was reserved for the future. Worldly minds thought of Him for their own earthly and human aspirations; but those born of God had more or less the prospect of faith only in the revelation of God. Still before Christ came even the saints could not but be more or less vague in their anticipations. But when the Son of God came manifested in flesh as foretold, grace and truth came in Him; and the light judged everything inconsistent with God's nature, and the truth manifested every one and thing as it really is. "This is the commandment, even as ye heard from [the] beginning, that ye should walk in it."

But the worst evils pressed now on all sides. Satan, not content with corrupting, was now denying the truth by those who once professed it. Hence the urgent call to assert it plainly and act faithfully more than ever. "Because many misleaders went forth" (not exactly "entered," as in the Rec. Text and the A.V.) "into the world." They had once been in the church, and they went forth to pursue their unhallowed work of defying God's word and denying the Son. "Entered the world" in no way expresses the fact, nor has it any just sense. They left the Christian confessors when duped by Satan to deny the truth of Christ. They bear the awful character of misleaders "that confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh." "This is the misleader and the antichrist." In the Epistle of Jude the deadly evil was from such being within, though they set themselves up apart there; but the Epistles of John contemplate a later day, "a last hour," when they went out to resist as open antagonists. One that enters the church of God, and takes his part for a while in it as a Christian, goes out a great deal worse than when he, however bad, came in. He now hates the truth, and those who cleave to it. It becomes his active business to mislead the saints, defame the truth, and deny Christ.

Here, we learn, went out into the world "those that confess not Jesus Christ coming in flesh." Christ's coming is now expressed in the abstract present, rather than as the perfect of 1 John 4: 2 (the present result of a past action). This makes no difference practically for the truth, which in both cases is the confession of His person thus qualified. Accordingly, as there so here, to leave out the words "that is" gives the force better than in the Authorised and the Revised Versions. The truth of His person these misleaders did not believe. They do not confess Him. Not that they denied necessarily the historical fact of His birth, but they did not confess Christ's person coming or come in flesh. For the deep and wondrous truth is that He who was the Son of God from all eternity should so come. Such is the confession of all who have life and are anointed by the Spirit of God. He might have come as an angel or in any other way possible, but for God's will and glory He was pleased to come in flesh. This the misleaders opposed. It is the confession of Him whose divine and human natures united in one person. It is not all that Christianity means, but it is its basis without which redemption is impossible. For one not to confess Jesus thus come is to be the misleader and the antichrist.

"Look to yourselves that we may not lose what we wrought, but may receive full reward," or wages (ver. 8). It is not only an earnest caution but an appeal to love thoroughly in our apostle's manner as in 1 John 2: 28. Not seeing this, old copyists and modern editors and translators lost its point, and reduced it to a common-place. The Authorised Version, after the commonly received text, has excellent support, and yields an eminently touching reference. "Look to yourselves that we," not ye, "may not lose," etc. It is an affecting draught on their love. So 1 John 2: 28 appealed to all God's family, as here the apostle to an elect lady and her children.

"Whosoever transgresseth" does not express the sense the law has nothing to do with it, therefore the word "transgress" is a bad one. It should be, "Everyone that goes onward," or "beyond" the truth of Christ. It is a further blow at those enamoured of progress, as if revealed truth could be like a human science susceptible of development. On the contrary, he who is not content with the truth which God has given in Christ, who. therefore goes beyond that truth, really abandons and loses the truth for phantoms of man's mind. "Everyone that goeth forward and abideth not in the doctrine of the Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine, he hath both the Father and the Son." Whatever may be the pretensions to higher light or truth, whatever may be his confidence in these new-fangled notions, he who goes forward out of the inspired word into ideas of his own head or imaginations of others "hath not God." He is out of all present relationship with God even of the most distant sort. Whereas "he that abideth in the doctrine [of the Christ] he hath both the Father and the Son" — the highest, deepest, and most intimate revelation of the Godhead.

"If any one cometh to you and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not at home and greet him not; for he that greeteth him partaketh in his evil works." Now here is one of the most distressing duties that ever was or can be laid on a Christian; and it is laid on the lady and her children peremptorily. Take this illustration. Many years ago a dear friend of mine fell into trouble through being in a Christian assembly which evaded judging similar error. This sister came to live where the assembly did judge the evil thoroughly; but she was slow to allow her responsibility as to it, pleading that she was only a woman, and what could she say or do? Such excuses may sound fair and fine; women might thus act laudably in matters wherein they are not so reserved as they might be. Who expected or hoped to see the evil to be duly judged on that ground? I reminded this "elect lady" of 2 John. This silenced her, for she was intelligent and experienced as well as God-fearing. The issue was that she stood convinced of having shirked her bounden duty.

Where the doctrine of Christ is at stake, one must not hesitate: compromise is treason to the Lord; and if we are not true to Christ, we shall never be true to anything that God has revealed to us. The honour of God is centred in Him through whom grace and truth came to us. Therefore if one come, not bringing this doctrine, even had he been once the dearest Christian friend on earth, she and her children were under the most solemn obligation to ignore him for Christ's sake. Here lies the present call of God. If he does not bring the doctrine of Christ, close the door, have nothing to do with an antichrist. To those who do not value Christ's name and word it must seem outrageous, especially in these liberal days, where man is all and Christ is little or nothing; and even professing Christians are so ready to say nothing about it. "What a pity to disturb unity by these questions! Is it not their chief duty to hold together and avoid scattering which is the shocking evil? Besides, he is such a nice and dear brother, who may see fit to give up his little notion if you do not fan it into a flame." These are the neutrals, more dangerous than even the beguiled misleaders.

No, my brethren, we owe all through grace to the Son of God and the Father who sent and gave Him. If there be anything to which we are called as Christians to be resolute and unbending at all cost, it is where the glory and the truth of Christ is undermined and overthrown.

The closing verses (12 and 13) are a fine testimony to the holy but hearty love which bound the early saints together, as we see here between the aged apostle and this Christian household. "Having many things to write to you, I would not with paper and ink; for I hope to come unto you, and to speak mouth to mouth that our joy may be made full. The children of thine elect sister greet thee."

We can gather, alike from his hope of his coming and from his greeting, how fully the apostle counted that those addressed would lay to heart and carry out without fall his exclusion of one false to Christ and going about to ensnare others into his wicked works. There was no threat of consequences beyond the warning that compromise in such a case is to have fellowship with the evil-doer. Nor is there any effort to effect compliance with the injunction by appeals to his own place, or to their intimate friendship hitherto. It all depends on what grace has made us feel to be due to Christ. For even the youngest may be unwavering, when others who for the time ought to feel far more deeply have tampered with little evils, and thus grown insensible to the infinite worth of Christ, playing the amiable where the sternest decision is due to His name. For it is really a question between the Son and Satan. How he looked for fidelity to Christ is made very plain, in that when he comes unto them, he speaks of their joy being made full. This he could not hope for if he stood in doubt of their fidelity.

But it may be well to add here that nothing can be less of the Spirit of God than to apply to minor differences of a disciplinary sort the rigour which is an absolute duty where it is a question of the true Christ or a false. Such a mistake is turned by the great enemy to the scattering of those whom Christ died to gather together in one. Even doctrine in general, unless fundamental, is not a Scriptural ground for so extreme a course. Still less is it due to a difference about the institutions of Christianity, whether baptism or the Lord's Supper. But the doctrine of the Christ does claim the allegiance of every saint; and he who undermines His person is to be discarded not only publicly but from private recognition at all cost.

THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN

ADDRESS 20

3 JOHN 1-14.

"The elder to the beloved Gaius [or, Caius] whom I love in truth. Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. For I rejoiced exceedingly when brethren came and bore witness to thy truth, even as thou walkest in truth. I have no greater joy than these things, that I hear of my children walking in the truth. Beloved, thou doest a faithful thing whatsoever thou mayest do unto the brethren and this strangers who bore witness to thy love before the church [or, assembly] in setting forward whom on their journey worthily of God thou wilt do well for they went forth for the name's sake, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive [or, welcome] such, that we may be fellow-workers with the truth. I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes that loveth pre-eminence among them receiveth us not. For this reason if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, babbling against us with wicked words; and not content with these things, neither himself receiveth the brethren, and those who would he hindereth and casteth out of the church. Beloved, imitate not the evil but the good. The good-doer is of God; the evil-doer hath not seen God. Demetrius hath been witnessed to by all, and by the truth itself; and we also bear witness, and thou knowest that our witness is true.

"Many things I had to write to thee, but with ink and pen I will not write to thee; but I hope soon to see thee, and we will speak mouth unto mouth. Peace [be] to thee. The friends greet thee. Greet the friends by name."

It is difficult to conceive an epistle which has stronger points of contrast with John's Second one than that which now comes before us. Nevertheless they have one common root, and that fruit which it produces only takes so different a colour because of the different wants of Christians. In Christ is no real discordance but infinite adaptability to all our needs. Nevertheless their objects strikingly differ. The Second Epistle conveys the most solemn warning, and what gives it both special point and general application is the fact of being addressed not even to a bishop or overseer, nor to men like Timothy and Titus, who in a limited space and for a particular reason represented the apostle to an extent beyond those local charges, but to an unnamed Christian woman. An elect lady, and even her children, are all embraced and summoned to discharge the duty laid upon them. Nor was it of course a public or ecclesiastical act, but individual loyalty to Christ so stringent that they were forbidden to receive the false teacher into the house, or even to salute him in the ordinary way, being an antichrist.

The Third Epistle is the outgoing of the strongest Christian affection, being addressed to a Christian man already well known for his love, especially in caring for those engaged in the Lord's work. His heart received and went with them in their service to further the work and themselves according to all that lay in his power. Therefore the keyword of the Third Epistle is "receive," as the keyword of the Second is "receive not." This may seem to the natural man arbitrary and inconsistent. But what of him? Natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him (1 Cor. 11: 14). Here on the contrary the direction is wholly opposite: there is really, perfect harmony; and what makes harmony is Christ. Souls there were and are who identify themselves with the truth of Christ here below; and the word in the Third Epistle is "Receive them." It is enough that they bring the doctrine of the Christ, always taking for granted that their ways are according to Christ. No question is raised of ministerial position. The church in those days had not yet assumed the title to interfere with the rights of its Head. The free action of the Holy Spirit which the apostles upheld in the earliest days was honoured still. The measure and character of gift in those days, when parochial limits had not yet been invented, might differ much. One preacher might be dull to see the bearing of Christ in every part of the Bible, another might be ready and bright. Others again might be disposed to sentimentality and feeling though not really Christian, any more than addiction to dialectics or erudition. Faith and love are very different things, and it was these that wrought in their self-denying and laborious service, which Gaius prized for the Lord's sake.

The First Epistle rises by the Holy Spirit above personality, and binds together in faith and love all the saints in view of Christ's person, and in fellowship with the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus. No Epistle more thoroughly and comprehensively takes in the whole family of God; none has less to do with a particular time or place. But the Second is addressed to an elect lady and her children, as the Third is to the beloved Gaius: so far in pointed contrast with the First, yet both the Second and the Third are but special applications of the selfsame truth and love in Christ made known in the First.

In the Third it is divinely formed largeness of heart. "Love in truth" is the governing note here as in all. Gaius refuses either to be cajoled or to be frightened out of what is due to Christ. Authority, actual or assumed, was at work to criticise truth and love. One of narrow heart lifted himself up, it would appear in the assembly where Gaius was, who sought rule not according to Scripture but in his own way. Many have followed; no lack of succession in this line. The apostles and prophets did their work and departed, leaving their incontestably inspired testimony. But self-willed men are never wanting in any age.

We are given therefore invaluable instruction, what we should think of such men, and how to bear ourselves toward them. It is one of the needed lessons of this Epistle not to mind them but pursue the path of Christ ourselves. The Lord does not fail in His own way to bring to remembrance unloving work and babbling words, and to make manifest in due censure the selfish emptiness which slights apostolic authority, opposes active testimony of the gospel, and casts out of the assembly on false pretences those who withstand such ways. We do well not to be overmuch occupied with impropriety, nor to be diverted from the true path of devotedness to Christ; nor ought we to fear the big words habitual with men who, instead of following Christ, seek to exalt themselves and their party. Cleaving to Christ is the only true way of deliverance from self. There is the proud way of despising a Diotrephes, without even pity for his soul; yet Christ is not with such a feeling, but warns him.

The great principle, whether for the church or the Christian, is obedience, especially when we can say little of power. Subjection to the word is of the Lord; and is there anything humbler and also firmer than that? It gives alike courage and lowliness, with entire dependence on Him in whom we believe, whose ears are attentive, and who will vindicate His own word. Principle is indispensable, but it is not all. Principle alone never made a believer lowly or loving. It is often taken up in a dry, hard, and legal may. But we can never dispense with a living Christ; and He is accessible and active to all who wait on Him, however valuable truth may be, and God entitles us to have all the resources of Christ in His love, as being in His hand and the Father's.

"The elder to the beloved Gaius." Here he lets out his heart as he does not to the lady. There is divine wisdom in the language of Scripture. Too often unctuous expressions have led to folly if not to sin. "An elect lady" reminds us of God, if to Gaius affection could safely flow out in the simplest way. He was thus led to the right word, "elect." If God had chosen the lady, He chose her not to yield but to resist the devil, who would then flee. The way in which this lady was tried was very difficult for her. A lady instinctively shrinks from doing anything that seems unladylike. How shocking to refuse to receive, under her roof, a gentleman perhaps, and probably an old acquaintance. Not even to give him a common greeting! This to all who love not our Lord seems harsh indeed; yet it is exactly what the Spirit of God enjoins. How could it be otherwise when Christ, is fundamentally assailed, and we are called to be His good soldiers?

"An elect lady" is bound to Christ's honour like all for whom He died and rose. No Christian can be absolved from this duty. At any rate, it is what seemed good to the Spirit of God in former days. The question is what is one doing and teaching now? He might have been the instrument of her conversion or that of her children, and it would go hard against her — a lady — not to notice this man. But circumstances were altered, now that he was an enemy of Christ instead of a true preacher of Christ. Perhaps the man secretly opposed. For we have to bear in mind that these deceivers are self-deceived, led too by Satan to think themselves better friends of Christ than real Christians, and their doctrine the right line of truth, supremely beautiful as well as new.

But in the Third it is quite another duty. Had we only the Second we might be in danger of becoming rigid, hard and suspicious. But the Third Epistle exhorts us whom we are to receive, and this with all our heart. If dangerous men go about and seek to enter, we must not forget true men earnest to spread the truth of Christ. The elect lady had to beware of wicked men however plausible; the brother is called to persevere in hearty love for the good and true. Sometimes such a brother is ruffled because of disappointment once or twice. He hates to be taken in; and such a case stumbles him, so that he is determined that it shall not occur again.

At any rate the apostle writes to encourage Gains in the path of love. It is not enough to begin well: the still greater aim is to grow in love, never weary in well-doing. Accordingly the apostle says of Gaius, "whom I love in truth." This is the common ground of both Epistles; whatever be the difference in application and aim, loving in truth is an equally marked feature in each of them. "Beloved, I desire that in all things thou shouldest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth" (ver. 2). How simple, large, and cordial!

There is no haste in broaching the matter; as indeed this is a beautiful feature in Scripture. There is gracious consideration of one another in general, unless grave danger claimed an immediate appeal, as we see in the Epistle to the Galatian saints. But as no such peril here existed, Gaius is assured of the personal interest that the apostle took in him. He wishes that in all things he may prosper. "Above all things" goes too far. Perhaps some have adopted the extravagant idea that no matter how ill our affairs go, or how bad the health, the only concern is that the soul should prosper. The inspired apostle does not favour such fanaticism. A brother may prosper or not in what he undertakes. His was true brotherly feeling; but he carefully gives the first place as a matter of course to the soul's welfare. If this be safeguarded and real, we can as a general rule count on the Lord's interest both in our undertakings or business, and in our bodily health. Our gracious God, if the soul prosper, has pleasure both in ourselves and in all our matters. The very hairs of our head are all numbered. If a sparrow does not fall to the ground without Him, if He thinks of the ravens and the lilies of the field, what a Father we have to do with for every day and in all things!

We know that if our earthly house be destroyed, we have a more glorious building from God, and if our outer man is consumed, yet the inward is renewed day by day. This is the highest and should be the nearest consideration. Still here was this good brother who had proved his kindness in caring for others, and especially those who gave up all to serve the Lord Jesus; and the apostle wished him, prospering in soul, to prosper in all things, and to be in health, so as to be cheered and free and unimpeded.

Sometimes, that the soul may prosper, God withers up what we are too engrossed with; and if this suffice not, He disciplines with bodily sickness. And the Lord takes away the idol and smashes it to pieces. This is gracious of Him. Of course it may be painful, but our hearts go with what the Lord does to remove a snare and win back the soul to honour and enjoy Himself. Sometimes a zealous man is set aside in order that he may learn that God can carry on His work without him. He has been absorbed in reaching and preaching to others, and slipped into less vigilance as to his own soul's communion. The Lord in His goodness and love corrects, and a little sickness is turned to much good. But here, as Gaius was prospering in soul, the apostle wishes his prosperity in all things else and in his body too.

"For I rejoiced exceedingly when brethren came and bore witness to thy truth, even as thou walkest in truth" (ver. 3). Truth delighted the apostle's heart. Gaius was walking in truth. This indicated his soul's prospering. Kindness to the brethren, thoughtfulness about others, prospering in his affairs and in bodily health: what were they all to holding fast the truth — "thy truth," and his own walking in truth? And such was the witness that brethren bore to him; so that it was exceeding joy to the apostle. Gaius sought first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all else was added. His heart was not. set on his own things. There was no compromise of Christ, no making truth a secondary consideration, but he kept walking truthfully. It was a matter of plain testimony on the part of others. "Brethren came and bore witness to thy truth [or, that is in thee]." Had it been Gaius talking about it, it might have been questionable; for who has ever found men whose love for the truth was unwavering and unstinted loud about their own fidelity or service? The more a man loves and values truth, the more he judges his own shortcoming in his service and his daily life.

"I have no greater joy than these things that I hear of my children walking in the truth" (ver. 4).

It is no longer the lady's children or "the children of the elect sister." Of "my children" we read here, those who were spiritually related to the apostle of whom Gaius was one, and on this account dear to the apostle. Gaius had not only begun well, but was going on well in face of evil. Still there was the need of cheering him on; and this comes out in a delicate form. "Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatever work thou mayest do toward the brethren and this strangers who witnessed to thy love before the church, in setting forward whom on their journey worthily of God thou wilt do well" (vers. 5, 6).

Benevolently or thoughtfully, generously or lovingly, would have been the words most Christian men might have used. With Gaius it was primarily a matter of faith before God. Faith always brings in God in one way, as love does in another. Faith bringing in the word of truth, as love is the energy of the divine nature in gracious affection.

In the last clause of ver. 5 the common text as presented by the A.V. is not only defective but contrary to sense. For it conveys the notion of two objects given, "to the brethren and to strangers." The true text, as attested by the best MSS., is "and this strangers." Hence the point is that the love was shown in faith to the brethren, not as old friends but where they were strangers. And Scripture is express on the value that God attaches to love toward strangers, though here with the added tie of being brethren. God's children are nearer to God than angels could be; and we may thus say that it ought to be more to us to entertain our brethren, and this strangers, than to entertain angels. Oh how far has superstition reversed the truth, and nature darkened the sense of our relationship to God!

Many saints are drawn out in love for labourers whom they know and admire, but they are reserved as to stranger brethren of whom they have not heard. The love of Gaius for the stranger brethren had the marked approval of the apostle. Before the church they "bore witness of thy love." "Charity" has another meaning quite unknown to Scripture, wholly alien from the case before us, and beneath the divine affection here contemplated. No doubt its use in the English Version of 1. Cor. 13 elevates it not a little above conventionalism, but "love" is unequivocal save to the base. It is a good word of our mother tongue, whereas "charity" came in through the Latin. The Spirit of God uses a word which in a heathen's mouth had a sensual force, gave it a blessed and holy direction, christened it and thus hallowed it for ever.

But the apostle would add rather than diminish the draught on love when he writes, "Whom if thou set forward on their journey worthily of God thou wilt do well." Even if the love of Gaius had been abused, the apostle would not anticipate any halt. These brethren were going elsewhere, and the word is, "Whom if thou set forward on their journey worthily of God." Its force is melted down by the enfeebled expression, "after a godly sort." Undeniably "after a godly sort" is much and excellent in itself; but it is always safer and more reverent to cleave to the actual words used by the Spirit of God. And nothing can be more intelligible than setting them forward, not after a man's thought of godliness, but "worthily of God." For God is love, and love is of God. It may be about a little thing here below; but it connects one's soul in faith and love with what is unseen and external, with God who blesses for all eternity.

Yet the apostle in suggesting it says no more than "thou wilt do well." It is simplicity as to Christ, this guarded language of the Holy Spirit, which avoids all approach to pressure or exaggeration, though the thing was near the heart of the apostle. One is reminded of something like it in Hebrews 13, where the apostle speaks of two sorts of sacrifices: "sacrifice of praise continually to God, that is, fruit of lips confessing His name"; "but to do good and communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." The first is of incomparable moment and value; but the lower form is of doing good and communicating here below, yet flowing from the same faith and love, "for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." The spiritual ones are the delight of God; those on the human side are well-pleasing to Him.

"For they went forth for the Name's sake, taking nothing of the Gentiles." Here is what especially endeared these labourers to the apostle. They kept themselves totally free from profiting by the resources of the world. Needy as they might be, they maintained the heavenly dignity of the gospel, and proved that they sought the best good of the Gentiles, not their own things. What more degrades the gospel than to let its ministers or the church become beggars from the world? What so openly denies faith in the Lord's care for His work? And how refreshing to see a man above anxiety for himself in devotedness to the Lord! What knit the heart of Gaius to them was "that for the Name they went forth." They were not sent by man. The church has no authority for choosing, ordaining, or sending out the servants of the Lord. It is an unworthy and presumptuous mistake for the church, or for the servants, thus to usurp the place of Christ. Christ is the Head and the source and the sender of His gifts for ministry, and He only. Local charges were quite distinct.

The church however ought to take delight in acknowledging those whom the Lord sends. We find it so at Antioch (Acts 14: 27), when Paul and Barnabas came back from an errand on which the Spirit of God had sent them. Thus, brethren "let them go" (ἀπέλυσαν); but they were "sent forth" (ἐκπεμφθέντες) by the Holy Ghost (Acts 13: 3,4). The Lord Himself "sent" the Twelve and the Seventy (Luke 9: 2, Luke 10: 1) when He was here: and now that He is above He, by the Spirit of God, gives and sends forth those alive again for evermore whom He has qualified for His work whatever it be. He has not abnegated His rights or bequeathed them to the church, or to any individuals in it. Nevertheless we read in Acts 13: 3, that their fellow-servants had communion with the envoys of the Holy Spirit, and marked it by laying their hands on them as its sign, as they appear to have repeated it later, not for Barnabas, but for Paul when he went forth another time (Acts 15: 40). It has nothing whatever to do with what they call ordination. It was simply a solemn sign of commendation to the grace of God, which has been done of late on befitting occasions, and without the least pretension. But there is no such thought as the authority of the church in these matters. Mission like gift belongs to the Lord; and He is the same still, which Christendom has forgotten; and the Spirit of God is down here to give effect to it in us as then. There may not be the same manifested power as we find over and over again in the Acts of the Apostles. Yet God knows how to make good the same divine principle by ways suited to the present state of the church, which calls for humiliation on our part. But it is faithless to give up God's way for an unauthorised invention of man.

"We therefore ought to receive such." How gracious and how wise! It not merely calls on Gaius and other saints to receive or welcome such. We, says the apostle, ought to receive such. What more than moral beauty is this! It might have seemed enough to urge, "Ye receive such"; how much more to include all in the "we!" The apostle was not above joining himself to the rest. He thus sanctions and encourages those humbly going forth on the work, even though none else had a position comparable to his own in the church, which so impressively bespoke the grace of Christ, and reproved the nascent clericalism which despised these zealous labourers, and demonstrated to all how thoroughly they enjoyed the apostle's countenance and love.

Not content with so much, he goes so far is to say That we may be fellow-workers with the truth." May I warmly commend these words to all of you, my dear brethren What an honour! The truth is here personified as hated by the devil and the world, through which he works in a thousand ways to thwart Christ and all identified with witnessing Him. Diotrephes was doing this, though we are not told that he sympathised with the antichrist or the heterodox in any respect. It is quite a different form of evil. His state was wretchedly bad, so that we do not well to say more. But it is open and right for all Christians to be fellow-workers with the truth. Some cannot preach; but we may and ought truly and practically to sympathise with those that do the work. Do we pray for them habitually? Do we watch to serve them in any way we can? If so, "we are fellow-helpers," not merely to them but "with the truth." One cannot suppose it a real difficulty for any saint to be a fellow-helper with the truth. The love of Gaius was marked; but for any in earnest before God it is the same call of love. "If the readiness be there, one is accepted according to what he may have, not according to what he hath not." All can help acceptably to the Lord in some way, which makes them in His grace fellow-helpers with the truth.

"I wrote something to the church." Hence we learn that it is a mistake to suppose that the apostles never wrote other epistles than those we have. God took care that those meant for the permanent blessing of the believer should not be lost; as He inspired them for continual service, He watched over them accordingly. We need not imagine such a thing as that the apostles never wrote anything else. Why not? But without pressing overmuch the allusion here, the fact cannot be doubted that communications by inspired men were written not necessarily inspired to form part of the Scriptures. We find a similar fact in the Old Testament, as for instance books by Solomon and others. If God has not preserved the whole amount, He has secured what was inspired for abiding use, of which His prophets were made competent to judge. When such inspiration ceased for Old or New Testament, the prophets also ceased.

This divine selection is a thing to admire instead of causing difficulty. Had all the books been written that might have been written, the world could not contain them, as our apostle declares. The words and works of our Lord alone, if written out as they deserved, would overfill the world. How precious is that all-wise selection which is a characteristic of inspiration! God was the only judge of what is to most profit. Even the Bible, as it is, how little it is really known by those to whom it is dearer than life! Would that every child of God knew it all more thoroughly. Were you to read the Bible often every day of your life, not only in a way both pious and studious, any real Christian will tell you how far you would be from fathoming its depths. It is always beyond the greatest teacher. If there were only as many books as there are verses or even chapters of equal length, it is evident that the difficulty for the serious reader would be increased enormously.

Let us admire God's wisdom in selecting by inspiration what was for perpetual use within the short compass of the Bible as He has given it to us. It is not a bad adage that one may have too much of a good thing as well as too little. In the Bible we have neither, but what the only wise God saw best to His glory and for our blessing. It was of prime importance that His word should be as brief as could be consistent with the fulness of revealed truth. "I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes that loveth pre-eminence among them receiveth us not" (ver. 9). There is no difficulty then in understanding why we have not the letter that John wrote. It would seem that Diotrephes showed his bad spirit by having this letter to the church kept back, and that in this way the apostle was not received by him.

"For this reason if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, babbling against us with wicked words and not content with these things, neither himself receiveth the brethren and those who would he hindereth, and casteth them out of the church." Whatever his doctrine might be, his works were evil. "Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds." The same spirit which Diotrephes showed in rejecting what the apostle wrote — if that be the meaning of not receiving the apostle — displayed itself in his contempt for the brethren who went about preaching. His feeling seemed to be this: What business have they to come here? "I am here. It is for me to look after the truth; and I never thought of asking their help, especially as they are strangers who come without being sent for or in any way sent. They are intruders." This is not an uncommon sentiment, and although some may not express it, how often is it not felt! It ran through the spirit and the conduct of this man, so high up in his own esteem as to evince a total want of respect toward the apostle. Who can wonder at his hostility toward the lowly brethren who addicted themselves to preaching far and wide? Doubtless he thought it a better thing if they had stuck to earning an honest living instead of going where he at least did not want them.

"Beloved," as the solemn reference is, "imitate not what is evil but what is good." Diotrephes was clearly doing that which was evil; Gaius must steer clear of imitating the evil, for evil is infectious. Let him adhere to the good. "He that doeth good is of God; he that doeth evil hath not seen God" (ver. 11). We may not affirm that Diotrephes was absolutely involved in this tremendous character; but he gave serious ground for fearing it. The language is general but guarded. The apostle simply lays down the certain principle — doing evil is not of God. He who does it as the habit of his life has not seen God. How comforting is the other side! He is of God. To see God leaves its impress on your soul for ever. One cannot have seen God and be a doer of evil. Evil was true of Diotrephes to a certain and serious point. Whether it characterised him we may leave.

"Demetrius hath witness borne to him by all, and by the truth itself, and we also bear witness, and thou knowest that our witness is true" (ver. 12): Here is a fine character not heard of before. The truth itself, as well is all, bore witness to Demetrius; and we also bear witness, which Gaius consciously knew to be true. "We also bear witness." Gaius could have the fullest fellowship with Demetrius. One reason as it seems why the Spirit of God thus notices Demetrius is that, even in our evil day, we may look for others who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. So here, if we are told of one Diotrephes, there were two to praise, Gaius and Demetrius, to say nothing of the faithful brethren though strangers, of whom Diotrephes had nothing good to say. The apostle would have us not to be overmuch oppressed by the sense of evil or by evil-speakers, but to have our hearts encouraged in the truth and in love.

Many things I had to write to thee, but with ink and pen I will not write to thee: but I hope soon to see thee, and we will speak mouth to mouth. Peace to thee. The friends greet thee. Greet the friends by name" (vers. 13, 14). We are not to fall under the cloud of evil. There is always a danger of throwing up one's hands, exclaiming that all is gone. Never could I sympathise with so unbelieving a thought. The prevalence of the worst evil, the breaking down of not a few who have seemed faithful, is the more reason to distrust ourselves, yet to abide in the Lord with purpose of heart. Let us never forget that the Holy Spirit abides in and with us for ever, to gather to His name yet more than to convert sinners, though He does both.

How simple and true are the concluding words in the Third Epistle as in the Second! Great artists used to represent not only the Lord but the apostles and the saints with a halo over the head. Scripture speaks of all with unpretending simplicity: the Lord the meekest and lowliest of men; and the apostles differing from other brethren in deeper self-abnegation and a more vivid sense of abiding in God, the privilege of His grace. And here who can fail to discern the heavenly-minded dignity of being but "a bondman of Jesus," as the greatest of them loved to designate himself?

The Holy Spirit gave energy to work signs and wonders and powers, and yet to work as if oneself nothing. The inspired man had many things to write with ink and pen, but he hoped to see his beloved Gaius when "we shall speak mouth to mouth." He preferred living fellowship, and wished him peace meanwhile. Here we have the friends saluting mutually, and in no vague way but "by name;" as in the Second Epistle it is family greeting: "the children of thine elect sister greet thee."

John — Appendix.

Notes (E. E. Whitfield.)

NOTES ON THE INTRODUCTION

1 THE traditional writer of the fourth Gospel was John the Apostle. Of the two oldest manuscripts of the original text, the Vatican (B) has simply "According to John" as both columnar title and subscription, whilst the Sinaitic () shows this as subscription (so also the Old Latin copies). "Gospel according to John" is found in ACEFGL, etc. Manuscripts of the Apocalypse bear the superscription of "John the divine (θεόλογος)," which refers to his λόγος doctrine (Reuse, p. 21), but, Weiss and Zahn think, was not so used before the third century. Dr. Barry has described him as "last of Apostles and first of divines" (p. 264).

Most manuscripts assign to it the last place among the Gospels, but in D it is placed next to Matthew's, as being both by Apostles.

This John was, it would seem, the younger of the two sons of Zebedee and Salome (cf. Matt. 28: 56 with Mark 15: 40). The Gospels "according to" Matthew and Mark both always name James first; and so Luke generally, but twice the third Evangelist writes "John and James" (Luke 8: 51, Luke 9: 28).

The Synoptic Gospels would lead us to suppose that theirs was a Galilean family, and probably of Bethsaida (Cf. John 1: 45 with Luke 5: 9), in easy circumstances (Mark 1: 20). Until the brothers became permanently attached to JESUS they followed the calling of fishermen (see, further, notes on John 1: 35 and John 18: 15).

John's definite call to discipleship is recorded in Matt. 4: 21 f. and Luke 5: 1- 11. The Lord gave to him and his brother the joint name of "Boanerges" (Mark 3: 17); so that writers concerned with the question of the authorship of the Apocalypse have to consider the fitness of the designation of a son "of thunder" in that connection, as also when investigating the authorship of the Epistles which go under John's name.

The "disciple whom Jesus loved," spoken of in the Gospel attributed to John the Apostle, is generally supposed to be a designation of himself (see, further, note on John 13: 23). To the disciple so described our Lord when dying bequeathed the care of His mother (John 19: 26). This Apostle is, besides, spoken of as one of the "pillars" of the Church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2: 19; cf. Acts 15, A.D. 51). The last glimpse we have of him in the New Testament is as an exile in the island of Patmos during the reign, Eusebius (ii. 18) states, of Domitian. Before that time, according to Tertullian (Præscr. Hæret.), while the Apostle was in Rome, he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, from which he emerged unhurt. Ecclesiastical tradition carries on the story of his life, when released from Patmos, by representing him as prominently connected with the churches of Asia Minor, with Ephesus in particular (Irenæus). Zahn supposes that he removed from Palestine during the fatal Jewish war of the year 69, whilst Blass, comparing Acts 15 with John 21 there, considers that he must have finally left Jerusalem by at least the year 54. His residence in Asia Minor has been questioned, on insufficient grounds, by Keim, Scholten, H. Holtzmann, Harnack, Bousset, and Schmiedel, from its not suiting their theory as to the authorship. Amongst other familiar incidents related of that period of his life are the stories of his reclaiming a notable backslider (Eusebius iii. 33), and of his meeting a Gnostic in a public bath, when he at once rushed out of the place. Irenæus's account (iii. 3, 4) gives Cerinthus as the name, but Epiphanius (xxx. 24) says that it was Ebion. The last-named writer states that the Apostle remained unmarried. John is generally reported to have passed away in Ephesus by a natural death soon after the year 98 — i.e., after the accession of Trajan (so Irenæus, ii. 22, 5). Eusebius (vii. 25) states that his grave was shown there, another account is that two graves were shown at Ephesus connected with the name John (see, further, note on John 21: 22 f.).

1a Indications of authorship present themselves in the Gospel itself at John 1: 14, John 19: 35, John 21: 24. So much of the tradition as concerns the Apostle's connection with it is pieced together from the Church History" of Eusebius (iii., chapter xxiv.), who has preserved the Preface to comments on Logia of the Lord, by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (see Col. 4: 13) about A.D. 130 or 140 (see Sanday, "Gospels in the Second Century," pp. 145-160, or Stanton, pp. 166-168), from the Muratorian Fragment, about A.D. 170 (see Westcott on the Canon), and from Irenæus in his treatise against heresies (A.D. 180), whose statement in iii. 11 Weizsäcker acknowledges as documentary evidence, not mere tradition. The language of Papias is too vague to be of any help as to this Gospel and its authorship. Justin Martyr came in between this Papias and Irenæus. He seems to quote from the Gospel in both his Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho, but does not name the author. The Muratorian Fragment, however, is distinct in its evidence, not only for the Apostolic authorship, but for the supreme value it attached to the fourth Gospel. By the time of Irenæus acceptance of the Johannine authorship is clear; of him Jülicher candidly says that "he was not the man to spin tradition out of his own brain" (p. 405). Indeed, the late Dr. Ezra Abbot, an American Unitarian, was convinced that we need not travel lower down for recognition of John's authorship than the time of Justin Martyr — i.e., in the middle of the second century (p. 80, cf. Stanton, pp. 181-191). Justin's adherent, Tatian (A.D. 160), seems to have used this Gospel for his "Diatessaron," which begins with "In the beginning was the Word" (cf. testimony of Theodoret, in Zahn). As far as is known, recognised opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus and Porphyry, did not attempt to disturb the received opinion. It is true that so-called Alogi (see note on John 1: 1) attributed the authorship to Cerinthus, and the acceptance of the Johannine claim in the second century was retarded by the circumstance that the Gnostic heretic did actually appeal to this Gospel (see notes on John 1: 3, 5, 14, etc.). So according to Origen, Heracleon in Italy (170-180), whilst the Alexandrian Basilides, "about the year 175," as wrote Matthew Arnold ("God and the Bible," p. 268 f.), "had before him the fourth Gospel." Zahn (ii. 459 note) gives ample references for such writers, as well as to Theophilus of Antioch, who died in 186, the first of the orthodox distinctly naming the author. Stanton well says: "That this Gospel, umlike as it is to the Synoptics, should have overborne the resistance offered to its acceptance is, humanly, only to be explained by its Apostolic authorship" (p. 277; cf. Sadler, Introduction to Commentary, xxv.).

In the early years of the third century we find Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius, vi. 14) affirming that he had heard from men of Asia Minor that John the Apostle wrote this Gospel after being "urged by his friends and divinely moved by the Spirit." Origen's acceptance, soon after Clement's, of the received opinion is no lefts clear; the great Christian scholar does not even hint at any diversity of opinion about it. All down the centuries such was the belief, until in 1792 an English clergyman named Evanson questioned it ("The Dissonance of the Evangelists"). In 1820 a German professor, Bretschneider, followed, and, again, Strauss in 1835, as Baur of Tubingen in 1844. But for some thirty years after the appearance of Strauss's famous "Life of Jesus" most German theologians, including independent workers like Neander. De Wette, and Ewald, followed the lead of Schleiermacher in adhering to the old view, and resisting the ideas of the "Tübingen school." So also Renan in his "Life of Jesus," belonging to the sixties; but by the time he wrote his "Evangiles" this famous French writer's opinion had changed (p. 428; cf. the "Life," etc., 13th ed., p. 10 f.).

In 1864 appeared a work by Weizsacker (Baur's successor), entitled "Investigations respecting the Gospel History," and also the Dutch theologian Scholten's "The Gospel according to John," which may together be taken as marking increased academical acceptance of the "modern" view, now largely held in Protestant circles on the Continent, especially since the publication of Keim's "Jesus of Nazara." Weizsäcker's position in his later work, "The Apostolic Age," is that the Apostle was the indirect, a confidential disciple of his the direct author (cf. Harnack's "The Gospel of John the Elder according to John the son of Zebedee"). Such, likewise, was essentially the view of the late Auguste Sabatier, of the French "Liberal" school, as it is of Loisy, his counterpart among French Romanists, to whom Nouvelle has replied. Schürer (see English edition of his pamphlet) is of the same opinion, which was adopted also by Matthew Arnold ("God and the Bible," p. 256 f.).

Amongst Germans the names of Lücke, Bleek, Meyer, Hengstenberg, Credner, Luthardt, Bunsen, Ritschl, B. Weiss, Schanz, Beyschlag, Zahn (as Haussleiter and Blass, regarding the "Elder" as none other than the Apostle), and Goebel stand for defence of the Johannine authorship; but those of the two Holtzmanns, Pfleiderer, Schürer, Jülicher, Bousset. Clemen, and the Swiss professors Wernle and Schmiedel, rank as opponents. In this country Dr. S. Davidson, Dr. Jas. Martineau, and Dr. E. A. Abbott, as, of course, the now disclosed author of "Supernatural Religion," support the negative position; whilst Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, with Professors Sanday and Stanton, Dr. Plummer, Dr. Salmon and Dr. Gloag, besides Dr. Jas. Drummond among Unitarian scholars, uphold the older view. So also the Swiss scholar, Professor Barth, and the late F. Godet. French and American writers are likewise in different camps.

The literary question has been complicated by the fact that Eusebius (book iii.) evidently understood Papias as saying that there were two Johns of Ephesus — John the Apostle and John the Elder (see Stanton, pp. 168-171) the passage would be found in Routh's "Reliquiæ Sacræ," vol. i., p. 8. The tendency now is to discredit the existence of two such contemporaries at the same place: so Harnack ("Chronology," i., pp. 409, 662 note, 674), for whom it is merely "a third-century idea," with Schürer, Loisy, etc. The distinguished professor of Berlin holds that whilst the Apostle's influence lies behind (p. 677), the Evangelist was the Elder, to whom he ascribes all the Johannine writings (op. cit., i., p. 659 f.). On the other hand, conservative scholars, by specially "critical" Germans called "Apologists," generally regard "the Elder" as identical with the Apostle (cf. 2 John 1, 3 John 1, with 1 Peter 5: 1). Even Hilgenfeld (of the Tübingen school) thought the existence of a distinct Elder (still held by H. J. Holtzmann and others) very shadowy; so also Drummond.

Wendt (reviving an idea of Weisse) takes a mediating position; he analyses the book into a "Source" (the Evangelist, John the Apostle) and an Editor ("redactor"). The American professor, Briggs, is of the same mind. His countryman, Bacon of Yale, sets up a triple authorship, although disclaiming classification with the writers last-named (for him the "redactor" was "Theologos," the teacher of Justin Martyr). But most scholars, as Pfleiderer (ii., p. 480 f.) and Martineau ("Seat of Authority," p. 189),decide for a single writer. There are, accordingly, three main views — that the writer was (a) the Apostle; (b) a distinct Elder; (c) a disciple, whether of the Apostle or of this Elder (as Bousset and von Soden think). The last takes the form in the hands of Dr. Salmon (see his posthumous work, p. 436) of a hermeneutes, or interpreter acting as amanuensis.

The third view is akin to the idea of a "Second (Third) Isaiah" in Old Testament criticism. "That the author of this Gospel," writes Sir R. Anderson, "should not have left even a tradition of his personality or name is a supposition which tries even a trained capacity for misbelief" (p. 142 of 2nd ed. of "Christianized Rationalism" in Twentieth Century Papers).

Opinion differs amongst the "advanced" writers as to whether the Evangelist was of Jewish or of Gentile descent. Keim and Scholten thought that he was a Gentile Christian; others, as O. Holtzmann and J. Réville, hold that he was a Hebrew Christian (see, further, notes on John 4: 27 and John 18: 15). With this goes, of course, the question of the linguistic style of the Gospel, from which the critics seek to determine the amount of "culture" (Acts iv. 13) at the Evangelist's command. Some, as O. Holtzmanu and Jülicher (after F. W. Newman in this country), speak of "monotony" characterising the discourses, whilst von Soden complains of "the poverty of vocabulary," which seems ill to accord with the same writer's saying that the Evangelist's mind was "rooted in the Greek culture in which he grew up" (p. 440). The device is, accordingly, adopted of supposing him to be a Hebrew Christian with a Gentile education. Dr. Briggs holds strongly that this Gospel was first written in Hebrew (p. 147). There is a great unwillingness to own Ewald's demonstration of its Hebraising style, or the justice of Lightfoot's very competent opinion that "a scholarly Greek could not have written as John" (see his "Biblical Essays," pp. 16 f., 128 ff., 135 ff. for illustrations). Ewald supposed that the book was taken down by a friend from the Apostle's dictation; that the amanuensis had some control over the language used ("Johannine Writings," p. 50 f.), thus rendering the Apostle service like the aid that another is believed to have given to Paul in the literary form of the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. Salmon. p. 206). Dr. Barry finds no difficulty in assuming that "St. John gave the substance, which his Hellenistic secretary put into shape" (p. 169).*

* Professor Gregory (p. 312, A.) states that Prochorus (cf. Acts 6: 5) is portrayed in several manuscripts as the amanuensis (cf. Zahn, "Exposition," p. 28).

2 A decision as to the date of the publication of this Gospel, of course, depends mainly on the view that one takes of the authorship. The old Tübingen opinion, now happily dead, was that it arose in the latter half of the second century. This has been brought back by H. Holtzmann to the years from 100 to 140 (Schmiedel, between 132 and 140). But Dr. Plummer inquires: "If the Gospel was published between these years, why did not the hundreds of Christians who had known St. John during his later years denounce it as a forgery?" (p. xxxvii.). Other dates are J. Réville's, 100-125, Julicher's, 100-110, until we reach O. Holtzmann's convenient "not before 100" (because of alleged dependence on Luke's Gospel). There remain the views of the two specially representative scholars, all of whose writings, from different points of view, command English respect — Harnack, who does not conceal his dissatisfaction with nineteenth-century results, and puts the date at between 80 and 110; and Zahn, whose date is from 75 to 90. Eusebius says that the Gospel was written in the Evangelist's old age, with which Harnack's and Zahn's respective dates would sufficiently agree. And so W. Kelly: "God directed that the truth should be held back from his pen for fifty years at least" ("Exposition of the Epistles of John," p. 6). "Repetition of phrases," as Barry says, "is characteristic of old age" (p. 161); see also note on v. 2.

The best short popular statement as to the authorship is that by Colonel Turton in his clearly written, sane, and, to opponents, markedly fair book (pp. 323-335).

3 See notes on John 1: 3-5, etc.

4 See note on John 1: 14.

5 See note introductory to John 3.

6 It is clear that the latest of the Gospels supposes acquaintance with those which preceded it (see John 2: 12, John 3: 24, John 11: 2, John 18: 24, 28).

Renan started the absurd notion that this Evangelist bore testimony against whatever he omitted. Thus, the second chapter of the "Vie de Jésus" begins with "Jesus was born at Nazareth," with footnote referring to John 1: 45 f. (see, further, in note 42 below).

O. Holtzmann enumerates certain omissions from this Gospel (as of any account of the Temptation), and says that such incidents were deemed derogatory to the Son of God. Nowhere, however, in the Synoptics is greater insistence placed on the Lord's humanity than in John's Gospel.

Dr. E. A. Abbott, in book 4 of his "From Letter to Spirit," has a chapter on "The Silence of John," but Dr. Drummond shows, by an illustration taken from old ecclesiastical literature, how little the argument drawn from silence serves the purpose for which it is used (p. 157).

Nine-tenths of this Gospel is peculiar to itself, and five-sixths is composed of discourses

On its relation in general to the Synoptic records, see Westcott, Introduction 78-80, or Salmon, Lecture 17, Mulligan, 29 f., Reynolds, 88-128. Ewald and Godet suppose that John designedly gave his narrative a supplementary ohmmeter, whilst Weiss and Zahn consider that he did so without intending it, but Reuss rejects either view (see Introduction to the Exposition of Mark, 1: 7, and note 12 there). Pfleiderer (as now Heitmüller) has differed from German critics in general with regard to the Johannine Christ; these two writers hold that the fourth Gospel exhibits the "historical Jesus" (sees further, next note).

7 A very serious point is the claim of the fourth Gospel to be accounted historical i.e., as setting forth what our Lord actually said and did. This is discussed in Westcott's Introduction, p. 53. Cf. the Advent Lectures (1907) of the Dean of Westminster. Many critics depreciate it relatively to the Synoptic Gospels from the fancy that the "Jesus" of Paul (2 Cor. 2: 4) and John (1 John 4: 3) is "another" than the "historical" Jesus of the Synoptists. The followers of Renan criticize by the light of this. All careful readers may discern, alongside of parallel statements in the Synoptists (Reuss, p. 226 f.), the difference between the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on the one hand, and that going under the name of John on the other, in regard of (1) the duration of the Lord's ministry (see note on John 2: 13); (2) the scene of it (ibid.); (3) the style of our Lord's teaching (see note on John 3: 1), (4) the assertion of His Messianic claim (see notes on John 1: 33, 41). The personality of the writers does seem to enter more largely into the last than that of the writers of the earlier narratives into their respective texture. And yet if John was to portray the inwardness of our Lord's life and mind, how could he do so without projection of his own soul into the task of setting forth the way in which he had "learned Christ" (Eph. 4: 20)? Such even as Schmiedel talk of the application of their "own intellect" to analysis of the mind of Christ ("Jesus in Modern Criticism," p. 36). Clement of Alexandria described the fourth Gospel as predominantly "spiritual" in contrast with the "bodily" Synoptic Gospels (Eusebius, vi. 7, 14), as to which see W. Kelly, "Elements of Prophecy," p. 82, or Bruce, "Kingdom of God," p. 346. This may have referred to the inner spirit in contrast with the facts of the Lord's life (Milligan, Introduction, 19). Cf. T. H. Green, "The Gospel at its Highest Potency and in its Finest Essence" (iii. 171). It may be said to set before us "heavenly" rather than "earthly" things (John 3: 12; cf. John 7: 46, John 16: 12). Nevertheless, as W. Kelly has written in his "Exposition of the Revelation," the "general bent" of this Gospel is to trace what He was on earth rather than what He is in heaven (p. 100).

There may be a difference between theological veracity and scientific exactness (see F. W. Robertson, sermon on "The Kingdom of the Truth," vol. i. of "Sermons") respectively expressed in Professor Kaftan's recent pamphlet ("Jesus and Paul," p. 66) by Wahrheit (veracity) and Wirklichkeit (reality); but can one safely apply that distinction to the discourses in the fourth Gospel? With Robertson it is easy to go when he says (sermon on "The Sanctification of Christ," vol. ii., No. 17): "Feel a truth: that is the only way of comprehending it. St. John felt out truth. He understood his Lord by loving Him." So already Origen (Inge, "Christian Mysticism," p. 45). However that may be, to use the words of Bishop Moule, "In the record as it stands I have a report revised by the ever-blessed Speaker" (p. 14). Cf. Bernard, "The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ" p. 179.

That the material accuracy of its statements should be questioned is soul-corrupting in the light of the express assurance conveyed by John 21: 24. But it is the centre of the position of those who uphold New Testament revelation in general (cf. Lightfoot, "B. E.," p. 47), and so must be attacked. Dr. Salmon, moreover, has remarked that "critics nowadays trust far more to their own power of divination than to historical testimony" (p. 256). Intellectual honesty is incumbent on all of us. As says Bishop Gore: "We must all train ourselves in the very rare quality of submission to good evidence. This quality is as rare among sceptics as among believers" ("First Sermon on the Permanent Creed," etc., p. 17). It may be added, indeed, that the "free science" upon which some German professors flatter themselves belongs rather to the mythology of the nineteenth century. It is the duty of historians to hold the balance between the "objective" and "subjective"; but Kaftan, in his pamphlet already mentioned, remarks that those of the "Liberal" school "wish to know history not as it was, but as it ought to be — that is, according to their presuppositions, governed by the modern view of the world" (p. 56).

8 The various foregoing aspects of this Gospel will receive detailed consideration in the following notes on passages specially used by the "critical school" for the statement of their respective views, and, it is hoped, some aid will be given towards discrimination of that which is true from what is false in current theories. For example, the writer of "Supernatural Religion" has: "If the doctrines preached in the fourth Gospel represent Christianity, then the Synoptic Gospels do not teach it" (vol. ii., p. 463). There is an element of truth in these words. The three first Gospels supply us only with "the word of the beginning of Christ" (Heb. 6: 1). The late W. Kelly ("God's Inspiration of the Bible," p. 524 note) would have associated himself entirely with the following extract from Sir R. Anderson's Reply to Harnack: "The distinctive doctrines of Christianity are not to be found in the teaching of the Synoptic, as they are called. The first two Gospels belong as much to the Old Testament as to the New. . . . The Synoptical Gospels are divinely described as the records of what Christ began to do and teach, of what began to be spoken by the Lord. And His voice, like that of Moses and the prophets then Spoke on earth. But to us He speaketh from heaven" ( Twentieth Century Papers, p. 189). Cf. Professor Kaftan: "To proclaim the Jesus religion as the proper and true Christianity is contrary to history (p. 50)." Cf. Seeley "Ecce Homo," p. 78 f. (edn. of 1908). The position taken up by Baur, later German professors, with Mr. W. R. Cassels, have but plagiarised. As the late Professor Schlottmann has said: "It is the right and duty of the Church to reject the popularising of crude hypotheses put forth with the semblance of scientific results" ("Compendium of Biblical Theology," p. 137).

Without any reservation, the view, expressed towards the end of his life by W. Kelly, of the authorship of the Gospels and the Epistles going under the name of John, was that the Apostle so-called was the instrument of the Holy Spirit for furnishing the Church with these writings in succession, and that the Apocalypse was that which appeared last ("Exposition of the Epistles," pp. 3- 7).

This Gospel begins with a Preface ("Prologue"), which most writers regard as extending to John 1: 18 (so Tischendorf's Synopsis), and ends with an "Epilogue" (John 21). It is variously divided, as into seven parts (Milligan), or three parts (H. Holtzmann, Zahn). Some look upon the "Prologue" as the key to the whole, whilst Harnack thinks that it was intended only to engage the interest of Greek readers (p. 235).

NOTES ON THE FIRST CHAPTER

9 John 1: 1. — "In the beginning . . . WORD . . . GOD." Cf., of course, Gen. 1: 1, where, "to begin with" (as to absence of the article, cf. W. Kelly's "In the Beginning," p. 14), God is at once introduced, without the writer's pausing to prove His existence. That was supposed to flow from Creation, attributed to Him (cf. Rom. 1: 20), which is spoken of here also. Some evidential treatises have probably helped on unbelief as much as they have confirmed belief in GOD. Of recent books appealing to a wide circle of readers, mention may be made of Turton (chapters 1 to 3), Kinnear (chapter 1) both of which are really helpful, as also Lotze's work, of which there is an English edition

As far back as research goes there has been RELIGION, however we may choose to define it, as with Bousset, "personal relation to God" (p. 23, cf. Liddon, "Elements," p. 19). As to the discussion whether it lies in conduct (Kant), or knowledge (Fichte), or feeling (Schleiermacher), see Achelis, "Sketch," pp. 98-100. Surely it extends to the whole man (Mark 12: 30 and parallels).

For "Agnostics" (whose high priest was Herbert Spencer: see his "First Principles," chapters 3, 5), not denying the existence of God, but saying that He is unknowable (cf. Exposition, p. 429), DUTY takes the place of God, and so Ethical Societies have sprung up with their "Ethical Religion" (Mill's "Religion of Humanity"), a protagonist of which is Dr. Stanton Coit.* As to the relation of morality to religion, see Wentscher, pp. 146 f., and Achelis, "Ethics," p. 42 ff

{*Has there ever been any moral revival without some religious impulse?

asks Principal T. M. Lindsay ("The Reformation").}

For the Christian, as for the Jew, belief in God goes without saying (Heb. 6: 1, Heb. 11: 6), it is experienced through His Word (ibid., 4: 12 f.). A man like F. W. Newman, who affected to believe in God apart from this, is by such pure rationalists as Mr. Benn deemed a "mystic." Even those who proclaim themselves without God feel the need of some equivalent, so ingrained in the human breast (as Comte knew) is the religious instinct, taking in the Far East the form of veneration of dead ancestors, as in the West of the memory of a wife (J. S. Mill), or of notable personages in the Positivist calendar. Scripture predicts general acquiescence in this last principle.

A momentous question still remains. Is JESUS, who is accounted to have revealed Him, Himself GOD? The fourth Evangelist affirms this, and some who are not conventional Trinitarians, such as Mr. Boyd Kinnear (chapter 7), sustain his declaration. But it will be seen that this Gospel has much to say of the FATHER and also of the SPIRIT, the conjoint deity of whom is affirmed by the Nicene Creed so-called. The doctrines of the Godhead and of Redemption are closely knit together. See, further, note on 17: 3.

The WORD, Logos. Some moderns have identified the Evangelist's thought with that of his contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, a mystical Jewish philosopher. So Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Wernle, Scott. It may be readily granted that such as Apollos (Acts 18: 24) would carry the Alexandrian phraseology with them to Ephesus. But Harnack and Drummond have abandoned the theory that the writer of the Gospel was indebted to Philo for his doctrine, one holding that "the Logos of John has little more in common with the Logos of Philo than the name" ("History of Dogma," i., p. 97), while the other says that "nothing can be more unlike than Philo and John" ("Inquiry," p. 24). Our English writer has shown that, as far as his writings go, Philo never came to regard the Logos — an intermediate agent between God and man — as a personal agent. Meyer and others (including Bishop Gore, "Bampton Lectures," p. 69) have traced the Logos to the Memra of the Targum, which is Philo's ῤῆμα (cf. Heb. 11: 2), used for God's mouth, voice, spirit, and face — all His relations with the world made and maintained by means of this. But, as Luthardt says, these Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures (see note 22) in their present form belong to the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Some information about them could be derived from Edersheim "Life of Jesus the Messiah," i., p. 476, and ii. 659-664 (Appendix on "Philo of Alexandria and Rabbinic Theology"). The only satisfactory view is that of looking for the roots of the idea in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament. so Luthardt, Godet, Liddon (Lecture II.), Weiss ("Theology of the New Testament," ii. 325 347). The Evangelist's Preface no more witnesses to his having received a philosophical education than does use of such a word as "evolution" tell us anything about the intellectual antecedents of any person of the present day in whose mouth it is (Drummond, "Inquiry," p. 23 f.). Nowhere does the Evangelist put "Logos" onto the Lord's mouth, as any romancer or literary dreamer would certainly have done. Archdeacon Watkins, in a Bampton Lecture, has well remarked that the strain of the Prologue was as appropriate to an Ephesian as it would have been inappropriate to a Galilean circle of readers. Neither of these wanted nor would have eared for that which suited the other.

In the latter half of the second, or early part of the third, century certain people whom Epiphanius (Hær., LI., 3, 4) called Alogi (irrationalists), represented by one Caius of Rome, resisted the doctrine of the Logos, and "from the Evangelist's use of the term" they held that he must have been, not an Apostle, but Cerinthus or other Gnostic. Reference might be wade to Stanton (pp. 198-212). Lightfoot remarks that their questioning the Johannine authorship of the Gospel is "just one of those exceptions which strengthen the rule" (p. 61). Large use was, of course, made of John's Preface in the Arian controversy; as to which see Dorner's standard work on "The History of the Person of Christ," or Pullan's small but valuable book, "Early Christian Doctrine." That Christianity itself was at stake Thomas Carlyle owned in his later life, stating to Froude that he had come to see that if the Arians had won it would have dwindled away to a legend ("Life in London," ii., p. 462). Harnack adds his testimony: "The opponents were right: thus doctrine leads back to heathenism."

See, further, Lightfoot's note on Col. 1: 15, Jowett, essay on "St. Paul and Philo" (p. 272 of reprint), and Inge, essay in "Contentio Veritatis," p. 67 f., which is a sequel to his Bampton Lectures, where the Logos is described as "the basis of Christian mysticism" (cf. note 278b.).

9a John 1: 1 f. — "With God." The force of the preposition Opts is well brought out by Sanday: "face to face with" ("Outlines," p. 41).

For the correspondence of the three great arguments for the existence of GOD to the three "Persons" of the Godhead, see Turton, p. 261,

For the Biblical cosmogony, see, of course, Gen. 1. The geological accuracy of the first chapter of the Bible has been impeached of late, in the columns of the Guardian, by the clerical Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and his attitude upheld by another learned clergyman of the same University, who has written of "the utterly unscientific conception of the world presented in Gen. 1." Contra, a well-known German Ideologist, Professor Quenstedt, who does not pretend to any familiarity with Hebrew, but takes the Genesaic record according to its "plain meaning," in a lecture has been describing Moses as "a great geologist" (einen grosser Geologen), whose statements have "not yet been confuted" (noch nicht widerlegt). Will ''conspicuous honesty" in Biblical interpretation, which Dr. Driver's henchman, Mr. F. H. Woods, claims that they represent, accept as an "ascertained fact" that algæ (see "Encyclopaedia Britannica") — the marine plants used by Quenstedt as his illustration — were the primary organisms? That is, learn from Germans when these can really put English clergy right? Or are Germans to be followed only when they serve the cause of unbelieving criticism?

Again, Darwinism, some twenty years ago, might have served these English Hebraists as a refuge, but at a German Natural History Congress of the present year (1907), the English scientist's characteristic doctrine (struggle for existence and sexual selection) was declared, without a single dissentient voice, to be im Begriff abzusterben.

May not the "Westminster Commentary" on Genesis within a few years' time be obsolete, so far as regards its physical science? An Oxford First Classman in Science, holder of the University Scholarship in Geology, and at the same time a Hall-Houghton Greek Testament Prize, who was a firm believer in the accuracy of Genesis, thirty years ago to the present writer described Huxley's "Elementary Lessons in Physiology" as "written in gold." The same friend's brother, himself a biologist, as the present century came in, spoke of that book as "entirely superseded." We have now a Senior Wrangler publicly declaring that he declines to take his science from Canon Driver. The "ordinary man," besides, as the Athenæum has just said, "believes the Mosaic incidents to be facts." Apart from reasons other than these it is no wonder that churches are depleted of men. "Knowledge comes," indeed, but what if "wisdom lingers"?

As to alleged connection of evil with creation (Exposition, p. 10, note), cf. Rashdall in "Contentio Veritatis," pp. 43 ff. In Isa. 45: 7, it should be observed, "evil" means adversity.

9b John 1: 3. — The preposition διὰ is commonly taken as instrumental, and yet in 1 Cor. 1: 9 it certainly is used of the original source (Kenrick).

On the concurrence of Aorist and Perfect (ἐγένετο, γέγονεν), see Lightfoot on Col. 1: 15.

The punctuation by which γέγονεν is taken as part of this verse has had the approval of Meyer (as Alford), Luthardt, Godet and Zahn. Moulton went with Westcott and Hort.

10 John 1: 4. — On the general question of the text of the Fourth Gospel, see Blass, "Philology of the Gospels," chapter 12. This scholar, in his edition, has favoured more than most the "Western" text so-called, whilst Weiss differs from Westcott and Hort in always regarding the internal evidence.

11 Gnostics ascribed a distinct personality to both Life and Light. On such errors the standard English work is Mansel's "Gnostic Heresies," but reference might be made also to Green, "Handbook of Church History," pp. 171-176. Mr. E. F. Scott, adopting the theory that the Evangelist made incursions into philosophy (p. 266), imagines that the Life and Light are "related to the Platonic doctrine of Ideas" or archetypes (p. 253). That could only be by way of contrast. Why travel outside Biblical passages, such as Ps. 36: 9?

God as Creator (Power or Force: cf. Mark 14: 62) is the Hebrew EL, Semitic idea, whilst the new revelation exhibits Him also as Light, establishing the Aryan notion (see note 90 on θεός). These are combined by the Evangelist in his Preface.

12 John 1: 6. — "John." In this Gospel we have to distinguish (α) the Baptist, never so described by the Evangelist, to whom it does not occur that there could be any confusion of the son of Zacharias with himself; (β) the father of Andrew and Peter (verse 42).

12a John 1: 7. — "All." For the universalism of this Gospel, cf. John 3: 16 and John 12: 32, also note on verse 14 with regard to grace.

"Believe." In the fourth Gospel the verb only is used, not the noun "belief" or "faith." On the various constructions employed of the verb, see Abbott, "Johannine Grammar," § 1480 ff., in particular. On Faith as set forth by this Evangelist, see notes on John 5: 46 f., John 6: 69, and John 17: 3. Reference may also be made to Sir R. Anderson's "The Gospel and its Ministry," chap. 4, and to Illingworth's "Christian Character," chapter 4.

13 John 1: 9. - ὅ . . . ἐρχόμενον. This connection of the words, followed in the Exposition, agrees with the opmion of Grotius, and seems to have the approval of Plummer. Luther adopted it for the first edition of his version. "Come into the world" was a Messianic phrase: cf. John 2: 27 and John the Baptist's "He that should come" from which Govett renders "was to come." The English Authorised Version has the support of Meyer, Ryle, and McRory, whilst "the true light was coming" represents the construction favoured by Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Godet, Westcott (see also Revised Version) and Zahn (p. 66f.). That "the light lighteneth every man" remains certain. The words were quoted by the Gnostic Basilides exactly as they stand in this Gospel.

Mr. Carr refers to the ancient use of "enlightened" for the baptised; but only the Fathers, never Scripture, so spoke of them.

14 John 1: 10. — "He was in the world." Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, and Theodoret agreed that these words speak of Christ pre-incarnate, or as Jehovah, so Milligan, Inge, etc. But cf. Zahn, pp. 57 f., 66-68. As to the specially Johannine sense of the world, see "Exposition of the Epistles of John," pp. 137-142, and note on John 15: 19 below. This verse bears on the philosophical doctrine of the Transcendence of God, exaggerated by Deists, and the scientific doctrine of His Immanence, exaggerated by Pantheists. As to the latter, see Wentscher, pp. 150-152, Mr. J. R. Illingworth's book, s. tit., and Bishop Gore's Third Lecture on "The New Theology." God is morally transcendent. And so Stevens: "The world is separate from God because of its sinfulness" ("Johannine Theology," p. 97). Cf. T. H. Green, iii. p. 248. The immanence of God should rather be described as that of nature in Him (Acts 7: 28; Col. 1: 17). The two notions find their reconciliation in the person of Christ, and in Him alone.

With this and the following verse, cf. 1 Cor. 1: 22 f., and, of course, 16: 8 of this Gospel. "He convicts them, not of mere unbelief in Messiah (as in Matthew), but of the common atheism of man" (Bellett, p. 10).

As to difference between Apprehension and Comprehension of the Infinite, see I. Taylor, "The World of Mind," p. 822, and Cf. Schofield, "The Knowledge of God," p. 62.

15 John 1: 11. — τὰ ἴδια, "His own door." Segond's French version (chez les siens for this as for οἱ ἴδιοι) falls short of the conventional idiom of that language, chez soi, used in the "Version Nouvelle" by Mr. J. N. Darby.

16 John 1: 12. — The vexed question as to universal "Fatherhood of God" comes in here (see F. W. Robertson, "First Sermon on Baptism," vol. ii., p. 59 ff., and Bishop Gore, "Creed of the Christian," p. 9 i.). God is, of course, "Father of spirits" (Heb. 12: 9; cf. Acts 17: 29). But Rom. 8: 16 is very clear, for all not hampered by reluctance to own the Evangelist's independence of Pauline doctrine (see general note on John 3) as a parallel to this passage, where "authority" (title) to become is so pronounced. "What is usually meant by the Fatherhood of God is really His Godhood (Sir B. Anderson, "The Gospel and its Ministry," p. 182).

Harnack writes ("The Essence of Christianity"): "God's Fatherhood is the main article in Jesus' message" (meaning the joint Synoptic record), as to which, however, see the English reply entitled "Christianized Rationalism": "There was nothing new in the conception of the Divine Fatherhood so conceived" (p. 147). See, further, on John 3: 16 and on John 16: 27.

17 "Believe on (trust to) His name." Origen, on 3: 18, regards "trusting to the name" as the initial form of faith (Abbott, op. cit., § 1,486. Cf. note below on John 2: 23 ff., and see John 8: 30-32). As to believing "His name" (without εἰς) in 1 John 3: 23, see "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 340 f. Salvation by His name alone, as set forth by the Evangelist's fellow-witness Peter in Acts 4: 12, shatters the idea lately broached that an men are "potential Christs."

18 John 1: 14. — "Became flesh." On the Incarnation, see such works as Bishop Gore's "Bampton Lectures," Professor Orr's "Kerr Lectures," No. 6, and Turton, p. 262 ff. It was either denied or undermined by Gnosticism, in its earliest form known as "Docetism," one of the representatives of which was Cerinthus, contemporary with the Apostle John. His errors Irenæus (III., 11, 7) attributed to misuse of the Gospel of Mark. Cerinthus held that JESUS would rise again with the rest of mankind in the day of judgment, for which Ronan compares Qoran, iv. 156 (see Hansel, Lecture VIII.). The "Docetæ" derived their name from holding that our Lord had only an apparent body (see 1 John 1: 1, 4: 2 f., 2 John 7). They made use of the Apostle's own writings, as of the Gospel (3: 5 f.), in support of the evil of matter. The Apocryphal "Gospel of Peter" issued from this school (see "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 251). Basilides (Mansel, Lecture 10) was an Alexandrian active between 117-138 A.D.; Valentinus (Lectures 11, 12) was doing his mischief from 140-155 A.D. He, too, quoted this Gospel. The error of Nicolas is referred to in Rev. 2: 15 (see "Exposition of Revelation," p. 51.

18a "Dwelt." See below under "glory" (note 20).

19 "We beheld." The writer was an eye-witness. There are many indications of this in the fourth Gospel. His use of the materials of others must not be mistaken for dependence, as by H. Holtzmann ("Manual Commentary," p. 3). Cf. Von Soden: "What could have led him, the foremost of eye-witnesses, to depend upon an account second-hand such as the Gospel of Mark?" (p. 442). It were wiser to say that in all cases of such supposed reliance on existing written material the Apostle is confirming the narrative from his own knowledge (Heb. 2: 3).

20 "His glory" (cf. 12: 41). The Targumic Shekina, as at Ex. 25: 8, where "dwell" (Hebrew: shaken) is represented by σκηνοῦν (John's, ἐσκήνωσεν) in the Palestinian Greek version by Aquila. See also references to LXX. in Zahn, p. 79. Cf. the Targum at Isa. 53: 3, etc., and note 8 above. An allusion seems to be made to the Transfiguration.

21 "Only begotten from beside a father." This striking form of expression is the Evangelist's way of alluding to the Virgin Birth (see Zahn, ii. 505, and p. 72 of his "Exposition"; also Blass, p. xii f. of Preface to critical edition, showing that Tertullian's text had "was born" (cf. old Lat. codex of Verona) without "who." Blass attaches importance to the first and of v. 14. Cf. papers of Mr. Carr in the Expositor and the Expository Times, 1907).

22 "Grace." It is only in the fourth of the Gospels that we meet with the revelation of grace. "It is not to be found in Mark or Matthew, although foreshadowed in Luke" (Sir R. Anderson, Twentieth Century Papers, p. 189). Cf. note 8 above, and, of course, Titus 2: 11, one of the passages in Paul's writings by which some writers now imagine the Evangelist was influenced. See, further, general note on John 3; also John 2 of Sir R. Anderson's "The Gospel and its Ministry."

23 John 1: 16. — On Gnosticism, see note 18 above. and for references in the Pauline epistles to the system in the hands of Jews. see Col. 1: 19, Col. 2: 9, 1 Tim. 6: 20. The distinction made between "Jesus" and "Christ" has reappeared in the recent work entitled "Science and Health," text book of "Christian Science" (110th edition, p. 229). The same work reasserts the evil of matter (p. 258, etc.).

24 "Grace upon grace." That is, grace taking the place of (ἀντὶ) old grace. The expositor here takes the same view as Bengel, Winer, Olshausen, Alford, Weiss and Zahn. The other view referred to in the text is that of Calvin which is followed by Govett.

25 John 1: 17. — "Jesus Christ" (cf. 1 John 1: 3; Rev. 1: 1). "Christ" had now become a personal name, in distinction from "the Christ" (see also on John 17: 3).

26 John 1: 18. — There are four readings: (α) "The only begotten Son," to which Luthardt, as Kelly, adheres; (β) "The only begotten" (Latin copy followed by Blass) (γ) "God only begotten" (Westcott and Hort, Weiss Zahn), (δ) "the only begotten God." Westcott and Hort have in additional note: "The best attested reading has the advantage of combining the two great predicates of the word which have been previously indicated" (verses 1, 14) But the omission of the article before "God" tells against their reading. Carr (Expositor, April, 1907) avails himself of Dr. Hort's reading, but what he says on John 1: 14 needs no such questionable support. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all quote "God" (see Tischendorf, 8th edition, or Tregelles), so that the alteration must have been made early, and would secure some recognition when seen to lend itself to Arian views. But it was probably, as Paley says, "an error of transcription" (Confusion of υσ and θσ). A recent commentator (Heitmüller) thinks υἱὸς the more probable reading.

26a Thus Mr. Ernest Scott writes: "Truth becomes another name for the Divine nature . . . God the only true" (p. 254). But in John 17: 3 the word for true is ἀληθινὸς, "genuine." Besides the remarks of Mr. Kelly on the present passage of John, reference should be made to his comment on John 14: 6, and to his "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 365 f.

26b John 1: 16-18. — Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Calvin, etc., suppose that these verses were spoken by the Baptist; but Cyril, Chrysostom, Grotius, Alford, Wordsworth and Zahn take them to be the Evangelist's. John 1: 19 clearly marks a resumption of the Baptist's testimony. Moreover, "who is in the bosom" would be said of the ascended Christ (Zahn, p. 96).

27 Much has been made by recent writers of the different way in which the unfolding of the claims of JESUS to be Messiah is treated in the fourth from its presentation in the other Gospels. Thus H. Holtzmann represents that, according to the Synoptists, it dawns on John the Baptist only when he is in prison that JESUS is the Christ! ("Manual Commentary," p. 4). So also for the reserve of our Lord on this subject characteristic of the second Gospel, as to which see note on Mark 8: 29 (No. 82). But already, according to that Evangelist's account in his first chapter (verse 44), the leper was told by the Lord to show himself to the priest "for a testimony to them." See now Garvie, "Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus," chapter 6: "Early self-disclosure."

28 John 1: 19. — "The Jews." In verse 24 it is said that the Pharisees sent them. One of the fancies current criticism is that when "Pharisees" are spoken of in this Gospel you have an earlier, when "Jews," as usually (John 2: 6, 13, etc.) a later, recension. Apart from a special application of the name "Jews" to the Lord's opponents — those who were such only in name (Rev. 3: 9) — distance of time and scene called for the designation even on the part of a writer himself a Jew by birth.

29 John 1: 28. — "Bethany." Perhaps the Betonim of Joshua 13: 26. The writer of "Supernatural Religion" impeached the Evangelist of ignorance of Palestinian topography, as though he confused the place here spoken of with the village by himself said to be near Jerusalem (2: 18). There are other place-names, each of which is applied to more than one position in the country (cf. note in G. A. Smith's "Historical Geography of Palestine," p. 496). For example, Emmaus in Luke 24: 13 could not be the same as that spoken of in 1 Macc. 3: 40 (cf. note on Cana in John 2: 1 here). Moreover, places are liable to change of name. Drummond gives several instances of such variation in the British Isles. And so this Bethany may have become "Bethabara."

30 John 1: 23. — One test of authorship of a New Testament book is the way in which the Old Testament is quoted by the writer. None of John's citations are from the LXX. against the Hebrew, whilst some are from the Hebrew against the LXX. Such are John 12: 14 f., 40, John 13: 18 to John 19: 37. In this last, as Bishop Lightfoot notes, "the LXX. has not a single word in common with St. John's text." This bears on the question of whether a Gentile Christian could have been the writer of the Gospel (cf. notes 18, 92 on Mark).

31 John 1: 25. — The Greek article, here as in verse 21, excludes the idea some have had that behind the Jew's inquiry was the superstitious notion (alluded to in Luke 9: 19) that the old prophets would rise from the dead when Messiah came.

32 John 1: 26. — "Standeth." Not that the Lord was just then in the crowd before the Baptist (cf. verse 29). It is, literally, "there hath stood." Bengel: "hath taken his stand."

33 John 1: 29. — "Taketh away." So Meyer, Godet, Westcott, Weiss and Zahn. The word αἴρων was taken by Lücke and De Wette in the sense of "bearing" as the margin of A.V. With his exposition of the present passage of. Mr. Kelly's treatment of 1 John 2: 2 (p. 65 i.).

34 John 1: 31. — "Knew Him not." Comparison with Matt. 3: 14, which is cited as contradicting this, seems to show that ούκ ῃδειν here can scarcely mean absolutely unacquainted with our Lord, which in itself is very improbable although allowance has to be made for the fact that they were brought up in different parts of the land. John did not previously know Him as Messiah So Luthardt, Westcott, Milligan, Dods and Zahn, and see note 136 on Mark Cf. also Carr's note. May we not also compare the last words of verse 26 in the Greek with the present passage? The Evangelist seems to speak of the same kind of knowledge here as there.

35 John 1: 32 ff. — Several modern critics (e.g., Schmiedel, col. 2,538) treat this section of the first chapter as inconsistent with the Synoptists' representation of the Baptist's recognition of the Messiahship of JESUS. Such regard Matt. 11: 2-6 (Luke 7: 18-23) as indicating quite a different state of mind about this in John from what ordinary readers gather from those Gospels. The "critical" view is that the Baptist's belief in our Lord as the Christ was then not retrograde but hopeful. It is only by assuming that Matthew's account of the first official relations of the Baptist and JESUS was "doctored" that they can use the first Gospel in support of their theory (see last previous note).

John 1: 32 contradicts the Gnostic theory that the Being who descended on JESUS was "the Christ," and declares that it was the "Spirit."

36 John 1: 40. — "Simon Peter." The Evangelist assumes knowledge of this disciple from previous records (cf. his parenthetical note in John 3: 24).

37 John 1: 41. — "Messiah." Peculiar to this Gospel (see also John 4: 25). As to the bearing of this passage on Mark 8: 29, see note 82 on that Gospel.

"First" is taken with "he" by Tischendorf (eighth edition), Meyer, Godet and Zahn (πρῶτος); with "brother" by Tregelles, Alford, W. and H. (prw'ton; R.V.: "findeth first"). The Evangelist here intimates indirectly that he followed Andrew's example in bringing his own brother to JESUS (Zahn, p. 9).

38 John 1: 42. — Simon. Those bearing the name who come before us in the Gospels are (α) Simon Peter, (β) Simon the Cananæan, also described as Zealot (γ) Simon Iscariot, father of Judas the Betrayer, as here (δ) Simon one of the brethren of the Lord; (ε) Simon the leper; (ζ) Simon the Pharisee.

39 "Kephas." This, his Aramaic surname, is peculiar to the fourth Gospel.

40 John 1: 44. — "Bethsaida." There is a question as to whether there were two places of this name, as Trench thought (so now Staerk), one on the western shore of the lake, in Galilee, another on the eastern shore, in Gaulonitis. Thomson considered that there was but one ("The Land and the Book," p. 373 f.). We have the name again in John 12: 21, where "Galilee" is added as if by way of distinction (cf. note 232).

41 John 1: 45. — "Nathanael." Nathanael is mentioned again in John 21: 2, where he is said to have been of Cana, to which the Lord here proceeds. To imagine, as Mr. E. F. Scott does, that his name was used by the Evangelist symbolically, as a counterpart of Paul, is to carry the theory of the unhistorical character of the Gospel as far as the wildest of the Continental writers (see further in note 61). Others have, with no more reason, supposed that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.

42 "Joseph." Under this name we have to distinguish (α) the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord, (β) one of the brethren of the Lord, introduced under the Greek form "Joses ", (γ) a brother of James the Little; (δ) the disciple from Arimathea. Trench notes "John's veracity in recording Philip's imperfect knowledge" ("Studies," p. 68 f.). The Evangelist's admission to his record of such descriptions of our Lord (cf. 6: 42) falls under what the late Dr. Salmon called John's "irony," as against the German suggestion that the Evangelist did not know of the Virgin Birth, or discredited it. This many-sidedness of John's narrative does but confirm the conviction of its never departing from, still less correcting, the common "historical" setting of the Synoptic Gospels. O. Holtzmann, whilst one of those lightly esteeming the historical value of the fourth Gospel (p. 108), hesitates not to appraise it highly, as occasion serves, like the present passage, for the belittling of the Synoptic narrative; here to support the idea of a human paternity of the Lord (see, further, on John 6: 42).

43 John 1: 49. — "Son of God, King of Israel." With Ps. 2 cf. Isa. 44: 16 Zeph. 3: 13-20. For many Christians the Son of God's Kingship over Israel is a dead-letter. "To such Israel is a broken vessel never more to be used" (Govett, p. 50 f.). so they speak of His "reigning in the hearts of His spiritual people." But His death was to attest that He is "the King of the Jews," not "the King of the Church"; Scripture never so describes Him (Exposition, p. 405 f )

44 John 1: 50. — "Verily, verily." This form of asseveration, characteristic of John's Gospel, regularly introduces a statement of special solemnity — we may say revelation (see John 3: 3, 11, John 6: 26, 32, 47, 53, John 8: 34, 51, 58, John 10: 1, 7, John 13: 16, 20, 21, 38, John 14: 12, John 21: 18).

45 John 1: 51. — "Son of man." In this first chapter of John's Gospel we have had the Lord designated in about twenty different ways. For his title "Son of man," see note 30 on Mark 2: 10, and in this Gospel, John 3: 13 f., John 6: 27, 53, 62, John 8: 28 (John 9: 35, doubtful reading), John 12: 23, 34. To the references in the note on Mark may here be added Bousset, "Religion of Judaism," pp. 248-251, which introduces the reader to the Jewish literary sources belonging to the period between the Old and the New Testament, an early English authority on which was Prideaux, and by general readers chiefly but imperfectly known from the "Apocrypha." Staerk's little work is the most recent.

NOTES ON THE SECOND CHAPTER

46 John 2: 1. — "The third day." Cf. with the remarks in exposition here the last paragraph but one of comment on John 20. The prevalence of the number three in this Gospel is noteworthy. Besides the three days here, we have the Lord going thrice into Galilee, thrice to Judæa. there are generally supposed to be three Passovers actually mentioned (but see on verse 1), and three other festivals, the discourse on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles is divisible into three parts; Judas is thrice designated traitor; the Lord undergoes three judicial trials, and Pilate thrice tries to save Him from crucifixion; the Evangelist records three of the sayings from the cross; and the book may be divided into three parts (Holtzmann, "Introduction," p. 438 f.). But "triads" are to be found also in the Gospel of Matthew. The number seven, in like manner (as in chapters 8-10), finds illustration in the fourth Gospel — "the seven signs", "these things have I spoken unto you" occurs seven times, there is sevenfold witness; "I am" has seven predicates if Resurrection and Life be taken as one, and likewise Way, Truth, Life (Abbott, E. B., § 52 col. 1,799). There is, however, nothing peculiar or unduly "artificial" in this, in the light of numerical arrangement running through other parts of the Bible. See an excellent pamphlet by R. Govett on "The Septenary Arrangement of Scripture."

47 "Cana of Galilee." There was also a Cana in the tribe of Asher (Josephus, "Antiquities," John 15: 5,1; cf. Joshua 19: 28). Comparing John 1: 43, we may suppose that the Lord reached Cana from Peræan territory in one day's journey, its position on maps admitting of this.

48 "The mother of Jesus." Our Lord's humanity was not heavenly in the Gnostic sense, He did really take of His mother's substance. This Evangelist never mentions her name, although he gives that of His father (John 21); all the others name her. It is one of the indications of John the Apostle's authorship. The name Mary was borne also by (α) the wife of Cleophas (Alphæus), (see note on John 19: 25); (β) the Magdalene; (γ) a sister of Lazarus.

49 John 2: 4. — "What is there (in common) to Me and thee?" Blass remarks that this was "frequent in colloquial Greek of the time, quite in the meaning of our let me alone" ("Philology of the Gospels," p. 238).

50 John 2: 6. — "Purifying of the Jews." Cf. Mark 7: 4.

51 John 2: 8 f. — Edersheim notes the absence of "friends of the bridegroom" in the custom of Galilee ("Life of Jesus the Messiah," p. 155). Another indication of exact knowledge on the part of the writer.

52 John 2: 11. — Trench has happily recalled the first miracle of Moses (Ex. 7: 20), a turning of water into blood as a ministration of death, in contrast with this ministration of life ("Miracles," p. 121 f.). It is significant that nearly all Christ's works of power reported in the canonical Gospels are those of benevolence. For the manifestation of Christ's glory, cf. Isa. 40: 5, and the version of the LXX. there with the Greek here, also note 99.

σημεῖα, "signs." This word is regularly used by the Evangelist in his comments, whilst the Lord is recorded as always using ἔργα, "works." A strenuous endeavour has been made by writer of the negative tendency to set the fourth Gospel in an unfavourable light as compared with the Synoptists on the question of miracles. A difference has been set up, as by Harnack (see note 27 on Mark), between the way in which the Lord Himself regarded His works of power and the estimate of the writer of this Gospel. And so, as a recent British writer would have it, in the Synoptic records you have (1) belief, (2) miracles, with that order reversed in the fourth Gospel, the Evangelist's own point of view being distinguished from the Master's (Scott, p. 268). Cf. John 14: 11. How, then, are we to explain in the Synoptics the evidential value attached to His works, as in Matt. 9: 4? Is not Luke 11: 29 in exact agreement with the usual Johannine representation of miracles as performed to confirm the real, or raise the superficial, faith of those already disciples, as in the present passage? Again, how can "critics" explain the testimony of Christ's word being presented in John 8 and that of His works being postponed to John 9? According to the analysis in fashion, the arrangement of chapters in the fourth Gospel results from the Evangelist's arbitrary fancy. Although rearrangement of other parts of this Gospel has been proposed. the traditional order of those two chapters seems to remain unquestioned.

That in the Gospel "according to John" there are superficially apparent contradictions is recognised, but it is the critical interpretations of these which are at fault. Some, taken from H. Holtzmann's "Introduction," will be examined in these notes.

On the general question of miracles, see J. N. Darby, "Collected Writings," vol. 32, pp. 272 17; Green, 3, pp. 254 f.; Sir R. Anderson, "Silence of God," chapter 3; Nash, p. 141; Turton, chapter 18; Bishop Gore, Sixth Lecture on "The New Theology," etc.; and Von Gerdtell, "Burning Questions," etc., Nos. 2, 3 (published by Kielmann, Stuttgart). The last-named writer, like the lamented Count Andreas v. Bernstorff, having had both a juristic and a theological education, has preferred to remain a "layman," in order to "get the ear" of young men who, in Germany as in Britain, care not to listen to "pastors," either orthodox or heterodox, and, to use Count Bernstorff's words to the present writer, distrust the "professional mind." See, further, note 99.

53 John 2: 13 ff. — It may be desirable here to consider the question of the length and the scene of our Lord's ministry as contemplated by the Synoptists and John respectively. Eusebius records an ancient observation that the Synoptists seem to tell us of only one Passover — i.e., of but one year's ministry — whilst the fourth Gospel speaks of several Passovers, at least three (cf. John 6: 4, John 12: 1). Some, as W. Kelly (see note on v. 1), find four Passovers in this Gospel. Again, the earlier Gospels take us almost entirely to Galilee (and Persia), but John's mainly to Judæa (cf. v. 1, John 7: 14, John 10: 22, John 12: 12). A great deal is made by "the critical school" of each of these admitted facts. It has been suggested by Blass (Expository Times, July, 1907) that, whilst the Church had its headquarters at Jerusalem, it was an account of the Galilean and of the Peræan ministry that Christians of Judæa in particular would require, the incidents of the Lord's work in Judæa being sufficiently familiar there, but that, precisely when the Christian communities of Judæa were dispersed by political events, the need would arise of a record of the Judæan ministry, which John was able to supply. And, again, Briggs' recent book, "Fresh Light," has earned the title adopted by the writer. He gives good ground for supposing that John's special fitness for his task came of his having companied with the Lord during the whole of an early Judæan ministry. Not only so, but that there was an early Galilean ministry of a less pronounced public character than that introduced by Matt. 4: 12 and Mark 1: 14. We shall recur to this in notes on the third Gospel, which seems to confirm Briggs' view. But Luthardt, Lightfoot, and othem, had previously shown that Matt. 23: 37 (as Luke 13: 34) had already indicated by the πυσάκις ("how often") that the Lord's visits to Judæa were more frequent than might appear from the Synoptic records. Julicher as to this caustically remarks: "To reconstruct several visits of Jesus to Jerusalem out of the Synoptists solely on account of the one prophetic utterance is childish" (p. 419). The "obvious intention" of the Synoptists supposed by him is very questionably obvious. A tuquoque might well be employed against such writers with regard to the use made of Luke 4: 19 to establish a single year's ministry: nowhere do the Synoptists say that the ministry lasted only one year. Blass rightly observes: "It is John who first clears up the passage" (common to Matt. 23 and Luke 13) "and justifies it." There is no inconsistency, such as A. Réville sets up (John 2: 20), between the Synoptists' account and John's representing that JESUS and the Baptist were at work for some time simultaneously. Moreover, as so the Galilean ministry is concerned, John distinctly recognises it, whatever H. Holtzmann may say about such visits being "merely episodes" (John 2: 1-12; John 4: 43-54, John 6: 1-7, 10). Logy (p. 64) asks: "How could Jesus have preached at Jerusalem Several years, declaring Himself Messiah, without being arrested?" The wordy underlined do but savour of romance. At first no idea of a "permanent miracle," such as Loisy attributes to the Evangelist, is needed. the attitude of the "Jews" for some time was one of sceptical imquirv, of unwillingness to believe, rather than hostility. The incident in the Temple (John 2) will be discussed below. It is not until we reach John 8 that the "Jews'" threatening demeanour towards the Lord personally becomes acute. Even so, between the first (John 8: 59) and second attempt to stone Him (John 10: 31), we still find them asking Him, "How long dost Thou keep us in suspense?" (John 10: 24). If He was to be arrested, it would be by the servants of the high-priest, but they served for protection, evidently sympathising with and giving effect to the feelings of many in the Judæan crowds, who had their spokesman in the Sanhedrin itself (John 7: 40-52).

The second distinctly named Passover comes at John 6: 4, the third at John 11: 55 which speaks, in any case, of the last. According to this, the length of the whole ministry would be about two years (Irenæus, 2, 22-3). So Delitzsch's article, "Passover," in Riehm's Handbook. Briggs, however, is of opinion that the scheme of the fourth Gospel in this respect coincides with that of the Synoptists, and that there were no other distinct Passovers than the one spoken of in the present passage and that mentioned in John 11: 55 (p. 54). Cf. Milligan's view.

54 John 2: 13. — "The Jews' Passover." Critics use this as an indication that the writer was a Gentile. It seems, however, to mean no more than either that, as it in the first time the festival in mentioned by John, he so describes it for the information of his first readers — Gentiles — in Asia Minor, or that it is used in distinction from the Christian Passover, which we know formed subject of controversy between East and West after his death. And yet, pace the neo-critics Matthew (Matt. 28: 15), too, makes use of the word (cf. Luke 23: 51).

Cf. Paul's way of speaking of Mount Sinai (not as "the mount of God") in Gal. 4: 25.

55 John 2: 14 ff. — See note 117 on Mark 11: 15, parallel with Matt. 21: 12 f. and Luke 19: 45 f., and W. Kelly's "Lectures on Matthew." Wendt says: "Such an act can only once be morally justified" Yet he recognises the differences in verses 16, 18-20 from the Synoptic accounts of the occasion with which the other Evangelists are concerned. Thus, comparing verse 18 with Matt. 20: 23 ff., anyone may see that while the leaders there also demand the authority of JESUS, He refers to the baptism of John, not, as here, to death and resurrection, as supplying it. Surprise has been expressed (cf. note 53) that there was no resistance offered, as to which, without resorting to the supposition that the Lord's supernatural manner overawed the traffickers, Carr says that it may be sufficiently explained by "the popular dislike to these bazaars, which were suppressed not long afterwards." So great was the odium which the family of Annas, in whose interest they were held, really earned. To this the Talmud witnesses. Horton ("Teaching of Jesus," p. 215) well compares Mark 1: 27 for "that air of authority observable from the outset" of the Lord's career.

56 John 2: 16. — "My Father." This contradicts the Gnostics' idea that the God (Creator) of the Old Testament was not "the Father" spoken of by our Lord. Observe that in the cleansing of the Temple described by the Synoptists, instead of "My Father's house," we find "your house," because then the Jews had fully rejected Christ. For thy designation of His opponents, here especially the leaders, cf. John 7: 15, 35, John 8: 22, John 13: 33, etc.

57 John 2: 20. — The restoration of Zerubbabel's temple was completed only A.D. 64. Reckoning the forty-six years from Herod's commencement of the work B.C. 20 (Josephus, "B. J.," 1: 21), we reach the year 26 of the new era — i.e., the first of the Lord's ministry. For the force of the aorist οἰκοδομήθη here, Field aptly compares Ezra 5: 16. The A.V., to which Mr. J. N. Darby's version adheres, is singularly close: the temple was not yet finished. Schmiedel, for once, supports Lightfoot on John's precision. For the use made of the Lord's words against Him judicially, see Mark 14: 58.

58 John 2: 21. — The minister of the Hampstead Congregational Church, Dr. Horton (following Reuss, Wendt, etc.), alleges against the Evangelist misinterpretation of the Master's mind ("Teaching of Jesus," p. 164). As to such wanton treatment of this Gospel, the late Dr. Friedrich Blass, a happy representative of learned German "laymen," has sententiously remarked "that it becomes us moderns to query whether any can now know better than a contemporary," See also note on 12: 32 f.

58a John 2: 22. — "The Scripture" seems to be Ps. 16: 10.

59 John 2: 23 f. — As to πιστεύειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, see note 17 above. It is a long cry from a miracle wrought to confirm those already believers (see verse 14) to another designed to impress sceptics. Ostensible discipleship, acceptance of instruction, is independent of living faith (6: 60, 64; Matt. 28: 19; Mark 16: 16). The present passage shows that such faith may be superficial (cf. John 7: 31, John 8: 31 [proof of discipleship must be given], John 10: 38), which takes its character from the Lord's leaving them without excuse (John 11: 45 f.). In the last, real fidelity to Him is in question. See also John 6: 68 and John 17: 21, 23, where, for disciples and the world alike, moral transcend physical impressions.

60 John 2: 25. — This should be considered in connection with the Lord's choice of Judas and probable difficulties raised at the time this Gospel was written by unbelievers questioning His deity. Cf. Mark 2: 8, where the same faultless insight is attributed already to the "historical Jesus."

Such as believe without confession of Christ appear again in John 12: 42 f. They had not yet learnt what discipleship was. Nicodemus, in the next chapter, was one of the better examples in that day.

NOTES ON THE THIRD CHAPTER

61 The beginning, with this chapter, of a series of discourses characteristic of the Gospel of John calls for some development of what has been said in note 7 upon the treatment these have received at the hands of critics. Westcott, in his conservative "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels," has remarked that, as compared with the Synoptists, in the fourth Gospel there is a "transition from one world of thought to another . . . a contrast in form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives" (p. 249). As the leading conservative scholar in Germany says, the Johannine teaching is "esoteric" (Zahn, 2: 528). It is, however, with the statement of the narrowly "scientific" writers that we have to deal.

One of the objections of F. W. Newman (following Strauss) was that the Evangelist makes our Lord and the Baptist speak in the same, his own manner (p. 153 f.). As to this, reference might be made to the Reply to the younger Newman made in "The Irrationalism of Infidelity" by J. N. Darby, whom Mr. Benn (in a footnote of his second volume) describes as "fanatical." The present writer, from twelve years' acquaintance with the "Irish clergyman" towards the close of his life, found him the very opposite of what one may suppose Tertullian as a Montanist or George Fox to have been, and singularly characterised by the Pauline σωφρονισμός (2 Tim. 1: 7). For a balanced objective appreciation, see Cheetham, "History of the Christian Church since the formation" (1907), p. 306 f.

See, further, an interesting letter by the elder Newman in Plummer, p. 100, on the difference between the ancient and the modern mind with regard to the use of direct for indirect speech.

Renan, while accepting the historical character of the narrative portion of the Gospel, treated the speeches as romance. So Jülicher: a "philosophical fiction," "prose poem," and much to the same purpose you find in Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, and the Holtzmanns. Wendt, on the other hand, attaches restore credit to the discourses than to the incidents reported, and seeks to show the harmony between the Synoptic and Johannine teaching. But, asks Wernle, is it psychologically possible that Jesus preached alternately in the manner of the Sermon on the Mount and of John 14-16? (p. 421; cf. Gardner, p. 165). Goethe does not seem to have felt any such difficulty; cf. the great difference between the second part of his "Faust" from the first. Contrast the late Dr. Hort's "Dissertations," etc., with his "Village Sermons." We have to remember the very different audiences our Lord would have in Jerusalem from those in Galilee or Peræa. Of course, much depends for us on the way in which we regard the mystery of His Person.

Again, German writers raise a difficulty over the "eyewitness" of the Evangelist impeaching this in respect of the conversations with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and Pilate. Briggs' scheme of the ministry would get Over this so far as regards Nicodemus, especially if we suppose (although the wind in the trees may suggest Olivet) that the Lord lodged in John's house at Jerusalem (cf. John 19: 27). The record in the fourth chapter is not prejudiced by the statement that "His disciples had gone away to the city," which are the Evangelist's own parenthetical words, besides being in accordance with his manner; and if he himself stayed behind, he would be reticent about it, whilst the propriety of language admits of exception from the whole number of the disciples. As for Pilate's judgment-hall, the fourth Evangelist records how "the beloved disciple" hovered about the scenes of this chapter of our Lord's sorrows, and the words exchanged between Him and Pilate may accordingly have well been within John's hearing.

The question of possible interpolation is discussed. Delff ("Fourth Gospel," p. 11) has suggested that a considerable amount of matter has been added by a later hand, which H. Holtzmann and Jülicher will not allow, for they insist on the unity of the book, but Wellhausen, in his lately published monograph, supports the idea. Some of his supposed "interpolations" are taken seriatim in notes below. This idea of interpolation is a favourite resource of critics when stumbling on passages which contradict their theories.

The Evangelist's own comments are for the most part easily discerned. Such are John 2: 21 f., John 7: 39, John 8: 6, John 11: 31, 51 f., John 12: 6, 16, 33, John 13: 11, John 18: 2. Other alleged cases are uncertain, as John 1: 16-18, John 3: 13, 16-21, 31-36, where commentators differ as to who is the speaker.

Much is made of this Evangelist's supposed dependence on Paul's writings, the publication of all of which is generally supposed to have been intermediate between the appearance of the last of the Synoptic Gospels and that of the fourth. H. Holtzmann attributes the authorship of this to a John who was an Ephesian disciple of Paul, and quotes the Epistle to the Ephesians, as Jülicher that to the Romans, in support of this position. Holtzmann supposes that the "critical" John was afterwards confounded with the son of Zebedee, so that a later generation ascribed the writing of the Gospel to "the beloved disciple" ("Introduction," p. 170). This notion is reflected in the American Professor Bacon's book ("Deutero-Pauline Christianity of Theologos," etc.). Weiss ("New Testament Theology," ii., p. 228), on the conservative side, sees the influence of the Epistle to the Hebrews on John's thought. There is a useful note in Salmon (p. 265) on the parallels gathered between the Pauline writings and the Johannine. See also Stevens, chapter 15, Bernard, p. 12 f. The recent English and American writers generally show scarcely more balance than the German and French (as Loisy). There is little to choose between Professor Wernle's saying that John is a mere plagiarist of Paul ("Beginnings," ii., pp. 262, 264, 274) and Mr. Scott's committal to the statement, "The Evangelist is everywhere indebted to Paul" (p. 46) "for almost all his larger doctrines" (p. 49). Of course, no one could deny that, as far as we can judge from writings, "it was Paul who first conceived of the glorified Christ as the real object of faith" the manner of his conversion determined that. That the basis of the life of each of these two Apostles was "profoundly mystical" (Illingworth, chapter 9) all would allow. But whilst Paul sets the believer in Christ before God, John sets God in Christ before the believer; in other words, the one instructs us in the Divine counsels, the other in the Divine nature. Scott speaks of John's advancing on Paul (p. 51), but this is gratuitous: the types of doctrine are throughout really distinct. The Church had already received the Pauline scheme, the Johannine, assuming the Synoptic accounts, was needed to complete the doctrine, not of the Church, but of the Person of Christ.

Even as regards the truths of redemption, Mr. Scott is at sea. A writer must be infatuated who can say that "sin has a subordinate place" in John's Gospel (p. 51 f.). The Evangelist's sense of the acuteness of it is evidenced by John 16: 8, 9. Paul's writings had sufficiently emphasised it in respect of man's need. On p. 52 we are told that Paul's doctrine of atonement has disappeared, in the sense of being transcended; and that John takes exclusive account of the Life as possessing the significance which Paul attached to the Cross. But this writer must have forgotten Rom. 5: 10: "Much more . . . we shall be saved by His life." That John 8: 33-39 flows from Rom. 6: 16-23 (cf. Gal. 4: 30) there is no more ground for Mr. Scott's saying than any other writer's alleging the converse. Indeed, it is open to so-called "apologists" to suggest that, when in the company of this "pillar" during his stay in Judæa. Paul had opportunity of learning from him as to the Lord's ministry, for "imparted nothing to me" (Gal. 2: 6) has reference to authority and capacity rather than to information.

62 John 3: 1. — "Nicodemus." As to Abbott's identification of him with Nicodemon, son of Gorion, who was employer of the water-carriers in Jerusalem during the Passover, see Westcott, contra.

63 John 3: 2. — "By night." See note 61 above. For Nicodemus' subsequent history, see John 7: 50 and John 19: 39. What we may learn from this state of mind in the present passage is that "it is not learning, but life, that man needs" (Govett). For the function of signs, see note 52, and cf. John 5: 36, John 10: 25, John 15: 24.

64 John 3: 3 f. — "Anew." So most commentators, as Godet, Westcott Luthardt, Weiss and Zahn here and in verse 7, after the Peschito-Syriac, etc. Origen followed, amongst others, by Bengel, Meyer and Pfleiderer, prefers the meaning "from above", "from heaven" is the interpretation put upon ἄνωθεν by most of the Greek writers. Cf. Abbott, "Johannine Vocabulary," § 1,707e, referring to verse 31 and John 19: 11.

65 "The kingdom of God." This phrase is used only here in the fourth Gospel. For the connection between the Kingdom and Life cf. Mark 9: 43, 45, 47, and Luke 18: 18, 24. As to other links between the second (critical first) and fourth Gospels, see notes 18, 94, 122, 130, 146 on Mark, and note on verse 5 below; and in particular the exposition at p. 366.

66 John 3: 5 ff. — "Born of water and Spirit." Advanced critics oddly support the "Catholic" tradition that Christian Baptism is here spoken of (verse 22 f.), to this theory Scott adheres (p. 40). If Paul's doctrine is to control the interpretation of this Gospel, why do such writers ignore a passage like Eph. 5: 26? That the words bear some relation to the Baptism of John which Nicodemus may have shirked one may well believe (cf. Luke 7: 30) As to ἐκ, "out of," and the one article in the Greek, see R. Govett's exposition of the passage. A reference to the Jewish baptism of proselytes owes its plausibility to that practice, which originated in part from the interpretation put on Ezek. 36 cited in the Exposition. Cf. Seeley, "Ecce Homo," p. 98.

66a "Enter into the kingdom." See note 99 on Mark. "Enter" seems to be always used of the time of recompense. Cf. Matt. 25: 21, Luke 24: 26, with, of course, Matt. 18: 3, which links itself specially with this passage of John. The Messianic bearing of the first Gospel must always be kept in mind. Readers of Mr. Scott's book might derive from it an impression that the fourth Evangelist discards that point of view, which would be a mistake.

67 John 3: 11. — The Lord takes up the "We know" of Nicodemus. "We" here seems used by Christ of Himself, as in Mark 4: 30. So Theophylact of old, Ryle and McRory among moderns. If it mean John the Baptist as well as Himself (so Zahn), then there is a reference to the law's requirement of two witnesses (Govett). Luthardt, Godet and Westcott understand it of the disciples associated by the Lord with Himself.

68 John 3: 13. — "That is in heaven." Words actually spoken by the Lord on earth, not supposing the Ascension accomplished, as Weiss thinks, apparently with John 6: 62 in mind (cf. Arnold, "God and the Bible," chapter 6, § 5). It is probably the later passage that induces some to take verse 13 here as parenthetical, and as words of the Evangelist himself (note 61).

As to the note on ὤν (p. 60 of the Exposition), see Winer, p. 429. Bengel has been followed by Hofmann, Luthardt, Weiss, Barth and Zahn, some founding it on the passage in John 6, whilst the last-named writer refers to John 9: 25. Moulton is amongst those who reject these words.

69 John 3: 15. — "Life eternal." Oosterzee, comparing this with John 6: 35, says that it expresses established personal communion with Christ ("Theology of the New Testament," p. 170). Cf. notes 106, 110 on Mark. The rendering in R.V. results from acceptance of en (see critical note), whilst Mr. Kelly has followed it, etc.

70 John 3: 16-18. — Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet, Westcott, Sadler, and Plummer, after Erasmus and others, take this and the following verses to 21 as words of the Evangelist himself (note 61). That, however, the third person is used does not tell against the Lord's speaking the words may be seen from John 4: 10, John 5: 19, 29. If they are His (Zahn), Christ speaks of Himself definitely as Son of God (cf. Sanday, s. tit. in Hastings, "D. B.," p. 572). He used the third person when speaking of Himself as Son of man also (Mark, as John).

On the significance of verse 16 for the Biblical doctrine of Atonement, see essay on that subject by Von Gerdtell, pp. 42, 77. He pulverises the theological travesty of it, to which unbelievers have rightly shown no mercy.

For the sentiment cf., of course, Rom. 8: 32, 2, Cor. 9: 15. As to the scope of salvation here conflicting with the narrower outlook of the Synoptists (Matt. 10: 5 f., etc.), observe that it is precisely when the Lord is speaking in Judæa that He strikes the universalistic note, and when away from there that He speaks of His mission having been to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." In verse 16 we have the compassion of the love of God as such (cf. note on John 16: 2).

John 3: 17 is on the same lines as John 12: 47. As to John 9: 39, see note there.

71 John 3: 19. — "Loved." Ryle, comparing John 15: 8 and also Rom. 8: 30 would take the aorist here as "proleptic" — that is, in a present sense. See however, Mr. Kelly's footnote on John 13: 31, where reference is made to John 15: 6.

72 John 3: 20 f. — Cf. v. 29, where the same distinction obtains between ποιεῖν, said of good, and πράσσειν, of evil.

73 John 3: 22-30. — This passage Briggs regards as synchronising with Mark 3: 18 ff.

74 John 3: 22. — "He . . . baptised." Cf. verse 26. Schmiedel (col. 2,538) sets against this John 4: 2. But what about Pilate's scourging JESUS, and his writing the superscription for the Cross?

75 John 3: 24. — Wernle ("Sources," p. 27 f.) treats this parenthetical note as "correcting" the Synoptists, as though they stated that the Lord's work in Galilee, with which His ministry opens in their Gospels, was the beginning of His public activity! Briars, in his last book, raps the knuckles of a good many answerable for such "historical" criticism (cf. note on Mark 1: 13 f.).

76 John 3: 26. — Schmiedel (col. 2,538), after H. Holtzmann, finds a contradiction here to verse 32. That is, the people say to the Baptist something, to be taken for what it is worth, to which he (or Matthew Arnold's "theological lecturer") takes exception. In any case, where is the self-contradiction on the part of the Evangelist? It is in connection with such cases, of course that suggestions of dual authorship arise; but many are the cobwebs spun.

77 John 3: 31-36. — The words are taken as the Baptist's by Luthardt, Godet, Plummer and Zahn. See, again, note 61, as for the last preceding note. Erasmus's view, that they are the Evangelist's, has been followed by Bengel, Tholuck, Westcott, Sadler, and Milligan. Nothing seems to be gained by the suggestion, nothing to need amendment in the older view, followed by the expositor. The words may have been suggested to the Baptist by those contained in Matt. 9: 15.

John 3: 32. — "No one receiveth His testimony." This has been set in conflict with verse 26, where, however, we meet with exaggeration of fervour: so Weiss and Westcott. The latter notes the singular darkness and hopelessness of the close of the Apostolic age (cf. 1 John 5: 19).

78 John 3: 32 f. — See J. H. Newman ("Apologia," p. 199): "In religious inquiry we arrive at certitude by accumulated probabilities." Cf. the examination of that book by J. N. Darby. We have in verse 33 the touchstone of the quality of a man's "faith."

79 John 3: 36. — Mr. Darby, in his version, has rendered ἀπειθῶν, "not subject," as supporting the view that the Baptist was the speaker (cf. Luke 3: 7).

The words of this verse expose the delusion of a modern idea that, because God is love, He forgives as such, not because of the death of His Son.

NOTES ON THE FOURTH CHAPTER

80 Comparing Luke 9: 51-56 with the contents of this chapter, Von Soden discredits the success among the Samaritans here recorded. That is, when one Evangelist speaks of the resistance shown to His ministry by Samaritans when the Lord is going in the direction of Jerusalem southwards, and another records a journey from Jerusalem northwards. which has a different result, the two accounts are held to clash. There is a good deal of the same superficial criticism in such literature. The writer named is silent upon the words of verse 9.

80a John 4: 1. — Observe "the Lord" of the Evangelist, and "Jesus" of the Pharisees, and for "the Lord," cf. John 6: 23, John 11: 2, John 20: 20. "Knew," supernaturally (Milligan). Cf. 2: 24.

81 John 4: 2 f. — Wellhausen treats this as an editorial interpolation made to remove apparent discrepancy between the fourth Evangelist (cf. John 3: 22) and the Synoptists. If that, however, had been really felt, would not the course likely to be taken by any editor be to leave out the words "and baptizeth," which he found in the autograph? Here the Evangelist reverts to "Jesus," because he seems to be quoting a report. So Moffatt.

82 John 4: 5. — "Sychar." Doubt was at one time felt as to the Evangelists accuracy in this name. It was supposed to stand for Sichem, which is given by the Sinaitic Syriac, whilst the Harclensian recension has "Sychar." Eusebius, settled at Cæsarea, distinguished them. Thomson's identification of the place with the modern Askar was questioned by Grove, but it has been upheld by G. A. Smith in his "Historical Geography of Palestine": "The author knew the place about which he was writing" (p. 368 ff.). That was not Shechem, the modern Nablûs.

83 John 4: 6. — οὔτως, "thus." Field, apparently following Chrysostom — "as it changed" — for which see also 5: 30, 8: 40. That is, just as He was (cf. Mark 4: 36). The "wearied," as Zahn says (ii. 539), emphasises His humanity.

84 "Sixth hour." As to John's way of reckoning hours, see note on John 19: 14.

85 John 4: 7 ff. — Dr. Abbott, on the ground alleged that "no disciple was present," says that "it is practically certain that the dialogue did not occur in the exact words recorded" ("Encycl. Bibl.," col. 1,801). As to the absence of all disciples, see in note 61 above, to which may be added here the consideration that we are not to suppose all persons with whom Christ spoke kept the knowledge of such conversations to themselves. It is practically certain that they would reproduce at least the substance of Christ's words to them. For this cf. what the expositor has said in the volume on Mark (p. 10, foot).

86 John 4: 9. — "A Jew." She knew Him to be such by His dress. See Schor "Palestine and the Bible." Here used in the broadest sense. So in verse 22, unlike John 7: 1, etc.

87 "For Jews have no intercourse with Samaritans." These words are treated as parenthetical in the R.V. — that is, as an explanatory comment of the Evangelist. Calvin considered them to be spoken by the woman.

88 "The gift of God." Luthardt, Govett and Zahn take this in the same way as the expositor. Godet, Westcott (referring to John 3: 16), and Carr follow Stier, who explains it of Christ. But Jeremy Taylor rightly described that as "too vague." "Christ, the smitten rock, was the source" (Govett).

88a John 4: 14. — "Shall not thirst for ever." So Govett, referring to Rev. 21: 6.

89 John 4: 20. — On προσκυνεῖν, see Abbott, "Johannine Vocabulary," §§ 1,640-1,651.

90 John 4: 22. — Olshausen, followed by Ryle, takes σωτηρία as equivalent to "the Saviour." Cf. Luke 19: 9.

90a John 4: 21-24. — "The hour." This present dispensation, which is only for a while: it will give place to the millennial. As to the character of worship on earth then, see Govett, pp. 145 f.

"God (θεὸς) is a Spirit (πνεῦμα)." The word θεός in latest philological research has been connected with "breath," "spirit." See article GOD in Hauck's "Encyclopædia," vol. 6, p. 780.

91 John 4: 25. — "That is called Christ." Here, again, brackets have been used in the R.V. to indicate a parenthesis, the Revisers understanding the words to be the Evangelist's addition, not used by the woman. "The woman expected a teacher, not a liberator" (Horton, p. 191).

92 John 4: 26 f. — The first direct assertion by our Lord that He is "the Christ," and outside the Jewish territory. On the disclosure of this to a woman, Quesnel has remarked: "It is a great mistake to suppose that the knowledge of the mysteries of religion ought not to be imparted to women.... The abuse of the Scriptures and the sin of heresies did not proceed from the simplicity of women, but from the conceited learning of men."

92a "Wondered," etc. The rabbinical rule, much quoted (from Dr. John Lightfoot), was that a man should not speak even to his wife in the street. See "Jewish Prayer-Book" (Eyre and Spottiswoode), p. 185. The knowledge of this prejudice shown by the Evangelist is one of the indications of his Jewish nationality. Others occur in v. 1 ff., John 7: 22, 27, 49, John 12: 34, etc. (see note 1, ad fin.)

93 John 4: 28 f. — Origen calls her the "apostle of the Samaritans," whilst Cyril notes that after Christ had first bidden her call her husband, she finally of her own behest called all the men to Him, and receiving the talent of the glad tidings, she at once put it out to interest.

The R V. has, "Can this be the Christ?" according to the form used in verse 33, but the older rendering practically comes to the same thing.

94 John 4: 34. — Augustine here remarks that we should not be surprised by the woman's not understanding about the water of which Christ spoke to her when His disciples misunderstood what He said about food. This verse (cf. John 9: 4) explains the "must" of verse 4 above.

95 John 4: 38. — Origen: "Did not Moses and Elias the sowers rejoice with the reapers, Peter, James, and John, when they saw the glory of the Son of God at the Transfiguration?"

96 John 4: 43 f. — "His own country." It is difficult to determine whether this means Galilee or Judæa. Meyer, Hofmann, Luthardt, Govett and Zahn say Galilee, suggested by the like expression in the Synoptic Gospels (see note on Mark 1: 21), whilst Origen, Maldonatus, the approved Roman Catholic commentator (whom Kenrick follows), Westcott, Sadler, Milligan, Plummer, Norris, Reynolds, Wendt, Schmiedel and Carr (see his note) take it of Judæa. If the second view be right, we have here, of course, a recognition by the fourth Evangelist of the birth at Bethlehem, of which critics represent him as "knowing nothing."

Cyril; Calvin, H. Holtzmann, Field, and Briggs decide for Nazareth; Chrysostom and Euthymius, Capernaum. Cf. also Mark 6: 4 for its bearing on the question.

97 John 4: 48. — Cf. Mark 8: 12 and note 27 on that Gospel; also Matt. 12: 39. It is not a question so much of the Lord's own attitude or that of the disciples (which fluctuated) towards miracles as that of the mass of the people, which none of the Evangelists adopt, although critical works might lead one to sup. pose such was the case.

98 John 4: 54. — This incident is not to be confused with that in Luke 7.

99 The working of "a sign" by way of display ("epideictic"), apart from some groundwork of antecedent faith (cf. John 11: 26 f. with verse 40 there), can no more be charged against the Johannine than the Synoptic miracles (cf. John 2: 11 and note 52).

NOTES ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER

100 John 5: 1. — Most commentators (including the Reformers) follow Irenæus, Eusebius, and Theodoret, etc., in taking the feast here spoken of as a Passover Jerome, followed by Norris, thought that it was Pentecost; Neander, Meyer, Weiss, M'Clellan and Milligan, Purim; Zahn (reading the article), Tabernacles. As to the number of Passovers during the ministry, see note 52.

101 John 5: 2. — "There is." Blass (Expository Times, July, 1907) followed Bengel in accepting this as an indication of the date of the writing of the Gospel, as earlier then that of the Roman devastation.

102 John 5: 8. — "Took up his couch." The simplicity of the process has been brought home to those visiting the recent Palestine Exhibitions. See Schor. "Palestine and the Bible," p. 38. As to its taking place on the Sabbath day, (verse 10), cf. Jer. 17: 21.

103 John 5: 13. — For the apparently miraculous withdrawal here, cf. John 10: 39, as well as Luke 4: 30. The word used in this place is a solecism. See Westcott or Govett, in loc.

104 John 5: 14. — "Sin no more": a note of our Lord's omniscience.

105 John 5: 18. — "Broke." Lit., "was loosing." Cf. Matt. 18: 18, and see also John 10: 33.

105a 22. — As to alleged inconsistency with 15: 2, see note there. The ascription of "judgment" to the Son (cf. v. 27) is by no means peculiar to the fourth Gospel. See Matt. 7: 22 and other references in Turton, p. 448.

106 John 5: 24 f. — De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer and Plummer explain this resurrection similarly to the expositor. The passage has been misused by such as those spoken of in 2 Tim. 2: 18.

"Cometh." For this present tense, Cf. John 4: 36, John 6: 46 f., 64, and John 12: 25. In the last passage the future is used co-ordinately.

Observe that the Lord speaks of Himself a second time definitely as "Son of God" (see note 70 above, and cf. 9: 35, 10: 36, 11: 4). It is a favourite notion of critics that such is language merely of the Evangelist.

107 John 5: 26. — The all-important words are "in Himself" (cf. John 6: 67). Athanasius ("Orations against Arians," iii.) says: "The word gave shows us that the Son is a distinct Person from the Father, but the use of the word "so" is a clear proof of His being the natural Son, equal to, co-essential with the Father.... As the Father hath, so hath the Son from the Father, self-existence" (cf. note 8, ad fin.). Observe the aorist ἔδωκεν, "gave," not the perfect δέδωκεν, "hath given," for it transcends time.

108 John 5: 28 f. — The difference of time in the two judgments is recognised by Meyer and Beyschlag. An objection made that the two resurrections take place in the same hour is rebutted by verse 26, where the spiritual resurrection which has gone on for nearly two millenniums is also called an "hour." A resurrection of the wicked does not emerge so clearly from the Synoptic accounts. That there is to be no general contemporaneous resurrection was foreshadowed by Ps. 1: 6: "The wicked shall not arise in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous." See LXX. and Vulgate (resurgent). The German critics no more apprehend the sense of qum there than English translators, who alike adhere to "stand." But cf. Matt. 12: 41, where all assign to ἀναστήσονται, in the same form of words, its natural meaning. The usual idea is that the Old Testament uniformly predicates resurrection of the righteous alone, but the point is that they who have done good and those that have done evil will not rise together. Cf. Simcox on Rev. 20: 6. The Pharisees supposed that only the righteous would live again (Josephus, "Antiquities," xviii. 14; 2 Macc. 6: 26; and other references in Bousset, "Religion of Judaism," p. 259).

The present passage was so inconvenient to the Tübingen school that Scholten resorted to the usual makeshift — suggestion of interpolation — which feeble resource has had to do duty for several others since (see, e.g., amongst recent writers, Briggs, p. 145).

109 John 5: 30. — See note on John 4: 6.

109a John 5: 31. — As to supposed conflict of this verse with John 8: 14, see note there. Observe the use of the word "witness" throughout verses 31-39. It occurs, in one form or other, some fifty times in this Gospel; "believe" about one hundred times.

110 John 5: 35. — Cf. Sirach, 48: 1.

110a John 5: 36. — "Witness greater" representing μείζω, accepted by Blass, who understands "witness in greater measure." μείζων would mean "I the witness, a greater," etc. (see Zahn).

As to the evidence of "works" or "signs," see John 3: 2 and references there.

111 John 5: 37. — The distinction of this witness from that of the Scriptures (verse 38) is maintained by Chrysostom. Bengel, and others, who refer it to the Lord's baptism, etc. Ryle (following Calvin, Tholuck, Alford, and Burgon) preferred to regard it as coalescing with the testimony borne by the Old Testament writings.

112 John 5: 39. — The word ἐπαυνᾶτε is taken as indicative by Cyril, Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Meyer, Olshausen, Tholuck, De Wette, Burgon, Kenrick, Godet, Westcott (citing Hillel), Plummer, Govett, Kennedy, Manning. McRory, and Carr; as imperative by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, a Lapide, Stier, Luthardt, Alford, Wordsworth, Ryle M'Clellan, and Field. The last-named very judicious scholar remarks that we should not stop short at "eternal life," as if the ὄτι had no influence beyond those words. The revisers, however, having decided to give up the A.V. their rendering will probably establish itself. J. N. Darby, in his versions had adopted the indicative. Certainly the words "ye think" suggest it.

"Life eternal." This was a later development accepted by the Pharisees (Watson, "Inspiration," p. 142).

113 John 5: 43. — "Another." Bousset has rightly taken this of Antichrist, not of Bar Kochba (A.D. 132), as Pfleiderer, followed by Schmiedel (col. 2,551). The absurdity, again, of applying these words to the Popedom is clear from several New Testament passages, commencing with 2 Thess. 2. The Popes have never come in their own name, but in that of Peter they own the Father and the Son (1 John 2: 18-23), and Jesus Christ coming in the flesh (1 John 4: 2). Bousset, in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (vol. i., col. 177), following his work on Antichrist, takes 2 Thess. 2: 1-12 as his starting-point, he sees that the Antichrist must be a Jew, and that any "preterist or historical interpretation is out of the question" (col. 181). Swete, in like manner, thinks that the "second beast" of Rev. 13 is in some sense Antichrist ("Commentary on Apocalypse," ad loc.).

114 John 5: 44. — The force of the aorist πιστεῦσαι is well brought out by Abbott: "to reach the threshold of belief" (§ 2,496 f.; cf. note on 12: 39).

115 John 5: 46 f. — In connection with the supremacy attached to Holy Scripture by our Lord, it may be helpful to consider what has been said by a few recent writers of repute on FAITH in general, and, in particular, its relation to SCRIPTURE. In the valuable Note 2 appended to Westcott's "Historic Faith" (pp. 73-77) he discriminates "a conviction of truth [knowledge], a quickening of love [feeling], a readiness for action [will]," which last is represented by "an advance into the unseen . . . wholly different from a belief in past facts which rests on testimony [intellectual assent]." The present Bishop of Birmingham, in his "Creed of the Christian" (p. 33), has said: "In order to act decisively, we must believe decisively," which is a repetition, in other words, of the prophet's teaching: "If ye do not hold fast, ye will not stand fast" (Isa. 7: 9). Dr. Gore, inquiring as to the essence of faith, answers that it is "the open hand or open mouth of the human soul" (p. 53). Next, where does Scripture come in? Dr. J. H. Newman shall reply. In a letter printed in Miss Mozley's "Letters and Correspondence" of this eminent man (vol. ii., p. 113), which he wrote to Hurrell Froude in 1835, we find: "The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of belief . . . . The Fathers do certainly rest on Scripture, as upon two tables of stone." There is, happily, no reason for supposing that when he went over to Rome Newman had to abandon this conviction. And so we are prepared for what Professor Herrmann (a Ritzachlian) says in his "Faith and Morals" (p. 18): "The common idea [of Faith] is an acknowledgment of the whole Bible as God's Word and true, coupled with firm trust in its narratives and doctrines." He adds, critically: "That is no more than the Catholic idea of Faith." but then, as he says. Tradition is annexed to it by "Catholics." This it is which makes all the difference, for Superstition, which is purely carnal tends to swamp Faith. "For the writer of this Gospel," says Inge, "Faith is not an acceptance of a proposition upon evidence. It is the resolution to follow Christ wherever He may lead us" ("Christian Mysticism," p. 50). See, further, note on vi. 69, also Green, iii., pp. 253-276; and chapter iv. of Sir R. Anderson's "The Gospel and its Ministry."

NOTES ON THE SIXTH CHAPTER

116 John 6: 5-9. — As to the close connection of Philip and Andrew with John, see Lightfoot on Colossians, p. 45 f.

"A lad." On the baker's "boy," see Schor, "Palestine and the Bible," pp. 32, 58.

117 John 6: 11. — One miserable attempt to get rid of this miracle has been to suggest that Jesus and His disciples shared their provisions with some of the crowd, others following their example. From those who indulge in such explanations one may well ask for u reason why the people thought our Lord the Messiah, and wished to make Him King? That is significantly forgotten.

117a John 6: 12f. — "Fragments." Or "broken pieces," as R.V. The command is peculiar to this Gospel.

118 John 6: 14. — "The prophet." See Deut. 18: 15, and cf. John 11: 27 (Matt. 11: 3, Luke 7: 19), John 12: 13. There the testimony is that of His works (cf. chapter 9), as in John 7: 40 of His teaching.

118a John 6: 15. — As to kingship of JESUS, predicted in the Old Testament, see, further, Micah 5: 2, Jer. 23, 5, Ps. 89, etc., and cf. note on Luke 1: 32 f. When our Lord did offer Himself us King, the Jews refused Him (Matt. 21: 15). Godet would explain the "compelled" of Mark 6: 45 (Matt. 14: 22) by what we are told here.

119 John 6: 16 ff. — H. Holtzmann criticises "withdrew again to the mountain," because the Lord is not said previously to have left the mountain. And so Schmiedel and Heitmüller after him. One might well suppose that such writers are devoid entirely of imagination. A tract of hilly country is in question, into which Christ further penetrated. (So Weiss; cf. note 39 on Mark.) The "again" may suggest difficulty; but, as the critical note shows, that, to say no more, is a doubtful reading.

120 John 6: 17 ff. — Cf. note 65 on Mark. For such power over sea and waves, cf. Ps. 107: 23-31. Matthew's parallel (Matt. 14: 33) shows that the disciples worshipped Him us Son of God. Are we to be told of an interpolation there?

120a John 6: 19. — "On the sea." The same Greek in John 21: 1 has been quoted for the meaning "at" (beside, on the bank of) the sea. But even there it may mean "on." In either case it expresses loose connection. As to attempts made, us by Paulus, to explain it away, see Turton, p. 412. Taking the miracle and the discourse which follows it in connection with the Lord's Supper (as do Catholics), certain critics have this notion so much on the brain that one of them — Schmiedel — will have it that the walking on the water was "intended to signify that exaltation of Jesus above the limitations of space necessary to render possible the presence of His glorified body at every celebration of the Eucharist!" (col. 2,521). Where "progress" — for it is imagination — beyond ecclesiastical tradition comes in it is indeed difficult to discover.

121 John 6: 22-24. — Unbelievers of today are not seldom at issue with sceptics in the time of the Evangelist, those of old could not understand the Lord's walking along the shore within that short interval (verse 25). Some now, doubtless, would gladly discover differences in manuscripts here, so us to be able to suggest "accretions."

122 John 6: 27 ff. — "Son of man." Not Christ, the Son of God, as Gnostics would have said: their Christ was not "Son of man" at all. Observe that, to meet their error, the Evangelist constantly speaks of our Lord as Jesus, and that here is the Son of man Whom the Father has sealed, attested, as His Son.

The Rabbins said that the seal of God was אמח, the three letters of which are respectively the first, the middle, and the last of the alphabet (Edersheim, ii. 29). Comparing verse 29 with Rom. 1: 5, may we not say that Paul's words are an echo of our Lord's here?

123 John 6: 35. — The Lord here, for the first time, speaks of Himself as "the Bread," so that some, as Alford and Govett, would in verse 33 render by "that which" rather than by "He who," verse 34 indicating ambiguity. As to hunger and thirst, see on verses 51-56. For "ye believe not," cf. John 16: 9. Above all else, faith is due to God (cf. Mark 16: 14 ff.). No quarter is given here to hyper-Calvinism.

124 John 6: 42. — Forcible words of Von Hartmann should lead some to pause "If one sees in Jesus only the son of the carpenter Joseph and his wife Mary; this Jesus and His death can as little redeem me from my sins as, say, Bismarck can do it" ("Dissolution of Christianity," p. 92). Critics would have had the Lord here disclose His supernatural birth. But with what propriety to men in the state of mind that these were? It could but have excited their derision.

125 John 6: 47. — For the "verily, verily," cf. 1 John. 5: 11-13.

126 John 6: 51. — As to "living bread," see Carson, "On Interpretation," p. 81. Much use has been made of the passage in the interests of a theory of the Incarnation, by which Christ, us the Word made flesh, is supposed to be "joined to universal humanity." Words of Irenæus ("Against Heresies," v. 1) about "Christ's raising humanity into God" by His incarnation, or of Athanusius, in his treatise "On the Incarnation," where he speaks of our Lord's having "become man that we might be made God" (liv.), seem to have originated this notion. And so, on the one hand, Bishop Gore ("Sermon on Sin," p. 21), as, on the other, Mr. Scott (p. 208, etc.). But the Lord does not speak here of His taking, but of His giving His flesh for us (so H. Holtzmann, but misapplying it); and such passages us Eph. 5: 30 and 2 Peter 1: 4, which have been used in support of the theory, have nothing to do with the solidarity of the human race, but concern Christian believers only. The last words of verse 51 — "for the life of the world" — are said, not of Christ's life, but His death, and "Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk His blood, ye have no life in yourselves" (verse 53) means that we cannot be so associated with the "historical Christ" as the theory requires. Redemption is needed for it; whilst bona fide children of God alone are united to Him, and that in resurrection. Out of the Patristic theory has, beyond all doubt, arisen the whole remedial system of ordinances developed in the "historical" Church. The comradeship of sacerdotalists and critics in this matter tells its own tale: different poles of error unite for mutual aid. As to the use made of this text by Annihilationists, see Turton, p. 525; and on the Incarnation in general, Green iii., pp. 207-220.

127 John 6: 52-59. — The Patristic application (as by Chrysostom and Cyril, etc.) of this passage to the Eucharist for the doctrine adopted by Wordsworth, Burgon, Williams, Sadler and Gore, as already stated. has the unwonted and by no means edifying support of some critics, us E. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer and Harnack, followed by Burkitt (p. 224 ff.) etc., from the difficulty which they experience of understanding it in its present context. But, lone ago Augustine took a healthier view of it, as, in recent times, Meyer, Hofmann Weiss ("Life of Christ," iii. 71), Godet, and Westcott. Dr. John Lightfoot (cf. Bishop Boyd Carpenter, "Introduction to Scripture") showed that "eating" and "drinking" were used by Jesus metaphorically, a certain rabbi is recorded to have spoken of "devouring Messiah" ("Hor. Hebr.," iii. 307 ff. Oxford edition). One will tell you that the Evangelist aimed at checking sacramental theory (so Scott); another that he himself held "high sacramental doctrine" (Burkitt); whilst a third would have it that the Lord observed the Eucharist from the beginning of His ministry (Wright)! Horton agrees with none of these (p. 298).

127a That the words were spoken to the Jews (verse 58) is, amongst others, recognised by Heitmüller, one of the latest writers on this Gospel. The lesson which they had to learn (that of Egypt and the wilderness: Bellett, p. 57) is the primary thing.

128 The reference is to Cardinal Wiseman, in his "Lectures on Doctrines and Practices," No. XIV.; also in his "Lectures on the Real Presence," p. 40 f.

Cardinal Manning's note on verse 54 says: "is here promised to the worthy receiver." There is not a word of qualification in the verse.

129 John 6: 56 f. — "Abideth in Me, and I in him." One of the passages turned to account by those who make much of John's supposed dependence on Pauline doctrine ("in Christ," "Christ in us"). Again, let it be said, it is a dead Christ who gives to the believer life, as it is a risen Christ in whom he abides. See, further, on John 15: 4 ff. Observe the use of the present participle here, as in verse 54, and compare the present tense (πιστεύετε) in verse 29: "live the life of faith" (Horton, p. 257).

"Shall live by reason of Me." See foot of p. 150, and cf. Rom. 5: 10; also note 192. For both the Apostles it is the resurrection life, not that of the Lord on earth.

130 John 6: 62. — Cf. note 68 above. This refutes Swedenborg, who held that the Lord was always casting off His manhood, so that at last only the Father remained, there was neither Son of God nor Son of man who could ascend! We are here told that Christ called Himself "Son of man," in view of resurrection. Swedenborg, in keeping with his theory of the Lord's earthly life, denied His bodily return from heaven — a negation which the Evangelist, in his Second Epistle, brands as a mark of Antichrist (verse 7; see R.V., and cf. John 4: 2). For further reference to the Ascension in this Gospel see John 20: 17. It is such passages as these that Wendt attributes to an "editor" (see note 2 on Introduction).

131 John 6: 67 ff. — "The twelve." The first time that, in this Gospel, the apostolic band is so described.

131a Paley: "slanderer" — i.e., to the rulers (verse 70).

132 John 6: 68. — "To whom shall we go away?" Govett: "Before we leave what we hold, we should see what better can replace it" (p. 290). Cf. note 59, and see John 17: 8.

133 John 6: 69. — Cf. note on v. 466 above. Note the force of the perfect: "We have been believing" — i.e., they had acquired the habit in their hearts of thinking so of Him. For the disciples it was not a question of mere opinion, for which there is no assured permanence. Cf. Browning's "Bishop Blougram's Apology": "With me faith means perpetual unbelief." A necessary element in it is knowledge of the truth, to which the Apostle Paul says some ever learning never attain (2 Tim. 3: 7).

Martineau has well said: "Nothing so marks the degradation of our modern Christianity as the notion that faith is only opinion — that a man may have it or not without affecting his moral worth, that it is the result of intellectual accident or opportunity, for which God will never call him to account.... Want of faith is the hypothesis of a coward, unaspiring heart.... This presumption in favour of sanctity in human life is faith" ("Hours of Thought," vol. ii., p. 90). See also Bishop Gore's "Creed of the Christian," p. 53, and "Sermon on Sin," p. 7. It should be remembered that in Lessing's 'Nathan," referred to by him, none of the three characters was a really typical representative of his own greed.

Weiss has written ("New Testament Theology," ii. 364) that the doctrine of John on Faith in this connections in distinction from the Pauline view, as that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, means the conviction of the truth of the fact that Jesus is the Christ, and not a trust in the love of God in Christ (cf. McGiffert, p. 498). This has, happily, been pronounced by Beyschlag ("New Testament Theology," ii. 455 95.) as "the greatest possible mistake". for the Halle theologian, passages such as 14: 1 set before us "a personal surrender to Christ leading to personal communion of life with Him" (cf. note on verse 46 above). Again, as he says: "The confident apprehension with the heart has to precede the deliberative apprehension with the mind." Scott's view (p. 52, etc.) is very much that of Weiss, for the British writer at one time treats faith and knowledge as identical (an intellectual assent: "acceptance of a given dogma," p. 267, as to which see note 374); but also because of passages in the First Epistle in particular (e.g., John 4: 16) he treats knowledge as emphatically antecedent to faith, in which he seems to confound one element of faith which precedes knowledge with another which gives place to knowledge. Acquaintance with God and Christ certainly grows out of continued trust, for John as for Paul ("I know in whom I have believed"). The "act of belief" which, Scott says, "comes at the end of a religious experience" (p. 268), is the same with each Apostle. When this writer says, "The original demand for a simple childlike faith was no longer sufficient in a theology which had allied Christianity with a metaphysical doctrine" (p. 274), one wonders how he would attempt to make this tally with the classical passage in the First Epistle of this Evangelist (1 John 2: 12-14), written subsequently to the Gospel, a knowledge of which is supposed throughout the Epistle. In singular, satisfactory contrariety to Scott's view is that of the late Dr. Martineau: "Religious faith is rather the first root of life than the last blossom of thought" (op. cit.). "As to what faith is psychologically," says Dr. McCosh, "no two metaphysicians explain alike" ("Gospel Sermons," p. 73). This need cause no surprise.

133a "The Holy One of God." The waiter referred to in the Exposition is Hengstenberg.

134 John 6: 70. — "Chosen." Here, again, the Evangelist supposes knowledge of the earlier Gospels. The choice referred to is different from that spoken of in John 13: 18. In the present passage it is the appointment to apostleship (Mark 3: 13 f.; Luke 6: 13 f.). We have here an early disclosure of the character of Judas, but the rest of the Apostles seem not to have apprehended it at the time.

"Devil." See note 131a.

135 John 6: 71. — "Judas, son of Simon Iscariot." This seems to mean, of Kerioth (Joshua 15: 25), in Judæa. He probably became a follower of the Lord during the early Judæan ministry. The question of his fate has been discussed lately in the Interpreter in his favour; but whatever may have been the belief of Judas as to the Lord's extrication of Himself, such a notion could only be fruit of unbelief in Christ's own words.

Besides the betrayer, we meet in the Gospels with (a) Judas, the Apostle otherwise called Lebbæus, or Thaddæus, and (b) Judas, brother of the Lord.

NOTES ON THE SEVENTH CHAPTER

136 John 7: 1-5. — There is further recognition here of the Galilean ministry.

136a John 7: 1. — "After these things." That is, about six months after the discourse of John 6.

"The Jews." Cf. John 2: 8, 54.

137 John 7: 3. — As to the Lord's "brethren being uterine" — that is, His mother's children — see Ps. 69: 8, and cf. Acts 1: 14, 1 Cor. 9: 5. This belief is maintained, after Tertullian, by M'Clellan, Farrar ("Early Days of Christianity" chapter 19), Mayor (Introduction to "Commentary on Epistle of James"), and by Professor Swete (Commentary on Mark). For the theory that Joseph was married previously, see Lightfoot ("Dissertation" in his edition of the Epistle to the Galatians) and salmon. It must be borne in mind that Origen and Jerome, who supported the idea of Mary's continued virginity, were influenced by Apocryphal Gospels. Mr. Card seems to have changed his opinion Since he wrote the note in his Cambridge edition of Matthew's Gospel (see his note on present passage).

On what we are told in verse 5, Kinnear remarks: "His divinity was hidden in the absolute perfection of His humanity" (p. 71).

138 John 7: 8. — The reading "not yet" seems to have arisen from a desire to meet Porphyry's imputation to Jesus of inconstancy. But the Lord's not going up then was but an illustration of what this Evangelist speaks of elsewhere — His dependence on the Father, by whose direction He was governed day by day, in respect both of speech (verse 16) and action (v. 19). Any real difficulty is removed by the natural explanation of Westcott and Plummer — that the Lord meant, not to keep the feast.

139 John 7: 12. — "Good": in the sense of "benevolent."

139a "The Jews." Here the special meaning that the title acquires in this Gospel is very clear.

140 John 7: 15. — "Letters" — i.e., rabbinical learning (Acts 16: 24: πολλὰ γράμματα, "much learning"). In the Gospel records we are told of the Lord Jesus' writing (John 8: 6), and of His reading (Luke 4: 16). The one reading book of the synagogue school was the Bible. Cf. notes 23, 56 on Mark.

141 John 7: 21 f. — "One." Heitmüller treats this as inconsistent with John 7: 21. But the Lord is not Himself the speaker there. The expositor takes "because of this" as part of verse 21, but Govett, as the revisers, with "Moses," as beginning of verse 22.

141a John 7: 23. — The ὅλον goes with ἄνθριωπον rather than (as A.V. and R.V.) with ὑγιῆ — "a whole man" (so Wetstein).

142 John 7: 26. — Observe that it is the rulers ("the Jews") who fail to recognise the Lord's Messiahship, and only those of the crowd influenced by them (verse 41).

143 John 7: 27. — See note at John 9: 29.

144 John 7: 28. — "Cried." For the Lord's exceptional uplifting of His voice (Matt. 12: 19), cf. verse 37 and John 12: 44.

"He allows that they have spoken rightly of His human origin" (Barth "Chief Problems," p. 162). We may suppose, however, that our Lord is but reminding them of their own words recorded in John 6: 42 — i.e., taking them on their own ground.

145 John 7: 31. — See Micah 5: 2.

145a "I am." Cf. John 3: 13.

146 John 7: 37. — "The great." According to Num. 29: 12, the feast was to last seven days; another day had been added by custom, but on this day no water was drunk from the pool of Siloam, to be poured on the altar. Jesus was the true Shiloh ("sent"). But cf. Jer. 2: 13. This statement shows exact knowledge on the part of the writer.

147 "Stood . . . thirst." His attitude now, as well as His manner, emphasized His words. Connect with this, "I will stand upon the rock in Horeb" (Ex. 17: 6; cf. Num. 20: 11).

148 John 7: 38. — "As the Scripture said." Reference may be made to such passages as Isa. 12: 3; Isa. 35: 6 (cf. Matt. 11: 4-6); Isa. 44: 3, Isa. 55: 1, Isa. 58: 11; Joel 3: 13; Ezek. 47: 1.

149 John 7: 39. — "Spirit was not yet." On this Schmiedel, who is followed by Burkitt (p. 248) and Scott (p. 336), has the following remark: "The Holy Spirit had no existence before the exaltation of Christ," and cites 2 Cor. 3: 17 (col. 2,530). One might fairly expect a writer of such pretension (he has edited Winer's "Grammar") to be acquainted with a use of the negative which appears in other passages of this Gospel, such as John 9: 3 and John 11: 4, and also in 2 Cor. 3: 10. From there being no article before "Spirit," some (as Norris and Govett) would explain it of spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12, 14), which now represents the gifts of the Spirit predicted of the days of Messiah. See, however, the Exposition, p. 450, note. As to misunderstanding by the Evangelist of the Lord's utterances (alleged by Reuss and others), see note at John 2: 21.

150 John 7: 40. — Cf. verse 46 for Christ's words being evidential. As to "the prophet," see note 118. For the connection of this verse with verse 52, see Carr, "Horæ Biblicæ," p. 76 ff. He considers that "the" should be understood before "prophet" in the Pharisee's question (p. 83). This suggestion, which commends itself, is reproduced in the same writer's annotated edition of the R.V. of this Gospel. Cf. Abbott, "Johannine Grammar," p. 358.

151 John 7: 42. — "Bethlehem." Critics wonder why John (Wendt and others would say his "editor"), if he knew of the Bethlehem birth, did not here mention it. Perhaps we have in this an instance of what Dr. Salmon described as the Evangelist's "irony," as in John 6: 42. We have examples of something of the kind in the Pauline Epistles. The important point is that the Jews, as Govett remarks, "in this the chief of questions had not interest enough to push their inquiries."

152 John 7: 43. — "Division." This illustrates Luke 12: 51. So, again, in John 9: 16, John 10: 19. The word in each passage is "schism."

153 John 7: 45 f. — "The chief priests." These represent the Synoptic "Sadducees," who, together with the Pharisees, made up the Sanhedrin.

"Never man" — i.e., a mere man (ἄνθρωπος).

NOTES ON THE EIGHTH CHAPTER

154 John 7: 53 — John 8: 11. — Some of those rejecting this passage are influenced by the feeling that there is no clear connection with what comes before or follows it. As to this, see the Exposition. Difficulty over the connection has, however, not weighed so much as judgment formed on the diplomatic evidence. The expositor shows that the impeachment on that side of the case is not so formidable as is usually supposed. Eusebius says that he found the passage, not merely in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but in Papias, from whom Lightfoot supposes it was derived. It is markedly in harmony with i. 17, and was not likely to be inserted by a later hand. Whilst the early Reformers (Calvin, Beza, etc.) discredited it, Augustine before them, as Bengel afterwards, upheld it. The agreement of textual critics of such different schools as Tregelles and Scrivener, of course, is unfavourable to its being read in John; whilst some, acknowledging it as "Scripture," would place it at the end of Luke 21, as in the Ferrer group of manuscripts (but in these only), so Blass, the latest editor. Lightfoot's judgment was that "it is an interpolation where it stands" ("Bibical Essays," p. 69). He regarded it as a marginal note to verse 15. We may, however, be morally certain that the Evangelist, if he did not actually put the incident in writing, told the story in his oral ministry. "Advanced" critics go with others in commendation of its spirit and teaching, Julicher describing it as "the noblest of Agrapha" (p. 393). Its Divine wisdom is attested on all sides. See, further, notes 157, 159.

155 John 8: 3. — Here only in this Gospel are the scribes spoken of. Instead of being against the genuineness, the word tells the other way; for, as some one has said, "it is in exact keeping with any attempt — the only one described in this Gospel — to entrap Him subtilely, in which the expertness of such men was needed."

156 John 8: 5. — The Old Testament texts are Lev. 22: 10, Deut. 22: 22. Observe that "Moses in the law" is solely Johannine (John 1: 45), not being found in the Synoptic Gospels. What about the absence in these Jews of concern as to the treatment to be dealt out to the adulterer? Cf. Seeley, "Ecce Homo," pp. 117- 120.

156a John 8: 7. — See Deut. 13: 6-11.

157 John 8: 11. — "Neither do I condemn," or, command execution of the law. Had early Christians discerned that these words have regard to the distinction between the Church and the world in its sentences, they could not have hesitated, as they did, to admit the passage into lectionaries. There is no "Go in peace," or "Thy sins are forgiven thee" here: the woman is governmentally respited (cf. the case of John 5). The Lord gave effect to the law which required two witnesses (Deut. 17: 2-7, 19: 15). Of. verse 17 of this chapter which bears singularly on the authenticity of the passage, but seems to have been uniformly neglected by those who have questioned it.

158 Reference should here be made to "Lectures on the Gospel," p. 462 f.

159 John 8: 12. — The "again" marks resumption of the interrupted discourse (verse 2). To whom could "them" refer but the angry Pharisees? If a passage like this (cf. 12: 32) were editorial, might we not say that the interpolator was a prophet? Moreover, would not this verse be awkward if 7: 53 to 8: 11 were omitted?

159a John 8: 12 If. — "The light," referring probably to the elm, beaming out as He spoke (Bishop Andrewes and others), rather than to the golden lamp (Stier, etc.), or to the pillar of cloud and fire (Cyril, etc.).

160 "True." Here ἀληθές, but in John 19: 35 ἀληθινός: both words occur together there. Schmiedel, as others before him, pits verse 13 against verse 31, in which they have been anticipated by these very Jews here! The answer to the critical, as to the Pharisaic, objection turns on His Godhead, shown by what follows. Westcott puts it: "The I in the earlier passage marked the separate individuality; here it marks the fulness of the whole Person."

160a "Ye know not." This, again, has been set against John 7: 28: "Ye know." But there He says, "whence I am"; here, "whence I come." The objection is a mere quibble; the Lord was speaking previously of His earthly origin.

Burkitt (p. 227) characterises His attitude towards the Jews here as "mystifying, repellent," from not weighing the moral bearing of the words. See the Exposition.

161 John 8: 17. — See Deut. 17: 6, Deut. 19: 15. For "law of the Jews" ("your law"), cf. John 10: 34, John 15: 25. It is a case of argumentum ad hominem. So Stevens (p. 35), whilst his countryman Bacon follows captious German criticism. Cf. note 157 above.

161a John 8: 18. — As to testimony to the two natures of the Lord, see Exposition (p. 178 f.), Mark. 12: 35-37, where, as Lord of David, we get His Deity, as in Son of David His humanity (cf. Rom. 1: 3).

162 John 8: 19. — May not John 7: 28 have been slightly ironical, as Ryle suggests? See above as to the irony, also ascribed to the Evangelist by Salmon.

163 John 8: 20. — cf. Luke 22: 53. The Lord taught in the outer courts only, being, according to the flesh, of the tribe of Judah, not Levi (Heb. 7: 14).

164 John 8: 24. — "I Am": Deut. 32: 39-41; Ps. 102: 25-27; Isa. 12: 4, Isa. 48: 10.

164a The American Revisers discredited the British marginal rendering, "How is it that I speak to you at all?" which was derived from Cyril and Chrysostom, and is approved by Zahn. Cf. Blass, "Grammar," § 50. 5 (E.T., p. 176), who would render "(Do you reproach Me) that I speak to you at all?" Those taking it as "altogether" include Winer, Grimm, Stier, H. Holtzmann, Alford, Godet, Plummer, and Reynolds.

165 John 8: 29. — This controverts Swedenborg's doctrine that there is only one "Person" in the Godhead, that the body taken was the Son, and that the Father, in His resistance to evil, put it off altogether! (Cf. note 130.)

165a John 8: 30-32. — "Believed on Him . . . believed Him." See note 17.

166 John 8: 37. — "Maketh no way." So Westcott, who compares Wisd. 7: 23 and Weiss, referring to 2 Macc. 13: 26; as Zahn also to John 3: 40, John 15: 37 there.

167 John 8: 40. — "A man" ἄνθρωπος. Gnosticism denied (α) the Deity of Jesus, (β) the humanity of the Christ. It was the predicted parent of the apostasy spoken of in 1 Tim. 4: 1-3,

167a John 8: 41. — Cf. Mal. 2: 10.

168 John 8: 43. — Cf. Prov. 8: 9. What Alexander Carson, fifty years ago, remarked is true still: if men "are erroneous in their doctrines, they must be erroneous in their philology" ("On Interpretation," p. 91).

169 John 8: 44. — "Standeth" (ἕστηκεν), as the American revisers. The British committee adopted the imperfect of στήκω — i.e., ἔστηκεν ( ÅBpm, DL, etc.); and so Blass. Horton criticises the first part of the verse in the light of verse 30. But the Lord is speaking to the Jews referred to in verse 33. Cf. verses 40 and 45. Polycarp, in his "Letter to the Philippians," echoed the words "of the devil."

170 John 8: 46. — It is on the Lord's conscious sinlessness that Weiss would base His Messianic consciousness ("Life of Christ," i. 290).

Professor Du Bose has revived the execrable doctrine of Edward Irving. Note the following terrible statements taken from the American writer: "There was that in His flesh which actively He had to put to death" ("Soteriology," p. 320), "His lifelong death to sin created and constituted His sinlessness" ("The Gospel in the Gospels," p. 159); "He had as much to hunger and thirst after righteousness which was not His own as we have" (ibid., p. 164); "Jesus Himself, in His humanity, needed the salvation which all humanity needs" ("The Gospel according to St. Paul," p. 127); "There was that in Him which He needed to deny, to mortify, to crucify" (ibid., p. 173); "As man, our Lord was subject with us all to sin and death" (p. 228). To found such execrable language on anything from Paul or Peter (e.g., Rom. 8: 3; 2 Cor. 5: 21; 1 Peter 4: 1) is, as one of them has written, to wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction. Cf. v. 23 of this Gospel. What a mercy that the Saviour (pace Schmiedel) has spoken of forgiveness extended to those blaspheming the "Son of man"! (Matt. 12: 32).

With verse 47 cf. 1 John 4: 6.

171 John 8: 48 f. — Schmiedel (col. 2,541): "Had Jesus really possessed that exalted consciousness of His pre-existence and Divine dignity which is attributed to Him in the fourth Gospel, the declaration that blasphemy against Him was incapable of forgiveness (Matt. 12: 31 f.; Luke 12: 10) could never have been attributed to Him." But it is to His character of Son of man that the Synoptic words as to forgiveness attach; and it is precisely in the earlier Gospels that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is said not to admit of forgiveness, attributing Christ's works to Beelzebub, as here His words to a demon. There is not a particle of such difference in the accounts: the Synoptists record nothing that detracts from the words "ye dishonour Me" given by John.

As to the Jews' insinuation, see Schofield, "Christian Sanity," p. 14. Cf. John 7: 20 of this Gospel.

172 John 8: 57. — "Fifty years old." What is one to think of Loisy, who follows Ireneus, saying that, "according to the Evangelist, the Christ was about fifty years old when He died" (p. 13)? as to which Schmiedel sensibly remarks that Irenæus was not trustworthy in respect of traditions of that kind. The "fifty" might be explained from Num. 4: 3, 39, Num. 8: 34, but probably means, what is generally supposed, that the blessed Saviour was prematurely old. Cf. Zahn, ad loc.

173 John 8: 58. — "I am." See note 164, and cf. Ps. 90: 2, Ps. 102: 27. The Unitarian explanation is that "Jesus only meant that He existed as Messiah in God's counsels before Abraham." There would, however, be nothing peculiar in that, as true also of Adam and the Jews themselves, whom He was addressing. They understood His words very differently. The "wrangling, little in the style of Jesus," which is said to characterise this chapter (Horton, p. 164; cf. Burkitt) is, of course, primarily an utterance of German oracles.

NOTES ON THE NINTH CHAPTER

174 John 9: 1 — "Blind from birth." Symbolical of Israel as a people (Deut. 29: 4). D'Alma imagines that the Evangelist had Paul in his mind; but the Apostle of the Gentiles, instead of being "a proselyte of the gate," was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews."

175 John 9: 2. — The Pharisees supposed that the souls of good men passed from one body to another (Josephus, "Antiquities," xviii. 1, 3; "B.J.," ii. 8, 14). So Herod, of John the Baptist. By the "pious and learned author" referred to in the Exposition Tholuck would seem to be meant, for such is the view that he propounds.

176 John 9: 6. — As to this Jewish remedy for eye disease, see Edersheim ("Life," ii. 48). The next verse seems to show that it stands here for Jewish ordinances, which the people refused to give up for the word of Christ. Their "Sabbath" was their hindrance (cf. Isa. 28: 9-12).

177 John 9: 7. — "Siloam." The Shiloah of Isa. 8: 6 (cf. Ps. 46: 4). That the name meant "sent" has been questioned in "Supernatural Religion," (p. 419), but not by Schmiedel, Mr. Cassels' German counterpart. Reference should here be made to John 8: 16-18, 26-29, besides verse 4 of this chapter. For the use of clay as eye salve, cf. that made of the brazen serpent, and for the water here, cf. Acts 2: 33, 38 f., of the Holy Spirit sent down to dispel Jewish blindness.

178 John 9: 16. — "How can," etc. See John 3: 2, the "we" of which finds further illustration here. There were some who agreed with Nicodemus. Cf. verse 33 of the present chapter.

179 John 9: 22. — The opposition to our Lord's Messianic claim had now become acute, at an advanced stage of His ministry. As to exclusion from the fellowship of the synagogue, see Edersheim, ii. 184.

180 John 9: 24. — "Give glory to God." This formula takes us back to the time of Joshua (John 7: 19).

181 John 9: 29. — "We know not whence He is." Schmiedel (following Holtzmann, etc.) says that the Evangelist "sometimes contradicts his own precise statements" (col. 2,537). The reference here is, of course, to John 7: 27. Westcott explains that here it is a question of His prophetic function of the commission, the authority by which JESUS comes. So the healed man's "the wonderful thing." Is it not simply a question of "the Jews," learned and acute as the man knew them to be, stultifying themselves? Govett's comment is: "Unbelievers will at last be condemned out of their own mouths and by their own principles." The "common sense" which governs men in ordinary concerns has a way of forsaking them in religious matters; the soundness of the head is here regulated so much by the state of the heart. Weiss notes the emphatic ἡμεῖς, "we." Cf. the man's ὑμεῖς, "ye" — "they, the people's spiritual leaders, who alone have to judge in such matters"! Have we not their analogues in our own day?

182 John 9: 31 f. — The man's statement is supported by Ps. 66: 18, Prov. 15: 29; Isa. 1: 15. Cf. the history of Elijah and Elisha. Observe that the knowledge of the constancy of Nature had already in the Apostolic Age filtered through to the people (Gerdtell, "Primitive Miracles," etc., p. 30).

182a John 9: 34. — This was the sole attempt the Jews made to disprove any of the Lord's miracles. Cf. John 3: 2, John 11: 47.

183 John 9: 35. — "The Son of God." See John 3: 18, John 5: 25, John 10: 36, John 11: 4. For "Son of man," see John 3: 15, John 6: 27 (and Exposition), 34-36 (the same). It may be said, on the one hand, that any alteration would he more likely made from "man" to "God" than vice versa, because of the frequency of "Son of God" in this Gospel (so Zahn), but, on the other, that a copyist, from the fact that the "Son of man" was Christ's usual mode of designating Himself, would be very likely to alter "Son of God" into "Son of man." In support of "Son of God," see "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 293. Godet. too, adheres to this reading, because of the worship rendered by the man. Indeed, John 6: 27, 29 seems to the present writer to settle the whole point. The "Son of man" is there said to be sealed (attested) as "Son of God" (cf. note 122). Before He could be Son of man He must have been sent as Son of God. By acknowledgment of the truth of this, the object of the miracle became the first "martyr" confessor of the new community (Carr). See also note 238.

184 John 9: 39. — The Lord here fulfils Isa. 28: 9-13. The judgment is a sifting process. Cf. Luke 2: 34: "for the falling and rising up of many in Israel," leaving men either better or worse, with "they that see not" also John 3: 19, ff. Carr aptly compares the words of John 7: 49. "They that see" of course calls up Isa. 13: 19. Only those who fail to see the different bearing of John 3: 17 and the present passage "as to judgment" could, with H. Holtzmann, find a contradiction. Cf. McRory, ad loc.

185 John 9: 41. — Cf. John 15: 22. "Remaineth," attacheth, is unforgiven. "Forgiveness" is not a term of this Gospel, which. however, expresses the idea in various ways, as in 8: 32, "the truth shall make you free." For the attitude of unbelief towards the Christian doctrine of forgiveness, see Greg, "Creed of Christendom," or "Essays" of Miss Edith Simcox in the same strain, and on the believing side Sir R. Anderson, "Christianized Rationalism," p. 193.

Heitmüller: "Sin reposes essentially on ignorance if a man have proper insight, he will act rightly" (p. 174). Such is Tolstoy's doctrine. See record of interview between him and the late Dr. F. W. Baedeker, in "Memoir" of the latter. The Russian Count had not reckoned with Luke 11: 21 f. Cf. note 49 on Mark, as to Humanitarianism.

NOTES ON THE TENTH CHAPTER

186 John 10: 1-18. — The Scriptures for reference are, in particular, Ps. 23. Isa. 40. Zech. 11. To be understood rightly, the close connection of this passage with John 8 and John 9 must be seen, which the division of chapters tends to obscure.

187 John 10: 1-3. — "The fold." ". . . leadeth them out." One of the "realistic scenes" given at the Palestine Exhibitions brings out those characteristics of an Eastern sheepfold stated in Carr's note, ad loc. — the high wall entrance closed at night and guarded by "porter", the mixture of flocks and their separation each morning through the different voice of each shepherd Cf. Isa. 43: 1 and Acts 2: 39. By "the porter" it will be seen the expositor understands the Holy Spirit (so Stier, Alford, and MoRory); Godet, the Baptist.

For the New Testament add, in particular, Luke 15: 11-32. As to the relation of allegory to metaphor, see Carson on "Figurative Language of Scripture," or "Encyclopædia Britannica," vol. i., under "Allegory."

188 John 10: 4-7. — "He goeth before them." The Lord severed His connection with the Temple before the disciples separated from it; their break with it was very gradual.

With verse 6 cf. John 16: 25, ff. and Mark 4: 13; and with 5: 7, Heb. 10: 20 (Norris).

189 John 10: 8. — "Before me." These words seem to have been omitted in some leading, manuscripts from the difficulty that attaches to the verse when they are read. The Manichees used them in support of their theories. If the words πρὸ ἐμοῦ are retained, one way of taking πρὁ is in the sense of "instead," "in place of," but then it will be necessary to take the statement prophetically, as none such presented themselves until after the Lord's first coming. Isaiah has used the past tense in this way (10: 28-31). Other explanations are recorded in Alford's note, ad loc. Zahn combines the idea of both past and immediate future by supposing that the Asmonæan rulers and Herodian princes are meant.

190 John 10: 9. — "Shall go in and shall go out." This is a Hebraism. See Num. 27: 17. Cf. Maclaren's remarks on Communion and Service in his Exposition, vol. ii., pp. 28 ff.

An Eastern shepherd acts as a door.

191 John 10: 10. — "Abundantly." Cf. 2 Peter 1: 11.

192 John 10: 11. — The view of Pfleiderer (ii. 480), that Paul's doctrine of salvation resting on the death and resurrection of Christ was supplanted by John's emphasizing the whole redemptive activity of His earthly life, is reproduced by Scott. As to this theory, see the Exposition at p. 367.

"The good Shepherd" cf. (Heb. 13: 20). "the great Shepherd," and (in 1 Peter 5: 4) "the chief Shepherd." Pss. 22, 23, 24 seem to answer respectively to these designations.

"Layeth down His life," or soul (cf. Isa. 53: 10). The word for "life" here is altogether different from that in verse 10 (life in contrast with death). The following "for," as Meyer says, indicates substitution, not only benefit, as in 1 John 3: 16, with which cf. Rom. 16: 4 (decisive). It comes out strikingly in this Gospel (John 18: 8), where see note.

Govett, on the present passage, well remarks: "He showed He had power to enforce that exchange." How can Scott get over the five-times repeated mention by Christ of His death in this short discourse? It carries as much emphasis as, e.g., in Acts 20: 28 or Heb. 13: 20, 1 Peter 1: 19.

193 John 10: 12. — See Ezek. 34: 11-23, etc. For the "wolf," cf. Matt. 10: 16 and Acts 20: 29. The "hireling" is exemplified in the conduct of the blind man's parents in John 9 here.

193a See the "Lycidas" of Milton.

194 John 10: 14-16. — Here we have a link with the first Gospel: our Lord "in the days of His flesh" was "Minister of the circumcision" (cf. John 21: 23-32 and note 8 above). Again, there is connection with the third Gospel. It would be nearer the truth to say that John was influenced by Isaiah (Isa. 49) than by Paul.

With verse 14 cf. John 17: 20-22. The passage should correct the strangely serious notion that to doubt one's acceptance is the best proof of being a child of God!

As one has said. "To insist on the one flock (v. 16) and yet form a sacramental fold which is exclusive, instead of inclusive, is suicidal: always has been and ever will be."

195 John 10: 17 f. — On the relation of these words of Christ to those of Paul in Gal. 3: 13. see Gerdtell on "Substitution," p. 44 f. Criticism, has been bestowed on J. N. Darby's writing that the Lord gave up His first human life, "to which sin attached," to take up in resurrection another life, in which the sin of mankind, reckoned to Him on the cross (2 Cor. 5: 21), has no voice. But it is of the ζωὴ that the writer of "Synopsis of the Books of the Bible" speaks — from no neglect of the Greek word used here — with reference to such passages as 1 Peter 4: 1. Reference to Mr. Darby's treatment of Scriptures outside this Gospel, like those just referred to, should remove any misapprehension of his meaning. The words of these verses entirely meet the unholy view of the Atonement, according to which the Father is regarded as exposing Himself to the imputation of injustice. He and the Son combine.

195a Contrast the present passage with Ps. 89: 48. "No one taketh it away from Me." This, of course, at the same time as human, excludes Satanic power, it is equivalent to "No one can," etc. And so for Heb. 5: 7 as bearing on the agony in Gethsemane (Luke 22: 43 f.).

In Heb. 9: 14, "an eternal spirit" speaks of Christ's own (Westcott). His own Deity was engaged in the work.

195b Cf. Horton, "Teaching of Jesus," pp. 200 f.

196 John 10: 19-21. — Cf. Ps. 146: 7 f. From these verses of the Gospel we may learn that truth separates as a preliminary to uniting.

Observe how the Lord's works were seen to reinforce His words, which stand or fall together. Jülicher admits that they are inseparable.

With v. 20, cf. Schofield, "Christian Sanity," p. 15.

197 John 10: 22. — The "Feast of Dedication," also called the "Feast of Lights." was instituted by the Maccabean Jews to commemorate the rededication of the Temple after the victories of Judas over Antiochus Epiphanes, who had desecrated it. See "Jewish Prayer Book," p. 274. The Chanuka generally falls in the month of Chisleu, or December, and so the mention of "winter." Observe that the Evangelist does not speak of it as a "feast" — i.e., as if it had Divine sanction.

198 John 10: 24 f. — "Dost thou hold our soul in suspense?" These words serve to show that the progress of the Messianic claim is not really represented differently in the fourth from what it is in the earlier Gospels (cf. Horton pp. 190 f.).

John takes us more "behind the scenes," emphasizing more their responsibility; nevertheless, the Jews can still talk thus at this advanced stage of the ministry. Having regard to John 9: 22, their sincerity may well be questioned. It is much the same with the antecedent rejection of "the miraculous" in our day. "Openness of mind" alone will do in religious as in all other search after truth. Cf. Matt. 11: 4 f.; Luke 11: 3 ff.

198a John 10: 26 f. — See verse 3 f.

199 John 10: 28-30. — See note 110 on Mark, and cf. Deut. 32: 39, Isa. 43: 13 Hengstenberg: "Jesus assumes to Himself the possession of the power which belongs to Jehovah." See Hooker's notable sermon on the "Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect," which might suffice for "Anglicans."

"We are One," ἕν, neuter. It is not one in will or purpose only, for this in the case of Jesus might still be frustrated, but that will and power coalesce in the person of the Speaker. In these verses the distinction of Persons and unity of Nature alike come out. See, further, John 12: 45, John 14: 9 f., John 17: 21, and cf. Heb. 1: 3. The Sabellian and Patripassian (Swedenborgian) theory breaks down when faced with the words: the Father and JESUS are not one "Person", whilst the one nature contradicts Arians (Socinians). The contemporary Jews understood the Lord's statement, whilst their descendants and "Unitarians" miss its meaning.

200 John 10: 31. — Cf. Lev. 24: 10, and see note on John 19: 7 below.

201 John 10: 32. — Cf. Ps 78: 11 f.

201a John 10: 33. — This may be regarded as the locus classicus on the way in which the Lord's claims were understood at the time.

202 John 10: 35. — "The word of God came." Cf. Ezek. 1: 3; Luke 3: 2.

203 John 10: 36. — See note 30 on Mark (p. 248).

204 John 10: 40 §. — "Again." As to the Peræan ministry, see 1: 28. As to John's performing no miracles, see Gerdtell, p. 70.

NOTES ON THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER

205 The Resuscitation of Lazarus. — This, the third and most notable case of Christ's raising the dead, has always excited sharp criticism by sceptics. Spinoza is said to have declared that if he could be satisfied that the miracle was actually performed he would become a Christian. But, of course, such an intellectual times spoken of in this Gospel, has never permanently profited anyone. At the present day the main objection taken to the incident is that John alone records it, which circumstance is considered to invest the story with suspicion, because it is alleged an incident represented to have brought about the death of the Lord (see note on verse 63) must have been known to one or other of the Synoptists if it really took place. So Cassels, Abbott, Burkitt, etc., after Strauss, Keim, and their Continental followers. It affords prominent illustration of a favourite "critical" canon — that if a biblical historian knows of an event he is bound to record it. The author of "Supernatural Religion" goes so far as to say that "each of the Synoptic Gospels professes to be complete in itself" — a principle that can only yield an absurd result. Not even does the preface of Luke lend itself to such an idea. That Evangelist's "all" is said of his resources, not of the things in which Theophilus had been instructed, for the accuracy of which Luke is prepared to vouch.

If there were any sound basis in the principle, it would, of course, apply all round. Matt. 27: 52, for example, would fall under it; there alone are we told of the dead saints who left their graves and appeared in Jerusalem after the Lord's own resurrection. In respect of the present Gospel we should have to assume that, in the face of Synoptic declarations to the contrary, John himself knew nothing of the raising of Jairus's daughter, of the Transfiguration, of the agony in Gethsemane, or the forsaking on the Cross, all recorded by Mark, who was a witness of none of these! Two of such incidents are indirectly attested by John (see notes 20 above, and that on John 12: 27); and other such incidents as the Temptation (Matthew, Luke) some (as Reynolds) believe have parallels in his Gospel (chapters 1-4).

Keim treated the resuscitation of Lazarus as a fiction, O. Holtzmann ("Life of Jesus," p. 275), followed by Burkitt, cannot fit it into the framework of Mark's, conceived to be the fundamentally historic, narrative. Schmiedel (col 2,521), as Abbott in the same work (col 1,805), after Bruno Bauer and Schenkel, regards it as a development of the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16: 19-31, and so Wernle ( "Sources," pp. 42 f.). As to all this, see note 5 in the volume on Mark, and cf. Turton, p. 413. Remarks will be made below on individual features of the narrative, to show how worthless are such insinuations against its credibility. See, further, Weiss, "Life of Christ," Bk. vi., § 6, or Westcott, "Study of the Gospels," p. 164, who says: "It did not fall in with the common plan of the Synoptists, which excluded all working at Jerusalem until the final entry."

206 John 11: 2. — The Evangelist assumes that an incident is already known from the earlier accounts which he will himself describe later (John 12: 2). Cf. Luke's manner of writing in 4: 23, 31 of his Gospel.

207 John 11: 15. — "Let us go unto him." These words negative the idea of Swedenborgians and spiritualists that the disembodied is the final state of man, as if after death the body is no more resumed.

208 John 11: 16. — "That we may die with him." As in the first edition, "him" has been printed with small initial letter, because of the uncertainty which attaches to its exact meaning. Zahn, as did Grotius, takes it of Lazarus; most commentators, however, understand JESUS. See verse 9 f.

209 John 11: 18. — "Was." For the imperfect sense here, instead of the present, as in v. 2, Lightfoot compares Luke 4: 29 ("Biblical Essays," p. 175). See also Blass in Expository Times, July, 1907.

210 John 11: 24-26. — "The resurrection at the last day." Martha's belief was doubtless that propounded by the Pharisees from Isa. 25: 8, Isa. 26: 19: Dan. 12: 2, Hosea 13: 14. For the novelty that the Evangelist was a "Christianized Sadducee," see Burkitt, p. 250.

With v. 26 cf. 6: 40; Luke 20: 35 f.; Phil. 3: 11.

211 John 11: 27. — "That should come into the world." See note on John 1: 9.

212 John 11: 33. — "Where have ye laid Him?" If the Lord had not asked this question, would not unbelievers have said that He was only acting a part or that there was collusion? As to the Lord being "moved in spirit" see Maclaren, ii. 99.

212a John 11: 35. — "Jesus wept" — i.e., shed tears simply, not "sobbed," as the word means which is used in verses 31, 33. The word employed in the present verse appears here only in the New Testament. For other occasions of the Lord's weeping, see Luke 19: 41; Matt. 26: 39. Chrysostom remarks that this Evangelist emphasizes His affections whilst making higher statements as to His nature than the other Evangelists.

Cassels has described our Lord's tears here as "the theatrical adjuncts of a dramatic scene" ("Supernatural Religion," p. 461). Such writers have not profited by the lesson of Mark 9: 13, 16 and parallels. The propriety of those tears has been questioned because of the early removal of the cause of sorrow. But surely, as Christ thought of the vast area of misery brought in by Satan with sin, the sorrow shown here was natural and becoming. Indeed, had the Lord not wept, would not sceptics have suggested that it was not a representation of any true humanity?

213 John 11: 38. — "A cave" — that is, a rock-hewn tomb (Schor, "Palestine and the Bible," p. 34), as shown at the Palestine Exhibitions.

214 "Take away the stone." Had the Lord removed it miraculously, objectors would have insinuated that it evinced fraud; that Lazarus had done it from inside.

214a John 11: 39. — "The sister of the deceased." Does not the Evangelist say this in order to remove the least shred of suspicion of imposture?

215 John 11: 41 f. — Cassels: "Evidently artificial." But although no prayer by Christ is mentioned in previous cases of resurrection, the fourth Gospel aims at exhibiting Him as the SON submissive in all things to the Father's will, not an independent Deity. Hence its propriety, which, of course, only a believer can appreciate.

215a John 11: 43 f. — "Lazarus . . . the dead." The dead is strictly applicable to the body, and so that attaches to man risen. Resurrection, therefore, is not, as some represent, emancipation of the soul from the body at death. But that notion, doubtless, is widely prevalent.

215b John 11: 46. — Origen's view that the information was conveyed to the Pharisees with a friendly intention is, as Carr says, unlikely.

216 John 11: 47 f. — Bengel: "Death more easily yields to Christ's power than unbelief" (cf. note 219). Observe that "many" miracles are spoken of.

217 John 11: 49, 51. — "Being high priest of that year." Instead of election for life, the office was held at the whim of the Romans, according to Josephus, "Antiq.," 18: 2. Eleazar and Simon (appointed in succession by Valerius Gratus, after the deposition of Annas) each held the office for only one year.

The Evangelist, neither here nor in John 18: 12, uses the article before "high priest." It is, perhaps, another illustration of his "irony" (Salmon). "Twenty-eight held the position from the time of Herod's accession to the destruction of Jerusalem" (cf. Acts 23: 5). Keim gave up the critical objection founded on the words. Holtzmann supposes a circle of readers accustomed to the naming of a year after the "Asiarch" (Acts 19: 31) in office at the time being.

217a The decision as to the death of JESUS must rest with the high priest for the time being (Weiss).

217b "One of them." This may indicate that Caiaphas was not acting as president of the Sanhedrin (Godet). The brusqueness here of this Sadducean illustrates what Josephus tells of his party (Bell. Jud., ii. 8, 14). Here it was a case of "Sadducee versus Pharisee."

218 John 11: 50. — "For the nation." This is clearly substitutionary, not "in behalf of", ὑπὲρ, "instead of." Our Lord died as Saviour or Redeemer of Israel (Isa. 45, 49), as well as of the Church. "For the transgression of My people was He stricken." Not that He was made a curse for Israel alone, as Kaftan supposes ("Dogmatics," pp. 461 f.). See Gal. 3: 13, and cf. Orr, p. 73.

219 John 11: 53. Cf. note 216. Use has been made of this verse for the supposition that it is to the raising of Lazarus we must attribute the Crucifixion, so as to heighten any difficulty about the silence of the other Evangelists. The Lord's death, however, had been determined on long before (see John 7: 1, 25 f., 44; again in John 8: 39, and John 10: 31, John 11: 8, 16). This incident did not bring matters to a crisis and lead the rulers to give definite shape to their plans, because the characteristic tenet of the high-priestly family had been shaken to its foundations, so as to discredit them to the utmost.

220 John 11: 54. — This place is identified with the modern El-Taiyibeh, about twenty miles from Jerusalem, on the road from Jericho north-westwards. It was from here, probably, that the Lord went to Jericho, and thence to Bethany (John 12: 1; cf. Mark 10: 46; Luke 18: 31, 35).

NOTES ON THE TWELFTH CHAPTER

220a John 12: 1. — Matt. 20: 17-24; Mark 10: 32-52; Luke 18: 31 — Luke 19: 20 will immediately precede this section of the Gospel (see Carr's note).

The Lord's arrival at Bethany would be on the evening of the Friday — i.e., technically, on Saturday, the 9th Nisan. "Six days before the Passover" is terminology characteristic of the Roman calendar.

221 John 12: 2. — "They." Indefinite. Cf. Matt. 5: 15, Matt. 10: 10, Matt. 13: 48, and John 15: 6.

222 John 12: 3. — Cf. Ps. 23: 5. Origen and Chrysostom considered that there were three anointings: (α) in house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7); (β) in house of Simon the leper (Mark 14); (γ) in Martha's house (John 12). Some find but two, regarding Martha as wife of Simon the leper. There seem to be six Simons mentioned in the Gospels.

223 John 12: 4-6. — For the words of Judas here, cf. Ps. 55: 21. The Lord was not bound to keep temptation out of the way of the traitors, who must have forgotten the petition which he had been taught: "Bring us not into temptation." Judas, it may be observed, betrayed his Master for one-tenth the value of that which Mary lavished upon Him.

224 The word γλωσσόκομον does not mean "bag," but a chest (R.V., margin "box"); and ἐβάσταζεν may be rendered "used to take away" (steal). The papyri inscriptions recently discovered throw light on the Evangelist's statement.

225 John 12: 7. — The word τηρήσῃ seems to mean that Mary had reserved it from the ointment used for Lazarus's funeral. See Field, who does not follow Alford. Had we not Martha here, this alone would tell against the identification of Mary with the Magdalene.

226 John 12: 9. — Abbott ("Johannine Grammar," §1,739) contrasts the ὁ ὄχλος πολύς used here and in verse 12 with the better Greek of Mark (12: 37), ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος. This militates against the idea (see first note on Introduction) that the Greek of this Gospel was not such as a Galilean fisherman would have had at his command.

227 John 12: 12. — "On the morrow." This brings us to the first day of the last week — the 10th Nisan (cf. Ex. 12: 3, Zech. 11: 12, Mark 11: 15). With respect to the "palms," is it not striking, as regards the question of the authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse, that these two books alone in the New Testament speak of them? (see Rev. 7: 9-17). Leaves of the palm-tree are associated with the Feast of Tabernacles, type of the Kingdom. Cf. Zech. 14.

228 John 12: 14. — Besides verse 9 of Zech. 9, cf. also Zeph. 3: 13-20. The disciples were not taught by the Holy Spirit that Zion stands for the Church (according to the Patristic interpretation, which was Pusey's).

229 John 12: 17. — The reading ὃτι, adopted by the Revisers, as by Mr. Kelly may have sprung from the difficulty felt over the multitude ("crowd") present when the Lord performed the miracle. Cf., of course, John 11: 42: a crowd was gathered by Him on His journey from Ephraim to Bethany.

230 John 12: 19. — The same doubt attends θεωρεῖτε here as ἐραυνᾶτε in v. 39. Ryle takes the word here as imperative.

231 John 12: 20. — "Of." This is surely preferable to the "among" of the R.V., which would imply inclusion of Jews. It means, of the Greeks that came up. For such devout Gentiles, cf. Acts 17: 4.

232 John 12: 21. — "Bethsaida of Galilee." G. A. Smith: "This need not mean that it lay west of the Jordan, for the province of Galilee was right round the lake" ("Historical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 458). The existence of two Bethsaidas is however, a question likely to remain uncertain. The present writer inclines to Trench's view. Cf. note 65 on Mark. Professor Smith's "need not" is significant. Why should "of Galilee" be added by the Evangelist, unless there were two or more places of the same name?

232a John 12: 24. — We have here the antitype of the sheaf of firstfruits (Delitzsch). The way in which the Lord expressed Himself seems to have been adapted to the system of thought familiar to Greeks of that day. See J. G. Frazer, "The Golden Bough," iii. 130 ff., for "dying God" and "corn spirit." Cf. Achelis, "Sketch," p. 32. Researches such as Prof. Frazer's do but by illustration confirm rather than, as he supposes, impair revealed truth. The fourth Gospel was the divinely suited vehicle for the record of such words of Christ. As to protest from Germany against such interpretation as Frazer's of the play of heathen conception in primitive Christianity, see Knowling, p. 86.

233 John 12: 23. — "Son of man." See note on verse 34. In 11: 4 it was glorification of the Son of God.

234 John 12: 25. — Cf. Matt. 10: 39, Matt. 16: 25; Mark 8: 35; Luke 9: 24, Luke 14: 26, Luke 17: 33. "In this world." For κόσμος the Synoptists use αἰῶν, which connects itself with the Kingdom, a term that the fourth Evangelist uses only in John 3: 3-5, because, as here, he regards eternal life in its future aspect as beginning with that. He is concerned characteristically with its present significance.

235 John 12: 27. — Milligan, for the ἐκ, "out of," compares Heb. 5: 7. See also Reynolds, ad loc. Many critics make use of what they conceive to be the fourth Evangelist's omission of the Synoptic agony in Gethsemane, of which John should have had some special knowledge, for their argument against his authorship of the book. We seem, however, in these words to have an allusion to it. The vicious principle that governs such writers has been already considered. See the Exposition at p. 393.

236 John 12: 31. — "This world." See John 1: 5-10. "Shall be cast out." Bishop Gore speaks of Satan's "hiding his face in hell" ("The Christian Creed," p. 68). But see Rev. 2: 13 ("earth"), 12: 10 ("heaven").

237 John 12: 32 f. — The expositor, it will be seen, explains by "crucified" (see verse 33). "Out of." After some Fathers, Meyer, Milligan, and Dods (cf. Zahn, in loc.) regard it as covering the Ascension. Cf. Gen. 40: 13, 19.

Wendt (p. 69) refers to verse 23. See also Carr's note. Reuss and others, as Horton in England, make use of verse 33 for the wretched theory of the Evangelist's imperfect understanding of our Lord's meaning (see note on John 2: 21). John is evidently emphasizing the world's side of this greatest of tragedies.

238 John 12: 34. — See Luke 24: 26 and note 30 on Mark (p. 247) as to Son of man. From this passage we learn that the title was not familiar to the Jews, and that it was not used for "Messiah." The present passage seems to support the reading "God" in John 9: 35.

"Abideth for ever." See 1 Chr. 17: 12, Ps. 89: 24, 29, Ps. 110: 4; Isa. 9: 7, Isa. 53: 8; Ezek. 37: 25; Dan. 7: 14; Micah 4: 7.

239 John 12: 36. — "The light." JESUS meant Himself (1 John 1: 5) — that is, that He is GOD. See Deut. 32: 20, Ps. 78: 11 f., for "hid Himself from them."

240 John 12: 37 ff. — "So many signs" — four in Galilee, three in Judæa — with tacit reference to the earlier Gospels.

"Could not believe." The present infinitive (πιστεὑειν), "to form a habit of belief" (Abbott, §2,496). Cf. note 114 (v. 44), and see Milligan's remarks on the judicial blinding of these Jews. Observe that "Isaiah" is named as source, and no critical "Second Isaiah."

241 John 12: 40. — Isa. 6: 9 f. is quoted in all four Gospels. It is given here (cf. John 9: 39) in the same form as in Mark and Luke. See volume on Mark, note 45.

242 John 12: 42 f. — Amongst such, probably, was Joseph of Arimathæa, as well as Nicodemus. Cf. note 59 above. The Evangelist's words in verse 43 carry us back to those of the Lord in v. 44.

243 John 12: 44. — For "cried" (ἔκραζεν), cf. Matt, 27: 50 (Mark 15: 39), and John 7: 28-37.

244 John 12: 46. — See verse 9 of the Preface (chapter 1), and cf. Eph. 5: 14.

245 John 12: 48. — "Slighteth" is in the Greek (ἀθετῶν) peculiar to this passage of John. It is used also in Luke 10: 16.

"The last day." This term is peculiar to the fourth Gospel (John 6: 39 f., 44, 54 and John 11: 24). It is one of the "interpolations" alleged by Wendt, etc.

246 John 12: 50. — Cf. 1 John 3: 22 f.

NOTES ON THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER

247 John 13: 1. — "Before the Feast of the Passover." The question, by many always considered so difficult, here presents itself of the agreement or otherwise of the fourth Gospel with the preceding records in regard to the character of the last meal of which our Lord partook with His disciples. The subject has already been discussed in note 142 on Mark (Mark 14: 12 f.). Here may be added reference to Dalman, "Aramaic Grammar," p. 248 f., for פסח being used in post-Biblical Jewish literature for the whole feast; also to Andrews, pp. 542-581. The general question can be dealt with most conveniently in the present volume, in connection with the expositor's own note on John 19: 14 below.

248 John 13: 2. — Field and Govett adhere to the reading of A.V.: γενομένου. Alford renders "supper being prepared" (or, going on), and compares Matt. 26: 6. Mr. Kelly, as the Dean and the Revisers: γινομένου. It affords a good instance of the different ways in which copyists, writing from dictation, heard a word uttered by the reader.

249 John 13: 4, 5. — This is manifestly the narrative of an eye-witness. There are seven steps, all engraven on the Evangelist's memory. Note the graphic ὲγείρεται . . . βάλλει. As to the "girding," cf. Luke 12: 37.

Those who deny that it was a strictly paschal supper make use of the fact of the "rising": "standing" had been prescribed for that, but it would seem for the first occasion alone.

250 For "washing from iniquity," cf. Ps. 51: 2, and 1 Cor. 6: 11.

251 See on verse 12 below.

252 John 13: 10. Calvin's idea of continued reconciliation was doubtless in the minds of King James's New Testament company concerned with the rendering "to make reconciliation" in Heb. 2: 17. It has reappeared in teaching of recent years, based on an interpretation of 2 Cor. 5: 20, which the expositor combated.

253 John 13: 12. — The "know" means understand (γινώσκετε). Cf. verse 7, where οἶδας and γνώσῃ occur together.

254 John 13: 13. — See Luke 5: 8.

255 John 13: 17. — Schmiedel remarks: "If read in the Synoptic Gospels, would cause no difficulty." What, then, about Matt. 7: 21, which is to the same effect?

255a varies.

256 John 13: 19. — Cf. Isa. 43: 11-13 and John 8: 24, 28, 58 of this Gospel.

John 13: 18. — The quotation is from the Hebrew, from which the Septuagint

257 John 13: 21. — It is supposed that this is the point at which the Lord's Supper would come in. For "troubled in His spirit," cf. 11: 33, 12: 27.

258a John 13: 22. — "Doubting," perplexed (ἀπορούμενοι)

259 John 13: 23. — "At table." The posture was that of reclining. Leonardo da Vinci's picture, which represents the guests as sitting, represents quite a wrong idea.

260 Here is the first mention by the Evangelist of the disciple understood to mean himself. Westcott, Drummond, Loisy and others concur, at any rate, in this opinion. Scholten started the notion, which Bacon advocates, that an ideal disciple is meant. Imagination may employ itself ad infinitum, but fruitlessly.

261 John 13: 24-27. — A critical canon, as to the shorter readings being preferable, here favours the T.R.

262 As to the morsel, or "sop," given and received in token of a covenant of peace, see pamphlet of Mr. Khodadad (London Jews' Society), pp. 32 f.

263 John 13: 29. — "For the feast." It is used here for the whole feast, as in John 2: 13, 23, John 6: 4, 11: 55, 12: 1, and the first verse of this chapter. See, further at John 18: 28.

263a John 13: 30. — "Having received the morsel." Cf. Luke 22: 21. "It was night." Cf. Ex. 12: 42.

264 John 13: 31-34. — See note 62 on Mark. For love as element of Christian character, see Illingworth, chapter 5.

265 John 13: 31 f. - "Is [was] glorified." For the aorist, cf. John 15: 6, 8, and John 17: 4; also at John 3: 19, in purpose, if not in reality.

266 John 13: 33. — "Little children": a solecism in the Gospel. Judas is by this time excluded. "The Jews": the only time in which the Lord uses the term to His disciples.

267 John 13: 35. — The Christian is not to be known by his wearing a cross, as the South Sea Islander a tattoo, or the Brahmin a blue thread.

268 As to discrepancies alleged by Strauss and others in respect of Peter's denials, see McClellan, pp. 494-503.

NOTES ON THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER

269 John 14: 1. — "Let not your heart be troubled." Hengstenberg finds seven encouragements in this chapter: verses 2f., 4-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-24, 25 f., 27.

270 "Ye believe," as in A.V., supported by Erasmus, Grotius, Olshausen etc. The Syriac of Sinai treats the verb as in the imperative the first time also, so Cyril, Augustine, Stier, Alford, Revisers' Margin, Norris. Bernard and Zahn (comparing John 1: 46, John 7: 52, John 11: 34).

271 John 14: 3. — "I am coming." This is understood by Meyer, Ewald, Luthardt, Hofman, Westcott, H. Holtzmann, Weiss and Zahn, of the παρουσία (personal "Second Advent," note 134 on Mark): one happy instance of representative agreement. So Cyril in the past, and Bishop Hall. Neither by the Paraclete nor other "spiritual" coming (De Wette, Stier, Wendt), nor, as supposed by many ordinary readers, inspired by Tholuck, etc., of a coming at death. Cf. John 21: 22.

The Tübingen idea was that the fourth Evangelist was "so spiritual that he did not believe in a visible Second Coming of Christ." The reader would find this reflected ad nauseam in Mr. E. F. Scott's recent book (chapter 10). Some remarks will be made on his version of German views when commenting on chapters 17 and 20 of this Gospel. How melancholy the words of Bishop Westcott: "A few enthusiasts from time to time bring the thought of Christ's return into prominence, but for the most part it has little influence upon our hearts and minds" ("The Historic Faith," p. 38).

On the παρουσία (the word itself does not occur in the Johannine writings), see also Mr. Kelly's "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 163, and his books specially devoted to the "Second Coming" in its various aspects. There is a very instructive treatise on the "Rapture" in particular by the late R. Govett, where the sense of the word παρουσία by that writer always translated "Presence" (as R.V., margin), and of cognate terms, is skilfully determined from Scripture. See also "The Lord's Coming," etc., by the late T. B. Baines of Leeds (6th edition, 1890).

The terms ἡ πρῶτη παρουσία and ἡ δευτέρα παρουσία seem to have been first used by Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho." In his "Apology" also he often speaks of the "First Coming." Cf. note 88 on Mark (9: 1).

272 John 14: 4. — Field defends the T.R. (and so A.V.), supposing that an οἴδατε ("ye know") was omitted through homoeoteleuton.

273 John 14: 8 if. — As to Philip and his "son of Joseph," see John 1: 45. Christ must have been GOD to speak as He does here.

274 John 14: 11. — "If not . . . for the very works' sake." Here, it must be borne in mind, our Lord is addressing His disciples. It is His works, not as Messiah (Matt. 12: 23), but as Son of God.

275 John 14: 12 I. — "Greater things than these." See, for example, Acts 2: 41. Because of verses 17 f. of Mark 16 there is the greater readiness on the part of those with loose views of Scripture to get rid of the last twelve verses of that Gospel. See last note under Mark. The second Evangelist goes even beyond the fourth in this particular, only that, according to John, as we see here, it was promised to believers in general. To say, as do some critics, that the portion questioned does but proceed from Church experience, aggravates the unbelief concerned. As to the effect of prayer, see Kinnear, pp. 176 f.

276 John 14: 15. — For the Lordship of Christ, which has been described as "the first principle of the Christian faith," cf. 1 John 2: 4 and Rom. 10: 9.

277 John 14: 16. — English scholars (Afford, Chr. Wordsworth, Westcott and Lightfoot, etc.) have generally accepted, as did the expositor, the distinction made between these synonyms by Trench. It has been questioned, not only by the American scholar Ezra Abbot in his "Critical Essays," but also by

Field, ad loc., referring to Luke 14: 32, Acts 3: 2 f., 1 John 3: 16 f., for their equivalence. The two words occur together in the Gospel at 16: 26 f. Abbott is of opinion that ἐρωτᾶν implies inquiry whether accomplishment of the wish is possible. A good example would be found in 12: 21 of this Gospel. The word is one of the examples used by Deissmann (art. "Hellenistic Greek" in Hauck's Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 638) of the widespread colloquial language of the period.

277a The three Persons of the Holy Trinity are clearly distinguished in this verse. Scott is one of those who, questioning the personality of the Holy Spirit, acknowledge only an influence (p. 343). But the terms in which the Evangelist speaks of the "Comforter" scarcely need, for the support they give to the language of the Creeds, the aid of Paul's doctrine — e.g., his words as to not grieving the Spirit (cf. Eph. 4: 30).

The idea of the personality of the Holy Spirit was already making itself felt among the Jews when the Psalms of Solomon appeared (see John 17: 42 there). Pfleiderer conceives that "Paraclete" came from Philo (p. 488). This fancy also is worked out in E. F. Scott's book.

On the Spirit as "the truth" (1 John 5: 7), see Godet, 2: 177, Bernard, 164 f.

278 John 14: 18. — This "coming" is also taken of the Holy Spirit by Tholuck, Meyer, Luthardt, Godet, Plummer and Charles. Zahn, after Augustine, understands it as that spoken of in verse 3; whilst Ewald and Weiss take it here of the appearance of the Lord to His disciples after His resurrection.

278a John 14: 20. — Cf "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 87 f.

278b John 14: 23. — As to Mysticism (variously represented by Bernard, Tauler, Teresa, Law, etc.), of which this Gospel has been described as "the charter," see the art. "Mystical Theology" in Hauck's Encyclopedia; the two books of Inge and chapter in Illingworth, "Christian Character"; also James, "Varieties of Religious Experience," Lect. xvi. f., Cheetham, "History of the Christian Church, etc.," pp. 132-134 249. Mrs. Bevan's "Three Friends of God" and "The Quiet in the Land'; and Schofield, "Christian Sanity," ch. vii. Professor Inge prefers the shortest definition of all, "the love of God ", Mr. Illingworth has described it as the belief that the human spirit is capable of an immediate apprehension of God and His truth; whilst, from the "rationalist" side, Benn speaks of it as "inward illumination caught straight from the central heart of things." Ritschl rightly held that there is no immediate "communion" with God without the mediation of His word ("Theology and Metaphysics," p. 476). Many need ever to be reminded of this.

The system of thought designated after the Last-named writer regards Christianity, in the words of Inge, as a primitive Puritanism spoiled by the Greeks who brought into it their intellectualism and their sacramental mysteries. "True Christianity," on the other hand, "is faith in the historical Christ" ("Christian Mysticism," p. 346). But for Kaftan, one of this school, "the centre of gravity is the glorified Christ, the Christian's life being a life hid with Christ in God" (Orr, "Essays," p. 66). The Berlin professor here, accordingly, forsakes the general trend of Ritschl's followers.

On Divine immanence, see note 14, and cf. F. B. Meyer, pp. 76-82.

279 John 14: 26. — Cf. 16: 13. Mahomet, his English followers tell us, claimed to be the predicted Paraclete (Qoran, chapter 61, "Ahmed"). See the Rewritings of Mr. Quilliam of Liverpool.

In the last words of this verse we have the rationale of the fourth Gospel.

280 John 14: 28. — "The Father is greater than I." Cf., of course, the words of the Athanasian Creed so-called: "inferior to the Father as touching His manhood." Men of intellectual pretension — Unitarians and their followers — sometimes read Scripture very superficially. These words in the fourth Gospel are constantly used by such in support of their theory that our Lord was inferior in essence (nature) to the Father. But He is here speaking of station. "I go unto the Father." The reference is plainly to His exaltation on Ascension, after that He had first humbled Himself in becoming Son of man. He is then given a name above every name (Phil. 2: 9). It has nothing whatever to do with His nature. Cf. Bernard, p. 171. The alleged repudiation of Ascension in the Johannine record (cf. note on 20: 17) is part of current rubbish of "critical exposition" popularised in such books as the last of Wernle.

281 John 14: 30. — "Hath nothing in Me." These words meet the blasphemous doctrine of Irvingites, Christadelphians, etc., which represents that the Lord had evil propensities, but that these were never allowed to break out. We have to remember that "the thought of evil is sin." Not only were the Jews unable to convict JESUS of overt evil, but Satan, He affirms, could find no vulnerable point within Him.

282 John 14: 31. — "Let us go hence." The Saviour here associates His disciples with Him in His conflict: Satan is their foe as well as His. Cf. Mark 14: 42.

NOTES ON THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER

283 John 15: 1 f. — "I am the true [genuine] Vine." Cf. Ps. 80: 8-16; Jer. 2: 21. As to the difference between ἀληθὴς and ἀληθινὸς used here (as in 17: 3 of God), see Trench, "Studies," p. 274, or his work on "Synonyms of the New Testament." So of Christ as the genuine Bread in vi. 32. It speaks of what is original, archetypal, the Vine of heaven. Alford's idea that we here have the "Visible Church" is, as Ryle, in his excellent "Expository Thoughts," has said, altogether unsatisfactory. For "Husbandman" cf. Luke 13: 7, only that there the word used is ἀμπελουογός, as to which, and the use made by Arians of it, see Trench, op. cit., p. 276, note. The "vine of the earth" John sets before us in the Apocalypse: a terrible ending it will have. Many do not clearly distinguish between the harvest and the vintage there (John 14: 18).

284 Cf. Paul's doctrine of "in Christ," upon which Alford touches at the end of his note.

Use of this verse has been prominent in the "Arminian" controversy.

If H. Holtzmann could but apprehend the distinct bearing of v. 22, he would not venture to pit that passage against this, as if they were inconsistent.

285 John 15: 3. — Observe the emphatic "ye," the ὑμεῖς being expressed for the disciples' comfort. Cf. John 13: 10. The expositor's remarks here call for special attention.

"I have spoken." Cf. John 5: 24, John 8: 31 f. Man is not to judge ("criticise") God's word, but to let it search his conscience (John 12: 48). What was then the spoken is now for us the written word. When justified, the Christian needs practical, following on positional, sanctification, which detaches from much that would otherwise hinder "advance in grace" (2 Peter 3: 18). Few things can be more blighting than what passes as "Higher Criticism," putting Scripture into man's mortar and applying his pestle to it. Is there not pride, self satisfaction, which is "of the world" (1 John 2: 16) behind it all? God forbid that, in writing so, one should even seem to assume a "superior tone." All by nature alike are tarred with the same brush.

286 John 15: 4 ff. — "Abide in Me . . . much fruit." Cf. Col. 1: 27; 2 Peter 1: 5-11. It is manifestly a question of "laying up in store" against "the time to come," the "day of Christ," the time of recompense (1 Tim. 6: 19 — τὸ μέλλον — and 2 Tim. 4: 8). McGiffert would have it that the Evangelist here represents the Lord as saying that He dwelt in His followers even during His earthly life (p. 493).

287 John 15: 6. — ἐβλήθη. Cf. ὲδοξάσθη in verse 8. Winer: "immediate result." Abbott would regard this use of the Greek tense as a "Hebraic instantaneous aorist" ("Johannine Grammar," § 2,445: he compares Isa. 40: 6-8). "They gather . . . cast." Cf. Matt. 5: 16; Mark 1: 30; Luke 16: 9.

Alford follows Meyer, who refers it to the "day of judgment."

288 Cf. "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 229 ff.

289 John 15: 7 f. — For the bearer of our Lord's words here on the "Higher Criticism," see ibid., pp. 144-147; and as to "Development," p. 154. See, in particular, 2 John 9, and observe that in the present passage Christ's words are inseparable from Himself (verse 4).

290 John 15: 11. — Ryle (p. 122) quotes a happy remark of Cyril, ad loc.: "Christians find their joy in that over which Christ rejoices."

290a John 15: 12. — This is developed in 1 John 4: 14. Illingworth: "The essence of the life is love" (chapter 5).

290b John 15: 13. — This would be the highest reach of what is now called "Altruism." But cf. Matt. 5: 44. The present writer has heard Dr. Coit admit that "ethical religion" has in this a hard task in rivalry with Christianity.

291 John 15: 15. — Cf. Luke 12: 4 for a previous occasion when the Lord called the disciples His "friends." A striking illustration of the difference between "friend" and "servant," as regards communications made, presents itself in the incident recorded of Jonathan in contrast with his attendant (1 Sam. 20).

291a From here to John 16: 20, cf. Matt. 10: 17-22.

291b John 15: 19. - "The world." This, in the words of Westcott, stands for "the organisation of society alien from, and opposed to, God" (cf. 1 John 2: 15). "Chosen you out": here is the idea of the Church (ἐκκλησία).

292 John 15: 22-24, — In verse 22 note the words; in verse 24, the works.

John 15: 22. — Cf. John 16: 9. Scott writes: "To the mind of John sin in itself involves no moral culpability; sin is in itself a mere privation" (p. 220), The "City Temple" homilies have offered the same withering sentiment for the delectation of "the man in the street." In his First Epistle the Evangelist lays down, "Sin is lawlessness," which should be read in connection with the words immediately preceding (1 John 3: 3 f.). Such ministers are at direct issue with both Paul and John. One of these Apostles uses language in that same letter (1 John 4: 6) which might warn them to reconsider their position in view of the βῆμα of Christ. The Epistle supposes throughout acquaintance with the Gospel.

292a The Lord avoided needless irritation of the Jews. How could the words of the Psalm quoted be made to agree with Burkitt's remarks on the discussion in Chapter 8?

293 John 15: 26. — For this "procession" the Gnostics substituted their "emanation." Norris has a good note on the Catholic doctrine.

The witness that the Holy Spirit bears is another evidence of personality. Observe that the Lord has sent, not merely, as an influence, imparted the Spirit. For later Scriptural designations of the third "Person" of the Trinity, cf. Acts 16: 7; Gal. 4: 6; Phil. 1: 9.

NOTES ON THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER

294 John 16: 2. — Those acquainted with the history of the "Inquisition" will remember that the slaughter of "heretics." so-called, was described as an "act of faith" (auto da fé).

294a As to persecution, see note on the last verse of this chapter.

295 John 16: 5. — H. Holtzmann, with others, finds in this a contradiction of 13: 36. To this there is no need of any English, for his countryman B. Weiss has an adequate, reply: "No one any longer asks, because it had become only too clear to them that the 'I go back to the Father,' of which He was constantly speaking, concerned His definite departure from the earth." There is no reproach in the Lord's words. Nevertheless, as the expositor puts it, desire for some further communication would have been the expression of simpler faith.

296 John 16: 7. — Cf. note 134 on Mark.

297 John 16: 8 ff. — "Afford proof." ἐλἐγχειν (verse 9) may here be rendered by "indict," "charge." For the crowning sinfulness of unbelief, see John 15: 22 and note 292. Blindness of soul comes out also in Matt. 6: 23 (Luke 11: 34 f.).

298 John 16: 10. — "Righteousness." Stevens (p. 214 f.), after Chrysostom, with most (Luthardt, Zahn, and H. Holtzmann alike), takes this of the Saviour's righteousness, H. Holtzmann, referring to John 9: 24, John 18: 30. And certainly, as one spiritual writer has said: "Righteousness comes in graciously between sin and judgment" (Govett). Mr. Kelly, it will be seen, understands by it the Pauline "righteousness of God," as Mr. J. N. Darby before him. As to this, cf. Liddon, "Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans," p. 71, and also Reynolds, ad loc., for Augustine it was "The Righteousness of Faith." The present passage alone should be enough to meet Du Bose's assertion that "God raised Him from the dead by His grace" ("The Gospel in the Gospels," p. 184).

299 John 16: 12 f. — "From Himself." Here again comes out the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. Cf. the same form of expression by Christ of Himself in v. 19. For spoken words of the Spirit, cf. 1 Tim. 4: 1 (λέγειν); 1 Peter 4: 11 (λαλεῖν), "His instruments." The Scriptures have to suffice us now (2 Tim. 3:16). Cf. Note 13 on Mark. "All bodies of Christians have tended to imagine that they are in the same stage of religious development as the first believers" (Jowett, "Essays," p. 484). Whether this be true or not, we may well echo the words of F. B. Meyer: "The cry should be, 'Up to Christ' rather than 'Back to Him'" (p. 125). The exposition should correct Westcott's interpretation of τἀ ἐρχόμενα, "the constitution of the Christian Church," for see Rev. 1: 19.

300 John 16: 16. — "Behold" (θεωρεῖν) and "see" (ὁρᾳν), the one relating to "things external" (as Matt. 27: 55), the other to "things spiritual." The word for vision (ὄψις) is connected with the latter (Carr).

300a The difficulty which seems to have produced the omission of the last clause (retained by Govett) is easily appreciated. How could the Lord's departure be the cause of their seeing Him? For spiritual sight, see Eph. 1: 18. That Epistle is charged with mention of the Holy Spirit.

300b That which the expositor describes as "the enigma" of "the little while" is resolved in the same way by Luther, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Luthardt, and Weiss. It does not set before us the παρουσία, as Augustine, followed by Hofmann, supposed. See also the helpful remarks of Maclaren, p. 120 ff.

301 John 16: 20. — "Grieved." Cf. Luke 23: 27, and for their joy Luke 24: 41, 52, as also John 20: 20 here.

302 John 16: 23. — The word ἐρωτᾳν is here taken as "to question" by Meyer, Trench, Alford, Godet, Westcott, H. Holtzmann, Plummer, and Carr, but "to make request" by Weizsäcker, Weiss, O. Holtzmann, and Abbott. Cf. note on John 14: 16.

As to prayer in Christ's name, see Martensen, "Christian Dogmatics," p. 415 f.

302a See last footnote on p. 303, and notes 275, 277 of Appendix.

303 John 16: 25. — The use of "hour" in this verse bears on the interpretation of v. 28 f. See note there.

304 John 16: 26. — Cf. John 8: 42, and observe how these Scriptures discredit the modern theory of "the Fatherhood of God" and the cognate "Union in Incarnation." The difference between John 3: 14-17 and the present passage is that between love of compassion and of complacency (delight). That which was true of "the Jews" then, according to John 7: 7-19, John 15: 24 f., has been true of "the world" in general since the Ascension (Luke 19: 14).

305 John 16: 27. — "Came forth from (beside) God." Already the disciples not only believed, but had come to know this (cf. John 6: 69, John 17: 8).

306 John 16: 29 f. — These verses should be read with reference to "the little while" which had perplexed the disciples, but which they now supposed they understood. It is clear, however, that, as the expositor says, they felt that He read their hearts, and Divinely.

307 John 16: 31. — Those (as Afford) who take "believe" affirmatively regard it as indicating the Lord's own glad appreciation of progress in their thoughts (cf. John 17: 8). The Revisers, however, seem to have acted wisely in retaining the interrogation in A.V., as do the critically revised texts.

308 John 16: 32. — "His own." For the sense, see margin of R.V., comparing John 19: 27.

"Should leave Me alone." See John 18. Critics question how the words following tally with the Synoptic, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Matt. 27: 46, Mark 15: 34). Such people talk of "psychological" difficulties, if not impossibilities: so arbitrary are they, but their psychology sits easily upon them. English readers of our national history need only be reminded of King Henry IV.'s state of mind when informed of his son's delinquency before one of the royal judges. He was a prince as well as a father. Here, in the fourth Gospel, it is of God as His Father that our Lord speaks.

308a See notes 205, 235.

309 John 16: 33. — Compare 1 Cor. 15: 5-7. There must be tribulation for the people of God until the time comes predicted in Isa. 25. There can be no real truce in the meantime between the "World" and the "Church," as pictured to us in Scripture. One of Luther's fine sayings was: "The World's enmity is the court-dress of Christians."

NOTES ON THE SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER

310 Modern critics are very ready to speak of that which they deem impossible where Scripture is concerned, yet some of these display rank perversion of their own "psychology" by conceiving it possible that some unknown writer of Greek education, whether aided by Pauline teaching at Ephesus or not, composed that which, among bona fide Christians, goes by the name of the Lord's "High priestly Prayer." The credulity of such people is amazing. Moreover, if to any unsophisticated reader it seem, at any rate, improbable that even a highly educated Hellenist or Hellenistic Jew could have put together such a prayer, how much more unlikely that the critics' Galilean provincial, John, son of Zebedee, could have indulged in a reverie of his own to manufacture such a composition or idealise the Lord's utterances!

310a The prayer divides itself into three parts: (1) Of the Lord for Himself; (2) for those in whose hearing it was spoken; (3) for those who should believe on Him through their word.

Milligan well says: "It would be as difficult to account for it from the pen of the Evangelist as from the lips of Jesus."

Bishop Chase, in his book on the Lord's Prayer (so called) in the early Church, has very suggestively compared the petitions of that formula with the prayer of this chapter as follows:

"Our Father who art in Heaven" with "Father" in verses 1, 5, 21, 24 with "Holy Father" in verse 11; and with "Righteous Father" in verse 25.

"Hallowed be Thy Name" with verses 6, 11, 12, 26. [We might add, "that Thy Son may glorify Thee" in verse 1.]

"Thy kingdom come" with verses 1 f.

"Thy will be done" with verses 4 f. 11, 21.

"Bring us not into temptation" with verses 12, 15.

Cf., passim, Bishop Moule's volume on this chapter, recently published, which is in his best style.

311 John 17: 1. — "Glorify Thy Son." How could this have been said, or put into the mouth of one no more than man?

"That Thy Son," etc. Govett: "That He may expend what is given in the glorifying of the Father Himself."

312 John 17: 3. — "This is the eternal life." Weiss and Westcott suppose that we have here a definition, but Beyschlag rightly says that it would be incongruous in such utterances ("New Testament Theology," i. 263 f.). Theosophy seeks to turn to account our Lord's words here in the service of its theory. Thus Mrs. Besant: "The heavenly root [of all religions] is the Wisdom, the knowledge of God, which is Eternal Life.... From any one of its branches a man may pluck a leaf for the healing of the nations" (Theosophist, July, 1907). And yet, even "many Christians do not know God" (Schofield, 'The Knowledge of God," p. 32): see 1 Cor. 16: 34; Titus 1: 16.

312a The knowledge which, as Westcott points out from the present tense used, is eternally progressive, is the knowledge of intimate communion, or fellowship, as said Luther. It is realised in the present, according to v. 24 f. and John 6: 47, 54, but only by foretaste (cf. Mark 10: 30; Luke 18: 30). See Note 110 on Mark. It is not that faith (cf. John 20: 31) and knowledge are coextensive (Scott), for faith is temporal, knowledge eternal. As Professor Inge puts it: "Eternal life is not γνῶσις, knowledge and possession, but the state of acquiring knowledge." The knowledge is dependent on the life, rather than the life on the knowledge. Cf. Walpole's "Vital Religion," ninth edition, 1907, chapter 1. As to difference between apprehension and comprehension of the Infinite, see Isaac Taylor, "The World of Mind," p. 822, and cf. Job 36: 26.

312b "True" (ἀληθινός), in contrast with what is imperfect, rather than the false, which would require ἀληθής, as in Rom. 3: 4.

312c "Jesus Christ." This is the only place in the Gospels where our Lord speaks thus of Himself, so that it has been a quarry for critics. H. Holtzmann says, "The historic Christ cannot have spoken so," and refers it to the same influence on the text as that alleged for Matt. 28: 19 f. So Horton.

Godet, happily, adheres to the unimpeachable credibility of the Evangelist's "These words spoke Jesus", as does also Bernard (p. 345 ff.). Not so Westcott and Plummer, who bow to German ruling. Those who love the Scriptures may hold fast the assurance that our Lord's own self-designation here was the source of that so often afterwards used by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. And so, to begin with, Matt. 1: 1; Mark 1: 1. For the Lord's naming Himself, cf. the Synoptic self-designation as "Son of man." On the verge of the close of His life He called Himself by the name JESUS, given to Him by the angel at its outset; and that He did call Himself "the CHRIST" is vouched for by Matt. 23: 10. It is not, therefore, correct to say, as Carr, on the present passage of John, "Here only does our Lord apply the term 'CHRIST' to Himself," for in Matthew's Gospel the Lord does more than "accept" the title, as in Matt. 16: 17 there, also Mark 14: 61 f.

Finally, by what philosophy or romance could knowledge of a creature, as Unitarians and their critical allies regard Christ, be needful for life eternal ? A like question is, of course, applicable to the words "glorify Thy Son" in verse 1, as to verses 10 f., etc.

313 See note 232a.

313a The Exposition here meets a point raised by Pfleiderer and, in English guise, Scott (note 192).

313b John 17: 5. — "The glory which I had," etc. If this, as Unitarians suggest, had meant merely the glory that Christ had in the counsels of the Father before living in this world. how could such a being have known of glory destined for him? Cf., of course, John 1: 3.

314 John 17: 6. — "I manifested Thy Name." Cf. Ps. 22: 22.

314a John 17: 8. — "Knew" — i.e., learned. Not conscious knowledge, as εἰδῆτε in 1 John 5: 13, etc. However closely "believe" may approach "know" in this way, they are not interchangeable words.

315 John 17: 9. — "I request for them." The preposition is περί, not ὑπέρ, "in behalf of" (cf. the Greek, both verb and preposition, at John 18: 19), which occurs in verse 19. It is not intercession, but the Lord putting forth a claim.

316 John 17: 11. — "We." Christ puts Himself on a perfect level with the Father.

"One." "Not manifested ecclesiastical oneness, but in the spirit of their minds" (Bellett, p. 124). Cf. note on verse 21.

317 John 17: 12. — Alford. Wordsworth and Burgon use this verse for the idea that Judas had at one time been a true believer (verse 6). This is not only to hazard their reputation as commentators. but to bring "divinity" into contempt. See John 18: 9.

317a John 17: 15. — Milligan and Bernard would render "out of the Evil One" (cf. 1 John 5: 18 f.). This rendering Mr. Kelly preferred for Matt. 6: 13.

318 John 17: 17. — As to "disunion of the Church" being an incentive to unbelief. see T. Pearson on "Infidelity," Part II., chapter 6; also Isaac Taylor "Spiritual Christianity," p. 149. Cf. notes 316, 319a.

318a John 17: 18. — "I also sent." This may be proleptic.

319 John 17: 19. — Our Lord does not speak of "consecration of humanity" as such, but of His setting Himself apart for the sake of disciples. Cf. John 10: 36, of which this is correlative.

319a John 17: 21. — "One." Cf. note on verse 11. Bishop Moule (p. 177) happily compares Rom. 14: 19. The still continuing tendency is unfavourable to this, indeed, ecclesiastical dissension might seem to retard the Second Coming of the Church's Head. As to "believe," see note on verse 23.

320 John 17: 22. — "The glory," as future (cf. Rom. 8: 18).

321 John 17: 23. — "Perfected into one." Cf. Eph. 4: 13

"Know." Here is an advance on verse 21, "believe." Cf. note 314a Heitmüller treats the words as "almost identical." Such a notion breaks down when applied to their context. Indeed. the critical reading of John 10: 38, as of 1 John 5: 13, shakes it severely.

322 John 17: 24. — Scott: "He is not thinking primarily of a future meeting with His disciples in heaven" (p. 305 f.). How does that comport with the preceding verse, which does not yield to the German view (see last preceding note) that the Johannine "know" and "believe" are practically equivalent. To hark back to verse 15 is a long cry. Again: "He has taken them to dwell in heavenly places with Himself" (p. 306). But this only introduces Paul's doctrine (Eph. 2: 6), of which John's is independent, although the writer labours to prove the contrary. With reference to the notion that Paul's belief had undergone material change since he wrote his First Letter to the Thessalonians (Charles, "Eschatology," p. 385 ff.), we have but to compare 2 Thess. 2: 8 with 2 Tim. 4: 8. The word ἐπιφάνεια is common to both of these letters, and in the earlier letter the Apostle has combined παρουσία with it. John has in no sense "corrected" Paul,

NOTES ON THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER

323 John 18: 2. — We have here manifestly the comment of an eye-witness. All attempts to forge a weapon against such testimony must come to nought.

324 John 18: 6. — "Went away backward" (cf. Ps. 40: 14). These words, as others elsewhere, may well have been directed against the Gnostic theory (Iren., bk. iii.) that "the Christ" forsook "Jesus" in the hour of need.

325 John 18: 7 f. — Deut. 22: 6 here finds its spiritual counterpart. The Lord seems to say: "Take either Me or them; you cannot have both" (Govett). How Frederick Robertson's unhappy words, "He drew too near to a whirling wheel," etc., witness against a preacher whose utterances have been much in vogue! Conspicuous is the truth of sustitution, assailed like so much else in the words of Christ Himself.

326 John 18: 10. — The fourth Evangelist alone supplies the names. Cf. note above on verse 2.

327 John 18: 11. — "The cup," etc. Whilst these words are peculiar to John's narrative, they afresh illustrate his way of subdued reference to Synoptic accounts. Cf. Matt. 26: 39.

328 John 18: 12. — "To Annas first." How, in the light of the Synoptic account could any but an eye-witness, the Evangelist himself, have recorded this without contradiction?

329 John 18: 13. — "Who was high priest of that year." See note on John 11: 49.

330 John 18: 15. — "Known to the high priest." Bleek and Ewald ("History of Israel," 6, p. 118; "Johannine Writings," 1, p. 400) supposed that the Evangelist was related to the high-priestly family. This idea has been used by Delff for his theory that the writer had himself been a priest, as by Burkitt (p. 250) for the notion that he had been a Sadducee. Such fancies have been generated by a statement (in Eusebius) of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus A.D. 190, that John of Ephesus wore a πέταλον — i.e., plate, coronet, or mitre (cf. Ex. 39: 30). This may, however, have referred to one of the same name who, we know, was "of the kindred of the high priest" (Acts 4: 6). Whilst Chrysostom and Cyril regard the disciple "known to the high priest" as the Evangelist, Augustine and others have questioned the identity, Bengel supposed Nicodemus to be meant; Zahn thinks, James. "The" before "other" is doubtful: it is not in ÅBD, the Syriac, and Memphitic. Anyhow, γνωστὸς must be distinguished from συγγενής (verse 26). If it be the Evangelist, any trade-connection he may have had with the high priest would sufficiently explain the word here used.

331 John 18: 19. — "The high priest." Augustine, Chrysostom, Alford, Ellicott and Luthardt understand Annas (cf. verses 13, 24); but Zahn, as most, takes it of Caiaphas. See note on verse 24.

333 John 18: 20. — "In secret I spoke nothing." See Isa. 45: 17-19, Isa. 48: 12-18. It will be observed that the Lord is silent as to His disciples.

333 John 18: 22. — The record of this is peculiar to John.

334 John 18: 24. — Most commentators are of opinion that this should come in between verses 13 and 14, as in some Greek and Syriac manuscripts, and as it was read by Cyril of Alexandria; and that the questioning and smiting took place before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Some writers, however, suppose that John describes only the informal hearing before Annas, and accordingly passes over the trial by Caiaphas. Cf. Zahn, ad loc.

The verse comes twice in Cod. A. of the Syriac of Jerusalem lectionary, the first time after verse 13, and again after verse 23: this, of course, represents the work of harmonists. Luther's Bible contains a marginal note by himself at the earlier verse that it "has been misplaced in turning the page, as often happens," and at verse 24: "This verse ought to follow immediately after verse 14." John 18: 19-24 are absent from the Syrsin. See Mrs. Lewis's remarks in Expositor, vol. 12, p. 519 ("John 18: 18, 24, and 14 are really one"). Cf. Blass, "Philology of the Gospels," p. 59, on "blundering scribes." In his text this last of recent editors has placed verse 24 between verses 13 and 14.

335 John 18: 28ff. — The seven stages in the trial before Pilate, according as it was conducted outside or inside the "prætorium," are verses 28-32 of this chapter, outside; verses 33-37 inside; verses 38-40 outside; 19: 1-3 inside verses 4-7 outside; verses 8-11 inside; verses 12-16 outside (Westcott).

336 John 18: 28. — "That they might eat the Passover." The difficulty about the last Passover, already discussed in a note on Mark 14: 12, and touched on here in connection with the opening words of chapter 13, is dealt with by the expositor in a long note on John 19: 14, where the view is taken that it was allowable to partake of the paschal meal within the twenty-four hours of the same technical day. And so Milligan, who supposes that the Jews' celebration was interrupted. Cf. Bernard, pp. 49-54. It may have been to secure strict compliance with primitive usage that the rubric in the Talmudic treatise Zebbach (verse 2) was afterwards framed. Delitzsch (in Riehm) questions the explanation given by Dr. John Lightfoot, the learned Rabbinic scholar of the seventeenth century, who says that the Evangelist here adopts the popular language — i.e., speaks of the Chagigah, or peace-offermg ("Works," ii. 670). Zahn, however, is of opinion that Lightfoot was probably right, and that the day here intended was the fifteenth of Nisan ("Introduction," ii., p. 514; Exposition, p. 622 f.). The learned Erlangen professor remarks that φαγεῖν is used for celebration, and that the standing expression for the fourteenth day of Nisan was ποιεῖν. Cf. "This do in remembrance of Me"; Ex. 12: 48, Num. 9: 2, Deut. 16: 1; Matt. 26: 18; Heb. 11: 28. Note that Num. 28: 16-18 (as Lev., see note on Mark) distinguishes between the paschal meal and "the Feast." See, further, Khodadad, p. 20 f., and note 346 below (ad Irk.).

337 John 18: 32. — "It is not lawful for us," etc. According to the Talmud, it was in the year immediately preceding this that the Romans had deprived the Jews of execution of capital punishment — i.e., exactly "forty years" before the Fall of Jerusalem.

338 John 18: 37. — "King." See Luke 23: 2, and cf. 1 Tim. 6: 13, the "good confession."

"Of the truth": cf. 1 John 3: 19 and 1 John 4: 6, 1 John 5: 19. "Of God," in the last references does not justify its being said that the terms are practically equivalent, as by Heitmüller (so Scott). See Exposition, p. 20.

339 John 18: 38 ff. — "I find no fault in Him at all." cf. Ex. 12: 5; Deut. 17: 1; 1 Peter 1: 19.

339a One of the latest crazes is to drag in here the Feast of Purim, so that Barabbas should represent Mordecai, and the role of Haman be taken by our Lord (Frazer, "Golden Bough," 3: 188-198). Even Benn hesitates to accept such a suggestion. Conjuring with the name of the Jewish anarchist cannot be a self-satisfying, to say nothing of a creditable, service to society, for either an authority on folk-lore or a writer of romance.

NOTES ON THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER

340 John 19: 2. — For the "robe" Herod's men put on our Lord, in which He was sent back to Pilate, see Luke 23: 11. Evidently Pilate's soldiers, in the first instance, combined with Herod's in this indignity, and readjusted the same garment on returning to their own guard-room. It was not merely lierod's men who engaged in that horseplay, as Frazer represents (op. cit., 3, p. 1901.

341 John 19: 5. — Cf. John 11: 50. He was so portrayed by Correggio in the picture exhibited at the National Gallery, and in the later famous picture in the Doré Gallery.

342 John 19: 6. — The Jews disguised from Pilate that the punishment prescribed in Lev. 24: 16 was "stoning," which they had already several times attempted.

343 John 19: 7. — As to the alleged blasphemy, Cf. John 5: 18, John 8: 59, John 10: 33. Here is their final deliberate judgment of His claims (Cf. Matt. 26: 65; Mark 14: 64; Luke 22: 71).

344 John 19: 11. — By "he" Caiaphas is meant (John 11: 49 ff.).

345 John 19: 13. — Pilate now took his seat, it would seem for the first time. Some would treat ἐκάθιζεν as "seated" — i.e., "Jesus" — but the verb is nowhere else used transitively (Westcott, Zahn).

"Gabbatha." Bishop Lightfoot (p. 143) follows Ewald in taking this, not of a "raised" place, but as connected with a root yielding the idea of mosaic.

346 John 19: 14. — "The preparation . . . the sixth hour." The expositor, in his note attached to this verse, leaves really very little to add beyond recording that Alford, as Bengel, has followed Eusebius's idea that the text was altered. The present writer, accordingly, whilst referring the reader to note 142 in the volume on Mark's Gospel, and that on John 18: 28 of this Gospel, may confine his remarks here pretty much to the question of the hours, Sir William Ramsay's treatment of which seems not to have come under Mr. Kelly's notice.

To begin with, it should be noticed in Luke 22: 7-13 that John was one of the two concerned in making the actual Passover "preparation." Schmiedel writes: "John corrected by insertion what Mark and Luke corrected by omission" (col. 1,773). To this the present remarks shall be directed. The leading passage referred to by Mr. Kelly may be transcribed in an English rendering.

Pliny (2: 79): "The days have been computed by different peoples in different ways. The Babylonians reckoned from one sunrise to the next; the Athenians from one sunset to the next; the Umbrians from noon to noon; the multitude universally from dawn to darkness; while the Roman priests and those who presided over the Civil Day (as also did the Egyptians and Hipparchus) from midnight to midnight." Aulus Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ") refers to a work of Varro, whose statement is to the same effect.

Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, 1893, fourth series, vol. 7, pp. 216-223, and 1896, fifth series, vol. 3, pp. 457 ff.; Cf. art. in Hastings, D.B., extra vol. p. 475 ff.) holds that sixth hour indicated mid-day at all seasons of the year so that "about the sixth hour" would be "somewhere between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.", and that the Roman civil day "was not divided into hours." Further that "there is no justification for the theory that the ancients reckoned the hours in two ways — (1) beginning from sunrise; (2) beginning from midnight." Accordingly, he gives up the usual reconciliation. He believes that the numbering of hours began invariably from daybreak or sunrise." Zahn is like-minded.

If the Roman reckoning differed in Italy and the Roman province of Asia Minor, the third hour of Mark living in Italy would be identical with "about the sixth hour" of John living at Ephesus in his old age. Cf. Plummer (ad loc.).

Besides Nonnus, spoken of in the original note, Theophylact conjectured the true reading to be "third," and so Bengel, Usher, Alford and McRory, but the textual evidence is strongly against it. Cf. Zahn, p. 718.

Wordsworth and Burgon's belief, as that of Tholuck, Ewald, Westcott and Milligan, that John followed the Roman computation of time (in some form or other), so that "sixth hour" would be our 6 a.m., whilst Mark's was the Jewish (for this purpose reckoned from sunrise), and the same as modern 9 a.m., might seem to be sustained by the fourth Gospel itself. As Ryle says, there would remain three hours to account for. These would be taken up with the preliminaries of crucifixion. That excellent writer himself inclines to the view of Calvin, Hammond, Hengstenberg, Ellicott, etc., that, from the Jews' division of their day into twelve hours of four parts (Maimonides), Mark's "third hour" would work out at about 9 a.m., and John's "sixth" at between 9 and 12.

According to old Jewish modes of thought, the day spoken of in John 20: 19 would have to be a "Monday," but everyone knows that John is speaking of the first day of a week. On the whole, the present writer cannot but think that resort to a recondite explanation, of which none of the ancients seems ever to have dreamed, is best avoided.

To what has been said on the general question of alleged discrepancy in note on Mark 14: 12 may be added that Chwolson, a Hebrew Christian, in his "Last Passover of Christ" (1892), maintains that the Pharisees ate their Passover on the 13th, the Sadducees on the 14th Nisan.

Zahn holds that John says substantially the same as the Synoptists (Introduction, 2, pp. 523-526; Exposition, pp. 637-640). As to the "Paschal Controversy" (A.D. 165-170), see Eusebius, v. 24; Stanton, 173-197; Zahn, 2: 522 f., with his notes 16-18.

The date of the lord's death seems to have been April 7 in the year 30 of our era.

347 John 19: 15. — Here probably Matt. 27: 24 comes in. Some, however, put the incident there between John 18: 40 and John 19: 1.

348 John 19: 17. — "Went out." See Lev. 6: 12-21, Lev. 16: 27; Heb. 13: 12.

349 John 19: 19. — Of the four forms of inscription, John's is the fullest, and is most like Matthew's, so that probably these were both in Hebrew. Pilate would perhaps employ different scribes to write the several inscriptions

Observe that no part of any of them is excluded by or inconsistent with any part of the other three. Its being put in different languages is in keeping with the glory of the "Son of man" (Bellett, p. 148).

350 John 19: 23. — A coat of one piece only is still worn by Northern peasants (Schor, p. 48).

351 John 19: 26. — Most commentators take Mary, wife of Cleopas, as sister of the Lord's mother, but Bengel, Meyer, Alford, Norris, Weiss, Mayor and Zahn regard Salome as sister of the Lord's mother (Cl. Matt. 27: 56 and Mark 15: 40), so making four women. According to their view, the Evangelist and his brother James would be cousins of our Lord.

351a John 19: 26. — Bishop Lightfoot, in his second Dissertation appended to edition of the Epistle to the Galatians, regards the Lord's committal of His mother to the care of John as "fatal" to the "Helvidian" theory that His kinsmen were His uterine brethren. But surely His marking their unbelief in this way may be accepted in explanation.

The statement of Origen, cited by this learned writer, is certainly wrong that Scripture nowhere speaks of them as Mary's children: see Ps. 69: 8, the Messianic character of which, presumably. neither of these truly great scholars would have denied (cf. note 137).

352 John 19: 31. — The day was "great" because on it were offered the firstfruits (Lev. 23: 10-14; cf. Deut. 21: 23).

Paraskeue, the Christian name of Friday, "could to Greek Christians suggest nothing else" (Milligan).

353 John 19: 35 f. — "He knoweth." This has been taken by Weizsäcker of a confirmatory witness, and Schmiedel, a complacent follower, questions how the witness already spoken of could be sufficiently authoritative, Although Luthardt has cited John 9: 37 as closely parallel, Abbott, Zahn, etc., follow Erasmus's paraphrase in taking ἐκεῖνος of our Lord. On the other side, reference may be made to Buttmann (against Hilgenfeld). As usually taken, the pronoun illustrates the characteristically redundant style of this Evangelist.

See "Not a bone of Him shall be crushed." Cf. Ps. 139: 16 (Bellett).

354 John 19: 37. — The Evangelist here follows the present Hebrew text of Zech. 12: 10 (which has "on Me") nor the Septuagint. If we regard the matter from the merely literary point of view, he may have been acquainted with some Aramaic paraphrase.

354a John alone says that this Joseph was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews." Cf. notes on Mark 15: 43; Luke 23: 50; Matt. 27: 51. It will be found that each of the Evangelists furnishes some statement peculiar to himself.

354b Cf. Luke 23: 53.

355 John 19: 42. — "They put Jesus." This, again, controverts such views of human destiny as Swedenborg's, which represent the body as for ever abandoned at death. The Lord's body is spoken of as Himself.

NOTES ON THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER

356 The RESURRECTION. — For the order of appearances (see Table in Turton, p. 357) of the risen Lord. see West on the Resurrection, Birks's "Horæ Apologeticæ," Ryle's valuable note, and a pamphlet by R. Govett, "The Saviour's Resurrection: Events of the First Day," as also a powerful book by the same, published by Maclehose, Glasgow. Colonel Turton's chapter (17) on the whole subject is excellent, see in particular p. 362 as to St. Paul's reference to the various occasions in groups. Reference should also be made to Swete, "The Appearances of the Lord after the Passion," p. 51 ff.

357 John 20: 1 f. — See note 167 on Mark 16: 1-8. Here is John's first mention of the stone.

"Dearly loved," ἐφίλει, for which ἠγάπα is used elsewhere, as in 13: 23.

358 "We know not." This assumes knowledge of the earlier Gospels. The fourth Evangelist, like each of the rest, knew more than he has recorded. Cf. note on verse 30.

359 John 20: 3. — Cf. Luke 24: 12, where sceptical writers, as is their wont in such cases, find a contradiction. There (α) Peter is alone, (β) does not enter the tomb (see verse 6 here). But the earlier Evangelist is speaking of a second visit of Peter, on returning from which he met the Lord Himself (verse 34 there).

360 John 20: 5. — "Stooping down" — i.e., sideways (παρακύψας). Had he not done so, he would have stood in his own light. As to such a tomb, see Schor, p. 34.

361 John 20: 7. — The word ἐντετυλιγμένον speaks volumes. It means "folded inwards" — i.e., turban-shaped (Govett), or twirled (Latham). What was it that entranced him? The remarkable appearance that the vesture presented in the position of the various parts towards each other. The Lord had detached Himself from the napkin and the shroud without dishevelling them, to say nothing of handling them. A miracle alone could explain the phenomenon. The common notion (as of Dr. Torrey, "Talks with Men") that He had just calmly folded up the napkin afresh in a different place, so as to indicate that there had been no haste, no removal of the body by friend or foe, is feeble in comparison with the full reality. "A place apart" refers to the different position consistent with the unity, which had not been disturbed. Cf. Carr: "The napkin perhaps rested on a stone which had served as a pillow." So apparently, Bishop Gore understands it ("New Theology," 3, p. 123), as does Prof. Swete. Further reference may be made to Govett or Latham ("The Risen Master," p. 43, ff., ed. of 1901).

362 John 20: 8. — A question has been raised as to the Lord's vesture as risen. A change must take place if Lev. 16: 23 was to be fulfilled,

362a "Saw" (εἶδεν). This time with intelligence.

362b As suggested by Lake ("Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ," p. 133).

363 John 20: 9. — "From" — i.e., from among (ἐκ).

363a See note on John 6: 69, and as to Divine faith founded on Scripture giving infallible certainty, Bishop Pearson on the words of the Creed, "I believe."

363b Cf. 17: 8, 1 John 5: 13.

364 John 20: 11-16. — These and the two following verses are peculiar to John. Cf., again, note 167 on Mark. Some have carped at the absence of any record of fright on Mary's part. But, writes Bellett, "What was such splendour to her?" (p. 155).

365 John 20: 13. — "I know not." In verse 2 it was "We know." She had spoken with the other women in the meantime. John's account supposes knowledge of Matt. 28: 1, 5 f.; Mark 16: 1-5; Luke 24: 1-10 (Zahn, 2: 509). One may see that the fourth Evangelist attaches himself especially to the account given by the second.

366 John 20: 14. — Athanasius, Chrysostom and Bishop Andrewes suppose that Mary thought, from the altered manner of the angels, that there was another on the scene, and that, accordingly, she turned to see the new-comer.

367 John 20: 17. — "The Christ" had not yet ascended. The Gnostics alleged that He did so when "Jesus" was arrested (note 324). Scott supposes that he reproduces the Evangelist's own interpretation when he represents the Lord's ascension as "accomplished from the time of His meeting with Mary", that for John "there was no room for what is described by the writer of the Acts" and that "the παρουσία was taken out of its Apocalyptic setting." Such writers evidently should leave John 21: 22 alone, for their system "has no room" for it. Observe that the words "till I come" (or, "while I am coming") are independent of any theory as to the three closing verses of the Gospel. See notes 394 ff.

"Do not go on touching Me." For denial of historical support to the bodily resurrection of the Lord, see Lake, op. cit. For St. Paul's position, cf. Col. 2: 9, Phil. 3: 21.

"My God." The Lord is "Son of man" still. cf. notes on John 3: 13, John 6: 62.

368 John 20: 19. — "When it was evening." See note on John 19: 14 (ad fin.).

"The doors were shut," etc. The question as to the properties of the Lord's body in resurrection leads to the suggestion of a "four-dimensional world," of which Mr. R. J. Campbell has availed himself for a system of ideas very different from the views of the propounder of it (Dr. A. T. Schofield).

369 John 20: 20. — "The disciples." Luke shows that others were present besides the Apostles. As to his saying that they were "terrified" whilst John speaks of their being "glad," see sensible remarks of Turton, p. 359.

370 John 20: 23. — See note on John 7: 39. It would be found that each form of the commission in the Gospels illustrates the design of the respective record (Bellett, p. 162 f.).

371 This act of administrative forgiveness, Augustine said, holds of all believers everywhere. So even Pusey on "Absolution," p. 32. The Second Book of Homilies: "The priests are as much bound to confess to the lay people as the lay people to the priests." After such dicta, who could call the late Dean Stanley revolutionary when he wrote: "The clergyman needs the advice and pardon of the gifted layman quite as much as the layman needs the advice and pardon of the gifted clergyman"? ("Christian Institutions," p. 179).

Observe that Thomas was absent on this occasion. This lends support to the view of Augustine and others, to which reference has been made; otherwise that Apostle's commission must have been defective.

Instances such retention of sin are Ananias and Sapphira, the incestuous person at Corinth, Hymenæus and Alexander.

For power conferred on the ἐκκλησία as such, see Matt. 18.

372 "Didymus." This is not a surname: Thomas in Syriac means "twin."

373 John 20: 29. — Cf. 1 Peter 1: 8.

374 John 20: 30 f. — "Signs." The great question of controversy between the Church and the Jewish rulers had been as to the Messianic claims of JESUS, and in the first period miracles played the chief part in establishing them. It was to the interest of Jewish opponents to upset the reality of these. Why, it may be asked, if truth was on their side, did they not put the Apostles to open shame? (Gerdtell, "On the Miracles," etc., p. 53). Martineau thought that these verses indicate that the writer did not intend his work to be taken as strictly "historical" ("Seat of Authority in Religion," p. 435). In them, however, we have inspired expression to the difference between merely human and Scripture biography. Contrast Boswell's "Johnson," Lockhart's "Scott," Morley's "Gladstone," with the very limited scope of the fourth Gospel. Such a statement as that contained in these verses, of course, discredits theories like those of Wellhausen, who, accordingly, in his recent monograph, treats them as from a later hand (p. 27).

The last words afford us a pre-eminent instance of what is meant by "dogma." "A truth which every one who would be a Christian is bound to believe" (Gore, "The Creed of the Christian" p. 16). But Creeds are, after all, "only human expositions" (Kinnear, p. 163). As to Dogma, see Green, iii. 165-185, Lotze, § 94 ff.

There were two departments of error with which the Apostles had to deal: (α) Jewish, to which the Gospel of Matthew is directed, (β) that of Gentile speculation, rife around John at Ephesus, which treated matter as evil, and questioned the omniscience and goodness of the Creator. The fourth Evangelist has shown that sin is a matter of man's heart, and that the Lord Jesus was the Creator's accredited agent and witness. Again, reason as man may about the character of the Lord's body in resurrection, that this was not merely phenomenal is patent to all but bigots.

The Lord has been shown to be Son of God and Son of man in one (see verses 14-18). Cf., again, John 3: 13 and 16 with John 11: 27 and John 17: 3. In John 1: 32 the Dove was not "the Christ," but the Spirit.

As for Eternal Life, Christ's word was saturated with mention of it (John 6: 68, John 10: 27 f.). He is Himself that Life (John 5: 26, John 11: 25 f.).

With verse 31 here cf., of course, 1 John 5: 9, 13, which in like manner informs us of the object the Apostle had in writing that letter.

375 Grotius thought that the last chapter was written by John the Presbyter, as do Harnack and others now. The opinion that the Gospel originally ended with John 20 seems to go back to Tertullian ("Ad Prax," 25). It is that of Germans in general, including Zahn (§ 66 ad init.).

375a Ewald's opinion was that it was John's own composition, dating some ten years after the rest of the Gospel, but added before its publication, the uncompleted part in the meanwhile having a sort of private circulation. It is rather a summary, like that at the close of John 12 (Reynolds).

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER

376 As far as we know, writes Zahn, the Gospel has never circulated without this chapter (ii., p. 484). Tatian's "Diatessaron" used the essential parts of it down to verse 25. Some think that the closing verses proceeded from those around the Apostle, with his sanction (Zahn, p. 493).

Scarcely any German writer now follows Hengstenberg's defence. Even Luthardt regards it as an Epilogue, although probably from John's own hand. So Meyer and Godet. Weiss is one of those who think that it was by another hand (see note 394a). Happily, most reject the view of Baur, Strauss and Keim, that it represents a vindication of John as a rival of Peter.

Mr. Kelly, it will be seen, defends every verse of the chapter as an integral portion of the Gospel written by John himself, reprobating the idea that it is a supplement.

377 John 21: 1. — "Manifested Himself." Cf. John 2: 11, John 7: 4.

"At the sea of Tiberias." It was so called already in the time of Josephus. Observe John's combination of the Lucan and Matthæan different scenes of the appearances.

378 John 21: 2. — The sons of Zebedee. The only distinct mention in the Gospel of James and John, and, of course, not by name. Zahn regards it as indication of editorship (2, p. 485).

379 Godet suggests that these may have been Papias's John the Elder and Aristion, whom the ancient writer speaks of as "disciples of the Lord." Observe that there are seven disciples in the scene (see note 46). Germans are embarrassed in accounting for the number.

379a John 21: 3. — Bacon: "Unconscious of the Resurrection" (H.J., October, 1907, p. 141). How, then, explain the readiness of the words of the disciple to Peter in verse 7?

380 John 21: 4 ff. — There seems to be a designed comparison with Luke 5: 1-9 whilst verse 7 reminds of Matt. 14: 28-31, and verses 9-12 recall 6: 9-11 of this Gospel.

John's account is different from that of the incident described in Luke 5, from the very fact that they were distinct occasions. Thus, in the earlier Gospel Peter says, "Depart from me," etc., whilst here he girds his fisher's smock about him and strikes out for the shore to go to the Lord. On the previous occasion his confession of sinfulness was superficial; experience acquired of what he is has now the rather moved him to be silent about it On that first occasion the net was being rent and the fish not secured; here all is tranquilly brought to land. See, further, in Harnack, "Luke the Physician," English translation, p. 227, where dissent is expressed from the view taken by Wellhausen in commentary on Luke.

381 John 21: 7. — This verse makes it certain that the Evangelist John was intended by "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

382 "One hundred and fifty-three." No better explanation has ever been found for this number than Hengstenberg's, that it was the number of nations of the world known at the time.

383 John 21: 13 f. — The Gnostic condemnation of animal food is here disposed of.

384 "The third time." That is, to the Apostles as a company.

385 John 21: 15-17. — Who but John could have written these verses? Cf. John 13: 37.

386 John 21: 15 f. — Adolphe Monod: "Give me thine observances, says the God of Pharisaism, give me thy personality, says the God of Hegel; give me thy reason, says the God of Kant. It remains for the God of Jesus Christ to say, Give Me thy heart . . . the unmistakable feature of a genuine conversion" (from sermon on "Dieu demandant le Coeur a l'Homme," cited by Bishop Moule in his devotional book on Jesus and the Resurrection).

The difference between ἀγαπᾳν and φιλεῖν is that "φ. is so far lower than ἀ. that it indicates less of insight and more of emotion" (Moule, p. 181, aptly comparing 1 Peter 1: 8). Reference may be to Trench, Westcott, Abbott. Augustine calls attention to "My" (not "thy").

"Feed . . . tend." The difference between βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν being one of sustenance, as compared with guidance.

387 John 21: 18 f. — Cf. 2 Peter 1: 14. The words here are from the same hand as John 12: 13 (Lightfoot, p. 194).

388 John 21: 18. — "When thou west young." There is a prolepsis in these words. The Lord is speaking of "Peter's life then present" (Moule, pp. 190 f.). Cf. 1 Cor. 13: 12.

389 John 21: 19. — Cf. 13: 36.

390 John 21: 20-23. — John was still alive when these verses were written (Zahn, 2, p. 488).

Drummond, from these words, vindicates the Evangelist against the Tübing en charge (note 376) of depreciation of Peter (p. 395 f.).

391 John 21: 21. — Cf. Mark 10: 39.

392 John 21: 22. — Bengel: "Peter, the foundation; John, the crown."

393 "Come." At death, say Augustine, Grotius, Ewald, Olshausen, etc., at destruction of Jerusalem, Luthardt, Alford, Godet, Westcott, etc., but De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Gloag and Zahn, at the "Second Coming."

Instead of negativing Paul's distinction of two classes, those who shall have fallen asleep and those who remain, these verses rather confirm it.

A question has been raised whether John the Apostle died a natural death as generally supposed, or was, like his brother, martyred by Jews (cf. Matt. 20: 23; Mark 10: 38f.), as alleged in a Fragment of Philip of Side of the fifth century. See English edition of Schürer (p. 59), and a Chronicle of George the Sinner of the ninth or tenth century. Cf. Stanton, p. 167; Burkitt, p. 252. The statement of George the Sinner, which had already been given in Harnack's "Apostolic Fathers" (p. 87 ff.), that distinguished scholar himself discredits ("Chronology," p. 665 f.), because of the silence of Eusebius and Irenæus. Heitmüller, one of the latest writers, joins Schmiedel and others in crediting this mythology. Drummond (p. 223) had remarked, with reference to the Syrian martyrology in Burkitt (p. 254), that it does not imply that the brothers came by their deaths at the same time and place.

394 John 21: 23-25. — Harnack supposes that the Evangelist was already dead when verse 23 was added (p. 676), and (as Ewald) that the writer is expressly distinguished from the disciple that "beareth witness and wrote." From verse 23 a curious notion has been derived by Pfleiderer (Scott follows suit) that the Evangelist gave up the chiliastic expectation (Rev. 20: 4).

394a THE EPILOGUE (verse 24 f.). — Weiss and many other students of Scripture regard verses 24 and 25 as alone written after the Apostle's death. But how could a third person, or even a company of John's friends or followers, attest the truth of his record, whether personally acquainted with him or not? As Dr. B. G. Moulton sensibly remarks, "endorsement is of no value without names" ("The Modern Reader's Bible," p. 1706). Bacon's quotation of Rom. 8: 16 is not in the least to the point. Cf. John 19: 35 and note. The difficulty, moreover, that some raise over "we know" (verse 24) is not felt by those who compare the same form of expression in chapter i. of the First Epistle (see also 2 Cor. 1: 13). Observe that there is no emphatic pronoun (ἡμεῖς) used, which would have given colour to the "critical" argument. Again, the transition from the third person we meet with in 3 John 1 of the "elder" — it becomes the first plural in verses 9,12- whilst the final use of the first singular is paralleled by 1 Thess. 2: 18; Heb. 13: 8f. So that there is no need whatever to take "we know" of Ephesian elders or friends (as Westcott, from comparison of John 19: 35), or "I suppose" of an amanuensis. Even if such were necessary the direct association by the Apostle of others with himself would be paralleled by joint-writers of Pauline epistles. One need do no more than just record the ingenious proposal of Chrysostom and Theophylact to read, instead of οἴδαμεν, οἴδα μέν, so as to preserve the first person singular.

Weizsäcker (vol. iii., p. 209 95.) and some others regard the whole of the Gospel as written after the Apostle's death. This, it is hoped, has been sufficiently dealt with in note 1a on the Introduction.

395 "Contain." See Matt. 19: 11 in the Greek. As to the Oriental hyperbolism of Scripture, reference might be made to Ryle, vol. 3, p. 629. Amongst other passages, that writer refers to our Lord's own language as to Capernaum, and reproduces a helpful remark of Calvin.

Tregelles upheld the verse as written by the first hand in the Sinaitic manuscript.

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED

N.B.-Foreign works existing in English translations are recorded under the titles of such; all are cited in the notes by English titles. An asterisk is attached to the name of any Roman Catholic writer, a dagger to that of any professed Unitarian.

BRITISH.

ABBOTT, Dr. E. A.: Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., vol. x. (1879).

Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopædia Biblica, §§ 8-107.

From Letter to Spirit (1903).

Johannine Vocabulary (1905).

Johannine Grammar (1906).

ANGUS, J.: Bible Handbook, revised by S. G. Green (second impression, 1907).

ARNOLD, M.: Literature and Dogma (1873, cheap reprint, 1903).

God and the Bible (1875, cheap reprint, 1906)

*BARRY, DR. W.: The Tradition of Scripture (1906)

BELLETT, J. G.: The Evangelists: On the Gospel according to St. John (ed. of 1900)

BENN, A. W.: The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (1906).

BERNARD, T. D.: The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ (1892).

BRUCE, A. B.: The Kingdom of God (1899).

BURKITT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel History and its Transmission (1906).

CARPENTER, BISHOP: Introduction to the Scriptures (1903).

†CARPENTER, PROFESSOR: The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (1903).

CASSELS, W. R.: Supernatural Religion, 7th ed. (1889).

*CLARKE, R. F.: The Pope and the Bible (1889)

DARBY, J. N.: Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853; reissued, abridged, 1890).

DODS, Dr. M.: The Expositor's Greek Testament: The Gospel of St. John (1897)

†DRUMMOND, PRINCIPAL: Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth  Gospel (1903).

EDERSHEIM, DR.: Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (eleventh impression, 1901).

FIELD, Dr. F.: Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899).

GARDNER, PROFESSOR: Exploratio Evangelica (1899).

GARVIE, PRINCIPAL: Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907).

GLOAG, Dr. P.: Introduction to the Johannine Writings (1891).

GORE, BISHOP: Bampton Lectures-On the Incarnation (1903).

The Creed of the Christian (1905).

GOVETT, R.: Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (1884).

GREEN, T. E.: Works, ed. by Nettleship (1885-1888).

HORTON, Dr. R. F.: The Teaching of Jesus (1895).

Inspiration and the Bible (1888)

The Commandments of Jesus (1898)

ILLINGWORTH, J. R.: Christian Character (1904, cheap reprint, 1907).

Doctrine of the Trinity (1907).

INGE, PROFESSOR: Bampton Lectures-Christian Mysticism (1899).

Studies of Christian Mystics (1906).

KINNEAR, J. B.: The Foundations of Religion (1905).

KNOWLING, PROFESSOR: Literary Criticism and the New Testament (1907)

LATHAM, H.: The Risen Master (1901).

LIDDON, DR. H. P.: Bampton Lectures-On the Divinity of Our Lord (1867)

Elements of Religion, 7th ed. (1890).

LIGHTFOOT, BISHOP: Biblical Essays (1893).

LOCK, DR. W.: History and Character of the Fourth Gospel (Interpreter, July, 1907).

MACLAREN, DR. A.: Exposition of the Gospel of St. John (1907).

McCLELLAN, J. B.: The New Testament-vol. i., The Gospels (1875).

McRORY, PROFESSOR: The Gospel of St. John, with Notes (1897).

MANSEL, DEAN: The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries

†MARTINEAU, DR. J.: The Seat of Authority in Religion (1890).

MEYER, F. B.: Exposition of John: Love to the Uttermost (1898).

MILLIGAN, DR. W., and MOULTON, DR. W. F.: Commentary on the Gospel of John  (reprint, 1898).

MOULE, BISHOP: The High-priestly Prayer (1907)

NEWMAN, F. W.: Phases of Faith (1850)

NORRIS, ARCHDEACON: The New Testament, with Notes (1880).

ORR, PROFESSOR: The Christian View of God and the World (Kerr Lectures,

*PALEY, F. A.: The Gospel of St. John, from the Vatican MS., with Notes

PLUMMER, DR. A.: The Gospel according to St. John (ed. of 1900).

REYNOLDS, DR. H. R.: Exposition of Gospel of St. John (Pulpit Commentary,

ROBINSON, DEAN: Advent Lectures on the Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel,  reported in Guardian (December, 1907)

RYLE, BISHOP J. C.: Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of St. John (1873).

SADLER, M. F.: The Gospel according to St. John, with Notes (1883).

SALMON, DR. G.: Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament (1885)

The Human Element in the Gospels (1907).

SANDAY, PROFESSOR: The Gospels in the Second Century (1876).

Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905).

Art. "Son of God" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

SCOTT, E. F.: The Fourth Gospel: its Purpose and Theology (1906).

STANTON, PROFESSOR: The Gospels as Historical Documents (1903).

STRONG, DEAN: Art. "John the Apostle" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

TRENCH, ARCHBISHOP: On the Miracles, 13th ed. (1886).

Synonyms of the New Testament, 7th ed. (1871).

Studies in the Gospels (1867).

TURTON, COLONEL: The Truth of Christianity, 6th ed. (1907).

WATKINS, ARCHDEACON: Bampton Lectures-On Modern Criticism in its Relation to the Fourth Gospel (1890).

WATSON, DR. F.: Inspiration (1906).

WESTCOTT, BISHOP: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 6th ed. (1872).

Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (1882).

The Historic Faith (1883, cheap reprint, 1904)

WILLIAMS, I.: The Gospel Narrative of our Lord's Ministry (second year, 1848),

AMERICAN.

ABBOT, DR. E.: Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1880).

ANDREWS, S. J.: The Life of Our Lord upon Earth (1892).

BACON, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (1900).

The Johannine Problem ( Hibbert Journal, 1903-1905).

The Defence of the Fourth Gospel (Hibbert Journal, 1907).

The Beloved Disciple (Expositor, October, 1907).

BRIGGS, PROFESSOR: New Light on the Life of Jesus (1904).

DU BOSE, PROFESSOR: The Soteriology of the New Testament (1892).

The Gospel in the Gospels (1906).

GREGORY, PROFESSOR (at Leipzig): Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907).

JAMES, PROFESSOR: The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

*KENRICK, ARCHBISHOP: The New Testament, with Notes, 2nd ed. (1862).

McGIFFERT, PROFESSOR: A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1897).

NASH, PROFESSOR: A History of the Higher Criticism (1901).

STEVENS, PROFESSOR: Johannine Theology (1894).

GERMAN.

ACHELIS, DR. T.: Sketch of Science of Comparative Religion (1904). Ethics (1904).

BEYSCHLAG, W.: The Johannine Question (1876).

Theology of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (1895).

BLASS, F.: The Gospel according to John (1902).

Grammar of New Testament Greek (1905).

Philology of the Gospels (1898).

Paper in Expository Times, "St. John" (July, 1907).

Papias in Eusebius (1907).

BOUSSET, PROFESSOR: Commentary (Meyer's) on the Apocalypse (1896).

Art. "Anti-Christ" in Encyclopædia Biblica.

The Jewish Religion, etc. (1903).

Clemen, PROFESSOR: The Origin of the New Testament (1906).

DELFF, H.: Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth (1889).

The Fourth Gospel (1890).

DELITZSCH, FRANZ: Art. "Passover" in Riehm's Handbook of Biblical Antiquities,

2nd ed. (1893).

EWALD, H.: The Johannine Writings (1861).

GERDTELL. VON: Is the Doctrine of Christ's Atonement still Tenable? 2nd ed. (1905).

Are the Miracles of Primitive Christianity sufficiently Attested 2nd ed. (1907).

The Christian Miracles before the Forum of Modern Thought, 2nd ed. (1907).

HARNACK, PROFESSOR: History of Dogma, 3rd ed. (1894); (English trans., 1899).

History of Old Christian Literature. Two Parts (1893-1904).

HEITMÜLLER, W.: Exposition of the Gospel of John (1907).

HERMANN, PROFESSOR: Faith and Morals (1904).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR H.: Manual Commentary on the New Testament,

2nd ed. (1893).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR O.: The Gospel of John (1887).

Life of Jesus (English trans., 1904).

JÜLICHER, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament

(English trans., 1904; 6th German ed., 1906).

LOTZE, H: Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion (English trans., 1892).

LUTHARDT, PROFESSOR: The Johannine Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1874).

Exposition of the Gospel of John (1886).

NEANDER, A.: Life of Christ (American trans., 1871).

PFLEIDERER PROFESSOR: Primitive Christianity (2nd German ea., 1902

REUSS E.: History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament

(English trans. of 5th ed., 1884).

*SCHANZ, PROFESSOR: Commentary on the Gospel of St. John (1885).

SCHÜRER, PROFESSOR: The Fourth Gospel (Contemporary Review, 1891)

STAERK, DR. W.: The New Testament Period (1907).

VON SODEN, PROFESSOR THE BARON: History of Early Christian Literature

(English trans., 1906).

WEISS, PROFESSOR B.: Introduction to the New Testament (English trans. 1887, 1888).

Ninth Edition of Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament (1902),

Manual Commentary on the New Testament (1902, American trans., 1906).

Life of Christ (English trans., 1885).

Theology of the New Testament (English trans. of 3rd ea., 1882,

WEIZSÄCKER, C.: Investigations respecting the Gospel History

(2nd German ea., 1901, English trans., 1905).

The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (from 2nd ea., 1894)

WELLHAUSEN, PROFESSOR: Interpolations and Alterations in the Fourth Gospel (1907).

WENDT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel of John (ea. of 1900, English trans., 1902).

WENTSCHER, PROFESSOR: Introduction to Philosophy (1907).

ZAHN, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (1899).

Art. "John the Apostle" in Hauck's Encyclopædia for Protestant Theology, etc. (1901).

The Gospel of John Expounded (1908).

DUTCH.

SCHOLTEN, PROFESSOR: The Gospel according to John (1864-1866).

FRENCH.

D'ALMA: The Fourth Gospel Controversy (1907).

*LEPIN: Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1907).

*LOISY, A.: The Fourth Gospel (1903).

RENAN, E.: Life of Jesus (1863). The Gospels (1877).

REVILLE, PROFESSOR A.: Jesus of Nazareth, 2nd ed. (1906).

REVILLE, PROFESSOR J.: The Fourth Gospel (1901).

SABATIER, A.: Art. in Lichtenberger's Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge, vol. vii., pp. 181-193 (1880).

SWISS.

BARTH, PROFESSOR: The Chief Problems of the Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. (1903).

The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (1905).

GODET, F.: Commentary on the Gospel of John

(English trans., 1886; 4th ed. of French, 1905).

SCHMEIDEL, PROFESSOR: Art. "Son of Zebedee" in Encyclopædia Biblical Jesus in  Modern Criticism (English trans., 1907).

WERNLE, PROFESSOR: Sources of the Gospels (English trans., 1907).

John 1 - 6.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of An Exposition of the Gospel of John.

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — john_app.doc.)

Author's Preface.

The work now before the Christian did not consist of discourses taken down in shorthand and corrected, as many books of mine have been. It was written with care from first to last, with the deep conviction how little my plummet, perhaps anyone's, can sound its revealed depths. Still, its communications are freely given by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, that we might know them through the Spirit in our measure. May the truth, and nothing but the truth, commend itself to the conscience and heart of all God's children. It is a day when many, listening to the tempter, have found a hard saying in the matchless words of life eternal, and even gone back, so as to walk no more with the Lord. May they so learn, as it were from His own lips, that the words He has spoken are spirit and are life. Of these sayings none is more eminent a witness among the inspired than the apostle, and of his inspired writings none so rich in these sayings as his Gospel. May grace use whatever help may be in this exposition to better appreciate the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. No reader is likely to feel its shortcomings so much as the writer, but he also feels that the Father delights in honour truly paid to the Son. This throughout he has sought humbly and heartily, counting on the Spirit's presence and power, Who is here to glorify Him.

London, April, 1898.

Preface to the Second Edition.

The Exposition of the Fourth Gospel issued, within the last ten years, by Mr. William Kelly happily contained his own translation of the Greek text preferred by him, with critical apparatus. Each of these is reproduced in the new edition, whilst the footnotes now record also the voice of the Syriac codex of Sinai among the ancient versions, besides the respective readings adopted for their texts by Professor B. Weiss (1901) and Professor Blass (1902). Such additions are enclosed in crotchets, which are used also for the few alternative renderings here added in harmony with the Exposition. Quotations from the Old Testament have been treated as in the recently published volume of the same writer's "Exposition of Mark." The few marginal references to parallel passages of the Synoptics, the Appendix and Indexes are likewise new features.

The expositor had before him the English works in chief repute relating to this Gospel that had appeared down to the time of the publication of his book. The outlook has been extended to the latest-in particular German and American-literature noticed in the Appendix. Although, as a learned dignitary has just been saying from his pulpit, "the Gospel of St. John is the one book in the Bible which stands in least need of the apologist," there has been a keen attack upon it in recent years, so that the Notes at the end are largely devoted to an examination of the criticism in fashion, by many regarded with deep concern.

Mr. Kelly had the happiness of being outside the ranks of those who have "to do the best they can for the side on which they are retained." Neither adhesion to ecclesiastical tradition nor academical influences hampered his independence, which was therefore no more governed by antecedent theories of the conventional "apologetic" than by those of the rigidly "critical" type. His robust religious belief was as far from being synonymous with "dogma" on the one hand as with "mysticism" on the other. In conflict with current unbelief, he did not understand any process of buttering bread on both sides: he seriously and consistently did battle for the Faith of the Gospel, as he understood that, "once for all delivered to the saints." A melancholy feature at the present day is the readiness of some without pain to write in derogation of the faith in which they were reared; with such Mr. Kelly had nothing in common.

The editor associates himself closely with the standpoint of the Exposition; his notes, as a Scottish review of the volume on Mark has stated of the Appendix there, are "in logical development of Mr. Kelly's views." He has endeavoured to speak plainly, yet with becoming respect towards scholars whose statements are combated. One may value the better aspects of a method, whilst questioning the application of it in the light of actual results obtained.

How a singularly precious book of Holy Scripture served William Kelly's ministry may be learned from this Exposition, which is reissued in the hope that it will continue to afford help to those at least who care for neither sentimental tradition nor traditional sentiment, but do love the Christ of God.

E. E. W. January, 1908.

Introduction

That the fourth Gospel is characterised by setting forth the Lord Jesus as the Word, the Only-begotten Son, God Himself, on earth can be questioned by no intelligent Christian. It is not as Messiah, Son of David and of Abraham, yet withal the Jehovah of Israel, Emmanuel; nor yet as the Son devoted to the service of God, above all in the Gospel; neither is it as the Holy Thing born of the Virgin by the miraculous agency of the Holy Ghost, and in this sense too Son of God, that He is presented, as in each of the other inspired accounts respectively by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the Gospel of John 1 His Divine nature shines from under the veil of flesh, as He moves here and there, evermore displaying the Father in His Person and words and ways; and then, on His going above, giving and sending the Holy Ghost to be with and in His own for ever.

1 [This and all other reference figures relate to the Editor's notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix.]

Hence it is that He is here declared the giver of eternal life to the believer, who is accordingly entitled in virtue of this new life to become a child of God. For it is no question here of dispensational dealings, nor of testimony to the creature, nor yet of the moral perfections of the man Christ Jesus. All these have their fitting places elsewhere; but here the Spirit of God has in hand a deeper task-the manifestation of the Father in the Son, and this as the Word become flesh and tabernacling here below, with its immense consequences for every soul, and even for God Himself, glorified both in the exigencies of His moral being and in the intimate depths of His relationship as Father.

Further, we may take note of the Divine wisdom which wrote and gave such a Gospel at a comparatively late date,2 when the enemy was seeking to corrupt and destroy, not by Pharisaic or Sadducean adversaries, nor by idolatrous Gentiles, but by apostates and antichristian teachers. These, under the highest pretensions to knowledge and power, were undermining the truth of Christ's Person, on the side both of His proper Deity and of His real humanity,3 to the ruin of man and to the most thankless and daring dishonour of God. No testimony came in more appropriately than that of John, who, like the writer of the earliest Gospel, was an eyewitness,4 and even above all others familiar, if one may reverently so say, with the Lord Jesus as man on earth. Yet none the less, but above all, is he the instrument of attesting His Divine glory. The bearing of both on the closing efforts of Satan, even then and thenceforward prevalent (1 John 2: 18), is also most evident and of supreme importance. The Lord, on the other hand, as ever in His grace, met the efforts of Satan by a fuller assertion of "That which was from the beginning," for Divine glory in the clearing, comfort, and consolidation of the family of God-yea, of the babes. For what greater security than to find themselves the objects of the Father's love, loved as the Son was loved, Himself in them, and they in Him, Who on departing assures them of the abiding presence of that other Paraclete, the Holy Spirit?-a blessedness so great that He declares His own deeply missed absence "expedient" for them in order to secure it.

Consequently, along with the reality and manifestation of eternal life in man, in Christ the Son, there is the careful, complete, and distinct abolishing of Jewish or any other relationships for man in the flesh with God; while it is shown clearly both in the introduction and at the end of the Gospel that the dispensations of God are not overlooked, nor Christ's relation to them, His Person, Divine yet a man, being the pivot on which all turns.

Indeed, it was a great oversight of the ancient ecclesiastical writers to regard John as the evangelist who views the Lord or His own in their heavenly connections, ill as the eagle could symbolize any such thing; though even Augustine accepted the fancy, as Victorinus seems first to have suggested it. But theologians do not at all agree; for Irenæus will have Mark to be the eagle, and Andreas follows in his wake. Williams of late-and he is not alone-revived the interpretation of Augustine, who strangely applied the man to Mark and the ox to Luke, where the converse would have been at least more plausible. Many more applications equally wild prevailed, but they are hardly worth recording.

For the "living creatures" in Rev. 4 and elsewhere have no real or intended relation to the four Gospels. These present to us the grace of God which appeared in Christ among men, and the redemption which He accomplished in the rejected Messiah. The cherubim, on the contrary, are revealed when the throne on high assumes a judicial character in chastisements, preparatory to the Lord's taking the kingdom of the world and appearing from heaven for that reign. They symbolize the Divine attributes in figures taken from the heads of creation. Ingenious but superficial analogies cannot avail against the entire moral bearing of their associations as contrasted as grace is with judgment.

But the characteristic truth which it is hard to overlook in John, with a slight exception here and there, is God manifesting Himself in His Son, yet man on earth; not man in Him the exalted Christ on high, which is the line assigned to the apostle Paul, and among the inspired accounts of the Lord to the end of Luke and even, in a measure, of Mark. Therefore we may notice that there is no Ascension scene (though abundantly supposed) in John any more than in Matthew, though for wholly different reasons. For the first Gospel shows us the Lord in His final presentation, risen indeed, but still maintaining His links of relationship with the disciples or Jewish remnant in Galilee, where He gives them their great commission, and assures them of His presence with them till the consummation of the age. The last shows us Him uniting in His person the glory not only of the risen man and Son of God, the last Adam, but also of the Lord God, Who as the quickening spirit breathes the breath of a better life in resurrection power into His disciples, and thereon gives also a mystical view of the age to come, with the special places of both Peter and John.

It is God on earth, therefore, that appears in the account of our Lord here, not (save for exceptional purposes) man glorified in heaven, as in the writings of St. Paul.5 Hence in the first chapter, so remarkable for the fulness with which the titles of Christ are brought before us there, we do not read of Him either as priest or as head of the church-relations which are exclusively bound up with His exaltation above and service at the right hand of God. John presents all that is Divine in Christ's person and work on earth; and as he gives us the setting aside of the first man in his best shape, so also the absolute need of the Divine nature if man is to see or enter the kingdom of God. What is essential and abiding naturally flows from the presence of a Divine Person revealing Himself here below in grace and truth.

Again, the character of the truth before the Holy Spirit evidently excludes any genealogy such as is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, who respectively traced our blessed Lord down from Abraham and David, or up to Adam, "which was [the son] of God." Here John gives no such birth-roll; for how trace the line of Him Who in the beginning, before a creature existed, was with God and was God? If Mark is devoted to the details of His service, especially His service in the gospel, accompanied by suited powers and signs (for He would arouse man and appeal to unbelievers in the patient goodness of God), he in the wisdom of the same Spirit was led to omit all record of His earthly parentage and early life, and at once enters on His work, only preceded by a brief notice of His herald, John the Baptist, in his work.6 Hence, as the Lord was the perfect Servant, so the perfect account of it says nothing here of a genealogy; for who would ask the pedigree of a servant? Thus, if His service seems to keep it out from Mark, His Deity, being the prominent truth, renders it unsuitable for the Spirit's purpose by John. It is only from all the four that we receive the truth in its various fulness:7 only so could even God adequately reveal to us our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Gospels He is given us in view not merely of our need, but of the Divine love and glory.

The contents of this Gospel may be more clearly apprehended by the summary that follows.* Chapters 1-4 precede the Galilean ministry of our Lord given by the three Synoptists. John the herald was still baptizing, and free (John 3: 23, 24); while our Lord was on His way to Galilee (John 4) through Samaria. John 1 to 2: 22 are preliminary, John 1: 1-18 being the wondrous and suited preface of His personal glory, seen in the chapter throughout. Then from verses 19-42 is John's testimony historically, not to others only about Jesus, but to Himself and its fruit. From verse 43 Christ calls individually and gathers, wherein He passes from the truth of His position as the Christ in Ps. 2 to the wider and higher glory of the Son of man in Ps. 8 Then we have in John 2: 1-22 the marriage in Cana of Galilee which manifests His glory, and His execution of judgment in purifying the temple, as risen from the dead.

* [Cf. subsequent "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures (Divine Design, § 31. JOHN)," pp. 347-357 ]

From John 2: 23 is shown the impossibility of God's trusting man as he is, and in John 3 the necessity of his being born anew to see or enter the kingdom of God, even on its earthly side. The cross of the Son of man is no less requisite; but God's Only-begotten Son is given in His love to save the world. Only faith in His name is indispensable. It is not a charge of law violated, but of light come and hated, men's works being evil. But John, the Bridegroom's friend, rejoices to be eclipsed by His glory Who comes from heaven and is above all, not only the Sent One with God's words, but the Son of His love to Whom the Father has given all things. To believe on Him, therefore, is to have life eternal; to disobey Him in unbelief is to have the wrath of God abiding on him. Such is the introduction.

John 4 is the Son of God humbling Himself in grace to draw a reprobate Samaritan to God, in order to worship Him and as Father too in spirit and truth, Jerusalem being now gone, as her rival was nothing. For He is the Saviour of the world. Yet the courtier in Capernaum proves that his faith in the Saviour for his sick son, though in Jewish form, was not in vain. He does not despise feeble faith.

John 5 shows us Jesus the Son of God, not a healer only, but quickening the dead souls that hear Him now, and raising to a life resurrection at His coming; while those who hearken not and live wickedly He, the Son of Man, will raise to a resurrection of judgment. The grounds of faith are therefore added in the rest of the chapter.

In John 6 the sign of the bread He gave the great crowd introduces the teaching of Himself, incarnate, the true Bread from heaven, and in death His flesh truly food and His blood truly drink, followed by His ascension. He is the object of faith thus, as the Quickener in the preceding chapter.

Thence John 7 lets us into His sending down the Holy Spirit from Himself in glory before the Feast of Tabernacles is literally fulfilled. Such is the power for witness, as in John 4 for worship. In these four chapters the Lord is set as Himself the truth of which Israel had possessed forms.

In John 8 and John 9 His word and His work are rejected respectively and to the uttermost. Nevertheless the sheep, which receive both to their blessing, He not only keeps, but leads outside the fold to better still, one flock, one Shepherd. Nothing can harm. They are in the Father's hand and in the Son's (John 10).

John 11 and John 12 give us the testimony to Christ, as Son of God in resurrection power, as Son of David according to prophecy, and as Son of man bringing in through His death a new, unlimited, and everlasting glory, which His jointheirs should share with Him.

From John 13 to 17 is unfolded the Lord's position in heaven, and what He is for us then and there-an entirely new thing for the disciples who looked for the kingdom here and now. He is our Advocate (1 John 2: 1), and washes by the word our feet defiled by the way; and when Judas is gone out, opens His death as morally glorifying Himself, glorifying God in every way, and His glorification in Him as the immediate consequence. But He is coming (John 14) to receive them to Himself in the Father's house, the proper Christian hope. Meanwhile Christ promises another Advocate, or Paraclete, to dwell with them and be in them for ever, Who is the present power of Christianity, and works in the obedience of the Christian. In John 15 we have the Christian position on earth contrasted with Judaism. It is not union but communion with Christ to bear fruit, and render testimony to His glory: moral government is in question rather than sovereign grace. John 16 treats of the presence of the Spirit, what it proves to the world, and how He deals with the believers who now ask the Father in Christ's name. John 17, in Christ's outpouring to the Father, gives our place with Him, and apart from the world, in past, present, and future unity, both privilege in heaven with Him by and by, and our wondrous blessedness even now.

John 18 and John 19 characteristically sketch the closing scenes of His varied mock trials after His willing surrender, and the humiliating experience of His disciples; then the death of the cross, and its fruit, as well as the beloved disciple's witness, to whom He confided His mother. John 20 presents Him risen, His message through Mary of Magdala, and His manifestation to the gathered disciples on the Resurrection, and in eight days to Thomas, the type of Israel seeing and believing. John 21 adds the mystical picture of the millennial age, when the Gentiles become Christ's, and the net is not broken as heretofore. As an appendix, we have Peter restored and reinstated, with the assurance that in the weakness of age grace would strengthen him to die for his Master, Whom he failed thus to glorify in the day of his more youthful self-confidence. John is left in no less mysterious guise, though it was not said that he should not die, but in suspense, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou Me." So we know that the same pen, which God employed to set out the Son of God in His personal glory and ineffable grace, was to give us, after the translation of the heavenly on high, the Divine government which will at length invest Christ and them with the world's kingdom in the day when He will be the manifest centre of all glory, heavenly and earthly. For this and more we find in the Revelation.8

JOHN — THE FIRST CHAPTER*

* Cf. "Lectures Introductory to the Gospels," pp. 408-429.

John 1: 1-5.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Word, the expression of the Godhead, has eternal being, distinct personality and proper Deity, not merely Θειότης  (Rom. 1: 20), but Θεότης  (Col. 2: 9). We see One Who was before time began. It is not even the beginning of creation, but before then, when the Word was with God before all things were made by Him. Look back as we may before creation, the Word was-not  ἐγένετο, existed, as One that had commenced to be, but  ἦν, was, the Word increase-yea, the Creator. Further, He "was with God," not exactly here with the Father as such; for Scripture never speaks with such correlation. "The Word was with God." Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were there; but the Word was with God, "and the Word was God." He was no creature, but essentially Divine, though not He alone Divine. Other Persons there were in the Godhead.9

"The same was in the beginning with God" (verse 2); not at a subsequent date, but "in the beginning," when no creature had commenced its existence. For this truth we are entirely indebted to God. Who could speak of such things but God? It is He Who uses John to write, and all He says is worthy of implicit faith. The Word "was in the beginning with God." His personality was eternal, no less than His nature or being. He was no mere emanation, as the Indo-Aryans dreamed in the earliest form of their thoughts known to us. For God thus was not really supreme and free, but subject to restraint necessarily incompatible with sovereignty, and ever tending to that pantheism which, making the universe to be God, denies the only true God. Thus, He was merely Tad (That), an abstract energy, yet not in self-sufficiency, but in longing for others to emanate-Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer. In the Hindu system developed later, as the Divinity was thus imaginatively resolved into emanations, so is the universe itself pantheistically to be an emanation rather than a creation formed by Divine will, power, and design. All is flux and illusion. What a contrast is its Triad with the Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God! And its Avataras, even that of Krishna, late as the legend rose, how remote from the Incarnation! Thereby God and man stand for ever united in one Person, by His death the Reconciler of all creation, heavenly and earthly, and of those who by grace are to reign with Him over all things to the glory of God the Father.*

*"I cannot but regard John 1: 2 as a striking and complete setting aside of the Alexandrian and Patristic distinction of λόγος ἐνδίαθετος and λόγος προφορικός. Some of the earlier Greek fathers, who were infected with Platonism, held that the λόγος was conceived in God's mind from eternity, and only uttered, as it were, in time. This has given a handle to Arians, who, like other unbelievers, greedily seek the traditions of men. The apostle here asserts, in the Holy Ghost, the eternal personality of the Word with God" ("Lectures on the Gospels," p. 409, note).

Then as an added and after communication we are told that "all things were made by Him, and without Him not one thing was made which hath been made" (verse 3). The Word was not made, but Himself made all.* The Word is the Creator of all that has had a derived being. He created all. No creature received being apart from Him. The Word was the agent. Had He not been God, this must have been a work impossible to Him. Had He not been "in the beginning with God," it could not have been in any special way attributed to Him, the eternal Word. But creation is here affirmed as His work, not in a positive way only, but without exception for every creature. So in Col. 1: 16, 17 we are told that "by ( ἐν, in virtue of) Him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities; all things have been created through Him, and for Him; and He is before all things, and by ( ἐν ) Him all things consist (or, are held together)." What repeated and irrefutable proofs of Deity!†

*I think the remark not only unhappy but worthy of reprobation, wherein it is said that evil itself implicitly (and not all matter only) was made by the Word. This is false philosophy, the Hegelianism even of many who oppose Hegel. Evil has nothing to do with creation, save as it is an inconsistency with it. The question now is not of evil in the sense of physical punishment; for this is pre-eminently sent of God. But moral evil in any being is a contradiction of the relationship in which God set that being. It is therefore neither in God nor of God, being failure relative to what previously existed as the fruit of God's pleasure, Who nevertheless permits it in view of government and redemption. Thus the angels left their first estate. Satan stood (or stands) not in the truth, and Adam fell from his original innocence. This is in no way a limitation of Divine power; but, contrariwise, the error I am combating does limit His goodness or His truth. Impossible that there can be in or from God the contrary of what He is, and He is good, He only; in the creature it can easily be, and it is, where creation is not sustained by God, or delivered by His grace.

†Cf. "Notes on Colossians," pp. 19-21.

Each of these scriptures gives us precise instruction of the highest kind. Even Gen. 1, though it points in verses 1 and 2 to states of creation indefinitely anterior to Adam, only begins with John 1: 3. But of the details that followed in time no scripture gives us such complete information. What was before creation is wholly omitted by Moses. John 1: 1, 2 shows us eternity before creation, as well as creation itself (verse 3), in the most precise terms.9a

But there is much more than the power of an eternal Being. For we come now to a thing higher and more intimate: not to what was brought into being 9b through Him, but to what was in Him. "This is the true God and eternal life" (John 5: 20). "In him was life."* The only life here noticed is that which, being eternal, is capable of knowing, enjoying, serving, and worshipping God, suited to His presence, and to be there for ever. Believers have life; but it is in the Son, not in them, but in Him. Here, however, it is not pursued beyond its source in Him; its communication will soon follow in due course. The Spirit is occupied with the character of His person. Only He adds at this point the deeply interesting announcement, "and the life was the light of men" (verse 4).11 Not angels but men were the object. He does not say life, but light of men. The life was only for those that believe in His name: the light goes far beyond. That which makes manifest is light. So in Prov. 8, the beautiful introduction of Wisdom, Whom Jehovah possessed in the beginning of His way before His works of old, not more His delight than Wisdom's delights were with the sons of men.

*The arrangement of verses 3, 4, which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Westeott and Hort ["Notes on Select Readings," p. 73 f.] prefer (partly because of the absence of interpunction in some very ancient MSS., partly because some copies, versions, and fathers, expressly so take it), is ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν . So ACpmDGpmL, Vulg. Syrcu Sahid. But with Tischendorf and others [as Weiss and Blass]10 I unqualifiedly decide for a colon or full-stop after γέγονεν , and begin a new sentence with ἐν αὐτῳ ζωὴ ἦν . [So Weiss after CcorrEGHKM Syrpesch hcl.] There is an intended contradistinction between what was made or brought into being through the Word with life in Him, which is lost when the new sentence begins with ὃ γέγ . Is it not false doctrine so to reduce life in the Word? Further it is not Johannean, if grammatical, to take γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῳ as "made by him." Again, this life, which would mean the living universe (in itself a strange, unscriptural, and senseless phrase), must then be the light of men, contrary to the express teaching, just after, that the Word exclusively was the light. On the other hand, the phrase, as it usually stands, is in the fullest harmony with the style of the evangelist elsewhere, as Dean Alford has pointed out.

But men, in fact, were in a fallen condition, and at a distance from God; and so it is intimated here that a worse darkness reigned than the gloom which covered the deep before the six days' work began. "And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended [that is, apprehended] it not" (verse 5).

Darkness is neither the mother of all, as the heathen said, nor a malignant Demiurge, the never-ceasing opponent of the good Lord of light.* It is really the moral condition of man, fallen as he is, a negation of the light, differing wholly from the physical reality, inasmuch as it is of itself unaffected by light. Grace only, as we shall see by and by, can deal effectually with the difficulty.

*See footnote on verse 16.

Here it may be noticed that John does not discourse of life absolutely, but of life in the Word, which life is affirmed to be the Light of men. It is exclusive of other objects-at least, the proposition goes not beyond men. So in Col. 1 Christ is said to be the image of the invisible God, Who is here only revealed to perfection in man and to men. He is the light of men, and there is no other: for if man has what scripture calls light, he has it only in the Word, Who is the life. Beyond controversy God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all; but He dwells in unapproachable light, Whom no man has seen, nor can see. Not so with the Word of Whom we are reading. "The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Observe the striking precision of the phrases. It appears in darkness-such is its nature; "it shines," not "it shone"; whereas the abstract form is changed for the historical, when we are told that the darkness apprehended it not.

Thus we have had the Spirit's statement of the Word, as related first to God, next to creation, lastly to men, with a solemn sentence on their moral state in relation to the light, and not merely to life.

John 1: 6-8.

We are next presented with John sent from God to testify of the light. "There was a man sent from God-his name John. The same came for witness that he might witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but that he might witness about the Light." God, Who is Love, was active in His goodness to draw attention to the Light; for deep was man's need. Hence there was a man sent from Him-his name John.12 He, as we are told elsewhere, was the burning and shining lamp ( ὁ λυχνος); but the Word was the Light ( τὸ φῶς ) concerning Whom he came to bear witness. For his mission is here viewed in relation, not to the law or any legal purpose, but to the Light (and hence its scope is far beyond Israel), that he might witness concerning the Light, that all 12a might believe through him. It is a question of personal faith in the Saviour, not merely of moral exhortation to the multitude, tax-gatherers, soldiers, or any others, as in the Gospel of Luke. Every scripture is perfect, and perfectly adapted to the Divine purpose of glorifying Jesus.

John 1: 9-13.

The Light is  here the object of God's gracious purpose. John is but an instrument and witness; he was not the Light, but that he might witness concerning the Light. "The true Light was that (or, He was the true Light) which, coming into the world, lighteth every man," in exclusion of Philonism and Platonism, as we have seen before of eternal matter and Manicheism. The law dealt with those under it-that is, with Israel; the Light, on coming into the world-a cardinal point in the teaching of our Apostle (1 John 1: 1-4; 2: 8, 14, etc. )-casts its light on every man. Coming, or a comer, into the world is used by the Rabbis for birth as man; but for this very reason it would be the merest tautology if viewed in apposition with π. ἄνθρ. "every man."* It qualifies the relative, and affirms that as incarnate the true Light lights every man-that is, sheds light on him.

*There seems to be no force in taking ἦν with ἐρχόμενον as equivalent to an imperfect "came," even if an independent clause such as ὃ φ. π. ἆνθρ. might legitimately come between the verb and the participle; which, as far as I know, has not yet been produced, Mark 2: 18 (which Lücke advances and Alford approves) being in no way parallel. But were it so, where is the propriety of telling us in this wondrous prologue, where each brief clause-yea, word-is brimful of the profoundest truth, that the true Light which lights every man was in process of coming (not of manifesting Himself, which is quite another thought) into the world? On the other hand, the construction given in the Authorised Version, though vouched by ancient translations, Western and Eastern, and even by Greek fathers, seems not really admissible. It would require the article with ἐρχόμενον . The anarthrous participle does not mean "that cometh," but "as" or "on coming," which could have no proper meaning in connection with ἄνθρωπον . For how strange the doctrine resulting, that every man on coming into the world of darkness has or receives the light of Christ! With ὃ it teaches a momentous truth, and this extinguishing, not suggesting, the Quaker idea. For it is the Word in His own nature, not an inward light, Who pours it on every man. He alone coming here is the true Light for man, and sheds it on all, high or low, Jew or Greek. It is like the sun's light for all mankind, but in a spiritual way.13

The result, however, in itself is, and can only be, condemnation by reason of opposition of nature; for, as we are told, "He was in the world, and the world was made (or, brought into being) through Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not; but as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those that believe on His name; who were born not of blood, nor of flesh's will, nor of man's ( ἀνδρὸς) will, but of God." What infinite and loving condescension that He, the eternal Word, the true Light, should be in the world 14-the world which receiveth its being from Him! How dense its ignorance that the world knew Him not, its Creator! But He had one place on earth which He was pleased to regard as His own peculiar ( τὰ ἴδια )15: there He came; and ( οἱ ἴδιοι )  His own people (it is not said knew Him not, but) received Him not! It was rejection, not ignorance.

This prepared the way for the manifestation of a new thing, men from out of the ruined world separated to a new and incomparably nearer relationship with God, to whom, as many as received Christ (for it is no question of "every man" here), He gave right or title to enter the place of God's children, to those that believe on His name. Nor is this a mere external position of honour, into which sovereignty might choose, so as to maintain by adoption family name and grandeur. It is a real communication of life and nature, a living birth-tie.16 They were τέκνα Θεοῦ , God's children. It is not that they had been better than others. They had been once alienated, and enemies in mind by wicked works. They believed on Christ's name; they were born of God. It was a work of Divine grace through faith. Receiving the Word, they were begotten of God. Natural generation from either side, effort of one's own, influence of another however exalted, had no place here.

John nowhere describes believers as υἱοὶ but as τέκνα , for his point is life in Christ rather than the counsels of God by redemption. Paul, on the other hand (as in Rom. 8), calls us both υἱοὺς and τέκνα Θεοῦ , because he is setting forth alike the high place given us now in contrast with bondage under the law, and also the intimacy of our relationship as children of God. On the other hand, it is notable that Jesus is never called τέκνον (though as Messiah He is styled παῖς , or Servant), but υἱός . He is the Son, the Only-begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, but not τέκνον as if He were born of God as we are. Thus it is the name of nearest but derived relationship. This is quite confirmed by the immediately following statement of John, "who were born . . . of God." So indeed it will be seen invariably elsewhere, despite the Authorised Version, which wrongly represents τέκνα by "sons" in his First Epistle, (1 John 3). They believe on His name, after the manifestation of what the Word is.17 Every creature source is shut out, as well as all previous relationship closed and done with; a new race is brought in. They were men of course, and cease not to be men as a fact; but they are born afresh spiritually, born of God most truly, partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1) in this sense, as deriving their new life from God.

Life, as we may observe ever throughout the writings of John and Paul, is wholly distinct from simple existence. It is the possession of that Divine character of being, which in the Son never had a beginning, for He was the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us. He is our life; because He lives, we also live. It is true in Him and in us: in Him essentially, in us derivatively through grace; yet this is not so as to be for a moment independent of Him, but in Him. Still we have the life now; nowhere is it taught that we shall be born of God, only that as believers we are. "Begotten" now, as distinct from "born," is false, absurd, and without a shadow of scripture to support it.

John 1: 14-18.

From the revelation of the Word in His own intrinsic nature, we now turn to His actual manifestation as man here below. The Incarnation is brought before us, the full revelation of God to man and in man. "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only-begotten from beside a father), full of grace and truth." Here it is not what the Word was, but what He became. He was God; He became flesh18 and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

It was no transient vision, however momentous, as on the holy mount. It was a contemplation 19 of His glory vouchsafed to His witnesses, not of an earthly conqueror, nor Messianic even, but glory 20 as of an only-begotten from beside ( παρὰ ) a father.21 No sword girds His thigh, no riding to victory, no terrible things in righteousness: the incarnate Word dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. Such is He that was in and from the beginning, and thus known. He was the King undoubtedly, but not so portrayed here. He is infinitely more than King, even God, yet God on earth, man dwelling among men, full of grace and truth. So only could God be displayed, unless in judgment which had left no hope, but only destroyed to the bitter end at once and unreservedly. For infinitely different purposes had He come, as this passage itself declares in due season, perfectly knowing and feeling the universal evil of man. He tabernacled among us full of grace and truth. It was not a visit or a theophany, as in O.T. experiences. So He here manifested God, Who is love. But grace is more; it is love in the midst of evil, rising above it, going down under it, overcoming it with good.

And such was Jesus, sojourning on earth, full of truth withal; for otherwise grace was no more grace, but a base imitation, and most ruinous both for God and to man. Not such was Jesus, but full of grace and truth, and in this order, too. For grace brings in the truth and enables souls to receive truth and to bear it, themselves as sinners judged by it. He, and He only, was full of grace and truth. To make it known, to make God Himself thus known, He came. For as grace is the activity of Divine love in the midst of evil,22 so truth is the revelation of all things as they really are, from God Himself and His ways and counsels down to man and every thought and feeling as well as word and work of man-yea, of every invisible agency for good or evil throughout all time, and throughout all eternity.* So He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

*See further, exposition below of John 14: 6.

Nor did God fail to render testimony to Him thus. "John witnesseth about Him, and hath cried, saying, This was He of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me, for He was before me" (verse 15). Most strikingly is John introduced with his testimony in each of the great divisions of the chapter. Before it was to the abstract revelation of the Light. Here it is to His actual presentation to the world, and as it is historical, so we have what John cries, not merely a description as before. He says, "This was He of whom I said," etc. The coming of Jesus after John was no derogation from His glory, but the very contrary. No greater prophet than John the Baptist had arisen among those born of women. But Jesus is God. If He was pleased therefore to come after John in time, He had become incomparably before him in place and title; nay, He was really before him, but this only because He is Divine.

The last verse (15) appears to be a parenthesis, however full of instruction. But the direct line of truth runs, "full of grace and truth . . . and of His fulness all we received, and grace for grace" (verse 16). An astonishing truth! He is the gift and the giver-full of grace and truth; and of His fulness did we all receive.* Such is the portion of the least believer. The strongest is only the stronger, because he better appreciates Him. For there is no blessing outside Him, and consequently no lack for the soul that possesses Jesus. If the Colossian saints, if any others, seek to add any other thing to the Lord, it is a real loss, not gain. It is but to add what detracts from Him. For Christ is all ( τὰ π.), and in all.

*Before our apostle died Gnosticism was sowing its baneful seeds, it would seem even before St. Paul's death. Early in the second century we know that Basileides had developed the system so far as to separate Jesus from Christ, the latter an emanation ["AEon"] from God united to Jesus at His baptism, and returning to the Fulness on high before His death on the cross.23 Thus the Incarnation was annulled no less than the Atonement. But even Christ in this impious reverie was not the true God, but only an emanation, sent to make known the good God, and expose the Demiurge [Jehovah], who made the world, with all its evils, inseparable from matter. One readily sees how the doctrine of the apostles outs off by anticipation this irreverent and destructive falsehood by stating the simple truth of Christ's Person and work, though only the germs may have then appeared.

The expression "and grace for grace" has perplexed many, but without much reason; for an analogous phrase occurs, even in profane authors not infrequently, which ought to satisfy any inquirer that it simply means grace upon grace,24 one succeeding to another without stint or failure-superabundance of grace, and not a mere literal notion of grace in us answering to grace in Him. It will be noticed, further, that scripture speaks of grace upon grace, not truth upon truth, which last would be wholly unsuitable; for the truth is one, and cannot be so spoken of. The same apostle wrote even to the babes, not because they did not know the truth, but because they do know it, and that no lie is of the truth. The unction, which they, in fact, received from Him, teaches them as to all things, and is true, and is not a lie. But as grace brings the truth, so the truth exercises in grace. How blessed that of His fulness all we received, and grace for grace!

Wholly different was seen at Sinai, "for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (verse 17). Not that the law is sin. Far be the thought. It is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. But it is altogether impotent to deliver man or to reveal God. It has neither life to give nor object to make known. It requires from man what he ought to render both to God and to his fellows; but in vain is it required from man, already a sinner before the law was given. For sin entered the world through Adam no less surely than the law was given through Moses. Man fell and was lost; none could bring eternal life but Jesus Christ the Lord.25 Even this was wholly unavailable to man without His death in expiation of sin. Here, however, we have not yet reached the work of Christ, nor the message of grace that goes out to the world grounded on it in the gospel, but His Person in the world; and to this the testimony is "grace and truth came (ἐγένετο) through Jesus Christ." There, and there only, was the Divine love superior to man's evil; there, and there only, was everything revealed, and in its due relation to God, for such is the truth. Truly Jesus is a Divine Saviour.

But there is yet more than this. God Himself must be known, not merely fulness of blessing come in Christ, or souls be brought into the blessing by redemption. Yet man as such is incapable of knowing God. How is this difficulty to be solved? "No one hath seen God at any time: the* only begotten Son† Who is in the bosom of the Father-He declared (Him)" (verse 18). Thus only can God be known as He is, for Christ is the truth, the revealer and revelation of God, as of everything in God's sight. Nowhere does scripture say with rationalists and, one regrets to add, with theologians, that God is the truth.26a Not so: God is the "I AM," the self-subsisting One; He is light, He is love. But Christ is the truth objectively, as the Spirit is in power, working in man. And Christ has declared God, as One Who as the Son is in the bosom of the Father, not Who was, as if He had left it; as He left the glory and is now gone back into glory as man. He never left the Father's bosom. It is His constant place, and His peculiar mode of relationship with the Father. Hence we by the Holy Ghost are in grace privileged to know God, even as the Son declared Him, Who perfectly, infinitely, enjoyed love in that relationship from everlasting and to everlasting. Into what a circle of Divine association does He not introduce us! It is not the Light of men, not yet the Word acting, or becoming flesh, but the only begotten Son Who is in the Father's bosom, declaring Him according to His own competency of nature and the fulness of His own intimacy with the Father. Even John Baptist, as having his origin in the earth, was of the earth and spoke as of it.26b Jesus alone of men could be said to come out of heaven and be above all, testifying what He had seen and heard, as the Holy Spirit also does. It was for Him to declare God, and this in His own proper relationship.

* ὁ omitted by KpmBCpmL.

†BCpmL, 33, Syrr. , not cu. AEth. Rom have the strange reading θεὸς, God, which Tregelles, Westcott and Hort adopt,the latter having written a learned monograph in its defence. [So Weiss and Zahn.] As the variant seems to be out of all correlation to "Father," the weight of evidence is against it. [Blass reads "the only begotten, who," etc., with corrA, etc. See further Note 26 in Appendix.]

If the verses which precede comprise the Divine preface, the sections which follow may be viewed as an introduction. The Baptist, in answer to the inquiring deputation, gives an explicit, though in the first place negative, testimony to the Lord Jesus. A singularly fitted vessel of witness to the Messiah, as he was himself filled by the Spirit from his mother's womb, he was sustained as scarce another had ever been in nothing but the function of making straight the way of Jehovah.27

John 1: 19-28.

"And this is the witness of John when the Jews28 sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites that they might ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not, and confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. They said therefore to him, Who art thou, that we may give an answer to those that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I (am the) voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of Jehovah, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they were sent from among the Pharisees; and they asked him and said to him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with ( ἐν) water: in the midst of you standeth, Whom ye know not, He who cometh after me, of Whom I am not worthy to unloose the thong of His sandal. These things took place in Bethany,* across the Jordan where John was baptizing."

*The best reading according to ancient authorities is Βηθανία (pm ABCpm EFGHLMSVXΓΛΠ pm more than a hundred and thirty cursives, and many ancient versions), not Βηθαβαρα or Βηθαραβᾶ. It was not the well-known village near Jerusalem, but another district of the same name beyond the Jordan.29

Thus did God take care to rouse a general expectancy of the Messiah in the minds of His people, and to send them the fullest witness. And never was there a more strictly independent witness than John, born and brought up and kept till the fit moment to testify of the Messiah. For while the minute questions of those sent by the Jews from Jerusalem show how men's minds were then exercised, how they wished to ascertain the real character and aim of the mysterious Israelite, himself of priestly lineage, and thereby, as they ought to have known excluded from the Messianic title, there was no vagueness in the reply. John was not the Anointed. This was the main aim of their search; and our Gospel very simply and fully attests his reply.

There is somewhat of difficulty in the next answer. For when asked, "Art thou Elijah?" he says, "I am not." How is this denial from the lip of John himself to be reconciled with the Lord's own testimony to His servant in Matt. 17: 11, 12? "Elijah truly shall first come and restore all things. But I say to you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist." And they were right. The key appears to lie in Matt. 11: 14: "And if ye will receive it" (says the Lord in vindicating John at a time when, if ever, he seemed to waver in his testimony; for who but One is the Faithful Witness?) "this is Elijah which was [lit. is] to come." Such a word, however, needed ears to hear. Like the Lord (Son of man no less than Messiah), his testimony and his lot were to be in unison with an advent in shame and sorrow as well as in power and glory. The Jews naturally cared only for the latter; but, to avail not only for God, but for the true wants of man, first must Jesus suffer before He is glorified, and comes again in power. So Elijah came to faith ("if ye will receive it") in the Baptist, who testified in humiliation and with results in man's eyes scanty and evanescent. But Elijah will come in a manner consonant with the return of the Lord to deliver Israel and bless the world under His reign. To the Jew, who only looked at the external, he was not come. To point to the Baptist would have seemed mockery; for if they had no apprehension of God's secrets or His ways, if they saw no beauty in the humbled Master, what would it avail to speak of the servant? The disciples, feeble though they might be, enter into the truths hidden from men, and are given to see beneath the surface the true style of the servant and of the Master to faith.

Nevertheless John does take his stand of witness to Jesus, to His personal and Divine glory; and to this end, when challenged who he was, applies to himself in every Gospel the prophetic oracle attached to him: "I (am the) voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of Jehovah."30 Jesus was Jehovah, John no more than a voice in the desolation of the earth-yea, of Israel-to prepare the way before Him.

They further inquire why he baptized if neither the Messiah, nor Elijah (that is, the immediate precursor of the kingdom in power and glory over the earth-Mal. 4), nor the prophet (that is, according to Deut. 18, which, however, the apostle Peter in Acts 3 as clearly applies to the Lord Jesus, as the Jews seem to have then alienated it from the Messiah).31 This gives John the occasion to render another testimony to Christ's glory; for his answer is, that he himself baptized with water; but there stands 32 among them, yet unknown to them, One coming after, Whose sandal-thong he was not worthy to unloose.

It is evident that John's baptism had a serious import in men's minds, since, without a single sign or other miracle, it awakened the question whether the Baptist were the Christ. It intimated the close of the old state of things and a new position, instead of being the familiar practice which traditionalists would make it. On the other hand, scripture is equally plain that it is quite distinct from Christian baptism: so much so that disciples previously baptized with John's baptism had to be baptized to Christ when they received the full truth of the gospel (Acts 19). The Reformers and others are singularly unintelligent in denying this difference, which is not only important but plain and certain. Think of Calvin's calling it a foolish mistake, into which some had been led, of supposing that John's baptism was different from ours! The confession of a coming Messiah widely differs from that of His death and resurrection; and this is the root of differences which involve weighty consequences.

From verses 19 to 28 John the Baptist does not rise beyond what was Jewish and dispensational. The next paragraph brings before us the testimony which he rendered when he saw Jesus approaching. And here we have Christ's work viewed in all the extent of gracious power which might be expected in the Gospel devoted to showing out the glory of His Person.

John 1: 29-34.

"On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." There was no image more familiar to a Jew's mind than that of the lamb. It was the daily sacrifice of Israel, morning and evening. Besides, the paschal lamb was the pledge for the fundamental peace of the year; even as its first institution was coeval with the departure of the sons of Israel from the house of bondage. We can understand, therefore, what thoughts and feelings must have crowded on the heart of those who looked for a Saviour now, when Jesus was thus attested by His forerunner, "Behold the Lamb (ἀμνὸς ) of God." In the Book of Revelation He is frequently viewed as the Lamb, but there with a pointedly different word (ὰρνίον), the holy earth-rejected Sufferer, in contrast with the ravening wild beasts, civil or religious instruments of Satan's power in the world (chapter 13). Here the idea seems to centre not so much in the slain One exalted on high as in the sacrifice: "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

John does not say "that will take," still less "that has taken"; nor does the notion seem at all tenable that He was then taking sin away.33 It is, as frequently in John and elsewhere, the abstract form of speech; and the meaning should be understood in its fullest extent, irrespective of the time of its accomplishment. There was the Person, and this His work. Thus the testimony looks onward to the effects of the death of Christ as a whole; but these were not to appear all at once. The first result was to be the gospel, the message of remission of sins to every believer. Instead of the sin of the world only being before God, the blood of the Lamb is set; and God could therefore meet the world in grace, not in judgment. Not only was love come in Christ's Person as during His life, but now the blood also shed whereby God could cleanse the foulest; and the gospel is to every creature God's proclamation of His readiness to receive all, and of His perfectly cleansing all who do receive Christ. In fact, only those that are His now, the Church, receive Him; but the testimony is sent forth to all the creation.

When Christ comes again in His kingdom, there will be a further result; for all creation will then be delivered from the bondage of corruption, and Israel will at length look upon the Messiah Whom they pierced in their blind unbelief. The blessing resulting from the sacrifice of Christ will then be far and wide extended, but not complete. Only the new heavens and new earth (and this exceeds the limited scope of the Jewish prophets, but is the full meaning which the Christian apostles give the words) will behold the ultimate fulfilment; and then indeed it will be seen how truly Jesus was "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." For then, and not till then, will sin have disappeared absolutely and all its active consequences. The wicked having been judged and cast for ever into the lake of fire, as well as Satan and his angels, righteousness will then be the footing of God's relationship with the world, not sinlessness as at first, nor dealings in Christ in view of sin as since and now, but all things made new.

Observe, however, that the Baptist does not say the "sins" of the world. What a fatality of error haunts men when they venture to handle the truth of God after a human sort! It is not only in sermons or books that one finds this common and grave blunder. The solemn liturgies of Romanism and Protestantism are alike wrong here. They alter and unconsciously falsify the word of God when directly referring to this scripture. In speaking of believers both the apostles Paul and Peter show that the Lord Himself bore their sins upon the cross. Without this, indeed, there could be neither peace secured for the conscience nor a righteous basis for worshipping God, according to the efficacy of the work of Christ. The Christian is exhorted to come boldly into the holies by the blood of Jesus, which has, at the same time, purged his sins and brought himself nigh; but this is only true of the believer. In total contrast is the state and condition of the unbeliever, of every man in nature. He is far off, in guilt, in darkness, in death. The language of the liturgies confounds all this, according indeed to the practice of their worship; for the world is treated as the Church, and the Church as the world. Were Christ the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, all men would stand absolved before God, and might well therefore boldly approach and worship; but it is not so. The blood is now shed for the sin of the world, so that the evangelist can go forth and preach the gospel and assure all who believe of pardon from God; but all who refuse must die in their sins, and only the more terribly be judged because they refused the message of grace.

But God never forgets the personal dignity of the Lord Jesus here. Hence John the Baptist adds, "This is He of Whom I said, After me cometh a Man who is become before (or, hath taken precedence of) me, for He was before me.* And I knew Him not, but that He might be manifested to Israel, therefore came I baptizing with (ἐν) water" (verses 30, 31). There is no reference here to His Messianic judgment, as in other Gospels, which, on the other hand, are silent as regards a testimony like this to His glory. Undoubtedly also John did call souls in Israel to repent in view of the kingdom as at hand; but here the one object is the manifestation of Jesus to Israel. It is an absorbing topic of this Gospel indeed. The previous unacquaintance of the Baptist 34 with Jesus made his testimony so much the more solemn and emphatically of God; and whatever the inward conviction he had as the Lord came for baptism, it did not hinder the external sign nor the witness he bears to His Person and His work as he had borne before it.

*It is interesting and instructive to note that to the Pharisees John is silent (verse 27) as to Christ's pre-existent eternity as the ground of His taking precedence of himself, though born after him. Compare verses 15, 30.

Hence we read, "And John bore witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with (ἐν) water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him, this is He that baptizeth with (ἐν, the) Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God."35

Such was the suited sign for the Saviour. Ravens might have been employed in God's wisdom to feed the famished prophet at another dark day; but not such was the appearance of the Spirit descending from heaven to abide on Jesus. The dove only could be the proper form, emblematic of the spotless purity of Him on Whom He came. Yet did He come upon Him as man, but Jesus was man without sin; as truly man as any other, but how different from all before or after! He was the second Man in bright contrast with the first. And He is the last Adam: in vain does unbelief look for a higher development, overlooking Him in Whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Observe, again, the Spirit came before the death of the Lord Jesus. If Christ died, He died for others. If He suffered and became a sacrifice, it was not for Himself. Jesus needed no blood in order that He might subsequently be anointed with the holy oil. He was Himself the Holy One of God in that very nature which in every other case had dishonoured God.

But if the Spirit abode on Him as man, this is He that baptizes with the Holy Spirit. None could so baptize but God. It were blasphemy to say otherwise. It is the fullest prerogative of a Divine Person so to act; and hence John the Baptist utterly disclaimed it, and in every Gospel points to Jesus only as the Baptizer by (ἐν) the Holy Ghost, as himself had come baptizing with water. It is the mighty work of Jesus from heaven, as He was the Lamb of God on the cross.

Thus, though the immediate aim of John's mission with baptism attached to it was for the manifestation of Jesus to Israel, he testifies to Him as the Lamb of God in relation to the world, the Eternal at whatever time He came (and surely it was the right moment, "the fulness of the time," as the great apostle assures us-Gal. 4: 4), not merely as the object of the Holy Ghost's descent to abide on Him, but as baptizing with the Holy Ghost. "And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son* of God." Such was His everlasting relationship: not the Son of man Who must be lifted up if we are to have life eternal, but the Lamb of God and the Son of God. On the other hand, it is not here the Father declared by, or revealing Himself in, His only begotten Son, but God in view of the broad fact of the world's sin, and Jesus His Lamb to take its sin away. So the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not quickening, but that power of the Spirit which acts on the life already possessed by the believer, separates from all that is of flesh and world, and sets in communion with God's nature and glory as revealed in Christ. He was as man on earth, not only Son of God, but always conscious of it; we becoming so by faith in Him are rendered conscious of our relationship through the Holy Ghost given to us. Nevertheless even Him, as the Gospels show, the descent of the Spirit Who anointed Him placed in a new position here below. All here is public announcement and reaches the world in result.

* pm Syrsin have "chosen," followed by Blass.

John 1: 35-39.

We have had before us John's testimony reaching out far beyond the Messiah in Israel; we see now the effect of his ministry. "Again, on the morrow, stood John and two of his disciples; and looking at Jesus as He walked, he saith, Behold, the Lamb of God! and the two disciples heard him speak, and followed Jesus. But Jesus, having turned and beheld them following, saith to them, What seek ye? And they said to Him, Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Teacher), where abidest Thou? He saith to them, Come and see. They went therefore† and saw where He abode, and abode with Him that day. It was about the tenth hour." It is not the fullest or clearest statement of the truth which most acts on others. Nothing tells so powerfully as the expression of the heart's joy and delight in an object that is worthy. So it was now. "Looking at Jesus as He walked, he saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!" The greatest of woman born acknowledges the Saviour with unaffected homage, and His own disciples that heard Him speak follow Jesus. "He must increase, but I must decrease." And so it ought to be. Not John, but Jesus, is the centre: a man, but God, for none other could be a centre without derogation from the Divine glory. Jesus maintains that place, but this as man too. Wonderful truth, and for man how precious and cheering! John was the servant of God's purpose, and his mission was thus best executed when his disciples followed Jesus. The Spirit of God supplants human and earthly motives. How, indeed, could it be otherwise if one really believed that He in His Person was God on earth? He must be the one exclusive and attractive centre for all that know Him; and John's work was to prepare the way before Him. So here his ministry gathers to Jesus, sending from himself to the Lord.

†ABCLTbXΛ, 33, Memph. read  οὖν, which inferior witnesses omit.

But if in the Gospel of Matthew the Lord has a city if not a home, which we can name, here in that of John it is unnoticed where He abode. The disciples heard His voice, came and saw where He abode, and abode with Him that day; but for others it is unnamed and unknown. We can understand that so it should be with One Who was not only God in man on earth, but this wholly rejected of the world. And so Divine life effects in those that are His: "therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not" (1 John 3: 1).

John 1: 40-42.

Nor does the work stop there or then. "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter,36 was one of the two that heard (it) from John and followed Him. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith to him, We have found the Messiah (which is interpreted Christ),37 and he led him to Jesus. Jesus, looking at him, said, Thou art Simon,38 the son of Jonah (or John);* thou shalt be called Kephas, which is interpreted Peter (or, Stone)."39 Deeply interesting are the glimpses at the first introduction to Jesus of those souls who receiving Him found life eternal in Him, and were called afterwards to be foundations of that new building which would supersede the old, God's habitation in the Spirit. But all here concentrates in the Person of Jesus, to Whom Simon is brought by his brother, one of the first two whose souls were drawn to Him, however little yet they appreciated His glory. Yet was it a Divine work, and Simon's coming was answered with a knowledge of past and present and future that told out Who and What He was, Who now spoke to man on earth in grace.

*So Edd. as BpmL., 33, several Latt. Memph. Æth. "Jonah" is read in ABconXΓΛΛΙΙ. Syrpesch pcl and Armen. ÆthH., and Epiph. Chrys. Cyr. Alex.

Here the same principle reappears. Jesus, the image of the invisible God, the only perfect manifestation of God, is the acknowledged centre beyond all rivalry. He was to die, as this Gospel relates (John 11), to gather in one the scattered children of God; as He will by and by gather all things in heaven and all things on earth under His headship (Eph. 1: 10). But then His Person could not but be the one centre of attraction to every one who saw by faith what He is entitled to be for every creature. Only He was come not only to declare God and show us the Father in Himself the Son, but to take all on the ground of His death and resurrection, having perfectly glorified God in respect of the sin which had ruined all; and thereon to take His place in heaven, the glorified Head over all things to the Church His body on earth, as we know now. On this, however, as involving the revelation of God's counsels and of the mystery hidden from ages and from generations, we do not enter, as it would carry us rather to the Epistles of the apostle Paul, the vessel chosen for disclosing these heavenly wonders.

Our business now is with John, who lets us see the Lord on earth, a man but very God, and so drawing to Himself the hearts of all taught of God. Had He not been God, it would have been robbery not only from God but sometimes also from man. But not so: all the fulness dwelt in Him-dwelt in Him bodily. He was therefore from the beginning the Divine centre for saints on earth, as afterwards when the exalted Man the centre on high, to Whom as Head the Spirit united them as members of His body. This last could not be till redemption made it possible according to grace, but on the basis of righteousness. What we see in John attaches to the glory of His Divine Person: otherwise to bring to Jesus would have been to separate from God, not to Him, as it is. But, in truth, He was and is the sole revealed centre, as He was and is the only full revealer of God, and this because He is the true God and life eternal, though He Who was manifested in flesh, and so meeting and winning man to God by His death.

John 1: 43-51.

"On the morrow He* would go forth into Galilee, and Jesus  findeth Philip and saith to him, Follow me. Now Philip was from Bethsaida,40 of the city of Andrew and Peter." It is an immense thing to be delivered by Jesus from the waste of one's own will or from the attachment of the heart to the will of a man stronger than ourselves; an immense thing to know that we have found in Him, not the Messiah merely, but the centre of all God's revelations, plans, and counsels, so that we are gathering with Him because we are gathering to Him. All else, whatever the plea or pretension, is but scattering, and therefore labour in vain, or worse.

*The best copies do not read "Jesus" here, but in the next clause.

But we need more, and find more in Jesus, Who deigns to be not only our centre, but our "way," on earth indeed, but not of the world, as He is not. For such He is, no less than the truth and the life. What a blessing in such a world! It is now a wilderness where is no way. He is the way. Do we fear where to walk, what step to take? Here are snares to seduce, there dangers to affright. Above them says the voice of Jesus, "Follow Me." None other is safe. The best of His servants may err, as all have. But even were it not so, He says "Follow Me." Christian, hesitate no more. Follow Jesus. You will find a deeper and better fellowship with those that are His; but this by following Him Whom they follow. Only look well to it that it be according to the word, not your own thoughts and feelings; for are they better than those of others? Search your motives according to the light where you walk. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Matt. 6: 22.) But singleness is secured by looking to Jesus, not to ourselves or others. We have seen enough of ourselves when we have judged ourselves before God. Let us follow Jesus: to Him only and absolutely, a Divine Person on earth, it is due. It is the true dignity of a saint; it is the only security for him who has still to watch against the sin that is in him; it is the path of genuine humility, and of real love, and of faith. In this shall we be sure of the guidance of the Spirit Who is here to glorify Him, taking of His and showing them to us.

He that has found and follows Christ soon seeks and finds others. But they are not always prepared to follow at once. So Philip proves here with the son of Talmai, here called not Bartholomew, but Nathanael.41 And hence, too, we learn that a man otherwise excellent may be hindered by not a little prejudice. It is a wholesome lesson neither to be hasty in our expectations nor to be cast down if a good man be slow to listen, as we may often prove.

"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him, We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus from Nazareth, the Son of Joseph" (verse 46). Nathanael was not at all prepared for this. Most surely did his heart look for Him of Whom Moses and the prophets wrote; but that the Christ was Jesus from Nazareth, the Son of Joseph, he had yet to learn. He believed in the glory of Messiah's Person, as far as the Old Testament had revealed it beforehand: it had never occurred to him how Messiah could be "from Nazareth," not to speak of "the Son of Joseph." For that village was despicable in the eyes even of a despised Galilean, who doubtless felt the more its miserably low moral repute because of his own practical godliness. Had Philip said "from Bethlehem, the Son of David," no such shock could have been given to the expecting Jew. But in truth, the Lord is here viewed as wholly above all earthly associations, and therefore He could come down to the lowest. For He was the Son of God Who came to Nazareth, and only so could be said to be "from Nazareth" any more than "the son of Joseph."

However this may be, Nathanael does not withhold his expression of hesitation. "And Nathanael said to him, Can there be any good thing out of Nazareth? Philip saith to him, Come and see" (verse 46). But there was another also to see. For Jesus, Who saw Nathanael coming to Him, gave him to hear words of grace about himself which might well surprise him in His greeting, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile" (verse 47). If the Spirit of prophecy wrought according to Ps. 32, soon was he to know the Spirit of adoption and the liberty wherewith the Son makes free.

"Nathanael saith to Him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee" (verse 48). He is God always and everywhere in this Gospel. Unseen, Jesus had seen Nathanael. He had seen him where evidently he thought himself seen by none; but He who heard the musings of his heart in that spot "under the fig-tree" saw him: the irresistible evidence of His own glory, of omniscience, and omnipresence. Yet was He Who saw him evidently a man in flesh and blood. He could be none other than the promised Messiah-Emmanuel, Jehovah's fellow, "Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Micah 5: 2.) His prejudice instantly vanished away as mist before the sun in its strength. He might not be able to explain the connection with Nazareth, or with Joseph;42 but a good man would not, none but a bad one could, resist the positive light of One Who thus knew all things, and told it out in grace to win the heart of Nathanael and of every one who hears His word and fears God since that day to this.

But there is more conveyed here. Surely the fig-tree is not a fact only, or an isolated circumstance, but clothed with the significance usually found in it, at least, in Scripture. In the great prophecy of our Lord, the fig-tree is employed as the symbol of the nation, and so one cannot doubt it is here. If Nathanael were there musing in his heart before God on the expected Messiah and the hopes of the elect people, as many, indeed all men, were at that time through the impulse of John the Baptist, nay, even whether he were the Christ or not (Luke 3: 15), we may conceive the better with what amazing force the words of Jesus must have appealed to the heart and conscience of the guileless Israelite. This appears to be powerfully confirmed by the character of his own confession. "Nathanael answered (and saith to)* him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel" (verse 49). It was a confession precisely of the Messiah according to Ps. 2 He might be Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph; but He could be, He was, none other than "My (Jehovah's) king," "the Son" (verses 6, 12), though not yet anointed on Zion, the hill of Jehovah's holiness.43 Nathanael was prompt and distinct now, as slow and cautious before.

*There is not a little variation here in the copies, even the more ancient.

Nor did the Lord check the flow of grace and truth, and Nathanael must borrow vessels not a few, till there was not one more to receive the blessing that would still overflow. "Jesus answered and said to him, Because I said to thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And He saith to him, Verily, verily,44 I say to you, (Henceforth)* ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (verses 50, 51). Was Messianic glory the horizon of that which Nathanael's soul saw and confessed in Jesus? Not "hereafter," but if any word here, "from the present," should the disciples see, if earthly power were still delayed, the opened heaven, and the homage of its glorious denizens to the rejected Messiah, the Son of man.45 Him all peoples, nations, and languages should serve, when He should enter on His everlasting dominion which should not pass away, and His kingdom which should not be destroyed. Truly these are "greater things"; the pledge of which Nathanael saw thenceforth in the attendance of God's angels on Him Whom man despised and the nation abhorred to their own shame and ruin, but to the working out of heavenly counsels and an incomparably larger sphere of blessing and glory than in Israel or the land. These the reader may see in Ps. 8, especially if he consult the use made of it in 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1, and Heb. 2.

*The oldest copies [ BL and versions [some Latt. Memph., etc.] omit ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι, which, if read, must be rendered "from now" or "henceforth," not "hereafter." [The words are rejected by Weiss and Blass.]

JOHN — THE SECOND CHAPTER*

* Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 429-431.

John 2: 1-11.

The second chapter opens with a striking miracle-the water turned into wine. It is only given here. Jesus is God, the God of creation. He had shown His omniscience to Nathanael, now His omnipotence to others. It was "the third day," possibly the third since He had first seen Nathanael.46 But the passage is so significant that one does not feel disposed to question the thought that the Spirit may here have meant figuratively the type of a day yet future when glory will appear, as distinguished from the day of John the Baptist's testimony, and that of the Lord and His disciples. For as the light shone in despised Galilee when He came in humiliation, so will it shine on the poor in spirit when He appears in glory; and judgment fall on the proud and lofty, on Jerusalem in its religious pretensions, so big and so hollow, till grace makes even her lowly before Him.

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee,47 and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited and His disciples unto the marriage." It is the figure of things on earth: there is no picture of the heavens opened here. Hence we find the mother of Jesus48 brought forward prominently as one at home in the scene. "And when the wine fell short, the mother of Jesus saith unto Him, They have no wine." The first Adam always fails, and fails most where most is wanted. But Jesus will meet all wants, though His time is not yet come. Faith, however, never looks to Him49 in vain, and "Jesus saith to her, What have I to do with thee, woman? mine hour is not yet come." It is a remarkable answer, which Romanist theologians find very difficult to square with their doctrine and practice. He does not say, Mother. It is no longer a question of the first Adam: not that there was disrespect, but that Mariolatry is unfounded and sinful. Jesus was here to do the will of God. Blessing, He would show, comes down from the Father through the Son. Flesh and its relationships have nothing to do in the matter. All must be of grace.

"His mother saith to the servants, Whatever He shall say to you, do. Now there were six waterpots of stone set there according to the purification of the Jews, holding each two or three measures." The Jewish system was a witness of defilement; and its ordinances could do no more than sanctify to the purifying of the flesh.50 This was human. Jesus was here for Divine purposes, then in testimony, by and by in power. "Jesus saith to them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And He saith to them, Draw now and carry to the master of the feast. And they carried. But when the master of the feast tasted the water that had become wine (and he knew not whence it was, but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and saith to him, Every man at first setteth on the good wine, and when they have drunk freely, then the worse; thou hast kept the good wine until now.''51

So will Jesus do on the richest scale in the day that is coming. He will reverse the sorrowful history of man. The wine will not fail when He reigns. There will be joy for God and man in happy communion together. Jesus will furnish all to the glory of God the Father. In that day, too, He will be the Bridegroom and the Master of the feast; and the joy of that day will find its root not only in the glory of His Person, but in the depth of that work of humiliation already wrought on the cross. There will be no secrets then. It will not be the servants only who will then know, but all, from the least to the greatest. "This beginning of signs52 did Jesus at Cana of Galilee, and He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed on Him." Faith grows where real (2 Thess. 1: 3).

It will be noticed that our Gospel gives us most important particulars, unnoticed by all the others, which took place before His Galilean ministry commenced when John was cast into prison.53 Thus we have John's testimony suited to the Lord's personal glory, about His earthly work for the universe even to eternity, and His heavenly work in baptizing with the Holy Spirit. We have had Christ's testimony "on the next day" after John's; and here "the third day."

The hour of Jesus is not yet come. The marriage at Cana was but a shadow, not the very image. For the true bridals here below, as well as on high, we must yet wait. The mother of Jesus, of the true male Son, will be there when the feast arrives. What has been is but a testimony, a beginning of signs, to manifest His glory. Jehovah's day for Israel will come.

John 2: 12.

"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brethren and His disciples; and there they abode not many days." It may be noted that Joseph does not appear anywhere since the end of Luke 2 when the Lord was twelve years old. Doubtless he had fallen asleep meanwhile. Mary is again seen with Him. His absolute separation to the will and work of His Father in no way interferes with the earthly relations He had graciously taken. And so will it be with that which He represents.

But the marriage is only part of the display of His glory in the kingdom by and by; and of the judgment to be executed, He gives a token in the scene that follows, and this at the first Passover noted since that of His childhood. Our evangelist is careful to mention this feast throughout our Lord's course (John 6: 4; John 11: 55). Alas! how little the Jews entered into its meaning.

John 2: 13-22.

"And the passover of the Jews54 was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves, and the money-changers sitting; and having made a scourge of cords (or ropes), He drove them all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the change of the money-changers, and overthrew their tables;55 and to the sellers of the doves He said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's50 house a house of merchandise. (And)* His disciples remembered that it is written, The zeal of thine house will eat me up."†

*BLTX Memph. [Syrsin] omit  δὲ, which AEPΔ with some cursives and versions insert.

†[ καταφάγεται: so W. H., and Weiss and Blass, after Syrpesch hier, etc. Srysin has "hath eaten," as Ps. 69: 9 in Heb. LXX, κατέφαγεν.]

Not only is this clearing of the temple distinct from that which the Synoptic Gospels relate on His last visit to Jerusalem, but it is instructive to remark that, as they only give the last, John gives only the first. It is a striking witness by a significant fact, as we have already seen doctrinally in his introduction, that he begins where they end, not in a barely literal way, but in all the depth of what Jesus is, says, and does. The state of the temple, the selfishness which reigned there, the indifference to the true fear and honour and holiness of God while there was the utmost punctiliousness in a ritual show of their own invention, were characteristic of the ruined state of a people called to the highest earthly privilege by God's favour.

Solomon had acted at the beginning with a vigour which drove out the unworthy high-priest in his day; when the kingdom was divided, Hezekiah and Josiah, sons of David, had each sought to vindicate the glory of Jehovah. Nehemiah, alas! under the protection of the Gentiles, had not been lacking, when the returned remnant so quickly manifested that the captivity on the one hand and God's mercy on the other had failed to lead them to repentance. Now the Son gives a sign as solemn for proud religious Jerusalem, as the miracle of the water changed into wine was full of bright hope for despised Galilee.

He does act as the Lord with Divine rights, yet as the lowly sent One and servant. Nevertheless He does not withhold the testimony to the glory of His Person in the very command not to make His Father's house a house of merchandise. He was the Son of God, announced as such, even as Nathanael had already owned Him, judicially dealing not merely on moral grounds, such as might be open to any godly Israelite, but openly as the One Who identified Himself with His Father's interests; and this was His house. So too, the Spirit of prophecy spoke of the rejected Messiah, as the disciples remembered at a later day.

"The Jews therefore answered and said to Him, What sign showest Thou to us that Thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple (ναὸν), and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews therefore said, In forty and six years was this temple built,57 and wilt Thou raise it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body. When, therefore, He was raised from among (the) dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus said " (verses 18-22)

The sign that He would give was His own Resurrection-power, raising not others merely but His own Body, the true Temple in which alone God was (for the Word was God).58 That of which they boasted had but a name without God, soon to be formally pronounced "their" house (Matt. 23), and given up to destruction (Matt. 24). It is resurrection that defines Him Son of God in power; and when He was raised, the disciples remembered His saying, as they yet more found the strongest confirmation of their faith in both Scripture58a and His word. His Resurrection is the fundamental truth both of the Gospel and of our distinctive place as Christians. No wonder that the Jews were jealous of it, and that Gentiles mock or evade it. May we ever remember it, and Him Who thus gives Scripture all its grace and power.

We arrive now at a new division of the Gospel introduced by the prefatory verses as to man and his state, which conclude John 2. The coming and the inquiry of Nicodemus give rise to our Lord's testimony to the necessity of birth anew for the kingdom of God, to the cross, eternal life, the love of God, and the world's condemnation, closing with the Baptist's testimony to the glory of His Person.

"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, at the Feast,* many believed on His name, beholding His signs which He did. But Jesus Himself did not trust Himself to them,59 inasmuch as He knew all (men), and because He needed not that any should testify of man, for Himself knew what was in man."60

*Syrsin has "in the days of the feast of unleavened bread."

It was at the city of solemnities; it was a feast of Jehovah, nay, the most fundamental of the sacred feasts; and the Messiah was there, the object of faith, working in power, and manifesting His glory in appropriate signs. And many believed on His name accordingly. It was man doing and feeling his best under circumstances the most favourable.61 Yet did not Jesus Himself trust Himself to them. Certainly it was from no lack of love or pity in Him; for whoever did or could love as He? And the reason, calmly given, is truly overwhelming: "inasmuch as He knew all men, and because He needed not that any should testify of man, for Himself knew what was in man."62 What a sentence; from Whom; and on what grounds! We do well to weigh it gravely: who is not concerned in it? It is the ordained Judge of quick and dead Who thus pronounces. Is it not all over with man?

One great fact, one truth, accounts for it; the total evil, the irremediable ruin, of man as such. The ways of the Lord are in the strictest accord with the words of the Spirit by the apostle Paul: "the mind of the flesh"-and this is all that is in man-"is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, for neither, indeed, can it be." (Rom 8: 7.) Hence, "they that are in the flesh cannot please God." Its doings and its sufferings are selfish and worthless Godward. Its faith as here is no better; for it is not the soul subject to God's testimony, but mind judging on evidence satisfactory to itself. It is a conclusion that Jesus must be Messiah; not submission to, nor reception of, Divine testimony. For in this case the mind sits on the throne of judgment, and pronounces for or against, according to its estimate of reasons favouring or adverse, instead of the soul setting to its seal (in the face of all appearances it may be, yea, of the most real difficulties) that God is true. For what ground to expect the love of the Holy One to the vile and rebellious? Christ received according to God's testimony, Christ in grace to the lost dying for the ungodly and the powerless, He it is accounts for, as He displays, all; miracles or signs not in the least. They arrest the eye; they exercise the mind; they may touch and win the affections. But nothing short of God's word judges the man, or reveals what He is in Christ to man thus judged; and this only, as we shall see, is of the Spirit, for He only, not man, has before Him the true object, the Son of God's love given in grace to a ruined and guilty world.

The truth is that our judgments flow from our affections. What we love we easily believe; what makes nothing of us we naturally resist and reject. As long as Jesus was deemed an ameliorator of humanity, there seemed to be the readiest, warmest welcome. Man would accredit Jesus if he thought Jesus accredited man. But how could he receive what makes nothing of himself, what condemns him morally, what keeps before him the solemn warning of eternal judgment and the lake of fire? No, he hates the testimony and the Person Who is the central object of it, and truth connected with it and Him. When broken down before God and made willing to own one's utter and inexcusable sins and sinfulness, it is a wholly different matter; and He Who was dreaded and repugnant is turned to as the only hope from God, even Jesus the Deliverer from the wrath to come. This is indeed conversion, and grace by quickening power alone effects it.

So it is when Christian doctrine is made to suit the world by being emasculated and changed to build up what in truth it judges. Then indeed it is no longer a seed that takes root and grows and bears fruit, but a mere leaven that spreads and may assimilate largely to itself. Such is Christendom, when human will was engaged on its side, and the religion became traditional.

But here it is the holy and awful witness of Jesus to man at his best estate, when no enmity had appeared, but all looked full of human promise. Here, again, we see John beginning where the other Gospels close. It is not Messiah rejected, but Jesus the Son of God, Who knows the end from the beginning, treating man as altogether vanity and sin, and this, because God is in none of his thoughts, but self without real sorrow or shame about his opposition to God, without any due sense of sin or consequently a serious care about it. He gathered from the evidence of the signs before him that none but Messiah could have wrought them; but such an inference did not affect his moral state either with God or with man. He was just as he had been with any other object for his busy mind to work on, but his nature unjudged, God no better known, and the enemy with just the same power over him as ever. As yet, it was man and not God; for there is no work of God till the word is received as it is in truth His, revealing His grace to man consciously needing it. Here was nothing of the sort, but a simple process of man's own mind and feelings, without a question of his sins or state before God, without the smallest felt need of a Saviour. Jesus knew what it was worth and trusted not Himself to man, even when he thus believed on Him. It was human faith of which we have instances not infrequently in this Gospel as elsewhere, whilst as clearly we have the divinely given faith which has eternal life: this having to do with God, as that, being of man, rises not above its source. "Beware of men," said He to His apostles at a later day, Himself about to prove in the cross how truly from the first He Himself knew what was in man.

JOHN — THE THIRD CHAPTER*62a

* Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 431-440.

John 3: 1-21.

The worthlessness of believing on Christ because of evidence we have seen. But in the crowd of such there might be souls who had the sense of wants awakened which led them to Jesus personally. And in Him was life: not merely all things brought into being through Him, and signs wrought and things done by Jesus, which, if written one by one in books, would be beyond the world's power to contain, but, beyond all, life in the Son for the believer. And such is the fact which is here recorded in detail.

"But there was a man of the Pharisees, his name Nicodemus,62b a ruler of the Jews. He came to Him by night,63 and said to Him, Rabbi, we know that Thou art come a teacher from God, for none can do these signs which Thou doest, unless God be with him. Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except one be born anew,64 he cannot see the kingdom of God."65 It was a chief man from among the most orthodox in the chosen people; sufficiently in earnest to seek Jesus for truth, and still valuing the world enough to fear its condemnation and scorn. So he came by night to Jesus; yet did he take the ground of a persuasion he shared in common with his fellows because of the signs wrought by the Lord. He knew not that a deeper work was going on within, which drew him, not them, to Jesus. He, the teacher of Israel, recognised in Jesus One come a teacher from God, and God with Him: for any others born of woman a signal honour; for Jesus the proof that His true glory was unknown. As yet then Nicodemus was astray as to himself, as to the Jews, and as to Jesus. In short, the true God was unknown.

The Lord accordingly stops him at once with the declaration that man, any one, needs to be born from the outset and origin. Not teaching is wanted but a new nature, a new source of being spiritually, in order to see the kingdom of God. No inference, however logical, is faith. It is not even a conviction of conscience. It may be a conclusion fairly drawn from sound premisses, from sensible facts of the weightiest kind before the mind; but neither God is known nor itself yet judged. The new character of life which suits the kingdom of God does not yet exist for the soul. In such a state teaching would but aggravate the danger or expose to fresh evil. The Word of God has never penetrated the heart of Nicodemus. He knew not himself utterly defiled, spiritually dead in sins. What he wanted was to be quickened, not to have fresh aliment for the exercise of his mind. And Jesus, instead of commenting on his words, answered his true need, which he too would have sought himself, had he but known it.

If Nicodemus then took for granted his own capacity, as he then stood, to profit by the truth and serve God and inherit His kingdom, the Lord, with incomparable solemnity, assures him that the new birth is indispensable to seeing the kingdom. For God is not teaching or improving human nature. He had already tried it patiently; and the trial would ere long be absolutely complete.

The kingdom of God is in question, and not anything in fallen man. It was not yet established or displayed in power over the earth, as it will be at the appearance of Jesus. It was not yet preached to the Gentiles as it was after the cross. But it was come for faith in the Person of Christ, the pledge that it will be set up by and by in all its extent, its "earthly" and its "heavenly things." The kingdom of God was among them in Christ, Who demonstrated its power, the enemies themselves seen or unseen being judges. Why, then, did not Nicodemus see it? From no defect in the object of faith or in His testimony, by general conviction and confession, from no lack of signs attesting the presence and power of God. Alas! the defect is in man, and to man it is incurable, for who can change his nature? In fact, if it were possible, it could avail nothing. "Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." God only can give a new nature, and a nature suited to His kingdom. Without this none can as much as see it.

"Nicodemus saith unto Him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into the womb of his mother and be born?" (verse 4). We learn hence that the intimation was the birth, not from above, but again; else the difficulty expressed in reply could have had no place. The truth is, however, that even if the fabled conversion of an old man into youth again could be true-yea, if the strange case suggested by the astonished Pharisee could have been turned by miracle into fact (as Jonah came forth alive from the great fish that swallowed him)-it would fail to meet the requirements of the kingdom of God, as we shall see expressly in the further explanation of our Lord. For it would be human nature still, let it be renewed in its youth or repeated in its birth ever so far or so often. A clean thing cannot come out of an unclean; and such is man's nature since the fall. Nor is aught God's way of renewal, but by giving a nature wholly fresh from its source; for the believer is born of God, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the living and abiding word of God.

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except one be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.* That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (verses 5, 6). Words of incalculable moment to man, of deep blessing where grace gives him ear to hear, and heart to receive and keep. Yet I scarce know a Scripture more widely perverted than this has been to baptism, nor one where tradition is more dangerously false, though quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus be as true of this as of any interpretation of Scripture that could be named. A double result would follow, that not a soul could enter the kingdom of God save such as are baptized; and, secondly, as the context would prove, that, the new nature being identified with eternal life, none of the baptized could perish-a statement which all but the most grossly ignorant or prejudiced must confess to be in both its parts opposed to other and clear Scriptures, and to notorious fact.

*[So most Edd., with majority of copies. Blass: "heaven," as in pm. The Syrr. support "God," for which internal evidence is decisive. As to the "kingdom" here, cf. "Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew": "He appears to speak of a kingdom which we do enter now" (chapter 17, p. 366.)]

Christian baptism (and this is what it is traditionally conceived to mean, not that of John or of the disciples) was not instituted, nor did the facts exist which it symbolizes, till the Lord died and rose. How, then, could Nicodemus by any possibility anticipate them or understand what the Lord gives as the clearing up of his difficulty as to being born anew? Yet the Lord reproaches him as "the teacher of Israel" with his slowness of intelligence. That is, he should (even as teaching Jews) have known these things, which he could not possibly know if the Lord alluded to a Christian institution as yet undivulged.66

The reasoning of Hooker* ("Works," ii. 262, etc., Keble's ed. 5), as of others before and since, is beside the mark, and simply proves inattention to Scripture, and superficial acquaintance with the truth. It is not true that "born of water and Spirit," if literally construed, means baptism. Never is that rite set out as figuring life, but death, as in Rom. 6, Col. 2, and 1 Peter 3 "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto His death?" It is never the sign of quickening, but rather of identifying those quickened with the death of Christ; that they in virtue of Him might take the place of men dead to sin, but alive to God, and so reckon themselves by grace, for under this we are, not under law. Such is the apostolic doctrine. The words of our Lord do not, and cannot, teach otherwise, as they must if John 3: 5 be applied to baptism. Take water here as figurative of the word which the Spirit uses to quicken, and all is clear, consistent, and true. Were it said in the Scripture that we are born of the Spirit by means of water, we should have some approach to what the Fathers drew from it, and what is necessary to bear the construction put on it in the Anglican and other formularies that apply it to baptism. Their dealing with it seems to be really "licentious," "deluding," and "dangerous," at issue with what our Lord says even in verse 5, still more with His omission of "water" in verse 6, most of all if it be possible with the place of baptism everywhere else given in Scripture. Baptism may be the formal expression of washing away sins, never of communicating life, which is unequivocally false teaching.

*Cartwright had said that irregular baptism had grown out of a false interpretation of John 3: 5, "where certain do interpret the word water for (of) the material and elemental water, when as (whereas) our Saviour Christ taketh water there by a borrowed speech for the Spirit." This the reader will see to be imperfect; for water here is the figure of the word bringing the sentence of death on the flesh; and so is sinful man cleansed by Him out of Whose side flowed blood and water, as John testifies. On the general point says Hooker, "I hold it for a most infallible truth in exposition of sacred scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as alchymy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of anything what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing.... To hide the general course of antiquity agreeing in the literal interpretation' they cunningly affirm that 'certain' have taken those words as meant of material water, when they know that of all the ancients there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise either expound or allege the place than as implying external baptism" (E. P., V. lix. 2, 3). Antiquity was perhaps as unanimous in applying John 6 to the Lord's Supper with as little solid reason. In neither case is it a literal construction, but a mere catching at a superficial resemblance; and in both cases the consequence is heterodoxy most perilous to souls, which has enormously helped on the ruin of Christendom as well as of deluded individuals. To deny that the Lord often elsewhere employed water figuratively is impossible; to maintain that He meant it literally here is to lower the sense immensely and to involve the worst consequences, as of an ordinance saving ex opere operato. It is remarkable, I would add, that the Gospel of John omits even the institution of baptism and of the Lord's Supper, dwelling beyond all others on life and the Spirit.

So it is in John 13 and John 15, not to speak of John 4 and John 7. Compare for the figure Eph. 5: 26, for the truth couched under it 1 Cor. 4: 15, James 1: 18, 1 Peter 1: 23. It is not a rite giving honour to an official class, but the word of God applied by His Spirit, bringing death on nature that we might live to God in Christ.

For Christ came by water and blood; He purifies and expiates (1 John 5). He is the truth, which the word of God applies in the power of the Spirit, judging the old nature and introducing the new. "I live, no longer I, but Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2: 20). One is the same person, but a life is communicated which he had not before, not of Adam, but of Christ, the Second Man. He is begotten of God, made a partaker of the Divine nature through the greatest and precious promises, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Such is it to be born of water and of Spirit-an incomparably deeper thing than any form of truth, however it be prized in its place and for the object the Lord Who instituted it had in view. Baptism was the formal admission; it was the confession of Christ on the ground of His death and resurrection, not of quickening, which was true of all saints before Christ, when there was no Christian baptism. If baptism were really the sign and means of quickening, consistency would deny life to the Old Testament saints, or they ought to have been so baptized, which they were not. But this is clearly false ground. There is no reason to infer that the twelve were baptized with Christian baptism; they baptized others, but, it would seem, were not themselves. Were they not, then, born again? Nor did circumcision mean life, and so we know that souls were born anew even before it was imposed on Abraham already justified by faith.

Hence, too, it is important to observe that he who is thus born again is said to be born of the Spirit, omitting water, in verse 6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The word (or water, emblematically) can do nothing toward quickening without the Spirit, Who is the efficient agent in communicating the life of Christ. Water cleanses, but of itself it is not capable of quickening; it is death to the flesh. There had been only flesh before; now, as believing in Christ, the man is born of God (1 John 5); and each nature retains its own characteristic. As flesh never becomes spirit, so spirit never degenerates into flesh. The natures abide distinct, and the practical business of the believer is to hold himself for dead to the one that he may live in the other by the faith of the Son of God, Who loved him and gave Himself for him.

Nor was Nicodemus to wonder that he and other Jews (not pagans merely, to which they would have assented at once) needed to be born afresh. "Wonder not that I said to thee, Ye must be born anew" (verse 7). But if sovereign grace met that need, could it, would it, stop there? Certainly not. It would breathe the blessing as widely as the ravages of sin, according to the choice of God. "The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it cometh, and where it goeth: so is every one that is born* of the Spirit" (verse 8). Thus "every one" leaves room for any fallen man, a Gentile no less than a Jew. Whatever might be their distinction after the flesh, the Spirit thus freely flowing can bless those who are most distant, while the nearest is nothing without Him.

*[ , Syrch sin have, as some Old Lat., "of water and of the Spirit."]

It has been already remarked, moreover, that in all this was no such special privilege as should have been beyond the ken of an intelligent Jew. Hence when "Nicodemus answered and said to Him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said to him, Art thou the teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (verses 9, 10). Had he never read the promise to Israel in one prophet?-"I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, and My blessing upon thine offspring." (Isa. 44: 3.) Had he forgotten the words of another prophet?-"Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your uncleanness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and keep Mine ordinances, and ye shall do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God." (Ezek. 36: 25-28.)

There can be no mistake that Israel will require the new birth in order to receive and enjoy aright even the earthly blessings of God's kingdom by and by, and that God will of His grace impart it to them for this end. Nicodemus, then, need not be surprised at the universal need of the new birth, even for the Jew, proclaimed by the Lord; but as the blessing is not of flesh, but of Spirit, grace will not restrain it from any on grounds that give weight to man. The Gentile will not be left out of such rich mercy, indispensable to the kingdom of God, which is of grace, not of law or flesh, as the Jew was apt to assume. "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isa. 55: 1.) Is not this grace, and so expressed as to open the door to any of the nations, to sense of need, resourceless need, wherever found? Yet who did, who could, draw it out from the prophets and give the principle its absolute shape, as here, to Nicodemus, but the One Who spoke? Others inspired of the Spirit were soon to follow; and of them all none more distinctly than the Apostle Paul.

Thus far, then, Nicodemus as a Jew, as the teacher of Israel, should have known the nature as well as the necessity of the new birth. The ancient prophets were not silent about its application to Israel, even for the days when blessings shall be shed abundantly on them from God according to His promise. Not the heathen only, but His people (whatever might be their present self-complacency and the pride which wraps itself up in ignorance), are described as unclean, till He sprinkle clean water upon them, and put His Spirit within them. Undoubtedly, the Lord, as was due to His personal glory, presents the truth with incomparably greater clearness and depth, as well as with an all-embracing comprehensiveness; but what was presented ought not to have been strange to Nicodemus on his own ground. The new thing follows the cross, whether in statement or in fact, as we see it implied in chapter 4.

But even here the Lord intimates a knowledge to be communicated, as, in fact, it was, first by Himself in Person, then by the Holy Ghost through chosen witnesses, transcending that of the prophets and of a character, not measure only, quite different. "Verily, verily, I say to thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our testimony" (verse 11). It is no vision of things out of the ordinary sphere of him who was inspired to be a prophet, nor a message founded on the authority of Him Who sent His servant with a "Thus saith Jehovah." Jesus only, true man among men, could none the less say, because He was none the less God, We speak that which We know, and bear witness of that which We have seen.67 He knew what was in man, needing no testimony about man (John 2); He knew what was in God, and alone of men could testify of Him without testimony about Him (John 3). I have known Thee, says Himself to the Father later on in this Gospel (John 17: 25). But the world knew not the Father; least of all were the Father and the Son known by those who, in persecuting the disciples, thought to do God's service. But, blessed be His name, if none knew the Father but the Son, there were not lacking those to whom the Son reveals Him; and so the Holy Ghost, Who searches all things-yea, the depths of God-reveals what was previously hidden even from prophets, and gives to Christians the mind, or intelligence, of Christ.

For a Divine Person knows in Himself all things in themselves; not as the prophets-from One without and above, Who gives the commission, vision, and message. These, therefore, might often speak that which they knew not, and learn on searching that "not unto themselves but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported by those that have preached the Gospel by (ἐν) the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." (1 Peter1: 12.) But Jesus spoke what He knew. Coming from God, and being Himself God, He knew the Divine nature perfectly, and was here a man to reveal it to men. If none had seen God at any time, the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father has declared Him; He alone of woman born had this competency, both as Son and as the image of the invisible God, in a sense not only pre-eminent, but exclusive, as the Epistles to the Colossians (Col.1: 18.) and the Hebrews (Heb.1: 3.) formally teach. And this He spoke in ineffable grace, expressing the grace and truth of Him Who is God and Father through a man's heart to the hearts of men. Of the glory, too, familiar to Him with the Father before the world was, He testified. For what was Divine love keeping back from those about to share with Him the glory in which both will be displayed to the world, and to behold His glory as none else will see it? In heaven-yea, in its brightest glory-He was at home; and as He was about to prepare a place in the Father's house for His own, so He bears witness of what He alone had seen to those whom sovereign grace would call and fit to be with Him there.

And what a testimony is this twofold knowledge, to the Person of Jesus, absolute yet in relation! He is, indeed, the true God, but withal eternal life. It was not empirical, but intrinsic. As a Divine Person alone could, He knew both man and God; and, after He has urged the indispensable need of being born anew, He speaks of God known above in nature and glory, as before it we had His knowledge of what was in man. How blessed to have such a knowledge communicated to us as now in Christ and Christianity! Would not man, needy, ignorant, blind, welcome such a boon? Alas! no: not even when grace brings it down and tells all out in the tones of human speech. "And ye receive not our testimony." It declares God, and reveals the Father. It leaves no room for receiving glory one of another. It condemns man as he is, self-willed and proud, not only without heart for God, but unwilling to believe what is in His heart for man expressed in every word and way of Jesus. As the Apostle tells us, "The things of God knoweth no one but the Spirit of God. The natural man is far from receiving them, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2: 11, 14.)

There is a natural repugnance in man's mind to Divine testimony. The judgment depends on the affections, and the affections of man are estranged from God. Privileges do not alter this, nor the responsibility which flows from the relation in which one may stand to God. He must be born again. A Divine nature cleaves to God; the life which comes from Him as its source goes up to Him in desire, if not always (till redemption is known) in confidence of heart.

Yet the Lord had not in this solemn declaration gone beyond the universal necessity of man for the kingdom of God, and therefore it was inexcusable in the Jewish teacher so to have overlooked its truth as to feel amazement at the Lord's assertion of it. He ought to have known from the ancient Scriptures, from the Psalms and Prophets especially, that Israel must be renewed in order to enter and enjoy their promised portion on the earth. "Truly God is good to Israel," as the Messiah's kingdom will manifest; but the assurance is restricted. It is "to such as are of a clean heart" (Ps. 73). So far will the mass of the Jews be from fitness for the kingdom, that the Spirit of Christ in the pious remnant does not hesitate to ask God's judgment and pleading of their cause against an ungodly or unmerciful nation (Ps. 43). They were no better, but guiltier, than the Gentiles. There were enemies within as well as without. "And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! I would fly away, and be at rest. Behold, I would flee afar off; I would lodge in the wilderness. Selah. I would hasten my escape from the stormy wind, from the tempest. Swallow [them] up, Lord; divide their tongue: for I have seen violence and strife in the city. Day and night they go about it upon the walls thereof, and iniquity and mischief are in the midst of it. Perversities are in the midst thereof, and oppression and deceit depart not from its streets. For it is not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither is it he that hateth me that hath magnified (himself) against me; then I would have hidden myself from him. But it was thou, a man, mine equal, mine intimate, my familiar friend. We who held sweet intercourse together. To the house of God we walked amid the throng" (Ps. 55: 6-14). Thus to the saint's mind the city (the holy city in title-in fact, most unholy) is worse than the wilderness, dreary as it may be. Not Gentiles only, but Jews, need to be born afresh, otherwise the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through them, as it is written (Rom. 2: 24).

But it is striking to notice that the chapter of Ezekiel, already cited in part, which is naturally brought to illustrate these words of the Apostle Paul, declares in the plainest and most unconditional terms that God will sanctify His great name which was blasphemed among the heathen, "Which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I (am) Jehovah, saith the Lord Jehovah, when I shall be hallowed in you before their eyes. And I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land. And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and keep Mine ordinances, and ye shall do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God. And I will save you from all your uncleannesses; and I will call for the corn and will multiply it, and lay no famine upon you. And I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field, so that ye may receive no more the reproach of famine among the nations. And ye shall remember your evil ways, and your doings which were not good, and shall loathe yourselves for your iniquities and for your abominations. Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord Jehovah, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel. Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, In the day that I shall cleanse you from all your iniquities I will also cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be builded. And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it was a desolation in the sight of all that passed by. And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities (are) fortified (and) inhabited. And the nations that shall be left round about you shall know that I Jehovah build the ruined places (and) plant that which was desolate; I Jehovah have spoken, and I will do (it)." (Ezek. 36: 23-36.)

Further, these words of the prophet illustrate "the earthly things" in our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus. "If I told you the earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things?" (verse 12). In speaking as He had of the necessity to be born afresh- born of water and of Spirit-the Lord had not gone beyond " the earthly things." The kingdom of God could not be entered or seen without that new birth. Of course, it is indispensable for heaven; but the Lord goes farther, and insists on it as essential even for the lower province of God's kingdom. Even the Jew must be born again, and for millennial blessings, too, as well as for eternity. So true is it that they are not all Israel which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.

We shall see, too, when our Lord proceeds in His discourse to touch on His cross and the love of God in giving His Son, that to be born anew does not adequately describe what is given to the believer, but life eternal. Substantially, no doubt, it is the same new nature which every saint has, and must have; but, now that the glory and work of Christ are revealed, its full character shines out. There is yet more, as we know, and the next chapter shows-the Spirit given, and the relationship of children of God enjoyed, and the results of the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ our portion even now. But I enlarge no more on this as yet. Only we here learn that the kingdom of God has its "heavenly things," no less than "the earthly things" of which the prophets spoke. Jesus the Son could have opened the heavenly things, but the condition of such as Nicodemus did not admit of it for the present. The Spirit revealed all these and other depths of God amply after the shed blood vindicated God and purged their consciences. Then were the disciples free to learn all in the power of Christ's resurrection and in the light of heaven. Such is Christian knowledge.

But even while Christ was here He intimated distinctly the Father's kingdom as a heavenly sphere where the risen saints are to shine as the sun, contra-distinguished from the Son of man's kingdom, which is clearly the world, out of which at His coming the angels shall be sent to clear away all offences and those that practise lawlessness (Matt. 13: 41-43). Nay, in the prayer given to the disciples we may recognise a similar distinction, though not so sharply drawn out, for He bade them pray for their Father's kingdom to come, where they and all the risen saints would be glorified; and then, that His will be done as in heaven so on earth, which will only be secured at the completion of the age, when the Son of man comes in His kingdom (Matt. 6: 10). These together constitute the kingdom of God, which comprises, therefore, as the Lord here assumes, "the heavenly things" and "the earthly things." The reader will find abundant confirmation in Eph. 1: 10, Col. 1: 20, and Heb. 12: 22-24.

We are next given to learn Who it is that could speak with competent knowledge and authority of heavenly things. It is the Son of man, the same Person, doubtless, Who deigned to be born of the virgin, the Son of David, the Messiah. But as Messiah He is to judge Jehovah's people in righteousness, and to reign with a power which cannot be disputed, save to the ruin of every rebel. For "the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah. And His delight will be in the fear of Jehovah; and He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears; but with righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity the meek of the earth." (Isa. 11: 2-4.) As such He presented Himself to Israel, but was rejected; and, as we know, they reject Him to this day. For man, being lost, proves himself wholly blind, and of men none more than Israel against their truest glory and best treasure- Christ the Lord. And thus we have seen it from the first in the Gospel of John, who was given to treat things as they are, and as they are in presence of grace and truth in His Person Who reveals the Father.

Here, accordingly, it is not a prophet revealing the future of the kingdom of Jehovah over the earth, or of the judgments which will introduce it, or of the evils which must be judged before the establishment of blessing in that day. It is more than a prophet who gives out what he receives responsibly to communicate from God to man. Jesus knows not merely what is in man on earth as none ever knew, as the Word made flesh alone did know, but what is in God above as only a Divine Person could, yet now as man also. No prophet ever did, ever could, so speak as He; none but He so knew and so testified. He, therefore, could speak of things heavenly, as well as of the earthly, not as one inspired to tell of what was before unknown, but of that which He knew and saw in the communion of the Godhead. His becoming man in no way detracted from His Divine capacity or rights; it was unspeakable grace to those for whose sakes He was come from God and went to God, not only the truth and witness of it, as He alone could be, but about to die atoningly, as we shall see shortly in this very context, that the believer might live eternally and righteously.

What could man, angel, or any other creature avail? It was His glory, His work. The man, Adam, whom Jehovah Elohim formed, He put in Eden, chief of all creatures around him which God had pronounced very good. But the heaven is Jehovah's throne, though neither it nor the heaven of heavens can contain Him. "And no one hath gone up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, the Son of man that is* in heaven." Men have been, and will be, caught up to heaven; angels have been sent down from heaven. To Jesus only it belonged to go up,68 as He only came down. For He was a Divine Person, and He came in love; and love is ever free as well as holy. "Lo! I am come to do Thy will, O God." In the volume of the Book it was written of Him alone. And He Who was thus pleased to be found in fashion as a man, taking the body God prepared Him, rejoiced ever to speak of Himself as the Sent One, the man Christ Jesus, Who came down from heaven to do, not His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. He became servant, but did not, could not, cease to be God. But He is man withal, as truly as Adam; yea, He is what Adam was not-Son of man, come of woman.

*The Alexandrian (pr. m.) and a cursive of the Gospels (4949 in the Br. Museum) omit ὤν. Still more serious is the omission ὁ ὤν ἐν τῳ οὐρανῳ  in the Sinai, Vatican, two other uncials [L,T.], a valuable Paris cursive [33], etc. There need be no hesitation, however, in accepting the mass of authorities [including Latt. and Syrr.] against these testimonies; which illustrate the danger of being carried away by a few favourites, be they over so venerable and in general trustworthy. I am glad to see that Dr. Tregelles [as Tischendorf] inserts the clause; but it is hard to understand with what consistency it is done in his system of recension. [See W. and H., "Select Readings," p. 75. Weiss and Blass omit the words; but Syrsin has "the S. of M. who is from heaven."]

And so it is that in the form of the expression used He is stamped as having ascended to heaven, He only that descended from heaven: ἀναβέβηκεν * . . . ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς. For, as the Apostle asks, "That He ascended, what is it but that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. "Only, as the Apostle Paul tells us, it is in connection with His work and the counsels of God, so John presents it in our Lord's words as connected with the truth of His Person-"the Son of man that is in heaven." And an astonishing truth it is. To have said the Son of God that was in heaven would have been true; but what an infinite truth is that which is said, "the Son of man that is in heaven!" Impossible to be said if He had not been God, the Son of the Father, yet, what was of the deepest moment, said of Him as man, the rejected Messiah, "the Son of man that is in heaven." The Incarnation was no mere emanation of divinity, neither was it a Person once Divine Who ceased to be so by becoming man (in itself an impossible absurdity), but One Who, to glorify the Father, and in accomplishment of the purposes of grace to the glory of God, took humanity into union with Godhead in His Person. Therefore it is that He could say, and of Him alone could it be said, "the Son of man that is in heaven," even as He is the Only-begotten Son that is (not merely that was†) in the bosom of the Father. He it is Who met, and more than met, the challenge of Agur (Prov. 30), speaking prophetically to Ithiel and Ucal, "Who hath ascended up into the heavens and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in His fists? Who hath bound the waters in a mantle? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if thou knowest?" It is God, not man, Who can take up the challenge; but it is God become man-yea, the Son of man. How suited as well as competent is He to unfold all things, heavenly, earthly, human, and Divine! He is, indeed, the Truth.

*We are not to suppose ἀναβήσεται here. The futurity of the ascension is perfectly right in John 6. But here it is a proleptic character attached to the Person of the Lord; and hence to express this no tense was so proper as the perfect, the present continuance of a past act. The seeming anomalies of Scripture are most instructive when understood.

†It is surprising that Bengel should follow Raphelius in preferring "qui erat" to "qui est," as almost all the ancients, Greeks and Latins rightly insist.

We saw that the ascension of the Lord is grounded on His descent from heaven, and that both flow from and belong to His Person as the Son of man that is in heaven. But the Lord follows this up by setting out the mighty work He came to do for sinners, that they might have life eternal-by grace, indeed, but on the footing of Divine righteousness.

"And even as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that every one that believeth on* Him should (not perish, but†) have life eternal.69 For God so loved the world that He gave His‡ Only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish but have life eternal" (verses 14-16).

*The Sinai MS. and the great mass of the uncials and cursives have εἰς here, as in verse 16; but the Vatican (B) and the St. Petersburg uncial of the sixth century (T) read ἐν αὐτῳ , supported by many Latin copies [besides Syrsin, and followed by Edd.]; as the Paris L has here in verse 16 ἐπ᾽ αὐτῳ   the Alexandrian ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν  here only, though Tb reads it in verse 16. A Bodleian cursive (47) omits the phrase in both cases.

†The clause μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ here is wanting in four uncials of the highest character, seven cursives, and many versions, etc. [not Syrsin]; but almost all read it in verse 16.

‡The Sinai and the Vatican (B) omit αὐτοῦ, "his."

The new birth had been already insisted on for man to see or enter the kingdom of God. But so is the cross also a necessity, if guilty man was to receive pardon from God whilst living to Him. They are alike indispensable. Compare 1 John 4: 9, 10. And Christ as He alone could be, so was He sent a propitiation for our sins. The Lord here illustrates the latter truth by the well-known scene in the wilderness, where God directed Moses, in his distress for the guilty Israelites bitten by the fiery serpents and dying in all quarters, to set a serpent of brass on a pole, that whoever looked might live. It was the figure of Himself, Who knew no sin, for us made sin, identified in Divine dealing with the consequences of our evil in judgment on the cross. Impossible that sin could otherwise be expiated adequately. It must be by God's judging it in One capable of bearing what it deserved at His hands, and it must be in man, in the Son of man, to be available for man. Yet, had it been any other than Jesus, it had been offensive to God, and not efficacious for man, for He only was the Holy One, and in no offering was there more jealous care that it should be without blemish. "It is most holy," says the law of the sin-offering. Adam fell, and all other men were shapen in iniquity, and in sin conceived.

In Him only of woman-born was no sin, not only no sins committed, but no sin in Him. Therefore was a body prepared for Him as for no one else when the Holy Ghost came on the Virgin Mary, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her. Therefore also that Holy thing which was born was called the Son of God; not only the Son of God before He was sent of the Father, but, when in grace the Word thus became flesh, perfect man, yet not the less truly God. For there was none other way, if the desperate case of man was to be remedied before God. It could only be righteously through atonement, and the Son of man was the only fitting victim. For blood of bulls and goats is incapable of taking away sins, however such sacrifices might be beforehand instructive of man's need and of God's way. "Wherefore, when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare Me. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure. Then said I, Lo I am come (in the volume of the Book it is written of me) to do Thy will, O God." (Heb. 10: 5-7, quoting Ps. 40: 6f.)

Thus did the man Christ Jesus, Son of God withal, yea, God over all blessed for ever, deign to suffer once for sins, Just for unjust, that He might bring us to God. Only so could it be, for God could not make light of sin, however surely He can and does pardon sinners; but even He could not pardon consistently with Himself or His Word, or the creature's real blessing, but through the blood of the cross. And therefore did the Lord say here to Nicodemus, who knew the law, if he had little known the Prophets, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." Thus did He redeem out of the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. It is not a living Messiah reigning over His people on earth, but He, rejected by them, sinners and lost as they were now proved to be; it is Jesus Christ and He crucified, in that character or title which connects Him with the one object for a sinful man: or, as He says Himself here, "that every one that believeth on Him may not perish, but have life eternal." By Him only thus presented one comes to God, all his sins being judged and borne in His cross. Hence it is by believing on Him that one has life eternal. The believer looks out of himself to the Lord Jesus.

But this alone might leave the soul, though looking to Christ by faith, without liberty or peace, however truly blessed thus far. Hence the Lord reveals another truth. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish but have life eternal."70 It is no longer the abject and absolute need of guilty man, be he Jew or any other. There is now revealed the sovereign love of God, which confines not itself to any limits such as the law, or man under it, had contemplated, but goes out freely and fully to the world, where He was unknown and hated, and this, not in creation or providential mercies, but in such sort as to give His Son, His Only-begotten, "that every one that believeth on Him may not perish but have eternal life." It is grace to the uttermost. It is no question here of a needs be. There was no moral necessity that God should give His Son; it was His love, not obligation on His part, nor claim on man's. Whatever need there was in man's state was amply met in the cross of the Son of man, and therein was accomplished the atonement or propitiation for the sins of those who believe. But there is incomparably more in the Only-begotten Son given by the God of love, not to the elect nation, but to the world. Thus Divine love is manifested as perfectly as His just and holy requirement in judging sin; and this in Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, the suffering but now glorified Son of man, both too displayed in and enjoyed by that life eternal which the believer has in Him.

The great truth has been cleared: not only that man, sinful man, needed an adequate atonement as well as new birth, but that God loved the world, the guilty, lost world of Gentiles no less than Jews, and loved it so that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that every one who believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life. It is in the Son of God that both lines of the truth meet, for He is incarnate and crucified. Accordingly the true light shines, life eternal is given, God's love is known, redemption is accomplished, salvation is come. There is more in and by Him now than if the kingdom were set up in power, for which those waited whose expectations were formed and bounded by the Old Testament. "Loving kindness and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other"; and, though one could not say perhaps till "that day" that "truth shall spring out of the earth, and righteousness shall look down from the heavens," (Ps. 85: 10 f.) yet one knows assuredly that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," and that righteousness is established and displayed in Him exalted on the throne and glorified in God Himself above. In the bright days of heaven upon the earth He is to judge His people and the world righteously, and will early cut off the wicked; for the quick must be judged by Him at His coming, as well as the dead at last, ere He gives up the kingdom to God.

But deeper purposes were in hand now that the Messiah is viewed as rejected by the Jews: eternal life in, and salvation by, the Son of God, Who dies atoningly on the cross. "For God sent not His* Son into the world that He should judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (verse 17). And as a work beyond comparison deeper and with everlasting consequences was before God, so the objects of His grace are no longer within the circumscribed limits of the land of Israel. If He is to manifest Himself now as a Saviour God in His Son, it suits His love to send out the good news to the world as a whole. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them. Granted that Christ thus present was rejected; but the errand of love was in no way abandoned; rather did it enter on a new ground whence it could go forth in the power of the Spirit. For Him Who knew no sin God made sin for us (that is, in the cross), that we might become God's righteousness in Him.

*The word αὐτοῦ ("his") is omitted by BLTb, five cursives and some Fathers, but read by all other authorities [rejected by Edd.].

Thus Christ as Saviour, not as Judge, expresses the characteristic testimony of God now made known to man and here declared by our Lord, in contradistinction from His predicted glory as Messiah and Son of man, ruling as He will over the earth by and by in the age to come. This is followed up by the result for him who receives Christ now. "He that believeth on Him is not judged; but* he that believeth not hath been already judged, because he hath not believed on the name of the Only-begotten Son of God" (verse 18). Not only is the believer not condemned, but he is not an object of judgment. He will give account, but is never put on his trial. This is explicitly taught in John 5, where the twofold issue is connected with the mystery of Christ's Person. As He is Son of God and Son of man, so He gives life and will exercise judgment, the one for the blessing of believers as owning His glory, the other for His vindication on such as have dishonoured Him.

* B, etc., omit δέ  ("but"), which all else read [rejected by Edd.].

Thus, as His stooping to become man exposed Him to unbelief, it is as Son of man that He will judge His despisers, which clearly does not apply to the believer, whose joy is even now and ever to honour Him as the Father. And as in this later chapter of John the believer is declared to have life eternal, and not to come into judgment, but to have passed out of death into life, so here "He that believeth not hath been already judged, because he hath not believed on the name of the Only-begotten Son of God." For John presents the Lord as declaring all decided by the test of His own Person received in faith or unbelievingly rejected. Good or evil in all other respects turns on this, as He shows soon after. There is no such touchstone, not even the law of God, weighty and incisive as it is. Hence we see the fallacy of the older divines, who drag in the law here as everywhere, and thus make it only a question of moral condemnation; whereas the very point of instruction is that it is Christ Himself believed or disbelieved, though no doubt conduct follows accordingly.

But here it is not death for not doing God's commandments, but the unbeliever already judged by Him Who sees the end from the beginning, and pronounces on all persons and things as they are before God. Only One can avail him who is dead in trespasses and sins; in nowise the law, which can simply condemn him whose walk is opposed to itself, but the Son, Who is life and gives life to the believer. But the unbeliever refuses the Son of God: carelessly or deliberately, in haughty pride or in cowardly clinging to other trusts, pleasures, or interests, it is only a difference of form or degree. For he has not believed on the name of the Only-begotten Son of God, Whose name is not hidden but preached. There is the fullest declaration of what He is, and is to sinners: so that all excuse is vain and can only add sin to sin. His very name implies, yea asserts, that He is the Saviour, a Divine Saviour, yet a Man, and so for men. Nor can it be truthfully urged that there is any doubt as to God's feeling and mind; for it had just been said that God sent Him into the world to this end, whatever must be the character of His coming another day, when He will reckon with those who would have none of Him. But what is it to God that wretched, guilty, ruined sinners should despise and reject Him Who is at once the only Saviour of man, and the Only-begotten Son of God! When those who most need mercy least feel it, when they in their utter degradation refuse the Highest, Who comes down to them in the fullest love to bless, what remains but judgment for those who thus render God's grace null as to themselves, heightened as it is by the glory of Him Who in love came for their sakes, and deepened by the humiliation in which He deigned to come?

I am aware that the Puritan divines drag in the law even here, and will have it that Christ, in illustrating the certainty of salvation for those that believe in Him, shows on the contrary the condemnation of unbelievers to be twofold, one by the law and the other by the Gospel. Their idea is that the unbelievers are here declared to be condemned already by the sentence of the law, which they still lie under, and have it confirmed by the Gospel, since they do not by faith lay hold on the offered and only remedy in Christ.

But there is no trace of such a scheme either here or anywhere else in Scripture, which teaches expressly that "as many as sinned without law shall also perish without law, and as many as sinned in the law shall be judged by the law . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ" (Rom. 2: 12-16). St. Paul's doctrine therefore excludes the assumption that every unbeliever is already under the law, which would intelligibly involve his being condemned by it, law affecting only those under it, whilst those who have it not are dealt with on their own ground. With this entirely agrees the language of our Gospel, which does not say a word about the law, even where a teacher of it was before the Lord inquiring into life eternal and salvation. It is solely a question of Christ. "And this is the judgment, that the light hath come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not unto the light lest his works should be convicted; but he that practiseth the truth cometh unto the light, that his works may be manifested that they have been wrought in God" (verses 19-21).

Inasmuch as the true light now shines-no longer the law in Israel, but the light come into the world, a criterion is in force which decides for every man. There is a far deeper question than a man's own state or conduct. Indeed, this, too, is already decided; man is no longer under probation, as the Jew was under law. He is lost: be he Jew or Gentile, he is alike lost. It is, therefore, a question of believing on Jesus, Son of God and Son of man, Who (as we saw before) has been sent of God, not as He will be shortly to judge the quick and the dead, but that the world (not the elect nation now, but the world, spite of its ruin, in His grace) may be saved through Him. This tests to the core. All thus depends on believing on Him. If one believes not, one has been already judged. It is not merely to fail in duty, but to fight against the grace and truth come by Jesus Christ. It is to reject life eternal, and the perfect love of God, in the Only-begotten Son of God, Whose name one disbelieves or makes light of.

It is wholly vain to complain of lack of light. The very reverse is true. "This is the judgment, that the light hath come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil." Terrible revelation of their state! Alas! it was our state, our affections so utterly corrupt as to prefer the darkness to the light, and this from the guiltiest reason, and a bad conscience. For our deeds were evil. Assuredly the trumpet gives no uncertain sound. Have we heard its clear warning above, beneath, the din of this world? Have we submitted to the sentence of Him Who knows what is in man, no less than what is in God? Or are we unbroken still in self-righteousness and self-conceit? Do we dare to dispute the words of the Lord, solemn and plain-too plain to be mistaken? Would we put off the decision till the great white throne? And what will He then judge of the unbelief which thus virtually gives Him the lie? For no man that believed these words of His now would put off till then, but surely cast his soul on Him Who, if the Judge then, is Saviour, and nothing but a Saviour, to the lost one that now believes on His name.

But when eternal judgment does come, it is not true that then it is a question simply of man's unbelief. From the Divine account given to us, we learn that the dead are judged according to their works. There is no such thing at any time as salvation according to our works; for all who reject Christ there will be judgment according to their works. They had refused the Saviour, they had despised the grace of God through religiousness or irreligiousness, through opposition or indifference. They are not found written in the book of life, they are judged out of the things written in the book according to their works. They are cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire, the end of all who loved71 the darkness rather than the light. For their works were evil: is not their judgment just? What is the Lord's moral analysis? "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not unto the light, lest his works should be convicted." How could such a one suit the portion of the saints in light? He hates the light which has come here: would he suit it or love it better on high? He is inwardly false and dishonest, deliberately and decidedly preferring to go on in his sins, instead of submitting to their complete detection by the light, that they might be blotted out and forgiven by the faith of Christ's blood. Is this truth in the inner man? Does it not rather prove that such as refuse Christ are of the devil as their father, and desire to do their lusts, instead of hearing the word of God and being subject to His Son?

On the other hand, "he that practiseth the truth cometh unto the light, that his works may be manifested that they have been wrought in God." For the faith that is of God's elect is never powerless but living, not only productive of results seen among men, but such as savour of their Divine source and sphere. None makes more of the truth or of knowing God than John; none has a deeper horror of Gnosticism. It is life, life eternal, that one should know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom He sent; but His commandment is life everlasting, as our Lord could say of Him Who gave to Himself what He should say and what He should speak.

If we know these things, we are blessed if we do them. Unblessed is the forgetful hearer, who does not practise the truth nor come unto the light, but is rather gone away after considering himself, and straightway loses all remembrance of what he was like. Is it not too plain that his works are at best impulsive and natural? But he that practises the truth comes unto the light; walking therein he seeks to walk according to the light, trying by it his inward thoughts and feelings, motives and objects, words and ways. The realised presence of God imparts its colour to his works. They were manifestly wrought in God. They bear His image and superscription. Hence when all that are in the tombs hear the Lord's voice and go forth, it is for those that have practised good to a life-resurrection, for those that have done evil to a judgment-resurrection.72 There was life in the one case, not in the other. He that heard the Saviour's word and believed the God Who sent Him has life eternal, and hence practises good. He who rejects the Son of God has no ground but man, and can have no power but Satan's; he has refused Him Who is God's wisdom and God's power. He might not like to be lost and judged; but he despises the only way of salvation open to any, the crucified Son of man, the life-giving Son of God. He will not be able to refuse or despise His judgment by and by.

John 3: 22-34.

The next paragraph has for its object the homage rendered by the Baptist to the Lord. This the Spirit of God introduces by telling us the occasion of it.73 The conversation with Nicodemus was in Jerusalem, and in this was unfolded the absolute need of both the new birth and the cross. Only that when the Lord speaks of these things, He could not but let us know that it is life eternal which the believer receives, and that He Himself was not more surely the Son of man Who must be lifted up for man's desperate case than He is the Only-begotten Son of God given to the world in Divine love. Salvation was in His mind, not judgment, though the unbeliever in Him must be, yea is, judged already; and this on the deepest of all grounds, the preference of darkness, that they might do their wicked works at ease, to the Light come into the world in Christ. The case, then, of every rejector of Him is thus solemnly decided.

It is evident that the Person of Christ is the key to all, and shines out more and more in the secret scene with Nicodemus. Still it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, Who gave a yet fuller witness to His glory by John at a critical moment, to reproduce this permanently for us with the circumstances which led to it. The thought might enter some minds that the Lord only used His predecessor to continue the work and outdo it. It was fitting, therefore, that John the Baptist should give a final testimony to Him where human nature is apt to be most grudging.

"After these things came Jesus and His disciples into the land of Judæa, and there he was tarrying with them and baptizing.74 And John also was baptizing at Ænon near Salim, because much water was there; and they were coming there and being baptized: for John was not yet cast into prison." We have thus a view of what was going on previous to the public Galilean ministry of our Lord in the three Synoptic Gospels. They do not touch on any work of His before John's imprisonment, whilst the early chapters of the fourth Gospel are devoted to this, after the revelation of His Person and glories at the beginning.75

"There arose then a dispute on the part of the disciples of John with a Jew* about purification. And they came unto John and said to him, Rabbi, He who was with thee across the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, He is baptizing and all come unto Him" (verses 25, 26). A Jew's reasoning did not ruffle them, for their souls could not but feel the moral superiority of John's call and baptism to repentance in the faith of the coming Messiah; but the nearness of Jesus and the fact of His attractive power, veiled as it then might be, was a fact that disconcerted them, though the appeal to their master took the shape of zeal for one who had been prompt to own the dignity of Jesus when He came to John for baptism. But now He was baptizing, and all were flocking to Him: so complained John's disciples.76

*There is equally good evidence from the most ancient and excellent witnesses for the plural form ( pmG  Λ2 Π2 1. 13. 69. 124. etc. It. Vulg. Syrcu. Cop. Armusc Æth. Goth. Orig. ) in the common text as for the singular ( corr ABEFHKLMSUV ΓΔΛpmΠpm, many cursives, Syrsin pesch et phil. and Armzoh Chrys. Nonn.) preferred by most critics, partly as being the less common of the two, and so more likely to be changed.

Let us well weigh the reply. "John answered and said, A man can receive nothing unless it have been given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me* witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him" (verses 27, 28). It was lowly yet wise withal; it put, as truth always does, both God and ourselves in the right place, thus securing a like recognition of His sovereign disposal of all and the contentedness of each with his own lot, and, it may be added, quiet firmness in the discharge of the duty which flows from it. For there is no greater error than the thought that our own will is really strong. Be it ever so, obedience is stronger still. "He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1 John 2: 17.) Out of this spirit of dependence and happy submission to God did John answer his disciples. If he were eclipsed as the morning star by the dawn of day, it was to fulfil, not to fail in, his mission. He, the servant and forerunner, had never set up to be the Master, as they could all attest, if they would.

*The witnesses for omitting μοι include EFHMVΓ, many cursives, etc., and are scarcely inferior, therefore, to those [including Syrsin] in favour of the ordinary text.

Then John applies to himself a figure taken from the circumstance of a bridal feast to illustrate his relation to the Lord, in beautiful harmony with the Lord's own use of it elsewhere. Here, of course, all is connected with Israel, though, when the church took the place of that nation, the Holy Spirit applies it freely to the new relationship constantly before us in the Epistles and the Revelation. "He that hath the bride is (the) Bridegroom; but the friend of the Bridegroom that standeth and heareth Him rejoiceth with joy because of the voice of the bridegroom: this my joy then is fulfilled. He must increase, but I decrease" (verses 29, 30). John was indeed the most favoured servant-yea, "the friend" of the Bridegroom. It was his joy, therefore, that the bride should be Christ's, not his, whose highest distinction was to be His immediate herald, seeing those days which king and prophets had so ardently desired to see, seeing Him Who gave those days their brightness. It was his chiefest joy to hear His voice of love and satisfaction in those He deigned to love as His bride. His own mission was closed. If Simeon could depart in peace, John could say that his joy was fulfilled. It was right, it was necessary, that He should increase and himself decrease, though no greater was born of woman. Instead of feeling a pang, his heart bowed and delighted in it. By and by when Christ comes in power and glory, and sits on the throne of David as well as of the yet larger dominion of the Son of man, "there will be no end of the increase of His government," as the prophet declares. (Isa. 9: 7.)  But John could say it now in the days of His humiliation, as his soul rests on the glory of His Person, and the Spirit leads him on in the sense of what was due to Him.

The glory of the Person of Christ shines with rich lustre here. It is not merely His nearness of relation to His people as distinguished from John, nor His increase while the greatest of woman-born decreases. He is superior to all comparison. "He that cometh from above is above all" (verse 31). Neither Adam nor Abraham, Enoch nor Elijah, could take such a ground. They, like John, did not come from above, nor could any one of them be said to be above all. Nor could our blessed Lord Himself be so described, as born of Mary, and heir of David, had He not been God-the great theme of our Gospel. But this it has been the grand aim to show He is: a truth of the deepest moment, we can say boldly, not only to us the children, but to God the Father. For thus and now are to be solved all the questions that had ever risen between God and man, insoluble till He appeared, and appeared a true man, Who is no less truly God, and thus both "from above" and "above all."

And it was fitting that John the Baptist's own lips77 should give utterance to the incontestable supremacy of the Lord Jesus in presence of his own disciples, jealous of their leader's honour. Hence follows the explanation: "he that is of the earth is of the earth, and speaketh (as) of the earth; He that cometh of the heaven is above all" (verse 31).* The Lord may vindicate John; but John asserts the glory of Jesus, Who had lost none of His intrinsic and supreme dignity by deigning in Divine love to become man. Like all other men, John could not claim to have any other origin naturally than the earth. Jesus alone is out of heaven; for such is the virtue of His Person that He raises up humanity into union with His Divine nature, instead of being dragged down by humanity into its degradation by sin as some have vainly and evilly dreamt.

*[Lachm., Treg., W. and H., Weiss: "is above all," from corr. ABLΓΔΛΠ, etc., Vulg. Syrsin pesch hcl hier Memph. Æth. Goth. Chrys. Cyr. Alex-Tischendorf, followed by Blass, omits the words according to pmD and a few cursives, some old Latt. Syrcu Arm., Tertullian.]

Nor is it of His person only that we are here taught. His testimony is invested with kindred value. "And what He hath seen and heard, this He testifieth; and no one receiveth His testimony" (verse 32). His is the perfection of testimony; for what was there of God, of the Father, and this in heaven, that the Son had not seen and heard? There could be no conceivable defect here in the glory whence He came, and in the grace with which He made all known to man. How withering, therefore, the sad result! For surely beforehand it must have been universally anticipated that all but the most besotted would eagerly welcome such a witness of things Divine, heavenly, and eternal. But such is man's estate through sin, not only the savage and the brutal, not only the idolater or the sceptic, but those who pique themselves on their religion, whether it be theory or practice, ordinances or tradition, effort, ecstasy, or experience-"no one receiveth His testimony." How solemn the sentence! and the more so as being the unimpassioned utterance of holiness. Doubtless they knew not what they did in their dislike of, or indifference to, His testimony; but what a state man must be in, to have the heavenly and Divine Saviour thus bearing witness of things most deeply needed by himself in relation to God and heaven end forever, without ever finding out the worth of the Testifier or of the testimony! It is not that grace did not open some hearts, here and there, now and then; but the point here noted is the rejection of His testimony by man, not the reserve of sovereign mercy when all was lost in sin and ruin.

Faith is in no way a growth natural to the heart of sinful man. Without faith it is impossible to please God; and without His grace faith is impossible, such faith at least as pleases Him. For they that are in flesh cannot please God; but who are not in flesh till brought to God? Man conscious of sin and shrinking from Divine judgment dislikes the God Whose punishment he dreads. His grace he sees no reason, as far as he is concerned, for believing; and no wonder he sees none, for it would not be God's grace if there were a ground for it in himself. Grace excludes the desert of him to whom it is shown, and this is as offensive to his own self-sufficiency as it supposes love in Him Whose displeasure he knows he deserves. Thus there is no disposition in his heart to believe in God's grace, ample to make him doubt; and the more, as he reasons on what God must be, and on what he himself has been toward God. Christ is not seen to change all, as the manifestation of love, and His death the ground of the righteousness of God which justifies the believer, spite of past sins and ungodliness.

His testimony therefore puts the heart thoroughly to the test; for it tells the truth of the sinner as decidedly as it announces the grace of God, and the heart resists the one and distrusts the other. The last thing submitted to is to think ill of oneself, and well of God. But this is just the effect of receiving the testimony of Christ. We then begin to take God's side against ourselves; for if there be genuine faith, there is genuine repentance, without which, indeed, the faith is human and worthless, as in John 2, where men believed beholding the signs wrought, and Jesus did not trust Himself to them. Such faith is not of God's Spirit, but merely of the mind drawing a conclusion from the probabilities of the case.78 In it man judges, which pleases him, instead of his being morally judged, which is humbling and offensive. He sees no sufficient reason to reject the evidence, and, his will going along with it, he believes accordingly. As this was the case with many in Jerusalem at the Passover, so it is with multitudes throughout Christendom now and ever since. The vague creed which prevails generally awakens enough neither of interest nor of opposition to put men to the test. But when any great truth, even of that creed, is pressed on the conscience or comes distinctly before the heart, it will then be seen how little men believe what they in words accredit, only because they never seriously apply it to their souls before God.

Take the simple truth, for instance, of our Gospel, the Word, Who was God become flesh and dwelling among us; or, again, remission of sins in His name, the message to every soul, the possession of every believer: who doubts either as long as they are preached abstractedly in the pulpit? But the moment a man receives them for his own soul, and, though feeling and owning his sins more than ever, blesses God for forgiveness and rejoices in Christ-while he worships God and the Lamb, others shrink back and cry presumption! As if such truths were never intended for the heart and life and lips of every day, but only as a religious service, or, rather, a form for the multitude keeping holiday.

The fact is, however, that the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ (being perfect in themselves and in Him Whose glory is adequate to display and make them good, as well as perfectly adapted to man, sinful and lost as he is) test him absolutely, "and no one receiveth His testimony." Where the quickening power of the Spirit acts, it is far otherwise. So proper is it to win the heart, that he who is not won shows that his will is against God and His grace and truth in Christ, hatred naturally and soon following. He who bows, being begotten by the word of truth, judges himself. He has received not man's word, but, as it truly is, God's word, which effectually works in the believer; or, as it is put here, "he that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true" (verse 33).

This is the essential character of real, living faith. His testimony is received because He gives it: nothing more simple, but we are not simple; nothing more right and due to Him, but we have been all wrong, and. most wrong to Him. It is received because He says it, not because it seems reasonable, or wise, or good, or for evidence of any kind; though one need not say there are the fullest evidences, and the testimony is that which alone could suit God or man, if one be a sinner, the other a Saviour where His testimony is received. A Divine faith is due to a Divine testimony; but the faith which is grounded on human motives is not Divine: only that which is founded on God's word truly searches heart and conscience. When a man is broken down to feel his own state of sin, as well as what he has done against such a God, the heart desires that the good news of the Gospel should be the truth, instead of yielding to the indifference or active repugnance natural to it; and this is to believe with the heart (Rom. 10: 9, 10).

Further, the ground of confidence is laid plainly and expressed fully. We are not left to inference. "For He Whom God sent speaketh the words of God; for God* giveth not the Spirit by measure" (verse 34). To receive the words of Jesus, then, is to receive those of God. What possible ground is there for hesitation? To faith alone belongs absolute certainty. And of this the Spirit is the power, as in Him perfectly, so in and by us as far as flesh is judged. He was the holy vessel of the Spirit, so that the testimony was poured out as pure as it was poured in, or, rather, as it is in Him Who is Himself the truth. As for what inspired men have written, it is just the same. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14: 37). In all others, whatever the power, there is no such guarantee against infirmity or mistake, though one may be perfectly kept and guided, where only and simply dependent, so real is the connection between the truth and the Spirit.

*["God": so Lachm., Treg., after ACcorrDΓΛΠ, etc., Vulg. Syrpesch hcl Memph. Æth., Orig. Chrys. Tisch., W. and H., and Weiss omit, as Bcorr CpmLT, 1, 33, Cyr. Alex.-Blass: "the Father," omitting "the Spirit," as Bpm Syrsin.]

John 35 f. We have had the supremacy of Jesus, and His testimony, so thoroughly marking Him off from all others. But there is more. He is "the Son," and the especial object of Divine affection and honour. This follows; and here, accordingly, we rise far above His position either as the Messiah, the Bridegroom on the one hand, or the heavenly prophet on the other, Whose testimony absolutely detected every child of Adam, while it brought him that received it to the knowledge of God and His mind with Divine certainty. Hence we hear of the Father and the Son. "The Father* loveth the Son, and hath put (lit. 'given') all things in His hand" (verse 35). Jesus is the Heir of all, as the Son of the Father in a sense peculiar to Himself, the true Isaac Who abides ever, the beloved Son Who has all that He Himself has, and has all given to be in His (the Son's) hand.

*[Syrsin has "But He," followed by Blass.]

Consequently it is no question here of blessing for any measured time or for glory on earth under His reign as King. All things come to the point at once and for ever before Him, Who is the object of testimony, and not the testifier merely. "He that believeth on the Son hath life eternal." One need not thus wait for the blessing in the days of the kingdom. Then, no doubt, Jehovah will command blessing, even life for evermore. But he that believes in the Son has eternal life now. For the same reason it is of all things the most fatal to refuse subjection to His Person now. Therefore is it added, "and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him" (verse 36). If disobedience is intended, it is to Himself as well as to His words, as, indeed, by the obedience of faith the Apostle Paul meant not practical obedience, however important in its place and season, but subjection79 to Himself-to the truth revealed in Him. He that refuses Him in unbelief abides in unremoved death and under the wrath of God, Who cannot but resent such insult of heart to His Son.

JOHN — THE FOURTH CHAPTER*

*[Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 440-446.]80

We find ourselves still in that part of our Gospel which precedes the Galilean ministry of our Lord presented in the three Synoptic Gospels, though this journey through Samaria is conducting the Lord to their starting-point. In John 3: 24 it will have been noticed that John was not yet cast into prison. When he was put in prison (Mark 1: 14), and Jesus heard it (Matt. 4: 12), He came into Galilee, preaching. Our chapter speaks of a previous moment, and, as usual, lets us into a deeper view of all that was at work.

John 4: 1-4.

"When, therefore, the Lord knew that the Pharisees heard that Jesus maketh and baptizeth more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judaea and went away (again)* into Galilee."

*AB[pm]EΔ, etc. [as Weiss and Blass], omit; CDLMT, 1, 33, 69, and many ancient versions [including Syrsin] insert [as W. and H.].

Little did the disciples know the depth of the glory that was in Him or the consequent blessing for man, though they zealously baptized and thus exposed their Master to the spleen of those who could ill-brook His increase and honour. It will be noticed that not He, but His disciples, did baptize. He knew the end from the beginning; and this finds its appropriate statement here. They might baptize to Him as Messiah; but He, the Son of God, knew from the first that He must suffer and die as the Son of man: so, indeed, He had already declared to Nicodemus with its blessed results for the believer. The baptism He instituted was, therefore, after and to His death and Resurrection. The Son of God knew what was in man, even when he was disposed to pay Him homage because of the signs which He wrought. So did He know the effect of His disciples' activity on the religious men of that day.81

It was the jealousy of the Pharisees, then, which in reality drove the Lord from Judæa. What was that land longer? What without Him, above all, when it rejected Him and He abandoned it? They might boast of the law, but they had not kept it; they might claim the promises, but He-the promised One and Accomplisher of all the promises-had been there, and they knew Him not, loved Him not, but were more and more proving their heart-estrangement from Him, their Messiah. What could the first covenant avail now? It must ensure their condemnation; it could work no deliverance. The Jew was to reap only ruin and death under its terms. We shall presently see more; yet here at the beginning of the chapter is the Son of God, through the ill-feeling of those who ought most to have appreciated His presence, forced out, we may say, from the people of God and the scene of His institutions, but in the power of life eternal, whatever the humiliation which the haughty religionists put on Him, who saw in Him a man only, little suspecting that He was the Word become flesh.

John 4: 4-6.

"And He must pass through Samaria. He cometh, therefore, to a city of Samaria called Sychar,82 near the land which Jacob gave to Joseph his son. Now a fountain of Jacob was there. Jesus, therefore, being wearied with the journeying, sat thus83 at the fountain. It was about the sixth hour."84 He is as truly man as God, but the Holy One always and only. Weary and rejected, He sits there in unwearied love. The false pretensions before Him can no more hinder now than the proud iniquity He had just left behind. Jerusalem and Samaria alike vanish. What could either do for a wretched heart, a guilty sinner? And such a one approaches.

John 4: 7-10.

"There cometh a woman out of Samaria to draw water. Jesus saith to her, Give Me to drink (for His disciples had gone away into the city to buy provisions).85 The  Samaritan woman therefore saith to Him, How dost Thou, being a Jew, ask to drink of Me, being a Samaritan woman? for Jews86 have no intercourse with Samaritans.* Jesus answered and said to her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give Me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water."

*["For . . . Samaritans," attested by א CorrABCL, etc., Orig. Chrys. Cyr. Alex., and read by Lachm., Treg., W. and H. (t), Weiss, but discredited by Tisch., who follows corr D. The words are bracketed by Blass87.]

He that made the heart perfectly knows the avenue to its affections. And what grace can He not show Who came to give a new and Divine nature, as well as to reveal God in love, where there was nothing but sin, self, and unrest? God in the lowliness of man asks a favour, a drink of water, of the Samaritan woman; but it was to open her heart to her wants, and give her life eternal in the power of the Holy Ghost, communion with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ.

"Beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation, that saith unto Zion, Thy God cometh." So said the Spirit of prophecy by Isaiah of old (52: 7); and so it will be fulfilled in its fulness by and by, as even now it is in principle. But what a sight to God, and, indeed, to faith, the Son of God, when driven out by the jealous hatred and contempt of man, of His own people who received Him not, thus occupying Himself with an unhappy Samaritan who had exhausted her life in quest of happiness never thus found! Surprised, she inquires how a Jew could ask aught of one like her: what had she felt, had she then conceived Who He was, and that He knew to the full what she was? And how reassuring to her afterwards when she looked back on the path by which God had in gracious wisdom led her that day that she might know Himself for evermore!

Alone He spoke to her alone, beginning in her soul His work for heaven, for eternity, for God. No miracle of an external sort is wrought before the eyes, no sign is needed without. The Son of God speaks in Divine love, though (as we shall see) intelligence is not till the conscience is reached and exercised. The law is good if one use it lawfully, knowing that its application is not to a righteous person, but to lawless and insubordinate, to impious and sinful, and, in short, to all that is opposed to sound teaching. But Christ is the best of all as the revelation of God in grace, giving all that is wanted, producing (not seeking) what should be, not to dispense with the absolutely needed lesson of what we are, but enabling us to bear it, now that we know how truly God Himself cares for us in perfect love, spite of all that we are.

This is grace, the true grace of God. No error is more complete or perilous than the notion that grace makes light of sin. Was it a slight dealing with our sins when Christ bore them in His own body on the tree? Did law ever strike such a blow at any sinner, as God when He, sending His own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, and thus brought "no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus"? (Rom. 8: 1-3.) Nay, it was expressly what the law could not do. The law could condemn the sinner with his sins; but God has thus in Christ condemned not only the sins, but the root of evil-sin in the flesh-and this in a sacrifice for sin, so that those who otherwise had nothing but condemnation inwardly and outwardly, past and present, in nature as well as ways, have now by grace "no condemnation." All that could be condemned has been condemned; and they are in Christ, and they walk not according to flesh, but according to the Spirit. This is now the law of liberty.

Here, doubtless, there was no such standing yet existing, or, consequently, possible to any. But the Son was here acting and speaking in the fulness of grace which was soon to accomplish all for the believer and give all to him. Yet He lets the Samaritan know that she knew nothing. For, whatever His goodness (and it has no limits), grace does not spare man's assumption; and the revelation it brings from God and of God never really enters till self is judged. Samaria and Jerusalem are alike ignorant of grace; and only Christ by the Spirit can open the heart to bow and receive it. If thou knewest the gift of God"-such is the reality and the aspect of God in the Gospel. He is not an exacter, but a giver. He is not commanding man to love Him, but proclaiming His love to man-yea, to the most wretched of sinners. He is not requiring the creature's righteousness, but revealing His own. But man is slow to believe, and religious man the slowest to understand, what makes nothing of himself and all of God. But such is the word of truth, the Gospel of our salvation; such the freegiving of God, which the Lord was then manifesting as well as declaring to the woman of Samaria.

But there was, and is, more. The knowledge of the gift of God, in contradistinction from the law on the one hand, or from blank ignorance of His active love on the other, is inseparable from faith in the personal dignity of the Son of God. Therefore does the Saviour, all-lowly as He was, add: "And Who it is that saith to thee, Give Me to drink." For without this nothing is known aright. Jesus is the Truth, and abides ever the test for the soul, which owns with so much the more decision and adoring thankfulness the glory of Him Who, true God, became man in infinite love that we might have life eternal in Him. For otherwise, we may boldly say, it could not be. The truth is exclusive and immutable; it is not only the revelation of what is, but of what alone can and must be, consistently with the real nature of God and the state of man. Yet is God acting in His own liberty, for His love is always free and always holy; and the truth can only be what it is; for it is He Who has brought down that love in man to men in all their sin and death and darkness.

It is the revelation of God to man in Him Who, though the Son of God, stooped so low to bless the most needy and defiled and distant from God as to ask a drink of water, that He might in this find the occasion to give even to such a one living water. For this, too, He does not fail to say, as a consequence, "If thou knewest the gift of God, and Who it is that saith to thee, Give Me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water." For grace, truly known in Christ, produces confidence in grace, and draws out the heart to ask the greatest boon of Him Who will never be below, but above, the highest position that can be conferred on Him. Never can it be that the faith of man equals, still less surpasses, the riches of the grace of God. If men, spite of their evil, know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more should the Father Who is of heaven give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him? (Luke 11: 13.) If a guilty Samaritan woman is assured by the Son of God that she, knowing the gift of God and Who He is that asked of her to drink when weary by the fountain, had but to ask of Him in order to receive living water, still none that so asked and received had anything like an adequate sense of that infinite blessing-the Holy Ghost given to be in the believer.

Such is the living water that Christ here speaks of-not power in gift, nor yet simply eternal life, but the Spirit given88 of the Son to be in the believer as the spring of communion with Himself and the Father.

It is not, then, quite correct, as some have said, that Christ is here alluded to as meant by "the gift of God," the next clause being viewed as explanatory. Undoubtedly, He was the means of displaying it; but the first of the clauses in this rich word of our Lord sets forth the thought, so strange to man, of the free-giving of God. Nature, as such, never understands it; law alone makes it still less intelligible. Faith only solves the difficulty in the Person, mission, and work of Christ, Who is the witness, proof, and substance of it; but it is the gratuitous grace of God that is meant. Hence, the second clause, instead of being merely exegetic of the first, directs attention to Him Who was there in the utmost humiliation (weary with His journeying, and asking a drink of water from one whom He knew to be the most worthless of Samaritans), yet the Son of the Father in unshorn fulness of Divine glory and of grace to the most wretched. And this was so true that she who was as yet blind to all this had but to ask Him, and have the best and greatest gift the believer can receive-living water, not life only, but the Holy Ghost. Thus, while Christ is the way of it, the Trinity was really involved in making good these words of our Lord to the Samaritan woman, all the Godhead engaged in the proffered blessing.

JOHN 4: 11 f.

"The woman saith to Him, Sir, Thou hast no bucket, and the well is deep: whence, then, hast Thou the living water? Art Thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?" She comprehends none of the gracious words she had heard; they were not mixed with faith in her heart. She, therefore, reasons against them. If the water was to be drawn from Jacob's well, where was the bucket to let down, for the well was deep? Did He pretend to be greater than Jacob, or was His a better well than that which of old supplied him and his house-a well which was now theirs? Thus the mind argues against the Lord, according to the senses or tradition, so fatal is ignorance of His Person and of the truth. Circumstances are the trial of faith and the swamp of unbelief, which gladly avails itself (with or with out any just title) of a great name and its gifts, alas! to slight a greater-yea, the greatest.

John 4: 13f.

Mark now the Saviour's grace. He develops with the utmost fulness to this dark soul the unspeakable gift of God, in contrast with her own thoughts, and with those of man generally. "Jesus answered and said to her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water which I shall give him shall in no way thirst for ever,* but the water which I shall give him shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life eternal."

*It is not merely οὐ μή, nor οὐ μὴ . . . πώποτε, but οὐ μή . εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, the strongest possible exclusion of what is in question for eternity.

Water of whatever spring nature boasts may refresh, but thirst will come again; and God has ordered for the creature that so it should and must be. But it is not so when one is given to drink into the Spirit. Christ gives the Holy Ghost to the believer to be in him a fresh fountain of Divine enjoyment, not only life eternal from the Father in the Person of the Son, but the communion of the Holy Ghost, and hence the power of worship, as we shall see later in this very conversation. Thus it is not only deliverance from hankering after pleasure, vanity, sin, but a living spring of exhaustless and Divine joy, joying in God through our Lord Jesus, and this in the power of the Spirit. It supposes the possession of life eternal in the Son, but also the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit Who was given to us.

John 4: 15-19.

Even then the Samaritan remains as insensible as ever. "The woman saith to Him, Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here* to draw. He saith to her, Go, call thy husband, and come here. The woman answered and said, I have not a husband. Jesus saith to her, Thou saidst well, I have not a husband; for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this thou hast spoken truly. The woman saith to Him, Sir, I see that Thou art a Prophet." She would gladly learn how she might be relieved of her wants and of her labour for this world. As yet not a ray of heavenly light had entered her. Not to thirst nor to come here to draw formed the boundary of her desires from the Saviour not yet known to be a Saviour, still less the Only-begotten Son.

*In pmB and Origen the reading is διέρχωμαι, which Tischendorf and W. and H. [Weiss and Blass] adopt; but the MSS. differ, many giving the indicative, many the subjunctive.

This closes the first part of our Lord's dealings with her. It was useless to say more as before. Jesus had already set before her the principle on which God is acting, and His own gracious competence to give her, on her asking, living water; He had also shown the incomparable superiority of His gift as being Divine over any or every boon left by Jacob. But her heart did not rise above the sphere of her daily wants and earthly wishes. She was deaf to His words, albeit spirit and life, which disclosed what is eternal.

Had it been in vain, then, to have so spoken to her as He did in the fulness of God's love? Far from it. It was all-important, when a door was once opened within, to reflect and find that such riches of grace had been brought to her absolutely unsought. But it was useless to add more till then. Hence the Lord's abrupt and seemingly unconnected appeal, "Go, call thy husband, and come here." But was the digression apart from the question of her salvation? Not so. It was the second and necessary way with a soul, if it is to be blessed Divinely. It is through an awakened conscience that grace and truth enter, and it was because her conscience hitherto was unreached that the grace and truth were not at all understood.

On the one hand, it was of all consequence that she and we and all should have the clearest proof that the testimony of the Saviour's grace goes out before there is any fitness to receive it; for this, as it magnifies God and His free-giving, so it abases and exposes the wholly evil and frightfully dangerous state of man.

On the other hand, it was equally momentous that she should be brought to feel her need of that free and wondrous grace of which the Saviour had assured her, in all its depths and amplitude and everlasting continuance, before she had judged herself as a sinner before God. To this point He now conducts her; for if it is impossible to please God without faith, without repentance faith is intellectual and worthless. It is man discerning evidence and accepting what he in his wisdom judges best; not a sinner who, met by sovereign grace, is judged, owning himself in his sins, but too glad to find the Saviour, the only Saviour, in Jesus Christ the Lord.

Yet the Lord still holds to grace. He does not say, "Go, call thy husband," without adding, "and come here." He does not repent of His goodness because she was dull; on the contrary, He was using the fresh and necessary means to have the need of such goodness felt. How painstaking is grace, working in the soul that it may enter and abide, now that it had been testified of in all its fulness, and without any preparation for it any more than desert in man!

The woman answering, "I have not a husband," is astounded to hear the withering reply, "Thou saidst well, I have not a husband; for thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this thou hast spoken truly." She was convicted. It was in demonstration of the Spirit and power. Yet were the words few and simple, not one of them harsh or strong. It was the truth of her state and of her life brought home most unexpectedly, as God knows how to do, and does in one form or another in every converted soul. It was the truth which spared her not and laid her sins bare before God and her own conscience. She did not doubt for a moment what it was that made everything manifest. She recognised it to be the light of God. She owns His words to be not man's wisdom, but God's power. She falls under the conviction, and at once confesses, "Sir, I see that Thou art a Prophet." It was not the fact only, but the truth from God.

It is plain hence that "prophet" does not mean one only who predicted the future, for this was not in question, but one who told out the mind of God-one who spoke by the evident guidance of the Spirit what could not be known naturally, yet what therefore so much the more put the soul before God and His light. So Abraham is a prophet (Gen. 20: 7), and the fathers generally (Ps. 105: 15), and the O.T. prophets in all their ministry and writing, not merely in what was prediction. The same thing is emphatically true of New Testament prophesying, as we may see in 1 Cor. 14: 24, 25. That is communicated from God, which judges the life, yea, the secrets of the heart before Him.

Recognising the Divine power of His words, the Samaritan seizes the opportunity to have light from God on that which had not been without perplexity. and interest even to her- the religious difference between her race and the chosen nation, and this not merely in homage to God, but in formal or express public worship. She wants to have the question, old as it was, settled for her now. The Samaritan, like many another in grievous error, could talk of great antiquity. Happy the soul that has recourse for it to Jesus! He alone is the Truth. Others may deceive, themselves deceived.

To this end was Jesus born, and for this cause came He into the world that He should bear witness to the truth. What is more: "Every one that is of the truth heareth His voice." Alas! how different has it been with Christendom, corrupted first, then rent hopelessly, most haughty when it has most reason to be ashamed. Be it ours in such a state of ruin to keep His word and not deny His name.

A time of declension beyond all things tests the soul, for it seems proud to differ from the excellent of the earth, especially if they are many, and those who cleave to God's Word are few, and have nothing to boast. For this very reason it is precious in God's eyes, and no small testimony to the absent Master. Still, it becomes all who differ from the mass to be sure of their ground, as this woman sought when she appealed to Jesus, and the Christian need seek no other-yea, is guilty and infatuated if, where men's uncertainty is so great and grave, he heed aught other-than Jesus speaking by His Word and Spirit.

John 4: 20-26.

"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where one must worship. Jesus saith to her, Woman, believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship what ye know not: we worship what we know, for salvation89 is of the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeketh such as His worshippers. God is a Spirit, and His worshippers must worship90 (Him) in spirit and truth. The woman saith to Him, I know that Messiah is coming, that is called Christ:91 when He shall come, He will tell us all things. Jesus saith to her, I that speak to thee am (He)."

The Lord more than meets every desire of the Samaritan's heart. For here we have, not merely the vindication of Israelitish worship as compared with its Samaritan rival but the first unfolding of Christian worship ever given by God to man, and this as superseding not Samaritanism only but Judaism also-a change withal then at hand. Yet is all conveyed in language that was plain enough even to the soul thus addressed, while there is depth of truth which no saint has ever fathomed, however deeply he may have drawn on it and enjoyed it.

"The Father" was to be worshipped henceforth: of itself, what a revelation! It is no longer a question of the Jehovah God of Israel, nor even of the Almighty as was the name by which He was made known to the fathers. There is a richer display of God, and far more intimate. It is not as the Eternal Who put Himself in covenant and government, Who will surely yet make good His ways with Israel, as He has chastised them for theirs. Nor is it the God Who shielded His poor pilgrims that hung on His promises in their wanderings among hostile strangers before their children formed a nation and received His law. It was God as the Son knew Him, and was making Him known in the fulness of love and fellowship, Who would accordingly bring His own that were in the world into the conscious relationship of children as born of Him. (Compare John 1: 12, 13, 18; John 14: 4-10, 20; John 16: 23-27; John 20: 17-23.)

No wonder that, in presence of such nearness and the worship that befits it, the mountain of Gerizim melts, and the sanctuary of Jerusalem fades away. For the one was but the effort of self-will, the other but the test and proof of the first man's inability to meet God and live. Christian worship is found on the possession of life eternal in the Son, and on the gift of the Spirit as the power of worship.

In verse 22 the Lord leaves it impossible for the Samaritan to draw the inference that, if Christian worship was about to be alone acceptable to God, independently of place or race, Samaritan had been just as good as Jewish. Not so. The Samaritans worshipped what they did not know, the Jews knew what they worshipped; "for salvation," as He added, "is of the Jews." They had "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, the law-giving, and the service, and the promises, whose were the fathers, and of whom as pertaining to flesh was the Christ Who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom. 9: 5.)  The Samaritans were mere imitators, Gentiles jealous of Israel and hostile to them, without fear of God, else had they submitted to His ways and Word.

Thus God's privileges to Israel are vindicated; but none the less was the Lord at that time driven out by Pharisaic jealousy, and none the less had He set aside all pretension to traditional and successional blessing. He was there to communicate from God, not to accredit man, and, He being rejected, Jerusalem and Samaria alike vanish away. Old things are judged; all things must become new. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, now that those who had the institutions of God are rejecting His counsel against themselves. And if that unbelief went to the uttermost in hatred of the Father and the Son, it would only bring out the fulness of Divine grace and righteousness, leaving His love absolutely free to act supremely above all evil for His own glory, as we know is the fact in a crucified but risen Christ.

It is remarkable accordingly that the Lord does not say "Who," but "What." For in Judaism God dwelt in thick darkness, and the testimony rendered by the whole Levitical system (with its sacrifices and priests, door, veil, incense, everything in short), was that the way into the holiest had not yet been made manifest. When Christ died it was: the veil was rent from top to bottom, and eternal redemption found; the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins, and are invited to draw near. Such is Christianity, God having revealed Himself as the Father in the Son through the Spirit. To know Him, the only true God, and Him Whom He had sent to reveal Him, even Jesus, is life eternal. And the mighty work which was done on the cross has dealt with all our evil, so that we are free to enjoy Himself. We know therefore Whom we worship, and not merely "what." When God was hidden in the thick darkness, and only the unity of His nature proclaimed, the Godhead remained vague. When the Father is revealed as now in the Son by the Spirit, what a difference!

Hence this exceeding blessedness is opened in its positive character in verses 24, 25. For it is an hour when form is repudiated, as it could not be in Judaism. Reality alone is endorsed. National worship therefore is now an evident delusion, being but an effort to resuscitate what has vanished away as far as regards any recognition on God's part. It was owned in Israel under law for its own purpose; it will be so on the largest scale in the millennium; but it is not, if we believe the Saviour, during the hour which, then coming, now is. It is an hour now when the true worshippers worship the Father. Who and what are they? The doctrinal utterances of the Apostles answer with one voice that they are God's children, born of Him through the faith of Christ, and sealed by the Spirit consequently as resting on His redemption. So the Apostle says (Phil. 3: 3) that we (in contrast with mere Jews or Judaizers) are the true circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and boast in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in flesh. But we must cite the New Testament as a whole to give the full proof, if one asks more evidence than the Lord affords in this context, though I feel assured that he who bows not to such a witness would not be won by ten thousand. A single word from God is more to the believer than every other evidence: how many would convince the unbeliever?

Further, what is said of the worship excludes all but true believers. For they are to worship in spirit and truth. How can any who have not the Spirit and know not the truth? Granted that the article is wanting. But this in such a case as the one before us adds to the strength of the statement, for it predicates a spiritual and truthful character of the worship. That is to say, the Lord's words express more than the necessity of having the Holy Ghost or of acquaintance with the truth, though this would suppose the Christian with his distinguishing privileges. But He says that they worship in that character, not merely that they have the Spirit and the truth in order to worship. Now, plainly, a real Christian might act unspiritually and not according to the truth. Even Peter and Barnabas failed at a grave crisis to walk according to the truth of the Gospel. However true the worshipper then, if he were grieving the Spirit or dishonouring the Lord, this would not be to worship in spirit and truth. But it remains still more manifest that none but "the true worshippers" could so worship, though on a given occasion or in a given state they might not, in fact, as they ought.

Moreover, "also the Father seeketh such as his worshippers." Let us weigh it. Time was when every Jew went up to Jerusalem to seek Jehovah; time will be when all nations shall flow to the same centre when the Son of man comes in power and reigns in glory. But the characteristic working of grace is that the Father seeks the true worshippers. Undoubtedly when sought they gather unto the name of the Lord, and enjoy His presence by the Spirit. It is not enough that they are washed, and not by water only but by water and blood, and thus are every whit clean; it is not only that they have the Spirit as the witness of the one efficacious sacrifice, and the spring of praise and power of continual thanksgiving; "also the Father seeketh such as His worshippers." What confidence for them! What grace in Him! Yet is His seeking such true of every Christian. May they answer His grace by eschewing all that is unworthy of it in this evil day!

But there are other words of profound import. "God is a Spirit, and His worshippers must worship in spirit and truth." It is the nature of God which is here in question, not the relationship of grace which He now reveals in and by Christ. And this is not without the greatest importance for us. For He must be worshipped correspondingly, and He most fully provided for this, seeing that the new life we enjoy is by the Spirit and is spirit, not flesh (John 3: 6), as, indeed, He begot us of His own will by the word of truth (James 1), and we are thus born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by God's living and abiding word (1 Peter 1: 23). Assuredly we should walk and worship in the Spirit, if we live in the Spirit. He is given to us that we should judge and reject  the first Adam, glorifying only the Second man, our Lord Jesus.  Nay, more, as God is a Spirit, spiritual worship is all He accepts.  His worshippers "must worship in spirit and truth." It is a moral  necessity flowing from His nature-a nature fully revealed in  Him Who is the image of the invisible God, and we should not  be ignorant of it and its character who are born of Him as believers in Christ.

The woman, struck by words plain, indeed, but no doubt far  beyond her (for they reach up to God as surely as they come  down to man), at once thinks of the Messiah, owns her  confidence in His coming, and is sure that when He is come He  will tell us all things (verse 25). Would that all who believe on  Him believed this of Him! Would that, when He has spoken  peace to them, they turned not again to folly! And what folly  greater than to turn from His words on this very theme, and in  this very chapter, for instance, to follow the traditions of men  and the ways of the world in the worship of God?

And now break on her ear and heart the last words needed to  clinch all the rest and ensure her blessing evermore: "Jesus saith  to her, I that speak to thee am (He)" (verse 26). It might be the  lowest form of presenting the only One Who can avail the  sinner, yet it remains ever true from first to last that every one  who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God. And  this the Samaritan did. Her heart was touched, her conscience  searched, and now the grace and truth which came by Jesus  Christ was all to her. All the blessing was hers in His person  Who was then present and received by her in faith.

What a moment, a present Messiah,92 and He speaking to a  Samaritan woman, yea, on Christian worship!

John 4: 27.

"And upon this came His disciples, and wondered* that he was speaking with a woman: none, however, said, What seekest Thou? or why speakest Thou with her?" Their wonder was that He spoke† with a woman:92a what was hers  who knew that every secret of her heart was naked and open  before Him with Whom she had to do? His grace, however,  had fully prepared the way. He Who searched all the recesses of her soul had already encouraged her by revealing the  richest grace of God the Father, Himself the only true Revealer  of it, about to give the Holy Spirit that even she might receive  and enjoy it truly. It was no question of seeking on her part at  any rate: the Father was seeking such; nor was it of talking with  her, but of revealing to her. The disciples had much to learn.  Had they known the subject-matter of converse they might well  have wondered incomparably more.

*The imperfect εθαύμαζον is better than the common ἐθαύμασαν, and rests on  far better authority; but it is needless to express its continuity in English in such a case  as this.

†[Syrsin: "was standing and talking," as Blass, ἑστηκὼς ἐλάλει.]

John 4: 28-30.

"The woman then left her waterpot, and went away into the  city, and saith to the men, Come, see a Man who told me all things that* ever I did: is not this the Christ?93 They went out of the city, and were  coming unto Him." The moral change was immense. A new world opened  to her which eclipsed the present with new affections, new duties, the  power of which asserted itself in lifting her entirely above the things that  are seen, whatever might be the effect ordinarily, in strengthening to a  better fulfilment of present earthly toil. But the revelation of Christ to her  soul was both all-absorbing and the most powerful stimulus to make Him  known to others. Where the eye is single, the body is full of light. She felt  who needed Him most, and she acted on it forthwith. She left her  waterpot, went off to the town, and told the men of Jesus. How well she  understood Him! He had not formally sent her, yet she went boldly with  the invitation. Nor was it merely that she bade them go: "Come, see a  Man." She would go along with them. Her heart was in the current of His  grace, and counted upon the same welcome for others, unwarranted  though it might appear, as for herself. Such is the power of Divine love even  from the very first.

*There is a question between ἃ [Edd.] on the authority of BCpm and some  other ancient witnesses, and ὅσα with far more numerous copies, here and in verse 39, the difference in English being that the latter adds "ever."

Yet there was no enfeebling of the truth because of His grace.  They, too, must prepare for what had searched her. "Come, see  a Man that told me all things that ever I did. Is not He the  Christ?" Well they knew what she had been; and if He had so  dealt with her, might not they also see and hear Him? Such a  personal experience has great power, and it is safe, too, where it  is not merely an appeal to the affections, but conscience is  searched along with it.

John 4: 31-34.

*"Meanwhile the disciples were asking Him, saying, Rabbi, eat. But He said to them, I have food to eat which ye do not know. Then the disciples said to one another, Hath any one brought Him to eat? Jesus saith to them, It is My food that I should do† the will of Him that sent Me, and finish His work." How humbling to find His disciples at such a time occupied with the body and its wants. And this the Lord makes them feel by His answer. They knew not as yet such food, disciples though they were.94 It is not as men often quote it, "His meat and His drink," for there was an inner spring of loving and delighting in His Father beyond doing His will and completing His work. But this was His food. He came to do His will. In this He was never wearied, nor should we be even now, whatever might be the fatigue of the body. For "He giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might He increaseth strength." Without Him even the "youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fail. But they that wait upon Jehovah shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and not faint." Jesus knew this Himself in perfection, and here is a sample of it.

*The great majority of witnesses [including Syrsin] add δὲ, "and" or "but"; the  most ancient omit.

†The best reading [that of Weiss and Blass] and most forcible sense is ποιῶ (AEGHMSUVΓΔΛ, etc.), not ποιήσω , read by Lachmann, Treg. W. and H., though a  manifest assimilation to τελειώσω .

John 4: 35-38.

"Do not ye say that there are yet four months and the harvest cometh? Lo, I say to you, Lift up your eyes, and  behold the fields, for they are white unto harvest already.* He†  that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life  eternal, that both‡ he that soweth and he that reapeth may  rejoice together. For in this is the saying true,§ It is one that  soweth and another that reapeth. I sent you to reap that on  which ye have not toiled: others have toiled, and ye have  entered into their toil." Whatever might be the times and  seasons of the natural harvest, the fields spiritually were ripe for  the reaper. Man, the world, undoubtedly deserved judgment;  but the very same state of sin which calls for judgment God  uses for His call of grace. The Gospel comes expressly on the  ground of man's total ruin, and therefore levels all distinctions.  Jew, Samaritan, Gentile-what are any now but sinners? The  Jew had been under probation, but he was now rejecting the  Messiah, the Son of God. All was lost; but the rejected Christ is  the Saviour, and now there is salvation for any, and grace  carries it among such as these Samaritans.

*Tischendorf, etc., sever ἤδη from verse 35 and make it begin verse 36, following  some ancient authorities; but the most ancient ( pmBMΠpm, etc.) leave it open, and  most [as Weiss] give as is here done, which seems to be alone in keeping with the  context [Blass omits, as Syrsin Chrys. Hil.].

†The common text prefixes καὶ on ample authority [including Syrsin], but the most  ancient uncials, and some good cursives, etc., are adverse [so Blass].

‡Some good and ancient authorities omit καὶ [as Weiss, but Blass retains it].

§The article before ἀληθινὸς is not read by BCpmKLTbΔΠpm, many good  cursives, and some of the Greek fathers [so W. and H., Weiss]. In one passage of  Chrysostom which has the article, he has ἀληθὴς after it, and so have a few cursives.

Not that grace had failed to work during the past times of  probation. Man had broken down utterly; but God was  preparing the way when it should be no longer experimental  dealings and man's righteousness sought, but God's  righteousness revealed in virtue of the work of Christ. His  witnesses had not wrought in vain, however little seen the  effects meanwhile.95 But the true light was now shining, and  things appeared as they are to the eye of grace. What a sight to Christ the Samaritans coming to Him-coming to hear One Who tells us whatever we did! The fields were white indeed.

It is remarkable that the Lord speaks about reaping now rather than sowing, though sowing, of course, goes on, and has its place elsewhere, as in Matthew 13. Of old it was rather sowing than reaping; now in this day of grace there is a characteristic reaping-fruit not only of God's past dealings, but of His coming and mighty work Who thus speaks to the disciples: "The reaper receiveth wages and gathereth fruit unto life eternal, that both the sower and the reaper may rejoice together." So shall it be in the day of glory, as the spirit of it is even now true in the Church and the Christian heart. "For in this is the saying true, The sower is one, and the reaper another." But while there are these differences still, it remains that the apostles are characterised by reaping rather than by sowing, and so, of course, are other labourers also. "I sent (or, have sent) you to reap that on which ye have not toiled: others have toiled, and ye have entered into their toil." How emphatically this was verified at Pentecost and afterwards all know.

John 4: 39-42.

"But out of that city many of the Samaritans believed on Him because of the word of the woman as she bore witness, He told me all things that (ever) I did. When, therefore, the Samaritans came to Him, they asked Him to abide with them. And He abode there two days; and many more believed because of His word. And they said to the woman, No longer on account of thy saying do we believe, for we have ourselves heard and know that this is indeed the* Saviour of the world." It is cheering to see how God honoured the simple testimony of the woman. Many out of that town believed on Him because of her word. Here again she bears witness to the searching of her conscience by His word: "He told me all that ever I did." It is a good guarantee that the work is Divine when there is no shrinking from such a scrutiny, otherwise grace is apt to be misused as a cover for sin or a slight dealing with a sinner, instead of judging all in God's light. But faith, whenever it is real, rises from the instrument to Him Who deigns to use it, and God loves to put honour upon the word of Jesus Himself. Hence we are told that, when He graciously acceded to the desire of the Samaritans and abode there two days, "more by a great deal believed because of His word." How sweet to the woman when they said to her, "No longer because of thy saying do we believe, for we have ourselves heard and know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world." God led them, too, in dropping His Messiahship, and the copyists have inserted it without due reason. Ancient authority seems conclusive that the words "the Christ" should disappear. Their confession is much more simple and emphatic when so put. They now knew and confessed the truth-the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ. (Compare 1 John 4: 14.)

*The Sinai, Vat., Palimpsest of Paris [Cpm], and an old St. Petersburg uncial (Tb), with almost all the most ancient versions, etc., do not read ὁ Χριστός . [It is in ACcorrDLTΔΛΠ, etc., Syrpesch hcl hier (corr) Chrys. Cyr. Alex.]

Thus without a miracle the Lord has been owned, as we see, in Samaria, first as a prophet by one, finally as Saviour of the world by all who believed on Him there. There the fullest confession of His grace was found where one might have looked for least intelligence; but faith gives new wisdom so different from the old that those who are wise must become fools if they would be wise according to God. How blessed for those who have no wisdom to boast, whom grace forms with all simplicity according to its own power! Such were the Samaritans among whom the Lord abode for this little while.

John 4: 43-46.

Matt. 4: 12-17; Mark 1: 14-16; Luke 4: 14-16.

"And after the two days He went forth thence* into Galilee. For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet hath no honour in his own country." He resumes His place among the despised and lowly. The first Gospel points out that this sphere of His ministry was according to prophecy, for Isaiah, in setting forth the sins and judgment of Israel from first to last, had spoken of the light shining in Galilee when darkness enveloped the favoured seats in the land. All the evangelists, indeed, for one reason or another, dwell upon His ministry in Galilee, John alone bringing into prominence some characteristic incidents in Jerusalem. Mark speaks much of Galilee, because his office was to describe the Lord's ministry, and there, in fact, we must follow Him if we would trace its details. Luke, again, gives it as illustrating the moral ways of God in the grace of our Lord Jesus, and the activities of One Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil. John, on the other hand, as usual, lays it on a ground that pertains more strictly to His Person.

*The Received Text, with most uncials and cursives, etc., has also καὶ ἀπῆλθεν, contrary to BCDTb, 13, 69, and some other excellent authorities.

It was His own testimony that a prophet hath no honour in his own country. He had come down not to seek His own honour, but that of Him Who sent Him. He had riches of grace and truth to dispense; He was sent, He was come, to do His Father's will; content to be nothing, have nothing from men, He goes away into Galilee. But if the Galileans paid Him no honour when He was in their midst,90 they were not unmoved by the fame that had gone out, specially by the impression made in the capital. "When, therefore, He came into Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all that* He did in Jerusalem at the feast, for they, too, went unto the feast." Galilee was not only the place where He had spent the greater part of His earthly life in humiliation and obedience, but there He had begun to make Himself known to the disciples, and there He had first wrought a sign in witness of His glory. "He† came, therefore, again into Cana of Galilee where He made the water wine." That first sign held out the promise, pledge, and earnest of Israel's future joy and blessedness; and He Himself, in the day that is coming, will be there in the land, no longer the guest nor the master of the feast alone, but the Bridegroom. And the barren one shall know her Maker as her husband, Jehovah of hosts His name, and her Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. The God not merely of the land, but of the whole earth, shall He be called.

*There is good authority for ὅσα [Edd.] as well as ἃ , the more widespread, if not ancient, copies inclining to the latter.

†The best witnesses do not read  ὁ  Ἰ., as do the Received Text and Scholz (though with a slight difference of position), following many MSS.

But it is not yet the day for singing, but of sadness; not yet for enlarging the place of Israel's tent, nor of stretching the curtains of their habitation, nor of strengthening the stakes: no breaking forth yet on the right hand or on the left, no inheriting the Gentiles, or making the desolate cities to be inhabited. Contrariwise, did not Messiah come to His own things, and His own people received Him not? Nay, they were about to consummate their sin in His cross, and to seal their unbelief in their rejection of the Gospel, forbidding His servants to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost, however grace may turn their fall to the salvation and the riches of the Gentiles. Nevertheless, grace is yet to make good every sign which is hung out to Israel, and the Lord adds on this occasion a fresh and suited display of His power for their actual circumstances and present need.

John 4: 46-48.

"And there was a certain courtier whose son was sick at  Capernaum. He, having heard that Jesus was come out of Judæa into Galilee, went away unto Him, and asked that He would go down and heal his son, for he was about to die. Jesus therefore said unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will in nowise believe." How strikingly in contrast with the simpler souls in Samaria! There was faith in the power of Jesus, but it was of a Jewish sort.97 The courtier had heard, no doubt, of miracles wrought by Him personally present. His faith rose no higher, yet evidently, if it were the power of God, there could be no limits. Absence or presence could account for nothing-they were but circumstances, and the very essence of a miracle is God rising above all circumstances. It is irrational, as well as unbelieving, to measure a miracle by one's experience. It is solely a question of God's will, power, and glory, and therefore the Lord justly rebukes the unbelief of all such thoughts.

How finely, too, the grace which wrought in the Gentile centurion whose servant was sick contrasts with the limited expectations of this Jewish courtier! There, just to exercise and manifest the power of his faith, the Lord proposed to go with the elders of the Jews who begged Him to come and save his bondman. But even though He was not far from the house, the centurion sent to Him friends expressly not to trouble Him, for he was not worthy that He should come under his roof, any more than he counted himself worthy to come to Him. He had only to say by a word, and his servant should be healed. This accordingly drew out the strong approbation of the Lord, not His censure as here. "Not even in Israel" had He found such great faith.

John 4: 49 f.

Nevertheless, the grace of the Lord never fails, and little faith receives its blessing as surely as greater faith its larger answer. "The courtier said unto Him, Sir, come down ere my child die." Here again how scanty the faith, if urgent the appeal! Still faith must have a gracious assurance. "Jesus saith to him, Go, thy son liveth" (verse 50). It was better for the courtier's soul in every way, and more to the glory of God, that Jesus should bid him go, instead of going with him. If it crossed the man's thoughts and words, it was meant to exercise his faith so much the more. "(And)* the man believed the word which Jesus had said unto him, and went his way" (verse 50). He had not long to wait before he knew the blessing.

* BD and a few other authorities omit καὶ, "and."

John 4: 51-54.

"But as he was now going down, his* servants met him, and brought (him) word, saying, Thy child liveth. He inquired, therefore, from them the hour at which he got better. They said to him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. The father, therefore, knew that (it was) at that hour in which Jesus said to him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed and his whole house." Thus God took care to arrest the servants, who were all the more interested and responsible because of their master's absence. They would watch the case, they would mark the changes in the malady of the patient, and they, therefore, were the first to see when he began to amend. They could tell the master the precise hour when the fever left the child-the very hour, as he could tell them, when Jesus spoke the word of healing power. "This second sign again did Jesus on coming out of Judæa into Galilee."98 Is it not a sign of what He is to do in the day when, reanimating the dead daughter of Zion, He will also change the water of purification into the wine of joy for God and man? Meanwhile He relieves the one ready to perish in Israel, where there was the faith, however feeble, to seek it from the Christ. It was true even then of His ministry in all its meaning and force. In the chapter which follows we have the rights of His Person asserted still more mightily in effects present and future. Here it is rather arresting the power of death than giving life. Even that He only could do, and did where there was faith.99

*DgrL., etc., omit αὐτοῦ, "his."

JOHN — THE FIFTH CHAPTER*

*[Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 446-454.]

It is one of the peculiarities of our Gospel that in it we see the Lord frequently in Jerusalem, while the Synoptic Gospels are occupied with His Galilean ministry. The miracle at the pool of Bethesda is an instance: only John records it. Both the fact and the discourse which follows eminently bring out His Person. This alone abides, and it is all to the believer, with the infinite work which owes its infiniteness to it. In the other Gospels the process of probation is viewed as still going on; by John all is seen from the first to be closed before God. Hence His moral judgment of Jerusalem is shown us at the beginning by John, as its rejection of Him also. This, to my mind, accounts for the record of the Lord's work there, as well as in Galilee, in the Gospel of John. If all be regarded as a scene of wreck and ruin morally, it was of no consequence where He wrought. As to trial, all was over; grace could and would work equally anywhere: Galilee and Jerusalem were thus alike. Sin levels all: life from God in the Son was needed by one as much as another. This our Gospel develops.

John 5: 1-9.

"After these things was the feast* of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Here authority is pretty equally divided for and against the insertion of the article. Ten uncials (CEFHILMΔΠ) insert it, ten (ABDGKSUVΓΛ) omit it. About fifty cursives and the Memph. and Theb. versions are with the former; still more with the latter. If the article be received, it can scarcely be any other feast than the passover, the first and foundation feast of the Jewish holy year. Some have thought that it might be the feast of Purim, but this would not account for Jesus going up to Jerusalem. It had no such Divine claim.100

*["The f.": so CEFHL, etc., Egypt. Cyr. Alex., followed by Tischendorf; "a f." is read by Lachm., Treg., W. and H., Weiss, Blass, as in ABDG, etc., Chrys. Epiph.]

"Now there is101 in Jerusalem at the sheep-gate* a pool that is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a†multitude of the sick, blind, lame, withered (awaiting the moving of the water. For an angel descended from time to time in the pool and troubled the water. He, therefore, that first went in after the troubling of the water, became well, whatever disease he was affected by). But a certain man was there, for thirty-and-eight years suffering under his‡ infirmity. Jesus, seeing him lying down, and knowing that he was (so) now a long time, saith to him, Desirest thou to become well?

*There is a good deal of confusion in the MSS., even where the text is certain here. Thus, while ἐπὶ τῃ προβατικῃ (at the sheep-gate, Neh. 3 LXX.) is read by the Vatican, Rescript of Paris, and thirteen more uncials and the great body of cursives, confirmed by most ancient versions [W. and H., Weiss], corr-ADGL, etc., have ἐν τῃ π . probably in the sense of the Authorised Version-"sheep-market"; whilst pm and a few other inferior authorities omit ἐπὶ (or ἐν) τῃ, and hence seem to construe προβατικὴ κολ. a "sheep-pool": so Jerome's Onomast. (ed. Lars. et Parth. p. 112), Theod. Mops. p. 26, and the Jerusalem Itin., not to speak of the Vulg. Æth. and Slav. Again, for ἡ ἐπιλεγ [W. and H., Weiss]. pm gives τὸ λεγόμενον (adopted by Tisch. in his eighth ed.), and corr ἡ ἐπιλεγ. ; while DV, eight cursives, etc., read λεγ [so Blass]. In the same ed. Tisch. exhibits Βηθζαθὰ with L, etc. (D Βελζεθὰ , B, etc. Βηθσαιδὰ , etc., A, etc., Βιθεσθὰ).

†In verses 3, 4 there are more serious differences. High, if not large, authorities (BCDL, 33, 68, many of the ante-Hier. Latin versions, Theb. Memph. Syrcu. et hier., etc.) do not read πολὺ , nor (except Dh) παραλυτικῶν , which last is not in T. R. But the great omission is of the clause ἐκδεχομένων τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος κίνησιν with pmBCpmL, 18, 157, 314 Syrcu. Theb. Memphdz. and all verse 4 as in the common text, here strengthened by D (an ancient though erratic copy), but deserted by Apm. It is certain that the narrative as ordinarily given must have been read by Tertullian (de Bapt. 5); and the answer of the sick man in the critical text, verse 7, implies, if it does not demand, such an explanation The fact may have been too startling for the copyists to believe, not about themselves or Christian times, but about the days before and up to Christ's ministry. The Romanists found it hard to credit any evidence of God's goodness to the Jews as such, and in the time alleged. Even Lachmann retained the passage. I do not think there is real weight in Alford's argument against its genuineness grounded on the plea that there are seven words used here only, or here only in this sense; for so remarkable and singular a fact would naturally call for words suited to it. There are variations among the MSS. that contain the omitted passage, but not more, perhaps, than usual. [See Westcott, "Additional Note on Chapter V," and Hort's "Note on Select Readings," p. 77. Weiss and Blass give up the verse.]

‡In verse 5 T.R. omits καὶ (so BKSVΓΛ., etc.) contrary to ACDE FGHILMUΔ and the mass of cursives, versions, etc.; also αὐτοῦ against BCpmDLΠcorr., etc., with most ancient versions.

"The infirm (man) answered, Sir,* I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool; but whilst I am coming, another goeth down before me. Jesus saith to him, Arise, take up thy couch, and walk. And immediately† the man became well, and took up his couch and walked. And on that day was Sabbath."

*Several uncials (Ccorr.EFGH, with many cursives, etc.) add ναὶ before κύριε, a few omitting κ . The received reading βάλλῃ is incorrect, and rests on few if any copies.

†pmD, the Lat. Cod. Rhedig., and Arm. omit εὐθέως, but all other authorities insert it.

A striking picture that scene was of man, of the Jews under law. There they lay without strength, and though the grace of God might interfere at intervals, the greater the need, the less could souls take advantage of His mercy. It was "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh." (Rom. 8: 3.) The impotent man was himself the witness of it till Jesus came, and, unsought, sought him. No angel's moving of the water could avail a man unable to step down and without help to plunge him into the pool. He that was stronger could always anticipate the helpless. But now grace, in Jesus the Son of God, looks, at him who had been suffering so long; grace speaks to him; grace works for him, in a word, without further delay; for the word was with power. "And immediately the man became well, and took up his couch,102 and walked. And on that day was Sabbath."

But how could Sabbath be kept or enjoined on that day of man's misery? Jesus had come to work, not to rest; whatever Pharisees might urge, He would not seal up man in a rest broken before God by sin and ruin.

Thus the sign wrought on that Sabbath carries out further what the Lord is seen doing throughout these chapters of the Gospel-substituting Himself for every object of trust or means of blessing, of old or in that day, without Israel and within. Even angels bow to the Son; yet was He incarnate, working in humiliation, going on straight to the cross. The law could not deliver from the guilt or power or effects of sin; no extraordinary intervention of God by the highest of creatures could adequately meet the need; nothing and no one but Jesus the Son of God. Yet have we also the clearest proof that the Jews were so self-satisfied in their misery by a misuse of the law, which blinded them to their sin as well as to the Son, that they were content to go on with such a Sabbath, incensed with Him Who wrought a sign that proclaimed not more surely His grace than their ruin. Hopeless, too, it was because of their rejection of the remedy and their self-complacency in their own righteousness.

Observe, however, that the Lord made the infirm feel his powerlessness more than ever before He spoke the word that raised him up. He did awaken the desire to be made whole, as He looked with infinite compassion and knew the case in all its fulness; but the desire then felt expressed itself in the man's conviction of his own wretchedness. It was like the soul's saying, in Rom. 7, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me," etc. How little he knew Who had deigned to be his "neighbour," and do the part of the good Samaritan-yea, incomparably more here where need is sounded more deeply. The Quickener of the dead is here. "He spake, and it was done," Sabbath as it might be; but what Sabbath acceptable to God can sin and misery keep? Thank God! Jesus wrought; but they felt that if He was right, it was all over with them. Hence they judged Him, not themselves, as we shall see, to God's dishonour and their own perdition.

Undoubtedly to see a man carrying his couch on the Sabbath was a strange thing in Judæa, and especially in Jerusalem. But it was, of course, by a deliberate injunction on the Lord's part. He was raising a question with the Jews which He knew would bring about a breach with their incredulity. It was a blow purposely struck at their self-complacent observance of the Sabbath, when they were blinded, not merely by self-will to violate the law, but by unbelief against their own Messiah, spite of the fullest proofs of His mission and Person. Could God accept the Sabbath-keeping of the people in such a state? Here, then, the Lord commanded an act expressly public on the Sabbath Day in Jerusalem.

John 5: 10-18.

"The Jews therefore said to him that was cured, It is Sabbath, and* it is not allowed thee to take up thy† couch. He answered them, He that made me well, the same said to me, Take up thy couch and walk." The healed man was simple, and his answer bears the stamp of right and truth. The Divine power that had wrought beyond even an angel's compass or commission, and without it, was his warrant to act upon the Word. "They asked him (therefore),‡ Who is the Man that said to thee, Take up (thy couch)‡ and walk? But he that was healed§  knew not who He was, for Jesus withdrew, a crowd being in the place." The Jews spoke with malice and contempt, "Who is the man?" They can scarcely be conceived ignorant that there was more in their midst, and Who He was. They knew His works, if they knew not Himself; and His works as well as ways proclaimed a mission more than human. The very work before them, and they could not deny it, was beyond an angel; yet they asked the healed person, "Who is the Man that said to thee, Take up thy couch and walk?" The Lord had ordered things so that the healed man should know no more; He had passed away unnoticed,103 a crowd being there.

*Καὶ is omitted in T. R. with at least ten uncials, very many cursives Vulg., Syrr., etc., but read by  ABCpmDGLVΓ, forty cursives, most ancient versions and fathers.

†A B and some eleven or twelve other uncials, and most cursives, omit σου, reading "the" [Edd.]. But CpmDLΔΠ, thirteen cursives, and the body of ancient versions, etc., read the pronoun "thy."

‡T. R. with most copies, etc., reads οὖν, "therefore"; but it is not found in BD and several other good authorities. So τὸν κρ. σου is not read by pm et corr BCpmLSah. Two uncials and six cursives omit the verse, evidently by ὁμοιοτέλευτον . (Cf. end of verse 11.)

§For ἰαθεὶς, "healed" (with ABCLΓΔΛΠ, and almost all the rest of the copies and versions and fathers), Tischendorf reads ἀσθενῶν with D and two or three Latin copies-a strange judgment and on light grounds. [Blass accepts neither.]

"After these things Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said to him, Behold, thou art made well. Sin no more, lest some worse thing happen to thee. The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus Who had made him well" (verses 14, 15). It was a gracious, but withal a solemn word. To live now, to enjoy the life that is now, is not the great matter. No cure, however bespeaking the power and goodness of God, could meet man's underlying need, for sin still remained. A cure was only provisional. The man that was cured, though it was Jesus Who cured him, had to be warned, "Sin no more,104 lest some worse thing happen to thee." He does not appear to have then adequately judged the malice of the Jews. They probably concealed their real feelings. It is often so with men toward Jesus, especially men who have a reputation for religion. They do not believe on Him, neither do they love Him. So the healed man in his simplicity fathomed not their object, but seems rather to have assumed that they were anxious to know his wondrous benefactor. Hence he went off, and brought them word that it was Jesus Who had made him well. There is no ground, I think, to suppose that he shared the feelings of the Jews, or wished to betray Jesus to those who hated Him.

But now they knew, as a fact, what they had, no doubt, suspected from the first, that the sick man had to do with Jesus. I do not say that their informant should not have known better, for they had asked, "Who is the Man that said to thee, Take up thy couch and walk?" He told them now that it was Jesus Who had made him well. His heart dwelt on the good and mighty deed that was done; theirs on the Word which touched their Sabbath-keeping. "And for this the Jews persecuted Jesus,* because He did these things on a Sabbath" (verse 16). It was the blindness of men, who, lost in forms, knew not the reality of God, and consequently knew not themselves in His presence. Sooner or later such men find themselves in collision with Jesus; what will they feel by and by?

*T.R. adds καὶ ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι with fourteen uncials, most cursives and some versions, contrary to BCDL, 1, 22, 33, 69, 249, some old Latin, Vulg. Syrcu. [sin] Memph. Arm., and early Greeks.

"But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work" (verse 17). It was an overwhelming answer. They knew nothing of fellowship with the Father. He (Jesus), not they, could call God "My Father," and loved to say that He "worketh hitherto." For the Father could not rest in sin, He would not rest in misery. It is not yet God judging. Therefore was He working as Father, and until now, though only now declaring Himself Father in and by the Son. Even before this, however, He had not left Himself without witness in Jerusalem itself, as the crowd of expectant sick round the pool of Bethesda attested. But this was only partial and transient. The Son was here to make Him fully known, and known as One Who could not keep His Sabbath yet, whatever the Jews ignorant of Him might wish to say or do. "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." Jesus, the Son, had fellowship, unbroken and perfect, with His Father.

Yet the words were still more offensive than the work they had just seen; and the way in which Jesus had openly caused it to be done and seen clashed with all their prejudices and stirred the depths of their unbelief. For in so speaking His personal glory could not but shine forth.

Both the Father and the Son were working, not resting "For this, therefore,* the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke105 the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (verse 18). Nor were they mistaken, in this inference at least. For as He did expressly charge the healed man to do what He knew would bring things to a rupture, so He did not deny, but confess, that God was His own Father in a sense that was true of none but Himself. This is the truth; and the truth of all truths most due to God, and the turning-point of all blessing to man. By it the believer knows God, and has life everlasting; without it one is an enemy of God, as the Jews showed themselves that day and ever since. Hardened men, perversely, fatally blinded, who, in presumed zeal for His honour, sought the more to kill Jesus, His own Son, come in infinite love to make the Father known, and to reconcile man to God. But God is wise and infinitely good in His work; for in letting them prove their malice to the uttermost, when the due time was come, in killing Jesus, He proved His own love to the full in atonement, making Christ, "Who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him." (2 Cor. 5: 21.)

*D and other authorities, followed by Tischendorf [and Blass] omit οὖν, contrary to the rest [as W. and H., Weiss].

John 5: 19-30.

The Lord takes up the unbelieving rejection of His Person, and brings out the truth which puts all in its place. " Jesus then answered and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself unless He sees the Father doing something; for whatever things He doeth, these also the Son doeth in like manner." It is the expression of the entire exclusion of a Will separate from God the Father. He speaks of Himself as man on earth, yet God withal: the especial topic of our Gospel. He was here displaying God, Whom otherwise no man had seen or could see; and He displayed Him as Father, however dull even disciples might be to discern it till redemption removed the veil from their eyes and sense of guilt from the conscience, till the love that gave Him to effect it was apprehended by the heart. But He had deigned to take the place of man, without forfeiting far a moment His Divine nature and rights; and as such He disclaims the least shade of self-exaltation, or independence of His Father. This flesh cannot understand now more than then; and as then it led the Jews to repudiate the Son, so now in Christendom largely to the open denial of His Divine glory or to the practical humanising of Him. Hence the effort of so many to get rid of such a symbol as the Athanasian Creed, and the otiose acquiescence of far more who believe on Him no more than they. The truth is that Scripture goes beyond any creed that ever was framed in the maintenance of His honour; and this not only in the doctrine of His inspired servants, but in their report of His own words as here.

Besides, however, being the Eternal, God all over, blessed for ever, He speaks of Himself as in this world a man, yet the Son, and as such only doing what He sees the Father do: anything else would not be to declare Him. And for this He was here. Yet so truly is He Divine that whatever things the Father does, these also does the Son likewise. He is the image of the invisible God, and alone competent to show the Father. How perfect the conjoint working of the Father and the Son! So we learn here, as in John 10, their unity. It is not only that the Son does whatever the Father may, but in like manner. How blessed their communion!

But the ground the Lord lays is also to be considered. "For the Father loveth (φιλεῖ) the Son, and showeth Him all things which He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these that ye may wonder" (verse 20). Truly the Persons in the Godhead are real, if anything is; and as the Divine nature is morally perfect, the affections that reign are not less. The joint working of the Father and the Son our Blessed Lord explains by the Father loving the Son and showing Him all that He Himself does; nay, He lets them know, as He knew Himself, that greater works would be shown Him by the Father, as the latter part of this Gospel testifies, "that ye may wonder"-He does not say believe. For He speaks, not of grace, but of power displayed in testimony to the Jews, the effect of which would be, not the faith which honours God, but the amazement which is the frequent and stupid companion of incredulity.

The Lord next singles out the immense miracle of resurrection. "For even as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth, so the Son also quickeneth whom He will; for not even the Father judgeth any one, but hath given all the judgment to the Son; that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent Him" (verses 21-23). There can be no doubt that giving life to the dead befits and characterises God; but if the Father does so, no less does the Son, and this not as an instrument, but sovereignly: "the Son also quickeneth whom He will." He is a Divine Person as truly as the Father, in full right and power. But more: He alone judges.105a Judgment as a whole, and in all its forms, is committed to the Son by the Father, Who in this sense judges none, with the express aim that all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. And so it really is; for they honour not the Father, but do Him despite who honour not His sent One, the Son. It is the Son on Whom, by the Father's pleasure, it devolves to judge; but we shall find that there is a moral reason for this which appears afterward. As it is, we learn that the Son quickens in communion with the Father, and that only He judges. Thus is His honour secured from all men, who are either quickened if they believe, or judged if they do not.

For how can a soul know that he is quickened and shall not be judged? He who reveals the portion that belongs to some and awaits the rest has not left in obscurity or doubt that which is so all-important; He has told out what so deeply concerns every child of man. Only unbelief need or can be uncertain, though it indeed should not be, for its sorrowful end is too plain to others if not to itself. Defying God, it must be judged by Him Whom it can no longer dishonour. What, on the other hand, can be more graciously distinct than the portion our Lord warrants to faith? "Verily, verily, I say to you, He that heareth My Word, and believeth Him that sent Me, hath life eternal, and cometh not into judgment, but is passed out of death into life"* (verse 24). It was no question of the law, but of hearing Christ's word, of believing (not in God in any sense, as the Authorised Version conveys, but) Him that sent Christ, believing His testimony. For this had He sent His Son, that He might give life eternal. He, therefore, that believeth Him "hath life eternal." It is a present gift of God and possession of the believer, to be enjoyed perfectly in heaven doubtless, but none the less truly given now and exercised here where Christ then was.†

*The contrast of life and judgment here, as of salvation and judgment in Heb. 9: 27, 28, is so distinctly revealed, and on ground so solemn as the honour or dishonour of the Son, that one may wonder at the prejudice of the late able Knightsbridge Professor in the University of Cambridge, who opposes Dr. Gr. Guinness where he is as right as he himself was wrong on the judgment in Rev. 20. For the faithful never coming into judgment at all, Mr. T. R. Birks saw "no ground but Alford's altered translation of John 5: 24, which I believe to be a mistake" ("Thoughts on the Times and Seasons of Sacred Prophecy," p. 65, 1880): an astounding utterance, not only in its philological aspect, since the Greek admits of no other sense, but no less certainly as a question of Divine grace and truth, and of Divine righteousness. It is nothing less than a heterodox or unbelieving offence against the Gospel, even against what an O.T. saint could say before the Saviour came, as in Ps. 143: 2. If the manifestation of all absolutely before the judgment-seat of Christ were enfeebled, there had been reason for the gravest warning. But it is agreed, that each of us shall give account of himself to God, and receive the things done through the body accordingly, whether good or evil. This, however, gives no title to deny Christ's word, or the believer's distinctive privilege that he comes not into judgment or needs "acquittal" in that day, after having been already justified. Doctrinally it dishonours the Lord and His work, yet more than the faith of the saint; it replunges into doubt and darkness those whom grace has saved through believing; it would bring back the distress on exercised hearts, which the misrendering of John 5 and of 1 Cor. 11 introduced. This misrendering in the A.V. is corrected beyond just hesitation by the R.V. AB to "Alford's altered translation," be it remarked that the A V. of John 5: 22 and 27 corrects the error in 24 and 29. It is the same word κρίσις all through, which indisputably means "judgment," not damnation or "condemnation" like κατάκριμα, as the verb (22, 30) mean" "to judge." Nor is it unimportant to notice the ignorance of talking thus of Dean Alford, seeing that the most influential perhaps of all versions, Jerome's Vulgate, is quite right in both John 5 and 1 Cor. 11, where the A.V. was lamentably and inexcusably wrong. In the Gospel the old Latin MSS., Vercell. Veron. Brix., etc., were right. Many of the Oriental versions are correct; some waver like the A.V., to the ruin of definite truth on what is of great moment. But where the doctrine on everlasting punishment was unsound, it is not surprising to learn that there was lack of faith as to life eternal and its exemption from judgment.

†[Cf. "Exposition of Epistles," p. 375.]

But there is more than the actual communication of a new life by faith, a life of which Christ, not Adam, is the Source and Character; he who has life does not come into judgment (κρίσιν). The Authorised English Version has "condemnation"; but the Lord says more than this: the believer "cometh not into judgment." He will be manifested before Christ's tribunal; he will give account of all done in the body, but he does not, if Christ is to be believed, come into judgment. He will never be put on his trial to see whether he is to be lost or not. Strange notion! after it may be in the separate state departing "to be with Christ, which is far better," certainly after being changed into the likeness of His glory, to be judged. Think of the "beloved disciple," when glorified, put on so awful a trial! It is equally inconsistent for every other believer; for life eternal is the same for all. Salvation does not vary for any, more than Christ does. No! such an idea is theology, the too common doctrine of Christendom, Protestant or Popish, Arminian or Calvinist; but it is directly in collision with the plain and sure words of Christ.

All the great English translations are wrong here, Wiclif, Tyndal, Cranmer, and Geneva, with the Authorised Version. Singular to say, the Rhemish Version alone is right, in this following the Vulgate: a mere accident undoubtedly, for none are so distant from the truth conveyed by their own translation, from the apprehension of exemption from judgment, as Romish doctors. And none are so unfaithful in the next clause, for they actually make the Lord seem to say "shall pass from death into life."* He really said ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τ. θ. εἰς τ. ζ., "but is (or, hath) passed (the present result of a past act) out of death into life." Here the Protestant versions are right, Wiclif feeble, the Rhemish false. And there is not even the excuse of the Vulgate, which reads "transiit." Possibly they read "transiet"; but if so, it was an error which some copies of the Latin would have corrected, if they ignored the inspired original.

*In Nonnus' "Paraphrase of our Gospel" (fifth century, ed. by Passow and Bach, 1834) thero is the similar error of rendering ἵξεται ἐκ θάάτοιο. So in the Amiatine and other ancient Vulgate MSS. we have "transiet," and in a Munich old Latin copy of the sixth century "transibit"

However this be, the truth set forth by our Saviour is of all moment: would that every believer knew it and rejoiced in it with simplicity and in its fulness, as this one verse presents it! It is Christ's Word that is heard in divinely given faith, and this quickens the soul: no thought here or anywhere else of any such virtue in an administered ordinance. But faith does not slight His judgment; on the contrary, the believer now bows to it morally in His Word, receives God's testimony to His Son, and is passed from death into life.

The Lord has thus answered the question which His solemn words would raise in every soul that fears God. He had shown it to be no question of law or of ordinance, but of hearing His Word and believing the Father that sent Him. Such only have eternal life; but he who so believes has it now. How blessed and secure his portion in Christ!

Next He turns to the more general state of things. "Verily, verily, I say to you, An hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that have heard shall live" (verse 25). It is indeed the sad truth: men in all the activities of the world are here "the dead." Nor is it a question of a stricter morality or of a holier religion. Either one or other or both they may acquire, and yet want life. Dogma cannot give it any more than practice. It flows from the Son of God, Who quickens whom He will; yet is it by faith, and so through the word which the Spirit applies livingly.

Here it is that Evangelicalism is feeble and Sacramentalism is false. If the latter superstitiously gives to a creature ordinance the honour which belongs to a divine Person alone, the former ignores and lowers the truth by talking of a converted character and of devoting to God what was once abandoned to self and sin; but neither has any adequate estimate of the total ruin of man, nor consequently of the absolute need and real power of Divine grace. "The dead" are men universally now till born of God. It is no picture of the future resurrection, whether of just or unjust, which follows in verses 28, 29, but of the present hour, as the Lord Himself intimates; for it "now is," "when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God."106 His voice goes forth "to every creature" in the Gospel; "and those that heard shall live." Such are the means and condition of life. It is of faith that it might be by grace. Man's utter powerlessness is as manifest and certain as His glorious energy.

Those, then, that heard shall live. Alas! the mass of mankind have ears but they hear not; even as to the Jews, when they saw Him, there was no beauty that they should desire Him. Whether it be superstitious or sceptical man, he submits not to the sentence of God on his own estate, nor consequently feels the need of sovereign mercy in Christ, Who alone can give the life man wants for God now or through eternity. But whatever the mercy of God, He will have His Son honoured, and this now by hearing His Word and believing the testimony of Him Who sent Him. This tests man thoroughly, which the law only did partially. For never does the sinner trust God for life eternal till grace makes him see his sins and distrust himself utterly. Then how glad is he to learn that the goodness of God gives life eternal in Christ, and has sent Him thab he might know it! How willingly he owns himself one of "the dead," which no man does really till he lives of the new life which is in Christ! How heartily he bows to the Son of God, and blesses the God Who sent Him in love and compassion, willing not the death of the sinner, but rather that he might have life through His name!

But the same unbelief, which of old in the Jews violated the law and lusted after idols, now in the Gentiles trusts an ordinance for it, to the exaltation of those that arrogate to themselves its valid and exclusive administration, or openly distrusts God and slights His Son, confiding in themselves without Him. They are the religiously or the profanely infidel. They are "the dead," and have never heard the voice of the Son of God, but only of their priests or of their philosophers. Whatever their boastings, they shall not live, for they have not Christ, but only ideas, imaginative or rational; not the truth which is inseparable from Christ received by faith to the glory of God and the annihilation of human pretensions.

It is all-important to see that all truth centres in the Person of Christ, Who, being God from everlasting to everlasting, deigned to become man, without the least forfeiture of Divine glory, yet loyally accepting the position proper to humanity. Hence the language of the Lord in what follows, the misapprehension of which has led not a few theologians of eminence to the brink, if not into the pit, of fundamental heterodoxy.107 "For even as the Father hath life in Himself, so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and gave Him authority to execute judgment (also),* because he is Son of man" (verses 26, 27). The Lord evidently speaks here as come below, a man, the Sent of God and Servant of the Divine purposes, not as the One Who is over all, God blessed for ever, though both be true of Him in His Person. As the eternal Son, He quickens whom He will; as come in humiliation, it is given Him of the Father to have life in Himself. Born of a woman, He is still Son of God (Luke 1: 35). But men despise the man Christ Jesus. Some trust in themselves that they are righteous, all disliking Him Who did not His own wit, but the wit of Him that sent Him. He Who lived on account of the Father is irksome to all that live to themselves, and odious to such as seek honour one of another. They misuse His humanity to deny His deity. They have no life, for they have no faith. But they cannot escape judgment, and a judgment executed in that very nature of man for which they rejected the Son of God.

*The majority read καὶ , "also," but not A B L, etc., Memph.

It is as Son of man that the Lord Jesus will sit on the throne. Doubtless He will show His Divine knowledge in judging; but, as He says expressly, authority is given Him of the Father to execute judgment, because He is Son of man. As Son of God He quickens; as Son of man He wit judge. How solemn! Had He been only Son of God, who would have dared to despise Him? The light of His glory had consumed instantly every proud adversary from before Him. It was His grace, then, in becoming man to save men which exposed Him to contempt in His path of lowly obedience and suffering in love. The archangel is a servant; He stooped to become one (Phil. 2: 6, 7). But the god of this world blinded them, so that they counted as only man Him Who never more proved Himself God to such as by grace had eyes to see. If they insulted Him in His work of grace, how will it be when He executes judgment, and this as Son of man? Such is the award of God.

"Wonder not at this; for an hour is coming, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear His Voice, and shall go forth, those that practised good unto a resurrection of life, and those that did evil unto a resurrection of judgment " (verses 28, 29).

Thus another hour is announced distinct from what "now is," and only "coming," an hour not of quickening such of the dead as hear the voice of Christ, but of "all that are in the tombs" rising. It is the hour of proper resurrection; and the Lord carefully negatives the popular thought of one general resurrection. Not so; here, as elsewhere, we learn of two resurrections wholly and distinctly contrasted in character, as we find in Revelation 20 they are in time, with the millennium and more between them.

It did not enter into the scope of the Lord's discourse, any more than of the Spirit's design in the Gospel, to reveal in detail the order of events chronologically. This has its suited place in the great prophecy of the New Testament. But the far deeper difference of their relation to Christ Himself, viewed as Son of God and Son of man, is laid before us in a few words of the profoundest interest-a difference which would be true if no more than ten minutes intervened, but which is rendered far more distinct and impressive, inasmuch as the Revelation lets us see an interval of more than a thousand years. How great the confusion in the theology of the schools and pulpits, which supposes a single promiscuous rising of just and unjust, and this mainly on an exegesis so absurd as that which applies Matt. 25: 31-46 to the resurrection! For it is certainly a judgment of the quick, of "all the nations," before the Son of man when He comes again in glory; not the judgment of the wicked dead and their works before the great white Throne after heaven and earth are fled away, and all question of coming again is closed. There is the further mischief resulting from this interpretation that it tends to insinuate that just and unjust come into judgment, to the destruction of the capital truth of the Gospel, which contrasts life and judgment, as we have seen in our Saviour's words, and may find elsewhere also.

There is this essential difference in the two "hours," that, while in the first some only by grace hear His voice and have life, in the second all that are in the tombs shall hear it and shall go forth. But there is no confusion of just and unjust longer. In the world they had been more or less mixed together. In the field where the good seed was sown the enemy sowed darnel; and, spite of the servants, the Lord ruled that both were to grow together until the harvest. But in the coming hour there is no mingling more: the solemn severing of all takes place, "those that practised good unto a resurrection of life, and those that did evil unto a resurrection of judgment." For life eternal in Christ is never inoperative, and the Holy Ghost, Who is given to the believer consequent on the accomplishment of redemption and the ascension of Christ, works in that life, that there may be the fruit of righteousness by Jesus Christ to God's glory and praise. Hence, such as believed are here characterised as those that practised good, and as this had its root in life, so its issue is a resurrection of life; while those who had no life, being rejecters of Him Who is its source, are described as "those that did evil," and their end a resurrection of judgment. In the hour that now is they would not have the Son of God in all His grace; they must be judged by the Son of man in the hour that is coming. The two resurrections are as distinct as the characters of those who rise in each. But Jesus is Lord of all and raises all, though on a different principle, of a different class, and to a different end.108

Nothing can be more definite than the Son's claim of the powers most characteristic of God the Father, quickening and raising the dead; nothing more decided than the Father's resolve to maintain the honour of His incarnate Son. For every tittle and form of judging is committed to the Son of man, and with the express purpose, which shall surely stand, that all are to honour the Son as they honour the Father. But the giving life is the action of grace in its fullest character, as judgment is the vindication of the Son's honour on those who slighted Him and never had life eternal any more than salvation. To confound the two is the unintelligence of man and his tradition, and is wholly opposed to plain revelation. It is an error of great magnitude.

The Lord still speaks as Son, but as man on earth, and in verse 30 binds together what He had already unfolded with the various witnesses to His glory in what follows. He was equal to the task of judging, though the lowliest of men; and this just because He was in none of His ways or thoughts independent of the Father. It is the perfection of man; He alone was so, Who counted it no object of robbery to be on equality with God. But being God, He had become man for God's glory; and so He says, "I cannot do anything of myself; as I hear I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I seek not My will, but the will of Him* that sent me" (verse 30). He saw, He heard, as the perfectly dependent and obedient man, though none could have taken in such a range unless a Divine Person. He had a will, but it was used in entire subjection to the Father. He saw whatever the Father does to do the same likewise; He heard with an ear opened and wakened, morning by morning, to hear as the learned, and so He judged; and His judgment was just. There was nothing to distract or mislead, though there was one who sought it with all subtlety. But he was foiled, and failed utterly, for here he was assailing not the first man, but the Second, Who had come to do the will of God. Such a purpose of heart maintains both singleness of eye and unswerving fidelity. Thus did the sent One ever walk. Who so competent and suited to judge, and this as Man, mankind?109

*The received text adds πατρὸσ, "Father," with many authorities, but not the most ancient.

John 5: 31-47.

Next we are introduced to the witnesses who testify to Him. "If I bear witness about Myself, My witness is not true. It is another that beareth witness about Me, and I know* that the witness which he beareth about Me is true. Ye have sent unto John, and he hath borne witness to the truth. But I do not receive the witness from man; but these things I say that ye may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light."

*The Sinaiticpm and the Cambridge MS. of Beza, with a few other good authorities, read οἴδατε, "ye know" [so Blass], but almost all the rest support the common reading [as Weiss].

John the Baptist, then, is the first witness, whom the Lord summons in the ready and everlasting love which said nothing of His own testimony, if by any means they might be convinced and believe the truth. For this had He been born, and for this come into the world. He lived on account of the Father, Who testified about Him. Never was His an interested or an isolated testimony; but He would waive it, and points to His forerunner. For this purpose had John been raised up beyond denial, and no testimony from among men could be conceived more unimpeachable. His birth, his life, his preaching, his death, all bore the stamp of truthfulness; and never had one pointed to another as he to the Lord Jesus. The Jews, too, had sought his death solemnly, and he had not flinched. Who else had ever so testified before and after the coming of the object of testimony? He was not the Christ, as he confessed and denied not, when men were ready to give him the glory due to the Master. Nor, on the other hand, did Christ seek testimony from man; yet to what did He not stoop that souls might be saved? If a man, however, was to be used at all, none greater than John had arisen among those born of women, as the Lord says. The burning and shining lamp had been a source of joy for a while; but men are inconstant, and the testimony of him, who was truly "a voice in the wilderness," was refused.

The second and greater witness we see in the works of Christ. "But I have the witness greater110 than of John; for the works which the Father hath given Me that I should complete them, the works themselves which I do bear witness about Me that the Father hath sent Me" (verse 36). In every way Christ's works testify not so much of the power displayed as of their character.110a What grace and truth shine through them as in Him!

The third witness is the Father's voice. "And the Father Who sent Me Himself* hath borne witness about Me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape; and His Word ye have not abiding in you, because Him whom He sent ye do not believe" (verses 37, 38). This attestation to the relation and glory of the Son rises still higher-we might have thought to the highest, had not our Lord added another111 and crowning testimony in that which degenerate Christendom is now learning to abandon with contempt, to its own ruin and speedy judgment.

* B L have ἐκεῖνος [Weiss, Blass], D ἐκεῖνος αὐτὸς, for αὐτὸς in the great mass of the authorities, as in Text. Rec.

The fourth and crowning witness is that of the Scriptures. "Search" (or "Ye search") "the Scriptures, for ye think that ye have in them life eternal; and it is they that bear witness about Me. And ye are not willing to come unto Me that ye may have life" (verses 39, 40). The practical difference between the indicative and the imperative is not great, because the context decides that it is an appeal, as it has been well remarked, rather than a command. They were not so infatuated as to suppose that they had life eternal in themselves; they looked for it in the Scriptures, and so were in the habit of searching them, as they do, more or less, to this day.112 But though the Scriptures testify about the Lord Jesus, they have no willingness to come unto Him that they may have the life He alone can give. For the Scriptures cannot give life apart from Him, nor will the Father; yet are the Scriptures the standing witness of Christ, continually holding Him forth as the revealed resource for man and triumph for God, and this in goodness, not merely in judgment, to the utter confusion of the enemy and of all who take their part with him against God. The presence of Christ put to the test, not merely man in his misery and universal departure from God but those who were entrusted with those oracles of God and the Saviour Son, despised by the Jews, has but to pronounce the sentence on them thus wilfully slighting their own best witnesses to Him, "Ye will not come unto Me that ye may have life."

Was it, then, that the Lord Jesus sought present honour? His whole life, from His birth to His death, declared the contrary with a plainness which none could mistake. How was it with His adversaries? "Glory from men I do not receive; but I know you that ye have not the love of God in yourselves. I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not: if another come in His own name, Him ye will receive" (verses 41-43). "Glory from men" is the moving spring of the world: Jesus not only sought it not, but did not receive it. He always did the things that pleased the Father, Who gave Him commandment what He should say, and what He should speak. He kept His Father's commandments, and abode in His love. In no sense had the Jews the love of God in them: ambitious of human glory, and self-complacent, their soul abhorred Jesus, as His soul was straitened for them. His coming had put them to a fresh and far fuller test. He had brought God too close to them-yea, the Father; but they knew neither Christ nor the Father: if they had known the one, they should have known the other.

But there should be another test yet: not His coming in the Father's name with the simple aim of doing His will and glorifying Him, but another to come in His own name. This would suit the Jew-man. Self-exaltation is his bane, and Satan's bait, and therein utterly irremediable ruin under Divine judgment. It is the man of sin 113 in contrast with the Son of God, the Man of obedience and righteousness; and, according as we have heard that Antichrist comes, even now there have come many antichrists. But the presence of Antichrist will be according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in every deceit of unrighteousness, to those that perish, because they have not received the love of the truth that they might be saved. They would not have the true God and eternal life in the Son become man and suffering in love for man; they will receive Satan's man when he sets up to be God. This is the great lie of the end, and they will be lost in it who rejected the truth in Christ.

Nor is there anything strange in such a close for those who know the ways of man from the beginning. "How can ye believe114 who receive glory one of another, and seek not the glory which (is) from the only God?" (verse 41). Such is the world, the scene where man walks in a vain show, blessing his soul while he lives, and praised by his fellows when he did well to himself; but such shall never see light. This their way is their folly, let posterity ever so much delight in their mouth. "Like sheep they are laid in Sheol; death feedeth on them, and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning." (Ps. 49: 14.)  If God's "children" are told to keep themselves from idols, one cannot wonder that the idolatry of man-of self-should be the death of faith. Any object is welcome rather than the true and only God, "Who shall render to each according to his works; to those who in patience of good work seek for glory, honour, and incorruption, life eternal; but to those that are contentious, and are disobedient to the truth, and obey unrighteousness, (there shall be) wrath and indignation, tribulation and distress." (Rom. 2: 6-9.)

Does the Lord, then, take the place of accusing the Jews? Not so: they boasted of Moses, but will find in him testimony fatal to themselves. "Think not that I will accuse you unto the Father: there is one that accuseth you, Moses, on whom ye trust [have yet your hope]; for if ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe My words?" (verses 45-47). Never was such honour put on the written word. Jesus had, if any one, God's word abiding in Him. Nobody ever had the Father's words and His word as He; no one gave them out invariably, and at all times, as He; yet does He set the writings of the Bible above His own sayings, as a testimony to Jewish conscience. It was no question of superior claim in themselves, or in the character of truth conveyed; for none of old could compare with the words of Christ. The Father on the holy mount had Himself answered the foolish words of Peter, who would have put Moses, Elias, and the Lord in three tabernacles and co-ordinate glory. Not so. "This is My beloved Son: hear Him." (Mark 9: 7.) The lawgiver, the prophet, must bow to Jesus. They had their place as servants: He is Son and Lord of all. They retire, leaving Him the one object of the Father's good pleasure, and of our communion with the Father through hearing the Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

Nevertheless, it is the Son Himself Who here gives to the writings of Moses a place in testimony beyond His own words; not because the servant approached the Master, or the Decalogue the Sermon on the Mount, but because the Scripture, as such, has a character of permanence in testimony which can attach only to the written word. And Moses wrote of Christ-necessarily, therefore, by Divine power-as a prophet of "the prophet which should come into the world," of the Prophet incomparably more than prophet, the Son of God, Who quickens every believer, and shall judge every despiser, raising from the grave these for a resurrection of judgment, as those for one of life. Had the Jews, then, believed Moses, they would have believed Christ: words which teach us that faith is no such otiose exercise as some would make it; for the Jews in no way questioned, but received his writings as Divine. But not to doubt is far from believing; and they saw not in any of his books the great object of testimony in all, Jesus the Messiah, a man, yet far more than man, a Divine Saviour of sinners and Sacrifice for sins, the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. If they believed Moses, they would have believed Him, for he wrote of Him. But if they believed not his writings, the Saviour did not expect them to believe His own words.

What an estimate of the authority of those very Scriptures which self-sufficient men have assailed as untrustworthy! They dare to tell us that they are neither Mosaic in origin, nor Messianic in testimony, but a mass of legends which do not even cohere in their poor and human reports of early days. On the other hand, the Judge of quick and dead declares that the Scriptures testify of Him, and that Moses wrote of Him, setting the written word in point of authority above even His words. As the Saviour and Rationalism are thus in direct antagonism, the Christian has no hesitation which to receive and which to reject, for one cannot serve both masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. So it is, and must be, and ought to be; for Christ and Rationalism are irreconcilable. Those who pretend to serve both have no principle as to either, and are the most corrupting dogmatically of all men. They not only do not possess the truth, but they make the love of it impossible, enemies alike of God and man.115

JOHN — THE SIXTH CHAPTER*

[Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 454-456.]

John 6: 1-15.

Matt. 14: 13-21; Matt. 15: 32-39; Mark 6: 32-44; Mark 8: 1-10; Luke 9: 10-17.

Our Gospel now gives us the great miracle, or sign rather, common to all the four; and this, as ever here, introductorily to the discourse that follows-Christ, incarnate and in death, the food of eternal life for those who believe on His name. Here it is the Son of man humbled and ascended, as in chapter 5 the Son of God quickening those that hear, and by and by as Son of man about to judge those that believe not.

"After these things Jesus went away beyond the sea of Galilee, of Tiberias, and a great crowd followed Him because they saw the* signs which he wrought on the sick. But Jesus went up into the mountain, and there sat with His disciples; and the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. Jesus then, lifting up His eyes, and seeing that a great crowd cometh unto Him, saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy loaves that these may eat? But this He said, trying him, for He Himself knew what He was about to do. Philip answered Him, Loaves for two hundred pence are not sufficient for them, that each of them† may have some little. One of His disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, saith to Him, There is a little boy116 here that hath five barley-loaves and two fishes; but these, what are they for so many?"

*Without αὐτοῦ  ABDKLSΔII, many cursives, and almost all the ancient versions; with it EFGHMUVΓΔ, etc.

† ABLΠ, six cursives, and most versions reject αὐτῶν.

The scene is wholly changed from Jerusalem. We see the Lord in Galilee, and in that part of the lake called from the city of Tiberias, as well as from the province bordering on its western side. A great crowd follow Him because of the signs He wrought on the sick. The Lord withdraws to the high land, where He sits with His disciples, the Passover being then at hand. None of the motives mentioned in the Synoptic accounts do we find here: neither the beheading of John Baptist, nor the Apostles' return from their mission, nor the need of rest after toils in teaching or other work. Jesus fills the picture: all is in His hand. It is He Who takes the initiative; not that the disciples may not have previously been perplexed, nor as if John did not know this as well as Matthew and the rest, but because it pleased the Holy Spirit to give us Christ Himself alone master of the situation, as always in his Gospel. The nearness of the Passover is noted as repeatedly in this Gospel. Here, too, there was the reason for it, that the discourse that follows, as well as the sign wrought, is grounded on eating and drinking as the token of communion.

"Jesus, then, lifting up His eyes, and seeing that a great crowd cometh unto Him, saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy loaves that these may eat?" The evangelist, however, is careful of His glory, and loses no time in letting us know that it was out of no uncertainty in His own mind, but in order to test Philip: He knew what He was going to do. Nevertheless, He awaits the despairing words of Philip's fellow-townsman, Andrew, and would teach all now what His gracious power loves to do with the little and despised, were it for the greatest need. The brother of Simon Peter, who was even before his brother in seeing the Messiah, could think of a little boy with five barley-loaves and two fishes, not of Jesus. And where was Peter? Where John, the disciple that He loved? Nowhere in faith. Truly flesh cannot glory in His presence.

Let us turn to the One we may and ought to glory in, honouring the Father in honouring Him. "Jesus said, Make the people (ἀνθρώπους) sit (or lie) down. Now there was much grass in the place. The men (ἄνδρες) then sat down in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and, having given thanks,* distributed† to those that were set down, and likewise also of the fishes, as much as they would.117 But when they were filled, He saith to His disciples, Gather the fragments that are over, that nothing be lost. They gathered (them) then, and filled twelve baskets with fragments117a of the five barley-loaves which were over to those that had eaten. The people (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) then, having seen the sign which Jesus‡ did, said, This is truly the Prophet that is coming into the world. Jesus then, knowing that they would come and seize Him that they might make (Him) king, withdrew (again)§ to the mountain Himself alone" (verses 10-15).

*D, etc., read εὐχαρίστησεν καὶ, "gave thanks and."

†It will be noticed that the vulgar text interpolates the disciples, τοῖς μαθηταῖς, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ, while the true text makes it only a question of the Lord. One may add too that DΓ, nine cursive MSS., and other authorities have ἔδωκεν (eight others δέδωκεν), "gave," while ABLΔΛII, and most others give διέδοκεν, "distributed" [Edd.].

‡ Ὁ Ἰησοῦς, the reading of most MSS., is not in BD and some other good authorities [as Syrsin].

§ πάλιν is supported by ABDKLΛ, many cursives, and some versions. It is omitted by EFGHMSUVΓΔ, more than one hundred cursives, besides versions.

One is afraid that, poor as was the intelligence of the Galilean crowd, they understood the import of this great sign better than the Christendom of the last seventeen hundred years. They were, no doubt, dull enough as to their deepest need, and they had no appreciation of the Saviour's grace in humiliation and redemption, afterwards fully set forth by Him in the discourse that ensues; but they had some thoughts not wholly untrue, though human and short enough, of the kingdom God is going to set up here below. Now and for many centuries theology indulges in a sort of mystic dream that the Gospel or Church is the kingdom of Christ, His kingdom of grace, to be at the end His kingdom of glory. But they have no thought of His coming in the kingdom He will have received, that not Israel only, but all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; and this too an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. A two-fold error, which lets slip the oneness of the body of Christ, the Church, with its glorified Head on high, and denies the mercy and faithfulness of God to Israel, who are the destined centre of Jehovah's earthly plans for the kingdom, when we, changed into the likeness of Christ's glory, shall reign together with Him.

The crowd were struck with the fulfilment of this fresh and crowning sign. They had not abandoned as yet their hopes. They knew that Jehovah has chosen Zion; that He has desired it for His habitation; that He will abundantly bless her provision and satisfy her poor with bread (Ps. 132). Was not He Who now displayed this power of Jehovah the promised Son of David Whom Jehovah will set on His throne? Such was their conclusion. "This is truly the prophet that is coming into the world." They thus bound up the law,118 Psalms and prophets in their testimony to the Messiah; and so far they were quite right. But not so in their desire, which the Lord knew, to forge Him to be king.118a For this would be in no way the kingdom of God, but of man, nor of heaven, but of earth. Not so: as He Himself taught afterwards, He was to go into a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom and to return. Not till then shall the kingdom of God appear.

Till then it is a question for us of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, and the kingdom is not in word, but in power which is known to faith, not displayed yet. But it will not be always hidden as now, nor the domain of purely spiritual energy. Christ will come in His kingdom and reign till He has put all enemies under His feet, after asking from Jehovah, Who will give Him the heathen for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. It will be no question then, as now, of patiently working by the Gospel, but of breaking the nations with a rod of iron and of dashing them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Unbelief either antedates the kingdom, striving to set it up now by man's will, or abandons it for the delusion of human progress, without a thought of God's purpose to establish it by Christ the second Man when the first is judged. Faith patiently waits for it meanwhile. So the Lord declined then, and went up on high-this time Himself alone.119 It was the figure of what is actually true. Owned as Prophet, He refuses to be man's king, and goes above to exercise His intercession, as He is now doing, the great Priest in the presence of God.

But the Lord vouchsafes another sign to the very people who soon after ask for a sign that they might see and believe (verse 30). So blind is man even when grace is multiplying these helps for those who discern it! Submission to God was the true want. not more signs.

John 6: 16-21.

Matt. 14: 22-33; Mark 6: 45-52.

"But when evening was come, His disciples went down unto the sea, and, having gone on board ship,* were crossing the sea unto Capernaum.120 And darkness had already come on, and Jesus had not yet† come to them, and the sea was rough, as a strong wind was blowing. Having rowed, then, about twenty-five or thirty stadia, they behold Jesus walking on the sea120a and coming near the ship, and they were affrighted. But He saith to them, It is I: be not afraid. They were willing therefore to receive Him into the ship, and immediately the ship was at the land whither they were going" (verses 16-21).

*The article is not in BLΔ, a few cursives, etc., but is in more than a dozen uncials, and most cursives.

† οὔπω is read by BDL, some cursives, and most ancient versions.

How striking the contrast with another storm on the same lake, where the waves beat into the ship so that it was now full, and He was on board, but asleep, and the disciples awoke Him with the selfish and unbelieving cry, Master, carest Thou not that we perish? And He arose and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, Peace, and both obeyed the Creator of all, Whom man alone despised because His love made Him the servant of all to God's glory.

Here it is the picture of the Lord's people while Himself is on high, exposed to the storms which the enemy knows how to excite, and after much toil making little progress. So it will be also for those who follow us at the end of the age. They will experience untold trials of the sharpest kind, with scanty comfort or even intelligence, save as compared with "the wicked," who shall not understand, least of all (we may perhaps add) in that day. Darkness will have already set in; but in the midst of their increasing troubles Jesus will appear, though they will not even then be delivered from their fears, for the glorious light will rather augment them, till they hear His voice and know that He is indeed their Saviour, long absent, now come back. Received into the ship, He causes it to reach immediately the desired haven. So it will be with the righteous remnant by and by. Whether for them or for ourselves, all turns on Christ; and this it is the peculiar office of our Gospel to illustrate.

Matthew, who alone specifically names the Church as taking the place now of the disowned people after the rejection of the Messiah, alone shows us Peter quitting the ship to walk over the water toward Jesus, to walk where nothing but faith could sustain, and where, therefore, we see him soon sinking through unbelief, as the Church has done still more deplorably: but the Lord, faithful in His care, keeps spite of all. It is only when the ship is entered (the Jewish position properly) that the wind ceases, and He is welcomed with all His beneficent power in the land whence once they had besought Him to depart out of their borders (Matt. 14).

Our evangelist, however, does not trace these earthly blessings which await "that day," but turns to the circumstances and questions which the Lord makes the occasion of the wonderful discourse that follows. He adheres to his task of unfolding the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.

John 6: 22-51.

"On the morrow the crowd that was standing on the other side of the sea, having seen that there was no other boat but one,* and that Jesus went not with His disciples into the ship,** but that His disciples went off alone-yet†  (other) boats‡ came from Tiberias near the place where they ate  the bread after the Lord had given thanks-when the crowd  then saw that Jesus was not there nor His disciples, they went  themselves on board the ships and came to Capernaum seeking  for Jesus; and having found Him on the other side of the sea,  they said to Him, Rabbi, when camest Thou hither?121 Jesus  answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek  Me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye ate of the loaves  and were filled. Work not for the food that perisheth, but for the  food§ that abideth unto life eternal which the Son of man shall  give|| you; for him the Father sealed, (even) God. They said  therefore to Him, What must we do that we may work the  works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the  work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He sent."

* cABL, some cursives, and excellent versions, support εἰ μὴ ἓν, but the common text, following at least a dozen uncials, most cursives, etc., has ἐκεῖο εἰς ὅ ἐνέβησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ , "that one whereinto His disciples were entered."

** πλοῖον, ABDKOθg, twenty-five cursives, etc.; πλοιάριον, "boat,"  eleven uncials, most cursives, etc.

† δὲ is omitted by BLθg, etc. It is also a question between ἄλλα, "other," or  ἀλλὰ. " but."

‡ πλοῖα, "ships," in a few MSS.

§ The second τὴν βρῶσιν is omitted by EFGH, etc.

|| δίδωσιν, "doth give," is the reading of D, etc. [Blass]; δώσει, "shall  give," of ABEFGHKL, etc [Syrsin, followed by W. and H., Weiss].

The particulars related serve to show how the crowd was  struck by the mysterious disappearance of the Lord. They knew  that He had not accompanied the disciples in their ship, and that  there was no other in which He could have crossed the lake  when He must have left the mountain. They put forward their  curiosity as to His mode of passage as a cover for their desire to  profit, as they had done already, by His miraculous supply of  their wants. The Lord in reply strips them of their disguise and  confronts them with their selfishness. It was this which  prompted their search after Him, not the* interest in the signs  which He had just wrought. He prefaces their exposure with the  formula of unusual solemnity which He reserved for the  enunciation of great truths. "Rabbi" (said they), "when camest Thou hither?" They had sought after Jesus; they had taken trouble to find  Him; when found, they address Him with honour; but they  manifest by their inquiry that it was not Himself, nor yet the  signs which He had wrought, which attracted them. Faith was  not in their hearts, but curiosity about the time and mode of His  coming, and at the bottom desire after present ease through Him. Was the Son of God  here to gratify all this?

"Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek Me not because ye saw  signs, but because ye ate and were filled." Here the Lord  searches those who had been in quest of Him, and searches  them thoroughly, for a single act that looks fair may prove a  character hollow and base. And He looked on and listened, and  did not trust Himself to them because He knew all men, and  needed none to testify of man, for Himself knew what was in  man. To make Him a king in order to enjoy His promised earthly favours was nothing in His eyes-nay, called for His most grave detection of them to themselves. It was no question of the Messiah for Israel now, but of a Saviour for sinners. He was rejected as the Christ by those who ought most to have hailed Him with joy, but did not because His coming as He did made nothing of them and their religiousness-that is, of all they valued. And if this poor hungry crowd seemed to feel quite  differently and wished to give Him the honour that was due, it  was needful to demonstrate that they were not a whit better, but sought their own things, not God's glory in Him. He was really come, into a world of death over which judgment hung, that the  poorest of sinners might feed on Him and live for ever: what did  they think of or care for His love? They thought only of  themselves in their way, just as their rulers and teachers in theirs. God was in none of their thoughts. High or low, they had no sense of their sins or ruin, no knowledge of God or His grace. A  Messiah for temporal good was what they wanted, not a Jesus to  save His people from their sins. But the Messiah as a Divine  Person could not but lay bare their alienation and distance from God; and thus He became increasingly odious, till their hatred ended in His Cross. This made plain the deep purpose of grace in sending Him into the world, not for Israel only, but, if now rejected by them, that we might live by Him and He be a propitiation for our sins.

Hence He adds, "Work not for the food that perisheth, but for the food that abideth unto life eternal, which the Son of man shall give you; for Him the Father sealed, (even) God." It is no question of Messianic honour or blessing, but of what the Son of man has to give; and as He gives the food that abides to life eternal, so man needs no less than this. It is as such that God the Father sealed Him. Toil will not suffice, nor any seeming sincerity. The humbled Messiah, the Son of man, is no less God's object in sealing with the Holy Ghost than He is the Giver of the only food that abides to life everlasting; and nothing less can supply the need of lost man, be he Jew or Gentile.122

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Hence they misapply the Lord's exhortation, "Work not for the food that perisheth, but for the food that abideth unto life eternal," and infer their own capacity to do something acceptable to God. "They said therefore to Him, What should we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He sent." Jesus is the object of faith. To believe on Him is the only work for a sinful man, if it is to be called a work. It is truly God's work, for man trusts it not, and refuses to confide in Him for eternal life. He would rather trust to his own wretched performance, or his own miserable experience-anything rather than to Jesus only. But God will not allow men to mix up self with Jesus, whether it be a fancied good self or a confessedly evil self. It is the Son of man Whom the Father sealed, and Him only can He accept as the ground of the sinner's approach to God, Him only does He command as the food that abides to life eternal. For this He sent Him, not for man to make Him a king over a people with their sins unremoved, but to be the true Passover, and the only food that He warrants. Faith, however, is the sole way in which one can feed on Him; not of works, else it must be by the law, and thus be for Jews only. On the contrary; it is by faith that it might be according to grace, and thus be open to Gentile as freely as to Jew. Truly it is not the way of man, but the work of God, that we believe on Him Whom He sent.

The crowd was not so ignorant as not to know that the Lord claimed no insignificant place when He spoke of Himself as the Son of man. The Psalms and the prophets had spoken of such a One, and of His wide and exalted glory. Besides, apart and different from the Old Testament testimony, He had just told them that the Son of man is the Giver of the food that abides unto eternal life, and that the Father, even God, sealed Him. "They said therefore to Him, What should we do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He sent." Thus, as He spoke clearly, they manifest afresh the inveterate assumption of men in every state and age and country that fallen man is capable of working the works of God. They ignore their own sin, His holiness and majesty. It was the way of Cain; and professing Christendom is as infected with it as Judaism or heathenism. It is the universal lie of man, till the Holy Spirit brings him to repentance. Then in the new life he feels and judges the old, and finds, as we see in Rom. 7, that it is a question not of works, but of what he is, and that there is no help for him but deliverance from all, and that in Christ by faith.

So the Lord here answers that the work of God is that they should believe on Him Whom He sent. Similarly the Apostle reasons in Rom. 4, that if Abraham were justified by works, he would have had matter for boast, but not before God, from Whom it would detract. Scripture guards against any such misunderstanding, and says plainly that he believed God, which was reckoned to him as righteousness. The principle is thus evident: to him that works the reward is reckoned as not of grace, but of debt; while to him that does not work, but believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Man may be fully and securely blest, but it is only of grace, and so by faith, which gives the glory to God, as itself His gift. Faith is thus the work of God, and excludes man's working, not as its effect (for it produces works, and good works abundantly), but as antecedent to it or co-ordinate with it; and justly so, unless it would suit God to be partner with man, and this the believer would be the first to eschew. The Sent One of the Father is the object of faith.

It was at once felt that this was to claim more and more on God's part, although He refused to be made a king by man. "They said therefore to Him, What sign doest Thou, then, that we may see and believe Thee? What dost Thou work? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, according as it is written, Bread out of heaven He gave them to eat. Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Not Moses hath given* you the bread out of heaven, but my Father giveth you the True Bread out of heaven. For the Bread of God is He that descendeth out of heaven, and giveth life to the world" (verses 30-33). Such is unbelief, ever dissatisfied with the admirably suited and magnificent signs of God, refusing perhaps to ask a sign when God offers, despising those He does give. They did not on this occasion say outright what they meant, but it seems to have been some such thought as this: "You ask us to believe; yet, after all, what was the miracle of the loaves to that of the manna? Give us food from heaven, as Moses did, for forty years; and then it will be time enough to speak of believing. Do a work to match his, if you cannot surpass it." The Lord answers that it was not Moses that had given the bread out of heaven, but His Father was giving them the True Bread out of heaven. The Bread of God is Jesus Himself, and these two great characteristics are His alone of all men; He comes down out of heaven, and He gives life to the world. He is a Divine Person, yet a man here below, the Bread of God for every one that needs Him. It is no mere question of Israel in the desert: He gives life to the world. Less is not the truth, nor would it suit God.

*So the majority of uncials with A [Weiss], etc. But BDL, etc., have ἔδωκεν, "gave" [Blass, as W. and H. (text)].

"They said therefore to Him, Lord, evermore give us this Bread. And (or, Then)* Jesus said to them, I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall in nowise hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall in nowise ever thirst. But I said to you, that ye have even seen Me, and do not believe" (verses 34-36). This is their last effort to get what they sought-bread for this world, bread evermore, if not through them in any way, at least from Him. But unbelief is every way wrong. It is life that God is giving, and nothing less meets the true need of man; and this life is in Christ, not from Him. Apart from Him, given out of Him, and thus, so as to be independent of Him, it exists not. In Him was life; in Him only is life found. He is the Bread of life.123 He is not here viewed as the Son of God, quickening whom He will, even as the Father. Here He is the Son of man sealed, and the object of faith. "I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall in nowise hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall in nowise ever thirst." Alas! the crowd that saw Him had no faith in Him. Their privilege in seeing Him but added to their guilty unbelief; and, one must add, that now that the atoning work is done, and He is dead, risen, and glorified, and preached among Gentiles, it is a greater sin still where He is not believed on in the world. Yet men no more believe on Him than those who then followed Him, nor are their motives purer who profess and preach Him than theirs who would have crowned Him in Galilee.

*The witnesses differ, some giving neither.

The Lord proceeds to explain what was behind and above this in the words that follow. "All that the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me; and him that cometh unto Me I will in nowise cast out. For I am descended from* heaven not to do My will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (verses 37, 38). This then is the key, and it is twofold; and only in this largeness do we know the truth. If either side be taken to the exclusion of the other, the teaching is imperfect, and the consequences are apt to be error on this hand or on that. The reprobationist presses the first clause; the Arminian the second. Neither gives its due weight to the clause they respectively omit. The theologian who sees only the Divine decrees pays little heed to the encouragement given by the Lord to the individual that comes unto Him. The advocate of what he calls free-will seeks to neutralise, if he does not absolutely ignore, the declaration that all the Father gives to Christ shall come unto Him; and no wonder, for it is an assertion of His sovereignty, which is inexplicable on his own theory. But the hard lines of reprobationism can as little admit cordially the Lord's assurance of a welcome to him that comes unto Him.

* ἀπὸ ABLT with cursives, ἐκ DEΔ, etc.

The purpose of the Father is as sure as the Son's reception of all that come to Him. The unbelief of Israel, favoured as they were, did not enfeeble the counsels of the Father: and the Son would not refuse the vilest or most hostile that came to Him. The reason given also is most touching. He was thoroughly the servant of God in this. Come to Him who might, He had come down from heaven to serve, not to do His own will. It was for the Father to choose and give. He had descended to serve, and would in nowise cast out even the man who had reviled Himself most. He was the Father's servant in salvation as in all else. The servant would not choose, but receive him that came to Him, as all the Father gives should come. He is come down from heaven to do the Father's will Who sent Him, not His own will.

This is carried out still more fully in verses 39, 40, where the Lord says, "And this is the will of Him Who sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that every one who beholdeth the Son, and believeth on Him, should have life eternal, and I will raise him up at the last day." Thus, on the one hand, He Who sent Christ, and gave Him in His sovereign grace, fails in nothing of His will, for Christ loses nothing of it; on the other hand, Christ abides the test for every soul of man who receives life eternal in Him by faith alone; while in both cases, whether for the whole or for each individual, Christ raises up when man's day is ended for ever. All hope of present deliverance under the Messiah, which they fondly dreamt for men in the flesh or dead as they were, was vain. The Father's will, whether for His children as a whole or individually, shall stand: the whole that He has given to the Son shall be kept, and every believer in Him has life everlasting, as Christ's raising will prove for both when the last day comes.

The Lord is thus contrasting His glory as Messiah on the earth with His raising up the believer at the last day. Unbelief was even then using the former to overlook the latter; but the Lord here brings what was unseen and eternal into prominence, and this, because He had (to God's glory and in love) taken the place of a servant to accomplish purposes yet deeper. Had He sought His own will or His own name, His reign as Messiah would have been still nearer to Him than to the Jews. But no! He sought the glory and the will of His Father, and, as He gave Himself up to suffer, so He should lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day. To the individual all turns on beholding the Son and believing on Him: every one who does should have life eternal, and Christ should raise him up at the last day. Those who look for nothing but the reign of the Messiah inevitably perish. They acknowledge not their sins, they feel not for the violated majesty and holiness of God, they believe not on the Saviour, and, not so believing, have not life. He that believes knows Him to be more than the Messiah, even the Son of the Father; he knows that only in Him has he life eternal, and that he will have his portion with Christ in resurrection at the last day. It is no question of man or the world as they now are, but of Christ then.

This was peculiarly strange to the people of Judea and Jerusalem, resting as they did in tradition, and so we see next, "The Jews therefore murmured about Him, because He said, I am the Bread that came down out of heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then* doth He say, I am come down out of heaven?" (verses 41, 42). Thus they set the circumstances as they knew them (and they knew them ill) against the truth of Christ. It was judging according to appearances, and consequently unrighteous judgment. He was the son of Mary-truly and properly man; else His work had not availed for man. He was not son of Joseph save legally; but this He was, in order that He should be Messiah according to the law. Had He been really son of Joseph, as of Mary, He had not been Son of God, or a Divine Person; but this was the foundation of all, and without it the Incarnation were a falsehood, and the Atonement a nullity. He was really Son, the Only-begotten Son of the Father, Who deigned to become son of Mary, and by law consequently son of Joseph, who had espoused her (a point of all moment for His Messianic title, for Messiah He could not properly have been unless He were heir of Joseph's rights).124 But as Son of God, the incarnate Word, He was the Bread which came down out of heaven: thus only could man feed on Him by faith and be blessed for ever.

* νὑν, "now" [W. and H., Weiss], is the reading of B C T, the Memph. Goth. and Arm. Syr.hiers., etc.; οὖν ADL and eleven other uncials, all known cursives (Æth. = οὖν νῦν), Theb., etc. Many versions [as Syrcu sin; so Blass] omit both.

"Jesus* therefore† answered and said to them, Murmur not among yourselves. No one can come unto Me except the Father Who sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. (Isa. 54: 13.) Every one that heard‡ from the Father and learned cometh unto Me. Not that any one hath seen the Father, except He Who is of God, He hath seen the Father" (verses 43, 44). Unbelief can only destroy and trouble; it cannot give life or comfort. Man under Satan is the source of unbelief, which ever leads from Christ, not to Him. But as the Father sent Christ, so He draws the believer to Christ, Who raises Him up at the last day. It is not man's worth or work or will, therefore, but the Father's grace, by which one comes to Christ. The whole blessing, in short, is of sovereign mercy, and so the prophets have written. All true teaching comes from God, and all are taught of God, Who never forgets what is due to Christ. "Every one that heard from the Father and learned" comes to Christ. Not that the Father has been seen by man. He is known in the Son. "He who is of God, He hath seen the Father"; it is Christ only Who has.

*  Ἰησοῦς, omitted by most [so Blass], is read by BLT, etc.

† οὖν, "therefore," is read by AD and ten uncials more, most cursives, etc.; but omitted by BCKLTΙΙ, ten cursives, and several ancient versions [Blass simply, "He said to them"].

‡ The aorist participle has the preponderance of witnesses in age and number.

The Lord then solemnly reiterates, "Verily, verily,125 I say to you, He that believeth (on Me.*) hath life eternal. I am the Bread of life" (verses 47, 48). In truth, as the promised One, He was always the object of faith, even as being the eternal Son He had ever quickened the believer. But now He was the Word made flesh; He was the Son of God, and this as man in the world, and, as rejected by Israel, He announces that He is the giver of life eternal. This is the grand point: not the kingdom merely by and by, but life eternal now in the Son, and inseparable from Him, but in Him now a man.

* BLT, etc. [so Edd.], omit εἰς ἐμὲ, though given by ACDEΔ, etc., cursives, etc. [Syrsin, "on God"].

Hence the Lord says, following this up, "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died. This is the Bread that cometh down out of heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread that came down out of heaven. If one shall have eaten of this* bread, he shall live for ever. Yea, and the bread that I will give is my flesh† for the life of the world" (verses 49-51). Thus, if the Lord was typified by the manna, He went incomparably beyond its virtue. The fathers of the Jews ate the manna in the wilderness; but it could not ward off death, for they died like others. Christ is the Bread that comes down out of heaven that a man may eat thereof and not die. Eternal life is in the Son of God, and none the less because He was then the Son of man. Rather was the grace of God more manifest in Him thus; for, if He were a man, was it not for men to eat thereof and not die? He was the Living Bread that came down out of heaven. If one ate of this Bread, he should live for ever.126

*Instead of τούτου τοῦ, as given by BCLT and twelve other uncials, all cursives, and versions, τοῦ ἐμοῦ, "my," is read by , some old Latin copies, etc.

†So BCDLT, several cursives [33], ancient versions, and fathers [most Edd., and] so , etc., putting ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν last [Tisch.]; but twelve inferior uncials [ΓΔΛΠ, etc.] and a mass of other authorities add ἣν ἐγὼ δώσω.

This, we shall see, involves another truth besides the Incarnation, even His death in Atonement; for the bread that He would give is His flesh for the life of the world. Here He hints at what He would open out somewhat further-His atoning death. When His life is given, it is not for the life of Israel only, but of the world. The grace of God which was about to descend so low could not be circumscribed to the Jews alone. "God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have life eternal." On this, however, He enlarges more fully afterwards. Did they strive against His words in unbelief? He puts forward the truth, so as still more to offend man's pride and opposition to God, but to feed and strengthen faith in His elect.

John 6: 52-59.

Such words from our Lord, His flesh given for the life of the world, were startling enough to those who heard them, but statements yet plainer follow. He insists on the necessity of drinking His blood." The Jews therefore contended among themselves, saying, How can He (οὗτος) give us His* flesh to eat? Jesus therefore said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Unless ye shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man and drunk His blood, ye have† no life in yourselves. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath life eternal; and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is truly‡ food, and My blood is truly‡ drink. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live by reason of the Father, he also that eateth Me, even he shall live by reason of Me. This is the bread that came down out of heaven. Not as the§ fathers ate and died: he that eateth this bread shall live for ever. These things said He in (the) synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum."

*BT (and the ancient versions apparently) add αὐτοῦ.

†The Latins read "habebitis," "ye shall have," contrary to all authority.

‡ ἀληθὴς cBCFaKLTΠ, many cursives and versions [W. H. Weiss]; ἀληθῶς and eleven other uncials, most cursives, etc. [Blass].

§ A dozen uncials and most cursives and versions [including Syrsin] add ὑμῶν, which is not in BCLT, etc.

Thus, as the Lord set forth Himself incarnate under the bread that came down out of heaven to be eaten in faith, so here we have His death under the figure of the flesh* to be eaten, and the blood to be drunk. It is the life given up, the blood drunk as a separate thing, the most emphatic sign of death. Of this faith partakes, and finds in it atonement and communion. Without it there is no life. It was the more important, as some professed to receive Him as the Christ, but stumbled at His death. The Lord shows that such is not the faith of God's elect; for he who welcomed Him as come down from heaven would glory in His cross; and though none could anticipate His death, all who truly believe would rejoice, once it is made known, and its object and efficacy opened. Those who receive the Incarnation in faith do also with like faith receive His death; and these only have eternal life. For such as accept the former after a human sort are apt to cavil at the latter. Both are objects and tests of faith; and the more decisive of the two is His death.

*Dean Alford's notions, that the flesh here is in His resurrection form only, and the world here all the creation form, as said to be held together in Col. 1: 17, are groundless in themselves and contrary to the context.

It may be observed that, as there are two figures in the central part of the chapter, so under the last there are two forms of expression which we distinguish: the act of having eaten [φάγητε] His flesh and drunk [πίητε] His blood, as in verse 53; and the continuous eating [τρώγων] and drinking [πίων], as in verse 54. This is of moment, as cutting off all occasion from such as either argue for or object against severing eternal life from its source. Scripture leaves no room for the thought. The believer has eternal life, but it is in the Son, not apart from Him. The believer eats His flesh and drinks His blood. He is not content that he ate so once: if thus content, can such a one be supposed to have life in him? Assuredly not. If his faith were real, he would be ever eating His flesh and drinking His blood; and he who so does has eternal life, and the Lord will raise him up at the last day. The love that came down from heaven is precious, and the heart receives Christ thus humbled thankfully, not doubting but desiring that it should be the truth. And if that love goes farther, even down to death itself, the death of the cross, the heart is enlarged and well-nigh overwhelmed; but it counts nothing too great, nothing too good, for the Son of God and Son of man. It bows and blesses God for Christ's dying to accomplish redemption. For the same reason, if it has tasted that the Lord is thus gracious, it perseveres, it can never tire, it feeds on Him again and again. For it is felt that His flesh is truly meat, and His blood is truly drink.

Hence it is added, "he that eateth my flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him." This abiding in Christ and Christ in him is one of the characteristic privileges of the Christian in John. It is not merely security for the Christian, but Christ the home of the soul as it is of Christ. How unspeakable the nearness! And as the life of fellowship is thus blessed, so is the effect in motive and object which accompanies it. "As the living Father sent Me and I live by reason (or, on account of) the Father, he also that eateth Me, even he shall live by reason of Me." As the Father's will and glory were ever before the Lord here below, so is He Himself before the believer. Otherwise one lives to self or the world. "To me to live is Christ," (Phil. 1: 21.) said the Apostle Paul; and this is proper Christian experience. When Christ is the motive, such is the result.

It is well known that many have laboured to prove that the eating the flesh and drinking the blood, on which last our Lord insists as distinct from eating the bread, means His supper. This is groundless, not merely because the Eucharist was not even instituted till long after, but far more because what is affirmed of eating the flesh and drinking the blood here is wholly irreconcilable with participation in the Lord's supper; and this both positively and negatively. For it would follow that the Lord lays down with His most impressive formula of truth, on the one hand the impossibility of life save for those who have so partaken; on the other, the certainty of eternal life now and of blissful resurrection at the last day for him who habitually so partakes-yea, the highest privilege of Christianity necessarily attached to the constant celebration of it. Doctrine so absolute as this must be repudiated by all Romanists or Protestants save by such as are utterly blinded by superstition. But it is not a whit too strong when applied to, as it really was spoken of, feeding by faith on Christ's death.127

It is not correct to say that the same topic is continued before and after verse 51. There is eating both before and after; and it is conceded on all hands that eating "the bread that came down from heaven" is to be understood of faith. It is harsh in the extreme, therefore, to contend that eating the flesh and drinking the blood means something else than partaking by faith-that it is figurative in the one, and literal in the other. It is at least consistent that, as the eating in the former part of the discourse unquestionably means communion by faith, so it should continue in the latter part. The discourse in both parts clearly refers to what was literal-the eating of the bread miraculously provided for the multitude. But the doctrine, though vitally akin, is not the same in the two parts, for the Lord's Incarnation is the topic and object of faith in the former, His death in the latter. It is the way of John on outward facts or miracles to hang some essential truth of Christ's Person or operation; and so it is here. He begins with Himself as the incarnate bread, more immediately answering to the divinely supplied loaves; He goes on, when unbelief cavilled, to bring out the truth of Himself dying, still more repulsive to nature, especially to a Jew.

Thus all hangs simply yet profoundly together. Christ lets the Jews know (for the discourse is to them, not to the disciples)127a that He had not come to be a king after the flesh, but to be fed on in humiliation-yea, also in death: the only food of eternal life issuing in resurrection at the last day, not in temporal power and present glory, as the people fondly hoped who wished to crown Him now. To bring in the Eucharist here is to import a foreign element which neither suits the scope of the chapter as a whole, nor a single section of the discourse. And it is the more absurd, when we see that another topic follows the main argument as its fitting conclusion, the ascension of the same Son of man Whose Incarnation and death had been previously presented as the food of faith, and this as a climax for faith when unbelief had stumbled first at His coming down from heaven, and yet more at His death. As was said afterwards: "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest Thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" (John 12: 34). "Doth this offend you?" said the Lord to the disciples when they too murmured. "What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?" It is not an institution which the Lord hints at establishing. Throughout it is Himself the object of faith as the Son of man incarnate, dead, and ascended.

I am aware that a celebrated controversialist128 strove to persuade people that the first part closes with verse 47. But this is to the last degree arbitrary. Verse 51 is the true transition where the bread is declared to be Christ's flesh which He should give for the life of the world. This, in answer to their incredulous query in verse 52, the Lord expands in verses 53-58. For the bread as such is still continued in verses 48-50, which ought not to be the case if we had really passed into the second part. The eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood begins properly with verse 53. This is plain and positive in the chapter; and, indeed, it is bold to state differently; but, if so, eating the bread pertains as clearly and certainly to the first part as eating the flesh and drinking the blood to the second. In fact, it is assumed from the beginning (verses 32-35), but definitely affirmed before the end (verses 48-50). Undoubtedly the language is stronger when the necessity of faith in His death is pressed in verse 53 and what follows. But this proves nothing more certainly than the exclusion of the Eucharist, except to such as can conceive our Lord's making His supper more momentous than His work and faith in it. That He would speak more strongly of the giving up of His life than of His coming down from heaven to become man, no Christian could doubt, as well as of the graver danger to man of despising His death, and of the deeper blessing for the believer of communion with it.

Nor, let me add, is it absolutely true that in the first part the Father alone is said to give, in the second the Son of man; for in the beginning of the first part (verse 33) the bread of God is said to be He that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world, not merely to be given. But so far as it is said, it entirely falls in with the real difference in these two parts. The Father gave the Son to be incarnate; the Son gives Himself to die, and consequently His flesh to be eaten and His blood to be drunk. Further, it is not true that the consequences stand in contrast; for as in the first part eternal life results with resurrection at the last day, so this is carefully repeated in the second part (verse 54).

It is true, as we may readily observe, that more is attached to one's eating His flesh and drinking His blood-namely, his dwelling in Christ and Christ in him (verse 56); but this is as certainly a result of faith in Christ's death, as it is nowhere in Scripture attributed to the Eucharist. John 15, where Christ speaks of Himself, and 1 John 4: 13-16, where the Apostle speaks of God, approach nearest; neither of these alludes to the Lord's supper, but one sets forth Christ as the only source of fruit-bearing by continual dependence on Him; the other predicates God's dwelling in him and his in God of every soul that confesses Jesus to be the Son of God. These, then, so far confirm the conviction that the Lord is, in John 6: 56, describing the privilege enjoyed by him who feeds on his own death by faith. No doubt he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God in him; but all flows from a new life, which comes only through faith in Christ; for without faith it is impossible to please God. This, therefore, shows an advance, not a new and different theme, but the same Christ viewed not in His life but in His death, with its deepening consequences to the believer. 129

Himself the life eternal which was with the Father before all worlds, He took flesh that He might not only show the Father and be the perfect pattern of obedience as man, but that He might die in grace for us and settle the question of sin for ever, glorifying God absolutely and at all cost in the cross. Except the corn of wheat (as He Himself taught us) fall into the ground and die, it abides alone; dying it brings forth much fruit. His death is not here regarded as an offering to God as elsewhere often, but the appropriation of it by the believer into his own being. Hence, what was comparatively vague in speaking of the bread given from above becomes most precise when He alludes to His death. For this was in the Father's purpose and the Son of man's heart, not reigning over Israel now, but giving His flesh for the life of the world: for, Jew or Gentile, all are here seen as reprobate, lost, and dead. He only is life, yet this not in living but in dying for us, that we might have it in and with Him, the fruit of His redemption, life eternal as a present thing, but only fully seen in resurrection power, already verified and seen in Him ascended up as man where He was before as God, by and by to be seen in us at the last day manifested with Him in glory.

Hence the believer is here said to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and this not once only, when we believed in Him and the efficacy of His death, but continuously taking in its depth and force, as death to the world and man's estate, estranged as they are from God. Drinking His blood gives the more emphasis to the expression of the full reception of His dying by the believer. Had He simply left the world as One ever a stranger to it, we had been left behind for ever, objects of the judgment of God. But, dying to it and for us by the grace of God, He gave us who believe what separated us to God as well as cleansed us from our sins. Had it been simply our death, it had been our judgment and no honour to God, but rather the triumph of the enemy. Blessed be God, it is of His death, and of our entrance by faith into His death in all its reality and value, that He here speaks. It is not His supper; but His supper points as the sign to Christ's death, and these verses speak of the same death. They, however, speak of the efficacious reality, not of its symbol, which, when confounded with the truth, becomes no better than an idolatrous vanity, and when most stripped of truth even as a sign is then made openly an object of worship. So we see in Romanism, where the votaries are sentenced not to drink the blood. Christ is contained whole and entire, as they say, under the species of bread: so that all is there together, flesh and blood, soul and divinity; but if so, the blood is not shed, and the mass is to the Romanist who communicates a too true witness of the non-remission of his sins. Such is the showing of their own formal doctrine and most trusted theologians.

It may be added that, after the rich testimony to His death as the object of faith, which should follow with its consequences, the Lord seems to me in verse 57 to shut out all excuse for overlooking His intention. It was Himself, not a symbolic act, which He here meant, as should be plain from the words "he that eateth me." Further, He unites the two parts of the discourse by the following verse which closes the part about His flesh and His blood by again using the figure of "the bread that came down out of heaven," and "he that eateth this bread shall live for ever": a declaration as true when applied to faith in Himself as it is false of the Eucharist, taken in whatever sense men please.

John 6: 60-65.

The Lord had now in the synagogue at Capernaum concluded His discourse, the main topics of which were His Incarnation and Atonement, as the indispensable food of faith, let men despise them as they might; and let them cry up the manna or aught else, which had neither such a Divine and heavenly source nor such an everlasting effect, but must leave men to die after all; for in Him, and none else, was life. "Many therefore of His disciples on having heard said, This word is hard: who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmur concerning this, said to them, Doth this offend you? If, then, ye behold the Son of man ascending where He was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I have spoken* to you are spirit and are life; but there are some of you who do not believe. For Jesus knew from (the) beginning which were they that should believe not, and which was he that should betray Him. And He said, On this account have I said that no one can come unto Me unless it hath been given him from the† Father."

* λελάληκα BCDKLTUΠ, many cursives, and most ancient versions but λαλῶ in the Text. Rec. with ten uncials and most cursives [with Syrsin].

†Text. Rec. adds μοῦ, with more than a dozen uncials, etc.

A most serious form of unbelief now betrayed itself, not among those of Judæa or elsewhere only, but the disciples, many of whom murmur, stumbling at His words. If they found hard His descent from heaven or His dying, what if they beheld the Son of man going up where He was before? It was implied in Ps. 8, Ps. 80, Ps. 110, as well as Dan. 7. But Jewish will had long turned only to Israel's hopes in their ]and, and liked not a higher aspect, any more than a lower. The cross and heaven were equally out of their field of vision. Hence the Lord here confronts them with His Own ascension as a most unpalatable truth. Yet is it one which fitly follows His death, as it falls in with His coming down to be a man in incarnation. He is gone up a Saviour in righteousness, having glorified God to the uttermost about sin, as surely as He came down to serve in love. All hang together here, as, in fact, it is while He is thus ascended on high, that faith feeds on Him in life and death here below.130 But disciples murmuring at His words of humiliation He told of His exaltation, sad to say to still deeper offence. Had they been true, had they known and loved the truth, it had been their joy; but they valued the first man rather than the Second, and were more and more offended.

Such is the flesh even in disciples. It profits nothing. It is the Spirit that quickens, and this by and in Christ, never apart from Him, still less to His dishonour. Hence His words have a character essentially Divine and Divine efficacy; they are spirit and life, as He says Himself of what He had just spoken in His discourses, stumble as men might; and few words have been more disastrously perverted to this day, idolising the sign to the shame of Him Who was signified to have thus come and died in supreme love, Who blesses faith accordingly. But, alas! "there are some of you who do not believe." Not to believe is fatal to any, most inconsistent withal in a disciple. Christ must be all or nothing. If all, His words are to the believer no reproach but a delight, and have power all through-yea, increasingly as He is thereby better known. Jesus knew their unbelief, not by observation or experience, but from the first. He is God, and none the less because He became man; and this is our evangelist's constant thesis. Yet did He distinguish between such as did not believe and him who should betray Him; but who ever gathered it save now from His own words? Who had ever seen grace in Him falter in His ways with all? How solemn is the patience of Divine love! On the other hand, those who believed had no ground of boasting, for though they did cleave to Jesus, none could come unto Him, except it had been given to him from the Father. It was sovereign grace in God.

John 6: 66-71.

"From that (time) many of* His disciples went away back and walked no more with Him. Jesus therefore said to the twelve,131 Do ye also wish to go away? Simon Peter† answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go away? Thou hast words of life eternal; and we have believed and known that Thou art the Holy One‡ of God. (Jesus)§ answered them, Did I not choose you the twelve? And one of you is a devil.131a Now He was speaking of Judas (son) of Simon Iscariot;|| for he, one¶ of the twelve, was about to betray Him" (verses 66-71). Thus the warnings of the Lord precipitate the departure of unbelievers, while they knit the faithful more closely to Himself, and bring out their sense of what He is to their souls.132 The cause lay in their own will, which gave Satan power. Yet the Lord does not hesitate to let the twelve know that, while one confessed for all that He was the Holy One of God, one of themselves should betray Him. What a contrast with all but Himself, unless it be with such as have learned of Him! How different those who seek to draw the disciples after them! Still, His words would confirm His own, even all that were real. The more free, the more are they bound. He only is worthy, He is the Holy One of God.133

* BGT, seven cursives, etc., read ἐκ, but the weight of authority is against it.

† The οὖν of the Text. Rec. is not in BCGKLUΛΙΙ, many cursives, and the oldest versions.

‡ So BCpmDL, etc., against the great majority of inferior authorities which support the received reading, ὁ χς ὁ υἱός, many also adding τοῦ ζῶντος. There are varieties in copies and versions which point to the most ancient reading, but mixed up with the later ones in different measures and forms. [Synsin, with several Old Latt., has "Christ, the Son of God." Syrcu omits Christ, whilst Syr pesch hier add "living" before "God."]

§ Many omit ὁ  Ἰησοῦς [so Syrsin].

|| The Text. Rec. reads  Ἰσκ — ν, with some good MSS.; but the best have Ἰσκ - υ.

¶ ὢν, "being," is not read by BCpmDLSyrr. cu. [sin] et pesch. Aeth. (Edd.]., but is found in the great majority.

I am aware that a learned but self-confident German pronounces the "Holy One" not Johannean.133a But this was a rash and ignorant judgment. It is a title given to our Lord once in his first Epistle as here once in his Gospel. He is the only writer in the New Testament who ever uses it of the Lord in relation to the saints. It is therefore more characteristic of John than of any other Apostle. Mark and Luke tell us of evil spirits tremblingly owning Him thus. Well might they quail before the Holy One Who is destined to deal with them in judgment. How blessed to hear one saint confess for all their faith in Him in this very character, cleaving to Him and His words of eternal life with confidence! How gracious to hear another comforting the babes of God's family with the reflection that they had received unction from the Holy One and knew all things! Antichrists might go out from among those who bore Christ's name, but they were not of the family of God:134 if they had been, they would surely have remained as Peter did here, as Judas135 did not when the last crisis came. First or last, they went out that they might be made manifest that none are "of us"-of the family. For God's children the Holy One is the spring of every joy and of all peace, of repulsion for unbelievers, of terror for demons. The babes rebuke the pride of mere unbelieving human intelligence which denies the Father and the Son, yea, that Jesus is the Christ, and perishes away from Him Who alone has life and gives it to every believer. So it is in the Gospel as in the Epistle.

But we see here also the vast moment of walking with Him, of open identification with Him in this way before men as well as God, the danger and ruin of going away. Faith, however weighty, is not all: one has to walk with Him here below. Where else are words of life eternal? Without may be religion, philosophy, present ease, or honour and power. With Him are those who think of the Father's appreciation of the Son, and act for eternity.

Yet even the apostolate, as the Lord here shows, gives no sure ground to build on-nothing but Himself. So His most honoured servant lets the Corinthians (too enamoured of gifts) know, that he might preach to others, yet, if he kept not his body in subjection, himself must be a reprobate. (1 Cor. 9: 27.) The Son of man, in life and death appropriated by faith, alone secures life eternal now and resurrection at the last day.

John 7 - 12.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Gospel of John

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — john_app.doc.)

JOHN — THE SEVENTH CHAPTER*

*[Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 456-460.]

John 7: 1-13.

The Lord had thus propounded His humiliation and His death, with His ascension to heaven, completely setting aside the carnal expectations then prevalent as to His kingdom. He had done more than this; He had taught the absolute necessity of appropriating Himself, both incarnate and dying, for eternal life. He had pointed forward all hope to resurrection at the last day, however unintelligible to the Jews, and repulsive even to many of His disciples. They looked for present honour and glory through the Messiah; they could not bear death with Him, opening into resurrection life and glory.

"(And)* after these things Jesus walked in Galilee,136 for He was unwilling to walk in Judæa, because the Jews136a were seeking to kill Him. Now the feast of the Jews, the tabernacles, was near. His brethren therefore said unto Him, Remove hence, and go into Judaea, that Thy disciples too may behold Thy works which Thou doest; for no one doeth anything in secret, and seeketh himself to be in public. If Thou doest these things, show Thyself to the world. For not even did His brethren believe on Him."

* καὶ is  read by most uncials and cursives, but not pm D, etc.

Thus we see the Lord in the despised place the True Light, not in the city of solemnities, where darkness reigned the more, because it was least suspected; and in Galilee He walks about on His errand of love. He does not wait for souls to seek Him; He seeks them, that, believing, they might, have life in Him. Judæa He avoids, knowing that the people of that part of the country, identifying themselves with the murderous hatred of their rulers, were seeking to kill Him. He was unwilling, not (one need not say) afraid, to walk about there. He was subject to His Father's will in this. He must complete the work given Him to do. As He said to certain Pharisees who sought to move Him by naming Herod's desire to kill Him, "I cast out demons and accomplish healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I am perfected (that is, reach the end of My course); but I must proceed to-day, and to-morrow, and the next (day), because it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13: 32f.). He knew perfectly the end from the beginning. He feared not man. He goes up at the appointed moment to do and suffer all the will of God, as well as all from man and Satan.

The festival then at hand, the feast of Tabernacles, tests man afresh, or rather our Lord tests by means of it. Those attached to Him by natural kin, His brethren,* were impatient at His Galilean sojourn, at His separateness from the centre of religious life and honour. As the Passover closely connected itself with the truth of the last chapter, so the Tabernacles furnished the occasion for what the Lord brings out here. There the blood of the lamb, itself eaten by the Israelites, points to His death, let them hear or forbear. Here the gathering of the people to rejoice was after the harvest and the vintage, types of the various forms of Divine judgment at the end of the age when Israel, at rest in the land, will remember their former days of pilgrimage, was pre-eminently the season of triumph, which proclaimed the promises fulfilled.

*["His brethren were sons of Mary after His own birth. Of course, we can understand that Romanists have been anxious to make out that they were sons of Joseph, and not of Mary, but they were sons of Mary and of Joseph. They would like to make it out, sons of a former marriage of Joseph. We do not know anything of a former marriage, nor do they. We do know that Scripture is quite plain."-From "Lectures on Jude."]137

But was it really so now? Because Jesus, the Messiah, was there, and working such works as He did, was the time come for the accomplishment of Israel's hopes? So His brethren thought, because they wished it for themselves, though they put forward His disciples, and their need of seeing His works, and this in Judæa. No thought had they of God, not the faintest conception that in the obscurity of Galilee Jesus was glorifying the Father, and manifesting the Father's name to those the Father gave Him. They betrayed their own condition, their ignorance of God, their lack of self-judgment, their unconsciousness not only of their own ruin, but of the world, their unbelief of Him Who deigned to be born of their family: Who He was, and what He had come to do, was in none of their thoughts. They reasoned from self, not from God, and were thus so much the more hopelessly wrong as it concerned the Lord. "No one," said they, "doeth anything in secret, and seeketh to be in public. If Thou doest these things, show Thyself to the world." It was what they would have done. They sought, and conceived that every wise man must seek, present glory. Had they never heard One Who taught even His disciples to do their alms and pray and fast in secret to their Father, Who will render accordingly? If they had, the truth and will of God certainly had left no impression. The real ground of the wish and words was in this, that, as the evangelist solemnly adds, even His brethren did not believe on Him. Such is man, however nearly related, naturally.

"Jesus therefore saith to them, My time is not yet come, but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but Me it hateth, because I testify concerning it that its works are evil. Go ye up unto the* feast. I go not† up unto this feast, for My time is not yet fulfilled " (verses 6-8).

* ταύτή  is added here in Text. Rec., in the pm and eleven other uncials and many ancient versions [as Syrsin], but not in B and some of the best. It was probably taken from the next clause.

† οὐκ DKMΠ and the most ancient versions [inoluding Syrr.] and fathers [Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril]; οὔπω in BLT and eleven other uncials, etc. [Lachm., W. H., Weiss; but Blass adopts οὐκ, as did the American Revisers for their text.]138

In no sense does flesh profit, and the friendship with the world is enmity with God, Satan taking advantage of both against man as well as God. Jesus abides in perfect dependence (to speak of this only). His movements were invariably in obedience. In everything it was a question to Him of the Father. His single eye saw that His time to show Himself to the world was, and could be, not yet. Death, as He had implied even before His Galilean ministry began (John 2: 19-22), and is still more emphatically opened out in John 6, was before being displayed to the world. This will be in its due time; but here, as ever, the order is the sufferings that pertain to Christ, and the glories after these. First must He suffer many things and be rejected of this generation. Man's time, contrariwise, was always ready. They spoke as of the world, and the world heard them. They loved the world, and the things of the world; and the love of the Father was not in them, but, what they valued more, they were loved by the world as its own. Terrible position for His brethren, but not more terrible than true! How could the world hate those who so prized its honours? Jesus it did hate with a deadly hatred, because He bore witness about it that its works are evil a testimony most of all galling to the religious world, to the men of Judæa and Jerusalem. Hence the Lord bids them go up to this feast, while He tells them that He goes not up, His time not yet being fulfilled.

The significance of this is the more marked by His action in contradistinction from theirs, and, as read above all, in the light of His subsequent testimony on the great day of the feast."* Having said these things to them,† He abode in Galilee. But when His brethren had gone up, then He Himself also went up, not manifestly, but as in secret. The Jews therefore sought Him at the feast, and said, Where is He? And there was much murmuring about Him among the crowds. Some said, He is good;139 others said, No; but He deceiveth the crowd. No one, however, spoke openly about Him because of the fear of the Jews" (verses 9-13). The seventh chapter of John has this point of view, for the truth taught is based on the sixth; it supposes the Lord not only in death, but in ascension. There is a manifest break with the world, and flesh is treated as proved no longer capable of association or communion. It really never was; but now it takes its own way, and the Lord withdraws. His brethren go up to the feast of Tabernacles without Him; He does not go up, but abides in Galilee. Only after they had gone does He go, and then not manifestly, as they desired, but as in secret-more so than ever before. He is content to be, as it were, hidden: type of that which He really is now, and we with Him, as far as our life is concerned, hid in God.

* δὲ is added in many uncials.

† For αὐτὸς DKLXΠ, etc., excellent authority gives αὐτοῖς, "to them" [So W. H. and Weiss; but Blass accepts neither.]

This gives rise to questions and whispers about Him among the crowds, some speaking patronisingly, others with the utmost ill-will and contempt; but even so there was no discourse in public, or plainly. The leaders of Judæa kept men in fear.

That the Lord had a deeper purpose in view was soon apparent. He had refused to go with His brethren; He had affirmed that the fit moment for displaying Himself to the world was not come. But God had a present mission for His Son. and He goes to Jerusalem to fulfil it.

John 7: 14-36.

"But now in the midst of the feast Jesus went up unto the temple and taught. The Jews therefore* wondered, saying, How knoweth this (man) letters, having not learned?140 Jesus therefore† answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If one desire to do His will, he shall know about the doctrine whether it is of God or I speak from Myself. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of Him that sent Him-He is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him."

* οὖν BDLTX, some cursives, etc.; καὶ as in Text. Rec., most uncials cursives, and versions.

†Text. Rec., with DLX and few cursives, etc., omits οὖν.

There was no secrecy now: Jesus was teaching in the temple. It was His actual work. Soon He would suffer in atonement. Now it was the time for giving out the truth, to the astonishment of those who lived in the region of law and ordinance, who could only ask how He could know since He had not learned. They knew Him not, they rose not above human sources. Jesus was quick and careful to vindicate His Father. What is learned from man man is proud of. His doctrine He would not allow to be His own in the sense of independence, any more than the derivation from human teaching, which they owned to be out of the question. It was not of man, but of Him that sent Him. Was this a high claim and easily made? Any one of single eye would soon see its reality. Faith alone gives a single eye. Others speculate and err. God guides and teaches him who desires to practise His will, as Christ gives the positive assurance that he shall know concerning the doctrine whether it is of God or whether He speaks from Himself. How comforting as well as surely verified! The Son was making known the Father; and God is faithful in this as in every other way. He Who counts every hair of our heads, and apart from Whom not a sparrow falls to the ground, cares for His children.

Every one that is of the truth hears the voice of Christ. Whatever their pretensions, all others are not of the truth: else they would know that His teaching is of God. Where we do not know, we must suspect ourselves, not blame God; if we really desired to do, we should soon learn God's will. Certainly He did not speak from Himself. Yet of all men He was most entitled. But if He is the true God, He is true man, and came to exalt His Father, not Himself. He had no private ends to serve. Lord of all, He became the servant of all-above all, of God. Self is what blinds the race, even the faithful, so far as it is allowed to act. He that speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but Jesus never did so-always served to the glory of Him that sent Him. There is, there can be, no solid guarantee of the truth where God's glory is not sought and secured. Christ in this was perfect; and so He here declares that He is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. As self is what hinders the truth, so it is just to neither God nor man. Jesus is both true and righteous.

Further, when men boast, they are sure to be wrong, not only in other things, but most where they are haughtiest. Did the Jews pique themselves on the law of Moses? How vain to boast of that law which none of them practised! Yet so it was, as the Lord pressed on their consciences here. They reasoned, but what was their walk?" Hath not Moses given you the law? and none of you doeth the law. Why do ye seek to kill Me?" (verse 19). Jesus is ever the touchstone. One might never have learnt their murderous malice but for Him Who brought God close and convicted them of sin. This they could not bear, and so sought to get rid of Him, in their zeal for the law violating it utterly, and in their dark rebelliousness rejecting Him Who gave it by Moses. But is it now uncommon to glory in the law and hate the truth?

Yet the people in general were not aware how far hatred was impelling the leaders, and had no suspicion that they were bent on the death of Jesus. "The crowd answered, Thou hast a demon: who seeketh to kill Thee? Jesus answered and said to them, One work I did, and ye all wonder because of this.141 Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on a sabbath ye circumcise a man. If a man receiveth circumcision on a sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye angry at Me because I made a man entirely sound on a sabbath?" (verses 20-23). In their ignorance the crowd spoke with rash irreverence and violence against the Lord, Who stops not to notice it, but draws attention to the absurdity of their quarrelling as well as of wondering at one work of His, the cure of the infirm at Bethesda on the sabbath. Yet it was a common matter of course to circumcise a male child on the eighth day spite of its being a sabbath, and this in honour of the law of Moses, though, in fact, circumcision was rather of the fathers. The Lord closes His reproof with an exhortation which touches the root of their cavils, "Judge not according to sight, but judge the righteous judgment" (verse 24). They had not brought in God, and were consequently wrong, not on the surface merely, but altogether. If the readings (as in Tischendorf's text) be κρίνετε . . . κρίνατε, the first warns against the evil habit in general, the second urges the righteous judgment they should follow on this occasion. It is clear that one wants Divine guidance, if we are not to judge according to appearance; but that is what God is so willing to vouchsafe His children, not teaching only, but direction and judgment. Knowing all, He knows also how to communicate what is needed by His own.

The Lord's plain speaking surprised, if the multitude, not such as knew the enmity of the rulers. "Some therefore of those of Jerusalem said, Is not this He Whom they seek to kill? And, behold, He speaketh openly, and they say nothing to Him. Did the rulers indeed decide that this is the Christ?142 Howbeit we know Him whence He is; but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence He is.143 Jesus therefore cried144 in the temple, teaching and saying, Ye both know Me and ye know whence I am; and I have not come from Myself, but He that sent Me is true, Whom ye know not. I know Him, for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me" (verses 25-29). The men of Jerusalem, knowing too much of the rulers to accept their decisions absolutely, indulge in irony; but they, too, prove their ignorance like the rest. They did not know whence Jesus was, whilst they ought to have known where and when the Messiah was to be born. Isa. 7 and Micah 5 taught much more.

Jesus in replying contrasts their assumed knowledge of Him and His origin with their positive ignorance of the Father Who sent Him. He assuredly knew the Father, as He was from Him and sent by Him. And the Father was not only truthful, but true, as the Son could attest in all its force, not the Jews, who knew not the Father. This drew on Him the open desire to lay hold of Him with which He had charged them. How little man knows himself any more than God, as Jesus shows! "They sought therefore to seize Him, and none laid hand on Him, because His hour had not yet come. But many of the crowd believed on Him, and said, When the Christ cometh, will He do more signs than these* which this (man) did?"* (verses 30, 31).145 Those who rejected the Lord for their tradition and will were only the more exasperated by the truth; but they were powerless till His hour came. God abides God, spite of man and Satan. His purpose stands, though the enemies betray and commit themselves; but even when they do their worst, they but fulfil the Scriptures they deny and the will of God they detest. Another effect also appears: "many of the crowd believed on Him." The truth might not enter conscience, and so the result be human; but at least it was felt and owned that from the Messiah none need expect more signs. Still all is vain Godward but Christ and the faith that receives Himself from the Father that sent Him.

* ἐποίησεν, the common reading, is supported by corr.BLT and the body of the uncials and cursives, save pmD, 13, 69, and a few versions, which read ποιεῖ, "doeth." [So Blass. Syrsin has "showeth."] The best witnesses omit τούτων, "these" also.

The religious leaders are disturbed at any impression made on the multitude, and show their fear as well as their enmity. They dislike the truth they did not themselves possess, and would gladly get rid of Him Who told it out. "The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees* sent officials to seize Him. Then said Jesus,† Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto Him that sent Me. Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find‡; and where I am, ye cannot come" (verses 32-34). The Lord speaks with a solemn calmness. All efforts to apprehend Him would be vain till the appointed moment; nor need they hurry. It was but a little while for Him to be with them: then He is going to His Father. So it is ever in this Gospel. It is no question only of the rejection of men nor of the Jews despising Him, though both were true and fully set out by the Synoptic evangelists; but here the Spirit shows us One fully conscious of where He was going, and so speaking to all, if any by grace might believe and see God's glory in Him. Soon unbelief would seek and not find Him. What does the world know of the Father? Heaven is to it more dreary than the earth. "Where I am, ye cannot come;" nor would they if they could. Nothing is so repulsive to a sinner as the light, presence, and glory of God.

*There is high authority for the transposition here as compared with the Text. Rec.

†There is little authority for adding αὐτοῖς "to them," as in Text. Rec.

‡BTX with a few cursives and ancient versions [as Syrsin] add με, which Lachmann edits here, and in verse 36 too.

"The Jews therefore said unto each other, Where is this (man) about to go that we shall not find Him? Is He about to go unto the dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks? What is this word which He said, Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find; and where I am, ye cannot come?" (verses 35, 36). It was blindness indeed; nor is any darkness so dense as that of unbelief. But it is striking that what the unbelieving pride of the Jew deemed incredible is what God has made true of Christ exalted to His right hand. It is not more certain that He went on high than that He came and preached peace to the Gentiles that were far off and peace to them that were nigh (Jews), giving both access by one Spirit to the Father. The dispersed among the Greeks* are those that Peter shows to have found in Him the object of their faith, believing on Jesus in the Father's house as they believed on God; and Paul no less clearly shows that he is teaching the Greeks. To those that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom-Christ crucified, let others count it an offence or foolishness. But He is none the less the Lord of glory, which none of the princes of this age knew: had they known it, they would not have crucified Him. And so it was that Scripture was verified, man humbled, and God glorified; even as those that dwelt in Jerusalem and their rulers, not knowing Him nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled them by their judgment of Him. And now is God pleased to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, "which is Christ among you the hope of glory." He is lost meanwhile  to the Jew, who, seeking Him not in faith, cannot find Him nor come where He is; for He is in heaven, and they, given up more and more to an earthly mind, grovelling after filthy lucre.

*The late Dr. Alford says (the Greek Test. in loco): "The διασπ. τ. Ἑλλ. must not be interpreted 'the Hellenistic Jews,' for the  Ἕλληνες are always distinguished from the Jews; and this would convey hardly any meaning The sense of διασπορὰ is-see reff. James, 1 Peter-'the country where Jews lay scattered, as qualified by the succeeding genitive, where one occurs, as here. So here ἡ δ. τ. Ἑλ means 'the dispersed in the Gentile world.'" This seems a singular mystification of plain Greek. The meaning unquestionably is the Jews dispersed among the Greeks as representative of Gentiles in general. The country is in no way expressed, but at most implied. The Dean further confused the meaning in his Prolegg. to 1 Peter (Greek Test., iv., third edition, p. 123) by saying that δ. "may well designate the engrafting of Gentile (!) converts into dispersed Israel."

John 7: 37-52.

But the Faithful Witness speaks. "Now in the last, the great,146 day of the feast Jesus stood147 and cried, saying, If any one thirst, let him come unto Me* and drink. He that believeth on Me, even as the Scripture said, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.148 But this said He of the Spirit, which they that believed† on Him were about to receive, for (the) Spirit‡ was not yet,‡ because Jesus was not yet glorified" (verses 37-39).

*Tischendorf omits πρός (or ἐμὲ ), "unto me," on the testimony of pmD and a few other witnesses contrary to the great mass [as Syrsin, and so the other Edd.].

† πιστεύοντες the vast majority, πιστεύσαντες BLT, etc. [Syrsin].

‡ ἅγιον and δεδομένον are evident additions, contrary to the best authorities. [KTΠ, etc., followed by most Edd., as Blass, The Vatican has the added words, which Weiss accepts.]

It is not the new birth, but the Holy Ghost in power of testimony, rather than of worship. Thus is it distinguished not merely from John 3, but also from John 4, even though He be given at the same time to be a fountain of living water springing up to life eternal within the believer, and rivers of living water flowing out, which suppose the soul already born afresh. It is not here, however, communion with the Father and the Son in the energy of the Spirit which goes upward in adoration; but the same Spirit going outward to refresh largely the weary and parched in the wilderness from the inmost affections of the believer. Both figures are strikingly true, but they are different, though enjoyed by the same individual. They are the characteristic power and privilege of the Christian, not only the Divine life, but this in the power of the Spirit going up to its source in praise, or flowing out actually in testimony to Christ in a dry and thirsty land. Here it is the glorified man Who is the object, as in chapter 4 the Son of God is the giver.

Even so there is the most careful guard against coming to the Lord merely for teaching as a scholar or for material as a teacher: both in Divine things attitudes of peril to the soul. "If any one thirst, let him come unto Me and drink." It is the heart met in its own need, not men invited to draw for others, but to drink for themselves; and thus it is they safely and best learn so as to teach others also. "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Such is the general testimony of Old Testament Scriptures; and so the Lord urges even more distinctly. But this follows not only the coming, but the glorification of Jesus founded on His work. Only then could the streams flow thus abundantly from "the inward parts," truth being there already, and God on His part perfectly glorified in the cross. The Holy Spirit could act freely and in power, on the owned ruin of the first man, to the glory of Him Who is at God's right hand, and in those who are His for a little while in a dry and thirsty land where otherwise no water is. But now, to His praise Whom the Spirit is here to glorify, water is given, not alone the fountain to refresh within, but rivers to flow out. The Israelites never rose to this even in figure. They drank of water from the smitten rock; and after, when the rod of priestly power had budded, the rock was but to be spoken to in order to yield abundantly. But no Israelite, not even a Moses or an Aaron, could be the channel of living water, as every believer now; and this, let it be repeated, no premium on the Christian, but solely in witness of God's delight in Christ and appreciation of His work, wherein as He is, so are we in this world.

The feast, and the day of it so noted, are not without deep significance. It was not Pentecost as might be thought natural in view of the gift of the Spirit, but Tabernacles. Indeed, if the feast of Weeks was ever the epoch of any acts or discourses of our Lord in the fourth Gospel, it is carefully kept out of sight; and this because it falls within the province of Paul, rather than of John, whose characteristic truth is the revelation of God and of the Father in the man Christ Jesus on earth, not the Head of the body on high. It is not therefore the Spirit baptizing into one body which is here treated, but power of testimony, and this from the most intimate enjoyment of the soul, through that Spirit Who comes from Jesus glorified.

We are not in heaven yet, but passing through the wilderness. The day of glory is not come; but He Who died in atonement is in glory, and thence sends down the Spirit on us who are here that we may have a Divine association with Him there. What could give such force to testimony? There is more than the brightest hope; for the Spirit is a present link with Him Who is on high; yet is there all the power of hope bearing us onward and above surrounding circumstances. For the glory itself does not yet appear, though He Who will introduce it is already in it, its centre and in its highest sphere. His hour will come to show Himself to the world. Meanwhile we are in the secret of His exaltation and waiting for His display; while we have the Holy Ghost sent down by Him from that glory which He gives us to know, and so much the more to feel the dreary desert through which we pass. This is not our rest; it is polluted; and here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come. But we are awaiting, not righteousness nor the Spirit of glory, but through the Spirit by faith the hope of righteousness (that is, the glory of God). And He Who is not only in the glory, the Head and Heir of all things, but will shortly come to bring us like Himself there, gives us the Spirit as rivers of living water to fill us inwardly and to flow abroad, let the wilderness be ever so parched.

I do not know a stronger expression of the intimacy of the Spirit's indwelling in us as contrasted with His working of old even though by saints. But here there is supposed such a deep intermingling with the inner man's affections and thoughts as is eminently characteristic of the Christian's possession of the Spirit, and the more remarkably because it is in view of a rich outflow of testimony to Christ on high. Hence there could be no such privilege till Jesus was glorified consequent on His glorifying of God morally by the death of the cross.

The phraseology of verse 39, though at first it may sound strange, is strictly accurate and suitable. The Spirit is beyond doubt a person, but He is viewed here as the characterising fact of a state not yet in being. Hence it is πνεῦμα without the article. Again it is ἦν, not ἐγένετο. He never began to exist, for His being was Divine and eternal. But it was not yet a fact for man on earth. At Pentecost He was sent down from heaven. Compare Acts 19, where the question was, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? and the answer is, We did not even hear if the Holy Spirit was (lit. is). The meaning is not at all as to His existence, but His baptism, of which John the Baptist had testified to His disciples.149

We have had, then, the Lord's anticipative declaration of the power of the Spirit that the believer was about to receive, which he did receive at Pentecost and thenceforward: not the quickening of the unbeliever; nor yet power rising up in worship, but flowing forth abundantly from the inner man in testimony, both eminently characteristic of Christianity. How painful that Christendom should now, and for ages, show itself incredulous and hostile! But thus it is that God's warning must be verified in every little. In man's hands each dispensation makes manifest nothing so much as faithlessness to its own special privileges and responsibility. Thus Israel not only rebelled against the law, but renounced Jehovah for heathen vanities, the returned even rejecting their own Messiah. Is the Spirit now sent down and present since Jesus was glorified? Christendom, since the apostolic days, ran greedily after law and forms, reinstating thus the first man, to the denial of the cross on earth and of the Second man in heaven about to come again. It opposes itself to no truth so expressly as that to which it is called above all to testify in word and deed.

The words of our Lord made a certain impression;150 but all is in vain unless conscience be reached before God. "(Some)* of the crowd, therefore, when they heard these sayings,† said: This is truly the prophet; others said, This is the Christ; others‡ said, Doth the Christ then come out of Galilee? Did not the Scripture say that the Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? A division therefore took place in the crowd on account of Him; and some of them wished to seize Him but none laid his hands on Him" (verses 40-44).

* πόλλοι is added by some eleven uncials and most cursives, etc., as in Text. Rec, contrary to BDLTX and some other of the most ancient authorities.

† τῶν λόγων BDECHKLMTUΓΔpmΠ and many more witnesses, many of which give TOVTCOV also, contrary to Text. Rec., which on inferior authority has τὸν λ.

‡Text. Rec. adds δὲ with some cursives [and Syrsin].

Men do not only join what God separates, but separate what God joins. Some called Him the prophet, others the Christ, as we have seen from the beginning of this Gospel: a distinction then prevalent but unfounded. The objections which lack of knowledge makes expose an ignorance which the least conscientious inquiry must have dispelled. With faith too there may be, and often is, want of light; but, spite of obstacles, it holds on to what it discerns to be of God, instead of being stumbled by a difficulty which further knowledge would have shown to be unreal. Bartimaeus, when he heard that Jesus of Nazareth was at hand, did not fail to cry, "Son of David, have mercy on me;" and his faith reaped the blessing immediately. None the less was He the Messiah from Bethlehem,151 and of David's line, because He was the despised prophet of Galilee. But unbelief is blind to His glory, and finds but an occasion of division152 in the only centre of union. Yet, whatever the hostility of men, they could not take Him till the hour was come, little as they thought it, for God to accomplish the reconciliation in His cross.

There were darker traits, however, in the religious leaders than in the crowd; and this the Spirit next brings before us. "The officials therefore came unto the chief priests153 and Pharisees, and these said to them, Why did ye not bring Him? The officials answered, Never man so spake as this man.* The Pharisees therefore" answered them, Are ye also deceived? Did any one of the rulers believe on Him, or of the Pharisees? But this crowd that knoweth not the law, they are accursed" (verses 45-49). Here conscience answered to the words of the Lord in such a manner at least as to draw out before their masters an involuntary confession of the power with which He spoke. It was not as the scribes. But the Pharisees, with invincible hardness, retort on their weakness, challenge them to produce any of the rulers or of the Pharisees that believed, and betray their contempt for the mass of their countrymen. Boasting in law, they by transgression of the law and far worse were then dishonouring God. But God brings forward an unexpected, even if feeble, witness from among themselves, not only a Pharisee, but a ruler.

*Besides a difference in collocation, , etc., add λαλεῖ; others omit the clause, perhaps by ὁμοιοτέλευτον, or through love of brevity.

† D, twelve cursives, etc., omit οὖν.

"Nicodemus* saith unto them, being one of them, Doth our law judge the man, unless it have first heard from him and know what he doeth? They answered and said to him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that no prophet ariseth† out of Galilee" (verses 50-52). Unable to resist the righteous requirement of their own law, they proved that their insubjection had a deeper root by their haughty contempt, not now of the ignorant rabble, but of not the least of their own chiefs; and, as usual, they manifest that men are never so sure to err as when most confident in an arm of flesh. Indeed, it is the fatality of tradition-mongers to be always astray, whether in Judaism or in Christendom. Scripture alone is reliable; and those who profess to be ruled by Scripture as interpreted by tradition will be found, like all who serve two masters, to hold to tradition and its uncertainty, and to despise Scripture spite of its Divine authority, with a blindness to their own state which is truly pitiable, though not less censurable also. Thus Eusebius of C., though by no means the least able or the most superstitious of the Fathers, makes the grossest mistakes in reporting ecclesiastical facts from the Acts of the Apostles, or elsewhere.

*Text. Rec. adds ὁ ἐλθὼν νυκτὸς πρὸς αὐτὸν, with EGHMSΓΔ, most cursives (probably from xix. 39), some, as KUΔΠ, putting ν. after π. αὐ., and others, as corr.BLT, etc., omitting ν. and adding πρότερον [W. and H., Weiss], and others giving both, as X and some cursives and ancient versions. Tischendorf omits the clause with pm, etc. [so Blass].

† ἐγείρεται BDKSmgTΓΔΠ, many cursives, Latin and other ancient versions [as Syrsin, and followed by Edd.]; ἐγήγερται "is risen," Text. Rec. following many uncials, cursives, etc.

So here the Pharisees assume that no prophet arises out of Galilee. They were wrong in every possible way. Were they prophets to speak for God at that time? Had they never heard of Jonah or Nahum? The greatest of the prophets who wrote not-the mysterious Tishbite-who had arisen, and will yet again arise, was of Gilead, and so even more severed than Galilee from the seat of religious pride, being on the east of the Jordan. But the truth is, that the One their soul abhorred, on Whom the poor of the flock waited, had come forth out of Bethlehem-Ephratah, Whose goings forth are from of old, from the days of eternity. (Micah 5: 2.) Of Him they were profoundly ignorant, though law and prophets everywhere testified to Him; but the pillar of the cloud which encompassed Him gave no light to the proud men of Jerusalem. Their darkness comprehended not the true light.

JOHN — THE EIGHTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. Introductory Lectures," pp. 461-477.]

John 7: 53, to John 8: 11.

We are now arrived at a section of our Gospel, the external condition of which is to the reflecting mind a solemn evidence of human unbelief, here as daring as usually it appears to hesitate. No evangelist has suffered as much in this way, not even Mark, whose close disappears from two of the most ancient manuscripts. But as we saw that the angel's visit to trouble the waters of Bethesda was unwelcome to not a few copyists of John 5, so here again incredulity indisposed some to reproduce the story of the adulteress. This is plain from some copies (as LΔ), which leave a blank-a fact wholly inexplicable, if the scribe had not been aware of a paragraph which he knew to exist, but for reasons of his own thought fit to omit. Others, again, transposed it to another place, as the cursives 1, 19, 20, 129, 135, 207, 215, 301, 347, 478, etc., to the end of the Gospel (and 225 after John 7: 36), and even to another evangelist, as 13, 69, 124, 346, and 556, though alien in tone from all but John, and suiting no place in John but here, where the mass of authority gives it. A (probably), BC (probably), TX, with many cursives and ancient versions [as Syrsin pesch], simply omit the passage; DF (defective) GHKUΓ (defective), more than 330 cursives, and many versions have it. It is marked by an asterisk, or obelus, in EMSΛΠ, etc. The variations of the copies which do give it are considerable. This brief view of the evidence may suffice for the general reader, as it is more than enough to prove the peculiarity of the case externally.

As regards the internal evidence, some have alleged against the passage its entire diversity from the style of the Gospel elsewhere; and this, not merely in words and idioms which John never uses, but in its whole cast and character, which is said to savour more of the Synoptic Gospels.

All this, however, fails to meet the positive weight of truth in the passage; and its fitness at this very point of the Gospel is utterly unaccountable in a forgery or a tradition. The Lord is displaying the true light in His Person, as contrasted with others who boasted in the law. We have seen their conscienceless discussion in the preceding chapter.154

"And they went each to his home, but Jesus went to the mount of Olives" (John 7: 53; John 8: 1). Afar from man's uncertainty and contempt, the Son of God retired to enjoy the fellowship of the Father. Thence He returns for service. "And early in the morning He came again to the temple, and all the people were coming unto Him; and He sat down, and was teaching them" (verse 2). The Lord's habit in this respect, recorded by Luke (Luke 21: 37, 38; Luke 22: 39), is a strange reason for discrediting John's mention of this particular instance. Nor does any reason appear to question that it was not merely "the crowd" (ὄχλος), but "the people" in a large sense (λαὸσ), which here flocked to the Lord's teaching in the temple.

"And the scribes155 and the Pharisees bring to Him a woman taken in adultery, and having set her in (the) midst, they say to Him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act of adultery. Now in the law Moses charged us to stone such:156 Thou, therefore, what sayest Thou? But this they said proving Him, that they might have (whereof) to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger was writing on the ground" (verses 3-6).

Such is man at his best estate when he sees and hears Jesus, but refuses the grace and truth which came by Him. They were not ignorant men, but learned in the Scriptures; they were not the crowd that knew not the law, but possessed of the highest reputation for religion. Nor could there be a question as to the guilt and degradation of the woman. Why they brought her, and not her paramour, does not appear. But her they brought in the hope, not only of perplexing, but of finding ground of accusation against, the Lord. It seemed to them a dilemma which allowed of no escape. Moses, said they, bade the Jews stone such as she. What did Jesus say? If He only confirmed the decree of the law, where was the grace so much boasted of? If He let her off, did He not evidently set Himself in opposition not only to Moses, but to Jehovah? What profound iniquity theirs! No horror at sin, even of the darkest dye, but an unfeeling perversion of the exposed adulteress to entrap the Holy One of God.

But if the Lord wrote on the ground, it was in no way as if He heard them not. Rather was it to give them time to weigh their guilty question, and guiltier motive, while their hope of entrapping Him betrayed them more and more to commit themselves as He stooped to the ground.

"And when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said to them, Let Him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her;156a and, again stooping down, He was writing on the ground. But they, having heard [it],* kept going out one by one, beginning from the elder ones until the last; and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in (the) midst" (verses 7-9).

*The clause translated, "and being convicted by their conscience," in the Text. Rec., and supported by EGHKS, etc., is omitted by still better authority.

Thus did the Lord show Himself the true light which lightens every man. Occupied with the law in its condemnation of the adulteress, and, indeed, far more essaying to condemn the Lord Himself, their darkness is laid bare by these few solemn words. God judges sin, not gross sins, but all sin, be it what it may be; and the Judge of quick and dead was He Who thus searched them through and through. It was no question of the law for either now: they shrank abashed from the light, even though Jesus stooped down again, and was writing on the ground. Assuredly He heard their question, and discerned their iniquitous aim, veiled as it was; and now they heard Him, and cowered before His all-scathing words of light. Convicted by their consciences, but in no way repentant, they sought to flee, ashamed to see His face, Who stooped once more, and thus gave them time to retire, if they refused to bow with broken spirit and heartfelt confession.

This, however, is not the object of the passage to illustrate, but the supremacy of Divine light in Jesus, let Him be ever so lowly, and in presence of the proudest. And they were going off, one by one, beginning at the elder until the last, beginning at those who dreaded most their own exposure-an exposure which the youngest could not bear, only less ashamed of their fellows than of Jesus, Who had awakened the feeling. How awful the contrast with their own sweet singer, who, spite of his sins, could say by grace, "Thou art my hiding-place!" (Ps. 32: 7.)-hiding in God, not from Him, and having before him One Who could and would cover all his iniquities, and impute nothing. Vain, indeed, is our effort to cover our sins, or to escape from His presence. But unbelief trusts itself, not Him, and betrays the will to get away from His light, as it may for a little season, till judgment come. How will it be then? It will be theirs to stoop in shame and everlasting contempt, when evasion cannot be even for a moment, and all is fixed for ever.

Jesus then was left alone, as far as the tempting scribes and Pharisees were concerned, and the woman in the midst; for "all the people" appear to have been around, and He addresses them in a subsequent discourse, which seems to be founded on this very incident, as giving occasion to it (see verse 12 and following). "And Jesus lifting Himself up, and beholding no one but the woman, said to her, Woman, where are they, thine accusers? Did no one condemn thee? And she said, No one, Sir. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more" (verses 10, 11). It is the mistake of Augustine, as of others in modern no less than ancient times, that we have here "misera" in the presence of "Misericordia," which is much more true of the scene at the end of Luke 7.

Here the Lord acts as light, not only in the detection of His self-righteous and sinful adversaries, but throughout. There was no need, however, for His exposure of the woman caught in the very act of sin. Hence the ignorance of the scribes who left out the tale was as glaring as their impiety was without excuse. There is not the least semblance of levity in dealing with her evil. The Lord simply brings out the fact that her accusers retreat from the light which convicted their conscience, when the law had utterly failed to reach it; and as they could not condemn her, because they were sinners no less truly than herself, so He would not. It was not His work to deal with causes criminal any more than civil. But if grace and truth came by Him, He is none the less the true light; and so He abides here. As we do not hear of repentance or faith in the woman, so we have no such words from Him as, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," "Thy faith hath saved thee," "Go in peace." He is the light still, and goes not beyond "Go and sin no more." By and by He will act as a King, and judge righteously; on their own showing, He speaks as a "teacher," not a magistrate. And it was a question of sin, but most unexpectedly of theirs as well as of hers, if they face the light of God.157

The words of our Lord are utterly lowered by such as infer that, either to the accusers or to the accused, He restrains sin to that offence against purity of which the woman was guilty. He means any and all sin as intolerable to God, Who is light, and in Whom is no darkness at all.158

The Lord continues His teaching of the people, but not without allusion to the incident which had just occurred, or rather to the character in which He had dealt with it. Nothing can be more evident than the True Light which was then shining and lightening every man. It is the more striking because the word "light" does not occur in that transaction; but the fact is thoroughly in harmony with what immediately follows.

John 8: 12-20.

"Again159 therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me shall in no wise walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life" (verse 12). His rejection by the Jews always brings Him out in a still larger character of blessing and glory to others. In our Gospel, however, the Spirit speaks of what He is personally or independently of all circumstances and above all dispensations. He is "the light of the world." His glory, His grace, could not be confined to Israel. He is come to deliver from Satan's power and to give the enjoyment of God and the Father. Hence, whatever be the darkness of men-and it was now profound among the Jews-"He that followeth Me shall in no wise walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The Christian is not only called out of darkness into God's wonderful light, but he becomes light in the Lord, a child of light, and he walks in the light, being brought to God Who is light; and in the light, as John says, we have fellowship one with another, for in him is life as well as light; or, as He says here, His follower has "the light of life." He has Christ, Who is both.159a.

So energetic a testimony rouses the pride and enmity of those who listened. They could not but feel that He spoke of a privilege and blessing which they did not enjoy. "The Pharisees therefore said to Him, Thou bearest witness of Thyself; Thy witness is not true" (verse 13)160. They turn His own words in chapter 5: 31 against Himself, but most unfairly. For there He was speaking of testimony alone and human, such as vanity gives itself; here, as He proceeds to show, He has the very highest support in God Himself. "Jesus answered and said to them, Even though I bear witness of myself, my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and where I go, (but)* ye know not whence I come or† where I go" (verse 14). They were wholly ignorant of the Father as of the Son. They never thought of heaven. The Lord had the constant consciousness of the truth of His Person and mission; and His witness was inseparable from the Father's. As He says elsewhere, "I and My Father are one"-not more true in Divine nature than in testimony to man. He never lost the sense for a moment whence He came and whither He was going away, whereas they had no true idea of either. They were in utter darkness, though the light was there shining in Him.160a How truly then He could say, "Ye judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. And if also I judge, My judgment is true,‡ because I am not alone, but I and the Father§ that sent Me" (verses 15, 16).

* FHK, many cursives, etc., omit δέ.

† ἢ BDgrKTUXΛ, very many cursives and ancient versions [as Syrsin], instead of καὶ with the rest and Text. Rec.

‡ ἀληθὴς and eleven other uncials, most cursives, etc.; ἀληθινὴ BDLTX, etc.

§ pmD omit πατήρ [as Weiss and Blass; W. H. Bracket].

Self is the source and object of all the activity of the flesh, according to which the Jews were judging. Christ brought love as well as light into the world. He was judging none; He was serving all. This made Him intolerable to the self-complacent. Yet is He to be the Judge of all. In His resurrection God has given the pledge that He is to judge the world; even as in His own Person He is the fitting one to do so, being Son of man as well as Son of God. "And if also I judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me." It was an admitted principle that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word should be established. To this the Lord here appeals, "And in your law too it is written that the witness of two men is true" (verse 17).161 How much more, then, the testimony of the Father and the Son!" I am He that testifieth concerning Myself, and the Father that sent Me testifieth concerning Me" (verse 18). Of this, too, the Lord had spoken before in chapter 5, but they had not heard to receive it, only to despise Him.161a

"They said to Him then, Where is Thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye know neither Me nor My Father. If ye had known Me, ye should have known My Father also" (verse 19).162 Such ignorance of the only true God and of Jesus Whom He sent is death, eternal death; and the more solemn, because it was said not to the heathen, but to Jews who had the oracles of God. These things they were saying because they knew not the Father nor the Son; as the hour would come when they would think to render God service by killing Christ's disciples. Their sayings and doings betrayed their state of utter alienation from and ignorance of the Father. All that followed of persecution and hatred, whether for Christ or for the Church, was but the consequence. "These words He spoke in the treasury, teaching in the temple; and no one seized Him, because His hour was not yet come" (verse 20)163. Their malice was as manifest as it was deadly; and it was against the Father as much as the Son.

But, spite of will, they were powerless till the time was come. Then was He given up to their murderous iniquity; then, too, still deeper counsels were in accomplishment through the sacrifice of Himself. If on the one hand He was cut off and had nothing of His Messianic rights in the midst of the Jews in the land, He was on the other to suffer for sins, Just for the unjust, to bring all who believe to God, to be glorified on high, and to have a bride given Him associated with Himself in His supremacy over all things. But this would carry us into the Apostle Paul's teaching. Let us pursue the line given to St. John, where we behold the Word become flesh, and His Divine glory shining through the veil of humiliation, and in this chapter particularly, first as light convicting, then as the light of life possessed by His followers; but if His word were rejected, no less was He the Son Who alone can make free-yea, the I AM-let men avail themselves of His manhood to scorn and stone and crucify Him as they may.

The next discourse turns on our Lord's announcement of His departure-a truth of the most solemn import, especially for Israel responsible to receive Him as their Messiah.

John 8: 21-30.

"He* said therefore again to them, I go away, and ye shall seek Me and shall die in your sin:† where I go away, ye cannot come. The Jews therefore said, Will He kill Himself because He saith, Where I go away, ye cannot come? And He said to them, Ye are of the things beneath, I am of those above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you that ye shall die in your sins; for, unless ye believe that I am (He),164 ye shall die in your sins" (verses 21-24).

* Eleven uncials, and the cursives, versions, etc., invert ὁ Ἰησοῦς, contrary to BDLTX, etc. [Syrsin], Orig. Cyr.

† All the old English versions, too, are wrong, save the Rhemish, which has "your sinne."

The departure of Jesus after His coming is the overthrow of Judaism and the necessary condition of Christianity. We must not be surprised, then, if our Lord again and again recurs to it, to its moral associations and consequences, and, above all, to its bearing on Himself personally, ever the uppermost thought of our Evangelist. He was going, and they should seek Him and die in their sin. They sought amiss, and found Him not. They sought a Messiah that they might gratify their ambition and worldly lusts; and such is not the Messiah of God, Who is now found of those that sought Him not, after having spread out His hands all the day to a rebellious people that walked in a way anything but good, after their own thoughts. But God is not mocked, and he who sows to the flesh reaps corruption: if it be not public judgment, it is none the less the recompense of evil into the guilty bosom. "Ye shall die in your sin." They were rejecting Christ and cleaving to their own will and way. There was no fellowship between them and Him. "My soul loathed them, and their soul also abhorred Me." (Zech. 11: 8.) The issue would make it still more apparent: "Where I go away, ye cannot come." They could not follow Him.

The Lord was going to heaven, to His Father. Their treasure was not there, nor therefore their heart, as both were on His part. So, too, as grace attracts the heart of the believer to Christ, faith follows Him where He is; and He will come and bring us there in due time, that where He is there we may be also. Unbelief clings to self, to the earth, to present things; and so it was and is with the Jews: "Where I go away, ye cannot come." They were rejecting the only One Who could wean from earth or fit for heaven, meeting them in their sin that they might not die in it, but live through Him. But Him they would not have and are lost, and proved it by their utterly false estimate of Him and of themselves, present or future, as we see in what follows. "The Jews therefore said, Will He kill Himself because He saith, Where I go away, ye cannot come?" There was nothing too evil to impute to Him Whom they more and more hated.

But He tells them out more. "And He said to them, Ye are of the things beneath, I am of those above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore to you, that ye shall die in your sins." Here the Lord solemnly unveils the sources of things. To be of this world now is to be not merely of earth, but from beneath. Such is the Jew that rejects Jesus, Who is not of this world, but of the things above. Therefore should they die in their sins: their nature evil as their works, and they refusing the only light of life, how else could they end? "For, unless ye believe that I am (He), ye shall die in your sins." The truth shines out fully from a rejected Christ-not only His personal glory, but their subjection to Satan, who employs them to dishonour Him. But His rejection is their everlasting ruin. They die in their sins, and have as their judge Him Whom they refused to believe on for life eternal.

"They said therefore to Him, Who art Thou? Jesus said to them, Absolutely* that which I am also speaking to you" (verse 25). Jesus is not merely the way and the life, but the truth. He is, in the principle of His being, what also He speaks. A less expected answer could not be, nor one more withering to the thoughts of themselves and of Him. He alone of all men could say as much; yet was He the lowliest of men. His way and words were in perfect accord; and all expressed the mind of God. It is not merely that He does what He says, but He is thoroughly and essentially what also He sets out in speech. The truth is the reality of things spoken. We cannot know God but by Him; nor can we but by Him know man. Good and evil are displayed and detected only by Him, and He identifies Himself with His speech.

* The Authorised Version is here faulty, like many others, ancient and modern. It is true that ἀρχὴν with or without the article, may be used in ordinary Greek for "at the first," or "formerly." So in the Sept. of Gen. 13: 4; Gen. 43: 18, 20, etc.; and thus Nonnus understood the language of our Evangelist in this place. Not the temporal sense, however, of the word is meant in the present remarkable phrase, but that of archetypal character, or first principle. Thus, Tyndale (1534): "Even the very same thinge that I saye unto you"; and Cranmer (1539), only changing "saye" into "speake." After them the Rhemish followed the strange and ungrammatical rendering of the Vulgate, "Principium qui et loquor vobis," It is hard, if not impossible, to understand "qui" here; yet "principium" is not so far from the truth, as if the phrase had been confounded with "ab initio." Indeed, the old Cod. Vero. has "Initium quod loquor vobis," as Cod. Brix. "Principium quod et loquor vobis" The Geneva Version misled the translators of 1611 into a sort of double rendering, "Even the very same," which would be a good enough version of τὴν ἀρχὴν,  but they added also "from the beginning," which necessitated a false representation of λαλῶ as if it were ἐλάλησα or ἔλεξα

As the fourth Gospel pointedly employs ἐν ἀρχῆ, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (and in two cases ἐξ ἀρχῆς), there is the less reason for confounding the single occurrence of τήν ἀρχὴν with any of them. The Lord uses the phrase prominently in answer to the question, "Who art Thou?" raised by the contemptuous unbelief of the Pharisees. He had already declared Himself the light of the world, but that they knew neither Him nor His Father, and should die in their sin because of their unbelief. He had not yet in terms disclosed His eternal Being as in verse 58, but is gradually rising to this from the incident which so fittingly opens the chapter. The law of death in man's hand is powerless before the Light of Life, Who is from above, and not of this world. He is the Word of God. He, and He alone, when challenged, could say, "I am absolutely [kuinoel]164a, altogether, what I speak also to you." His speech thoroughly expresses Himself. Essentially [Afford], precisely [Godet], What He is, He also speaks. These alternatives, suggested by various interpreters, differ no doubt in degrees of accuracy; but substantially they agree in identifying the Lord with His utterance also, for He is the truth. They seem better than "originally," which means little more than "at first," or "at the beginning," and, though often legitimate, looks quite out of place when applied to Christ, the Faithful Witness, Who is "the same yesterday and today and for ever." He alone could say that He was wholly what He also speaks. Mr. McClellan is right in holding that Christ's speech reveals His eternal Being, but does not "originally" fail to convey it?

If the Sanscrit root helps us, it implies "worth, merit, fitness, dignity, and worship"; and "beginning" is secondary. Certainly ἀρχὴ appears in philosophic usage as "a principle," whether of being or of thought; and in ordinary application as a "first place," estate, or office, and even materially as in Acts 10: 4; Acts 11: 9. Thus, "at the first," or "originally," is the sense in Herodotus (i. 86, 140; ii. 28, 148; iv. 59; viii. 128, 132), when contrast with the present is intended. But an exclusive force appears with the negative even more frequently still (as in i. 192; ii. 95; iii. 16, 39; iv. 25, 28; vi. 33; vii. 26; ix. 57). On its very first occurrence (i. 9), how could "originally" assure Gyges? Did not the king mean that his own contrivance was to screen him absolutely? So Larcher understood in his learned version (i. 8, note a, ed. 1802). Dean Blakesley's view was "to begin with," which would be almost absurd, and certainly inadequate, for our text. To assume that only in negative sentences the absolute sense occurs is mistaken, at any rate, in later Greek, as the reader may see in the following references to "Dion Cassius " (vol. i. 96 [Fr. Peir. ci.], ii. 342 [xlv. 34], iii. 688 [lix. 19], iv. 52, [lxii. 4] ed. Sturz. Two cases, at least, might be added of ἀρχὴν without τήν.

We may dismiss, then, among many untenable proposals, the renderings of "Wiclif and the Wiclifite" (iv. 280, Oxford, 1850), following the Vulgate, with which go Syrhcl. and the Gothic, and with slight variations Augustine of old, and Fritzsche and Wordsworth of late. Not so, held Cod. Veron., but "Imprimis," as Cod. Corb, "de superioribus," though it is hard to say what they meant. Nor can the interrogation stand with "at all," as Chrysostom, Cyril. Alex. (and so Lucke and Ewald), and the R.V. margin [as Westcott]; nor with "from the beginning," as Meyer. The more prevalent construction of the A. and R.V., like the Sah. Memph, Syrpesch., slights both the sense and the tense of λαλῶ, with the place and force of καὶ, through the first fault of misrendering τὴν ἀρχήν. The Aeth. Arab. Arm. differ from these and from one another, but afford no help, as far as I can judge. "Absolutely [or, In principle] what also I speak to you," reflects justly the language, the order of the words, the grammar, and above all the bearing of the context, and of this sentence in particular. There is no need, therefore, of connecting the end of verse 25 with the beginning of 26, as Bengel, Raphelius, and Wakefield suggested, who otherwise rather confirm the true import, as does the ὄλως of Euth. Zig.

Such was the One the Jews were then rejecting. They have then and there lost the truth. Impossible to have the truth apart from Jesus, Who adds, "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you; but He that sent Me is true, and I, what I heard from Him, speak these things unto the world" (verse 26). He was a servant though Son, and uttered what the Father pleased as needed truth, not according to the affluence of what He had to say and judge respecting the Jews.

It is impossible to know the Father but by receiving the Son; and Him they rejected, as they did even to the cross. "They knew not that he was speaking to them of the Father. Then said Jesus (to them),* When ye shall have lifted up the Son of man, then ye shall know that I am164 (He) and from Myself do nothing, but, even as the Father taught Me, these things I speak. And He that sent Me is with Me: He† left Me not alone, because the things pleasing to Him I do always" (verses 27-29).165 It is the actual truth presented by God which tests the soul. A former testimony, however true, does not provoke opposition in the same way. Often, indeed, unbelief avails itself of the past to strengthen its present antagonism to what God is doing. Thus the Jews avail themselves of the unity of God to deny the Son and the Father, for they knew not of Whom Jesus was speaking. His cross might not convince them divinely or win their heart to God; but it would convict them of deliberate and wilful rejection of the Messiah, and prove that what He spoke was spoken from the highest authority. As He was sent, so was He taught. The Father was with Him too, for Christ was doing always the things that pleased Him. If we know this in our measure, how much more fully and unwaveringly was it true of Him Who did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth!

* BLT, etc., omit αὐτοῖς, which is read by the great body of the witnesses [and so Blass],

† Some good authorities [and so Blass] prefix καὶ, "and," others add ὁ πατὴρ, "the Father," at the end of the clause, and so Text. Rec.

How solemn it is to weigh the force of "When ye shall have lifted up the Son of man, then ye shall know that I am (He) and from Myself do nothing, but just as My Father taught Me, these things I speak!" For the Son of man is alike His title as the rejected Messiah, and as the appointed Judge of living and dead. So He was crucified, and so returns for the kingdom of universal glory as in Ps. 8 and Dan. 7. How terrible to know this too late, when pride shuts out repentance to the acknowledgment of truth!

It is an encouraging fact that a time of unbelieving detraction may be used of God to work extensively in souls. "While He was speaking these things, many believed on Him" (verse 30). But faith, where divinely given, is inseparable from life, exercises itself in liberty, and is subject to the Son of God; where it is human, it soon wearies of His presence, and abandons Him Whom it never truly appreciated, for licence either of mind or of ways in rebellion against Him. Hence the urgency of the Lord's solemn appeal. Continuance in and with him is of God.

John 8: 31-59.

"Jesus therefore said to the Jews that had believed Him, If ye abide in My word, ye are truly My disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.165a They answered Him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone: how sayest Thou, Ye shall become free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Every one that practiseth sin is a bondman of sin. Now the bondman abideth not in the house for ever; the son abideth for ever. If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed, but ye seek to kill Me because My word maketh no way166 in you. I speak what I have seen with My Father, and ye therefore practise what ye have seen* with your† father. They answered and said to Him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus saith to them, If ye are‡ Abraham's children, ye would practise the works of Abraham; but now ye seek to kill Me, a Man who hath spoken to you the truth which I heard from God: this Abraham did not practise. Ye practise the works of your father. They said (therefore)§ to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.167 Jesus said|| to them, If God were your Father, ye would have loved Me, for I came forth from God and am come; for neither have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye not know My speech? Because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your¶ father, the devil, and ye desire to practise the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from (the) beginning, and standeth168 not in the truth, because there is no truth in him: whenever he speaketh the lie, he speaketh out of his own things, because he is a liar, and the father of it. But because I speak the truth, ye believe Me not. Which of you convinceth Me of sin? If** I speak truth, why do ye not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God; for this cause ye hear (them) not, because ye are not of God" (verses 31-47).

*  ἑω(ο)ράκατε pmDEFGHMSTUΓΔΛ, etc., Text. Rec.; ἠκούσατε corr BCKLX, etc. [W. and H., Weiss, Blass].

† The great majority read ὑμῶν, but not BLT, etc.

‡ ἑστε BDLT, etc.; ἦτε Text. Rec. following the great mass [as Syrsin],

§ Text. Rec. adds οὖν with fifteen uncials, but not the oldest.

|| The authorities are pretty equal for and against reading οὖν, "therefore," as given in Text. Rec. [W. and H., Weiss, Blass omit].

¶ Text. Rec. omits τοῦ, contrary to all good witnesses.

** δὲ is added by many uncials, etc., and followed by Text. Rec., contrary to the best MSS. and versions. [Syrsin has it.]

To abide in His word, then, is the condition of being in truth Christ's disciple. Others may be interested greatly, but they soon grow weary, or turn ere long to other objects. Christ's disciple cleaves to His word, and finds fresh springs in what first attracted. His word proves itself thus Divine, as it is faith which abides in it, and the truth is thus not only learned but known. Vagueness and uncertainty disappear, while the truth, instead of gendering bondage, like the law, makes the soul free, whatever its previous slavery. There is growth in the truth and liberty by it. Law deals with the corrupt and proud will of man to condemn it on God's part, as is right; the truth communicates the knowledge of Himself as revealed in His word, and thus gives life and liberty: privileges unintelligible to the natural man, who hates the sovereign grace of God as much as he exalts and loves himself, while he despises and distrusts others. Man's only thought, therefore, of obtaining righteousness is through the law. They know not the virtue of the truth, and dread liberty as though it must end in licence; while at the same time they are proud of their own position, if it were inalienable, and God were their servant, not they bound to be His. Hence the Jews answered Jesus, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone: how sayest Thou, Ye shall become free?"

Far from this was the truth. Even outwardly, not to speak of the soul, the Jews were, and had long been, in servitude to the Gentiles. So Ezra (chapter 9) confessed at the evening sacrifice: "Since the days of our fathers we have been in great trespass to this day; and for our iniquities we, our kings, our priests, have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, and to captivity, and to spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day. And now for a little space there has been favour from Jehovah our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us before the kings of Persia," etc. So, again, Nehemiah (Neh. 9): "Yet many years didst thou forbear with them, and testifiedst against them by Thy Spirit through Thy prophets; but they would not give ear; and Thou gavest them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.... Behold, we are bondmen this day, and the land that Thou gavest unto our fathers to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof, behold, we are bondmen in it; and it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom Thou hast set over us because of our sins; and they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure; and we are in great distress."

Thus men of conscience felt when they lay under conquerors milder far than the Romans who now ruled. It was not that the Jews to-day were lightened, but that they had grown so used to the yoke as to forget and deny it altogether. And if it were because of God's righteous government externally, much less did they estimate aright their true state before God, as the Lord Jesus was bringing it out now. Their haughty spirit was nettled at His word, which lay bare their thraldom to the enemy. "We are Abraham's seed, and have never been in bondage to anyone: how sayest Thou, Ye shall become free?" Jesus in His answer brought in the light of God, for eternity indeed, but also for the present. "Verily, verily, I say to you, Every one that practiseth sin is a bondman of sin." How true, solemn, and humiliating! No bondage so real, none so degrading, as that of sin: could they seriously deny it to be theirs? Truly unbelief blinds to moral state, and even to plain facts. Only grace delivers, and through the truth believed.

But the Lord intimates more. None under sin is entitled to speak of permanence. Such a one exists only on sufferance till judgment. Bondage there was none when God created and made according to His mind; nor will there be when He shall make all things new. The bondman, in every sense, belongs only to the transitory reign of sin and sorrow. So says the Lord: "Now the bondman abideth not in the house for ever." Another and contrasted relationship suits God's will; "the son abideth for ever." But there is infinitely more in Christ. He is not merely Son, but "the Son." He is the Son in His own right and title, as God and when man, in time and in eternity. He is therefore not "free" only, as all sons are, but such is His glory that He can and does make free in virtue of the grace which pertains to Him alone. Thus it is not only the truth which sets free, where law could only condemn, but the Son also gives and confirms the same character of liberty according to His own fulness. It is a question of what suits not them merely, but Him. He could make free those who hear Him and abide in His word, and nothing else but free. It is worthy of Him to deliver from sin and Satan; and "if the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." He frees after a Divine sort. He brings into His own character of relationship out of the bondage to sin, which the first man made our sad inheritance. The last Adam is a quickening spirit and a Deliverer. Let us stand fast in His liberty, and be not entangled again with any yoke of bondage, as the Apostle exhorts the Galatians against that misuse of the law, whatever its shape. (Gal. 5: 1.)

To be Abraham's seed, as the Lord lets the Jews know, is a sorry safeguard. One might be of Abraham, and be the worst enemy of God. Such were the Jews then, who were seeking to kill Christ because His word had no hold in them. Every one acts according to his source; character follows it. So our Lord deigns to say, "I speak what I have seen with My Father; and ye therefore practise what ye have seen with your father." To be of Abraham does not save from Satan. To hear the Son, to believe on Him, is to derive one's nature from God and have life eternal. They boasted most of Abraham who were still in the darkness of unbelief and the enemy's power. Hence "they answered and said to Him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus saith to them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would practise the works of Abraham; but now ye seek to kill Me, a Man Who hath spoken to you the truth which I heard from God: this Abraham did not practise. Ye practise the works of your father." It was allowed already that they were descended from the father of the faithful; but did they bear the family likeness? Was it not an aggravation of their evil that they stood in contrast with him from whom they vaunted themselves sprung? Abraham believed, and it was counted to him for righteousness. They believed not, but sought to kill the Man, albeit the Son of God, Who spoke to them the truth which He heard from God the Father. Whose works were these? Certainly not those of Abraham, but of a very different father. They were corrupt and violent.

The Jews felt what was implied and at once take the highest ground. "They said therefore to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, God. Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would have loved Me, for I came forth from God and am come; for neither have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do ye not know My speech? Because ye cannot hear My word. Ye are of your father, the devil, and ye desire to practise the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him: whenever he speaketh the lie, he speaketh out of his own things, because he is a liar, and the father of it. But because I speak the truth, ye believe Me not. Which of you convinceth Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do ye not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God; for this cause ye hear (them) not, because ye are not of God."

The case is thus closed as regards the Jews. They were of the devil beyond all doubt, as this solemn controversy proved. It is really the conviction of man as against Christ, in every land, tongue, age. He turns out no other when tested by the truth, by the Son; however circumstances differ, this is the issue, and it comes out worst where things look fairest. If there was a family on earth which might have seemed farthest removed from impurity, it was the Jews; if any could claim to have God as their Father, they most of all. But Jesus is the touchstone; and they are thereby proved to be God's enemies, not His children; else they would have loved Him Who came out from God, and was then present in their midst, Who had not come of His own mere motion, but at God's sending. He came, and was sent in love beyond man's thought or measure; and they rose against Him in hatred, seeking to kill Him.

The Jews did not even know His speech, such utter strangers were they to Him, and the God Who spoke by Him. The reason is most grave: they could not hear His word. It is through understanding the thought, the scope, the mind of the person speaking that one knows the phraseology; and not the inverse.169 If the inner purpose is not received, the outer form is unknown. So it was with Jesus speaking to the Jews; so it is pre-eminently with the testimony in John's writings now. Men complain of mysticism in the expression, because they have no notion of the truth intended. The hindrance is in the blinding power of the devil, who is the source of their thoughts and feelings, as surely as he is the adversary of Christ. Men's judgments flow from their will and affections, and these are under the sway of His enemy. And as he pushes on men, especially those who are most of all responsible to bow to Christ, as the Jews then were, to practise the lusts of their father, so violence follows as naturally as falsehood. For Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and stands not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, the great personal antagonist of the Son.

Jesus alone of men is the Truth; He is not only God, but the One Who reveals God to Man. In Him is no sin, nor did He sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.170 He was the manifest opposite, in all respects, of the devil, who, whenever he speaks falsehood, speaks out of his own store, because he is a liar and the father of it. Jesus is the truth, and makes it known to those who otherwise cannot know it. "But because I speak the truth, ye believe Me not." How awful, yet how just, God's judgment of such! For we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth; and what can be the end of these things but death and judgment?

Finally, the Lord proceeds to challenge them, in order to lay bare their groundless malice. "Which of you convinceth Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God." He was the Holy One, no less than the Truth, and surely both go together. And thus were they convicted of being, in word and deed, in thought and feeling, wholly alienated from, and rebellious against, God. They were not of God, save in haughty pretension, which only made their distance from Him, and opposition to Him, more glaring. Instead of convincing Christ of sin, they were themselves slaves of sin; instead of speaking truth, they rejected Him Who is the Truth; instead of hearing the words of God, they hated Him Who spoke them, because they were not of God but of the devil. Terrible picture, which the unerring light failed not to draw and leave, never to be effaced, of His adversaries! To be not of God is to be wholly without good, and left in evil, exposed to its consequences, according to the judgment of Him Who will not, cannot, change in His abhorrence of it. Such were and are the rejecters of Jesus.

There is nothing a man so reluctantly admits as evil in himself; there is nothing he so much resents as another's saying evil of him, and leaving him no loophole of escape. So was it now with the Jews whom the Lord denied to be of God, as they heard not His words. Never had their self-complacency been thus disturbed before. The scorn of the heathen was as nothing compared with such a libel, which was severe in proportion to its self-evident truth. For the ground taken was indisputable. Who could doubt that he who is of God heareth the words of God? How solemn, then, to face the fact that One Who spoke as none ever did declared with holy calmness that therefore they did not hear, because they were not of God! Conscience might wince, but refused to bow. Will, ill-will, alone declared itself, save, indeed, that it was animated from beneath.

"The Jews* answered and said to Him, Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon? Jesus answered, I have not a demon, but honour My Father, and ye dishonour Me. But I seek not My glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say to you, If anyone keep My word, death he shall in no wise behold for ever" (verses 48-51). Thenceforth the Jews, unable to refute, and unwilling to confess, the truth, betake themselves to insolent retort and railing. They justify and openly repeat their application of "Samaritan" to Him; for what could more prove enmity in their eyes than to refuse their claim to be pre-eminently God's people? If He declared them to be of their father, the devil, they did not scruple to rejoin that He had a demon. He was, they dared to imply, outside the Israel of God and the God of Israel. Yet was He the true Israel and the true God.

* A dozen uncials and most cursives, etc. (and so Text. Rec.) add ούν, "therefore," contrary to the oldest, BCDLX, many cursives and versions.

No Christian, then, has ever suffered worse in this way of dishonour than Christ. The disciple is not above his Lord, and can expect no exemption. And none are so prone to reproach others falsely as those who are themselves really slaves of the enemy. But let us learn of Him Who was meek and lowly of heart, and now calmly repudiates their taxing Him with a demon. Not so, but He was honouring His Father, they dishonouring Him. Yet was there no personal resentment as on his part who courts his own honour now, or seeks to injure when he can such as insult him.171 "But I seek not My glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth." He leaves all with His Father, Himself content to serve, able and ready to save. "Verily, verily, I say to you, If anyone"-let him be the vilest of His foes-"keep My word, death he shall in no wise behold for ever." Such an utterance was worthy of all solemnity on His part, of all acceptation on theirs.

"The Jews therefore* said to Him, Now we know [learn, perceive] that Thou hast a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets; and Thou sayest, If anyone keep My word, he shall never taste of death. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham who died? and the prophets died: whom makest Thou Thyself? Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing: it is My Father that glorifieth Me; of whom ye say, He is our† God; and ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be like you a liar; but I know Him, and keep His word. Abraham your father exulted to see My day, and he saw and rejoiced. The Jews therefore said to Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old,172 and hast Thou seen Abraham?‡ Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am. They took up therefore stones to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out from the temple,§ going through the midst of them, and so passed by" (verses 52-59)

* Fifteen uncials and most cursives, etc., read οὖν, "therefore," but not BC, etc., with some very old versions [as Syrsin].

† BpmDFX, etc., ὑμῶν (and so Text. Rec.), contrary to the rest.

‡ [Syrsin Shows "has Abraham seen thee?" so corr.Bpm ]

§ Here end BD and some of the oldest versions [as Syrsin], the rest adding substantially as in Text. Rec.

Unbelief reasons from its own thoughts, and is never so confident as when completely wrong. So the Jews, misinterpreting the faithful sayings of the Lord Jesus, avail themselves of it triumphantly as the proof that Abraham and the prophets could not be of His school; for they, beyond controversy, were already dead. He must be possessed, therefore, to speak thus. Did He set up to be greater than they? Whom did He make Himself? Alas! it is here that man, Jew or Gentile, is blind. Jesus made Himself nothing, emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, becoming a man though being God over all, blessed for ever, and as the humbled man exalted by God the Father. If the eye be single, the whole body is full of light. So it was with Him Who came here and became man to do the will of God, in Whom He could and did confide to glorify Him. His path was one of unbroken fellowship as of obedience. He never sought His own glory, He always kept His Father's word; He could say, from first to last, I know Him; in all leaving us an example that we should follow His steps. We may learn of Him that, if it be the grossest presumption for men of the world to affect the knowledge of God the Father, it is the greatest wrong in a child of His to deny it. "If I should say, I know Him not, I shall be like you a liar." But He that claims to know Him keeps His word, and herein gives the testimony of reality along with that claim. The Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, and where he communicates the truth, He also effectually works in holiness according to God's will.

But the Lord did not hesitate to meet their challenge of Abraham, and lets the Jews know that the father of the faithful exulted to see His day (as ever, I presume, His appearing in glory),* and saw and rejoiced. It was, of course, by faith, like the not seeing or tasting death in the context; but the Jews took all in a mere physical way, and on their arguing from His comparative youth to the denial of Abraham's seeing Him, the still deeper utterance comes forth, "Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham was, I am," the ever-subsisting One.173

* ["It was the day when the promises would be accomplished, and very naturally he who had the promises looked for the time when they are to be made good in Christ."-"Lectures on the Gospels," p. 476, note.]

It was said: the good confession before the Jews, the truth of truths, the infinite mystery of His Person, which to know is to know the true God and eternal life, as He is both. Such He was, such He is, from everlasting to everlasting. Incarnation in no way impeached it, but rather gave occasion for its revelation in man to men. He Who was God is become man, and as He cannot cease to be God, so He will not cease to be man. He is the Eternal, though also a man, and has taken manhood into union with Himself, the Son the Word, not with God only, but God too. "Before Abraham was (γενέσθαι), I am" (εἰμί). Abraham came into being. Jesus is God, and God is. "I am" is the expression of eternal subsistence, of Godhead. He could as truly have said, Before Adam was, I am; but the question was about Abraham, and with that calm dignity which never goes beyond the needed truth, He asserts it, and no more; but what He asserts could not be true, were He not the ever-present and unchanging One, the I AM before Adam, angels, and all things; as, indeed, He it was Who created them. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that has been made.

Not to know Him is the fatal ignorance of the world; to deny Him, the unbelieving die of the Jews, as of all who assume to know God independently, and to the exclusion of His Divine glory. And it is death while they live, eternal death, soon to be the second death, not extinction, but punishment in the lake of fire. Meanwhile unbelief can with impunity show its spite. "Then took they up stones to cast at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple." The remaining words are probably taken from Luke 4: 30, though many witnesses (ACELKΔ, etc., with some very ancient versions)* insert them.

* [But not Syrsin.]

JOHN — THE NINTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 477-485.]

The light of God had shone in Jesus (light, not of Jews only, but of the world); yet was He rejected, increasingly and utterly, and with deadly hatred. There was no miracle wrought; it was emphatically His words that we hear, but asserting at length the Divine glory of His Person. This roused, as it always does, the rancour of unbelief. They believe not on Him, because they bow neither to their own ruin nor to the grace of God, which thus comes down to meet man, revealing the God Who is unknown. But Jesus pursues His way of love, and unfolds it in a new and suited form, only to meet with similar rejection afresh, as our chapter and the next will show.

John 9: 1-12

"And passing along, He saw a man blind from birth.174 And His disciples asked Him, saying, Rabbi, which sinned, this (man) or his parents, that he should be born blind? Jesus* answered, Neither this (man) sinned nor his parents, but that the works of God might be manifested in him. It must work the works of Him that sent Me† while it is day: night cometh, when no one can work. When I am in the world, I am the world's light" (verses 1-5).

* Some authorities insert ὁ, "the," contrary to the great mass.

† Tischendorf, in his eighth edition, reads ἡυᾶς, " us," in both occurrences, following pmBDL, several ancient versions, etc.; but Alford, Green, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, etc., adhere to ἐμὲ and με, with AC and the great majority of uncials, cursives, and many ancient versions. BD give με in the second place, followed by Tregelles, as by Westcott and Hort also [and Weiss], with the Sahidic and the Syriac of Jerusalem, etc. This goes far to explode the "we" [Syrsin] must work; still more is the internal evidence against it.

It was an act of pure grace which the Lord was about to do. Nobody had appealed to Him, not even the blind man or his parents. The disciples only raised a question, one of those curious speculations in which the later Jews delighted:175 was it the man's sin, or his parents', which had involved him in congenital blindness? Certainly no such Pythagorean fancy prevailed then in Judea as that a man might have sinned in a previous existence on earth, and be punished for it in an after-state also on earth. Nor is there any sufficient reason to endorse a pious and learned author's view, that the disciples might have entertained-what rabbis afterwards drew from Gen. 25: 22-the notion of sin before birth.

It seems easy to understand that they conceived, however strangely, of punishment inflicted anticipatively on one whose eventual sin was foreseen by God. Doubtless it was unsound; but this need be no difficulty in the way; for what question or assertion of the disciples did not betray error enough to draw out the unerring correction, so precious to them and us, of our Lord? He now puts the case on its real purpose in the Divine mind-that the works of God might be manifested in him. It is the day of grace now: therefore was Jesus come; and this was just an opportunity for the display of His gracious power. Yet man understands not grace but by faith, and even believers only so far as faith is in exercise. Government is the natural thought when one sees God's cognisance of every thing and every one here below. But it was not then, nor is it now, the time for His government of the world. Here lay the mistake of the disciples, then, as of Job's friends of old: a mistake which leads souls, not only to censoriousness and misjudgment, but to forget their own sins and need of repentance in occupying themselves with what they count God's vengeance on others.

Here, however, it is not the side of uncharitable self-righteousness which the Lord exposes. He speaks of the activity and purpose of grace as the key. It was no question of sin, either in the blind man or in his parents, but of God's manifesting His works in man's grievous need and sorrow. In the world He was the world's light. He was the sent One and Servant in doing His work, as in speaking His word. Perfect God, He was perfect man, never swerving from the place He had taken here below.

Further, the pressure of His rejection was felt by our Lord, whatever the holy calm which could so quickly turn from man's murderous hatred to a work of Divine love. "I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day: night cometh, when no one can work." He was the "light" of the "day" which was then shining for Him to do the will and manifest the love of the One Who sent Him-yea, to declare God (see John 1: 18), Whom man otherwise was incapable of seeing. Truly the need was great; for man like the one in question, was utterly blind. But Jesus was the Creator, though man amongst men. Let Him be in the world, He is its light. It attaches alike to His mission, and to His Person, in virtue of His Divine nature.

"Having said these things, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay over His eyes,176 and said to him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, which is interpreted Sent. He went away therefore, and washed, and came seeing" (verses 6, 7). This was no unmeaning act on Christ's part, no mere test of obedience on the man's. It was a sign of the truth which the chapter reveals, or, at least, in harmony with it. For He Who was there manifesting the works of God was Himself a man, and had deigned to take the body prepared for Him; most holy, beyond all doubt, as became the Son of God Who knew no sin, about to be made sin for us on the cross, but none the less really of the woman, of blood and flesh, as the children partake. But Incarnation, precious as is the grace of the Lord in it, of itself is quite insufficient for man's need; yea, it seems rather to add at first to the difficulty, as did the clay on the man's eyes. The Spirit must work by the word, as well as the Son sent into the world, Jesus Christ come in flesh. Without the effectual work of the Holy Spirit in man he cannot see. Compare John 3. So it is here: the man must go to the pool of Siloam, and wash there. Attention is the more fixed on this by the appended interpretation or meaning of the word.177 It signifies the soul's recognition that Jesus was the sent One of God, sent to do His will and finish His work, the Son yet servant withal, to accomplish the great salvation of God. The heart is thus purified by faith. Now the man has eyes and can see, not when the clay was laid on, but when he washed in the pool of Siloam. Christ must be here, and a man too, in contact with men in all their darkness; but only when the Holy Ghost applies the word to the conscience do they, owning Him to be the Sent of God, receive sight. Not Incarnation only, but the efficacious work of the Spirit, is needed that man may see according to God. "According to His own mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that, being justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus 3: 5-7.)

"The neighbours therefore, and those who used to see him before that he was a beggar,† said, Is not this he that sitteth and beggeth? Some said, It is he; others‡ said, No, but he is like him; butt he said, It is I. They said therefore to him, How then§ were thine eyes opened? He answered, The man|| that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said to me, Go unto¶ Siloam, and wash. Having gone away then** and washed, I received sight. And†† they said to him, Where is He? He saith,‡‡ I do not know" (verses 8-12).

† The common and largely supported reading is τυφλὸς "blind," but the more ancient is προσαίτης, "a beggar." [So Syrsin, Weiss, Blass.]

‡ So read BCLX with many old versions; Text. Rec. ἄλλοι δὲ ὅτι, with more than a dozen uncials, etc., as δὲ, also.

§ οὖν CDLX, etc.

||  ὁ . . . ὁ B, etc., but omitting the first καὶ εἶπεν, as the mass [so Blass, etc.] omit the articles.

¶  BDLX, etc., omit τὴν κολυμβήθραν τοῦ, and read  τοῦ, Σ [W. and H., Weiss, Blass].

** οὖν  BDLX, etc. [Weiss, Blass], δέ the mass.

†† καὶ BLX, etc., οὖν majority, but A and some old versions omit both [as Blass].

‡‡ D, etc., with ancient versions, add αὐτοῖς, "to them."

Those accustomed to the blind beggar could not conceal their surprise and perplexity; for as the sightless eyes are a prime disfigurement of the human face, so their presence thus unexpectedly changed the man's entire expression. No wonder that they wondered; yet was the fact certain, and the evidence incontestable. God took care that there should be many witnesses, and would make the testimony felt the more it was discussed and weighed. Had they known Who Jesus was, and for what He was sent, they would have understood the fitness of the work done that day. But he on whom the work was wrought gave out no uncertain sound. He was the man whom they were used to see sitting and begging. His witness to Jesus is most explicit. He does not know much yet, but what he knows he declares with plain decision. How could he doubt whose eyes were opened? Did they ask how it was? His answer was ready and unreserved: "The (or, A) man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said to me, Go to Siloam and wash." The mighty effect followed at once: "And having gone away and washed, I received sight." They are curious to know where Jesus is; but the man is as frank in acknowledging his ignorance of this as before in confessing the reality of what He had done. It might not be to his own praise that he did not return to Jesus in thanksgiving for God's grace; but God would use it to show how wholly the worker and the object of the work were above collusion. How few have the honesty to say "I do not know" when they know as little as he who here owns it! Yet is it no light condition of learning more.

On the other hand, we see that the Lord not only would draw attention by men's debate, and by the man's distinct testimony, but leaves the man for the present, that, by his own reflection on what was done and answering their questions, he might be prepared both for trial that was coming, and for still better blessing from and in Himself. The agitation among the neighbours was to be followed quickly by the more serious inquisition of the religious chiefs. These, as we shall see, readily find matter in the good deed for their usual malevolence toward that which brought honour to God independently of them. Worldly religion, whatever its profession, is really and always a systematic effort to make God the servant of man's pride and selfishness. It knows not love, and values not holiness; it is offended by the faith that, feeding on the word, serves by the Spirit of God, glories in Christ Jesus, and has no confidence in the flesh. It hates walking in the light as a constant thing, for it only wants religion at its fit times and seasons as a shield against the day of death and the hour of judgment. Hence, for the Son of God to be here on earth, a man presented to men's eyes, blind as they are, and sending them where they can wash and see, outside the regular established religion of the land and without the medium of the accredited guides, is intolerable. It comes out plainly in what follows, a most weighty, and, I doubt not, intended lesson in this instructive narrative: God's witness in work, as before (John 8) in word.

Whenever God acts, the men of religion set up to judge, and the neighbours fear their displeasure more than they pitied the blind man or rejoiced in his healing. Such men are accredited of the world, and count it their province to decide such questions, while others love to have it so. What, then, will the Pharisees say? They had cavilled before.

John 9: 13-34.

"They bring unto the Pharisees him that was once blind." Nor are the Pharisees slow to detect a flaw, as they supposed. Not that the man had not been blind, nor that Jesus had failed to give him sight; but had they not both, Jesus especially, broken the law? "Now it was sabbath (on the day)* when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes." How little men, particularly those whom public opinion regards as pillars, are apt to suspect that their will exposes them to Satan! But so it is, and, above all, where the Son of God is concerned, Who was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil, and give us an understanding that we should know Him that is true. Yet those who, confident in their traditions, dare to arraign the Saviour, commit themselves the more to the enemy, because they flatter themselves that they are upholding the cause of God. Thus are they ensnared to the destruction of themselves and of all who heed them. "He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father that sent Him" (John 5: 23).

* ἐν ἧ ἡμέρᾳ BLX, etc, but the great mass give ὅτε, "when."

"Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received sight. And he said to them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed and do see. Some of the Pharisees then said, This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the sabbath. *Others said, How can a sinful man do such signs? And there was a division among them" (verses 15, 16). They are uneasy, whatever may be their affectation of superior sanctity and zeal for God's honour. The power which gave sight, where blindness had hitherto ever rested, startled them, and excited their curiosity, with the desire of discovering an evil source, if not of alarming the man. But grace wrought in him, and gave him quiet courage to confess the good deed wrought, albeit on a sabbath and without a word about it. "He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed and do see." God calls us, when blessed through Christ, all to be confessors, though not all martyrs; and surely it is the least we owe Him in praise and our fellowmen in love.

* BD and some cursives and versions [Syrsin] add δὲ, "but."

But all true confession is odious to the religious world and its leaders. "Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because He keepeth not the sabbath." This malicious plea had been already refuted; but Pharisaism has no heart for, no subjection to, the truth. It had never entered their consciences, or they had forgotten it in their zeal for forms and traditions. But how sad the self-deceit of men destitute of true holiness, or of real obedience, daring to arraign the Holy One of God!

Yet others there were among them not so blinded by party passion or personal envy who ventured to say a word, if they took no further step. "Others said, How can a sinful man do such signs?" All they meant was that He Who wrought thus could be no such deceiver or impostor as the rest conceived. They had no right view of Himself, of His Person, or His relation to God. They had not the faintest idea that He was God manifest in flesh; but they questioned whether He must not be "of God," since He did such signs.178 "And there was a division among them." Thus, as they were not yet of one mind, there was a delay for Satan's design.

But in their restlessness they examine once more the man, and are used unwittingly by the God of grace to help him on in the apprehension and acknowledgment of the truth which is according to piety. "They say therefore* to the blind (man) again, Thou,† what sayest thou of Him, because He opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a prophet" (verse 17). The first examination was as to the fact and the manner. Now they want to force out of the man his thoughts of his Benefactor, in their malice wishing to find a plea for condemning both. On the other hand, the grace of God is as manifest as it is sweet in using the painful trial and exercise of soul to His own glory, through the man led on and blessed only the more. He knew their hatred of Jesus, yet he answers their challenge boldly, "He is a Prophet": a decided advance on his previous confession, though far from the truth he is soon to learn. He owns that Jesus has the mind of God as well as His power.

*  οὖν ABDLX, many cursives and versions [W. and H., Weiss, Blass], but most, followed by Text. Rec., omit.

† σὺ τί Text. Rec. with most; τί συ BLX, etc.

Baffled by his quiet firmness, the religious inquisitors turned to another and accustomed means of assault. As the neighbours in their perplexity appeal to the Pharisees, so these work on, and by natural relationships too. They would try whether some disproof could not be made out of the parents. Clearly unbelief lies at the bottom of all. Man, being fallen and evil, is unwilling to believe in the goodness of God-above all, in His grace to himself. Had the neighbours bowed to the clear evidence of God's intervention, they would not have brought the man to the Pharisees; had the Pharisees, they would not have persisted in sifting again and again beyond the ascertainment of the fact; still less would they have awakened the fears of the family. "The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him that he was blind, and received sight, until they called the parents of him that received sight, and asked them, saying, Is this your son who, ye say, was born blind? how then doth he now see? His parents therefore* answered and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; but how he now seeth we know not, or who opened his eyes we know not; ask himself; he is of age, he will speak for himself. These things said his parents because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that, if any one should confess Him (to be) Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. On this account his parents said, He is of age: ask him" (verses 18-23).

* οὖν B, etc.; most δὲ ; many [as Blass] omit, and so Text. Rec., which adds αὐτοῖς with most, contrary to BLX, etc.

The matter of fact is thus again the cardinal question, as it really was; and as to this the parents answered conclusively. That the man now saw was undeniable, and this through Jesus, as he declared; that he was their son and born blind, the parents maintained unhesitatingly. The conclusion was irresistible, if unbelief did not resist everything where God is concerned. The parents answer only where they are concerned. It was not that they, or any reasonable person, doubted that Jesus had wrought the miracle; but they dreaded the consequence, from Pharisaic enmity, of going beyond their own circle of natural knowledge, and pleaded ignorance of how it was done, or of Whom it was that did it. Overborne by fear of the Pharisees, they forget even the affection that would otherwise have sheltered their offspring from the impending blow; and they throw all the burden on their own son. "Ask him: he is of age, he will speak concerning himself." Thus their very fears, on which the Pharisees reckoned for a denial of the facts, God used to make it solely a controversy between the Pharisees and the man himself, when they were compelled by the evidence of the parents to accept as a certain fact that he who now saw had been ever blind, and blind till just now.

Another thing also comes out very plainly, that the enmity of the Jews to the Lord Jesus was known ere this to have gone so far as to threaten with excommunication every one that confessed Him to be the Christ.179 The will of man is blind to proofs; and as this flows from corruption, it issues in destruction.

Hence the man is once more appealed to, and all question of the miracle is dropped. "Therefore they called a second time the man who was blind, and said to him, Give glory to God: we know that this man is a sinner. He therefore answered,* If He is a sinner I know not. One thing I know, that, blind as I was, now I see" (verses 24, 25). They now assume the highest ground; they at least hold to the Divine side, if others are carried away by the apparent good done to man. Accordingly they call on him to give glory to God,180 whilst they assert their unqualified assurance that Jesus was a sinner. Nor has it been an uncommon thing from that day to this, for men to profess to honour God at the expense of His Son; as the Lord warned His disciples to expect to the uttermost, where the Father and the Son are unknown. But the man in his simplicity puts forward the fact which he deeply felt and they would fain hide. "If He is a sinner I know not. One thing I know, that, blind as I was, now I see." No argument can stand against the logic of reality-above all, of such a reality as this. He certainly did not know what they pretended to know; but that Jesus was a sinner could not be: he alleges the most distinct and irrefragable proof; and this on their own ground of what was before all. If reasoning be unseasonable and powerless, what is religious antipathy in presence of an undeniable fact which proves the mighty power and goodness of God? Their efforts proved their ill-will to Him Who had thus wrought: the blessed reality remained, whatever the insinuations or the assaults of unbelief.

* καὶ εἶπεν is the addition of Text. Rec., following most uncials and cursives, but not of ABDL, some good cursives, and the best ancient versions.

It is well also to remark that with faith goes a mighty operation of God, with its own characteristic effects, and more important in every soul that believes the Gospel than even that of which the man, once blind but now seeing, was so sensible. Those who believe are quickened from death in trespasses and sins, and they henceforth live to God. Crucified with Christ, they nevertheless live, yet not they themselves properly, but Christ lives in them. They are thereby partakers of a Divine nature, being born of God. It is no improvement of their old nature as men. They are born of water and Spirit; they are begotten by the word of truth. With faith goes this new life, which shows itself in wholly different thoughts and affections, as well as ways or walk. Of its gradual progress in the midst of opposition and persecution, the story of this blind man, who now saw, is no inapt illustration.

The pertinacity of the Pharisees finds in the man a quiet courage, which stands out in contrast with the fears of his parents, and even urges the claims of Him Who had wrought so good and great a deed on His adversaries in a way they could not resist. If they ply the man with the question, How? he answers with the question, Why?

"They said therefore* to him (again),† What did He to thee? how opened He thine eyes? He answered them, I told you already, and ye did not hear: why do ye wish to hear again? Do ye also wish to become His disciples? They railed‡ at him, and said, Thou art His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God hath spoken to Moses, but this man we know not whence He is" (verses 26-29). It was unbelieving scorn, not real ignorance.181

* Text. Rec. has δὲ, "and," with many good authorities, but not corr ( pm omitting) BDKLX, many cursives and versions.

† πάλιν, Text. Rec., with most uncials, cursives, etc., but not BD, etc., and many ancient versions.

‡ οὖν is added in Text. Rec., with little support; καὶ B, etc., but the most read neither.

He who was once blind, but now saw, discerned the true state of the case, as those did not who had never experienced His gracious power. He felt satisfied that their opposition was invincible. The apostle of grace none the less, but the more, warns the despisers of their self-willed unbelief and danger of perishing. The same spirit of faith expresses itself in him who just now was but a blind beggar, even as from those that had not should be taken away what they seemed to have. Christ is a rock of strength to the one, and of offence to the other. They thus expose themselves to the sharp rebuke of their folly by the man they affected to despise. Zealous for the servant whom they set up as master, they confessed their ignorance of Him Who is Lord of all.

"The man answered and said to them, Why in this is the* wonderful thing, that ye know not whence He is, and He opened mine eyes! †We know that God heareth not sinners, but if anyone be God-fearing, and do His will, him He heareth. Since time (began) it was not heard that anyone opened a born blind man's eyes. If this man were not of God, He could do nothing. They answered and said to Him, In sins thou west born wholly, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out" (verses 30-34).

* τὸ θ. "the," in BL, a few cursives, etc., omitted in the great majority.

† Text. Rec. adds δὲ, "now," with most [as Syrsin], against BDGL

The man's answer was as solid as to the point. He discards the attack on himself personally, and treats it as a question between the religious leaders, who avowedly could not tell whence He was Who had wrought a work wholly unexampled as a display of God's power. It was hard, if not impossible, to believe that such a one could be evil, as they had imputed. "We know that God heareth not sinners; but if anyone be God-fearing and do His will, him He heareth." For what can be surer, as a general principle, than that "them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed"? (1 Sam. 2: 30.182) Indeed, this was plain as between Jesus (to take the lowest ground) and the Pharisees, whose moral incapacity astonishes the man. What then remained for his adversaries? Nothing but contemptuous rage, and the extreme blow of the ecclesiastical arm. "They cast him out," but not before they unwittingly testified to the force of his words. "In sins thou wast born wholly,182a and dost thou teach us?" They were too proud to learn.

John 9: 35-41.

But they cast him out into the arms and bosom of the Lord. For, as we are next told, "Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and, having found him, He said, Believest thou on the Son of God (or, man)? He answered,* and said, And† who is He, Sir [Lord], that I may believe on Him? ‡Jesus said to him, Thou hast both seen Him, and He that speaketh with thee is He. And he said, I believe, Lord; and he did Him homage" (verses 35-38). Such is the final step of God's grace in working with the blind man. He is thrust outside Judaism for the truth's sake, consequent on the work wrought on his person; he there is found by Christ, and led to know and believe on Him, far beyond any thought, however true, he had previously conceived. It was faith in His own testimony and Person.

* B and Theb. omit ἀπεκρίθη ἐκεῖνος, "he answered." Memph. omits "said."

† Text. Rec. omits καὶ, "and," with AL and a few others, but good versions.

‡ Text. Rec. adds δὲ with many good authorities, but BDX, etc., omit.

It is really the history of a soul that goes onward under the guidance of God, Who makes the grace of the Lord and His glory shine the more fully after one is outside the world's religion, whether cast or going out. And such is the character of Christianity, as the believers had at length to learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, especially from its final chapter. So patient was the Spirit of grace with those of the ancient people of God, dull to learn the new thing which God has introduced through and in our Lord Jesus. But, late as it may be, the breach with earthly religion must come. Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach; and this so much the more, because we have boldness to enter into the holies by the blood of Jesus, the new and living way which He has dedicated for us through the veil-that is, His flesh. But the work was not yet done which opened this way, nor the Spirit shed to give souls the consciousness of righteous title. We have one, therefore, not yet going forth thus, but cast out by hatred far more against the name of Jesus than against the man-yea, we may say against the man solely for Jesus' sake, Who had heard of, and felt for, and found the sheep thus worried of men.

But a perplexing difference of reading follows, which claims more than a bare critical notice. "Dost thou believe on the Son of man?" say the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Cambridge [of Beza] manuscripts, supported by the [Syrsin], Sahidic, Roman edition of the Aethiopic, etc., though more than a dozen uncials [A, L, etc.], all the cursives, and the rest of the ancient versions, etc., give us τοῦ Θεοῦ, "of God" [Lachm. and Treg.]. But Tischendorf, in his eighth edition, and W. and H. [Weiss and Blass] adopt τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. Nor can it be denied that, as the rule, the Lord habitually and graciously loved to present Himself in relation to man; as, again, it is plain that this chapter in particular sets Him forth, not only as the Light, Word, and God, like the preceding one, but as the Incarnate One Who was sent to manifest the works of God, the rejected Messiah about to suffer, but to be exalted over all. On the other hand, that the Son of God is the great distinctive testimony of our Gospel none can overlook; and we can well understand how the light of this glorious truth (bursting on the soul gradually led on, spite of, and in a certain sense through, the blind hostility of the Pharisees) draws him out in homage to the Lord. It was, at any rate, the Son of God in grace, a man on earth, Who had been seen by, and was talking with, one who had experienced His light-giving power.183

"And Jesus said, For judgment I came into this world, that they that see not may see, and they that see may become blind. *And some of the Pharisees that were with Him heard these things,* and said to Him, Are we blind also? Jesus said to them, If ye were blind, ye would not have sin; but now ye say, We see,† your sin remaineth" (verses 39-41).

* BLK, three cursives, Theb. or Sah. Memph. Arm., etc., do not read καὶ,  as in Text. Rec. with most uncials, cursives, and versions, which also add Taura, "these things," save pmD, etc., with several versions [as Syrsin].

† Text. Rec., adds οὖν with ten uncials and most cursives [with Syrsin], contrary to BDKLX, etc., and the bulk of the ancient versions.

The Lord thereon shows how His coming acted, and was meant to act, on souls. It had a higher purpose and more permanent result than any energy, however mighty and benign, that dealt with the body. He was the life to those, however dark, who received Him: those who rejected Him sealed their own ruin everlastingly, whatever their estimate of themselves or in the mind of others.184 The Jew, especially the Pharisee, might be ever so confident that he himself was a guide of the blind, a light of those in darkness; but the coming of the only True Light brought to evident nothingness all such haughty pretensions as surely as it gave eyes to such as owned their blindness. No flesh therefore shall glory: he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord Who was come a man, but God on earth, for this reversal of fallen man's thoughts, and display of His own grace. Pharisaic pride refuses to bow to Jesus imputing blindness, as they thought; but if it speaks, it is obliged to hear its most withering sentence from the Judge of all mankind. For blindness there is all grace and power in Christ; but what can be the portion of those who, stone-blind, say they see? Their sin remains, as well as blindness, which of itself is not sin, though its consequence.185

JOHN — THE TENTH CHAPTER*

*[Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 485-495.]

John 10: 1-6.

The Lord proceeds to set forth the consequences of His rejection, spite of His dignity, under a variety of forms. It is the disclosure of His grace to and for the sheep (from His humiliation as man and servant, even to the laying down His life in all its intrinsic excellency), and of His glory as one with the Father. The bright side of the truth comes to view.186

"Verily, verily, I say to you, He that entereth not through the door into the fold of the sheep but climbeth up otherwise, he is a thief and a robber; but he that entereth through the door is shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth* his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.187 †When he hath put forth all‡ his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice; but a stranger they will in no wise follow, but will flee from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. This proverb said Jesus to them; but they knew not what things they were which He was speaking to them" (verses 1-6).

* καλεῖ  Text. Rec. with eleven uncials and most cursives, etc.; φωνεῖ BDLX, some cursives, etc. Either means "calleth."

† Most [as Syrsin] insert καὶ  (as Text. Rec.), or δὲ; but the most ancient omit.

‡ Most uncials, etc., read πρόβατα, "sheep," as Text. Rec., but very ancient ones have either πάντα, "all," or [as Blass] nothing more than τὰ ἴδια "his own."

The mode of speech is allegorical, departing so far from ordinary language, but adopting a figure very familiar to the law, the psalms, and the prophets (Gen. 49; Ps. 80; Isa. 40; Ezek. 34; Zech. 11, 13). The application to pastors of the church is ridiculously out of place and time. It is the Shepherd of Israel in contrast with those who claimed to guide the ancient people of God. Even He, albeit a Divine Person, entered in the appointed way. Others who had no competency were no less destitute of title or commission. The woman's Seed, the Virgin's Son, the Seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the mighty God, the Father of the age to come, coming forth out of Bethlehem, from of old, from everlasting, yet to be cut off after sixty-nine of Daniel's seventy weeks, the righteous Servant abased beyond all, yet to be exalted above all, what did not meet to point Him out and exclude every rival? Yes, the rejected Christ is He that entered through the door, Shepherd of the sheep — none but He.

All others sought to mount some other way. Theudas might boast to be somebody, Judas of Galilee draw away people after him, Pharisees love the first seats, scribes and doctors of law lay heavy burdens on men. But the sheep, taught of God, hear His voice, not theirs; even as the Spirit, in His care for God's glory, was pleased to do the porter's work, opening the door to Him only, as we see from the beginning in the Simeons and Annas and all who waited for redemption in Jerusalem. The others, small or great, orderly or revolutionary, had no right to the sheep; they were nothing better than thieves or robbers, if they claimed as they did the sheep that were His. He only is Shepherd, and the Sheep hear His voice. They are His own, and He calls them as such by name. Who could, who would, but Himself? He knows and loves them, making them feel that He has an interest in them, such as God alone could feel, and such a right to them as God alone had and gave.

Again, Christ entered in, but He leads out. Judaism is doomed. The Israel of God follow Him outside. It was no question now of gathering back into the land the outcasts of Israel, or the dispersed of Judah; this must await another day. Now He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. "When He shall have put forth all His own"- for if such were the principle of His action now, still it was to be the necessary effect of His death on the cross-He goes before them, and the sheep follow Him because they know His voice. It is the wisdom of God for the simple.188

Precious word of God, the hearing of His voice! It is due to His Person, it is the fruit of His grace, it is their true and best safeguard. "And a stranger will they in no wise follow, but will flee from him, because they know not the voice of strangers." The "stranger," or alien, has nothing to do with them; however he might seek it, what have they to do with him? Their wisdom is to follow Jesus, Whose they are, Whose voice they hear and know. How simple, were we but simple! How honouring to the Son! This, too, best pleases the Father. It is through faith we are kept, not by discerning shades of scepticism or superstition, though this may be for some a duty or call of love for others, but by adhering to the truth.

Yet such words are powerless to the men of either reason or tradition. For they seek their own honour, they give or receive it one of another. Jesus came in the Father's name, and Him they receive not. They avow themselves strangers to Him; they deny that any can know His voice. Had they heard it themselves, they would not doubt it could be known. They prefer and follow a stranger. The superstitious exalt their church; were it God's church, it would repudiate such exaltation at the expense of Christ. The sceptical exalt man as he is. But both agree in ignoring the Shepherd's voice. So it is now, and so it was then.

"This proverb* said Jesus to them, but they knew not what things they were which He was speaking to them." His sayings are as Himself: if He is valued, so are they; if He is not believed on, neither are they understood.188a He is the light and the truth. All that He says depends on faith in Him for its apprehension. And therefore it is that in 1 John 2 the very babes of the family of God are said to know all things. Knowing Christ, they have an unction from the Holy One. It is not by learning or by logic, any more than by sentiment, enthusiasm, or bigotry, but by the possession of Christ, that they refuse errors which have ensnared unnumbered doctors of divinity. They are thus kept bright and fresh, simple and secure, because dependent on Him. Those who count themselves wise venture to judge for themselves, and perish in their unbelieving presumption. To hear His voice is the humblest place in the world, yet has it the power and wisdom of God with it. What they heard from the beginning abides in them, but for the stranger they have no ear or heart. They are satisfied with Christ's voice. They know the truth in Him, and that no lie is of the truth. They are glad of every help which reminds them of His words, and brings them home to their souls. A stranger's voice they distrust, and flee from him. They are right: God would have us value no other voice.

* The Gospel of John does not use the ordinary word "parable," as the Synoptics do frequently, and no other, for our Lord's narrative likenesses in illustration of truth. John was led to employ the word [παροιμία] given in the Septuagint [Prov. 1: 1] for a "proverb," in the sense of an "allegory," or a divergence from the common way of speech, as parable means a comparison.187a

John 10: 7-21.

"Therefore said Jesus again to them,* Verily, verily, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All as many as came (before Me)† are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; through Me if anyone have entered, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture. The thief cometh not unless that he may steal and slaughter and destroy; I came that they might have life, and have abundantly" (verses 7-10).

* Some omit πάλιν and others αὐτοῖς.

† Authorities are about equally for and against [Syrsin, BIUSB] πρὸ ἐμοῦ, as in Text. Rec.189

In the former allegory the Lord speaks of Himself generally as Shepherd of the sheep, and this to put them forth, going at the head of them as they follow Him. Now He employs a different figure of Himself in direct terms, and with no less solemnity, "Verily, verily, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." There is no confusion with the former relation. It is not a question now of the sheepfold. This He had entered with every proof suited to man by God-proofs personal, moral, ministerial, miraculous, and prophetic; but the carnal mind is invincible in its unbelief, and withal being enmity against God, it is, if possible, less subject to His grace (which it understands not, but suspects) than to His law, which conscience feels to be just and right. When bowed or broken in the sense of sin against God, how sweet to hear the voice of Jesus! "I am the door of the sheep," not of the fold, but of such as are of God, who yearn after the knowledge of Him and deliverance from self. "All, as many as came . . . are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them." They were not sent, but came without warrant; they sought their own things, not those of Jesus Christ, not of others, therefore. Corrupt or violent, how could they avail, either for the sheep, or for God's glory? To them the porter did not open, and if the adversary deceived, the sheep listened not; these were guarded, however tried.

But quite another was here. "I am the door; through Me, if any shall have entered, he shall be saved, and shall go in and shall go out, and shall find pasture." How striking, yet perfectly simple, the fulness of grace touched in His words! It is no longer the narrow enclosure, but in principle for "anyone" to enter; and if one shall have entered through Christ, there is salvation, liberty, and food190-the sure, free, and rich blessing of Christianity. All turns on His glorious Person. Grace bringing salvation to any, to all, has appeared. When law shut up a people from the depravities of a rebellious and idolatrous race, when it schooled those who heeded it, we can see why the wisdom of God chose a single nation for this great moral experiment. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, come of woman, come under law, to redeem those under law, that we (the sheep of the fold) might receive sonship. But because ye are sons (the Gentiles that believe the Gospel) God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba, Father (Gal. 4). The gift was too precious, the boon too efficacious, to be pent up in the strait limits of Israel, especially as the Light manifested the darkness universal around.

Whoever, then, has entered through Christ shall be saved, shall go in and shall go out, and shall find all he lacks. God "that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things"? (Rom. 8: 32.) The law condemned the sinner, placed him in bondage, and sentenced him to die. The unchanging One changes all for the believer, be he who he may. This is grace as well as truth, and both came through and in Christ the Lord. What a Saviour! How worthy of the God Who gave and sent Him, His Only-begotten Son, into the world, that we might live through Him!

Outside Christ is sin and misery. Such is the world; and of all the world no part so delusive, so selfish, so fatal to itself and all governed by it, as the religious world and its leaders, the leaders now of infidelity as well as of superstition. Here is the testimony of Christ, of Him Who is the truth; "the thief cometh not unless that he may steal, and slaughter, and destroy." No creature can rise above his level; what, then, can the creature do that is steeped in unremoved evil and selfishness? It may sink indefinitely; it cannot possibly rise above itself. The world's hatred may become more deadly, its darkness more dense; yet no ideas nor feelings, no helps nor ordinances, can change its nature. But the pretension to be of God, when one is not, may and does precipitate into the depths of avarice and cruelty. It is the more destructive because the false claim of His name shuts up every avenue of ordinary human pity; and the reality of what is of God provokes in the unreal the determination to get rid of what condemns itself.

How blessed the contrast of Christ! "I came that they might have life, and have abundantly." He was the life, and life was in Him-not light only, but life. All outside Him lay in darkness and death. He not only was sent of the Father, but came, and came that the sheep might have life; and He would give it abundantly,191 as was most due to His personal glory and His work-a work ever before Him here. Hence it was only in resurrection that He breathed into the disciples. As Jehovah God breathed on Adam, and the man became a living soul, after a different sort from every other living thing on earth; so did He, Who was alike the risen Man and true God, breathe a better life into those who believed on Him. It is life eternal, and this, after all question of sin and law, was settled for faith by His death.

The Lord next presents Himself in the beautiful character of the good Shepherd; a most affecting and expressive proof of His lowly love, when we think Who He is, and what we are.

"I am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd layeth down his life [soul]192 for the sheep. (But)* he that is a hireling, and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are† not, beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth, and the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth; and the hireling fleeth‡ because he is a hireling, and no care hath he for the sheep" (verses 11-13).

* The copulative particle δὲ is not in BGL and a few other good witnesses.

† ἐστὶν ABLX. etc. εἰσὶν most uncials and cursives.

‡ This clause ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει, "and the hireling fleeth," is not given in (A is somewhat uncertain) BDL, some cursives, ancient versions [as Syrsin], etc., but a dozen uncials of inferior age and weight, with most cursives and some of the old versions, insert as in Text. Rec.

This indeed is love; not that we loved Him, but that He loved us, and died as propitiation for our sins. The giving up of life, in any case, for others would have been the fullest manifestation of love: how much more in His, to Whom the sheep belonged, Who had been from of old promised to stand and feed in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah His God! Greatness to the ends of the earth is a little thing compared with the good Shepherd's laying down His life for the sheep. It is the same Messiah; but how incalculably greater the testimony to His love in thus dying than in reigning ever so gloriously, however suitable and due to Himself, as well as to God's glory, and blessed for man when the kingdom comes!193

Another phase of human pretension in Divine things next appears, not thieves and robbers as before, but the "hireling," the man who meddles with the sheep, without higher motive than his own wealth or greed. "The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed," as sung one of our own poets,193a and not untruly. Here, then, the Lord first describes not their trials, but his character who claims what is not his own, but Christ's, and so deserts them openly in the hour of danger. He "beholdeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth." It is the adversary, by whatever means or instruments he may work. Then follows the peril they incur, and the actual injury done. "And the wolf snatcheth them, and scattereth; because he is a hireling, and no care hath he for the sheep." As Divine love wrought in God's purpose and will, so in Christ's death; nor is there anything good or acceptable where love is not the motive. It is the true and only right spring of service; even as the Lord intimated to the servant, now fully restored and reinstated, after his denial of Himself, "Feed My lambs-My sheep." Not that He does not propose rewards the most glorious to encourage the servant who is already in the path of Christ and apt to be cast down by its difficulties; but love alone is recognised as that which constrains him to serve. Christ was the perfection of self-sacrificing love; and it is Satan who, as the wolf, seizes and scatters what is so precious to Him, through the selfishness of such as abandon the sheep in their greatest peril, the mercenary having no care for the sheep. The character of man and Satan is as plain as that of Christ, which last comes out for other traits in the next verses. From Him self-seeking was wholly absent; love only was there.

"I am the good Shepherd, and know Mine, and Mine know Me,* even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father, and My life I lay down for the sheep" (verses 14, 15).

* The Text. Rec., with thirteen uncials and perhaps all cursives, etc., has γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν, "I am known of Mine"; BDL, with the oldest versions [as Syrsin, Weiss, Blass], γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά.

Here it is in the mutual knowledge of the Shepherd and the sheep that His goodness is shown; and this, wondrous to say, after the pattern of the Father's knowledge of the Son, and the Son's of the Father. It is a knowledge after a Divine sort, and as true in His absence as in His presence. It was not such sheltering care as the Messiah might and will extend to His people, however tender; for "He will feed His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs with His arms, and carry them in His bosom; He will gently lead those that give suck." (Isa. 40: 11.) But there had never been such transparent intimacy as between Him while on earth and His Father; and after this pattern, and none other, was it to be between Him on high and the sheep here below. This mutuality of knowledge disappears almost entirely in the Authorised Version through the unhappy full stop between verses 14, 15, and the consequent mistranslation of the earlier clause of verse 15.

The Lord returns to His laying down His life for the sheep. Nor can we wonder; for as He could give no greater proof of love, so there is nothing which is so strengthening, as well as humbling, to our souls, nothing that so glorifies God, and no other turning-point for the blessing of the universe. At this point, however, it is the good Shepherd's love for the sheep.

Here the Lord can speak distinctly for the first time of other objects of His love. He might come minister of the circumcision for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 15: 24.) But His love could not be so circumscribed, when His death opens the floodgates. The mention of His death leads Him to speak of what was quite outside Israel. "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold"-not of the Jewish people within their enclosure of law and ordinance; "them also I must lead, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be* one flock, one shepherd" (verse 16).

* corr BDLX, etc., support the plural form, γενήσονται, "they shall be," the rest have the sing., γενήσεται [Weiss, Blass], which might bear the same meaning.

It is not, as in the English Bible and others, following the Vulgate, "one fold," but "one flock." God owns no such thing now as a fold. It is exclusively Jewish; and the idea came in among Christians through the Judaizing of the Church, while the truth of the Church, when seen, makes such a thought or word, as applied to itself, intolerable. The truth is, as we have heard, that the Lord was to put forth all His own, He going before them, and the sheep following. So it was out of the Jewish fold. But other sheep He had which were not of it. "Them also I must lead, and they shall hear My voice." It was to be from among the Gentiles; and the believers there hear His voice, believing the Gospel. But they form no new enclosure, fenced in by law, like the fold of Israel. The liberty of Christ is of the essence of Christianity, not only life and pardon, but freedom as well as food. For if Christ be all, what lack can there be? The Jewish sheep have been led out, the Gentile sheep are gathered, and both compose one flock, as truly as there is one Shepherd.194

One cause that has done as much as anything to dull the saints to the perception of the truth here is the fact of so many denominational enclosures in which they find themselves. Does it seem harsh to say that such a state of things, built up by Reformers and others of peculiar energy since the Reformation, is unauthorised? But what saith the Scripture, our only standard? "One flock, one Shepherd." How painful to find persons so prejudiced as to teach, "Many folds, but one flock"! But this is to pervert rather than to expound the word of God, which admits of no fold now that spirit and letter refuse the plea.

Another element which has wrought powerfully in favour of "one fold" is the mischievous confusion of the Church with Israel, Zion, etc., which runs through not only common theology, but even the headings of the Authorised Version, and constantly, therefore, is before all eyes. Hence, if we are now so identified with the ancient people of God that we are warranted to interpret all that is said of them in the Old Testament as our present portion, one cannot be surprised that this should tend to a similar result in the New.

But Christ's death has an aspect towards His Father of the deepest delight and complacency, besides being the basis of redemption and of Christianity. "On this account the Father loveth Me, because I lay down My life (soul) that I may take it again. No one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again: this commandment I received from My Father" (verses 17, 18). The Lord does not add here "for the sheep," nor should we limit His death to ourselves. He lets us see the value His own laying down His life had in itself. It was a fresh motive for the Father's love; and no wonder, if it were only as the unfathomable depth to which His own devotedness could go down. But, indeed, none but the Father knows what He found in it of love, confidence in Him, self-abandonment, and moral excellence in every way, crowned by the personal dignity of Him Who, standing in ineffably near relationship to the Father Himself, was thus pleased to die. Hence it could not but be that the Son would take His life again, not now in connection with the earth and man living on it, but risen from the dead, and so the power and pattern of Christianity.195

In this profound humiliation, to which the Lord submitted in grace, there is the utmost care to guard against the least suspicion that could lower His glory as the Son and God. It is not, as in Matthew (where He is viewed as the rejected Messiah, the Son of man, not merely the destined head of all nations and tribes and tongues, but in command of the holy angels-His angels): He had only to call on His Father, Who would furnish Him more than twelve legions of angels. And what would have availed all Rome's legions against those heavenly beings, mighty in strength, that do His word? But how, then, He blessedly adds, could the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?

Divine Person though He was, He had come to die; the Life Eternal which was with the Father before there was either man or earth, He had deigned to become man, that He might thus lay down His life and take it again. But here He speaks not more in lowly love than as consciously God, "No one taketh it [away]195a from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again: this commandment I received from My Father." On the one hand there is the calm assertion of the right as well as power to lay down His life and to take it again. As none but the Creator could do the latter, so no creature is entitled to do the former. None but God has power and title to do both; and the Word, without, of course, ceasing to be Divine (which, indeed, could not be), became flesh that He might thus die and rise. On the other hand, even in this, which might have been justly deemed the most strictly personal of all acts, He abides the obedient man, and would do only the will of His Father. He was come to do the will of God. This is perfection, and found in Jesus alone.195b Well may we adore Him with the Father Who gave Him. He is worthy.

These wondrous words were not without effect even then among the Jews. Love unknown before, the lowliness of a servant, the dignity of One consciously Divine, wrought in some consciences, while they roused others to a deeper hatred. So it is, and must be, in a world of sinful men, where God and Satan are both at work in the momentous conflict of good and evil.

"There was a division* again among the Jews because of these words; butt many of them said, He hath a demon and is mad: why hear ye Him? Others said, These are not the sayings of one possessed by a demon: can a demon open blind (men's) eyes?" (verses 19-21). The greater the grace, and the deeper the truth, the less does the natural mind appreciate Christ. He is, indeed, the test of every soul that hears His word. But if some imputed what was infinitely above man to a demon, and to the raving consequent on such a possession, others there were who felt how far the words were from those of a demoniac, and who bowed to the Divine power which sealed them. The words and the works to their consciences had another character and import.196

* "Therefore" in the Text. Rec. has considerable support of MSS., but the older omit it.

† Here, again, some give "therefore" instead of "but."

John 10: 22-38.

"Now* it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem, (and) it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in the porch of Solomon. The Jews, therefore, surrounded Him, and said to Him, How long cost Thou hold our soul in suspense? If Thou art the Christ, tell us openly. Jesus answered, I told you, and ye believe not. The works which I do in the name of My Father, these bear witness of Me; but ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep.† My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them life eternal, and they shall in no wise ever perish, and no one shall seize them out of My hand. My Father‡ Who‡ hath given Me (them) is greater than all; and no one is able to seize out of the hand of My‡ Father. I and the Father are one" (verses 22-30).

* BL, 33, Memph. have "then," as they and more omit "and." [Text as ADX-adopted by Blass-Latt., Syrr., Chrys.]

† The weightiest authorities omit "as I told you."

‡ Some MSS. say "the" for "My" [Blass]; others, not "Who," but "as to what He." — BL [Syrsin] omit last μου, "My" [Weiss, Blass].

We are many of us familiar with the effort to sustain tradition and human authority in Divine things by such a passage as the opening of verse 22. But it is really futile. For here we learn nothing of our Lord's participation in any observances of men,197 whatever they may have been, but of His being then in Jerusalem, winter as it was, and walking in Solomon's porch, when the Jews came round, and kept saying to Him, "Till when (or, How long) cost Thou excite our soul (or keep it in suspense)?" Wretched and guilty as their unbelief was, the Jews drew no such inference from His presence then and there. They were uneasy, spite of their opposition to Him. "If Thou art the Christ, tell us openly.''198 But the fatal hour was at hand, and the power of darkness; and the light was about to pass away from them after its full manifestation in their midst. "Jesus answered, I told you, and ye believe not." Take only His words recorded in John 5, 6, and 8. A plainer and richer testimony could not be. But testimony does not always last. It is given freely, fully, patiently, and may then be turned aside from those who reject to such as hear. Thus is God wont to act, and so does the Lord answer on this occasion. "I told you, and ye believe not."

But there was more than words, however truly Divine-words of grace and truth according to His Person. There were works of similar character; and the Jews were accustomed to look for a sign. If they sought honestly, they might see signs beyond man's numbering or estimate. "The works which I do in the name of My Father, they bear witness of Me." What could account for such hardness in any heart?" But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep." Solemn solution of a difficulty, of a resistance to truth, of a rejection of Christ, as true now as ever!

Men trust to themselves, to their own feelings, to their own judgments. Have these never played them false? Have they ever been true before God? What suicidal folly not to distrust themselves, and look to God, cry to God, ask of God, what is His way, His truth, His Son! But no: this were to believe and be saved; and they will not. They are too proud. They will not bow to the Word that arraigns them as sinners, even though it sends them the message of remission of sins on their faith. They feel that such grace on God's part supposes utter guilt and ruin on theirs, and this they are too hard, too proud, to own. They believe not; they are not of the Saviour's sheep. Criminals, heathen, perhaps, may need a Saviour; not decent, more, religious men like themselves! They do not, will not, believe, and are lost, not because they are too great sinners for Christ, but because they refuse Christ as the Saviour, and deny their ruin as sinners. They prefer to go on as they are, like the great mass of men: God, they think, is too merciful; and they hope to improve some day if they feel not quite right to-day. Thus are they lost. Such is the way and end of many an unbeliever now, as of the Jews then.

How, then, are Christ's sheep characterised? We need not hesitate to receive the answer, for here is His own account of them. "My sheep hear My voice": a quality incomparably better than doing this, or that, or all things without it. It is the obedience of faith, the holy parent of all holy issues. Without faith it is impossible to please God; and this is the present characteristic of those who are of faith: they hear the voice of Christ, and are truly humble, yet firm. It is not self-assertion, nor the forgetfulness of their own sinfulness and of His glory. It is the simple owning of His grace, and of their own need; and thus only are souls blessed through Christ to God's glory.

This, however, is not their only privilege. "And I know them," says the Saviour. It is not here said that they know Christ, however true by grace. But He knows them, all their thoughts and feelings, their words and ways, their dangers and difficulties, their past, present, and future. He knows themselves, in short, perfectly, and in perfect love. How infinite the favour and the blessing! What a resource and a joy!

But there is more. The sheep not only hear Christ's voice, but, says He, "They follow Me." For faith is divine and practical, or worse than useless. And as it is due to Christ that His own should follow Him, so they need it, exposed as they are to countless foes, seen and unseen. It is their security, whatever the circumstances they pass through: Christ Who leads the sheep cannot fail, and, as He knows them, so they follow Him. Thus He keeps them by the way, which He is.

"And I give them life eternal, and they shall never perish, and no one shall seize them out of my hand." Thus the Lord guarantees His own life to them, not the life of Adam, who brought in death, and died, and left the sad inheritance to all his offspring; whereas the Second Man and last Adam, being Son of God, quickens whom He will, and quickens with and to life everlasting. Is it said, however, that the sheep are weak? Unquestionably; but here He excludes fear and anxiety for all who believe in Him, for He immediately adds that "they shall in no wise ever be lost." No intrinsic weakness, therefore, shall compromise their safety for a moment; nor shall hostile force or wiles jeopard them; for "no one shall seize them out of My hand."199

Could love assure its objects of more? His love would impart to them the certainty of His own deepest joy, His Father's love as sure as His own; and so He closes His communication with it. "My Father Who hath given to Me is greater than all, and no one is able to seize out of the hand of My Father. I and the Father are one." Here we rise into that height of holy love and infinite power of which none could speak but the Son; and He speaks of the secrets of Godhead with the intimate familiarity proper to the Only-begotten Who is in the Father's bosom. He needed none to testify of man, for He knew what was in man, being Himself God; and He knew what was in God for the self-same reason. Heaven or earth made no difference, time or eternity. Not a creature is unapparent before Him, but all things are naked and laid bare in His eyes with Whom we have to do. And He declares that the Father Who had made the gift resists all that can threaten harm, and as He has given to Christ, so He is greater than all, and none can seize out of His hand. Indeed, the Son and the Father are one, not one Person (which ἐσμεν with every other Scripture bearing on it, refutes), but one thing, ἓν, one Divine nature or essence (as other Scriptures equally prove). The lowliest of men, the Shepherd of the sheep, He is the Son of the Father, true God and eternal life. And He and the Father are not more truly one in Divine essence than in the fellowship of Divine love for the sheep.

Thus did the Lord assume and imply Divine glory as His, no less than the Father's, spite of the place of man He had taken in the humiliation of love, in order to undo the works of the devil, and deliver guilty sinners who hear His voice from the bondage of sin and God's most righteous judgment. This roused again the murderous hatred of His hearers.

"The Jews (therefore)* again took up stones, that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, Many good works I showed you from the (or, my)** Father: on account of which work of them do ye stone Me? The Jews answered Him,† For a good work we stone Thee not, but for blasphemy, and because Thou, being a man, makest Thyself God" (verses 31-33).

* BL, 33, etc., omit, the rest add.

** pmBD omit μου, "My."

† The bulk of witnesses omits, "saying."

Alas for the will and self-confidence of man! They were right in saying that Jesus was a man; they were not wrong in understanding that He claimed to be God. But it was the insinuation of Satan working on man's unbelief of all beyond his senses and mind, that He Who was God would not deign, in love to men and for the Divine glory, to become man in order to accomplish redemption. Was it incredible that God should stoop so low for these most worthy ends? And had not Jesus given adequate evidence of His glory and relation to the Father, in power and goodness, as well as truth? A life of purity unknown, of dependence on God beyond parallel, of active goodness untiring, of humility and of suffering the more surprising, because in evident command of power unlimited in testimony to the Father, and this in accomplishment of the entire chain of Scripture types and prophecy, combine to hurl back the imputation of imposture on the old serpent, the liar and father of it; whose great lie is to oust God from being the object of man's faith and service and worship for false objects, or no object but self, which, however little suspected, is really Satan's service.

Nothing, therefore, so rouses Satan as God thus presented in and by the Lord Jesus, Who displays His own perfect meekness and man's enmity by no intervention of power to save Him from insult and injury. "First He must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation" (Luke 17: 25.) — a generation which goes on still morally, and will, till He returns in glory to judge. They therefore took up stones to stone Him; for Satan is a murderer as well as a liar, and nothing so awakens violence, even to death, as the truth which condemns men pretending to religion. To their blinded and infuriated minds it was blasphemy200 for Him to say that He gave His followers eternal life beyond the weakness or the power of the creature-blasphemy to assert that He and the Father were one; whereas it is the truth, so vital and necessary that none who reject it can be saved. His words were as good as His works, and even more momentous to man; while both were of the Father.201 He Whom God sent, as John testified, spoke the words of God. It was they who blasphemed, denying Him to be God Who, in grace to them, condescended to become man.

But He meets them on their own ground by an à fortiori argument, which left His personal glory untouched. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If He called them gods to whom the Word of God came202 (and the Scripture cannot be broken), say ye of Him Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemes", because I said, I am Son of God?" (verses 34-36).203 Thus does He reason most conclusively from the less to the greater; for every Jew knew that their inspired books, as for instance, Ps. 82, calls judges elohim, (gods), as commissioned by God and responsible to judge in His name. If such a title could be used of a mere magistrate in Scripture (and its authority is indissoluble), how unreasonable to tax with blasphemy Him Whom the Father set apart,* and sent into the world, because He said He was God's Son! He is not affirming or demonstrating what He is in this, but simply convicting them of their perverseness on the ground of their law. They had not the least excuse whilst they claimed adherence to their law of Divine authority. If God called the judges by His name as being His representatives, how much more was it due to Him Who had a place so unique?

* It is well to note that the Lord predicates sanctification of Himself in John 17: 19 as set apart now in heaven, the model Man in glory, and here by the Father for His mission into the world, quite distinct from the application of the word to us who were sinners, and even dead in sins. Sanctification, in the case of the Holy One, resolves itself into its pure and abstract sense of setting apart.

"If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not; but if I do, even if ye believe not Me, believe* the works, that ye may perceive and know [or, believe]* that the Father (is) in Me, and I in the Father"† (verses 37, 38). There was no denying the irresistible force of this appeal. The character of the works bore testimony, not only to Divine power, but to this in the fulness of love. Think as they might of Him, the works were unmistakable, that they might learn and come to know the unity of the Father and the Son. It is not that He enfeebles the dignity of His Person, or the truth of His words; but He was pleading with them, and dealing with their consciences, by those works which attested not more the power than the grace of God, and consequently His glory Who wrote them. But self-will holds out against all proofs.

* The weight of testimony is for πιστεύετε [A, etc., so Weiss] rather than πιστεύσατε [Blass]. Then, as γινώσκητε [know, come to know] seemed difficult after γνῶτε [perceive, learn], many read πιστεύσητε [believe] as the Text. Rec. has it.

† "The Father" is in BDLX, two cursives, several It. Vulg. Syrr. Sah. Arm. Arab. Anglo-Sax. Pers. (Memph. Aeth. reversing order-as Weiss); "Him," as in Text. Rec., AΓΔ, and nine uncials more, mass of cursives, some It. Gothic, Syrrtxt Slav [Blass].

John 10: 39-42.

"They sought, therefore, again to seize Him, and He departed out of their hand. And He went away again beyond the Jordan204 to the place where John was at first baptizing, and abode there. And many came unto Him and said, John did no sign, but all things whatsoever John said about Him were true. And many believed on Him there" (verses 39-42). Thus it was not that their unbelief was incomplete, but that His time was not yet come. The Lord therefore retires till the moment appointed of God, and meanwhile goes to the scene of John's work at the first, and there abode, where grace wins many a soul that recognised in Him the truth of John's testimony.

JOHN — THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER*

*[Cf. "Lectures on Gospels," pp. 495-502.]

John 11: 1-16.

The Lord was rejected, rejected in His words, rejected in His works. Both were perfect, but man felt that God was brought near to him by both, and, an enemy of God, he increasingly musters hatred against His Son, His image.

But the grace of God still waits on guilty man, and would give a fresh, full, and final testimony to Jesus. And here we begin with that which was most of all characteristic of our Gospel-His Divine Sonship displayed in resurrection power. All is public now; all near or in Jerusalem. The design of God governs here, as everywhere. All the Evangelists present the testimony to His Messianic glory, the second of these three testimonies, though none with such fulness of detail as Matthew, whose function it was pre-eminently to show Him as the Son of David according to prophecy, but rejected now, and about to return in power and glory. It was John's place, above all, to mark Him out as Son of God, and this the Holy Spirit does by giving us through His Gospel the resurrection of Lazarus. Christ is in resurrection the life-giving Spirit, as contrasted with Adam; but He is the Son eternally, and the Son quickens whom He will, before death no less than after resurrection; and this is here exhibited with all fulness of detail as was due to it 205

"Now there was a certain (man) sick, Lazarus, from Bethany, of the village of Mary and Martha her sister. But Mary was she that anointed the Lord with unguent, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.205 The sisters then sent unto Him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom Thou lovest (φιλεῖς) is sick" (verses 1-3). Thus does John introduce the account. It puts us at once in presence of all concerned-the household whither He used to retire from the sterile but guilty parties of Jerusalem. Who had not heard of the woman that anointed the Lord with unguent, and wiped His feet with her hair? (John 12: 3.) Wherever the Gospel was preached in the whole world, this was told for a memorial of her. But her name had been withheld till now. It was John's place to mention what so closely touched the Person of the Lord. John names others, if he conceals his own name. It was Mary; and she, with her sister, sent a message to the Lord reckoning on the promptness of His love. They were not disappointed. His love exceeded all their thought, as His glory was beyond their faith, however real it might be. But their faith was tried, as it always is.

"But when Jesus heard, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. Now Jesus loved (ἠγάπα) Martha and her sister and Lazarus. When, therefore, He heard that he was sick, He then remained two days in the place where He was; then, after this, He saith to His* (or, the) disciples, Let us go into Judaea again. The disciples say to Him, Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone Thee, and goest Thou thither again? Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours of the day? If one walk in the day, he doth not stumble, because he seeth the light of this world; but if one walk in the night, he stumbleth, because the light is not in him" (verses 4-10).

* BELX, etc., read τοῖς [Weiss, Blass], but the weight favours αἰτοῦ also.

First appearances are ever in this world against the good and holy and true. Those who seek occasion against what is according to God can easily find excuse for their own evil. And the moral object of God, as of His Word, tests every soul that comes into contact. So here the Lord knew the end from the beginning when He said, This sickness is not unto death; but he who was quick to judge by the beginning must inevitably misjudge. What would he have judged who heard Him say, Lazarus, come forth, and saw the dead man come forth from the cave of burial?

Resurrection displays the glorious power of God beyond all else. It arrests, and is intended to arrest, man, who knows too well what sickness is, and how hopelessly death severs him from all his activities. The sickness of Lazarus, then, just because it ran up into death, was about to furnish a meet occasion for God's glory, and this, too, in the glorifying of His Son thereby.

There are those who delight in what they call "the reign of law"; but what is the sense of such thoughts or words when brought to the touchstone of resurrection? Does not the raising of the dead prove the supremacy of God's power over that which is a law, if there be an invariable lot appointed to sinful man here below, the law of death? For certainly death is not the cause of resurrection; but the Son is He Who wields the power of life. He quickens whom He will, for He is God, but as the Sent One, the dependent and obedient Servant, for He is man. Such was Jesus here in this world, and this manifested most fully a short time before He laid down His life for the sheep.

But man is a poor judge of Divine love, and even saints learn it only by faith. Jesus will have us confide in His love. For this is love, not that we loved Him, but that He loved us, and proved it in His dying a propitiation for us. Even here, too, how significantly the Evangelist says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, just before the mention of His staying two days in the place where He was after the message came. If a mere man, with power to heal, loved another that was sick, how soon he would have healed the patient! And Jesus had already shown His power to heal in the same hour. No matter what the intervening distance, or how unconscious the sufferer, why not speak the word on behalf of Lazarus? Did He love the nobleman of Capernaum and his boy, did He love the Gentile centurion and his servant, better than Lazarus? Assuredly nothing of the sort; but it was for the glory of God that the Son of God  might be glorified by that very sickness, not arrested, but  allowed to work its way.

The Lord was about to raise the dead Lazarus; and this when  it had not the appearance of a law, but rather by grace the  exemption of one from the law of death. How truly for the glory  of God was the result! Not so was the way man would have  wrought at once if he could. He Who was God, and loved as no  man ever did, abode two days where He was, and then calmly  said to the disciples, Let us go into Judæa again. They wonder.  Did He not know better than they the murderous rancour of the  Jews? Had He forgotten their repeated efforts to stone Him?  Why then, did He propose to go thither again? He was here to  do the will of His Father; and here was a work to do for His  glory. His eye certainly was ever single, His body full of light.

"Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours of the day? If  one walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light  of the world; but if one walk in the night, he stumbleth, because  the light is not in him." If it was the will of the Father, it was  day; and as Jesus was not only sent by the living Father, but  lived on account of Him, so for the disciple He is the light and  the food and the motive. The known will and word of God is  the light of day; to be without it is to walk in the night, and  stumbling is the sure consequence. If Christ be before us, the  light will be in us, and we stumble not. May we evermore heed  His word!

The Lord would exercise the hearts of His own. As His  tarrying in the same place for two days was not the impulse of  human feeling, so His going to the place of deadly hatred was  according to the light He walked in and was. He has more to say  which they had to ponder. He abides in dependence; He awaits  His Father's will. This given decides His movements at once.

"These things said He, and after this He saith to them,  Lazarus our friend is fallen asleep; but I go that I may awake him. Therefore said the disciples to Him,* Lord, if he is  fallen asleep, he will recover. But Jesus had spoken of his  death, but they thought that He was speaking (lit. speaketh) of  the rest of sleep. Then therefore said Jesus to them plainly,  Lazarus is dead; and I rejoice on your account that I was not  there, that ye may believe. But let us go unto him.207 Thomas  therefore, that is called Didymus, said to his fellow-disciples, Let  us also go, that we may die with him" (verses 11-16).208 The  Lord begins to disclose what He was about to do; but they were  dull to think of death on the one hand, or of His resurrection  power on the other. The prevention of death, the healing of  disease, is far short of triumph over death. The disciples were to  be strengthened by the sight of resurrection before He died on  the cross and rose again.

* αὐτῳ οἱ μ., DKΠ, etc., some adding αὐτοῦ with Syrr., etc.; BCpmX, etc., οἱ μ. αὐτῳ (the latter only is in A, etc.), while the Text. Rec. with most gives οἱ μ. αὐτου.

It is important to note that here, as everywhere, sleep is said  of the body. It is the suited word of faith for death: how dark  the unbelief that perverts it, as some do, to materialise the soul!  He Who is the truth speaks as the thing really is. He knew that  He was about to raise Lazarus.

But the Lord Who tries faith meets the weakness of His  disciples, and clears up the difficulty. He tells them plainly "Lazarus is dead," and expresses His joy on their account that He  was not there (that is, merely to heal), in order that they might  believe, when they knew better His power to quicken and raise  the dead. Gloomy Thomas can see only His rushing into death  when He proposed to go to Judea, though his love to the Lord  prompts him to say, Let us also go that we may die with Him.  How poor are the thoughts of a disciple, even where affection  was true to the Master, Who was indeed about to die in willing  grace for them-yea, for their sins-that they might live for  ever, justified from all things; but Who would prove before He  died a sacrifice that He could not only live, but give life to the  dead as He would, yet in obedience to, and in communion with, His Father! Such  is our Saviour.

John 11: 17-44.

"Jesus therefore, on coming, found that He was four days in  the tomb. Now Bethany was209 near Jerusalem, about fifteen  furlongs off; and many of the Jews had come unto Martha and Mary* that they might comfort them concerning their brother. Martha then, when she heard Jesus is coming, met Him; but Mary was sitting in the house. Martha then said unto Jesus,  Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. And  now I know that, whatsoever Thou mayest ask of God, God  will give Thee. Jesus saith to her, Thy brother shall rise again.  Martha saith to Him, I know that He shall rise in the resurrection at the last day.210 Jesus said to her, I am the  resurrection and the life: he that believeth on Me, though he  have died, shall live; and every one that liveth and believeth on  Me shall in no wise die for ever. Believest thou this? She saith  to Him, Yea, Lord, I do believe (I have believed, and do) that  Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, that should come into the  world.211 And having said this she went away, and called Mary  her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher is here, and calleth thee.  When she heard (it), she riseth quickly, and cometh unto Him"  (verses 17-29).

* The Received Text with [ACcorr.ΓΔ] Syrhcl implies "and their company" [Blass, conflate reading], but the more ancient copies and versions do not allow this.

The interval since death and burial is carefully stated, as well  as the contiguity of the spot to Jerusalem, and the number of  Jews who at the moment had joined the company of Martha and  Mary, with a view to console them in their sorrow. God was  ordering all for a bright testimony to His Son. For Aeschylus  (Eum. 647) but expressed the universal mind of the heathen,  himself a religious heathen, that man, once dead, has no  resurrection. What had God for such as believe on Jesus? What  had Jesus? What is He but the resurrection and the life? It was  no question of the last day only. Jesus was there then, the  conqueror of death as of Satan.

Again Martha, prompt as ever when she heard of Jesus  approaching, went to meet Him, while Mary kept sitting in the  house with a deeper sense of death, but at least as ready to go  when summoned. Meanwhile she waits, as the Lord knew well  and appreciated. When Martha did meet the Lord, she confesses  His power to have warded off death by His presence. She owns  Him as the Messiah; and as such she is confident that even now,  whatever He may "ask" of God will be given Him. No doubt she  meant this as a strong expression of her faith. But it was to  correct this error, to give an incomparably fuller apprehension,  that the Lord came now to raise Lazarus. Hence she applies to  the Lord language far below His true relation to the Father: ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσῃ τὸν Θεόν. Had she said ἐπωτήσῃ τὸν πατέρα, it would have been more  becoming. It is all right to use αἰτέω of us, for the place of a  suppliant or petitioner becomes us; but the word of more familiar  demand, g ejrwtavw, is suitable to Him. This, however, she, though a  believer, had to learn.

When Jesus tells Martha that her brother shall rise again, she  replies at once, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection  at the last day." But the Lord was here, not to teach truths  known already, but to give what was unknown, and this in the  glory of His own Person. Therefore said Jesus to Martha, "I am  the Resurrection and the Life," and in this order as strictly  applicable to the case in hand, Lazarus being dead and buried. He  is the Resurrection no less than the Life, and this in fulness of  power. "He that believeth on Me, though he should die, shall live;  and every one that liveth and believeth in Me shall never die:  believes" thou this?" It is the superiority of life in Christ over all  impediments, to be displayed at His coming. "For we shall not  all sleep, but we shall all be changed in an instant, in the  twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet shall  sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be  changed." (1 Cor. 15: 51.) Thus, at the coming of the Lord "the dead in Christ  shall rise first; then we the living that remain," without passing through death, "shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4: 16f.) Thus will He be proved the resurrection and the life: the resurrection, because the dead believers immediately arise, obedient to His voice; the life, because every one that lives and believes on Him has mortality swallowed up of life at the same moment.

This tests Martha. To the Lord's inquiry, "Believest thou this?" she can only give the vague reply, "Yea, Lord, I have believed, and do believe (πεπίστευκα) that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, that should come into the world:" a word containing truth doubtless, but no read answer to the question. She felt the uneasiness usual even to saints who hear what is beyond their depth; and she thinks of her sister as one that would understand incomparably better than herself; and so, without staying to learn, she hurried off, and called Mary secretly, saying, "The Teacher is here, and calleth thee." Mary, when she heard, quickly rises and comes. How sweet the call to her heart!

There was not the smallest haste in the movements of our Lord. Indeed, we may rather note His calm bearing in presence of the one sister, so quick to go before she was called, and of the other when she was. Jesus abides the same, a man yet in the quiet dignity of the Son of God.

"Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was in the place where Martha came to meet Him. The Jews therefore who were with her in the house and consoling her, having seen Mary that she quickly rose up and went out, followed her,* thinking she goeth unto the tomb, that she may weep there" (verses 30, 31). It was not so, however; but the grace of Christ meant that there He should meet Mary, soon about to behold a bright outshining of the glory of God in her beloved Lord. What strangers to Jesus were those who would console her in vain in the presence of death!

* δόξαντες BCpmDLX, some cursives, and most ancient versions etc.; λέγοντες, "saying" (Text. Rec.), ACcorr and a dozen uncials, most cursives and versions.

Not that Mary was above the pressure of death more than others. She repeats what Martha said; but she was of a different spirit in repeating it. "Mary therefore when she came where Jesus was, having seen Him, fell at His feet, saying to Him, Lord, if Thou hadst been here, my brother had not died" (verse 32). But if she saw in Him as yet only power to preserve, if she had to learn that He is the resurrection and the life, at least she fell at His feet, as Martha did not; and the Lord, if He says nothing, will soon answer in deed and in truth. But the consciousness of Divine glory, and this about to manifest itself superior to death in presence of all, in no way detracted from the sensibilities of His spirit. On the contrary, the very next verses let us know how deep were the emotions of our blessed Lord at this moment.

"Jesus therefore, when He saw her weeping, and the Jews that came with her weeping, was deeply moved in spirit, and troubled Himself, and said, Where have ye laid Him?212 They say to Him, Lord, come and see. *Jesus wept. The Jews therefore said, Behold, how He loved (ἐφ.) him! And some of them said, Could not this (Man) that opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that this (man) also should not have died?" (verses 33-37).

* D, etc., with most of the ancient versions, add the copula καὶ, "and."

The word translated "deeply moved" occurs elsewhere for a "strict" or stern "charge," as in Matt. 9: 30, Mark 1: 43; or an angry speech, as in Mark 14: 5. Here it is rather the inward feeling than the expression, approached rather nearly by such use as that in Lucian (Nec. 20), of (it would seem) groaning. It means the strong, and it may be indignant, affection the Lord experienced at the power of death over not the Jews only, but Mary, wielded as it still was by the enemy. This is still farther expressed by the phrase that follows, as well as by verse 38. His tender sympathy appears rather in His weeping (verse 35), after asking where they had laid Lazarus, and the invitation to come and see. His indignant sense of Satan's power through sin did not interfere in the least with His deep compassion; and what we see here is but the counterpart of His habitual bearing the diseases and taking the infirmities, which the first Gospel applies from Isa. 53: 4. (Matt. 8: 17.) Never was it mere power, nor was it only sympathy, but the entrance of His spirit into every case He cured, the bearing of the weight on His heart before God of all that oppressed sin-stricken man. Here it was the still greater ravage of death in the family He loved.

But we may note that in our Lord's case, profound as was His grief, it was His servant. "He troubled Himself." It did not gain the mastery, as our affections are apt to do with us. Every feeling in Christ was perfect in kind and measure as well as season. His groaning, His trouble, His weeping-what were they not in God's sight! How precious should they not be to us! Even the Jews could not but say, "Behold, how He loved him!" What had they thought had they known He was just going to raise the dead man? If they did not recall His power, it was only the unavailing regret that He Who healed the blind had not forefended death in the case of Lazarus. They were utterly at fault about this sickness, as blind to the glory of God as to the way of it, that the Son of God would be glorified thereby. Faith in the glory of His Person alone rightly interprets and appreciates in its measure the depth of His love. "Jesus wept." What a difference these words convey to him who sees nothing but a man, and to him who knows Him to be the mighty God, the only-begotten Son! Even the believer could not in this case fail to own His love; but how immensely that love is enhanced by His Divine dignity, and the consciousness that He was about to act in the power of Divine life above death!212a

Now it is of all consequence that we should believe and know, without doubt, that all which Jesus showed Himself that day on behalf of Lazarus He is, and far more, for His own, and that He will prove it for every one of us at His coming. For there is now also the fruit of the travail of His soul, and the power of His resurrection, after the fullest judgment of sin in the cross. Hence all His love and power can act unhinderedly on our behalf, as they surely will to the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby. What men then beheld was but a testimony, however truly Divine; but at His coming the truth will be fully out in power. Now is the time to believe and confess the truth in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation. May we be enabled in lowliness of mind to appear as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life!

"Jesus therefore again, deeply moved in Himself, cometh unto the tomb. Now it was a cave,213 and a stone lay upon it. Jesus saith, Take away the stone.214 Martha, the sister of the deceased,* saith to Him, Lord, he already stinketh, for he is four days (dead). Jesus saith to her, Said I not to thee that if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God? They took away therefore the stone;† and Jesus lifted His eyes upward, and said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always; but on account of the crowd that standeth around I said (it), that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.215 And having said this, He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And‡ the dead came forth,215a having the feet and the hands bound with grave-clothes, and his face was bound round with a handkerchief. Jesus saith to them, Loose him, and let him‡ go" (verses 38-44).

* For the received reading τεθνηκότος, "dead," supported by a good many uncials and most cursives, the highest authorities give τετελευτηκότος, "deceased,''214a

† Text. Rec., with the great majority of MSS., adds οὗ ἦν ὁ τεθνηκὼς κείμενος, AKΠ, etc., only οὗ ἦν, but the best (BCpmDLX, some cursives, and the oldest versions) omit.

‡ The Received Text with most authorities begins with the copula καὶ, "and," but omits the last αὐτὸν, "him," contrary to a few of the best authorities.

It was no longer the time for words, and Jesus, again realising for Himself the power which shut out God's glory from man, comes to the cave with a stone laid on it, which served for a tomb. There the unbelief of Martha ventured (what does it not?) to oppose the Lord's word to remove the stone: He, that all might be clear; she, because His words disappointed her haste, if, indeed, she expected anything. But if Martha could not rise above the humbling effects of death, which she would shut out from others, Jesus would not hide what was due to God in grace to man. How quickly the word of the Lord is forgotten in presence of the sad circumstances of human ruin! Faith gives the word heed, and reaps the blessing in due time. Listen to Jesus. He is heard already. He knows beforehand that He has what He asks, heard now as always before. The Father was concerned no less than the Son, and it was said that those who heard might believe that the Father sent Him forth.

Thereon comes the word of power: "Lazarus, come forth." He had prayed to the Father, jealous above all for His glory, and never forgetful of the place He had Himself come down to as man. But He was the Son, He could quicken whom He would, and so He does. Yet even in the majesty of this Divine display, He intermingles after, as well as before, what drew men's attention, that they might not be faithless but believing. What difficulty was there in the stone? For Himself He needed to remove nothing. It was for their sakes. Behold, man in the loathsomeness of death before he was raised! And so now what for Him mattered the binding of the grave-clothes, or of the handkerchief? The grace of the Lord by both would only give them the better confirmation of what He had wrought. He could have loosed Lazarus as easily as He could have caused the stone to disappear; He could have willed all without crying with a loud voice; but He, Who would that we should confide in the power of His word, would have us note the corruption that precedes quickening and the bondage which may follow it now. Liberty is needed as well as life; but it is unnatural that one who is made to live should be longer bound.

Mighty as was the work of thus raising Lazarus, we see here, as everywhere, how dependent man is on grace. Sin makes him the slave of Satan, little as he suspects it. His will is against God, in His goodness or in His judgment, in His word or His works; and the greater the mercy, the less he likes what is so contrary to his thoughts, and so humbling to his pride. If many were impressed and believed, some went mischievously to the enemy with their information.

John 11: 45-54.

"Many of the Jews, therefore, that came to Mary, and beheld what He did, believed on Him; but some of them went away unto the Pharisees, and told them what Jesus did.215b The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered together a council, and said, What do we, for this man doeth many signs? (and)* if we leave Him thus, all will believe on Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation. But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest of that year, said to them, Ye know nothing, nor reckon† that it is profitable for you‡ that one man should die for the people, and not the whole nation perish. Now this he said not from himself, but, being high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but that also He should gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad. From that day, therefore, they consulted§, that they might kill Him. Jesus, therefore, walked no more openly among the Jews, but went away thence into the country near the desert, unto a city called Ephraim, and there He abode|| with the¶ disciples" (verses 45-54).

* D, 255, with Syrr., Memphwi, Aethr, add καὶ, "and."

† λογίζεσθε ABDL, some cursives, etc., instead of the Text. Rec. διαλ., "consider," supported by most uncials, cursives, etc.

‡ ὑμῖν, "you," BDLMXΓ, many cursives, etc., ἡμῖν, "us," still more witnesses; , etc., omitting either [Blass].

§ ἐβ, BD, etc., συνεβ. much the most.

|| Instead of διέτριβεν, "tarried," as most [so Blass]; BL ἔμεινεν, "abode " [W. and H., Weiss].

¶ BDILΓΔ, etc., do not read αὐτοῦ, "his," as in the rest.

The chief priests and the Pharisees are immediately on the alert. They assemble a council; they wonder at their own inactivity in presence of the many signs done by Jesus; they fear that, if left alone, He may become universally acceptable, and that they may provoke the Romans to destroy them, Church and State, as men now say. How affecting to see the power of Satan blinding those most who take the highest place in zeal for God after the flesh! It was their desperately wicked purpose to put Him to death-a purpose as desperately effected, which led to the cross, in which He did become the attractive centre to men of every class and nation and moral condition; and it was their guilt in this especially, though not this alone, which drew on them the wrath of "the king," who sent his forces, destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. All righteous blood came upon them, and their house is left desolate unto this day, and this, too, by the dreaded hand of the Romans, whom they professed to propitiate by the death of Jesus. Such is the way and end of unbelief.

Yes, most solemn it is to see that God at the last hardens those who have long hardened themselves against the truth. So He is by-and-by to send men "a working of error, that they should believe what is false, that all might be judged who have not believed the truth, but found pleasure in unrighteousness;" and this most justly, "because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved.'' (2 Thess. 2: 10-12.)216 It was He Who spoke by Balaam against his will to bless His people, though hired of Balak to curse them, and proving afterwards, not only by his corrupting wiles, but to his own destruction, how little the prophecies then were from himself. It is He Who now speaks by Caiaphas, whose high-priesthood in that year gave his words the more official weight. Not that it was an orderly condition that there should be such shiftings of the high priest.217 But so it was total confusion when the Son of God came here; so most of all when He was to die. No wonder that God, long silent, should speak by the high priest of that year.217a He is Sovereign. He can employ evil as well as good-these heartily, those spite of themselves, and if their will be in it, with a sense as wicked as themselves.

So it was here, when Caiaphas217b said, "Ye know nothing, nor reckon that it is profitable for you that one man die for the people, and not the whole nation perish." God was not in his thoughts, but self without conscience. The Evangelist comments on this, that he said it not from himself, but, being high priest of that year, prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation,218 and not for the nation only, but that He should also gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad. In the heart of Caiaphas it was an unprincipled sentiment; in the mind of the Spirit it was not only most holy, but expressed the foundation of God's righteousness in Christ. On His death is based the future hope of Israel, and the actual gathering of God's scattered children, the Church.* From that day measures were taken in concert to compass the death of our Lord,219 Who retired to the northern wilderness of Judæa, and there abode awhile with the disciples in the city called Ephraim.220 The hour was coming.

* [Cf. "Lectures on the Church of God," pp. 82-84.]

John 11: 55-57.

"But the Passover of the Jews was near; and many went up into Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover, that they might purify themselves. They were seeking, therefore, Jesus, and said among themselves, standing in the temple, What think ye, that He will not at all come unto the feast? Now the high priest and the Pharisees had given commandment that if anyone knew where He was, he should inform, that they might seize Him" (verses 55-57).

Thus the closing scene is at hand; and Jesus pursues His service in retirement during the little interval before the Passover, the last so soon to be fulfilled in His death. They went up to purify themselves before the feast, which gives rise to their seeking Him, and to surmises as to His not coming. For orders had been given to inform them of His whereabouts, in order to His apprehension. Little did any, friends or foes, anticipate that one would be found among the chosen twelve to indicate the spot whither the Lord was wont to resort; but He knew all that should come upon Him. How far is man from suspecting that it is all a question between Satan and God, and that, if evil seems to gain the upper hand, good triumphs even now to faith, as it will in the judgment of evil to every eye ere long!

But if the Lord retired from the machinations of men hardened in their enmity toward Himself because of their false pretension to feel and act for God, He had His own death on the cross to God's glory ever before Him. It was not to be done in a corner, nor on mere secret information. It must be at that feast, and no other, at the approaching Passover, when all the religious chiefs should thoroughly commit themselves, the elders, chief priests, and scribes; when the whole nation save the little remnant that believed should also play their blinded part; when they all should deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify. Oh, how little did any of them think of Him as in all this guilt and faithlessness of theirs the Son of God, and the Son of man come not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many! Then should He quickly, but in measured, predicted time, rise in resurrection power, transcending that of Lazarus beyond all comparison; thenceforward to work spiritually in all that believe, quickened with Him and raised up together, and made to sit down together in the heavenlies in Him (as another Apostle was given to teach), (Eph. 2: 5, 6) before the bright moment of His coming for us, when we shall all be changed.

JOHN — THE TWELFTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 502-507.]

Such was the testimony God gave to the Lord Jesus as the Son in resurrection power, with the plain result of deadly hatred in those that bowed not by faith. Here,220a before a fresh witness is given, we are permitted to see Him in the home of those He loved at Bethany, where the Spirit gives us a fresh proof of grace in the recognition of His glory, and this in view of His death. There reclined the man so recently raised from the dead with Him Who raised him!

John 12: 1-11.

Matt. 26: 6-13; Mark 14: 3-9.

"Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came unto Bethany, where was Lazarus,* whom Jesus* raised from (the) dead. They made there for Him a supper, and Martha served; but Lazarus was one of those at table with Him. Mary then, having taken a pound of unguent of costly pure† nerd, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the unguent. And‡ Judas Iscariot,§ one of His disciples that was about to give Him up, saith, Why was this unguent not sold for three hundred denaries, and given to poor (persons)? And this He said, not because He cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and, having|| the bag,|| used to bear what was deposited. Jesus then said, Leave her to have kept it** for the day of My preparation for burial: for the poor ye have always with you, but Me ye have not always" (verses 1-8).

* Text. Rec. adds ὁ τεθνηκὼς, with large consent of uncials, cursives, and versions [as Syrsin], contrary to BLS, Syrpesch, Sah., Aeth., etc.; as it omits Ἰησοῦς at the end, spite of the best witnesses inserting it. [Blass, πρὸς Λάζαρον, omitting the rest of the words.]

† πιστικὸς perplexes the critics, some taking it as liquid, others as genuine, or pure, according to its supposed source.

‡ δὲ B, Memph., Goth., Syrsin, and probably Syrpesch), Aeth., etc.; Text. Rec., οὖν, with most uncials and cursives, etc., a few omitting.

§ Text. Rec. Σιμωνὸς without ὁ, on the authority of many MSS., etc.

|| εἶχεν καὶ Text. Rec. with most; ἔχων BDLQ, a few good cursives and versions. The ancient versions generally render γλ, "chest."

** τετήρηκεν Text. Rec., with a dozen uncials, most cursives, and many versions, but ἵνα . . . τηρήσῃ BDKLQX, several cursives [33], and most ancient versions.

In presence of the Lord each comes out in his true colours. Jesus personally, as everywhere, is the object of God, the light which makes all manifest. But He does more. As He had brought life into the scene of death, the witnesses of His power and grace are there in their due place, according to their measure, one only having that special discernment which the love that is of God imparts, though grace may interpret it according to its own power. They221 made for Him a supper there, Martha serving, Lazarus at the table with Him, Mary anointing His feet with the precious spikenard; and the house filled with the odour of the unguent.222 The Lord felt and explained its meaning, according to His own wisdom and love.

But if one of the blessed family was led by a wisdom above her own, in single-eyed devotedness, to an act most fitting and significant at that time, one of His disciples was not found wanting for the work of the enemy, which makes nothing of Jesus. All of good or evil turns at bottom into a true or false estimate of Him. We may be, and are, slow to learn the lesson, albeit of greater moment than any other; but it is the object of the Spirit in all Scripture to teach us it, and nowhere so conspicuously, or so profoundly, too, as in this Gospel. So Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples that was about to give Him up, says, Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denaries, and given to poor people? He never thought of Jesus! Yet Mary's act might naturally have awakened affection. What was He not to her? Judas coolly calculates the lowest selling price of the nard223; he falsely puts poor persons forward for whom he had no real care; he would have liked that sum added to his unlawful gains.224 Nothing can be more thoroughly withering, more calmly true, than the comment of the Holy Ghost in verse 6. But what said Jesus? "Leave her to have kept it225 for the day of My preparation for burial: for the poor ye have always, but Me ye have not always."

Here is the truth said in Divine love. Not, indeed, that Mary had received any prophetic intimation. It was the spiritual instinct of a heart that had found the Son of God in Jesus, of a heart that felt the danger that hung over Him as man. Others might think of His miracles, and hope that murderous intents might pass away at Jerusalem as at Nazareth. Mary was not so easily satisfied, though she had witnessed His resurrection power with as deep feelings as any soul on earth. And she was led of God to do what had a weightier import by far in the Lord's eyes than in her own. The love that had prompted it was of God, and this is above all price. "If a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned." (Song of Solomon 8: 7.) So said he who knew above the sons of men the vanity of human love, with the amplest means ever vouchsafed to the head of any house. But what was Mary's unguent, or the love that brought it out (kept as it had been, and now she knew why at that critical moment), compared with His Who vindicated her, and was about to die for all, even for Judas?

It is, indeed, a scene to dwell on, most instructive and affecting, whether one contemplates the family as a whole, or Mary in particular, whether one may think of the disciples (for Matthew and Mark show that all were unappreciative, some even angry), or of the one whose dark influence acted so ill on the rest, and, above all, when one looks and listens to Him Whose grace formed Mary's heart according to its own nature and ways.

"A (or, the)* great crowd226 of the Jews therefore knew [learned] that He was (lit. 'is') there, and came not on account of Jesus only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom He raised from (the) dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might kill Lazarus also, because on his account many of the Jews were going away and believing on Jesus" (verses 9-11). "The Jews," as often remarked, are not merely Israelites, but men of Judæa, and greatly under the influence of the rulers in their hostility to Jesus, as in other things. But they are not the rulers, and one sees the difference marked in these verses. The great crowd, however, seemed influenced quite as much by curiosity as by better motive. To see Lazarus who was raised from the dead is a very different thing from believing God. Still, there was reality among some; and hence the deeper and deliberate malice of the chief priests, because many of the Jews were deserting them and believing on Jesus.

* A few witnesses of the highest antiquity and character (BpmL) read the article, as to which some of the old versions are ambiguous [W. and H. insert, Weiss and Blass omit].

Mary had not at all misread the position of the Lord. The crisis was at hand. Perfectly did He understand to what point every current was flowing; He knew what was in man, in Satan, and in God, and that as the malice of the creature would thus push to the uttermost in rebellious hatred, God would go farther still in redeeming love, but withal in His most solemn judgment of sin. Of this moral glory how little as yet could any heart conceive! Yet Mary's affection was led of God to divine the enmity growing up rapidly and ruthlessly against the One Who more than ever possessed her heart's homage and love.

But the final testimony must be full. Jesus had already shown Himself Son of God in power by raising Lazarus from the grave wherein he had lain a dead man: a testimony characteristic of John's Gospel, and peculiar to it. Men have raised objections, which only prove their own spiritual incapacity; for here it exactly suits, as it would nowhere else, and it was the right place and time, too. All was Divinely ordered.

John 12: 12-19.

Matt. 21: 1-11; Mark 11: 1-10, Luke 19: 29-40.

The next testimony is to His Messianic title, and fittingly, therefore, given in every one of the Gospels. It could be wanting to none, and we find it as the next fact recorded by our evangelist.

"On the morrow,227 a great crowd that came unto the feast, having heard that Jesus is coming into Jerusalem, took branches of palm, and went out to meet Him, and cried, Hosanna, blessed (is) He that cometh in Jehovah's name, (even) the King of Israel. And Jesus, having found a young ass, sat upon it, as it is written, (Zech. 9: 9.) Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, thy King cometh, sitting upon an ass's colt.228* These things His disciples knew not at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and they did these things to Him. The crowd, therefore, that was with Him bore witness, because† He called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from (the) dead. Therefore also the crowd met Him, because they heard that He had done this sign. The Pharisees, therefore, said among themselves, Ye behold230 that ye profit nothing: behold, the world is gone away after Him" (verses 12-19).

* The copula of Text. Rec., with fourteen uncials and most cursives, is not in BLQ and some of the more ancient versions.

† ὅτι DEpmKLΠ and some of the oldest versions [old Latin, Chrys., followed by Blass]; ὅτε, "when" (Steph., not Elz.), AB, and most of the other uncials, many cursives, etc. [Weiss].229

Thus did the crowd welcome Him as Messiah, applying to Him very justly the language of Ps. 118, which the Lord, in Matt. 23, declares shall be said by the repentant remnant who shall see Him when He returns to reign. Till then the house, once hallowed by Jehovah and bearing His name, is but their house, and left unto them desolate; as, indeed; they had made it a house of merchandise and a den of robbers. Nor was it mere enthusiasm in the crowd, but God at work; and the Lord Himself sat on the young ass according to the prophecy of Zech. 9. It is remarkable how both Matthew and John omit the clause of the prophet which did not then apply, however sure by and by; for He knew well that He was to suffer then, in order to bring salvation when He comes again in glory. It was but a testimony at the time, and in the word to faith; when He comes, having salvation for His own, it will be in destructive judgment of all that oppose.

Here again it is notified for us that even His disciples knew not these things at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they did these things to Him. He needed not that any should testify either of man or of Himself. Past, present, future, earth, and heaven, were open to His gaze. He Who made all knew all; as John constantly shows in harmony with the glory of His Person, which is everywhere prominent, save what He was pleased, in His capacity of servant, not to know, leaving it in the authority of the Father (Mark 13). In the light of His glorification the disciples learnt the import of the word and of the facts. It was His resurrection power which impressed the crowd so mightily. They did not draw the full lesson of faith, but concluded that He must be the promised Son of David, and met Him as such; while the Pharisees could not but own among themselves that obviously their stand and opposition were in vain, and the world, the prize of unbelief, gone after Him. Little knew they what is proclaimed just afterwards: "Now is the judgment of this world." In misjudging Him, its own doom was sealed; He sought its salvation, not popularity, but God's will.

John 12: 20-36.

But another scene completes the circle of the testimony here given before the close.

"And there were certain Greeks of231 those coming up to worship at the feast; these therefore came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee,232 and asked Him, saying, Sir, we desire to see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew, and* Andrew cometh and Philip, and they tell Jesus. But Jesus answered† them, saying, The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say to you, Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abideth alone; but, if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his life (soul) shall lose it,‡ and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If anyone serve Me, let him follow Me, and where I am, there also My servant shall be;§ if anyone serve Me, him will My Father honour" (verses 20-26).

* So a few of the oldest MSS., with a slight variation, while Text. Rec. with most ηασ καὶ πάλιν, Ἀ. κ. Φ. λ., as in the Authorised Version.

† ἀποκρίνεται, "answereth," BLX, etc. [Blass]; ἀπεκρίνατο, "answered," Text. Rec., with the mass of uncials, cursives, and versions [Weiss].

‡ ἀπολλύει, "loseth," BL, 33, etc. [Weiss, Blass].

§ καὶ, "and," is added in Text. Rec., with thirteen uncials, and most other authorities, but not the oldest.

These were Gentiles, Greeks and not merely Hellenists, who desired to see the Lord; and Philip and Andrew name it to Him. It was enough. The Lord opens the great truth. It is not now the Son of God quickening or raising the dead, nor the Son of David coming to Zion according to prophecy, but the Son of man glorified. This He explains after the solemn asseveration, so often found in our Gospel, under the well-known figure of death and resurrection in nature: "Verily, verily, . . . Except the corn of wheat falling into the ground die, it abideth alone; but, if it die, it beareth much fruit." He Himself was the true corn thus to produce fruit abundantly, yet even so only by death and resurrection.232a This was not, could not be, from defect of power in Him. It was from man's estate that it could not righteously be otherwise before God. Death only can meet the evil, or fill the void, and His death alone. Of all others death were vain-yea, fatal. Death to them must be for themselves to perish. He only could save, but through His death and resurrection; for as He would die, so He could rise, and by the infinite value of His death avail for others so as to raise them righteously. Living, He, even He must abide alone; dying, He bears much fruit in the energy of His resurrection.

Thus was He the Son of man glorified.233 It was for sin that God at length might be glorified; and now He was. Sin brought in death; His dying for it, by God's grace and to God's glory, laid the basis for the change of all things, even for the new heavens and earth in the eternal state; how much more for all that believe to be meanwhile blessed in a new life before they are changed into the likeness of His glory, when He comes for them! "He shall see a seed, He shall prolong [His] days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of [the fruit of] the travail of His soul, [and] shall be satisfied." (Isa. 53: 10.) So said the first of prophets, and this founded on His death-"when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin," in accordance with His own words here seven centuries after, when approached that wondrous hour and act of man's guilt where he meant pain and ignominy, and God inflicted incomparably worse in His unsparing and unfathomable judgment. To Him the hour was come that the Son of man should be glorified. What perfect self-sacrifice! What devotedness to God! What love to man, even to His bitterest enemies! Such was Jesus going down to death- yea, death of the cross; and such the fruit unfailing.

The principle, too, becomes a primary one thenceforth, not ease and honour and advancement for self (which is truly the greatest loss), but suffering and shame, and, if need be, death, now in this world for Christ's sake. Such is practical Christianity. "He that loveth his life [soul] loseth it, and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.234 If any man serve Me, let him follow Me, and where I am, there shall also My servant be; if any man serve Me, him will My Father honour." And what an honour! He assuredly knows what it is, and how to give it. But it is not in self-devised and self-imposed abasements; neither in flagellations of the back, nor in lickings of the dust, nor in like heathenish effort that dishonours the body to the satisfying of the flesh. It is in what the Holy Spirit alone can guide and sustain, in serving Christ-a service inseparable from following Him, its beginning life eternal in the Son, its end the same life in glory with Him; for such as serve and follow Him will the Father honour. May we be strengthened to discern and do the truth!

The Lord reverts to thoughts of His approaching death, There is no avoidance of contemplating that which it was part of His perfection to feel, as no man ever did. He estimates it rightly and fully as before, instead of braving it as men do who cannot escape. To Him it was no inevitable doom, but Divine love, that God might be glorified in a guilty world, that sinners might be saved righteously, that the entire creation of heaven and earth (I say not those under the earth, the infernal beings of Phil. 2) might be reconciled and blessed for ever. He, and He only, had authority to lay down His life (φυχὴν), as He had authority to take it again. As He is the Resurrection and the Life (ζωὴ), so no one takes the life He had in this world from Him, but He lays it down of Himself, though also in obedience to His Father, and to the everlasting glory of God, as the fulness of His Person enabled Him to do. None the less but the more did He feel the gravity, humiliation, and suffering of what was before Him. There was the deepest sense of death, not only as man and Messiah, but of its import from man's hand and from God's judgment. Not an element of grief and pain and shame and horror was absent from His heart, compatible with the perfection of His Person and His relationship to God.

"Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour; but on account of this came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy* name" (verses 27, 28). He was the life, yet came to die; He was light and love, yet rejected and hated as man never knew before, nor will again. The reality of His manhood, the glory of His Godhead, in no way hindered His sorrow; His being Who and what He was, and perfect in all, only gave Him infinite capacity to feel and fathom what He endured, none the less because He came to endure it all, and had it now before Him in immediate prospect, though none of men saw it but Himself. He had not been perfect man if His soul had not been troubled, so as to feel, "What am I to say?" He had not been Son of God as man had He not in His soul-trouble prayed, "Father, save Me from this hour," and quite as little, "but on this account came I unto this hour," crowned with, "Father, glorify Thy name." To have felt and expressed the first petition perfectly suited Him Who was man in such circumstances; to have added the second was worthy of Him Who is God no less than man in one undivided Person; to have said both was perfection in both, in sorrow as in joy, as to death no less than life.235

* B. by an evident slip, reads μου for σου, to the grievous detriment of the sense.

The Father appreciates and answers accordingly. "There came therefore a voice out of heaven, I both have glorified and will glorify (it) again. The crowd then* that stood and heard said that it thundered; others said, An angel hath spoken to Him" (verses 28, 29). Augustine and Jerome confound this† with John 17: 5, from which it is wholly and demonstrably distinct; but we must never expect spiritual intelligence, sometimes not even common orthodoxy, from the Fathers so-called. The later passage in our Gospel is the Son requesting the Father that He as the risen Man should be glorified, on the completion of His work, as well as consonantly with the rights of His Person, along with the Father Himself in the glory which the Son had along with Him before the world was.

* B omits οὖν [so Blass], while ADLX, etc., have it [Weiss].

† So does the venerable but gloss-loving Codex Bezae (conventionally called D), for it actually adds to the text ἐν τῃ δόξῃ ἧ εἶχον παρά σοι πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον γενέσθαι.

The passage before us refers to what had just been, and what was going to be, done in this world; for as the Father had glorified His name in the resurrection of Lazarus, so yet more infinitely would He in the rising from the dead of His own Son. The moderns, such as Dean Alford, fail, in meagre, vague, and even erroneous thought, to reach the mark as much as, or more than, the ancients. For how poor it is to tell us that διὰ τοῦτο = ἵνα σωθῶ ἐκ τῆς ὥρας ταύτης, that I might be safe from this hour!-that is, the going into and exhausting this hour, this cup, is the very appointed way of My glorification, or, as Meyer says, that Thy name may be glorified, which is to anticipate what follows. It was really to die, though undoubtedly to the glory of the Father by the Son. So, again, ἐδόξασα points to something much more definite than "in the manifestation hitherto made of the Son of God, imperfect as it was (see Matt. 16: 16, 17); in all Old Testament type and prophecy; in creation, and, indeed (Augustine), antequam facerem mundum" (in Joan. 52: 4). Lastly, it is losing the exact force to treat πάλιν as a mere intensification of the δοξάζειν, instead of seeing a distinct and higher display of that resurrection power which marked out the Son of God.

As to the question why some said the voice from heaven was thunder, others the speaking of an angel to the Lord, it seems vain to seek an answer. It was merely speculation on the part of the crowd, who all fell short of the truth. Unbelief of Him can weaken or get rid of all testimony till He come in judgment. Yet was it really in grace to them, for "Jesus answered and said, Not on Mine account hath this voice come, but on yours. Now is judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out: and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all* to Myself. But this He said signifying by what death He was about to die. The crowd then† answered Him, "We heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest Thou that the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" Jesus then said to them, "Yet a little time the light is among‡ you. Walk while ye have the light, that the darkness may not overtake you; and he that walketh in darkness knoweth not where he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may become sons of light" (verses 30-36).

* For πάντας with the great mass [Weiss] pmD, and some ancient versions [Latt., Syrhcl], read [as Blass] πάντα, "every one," or "all things," as Aug. in loc. expressly says. But there is the strongest internal reason to stand by the weight of external testimony.

† Most omit οὖν, but not BLX, etc.

‡ ἐν BDKLMXΠ, etc., instead of Text. Rec. μεθ AEFGHSUΓΔΛ, etc.

These words, if any, are surely of the most solemn import, and the more, as Christendom now as ever ignores their truth. For men, Christian men, believe nothing less than that "now is the judgment of this world," even while some of them look for the casting out of its prince in due time.236 The glory of the Son of man is founded on death. The rejection of the Messiah gives occasion for what is thus incomparably larger and more profound; and thus is God's glory immutably secured, and much fruit borne, even the blessing of those otherwise lost, now blessed with and in Christ, not merely by Him. But if heaven be thereby opened (for the cross and heaven answer to each other),237 the world is judged. Before God and to faith now is its judgment, and not only when execution takes place publicly and in power. But now it is judged for him who has the mind of Christ, who shares His rejection and awaits glory with Him on high. What does His cross mean morally?

A living Messiah should have gathered the twelve tribes of Israel round Himself as their Chief, raised up of God according to promise; but He was to be lifted up out of the earth, crucified, Satan's seeming victory, but his real and everlasting defeat, and so known to faith, while we wait for the day which shall declare it beyond contradiction. Christ on the cross is a very different object from reigning over His people in grace, and abiding for ever; yet they. should have read it also out of the law, for there it is, if dimly. But grace makes Him manifest thus lifted up, the attractive centre for all, Gentile or Jew, spite of their sins, which He was to bear in His own body. A suffering Son of man was, and is, no article of Jewish faith, though certainly revealed in their Scriptures.238 To their expression of ignorance the Lord replies by telling them how brief was the stay of the light, by warning them of the darkness about to seize on them, and by exhorting them to faith in the light, if they, escaping the darkness, would have the light to characterise themselves.

John 12: 36-43.

The close was at hand, and a token even then was given that the light would not be always there. "Jesus spoke these things, and, going away, hid Himself from them. But though He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe on Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet which He said might be fulfilled.' 'Jehovah, who believed our report? and to whom was Jehovah's arm revealed?' (Isa. 53: 1.) On this account they could not believe because Isaiah said again, 'He hath blinded their eyes, and He hardened* their heart that they may not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and be converted [turn], and I heal them.' These things said Isaiah, because (or, when†) he saw His glory, and spoke concerning Him. (Isa. 6: 10.) Still, however, from among the rulers also many believed on Him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess, that they might not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God" (verses 36-43).

* ἐπώρ. ABpmKLX, etc. (H in a corrupt form); πεπ. Text. Rec., following very many.

† ὅτι, ABLMX, etc.; ὅτε, Text. Rec., most uncials [DIΔΛΠ, etc.] and cursives, etc.

Such was the result of the only absolutely perfect testimony ever rendered in this world, the words, and ways, and signs of the Son of God; and this, not where blank ignorance might be pleaded in extenuation, but where God had done all possible to prepare the way by prophecy, and to arouse attention by sign, grace, and truth in the midst of a people used to Divine intervention. But man's unbelief, left to itself and Satan, can shut out every sight and sound from God. So it was among the Jews of our Lord's day, and so it continues till this day. It is still "this generation," which shall not pass away till all God's threats be fulfilled. Of the outward judgments, however, John does not speak, but the Synoptic evangelists; John of having no more Him Who is all. For what is it to lose the light, to be abandoned to that darkness where he who walks in it knows not where he goes? And this is precisely the state of the Jews; the more aggravated because they had the light for a little among them, and did not believe, so that they failed to become children of light, and the darkness seized on them.239 Thus was the prince of prophets fulfilled by their unbelief in their own ruin, and this in both the parts of his prophecy, early and late, which speculation vainly seeks to divorce. But we believe the inspired evangelist, not the presumptuous professor, and are as assured that both prophecies are Isaiah's as that they were divinely given and now fulfilled in the Jew so long incredulous.

But as the first citation proves the guilt of rejecting God's testimony, so the second, though really earlier, points to the solemn fact of judicial blindness, never pronounced, still less executed, of God, till patience has had its perfect work and man has filled up the measure of his guilt beyond measure. Under such a sentence of hardening, no doubt, they could not believe;240 but the sentence came because of wickedness consummated in wilful rejection of God and His will when they did not believe, in spite of the fullest appeals to their hearts and consciences. As the first citation shows utter unbelief when Christ came in humiliation and suffering to do the work of atonement, so the latter conveys the dread word which shut them up in blindness before the light they had so long despised, followed up by the inspired comment that these things said Isaiah when he saw Christ's glory and spoke of Him.241 It is Jehovah in the prophecy, Christ in the Gospel; but they are one-as, indeed, Acts 28: 25-27 enables us to include the Holy Spirit. How thoroughly confirmed and confirming the still older oracle in Deut. 6: 4, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah!" John 12: and Acts 28 weaken it in nothing, but add to its force and expressiveness, as they show out more and more the patience of God and the darkness of the Jew after ages of trifling with His mercy and His menaces alike. And the darkness increased as the light shone out.

But ungodliness betrays itself not only in the insubjection of the heart to believe, but in the cowardliness of the soul to confess the Lord (Rev. 21: 8); as we see here that "many from among the chief rulers believed on Him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess, that they might not be put out of the synagogue." And the motive or moral reason is given: they loved glory from men rather than glory from God. They feared the religious world, being keenly sensible of human glory, but dull to that which is from God.242 But we must not forget that, if "with the heart man believes to righteousness, with the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Rom. 10: 10.) God makes much of confession of His Son, nor can we safely own salvation otherwise.

John 12: 44-50.

Next comes the final public testimony of our Lord, given in this Gospel. "But Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on Me believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me; and he that beholdeth Me beholdeth Him that sent Me. I am come a light into the world, that every one that believeth on Me may not abide in darkness. And if anyone have heard My words and not kept* (them), I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that slighteth Me and receiveth not My words hath one that judgeth him; the word which I did speak, that will judge him in the last day, because I did not speak from Myself, but the Father Who sent Me hath Himself given† Me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak; and I know that His commandment is life eternal. What things then I speak, as the Father hath said to Me, so I speak" (verses 44-50).

* φυλάξῃ [cf. Luke 11: 28], ABDKLKΠ, etc.; πιστεύσῃ, "believed," EFGHMSUΓΔΛ, etc.

† δέδ, ABMX, many cursives, etc.; ἔδ, Text. Rec., DLΓΛΔΠ, etc.

The Lord spoke with earnestness, as elsewhere and always;243 and it was due to men in His grace, considering the solemn issues at stake, and the Divine glory concerned. It was a question of His Father Who sent Him, no less than of Himself. To believe on the Son, to behold Him, was to behold and believe on the Father. They were inseparably one, as He had already declared; and he who had the Son had the Father also. Further, the Lord was come as light into the world (for it was no question of Israel only) that every believer on Him might not abide in darkness.244 He has the light of life, and not life only; He is light in the Lord. It was therefore ruin to have heard and not kept His words; but such was the grace in which He came, that He could add, "I judge him not, for I came not that I might judge the world, but that I might save the world." How, then, would His glory be vindicated in his case who slights245 Him and receives not His words? He has that which judges him-the word. "The word which I have spoken, that shall judge him in the last day"; and the more surely, because Jesus spoke not from Himself, as if He sought His own will or glory, but was simply and uniformly subject to the Father, Who not only sent Him, but enjoined what He was to say and speak; the Father's commandment He knew to be life eternal. (Ps. 133: 3.246) Jesus was as subject to Him in His utterances as in His doings, being here to declare Him and do His will.

John 13 - 17.

Part 3 of An Exposition of the Gospel of John

W. Kelly.

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — john_app.doc.)

JOHN — THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 507-511.]

We enter now on a new section of our Gospel: the last communications of the Lord to His disciples, closing with His heart opened out to the Father about them. The entire drift is in all points and ways to lead His own into a true spiritual understanding of their new place before God the Father, in consequent contrast with that of Israel in the world. It is not as the Church, but most fully and distinctively the Christian position in virtue of Christ, Who sets aside Israel in all respects. He was going to His Father on high, and here reveals what He in that glory would do for them while here below. His love must take a fresh shape; but it is faithful, unchanging, and perfect.

John 13: 1-11.

"Now, before the feast of the Passover,247 Jesus, knowing that His hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own that (were) in the world, loved them unto (the) end" (verse 1). He was the only man whom nothing took by surprise. All was read and known and felt in the presence of God His Father. Not only was He aware throughout that He was to die, and of its form, character, and object in God's purpose, as well as in man's and Satan's malice, but we see here that its immediate proximity was before His mind with its immense consequences. Yet in John it is not man's or God's forsaking Him in that bitter crisis; but the hour came for His departure out of this world to His Father, instead of staying here as Jews expected according to the Old Testament for their Messiah. As the other Gospels bring out the evidence of His rejection by the people, our evangelist sees Him from the first rejected, and at the end preparing the disciples for the unlooked-for change at hand, when the Christ be in heaven, and the Holy Spirit sent down to be in and with His own on earth, the Father, too, being the relation of God, not to Him only, but in due time and way to them also.

Further, He would show His love in fresh and suited forms. "Having loved His own that were in the world," He loved not merely till the end, as a question of time, however true this may be, but taking up each need, and incurring all labour for them, whatever the draught on it, unremittingly and without wavering. Such is the love of Jesus to His own in the world, where it is constantly wanted. We know what love He expressed to them at that last Passover (Luke 22: 15), and how infinitely it was proved in His blood and death for them as a lamb without blemish and without spot, foreordained before the foundation of the world, but manifested at the end of the times for their sakes who believed. But now He would show them a love as active for them day by day, when He should depart to His Father, as when He fulfilled the Passover in dying for them.

"And, supper being come,* the devil having already put (it) into the heart of Judas, Simon's (son), Iscariot, that he should deliver Him up, (Jesus, or)† He, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He came out from God and goeth unto God, riseth from supper and layeth aside His garments, and, having taken a towel, girded Himself" (verses 2-4).

* γινομένου, BLX, Aeth. [and Origen, Tisch., Treg., W. and H., Weiss]; γενομένου ADgrEΓΔΛΠ, etc., the cursives, Chrys. Cyr., Ital. and Vulg. [Lachmann and Blass, as above]; reads γειν, and gives γεν, as correction.248

† BDLX, and a few cursives, etc., omit, though most insert.

The Authorised Version regards the phrase δ. γ. as implying the end of the repast; but I agree with those who take it to mean the arrival of the time for supper, which is confirmed by the wondrous action we are about to hear of. It cannot be doubted that it was usual to have the feet washed before, not after, supper.

But if Jesus had ways of infinite love before His heart, the devil had already planted in that of Judas Iscariot the awful treachery to his Divine Master, which no rolling ages can erase. So it was with Jesus: the enemy's hate came out most, as the love of God manifested itself in and by Him; but how withering to human pretension it was that the devil wrought by a man and a disciple, the close personal honoured follower of the Lord Jesus! "It was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance." (Ps. 55: 13.) In that holy companionship he had trifled with sin, with his besetting covetousness; and now the devil prompted the gratification of it by betraying the Son of God. The Lord, as we shall later see, deeply felt it, but here He pursues the design of love with the consciousness of the Father's purposes and plans, with the consciousness, too, that He was going back to God with the same absolute purity in which He had come out from Him. It was no merely Messianic sphere, not even that of Son of man. The Father had given all things into the hands of His Son, and He was going back a man with not a shade over that intrinsic holiness which marked His coming out from God to become a man. He abode ever the Holy One of God, yet rises from supper, lays aside His garments, takes a towel and girds Himself.

Jesus occupies Himself with a new service, which their nearness to God as His children called for, the removal of the defilements of His own in their walk as saints through the world. This is the meaning of what follows. "Then He poureth water into the basin, and began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded" (verse 5).249 Be it carefully observed that it is a question here of water, not of blood. The reader of John's Gospel will not have overlooked that He makes much of "water" as well as "blood." So did the Lord in presenting the truth to His own, and no one shows this more than John. His first epistle also characterises the Lord as "He that came by (δἰ) water and blood; not in (ἐν) water only, but in water and blood." (1 John 5: 6.) He purifies as well as atones. He employs the word to cleanse those who are washed from their sins in His blood. The Apostles Paul, Peter, and James, insist on this effect of the word, as John does. It is disastrous and dangerous in the highest degree to overlook purification by the washing of water by the word. If "the blood" is Godward, though for us "the water" is saintward to remove impurity in practice,250 as well as to give a new nature which judges evil according to God and His Word, of which it is the sign, adding to it the death of Christ, which gives its measure and force. Out of His pierced side came blood and water (chapter 19).

As to this grave and blessed truth Christendom remains, one fears, as dark as Peter, when he declined the gracious action of the Lord. Nor did Peter enter into the truth conveyed by His most significant dealing till afterwards-that is, when the Holy Spirit came to show them the things of Christ. On the occasion itself he was wrong throughout. And so are men apt to be now, even though light Divine has been fully afforded. They still perversely limit its extent to teaching humility. This only Peter saw, and hence his mistake; for he thought it stooping down excessively, that the Lord should wash his feet; and, when alarmed by the Lord's warning, he fell into an opposite error. We are only safe when subject to His Word in distrust of ourselves.

The fact is that, since Apostolic times, the truth (save as to the foundation, perhaps) has been either misapprehended, or perverted often to lifeless ordinances. Evangelicals, as the rule, ignore it, or merge it in the blood of Christ. Catholics (Greek, Oriental, Roman, or Anglican) misapply it to baptism. Hence not only do they miss the Lord's special lesson of washing in water, but they enfeeble propitiation. Consequently, non-imputation of sin is all but unknown from the earliest fathers till our own day. The Reformers wrought no deliverance in this respect; and the Puritans increased the confusion and darkness by pressing, not ordinances, but the law as the rule of life, instead of recalling by the Spirit of the Lord to Christ as the object according to which the Christian is being transformed here below. The Lord suffered once for sins, just for unjust. The efficacy is as perfect for the believer as is His Person; and the unity of His sacrifice is, therefore, the great argument of Hebrews 9, 10, as contrasted with the repetition of Jewish ones. By His one offering we are not only sanctified, but perfected in perpetuity. Is there no failure in the saint afterwards? Too often there may be. What, then, is the provision for such? It is the washing of water by the word which the Spirit applies in answer to the Son's advocacy with the Father. Of this Christ was here giving the sign.

The Lord proceeds to the work in hand. "He cometh then unto Simon Peter. He saith to Him, Lord, dost Thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said to him, What I am doing thou knowest not just now, but shalt know [understand] afterwards. Peter saith to Him, In no wise shalt Thou wash my feet for ever. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me. Simon Peter saith to Him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed (bathed) hath no need to wash (other) than his feet,* but is wholly clean; and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew him that was delivering Him up: on this account He said, Ye are not all clean" (verses 6-11).

* , though the only MS. that omits ἢ (or εἰ) μὴ τοὺς πόδας, is followed by Tisch., ed. 8. The words are bracketed by W. and H. [Retained by Weiss, after Lachm. and Treg., but omitted by Blass, after Origen.]

In Divine things the wisdom of the believer is subjection to Christ and confidence in Him. What He does we are called to accept with thankfulness of heart, and as Mary said to the servants at the marriage feast, "whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." This Simon Peter did not. For when the Lord approached him "in the form of a servant," or bondman, he demurred. Was there not faith, working by love in Peter's heart? Both, undoubtedly, yet not then in action, but buried under superabundant feeling of a human sort: else he had not allowed his mind to question what the Lord saw fit to do. He had rather bowed to Christ's love and sought to learn, as He might teach, what deep need must be in him and his fellows to draw forth such a lowly yet requisite service from his Master. Ah! he knew not yet that Jesus must go lower down far than stooping to wash the disciples' feet, even to the death of the cross, if God were to be glorified and sinful man to be justified and delivered with an indisputable title. But the grace which was undertaking that infinite work of propitiation (the groundwork for meeting every exigency of the Divine nature and majesty and righteousness in view of our guilt, and unto the glory of God) would provide for every step of the way where defilement abounds. Thus might we enjoy communion, spite of Satan's power and wiles and our own weakness-yea, spite of failure be restored to communion with Him in the light and glory of God to which He was going back, and into which we shall in due time follow Him.

Peter did believe, but he did not yet believe "all that the prophets spoke" (Luke 24: 25). He feebly entered into what he himself afterwards called the sufferings as to Christ, and the glories that should follow them. He continued to regard the Lord too exclusively as Messiah, little estimating till afterwards the depths involved in the Son of the living God, though his own lips had thus confessed His glory before. Nature was too little judged in Peter, so that he did not yet appreciate its meaning and application and results as subsequently under Divine teaching when the cross manifested its worth, or rather worthlessness, before God and man. Too self-confident and, indeed, ignorant not only of himself and the defiling scene around, but of the depths and constancy of Christ's love, Peter says to Him, "Lord, dost Thou wash my feet?" We grant that he could not know what was not yet revealed; but was it comely in him, was it reverent, to question what the Lord was doing? He may have thought it humility in himself, and honour to the Lord, to decline a service so menial at His hands. But Peter should never have forgotten that as Jesus never said a word, so He never did an act, save worthy of God and demonstrative of the Father; and now more than ever were His words and ways an exhibition of Divine grace, when human evil set on by Satan, not only in those outside, but within the innermost circle of His own, called for increased distinctness and intensity in view of His departure.

The truth is that we need to learn from God how to honour Him, and learn to love according to His mind. And if any man thinks that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. This, too, was Peter's mistake. He should have suspected his thoughts, and waited in all submissiveness on Him Who, as many confessed that knew far less than Peter, "hath done all things well," and was absolutely what He was speaking, truth and love in the same blessed Person. The thoughts of man are never as ours; and saints slip into those of man, unless they are taught of God by faith, in detail too as well as in the main; for we cannot, ought not, to trust ourselves in anything. God the Father will have the Son honoured; and He is honoured most when believed and followed in His humiliation. Peter, therefore, was equally astray when he once ventured to rebuke the Lord for speaking of His suffering and death, as now when he asks, "Dost Thou wash my feet?"

But the meek Lord answered in fulness of grace, and said to him, "What I am doing thou knowest (οἰδας) not just now, but shalt know (γνώσῃ)251 afterwards." Was not this a grave but compassionate intimation to Peter, had he been in the mood to learn? He ought to have gathered from the Lord's words, if he did not at once bow to His act, that there was a meaning worthy of Him Who deemed it due to the Father in truest, lowliest love to the children to wash their feet; he ought to have gathered more than this, that what he did not know of himself then, he was to learn afterwards: I presume, after the things now in progress, His rejection and death, resurrection and ascension, when the Holy Spirit should be given guiding them into all the truth.

But Peter was not yet of those who are guided with the Lord's eye; he did not feel the need of being instructed and taught the way in which he should go. There was too much of the horse or of the mule in him, too much need of being held with bit and bridle; (Ps. 32: 9.) and failing to receive of the Lord that he should submit now and learn later, he plunges farther and more boldly into error with himself. "In no wise shalt Thou wash my feet for ever": the strongest repudiation of it, and this not merely in this life, but for that to come-for ever.

It was feeling, it was ignorance, no doubt; but should he have trusted himself to utter words so strong of the gracious way and act of His Master? How blessed that he had, that we have, to do with One Who does not hold His peace so as to bind the soul with a bond, Who knows when and how to disallow the foolish and even God-dishonouring word; so that it shall not stand and the soul be forgiven! (See Num. 30) The Lord made Peter's words utterly void the moment He heard them, as we shall see, in the grace which corrects every fault, and bore all our iniquity.

"Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me." Solemn assurance, not for Peter only, but for all who slight the same gracious provision on His part, who forget or have never apprehended their own need of it. It is a question not so much of life as of fellowship, of a part with Christ rather than in Him, though not really separable. Christ was going on high to God, Peter and the rest still on earth, and surrounded by defilements in the way. Christ would neither abate His love to His own, nor would He make light of their failures. Hence the need of washing the disciples' feet, apt to be soiled in walking through the world. And this is carried on by the word applied to the conscience by the Spirit. The believer bows, judges himself, and is practically cleansed. His communion is restored, and he can enjoy the things of Christ. He has part with Him.

Alarmed by the Lord's warning, His servant instantly flies to the opposite extreme: " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Now Peter cannot have too much. He seeks to be bathed all over, as if all the value of his previous washing could evaporate, and he needed it afresh no less than if it had never been. But it is never so. To see and enter the kingdom of God one must be born afresh, born of water and of the Spirit. But this is never repeated. The new birth admits of no such repetition. It was wrong to suppose that, born of God, one needs nothing else, that defilements either cannot befall a believer, or that, if they do, they are of no consequence.

What Simon thus thought and said in his ignorance, a certain school of divinity has formulated in its presumption. But this is not true knowledge of God. If law punishes transgression, grace condemns sin still more deeply. Impossible that any system of religious dogma could be of God which slurs over or ignores evil. But Simon Peter, convicted of danger on this side, falls into another on that side, and, roused to own the needful washing to have part with Christ, claims it all even for the believer as for the natural man. And here, too, an opposite school presents its corresponding dogma, denies the standing of the believer if unhappily he may get defiled, and insists that he must begin over again, perhaps many times in his life. Thus life eternal as a present possession in Christ is done away, and the constant responsibility which cows from the constant relationship of a child of God. One might be thus often lost, often saved spiritually!

The Lord corrects by anticipation both schools in correcting Peter. "He that is washed (λελουμένος) hath no need to wash (νίψασθαι) (other) than his feet, but is wholly clean; and ye are clean, but not all. For He knew him that was delivering Him up: on this account He said, Ye are not all clean." Thus simply, but perfectly, does He put each truth in its place and in relation to all the rest. Grace is maintained, but so is righteousness. Not a sin is passed over lightly. Not a believer has reason for discouragement; his every failure is an object of fresh concern to the Lord, a fresh proof of love that will not let him go but bless him, spite of the carelessness which let the Lord go. But He will not go; He washes the feet of him that is already washed all over, that he may be wholly clean. Thus the new birth holds and is never renewed, because it abides true and good; while the failure of him who is born again comes under Christ's active love and advocacy, and the soul is brought to judge himself in order to restored communion. Again, the case of Judas is not one of losing life, but of manifesting that he never had been born of God, as, indeed, no Scripture ever affirms it. It was not a sheep of Christ becoming unclean, but a dog returning to his vomit-yea, far worse, because of such proximity to Him Whose intimacy he abused for lucre to betray Him to His enemies.

It is of capital moment to hold fast along with atonement the washing of water by the word. Else the blood of Christ is diverted from its true aim and effect before God, and practically used as the resource in case of failure.

Let us hear Calvin as an influential witness of the error it involves, where he teaches from the word of reconciliation in 2 Cor. 5: 20 ("Be reconciled to God"), that Paul is here addressing himself to believers, instead of illustrating the message of grace to the world. "He declares to them every day this embassy. Christ therefore did not suffer, merely that He might once expiate our sins, nor was the Gospel appointed merely with a view to the pardon of those sins which we committed previously to baptism, but that, as we daily sin, so we might also by a daily remission be received by God into His favour. For this is a continued embassy, which must be assiduously sounded forth in the church till the end of the world; and the Gospel cannot be preached unless remission of sins is promised. We have here an express and suitable declaration for refuting the impious trust of Papists, which calls upon us to seek the remission of sins after baptism from some other source than from the expiation that was effected through the death of Christ. Now this doctrine is commonly held in all the schools of Popery-that, after baptism, we merit the remission of sins by penitence through the aid of the keys (Matt. 16: 19)-as if baptism itself could confer this upon us without penitence. By the term penitence, however, they mean satisfaction. But what does Paul say here? He calls us to go, not less after baptism than before it, to the one expiation made by Christ, that we may know that we always obtain it gratuitously. Further, all their prating as to the administration of the keys is to no purpose, inasmuch as they conceive of keys apart from the Gospel, while they are nothing else than that testimony of a gratuitous reconciliation, which is made to us in the Gospel" ("Comm. Epp. to the Corinthians," Calvin Soc., ii. 240, 241).

Clearly this teaching is erroneous, not only founded on a misapplication to saints of the Gospel ministry to sinners, but consequently unsettling their reconciliation as a great finished fact. It is not true that the Apostle declares this embassy to believers every day.252 He declares, on the contrary, that the work is done, and the worshippers once purged so as to have no longer any conscience of sins. (Heb. 10: 2.) There is no question of imputing sins or errors, nor of God's judgment of them by and by. The error undermines or excludes the constant relationship of the Christian on the ground of peace made by the blood of Christ's cross, and present and permanent fitness for sharing the inheritance of the saints in light (Col. 1: 12).

The one offering of Christ does not merely once expiate our sins, but has perfected in perpetuity the sanctified" (Ibid. 5: 14.) The Romanist meets the need created by failure after baptism by penitence aided by the keys; the Protestant by fresh approach to the sacrifice of Christ, the one being as ignorant as the other of the washing of the defiled feet by the word in answer to the advocacy of Christ with the Father. The continued embassy is by the Lord's servants in proclaiming the Gospel to the world. There is no such thing as God's receiving the believer by a daily remission into His favour. There may be the necessity of removing the uncleanness of flesh or spirit which hinders communion; but this supposes the groundwork of propitiation undisturbed and of the favour in which we stand. That the Christian requires to be reconciled afresh, that the call "Be reconciled to God" goes out to failing believers, proves that Calvin, able as he was and a saint himself, was ignorant even of the elementary and distinctive truth of the Gospel. This opened the door to the opposed error of Arminianism, which takes its stand more consistently on the same mistake, as if eternal life had no meaning, and the blood of Christ lacked everlasting efficacy. Both systems are faulty.

The truth puts everything in its place. The blood of Christ abides in its unchangeable value before God sacrificially and judicially; but the failing believer is inexcusable, and needs to wash his feet. The word must deal with him morally, producing self-judgment and confession; and the Lord looks to it in His ever-watchful grace by taking up His cause in living love with the Father. The Spirit, too, has His own suited function in producing, not the joy of fellowship with Christ in the things of Christ, but here grief and shame, pain and humiliation, in recalling the man's own ways-haste, levity, pride, vanity, and perhaps corruption or violence; for of what is the flesh unjudged not capable? By that word of truth he was begotten of God, awakened to self-judgment in His sight; by the same word is each defilement judged day by day, making it so much the more painful because the Spirit reminds the soul what Christ suffered for the sins which the flesh feels so lightly.

But far from dissolving the relationship, the sense of inconsistency with it, and with the grace which at so much cost and sovereign love withal conferred it on us, is that which most of all tries and humbles the erring one. Flesh would like exceedingly to have its way and indulge its pleasures, and the soul begin again; but God holds the believer to a relationship, which, if real, is everlasting, and makes every delinquency, therefore, to be so much the deeper sin, because it is against not conscience and righteousness only, but the richest grace God could show in Christ. We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son. There is no repetition of reconciliation any more than of the new birth. There is complete remission of sins through His blood, and hence no longer an offering for sin. The one and only offering which could avail is made and accepted. But there is, whenever needful, a fresh application of "water by the word." And this ever deals with the soul. The word detects whilst it removes the defilement, applying the death of Christ thus to man, as the blood dealt with the sins before God. Thus is the work carried on holily without weakening the sole foundation for a sinful man's peace as well as for Divine glory.

John 13: 12-30.

"When then He washed their feet and took His garments and reclined again, He said to them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call Me the Teacher and the Lord, and ye say well, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example, that even as I did to you, ye should also do. Verily, verily I say to you, A bondman is not greater than his lord, nor yet an apostle greater than He that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do (or, practise) them."

Undoubtedly the humility of the Lord was beyond question in His washing the disciples' feet, and that He would have them cultivate it He had solemnly urged on them in the plainest terms, as we see in all the Synoptic Gospels. But then there is another and deeper instruction. It is the renewal of their defilements in walking through the world which is before His mind, now that He is about to leave them; and about this He would exercise their hearts by the question, "Know ye what I have done to you?" It is His way indeed to teach us afterwards the good He has already done us; and as we grow up to Him in the truth, we appreciate better what we understood253 but slightly at first. Grace instructs us, as well as acts on our behalf; and it is humbling to find out how little we have understood while its activity has never staid. But how good and strengthening it is to learn its ways and lessons!

The Lord next enforces what He had done by appealing to the titles they habitually gave Him. "Ye call Me the Teacher and the Lord; and ye say well, for I am:"254 One to obey as well as to instruct, as could not but be where His personal glory is known. If He then stooped in love to wash their feet, what did they not owe one another? It is not only that we should serve the Lord in the Gospel. "By this shall all men know," He says later on in this very chapter, "that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another." Here, however, it is a definite call, where we are apt most to fail, to share His grace in seeking the restoration of each other where failure has come in. On the one hand, it needs faith and self-denial and Divine affections. Indifference about it detects our own failure. But, on the other hand, the righteousness that censures another is as far as possible from washing the feet, resembling rather the scourge than the service of the towel and basin. And assuredly, if grace be needed to bear the washing, a far larger measure must be in action to wash the feet. Hence says the apostle, "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any fault, ye that are spiritual restore such an one in a spirit of meekness." (Gal. 6: 1.) Where flesh was judged, love could act more powerfully, and with deeper sense that all is of grace. Self is the greatest hindrance in dealing with another's trespass.

The service of love in every form is the mind which was in Christ. Hence He calls them here to weigh what they had first seen. "For I have given you an example that ye also should do even as I did to you. Verily, verily, I say to you, A bondman is not greater than his lord, nor an apostle greater than He that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."255 The Lord knew the end from the beginning, and how soon His ministry would degenerate into a worldly institution, and become a title of pride, instead of being a work of faith and labour of love. Hence the need for His solemn formula, as a standing witness to all His own so prone in a world of vain show and selfishness to forget His word and wander from His way. But there His warning abides; to decline His service in washing the feet of His own is to set oneself above the Lord, and to claim a greater place than His Who sends even an Apostle. Oh, for the blessedness of doing as well as knowing these things! It is the fellowship of His love in one of its most intimate forms; and "love is of God, and every one that loveth hath been begotten of God and knoweth God." (1 John 4: 7.)

The hint which closed verse 10 is now expanded into the growingly solemn intimations in word and deed that follow. It is no longer Christ's love caring for His own, either once for all in atoning self-sacrifice to God for them, everlasting in its efficacy; or in unintermittent cleansing by the word, as for whom He died on earth, living for them in heaven, that they might be practically in unison with the relationship of grace into which they had been brought, spite of the defilements of the way. Here it is the faithless indifference of nature, with a conscience increasingly seared by indulgence in a besetting sin, which Satan was about to lure and blind to high treason against Christ, availing itself of the closest intimacy to sell the Master and Lord, the Son of God, for the paltriest price of a slave-to sell Him into the hands of enemies thirsting for His blood. It may not be the hatred of these; it is utter lovelessness, betraying Him Who was at this time more than ever showing and proving His love, not only up to and in death, but in life beyond it evermore. Now the unbelief which, having eyes and heart, sees not nor feels such love, precipitates above all into Satan's deceit and power. This we sorrowfully behold in Judas; and no one felt the sorrow as the Lord.

Cf. Matt. 26: 21ff. Mark 14: 18ff.; Luke 22: 21ff.

"I speak not of you all: I know whom* I chose out, but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He that eateth bread with Me hath† lifted up his heel against Me.' Henceforth (or, From this present time) I tell you before it come to pass, that, when it hath come to pass, ye may believe that I am (He).256 Verily, verily, I say to you, He that receiveth whomsoever I shall send receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me. Having said these things Jesus was troubled in His spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, One of you shall give Me up. The disciples (then)‡ looked one on another, doubting of whom He spoke (lit. speaketh)" (verses 18-22).

* τίνας, BCLM, etc. [Edd.]; οὕς, AD, and eleven more uncials, etc.

† ἐπῆρκεν, AUH,etc. [Tisch.], the mass followed by Text. Rec. ἐπῆρεν [most Edd.].

‡ οὖν pm, and most uncials, cursives, and versions, and so Text. Rec. [Weiss]; but corr.BC, etc., omit [as Blass, after Tisch.].

The Lord then did, and does, look for activity of love among His own. If they were objects of a love which could never fail, He would have them instruments or channels of it one toward another, and this in respect of evil to remove it, whereas legality could only condemn. Himself the Son yet the servant in love, He would exercise them in the service of dove, where defilement otherwise would repel. But as He came to suffer for our sins, so also He was going away to form us while on earth into His own mind and affections, through the truth, and in doing so to cleanse from every way which might grieve the Holy Spirit, whereby we are sealed till the day of redemption. For it is not a question of removing the guilt of a sinner only, but of restoring the communion of a saint, whenever interrupted by allowed evil. And in this last dealing of love, He would have His own caring one for another. But He did not speak of all the disciples then present: sad presage of what was to be far more common in after-days! He knew whom He chose out: Judas was not among such, though called to be an Apostle. He had never known the Lord, knew nothing truly of His grace or of His mind, and was not born of God. Why then had he been selected for that place of honour, the apostolate, in immediate and constant attendance on the Lord here below?

It was not that the Lord was unconscious of his character, conduct, or coming catastrophe, but that the Scripture might be fulfilled, He that eateth bread hath lifted up his heel against Me. (Ps. 41: 9.) "Jeshurun grew fat and kicked" of old; "he gave up God Who made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation." (Deut. 32: 15.) Judas went incomparably farther in his guilty indifference to the Son of God come down in love and humiliation, and in his eagerness to serve himself at all cost, betraying his gracious Master for the merest trifle. Never was such love, never such slight and abuse of it, and this in one of those specially responsible to be faithful. Doubtless it would be through Satan's power; but to this flesh exposes, and so much the more because of nearness outwardly to the Lord Who is not believed on to salvation. Thereby comes out, most palpably and fatally, the hard baseness of the unrenewed heart, and this against the grace of the Lord above all. Thus, if the disciples were in danger of being stumbled by such a one's defection, the evident fulfilment of Scripture was meant to strengthen their faith in every written word of God. By this man lives Godward: bread, money, anything here below, may be the occasion of his ruin. How wondrous the patience which, knowing all from the beginning, bore all to the end, without a frown or sign of shrinking from the traitor! But so much the more withering must be the sentence of judgment when it comes from His lips, the Lord of glory, the hated and despised of man.

The Lord gives precision to ancient oracles, hitherto applied only to others, as here to David suffering from Ahithophel. But the Holy Spirit wrote of Him pre-eminently; and He too, before the event, cites the word about to be verified in the treachery toward Himself. Thus did the Lord prove alike His perfect and Divine knowledge of what lay yet in the future, while He taught the inestimable worth of Scripture, and, not least, of prediction not yet fulfilled, meeting in every form the incredulity of believers as well as of unbelievers. For who knows not the accepted maxims which assume the dark and doubtful character of unfulfilled prophecy, which denies prophecy even to the prophets, still more to the Psalms and to the law? At least men should fear to give the lie to Him Who declares Himself the truth, and spoke as never man did. They have reason to fear, if they turn away from Him to lying vanities which, far from being able to save their votaries in the day of need, shall assuredly be as stubble to burn themselves and all who trust them. Jesus, on the contrary, is never so transparently the Messiah as when beforehand He points to the word of Scripture about to be accomplished in His own rejection and death of the cross, and affords in it a firmer ground of blessing for the poorest of sinners than in all the glories of the kingdom to be fulfilled in their seasons.

Then, with His usual mark of profound solemnity, the Lord binds the reception of His sent ones with Himself and His Father. "Verily, verily, I say to you He that receiveth whomsoever I may send receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me." This was the more important to be added here, for some might question their standing before God because of the awful doom of Judas, when and where known. The Lord comforts such, and turns from occupation with the fallen servant to the Master Who abides for ever the same, as does the Father. Did Judas betray the Lord? This sealed his own doom, but touched not the authority any more than the grace of Christ, as of God Himself. If they received one whom Christ sent, be his end even what it might, they received the Son, and so the Father, instead of sharing in the guilt or danger of the servant's punishment who dishonoured his Master to his perdition.

The Lord then, manifesting the deepest emotion, proceeds to urge the sin home, limiting its worst form to one only of the disciples. "Having said these things, Jesus was troubled in His spirit, and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say to you, One of you shall deliver Me up." It was holiness, it was love, which took thus to heart the impending iniquity of Judas. In every point of view the Lord felt it257 -in itself, in its contrariety to God, in its bearing on others as well as on Himself, and in its awfulness for the wretched guilty one. It is not self, but love, which is associated with the truest sensibility; and the Lord expresses it as a testimony also, "Verily, verily, I say to you, One of you shall give Me up." They were all faulty; but one, and only one, was thus about to become a prey to Satan, and the tool of his malice against the Lord. Their doubts were as honest as his place in their midst was now a lie against the truth. If he joined the rest in looking one on another, it was hypocrisy; for he could not really doubt of whom Jesus was speaking. Yet no blush, no paleness, betrayed Judas. The disciples must have recourse to other means of learning the sad truth.

The announcement of a traitor among the twelve troubled the disciples and led to anxious thought,258 as they looked one on another. What a testimony to His perfect grace Who had known it all along, and had given no sign of distrust or aversion! How solemn for the saints who have to do with the same unchanging Christ day by day! Nothing precipitates into the enemy's hands more than grace abused and sin indulged, while outwardly he is in the presence of the only One Whose life rebukes it absolutely. Let us look a little into the scene.

"(Now)* there was at table259 one of *His disciples in the bosom of Jesus whom Jesus loved.260 Simon Peter then beckoneth to this one and saith to him, †Tell who it is of whom He speaketh. He then‡ having thus‡ fallen back‡ on the breast of Jesus saith to Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus (then)‡ answereth, That one it is to whom I, having dipped the morsel, shall give (it). Having then dipped He (taketh and) giveth the morsel to Judas (son) of Simon, Iscariot. And after the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Jesus therefore saith to him, What thou doest do more quickly. But no one of those at table knew why He said this to him; for some supposed because Judas had the bag that Jesus saith to him, Buy the things that we have need of for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor. He therefore having received the morsel went out immediately; and it was night" (verses 23-30).

* BCpmL, etc., have no copula, but it appears in the other uncials, etc., and Text. Rec., which omits ἐκ, with some of the uncials and most cursives, contrary to the more ancient authorities.

† exhibits both readings which divide the other MSS; πύθεσθαι τίς ἂν εἴη περὶ οὗ ἔλεγεν· καὶ λέγει αὐτῶ· εἶπε τίς ἐστιν περὶ οὗ λέγει. [Blass omits "and . . . speaketh."]

‡ Tischendorf abandons ἀναπεσὼν [so W. and H., Weiss], with some good and old uncials (the usual phrase for the position), for ἐπιπ., with most MSS., and some ancient, which express the change of action [Blass, πεσὼν].261-It is a question of οὖν and δὲ in connection with it. — οὕτως, "thus," [just as he was] seems pretty sure, though omitted by Text. Rec.

Peter and John are often seen together. So here in their perplexity Simon Peter beckons to John as he reclined at table in the bosom of Jesus; for that John and no other was this favoured disciple cannot be doubted from John 19: 26; John 20: 2; John 21: 7, 20, 24. And how truly of the Spirit that one enjoying such favour should describe himself, not as loving Jesus, though indeed he did, but as beloved by Him; and this, too, as the disciple whom Jesus loved, withholding his name as here and elsewhere of small account, though plainly described at the close where needed, and named where men might deny the authorship, as they have done!260 It is intimacy with Jesus that gathers secret, but imparts them for others' good. Falling back just as he was on the breast of Jesus, John asks who it is; and the Lord answers, not in word only, but with a sign strikingly according to Ps. 41: 9, though an even more special mark of intimacy.

In Judas' state that token of love only hardened the conscience long seared by secret sin, which shut out from the heart all sense of love. His very familiarity with Christ's passing through the snares and dangers of a hostile world may have suggested that so it would be now with his Master, while he himself might reap the reward of his treachery; and the knowledge of His grace, without heart for it, may have led him to hope for mercy he had never known refused to the most guilty. The moment comes when holy love becomes unbearable to him who never relished it; and the sin he preferred blinded his mind and hardened his heart to that which had otherwise touched the most callous. "After the morsel, Satan then entered into him." The devil had already put it into his heart to deliver the Lord up; now, after receiving without horror or self-judgment the last token of his Master's love, the enemy entered. At being thus designated there may have been irritation, which if retained gives room for the devil even in ordinary cases; much more in his who had trifled with unfailing grace, and thus forgot wholly His glory, as he had ever been insensible to God's nature and his own sin. "Jesus therefore saith to him, What thou art doing do more quickly"-that is, sooner than was indicated by his pretension to share the doubts of the disciples or to join in what was before their hearts.

Never does God thus abandon to Satan poor man, however wretched and sinful, till He rejects his love and holiness and truth, above all shown in the Lord Jesus and in this Gospel. There He may and does judicially harden, and this to irretrievable ruin, but only after the heart has steeled itself to the appeals of His most patient goodness. Still, judicial hardening is a real thing on God's part, whatever may be argued by those who seem unwilling to allow frankly and fully the activity of God on the one hand and of Satan on the other. Not a whit better is the opposite school which seems to banish from conscience the solemn fact of responsibility, whether in a man or in a Christian, or, as here, in one who, though in the unremoved darkness of a man, drew so near the Son of God, the personal expression in man of all God's light and love.

We have heard already how deeply our Lord felt the sin of Judas as the moment approached and the design was allowed in his heart. Now the sentence goes forth, which closed the door of life for the earth on the Saviour-of everlasting wrath on Judas. Yet did the disciples look on and listen without knowing the awfulness of the issues then pending. Not even John penetrated the meaning of words soon to be clear to all. It was not to buy things needful, but to sell their Lord and Master; it was no preparation for the feast,262 but that to which it, not they, had ever looked onward, the fulfilment of God's mind and purpose in it, though it were the Jews crucifying their own Messiah, by the hand of lawless men; it was not that Judas should give to the poor, the last thing which would occupy his mind, but that He should Who "was rich yet for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich." (2 Cor. 8: 9.) It was a man's, a disciple's worst sin; it was God's infinite love, both meeting in the death of the Lord on the cross; but where sin abounded, grace exceeded much more.

Judas "therefore having received the morsel immediately went out." What darkness rested thenceforward on that soul! "It was night," says our evangelist.263 And that night deepened in its horrors on the faithless man, given to see his irreparable evil only when done, till it closed on his going to his own place.

John 13: 31-38.

The Lord felt the gravity of the moment, and saw the way and end from the beginning. All the wondrous and everlasting consequences of His death were stretched out before Him, and now that Judas is gone, He gives free expression to the truth in divinely perfect words. "When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is (lit. was) the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him."* (verse 31).264 His own cross is fully in view, and there was laid the basis for all true abiding glory, not for God only (though assuredly for God, for there can be none really unless He be foremost), but for man also in the person of the Lord, the Son of man, Who alone had shown what man should be for God, as He had shown what God is, even the Father, in Himself the Son.

* It is not that the aorist as here, ever means the present or the future but that in the Greek the act is spoken of as complete, summed up from the commencing feet to its completion. See John 15: 6 also, and Rev. 10: 7.

It is indeed a theme of incomparable depth, the Son of man glorified, and God glorified in Him; and no statement elsewhere, though from the same lips, was meant so to present and fathom it, though each was perfect for its own object, as the one before us.

In John 12, when certain Greeks came to Philip the Apostle, desiring to see Jesus, and Andrew and Philip tell Jesus, He answered them saying, "The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified;" and forthwith, with His most solemn emphasis, He speaks of His death as the condition of blessing to others. So only should He bear much fruit. Otherwise the grain of wheat abode alone. A living Messiah is the crown of glory to Israel; a rejected One, the Son of man, by death opened the door, for the Gentile even, into heavenly things, and is the pattern thenceforth. So true is it that to love life in this world is to lose it; to hate it here is to keep it to life eternal; and hence following Him Who died is the way to serve Him, secure the Father's honour, and be with the heavenly Master and Lord. It is by death that He takes the place, not of Son of David, according to promise (though this in grace He does also, according to Paul's Gospel), but of Son of man, and thus have all things and all men, Greeks no less than Jews, according to the counsels of God, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ. There was no other way for guilt to be effaced, for heaven to be opened and enjoyed by those who were once lost sinners. Thus the heavenly glory follows the moral glory; and every hope, for the Gentile most manifestly, turns on Christ's obedience even unto death, wherein Satan's power was utterly broken, and the judgment of God perfectly satisfied. For if the world was therein judged, and its prince to be cast out, Christ lifted up on the cross becomes the attractive centre of grace for all, spite of degradation, darkness, and death.

In John 17 the Son looks to the Father Whom He had glorified, that the Father might glorify Him in heaven. He was Son before time began; He had therefore of course glory with the Father before the world was. But He had taken the place of servant in manhood on earth, and now asks that the Father should glorify Him along with Himself with the glory which He had along with Him eternally. A man to everlasting, He would receive all from the Father, albeit Son from everlasting; and when glorified, it is that He may glorify the Father. Such is perfect love and devotedness.

Here, in John 13, He speaks of the Son of man glorified, and of God glorified in Him. This has its own peculiar force. The first man was an object of shame and judgment through sin; the second Man, Jesus Christ the righteous, was glorified, and God was glorified in Him. He sees it all summed up in the cross, and so speaks to the disciples, now that the traitor's departure left His heart free to communicate all that filled it. It is not the Father, as such, glorified livingly by His Son in an obedience which knew no limit but His Father's will, but a man, the rejected Messiah, the Son of man, devoting Himself at all costs to the glory of God. This was indeed the Son of man's glory, that God should be, as He was, glorified in Him. Blessed Saviour! what a thought, and now a fact and a truth, the truth made known to us, that we might know not merely God come to us, but ourselves brought to God, and this in peace and joy, because man is glorified in the Person of Christ, and God is glorified in Him a Man, the man Christ Jesus.

For in deed and in truth God is glorified in the cross as nowhere else-His love, His truth, His majesty, His righteousness. "Herein was manifested the love of God in our case, that God hath sent His only-begotten Son, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4). And His truth, majesty, and righteousness have been maintained, no less than His love; for if God threatened guilty man with death and judgment, Jesus bore all, as man never could, that His word might be vindicated fully. Never did man prove his enmity to God, never did Satan prove his power over man, as in that cross where the Son of man gave Himself up in supreme devotedness and self-sacrificing love to the glory of God. Nowhere was so demonstrated the holiness of God, the impossibility of His tolerating sin; nowhere such love to God, and such love to the sinner. The Son of man was glorified, and God was glorified in Him.

When, where, was Jesus so glorified as in stooping to the uttermost when God "made sin Him Who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him?" (2 Cor. 5: 21.) where Jesus, feeling the truth of death and judgment as none else ever could, bowed His head, not merely to man's contemptuous hatred and to Satan's wily malice, but to God's indignation against sin-despised of man, abhorred of the nation, abandoned of the disciples, forsaken of God, when most of all needing comfort, doing and suffering His will perfectly in the only unstormed fortress of the enemy's power-to God's glory and in His grace? No, there is nothing like it, even where, and where alone, all was perfection, in the life of Christ. This was glorifying the Father as to good in a devotedness and dependence with which none can compare; that, a glorifying God as to evil by the endurance of all that the Holy One of God could suffer from all that God could and did inflict in unsparing judgment-both the one and the other in absolute obedience and love and self-renunciation to His glory. And all this, and more than this, blessed be God! we see in Man, the Son of man; that in Him, in that nature which had wrought foul dishonour and rebellion against God from first to last, God might be glorified. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him."265

In that Person; and by that work, all was reversed. The foundation was laid, the seed was sown, for an entirely new order of things. Previously God forbore, not only with man, but even with the saints, looking unto Him Who should come; and sins were not remitted exactly, but prætermitted (Rom. 3: 25), if we would speak with dogmatic propriety. Man was simply and solely a debtor to God's mercy. Nor would we weaken for a moment that man is still a debtor to His mercy, and must ever be. But there is a revelation now in virtue of Christ's death, a new and different and infinite truth, that God is a debtor to the Son of man for glorifying Him as to evil no less than good; not only fulfilling all righteousness, but suffering for all unrighteousness. This is alone in the cross, which constitutes its specific glory, ever fading away from feeble man's eyes unless filled with light from Christ in glory, never forgotten of God the Father, Who, in answer to the cry, "Glorify Thy name," said, "I have both glorified and will glorify it again." And so He does and ever will, whatever appearances may for a little while say to the contrary.

His righteousness, once so dreaded a sound, armed (as it could not be without Christ) against us, is now by His death as distinctly for us, as is its spring, the grace which reigns through it unto eternal life. And we boast in hope of His glory, which, through Christ's death, had been instant and everlasting destruction to us; as surely as we have an access by faith into His favour, in which we stand as a present thing. Oh, what has not the death of Christ done for God and for us?

Hence the Lord adds, "If God is (lit. was) glorified in Him,* God also shall glorify Him in Himself, and shall glorify Him immediately" (verse 32). If we may reverently so speak, it is God now Who has become debtor for the vindication of His glory to the Man Who suffered on the cross. Was He not God from everlasting to everlasting, no less than the Father? yet did He become most truly man, and as man the Son of man-which Adam was not-He brought glory to God, even in the matter of sin. Therefore it is that God, having been glorified in Him, could not but also glorify Him in Himself. This He has done by setting Him (not on David's, but) on His own throne in heaven, the only adequate answer to the cross. There He alone is set down, the Son but a man, on God's throne; and this "immediately." God could not, would not, did not, wait for the kingdom, which will surely come, and Christ in it, when the due time arrives. But the work of Christ was too precious to admit of delay, and God had long hidden counsels to bring out meanwhile. Thus should He glorify Christ immediately; and so it is, as we all know now, however strange to Jewish expectation then.

* The oldest and best MSS. omit this clause, pmBCpmDLXΠ, a dozen cursives, some of the good Latin [Syrsin], etc. Hence, Lachmann and Tregelles bracket the clause, and W. and H. go so far as to omit it altogether. Before them, Scholz remarks on the omission: "Recte, nam inepta videtur iteratio eiusdem dicti." This is bolder than man should say, and simply proves his own spiritual incapacity. It was worthy, if anything was, of repetition, and most impressive. Twelve uncials, besides the correction of the Sinai MS., and the Rescript of Paris, the mass of cursives, much the weightier of the versions, not to speak of the fathers who commented on the passage, cite the passage as unquestionable Scripture. [Weiss, here uninfluenced by B. and Blass retain "if God," etc.]

Not only was His death before the Lord, but His departure from the world-a notion absolutely new to a Jewish mind in connection with the Messiah. The more such a soul believed Him to be the promised One, the less could it be conceived that He should quit the scene which He had come to bless. "We have heard out of the law," answered the people not long before, "that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest Thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?" There too He had intimated to the Jews, not only His death, but what death He should die, and His retirement from their midst. A new creation and heavenly glory were beyond their field of vision. But here the Lord prepares His disciples more fully for what was then coming and is now come: facts simple enough for us who have to do with them every day, but wholly unlooked for in Israel, who expected the kingdom immediately to appear, not the things unseen and eternal, with which our faith is called to be conversant.

"Little children,266 yet a little I am with you. Ye will seek Me; and, even as I said to the Jews, Where I go away [back], ye cannot come, also to you I say now" (verse 33). None had passed this way heretofore. It must be a new and living way, and only His death could make it possible, consistently with God or with man. But to His own there is a title of endearment; and if He was to be but a little with them, they were to seek Him. Heaven, however, was in no way accessible to man like the earth, of whose dust his body was made. Christ came from God, and went to God, as He will come by and by and receive us to Himself, that where He is, there we may be also. But no more is the Christian able to go there than any other man; Christ alone can bring any therein, as He will surely do with His own at His coming.

But He meanwhile lays a characteristic injunction on them here below. "A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another; even as I loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love among one another" (verses 34, 35).

The nation disappears. It is no question of loving one's neighbour, but of Christ's disciples and of their mutual love according to His love. New relationships would come out with increasing plainness when He rose from the dead, and sent down the Holy Spirit; and this new duty, loving one another, would flow out of the new relationship: a convincing proof to all men Whose they were, for He alone had shown this throughout His life and death, as also alive again-love unfailing. How far were the Jews from such love? The Gentiles had not even the thought of it. And no wonder. Love is of God, not of man, which accounts for the blank till He came Who, though God, manifested love in man and to man, and was thus, through His death and resurrection, to bear much fruit. Their love was to be, if we may so say, of His own material and mould-to abide, if it did not begin, when He went away. For, as is written in 1 John 2: 8, the new commandment now "is true in Him and in you; because the darkness passeth and the true light already shineth." While He was here, it was true perfectly, but only in Him; when He gave them redemption in Him through His death and resurrection, it was true in them also. The darkness was passing ("is past" being too strong to say), and the true light already shines. It is not here activity of zeal in quest of sinners, however precious, but the unselfish seeking of the good of saints as such, in lowliness of mind and in Christ's love.*267

* [Cf. "Exposition of the Epistles of John," p. 96.]

Matt. 26: 33-35; Mark 14: 29-31; Luke 22: 31-34.

An irrepressible disciple, with a curiosity habitual in him, turns from what the Lord was enjoining to the words before: "Simon Peter saith to Him, Lord, where goest Thou? Jesus answered (him),* Where I go, thou canst not follow Me now, but thou shalt follow Me afterwards: Peter saith to Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? My life [soul] for Thee I will lay down. Jesus answereth† (him),‡ Thy life [soul] for Me wilt thou lay down? Verily, verily, I say to thee, In no wise shall a cock crow till thou shalt have denied Me thrice" (verses 36-38). Peter knew and really loved the Lord, but how little he as yet knew himself! It was right to feel the Lord's absence; but he should have heeded better the mild yet grave admonition, that where Christ was going away he was not able to follow Him now; he should have valued the comforting assurance that he should follow Him later. Alas, how much we lose at once, how much we suffer afterwards, through not laying to heart the deep truth of Christ's words! We soon see the bitter consequences in Peter's history; but we know, from the further words of our Lord in the close of this Gospel, how grace would insure in the end the favour compromised by that self-confidence at the beginning, which he is here warned against.

* Omitted by BCpmL [Edd.], but supported by ACcorr.D, etc.

† The best sustain the present tense.

‡ The oldest omit "him."

But we are apt to think most highly of ourselves, of our love, wisdom, power, moral courage, and every other good quality, when we least know and judge ourselves in God's presence; as here we see in Peter, who, impatient of the hint already given, breaks forth into the self-confident question, "Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake." Peter therefore must learn, as we also, by painful experience what he might in faith have understood even better by subjection of heart to the Lord's words. Where He warns, it is rash and wrong for us to question; and rashness of spirit is but the precursor of a fall in fact, whereby we must be taught, if we refuse it otherwise He that slighted the warning when Christ spoke it lied through fear of a servant-maid. True Christian courage is never presumptuous, but well consorts with fear and trembling; for its confidence is not in the resources of self, or in the circumstances of others, but in God, with a due sense of the power of Satan and of our own weakness.

When ignorance slips, as it often does, into presumption, the Lord does not spare rebuke. "Wilt thou lay down thy life for My sake?" Was this Peter's resolve? Soon would that stout heart quail at the shadow of death. Yet what was death itself for any saint to compare with Christ's death, when tasting rejection as none ever did, and bearing our sins in His own body on the tree, as it was His alone to suffer for them from God! It was judgment as well as death, but endured as only He could.

But ignorance works often in another way. They will not believe their own utter weakness, spite of Christ's plain warning, and want light to prove His truth and their folly. Nor is this all. They assume that if a believer fail once, he must immediately repent in dust and ashes. How little they know themselves, or have profited by Scripture! "Verily, verily," said the all-patient Master, "In no wise shall a cock crow till thou shalt have denied Me thrice."268 We recall Peter's repeated denial of his Lord, and with oaths, too, under the most solemn circumstances, not to lower him, but for the profit of our own souls, and to exalt Him Who alone is worthy. How infinite the grace which made the measure of his sin to be the signal and means of his repentance, under the Lord's use of His own word, and in His wonder-working mercy! And what He was to Peter, He is to us, and nothing less.

JOHN — THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. " Introductory Lectures," pp. 511-518.]

John 14: 1-14.

The way was now opened to bring out the Christian's hope. Death, in its most solemn and most blessed aspect, had been put before the disciples, however little able as yet to follow their Master in thought, impossible then, indeed, in any way, as the Lord let the too confident hear, though Peter learnt it not till he proved his own utter powerlessness by the basest denial of Him he loved. How much we have to learn by most painful and humbling experience of ourselves, because we fail in sustained subjection to, and dependence on, our Lord! But now, this cleared, the Saviour turns to what is unfailingly bright, because it centres in Himself. It is no coming as Son of man to judge, no appearing in glory to set all that is crooked straight and to govern all righteously. It is His own coming for His beloved ones, that they may be with Him where He is, in the Father's house on high.

"Let not your heart be troubled:269 ye believe270 on God, believe on Me also. In My Father's house are many mansions: if not so, I would have told you, because* I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and† prepare a place for you, I am coming again, and will receive you unto Myself, that where I am ye also may be. And where I‡ go ye know the way" (verses 1-4).

* ὅτι, ABCpm DKLXΠ, twenty cursives, and most ancient versions [as Syrsin], etc.; but Text. Rec. [as Blass] omits, with some ten or eleven uncials, most cursives, the Gothic, Aeth., etc.

† DM, with more than sixty cursives, read ἑτοιμάσαὶ others, like AEGKΓΔ, and forty cursives, with the Gothic and Pesch. Syr., simply ἐτοιμάσω, without καὶ [as Blass], but BCLNSUXΔΠ, and versions [Syrsin], καὶ ἐτ.

‡ Some authorities omit ἐγὼ, and most [as A CcorrD, Syrsin pesch hier], with Text. Rec., add καὶ . . . οἴδατε, "and . . . ye know."

A greater break with Jewish feeling could not be than such a hope, a shock assuredly as wholly changing all they had expected, but only as supplanting an earthly prospect, however blessed, by a heavenly one incomparably more blessed. If His going away by death, not yet understood, either in its depth of suffering or in its efficacy, but as departure from them on earth, might naturally disturb their heart, He begins to explain its all-importance as making way for faith. He was no longer to be, according to prophetic intimation, as the Messiah of Israel on earth, still less displayed there in indisputable glory and resistless power. He is about to go a man yet to heaven, and there to be an object of faith as no longer seen, even as God is. "Ye believe in God, believe also in Me." This was a quite new thought about the Messiah, rejected here, glorified in heaven, believed on in earth: simple enough now, but then a strange sound, and an entirely new order of associations, which set aside for a time all that saints and prophets looked for. Not that these things were more than postponed, but that those, altogether unprecedented and unexpected, were to come in by the Lord's going on high after redemption, with just enough in the Old Testament (as, for instance, in Ps. 110: 1) to stop the mouth of a Jew who might pervert the law to deny the Gospel.

This, then, is the central fact for the Christian as for the Church-Christ not reigning over the earth, but glorified on high as the fruit of His rejection here below. But it is far from all, though all else be but consequences in Divine grace or righteousness. The next thing He proceeds to unfold is that there is room above where He is for the saints who follow their rejected Lord. "In My Father's house are many mansions: if not so, I would have told you, because I go to prepare a place for you." He would not have raised a hope incapable of realisation for these saints. If He discloses His own bright abode with the Father, there is ample room for them as for Him; and His love, which was giving Himself for them, would keep back nothing else. His love and the Father's love-for indeed they were one in purposes as in nature-would have them near Himself there. There are many abodes in the Father's house. It is no question of crowns, or cities, or place in the kingdom. There will be reward according to walk, though grace will secure its own sovereign rights. But here differences vanish before the infinite love that will have us with Himself before His Father. Were it too much, or not so, He would have told us, because He goes to prepare a place for us. Love never could, nor does, wittingly disappoint its object.

There is another thing of deep moment contingent on this, but plainly revealed, instead of being left for us to infer. He is coming to fetch His own to heaven.271 And this was meant to be ever acting on the heart, as we see by the subsequent teaching of the Holy Ghost throughout the rest of the New Testament. Our new place and home is where Christ is, and whither He is to translate us, we know not how soon. Times, dates, signs, circumstances, are purposely excluded. The Christian understands them by a sound intelligence of the word which takes cognisance of all things, but knows nothing of them for his own hope. He reads them about the Jew or the Gentile for the earth; but his are heavenly things, where such measures do not govern. He looks above sun, moon, and stars, where Christ sits at God's right hand, and knows that Christ is coming again, as surely as He went, and this to prepare a place for us. And mark, He is not sending angels to gather us above. This were a great thing, but how immeasurably more the love as well as honour, since He, the Son of God, is coming again, and will receive us to Himself, that, where He is, we also may be! He came for us to die for our sins to God's glory; He is coming again, to have us with Himself in the same home of Divine love and nearness to the Father where He is. He could not do more, He would not do less. There is no love like that of our Lord Jesus; nor is the predicted exaltation for Israel, still less for others, to be compared with it, any more than earth is with heaven.

"And where I go ye know the way."372 His own Person, the Son of the Father, in grace and truth, presented to man, and revealing the Father, is the way which could not but lead to heaven He came from God, and was going to God. No earthly blessedness could adequately express His glory: He might, and would, take it, and glorify God in glory as in humiliation; but the saint constantly feels there is, and must be, more and higher. Heaven is His Who could communicate with His Father, and command its resources, though never whilst here abandoning the place of the lowliest of men and servant of all need. Yet, as He was the conscious Son, so the saints knew He must be going to the Father, as He was and is the way there.

The Lord had laid down the inward conscious knowledge of the disciples according to God, and the glory of His own Person Whom they confessed, soon by redemption and the gift of the Spirit to bloom in full intelligence. But in this they were as yet dull to apprehend His meaning; and He who was remarkable among them for his gloomy thoughts expresses this difficulty of his for all.

"Thomas saith to Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; (and)* how know we (or, can we know)* the way? Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no one cometh unto the Father but by Me. If ye had known† Me, ye would have known† My Father also; and† from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him†" (verses 5-7).

* BCpmL, etc., omit καὶ; whilst BCpmD, Lat. MSS., Aeth., etc., read οἴδαμεν, "know we." Text. Rec., with sixteen uncials, perhaps all the cursives and the versions generally, has δυνάμεθα τ. ὁδ. εἰδέναι, "can we know," etc.

† ἐγνώκατε . . . γνώσεσθε, Dpm, instead of ἐγνώκειτε . . . ἐγν ἂν, as in all the other uncials, save that BCpm, etc., give for the last ἂν ἤδειτε. Some of these uncials, etc., omit καὶ before ἀπ [as Blass], and reads after it γνώσεσθε, not without some support from Latin, BCpm omitting αὐτὸν at the end. [Blass read ἐγνώκατε . . . γνώσεσθε, but with μὴ before the one, οὐ before the other.]

No! the thoughts of Thomas limited the Lord to that earthly horizon which formed the boundary of his own hopes of Israel clustering around their Messiah. He could not conceive, any more than the rest, whither the Lord was retiring, now that He had come to the people and the land which, he knew, He was pledged to bless richly and for ever. How then know the way? His mind was yet earthly. As he had no thought of heaven for the Lord Jesus, so he overlooked the way. But this furnished the opportunity for the Lord to announce in words as simple as profound, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life." Much conveyed in them might have been gleaned from testimonies to Him, most from His own previous discourses as given in this very Gospel, but nowhere so much combined with so brief an expression as here. It was worthy of Him, and at that moment above all.

A way is a great boon, especially through a wilderness which characteristically has no way. Neither had Eden, or unfallen creation, a way; but then it needed none. For all things everywhere were good, and as long as man ate not of the forbidden tree, there was no straying. All else it was for him to enjoy, giving thanks to God. But sin came in, and death, the harbinger of judgment; and all was changed into a wilderness, and men wandered in all directions, alas! all of them away from God and irreparably wrong: a wilderness-world truly, a void place, where there is no way. Not that promise did not, less or more, hold out the hope of better things; not that law did not in due time thunder and lighten; but God's way was not known, as His grace alone could show it. Now it is; for Christ is the Way, the only sure Way, for the most erring of sinners, avowedly for the lost, whom He is come to seek and to save; and He is the Way to the Father, not to God displayed in power and glory on the earth, as the Jew should expect for the day that is coming, when the rejected Messiah returns as the glorious Son of man. But He is much more, and above all time or change, the deepest rejection only forcing out what was there always, His own personal glory as Son of God superior to every dispensation. And in the fullest consciousness of it He says to dimly-seeing Thomas, "I am the way."

Why should one wait for the time when the wilderness shall be gladdened by His presence and power? Then doubtless "the mirage shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water"; "and a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it, but it shall be for these: the wayfaring men, even fools, shall not err [therein]. (Isa. 35: 8.) But He is this and more now to all that believe in Him; and faith delights to own, as God to make known, all He is, when unbelief disowns and slights and casts Him out. He is accordingly the one Divine Way; and as there is none other, so is He all-sufficing for him who has no strength of wisdom or worth in any sort. But Christ is the way now for the steps of such as know Him, the wisdom of God in an evil world-Himself the highest and perfect expression of that wisdom, and thus open to the babe in faith no less than to an Apostle.

Further, He is the Truth, the full expression of every one and of every thing as they are. He tells us in His own Person what God is; He shows us the Father, being Himself the Son. But He, not Adam, shows us man. Adam, no doubt, shows us falling or fallen man; Christ alone is man according to God, both morally, as once here below; and in counsel, as now risen and in heaven. Moreover, as He shows us holiness and righteousness, so also He brings out sin in its true colours; as He says Himself, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin. He that hateth Me hateth My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Hence He, and He only, brings out His adversary the devil personally, the prince of this world, but the constant enemy of the Son.

Even the law, holy, just, and good as the commandment may be, is not the truth; for it is rather on God's part the demand of what a man should do; but Christ tells out, not merely what he ought to be, but what he is. The law claims his duty; Christ declares that all is over, and he is lost. But Christ also shows us a Saviour in His own Person, and this from God and with God. Not that He is not the Judge, for He will judge living and dead, as surely as He will appear and set up His kingdom; but He is Saviour now and to the uttermost. Indeed, it would be impossible to say what of good and glorious He is not, nor from what evil He does not deliver. He is the truth, the exhibition of the true relation of all things with God, and consequently of the departure of any from God. He, and He only, to the challenge, Who art thou? could answer, "Absolutely that which I am also speaking to you." He is what He also speaks; He is, as no other man was, the Truth; and this, as He intimates in the same chapter 8 of our Gospel, because He is not man alone, but God.

But He is more than the Way and the Truth; he is Life, and this because He is the Son. In communion with the Father, He quickens. It is not so in judgment; for the Father judges none, but has given every kind of judgment to the Son, and this because He is the Son of man; and as men dishonoured Him because He deigned in love to become man, so the Father will have Him honoured, not only as God, but as man in judgment. Believers honour Him in a very different and far more excellent way. They bow to Him now; willingly, gladly, they exalt Him while rejected by the world. They are thus by grace in communion with God, Who has set Him on high at His own right hand, and will by and by compel every creature to bow and own Him Lord to His own glory. But those that believe have now in Him life, which issues by the Spirit's power in the practice of good; and hence they will enjoy life-resurrection at His coming, as those that have done evil must be raised to a resurrection of judgment in its day.

Thus the believer has Christ for all possible need, and all the blessing that our God and Father can bestow. One cannot have Him as the Way and the Truth without having Him as the Life also, for indeed He is the Resurrection and the Life; and this life, which we have in Him the Son, the Holy Spirit strengthens and exercises, as His word nourishes it, revealing Him ever afresh to our souls. The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord; and as the way in Christ is a path of love and liberty and holiness, so the end also is life everlasting.

Nor is there any other means of blessing: "No one cometh unto the Father but by Me," says the Lord. There is the surest guarantee, the amplest and the highest good, but it is absolutely exclusive. By none but the Son can one come to the Father; by Him can come any, the proudest Jew, the most debased Gentile. Through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father, as the Apostle says expressly, (Eph. 2: 18.) when showing the nature of that Church which now takes the place of the ancient people of God. And be it observed that it is not to God only in sovereign grace above sin, saving the most guilty and wretched, but to the Father as such; in it is that relationship of grace which the Son knew eternally in His own right and title, and none the less, but the more, to His Father's honour, when He glorified Him on earth as the perfectly dependent and obedient man. How wondrous that we should come to the Father, His Father and ours, His God and ours! All glory to Him and His work of redemption, through which alone it could be to us who believe!

Next the Saviour lets them know that the knowledge of the Father is inseparable from that of the Son. "If ye knew Me, ye would know My Father also; and henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." He is the image of the invisible God; in the Son is the Father known; and this the disciples are given to learn now objectively.

But there is no capacity in the bright and active-minded disciple to enter into Divine things, any more than in the most reserved or sombre one. "Philip saith to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (verse 8): an excellent wish, it might seem, to many who read his words, for one who had both seen Jesus and helped others in their desires to see Jesus. But it was sad unbelief in Philip, especially after the patient gracious words just uttered to lead them on.

"Jesus saith to him, Am I so long a time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; (and)* how sayest thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not† that I (am) in the Father, and the Father is in Me?273 The words which I say‡ to you, I do not speak from Myself; but the Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the works.‡ Believe Me that I (am) in the Father, and the Father in Me; but, if not, believe Me§ for the very works' sake.274 Verily, verily, I say to you, He that believeth on Me, the works which I do shall he do also; and greater things than these shall he do; because I go unto the Father"|| (verses 9-12).275

* Most MSS. read καὶ π., but the copulative is omitted by BQ, etc.

† Bpm strangely reads οὐ πιστεύσεις, "wilt thou not believe?"

‡ λέγω Bcorr (pm om.) LNX, etc., instead of the first λαλῶ, as in most [so Blass], as BL, etc., omit ὁ after the second πατήρ [which Blass retains]. BD read αὐτοῦ ("his works") at the end, instead of αὐτὸς either there or before as ordinarily.

§ DL, etc., omit [as Edd.] final μοι, read by the mass of authorities.

|| The weight of authority (ABDLQXΠ, many cursives, almost all the ancient versions, and the fathers) is against the addition of μου after πατέρα.

The Lord thus poured a flood of light on the perplexity of the disciples. The Messiah Himself was not a mere man, however endowed and honoured of God. He was true man, and the lowliest of men; but who was He that was pleased to be born of the Virgin? He was the Son-He was God, no less than the Father, and in Him the Father was displaying Himself as such. It was God in grace, forming and fashioning His children by the manifestation of His affections and thoughts and ways in Christ the Son, a man on earth. This they had known, and yet had not known. They were familiar with Him, and the facts of His everyday works and words, little feeling as yet that they were words and works for eternity of the Creator displaying Himself in incomparably deeper fashion than in the wonders of His creation or of His government in Israel.

"No one hath seen God at any time: the Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. "It was for this He came, not only to annul sin by the sacrifice of Himself, but to manifest the eternal life which was with the Father, and this as the Son revealing the Father. How new the order of being, how strange the range of thought, to the disciples! Yet this had Jesus been ever doing here below, occupied with His Father's business long before the beginning of His ministry.

"Believest thou not that I (am) in the Father, and the Father is in Me?" All turned on the glory of His Person; and the very unity of the Godhead, the cardinal truth Israel had to testify, made a difficulty to the reasoning mind of man, unable to rise above its own experience. Not only had law and prophets prepared the way, and John the Baptist's witness, but the words that Jesus said were not as any other man spoke. They were no mere human things, nor independently of His Father. He had been made flesh, but never ceased to be the Word, the Son; and the works He did bore the unmistakable imprint of the same gracious One-the Father. It was He that did the works (or His works). The disciples were therefore called to believe that He was in the Father, and the Father in Him; a state of being only possible in the Divine nature, to which the works themselves gave a witness that left the incredulous without excuse.

And this the Lord follows up with His formula of special solemnity in verse 12, wherein He intimates the testimony that would be rendered to the glory of His Person when, and because, He was going to the Father; the power which should invest the believer, and enable him to do not only what they had seen Jesus do, but things greater still in honour of His name. And this was to the letter fulfilled. For never do we hear of the Lord's shadow healing the sick, nor were napkins taken from His body (save in lying legends) to cure disease, or expel demons, not to speak of the multitudes which were brought in far and wide by apostolic preaching. What greater proof of Divine power than to work as He Himself did, and yet more by His servants! and more, again, when He went on high, than when He sent them out from His presence on earth! But if the power displayed-if the works were to be greater, who could compare himself with the Lord in self-renouncing love, dependence, and obedience? Certainly none that believed on Him, none that through Him wrought so mightily.

Thus had the Lord guaranteed the solemn and withal cheering promise, that His proceeding to the Father was in no way to stem and dry up the mighty stream of gracious power in which He had wrought here below. The believer on Him was to do what He did, and yet greater things. This He now follows up and explains by the place given to that exercise of faith which issues in prayer, henceforth to have its fullest character in His name Who had glorified the Father to the uttermost.

"And whatsoever ye shall ask (or beg, αἰτ.) in My name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask* anything in My name, I will do it" (verses 13, 14). The disciples were thus to count on power that could not fail, if sought in His name; for Jesus was no mere man, whose departure must terminate what He used to do when present. Absent He would prove Himself Divine, and none the less interested in their petitions because He was risen from the dead. Whatever they might ask He would do, that the Father might be glorified in the Son. And not content with a broad assurance in verse 13, no matter what the difficulty, He repeats it in verse 14 as to any particular petition on their part with a yet more emphatic pledge of His personal action.

* [Edd. here adds με ("Me") after a B, etc., 33, etc. Blass omits the whole verse, as Syrcu sin, Nonnus, and Chrysostom.]

John 14: 15-24.

But the Lord adds a great deal more, and of the deepest moment. "If ye love Me, keep (or ye will keep)* My commandments276; and I will request† the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it beholdeth Him not, nor knoweth Him; but ye know Him, because He abideth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I am coming unto you. Yet a little, and the world beholdeth Me no more; but ye behold Me: because I live, ye also shall live " (verses 15-19). The way to show their affection and devotedness to their Master would be by obedience; for, whatever His grace, He does not disguise from them His authority. To obey His commandments, then, would prove their love far better than zeal in work or in sorrow for His absence; for His absence, however serious in itself, is turned by God's goodness and wisdom to better blessings and deeper ways for the saints, even as it furnishes the occasion for bringing out the hidden counsels of God to His own infinite glory in Christ. Their place was to obey His commandments, as they loved Him; whilst He would pray the Father, Who would send them another,277a Paraclete or Advocate, as He Himself had been, One who would undertake and carry through their cause, as a Roman patron of old did for his clients or a modern solicitor does now in his little measure. "Comforter"‡ seems too narrow a word, and separates the Spirit unduly from our Lord, Who could hardly be so styled in John 2: 1, where Paraclete is applied to His action on high, as here to the Holy Ghost's on earth.

* BL, etc. ( , 33, 69pm, τηρήσητε) τηρήσετε, "ye will keep." So W. and H. [Weiss and Blass] edit. [Syrsin has " keep."]

† It is of interest, and even of importance, to mark the distinctness of ἐρωτάω, as used of Christ with the Father, and αἰτέω of the disciples. Scripture nowhere predicates of Him the last or supplicatory expression, save in Martha's mouth [11: 22], whose faith, though real, was low. Christ uses ἐπ. in speaking to the Father, as the disciples use αἰτ. to Him, and both words to Christ. The word ἐπ. is also employed in the sense of "interrogating," or "questioning."277

‡ Philologically it is hard, not to say impossible, to conceive the Greek term meaning "Comforter." Its structure and usage alike point to one "called to aid," as a cognate but different form signifies a comforter. This a Paraclete may well be; but He is far more, and summoned for every difficulty and need. So is the Paraclete, and in an infinite way, as a Divine Person. To comfort is but a small part of His functions. "Advocate" might do, as in 1 John 2: 1. [See, further, "Exposition of the Epistles," p. 56 ff.]

Further, this other Paraclete, given by the Father in answer to Christ, was not to be for a brief season, like the Saviour here below. "He will give you another Paraclete, that He may be with you for ever." This is a truth of the deepest consolation, but most solemn for Christendom. Who believes it? Certainly not those who boast of evangelical views, yet proclaim their unconscious unbelief by regular prayers at the beginning of every year that God would pour out afresh His Holy Spirit on His children in their low estate. Is it meant that the self-complacent mass in Christendom (which utters no such special petitions, but assumes that the Holy Ghost acts, necessarily and infallibly, through popes, or patriarchs, or kindred officials) are more really believing? Far from it. They are inflated with pride, as if God sustains and sanctions their position; and utter blindness holds the* eyes, so that they cannot see their state to be one of departure from God's will and truth and grace. But the opposite pole of an error may be also an error; and the assumption that the Holy Spirit directs Babylon, in her confusion of the world and the Church, is not remedied by the practical denial of the abiding presence of the Spirit in the periodical petitions for a fresh outpouring on us.

It were well to ask for a single eye and a spirit of humiliation, that we might cease to do evil, and learn to do well, and this with a truly contrite heart, and a deep sense of whence we have fallen, and of Christ's speedy coming. It were well to judge ourselves by the Word of God, not only in our individual walk, but in our corporate ways and worship, to see to it that we neither grieve nor quench the Spirit, to desire earnestly that we "be strengthened with power by the Spirit in the inner man," if, indeed, we do not also need first to be "enlightened of Him," so that we should " know what is the hope of God's calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe" (Eph. 3: 16; Eph. 1: 18 f.). These are the true wants, even where peace with God is enjoyed individually; for there is nothing in general so little known to the Christian or the Church, as what the Christian and the Church really are; and how can the functions or duties be discharged where the relationship is ignored or mistaken?

Now, all this turns on the great truths before us in these chapters of our Gospel, the absence of Christ from the world to take His place as the risen Man in heaven on the footing of redemption, and the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down to be with the saints for ever. Faith, then, shows itself, not, surely, in imputing to Him failure in abiding spite of our failure, and praying for a fresh outpouring, as if He had fled in disgust, and needed to be sent down again, but in separating from every evil condemned by the word, and doing the will of God as far as we learn it, counting on the assured presence of the Spirit according to the Saviour's promise. Blessing and power follow obedience, even as the Lord puts it here. Nothing can be conceived more false morally than to abide in what we know to be wrong, waiting for power, and then obeying. Not so; more especially, too, as even this hollow excuse denies the distinctive privilege of the Christian, that he has the Spirit already in being a Christian. And so has the Church of God: if not, it is some other Church, not His; for only by the presence of the Spirit is the Church really such, always and in all things responsible to be guided of Him, even "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it beholdeth Him not, nor knoweth Him; but ye know Him, because He abideth with you, and shall be in you."

The Lord herein looked onward to the presence of the Holy Ghost with the saints, not only assuring them that it should be perpetual, but explaining why the world could have no portion in Him; whereas men might behold and know the Messiah objectively, though externally and in vain for eternal life. But with the Spirit as now given, what could the world have in common? He could but, by His presence with the saints outside the world, prove sin, righteousness, and judgment. But He is no object of sight or knowledge, and the world has no faith, or it would not be the world; whereas the saints, the Christians henceforth would be characterised by knowing Him, invisible as He is, "because He abideth with you, and shall be in you." Not that one thinks with Euthymius Zigabenus, followed by many a believer from his day to ours, that His abiding in Jesus Who was among them is the meaning; but that when given, He was to abide with them, instead of making a brief sojourn like the Lord's; yea, that He should not only abide, but be in them, which Messiah, as such, could not be, however companying with them. It was to be a new, special, intimate presence of God in and with the saints, in contrast with the world which had rejected Christ. And there is no surer sign of, or preparation for, the final apostasy, in its complete form, than that unbelieving departure from God which binds together the saints and the world: whether in a popish assumption of the Spirit's sanction, or in a Protestant unbelief of His presence. One can understand this last, because of their experience of a name to live with death around and within; which prompts them to cry for the Spirit as if He were gone, instead of quitting all that grieves Him, and hinders the manifestation of His gracious action.

But, said the Lord, "I will not leave you orphans: I am coming to you." It is not here by His future advent, but by the gift of the Spirit.278 Thus would He comfort them in His own absence. "Yet a little, and the world beholdeth Me no more, but ye behold Me: because I live, ye also shall live." Nothing could be more opposed to their thoughts of, and expectations from, the Messiah of Israel seen by every eye, though in special nearness to His own people on earth. Now they were by the Holy Ghost to see Him Whom the world had rejected and lost, and should see no more save in judgment. And the saints should not behold Him only, but live of the selfsame life, having Christ living in them, as says the Apostle Paul (Eph. 3: 17), or, as the Lord here, "Because I live, ye also shall live." Christ is their life, and this in resurrection-power, to which the future tense may point.

But there is more than life, blessed as it is, living because Christ lives, Himself their life, not as Son simply, but as risen and gone to heaven. The Spirit is power to see and know, in contrast with flesh and world. And here He is supposed to be given, known, abiding with them and in them. A most solemn thing is His power, where Christ is not the life: unspeakably blessed, where we live of His life.

"In that day ye shall know that I (am) in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you" (verse 20). It is not here simply the glory of His Person, as in verses 10, 11. This was true, and an object of faith then. "Believest thou not," said the Lord to Philip, "that I (am) in the Father and the Father is in Me?" Words and works both attested it. "Believe Me," He said to all, "that I (am) in the Father and the Father* in Me." His being man in no way hindered or lowered His dignity, nor His essential oneness with the Father; and it was and is of all moment to believers unwaveringly to hold it and adoringly. The Son is God, even as the Father. But now more was to be, and to be known; impossible without His personal glory, but dependent on His work and the gift of the Spirit. This we have now, for that day is come. It is not the future glory, but present grace putting us in the closest vital association with Him Who has gone into heavenly glory, and yet is one with us here, as we with Him there, by the Spirit given that we might know it all.

* In the Elz. of 1624 and 1633, ἐστὶν, with the slenderest support; Steph. rejects it in his edd. of 1546, 1549, and 1550, as Beza in all his.

In this knowledge saints-true saints of God-are painfully dull, not merely to their privation in countless ways of the utmost moment, but to His dishonour Who cannot be duly served or worshipped now but in Spirit and in truth. The day of forms and shadows is closed; the true light now shines in Christ only, of Whom His saints are the responsible light-bearers as they hold forth the word of life. But there is more here, though all is bound up with Him. It is not Christ present in the world, and reigning over the land, or even all the earth. He is here the despised and rejected of men, but glorified on high. "In that day ye shall know that I (am) in My Father"-a relationship and sphere incomparably more glorious than the throne of His father David. It is not only heavenly, but also expressive of infinite nearness to the Father; and this gives its character to Christianity. All its blessedness turns on Who and what and where Christ is. Unbelief in saints, walking with the world and numbed by tradition, treats all as lifeless fact, not as truth which by the Spirit forms and guides the soul; unbelief in men learns fast to deny and deride even the fact. So much the more urgent call is there on those who believe by grace to walk on in the heavenly light; and the more so, as we know not only that He is in the Father, but that we are in Him and He in us, as the Lord proceeded to say in the words already cited.

There can scarce be conceived a more striking contrast in position and relationship than of Christ and His own as here described with the Messiah and His people, which those then present had gathered, not from the tradition of the elders, but from the ancient oracles of God. But God is sovereign, though ever wise and never arbitrary. All His ways are good and glorious, as they all turn on Christ His image and their centre, the prime object before Him for heaven and earth. On earth government was and will be the aim; for heaven grace reigns, first, however, suffering to His glory, yet morally and infinitely superior to evil, by-and-by supreme when evil is dealt with and disappears by Divine judgment. Between the humiliation of the cross and the coming again is the place of the Son as now known in the Father, as of us in Him and of Him in us.

No Old Testament saint knew or could speak thus; nor did an expectation of it ever dawn on a single heart of old. No millennial saint will ever know such a relationship of Christ or of those then on earth. It is wholly and necessarily a part of what God is now intermediately working for the glory of the Lord; and as faith beholds Him in such a height of Divine intimacy, so it owns the incomparable grace which has put us in Christ, and gives us to feel the grave responsibility of Christ in us. What can tell out our nearness more than such an identification of new life and nature, and this in power by the Spirit? Truly, "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit"; (1 Cor. 6: 17.) and the union is just so much more real and permanent than natural oneness, as the Spirit is mightier and closer and more abiding than the flesh. But if thus one with Him and in Him by the Spirit, He is in us by the same Spirit. There is thus alike the highest privilege and the strongest obligation; and we must beware of sundering what the Lord here joins together. If we have life in the Son, we need to remind our souls that Christ lives in us, and that we are to show out Him, not ourselves. Doubtless this demands true and deep and constant self-judgment, and the faith that always bears about in the body the dying of Jesus; and God helps us by trials of all sorts, that the life also of Jesus may be manifest in our mortal flesh. Thus only does Christian practice flow from Christian principle and privilege; and all is of Christ by the Holy Ghost in us. How comforting that our duty as Christians supposes our blessedness! How humbling that the gift of the Spirit makes our failure inexcusable!278a

But there is meanwhile, and especially connected with Christ being in us, not yet government of the earth by Christ reigning righteously and in power, but moral government of our souls in obedience, which assumes a twofold shape. "He that hath My commandments end keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me; but he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him and will manifest myself to him" (verse 21). To the superficial mind of man it may seem strange that our Lord should speak of having His commandments, not only keeping them, as a proof of loving Him; but it is profoundly true. The wicked, the disobedient, the careless, do not understand, but the wise, even those whose wisdom ends not, though it begins, with the fear of the Lord. The single eye is full of light. The desire to do His will finds and knows what it is. Thus the loving heart has and keeps His commandments; and, loving Him, draws down His Father's love, Who honours the Son and will not be exalted at His expense. Obedience springing from love is thus the condition of the disciples, which ensures the love of Jesus and the manifestation of Himself to us here below.

Such a manifestation took the disciples by surprise; and one of them, Judas, carefully distinguished from the betrayer, could not but ask for explanation. "Judas, not the Iscariot, saith to Him, Lord, (and)* how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us, and not to the world? Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and makes our abode with him. He that loveth Me not keepeth not My words; and the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's that sent Me" (verses 22-24). When Messiah manifests Himself to the world as He will when the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Anointed is come, there will be a feigned obedience rendered by many kept in check by the display of His power and glory. Obedience now that He is absent must be more put to the proof, and is precious to Him as being real; and it should grow as being of life in the Spirit, as the knowledge of His will becomes better known. Compare Colossians 1: 9, 10. Hence it deepens from His commandments to His word. his commandments were not grievous; His word is treasured because He Himself is loved. So it is the Lord counts it; and fuller manifestation is enjoyed of the Father and the Son, and more abidingly.

* καὶ GHKMQSUΓΑΠ, and many cursives; but ABDELX, etc., with almost all the other versions, omit.

† ποιεσόμεθα BLXΠ2, some cursives, and many fathers [W. and H., Blass]; instead of the Text. Rec. ποιήσομεν (or -ωμεν), as in most uncials and cursives and many fathers [Weiss]. D. [Syrsin], etc., strangely read ποιήσομαι, "I will make." The middle voice gives the force of "our" in the strongest way, which the Text. Rec. loses.

It will be noticed that in verse 23 it is "My word," not, as in the Authorised Version, "My words." He that loves the Lord will keep His word as one whole, because it is His; as He adds in verse 24, that he who loves Him not does not keep His words or sayings. It is not his habit or way to keep any of them in detail. Disobedience betrays absence of love for Jesus; and this is the more serious, because it is not simply the Son Who is in question, but the Father that sent Him, Whose word is slighted. There is nothing so characteristic of a saint now as obedience. It was so perfectly with our Lord Himself. He came to do the will of God; He did and suffered it to the uttermost. Thus only is God known growingly by His children, and most intimately, as the Lord here declares. We must know Him to do His will, which can only be through knowing Jesus Christ Whom He sent; but keeping His word (as the expression, not of His authority alone, though this is dear to us from the first, but of His will), we grow by the knowledge of God, and this indefinitely while here below, though ever in unsparing judgment of ourselves and in confiding dependence on Him. And how cheering to the heart the abiding sense of the presence of the Father and the Son with us as thus walking! Would that we knew it better! A manifestation is much, an abode is more.278b

John 14: 25-31.

The value of what directs the life, of which it was also the revealing means, cannot be exaggerated; and this we have seen in the commands and words of our Lord Jesus, by which He exercises the life He has given to the believer, as, indeed, He is their life. But now He adds fresh consolation and blessing in the relation borne by the Advocate or Paraclete (for so now the Spirit is not only characterised but called). "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you; but the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things which I said to you" (verses 25, 26).279 How blessed that the same Holy Spirit Who anointed and abode in Him, while ministering here below, was to teach the disciples all things, and to give them back all the words of Jesus! And so it was fulfilled, and more, as became a Divine Person Who deigned to serve in love, sent by the Father in the name of the Son. It is not here the Son requesting the Father and the Father giving, as in verse 16, but the Father sending in the name of the Son the One Who could and would teach all things, besides recalling all that Jesus said to them. Room is thus left, not only for His reviving in their memory all the injunctions of Christ, but also for His own unlimited teaching.

But there is more than doctrine. "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you, not as the world giveth give I to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (verse 27). Throughout the Lord supposes His death. This was necessary to peace; His own peace goes farther still. It was the peace He enjoyed while here-a peace unruffled by circumstances, and in unbroken communion with His Father; a peace as far as possible from man's heart, in such a world as this, ignorant of the Father, and on all points at issue with Him. But it characterised the second Man Who gives it to us. In the faith of Him Who loves us perfectly and to the end, Who has accomplished all to God's glory and for us, we are entitled to it; and the Holy Ghost would have us enjoy it according to His word. He Who gives it gave it not away, and had it not the less because we were to receive it. Like all else that He gives, it is enjoyed unimpaired in its own Divine fulness, every one that shares rather adding to it than taking from it. The question is not merely of reality, but of its course and character. "Not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." Why, indeed, with His peace, should the heart be confounded or fearful?

But the Lord looks now for hearts purified by faith to delight in His glory. "Ye heard that I said to you, I go away, and come unto you; if ye loved Me, ye would have rejoiced that* I go unto the Father, because the* Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass ye may believe" (verses 28, 29). Thus, whatever His essential and personal glory, He never forgets that He is man on earth. As such He goes away, and comes back to the disciples. As such He calls upon them to rejoice in His proceeding to the Father.280 It was no small thing that man in His Person should thus enter into glory; and there is almost as much unbelief in Christendom's taking it as a matter of course, utterly indifferent to its value, as in Jewish rejection of it as incredible, if not impossible. The Jew, as such, looked for man-that is, for himself-to be blessed in the highest degree by God on the earth; and so, doubtless, beyond his thought, it will be in the kingdom by-and-by. But the Lord would have the Christian rejoice in the second Man, gone up even now into the paradise of God, the sure pledge of our own following Him there when He comes back again for us. And therefore does He the more impressively call attention not to the fact only, but to His mention of it then before it came to pass, that when it did, they should believe. Himself in glory is the living object of faith, full of weighty and fruitful consequence for us. It is well to give His death the deepest value. Never can we lose sight of His profound humiliation in self-sacrificing love to glorify God and to bear our burden of sins and judgment, without incalculable loss to our souls; but we do well to have our eye fixed on Him "received up in glory," and ever to wait for Him as about to come and have us there with Himself in the Father's house.

* Text. Rec., following the later uncials and most cursives, adds εἶπον, "I said"; but the best give the text preferred. There is rather better authority for adding μου to ὁ Π. (="My F.").

"No longer shall I talk much with you, for the prince of the* world cometh, and hath nothing in Me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father commanded† Me, so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (verses 30, 31). The Lord thus intimates that He has not much more to talk with them. He had another task on hand; for the enemy was coming, characterised now as the prince of the world which had rejected the Son of God, proving thereby its opposition to the Father and its subjection to Satan; but, come when he might, he had no more in Christ at the end than at the beginning.281 Then he would gladly have enticed the Saviour out of the path of obedience by offering gratification; now he strives to fill Him in that path with fear and horror of the death which was before Him. It was in vain: "The cup which My Father giveth Me, shall I not drink it?" In us, naturally, there is everything which can afford a handle to Satan; in Christ he had nothing. So it could not but be because of the glory and unsullied perfectness of His Person, true God and unblemished Man; and so it must be for us, if we were to have eternal life in Him, and He to take away our sins, and all this in obedience and to the glory of God His Father. Therefore does He add, "but that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father commanded me, even so I do." It was indeed the Son's love to the uttermost; it was also unqualified obedience.

* ABDgrLXΓ, and seven more uncials, 150 Cursives, the Syriac, etc. omit τούτου, which appears in the Text. Rec. supported by a few cursives and the versions in general, etc.

† ἐνετείλατό μοι ADG, with ten other uncials and most cursives and versions [Weiss]; Lachmann, Treg., with W. and H. [and Blass], edit ἐντολὴν ἔδ (or δέδ.) μοι. after BLX, etc., with the It. and Vulg.

Here the Lord ends this part of His communications, and marks it by the closing words, "Arise, let us go hence."282

JOHN — THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 519-543.]

John 15: 1-17.

The change of subject having been made thus apparent, the Lord now proceeds to set forth His mind for the disciples in one of the allegories peculiar to our Gospel. "I am the true vine, and My Father is the husbandman. Every branch in Me not bearing fruit, He taketh it away; and every one that beareth fruit, He cleanseth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Already ye are clean, because of the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in Me, and I in you: as the branch cannot bear fruit from itself, unless it abide in the vine; so neither (can) ye, unless ye abide in Me" (verses 1-4).

Thus the Lord sets aside Israel as any source of fruit-bearing for God. Long since had the prophets denounced the nation as bearing wild grapes, as an empty vine, or as only fit for the burning. But the Lord brings to light Himself as the true and only stock acceptable unto God. This was an immense truth for Jews to learn. In Israel was all that they trusted for religion. There was the temple, there the priesthood, there the sacrifices, there the feasts; there every ordinance, public or private, great or small, instituted of God. Outside Israel were the heathen who knew not God. Now the Lord does not merely strip the veil from the elect people's hollow state, but make known the secret. He is the Vine-the true Vine. He is not merely a fruitful branch, where all others were unfruitful; He is Himself the true Vine. Thus we have the positive object before us, the one source of fruit-bearing.

"And My Father," He adds, "is the husbandman." But there is another truth needed, the revelation of His Father (not yet fully revealed as theirs, though soon to be in His resurrection), no longer of Jehovah as once in the vineyard of the nation, nor as the Almighty known to their fathers. As Father, He deals with the branches of the Vine, which is Christ Himself on earth, object of all the active and watchful interest of His Father Who looks for fruit. But it is not Himself alone; there are branches in Him. It is here their responsibility enters: for they are the Lord's disciples, once but Jews in their natural condition, henceforth called to bear fruit unto God.283

And what, then, are the terms laid down? "Every branch in Me not bearing fruit, He taketh it away; and every one that beareth fruit, He cleanseth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." Clearly it is the Father's government of those who bear the name of the Lord. The fruitless professor he removes; the fruitful one He cleanses, that more fruit may be borne. It is the Father judging according to every man's work. The disciples were primarily in view; but the principle, of course, applies to us, now that Israel is still more manifestly set aside. As the Apostle teaches us in Hebrews 12, He chastens us for our profit, that we might be partakers of His holiness. Here, if not taken away, we are cleansed in order to bear more fruit. It is a wholly different state of things from a Messiah reigning in power, and His people in nothing but prosperity, Satan shut up, and the desert rejoicing and blossoming as the rose. Doubtless, it is not union with Christ in heaven, nor even the privileges of grace generally in Him, but the call to make Him everything on earth in daily ways, if we would indeed bear fruit. He, not the law, is the rule of life, and the source of fruitfulness; nor is there any other for the Christian, not even the Spirit Who uses the word to glorify Christ, but Himself.284

The disciples had already proved the purging power of the word. "Already ye are clean because of the word which I have spoken to you."285 They had received it, and knew that He came from God, though they knew the Father imperfectly, if at all. Yet Christ's word had wrought in their souls; it had cleansed their ways, it had judged their worldly thoughts, it had laid bare their carnal desires: the effect was real in their consciences. Judas was now gone, so that the Lord does not need to say, "Ye are clean, but not all"; but, on the contrary, "Ye are clean already," even before the Holy Ghost was given as power from on high. The cleansing efficacy of the word is a cardinal truth of Scripture apt to be forgotten, not merely by the Romanist who trusts in ordinances, but by the Protestant who speaks exclusively of the Saviour's blood "that cleanseth from all sin." God forbid that a word should be said to obscure that blood, or to turn a soul from its justifying value. But out of the Lord's side flowed water and blood; and we need both. The blood atones, the water purifies; and as the blood abides shed and efficacious once for all, in contrast with the ineffectual and many sacrifices of the Jews, the washing of water by the word is not only applied at the first, but is needed to purge all through. Where this is not seen, confusion follows, and the enfeebling, if not destruction, of fundamental truth.

But here the Lord insists on more-the necessity and the importance of dependence on Him, of intimacy with Himself. This is to abide in Christ; and His word is, "Abide in Me, and I in you." It is not sovereign grace to the sinner, but His call to the disciple; and hence His abiding in us, as a matter of daily communion, depends on our abiding in Him. "As the branch cannot bear fruit from itself unless it abide in the vine, so neither (can) ye, unless ye abide in Me." Nothing simpler than the fact outwardly, nothing surer in our experience than that so it is inwardly. He, and He only, is the dwelling-place for the soul in this world of snare and danger, in this desert where no water is. Make Him the resource, make Him the object; and the sap, as it were, flows without hindrance, and fruit is borne. Without Him no teaching avails, and all religious excitement fails; bring Him in, confide in Him, and, no matter what the difficulty or the pain or the shame, no matter what the opposition or the detraction, He sustains the heart, and fruit-bearing follows.286 Apart from Him we can do nothing; with Him, all things. So said one who had learnt it well, "I have strength for all things in Him that giveth me power" (Phil. 4: 13).

It seems scarcely needful to remark that the relation of head and body serves quite another purpose in Scripture, and must be kept wholly distinct. Heavenly grace forms that one body by the one Spirit united to the glorified Head; and therein we do not hear of rending, maiming, or cutting off. It is the church viewed as the object of Christ's unfailing love, till He present it to Himself in glory. Responsibility on earth under Divine government is another thing; and this, not the unfailing heavenly relationship of the Church, is taught by the Vine and its branches. Hence Calvinistic devices are as uncalled for as the Arminian assaults they are meant to avert. No one doubts that profession may fail. Life is eternal for all that; and in Christ there is nothing short of eternal life; but this is not the teaching of the Vine, any more than the unity of the body. It is a pity that learned commentators do not read with faith and care the Scriptures they essay to comment on.

The opening words had laid down the principle of Christ as the source of fruit, in contrast with Israel, and under the living watchful care of the Father. It was wholly distinct from government of the flesh by the law before Jehovah, as in the chosen nation to which all the branches belonged. Christ here displaces the odd associations. He had shown fruit to be so indispensable in the Father's eyes that not to bear it involves the removal of the branch, whilst that which bears fruit is cleansed in order to bear more. He had pronounced the disciples already clean by reason of His word, and had urged them to abide in Him, as He in them; and this because they could not bear fruit except they abode in Christ, any more than the branch itself except it abide in the vine.

Next, He sums up and applies this weighty truth of communion with Him, in its great positive elements, and in strong contradistinction from abandonment of Him. "I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in and I in him, he beareth much fruit; because apart from Me ye can do nothing" (verse 5). Nothing more precise. The Lord leaves no uncertainty in a matter so nearly affecting both Himself and them. As surely as He was the Vine, they were the branches. There is, and could be, no failure on His part. It is easy for us to fail in dependence, and to lack confidence in Him. To abide in Him supposes, not merely distrust of ourselves, but cleaving to Him, and counting on Him. Every influence around us is adverse to this; every natural feeling not less so. Faith working by love alone secures it, for self and the world are then alike judged in the light of God. It is not only that we need and cannot do without Him for the least things as truly as the greatest, but He attracts us by His positive excellency. If He is the one source of fruit agreeable to the Father, He cannot be slighted with impunity, least of all by those who confess Him. It is not the grace which gives eternal life in Him of which the Lord speaks, but throughout these verses the responsibility of the disciples. Hence, as we shall see presently, there is danger of ruin, no less than fruitlessness, where one does not abide in Him.

This, then, is the secret of fruit-bearing. It is not in saints any more than in self, but by abiding in Christ and Christ in us. Then there is more than promising blossom; fruit follows. Where He is intercepted from our view, or we look elsewhere, there is no such power: we manifest our nature, not Christ. Nor does the character of the circumstances affect the result: He is superior to all, spite of our weakness. Abiding in Christ, we may safely face the most hostile; and if traps be laid and provocation given, what matters it, if according to His word we are found abiding in Christ, and Christ abides in us, as He then does? For that the two are correlative He guarantees, and we know. Again, does fruit follow because we are with dear children of God? Alas! how often the very reverse is proved, and the levity, if not the bitterness, in the heart comes out so much the more because we are saints not abiding in Christ. For gossip about saints to saints is even more painful than among the sons of this age, not a few of whom seem above it, though on grounds of nature-of course, not of Christ. Trials, again, cannot shake off spiritual fruit, nor blighting influences enter, if we abide in Christ and Christ in us; but the greater the pressure, the more fruit where we thus abide. And the heart feels that so it should be, as it is. For, as ordinances fail, and law is the strength of sin (not of holiness, flesh being what it is), Christ here, as everywhere, has the glory by faith and to faith; " because apart from Me ye can do nothing."

On the other hand, the peril is proportionately greater. "If one abide* not in Me, he is cast out287 as the branch, and is dried up: and they gather it,† and cast (it) into the fire, and it burneth" (verse 6). Christ being the sore' source of fruit, to abandon Him is fatal; and so much the worse, if so at the last, when He should be the more precious, as the worthlessness of all else is learnt practically, and His excellency better known to faith. So it was with Judas, so in general with those not born of God who essay to follow Jesus. Not only their lusts, but His words, may give the occasion, as we see in John 6. It is vain and mischievous to distinguish between the person and the work, as theologians and others do who reason on either side of the equation of truth. The Calvinist fears to compromise his doctrines of grace; the Arminian is anxious to push his advantage on the side of falling away. Hence the former is apt to evade the solemn warning of personal ruin and final judgment conveyed here, as the latter argues that the passage implies that a saved soul may be lost after all. They both confound the figure of the Vine with the body in Ephesians 2-4, and hence are alike wrong, and of course unable to expound these Scriptures satisfactorily, so as to hold all the truth without sacrificing one part to another.

* μένη pmABD [W. and H., Weiss], μείνῃ, the mass [Blass].

† αὐτὸ DLXΔΠ, many cursives, and some ancient versions [as Syrsin]; αὐτὰ ("them") the great majority, the Alex. and Vat. among them [Edd.].

The error comes out plainly in the Anglican Baptismal Service: "Seeing now that this child is regenerated, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." To be grafted into the olive of Rom. 11 is equivalent, in this teaching, to being made a member of Christ's body; and the results of such confusion are ever favourable to the adversaries of the truth. The answer is that the Body is the expression of unity by the Holy Ghost; the Vine insists on communion as the condition of bearing fruit. In no case do such trees necessarily imply life, but the possession of privilege, as the olive, and the responsibility of bearing fruit, as the vine. To leave Christ, therefore, is utter ruin, not only to be fruitless, but to burn. It is not merely suffering loss as in 1 Cor. 3: 15, but to be manifestly lost, as in 1 Cor. 9: 27. Thus each Scripture renders its own testimony, and has its own value, while none can be broken, though men may stumble at the word, being disobedient, as another Apostle warns.288

But now, from the sad case of the man that quits Him, the Lord returns to the disciples, and with Divine simplicity and fulness gives the way of blessing and abundant fruit. "If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask (or ye shall ask)* what ye will, and it shall come to pass for you. In this is (lit. "was")† My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit, and (ye shall) become‡ My disciples" (verses 7, 8). Thus is each thing put in its place. The first need for the Christian is to abide in Christ; the next, to have Christ's words abiding in Him; then he is emboldened to ask with the assurance that the resources of Divine power erect accordingly. For thus Christ Himself has the first place, and the saint is kept in dependence as well as confidence. Then His words direct as well as correct; and we need and have both, though doubtless in so abiding direction would here be the characteristic, rather than that holy correction which we deeply want in our walk through this unclean and slippery world. If so led, prayer is encouraged to expect the surest answer, for the heart is in fellowship with Him Who prompts the desire, in order to accomplish it in His love and faithfulness. Further, in this is the Father glorified, that we bear much fruit, and become disciples of His. What enlargement of heart that so it should be in the midst of what, apart from Him, would be but a grief and worry to the saint, if not worse! With Christ all is changed, and even the most distracting cares turn to fruit; so that to live in flesh, instead of being with Him in glory, becomes worth the while, but only when to live is Christ. Thus was His Father glorified even now, and we became Christ's disciples in deed and in truth.289

* αἰτήσασθε (-θαι  ADΓ, etc.) ABDLMXΓ, many cursives, and the oldest versions; αἰτήσεσθε Text. Rec., with and most MSS.

† [See appended note on 13: 31.]

‡ γένησθε BDLMX, etc. [Treg., W. and H., Blass];   and the rest support the future [Weiss, after Tisch.].

Another element of incalculable value in the disciple's path is the consciousness of the Saviour's love. This is next set before them. "As the Father loved Me, I also loved you: abide in My love. If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things have I spoken to you, that My joy may be* in you, and your joy may be fulfilled" (verses 9-11).

* ἦ ABD, many cursives, It. Vulg. Goth., the Syrr. Arm. and Aeth. [Edd.]; μείνῃ Text. Rec., L and twelve uncials more, most cursives, but scarcely any ancient version, unless the Georgian.

We must bear in mind that the subject is fruit-bearing during the disciple's passage through this world. It is not eternal purpose, nor is it that love in relationship which secures unfailingly from first to last, but Christ's love toward each in His path of daily walk and trial. He knew what this was on His Father's part to Himself as man, though never ceasing to be Son here below. Such was His own love to the disciples; and now He calls on them to abide in it, not in Him only, but, what is more, in His love; an immense and unfailing spring of comfort in the necessarily painful and otherwise disappointing current of earthly circumstances so strongly opposed to them for His sake. "Give wine," says the Book of Proverbs, "unto those that be of heavy hearts." (Prov. 31: 6.) But His love is better than wine, cheering and strengthening without fleshly excitement. There is thus not only dependence on Him, but that confidence in Him which His love is meant to inspire.290

But there is more that follows, even obedience. "If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." It is manifest that we have nothing here to do with the sovereign mercy of God which goes out to the lost and reconciles enemies by the death of His Son. For as by the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one (Christ) shall the many be constituted righteous. Grace in Christ surmounts every hindrance, and reigns righteously above all evil, whether of the individual or of the race. Here not the sinner's ruin or deliverance, but the disciple's path, is in question; and his obedience is the condition of abiding in his Master's love. He Who in all things has and must have the pre-eminence trod the same path and accepted the same condition as man here below; though He counted it no robbery to be on equality with God, He became obedient, and this to the lowest point, for the glory of God the Father. He in unwavering perfection did the will of Him that sent Him, and enjoyed its fruit in a like perfection; we follow Him, though with unequal steps; and assuredly he that says he abides in Him ought himself also so to walk even as He walked. And obedience is the way. None other morally befits us; as this but verifies our love to Him and sense of relationship to God. Nothing is so lowly, nothing so firm, as obedience. It delivers from self-assertion on the one hand, and on the other from subjection to the opinions or traditions of men. It brings us face to face with God's word, and tests our desire to please Him in the midst of present ease, honour, lust, or passion. Here, too, it is a question of keeping Christ's commandments, as that which secures His love, as in John 14 we saw that it proved their love to Him.

The last motive the Lord brings to bear on the disciples as to this is contained in the next verse. "These things have I spoken to you that My joy may be in you, and your joy may be fulfilled." Nor is there a better criterion of our state, and, consequently, of our failure or success in entering into His mind. For if we take up the words of this chapter legally, scarce any words in the Bible are surer to plunge an upright soul into sorrow and depression; but if we understand them as He intended, they are expressly given to impart His joy to us and make our joy full. His joy when here was in pleasing His Father; to obey His commandments was not burdensome. This joy of His, unbroken in His path, He would now make ours.

What a contrast with the unfruitful groaning of a soul under law, even though quickened, as in the close of Rom. 7! What a mercy, if we have tasted such bitterness, now to know our joy in obedience fulfilled! The latter part of Rom. 7 is a wholesome process for us to pass through, but a miserable ground of standing: for this God never intended it. Romans 8 shows us the Christian delivered, holy, and abounding in good fruit. Can we be on both grounds at the same time? Only he would assert this who is not yet set free. Look to it, theologians; and you who believe them, and taste not Christ's joy.

This is clearly His desire concerning us. Those who ignore or deny it would deprive us of His joy, as no doubt they lack it themselves. Nor need we wonder; for as philosophy never can conceive Divine love, so theology, pandering as it does to human science, ever misses the Saviour's joy, seeking pleasure and applause in the schools of the world, which knows the Father no more now than of old. "O righteous Father," said He a little later, "the world knew Thee not; but I knew Thee, and these (the disciples) knew that Thou didst send Me; and I made known to them Thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith Thou didst love Me may be in them, and I in them."

What ineffable goodness! Does not every thought, feeling, word, prove itself Divine? Settled peace is a great thing as the soul's foundation, never to be moved, and God would have us know it simply and immutably; but we must not forget the joy of obedience and the favour of the Lord as a present thing in our daily ways. This has been too much overlooked by the children of God, and scarcely more through the slipshod laxity of evangelicalism than by the morose hardness of the legalists, ignorant alike of the full ground of grace, and of the true character of God's government which is bound up with it as a present thing.

The Lord now specifies one special character of fruit, ever precious, but here in the disciples' relation one to another, as before we had the relation of Christ and the Father to them.

"This is My commandment, That ye love one another, as I loved you. Greater love no one hath than this, that one* lay down his life for his friends. Ye are My friends if ye do what (ever)† I command you. No longer do I call you bondmen, for the bondman knoweth not what his lord doeth; but you I have called friends, because all things which I heard from My Father I made known to you. Not ye chose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you that ye should go and bear fruit, and your fruit abide; that whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He may give you. These things I command you, that ye love one another" (verses 12-17).

* pmDpm, etc, omit τις, contrary to the rest.

† ἃ HDLX, some cursives, and versions, etc. ὅ B. etc. ὅσα the mass as also Text. Rec.

Love is emphatically the Lord's injunction on His disciples, the love of each other. It is not the general moral duty of loving one's neighbour, but the mutual love of Christians, of which His own love to them is the standard. The nature of the case excludes the love of God which went out to them in their guilt, enmity, and weakness, when objects of sovereign grace. They were now born of God and hence love; for love, as it is of God Who is love, is the energy of the new nature. Hence, whatever else the Lord may enjoin, this is His commandment: He loved them, and would have them love one another accordingly. So Paul tells the Thessalonians that he needed not to write about it to them, for, young as they were in Divine things, they were taught of God to love one another. (1 Thess. 4: 9.) This, too, was the more excellent way he would show the Corinthian saints, preoccupied to their hurt with power rather than love, at best the display of the Lord's victory in His creation over Satan rather than the inward energy which enjoys His grace toward our own souls or others to God's glory. (1 Cor. 13.) On the Roman saints, again, love is repeatedly urged, as that which should be unfeigned, and also which, wherever it is, has fulfilled the law practically without thinking of it. (Rom. 12: 9; Rom. 13: 10.) It is needless to go over all the Epistles where the Holy Spirit unfolds its immense place and power.

But every believer acquainted with the New Testament will remember how large a part it fills in the First Epistle of our Evangelist. Not that love is God, but God is love as He is light; and he that loves is born of Him and knows Him. For men as then made knowledge all, as before some made power; but it is a question of life in the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost works in that life by virtue of redemption, and those who have life, as they walk in the light, so also walk in love. And even as to knowledge, there is none true save in Him that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life: every object outside Him is an idol, from which we have to keep ourselves, be it knowledge, power, position, love, truth, or anything or anyone else. For whoever denies the Son has not the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father also. And as the Father has bestowed on us love beyond all measure, giving us even now to be children of God, so loving the brethren marks those who have passed from death unto life. The old commandment is the word of Christ that we should love one another, but it is also a new commandment as being true in Him and in us. If Christ lives in me, I live by faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me: and this life is characterised not only by obedience, but by love according to its source.

And so here. The Lord had laid it down as a new and distinguishing commandment He was giving them in John 13. Here He repeats love to one another according to the pattern of His love to them. How pure and unbounded it was! Do we believe this as His will about us? Do we love as if we believed Him and appreciated His love? Can anything be more hollow, or dangerous, or nauseous than the highest words with low and inconsistent ways? "Gnosticism" ate out the heart of early Christendom, where it fell not into superstition and formality, ever growing more dark and cold; and the same spirit is yet more destructive now, because it has more abundant materials, and hardens itself in unbelief even to "Agnosticism." Loving one another, not merely those who think alike, least of all those who think alike on some comparatively small and external point, but loving those who are Christ's, spite of ten thousand things trying to our nature, is of all moment along with the truth, and guarded as it is here, loving one another as He loved us. He delights in love up to death.

Greater love none has than to lay down his life for his friends. The love of God in Jesus went infinitely beyond this; but then necessarily it stands alone, and it is meet that it should. We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren, as we are taught elsewhere. But where is the worth of such a theory if we fail in everyday going out of heart to common wants and sufferings of God's children (1 John 3: 17, 18)? The Lord at once binds love up with obedience, without which it is but self-pleasing, not having Him in it or before the soul. "Ye are My friends if ye do what (ever) I command you." It is not reconciling enemies He speaks of, but why He calls us His friends. Obedience is the character and condition. Nor does He here indicate how He stood as our friend when we were enemies, but He calls us His friends if we practise what He enjoins on His disciples.291

Is this all? Far from it. He treats us as friends according to His perfect love, for He lets us into His secrets, instead of merely pressing our duty. "No longer do I call you bondmen, for the bondman knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but you I have called friends, because all things whatsoever I heard from my Father I made known to you." He who of old was called "the friend of God" enjoyed this intimacy with his Almighty protector in the midst of the doomed races he lived amongst, a separated and circumcised pilgrim; and so it is with His own now that the Lord deals in still more lavish grace; for what did He keep back? In another sense it is our boast to be His bondmen, as one said who was pre-eminently separated to the Gospel of God. But none the less-indeed, very much more truly-do we enter in, and value and act on the free communication of His love if we are habitually obedient, as we may see in Joseph of old or in Daniel later. It ought to be, it is in principle, the cherished privilege of the Church thus to know His mind, and by it to interpret the tangled web of human life or even the world's changing fortunes; but practically we must be exercised and constant in obedience if the privilege is to be a living reality and not a bare title. Christendom has given it up, counting it nothing but presumption, and content to walk by sight, not by faith, in denial of its privilege.

But God is faithful, and there are those who, walking obedient to His word, enter into what He has made known, and find the blessing. Doubtless the responsibility is great no less than the privilege; and therefore do His own need to be cheered with the grace that underlies all. Hence it is that He adds, "Not ye chose Me, but I chose you, and appointed (or set) you that ye should go and bear fruit, and your fruit abide; that whatever ye may ask the Father in My name, He may give you. These things I command, that ye love one another."

Blessing ever comes from the Lord Jesus and the grace that is in Him. Obedience follows, and ought to follow, such unmerited favour, as in obedience there is surely fresh blessing. But the heart needs to turn from our obedience or its blessing to the Blesser, if it would escape fresh dangers and positive evil; the spring of power is never known save in Him, and the grace that sought and found, saves and blesses. Hence it was of the greatest moment, in pressing the Divine government of the saints, that they should ever remember Him and His sovereign will, as the source of all that distinguished them. Not they chose Christ, but He chose them. Nor was it only to know and follow their Master. He appointed,* or set, them that they should go and bear fruit, and their fruit should abide. Though Apostles, they were His friends to obey Him all the more.

* "Ordained" suggests another line of things foreign to the passage and connection. In Acts 1: 22 the same word, as is commonly known, is foisted into the Authorised Version, for it has no counterpart implied in the Greek.

Thus, while responsibility is maintained intact, grace is shown to be the fountain of all that is looked for and made good; and, further, the connection of both with dependence on the Father, Who alone brings to a successful issue whatever they should have asked in the name of Jesus. The deeper and higher the blessing, the more need of prayer; but then the character and confidence of prayer should rise with the sense of grace in Christ, and the Father's unwavering purpose to put honour on His name in which they draw near with their petitions. His name by faith in it can make the weakest strong, and the Father is thus glorified in the Son Who glorifies Him. Distrust or negligence is equally precluded.

It is hardly necessary to say many words in disproof of Calvin's exposition, and of others, who make this a question of choosing and ordaining to the apostolate, and, consequently, who take the fruit abiding to mean that the Church will last to the very end of the world as the fruit of the Apostolic labour continued also in their successors. The love enjoined here is, accordingly, restricted to mutual affection among ministers. Undoubtedly a free and unsuspicious flow of loving confidence is essential to a good state, and among those who labour especially, as the lack of it here is most deplorable; but the Lord does not limit His words to the Apostles, or even to such as follow them in the public service of His name.

To love one another, then, is the new and repeated commandment of Christ to His own. To love is the positive and proper and constant exercise of the new nature, as acted on by the Spirit's ministration of Christ, not always brotherly kindness in exercise, but love never failing. But this very affection, strange here below, exposes those in whom it is found to the direct counterworking of Satan-a murderer and liar from the beginning. Conscious that unselfishness in affection according to God is an impossibility to Nature, men regard any evidence of it as mere hypocrisy, to be scorned and detested in the Christian. For how could he be different from others?

John 15: 18-27.

"If the world hateth you, know (or, ye know) that Me it hath hated before you. If ye were of the world, the world would love (ἐφ.) its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, on this account doth the world hate you. Call to mind the word which I told you, A bondman is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you also; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also; but all these things they will do unto you on account of My name, because they know not Him that sent Me" (verses 18-21).

To be Christ's is enough to rouse the world's rancour. Circumstances may be needed to call it forth, but there it is. The world hates those who, being His, are no longer of the world. But the Lord would have us know that, not more surely does it hate us, than it had hated Himself before us. Is it not sweet and consoling to us that so it is, however awful in itself, to have such a conviction of the world? For it hates us because of Him, not Him because of us. It is not our faults, therefore, which are the true cause, but His grace and moral excellence, His Divine nature and glory; it is the world's repugnance and enmity to what is of God, and to Him Who is God. The world hates the Father shown in the Son; hence it hates the children who were the Father's and then were given to the Son. Christ was hated first, they next, and for His sake.

Not that the world does not love in its own way those who are of it, in most pointed contrast with the grace that goes out to the stranger and the wretched and the lost, to such as have wronged and have despitefully treated us. But grace is of all things most offensive to the world, which can love Nature in its fallen state. Even righteousness, with its necessary condemnation of the sinner, is not so repugnant as the grace which can rise above the sins it condemns in compassion toward the sinner to save him by and in Christ; and this because it treats man as nothing, giving the entire glory to God: indignity intolerable to the flesh, the mind of which is enmity against God. Hence the world's hatred and rejection of Christ, Who had revealed God perfectly, and perfectly glorified Him in all His nature and ways. Hence, also, the world's hatred of us who confess Christ, not only because we are not of the world, but as chosen out of it by Christ, which implies its utter worthlessness and condemnation. Divine love is as odious as Divine light.

The Lord then recalls to their mind His word that no bondman is greater than his lord. They must rather expect His position, Who was despised and rejected of men. They themselves and their teaching would be equally odious for His sake. If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you also; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. His Person and His word brought God too near their souls, which drew back, unwilling either to own their sins or to be debtors to nothing but grace for pardon and deliverance. But this aversion assumes a stronger form where religion is honoured and men have a character to lose; and as these things were true in the highest measure among the Jews, they broke out to the last degree in resentment which claimed to persecute, as a duty to God, the Master first, and then the disciples. And here the Lord graciously forewarned them that no sorrow might befall them unawares.

But He does more. He gives His own the comfort of knowing in such hours, it might be of bitter woe, as beforehand also, that all the contempt and suffering they might endure from the world was for His sake, because of the world's ignorance of Him that sent Himself, ignorance of the Father. How profoundly true! Impossible that a professing religion could persecute if it really knew Him that sent Christ.

There might be discipline according to His word; and there must be in that which bears the name of the Lord: else the very grace it knows would tend to sink it below the world's level if there were not vigilant, constant, and holy discipline. But discipline is never holy, but worldly, when it takes the shape of persecution. What can one think, then, when that which arrogates the loftiest name invoked the civil arm to enforce the punishment of men's bodies for the pretended good of their souls? What, when it sought and found means to inaugurate ecclesiastical tribunals with torments up to the bitter end in congenial secrecy with an unrelenting cruelty which never had a match even in this dark world? Truly it was the self-same spirit of worldly hatred which first animated the Jews against the Lord and His disciples, and later wrought in the world-church, when it exchanged its pagan for its papal garb, and baptism was more easily adopted than circumcision "But all these things they will do unto you on account of My name, because they know not Him that sent me."

No! forms avail not: God will have reality, and never more plainly and stringently than since Christ and His cross, which proved the vanity of religious man and of a worldly sanctuary. Christianity came into being and manifestation when it was demonstrated that man in his best estate was not only worthless before God, but would not have God at any price, even in the Person and mission of His own Son come in grace. "O righteous Father, the world did not know Thee." Yet is there no life eternal for man save in the knowledge of the only true God, the Father, and of Jesus Christ Whom He sent. The world is lost, and nowhere more evidently and guiltily than when, in religious pride, it hates Christ and those who are His.

The presence and testimony of the Son of God had the gravest possible results. It was not only an infinite blessing in itself, and for God's glory, but it left men, and Israel especially, reprobate. Law had proved man's weakness and sin, as it put under curse all who took their stand on the legal principle. There was none righteous, none that sought after God, none that did good, no, not one. The heathen were manifestly wicked, the Jews proved so by the incontestable sentence of the law. Thus every mouth was stopped, and all the world obnoxious to God's judgment. But the presence of Christ brought out, not merely failure to meet obligation as under law, but hatred of Divine goodness come down to man in perfect grace. God was in Christ, as the Apostle says, reconciling the world to Himself, not reckoning to them their offences. How immense the change! How worthy of God when revealed in His Son, as Man amongst men! But they could not endure His words and His works, and this increasingly, till the cross demonstrated that it was absolute rejection of God's love without bounds. It is not here the place or time, as with the Apostle Paul, to show how Divine love rose in complete victory over man's evil and hatred as attested in the ministry of reconciliation which is founded on the cross. (2 Cor. 5: 19.) Here the Lord is affirming the solemn position and state of the world in antagonism to the disciples, after preparing them for persecution: from its hating them as Him, and its ignorance of Him Who sent their Master.

"If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin;292 but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me hateth My Father also" (verses 22, 23). Sin before or otherwise was swallowed up in this surpassing sin of rejecting the Son come in love, and speaking not merely as man never spoke, but as God never spoke; for by whom should He speak as in a Son? It was meet that He Who is the image of the invisible God, the Only-begotten in the bosom of the Father, should speak above all, as He is above all, God blessed for ever. Servants had been sent, prophets had spoken; and their messages had Divine authority; but they were partial. The law had made nothing perfect. Now He Who had thus spoken of old πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως (in many measures and in many manners) spoke to us ἐν υἱῶ (in a Son). (Heb. 1: 16.) He was their Messiah, the Son of David, born where and when they expected, attested not only by the signs and vouchers of prophecy, but by the powers of the world to come; but He was more, infinitely more; He was the Son of God, unapproachable in His own glory, yet here on earth the most accessible of men, giving out the words of the Father, as none had ever spoken since the world began. There never had been an adequate object on earth to draw out such communications; now there was in both dignity of person, intimacy of relationship, and moral perfection as man. And the disciples were reaping the benefit; as the Jews, the world, which had Him before their eyes and ears, had the responsibility. Flaws, failure, there had been in all others who had spoken for and from God (though not in the inspired Scripture), so as to weaken the effect of their testimony where men thought of men and forgot the God Who sent them.

But now the Father had sent the Son, Who had come and spoken not in law, but in love, the true Light shining in a world of darkness which apprehended it not, and sin appeared as never before. What pretext could be pleaded now? It was no question of man or his weakness; no requirement of his duty as measured by the ten words, or any statutes or judgments whatsoever. There was the Son, the Word become flesh dwelling among men, full of grace and truth, in divine love that rose above every fault and all evil, to give what is of God for eternity, only met by increasing hatred till it could go no farther. Their ignorance of Him Who sent Christ was no doubt at the bottom of their hating Him, but it was inexcusable. For He was God as well as Son of the Father, and so perfectly able to present the truth and render man thoroughly and evidently guilty if he bowed not. What then did their not bowing prove but sin, without excuse for it, and hatred of the Father also in hating the Son?

And there was this further aggravation of their sin, the works that He had wrought. For some men are affected powerfully by suited words, others yet more deeply by works which express not power only, but goodness, holiness and love. Here they had in perfect harmony and mutual confirmation such words and works as never were save in Jesus the Son of God. But what was the effect? "If I did not among them the works which no other did, they had not had sin; but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My Father. But (it is) that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (verses 24, 25). (Ps. 69: 4.)

Such was man's gratuitousness in presence of Divine grace. Full manifestation of grace can have no other issue. The mind of the flesh enmity against God. Not only is there insubjection to His law, but hatred of His love; and this was proved now. Anything short of Jesus thus present, speaking and working among men as He did, would have fallen short of the demonstration. The testimony was complete; the One Who is the sum and substance, the subject and object of all Divine testimony, was there; and they had seen Him, as well as the Father in Him; and they had hated both! They, the people of God once, had nothing but sin-they were lost. So they were then, and so they abide still, whatever grace may do another day to save the generation to come. But hatred of the Father and the Son is in itself irreparable, complete, and final.

Nor did the law in which they boasted to the rejection of their Messiah speak otherwise; on the contrary, it was fulfilled in the word there written of Him, long suspended over them, now applied by His own lips to His own Person, They hated Me for nothing-gratuitously. How true and how solemn! "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!" O Israel, what have you not lost in the rejected Messiah, in the Father and the Son alike seen and hated? And what have not we gained, once poor sinners of the Gentiles? Life eternal in the knowledge of a God no longer dwelling in thick darkness, but fully revealed in Christ, and in the utmost nearness to the believer, His Father and our Father, His God and our God. Truly Israel's fall has proved the world's wealth, and their loss the true wealth of nations. But the nations so blessed boast and are high-minded, and will be spared no more than the Jews, who, no longer abiding in unbelief, shall be grafted in again, and so all Israel shall be saved. (Rom. 11: 26.) Meanwhile they have lost their Messiah to their ruin, and their sin cannot be hid.

Thus had the Lord prepared His own for the world's hatred, not only because He had known it before them, but because it had fallen on Him with an intensity and groundlessness beyond all experience. As even their law had forewarned of it, they were the more inexcusable. But nothing is so blind as unbelief, nor so cruel as its will irritated by the light of God, which treats it as sin, and sin refusing God in sovereign grace, the Father and the Son. For they that dwell at Jerusalem and their rulers, as Paul could say elsewhere, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath Day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him. Therefore came the wrath on them to the utmost.

It might seem, then, all must be swept away by the murderous rancour of man, and especially religious man. But not so. It is not that the Lord was not to die as well as suffer; nor that His feeble followers should escape the lot of their Master, as far as God was pleased to let them taste it; but that He was about to leave the world for glory on high, and to send down the Holy Ghost thence, as a new, Divine, and heavenly witness here below.

"(But)* when the Paraclete shall have come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth out from (παρὰ) the Father,293 He shall testify concerning Me; and ye too testify, because ye are with me from (the) beginning" (verses 26, 27).

* BΔ and some other good authorities omit the copula, which the great mass support.

Here the Holy Spirit is viewed as sent by the ascended Christ from the Father, and consequently as witness of His heavenly glory. This is an advance on what we saw in the preceding chapter, where Christ asks and the Father gives the Paraclete to be with them for ever, sending Him in the Son's name. Here the Son Himself sends, though of course from the Father. The Spirit of Truth is thus the suited testifier of Christ as He is above; the disciples also testify, as His companions and so chosen from the beginning. For the first time it is said, "When the Paraclete is come," not merely given or sent. He is a Divine Person in the fullest sense, not only to abide, teach, and recall to remembrance, but to testify concerning Christ, and that which the chosen companions, the Apostles, of the Lord could not testify. For they as such could not go beyond what they had seen and heard-at any rate, what fell within the range of their being with Him from the beginning. The Spirit of Truth which proceeds out from the Father would not merely strengthen them to do perfectly that task, but add quite another testimony of hitherto unknown blessedness, as sent by Christ personally from the Father.

Thus is clearly defined the position of the disciples, henceforward in due time called Christians: not of the world, but chosen by Christ out of it, commanded to love one another as loved of Christ, and hated of the world, with the Paraclete the Spirit of Truth sent by Christ to testify of Him, of Whom they too were bearing witness as being with Him from the beginning. Who so competent to tell of Christ's glory with the Father as the Spirit proceeding forth from the Father, and sent by the exalted Christ? Thus was secured full testimony to His glory morally on earth by the disciples (though not without the Spirit's power already assured), and actually in heaven as the glorified Man by the One Who in every way could make it best known.

It is evident that those who personally followed the Lord had a special place in the testimony to His manifestation on earth; and this testimony we have in the Gospels as fully as God saw fit to preserve it permanently for all saints. So the Holy Ghost's testimony to His heavenly glory was pre-eminently presented in the inspired Epistles of Paul for like permanent use, though doubtless in no way limited to him or them.

And assuredly in principle the place of testimony abides for those who are Christ's, whatever the change of circumstances, and, alas! of state. As certainly as Christ abides on high and the Holy Ghost is come, never to leave us, it is not only that we know by faith the Son's relationship to the Father, and our blessedness by virtue of it, and in Him Who is in the Father as He is in us, but we have all the profit of His place as the True Vine on earth, as we know Him gone on high exalted as man, a quite new thing. And as we have the joy of His relationship to the Father and to us, we are called to bear witness to Him in every way. Wonderful comfort in our weakness! He, the Spirit of Truth, was to testify of Jesus, and especially of Jesus where none could be with Him, none but the Paraclete Himself competent. It was not necessary to repeat here or later that He abides: this had been said at first in relation to us (John 14), where His guaranteed presence with us was most graciously named, lest we might feel orphans indeed. But if we have the comfortable pledge of His being with us for ever, it is without doubt not less but more for testifying of Christ's glory than for our consolation. Of this, however, we shall hear more in what is to follow, where the Lord renews the subject most fully.

JOHN — THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 543-556.]

John 16: 1-15.

The Lord proceeds to explain why He had now and not before spoken of the things which were then occupying His heart and being made known to the disciples.

"These things I have spoken to you that ye should not be stumbled. They will put you out of the synagogue; nay, an hour is coming that every one who hath killed you will think that he is offering service to God. And these things will they do to you* because they knew not the Father nor Me. But I have said these things to you, that when the (or, their)† hour shall have come, ye may remember them that I told you; but these things I told you not from (the) beginning, because I was with you. But now I go (ὑπάγω) unto Him that sent Me, and none of you asketh Me, Whither goest Thou? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart" (verses 1-6).

* Text. Rec. ὑμῖν, "to you," with DL, etc., a few cursives [33 in the form προς ὑμᾶς (cf. John 15: 21)] and versions, but the mass of manuscripts and oldest versions omit.

† αὐτῶν, "their," ABΠpm, etc., but the great majority [including DΓ] reject.

Many were to be stumbled among the Jews who looked for anything but sorrow, shame, and groundless hatred to be the portion of those who follow the Messiah. But the Lord graciously considers His own; and while He uses trial for the blessing of the strong, He would shield and strengthen the weak, both by warning them of the world's undying ill-will and of the Holy Ghost's coming to add His testimony to theirs in the face of the persecution of the servants as of their Master. How precious what He has thus spoken!

Two forms should be taken to get rid of Christians and their testimony: one in common when men affect the utmost zeal for Divine authority and holiness; the other open to individuals even to the extreme point of death to extinguish malefactors not fit to live. "They will put you out of the synagogue; nay, an hour cometh that every one that hath killed you will think that he is offering service to God." Impossible to conceive rancour more deadly, yet sanctioned by all, than that anyone who liked might take on himself (though not without the seal and law of authority) to kill a follower of Christ, not only with impunity, but claiming therein to do a religious service to God.294 Saul of Tarsus furnishes a notable example of this till sovereign grace chose him to bear the Lord's name before all and to suffer great things for His sake.

Doubtless there is a disposition in men generally to fight for their religion, whatever it be. But a special reason gives intensity to the world's, and in particular to the Jews', enmity to Christians. Any measure of truth possessed is to the flesh the most powerful motive for disliking and resenting that which claims fuller light; and Christianity cannot but confess the truth in all its fulness in Christ by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. He who confesses the Son has the Father also; as he is the antichrist who denies both (1 John 2: 23). And this is what the proud unbelief of Judaism ever tends to when confronted with the testimony of Christ. They set their partial and preparatory knowledge against that complete revelation which could not be till He came Who shows the Father, and accomplished everlasting redemption. How blessed for the babes of God's family that, if what they heard from the beginning abides in them, they too shall abide in the Son and in the Father!

And as it was with the Jew, so it is with every ecclesiastical system of Christendom itself, which in order to embrace the greatest possible number contents itself with the least and lowest confession, and hence is exposed to the snare of the devil in setting itself against all that go beyond the Christian alphabet. So even the Reformed bodies settled themselves on what their founders learnt on emerging from Popery, and oppose as innovation all that working of the Spirit which recalls to the fulness of Christ in the written word that was long before either the Reformation or Popery. They, too, persecuted when they had any confidence in their own confessions; till of late they have become so honeycombed with the indifference or the activity of scepticism that they care too little for anything to persecute anybody.294a But where there is a real holding fast of such a measure of traditional truth as arrogates the name of orthodoxy, there is always a jealousy of the action of the Spirit which insists on Christ more richly known with fresh power to men's hearts, and, consequently, claiming exercise of faith.

So the Jew set the unity of the Godhead to deny the Father and the Son and the Spirit; so men now resist the truth of the one body and one Spirit, devoted to the fleshly unity of Rome, or boasting of the active rivalry of Protestant societies. But the more they hold even truth itself in a measure as a form the less willing are they to allow the activity of the Spirit by God's word as a whole. "And these things will they do, because they knew not the Father nor Me." Yet to know both is eternal life, which every Christian characteristically has by the Gospel, though the most advanced is marked by deepening acquaintance with Him that is from the beginning. When and where idols reigned, it needed the energy of grace to turn to God, the living and true; where God was making Himself known in the Son, flesh might avail itself of old truth no longer contested nor costing any sacrifice, and have its tongue set on fire of hell to blaspheme the full revelation which tests actual faith and faithfulness, and seek to exterminate those who testified it. The principle holds good in small things as well as in the greatest, and now as ever.

But as the Lord thus prepared the disciples for harsher things from the professing people of God than from men wholly ignorant, so now He lets them know what they must suffer, that they might gather comfort even in that hour by remembering His words. As the trial that came to pass was known to Him and made known to them, now they could trust His assurance of love and blessing, of deliverance and glory. Besides, He explains why He had not told of these things before. He was with them, their shield and Paraclete; and what need was there to say a word ? But as He was about to leave them, it was well, and would help all to work for good.

"But now I go unto Him that sent Me, and none of you asketh Me, Whither goest Thou [back]? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow hath filled your heart." This sorrow was more of nature than of faith. No wonder it surprised them to hear of their Divine Master leaving them with such a prospect before them, with so little manifestation of the effects of His coming in the world or even in Israel. And they had forsaken their all and followed Him: what could it mean? He had already assured them that He would not leave them orphans, but was coming to them. Had faith been simpler, they would have not only counted on His loving care of them, but have asked whither He was going, and have learnt its bearing on His glory and their blessing. It is ignorance of His mind which fills the heart with sorrow at His words, for they are spirit and life, though we may need to wait on God in order to lay hold on them intelligently.295 But the Lord proceeds to bring out all clearly in what follows.

This leads the way to the main distinctive truth the Lord is intimating, the presence and action of the Holy Ghost when sent down from heaven. The Son would send Him.

"Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is profitable for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Paraclete will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you" (verse 7).

The Lord had told them before, that had they loved Him, they would have rejoiced because He said, I go unto the Father. What was it not for the humbled, holy, and suffering Son of man to quit the scene of His unequalled sorrows for His Father's presence on high? Now He shows the connection of His departure with their fresh and deeper blessing. It might seem, to them especially, strange to say, that the loss of His bodily presence should be their gain. But so it was to be. The truth is not what seems, but the manifestation of what really is; nor is it found in the first man, but in the Second; nor can we know it but by the Spirit. Now it was to be established and enjoyed more than ever. For Christ going to heaven on the ground of accomplished redemption, thence to send the Holy Spirit to the saints on earth. It was profitable for them, then, that Christ should go away. He Who alone effectuates any spiritual good would not otherwise come. God's will must first be done (Heb. 10: 5-10).

And now that the Lord was going above, having obtained eternal redemption, the Holy Spirit was not only to work as He had never before wrought in the children of men or in the children of God, but was to come personally296 and undertake the entire charge and business of the disciples. For this is the meaning of παράκλητος, which our "Comforter"* imperfectly represents. He had come in person to abide in Jesus; He had sealed the Son of man; He had anointed Him with power. None else could have Him thus till God's judgment of sin had taken its course in the cross. Not that compassion or fidelity of goodness, or any other form or way of Divine love had been lacking in times past; but this presence of the Spirit could not be till then. Jesus at His baptism had the Spirit thus descending and abiding on Him, and this as the perfect Man without blood-shedding, for He knew no sin. But others were sinners, and those who believed had a sinful nature, notwithstanding their believing. The flesh still remained, and they are contrary to each other. Here comes in the efficacy of Christ's work. God was then and there glorified even as to sin in His cross. His blood cleanses from all sin. God "made Him to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." "What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Not only were the bad fruits gone, but the evil root that bore them was judged and sentence executed. Hence could the Spirit come and dwell in us as never before, not as if we were better than the saints of past ages, but in virtue of Christ's death and its infinite value in God's eyes, and in pursuance of Divine counsel.

* It is striking to see how almost all the ancient translators felt compelled to adopt rather than to render the Greek word; for so it is in languages different as the Syriac, the Sahidic, and the Memphitic, the Latin (odd Itala as well as Vulgate), the Æthiopic, the Arabic, the Gothic, and the Persian. The Armenian gives "Comforter," followed by Georgian and the Sclavonic, and, it would seem, by the Anglo-Saxon in its own way, and certainly by Wiclif and his disciple-translator; but they have "Advocate," like the Vulgate, Syrr., etc., in 1 John 2: 1.

This, then, is the distinctive character of Christianity. It is not the kingdom, Christ reigning in Jehovah, power and glory, and the Spirit poured out upon all flesh, but Christ departing to be in heaven, and the Spirit as Paraclete sent and abiding with the saints on earth.

"And when come, He will afford proof to the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on Me; of righteousness, because I go unto My (or the)* Father, and ye behold Me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is (or hath been) judged" (verses 8-11).

* BDL, some cursives and versions, omit μου, "my" which the rest add.

The world cannot receive the Spirit of truth, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him. He is the object of neither sense nor intellect. Whatever the effects or displays of His energy, He abides invisible in Himself and outside the ken of the world. But the saints know Him, and that their bodies are His temple; even as they by Him know all else that they really know. God has revealed to us by His Spirit what is beyond human intelligence as such; for the Spirit searches all things, yea, His depths; and just as the spirit of man knows the things of a man, even so the things of God none knows but the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2: 11.) And Him we as Christians have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God, that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. And not only so, but they are communicated in words by Him, and received by His power in the believer, as truly as they are by Him revealed: all is by the Holy Spirit of God.

Here we have His present relation, not to the saints, but to that world which is outside. And the Lord tells us that, when come, He ἐλέγξει the world. It is difficult to convey justly the force of this. "Reprove," as in the Authorised Version, is too narrow a meaning, if not false. "Rebuke" is here out of the question. "Convict" hardly applies, even to the first, not at all to the second and third clauses; and supposes an effect produced which may not really be in any case. Nor is one satisfied with "convince," save in the sense of affording proof by His presence, rather than by His action. For by His coming and abiding in the saints, apart from the world, He gives it demonstrative proof of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.

The law dealt with Israel as those under it. But now it is the Spirit Who demonstrates the "sin" of the world; and this not because they violate that Divine measure of a man's duty, but because they reject the Son of God: "of sin, because they believe not on Me." He had come in grace; to reject this was fatal. It is not merely failure in obligation, but despite of God's love. Such is the true and actual gauge of the world before God, Who tests and proves the guilt of the whole system which opposes Him by its unbelieving ignorance and refusal of His Son, spite of the fullest testimony. This is the sin demonstrated.297

Further, He affords demonstration of "righteousness." Where is this? In the race or first man? On the contrary, there is none righteous, no, not one. And as for the Righteous One, even Jesus, He, as we have seen, was despised and rejected of men, by none so keenly as by the Jews, but in fact and to the uttermost by the world. Where, then, is the Spirit's proof of righteousness? "Because I go to My (or the) Father, and ye behold Me no more." Righteousness is on God's part only. Man condemned and killed the Just One; God raised Him from the dead and set Him at His own right hand. The Son "going to the Father" is the standing witness of righteousness there, and not here. For man He Who came into the world in love is clean gone. They would not have Him, and "ye behold Me no more." He returns for the world as Judge; but this is a wholly different and most solemn affair. But He is lost to men according to His presence in grace as at His first Advent; all is closed with His mission to the world as He came. And the Spirit testifies and demonstrates only Divine righteousness in Him on high, and man lost in casting out Him no longer to be seen as before here below.298

But, again, the Spirit gives proof of "judgment"; and this, "because the prince of this world is (or hath been) judged." Here again it is not a question of the kingdom in power and glory when Jehovah shall punish the host of the high ones on high, as well as put down the kings of the earth upon the earth, and slay the dragon that is in the sea. (Isa. 24: 21; Isa. 27: 1.) The Christian knows what will be for the earthly people's deliverance and the joy of all nations, but he sees already by faith that Satan is judged in Christ's death and resurrection and ascension, The Holy Ghost sums up all in Christ's Person; and this is the grand demonstration for the world. Its ruler is already judged in rejecting Him Who made known the Father, glorified God, and is glorified of God. All is closed for the world in Him Who came in love, and is gone up in righteousness. The ruler of the world is judged in His cross.

Men are apt to err doubly in their estimate of the Holy Spirit's relation to us. They either overlook the immense effect of His presence and teaching, or they attribute to Him what may be the mere fruit of natural conscience and diffused information. Our Lord here puts in His own perfect way what the Spirit would do as sent down from heaven, not now in external demonstration to the world, but in the positive blessing and help of the disciples.

"I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear (them) now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, shall have come, He will guide you in* (or into) all the truth; for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever† He shall hear‡ He will speak; and He will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine, and will announce (it) to you. All things that the Father hath are Mine: on this account I said, that He receiveth§ of mine, and will announce (it) to you" (verses 12-15).

* ἐν (ομ. πάσῃ) DL [1], etc. [Tisch.], but ABY, etc., εἰς τ. ἀ. π., [Treg. and later Edd.], while the mass [ΓΔΛΠ, etc.] have, with Text. Rec., εἰς. π. τ. ἀ.

† Many add ἂν, some ἐάν.

‡ Text. Rec. ἀκούσῃ with most, ἀκούσει BDEpm HY [Treg.]; ἀκούει L, etc. [most Edd.].

§ λήφεται Text. Rec., but λαμβάνει the best and most numerous.

It has been repeatedly shown-and in this chapter most expressly-that the presence of the Spirit depended on the departure of Christ to heaven, consequent on accomplished redemption. This changed the entire groundwork, besides morally fitting the saints for the new truth, work, character, and hope of Christianity. The disciples were not ignorant of the promise that the Spirit should be given to inaugurate the reign of the Messiah. They knew the judgment under which the chosen people abide "until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest"; (Isa. 32: 15) so vast outwardly, no less than inwardly, the change when God puts forth His power for the kingdom of His Son. They knew that He will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh; not only the sons and daughters, the old and young of Israel, enjoying a blessing far beyond all temporal favours, but the servants and the handmaidens-in short, all flesh, and not the Jews alone, sharing it. (Joel 2: 29.)

But here it is the sound heard when the great High Priest enters into the sanctuary before Jehovah, and not only when He comes out for the deliverance and joy of repentant Israel in the last days. It is the Spirit given when the Lord Jesus went on high, and by Him thus gone. For this they were wholly unprepared, as, indeed, it is one of the most essential characteristics of God's testimony between the rejection and the reception of the Jews; and the Spirit, when given, was to supply what the then state of the disciples could not bear. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God (and He is a spirit, not of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind), besides the incalculable facts of Christ's work in death, resurrection, and ascension, to which He testifies. Truly the Lord had many things to say reserved for the Holy Ghost, when the disciples had their consciences purged and could draw near boldly into the holies, and a Man glorified in heaven furnished the meet occasion for the display of all that is in God, even for the secret hid in God before all worlds, of which not John or any other than the Apostle Paul was to be the administrator.

But be the instrument who it might, when the Spirit of Truth is come, as the Lord intimates here, "He will guide you into all the truth," or "in" it all as the Sinaitic, Cambridge (D), and Parisian (L) uncials with other authorities have it. For this two main grounds are given, besides His necessary competency as a Divine Person. First, He does not act independently, but fulfilling the mission on which He is sent expressly. "For He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He shall hear, He will speak; and He will announce to you the things to come." Secondly, His prime object is to exalt the Lord Jesus, and therefore He will assuredly make this good in testimony to the disciples. "Me He will glorify, for He will receive of mine and announce (it) to you."

The reader must guard against the popular error, easily suggested by the Authorised Version of verse 13, as if the sense meant were that the Spirit shall not speak about Himself. For it is neither true as a fact, nor is it of course intended here. The Spirit largely speaks concerning Himself in this Gospel, and particularly in the section we are examining. So He does in Rom. 8; in 1 Cor. 2, 12; in 2 Cor. 3; in Eph. 1, 2, 3, 4, and many other parts of Scripture. This makes it the more strange that even the simplest have not learnt the meaning here to be, that He shall not speak from Himself, but, as the next clause explains, whatever He shall hear He will speak. As the Son came not to act independently, whatever might be His glory, but to serve His Father; so the Spirit is come to serve the Son, and whatever He shall hear, He will speak.299

But there is more. Not only can He speak of the Son in heaven as Himself sent down by Him, and thus bear the highest testimony to His intrinsic dignity and the new position Christ is in there, but He has not ceased to be the Spirit of prophecy. On the contrary, He would thus work abundantly in view of the world's total ruin and the blessing that waits on the Lord's return. "And He will announce to you the things to come." The prophetic word is found largely in the New Testament, not only in the Gospels, but also in the Epistles, but most of all in the wonderful book of Revelation. And the effect was immense in detaching the saints from the world as under judgment, however this might tarry. They knew these things before, and thus held fast their own steadfastness. Nevertheless prophecy as occupied with the earth, even though it go on to the kingdom of God there, is but a small and even inferior part of the Spirit's testimony, however astonishing in man's eyes and precious in itself.

Christ's own glory, now on high, is the direct object; and this in every way. "Me He will glorify, for He will receive of Mine and will announce (it) to you." And here also all is in contrast with Messianic light or earthly dominion, however just and great. "All things that the Father hath are mine: on this account I said that He receiveth of Mine and will announce (it) to you." He is sent down to glorify not the Church but Christ, and this by receiving and reporting what is Christ's (and all the Father has is His), not by exaggerating man's importance or allowing the will of man. Thus it was not only the universe which God had created, but the new creation also in relationship with the Father, and this even specifically.

But there is another intimation needful to press the "little while" with its issues of sorrow and joy.

John 16: 16-24.

"A little while and ye behold Me not:* and again a little while and ye shall see300 Me (because I go away unto the Father).* (Some) therefore of His disciples said one to another, What is this which He saith to us, A little while and ye behold Me not: and again a little while and ye shall see Me, and because I go away [back] to the Father They said therefore, What is this that He saith, the† little while? We know not what He speaketh. Jesus knew (therefore‡) that they wished to ask (ἐρωτᾶν) Him, and said to them, Do ye inquire of this one with another because I said, A little while, and ye behold Me not; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me? Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; §ye shall be grieved, but your grief shall be turned into joy. The woman, when she bringeth forth, hath grief because her hour is come; but when she shall give birth to the child, she no longer remembereth the affliction for the joy that a man was born into the world. And ye therefore now have grief, but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one taketh from you" (verses 16-22).

* οὐκέτι, "no more," is read by BDgr, etc. [W. and H., Weiss, etc.] but οὐ Text. Rec., with most [as Blass], BDL, and other good authorities, omitting the last clause, although it is added by some fourteen uncials, most cursives, and many ancient versions [Syrsin pesch jer Cod Brix, and other old Latt.].300a

† BLY, etc. [Treg., W. and H.], omit the article, contrary to the mass [Weiss, Blass, after Tisch.].

‡ BDL, etc. [Edd.], omit οὖν, contrary to most.

§ Text. Rec., with most, adds δὲ, "and."

The "little while" in any and every sense was a strange sound to Jewish ears; so was His going away to the Father. It is no question here of their lost Messiah, the suffering Son of man. This of course is true and important in its place, and fully treated in the closing scenes of the Synoptic Gospels. But here we see and hear the conscious Son of God, a man, but a Divine Person Who had come from, and was now going back to, the Father. We need especially to be in the spirit of this to estimate the "little while," and indeed Christianity, in contradistinction to what was and what will be. The resurrection brought the disciples into the intelligence of this "little while," though it may not be all out till He comes again. The Jew thought nothing more certain than that the Christ when He came would abide for ever. The "little while" was therefore another enigma which His death and ascension cleared up, and the Spirit subsequently showed to be bound up with all that is characteristic of the present work of God for the glory of Christ. We anticipate by faith what will come, and manifestly at His appearing.300b

Nothing can be more marked than the Lord's avoidance here of introducing His death as such; and it is all the more striking because it is so prominent in chapters 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12. Here no doubt it underlies all, and poor indeed had been the joy without His infinite sorrow on the cross. But that solemn hour is here passed over thus: "A little while, and ye behold Me not; and again, a little while, and ye shall see me. Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice; ye shall be grieved, but your grief shall be turned into joy." This was surely true when He rose after His brief absence, as it will be fully verified when He comes for them never to part more.301 And this He illustrates by the most familiar of all figures of sorrow issuing in joy (verses 21, 22). The absence of the Lord is to the world getting rid of Him; but even now His resurrection is a joy which none takes away. What will it be when He comes to receive us to Himself?

The Lord proceeds to set forth yet more fully the blessing and privilege which should flow from His going to heaven, and so bringing out the Father's love to them.

"And in that day ye shall ask302 me nothing; verily, verily, I say to you,* Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father, He will give you in My name.† Hitherto ye asked nothing in My name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full" (verses 23, 24).

* ὅτι (Text. Rec. after very many) is not in some of the best, and for ὅσα ἂν, "whatsoever," Text. Rec., supported by most; ἂν, or ἐάν τι BCDLY, etc.; or ὃ ἂν ; ὃ ἑὰν XΠ, etc.

† ἐν τῶ ὀν. μου, after "the Father," ACcorr.D, etc., and Text. Rec.; but at the end  a BCpmLXYΔ, etc. [Edd.].

It is well known that the Greek words we are well-nigh obliged to translate "ask" in verse 23 are not the same, the first (ἐρωτάω) being expressive rather of familiar entreaty, the second (αἰέω) of lowly petition. Hence, while our Lord often in this Gospel employs the former in His requesting the Father on behalf of the disciples, never does He use the latter. However low He may go down in grace, He is ever the conscious Son of God in flesh, but none the less a Divine Person; whilst Martha shows her slight appreciation of His glory by supposing that He might fitly and successfully appeal to God after a suppliant sort (John 11: 22) 302a.

But it seems too strong to say that every competent judge admits that "ye shall ask" of the first half of the verse has nothing to do with "ye shall ask" of the second; or that in the first Christ is referring back to the desire of the disciples in verse 19 to question Him. So Euthymius Z., as well as the Vulgate and a crowd of moderns from Beza to Trench, including many German and British theologians. But though the word ἐρωτάω occurs often in the New Testament, and even in this chapter, with the ordinary classical sense of "question" (interrogo), it is used quite as often or more so for "requesting" or "beseeching," etc. (rogo), as in the LXX., and thus like our English "ask," which means "to request" no less than "to question" or "inquire." Inquiring of God in Old Testament phrase approaches, in fact, nearer to prayer for any one or thing than to a question. It seems, then, that varying the English word is not the true solution, though obvious enough on the surface, and that the earlier Greek commentators were nearer the truth, save Origen, who, like later errorists, perverted the passage to deny the propriety of praying to our Lord, thus flatly contradicting the early disciples (Acts 1: 24), Stephen (Acts 7: 59), and the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12: 8). In matters which concern His service and His Church it is even more proper, according to Scripture, to pray to Him than to the Father, to Whom we instinctively turn for all that concerns the family of God in general.

The Lord is really signifying the great change from recourse to Him as their Messiah on earth for every difficulty, not for questions only, but for all they might want day by day, to that access unto the Father into which He would introduce them as the accepted Man and glorified Saviour on high. Till redemption is known, and the soul by grace is set in righteousness, even believers are afraid of God, and hide, as it were, behind Christ. They draw near in spirit, as the disciples did actually, to Him Who in love came down from heaven to bless and reconcile them to God. But they do not really know what it is to come boldly to the throne of grace to obtain mercy and find grace. They are not in the distinct consciousness of children before their Father, enjoying liberty in Christ by the Spirit of adoption.

This, then, appears to me what the Lord gives the disciples to know should follow His Resurrection and departure "in that day": a day already come, the day of grace, not of glory, save so far as we enter in by virtue of Him Who is gone above and sent the Spirit thence to be in us. He had already and fully told them what the Spirit of truth would do in guiding them into all the truth (verses 12-15). Here He substitutes access to the Father for everything in prayer, instead of personal requests to Himself as their Master, ever ready to help on earth. It is not a question, then, of a declaration of being so taught of the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire, but of no longer having One at hand to Whom they had been in the habit of appealing for each difficulty as it rose. The departing Son of God would draw out confidence of heart in the Father.

Hence the solemnity of making known their new resource. "Verily, verily, I say to you, Whatsoever (or, If) ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give you (in My name)." The text differs in the manuscripts and other authorities; but the best of them place "in My name" after the assurance that the Father will give, not after the saints asking the Father as in the common text, which, however, is best supported by the ancient versions.* There can be no doubt, as we shall see presently, that the saints are encouraged and entitled in the value of the revelation of Christ to prefer their requests to the Father; but, if the more ancient reading holds in verse 23,† we have the collateral truth that He gives in virtue of that name whatsoever they shall ask Him. How blessed and cheering to the saints! What pleasure to the Father and honour to the Son! The rejection of the Messiah only turns to His greater glory and better blessings for His own.

* [ BCpmLXYΔ, Orig., Cyr., place the words after "give," whilst Ccorr.D, Syrr., old Latt., have "them" after "Father." Blass follows other Edd. in reading, as in , etc.]

† [The words ἄν τι, instead of ὅτι ὅδα ἄν of Text. Rec.]

And this is followed up in verse 24: "Hitherto ye asked nothing in My name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be fulfilled." The importance of this can hardly be exaggerated: I do not mean as bearing merely on the use of the blessed prayer given long before to the disciples, but on the broader question of their approaching new relationship, and standing by redemption and the gift of the Spirit. On the face of the words, however, it is plain that to use that prayer is not to ask the Father in Christ's name. The disciples were, no doubt, in the habit of using it day by day; yet up to the present they had asked nothing in His name. Now, so to ask the Father in the Son's name is alone Christian prayer in the true and full sense. Those, therefore, who insist on going back to the prayer of the disciples fail to enter into the new place on which the Lord here sets all that are His. It may be reverently meant; but is it the faith which really enters into God's mind and honours the Master? I trow not. As a prayer to be used when the disciples knew not how to pray it was perfection; as a model, it abides ever full of depths of instruction. But the Lord, now at the end of His career here below, lets them know the shortcoming in ground and object of their previous petitions, and tells them what should be their appropriate character in future through their new blessing at hand, through redemption and ascension.

It would have been out of season and presumptuous for the disciples in the past to have drawn near to the Father as the Son did, Who, in His wisdom and goodness, gave them a prayer perfectly suited to their then state when the atoning work was not yet done, and the Holy Ghost accordingly not given. But now, as we have already seen so often in this context, consequent on Christ's glorifying God on earth by death and going up on high, the Holy Ghost would come to be in and with them. And this is the great result Godward, as we have already seen much saintward: they should ask in Christ's name; and they are called to ask and receive, that their joy might be full. Life in Christ would go forth in suited desires, to which the Holy Ghost would impart power as well as intelligence; and assuredly, with such a ground and motive before Him as the Son of man Who had devoted Himself at all cost to His glory, the Father would fail in nothing on His part. Their joy would indeed be at the full.

John 16: 25-33

"These things have I spoken to you in proverbs (allegories): an hour303 cometh when I shall speak no longer to you in proverbs, but openly report* to you about the Father. In that day ye shall ask (αἰτήσεσθε) in My name, and I say not to you that I will request (ἐρωτήσω) the Father for you; for the Father Himself dearly loveth you because ye have dearly loved Me, and have believed that I came out from (παρὰ) God.† I came out from‡ the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world and proceed unto the Father" (verses 25-28).

* ABCpmDKL MNXYΠ [Edd.], ἀπαγγ, "report", others ἀναγγ. "announce," as in verses 13, 14, 15.

† θεοῦ pmA and most MSS. and versions [as Syrsin]; πατρὸς BCpmDLX, etc. How singularly biassed was Tregelles to edit the latter, being plainly inconsistent with the context! The edition of W. and H. follows Tregelles. [Weiss and Blass follow Tisch., θεοῦ.]

‡ ἐκ BCpmLX, etc., παρὰ ACcorr.EΓΔ,  etc.

It is owing, I presume, to the large and various meaning of the Hebrew mashal that we have in Greek παροιμία as well as παραβολὴ used correspondingly not only in the LXX., but in the New Testament, the Synoptic Gospels always using the latter, John only the former, as in John 10 and here. Perhaps "allegory" might be more appropriate, or even a "dark saying" in our chapter where parable or allegory can scarcely apply. A close examination of the usage will prove that both Greek words are employed with considerable latitude in the four Gospels, as elsewhere.

Here the Lord was conscious that what He uttered fell like enigmas on the ears of the disciples. His plain declaration or report about the Father would clear up all in due time. What did not His Resurrection? and His appearances and converse from the first to the last of His forty days' intercourse, as well as His ascension? Take alone the message through Mary of Magdala on the first day of the week. Did He not plainly declare about the Father, His and theirs? Was not His God and their God a deep intimation of blessing? But, above all, when He testified by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, did not the truth shine out more than ever? He made known to them His Father's name then; He was to make it known when gone above (John 17: 26), and did so only more effectively from thence.

This also turned (as was intended) to their increasing sense of the value of Christ's own name. "In that day ye shall ask (αἰτ.) in My name." Asking in His name is not merely for Christ's sake as a motive, but in the value of Himself and His acceptance. His worth goes in its fulness to the account of those who thus plead; and how precious and all-prevailing it is in the Father's eyes! How glorifying to both the Father and the Son! How humbling and no less strengthening to the saints themselves! It is the title of every Christian now; none ever enjoyed it before. Never was there a soul blessed on earth apart from Him and His work foreseen; but this is known nearness and acceptance applied even to our petitions in virtue of Himself fully revealed when His work was done and accepted in infinite efficacy.

"And I say not that I will request (ἐρωτ.) Father for you, for the Father Himself loveth you dearly, because ye have loved Me dearly, and have believed that I came out from God." This is another of those sentences over which not men and scholars, but saints also, stumble, because many a believer even is not enjoying the truth of it; and what John's Gospel and Epistles treat of must be really entered into to be understood. This verse 26 not more denies Christ's intercession for us than verse 23 forbids the servant praying to His Lord about His work or His house. It is not an absolute statement, nor is there the smallest need to apply the technical device of "Præteritio," as it is called, so as to convey, not a negation, but a strong affirmation. Thus it would mean, "I need not assure you that I will request the Father for you." But it is simply an ellipse, which the words following explain: I do not say that I wild request the Father for you, as if He did not love you; for the Father Himself (προπριο μοτυ) does love you dearly, etc. This, too, accounts for the words of special affection, φιλεῖ and πεφιλ., which follow. It was grace, the Father's drawing, which brought them to hear the voice of the Son and believe on Him; yet does the Lord speak of the Father's dearly loving them and of their having dearly loved Him, to Whom they clung truly, however feebly.304 They had believed that He came out from God. They truly believed that He was the Christ of God, and was born of God. It was Divine teaching and grace as far as it went.305

But this was far short of the full truth which He proceeds to reveal: "I came out from the Father, and am come into the world; again I leave the world and proceed unto the Father." Here they were altogether short. They realised as yet little or nothing of His full, Divine, and eternal glory as the Son of the Father. God the Father was fully revealed, no doubt, in the Son; but the presence and power of the Spirit, personally sent down, was needed to give them communion with Him thus made known. It is this which, when the conscience is purged, brings into happy liberty. Here, then, is what so many saints are still ignorant of, in the state of their souls pretty much where the disciples then were; for though they may see rather better the glory of the Son, they fail to see in Him and His work their title to rest in the Father's love.

It is striking to remark the contrast throughout this series of discourses with the Synoptic Gospels. In these Christ's death is made most prominent; here it is going away to the Father. How true to the design the Holy Spirit impressed on the narrative of John!

It would be difficult to find a verse of John which presents more tersely and completely, too, the character of his Gospel than the one we have just had before us; nor one less really apprehended now, as then, by the disciples. His Divine relationship and mission from the Father stand clearly revealed on earth before they join Him on high. His presence as man in the world, no less than His quitting the world, and going to the Father, none the less the Son now become man, with the immense results of all this for God, and more especially for the saints. These great truths wholly transcend all Messianic glory which as yet filled the minds of His followers, who proved how little they knew by the very fact that they thought they knew all clearly.

"His disciples say (to Him),* Behold, now Thou talkest with openness and speakest no parable. Now we know that Thou knowest all things, and hast no need that one ask thee: herein we believe that Thou didst come out from God" (verses 29, 30). Their own language betrayed them. Simple as His words were, they had not taken in their depth. They had no conception of the mighty change from all they had gathered of the kingdom as revealed in the Old Testament to the new state of things that would follow His absence with the Father on high and the presence of the Spirit here below. It sounded plain to their ears; but even up to the Ascension they feebly, if at all, caught a glimpse of it. They to the last clung to the hopes of Israel, and these, surely, remain to be fulfilled another day. But they understood not this day, during which, if the Jews are treated as reprobate, even as He was rejected of them, those born of God should in virtue of Christ and His work be placed in immediate relationship with the Father. His return to the Father was a parable still, though the Lord does not correct their error, as, indeed, it was useless: they would soon enough learn how little they knew. But at least even then they had the inward consciousness that He knew all, and, as He penetrated their thoughts, had no need that any should ask Him. "Herein we believe that Thou camest out from God." Undoubtedly: yet how far below the truth He had uttered is that which they were thus confessing! The Spirit of His Son sent into their hearts would give them in due time to know the Father; as redemption accomplished and accepted could alone lay the needful ground for it.306

* αὐτῶ Text. Rec. [Blass], with most MSS. [pm, etc.], vv., etc.; but not the most ancient [corr.B, etc.], some of which add ἐν before παρρησία [W. and H., Weiss].

"Jesus answered them, Just now do ye believe? (or ye believe).307 Behold, an hour cometh, and* is come, that ye should be scattered, each unto his own,308 and leave Me alone; and I am not alone, because the Father is with Me. These things have I spoken to you that in Me ye may have peace. In the world ye have† tribulation; but be of good courage: I have overcome the world" (verses 31-33).

* Text. Rec. adds, νῦν "now," with some old MSS. and versions; but ABCpmDpmLX, etc., have it not.

† ἕξετε, "ye shall have," is the error of D and many cursives [67, etc.], with most of the Latin copies, etc., followed by Elzevir, but not Stephens, for though it appears in the text of his edition of 1550, it is corrected at the end according to his editions of 1546, 1549; ἔχετε "ye have," ABCL and a dozen more uncials, etc. [Tisch., W. and H., Weiss]. Here many of the ancient versions are wrong, but not the Syrr., Memph., some old Latin, etc. It is strange that Lachmann edited ἕξετε, not only in his small edition of 1831, but in his larger and more mature one of 1842, actually giving B with D abc as authority. [Blass follows Lachm.]

Their faith was real, but they were shortly to show how small it would be proved to be in the hour of trial already come. If doubt is never justifiable, it is good in our weakness to live in constant dependence. When strong in our own eyes, we are weak indeed; when weak, we are strong in the grace of our Lord Jesus. But oh, what a Saviour! and what disciples! They scattered to their own, and He left alone in the hour of His deepest need! Would any heart but His own have hastened to add, after such desertion on their part, "and I am not alone, because the Father is with Me"? Could any but Himself have added, especially to such saints and under such circumstances, "These things have I spoken to you, that in Me ye may have peace"? or have given such solid ground for it, at the very moment of contemplating their present portion of trouble in the world? "Be of good courage: I have overcome the world." As Christ alone could so feel and bless, so are these words worthy of Him; and one knows not whether to admire most their Divine authority or their matchless grace and suitability to our need here below. As He is absolutely what He also speaks, so He speaks what He is to the unfailing comfort of the believer.

Strikingly characteristic of our Gospel is the omission of the sorrows of Gethsemane,308a and yet more of God's abandoning Him on the cross. Neither fell in with that account of Him which sets forth the glory of His Person, Whose it was to do the will of Him Who sent Him, and to finish His work. Others bring out His complete rejection and humiliation, the service He rendered, and the depth of His sympathy as the perfect Man. John sees, hears, and records the Son above all circumstances, the object and the revealer of the Father, even when that sorrow came which scattered them, and that forsaking of God which was unfathomable save to Himself.

With all before Him He spoke what He did here, that in Him they might have peace; and so He walked Himself. In the world tribulation was to be their portion, not as for the Jew retributively at a specified and measured hour (Jer. 30: 7; Dan. 12: 1; Matt. 24: 21; Mark 13: 19) at the time of the end, or even preparatorily meanwhile (Luke 21: 22-24), but habitually for those not of the world, and hence a prey in it. Yet are they called to courage, as knowing Him Whom they have believed, His glory and His grace Who has overcome the world. What a spring and cheer, that we have to overcome a foe already overcome! He indeed alone; we looking to Him Who gives power for all things. And this is the victory that overcometh the world, our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5: 5.)309

JOHN — THE SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. " Introductory Lectures," pp. 556-558.]

Next follows a chapter which one may perhaps characterise truly as unequalled for depth and scope in all the Scriptures. Holiness, devotedness, truth, love, glory reign throughout. Who can wonder, seeing that it is unique in this respect, as it is the Son opening His heart to the Father when just about to die and leave His own for heaven? Yet, profoundly interesting and momentous as the case was, it is the Son addressing Him thus which is so wondrous a privilege for us to hear. But all this may well fill our hearts with the sense of utter insufficiency to speak of such communications suitably. Nevertheless, as the Saviour uttered all within the hearing of the disciples, so the Holy Spirit has been pleased to reproduce His words with Divine precision.310 They are therefore for us now, as then for His favoured followers. Encouraged by this grace, we would count on the Lord's real and living interest in us, and on His faithfulness Who still abides with us to glorify Him by taking of His things and showing them to us.

John 17: 1-19.

"These things 310a spake Jesus, and lifting up His eyes unto heaven, said, Father, the hour is come: glorify Thy Son, that Thy* (or, the) Son* may glorify Thee,311 according as Thou gavest Him authority over all flesh, that, everything which Thou hast given Him, He should give them life eternal. And this is the eternal life,312 that they know312a Thee, the only true312b God, and Him Whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ.312c I glorified Thee on the earth, having‡ finished the work which Thou hast given Me to do; and now do Thou, Father, glorify Me along with (παρὰ) Thyself with the glory which I had along with Thee before the world was " (verses 1- 5).

* Treg. and Tisch., with W. and H. [and others], omit σοῦ, "thy," following BCpm, etc. T. R. has καὶ "also," but the best do not accredit it. So a ABCLΠ, etc.; but the finite verb in DEXYΔΛ, etc.

The Lord had closed His parting instructions to the disciples, who had now to testify of and for Him; and so much the more because He was just about to leave them, His own personal testimony being already complete. To them not only had He spoken with fulness, but promised the Holy Spirit from Heaven on His departure that there might be power as well as truth. Unto heaven, therefore, did the Saviour lift up His eyes in addressing His Father. He Who even as Son of man is in heaven as a Divine Person was going there in bodily presence, when the work of redemption was effected. In virtue of this work accomplished in death, proved in resurrection, He would take His seat there, the Witness of its infinite acceptance. His proper ministry on earth, not merely to men but to the disciples, had been fully rendered. To the Father He turns as ever, but now in the hearing of His own, as indeed He would open His heart, if about Himself and His work, about them yet more, always the Sent One and Servant in Divine love, though Lord of all. He looked to heaven when He blessed and brake the five loaves to feed the five thousand. He looked there and groaned as He made the deaf stammerer to hear and speak. Upward He lifted His eyes when at the grave of Lazarus He said, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. To heaven He, raising them once more, said, "Father, the hour is come: glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son may glorify Thee." He is ever a Divine Person, the Son, but in flesh; not here as in the other Gospels the rejected and agonized sufferer, but the perfect executor of God's purposes, heavenly and everlasting, and the manifestation as Son of the Father.

Hence, whatever the necessary and all-important intervention of His death, without which all else had been in vain for God's glory in presence of sin and ruin, He nowhere speaks of it here, nor does He ask for resurrection, but glorification. Further, the Father's name, so prominent in this Gospel, and particularly in these closing discourses to the disciples, is manifestly and more than in this chapter It is indeed the characteristic of the Christian; even in the simplest form of His blessedness, the youngest, the babe, is described by our Apostle as having the Father known (1 John 2: 13): a wondrous privilege, only possible through the Son of God come and redemption wrought, only enjoyable by the Holy Spirit given, the Spirit of adoption. But as at the beginning zeal for His Father's house devoured Him, so here His heart is set on glorifying His Father in that heaven to which His eyes were lifted. "Father, the hour is come: glorify Thy Son;" but, even so, it is "that Thy Son may glorify Thee." Become man, He asks the Father to glorify Him; He is Son, and when there glorified, it is still to glorify the Father. "According as Thou gavest Him authority over all flesh, that, everything which Thou hast given Him, He should give them eternal life." Though God, He exerts no power in His own right; He is true to the place into which He was pleased to come, and as man receives authority from the Father, but authority inconceivable either in its universality of sphere or in its speciality of object, were He not God. For the authority given is over "all flesh"; and the special aim now, as to whatsoever the Father had given Him, is to give them eternal life. Thus the right of our Lord extends without limit, the Gentile being no more outside His title than the Jew; whilst eternal life is the portion of none beyond what is given of the Father to the Son, as elsewhere it is said to belong to the believer only.

This leads to the explanation of "the eternal life" in question. Life for evermore, life to eternity, is the blessing commanded by Jehovah on the mountains of Zion (Ps. 133); and of the many Jews that sleep in the dust of the earth, some shall wake to everlasting life, as others to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12). But both these Scriptures contemplate that great turning-point for the earth, the kingdom when it comes in manifest power and glory. The Lord speaks of life as given in Himself to faith now. "And this is the eternal life, that they know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ." If it be distinguished from that which is to be enjoyed in the displayed kingdom by-and-by, it stands as to its character in the knowledge not of the Most High Possessor of heaven and earth, with the true Melchisedec a Priest on His throne, but of the Father and of His sent One, the only true God now plainly revealed in the Son, the one Mediator between God and man. If distinguished from the past, it is no longer the Creator-God giving promises to the fathers protected and lodging as under the shadow of the Almighty; nor yet the sons of Israel in relationship with the name of Jehovah, the moral governor of that chosen nation. But the children of God now possess the revelation of the Father and of Jesus Christ Whom He sent; and this knowledge is identified, not with promises nor government, but with "eternal life," as a present thing in Christ, the portion of every believer. A deeper blessing it is impossible for God to bestow or for man to receive; for it is exactly what characterised the Lord Himself, Who is the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. Only Christ could be said to be that life; we as believers are not, but we have it in Him; and as by faith alone it is received, so in faith it is exercised, sustained, and strengthened.

It may be noticed further that, as eternal life is bound up with the knowledge of the Father, the only true God, in contrast with the gods many and false of the Gentiles,313 so it can only be where Christ is known Whom the Father sent, in contrast with His rejection by the Jews to their own deeper guilt and ruin. Neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost is excluded from the deity, which is elsewhere predicated or assumed of both equally with the Father. The object in hand is to assert it of the Father and to state the place taken here below by Him Who did not regard it as a prize (act or object of plunder) to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondman. (Phil. 2: 7.) He was here to obey, to do the Will of the Father that sent Him. But that He took such a place in lowly love is the strongest if indirect proof of His proper and eternal Godhead; for even the archangel is a servant, and can never rise out of the position or relation of a servant. Whereas the Son was pleased to take it in order to make good the full blessing of redemption unto the glory of God the Father. So life was in Him, and He was eternal life before all ages; but here He is viewed as coming down to impart it in a scene departed from God, and to a creature, which otherwise must know death in its most terrible shape of judgment as now of guilt.

Next, the Lord presents His work: we have seen His Person as already pleaded. But now He urges what He had done here below. "I glorified Thee on the earth, having finished the work which Thou hast given Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Thou Me along with Thyself with the glory which I had along with Thee before the world was." The language here is more of sustained relationship than in chapter 13: 31, 32, where it is a question of glorifying God, before Whom sin comes into unsparing judgment. Here it is glorifying His Father, and so there is no special contemplation of that final dealing where all that God is and feels came out against evil imputatively laid on the head of the Son of man.313a Here the entire path of Christ on earth in giving Himself up to obey and please His Father is summed up. Therefore it was the more needful to specify its completion, "having finished the work which Thou hast given Me to do." He speaks not more as the faithful servant than as the conscious Son of God Who sees all completed to the Father's glory, Who had given Him the work that He should do it Who alone could. And thereon does He ask the Father to glorify Him, not because of His personal glory and relationship only, but in virtue of the work completed to His glory here below, that He might thus lay a valid and sure title for us to join Him in the same heavenly blessedness.

It is not that He ever did or could cease to be God, any more than after becoming incarnate He will ever cease to be man; but, having in Divine love come down to be a servant and a man to glorify God the Father and make a righteous channel for all the purposes of Divine grace, He asks to be glorified by the Father along with Himself with the glory which He had along with Him before the world was. There He had been from everlasting as the Son; there He asks to be as the Son but now also man, the Word made flesh risen, to everlasting. It was His perfection as man to ask for this glorification. Not even as risen does He glorify Himself. He had emptied and humbled Himself for the Father's glory; He asks the Father to glorify Him, though He states His eternal and Divine competency by asking to be glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world was.313b Never so weighty a plea, never so solid a ground of righteousness, never such exquisite and infinite grace.

The Lord then explains how souls were brought into such nearness of relationship to Him before the Father; as He had already laid the basis in His Person and work.

"I manifested Thy Name to the men Whom Thou gavest Me out of the world. Thine they were, and to Me Thou gavest them, and they have kept Thy Word. Now have they known that all things as many as Thou hast given Me are of (παρὰ) Thee; because the words which Thou gavest Me I have given to them, and they received (them), and knew truly that I came out from Thee, and believed that Thou didst send Me" (verses 6- 8).

Thus the manifestation of the Father's Name is first laid down. It was a characteristic and most influential truth, the Son being the only one competent, though none of course could enter in even so but by the Spirit, as we know and as is taught elsewhere. But as the Son could manifest His Father's name, so this He did in unjealous love, that the disciples, the men whom the Father gave Him out of the world, might know what He is as the Son knew Him; not, it need hardly be said, infinitely as was proper to the Only-begotten, but after that manner, as children of God, to whom the Son would impart that which was wholly outside and above man, and intrinsically of God for the family of God.314

For though the Lord had come to the Jews as their promised Messiah on earth, Him they would not have but even rejected, as they were just about to do even to the death of the cross. Hence, whatever may be the Divine retribution another day when God makes inquisition for blood, and above all for His blood which they had blindly imprecated on themselves and their children, it became wholly a question of sovereign and heavenly grace, which, coming in the Person of the Son, manifested His Father's name as no saint had ever enjoyed, no prophet so much as predicted, save, perhaps, in such a sort as to fall in with and confirm this most precious privilege when communicated. But even Hosea 1: 10 is comparatively vague. Here all is as full as it is precise. It was the positive side of what the Lord undertook with His own here below, and its highest character: not the meeting sin and misery in grace, nor even the display of excellency as the righteous One, the Servant and Man, and as such Son of God; but the manifestation of what His Father was and is as He knew Him, and as they were learning who were given to the Son by the Father out of the world. For the world is now defined and judged as alien and opposed to the Father. How blessed for the disciples to hear themselves thus singled out and designated as His by the Son to the Father!

Nor is this all. "Thine they were, and to Me Thou gavest them, and they have kept Thy word" (λόγον). It appears to me that they err who refer the Lord's description to His followers as formerly of Israel merely, and as walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Jehovah blameless. These were His elect out of the elect nation, His enemies now yet to be restored another day. The Father had a purpose about these, and thus they belonged to Him Who gave them to the Son, the object of His love and effectuator of His counsels, as He is also the accomplisher of redemption, to His own glory. And as the men given out of the world are thus viewed on a Divine ground outside Jewish ties, so that which formed their souls and their ways was quite distinct; they had kept, says the Son, His Father's word, made known by Himself when with them on earth hitherto. This we have, speaking generally, in the Gospels, with not a little they could not then bear in the Epistles. Everything refers to the Father: the Son, a man on earth, is always exalting Him, and in view of His own departure would endear them to Him and give them the assurance of it.

This is developed yet more in what follows. "Now have they known that all things as many as Thou hast given Me are of Thee." They had entered into the secret of which the world knew nothing: the Father was the source of all that was given to the Son. Some wondered at His works and His words; others in their enmity blasphemously attributed what was beyond man to Satan. The disciples had learnt that they were all of the Father, as the Son desired that they should. It was not only that He came out from the Father, nor that He had finished the work the Father had given Him to do, as their title to blessing with the Son before Him; but the means for bringing them into the blessing were also of the Father; "because the words which Thou gavest Me I have given them, and they received (them), and knew truly that I came out from Thee, and believed that Thou didst send Me.''314a Thus the Lord handed over to His disciples those intimate communications of grace which the Father gave to Himself. It was no longer a question of the ten words given by Moses, the measure of man's responsibility to prove his sin and ruin which he neither owned nor felt.

The words (ῥήματα) which the Father gave the Son were the expression of Divine grace and love according to that blessed relationship in which the Son stood, though man; and the disciples, once mere men, but now born of God, have life eternal in Him, and are given these words by the Son, that they might know and enjoy the new relationship which grace had conferred on them. Nor was it in vain, however slow of heart they might be in believing all. For if He had given to them the words the Father gave to Him, the disciples received the truth really, though no doubt imperfectly. The result was that they came to know truly that Christ the Son came out from the Father, and believed also that the Father sent Him. This is all the reckoning of grace here, not measuring degrees, but making much of reality, as He can well do Whose love gives, deepens, and secures from first to last. Even for them to know assuredly that the Son came out from the Father does not suffice His heart, for this would not necessarily prove more than His own love in so coming; but the disciples believed the further truth that the Father sent Him, the proof of His own love to them. How rich, how needful, is every word of His grace!

"I request for315 them: not for the world do I request, but for those whom Thou hast given Me, for they are Thine (and all My things are Thine, and Thy things Mine), and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, and these* (or they) are in the world, and I come to Thee" (verses 9-11).

It is concerning the disciples He makes request, not for Israel nor the nations, not for the land nor the earth at large, but concerning those whom the Father had given Him. It is no question of taking up the world for government or blessing now: He is occupied with the joint-heirs, not with the inheritance as yet. By-and-by, as Psalm 2 lets us know, Jehovah will say, "Ask of Me, and I will give (Thee) nations for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession."315 But then the Son will reign on His holy hill of Zion, instead of being rejected on earth and received up on high. Then, instead of sustaining the suffering family of God who bear His reproach here below and wait for heavenly glory with Him, He will break the nations "with a sceptre of iron, and dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel." It will be, not the interval of the Gospel, as now, but the day of the kingdom in power and glory. Here the Lord is praying for His own as the precious gift of the Father to Himself, while cut off and having nothing that was promised Him here below; and He asks the more, because they were the Father's.

* B, two cursives, DF (not the other Ita. nor Vulg.) Memph., Æth., Arm., Goth. read αὐτοὶ, "they," in which they are followed by Tisch. in his last ed. and by W. and H. [and Blass, but Weiss adheres to οὗτοι].

But it may be well to say that this gives occasion for a parenthetic statement which lets out much of the light of His personal glory: "And all My things are Thine, and Thy things Mine."* As the Son of David, the Messiah, could this reciprocity have been so expressed? Is it not evidently and only in virtue of His being the Eternal Son, one with the Father, that they have rights and interests no less boundless than common? After this, however, He returns to the saints as those in whom He was glorified as a fact, not past, but abiding, urging their care on the Father, because He sees both Himself no longer with them in the world and themselves so much the more exposed in it, as He was going back to the Father. Hence arises a fresh appeal.

* It is surprising that the editors and commentators have not noticed the natural if not necessary parenthesis of all but the last clause of verse 10. As to the universe, it would not be true to say yet δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς.    It is precisely true of the saints.

"Holy Father, keep them in Thy name which* Thou hast given Me, that they may be one even as (also)† we316 (are). When I was with them,* I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me, and I guarded (them), and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. And now unto Thee I come, and these things I speak in the world that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves" (verses 11-13)

* The Text. Rec. has οὓς, "whom," but the better authorities support ὧ, "which " (verse 11); and so in 12, though not so many.-The best also omit "in the world" (12), as some of them καὶ, "also" (11).

The Lord asks His Father, as the Holy Father, to keep the disciples in His name that they might be one, even as also the Father and the Son are. And this was accomplished by the power of the Holy Ghost in those very men who then stood around Him. Never before or since was such unity produced in human beings on earth. Yet the Gospels are the plainest proof that they were far from it whilst our Lord was here below with them. It was to be the fruit of His grace through redemption after He went on high and sent down the Holy Ghost to effect it. And it was essential as a practical basis for Christianity. For doctrine is not enough without reality in life, and this most of all in those who were raised up of God to lay down the foundation. Their work and their written words were all during one generation in striking contrast with those of the Old Testament.

Granted that they were men of like passions with ourselves or any; granted that they displayed varied and not slight infirmities even under their Master's eyes and ministry on earth; granted that they then from first to last betrayed petty prejudices and narrow hearts and no small jealousy of each other, even in presence of the deepest love and lowliness, and of words and ways which made their contrasted jars (and the selfishness which gave rise to all) most humbling and painful: all this, with more, only adds to the blessedness of what God wrought in these very men by His Spirit in answer to the Lord's demand. The power of the Father's name, which the Lord here below knew so well, was manifest in them; and the twelve were one even as the Father and the Son. None would have ventured so to describe but Christ; but if He did, He is the truth; and, in fact, with whom or what else could their unity as witnessed in the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles be compared? Never elsewhere was seen such rising above egotism in the aims, measures, objects, in the life and service, of men on earth; never such common devotedness to, and absorption in, the will of God for the magnifying of the risen and glorified Jesus.

The Lord, then, in committing to the Father His own whom in that name He was keeping whilst here, speaks of having kept them safe, save that one who was doomed to destruction. Awful lesson! that even the constant presence of Jesus fails to win where the Spirit brings not the truth home to the conscience. Does this enfeeble Scripture? On the contrary, the Scripture was thereby fulfilled. John 13 referred to Judas that none should be stumbled by such an end of His ministry. Here it is rather that none should therefore doubt the Lord's care or the Scripture. He was not one of those given to Christ by the Father,317 though called to be an Apostle: of those so given He had lost none. Judas was an apparent, not a real, exception, as he was not a child of God, but the son of perdition. To see the awful end of so heartless a course would only give more force to His works of grace Who, if He left the world for the Father, was bringing them into His own associations before the Father. Judas may never have meant the worst, as Satan did who entered him; but he did mean at all cost to gratify his love of money, trusting that He who had heretofore baffled His enemies would be able to extricate Himself. But he trusted his own thoughts to the death of His Master, and to his own eternal ruin; as Jesus carrying out His love in obedience to His Father would bring His own by His death to glory on high and His own place there, and expressed it here that even now they might have His joy fulfilled in themselves. For now that the Lord was going to the Father He speaks these things in the world to that end. The Father would prove the value of His name when the Son was not here in person to watch over them; and the very ruin of Judas rightly read should make the Scripture still more solemn and sure to their souls.

From verse 14 the Lord pleads for another object on behalf of the disciples. He had entreated for them to be set in His love in presence of the Father; He now asks that they may have His place in presence of the world. As He had sought their association with Himself in the one case, so in the other He would have no less an association. There it was for His joy to be fulfilled in them; here it is for the Father's testimony in and by them. It was His own place on earth, as in heaven.

"I have given them Thy word; and the world hated them because they are not of the world, as I am not of the world. I do not ask that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them out of317a the evil. Of the world they are not, as I am not of the world" (verses 14-16).

It is not here, as in verse 8, "the words" (ῥήματα) given of the Father to the Son which the Son had given to the disciples, the communications of love, whence they knew truly that He came from the Father, and believed to their joy that the Father sent Him. It is here (as in verse 6) the Father's "word" (λόγος), the expression of His mind. This, it was said already, they had kept. But the Lord resumes the notice of it in connection with testimony in the world which for Him was closed. In the world they were to be witnesses of Him, and the Father's word He has given them, and the world hated them, not for that word only, offensive as it is to the world, but because they, the disciples who had it, were not of the world, even as their Master is not. This is the true measure of unworldliness, and it is intolerable in the world's eyes, and nowhere so much as in the religious world. For men on earth to know themselves possessors of life eternal sounds presumptuous to such as know not Christ and His work. But to add that they are not of the world, the world will have to be the worst intolerance.

Yet nothing is so lowly as faith, and faith works by love, the very reverse of despising others or trusting in themselves that they are righteous. Christ is all to the believer, as He is to the Father; and as He is not of the world, so they are not. That they are not of the world depends on the former truth, that they are the Father's and given to the Son, Who manifested the Father's name to them and kept them in that name; as He besought that the Father would keep them still during His absence from the world. Christ in John is from the outset unknown to the world and rejected; they know not the Father and the Son. So it is with the children of God. "Therefore the world knoweth us not because it knew Him not." (1 John 3: 1.) The breach is complete. "The world hated* them," as it hated both the Father and the Son.

* The verb ἐμίσησεν is to be explained as meaning, neither the future as Kuinöl, nor the present as Bloomfield. It is the most emphatic preterite possible, the whole being summed up in its conclusion, though no doubt it was the fact then, and was about to be yet more and more manifest by-and-by.

Never had there been such a breach before. It was not so during God's dealings with Israel of old; nor yet in their ruin during the ensuing times of the Gentiles. Man was still under trial; and even while the Lord was here below, the character of His ministry was God in Him reconciling the world to Himself. But the world would none of Him, and is judged in its prince. And as man is now in the light of the cross pronounced lost, so is the saint crucified to the world and the world to him. They are not of the world, as Christ is not of the world. It is a fact, and not merely an obligation, though the firmest ground of obligation. They are not of the world, not merely they ought not to be; whilst if they are not, it is grievous inconsistency even to seem to be of the world. It is to be false to our relationship, for we are the Father's and given to the rejected Son, Who has done with the world. But if it be said that this is to bring in everlasting and heavenly relationships now, be it so; this is exactly what Christianity means in principle and practice. It is faith possessing Christ, Who gives the believer His own place of relationship and acceptance on high as well as of apart from and rejected by the world below; which he has to make good in words and ways, in spirit and conversation, whilst waiting for the Lord.

Hence, if going back to law or flesh, as in Galatia, was to fall from grace, no less thorough is the departure of the Christian when he seeks the world of which he is not. That the world improves for Christ or His own is as false as that the flesh can ameliorate. It is the light become darkness, and how great is that darkness! There may not be the reflex of the latter part of Rom. 1, but it answers to the beginning of 2 Tim. 3. It is the natural man knowing enough to forego what is shameless, and to invest all with a religious veil; it is the world essentially occupying itself with the things of God in profession but in reality of the world, where common sense suffices for its service and its worship, and the mind of Christ would be altogether inapplicable. What a triumph to the enemy! It is just what we see in Christendom; and nothing irritates so much as the refusal so to walk, worship, or serve. It does not matter how loudly you denounce or protest; if you join the world, they will not mind your words, and you are faithless to Christ. Nor does it matter how much grace and patience you show; if you keep apart as not of the world, you incur enmity and hatred and contempt. A disciple is not above his Master; but every one that is perfected shall be as his Master. To act as not of the world is felt to be its strongest condemnation; and no meekness or love can make it palatable. Nor does God intend that it should, for He means it as part of the testimony to His Son. And as the world neither receives nor understands the Father's word, so it hates those who have that word and act on it.

Doubtless there is a moment when the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we the living who remain shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air, when He shall Himself with a shout, with archangel's voice, and with trump of God, descend from heaven; and thus we shall ever be with Him. But the Lord did not ask yet that the Father should thus take His own out of the world, but that He should keep them out of the evil. This He does by His grace through His word, as we shall see presently. Only the Lord, before He explains how the Father keeps the saints, reiterates in a new form so as to give greater emphasis, "Of the world they are not, even as I am not of the world." Nor is anything more speedily forgotten, unless the eye be fixed on Christ above with continual vigilance as to our motives, ways, and ends, as well as unsparing self-judgment. It was of all moment to have it firm and clear that the world and the Christian have no common ground, and that Christ Himself, according to Whose grace and for Whose glory in communion with the Father we are here, is the pattern of our unworldliness. What separateness so absolute? or dependent on relationship to the Father so near, save only His Who is in the highest way its pattern? For the world in the sense here conveyed is that vast system which man has built up away from God in independence and self-reliance, and to the exclusion, not of His nominal honour, but of any real submission to His righteousness, His will, word, or glory. This fully came out in the rejection and cross of His Son, Who thereon reveals as wholly distinct in source, nature, character, and aim, those that the Father owns as His in the world, whose fellowship is indeed with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. Of the world they are not, as He is not. They are Christ's.

Now comes the formative power, as wholly new as above man, and not of God merely, but of the Father. "Sanctify them by (or, in) the truth; Thy word is truth. As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also sent318 them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth" (verses 17-19).

It is impossible to overrate the importance of the Saviour's words for His disciples; it is easy for men to misapprehend them, as those do who lower and narrow the word to separation for ministerial service.* But He had at heart a more personal and intimate want, that the disciples should themselves be imbued with, formed and fashioned by, the truth. The law now sufficed not; not even in the most comprehensive sense, as embracing the Prophets and the Psalms. For Christ was come, the Only-begotten Who declared God otherwise unseen of anyone. He revealed the Father, Who would make a fresh and full yet permanent revelation, as we have it not only in Him but in the Scriptures as a whole. The sanctification or setting apart was therefore as new as complete. It was to the Father that the Son spread His request for men who were none of them heathen, but of the holy seed.319 Yet for such does He say, "Sanctify them by the truth." The truth was revealed as it never was before. "Thy word," the Father's word, "is truth." Truths had been made known, never the truth till Jesus Who is it. For He first, He only as an objective display, showed out every one, God, man, Satan even, and every thing; heaven, earth, hell, and all things in them, as they really are; for His Person (the Word made flesh) alone was competent to do it. His advent and redemption gave the suited occasion and needed object for the full revelation, as being Son of man and withal true God and eternal life. By the truth, then, the Father's word, were the disciples to be sanctified. The Father revealed, not only in the Son personally, but in His word detailedly, changed all for the soul. None but the Son, and the Son a man on earth, glorifying the Father perfectly in His life, glorifying God as such in His death, could furnish the adequate motive for the Father's love, object for His ways, centre of His counsels, and manifestation of His glory. Hence all is out and in perfection: testimony higher, deeper, fuller is looked for in vain; as those know who, acknowledging the Son, have the Father also, and are not of the world.

* Hence Jos. Mede regarded ἐν τῃ ἀλ. as meaning εἰς τὴν ἀλ., and Bishop Pearce followed, as did Tittmann and Kuinöl, in the same wake. So Dr. Bloomfield (Rec. Syn., iii. 634). "From this verse He speaks of the evangelical office to be committed to their charge, and expresses His wish that they should be 'wholly dedicated and given up to it.'" He consequently would take ἐν τῃ ἀλ. as for ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀλ. How little these commentators believe that every word of Scripture is from God!

Then comes their mission, which is drawn from the same unworldly source and is characterised by it. "As thou didst send Me into the world, I also sent them into the world." Moses disappears even as a pattern; so do the prophets. Even John the Baptist (and among those born of women was no prophet greater) was but man in mission from God; but he that is least in the kingdom is greater than John. He that cometh from above-from heaven-is above all. Such was Jesus; and as the Father sent forth Him, so He too sent those who then surrounded Him, their mission as new as the Word which formed and furnished their souls. It flowed from One apart from the world and above it, Who had been sent into it on an errand of infinite love to the Father's glory, and was in spirit no more here but in heaven, whither He was actually going soon. It was thus the Son sent the disciples associated with Himself in heaven and charged with the Father's testimony to the world. Not of the world as He was not, they could be and were sent into it. Had they been of the world, they could not be sent into it; but, as taken out of it by grace in Christ, they were not of it, and could be sent.

This is fitly followed by another and crowning means of sanctification of which the Lord speaks. "And for their sakes I sanctify myself that they also may be sanctified in truth." It is not the Father's word now as given to them here and revealing Him in every detail as the disciples needed, though inseparable from Christ's Person as come into the world, where they too were sent. This was essential both for themselves and their work. But grace does more; and the Lord goes on to show how He is setting Himself apart on high, the Son as ever but model Man before the Father in heaven, so as to complete their sanctification in seeing Him thus in glory.

Thus it is not only the truth brought out here in all its application, but the truth also in the glorified Christ as the suited object to animate and strengthen as well as transform, while we behold Him with unveiled face: God revealed in man, the Son of man; the Son of man now glorified by God in Himself, and this straightway, that the disciples might be sanctified "in truth," both bearing on their nature and walk. For, without such an object above, the fullest demonstration of God's righteousness and power were lacking, and so too, one might add, of the Father's love and glory, as well as what was due to His own Person, not only as Divine but as man, and man glorified according to the counsels of God. And the disciples also needed His blessed Person thus before them at God's right hand in order to fix and fill their affections, beside the Word which perfectly reveals all the mind of God in grace. For it is not simply as incarnate that the Lord sanctifies Himself on their behalf; nor yet as dying sacrificially, according to Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, with a crowd of followers since their day. For on the cross for us God made Him sin Who knew no sin. It is as glorified, consequent on death and resurrection, that He becomes the pattern of His own. Beholding Him they are transformed into His image from glory to glory even as by the Lord the Spirit; and, when He shall be manifested, they are to be like Him, seeing Him as He is, and conformed to the image of the Sun in resurrection glory. God Himself could give no other portion so blessed, when Christ shall be the Firstborn among many brethren.

The Lord now proceeds to plead for those to be brought into faith in Him by Apostolic testimony that they too might form a unity according to God and bear witness before the world to His mission of the Son. Verse 11 had contemplated only those disciples who were then surrounding Him in view of special grace and the consequent responsibility which attached to them. Those to follow have their new vested interest.

John 17: 20-26.

"And not for these only do I request, but also for those that believe* on Me through their word, that they may all be one,319a  even as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one† in us, that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me" (verses 20, 21).

* Text. Rec. reads the future with some cursives, but against the great authorities.

† ἔν ACcorrELXYΓΔΠ, etc., and good versions; but BCpmD, some old Latin and other versions, omit, followed strangely by Treg., Tisch., Alford, W. and H., and the Revisers [Weiss and Blass]. The homoeoteleuton plainly accounts for this.

There was to be, as we have seen, an astonishing exhibition of unity in the Apostles. But there is another and larger unity here. Those believing on Him through their word are now presented to the Father, "that they may all be one." Room is thus left for multitudes of believers, for confessors of His Name, Jew or Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free; for those that had hitherto clung tenaciously to legal forms, the substance of which they refused through their unbelief of Him; for those that had been well-nigh as obstinate in cleaving to the dreams of heathenism and its debasing immorality, in utter ignorance of the only true God truly known through Him Whom He sent. The Gospel was about to go forth to every land and in every tongue, as the Holy Ghost bore witness on the day of Pentecost; and the most strikingly on that day, because they as yet were Jews only from Gentile countries as well as Palestine. For the miracle was not the senseless and comparatively easy one of enabling all, home or foreign sons of Israel, to understand the wonderful works of God in the Hebrew tongue, but conversely that they, every man in his own dialect in which he had been born, should hear the disciples speak. God had of old smitten men's pride and divided them into ever so many differing tongues. Grace now rose above judgment, not reducing them all to one lip and the same words, but meeting each where thus confounded and scattered.

Nor was this by any means all; but the power of the Spirit baptized all the believers into one body, the Church. The unity here, however, though produced of course by the same Spirit in those who compose that body, is not that which fell to the Apostle Paul to set out. Of a spiritual nature it nevertheless displays itself in that which the world can see and appreciate in measure. It is not precisely "one as we," that is, as the Father and the Son, which verse 11 had predicated of the disciples. As the Father and the Son had but one mind and affection, purpose and way, so was this oneness desired for the Apostles in their work and life; and wondrously was it realised in them, as we have already noticed. Here the saints at large, those who believe through their word, are in view; and the thing sought is that they should "all be one," "even as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us"-not "as we," but "in us," in the Father and the Son. It is communion in virtue of the Father made known in the Son, and of the Son the object of the Father's love and delight, into which we are brought by the Holy Ghost. With the Father we share the Son; with the Son we share the Father. Into this blessedness the saints were now for the first time to be introduced, and in such sort that they should all be one, even as the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so they also one in the Father and the Son.

This was to be a testimony to the world, not preaching only, but this oneness so unearthly, so unprecedented among men, oneness in the joy of Divine grace which drew together souls so diverse and by the power of Divine objects, motives, and affections, those who had been once utterly indifferent or bitterly opposed, hating and hated. What a call for the world to believe that the Father sent the Son! For this, and this only, but this adequately accounted for it, when the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven gave the truth energy in hearts purified by faith. For as flesh tends to scatter by the assertion of its own will, so the Spirit operates to unite in the Father and the Son; and when the world sees the fruits of such gracious and holy power in the oneness of men otherwise alienated, and by nothing so keenly and permanently as by their varying religions, what a demonstration that the Father sent the Son! For here at least was no power of the sword, here no pandering to lust, here no inducement of wealth or worldly honour, here no allowance any more of sin than of human righteousness, no pride of philosophy any more than religious show or ritualism. None can deny that as built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets there was constant and unresisting exposure to the world's scorn and violence. Self-sacrificing love reigned, grace we may say through righteousness in devotedness to the name of Jesus; and a heavenly separateness to Him for Whom they avowedly waited from heaven. What then accounted for so astonishing a change from all that had previously characterised mankind, not merely among the Gentiles but in Israel even in its most flourishing estate? What did it attest but that the Father sent the Son? What of grace and truth, of perfect and eternal redemption, of near and heavenly relationship, does not this involve?

For if the Father sent the Son, it could not but be for ends impossible otherwise and worthy of the true God revealing Himself in sovereign grace, yea, in intimate love as well as in the light which makes everything manifest. Nor was the Son only to make the truth known and to impart the Divine nature, the eternal life capable of receiving and enjoying light, and walking in it by the Spirit of God. There was an incomparably solemn yet blessed work to be wrought to God's glory as well as for man's deep need and everlasting salvation: sin had to be borne in judgment, a propitiation made for our sins so complete that God should be righteous in justifying the believer, and that believers should become God's righteousness in Christ. Thus washed, sanctified, justified, children of God consciously, the Holy Ghost given, they find others in the communion of the same blessing. They are all one, as the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, and brought out as they were of the strongest prejudices into a mutuality of enjoyed blessedness, into oneness in the Father and the Son. What could more powerfully bear witness to the world that the Father sent the Son?

There is yet another unity of the deepest interest which our Lord next spreads before the Father: not discipular or Apostolic, which was so marvellously sustained; nor of testimony in the grace that would embrace all Christians which after a bright display at first has long painfully broken down; but unity in glory where all is to be stable and according to God perfectly.

"And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given them, that they may be one as We (are) one, I in them and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one (and)* that the world may know that Thou didst send Me and lovedst them as Thou lovedst Me" (verses 22, 23).

* BCDLX, some cursives, etc., omit καὶ, "and" [Edd.], which is read by A and a dozen more uncials, most cursives, and good ancient versions.

This is wholly distinct from what we have seen, though all be to the praise of Christ. It is an exclusively future unity, though the glory be given to our faith now, and grace would have us apprehend it and feel and walk accordingly.320 For all is revealed to act now on our souls. But this unity will be in glory when we shall be one as the Father and the Son are. Hence failure here is impossible. The weakness of man, the power of Satan, can damage no more.

The manner of this unity is to be noted also. It is not the mutuality which we had described in verse 21, that we should be one in the Father and the Son, as the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father. Such is the admirable way in which the Saviour set out what we are called to now by the Spirit, that the world may believe the Father sent the Son. But by-and-by, when the glory is revealed, there will be this new character, that, while the saints are to be one even as the Father and the Son are one, it will be Christ the Son in them and the Father in Him. And this as exactly agrees with Rev. 21 as the former answers to 1 John 1: 3.

For as the holy city-new Jerusalem-is the bride, the Lamb's wife, the symbol of ourselves glorified in that day, so we are shown that the city had "the glory of God," and the Lamb its lamp, while the nations walk in its light (Rev. 21: 11, 23, 24). Thus are the blessed on earth to enjoy the heavenly glory, not directly like the glorified on high who have the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb as their temple, and need none other; whereas those on earth have it but mediately. Yet how constant and impressive the proof before them that the Father sent the Son! For how else could there have grown up such a holy temple in the Lord? And what adequately could account for men thus called out of the earth and glorified on high? Sovereign grace had given them that heavenly portion as the fruit of His mission Who at all cost to Himself had glorified God on the earth. And now they share His glory above, and are so displayed before the wondering world.

The salvation-bearing grace, which had appeared to all and had done its suited and appointed work in redeeming and purifying these to God as a people of possession, will then have given place to the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; but this through the church reigning over the earth, at any rate as the ordinary or normal method of its manifestation during the kingdom. As we by faith saw the Father in the Son to eternal life, they in that day will behold and learn them in the Church, the glorious vessel of the light of Christ in Whom God's glory shines. For then the false glory of man is for ever judged, never more to mislead the heart; and Satan will never regain his bad eminence in the heavenlies whereby he found means most effectively to misrepresent God, oppose Christ, accuse the saints, and deceive the world. It is thenceforward the glory of God that is established before all eyes, so that men " know " it in and by the glorified saints, instead of being objects of testimony that they might "believe." For the earth shall be full of the glory of Jehovah (Num. 14: 21), and of the knowledge of Jehovah (Isa. 11: 9), and of the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah (Hab. 2: 14), as the waters cover the sea. Then Christ shall have come to be glorified in His saints, and to be admired in all them that believed, in that day.

Therefore do we hear for the first time of being "perfected into one." The Apostolic unity first spoken of, unity in counsel and action as the Father and the Son gave pattern, was as blessed as it was all-important for the place they had to fill and the work to be done in the testimony of Christ. Still it was comparatively partial, at least necessarily on a small scale. Far wider was the second unity of fellowship in the Father and the Son exhibited in the Pentecostal assembly at large, when thousands of souls walked together superior to selfish influence, and great grace was upon them all, and of the rest durst no man join himself to them, but the people magnified them, and believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. (Acts 5: 14.) But this was only transient. The third will be perfect in glory, and thus permanent as well as complete.

And the effect will be immense and immediate, as indeed one could not conceive it otherwise. The world will contemplate with amazement the Church in the glory and the glory of God in the Church, or (as the Lord says) the Father in Him, and He in them glorified. It is unity perfect both in connection with its source and in manifestation of the Divine glory. And what a demonstration that the Father sent the Son and loved the saints as He loved Him! For how should the Son be there as the glorified Man unless previously sent here in love? and how should we be manifested together with Him in glory, unless loved with the same love? It is no question of "believing" then, but of undeniable fact. The world will "know" it. We may know now what is only revealed in the Word to our faith; but in that day will be a display of Divine glory.

The closing section of our Lord's words is quite distinct in its character, and yet more intimate, as is marked by His use of Θέλω, "I will" (or "desire"), for the first and only time throughout His prayer.

"Father, that what* Thou hast given Me, I desire that, where I am, they also may be with Me, that they may behold My glory which Thou hast given Me, because Thou lovedst Me before (the) world's foundation. Righteous Father, though† the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee, and these knew that Thou didst send Me. And I made Thy name known to them, and will make (it) known, that the love wherewith Thou lovedst Me may be in them and I in them" (verses 24-26).

* ὃ, "what," BD, etc. [most Edd.], instead of οὓς, "whom" [Lachmann], as in the mass of authorities [ACL, Syrsin, etc.].

† It has been suggested, in order to make it smoother English, "though the world knew Thee not, yet," etc., to translate thus, "Righteous Father! and the world knew Thee not! But," etc. I prefer simply to follow the words faithfully, "but I knew Thee," in a sort of parenthesis, contrasted with the world, and introductory of His own, who at least knew Him as the sent One.

First, the Lord desires of the Father that those whom He had given Him should be with Him where He is. He is in spirit on high before the Father, and would have His own with Himself there. It is no question of display in glory before the world, even though in the closest association with Him; it is to be with Himself where no stranger can (I do not say merely intermeddle with the joy, but) look on Him or them, in the hidden scene which Divine love forms for its deepest satisfaction. There the Father has the Son after glorifying Himself perfectly in the face of all possible difficulty, and the suffering entailed not only by creature opposition and malice, but by Divine judgment of God on that evil, the consequences of which must be borne unsparingly by Him, Who would vindicate God on the one hand, and on the other deliver to the uttermost the guilty, so far as suited the gracious purpose of God. And this Jesus did in absolute obedience, as became Himself a man in grace beyond measure and at all cost; this He did in infinite suffering to His Father's praise, Who acquired fresh and everlasting glory and could thenceforward act as freely as righteously according to His nature and His love.

And now, as we have seen at the beginning of the chapter, going to heaven on the ground not of His personal title only, but of His work, He expresses His desire that His own also, the disciples whom the Father had given Him, should be with Him above, "that they may behold My glory." It is not, on the one hand, that which is personal from everlasting to everlasting, beyond creature ken, that in the Son which I presume none really knows nor can, save the Father Who is not said to reveal Him (Matt. 11: 27). Neither is it, on the other hand, the glory given to the blessed Lord which is to be manifested even to the world in that day, in which glory we are to be manifested along with Him (Col. 3: 4). Here it is proper to Himself on high, yet given Him by the Father as we are in His perfect favour to behold it: a far higher thing than any glory shared along with us, and which the Lord, reckoning on unselfish affections Divinely formed in us, looks for our valuing accordingly, as more blessed in beholding Him thus than in ought conferred on ourselves. It is a joy for us alone, wholly outside and above the world, and given because the Father loved Him before its foundation. None but the Eternal could be thus glorified, but it is the secret glory which none but His own are permitted to contemplate, "blest answer to reproach and shame," not the public glory in which every eye shall see Him. Nothing less than that meets His desire for us. How truly even now our hearts can say that He is worthy!322

Next, the Lord draws the line definitely between the world and His own, and makes it turn not on rejecting Himself, but on ignoring His Father. Here, therefore, it is a question of judgment in result, however grace may tarry and entreat; and therefore He says, "Righteous Father," not "Holy Father" as in verse 11, where He asks Him to keep them in His Name, as He Himself had done whilst with them. Now He sets forth not the lawlessness of the world, not its murderous hatred of Himself or of His disciples, nor yet of the grace and truth revealed in the Gospel, nor of the corruptions of Christianity and the Church (which we are sure lay naked and opened before His all-seeing eyes), but that on the one side the world knew not the Father, and on the other that the Son did, as the disciples that the Father sent the Son: words simple and briefly said, but how solemn in character and issues!

Never was so competent a witness of anyone or anything, as Christ of the Father. Yet the world knew Him not, nor received His testimony for a moment, but rose up more and more against it till all closed in the cross. Thenceforward He is hid in heaven, and those who believe on Him are heavenly. False pretension to it is salt that has lost its savour. And all those who are true are the first to own that all turns for them on the Son's knowledge of the Father, as they themselves knew the Father sent Him. It is no question of themselves at all, but of the Father; and He is only known in the Son Whom He sent; and this is eternal life, whether now had in Christ or enjoyed without alloy when we behold His glory on high; as ignorance of the Father implies the guilty rejection of the Son, to the everlasting loss, and not merely passing judgment, of the world.

But lastly, where Christ is known as the Father's sent One, the deepest blessing and the highest privileges are even now given, and not merely what awaits the saints at Christ's coming. "And I made known to them Thy Name, and will make known, that the love wherewith Thou lovedst Me may be in them, and I in them." If ever there was one capable of estimating another, it was the Son in respect of the Father; and His name, the expression of what He was, with equal competency He made known to us. He had done it on earth to the disciples; He would do so from heaven whither He was going; and this that He might give them, and give us, the consciousness of the same love of the Father which rested ever on Himself here below. As if to cut off the not unnatural hesitation of the disciples, He adds the blessed guarantee of His own being in them, their life. For they could understand that, if they lived of His life, and could be somehow as He before the Father, the Father might love them as Him. This is just what He does give and secure by identification with them, or, rather, as He puts it, "and I in them." Christ is all and in all.

John 18 - 21.

W. Kelly.

Part 4 of An Exposition of the Gospel of John

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — john_app.doc.)

JOHN — THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 558-560.]

The Lord had concluded His words to the disciples and to His Father. His work on earth, now about to close, had been before Him, as well as His departure on high, and contingent on both the approaching mission of the Holy Spirit to abide with His own apart from the world. That rejection of the Saviour which has been in view throughout our Gospel was now to reach its extreme in the cross; but its dark shadow, far from obscuring, only serves to bring out the True Light more distinctly. He is man, but a Divine Person, the Son throughout wherever He moves.

John 18: 1-11.

Cf. Matt. 26: 36, 47-56 Mark 14: 32, 43-52; Luke 22: 39, 47-53.

"Having said these things, Jesus went out with His disciples beyond the torrent-bed of Kedron,* where was a garden, into which he entered, himself and His disciples. And Judas also that was delivering Him up knew the place, because Jesus often met there with His disciples.323 Judas then, having received the band and officials from the high-priests and from (the) Pharisees, cometh there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus then, knowing all things that were coming on Him, went out and saith to them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarean. Jesus† saith to them, I am (He). And Judas that was delivering Him up was standing with them. When then He said to them, I am (He), they went away backward and fell to the ground. Again then He asked them, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus the Nazarean. Jesus answered, I told you that I am (He): if then ye seek Me, leave these to go away; that the Word might be fulfilled which He said, Of those whom Thou hast given Me, I have lost not one of them. Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it, and smote the bondman of the high-priest, and cut off his right ear. Now the bondman's name was Malchus. Jesus said then to Peter, Put the‡ sword into the scabbard: the cup which the Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" (verses 1-11). Cf. Matt. 26: 39.

* The variations are strange: τῶν κέδρων corrBCL, etc. [Treg., W. and H.], the most uncials and cursives, τοῦ κέδρου  pmD, etc. [Tisch.], τοῦ κεδρὼν ASΔ, etc. [Lachm., Weiss, Blass]; others κένδρων, or even δένδρων.

† A few witnesses [BD, etc.] omit [as W. and H., Blass], but the most and best read ὁ Ἰεσοῦς [so Tisch., Weiss: "He . . . I am Jesus "].

‡ The best MSS. and versions omit σοῦ, "thy."

It was the same orchard or garden which in the other Gospels is called Gethsemane (a word formed from the Hebrew words meaning "a winepress" and "oil"), but giving no real ground to say,* as some after the patristic and mediaeval style, that here emphatically were fulfilled those dark words, "I have trodden the winepress alone," as Isaiah 63: 3 has foretold, and as the name imports. For the treading of the winefat is when the Lord comes to judge, not to suffer, as the connected text (Rev. 14: 20) ought to have made plain. Indeed, no reader save one perverted by theological tradition could mistake the earlier prophet any more than the latest. For what is described in these prophecies is not agony but vengeance, not His bloody sweat with strong crying and tears, but His treading the peoples in His anger and their blood sprinkled on His garments.

* So Mr. Ffoulkes in Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible," i. 684.

But an intelligent and thoughtful reader would remark the striking absence of that wondrous scene where even those who loved the Lord-yea, Peter, James, and John-could not watch with Him one hour. For His soul was exceeding sorrowful even unto death, and though He asked them to tarry and watch whilst He went a little farther to pray, He found them sleeping for sorrow, and this repeatedly. It is notorious that some left out of their copies of Luke (Luke 22: 43 f.) the verses which record the angel which appeared from heaven strengthening Him, and the conflict such that His sweat became as great drops of blood falling down on the earth; as if the Lord were lowered by such an expression of real humanity and unspeakable grief, instead of seeing how characteristic the facts are of that evangelist, and of adoring Himself Who could so love and suffer as there portrayed. Yet John, who alone of all four writers of the Gospels was near the Lord, nearer than Matthew-John is the only one who does not describe that conflict at all: and this, not because it was not infinitely precious to his spirit nor because the others had given it to us, but because what he gave, as they also, was by inspiration, and in no way a question of human judgment or feeling. John records, no less than Matthew and Mark and Luke, the miracle of the five barley loaves; and this because it was as essential to the work given him to do as for the others in theirs. For the same reason he, led by the Holy Spirit, does not give the agony in the garden, as not falling within his assigned province. He knew it, of course, and must have often dwelt on it in his spirit deeply meditative beyond all the others, yet he is silent.235

Can anything more attest the overruling wisdom and power of the inspiring Spirit? Yes, in every part and every detail, one as much as another, and almost as self-evident were we not so dull of hearing; nor only in what is omitted, but in what is inserted by infinite grace. Witness what our evangelist tells us next. He brings before us the no doubt appalling spectacle of Judas availing himself of his intimate knowledge of the Saviour's habit and haunt to guide those who wished to take and slay Him. With the band and officers from His enemies, Judas guides them to the spot of the nightly prayer, with lanterns and torches and weapons to make sure of their prey, though full moon shone and He had never struck a blow in self-defence. But Judas really knew not Him any more than his companions did. How terrible the sight of a soul blinded to the deadly malice at work, no less than to the Saviour's glory and His love! How surely Satan had entered when we look at him as he stood with them to betray Him!

Jesus, knowing all that was coming on Him, goes out to them, saying, Whom seek ye? And at His confession of Himself in reply to their answer of Jesus the Nazarean,* they went backward and fell to the ground. How manifest the proof of His intrinsic Divine glory! A Man sent and come in love, yet the true God, this was the constant and special testimony of John, the true key to what he does not say no less than to what he does say. Yet is there no effort, but the most charming simplicity along with this deep and Divine undercurrent. Not all the treachery of Judas, not all the hatred and enmity of the Jews, not all the power of Rome, could have seized the Lord had not the time arrived to give Himself up. His hour was now come. He could have destroyed the company which sought to apprehend Him as easily as He caused them to fall prostrate before His Name; as by-and-by in virtue of His name every knee shall bow, of beings in heaven and beings on earth and beings under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2: 10, 11).324

* It seems desirable to note that the term "Nazarean" in verses 5, 7, and in John 19: 19, is Ναζωραῖος. So it is in Matt. 2: 23, Matt. 26: 71; Mark 10: 47; and Luke 18: 37 (though both questioned); and in Acts 2: 22, Acts 3: 6, Acts 4: 10, Acts 6: 14, Acts 9: 5 (though the best omit), Acts 22: 8, Acts 24: 5, and Acts 26: 9. It is the name of shame and scorn. Ναζαρηνὸς, like ἐκ Ναζαρὲτ, is an inhabitant of Nazareth, reproached or not, and occurs in Mark 1: 24; Mark 14: 67; Mark 16: 6; Luke 4: 34; and our Lord we have characterised as τὸν ἀπὸ Ν in John 1: 46 and in Acts 10: 38.

But when He asked them again, Whom seek ye? and they said, Jesus the Nazarean, grace shone out, not power: the former now, as the latter before, expressing the true God Who was now manifesting Himself on earth in His own Person. "If then ye seek Me, leave these to go away; that the word might be fulfilled which He said, Of those whom Thou hast given Me, I have lost not one of them." Like the ark in Jordan, He would go alone into the waters of death, and His own pass over dry-shod. He gives Himself up freely for them325. The great salvation which is infallible includes every lesser one which suits and serves the glory of God meanwhile. And blessed it is to trace to the same spring of gracious power in Christ all the passing mercies we experience where His hand shields us from the enemy's malice. He puts Himself forward to endure all. His people go free; His word is fulfilled in every way. Where the Father gives, the Son loses none. What comfort and assurance before a hostile world!

But even His most honoured servants fail, and are apt to fail most where they push forward in natural zeal and their own wisdom, too self-confident to watch His ways and heed His word and thus learn of Him. So Simon Peter then displays his haste in total discord with the grace of Christ; for, having a sword, he drew it, and struck Malchus,326 the servitor of the high-priest, maiming him of his right ear. Had Peter watched and prayed instead of sleeping, it might have been otherwise; when we fail to pray, we enter into temptation.

Luke alone, true to his testimony to God's grace, tells us of the Lord's answer, "Suffer ye thus far," and of His touching the ear to heal the wounded man. Matthew alone, in harmony with the rejected Messiah but true King of Israel, gives the reproof which warned His servant of what it is for saints to resist carnally. Mark mentions the fact, but no more. John, agreeably to the purpose of God in his province, presents the Lord in unfaltering obedience to His Father, as before in Divine power and grace. Nothing more calm than His correction of Peter's energy; nothing more distinct than His submission to the Father's will, whatever it cost. "The cup which the Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?"

It is the same Jesus as in Luke and the other Gospels, yet what a difference! Everywhere worthy, never a word or way beneath the Holy One of God, but here above all the Son with perfect dignity and withal entire subjection of heart in suffering as in work. May we think it was His drink now in enduring His will, as before His meat in doing it? Certainly the inward trial, to say nothing of all the outward suffering, was far deeper; yet His heart bowed to all, where to bow in obedience was infinite perfection. As the living Father sent Him, and He lived on account of the Father, so He lays down His life that He may take it again; but if He says, I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it again, He adds, This commandment I received of my Father. Never was such deep and holy conflict as the Second Man knew in the garden; but none of this appears in John.327 Here it is all the power and grace and calm of the Son with no motive but the Father's will. Never was there an approach to such glorifying of God the Father.

The believer will note the bearing of our Lord throughout these closing scenes, His lowliness and dignity, His infinite superiority to all who surrounded Him, friends or foes, His entire submission and withal His power intact. He is a man, the sent One but Son of God throughout. It is He Who shelters and secures the disciples; it is He who offers Himself freely. The traitor and the band, the torches and the weapons, had all failed, if He had not been pleased in letting His own go to give Himself up. For this indeed had He entered the world, and His hour was now come. But it was His own doing and according to the Will of His Father, whatever man's wickedness and Satan's malicious wiles. Not more surely was it the power of His Name which overwhelmed the armed crowd of His would-be captors than that His grace alone accounts for His subsequent subjection to their will.

John 18: 12-27.

Matt. 26: 57-75; Mark 14: 53-72, Luke 22: 54-71.

"The band therefore and the commander (chiliarch), and the officials of the Jews, took Jesus and bound Him and led (Him away)* unto Annas first;328 for he was father-in-law of Caiaphas who was high-priest of that year.329 But it was Caiaphas who counselled the Jews that it was expedient (or, profitable) that one man should die† for the people. Now Simon Peter was following Jesus, and the‡ other disciple. And that disciple was known to the high-priest,330 end went in with Jesus into the palace of the high-priest, but Peter was standing at the door outside. The other disciple therefore, that was known to the high-priest, went out and spoke. to the porteress and brought in Peter. The maid therefore, the porteress, saith to Peter, Art thou also of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not. But the bondmen and the officials were standing, having made a coal-fire because it was cold, and were warming themselves; and there was§ with them Peter standing and warming himself. The high-priest then asked Jesus about His disciples and about His doctrine. Jesus answered, I have openly spoken in the world, I always taught in (the)|| synagogue and in the temple, where all|| the Jews assemble, and in secret I spoke nothing: why askest thou Me? Ask those that have heard what I spoke to them: behold, these know what I said. But when He said these things, one of the officials as he stood by gave Jesus a slap on the face, saying, Thus answerest Thou the high-priest? Jesus answered him, If I spoke ill, testify of the ill; but if well, why smitest thou Me? Annas (therefore)¶ sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high-priest. Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him, Art thou also of His disciples? He denied and said, I am not. One of the bondmen of the high-priest, being kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again, and immediately a cock crew."

* The oldest authorities omit.

† The bulk of MSS. support ἀπόλεσθαι, "to perish" (Text. Rec.), but the best ἀποθανεῖν  [Edd.].

‡ The article is omitted by some of the best witnesses [ pmAB, so Tisch., W. and H., Weiss].

§ BCLX, several cursives; Theb. Memph. Syrr.pesch et hcl Arm. Æeth add "also" [as W. and H., Weiss, Blass], which the rest omit.

|| The article, added in Text. Rec., with many, is omitted by the best and most; also πάντοτε, "always," the more common reading (πάντοθεν, Elz.) is inferior to πάντες, "all."

¶ οὖν, Elz., with BCpmL, etc. [1. 33], δὲ , etc. Steph. omits, following most [ACcorr, etc.].

Our evangelist notices the fact that the band led off our Lord, not only to Caiaphas the high-priest, but before that to Annas, his father-in-law, who had preceded him in that office, but was succeeded by Caiaphas before his death. All things were out of course, and in nothing was this more evident than in the closing scenes of the Saviour. And therefore does the Gospel recall what was already recorded in John 11, where the highest religious office blended with the lowest expediency, and the prophetic Spirit wrought in the wicked high-priest, as of old in the unprincipled prophet of Pethor. As a rule the Holy Spirit actuated holy men for God's will and glory; but exceptionally He could and did use for that glory those whom Satan was employing to thwart it as much as possible. Nothing can be more striking in Caiaphas' case than the way in which his heartless sentiment is turned by grace into the expression of a great truth wholly outside his ken.

Again we see Simon Peter following the Lord, but not in the Spirit, nor was the other disciple there to his own honour, still less to the Lord's. For he finds access to the high-priest's palace, as known to that functionary, and in no way as a follower of Jesus. And how he must have soon grieved over the kindly influence he exerted to get Peter let in, who had been obliged to stay without! Little did he think that his word to the porteress would give occasion to the terrible and repeated fall of his beloved fellow-servant! But every word of the Lord must be fulfilled. It would seem that the maid who kept the door was not ignorant of John's discipleship, for she says to Peter, "Art thou also of this Man's disciples?" But the trying question was put not to John, but to Peter; and Peter, in the garden so bold, now utterly quails before this woman. Such is man, though a saint: what is he to be accounted of? Nor is fleshly energy better really in Christ's eyes than fleshly weakness, which not only lied but denied his Master in denying his relationship to Him as a disciple. And this was warm-hearted, fervent, courageous Peter! Yes, but it was Peter tried under the shadow of the coming cross. Death is an overwhelming trial to the disciple till he knows what it is to have died with Christ to sin and law, crucified to the world which crucified Him, and able therefore to glory in the cross. It was not so yet with Peter, and he fell; nor can we say more of John and the rest than that they were not so tried. That they would have stood the test better is more than any can accept who believe what God says of them and of man in general.

The high-priest pursues his investigation; Peter renews his sin. And no wonder. For he had slept when he ought to have watched and prayed, and he had ventured into the scene of temptation instead of heeding the warning of the Lord. "But the bondmen and the officials were standing, having made a coal-fire, for it was cold, and were warming themselves; and there was with them Peter standing and warming himself." Evil communications corrupt good manners; and the confession of Jesus before friends is very different from confession before bloodthirsty enemies; and Peter must learn by painful experience what he was too unspiritual to realise from the words of Christ. It is blessed to learn our nothingness and worse in His presence Who keeps from falling; but every saint, and especially every servant, must learn himself, if not there, in the bitter humiliation of what we are when we forget Him. May we abide in Him, and have His words abiding in us, and so ask what we will and have it done unto us! Peter had not thus failed before men if he had not failed before with his Master. Doubtless it is by power of God we are kept, but this is through faith.

"The high-priest331 then asked Jesus about His disciples and about His doctrine." He desired grounds against the Lord. Was this the procedure of-one will not ask the grace which should characterise a priest, but-ordinary painstaking righteousness? It was not to screen Himself that the Lord points to His open and constant testimony. Others unlike Him might cultivate private coteries and secret instructions, not to speak of darker counsels inciting to deeds that shunned all light of day. "Jesus answered, I have openly spoken in the world, I always taught in synagogue,* and in the temple, where all the Jews assemble; and in secret I spoke nothing:332 why askest thou Me? Ask those that have heard what I spoke to them: behold, these know what I said." It was unanswerably true and right. The only reply was a brutal insult from a Jewish underling who would thus, as he could not otherwise, sustain the high-priest.333 But the Lord answered the low as the high with a righteous dignity immeasurably above them all: "If I spoke ill, testify of the ill; but if well, why smitest thou Me?"

* "In synagogue," without the article, for there were many; "in the temple," with the article, for there was but one.

So fared the Lord with the high-priest: how painful the contrast of the disciple warming himself with the slaves! More than one assailed him with the crucial question, "Art thou also of His disciples?" Again the fear of man prevailed, and he who truly believed on Him did not confess, but denied and said, I am not. But this was not all. For "one of the bondmen of the high- priest, being kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again, and immediately a cock crew." Oh, what fear of man bringing a snare! What blinding power of the enemy thus to involve a saint in direct and daring falsehood, and this to shame Him Who was his life and salvation! But of what is not the heart capable when the Lord is not before it, but fear or lust or aught else by which Satan beguiles? God, however, took care that the dread of man to His dishonour should cover the guilty disciple with self-reproach and contempt and utter humiliation when an eye-witness could brand him before all with his reiterated lying in denial of his Master.

It will be noticed that we have in this Gospel neither the Lord's antecedent praying for Peter and assurance of restoration, nor His turning and looking on Peter after his last denial, when he, remembering the Word of the Lord, went out and wept bitterly. These are given explicitly in the only Gospel whose character they suit and sustain (see Luke 22: 31, 32, and 61, 62). Here all turns, not on the discovery of what man's heart is, and the grace of the Lord, but on the Person of Christ as the one central object, not so much the Second Man despised by man, and the energy of His love acting on a disciple spite of utter failure in himself, but the Son of God glorifying the Father in the midst of complete and universal ruin, with friends or foes.

The Lord has been before the religious authority;334 He is now to appear before the civil power. It was a mockery everywhere; and so it must be shown out against His Person Who will one day cut off him that privily slanders his neighbour, and will not suffer the man that has a high look and a proud heart, any more than the liar and deceiver, early destroying all the wicked of the land, and especially from the city of Jehovah. Yet His glory they wist not, nor consequently His grace; yet they should not have been blind to His holy and righteous ways; but man, religious or profane, was filling up the cup of his iniquity, and the more so because of God's longsuffering.

John18: 28-40.

Matt. 27: 2, 11-30; Mark 15: 1-19; Luke 23: 1 -25.

"They led then Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium;335 and it was early; and they entered not into the praetorium that they might not be defiled but eat the Passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and saith,* What accusation do ye bring against this man? They answered and said to him, If this (man) were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered Him up to thee. Pilate therefore said to them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law. The Jews said to him, It is not allowed to us to put anyone to death; that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled which He said signifying by what death He should die. Pilate then again entered into the praetorium, and called Jesus and said to Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Of thyself sayest thou this, or did others say (it) to thee about Me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee up to me: what didst Thou? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, My servants (ὑπηρ.) would fight that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from hence. Pilate then said to Him, Art Thou then a King? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King. I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. Pilate saith to Him, What is truth? And having said this, he again went out unto the Jews, and saith to them, I find no fault in him; but ye have a custom that I should release one to you at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release to you the King of the Jews? They all cried then again, saying, Not this (man) but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber" (verses 28-40).

* BCpmLX, cursives, Cyr., for the Text. Rec., "said" with most.

The activity of hostile will marked the Jews, whose zeal was as great as their punctiliousness and their lack of conscience. Late and early were they at work, from one high-priest to another, pushing on to the Roman governor. Bent on the blood of the Messiah, they scrupled to enter the praetorium; they must not be defiled, as they would eat the Passover and had not yet done so (verse 28).336 Little thought they that they were but bringing about the death of the true Paschal Lamb, and so in guilty unbelief fulfilling the voice of the law to their own destruction, whatever God's purpose in His death. The hard-hearted pagan seems at first fair and just compared with the chosen nation: we shall see how at last Satan found the way to excite his unrighteousness and fix him, as them, in hopeless evil through rejecting Christ. Pilate felt that there was no proper case for him, and asks a tangible accusation (verse 29). The want of this they evade by an affected or real affront at his question, as if they could not be unjust (verse 30). The governor would gladly have thrown the responsibility on the Jews, who betray their own foregone conclusion: Jesus must die; and as death could not be lawfully at their hands, it must be by the hand of lawless men. He must die the death of the cross.

Thus was the word of Jesus to be fulfilled, signifying by what death He should die (verse 32). Compare John 3: 15, John 8: 28, John 12: 32, 33 (for Peter, John 21: 18, 19); also Matthew 16: 21, Matthew 17: 12, 22, 23. Stephen might be stoned by the Jews in an outburst of religious fury, James be slain with the sword by Herod; but the Son of man must be condemned by the Jewish chief priests and scribes, and be crucified by the Gentiles.337 "For in truth against Thy holy servant Jesus Whom thou anointedst, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the nations and people of Israel were gathered together in this city to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel pre-determined should come to pass" (Acts 4: 27, 28). Man universally must prove his guilt to the last degree and the Divine Word be fulfilled to the letter, God Himself (we may say in the Person of His Son) being cast out in shame from His own earth; for all this and more was involved in the deliberate and fatal act. Yet was it the deepest moral glory. Now was the Son of man glorified, and God was glorified in Him. Obedience unto death, absolute devotedness, suffering beyond measure both for righteousness and for sin, met there on the one hand; and on the other the truth, the justice, the grace and the majesty of God, were not vindicated only but glorified. Therein too Satan's power and claims were for ever annulled, and a perfect everlasting basis to God's glory was laid for the blessing of man and creation in general. Such were the fruits of Christ's death on the cross. How dense the blindness of its instruments! how dim the intelligence even of its favoured objects! How blessed the Father and the Son in love and holiness, spite of all accomplishing all!

Again the Roman (whose characteristic common sense saw through the envy and malice of the Jews, and repudiated all anxiety as to the honour or security of Caesar) entered into the praetorium, called the Lord, and said, Art Thou the King of the Jews? He Who was silent before the high-priest till adjured by the living God answered Pilate by the question, Of thyself sayest thou this; or did others say it to thee about Me? (verses 33, 34). This was the turning-point. If the governor were uneasy as to the rights and interests of Caesar, the Lord could have pointed to His uniform life as in John 6: 15, and to His invariable teaching as in Luke 20: 25, for a perfect disproof and reassurance. But if the question originated, as it really did, with the Jews (Luke 23: 2), the Lord had nothing to say but the truth in the face of Israel's unbelief and gainsaying, nothing to do but witness the "good confession" before Pontius Pilate; (1 Tim. 6: 13.) and this He does with all simplicity.

The governor's answer made plain what was already sure, that the true Son of David was rejected by the Jew definitively false to the one Divine hope of the nation. "Am I a Jew?" said he. "Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee up to me: what. didst Thou?" Not one thing against which there is any law: every word, every way, testified of God. He spoke, He was, the truth, which not only detected man, but presented the Father; and both were intolerable. They would have none of Him; not because He did not give every possible proof of His Messiahship, but because He put them in presence of God and of their sins, from which testimony there was no escape, but the rejection of Himself. Hence the all-importance of what was in question. People and priests alike refused their own Messiah; and He bowed to it. Deeper things were meanwhile in accomplishment; and the infinite glory of His Person, already confessed by the disciples, as well as His work of eternal redemption, were about to be proclaimed in the Gospel and to supersede Jewish hopes. For the gathering together in one of the scattered children of God should replace the disowned nation, till at the end of the age they shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of Jehovah. Then shall the long-rejected Jesus once more and for ever recall them as His own, and bless them unchangingly, and make them a blessing to all the families of the earth.

Hence Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from hence" (verse 36). When the Jews repent, and the Lord returns in power and glory, not only will He be revealed from heaven in flaming fire taking vengeance, (2 Thess. 1: 8.) but Jerusalem be made a burdensome stone for all peoples, as He bends Judah for Him, and fills the bow with Ephraim. (Zech. 9: 13.) But here we have Christianity, which has come in before that day with His kingdom not of this world, nor from hence, but from above, where all savours of the rejected but glorified Christ, and according to the revealed knowledge of the Father, the Jews being as such outside and manifest enemies.

The governor, while satisfied that there was nothing to fear politically, could not but perceive a claim incomprehensible to his mind. "Art thou then a king!" This the Lord could not deny. It was the truth, and He confessed it, whatever it might cost. But having done so, He set forth that which applies now. "Thou sayest I am a king. I have been born for this, and for this I have come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth."338 The law was given by Moses, and Jesus was the born King of the Jews. But He was conscious of another and higher glory bound up with His Person as Son of God: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice." How solemn and unwavering the testimony! The Jews were zealous for the law, not because it was of God, but because it was theirs; the Romans sought this world and its power. They were both blind to the eternal and unseen. Jesus was the Truth, as well as the Faithful and True Witness to it.

It may help some to remark here that "King of His Church," the favourite idea of Puritan theology, is not only unfounded, but opposed to all the testimony of Scripture. Even "King of saints," as in the Text. Rec. of Rev. 15: 3, must be abandoned by all who know the best reading. It should be "of the nations," though "of the ages" has excellent authority. Whichever of these may be adopted, it is certain that "of the saints" has scarce any support, as it is also foreign to Scripture and to the mind of Christ in it. "Of the nations" seems plainly drawn from, or in full accordance with, Jer. 10: 7. Christ is King of Israel in Zion; as Son of man all the peoples and nations and languages shall serve Him; and as Jehovah He shall be King over all the earth. But even as Head, it is written that He is so given "to the Church," His body, "and over all things"; never over the Church, as men have said, who misunderstood His revealed relationships.

He adds, strange to the ears of man, not least to Roman ears: "Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice." If a man did not hear Him, he was not of the truth. How could it be otherwise if He was the Only-begotten Son, yet man on earth? What could such a One come for but for this, if He came in grace, not in judgment? And Pilate, with a "What is truth?" returns to the Jews. He did not seriously seek an answer: an awakened conscience alone does; and grace, as it produces the desire in the sinner, gives the answer of good from God. Not so Pilate, who having said this, went out again to the Jews, saying: "I find no fault in him";339 and suggesting as a solution of the difficulty the customary release of a prisoner at the feast, he offers to let go their King. But this only draws out the depth of their hatred, and they all cry out: . . . "Not this man, but Barabbas." Now, Barabbas, as the Evangelist adds, was a robber. So the Jews chose Satan's "son of the father" (for so the word means). How evident that man rejecting Jesus is Satan's slave!339a

But the Jews in their unbelief are more daringly evil than the dark heathen procurator. He, like the rest of the world, did not know anything of "truth"; they had abundant speculations, one as little satisfactory as another, no certain truth, least of all about God. The Jews knew better; and the Lord compelled them to hear what they could not deny, but would not receive. Therefore, all ended for the present in their hatred of Him up to the cross, and their avowed preference of a robber and a murderer. No flesh shall glory in His presence.

JOHN — THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 561-563.]

Hard-heartedness and insult took their course, for His hour was come. Pilate took and scourged Jesus the Lord of glory; the soldiers treated their meek prisoner with the unfeeling scorn, natural in such towards One Who resisted not; yet we must look to the Jews for extreme and unrelenting hatred.

John 19: 1-15.

"Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged (Him). And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns and put (it) on His head, and clothed Him with a purple garment,340 and were coming to Him† and saying, Hail, King of the Jews! and gave Him slaps on the face. And Pilate went out again and saith to them, Behold, I bring Him out to you, that ye may know that I find no fault (in Him). Jesus therefore came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment, and he saith to them, Behold the man!" (verses 1-5).341

† Such is the reading of BLUXΛΠ, more than twenty cursives, and nearly all the ancient versions, followed by the chief editors. The clause [through homoeoteleuton] is omitted in Text. Rec., with most uncials and cursives.

The Roman saw through the baseness of the people, through the craft and deadly malice of the religious chiefs; and he seems to have resorted to the unjust policy of scourging the Lord, followed up by the allowed, if not prescribed, derision of the soldiers, as a means of satisfying the Jews and letting Jesus go. Contrary to truth and righteousness, he would humour their feelings against Jesus, but he would save an innocent man, if possible, without loss to himself. Such is man in authority here below-at least, where Christ is concerned, or even those that are Christ's. It was the place of judgment, but wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, but iniquity was there. There was not one spark of conscience in the judge, any more than in the accusers, or the crowd now quite carried away. There was man deceived by Satan; and God was in none of their thoughts. Pilate probably hoped that the uncomplaining endurance of such cruel mockery and scourging in their sight might perchance move the multitude and its leaders to compassion, whilst the exposed futility of the royal claims of Jesus would naturally awaken their contempt, and so in both ways further his own desire to dismiss the captive, in Whom he avowedly saw no guilt whatever. But, no! all must come out in their true colours-priests and people, learned and unlearned, civilians and soldiers, judge and prisoner. It was their hour and the power of darkness. But if man and Satan were there, so was God morally judging them all by the One they misjudged.

Still in that blind and hardened throng the Roman, unjust as he was, shines in comparison with the Jews of all ranks, and as the difficulty grew of delivering the Guiltless from their will set on destruction, we see a man in spite of himself growingly impressed with the unaccountable dignity of Him Who appeared to be at his mercy. Elsewhere, indeed, we read of his wife's dream sent to warn him on the judgment-seat; but here it is His Person, with His silence and His words alike, which increased the desire to extricate Him from unscrupulous and murderous adversaries, always despised in Pilate's eyes, never so despicable as now.

Pilate's effort, however, was vain. "Behold the man!" had for its effect neither the pity nor the contempt intended to divert the crowd from their fell purpose, but rather to whet their rage afresh in clamouring for the Lord's death. In the ways of God He will not allow iniquity to prosper, least of all where Christ is in question. The unjust judge might abuse and insult the Lord, hoping to gratify the Jews thus far, and to turn them from an aim from which even his stern and callous mind revolted as useless crime. But God, Who abhorred the horrible iniquity of them all, lets Satan ensnare them all in the consequences of their utter unbelief, and their habitually evil state-deaf to every warning and blind to the fullest testimony of moral goodness, and Divine glory, and perfect grace in the holy Sufferer before them. As the judge acknowledged His innocence, yet would risk nothing on His behalf, so all commit and condemn themselves to their own ruin, stumbling over the precious Corner-stone and sure foundation as a stone disallowed by the builders. (Ps. 118: 22.)

"When, then, the chief priests and the officials saw Him, they cried, Crucify, crucify!342 Pilate saith to them, Take ye him, and crucify; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered, We have a law, and according to the* law he ought to die, because he made himself Son of God.343 When Pilate, therefore, heard this word, he was the more afraid, and entered into the prætorium again, and saith to Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate saith to Him, Speakest thou not to me? Knowest thou not that I have authority to release thee, and I have authority to crucify thee? Jesus answered, Thou hadst† no authority at all against Me except it were given thee from above: on this account he344 that delivered Me up to thee hath greater sin" (verses 6-11).

* BDsupplLΔ, most It. Vulg., etc., omit ἡμῶν, which the rest give.

† So in BΓΔ, and six more uncials, most cursives, etc. [most Edd.]. But ἔχεις, "hast" [Tisch.], in ADsupplLXYΛΠ, a dozen cursives, etc.

The charge failing against the Lord as hostile to the powers of the world, His accusers now betake themselves to the still more solemn cry, He ought to die, because He made Himself Son of God. And Pilate was the more afraid, but not more ready to fall in with their design, though he were a heathen and they the blasphemers of the Hope of Israel, the Holy One of God! Yes, He is going to die, but not for the lies some swore falsely against Him, but for the truth of God, the capital truth for man, the object of faith, and the one source of eternal life. Having emptied Himself, He humbled Himself; but Son of God He was and is, from all eternity to all eternity. Not more sure is it that man is a sinner dead to God than that Jesus is His Son; and eternal life is in Him only, yet for every soul to have that believes on Him. "He that believeth hath everlasting life." Neither is there salvation in any but Jesus, nor another name under heaven which is given among men whereby we must be saved. But those who ought most to have welcomed Him, and most to have set forth His glory, were those who feared not to say, According to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself Son of God! Oh, how real, how darkening, the power of Satan, when Jews blasphemed Him boldly, and the heathen procurator "was afraid" before Him!

Fear, however, is not faith; and in Pilate it was not more than undefined dread of the mysterious Man on His trial, and a strong sense that the enmity to Him was without a cause, save in their ravenous will. So, entering his palace again, he inquires, Whence art thou? and, mortified at receiving no answer, he vaunts his authority to release or to crucify Him. The Lord did not answer the one query, which had no better motive than curiosity, apart from the fear of God or His love; but He replied to the second in terms worthy of His Person, in fulness of grace and truth. Truly the hour was come that the Son of man should be glorified, and God be glorified in Him. What was the authority of a Roman governor without the will of God to sanction it? His ways, His nature, must be made good; the words were now, for the deepest of purposes, just about to be accomplished to His own glory for ever; and Jesus bowed absolutely to all.

Nevertheless, the accomplishing of Divine counsels in Christ does not consecrate the will of man that cast Him out and slew Him; and God is righteous in judging the evil. "On this account he that delivered Me up to thee hath greater sin." The Gentile was wicked, the Jew worse; if Pontius Pilate were inexcusably unrighteous, how much more awful the position of Caiaphas or Judas Iscariot and of all they represented that day? If God sent His Son in infinite grace, He did not fail to present adequate proofs of Who and what He is, to leave all inexcusable for not perceiving and receiving Him; not only those who had God's outward authority in this world, but yet more those who had His living oracles that testified of His Son, Who was the centre and object of them all. Were they not witnesses of such works and words and ways as never had been known on earth, proportionately measuring the guilt of those who after such grace rejected One so glorious?

"From this (time) Pilate sought to release Him; but the Jews kept crying, saying, If thou wilt release this (man), thou art not a friend of Caesar: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. Pilate then, having heard these words, led Jesus out and sat down on (the) judgment-seat345 at a peace called Pavement,* but in Hebrew Gabbatha. Now it was (the) preparation† of the Passover; it was about sixth‡ hour. And he saith to the Jews, Behold your King. They cried therefore, Away with (him), away with (him); crucify him. Pilate saith to them, Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar" (verses 12-15).346

* In later Greek τὸ λιθόστρωτον  was said for tessellated work or mosaic used for the floors of buildings, public or domestic, and very particularly for the tribunal of a Roman in the execution of his office. So Julius Caesar, on his military expeditions, regularly carried such a mosaic with him, as Suetonius tells us (gap. 46). The word seems to be from a Herew root, "to be high" (cf. Geba, Gibeah, Gibeon, etc.). The one apparently refers to the flooring, the other to the elevated platform unless Lightfoot's idea be well founded, who derives G. from "a surface," and hence regards the Greek and Hebrew words as equivalents.

† No matter of fact in the Gospel has been debated more keenly or with wider differences among men of piety and learning than this of παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα  in connection with John 18: 28, which doubtless disposes a modern or Gentile reader at first sight to conceive that the Lord must have observed the Passover and instituted His own Supper on the day before the time followed by the Jews. On the other hand, it is no less plain that, according to the three Synoptic Gospels, the Lord partook of the Passover with the disciples at the regular season, 14th Nisan. Hence there have not been wanting those who have dared to reject the narrative of John, whilst a still greater number have fallen into the opposite error, and treated the earlier Evangelists as confounding the meal with the Passover. Not a few, like Dean Alford, give up the question in despair as to us insoluble. The truth is, that all these contending parties start with the error of forgetting the obvious and certain fact that the Jews reckon the day from evening to evening, and that hence it is all a mistake to suppose that the Lord took the Passover with the disciples on one day and suffered the next [Neander, Meyer, Godet, Weiss, Ellicott, Westcott, Sanday]. So it would be to our Western habit of thought, but not so according to the Jews, nurtured in the law. It was on our Thursday they ate, and on our Friday He suffered; but to the Jews it was one and the same day. Hence there was still time for such Jews as had been too much occupied with the mock trial and condemnation of our Lord to eat the Passover if they did not legally defile themselves meanwhile. The preparation of the Passover does not mean the 13th, but the 14th Nisan. It was the day before the Paschal Sabbath, which was, on this occasion, a double one, and so of peculiar sanctity. Hence Matthew, speaking of this Sabbath, says, ἥτις ἐστὶν μετὰ τὴν παρασκευὴν, as Mark explains, παρασκευὴ ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον, or Sabbath eve. This seems conclusive in reconciling the statements of the fourth Gospel with those of the other three. The painful fact is the unbelief that exposed so many persons eminent for erudition and even for godliness to such hasty and careless discussion of Scripture. Had they held firmly the inspired character of the holy writings, they would at least have avoided error and irreverence if they could not clear up the difficulty.

‡ It is well known that not Nonnus only in his poetical paraphrase of our Gospel gives "third" hour, but also five uncials and four cursives, either in the original text or in a correction, not to speak of less direct authorities. Still, the weight of witnesses is overwhelming for ἕκτη, "sixth." It would seem that our Evangelist adopted a different reckoning of hours, from midnight to noon, as we do. Certainly the Romans did for their civil day (see Plin., "N. Hist.," ii. 79; Censorinus de "Die. Nat.," xxiii; Aul. Gell., "N. Att.," iii. 2; and Macrob., "Sat.," i. 3). And it suits all the mentions of hours in the Gospel of John excellently, besides falling in with Mark's third, sixth, and ninth hours of the natural day from the sun. This serves to explain the otherwise singular message of Pilate's wife (Matt. 27: 19), in which she spoke of suffering much "today in a dream because of Him." To Procula, as a Roman, the day was reckoned from midnight, as the hours appear to be throughout our Gospel, but not in the Synoptists.

It is singular, as showing the perplexity in minds of old as now, that Jerome says in his breviary on Ps. 77: "Sic scriptum est in Matthaeo et Ioanne quod Dominus noster hora sexta crucifixus sit. Rursus scriptum est in Marco: quid hora tertia crucifixus sit. Error scriptorum fuit; sed multi episemum Graecum g "putaverunt esse g g: sicut et ibi error fuit scrip. forum: ut pro Asaph, Isaiam scriberent" (Hier. Opp., vii., 1046, ed. Migne). Jerome's remedy was thus to correct the text, not of John [as Wesley, into "third"], but of Mark-a correction of but one known cursive manuscript of the eleventh century, the margin of the later Syriac, and the Æth., on which last says Bode (Pseudocrit. Millio-Beng., 265): " Habet omnino Æth. sexta hora, idque ex Io. 19, 14. Nimirum Interpres Ioanni contradicere noluit." But it is the just retribution of these tamperings with Scripture that they do not satisfy the desired aim; for John connects his sixth hour with what was before-possibly hours before-the hours specified by Mark, be it sixth or even third. Thus the violence done to the surest authority in Mark would no more reconcile the statements than the similar violence offered to the witnesses of John 19: 14; for Mark specifies the time when our Lord was crucified as the third hour, John speaks of the time when Pilate took his seat on the tribunal to give sentence as about the sixth hour. To change the latter to the third, or the former to the sixth, if admissible in the face of the gravest adverse evidence, would not clear the truth, but only give birth to fresh confusion. [Cf. Westcott and Hort's "Select Readings," p. 90.]

The true state of the readings also thoroughly overthrows the efforts of some eminent Greeks and Latins, who try to explain the earlier hour as applicable to the Jewish outcry for the crucifixion, the later hour as the actual moment when the soldiers carried it into effect. But this is only neglect of Scripture, for John predicates "about the sixth hour" of the outcry, Mark "the third hour" of the actual crucifixion.. As there is no sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the seemingly conflicting texts of the second and fourth Gospels (in itself no mean evidence that the apparent discrepancy exhibits the genuine readings of both), and as the very slight variation of readings is easily accounted for by the desire thus to reduce them to harmony, the natural solution is that John's reckoning of time differs from that of the other Evangelists. It will be found by comparing the various hours named in John 1: 39, 4: 6, 52, that the hours of the civil day suit as well after all as those of the natural (the last occasion apparently better), so as to confirm the different computation of John throughout. John 11: 9 in no way opposes this, as being a general way of describing a working day, whatever the mode of computation-as, for instance, we can say so, who follow the style of the civil day from midnight. [Cf. Edersheim, "The Temple," etc., p. 245, and note appended below, No. 346.]

How powerless is the struggle to do right, where the world is loved, one's sins are unjudged, and grace unknown! The Jews saw through Pilate as he through them. How wretched not to have Christ for eternal life! Pilate preferred the friendship of the world to the Son of God, as the Jews saw no beauty in Him that they should admire Him; and both played their part in crucifying Him. Pilate may seek to release Jesus, may go in and out, may speak to Jesus and pour scorn on the Jews. But the last word of apostate unbelief passes their lips and closes Pilate's mouth, who will not be behind the Jews in allegiance to Caesar. All is over now. The prince of the world comes, and though he has nothing in Christ, Christ dies rejected of man, forsaken of God, the Righteous One for our sins; never such hatred and unrighteousness as on the world's part toward Him; never such love and unrighteousness as on God's part toward the world in virtue of Him.

The Christ-rejecting word was passed. Their allegiance to the Roman was a lie, their mad guilt manifest in getting rid of Messiah and God Himself and all their faith and hope. The Jews abhorred subjection to Caesar; they owned neither his right nor their own sin, which was the occasion of his supremacy. But they abhorred the Messiah more,* not their idea, but the reality according to God. They had not a thought nor a feeling, not a word nor a way nor a purpose, in common with Jesus; and this because He brought God near to them in grace, because He manifested man in perfect dependence and obedience to God, and their will with a bad conscience rejected both. Hence the cross was to them most repulsive. "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, the Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" Yet was the law plain enough that the Messiah should be rejected by man, especially by the Jew, and die that death of curse, the terrible sin of man, yet God's atoning sacrifice for sin. But will, governed by Satan to serve a present purpose in pursuance of man's lusts and passions, blinded them to His word and to their own suicidal wickedness; as ere long they were about to prove their rebelliousness to Caesar, and have the Romans come and take away their place and nation, but not before they had filled Jerusalem with the spectacle of their own penalty till there was no room left for more crosses, and wood failed to make them: so Josephus.

* "Jesum negant usque eo ut omnino Christum regent." Beng. Gn. in loco.

John 19: 16-30.

Matt. 27: 31 -50; Mark 15: 20-37; Luke 23: 26-46.

"Then, therefore, he delivered Him up to them that He might be crucified. They took then Jesus* [and led (Him) away]; and bearing for Himself the cross, He went outer out348 unto the place called of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha, where they crucified Him, and with Him two others, on this side and on that, and Jesus in the middle. And also Pilate wrote a title and put (it) on the cross; and there was written, Jesus the Nazarean, the king of the Jews.349 This title, therefore, many of the Jews read, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, in Latin. Therefore said the high priest of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The king of the Jews, but that he said, I am king of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written."

* Thus end BLX, etc. [Edd. in general]. But most with DE, etc., add "and led." [Blass brackets the words.] A, etc., support Text. Rec. supports the same sense in a peculiar form.

Faith alone preserves from the power and wiles of the devil. Pilate and the Jews were wholly opposed in their thoughts and wishes; but God was not in the thoughts of the one more than of the others. They had each his own way, but all astray; and now they show themselves the open enemies of righteousness as well as of grace, incapable of discerning the clearest ways, marks, and proofs of God present in love to man, no matter how low He might come down. The cross of Christ makes all and every one manifest. Pilate under pressure of fear for his own worldly interests gave up Jesus to their malice, though knowing Him innocent; and He bearing His cross went forth to the place of a Skull, Golgotha, in Latin "Calvary." There was He crucified with peculiar indignity, a robber also on either hand, as a robber had been preferred to Him. Yet God took care that even there a fitting testimony, from whatever motive in Pilate's breast, should be rendered to Him in the inscription on the cross; the despised man of Nazareth was the Messiah. Where were the Jews if He was their King? The keenest adversaries of the true God, blindly fulfilling His terrible prophecies of their unbelief and wickedness under a self- complacent zeal for His name and law. There stood His title, read by many; for the place was near the city, written in the tongues not of the officials only, nor of the polite world, but of the Jews too; and all the efforts of their high priests but riveted it to the cross under the pertinacious and irritated and scornful spirit of the procurator.

But the lowest played their part at the cross as well as the highest, men used to arms no less than the ministers of the sanctuary; and every class, every man, showed out there what each was in selfish indifference to the grace and glory of the Son of God, Who suffered Himself to be numbered with the transgressors.

"The soldiers, therefore, when they crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to each soldier a part, and the vest; but the vest was seamless from the top, woven through the whole.350 They said therefore unto one another, Let us not rend it, but let us draw lots for it whose it shall be; that the Scripture might be fulfilled that saith, They parted My garments for themselves, and for My vesture they cast lots. The soldiers therefore did these things" (verses 23, 24). Little thought the soldiers who had charge of the execution beyond their poor perquisites. But God's eye was now as ever on His Son, and He had taken care in His word to mark it. For in one of the most manifestly Messianic psalms (Ps. 22: 18) stands written, a thousand years beforehand, the minute prediction of the soldiers' appropriating the garments of the Saviour in a way unmistakably applicable to Him. He is the object of Scripture, though unbelief sees it not, and has a will against it, because His Person is as unknown as our own need of Divine mercy in the cross. With what interest the Holy Spirit contemplated, as we should, every detail of His suffering, and of man's behaviour at that hour! God counted Him not less worthy because He was made the object of such indignities. To make them known beforehand was of all moment. The very minuteness of what is mentioned bears witness to the accurate reality of the prophecy. He is the demonstrated as well as rejected Messiah. His glory made it due to Him to name the particulars, which also bear witness to the depth of His grace in humiliation, that God and man might be fully shown out, and that the words of the Psalmist be proved His word in the face of every gainsayer.

But faith and love gathered near the dying Saviour some of very different mind. "Now by the cross of Jesus stood His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the (wife) of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.351 Jesus, therefore, seeing His mother and the disciple standing by whom He loved, saith to His mother, Woman, behold thy Son. Next He saith to the disciple, Behold thy mother; and from that hour the disciple took her unto his own (home)" (verses 25-27). These were among the women who had followed Him in His ministry and had ministered to Him in life. There they stood in His rejection by the cross, where the Lord shows how little asceticism rises to the truth. He had been absorbed in the work for which He was sent by the Father; no honey mingled with the offering, any more than leaven: salt was never absent, nor the unction of the Holy Ghost. All had been in the consecrating power of the word and Spirit of God, and to God. But perfect human affections were there, though the work undertaken in communion with the Father had filled heart and lips and hands with the higher object to the glory of God. Yet eternal interests, when thus taken up, do not efface or dishonour Nature or its relationships according to God; and the Lord here marks this by commending in the most solemn and touching way John to His mother as son, and Mary to John as mother: a loving trust honoured from that hour. How sweet for the loved disciple to remember and record! And how strong the contrast with superstition, no less than as we have seen with asceticism! And what a testimony in all to His own entire superiority to overwhelming circumstances!

John 19: 28-30,

"After this Jesus, knowing that all things were now finished, that the Scripture might be accomplished, saith, I thirst. (Ps. 69: 21.) A vessel (therefore) was standing there full of vinegar; and they, having filled a sponge with vinegar and put hyssop round (it), put (it) up to His mouth. When, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, He said, It is finished, and, bowing His head, delivered up His spirit." It is not only that in human tenderness He provides for all left behind in that supreme moment, but He thinks of Scripture in spirit or in terms not yet fulfilled. No doubt there is the distressing physical effect expressed of all that mind and heart and body had endured till then; but His last request is here bound up, not with His want only, but with His undying zeal for the word if only a single thing lacked to make it honourable. Every word that proceeds through God's mouth must be fulfilled; and had He not said of Messiah, "My tongue cleaveth to my jaws," and "In My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink"? Then, having drunk, the Saviour says, "It is finished," with a Divine calm as perfect here as His expression is given elsewhere of His unfathomable suffering.

Of none but Jesus is it or could it be said that He gave up (παρέδωκεν) the spirit, which is wholly distinct from the "expired" (ἐξέπνευσεν) of Mark and Luke, confounded with the former by our translators. To expire could apply to anyone's death, the blessed Lord being man as truly as any other; to give the spirit up, as said in John, expresses His Divine glory though a dying man, as the One Who had title to lay down His life no less than to take it again. So Matthew implies Who the dying Messiah was in "He dismissed the spirit" (ἂφῆκε τὸ πν.). Nor can words be more characteristic of Luke than "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit," nor of John than "It is finished." He was man, though God; He was God though man; and both in one Person.

The reader will remark how perfectly the account of the Lord's death suits the general character and special design of John's Gospel and of no other. Here Jesus is the conscious Son, the Divine Person Who made all things, but became flesh that He might not only give eternal life, but die as a propitiation for our sins. And here, therefore, here only, He said, "It is finished, and bowing His head, delivered up His spirit." There are witnesses, as we shall see, but they are of God, not of man or the creature, and they intimately flow from His own Person. No darkness is mentioned, no cry that His God had forsaken Him, no rending of the veil, no earthquake, no centurion's confession; all of which meet to proclaim the rejected Messiah (Matt. 27). So substantially, save the earthquake, the Servant Son of God obedient to death in Mark 15. Luke 23 adds the testimony to His grace in the crucified robber, His firstfruits in Paradise, and the centurion's witness to "Jesus Christ the righteous," after He had committed His spirit into His Father's hands. It was reserved for John to set forth His death Who was God not less surely than man, and as such. The Creator but man lifted up from the earth could say, in dying for sin to God's glory, "It is finished." The work, the infinite work, was done for the putting away of sin by His sacrifice. Thereon hangs not only the blessing of every soul that is to be justified by faith, but of new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. "It is finished," τετέλεσται: one word! yet what word ever contained so much?

But no heathen were more blinded and obdurate than God's ancient people who take the lead against Jesus in an unbelieving religiousness without true fear of God, and who, consequently, saw not that they were but accomplishing His word in their guilty rejection of His and their Messiah.

John 19: 31-37.

"The Jews, therefore, since it was the preparation, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath* was great),352 asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and they be taken away. The soldiers, therefore, came and broke the legs of the first and of the other that was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they broke not His legs, but one of the soldiers with a spear thrust His side, and there came out immediately blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knoweth353 that he saith true, that ye also† may believe. For these things came to pass that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Not a bone of Him shall be crushed; and again another Scripture saith, They shall look on Him354 Whom they pierced."

* ἐκείνου Stephens, ABDsupplLXY, nine more uncials, the great bulk of cursives, etc.; ἐκείνη Elz. with a late uncial (H) and a few cursives, Vulg., etc.

† The oldest read καὶ, which Text. Rec. [as Blass] omits, with seven uncials and most cursives.

In the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets the Spirit of God had Christ before Him, and in the sufferings to come on Him, as well as in the glories that should follow. But the fleshly mind, as it shrinks from sufferings, is disposed to overlook and get rid of testimony; especially so if the sufferings be the effect and the proof of man's evil estate, for this is of all things most unpalatable. Thus was the Jew dull to see what condemned himself and levelled him morally to the condition of any other sinner; and rejecting the fullest evidences and Christ's own presence in Divine grace and truth and the Gospel at last, he was given over to judicial hardening when wrath came on them to the uttermost. Christ alone gives the key to the paschal lamb; Christ is the main object in the Psalms. No reasoning of sceptics, even if theologians, can efface the truth, though it exposes their own unbelief; and assuredly if the heart were made right by grace, it would desire that to be true which is the truth, instead of stumbling at the word being disobedient, or neglecting it because of indifference. In vain, then, do the Rosenmüllers and the like hesitate or avow their dislike of the type and the allusion. To faith it is food and strength and joy; for if God's word is instinct with His delight in Christ giving Himself to die, He also expresses it in every sort of form beforehand that the very facts of His atoning death, the great stumbling-block, might render the most irrefragable testimony to its truth and His glory, when thus manifested here below in shame, to man's shame and everlasting contempt.

How marvellously meet in Christ's cross the proud enmity of the Jew, the lawless hand of the Gentiles, the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, and this in perfect grace to the guiltiest of Jews and Gentiles! For out of Christ's pierced side came forthwith blood and water.* And John was not so preoccupied with the Saviour's dying charge concerning Mary as not to mark the sight. In the strongest form he lets us know that what we saw and testified was no mere transient fact, but before the mind as present, of permanent interest and importance. In his First Epistle (1 John 5: 6) he characterises the Lord accordingly. "This is He that came through (διὰ) water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in (ἐν) the power of water only, but in the power of water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth." Moral purification, however needed and precious, is not enough; there must be expiation of sins also; and both are found by faith in the death of Christ, not otherwise nor elsewhere. As a fact, in the Gospel the order is blood and water; as applied to us in the Epistle it is the water and the blood, and the Spirit as One personally given follows.** Nothing but death flows to man from Adam: Christ, the second Man Who died for sin and sinners, is the source alike of purification and of atonement to the believer, who needs both and is dead before God without both. For though the Son of God with life in Himself, He stands alone till He dies; dying He bears much fruit. He quickens, purifies, and expiates; and the Holy Ghost consequently given brings us into the import of His death as well as blessing resulting from it. For it is judgment pronounced and executed by God in His cross on the flesh, but in our favour, because in Him Who was a sin-offering.

* Euthymius Zigabenus (Comm. in. quat. Evv. III. 619, ed. C. F. Matthaei) thus writes; Ὑπερφυὲς τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ τρανῶς διδάσκον, ὅτι ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον ὁ νυγεὶς, ἐκ νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνθρώπου, κἂν μυριάκις νύξῃ τίς, οὐκ ἐξελεύσεται αἷμα. "The fact was supernatural, and clearly teaches that He Who was pierced was more than man. For from a dead man, if one should pierce him ten thousand times, no blood would come out." What follows is a poor effort to connect with it Genesis 2, or even false doctrine when he speaks of two baptisms: one by blood, martyrdom; the other by water, regeneration, by whose stream the stream of sin is overwhelmed. How constant is one's disappointment in these Greek and Latin ecclesiastics! Like the Galatians, if they begin by the Spirit, how quickly they pass into a vain effort after perfection by flesh! Not one even of the ablest and most orthodox adheres simply and thoroughly to the delivering Gospel of God's grace, though many of them loved the Lord and hated known error. But the full efficacy of redemption was unknown to anyone, so far as I can speak.

It is curious, by the way, that a modern work of reputation like Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography" should continue to repeat that "the Greek original (? of this work on the four Gospels) has never been printed" (vol. ii. 125, col. 1). So one understands the writer. Matthaei's work appeared at Leipzig in 1792, and is familiar to students.

** [Cf. "Exposition of Epistles," p. 62.]

No wonder, then, that John was inspired to record the fact, not more wondrous in itself than in its consequences now made known to the believer. The salvation must be suited to and worthy of the Saviour. If He was eternal, it was everlasting; if Divine judgment fell on such a Victim, it was that they believing Him should not come into judgment, but have life, being forgiven all their offences and made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. Such is the declared standing of every true Christian, but it is in virtue of Christ, Who is all and in all. Creeds and theological systems enfeeble and hinder its enjoyment; but all this, and more than one could here develop, is clearly and plainly revealed to faith in Scripture, as it is, indeed, due to Christ's glory in Person and work.

Hence the care with which the word of God is cited and shown to be punctually fulfilled. "For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Not a bone of Him shall be crushed; and, again, another Scripture saith, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced."* (Ex. 12: 46, Zech. 12: 10.) The natural circumstances of the Crucifixion, more especially on a Friday, and that Friday the eve of Sabbath in the paschal week, would have called for the breaking of the legs as a coup de grace. And, in fact, such was the portion of the two malefactors. But Jesus, as He had proved Himself in the preceding chapter the willing Captive, was now the willing Victim; and this was made manifest in His dying as and when He did die. For it surprised not only the Jews and the soldiers, but Pilate, as we learn elsewhere; and it superseded all need of the crurifragium in His case. But it marked the separated Lamb of God, the Righteous One, all Whose bones Jehovah keeps, not one of them broken.

*Dr. Thomas Randolph, in his little work on the Prophecies and other texts cited in the New Testament and compared with the Hebrew Original and the Septuagint Version (4to., Oxford, 1782), remarks (p. 32) that "the evangelist here plainly reads אליו instead of אלי in the Hebrew; but so also read forty Hebrew MSS. And that this is the true reading appears by what follows-'and they shall mourn for Him.' The Syriac renders it, 'they shall look on Me through Him, whom they have pierced.' The Sept. I cannot make sense of."

Now there is really no serious doubt that the true reading is the latter ("to Me"), not the former ("to Him"), and that the best and most MSS. and versions are justified. It was in fact originally nothing but a marginal correction, due to the desire partly of eliminating so strong a testimony to the deity or Jehovah title of the Lord Jesus, partly of easing the flow of the context from the concurrence of "Me" and "Him." Even the Targum and the Talmud, like the more ancient MSS., and all the Greek early versions, refute the idea. So even most of the better Jewish expositors, notwithstanding their controversy with Christians and in the course of it. De Rossi suggests that "to Him" may have entered by accident through the scribe having Psalm 34: 6 in mind. Much better and wiser, therefore, would it have been to have adhered to ancient and good authority, spite of seeming difficulty, than to have adopted this Jewish keri like Newcome and Boothroyd, and so to help on such a humaniser as Ewald. Even R. Isaac, in his "Chizzuk Emunah," when controverting those whom he calls the Narazines, admits the reading אלי, though he tries to weaken its force by interpreting אֵח אֲשֶׁד as "because of Him whom they pierced" and applying it to the war of Gog and Magog. Now it is true that אֵח אֲשֶׁד may and does sometimes mean "because" (and so the LXX took the words, probably also confounding דּקר with רקד which might originate κατωρχήσαντο); but the meaning cannot possibly be "because of Him whom," for this would leave the verb without an object contrary to invariable Hebrew idiom. Hence also Radak's (or R. D. Kimchi's) translation fails, "because they have pierced," though less objectionable, perhaps, as not foisting in an expressly false object. But they both divert from the true object; and therefore Abarbanel, Aben Ezra, Alshech, etc., condemn it, and so far confirm our Authorised Version. Rashi (i.e. R. Solomon) is no bad proof of the perplexity the clause presents to the Jewish mind; for he inconsistently applies it to Messiah ben-Joseph in his comment on the Talmud, whereas in his "Commentary on the Bible" he gets rid of this, applying it to some of the Jews pierced and killed by the Gentiles. It is the more surprising in the face of all, that these exploded mistakes should be reproduced in modern Jewish versions; as when Dr. A. Benisch, like D. Kimchi, omits the object in his "School and Family Bible," and Mr. J. Leeser, in his "Holy Scriptures." supplies "every one," to the manifest falsification of the sense like R. Isaac. There is really an emphatic object in the Hebrew text, which accounts for (if it does not require) the change of construction in the foregoing clause. The conclusion! then, is that the evangelist read no otherwise than we do in the ordinary Hebrew, and that the Holy Spirit in the Gospel and the Revelation does not cite but suppose that text, which is distinctly applied to the fact carefully recorded in the history, and doctrinally employed in John's First Epistle.

Yet this very exemption led as a fact, doubtless, to the deed of the soldier, whose lance pierced, not the malefactors, but only the dead body of the Saviour, wholly ignorant that so it must be, for God had said it by His prophet. All was ordered and measured; even these minute differences were revealed beforehand; yet were men and Satan indulging freely their enmity against the Son of God. And in the face of such love and light men combine their ignorance* with their learning to escape from the truth into the dark once more. But we need not here dwell on such things. It is the same spirit that surrounded the cross:

"Thy love, by man so sorely tried,

Proved stronger than the grave;

The very spear that pierced Thy side

Drew forth the blood to save."

* It may be worth mentioning as a singular instance of the importance of knowing the original that Euthymius Zigabenus, in his comment on verse 37, speaks of the Scripture as probably got rid of by the Jews since the Gospel. "For nowhere is it found now; or he means another Scripture of the books called Apocryphal" (vol. iii., 621). This sounds strong with Zechariah 12: 10 in view. How is it to be accounted for? This Greek monk read the prophet in the Septuagint, where the clause as to the piercing is miserably mistaken, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο,   "because they insulted (Me)," while the later Jewish rendering of Aquila evades the truth by giving σὺν ῳ up. Theodotion has rendered the passage rightly on the whole. Hence the Spirit of God (both in John's Gospel and in the Revelation) does not cite the Septuagint, but alludes to it in terms which accurately represent the clause.

John 19: 38-42.

Matt. 27: 57-61; Mark 15: 42-47; Luke 23: 50-56.

"And after these things Joseph from Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus,354a but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave leave. He* came, therefore, and took His body away. And there came also Nicodemus, that came at first to Him* by night, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes about a hundred pound (weight). They took, therefore, the body of Jesus and bound it in linen swathes with the spices, as it is the Jews' custom to prepare for burial.† Now there was in the place where He was crucified a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one was ever yet laid.354b There, then, on account of the preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was near, they put Jesus.

* Tischendorf now [followed by Blass] adopts the plural "they" with pm, etc.; also αὐτὸν, "him," instead of τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ as in corr. BLXΛ, ten cursives, etc. [Treg., W. and H., Weiss], or τ. σ. τοῦ Ἰ. with a dozen uncials and most cursives, etc., and in Text. Rec.; so in verse 39, the best give "to him," the majority "to Jesus."

† The word is not θάπτειν but ἐνταφιάζειν, which is used for embalming, or at least preparing for burial as in the case before us.

God uses a perilous time to call forth His own hidden ones. Joseph of Arimathea can be a secret disciple no longer. He was a rich man (Matt. 27) and an honourable counsellor (Mark 15); but wealth and position make the confession of Christ only the harder. Fear of the Jews had hitherto prevailed. The death of Jesus, which caused others to fear, made Joseph bold. He had not consented, indeed, to the counsel and deed of the Jews. Now he goes to Pilate and besought the Lord's body. Nor was he alone: Nicodemus, longer known, but with no happy reputation for moral courage at the first, though afterwards venturing a remonstrance to the haughty yet unjust Pharisees, joins in the last offices of love with an abundant offering of myrrh and aloes. The cross of Christ, so stumbling to unbelief, exercises and manifests his faith; and the twain waxing valiant by grace, fulfil the lack of service of the twelve. They take the body of Jesus and bind it in linen swathes with the spices, in the manner of the Jews to prepare for burial. Egypt had its custom of embalming; so in a measure had the Jews in hope of the resurrection of the just. No prophecy is cited here; but who can forget Isaiah's words: "He made His grave with the wicked (men) and with the rich (man) in His death"? He was "appointed His grave with the lawless, and was with the rich man in His death)" (Isa. 53: 9.)-that is, after being slain: a strange combination, yet verified in Him; and who could wonder, seeing that He had done no violence and no deceit was in His mouth? And now we see in Joseph's garden, hard by the fatal scene, a new tomb which had never known an inmate. So had God provided, in honour for the body of His Son and in jealous wisdom for the truth, hewn out in the rock (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us). There the Lord was put meanwhile in view of more formal burial when the Sabbath should pass. So little did the disciples anticipate what the glory of the Father had at heart, though the Lord had so often plainly revealed it, till the Resurrection was a fact in its own predicted time.

JOHN — THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER*

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 563-566.]

As no created eye beheld what was deepest in the cross of Christ, so it was not for man to look on the Lord rising from among the dead. This was as it should be. Darkness veiled Him giving Himself for us in atonement. Man saw not that infinite work in His death; yet was it not only to glorify God thereby, but that our sins might be borne away righteously. We have seen the activity of the world, and especially of the Jew, in crucifying Him; high and low, religious and profane, all played their part; even one Apostle denied Him, as another betrayed Him, to the murderous priests and elders. But Jehovah laid on Him the iniquity of us all; Jehovah bruised and put Him to grief; Jehovah made His soul an offering for sin; (Isa. 53: 10.) and as this was Godward, so was it invisible to human eyes, and God alone could rightly bear witness, by whom He would, of the eternal redemption thus obtained, which left Divine love free to act even in a lost and ungodly world.

So with the Resurrection of Christ. He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; God raised up Jesus, Whom the Jews slew and hanged on a tree; He had laid down His life that He might take it again, in three days raising the temple of His body which they destroyed. But if no man was given to see the act of His rising from the dead, it was to be testified in all the world as well as His atoning death. "Preach the Gospel," said He risen, "to every creatures." (Mark 16: 15.) And assuredly he who withholds His resurrection maims the glad tidings of its triumphant proof and character, and compromises the believer's liberty and introduction into the new creation, as he immensely clouds the Lord's glory: even as the denial of resurrection virtually charges God's witnesses with falsehood, and makes faith vain. So the Apostle insists in 1 Cor. 15. Had death held the Saviour fast, all were lost; had it been only His Spirit winning its way into the presence of God, would it be even a half-deliverance? His Resurrection is, in truth, a complete deliverance, of which the Holy Spirit is to us the seal.

Hence we find it is the grand foundation truth of the Gospel. To be a witness of His Resurrection was the main requirement for an Apostle (Acts 1); and that God had raised up Jesus Whom the Jews had crucified was the truth most pressed by Peter (Acts 2). So it was urged by him in Solomon's porch subsequently (Acts 3), and before the Jewish council once and again (Acts 4, 5). Just so it was in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 10); and by Paul yet more than by Peter (Acts 13). This witness especially grieved the Sadducean chiefs (Acts 4); this is what rouses the undying scorn or opposition of unbelief all the world over. And no wonder; for if the Resurrection be the spring of joy and ground of assured salvation to the believer, if it be the secret of his holy walk as the expression of the life he has in Christ risen, and the power of a living hope, it is also the measure of the real estate of man as dead in sins; as it is the present, fixed, and constant pledge that judgment hangs over the habitable earth, for God has raised from among the dead as its appointed Judge the Man Whom the world slew. (Acts 17: 31.) The Resurrection, therefore, is as repulsive to man as it is apt to be slighted by the fleshly mind even of Christians who seek earthly things.

As the Resurrection is thus manifestly a truth of capital moment, the Spirit of God has taken care that the testimony to it should be as precise as it is full. Hence Matthew, who from the design of his Gospel omits the Ascension, does not fail to bring out the proof of Christ's Resurrection most clearly; and so does Mark; and Luke, with more detail than either, shows us the Lord in resurrection with all His loving interest in His own. He is a man as truly as ever, with flesh and bones, capable of eating with them, but risen. John, as usual, presents the conscious Son of God, the Word become flesh, but now in resurrection. Here the proofs are characteristically inward and personal, where the others as fittingly present what was outward, but no less necessary.

As a bulwark against philosophic scepticism the Resurrection stands firm and impregnable; for it resists and refutes unanswerably the sophistry which ignores God and reduces the idea of causes to an invariable antecedence of constantly observed phenomena as in sequence-a theory quietly assumed and diligently instilled, so as to set aside the very possibility of Divine intervention whether in grace or judgment, in miracles or prophecy, or in any relationship beyond nature with God. With God did I say? Why, according to this system logically carried out, He is, and must be, unknown; but if unknown, who can tell if He exist? or, if all do not end in a mere deification of Nature? Now, the Resurrection of Christ rests, as has been often shown, on far fuller evidence and surer and better grounds than any event in history; and this because it was sifted at the time by friends and foes as nothing else ever was, and because God Himself gave a multiplicity of testimony, proportioned to its incalculable moment, not to us merely, but to His own glory. Now, as a fact without argumentation, it overthrows of itself and instantly every opposition to the truth of science or knowledge falsely so called; for it would be the depth of absurdity to suppose that the death of Jesus was the cause of His resurrection. What, then, was its cause? Of what antecedent was it the sequence? If anything points to the power of God, it is resurrection no less than creation.

The truth is that the effort to reduce cause and effect to a mere antecedent and consequent springs from the desire to get rid of God altogether; for cause really implies will, design, and power in activity, though we must distinguish between the causa causans and the causae causatae. These causes are in nature by God's constitution, but He lives, wills, acts. Hence the Resurrection of Christ stands in the midst of this world's history to judge all unbelief, viewed now as a simple fact most fully proved. We may see its consequences, as far as our chapter presents them, later on. The Lord had distinctly and often spoken of His death and resurrection during His life. He had died and was buried; and here we learn that no power or precaution prevailed against His word. The grave had lost its inmate; and this was all Mary's heart took in-the loss of the dead body of the Lord. Deplorable forgetfulness, but of a heart absorbed in that one sad treasure here below, and it was gone!

Thus, even here the proof was in the wisdom of God gradual, and the growth of the Apostles themselves slow in the truth. There was afforded the most evident demonstration that, as the power in itself was of Him only and immediately, above the entire course of Nature and human experience, so those who were afterwards its most competent, strenuous, and suffering witnesses only yielded to its certainty by such degrees as let us see that no men were more surprised than the Apostles. Even the enemies of the Lord had an undefined dread or uneasiness, which led to Pilate's allowance of a military guard with the seal of the great stone to make the sepulchre sure. Not a disciple, so far as we know, looked for His rising.

Nevertheless, Christ did rise the third day according to the Scriptures. In this very thing-the teaching of God's word-were the disciples weak; not the uninstructed Magdalene only, but all, as we shall see, senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets spoke; all as quick to forget the plain words in which the Lord Himself repeatedly announced not only His death, but His resurrection, on the third day.

Accordingly, the opening verses have for their object to show us how the truth first began to dawn on any heart. Not only was there no collusion in feigning the Resurrection of their Master, there was not so much as a hopeful anticipation in a single heart of which one can speak. The gloom of the cross had shrouded every heart; the fear of man pressed on the men yet more than on the women. Even where the fact should have been patent, she who saw the fact misunderstood its import, and was more distressed than ever.356

John 20: 1-18.

Matt. 28: 1-10; Mark 16: 1-11 Luke 24: 1 -12.

"Now, on the first (day) of the week Mary of Magdala cometh early while it was yet dark unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.357 She runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter and unto the other disciple whom Jesus dearly loved (ἐφ.), and saith to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they laid Him" (verses 1, 2).

Mary of Magdala seems to be alone on the first day; certainly, if other women were with or near her, as other testimonies may imply358 (not to speak of the plural form here, "we know," which may be merely general), she alone attracts the notice of the Spirit of God. He portrays a heart, first attracted irresistibly to a scene so overwhelming and withal sacred by her love to Him Whose body had been laid in the tomb; then at length met and blessed by the Lord when the best resources among the saints had failed, as will come before us in due time.

Before His death Mary, the sister of Lazarus, had anointed the Lord, His head and His feet, out of the fulness of her affection, which lavished what she had most precious on Him, just at that time when she instinctively felt danger impending, and hears, in answer to heartless indifference only thence hurrying on to the deadliest ungodliness, the vindication of His love which gave a meaning to her act beyond her thoughts. Oh, how satisfying to her heart till with Himself! It was a deep and true affection met by the affection of Jesus, not perfect only, but Divine.

And here, too, it was not in vain that Mary of Magdala was drawn thus early, dark as it was, to the grave, the empty grave, of Jesus. She had been there, though not alone, after Sabbath had closed, when it was growing dark (not "dawning," though the word applies to either) toward the first day of the week, for this is the true meaning of Matt. 28. With this compare Mark 16; as Luke 23: 54 shows they had been on the preceding evening when Friday was closing and Sabbath was drawing on.

It is remarkable that this Mary runs to tell the fact of the stone's removal, and what she inferred as to the Lord's body, not to John only, but to Peter also. The latter had notoriously and grievously dishonoured the Lord just before His death; but doubtless his repentance was well known to the saints at least. Still, there is the record of her unhesitating appeal. Mary's heart judged who among the disciples would most heartily answer to the anxious inquiry which filled her own soul. For assuredly it was not lack of love but of self-judgment which had exposed that ardent disciple to deny his Master. On the contrary, it was confidence in his own love for Him with utter ignorance of himself, and without due dependence on God, in the face of a hostile world with the shadow of death before his eyes. And the Master in the next chapter manifests His own grace toward His servant to the utmost, even while laying bare the sinful root which had betrayed him to such shameful failure. In fact, Mary was far more justified in reckoning on the sympathy of Peter and John in that which troubled her than in the ignorance which concluded that men had carried off the Lord's body on the resurrection-day. Even the warmest love cannot without the word conceive a right thought of Him Who died for us. Her notion was wholly unworthy of Christ or of God's care for Him. But unbelief in the saint is no better than in the sinner; and the very strength of her love to the Lord only brings out the more into evidence how faith is needed in order rightly to understand in Divine things. He, however, "giveth more grace."

As to the accounts of the Resurrection, let none believe that it is fruitless to compare them, any more than to accept the perfect accuracy of each one. Whether one attempt or despise a harmony, the result must be utterly wrong if he start with interpreting Matt. 28 of the dawn of Sunday morning instead of the dusk of Sabbath evening, which last to the Jew (and Matthew, above all, has the Jews in view) was, and is, the true beginning of the first day, however Western prejudice may incline to the Gentile sense of the day. This error must vitiate all right understanding for the student as much as for the harmonist. Let us read as believers.

It has been said to be impossible that so astounding an event coming upon various portions of the body of disciples from various quarters and in various forms, should not have been related, by four independent witnesses, in the "scattered and fragmentary" way in which we now find it. Certainly it would be impossible if there were no God securing perfect truth by all His chosen witnesses, and in each of their accounts. The remark is, therefore, mere unbelief, and quite unworthy of any intelligent Christian. "Scattered and fragmentary" is not the way of the Holy Ghost, Who does not employ the four like men giving evidence in a court of justice, each of what he saw and heard. Not only is this inapplicable to Mark and Luke, but it does not fall in with the facts in John and Matthew For He leads each of them to omit what both saw and heard, and to insert only such a selection as illustrates the scope and design of each particular Gospel. Was not Matthew a riveted spectator of the Lord in the midst of the disciples at Jerusalem on the evening of the day He rose from the dead? Was not John with the rest at the appointed mountain in Galilee?

It is not merely true, then, that in the depth beneath their varied surface of narrative the great central fact of the Resurrection itself rests unmoved and immoveable (for this might be in merely human accounts of facts), but that every one of the four had a special object or aim in the mind of the inspiring Spirit, which is carried out unerringly in general plan and in minute detail. The objection admits the honesty of the Christian witnesses, but leaves God out of their writing, which is the essence of infidelity: the more painful, as the objector [Alford, "Prolegomena," Sect. v.] is really a believer, but with a wholly inadequate and dangerous theory of inspiration. The fact is that no man, who had the material, or knew what each Evangelist had before him, would ever have written as any one of them did; and that nothing accounts for their peculiar form but God giving a testimony in perfect keeping with each Gospel, so as by them all to furnish a complete whole. Where men of God only are seen, with nothing more than such guidance of the Spirit as in ordinary preaching or the like, what a blight such unbelief entails! Calling it inspiration only adds to the delusion. Are they God's word?

Confessedly the Resurrection was that, above all other things, to which the Apostles bore their testimony; but it is, as we have seen, and might show yet more fully, neglect of the evidence to suppose that each elaborated faithfully into narrative those particular facts which came under his own eye, or were reported to himself by those concerned. This is a poor and misleading à priori hypothesis. Their diversity springs not from human infirmity, but from Divine wisdom.

But we turn for a few moments more to the effect of the empty tomb on those who first noticed it. And certainly one cannot speak of spiritual intelligence in Mary of Magdala; but she clung in deep affection to the Lord's Person; and He was not unmindful of it. She was the first, as we shall see, to have joy in Him, and He puts honour on her. Yet what could be less worthy of Christ than her hasty conclusion from the empty tomb! "They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they laid Him." She can think of Him only as under the power of death. She judges by the sight of her eyes; and to her mind as yet man has the upper hand. His assurance of resurrection had left no trace, as if on the barren sand. Who can glory in man thus overwhelmed before the undiscerned yet glorious power of God which had already raised Him from among the dead? Nevertheless, her heart was true to Him, and she shows it, if only now by her visit to such a scene while it was yet dark, and by her extreme agitation when she saw the stone taken away, and the body gone from the tomb. What can she do but run with the news to break it to congenial hearts?

"Peter, therefore, went forth, and the other disciple, and were coming unto the tomb. And the two were running together, and the other disciple ran forward more quickly than Peter, and came first unto the tomb, and, stooping down, seeth the linen clothes as they lay; nevertheless, he went not in. Simon Peter, therefore, cometh following him, and entered into the tomb, and beholdeth the linen clothes lying, and the handkerchief which was upon His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but folded up in a place apart. Then entered, therefore, also the other disciple that came first unto the tomb, and he saw [εἶδεν] and believed; for as yet they knew not the Scripture that He must rise from (the) dead. The disciples, therefore, went away again unto their own (home)." (verses 3-10).

It was not John only who went forth at the tidings of Mary. Love, roused by words which sounded strange to their ears, led Peter to run along with John,359 with no less desire, if not so fast. He had slumbered, when he ought to have watched and prayed; and, when the crisis came, he had denied his Master with no small aggravation after His solemn warning. But he was not a Judas: very far indeed from it. He loved the Lord Who Himself knew that he loved Him; and therefore, notwithstanding his deep and shameful sin, his heart was moved by the news so unaccountable to him of the disappearance of the body from the tomb. So the two disciples (who were for other reasons often seen together) strove which should reach the spot soonest. Not the most distant hope of what the fact was had as yet crossed their minds; yet were they as far as possible from indifference to any little circumstance which concerned even His body. That it was no longer where it had been laid, especially with such a safeguard against conceivable hazards, is enough to stir both deeply; and they are on the scene forthwith, John outrunning Peter. And as he came first to the tomb, so did he stoop down360 and see the linen clothes as they lay;* yet went he not in. Peter, though less agile, went farther when he reached the place, for he went into the tomb, and inspected the linen clothes as they lay, and the napkin which was on His head, not lying with them, but wrapped up in one place by itself.

* The careful reader will notice the emphatic place given to the lying of the grave-clothes as seen by John, compared with Peter's contemplating them as they lay, and the kerchief or napkin for the head, not with them, but apart and wrapped up. I reject the irreverent thought of Wetstein that John shrank from going in "ne pollueretur, Num. 19: 16"; for this would have operated to hinder John afterwards (verse 8), as well as Peter's entrance. It was Peter's ardour, not burning less now, but more, from the sense of his recent wrong, which impelled him not merely to take a glance, but to enter and survey all more closely.

So also reports Luke (24: 12), though not in such detail as John does, who describes not only the twofold examination on his own part, but an added feature in Peter's intent gaze [θεωρεῖ], observing the peculiarity of the napkin wrapt up by itself. What clear presumptive proof that the body had not been taken away by enemies any more than by friends! for why should either leave the linen swathes behind? Who but one arising from sleep would dispose of the habiliments in this calm and orderly fashion? It must be His own doing as He rose from among the dead,361 and laid aside what was unsuited to, as well as needless for, His new estate.362 For here we may contrast the very different way in which Lazarus appeared when raised by the Lord, indicative of the different character of the Resurrection. Still, there was no depth in the conviction Peter could not but form; for he returned home, the true rendering, wondering at what had come to pass. Wonder is in no way the expression of the intelligence which faith gives; it implies rather the distinct lack of it. It does seem surprising that such men as Bengel and Stier should follow Erasmus and Grotius in the idea that John merely went as far as Mary's idea in verse 2.

"Then entered, therefore, also the other disciple that came first unto the tomb, and he saw362a and believed." It was faith, but founded on evidence, not on the written word. Mary's inference was upset by the indications John as well as Peter observed. Theirs was a sound conclusion, based on a reasonable judgment of the facts observed; but this in itself is only a human deduction, however right in itself, instead of being the subjection of the heart to the testimony of God. And it is John himself who, here as elsewhere, teaches us to draw this most momentous distinction. But Peter seems, though amazed, to have taken in the import of what he observed as well as John. They both went beyond Mary of Magdala and inferred that Ho must have risen; not that either Joseph and Nicodemus on the one hand, nor that the Jews or Romans on the other, had taken away the Lord's body362b. On ground of the apparent facts, they rightly accounted for the disappearance of His body. But in neither was there that character of faith in His resurrection which springs from laying hold of God's word. The former was human, the latter Divine, because in this alone is God believed, which gives Him His true place and puts us in ours. Thus is the soul purged by virtue of the word, which is no less needful than cleansing by blood; and hence repentance ever accompanies faith. We could not be made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light did we not know experimentally the washing of water by the word as well as cleansing from our sins by Christ's blood.

Now it is not too much to say that, as far as the truth of Resurrection, soon to be the characteristic testimony of the Apostles John or Peter, it was not yet taught them of God. They did not as yet with the fact connect God's testimony in the Law, the Psalms, or the Prophets, nor even the plain and recent words of our Lord Jesus. So little is there of truth in Lampe's judgment that from this moment in the very darkness of the tomb the mind of John was enlightened with the saving faith of the Resurrection of Jesus as with a certain new ray of the risen "Sun of Righteousness." There is nothing in Divine things beautiful which is not true; and this is not only not true, but the reversal of the truth inculcated by John himself in his inspired comment on the fact. They both believed in Christ, on the ground, not of facts only, but of God's word; they neither of them believed in His resurrection beyond the seen facts that so it must be. "For as yet they knew not the Scripture that He must rise from363 (the) dead."

We have had a fair sample of Protestant (I do not say Reformation) theology, which shows their loose and human idea of faith. Romanist, and perhaps one might add Catholic, views are no better. Hence the Tridentine depreciation of faith; hence the effort to bring in love and obedience and holiness in order to justification. They feel that there must be a moral element, and their reducing faith to an intellectual reception of propositions excludes it; so that they are driven to add other things to faith in order to satisfy themselves. All this turns on the great fundamental error that the thoroughgoing Papist makes faith in the Church the resting-place of his soul and the rule of faith, not the Scriptures, nor God revealed in Christ by them. If they carried out the error to its results, no Romanist could be saved; for he believes not God's word on God's authority, but Scripture and tradition on the Church's word. By his own principle he excludes faith in God, and could not truly believe unto life at all. Only through grace men may be better than their principle, as many, alas! are worse when the principle is of God. Believing Scripture as God's word, believing God in it, is of vital moment.363a

Facts are of high interest and real importance; and as the Israelite could point to them as the basis of his religion, to the call of Abram by God, and the deliverance of the chosen people from Egypt and through the desert and into Canaan, so can the Christian to the incomparably deeper and more enduring ones of the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God, with the consequent presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. But faith to have moral value, to deal with the conscience, to purify and draw out the heart, is not the pure and simple acceptance of facts on reasonable grounds, but the heart's welcoming God's testimony in His word. This tests the soul beyond all else, as spiritual intelligence consists in the growing up to Christ in an increasing perception and enjoyment of all that God's word has revealed, which separates the saint practically to Himself and His will in judgment of self and the world. One has put off the old man and put on the new, being renewed into full knowledge according to the image of Him that created him.

To "see and believe," therefore, is wholly short of what the operation of God gives; as traditional faith or evidence answers to it now in Christendom. It is human, and leaves the conscience unpurged and the heart without communion. It may be found in him who is in no way born of God (compare John 2: 23-25), but also in the believer as here: if so, it is not what the Spirit seals, and it in no way delivers from present things. And this it seems to be the Divine object to let us know in the account before us. Faith, to be of value and have power, rests not on sight or inference, but on Scripture.363b Thus, as the disciples show the most treacherous memory as to the words of the Lord till He was raised up from the dead (John 2: 22), so were they insensible to the force and application of the written word: after that they believed both, they entered into abiding and enlarging blessing from above. This, as Peter tells us in his First Epistle (1 Peter 1: 8), is characteristically the faith of a Christian, who, having not seen Christ, loves Him; and on Whom, though not now seeing Him, but believing, he exults with joy unspeakable and full of glory. The faith that is founded on evidences may strengthen against Deism, Pantheism, or Atheism; but it never gave remission of sins, never led one to cry, "Abba, Father," never filled the heart with His grace and glory Who is the object of God's everlasting satisfaction and delight.

Here, also, we have the further and marked testimony of its powerlessness; for we are told (verse 10), "The disciples, therefore, went away again unto their own (home)." The fact was known on grounds indisputable to their minds, but not yet appreciated in God's sight as revealed in His word; and hence they return to their old unbroken associations.

Mary did not, could not, take things so quietly as the two disciples. What was "home" now to her? What was the world? Nothing but an empty tomb where Jesus had lain. Others might depart again to their own home. For her heart it was impossible.

"But Mary stood at the tomb without weeping. While, then, she was weeping, she stooped into the tomb, and beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where had lain the body of Jesus. And they say to her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them, Because they took away my Lord, and I know not where they laid Him. Having said thus, she turned back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith to her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom dost thou seek? She, thinking that it was the gardener, saith to Him, Sir, if thou didst carry Him off, tell me where thou laidest Him, and I will take Him away. Jesus saith to her, Mary. She, turning, saith to Him in Hebrew,* Rabboni, which meaneth (or, is to say) Teacher" (verses 11-16).364

* The Text. Rec. [as Blass] omits Ἑβραι>στὶ with twelve uncials [AK, etc.], most cursive MSS., and a few versions. But the Sinaitic, the Vatican, Beza's of Cambridge, the Parisian 62 [L], the Moscow [V] of cent. ix., the Munich or Landshut [X] of a later date, those of St. Gall [Δ] and of St. Petersburg [Π], both of the ninth century, with some excellent cursives [as 33], and most of the ancient versions [Syrpesch hier], give the reading [most Edd.].

The sorrow of love for Jesus, that which mourns His absence, or which feels wrong done to Him in any way, is far different from the sorrow of the world that worketh death. It soon passes into life and peace through the grace of Jesus. Mary's sorrow was not fruitless, nor was it long. Other servants of the Lord, and the Lord Himself, Whom she saw not, looked upon her. While she wept outside, she stooped into the tomb and beheld two angels in white. But He was not there; they were sitting one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. Yet we hear of no alarm, no amazement on her part: so absorbed was her heart with that one Person, to all appearance lost to her, even His body gone so that she could not weep over it. Nor does she speak to them, but they say to her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" They were in the secret. She had not read as yet aright the signs of the grave. Her sorrowing heart would ere long receive better and clearer tidings still. Meanwhile she explains to them why she wept: "Because they took away my Lord, and I know not365 where they laid Him." She wholly overlooks the strangeness of the angelic apparition within the tomb, and takes for granted that every one must know Who He was Whose body was gone. But not even yet has the thought of His resurrection crossed her mind. The Lord was her Lord; she loved Him exceedingly, but to her apprehension men had taken Him and laid Him where she knew not. A soul may love the Lord, yet be dark indeed as to His risen glory, as we cannot fail to read here.

Grace would now intervene. "On saying this, she turned round366 and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus." How often the like may be for our dull hearts! But He never acts beneath His name, and speaks that we may know Him. "Jesus saith to her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom dost thou seek?" This last was a leading question. Till He is known, however, there is still darkness, though there may be love. "She, thinking that He was the gardener, saith to Him, Sir, if thou didst carry Him off, tell me where thou laidest Him, and I will take Him away." One word dispels all the difficulty and doubt, the expression, not of our love to Him, but of His love to us. "Jesus saith to her, Mary." The work was done, the great discovery made. He had died, He was now risen, and He appeared first to Mary of Magdala. She that had sown in tears reaps now in joy. The Lord appreciated her abiding at the tomb in sorrow, even though but an empty tomb. Her heart was now filled with joy; and, as we shall see, the joy would run over to gladden other hearts, the hearts of all that believed.

It was the Good Shepherd calling His own sheep by name. She was the same to Him as ever; He stood in resurrection power; but His love was the same to her, certainly no less than when He cast seven demons out of her. Doubtless there was a sameness in the expression of her name which went straight home to her heart and recalled her from her dream about His Person, once dead but now in truth alive again for evermore. Soon she would learn that, as He lived, so did she also, alive to God in Jesus Christ her Lord. But for the moment to know Himself alive, Himself uttering her name with unutterable love, was the fruit of Divine grace that touched and best satisfied her heart.

Mary had known Christ according to the flesh, and evidently thought that she was thus to know Him still. But it is not so. Henceforth we know none after this sort. Christ was dead and risen, and about to take His place in heaven according to the counsels of God. The Christian is called to know Him as man in heaven. always the Son, but now Man glorified on high. Hence the force of that which follows. Mary must learn to regard the Lord in an entirely new light, not in bodily presence here below, but for an object of faith as received up in glory. She is thus delivered from all her former associations, and is the given ensample of the Jewish remnant henceforward to become Christian.

"Jesus saith to her, Touch Me not, for I have not yet ascended367 unto the (or, My)* Father; but go unto My brethren and say to them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God. Mary of Magdala cometh, bringing word to the disciples, I have seen† the Lord, and that He said these things to her" (verses 17, 18).

* Text. Rec. adds μου with most uncials, cursives, and versions [Syrsin pesch, etc.], but not BD and some few other authorities [Edd.].

† The oldest manuscripts give the uncompounded form of the participle and also the direct style, "I have seen," etc., not as in Text. Rec.

It is the more striking if we compare Matt. 28: 9 with the Lord's prohibition of Mary in our Gospel. Both incidents happened very nearly about the same time. Yet the Lord permitted the other women to come and hold Him by the feet, and pay Him homage, whereas only a very little while before He forbade Mary of Magdala to touch Him. We know that He was divinely perfect on both occasions, as, indeed, always, that though man and the Son of man it was not His to repent, for He is the truth. But we may be permitted, and I think ought, to inquire why ways so different and so rapidly following one another could be each absolutely right in its own place. The difference of design in the two Gospels helps much to clear the matter.

In Matthew the risen Lord resumes His relations with the Jewish remnant, and gives these women, as a sample of that remnant, to enjoy His presence on earth. For this reason, too, there is not only no ascension scene in the end of Matthew, but no allusion to the fact there; indeed, it would mar the perfection of the picture, which shows us the Lord present with His own until the consummation of the age. In John, on the other hand, Jewish feeling is immediately corrected; new relations are announced, and ascension to the Father takes the place of all expectations for the nations on the earth with the Jews as the Lord's centre and witnesses. "Touch Me not," says Jesus to Mary, "for I have not yet ascended unto the Father." Henceforth the Lord is to be known characteristically by the Christian as in heaven. The Jew had looked for Him on earth, and rightly so; as by-and-by the Jew will have Him reigning over the earth, when He comes again in power and great glory. Between the broken and restored hopes of Israel, we find our place as Christians. We are baptised unto His death, and we show forth His death until He come, remembering Him in the breaking of the bread; but we know Him above, no longer dead, but risen and glorified.

Yea, though we had known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more. Indeed, without boasting, in sober truth, but all-surpassing grace, we can say, and as believers are bound to say, that we are in Him. "In that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you." "that day" of the N.T. is this day, being already come, the day of grace to the world in the Gospel; the day of grace to the saints in their union with Christ. "So if anyone be in Christ, it is a new creation; the old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new; and all things are of the God Who reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ." (2 Cor. 5: 17f.) Such is Christianity; and this undeveloped was implied in our Lord's dealing and words with Mary of Magdala. "Touch Me not" was a saying of eminent significance, and still more when interpreted by the words that accompany it. It is not, as in Col. 2: 21, μὴ ἅψῃ (a single transient action), but μή μου ἅπτου , "Do not go on touching Me"; it is a general and continuous prohibition, and this to represent the remnant taken out of their associations as Jews and put into new relations, not only with Christ in heaven, but through Him with His Father and God; as contra-distinguished from those who represent the remnant allowed to lay hold of Him as a sign of His return in bodily presence for the kingdom.

But there is more. "Go unto My brethren." He is not ashamed to call the disciples His brethren. He had prepared the way for this; He had said on Israel's rebellious rejection of their Messiah, "Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother." (Matt. 12: 50.) Now, on the accomplishment of His atoning work He acknowledges definitely this blessed fruit of it, not only sins forgiven to faith by virtue of His shed blood, but believers in the most intimate way related to Himself, the risen Man and Son of God. They are His brethren; to whom, according to Ps. 22: 22, He proceeds to make known the name, not merely of Jehovah, but of the Father. For now they were not quickened only, but quickened with Christ. They stood in Him risen from the dead, forgiven all trespasses. And they learn that thus related to Christ in His new place as in the condition of Man according to Divine counsels for eternity, all question of sin being closed triumphantly on the cross, not for Him Who had no need, but for the believer who had all possible need in guilt and an evil nature and an accusing enemy and a holy, righteous Judge, they enter into His own blessed and everlasting relationship with His Father and God. "And say to them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, My God and your God."

It was a moment of unequalled depth: the Son risen again after having borne the judgment of our sins in His own body on the tree and glorified God in respect, not of obedience in life only, but up to death for sin, on the resurrection morning sending, through one from whom He had formerly expelled seven demons to His disciples (desponding through unbelief), a message of the new and incomparable blessedness He had acquired for them by His death and resurrection. Doubtless He is the risen Messiah of the seed of David, and the mercies of David are made sure by His resurrection, as will be proved in the kingdom restored to Israel in due time. But this must be postponed in God's wisdom and yield to the far deeper purpose meanwhile coming into evidence, the calling out of God's children, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, into the knowledge and enjoyment and testimony of Himself and His Son by the Holy Ghost, which is usually styled "Christianity." It could not be before, nor only because He had relations after flesh and by promise with Israel, until they had thoroughly despised and rejected deliberately through unbelief, but guiltily and inexcusably, their infinitely blessed King; but because solely on the ground of redemption by His death could God be free to form and gather into one those children of His freed from their sins and quickened together with Him, whether Jew or Gentile. Now, having died, He could bear much fruit; and here He announces the fact as worthy of Himself as of the God Who sent Him in love beyond all thought of man. "I ascend unto My Father and your Father, My God and your God."

How poor and pale are the dreams of men even in their highest aspirations, compared with the simple truth spoken by the Lord and sent to His own! Yet nothing less could satisfy His love, which must demonstrate its power, first by going down with our sins to suffer for them from God, and next by ascending into glory and giving us as far as possible His own position as sons and saints, with all evil and guilt for ever gone before God, purged worshippers having no more conscience of sins. This was not merely a hope to be made good when He comes again to receive us to Himself, but the truth of a really existing relationship announced now on the resurrection day, sent to His disciples that they might know and enjoy it to the full, as pledged in His own ascension to the presence of the Father in heaven. It is for all saints till He come again: would that all knew it as their only true place in Him! Still, grace has given the truth fresh power in our day, though by messengers who have no more reason to boast than Mary of Magdala that came then with the tidings to the disciples (verse 18), I have seen the Lord; or, as it is more commonly read, that she had seen the Lord, and He had spoken these things to her. But we may and ought to glory in our risen Lord, and of such a place for the believer in Him. "Of such a one will I glory," said a greater than any of us; "yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities." (2 Cor. 12: 5.) Of a man in Christ it is well to glory, only we cannot expect those to do so who do not even conceive what it means, and who are so depraved by a jargon of Jewish and Gentile notions, commonly called systematic divinity, that they are slow indeed to learn. If we know the truth may we have grace not only to walk in it, but to wait on such as know it not, if peradventure grace and truth may at length win their way and the saints learn their true blessedness in Christ.

The Lord's message was not in vain. The disciples gathered on that resurrection-day with the world shut out; and Jesus stood in the midst. It is the beautiful anticipative picture of the assembly, as may be seen more fully when details are entered into.

John 20: 19-23.

Mark 16: 14-18 Luke 24: 36-49.

"When it was evening then, on that day which was the first of the week,368 and the doors were shut where the disciples369 were by reason of the fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood [took His stand] in the midst, and saith to them, Peace to you. And having said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. He (or, Jesus)* said, therefore, to them again, Peace to you: according as the Father hath sent Me forth, I also send you. And having said this, He breathed into and saith to them, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever ye retain, they are retained."

* Text. Rec. and Lachmann [with Weiss] follow AB and eleven other uncials, most cursives, etc., in reading ὁ Ἰ., but DLCX and most ancient versions omit [as Tisch. and Blass; W. and H. bracket].

How many things of spiritual weight were here brought into the smallest compass and conveyed in the simplest form! That day which in due time was to receive its appropriate designation of "the Lord's day" (Rev. 1: 10), as characteristic of the Christian as the Sabbath of the Jew, was marked off, not only by the gathering together of the saints, but by the presence of the Lord in their midst. So it was at the beginning of the following week (verse 26); and so afterwards does the Holy Spirit distinguish it as the day when the breaking of the bread is observed (Acts 20: 7), and the wants of the holy poor rise up in remembrance before Him and them (1 Cor. 16: 2). It was indeed Divine guidance, though it did not take the shape of a command; but none the less precious or obligatory on all who value His special presence in communion with His own and the showing forth of His death till He come. It was the day, not of creation rest nor of law imposed, but of resurrection and of the grace which associated the believer with its rich and enduring results; on which all thus blessed come together to enjoy in common that death of the Lord which is the righteous ground of these privileges and of all others.

On that day the Lord gave the assembled disciples a signal witness of the power of life in resurrection; for where they were, the doors having been shut for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst. Weakness attaches to the natural body, which, unless a miracle be wrought, is stopped by a wall or a closed door or a chain or a thousand other checks. Not so the body which is raised in power, as the Lord here silently shows them. It appears to be the object of the statement here, and again lower down, to intimate that the risen body can thus enter, not by miracle (however wonderful it may seem to us, who view and measure things by the actual condition of this life), but normally as in the power of resurrection, wherein all indeed is supernatural. There is no ground here to suppose, but rather the contrary, that the doors were caused to open of themselves. So it was (Acts 5: 19), when the angel led the Apostles Peter and John out of prison; so, again, when Peter was a second time set free (Acts 12: 10), and the iron gate opened of itself, not to let in the angel, who needed it not, but to let Peter out. It is no question of omnipotence, but of the risen body, which has no more need of an open door than an angel. The ancients seem to have had far simpler faith as to this than most moderns who betray the growing materialism* of the day. To talk of philosophical difficulties is puerile pretension: what does philosophy know of the Resurrection? It is a question of God and His Son, not of mere causes and effects, still less of experience. The Christian believes the word, and knows what God reveals. Let philosophy confess, not boast of, its nescience: if dumb before creation, resurrection is to it still more confounding.

* Even Calvin was led into misunderstanding of this Scripture, through his dread of Popery and its effort to prove the dogma of a real presence everywhere in the Mass. His faith in, or at least intelligence of, the Resurrection was small.

Jesus then and thus came and stood in the midst, saying to the disciples, "Peace to you." This He had left as His legacy before the cross; now alive again from the dead He announces it to His own: how sweet the sound in a world at war with God! Doubly so where earnest souls have striven ineffectually to make it for themselves with God, whatever their sighs and tears and groans, whatever their prayers, yearnings, and agony, whatever their-efforts to eschew the evil and cleave to the good. For such best know that conscience and heart can find no solid peace in self-judgment or in self-denial, in contemplation of God or in labours for Him; on the contrary, the more sincere, the less have they peace. They are on a wholly wrong road. Peace for a sinful man can only be made by the blood of Christ's cross, which faith receives on His word. And so the Lord spoke it to the disciples that day, the mighty work on which it is grounded being finished and accepted of God, as His resurrection declares. "And having said this He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord."

Some have conceived that the second "Peace to you " was a sort of farewell or valete, as the first a salvete.* As the former was far otherwise, even the deep blessing which characterises those who are justified by faith, and ever recurring in one form or another throughout the New Testament, so the second is in connection with the mission the Lord proceeds to confer on the disciples. They first received peace for themselves; they are next charged to go forth with the gospel of peace to others. "According as the Father hath sent (ἀπέστ) Me forth, I also send (π.) you." These are Christ's true legates à latere: others are but thieves and robbers whom the sheep do well not to hear. Strangers to peace themselves, as their own tongue cannot but confess, how can they tell others of a peace which poor sinners might trust with assurance?

* It will hardly be credited that Calvin saw no more than a desire for prosperity in these words of our risen Lord.

But the Lord next proceeds to another highly significant token of new and lasting privilege. "And having said this, He breathed into and saith to them, Receive (the) Holy Spirit:* whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them; whose soever ye retain, they are retained." It was He Who before He took flesh had breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life; and now He breathed into the disciples the breath of a better and everlasting life, His own life, as being both now-that is, Jehovah-God and the risen second Man-in one Person. Never had He so done before.370 The right moment was come. He had been delivered for their offences, and was raised for their justification. The risen life is deliverance from the law of sin and death, as well as the bright witness of a complete remission of sins; and this not as an abstract truth for all believers, but intended to be known and enjoyed by each. "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath delivered me from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8: 16.) In Rom. 7: before, from verse 7, we read how tried and sifted and wretched the "I" was, till it dropped self to find grace in Christ, not only for the past, but for the present, and, of course, for ever.

* That character of the Holy Spirit's action, which consists of life in resurrection, and hence expressed without the article. It was not yet the Holy Spirit given personally, the baptism of the Spirit, as at Pentecost.

What can be more intensely personal than this deliverance from misery? and what more evident, also, that it was not only a new and Divine life, but this after judgment of sin and the curse of the law had fallen on Christ, and He risen victoriously dispensing a life beyond sin, law, or judgment, and this as having borne all and borne all away for the believer righteously? Of this His in-breathing was the sign; and He says: "Receive (the) Holy Spirit": not yet the Spirit sent down from the ascended Lord and Christ to baptise into one body and to give power and testimony, but the energy of His own risen life. For the Spirit ever in the closest way takes His part in every blessing; and as for the kingdom of God every one is born of water and Spirit, and none else can see or enter that kingdom, so here with life in resurrection to deal with souls that heard and believed the Gospel.

For this is not all. The disciples thus delivered are invested with a blessed privilege and a solemn responsibility as regards others. Those without are now viewed as sinners, the old distinction of Jews and Gentiles for the time disappearing in the true light. But if it be the judgment of the world, it is the day of grace; and the disciples have the administration, the Spirit of life in Christ giving them capacity. Hence the word of the Lord is, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted; whose soever ye retain, they are retained." So repentant souls were baptized for the remission of sins, whilst a Simon Magus was pronounced in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. So the wicked person was put away from among the saints, and the same man after the judgment of his evil and his own deep grief over his sin was to be assured of love by the assembly's receiving him back, obedient, yet taking the initiative in the act that it might be conscience work and not of bare authority or influence. It was the assembly's doing. "To whom ye forgive anything, I also; for also what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, (it is) for your sakes in Christ's person." (2 Cor. 2: 10.) Paul would have nothing forced, but fellowship unbroken in discipline: not he dictating and they blindly or in dread following, as in the church-world; but they following Christ's authority and He also in a communion truly of the Spirit.571

John 20: 24-29.

On the resurrection-day the Apostles were not all present. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus,372 was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples said [began to say], therefore, to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Except I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will in nowise believe" (verses 24, 25).

His state of soul coincided with his absence on that day. He resisted the blessed news of the Resurrection, and did not join the gathering of the disciples to share the joy of the Master's presence in their midst. Slow of heart to believe, he missed the early taste of the blessing, and abode in the darkness of his own unbelief, whilst the rest were filled with gladness. He becomes, therefore, no unmeet type of the Jew, not of the ungodly mass who receive another coming in his own name, but of the poor sorrow-stricken remnant who cleave to the hope of the Messiah in the latter day, and will enter into rest and joy only when they see Him appearing for their deliverance.

"And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace to you. Then He saith to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see My hands, and reach thy hand, and put (it) into My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing. Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith to him, Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed; blessed are those that saw not and believed" (verses 26-29).

It is a blessed picture of the fruit of Christ's resurrection in the latter day: not the Church, but "the great congregation," (Ps. 22: 25.) brought in infinite grace to know and praise the Lord, when He is no longer hidden but visibly reigning. Those before will have had the good portion, which shall not be taken from them-they saw not, yet believed.373 Israel will see and believe: blest, indeed, but not after the same high measure of blessing. There will be no such revelation of the Father to them, no such association with the Son, no conscious link by His ascension with the heavens. The rejected One will have returned to reign in power and glory; and the heart of Israel, long withered and dark, is to be lighted up at length with the brightness of their hope accomplished in the presence of the Lord to make good every promise, when they on their part boast no more of their own righteousness, but take their stand on the mercy that endureth for ever. They recognise the Judge of Israel that was smitten with a rod upon the cheek, and themselves given up by Him, until the birth of God's great final purpose in their favour, when He shall be great to the ends of the earth, and they as a dew of blessing from Jehovah in the midst of the nations, and all their enemies shall be cut off. "They shall look upon Me Whom they pierced, and they shall mourn for Him," in bitterness of self-reproach, but with a spirit of grace and supplication poured upon them. For truly He was wounded in the house of His friends, but wounded (as they learn afterwards) for their transgressions, bruised for their iniquities, stricken for the transgression of Jehovah's people (see Micah 5, Zech. 12, and Isa. 53).

Hence we hear nothing now of not touching the Lord because of His ascension to His Father, nor of going to His brethren, and saying to them, "I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." On the contrary, grace will condescend to those who demanded signs and tokens ere they would believe; and they will stand overwhelmed and abashed at the fulness of visible proof when Messiah returns here below. There is peace to them; "for this man shall be the peace" in that day also, whatever the pride and power of the foe. But there will not be the same mission of peace in the power of His risen life; all their iniquities forgiven, all their diseases healed, but not the place of the Church to forgive or retain sins in the name of the Lord.

Accordingly, there is the characteristic exclamation and confession withal of Thomas, "My Lord and my God."* So will Israel say in the kingdom. "And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is Jehovah; we have waited for Him, we will be glad, and rejoice in His salvation." (Isa. 25: 9.) It is the truth, and true blessing for Israel to possess and blessedly acknowledge, especially for those who had so long despised Him to their own shame and ruin; but it has not the intimacy of that fellowship into which the Christian is now called. "For truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."(1 John 1: 3.)  "We walk by faith, not by sight"; (2 Cor. 5: 7.)  and having not seen Christ, we love Him; "on Whom, though now we see Him not, yet believing, we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." (1 Peter 1: 8.)

* That Gilbert Wakefield should deny the confession and merge all in a mere exclamation, or rather in two, "O! my Lord! and O! my God!" was to have been expected from his heterodoxy. But such a notion is as inconsistent with the context as it is irreverent, and of course misses all the force of the truth. For it will be observed that the Gospel says, not merely that Thomas said these words, but that they were said to his Master. It is true that, if a mere assertion, the article would be absent, as being simply predicative. The emphatic form of the sentence is due to its combining exclamation in the vocative according to the New Testament usage with confession, and this said to the Lord Jesus; which also accounts for the twofold occurrence of the personal pronoun, the first of which assuredly could not have been used had it been an address to Jehovah as such.

Here the Evangelist, as on occasion is his manner, interrupts for a moment the thread of the Divine tale to say a few words on the gracious way of the Saviour in the affluence of signs or significant miracles which studded His ministry here below, as well as on the purpose of blessing the Holy Ghost had in view, in selecting from that countless crowd such as were most suitable for permanent testimony to God's grace. Two objects are set out: first and pre-eminently, the glory of the Lord's Person, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; secondly, that the believer may have life in His name.

John 20: 30-31.

"Many other* signs, therefore, did Jesus in the presence of the† disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name."

* It may be that the Authorised Version has led some into, or confirmed in, the mistake of a possible conclusion here. "And many," etc., is not a quite correct rendering. It is literally the familiar "Many and other signs," that is, "Many other signs," etc.

† αὐτοῦ, "his," is added by many copies, but not the oldest or best.

No doubt this was a fitting moment here to pause and thus to speak. The unbelief of a believer, yea, of an Apostle, furnished the material where the Lord had stooped to meet and receive His erring servant by the visible tokens and the tangible proofs he had insisted on in his folly, and to his hurt irreparable, if grace had not intervened as we have seen. It was a priceless favour to have seen the things the disciples saw. It is better still to believe without seeing. And grace would provide for those who in the nature of things could not see, that they might hear and live. Hence the writing of this precious book. It was to be in witness of Jesus; it was to be known and read of all men. Not that Scripture ever exhausts its wondrous theme, whatever it may be; and here, above all, it is as infinite in the Person described, as the blessing is eternal for those who believe. God graciously selects some signs out of many, in the considerate goodness which knows precisely what we can bear For if Scripture be His word, it is given to man, even to us who believe, to the end of our enjoying that blessing in His Son-indeed, the deepest which He could bestow-the communication of that nature which, as it comes from God, ever goes to Him, yea, yields fellowship with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.374

But as the supreme and crucial test now is the Person of Jesus Christ come in flesh (1 John 4: 2, 3), so connected with it is the divinely given and guarded testimony to God's grace and Christ's glory, by which the family of God, weak as they are, overcome the adverse might of the world and its prince; because greater is He that is in them than he that is in the world. And those who are of God turn a deaf ear to such as are of the world and speak as of the world whom the world hears; but have they none especially to hear? Thanks be to God, they know God and hear those who are of God, His chosen witnesses, whom the Holy Ghost was to lead, and did lead, into all the truth, and who in due time wrote "this book," as did others no less inspired for the work than John. On the other hand, those who are not of God do not hear the Apostles, preferring the thoughts of themselves or of other men to their irremediable ruin. "By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4: 6.)

After this brief but worthy and gracious interruption the Evangelist turns to "the third" (John 21: 14) of the great manifestations of the risen Jesus which it was his task to describe, before he closes with the respective and peculiar places the Lord would give Peter and John in their service here below. How any men of intelligence could say that our two verses which conclude John 20 are a formal close of the Gospel might have been viewed as inconceivable, if it was not positive fact. Grotius375 seems to have been the first man of mark who gave expression and currency to a supposition irreconcilable with the plain connection of the two first days of the week in chapter 20, and with the scene which follows in chapter 21: irreconcilable just in proportion to one's real understanding of the Gospel as a whole. Modern Germany took up this and other injurious notions of that learned Dutchman, not only Ewald, Lücke, and Tholuck, but even Meyer, Neander, and Stier. It is painful to add that Alford, Scrivener, Westcott, etc., have yielded to the uncalled-for theory that John 20 originally ended the Gospel, and that John 21 is a later appendix from the Apostle's own hand, though many go farther and deny it to him altogether.375a

When we enter on the details of the concluding chapter, we may be enabled to show yet more how unfounded is this thought. Meanwhile it suffices here to point out briefly the mistake of regarding as a true end the two verses which have been now occupying us. In fact, they are an instructive comment by the way, not without a glance at the signs wrought by the Lord all through, but with special declaration of God's aim for the glory of Christ and the blessing of the faithful, suggested by the case of Thomas, yet delicately avoiding any needlessly direct allusion to one so honoured of the Lord. It would, indeed, be as true to say that the Evangelist began more than once in John 1 as to admit more than one ending in John 20, 21. In fact, if men are to reason thus from superficial appearances, it would be more plausible to infer at least two, if not three, supplements to the Epistle to the Romans. Nor is authority wanting which transports the doxology from the end of John 16 to that of John 14. Yet it is to be doubted if the hypothesis there be so unnatural as it would be here to sever the third manifestation of the Lord in resurrection from the two which preceded it, or even to admit the former as a later addition, since it is necessary to the completeness of the picture. It is the true complement. In no way is it, as men have thought, a mere supplement, since it forms an essential part of one organic whole; just as John 2: 1-22 pertains as a sequel to John 1, and never could be justly dislocated from it, as an afterthought supplied at a later date even by the same hand.

Mr. J. B. McClellan, in his "New Testament" (I. 744-747), is an honourable exception to the fashion of the day, which subordinates sound criticism to subjective ideas. On the one hand, the external authority is full and unimpeachable; on the other, the peculiarity of the Evangelist's manner has not been fairly taken into account by any who have indulged in the hypothetical Appendix. John was led of the Spirit to intervene from time to time with the expression of his heart at what affected his Divine Master for good or ill, or at the testimony rendered in His words, in His ways, and in the signs that accompanied all as here. More than this is a spurious inference, which severs chapter 21 from its due place. How discreditable to the self-vaunting "modern critics" that they allow their own thoughts to run away with them in the face of overwhelming authority and consentient witnesses! Nor is this all. For the true internal evidence is conclusive for the continuity of the text as it stands, as it demands the chapter which follows to complete the scope of this Gospel in general, and especially the bearing of what was begun in the latter part of chapter 20.

JOHN — THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER*376

* [Cf. "Introductory Lectures," p. 566 ff.]

It is impossible fairly to sever the manifestation of Jesus at the lake of Tiberias from the two previous scenes of which it is the complement; as, indeed, verse 14 warrants us to say with decision. It is, therefore, quite improper to speak of John 21 as an Appendix, still more so to speculate on its being written at an interval of some length after the rest of the Gospel: an inference due chiefly, if not altogether, to a misunderstanding of the two closing verses of John 20, as has been already pointed out.

The reader will notice that the connection is immediate and marked with the two previous manifestations of the risen Lord. First, we have seen Him (after making Himself known to Mary of Magdala and sending by her a most characteristic message to His disciples) standing in their midst when gathered together, without seeing Him enter, on the first or resurrection day of the week, in their enjoyment of peace and the mission of peace in the power of the Spirit to remit and retain sins in His name. Secondly, we have seen Him eight days after meeting His disciples again when Thomas was there, representing saved Israel of the latter day who only believe by the sight of Him risen. Now we have the beautiful picture of the millennial ingathering from the sea of Gentiles, which follows the Jews returning as such to the Lord, as all prophecy leads us to expect. The third scene follows in due order the second, on which the future truth conveyed by it hangs as a consequence, as here said to be "after these things."

John 21: 1-14.

"After these things Jesus manifested Himself377 again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and He manifested (Himself) thus. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus (that is, Twin), and Nathaniel from Cana in Galilee, and the (sons) of Zebedee,378 and two others of His disciples.379 Simon Peter saith to them, I go away to fish. They say to him, We also come with thee.379a They went forth, and entered* into the boat, and that night took nothing. But when early morn was now breaking†, Jesus stood on† the shore: however, the disciples did not know that it was (lit. 'is') Jesus. Jesus therefore saith to them, Children [lads], have ye anything to eat? They answered Him, No. And He said to them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye will find. They cast, therefore, and were no longer able‡ to draw it from the multitude of fishes" (verses 1-6).380

* The Compl. rightly gives ἐν-, Erasmus wrongly ἀν-, with Steph., Be., and Elz., though not without uncials (ΔΛ) and other support; but the Compl. is as wrong as the rest in adding εὐθὺς with many more MSS.

† γεν. Text. Rec., [Blass] early read in uncials, and most copies; γιν. ABCpmEL, ten cursives, etc. [Tisch., W. and H., Weiss]. The MSS. also differ as to ἐπὶ [Tisch., Blass] and εἱς [W. and H., Weiss].

‡ The more correct form ἴσχουν is given by BCDLΛΠ, more than ten cursives, many Latin copies, Syriac, etc.

Peter, with his usual energy, proposes to go a-fishing, and six others accompany him. But the result is no better than when some of the same disciples with the same Peter essayed to catch fish before his call and theirs. Even in the days of the kingdom the power must be manifestly of the Lord, not of man nor of the saints themselves; and Peter must, and would, learn the lesson, if the Roman Catholic sect falsely claiming Peter refuse it in pride. It is not yet the kingdom manifested in power and glory, but in mystery for such as have ears to hear. And although grace works its wonders, the nets break, and the boats threaten to sink, even when their partners come to share in taking the great multitude of fishes.

Here Jesus is not aboard, and there is no putting out into the deep, but with the early morn just breaking He stood on the beach, and still unknown put a question which brought out their confessed lack of success. Then comes the word, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and ye will find." And so it was; for so casting they were now unable to draw the net for the multitude of fishes. It is the figure of the great millennial haul from among the nations, when the salvation of all Israel will prove to be incomparably blessed to the Gentiles. If their "fall" has been so fraught with good in Divine grace, how much more their "fulness" (Rom. 11: 12), of which these seven Israelites may be the pledge?380a The once rejected but now risen Christ is to be the head of the heathen, not only of the Church now on high, but by and by of the nations on the earth, owned by previously unbelieving Israel to be their Lord and their God. Then will the Jew sing, "God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear Him"; (Ps. 67: 6ff.) and again, "Princes shall come out of Egypt: Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God, Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; O sing praises unto Jehovah. (Ps. 68: 31ff.) In the figure of that day the nets do not break, nor is there any thought of putting the fishes into the boat, still less of gathering the good into vessels and casting the bad away. The weakness of man and of earthly circumstances wanes before the present power of the Lord Who directs all.

Augustine may be safely regarded as the ablest and most enlightened of the early writers on this sign, which he compares with that which preceded the call of Simon Peter and the sons of Zebedee. He is right in distinguishing the take of fish which followed the resurrection from the miraculous draught before it. Nor does any other among the ancients add to the truth of his observations, Gregory the Great rather darkening the force of our Scripture by his effort to make much of Peter's part in order to help on the Papal pretensions then in course of rapid growth. The earlier miracle he regards as significant of the good and evil in the Church, as it is now; the later, of the good only which it is to have for ever when the resurrection of the just is accomplished in the end of this age (Serm. ccxlviii.-cclii., etc.).

Enough, perhaps, has been said already which anticipatively corrects so erroneous an interpretation of the sign before us. There is no thought of a fishing scene in the resurrection either of just or unjust, no truth in the employing of Jews or men for gathering in the risen righteous to their heavenly and eternal rest. The fathers saw nothing of the future restoring of the kingdom to Israel, nor of the general blessedness of all nations as such under the reign of the Lord in the age to come. The moderns are in general no less uninstructed; for though some see and allow the restoration of Israel to their land and the accomplishment of the glory promised so largely throughout the Old Testament, they somehow, with strange inconsistency, merge all into this age. They do not perceive that these are among the constituents of the age to come, before the eternal state when there will be no difference between Jew and Gentile absolutely, as there is none even now for the Christian and the Church.

But here is another source of this deep, long-lasting, and widespread misconception. Men, and even good men, fail to see the true nature of the Church, as they do not believe in the special features of the millennial age. How much error would be avoided if they discerned the peculiar character and unexampled privilege of the body of Christ in union with its heavenly head, since redemption, while He sits at God's right hand! How much more, if they looked for His return with His bride, already complete and caught up to be with Him on high, to make His foes His footstool, and Judah His goodly horse in the battle which introduces Jehovah-Jesus King over all the earth-one Jehovah, and His name one in that day! It is as egregious to confound with the Church wherein is neither Jew nor Greek all this distinctive blessing of Israel and the nations on the earth under the reign of the Lord, as it is to merge both in the end of the age or in the eternity which, they assume, is to follow. They blot out the new age to come, which is to be characterised by the reign of the second Man, the Lord Jesus, the absence of Satan, the exaltation of the glorified saints in power on high, and the blessedness of all the families of the earth here below.

But these all stand indelibly written in the Scriptures; and no strugglings of unbelief can get rid of a truth which may be, and is, offensive to the pride of nature and the worldly mind, as it would prove full of help and value to Christian men often perplexed by their own misreading of revelation and their misconception, consequently, of what is to be sought or expected at this present time. For there is no error which does not bear its own baneful fruits; and the error in question, though not assailing fundamental truth, affects most extensively the right understanding of the past, the present, and the future. Thus are the chief characteristic differences blurred, and an undistinguishable vague is presented; whereas the word of God affords the fullest light on the various dispensations, as well as on that mystery in regard of Christ and of the Church which comes in between and is superior to either.

The love which is of God makes the eye single, and thereby the whole body is full of light. John was quick to discern the Lord. "Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith to Peter, It is the Lord. Then Simon Peter, hearing that it was (lit. 'is') the Lord, girt his overcoat about (him)-for he was naked-and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat (for they were not far from the land, but about two hundred cubits off), dragging the net of the fishes. So when they had got off to the land, they see a coal-fire laid, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith to them, Bring of the fish which ye took just now. Simon Peter (therefore)* went up and drew the net to land† full of great fishes, a hundred (and) fifty-three: and, many as they were, the net was not rent. Jesus saith to them, Come, dine. And none of the disciples durst inquire of Him, Who art Thou? knowing that it was (lit. 'is') the Lord. Jesus‡ cometh and taketh the bread and giveth to them, and the fish likewise. This already (was the) third (time) Jesus was manifested to the disciples§ after having risen from (the) dead" (verses 7-14).

* BCLLΠpm, etc., add οὖν [W. and H.], contrary to most uncials and cursives [Tisch., Weiss, Blass].

† Most, with Text. Rec., read ἐπὶ τῆς γ.,  but the best εἰς τὴν γ., a few ἐπὶ τὴν γ.

‡ οὖν is added by most, but BCDLX, etc., do not warrant it.

§ Text. Rec., against ABCL, etc., adds αὐτοῦ, "his."

But if John was the first to perceive Who He was that spoke to them,381 Peter, with characteristic promptness, is the first to act so as to reach His presence, yet not naked, but in seemly guise. He had failed miserably and profoundly and repeatedly, but not his faith; even as the Saviour had prayed for him that it should not fail. Despair because of the gravest failure is no more of faith than the indifference which hears not the Saviour's voice, and, never knowing His glory or His grace, never has the consciousness of its own guilt. In the Lord he thus learns experimentally to confide, after having too much trusted his own love for his Master; and Christ must be all to the heart of him who is to strengthen his brethren.

The Lord, however, despises none, and the other disciples follow in the small boat, dragging the net full of the fishes; for He had not given such a haul to leave it behind. Grace makes to differ, never to behave oneself unseemly. Peter carried himself suitably toward the Lord; so did they in their place; for, indeed, they all had one heart and purpose to please the Lord.

Thus will it be when the abundance of the sea shall be converted to Zion. What will not be the effect of all Israel being saved? "If their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? What shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11: 12, 15.) Jehovah will destroy the veil that is spread over all nations; and Israel will not only be the instrument of Divine vengeance on their enemies, but of God's mercy and blessing to all the families of the earth. "And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples as dew from Jehovah, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations in the midst of many peoples as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and there is none to deliver" (Micah 5: 7, 8).

It is remarked and remarkable that, when the disciples landed, they see a fire laid, and fish thereon and bread. The Lord had wrought before them and without them, though He would give them communion with the fruits of the activity of His grace. He will have got ready a Gentile remnant Himself before He employs His people to gather the great millennial catch out of the sea of Gentiles. The grace of God will work after a far more varied and vigorous sort than men think; and while He deigns to use His people, it is good for them at that very time to learn that He can, and does, work independently. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! How verified both in Israel and in the Gentile!

Yet the Lord would have His own enter into the fellowship of what He has wrought as well as enjoy their own work. "Jesus saith to them, Bring of the fish which ye just now took. Simon Peter, therefore, went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes a hundred and fifty-three;382 and, as many as there were, the net was not rent. Jesus saith to them, Come, dine."

The contrast with all that characterises the actual work of His servants is very plain. The parable in Matt. 13: 47 shows us that even up to the close of the age good and bad fish are contained in the net, and that it is the marked call of the fishermen just then to put the good into vessels as well as to cast the bad away; whilst the angels, as we know, do the converse work, when judgment comes at the Lord's appearing, of severing the wicked from among the righteous. The miraculous draught in Luke 5: 4-9, descriptive of present service, shows us the nets breaking and the boats into which the fishes were put beginning to sink. Nothing of this appears here where the days of the kingdom are set forth, when the Lord is with His own on earth. There are many great fishes named, but none bad; the net is expressly said to be unrent; there is no thought of the boat sinking, and the net was dragged along instead of the boat being filled. Thus a wholly different and future state of things is pictured after this age closes and before eternity begins.

The Lord will surely yet and thenceforward renew His associations with His people on earth: I speak not of the Father's house on high and its heavenly relations, but of those to be blessed and a blessing on earth. It is an unquestionably scriptural prospect, and most cheering, that this very earth is to be delivered from its present corruption and thraldom into "the liberty of the glory of the children of God." (Rom. 8: 21.) For the revelation of His sons the earnest expectation of the creation waits, though, as we know, the whole of it groans and travails in pain till now. But it will not be so always. The Lord Himself is coming, and the day of His appearing will see creation delivered, not, of course, as we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit are now into the liberty of grace by faith, but the creation itself also by power shall be freed into the liberty of glory. It will be the kingdom of God, no longer a secret to faith, but displayed in power and in all its extent of blessing, with its earthly things and its heavenly, as the Lord intimated to Nicodemus, and as we are taught in Eph. 1 and Col. 1 in connection with the headship of Christ and His reconciliation.

Here the Lord on that day was giving the pledge of the future widespread blessing, when the Gentile world will afford common joy, and the occasion of the manifestation of His risen power and presence, to His people. None but He could or would act after such a sort. His grace is unmistakable. "And none of the disciples durst inquire of Him, Who art Thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus cometh and taketh the bread and giveth to them, and the fish likewise.383 This already (was the) third (time) Jesus was manifested to the disciples,384 after being risen from the dead." It is the day, prefigured in prophecy and awaited by the saints from of old, when they shall all know Him from the least of them to the greatest of them, none more needing to say, Know the Lord. "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem; and they shall no more walk after the stubbornness of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel; and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I caused your fathers to inherit" (Jer. 3: 17, 18).

There would be an utter gap for this world and God's glory in it, a gap which nothing else could fill up for him who takes a large and observant view of God's dealings with the world, if there were not a period of Divine blessedness here below for Israel and the nations through the grace and to the praise of the risen Lord Jesus. This does not in the least interfere with the deeper and higher things above the world to which the Christian and the Church are now called. On the contrary, when the reality and the true character of the kingdom at Christ's appearing are not seen, there is a confusion of it with the proper hopes of the Church, which is ruinous to the distinctive blessedness of the Church on the one hand and of Israel with the Gentiles on the other.

But our Gospel, while fully revealing God in Christ on earth, and in these closing chapters tracing His ways in Christ risen, first for the Christian and the assembly, next for Israel, and lastly for the Gentiles, never loses sight of grace working with the individual soul. Thus Peter must be thoroughly restored and publicly reinstated; so would the Lord have it. He had been already singled out specially (Mark 16: 7) at a moment when such a distinction was of all moment, both to himself and before his brethren, who would naturally have regarded with deep distrust the man who had so grievously, and spite of full warning, denied his Master. And before the eleven had the Lord standing in their midst, He had appeared to Simon (Luke 24: 34; 1 Cor. 15: 5). But He would carry on the gracious work profoundly in Peter's heart, and let us into the secrets of this truly Divine discipline.

"When, therefore, they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon (son) of Jonah (or, John),* lovest thou Me more than these? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I dearly love Thee. He saith to him, Feed My lambs. He saith to him again a second time, Simon (son) of Jonah,* lovest thou Me? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I dearly love Thee. He saith to him, Tend My sheep. He saith to him the third time, Simon (son) of Jonah,* dost thou dearly love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, Dost thou dearly love Me? and he said to Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I dearly love Thee. Jesus saith to him, Feed My sheep (or, little sheep) (verses 15-17).385

* "John" is supported by a few of the oldest authorities [Edd.], "Jonah," or Jonas, too, being perhaps only an abridged form of the name Johanan or Jehohanan.

The Lord goes to the root of the matter. He does not speak of Peter's denying Him, but penetrates to its cause. Peter fell through confidence in himself, at least in his love to his Master. He judged that he might go where others could not safely, and that he would stand to the confession of His name in the face of prison and death. The result we all know too well. The greatest of the twelve denied the Lord repeatedly, and swore to it, notwithstanding fresh and solemn warning. But restoration is not complete, though we own the fruit ever so fully. In order to thorough blessing the Lord would have us, like Peter here, to discern the hidden spring. This he had not reached yet: the Lord makes it known to His servant. There is no haste; He waits till they had broken their fast, and then He says to Simon Peter: "Simon (son) of John, lovest thou (ἀγαπᾳς) Me more than these?" He calls him by his natural name; for well He knew wherein lay the secret which gave a handle to the enemy; and He would awaken a true sense of it in the Apostle's soul. Through assurance of his own superior affection he had not merely trusted in himself, in comparison with others, but slighted the word of the Lord. Had he laid His words to heart with prayer, he had not fallen when tried, but endured the temptation and suffered. But it was not so. He was sure that he loved the Lord more than all the rest; and if they could not stand such a sifting, he would; and this confidence in his own surpassing love to Christ was precisely the cause, as the interrogation of the bystanders was the occasion, of his fall. And now the Lord lays the root bare to Peter, who had already wept over the open fruit.

Yet at first Peter does not discover the aim of the Lord. He does avoid unwise comparison with others; he simply appeals to the Lord's inward conscious knowledge: "Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I dearly love (φιλῶ) Thee." Far from denying his profession of tender affection, the Lord proves His own value for it, and His confidence in Peter. For He, the Good Shepherd, about to quit the world, entrusts to His servant that which was unspeakably precious in His eyes and most of all needed His care: "Feed My lambs." Thus does He prove our love by answering to His love for the weakest of saints. "Whosoever loveth Him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of Him." We love because He first loved us; but it is not that we love Him only, but those that are His, not those that love us naturally, but those that He loves as divinely. "He that saith, I know Him and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him"; and "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God Whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from Him, that he who loveth God love his brother also."

Did not Peter deeply and increasingly feel the Lord's loving trust thus reposed in him, more than even before he fell? The administration of the kingdom of the heavens, the keys (not of the Church nor of heaven, but) of the kingdom, had been promised to Peter, and made good in due time. Here it is more tender and intimate, though there is no ground to extend the flock here committed to him beyond those of the circumcision (cf. Gal. 2). Did he not remember Isa. 40: 11, in communion with the blessed Messiah in His work of feeding that flock like a shepherd, gathering the lambs with His arm, and carrying them in His bosom, while gently leading the nursing ewes?

The Lord appeals once more, but drops all reference to others. "He saith to him again a second time, Simon (son) of John, lovest thou Me? He saith to Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I dearly love Thee. He saith to him, Feed My sheep." It is painfully instructive that even such a ripe scholar as Grotius should commit himself to an opinion so unworthy as that these marked changes of expression represent no weighty distinctions of truth.* But Peter, though he no longer thinks disparagingly of others, cannot give up his assurance that the Lord was inwardly aware of his true affection for Himself. And the Lord now bids him tend or rule His sheep, as before feed His lambs.386 So Peter at a later day impresses the same on the elders among the Jewish Christians he was addressing. sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus and other districts of Asia Minor: "Tend the flock of God which is among you, overseeing not of constraint, but willingly; nor yet for filthy lucre, but readily; nor as fording it over your possessions, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock" (1 Peter 5: 2, 3).

* "Promiscue hic usurpavit Johannes ἀγαπᾶς et φιλεῖν, ut mox βόσκειν et ποιμαίνειν. Neque hic quaerendae subtilitates."

In the Lord's words, as in the apostle's, it will be noticed to our profit how carefully the lambs and the sheep are said to be Christ's, not the elders', nor even the apostle's. The flock is God's flock. He who treats Christians as his congregation is guilty of the same forgetfulness of Divine grace and Divine authority as the congregation in regarding the minister as their minister, instead of Christ's. If any think these to be slight distinctions, it is clear that they have no right apprehension of a difference which is as deep in truth as it is fraught with the most momentous consequences for good and ill in practice. Only this gives moral elevation, as it alone springs from faith; this alone delivers from self and gives the true relation and character, even Christ, whether to those that minister or to those ministered to.

But the Lord speaks to him yet again. "He saith to him the third time, Simon (son) of John, cost thou dearly love Me?" Here the probe reached the bottom. Not a word of blame or reproach; but the Lord for the third time questions him, and for the first time takes up his own word of special affection. Did not his threefold denial appear in the light of the threefold appeal, and, above all, of that word expressive of endearing love? "Peter was grieved, because He said to him the third time, Dost thou dearly love Me? and he said to Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things; Thou knowest that I dearly love Thee. Jesus saith to him, Feed My sheep," or, if the reading of the Alexandrian, the Vatican, and the Paris palimpsest, etc., be preferred, My "little sheep,"* a diminutive of tenderness and endearment.

* [So W. and H., but Blass follows Syrsin  reading πρόβατα.]

The work of restoration was now fully done. Peter abandons every thought of self, and can find refuge only in grace. Only He Who of Himself knows all without an effort, only He could give credit to Peter's heart, spite of his mouth and all appearances; yet did not He know that His poor denying servant dearly loved Him? The answer of the Lord, committing afresh what was dearest to Him on earth-the gift of the Father's love to Himself-seals Peter's restoration, not in soul only, but in his relation to the sheep of His pasture. Feed them, says the Lord. To tend or rule pastorally is not forgotten; but positive nourishment, as of the lambs at the beginning, remains to the last the abiding task of the shepherd, the habitual need of the sheep; but it demands enduring and deep love, not to scold, perhaps, or govern, but to feed, and not least of all the least of all Christ's sheep. Only the love of Christ can carry one through it.

But this is not all. It is not enough for the Lord to restore fully the soul of Peter and to more than reinstate him in his relation to the sheep which might have seemed otherwise compromised. Grace would give him in God's due time what he had not only lost, but turned to his own shame and his Master's dishonour, the confession of His name even to prison and death.

"Verily, verily, I say to thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. And this He said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And having said this, He saith to him, Follow Me" (verses 18, 19).387-389

In this, as in what precedes and in what follows, actions and words are veiled yet significant. There was the intention to convey important and interesting truth, but only to such as weighed all and went not beyond the just hearing of the Lord's sayings or doings. Peter was then in his prime of natural vigour. In his youth (and he was still far from being an old man) he was ready for energetic action, and disposed to use his liberty with too little distrust of himself. He had just ventured to go whither he would, into the high priest's house; and as far as doughty words promised, one might have thought he had girded up his loins like a man to do great feats of valour, or to endure a great fight of afflictions for his betrayed and insulted Master. The issue we all know too well; and Peter had been led more and more to see and feel it, till he had now got down to the root and judged it thoroughly before God. But now also the Lord lets him know that grace would give him back what had seemed for ever lost to him, the fellowship of Christ's sufferings and conformity to His death, far more, in fact, than Peter in his own too confident love and strength had proffered before he miserably broke down.

See how grace shuts out all ground for boasting while it secures honour beyond what we in our most sanguine desires ever anticipated. Is not this worthy of God and suited to His saints? When Peter went forward according to his own words, he came to worse than nothing; he a most favoured servant, denying the Holy and Righteous One, his own most gracious Master. It was the deepest humiliation, yet was he a true saint and a loving disciple; but so it was because he entered into temptation at his own charges, instead of enduring it, when tried by it, according to God. Thus his fall was inevitable; for none can endure save in faith and self-judgment. To be a believer and fervently to love the Lord will not preserve in the least under such circumstances, however strange this may sound to many, who little think how often and deeply they deny the Lord practically, in great matters and small to which He attaches His name. We must be put to shame in whatever thing we are proud; and how much better is even this gain, than to be let go on in unrebuked self-complacency?

But the Lord promises Peter that, when he should be old, he should stretch forth his hands, and another gird and carry him whither he would not. Thus, when it was no longer possible to boast of his own strength or courage, as a helpless old man, Peter would enjoy from God the singular privilege, not only of death for Christ's sake which in younger days he had essayed to face and most ignominiously failed in, but of that very death which the Lord had suffered with its prolonged agony and shame. For the Lord, as we are expressly told, said as He did, signifying not death so much as "by what" sort of death Peter was to glorify God; and after saying this, He saith to him, Follow Me.

The allusion was scarcely mistakable. In those days, when such a punishment was common enough for the lowest slaves and guiltiest criminals, every one understood the meaning of being "lifted up," or outstretching the arms by the force of another. Again, the illustrative act of calling Peter to follow Him as He walked some paces on the shore made plain its grave intent. Yet even then and thus, another carrying him whither he would not proves how little of self was to be in Peter's death on the cross in contrast with those who, at a later day and a day lower incomparably, sought a martyr's death to win this crown. No! Peter's close on earth was to be suffering and death for Christ, Who would give him to endure at the fit moment. Not heroism nor asceticism is the Christian badge, but obedience.

The lesson of its surpassing grace abides for us who love the same Saviour, and have a nature no better than the disciple's. Have we been taught it? Can one learn it safely and surely, save as following Christ? "If any man serve Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall also My servant be; if any man serve Me, him will My Father honour." Peter when called should follow the Master; and so he did. May the same grace strengthen and guide us in the same path for life or death! To follow Christ as He calls is our best service.

The ardent mind of Peter, kindled by the solemn intimation of the Lord, seizes the opportunity to inquire about one so closely linked with him as the beloved disciple. It is hard in this question to discern the jealousy of the active for the contemplative life, of which early and mediaeval writers say much. But the Lord gives him the correction he needed.

"Peter* turning round seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following (who also at the supper leaned on his breast, and said, Lord, who is he that delivereth Thee up?); Peter, therefore,† seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what (of) this man? Jesus saith to him, If I will that he abide till I come, what (is it) unto thee? Follow thou Me. This saying, therefore, went forth among the brethren that that disciple doth not die; yet Jesus said not to him, that he doth not die; but, If I will that he abide till I come, what (is it) to thee?"‡ (verses 20-23).390-392

* Text. Rec., which DXΓΔΠ2 and others support, adds δὲ, "but," not the other ancient manuscripts.

† The highest authorities add οὖν, "therefore," but most oppose.

‡ pm is alone in omitting τί πρός σὲ   "what is it to thee?" [so Cod. Vercellensis of Old Lat., and Syrsin hier].

It was really loving interest concerning one more closely associated with himself than his own brother Andrew by the bond of a common affection for Jesus and of Jesus. This made Peter curious to learn about John now that his own earthly destiny was just revealed. But the gracious Lord, if He reproved in His own gentleness the prying spirit of His servant, did furnish ample matter for thought in the riddle He sets before Peter. One can readily see how shallow is the notion of Augustine and many since his day, that the Lord meant no more than John's living to a protracted and placid age, in contrast with Peter slain violently in old age, as with his own brother James in youth. Peter emphatically was to follow the Lord even in His death as far as this could be. Not so John, who was to abide hanging on the will of the Lord till He came. "If I will that he abide," etc.

Needless to say that there is evident and intentional mystery in the manner it was spoken of; and some have supposed that the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgment of the Jewish polity are here alluded to; as there is certainly more in such a thought than a merely peaceful death in advanced age. For death is in no true sense the Lord's coming, but rather the converse, our going to Him.393 We know, at any rate, that to John it was given to see the Son of man judging the churches, and to have visions not only of God's providential dealings with the world whether Jews or Gentiles, but of the Lord's return in judgment of the apostate powers of the earth and of the man of sin, in order to the establishment of the long-predicted kingdom of God and the times of the restitution of all things, with the still higher glory in the New Jerusalem.

Out of the Lord's words, perverted as they speedily were, the synagogue seems to have had its fable of the wandering Jew, and Christendom its Prester John, to entertain minds which had lost the truth either through rejecting Christ or by turning to superstition.

But this we learn of great practical moment from verse 23, how dangerous it is to trust tradition, even the earliest, and how blessed to have the unerring standard of God's written word. The saying that went forth among the brethren in apostolic times seemed a most natural, if not necessary, inference from the words of our Lord. But we do not well to accept unreservedly an inferential statement, still less to be drawn into a system built on such deductions. We have the word of the Lord, and faith bows to it for its joy and rest to God's glory. Error easily insinuates itself into the first remove from what He says, as the Apostle instructs us here that the Lord did not affirm that that disciple was not to die, but "If I will that he abide till I come." Yet those who let in this primitive mistake were not enemies, were not grievous wolves, or men speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. It was "among the brethren" that the tradition, unfounded and misleading, got spread. Miracles did not hinder, nor gifts, nor power, nor unity. The mistake arose from reasoning, instead of cleaving to the word of the Lord. The brethren, through lack of subjection to God and of distrust in themselves, gave the words a meaning, instead of simply receiving from them their true import. No wonder another great Apostle commends us to God and to the word of His grace; for if we may fully profit by His word in simple dependence on Himself, we cannot duly honour Him if we slight His word. And though it is by the Holy Spirit that we are thus kept and blest, even He is in no sort the standard of truth (while He is power in every way), but Christ as revealed in the written word.394

Last of all comes the personal seal or attestation of the writer. "This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself would contain the books that should be written" (verses 24, 25).* It was John, and no other.394a Every inspired writer preserves none the less his own style and manner, and none more unmistakably than he who wrote the fourth Gospel. Yet what was written is but a sample, selected in Divine wisdom, and with a specific plan subserving the grand scope and purpose of Divine revelation. If everything which Jesus did were written out, well might the adoring evangelist suppose that the world itself would be too small for the needed books.395

* Verse 25 is omitted in Tischendorf's eighth edition on the slender omission of the Sinaitic copy [prima manu], supposed to be confirmed by "Scholia," edited by Matthæi. The Ἀμήν at the end (Text. Rec.) is not in ABCD, etc. [Blass brackets the verse; see W. and H., "Select Readings," p. 90 f].396

It may be noticed how strikingly the close of the Gospel answers to the beginning, or at least the latter part of John 1 and 2. For though the subject be the Person of the Son manifested on earth, and then sending the Holy Spirit on His going to the Father, while thus beyond all others consisting of eternal truth and the highest privilege, yet is there care, before and after this is done historically, to show that the dispensational ways of God are in no way slighted. The latter part of John 20 and the beginning of John 21 are the counterpart of the early notice. We may add that the Epistles of John are, of course, devoted to the deeper task of tracing eternal life and the fellowship it gives with the Father and the Son, of which the word, through the Apostles, is the revelation, and the Holy Spirit is the power. The book of the Apocalypse, on the other hand, is the full and final unfolding of the dispensational ways of God; but it also reveals that which is above them all, and their connection with heaven and eternity brought before us far more completely and vividly than anywhere else in the testimony of God.

Lectures on the Epistle of Jude.

W. Kelly.

Introduction.

We are arrived at those days now of which the Epistle of Jude speaks. I might say we are further, for the Epistles of John, although they are put before this Epistle, imply from their own contents that they were after. The order of the books in the N.T., we know is entirely human, and, in fact, is not the same in all Bibles. In English ones it is, but abroad it is not so, and in the more ancient copies of the Scriptures there was another order, in some respects even less correct than that which we have; because these Epistles of Jude and John are put before the Epistles of Paul. I need not say that there was no divine wisdom in that. I only mention it for the purpose of emphasising the absolute need of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is no matter what it is. The people in early days, it might have been thought, would have had a good sound judgment of how to arrange the books of Holy Scripture, but they had not. I am speaking now of a time long after the apostles, and we are still more distant. But we are at no disadvantage because of this, for the reason that the Holy Ghost Who was given, still abides. The ruin of the church does not affect that gift. It is a very solemn fact, and it does greatly bear upon the practical answer of the church to the glory of the Lord Jesus, and it makes not a small difference for the members of Christ. But the Lord provided for everything when He sent down the Holy Spirit; and He made known through the apostles that this was the sad history which awaited the church. It is the apostles who tell us what disasters were to flow in with a strong tide — nobody more so than the apostle Paul, who says, "I know that after my decease shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Oh, what characters! What successors! Apostolic successors! — there are none. The successors were to be grievous wolves and perverse men. Nevertheless, he commended the saints none the less confidently "to God and to the word of His grace."

Well, we have this; and I do not think that the word of His grace has ever been so deeply enjoyed, as it is now, for many hundreds of years. But then, Who is it that enjoys the "word of His grace"? We cannot say that all the saints do. All saints ought to do. Can we say that all our dear brethren and sisters enjoy the word of His grace as it becomes them? I would to God it were so; and it is of all moment therefore that, knowing the need, we should be most earnest not merely about work — I allow that this has a great place for all true workers, and I admit that many can help the workers who are not exactly workers themselves — but, beloved friends, the first of all duties is that God should have His rights. This is forgotten, even by saints of God. The first-fruits belong to Him always, it does not matter what it is; and we are never right when it is merely love working outwardly. The first thing is that love should work upward. Is not God infinitely more to us than any converts — as could be said to poor Naomi, who had lost her sons — "better to thee than seven sons"? Is not He worth more than a hundred thousand converts? What a poor thing it is, merely to be useful to other people and not to be growing ourselves in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ! How can this be done except by God and the word of His grace? How does God act now? By His Spirit. Time was when the great truth was God manifesting Himself by His Son. Well, that abides; the word and Spirit of God abide for ever. But now the Holy Ghost is sent down from heaven. He is that divine Person with Whom we have to do habitually, and we are either honouring Him, or failing to do so. The great test of honouring Him is that Christ becomes all. This is a truth that got greatly clouded even in apostolic days. It may be a very small comfort; it is a very solemn and saddening comfort, too, if I may use such a conjunction of thoughts, but so it is when we think how everything tends to failure and towards decline, not excepting the testimony of God which was committed to His children.

It is a very solemn thing that the apostles had the very same experiences themselves. The last of them had to face the fact that the very best of the churches — that which had been the brightest — became the object of the Lord's warning, and the last of the churches of the Lord's threatening; a warning of what soon came to pass, and a threatening to be surely executed viz. — to take away the candlestick of the one, and to spue the other out of His mouth (Rev. 2, 3).

Now, is that meant to weaken confidence? It was revealed in order to enforce the need of dependence upon the Lord, to encourage us to look up from the earth and things that are here — but not to give up. We are never free to give up anything that is of God. We are never at liberty to plead the state of ruin for carelessness about any expression of God's will. The ruin of the church has nothing to do with weakening our responsibility. It brings in the necessity of greater watchfulness, of more prayer; and particularly the necessity of God and the word of His grace to deal with the difficulties altogether above man. But are they above the Spirit of God?

Now, it is in this very spirit that Jude writes — "a servant of Jesus Christ." For he does not appear to have been the apostle Jude. Most take it for granted that it was only an apostle wrote this or any of the Epistles. This is a mistake. Many of the apostles never wrote any inspired writing, and some that were not apostles wrote both Gospels and Epistles. It is a question of inspiration, a question of a particular work of God. of which vessel the Holy Ghost would use. Out of the four who wrote the Gospels, two were apostles, and two were not apostles; so with the Epistles, as it appears to me, for I should not wish to press a thing that is so very much doubted by many persons. But then it is well to remember that almost everything is doubted now-a-days!

It is of interest to consider who is speaking to us in this Epistle. We are told it is "Jude, servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." He is not the brother of James the son of Zebedee — John was his brother. That James was cut off from very early days indeed, and John was left latest of all; so different was the issue for these two sons of Zebedee. There was another James (as also another Jude or Judas, besides the Iscariot), "son of Alphaeus," who is named "James the Little" (Mark 15: 40). I do not think that this is the James referred to here, but rather that he is the one who has been called "James the Just"; and I presume that this title was given to him because of his practical pre-eminence. He was a hater of evil and a lover of all that was morally pleasing to God. He comes before us too, in Acts 15, though not for the first time there. In that chapter he takes a great place. He, as far as one can so say, presided, and that is a very proper scripture word. Those "that rule well" means those that preside well. There is nothing wrong in presiding if a man can do it; it is a mistake if a man cannot, and assumes to do it; and it is one of the worst things possible when done now by an official, whether there is power or not. But there is such a thing as "ruling" or "presiding" recognised, though it is never confined to one person, "them that have the rule (or, preside) over you" (Heb. 13: 17): there we have several.

But we are not anxious about the matter. One might be more prominent on one day, another on another day, but James seems to have been prominent habitually, and this appears to have been quite recognised by the elders at Jerusalem. We find Paul going up to see James, and all the elders were present (Acts 20: 18). This is the man who wrote the Epistle, who also calls himself "a servant of . . . Jesus Christ." Of course, this is true of all, and is said by almost all. The apostle Paul calls himself that continually, and of course so do Peter and John, although the latter calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" rather, but still he calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ in the Revelation (Rev. 1: 2) — "to His servant John." So you see that it is only a question of the propriety of the case where this word is put forward; and it certainly was very appropriate in the book of the Revelation, and there accordingly it is. Elsewhere, in his Gospel especially, John dwells rather on the Saviour's love, and in that book he does not call himself anything. We only know by internal evidence that he must be the man whom he describes, not as John, but, as "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

But James was not a "disciple"; he was one of the Lord's brethren who did not believe all the time the Lord was living here below; "neither did His brethren believe on Him" (John 7: 5). "His brethren" were sons of Mary after His own birth. Of course we can understand that Romanists have been anxious to make out that they were sons of Joseph and not of Mary. But they were sons of Mary and of Joseph. They would like to make them out sons of a former marriage of Joseph. We do not know anything of a former marriage, nor do they. We do know that scripture is quite plain.

Take Mark 6: 3 for instance, and there you will find that what I have just stated is fully acknowledged: speaking of our Lord, it says, "Is not this the carpenter the son of Mary, and brother" (not the cousin, you see) "of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon?" We do not know what particular place God gave to Joses and Simon, but we do know that James and Judas, or Jude (it is the same name), were both called to an eminent service.

Now if we look at the first of Acts we get more. It appears there were sisters also, but we need not now pursue that subject. In Acts 1: 13 we read, "And when they" (i.e. the apostles) "were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter and James" (that James is the son of Zebedee), "and John" (his brother), "and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James [the son] of Alphaeus" (that is, James the Little) "and Simon Zelotes" (to distinguish him from Simon Peter and from Simon the Lord's brother), "and Judas [the brother] of James."

Now, in my judgment, the last two names are brought before us in the opening verse of our Epistle, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." But we further read in the same chapter of the Acts, "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren" (ver. 14). Who these "brethren" are, we have already seen from Mark 6 James and Jude were two of the Lord's brethren. Simon and Joses were two others. But we do not need to dwell on these, because Scripture does not do so. Yet it says a deal about James; not so much about Jude. As already noticed, although they were unconverted all the time the Lord was on earth they were evidently converted after the Lord died and rose; so that there they were with Mary their mother, and the eleven, all living together and given up to prayer, and waiting for the promise of the Father, the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is certain they were not unconverted now. Nothing would have been more contrary to their mind had they not been believers, but now they are believers for the first time. And very beautiful it is to see that God broke them down by the very thing that might have stumbled them for ever. The crucifying of the Lord might have entirely hindered, but God used that and the Lord's resurrection, not only to awaken their souls, but to bring them in, so that they were there, full of the same expectation of the Holy Ghost as the apostles themselves.

Consequently, when James, the son of Zebedee, was killed (Acts 12), we find another James, who is not described as the son of Alphaeus, and who is the one that has evidently stepped forward, by God's guidance, into a kind of foremost place. For when all the apostles were there, Peter and John amongst the rest, they did not take that place, much less any other of the twelve. James did, and to show you that I am not incorrect in this, I will give you another scripture, (Galatians 1: 15-19), which is very convincing and satisfactory. The apostle Paul is showing how he had been kept from mixing up with any other of the apostles in particular, at the time he was brought to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. "But when it pleased God, Who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother" (not the Lord's "cousin").

Apparently, James, the son of Alphaeus, was the Lord's cousin. Now we all know that the word "brother" is sometimes used loosely, but in that case it is always corrected by some other parts of scripture. But this is not corrected by any; and I do not see any reason why — if the Spirit of God calls Mark, not exactly the nephew, but cousin of Barnabas (the word there used is "cousin"), — James should not be so called here, if he were not really the "brother" of our Lord.

It is true James does not call himself "the Lord's brother," but "the Lord's servant"; and this is very beautiful. Had there been any self-seeking he would have been the one to say, "I am the Lord's brother! You must not forget I am the Lord's brother." But that would have been anything but of the Spirit of God, because when he was the Lord's brother, he was an unbeliever. He had been an unbeliever during all the life of our Lord. Indeed, he was so until His death and resurrection. He, therefore, with beautiful grace, never brings up that which was his shame — that he was the Lord's brother after the flesh. The Lord Himself put all that sort of thing down, when He declared that it was not so much the blessed thing to be the woman that bare Him, as it was to hear the word of God and keep it. This is what the writer of this Epistle had done; he had heard the word of God and kept it. He had received the truth of Christ's Person not as son of Mary but as the Son of God, as the Messiah, the Lord of all. Here then Jude was glad to say, not that he was the Lord's brother, though he was so, but, "a servant of Jesus Christ," and he adds, to make it perfectly clear who he was, "brother of James."

So we have here the plain fact that this James was not the son of Zebedee, who had been killed many years before; neither was he James the little. We may call him rather, James the great, because he takes such a foremost place wherever mentioned. Acts 15 puts it in a very striking manner which I had better not pass over. After Peter had given his very important testimony, and Paul and Barnabas their evidence, about the reception of the Gentiles, we come to another person (ver. 13); "James answered, saying." You see the others are regarded as speaking, but James answers, "Men, brethren" (that is the proper way to read it; "and" has nothing to do with it). They were not merely men, but men who were brethren. "Men, brethren, hearken unto me. Simon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name . . . Wherefore my sentence is . . ." (vers. 13-19). No one can doubt the place that he took, and that the Spirit of God sanctions his taking it. James was the one who, after having heard all the facts, summed up the mind of God, and quoted a decisive scripture. And this is a very interesting thing that, though they were inspired men, they did not do without the scriptures. When you have facts in the light of scripture, you are then entitled to draw therefrom the truth — what he calls here "my sentence," and what was written in the nineteenth and following verses.

The other striking place where James appears is in Acts 21 where Paul goes up to Jerusalem. "And the day following" — that is after the arrival — "Paul went in with us to James; and all the elders were present" (ver. 18). It is evident that this was the great central place of meeting for strangers at Jerusalem, and that the elders also were accustomed to be present on those occasions. These facts give it evidently a very official character, which was perfectly compatible with the position of James at Jerusalem. Tradition makes him the bishop of the church in Jerusalem, but scripture never speaks of "the" bishop, but of "bishops": and scripture also shows that there were more important persons than the bishops; and James had a place of evident superiority to any of the "elders" (these were the bishops), a place that none of the elders possessed to the same degree. And this James is the one that wrote the Epistle that bears his name, as that of Jude was written by his brother.

It is instructive to see how God allowed the unbelief of the family of our Lord Jesus. It was not like people plotting together. If you look at the great leader of the Eastern apostasy, Mahomet, it was so. His family were persons whom he induced to take their place along with him, to defend him and stand by him. But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, God allowed that His own brethren should not believe on Him all the time that His mighty works were being done. But there was another work, the greatest of all, and God made that work irresistible. Not indeed the works of His life, but that of His death and resurrection; and these brethren that had stood out so stubbornly against Him were brought out to believe on Him through His work of sin bearing. There was a reason for their unbelief. There are always moral causes, which act particularly in unconverted persons to prevent their reception of the truth. Sometimes it is the fleshly mind, sometimes the worldly mind, sometimes both. In the case of these brethren, their worldly mind came out strongly in John 7: 4, 5, when they said, "If Thou do these things, show Thyself to the world. For neither did His brethren believe on Him." The Lord was infinitely far from doing this. He was not of the world, and tells us we are not. He never sought the world in any form. He only sought to do good to souls in it by delivering them out of the world to make them know the true God, and Himself equally the true God and Life eternal.

Well now, we have this fact so full of interest — that James gives us, according to the spiritual character that was formed in him, a most complete setting forth of practical righteousness in everyday life, in our tempers, in our words, as well as our ways. All this is unfolded by James more than by any other, and it is only from want of understanding it, that some do not like his Epistle. Sometimes great and good men have kicked at the plainness of speech in James. They have not liked it; but it was a great loss to them, for had they heeded what he wrote it would have corrected many a fault in themselves.

Now in Jude there is another subject altogether. Righteousness is not the point in Jude; not even the way in which Peter brings it in. Jude does not look at it for personal walk simply, apart from the ruin of those that give it up. He merely shows righteousness to be a necessary thing for every saint. If a man has not got it, he is not a saint at all. But Peter in his Second Epistle looks at it in a large way among the people of God — whether they as His people walk righteously, and more particularly whether the teachers are indifferent to righteousness and are favouring unrighteousness. Therefore his Second Epistle is levelled most strongly at these the false teachers who, not content with being personally so themselves, encourage others to similar lack of righteousness. Now, this is not what Jude takes up at all, though there is much that is common to them both. It could not be otherwise.

Jude looks at grace. There is nothing like grace; but what if grace be abused? What if grace be abandoned? What if grace be turned to licentiousness? Now that is what Jude takes up. Consequently, his Epistle is one of the most solemn in the word of God. There is only one writer who is more so — John. John looks at not merely the departure from grace, but the denial of Christ, of the Father and the Son. Well, it is impossible to conceive of anything worse in scripture than denying the glory of Him unto Whose name I may have been baptised, and through Whom I have professed to receive every blessing that God could give. After all that, for a man to be induced by his intellect, or from whatever cause, to deny the Lord, to deny that He was the Christ and the Son of God — there is nothing more deadly — there is nothing more terrible than the state of such a one. And it fell to the lot of him who loved the Lord most, to John, to write about this denial. So that you see that there is a beautiful propriety in all the Epistles.

Jude 1.

"Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are (not exactly, 'sanctified,' but) beloved." This may surprise many who have been accustomed to the Authorised Version, but it is not a question of what we have been accustomed to, but of what God wrote. The Authorised Version is an admirable one. Our translators did not mistake the meaning of the Greek word in the text before them; but the text which they had was the common text, and this text is as faulty in its way as the common English Version. This text was transcribed by a number of different hands, and if the writing was not very clear there was always a tendency for the copyist to make mistakes.

I have had a deal of writing pass through my hands, but I hardly have seen any, where there is not some mistake made. Particularly when the writing is a copy of another, it is almost always so, and more particularly when the man whose thoughts and words are copied is above the common people. The way to find out the best Greek text is to go up to the oldest of all, and to compare the oldest of all with the different translations made in ancient times, and if these agree, then you have the right one. But they often disagree, and then comes the question, Which is right? Here the all important question is the guidance of the Spirit of God. We can never do without Him, and the way in which the Spirit of God leads persons who really are not only indwelt by Him, but led by Him, is, — does it express the current of the Epistle? Does it fall in with the line of the apostle's writing?

Well, you see the word "sanctified" may be correct in itself, but the word here should be, "to those that are called, beloved," etc. You observe that the word "called" occurs at the end of the verse. This word "called" is very emphatic. Then he describes them in two different ways. First, here, in the A.V., it is "sanctified," but as now generally accepted by those who have studied the text fully, it is "beloved* in God the Father." "In" is very often equivalent to (indeed, it is a stronger expression that) "by." But I now give it literally, "beloved in God the Father." I confess myself that not only is this reading the most ancient, the best approved by the highest witnesses that God has given to us of His word, but it is beautifully appropriate to the Epistle. The assurance of being "beloved in God the Father," or "by God the Father," comes into special value under two sets of circumstances. If I am a young man very young in the faith, when one is proving the persecution of the world, the hatred of men, Jews full of jealousy, the Gentiles full of scorn, and both animated by hatred against the Lord and those that are the Lord's — what a comfort it is to know that I am beloved "in God the Father." This is the way the apostle Paul addressed the Thessalonians as a company, the only one that he ever addressed in this way. They were experiencing persecution, not in a gradual way as most of the other assemblies had done, but from the very start, from their conversion. We know the apostle himself had to flee because of the persecution that had set in there. "These men that have turned the world upside down have come here also," and a deadly set was made upon them, and so the apostle had to escape. The church there had to bear the brunt of it, and in the very first Epistle that Paul ever wrote, the First to the Thessalonians — that was his first inspired writing — you will find that such is the manner in which he describes them. "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God [the] Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 2: 1). And that this was studiously meant is shown by the same presentation of the truth in the opening verse of the Second Epistle, where we find there was still the persecution and the danger of their being shaken by that persecution and the error that had come in through false teachers taking advantage of it to pretend that "the day of the Lord" was actually on them, making out that this persecution was the beginning of that" day," and so greatly alarming the young believers there.

{* ἠγαπημένοις (beloved) AB and several cursives, all the Ancient Versions, Origen, etc. ἡγιασμένοις (sanctified) KLP etc.}

Hence the apostle had to write a second letter to establish them clearly in the bright hope of Christ's coming, and in the lower truth of the day of the Lord. Well, in that Second Epistle we have "Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus to the assembly of Thessalonians in God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 2: 1). Now I conceive that the object of the Spirit of God there, by the apostle, was, that as they were so young and so exposed to such an assault upon themselves, which reminded the apostle of the assault which had been made upon himself and his friends, that they should be comforted by the reminder that they were "in God the Father." What could harm them if this were the case? The apostle would not have ventured from himself to say such a thing. None upon earth would have done so. It was God Who inspired the apostle to let them know that wonderful comfort. There are many people who read this and do not get any comfort from it, because they do not apply it to themselves. They have no idea what it means. You will remember that John, writing in his First Epistle, separates the family of God into three classes — the fathers, young men and the babes (for I give the last word as it should be, literally). They are all "children" of God, but the babes are the young ones of the children of God. The young men are those that have grown up, and the fathers are those that are mature and well established in Christ. Well, it is to the babes — and this will help us to understand what I have been saying — he says, "I write unto you babes" (the proper full force of the word), "because ye have known the Father" (1 John 2: 13).

Well, so it is with this young assembly in Thessalonica. It is described by the Holy Ghost as being "in God [the] Father and in [the] Lord Jesus Christ."

In Jude we have the other side. They are not young saints now. It is addressed to comparatively old saints. There might be young ones among them; there would be such, undoubtedly. But he is looking at them as having gone through a sea of trouble and difficulty, and he is preparing them for worse still. He, as it were, says things are not going to get better but worse, and it is to end in the actual appearing of the Lord in judgment, and what is more, the very kind of people who are to be the objects of the Lord's judgment when He comes have crept into the church already. This is a very solemn thing, and it might be alarming unless people were well read and grounded in the truth, and in love. So, therefore, writing at a comparatively late time (not early as in the case of the Thessalonians, but late), Jude writes in these terms — "to them that are called." You observe that I transpose that word, which is a little spoiled by the interpolation of the conjunction "and" before "called." "To them that are called, beloved in God the Father, and preserved." It is not exactly "preserved in." It may be "by" or "for." These are the two alternatives for that word. I do not see how it can be "in"; so that you see it little differs from what we read here. It brings in another idea, and it is perfectly true either way. We are preserved by Christ, and we are preserved for Christ. I have not made up my mind which of the two in this instance is right, because they cannot both be the intention of the Spirit of God. One must be right rather than the other, but I cannot say that my judgment is yet formed as to the choice of these two prepositions, whether it should be "preserved for Jesus Christ," or "by" Jesus Christ, He being the great One that does keep us. But in either case, how beautifully it is suited to a time of extra danger, and of danger too that he was not warranted to say would pass! We say the storm rages now, but the sun will shine shortly. No; it is to be that blackness of darkness of evil which is now coming in among the professors of Christ to get denser and darker until the Lord comes in judgment on them.

Well, how sweet is the assurance, "beloved in God the Father, and preserved by (or for) Jesus Christ" (either way is full of brightness — and the Lord may give us to learn some day which of the two thoughts is His meaning). But there it is, and full of comfort and sweetness, and eminently suited to the circumstances portrayed in this Epistle beyond any Epistle in the New Testament — an Epistle that shows the departure of Christians, i.e., of professing Christians — of those who were once thought to be as good as any. Sometimes, the people who turn away are those that have been very bright. We should not be surprised at that. It is not always the best fruit that ripens most quickly. Sometimes the earliest becomes rotten very soon. This is often the case with those that seem so bright all at once.

I remember being struck with this in the case of a young woman in the Isle of Wight, some forty years ago. Charles Stanley, our dear brother, in his zeal for the gospel was somewhat in danger of fancying people were converted when they were not. At times of revival, people are often apt to slip in; their feelings are moved, they are quickly affected. According to the word in the Gospel, "they hear the word, and anon with joy receive it; yet have they no root in themselves, but endure for a while: for when trial or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they are offended" (Matt. 13: 20, 21); so that we ought not to be surprised. The young woman of whom I speak was employed in a shop, and I was brought to see her as one of these conversions. In a moment she assured me that the old man was all gone, "dead and buried," and other such language she used. This would have been all very sweet had there been any real spiritual feeling; but she had merely caught the truth in her mind, at best.

Now, a real convert having confessed the truth of Christ for the first time, would be greatly tried by many things, failings, shortcomings, and the like. The soul of such a one would be greatly alarmed to think that, even after having received Christ, he found so little that answered to His love, so easily betrayed into levity or carelessness, or into haste of temper, and ever so many difficulties that a young believer is tried by. But the young woman of whom I have been speaking had no conscience about anything at all. All she had was merely an intellectual idea of the truth that seemed delightful to her, and, indeed, it is delightful. It is like those described in Heb. 6: 5, they "have tasted the good word of God," and there they are, "enlightened" by the great light of the gospel, without being truly born of God. There might be a powerful action of the Spirit of God, and there may be all this without being truly born of God. People who are really born of God are generally tried, and there is a great sense of sin, and they have to learn their powerlessness. All this is a very painful experience; and it is to this state that the comfort of the gospel applies the knowledge of entire forgiveness and clearance from all that we are; not only in spite of what we are, but because of what we are, because of all that God has given us — a new life where there is no sin. There never is anything like this true comfort except in those that have felt the need of it, and that sense of need is what goes along with conversion to God. The Old Testament saints were in that state; and they never got out of it. The New Testament saints began with conversion and came into blessing that was impossible with the law — because the mighty work of redemption was not done. But now it is done; and can we suppose it does not make an essential difference for a New Testament believer? Well! "if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." Here you have this invaluable comfort for those that have passed through such serious experiences and who have proved their own weakness in meeting it — the liability to be affected by appearances which come to nothing. Fair and smooth words where there is no reality at all — this is what is so trying. And the Epistle shows that people are going to get worse than this.

Jude 2, Jude 3.

Then (ver. 2) we have, "mercy unto you, and peace and love be multiplied." This is the only place where mercy is wished to the saints generally. When writing to individuals, to Timothy and Titus for instance, the apostle says "Mercy," but when to the saints generally, "Grace and peace."

Why does Jude bring "mercy" in here? Because they deeply needed the comfort. An individual ought always to feel the deep need of mercy, especially in the face of danger, and also in the sense of personal unworthiness; and now Jude gives the comfort of it to all these saints because of their imminent danger. I do not know any saints more in danger than ourselves, because grace has given us to feel for Christ's honour and name, and to have confidence in the scriptures as the word of God. We should not look at a single word in them as a dead letter. I do not suppose that there is a single person here present — brother or sister — that has a doubt of a single word that God has written. It would be difficult now-a-days to find yourself in such a company generally. People think inspiration is a very lively term, and that we must allow for the errors of those good men who wrote the Bible. What could we expect from such men even if learned? They judge by themselves, not by God, nor by the Holy Ghost. Many of these men have not, I think, abandoned Christianity; but they are darkened by the spirit of unbelief. The spirit of the present day is as bad or worse as in any age since the Lord died and rose. There is one thing that marks it, and, that is lawlessness. A want of respect for everything that is above self, and a determination to have one's own way — that is lawlessness. I do not know anything worse. It is what will characterise the whole of Christendom. Now it works in individuals, and it also works largely in whole companies, but it will soon become the reigning spirit. And that is the distinctive name of the anti-christ, "the lawless one." Christ was the Man of righteousness, Christ is the Man that gives everything its place according to God, and Christ is the One that gives God His place. As to everything and every person, He was the Man of righteousness; lawlessness has nothing but self as its great ambition, a fallen self — man fallen from God. The danger is great in the present day, and so it was when Jude wrote his Epistle. Therefore it is "mercy," not only "peace and love," but "mercy" be multiplied. It is a very emphatic word.

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (ver. 3). It is addressed to those that have learned the value of "the faith." He does not refer to personal faith but to the deposit that the faith holds. It is the thing believed, not merely the spiritual power that believes the testimony. It is therefore called "the faith," distinct from "faith." When did that faith come? The Epistle to the Galatians shows us when faith came and redemption and the Holy Ghost. It is found in Gal. 3: 25: "For after that faith is come." "I live by the faith of the Son of God."; "Received ye the Spirit by the hearing of faith?" is a distinct thing (Gal. 2: 20; Gal. 3: 2). "The scripture hath concluded all under sin" (Jews or Gentiles — the Jews under transgression, but all under sin) "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came we were kept under law," (Gal. 3: 22, 23). The law was there until the cross of Christ, but then it was affixed to the tree; not only was Christ crucified, but the law came thereby to its end, as far as God's people were concerned. We are now placed under Christ. We are now regarded as being "in the Spirit," for Christ is our life and the Holy Ghost is the power of that life.

Well, here then he says that it was needful that he should exhort them to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." This is what is on my heart to speak about. How great is, not only "conversion" such as the O.T. people knew before faith came but, the "salvation" which is now, as the apostle Paul says in Ephesians (Eph. 1: 13), "the word of truth, the gospel of your (not conversion but the gospel of your) salvation"! This is what was added consequent upon redemption. Nobody could have been delivered from hell without being converted; but the "gospel of our salvation" is to make us perfectly happy on earth, to bring us into cloudless peace and liberty while here in this world. It is this that is new, from the cross of Christ. Why, beloved friends, it is new to many children of God now! They are not sure at all, even those that are most real; with many it is only a "humble hope." But through God's mercy, I take it for granted that we have all learned this, more or less, the more the better. I do say that this is an all-important thing. Sometimes, when persons are seeking to come into fellowship, there is an idea of the importance of their understanding the church. How they are to understand the church I do not know. I did not understand it when I first began to break bread. I never saw any that did. I have seen persons that thought they did, and they had to correct their thoughts afterwards. We should not expect this knowledge. Possibly, of the saints in communion who have been in fellowship for forty years, there may be many who have not even yet arrived at a true knowledge of what the church is. But to ask it from a dear soul that has not long been saved! Ah, that is the point — not only "converted," but brought into liberty and peace. I do say we ought to look for that before we get them to the table of the Lord; and we are not on proper Christian ground till we know that we are saved. This is what the gospel gives. It is not a hope of being saved, but knowing it in a simple straight-forward, intelligent, Christian manner. However, the word "intelligence" might leave room for our active brethren to find difficulties! I do not want to put difficulties in the way of any, still less in the way of a soul that is trembling and uncertain.

The great requirement for souls seeking fellowship, and, I think, the only requirement, is that they should be settled firmly on Christ and Christ's salvation as a known present thing. Perhaps we find a person that cannot stand that. I recommend them to hear the gospel. There are plenty of saints who want to hear a full gospel. I do not say a free gospel. A full gospel does not convert many souls. A free gospel may do so. A free gospel may be used to awaken many, to cause exercise, but a full gospel will bring the answer to all these difficulties. Peter, I may say, preached a free gospel, and Paul a full one. Most of the children of God have not got a full gospel. It is essential that they should, before they can take their place as members of the body of Christ. Suppose they come in without it: perhaps the first hymn that is given out is an expression of thanksgiving that every question is settled for ever, and they are thus called to sing about themselves what they do not believe, and do not know about. They sing (in, what I call, a slipshod manner, without any conscience) what may not be true of their state, what is too much for them. Well, all that is a very unhappy state of things, and ought not to be. But if they are brought into the liberty of Christ, before they are received, not expecting from them clearness of intelligence, but knowing that their souls are set free (and nothing less than that should be looked for), then things go on happily. They learn quite fast enough when they come in, provided they have liberty in their souls. The lack of it is the barrier against learning. If I have difficulties about my soul with God for ever, it is no good to tell me about other things; and, therefore, wherever that is passed over lightly, there is a barrier. But as to everything else, well, one thing at a time is quite as much as we can bear, and people who grasp everything at the same moment, I am afraid, grasp nothing. All is apt to be cloudy in their minds, and that is not "the faith that was once delivered to the saints."

"The faith" is not a mere mist. Mysteries are not mists or clouds. Mysteries are the firmest things in the Bible. The N.T. is full of mysteries — mystery "concerning Christ and the church," "the mystery of God," "the mystery of the gospel," "the mystery of the faith." Mystery means what was not revealed in O.T. times; now it is. That is just our privilege. Even Christ Himself, in the way that we receive Him now, is a mystery. Do we simply believe on Him as the Messiah? "Great is the mystery of godliness; God [or, He Who] was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, seen of angels, preached among Gentiles, believed on in [the] world, received up in glory" (1 Tim. 3: 16). This is Christ as we know Him now. Everything is mystery in Christianity, even the way Christ is received. He was not known so before. It takes in the gospel, "the gospel of our salvation," the clear riddance from all hindrances. Is not the assembly a mystery? Is it not a truth of the greatest moment for every member of the body of Christ to know? And when you have your convert, when the soul is there brought to know the gospel, then show him what the church is, as best you can. Take trouble with him. Do not imagine he knows what he does not know. Where is he to learn if not inside? He will never learn by staying away. The church of God is not only the great place of incomparable blessing and enjoyment, it is also the great school. Well, the soul wants to go to school. Will he find a better school outside?

Even the best of those who are outside — that is, those that are not gathered to the name of the Lord, they are mostly occupied about salvation for themselves, or if not that, about work for others. What can you expect better? They do not know the relationships into which they are brought. Take the question that is now so uppermost in people's minds — priesthood. What an Evangelical would say to meet priestly pretension is, that it is all a mistake to suppose that there are any priests but Christ. Is that where you are? The truth that God has shown us is, that all Christians alike are priests. When you are only on Evangelical ground, it is not the assertion of positive possession of privilege, it is merely denying an error, a negative way of looking at things. Many would indeed admit that we are all priests, but they do not see how it is applied. If they are all priests unto God, they should be allowed to express their praise, and others join (Heb. 10: 22) "Let us" (not you, he puts himself along with those to whom he was writing — let us) draw "near" into the holiest. Were this really applied, people might want to express their audible praises to God sometimes, and this would be considered disorderly. Do you think that we are always as careful as we ought to be? There are two words of moment in the First Epistle to the Corinthians — the first is, "in order," the other is, "to edification." All things should be done "in order," and "to edification" (1 Cor. 14: 26, 40). How are we to judge of what is done? It is laid down in this very chapter. Why do we forget it sometimes?

A question was put to me, whether it is according to scripture that, at what is called an assembly meeting, or other meeting of a similar character, more than two should speak. What is laid down as to this? That two, or at most three, might speak (1 Cor. 14: 27, 29). Where there are more, I should be disposed to get away as fast as possible. You are mistaken about your liberty. We have only liberty to do what the Lord says; and I can see the wisdom of this limitation. There might be plenty of time for half a dozen speakers, but still the order is clear, "two, or at most three," There can be no question about the meaning. It certainly does not mean that there might not be half a dozen prayers by different people, but that formal speaking, even of prophets, had its limits. And surely the lesser gifts have not a greater liberty than the greater ones! The prophets had the highest gift, and yet it is said, they were only to speak two or three. The plain meaning of it is that there never ought to be, under any excuse, more than two or three. Too much of a good thing is as bad as too little. If you have too much of what is even good, it is apt to make you sick: you must leave room for proper digestion. Hence the wisdom in the restriction as to numbers.

So it is — what seems to me to be so very plain — that we have not got merely the facts given and the commandment of the Lord, but good reason given. There is perfect wisdom, there is not such a thing as an arbitrary word in all the Bible. All the rules and regulations, commandments and precepts, are pregnant with divine wisdom.

It is a long while since "brethren" first began; but there never was a time when we are more called to see whether we are really "contending earnestly for the faith once for all (not "once on a time," but, "once for all") delivered to the saints." May God forbid that we should ever swerve in the least degree! We are not competent to say what a little beginning of divergence may lead to. It might be apparently a little beginning, but alas, a little beginning of a great evil.

The Lord give us simple fidelity, and in all love to our brethren. I never think of my brethren being merely such as are gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus; and I feel most deeply the undermining that is going on everywhere of things that were once undisputed.

Jude 3.

Jude, then, was in full expectation of a departure from "the faith," and that it would be necessary to defend the faith. He evidently had had it on his heart to speak to them of comforting things, things that are always bright and sweet to the believer; but the circumstances called for alarm, for solemn warning. This is never very acceptable to people. They prefer things smooth; but the apostle himself, or the writer, whether an apostle or not — the writer's whole heart would have delighted in dwelling on all that was comforting and strengthening to the soul. But, my brethren, what is the good of that if the foundations are being undermined? This is what you must look at. Therefore he draws attention to the fact that the faith was "once for all delivered." "Once" is an equivocal word. It might mean "once on a time," once at a particular moment; but this is not the force of the word here at all. It means "once for all." And what a blessing it is that we have in this book (and more particularly in the books of the New Testament), the holy deposit which we are called upon to believe, given us in full, "once for all." There is not a truth to be received that is not revealed in the word of God. There is not a difficulty nor a departure from the truth which is not in one way or another there guarded against. We, therefore, never require to go outside the revelation of God; and this explains why God permitted, in the early apostolic days, that there should be a deal of evil. Does it surprise us that there should have been gross disorders among the Corinthians, for instance, even at the table of the Lord? Well, one is naturally struck at first sight by such a fact. How was it that when there was such power of the Holy Ghost, that when there were miracles wrought, that when there were prophets prophesying (the highest form of teaching), that at the same time and place, the saints that gathered on the Lord's Day, broke out into a disorder that we never find even in the present day, or very rarely? How could God more guard us than by allowing it then? It is always a very delicate matter to deal with evil, either of doctrine, or practice, or service, or government, or worship, or anything that you can speak of. It was of the very greatest moment, therefore, that God, in view of the evils that would, some time or another, appear in the church, should allow the germ of the evils to appear then; and, for this reason, that we might have divinely given directions for dealing with the evils when they did appear. Consequently, we are not taking the place of setting up to legislate; but we are not at liberty to depart from the word. This has been given us by the Holy Ghost. We are called to find therein everything that becomes us as saints, and for every part of our work to find a principle, and example too, sufficient to guide us; so that we may never set up any will of our own about a matter, and that we may always find God expressing, in one form or another, His will. What we have to do is to seek to learn from Him, and to apply the result, either to ourselves for our own correction, or to other people for their warning.

Now that is the reason why there is such great moment in Jude's calling to mind that the faith was "once," and "once for all," delivered to the saints. And, as a point of fact, I do not think we shall ever find in scripture such a thing as a mere repetition. Sometimes you may have scriptures that approach very closely, and in the New Testament you could hardly have it more than in these two Epistles of Peter and Jude. But I am about to point out to you, what will appear as I go along still more completely, that, while there are resemblances between these two writers, who are both speaking of the terrible evil that was about to flood the church; and who naturally approach each other, yet there is a marked difference between them. It is always the difference that is the special lesson for us to learn. Where the two approach, it confirms. We can say, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." But where there is a divergence, and a distinction is to be seen in the lessons that they convey, we have evidently more than we might have had if we had only had one of the writers. The same thing is true, not merely in these two Epistles, but in Ephesians and Colossians for example. The resemblance there is so great that a favourite theory of the Rationalists is that the Epistle to the Colossians is the only one that Paul ever wrote, and that the one to the Ephesians is only an enlarged and inflated copy (written, perhaps, by a contemporary of the apostle); and, accordingly, that the latter has not the same divine (though I ought not, perhaps, to use that word) value — that it has not Paul's value. These men do not believe in divine value, they do not believe in God having written these Epistles; but some of them do believe that Paul wrote that to the Colossians, but deny his having written the one to the Ephesians. A very learned man, who translated all the Bible (and, indeed, his is one of the best of the German translations), is one of this school. So that you may learn from this, that there are persons who have laboured all through their lives on the Bible, who nevertheless did not believe the Bible — i.e., really and truly. He, of course, would have entirely objected to such an account being given of him. But what matters what people object to, if it is true! He was a leading man in his day, and I hope that he was not without looking to Christ before his decease. But at any rate, what he did during his life was a sad departure from the truth of God, from "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

Having then already dwelt a little upon what is one important and primary element of "the faith," I add, further, that believers are brought into great relationships. Not only are we "converted" and "saved," being brought into peace and liberty, but we are called to realise also that we are no longer merely English persons or French, Jews or Gentiles, but that we are children of God, and that we are such now. We, therefore, turn our backs on our boasting in our nation and our city, and our family, and all these various forms of men's vanity, which is merely boasting of something of the flesh. We are called out of that now. This is also part of "the faith once delivered." In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free (Gal. 3: 28). What does this mean? It means just what I have been saying.

Well then, again, we are made members of Christ's body; and this is a relationship which so many of God's children are so slow to believe. They think and talk of their being members of the Wesleyan body, or Presbyterian body, or Baptist, of this body, or that body, no matter what it is. Well, they say, to be sure we are members of Christ's body, too! Yes, but if people valued the truth of their membership of Christ's body, what would the other be in their eyes? Simply nothing at all. Where do you find the Presbyterian body, or the Episcopal body, or the Congregational body in the N.T.? Where do you find the Baptist body in the N.T.? There was an approach to this party spirit in the very earliest days — "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas" (1 Cor. 1: 12). Well, there you have the germ of it. And these germs never perish. It is not only that blessed germs of truth do not perish and are meant to take root and bear fruit, and consequently they are perpetuated here and there; but alas, evil germs do the same. And what is more, another thing is not a germ exactly, but is a leaven — a corrupt and a corrupting thing that is very palatable, making the wheaten bread to be lighter to the taste and pleasanter for some palates to partake of. And, at any rate, this leaven, whatever may be the case with the bread, is the corrupting influence at work among the saints in two forms. In Corinth it was the corruption of morals; in Galatia it was the corruption of doctrine. There you have it at work. When our Lord was here He confronted the same thing in the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Sadducees were the great corruptors morally; the Pharisees were the great religionists, or rather were strong for doctrine. But the Sadducees were sapping all doctrines by denying the truth. There you have the two things again — doctrinal leaven and corrupting leaven; at any rate there was "the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees," however you may describe it. There were also the Herodians — a worldly leaven, a pandering to the Roman court, not merely accepting the Romans as having power and authority from God, but trying to please them in order to make their own position better and their circumstances easier. So that you see what a very weighty truth is this, calling for earnest examination, to take care that we do not infringe upon or weaken our certainty in that faith which was "once delivered to the saints." Are we indifferent about it? Have we an interest in it? Have we only partially received it, and are we content with that? Or are we resolved by the grace of God to refuse everything that is not the faith that was once for all delivered? Are we resolved to receive and maintain that faith in all its integrity? That is what we are called to do.

Jude 4, Jude 5.

Now this attitude was the more important; "for," as he says, "certain men have crept in unawares." Jude is not quite so advanced, in point of time, as John. When John wrote his First Epistle, the bad people went out — the antichrists went out (1 John 2: 19). But the danger here was that they were within. Certain men had crept in, as it were, unawares. That is, they had fair appearances at first, of course. "They, who before of old were ordained to this sentence" ("condemnation" is not exactly the meaning of the word — "to this judgment") "ungodly men turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying our only Master* and Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 4).

{* Θεόν (God) though added (after "Master") by KLP 31 Syrr., is omitted by ABC 13 Vulg. Copt. Sah. Arm. and Æthiopic Versions.}

This, you see, is the prominent thing in Jude's mind: so that, under fair appearances, they were undermining moral principles, they were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. This was the worst evil, as far as morals were concerned, that Jude warns them against in this Epistle; but then this evil is connected with a doctrinal error. They denied two things. In Peter they denied only one. There they denied the Sovereign Master that bought them (2 Peter 2: 1). Peter does not say that they were redeemed. It is a great mistake to confound being "bought" with being "redeemed." All the world is bought, but only believers are redeemed. Universal purchase is a truth of God; universal redemption is a falsehood. Redemption implies that we have the forgiveness of sins. You see that clearly in the Epistles. Take, for instance, that to the Ephesians, "In Whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. 1: 7). Now it is clear that the great mass of mankind have not redemption through His blood; but they are all bought, and the believer is bought too, and we are constantly exhorted on the ground, not only of our being redeemed, but of our being bought. For instance, the Corinthians are told that they were bought. That is the reason why they should not act as if they were their own masters. We have not any rights of our own (1 Cor. 6). We are not at liberty to say, I think it quite right to go to a Court of Law in order to maintain my rights. No, I am bound, if I am summoned as a witness, to go; I am bound, if people go to law with me, to go. But on the contrary, to insist on my own rights! why do not I rather suffer wrong? That is the way the apostle Paul looks at it. And who is the apostle? The voice of God, the commandments of the Lord.

So that you see I come at once to the question of the faith, if really I believe what I may talk very glibly about as if I did. The difficulty is to find faith on the earth. As the Lord has said, "When the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" Evidently, therefore, this departure from the faith is supposed by that very question of our Lord Jesus. Only here, the solemn thing is, that it is pressed on those who once bore the name of the Lord. They may go on for a while, for years; and there may be only some little things that one feels here or there, or their departure may not take anything like so terrible a form as here, but the question is, Where will it end? When once we get on the incline of our own rights, our own will; when once we abandon His Sovereignty, and, more than that, that He is not only Sovereign Master but our Lord; who can say what may not ensue?

Now here we get a closer relationship. Peter, in his Epistle, only supposes that universal place of our Lord. Why does Jude add, "denying our . . . Lord Jesus Christ"? Because he looks at that special following of those that are called by His name — on whom the name of the Lord is called. Here, therefore, we find a subtler and a deeper denial than the denial of the Sovereign Master in Peter. That of course was very far outside and very gross — "sects of perdition, and denying the Sovereign Master that bought them." But here, in Jude, it is not only denying the Sovereign Master of the world, of everything; but "our Lord," the One to Whom we belong, the One to Whose name we are baptised, the One Whom we profess to value and acknowledge to be our life and righteousness, and our all — denying Him!

You must not imagine that these things all come out in a short time. There is a little beginning of departure; but when your back is turned to the Lord and you follow that path, where will it end? No man can tell; but the Spirit of God can and does, and He shows that these little departures end in a fearful ditch of the enemy; and so He says:

"But I would remind you, though once for all knowing all things,* that [the] Lord having saved a people out of Egypt's land, in the second place destroyed those that believed not" (ver. 5). Here we have again the same word "once," which as we have already seen is equivocal. It might mean formerly; but that is not the meaning at all, no more than that the faith was formerly given. It means given "once for all."

{* πάντα (all things) ABC2 13 Vulg. Copt. Syr. Arm. and Æthiop. Vv. instead of τοῦτο (this) KL 31 and Sah. Version.}

Well, he says, "once for all knowing," not only "this," but "all about it." The word "this" is now in critical texts changed into "all things," and this is exactly the position of the believer, which is the reason why we are so very responsible. Do you recollect what the apostle John says to the "babes" of the family? "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John 2: 20). How did that come to pass? We are not in the habit of regarding babes so wise as this; yet what the apostle says must be true. The only question is — In what sense did he mean that they knew all things? I think the meaning is this. The babe has got Christ just as much as an apostle. Having Christ, he has the truth — all the truth. There it is; and he has also got the Holy Ghost — an unction from the Holy One. Therefore, he has got power in the gift of the Holy Ghost; for a babe has this gift. It is not the privilege only of the advanced learners in the school of Christ. The babes of the family of God have got Christ perfectly. They may draw it out very imperfectly. They may be able to look upon Christ, and speak of Christ in very hesitating terms as far as their intelligence goes, but such is their place and their privilege. Accordingly, Jude presses here their privilege of "once for all knowing all things." Where were they now? They were in great danger. You often see this in the early beginnings of saints. They are very bright at first; they are not easily stumbled by anything they hear from the Bible; they receive it with simplicity, and delight in it. They, then, are knowing all things, in the sense in which the apostle speaks here. It is not a question of intelligence, but of simplicity and of a single eye, and when the eye is single the whole body is full of light. Thus they had it by the power of the Spirit of God, and it was not at all a question of their being great adepts in controversy, or showing a wonderful knowledge of the types, or anything of that kind. I call that intelligence. But this is the singleness of eye that looks to Christ and sees the truth in Christ, and is not troubled by the difficulties that people are always apt to feel when they begin to reason, when love gets cold and they have questions of duty. Then they cannot see clearly; then a trial is made on their faith to which it is not equal; then they begin to get dark, as well as to doubt. This is just where these saints appear to me to have been, whom the writer is here addressing as "once knowing all things." They knew not only the faith, but these terrible things that are coming in.

However, Jude recalls them to their remembrance: "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though once for all knowing all things, how that [the] Lord, having saved a people out of [the] land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not." That fact is a very solemn thing for the writer to bring before them; and it was meant to solemnize them, to deliver them from that careless state of soul which takes for granted that, because we have all been so blessed and led into the truth, no harm can happen. Why, on the contrary, beloved friends, for whom do you think Satan has the greatest hatred out of all on the face of the earth? Why, any that are following the Lord with simplicity; any that are truly devoted to the Lord. His great object is to try and stumble such, to turn them aside, to bring difficulties into their minds and make them hesitate. Now, where souls are simple and single-eyed, they have not these difficulties at all; but when they do not go on cleaving to the Lord with full purpose of heart, they begin to forget what they once knew. It is no longer Christ applied to judge everything here; they allow their own thoughts, their own feelings, their own mind, their own conceit, perhaps to lead them; but, whatever it is, it is not Christ, and now He brings this fact before them. Why, look at the history that you have in the very beginning of the Old Testament. God had a people once before us, and, what is more, God saved that people. That is the very thing — He did save them. It was not only that He passed over them in the land of Egypt, but there was His mighty arm at the Red Sea that crushed their enemies and saved themselves, and brought them into the desert that He might teach them what was in their heart, and let them know what was in His. But they went back to Egypt in their heart, and they could see no blessedness in Canaan, the heavenly land to which the Lord was leading them on — to Canaan, type of heaven, the land of God's delight and glory; they could see nothing in it, and they did see that in the desert there were serpents sometimes to bite those that refused to learn from God; and, further, that the Lord, if He hearkened to their lusting after flesh, made the flesh to come out of them as it were through their nostrils, as a judgment upon their not being satisfied with the manna, the bread of heaven. All these things happened, and what was the result? All perished in the wilderness excepting two men: Caleb and Joshua.

Now Jude says, That is your danger. You must remember that you cannot tell for certain whether a person has life eternal. Every man ought to know that for himself; every woman ought to know that for herself. If a person believes that he or she has life eternal in Christ, they are called to follow the Lord with full purpose of heart. And if they do not follow Him so, or if attracted by anything worldly, or by pursuits of their own from day to day, they neglect the Lord and His word, and neglect prayer and all the helps that the Lord gives us, which we so deeply need for our souls — what will be the end of that? Just what Jude is showing them here: "I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew all things, how that the Lord having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not."

It turned out that they were not true believers, after all. The same thing applies now: "These things happened unto them for types; and they are written for our admonition."

Jude 6, Jude 7, Jude 8.

"And angels which kept not their own original estate, but abandoned their proper dwelling, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under gloom unto [the] great day's judgment; as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, having in the like manner with them greedily committed fornication and gone after strange flesh, lie there an example, undergoing judgment of eternal fire. Yet likewise, these dreamers also defile flesh, and set at nought lordship and rail at dignities" (vers. 6-8)

If we compare this chapter of Jude with the Second Epistle of Peter, we get a very clear view of the precise difference between the two. No doubt there is a great deal that is common in both Epistles; but it is the difference that is of great account in taking a view of scripture, as has been already observed. In these two Epistles there may be many points in common, but the two accounts are thoroughly different. The same thing is true as regards all the testimony that God gives us. The marks of difference are the great criteria.

You will notice that Peter, after alluding to false teachers, alludes to "sects of perdition" (2 Peter 2: 1). The word heterodoxy gives a different idea. There was something of this difference in the minds of the apostles that ought to be in ours, viz.: — a very strong horror of the breach amongst those who belong to Christ and the church that He formed in unity here. There is a certain wilfulness that is particularly offensive to God. People now have so little sense of "wrongness" that they think it a natural thing that people should be justified in doing what they like; but to look at the matter in that sense would be to give up God. Perhaps men can be trusted in matters of ordinary life to form a sufficiently sound judgment as regards certain things, such as being careful of their food and careful of their dress, and also as regards other things that belong to this life. We find that God says little on the matter, except to guard His children from the vanity of the world and the pride of life. Still there is nothing technical or narrow laid down in the word of God. But it is quite another thing, when we consider that Christ died to "gather together into one the children of God that were scattered abroad" (John 11: 52), that we should allow ourselves to extenuate a wilful departure from the right course, by allowing our own notions to carry us away therefrom. Persons should not allow themselves to do this kind of thing, nor should they think that they are superior to others, which is generally a great delusion on their part. You will not find that men who are devoted to Christ set themselves up in this way, because we all know that Christ teaches us to count others better than ourselves. That may become merely a foolish sentiment by the separating us from a spirit of power and of love, and of a sound mind. We are to judge of everything by Christ. If we let in "self," we are sure to go wrong. This readiness to see Christ in everything is a happy thing when it is applied to our dealings with our brothers and sisters. It is not that others are necessarily better than ourselves, it is that we are to count them so in our spirit and in our dealings with them. When Christ is before us, we can afford to judge our sins as stronger than those of others. We are well aware of our faults; but it is only when we are much occupied with others' doings that we know much about their faults. The great thing is that we are to see Christ as our guide, and we are to judge ourselves in ourselves; we are also to see Christ in others and to love them, and to count them better than ourselves.

There are other senses in which people get into this spirit of sect, and thereby give an improper value to certain views. For instance, with regard to baptism. In modern times, at any rate, and very likely also in ancient times, there is, I suppose, hardly anything that has troubled the church more than this subject. By some people, a superstitious value is given to baptism, causing them, as it were, to despise those who have a reasoning turn of mind, and those who have a strong theory and notions about the Jewish remnant; but, so far as I know, the Jewish remnant has nothing to do with Christian baptism, because the handing it over to the Jewish remnant means giving up our relation to Christ. For Christian people, who are already walking in the ways of the Lord, to be occupied with baptism is, in my opinion, a most extraordinary inversion of all that is wise and right, because Christian people have passed through that experience already. Perhaps, when the ceremony was performed it was not done in the best way, and we may think that, therefore, if we had known then what we know now; we might have been more careful in its performance. Baptism is merely an external visible confession of the Lord Jesus, and for persons who have been confessing the Lord for twenty, thirty, or forty years, to be occupied with baptism seems to me to be an extraordinary change from all that is wise. Baptism is an initiatory step; our Christianity begins when we begin our Christian confession — we should, therefore, be going forward, not backward.

Baptism has even been used as the badge of a sect, and time would fail to narrate the many other ways in this regard. But here, in Peter's Epistle, we have a darker thing referred to — "sects of perdition" (2 Peter 2: 1). It evidently was not merely a sect, but a sect of perdition. In this case, the sect of perdition was evidently something very dreadful, and it was apparently against the Lord, because the words are "denying the Sovereign Master that bought them." This, as we have already remarked, is not "redemption" but "purchase," and so takes in all men whether converted or not. It is the denial of His rights over all as the Sovereign Master. So, too, Peter begins at once with the flood, the deluge, but there is not a word about that in Jude. This is another great mark of difference to note, the manner in which the denial of the Lord is described, and how we find God's mode of dealing with this matter. So one sees the propriety of the flood being brought in by Peter, because it was the universal unrighteousness and rebelliousness of the whole world. Jude, on the other hand, was not given to look at that particularly, but at the hostility that is shown to the truth and to Christ. Peter looks at the general unrighteousness of mankind, and so he says: "For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to lowest hell and delivered them up to chains of gloom reserved for judgment, and spared not an ancient world, but preserved Noah, an eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, having brought a flood upon a world of ungodly ones; and reducing to ashes [the] cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, He condemned [them] with an overthrow, having set an example to those that should live ungodlily; and rescued just Lot" etc. (2 Peter 2: 4-7).

What makes the reference again more remarkable is that Jude speaks of the "angels that kept not their own estate," but Peter of "angels that sinned," and who consequently come under the dealing of God. The flood is upon the world of the ungodly, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are turned into ashes for an example to those that should live ungodlily; but just Lot was delivered because he was a just man. The want of righteousness brought this punishment upon everyone. It is their general ungodliness, but no doubt there is a particularity which Jude takes up, whilst Peter takes up the universality. This is the marked difference between the two. I have dwelt upon this because it shows what the world of modern unbelief is — what is called higher criticism. For these men have been struck by the resemblance between this Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter; but with all their boasting of unbelief they have not got the discernment to see that there is a marked difference between the two. These men have been caught by the superficial resemblance of the two Epistles; but when you, as it were, lift up the superficial veil in which these Epistles agree, you will find that the colours are different. You will find darker colours in Jude than in Peter, although it is bad enough in Peter, most terribly evil. But it is of a general kind; whereas, Jude was led by the Holy Ghost to devote himself to the peculiar form that wickedness takes when it turns from the grace of God, when it turns to licentiousness.

Hence Jude begins with what is not referred to in Peter at all, and it is for this reason that I read verse 5 over a second time to-night. "I will, therefore, put you in remembrance, though once for all knowing all things, that the Lord, having saved a people" — mark that — "out of the land of Egypt" — that is the sovereign grace that shows the salvation. I am not speaking of it now as eternal salvation. It was sovereign grace that chose Israel; they were not chosen for everlasting glory, but only delivered out of Egypt. That surely shows a manifestation of God's goodness, Who, instead of allowing them to be oppressed and terrorised over by the cruel Egyptians, smote the Egyptians and delivered His people. They came into the narrower circle in one sense of what were God's people, in one sense also they were saved; but they gave up the grace, they abandoned God. This latter is what Jude has particularly in view. He looks at Christendom as being about to abandon the truth. He shows that whatever the special favour shown by God, men will get away from and deny it; and further, that instead of using grace to walk morally, they will take advantage of grace to allow of a kind of immorality — they will turn the grace of God into licentiousness.

Peter says nothing about this, but Jude does; so that it is evident that these learned men (who think they are so clever in showing that Jude and Peter are merely imitators of one another, and that it is the same thing in substance in both — that there is no particular difference, that they are in fact the same human picture), do not see God in either. Now, what we are entitled to is to see God in both Epistles, and what is more we should hear God's voice in both. You see then that Jude begins with this solemn fact that the Lord "having saved a people out of the land of Egypt" — I am giving now the strict force of the word — "the second time" (that He acted) "destroyed those that believed not." The first act was that He "saved" them, He brought them out by means of the paschal lamb, which was His first great act of "saving." The first time that God's glory appeared and He put Himself at the head of His people, He saved them out of the land of Egypt. What was "the second time"? When He "destroyed" them. It is not vague, but it specifically mentions "the second time"; this is the great point. At the time the golden calf was set up, that was the beginning of "the second time," and God went on smiting and smiting until everyone was destroyed except Caleb and Joshua. That was the second time. This went on for forty years, but it is all brought together in the words "the second time." God "destroyed them that believed not." That is the charge brought against them. Their carcases were falling in the wilderness. In Hebrews 3 (as is very evident also in the book of Numbers and elsewhere) there is this threat during their passage through the wilderness. It is one of the great facts of the books of Moses. As regards those that came out of Egypt, they came under the hand of God; some perished at one time, some at another, but all perished in one way or the other, until all disappeared; and yet they had all been "saved" out of the land of Egypt by the Lord.

Oh, what a solemn thing to set this before us now! When I say before us, I mean before the church of God, before all that bear the name of the Lord Jesus here below. This is put expressly as a sample of the solemn ways of God to be recollected in Christendom. Then Jude also refers to the angels. I think the wisdom of that is evident. Peter begins with the angels and then goes on to refer to the flood. I think, therefore, if any person looks at Genesis 6 he will find a great deal of wisdom in Jude's reference. I am well aware, of course, that there are many that view "the sons of God" in a very different way to what it appears to me. They are sometimes very surprised, and expect one to be able to answer all their questions. I do not assume any such competency. I admire the wisdom of God in that God does not stop to explain. He feels the awful iniquity of what occurred in reference to these angels. They are fallen angels, and of quite a different class to those who fell before Adam was tempted.

It appears there were at least two falls of angels; one was he whom we call Satan — when man was made, Satan tempted man through Eve. Those ordinary evil angels, of which we read in the Bible from Genesis down to Revelation, are not under everlasting chains at all. They are roving about the world continually, and so far from being in chains of darkness, in "tortures" as it is called here, they are allowed access to heaven. You will see that in a very marvellous way in the history of Job. A great many believers do not believe in the book of Job. You will see there "the sons of God" referred to. What is meant by "the sons of God" there? Why, the angels of God. The angels of God appeared before God. We learn from this that they have access, and include not only the good angels but also the Satanic angels. Satan was a fallen angel, but still he was an angel, and when "the sons of God" came, Satan was there too. So that it is evident, from the Book of Revelation more particularly, that Satan will not lose that access to the presence of God until we are actually in heaven. It has not come to pass yet. People have an extraordinary idea in their heads that whatever access Satan had before that time, he lost it — either when our Lord was born, or when our Lord died but there is nothing of this in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where, on the contrary it is expressly stated that our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against wicked spirits in the heavenlies. We are not like the Israelites fighting against Canaanites. Our Canaanite is a spiritual enemy in heavenly places, that is, Satan and his host of demons or angels.

But, as we have seen, these are not at all the sins that are referred to here. There is a marked difference. There is a character of iniquity that these angels fell into on earth, and so a distinct difference in their doom. These angels fell into a very peculiar iniquity, which is in a general way spoken of in Peter, but in a special way in Jude. They were put under chains of darkness and not allowed to stir out of their prison. They are not the angels that tempt us now. They did their bad work just a tattle time before the flood. That fact gives the matter a very solemn character. If people want to know how it was done, that I do not know; but you are called upon to believe, just as much as I am. What Genesis 6 does say is that there were "sons of God" upon earth at that time who acted in a way contrary to everything in relation to God, and which was so offensive to Him that He would not allow the earth to go on any longer, and this is what brought on the flood. No doubt too there was also a general iniquity in mankind that brought the flood upon them. Man was very corrupt and man was vile, but besides that there was this awful violation of the marks that divide the creatures of God in some mysterious manner. Hence God completely destroyed the whole framework of creation, and put an end to them and their offspring, so that every one of them perished. That is what took place then Of course, you will tell me that they could not perish absolutely. No, I admit that these angels could not perish any more than men such as you; but this is what God did with those angels that behaved in that tremendously wicked manner. They became prisoners, they were put under confinement, not like Satan and his host that tempt us to this day, but these particular angels were not allowed to tempt men any more. They had done too much, and God would not allow these things to go on any longer, therefore there was this mighty interference at the time of the flood, and not only the things that generally inflict men. These are the words, "Angels that kept not their first estate." Their falling was a departure from their first estate. In this very case Satan had not done so, nor had the angels that fell with Satan. But it was quite another kind of iniquity that caused the flood. These angels left their own habitation and preferred to take their place among mankind to act as if they were men on earth, and accordingly, God has now reserved them in everlasting chains under darkness until the judgment of the great day. Nobody can say that this is true of Satan and his host, but if people should think this, I do not see how they can read these verses and give such a meaning to them. Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, but their years do not run out until the judgment of the great day comes. Then they will be judged everlastingly.

What makes the matter so striking is that Jude compares this conduct, and this awful opposition to all the landmarks that divide angels from mankind, with Sodom and Gomorrah. We know that the enormity of this wickedness exceeded that even of all wicked people. So here their sin brings them into juxtaposition with Sodom and Gomorrah, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering vengeance of eternal fire" (ver. 7).

When we come back to Peter and see what he has to say on this matter, it is, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned." Peter does not go further than that. Of course we know how they sinned — that is what Jude looks into. But here in Peter it is general — "angels that sinned." He cast them down into hell and darkness, but that description does not apply to Satan and his host. Therefore it seems there were two different falls of angels; one, Satan and his followers mounting up in the pride of their hearts to God, the other, these angels sinking down in the wickedness of their heart to man, to man in a very low condition indeed. The difference therefore is most marked. God "delivered them unto chains of darkness to be reserved to judgment, and spared not the old world." There is a connection between the two narratives, as it is about the same time. Peter marks this very point, and puts it along with God's dealing with the angels. This however is entirely left out by Jude. Peter says, "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth [person]."

How is Noah described? As "a preacher of righteousness." Noah was not a preacher of grace. The grand truth that Noah proclaimed was that God was going to destroy the world by the deluge. That was exactly the right message. I do not think we are entitled to say he said nothing more, but the characteristic of Noah was that he was "a preacher of righteousness." This is precisely what occurs in Peter; he does not bring out the grace of God at all, in his chapter. He is thundering at unrighteousness. He is giving with that trumpet of righteousness a very clear sound indeed. He is evidently giving out, in very dark and solemn words, the destruction that shall await the wicked at the great change; and he shows that the same thing has happened before, and he begins, as far as man is concerned, not with Israel saved out of Egypt by God, but looks at the whole world destroyed. He is looking at the universality of unrighteousness, and not at the gradual departure of the people that were saved, saved first and lost afterwards. "He saved Noah, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Peter then looks at the cities of the plain — more particularly Sodom and Gomorrah. He does not say anything about the special iniquity, but looks at it in a general way. "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodlily; and delivered just Lot vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked. For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" (2 Peter 2: 4-8).

So that instead of these two Epistles being alike, one of them a mere replica of the other, and an imitation in a clumsy way, they are both marked by most peculiarly different characteristics. And this is what deludes some men with all their criticism, and all the doctrine of the working of mind and the reasoning of rationalism is entirely outside the mark. Man's mind sees certain things in a general outside way and reasons upon it, flattering himself that he is doing something wonderful, and that he is bringing light when he is only spreading mist over the precious word of God, nothing but mist and darkness. So that the general difference between the two Epistles is very marked indeed.

Well then, we come now to the bearing of Peter's words upon the present time. "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." That is the practical testimony coming out of it. "But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government." It is not, you observe, simply corruptness. No, it is the larger view that is looked at. What would apply to Mahommedanism would apply to Judaism, would apply to heathenism, and would also apply to Christendom. The analogy is, that this particular form of evil requires a particular form of discipline, and that the world will be destroyed not by water but by fire from God in heaven. That is what I think is referred to by the "overthrow," and the reason of it; "whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord" (2 Peter 2: 9-11).

But when we come to Jude, it is a great deal closer than all this. What he says is, "Likewise also these dreamers." I do not know any reason for putting in the word "filthy." You will see the word is in italics. There is a great deal of wickedness where there is nothing wrong in word. It is only in the idea, there may be nothing offensive, yet it is sapping and undermining all that is precious in those people who live in the imagination of their own hearts instead of being guided by the word of God. Why? Because the word of God is an expression of God's authority, and His will is the only thing that ought to guide us, as well as all mankind. If that is true of man because he is the creature of God, how much more is it true of those whom He has begotten by the word of truth! These latter are therefore called more particularly to heed and learn the word of God. I do not know anything of more practical importance than that. If I were to give, in one word, in what all practical Christianity consists, I should say — obedience; and that obedience is entirely one of faith, not law. It is characterised in quite another way by Peter, "obedience of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1: 2) not obedience of Adam. Adam's obedience was that he was not to touch that particular tree, but now that God has revealed His will we are bound by that revealed will. To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. It is not merely you must not do anything wrong in all those ways of men which show how far their heart is from God, but "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Talk about James being legal! obedience is his peculiar grace. He is the very one that speaks about "the law of liberty." The law of Moses was the law of bondage; it was purposely to convict man of sin which he had in his nature, to crush all self-righteousness out of him. Whereas what James speaks of is the exercise of a new life that God's grace gives us, and of the love that Christ has revealed that we should be after the pattern of Christ. What was the difference between Christ's obedience and the Israelite's obedience? The Israelite's was, Thou shalt not do this or that. But this is not what Christ says. Of course, Christ never did anything that was wrong. Christ was pleasing to God in every act of His life, in every feeling of His soul, in all that constituted walking with God here below. This is exactly what we are called here to do. This is what Peter means when he says, "Elect according to foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification (or, in virtue of sanctification) of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood, of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1: 1, 2).

The sprinkling is the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, and the reference is to Exodus 24, where Moses takes the book of the law and sprinkles it with blood, and he sprinkles the people too with blood; everything being thus brought under death. It was the great mark of death having its sway. The book and the people were sprinkled with the blood shed, meaning death to any who failed to obey that book. Now the Christian in a way stands totally contrasted with that; when he is converted his first desire is to do the will of God. When Saul of Tarsus was smitten down, his first words as a converted man were, "Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" And this is what occurs even before we get peace. It is so with every converted person. His first desire is to do the will of God. He very little knows himself. He does not know how weak he is. He has got a bad nature counteracting him, but he has yet to learn the operation of the new nature that is in him. How does that new nature come? By receiving the word of revealed grace. I do not say the work of Christ the Saviour, because Saul knew very well that he knew nothing; but mercy and goodness struck him down and gave him a new nature that he once railed at. Paul knew Christ was saving him, but he did not know that we have to learn, not only the word of God, but the experimental way of finding our need of it. It is not only the Saviour that we want, but the mighty work that abolishes all our sins, and brings us to God in perfect peace and liberty through the redemption of the Lord Jesus. It is not only that I am born again; that I am going to be saved by and by, but saved now. This is the proper meaning of the Christian dispensation that produces this desire even before I know that the blood of Christ is screening me entirely. I want to obey as Christ obeyed, not merely to do something like the Jew, but I am doing it now because this nature in me impels me to do it. It is the instinct of the new man. We have a great deal to learn about our utter weakness, and, consequently, about the need of deliverance. So we are elect unto the obedience of Christ, and are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, which gives us the comfortable assurance that our sins are clean gone. Hence the difference is very plain.

Now these "dreamers" referred to, lived in the imagination of their own hearts, and the New Testament is used to help these men very much indeed. When the New Testament is taken up by the natural mind, they proclaim what is called Christian Socialism, which sets up a standard of the gospel and dictates to everybody. You have no right to this large property! You have no right to these privileges that you assume! I am as good as you, and better too! This is the style these men take up with regard to the New Testament, thereby entirely twisting the word in order to gain advantages to themselves and to deny all the truth. It is really dreaming about what ought to be, according to their mind, and to claim everything that they covet from those that are in a dignified position in the world — "likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion and speak evil of dignities." They defile the flesh by what they convert scripture to. They consider themselves the equals of all, and not only so, but speak evil of dignities, so that there is evidently no fear of God before their eyes at all. And this shows that there is something very lamentable in the perversion of the gospel, the perversion of the New Testament. It is their own bad and selfish purpose that causes them to do this. The whole principle of the New Testament is this: what those that are of Christ do. Well, they feel according to Christ. What is that? Why, it is the principle of love that gives, that does not seek its own. Do you think these kind of men have any idea of giving? They only talk about other people giving. So this is all dreaming, as it is called here. Very justly Jude launches out into these strong terms, "Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

Jude 9.

"But Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (ver. 9).

The verse now before us presents one ground of exception taken against the Epistle by men who trust themselves. This introduction of Michael the archangel seems to them altogether inexplicable, as they consider it a mere tradition of the Jews reproduced by Jude or at any rate by one who wrote the Epistle bearing his name; for they really do not know or care who wrote it. Only nobody must believe that Jude wrote it! Such talk consists simply of the objections of unbelief, which, doubting all that is inspired of God, sets itself to shake the confidence of those who do believe.

Although it is a fact presented in no other part of God's word, what solid reason is there in that to object? There is ground for thankfulness that He makes it known here.

Not a few statements may be traced in scripture, which have been given but a single mention; but they are just as certain as any others which are repeatedly named. The apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 6: 3, declares that the saints shall judge angels. It is not only that they shall judge the world, which no doubt is a truth revealed elsewhere; but it is there expressly said that they are to judge angels. I am not aware of any other scripture which intimates a destiny that most would consider strange if not incredible. We do find that the world to come is not to be put under angels; but that is a different thing. It does assure us that the habitable earth is to be put under the Lord Jesus in that day; and the saints are to reign with Him. To the risen saints will be given to share His royal authority; for that is the meaning here of "judging." It has nothing at all to do with Christ's final award of man. It is not a small mistake to suppose that the saints will exercise the final judgment over men or angels. All such judgment is exclusively given to the Son of man (John 5: 22, 27; Rev. 20).

When it is said that we shall judge the world, the meaning is plain whether men believe or not. Such judging is to exercise the highest power and authority over the world by the will of God and for the glory of the Lord Jesus. But there is no warrant for the notion that saints will take part in the great white throne judgment. On that throne sits only One, He that knows every secret, that searches the reins and hearts; and He is the sole Judge when it is a question of judging man in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to Paul's gospel. No man was ever given to fathom the lives of others; nor am I aware that we shall ever be called to share that knowledge so essential to the Judge of quick and dead.

In fact, the notion that we are to sit in judgment on people for eternity is a gross and groundless blunder, for which there is no shadow of proof in any part of scripture. But we shall judge the world when the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ is come. He will reign for ever; and so shall we, as His word assures; but there is a special display of this joint reign, and this is during the thousand years. This, of course, is no question of eternal judgment, but of the kingdom; whereas, when the earth and the heaven flee, and no place is found for them, eternal judgment follows, and none but the Lord judges. All judgment is given to Him, when the works of men, who despised Him throughout the sad annals of time, come up for His eternal sentence. No assessors are associated with Him; He alone is the Judge.

There remains, however, the plain revelation that we shall judge angels. If this is confined to that one scripture, be it so; one clear word of God is as sure as a thousand. If we have to do with the witness of man, the word of a thousand, if they are decent people, must naturally have a weight beyond one man's. But here it is no question of men at all. What we stand upon, and the only thing that gives us firmness of ground and elevation above all mist, the only thing that gives us faith, reverence, simplicity, and humility, is God's word. It is indeed a wonderful mercy, in a world of unbelief, truly to say, I believe God; to bow before, and rest in, the testimony of God; to have perfect confidence in what God has not only said, but written expressly to arrest, exercise, and inform our hearts.

Assuredly, if God says a thing once unmistakably, it is as certain as if it had pleased Him to say it many times. Indeed, as it appears to me, it will be found that God hardly ever repeats the same thing. There is a shade of difference in the different forms that God takes for communicating truth. Such is one of its great beauties, though quite lost to unbelievers, because they listen to His words in a vague and uncertain manner. As they never appropriate, so they never hear God in it. They may think of Paul or Peter, John or James, and flatter themselves to be quite as good or perhaps better. What is there in all this but man's exalting himself to his own debasement? He sinks morally every time he lifts himself up proudly against God and His word.

Here then we have a fact about the unseen world communicated, not in the days of Moses or Joshua, when the burial of Moses is brought before us. Here Jude writes many years after Christ, and first mentions it. Why should this appear strange? The right moment was come for God's good pleasure to communicate it.

Did not the apostle Paul first give us in his last Epistle the names of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses before Pharaoh? No doubt we were told of such magicians; but we did not know their names till the Second Epistle to Timothy was written. Scripture can only be resolved into the will of God. It pleases God to exercise His entire sovereignty in this, and He would therein show Paul given to write of a thing reserved for him to bring out alone. So here we have the Holy Ghost proving His power and wisdom in recalling a mysterious fact at the close of Moses' life. Why should men doubt what is so easy for God to make known?

Is there anything too wonderful for His grace? Is not He Who works in revealing, God's eternal Spirit? And why should not He, if He see fit, reserve the names for that day when Paul wrote? The occasion was the growth of deceivers in Christendom — a thing that many seem disposed to entirely overlook. They yield to the amiable fancy that such an evil is impossible, especially among the brethren! But why so? Surely such impressions are not only stupid in the highest degree, but unbelieving too. It ought to be evident that, if anywhere on the face of the earth Satan would work mischief, it is exactly among such as stand for God's word and Spirit. Where superstition is tolerated, and rationalism reigns, he has already gained ruinous advantage over the religious and the profane. If any on the face of the earth at the present time refute both these hateful yet imposing errors, his spite must be against them. The reason is plain. We have no confidence in the flesh, but in the Lord; and to that one Name we are gathered for all we boast, leaning only on His word and the Spirit of God.

Let these then be our Jachin and Boaz, the two pillars of God's house, even in a day of ruin and scattering. Let us rejoice to be despised for the truth's sake. How can we expect to have any other feelings excited towards us? Do we not tell everybody that the church is a wreck outwardly? And do they not say on the contrary that the church bids fair for reunion? that the classes and the masses are alike won by grand buildings, rites, ceremonies, music, and the like? that there is on the one side inflexible antiquity for those who venerate the past but on the other side the device of development to flatter the hopeful and self-confident? Then think of the modern influx of gold and silver, of which the apostolic church was so short! Is it not God now giving it to His church that they may in time buy up the world! And if any tell them that all such vaunts are only among the proofs of the church's utter ruin, what can they be but hateful and obnoxious in their eyes? Christ has always a path for the saints, a way of truth, love, and holiness for the darkest day of ruin, as much as for any other. It is for the eye single to Him and the ear that heeds His word to find the path, narrow as it is, but its lines fallen in pleasant places and a goodly heritage. But if we, hankering after earthly things, entangle ourselves with man's thoughts or the world's ways in religion, what can this issue be but that we help on the ruin? Disturbed, uneasy and unhappy we become, like Samson with his hair cut, weak as water, and blind to boot.

Nor is it at all unaccountable that men are busy against an Epistle which is one of the loudest and clearest in the trumpet blast that is blown against Christendom. For it expressly lays down that departure from the truth, and the turning God's grace to licentiousness, are to go on till judgment thereon — not that there may not be such as are faithful and true, keeping themselves in the love of God, and building themselves up on that most holy faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. What can be conceived more remote from men's new inventions? from the vain restlessness which is ever in quest of some fresh effort? From everything of the sort we are bound to keep clear, as being deadly. It is not only from all tampering with bad ways, or false doctrine, but from humanising on what is divine. To this we are bound by the very nature of Christianity, which calls us to entire dependence upon the word and Spirit of God. It is not for us then, to be asking what is the wrong of this? or what harm is there in that? For the believer the true question is, What saith the scripture? How is it written?

It is written here: "But Michael the archangel, when, contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee" (ver. 9). Here, then, is a grand truth, taught in a striking and powerful manner. The apostle Peter, in the 2nd chapter of his Second Epistle, is said to give exactly the same thing as Jude, but he says not one word about it. He makes no allusion to Michael the archangel. He speaks in verse 4 of angels that sinned, whom God did not spare. But Jude presents it as the angels that kept not their first estate. This clearly has nothing to do with Michael. The reference to the archangel is entirely peculiar to Jude; and the object is to exhibit the spirit that becomes one who acts for God, even in dealing with His worst enemy, that there be no meeting evil with evil, nor reviling with reviling, but on the contrary immediate and confessed reference to God.

What makes it all the more surprising is the power vouchsafed to Michael. He is the angel whom God will employ to overthrow the devil from his evil eminence by-and-by (Rev. 12). But here the historical intimation given is entirely in character with the future. You may tell me that Rev. 12. was not revealed to Jude, who wrote this. Be it so, yet the same God that wrought by Jude wrought also by John. It is evident from the two scriptures that the antagonism between Michael and the devil is not a truth foreign to God's word. There we have it in the written word. It is the truth of God. Jude was given to tell us what God moved Jude to write, which has not only great moral value for any time, but gives us the fact, full of interest, that the antagonism between Michael the archangel and the devil is not merely of the future. Here the proof lies before us that it wrought also in the past. Thus we can look back fifteen hundred years, and there behold the evidence of this contention between the devil and the archangel. Do you say that it was about the body of Moses, and what is that to anyone? Can we not readily enter into the importance of that dispute? Can we not understand the bearing of that question, when we hold in mind all the history of Israel in the wilderness, as given in Exodus and Numbers?

There is nothing more common among the prophets than this, that while during their lifetime they were hated, after they were dead and gone they became objects of the highest honour; and, what is so remarkable, the highest honour to the same class of people that hated them. They became not objects of honour so much to other people, but were honoured by the same unbelieving class that could not endure the prophets' words when they were alive. They are ready to kill the prophetic messenger when living, and all but worship him when he is dead. Well, it is the same unbelief that acts in both ways; which, when he was alive, scouted the word of God come through him, and condemned and hated him, but when he was dead, and no longer, therefore, a living character to puncture their conscience, the very people who had war with the prophet would build a fine monument to his memory; and so, getting the character of being men who had a great regard for the prophet, men, therefore, that were doing their best for religion, they gave their money to have erected a fine monument, or to have a fine statue made, or as grand a picture as they could pay for! So true it is, the flesh is quite remarkable for being ready to honour a man when he is dead and gone, whom it could not endure when alive. Our Lord drew attention to this very characteristic. It is not an idea of mine at all, it is the truth of God. Our Lord lays this down most strongly against the Jewish people; and it is not at all confined to Jewish people. If you go now to the town of Bedford — to take an instance from our own country — there you will find a fine monument to John Bunyan, who, when alive, was scouted, imprisoned, and regarded as a presumptuous, bad man. The very same class of people now buy his book, and at any rate are not sorry that the children should read it along with the Arabian Nights' Entertainments in the nursery. So there they have the Pilgrim's Progress and the Arabian Nights' tales, and they are all considered equally entertaining for the children. They thereby show that they think the imprisoned tinker was a genius — for that is their way of looking at it; and therefore they gain for themselves credit in all sorts of ways, both as being men of taste, and also as men not at all averse to religion when it does not touch their conscience. The thing, therefore, that I am speaking of is always true and always will be true till the Lord come, and then there will be no such thing as "the vile person called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful," nor, on the other hand, the unjust treated as righteous. Then there will be righteousness reigning, and everything and everyone will find their level according to God.

Now we all know from the account given of Moses, both in Exodus and Numbers, how constantly the children of Israel were contending with him, murmuring against him, speaking evil of him — hating Moses, really, and Aaron too. And it was only the power of God interfering every now and then that alarmed them, and cut them down, and compelled them at any rate to pay outward respect. But directly he was dead, the same devil that stirred them up against Moses when he was alive — oh, what would he not have given for that dead body! The dead body would have been made a relic. You know very well that this is a favourite idea of men — the dead body would have been an object of worship. The devil would, therefore, have gained doubly. First, by setting them at war with him while alive, and still more when he was dead by making them idolaters of Moses. So that we can easily understand why it was that the Lord buried the body Himself. But it appears that before he was buried, there was this contention between Michael the archangel and the devil about Moses' dead body; so perfectly in keeping with the mysterious manner in which Jehovah buried him where none should know, and where even if Satan was allowed to know, God interfered that Michael should guard that grave, that Michael should hinder all the efforts of the devil to get hold of that dead body. So we have the two facts: what is here told us by Jude, and the fact of Deuteronomy 34, where we have the account of the Lord's burying Moses — which He never did for any other man. Show me only a single case of the Lord's burying any one. I do not remember one but that of Moses, and there were special reasons why Jehovah should secretly bury that dead body rather than any other.

There never was a man that exercised so remarkable a position towards a whole people as Moses did to the children of Israel, and now that he was gone, a reaction would take place under the devil, not in the least a reaction of faith, but of unbelief, to idolise that very body, the same man whom they continually plagued while living.

So that the fact, here brought before us, goes along with another fact to which I have just now referred in the Old Testament (the two perfectly tally), viz. — that there were special reasons in the case of Moses' dead body why the Lord should interfere. Now we learn from this passage in Jude a further very interesting fact, not about the Lord, but about the enemy and the one whom Jehovah thought proper to use. Now, there are others of great weight in heaven besides Michael. Gabriel stands in the presence of God, and, as we know, he was employed for a very important mission by God. It was not Michael, but Gabriel very particularly, who was used in announcing the birth of our Lord Jesus, and we can perfectly understand why Gabriel should be then employed rather than Michael. Michael is the prince that stands up for the Jewish people. Yes, but the Gospel of Luke shows the Lord Jesus born of woman, not merely for the Jewish people, but for man — "God's good pleasure in men," not merely in Jews: and therefore it is not that particular angel, Michael; he was not employed on that occasion. So that it appears to me that there was divine wisdom in Gabriel being employed on that mission rather than Michael; and that this is true will surely be very evident to anyone who reads Daniel 10 and Daniel 12. I just refer to it now because of its importance in showing the harmony of scripture, and that even in a most extraordinary event that is only once recorded. It shows principles of divine truth that support, and fall in, and harmonise, with what was only revealed once. This is what I wish to show now.

Well, in the latter part of Daniel 10 (indeed as well Daniel 11), ver. 20, we read, "Then said he" (this is the angel that had to do with Daniel), "Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia." There you see that it is not quite an unusual thing for angels to contend. Here we have it in still stronger language: "To fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come."

Now, we shall find a little intimation who and what these princes were in the next verse: "But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

We learn here that Michael was pre-eminently the prince of Israel. In what sense? Not as reigning visibly, but as invisibly espousing the cause of the Jewish people. Now see how this falls in with Michael's guarding the dead body of Moses, with his being employed by God to contend with the great enemy, so that there should be no misuse made of that dead body. Who had so pre-eminently this duty as the prince of Israel? And as to the angel that was speaking with Daniel, of whom we read a good deal in the previous part of the chapter in so highly interesting a manner and in the most glowing colours — he says, "there is none that holdeth with me in these things" — that is, in opposing the princes of Grecia and Persia. Why? It appears that the princes of Grecia and Persia were not favourable to the Jewish people. In the same way, they had interests connected with Greece and Persia that were opposed to the Jewish people; and in the providence of God the angels are referred to here — angels are the great instruments of providence, the unseen working of God being carried out instrumentally by angels.

This is true now. We are all very much cared for by the angels, more than we are apt to think. We read of them in Hebrews (Heb. 1: 14): "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" So we are indebted to angels now. I do not say it is Michael or Gabriel, but I do say that the angels are acting a special part at this present time in Christianity for all the heirs of salvation. You see that at this time, in Daniel, it was not so much a question about the heirs of salvation; it was a question of the Jewish people. They were the great object of God's care in their fallen estate. They had been most guilty, but they were beloved. They were carried into captivity by the Babylonian power. And they were going to be the slaves of other powers on the earth; but for all that Michael stood up for them and this other angel who speaks to the prophet Daniel. There were also other angels that were opposed, whom they had to fight.

Well, people may say that it is all very mysterious. Indeed it is, dear brethren. It is not, therefore, incredible, but of very great moment, that we should have our hearts and minds open to believe what we do not see. There is nothing that adds more to the simplicity of a believer than his having his faith exercised upon the things that are unseen as well as those that are eternal, and we ought to feel our indebtedness to God for these things.

Now, if you want a proof even in detail as to this, take the 8th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. There you find that the angel tells Philip to go in a certain direction, and he does so; and then we find the Spirit speaks. Not the angel, but the Spirit. I had better refer to it, because there is nothing like the scripture for its precision. Now, in Acts 8: 26 we read: "And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert." There were two roads, it appears. One was through a populous part of the land, and the other was desert. Well, a desert is not the place an evangelist would choose. The angel, therefore, acting in the providence of God, says to Philip: "You go that desert road." And it is one of the beautiful features of Philip that he was not a reasoner. Reason is an excellent thing for men who have not got the word of God, and I do not say that there may not be useful reasoning outside divine things, what you may call common sense. But I do say this, that the more the believer can act on divine principles at all times, the better for his soul, and the more to the praise of the Lord. If he is sometimes acting, like a man of the world, on his common sense, and at another time acting on the word of God as a believer, he is in danger of being practically two different persons. And when a man plays the game of two personalities he is very apt to become a hypocrite; there will be a want of reality about the man. We ought only to have one personality. We are bought with a price, not merely for our religious matters, but for everything. We do not belong to ourselves, we are the Lord's; and, therefore, the more a believer can rise above merely what he will do as a man to that which he loves to do as a saint — the more entirely he keeps to this only, so much the more consistent is he with his profession as a child of God. For why should it not be so? What is to hinder his being a saint in anything at all? Cannot he be a saint when serving in his shop? Cannot he be a saint when in his office? Surely he might, and ought to be. There is nothing to hinder, if he were lively in faith and has the Lord before him. But if, on the contrary, he only looks at the shop or the office — "Well, now," he says, "it is not Sunday, nor is it the meeting now; I go there as a man." So there it is. How can he expect anything like faith, or grace, care for Christ and His glory, if that is the case? I deny entirely that we may not be servants of Christ in the commonest things of this life; and this is what, I think, we have all especially to pray for. Of course, we need to pray that we may behave as saints when we come into the assembly, and when we find ourselves at a meeting of any kind; but why we should be off our saintship when we go into business or anything else is another matter, and a very dangerous line to pursue.

Now then, here you see that we have the angel of the Lord providentially dealing with Philip, and Philip acts upon it at once. He does not say, "Ah, I shall not be able to get a congregation, and at any rate I don't like a little one; I want to have a big one." He has not a word about little or big; in fact, he was not going to have a congregation. He must be content with one single soul. That soul is precious beyond all calculation to God, if not even to himself. What would all the world be to one if the soul were lost, as the Lord Himself told men, and which they still refuse to believe?

Well then, the angel gives Philip this word, and he hears, and goes without a question. But when he was there — in this road, "this way that goeth down from Jerusalem" — here this Ethiopian stranger in his chariot was met, returning from Jerusalem, and reading the prophet Isaiah. He was not now going up to Jerusalem to get a blessing there. He may have looked for and prayed for that, but he did not get it there. He was returning from Jerusalem unblest, going away from that city, and this was just what the gospel was doing. It was leaving Jerusalem, driven out by unbelief, and this poor Jewish proselyte was going away unblest by the gospel in that city, for he had not found a blessing there. There was a persecution going on there against it. And now, returning, he was reading in his chariot. "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and join thyself to this chariot." Now, why is it the Spirit here? Because it was what concerned the word of God and the soul. The angel said not a word about the soul of the Ethiopian. I do not know that the angel knew anything about it. The angel had to do the bidding of God, "Tell that man to go by the road that is a desert." He acted on it; the angel was right, and Philip was right, but it was entirely providential. And then comes the spiritual part, and here the Holy Ghost interposes.

Well, we have not now the angel speaking and the Holy Ghost speaking, but we have the angels acting. We may not perhaps know how it is, but an angel interposes many a time to prevent us going in a certain way, when, if there had not been that interposition, we should have been killed. We often go where we had no intention of going, or do not go where we meant to go. When I say "often," I mean sometimes; throughout our whole lives it would really bear the word "often." But there is no man but what does from time to time what he never intended to do, perhaps through an impulse given him — he cannot tell how or why — and he goes this way, when he meant to have gone that way.

Here, however, we find that there is another kind of guidance of a more spiritual nature for the soul, prompting (so to speak) the soul to give a word for the Lord. Do you suppose there is no such thing now? Such an idea may be for people who do not believe that the Holy Ghost is come, and that to abide; but He is still here. It is put in Acts 8 in an open objective form, but it is meant to teach us that the same thing is true now, although it does not come out openly in the same manner. It is quite true, and this is not the only case. If you compare the 12th chapter of the Acts with the 13th, you will see an angel acting in the one chapter and the Spirit acting in the next. I only mention it because the Acts of the Apostles is surely a history of Christianity, a history of Christians, of what Christians have been used for, and what they are meant to live in. Well, then, here, when it was not a question of Christians or the gospel, but of nations and people, we find the part that the angels play — not merely the holy ones, but the unholy ones. This is the very thing that we find at the grave of Moses, and about that same people, Israel. Michael is the prince who stands up for them opposing the efforts of the enemy against them; and this entirely confirms the principles of God's word. They are entirely in favour of this extraordinary revelation made in the 9th verse of Jude, and they are found to support and confirm it in the highest degree.

Now, before we go further, I refer to another scripture in Zechariah 3. There we have a very interesting removal of the veil that we may see the unseen. We read these words: "And he showed me" (that is, the angel showed Zechariah) "Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him" (ver. 1). There you have the same opposition again. In this case, however, it is the "angel of Jehovah." I should be disposed to distinguish him from Michael. The "angel of Jehovah" is an altogether peculiar term. The angel of Jehovah is rather the way in which the Lord Jesus is referred to in the Old Testament — not the only way, but a very usual way. The angel of Jehovah every now and then is shown to be Jehovah Himself. I do not mean that He is the only person that is Jehovah. As we read in Deut. 6: 4, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," that is, it is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Who are the one God that we acknowledge as Christians. They are all three Jehovah, they are all equally Jehovah, and it therefore helps us to understand why He is viewed as "the Angel of Jehovah." He is Jehovah too, though not the only One that is called Jehovah. This explains what we have here: "He showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And Jehovah" (notice that after speaking of "the angel of Jehovah" it is now "Jehovah") — "And Jehovah said unto Satan, Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan" — the very words that Michael uses to Satan as reported by Jude!

Well, is not this a very strong confirmation, not only of this remarkable opposition between the holy angels and the unholy ones, but also of Satan's opposition? We find this antagonism in both scriptures, precisely alike. Even Jehovah Himself, instead of merely taunting Satan, says "Jehovah rebuke thee." The time was not yet for the most terrible rebuke to come, as it will unmistakably when he shall be trodden under foot. He has to be bound for a thousand years in the abyss; he has to be cast into the lake of fire. All these will be part of the ways in which Jehovah will rebuke him, but till that time arrives we see how God meanwhile guards His own purpose; He does not allow Satan to interfere with His design. He allows man to show out his insensibility and his sin, and He chastises him. He does not yet put forth His power to deal with Satan as He will do; but there is that word, "Jehovah rebuke thee," as He surely will. It is a continual warning from Jehovah, which will be accomplished in its own day, and in various places and various stages. But you can easily see that it would be unseemly to have a mere dispute going on between Jehovah and Satan; and all, therefore, that He puts forth is this solemn warning of what is coming.

Well, the angel repeats that warning to Satan in a very early day, and here, a thousand years after, you have the same truth, the same antagonism even, if not the same persons exactly; but the same spirit all through.

Scripture is perfectly consistent, perfectly reliable. And although Jude was the first one that brought out this fact, it falls in with the other facts of scripture: both in the early days of Moses, in the later of Zechariah, and now in the days of the gospel, in the days of Christianity.

So that nothing can be more complete than the proof that these learned critics are totally ignorant of God, totally ignorant of the Bible, except of the mere surface, the mere letter that kills, and know not the spirit that quickens.

Well, here then you see how beautiful it is that instead of bringing a railing accusation, Michael simply warned Satan with the solemn words: "Jehovah rebuke thee" — "The Lord rebuke thee." What would railing do? If there are two people railing, a good and a bad man, and the bad man's railing provokes the good man to rail, the good man goes down to the level of the bad. It does not at all diminish the railing of the other. I should think at any time that a bad man could gain a good degree over the good man in the way of railing. Surely he is much more practised, and very likely more unscrupulous and more malicious, and therefore it sounds stronger to the ear of man. But, you see, that would be a total lowering of even an angel, and how much more of a saint, I might say. Here we have the beautiful conduct of the angel as a pattern to the saint, that we be not provoked, nor, when we are reviled, revile again, but act as the Lord Himself acted. He committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously. Well, that is what Jehovah will do; He will judge righteously, but the time is not yet come for its manifestation.

Jude 10, Jude 11, Jude 12, Jude 13.

"But these rail at whatever things they know not; but whatever they understand naturally, as the irrational animals, in these things they corrupt themselves (or, perish). Woe unto them! because they went in the way of Cain, and rushed greedily into the error of Balaam's hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah" (vers. 10, 11).

"But these speak evil" — referring now to the persons who, notwithstanding that they had been baptised and had taken their place in the church, were now yielding to every form of corruption, were abandoning the very things that they professed. I do not say that they were outside. This is the difference between Jude and John. When we come down to John's Epistle they went out; but the corrupting thing in Jude is that there they are poisoning others.

Now it is remarkable that in the Second Epistle of Peter we have only Balaam, and Michael we have not at all; so that nothing can be more superficial than the idea that the one writer has copied the other. It is true that there is much that is common to both Epistles, but the differences between Jude and Peter are the striking thing; the points of resemblance are easily accounted for. In the position in which Jude and Peter were, there must have been the closest friendship, and a very near companionship; and there must have been strong links of love between these two elder servants of the Lord. Would they not communicate their thoughts and judgments ta each other, even if they are looked at as servants of God? This is nothing, therefore, at all surprising. Nothing more likely than that Peter should communicate a good deal to Jude, and, on the other hand, that Jude should communicate a good deal to Peter; and, besides, the Spirit of God giving them to look at the same, or kindred evil, would give them similar judgments and thoughts. You find that in people who have never met or spoken to one another, if they have to do with the same evil, they often say things very much alike; substantially alike they are sure to be, if guided by the Spirit of God, but there are often surprising verbal resemblances. But this is not where the beauty and the striking nature of the two Epistles of Jude and of Second Peter show themselves. It is in the differences between them.

Now Peter is particularly occupied with wicked teachers — men that privily brought in, what he calls, "heresies," or sects. The word "heresy" in scripture means "a sect." It never means heterodoxy, as we use the word in its modern sense. That is not the scriptural sense at all. No doubt in the sect there might be heterodoxy, and there might be a sect without heterodoxies, or there might be one with a great deal of heterodoxy. So that "sect" admits of all kinds, or shades, of evil and error; but Peter is looking particularly at false teachers, and these false teachers covetous men; greed of gain is one marked feature which he specifies. Well now, where could you get an Old Testament example of greed so marked as Balaam? Consequently, we find Balaam in Peter, just where it should be. It falls in entirely with his purport, and with that Second Epistle and second chapter.

But here, Jude, in this very much shorter Epistle — and far more compact, far more compressed, and far more vehement — writes as in a tempest of hatred of all these bad men. Indeed, I do not know stronger language. Some do not like strong language. But that should entirely depend upon how it is used. Strong language against what is good is infamous, but against what is bad is thoroughly right; and I do not know stronger language anywhere than in this very Epistle of Jude in which he speaks out against railing. But strong language and railing are not the same thing. Railing is abuse of what is good; but here we have the pithiest, the most vehement, and most cutting exposure of what is evil; and instead of this being a thing to regret, it is a thing that we ought to feel and go along with heartily. But I know it does not suit the present age. The present age is an age for trying to think that there is nothing so good but what there is bad in it, and nothing so bad but what there is good in it. The consequence is that all moral power is at a deadlock, and people have no real, burning love for what is good — only a calm, quiet, lukewarm state. They are neither strong for good nor strong against evil; and that is a state which, I believe, the Lord hates — at any rate, it does not agree with either Peter or Jude.

"Woe unto them! because they went in the way of Cain, and rushed greedily into the error of Balaam's hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah." In the Epistle of Peter there is not a word about Cain, not a word about Korah. But here you see that Jude, having a different object, compresses in this most wonderful verse — for it is a most wonderful verse — an amount of moral truth, spiritual truth, divine truth, that was here entirely departed from, grace being altogether hated and abused. All this is found in this short verse. He goes up to Cain.

"These are spots (or, hidden rocks) in your love-feasts, feasting together, fearlessly pasturing themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumnal trees without fruit, twice dead, rooted up; raging sea-waves, foaming out their own shames; wandering stars for whom hath been reserved the gloom of darkness for ever" (vers. 12, 13).

I cannot conceive any but an inspired man venturing to use such decided and solemn language about those that were within the church. That is a marked point of the Epistle. Peter looks at the unrighteousness of man generally, even since Christianity is come, because he is occupied simply with iniquity. This of course is common to both writers; but Jude looks specially at those who took the place of salvation, those that were gathered to the name of the Lord. In this latter case, therefore, the matter had yet more seriousness for the spiritual mind. There is nothing more dangerous than a departure from the faith, the Christian faith. It is not only what man is and has done, but also what grace has made known, for which we are responsible, most of all if we turn from it in unbelief. What is so evil as apostasy?

There are many things that cause truth to lose its power with men. Nothing hastens it more than moral disorder in ourselves, which results from forgetting or abusing grace. We turn our backs on God's authority, as well as our relation to our Lord Jesus; this is followed by our taking up objects that are loved so as to become practically our idols. It is clear that these things have been substantially so from the beginning, as it is also clear from this Epistle that things will go on worse and worse, until the Lord comes in judgment. As to this point we shall have to weigh what is yet stronger than what we have already considered, when it will be ours to seek a divine impression of the words already read. Manifestly they are of the darkest character and full of energy.

Observe here the word, "Woe." I do not know it anywhere in the New Testament except in the very different application which the apostle makes to himself, if he did not make the glad tidings known (1 Cor. 9: 16). Here it is, "Woe unto them." I am not of course speaking of the Gospels, but of the Epistles; where the Spirit of God is testifying of the Saviour and His work to man, or dealing with those who bear the Lord's name. In the Gospels, even our Lord could not but say, "Woe"; but then He was warning those that represented a favoured nation, which was then through unbelief passing under divine judgment. The same One Who began His ministry with Blessed, blessed, blessed, ended it with Woe, woe, woe! Nothing was further from His heart than to pronounce that sentence, but as He said, so was He to execute it in due time. He pronounced it as a Prophet when on the earth, if peradventure they might take it to heart, and He will pronounce it as a Judge on the great white throne when heaven and earth pass away.

What, then, is the explanation of this utterance of Paul, "Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel"? Paul, who had been a poor deluded soul, by the grace of God had a fearful warning to do His will in preaching, but he does not say "Woe" to them, like Jude. He might have had his great fears for some when he let the Corinthians know how possible it was for a man who preached the gospel nevertheless to become a reprobate (1 Cor. 9: 27). I think there is no doubt that that word "reprobate" means one lost; because salvation does not go with preaching, it goes with believing; and it is quite possible for those who preach to destroy the faith which once they preached. We have known that ourselves from time to time, and it has always been so. But the apostle had such a solemn sense of his responsibility to proclaim the gospel to perishing souls everywhere, that "Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel." Yet he preached it in the spirit of grace beyond any man that ever lived. Here, however, in Jude it is a very different case. "Woe unto them," he says, "for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah."

It is a most remarkable picture of the history of Christendom on its blackest side. There cannot be anything more graphic. It is not the mere order of history. If it were the order of history then the error of Balaam would be put last. It is a moral order, the order of men's souls. It is what presented itself to the apostle in the Holy Ghost. Jude begins with the first root of what is wrong, and I think he is referring to a man (Cain) that ought to be a brother in affection, and who ought to have been a holy brother, because he took the place of being a worshipper. Cain brought his offering to Jehovah, and it was that very bringing of his offering to Jehovah that brought out his wickedness. How little people know what may be the turning-point of ruin for their souls! Cain no doubt went forward with confidence and with a step of assurance in his offering of fine fruit and other productions of the earth that he had cultivated, no doubt, with care. We may be sure he had chosen the very best because man would not fail in that. A man of the world is often very careful indeed as to outward appearances. Cain sees nothing defective in the offering itself — in the materials that composed the offering; but there was this vital defect which completely ruined him, that there was no faith. There is no mention of either God on the one hand, which must be, nor, on the other hand, was there any judgment of his own sinfulness. He failed therefore completely as to the inner man, for God never calls upon men who put on any appearance before Him. This is what was done here; perhaps no great depth of it, but still Cain took the place of a worshipper and he brought his offering to Jehovah, with no consciousness of his own ruin by sin, nor of God's grace, or of the need of it. But that was not all.

On the same occasion, Abel brought his offering, which was acceptable; his offering was of the first-born of the flock. Not only was it blood that he offered, the acknowledgment of the necessity of death, and of the Saviour to meet his sins, but there was also the sense of the excellency of the Saviour before God — he brought "of the fat thereof." Consequently there was a most decided effect in the case of Abel when he brought his offering before God. His very name shows what was very true of his character, no confidence in himself, for the word "Abel" refers to that which passes away like smoke, whereas "Cain" has the signification of "acquisition," very much like the word "gain" in our language. Abel was a man entirely dependent upon grace, upon the Seed of the woman of whom he had no doubt heard over and over again from both father and mother, with other truths which he had never forgotten. God took care that these truths should be most prominent from the very earliest day, but it made no impression on Cain, and the reason was because he had never judged himself before God, and had no sense of his real need whatever. The opposite of all this was true of Abel, and his offering Jehovah accepted. This at once drew out the character of Cain; plain enough before to God, but it now came out openly in his hatred of his brother. What had his brother done to arouse that wickedness? You may be sure that the general character produced by faith in Abel had shown itself in every way of tender affection to his elder brother; but Cain could not brook that God should accept Abel and his offering, and not look at Cain's. Nevertheless God deigned to expostulate with him and his lack of faith, in order to save him, if it could be, from what his wicked heart was rushing into. But no; Cain failed both before God and man, and what is more, before his brother. Now this is the first great beginning of the ruin of Christendom, and this showed itself in early days. We find such a thing quite common in our own days. We cannot doubt but that there was a powerful impression made on the world by the new life and ways of real Christians; yet there always were persons who have not only no sympathy with God's love, but who even despise it, and who are irritated by it, more especially if they are dealt with faithfully by those that know it. This is another reason why our minds are blinded towards our brothers. There comes a still worse feeling towards God, but this order was reversed in Cain's case. In the root of the matter, I suppose that all evil feeling towards one another springs from a previous feeling towards God. Our feeling in the presence of God breaks out in the presence of one another. Certainly this was the case with Cain.

Here we find the first woe. "Woe unto them I for they have gone in the way of Cain." It is a departure from faith, it is a departure from love, it is a departure from righteousness. It was the spirit of a worldly man, and therefore he was the first man who began open worldliness. Before that time there was great simplicity. It would be very untrue to say that there was the least of what was savage in Adam and Eve. There was everything that was sweet and beautiful in what God gave them; but still there were not the delights of civilisation, there was none of those things that people seem particularly to enjoy in modern times. It cannot be wise to disguise from our eyes that the progress of worldliness is enormous. I do not doubt that all the recent discoveries of gold and silver have greatly added both to the covetousness of men, and the desire for "display" one before another according to their means; whereas Christianity has nothing at all to do with "means"; it has everything to do with faith. If we care to do so there is always a use for what God gives, that is, to use it to His glory; but to turn it all to a selfish account, or to a display before others, is a mere vulgar kind of selfishness. This is the kind of thing that we find in Cain. There were, of course, the pleasures of stringed and wind instruments from the very beginning of civic life, and there was also then the beauty of poetry, which began, no doubt, rather poorly. It was all man, and man's reasoning. This is all man's enjoyment, and it is practically very much what we have at the present day. No doubt many things have been invented since the early times. There is always development in human things, and there is our development in divine things, but there is no obedience in development. There is nothing divine in development, but there is obedience in doing what the Lord sets before us in His word; yet the moment you add to that word in any way, or take away from it, it is the reverse of God's teaching. It is setting up to be wiser than God, and this we can do without His power. All this idea that we can do something that will do His work better is the work of unbelief, and is an idea destructive of a Christian's peace, and destructive of the simple principle of obedience contained in the word of God. Oh, what a privilege it is to own and teach this principle! to hear and do His will! We are always learners, and should we not always be coming to a better knowledge of the word by faith? Where there is not faith we do not come to this knowledge.

However, we see in the case of Cain a very fit and proper beginning of the woe that is coming on and the terrible sin that calls for the woe. Now the solemn thing is that it also refers to the present time. Evil never dies out, but gets darker and more opposed to God — becomes more hardened against God, without the least compunction of conscience.

Taking events out of mere historical order so as to make them exactly suit the truth, we have, as the next thing, the case of Balaam. The incident which brought out the nature of Balaam and the fact of his being a typical enemy of God is a further sample of what was to be in Christendom. This was when he uttered the most glorious truths; and I suppose, they were the only truths which he had ever uttered in his life. Well, Balaam was drawn to curse Israel, and he was induced to do so by the offers of gold and silver and honour of every kind. And I will even say that he tried to make out that he did not care for money; he said he was entirely above such a paltry consideration. The sin of Balaam is a very solemn thing. He went out to sin, he went out to meet (as our translators have put it) Jehovah — to "meet the Lord," but there was nothing of "the Lord" in it, the words being merely added (Num. 23: 15). The fact is, he went to meet the devil, whom he had been accustomed to meet. He went out to seek enchantment — that is the devil, of course. Our translators have put in "the Lord" (Jehovah), but the fact is it was the enemy of the Lord, the source of all Balaam's wickedness and wicked power. Balaam knew that it was a divine power that compelled him to speak about what he had no thought of speaking about; but when he did so, his vast capacity for eloquence went along with his speaking.

God did not refuse to allow this man's mind to be displayed. This is the way in which God sometimes works by all the writers He employs. The man must be uncommonly dull not to see a difference of style in comparing the different books of the Bible. If it were merely the Spirit of God it would be the same style in all, but it is the Spirit of God causing a man to bring out the truth of God and to give it out with that style and feeling which should justly accompany it. So in the case of Balaam: although he was much moved by the thought of dying the death of the righteous, yet there was not one single working of his soul in communion with God. He was the enemy of God, and the one who came to curse the Israel of God, but he was compelled to give utterance to most glorious predictions. The wonderful effusions of this wicked prophet glorified the coming of the Lord Jesus. There is something of that kind now in Christendom. Sometimes the most wicked of men can preach eloquently, and what is extraordinary too, God has often used the words of unconverted men for the conversion of others. I have no doubt that this is the case at the present time, and it has always been so. Of course, it is altogether one of the side features of ruin. The normal manner is for those that are saved to be the messengers of salvation to others.

The error of Balaam was that he was the willing instrument of the devil to destroy Israel, and as he could not curse them he did not give it up, yet it was a vain attempt to do so. Jehovah turned it into a blessing. Balaam thought to employ the women of Moab to draw the Israelites after idolatry. He could not turn Jehovah away from Israel, so he tried to turn Israel away from Jehovah. I have no doubt a great many souls throughout Christendom have been converted by these utterances of Balaam. Balaam's eyes were fixed upon Israel — he wanted to damage them; they were the people he hated, they were the persons he wished to bring down, they were the persons he maligned and misrepresented with all his might, but he did not know that they were the people of Jehovah. But God knew.

Then with regard to Moses and Aaron: Moses represented God, and Aaron represented the intercession of the grace of God; but Korah would not submit to such a thing for a moment (Num. 16). In the case of Korah, what makes it the more atrocious is that he had a very honourable place; he belonged to the highest rank of the Levites, to that honoured section of the Levites to which Moses had belonged. Moses had first the call of God, Who lifted him up, beyond all question; but Korah belonged to the most honoured of the three families of the Levites who were servants or ministers of the sanctuary, and, as I have said, Korah belonged to the highest of the Levites; but nothing satisfied him. Why? Because he hated that Moses should have a place that belonged to him beyond any other. Satan blinded his eyes, which he always does so that people may feel like this. Korah's object was to achieve what pertained only to Moses and Aaron. There are always many good reasons for bad things, and the reasons sound well, but they are words that strike at God and at Christ. There was a punishment not only of Korah but also of his family, other Levites, and all their families. And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up in a way that had never happened on any other occasion since the world began. There may have been something resembling it, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, where it rained fire and brimstone and consumed the wicked, but the converse was the case here. The earth opened and swallowed them up. We find further a remarkable thing: the children of Korah were not consumed. He was the leader of the rebellion against Jehovah, but God in the midst of His judgment showed mercy to the sons. They did not perish through the plague that afterwards set in amongst the congregation. These sons of Korah are referred to in the Psalms, for there is the fact recorded that there are "the sons of Korah," and the right persons to sing such psalms. Well, all these things perish that do not depend upon the grace of God — things like the error of Korah, things that war against God, that cause all those uprisings of falsehood. I think all such things such as the Oxford movement, are wrong. I do not mean the Ritualistic one only, which is extremely vulgar. But what is the error of the Oxford movement? It is very nearly the same error as Korah's. Korah wanted to be priest as well as minister. That kind of thing is what men are doing now who maintain that they are sacrificing priests. It is true that the sacrifice is a perfect absurdity: the sacrifice is the bread and the wine. How could this be a sacrifice? If they called it an offering it would be a better term; but they not only call it a sacrifice, but they fully believe that Christ personally enters the bread and the wine. Therefore they are bound to worship the "elements," as they call it. Such an idea is lower than heathenism, for the heathens never eat their God. These men are sanctimonious and exceedingly devoted to the poor. Yes, and they are most zealous in attending their churches, and in attending to their monstrous developments. This is of the same character as that described with reference to Korah. But the only sense in which these men should preach is when they become really sons of God, redeemed Christians, because that is the only sense in which they will be received; but all this false doctrine of the Oxford School denies that all Christians are priests, and infringes and overthrows the real work of Christ, and substitutes this continual sacrifice, which is a sin. So that no wonder Jude says, "Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and run greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah."

Then note the tremendous words that follow: "These are spots in your love-feasts." Think of it. There were such men at that time in the church. Therefore we ought never to be surprised at anything evil that may break out in the world; the only thing is for believers to fight the good fight of faith. There is another rendering — "Hidden rocks in your love-feasts, feasting together, fearlessly pasturing themselves; clouds" they are, and it should be noted they are "without water," without the real work of the Spirit of God, the rich refreshment of it — "carried along by winds." As I said before, I will not deny that God may use any person in a solemn way which is thought to be a good deal of honour in the priesthood, but it is deadly work for themselves who preach. "Autumnal trees without fruit, twice dead, rooted up; raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shames: wandering stars for whom hath been reserved the gloom of darkness for ever."

May God preserve His saints, and may we by watchfulness and prayer be carried safely through such dangers as these.

Jude 14, Jude 15.

"And Enoch, seventh from Adam, prophesied also as to these, saying, Behold, [the] Lord came amid His holy myriads, to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly [of them] of all their works of ungodliness which they ungodlily wrought, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners spoke against him" (vers. 14, 15).

This is a remarkable utterance, for which we can only account as being in the power of the Holy Ghost.

There is a traditional book of Enoch in the Ethiopic language, which appears to have been known in a Greek form now long lost. We have not got the Greek, but learned men have endeavoured with all possible zeal to try and make out that Jude quotes from this uninspired book; for the book is evidently one of Jewish tradition, and from internal evidence it would seem that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. But there is another thing that appears, I think, to anyone that reads it with, not merely learning, but with spiritual understanding, which is, that it differs essentially in this very verse, supposed by some to be quoted from it, from what Jude has here given us by the Spirit of God.

But how was Jude enabled to quote the words of Enoch, who was taken up to heaven before the flood — and nothing can be plainer than that he does give it as Enoch's words? "Enoch prophesied," he says. Well, I think that to us who know the power of the Spirit of God there is no real difficulty in the matter. It is all the same to Him to record what took place three thousand years ago as it would be to record what took place at the time the apostles lived. It may be a little more difficult to those who doubt this power, if they do; but we are the last who ought to do so.

The fact is, that no tradition has any value beyond man, but a prophecy necessarily, if it is a true one, comes from God. We have no intimation that it was conveyed in any written form, and it was quite possible for the Holy Ghost to have given it again to Jude. I do not at all venture to say that it was so; we really do not know, but we do know, however Jude got it, that it is divine. We know that it is given with absolute certainty, and that it possesses God's authority.

There is a peculiarity when it says, "Enoch also, the seventh from Adam." People have made somewhat of that because they do not understand it. But it is very simple. There was more than one Enoch.

There was an Enoch before this one — an Enoch the son of Cain. I do not see any ground to imagine something peculiar and mystical in this. At any rate, if there be such, I confess I do not know what it is. But I do know that there is a plain and sufficient sense to distinguish this Enoch, and to explain how he could prophesy. We should not look for prophecy in a son of Cain. But that Enoch taken up to heaven in a most remarkable way — more so, in some respects, than the case of any other man; more so than Elijah, though that was a miracle of similar import and character — that Enoch should be the medium of prophecy we can quite understand, for he walked with God, and was not. It was not that he died, but "he was not," because he was taken up to God; yet before he left the world, he prophesied. We can hardly doubt that he prophesied about the people of his own day. Prophecy always takes its start from what is actually present, and has a hold in the consciences of those then living. The object was to warn of the terrible consequences of evil that was persisted in, and how the evil then appearing would assuredly be judged of God in due time. But the Spirit of God also launches out to the end from the beginning. This is the common character of all prophecy. We find it throughout all the prophets at any rate. I do not, of course, say that it was always the case where the prediction was about something of a merely present nature, but it was so in the cases of those moral pictures which are not bound to any particular time or person. We can quite understand these being made the vehicle for the Spirit of God to look on to the time of judgment when it would not be providential action of the Lord, such as the flood, for instance, but — much more than any acting after that figurative manner — His real personal coming in judgment.

Now, in that Ethiopic book which I have seen, and of which I have the text and English translation by the late Archbishop Laurence, as well as a French version of the work by a very learned Romanist (perhaps a more excellent scholar than the Archbishop I have named, at any rate one more familiar with Oriental languages) — they both agree in what is totally different from what we have here; and what makes it more remarkable is, they agree in asserting an error which is almost universal now in Christendom.

You are aware that the general view of all Christians who derive their thoughts from traditions, creeds, or articles of faith, is that everyone will be judged alike; and this view falls in quite with the natural thought, particularly of the natural man. It seems to them a very offensive thing that those who are really sinners like themselves, but are believers unlike themselves, should not be judged. It seems, to them, since they think very little of believing, a very hard and unrighteous thing that believers should be exempted from a judgment to which others are fast hastening.

But why? Our Lord puts it in the clearest possible manner in John 5. He there describes Himself in two different lights — one as Son of God, the other as Son of man. As Son of God He gives life. And who are they who get life? Does He not tell us that he "that believes on Him hath life eternal"? It is one of those remarkable, short and pithy statements of the Gospel of John. In one form or another it runs through the entire Gospel, I might almost say from the first chapter, though we may not have the literal words, but the same fundamental, substantial sense. And it goes on all through this Gospel, to John 20 certainly, if not to John 21. And the same great truth re-appears in his First Epistle; that life belongs to him that believes on the Lord Jesus. Just as surely as we inherit death naturally from Adam, so now there is another man who is also God, and being God as well as Man, He has entirely set aside for us the judgment of our sins by bearing it Himself. But that is not all. He gives us this new life which is proper to Himself that we might be able to bear fruit for God now. There must be a good life to bear good fruit. And there is no good life to bear fruit that God counts good except Christ's life, and all that are of faith have received that life every Old Testament saint, as really as a New Testament saint. They had faith, they had life, they testified for God. Their ways were holy, which they could not have been had they not a life to produce this holiness; and so it is now.

Well, accordingly, those that believe on Him, the Son of God, receive life. If I reject His divine glory, that is, that He is the Son of God in this high and full sense, then I have not life; because He only gives it to those that believe. But do those who remain in unbelief therefore escape? No, He is Son of man; and this is just where their want of faith broke down. They could see that He was a man, and as they had no faith to see anything deeper, they only regarded Him as Son of man. In this very character the Lord will judge them. He will judge them as the Man Whom they despised. They will behold Him as the Man of everlasting glory. Not merely a divine person, but a Man; and in that very quality — as Son of man — He will judge them.

Now, there would be no sense in, or reason for, judging the believer, even if it were not said by our Lord that the believer shall not come into judgment. Because, what would he come into judgment for? If any go into judgment, it is a reality. It must be so if God were to enter into judgment with even believers. Were they never guilty of sins? And if these sins come into judgment, they cannot escape punishment; and if they are judged, they are lost. But if Christ has borne their sins, where would be the abject or wisdom of putting them on their trial after they are acquitted and justified? And we are justified now by faith. All believers are. Every Christian is. It is not a question of peculiar views. I hate peculiar views. Peculiar views are the errors of men. It would be a most shameful thing to count God's truth to be "peculiar views." The only thing a Christian should care for is God's truth. It is only the language of an enemy to count that "peculiar views." If there are those that try to blacken it and call it peculiar views their blood must be on their own heads. The language is the language of an adversary. We have nothing to do with running after new views or innovations of any kind, and God forbid that we should care for one single thing that is an innovation. I call an innovation anything that is a departure from God's word.

It is not the antiquity of sixteen or seventeen centuries, but we go to the very beginning, to the apostles, and to the Lord Himself; and there is the source from which we may draw and know for ourselves immediately, just as truly as if we had the apostles here before us. The apostles were certainly not more inspired when they spoke and preached than when they wrote; but it was what they wrote that was made to convey down the stream of ages divine truth with the utmost possible certainty. There is a great advantage in having what is written. You can come and come again. Even if you listened to an apostle, or to the Lord, you might forget. You might slip away from His words and put in some of your own. There is nothing more common than this every day, even with very accurate people; they do not carry absolutely every word. It is too serious a thing not to have the word of God, and it is of the utmost importance that we have it written. What we want is the truth first-hand — from the people inspired to give it — and this is just what we have. And the simplest man is responsible to weigh and consider it.

It may be said he is a weak soul. Well, we are all too apt to think too much of ourselves. Especially, if men have a little ability, they are apt to overestimate what they have. There is nothing more common than this, and nothing more dangerous. Whereas, if a man is really a weak soul and does not think much about himself there is far more readiness to learn; unless he is an obstinate man, who, even though he knows but very little, thinks a deal of himself. There is nothing so dangerous as that, especially when such a one lifts himself up against the word of God. When a man is brought to God, he is made nothing of in his own eyes. Would to God we always stayed there, with the sense of our own nothingness! Would to God that it did not evaporate by our getting peace! There is always a danger of a person forgetting that there was a time when he counted nothing that he thought, said, or felt, was worth thinking about. We are meant to keep that humility always. The best and truest form of real humility is the sense of the presence of God and of the infinite value of the word of God. There is nothing so humble as bowing to God's authority, there is nothing so humble as obedience — obeying God. And at the same time, nothing gives greater courage, nothing gives greater confidence, nothing gives greater firmness; and this humility is exactly what we want — to be nothing in our own eyes, and to have perfect confidence in God's word. And faith should produce this in every believer.

Not only, then, does the Lord lay down that the believer, "comes not into judgment," but He declares what the end will be. Not that there will be only one resurrection. Were there but one resurrection, it might be no wonder that there will be only one judgment; but to confirm the fact that there will be no judgment of the believer — no sitting in judgment on him to decide his lot for eternity — there are two resurrections spoken of in that very same passage in John 5; and I would commend that chapter to anyone who has not duly weighed it. There it is shown that there will be a "resurrection of life" for those that have life for their souls already; there will be a "resurrection of judgment" for those that have not life but sins, and not merely sins but unbelief, the refusal of that life. They rejected the Son of God! For them there is judgment, and for them there is a special resurrection at the close of all. For those that have life now, in the Son, there is "the first resurrection," a life-resurrection. Other saints, too, will share in this, for though not at the same moment, their resurrection, nevertheless, will have this character. All that are Christ's who are in their graves when the Lord comes will rise together, and the living that are on the earth at that time will be changed, while others who die afterwards will follow, as we learn from the book of Revelation which is my reason for guarding the statement. They all have a resurrection of life, except those that do not die, and will be brought into the change without resurrection; but their change will be equivalent to resurrection, so that it may be all called, in a certain way, a "resurrection of life."

But there is also a "resurrection of judgment" for all those that despise Christ, for all that are sinners against God, for all who have refused the Saviour, from the beginning of the world up to that time; and the resurrection of judgment is at the end of all time. Not so the resurrection of life and the reason why it is not is this — that those who rise in the resurrection of life rise to reign with Christ, before the winding up of all things. The wind up of all will be after all the ages have run their course, so that the last sinner may be included in that awful resurrection — "the resurrection of judgment." We need not call it a "resurrection of damnation," because the word used is distinct from that. In effect it comes to that, but it is not the force of the word. It is always better to stand to the exact word of God, even if we do not understand it. We owe it honour and reverence, whether we understand it or not. His word must be right, it must be wise and the best, the only one that is really good and reliable absolutely.

This may seem a long preamble, but it is necessary, perhaps, to make the force plain of what I am going to remark here.

In the spurious book of Enoch, from which the learned people maintain that Jude quoted, the doctrine taught is that the Lord "comes with ten thousands of His saints to execute judgment upon them." There you see is the error that betrays the devil in the forger, for from this very verse, I do not in the least doubt that that document has been forged. It has every mark of having been written, subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, by a Jew who still buoyed himself up with the hope that God would stand by the Jews.

And so He will in the end, but in a way totally different from what he, the writer, supposed. For there is no true acknowledgment of Christ. He is simply acknowledged as the Messiah from a Jewish point of view, but there never will be deliverance for the Jew in looking for the Messiah according to their thoughts. It is the Messiah of God, the Anointed of Jehovah, the true Messiah that came, and they rejected Him. But when He comes to deliver them by and by they will be brought to say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." They will then give up all their unbelief, they will welcome Him, and He will come and deliver them, and He will save them out of all that strait of trouble in which they will then be.

But He will not judge His own people. He was judged for them, He bore their judgment on the tree, and He will never judge them. Nor is there one word in the Bible — Old or New Testament — that insinuates in the most distant manner that the Lord will inflict judgment on His own people. That He will judge His people is a common thing in the Old Testament. But that will be, as a King, the judgment of their difficulties, their disorders if there should be any; and He will also vindicate them from their enemies. It is in this sense that He will judge His people.

Moreover, God carries on a moral judgment now in respect to His children. "If ye call on the Father, Who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear." This is still going on. The Lord dealt with the Corinthians in this way. When they were in such a bad state and profaned the table of the Lord, coming boldly and taking the bread and the wine as if they had been in a good state, the Lord laid His hand on them — some were sick, some fell asleep — were removed by death. All this was a temporal judgment. It is what the Lord does now, and this judgment is for our good and profit.

We see the same thing in a family. It is the judgment that a father carries on in his family, or any person charged with the care of youths put under him — young persons of either sex. Well, there is a judgment for their good. This is a totally different thing from what is called in John 5 a "coming into judgment." It is even a different word employed — a different form of the word. From Psalm 143 it is evident that the Old Testament saints knew better than that. At any rate, the Spirit of God gave them better knowledge, for there it says, "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant: for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified." If God were to enter into judgment with the believer it would be all over with him, because even the believer himself would be bound to say, I do not deserve to be saved. And if God were to look at all the faults in a believer's life He might say, if that is what I have to look at, I have no reason to save you, you do not deserve it. But the ground of a believer's salvation is not that he deserves it, but that Christ deserves it for us. Christ has completely met all God's nature, and, further than that, He has borne all our sins and iniquities in His own body on the tree. God will not judge them again as if they had not been sufficiently borne, as if the judgment at the cross were not an adequate one. God will never say that about what Christ endured, and this is just what faith lays hold of. Therefore, the uniform doctrine of the Bible — of both Old and New Testament — is this, that believers are not to come into that future judgment which the Lord will execute at the close of all things; but because we now have life, and are God's children, He watches over and cares for us, and carries on a moral judgment; and besides this, the Lord Jesus carries on now a judgment of the church.

We find, besides the Father judging individually His children, that the Lord Jesus takes up the things that pertain to His name among those that are assembled together. He is Head of the church and He has a watchful eye that the things that are done under His holy name should be real, should not be hypocritical, that His name should not be profaned. If our ways are unreal, and we go on badly, He deals with us in the way of discipline, and for the very reason "that we should not be condemned with the world." There you have the reason. If He did not do so, you might raise a question as to whether they would be lost.

Now then, the author of this spurious Book of Enoch understood not a word of all this. He was not a believer. He was a false man; he would never have forged if he had not been. He was a forger of the worst kind. No forgery is so bad as that which pretends to give us the word of God. It is very bad to be deceitful in anything, but if deceit is carried on in the things of God there is none that is worse in its consequences, there is none that more distinctly dishonours God. And that is the case here.

"Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to -"what does scripture say? to "execute judgment upon all." This is not the saints. The "all" are totally distinct from the saints. The saints had been caught up, and now come with Him Who executes the judgment on all the sinners to be found in that day. "To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all" — to make it perfectly plain who are meant — all "that are ungodly among them." There it is, to obviate any argument, for there are people who are not great in the truth who are always ready for an argument! Here we see it is "to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them" (that is, these "all") "of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodlily committed." And not only ungodly deeds; there is another thing that the Spirit of God attaches great importance to — "hard words which ungodly sinners spoke against Him," words that gainsay God's mind, words that say the thing that is false of God. Job's friends did that. Job himself bowed to God. He had not many words, he made a confession of his folly, he said the thing that was right. But his friends had not spoken the thing that was right of the Lord. I do not think that the Lord was putting the stamp of His approval in the same way on all that Job said. He often spoke haughtily, and unhappily about God, and fretted about himself, but the Lord does not refer to that. Job broke down and confessed his nothingness. His friends did not break down. Job did, and, in consequence, Job was restored, and had to pray for those, his friends, who were not as yet restored.

But here it is plain that ungodly words are just as bad in their own way as ungodly deeds. Sometimes an ungodly word does more harm than an ungodly deed. For instance, an ungodly deed might be an act of unrighteousness in a man, but an ungodly word might be a slurring of Christ. This is worse, and particularly if people receive it. People are quite ready to cry out against an ungodly deed. Even worldly men can very well judge ungodly deeds, and the same people would be deceived by hard and ungodly words against the Lord and His grace and truth.

In this Book of Enoch to which I have referred there is not a word about the "hard speeches." This shows that the author was simply a natural man; a man who, no doubt, had this phrase before him, but he did not understand it. He evidently did not understand either about the saint or about the sinner. He did not understand about the saints, because he made them objects of judgment as well as the ungodly. It is just like the theologians now. They do not believe what I am now saying. But there is one word, in leaving that subject, that I wish to add. "We shall all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ." Everything, good or bad, will come out, for the believer as well as for the unbeliever. But that is a very different thing from judgment. This is not called judgment, but "manifestation," which is not the same thing as judgment. Manifestation of all our ways will be a very good thing for us. How apt we are to overrate ourselves! There may be something that we perhaps flattered ourselves about while we were here alive, and we never saw how foolish we were till risen from the dead and standing before the judgment seat of Christ. There it will all be manifested. Where we thought that we were wise we shall see that we were very foolish. And so in everything where we may have allowed ourselves a little latitude and tried to excuse ourselves, we shall there be obliged to acknowledge it as all wrong. This is for our good. It is a blessing to do it in this life, but it will be all the fullest and richest blessing there. All will be out then. Then we shall know even as also we are known. We shall have no thought different from God's about a single thing in all our lives. But this is not judgment. Judgment is where a person stands to be tried, and to be convicted of his guilt. This will be the case with everyone who has not been justified by the Lord Jesus Christ and His incomparable work on the cross.

But there is a second point where this forger could not copy the text before him aright. He only speaks of "ungodly deeds." Hard, ungodlily spoken "words" to him did not seem of very much account, so he left out the ungodly "words." The first part seemed the only right thing to him. Consequently, he mutilated the scripture. He could not even copy it truly, and thus he has given us a false version of it.

In other words, Jude never got his prophecy of Enoch from a mere tradition, or from this book at all. He got it from God. How, I do not pretend to say. But he did.

Jude 16, Jude 17, Jude 18, Jude 19.

"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their lusts, and their mouth speaketh swelling things, admiring persons for the sake of profit. But ye, beloved, remember ye the words that were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they said to you, In [the] end of the time shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodliness. These are they that make separations, natural (or, soulish), not having [the] Spirit" (vers. 16-19).

"These are murmurers." Murmuring is a more serious sin than many think. It could not but be that among Christians there are many things that do not go according to what we like. Suppose it to be even a man of sound wisdom; but if people are not very well founded they are always apt to be disappointed at something in him. It is natural for people to begin to murmur. The Israelites were constantly at that kind of work.

Now, he says, "There are murmurers," and he adds, "complainers" — not content with their lot (the strict literal meaning of the word). They are persons who like to be something more and greater than they are, than God ever called them to be. They want to be somebody.

"These are murmurers, complainers"; and what is the cause of that? "Walking after their own lusts." Lust is not to be supposed to be merely gross lusts. There are refined lusts — vanity, pride, ambition; what are all these but lusts? They are all lusts. The lusts of the devil. These are not the same kind of lusts as the lusts of the flesh. Satan was lifted up with pride, and we are warned against falling into the fault or "condemnation" of the devil. It appears that the things mentioned in this verse are very much the same thing: "their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage." They are fond of having a party, particularly if they can number some rich among the party, "because of advantage."

What I particularly draw your attention to is this. Enoch prophesied of these. I do not know anything more striking than that. There are the same persons now as in Enoch's day. There can be no doubt that these people lived in the time of Enoch. But Jude carried us on to the coming of the Lord. The people who are on the earth when the Lord comes will be the same kind in their wickedness as in the days of Enoch and of Jude. Evil, you see, goes on. Evil retains its own terrible character — malignancy and rebellion against God, and all self-sufficiency, and all the terrible things that are so entirely opposed to Christ. Enoch prophesied of these and of the judgment coming upon them.

"But ye, beloved, remember ye" — to confirm this — "the words that were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts" (vers. 17, 18).

Well, we have at least two of these apostles. Surely, that is quite enough. Very likely the other apostles taught the very same things by word of mouth. But we have this warning about these characters, written down by two besides Jude; one the apostle Paul, the other Peter in both his Epistles. In his First, Peter says that the time is coming when judgment must begin at the house of God, and judgment on just this kind of ungodliness then working up; but in his Second Epistle there is a deal more. And I think that Jude goes still further, and that his Epistle was written after Second Peter, and for this reason, that there is an advance of evil. Peter speaks of unrighteous men, Jude speaks of men that once seemed to have the truth, and through their bad life, bad ways, pride, vanity, or whatever it was, they lost it. That is quite a common thing. By common, I do not mean that any very great numbers break off in this way, but that it is a sin which every now and then breaks out. Why, even since "Brethren" began there have been the most terrible cases of people giving up all the truth. The greatest infidel of modern days was one of the early "brethren." He was a very clever man, and gave up his fellowship at Balliol to go to the Eastern world, among Arabs and Persians and the like, with the gospel. He seemed to be devoted to the Lord. But even on his way out he betrayed that he was not a true believer at all. How! By doubting about the full proper Deity of the Lord Jesus; and when he came back brethren enquired into it. There had been whispers of it before his return, but then he was out of the way, so that till his return it was not possible to deal with him fairly, or to examine him fully, not merely whispers. When he came back he was seen and written to, and his words were the words of an unbeliever; he was therefore refused any place in our fellowship. After this, he went among the dissenters, who welcomed him most heartily, and he preached in their chapels and was most acceptable among them, particularly as he ran down the "brethren" pretty hotly. At this time, he still appeared to be pious in his outward ways and manner, and still read the Bible. But he gradually gave up everything and gave an account of it in a book which he wrote bearing a very anomalous title indeed, for it would appear that he really never had faith. He was a man who was very impressionable, and he easily took the colour of those with whom he was. He valued and was charmed with the sound of the truth, and thought he had it, but I am afraid he never had. So he lived, and so, I fear, he died. There have been others of no such prominence who have had a similar end; not so marked, perhaps, but as sad. Some had once been in fellowship, and seemed to be very honoured persons for a time, before they were really known. And this kind of thing falls in with what we have here.

There were such persons among them; and not merely the teachers. Peter speaks about teachers, but Jude looks at them more widely; they are evidently responsible even though they are not teachers. If others dishonour the Lord who are not teachers, they are responsible. There is this character in Jude: they are apostate from the truth, and have not gone out of fellowship yet. That is the very thing he says. There they are, although it is likely that no one but Jude who saw these persons could speak of them; and Peter saw them where he was. They appeared fair enough just as there were many such at the time when the person referred to was in fellowship. Many would not believe a word of it. They thought he was a very good man, and that it was a scandal to speak hardly about him. They never could see till the thing came out thoroughly. We are not all "eyes" in the body. We may have an important place. The hand or the foot can do a work that the eye cannot, and there are those who can see far before others; and it is important for people to make use of those who have proved their special competence. Otherwise we are apt to get wrong.

It is an immense thing to say that we have not only teachers now and preachers to spread the truth in spite of their weakness and their liability to err, but we have also those that were kept from error in what they have written, absolutely kept from error; and these are here brought before us as the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They were men of like passions as we are ourselves, but the peculiarity in the case of those apostles and prophets is, that in the midst of their weakness they were preserved — it was not, it is true, like Christ, absolute perfection — but there was the perfect preservation from error in what they wrote. And it was all the more remarkable that this was in one generation only. It was not like the succession that there was in the old dispensation of God. There we have prophets raised up at all times, wherever they were needed; but the great peculiarity for the church and for the Christian is that we have not merely words that were perfect for their purpose, and words that were given faithfully by God in the midst of all the errors of Israel, but now we have a perfect revelation in all respects, by men themselves imperfect, but nevertheless kept and empowered by the Holy Ghost to say the truth without error whatever.

Now, there are two things in the words of the apostles; the first is the mind of God for the glory of Christ; and this we have in all the books of the New Testament. But in the midst of these words, and more particularly in the latter times of giving these words we have the most solemn warnings that are given in any part of the Bible. It was not at all that all these characters of evil came out so that the Christian could discern them, but they came out sufficiently for the apostles to discern them.

Thus we have our lessons for practical guidance in the words of the apostles. They are the persons through whom we have received the full truth of God. There was not an error that ever crept into the church but is provided for here. There is not a good thing that God had to reveal but what is revealed here.

For we are not meant to be inventors, we are not meant to make discoveries, like the men of science. The reason why there are inventions in the arts, and discoveries in science, is, because all is imperfect. But perfection is what marks the word of God — not merely relative perfection, relative to the state of Israel at different times, but — absolute perfection. What brought in absolute perfection? Christ. There is the key to all that is blessed, to all that is most blessed. There is what explains what is most of all peculiar. It was according to Christ that all the truth should be brought out, unstinted, and perfectly providing for everything that might be through the ages that follow down to the present time. And this in order that we might never have to look outside scripture for the proof of any error, and this also for the provision of everything good. All is in the word; this word that we have got. The Old Testament is full of value, but, nevertheless, it is only general. Our special instructions are in the New Testament, for we can easily understand that there was no such thing as a Christian in Old Testament times. They were believers, but not Christians. A Christian is a man who is not merely looking for the promises, but who has the promises — accomplished in Christ. Well, of course, the Old Testament saints had not got this, and the church was an absolutely new thing. It was not merely promises accomplished, but the mystery revealed: the mystery that was hid in God up to that time. There was no revelation of it in the Old Testament whatever. Now it is revealed, and it is given to us. And how? By these perfect writings of the New Testament, that left nothing to desire, nothing for faith to desire; plenty for unbelief to add, still more for unbelief to depart from; but nothing for faith to desire. We have all here, and it is only for our faith to discern it, and to practise it.

Now for this reason all came out in one generation. John, the very last of all, was the one that saw the Lord from the beginning. He was, not only one of the apostles, but, one of the first two that ever followed the Lord Jesus and entered into living relationship with Him here below. And he was kept here, beyond others, in the wisdom of God But we have another, also, of those who were eminently favoured, and were conspicuously used. Although Jude wrote a short Epistle, what a great deal there is in it!

Now, turning to what we have already touched upon — "But ye, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; that they said to you, In [the] end of the time shall be mockers walking after their own lusts of ungodliness"; that there should be, not merely unrighteous men, or lawless men, but, one of the worst features of evil, "mockers." Why, in the Old Testament, when it was only a question of children that could not resist giving way to their humour — I may call it very bad humour, and very bad manners — but still they mocked the old prophet, they mocked Elisha. And even he the man of grace, was no doubt led of God to call forth the bears that tore them all.

Here we find that it is not little children in their folly (for we know that "foolishness is bound in the heart of a child"), but the case of men who claimed wisdom; and the way they showed it was by "mocking"! "Mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts" — their own lusts of ungodly things. It is rather stronger. Their lust was after ungodliness. This is what characterised their lust. It is not a mere vague term; it is a very succinct term — "lusts of ungodliness." Now this is an awful thing. And resulting from what? I will not say it results from Christianity, from the truth. God forbid. But it resulted from the fact that they were there, and that their hearts got tired of it, and they became the enemies of it. There is nothing more blessed than a Christian man walking in simplicity. There is nothing more awful than a Christian man who casts off Christianity, and who becomes a mocker after the lusts of his own ungodliness. This is what is described here, and what the writer prepares us for. No one could have believed that in early days.

These mockers once looked fair. They once spoke fairly. They were received, they were baptised; they remembered the Lord Jesus, taking part in the assembly, no doubt. They may have been preachers, very likely; but here it was evident they were given up to their own lusts of ungodliness and they were mockers; accordingly, they therefore turned with the greatest spite and hatred upon that truth that once separated them from the world. They were professedly believers, but it is evident they were in reality the emissaries of Satan. And the Epistles (some of the last in the Bible), as well as the apostles of our Lord, laid down this: that these mockers were to come in the last time. The last time was therefore to be a peculiarly evil time, and it is a very solemn thing that we are in that time most fully now. I do not say that it may not be lengthened — that is entirely a question of the will of God. The lengthening of evil may be Just as much as the lengthening of tranquillity. There is the tranquillity for one, and it may end in greater departure than ever, or it may be the means of repentance, and extrication from these toils of the enemy.

But here at any rate he declares, "These are they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit" (ver. 19). It is important to understand this verse, for there are various kinds of separations mentioned in the New Testament. Sometimes, it is separation within; sometimes, it is separation without; sometimes, it takes the character of parties as yet joined with the rest in outward observances, but their spirit alienated. Those are the persons the apostle refers to in Romans 16: persons "which cause divisions and stumbling-blocks, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned" (ver. 17). That doctrine was that we should walk, not only outwardly together but, inwardly, with real love. It is true it may not always be approving of what each may do and say, but with earnest desire that things might go well, and that those even who are in any way caught by the enemy might be delivered.

Now, the persons in Romans 16 were not to be "put away," but avoided; and the object of that avoiding was to make them feel and reflect upon what they were about. Suppose they were preachers or teachers, avoiding such would be not to invite them, or if they invited themselves, not to accept their offer. Of course, you can understand that they would not like it, unless they were really broken in spirit. In this case all would terminate happily, but if they were bent on doing their own will they ought to be avoided as the apostle says, and if they do not like this avoiding, and grow bitter under it, the effect would be that they would make a division "without" if they could, instead of "within." They would "go out" themselves, and try and lead away others.

There are these kinds of spirits. First, they have an alienated mind within, and are self-seeking; and because this is blamed by all that have the good of the saints at heart, and the glory of the Lord before them, they resent it strongly, and, instead of breaking down and judging themselves, they become worse, and then it is not a division "within," but "without," that they make. The former is called a schism, the latter a heresy. For I particularly press it on every one here who may not have observed it — that "heresy" in scripture does not mean bad doctrine at all. There may be bad doctrine, of course, along with it; but this is rather heterodoxy — strange doctrine. There are proper terms for all forms of evil: falsehood, deceit, blasphemy and the like. But heresy means the self-will that does not care for the fellowship of the assembly in the least, and is so bent on its own object that it goes outside. This is what is called heresy. Now that is what the apostle means in 1 Cor. 11. He says, "There are divisions (or, schisms) among you. For there must be also heresies (or, sects) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (vers. 18, 19).

But there is no "must be" in reference to heterodoxy. People might remain, and like to remain, with their heterodoxy, but heresy does not mean bad doctrine, although this might go along with it. It means that people might get too hot in their zeal, and, being reproved for their party spirit, they refuse to stand it any longer, and they get away. They break loose from fellowship and form some new thing which has not the sanction of the word of God. That is what, in scripture, is called heresy. The doctrine might be sound enough in a general way. There might be no blasphemies, nor heterodoxy, strictly speaking, but there is the heart entirely wrong and seeking its own things instead of the things of Jesus Christ.

So in the verse before us, "These be they who separate themselves" means those that separate themselves "within," not "without," at all. This is very evident from the early part of this Epistle: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (ver. 4). Certain men crept in. They are the same people that Jude is talking about all through. Unawares, they had "crept in," not "gone out." Now this is what gives the true force of the words — "those that separate themselves." We can easily understand it if we bear in mind the Pharisees. The Pharisees never separated themselves from Israel, but the very name of a Pharisee means "a separatist." They were separatists within Israel. These were separatists within the church, and in both cases it was not going out, but it was making a party of pride and self-righteousness within. And who are they? Ungodly men; these were the men that were proud of themselves; these men who had these wicked lusts. They were the persons who assumed to be pre-eminently faithful; and, I believe, you will generally find that it is so, that, when persons are given up to delusion, they always have a very high opinion of themselves. No matter how violent they may be, no matter how evil in their spirit, they claim to be more particularly faithful, and they have no measure in their denunciation of every one that stands in their way. This is exactly the class here described.

"These be they who separate themselves." And what sort of men were they? "Sensual." The word "sensual" is important to understand. Every man has got a soul, converted or not. Now, when we believe, we receive a nature that we never had before; we receive life in Christ. These men here described had nothing but their natural soul. They had not received life in Christ. They were merely "natural" men. "Sensual," in our language, is very often taken to mean people who are abandoned to immoral ways. These people may have been so, but it is not the meaning of the word. The meaning of the word is that they were just simply "natural" men. It is the same word which, in 1 Cor. 2: 14, is translated "natural man," and contrasted with the "spiritual man." So he adds here, "not having the Spirit."

Now, having not the Spirit is to lack the great privilege of a Christian. This is the great difference between a believer now resting on redemption, and an Old Testament believer. They were waiting for the Spirit in the days of the Messiah. Although the Messiah is rejected, the Holy Ghost has been poured down on us, but not on those that are still waiting for the Messiah. The Jews are still waiting, and have not the Spirit. These men, although they had taken their place in the church, had not the Spirit. They were natural men. We are therefore given this further development of the terrible evil that had come in even then, although the great mass of the saints, you may be sure, very little understood it, very little perceived it; and therefore it was of the greatest moment that the apostles should. And that there should be inspired men, or, at any rate, inspired instruction given upon what people otherwise would not have been in the least prepared for, and would have counted it a very fierce and terrible picture without any good ground for it; they would think it was making the worst of everything instead of the best. But the Spirit of God does give the truth just as it is.

Jude 20, Jude 21.

Well, now we come to a very comforting word. "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in [the] Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in [the] love of God, awaiting the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto life eternal" (vers. 20, 21).

So then we are not to be cast down, we are not to be disheartened, even by these terrible pictures of evil. They are revealed in order that we should not be deceived, that we may really know what the actual state of Christianity is before the eye of God, instead of yielding to false expectations and wrong and imperfect judgments of our own. But even in the face of all that, there is this call to these beloved saints to build up themselves on their most holy faith. This is very carefully worded. There is nothing at all said in this Epistle about leaders, or guides, or rulers, or preachers, or teachers either. In a general way, as far as there were any, they have a very bad character, not of course that all who preached or taught were so, but that there were many of this class that were so especially. The saints themselves are here exhorted directly.

They are not to give up their privileges, or to imagine, that because it is a day of such abounding evil, they are not to be very happy. They are comforted with this; that the blessing is perfectly open to them, and they are called to have more faith than ever. There is no time when faith shines brighter than in the dark day, and there is no time when love is more evidently discerned than when there are not many to love, not many that do love, but where there is the reign of selfishness and indifference, and people care for other objects, and put them before that which is imperishable.

"But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith." This is the only place in all the New Testament where faith is called our "most holy faith." It might have been thought that when things are so evidently wrong we must not be too stringent, that we must not be too exacting, that we must not look for such care as on the day of Pentecost. Why, so far from that being so, we require more care. And instead of its being now called merely the holy faith, or precious faith, Jude calls it, "your most holy faith." The saints, in short, are encouraged to cleave to the truth in all its sanctifying power. We cannot think too much of "the faith of God's elect." I am not speaking now of faith looked at in the saint, but of "the faith" looked at in itself. It is the thing that we believe, which is the meaning of it here. It is not crying up individuals, but what these individuals receive from God. That is what he calls it — "the faith." There is a great difference between faith and "the faith." Here it is "the faith." Faith is a quality of you, and me, and every believer. But that is not the sense here, which is, "the faith once delivered to the saints," as he says in this very Epistle.

Well, thus you must look at it. When it came, you may say, It came down from God out of heaven, revealed through the apostles — Christ Himself of course in particular. There, was "the faith ": what we are called to believe; that which separated us to God from everything here below. So here, we have the same faith, only — it is not now said, "once for all delivered to the saints," although this remains true. Here it is called "most holy." What! has it not got tainted? Has it not got lowered now? Woe to those that say so! "The faith" is just the same faith now as on the day of Pentecost, the same faith that Peter preached, and also Paul, and all others of the apostles. And we have Peter and Paul, i.e. we have their words. We have the most careful words they ever spoke. We have the words that they were inspired to write from God. We do not therefore merely listen, as some of the early fathers talk about a man that saw the apostle and heard the apostle; and it appears that the man that did so was a poor foolish old man! Very likely. Well, and what have you got by putting a poor foolish old man between you and the apostle? Little or nothing. But Peter and Paul and Jude were not foolish, and whatever they may have been in themselves, there was the mighty power of the Holy Ghost Who gave them the truth of God absolutely intact; and here it is His word now, and we come into personal contact with it by faith. We that believe receive that "most holy faith," and what is more, we are called, every one, to act upon it now.

And what are we to do with it? It is not only that we impart it to others, we "build up ourselves on our most holy faith." Nothing, therefore, can give a more delightful picture of the resources of grace for as bad a time as can well be conceived as what we have here. "Ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith"; it is not to be on a little bit of the faith, not on the faith that was given to you. through the intervention of a poor foolish old man. No, here it is, fresh from God, kept fresh and holy, unmixed with anything that could lower it.

"Praying in the Holy Ghost." What can be better than this? There were men who spoke with tongues in the Holy Ghost. Do you think that is half as good as "praying in the Holy Ghost"? Why, the apostle Paul says that the men that spoke with tongues in the Holy Ghost were to hold their tongue, unless there were an interpreter there present so as to give what they spoke in a tongue in a form intelligible to others. It was a real power of the Spirit of God, but it was not to be exercised unless there were an interpreter. But think of the apostle silencing a man praying in the Holy Ghost! No, the very reverse. There is a great deal of prayer that is not in the Holy Ghost. And we are not at all called upon only to pray in the Holy Ghost. Happy is he who does, and happy are they that hear prayer in the Holy Spirit. And where there is prayer in the Holy Spirit all is thoroughly acceptable to God, every word is so. Every word of such prayer expresses perfectly what God means at that time. But there are prayers that begin in the Spirit and do not end in the Spirit. Prayers are often rather mixed, and this is true even of real believers; and sometimes we pray foolishly, sometimes we pray unintelligently! This is never in the Holy Ghost.

And, what is more, we are encouraged to pray at all times, even supposing we say what is foolish. Very well, it is better to say it, than to be silent. Much better. Because prayer is the going forth of the heart to God, and it may be like the words of a prattling child to its father or mother. It is all right that the child should prattle, far better than that the child should be dumb. But the best of all is when it is really prayer in the Spirit of God; yet that is a thing rather to desire than to presume that we have attained to. We have to be very careful indeed that we do not give ourselves credit for more activity in the Holy Ghost than we really possess. This supposes entire dependence, and no thought of self, and no opposition to this or to that.

These are things that, alas! may be, and they all weaken and hinder "praying in the Holy Ghost." But here you see the very same grace that encouraged the saints, even in the darkest day, "to build up themselves on their most holy faith," instead of having the notion, Oh, it is hopeless to look for that now; when Peter or Paul was there we might have the most holy faith, but how could it be guaranteed now? Well, there it is in this precious word. And those that cleave to this precious word will find it out, and if their heart is full of it, their mouth will abundantly speak of it; and there is no ground to be discouraged, but the very contrary.

So, in this twentieth verse, we have two of the most important things possible — the one is, the standard of truth not in the least degree lowered, but maintained in all its highest and holiest character, even in that dark day; and, the second, the most spiritual action that could be in any believer here below, viz., "praying in the Holy Ghost." Why, this is even more than preaching or teaching, because the heart is sure to be in the prayer. A man that can speak well and knows the truth — this may often be a snare. There is a danger in such a case to say the truth, and speak it out, and earnestly too, without there being present the power of the Spirit of God. But to pray in the Holy Ghost is another thing altogether. This cannot be without the immediate action of the Spirit in this most blessed way.

"Keep yourselves in the love of God." Here Jude is looking at the practical result of these two things. "Keep yourselves in the love of God." Now, could we keep ourselves in anything better? Was there ever anything higher than the keeping ourselves in the love of God? Love is of God, and we are to keep ourselves in it, instead of being provoked by the evil things around us, instead of yielding because of others yielding. This necessarily supposes great confidence in God, and delight in what God's own nature is — the activity of His nature. Light is the moral character of God's nature; love is the active character of God's nature. Light does not allow any impurity; love goes out to bless others. We are called to keep ourselves, not merely in the light of God — we are there, we are brought there as Christians — but, in the love of God. We are not meant to have that doubted. We are to keep ourselves fresh and simple and confident in His love.

And he further adds, "Looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life." I think that mercy is brought in here especially because of the great need, because of the distress, because of the weakness, because of everything that tended to cast people down. No, he says, do not be downcast, look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is it only by the way? No, it is all along the way, to the very end — "unto life eternal," the great consummation. This could not be unless they already had life eternal in Christ now; but this mercy of God, "of our Lord Jesus Christ unto life eternal," looks at the full heavenly consummation.

Jude 22, Jude 23.

Now we come to a passage which I feel to be unusually difficult to expound; and the reason is this. The original authorities and the best authorities are all in confusion about it. This is very rarely the case in the New Testament, but it is the case here. All the great authorities are at sixes and sevens in the testimony they give of these two verses (22, 23). And, to show you how great that is, our Version — the Authorised, so-called — looks at two cases only, "And of some have compassion, making a difference" — that is one class; "and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" — this is the second class.

Now I believe there are three classes, and not two only. That will show how uncertain it is. Although, as I have said, I am very far from presuming to give more than my judgment as far as the Lord enables me to form one. I am certainly open to anything that might be shown to the contrary, but as yet no one has shown it. No one at all. I think that those who know best about it are those that have spoken most cautiously as to it. Many who trust themselves are apt to speak more confidently.

First of all Jude says, "And some convict when contending."* That is the idea — "when they dispute"; not, "making a difference," as of the man that shows compassion. The fact is, compassion belongs to another class, not to this one at all, as far as I am able to judge, which depends upon looking at all the authorities and using one to correct another. That is what it comes to in this singular case, which is a very exceptional thing in the great original witnesses; but God has been pleased in this particular instance not to hinder their difference.

{* ἐλέγχετε AC*, the best cursives, and Vv., διακρινομένους ABC, good cursives, Vulg., Syrr., Arm. — Text. Rec. ἐλεειτε διακρινόμενοι KLP, etc.}

Same then "convict when they dispute." I think that is the meaning of it. "Making a difference," as in the Authorised, should rather be, "when they dispute." It is the people that are being convicted who of course make the dispute, instead of the person that shows compassion making a difference among them. It is quite a different idea. The first class, in this twenty-second verse, has been given (in my belief) very wrongly indeed.

Well, then, the next is, instead of "convicting" people so as to leave them without any excuse for their disputatious spirit, another class is looked at — "others save, pulling them out of [the] fire"; then, a third class, "and others pity with fear*, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" (ver. 23).

{* σώζετε ἐκ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες ABC, best cursives, Vulg. Memph., Arm., Aeth., οὓς δὲ ἐλεᾶτε ἐν φόβῳ A (ἐλεεῖτε) B, Vulg. Memph., Arm., Aethiop. — Text. Rec. ἐν φόβῳ σώζετε ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ἁρπάζοντες KLP, etc.}

These then are the three classes: a disputatious class to be convicted and silenced — then, those that are to be saved, snatched out of the fire — and, others to be compassionated with fear, hating the garment spotted by the flesh. So that this all tends to complete the picture of the danger to souls. There is the all-importance of grace in the midst of it, but the truth maintained in all its power. And, you observe, it is for the same persons who are building up themselves on their most holy faith to do this. It is work that is thrown on the responsibility of those that were thoroughly happy and walking with God. These are the persons that would be able to silence the disputatious if they would be silenced by any one. But even apostles could not always do that. The apostle John speaks of the "malicious words" of Diotrephes. These words were directed against himself, and even an apostle could not alter that. The apostle Paul complained of "evil workers" who pretended to be quite as much apostles, if not more so, as himself. He refers to them in very trenchant terms in 2 Corinthians 11. He could not hinder that. And when there was the great meeting in Jerusalem, where all the apostles were present, there was a deal of disputation and discussion there. It was only after it burst out in a noisy meeting at first, that Peter, as well as Barnabas and Paul, gave their testimony, and then James summed up the decision of the assembly (Acts 15).

I only mention it to show that a like state of things existed at that time as now. We often look on the apostles as the painters represent the Lord. If you look at the pictures of the Lord Jesus, He is generally represented as going about with a halo of glory about His head. Well, if that were true, one might expect all the multitude to be down on their knees looking up to the man with this golden halo around him. But that is just what imagination does. It puts a halo around the Lord, and it puts a halo around the apostles; so that people do not realise at all the terrible evils that had to be faced by them. This was the portion, too, of those that were serving God, even in the best of times. How much more may we expect it now! As the Psalmist said, Time was when the work of the sanctuary was regarded as a good thing for a man to have put his hand to: all that fine carved work, all that grandeur of gold that gleamed in the sanctuary; but now it came to that pass, that a man was prized because he brake it all to pieces (Ps. 74).

Well, this is what we have in the increasing lawlessness of Christendom, but let us not be downcast. Let us remember that the prize is coming; that the Lord puts especial honour on those that are faithful to Him in an evil day. The Lord grant us that great privilege.

Jude 24, Jude 25.

In the body of the Epistle we have already had the coming of the Lord in judgment, that is to say, bound up in the awful departure from the truth which was to be found in the Christian profession. This is what many souls are very unwilling to face. It is natural for man to think that everything must be progressive — the truth as well as all else. No one ever drew that from the Bible, and every part of the Bible, from the first book till the last, shows us man set in a place by God, and abandoning it for Satan. And there is the same story here. No doubt it is unspeakably terrible to find that what bears the name of Christ should turn out worst of all. I need not say the guilt of it is entirely man's, and that the secret source of that evil is still Satan, as Satan is always behind the scenes in his antagonism, not only to God, but more particularly to the Lord Jesus. He is the One that Satan hates, and hates most of all because He became Man to glorify God where man had failed, and as Man to glorify God even about sin. Therefore, there is, what we might call, a natural antagonism in the devil, being what he is, against the One Who is to crush him at last. He well knows this, and there will come a time when, as he knows, he will have but a short time. That time has not yet come, but it is coming, and coming fast.

So Jude introduces the coming of the Lord in a very remarkable manner — not by a new prophecy, but by the recovery to us of one of the first prophecies ever uttered, and, certainly, the first prophecy that took shape, the ordinary shape, which gave its character to all others that follow. For nothing could be more in the prophetic character than these words: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam (to distinguish him from the Enoch who was the son of Cain) prophesied of these, saying, Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodlily committed, and of (what people think little of) their hard words which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." "Words" are the common expression of man's iniquity, because he cannot do all that he would like to do, but there is nothing he cannot "say." Consequently, it is said, "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." This character of evil, so far from being a light thing, is one which is presented with the utmost gravity, and that by Enoch before the flood: and it is nowhere else preserved. Here, thousands of years afterwards, Jude was enabled to disclose this to us — by what means we do not know. The Holy Ghost was perfectly capable without using any means. Whether there were any, we know not, but we know that here it is, and that this is the certain truth, not only of God, but through Enoch before he went to heaven.

But there is another connection with Enoch that we have now to look into, in the verses that close the Epistle. This is, that we may regard a latent connection in them with the blessed manner in which Enoch was taken out of the scene altogether. Now, this fell to Jude and not to Peter. I have already compared the very great marks of distinction between Peter's and Jude's treatment of these very cases. Peter's view is purely as a question of unrighteousness, and he looks also at the teachers as being the most guilty parties in that unrighteousness — generally done for gain, or fame, or for some earthly motive of the kind that is not of God. Jude looks at it in a still deeper light; for he does not make so much of the teachers. The awful thing to Jude was that the church, that the body of the saints, who ought to be the light of God — the heavenly light of God in a world of darkness — that they were to become the seat of the worst evil of Satan; and this through letting in (no doubt, by carelessness, by lack of looking to God) these corrupters. That is his point of view. Not so much unrighteousness as apostasy. There is nothing so terrible as apostasy. In the case of unrighteousness it might be merely that of men going on with their badness. But apostasy always supposes that people have come out of their badness professedly, that they have received the truth professedly, that they have professedly received grace from God in Christ the Lord, and have turned their back upon it all. There is nothing so bad as that. So that you see, if there were not the gospel, and if there had not been the church, there could not have been so bad an apostasy as that which Jude contemplates here, from first to last.

We have, first of all then, as I have already shown, the trace of that apostasy as it presented itself to Jude by the Holy Ghost. And he takes his great figures of it from Israel, which after it was saved became the enemy of God, and fell under judgment. Peter does not say a word about that; he looks at merely wicked men; consequently, he is more occupied with the evil that brought on the deluge. Jude does not say a ward about the deluge, because there was no question of a people being saved. There was a family — a few individuals — but there was not a people. Jude looks at the church, and compares the church getting wrong and losing everything after, having apparently gained everything: according to the picture of Israel, saved out of Egypt, and nevertheless, all coming to nothing.

We see how beautifully the figures employed and the illustrations used are all perfectly in keeping with the great differences between the two Epistles of Peter and Jude. And I mention it again, as I have already done, as a proof of the blindness of men in our day, in what they call "higher criticism." They will have it that the one Epistle is only a copy of the other. Why, they are perfectly contrasted the one with the other. There are some points, of course, that must be common — the wickedness of man, the grace of God, the truth of God. All that must be common to the two Epistles.

But the character of the truth in the one case is simply, men corrupting righteousness into unrighteousness — that is Peter. In Jude it is men, who were blessed by the revelation of grace, turning it into licentiousness, men who had not merely the authority of God, but the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not say a word about this. It is God's authority. Even the Lord is there looked at as Master — a Sovereign Master — not in the attitude of ·e our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude adds that. So Noah is the great figure in Peter; whereas Enoch, and not Noah, is the figure before us in Jude.

Now, I ask, how could the wit of man ever have done this? Even when people have read the two Epistles, many Christians have not noticed these differences, yet there they are. What learned men see is the apparent resemblances between the two. But that is an altogether unintelligent way of reading anything. Because, even if you look at all the men of the world, well, they all agree in being men, but just think how foolish a person must be who can see no difference between one man and another because they are both men! That is just the way these learned men talk. They see no difference between Peter and Jude, the one copied the other! Whereas the striking thing is that, although they both go over the same ground, they look at it in different ways — both full of instruction, yet such instruction as only the Holy Ghost could give.

Oh, how solemn when we read this last Epistle, which bears upon the apostasy of Christianity, or rather of Christendom, of those that were introduced to the richest blessings of God's grace and truth in Christ, yet turning to be the bitterest enemies of it (not only abandoning it, but) treating it with contempt and disdain, and with hatred to the last degree.

This is exactly what we have in the middle of the Epistle. We saw the characters that it takes, particularly Cain, Balaam, and Korah — the beginning, middle and end, I might say. The unnatural brother that hated, not a mere man only, but his own brother, and slew him. The bitterest enemies of the faithful are always those who profess to be faithful and are not. There is no bitterness so deep as that of an unworthy bearer of the name of Christ. Well, that is Cain. Not a word of this in Peter. That belongs to Jude, and is here.

Then Balaam appears in Peter because he is a false prophet that figures the false teachers, who are more the thing in Peter, but not in Jude; for here it is the saints, the body of the saved ones — at any rate in profession. That is what alarmed and shocked him. And he puts it forth for us, that we might now understand it, that we should not be too much perplexed by any of these terrible things which may break out at any time in our midst. There never was a more foolish idea, perhaps, entertained by some of us, that whoever might go wrong this could not happen amongst those called "Brethren." Oh, foolish Brethren, to flatter themselves in such a way as that! Why you, we — for I take my place along with you in it altogether — we are the persons most liable to have the highest flown expressions and pretension to the greatest piety, while there may be an enormously evil thing going on. How are we to judge of such things? By the word of God. And you will always find that those that are carrying on in that way slip from the word. They do not want the word. They want something new, something that will go on with the times, something that will make the "Brethren" more popular, something that will get bigger congregations, and all those things that are flattering to human vanity; the consequence is they are naturally afraid of the word. No wonder. No one ever quarrelled with the word of God, if the word of God did not condemn them. Every person who loves the word owes to it all his entrance into blessing; he derives all from that precious word and that precious word reveals Christ. Consequently we should not be occupied about pleasing others and about their work, but with Christ. And we want all God's children also to be occupied with Christ as the only ground of any solid and sure peace.

In Enoch's prophecy we may observe once more that it is not exactly "the Lord cometh," but, "Behold, the Lord came." This manner of speaking is quite usual in the prophets, and that is why they are called "seers." What they described they saw as in a prophetic vision. John saw all the various objects which he describes in the Revelation. He saw the heaven opened, and the Lord coming out, and the throne set. But it does not mean that all this was accomplished then. He saw it all before it took place. So did Enoch. He saw the Lord come; and he presented it in that way. In Isaiah 53 we see the same thing. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth." It does not mean that there was any doubt about its being all future; but that the prophet saw it before his eyes, the eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. It is the same thing here. The Lord is seen at the close of the age coming with ten thousands of His saints to take judgment, to inflict judgment on these apostates; and the Spirit of God here intimates that the same family likeness of departure from God has been going on since the days of Enoch, and that it was to go on, not only in Jude's day, but in the future till the Lord comes. It was all one in character — hatred of God. And you see how entirely this falls in with what I have been saying, that man always departs from God. It is not only that he is rebellious, not only that he behaves himself badly, not only that he violates this and that, but he turns his back upon God altogether and His truth. This is apostasy, and the spirit of it is already come. It will, come out thoroughly, and then the Lord will come in judgment.

But now the hope! What is that? Well, it is implied in what we saw. "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of His saints." The question is, How did they come with Him? If the Lord comes with His saints, He must have come before to fetch them to Himself, and this is just what He will do. But that is a thing entirely outside the prophetic introduction of the Lord's coming. The Lord's coming for His saints is not a matter of prophecy at all. It is a matter of love and hope; we may say of faith, love and hope. They are all in full play in the wonderful prospect that grace has opened out before our eyes. Therefore it is that the Lord does not introduce this prospect except in a very general way, in any of the Gospels so much as He does in John: "In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto Myself" (John 14: 2, 3).

There is nothing about prophecy in that passage. It is future, but its being future does not make it prophecy. It is an abuse of terms to think that prophecy is essentially bound up with judging a wrong state of things and replacing it with a better. But in this case, as in John 14, the Lord, when He comes to put us in the Father's house, does not judge a wrong state of things. It is consummating His love to the dearest objects of His love, not merely on earth but for heaven; and it is in that way that the Lord speaks. It is the same thing in the Revelation. After He has done with all the prophetic part, He presents Himself as "the bright and the morning star." And when the church has that before her, we find a new thing, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." That is not prophecy; that is the church's hope, and it is strictly the church's hope. Because when you say, "The Spirit and the bride," it is not merely an individual, it is the whole — personified — of the saints that compose the bride. "The Spirit and the bride!" What a wonderful thing that the Spirit should put Himself at the head of it! "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." It might have been thought, Oh! that is only a sanguine hope that the bride has got. But, no; you cannot talk about anything sanguine in the mind of the Holy Spirit. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." Hence you see that the great object of the Lord, in that close of the Revelation, was to show that you must not mix up the hope of the Lord's coming to receive us to Himself with the accomplishment of prophecy. The hope is entirely apart from any prophetic events. It is not in the seals, it is not in the trumpets, still less is it in the vials. It is after all these things that the Spirit of God, in the conclusory observations, gives there what the Lord had given, when Himself on earth, to His disciples. The Spirit of God takes up there what was suited to the then condition of the church. The church then knew that she was "the bride" of Christ. This had been clearly shown in more than one chapter of the Revelation. In Revelation 19, the marriage of the Lamb had come, and the bride had made herself ready. That could not be the earthly bride. How could the earthly bride celebrate a marriage in heaven? And how could the heavenly bride celebrate it there unless saints composing it had been taken there before? This is just what I am about to come to.

Well, then, this coming of the Lord, which is "our hope," is exactly what Jude takes up here in the closing verses.

"But to Him that is able to keep you without stumbling, and to set you with exultation blameless before His glory; to an only* God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord † [be] glory, majesty, might, and authority, before all times,‡ and now, and unto all the ages. Amen" (vers. 24, 25).

{* σοφῶ (wise) is omitted by ABC Vulg. Copt. Arm. Æthiop. and Syrr. Vv. — T.R. inserts with KLP and many cursives.}

{† διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ABCL Vulg. Copt. and Syrr. Vv. — T.R. omits with K.P.}

{‡ πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶος ABCL Vulg. Copt. Arm. and Æthiop. Vv. — T.R. omits with KP and most cursives.}

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling." How appropriate when thus presenting the dangers, the evils, the horrible iniquity of apostasy from all Christian grace and truth that might have the effect of greatly dispiriting a feeble soul! No one ought even to be dispirited; not one. "Now unto Him that is able to keep" clearly refers to every step of the way, and there is power in Him to keep. It is we who fail in dependence. Never does He fail in power to preserve. "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless." Where? "Before the presence of His glory." Where is that? Is not that the very glory into which the Lord has now gone? And does not He say, "that where I am there ye may be also"? Here we find that the hope of the Christian and the hope of the church is entirely untouched by all the ruin that had come in. Spiritual power remained intact. And not only that: this glorious, blessed hope remains for our consolation and our joy in the darkest day.

"Now unto Him that is able to keep you without stumbling and to set you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." There we have what falls in not with Peter, but with Jude. Jude, of course, entirely agrees with Peter, and confirms Peter as to the judgment that is to fall on those that were not only unrighteous but apostate. But then Jude does not forget that there are those that are true, that there are those that are faithful, that there are those that are waiting for Christ, that there are those that are even more appreciative of the blessing because of the unbelief of man. Therefore it is that he brings in this present power which depends entirely on the Holy Spirit's presence to keep us; and, further, he speaks of the blessed hope depending upon Christ's coming to receive us to Himself, "and to present us faultless." That will only be because we are glorified; that will only be because we are like Himself. He was the only One intrinsically faultless, and He is the One Who, by redemption, and then also by its accomplishment for the body — for redemption now is only as far as the soul is concerned, but when He comes it will be for the body as well — will present us faultless both in soul and body "before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy."

Jude 25.

"To the only [wise] God." The word "wise" has crept in here. In all correct texts the word "wise" disappears in this place. It is perfectly right in Romans 16: 27. And I just refer to that text to show its appropriateness there: "To God only wise." I presume that it was this passage that led the ignorant monk, or whoever he was that was copying Jude, to (as he thought) correct it. But we cannot correct. All these human corrections are innovations, and our point is to get back to what God wrote and to what God gave. Everything except what God gave is an innovation, but God's word is the standard, and all that departs from, or does without, it is an innovation.

Now, in this chapter of Romans, what made the word "wise" appropriate and necessary there, is that Paul refers to the mystery. He does not bring out the mystery in Romans; but after completing the great subject of the righteousness of God, first, in its personal application as well as in itself, secondly, comparing it with the dispensations of God, and, thirdly, in its practical shape — personal, dispensational, and practical — he here adds a little word at the close, "Now to Him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery." The revelation of the mystery — he had not brought this in. But he maintains that this gospel of his was according to it. It was not the revelation of it; but it did not clash with it. There was no contrariety, but that revelation of the mystery was left for other Epistles, Ephesians and Colossians more particularly; Corinthians also in a measure, but chiefly Ephesians and Colossians.

Further he says, "which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by prophetic writings" (or, scriptures, namely, those of the New Testament. I understand that what is called here "scriptures of the prophets" are the prophetic writings of the New Testament, of which Paul contributed so much) "according to the commandment of the everlasting God made known to all nations" — that shows that the Old Testament prophets are not referred to here at all — "for obedience of faith; to God only wise be glory." That is to say, this concealment of the mystery and now bringing it out in due time — not in Romans, but in what would be found to agree with Romans and confirm Romans when the mystery was communicated to the saints in the Epistles that had to be written afterwards — all this showed "God only wise." It is in connection, you see, with this keeping back for so many ages, and now for the first time bringing out this hidden truth, the hidden mystery, as he calls it, to our glory, which is involved in Christ's exaltation at the right hand of God, and in His leaving the world for the time entirely alone, whilst meanwhile forming the disciples according to the truth of His being in heaven.

In Timothy, however, we have an expression exactly similar to what we have here. "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God" (1 Tim. 1: 17). There the word "wise" is brought in again in our Authorised Version. There is no reason for it there. So that there is the same error introduced in Timothy as there is in Jude, and both of them brought from what we already have in Romans 16, where it ought to be. Here, we find again, what a dangerous thing it is for man to meddle with the word of God. The apostle is here looking at God Himself, not at what He particularly does. The wisdom of His revelation — that is in Romans. But in Timothy it is, "Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God." There might be all these pretenders, these gods many and lords many that Paul knew very well among the Gentiles, and Timothy also, and particularly at this very Ephesus where Timothy seems to have been at this very time. There was the famous temple (one of the wonders of the world), called the temple of Diana. Artemis is the proper word, for Diana was a Roman goddess, and Artemis was a Grecian goddess quite of a different nature, although there were kindred lies about the two.

Here, therefore, in Timothy the apostle presented with great propriety and beauty "the only God." Bringing in the "wise" God introduces quite another idea which does not fall in with the context, it does not agree with it properly. We find just the same thing in Jude. So that the comparison, I think, of the three scriptures will help to show that "the only wise God" belongs to Romans; that "the only God" — Who is presented in contrast with idols and imaginary beings — brings in to Timothy the force of the "only" true God.

In Jude we have "the only God" for a slightly different reason, but one equally appropriate. He is looking at all this terrible scene and at the greatness of the grace of God towards His beloved ones carried through such an awful sea of iniquity and apostasy.

But if our eye be fixed on Christ, my dear brethren, it does not matter where we are, or whether we are smooth or rough. Some would make a great deal of the large waves, and I have no doubt that Peter was frightened at the big waves on which he found himself walking, and when he looked at the waves down he went. But if there had been no big waves, all as smooth as glass, and Peter had looked down on the glassy sea, down he would have gone all the same. It is not, therefore, at all a question of the particular circumstances. The fact is, there is no power to keep us, except a divine one, and it is all grace; and the grace that supports on a smooth sea is equally able to preserve on a rough one. Whatever, therefore, may be the special characters of evil and of danger at the present time, all turns upon this: What is Christ to my soul? And if I believe in His grace and in His truth then what does not my soul find in Christ?

"Now, unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy." For the grace on His part is just the same as if there had been no departure, no apostasy, no wickedness, no unrighteousness of any kind. He wrought His marvellous work of grace for us when we were nothing but sinners. He brought us to Himself when we were no better — unmoved, perhaps, by that wonderful work when we first read and heard about it. But when the moment came for us to believe on Him, how it changed all! And surely the times that have passed over us have only endeared the Lord more to us. I hope there is not a soul in this room but what loves the Lord a deal better today than the day on which he, or she, was first converted. It is one of those notions of Christendom that our love is always much better and stronger on the day we were first converted. Never was there greater mistake. There was a feeling of mercy, no doubt; a deep sense of pardoning grace, but, beloved friends, do we not love the Lord for incomparably more than what we knew when converted? Surely that love has grown with a better knowledge of His love, and of His truth. And here we find that His grace is exactly the same, that the grace that brought Him from heaven, the grace of Him, Who lived here below, that died here below, and is now gone back into glory, is without change; and that the exceeding joy or exultation will be unquenched in the smallest degree when the blessed moment comes. "He will set us blameless before the presence of His glory, with exceeding joy." It is not very much to find where the exceeding joy is. I am persuaded it is both in Him and in us. Perhaps we may be allowed to say, "which thing is true in Him and in you" (1 John 2: 8). That was said about another thing altogether — the love that He put into our hearts when we knew His redemption; for until we know redemption there is not much love in a believer. He may have a good bit of affection for the people that he is intimate with, but he is very narrow at first, and till he knows the love of Christ his affections do not at all go out to all the saints. Here then we find, at any rate, this glowing picture of that bright hope, when it will surely be accomplished.

Now, Jude adds, "To the only God." For who could have met all this confusion? Who could have conceived and counselled all this grace and truth? Who could have kept such as we are through all, remembering our total weakness, our great exposure, the hatred of the enemy, the contempt of adversaries, of all that are drawn away, of all the enticement to go wrong, all the animosities, worst of all, created by any measure of faithfulness? Yet He does keep through it all. "The only God our Saviour"; not only Christ our Saviour. Christ is the accomplisher of it all, but here Jude looks at God as the source, and it is no derogation from Christ. It was the delight of Christ on earth to present God as a Saviour God, and not merely that He Himself was that personal Saviour, the Son of man. So here the apostle desires that we should ever honour God our Saviour, as indeed we find it rather a common expression in those very solemn Epistles to Timothy.

"To the only God our Saviour." All other dependence is vain, all other boast is worthless. We are intended to rejoice, or, rather more strictly, to "boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom we have now received the reconciliation."

"To [the] only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority, before all time, and now and ever (or, to all the ages)." It is a very interesting thing to note here the propriety with which Jude closes the Epistle. He says, "Be glory, majesty, might and authority, before all time, and now, and for evermore, Amen." He looks at the full extent of eternity. It is much more precise than what we have in our Authorised Version; and is here given according to the reading of the best authorities, and rightly adopted by the Revisers.

Peter also closes his Second Epistle in what is said to be the same. But there is this distinction, that whilst Peter speaks of "glory both now and unto eternity's day" (2 Peter 3: 18), Jude brings out in the remarkable completeness of his closing ascription what was, and is, and is to be, in all its full eternal character.

Luke: Notes

(E. E. Whitfield)

(Appendix to 'An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke')

Notes on the Introduction.

§ 1.

1 The third Gospel, exclusive of the Prologue or Preface, may be divided into four sections (cf. Moffatt): (i.) Luke 1: 5 - 4: 13, the preliminary period; (ii.) Luke 4: 14 - 9: 50, the Galilean Ministry; (iii.) Luke 9: 51 - 18: 30, the Ministry in Samaria and Perea; (iv.) Luke 18: 31 — end, the closing Judean Ministry with the last supper, the Lord's trial, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.

It also admits, including the Prologue, of division into seven parts (cf. Garvie): (i.) Luke 1 and 2, the annunciation, the birth and childhood of the Baptist and of the Lord; (ii.) Luke 3: 1 - 4: 13, early preaching of the Baptist, and the Baptism and Temptation of the Lord; (iii.) Luke 4: 14 - 9: 50, the Lord's Galilean ministry; (iv.) Luke 9: 51 - 18: 30, His ministry in Galilee and Perea; (v.) Luke 18: 31 - 21: 38, closing Judean ministry, including the Prophecy on Olivet; (vi.) Luke 22 and 23, the last supper, trial and death; (vii.) Luke 24, the resurrection and ascension. Godet would make the fourth of these end at 19: 28, and the fifth begin, accordingly, with Luke 19: 29 (so R. G. Moulton, "Modern Readers' Bible").

Renan's praise of this Gospel as "the most beautiful book in the world" ("The Gospels," p. 283) has often been reproduced. As Westcott says, the "narrative begins with hymns and thanksgivings, and ends with blessings and praises." It is the Gospel which has the fullest details of the Lord's life on earth: often circumstantially informing us (when the first Gospel does not) the occasion upon which He spoke the words recorded (e.g., "the Lord's Prayer"). Most readers are struck with the frequency of the mention of Prayer (Luke 3: 21, Luke 6: 12, Luke 9: 18, 29; Luke 10: 2, Luke 11: 13, Luke 24: 49), as also of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1: 41, 67; Luke 2: 25, 27; Luke 4: 10, 14, 18; Luke 10: 21, Luke 11: 13, Luke 24: 49). For other links with John's Gospel, like the last named, as in Luke 9: 51, Luke 11: 42, Luke 12: 21, Luke 22: 26 f., see Harnack, "Luke the Physician," p. 224 ff. Readers of Bernard's "Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament" (pp. 42-44) will know of the distinction made between Luke and Matthew and Mark, that while these set forth the kingdom with reference rather to the past and present respectively, this Gospel views it largely in the light of the future.

"Christ," says Canon Wilson, "is seen here as the teacher of individual souls" ("Studies," etc., p. 66); but that the same writer goes too far in stating that the parables here have no bearing on the Kingdom (p. 67) will be shown in notes below.

Being the Gospel of the "Son of Man," it is characterised, as the Expositor remarks, by many specially human traits, such as the development of the Lord's mind and body. Differences in character are portrayed, as Herod's curiosity and Pilate's indecision. Dante has spoken of the writer as "the scribe of the gentleness of Christ," his tenderness comes out in sympathy with women and children (Luke 7: 12, Luke 9: 38, 42; Luke 23: 28 f.), as well as with the poor. The expository literature upon it is exceedingly rich, and this Gospel has always been a much used instrument in the hands of preachers.

§ 2.

2 Three questions arise in connection with study of any Book of the Bible: (i.) as to the authorship and the materials ("sources") used by the writer, to which those engaged in the higher internal criticism address their inquiries; (ii.) as to the authority attaching to the Book, which is concerned with inspiration, and also with interpretation; (iii.) as to its genuine text, which is the inquiry of textual, external criticism (cf. Barry, p. 28). To each of these topics some remarks will be devoted, as introductory to such study of the Gospel.

First, as to the authorship of the third of the Gospels, which, like the rest, is anonymous. This has been traditionally ascribed to LUKE; in the manuscript copies that have come down to us, the shortest form of title, "according to Luke," is borne by the two oldest, the so-called "Sinaitic" () and "Vatican" (B). The Apostle Paul names in his Epistles, as a close companion in his labours, a Luke, described by him as "the beloved physician" (Col. 4: 14). Comparison of the Preface to the Gospel with the introductory words of the "Acts of the Apostles" — also traditionally connected with the name of the same writer — in which (Luke 1: 1) reference is made to a "former treatise," seems to determine the authorship without dispute, for, although the later book does not name its writer, the common style and dedication support the belief that these two books were produced by one and the same person, each of them affording indication that he was a physician.

It was not until the last century that the traditional view was questioned, as by De Wette and Baur of a past generation, and by Jülicher amongst living scholars, who have contended that the writer of the Acts could not have been the Luke intimate with Paul (Col., ibid., Philem. 24, 2 Tim. 4: 11), because of the alleged contrast between the Apostle's own account in his Epistles of his attitude towards the Jewish party and the way in which that is presented in Acts 15, alongside of the fact, practically acknowledged by all, that the two books were from the same hand (see Bp. Hervey, Lect. 4, on "The Authenticity," etc.). The traditional view, however, has within the last few years received the unhesitating support of Harnack; of old it would seem never to have been doubted. The Muratorian Fragment (circ. 170 A.D.) calls Luke the writer of this Gospel, and a "Medicus"; Irenaeus (circ. 180), in his treatise against Heresies, iii. 1, says that "Luke, Paul's companion, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him"; and Tertullian (circ. 200), in his treatise against Marcion, iv. 2 and 5, speaks of Luke as author. So also the contemporary Clement of Alexandria.

The name Lucas (Lucanus) is not to he confounded with Lucius (Acts 13: 1). Eusebius ("Ecclesiastical History," iii. 4) describes our Evangelist as by birth, "of those from Antioch" (cf. Jerome, "Life"); but see Westcott, "Introduction to Study of Gospels," p. 233, note. Eusebius' words may mean only that Luke had a family connection with that city; so Ramsay ("St. Paul the Traveller," p. 389), who supports Renan's suggestion that he was a native of Philippi, and regards the Evangelist as having been the "man of Macedonia," of Paul's vision, comparing this with Paul's previous vision as to Ananias, and Peter's as to Cornelius. Harnack, however, favours the older view that he was an Antiochene, and thus was familiar with the origin of the name "Christian" ("Expansion," vol. i., p. 347, note).

Titus, as not being mentioned in the Acts, some have supposed was a near relative of Luke. cf. 2 Cor. 12: 18 (τόν, his).

Beza's M S. (D) in Acts 11: 28 has "When we were assembled"; but, from the text represented by most MSS., the Apostle and the Evangelist seem to have first met at Troas, in 53 A.D., during Paul's second missionary tour. After using "they" in Acts 16: 8, the writer in verse 11 changes to "we"; but in Acts 17: 1, he reverts to "they," which seems to show that Luke was left behind at Philippi (infra). Then, in connection with the Apostle's return to Troas, during his third missionary journey, we meet in Acts 20: 5 with "us . . . we"; whilst in Acts 21: 19, the narrative is resumed in the third person; but from Acts 27: 1 f. we learn that Luke had rejoined Paul at Caesarea.

The "beloved physician" — described by Wilson as a "layman" (op. cit., p. 83) — and he alone (2 Tim., ibid.), remained with the Apostle to the end of so much of Paul's life as is covered by the New Testament. Harnack treats the reference to him there as cold ("Expansion," i., p. 170), which English readers more happily regard as commendatory. He is probably the "true yokefellow" of Phil. 4: 3.

Luke's medical knowledge is disclosed by various passages in our Gospel, as Luke 4: 38, Luke 7: 44, Luke 10: 30, Luke 21: 34. This has been worked out by Hobart ("The Medical Language of St. Luke"), whose book has been turned to account by Harnack. The Evangelist's treatment of cases of demoniacal possession is important in this connection: he does not regard them, according to modern notions, as merely physical disorders.

As Col. 4: 11 is usually understood, Luke was by birth, not (as Roberts and Hahn have thought) a Jew, but a Greek. He may have been a "proselyte," and so have ranked as a Hellenist. Dalman supposes that he did not know Hebrew or Aramaic ("Words of Jesus," p. 32); but see Jerome, "De Vir. Illust.," ch. 7. Neubauer treats the Evangelist's quotations as derived from an unwritten "Targum" or Aramaic paraphrase (Essay in "Studia Biblica," vol. i., p. 67); whilst Harnack and others have to assume that Luke was not unacquainted with Aramaic, if he was to translate, as they suppose he did, from an Aramaic document for the first part of Acts. His familiarity with Greek is easily recognisable; and for his use of the Septuagint, see Hawkins, "Horae Synopticae"; indeed, his vocabulary is largely drawn from the Apocrypha (Abbott).

From the fourth century, he was thought by some to have been one of the Seventy (chapter 10); but this is now generally discredited. This affords some ground for the belief that he was the unnamed disciple of ch. 24: 18: his withholding the name has significance for readers of juridical training.

Finally, Origen and Jerome believed that this "physician of the soul" was the brother whose praise in the Gospel is through all the churches (cf. the Collect for St. Luke's Day with 2 Cor. 8: 18), in the sense that Luke had then already published his Gospel. Although Erasmus reproduced this idea in his Latin translation of the Gospels (1520), it meets now with as little support as does the idea that it is to this Gospel the Apostle refers in 2 Tim. 2: 8; cf. Rom. 15: 19; Gal. 2: 2 (see also note 100 below). Another statement of Jerome, that Luke lived to the age of 84 and remained unmarried, Harnack supposes goes back to the third century. The Evangelist's death is variously reported to have been by martyrdom, or peacefully; some saying in Bithynia, others in Boeotia.

W. Kelly has regarded Luke as a prophet: see "Exposition of Mark," p. 2. Hippolytus prefixed a quotation of 18: 2-5 by "as the apostle and Evangelist says" ("On Antichrist," in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. x., p. 33).

In seeking to determine the date of the composition of this Gospel time must be allowed for the attempts made by others of which the Prologue speaks. Followed by the Book of Acts, which does not record Paul's death, the Gospel might seem to have been completed before 64 A.D. (Blass, after Eusebius: by at least 60). So the late Bishop Hervey and Dr. Gloag; whilst Keim puts it at 66; Godet, between 63 and the last-named year. Writers such as Jülicher (p. 336), influenced by the idea that the language of Luke 19: 43 f. as to the overthrow of Jerusalem imports composition after the event, would say after 70; and so Zahn, about 75; Plummer and Sanday, 75-80; B. Weiss, Abbott, Ramsay, about 80; McGiffert and Bacon, following Harnack's former opinion (down to 1897: see below), decide for 78-93; Wernle and Moffatt, for circ. 90. In the same way it has been argued that Deuteronomy could not have been of Mosaic date, because of the contents of the last chapter: but in either case allowance may he made for editorial accretions or modifications after the original record was put in writing. As to grounds for belief that Luke's Gospel was put forth before the year 70 of the era, see Pullan, in Murray's "Bible Dictionary," p. 487.

The extreme views range between the last decade of the first century and the year 120 (Jülicher), In considering such opinions one must work back from about the year 160, i.e., from the time of Justin Martyr. While not naming our Evangelist, Justin speaks of "the Gospel," a term current in his time for all four records, which make up the "Diatessaron" of his pupil Tatian, an English translation of which may be seen in J. Hamlyn Hill's "The Earliest Life of Christ" (1910). Thirlwall (Introduction to Schleiermacher's "Essay of Luke," p. lxiv. ff.) considered that Justin's looseness in quotation (dwelt on by Cassels in "Supernatural Religion") was due to his regarding the New Testament as a commentary on the Books of the Hebrew Canon, which he quoted more carefully (p. lxxiii.). Somewhat earlier was Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, whose date is put by Harnack at 145; by Stanton, at 140; by Abbott, at 115-130. The testimony of this old bishop is of less account because he avowedly preferred oral to written accounts. But in Marcion, son of a bishop of Synope in Pontus, who was at Rome about 140 A.D., we have a witness of prime importance, because the substance of a Pauline gospel put forth by him is manifestly drawn from some recension of our third Gospel: see Westcott, on the Canon, chapter iv. Akin to Marcion's doctrinal system was that of his fellow Gnostic Valentinian (circ. 130), who, with Basilides, a contemporary heretic, seems also to have been acquainted with the contents of Luke's Gospel. We are thus carried back to the early years of the second century; and then, for the last decade of the first, are met by the question whether Luke had read Josephus' Antiquities (published in the winter of 93-94) because of similarity in the language used by the Evangelist and by the Jewish historian.

Holtzmann, Keim, Hausrath and Burkitt, after Krenkel, hold that Josephus' work was known to Luke, and accordingly date this Gospel after 93 (Clemen: 94 or 95) A.D. Zahn, Sanday, Salmon, Wellhausen, Harnack and Moffatt discredit all this. The words employed by the two, of course contemporaries, were undeniably in common use: each drew from the LXX., and thus sometimes used an identical vocabulary.

Reverting to the yet earlier critical dates, that of "about the year 70" maybe taken as a moderate conjecture, in probably large acceptance. In this the present writer can acquiesce, only so far as it may mark the limit of editorial revision, as to which see Wright, "Composition of the Gospels," p. 117. The process of construction is represented by the more advanced critics as completed later: thus Loisy's date is 90-100: Schmiedel's, 100-110.

The last-named writer (§ 110). after Pfleiderer (cf. Bruce, "Kingdom of God," p. 337), finds in this Gospel in its settled form certain opposite tendencies:- Pauline universalism associated with Jewish particularism (Luke 1: 68; Luke 2: 10; Luke 5: 30; Luke 7: 16; Luke 13: 16; Luke 19: 9; Luke 22: 30), referring such to different editorial "working over"; but in the present Exposition these will be found explained as part of the Divine design of which the Evangelist himself was the instrument. The fact is, Luke's Gospel was not intended specially for either Jews (as Matthew's) or for Gentiles (as Mark's), but equally for both. Whatever actual revision there was connects itself with the extended or completed publication, and not the original issue, of the Gospel, which may quite well have been before the year 70, as formerly believed by all later readers. Harnack (supra) in his recent book on the Acts in particular finds it difficult to think that Luke in Luke 21: 32 regarded the destruction of the city as past at the time of his writing (E. T., p. 293). He now thinks that a date soon after the year 60 is credible.

3 Theophilus ("Friend of God"), whose name (Origen: "a man whom God loves") may have been given to him at his baptism, and used only among Christians, seems to have been of equestrian rank, and saluted as "most excellent" (κράτιστε, cf. our "Right Honourable"), from being a ἡγεμών, like Felix (Acts 23: 26) and Festus (Acts 26: 25). He can have been no such fictitious person as Origen supposed, by reason of this very designation. With the Expositor's remarks on the social position of this friend of the Evangelist, compare note on Luke 6: 20.

4 The Gospels called "Synoptic," i.e. as together representing the same general view (cf. note 3 on Mark), can have been composed under one or other of the following conditions. I. To each Evangelist was separately revealed that which he had to write, independently of the rest (cf. note 10 on Mark). Very few Biblical scholars since Greswell have committed themselves to this theory, but it was that of the Expositor himself, and very much the view of Dr. Harvey Goodwin, when writing contemporaneously as Dean of Ely, before becoming Bishop of Carlisle. II. Each Evangelist reduced oral tradition to a written form in the light of his special purpose and in his own way. Such has been the view of English scholars who followed Gieseler: since the early sixties it has been represented by Westcott, in particular, and by Abbott, Wright and Salmon; in Germany by Zahn, etc. III. Some written record long defunct lies behind all the Gospels in their existing form — the view of Eichhorn and his followers. IV. One of the Gospels is a main source of the rest; the second and the third used one or more additional sources no longer separately extant. During the last preceding generation this has been the view most accepted. The first, the ecclesiastical or "traditional" view, which satisfied most minds from the fifth to the eighteenth century, means that "all the differences between the Gospels were taken as individual variations of a divine type, each variation perfect in its kind" (Nash, pp. 61, 155). The second will be considered here in sections A., B. Whatever is true in the third is generally deemed to be included in the last of the views above stated: these together rely on the notion of dependence as governing the development of the Gospel records (sections C. — F.).

Hug, amongst Roman Catholics, was one of the eighteenth century scholars holding that each successive Evangelist used his predecessors. The theory which has given rise to views of dependence may be seen stated in Westcott, "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels," p. 183. There will be found an account of the "supplemental" view, according to which each successive writer added something to his predecessor's account: an idea first suggested by Chrysostom. Greswell has left a Dissertation on the subject.

In principle there can be no objection to the belief that writers of the New Testament have drawn upon ordinary sources of information, e.g., Acts 23: 25-30, and from one another: this last seems to have been done by the historical and prophetical writers respectively of the Old Testament. Tacit borrowing is noticeable in Micah, from Isaiah (if not vice versa); Jeremiah, from Hosea, Isaiah and Zephaniah; Ezekiel, from Hosea, Zephaniah and Jeremiah; Joel, from Jonah; Haggai, from Ezekiel; and Zechariah, from Isaiah. Girdlestone, referring to this "spiritual communism," remarks that "Inspiration does not imply originality" ("The Grammar of Prophecy," p. 10 f.). Whilst it may be unnecessary to go so far as to say that "the most simple faith and the keenest investigation are one and the same thing" (Thirlwall), we have certainly apostolic injunctions, on the one hand, to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5: 21), and, on the other, to be on our guard against "spirits" not of God (1 John 4: 1). If both of these considerations be kept in view, investigation of this subject may be fruitful.

It is the two-fold effect of manifest independence (differences) in combination with apparent use of common sources (agreements) which has given rise to the "Synoptic Problem," for the history of the solution of which see H. Holtzmann, "Introduction to the New Testament," pp. 351-357. The well-selected passage by way of example from Luke 5 (verses 18-26), collated with Mark 2: 3-12, Matt. 9: 2-8, in Green's Angus ("Handbook to the Bible," p. 630), may be compared with that, in A.V., used by Rushbrooke ("Synopticon," p. 96). Upon the parenthesis each time, "He said to the sick of the palsy," of which use was made by H. Holtzmann in his earliest work on the subject, see comment of D. Smith (Introduction, p. xiv.).

This problem has been briefly considered in notes 6-12 appended to the "Exposition of Mark." In the present volume we shall start from a general statement of that which is suggested by the phenomena made by a truly devout and esteemed English Biblical student, the late Lord Arthur Hervey, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who in a lecture on the third Gospel expressed himself as follows:-

"The writer seems to have had three sources of information: (1) the oral teaching, as we see it in those parts which occur also, word for word, in Matthew or Mark, or both; (2) those living eye-witnesses whom he had personally known, and from whose lips he had taken down the various particulars related by him; (3) written records which he transcribed or otherwise used in the composition of his own narrative" (p. 99 f.). The subject, with special reference to Luke's Prologue (Luke 1: 1-4), which is unique in the whole Bible, will be taken in the same order as the bishop's statement, in successive sections.

A. The word for "delivered" (παρέδοσαν) in Luke 1: 2 is etymologically connected with that for "tradition" (παράδοσις), which in the plural comes before us in 2 Thess. 2: 15. Such tradition might be either oral or written (ibid.); it is with the first that we are concerned at present. It originated with "the Apostle's teaching" (Acts 2: 42), and seems to have continued for about 100 years, as there are words about it attributed to Papias, who lived, it is believed, as late as at least 130 if not 140 A.D. He tells us that Christians of his time preferred "the living voice" to written statements, one reason perhaps for delay in production of our Gospels. "There appears," wrote Thirlwall, "to be no reason for supposing that written documents of any kind entered into the general plan of the Apostles for the diffusion of Christianity" (p. 121), and, as says Bunsen in his "Hippolytus" (i., p. 28), "Nobody was anxious to have a written biography of Him whose return was daily expected." To tradition we owe the names of the respective writers of the Gospels. One saying of our Lord outside their records has been rescued for us by Paul (Acts 20: 35), yet recorded by Luke himself. That this was in currency before the Apostle quoted it, may be seen by his word "remember." Other such sayings, which are credited, are found in Clement (of Rome), chapters ii., xiii., xlvi., and Polycarp, chapter ii. (see Harnack, "Sayings of Jesus," pp. 187-190). Fragmentary notes may indeed have been taken by individual hearers of the Apostles' instruction.

Nearly all scholars are agreed that these three Gospels rest ultimately on oral tradition. "The written word marks a time when the first generation of Christians was passing away and the Lord still delayed His coming" (Green's Angus, p. 632). For a considerable time the Apostles laboured together in Jerusalem. But that which here is of chief importance is the Evangelist's reference to catechizing in verse 4; this has been turned to account by Wright (cf. Carr in Expositor, October, 1907). It must have been very much the instruction that now is given in Bible classes for adults and in Sunday schools or children's services. Timothy would engage in this (1 Tim. 5: 17). See further, notes 9 and 16 below.

As preceding continuous written records, the primitive believers, then, had at their command a fund of material which, through constant repetition of the same things by the same speakers, would "stereotype the words" (Bennett, p. 136). The Synoptic Gospels represent "written records of forms taken by tradition at the end of three diverging lines of development" (ibid.); or as Salmon, in his posthumous work (p. 27), says, "The most probable explanation of . . . three histories, so like one another yet so independent, is that we have preserved for us the oral gospel as delivered at three different centres" (Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch). But this explanation of variations from "lapse of memory" (p. 67, etc.) will not do. As another puts it, "The Evangelists were editors, not authors: they reduced the oral apostolic tradition to writing; and therefore it is that their books are entitled, not the Gospel of, but the Gospel according to Matthew," etc. (D. Smith, p. xiv). Cf. Godet, i. pp. 36-41. That which Hahn held as to Luke, Zahn maintains for Matthew — the belief that none but oral sources were used.

This floating tradition in the Aramaic vernacular Westcott and others have conceived was put into Greek before being committed to writing. Orr thinks that it was closely followed by Mark, and that the two other Evangelists "borrowed parts of the same tradition which they combined with material drawn from other sources."

Sir John Hawkins ("Horae Synopticae," p. 67) allows for other than documentary sources; and so B. Weiss in his "Life of Christ," i. 81, and "Sources of Luke's Gospel," chapter i.; but in his "Sources of Synoptic Tradition." chapter v., the venerable Berlin scholar seems practically to exclude it. Whenever doubt may arise between oral and written sources, he would decide for the latter. Various objections to the oral theory are enumerated by Peake. That any substantial record was kept orally is discredited by Burkitt from supposed difficulty in memorising it; but this objection is disposed of by the younger Weiss, who says, "When we see how in the Talmud words of the Rabbins have been preserved for centuries, clearly with the utmost exactitude, we shall not doubt that the Lord's disciples also were able to retain the leading subjects for decades. These men had by far fresher and more practised memory than we children of a paper age. . . . Many people even now who cannot read much make up for it by their retentive memory of what they hear" ("Writings of the New Testament," p. 54). We have, of course, to add to this the all-important words of our Lord in John 14: 26. For Westcott as for Godet (see Introduction in his later French editions), apostolic tradition was the dominant factor. Besides Westcott ("Introduction to the Study of the Gospels"), reference may be made to Abbott, "The Common Tradition," Introduction, p. vi., Moffatt, Introduction, pp. 180-182, and Wright, "Synopsis of Gospels in Greek," Introduction, p. x. (cf. note 11 on Mark).

Before proceeding further, it may be convenient for the reader to be furnished with a list of passages altogether peculiar to Luke, which is transcribed from Wernle, "The Synoptic Question," p. 92:-

Luke 1, Luke 2; Luke 3: 10-14, 23-38; Luke 5: 4-9; Luke 7: 11-17, 36-50; Luke 8: 1-3; Luke 9: 51-56; Luke 10: 17-20, 25-37, 38-42; Luke 11: 5-8, 27-28; Luke 12: 13-21, 35-37, 47-49, 54-56; Luke 13: 1-5, 6-9, 10-17, 31-33; Luke 14: 1-6, 7-14, 28-33; Luke 15: 11-32; Luke 16: 1-12,14-15, 19-31; Luke 17: 7-10, 11-19; Luke 18: 1-8, 9-14; Luke 19: 2-10, 41-44; Luke 22: 28-38; Luke 23: 6-12, 27-31, 39-43; Luke 24: 13-35, 36-53. Other portions of "The Single Tradition of Luke" (as in Luke 3, verses 1-2, 4-6, 15-16, 18-20) would be found in Rushbrooke's third appendix.

Difficulty has arisen among critics in arriving at agreement as to the source of the special passages, whether oral or written. Wernle himself, amongst others, treats them as derivable from that writer's one written "special source" supposed to have been used by Luke.

B. The Apostle Paul, converted, whether, as Harnack thinks, not more than a year, or as Ramsay, three years after the Crucifixion. has made use of the aid of "eye-witnesses" with reference to the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord: 1 Cor. 15: 3, "Also I received," with which cf. "Also ye" in verse 1, and verse 23 with note 540 below. In 1 Cor. 15 there is no question of any appeal made to a written document (cf. Heb. 2: 3), in an epistle of which some still hold that Paul was the writer.

Besides Apostles (for John, see below) as eye-witnesses in general, who would be the originators of tradition dealt with in section A, there must have been private persons (see Acts 1: 21 f.) who supplied the Evangelist with information in answer to his inquiries (cf. note 7 below). The birth narrative could have been obtained from the Lord's mother. Her reticence as to His childhood has been recorded by Luke (Luke 2: 51): it has a bearing on her probably special disclosures to this Evangelist (Macalpine, p. 20).

For the Galilean and Perean records in particular there would be the evidence available of other women from that region; and for the respective relations of the Baptist and of our Lord to the court of Herod, that of Joanna (Luke 3: 1, Luke 8: 3, Luke 9: 7-9, Luke 13: 31, Luke 23: 7-12).

Luke was resident for two years in the house of Philip the Evangelist (Acts 21: 8; cf. Harnack, "Luke the Physician", p. 155 ff.), through whom he may have gleaned much that is recorded in chapters 9 - 18. Again, he may have obtained from such as Nicodemus details as to the Passion of our Lord (Barnes). We may also suppose that Luke had considerable intercourse with John the son of Zebedee; for affinity between his Gospel and the Fourth, see already note 1.

C. Reverting to what has been introduced at the beginning of the present note as to critical opinion going back to the last quarter of the eighteenth century, it is necessary to recall such views as Lessing's that common written material underlies all the Synoptics; and Eichhorn's, that an Aramaic original was used in the composition of the three existing Gospels, but that none of them saw the others' work. Unremitting study of the subject by many scholars during the last century has led to the now dominant conclusion: most critics find various strata or layers in all, indicating different stages of development in the form that the Synoptics have respectively taken (J. Weiss, p. 39 f.), resulting in part from inter-dependence (with this cf. Godet's conservative view, i., pp. 42-48, 53-71). And so of Luke's Gospel, that it depends primarily on one or other of its predecessors. We may, then, first consider the order in which these Gospels were written.

In the early Curetonian Syriac version, Luke's is placed last of the four Gospels, probably because it was the latest to be translated into Syriac. In the Western MSS. existing when Jerome began his study of the New Testament, as in the recently discovered Akhmîm Codex now at Detroit, U.S.A.. although placed third (as already in the Muratorian Fragment), it follows John, and is before Mark. The order in which readers of the English Bible know it is that assigned to it by Origen, the great Christian scholar of the third century, in agreement with the majority of MSS. and versions that have come down to us. The view taken by some Germans in the middle of the last century that it was the first written is now much discredited. Indeed, Bishop Westcott's arrangement, 1 Mark, 2 Luke, 3 Matthew, has found support in Germany, as by Pfleiderer. But writers of such a different type as Professor Schmidt in America and Professor Orr in Great Britain dispute the priority of Mark to Matthew.

The question as yet remains, had the writer of our third Gospel seen the one going under the name "Matthew." The answer of Hug was that Luke made use of it, and the Roman Catholic professor was followed in this by Greswell, who held that Luke must have seen Matthew's record. A few writers, such as E. Holtzmann, Wendt, and Allen, think that he used it to some extent. The esteemed Roman Catholic professor Schanz adheres to the ancient view that Luke's Gospel was to a large extent derived from both Matthew and Mark.

But the view of most moderns, amongst them Ewald, Meyer, B. Weiss, and now Harnack ("Sayings," p. 112), is that the independence of Luke and of the present "Matthew" was established by Weisse (1838), after the great English scholar Thirlwall (Introduction to Schleiermacher's Essay) in 1825 had expressed the belief that neither of them could have known the other's account of the Infancy and the Resurrection. Current criticism favours the theory that it is the use by Luke of a document lying behind our Matthew which explains a considerable amount of matter being common to these two Gospels alone. This point will be discussed in section E. below.

With regard to the question whether Luke had seen Mark's Gospel, critical opinion, to a large extent, is very different. This must now engage attention.

D. Analytical comparison of Luke's Gospel with that attributed to Mark has revealed, especially in chapters 4 - 9 of the third Gospel, a similarity so close in order and wording in both Matthew and Luke to the parallel record in our second Gospel, as to lead many scholars to the conclusion that Mark's Gospel was used by each, with the necessary corollary, in keeping with the now prevalent opinion recorded in section C., that the shortest of the Synoptic Gospels was the one first written. This is a complete reversal of the view taken by Griesbach, Schleiermacher, Baur, Strauss, and Davidson, for whom the order was 1 Matthew, 2 Luke, 3 Mark (cf. note 2 in volume on Mark). Such are the vagaries of criticism previously illustrated by the paraded late date, as was supposed, of Deuteronomy, which has given place to the priority, maintained with no less dogmatism, of that book to the so-called "Priestly Code." The now supposed priority of Mark to Matthew underlies the book entitled "The Synoptic Question (Problem)," by Wernle, and the more recent works of Harnack, which may be consulted in English translations, as also in the latest writings of Professor Bernhard Weiss, which have been reviewed in the German "Journal of Theological Literature" by Dr. Harnack.

The principal, more or less common, results worked out by these three scholars, in particular by Weiss in his "Sources of Luke's Gospel," will be set out in the present section, which is concerned with so much of the hypothesis now most in favour respecting the composition of the first and the third Gospel as pertains to the supposed relation between Luke's record and that of Mark.

The "common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels" (cf. section A.) is contained in the passages of Luke (as of Matthew) parallel to Mark, which are shown in Rushbrooke's "Synopticon," pp. 1-131, and is there exhibited by the aid of red type. The strict parallels (see margin of text of Exposition, passim) begin with Luke 3: 1 and end at 24: 11 of our Gospel. Examination of this material has shown that Luke has reproduced nearly three-fourths of Mark in much the same order (Harnack's "Luke the Physician," p. 87); this phenomenon is specially noticeable as far as chapter 9 of the third Gospel. A sample was given by Abbott thirty years ago in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," which reappears in the introduction to the "Synopticon" (Matt. 23: 21-42: Mark 12: 1-11; Luke 20: 9-17); another may be seen in Green's edition of Angus's "Handbook to the Bible" (p. 630 f.; Matt. 9: 28; Mark 2: 3-12; Luke 5: 18-26). The following passages of Mark alone seem to have no equivalent in our Evangelist (cf. Wernle "Synoptic Question," pp. 3-40): — Mark 4: 26-29, 33 f.; Mark 6: 1-6, 45-56; 7 throughout; Mark 8: 1-9; Mark 10: 35-40; Mark 13: 20-23; Mark 15: 16-20 (here, however, cf. Luke 23: 11). Parts of these also absent from the Gospel of "Matthew" have been put in bold type in the "Exposition of Mark."

Incidents (the "matters," πράγματα, of verse 1 of the Prologue; cf. the "deed" of 24: 19), as distinct from the words of our Lord (see next section), make up a little over half of Luke's Gospel (Wernle states it as 52 per cent., p. 253), which may be verified by the aid of the Cambridge "Verba Christi" Testament. This is deemed the Marcan element in his record.

The idea that Luke (as "Matthew") made use of Mark's Gospel in an earlier form (the "Ur-Markus" or "Primitive Mark" of earlier criticism [cf. Barnes, p. 25; Moffatt, pp. 191 ff.]), had already been abandoned by its chief advocate, H. Holtzmann, before the recent books of Harnack and B. Weiss appeared. These writers agree in the belief that Mark's Gospel lay before the other Evangelists in turn in the same form as that in which his Gospel has come down to us. The following is a sample of the fanciful treatment of the subject in the hands of some critics: "The endeavour of Luke, as of Matthew, was to give renewed recognition to the Gospel of Mark by an enlarged and improved edition in such a way as Mark himself would have freshened up his work in any second edition" (J. Weiss, p. 36; cf. Harnack, "Luke the Physician," p. 158). Such is the fruit of a system from which Divine design is excluded. The following remark of an English writer is appropriate: "If Luke and Matthew made use of a written Mark, the book must have been frequently copied and widely circulated immediately after it was written. And yet, according to the now current theory, only one copy of St. Mark's Gospel existed at the time of his death and probably for many years afterwards" (Wright's introduction to "Gospel of St. Luke in Greek," p. 15)!

Salmon has left behind his matured opinion that Luke was not acquainted with Mark as a written document, but only with those portions of it which he had heard orally recited at Antioch (p. 26), before he became Paul's companion (p. 38). As far as Luke's Gospel is concerned, we may take into account the intimacy between these two Evangelists. They may have conferred together on their joint labours, Luke being partly influenced by Mark's chronological arrangement (cf. note 12 below, and "Exposition of Mark," p. 3, and note 4 there), from his colleague's close connection with a prominent eye-witness (cf. "Exposition of Mark," pp. 1 and 2).

Prof. Schmidt in America, and Prof. Orr of Glasgow ("The Resurrection," pp. 63-72), are amongst writers of repute who repudiate the Marcan part of the documentary hypothesis, which Burkitt and Allen in this country fondly imagine to be "among the most assured results" of investigation of the Synoptic problem. Orr has written, "None of the critics defending dependence are able to do more than elbow out the difficulties created by the phenomena set out in Alford's 'Prolegomena."' For the view of Thirlwall and De Wette, see note 6d below.

As it is, those who contend that Luke was dependent on Mark for his narrative portion have, on their own principles, to account for the large amount of matter, chiefly of course sayings, which is common to the first and the third Gospels, but without any equivalent in Mark. This presents itself for consideration in the section which immediately follows.

E. In an earlier section was foreshadowed that portion of the theory now in favour which, in particular, is supplementary to the portion of it dealt with in section D. Matthew and Luke also often agree closely when they do not follow Mark, that is, they have the same material within the limits of our second Gospel, which, nevertheless, has nothing corresponding to their parallels inter se. But neither Luke nor Matthew could have borrowed from the other, because the literary peculiarities of each remain the same as when following Mark (see section C. above).

The matter common only to Matthew and Luke is found to be a record chiefly of the Lord's sayings: see λόγων, verse 4 of the Prologue, R.V. marg. "words," and Luke 24: 19, where "things" is divisible between "deed" and "word," for which last cf. John 17: 8. The two are combined again in Acts 1: 1, "to do and to teach." The deeds of our Lord, as has been seen, are supposed to be accounted for by the Marcan material in Luke (section D.); for the sayings, Weisse propounded a theory, that in the composition of the Gospel of Matthew use was made of another document, which H. Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, B. Weiss, Harnack, etc., think Luke also has turned to account, each compiler being independent of the other in the process. This further phenomenon has already been introduced in the last paragraph of note 10 on Mark (p. 238). It is discussed in, amongst recent books, Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," pp. 88 ff.; Wernle, "Synoptic Question," pp. 80-91, 224-233; Wellhausen, "Introduction," pp. 65-68; Harnack, "Sayings," and B. Weiss, "Luke's Gospel," chapter 2; "Sources of Synoptic Tradition," chapters 1, 2: and Moffatt, "Introduction," pp. 194 ff.

The critics' belief was suggested by a statement preserved by Eusebius, of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (see note 1), which acquires importance for the study of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Papias speaks of a collection made by Matthew of Logia (λόγια) of our Lord in "the Hebrew dialect." From the use of this by the compiler of our first Gospel the name under which that goes is supposed to have been derived. Harnack, whilst himself of opinion (pp. 115, 171) that it is probable that this collection, which with B. Weiss he conceives lay primarily behind Luke's Gospel, was (as Salmon supposed) identically the same as that spoken of by Papias, thinks that it is a point which "can neither be proved nor disproved" ("Journal of Theological Literature," 1907. No. 5, p. 13 ff.). Weiss regards the compiler of the Logia as an eyewitness. To this hypothetical document the designation of "Q" has been given, as first letter of the German word for "source" (Quelle).

This "double tradition" of Matthew and Luke may be gathered from the passages set out in Rushbrooke's first appendix, pp. 134-170, where the material common to these two Evangelists is shown in capitals. The passages asterisked in the list of these below are considered by Wernle (§ 7) to be in historical order. The Matthew parallels (see again margin of Exposition) may be ascertained from reference Bibles, such as the Cambridge "Interlinear" or Bagster's. Cf. Hawkins, p. 107 ff.

Luke 1: 26-31, 34 f.; Luke 2: 39; Luke 3: 7-9, 17, 23-25, 31-34; Luke 4: 3-13; Luke 6: 20-23, 25, 27-49; Luke 7: 1-3, 6-10, 18-35; Luke 9: 57-60; *Luke 10: 1-16, 21-24; Luke 11: 1-4, *9-15, 19 f., 23-26, 29-32, *34-44 [47-50]; *Luke 12: 2-9, 22-34, 39-46, 51-59; Luke 13: 20 f., 23-29, *34 f.; Luke 14: 1-6, 11, *13-24, 26 f., 34 f.; Luke 15: 3-7; Luke 16: 13, 16 f.; Luke 17: 1, 3-6, *23 f., 26 f., 33-37; *Luke 19: 11-28; Luke 20: 18; Luke 22: 28-30.

It will be observed that in chapters 5, 18, 21, 23 f. nothing from "Q" is found noticeable. That document is thought to begin to be clearly discernible in the record of John's Baptism. According to Wernle's analysis, about 48 per cent. of our Gospel consists of discourses.

The text of "Q" as conceived by B. Weiss appears in chapter i. of his critical commentary. Harnack similarly furnishes a translation of it according to his own analysis. Weiss has always contended that it extends to narrative also; until lately his view has been supported by very few writers; but Harnack now finds in "Q" seven narratives, two of them miracles of healing (p. 163). Orr also has recently expressed his agreement with Weiss on this point. Cf. Schmidt, pp. 219 f., 227 f.

It is commonly believed that "Q" was written originally in Aramaic, the colloquial dialect (Wellhausen, p. 14, etc.), in which form Pfleiderer and Nestle think that it was used by both Evangelists; but Abbot, Resch, Briggs, and the Jewish scholar Dr. Gaster are more probably right (such also was the opinion of Delitzsch in his later years) in holding that Hebrew was the language of its composition. Aramaic does not seem to have been used in Palestine for literature so early.

The late Bishop Goodwin gave as his judgment in the sixties that "the common written materials used by the Evangelists were not originally in Greek, but were translated into Greek by different hands" (p. xxxii.). It is clear that some record in Greek would early be needed by the Greek-speaking believers of the Dispersion, when it is remembered that there are said to have been no less than three hundred synagogues for the Hellenists (cf. Acts 6) at Jerusalem alone. Although the question of variations arising from different translations (see Jülicher, p. 359) may present itself, as Harnack says (p. 92), in places like Luke 15: 4, "wilderness," compared with Matthew 18: 12, "mountains," yet this distinguished scholar supports in the main the view of Weiss, that one and the same Greek version of "Q" was used by Matthew and Luke, because their verbal agreements in this element of each Gospel are generally so close.

Wellhausen (pp. 73-89) assigns priority in time to Mark. But Weiss, dating "Q" in the year 67, thinks it earlier than Mark's record (so Harnack, p. 193 f.; cf. Sanday "Life of Christ in Recent Research," p. 157). From the fact that it includes no account of the Lord's death, etc., Salmon (p. 247) and Ramsay have revived a suggestion of Paley, the celebrated writer on evidences, that some record was kept in Christ's lifetime; as to this, Loisy ("Gospel Studies," p. 11) remarks that the Twelve were "more accustomed to the fisherman's rod than to the pen of a scribe"; but this would be inapplicable to Matthew, who, moreover, would know both Greek and Aramaic (Zahn). As far as concerns Greek, knowledge of that language must, it seems, be credited to Philip and Andrew (John 12: 20 f.) as well as to Matthew. A reason given by some who discredit Paley's idea is, that the vivid expectation which the disciples had of the speedy "completion of the age" would keep them from so recording the Lord's utterances (cf. Westcott Introduction, etc., p. 163). It has to be remembered, however, that the Lord's words about this came only at the end of His ministry. Whatever view be adopted, it must of course take into account the bearing of His words in John 14: 26. There can be little doubt that the prevalent impression is that any record was oral only.

Godet (pp. 48-53), whilst admitting use of documents, questioned their being common to the different Evangelists, and Zahn does not support the view that any such document as "Q" was a dominant factor in the composition of Matthew and Luke, whilst, from what has been said in section A. of Salmon's judgment, the reader will be able to appreciate the Dublin scholar's opinion already recorded, that, although he joins others in thinking that Luke was dependent on "Q," our Evangelist obtained his knowledge of it, not by study of any document, but by having heard it read at the weekly gatherings of the Assembly in Antioch. A "Synoptic Table," according to the Two-source Theory, would be found in Holtzmann, Introduction, pp. 376-382. Although Schmidt, describing his own opinion as "in harmony with early tradition," holds that "the attempt to solve these problems by the so-called two-source theory cannot be regarded as successful" (p. 228 f.). Similarly Bartlet in "Oxford Studies," Burkitt ("Gospel History," p. 37), and Allen (Preface to St. Matthew, 7), following B. Holtzmann, as already stated, accept the theory as established before the recent works of Harnack and Weiss appeared. Moreover, currency has been given to it in this country by the Angus-Green popular "Handbook" which is put forth by the Religious Tract Society, so that it is no longer confined to the fraternity of the learned.

When material from the sources dealt with in the last two sections has been discriminated in Luke's Gospel, there is still a residue of its contents to be accounted for, which must be considered in the next section.

F. Parts of Luke remain discernible in every chapter of his Gospel, so as to amount to more than one half of it, which by modern critics are attributed to some special source or sources at his command (cf. Moffat, pp. 266 ff. and section B. above). Weiss ("Sources of Luke's Gospel," chapter iv.) — with whom Harnack essentially agrees — assigns these to a single source, which he has designated "L," and Bartlet "S" (Sondergut of Wernle). Whether there is more than one such source, Harnack describes as at present "the most important problem in Synoptic criticism."

"L" ("S") is rich in parables, such as that of the Good Samaritan and the parable of the Prodigal Son so-called. It is in passages so classified that the epithet "the Lord" occurs, applied characteristically in this Gospel to Christ, that we have the birth and childhood narratives, the genealogy, the version of the great discourse said to have been delivered on a "plateau," the raising to life of the young man of Nain, the healing of the Samaritan amongst the lepers, the parable of the Pounds, and our Evangelist's record of the Last Supper, the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension. In Weiss's treatment of this part of his analysis ("Sources of Synoptic Tradition," chapter iii.), writes Harnack, "that veteran has no predecessors." In chapter iv. of his treatise, "L" is regarded as of Judean, i.e., strictly Hebrew-Christian origin, and a purely written source, so likewise Sanday, in his academical lecture (Expository Times, December, 1908). Wright finds three sources ("Luke's Gospel in Greek," p. vii.f.). Wernle discusses "L" in his "Synoptic Question," pp. 91-107 (cf. the English translation of his popular booklet, pp. 143-153).

The passages representing Abbott's "Single Tradition of Luke," as arranged by Rushbrooke, will be found in the "Synopticon," pp. 198-234. These, beginning with the first and ending with the last verse of the Gospel are:

Luke 1 and 2 throughout; Luke 3: 1-2, 4-6, 10-16, 18-20, 23-38; Luke 4: 14-30; Luke 5: 1-10, 12, 17-19, 39; Luke 6: 11 f., 19, 24-26, 37 f.; Luke 7: 1-7, 10-21, 29 f., 36-50; Luke 8: 1-3; Luke 9: 6, 30-32, 36, 43-46, 48, 51-56, 61 f.; Luke 10: 1-5, 7-11, 17-21, 29-42; Luke 11: 1, 5-8, 12, 21 f., 27-29, 33, 36-41, 44-46, 53 f. ; Luke 12: 1, 13-21, 32-38, 41, 47-58; Luke 13: 1-17, 22-27, 31-33; Luke 14: 1-33; Luke 16: 1-31; Luke 17: 5-22, 25, 28-30, 32, 37; Luke 18: 1-14, 34, 43; Luke 19: 1-28, 37-44, 47 f.; Luke 20: 20, 26, 34-36, 38; Luke 21: 12-15, 18-26, 28, 34-38; Luke 22: 15 f., 23 f., 27-41, 43 f., 48 f., 51-53, 59-61, 63, 65-68; Luke 23: 1 f., 4-19, 22-25, 27-32, 34 f., 39-46, 48-51, 53-56; Luke 24: 3-53.

Cf. the "Register" of B. Weiss in his "Sources of Luke's Gospel," pp. 10-12, and the margin of the text in the "Commentary on Luke," by J. Weiss ("Writings of the New Testament"), where "M" stands for Mark, "Q" for the collection of sayings, "S" for his father's "L."

The younger Weiss, after Pfleiderer and Wernle, regards "S" ("L") as an enlarged edition of "Q," applying this to "special" matter of either Matthew or Luke; but see Harnack's strictures in "Sayings," p. 185, note. Bartlet thinks that the "Q" element in Luke came to him already in "L" ("Oxford Studies," p. 360), and that this is largely parallel with Mark, where Luke's Gospel is (p. 361). Stanton likewise makes much of "L."

Harnack supposes, after Dr. Rendel Harris, that there was a written document entitled "Words of the Lord Jesus" (see Acts 20: 35), which he inclines to identify with the Logia.

Bishop Hervey and Dr. Sanday agree with German critics in the belief that there was an Aramaic written source of chapters 1, 2, the Oxford scholar remarking that "for a Greek like Luke there must have been many technical points" in the topics concerned (loc. cit., p. 112). Contra, Ramsay.

Zahn (p. 104 of German edition) repudiates the idea of some critics (see Burkitt) that the canticles were simply composed by Luke himself.

B. Weiss believes that just when Luke had no chronological indication such as Mark often otherwise afforded him, our Evangelist arranged his "special" materials according to his own sole judgment. W. Kelly would have said, more happily: Luke in that, as in all else, was Divinely guided, with a moral design. See in particular his "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," p. 105 f.

G. A succinct account having thus been given of the development to the present time of the "Synoptic Problem," a few words may be added by way of summary and appraisement of critical results. We have found that the hypothesis now prominently before students of the Gospels assumes the existence of at least two, most scholars think three, main sources of "Luke." Amongst indications of the synoptist's use in general of various sources is that afforded by what are deemed duplicate records (Weiss, "Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 119); that is, two records of the same incident or discourse noticeable in Matthew, and even in Mark, in regard to which our Evangelist is believed, like John, to have exercised something like modern "criticism," at least discrimination: as to these "doublets" so-called, see Hawkins, pp. 80-107, if not Wernle, pp. 99-101. Luke 4: 16-30 might be compared with Mark 6: 1-6, or Luke 15: 4-7 with Matt. 18: 12-14: see Bennett, p. 141, Hawkins, loc.cit., or Wernle, p.99 ff. Some, as H. Holtzmann (followed by Wernle), find "doublets" even in Luke, e.g., the mission discourse in Luke 11 compared with that in Luke 10; 19: 26 with Luke 8: 18; Luke 21: 14 with Luke 12: 11. Such writers discredit the supposition that the Lord spoke or acted in the same or a similar way at different times, in diverse connections, with distinct purposes; but see Godet, l., p. 69.

Readers trained in evidence dealt with in English courts of justice, when they take up critical treatises by German theologians, are struck with the slender amount of evidence for their theories that satisfies these writers. Cf. Letter of the late Lord Chancellor Hatherley to the present Bishop of Durham (booklet of "Thoughts on the Resurrection"), and the weakness of the reasoning upon such evidence as they adduce. Hypotheses, each in turn "assured," supplant one another in rapid succession. Such has been the history of these literary investigations. Blass might well speak of "scientific" theology so-called as "that untrustworthy guide of laymen" ("Philology of the Gospels," p. 35).

Use of earlier by later writers is suggested by agreements, and these "the documentary hypothesis" can account for, as Wright has owned ("Luke's Gospel in Greek," p. x.). But it is differences which most test the capacity of the inquirer. Divergences, as the same English writer further remarks, are not accounted for by the dominant critical theory. "The oral hypothesis rightly understood accounts for both" (ibid.). So, already, Godet, i., p. 70. Augustine may well be followed in his belief that a fusion of the two elements affords the best solution of an undeniably difficult problem.

4a None of the narratives referred to in the text, other than the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, both of which the Expositor excludes, have survived, at least in their integrity, as applicable to the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (supposed by Lessing to be common source of the three Synoptics), and the "Gospel according to the Egyptians," to which latter the recently-discovered Oxyrhynchus fragments of Logia may have borne some relation. The Gospels commonly called "Apocryphal" were considerably later productions (Cf. Godet, vol. i., p. 56).

5 Origen, in his first Homily on Luke, says that such compilers did but attempt that which the canonical Gospels achieved. Those others worked "without the grace of the Holy Spirit." The word επεχείρησαν, rendered "undertaken," is the same as is used by the Evangelist in Acts 19: 13, of the Jewish exorcists.

5a As regards the word πράγματα rendered "matters," cf. its use in Acts 5: 4, where "thing" is equivalent to "action." Reference has already been made to the use of λόγος in the same connection (verse 4) and to like conjunction of act and word in 24: 19, and Acts 1: 1.

5b The word πεπληροφορημένων, which has been rendered "fully believed," as by Olshausen, Meyer, etc., Jerome (whom Godet, p. 58, Bishop Lightfoot and Blass follow), took as "fulfilled" (R.V. text) "come to pass." Orr would translate it "fully established" (R.V. marg.). Cf. its use in 2 Tim. 4: 5, 17, as rendered in R.V.

6 The subject of Authority, the second mentioned in note 2, goes to the heart of burning questions of religion at the present day. Already fifty years ago Dean Goodwin wrote: "The inspiration controversy has ceased to be the property of the learned." In Germany, some representatives of the theological faculties of the Universities have been giving what in England would be described as "University extension" lectures to audiences of such as Prof. Harnack would describe as "half-educated" people; and this with the idea of saving the position from pastors of the type of Frenssen and Kalthoff, if not from men of the calibre of Haeckel, alike deemed to poach on the preserves of the "scientific" theologians, who little regard "the man in the street." The pronouncements of such "pastors" are reproduced in this country through English translations circulated by the Rationalist Association for popular reading; so that the question is pressed on public attention.

Our English philosopher, Locke, wrote that "every one has to decide for himself what is REVELATION, and believe accordingly." The Apostle Paul, "that if any one thought himself a prophet or 'spiritual' (πνευματικός) he was to recognise the Apostle's words as from God" (1 Cor. 14: 37); and he evidently assumed that the persons whom he had in mind possessed some Divine afflatus, such as resided in the Ante-Nicene Church down to the time of Tertullian.

"Revelation," writes Stalker, "took place through the institutions, events, personages of a divine history" (p. 19). "Inspiration was the power of interpreting through history, putting its meaning into words" (ibid.). Cf. Bishop Boyd Carpenter's statement in pp. 89, 96, of his perhaps widely circulated little book, published by Dent. The bête noire is what goes under the name of "verbal" inspiration, a leading writer upon which eighty years ago was the very able Alexander Carson. He, in "Remarks on Dr. J. Pye Smith's Theory of Inspiration" (1827), with reference to 2 Tim. 3: 16, asks, "What is a writing but words written?" (p. 32). Upon the disputed translation of that classical passage, Carson observes, "The substantive verb is naturally to be understood to each of the adjectives. What reason can be given for giving it to one and withholding it from the other?" Cf., in defence of the A.V., W. Kelly's treatment of the same passage in his "Exposition of the Epistle," and also his "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," pp. 25, 38 and 598 f., as well as his exposition of 1 Cor. 2: 10-16, in the last-mentioned volume (pp. 22-25). There is no excuse for referring (as does Bousset) the Apostle's statement in 1 Cor. to the ecstatic language of tongues; the word λαλεῖν (verse 13) Paul used in Rom. 7: 1 definitely of the language of a letter.

All depends upon what is exactly meant by the phrase "verbal" ("literal") inspiration. In modern times it seems to have had its roots in Calvin's words "composed under the dictation of the Holy Spirit" ("Institutes," iv. 8, 6), and his speaking of the New Testament writers as "amanuenses of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., iv. 8, 9), which his seventeenth century followers expanded, unhappily, into what has since been described as "mechanical inspiration" (Synod of Geneva, 1675).

Luther, rightly enough, gave no countenance to this last view. He doubtless, by his free treatment of Scripture, gave the impulse that has produced "higher-criticism," some of which he would certainly have repudiated.

With such language as that of the Swiss synod in his mind, Thirlwall, afterwards Bishop of St. Davids, speaking of "that doctrine of inspiration once [i.e., for about 100 years, to the time of Lessing] universally prevalent — the sacred writers were merely passive organs or instruments of the Holy Spirit — abandoned by the learned, still a generally received notion . . . this doctrine of literal inspiration, etc.," admitted that all the hypotheses as to the composition of the Gospels were irreconcilable with a theory, which no intelligent Bible student seems any longer to hold: see W. Kelly's "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels" (1866), p. 288; cf. his chapter on The Human Element in "God's Inspiration, etc." At the present day no representative writer can be charged with maintaining that the inspiration of the Bible was on a plane with the Moslems', idea of the Koran — dictated word for word to a Prophet (see Margoliouth, "Mohammed and the Rise of Islam," p. 91 f.). It is, however, precisely that absurd system which Archbishop Temple ("what can be a grosser superstition"), Dean Farrar, Canon Wilson, and Mr. Gladstone (on Butler, iii. p. 17) have in turn criticised. What the meaning was of the reaffirmation of "plenary" inspiration by such Papal encyclicals as the document of 1893 may be left to writers of that communion to determine. We are concerned mainly with the sentiment of those not subject to the Roman obedience. That there is room for criticism of statements by Gaussen, Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, Dean Burgon, and Archdeacon Lee is not questioned. Some of them have not allowed that the personality of a scripture writer could influence at all what he wrote; but words of Paul dispose of such ill-advised ideas: "I speak as a fool" (2 Cor. 11: 23). Tregelles, the eminent textual critic who held a healthy form of plenary inspiration, had weighed well what he wrote: "It is the thing and not the expression which I would maintain. The expression has been represented as if it implied some mere mechanical operation, while the thing really is that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, so that everything in it — narratives, prophecies, citations — are such as He saw fit to be there; and the whole — ideas, phrases, expressions, and words — was given forth exactly as was according to His mind and will" ("Remarks on the Prophecies of Daniel," p. 275). Cf. his "Hope of Christ's Coming" p. 94. This was but another way of stating the proposition of Carson: "It is of the words as containing the meaning, and not of the meaning as distinguished from the words, that inspiration is directly and expressly asserted."

We may next record the position of Theodore of Mopsuestia, because he was the ancient protagonist within the Church of the now current academical view. It is thus stated by Barry (p. 216): "Theodore limited the meaning of inspiration by the mind of its organ; he could not tolerate a deeper than man's intention. So prophecy to him became ethics; Messianic passages were understood exclusively of their immediate objects; the words of the Bible did not proceed from God" (cf. Newman, on "Development," pp. 285-291, and Farrar, "The Bible," p. 71). Before him came Origen, who ventured to write that "God Himself introduced errors" (De Princ., iv., 1; see Gwatkin's extract), following the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, who, though holding what crudely passes for "verbal inspiration," attributed by him to the Seventy, said that it contained "self-contradictory statements and ridiculous stories" (Watson on "Inspiration", p. 221). As to this the late Prof. Jowett wrote: "There is no more reason why imperfect narratives should be excluded from Scripture than imperfect grammar; no more ground for expecting that the New Testament should be Aristotelian in form than that it should be written in Attic Greek" (reprint of "Essay on Interpretation of Scripture," p. 20 f.). That "Reason excludes inconsistency" (Benn, "Rationalism," i., 131) is common ground for believers and unbelievers. It is always and solely a question of making good any inconsistency alleged. Chrysostom, in a homily on Matthew, says that collusion might have been imputed had everything tallied exactly (Schanz, "A Christian Apology," ii., p. 423, E. T.).

As to the objection raised from the several evangelists reporting the same thing in different words, see Carson, p. 39 ff. He selects as example the different wording of the inscription on the Cross (cf. note 349 in "Exposition of John" ). A living writer has remarked, "Jesus did not use both forms of expression at one and the same time . . . not that they are always literally and exactly the very words Christ used" (Orr on "Verbal Inspiration," and so W. Kelly, as cited above). The Glasgow professor illustrates his view by reference to Luke 6: 22 compared with Matt. 5: 11; Luke 9: 27 with Matt. 16: 28; Luke 12: 5 f. with Matt. 10: 28; Luke 23: 28 with Matt. 27: 37; also Mark 15: 26 with John 19: 19.

The inconsistency is flagrant of scholars who belittle "verbal" inspiration in the sense of this note, and yet insist on discriminating the exact force of particles, etc.

On the bearing of textual criticism on Inspiration, see note 17 below.

Many serious Bible students will join the present writer in here at least, following Augustine (quoted by Schanz from a letter of his to Jerome): "I firmly believe that none of their authors has fallen into any error," rather than Thirlwall (p. xv.) or Dr. A. Wright in Introduction to his "Synopsis of the Gospels," and that to his "Gospel of St. Luke in Greek," who rates the authority of Schürer more highly than that of Luke with regard to the Census: we are reminded of Carlyle's famous words about the Creation.

It is often said, disparagingly, of some Biblical record, that it is only given by one of the Evangelists: this, to say nothing worse, is really uncritical. Thus is Luke 23: 7-12, pronounced by some critics as unhistorical because not found in Mark, deemed by them superlatively reliable! Burkitt, himself ably representing "critical" principles, as to this sensibly remarks: "The story of the Gadarene swine rests really on no more evidence than the story of the blind man at Bethsaida; and similarly the parable of the seed growing secretly is really no more attested than the parable of the vineyard" (p. 132; cf. p. 138 f.).

We must ever consider the Biblical writers in a light relative to their respective periods. Smyth well remarks, "Even Moses, Samuel, and David may have had on some points lower spiritual conceptions than some of the children in our Sunday-schools today, and yet their conceptions were so far above those of the people whom they taught that only Divine inspiration could account for them" (p. 172). Upon the Bible viewed as in Eastern book, see Barry, p. 18 f.

The official Roman Catholic position may be found stated in Schanz, op. cit., vol. ii., chapter xiii. (p. 432 in particular); cf. Cardinal Newman's paper in The Nineteenth Century for Feb., 1884, and Barry, p. 17. The last-named writer states that verbal inspiration "is no longer made equivalent to verbal perfection, as though there must be a divine style recognisable by its human characters." The only reason why the Jesuits reject it is, that they seek to raise Tradition to the level of Scripture.

Christ's "power is made perfect in weakness" (2 Cor. 12: 9); this may explain the allowance of such a reference as that in Acts 7: 16, which perhaps falls under the principle stated by Barry: "We should be creating imaginary difficulties did we suppose that, because a volume is inspired, it must needs be written with a minute accuracy of quotation or incident such as no human author can achieve" (p. 19).

Schanz says. "Faith in Scripture will waver only if faith in the authority of the Church falters" (p. 391). This characteristically Roman position will be examined in note 13 below. It has a bearing on the "Modernism" that agitates Roman, and the "Higher Criticism" which burdens English, Church circles. "Anglican Churchmen have used the Church to lessen the strain upon the Scriptures; in other words, to take away the terrors of criticism" (Nash, p. 160 f.). See, e.g., the series of Essays entitled, "Lux Mundi" (edited by Mr., now Bishop, Gore).

Unitarian sentiment is represented by the writings of the late Dr. James Martineau, as in the cheap reprint of his "What is Christianity?" (p. 17). It is largely what lies behind "advanced" criticism.

"The Bible," writes Nash, "must submit to the most searching examination." Left to speak really for itself, it has always done so. What about the converse process? (Heb. 4: 12). That is a vitally serious question which every reader "must" answer. "It is said," writes Tregelles, "whatever theory of inspiration a man may hold, it does not disqualify him from being a Christian. A parallel statement would be: Whatever theory of obedience to the laws a man may hold, it does not disqualify him from being a loyal and peaceable subject and citizen" (op. cit., p. 278).

A recent writer has said, "Believers in the Apostles' day were independent of the written Word; but we can neither stand nor move without it." "Scripture is the crystallised breath of the Holy Ghost, and the Bible a telephone down the ages, at the other end of which is the Voice of God" (D. M. Panton).

Carson described the doctrine of verbal inspiration, rightly understood, as "one of the fortresses committed to Christians by Jesus Christ" (p. 49). This was re-affirmed by the Expositor's own words: "Scripture, like the Lord Jesus, is a grand moral test" ("God's Inspiration, etc.," p. 57).

Cf. note 13 on Mark, and also notes 11 and 13 below; besides a recent defence. of plenary inspiration by C. E. Stuart ("Outline of the Gospel of Luke," pp. 325-336).

6a Delivered; cf. Acts 6: 14; 2 Thess. 2: 15 (alike oral and written tradition).

6b "From the beginning" (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς). The meaning is fixed by Acts 1: 22, the baptism of John. See 4E above.

6c "Of the word" (λόγου), — ministry, as in Acts 6: 2. Wright takes the "ministers" of "catechists"; cf. the use of ὑπηρέτης in Luke 4: 20, where the chazzan of the synagogue is spoken of, whose function it was to give such instruction. The same two Greek words occur again together in Acts 13: 5.

6d The same view was expressed with almost equal emphasis by Thirlwall, who wrote: "It seems nearly certain that if his document had been founded either on a document such as that imagined by Eichhorn (note 4) or on the works of St. Matthew and St. Mark (infra) he would have made some allusion to these sources. All that can be collected from the Prologue with certainty is that, at the time when St. Luke wrote, there were several documents relating to the transactions which form the subject of his Gospel, and that these were imperfect. To deduce anything more from his language requires a rather subtle and elaborate argument" (p. cx. ff.) Similarly De Wette (ad loc.), "Luke does not expressly say that he used his predecessors." Cf. "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," p. 70 f. Cf. Godet, i. p. 85. Origen and Athanasius (cf. Zahn) took λόγος here in the sense of John 1: 1.

7 "Having thorough acquaintance . . . accurately." — The word παρακολουθεῖν means personal acquaintance. Calvin refers to its use by Demosthenes, "On the Crown," 53 (the passages may be seen in Alford), the similarity of whose language to several words of the Prologue is most striking. The famous commentator of the Reformation remarks that in the case of the Athenian orator and the Evangelist alike "each was in the same position as if he had been an eye-witness." Orr: "Luke himself, in contrast with the many, goes back to first-hand sources. This is his own account, with which any interpretation must harmonize" (p. 71). Cf. the use of the same word in 2 Tim. 3: 10.

The word ἀκριβῶς is used of exact scientific processes (Carr).

8 "All things." Whether Luke was acquainted with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark or not, he was, undoubtedly, with the facts that they recorded. Abbott writes, with reference to the words quoted by Paul in Acts 20: 35, "had the Evangelists known it as Christ's saying they could hardly have omitted it . . . almost certainly it did not come from His lips" ("From Letter to Spirit," § 997). This is like saying that either Luke did not know of the contents of Mark 6: 45 - 8: 26, because he has no clear equivalent, or that, aware of such a record, he discredited it, as is the wont of some writers on the Gospels. Luke's omission of, at any rate, most of that section is, in itself, a problem for critics.

9 "To arrange." ἀνατάξασθαι, rendered as equivalent to συντάξασθαι. The word employed by Luke is taken by Blass to mean, "reproduce, restore from memory." He cites Irenaeus for use of the same word as to Ezra's traditional restoration of the books of the Old Testament ("Phil. of the Gospels," p. 15). Cf. note 4A above, and note 16 below.

10 "From the outset." In Acts 26: 5, Luke has used ἄνωθεν in the same sense as here, of time.

11 "Seemed good." Cf. the same form of expression in Acts 15: 22, and in verse 28, "to the Holy Spirit and to us," where Divine direction and human motive are unquestionably linked together.

12 "In regular order"; as Ebrard, Meyer, Weiss, Hahn and Godet, understand καθεξῆς of chronological order (cf. 8: 1, Acts 3: 24); but Blass more as the Expositor, explains the word as meaning "uninterruptedly," "completely." Alford (after Westcott), "a moral or logical sequence." Cf. Salmon, p. 74, etc. Luke follows Mark's sequence of events as far as 9: 17 of his own Gospel, after which he seems never to return to it. While von Soden thinks that Luke has followed the order of "Q" more closely than Matthew, Harnack gives the other Synoptist's order the preference.

13 "Mightest truly know." Cf. use of ἐπιγνῶναι in Acts 24: 8. These words introduce the subject of Interpretation (note 2), which is ancillary to that of Inspiration (note 6).

It is still sometimes said, but chiefly by Romans and their sympathisers, that indiscriminate, popular Bible reading is productive of heresy, so-called. With regard to this, Girdlestone inquires, "Who was to interpret St. Luke to Theophilus . . . to the elect lady, John's letter to her?" ("English Church Teaching," p. 10). It might seem as if a Romanist would attempt an answer to this by first inviting a distinction between Books of Scripture which afford "devotional and spiritual reading" (Clarke, "The Pope and the Bible," p. 43), and those from which the Church has developed its doctrine. Thus the R.C. "Penny Catechism," Ans. to Q. 360, names the "Gospels" par excellence, without any distinction between the Synoptics and the Fourth, as suitable for the purpose just named. But there Romanist and Protestant alike meet with inspired teaching; and in theory Roman dogma is grounded upon it. So that Clarke's idea of limiting the "general distribution" of the Scriptures to the above as "the sole object" goes by the board. Indeed, according to "a Roman Catholic, correspondent" writing to the Guardian (issue of 9th Dec., 1908), the Society of Jesus in France has tried to have the reading of Gospels prohibited, because of their suggesting Protestantism. Father Clarke has done his best to justify the prohibition, in 1229, of Bible-reading by the laity, but Voltaire's criticism (cited by Reinach, p. 423), is unanswerable: "It was to insult the human race to venture to say to it, We want you to believe, and would not have you read the Book upon which this Faith is based."

Memorable are the words, from his pulpit, of John Chrysostom, the great ornament of the ancient Eastern Church, whose canonization by Rome, awkwardly for her, no Pope has executed the feat of cancelling, as did Benedict XII. that of Clement of Alexandria. When the Church was rent, in the same way as now, by contending factions and discredited by corruption, the "golden mouthed" preacher in his Forty-third Homily on Matthew, declared that "there can be no proof of true Christianity, nor other refuge for Christians wishing to know the true faith, but the Divine Scriptures"; that "the Church of Christ is known in no way to those wishing to ascertain which is the true Church, but only through the Scriptures." Not a word does he add about note or comment.

"We cannot imagine," says a living Roman writer, "the Bible without the Church or the Church without the Bible" (Barry, p. 8). Observe here the "vicious circle": Bible and Church are made mutually to rest on each other. For Romans, the Church has a living magisterium or teaching office (Schanz, ii., p. 389), and claims monopoly of right "interpretation" (cf. note 2, above). This, however, traverses the testimony of the Holy Spirit in 2 Tim. 3: 15, as to the "Holy Scriptures," there said to be able per se, to make wise, etc.

Again, Catholics rely on the "consent of the Fathers," which is very much a mirage, as Barry frankly witnesses: "Diversities make the unanimous consent of Fathers in an identical exegesis rare" (p. 15). He takes, for example, Basil's and Augustine's different interpretations of Gen. 1.

Once more listen to Clarke: "What effect has Protestant Bible-reading on the lives of the readers? . . . No one can read the books of modern infidels and agnostics without observing how familiar to them is Scriptural language" (p. 46). The moral of this is that such people, whether trained as Protestants or Romanists, need to be evangelized; Canon (now Bishop) Gore's relations with the late Dr. G. Romanes illustrate this. Which precedes the other in Eph. 4: 11, the teacher or the evangelist?

Here arises the question whether the Church is or is not the source of ministry. That it was so primitively is an untenable proposition. The Church was called and formed already by evangelization, one form of ministry. Hence the flaw in Dr. Hawkins' principle, that "the Church teaches, Scripture proves"; see his Bampton Lectures (Sermon II.), and Newman's letter to Froude, in Miss Mozley's "Life and Correspondence" (II., p. 126), of the Provost of Oriel's more famous colleague, who has referred to it also in his "Apologia." Again, as well might hostile critics of the New Testament be right in holding that our Lord's Resurrection was progeny of the Apostolate as for an Anglican writer, Vernon Staley, to speak of the Bible as "the child of the Church" ("The Catholic Religion," p. 343), instead of the Church as Witness to Holy Writ, which derives no authority from it. So Leslie, quoted approvingly in Bishop van Mildert's Bampton Lecture, p. 327, whose position supplies the antidote to Augustine's famous saying: how it was that he believed in the Gospel, which was quoted at the Council of Trent.

The "ruin of the Church" as a whole, a view of which W. Kelly was a leading exponent, would not impair the credit of its witness to Holy Writ, — to the canon arrived at by it, because we have to distinguish between the mass in early times and the "faithful men" referred to in 2 Tim. 2: 2, by whose influence, under the hand of God, such questions were determined.

Is it not throwing dust into people's eyes to go on telling them that "the Church wrote the inspired books?" (Staley, loc. cit.). To whom then, any intelligent reader might inquire, were the books addressed? "Historical Christianity," which gave birth to such a theory, was for the Expositor a system too circuitous and vapoury.

And so for Bishop Gore's suggestion ("Lux Mundi," p. 339 f.) that it is "irrational, considering the intimate links by which the New Testament canon is bound up with the historic Church, not to accept the mind of the Church as interpreting the mind of the Apostolic writers," which was probably suggested to him by Newman's like argument with regard to ecclesiastical miracles. The worthlessness of the bishop's remark has been shown by Sir R. Anderson's parody of it: he transfers the idea to the Old Testament canon as determined by the Jews, whose interpretation of the Messianic prophecies their descendants might similarly call upon us to accept ("The Bible or the Church," p. 73 f.).

The well-worn misapplication of 2 Peter 1: 20 would be found corrected by Bishop van Mildert (op. cit., p. 180 f.). The observations of that bishop on p. 153 f. as to dispensational differences might well be re-affirmed in the present generation — so much neglected still is the principle concerned.

As to the exaggeration of the pregnancy of Scripture by the system of Cocceius (Vitringa the Elder, etc.), see Conybeare's Bampton Lectures, pp. 263 ff.

See further, notes below on 5: 1 and 6: 39, and Sir R. Anderson's trenchant chapter 6.

14 "The certainty (ἀσφάλειαν) Cf. Luke's use of τὸ ἀσφαλές in Acts 22: 30. A man, to impart certainty, must first himself command it. How can any with show of reason, question the Evangelist's claim? Dr. Abbott ventures to say that Luke is "probably the least authoritative of the four." Marcion's judgment, strange to say, was the exact opposite of that of our modern English scholar, whose saying that Luke "defeats his object" by adapting, improving, and reconciling, rests upon question-begging.

One sometimes hears it said that inspiration is not required for writing true history. Even those who say so, if candid, admit that scriptural history at what they would call its worst is incomparably above ordinary records. Cf. it only with Church histories, most affected by the writers' bias. It has only been in our own time that "historical science" has been cultivated.

Luke was not himself a witness. "Scientific" critics hold, further, that none of the writers of the other Gospels were; that their records are founded on testimonies no longer available. The effect of this is that the historical JESUS is beyond our apprehension (Reinach, p. 332), i.e., in any merely human way. His very death belongs to the same category as all else. Divine testimony, and faith in that, are needed throughout. Cf. note 6 above, and notes 450 and 589 below.

15 "The things" (verse 4). As to λόγοι here and πράγματα ("matters" in sense of "acts") in verse 1, see note 4, especially section E.

16 "Thou hast been instructed" (κατηχήθης), that is "catechised," as said of Apollos in Acts 18: 25. Cf. 1 Cor. 14: 19; Gal. 6: 6; Wright: "Did the Gospel originate in the pulpit or in the schoolroom?" He supposes that Mark's Gospel was used for the instruction of Apollos; but Blass thinks that Apollos may have derived his information from reading the document as itself the instructor.

Goodwin: "St. Luke does not purpose to enlarge the knowledge of Theophilus, but to confirm it." In other words, the Evangelist does not, as sometimes alleged, propose to communicate to the addressee all that the writer himself knows.

§ 3.

17 The question of textual (external) criticism — third of those enumerated in note 2 — which has been briefly dealt with in notes 14-16 on Mark, must here receive development, because of its relatively greater importance in connection with Luke's Gospel.

The English Authorised Version (1611) of the New Testament was mainly derived from what was afterwards called the Received Text, based on a recension of the original Greek called "Byzantine" by Griesbach, and contained chiefly in relatively late MSS. (such as LΔ among uncials and cursive 1). The Revised Version (1881) is founded on a more ancient text (ABC, etc.) allied to that which the same critic named "Alexandrian," but, as limited by Westcott and Hort, the most influential members of the committee in textual matters, has been called "Neutral." The views of these English scholars rapidly received general support, and the dominance of their system of selection has only within the last few years been shaken by those critics who incline towards greater recognition of a third rescension, known as the "Western" or "Syro-Latin." As Sir R. Anderson has written, the Westcott-Hort "mutilation of the Gospels" by rejection of the indirect evidence afforded by the united voice of versions (such as the Old Syriac and Old Latin) and Fathers in favour of the direct evidence of "certain of the oldest manuscripts," was not likely to commend itself to adepts in the science of evidence. ("Pseudo-Criticism," p. 5.) The, leaders in the reaction are German critics, Blass and Wellhausen in particular. Sanday continues his allegiance to the Cambridge scholars, whilst Weiss adheres to a modified form of the Westcott-Hort criticism, regarding the cursives somewhat more than those English scholars have done, and internal evidence always, but sometimes following B even when Hort has not done so, as in 5: 18, whilst Harnack is disposed to apply the drag to the rapidly radical departure from it.

Westcott and Hort, developing predecessors' classification of the Greek copies, arranged the MSS, as follows:-

i. The Syrian group (previously called Byzantine) that of most copies headed by the Alexandrine ("A," in the British Museum), which have been compared, in particular, with Chrysostom's quotations and radiated from Antioch.

ii. The Western, typified by Beza's MS. ("D," at Cambridge), compared with Latin Patristic quotations, and proceeding especially from Rome and Carthage.

iii. The "Neutral," so called from being thought comparatively free from corruptions, which are best represented by the Vatican MS. ("B," at Rome), compared especially with Origen's quotations, and derivable, probably, from Caesarea, if not Alexandria.

The theory of the Cambridge scholars (Hort in particular) was that the text underwent a Syrian revision by editors acting under episcopal supervision, from about the middle of the third to almost the middle of the fourth century. Interpolations (inter alia) were deemed to characterize more or less the two other groups, the first especially, so that note was taken of any Western non-interpolations — i.e., omissions of what is, accordingly, placed by these editors under suspicion. Example: Luke 22: 44 f.

"B" was accorded the first place in excellence among "Neutral" MSS. as being least of all influenced by other copies, unlike A and C affected by "" (Sinaitic), or LΔM by "D."

The Swiss professor Wernle expresses preference of one combination above another, thus: "BCL together are more reliable than D Ital Syrr cu sin" (p. 9).

Scrivener discussed the theory in chapter 7 of the third edition of his "Plain Introduction" (1883), describing it as "destitute of historical foundation."

Godet's critical apparatus in his commentaries was discredited simply because, as Schanz says, he was "no friend of the Alexandrines." The esteemed Swiss scholar himself wrote: "Criticism inclines to the documents of the Alexandrian text as blindly as it did formerly to the representatives of the Byzantine . . . the Alexandrian text cannot deprive criticism of the right of free examination in each particular case. Very often the true reading has been preserved by the representatives of the two other texts combined, or even by those of one of them." (3rd French ed., 1888, p. 80 f.)

The copies of the Western group are marked by tendency to adopt additions from non-canonical sources — e.g., at Luke 6: 5, and Luke 23: 53; to harmonizing, noticeable in Luke 24: 6, 12, 36, 40; to paraphrase (Luke 24: 53), or to elucidation of the sense, as in Luke 14: 5 (D adds "sheep") and Luke 24: 51 f.

Such authority as was possessed by "D," Hort thought to be derived from its being read in the Assembly at Rome. As the only uncial which has the Western text, he depreciated it. This codex exhibits more variations in Luke's writings than elsewhere, which Hort accounted for by supposing that it had, naturally, a large circulation among Gentile Christians at trade centres widely distant from one another. Its peculiarities have since been discussed by Professor Rendel Harris and Prof. (now Bishop) Chase. Dr. Rendel Harris (in "Texts and Studies," edited by Dean Robinson, vol. ii., pp. 1-272) regards the Western text is a "readjustment of an earlier text to the Latin versions." He suggests that "D" has passed through Montanist hands (chapter xiv). If so, its reading in Luke 11: 2, "Let Thy Holy Spirit come in," is the more interesting. Cf. the "Ante-Nicene Christian Library," vol. vii., p. 289. The bishop, in his "Syro-Latin Text," regards the Western as "Moulded on a Syriac text." See further in Kenyon's "Handbook," pp. 73-82.

It is the textual work, however, of the late learned Dr. Friedrich Blass, Professor of Classical Philology at Halle, which has most recently attracted the special attention of students of the New Testament. Blass was not restrained by any such theory as Hort's from following merely Western authority. He has explained the many variations of "D" in Luke's Gospel and the Acts by supposing ("Philology of the Gospels," chapters vii. and ix.) that there were two editions of each, and that while the codices "" and "B" represent the earlier and shorter recension, followed in this scholar's own edition of the Gospel, "D" has preserved to us the later edition of it, which was that read by Theophilus (p. 103). Another view taken is that the shorter text represented in our English Bible is a later, revised one. In the idea of two editions Blass was anticipated by the view of Le Clerc in the seventeenth century, revived by the late Bishop Lightfoot in his "Fresh Revision of the New Testament," p. 29. It might account for additions or omissions, as in Luke 9: 56; Luke 22: 43; Luke 23: 34; but would fail in some other respects. Whilst Nestle, Salmon (p. 497), and a few more scholars have favoured Blass's theory, it is discredited by B. Weiss, W. Holtzmann, Zahn, Jülicher, Bousset, Ramsay, and Kenyon (see pp. 291-304 of his "Handbook ").

There is a balanced account of the Western text in the Interpreter, Jan., 1908. 150 f., by Prof. Swete. Wellhausen, in his "Commentaries on the Gospels," favours the recension. "D," he remarks in his "Introduction, etc.," "often contains Semitisms which were removed in B and ." The Western text also finds appreciation in the article on "The New Testament Text," by C. H. Turner ("Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary," p. 575). The latest Continental textual investigator, Prof. von Soden, manifestly inclines to it. See an account of his researches and theory in Lake, pp. 100-103 (4th ed.).

Upon the connection of the Synoptic with the Textual problem, see Salmon, p. 108 f. Had Luke's Gospel been a mere enlargement of Marcion's, the canonical document would have been as late as 130 A.D. Scholars now commonly agree that Marcion mutilated it for dogmatic purposes, although a few cling to the idea that he used the first or shorter edition. See further, Thirlwall, pp. li. — lxiv.

Dr. Rendel Harris writes: "Of the books in the New Testament which have undergone revision, the two which have suffered most are the Gospel of Luke and the Acts ("Studies, etc.," p. 286). And Orr: "The text of the Bible during its long literary history has been subject to vicissitudes, to interpolation, explanatory annotation, editorial revision, for a special purpose (e.g. Temple use of Psalms, etc.)." There is no real excuse, however, for such words as those of Mede: "It is patent that, once we know the elementary facts of the history of the text, it is utterly impossible that there can be any question of verbal inspiration" (p. 77). Tregelles, of course, had a familiarity with the whole textual problem beyond all comparison with that of the Theosophist writer, and to his remarks, reproduced in note 6 above, reference may here again be made. It is only superficial prejudice that would resist the proposition of W. Kelly "Various readings belong to the distinct region of man's responsibility" ("God's Inspiration," p. 598). As to critical "emendation" of the text, it may suffice to refer to Scrivener, op. cit., p. 490.

Prominent for textual criticism of this Gospel among recent discoveries are a copy in the Monastery of the Laura on Mount Athos, of the eighth or ninth century, which is lettered , and the Akhmîm from Egypt, of the fourth or fifth century, in the possession of C. L. Freer, at Detroit, U.S.A.

The witness of the following fragmentary copies of Luke's Gospel will be recorded in the footnotes where variant readings calls for it.

(i.) Those of Codex Zacynthius, lettered ξ, in the library of the British and Foreign Bible Society; a palimpsest of the eighth century with marginal commentary, published by Tregelles in 1861. It contains less than one-fourth of the Gospel, viz., Luke 1: 1-9, 19-23, 27 f., 30-32, 36-66, 77-80; Luke 2: 1-19, 21 f., 33-39; Luke 3: 5-8, 11-20; Luke 4: 1 f., 6-20, 32-43; Luke 5: 17-36; Luke 6: 21-49; Luke 7: 1-6, 11-37, 39-47; Luke 8: 4-21, 25-35, 43-50; Luke 9: 1-28, 32 f., 35,41-62; Luke 10: 1-18, 21-40; Luke 11: 1-4, 24-33. Six-sevenths of its agreements with , A, B, and C are with the "Vatican" uncial.

(ii.) Those of Codex Nitriensis, lettered "R" by Tischendorf, a palimpsest of the sixth century (Scrivener, i., p. 145). It is shown in Case C of Biblical MSS. at the British Museum, and contains about one-half of the Gospel, i.e., Luke 1: 1-13, 69 — Luke 2: 4 (visible in B.M. case), 16-27. Luke 4: 38-5: 5. Luke 5: 25-6: 8. Luke 6: 18-36, 39, 49 — Luke 7: 22, 44, 46 f. Luke 8: 5-15, 28 - 9: 1. Luke 9: 12-43. Luke 10: 3-16. Luke 11: 5-27. Luke 12: 4-15, 40-52. Luke 13: 26 - 14: 1. Luke 14: 12 - 15: 1. Luke 15: 13 - 16: 16. Luke 17: 21 - 18: 10. Luke 18: 22 - 20: 20. Luke 20: 33-47. Luke 21: 12 - 22: 15. Luke 22: 42-56. Luke 22: 71 - 23: 11. Luke 23: 38-51 (all recorded in Tischendorf's eighth edition).

Seven-ninths of its agreements with ancient copies are with "B."

The term "conflation," which will sometimes be used in the footnotes, is that used by Westcott and Hort for mixtures, where scribes having before them a marginal alternative reading, copied it as well, e.g., in the last verse of Gospel, where before "blessing" (εὐλογοῦντες) "D" added "praising" the (αἰνοῦντες), reproduced in A.V.

Besides literature referred to above, reference may be made to Burkitt's article on the "Text of the New Testament" in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," vol. iv. (1903), to Kenyon, in Hastings' "One Volume Dictionary," and to the American Professor Vincent's "History of Textual Criticism"; whilst readers of German might derive aid from consulting Prof. B. Weiss' study of Luke's text in the "Texts and Investigations," edited by Gebhardt and Harnack, new series, vol. iv. (1899), pp. 1-246. Reference is sometimes here made to this last in critical notes.

18 With regard to translation, some students regret our not having possession of the actual Aramaic background of the Greek text. There is, however, one advantage acknowledged in the fact that an impress of the Aramaic thought remains in the Greek, which was happily reproduced in the translation published in 1611, the cherished inheritance of English-speaking peoples.

Mr. Kelly's critical notice of the R.V. of Luke's Gospel would be found in "The Bible Treasury," vol. xiii., p. 302, and that of the American renderings in vol. xiv., p. 335.

NOTES ON THE FIRST CHAPTER

, Verse 5 ff.

19 Luke 1: 5. — "Judea." This seems to stand for the whole land of Israel, as manifestly in Acts 10: 37, and in the Gospel at Luke 6: 17, Luke 7: 17, and Luke 23: 5. In Luke 2: 4, Luke 5: 17, however, it probably represents the limited territory of Judah (see verse 39).

20 Luke 1: 13. — The are seven pieces of dialogue in this and the chapters following, which are more or less rhapsodical utterances, and go under the name of "canticles." Margoliouth says: "The evidence is strongly in favour of their having been originally in Hebrew verse" (address on Synoptic Gospels at University College, London). Cf. note 4 F with reference to the suggestion of Schleiermacher (p. 25) and others (as Burkitt), that these are Luke's free compositions; see also Godet, i., p. 216 f., and Sanday, "Outlines of the Life of Christ," who regards chapters 1 and 2 as "the most archaic thing in the New Testament" (p. 166), and Briggs' "of the first degree of historic importance" (p. 164 f.).

The passages are: — (i.) Luke 1: 13-17: (ii.) Luke 1: 28, 30-33, 35-37 f.; (iii.) Luke 1: 42-45; (iv.) Luke 1: 46-55; (v.) Luke 1: 68-79; (vi.) Luke 2: 10-12, 14; (vii.) Luke 2: 29-32, 34 f.

21 Luke 1: 15. — For Nazarite vows, see Num. 6, and cf. Matt. 11: 18.

22 Luke 1: 17. — Plummer refers to Ecclesiasticus 48: 10 (see R. V.), languishing of parental affection. Augustine's idea (adopted by Calvin) was that by the "fathers" is meant, the patriarchs (see Isa. 29: 22 f.; Isa. 63: 16).

"Disobedient," i.e., to God, so Schanz, referring to Titus 1: 16, Titus 3: 3; cf. Rom. 1: 5.

"To (for, by) the wisdom" (A.V.) came from Mal. 4: 6.

23 Luke 1: 19. — "Gabriel." Tobit 12: 15, speaks of seven archangels (naming "Raphael"). The Book of Enoch adds "Uriel." These are the sources of Milton's nomenclature. In canonical Scripture (but see Rev. 1: 4, Rev. 3: 1, Rev. 4: 5) not more than two archangels are named, Gabriel (Dan. 8, 9), herald of goodness, and Michael (Dan. 10, 12; Jude 9; Rev. 12: 7) of wrath. The Jews have said that "Gabriel flies with two wings, Michael with one."

24 Luke 1: 25. — "Reproach" (see Gen. 30: 23).

25 Luke 1: 26 ff. — We here enter upon the Birth story, as to which Harnack ("What is Christianity?" p. 31) says, "The oldest tradition knew nothing of any stories of Jesus' 'birth."' The whole question of the Virgin birth will be discussed below at verse 34 ff. As to "Nazareth," see note 46.

26 Luke 1: 27 f. — Mary as a name represents the Old Testament "Miriam," in Aramaic "Mariam," as in Greek here. According to the Protevangelium of James, she was fifteen years of age at the time. The ancient belief was that she died in the year 64.

The question has been raised whether the words "of the House of David" go with "Virgin" (B. Weiss, Godet) or with "man" (De Wette, Meyer). Chrysostom and Bengel say with both. Cf. verse 32 and note there; also verse 69, and see note in chapter 3 on the Genealogy. Its being said of Joseph would have no meaning in this connection, when actually applied to him, in Luke 2: 4, it is introduced as something fresh. Cf. on verse 32. On the infancy, see Nicoll, "The Incarnate Saviour," chapter i., pp. 14-16, in particular.

27 Luke 1: 31. — "Jesus." The name (Jeshua), Neh. 8: 17, was very common among the Jews of the time. In Col. 4: 11, mention made of a Jesus, surnamed Justus, one of the Circumcision. One of the Lord's ancestors, according to the flesh, bore the same name, see Luke 3: 29 (R.V.). The Talmud, in order to get rid of the original meaning of "the name" (James 2: 7), although using "Jeshua" of all others bearing it, regularly speaks of the Lord by the clipped name Jesu.

28 Luke 1: 32. — "The Highest." The O. T. Elyon. It was the usual designation of GOD among the Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion. Again in verses 35, 76.

"His father David." Mary was probably of the tribe of Judah (B. Weiss).

29 Luke 1: 34 ff. — Five verses here enshrine Luke's narrative of the supernatural (virgin) birth of the Lord Jesus.

Schanz forsakes his usually sensible exegesis — but what is a Roman writer here to do? — by taking Mary's words as a vow of virginity, which is excluded by verse 27.

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," etc. Cf. Acts 1: 8. For the "overshadow," see Ex. 40: 34. Pfleiderer: "It is not God himself, but God's Holy Spirit, who begets Jesus" ("Primitive Christianity," ii., p. 117 f.), a remark certainly not derivable from the exact words of the Evangelists, which represent the Holy Spirit's action only as the procuring cause. The article is absent, as again in Luke 2: 13.

30 "Shall be called Son of God." The "therefore" shows that we have not here the Eternal Sonship. The Messiah (see note on Luke 2: 11) had to be, transcendently, Son of God (verse 35); next, Son of Man (see note on Luke 5: 24), if He was to take up the Davidic claims; and child of a virgin (verse 27).

i. As Son of God, He should be both Priest and Victim (L. A. Sabatier, "The Atonement," p. 53, comparing John 17: 19, and Heb. 8: 2), and fulfil at the same time the types of "burnt offering" and "sin offering."

Ritschl has well said that the distinctive N. T. name of GOD is "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," Eph. 1: 3.

The Christadelphian theory that the Sonship began with the birth of the Lord, so as to preclude His pre-existence, is but a popular echo of unbelieving "scientific" theology. Its advocates are materialistic Unitarians. Swedenborgians, on the other hand, confess the pre-existence. For Loisy's assertion ("Synoptic Gospels," vol. i., p. 194) that this idea is "not expressly formulated nor even suggested in the Synoptic Gospels," see note on Luke 10: 22.

The Lord is spoken of as "Son of God" in this Gospel (1) by others, in Luke 3: 22; Luke 4: 3, 9, 41; Luke 8: 28; Luke 9: 35 and Luke 20: 9. (2) By Himself in Luke 10: 22 ("The Son") as in Luke 22: 70 in answer to the high priest's adjuration. He speaks of God as His "Father" in Luke 2: 49; Luke 9: 26; Luke 10: 21 f.; Luke 22: 29, 42; Luke 23: 34, 46; Luke 24: 49.

ii. That JESUS should be legal heir of Joseph belongs rather to the consideration of Matthew's narrative; but see note on the Genealogy below, and also that on Luke 8: 20, with regard to indispensable requirements of such a claim.

iii. The virginity of Mary is also developed by Matthew, who cites Isa. 7: 14, attaching to that prediction a meaning not previously given to it by the Jews; so that Dalman, who notes this little-known circumstance, treats it as supporting the truth of the narrative, on the ground that a virgin-birth was not looked for ("Words of Jesus," p. 276). As D. Smith says, "the history was not as sceptics insinuate, adapted to the prophecy, but the prophecy to the history" (p. 528). Pfleiderer (op. cit., ii., p. 346) in connection with Mark 3: 21 (cf. note 41 in "Exposition" of that Gospel), objects that Mary could not have joined His brethren in treating JESUS as out of His senses if she had known of a supernatural birth. But there is absolutely nothing in Mark's text to show that she did participate in their impression. The Marcan incident does not clash with her attitude in verse 34 here.

J. H. Newman, preaching on the Incarnation (Sermons, vol. ii., p. 35), said: "As in the beginning woman was formed of man by Almighty power, so now, by a like mystery, but a reverse order, the new Adam was fashioned from the woman. . . . He had no earthly father; He abhorred to have one." The great recent German theologian, Dorner, has remarked: "As Son of Man, the Lord cannot have been the son of any particular man:" see his "Christian Doctrine," ii., pp. 446-451.

Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any mention of a human father of the Messiah (Delitzsch, "Messianic Prophecies"); cf. Ps. 22: 10.

The Syriac of Sinai, in Matt. 1: 16, has "Joseph begot Jesus"; that version, however, in the same context speaks of Mary as a virgin; so that its "begot" must be understood in a juridical sense, as manifestly in the Greek of verse 8; "Joram begot Uzziah," and of verse 13, "Zerubbabel begot Abiud." The Curetonian Syriac follows the traditional text.

The status of betrothal was in the eye of Jewish law the same as that of marriage: Deut. 22: 23 f.

The stages in the New Testament view of the Lord's Person are doubtless three, as stated by Lobstein (p. 65 f.):-

(1) In Mark, corresponding more to the popular Messianic belief or theocratic view of the Divine Sonship. Such would supply, according to his parable, the "green blade of the doctrine." As to Mark's being said not to have heard of the Virgin Birth (Menzies, Clodd, etc.), see note 57 in "Exposition" of that Gospel. Critics are careful to say as little as possible about Mark's "silence" as to Joseph which, however, so impressed Baur that he maintained the critics' first Evangelist was acquainted with the Virgin Birth.

(2) Of the independent records of Matthew and Luke, either of which would be alien to the Jewish mind, Matthew's is the more objective (public) account, proceeding, it seems likely, from Joseph; Luke's, the more subjective (private) account, probably derived ultimately from Mary (cf. Godet, i., p. 162 f.), through her son James (as suggested by Bishop Chase, referring to Acts 21: 18). Although he "begins with the Jew" (Exposition) and so corroborates Matthew's specially Jewish testimony, his record was designed for Gentile readers, many of whom would be familiar with legendary stories of virgin-births (Pfleiderer, "Early Christian Conception of Christ," pp. 35-43), as of Buddha (Paul Carus), who would not be alienated by the representation of such a supernatural event. Here the Church would receive the "ear" of Mark's parable.

(3) In the Prologue of John's Gospel. As to the fourth Evangelist's supposed silence upon this subject, see Neander, "Life of Christ," p. 17, and note 21 in the Exposition of the last Gospel; also note 42 there, on Gardner's fancy ("Exploratio Evangelica," p. 239) that John meant to protest against the Virgin Birth, or that writer's notion that the words to Nicodemus in John 3: 6 could be used against it. This last stage would represent the "full blade in the ear."

And so of the Apostle Paul, as in Rom. 1: 3 f. "Paul," writes Pfleiderer, "is anything rather than a Jew in his Christological exegesis of the Old Testament. Here he leaves all Jewish tradition on one side and gives vent to his mythological vein; whence he derives it, it would be hard to tell. No road leads up to the divinity (sic) of Christ from the Old Testament" (op. cit., ii., p. 115). Such a theory as this we may hold, with Orr, "is the death of all its predecessors in its admission that the idea of the V.B. was familiar to Paul" (see 1 Cor. 15: 47; also Gal. 4: 4, γενομένος, "come," rather than, as in Luke 7: 28, of the Baptist, γεννητός, "born") and the early Christians. (Cf. chapters 3, 5, of Dr. R. J. Cooke's "The Incarnation and Modern Criticism" (1907)). It is because of the difficulty felt in being consistent in this respect that negative critics have fallen back on the device of tracing the belief to Gentile myths, going back to Babylonian (Orr, p. 27 of pamphlet); but Harnack, to his credit, dissociates himself from this part of the business.

The miraculous conception is recognised first, outside the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in the Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians, and in the recently recovered Apology of Aristides. It begins to be denied by Cerinthus (Irenaeus, i. 26), probably within the lifetime of the Apostle John (cf. above under Gardner). So repugnant must it have been to the severely austere morality of Jews, that "the mere fact that it arose on Jewish soil is a singular attestation of the Evangelic story" (D. Smith, p. 52, after Neander, p. 15). Orr, referring to present-day criticism allied with the system of the Jewish "Ebionites," remarks: "It is a curious irony which makes the narrowest and most retrograde of Jewish-Christian sects (the ancient Nazarenes, or more tolerant party, accepted the belief) the true representatives of Apostolic Christianity" ("The Virgin Birth," p. 164 f.).

This matter forms an essential part of the larger question as to the distinction which is made between the "historical Jesus" and "the Christ of the Creeds." Thus Pfieiderer: "Primitive Christianity has transferred the Jesus of history into the Christ of faith . . . has identified the 'self-existing Christ' with the heavenly Son of Man of the Apocalypse and the Son of God and Logos . . . has finally brought this eternal heavenly Being down to earth to become man, to die, to return to Heaven, there to share the throne and sovereignty of God until His future coming to judge the world" ("Early Christian Conception," p. 160 f.). Again Schmidt: "He (i.e., JESUS) would have been utterly bewildered by the Nicene creed" (p. 383); and Gardner: "There is no demonstrable connection between the 'Jesus of history' and the Christ of Christian experience." These are typical expressions of what goes under the name of the "New (Modern) Theology" from three countries of "modern civilization." But listen to one who, advanced critic as he is, is careful in his statements — Wellhausen — who writes, "The historical Jesus, like a leading card, has been played against Christianity. . . To divorce Him from the effect of His history is to be unjust to Him. Whence came faith in Him as religious Ideal save from Christianity? . . . We cannot go back even if we would." ("Introduction to the First Three Gospels." p. 114.)

H. Holtzmann and Harnack question the two verses, as if an interpolation. On the same side, besides Lobstein (above) write Drummond, Wernle (pp.81-83 of booklet in E. T.), and Schmiedel ("Encyclopaedia Biblica" art. "Mary"), J. Weiss, etc.; whilst in defence of the V.B. the following, besides Orr, may be consulted: — Dorner, B. Weiss, Godet (pp. 213-216), Zahn, Fairbairn, Bruce, Gore, and Sanday, etc. See further, besides notes referred to above, those on Luke 2: 41 and 48; Luke 4: 22; and Luke 18: 19.

30a The "holy thing" (cf. Matt. 1: 20). This distinctly traverses Dr. Boses' saying that the Lord was "not holy by nature" ("The Gospel in the Gospels," p. 163). The position taken by the American professor is a curious comment on his countryman Prof. Foster's claim as against "orthodox" scholars, to "intellectual" honesty. JESUS was from the outset "holy," cf. John 10: 36, although "made of a woman" (Gal. 4: 6); see Job 25: 4. On the connection of this with His sinlessness, see Orr, pamphlet on the "Virgin Birth," p. 29. A pulpit, if not academical, utterance of Schleiermacher should be noted: "It is the experience of all without exception that in everyone who has appeared on earth, endowed only as the children of men, sin has sooner or later developed. So it would have been in the Redeemer Himself if he had been from His birth like other children. . . . If Christ had been a sinner even in the least degree, could He have been our Saviour?" ("Selections from Foreign Pulpit Literature," vol. xvi., p. 279 ff.).

Bruce has well said: "A sinless man is as much a miracle in the moral world, as a virgin birth is a miracle in the physical world" ("Apologetics," p. 410, in criticism of the view taken by Abbott in "Onesimus," bk. iii., par. 7).

For the translation of verse 35, cf. American Revision.

31 Luke 1: 37. — Cf. verse 35, and note on 2: 11 (Theotokos, cf. note 51).

32 Luke 1: 42. — Cf. Judith 13: 18.

33 Luke 1: 45. — These words Bunyan represents as coming to the remembrance of Christiana and her party as soon as they had crossed the "Slough of Despond" (Pilgrim's Progress," Pt. ii.).

34 Luke 1: 46-55. — The "Magnificat." The Virgin was familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, especially the Psalms, where compare Ps. 45: 3; Ps. 98: 3; Ps. 107: 9; Ps. 132: 1, 6, 7, 15. That Luke resorted to the vocabulary of the Seventy (note 4 F) to record the Aramaic utterances of Mary (verse 48) in Greek may be readily believed; but to say that he freely composed them (cf. note 20) is another matter. Ryle aptly refers to Col. 3: 16 for the lesson conveyed by this beautiful canticle. Hort's marginal reading "Elizabeth" instead of "Mary," in verse 46, is that of three old Latin MSS., and was known to Origen. It seems to have no support from Greek copies.

35 "Soul . . . spirit." Cf. Ps. 103: 1; "all that is within me" (Maclaren). How closely connected, and yet distinct, "soul" and "spirit" are, is shown by Heb. 4: 12. The difference broadens in the adjectives, "soulish" and "spiritual" in 1 Cor. 15: 46. "All through Scripture," writes Professor Laidlaw, "spirit denotes life as coming from God; soul, life as constituted in the man" ("Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible," iv., p. 167). The "spirit" is the energy of a man. As for the soul, in it "lies the centre of his personality" (Orr, "God's Image in Man," p. 51). The view, however, of the writer last quoted, that "spirits that never had bodies could not be called souls" (ibid.), is questionable, as "soul" in Scripture has not "always" the connotation of body; see Lev. 26: 11; Judges 10: 16; Isa. 42: 1. If that were so, there could be no objection taken to Kautzsch's saying (ibid., art. "Religion of the Old Testament") that in pre-prophetic times Jehovah was conceived of as having bodily form — a remark apparently based on such passages as Ex. 33: 23.

For the tripartite organism of man see Gen. 2: 7. It is brought out clearly in 1 Thess. 5: 23. "Breath of lives" in Genesis seems to suggest a continuity for the spirit which science recognizes in respect of the body. If this be so, the Creationists and Traducianists (see Liddon, "Elements of Religion," pp. 98-104), represented by Romanists and Lutherans respectively, share truth between them.

36 Luke 1: 56. — Here comes in Matt. 1: 18 ff.

37 Luke 1: 59. — The word ἐκάλουν is well rendered by Carr, "were for calling." The naming of a child was by Jewish custom independent of its circumcision.

38 Luke 1: 68-79. — The "Benedictus." For the vocabulary here, cf. Ps. 18: 2; Ps. 132: 17. This canticle seems specially modelled on the prophets (Plummer). In verse 77 "salvation," not found in Matthew and Mark, is a link with John's Gospel (cf. note 1). "Since the world began"; American Revision, "of old."

39 Luke 1: 72. — "To fulfil" (ποιεῖν), cf. 10: 37 ("show," see note there), and in the Old Testament, Gen. 21: 23; Joshua 2: 12; Judges 1: 24; Ps. 119: 65.

39a Luke 1: 74. — See Dr. Chalmers' sermon on "The Right Fear and the Right Faith."

40 Luke 1: 75. — "Piety," ὁσιότης, Carr: "A conscientious obedience to God. . . . a wider word than δικαιοσύνη, obedience to law."

41 Luke 1: 77. — "Deliverance"; or "salvation" (σωτηρία). Cf. Psalms of Solomon 17: 36: Messiah's removal of sin by His powerful word.

"Zacharias and Elizabeth" forms subject of a discourse by Dr. Whyte in his "Bible Characters," No. LXXII.

42 Luke 1: 80. — Some think that here, as at Luke 2: 40; Luke 2: 52; Luke 4: 13; there is mark of the conclusion of a separate document each time. The idea is discredited, amongst others, by Ramsay, p. 86 f.

NOTES ON THE SECOND CHAPTER

.

43 Luke 2: 1. — "Habitable world." This is practically equivalent to the whole area of Roman dominion. Strabo uses οἰκουμένη of the Mediterranean lands. The word is found in the LXX. sometimes for the Hebrew tevel, or éretz in the sense of "earth."

43a "Cyrenius" is the Greek, "Quirinius" (R.V.) the Roman form of the name.

44 Luke 2: 3. — "Own city." Observe that the same expression is used for Nazareth in verse 39 as here for Bethlehem, which should restrain criticism that, since at least the time of Schleiermacher, has sought to set this Evangelist at variance with Matthew. Thus, after German writers (e.g., Soltau, p. 18), the article by Gardner in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," in which it is said to be "historically probable that Jesus was born at Nazareth." Now, Matthew starts with Bethlehem, but not so as to imply that the habitual residence of Joseph was there; Mark speaks only of Nazareth; and then Luke deals with both, taking Nazareth as his starting point (ἄνωθεν). Matthew discloses that Joseph thought of settling at Bethlehem on his return from Egypt, but was divinely restrained. In introducing mention of Nazareth he describes it, just as one would expect on the first occasion, in the same way as Luke the first time. Matthew, as John, shows how Messiah was rejected in Judea before, as an infant, He was in Galilee at all. Cf. Godet, i., pp. 217 ff., with O. Holtzmann ("Life of Jesus," p. 65). Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem.

45 "To be enrolled." On the difference between the present tense of verse 3 and the aorist in verse 5, see Ramsay. Already in verse 1 we are introduced to what has been a hunting ground of writers adverse to the inerrancy or accuracy of Scripture, nothing being known from secular records of any general census at this time. "Advanced" critics, accordingly, arraign the Evangelist of "carelessness" in making the Nativity synchronize with a census, with the correct date of which it is nevertheless of necessity admitted that he was acquainted: see Acts 5: 37, comparing Josephus, "Antiquities," vii. 13, 5. The question resolves itself into whether Quirinius discharged any administrative functions at the earlier date or not (see below).

When Herod died (750 A.U.C., i.e., 4 "B.C.," Quintilius Varus was imperial legate of Syria. Luke's statement is not at variance with this. By the researches of Augustus Zumpt, founded on Tacitus, "Annals," iii. 17, which have been followed by Mommsen's interpretation of an inscription at Tivoli, turned to account by Schürer, it has been rendered highly probable that a surmise of Grotius (followed by Neander, Hahn, B. Weiss, etc.) was correct, that Quirinius was in office twice, first as a commissioner in 750-753, and afterwards as legate in 760-765. Luke's word ἡγεμών (cf. note 3), accordingly, may be understood to speak of Quirinius' earlier functions as a "procurator," subordinate to the legate. Justin Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. Jud., p. 303), describes him in the same way. The duties of this official, to which Luke refers, would then be limited to statistical (Hahn) or domestic (Ramsay), as distinct from financial and imperial functions. Some, therefore, would say that he completed as legate that which he had begun as commissioner; others, that he carried out what was begun by his predecessor. Ramsay has shown from the papyri found in Egypt some twenty years ago, that successive enrolments must have been habitually made there after intervals of fourteen years. None of the early opponents of Christianity, such as Celsus or Porphyry, impugned Luke's accuracy. The A.V. of verse 2 has the support of Ebrard, Hofmann and Godet.

46 Luke 2: 4. — "Galilee." This comprised the old territory of Naphtali and Asher; but Nazareth itself was in that part of the hills of Zabulon within the borders of Issachar. The modern town, En-Nasîra, is about fourteen miles (Merrill, "Galilee in the Time of Christ," p 123: "five hours") from the Lake of Tiberias, twenty-one miles from the Mediterranean, and sixty-six miles (Merrill: "three short days' journey") from Jerusalem. Sepphoris (now Safed), the capital of Galilee until 28 A.D., was about one hour and a half from Nazareth. The older form of this, Nazara, is read by Westcott-Hort and Weiss in 4: 16, as in Matt. 4: 13.

47 Luke 2: 5. — Professor Haupt, of Baltimore, in order to discredit the Evangelist's account of Mary going up to Bethlehem as well as Joseph, holds that it was not requisite that she should do so for the purpose which took Joseph there. He might as well say that of the Passover (verse 41), with reference to Deut. 16: 16; and yet attendance of women at the great Feast was recommended by Hillel. The American professor's theory that there were no people of Jewish blood in Galilee after 161 B.C. (on the slender foundation of 1 Macc. 5: 15), is discredited by all sensible scholars of right and left alike. As to historical connection between Nazareth and Bethlehem, see Ramsay, "Education of Christ," p. 56 f.

47a The best Greek MSS. have "betrothed"; an old Latin copy has "wife" whilst the later Greek copies have "betrothed wife."

48 Luke 2: 7. — "First-born son," πρωτοτόκος, but when Luke speaks of an only son, he uses μονογενής: Luke 7: 12, Luke 8: 42, Luke 9: 38. Cf. note on Luke 8: 20.

Dionysius the Little, at the beginning of the sixth century, reckoned the year of the Birth as 753, after the foundation of Rome; but it is certain that Herod died, as stated above, in 750. Hence three or four years have to be deducted from 753; and so 749, i.e., 4 "B.C.," as Ellicott; whilst 5 "B.C." is taken as the date by Godet for the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Kepler, however, who has been followed by Alford, calculated that the Nativity took place in 6 "B.C." Cf. Turner, "Chronology of the New Testament," in "Hastings' Dictionary," i., p. 415, and Gilbert, "Student's Life of Jesus," pp. 95-99.

"Christmas," as supposed season of this event, was substituted as a festival for the birthday of Mithra, the Sun-God (Neumann, p. 31).

For the views of independent British scholars on the place and time of the Lord's Birth, see Ramsay, "Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?"; and Rendel Harris' paper in Expositor, March 1908. It probably took place in the autumn (Sept.), about the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23: 34), under the Full Moon, five months after the birth of the Baptist, which would be about Passover.

49 Luke 2: 8. — For the word χώρα, "country," see Ps. 132: 6, in the LXX., and verses 12, 16 there, for "ye shall find" (verse 12). Mithra was likewise said to have been seen as a newly-born babe by shepherds.

49a Luke 2: 9. — "Stood by," ἐπέστη, used by Luke, also in Acts 23: 11, of the Lord.

50 Shekîna, the Talmudic and Rabbinical word for this, which has passed into Christian terminology, was drawn from Onqelos' Aramaic paraphrase of Deut. 12: 5. Cf. note 20 on John.

51 Luke 2: 11. — "Saviour": first occurrence in the New Testament. "Christ" is from the Greek Christos, which in Hebrew is Meshiach, and in the language of the time Meshicha (John 1: 41, "Messias").

Our Lord, in this Gospel, refers to Himself as "the Christ" in Luke 4: 18 f., Luke 20: 41, Luke 21: 8, Luke 22: 67 f., Luke 24: 26, 46. In the following passages, besides this, others so speak of him: Luke 2: 26, Luke 3: 15, Luke 4: 41, Luke 7: 19, Luke 9: 20, Luke 23: 2, 35, 39. He is called "Son of David" in Luke 1: 27, 32 above, and in Luke 3: 3, Luke 18: 38 f., Luke 20: 41, 44.

"Christ (the) LORD" (R.V. margin, "the anointed Lord") in combination, is found only here in Scripture, although found in Psalms of Solomon, 17: 36, 18: 8. Its use there excludes the suggestion that it is an erroneous translation of the Aramaic. In the Papyri κύριος stands for "God," being used of any deity (Deissmann, "New Light," p. 79). It is distinct from "the Lord's Christ" in verse 26 (see note there), cf. Luke 23: 2, "Messiah (Christ) a King" (R.V. margin, an anointed King).

It was from such passages as this that the theological term Theotokos, "Mother of God," as used of the Virgin (cf. Luke 1: 35, 37) was drawn, which the Council of Chalcedon, happily, did not endorse. See, notwithstanding, the "Catholic" Catechism, p. 74. Our Lord, according to Mark 3: 35, provided against undue emphasis being put on the mystery of the Virgin Birth (see note above on chapter 1).

"Born . . . Christ." See note in volume for John, on "Gnosticism," which denied His birth as such, holding only the natural birth of "Jesus," upon whom "the Christ" was supposed to have descended at His baptism; that is, it denied the Godhead of JESUS, and the humanity of the CHRIST.

Reference may be made to Stalker, "Christology," pp. 127-167; and to notes here on "Son of God," "Son of Man," as well as corresponding notes in "Exposition of Mark."

51a "Child." This inspired Luther's hymn, written (1540) for his little son, Hans, in "Lyra Germanica" (Newnes' ed., pp. 9-11).

52 Luke 2: 14. — "Good pleasure"; or "complacency" (εὐδοκία). The cognate verb is used in 3: 22 in connection with the Baptism of the Lord.

The determination of the reading, whether εὐδοκία or εὐδοκίας, depends on the construction of the words following "peace." Is εἰρήνη to be isolated, a stop being understood? The A.V., followed by Field, so took it, reading εὐδοκία, in support of which has now to be added the testimony of Syrsin (see further in Scrivener, ii., p. 344 ff.), whilst the Revisers (see Westcott-Hort, Appendix, p. 52 ff.) read εὐδοκίας, making two clauses only, which show "parallelism." The R.V. is "(men) in whom He is well pleased"; Westcott renders "(men) of well pleasing"; Evans, "(men) of His counsel for good" (or "His gracious purpose"), after Alford had explained it, of "the elect people of God," at which Canon Cook took umbrage. These renderings are all based on supposed connection of εὐδοκίας with ἀνθρώποις.

It is clear, however, that Origen took εὐδοκίας read by him, not with ἀνθρώποις, but with εἰρήνη ("peace"): see Benedictine edition of his Works, vol. iii., p. 946. Origen says, "that peace which the Lord does not give upon earth [xii., p. 49 f.] is not the peace of goodwill." In keeping with this view, and for doctrinal accuracy, it is best, if this reading be adopted, to render "peace of complacency in the midst of men," understanding by "peace of complacency" CHRIST (Luke 3: 22, cf. John 17: 23). This removes Field's objection to εὐδοκίας, founded on its being connected by the above-named scholar with ἀνθρώποις: he remarks (referring to Ps. 119: 24) that it would require ἄνδρες, not ἄνθρωποι.

Peace between God and man was not realized by the Incarnation, as many imagine, who adhere to the A.V. reading and rendering: cf. note 126 on John.

On the Nativity there are sermons of Luther; of Bishop Latimer, from verse 7 of Dr. Isaac Barrow, on verse 10; of H. Melvill on verse 13 f.; and of Dr. Chalmers, on verse 14; besides a "Contemplation" of Bishop Hall on verse 6 f.

53 Luke 2: 15. — "Let us make our way," cf. Ps. 132: 7.

53a Luke 2: 19. — "Pondering, etc." Luke would learn this from Mary herself, cf. Mark 14: 72, "when he thought thereon," which Mark would similarly learn from Peter, and both passages with 1 Cor. 2: 11.

54 Luke 2: 21-24. — Cf. Lev. 12: 6, 8, Gal. 4: 4, and for verse 21 in particular, Col. 2: 11.

"Their purification," referring to that customary with the Jews (Edersheim, "Life of Jesus, etc."); not to the parents (as J. Weiss and Vincent take it). It was thirty-three days after circumcision, i.e., when a boy-child was forty days old. For a girl it was longer (as among Hindus still). The redemption-money was five shekels (Num. 18: 15 f.), corresponding to the later value of the old English "mark," or 13s. 4d.

55 "Jerusalem." The modern Arabic name is El-Kuds, "The Holy Place."

56 Luke 2: 25. — The "Consolation of Israel" was a Jewish name for Messiah. In John 14: 16, the "another" presupposes that the Lord was already "Paraclete."

57 Luke 2: 26. — See Lam. 4: 20. Some have needlessly suggested that the Aramaic behind verse 11 (see note there) may have been the same.

57a Luke 2: 29 ff. — The "Nunc Dimittis." Cf. Gen. 49: 18; Neil: "Simeon thinks of his death as his dismissal from servitude"; cf. Heb. 2: 15.

Romaine preached from these verses.

58 Luke 2: 32. — The reference here is rather to Isa. 25: 7 than to Isa. 49: 6 ("revelation to"; cf. 42: 6). The marginal rendering in R.V. (cf. the Vulg.) is preferable to the textual. Cf. John 8: 12 and 1: 79 here.

We meet with an echo of the words here in Acts 26: 23.

58a For Messiah as "glory of Israel," cf. Isa. 46: 13, and Rom. 9: 4. An imagined analogy in Buddhism may be found in Carus "The Gospel of Buddha," p. 30 ff.

58b Luke 2: 34 f. — See Tholuck's sermon "The Test of Every Heart," in series entitled "Light from the Cross"; also Whyte, op. cit., LXXI. For the "falling and rising," cf. 2 Cor. 2: 16. The American Revision discards "up" after "rising."

59 Luke 2: 36 f. — The Syrsin curiously makes the meaning to be "had lived seven days only with her husband." As the R.V. shows, she must have been at least 105 years of age. For ascetic connection, cf. 1 Tim. 5: 9. See also "Catholic Catechism," No. 330. "Up to": Engl. Revv., "even for"; American, "even unto."

"Night and day." Cf. Acts 26: 7, and Mark 4: 27, 1 Tim. 5: 5. The Jewish ecclesiastical day of course began with the evening.

59a Luke 2: 38. — "Redemption," cf. Isa. 40: 2. Note that the critical text followed by Revv., is "of Jerusalem," i.e., Messianic deliverance.

60 Luke 2: 39 (cf. note 44 above). — "Their own city, Nazareth." Cf. Matt. 2: 23, represented as irreconcilable with this. But Matthew must have regarded Bethlehem in the same light as Luke, who uses the epithet in various connections.

61 Luke 2: 40. — See Edersheim, "Sketches of Jewish Social Life," ch. 8; also Ramsay, "The Education of Christ."

As soon as JESUS could speak, He would learn passages like Deut. 6: 6, recited to him: at the age of five, the Hebrew characters would be learnt, for the reading of Leviticus (Edersheim, p. 130), followed by the rest of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the poetical books in turn; when six, He would, under ordinary circumstances (see Grätz, "History of the Jews," ii. 148), have begun attendance at the synagogue school; and when ten, He would make acquaintance with the oral law, afterwards codified under the title of the "Mishna." But opinion will probably always be divided as to whether in His case all this was realized. Cf. note 65.

62 Cf. Thirlwall, note on Schleiermacher, p. 316. The Expositor was of opinion that the adoration by the Magi took place during a subsequent visit of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem on the occasion of a Passover: see volume on Matthew, p. 40.

63 Luke 2: 42. — The Lord would now be a "son of the Law" after "confirmation" (Schor, p. 84), beginning to wear fringes and tassels, and under obligation to attend the Festivals at Jerusalem (Ex. 23: 14 ff., Deut. 16: 16).

64 Luke 2: 43. — "Fulfilled the days ": an octave, Ex. 12: 18.

65 Luke 2: 46 ff. — See notes 23 and 56 on Mark. JESUS would be independent of the subtleties of rabbinical instruction in so obscure a place as Nazareth (Delitzsch, "Jesus and Hillel," p. 14). A supposed Buddhist parallel to this visit to the Temple is used by Pfleiderer, "Early Christian Conception of Christ," pp. 43-45.

"Thy father" (verse 48). In the case of a fatherless child, the person who cared for his education, we learn from a Jewish writer, was called his "father" (Grätz, loc. cit.).

66 Luke 2: 49 ff. — The Lord's first and last (John 19: 30) recorded words were about the work that God had given Him to do (D. Smith).

66a "Must," cf. Luke 9: 22, Luke 13: 33, Luke 19: 5, Luke 24: 44.

"My Father's business." Christ's familiarity with the Father characterized His life-long consciousness. To the end He used the address "Abba": see Mark 14: 36.

"Business," τοῖς κ.τ.λ. So Erasmus, Calvin, Ewald, McClellan, Pfleiderer, Carr, and Weymouth. Cf. 1 Tim. 4: 15 and also Iren. Haer. v. 26.

Origen, Theodoret, Augustine, and most moderns take it as "House" (cf. John 2: 16); so Grotius, Bengel, B. Weiss, Schanz, and Field. Mary's word "sought" and the reply of JESUS taking up the word, are considered to favour this rendering (cf. "the zeal of Thine House hath consumed me"). But van Oosterzee seems to be right in saying that this narrows the fulness of the expression.

Syrsin shows "with My Father."

Dr. Whyte has a discourse on "Joseph and Mary," in op. cit., No. LXX.

67 Luke 2: 52. — "Favour," χάρις, is found in the Gospels elsewhere only in verse 17 of John's "Prologue" ("grace"). Like characteristic Lucan words are σωτηρία (note 41) and εὐαγγελίζειν (i. 19, etc.).

This closes the record of the Holy Childhood as furnished by the canonical Gospel. Cf. Edersheim, "Life of Jesus the Messiah," i. 226-234; Nicoll "The Incarnate Saviour," chapter iii.; and Hughes, "The Manliness of Christ," pp. 35-60. Apocryphal accounts, like the "Gospel of Thomas," allege working by the youthful JESUS of no less than sixteen miracles: see Orr, "Apocryphal Gospels," p. 122. Such conduct, however, as these portray, would be "as unlovely as shocking" (Rush Rhees, p. 57).

Again, His alleged words "I am the Logos," or "I have always been perfect" (Pseudo Matthew, chapter xviii), are on a par with such sayings put down to young Gautama, as "the chief I am of all the world." Contrast Matt. 11: 29.

NOTES ON THE THIRD CHAPTER

.

68 Luke 3: 1. - "The fifteenth year." This, according to the prevalent view, which takes the reckoning from A.U.C. 765, when Augustus made Tiberius joint-emperor, would be A.D. 26, see Ramsay, "Paul the Traveller," p. 386 f.; cf. John 2: 20, according to which the first Passover of the Ministry fell in A.D. 30, forty-six years from A.U.C. 734.

Philip, son of Cleopatra, and married to his niece Salome (cf. note on verse 19).

69 Luke 3: 2. — "Lysanias." Luke's accuracy here, at one time questioned, has been confirmed by Schürer (div. i., vol. ii., Appendix 1), guided by inscriptions (cf. O. Holtzmann, p. 111). There had been another prince of the same name, who died sixty years before this (Josephus, "Antiquities," xv. 4, 1).

70 "Annas." He was now "Sagan," or Deputy, although titular high priest (Acts 4: 6), the designation applied to Caiaphas in John 18: 13. Annas had been deposed by Valerius Gratus fifteen years earlier; but as far as the Jews were concerned his influence was but little diminished.

There is a useful plate (vi.) at the end of Sanders and Fowler's "Outlines for the Study of Biblical History and Literature," exhibiting the political divisions of the land at this time.

71 "Came upon" (ἐγένετο ἐπί), cf. Jer. 1. 1. The Baptist seems to have begun his ministry in 26.A.D.

72 "The country about Jordan," cf. Gen. 13: 10 f. It is a phrase representing the depressed valley of that river.

73 Luke 3: 4 ff. — Luke cites Isa. 40 in the LXX., including at the close a part of verse 5 there, which Box, in his recent edition of the Prophet, has left out as "superfluous, and not agreeing rhythmically with the rest of the Prologue" — a curious instance of modern subjectivity.

"All flesh" (verse 6), i.e., the main divisions of mankind — Gentiles as well as Jews (cf. Acts 2: 17).

"The salvation of God," i.e., the Messianic salvation, cf. Ps. 1. 23; Luke 1: 69 above; and John 4: 22; also note 192.

74 Luke 3: 8 f. — "We have Abraham," etc., cf. John 8: 33, 39. Montefiore confesses that his ancestors at that time "were somewhat too confident of eternal life; all Israelites except determined sinners were believed to have their share in it" (Hibbert Lectures, 1892, p. 482).

On the words "not producing good fruit," see Maclaren, B. C. E., p. 45.

74a Luke 3: 14. — Strange use was made of the Baptist's words here by Pope Pius X. on the occasion of addressing a mixed company of British bluejackets, Catholic and Protestant, in May, 1908. "When it was asked," said the Pontiff, "in Holy Scripture what it was necessary for a man to do to be saved, the answer was, that it was sufficient for him to perform the duties to which he had been born. I repeat the same thing to you" (Reuter). Could such language be frankly endorsed by Catholic any more than by Evangelical sentiment?

"Oppress . . . falsely." American Revv., "Extort . . . by violence . . . wrongfully."

75 Luke 3: 15. — Here arises another question discussed by Germans — as to when our Lord's Messianic claim was first asserted. The present passage harmonizes completely with John 1: 19-27, as to which see note 27 in the volume for that Gospel.

76 Luke 3: 16. — "Fire" (cf. Luke 12: 49). The Expositor's explanation may be ranged with that of Origen, Neander, van Oosterzee, B. Weiss, Schanz, and H. Holtzmann. That the reference is to inner regeneration, was the view of Grotius, Bengel, and Godet.

77 Luke 3: 19 f. — Luke here follows the manner of O.T. chroniclers. Cf. the way in which Isaac's story is dismissed in Gen. 35: 28 f.; the patriarch did not really die then. And so in Luke 24: 50, which does not mean that our Lord ascended at that point.

"His brother's," i.e., Philip's, Mark 7: 17. Herod I. had two sons named "Philip" (cf. note 68). The one here referred to was son of Mariamne (ibid.). Burkitt ("Earliest Sources," p. 86) speaks of Mark's "mistake" being "silently corrected here." Now, while Josephus speaks of Antipas also as "Herod" ("Antiqq.," xviii. 5), the Jewish historian had previously (xvii. 32) spoken of Herod's "son Herod Philip by the high priest's daughter," a passage which the Cambridge professor must have overlooked.

"Added this also to all," so American Revv., with "them" before "all," instead of "added yet this above all," retained by the Westminster Committee.

See Whyte, op. cit., for discourse on "John the Baptist" (LXXIII.).

78 Luke 3: 22. — "My beloved Son." Rather, "my son, the Beloved" as Allen (on Matt. 3: 17), treating "the Beloved" as a Divine name. Cf. note below on Luke 9: 35.

The solitary reading of "D." "This day have I begotten thee" (see Ps. 2: 7, used by Paul of the Resurrection, Acts 13: 33), arose out of the second century idea that Jesus became Son of God at baptism. Connected with this is the observance in the Eastern Church of the Lord's birth on "Epiphany" (6th January) as also commemorating His baptism. What is clear however, is that His baptism "marked His awakening of all that was involved in Messiahship" — a statement not weakened by the strictures of Stock (p. 58 f., see Isa. 1. 4 ff., Fairbairn, "Studies," p. 90 f.). This reading, recognized by Augustine, but supported only by some old Latin versions — not by the Syriac of Sinai; naturally suits writers such as Pfleiderer (op. cit., p. 407; cf. Harnack, "Sayings," p. 311 f.) as militating against the miraculous conception.

"In a bodily shape like a dove," cf. Gen. 1: 2. This phenomenon would have the more interest for Luke, because of his probable early associations; in Syria the dove was a totem.

Bishop Andrewes preached from verse 21 f., Hooker, on the Personality of the Holy Ghost, from verse 22.

79 Luke 3: 23 ff. — ἀρχόμενος. The R.V. "began [to teach]" gives effect to the explanation of Origen, followed by Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, and Alford.

"Thirty years old," cf. Num. 4: 3, etc.

The GENEALOGY. — ὡς ἐνομίζετο, as He was accounted, i.e., in the eyes of the Law. The Revv. have followed Alford in making the parenthesis end with ἐνομίζετο, instead of after Ἰωσήφ as Wieseler, amongst others, followed by the Expositor, and since by Plumptre and Gloag. The curtailed parenthesis of course tends to produce the impression that the genealogy, like that in Matthew, is of Joseph. Several English writers (Lord A. Hervey, Alford, Farrar, etc.), with Germans such as Meyer and Hofmann, during the last fifty years have attempted to establish the Patristic view (of Origen and Jerome), which has actually encumbered the subject with needless difficulty. The difference of opinion has a curious history.

The Jews, in controversy with the early Christians, accepted that which seems to have been the primitive view, that the second of the genealogies concerns the mother of our Lord. The Talmud speaks of her as "daughter of Heli" (verse 23). They ignored Matthew's genealogy, which seemed to them to make for our Lord's being born in wedlock, whilst their aim — in a spirit of prejudice, and with motives of hostility — was to show that He was a child of shame. Hence Christian controversialists had recourse to the expedient of treating Luke's genealogy also as one of Joseph; it seemed to enable them to suggest that there was a Levirate marriage on the part of Jacob or Heli, who were supposed to have been half-brothers, sons of Matthan (Matthat), i.e., the survivor of them, it was thought, married the other's widow: Euseb., "Eccl. Hist.," i. 7, 4; cf. Schleiermacher, p. 56.

This necessarily hypothetical position was not overcome until the closing years of the fifteenth century, when the original view, so obscured by anti-Jewish feeling, was revived. This has been adopted by, amongst others, Godet, B. Weiss, Plumptre, Spence and Gloag. One objection raised to it is that put forward by De Wette (followed by Plummer), that women's registers were not kept, but proof to the contrary is afforded by the case of Judith (viii. 1), whose lineage is given for fourteen generations before her father. Women were respected much more in Israel than among other nations; disparagement of them (see Jewish Prayer Book, p. 6) is due to the Talmudists. Indeed, it would be difficult to understand how the Jews in early Christian times could with any plausibility have turned Luke's genealogy to account, had the public records regarded males alone.

Such is the irony of events that German critics, adverse to the idea of miraculous conception, deem it expedient to regard the genealogy in Matthew as dominating interpretation of that in Luke, just as of old it happened to be convenient for Jews to treat the second genealogy as applying the lineage of Mary.

B. Weiss well remarks ("Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 198, note), that the Evangelist could not have committed the absurdity (in the eyes of Gentiles) of giving the genealogy of JESUS through Joseph (as Alford insists), if, as is clear he did, Luke considered Him only His foster-father's reputed Son. Luke was not writing for Jews, and therefore is as not under such limitations as Matthew.

The prophetical words in verse 23 are not those of an interpolator, as most contemporary German writers suggest, but those of Luke himself as editor: so even Renan.

Mary's being spoken of as "of the house of David" (Luke 1: 27; cf. note 26) finds its justification in this genealogy (cf. Rom. 1: 3). Joseph is here scarcely mentioned: the Evangelist could not have come in contact with one so long dead. It is not Joseph's but Mary's hesitation that he dwells upon.

The Davidic claim (verse 31, cf. 2 Sam. 5: 14, Zech. 12: 12) of Solomon's line represented by Jeconiah was barred by that king's childlessness (Jer. 22: 30), so that the succession passed to that of Nathan, represented by Salathiel, whose actual father was Neri (verse 27).

Difficulties arising from comparison of the two genealogies are due chiefly to a mistaken ecclesiastical standpoint. Any reader may see that, whilst these mechanically agree from Abraham to David, they do not from David to Jeconiah. "Rhesa" in verse 27 is now known to have not been a personal name: in Aramaic it stood for some "prince" of the captivity whose name seems to have been Abiud (Matt. 1: 13), son of the most notable descendant of David since the exile — Zerubbabel. See further the helpful note of Plumptre, ad loc. in Ellicott's "N.T. Commentary for English Readers." "[The Son] of God" at the end bears a double sense (see verses 32 and 35 of Luke 1).

There seems never to have been any actual error discovered, as distinct from "constructive" mistake alleged, in either genealogy. Men like Celsus (circ. 150 A.D.) and Porphyry (circ. 300 A.D.) did not question them when these records had an importance which they do not possess for our age. Tatian's omission of them altogether is an eccentricity of his "Diatessaron," due, of course, to his difficulty in "harmonizing" them.

Reference may further be made to Gloag, p. 253 ff., and to W. Kelly's "God's Inspiration, etc.," p. 61.

NOTES ON THE FOURTH CHAPTER.

80 Luke 4: 1-13. - The TEMPTATION.

"By the Spirit." Luke has ἐν τῳ πνεύματι (American Revv., "in the S."); Matthew, ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος. Comparison of the Evangelists suffices for exclusion of any such idea as the Unitarian, that the Lord's own spirit alone is here meant, according to which the conflict must have been purely mental. "In the Spirit" means "in the power of." Cf. its use in 11: 15, and Weymouth there.

If there were no personal devil (verse 2), then our Lord would have been tempted from within (Norris); and this is what the suggestion comes to — made, amongst others, by J. Weiss (p. 51) — that it was a mere vision like that in Ezek. 8: 3, or Isa. 6, or 2 Cor. 12: 1-4. Cf. note on 22: 31.

There are three sermons on this subject by Adolphe Monod, and an "Exposition" by Maclaren (vol. i., pp. 78-85).

81 Luke 4: 3. — Note the order: Body, Mind, Spirit (most subtle). Edersheim records the then popular notion that Messiah would feed His people, as Moses did, with manna. Cf. the miraculous feeding of thousands, with Ps. 103: 5, Ps. 105: 40, Ps. 132: 15, each time of Jehovah.

81a Luke 4: 4 ff. — Luke's, as compared with Matthew's, statement shows abbreviated quotation of Deut. 8: 3.

Dr. Arnold preached from verse 4, on Fasting.

With verse 5 f., cf. John 8: 44, 2 Thess. 2: 11.

82 Luke 4: 6. — Cf. John 12: 31, John 14: 30; Rev. 12: 3.

83 Luke 4: 7 f. — The difference of order (see note 81) from that in Matthew, Zahn would explain by supposing that what JESUS told His disciples about it they repeated differently from memory ("Introduction," ii., 403 f., German); but such an exposition as W. Kelly's is more in accordance with the inspiration of the Evangelist. Zahn shares Alford's idea that Luke could not have had Matthew's account before him.

"It is written." Bettex sententiously remarks, "Satan is silent. For him there is no Biblical criticism" ("The Book of Truth," p. 125).

84 Luke 4: 9. — "Jerusalem" represents Matthew's "holy city," in keeping with the distinction (B. Weiss) between our Evangelist's use in the original Greek (e.g., at Luke 1: 22), cf. Hierosolyma and Jerusalem. Ramsay's discrimination of "geographical" and "hieratical" (as here) would render a reference to "different sources" (Weiss) quite needless.

85 "Edge," πτερύγιον, a word common to both Evangelists recording this, and at the same time peculiar. Weiss deems conclusive for his theory of a common source ("Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 100).

Norris: "Faith allied to self-will passes into presumptuous fanaticism."

86 Luke 4: 13. — "Season." Wesley (as the Expositor) takes this as referable to the scene in Gethsemane (Luke 22: 53). The other view, according to which our Lord was more or less subject to Satan's subtle enmity in this way throughout has been based on Luke 22: 28. But indeed the form of the Greek, "every temptation," shows that no form of testing set forth in 1 John 2: 16 can be excluded. Cf. John 6: 15, Mark 8: 11, Matt. 16: 23.

As to the Lord's incapacity for sin, see Trench, "Studies in the Gospels," p. 28.

For the Buddhist parallel adduced (as by Pfleiderer, "Early Conception, etc.," pp. 51-53), see "Sacred Books of the East," iv. p. 204.

A difficulty is sometimes raised about no one having witnessed this scene. There is none, however, in supposing that the Lord communicated it to His disciples, if not during the Ministry (Garvie suggests, at Caesarea Philippi), at least during the forty days before His Ascension.

Sermons on the Temptation have been preached by, amongst others, Luther (p. 299), Bishop Andrewes (series of seven), and G. Whitefield.

Between this and the next verse a place may be found for events recorded in John 1: 19 - 4: 42, in the interval, that is, between the Temptation and the Galilean ministry of Mark's framework. This would seem to have embraced a visit to Galilee before the imprisonment of the Baptist, and a return to Judea for ministry there, with (Briggs suggests, p. 4) the sons of Zebedee.

87 Luke 4: 14 f. — Reference may be made here to Farrar on "Jesus as He lived in Galilee," "Life of Christ," chapter xxii.; and for Synagogues, to Edersheim, "Jewish Social Life," chapter xvi. f.

As Stock says, it is not likely that any of the teaching (cf. verse 31) here referred to preceded that at Nazareth (verse 16 ff.). He helpfully compares Matt. 4: 13 (p. 70).

88 Luke 4: 16-30. — Upon the question whether Christ was twice rejected at Nazareth, consult Rush Rhees, p. 292 f.

89 Luke 4: 17. — This affords illustration of the Lord's familiarity, by training, with the Hebrew Scriptures. Synagogue rolls were not in Aramaic. A Haftara, or section of the Prophets, was read on Sabbath after the reading of the Law.

90 Luke 4: 18. — The quotation is made up of Isa. 61 and 58: 6.

"Anointed," see Zech. 4: 6, 14. "Thus early did He claim to be Messiah" (Stalker, p. 131). Prophecy prepared men for a Messiah working miracles, cf. Luke 11: 20.

Henry Venn preached from verse 18 f., on "The Work of Christ."

91 Luke 4: 19. — "Acceptable year of [the] LORD," cf. 2 Cor. 6: 2. As to the break between the "acceptable year" and the "day of vengeance" in Isa. 61: 2, see note below on Luke 21: 25.

A question that has been discussed since the Patristic period is, Of what duration was our Lord's ministry? The present, verse was of old supposed to indicate that the Synoptic ministry lasted only one year.

The Synoptists nowhere say that the ministry extended over only a single year. On the other hand, when Jülicher says that it is "childish" to use 13: 7 of this Gospel in support of a three years' ministry, it would be none the less so to understand the present passage as so limiting it. By comparison of the third and the last Gospels, we may venture to say that the

First Passover (John 2: 13) synchronizes with Luke 4: 13, A.D. 26-27

Second Passover (John 5: 1) synchronizes with Luke 5. A.D. 27-28

Third Passover (John 6: 4) synchronizes with Luke 9. A.D. 28-29

Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, allowing for a Fourth Passover in John's Gospel (cf. note 53 on John), concluded that the period was from three years to three years and a half. Turner (art. "Chronology of the New Testament" in Hastings' "Dict. of the Bible") makes it "between two and three years."

Blass has observed that Mark (Peter) would not so readily report in Jerusalem what had happened there, as that which the Jerusalemites could not know. Similarly Matthew, and also Luke if he composed any part of his Gospel in Judea. With reference to Luke 13: 34, the Halle Professor has written: "It is John who first clears up the passage and justifies it" (Expository Times, July, 1907). Luther and Lightfoot had already made use of it.

92 Luke 4: 21. — Here is the Lord's first direct statement to Israelites of His Messianic claims: cf. John 4: 26. See Whyte, "Walk, Conversation, and Character of Jesus Christ our Lord," chapter x.; "Our Lord's First Text"; also chapter xxix., "Our Lord and the Bible." Frennsen, a recent German revolutionary writer, has made use of this passage of Luke in his "Holy Land," chapter xxvi. (E. T., p. 315). C. Kingsley's sermon, "The Message of the Church to Labouring Men" is from this passage.

92a Cf. Rev. 5, 6.

93 Luke 4: 22. — "Words of grace," cf. Ps. 45: 2. Westcott "To substitute gracious words [A.V.] would be to obscure the truth" ("Some Lessons, etc.," p. 33): cf. Acts 14: 3; Acts 20: 32.

94 "Joseph's son." Mark, although reliance is placed on Mark 6: 3 for modern denial of the Virgin Birth (cf. note 57 on Mark, note 30 above, and see Wright, "Introduction to Synopsis, etc.," p. xli.), speaks of the "carpenter, the Son of Mary," whilst Luke, who is discredited when he records it as a miraculous event, in his parallel to Mark has the above description. It would be absurd to have to suppose that Joseph is regarded as dead at the point of the narrative of the one Evangelist, but still alive by the other. Again, it is in Luke that we meet with "His parents" and "Thy father." Accordingly, critics can but conceive editorial variations in each Gospel, all of which suggestions (e.g., Wright's "Trito-Mark") must be taken for what they are worth. Anything like proof in the sense of our English High Court of Justice (see note 56 on Mark, ad fin.) is rare indeed.

95 Luke 4: 23. — For this proverb ("parable "), see Talmud, "Bereshith Rabba," sect. 23. It is still current amongst Jews in the form "He is a physician for others, not for Himself."

"Capernaum." It would not require the training of a critic to see that, from the reference to great deeds there, this section is out of chronological order.

96 Luke 4: 24. — There is a clear instance of our Lord's repeated use of the same proverb: see John 4: 44.

"Our country." Cf. Matt. 19: 1, and see note on Luke 2: 3 above.

97 Luke 4: 25. — "Three years and six months," as in James 5: 17: cf. 1 Kings 18: 1. The period of drought may have been so stated according to a symbol of misfortune (Dan. 12: 7); so De Wette, followed by Weiss.

98 Luke 4: 30. — Here is another link with the Gospel of John (John 9: 59).

99 Luke 4: 31-37. — From here to 6: 16, Luke's account is in close touch with that of Mark: see Harnack's "Luke the Physician," p. 87 ff.

100 Marcion's recension of Luke begins here. He passed over the Baptist as one belonging to the Old Dispensation. Marcion may be regarded as the first Biblical critic (Harnack, "History of Dogma," pp. 237-240; cf. Bebb, art. in Hastings' "Dict. of Bible," and Burkitt, chapter ix.). What we know of him, (cf. notes 14, 17, above) comes chiefly from Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v., and Epiphanius, Haer. xlii. Irenaeus says that he "mutilated the Scriptures . . curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul" (iii. 12, 12). Semler suggested that our Gospel and Marcion's were compiled from the same original source; and after his time arose the idea that the Gospel according to Luke was an expansion of that used by Marcion; but critics seem now all to have returned to the old view. The passages omitted by this Gnostic are enumerated in Gloag's work.

Marcion's system was strongly Anti-Jewish; he questioned our Lord's speaking as in Matt. 5: 17 (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iv. 7, v. 14; but cf. Luke 16: 17). The third Gospel was the only one that he seems to have recognized; and the use which he made in connection with it of some of the Pauline Epistles, may have sustained the impression that there is a strong Pauline cast upon Luke's record. See Godet, "New Testament Studies," p. 44. This Pauline colouring has been specially investigated by Resch in vol. xii. (1904) of the New Series of Monographs edited by Gebhardt and Harnack (see in particular p. 571 ff. of his Dissertation). Cf. Swete, "St. Paul assimilated that side of our Lord's teaching which this Gospel has specially preserved" (" Studies in the Teaching of our Lord," p. 119). It is generally admitted that there are passages in LUKE alien to parts of the Epistles, e.g., Luke 12: 35 compared with Eph. 6: 14; Luke 18: 1 with 2 Thess. 1: 11; Luke 21: 34 with 1 Thess. 5: 3; Luke 24: 34 with 1 Cor. 15: 5; whilst Luke 21 may be read throughout alongside of 1 Thess. 5. As for Luke 10: 7 (cf. 1 Tim. 5: 18 and 1 Cor. 9: 14) see note there. The Expositor, it will be seen, compares Luke's Gospel with the Epistle to the Romans.

The attempt of H. H. Evans to establish Paul's authorship of this Gospel and of the Book of Acts (1884), although it has been commended by some German writers, seems to have attracted little attention in this country. Evans brought out the interesting fact that of 1750 words peculiar to LUKE amongst the Evangelists, one-half are found in Paul's Epistles; also that 250 words occurring in both this Gospel and the Acts are not to be found elsewhere in the New Testament outside the Apostle's writings (p. 20 f.; cf. note 29 above).

The interest of this subject now lies in its connection with the cry "Back to Christ!" expressed by Carpenter as "transfer of the centre of interest from Paul to Christ" ("The Bible in the Nineteenth Century," p. 341) as if the Reformers were not radical enough in contenting themselves with recovery of Pauline truth (and that, as the Expositor would have said, to a very limited extent). It is true that our Lord's teaching was "the word of the beginning of the Christ" (Heb. 6: 1), and that Luke "had in mind the Lord Jesus Christ as the risen Saviour" (Bruce, Introduction to "Expositor's Greek Testament," i.); but, as Fairbairn has said, "What gives to the Gospels their peculiar significance is that they are lives of Jesus by men who believed that Christ had created Christianity. The struggle of the modern spirit is to get behind the faith of the Evangelists and read the history they wrote with the vision they had before their eyes were opened" ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 306); cf. note 30, ad. fin. (Wellhausen).

101 "Capernaum," cf. note on verse 23. See Delitzsch, "A Day in Capernaum." Matt. 4: 13 tells us that it became the Lord's place of residence, so far as He had one, in Galilee. Cf. note 22 on Mark ("His own city").

102 Luke 4: 32. — Cf. 1 Cor. 1: 18, and note on Mark 1: 22, besides that on Luke 5: 17 below.

103 Luke 4: 33. — "Spirit of unclean demon", cf. Luke 6: 18; Luke 11: 24, "unclean spirit." Lightfoot (Horae Hebr., on Luke 13: 11, "spirit of infirmity") records a distinction made between spirits causing disease and "evil spirits," occupied with sorcery and accordingly called "unclean." Probably Luke's "unclean" was adapted to Gentile thought, for that recognized a distinction between good and bad "demons." Zech. 13: 2 and Rev. 16: 13 f. show the connection of unclean spirits with false prophets.

Renan speaks of the wilderness as "haunted according to popular belief by demons." Cf., however, Maurice, "Not in deserts, but in places of concourse, in the synagogues we hear of them." "Let us fly from superstitions", says the critic. "We do not hear less of spirits . . . in this day than in former days. I do not perceive that even scientific men can point to deliverance from a superstition . . . not a few succumb," etc. (p. 62 ff.). A notable instance was Lord Herbert of Cherbury, a deistical apostle of "the philosophy of common sense" who looked for a sign if he was to publish his "Tractatus de Veritate." of course, he heard a sound from heaven such as he desired.

104 Luke 4: 34. — "Nazarene," see note on John 18: 5. "Matthew," writes Weiss, "always has Nazarean, Luke nearly always has Nazarene" ("Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 12).

105 Luke 4: 35. — "Having thrown him down." This does not conflict with Mark's tearing him; the convulsions left no evil effect (Darby-Smith).

106 Luke 4: 36. — The word θάυβος is peculiar to Luke (5: 9; Acts 3: 10 "Wonder").

107 Luke 4: 37. — This miracle is one of the seven performed on Sabbaths, the rest of which are — in verse 38 here, Luke 6: 6 ff., Luke 13: 10 ff., Luke 14: 1, and two in John (John 5: 9 ff., and John 9: 1 ff.).

The temper of our age is, of course, adverse to MIRACLE. No "intelligent man" is expected any longer to rest the truth of Christianity at all upon operation in times past of "the powers of the age to come," at the dawn of which Christ's words in 18: 8 of this Gospel will have their application. We may not be far off that time now. The American Professor Foster writes: "An intelligent man who now affirms his faith in miraculous narratives like the Biblical, can hardly know what intellectual honesty means" (p. 132). But do not sensible men in all countries correct their logic by their experience? Cf. Kaftan, "The Truth of the Christian Religion," vol. ii., p. 130 f.; also Orr, "The Bible under Trial," p. 152. Indeed, Ritschl, with all his dislike of metaphysics, has said: "Every one will meet the miraculous in his own experience" ("Instruction in the Christian Religion," p. 189, note. Cf. Wesley's note on Mark 16: 18; it seems to have been derived from Bengel's Gnomon, "Even at this day in every believer faith has a latent miraculous power." Those who imagine that belief in miracle is not essential to Christianity, if consistent, must surrender prayer in the Christian sense. Huxley has amended Hume's argument upon miracles, which in his revised form — consonant with the views of J. S. Mill — makes it all a question of evidence, whilst it is by the aid of Hume's own philosophy that Fairbairn has criticized the eighteenth century writer's treatment of the subject ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 25 ff.).

Harnack, in an unwonted manner, goes almost into rhapsody over the sure ground afforded by agreement of "Q" with Mark ("Sayings," p. 249). It is certain that "Q," if ever it existed, harmonized with the same canonical Gospel as regards the large amount of Christ's "supernatural energy" — this is generally conceded.

A medical writer in the Hibbert Journal (April, 1907) has confessed that many of the disorders recorded could not have been cured by moral therapeutics (auto-suggestion).

The Biblical miracles seem to have closed with the incidents of the last chapter of the Acts, when Paul definitely gave up his testimony to the Jews, for whom they were intended (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 22), in fulfilment of Isaiah. Contrast the case of Epaphroditus (Phil. 2: 25 ff.): "Why did not the Apostle heal him?" (Cf. Sir R. Anderson, "The Silence of God," p. 57 f.)

Besides Butler's "Analogy," part ii., chapters ii., vii., in this connection, the following recent literature well repays consultation: — Mozley's Bampton Lectures (6th ed., 1883), Westcott's "Gospel of Life" (chapter vii.), Sanday's "The Life of Christ in Recent Research" (section viii.), Boyd Kinnear's "The Foundation of Religion" (chapter x.), Dr. Jas. Drummond's "The Miraculous in Christianity" — candid like all that he writes — Bettex's "Modern Science and Christianity" (E. T., 1903), pp. 162-185; and not least Dr. L. von Gerdtell's pamphlet on "Miracles before the Forum of Modern Thought" (still only in German; see note 52 on John and the Christian of 12th Oct., 1911, p. 17). For the connection of the transcendent character of JESUS with His miracles, see Rush Rhees, pp. 249-269.

An extract from Illingworth may close this note: "Miracles flow naturally from a Person . . . at home in two worlds. . . . We cannot separate the wonderful life, or the wonderful teaching, from the wonderful works. They involve and interpenetrate and presuppose each other" ("Divine Immanence," p. 90).

There is a classification of the Lucan Miracles in Westcott "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels," p. 392 f. See further, notes 27 and 58 on Mark.

108 Luke 4: 38. — Another illustration (cf. note on verse 23) of Luke's non-chronological order; nothing hitherto has been said about Simon, who is introduced abruptly.

108a Luke 4: 39. — For the compound imperfect in the Greek, cf. verse 44 and Luke 5: 16 f. See also note 108 on Mark.

109 An instance of the Evangelist's special medical knowledge (cf. note 2). "Great fever" decribes typhus. See again Luke 8: 41, etc.

110 Luke 4: 40. — Cf. Mark 1: 32, where critics pounce upon "many" as if improved upon here by "all," "every one." Mark may mean "many they were that," etc., in the modern manner.

111 Luke 4: 41. — Here is the point of contact with the other Synoptists.

112 Luke 4: 42. — "Coming out" is understood by De Wette as from Capernaum,

113 Note the imperfect tense: "Would have kept — were for keeping — Him back."

114 Luke 4: 43 f. — The reading "Judea." Godet has remarked that this "neutral" reading should have been a lesson to Westcott and Hort. If it be accepted, it must mean the whole land, as in Luke 1: 51 (see note there). For the ministry in Judea proper, cf. Luke 13: 34, Luke 19: 31, Luke 22: 14, Acts 2: 9, Acts 10: 37.

115 As to the "Kingdom of God," regarded by Ritschlians as the centre of Christ's teaching, see note 21 on Mark, and cf. notes below on Luke 12: 31, Luke 17: 20 f., and Luke 19: 12.

Some conceive that verse 43 marks the end of a section in one of Luke's sources (Zahn, p. 373).

NOTES ON THE FIFTH CHAPTER.

116 Luke 5: 1-11. — As to the difference between this scene and that in John 21, see Harnack, "Luke the Physician," p. 227, and note 380 in the volume on that Gospel. Wright's statement that "St. John's account contradicts St. Luke's" ("Synopsis," p. 271), is itself contradicted by German opinion, that St. John's, is "unhistorical." The way in which such nine-pins are set up to be knocked down is very unedifying.

"The earlier event," writes Bruce, "served the purpose of winning Peter to the life of discipleship: the later, of inspiring him to devotion to the heroic career of apostolate" ("Miraculous Element, etc.," p. 229).

117 Luke 5: 1 f. — Dr. Abbott, by way of distinguishing the two Evangelists' respective accounts, observes that in John 21, "there is only one boat mentioned" (art. in "Encyclop. Bibl.," § 32); but in verse 8 mention is made of the tender (τὸ πλοιάριον) as well as the πλοῖον of verse 3. When it suits negative critics to insist on distinction in words, they are not slow to do so. The real differences are too many to support the idea of a discrepancy, as if there were duplicate accounts. If doctrinal insight fail, ingenuity must likewise: and so of Dr. Wright's remark (loc. cit., p. 12) on verse 4, that if Luke "were ignorant of the visit to Galilee after the Resurrection, upon which he is silent, he would the more infer that the draught of fishes belonged to the earlier period of the ministry."

118 "The Word of God." — Cf. Luke 8: 11, Luke 11: 28. "As used by Luke," writes Harnack, "the Word did not mean Church doctrine; it did not mean even the Bible; it meant the message of the free grace of God in Christ" (op. cit., p. 274). Cf. Acts 8: 11 where "the Word" and "the Scriptures" occur together. In Matt. 15: 6 (R.V.), and Mark 7: 13, it certainly means Old Testament Scripture, as again in Rev. 1: 2.

What used to be called "proof-texts" of Scripture were singly a word (ῥῆμα) of God; but in Evangelical parlance by the Word of God is meant the whole of Scripture (Hofmann, "Scripture Proof," part. i., p. 96 ff.). See Acts 20: 32 for like use of λόγος; Heb. 6: 5, and Heb. 11: 3, for the employment of ῥῆμα.

The following extract from Scholten expresses a now unhappily common idea, represented in England by the writings of Dr. James Martineau. "There is a difference between the Scripture and the Word of God. The latter is what God reveals in the human spirit concerning His will and Himself. The writing down of the communication is purely human; therefore the Bible cannot be called Revelation." The effect of this is that the Scriptures have come to be regarded as a mere record of Revelation. As to this, see note 6 above, comparing note 69 on Mark and also note 115 on John.

It is the fashion, on the part of those who disparage the unlimited authority of the Bible, to taunt with "Bibliolatry," i.e., superstition, such as adhere to the view of inspiration stated in note 6 above, with making the same "fetish" of Scripture that others make of the Church. Well, the Word of God commends those who tremble at it (Isa. 66: 2, 5): who dare not abate their reverence for it, because for them at least it enshrines CHRIST, so that impairing its plenary inspiration is nothing more nor less than taking Him "away." As to our Lord's having merely "the first place," see "the Bible or the Church," p. 213 f.

Are we to say that the authority of Scripture is "of the past alone," that it is "a fossil stored carefully in a museum," as Grubb ("Authority and the Light Within," pp. 28, 37)? Or rather, as the writer to the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 4: 12, with which cf. verses 4 and 7), that Scripture is "living," as God Himself? Do we not "hear" inspired Apostles, and so God, in their writings; 1 John 4: 6, Rom. 7: 1? Scripture is not merely compared to a "two-edged sword," but is said to transcend that: it deals with Past, Present, and Future alike, so that its penmen did not serve only their own generation (Acts 13: 36).

Archer Butler has a sermon, taken from the present passage, on "The Word of God" (vol. ii.).

119 Luke 5: 5. — "Master," ἐπιστάτα This word (as κύριος) in Luke is used by disciples; διδάσκαλος by others (e.g., Luke 21: 7).

120 "Depart . . . sinful man, Lord." Here we have the disciple's impression as to the Lord's sinlessness. Norris compares the lesson of the Transfiguration. As to sin, see note on 11: 4; and for the word "sinner" in this Gospel, cf. Luke 7: 37, Luke 13: 2, Luke 15: 10, Luke 18: 13. For "Lord" in this connection, cf. John 13: 13.

"The Character of Peter" is the subject of Dr. Whyte's discourse LXXV., in the series entitled "Bible Characters."

120a Stock discriminates seven steps in the call and appointment of the first disciples, as to which see his "Talks," p. 85.

121 Luke 5: 14. — "To tell no man." So only prescribed in Galilee, perhaps because it was the headquarters of the "Zealots," as to whom see note 146.

122 "Moses ordained." A confirmation by our Lord of the Mosaic authorship of that which is by critics called the "Priestly Code," cf. Luke 20: 37, Luke 24: 44. May not one fairly say that discrediting writings which on the face of them claim to be those of Moses is to disbelieve them? The Lord's words in John 5: 47 find striking illustration in our own day. It is not, as alleged, believers who are responsible, by appealing to His utterances, for any surrender of confidence in Him.

123 Luke 5: 16. — "Withdrew." Wesley's note draws attention to the compound imperfect here: "He did so frequently."

124 Luke 5: 17-24. — This paragraph serves as Harnack's second illustration of Luke's supposed use of Mark's record ("Luke the Physician," pp. 90-92).

125 Luke 5: 17. — "Pharisees." Cf. in particular, Luke 11: 42-44, and see Edersheim, "Sketches of Jewish Social Life," chapter xiv. "The power of the Lord." Cf. 1 Cor. 1: 24.

126 Luke 5: 19. — "Tiles": Luke's adaptation to the way in which a Roman house was constructed (Ramsay).

Weiss is alone in following B, which has "all" instead of "Jesus." This he thinks was conformed to "Him" in verse 18. There may be no other way of accounting for B's reading.

126a Luke 5: 20. — See sermon from this text, by D. L. Moody, on Faith.

127 Luke 5: 24. — "The Son of Man" (cf. Matt. 9: 6, Mark 2: 10). This title of our Lord has been merely touched on in note 30 above.

To the Old Testament passages named in note 30 on Mark (2: 10) may be added Num. 23: 10.

As by other Synoptists, it is put by Luke in the mouth of the Lord alone, and in the following passages, beside the present: — Luke 6: 5, 22; Luke 7: 34; Luke 9: 22, 26, 44, 58; Luke 11: 30; Luke 12: 8 — where Matthew 10: 32 has "I" — Luke 12: 10, 40; Luke 17: 22, 24, 26, 30; Luke 18: 8, 31; Luke 19: 10; Luke 21: 27, 36; Luke 22: 22, 48, 69; and Luke 24: 7.

For its use in the Jerusalem Talmud (Taanith, 656), see Streane's edition of Laible, pp. 10, 50.

Opinions vary according as scholars consider the title to describe the Lord as -

i. The promised Seed: so Erasmus, after Gregory Nazianzen. Allied to this view, is that which makes it mean Last Adam and Second Man (Beyschlag and Fairbairn).

ii. The ideal or representative man: Schleiermacher, Neander, Godet, Westcott, Stanton, Sanday (for "Humanity": see "Life of Christ in Recent Research," pp. 126-132).

iii. "Man" as such, according to Syriac. as in 1 Cor. 15: 45, of Adam ("Barnosho"): H. Holtzmann, Martineau, Wellhausen, Nöldeke, Bevan, Marti (see Stalker, p. 72 ff.). This view has been questioned by Dalman. Indeed, as Abbott says, "The thought, not the word, is the important and really only feasible thing, for Aramaic did not preserve the distinction between Adam and Ish" ("Notes on New Testament Criticism," p. 141).

Allied to the last-named view is that of Nösgen and Wendt, according to which "Son of Man" would stand for lowly and weak (which Westcott has questioned): and so one reaches such an idea as that of D. Smith (p. 49 f.), that it was a nickname for one of the common folk (p. 53), a name of scorn (cf. Luke 9: 58), which the Evangelists, accordingly, who loved the Lord would not themselves use of Him.

That it stands for "Man" in general, a single passage will negative: this is, found in both Luke 7: 33 f., and Matt. 11: 18 f., where the Lord and John the Baptist are contrasted. According to that theory, the Baptist would not be a man at all!

Most think that it originated from Dan. 7: 13. Charles holds that it came from the pre-Christian similitudes of the Book of Enoch (vi. 46, etc.). He, with Meyer and Schürer, treats it as having been a current Messianic title; but such is not the opinion of the majority. In Daniel (after Ps. 8: 5 and 80: 17. in the LXX.), in the Apocalypse and John 5: 27, it is used without the article, and in the Synoptics, accordingly, becomes a new title: see Westcott's note in his posthumous "Commentary on the Gospel of John in Greek," p. 74 ff.

As used by our Lord Himself, some, as B. Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Harnack, and Dalman, regard it as meaning Messiah (cf. Wellhausen on Luke 6: 5). This is only admissible as we qualify it with rejected (cf. note 565). So Fairbairn: "It was the Messiah conceived as the suffering Servant of God" ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 397 f.).

For an effective reply to Friedrich Delitzsch, who has assigned a Babylonian origin to the name, see König, "The End of the Babylonian Captivity of the Bible," p. 77 f.

Montefiore has a long note on this title in vol. i., pp. 93-106, of his recent work.

128 "To forgive sins." As to the idea (broached by Germans, followed by Drummond and Schmidt) that forgiveness here means between man and man, it may be said, had the Lord meant no more than that, He would have made it plain, to avoid a charge of blasphemy.

Again, Mason observes that "One might as well say that every man is homeless, or each man's death may have redemptive value for others" ("Camb. Theological Essays," p. 450 f.). Upon the topic of forgiveness of sins in general, see below at Luke 11: 4 (note 285).

129 "He said to the paralyzed man." These parenthetical words, as they occur in all the Synoptics, have been deemed proof of use of a written source (H. Holtzmann and his followers). Inspiration is not impaired by such things (note 4): Divine guidance of the Evangelists determined retention, change, or omission of words.

129a Luke 5: 30. — Pharisees of either the "Catholic" or "Evangelical" type, if consistent, would have had to condemn our Lord here for infringing their bugbear of looseness. But, as the Expositor remarks in this chapter, Christ "did not choose His company." Such choice for His followers is "heresy" (αίρεσις) as to which cf. 1 Cor. 11: 19 (parties). Cf. 6: 40. and note 147 C, ad fin.

"Their scribes." Cf. Acts 23: 9. Some men of this class seem to have belonged to the Sadducean faction also; of them the Temple would be the stronghold, as the Synagogue that of the Pharisees. Cf. note 23 on Mark, and on the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, note 310 below.

130 Luke 5: 32. — Cf. "Prayer of Manasseh," 8.

131 Luke 5: 33. — See note 32 on Mark.

132 Luke 5: 34. — "Sons of the bridechamber," the bridegroom's invited friends.

133 Luke 5: 35. — This is the Lord's first public announcement of His death, after He had spoken of it privately to Nicodemus (John 3: 14). See, further, Luke 9: 22, 31, 44; Luke 12: 50; Luke 13: 32 f.; Luke 17: 25; Luke 18: 31-33; Luke 20: 9-18; Luke 22: 14-22; besides Luke 24: 7, 26, 46.

Words of Wesley, in his Journal (7th April, 1763) upon Fasting, have a voice for the present day: "Is not the neglect of this plain duty one general occasion of deadness among Christians? Can any one willingly neglect it and be guiltless?" Cf. W. Kelly's "Lectures on Matthew," p. 166

134 Luke 5: 36-39. — This parable, in two parts, is the first recorded by Luke. See special note at 8: 10. The variations in the other Gospels should be compared. J. Weiss thinks that Luke has "misunderstood" what he found in Mark, and "stunted" the meaning. See, on the other hand, Wellhausen. The fault is in interpreters not sufficiently regarding the immediate context. Cf. Neander, p. 220 f. (following Chrysostom), and Carr's notes.

Luke 5: 37 f. — The passage shows how, on the one hand, doctrine is cemented by rite; on the other, how rite is worthless without doctrine: our Lord here shows their necessary connection. Rome has robbed the Gospel of its simplicity by her multitude of rites; the Society of Friends has shorn it of rite altogether: such is the evil of extremes. We should not deviate from God's way either to the right or to the left. Manning's hesitation, on the eve of his "verting" to Rome, between Romanism and Quakerism singularly illustrates this twofold tendency. Barclay of Ury in his "Apology" uses the logic of the Jesuits, from whom he received his early education.

As to the words καινός and νεός, see Trench, "Synonyms of the New Testament."

135 Luke 5: 39. — The reading χρηστός must be understood as doing the work of a comparative.

NOTES ON THE SIXTH CHAPTER.

136 Luke 6: 1. — The operation referred to at the end of the textual note goes by the name of "dittography." It is Meyer's explanation, and cf. Field ad loc. Salmon characterizes such explanations as "complicated and lame." Neander, Winer, De Wette, and Hahn uphold the common reading.

136a Delitzsch: "In the interpretation of this I agree with John Lightfoot, understanding the first Sabbath after the second Easter day, the second Sabbath after the day of offering the barley sheaf (Lev. 23: 15), the second Sabbath with sephirah ha'omer (computation of the omer)." That is (cf. Lev. 23: 4), the omer offering on the morrow after the first great Sabbath (second day of unleavened bread). "It seems, therefore, to have taken place a week after Passover" (Briggs. p. 14). Wellhausen has recently written, "It does not rest merely on a blunder."

137 Luke 6: 2. — "Not lawful on the Sabbath." See Mishna, "Sabbath," vii. 2, and Bennett's whole chapter v. We learn from this passage how the Lord put an end to the whole taboo of the Sabbath, as, in Mark 7: 19, He did to that of meats.

138 Luke 6: 5. — The added words in "D" are shown in transcript opposite to p. 32 of Paterson Smyth's "How we Got our Bible." James and Paul both use the words, "transgressor of the law" (παραβάτης τοῦ νομοῦ). Only Blass among Edd. (see his "Philology of the Gospels," pp. 153-155) has ventured to print the insertion in text, as 5a between verses 10 and 11.

139 Luke 6: 6-11. — Neander observes that "the accounts of this event in Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written independently of each other" ("Life of Christ," p. 275).

140 Luke 6: 6. — "Right hand." Dr. Belcher ("Our Lord's Ministry of Healing," p. 123) notes this as mark of a physician's exactitude. For some "advanced" writers it has only the value of an accretion in the manner of tradition. But see Harnack.

141 Luke 6: 7. — Observe the use of παρατηρεῖν, as to which see note on 17: 20.

142 Luke 6: 8. — Another link with the fourth Gospel.

143 Luke 6: 11. — "Scientific" critics find a discrepancy in the fact that Mark 3: 5 exhibits JESUS as angry with the Pharisees. The psychology of such writers is very much at fault.

For the independence of the Synoptists of each other in verses 6-11, see C. E. Stuart, p. 68 f.

144 Luke 6: 12. — As to the definite article before "mountain," see note 39 on Mark (3: 13). It is not a particular mountain, as Wetstein and others have supposed. Wellhausen recognizes the principle, illustrated by some modern languages, in his "Introduction," p. 26. As to prayer, see note 28, and cf. Rom. 12: 12.

145 Luke 6: 15. — In "Zealot" we have substitution of a Greek for a Hebrew name. Matt. 10: 4 has "Cananaean." The Zealots were the most extreme and violent of the Pharisees (Joseph. "Antiqq.," xviii. 1, 6). The Jewish historian states that they originated in Galilee (cf. note 121).

146 Luke 6: 16. — "Judas," so John 14: 22. The same, it is supposed, as Matthew's "Thaddeus," "was the"; American Revv. rightly "became a" (or, "proved," ἐγένετο).

147 Luke 6: 17 ff. — The corresponding passages in Matthew (5-7, 107 verses) of the so-called Sermon on the Mount should be compared throughout with those of Luke (30 verses only in this chapter) in the following order:

Luke 6: 20-23 with Matt. 5: 3-12; Luke 14: 34 f. with Matt. 5: 13; Luke 8: 16 and Luke 11: 33 (critics' "doublet") with Matt. 5: 15; Luke 16: 17 with Matt. 5: 18; Luke 12: 58 f. with Matt. 5: 25; 16: 18 with Matt. 5: 32; Luke 6: 27 with Matt. 5: 44; Luke 11: 1-4 with Matt. 6: 9-13; Luke 11: 34-36 with Matt. vi. 22 f.; Luke 16: 13 with Matt. 6: 24; Luke 12: 22-31 with Matt. 6: 25-33; Luke 12: 34 with Matt. 6: 21; Luke 6: 37, 38, 41f. with Matt. 7: 1-5; Luke 11: 9-13 with Matt. 7: 7-11; Luke 13: 24 with Matt. 7: 13; Luke 6: 43 f. with Matt. 7: 16, 20; Luke 6: 45 with Matt. 5: 37; Luke 6: 46 with Matt. 7: 21; and Luke 6: 47-49 with Matt. 7: 24-27.

In aid of detailed comparison of the two records, reference may be made to Salmon, pp. 109-145.

This most notable of the Synoptic discourses raises the question of the relation of Morality to Religion, and of this to Theology. Each of these, accordingly, will be discussed in the sub-sections immediately following.

A. RELIGION in general has already been briefly considered in note 9 on John. As distinct from Theology, which is the study of Religion, the one is "subjective" or personal, the other is "objective." Unhappily, the two are often confounded.

For the source and nucleus of Religion as conceived by the late Herbert Spencer, see his "Principles of Sociology," vol. iii., p. 6, "The Religious Idea," § 584: "Belief in a being of the kind we call supernatural — a spirit." This he describes as "The essential element of a cult."

Auguste Comte has divided the history of Religion into three stages: 1. Supernatural. 2. Metaphysical. 3. Positive (his own system, the "Religion of Humanity": cf. note 450).

"One of the strongest implications of the doctrine of Evolution," writes Fiske, "is the Everlasting Reality of Religion" ("Through Nature to God," p. 111). Cf. Max Müller, "Origin and Growth of Religion," Lect. ii. Spencer (op. cit., vol. i. § 146) and Tylor ("Primitive Culture," p. 428) alike discredit the entire deficiency of any tribe of mankind in religious ideas. At the root of Religion lies Faith (see note on 18: 8), with both emotional (the dominant) and intellectual elements, crude forms of which pass under the name of "Superstition." The form of religion at the same time highest and deepest is called "Mysticism" (see "Psychology of Religion," pp. 154-173, 244 f.), one expression of the Christian form of which is found in Paul's words, a "life hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3: 3: cf. Gal. 2: 20). This has nothing to do with the "Mysteries" or worship of pagan deities of the Earth or Sea, as to which see Sir W. Ramsay's article in "Encyclopaedia Britannica," or Sir R. Anderson's "The Bible or the Church," ch. 8 and the late Archdeacon Cheetham's Hulsean Lectures on "The Christian Mysteries."

A recent masterly book on Christian Mysticism is that of Dr. Rufus Jones, the American Quaker scholar. A man's religion, as the word is used by Christians, is that which expresses, from his own point of view, his relations to a supernatural Being. All the leading religions, beginning with Judaism (see Abrahams, ch. vi.), have produced mystics, whose tone of mind in the Christian element is described as "spiritual."

"Control of the individual," writes Grubb, "by a knowledge larger than his own, is what we call authority," and "Every one who can see farther than others into the truth of things speaks with some authority" ("Authority and the Light Within," p. 11 f.).

The "Seat of Authority" in Christianity is variously determined by different "schools": those of the Catholic type find it in the Church; Unitarians, in the individual Conscience; whilst those roughly described as "Evangelical" refer everything to Scripture. The last-named position, of course that of the present volume, is well represented by Sir R. Anderson's above-named book, the writer of which insists on the difference between "The Christian Religion" and "Christianity" ("The Bible or the Church," p. 94 f.). It is, of course, true that Christianity is not strictly a "religion" in the sense in which this word was used by Archbishop Laud.

Where any religion has borrowed from another, there is said to be "Syncretism" (mixture). Fairbairn has observed, "The last religion one could describe [Gunkel does] as syncretism is the Christian" . . . "its founders too ignorant," he adds, "of other religions . . . it was a living organism" ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 518 f.).

Religion as represented by large communities of men or nations had always to the time of Christ been mixed up with Politics, by which, as in Mohammedanism, it is still much affected. Thus the seventeenth century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, regarded Religion only as a department of the State. The English "Free Church Council," representing six denominations, in 1909 emphasized "the claim of political activity upon the Nonconformist conscience": this "militant" attitude doubtless, however unhappily, does but express the logical outcome of the Puritan policy in the seventeenth century. But what a far cry from our generation to that of Cromwell, to say nothing of Calvin, or Savonarola, referred to at the Swansea Conference by S. Horne! We "live and learn."

The fundamental ideas and practices (in particular, worship) of Religion, in its highest element, as commonly understood, start from recognition of the claim of some Higher invisible Power on man in this life, which is therefore regulated by the principles of his religion in view of rendering account after death. And so Hobbes found the natural cause of Religious anxiety about the future (Routledge's edition of Leviathan, 1904, p. 68). For the Jew, such principles are found in the scriptures of the Old Testament; for the Christian, in the whole Bible; whilst the faith and conduct of the Moslem are referable to the Koran, and so on. Hence, throughout the various forms of Religion — the monotheistic in particular (witness Mohammed's reiterated confession of need of forgiveness of his sins) — runs the idea of SIN (in conflict with "Holiness"), its consequences and remedies, which will be dealt with in note on Luke 24: 47 below. "Ethical Religion" — to which Buddhism is akin — affects to dispense with this idea altogether (sub-section B).

Comte's "metaphysical" religion is simply Theology (sub-section C); whilst his "positive" state is doubtless the precursor of the worship of the Apocalyptic "Beast." At present it is but a sublimated form of Herbert Spencer's genesis of Religion, i.e., the apotheosis of deceased heroes, such as Romulus among the ancient Romans. According to this, Jehovah (Yahveh) should have been no more than Emerson's "superman" (plagiarized by Nietzsche).

"Theosophy" is a jumble, registering the occult ideas of the world in general. In this country it is chiefly advocated by women; many of its Society's publications are written by them. Thus amongst books "recommended for beginners" are Elements of Theosophy, by Lilian Edger; First Steps in Theosophy, by Ethel M. Mallet; and The Path of Discipleship, by Annie Besant, the most prolific writer of all. The system is Eastern in the main.

"Religion," strange as it may seem, is still "the special sphere of Satan's influence" ("The Bible or the Church," p. 162 f.).

Höffding is a standard writer on the "Philosophy of Religion," as T. H. Green and Dr. John Caird in this country, with whose works rank that of Max Müller, "Introduction to the Science of Religion." None of these writers, however, able as they were, can be said to have gone to the heart of the matter, which the last-named reached only in his closing days. Liddon's "Elements of Religion" introduces its reader to a more Biblical element, as does Fairbairn's valuable work. An article by McPheeters, in Hastings' "Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels," deals with authority in Religion. On the distinctly so-called "liberal" side there is "Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit," by Auguste Sabatier.

The study of Comparative Religion has been usefully served by the series of "Sacred Books of the East," edited by Max Müller, with which intending Christian Missionaries in that part of the field do well to make themselves familiar. Reinach's recent book entitled "Orpheus" affords a handy répertoire of information, which has been followed by Gilmore's article in Schaff-Herzog, vol. iii. CHRISTIANITY, of course, is for its adherents the absolute and final religion (John 14: 6), which alone brings humanity to "the City of God" (MacCulloch, "Comparative Theology," p. 2). Its most formidable rival at present is Islam.

B. MORALITY, from being largely concerned with men's relations to one another ("Righteousness"), is by those who disclaim adherence to any form of supernatural Religion regarded as covering and meeting the whole of their higher needs. For writers such as Leslie Stephen its very genesis is "simply from the felt need of human beings living in society" ("Science of Ethics," p. 107). Nevertheless, as far back as History goes, Morality (Conscience) is, in fact, found connected with Religion (God consciousness) as its parent (cf. Anderson, "The Bible or the Church," p. 16); and amongst the old Greeks, Morality was first detached from religion by Aristotle, in the fourth century B.C.. whose "Nichomachean Ethics" remain unsurpassed as a system of purely mundane DUTY, the performance of which is now being substituted for recognition of GOD. Such it was with Emerson, the American sage ("superman"). Cf. the "Ethical Hymn Book," No. 327, which makes use of the canticle in the second part of Ps. 19, but substituting "Duty" for "Jehovah."

In the East, Confucianism is regarded as merely Chinese State morality. And so with the religion, such as it is, called "Shinto." of the Japanese. Both these nations of the yellow race, however, acknowledge a future state of existence, in connection with which reverence (worship) of ancestors is cultivated, as expedient for the present life at least. In Japan, writes Baron Kikuchi, they "talk very little of rights," Duty being paramount. Buddhism is purely ethical, on the lines of morality expounded in the West by writers like David Hume, who distinguished the various types of national morality (not ignored by Christians).

For the Jews, Religion and Old Testament morality remain intertwined. Abrahams says: "Pentecost celebrates . . . the inseparable conjunction of the service of God with the service of man" (p. 55).

Christians for the most part are guided by the Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount and Apostolic precepts developing it, which together constitute their Code of righteousness: this teaches beyond all question (Acts 10: 35) that righteousness is what Stanton Coit describes as "the holiest reality" ("Ethical Lecture on the Ten Commandments," p. 6).

The morality of Moslems is derivable from their sacred book.

Outside the Bible, writers in countries of Christian civilization who have surrendered their allegiance to Gen. 3, trace the origin of Morality to parental affection. Thus Fiske: "The relation between mother and child must have furnished the first occasion for the sustained and regular development of the altruistic feelings" (op. cit. pp. 121, 133 ff.). Cf. Hume's judgment of Society, expressed as "self-judgment" (Fairbairn, p. 66). By such writers treating sense of Duty as a social feeling implanted in the breast, "The Mosaic Record of the Fall" and of the acquirement of Conscience is deemed an allegory and nothing more, so that Morality is for them, from first to last, a human creation, in no wise proceeding from Revelation. The present writer has heard a lecturer of a London Ethical Society attempt to dispose of the doctrine of original Sin so-called by reference to a child's treatment of its doll; no distinction being made between the sexes; no allowance for the working of anticipated maternal instinct in a girl; and the derivation of the name of the fetish from "idol" ignored, if indeed apprehended.

The Biblical idea of Sacrifice, that of the individual for the race — so well understood by the Christian soldier, C. J. Gordon — is purloined by the votaries of "Ethical Religion."

Bishop Butler wrote: "Duties arise out of relations" ("Analogy," part ii., book ii., § 2). Secular Ethics, on the other hand, as expounded by such as Tolstoi, "makes Duty flow from man's moral power" (supposing that man is able to do his duty if he will) (W. Kelly, "Exposition of the Epistles of John," p. 190). Butler was followed by Kant, who, at the close of his "Critique of Practical Reason," declared himself impressed by (1) the heavens above, (2) the moral law — the moral faculty or conscience within. By writing that work he signified his sense of the insufficiency of his previous classical treatise on Pure Reason. For his bringing the religious element back into the calculation, Kant has been denounced by the nineteenth century Nietzsche as an "idiot"; that is, by the man who could write that "God is dead," and yet became himself in his last days definitely insane: this should afford reflection for Agnostics enamoured with his "Zarathustra." Harnack brings man back to saner sentiment: he has described virtuous Agnostics as "parasites, living on the faith of others."

Socialists have attempted to enlist the "Sermon on the Mount" in the service of their nostrums. But, to speak only of Property: Christ's words as to sacrifice suppose individual ownership. "Christian Socialism" was a plank in Bishop Westcott's platform: in his "Social Aspects of Christianity" he speaks of the saving, not only of men, but of the world (p. 86). Again, the Bishop of Truro (Dr. Stubbs), in his "Vox Clamantium," would make the object of the Church the reorganization of society (p. 355). For healthier teaching, see D. M. Panton, "Socialism and the Sermon on the Mount."

Notable are words of George Washington in his last presidential address: "National morality cannot prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Of the so-called "Ethical Religion" imported into England from America (its prophet was Emerson), Prof. Foster, of Chicago, redeeming some earlier utterances, has written: "What does it mean that a society of religionless men are to be the Religion of the Future? On the basis of history it is a fact that moral ideas have always found access and evinced their power in the life of peoples only in connection with the corresponding religious ideas" (The American Journal of Theology, April, 1908, pp. 118, 122). Again, Prof. Michael Sadler, in his paper contributed to the Proceedings of the International Congress on Moral Education (1908), has expressed his settled conviction that "there are certain parts of moral education necessary to the good life which are inseparable from one or other form of religious belief." The recent controversy, however, in connection with a Parliamentary Education Bill, lay rather between advocates of moral training of the "Positivist" type and representatives of Theology, of what is called "definite" religious instruction: this comes in for consideration next.

The case from that point of view has been ably presented by Ernest R. Hull, S.J., in his pamphlet, "Why Should I be Moral?" Upon Synoptic teaching as to Righteousness, see Stalker, "The Ethic of Jesus," chapter iv.

C. THEOLOGY (cf. Kattenbusch, in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, vol. xi:, pp. 394-397), concerned with systematic, logical development of TRUTH (see Fairbairn, p. 263), as a process collects and formulates religious ideas; in the form of "Biblical" Theology doing this for Revelation in the light of the periods during which that was vouchsafed; in the form of "Symbolic" Theology treating of the fundamentals of the Faith as these were investigated in the age of the first Church Councils, which issued "Catholic Creeds" (cf. note on Luke 18: 8); whilst "Dogmatic" Theology has to do with the development of such doctrine in the light of spiritual experience; and so on.

By a "Theologian" in the narrower and strict sense of the term is meant one who is scientifically, as distinct from ecclesiastically, "dogmatic." Origen led the way among Christians; with him may be classed Maimonides amongst Jews. Origen has been followed by Athanasius, the Cappadocian "Fathers" (Basil and the brothers Gregory) and Augustine; by Calvin, Hooker, Jonathan Edwards, Newman, Martineau, Dorner, Dale, etc.

By "dogma" in the ecclesiastical sense is meant a truth to which submission is due (Kaftan, Gore, etc.); or, as expressed by Orr, "doctrine ecclesiastically sanctified." Harnack, its great living historian, calls it Doctrine which is held by the CHURCH as such. Those who conform to what is current in their own generation are by their contemporaries deemed "Orthodox." Höffding has observed that "within the Protestant Churches it is the laity, far more than any Church authorities, who control the orthodoxy of the preachers" (p. 320). They go by what they were taught in their youth and resist "innovation." There is, unhappily, an indisposition to view Truth like "a growing tree" (J. N. Darby).

When this takes the form of attempting to supersede the Revelation of the New Testament (2 John 9), faithful Christians refuse "Development." But that any have been entirely free from this tendency, as allied to the dictates of experimental expediency, Newman was right in denying. Very many non-Catholics could agree with him in regarding Infant Baptism, in whatever form it has presented itself, as a product of Development. This aspect of Truth is connected with that which has given rise of late to "Pragmatism," an apostle of which was the late Prof. William James in America. The Pragmatic method he speaks of as the "interpretation of a notion by the light of its supposed practical consequences" ("Lectures," p. 45). "Truth in our ideas means their power to work" (ibid., p. 58). Thus the propounder of a theory as to the χαρίσματα of the first Corinthian Epistle, in a conversation related by him to the present writer, with the late Professor Tholuck, to whom it was personally explained, was told by that distinguished man that he was of the same opinion, but that he doubted if it would work; to which J. N. Darby rejoined: "Have you ever tried it?" Of course, difference will exist in each case as to the measure of success obtained. For an attack by Nietzsche on those who have "theological blood in their veins," see his "Antichrist," § 9.

148 Luke 6: 18. — The distinction again appears here between disease and demoniacal possession, which modern inquirers are loath to admit. Carpenter, because of "the vast accumulation of evidence from the ages both before and after Christ" (cf. the works of E. B. Tylor, and, in particular, art. Demonology in "Encyclopaedia Britannica"), says that "the hypothesis of a peculiar outburst of demoniac energy in the time of Jesus falls in complete collapse." One has, however, only to read such books as Mrs. Howard Taylor's Memoir of "Pastor Hsi" to learn how prevalent it is in our own day in certain quarters. On this topic, cf. Orr, "The Bible under Trial," pp. 222-224.

149 - Luke 6: 20. — "Lifted up His eyes." This, B. Weiss observes, is an expression characteristic of the source that he has named "L" (note 4 f.), rather than of "Q" ("Sources of Synoptic Tradition," p. 256).

As to glib acceptance of the teaching here, Maclaren remarks: "The people who say, 'Give me the Sermon on the Mount — I don't care for your doctrines, but I can understand it,' have not felt the grip of these Beatitudes" ("Expositions," etc., vol. i., p. 128).

149a "Poor," without qualification, cf. 2 Cor. 6: 10, James 2: 5. For the personal element in this Gospel, cf. Luke 22: 20, and see note on verse 22 below. Some (as Schmiedel, art. Gospels, in "Encyclop. Bibl.," § 123; cf. his "Jesus in Modern Criticism," p. 70 ff.) have suggested Luke made use of an Ebionite source here, and for verse 35 f., Luke 11: 41, Luke 12: 33, Luke 14: 21 f. and 33, Luke 18: 22, Luke 19: 8. This idea is discredited even by Jülicher (Introduction, §27, p. 206, E. T.). 'The Ebionites' system would be far too unpalatable to an Evangelist for him to resort to their literature. It should be observed that according to 7: 1, the Lord is addressing a miscellaneous audience. The Apostles themselves, as Salmon says, were not chosen from the very poor, but belong at least to the "lower middle class" (p. 116; cf. Ramsay, Expositor, April, 1909, p. 306). One must not exaggerate this aspect. The thought in this as in Matthew's Gospel is based on Old Testament passages, such as Ps. 32: 2, Prov. 9: 23, Isa. 57: 15 ("an established Old Testament principle," Schlottmann, Compendium, § 148), with which Gentile readers could familiarize themselves from the LXX. Nevertheless, it is true that the soil in which Christianity at first was sown was characteristically that of poverty, in Greece as well as in Judea: see Deissmann, in Expositor, February, March, 1909.

Again, an attempt has been made to connect the teaching here with the system of the Essenes (alien to Buddhism), as to whom see Lightfoot on "Colossians," pp. 158-179, Edersheim, "Sketches, etc.," chapter 15, and Harnack, "Missions," i. 337). Eusebius (iii. 27) seems to have referred the name of this sect to the poverty of their intellect in observing sabbaths and other Jewish rites.

By "rich" must probably be understood the Pharisees: see Luke 16: 14. The opinion of some (as Harnack), founded on Luke 6: 24, Luke 16: 19, Luke 18: 24 f., that Luke had a bias against the wealthy, is negatived by cognate passages in Matthew (as Matt. 19: 21) and Mark (as Mark 10: 23). With just as much reason might it be said that Mark had a bias in the contrary direction, because of Mark 14: 7.

150 Luke 6: 21. — Our Lord was for Nietzsche the great type of aristocratic morality, a joyful rather than a suffering Christ!

151 Luke 6: 22 f. — "Separate," usually taken as from the synagogue (John 16: 2) but De Wette took it, like the English translation, as from their society in general.

"Cast out" spread abroad, i.e., bring you into bad repute (Wellhausen).

Son of Man: Matthew's parallel has "my" (verse 11): cf. note on Luke 12: 8 below.

"Rejoice":as did the excellent John Chrysostom who, when dying, said, "Thanks be to God for all" the persecution he suffered (cf. 1 Thess. 5: 16-18).

152 Luke 6: 26. — Wesley in his Note asks, "But who will believe this?"

153 Luke 6: 27-36. — For Ritschl, GOD is LOVE, and nothing else, cf. Pfleiderer, "The Development of Theology," E. T., p. 186. As to Montefiore's strictures on our Lord's invective against the Pharisees, see note on Luke 7: 40.

154 Luke 6: 31. — Cf., of course, Matthew's form of words (Matt 7: 12), and also, Tobit, iv. 15. This golden rule was called by Hillel "the quintessence of the Law" (Pirgé Aboth); but he stated it negatively (Murray, "Christian Ethics," p. 66 f.), as did also the Chinese sage Kung-fu-tsé (Legge, "The Religions of China," pp. 137-139).

155 Luke 6: 32. — "Thank," or "grace" (χάρις): Vulg. "gratia." Matthew (Matt. 5: 46) has "reward," for which in verse 24 Luke has "consolation."

155a Luke 6: 33. — Such also was a maxim of Lao-tse, contemporary of Confucius (cf. note 154).

156 Luke 6: 35 ff. — "Hoping for nothing in return": so Vulgate (followed in A.V.). Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Godet and Meyer take ἀπελπίζειν as "despair," after Old Lat. (cf. LXX. of Isa. 29: 19); the Revv., in the sense of lack of faith in God's own recompense (Humphry). Field, however, supports A.V. with the remark, "The context is too strong for philological quibbles."

"Ye shall be (prove) sons." Cf. Ecclesiasticus iv. 10. It is a question of character, as in Rom. 8: 14.

Plato regarded the object of the life of man as becoming like God.

156a The closing words of this section (cf. Matt. 6: 14 f.) bear on the question of communion between God and any who have entered into the relationship of children upon initial Repentance and Faith.

With verse 36, cf. Ps. 111: 4, Ps. 112: 4.

157 Luke 6: 38. — "Shall be given." Strictly, "They shall give." As in the Aramaic of Daniel, the passive is avoided, so that the agent has not to be expressed. Cf. verse 44 and Luke 12: 20, Luke 14: 35, Luke 18: 23, Luke 23: 31.

"With the same measure": see Deut. 25: 15, and cf. Zech. 5: 8 f. "The very instrument which the woman used for her unholy work was to be the means of her confusion" (C. H. H. Wright ad loc.). The same sentiment is in the Mishna ("Sotah," i. 7: cf. Bennett, p. 116).

158 Luke 6: 39. — As to blind leaders, cf. Matt. 15: 14. It alludes to shepherds' custom, when angry with their flock, of giving them a blind sheep as a leader. And so of bad administrators of a town (Neubauer, in "Studia Biblica," vol. l., p. 52, note). These words have a bearing on the subject of Interpretation of Scripture. As to which see note 13 above.

158a Luke 6: 40. — "The disciple, etc." Cf. Luke 22: 64 with Acts. 23: 2; Luke 23: 1 with Acts 22: 30; Luke 23: 2 with Acts 24: 5; Luke 23: 4, 14, 22 with Acts 23: 29; Luke 25: 25 and Luke 26: 31 respectively, as showing "resemblances very marked" (Moffatt, p. 264, note). See also 2 Tim. 3: 17 and note 129a above.

For these two verses reference may be made to Luther's discourse in "Sermons," pl. 49, and Spurgeon's Sermon, No. 1248.

158b Luke 6: 45. — Cf. 2 Cor. 6: 11.

159 Luke 6: 46 ff. — See Spurgeon's Sermon, No. 1702.

NOTES ON THE SEVENTH CHAPTER.

160 This chapter exhibits no link whatever with the Gospel of Mark.

161 Luke 7: 3. — "Sent." Abbott ("Encyclopaedia Biblica," col. 1774) remarks Matthew and Luke differ irreconcilably. Matthew says that the man did come to Jesus. And so, as the present writer has been informed by a member of the Burmese Commission, would a Burmese say not taught otherwise by Western magistrates. An Eastern calls himself the principal when acting only as agent. "Elders" are called "rulers" in Mark 5: 22. Cf. "overseers" in Acts 20: 28, 1 Peter 5: 2; and "guides" in Heb. 13: 7.

162 Luke 7: 5. — "The synagogue." Remains of this still extant may be found described in various books.

163 Luke 7: 9. — For wonder attributed to the Lord, cf. Mark 6: 6; there at unbelief; here at belief.

164 Luke 7: 6-9. — The wording of these verses is compared with that of Matt. 8: 8-10 by Harnack, "Luke the Physician," p. 94 f.

"I also," implying that he acknowledged the Power behind the Lord, at his appreciation of which Christ marvelled (Morison on Matt. 8: 9).

165 Luke 7: 10. — This section should not be confounded — as by some moderns — with John 4: 46 ff., which is entirely distinct.

166 Luke 7: 11. - How paltry some of the criticism that is bestowed on the Evangelist's geography or topography, finds illustration in Hausrath's objecting to the description of Nain as a city. See "New Testament Times," iii. 410, and Hahn ad loc. What, for example, did Hausrath know of Nazareth as it was then in the days of Christ?

Scripture speaks similarly of "streets" in Jerusalem, etc., but these are not what we so call: any visitor to the old part of Jerusalem could confirm this: there you have only open spaces.

167 Luke 7: 12. — "Only son." For another case, see Luke 9: 38, and see note 48, above.

168 Luke 7: 13. — "The Lord" (ὁ κύριος). See again in Luke 10: 1 [Edd., 39, 41], Luke 11: 39, Luke 12: 42, Luke 13: 15, Luke 17: 5 f., Luke 18: 6, Luke 19: 8, Luke 22: 31, Luke 24: 3 (before "Jesus") and 34, all in this Gospel of the "Son of Man." In John's Gospel it occurs only four times: John 4: 1, John 6: 23, John 11: 2, and John 20: 20. It is not found in either Matthew or Mark.

169 "Weep not" or "do not go on weeping," the continuous present, as in John 20: 17, "do not go on clinging."

170 Luke 7: 14. — "Bier": as to Jewish manner of burial, see Joseph. "Antiqq.," xvii. 197f., Life, 323, or Edersheim, "Sketches of Jewish Social Life," p. 109 ff.

171 Luke 7: 15. — Cf. 1 Kings 17: 23.

172 Luke 7: 16. — "Visited." Cf. i. 68 and 19: 44, where also it is merciful visitation (ἐπισκόπη). The word for "visitation" in the sense of vengeance is ἐκδίκησις, as in Luke 21: 22.

173 Luke 7: 17. — "Judea." Meyer, Ewald, Weiss and H. Holtzmann take this of the whole land (cf. note 114); Hahn, who holds that it is nowhere in the New Testament so used, observes that the Lord's opponents were chiefly in the South (so Plummer on the present passage).

174 This incident of raising the dead is intermediate between that of Jairus's daughter, not carried out for burial, and the raising of Lazarus when already buried. Difference in the significance of the three cases as typical of stages the process of conversion was suggested already by Augustine, Sermon XCVIII., whom Wordsworth follows.

The publicity of this case, which is not recorded by Mark, might supply such critics with food for reflection as attach greater historical value to our second Gospel. Cf. O. Holtzmann, p. 274, for candid recognition of the circumstances of this miracle; also Wellhausen's note ad loc. ("before many witnesses").

175 Luke 7: 19. — As to the Jewish idea that there are two Messiahs, one the "son of David," the other the "son of Joseph," see Lightfoot, "Horae Hebr." The Baptist would at least know that JESUS was the suffering one.

The Expositor's view of John's state of mind is that taken by Tertullian, Neander, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen and Godet: the Baptist had real (not, as Stier, simulated) doubt, and that increasing, not (as some moderns) declining. See further Godet ad loc., as to the Baptist's state of mind being characteristic of the old dispensation.

175a Augustine, Hilary, Chrysostom, Calvin, Wordsworth, and Ryle suppose that the mission of John's disciples was meant by him to aid their faith.

176 Luke 7: 22. — We have here a summary of Messiah's work: "Poor evangelized." Wesley offers a characteristic comment: "The greatest mercy and the greatest miracle of all."

177 Luke 7: 23. — Observe that nowhere in the Gospels are the Scribes and Pharisees represented as challenging the Lord as to miracles: this alone might show that they were actually performed. The Talmud adds confirmation by the very explanation that it offers (cf. note 107 above).

178 Luke 7: 27. — This quotation (as in Matt. 11: 10; Mark 1: 2), from neither the Hebrew nor the LXX., illustrates the belief of the late Adolf Neubauer, that Aramaic paraphrases lie behind quotations in the Gospels from the Old Testament.

179 Luke 7: 28. — "Born of women." Chrysostom, whom Sadler follows, explains that our Lord excluded Himself from the number of those so described. It is noticeable that the word is γεννητός, not, as in Gal. 4: 4 (cf. Phil. 2: 7), γενόμενος ("come"). In verses 23, 29 of the same chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians the Apostle uses, of Isaac and Ishmael, verb forms cognate to γεννητός.

"Little." Bishop Basil Jones: "less," explaining it as, "than John in gifts and power." Augustine and Chrysostom, although happily followed by very few (as Spence), take this of the Lord Himself.

Farrar: "The smallest diamond is made of more precious substance than the largest flint."

The last words of the Lord here about John are, of course, very offensive to the Mandaeans, or modern disciples of the Baptist, settled to the south of Bagdad (Reinach, p. 107).

180 Luke 7: 29 f. — Syrsin here has "justified themselves to God." These verses are taken by the Expositor as parenthetical; that is, as Luke's own comment. So Field and Adeney; whilst Meyer, Bishop Basil Jones, B. Weiss, Spence, and Plummer regard the words as proceeding from the Lord. But, as Norris says, the tenses used indicate that it is the Evangelist who speaks. Besides a parenthesis is in his manner: see Luke 13: 7, and Acts 1: 18f. Compare, further, Matt. 21: 32.

181 Luke 7: 31. — "This generation." Meyer, Hofmann and Hahn understand by this, the Pharisees.

182 Luke 7: 35. — "Is justified" (ἐδικαιώθη). Burton (§ 43) calls this a "gnomic aorist," to which effect was given by the English version, retained by the Revv.; whilst Winer (Moulton's ed., p. 346) held that this does not occur in the New Testament. Cf. like use of ἐβλήθη in John 15: 6, and note there.

Dorner finds here germs of our Lord's pre-existence (Luke 1: 1, 61). Cf. Luke 10: 23 f., Luke 11: 49.

"Children." The reading of , "works," may have come from Matt. 11: 19. "All" is omitted in corr D, Syrcu.

183 Luke 7: 36. — "One of the Pharisees." Not the same as Simon the leper (Mark 14: 3).

As to the better side of Pharisaisrn, see Murray's "Handbook of Christian Ethics," p. 67.

Venn preached from this passage (Sermons, p. 217), as Augustine long ago (Library of the Fathers, vol. i. of "Sermons on the New Testament," p. 387).

184 Luke 7: 37. — "A woman . . . a sinner." The chapter-heading of Bibles still in use and the "Pilgrim's Progress" have given currency to the idea of Latin Fathers (Augustine, etc.) that she was the same as Mary of Magdala: to this Farrar was inclined to adhere on the sentimental ground of its associations in sacred art! But see B. Weiss and Norris.

184a Luke 7: 38. — "Kissed," i.e., covered with kisses (κατεφίλησε).

"Behind." The Lord at the time was recumbent, His head forward, with His feet backward.

185 Gregory "the Great" ("Works," i. p. 1582), whose view was definitely accepted by the Church of Rome, supposed that she was identical with Mary of Bethany; as Grotius, Schleiermacher and H. Holtzmann also have done. But, to say little more, Bethany is described as a κώμη (Luke 10: 38); this place, a πόλις. Cf. the wording of Luke 8: 1, and note 192, s. init. On the Romish muddle here, see Stock, p. 126.

The Greek Fathers rightly distinguished all three cases. Schanz, although a Roman, regards the incident entirely from the Lucan standpoint.

185a Montefiore remarks (on Luke 6: 27, 35 etc.) that JESUS, had He carried out His own teaching, could not have called His enemies (Pharisees) "vipers" (Matt. 12: 34), and exultingly have consigned them to Gehenna. Note, however, the words of F. W. Robertson: "He blighted Pharisaism, with irony and terrible invective. But to the actual living Pharisee, how tenderly did He express Himself! Simon I have somewhat to say unto thee. . . . So far as he is a man, he is an object of infinite pity and tenderness" ("Lectures on Corinthians," p. 72). Our Lord could not have used smooth words towards the system which Mr. Montefiore endeavours to defend. The Apostle Paul tells us that love is to be "without hypocrisy" (Rom. 12: 9).

186 Luke 7: 42. — "Forgave" (ἐχαρίσατο) is one of the Greek words that Luke shares with Paul (Rom. 3: 24; Eph. 2: 8 f.).

See Spurgeon's Sermons, 1739 and 2127. Gregory "the Great" said that as often as he read this narrative, he felt that he could better weep than preach.

187 Luke 7: 46. — For head "anointed with oil," see Ps. 23: 5, and cf. Amos 6: 6.

188 Farrar works out the rhythmic parallelism noticeable in these verses. Cf. Matt. 2: 7-10.

189 Luke 7: 47. — Her faith wrought by love: Gal. 5: 6. For the love accompanying faith which works manwards, see Matt. 5: 43 ff. Cf. Gore, "The Creed of the Christian," p. 53. As to Lucan Paulinism, see note 100 above.

189a Luke 7: 48-50. — Dr. Alexander Maclaren has preached from these verses. (Third Series of Sermons: "Love and Forgiveness.")

190 Luke 7: 50. — For "Go in (εἰς) peace," cf. Mark 5: 34, ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην, Plummer: εἰς marks the subsequent life (lasting condition); ἐν (as in Acts 16: 36; James 2: 16), the moment of departure. Cf. Carr ad loc. Farrar in his Excursus gives quotations from the Moed Qaton. Maclaren, "His Word is like a living creature and fulfils itself" (vol. i., p. 214).

191 Frennsen has made use of this narrative in his "Holy Land," p. 376.

The views of some critics that it is a "doublet" of Mark 14: 37, which Luke omits, is rejected by J. Weiss. The parable of the two debtors, as Bruce observes, is an original element ("Apologetics," p. 462).

NOTES ON THE EIGHTH CHAPTER.

192 Luke 8: 1. — "Throughout every city . . . village." Christ left, accordingly, His abode at Capernaum (Matt. 11: 1) and began an itinerant ministry. "The good news was not to be confined to places where there were synagogues" (Stuart, p. 92).

To "preach" (κηρύσσειν, to herald) "implies solemnity of announcement" (Darby-Smith). Cf. Luke 9: 2 and Acts 28: 31. When Luke speaks of the simple Gospel of Grace, he specially uses εὐαγγελίζειν: Luke 4: 18, Luke 7: 22, Luke 9: 6, Luke 20: 1. For "glad tidings of the kingdom of God," cf. Matt. 4: 23, etc.

In considering the relation of the "Kingdom" to the "Gospel," it is needful to grasp the bearing of a passage like Luke 12: 50 upon such as Luke 24: 27. As "Minister of the Circumcision" (Rom. 15: 8), our Lord limited Himself to the Jewish people. Even in the Fourth Gospel we find Him saying that ''salvation is of the Jews" (John 4: 22). Cf. the Expositor's remark on verse 11 here. The Apostle Paul began his ministry with "the Gospel of the Grace of God" (Acts 20: 24) in its world-wide significance and scope; and it is in the form which that Gospel took in his hands that Christians of the "uncircumcision" have to set it forth. But "the Gospel of Christ," of which he says he was not ashamed (Rom. 1: 16), for him retained the double aspect of grace and works (Luke 3: 8), and was not divested of the second characteristic when it acquired its wider scope. It is lamentable how no less a writer than Calvin found in "Kingdom" only a synonym for "Gospel renewing men into God's image" ("Works," p. 185, quoted by W. Kelly in his "Exposition of Acts," vol. ii., p. 198).

On the relation of the KINGDOM to the CHURCH, as to which Professor Wellhausen and Bishop Gore really occupy the same unsatisfactory position, cf. note 21 on Mark. See, further, note on 18: 16 f.

193 Luke 8: 2. — "Mary Magdalene." Origen distinguished her from the woman of chapter 7. See notes above on Luke 7: 37. Wesley's comment shows that he followed Gregory "the Great."

"Out of whom went," etc. Bruce: "In the Gospels demoniacal posession is something quite distinct from immorality." "Seven demons" may be a formula. It often occurs in the Babylonian magical texts, some of which are exhibited in the British Museum. Cf. the "seven spirits" of Luke 11: 26, and also the same expression in Rev. 1: 4. Dr. Whyte has taken "Mary Magdalene" as subject of his discourse LXXXI. in "Bible Characters."

194 Luke 8: 3. — This explains Matt. 14: 2, where Herod is said to hear of Jesus.

"Ministered to Him their substance." The innkeeper Gaius in the "Pilgrim's Progress" says: "I read not that ever any man did give unto Christ so much as one groat; but the woman followed Him and ministered," etc. For "Joanna," again see Luke 24: 10. "Chuza": American Revv., "Chuzas."

195 Luke 8: 4 ff. — Here Luke resumes the same thread as that of Mark's narrative, dropped at 6: 19. Farrar treats the present passage as an illustration of the Synoptists' non-use of each other's narrative or of a common source.

See Spurgeon's Sermons, 308, 1132, 1457, 2040; Maclaren, vol. i., pp. 230-241; also Irving's six lectures on the passage (Sermons, ii., p. 243 ff.). Augustus Hare has preached from verse 11 (Sermons, vol. ii., p. 17).

196 PARABLES. — A "parable" (comparison) serves the purpose of religious, as a fable that of moral, instruction. It may be very terse, as in Luke 6: 39 above. As to the design of our Lord's parables, see Bruce, p. 16, comparing A. P,. Habershon, p. 3 ff.

On the interpretation, see Trench, chapter iii., also A. R. Habershon, p. 13 f. Jülicher questions the need of interpretation, regarding the Gospel parables as in general self-explanatory, and conceiving that every difficulty would disappear if the original connection were known. The Lord, he alleges, did not, as a rule, explain them. But see Mark 4: 34. The Marburg professor holds that it was the Evangelists who imported allegorical features into them. Trench's work, of course, is not to his taste (p. 300). Stevens (p. 43) is influenced by Jülicher's theory. Saneness of view is, happily, not in such a bad way in this country.

On the connection between the parables and the miracles (note 107 above) see A. R. Habershon, chapter xiv. The parables peculiar to Matthew are characteristically dogmatic and judicial; those solely special to LUKE, ethical and merciful.

Several writers offer a classification: Westcott's would be found in his "Introduction to the Study of the Gospels" (p. 393 f.), a work accessible to most readers.

Godet: (α) Parables referring to the Kingdom of Heaven (God) under the old dispensation, as that of the Fig Tree (Luke 13: 6-9); (β) to the new dispensation, as that of the Sower, here; (γ) the Kingdom as realized in individual life, e.g., that of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-35).

Bruce: (α) Parables of the Kingdom, e.g., the seven in Matt. 13, and in Luke 19: 12-27; (β) of the Gospel (goodness), as the three in Luke 15; (γ) those which are judicial and prophetic (righteousness), as the Barren Fig Tree of chapter 13.

Jülicher: (α) Strict, simple similitudes or comparisons, as in Luke 14: 28-33, the man intending to build a tower, and the king going to make war against another; (β) amplified comparisons (parables proper), as the visit, to a friend at midnight, Luke 11: 5-8; (γ) exemplary narratives, as that of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10: 30 ff.

The number of parables is put by Trench as thirty; Bruce finds thirty-three; others, many more.

There is a suggestive paper on the Lucan parables by Swete in Expositor, Aug, 1903. These come under the following heads:-

(i.) Salvation: The Two Debtors (Luke 7: 41 ff.); the Great Supper (14: 22 ff.) the Lost Coin (Luke 15: 8 ff.); and the Lost Son (Luke 15: 11 ff.). (ii.) Prayer: the Midnight Visitor (Luke 15: 5 ff.); the Importunate Widow (Luke 18: 1 ff.); and the Pharisee and Publican (Luke 18: 9-14). (iii.) Service: the Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13: 6 ff.); the Ploughing Slave (Luke 17: 7 ff.); and the Pounds (Luke 19: 12 ff.). (iv.) Social Relations; the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30 ff.); the Rich Fool (Luke 12: 16 ff.); the Dishonest Steward (Luke 16: 1 ff.); and the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16: 19 ff.). All but one, it will be seen, belong to the section Luke 9: 51 - 18: 14.

There are no parables in the apocryphal gospels, one sign of their inferiority, as the multiplication of their alleged miracles is another.

196a Luke 8: 10. — "The mysteries of the Kingdom." Cf. Matt. 13: 11; and p. 284 of the Expositor's "Lectures" on Matthew. Cf. also note on Luke 19: 12, 15.

196b "The seed is the Word." Cf. James 1: 18; 1 Peter 1: 23.

197 Luke 8: 13 — "Rock," the "stony heart of flesh" in 11: 19, Ezek. 36: 26.

198 "With joy." So Bunyan's "Man in the Iron Cage," See Spurgeon's Sermon, 1132.

199 Luke 8: 14. — "Life," βίος. B. Weiss ("Manual Comm.") aptly refers to Mark 12: 44, comparing 1 John 2: 16. Bunyan selects Demas (2 Tim. 4: 10), as a Biblical illustration of the Lord's words here. See Spurgeon's Sermon, 2040.

200 Luke 8: 15. - "Honest and good," the Greek ideal, καλὸς κἀγαθός. The word ἀγαθός is like the Heb. tou (Wellhausen, Prolegomena to "History of Israel," p. 345), "good" as doing good; cf. Matt. 7: 17, Matt. 20: 15, Matt. 25: 21 ff. Καλός, "excellent," finds illustration in Mary of Bethany, as ἀγαθός in Joseph of Arimathaea (Bruce ad loc.).

Upon the understanding of this parable hangs that of all others. See Mark 4: 13.

201 "Keep." Matthew has "understand"; Mark, "receive."

202 "Patience" or "endurance." Cf. Rom. 2: 7, and for the whole verse, John 15: 2.

203 - Luke 8: 16. — See again at Luke 11: 33.

204 Luke 8: 17. — Cf. Matt. 10: 26.

205 - Luke 8: 18. — "How ye hear." Preaching upon 1 Cor. 8: 1 ff., F. W. Robertson has shown how much of what passes under the name of "definite religious construction" the Apostle Paul would have rated as secular knowledge. By, "knowledge," he says, "the Apostle meant not merely knowledge without Christian doctrine, but knowledge without Love" (p. 146). So must it be where the Spirit of God is not enlisted in the work. No Parliamentary legislation can really secure us against such a state of things. Even the teacher's believing in what he teaches does not suffice. Much of the current unbelief has either been generated or accentuated by "a form of godliness without the power." "Many a person now zealous on this point of 'education' would be content if only the Bible, without note or comment, were taught. But St. Paul would not have been content; he would have calmly looked on and said, 'This also is secular knowledge. This, too, is the knowledge which puffeth up.' It is the spirit in which it is acquired which makes the difference between secular and Christian knowledge. It is not so much the thing known, as the way of knowing it" (p. 147). How eminently true this is of the facts of our Lord's life. Cf. note 46 on Mark.

205a — Luke 8: 18. — "Seemeth." For R.V., "thinketh" (δοκεῖ), cf. 1 Cor. 10: 12.

206 Luke 8: 19 ff. — In Matthew and Mark this incident precedes the Parable of the Sower, already passed in Luke.

Comparing the passage in Mark just named with this, Carpenter comments on the earlier statement, as he interprets it, that Mary joined the Lord's "brethren" in an endeavour to put Him under restraint as being out of His wits, upon which Matthew and Luke alike are silent: he calls the conjunction of knowledge of the supernatural birth on her part with this attitude as "incredible." Some proof must first be offered that she was other than a passive instrument of the others whose ebullition is described. Cf. notes on Luke 1: 34 and Luke 4: 22

207 The names of our Lord's brethren are given in Matt. 13: 55 and Mark 6: 3; that of "James" first in each, to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 7): he was accounted a "pillar" of the Church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2: 9; cf. Luke 1: 19); and is prominent in Acts 15: 13 ff. The first description of him as "bishop" of that Church is in the "Clementine Recognitions," a theological romance of the second century.

"Jude" may have been the writer of the Epistle under that name.

Here arises the question, which has never ceased to be discussed, as to the parentage of these "brethren" of JESUS. There are three theories:-

(1) The Epiphanian — that they were sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. So Origen, the late Bishops Westcott and Lightfoot and Dr. Salmon. It is the traditional, so-called "Catholic" view, by which the perpetual Virginity is maintained (as to which myth, see Sir E. Anderson, "The Bible or the Church," p. 256).

(2) The Hieronymian — after Jerome — that they were cousins of the Lord, as sons of Mary's sister. Few now support this view.

(3) The Helvidian — that they were our Lord's "uterine" brethren, that is, were children of Mary and Joseph. So Meyer, Alford, Godet, Weiss, Farrar, Andrews, Mayor (Introduction to his edition of the Epistle of James, and Papers in Expositor for July, August, 1908), W. Kelly, etc.

The first view, ably as it was championed by Bishop Lightfoot, is excluded by the fact that then one of Joseph's natural sons must have been his eldest son, and so by law his heir (Edersheim, "Life of Jesus, etc.," vol. i. p. 364). In his Homily quoted by Lightfoot, Origen says that Scripture nowhere speaks of Mary having other children; but he must have forgotten the Messianic Ps. 69: 8.

Those who follow Jerome think that "Judas of James" in Luke 6: 16 means "J. brother of J.," but Bishop Lightfoot was clear that it means "son."

208 Luke 8: 24. — Cf. James 1: 25, and verse 18 above.

209 Luke 8: 25. — According to Matthew's account, the Lord administered the rebuke before he stilled the storm.

210 Luke 8: 28. — "What have I to do with thee?" Cf. 2 Chron. 35: 21 in the LXX. version, idduced by Maldonatus. Here follow the words: "I do not come to make war on thee." And so here, "Why shouldest Thou vex me?" (Carr).

"Son of God." (Cf. Matt. 8: 29; Mark 5: 7.) See Stalker, p. 98 f., who effectively disposes of German denial of anything higher than the established theocratic sense of the title.

"Had commanded"; or (as American Revv.) "was commanding" (παρήγγελλεν).

211 Luke 8: 31. — See Trench, who shows consistency of this with Mark's statement.

"The abyss see Rev. 20: 1-3.

212 Luke 8: 32 f. — "Many." Mark says "two thousand."

"Choked ": American Revv. "drowned."

213 Luke 8: 35. — "At the feet of Jesus," not so much as a scholar (Weiss, after Meyer), as in token of the Lord's delivering power (Colin Campbell, p. 171, referring to verse 8).

214 Luke 8: 39. — Mark says "in Decapolis." Cf. the Lord's way of commissioning the leper, Mark 1: 41; the young ruler, Mark 10: 21; and the man in 9: 19. See also note 52 on Mark. There is a sermon of J. H. Newman on this incident, reproduced in Allenson's reprint (No. IV.).

215 Luke 8: 42. — (Cf. verse 49). See note 53 on Mark.

216 Luke 8: 43. — Cf. Lev. 15: 19. Some MSS. of the "Gospel of Nicodemus" give her name as "Bernice" in Greek, the "Veronica" of Latin.

217 Luke 8: 44. — "Tassel," the fringe (zizith) of Num. 15: 38, Num. 22: 12; Deut. 22: 12; See Schor, p. 85. Norris: "Faith, though disfigured by superstition, may still be blessed." As to this incident, see Whyte, "Bible Characters," No. LXXX.

218 Luke 8: 51. — "Peter, John and James." The order is peculiar to Luke here, and at Luke 9: 28; Acts 1: 13. These three were thrice singled out on special occasions (here; Transfiguration; Gethsemane).

219 Luke 8: 52. — Norris aptly compares Luke 20: 38.

NOTES ON THE NINTH CHAPTER.

220 Luke 9: 2. — "Proclaim," κηρύσσειν, of the Kingdom (see note 192). Burkitt seeks to distinguish here between the style of Luke and that of Paul (p. 117, note); but see 1 Cor. 9: 27, where having used εὐγγελίζειν in verse 16, when the Apostle comes to the conflict connected with reward (cf. note on Luke 22: 16 ff.) he uses κηρύσσειν. Cf. Acts 20: 25 and the last verse of the same Book.

"To heal the sick." With the idea that some such power resides still in the Church, a "Guild of Health and Spiritual Healing" has recently been founded by some Anglicans. As to this topic, see art. by Dr. A. T. Schofield, in Contemporary Review, March, 1909, who calls attention to the Epistle of James 5: 14 (ἀλείφειν, medical, not χρίειν, sacramental).

221 Luke 9: 3. — "Money," i.e., silver (ἀργύριον), because Luke is writing for Greeks; Mark has "copper," from writing for Romans (Farrar).

"Wallet": cf. that carried by Eastern beggars at the present day (Deissmann,

"Light from the Ancient East," p. 42 ff.).

222 Luke 9: 9. — "Sought the imperfect, equivalent to "would seek," as a habit: cf. Luke 23: 8.

Herod seems to have supposed there was a change of soul from an old body into a new one, as part of the current Jewish notion of pre-existence: cf. John 9: 2.

223 Luke 9: 10. — Richard Cecil wrote: "Christ's workmen must not live in a bustle . . . driving through the business of the day. I am obliged to withdraw myself regularly and say to my heart, 'What are you doing? Where are you'" Cf. Song of Solomon 1: 6, "Mine own vineyard have I not kept" (Ryle).

224 "Into," as εἰς is commonly rendered; but its use in Luke 19: 29 justifies the rendering of the preposition here as "towards": for the distinction between it and πρός, cf. note 65 on Mark. John 6: 5 shows that the incident took place in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida. Luke is not inconsistent, as alleged by Wright ("Gospel of Luke," p. 87). Some of those who suppose that there were two places with the same name distinguish this, in Galilee, from Bethsaida Julias in Gaulonitis (cf. note 40 on John). The reading of "D," "village," may indicate that this was the site of the Old Bethsaida (so Wellhausen).

224a "Spoke . . . cured." The Lord had both taught (Mark) and healed (Matthew). "Luke, treating so markedly of grace, calls attention to the double manner of its manifestation that day" (Stuart, p. 18).

225 Luke 9: 12 ff. - "The day began to decline": cf. Luke 24: 29.

This is the only miracle recorded by all the Evangelists. It took place in the spring, just before the Passover (John 6: 4).

"Victuals": American Revv., "provisions."

226 Luke 9: 16. — "Gave": again an imperfect (kept giving).

227 Luke 9: 17. — Matthew Henry: "None are sent away empty from Christ, but those that come to Him full of themselves," a reminiscence probably of Luke 1: 53; cf. Rev. 3: 17.

The translation in the "Exposition" of the close of the verse is that approved by De Wette, B. Weiss, and Plummer. Alford followed Meyer.

The κόφινος (hand-basket) appears in all the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand; whilst σπυρίς (hamper) is used by Matthew and Mark in connection with the four thousand. Those laying stress on verbal analysis have to reckon with this when treating the later miracles as a "doublet."

228 Luke 9: 18 ff. — There is a rift in Luke's record compared with Mark's. Our Evangelist omits the story of the heathen woman, to the discomfiture of critics. J. Weiss: "We can only confess our ignorance." It were well if such a confession came oftener. Even an Apostle could write," We know in part."

"Alone": American Revv., "apart."

"I" (verse 18), as Mark 8: 27. Matthew here has "Son of Man" (Matt. 16: 13). Cf. note on Luke 6: 22.

The verses down to 22, compared with the parallels in Matthew and Mark, tell us of the great crisis or turning-point in the Lord's disclosures; verse 20 being the revelation that he was Messiah; verse 22, a contemporary announcement, for the first time, according to this Gospel, of the coming Passion, and coincident with the introduction of His self-designation as "Son of Man" (see "Exposition "). For the surprise such association of ideas must cause to the Jewish mind, see Luke 1: 33, and John 12: 34. As to the critics' treatment of the Messianic claims, see note 82 f. on Mark.

Peter's confession here precedes (in Matthew follows) the saying, "All things have been delivered," etc. (Luke 10: 22).

229 Luke 9: 23 ff. (cf. Luke 14: 29 f., etc.). — Around these words, found substantially in each of the Gospels (cf. Matt. 16: 25; Mark 8: 35; John 12: 25), gather all the thoughts of Thomas à Kempis' "Imitation of Christ." Self-sacrifice, suffering, is seen, by men otherwise so widely differing in their views as Dr. Martineau and Bishop Gore, to be of the essence of Christianity, which so far has no meeting-point with Buddhistic "illusion of self," at present so much in vogue; that idea and Christ's "denial of self," the suppression of sorrow and its transfiguring into joy, badly sort together.

As to difference between self-love and selfishness, see Murray ("Christian Ethics," § 116), and for the various "selves" represented in the individual man which are recognized by modern Psychology, James ("Text Book," chapter 12).

Noticeable is the travesty of the Lord's words here in R. T. Campbell's "New Theology," where salvation is said to lie "in ceasing to be selfish" (p. 210).

"Daily," not once a week. Cf. verse 26. "It is not at all a question of professional ministry any more than of monasticism" (see Catholic Catechism, No. 342). Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 31.

One modern writer tells us that JESUS "was not a Christian" (Wellhausen, Introduction, p. 113); another, that "there has been only one Christian, and he died on the Cross. There never have been Christians at all" (Nietzsche, "Antichrist," § 39). Is it not a truism, so far as regards this last pronouncement, that "there are none so blind as those who will not see"?

Some critics, enamoured of the idea of "accretion," declare that these words could not have been spoken before the Crucifixion. One would be glad to learn from such writers how they conceive that the language could have originated after that event without misunderstanding. If "cross" and "lose his life" here are to be understood, the "daily" of Luke 14: 27, which is here represented by the present tense of the verbs, must be taken into account. The reader is urged to abide by Paul's interpretation (1 Cor. 15: 31), realized in that Apostle's experience, and by having his words in Rom. 12: 1 and Gal. 2: 20 burnt into the soul. Celsus said that, in his own day, Gal. 6: 14 was ever "in the mouth of every Christian of every sect." We are reminded here of "form of godliness without the power" (2 Tim. 3: 5), in days when anything like stern reality is decried as "enthusiasm," so prone are "the many" to lukewarmness.

We have here constantly repeated assumption of successive forms of self-denial or self-stripping, be it hand or foot or eye (Mark 9: 43-47), symbolic of the deeds of the body requiring mortification (Rom. 13).

230 Luke 9: 24. — "Life," i.e., soul: see note 35 and cf. Luke 12: 19.

231 Luke 9: 26. — Fear of society's ridicule, not peculiar to one period of life, heads the list of hindrances to decided discipleship set forth in a "Bulletin de l'Union Chrétienne de Jeunes Gens" (Brussels, Feb., 1906).

232 "The Son of Man." Wellhausen, in his Introduction, p. 79, remarks: "Jesus here distinguishes Himself from the Son of Man." But cf. Matt. 10: 32 f. with verse 23 there, and see note 30 on Mark, ad fin.

"The holy angels": cf. 2 Thess. 1: 7.

233 Luke 9: 27. — For "taste of death" (γεύεσθαι τοῦ θανάτου), cf. the Talmudic ta'am mîtha.

233a The "Kingdom of God" instead of the personal "Son of Man" in the other Synoptics. Schmiedel remarks: "There is no longer any mention of the coming" ("Jesus in Modern Criticism," p. 33 f.), as to which observe that in each of these three Gospels the respective form of words is in the same context, that of the Transfiguration. We need not consult Jerome, Hilary, or Chrysostom to be assured that this vision was the one meant, and that it has no reference (as Sanday supposes) to Pentecost (Acts 1: 8, Acts 2: 4). On critical principles one would have expected transposition; so Wellhausen has to suggest that the story originated in a vision of the risen Christ. Awkwardly for such writers, the Transfiguration was recorded by Mark likewise; so that it cannot be said of Peter, as far as the Gospels are concerned, that he seems not to have known of it. Mark tells us that it was at the bidding of JESUS the three disciples did not disclose it until after His resurrection; and Matthew's like statement was doubtless derived from his fellow Apostle. The disciples would freely communicate to one another their several experiences, which thus became common property."

Mark speaks of "power" (Mark 9: 1). At 8: 38 of the record which, according to the critics is the first Synoptic, the same Evangelist has "with the holy angels," which Matthew has reproduced (Matt. 16: 27). But it is not the mention of these which explains the "power" peculiar to the shortest Gospel, in which JESUS is characteristically the Isaianic "Servant of Jehovah," who was "made a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 9), to prove "much better" than they, as He "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name," that of the SON (ibid. 1: 4; cf. "This is my beloved son" in all three Synoptic accounts). Thus, it was to be "crowned with glory and honour," the passage first cited from Hebrews tells us, as by anticipation in this scene, cf. 2 Peter 3: 16 f. Hence "power" in the critics' first Gospel exactly expresses the transformation which the disciples witnessed.

234 Luke 9: 28 ff. — "Eight days." A fragment of a day at each end was reckoned in addition to the "six days" of Matthew and Mark.

As to a week being passed over here without any record of the ministry, see Stuart, p. 116.

235 Luke 9: 29. — The word λευκός, for "white," is used also in Rev. 1: 14.

236 Luke 9: 31 — Wright would have that "spoke" (ἔλεγον) means Moses and Elias informing the Lord of the details of His death ("Synopsis," p. 85). Does such exposition court serious refutation?

A really illuminative remark is that of Bishop Hall, in his "Contemplations" (vii. 5), that the appearance of Moses' body, hid in the valley of Moab, was for Christians to know that "their bodies are not lost but laid up, and shall as sure be raised up in glory as they are laid down in corruption."

"Departure" (ἔξοδος): cf. Acts 13: 34, for Luke's use of εἰσόδος, "entry." The word "exodus" is found again in 2 Peter 1: 15. As to such being the theme of the conversation, Dr. Torrey, in one of his London addresses, well asked, "Could anything make more for the fundamental importance of His death?"

237 Luke 9: 32. — "Oppressed with sleep," seemingly indicating that it was night; cf. verse 37.

238 "Having fully woke up." So Revv. text, Wellhausen, etc. The R.V. margin, "having kept awake," is in accordance with the usual sense of the word.

238a Luke 9: 33. — "Tabernacles." This seems to have taken place about the time of the Feast so named, in the autumn of the year preceding the Passion.

239 Luke 9: 34. — The reading ἐκείνους, as the pronoun in the second place, B. Weiss, in his critical dissertation, supposes was substituted for αὐτούς there in order to make the meaning clearer, that the disciples did not themselves enter the cloud. Blass puts a stop at "feared," which enables him to connect "as they entered" with "a voice," etc. If αὐτούς be read, all six persons would seem to have been in the cloud (so Godet), unless (with Weiss) we take this αὐτούς as referring back to the one in verse 33. "Out of the cloud," in any case, makes for the disciples being outside of it.

240 Luke 9: 35. — "Beloved." The word ἀγαπητὸς seems to have become Biblically equivalent to μονογενής, "only begotten" (i.e., "Only Son," Swete, "Studies," p. 167), from the way in which these words alternate in the LXX. version of yachid. Cf. note 90 on Mark, and Sir R. Anderson, "The Lord from Heaven," p. 30.§.

For the designation ἐκλελεγμένος, "chosen" (R.V.), see Isa. 42: 1, and cf. Luke 23: 35. Observe, however, that by the prophets it is used of the Lord as παῖς, not as υἱός.

As to the glory of Christ making that of Moses and the prophets disappear, cf. the argument of 2 Cor. 3: 7-11.

240a Luke 9: 36. — The Transfiguration and the Lord's words leading up to it have no more to do with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem than with His ascension. The scene is a type, a shadow of the Millennial Kingdom.

For such as Loisy (i. 93, ii. 40), Wellhausen ad loc., and in England, Carpenter (pp. 143-151), "told no man" does but mean that before the death of JESUS no one had ever heard of the Transfiguration! Historical criticism of this kind, will not stand the test supplied by sense of human character.

241 Luke 9: 37. — Cf. Ex. 34: 30. The Syriac of Sinai shews the same reading followed as by the Curetonian — "that" instead of "following" day.

242 Luke 9: 46 ff. — Self-assertion: cf. Luke 22: 24. In Mark 9: 29 the inefficiency of the disciples is attributed to lack of prayer (if not fasting also); whilst in Matt. 17: 20, faith in their very commission (verse 1 here), seems to have broken down.

"Should be": American Revv., "was."

"In My name" (verse 48). To the present day Arabic-speaking hospital patients in Palestine and Egypt use the name of JESUS in appealing for relief.

Jealousy comes out in verse 49 here; the more petty because of the man's success in contrast with their culpable failure.

243 Luke 9: 50. — Cf. Mark 9: 39 f. Here "you" replaces "us" of the earlier Gospel.

244 Luke 9: 51. — At this point we enter upon a record of the Lord's ministry which, with the exception of Luke 11: 14-44, Luke 12: 1-12, 35-40, and Luke 17: 1-4, is peculiar to Luke (see note 4 F), ranging from about the Feast of Tabernacles (October) — cf. John 8 — to about Passover of the year following (the spring), and covering the chapters down to 18 (verse 14), where the link with Matthew and Mark reappears, down to 19: 29. Cf. also John 7: 2 and John 10: 22, from the latter of which passages we learn that the Lord was at Jerusalem in the winter, and then retired "again beyond Jordan" (verse 40).

Wieseler, followed by Ellicott ("Historical Lectures," p. 241), regarded this portion of the Gospel as spreading over two journeys of Christ before the final one: the second of these would begin with Luke 17: 11, and end at 19: 29 (but cf. next note). It supplies that ministry of our Lord, loosely called the "Perean." Peraea was in the district of old called "Gilead." From the assertion of the direction always taken (Luke 13: 22 and Luke 17: 11, cf. Luke 18: 35), critics (Keim and followers, as Wellhausen) have started the idea that the Evangelist was confused in his geography. As to this, Godet or Hahn may be consulted. A later writer, Spitta, has shown in his "Disputed Questions" that the criticism is baseless, for that the route from Galilee to Judea, (1) through Samaria, and (2) by way of Jericho, was customary.

"Receiving up," ἀνάληψις, which supplied a technical word for the Ascension. It is used here only in the New Testament; but for the verb, see Acts 1: 2, Acts 11: 22, besides 1 Tim. 3-16.

See Maclaren's sermon (Third Series), on "Christ Hastening to the Cross."

"To go to Jerusalem." Cf. Luke 13: 22, Luke 17: 11, Luke 18: 31, Luke 19: 38. There seems to be one journey in view throughout, of which there is a "threefold narrative": see paper of Col. Mackinlay in Interpreter April, 1911. Three may be seen to play an important part in the Book of Acts, where Paul's conversion is thrice described (Acts 9: 3 ff., Acts 22: 5 ff., Acts 26: 12 ff.), and Peter's visit to Cornelius in the same way alluded to (Acts 10: 1 ff., Acts 11: 4 ff., Acts 15: 7 ff.), whilst that Apostle's vision is said to have been threefold (Acts 10: 16). It is conceived that Luke had in his Gospel the same plan — to draw special attention to the particular incident in question.

245 Luke 9: 53. — For Jewish feeling toward Samaritans, see Ecclesiasticus, i. 25 f.

246 Luke 9: 54. — "James and John." Briggs supposes that the sons of Zebedee were the only Apostles with the Lord at this time ("New Light," chapter iv.). Carr notes that John was the first to give Apostolic blessing to the newly-founded Christian community of Samaria in Acts 8: 14 f. Bishop Jeremy Taylor preached from this verse.

246a Luke 9: 55. — The Lord wrought miracles in every element except fire, which is reserved for the consummation of the age (Bengel).

247 Luke 9: 57. — "One." Matt. 8: 19 informs us that he was "a scribe." Augustine has a sermon on this verse (op. cit., p. 397).

248 Luke 9: 60. — "Let the dead bury their dead" is a saying still current In the East.

249 Luke 9: 61 f. - "Hand," not hands (Schor, p. 19 f.): It is the same in India at the present day. The ploughman requires the other hand for holding the pole with which he pricks the oxen.

250 "Fit," εὔθετος, as a question of conduct. Cf. use of the word in 14: 35, and of ἀδόκιμος in respect of work in Titus 1: 10: "worthless as to every good work." It is not a question of fitness for eternal life, which consists in acknowledgment before God of one's absolute worthlessness and need. Cf. Acts 13: 4 in that connection with 2 Tim. 3: 8, worthless as regards the faith."

With these two verses cf. Matt. 6: 33, Matt. 13: 44-46.

NOTES ON THE TENTH CHAPTER (TO VERSE 37).

251 Some Judean ministry seems to be recorded in Luke 10 - 13: 21. As to this, see Professor Briggs' book,"New Light, etc." (Cf. note 53 on John.) It becomes most apparent as we reach verse 38, which, with the four following verses, will be taken in connection with chapter 11.

252 Luke 10: 1. — "Seventy." Luke was supposed by some of old to have been one of them (see note 2). References for that view could be found in Hahn's commentary, etc. The number has been variously taken as referring to the supposed number of nations at the time; to the seventy elders of the Jewish polity (Num. 15: 16); and, by "Catholic"-minded people (cf. the full college of seventy Roman Cardinals), to the elders of the primitive Church.

As to the reading "seventy-two," see curious explanation of how the "conflation" may have arisen in Abbot, "Clue: A Guide through Greek to Hebrew Scripture," p. 137 f.

253 "Two and two," cf. Mark 6: 7 of the Twelve. Critics, as their manner is, imagine that Luke is following two different reports of the same mission (cf. Luke 9: 1-6); but you find them at other times saying that our Evangelist discards a report of some miracle or saying as a "doublet." So crooked are the ways of some writers that with them caprice runs riot.

254 "Every city and place . . . come." Carpenter treats this as an allegory: he would have it that no earthly visit is meant, but the advent of the glorified Messiah, as the Kingdom should spread among the Gentiles by the disciples' preaching. Cf. verse 16. Such is part of what the Expositor has elsewhere described as "the mythology of the nineteenth century."

255 Luke 10: 2. — "Indeed." The R.V. at Matt. 9: 27 retains the "truly" of A.V., but drops it here, although the Greek is the same (ὁ μέν).

See Augustine's "Sermons on the New Testament," vol. i., p. 401.

256 Luke 10: 4. — "Salute no man," i.e., abstain from that which, in the East (cf. 2 Kings 4: 29), is a prolonged ceremony. Ryle,"The man of God ought to have no leisure for any work but that of His Master." Cf. Prayer Book of British Jews, p. 186. Different counsel seems to be given now to the clergy by some diocesans.

257 Luke 10: 6. — "Son of peace." Cf. "child of wisdom" (wrath), "son of perdition" (death).

The αὐτόν may grammatically mean "him," and was so taken in the Latin.

For the last words of this verse, cf. Ps. 35: 13.

258 Luke 10: 7. — "The workman is worthy of his hire" (Matthew:"food"). Cf. 1 Cor. 9: 14 and 1 Tim. 5: 18. The Expositor, after Lewin (i. 393), with whom Bishop Hersey agreed, was of opinion that the Apostle in the passages named quoted this Gospel ("God's Inspiration, etc.," p. 18). Colour may be given to this view by the mention of Luke in the same connection as the "parchments" (2 Tim. 4: 11-13). As to 1 Cor., cf. Hausrath ("New Testament Times," iii. 70). Salmon thought that the words in 1 Tim. may have been heard by Paul from Luke's lips at a weekly church meeting. B. Weiss supposes that the words were known to Timothy as a familiar saying of the Lord. H. Holtzmann's view was that the Evangelist derived them from the Apostle (Introduction, p. 401). The simple truth seems to be that it was a current Jewish proverb, derived from Deut. 24: 14 f.

259 Luke 10: 8. — Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 27, Ecclesiasticus 31: 16.

260 Luke 10: 11. — The word κολλᾶσθαι, "cleave," is frequent in Luke's writings: see Luke 15: 15, and Acts 5: 13, Acts 9: 26, Acts 11: 23, and Acts 17: 34. Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 6: 17.

261 Luke 10: 16. — "He that hears you hears Me." Cf. John 16: 25, John 17: 20. The teaching of the "historical Jesus" is partly incomprehensible without the Apostolic interpretation. The Catholic Catechism, No. 228, resorts to these words.

262 Luke 10: 18. — "I beheld." Cf. Luke's use of θεωρεῖν, as here, in Acts 17: 16. That which the verse sets before us is not visionary (H. Holtzmann), but intuitive, Divine knowledge (Meyer, Schanz, Weiss, Hahn).

262a "As lightning." Cf. Matt. 24: 27.

262b "Fall," πεσόντα. All Germans seem to translate it as our A.V. The Revv., "fallen," after Bishop Basil Jones, etc., a rendering criticized by Evans, who explains thus: "Satan fell. I was there looking on." J. H. Moulton "I watched him fall" ("Prolegomena," p. 134; cf. Goodwin, "Moods and Tenses," § 148). "Fallen" suits πεπτωκότα alone, as in Rev. 9: 1. Falling, again, would be πίπτοντα. The form used here is, of course, the instantaneous, momentary aorist participle, which sets forth the act as a whole, not as in progress: contrast "rising" (R.V.) in Luke 12: 54.

It is "prophetic" (Godet); that is, anticipatory, see John 12: 31; Rev. 12: 10. Wellhausen's reference to Isa. 14: 12 f., of course, connects itself with the fourth verse of Rev. 12. The Sura 72 in the Koran, which speaks of ejection of demons from heaven by meteors, does but caricature Old Testament predictions, with the substitution of Mohammed for our Lord. The real phenomenon will be fulfilled before the great Tribulation, and is distinct from that of Matt. 24: 29 (Mark 13: 25), which will precede the time of stress. The Fathers' view, represented in modern times by Cornelius à Lapide, was that it refers to the time when Satan first sinned: so B. W. Newton in his "Thoughts on the Apocalypse," p. 249; but see Trench, "Studies," pp. 227-230. It is not a fact accomplished, as Bruce states the matter.

263 Luke 10: 20. — "Names written, etc." Cf. Ex. 32: 32; Ps. 69: 28, besides Rev. 3: 4 f. — the Assembly's roll at Sardis, and its confirmation or otherwise in heaven. Cf. Matt. 5: 12, noting like connection of the word "rejoice."

264 Luke 10: 21 f. — For the Lord's requirement of faith in His Person, cf. Matt. 11: 25 ff. These twin passages, awkward for critics, those have to face who can but talk of "Christological development from Paul to the Fourth Gospel" (art. "Son of God" in "Encyclopaedia Biblica"). The fertility of imagination displayed by some is very unedifying. The background of the pre-existence of JESUS (Dorner: see on 7: 35) makes itself felt here, and must, accordingly, be explained away!

On Harnack's apparent misreading of the Lord's words here, Swete remarks: "It is His Sonship which enables Him to know, not knowledge which makes Him the Son" ("Studies," p. 79 f.). For the unique Sonship, cf. 2 John 3, "the Son of the Father," words which admit of only one interpretation.

265 The traditional reading, in every source of evidence ordinarily credible, is γινώσκει, "knows" (Matt., ἐπιγινώσκεὶ). Schmiedel (art. "John son of Zebedee," in "Encyclopaedia Biblica," col. 2527) emphasizes the aorist ἔγνω which emerges in a few Patristic quotations: something that came about at a definite moment of time, within the period of the earthly life of the Lord. The subject has since been discussed by Harnack, "Sayings," pp. 19 and 196 ff., where references will be found to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. For the use made by Marcion of these passages in the Gospels, see Burkitt, p. 308.

Will the "advanced" writers accept the Patristic reading ἐγεννήθη (instead of ἐγεννήθησαν) in John 1: 13? A thousand times, No! And yet, that variant is of like character to this from a purely scientific point of view.

Harnack observes that Luke could only have here omitted the words of Matt. 11: 28-30. But, speaking of the manner of critics, would our Evangelist's first readers have understood the "yoke" there spoken of, which is a Jewish conception (Acts 15: 10)? (Cf. Edersheim, "Life of Jesus, etc.," vol. ii., p. 142 f., and Morris Joseph's work, "Judaism, as Creed and Life" (1903).

266 Blass has discarded the seven last words of verse 22 on the scanty evidence of "D" and three Old Latin copies. The words are unquestioned in Matthew.

266a Luke 10: 23 f. — See Sermons of Chas. Simeon ("Works," xii. p. 418) and of H. P. Liddon in Allenson's reprint of selected series (No. X.).

267 Luke 10: 25. — "Lawyer." As to the class of scribes, see Neander, pp. 269, 401, and note below on 11: 43. The "tempting" was, of course, to test the Lord's orthodoxy (Stock).

267a "Everlasting" (αἰώνιος). Of the use of this in the Old Testament, Isa. 45: 17 is a typical passage. In Luke it always has a future reference; whilst αἰών, "age" is used for all three forms of time. As bearing on the lawyer's question, cf. Prov. 4: 13 and 1 Tim. 6: 12.

268 Luke 10: 27. — See the Shema in the liturgy for both morning and evening of the Jewish Prayer Book.

The scribes had decided that the chief commandment was enshrined in Lev. 19: 18.

The Old Testament original of Deut. 6: 5 speaks of man in his threefold nature — "might" standing for "spirit" (energy): cf. note above on Luke 1: 46.

On equal love of neighbour and self, see Murray, "Christian Ethics" pp. 27-32.

Luther preached from verses 23-27 on the "Difference between the Law and the Gospel" ("Sermons," p. 436).

Two of Bishop Butler's sermons were upon the Love of God and the Love of Our Neighbour respectively.

269 Luke 10: 29. — The aorist δικαιῶσαι means: to keep up for the nonce his reputation for righteousness; whilst the present δικαιοῦν would mean: to acquire standing justification.

270 "Neighbour": cf. Lev. 19: 18, "children of thy people."

See D. L. Moody's Gospel address on "Who is my Neighbour?"

271 Luke 10: 31. — "Happened." The phrase κατὰ συγκυρίαν may be rendered "by a coincidence."

272 Luke 10: 33. — "The story is full of tender touches by One who had lately been repulsed from a Samaritan village" (Lindsay).

273 Luke 10: 34. — Wellhausen curiously remarks: "In wounds oil is applied, but not oil and wine." The "pouring in" oil or over (ἐπιχέων) means for massage, as now amongst Arabs; the wine, to staunch bleeding. For a quotation from Shabbath, regarding their use in circumcision, see Farrar, in Excursus.

274 Luke 10: 35. — Cf. the Book of Enoch, 40: 5 (part of the Similitudes, xxxviii. — lxx.).

275 Luke 10: 36. — "Was," or "proved" (R.V.), for ἐγένετο.

276 Luke 10: 37. — "Shewed": lit. "did" (ποιήσας), a Hebraism peculiar to Luke in the New Testament. Cf. Luke 1: 72; Acts 14: 27, Acts 15: 4. It is taken from the LXX.

The words "do likewise" ground Jülicher's classification of this among the "exemplary parables" (note 196).

Spurgeon's Sermons, 473, 1360, are on this section of the Gospel.

For the allegorical interpretation as it has by different writers been worked out in detail, see the notes of Alford or Ryle.

Admirers of Buddhist Ethics compare with this parable the story by P. Carus, entitled "Karma," so highly appreciated by Tolstoi.

NOTES ON CHAPTER 10: 38 TO CHAPTER 11: 54.

277 Chapter 10, verses 38-42. — This section seems to be connected with a visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedication (in winter: John 9: 1 - 10: 12). Cf. notes 244, 251. The visit to this "certain village," understood as Bethany, cannot have belonged to the Passion period, but must be placed very early in the same year.

There are two sermons of Augustine on verse 38 (op. cit.); one of Richard Baxter on verse 41 ("Works," x. 407); and G. Whitefield preached on verse 42 ("Works," v. 456).

278 Luke 10: 39. — Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 34 ff. Carr suggests that our Lord's words were in the Apostle's mind. See also note on John 14: 23. Augustine says: "A man resting on faith, hope, and love needs not the Scriptures, except for the purpose of instructing others" ("On Christian Doctrine," i. 37: cf. his Epistles, xix. 82). Is it, however, to be supposed that he acted upon this himself?

279 Luke 10: 42. — Basil and Theophylact offer the feeble explanation: one dish only.

280 Luke 11: 1. — Here seems to begin the second narrative (see note 244) of the final journey to Jerusalem, extending as far as 14: 24.

"To pray." Luke has recorded in this place the dictation by our Lord of the formula which goes by His name, in order to bind together the two great supports of spiritual life, Christ's Word (Luke 10: 39) and Prayer: see the Expositor's — "Lectures on Matthew," p. 85 f.

The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Divines has as Question 98, "What is Prayer?" Sabatier answers by "Religion in act" ("Philosophy of Religion," p. 27).

PRAYER has ever been regarded as an appropriate instrument of communion with the Unseen; as such it is the counterpart of His voice to us. The Scriptures and Prayer together fortify believers against mere Mysticism (147A) on the one hand, and against pure Rationalism on the other (cf. Ritschl, "Theology and Metaphysics," p. 476). For the Spirit as the power of such communion, see Rom. 8: 26, and Exposition of verse 14 f.

Pantheism (exemplified by Buddhism) makes no provision for prayer, which is alien to such systems. Some philosophers and scientists criticize the underlying conception of Prayer as irrational: to their objections Martineau's writings offer effective replies. "Does Prayer influence GOD?" is a common inquiry, to which the answer of S. D. Gordon is: "It does not influence His purpose; it does influence His action. He does nothing without our consent. When we learn His purposes and make them our prayer, we are giving Him the opportunity to act. Nature's laws are merely God's habit of action in handling secondary forces. They involve no purpose of God. His purposes are regarding moral issues. Emergencies change all habits of action. The world is in a great emergency through sin" ("Quiet Talks on Prayer," p. 54 ff.).

281 Luke 11: 2. — "Father." This is "Abba," Aramaic emphatic form of "father" used in Rom. 8: 15; Gal. 4: 6, and Luke's form of invocation.

Chrysostom and Augustine emphasized the Fatherhood of God as characteristic of the Christian dispensation: no Old Testament saint used the epithet save as member of a community. Maurice and other moderns have developed the idea.

Cf. Matt. 6: 6, "Thy Father," and verse 9 there, as showing that "our" even in that Gospel must be so taken.

For omission of "in heaven," cf. Luke 6: 36; for those words, Matt. 6: 9 (as in verses 45, 48 there).

"Hallowed be Thy Name": cf. Lev. 24: 16, by misuse of which the Jews come to treat Yahveh (Jehovah) as taboo, and to employ it in the Temple services only, but in those of the synagogues Adonay (Lord) alone: see references in Schürer, div. ii., vols. 1, 2. In common life they spoke of "the Name" (Aramaic: Shema) (Dalman, p. 149 f.). In the Tosefta "Sanhedrin" (xii. 25) we have, "He that pronounces the Tetragrammaton has no part in the future world." Cf. Joseph. "Antiqq.," ii. 276.

Stock (p. 28) compares the substitution by journalists of "the Founder of Christianity" for "JESUS," etc.

282 "Thy KINGDOM come." To this day the words find place in the Kaddish of the Jewish Prayer Book. Cf. in particular Luke 9: 27, Luke 14: 15, Luke 19: 11, Luke 21: 31, Luke 22: 16, 18, and Luke 23: 51, in each of which passages the "kingdom" is regarded emphatically as future. But these words evidently "keep the double aspect in mind" (Warman, "New Testament Theology," p. 23).

In Luke 22: 29 f. the Lord speaks of His own Kingdom in the same future aspect of manifestation: see notes on that chapter. For prayer that it may come, see Rev. 22: 20, almost the last words of the Bible.

His words about the" Kingdom" are everywhere pregnant. It is "(α) spiritual, (β) apocalyptic" (Stevens, p. 72). The scholars who, as Ritschl and Wellhausen, treat it as solely present are just as much mistaken as those who, with Meyer, J. Weiss and Bousset, regard it as wholly future. Of the latter class is Wernle, the following of whose words, however, so far as they go, are right. "From the beginning to the end of His ministry, not merely at the close (as in Luke 19: 11, Luke 22: 18), when He might be deemed disappointed as to His mission (Isa. 49: 4), the future is before the Lord" ("Beginnings of Christianity," p. 61). As to the present, mystic, by the Expositor described as "moral," sense of the term (Col. 1: 13), cf. note on verse 20 below, and Charles, p. 318, in connection with Luke 11: 20, Luke 16: 16, and Luke 17: 21. The term is first met with in the "Wisdom of Solomon," 10: 10, and appears also in Psalms of Solomon, 17: 4. For its use in the Targums, see Dalman, "Words of Jesus," p. 91 ff.

In the hands of Augustine, unhappily, the term acquired for mediaeval theologians identity with "Catholic Church": see his "City of God," and cf. note on 8: 1. A further turn was given to its meaning by Protestants, for whom it came to denote "the life of the redeemed after death," or, as the idea was expressed by Martineau, and rightly rejected by him, "the future state of the righteous," in the same sense ("Endeavours after the Christian Life," p. 218).

The perpetual use of this petition, from the Apostolic age to our own time, is of itself evidence that the Church in its truly healthiest mood never ceased to believe in what is now called "the eschatological background" of the Gospels (cf. note 546); and so, not even when Augustine sought to establish an identity of Church and Kingdom, from which misconception such an influential scholar as Wellhausen has not been emancipated. Prof. Mackintosh has written that the eschatological cast of our Gospels "could not be seen clearly till modern scholarship arose" ("Christian Ethics," p. 76), which is correct in the sense that ecclesiastical obscurantism prevailed until, not in Germany during the past few years, but in this country, early Patristic interpretation of the "Kingdom," stripped of its extravagance, was reaffirmed eighty years ago. This was in connection with the quickening among British Christians of the Church's Hope of the "Second Coming" of the Lord, in the light, not of learned theological disquisitions, but of effect being given to spiritual truth, seen in life, and practice governed by Scripture alone. One may trust that the present trend of thought in Germany will receive like impulse; it will be so if the atmosphere of the Gemeinschaften prevail over that of the academical Seminars.

The various Scriptural aspects of the "Kingdom," besides that of its relation to the "Gospel" already touched upon (chapter 8, sub init.; cf. note on Luke 18: 16 f,). will be developed in successive notes on verse 20 of the present chapter, Luke 12: 31, 47f., Luke 14: 14, Luke 17: 20 ff., Luke 18: 16 f., 24 ff., Luke 21: 36, Luke 22: 16 ff. The attention once given to the doctrine of the CHURCH seems now being transferred to that of the KINGDOM. This is none too soon: for the latter topic provides "the key of knowledge" (cf. Luke 11: 52 with Matt. 23: 13). Again, Matt. 13: 52 cannot apply to the "Church," which is a purely New Testament disclosure (Eph. 3: 5). The absurdity of Rome's application of the "keys" in Matt. 16: 19 to the Church is palpable.

The true doctrine of the Kingdom is the most effective instrument in the hands of any Christian scribe who would really strive to serve the present generation, perplexed with so many problems, ecclesiastical and social.

283 Luke 11: 3. — "Give," δίδου, present; whilst Matthew has δός, aorist, as appropriate to σήμερον there.

"Us." The plural, Dr. John Lightfoot says, was used by Jews in their private prayers, as excluding any idea of the petitioner being apart from the congregation ("Works," vi., p. 426: xi., p. 143).

"Needed," ἐπιούσιος. "Daily" (A.V.) came from the Vulgate. The word here is quite distinct from that found in James 2: 15. Origen states that ἐπιούσιος was used nowhere else in Jewish literature. The Expositor (see his special pamphlet on "The Lord's Prayer, so-called," p. 29) follows the Peschito Syriac — as did Suidas, followed by Reuss, Godet, Arnold Meyer, etc. — taking it to mean sufficient. Cf. Prov. 30: 8, which Delitzsch has followed in his Hebrew New Testament. The Syrsin has "continual" (amîna): cf. John 6: 27. For the light thrown by the various Syriac versions on the actual Aramaic word used by our Lord, see Paper of Margoliouth in Expositor, April, 1910.

The Hebrew "Gospel of the Nazarenes" had mahar, "of tomorrow," with which must be ranged the view taken by Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Bishop Lightfoot ("A Fresh Revision," etc.), H. Holtzmann, with most modern scholars, that the form is derivable from ἐπιοῦσα, in the sense of, for the coming day. Olshausen and Stier, whom Plumptre followed, understood spiritual food.

284 "Bring us not into temptation," as the Spirit did JESUS (Luke 4: 1).

285 As to SIN and the initial forgiveness of sins, see note on Luke 24: 47, and a pamphlet by the present writer (same publisher). With the present passage cf., of course, Matt. 18: 35, and see Saphir on the Lord's Prayer, Lect. XIII.; also Sermons of Augustus Hare (vol. ii.) and H. Melvill (vol. i.).

If the disciples ever offered this prayer during the period of the Lord's ministry, it could not have been in His Name: see John 16: 24. Whately contends that Christians do now implicitly so use it, as to which see W. Kelly's remarks in his special pamphlet (s. tit.). "It was intended for those who were true believers, but for whom redemption was yet prospective, and to whom the Holy Ghost had not been given" (p. 21; cf. p. 23). Reference may be made also to Bruce, "Training of the Twelve," where it is described as "for spiritual minors, for Christians in the crude state of Divine life" (p. 51).

Some happy remarks on grounds alleged for its disuse have been made from the usual point of view by Dr. Thirtle, in his Paper entitled "Form and Substance" ("Christian," 20th Jan., 1910). Much of the criticism bestowed upon it does but illustrate Luther's description of the Prayer as "one of the greatest of Christian martyrs."

That it was not meant as a liturgical formula, the different wording in the two Gospels containing it should suggest to all intelligent readers: see Meyer and cf. Harnack, p. 64 f. This difference of scope and form in Matthew and Luke, J. Weiss (on Matthew, p. 286) speaks of as "striking a death-blow to belief in Verbal Inspiration." If such a thing were possible for critics of his school, it could only be by way of mechanical uniformity: the difference between Divine and human vanishes for them.

In defence of a written form of words for congregational prayer, Archbishop Whately made use of a curious argument in a "Letter to a Clergyman of the Diocese of Dublin" (1837). From our Lord's words in Matt. 18: 19, as to agreement about petitions made, he extracted an implication of exclusive use of precomposed prayers (p. 8 f.). Christians, however, who use extemporaneous prayer alone, outside of conventional prayers from Nonconformist pulpits, habitually so agree as to subjects of intended prayer. There is nothing in our Lord's statement governing the language of such petitions. Those who approve add their "Amen." As to their being, according to the Archbishop, merely "hearers" while not themselves voicing the mind of the company, à priori impressions are rectified by experience.

The New Testament is generally supposed to be silent as to any use being made, whether privately or publicly, of this formula, either during the lifetime of the Lord or in the period of Apostolic ministry. No answer has naturally been found to Bingham's inquiry, "When did its use begin?" ("Antiqq.," xiii. 7). It is first met with, outside the gospel of Matthew and Luke, in the Didaché (§ 8), and here in the Matthean form, with an injunction that it shall be said thrice daily. But as late as the time of Justin Martyr (Apol., i. 67) extemporaneous prayer (supra) was certainly recognized at celebration of the Lord's Supper (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῳ), translated in Pusey's Library of the Fathers by "with all his strength." By the third century this formula had become "legitimate and ordinary" prayer.

Cf. Exposition by Maclaren, i. pp. 322-325. Reference should also be made, for comparison with this prayer, to the Prayer Book of British Jews (Amidah), pp. 44-54.

286 Luke 11: 7. — See Schor, p. 25.

287 Luke 11: 8. — Cf. Mark 11: 24. Abrahams says, with reference to the Rabbinic idea of prayer, "The man who prayed expecting an answer was regarded as arrogant and sinful"! (p. 147).

287a Luke 11: 9. — "This is the Magna Charta of prayer" (Neil).

288 Luke 11: 11. — "Shall give," i.e., in answer to him (ἐπιδώσει)

289 Luke 11: 13. — "Being," to begin with (ὑπάρχων). This word is characteristically Pauline: it occurs again in Luke 16: 14, 23, and Luke 23: 50. As to the doctrine of "Original Sin," see note 617 below.

290 "Father who is of heaven," ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 47, and Weiss, "Theology of the New Testament," p. 93; also his "Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 73.

Wesley notes the gradation: friend, father, GOD.

291 "Holy Spirit." Syrsin has "good things." Harnack (as Wellhausen) speaks of Luke's change of words as capricious (Matt.: ἄγαθα), e.g., his fondness for "spirit" ("Sayings," p. 10); but cf. verse 20, where our Evangelist has "finger" (δακτύλῳ) for Matthew's "spirit" (πνεύματι), as shown on the next page of Harnack's own book.

Our Lord's word, "good-things," recorded by Matthew, seems to belong to a different time or connection from "Spirit" here. As Dr. Campbell Morgan has said, the former was spoken by Him in the character of Jewish Messiah ("The Spirit of God," p. 172); but the same writer seems to have missed the point (ibid., p. 94) in Luke's record, which regards efficiency in service, and that now, as well as in time yet to come, independently of dispensation. The esteemed minister of Westminster Chapel is right in guarding such passages from the interpretation put upon them by those who support the idea of a "second blessing." But is there any warrant for asserting that the disciples did never act upon the Lord's statement? The same might as well be said of the formula of verses 2-4 in the immediate context.

The omission of the article indicates that a faculty rather than the personal Spirit is spoken of (cf. Middleton on Matt. 1: 18, p. 126; Acts 19: 2; 1 Cor. 12: 31, 1 Cor. 14: 1, and Phil. 1: 19). As to gifts of the Holy Spirit already spoken of in Isaiah 11: 2, see "Catholic Catechism," p. 93, where these are set out.

Warner has described the Holy Spirit as "operative in the subconscious area" (p. 284).

291a "Ask": "The Son was given unasked, the Spirit to be given must be implored" (Neil).

292 Luke 11: 14 f. — B. Weiss treats these verses as parallel to Matt. 9: 32 ff.

293 Luke 11: 15. — "Beelzebub." The final letter is not shown as b in any Greek MS., but is derived from the Vulgate. The critical reading is "Beelzeboul." So in Matt. 12: 24-27; Mark 3: 22. As to the meaning of this name, see 2 Kings 1: 6, and cf. Dalman, "Aramaic Grammar," p. 137.

294 Luke 11: 19. — For the use made by Carpenter of these words, see p. 367 of his "Bible in the Nineteenth Century."

295 Luke 11: 20. — "Finger of God." See Ex. 8: 19; Ps. 8: 3. Cf. note 291.

296 "The Kingdom of God is come upon you." For φθάλνειν, Cf. 1 Thess. 4: 15, where the word clearly has the classical sense of "to forestall." "anticipate," whilst in Rom. 9: 31 it means "to reach." Here it may have the first meaning, "to come unexpectedly" (J. Weiss: "to break," as the dawn), but a few writers labour under the impression, aided by the fact that Heaven and God were to some extent interchangeable in the language of the period (ch. xv. 21), that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are equivalent terms (so H. Holtzmann). But the Kindom of Heaven is not a mere "euphemism" (as Selbie, p. 85) for Kingdom of God. These are not co-extensive: see note 21 on Mark (p. 245). The "Kingdom of Heaven," as AIlen states (on Matt. 12: 28, Matt. 21: 43), is a regularly eschatological term. It represents that which is described in expository literature as the "Millennium." from Rev. 20: 4. Cf. the Lord's "heavenly kingdom" in 2 Tim. 4: 18, and the administration of the "fulness of times" (Eph. 1: 10). In Matt. 13: the Kingdom acquires its heavenly character from the King being there, regarded as having returned to heaven. "The Kingdom of God" extends beyond the Messianic reign, being of endless duration (1 Cor. 15: 28).

297 "Panoply" This word is shared by Luke and Paul (Eph. 6: 11-13), and is peculiar to them.

298 Luke 11: 21 ff. — The late Count Tolstoi, in conversation with Dr. F. W. Baedeker (Memoir, p. 207), remarked that there would be no prisons — Baedeker had been visiting convicts as a missionary — if people were rightly taught; to which the rejoinder was, that so long as there is sin in the world there will be prisons, and this passage was quoted, of which the Russian writer, who has produced a book on "The Teaching of Jesus," avowed himself ignorant! "When everybody," he writes, "has understood the true teaching, then evil and temptations will come to an end"! (§ 39 ad fin., E. T., p. 85).

299 Luke 11: 23. — Cf. Matt. 12: 30. Just as the first part of this "saying" regards every man's individual relation to the Person of Christ, the second concerns His Work (Hahn).

The principle derived by the Expositor from this verse is now better understood than at the time his comment was written; but there is still room for much improvement with regard to it in the Church "militant."

300 Luke 11: 24 f. — Martensen considers that the use which Luke makes of this logion bears upon seeming conversion ("Individual Ethics," E. T., p. 152). "An unclean spirit, e.g., lust, is gone out. The man assumes a robe of piety; the unclean spirit returns in another form, e.g., pride and censoriousness." It has been suggested that the exchange of Protestantism for Catholicism has often the character described in 2 Peter 2: 20 ff.

Dr. Arnold has preached on verse 25 ("Sermons on the Christian Life," p. 156).

301 Luke 11: 26. — Cf. Matt. 12: 45 for words not in Luke, and illustrating the different design of the Gospels ("Introductory Lectures," p. 325). As to the seven spirits, see note above on 8: 2.

There is a sermon on this verse by Isaac Williams.

302 Luke 11: 27 ff. — This, as some critics conceive, is Luke's equivalent for what he has omitted of Mark 7: 1 ff.

303 Luke 11: 29-32. — The attitude of critics towards Typology may be gathered from Schmidt, pp. 55-64. "The critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures has, eliminated types." "The reason why modern learning has abandoned typology is . . . it can find no place in history for many persons . . . regarded as types." So complete has become the confusion between the method employed by our Lord and his Apostles and the Patristic allegorizing. People who claim to be "scientific" may be expected to live up to their reputation, which is too often, however, a castle of cardboard. Evolution is supposed to have made Typology impossible!

304 Luke 11: 30 ff. — "A queen." "Men of Nineveh." The Expositor (as Westcott, "Some Lessons, etc.," p. 55) preferred the indefinite form of rendering.

305 Matthew, whose special use of the prophet's adversity is sometimes belittled, has also preserved the preaching of Jonah as the sign (Luke 12: 41).

306 Luke 11: 33. — "In secret" (W.-H., κρύπτην, or, as Blass and Weiss, κρυπτήν), "in a vault." See Spurgeon's Sermon, 2109.

307 Luke 11: 35 f. — "The light . . . in thee." Grubb: "The light within is the power of a self-conscious person to enter into communion with God" (op. cit., p. 93: see the whole of chapter 7, and on the relation of such light to the conscience, chapter 12 of his book). Cf. John 11: 10 with Gore, "The Creed of the Christian," p. 38 f.

Robert South preached on verse 35.

308 Luke 11: 37. — "Dine." This was the ἄριστον, or midday meal (breakfast, luncheon): see Acts 10: 9 f., and cf. Josephus, "Life," see. 54. For the δεῖπνον (dinner, supper), see chapter 14.

309 Luke 11: 38. — "Washed (American Revv. 'bathed himself') before dinner." Cf. Mark 7: 4, and see Bennett on Mishna, etc., p. 33 f.

310 Luke 11: 39. — The PHARISEES. As to this party, see Bennett, chapter 9, and paper by Box in Churchman, September, 1911. The Expositor (cf. his pamphlet on the Talmud) here sides with Farrar and Edersheim, against Deutsch and Montefiore. On Deutsch's own showing ("Literary Remains," p. 29) some language of the Talmud about them is just as severe as any in the Gospels.

See Augustine's Sermon in op. cit., vol. i., p. 431.

311 Luke 11: 41. — "What ye have," ἐνόντα, as taken by Godet and Bishop Basil Jones. Whilst Wordsworth explains by "hearts," the R.V. text makes the word mean souls (cf. Matt. 23: 25 ff.); the margin (rejected by W. Kelly in his "Bible Treasury" review), the contents of the cups, which was the view of De Wette, after Theophylact. And so B. Weiss. Cf. Expositor, March, 1909 (p. 282 f., Papyri).

312 Luke 11: 42 ff. — The woes Matthew has assigned to the Passion narrative.

313 "Love of God" (cf. Luke 10: 27, and note there). Save as in John 5: 42 (cf. Luke 8: 42 of that Gospel), this is peculiar to Luke. In Matthew, "mercy" and "faith." Augustine said that, "one can do anything if he love God." Cf. James 1: 25. Thomas à Kempis: "If thou didst know the whole Bible by heart . . . what would that profit thee without the love of God?"

As to this element in the Jewish Chassidism of the eighteenth century, see Abrahams, p. 76. For the Old Testament basis, cf. Deut. 6: 5 and Deut. 30: 20. The Divine claim of love is characteristic of Judaism and Christianity amongst religious systems, as to which see Bettex, "The Book of Truth," p. 676. On the love of God in the Synoptic teaching, see Stalker, "The Ethic of Jesus," chapter x.

314 Luke 11: 44 f. — Cf Matt. 23: 27. According to the Received Text, the "lawyers" seem to distinguish themselves from the "scribes"; but the critical text omits "scribes" here. There can be no doubt that "scribe" was used of any man of learning. Cf. note on Luke 10: 25.

315 Luke 11: 49-51. — Cf. Matt. 23: 34. This passage is considered by Afford to be a paraphrase of 2 Chron. 24: 18-22; by Lindsay, as a paraphrase of Prov. 1: 20-31. Cf. Job 12: 13, Job 28: 23; Prov. 8: 22-31; Wisdom of Solomon, 7: 27; Rom. 11: 33, and 1 Cor. 1: 24; also note 125 above (Luke 5: 17).

Harnack supposes that an apocryphal Jewish writing is quoted ("Sayings," p. 103).

John 7: 38 and James 4: 5 are passages as to which the like question has arisen.

"Hath been poured out," ἐκκεχυμένον. If ἐκχυννόμενον (Tisch.) be read, future bloodshed will be included (Weymouth).

Observe the entail of hereditary guilt attaching to the Jewish people, forerunners of the "historical church" in a like connection (Anderson, "The Bible or the Church," p. 100).

316 Luke 11: 52. — "The key of knowledge," generally supposed to refer to the symbol of authority handed to new rabbis by the Sanhedrin when commissioning them. See, however, note on verse 2.

317 Luke 11: 53. — "To make him speak," ἀποστοματίζειν. McClellan: "to urge Him to answer offhand."

NOTES ON THE TWELFTH CHAPTER.

318 This chapter resembles Matt. 5-7 so far as regards its mosaic construction: of its fifty-nine verses of sayings the contents of no less than thirty-five were delivered on entirely different occasions (Burgon).

319 Luke 12: 1. — "In those (times)," "in which circumstances" (ἐν οἵς) as in Acts 26: 12.

"Myriads": cf. Acts 21: 20.

"Leaven": see note on Luke 13: 21.

"Hypocrisy." The remarks of Boehmer, ad loc. (p. 201 ff.), are specially worthy of attention.

320 Luke 12: 3. — See Schor, p. 28.

321 Luke 12: 4. — "Friends," in contrast with Luke 19: 27, "Mine enemies." In other respects it is Johannine.

"Fear": not Satan, who has to be resisted (James 4: 7).

322 Luke 12: 5. — "Gehenna," here alone in Luke, the valley of Hinnom: see Joshua 18: 6 in the LXX. The final a is that of the Aramaic ending am (Dalman). Jewish apocalyptic (e.g., Apoc. of Baruch, xlix. 10) regarded Gehenna as the place, not of the final but of the intermediate punishment of the wicked. See further note 418 below.

The essential immortality of the soul, of which the Bible nowhere offers proof, is here recognized.

323 Luke 12: 6. - Cf. Matt. 10: 29. The "assarion" had two values (Kennedy art. "Money" in Hastings' "Dict. of Bible," § 5), and allowance must be made for local differences; but the "two farthings" would be equal to about one penny of our money. In Matthew the emphasis is on the smallness of the coin for which two sparrows were bought; in Luke, on the number of birds obtained (Weiss, "Sources of Luke's Gospel," p. 80).

324 Luke 12: 7. — On the doctrine of special providence, see Abrahams, p. 48.

There is a sermon on the subject, from this verse, by John Wesley ("Works," vi., p. 313).

325 Luke 12: 8 f. — "The Son of man"; Matthew has "I" (10: 32). The introduction of the title in this connection (cf. 9: 26 of the same type) is peculiar to Luke; but in Mark 8: 38 also the Lord has spoken of Himself as Judge in the character of Son of man. In the Synoptics He is described always as the Son of man; but in John 5: 27 (as in Rev. 1: 13, Rev. 14: 14) as Son of man without the article, where, as Westcott says, His judicial function attaches to His true humanity so emphasized, rather than His personality.

326 Luke 12: 10. — Here again is a logion in a connection different from that in Matthew (Matt. 12: 32).

Schmiedel has written: "Had Jesus possessed that exalted consciousness of his pre-existence and divine dignity which is attributed to Him in the Fourth Gospel, the declaration that blasphemy against Him was capable of forgiveness could never have been attributed to Him (art. in "Encycl. Bibl.," col. 2541). See, however, 1 Tim. 1: 13, and note 171 on John (John 8: 48 ff.).

As to such sin as does not admit of forgiveness, cf. 1 John 5: 16. It is an insuperable difficulty for all who conceive that mercy ever will entirely swamp judgment. Such seek relief, but hopelessly, in the thought of annihilation.

327 Luke 12: 11. — The Synagogues were used as Courts of Law.

328 Luke 12: 13-21. — Cf. Sirach. ii. 17 f.

329 Luke 12: 14. — The Syrrsin and Syrrcu omit "or a divider."

330 Luke 12: 15. — Cf. Ex. 20: 17; 1 Thess. 2: 5. For the God-ward aspect of covetousness, cf. Col. 3: 5.

"Life," the Johannine ζωή. Cf. Prov. 3: 25.

330a Luke 12: 17 f. — For the repeated "my," cf. 1 Sam. 25: 11; Hosea 2: 5 (Stock, p. 190).

331 Luke 12: 19 f. — "Soul." See note on 1: 46. It is language of a depraved heart. Ps. 14: 1. comparing Eccl. 2: 1, 5 f., 24.

As to Buddhist denial of possession of Atman, the seat of personality, see Carus, "Buddhism and its Critics," p. 84 ff. In these latter days, Nietzsche, an admirer of that system, has gloried in the shame of such an attitude as that described by our Lord's words. "Remain faithful to the earth" spells his Gospel: see Prologue to his "Thus Spake Zarathustra." Probably no one would be led away by such literature who had read Dr. Arnold's sermon from this verse ("Christian Life," p. 99).

332 Luke 12: 20. — As to omission of the subject in the Greek, see note on 6: 38.

333 Luke 12: 21. — "Is not," "if he is not" (μή).

"Rich, etc.": cf. verse 33; 1 Tim. 6: 19, and Ecelesiasticus 11: 18 f.

See also Latimer, "Dr. Baedeker in Russia," p. 207.

334 Luke 12: 22 ff. — Here come fragments of the sermon on the "plateau."

"Be not anxious." Such was the meaning of "take no thought" in the A.V., retained by the Revv. in 1 Sam. 9: 5.

335 Luke 12: 24 f. — "God feedeth them": cf. Ps. cxlvii. 9. For Luke's κατανοήσατε, "consider," Matthew has καταμάθετε, "take a lesson."

"Glory" (verse 27), that is, of his coronation.

336 Luke 12: 29. — "Be not in anxiety" (μετεωρίζεσθαι). Vulg.: "be not lifted up"; Weiss, explaining, "do not go to extremes in your demands." So, Wellhausen, referring to Sirach xxxiii. 4. The Hebrew "lift up one's soul" (Ps. 24: 4) was used with regard to vanity. The Roman Catholic joint writers Darby-Smith here follow the English Protestant version: "to be unsettled in mind" (as meteors).

337 Luke 12: 31 — "Seek His Kingdom," that of the Father, or heavenly department (Matt. 13: 45): see note on 11: 2. The seeking ("keep on seeking," ζητεῖτε, continuous present), by prayer, response to which may lie in the words of verse 32. Cf. the lines of Bonar:

"The kingdom that I seek

Is Thine; so let the way

That leads to it be Thine,

Else I must surely stray."

"Little flock." Cf. "few chosen," which does not apply to the Gospel of pure grace, let unbelievers say what they will.

"Give," as sometimes used in Scripture, meaning award: cf. Gen. 30: 28; Ex. 2: 9, etc., with the verse following here, and 2 Tim. 4: 8.

It is not to be supposed that, whilst the Lord says, according to Matthew, "Seek and ye shall find" (Matt. 7: 7) this is independently of God's righteousness (ibid., 6: 33): Judas the traitor could lend an ear to the one, but the other was not to his liking. Just as with Eternal Life in the Fourth Gospel, so also for the Kingdom "life" of the Synoptics, election seems to operate: see 2 Peter 1: 10 f., noting Hort's marginal reading ( A 69, Syrr., Vulg., etc.). "Give the more diligence through (your) good works," some of these authorities omitting "your." Cf. Eph. 2: 10.

The apostle Paul, before he passed away, acquired personal assurance of this: 2 Tim. 4: 6-8, with which cf. Heb. 6: 10 f, as also Rom. 8: 24, where the hope is that of the coming of our Lord (Titus 2: 13). For His Kingdom and His appointment, see Luke 22: 29, which refers to the earthly department of the Kingdom to come, described in Matt. 13: 41 as "the kingdom of the Son of Man."

German writers discuss the all-important point whether the Kingdom is a Gabe (gift) or an Aufgabe (something to be worked out). With H. Holtzmann ("New Testament Theology," i., pp. 202-204) and Bousset ("Preaching of Jesus," p. 101) it is a gift in the absolute sense as understood by them here; whilst Ritschl, in his "Instruction," § 5, emphasizes its character as something proposed for the soul's attainment (a prize): see Col. 3: 24; Phil. 2: 12 (of the Messianic salvation), and Phil. 3: 14. Bousset's denial (loc. cit.) of this latter aspect is subversive of the Word of God, which exhibits both views, so that neither is exclusive of the other — one of many illustrations of the twofoldness of Divine truth, from neglect of which so many controversies have arisen and are still maintained.

Professor Denney has well remarked: "The Kingdom is not to be established" — as often asserted now — "by our energies at all. . . . We have to be ready for it, to make any sacrifice to secure our entrance into it" ("The Church and the Kingdom," p. 87 f.).

338 With verse 33 compare 18: 22, and note there.

339 Luke 12: 35 ff. — Here we have, as stated by Bruce, the germ of the Parable of the Virgins (Matt. 25: 1-13). Each passage emphasizes the looked-for coming of the Lord as the supremely practical tenet of the Church. Cf. J.H.Newman's "Parochial Sermons," vol. iv., under "Watching": this, he said, is "a suitable test of a Christian. Many . . . want the tender and sensitive heart which hangs on the thought of Christ and lives in His love." Cf. Luke 21: 36 and note there, besides Mark 13: 35.

On the "lamps," see Schor, p. 49.

340 Of such beatitudes as that in verse 37 f. Wernle rightly says that they are all promises (op. cit.); hence they are limited in their application.

341 Luke 12: 40 ff. — "Be," or "become"; and so "prove" (γίνεσθε).

342 With this passage Neander connects 1 Thess. 5: 1 ff., observing that Paul had these words of our Lord in view (p. 350). Cf. 2 Peter 3: 10; Rev. 3: 3, Rev. 16: 15, and also Rev. 21: 34 below.

343 Luke 12: 42-44. — Cf. 1 Cor. 4: 1 f., and see also Luke 16: 10 below.

344 Luke 12: 45 ff. — "Shall come," or "shall arrive" (ἥξει). "Unbelievers," ἄπιστοι, as in 1 Cor. 14: 23. It is clearly for these here more a question of their conduct than of their creed: they may be ever so "orthodox." The word is in contrast with πιστός, "faithful," of the steward in verse 42 (cf. 1 Tim. 1: 12); and so "unfaithful" as expressed by R.V. Observe Peter's inquiry in verse 41, and that it is not merely an assumed position of which the Lord speaks in the verse following that. We have here a solemn Scripture for all who are engaged in His service, to whatever communion they may adhere. The words admit of no toning down. If the rendering "unbelievers" be maintained, the issue becomes yet more grave!

344a As to the Kingdom being the time of recompense or award, see note 370, below.

344b Luke 12: 47 f. — The present chastisement of believers springs from love: Heb. 12: 6; Rev. 3: 19 (φιλῶ . . . παιδεύω). It is not this which is spoken of in verse 47 f. Tholuck in his "Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount" has spoken of the partial unblessedness which even they may inherit (p. 39) when the time of reckoning comes, from which none are exempt (2 Cor. 5: 10 f.). Cf. Mark 9: 45. Some will be saved "though as through fire" (1 Cor. 3: 15). And so 1 Peter 4: 18.

For the "many" and the "few" stripes (verse 47 f.), cf. Matt. 11: 22.

345 Luke 12: 49 f. — "What will I," etc. American Revv., "What do I desire," with marg. "How would I that," etc. The Evangelist supplies us here with a saying characteristic of this period of the ministry. Afford would refer it to Pentecost; but it is best taken hypothetically.

With verse 50 cf. John 19: 30 ("it is finished").

346 Luke 12: 51. — "To give": "D" has ποιῆσαι, "to produce," which Wellhausen seems disposed to take as equivalent to δοῦναι, although at Luke 15: 22 he questions whether the two verbs can be used as equivalents.

In our Lord's words here there is an illustration of the twofoldness of Divine truth: cf. Luke 2: 14.

"Division." Cf. Matt. 10: 34; and the Vulgate here, "separation." The cleavage is between those who stand with Christ and those who do not.

In 1 Cor. 1: 10, Paul beseeches the brethren there addressed to repress "divisions." asking, "is CHRIST divided?" The word μεμέρισται (verse 13) is connected with διαμερισμός here. When the σχίσματα come again before us in that letter, it is in Luke 11: 18, not in verse 19 as represented in a recent pamphlet entitled "There must be Divisions" (Melbourne, 1911). It is false that "truth has only been preserved by division." It is not true that αἵρεσις in the one verse is identical with σχίσμα (cf. John 7: 43) in the other. "The cream lies on the top," but one needs eyes with which to see it. It is a serious thing to trifle with Scripture. The "approved" in 1 Cor. 11: 19 are manifestly those who will not abet "divisions"; the disapproved, those by whom they are engineered. The "approved," the simple and childlike, give heed to Rom. 16: 17; the disapproved, such as airily and sophistically explain away, not only the Apostle's appeal, but the Lord's prayer to the Father (John 17: 21). Is it any wonder that the world does not believe?

347 Luke 12: 53. — Observe the different cases taken here by the preposition ἐπί.

348 Luke 12: 57. — This bears on Calvin's theory as to human depravity. He is silent in his "Commentary" about these words of our Lord, with which cf. John 8: 46.

349 Luke 12: 58 f. — Cf. Matt. 5: 25 f., and for the question of Endless Punishment, note 42 on Mark; also recent pamphlet in Evangelical Alliance Series, entitled "Sin and its Consequences," by Webb-Peploe.

350 Luke 12: 59. — The mite (lepton) was the smallest coin.

NOTES ON THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER.

351 Luke 13: 1-9. — A notable passage, as bearing on sins of omission, for which cf. Matt. 25: 24-30.

352 Luke 13: 1 ff. — "There were"; or, "There came," παρῆσαν (with the news, ἀπαγγέλλοντες): so Alford, followed by Field, who cites Acts 10: 21. The critical German Bible (Weizsäcker's version) takes it in the same way.

352a Luke 13: 3. — See Archbishop Leighton's Sermon on Repentance; also one of G. Whitefield from this verse. Repentance is essentially thorough change of heart and mind Godwards, and is closely connected with Renunciation earthwards (14: 33). For its relation to Faith, see Expositor's remarks in vol. on Mark, p. 65.

353 Luke 13: 7. — The three years may represent completeness (Spence). Anyhow, it is the time required by the fig tree for maturity. See Spurgeon's Sermons, 650 and 1451; also one of Augustine (vol. i., p. 451).

354 Luke 13: 8. — Euthymius and Theophylact, followed by Matthew Henry, regarded our Lord as being the vine-dresser. For the sequel to this, see Matt. 24: 32 f., when He comes again.

355 Luke 13: 9. — "After that." The εἰς τὸ μέλλον Markland, followed by Field, would render "next year." The former cites Joseph. "Antiqq.," i. 11, 2. In 1 Tim. 6: 19 the same phrase means "against the Millennium." μέλλειν is used in the New Testament constantly for the future in that connection, as in "the age to come."

For the rhetorical figure here (called aposiopegis), cf. Acts 23: 9, Rom. 9: 22-24. In the Old Testament cf. Ex. 32: 32, etc. (Plummer).

356 Luke 13: 11. — "Wholly," εἰς τὸ παντελές. Used only here and in Heb. 7: 25, and exhibiting one of the many similarities between the language of that Epistle and the Lucan vocabulary.

357 Luke 13: 13. — Cf. Ps. 145: 14.

"Immediately": Maclaren happily remarks, "Where He is the physician, there is no period of convalescence" ("B. C. E.," p. 169). On "glorified God" the same writer says, "He did not substitute doing good to man for worshipping God" (as did Cotter Morison), ". . . but He showed us both in their true relations" (p. 167).

358 Luke 13: 16. — "A daughter of Abraham." For "a son of Abraham," cf. 19: 9. For connection between physical disease and sin, see Mark 2: 5-12, John 5: 14, and Acts 10: 38. For "bound," cf. Ps. 146: 7, and Deissmann, op. cit., p. 88. See Spurgeon's Sermon, 2110.

359 Luke 13: 18 f. — For Luke's κηπος, Matthew has ἀγρός, Mark γῆ. Luke shares with Matthew ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις, for which Mark has ὑπὸ τὴν σκιάν.

360 Luke 13: 20 f. (cf. Matt. 13: 33). — The mystery lies in the leaven being hidden.

There are three forms of leaven of which our Lord speaks: (1) the leaven of the Pharisees, — hypocrisy, or false worship, 12: 17; (2) that common to Pharisees and Sadducees, false doctrine, Matt. 16: 6; (3) the leaven common to Pharisees and Herodians, — false conduct, Mark 8: 15.

To the reference to Aulus Gellius in Plummer, add that to Plutarch, in Rose's edition of Parkhurst's Greek-English Lexicon, under ζύμη, for the circumstance that no Flamen Dialis, or priest of Jupiter among the Romans, was allowed to touch leaven. "Leaven," says that old biographer, "both arises from corruption and itself corrupts the mass with which it is mixed."

With verse 22 cf. John 10: 22.

361 Luke 13: 23. — For οἱ σωζόμενοι, cf. Acts 2: 47. It was a recognized religious formula among the Jews (Carr. referring to 2 Esdr. viii. 1 and ix. 15 f.). As for the Canonical Books, the LXX. use it in Isa. 37: 32 and 45: 20 (ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν). In 10: 20 of the same prophet that version has σωθέντες; in Jer. 51: 14, σεσωμένος (cf. Eph. 2: 8, and for the verbal form, Rom. 10: 9, 13). See Westeott, "Some Lessons," p. 161 f., and Vaughan, "Sermons on the R.V.," p. 71, and especially a paper on "The Force of the Present Tense in Greek," one of "Occasional Papers on Scriptural Subjects," No. ii., p. 76 ff., by B. W. Newton (who took a distinguished degree at Oxford in 1828).

Professor Burton, in his "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek" (§ 125), rightly rejects "are (were) being saved" in passages in which forms of the present tense (as 1 Cor. 15: 2) or present participle (as Acts 2: 47) are used. Cf. the like usage of οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι etc., in the Epistle to the Hebrews; and for the Apostle Paul's use of οἱ σωζόμενοι, 1 Cor. 1: 18 and 2 Cor. 2: 15.

Godet takes it here of entrance into the Messianic kingdom. Cf. "We shall be saved from wrath, etc.," in Rom. 5: 9, referring to the apocalyptic judgments that are to fall upon the earth.

362 Luke 13: 24. — "Strive with earnestness." Carr, "Keep on striving." Application of this to the Gospel of Grace is excluded by such passages as John 6: 37 (cf. note 337). Maclaren: "The entrance gate is very low . . . it must be on our hands and knees that we go in" (B. C. E., p. 227).

There are sermons from verses 16-24 by Augustine, Luther, and G. Whitefield.

363 Luke 13: 25-27. Cf. Matt. 25: 10-12.

364 Luke 13: 28 f. — The Kingdom again in its future aspect, that of the "Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 8: 11). As to the "Messianic banquet" of Isaiah, see note on 22: 30.

365 Luke 13: 32. — For "Herod that fox," see Whyte, "Bible Characters," No. LXXXVI. Neil: "The only purely contemptuous expression of Jesus recorded."

Observe again the distinction which this Evangelist makes between casting out demons and healing disease (see note 148): critics are loth to recognize it.

For "I am perfected," cf. Ex. 29: 9 (filling of priest's hands in consecration) and Hosea 6: 2. The word is elsewhere used of our Lord, in Heb. 2: 10, alone. It is strictly middle voice: "I bring my work to an accomplishment" (Carr). American marg. Or, I end my course." Cf. Paul's use of the word in Phil. 3: 12.

366 Luke 13: 34. — For the motherhood of GOD, see Deut. 32: 18, and cf., of course, Matt. 23: 37-39, where a lamentation over Jerusalem was uttered by the Lord in the city itself, similar to this placed in Galilee at an earlier time.

367 Luke 13: 35. — The "desolate," Harnack wrote ("Sayings," p. 30), was not left out by Luke because (as Wellhausen on Matt. 23: 38 suggests) at the time he wrote the city had raised itself up again. But for his latest view as to this see note 2, ad fin. Moreover, he does not see why ἀφίεται should not be taken as prophetic future (so the Latin, etc.). The Expositor, however (see his Lecture on Matthew, p. 472), takes this word to mean in the light of "your" that "it was no longer His house, or His Father's, but theirs." Cf. "having a form of godliness," without the power (2 Tim. 3: 5).

NOTES ON THE FOURTEENTH CHAPTER.

368 Luke 14: 5. — "Ass." Wellhausen pronounces as "impossible" the reading "son" of W. H. (Revv., marg.), followed by Blass and Weiss. Although the diplomatic evidence is in its favour, Mill supposed that υἱός was developed from ὕς, "pig," through this being regarded as an abbreviation of it, or that ὕς was corrupted into ὄἵς "sheep"; and so Lachmann, followed by Dr. Rendel Harris (Expositor, May, 1907, and "Side-Lights," p. 204 ff).

369 Luke 14: 13. — Cf. Tobit ii. 2 and iv. 7, 16.

370 Luke 14: 14. — "The resurrection of the just." Cf., in particular, 1 Thess. 4: 16 f. In Matt. 25: 31 ff. there is no question of resurrection, because there we meet with a judgment of nations, living persons to whom the "Gospel of the Kingdom" is specially addressed at the "end of the age" (cf. Matt. 24: 14 and Rev. 14: 6).

Resurrection of just and unjust alike is clearly affirmed in John 5: 29 and Acts 24: 15, without distinguishing such resurrections in point of time. But the present passage is co-ordinate with Luke 20: 35 f. below, which speaks of an ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρῶν: for this the Apostle Paul uses the yet stronger expression ἐξανάστασις ἐκ ν. (Phil. 3: 11). As to coincidence of the two, see B. W. Newton, "Aids to Prophetic Inquiry," p. 297. The final stage in New Testament terminology is reached in the Johannine "first resurrection" (Rev. 20: 5 f.). De Wette and Olshausen rightly identify the Lucan and Johannine terminology. This identification goes back to Irenaeus, who in his treatise "Against Heresies" (V., chapter 35) says that the Apocalypse speaks of a "resurrection of the just," one of the things, he adds, affirmed by the disciples of John.

The phrase "rapture of the Church" sometimes employed is better avoided, as not being Biblical. All believers "asleep in Jesus" and those alive at his Parousia will participate in the first resurrection (1 Thess. 4: 14, 1 Cor. 15: 23). We know that the Apostle Paul's desire as to the manner of his departure (Phil. 3: 11) was granted. Whether, however, resurrection from among the dead will be in every case for recompense in the sense of reward is another question. But the Lord has said of all such that "they cannot die any more" (Luke 20: 36 below).

The common idea of the ancient Pharisees, seemingly derived from passages like Ps. 1: 5 (see Heb., and cf. note 108 on John), was that resurrection would be a peculiar privilege of the righteous (Bousset, "The Religion of Judaism in New Testament Times," p. 356 ff.). Wellhausen, accordingly, whose mind is steeped in Semitic lore, regards our Lord's words here as confirming that limitation. In Luke 20: 35, however, where it is a question of being deemed worthy to attain, the resurrection spoken of is one that should be from among the dead; i.e., some dead are to be left behind, to be dealt with later on. (Cf. Simcox on Rev. 20: 4.) Such is the explanation of Rabbi Manasseh ben Israel — whom Cromwell befriended — in his "Conciliator," ii., p. 443 f., who says that the unrighteous will not rise at the same time as the righteous.

The mediaeval rabbinical scholar Maimonides held that resurrection did not extend to the body. Such is the view of some Jews of the present day (M. Joseph, p. 144), also of some "Christians," critics in particular, who have their representatives in this country. As to this, see note on Resurrection, at chapter 24.

371 Luke 14: 15. — "Blessed," etc.: cf. Rev. 19: 9.

For "eat bread," etc., see notes on Luke 22: 16, 30, and cf. John 6: with note 126 f. there.

372 Luke 14: 16 f. — On the fact that the Holy Spirit does not confine Himself to the actual words used by the Lord (see Exposition of Mark, p. 10 f.), Luke giving a "certain man," Matthew speaking of the "king," etc., and the reason for the differences in this connection, cf. "Lectures on Matthew," p. 453 f.

See sermon by Bishop Mcllvaine, Spurgeon's Sermons, 578 and 1354, and an address by D. L. Moody.

373 Luke 14: 20. — "Married a wife." With regard to this, contrast Deut. 24: 5 with 1 Cor. 7: 29.

See Spurgeon's Sermon, 2122.

374 Luke 14: 21. — This is the second part of verse 8: see A. R. Habershon, chapter on Double Parables.

375 Luke 14: 22 f. — Bengel: "Grace no less than Nature abhors a vacuum."

See Spurgeon's Sermon, 227.

376 Luke 14: 25. — This third narrative of events of the last journey to Jerusalem (see notes 244, 280) takes us back to just before the Transfiguration (Luke 9). It continues to Luke 20: 18.

For surrender of the world, even of life, cf. John 12: 24-26.

377 Luke 14: 26 f. — It is the first of our Gospels, observe, that softens the language here ("hate"). The word μισεῖν means to renounce the claims or influence of the person or thing concerned (Hahn). Paley, on John 15: 23, "to be indifferent to." Cf. Matt. 10: 37, "He that loveth father or mother more than Me."

377a "Thorough-going Christians," says Maclaren, "may be disliked, but they are respected: half-and-half ones get and merit the sarcasms of the world" (B. C. E., p. 177).

The reader should note Luke's specification of "wife" (cf. Luke 18: 29), "brothers" and "sisters."

"His own life": cf. Matt. 8: 34, and see also note on Luke 9: 23.

There is a sermon from this place by Venn (vol. ii.).

378 Luke 14: 28-32. — See sermon by Trench in Westminster Series, and one of Newman's in Allenson's Selected Series, No. XI.

For "ask for terms of peace" (verse 32), see Ps. 122: 6 in the LXX., and cf. Luke 19: 42 here.

379 Luke 14: 33. — Francis de Sales: "We must live in this world as if the soul was already in heaven and the body mouldering in the grave" (quoted by Spence). Cf. note 352.

Julian the Apostate appealed to this passage when robbing the Church of Edessa (Robertson, "Church History," i., p. 343).

Dr. Arnold has a sermon from this verse (op. cit., p. 88).

Mackintosh: "He does not admit the possible existence of second-rate Christians" ("Christian Ethics," p. 44).

379a Luke 14: 34. — See sermon of Dean Alford (vol. iii.).

NOTES ON THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER.

380 If the section containing Luke 15 - 17: 10 be chronological, it synchronizes with John 11: 54.

380a Luke 15: 2. — "Receiveth sinners": cf. John 6: 17, and the well-known hymn, "Sinners Jesus will receive," etc. ("Sacred Songs and Solos").

The late Professor Hermann Cremer of Greifswald never tired in lecture room or pulpit of saying that the forgiveness of sins is the Alpha and Omega of Christianity (Boehmer, p. 239).

381 Luke 15: 4. — "In the wilderness;" Matt., "on the mountains": see Harnack, "Sayings," p. 92, and cf. Weiss, "Sources of the Synoptic Tradition," p. 247.

Dr. Alexander Maclaren, in his second volume of "Expositions," has made effective use of this as an answer to sceptics' query as to the great GOD concerning Himself with this microcosm (p. 49 ff.).

382 Luke 15: 5. — "Having found"; Matt., "if it should come to pass that he find." Jülicher (followed by Loisy, "Synoptic Studies," p. 166) treats Luke's variation as capricious. The simple explanation is, that his record regards the matter from the standpoint of Grace, whilst Matthew's views it from that of Responsibility. Observe also the different connection in which the parable is introduced by Luke.

See Spurgeon's Sermons, 1801 and 2065. Luther also preached on the passage, as did H. Melvill.

Bossuet preached from verse 7 (vol. ix.); so also Toplady and Robert Hall.

382a "One repenting sinner." Warner: "The great goal of Christian endeavour is the individual unsaved life" (p. 357).

383 Luke 15: 8. — "Woman." The Expositor, as Stier and Alford, has followed Bengel in treating the woman as symbol of the Holy Spirit, the Hebrew word for which is feminine. Maclaren, however, on this and verse 4, observes that "the owner should be the seeker . . . Jesus" (B. C. E., p. 189). The "friends and neighbours" (verses 5, 9) seems to bear this out.

384 "Drachma," otherwise called "denarius," of the value of 8.5d.(A.D.1901). As to this picture, see Schor, p. 81.

385 Marcion discarded the Parable of the Prodigal Son, so-called, because of the consideration shown by the father to his elder son, the symbol of Judaism.

386 Luke 15: 16. - "To fill." American Revv., "to have filled." As to the "husks," see Trench on the Parables, and Schor (loc. cit.).

387 Luke 15: 17. — "Coming to himself." Cf. Acts 12: 11 of Simon Peter. Upon the question of sudden conversion, see Murray, "Christian Ethics," p. 170 ff.

388 Luke 15: 18. — "I will arise, etc." Swete: "Repentance is the sinner's return to the Father. . . . Faith makes the return possible" ("Studies," p. 178).

"Sinned, etc." Cf., of course, Ps. 51.

"Heaven." Wellhausen notes this as the only case in the Gospels where it is so used of GOD. He seems not to regard Matt. 5: 34 as in point. Indeed, Zahn on Matthew will not allow that the terms are interchangeable. Cf. note 296. It is not to be supposed that our Lord countenanced mistaken reverence. "For the anonymous God . . . Christ substituted the Father" (Mackintosh, "Christian Ethics." p. 44).

389 "Ran." Aristotle had said that the "high-minded man" (μεγαλόψυχος) "will not be hasty . . . ought to move slowly" ("Ethics," iv. 3, 8). For the contrast, cf. Isa. 55: 8 f.

389a Luke 15: 21 ff. — Jülicher: "The Father does not receive the son by reason of Christ's death, but because He cannot help forgiving" (Parab. Discourses, ii., p. 365). In the same strain Bousset ("Jesus," p. 101), whose exposition is naturally welcomed by Montefiore ("Synoptic Gospels," ii., p. 990), and J. Weiss ad loc. But the whole chapter is to bring out why, rather than how, men are saved (A. R. Habershon). As the English writer just referred to observes: "The scope of the fifteenth of Luke is exactly as large and comprehensive as the word sinner" (cf. note 153). The German writers fail to distinguish Grace from Love, see the excellent note of Dr. Whyte, in his Commentary (p. 46) on the "Shorter Catechism" (Q. 20).

It would seem that even for such a writer as Foster, "it is for the personality of Jesus that faith cares" (p. 405). That goes a long way; because a man who believes that He is "the CHRIST" is born of God (1 John 5: 1).

390 How unhappy is the result of neglect by textual critics (not by Weiss) of the internal evidence — in particular, the spiritual aspects of each question — may be seen from the foisting in, by W. H., of the further words that the prodigal had thought of using (verse 19) because of these curious documents א and "D," and apparently because with these MSS. "B" here agrees. Augustine notes their absence, and the versions are almost solidly against the repetition.

391 Cf. Ex. 3: 5. Wellhausen: "Hand without ring were as slavish as foot without shoe."

391a "Father . . . son." The idea of a personal, individual relation between God and man had already emerged in the apocryphal writings since the Exile: see Sirach, xxiii. 1, 4, li. 10; Wisdom. ii. 13, 16, 18, xiv. 3; Tobit, xiii. 4 (Enoch lxii. 11).

For the "Fatherhood of God," reference may be made to Fairbairn, "Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 350 (cf. p. 352); also to the chapter under this heading in Gore, "The Creed of the Christian"; but especially to Orr, "The Progress of Dogma." in which the doctrine is carefully and wisely stated. Swete observes: "It is only in the sinner that repents that the paternal love of God finds free exercise" ("Studies," p. 65). Both Pullan and Selbie remark that it was to the multitude, as well as disciples, that the Lord spoke as He did in Matt. 23: 9. What about His adversaries? See John 8: 42, comparing it with the first part of Luke 11: 23 above.

As to the father's interruption of the son (Wesley), Farrar aptly refers to Isa. 65: 24.

For the need of absolute change of nature, see Matt. 12: 33, another Synoptic passage, compared with John 1: 12 f.

392 Luke 15: 24. — "Dead." This word has a Pauline ring about it, whatever Harnack and others may say about the Evangelist's view of Forgiveness not being in line with the Apostle's doctrine of Redemption.

393 Luke 15: 25 ff. — Were Pfleiderer right in treating this as Luke's own addition to the Lord's words, we should miss in Christ's mouth the lesson which He designed for the Pharisees.

394 Luke 15: 28. — "Besought," or "kept beseeching" (imperf.). Adeney: "There is a Gospel even for the Pharisees."

395 Luke 15: 29. — "Serve." The verb is δουλεύειν, "to serve as a slave." Cf. Heb. 2: 15, "all their lifetime subject to bondage."

395a Luke 15: 30. — Contrast John 20: 17.

396 Luke 15: 31. — "Child" (R.V. margin), τέκνον.

397 Spurgeon preached seven sermons on a topic so near to his heart. These are Nos. 43, 176, 588, 1000, 1189, 1204 and 2236. See also Maclaren, "Expositions," vol. ii., pp. 59-74.

Massillon preached from verse 13.

This parable pre-eminently pictures to us, in Luke's characteristic manner, what the heart of man is Godward, and what God's heart is towards man.

Newman and Robertson have both misused it. The quondam Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford, in his sermon on Christian Repentance (vol. iii. No. 7) said: "We must begin religion with what looks like a form": and he illustrated from the prodigal's begging to be made one of his father's servants! The famous Brighton preacher in his discourse on "The Word and the World" (vol. iv., No. 15) declared that "It is a matter of no small importance that a strict life . . . should go before the peace which comes of faith in Christ."

God will even own in His government, to their temporal advantage, the rectitude of all "whose life is in the right": such men are to be felicitated. But to make that the foundation of peace with Him is just as fatal as Antinomianism itself, which is abhorrent to every bonâ-fide, real disciple of Christ (cf. note 457a). From either point of view Death, not life, is annexed to Law as between men's souls and JESUS as Saviour: it will not harmonize with Grace — "the grace of life" (1 Peter 3: 7) — the glory (Eph. 1: 6) of which is impaired by supposed precedent human merit. Gal. 6: 7 ff. and many other like passages were addressed to those who had been "called in Christ's grace" (1: 6), and have to do with the "Kingdom." The words "sowing to the flesh" are more comprehensive than the "Litany," the pitch of which is relatively high. The highest standard must ever be before those "not under the Law but under Grace." Until we come to close quarters with God, the lesson conveyed to Job (Job 42: 5 f.) is feebly apprehended.

NOTES ON THE SIXTEENTH CHAPTER.

398 Luke 16: 1-13. — The Expositor's treatment of this parable ranges itself with the general view taken by Athanasius and Augustine, Luther and Calvin. Cf. that by Maclaren, vol. ii., pp. 75-101.

399 Luke 16: 1. — It is important to note, for the lesson conveyed by the parable, whom the Lord has in view.

400 Luke 16: 2. — "What is this?" τί τοῦτο: cf. LXX. of Gen. 42: 28. So English Revv., with Schanz, H. Holtzmann, and B. Weiss. For the A.V. "How," cf. Acts 14: 15 ("why?"): so Luther, De Wette, Meyer, Weizsäcker, and Plummer here. See Spurgeon's Sermon. 192.

401 Luke 16: 4. — "I know," ἔγνων, "I am resolved": a dramatic aorist (Burton, § 45).

401a "I may be received": the passive again, to represent the active form with an indefinite subject, as often in Luke. So in verse 9.

402 Luke 16: 6. — "Baths," a liquid measure. Ten of these went to the cor (Ezek. 45: 14). See next note.

403 Luke 16: 7. — "Cors": a dry measure. It was the Hebrew homer, standard measure of capacity (Ezek. 45: 11), made up of ten ephahs: about eight English bushels.

404 Luke 16: 8. — "The lord," i.e., the steward's master; not (as Wellhausen) JESUS. As Montefiore remarks, 18: 6 is not an adequate parallel (Syn. Gospels, ii. 993).

"Unjust steward" expresses Christ's judgment of the man. Not only the words of the second part of the verse, but all of it is a comment of our Lord Himself: the whole of it proceeded from Him.

This verse has formed the text of sermons by Dr. Arnold and A. Hare.

404a "Sons of this age." The same phrase occurs in Luke 20: 34, with which cf. the verse there following, "that aeon." It expresses adherents of the system that now goes by the name of "Secularism," of which Nietzsche constituted himself apostle.

"Sons of light": cf. John 12: 36. "Children of light" occurs in 1 Thess. 5: 5.

404b We have here a very noticeable instance of γενεά used morally. See note on 21: 32.

405 Luke 16: 9. — Jülicher, through rejection of its lesson as to wealth, has not caught the meaning of the parable.

There is a sermon from this verse by Augustine.

405a The "mammon of unrighteousness" has reference to material resources used as one's own, whereas they belong to GOD. That which is unfaithfulness in the one relation becomes fidelity in the other.

405b "Everlasting habitations (tabernacles)." Cf. "everlasting gospel" in the Apocalypse, which does not mean that the Gospel is to be preached endlessly. And so here we have a millennial connection, — Messianic blessing, as in Luke 19: 9.

The indefinite subject of the verb "receive" (see note on verse 4) is only indirectly the "friends"; Matt. 25: 40 helps to show that the subject is Christ Himself. Cf. Tennyson's "God accept him, Christ receive him."

The Catholic doctrine of almsgiving in the name of Christ is true when not applied to the life strictly endless.

405c Luke 16: 10. — See Maclaren's sermon in Series 1. "Faithful in Little," etc.; also one of Henry Melvill, "Equity of Future Retribution."

406 Luke 16: 11. — "Unrighteous mammon." Here it is ἀδίκῳμ, i.e., false in contrast with genuine riches. For the ἀληθινόν, cf. John 1: 9, John 17: 3; and see Matt. 13: 22, etc., "deceitfulness of riches."

407 "Your." The reading of "B" ("our ") is discredited by Wellhausen. It was a stupid blunder of a scribe who missed the point. Hort's adoption of it illustrates his partiality for that MS. Blass takes the reading τὸ ἐμόν, "mine," in cursive 151, to be equivalent to τὸ ὑμῶν, "yours."

Dean Vaughan explained "your own" as meaning "your soul" (sermon on the passage, p. 72), which is forced. Adeney has a good note ad loc., connecting the parable with the Kingdom of Heaven.

408 Luke 16: 13. — "God," without the article, showing that θεός and ὁ θεός may be equivalent.

"Mammon." Ibn Ezra considered this was a variation of the word hamon (abundance) in Ps. 37: 16. There does not seem to be any proof for its being the name of any deity.

The parable is divisible into seven parts thus: verses 1, 2, 3-4, 5-7, 8-9, 10-12, 13.

A recent helpful book on the main subject is that of S. D. Gordon, entitled "Money: the Golden Channel of Service."

409 Luke 16: 14. — "Who were covetous," ὑπάρχοντες, i.e., essentially. Cf. Ps. 10: 3, and Luke 20: 47 below. "Their theory and practice (were) different" (Edersheim, "Sketches," etc., p. 126).

410 Luke 16: 15. — "Highly thought of" or, "lofty" (ὑψηλόν).

"Abomination." Elsewhere, idolatry (Matt. 24: 15; Rev. 17: 4 f., etc.).

411 Luke 16: 16. — "Is preached," εὐαγγελίζεται; the Gospel, as the A B C of the Kingdom; because "without faith it is impossible to please" God (Cf. 11: 2 with Heb. 11: 6).

"Forces his way," i.e., through struggle of soul overcomes his self-love and resistance of the Holy Spirit: such must be the meaning of the words in Matt. 11: 12.

412 Luke 16: 17. — "The law": Marcion converted this into "My words."

413 Luke 16: 18. — See, in illustration of the Expositor's remarks, Carpenter, p. 236, resorting to the conventional stalking-horse of "different sources." In verses 14-18 J. Weiss finds three (L, Q, M).

Wellhausen characterizes verse 18 as "the quintessence of Mark 10: 1 ff " The example, he remarks, used by our Lord was well adapted to show that His drastic treatment of the law was its veritable fulfilment. Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 10.

414 Hillel, for example, taught ("Gittin," ix. 10) that a man might divorce his wife for burning his dinner or oversalting his soup.

415 Luke 16: 19 ff. — Colin Campbell: "In this parable is concentrated the whole Ebionite doctrine of the Gospel" (p. 274); but see note 149a. Moreover, our Lord does not describe this story as a "parable."

Tennyson has turned this passage to account in "In Memoriam," xxxi.

416 "Lazarus." This is the only parable — if indeed it be rightly so called (cf. Exposition) — in which a personal name is introduced.

416a Luke 16: 21. — "Napkins were not used for the hands. The guests wiped their hands on bits of bread and then threw the pieces under the table" (Montefiore).

417 Luke 16: 22. — Garvie: "The rich man's funeral was the last of his good things; the first of Lazarus' good things was his happy death."

Adeney: "Lazarus is supposed to be seated next to Abraham in the banquet of the blessed." Cf. John 1: 18. Our Lord here seems to recognize certain truth in the representation of the "separate state" contained in the uncanonical writings called Pseudepigrapha, which were familiar to His hearers. See convenient manual by W. J. Deane.

Dr. J. Lightfoot was of opinion that Paradise is the scene. Cf. "the Paradise" of Luke 23: 43, of which the pseudepigraphical writings had already spoken. The view of the Westminster Confession (xxxii.), as briefly stated in the,"Minor Catechism" (ans. to Q. 37), is that, "the souls of believers at death. . . . do immediately pass into glory." So Weymouth, in note to his version of the New Testament at Matt. 16: 18, denying that believers at death enter Hades. The Expositor has expressed himself similarly in his remarks on 23: 43. Dalman considers that Lazarus here is conceived of as in heaven. See, further, note 585.

418 Luke 16: 23. — "Hades." Wellhausen would identify this with "Gehenna" (Luke 12: 5), the place of retribution (Tobit xiii. 2). Should we not rather say Tartarus? (2 Peter 2: 4). Cf. Enoch xx. 2, where "Uriel" is represented as its ruler. Sheol is likewise spoken of in connection with a flame in Song of Solomon 8: 6. For the Biblical representation of Sheol (Hades) the article by Dalman in Hauck's Encyclopaedia (the American "Schaff-Herzog") should be consulted.

419 The "torment" (βάσανος) of verses 23 and 28 has already set in, with doom to follow: cf. 2 Peter 2: 9, where κολαζομένους is rendered in R.V. by "under punishment." Similar must be the self-accusing thoughts of guilty persons during confinement preliminary to their appearance before a tribunal.

According to the old Greeks, judgment was to be at death; the belief of the Jews was that it is to be at the end of things.

The "Catholic" theory is that everyone is judged at death, for which Heb. 9: 27 is assigned, as well as at the Last Day. According to the Catechism, No. 76, the so-called general judgment "will be held in the valley of Jehoshaphat," which is a curious confusion of Joel 3: 12 (living) with Rev. 20: 11 (dead).

420 Luke 16: 25. — Schmiedel ("Jesus in Modern Criticism," p. 72) and others object that the rich man is not said to be godless. Not much insight, however, is required for apprehending the sense of his impenitence: this comes out in his own words. The Bedfordshire tinker, by the word about Dives put into the mouth of the "Interpreter" in "Pilgrim's Progress," entered into this narrative better than the smart professor at Zürich; as Spurgeon also in his sermons, 243, 518. We are actually invited by Schmiedel to believe that "the unrighteous steward is admitted into the everlasting habitations" (ibid.). The same writer naively adds, "Jesus cannot have said such things." The canons of "modern criticism" surely need looking after.

Bishop Andrewes and Charles Simeon have preached on the verse.

421 Luke 16: 26. — B. Weiss compares Heb. 11: 29. As he says, the real lesson of the "parable," so-called, begins here.

Observe how the words of this verse exclude all thought of "Purgatory" (Neil).

See sermons on Eternal Punishment by Archer Butler and Dr. George Salmon.

422 Luke 16: 27. — For the Jewish doctrine of Purgatory, underlying the Kaddish, prayer for a departed father, see Abrahams, p. 86 f. In LUKE it is the deceased person who is the petitioner.

423 Luke 16: 30. — "Nay," or "No, no" (οὐχί).

424 Luke 16: 31. — Cf. John 12: 9-11. In the last of his useful notes on this chapter, Wellhausen remarks that "the motive of repentance here is not the Kingdom of God, but Heaven and Hell. The thought behind the story is that the Jews do not believe in the Risen Christ, from unbelief in the Law and the Prophets."

As to the critics' romance that we have here the germ of John's account of the raising from the dead of his "Lazarus," which is regarded as a development of this "parable," see note 205 in Exposition of the Fourth Gospel.

The whole of this passage of Luke is of importance in connection with what Delitzsch has described as the "False Doctrine" of "Soul Sleep": see his "Biblical Psychology," p. 490 ff., where he shows the misuse that has been made of Jer. 51: 39.

Henry Martyn has a sermon from verse 31 on "Scripture more persuasive than Miraculous Appearances."

NOTES ON THE SEVENTEENTH CHAPTER.

425 Luke 17: 1. — "Disciples": see note on Luke 16: 1.

"All are included, from the severest persecutor to the inconsistent believer" (Neil).

There is a sermon by Dr. Chalmers on this verse.

426 Luke 17: 2. — "It would be more profitable," λυσιτελεῖ, Matthew has συμφέρει, whilst Mark has καλόν . . . μᾶλλόν. Cf. note 98 on Mark.

426a Luke 17: 3 f. — Cf. Matt. 18: 21 f. — Robert Chapman: "The man who seventy times seven forgives injuries, is he who best knows how to protect himself" ("Choice Sayings," p. 148). F. W. Robertson had already said from his pulpit: "Judaism was the education of the spiritual child, Christianity that of the spiritual man. . . . Judaism said, Forgive seven times — exactly so much; Christianity said, Forgiveness is a boundless spirit — not three times nor seven — seventy times seven. It must be left to the heart" ("Lectures on the Epistles to the Corinthians," p. 130). Augustine has a sermon on verse 3.

426b Luke 17: 5. — "The only recorded instance of the disciples asking a spiritual gift of Christ" (Neil).

427 Luke 17: 6. — "Sycamine tree," Matthew and Mark have "mountain." Sanday: "He assumed the existence of the same power in His disciples as in Himself" ("Life of Christ in Recent Research," p. 223 f.). The American Revv. adhere to the Received Text ("D") "If ye had faith . . . . it would obey you."

Chas. Simeon preached on verse 5 f.

428 Luke 17: 8. — See Schor, p. 49.

429 Luke 17: 9. — See note 91 on Mark.

430 Luke 17: 10. — Bengel: "Woe be to him whom his Lord calls unprofitable servant, happy he who calls himself so."

Mackintosh: "In the presence of the living God the very thought of merit fills away" ("Christian Ethics," p. 44).

As to Messianic reward, see Abrahams, p. 20, and with regard to merely mercenary motive, cf. the saying of Antigonus of Socho in Pirgé Aboth: "Be not as servants, who serve their master on the understanding that they will receive recompense."

See Spurgeon's Sermon, 1541.

431 Luke 17:, 11. — (Cf. John 12: l.) Bengel by διὰ μέσον (μέσου) understood "between" (R.V., margin). So van Oosterzee, Hahn, and Plummer, that is, along the borders (American Revv.) of each, either as the Lord was journeying from Galilee to Jerusalem, or on some journey north from Ephraim back to Galilee, in order to make His final ascent with Galilean pilgrims. Upon the question of locality discussed by critics Luke 18: 15 may throw some light, because Matt. 19: 1, 13 and Mark 10: 1, 13 show that the incident there recorded took place in Perea i.e., in the small strip of it shown in maps lying between Samaria and Galilee. Cf. Luke 9: 52 and Luke 13: 31.

Luther has a sermon on verses 11-19: Isaac Williams, one on verse 17.

432 Luke 17: 12. — Lev. 13: 45 f. The distance prescribed by "tradition" was 100 paces (Wetstein).

432a Luke 17: 15 ff. — The excellent remarks of Maclaren (B. C. E., p. 216 f.) should be consulted.

433 Luke 17: 20 ff. — This discourse probably gave rise to the questions of the disciples in Matt. 24: 3. Conjoined with Luke 18: 1-8 here, between which and the last section of Luke 17 there should be no break as in R.V., the discourse may be divided into seven parts: verses 20 f., 22-24, 25-30, 31-33, 34-36, 37, 18: 1-8.

434 "Observation." The word παρατήρησις and its cognate verb were used medically for watching symptoms of a disease, and so express preliminary investigation; also in astrology, for observation of the stars. Luke's employmerit of the verb (Luke 6: 7, Luke 14: 1, Luke 20: 20) is to indicate hostile intent: cf. Ps. 37: 12 in LXX., and Weymouth's note on present passage.

The idea that the Lord's words mean that the Kingdom would not be physically visible is excluded by the after context, where the emphasis is laid on the future (Wernle, "Beginnings," p. 68).

435 Luke 17: 21. — "In the midst of," ἐντός. So Syrsin, Grotius, Bengel, Meyer, Alford, Trench, Weizsäcker, B. Weiss (referring to Song of Solomon 3: 10),. H. Holtzmann, Schanz, Farrar, Spence, Lütgert, Plummer, Wernle, and Loisy. Cf. Luke 11: 20. Wernle: "It is quite certain that the right translation is among" (loc. cit.). Warman "The Pharisees asked when, not where" ("New Testament Theology," p. 22 f.). Boehmer: "The Lord does not say 'already.' "

The A.V., "within," to which Revv. adhere in text, represents the view taken by Chrysostom, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, Godet, Field, Candlish, Sanday, and Wellhausen. It is the rendering which has generally been favoured by mystics. Thus Fénélon recommends his reader who may perceive "natural impetuosity gliding in" to "retire quietly within, where is the kingdom of God." This rendering accords with the usage of ἐντός in Biblical Greek (Field); "among" represents its sense in the classical literature, with which this Evangelist must have been familiar. Wellhausen has to own that the sense of the present passage is different from the Matthaean passage as explained by him in commentary on that Gospel.

In whichever way the word be taken, it of course speaks of the Kingdom in its moral aspect (cf. Rom. 14: 17).

436 Cf. 19: 12 with note there.

437 Luke 17: 22 f. — "One of the days," etc.: cf. verses 24, 26, 30. Bengel, following Euthymius and Theophylact, took it as desire to recall one of the days of the Lord's life on earth, when it would be too late. See, however, Olshausen, Meyer and J. Weiss. Hahn (cf. Plummer) takes the μιάν as Hebraistic for "first ": cf. Luke 24: 1 and Acts 20: 7.

Least of all do these words mean, as Stevens represents, "epochs in the progressive development of His Kingdom" (p. 173). It is Luke's way of describing the παρουσία of Matt. 24: 3, 27, 37-39, the eschatological and abiding "presence" (R.V. margin passim).

438 Luke 17: 24. — As to the ἐπιφάνεια of the παρουσία (2 Thess. 2: 8), cf. note 134 on Mark and note 524 below; also Harnack, "Sayings," p. 106 f.

For "day" here (as also verse 30), compared with verse 22, see Gen. 2: 4.

439 Luke 17: 25. — "This generation," with a moral signification, as already in Luke 16: 8.

440 Luke 17: 26-30. — Here arises the question whether Lot's retirement from Sodom typifies the removal of Christians from this world in the sense of 1 Thess. 4: 13 ff., or the deliverance of the future Jewish "Remnant" spoken of by the Apostle in Rom. 9: 27-29. Wellhausen (ad loc.) treats Noah and Lot as representing Christians, whilst owning that in Mark at least the admonition is to Jews. The Expositor's view is that of writers who explain it of the "Remnant." Cf. note 444.

"Is revealed." For the ἀποκάλυψις of the Lord Jesus, cf. 2 Thess. 1: 7; 1 Cor. 1: 7, and 1 Peter 1: 7.

441 Luke 17: 31. — The SON is here prominent, not "the Lord of the vineyard." See note on Luke 20: 15 f.

442 Luke 17: 32. — These are the words inscribed on the monument which Bunyan's. "Hopeful" and "Christian" met with after parting with "Demas."

443 Luke 17: 33. — Cf. Luke 9: 24, of which critics deem this a "duplicate." It is one of the sayings of the Lord found in all four Gospels.

444 Luke 17: 34. — B. Weiss rightly compares 1 Thess. 5: 2; Norris wrongly, 1 Thess. 4: 19. In παραλαμβάνειν the preposition serves as well for take from the side of as for take to, etc. (John 14: 3). Here it is for, not (as Plummer) from destruction.

NOTES ON THE EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER.

445 Luke 18: 3. — "Came"; or, "kept coming" (imperf.). Cf. Ecclesiasticus xxxv. 14 ff.

446 Luke 18: 4. — "The creed of a powerful atheist" (Bengel).

447 Luke 18: 5. — "Completely harass" or "plague." Cf. R.V., "wear out," ὑπωπιάζειν. (Cf. 1 Cor. 9: 27.) Weymouth: "pester." D. Smith: "It is a pugilist's term and means hit under the eye."

448 Luke 18: 7. — The αὐτοῖς would be either, as the Expositor takes it, the "elect" Remnant (cf. Matt. 24: 22, Rev. 6: 9-11); or, the adversaries (cf. 2 Peter 3: 9). Field: "He deferred His anger on their behalf" (that of the elect). Cf. further, Ps. 13: 1 f., Ps. 55: 17 and Ps. 94: 1-4; also Prov. 9: 11; Ecclesiasticus xxxv. 18.

For "and he" American Revv. have "and (yet) he."

449 Cf. Ps. 36: 1 and 94: 20, which latter some (as B. W. Newton) have understood as predicted of the Beast's legislation, but the Psalmist seems to speak there of judicial, rather than political oppression, "seat" representing tribunal (Jennings and Lowe).

450 Luke 18: 8. — See Isa. 60: 2, Matt. 24: 12, 2 Thess. 3: 2 and 2 Thess. 2: 10 of that Epistle for the few believers on the earth then. Cf. Bruce ad loc. Jowett of Balliol, in sermon at St. Mary's, Oxford (1872), paraphrased thus: "What prospect is there of any great moral or religious improvement among mankind?" Farrar well says that such faith as the Son of Man will find among men will be faith in themselves.

Dr. Arnold has a sermon preached from this verse ("Christian Life," p. 20).

"The (or, that) faith," τὴν πίστιν. This is variously taken as (a) such faith as the widow's, typical of the Remnant (Exposition, and so very much B. Weiss); (b) personal faith in general; (c) Christianity (Canon Scott Holland, in sermon at St. Paul's). Dr. Frederic Harrison, presumably, would understand it of creeds in general. He closes his autobiographic "Memories" (1911) by saying, "Our age has no abiding faith in any religion at all," which should include that "of Humanity," of which he is himself the English prophet (note 147a).

The Mohammedan Seljuks of the thirteenth century originated a belief that Aissa, the saint said to have preceded the Prophet by some 500 years, will visit every country of Europe, England, and America, but find none faithful to his teaching, until he reaches the Lake of Tiburijeh (art. by Capt. von Herbert in Hibbert Journal, Oct., 1908).

FAITH. — For faith in the word of JESUS, see Mark 1: 15: for faith in Himself, Matt. 8: 10. Cf. note 98 on Mark.

The "Catholic" definition would be found in the "Explanatory Catechism," No. 9. For Cardinal Newman's Theory of Belief, see the psychological analysis of it in Mellone, "Leaders of Religious Thought" (1902). According to Maher, a living Catholic professor, Newman's faith would be no more than opinion ("Psychology," p. 328). See the Cardinal's "Grammar of Assent," chapters 4, 6, 7. Another representative of Catholicism comes near to the Expositor's view in treating Faith as belief on Divine testimony (Rickaby, "First Principles," part ii., chapter viii.).

A recent work by Dean Inge deals with the psychological aspects of Faith. Sir W. Hamilton wrote: "Knowledge is a certainty founded upon insight; belief is certainty founded upon feeling. The one is perspicuous and objective, the other obscure and subjective."

The theological aspect of Faith has been thus stated by Fairbairn: "Faith is an intellectual act, for it is a form of knowledge; it is an emotional attitude and activity, for it trusts persons and works by love; it is a moral intuition, for it sees obligation in truth and right in duty" ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 548). Cf. Rom. 1: 5, Gal. 5: 6, and note 9 on John, sub init.; and see also Stalker, "The Ethic of Jesus," chapter viii.

For a scientific appreciation of the present state of Religious Belief in "Christian" communities see Pratt, "Psychology of Religion," especially chapter viii. (p. 231 ff.). This writer's third class of believers is composed of those who by the Evangelist are regarded as truly such. A correspondence in the Daily Telegraph some years ago, which has since been republished in a volume edited by W. L. Courtney, revealed the many lights in which this vital subject is now regarded. One of the contributors referred to an aphorism which would be found in Nietzsche's "Antichrist" (§ 52), that "Belief means not wishing to know what is true." (Cf. Herbert Spencer on "Christian Scepticism.")

Newman, from his Oxford pulpit, spoke well when he said, "Unbelief is opposed to Reason . . . criticizes the evidences of Religion, only because it does not like it, and really goes upon presumptions and prejudices as much as Faith does."

In this connection it is odd that Hume, the protagonist of Doubt in the eighteenth century, avowed that he had never read the New Testament! Here it becomes a question of those who live in glass-houses not throwing stones.

Benn, in Literary Guide and Rationalist Review, Oct., 1908, has strikingly written, "Faith is no more than a particular application of Reason. It means confidence in the legitimacy of inferring the future from the past; the unseen from the seen; the unknown from the known." Christian thinkers would acquiesce in this, from passages of Scripture like 1 Peter 3: 15. The Bishop of Ossory, in Evidential Lecture at King's College, London, in the year 1909, expressed himself in a like sense; emphasizing, of course, the element of trust, which adheres to Benn's view nol. vol. But Christian faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2: 8), of which JESUS is originator (Heb. 12: 2; cf. Gal. 2: 20): and here lies all the difference.

Cf. notes 54 and 58 on Mark, and note 133, in particular, on John.

See Spurgeon's Sermons, 856 and 1963.

451 Luke 18: 11. — "The Pharisee." For the "Christian" counterpart, cf. Rev. 3: 17 f. As J. H. Newman in a parochial sermon said very truly: "The worldly man is a Pharisee."

"Stood." For σταθείς cf. 19: 8, of Zaccheus. Standing was, and remains, the habitual attitude of Jews in prayer: cf. Mark 11: 25. The scriptural attitudes are either standing (Abraham, in Gen. 18: 22: cf. Jer. 15: 1, of Moses and Samuel), or kneeling (Solomon, Daniel, our Lord in 22: 41, Stephen, Peter, Paul). For the quaint expression "sat" in 1 Chron. 17: 16, cf. Matt. 4: 16: the Hebrew word and its Greek equivalent being used for abiding, tarrying. Cf. further Luke 21: 35.

452 Luke 18: 12. — "Twice, etc." That is, on Mondays and Thursdays, according to the Talmud. It is prescribed in Old Testament Scripture only for the Day of Atonement. The Didaché enjoined its observance by Christians on Wednesdays and Fridays (§ viii.).

453 Luke 18: 13. -"Was striking upon his breast." Cf. Neander's famous saying, The breast makes the theologian," which carried the sympathy of Schleiermacher. The words of the writer of the well-known Church History were those of a man of genius.

"The sinner"; or, as A.V., retained by Revv., "a sinner." That is, "who is a sinner," the article being then regarded as equivalent to a relative pronoun, as in Rom. 7: 21.

The same words were on the lips, when dying, of Archbishop Usher and William Wilberforce.

There is a discourse of Bunyan on verses 10-13 ("Works," vol. ii.), also sermons of G. Whitefield and Isaac Williams.

454 "Justified," δεδικαιωμένος. Meyer, Godet, and Weiss suppose that it means Pauline doctrinal justification, a view which the Expositor's remarks were designed to meet. Cf. Wellhausen: justified relatively.

455 For verses 9-14, see "Pilgrim's Progress," part ii.: "Greatheart" to the pilgrims; also sermon of Whitefield, and Spurgeon's 1949.

Critics, as the manner is, suppose a duplicate here of Luke 14: 11.

456 Luke 18: 15. — The connection with Matt. 19: 13 f. and Mark 10: 13 ff. is here resumed.

457 Luke 18: 16 f. — The KINGDOM ("moral" aspect).

"To receive" (verse 17); or, "to accept," δέχεσθαι (active). Observe the distinct force of this word in 1 Cor. 2: 14, compared with verse 12 there; also 2 Cor. 11: 4, where both λαμβάνειν and δέχεσθαι instructively occur in the same verse. The Vulgate in Luke 18 has distinguished δεχ. in present verse from λαμβ. in verse 30.

Stock: "receiving is not exactly a passive thing" (p. 230).

As to acceptance of the Kingdom (God's Sovereignty, or Christ's Lordship), see Dalman, p. 91, and note 105 on Mark; for entrance, which in Scripture is regularly used of the time of recompense, Dalman, p. 95, and note 99 on the same Gospel.

The GOSPEL as popularly used (see note on Luke 8: 1) is only the scaffolding of the KINGDOM, not the building itself. Children of at least Christian parents obey them readily, from the heart, so far as they do respond to faithful "nurture and admonition." Cf. Rom. 1: 5, Rom. 6: 17, and Eph. 6: 4: in the last passage they are required to recognize the Lordship of Christ, to be subject to that. In the child as such there is no consciousness of merit; and so for those who entertain the doctrine of the Kingdom and enter upon the path which leads to its attainment.

"As a little child." See Nicoll, "Return to the Cross," pp. 201, 210, and chapter "The Theology of Little Children" (p. 142), quoting Bushnell: "It is the very character and mark of all unchristian education that it brings up the child for future conversion." This American writer also remarks, "Of the Moravian Brethren not one in ten recollects the time when he began to be religious" (quoted ibid., p. 145); in other words, to love the Lord.

457a Luke 18: 18. — "Inherit": see note 106 on Mark, and in particular Rom. 8: 17, where a twofold inheritance is spoken of:-

(i.) "heirs of GOD," obtaining an endless inheritance promised (Titus 1: 2, Titus 3: 2; Heb. 9: 15; cf. 1 Peter 5: 10), which "fadeth not away" (1 Peter 1: 4 f.) and connected with Pauline justification, by FAITH, "of life" (Acts 13: 39; Rom. 5: 18), clenched by "this grace wherein (we) believers stand";

(ii.) "but,"as Vulg. rightly: see Meyer, "joint-heirs with CHRIST, if so be . . . that we may be also glorified with (Him)," where a semicolon after "Christ" obscures the meaning. For this cf. Col. 3: 24; 2 Tim. 2: 12, and Heb. 3: 14 (Greek). In Rom. 8: 17 the μέν and δέ together make up the "but." This distinct inheritance, which is the prelude to the other (verse 30; cf. Rom. 2: 7), popularly confounded with it, is related to justification by WORKS in James 2: 18, 24.

It is sometimes said by apologists for crude "Reformed" doctrine that, because Paul alone uses "before God" (Rom. 4: 2), justification in James means before men (cf. Matt. 5: 16), and appeal is made to James 2: 24. But that the Apostle James uses the word "see" for ideal sight is proved by verse 11 of his Epistle. Bishop Bull's second Dissertation (chapter 1) on Justification has refuted what he describes as this "foolish scheme." That one believer's works are open to another's human appreciation is clear from James 2: 18; but James's reference to Genesis 22: 19 is different from that made by Paul (Gen. 15: 6): observe in Gen. 22: 15, "now I (Jehovah) know," when no men were on the scene but Abraham and his son. Luther (like Calvin, note 192) did not apprehend the truth of the Kingdom, any more than that of the Church, which together have come out more clearly during the last eighty years.

See further Luke 21: 36 and 1 Cor. 10: 12, which, in harmony with other passages, establish the standing in responsibility (obnoxious to Calvinists) alongside of that in grace (obnoxious to Arminians). The statement of Norris that Justification is complete, though liable to be forfeited" ("Rudiments of Theology," p. 125), is misleading: cf. Rom. 8: 30 and 1 Tim. 2: 4, which strike one note with 1 Thess. 2: 12, which strikes another. "Probation," recognized in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9: 27, etc.), has to do with standing in responsibility. The Holy Spirit would jealously guard such a scripture as Acts 13: 39 from an interpretation admitting of antinomianism in any shape or form. See 2 Peter 3: 16; 1 Cor. 10: 11 f., etc.

Controversialists, Roman and Protestant, High Anglican and Evangelicals, too often will but "see" one side of the case; whilst Higher Critics are wont to divorce Gospels from Epistles, and, from Lutheran tradition, to view these as in disharmony (cf. note 617).

Kingdom blessing depends, not on conformity to "the Law," as the term is used by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 2: 16, "the works of the Law": cf. Rom. 6: 14), but upon the believer's realisation of, and conformity to, New Testament requirements: see in particular Matt. 7: 24, Matt. 28: 20, and 1 Cor. 9: 21. The Kingdom in its manifestation will be the sphere of recompense for doing and suffering: see Luke 14: 14, comparing 1 Thess. 4: 14-17, Phil. 3: 10 f.

"Eternal life," as used by the "ruler," is the "life for evermore" of Ps. 133: 3, and so always by the Synoptists, who exhibit it in its historical limitations. Not that in the Fourth Gospel any more it is used as equivalent to the Synoptic "Kingdom," as says Garvie (after E. F. Scott). From Luke's treating the Kingdom largely from a "moral" point of view, bearing on the present dispensation (1 Cor. 4: 20), he has seemed to some German writers to lead up to what they suppose to be a merging, by the fourth Evangelist, of the Kingdom in Eternal Life; just as early "fathers" thought, on the other hand, that the βασίλεια swamps the ζωὴ αἰώνιος. This has resulted from an imperfect induction of passages. The lineaments of the Synoptic Kingdom are engraved indelibly on John 15: 1-8, where not a word occurs about "life," and where the three stages of fruit-bearing in Mark 4: 20 are plainly recognizable. Again, the "abundant" life of John 10: 10 is as thoroughly Lucan as it is Petrine. Cf. notes 65, 66, and 66a on John.

When Wernle criticizes Hermas amongst sub-apostolic writers for the conviction that many Christians would forfeit Kingdom blessings, on the ground that the writer of the Shepherd "never got quit of Jewish uncertainty of salvation" ("Beginnings," ii., p. 303), it must be remembered that, whilst it is true that none of the spokesmen of that generation laid hold of the Biblical fact that the believer has a "purged conscience" (Heb. 10: 2 and 22), their imperfect understanding of Grace arose from the mistake above mentioned, which may have been accentuated by misunderstanding of 2 Peter 1: 11; this, notwithstanding critics' depreciation of the Epistles as a whole, has become classical.

458 Luke 18: 19. — The emphasis is on "good," not on "Me." Cf. Ullmann, "Sinlessness of Jesus," p. 148 ff. and note 107 on Mark, which deals with the point raised in such popular books as Schmiedel, "Jesus in Modern Criticism," p. 23. The limitations of the Lord's humanity we cannot determine outside Scripture (John 5: 19, etc.), they were incidental to His self-imposed humiliation. There is here no more avowal of imperfection than in 20: 41-44 a repudiation of his Davidic Sonship. It is noticeable that the Koran, whilst more than once recording Mohammed's sense of need of forgiveness of sins, nowhere attributes to Aissa any such confession, although apocryphal gospels, from which "the Prophet" received his information, are not free from insinuations of the kind.

For "good" (ἀγαθός) applied to the Lord, cf. John 7: 12. "Goodness" (ἀγαθωσύνη) GOD displays specially in sacrifice (verse 22; cf. Rom. 8: 32). Ethical religionists may talk of "sacrifice in behalf of the race," but JESUS first taught and practised it, as none other could or would do. Treasured have ever been words of the "judicious" Hooker in his great sermon on Justification: "We care for no other knowledge in the world than this, that man hath sinned and God hath suffered; that God hath made Himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God." Had Irving and others held to this fundamental truth, we should never have had the unhappy suggestion of peccability of the Lord intruded on the Church.

458a Luke 18: 20. — We have here, of course, a summary of the Ethical Code on its manward side, and that alone.

458b Luke 18: 21. — In the Talmud the inquiry is raised, "Why did God give so many commandments?" To which a rabbinical answer is, "To multiply Israel's merit"!

459 Luke 18: 23. — Matthew adds here, "he went away."

460 Cf. Gal. 6: 2.

461 Luke 18: 24 f. — Difficult as it may be for the affluent to accept the Gospel of salvation, still more is it for such, when already Christians, to conform their conduct to the principles of the Kingdom. But heavenly grace suffices for the one situation as for the other. The same Evangelist, who in this chapter of his record has commemorated the offering of the "poor widow," has in another (Luke 23: 50 ff.) told of the loving service rendered to the Master, when He was no longer on the scene to acknowledge it, by one of the class (cf. Matt. 27: 5, πλούσιος) here spoken of, "who was looking for the Kingdom of God" and, we may well suppose, will be awarded a place in it.

"Needle's eye." The small gate for foot passengers is not beside (Adeney), but within the larger one for animals (Schor, p. 30). Both words here (τρῆμα, βελόνη) are medical terms: see Hobart.

462 "Saved." As to Messianic salvation, see note 361 (13: 23).

462a Luke 18: 27. — Cf. Mark 14: 36 in another connection.

463 Luke 18: 30. — "Manifold more." Garvie: "communion of saints instead of family relationships."

"In this time." Nietzsche: "Buddhism gives no promise, but keeps every one; Christianity gives any promise, but keeps none" ("Antichrist," § 42). This is the language of a man not understanding what he said (1 Tim. 1: 7) in either direction. The Buddhism that he so much lauded occupies novice and grey-haired men alike in a delusive struggle against suffering. Nietzsche wrote of Pascal, that the eminent French Christian's intellect was ruined by his faith; but this miserable man himself, as elsewhere stated, died insane. Again, Stanton Coit writes: "Many have asked and no one has answered, save where the prayer was overheard by some fellow man" ("The Lord's Prayer," p. 12). Myriads of men and women "in this time" can give the lie to this airy statement.

"Receive," λαμβάνειν (passive).

The "age to come" will witness the initial manifestation (cf. references in note 457a, following that to present verse) of the Eternal Life of the Fourth Gospel, which is, or should be, known morally by all believers now. Cf. 1 Tim. 4: 8, "having promise of the life to come" (μελλούσης, a word regularly used in millennial contexts [cf. note 355]); and for the manifestation of the sons of God, Rom. 8: 19.

The promise is made to those who have already acted as Peter says (Boehmer).

464 Luke 18: 31-34. — See note 220a on John (12: 1). Verses 31-43 appear in the "Lectionary" as Gospel for Quinquagesima, to accompany 1 Cor. 13: as the Epistle. "The one affords a transcript from actual life of that which the other exhibits as an ideal" (A. W. Robinson).

465 Luke 18: 34. — "Understood not"; or, "did not perceive," cf. 24: 25, 46 and John 12: 34. It is much the same in Christendom now as it was in the Churches of "Asia" to which Paul's declaration of "the whole counsel of God" was addressed, cf. Acts 20: 27 and 2 Tim. 1: 15.

"Know," get to know (γινώσκειν).

466 Luke 18: 35 ff. — The variations of the several Evangelists here are set out in Plummer, p. 429. As to the "supplementary theory," see Westcott, "Introduction," p. 183 f.

467 See note 111 on Mark. Luke agrees partly with Matthew and partly with Mark, a feature which is somewhat embarrassing to advocates of the current documentary theory.

Of the various explanations available, that seems to be most worthy of consideration which is derived from the fact that there were two Jerichos, the older site and the city then lately built, at a distance of 1.25 miles from each other. Excavations are being conducted by Prof. Sellin under the auspices of a German, archaeological society.

Nösgen, as the Expositor, has followed Grotius' explanation of ἐγγίζειν εἰς; but the present writer is not prepared to resist the suggestion of motion conveyed independently by the preposition (cf. the Greek of 19: 29), and agrees with the remarks ad loc. of Bishop Goodwin, p. 311. Chrysostom: "Such apparent discrepancies between the Evangelists do but tell for their mutual independence. The Holy Spirit has not been pleased to supply us with all the facts." The most satisfactory rendering seems to be the one followed in the present volume, which happens to agree with that of Wellhausen.

468 For Messianic passages on blindness, see Isa. 29: 18, Isa. 35: 5, Isa. 42: 7. Bartimaeus was the first of those outside the apostolic band who addressed the Lord by His Messianic title.

A poem of Longfellow was derived from this narrative.

NOTES ON THE NINETEENTH CHAPTER.

469 Luke 19: 2. — "Zacchaeus." His is a Hebrew name: see "Zacchai" in Ezra 2: 9; Neh. 7: 14.

469a Luke 19: 4. — "Sycamore": cf. Luke 17: 6, "sycamine."

469b Luke 19: 5. — "Must": cf. Luke 13: 38; also John 4: 1.

470 Luke 19: 7. — "Murmured; or, "began to murmur" (imperf.).

471 Luke 19: 8. — "Fourfold" see Ex. 22: 1.

"By false accusation." This rendering (A.V.) is defended by Field against Revv, ("wrongfully").

472 Luke 19: 9. — "Salvation," cf. Luke 2: 30.

"Is come," ἐγένετο: an example, cited by Burton (§ 46), of the frequent use of the aorist, expressed by the English perfect.

See G. Whitefield's sermon on "The Conversion of Zacchaeus."

473 Luke 19: 10. - Cf. 1 Tim. 1: 15, which these words may have originated.

D. L. Moody preached from this verse. See also Whyte's "Bible Characters," No. LXXVIII. (on Zacchaeus).

474 Luke 19: 11. — "As they heard these things," that is, in or near Jericho. The similar parable of the Talents was spoken in Jerusalem: cf. Matt. 24: 1, Matt. 25: 14.

"He in addition spoke," προσθεὶς εἶπε: a Hebraism which occurs again in Luke 20: 16 ff., and seems to indicate use of a Hebrew source.

"Thought that the kingdom was about (μέλλει) to be immediately manifested." They evidently believed that the "Seventy Weeks" of Daniel were running out.

475 "Manifested." Again, the future aspect of the Kingdom: see note on Luke 9: 27.

476 Luke 19: 12. — "To return," ὑποστρέφειν, only in this parable, which is distinct from that of the Talents in Matthew (see A. R. Habershon, p. 309 f.). Jülicher gives a false lead in treating the one parable as a different version of the other. This may have been suggested by the embassy of Archelaus to Rome, and his slaughter of disaffected subjects on his return (Joseph. "Antiqq.," chapter 17; "Wars," chapter ii.). Like the parable of the Great Supper, it is in two portions: see note on Luke 14: 8, 21.

477 Luke 19: 13 ff. — "Minas." The "talent" of Matthew's parable was worth sixty times as much as Luke's "pound," which represents one hundred drachmas, or about £3 11s. 0d.: cf. note 384.

478 "While I am coming." "This should be our view of our Lord's Advent; He is even now on His way hither" (Spurgeon's Sermon, 1960).

What the disciple has now he holds as a steward; but it will be his own on the Lord's return. In Matthew the talents are given to each according to his capacity (δύναμις). Whilst the χάρις in Luke is common to both parables, Matthew's talent is a χάρισμα in the Pauline sense of that word. The thought has been well worked out by Lütgert (p. 162 f ).

The case of Apollo strikingly illustrated the combination of "capacity" and "gift": cf. Acts 18: 24, 27 with 1 Cor. 12: 7.

479 Luke 19: 14. — Cf. Ps. 2: 3.

480 Luke 19: 15. — "Having received the kingdom": cf. Matt. 28: 18. These two passages enable us to determine when the Kingdom of Heaven enured. At present it is in "mystery." The ἐνέργεια of it will operate when Rev. 11: 15 (see R. V.) is fulfilled.

481 Luke 19: 22. — Cf. Ps. 18: 26; also verse 27 here, and note at Luke 13: 1. Wellhausen is one of those scholars who regard it as a mistake to suppose that Luke made use of Josephus.

482 Luke 19: 23. — "Received"; or "demanded (exacted)" cf. R.V.

483 Luke 19: 26. — For the issues of exercise, neglect or abuse of gift (χάρισμα: see note 478), cf. Matt. 25: 29; also 1 Cor. 3: 15, "he shall suffer loss."

484 Luke 19: 27. — For Messiah's vengeance on His enemies, cf. Ps. 21: 9. This is quite distinct from what comes before us in Luke 20: 13, 16, the action of the FATHER.

485 Luke 19: 28 ff. — Cf. Matt. 21: 1-9; Mark 11: 1-10. It was on Saturday the 8th Nisan that our Lord took supper with Lazarus. On the next day (Sunday) He presented Himself as Messiah by the procession into the city.

486 Luke 19: 31. — "The Lord." The man seems to have been a disciple, perhaps made such by the early Judean ministry. Cf. note at Luke 13: 34.

487 Luke 19: 30-36. — "A colt," as in Mark and John. Much inane criticism has been expended on Matthew's record that there were both an ass and her colt. See Zech. 9: 9, with regard to which it is needless to rely on the revised rendering of the vav (A.V. "and"; R.V. "even"). Matthew quotes the LXX.; some MSS., however, showing a second ἐπί in that Evangelist's account. The Apostle Matthew was an eye-witness, to whom knowledge of the structure of Hebrew poetry maybe credited as good as that of moderns. Observe that the two disciples had the Lord's direction to bring the mother, and therefore did not act from their own mere sense of prudence. Christ's use of the two may be ascribed to His tenderness: the restiveness from discomfort of the colt would be counteracted by the presence of its mother, whose movements may have been regulated by the Lord's hand resting upon her, that she might the better keep pace with the colt, on which He rode: this is probably all that the first of our Gospels means by, "He sat on them."

488 Luke 19: 38. — All four Gospels vary in the form given to this anthem. For Luke's arrangement of the words, cf. the Hebrew accents of Ps. 118 (117) 25, which connect "in the Name" with "Blessed" (see Westcott on John 12: 13).

The Lord at length definitely took the Messianic position; not from any development in His convictions, as some critics represent, but because there was no longer any danger of a popular rising. "the forces arrayed against Him being," from the human point of view, "too strong" for that (Adeney).

489 Luke 19: 41. — "Wept"; or "sobbed," "wailed" (ἔκλαυσεν), used of Peter in Mark 14: 72; whilst in John 11: 35 we have, of the Lord, ἐδάκρυε, "shed tears."

490 Luke 19: 42. — "This thy day"; see marg. of American Revision; and so for "thy peace."

"peace . . . hid." God's covenant of peace (Ex. 34: 25, Ex. 37: 26) cf. Ps. 122: 6 ff. and Isa. 48: 18, and, in particular, Ps. 81: 13-16.

491 Luke 19: 43 f. — These verses critics have used for determination of the date of the Third Gospel. The statement is deemed so circumstantial that those of the "historical" wing imagine that Luke's record was written after the event. But prediction might in principle extend as well to detail as to any merely general statement, if the event could be foreseen at all.

Cf. Joseph. "Wars," v. 6, 2 and 12, 2.

For the "children," cf. Ps. 137: 9. For "visitation" (ἐπισκόπη), see note on Luke 7: 16 above.

492 Luke 19: 45 f. — J. Weiss differs from most other critics in defending the order shown by John's Gospel in this connection (p. 180).

The cleansing of the Temple (in the Court of the Gentiles) recorded in the Fourth Gospel and that here spoken of are not "duplicates" as critics dream. Ezek. 24: 13 refers to a double cleansing. In the last Gospel the Lord speaks of His Father's house; here of the house as His own. Cf. note 117 on Mark, and note 55 f. on John.

This was five days (John 12: 1, 10) before the Passover (the 15th of Nisan), and so, on the tenth day of the month, when lambs had to be procured, in keeping with Ex. 12: 3. The "Lamb of God" had become matter of traffic a few hours earlier on the same Jewish day (Matt. 26: 14).

493 Luke 19: 47 f. — "Was teaching day by day": the Wednesday could not have been spent, as often supposed, in seclusion, whereby all in chapters 20, 21 would be crowded into the Tuesday. Cf. 21: 37 f. His teaching here would be in the Court of the Women.

Luke uses the expression "principal men" also in Acts 25: 2. Cf. Luke 20: 20: the Lord's steps being dogged, and His words distorted (Ps. 37: 32, Ps. 38: 12).

There is a sermon of Luther on verses 41-48 (p. 335).

NOTES ON THE TWENTIETH CHAPTER.

494 Luke 20: 1. — "One of the days." Mark shows that this was the Tuesday of Passion Week.

494a Luke 20: 2. — See note on Luke 11: 52.

495 Luke 20: 7. — Observe that in effect they own themselves "blind" (6: 39).

496 Luke 20: 9 ff. — See note 121 on Mark.

497 Luke 20: 13 ff. — See Spurgeon's Sermon, 1951.

498 Luke 20: 15. — "The Lord of the vineyard": this disproves Scott Russell's theory (cf. Bishop Westcott's views in his "Historic Faith") that the SON came with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. Here "the Lord" (cf. Luke 10: 2) is the FATHER (cf. note 441).

499 Luke 20: 20. — Some have supposed that this verse introduces the Tuesday of Passion Week, but see note on verse 1. The whole of Luke 20 seems to belong to that day.

500 Luke 20: 21. — "Way." Cf. Acts 18: 26. The expression is not, however, peculiarly Lucan, as it is in each of the parallels. Instead of it, Syrrcu and Syrrsin have "word."

500a Luke 20: 24. — "Penny." The Roman denarius was equivalent to the Greek drachma (8.5d.). The latter of these (mentioned in Matt. 18: 28, and Luke 15: 8) survives to the present day.

501 Luke 20: 25. — Cairns attempts to show that the teaching of JESUS implicitly contains precepts for secular affairs, ethics of patriotism, etc. (chapter 4); but, as Höffding says, the Lord's words will not bear such strain put upon them.

502 Luke 20: 27. — Cf. Tobit iii. 15. For discussion by the Greeks of the resurrection of the soul, see Plato's "Phaedo."

SADDUCEES. As to this party, see Edersheim, "Sketches, etc.," chapter xxv., if not Schürer. They were Jewish Epicureans. Joseph us attests their belief in extinguishment of the soul by death ("Antiqq.," viii. 1, 4).

503 Luke 20: 28. — A Mosaic, albeit Deuteronomic, text! See 25: 5 f. of that Book.

504 Luke 20: 34. — "Sons of this age." This expression occurs in the New Testament only in ch. 16: 8 and here.

505 Luke 20: 35. — "Shall have been deemed worthy," etc. Cf. 2 Thess. 1: 5; also Luke 14: 14 and note there. Van Oosterzee on the present passage writes: "The Messianic ἰών is here represented as coincident with the resurrection of the just. It is a privilege which will not be shared by all, but only by the elect." Cf. verse 11 of the passage in 2 Thess. with 1 Thess. 1: 4, which speaks of election on the side of "Eternal Life" as used in John's Gospel. In obedience to Christ's words the real motive will always be love to Him, regard for His glory: to this His love will respond at the βῆμα. "They . . . shall know that I have loved thee" (Rev. 3: 9).

One of the very few mistakes in J. Angell James's old book, "The Anxious Inquirer," is the statement that "it is a radical error to suppose that sanctification goes before justification" (p. 114).

Sanctification, which is always the work of the Spirit, in New Testament Scripture, is as an act:

(1) Absolute, objective, or imputed, as connected with "standing" in Grace (1 Cor. 1: 30, Rom. 5: 2), by virtue of which every true believer is a "saint" (1 Cor. 6: 11, Heb. 10: 10). This some Confessions, as the Westminster, fail to disengage from

(2) A work or process, which is subjective, practical and gradual, "inherent, but not perfect" (Hooker), to which, as a distinct "standing," responsibility attaches (1 Cor. 10: 12), being sometimes described as "state" or "condition" (ἁγιωσύνη): see 2 Thess. 2: 13, 1 Peter 1: 2 (ἁγιασμός), 1 Thess. 3: 13. (cf. 1 Thess. 5: 23), and 2 Cor. 7: 1. To this attaches the Apostle's declaration, "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power" (1 Cor. 4: 20). See further Rev. 3: 7, 11: the Christian must ever remember that he has to do with a Master who is "holy and real" (ἀληθινός). Such holiness in conduct (reality), nevertheless, is founded not on Law but on Grace (Rom. 8: 2, Rom. 11: 20, Heb. 12: 28), so that pride of merit and cavil of unbelief are alike excluded.

Sanctification, as Calvin puts it, means separation: "that we may serve God, and not the world."

506 Luke 20: 36. — "Sons of the resurrection." Cf. such Hebraisms already met with, as "sons of the bride-chamber" (Luke 5: 34), "sons of peace" (Luke 10: 6), and "sons of this age" (Luke 16: 8). Cf. note 504.

Luther has preached on verses 25-36; and Dr. Arnold has a sermon from the last of these verses (p. 110).

507 Luke 20: 37. — "The God, etc." The Sadducees, as generally stated, acknowledged the Torah, or Pentateuch: hence the Lord's appeal to the book of Exodus (3: 6), in which the Law proper began.

508 "All live in." Cf. Rom. 6: 10, Rom. 14: 7 f. Here the Intermediate State in our Lord's teaching reveals itself, additional to the statement in the other Synoptics. It of course supersedes the Old Testament conception of Sheol, which was felt to be a negation of all that was worth the name of "life."

The Lord confines Himself to proof of the immortality of the soul. For the probable remaining links in the argument as regards resurrection of the body, see Neil, p. 289.

509 Luke 20: 41 ff. — See Isa. 11: 1, 10 and Rev. 22: 16. This resolves itself into, the Lord's being GOD and MAN in one, establishing His Messiahship. Cf. 2: 11.

Observe that "David himself " is referred to, and that Mark says that he spoke "in the Spirit." Yet modern critics (but not Ewald) question the Davidic authorship of Psalm 110, which is ascribed to an anonymous poet writing about 143 B.C., and celebrating the accession of Simon the Maccabee to priestly and royal dignity. It is a curious task for any to undertake — that of showing how the language of the Psalm (e.g., verse 5) suits such an epoch. Cf. Maclaren on Psalms, vol. iii., p. 183 f.

An answer to the query of verse 44 Luke supplies in Acts 2: 31-36, where "Lord" represents Adon in Ps. 110: 1. Cf. 22: 69 here. Resurrection afforded the clue. Any reply that the scribes might have attempted must have required the use of Ps. 2, which speaks of Messiah's earthly, as Ps. 110 of his heavenly, kingship. They accorded the same recognition as Messianic to the one Psalm as to the other.

O. Holtzmann (p. 83; followed by L. Muirhead, "Eschatology," p. 10, and others — cf. Schmiedel, "Jesus in Mod. Crit.," p. 31) says: "He goes on to show that the opinion of the scribes was wrong." Contra: Spitta, "Disputed Questions," pp. 158-167. A sufficient reply to such as O. Holtzmann is (1) that the argument is of like nature to that in verses 2-8: this has been missed by Kennett in Interpreter, October, 1911, p. 45. The Lord's dialectic vein was of a different order from that, for example, of Socrates in the Platonic Dialogues: the one made for certainty, as the other for doubt. (2) Luke could not have forgotten Luke 1: 32.

Burkitt has essayed the remark that "The New Testament was needed, not to bring men to Christ, or as a means of grace, but as an instrument of criticism by which to correct the impression we derive of Christ through our fellow-Christiains" (Church Congress Paper, 1908). This notion seems to have been broached in view of the GOSPELS. Now, those whom God does use in ministry of "the Word of His Grace" have ever themselves been brought to Christ directly or indirectly through some application of New Testament Scripture. Catechisms, Confessions, Liturgies, Ordinances — what good have these ever accomplished save as they have reflected the written WORD? To influence the lives of our fellows in either of the ways referred to by the Norrisian Professor requires, of course, other qualifications than those which any of us possess as literary "hewers of wood" or "drawers of water." Telling a Christian audience that the New Testament in none of its parts was designed as an instrument for individual blessing must surely have been as the proverbial water on a duck's back.

510 Luke 20: 46. — Here is another of the imagined "duplicates": cf. Luke 11: 43.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CHAPTER.

511 Luke 21: 1-4. — "The Widow with the Two Mites" is the subject of Whyte's discourse LXXXIII., in "Bible Characters."

512 Luke 21: 5-36. — On Messianic prophecy, see Edersheim, Warburton Lectures ("Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah"), and as to the prophecy on Olivet in particular, Stuart, pp. 238-246; also note 126 on Mark. Jewish opinion may be learned from Abrahams' recent interesting book in Constable's series (chapter vii.).

For comparison with Matt. 24 and Mark 13, chapter 3 of a recent unpretentious but instructive little book, "The Time of the End, but the End not yet," by E. J. Thomas (Weston, 53, Paternoster Row), would be found helpful.

512a Luke 21: 5 f. — "Some." Wellhausen rightly calls attention to the fact that the question, as it appears in Luke's Gospel, proceeded from a wider circle than the disciples merely. This is borne out by verse 7, where the Lord is addressed as "Teacher" (διδάσκαλε), whilst the disciples in Luke's Gospel regularly use "Lord" (κύριε), or "Master" (ἐπιστάτα). Cf. note 119 above.

513 Luke 21: 9. — Down to verse 11 we have what Matthew and Mark describe as ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, "beginning of throes." As to these "sorrows of Messiah," so-called, see Edersheim, op. cit., p. 247. Tacitus supplies information about such events as are here referred to, in his History, i. 2, 1.

514 Luke 21: 12. — The order here is as in Mark 13: 9-13. Cf. Matt. 10: 34-42.

515 Luke 21: 13. — "Turn out," so Field, who refers to Phil. 1: 19.

515a Luke 21: 15. — Robert South preached from this verse.

516 Luke 21: 17. — "Hated by all." Cf. John 15: 19, Acts 28: 22, and see Tacitus, "Ann.," xv. 44.

517 Luke 21: 19. — Cf. Luke 17: 33, and see Dean Vaughan, "Authorised or Revised?" p. 67.

518 Luke 21: 20. — "Desolation." Schmiedel (§ 153) represents Luke as identifying, in the Evangelist's own mind, Titus' desolation of Jerusalem with Daniel's "abomination," which does but evidence that critic's ignorance of the scheme of Old Testament Prophecy. As the Expositor shows, it is characteristic of Luke that our Evangelist distinguished them.

"Luke's language here," Purves remarks, "is only an interpretation of Christ's words (cf. Matt. 24: 15, Mark 13: 14), designed to make their meaning clear to Gentile readers" ("Christianity in the Apostolic Age," p. 272).

519 Luke 21: 21. — "Flee to the mountains." Wellhausen, as others, speaks of Luke's bringing the prophecy "up to date." But some date for it before 70 finds support from these words, because the historical flight was to Pella, in the Jordan valley.

520 Luke 21: 22. — "Vengeance." The Greek (ἐκδίκησις) is the same as that of Hosea 9: 7. Cf. note on Luke 7: 16.

521 Luke 21: 23. — "Distress," ἀνάγκη (cf. 1 Cor. 7: 6). It is the θλίψις of Matthew and Mark.

522 Luke 21: 24. — "Trodden down," etc., by Romans, Saracens, Franks, etc., in succession.

522a The "times of the nations" run from Nebuchadnezzar to the Apocalyptic head of the revived Roman empire (Rev. 13: 1-10). It is a phrase to be distinguished from "fulness of the Gentiles" in Rom. 11: 25, which refers to the completion of the Church. In Tobit xiv. 5 we meet with the "times of that age": on the similarity of αἰώνων and ἐθνῶν in MSS. (e.g., Rev. 15: 3). see Nestle, in Expository Times, March, 1909.

523 Luke 21: 25 - "And there shall be signs," i.e., of the ἀποκάλυψις of Christ's Presence (παρουσία, Matthew, cf. next note): cf. Rev. 8: 12. The "and," introducing a detached narration, is analogous to a peculiarity of the conjunction (υαυ), of which Isa. 61: 2 affords one of the most striking illustrations in Old Testament Scripture. That passage was used by our Lord on the occasion spoken of in Luke 4: 16-19. He stopped before the words, "and the day of vengeance," etc. (cf. Zech. 9: 9 f.). "Rejoice . . . the foal of an ass," and then abruptly, "And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim," etc. A long space of time may intervene between the respective incidents of such seemingly disjointed passages or portions of them; and so here, between verses 24 and 25.

To understand verses 25-33, it is necessary to see that here is taken up that which was suspended with verse 11. Cf. Luke 17: 22-37, which was anticipatory of the section now reached.

524 Luke 21: 27 (cf. note 498). — "Coming," ἐρχόμενον: cf. 2 John 7. This is, doubtless, the same coming as in Rev. 1: 7, referred to by Westcott ("Historic Faith," Lecture VII., p. 41), but the "Manifestation" and the "Presence" are not equivalent expressions; for Paul speaks of the ἐπιφάνεια of the παρουσία (2 Thess. 2: 8), showing that the παρ. is at first secret: cf. Ps. 27: 5. In the last-cited New Testament passage, "brightness" has in the hands of the Revv. given place to the true rendering.

The phrase "Second Coming" is sometimes questioned, but it is sufficiently sanctioned by Heb. 9: 28.

The word παρουσία was used in everyday Greek of the time for the visit of a prince to any locality, so as to mean where the "Court" was (Deissmann, op. cit., pp. 269-273).

Charles. after H. Holtzmann and Wendt, writes: "That JESUS expected to return during the existing generation is proved beyond question by the universal hopes of the apostolic age" ("Encyclopaedia Britannica," art. "Eschatology," col. 1373). As the Fourth Evangelist belonged to that age, which closed with his death, are we to suppose that he conceived that the Master was mistaken? See John 21: 2, and cf. note 526 below, as to the disciples.

Montefiore here has a good note on the Jewish and the Christian conceptions of Messiah.

525 Luke 21: 31 f. — A comparison of verse 27 f. sets Matthew's "Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" (Luke 16: 28) in solid connection with Luke's record here of the future manifestation of the Kingdom.

526 "This generation." Cf. note above on Luke 16: 8, and notes 135, 136 on Mark. For the Jewish "moral" connection of the word, cf. Old Testament passages, such as Gen. 7: 1 and Ps. 12: 8; in particular, Deut. 32: verses 5 and 20, besides, in Lucan writings, Acts 2: 40. The Deuteronomic references seem not to have been duly weighed, with regard to their marked difference in time, by Zahn; they do not bear out his note on Matt. 24: 34. Cf. Jer. 7: 8, Jer. 8: 3, in the LXX. For Gentile connection, see, e.g., Phil. 2: 15, cited by Hahn. The successive races of men since the Flood are in this light regarded by Scripture as one generation.

The word as used in this Synoptic connection has "a nearer and a farther meaning" (Farrar).

Cremer and Hahn regard the αὕτη, "this," as explained by verse 28. In any case, the words come in the future part of Luke's record.

There are some excellent remarks on the whole subject in Jowett's essay, "On Belief in the Coming of Christ." As to "that day" in Mark 13: 32, the writer asks: "Is it reverent or irreverent to say that Christ knew what He Himself declared that He did not know" (p. 88 of recent reprint). Cf. Horton, on the moral beauty of Mark's report, which commands adhesion to what the Lord said from His actual knowledge while on earth.

With regard to Charles's statement (supra), may it not be said that the Lord's words about "that day" recorded by Mark of themselves suggest that it would not fall in the near future? They rebut critics' fancy that there is "confusion" in that Evangelist's record, by alleging which they do but create an inconsistency on his part.

Luke 21: 32 is only difficult to reconcile with verse 24 for those who take "generation" to mean a period elapsing between father and son, a sense it might indeed have borne had it occurred in the same context as 23: 38 "weep for yourselves and for your children."

Neander (p. 130, followed by various English writers down to Selbie) says that the early disciples were mistaken in their view. Rather, they did not fully apprehend the Lord's meaning: it was not intended that they should do so (1 Cor. 13: 9).

The whole question is trenchantly discussed by B. W. Newton in his "Prophecy of the Lord Jesus in Matt. 24 f. Considered," pp. 39-79 (3rd ed., 1879). As to the bearing of verse 32 on the question of the date of this Gospel, see note 2 above, ad fin.

527 Luke 21: 36. — "Praying . . . may be deemed worthy" (or, reading as Revv., κατίσχυσητε, "may be strong") ". . . to stand (be set) before the Son of Man." See note on Luke 20: 35, and for "to be set" (σταθῆναι), cf. Ps. 1: 5 (note 370) and Wisdom of Solomon v. 1. Resurrection is affirmed in the Hebrew of the Psalm: cf. note 108 on John, and see also Mal. 3: 2. This is not a judgment in the sense of John 5: 24 (cf. Ps. 143: 2), but the occasion of our Lord's assigning reward or loss (1 Cor. 3: 13-15) to those of the House of God (1 Peter 4: 17), when He holds His first inquest, reviewing the life of each disciple as such.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-SECOND CHAPTER.

528 Luke 22: 1. — "Which is called Passover." Cf. Joseph. "Antiqq.," xiv. 2, 1, from which we learn that the name was by this time applied to the whole season. The Paschal Feast and the Feast of Unleavened Bread had long been blended. Cf. Lev. 23: 5 f. and Num. 28: 16 f., where they are distinguished, with Deut. 16: 1, 3 in which they coalesce, as here.

The words of Mark, "after two days," and "not on the feast day" (14: 16), Wellhausen considers Luke left out in order to avoid contradiction with that which had actually happened. The simple truth of the matter, whether critics will recognize it or not, is that the plan of the Jewish leaders was frustrated.

The "difficulties" felt in connection with the Evangelists' several accounts of this celebration — in particular, the circumstance that the Lord observed the Passover before the Judean conventional hour — have been discussed in note 142 on Mark, and in notes 336, 346 on John. Here may be added that the different ways of determining the new moon, of which Khodadad in his pamphlet speaks (p. 21), occasioned letters of Gamaliel the Elder to the Galileans, referred to in "Tosefta: Sanhedrin," chapter ii. Cf. notes 531, 533.

529 Luke 22: 4. — "Captains." For these στρατηγοί, cf. John 18: 12; and see Schürer, 11. i. 265, or Edersheim, "The Temple, etc.," p. 389 ff.

530 Luke 22: 6. — "Agreed fully." Field, "fully consented."

531 Luke 22: 7. — "The day of unleavened [bread]." Provision of ἄζυμα (Ex. 23: 15) began, as we should say, with 6 p.m. (cf. verse 14) on the Thursday, when the 14th Nisan set in (cf. Matt. 26: 17; Mark 14: 12), i.e., the Eastern Friday eve, but our Thursday night. The theory, occasioned by comparison with the Fourth Gospel, that the Lord anticipated the ceremony by one whole day (Neander, Godet, Westcott, etc.) seems to be already excluded by the Evangelist's words "the day . . . in which the passover had to be killed." It was simply the darkness of one half of the technical day that divided the Lord's celebration from that of the Jerusalemites in general.

532 Luke 22: 10. — As to such an unwonted sight, see Schor, p. 43.

533 Luke 22: 13. — "Prepared the passover," i.e., the initial Paschal meal. This preparation must not be confounded with the παρασκεύη, a word of different formation, spoken of in Luke 23: 54 in closest connection with the Sabbath, although it was a name given to the whole time between one sunset and the next succeeding in each recurring week. Cf. note concerned on chapter 23.

534 Luke 22: 14. — The disciples, observe, did not on this notable occasion partake of the Paschal feast with their families, "showing how they had forsaken all for Christ" (Carr).

535 Luke 22: 16. — "I will in no wise drink." Apparently, so far as regards the present occasion, because the cup of which He must drink is to be that of God's wrath against sin, in contrast with the joy symbolized by the ritual of the Passover. This will be celebrated throughout the Millennium (Ezek. 45: 21).

Burkitt would extend the Lord's words here into meaning that the meal described was not a Passover at all (The Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1908, pp. 569-571), thus understanding the opening words, of deep Hebrew colouring, in a scarcely natural way. Although Harnack and Ramsay have lent their support to this idea (Journal of Theological Literature, 1909, col. 49 f.), writers of the most opposite schools combine in treating it as a Passover. Such it was at any rate in the sense of the Mosaic ordinance. Our Lord, however, seems not to have partaken of any cup, as an accretion (see Stuart, p. 254 ff.)

536 The "Kingdom of God," the Father's Kingdom, Matt. 26: 29, or "Kingdom of Heaven," yet future. Cf. Rev. 19: 9.

537 Luke 22: 17 — "A cup," viz., the first of four used in the historical ceremony (Khodadad, p. 27). Some suppose that for the second of such cups was substituted that used in the institution of the Supper (Carr). Whilst the Lord is said by Luke to have "received" (δεξάμενος) the Passover cup (cf. note 535), Matthew speaks of His spontaneously having "taken" (λαβών) — used in institution of His Supper.

538 Luke 22: 19 f. — The LORD'S SUPPER, κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (1 Cor. 11: 20). Until the discoveries of Papyri, within the last twenty years, it was supposed that the word κυριακόν (cf. κυριακή of the Lord's Day, in Rev. 1: 10) was coined for the purpose; but it is now known that the word belonged to the Greek language of everyday life in that period, being used in the sense of "imperial," or "royal."

Besides this designation of the ordinance, Scripture sanctions "the breaking of bread" (Acts 2: 42, Acts 20: 7), "the Communion" (1 Cor. 10: 16) and "the Eucharist" or "Thanksgiving" (1 Cor. 11: 24, 1 Cor. 14: 16).

539 "This is My body given for you." The unleavened cake declared His sacrificial death. Cf. 1 Cor. 11: 29, the Lord's "body," which cannot mean the Church, described in Scripture as the "body of Christ." Tertullian uses the words against Marcion (book iv., chapter xl.) by saying, "That is, the figure of My body. . . . It would not contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that the bread should have been crucified." This was before the days of Transubstantiation!

The form of words used by a father in family celebration of the Passover has been strangely neglected by Catholic writers. The "is" could only so mean represents.

"Given," διδόμενον. Catholic commentators avail themselves of the present participle for their theory that "the sacrifice was in the Eucharist itself, not on the Cross only" (Darby-Smith). Cf. the "Explanatory Catechism," Nos. 278-280. But all that is really meant is that the Lord's body was on the point of being given for them, just as He was on the point of going to the Father: see the present tense of John 17: 11.

Since the Reformation the great Anglican divine Hooker has written that the virtue resides in the recipient: his wise language is borne out by Mark 14: 23 f., for it was when the disciples had already drunk of the cup, that our Lord addressed to them the words of verse 24 there.

The present High Anglican view may be seen in Sadler, "Commentary on Luke," pp. 555-563. Canon (since Bishop) Gore, in revolt from the idea of worship of dead elements, has had recourse to a theory that the communion is with the glorified body of the Lord ("The Body of Christ," p. 66). But where would be the "remembrance" of words spoken by the historical JESUS before He suffered? If it is His death which governs the ordinance, all must be in keeping with that; whilst the Bishop, on that page of his book, directs the mind of the reader to Christ in His heavenly condition, and not as the earthly Speaker. lt is impossible to think of the Saviour as dead and alive at the same time (Rev. 1: 18). Eucharistic doctrine developed from the "Mysteries" is accountable for such dilemmas.

That the mediaeval idea of eating a Divine being ("Theophagy"), to which official Catholicism still adheres, was a survival of pagan thought (Reinach, p. 26) seems to be undeniable. The attempt made, even by some Protestant "critics," to saddle it on the Gospels, must ever be resisted. Bousset, indeed, has to own (on 1 Cor. 10: 22) that, however it may have been in the hands of Paul, in the Gospels there is not the least tendency to sacramentalism discernible. It behoves every Christian to view the rite as it came from the Lord's own lips. The Apostle cites, and does not enlarge upon, His words when 1 Cor. 11: 27-29 is rightly understood.

540 "This do in remembrance of Me." As to the omission of these words, with the rest of verse 19 after "body" and the whole of verse 20 in the "Western" text, see, besides references in critical footnote, Zahn, "Introduction," ii. 357-359 (German edition).

For memorial before God, see Lev. 24: 7, etc., with which compare 1 Cor. 11: 26, as to the voice of this ordinance to men in general.

Luke's words, "this cup . . . shed," it will be found, combine those of Matthew, Mark, and Paul. It is because of their special relation to the Apostle's statement in 1 Cor. 11: 24 that some suppose there is an interpolation in Luke's text. Yet it is Codex D in particular, elsewhere prone to harmonize, which omits them. The effect of supposing interference with the Evangelist's primitive text is, of course, questioning, so far as the Gospel records are concerned, that the Lord Himself instituted the ecclesiastical "Breaking of Bread" (Acts 2: 42, 46) as a permanent rite; for it is in the Third Gospel alone that the words "Do this, etc.," appear. As confirming their rejection of the ordinance, "Friends" naturally hail this view (see British Friend, 1908), represented by writers such as Jülicher (Essay, 1892) in Germany, Gardner ("The Origin of the Lord's Supper," 1893) in England, and McGiffert in America. The last-named scholar remarks: "Expecting to return at an early day (Mark 14: 25), Jesus can hardly have been solicitous to provide for the preservation of His memory" ("Apostolic Age," p. 69). The assumption here expressed has already been dealt with in note 524. Reference might further be made to Sanday, art. "Jesus Christ," in Hastings' "Dict. of the Bible," vol. ii., p. 638).

Paul says that he "received of the Lord" the account which he gives, covering the injunction. Although Sir W. M. Ramsay does not seem right in treating the Apostle's statement as meaning that the record contained in 1 Corinthians had been handed down to Paul by tradition (Expository Times, April, 1908, p. 296 f.), the Church must have had a true instinct in continued observance of the Supper, which forms part of the historical evidence of the Faith; but the way in which the "Holy Communion" has been used as an instrument of oppression has doubtless counteracted its function in this respect, so great has been the corruption or defacement by which it is marred. Happily, the day is fast running out when men, because of doctrinal differences, hesitate to partake in common of these symbols of love and unity, so much needed for the realization of our Lord's High-priestly Prayer. Cf. note on John 17: 21.

541 For wine as a figure of blood, Tertullian (loc. cit.) refers to Isa. 63: 1 and Gen. 49: 11.

In Heb. 10: 19 we have the "blood of Jesus": in 1 Peter 1: 19, "the blood of Christ" in 1 John 1: 7, the "blood of Jesus Christ." What "higher criticism" is sufficient for these things?

Albert Ritschl, by whom many living German theologians have been influenced, in his work on "Justification and Reconciliation" (vol. iii., p. 568, of E. T.), has expressed repugnance to such hymns, dear to every spiritual mind, as the notable one by Bernard of Clairvaux (Trench, "Sacred Latin Poetry," p. 139 ff.; cf. "Hymns Ancient and Modern," No. 111); and, in his "History of Pietism," of the like compositions of Paul Gerhardt (see "Lyra Germanica," Newnes' ed., pp. 60-63), which visualized the bleeding Saviour on the Cross for the comfort of the dying, but are often discredited as voicing unpopular "blood theology." Nevertheless, in his own last hours, the Göttingen professor requested his son to recite to him Gerhardt's soul-stirring lines (Gerok's edition, p. 63), not excepting certain verses which, in his writings, he had singled out for animadversion.

As to redemptive significance of the Death of Christ, see recent works of the Scottish professors Stalker and Denney; also articles in Hastings' one vol. Bible Dictionary on Atonement, Mediation, Redemption, and Salvation, all by Prof. Orr. The late Dr. N. M. Adler, British Chief Rabbi, stated that "For the modern Jew there is no Atonement. . . . He believes that he obtains forgiveness simply by repentance"; and he went on to quote Ex. 32: 30, maintaining that Jehovah's answer there shows that He did not accept the idea of Atonement.

542 Stalker has happily remarked: "The essence of this ordinance is . . . God giving Himself to man, and man giving Himself to God" (p. 193). Cf. Jer. 31: 33.

As to remission of sins (Matt. 26: 28), see note below on Luke 24: 47, and as to the word "covenant," note 149 on Mark, besides papers of Carr in the Expositor.

Luke 22: 23 shows that Judas partook of the Supper.

543 Luke 22: 24. — "Should be held": American Revv., "Was accounted." The order here is peculiar to Luke. According to his Gospel, the disciples must have had this contention twice over: see 9: 46. In the shibboleth of critics, it is a "doublet."

544 Luke 22: 25. — Such were Philip of Macedon and Alexander "the Great," Ptolemy III. and Antigonus.

545 Luke 22: 28. — "Temptations," e.g., such as described in John 6: 15. Our blessed Lord was ever sinless: 1 John 3: 5.

546 Luke 22: 29 f. — "I appoint," διατίθεμαι. Not "I bequeath": cf. Jer. 31: 31 in the LXX. Wills are believed to have been unknown to the Jews at the time the Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 9: 15 f.) were first circulated. Cf. paper of Carr in Expositor, April, 1909.

We have here a New Testament version of the "Messianic banquet" in Isa. 45: 6, Isa. 49: 12. Cf. Luke 13: 28 f.; in connection, not merely with the Passover celebration, but with the institution of "Breaking of Bread." It sets before us "the time of Regeneration," spoken of in Matt. 19: 28 (the "restoration" of Acts 3: 21). To it refer the words, "Many are called, but few chosen" (Matt. 22: 14, cf. 20: 16), with which contrast the statement of Rev. 7: 9.

Wellhausen's comment on βασιλεία, first without and then accompanied by the article, is that the one expresses "sovereignty," the other the "Kingdom." But what about Rev. 1: 6?

A leading idea of all Millenarians may be expressed in the words of one amongst the Germans: "The whole congregation of the faithful rule and judge mankind for 1,000 years" (Hofmann, "Prophecy and Fulfilment," ii. 373).

The future aspect of the Kingdom comes out conspicuously in this last reference to it in our Gospel. It is this dominating aspect to which recent German literature (surveyed by Schweitzer) has been addressed. Thus Wernle speaks of "the centre of gravity of the Christian faith transferred to its Eschatology" ("Beginnings," i. 140). Schweitzer's own position is preposterous: the Lord died, he says, for the Apocalyptic idea, but by His death sounded its death-knell! Facts, however, are still more stubborn than theories: and the fact here is that, "not only in later Jewish and early Christian history, but right down through the Middle Ages, Apocalyptic Eschatology has been a constantly recurring phenomenon" (B. H. Streeter, in Interpreter, Oct., 1911, p. 38). The topic, nevertheless, has been until recently much more cultivated in this country than in Germany, where the influence of Bengel was largely ephemeral, and scarcely revived by such as Auberlen in the nineteenth century. Cf. note 282.

As for the relation of the Second Coming of Christ to the Kingdom, with the exception of Origen and the few who rejected the "Apocalypse" as apostolic, all primitive expositors — Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus, etc. — were premillenarians; that is, held that the Lord's Second Advent will precede the Millennium: see Gibbon, "Decline and Fall, etc.," chapter 15, comparing Elliott, "Horae Apocalypticae," iv p. 310. "The expectation," remarks Wernle, "of the Kingdom of God upon earth and of the resurrection of the dead, the two thoughts least Greek in character, stand at the centre of the Christian Hope." To this the same writer devotes his chapter 13. "Even so educated a Christian as Justin," he says, "was a convinced Millenarian. The process of Hellenization set in about the end of the second century" (ii., p. 133), that is, in Origen's youth. Augustine did the disservice of following in the wake of the allegorizing of that erratic theologian: see the celebrated Latin Father's "City of God," in particular book x., §7. Gibbon observes that "Agreement of the Fathers went by the board;" that the Apocalyptic Kingdom "came to be treated as the invention of heresy and fanaticism." J. H. Newman, naturally, in his Oxford sermons, through his, incipient Catholicism — that farrago of ideas — discredited the Patristic Millennium indiscriminately. And so Bishop Christopher Wordsworth, in his "Lectures on the Apocalypse" (1848), as to whose views see criticism by B. W. Newton in "Aids to Prophetic Inquiry," pp. 310-386 (3rd ed., 1881). The darkening of counsel seems complete when an esteemed writer like the Protestant Bishop Martensen is found attaching a symbolic meaning, derived from 2 Peter 3: 8, to the "thousand years" of Rev. 20: 4.

On the other hand, leading expositors of such different schools as Godet, Alford, Sadler, and W. H. Simcox have resolutely maintained that there can be no honest escape from the conclusion that the classical passage of the Apocalypse shows a thousand years' reign of Christ upon earth (pace Kennett, in Interpreter: see note 509). "The plain meaning of the words," says Simcox, "is that after the overthrow of Antichrist the martyrs and other most excellent saints will rise from the dead; the rest of the dead, even those finally saved, will not rise till later. But at last, after the Millennium, and after the last short-lived assault of Satan, all the dead, good and wicked, will arise" ("Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges: The Revelation of St. John the Divine," Appendix, p. 237). The belief of W. Kelly — founded upon a now much-received interpretation of 1 Thess. 4: 13 ff. — diverged from this statement so far as to view all "saints" as rising before the ἐπιφάνεια of the παρουσία (see note 524), and so, before the revelation of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2: 8); and, further, to see only the wicked dead in those standing before the "Great White Throne" of Rev. 20: 11-15. Cf. his last "Exposition of the Revelation" (3rd ed., 1904). Simcox continues: "Any view but the literal seems exposed to insuperable exegetical difficulties. If the true sense be not the literal one, it is safest to regard it as being as yet undiscovered." To realise the force of these words one has only to study the later expositions of the Apocalypse by Bousset and J. Weiss, partly on the lines laid down by Gunkel, who plumes himself on having "discovered" by critical acumen the clue to that book in Babylonian mythology! A humiliating circumstance here is, that this grotesque theory has been acclaimed by some in England.

The Kingdom in its present aspect has been discussed from various points of view, in England by Whately, Maurice, Seeley, Bruce, Horton, etc.; in America by Stevens and others; and in Germany by writers of the Ritschlian school, so ably represented by Harnack. Its eschatological character has been taken up also by, amongst others, the last-named scholar in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica," and during recent years in this country by Charles.

547 Luke 22: 31 f. — "Has begged," etc. The ἐκ of ἐξῃτήσατο denotes vehemence, importunity. See, however, Field's note, and Burton, § 35.

548 "When once turned back," ἐπιστρέψας. Cf. the LXX. at Ps. 51: 13, ἐπιστρέψουσι, for Hebrew yashubu, "shall return," and P. B. version of Ps. 23: 3, "He shall convert my soul." See also Field ad loc. on the present passage, as to "convert" (act.) and "conversion" on man's part, which answers to God's grace in quickening — to regeneration as used conventionally in the sense of being "born again." The learned writer of "Otium Norvicense" would, of course, not have questioned the Psalmist's "Turn us again," which has doubtless given rise, since the days of Wesley, to the now current use of the word "conversion."

Dr. Arnold has preached from this passage, on Conversion ("Sermons," iii., 173).

549 With verse 32 cf. 1 Peter 1: 17, 1 John 2: 1, each time "the Father," before whom the Advocate pleads.

Reference should here be made to the Catholic Catechism, No. 91.

550 Luke 22: 34. — "Peter." Cf. verse 31, "Simon." Wellhausen "cannot see" any reason for the change. Was it not now to say, Strong as he was (Matt. 18: 18) he needed reminding of his weakness? (Farrar, apparently after Godet).

As to the σήμερον here, see notes 142, 151 on Mark (14: 30). Matthew and Mark give the prediction as if said on the way to Gethsemane; Luke and John as though pronounced in the upper room; so that it is probably referable to both connections divisibly, to which the account of Matthew and Mark itself lends support. The added assurance of the other disciples, uttered with raised voice, could scarcely have been given in public.

551 Luke 22: 35. — "Without purse," etc., words used to the Seventy (Luke 10: 4).

552 Luke 22: 37. — "Have an end." Field: "are being fulfilled." The quotation is from the Hebrew.

553 Luke 22: 38. — For the idea of "saying no more about it," cf. Deut. 3: 26.

Upon the words of this verse was founded the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII. ("Unam Sanctam") — the two swords, spiritual and civil.

554 Luke 22: 39-46. — This section definitely introduces the last day (Friday) of the Lord's life on earth.

The AGONY. Cf. John 12: 27, as of course the parallels in Matthew and Mark. Pfieiderer speaks of "The preceding predictions of passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus" being "not historical; otherwise the struggle in Gethsemane could not have taken place" (i., p. 389). But Fairbairn: "Few incidents have been more utterly misunderstood than this. . . . The antecedent of the agony was not the idea of death, but the feeling as to its means and agents" (op. cit., pp. 426-431). Cf. note 152 on Mark.

A difficulty has been manufactured out of no man hearing the utterances of the Lord on this occasion. As to such objections, see note on the Temptation.

555 Luke 22: 42. — Observe that our Lord says, "Father"; on the Cross, "My God" (Matt. 27: 46: cf. Ps. 40: 8).

556 Luke 22: 43 f. — The Gospel of Peter (Docetic) says that JESUS on the Cross "held His peace, as in nowise having pain"! (Orr, "New Testament Apocryphal Writings," p. 73). On Divine suffering, Caird has said: "Separation of Divine from human acts and experiences is really the dissolving or rending in twain of the unity of Christ's person and life. It virtually asserts that He was not always, throughout His whole life, the God-Man, but only now the God, and now the man," etc. Again: "Incapacity to suffer is not a sign of largeness, but of littleness" (Gifford "Lectures," vol. ii., pp. 108, 142).

We meet here with an experience of the "reasonable soul" of our Lord. Cf. Matt. 26: 38; John 12: 27.

Conflict, ἀγωνία, an "agony of fear" (Field). Burgon has referred to Ps. 55: 4-6.

"Appeared," ὤφθη: cf. 1 Tim. 3: 16.

557 As to doctrinal repugnance to the admission of such records into Scripture, Plummer writes, "There is not any tangible evidence for the excision of a considerable portion of narrative for doctrinal reasons at any period of textual history." It is, however, just such evidence which resists detection and is difficult to obtain: repugnance works silently as well as ostensibly.

558 Luke 22: 45. — There are two distinct words for "sleep" used in this verse, κοιμᾶσθαι (as in 1 Thess. 4: 13 f.) and καθεύδειν (as in 1 Thess. 5: 6, 7, 10). Two distinct classes of mankind are concerned in these chapters of 1 Thessalonians.

558a Luke 22: 47 f. — Tholuck has preached on these verses.

558b Luke 22: 50. — Cf. John 18: 10. "Suffer thus far" would be said to the soldiers.

559 Luke 22: 52. — "Chief priests," it will be observed, is peculiar to Luke's account.

"Power." The Greek is ἐξουσία, "authority."

For hands not being laid on the Lord until His voluntary submission, cf. John 8: 20.

560 Luke 22: 54-60. — Cf. John 18: 12-18, the informal investigation before Annas. For "laid hold on Him," cf. Acts 2: 23.

561 Luke 22: 58. — Luke: a man, the second time; Matthew, "another maid." See note 156 on Mark, in which Gospel the two other accounts coalesce. There is a helpful analysis of Peter's denials in Stuart, pp. 269, 271.

562 Luke 22: 61-65. — The Lord is here before Caiaphas and a committee of the Sanhedrin (John 18: 24; Mark 14: 55-65; Matt. 26: 59-68).

"The Lord turned," peculiar to this Gospel.

"Looked," i.e., fixedly, is a form of ἐυβλέπω, used in John 1: 42 of the Lord's gaze then at Peter, as already of the Baptist's at Himself (verse 36).

563 Luke 22: 62. — "Wept," or "sobbed," ἔκλαυσεν.

564 Luke 22: 65-71. — This is the third trial, before the whole Sanhedrin (Matt. 27: 1; Mark 15: 1), merging in appearance before Pilate, 23: 1.

Cf. John 18: 13, which is accounted for by Luke's record — an interval between the arrest and the Council's meeting.

Fairbairn: "The elders are Israel as a State; the chief priests, Israel as a Church; the scribes, Israel as possessed of the oracles of God" (op. cit., p. 398).

"Ye say that I am." American Revv., "Ye say (it) because I am."

565 Luke 22: 67-70. — See note 154 on Mark. In each of the Synoptics is brought out the contrast between "the Christ" of the high priest and "the Son of Man" in the Lord's answer. Cf. note 127.

With verse 69 cf. Ps. 80: 17.

For the now ordinary Jewish idea of Messiah, see Montefiore, vol. i. pp. 50, 100 f.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-THIRD CHAPTER.

566 Luke 23: 3. — See 1 Tim. 6: 13.

567 Luke 23: 4. — "Find." For this forensic use, still preserved, cf. 2 Cor. 5: 3, Phil. 3: 9, 2 Peter 3: 14. For the examination before Pilate in extenso, see John 18: 33 ff. For the travesty of justice by which it was throughout marked, see Rosadi, "The Trial of Jesus" (E. T. from third Italian edition).

568 Luke 23: 5. — "All Judea, etc." See note on Luke 4: 44.

569 Luke 23: 6 ff. — Against the impeachment of this section by critics (e.g. O. Holtzmann, p. 482, Schmiedel, § 108, col. 1840), Burkitt's defence, "attested by Gospel of Peter," may well qualify by quantum valeat (p. 138).

A difficulty has been raised as to the Crucifixion being as early as 9 A.M. (Mark 15: 25), in the light of Luke's statement here. But cf. John 18: 28: "it was early," when the Lord was led into the Praetorium (palace), which may quite well have been by 6 A.M. The distance traversed and retraversed between the residences of Pilate and Herod would be short. The historicity of this section needs for its support no such assumptions as those of Verrall (The Journal of Theological Studies, April, 1909, pp. 321-353).

As to Luke's source of information, cf. note 4F. He is as familiar with the doings of Agrippa in Acts 12: 20, Acts 13: 1, as here with those of Antipas.

For the technical term rendered here and in verse 17, "remitted," cf. Acts 25: 21, where it is used again.

570 Luke 23: 11. — The word λαμπρός is strictly "white"; and to this incident is attributed the use of the vestment called "alb."

571 Luke 23: 12. — With regard to the treatment by textual critics of verses 10-12, it may be said that, what with Tischendorf's fondness for , Hort's partiality to "B," and Wellhausen's being wedded to Syrsin, something further is needed as determinative beyond "diplomatic" evidence, reinforced as that may be by "historical" or "critical acumen" enlisted in the service of irreconcilable views.

572 Cf. Acts 4: 27.

573 Luke 23: 22.- Cf. veres 4 and 15. By Roman Law the Procurator ought not to have entertained the second, to say nothing of the third, trial.

574 Luke 23: 23. — "Urgent": so American Revv. Cf. Ps. 12: 4.

575 Luke 23: 25. — Wellhausen can but speak of "indiscoverable reasons." J. Weiss, however, notes Luke's also forbearing to record the soldier's completion of the crucifixion: the Evangelist clearly meant to attach the blame to the Jews.

"Pilate" is included in Whyte's "Bible Characters," LXXXIV.

576 Luke 23: 26. — "Cyrene," the modern Tripoli. Cf. Acts 6: 9. Observe how Luke's account brings together John's statement and that of Matthew and Mark. The Lord must alone have borne the cross until relieved of some portion of it by Simon.

577 Luke 23: 28-30. — Cf. Rev. 6: 12, 15 f. Stier calls this the first part of the Lord's Passion Sermon; the remainder is, of course, the seven words from the Cross, beginning with that in verse 34, where see note.

578 Luke 23: 31. — Cf. Ps. 1: 4. The explanation of "green" and "dry" is that long ago given by Theophylact (cf. Farrar).

See Tholuck's Sermon on verses 26-31 ("Light from the Cross," p. 100), and Dr. Arnold's from verse 30.

579 Luke 23: 32. — Some copies alter the order, but the punctuation of A.V. is right from every point of view.

580 "Skull," i.e., Golgotha a name avoided, as Gethsemane, etc., in view of Gentile readers. "Calvary" of A.V. is from the Latin Vulgate.

581 Luke 23: 34. — This saying of course fulfils the last clause of Isa. 53: 12. Cf. 1 Tim. 1: 13. The other utterances from the Cross are: (2) in verse 43 here; (3) in John 19: 26; (4) in Mark 15: 34; (5) in John 19: 28; (6) in John 19: 30; and (7) in verse 46 here.

On the reading, see Blass, "Philology of the Gospels," p. 71.

582 The suggestion of O. Holtzmann and others that the words in Matt. 27: 46, as in Mark 15: 34, had by the time Luke wrote come to be regarded as derogatory to the Son of God, is in the usual strain of "critical" nescience.

One has but to compare Luke 20: 17 with the scope of quotation from Ps. 118 in Matthew and Mark, to see, as often elsewhere in this Gospel, how Luke condenses his record. That which is of chief importance is that it was to God as such, and not from the standpoint of John 3: 14 ff., that the cry "with a loud voice" (verse 46) went up. Cf. note 587.

Tholuck has preached on verses 33-35 (p. 203).

583 Luke 23: 38. — "The King of the Jews, this!" For the tone of contempt, which finds suited expression in Luke, cf. Isa. 53: 3.

As to the various forms of inscription recorded by the Evangelists, see Stuart, pp. 283-285, comparing note 349 on John. The Lord here acts as King; before as Prophet (verse 28), and then as Priest (verse 34). Cf. Maclaren, ii., p. 307.

584 Luke 23: 42 f. — As to this robber's probable acquaintance with the Lord's predictions, see Meyer in loc. "The Penitent Thief" is one of Whyte's "Bible Characters," No. LXXXVII.

Wellhausen treats the εἰς in "B" (R.V. margin, "into") as "a very bad correction."

585 Luke 23: 43. — "Verily." For this form of emphatic announcement, cf. Luke 2: 24, Luke 12: 37, Luke 18: 17, 29, Luke 21: 32.

"Today shalt thou be, etc." Or, "I say to thee today, thou shalt be, etc." (Whately and others). This alternative is rejected by Alford, but favoured, it would seem, by B. W. Newton, in his note on the Locality of Hades ("Remarks on Mosaic Cosmogony," p. 85), who points out the advantage such punctuation affords in meeting the difficulty which some feel in respect of the present passage, and refers to the bearing of John 3: 13 on the Paradise question (infra).

Syrsin has an interesting addition: the impenitent robber had here said, "Save thyself alive today and us."

"With Me": Plummer, "Not merely in My company (σὺν ἐμοί), but sharing with Me (μετ᾽ ἐμου). The promise implies continuance of consciousness after death."

"PARADISE" (cf. note on Luke 16: 22). Or, as Continental versions, "the Paradise."

The Expositor's view, that by this is meant the heavenly Paradise, is taken also by B. W. Newton, B. Weiss, and others. It will be observed that W. Kelly (as Delitzsch, "Biblical Psychology," p. 497, and Beck of Tübingen, "The Logic of Christian Doctrine," p. 526) held that our Lord's human spirit did not pass, as say the Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds, into Hades ("Hell"); and this notwithstanding Acts 2: 27, where the Revv. have preserved "in." His conviction was that εἰς there should have been rendered "to," as the corresponding Hebrew preposition in Ps. 16: 10, the Apostle's citation. It is fair, however, to note that the same Hebrew occurs in Job 39: 14, and is there rendered "on," in parallelism with "in." Others regard "to" in the Psalm as equivalent to "in."

The usual belief is founded on such passages as Matt. 12: 40 (the Lord's soul), Rom. 10: 7 and Eph. 4: 9.

The Expositor, as B. W. Newton, has taken sides against the early "Fathers," according to whose view, the separate state of all the blessed dead is referable to Hades; and has thus agreed with the Westminster Divines (note 417).

At the Reformation there was a recoil, emphasized by the Puritans of the next century, from mediaeval ideas in general; and so, not only from such conceptions as Gregory's purgatorial suffering, but from the interpretation of passages like Phil. 1: 6, considered by many still to indicate continued sanctification after death for the perfect state of Heaven (cf. Heb. 12: 23), right on "to the day of Christ!" This does not, however, seem to be the Apostle's real meaning.

Such words as Paul's in Eph. 2: 6 dispose some to the view taken in the Exposition; whilst others emphasize the difference between the "Sheol" of the Old Testament, regarded as a "prison," a scene of "gloom," and the condition of comfort presented in Luke 16: 25, — the "unseen" world as brightened by the enjoyment, in rest, of Christ's presence as Divine Redeemer (Ps. 139: 8, Eph. 4: 10, 2 Cor. 5: 8, Phil. 1: 23). They likewise experience difficulty in conceiving that any could be set before the βῆμα of Christ (2 Cor. 5: 10) — yet all are to be "manifested" there — if the "Catholic" interpretation be really correct of the opening verses of the chapter concerned (see Explanatory Catechism, No. 102), as of Rev. 2: 7, according to which a select company of believers go straight to heaven on death; or the view of Weymouth, that those do so "who resemble in character and watchfulness the Wise Virgins."

That the "Beatific Vision" ("Explan. Catech." 132) will be finally realized by all the redeemed, is common ground (Rev. 22: 4). Holy Scripture, however, nowhere speaks, as do the Roman Catechism (No. 104) and some Protestant hymns, of any disembodied spirits as already "glorified." For that, resumption of the body will be needed (Phil. 3: 21).

By "dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4: 16) must be meant the whole person of each (1 Thess. 5: 23). Resurrection, not death, is the hope of the Christian (2 Cor. 5: 4: cf. Matt. 16: 18 and 1 Cor. 15: 55, which are future).

Tholuck and Newman Hall have preached on verses 39-43.

586 Luke 23: 44 ff. — Under normal conditions there could be no eclipse of the sun at the season of full moon: hence the solemnity of the darkness. Cf. Jer. 23: 20 ff., Ps. 89: 36 ff.

Montefiore (after others, see note 582) observes that "the cry of forsakenness was inconceivable to" Luke (verse 46). But — as he himself says elsewhere of a remark of J. Weiss — how does he know that? No one pretends that the quotation from Ps. 31 is a "substitute" for the earlier quotation from Ps. 22. Luke's is added detail: recovery of sense of Divine Sonship when, according to the last of the records, from the remembrance of an eye-witness, JESUS could exclaim, "It is finished" (John 19: 30).

587 The Lord's death, according to the view of Wieseler, Schürer, and Salmon, was on the 7th April, A.D. 30. "Christ our Passover was sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5: 7). at the hour of the evening sacrifice, "between the two evenings" (Ex. 12: 6), which may mean between the beginning of Friday (our Thursday) evening and the beginning of Saturday (our Friday) evening. See next note.

See Tholuck's Sermon on verses 46-48.

588 Luke 23: 54. — The "Preparation" (παρασκεύη) is synonymous with the "eve" of the Passover, "by which the time from the evening of the 14th to that of the 15th Nisan is always described in Jewish writings" (Edersheim, "The Temple," etc.: p. 220 f.). It came to designate the Christian's Friday.

The word ἐπέφωσκε. Montefiore connects with the kindling of the "Sabbath lights" at the Jewish opening of that day.

Cf. note 531, and see Mark 15: 42, John 19: 31, 42, with notes thereon.

NOTES ON THE TWENTY-FOURTH CHAPTER.

589 The RESURRECTION (cf. notes 167 on Mark, 356 on John). Besides the parallels set out in margin of the Exposition, see 1 Cor. 15: 4. Before entering on details in Luke seriatim, it may be well to prefix some general remarks on the attitude of criticism towards this cardinal article of the Christian Faith.

The Evangelists' joint record is impeached in five particulars: in respect of (1) time, (2) the number of women, (3) the appearance of angels, (4) their instructions to the women, and (5) the scene of the Lord's appearances (Selbie, p. 148).

A. The so-called "discrepancies" are primarily of a forensic nature, calling for skill in their investigation such as is possessed by lawyers, habitually concerned with weighing evidence, in which shine few merely literary critics, the trained intelligence of whom is of another order (see note 15 on Mark). Here these are really in no better position than readers of ordinary culture, belonging to the class from which a "petty" jury is empanelled, who in marshalling the whole of the evidence, may be aided by the professional experience of the court, but have to decide upon it for themselves, and are generally right. Many Biblical critics affect to do the work of a "grand" jury, which, after all, is only preliminary to the thorough investigation of the case falling to the less pretentious functionaries, to whose judgment the τεκμήρια (Acts 1: 3) are submitted.

(1) See note 167 on Mark, third paragraph. (2) Ibid., fifth paragraph. (3) See note below on verse 4. (4) See note 167 on Mark, as for No. 2. (5) See note 167a on Mark.

B. The historical critic comes on the scene to have his say about the alleged "legendary" matter in the record. The most imposing figure here in critical literature for several years was D. F. Strauss. He propounded an idea, inconvenient for those who were to follow him in the same line of attack, that "no one of the narrators knew and presupposed what another records" ("Life of Jesus," iii. p. 344). The French writer Loisy applies his ability to this department of criticism: and Lake, an English clergyman, now holding a congenial chair at Leiden, has issued a volume grounded on the fact, which no one has ever disputed, that there was no human witness of the act of bodily resurrection: history takes no cognizance of that which is solely a Christian belief founded on dogmatic reasoning. Cf. his letter to the Guardian of 29th Sept., 1911. His position is: "The actual resurrection of the Lord was not from Joseph of Arimathea's sepulchre, but from the body which He left hanging on the Cross." But, from the historical point of view, such a belief can only be subjective: there was no human witness of any such resurrection as that either. Those who believe in Christ's physical resurrection are, from the same point of view, in no weaker position.

Harnack has provided his Berlin hearers and his readers everywhere with a conundrum: "We must hold the Easter faith even without the Easter message" ("The Essence of Christianity," p. 163). But Rom. 10: 17 stands in the way of this (cf. note 614 below).

Allies of these writers are those who engage in "psychical research": see, e.g., the work of Dr. James H. Hyslop bearing on the Resurrection. Cf. further, art. in Interpreter, April, 1910, "Psychology and the Resurrection," for the bearing of sub-consciousness on the disciples' experience (cf. note 614 below).

C. Finally, the textual critic presents himself, whose business is to investigate the "growth" of the text in each case, and determine "accretions," if any. This part of the case finds notable illustration in the disputed verses at the end of Mark's Gospel (note 168 there) — the supposed earliest record, subsequent, as generally admitted, to the circulation of Paul's greater epistles (e.g., 1 Corinthians and Romans).

The foot-notes in the present volume exhibit the textual phenomena of the Gospel with which it is concerned.

In addition to the literature named in note 356 on John, mention should be made here of Bishop Westcott's posthumous "Gospel according to St. John," pp. 334-336, and of Professor Orr's valuable recent work on the Resurrection. Dr. Jas. Drummond treats of the Resurrection from a Unitarian point of view in pp. 30-37 of his pamphlet, already referred to, on "The Miraculous in Christianity."

590 Luke 24: 1. — According to Westcott's arrangement, that which is recorded here was preceded by the events narrated in John 20: 1, Mark 16: 1, 2, 5, etc., Matt. 28: 5.

Loisy goes out of his way to criticize Luke's statement with regard to the spices as if too late to be of use — which is unaccountable save as careless comment. It is a question of further embalmment, Nicodemus having provided and employed spices already at the time of burial (John 19: 39 f.).

591 Luke 24: 2. — "The stone rolled away." Luke, according to a peculiarity of his record, has not previously mentioned this stone. Cf. note on Luke 4: 23.

592 Luke 24: 3. — "The Lord Jesus": as Acts 1: 21. See textual footnote. Hort says that "Lord Jesus" is not found in the genuine text of the Gospels, but for this he has to discredit "B" itself. The exegetical insight of Weiss keeps the German critic right in this place.

For "the body of Jesus," see Luke 23: 52.

593 Luke 24: 4. — Observe that the second company of women spoken of here (cf. John) see two angels, while an early company have seen only one. Cf. note on Mark 16: 1, ad fin.

The caustic words quoted by van Oosterzee of the great Lessing, whose memory all Germans delight to honour, might be commended to the younger men of the Theological Faculties at the present day, some of whom represent the class that the editor of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments had in mind. The appeals to "cold discrepancy-mongers" who cannot see that "the Evangelists did not count the angels," that "the neighbourhood of the sepulchre swarmed with them." Such are words of a man all of whose predilections were on the side of DOUBT.

594 Luke 24: 6 f. — The angel that Matthew and Mark speak of recalled to the women there concerned the words of the Lord to His disciples as to His appearances in Galilee. This has been passed over by Luke, because his record is designedly limited to the Judean connection and resists all imputation of inconsistency.

595 Luke 24: 7. — Wesley notes how the Lord Himself (see verse 26 of this chapter) did not use the title "Son of Man" after His resurrection.

596 Luke 24: 9. — "Related," etc. See note on Mark 16: 8, as to "said nothing to any one" in that Gospel.

597 Luke 24: 10. — "Mary Magdalene ": see John 20: 2.

"The other women," as Salome (Mark 16: 1).

598 Luke 24: 11. — "An idle tale." Sir O. Lodge adopts the language, now familiar, of others in describing the women's narrative as "legend" ("Man and the Universe," p. 274). It is noticeable that the disciples themselves anticipated the nineteenth century phraseology by calling their report λῆρος, fable; but those honest men had soon to cross the Rubicon, pull down bridges and burn boats.

This seems to be antecedent to John 20: 3.

599 Luke 24: 12. — John 20: 5 speaks of Peter's first visit, accompanied by "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Luke is speaking of the second, solitary visit, resulting from the report of the angels' words. On returning from this later visit, Peter met the Lord: to this the Evangelist refers in verse 34.

For the relation of Luke's to the fourth record, cf. further John 20: 10.

Here the thread of Luke's, as of Matthew's record diverges from that of Mark, and remains distinct to the end.

600 Luke 24: 13 ff. — Those following Westcott's arrangement will regard this as the third appearance (cf. Mark 16: 12), the two earlier being: (1) to Mary Magdalene (John 20: 14-18, Mark 16: 9) and (2) to the other women (Matt. 28: 9, etc.). But it may have been preceded by that in verse 34: cf. consecutive use of εἶτα and ἔπειτα in 1 Cor. 15: 5 f., and, in reverse order, in verse 23 f. there. Critics, one after another, emphasize Paul's as the earliest account, which says nothing about women (1 Cor. 15: 5-8). But he is equally silent on what is recorded in these verses.

In verse 16, "know" might be replaced by "recognize" (ἐπιγνῶναι); and so in verse 31.

601 Luke 24: 17. — Field has criticized the R.V. here ("Ot. Norvic.," iii., p. 60).

602 Luke 24: 18. — "Cleopas": not to be confounded, as by Alford, with Alphaeus. The name here is an abbreviation of Cleopater (Wellhausen). As to the belief that Luke himself was the other, see note 2; also paper of Carr in Expositor., Feb., 1904.

602a "Thou sojournest alone," i.e., "art the only sojourner who does not know."

603 Luke 24: 19. — "Was"; or, "proved," ἐγένετο.

604 Luke 24: 21. — "Hoped . . . redeem." This is opposed to a now current theory that it was only after His death the disciples regarded JESUS as Messiah. Even Wernle rejects that idea. Cf. Selbie, p. 97.

"Third day." Gunkel seeks to derive this from Babylonian or Orphic mythology; but see Orr, Expositor, October, 1908. As to Eastern method of reckoning time, see Khodadad, p. 15.

605 Luke 24: 24. — See verse 11 f., and notes thereon.

606 Luke 24: 25. — The Apostles, notwithstanding what we are told in Luke 18: 31-33, had no effective expectation of the Resurrection of JESUS. The intended embalming by the women (verse 1: cf. Mark 16: 1 f.) supposes its impossibility.

"Senseless"; or "foolish" (ἀνόητοι); not "fools" (ἄφρονες, 11: 40), applied to scribes and Pharisees.

607 Luke 24: 26. — "Enter." See note 99 on Mark.

608 Luke 24: 27. — "From Moses and from all the prophets." Lindsay has a good note, working this out from each book of the Old Testament concerned; so also Neil. Richard Cecil said: "If we do not see the golden thread through all the Bible, marking out Christ, we read the Scripture without the King." So already Augustine: "The Old Testament has no true relish if Christ be not understood in it" (Ninth Tractate on John). Cf. 2 Cor. 3: 17, "the Lord is the spirit," and Col. 3: 16, "the word of the Christ." As a first aid to such study of the Scripture, book by book, one of the very best works of its kind is that by A. M. Hodgkin, "Christ in all the Scriptures" (2nd ed., 1908).

609 Luke 24: 29. — "Stay," A.V. "abide," which inspired Lyte's well-known hymn, "Abide with me. "

See Pusey's Sermon, "How to detain Jesus in the Soul" (vol. i.), and Maclaren, p. 346 ff.

610 Luke 24: 30 ff. — As to use made of this by Roman writers for "Communion in one kind," see Wordsworth in loc.

For verse 32 (cf. verse 45), see Ps. 119: 130.

With verse 33, cf. John 20: 19 f.

611 Luke 24: 34. — (Cf. 1 Cor. 15: 5). This would, according to Westcott's arrangement, he regarded as the fourth appearance. But see note on verse 13. How can Bousset, who (on 1 Cor. 14: 5) says that Luke treats the appearance to Peter as before all others, make that square with 10 f. here?

Bishop Mcllvaine has preached from this verse, and Principal Whyte's discourse, LXXXIX., in "Bible Characters," is on "Cleopas and his Companion."

612 Luke 24: 36. — Cf. Ps. 22: 22. The fifth appearance (Mark 16: 14, John 20: 19).

Augustine preached from this verse (1., p. 480).

613 Luke 24: 37. — Cf. John 20: 20 and note there.

613a Luke 24: 38. — "Reasonings." American Revv., "questionings."

614 Luke 24: 39 ff. — A difficulty has been made (see, e.g., Loisy's last work, p. 772: cf. D. Smith, xl.) about the risen Lord's eating, founded on the assumption that His body was here already in a glorified condition. This does not seem to have come about fully until the Ascension, the body meanwhile undergoing gradual transformation.

With this incident cf., of course, that recorded in Gen. 18: 7 f.

Selbie remarks that Paul cannot have held a material resurrection. But if he did not, 1 Cor. 15: 3, "buried," compared with verse 12, "from among [the] dead," becomes very difficult — surely impossible — to interpret. The Lord's body rose; His spirit or soul is not spoken of. Cf. Blass, "The Holy Scriptures and the Evangelical Church" (against Kalthoff). Again, Paul tells the Corinthians that there was no difference between what he and the other Apostles preached (verse 11).

The Apostle's real position is categorically stated in Col. 2: 9, Phil. 3: 21 and the Lord's bodily resurrection is clearly implied in Rom. 8: 11. Cf. 2 Tim. 2: 8, where, if JESUS was of the seed of David physically, and His body passed among the dead, to exclude this from the last part of the verse is scarcely "scientific."

615 Luke 24: 44-50. — The statement is often made that our Evangelist supposed the Lord ascended to heaven on the same day that He rose (verse 50). The one thing against that idea is that it is from Luke himself we learn that forty days intervened (Acts 1: 3); so of course some way out of the collapse of the supposed "discrepancy" has to be found, and this is the fancy that the Evangelist later on discovered more. Such triviality abounds in current literature.

Cf. Essay of Bishop Chase on the break between verse 45 and that immediately following. Verses 49 and 50 show a like break.

"Law of Moses . . . Psalms." Cf. Prologue to Ecclesiasticus. In Matt. 23: 35, the Lord refers to the first and the last books (Genesis, Chronicles) of the Hebrew Canon, by which we may gather that its limits were already fixed.

Luke 24: 45 f. — See John 20: 9, where Ps. 16: 10 (cf. Acts 2: 25 ff.) is probably the Scripture meant; see, however, also Hosea 6: 2 (Bousset on 1 Cor. 15: 4) and note 365.

Maclaren: "He led them to believe all that the prophets have spoken. That faith being effected, sight followed. The world says, Seeing is believing, but the converse is truer, believing is seeing" ("B. C. E.," p. 319).

616 "His obedience showed Him to be equal with God" (Chapman, "Choice Sayings," p. 23 f.).

Isaac Barrow has a sermon on verse 46 ("Works," v., 462).

617 Luke 24: 47. — See verse 33, "and those with them gathered together," and cf. John 20: 21-23, with Westcott's remarks on the commission being "to the entire society, and not confined to any particular group."

In assigning cause of the modern deficiency of candidates for "orders," it is usual to disguise the most potent of all, viz., the fact that men of spiritual zeal in every class of English society now "addict themselves" (1 Cor. 16: 15) to ministry of the Gospel and spare bishops their ordination: cf. 1 Cor. 9: 16. It is not such men who dally with higher criticism and the like, and if others refrain from ordination under its influence, that may be for the public good. The future of English Christianity is now very much in the hands of the "laity," so-called.

SIN, and its forgiveness. — This all-vital subject has only been touched on in note 147A (cf. note 284). For the Biblical definition of Sin as developed in the New Testament, see 1 John 3: 4 (R.V.). In v. 8 of this Gospel it appears as disease; in Luke 19:14 as rebellion. It is essentially godlessness (Dr. Chalmers, Bishop Gore, Prof. Orr). Rom. 1: 28 shows that it severs a link between the Creator and creature, who has a natural sense of guilt, illustrated by Luke's account of the Gentile Felix (Acts 24: 25).

Prof. Reinhold Seeberg of Berlin has recently described it as "the opposite of Faith and Love: Sin is faith in the world and love of the world" ("Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion," p. 179, E. T.). Thus in Luke 15: 12 we have in the "far country," the world and its service.

The present Bishop of Oxford has struck a true note when in his "Creed of the Christian" and some Oxford sermons he affirmed the great need in our day of reviving a just sense of the gravity, the solemnity of SIN. The eminent Unitarian, Dr. James Martineau, emphasized this already fifty years ago, in his "Studies of Christianity": "The nature of sin," he said, "is a matter on which we cannot be mistaken. . . . The conscious, free choice of the worse in presence of a better" (pp. 468-470).

The effect of Darwinian conceptions on modern views of Sin has been ably dealt with by Dr. E. Dennert, in a German pamphlet on Darwinian Christianity (p. 25 ff.).

Before the days of the Gospel, the earliest use made in still extant religious literature of what Gen. 3. sets before us, that is, the idea of the Fall, appears in Wisdom xi.: Inherited tendencies to evil, which Tennant, following in the wake of Ritschl, has challenged under the theological description — derived from Augustine — of "Original Sin" (Griffiths' "Essays for the Times," No. XII.). The most pronounced Protestant statement of it is that in the Westminster Confession (Shorter Catechism, Ans. to Q. 18), the antithesis of the idea of Rousseau, in the eighteenth century, and of Meng-tsé two thousand years earlier, that Man is naturally good: the Presbyterian Divines asserted his "total" depravity. This, rightly understood, means, as Orr ("Sidelights on Christian Doctrine," 1909) has pointed out, that every part of his being is impaired, not that he presents no fair exterior or exhibits no praiseworthy qualities (Mark 10: 21). These indeed exist, to obscure the presence of the evil principle within, which is, moreover, checked by force of conventionality or custom. Such qualities Calvin compares to "wine spoiled with the flavour of the cask." Nevertheless, Sir R. Anderson has remarked in his book,"The Bible or the Church?" "The truest test of a man is, not what he is, but what he would wish to be" (p. 14). It remains sadly true, however, that "if a corruption of nature means anything at all, it means the loss of free-will" (Mozley).

Opposition to the Biblical concept of the moral ruin of man appears in interpretation of the Lord's teaching in this Gospel, from use made of the Parable of the Prodigal Son: see already note 389a ff. Now the apostle of Modern Culture was the "world-poet," facile princeps in German Literature. Wernle writes: "The aim of Jesus stands out in the sharpest contrast to the modern idea of culture, the free and full development of the individual personality we associate with the name of Goethe. We today count sin as a part of our development" ("Beginnings, etc.," p. 78). Here is one of the roots of the so-called "New Theology," popularized in England on the Holborn Viaduct, with "mistaken pursuit of good"; and in Russia, etc., by the writings of Leo Tolstoi. It is voiced by the poetry of Whittier:

"That to be saved is only this —

Salvation from our selfishness."

On its highest plane, it is the programme of the "Ethical Societies," which seize the Christian idea of human solidarity for a use nowhere sanctioned by any words of the Lord. Nevertheless, the promoters of this movement are not to be ranked with the unhappy Nietzsche, who, not satisfied with calling SIN "a Jewish invention," could speak of "the salvation of the soul" as "the world revolving round me" — only confirming the prediction of the Apostle Jude in verses 14-16 of his Epistle. These heterogeneous elements working together must issue in manifestation of the "Man of Sin."

Any reader able to use a book in German should see the pamphlet on "Atonement," confuting the current academical view, by Dr. L. von Gerdtell, who has the advantage of being neither a professor nor a pastor.

Universal experience attests the existence of what the Bible calls SIN, which Orr, with confirmation of Science, has called "racial," as recognizing the doctrine of heredity: this emphasizes the organic unity of the sons of men. With Bishop Gore it may be said that Sin is "not outgrown experience of history" (op. cit., p. 19). "What we need today is some John the Baptist" (p. 44).

"It is only," writes Garvie, "in the contemplation of Sin's remedy that the sense of Sin's disease has been fully developed" ("The Gospel for Today," p. 94). On the subjective effect of the Cross, see ibid., p. 123 ff.

As to Synoptic teaching on Sin, see Stalker, "Ethic of Jesus," chapter xi.; on Repentance, ibid., chapter vii.

If the Gospel of LUKE evince the Lord's judgment of Man, as being what at different periods such as Augustine, Calvin, and Spurgeon or Moody have proclaimed, its testimony is unmistakable and clear as to the possibility of Forgiveness. With the present passage cf., in particular, 11: 4. Martineau ("Hours of Thought," p. 110 f.) from the religions, Greg ("Creeds of Christendom"), Leslie Stephen ("Essays") and Miss Edith Simcox ("Essays") from the ethical, point of view have modernized the Stoic idea (as to which see Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, p. 159), that forgiveness of sins past is out of question. Thus the first-named distinguishes between "God's interior nature and His external government," and makes all hinge ultimately on government. "A mediator may renew my future, but he cannot change my past" ("Studies of Christianity," p. 476). Nobody, however, denies the principle stated in Gal. 6: 7; because Christians, Catholic and Evangelical alike, all in varying degrees, confess both Grace and Government, and maintain that each is eternally true. Government men can understand; but Grace, as revealed in the Bible, is beyond their thoughts (Rom. 11: 33, Eph. 3: 19): the two principles find their reconciliation in the Deity of the Redeemer. For those who confess Christ not only as Lord but as GOD, it is impossible to occupy common ground with such as reject that belief.

Martineau further says: "Can the punishment precede the sin? You cannot fall, you cannot recover, by deputy" (ibid., p. 475). The one difficulty is analogous to the principle of Rom. 3: 25, where forgiveness, in the inchoate form of "forbearance," anticipates Atonement, and that by virtue of the transcendency of the coming One, who should make propitiation for the world ("the same, yesterday, today and for ever"); whilst the other raises the question, "What is the true view of Substitution?" This latter process, as sometimes stated, is detached from the element of identification with Christ's death in Pauline teaching, thereby exposing the doctrine to reasonable objection. That "no merely external thing is done for" the believer (Dean of Westminster, at Church Congress, 1908), is assuredly true. All that is needed is for Christians to give practical expression to the truth of Rom. 6: 6, Gal. 2: 20, by their conduct, so silencing all cavil.

Ritschl held, after Luther, that the gift of Forgiveness "the individual appropriates to himself within the community" ("Justification and Reconciliation," p. 577, referring to Jer. 31: 31-34; Mark 14: 24). As some English followers have put it, "Salvation is in the Christian circle." But these would scarcely hear of Ritschl's tendency to subordinate Religion to Morality (see note 147B), as the supposed bond of society with God; and it is the scheme of that "Ethical Religion" (ibid.) which nowadays is by so many deemed an adequate expression of the Synoptic "Kingdom of God." His follower Harnack reproaches the Apostles for, as the Berlin luminary alleges, not preaching the "Kingdom" as Christ did, and for making Christ glorified their only theme. Some considerations explanatory of the seemingly diminished prominence of the Kingdom in the hands of the Apostles may be seen in Candlish, "The Kingdom of God," pp. 180-185; but it is hoped that notes on this subject in the present volume bring out the rationale of what those men of God taught and have left behind in their writings. He that claimed to be "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostle" distinctly proclaimed the Kingdom (Acts 20: 25-27, Acts 28: 31), as references to his Epistles amply show. The Apostle James's Epistle is saturated with it, and it is not absent, from Peter's writings, nor from the Fourth Gospel (cf. note 457a). The "historical church" alone is to blame for the neglect of it.

W. Kelly, in his "Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles," vol. ii., p. 198 f., at Acts 20: 25 has written: "It is a grave blank where the Kingdom is left out as now," speaking of "the large place it occupies in the Apostles' preaching." Cf. Knowling, on the same passage, with reference to Paul: "In his first Epistle (1 Thess. 2: 12), as in his last (2 Tim. 4: 18), the Kingdom of God is present to his thoughts"; in 1 Thess. 2: 9, as in 2 Tim. 1: 11, 2 Tim. 4: 17.

That the Apostles' writings (including the Fourth Gospel) have developed the Lord's teaching as given to us in the Synoptic Gospels is what one would expect from His implied authority to do so in the words ascribed to Him in John 16: 12: theirs is the permanent expression of "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2: 16), with regard to the state of things resulting from His death, for which the Synoptic teaching was only preparatory. Unrecorded sayings of His must be embedded in the Epistles. It is largely from the same men who were depositories of Christ's Word on earth that we have derived the developed apostolic teaching (Acts 2: 42). Until the redemptive work was accomplished, the Lord Himself was "straitened" (Luke 12: 50). It was delegated to "a chosen vessel," Paul, to formulate the truth of Reconciliation, Justification, etc.

618 Luke 24: 50 f. — The ASCENSION (cf. notes 77 and 615). We may observe again Luke's adoption of the Old Testament manner of narration.

Awkwardly for critics, Matthew does not record the Ascension; it would have suited their system better had he done so, with the necessary implication that it was from Galilee!

Bethany was about two miles from Jerusalem.

619 Luke 24: 51. - "Was separated," or, actively, "stood apart" (διέστη).

One of Bishop Hall's "Contemplations" is on the Ascension.

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED.

N.B.-Foreign Works existing in English translations are recorded under the titles of such; all are cited in the notes by English titles. *Roman "Catholic," †Unitarian, ‡Jewish.

BRITISH.

ABBOTT, DR. E. A.: Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Biblica:

Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke (1902).

‡ABRAHAMS, I.: Judaism (1907).

ADENEY, PRINCIPAL. The Gospel according to St. Luke (Century Bible) (1903).

ANDERSON, SIR R.: The Lord from Heaven (1910).

BARNES, A. S.: Westminster Lectures ; The Witness of the Gospels (1906).

*BARRY, DR. W.: The Tradition of Scripture (1906).

BEBB, LL. J. M.: Artt. "Luke the Evangelist" and

"Gospel of Luke" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

BENNETT, PROFESSOR: The Mishna as Illustrating the Gospels (1885).

A Primer of the Bible (1897).

BRUCE, DR. A. B.: The Kingdom of God (1889).

The Parabolic Teaching of Christ (1889).

Apologetics, 2nd ed. (1893).

Synoptic Gospels, Expositor's Commentary on Luke (1897).

BURKITT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel History and its Transmission (1906).

The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (1910).

BURGON, DEAN: Plain Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (1877).

CAIRNS, D. S.: Christianity and the Modern World (1906).

CAMPBELL, COLIN: Critical Studies in St. Luke's Gospel (1891).

†CARPENTER, PRINCIPAL: The Bible in the Nineteenth Century, Lect. Vf. (1903).

CARR, A.: Notes on St. Luke (1875).

CASSELS, W. R.: Supernatural Religion, 7th ed. (1889).

CHARLES, PROFESSOR: Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (1899).

Art. "Eschatology" in Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii.

CHASE, BISHOP: The Gospel in the Light of Historic Criticism ("Cambridge

Essays") (1905).

*CLARKE, R. F.: The Pope and the Bible (Catholic Truth Society) (1889).

COOKE, DR. R. J.: The Incarnation and Recent Criticism (1907).

*DARBY, J. W., and SMITH, 8. F.: Catholic Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (cited  as DARBY-SMITH) (1897).

DENNEY, PROFESSOR: Studies in Theology, 7th ed. (1902).

The Church and the Kingdom (1911).

DODS, DR. M.: Introduction to the New Testament (1888).

ELLICOTT, BISHOP: Historical Lectures on the Life of Our Lord (1876).

*EXPLANATORY CATECHISM of Christian Doctrine.

FAIRBAIRN, DR. A. M.: Philosophy of the Christian Religion (1902).

FARRAR, DEAN St. Luke's Gospel in Greek (Cambridge Series).

FIELD, DR. F. Otium Norvicense (1886).

GARVIE, PRINCIPAL: The Gospel according to St. Luke (Westminster N. T.) (1911).

GLOAG, DR. P.: Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (1895).

GOODWIN, DEAN, afterwards BISHOP: Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke  (1865).

GORE, BISHOP: The Creed of the Christian (1905).

Dissertations on the Incarnation (1895).

GWATKIN, PROFESSOR: Selections from Early Writers Illustrative of Church History  (1902).

HABERSHON, Miss A. R. The Study of the Parables (1905).

HARRIS, DR. J. RENDEL Side Lights on New Testament Research (1908).

HAWKINS, SIR J. C.: Horae Synopticae, 2nd ed. (1909).

HERVEY, BISHOP LORD A.: The Authenticity of the Gospel of St. Luke (1892).

JONES, BISHOP BASIL: Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (Speaker's) (1878).

KENYON, SIR F. G.: Handbook of Textual Criticism (1901).

KINNEAR, J. BOYD: The Foundation of Religion (1905).

KNOWLING, PROFESSOR: The Witness of the Epistles (1892).

Literary Criticism and the New Testament (1907).

LAKE, PROFESSOR: The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed. (1908).

LINDSAY, PRINCIPAL: The. Gospel according to St. Luke, with Notes (1886).

MACALPINE, SIR G. W.: The Days of the Son of Man (1905).

MACLAREN, DR. A.: Bible Class Expositions: The Gospel of St. Luke (1892).

Expositions of Scripture: St. Luke (1908).

MARGOLIOUTH, PROFESSOR: Edition of Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. by  Whiston (1906).

MASON, DR. A. J.: Christ in the New Testament ("Cambridge Essays ") (1905),

MAURICE, F. D.: The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven (1864).

MEAD, G. R. S. ("Theosophist"): The Gospels and the Gospel (1902).

MOFFATT, DR. JAS.: Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911).

‡MONTEFIORE, C. G. ("Reform" or "Modern") The Synoptic Gospels (1909).

MOULTON, PROFESSOR W. J.: Art. "Parables in Dictionary of Christ and the  Gospels.

NEIL, C., AND OTHERS: The Teacher's Classified Lesson Material, vol. iii. The Four  Gospels (1894).

NEWTON, B. W.: Aids to Prophetic Enquiry, 3rd ed. (1881).

NICOLL, SIR W. R.: The Incarnate Saviour (1897).

NORRIS, ARCHDEACON: Notes on the New Testament (1880).

ORR, PROFESSOR: God's Image in Man and its Defacement, 3rd ed. (1907).

Pamphlet on the Virgin Birth of Christ (1907).

Paper in "Expositor," on Gospel Narratives and Critical Solvents, reproduced in  "The Resurrection," etc. (1908).

OXFORD Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. by Sanday) (1911).

PEAKE, PROFESSOR: Critical Introduction to the New Testament (1909).

PLUMMER, DR. A.: The Gospel according to Luke (1896).

Art. "Parables" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

PRAYER BOOK for Congregations of British Jews in Hebrew and English, ed. by  Singer, 7th ed. (1904).

PULLAN, L.: Art. "Gospel of Luke" in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1908).

RAMSAY, SIR W. M.: Was Christ born at Bethlehem? (1898).

St. Paul the Traveller (ed. of 1905).

Artt. in Expositor (1907). "Professor Harnack on Luke," "The Oldest Written  Gospels," reproduced in Luke, the Physician, and other Studies (1908).

RUSHBROOKE, W. G.: Synopticon (1880).

RYLE, BISHOP J. C.: Exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke (1856, etc.).

SALMON, DR. G.: Introduction to the New Testament, 5th ed. (1891).

The Human Element in the Gospels (1907).

SANDAY, PROFESSOR: Outlines of the Life of Christ, 2nd ed. (1906).

The Oracles of God (1891).

The Life of Christ in Recent Research (1907).

SCRIVENER, F. H. A.: Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament,  4th ed. (1894).

SEELEY, SIR J. R.: Ecce Homo (ed. of 1907).

SIMCOX, W. H.: The Language of the New Testament (1887).

SMITH, PROFESSOR D.: The Days of His Flesh (190.5).

SOUTER, DR. A.: Art. "Luke" in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1908).

SPENCE, DEAN: Expositor's Bible: Gospel of Luke (1889).

SPURGEON, C. H.: Sermons on the Parables.

STALKER, PROFESSOR: Christology of Jesus (1897).

The Ethic of Jesus (1907).

STANTON, PROFESSOR: The Gospels as Historical Documents, part ii. (1909).

STOCK, DR. E. Talks on St. Luke's Gospel (1907).

STUART, C. E. From Advent to Advent: Outline of the Gospel of Luke (1891).

SWETE, PROFESSOR: Studies in the Teaching of Our Lord, 2nd ed. (1904).

THIRLWALL, BISHOP Introduction to Schleiermacher's Essay on Luke (1875).

TURNER, C. H.: Art. "New Testament Text" in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

TURTON, COLONEL: The Truth of Christianity, 6th ed. (1907).

VAUGHAN, DEAN: Authorised or Revised? (1882).

WESTCOTT, BISHOP: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 4th ed. (1872)

(now in 8th ed.).

Some Lessons of the Revised Version (1897).

The Historic Faith, 1883 (now in cheap reprint).

WEYMOUTH, R. F.: The New Testament in Modern Speech, 3rd ed. (1910).

WHITE, DR. N. J. D.: Art. "Gospels" in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels  (1908).

WHYTE, PRINCIPAL: Bible Characters (1900).

WILSON, CANON J. M.: Studies in the Origins and Aims of the Four Gospels (1910).

WRIGHT, DR. A. The Gospel according to St. Luke in Greek (1900).

Art. "Luke, Gospel according to," in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels  (1908).

AMERICAN.

BACON, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (1900).

BIBLE, THE HOLY: Revised Standard Edition (1901).

BRIGGS, PROFESSOR: New Light on the Life of Jesus (1904).

BURTON, PROFESSOR: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek  (1898).

EMERSON, R. W.: The Conduct of Life and other Essays (1886).

FOSTER, PROFESSOR: The Finality of Christianity (1906).

GILBERT, PROFESSOR: The Student's Life of Jesus (1898).

JAMES, W.: The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

KENRICK, ARCHBISHOP: The Four Gospels, with Notes (1849).

McGIFFERT, PROFESSOR: History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1891).

McPHEETERS, PROFESSOR: Art. "Authority" in Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the  Gospels (1908).

NASH, PROFESSOR: History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament (1900).

PRATT, PROFESSOR: Psychology of Religious Belief (1907).

RHEES, PROFESSOR RUSH: The Life of Jesus of Nazareth (1900).

SCHMIDT, PROFESSOR: The Prophet of Nazareth (1905).

STEVENS, G. B.: The Teaching of Jesus (1901).

GERMAN.

BLABS, DR. F.: Philology of the Gospels (E . T., 1898).

Grammar of New Testament, Greek (E. T., 1898).

Papers in Expository Times, 1907.

CLEMEN, PROFESSOR: The Origin of the New Testament (1906).

DALMAN, PROFESSOR: The Words of Jesus (1902).

Artt. on "Gehenna" and "Hades" in Hauck's Encyclopaedia vols. vi., vii. respectively.

DEISSMANN, PROFESSOR: New Light on the New Testament (E. T., 1907).

DORNER, DR. J. A.: System of Christian Doctrine (1880-1882).

EWALD, PROFESSOR P.: Art. "Luke" in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, vol. vii.  (1910).

GOEBEL, PROFESSOR: The Parables of Jesus methodically Expounded (E. T., 1883).

HAHN, PROFESSOR: Commentary on Luke's Gospel (1892).

HARNACK, PROFESSOR: The Mission and Expansion of Christianity (E. T., 1904,  1908).

Luke the Physician (E. T., 1907).

The Sayings and Discourses of Jesus (E. T., 1908).

The Acts of the Apostles (1908).

HOLTZMANN, DR. H. J.: Introduction to the New Testament, 3rd ed, (1892).

Manual Commentary on the New Testament (1889).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR O.: The Life of Jesus (E. T., 1904).

JüLICHER, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (E. T., 1904).

The Similitudes of Jesus (1888, 1899).

LOBSTEIN, P.: The Virgin Birth (E. T., 1903).

LüTGERT, PROFESSOR: The Kingdom of Heaven according to the Synoptic Gospels  (1895).

MAYER-BOEHMER: The Gospel of Luke (1909).

MEYER-WEISS: Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospels of Mark and  Luke, 6th ed. (1901).

MüLLER, DR. J.: The Christian Doctrine of Sin (E. T., 1868).

NEUMANN, DR. A.: Jesus (E. T., 1908).

NIETZSCHE, F.: Thus Spake Zarathustra, 2nd ed. (1906).

The Antichrist (E. T. of Works, 1896).

PFLEIDERER, DR. O.: Primitive Christianity (E. T., 1906).

PREUSCHEN, DR. E.: Lexicon to the New Testament Writings, etc. (1910).

RITSCHL, ALB.; The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation and Justification (E. T.,  1900).

Instruction in the Christian Religion (E. T., 1901).

*SCHANZ, PROFESSOR: Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel (1893).

SCHLEIERMACHER, F.: Essay on the Gospel of Luke (1817).

SCHWEITZER, A.: The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. by Montgomery, 2nd  English ed.) (1911).

SEEBERG, PROFESSOR R.: Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion (E. T.,  1908).

SODEN, PROFESSOR BARON H. VON: History of Early Christian Literature (1903).

SOLTAU, DR. W.: The Birth of Jesus Christ (E. T., 1903).

WEISS, PROFESSOR B.: Life of Christ (E. T., 1883, 1884).

Introduction to the New Testament (E. T., 1885).

The Gospels, Greek Text with Short Exposition (cited as "Manual Commentary")  (1902): American adaptation (1906).

Sources of Luke's Gospel (1907).

Sources of Synoptic Tradition (in series of "Texts and Investigations," edited by  Harnack and Schmidt (1908).

WEISS, PROFESSOR J.: The Writings of the New Testament. The Gospels. (1908).

WELLHAUSEN. PROFESSOR: Introduction to the First Three Gospels (1905).

The Gospel of Luke Translated and Explained (1904).

WENDT, PROFESSOR: The Teaching of Jesus (E. T., 1902).

ZAHN, PROFESSOR: Introduction to the New Testament (E. T., 1909).

FRENCH.

*LOISY, PROFESSOR A. ("Modernist"): Gospel Studies (1902).

The Synoptic Gospels (1907).

‡REINACH, S.: Orpheus: General History of Religions, 2nd ed. (1909).

SABATIER, L. A.: Outlines of the Philosophy of Religion (1897).

Religions of Authority and Religion of the Spirit (E. T., 1904).

SWISS.

GODET, DR. F.: Commentary on Gospel of Luke (3rd French ed., 1888 ; E. T., of 1st  ed., 1865).

Art. "Parables" in Herzog's Encyclopaedia.

SCHMIEDEL, PROFESSOR: Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Biblica.

Jesus in Modern Criticism (E. T., 1907).

WERNLE, PROFESSOR: The Synoptic Question (1899).

The Beginnings of Christianity (E. T., 1903).

BELGIAN.

*SCHOUPPE, F. X.: Abridged Course of Religious Instruction (E. T., 1880)

RUSSIAN.

TOLSTOI, COUNT L.: The Teaching of Jesus (E. T., 1909).

Luke 1 - 10: 37.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — luke_app.doc.)

"All flesh shall see the salvation of God." - Luke 3: 6.

Preface.

The late William Kelly, for many years editor of the serial entitled The Bible Treasury, left in it a set of papers covering the whole of the Gospel according to Luke, for reproduction in collected form. The editor of the present volume, which carries out that intention, has used as Introduction a section of the same writer's "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," which was published a short time before his decease, has added marginal references to parallel passages of the other Gospels, and has supplied critical apparatus in footnotes, as well as a full index immediately following the Exposition. The translation of the biblical text has been derived mainly from the same source as that used in editing a companion volume on the Gospel according to Mark. Where, in references to the Revised Version in the numbered Notes, any difference exists between the English and the American "Standard" edition (1901), attention is called to this for the convenience of Transatlantic readers. The portions in bold type in the exposition, are peculiar to Luke's record; though this indication is typical, not systematic.

As in the current editions of Mr. Kelly's Expositions of the Gospels, severally according to Mark and John, a sequel of notes has been subjoined, for which the editor alone is responsible. These may show the bearing of this Exposition of the Third Gospel upon critical views largely developed since the papers first appeared, and will in other respects put the reader in possession of the various phases of thought upon the composition and history of Luke's Gospel in particular, the literature for which is very extensive. The notes are in general harmony with the expositor's point of view; much in them results from conversations and correspondence with him during a friendship of some thirty-five years. Reference to this part may be aided by the Summary of Contents prefixed to it, which should, in the first instance, be read continuously.

As a venerable German professor of the first rank has remarked in correspondence with the present writer, much of the criticism of the Gospels in which his countrymen indulge "strikes out that which is inconvenient to it, and drags in that which has not the support of a single word in the text." Criticism is of little value unless independent of academical tradition, however imposing, or of ecclesiastical authority, however dogmatic; and every one must in these days have the courage of his own convictions. But there may at least be general agreement as to what is morally weakening; progress in its highest department must not be sacrificed to that of any lower. In the closing index will be found reference to treatment of "Difficulties" under that head.

The Third Gospel being a mine of material for homiletic as well as mission work, constant reference has been made in Part 2 to discourses of notable preachers in comments on prominent passages of this precious record.

Mr. Kelly, who was mighty in the Scriptures, helped believers much. In like spirit to that in which he himself sent forth such books, the present volume is commended to the gracious blessing of God, "without Whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy," that He may use it, to the glory of Christ, for the profit of souls.

E. E. W.

Introduction.

l. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.*

*From Bible Treasury, Sept., 1900 (pp. 139-144), reproduced in God's Inspiration of the Scriptures."

The third Gospel is distinguished by its display of God's grace in man, which could be only and perfectly in the "Holy Thing" to be born and called the Son of God.1 Here, therefore, as the moral ways of God shine, so is manifested man's heart in saint and sinner. Hence the preface and dedication to Theophilus, and the Evangelist's motives for writing; hence also the beautiful picture of Jewish piety in presence of Divine intervention for both forerunner and Son of the Highest to accomplish promise and prophecy, as announced by angels (Luke 1.). The last of the Gentile empires was in power when the Saviour was born in David's city, and Jehovah's glory shone around shepherds at their lowly watch that night when His angel proclaimed the joyful event and its significant token, with the heavenly host praising as they said, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, in men complacency" (or good pleasure). God's Son, born of woman, was also born under law, the seal of which He duly received; and the godly remnant seen in Simeon and Anna, that looked for Jerusalem's redemption, testified to Him in the spirit of prophecy; while He walked in the holy subjection of grace, with wisdom beyond all teachers, yet bearing witness to His consciousness of Divine Sonship even from His youth (Luke 2.).

In due time, marked still more explicitly by the dates of Gentile dominion and of Jewish disorder, both civil and religious, John comes preaching, not here the kingdom of the heavens, nor yet the kingdom of God, but a baptism of repentance for remission of sins. He alone and most appropriately is quoted from Isaiah's oracle, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God"; here only have we John's answers to the inquiring people, tax-gatherers and soldiers; and here too is stated anticipatively his imprisonment, but also the baptism of our Lord; and here only is given His praying, when the heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on Him, and the Father's voice was heard, "Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee am I well pleased." And the genealogy is through Mary (as she throughout is prominent, not Joseph as in Matthew) up to Adam, as becomes the Second Man and Last Adam (Luke 3.). It may help if it be seen that "being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph" is parenthetical, and that "of Heli, of Matthat," etc., is the genealogical line from Mary's father upward.

Then follows His temptation, viewed morally, not dispensationally as in the first Gospel; the natural, the worldly, and the spiritual. This order necessarily involved the omission in Luke 4: 8, which ignorant copyists assimilated to the text of Matthew. The critics have rightly followed the best witnesses, though none of them appears to notice the evidence it renders to plenary inspiration. Divine purpose is clearly in it. Thereon He returns to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and at Nazareth in the synagogue He reads Isaiah 61: 1, 2 (omitting the last clause strikingly), and declares this scripture fulfilled "today" in their ears. In that interval, or within the acceptable year, Israel as it were goes out, and the Church comes in where is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all and they one new man in Him. Then when His gracious words were met by unbelieving words on their part, He points out the grace of old that passed by Israel and blessed Gentiles. This kindled His hearers to murderous wrath even then, whilst He, passing through the midst of them, went His way. At Capernaum He astonished them publicly with His teaching, and cast out an unclean spirit in the synagogue, as He brought Peter's mother-in-law immediately to strength from "a great fever," and subsequently healed the varied sick and demoniacs that were brought, while He refused their testimony to Him. And when men would detain Him, He said, "I must announce the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for therefore was I sent" (Luke 4.). It is a question of the soul yet more than of the body.

In connection accordingly with preaching the Word of God, we have (Luke 5) the Lord, by a miracle that revealed Him, calling Simon Peter (who judged himself as never before) with his partners, to forsake all and follow Him: an incident of earlier date, but reserved for this point in Luke. The cleansing of a man full of leprosy follows, and after the healing of multitudes He retires and prays; but as He afterwards is teaching in presence of Pharisees and law-doctors, He declares to a paralytic the forgiveness of his sins, and, to prove it, bids him arise, take up his couch, and go to his house, as the man did forthwith. Then we have the call of Levi, the tax-gatherer, and a great feast with many such in his house; but Jesus answers all murmurs with the open assertion of His coming to call sinners to repentance, as He defends the actual eating and drinking of His disciples by their joy in His presence with them: when taken away, they should fast. In parable He intimates that the old was doomed, and that the new character and power demand a new way; though naturally no one relishes the new, but likes the old.

Luke 6 shows first, the Son of Man Lord also of the Sabbath, and secondly the title to do good on that day, which filled them with madness against Him. Next, going to the mountain to pray all night to God, He chose twelve and named them apostles, with whom He came down to a plateau, healing all that came under diseases and demons. Then He addresses them in that form of His discourse which falls in perfectly with our Gospel. The great moral principles are there, not in contrast with law as in Matthew, but the personal blessedness of His own, and the woes of such as are not His but enjoy the world. Another peculiarity is that Luke was led to give our Lord's teaching in detached parts connected with facts of kindred character; whereas Matthew was no less Divinely given to present it as a whole, omitting the facts or questions which drew out those particulars.

Then in Luke 7 He enters Capernaum, and the healing of the centurion's slave follows. Luke distinguishes the embassy of Jewish elders, then of friends when He was near the house; but the dispensational issue was left to Matthew. The raising of the widow's only son at Nain yet more deeply proves the Divine power He wields with a perfect human heart. It was high time for John's disciples to find all doubts solved by Jesus, Who testifies to the Baptist's place instead of being witnessed to by him. Yet was wisdom justified of all her children, as the penitent woman finds from the Lord's lips in the Pharisee's house. Everywhere it was Divine grace in man; and she tasted it in the faith that saved, and in the grace that bade her go in peace.

In Luke 8 we see Him on His errand of mercy, followed not by the twelve only but by certain women healed of wicked spirits and infirmities, who ministered to Him of their substance. And the Lord addresses the crowd in parables, but not of the Kingdom, as in Matthew; after that He designates His true relations to be those that hear and do the Word of God. The storm on the lake follows, and the healing of Legion in the details of grace, as well as of the woman who had a flux of blood, while He was on the way to raise the daughter of Jairus.

Luke 9 gives the mission of the twelve empowered by and like Himself, and sent to proclaim the Kingdom of God, with its effect on Herod's bad conscience. The apostles on their return He leads apart, but, being followed by a hungry crowd, He feeds about 5,000 men with five loaves and two fishes multiplied under His hand, while the fragments left fill twelve hand-baskets. After praying alone, He elicits from His disciples men's varying thoughts of Him, and Peter's confession of His Messiahship (Matthew recording much more). For this He substitutes His suffering and His glory as Son of Man: they were no more to speak of Him as Messiah. Deeper need had to be met in the face of Jewish unbelief. The transfiguration follows with moral traits usual in Luke, and the Centre of that glory is owned Son of God. When the Lord and His chosen witnesses come down, the power of Satan that baffled the disciples yields to the majesty of God's power in Jesus, Who thereon announces to them His delivery into men's hands, and lays bare to the end of the chapter the various forms that self may assume in His people or in pretenders to that place.

Then we have in Luke 10 the seventy sent out two and two before His face, a larger and more urgent mission peculiar to Luke. On their return, exultant that even the demons were subject to them in His name, the Lord looks on to Satan's overthrow, but calls them to rejoice that their names are written in the heavens. To this our Gospel leads more and more henceforth. His own joy follows, not as in Matthew dispensationally connected, but bound up with the blessedness of the disciples. Then the tempting lawyer is taught that, while those who trust themselves are as blind as they are powerless, grace sees one's neighbour in every one who needs love. The parable of the Samaritan is in Luke only. The close of the chapter teaches that the one thing needful, the good part, is to hear the Word of Jesus. It is not only by the Word that we are begotten; by it we are refreshed, nourished, and kept.

But prayer hereon follows ("as He was praying") (Luke 11), not only because of our need, but to enjoy the God of grace Whose children we become through faith; and in His illustration He urges importunity. Here again we have an instructive example of the Divine design by Luke as compared with that in Matthew 6. His casting out a dumb demon to some gave occasion to blaspheme, whereon He declares that he who is not with Him is against Him, and he who gathers not with Him scatters: a solemn word for every soul. Nature has nothing to do with it, but the grace that hears and keeps the Word of God. So did the Ninevites repent, and the Queen of Sheba come to hear; and a greater than Solomon and Jonah was there. But if light is not seen, it is the fault of the eye; if it is wicked, the body also is dark. Then to the end the dead externalism of man's religion is exposed, and the woe of such as have taken away the key of knowledge, and their malice when exposed.

Luke 12 warns the disciples against hypocrisy, and urges the sure revelation of all things in the light, with the call to fear God and to confess the Son of Man, trusting not in themselves but in the Holy Spirit. It is no question now of Jewish blessing; and He would be no judge of earthly inheritances. They should beware of being like the rich fool whose soul is required when busy with gain. The ravens and the lilies teach a better lesson. The little flock need not fear, but rid themselves rather of what men covet, and seek a treasure unfailing: if it is in the heavens, there will the heart be. And thence is the Lord coming, Whom they were habitually and diligently to wait for. Blessed they whom the Lord finds marching! Blessed he whom the Lord finds working! To put off His coming in heart is evil, and will be so judged. But the judgment will be righteous, and worst of all that of corrupt and faithless and apostate Christendom. Whatever His love, the opposition of man brings hate, and fire, and division, not peace meanwhile. His grace aroused enmity. Judgment came and will; as, on the other hand, He was baptized in death that the pent-up floods of grace might flow as they do in the Gospel.

With the Jews on the way to the judge, and about to suffer from God's just government (at the end of the chapter before), the Holy Spirit connects in Luke 13 the question of what had befallen the Galileans. Here the Lord pronounces the exposure of all to perdition, except they repented. The parable of the fig-tree tells the same tale; respite hung on Himself. In vain was the ruler of the synagogue indignant for the Sabbath against Jehovah present to heal; it was but hypocrisy and preference of Satan. The Kingdom about to follow His rejection was not to come in by manifested power and glory, but, as under man's responsibility, from a little seed to wax a great tree, and to leaven the assigned measure, wholly in contrast with Daniel 2, 7. Instead of gratifying curiosity as to "those to be saved" (the remnant), the Lord urges the necessity of entering by the strait gate (conversion to God); seeking their own way they would utterly fail. So He would tell them He knew them not whence they were, in the day when they should see the Jews even thrust out, and Gentiles sitting with the fathers, last first and first last, in the Kingdom of God. Crafty as Herod was, it was Jerusalem He lamented, the guiltiest rejecter alike of God's government and of His grace, yet not beyond His grace at the end.

Hence Luke 14 points out unanswerably the title of grace in the face of form, and its way of self-renunciation, which will be owned in the resurrection of the just, not by the religious world which is deaf to God's call to the great supper. But if the bidden remain without, grace fills it not only with the poor of the city, but with the despised Gentiles. Only those who believe God's grace are called to break with the world. Coming to Christ costs all else: if one lose the salt of truth, none more useless and offensive.

In Luke 15 the Lord asserts the sovereign power of grace in His own seeking of the lost one, in the painstaking of the Spirit by the Word, and in the Father's reception and joy when he is found; as self-righteousness betrays its alienation from the Father and contempt for the reconciled soul.

Then Luke 16 describes parabolically the Jew losing his place; so that the only wisdom was, not in hoarding for self but in giving up his master's goods, to make friends with an everlasting and heavenly habitation. Practical Christianity is the sacrifice of the present (which is God's) to secure the future (which will be our own, the true riches). Pharisees, being covetous, derided this; but death lifts the veil that then hid the true issue in the selfish rich tormented, and the once suffering beggar in Abraham's bosom. If God's Word fail, not even resurrection would assure. Unbelief is invincible, save by His grace.

As grace thus delivers from the world, so it is to govern the believer's walk, who must take heed to himself, rebuke a sinning brother, and if he repent, forgive him even seven times in the day (Luke 17.). Faith is followed by answering power. But the yoke of Judaism, though still existing, is gone for faith, as the Lord shows in the Samaritan leper, who broke through the letter of the law, rightly confessed the power of God in Christ, and went his way in liberty. The Kingdom in His person was in the midst of men for faith. By-and-by it will be displayed visibly and judicially; for such will be the Son of Man (now about to suffer and be rejected) in His day, as in those of Noah and Lot, far different from the indiscriminate sack of Jerusalem by Titus.

Luke 18 shows prayer to be the great resource, as always, so especially when oppression prevails in the latter day, and God is about to avenge His elect, and the question is raised if the coming Son of Man shall find faith on the earth. After this the Lord lets us see the spirit and ways suited to the Kingdom in the penitent tax-gatherers contrasted with the Pharisee, and in the babes He received, not in the ruler who, not following Jesus, because he clave to his riches, lost treasure in heaven. Yet he that leaves all for His sake receives manifold more now, and in the coming age life everlasting. Lastly, the Lord again announces His ignominious death, but His resurrection.

Then (verse 35) begins His last progress to Jerusalem and presentation as David's Son; and the blind beggar, invoking Him so, receives his sight, and follows Him, glorifying God.

Zacchaeus in Luke 19, chief tax-gatherer and rich, is the witness of yet more — the saving grace of God. But the Lord is not going to restore the Kingdom immediately, as they thought; He is going to a far country to receive it and to return; and when He does, He will examine the ways of His servants meanwhile entrusted with His goods, and He will execute judgment on His guilty citizens who would not that He should reign over them. Next He rides to the city from the Mount of Olivet on a colt, given up at once by the owners; and the whole multitude of the disciples praise God aloud for all the powers they have seen, saying, "Blessed be the coming King in Jehovah's name: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." It is strikingly different from the angels' praise at His birth; but both in season. Pharisees in vain object, and hear that the stones would cry out if the disciples did not. Yet did He weep over the city that know not even then the things that made for its peace, doomed to destruction because it knew not the time of its visitation. The purging of the temple follows, and there He was teaching daily; yet could not the chief priests and the chiefs of the people destroy Him, though seeking it earnestly.

Then in Luke 20 come the various parties to judge Him, really to be judged themselves. The chief priests and the scribes with the elders demand His authority; which He meets with the question, "Was John's baptism of Heaven or of men?" Their dishonest plea of ignorance drew out His refusal to tell such people the source of His authority. But He utters the parable of the vineyard let to husbandmen, who not only grow worse and worse to their lord's servants but killed it last his son and heir, to their own ruin according to Psalm 118: 22, 23, adding His own solemn and twofold sentence. Next, we have His reply to the spies who would have entangled Him with the civil power; but as He asks for a denarius, and they own Caesar's image on it, He bids them render to Caesar Caesar's things, and to God the things that are God's; and they were put to silence. The heterodox Sadducees followed with their difficulty as to the resurrection; whereon He shows that there was nothing in it but their ignorance of its glorious nature, of which present experience gives no hint. Resurrection belongs to the new age, to which marriage does not apply. Even now all live to God, if men cannot see. The Lord closes with His question on Psalm ex., how He Whom David calls his Lord is also his Son. It is just Israel's stumbling-stone, ere long to be Israel's sure foundation. Then the chapter concludes with His warning to beware of those who affect worldly show in religion, and prey on the weak and bereaved, about to receive, spite of long prayers, judgment all the more severe.

Luke 21 begins with the poor widow and her two mites of more account than the richest in the offertory. Then, in correction of those who thought much of the temple adorned with goodly stones and offerings, the Lord predicts its approaching demolition, though the end was not to be immediately. But He cheers and counsels His own meanwhile. From verses 20 to 24 is the siege under Titus, and its consequences to this day. Verse 25 and the following look on to the future. The Gentiles are prominent; whence we have, "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees" in verse 29. Observe also "this generation," etc., in verse 32, is in the future part, not in what is fulfilled. Lastly, verses 34-36 give a moral appeal. Here again we find Him teaching in the temple by day, and every night lodging at Olivet.

The last Passover approached (Luke 22) and found the chief priests and the scribes plotting, when Judas Iscariot* gave them the desired means. On the day of sacrifice He sent Peter and John to prepare, and the Lord instructed them divinely when and how: for as He said, "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer," and its cup He bade them take and divide it among themselves. Then He institutes His supper. As yet He had given no sign to mark the traitor, though He had long alluded to the fact. But alas! they were even then contending which of them would be accounted greatest; whilst He explains that such is the way of the Gentiles and their kings, whilst they were to follow His example — "I am in the midst of you as he that serveth." Yet He owns their continuance with Him in His temptations, and appoints to them a kingdom. He tells Simon of Satan's sifting, but of His supplication that his faith should not fail, and bids him, when turned again, or restored, to stablish his brethren. After further warning Peter, He clears up the change from a Messianic mission to the ordinary ways of Providence in verses 35-38, and then goes out to the mount and passes through His agony with His Father (39-46) while the disciples sleep. Then a crowd comes, and Judas draws near to kiss, and the Lord lays all open. He heals the high priest's bondman, whose right ear was cut off; but remonstrates, yet allows Himself to be taken Who could have overwhelmed them with a word. Peter denies Him thrice. The men revile the Lord with mockery and blows; and as soon as it is day, He is led to the Sanhedrin, and when asked if He is the Christ, He tells them of the place the Son of Man will take, and owns Himself Son of God.

*It is quite general here in verse 3: "And [not Then] Satan entered into Judas." The precise time is shown in John 13: 27, where then is expressed; here the statement is general, as often in the third Evangelist. So in 24: 12, it should be And or But, not Then. (B.T.)

Before Pilate in Luke 23 the effort was to prove Him a rival of Caesar; but though confessing Himself the King of the Jews, Pilate found no fault in Him. The connection with Galilee gave the opportunity for a compliment to Herod, who got not a word from the Lord; but after, with his soldiers, insulting Him, he sent Him back, when Pilate again sought to release Him, as neither he nor yet Herod found evidence against Him. But the Jews only the more fiercely demanded a seditious murderer to be released, and Jesus to be crucified. Still Pilate made a last effort. But their voices prevailed. And Pilate gave sentence that what they asked for should be done. Such is man; and such is religious man, even more wicked: "Jesus he delivered up to their will." Simon of Cyrene had to prove the violence of that hour; and Jerusalem's daughters lamented with wailing. But the Lord bade them weep for themselves and for their children, and proceeded to Calvary where He was crucified, and the two robbers on either side. There He prayed His' ' Father to forgive them, as rulers scoffed and soldiers mocked. Even one of those crucified kept railing on Him; but the other became a monument of grace, confessing the Saviour and King, when others forsook and fled. The centurion too bore testimony to Him; and if they made His grave with the wicked, the rich was there in His death, and with Pilate's leave His body was laid in a tomb hewn in stone where never man had yet lain. It was Friday, growing dark, and Sabbath twilight was coming on. And the Galilean women who saw Him laid there returned and prepared spices and unguents. Little did they know what God was about to do; yet they loved Him in Whom they believed.

On the first day of the week at early dawn the women came (Luke 24), but found the stone rolled away from the tomb and the body gone; and two in dazzling raiment stood by them to their alarm, who asked, "Why seek ye the Living One among the dead? He is not here, but is risen"; and they recalled to their minds His words in Galilee, now fulfilled in His death and resurrection. Even the apostles disbelieved. And Peter went, and saw evidences and wondered. Then we have the walk to Emmaus with all its grace and deep instruction from the Scriptures, not for those disheartened men only, but for all time and all believers. Next the Lord makes Himself known in the breaking of bread (the sign of death), and at once vanishes. For we walk by faith, not by sight. On returning to Jerusalem they hear how He had appeared to Simon; and as they spoke, the Lord stood in their midst, bade them handle Him and see (for they were troubled), and even ate to reassure them of His resurrection. He speaks further and opens their minds to understand the Scriptures; a distinct thing from the power of the Spirit they were to receive in due time. No going to Galilee is introduced here; it is exactly suited to Matthew's design. Here Jerusalem is prominent, which was avowedly most guilty. So repentance and remission of sins "were to be preached in His name, unto all the nations, beginning with Jerusalem." There too they were to tarry till clothed with power from on high. But thence, when the day arrived, He led them out over against Bethany, and blessed them with uplifted hands; and, while blessing them, He parted from them and was borne up into heaven.

§ 2. THE PROLOGUE (1: 1-4).*

*Cf. "Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Gospels," pp. 241-245, and "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," pp. 66-71.

There is no Gospel which more shows the mind and love of God than this of Luke.2 None is more truly and evidently inspired. Nevertheless there is none so deeply marked by traces of the human hand and heart.* This is its characteristic object in presenting Christ to us. Luke had, as the work assigned to him of the Holy Ghost, to. delineate our Lord as a man, both in body and soul. This he does, not only as to facts which are related about Him, but in all His course and teaching in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. It is emphatically a man we see and hear, a Divine Person, no doubt, but at the same time a real, proper man Who walks in perfect dependence and absolute obedience, honouring God and honoured of Him in all things.

*As to coalescence of Divine and human in Luke's preface, Cf. "God's Inspiration," etc., chapter iv., "The Human Element."

For this reason I believe it is that Luke alone opens his Gospel with an address to a particular man. You could not have Matthew, consistently with the purpose and character of his Gospel, addressing it to a man; nor is it conceivable of Mark or of John. Luke so writes with the most admirable propriety. "Whereas many have undertaken to arrange a declaration concerning the matters fully believed in among us, even as they, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having thorough acquaintance from the outset with all things accurately, to write to thee in regular order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest truly know the certainty of accounts [or things] in which thou hast been instructed." Thus Luke was led of God as one who had a thirst and loving desire for the good of Theophilus, and fitly addresses this Gospel to him: and this we shall find in harmony with its character throughout. It was not for him only, of course, but for the permanent instruction of the Church; yet none the less was it written to him. Theophilus was laid on the heart of that godly man to be instructed in the things of God, and this draws out the workings of the Spirit of God in him to expound the way of God as shown in Christ more perfectly.

Theophilus appears to have been a man of rank, probably a Roman governor. This seems the reason why he is called here "Most Excellent," or, as we might say, His Excellency.* It relates to official position, and not to his character morally as a man.3 It is evident he was a believer, but only partially instructed. The object of the Evangelist here was to give him a fuller understanding of "the way."4

*Cf. Acts 23: 26; Acts 24: 3, Acts 26: 25.

At this time there were many accounts of Christ in vogue among Christians. The "many" spoken of here who had undertaken to draw up these accounts of our Lord, were not inspired.4a Luke does not charge them with evil intent in what they wrote, still less with falsehood, but it was clearly inadequate, as being no more than the fruit of a human effort5 to relate the matters5a fully believed5b among the Christians. They did not accomplish the work so as to set aside the need of a fresh and above all a Divinely given narrative of the Lord Jesus. Only we must carefully remember that the difference between an inspired writing and any other is not that the other is necessarily false, and that the inspired one is simply true. There is much more than this. It is the truth as God sees it, and with that special object that God always has in view when He furnishes an account of anything. A gospel is not a mere biography: it is God's account of Christ, governed by the special moral object He was pleased to impress on it. This is characteristic of all inspired writings, whatever their form or aim. Inspiration excludes mistake, no doubt; but it does much more than that. It includes a Divine object for the instruction of the faithful in the display of God's glory in Christ. These "many" biographers4a spoken of by Luke were not authorized by the Spirit of God. They may have entered on their self-imposed task with the best motives, and some or all may have been persons in whom the Spirit of God was (i.e., Christians), but they were not inspired any more than one who preaches the Gospel or seeks to edify believers. There is a weighty difference between the leading of the Spirit in a general way, where flesh may more or less impair the truth enforced, and the inspiration of the Spirit, which not only excludes all error but gives what was never given before. Luke was inspired; yet he does not put forward his inspiration. And what then? Who does? Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, or any other? When people write an imposture they naturally pretend to this or that, and are apt most to claim what they have least or not at all. They may talk much about inspiration; the inspired writers, as a rule, take it for granted. It is self-proved, not posted up. The special character that distinguishes these writings from all others to the heart or conscience gives the believer the certainty of inspiration. For, I repeat, the Holy Ghost not only excludes error, but writes with a Divine object, and communicates the truth as none but God can. And these proofs are such as to leave the unbeliever without excuse. Light wants nothing else to show itself.6

Observe one marked difference here claimed between these many uninspired writers and Luke's Gospel. They had taken up the tradition6a of such as had been from the beginning6b of the Lord's public life eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.6c It was founded on oral testimony.4b But Luke takes particular pains to let us know that this is not said of his own Gospel.6d He does not attribute it to the same sources as theirs,7 but claims an accurate and thorough acquaintance* of all things8 from the very first (ἄνωθεν). He does not explain his sources4 any more than other inspired men, but he does contrast the character of what he knew and had to say with those who merely drew up9 a report from the earliest and best tradition. This is of high importance and has been often overlooked. Like Matthew, he goes back to the very first10 and even before Matthew's relations; for he gives us, not only the circumstances that preceded the birth of Christ, but the account of all that pertained to His forerunner's birth. Thus, though Luke does so far say that "it seemed good to me also" as well as to them,11 nevertheless he otherwise distinguishes his own task entirely from theirs. He does not tell us how he had his perfect understanding of all things from the very first; he simply lays down the fact.6d Again, it seems to me that the reason why he alone gives us his motive for writing, without putting forward his inspired character, is of all interest. Not only is it unusual in the sacred writers, but also Luke has the human element so predominant that it would be somewhat inconsistent with it to dwell strongly on the fact that it was God's Word he was writing. He, above all, therefore, would rather avoid bringing it out prominently or formally, though he proves practically that every line was truly inspired. The regular (καθεξῆς) order was not that in which the events occurred. Such a mere sequence is by no means either the only order or the best for all purposes. To Luke it would have been an arrangement infinitely inferior to the one he has adopted. All it means is that he has written his account from the very first in a methodical manner. What that method is can only be learnt from studying the Gospel itself. It will be proved, as we proceed, that Luke's is essentially a moral order, and that he classifies the facts, conversations, questions, replies, and discourses of our Lord according to their inward connection, and not the mere outward succession of events, which is in truth the rudest and most infantile form of record. But to group events together with their causes and consequences, in their moral order, is a far more difficult task for the historian, as distinguished from the mere chronicler. God can cause Luke to do it perfectly.12

*Cf. "Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles," ii., p. 48: "The Spirit of God alone secures absolute truth, which no seeing, hearing, or research Could effect."

Again, Luke writes as a man to a man, unfolding the goodness of God in man — the Man Christ Jesus. Hence all that would exemplify humanity, as in Christ and also in us before God, is brought out in the most instructive manner. He writes for the help of his Excellency, Theophilus, that he might truly know (ἐπιγνῳς)13 the certainty14 of those things15 wherein he had been instructed.16 God thus takes care of those who know Him, though it may be imperfectly, and He would lead them more deeply into the understanding and enjoyment of what He is now communicating to man by His grace. "To him that hath shall be given." It is the way of God. Theophilus had been enabled to receive Christ and to confess Him. Hence, though Luke sets forth with particular care how truly the Gospel was preached to the poor (see chapters 4, 6, 7.), yet his Gospel as a whole is addressed to this man of rank, now a disciple. Circumstantially, there is no man so much to be pitied as to the truth of God, or who so needs the grace of God, as one who is great in this world, because he is peculiarly open to snares, temptations, and cares of the world, which war against the soul and threaten to choke up the seed of the Word. Therefore we have the gracious care of Him Who knows so well what the heart of man needs, and Who, despising not any, deigns to provide for the great man now made low, and assuredly feeling his poverty, in spite of rank or riches.

§ 3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.*

*This section is identical with § 3 of Introduction to "Exposition of the Gospel of Mark." — See also notes 14-16 there, and Cf. note 17 in Appendix below.

Although able critics have for a century sought to edit the Greek Testament on documentary evidence of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and early citations, none as yet have succeeded in commanding more than partial confidence. Hence it has been a necessity for any careful and conscientious scholar who would really know the sources to compare several of these editions, and search into the grounds on which their differences depend, so as to have anything like a correct and enlarged view of the text, and to judge fairly of the claims of conflicting readings. . . . Mature spiritual judgment, with continual dependence on the Lord, is just as essential as a sound and thorough familiarity with the ancient witnesses of all kinds.*

*From a review of the Revised Version of the New Testament, in — Bible Treasury, Vol. XIII., p. 287 (June, 1881).

Lachmann published a manual edition of the New Testament professedly based on Bentley's idea of exhibiting the text as read in the fourth century . . . at one fell swoop sentenced the mass of the surviving witnesses to an ignominious death, and presented us with a text formed on absolute principles of singular narrowness. . . . The neglect of internal evidence is a fatal objection. But the grand fallacy involved is that a manuscript of the fourth or fifth century. must give better readings than one of the seventh or eighth. Now this is in no way certain. There is a presumption in favour of the more ancient manuscript, because each successive transcription tends to introduce new errors in addition to those it repeats. On the other hand, a copy of the ninth century may have been made from one older than any now extant, and certainly some old documents are more corrupt than many of the more recent witnesses. Every ingenuous scholar must own, to say the least, that the oldest manuscripts have some bad readings, and that the modern manuscripts have some that are good. Hence the distinction is not between the united evidence of the most ancient documents (Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers) and the common herd of those more recent; for rarely, or never, is there such unanimous ancient testimony without considerable support from witnesses of a later day. The truth is that almost always, where the old documents really agree, there is large confirmation elsewhere, and where the ancients differ, so do the moderns. It is quite unfounded, therefore, to treat it as a question pure and simple between old and new. Nor is it the important point of research what particular readings existed in the days of Jerome. For notoriously errors of various kinds had then crept into both Greek and Latin copies, and no antiquity can sanctify an error. The true question is: What, using every available means to form a judgment, was the primitive text? It is often forgotten that our oldest documents are but copies, Several centuries elapsed between the original issue of the New Testament Scriptures and any manuscripts now existing. All, therefore, are on the ground of copyists differing only in degree. It is not, then, a comparison between a single eye-witness and many hearsay reporters, unless we had the original autographs. And, in fact, we know that an historian's account, three centuries after alleged facts, may be, and often is, corrected, five hundred or a thousand years after, by recurrence to sources more trustworthy, or by a more patient, comprehensive, and skilful sifting of neglected evidence.

My own conviction is that in certain cases, especially in single words, the most ancient copy that exists may be corrected by another generally inferior, not only in age, but in almost every respect besides, and that internal evidence ought to be used, in dependence upon the Spirit of God, where the external authorities are conflicting.*17

*From Preface to "The Revelation of John, edited in Greek, with a new English Version and a Statement of the Chief Authorities and Various Readings." (London: Williams and Norgate, 1860.)

LUKE 1: 5ff.*

*Cf. "Lectures introductory to the Gospels," pp. 245-247.

That the Gospel of Luke has a special aspect towards men at large, that it displays the grace of God towards the Gentiles who had been so long forgotten, or seemed to be so in the outward dealings of God, is very plain. Nevertheless some have found, as they thought, an insuperable difficulty to their admitting this to be the characteristic business of Luke, because we find, for instance, at the very beginning a striking occupation of the writer's mind with the circumstances of the Jewish people before, at, and after the birth of Christ. In fact, none of the Gospels introduces us so thoroughly into the whole routine of their state and worship, with their relation to the worldly powers: first of all to the king that then ruled over them, Herod the Great; and, in the next chapter, to the Roman Empire.

But I think it will be found, if we look below the surface, that there is no real inconsistency between such a preface as we have in Luke and the general regard that he pays to the Gentiles in the rest of his Gospel. In fact, it answers closely to what we find in the ministry of the apostle who had Luke for his companion in labours. For although Paul was so emphatically the apostle of the Gentiles, the uncircumcision being delivered over to him as the circumcision was to Peter; none the less was it Paul's habit in every place first to visit the Jews, or, as he says himself, "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." So it is precisely that Luke begins with the Jew, discloses God working in the midst of the remnant of that people before we find the intimations of His mercy towards the Gentiles. So far from inconsistency on the part of Luke with his purpose, this very introduction of the Jews in the beginning of his Gospel seems even to be morally necessary; because God could not, so to speak, go out to the Gentiles according to the analogy of His dealings from the beginning and His promises to the Jewish people, unless there were first the manifestation of His goodness there and the unheeded effect of it as far as the Jews were concerned. God proves amply His mercy towards Israel before He turns to the nations. Israel would have none of Him or His Kingdom: the Gentiles would hear.

Hence we find that, although Luke's be the Gentile Gospel, there is first this full and bold outline presented to us of the working of God's grace among the Jews.

Luke 1: 5-6.

"

There was in the days of Herod the king of Judea,19 a certain priest by name Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth

." Thus we have the living picture of the state of things then going on in Israel. There might be a foreign prince over them — an Edomite, and high priests in strange confusion, as we shall see shortly; but for all that there was a priest duly married to one of the daughters of Aaron, Zacharias, of the course of Abia. "

And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless

."

Low as the state was in Israel and outwardly most irregular, nevertheless, in the midst of all there were godly ones: and the only thing that enabled any to walk after such a sort in Israel was the faith of the coming Messiah: this at least had not disappeared. On the contrary, God's Spirit was working in the hearts of a few, preparing them for the One Who was coming. Zacharias and Elisabeth were among these few. They were expecting in faith, the effect of which, where it is real, is to give power of walking rightly. The only souls who walked well, even according to the law, were those who looked beyond the law to Christ. Those who merely rested in the law broke it, though the law might be their boast. On the contrary, such as looked for the Messiah were faithful, "

walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless

."

It is the same thing in principle now. There are those who cry up the law as a rule of life, but such never carry themselves well even according to that standard. On the contrary, those who go forward in the sense of God's grace, knowing the full deliverance of the believer in the redemption that is in Christ, do really manifest the righteousness of the law; as it is said, "What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Rom. 8: 3.  If I am walking after the law, I do not fulfil it; if I am walking after the Spirit, I do. The same doctrine appears in Galatians 5. If we walk according to the Spirit, there are good fruits: "against such there is no law." Gal. 5: 23. On the contrary, the law justifies the fruits of the Spirit, but the Spirit never justifies the ways of any man who finds his rule of life in the law, which is and must be to a sinful man a rule of condemnation and death. There is no power of grace, unless Christ be the Object of the heart.

Such was the case with this godly pair in Israel. The aged priest and his wife were really (i.e., believingly) looking for the Messiah. Their hope was no fleshly desire to exalt themselves or their nation in earthly power; though it remains true that Israel will then be the head and the Gentiles the tail, (Deut. 28: 13.) when Messiah comes to close their last fiery tribulation and deliver them from their foes. But in that day the hearts of the godly remnant will be lifted above pride or vanity, they will bear to be exalted above all other peoples of the earth. Such is the Divine counsel according to prophecy which God will surely accomplish in its season.

Observe how faith leads to faithfulness. Those who merely look to the law (i.e., as much as God requires) never accomplish His righteous requirement. In every case one must be above any obligations in order to fulfil them. I ' must have faith in God's object in order to fulfil God's will. If my mind is occupied with Christ, I shall be able in the same measure to glorify God.

Luke 1: 7-14.

Thus it was with Zacharias and his wife. They looked in faith for the Messiah: hence they were righteous, and walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly. Nevertheless they had a disappointment of heart which answered to the state of things in Israel. "They had no child, because Elisabeth was barren; and they were both advanced in years." They had prayed about it, as we find afterwards. Though Zacharias seems even to have lost sight of his own prayer, yet God had not. And so "it came to pass, as he fulfilled his priestly service before God in the order of his course"  - for here he was faithful to the requisition of daily duty — "it fell to him by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter into the temple of the LORD to burn incense. And all the multitude of the people were praying without at the hour of incense." We have thus a full and lively setting, forth of what was actually going on then in Israel. "And an angel of [the] LORD appeared to him standing on the right of the altar of incense." In this form such a visit was unknown for a long while. It was a gracious intervention of God (not merely betimes, as we find in another Gospel, for the healing of sicknesses and weaknesses of the people, but) for the more glorious purpose of announcing the forerunner of the Messiah Himself. Was it so strange after all that he was to be born beyond nature of this godly couple? One could not have anticipated such a thing; but once announced as God's intention, how wise and suitable our hearts see it to be! When Zacharias saw the angel he "was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, Fear not, Zacharias, because thy supplication has been heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John" (i.e., the gift of God). "And he shall be to thee joy and rejoicing: and many shall rejoice at his birth."20 It was calculated to strike the eye and heart of any godly Israelite, being manifestly God's gift. The LORD was faithful to His people and His purposes. There were many who at this time were looking for the Messiah. We know even from heathen authors that there was a strong, general, and ancient tradition (no doubt derived from Balaam of old, and Daniel later, and the Septuagint), that at this time a great prince was to be born in Israel, who would lead that nation on to supremacy. Hence they would naturally heed this extraordinary birth, and the singular course of life which John the Baptist ever followed, as well as his preaching when the time for it was come.

Luke 1: 15-17.

"

He shall be great before [the] LORD,* and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with [the] Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb

." He should be a Nazarite, separated to the LORD, not only in outward separation, but with inward and special power of God.21 "

And many of the sons of Israel shall he turn to [the] LORD their God

." This would be the characteristic aim of his mission — to recall them to God from whom they had departed. "

And

he

shall go before him in [the] spirit and power of Elias, to turn hearts of fathers to children, and disobedient ones to [the] thoughts of just [men]15 to make ready for [the] LORD a prepared people

." Elijah was the prophet who took up the broken obligations of the people. Hence it is that he went to Horeb. Thence it was that Elias had his great commission from before God; there he went through the scene we have so strikingly described in his history. Horeb was the place where the law was given, and Elias went back thither, feeling how deeply the people had departed from God. John should now recall the people in the spirit and power of Elias. It is repentance; it is not of course the great work of God in putting away sin — that could only be done by one, even Jesus the Lord. Neither is it the power of the Holy Ghost shed upon Israel. This also could only be done by Christ. He is, as we find in John, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John 1: 29, 33. But John could at least do his own work by God's grace given to him; he should go "before him in the spirit and power of Elias." This is a remarkable testimony: first, because it is said he shall go before the LORD, i.e., before Jehovah; a plain statement of the dignity of Jesus. He was really Jehovah; and this messenger of His should go before His face, next, "in [the] spirit and power of Elias, to turn hearts of fathers to children." There was no union, but alienation: everything was broken in Israel. Sin always produces such dislocations. But John should "turn the hearts of fathers to children"; that is, he would be used of God to unite them in affection, and also to instruct them morally, or lead "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just."22 Hence, in all respects, both in affection and in moral power and wisdom, his mission was "to make ready for the LORD a prepared people." Such would be John's work — "to make ready for the LORD a prepared people."

*As to the textual criticism of Luke's Gospel, see note 17 in Appendix.  - In this Gospel the authorities show considerable variation with regard to use of the definite article before "LORD." Here it is contained in BDΔ, etc., but not in ACLΓ 33. Κύριος without the article stands regularly for Jehovah (Yahveh) of the Old Testament, as in the LXX. So in verse 16. Cf. again in verse 28.

Luke 1:18-20.

"

And Zacharias said to the angel, How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife advanced in years?

" Unbelief works just when God was about to accomplish this signal mercy  -  a remarkable but by no means infrequent case which we would do well to apply to our souls. That is, when God means mercy to us, we are too apt to limit the Lord; to doubt Him even when the blessing comes very close to us; to put some difficulty in the way, yielding to the suggestions of the enemy and the unbelief of our own hearts. Zacharias accordingly asks how he should know it.

The angel answers, "I am Gabriel23 who stand before God; and I have been sent to speak to thee and to bring these glad tidings to thee. And, behold, thou shall be silent, and not able to speak, till the day in which these things shall take place, because thou hast not believed my words, such as shall be fulfilled in their time." A measure of chastening was thus put upon Zacharias — a sign to others, but at the same time a rebuke to himself. The very fact that he was struck suddenly dumb would awaken the attention of the people. They would see that an extraordinary occurrence had taken place and might be led to think about it. On the other hand, when God had sent His angel to tell him that these things should be done, Zacharias showed his unbelief in requiring another sign. Hence his chastening. God's words should be fulfilled in their season spite of his unbelief. Mercy removes the stroke in due season.

Luke 1: 21-25.

"

And the people were awaiting Zacharias, and they wondered at his delaying in the temple. But when he came out he could not speak to them: and they recognised that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he was making signs to them and continued dumb. And it came to pass, when the days of his service were completed, he departed to his house

." Each priest had to serve in his course from Sabbath to Sabbath; so when the week was up, he leaves. "

Now after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus has the LORD done to me in [these] days in which he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men

." The feeling of Elisabeth under the circumstances was just as godly as the unbelief. of Zacharias was a striking witness of what is so natural to us all.24

This closes the opening incidents which the Spirit of God gives us by Luke.

Luke 1: 26-38.

It was the angel Gabriel who was sent to Daniel to make known of old the Messiah's coming and cutting off in the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks. (Dan. 9: 26.) Now he comes to Mary, the espoused of Joseph, and announces to her, "the virgin" of a still older prophet, (Isa. 7: 14) the birth of that Messiah.25 No wonder that he salutes her as a favoured one, with whom the Lord was. Blessed was she among women!* Mary,26 though troubled, pondered what might be the meaning of this salutation. The angel bids her not fear, for she has found favour with God. She is the chosen channel of the wondrous purposes which should yet fill the world as well as her own people with blessing — the appointed mother she is to be of One in Whom God was about to solve all the difficulties that sin had brought into the world by a righteous triumph over it — nay, to make it possible for God to bless those who believed, sinners though they had been, and to make them righteously triumph through and with Himself.

*"Blessed art thou amongst women." So Treg. (text) after ACD and most later uncials, with cursives (33, 69), Syrrpesch hcl. Old Latin, Gothic, Aeth. The words (as anticipating those in verse 42) are omitted here by Edd. in general with BL, Memph. Arm.

Therefore he says, "Behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus" — a Divine Saviour.27* "He shall be great, and shall be called Son of [the] Highest,28 and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father." This is another and quite different glory, which evidently combines with saving power His title of Messiah. "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages; and of his kingdom there shall not be an end." Even in the lowest domain, how far is His Kingdom from being a mere human dominion!

*See "Lectures on Matthew," p. 30.

"

But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?

"

She does not doubt, but she asks confidingly. Hence there is no smiting dumb nor any sign of unbelief, as in the case of Zacharias, who asked, "Whereby shall I know this?" There maybe a question in the spirit which needs an answer, but betrays no lack of faith. There might be one not so dissimilar in form, but which really sprang from unbelief. God does not judge according to appearance, but the heart.

The angel accordingly explains in all grace to Mary. "[The] Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,29 and power of [the] Highest overshadow thee." It was not to be nature, but Divine power. "Therefore the holy thing also which shall be born [of thee]* shall be called Son of God," and not merely Son of man. This is exceedingly important. "Son of God" is a title that belongs to our Lord both in His Divine glory before He became a man and here; for, in this place when He became a man, He did not cease to be Son of God. As incarnate He was still the Son of God. So, again, when He rose from the dead, the same thing was true; He was the Son of God as risen again. It is plain therefore that it is a title that appertains to Him in the three conditions in which Scripture represents our Lord. He was the Son of God when He was purely and simply a Divine Person; Son of God when He became a man; Son of God when risen from the dead and gone out of this world to heaven.

*"Of thee," after "born" is supported only by C and a few minuscules.

But there is another thing also to note, that His taking manhood did not in the smallest degree connect Him with the taint of man's fallen nature. This was absolutely counteracted by the singularity of His conception, which was effected through the power of the Holy Ghost. "Wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born [of thee] shall be called Son of God."30 Thus He was holy, not merely in His Divine nature, but in His humanity. He was emphatically the Holy One of God: without this not only would salvation have been impossible for us, but even His own acceptance as man would have been out of the question."30a We have therefore in this passage the most important truth as to the birth of this wondrous Child, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ. Much here given is peculiar to Luke. Mary is informed also of what God was doing to her cousin Elisabeth, for as the angel added "with God nothing shall be impossible."31 She bows at once to the will of the LORD, with the words, "Behold the bondmaid of [the] LORD; be it to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

Luke 1: 39-56.

Mary then arises, enters into the house of Zacharias and salutes her kinswoman, Elisabeth, which gives occasion to the wonderful obeisance that was paid even by the unborn babe, Elisabeth's child, to her the predestined mother of the Messiah, in honour to the Messiah himself.32 The consequence was that Elisabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, breaks out into an acknowledgment of the place God had given Mary. "And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" It is remarkable how beautifully it is owned that even the child that was yet to be born was the Lord. We find just the same thing with Mary herself. She has no notion of being taken out of the place of a needy sinner, whilst the miraculous birth of John does not detract from Elisabeth's sense of the Messiah, but rather adds to her sense of it. She owns at the same time that God has shown singular favour to Mary's soul. "Blessed is she that has believed; for there shall be a fulfilment of the things spoken to her from [the]. LORD."33 She knew that what had happened to her husband was because of unbelief, and contrasts with it Mary's meek, because believing, heart.

Mary answers,34 "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit35 hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath looked upon the low estate of his bondmaid; for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." It is remarkable how simply Scripture has met beforehand the monstrous unbelief of man which lowers God as much as it exalts a human being. Mary had no thought of exaltation. She says, "All generations shall call me blessed," but not a blesser. She was the object of blessing, not the giver or mediatrix of it. "For the Mighty One hath done to me great things; and holy [is] his name [not a word of her own]. And his mercy is to generations and generations* to them that fear him [not that pray to or worship me]. He hath wrought strength with his arm; he hath scattered haughty [ones] in the thought of their heart. He hath put down rulers from thrones, and exalted the lowly" — alluding to her own place as well as Elisabeth's. "He hath filled the hungry with good things; and sent the rich empty away. He hath helped Israel, his servant, in order to remember mercy; as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever." It is remarkable how Jewish the character of the joy is, and the acknowledgement of the mercy.

*"Generations and generations": so Edd. after BCpm LΞ Amiat. Syrpesch Memph. with nine other uncials has "generations and generations." Syrrsin pesch: "generation and tribe." — ACcorr D, etc., 33, have "generations of generations."

Luke 1: 57-80.

So Mary abides with her cousin three months, and then returns to her own house.36 "But the time was fulfilled for Elisabeth that she should bring forth; and she gave birth to a son. And her neighbours and kinsfolk heard how [the] LORD had magnified his mercy with her; and they rejoiced with her." The general thought was to call37 the child after his father's name; but the mother, who alone can speak for it, directs. him to be called John. Zacharias is appealed to and writes, "John is his name." And immediately the punishment of his unbelief departs from him. His tongue was loosed and he spoke and praised God; which filled all around with fear, astonishment, and anticipation of what this child would be

Zacharias breaks forth into a strain of praise.38 "Blessed be [the] LORD the God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant." It is remarkable the grace that does not so much look at his own house as at the house of God's servant David. There was faith here. During the season of his dumbness Zacharias has pondered the ways of the LORD; and the Holy Ghost, as He had filled Elisabeth, as He had filled the babe from his mother's womb, so now filled Zacharias, who prophesies the end of these wonders. "That we should be delivered from our enemies, and out of the hand of all who hate us; to fulfil39 mercy with our fathers, and remember his holy covenant; [the] oath which he swore to Abraham, our father, to give us, that, saved out of the hand of our* enemies, we should serve him without fear."39a It is important to observe how thoroughly this savours of Old Testament hopes. It is not a question of sins merely, but of being delivered from their enemies, which last is assuredly not, nor ought to be, the feeling of the Christian now. Does not the Christian serve God, delivered from his sins, in the midst of his enemies? So when the Lord comes, it is simply a taking him up out of the midst of his enemies when the time of deliverance comes. Here then the language is, "That we being saved out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in piety40 and righteousness before him all our days."† Such is the expectation of Israel according to the Psalms and the Prophets.

*"Our": so ACD, etc., Amiat. Syrr. Memph.; but Edd. omit, after BL 1, 69, etc.

†"All our days": so Edd. after ABCDL, etc., Old Lat. Vulg. Syrr. (exc. sin) Memph. — E and some other copies, with cursives 1, 69 Syrsin have "all the days of our life."

"

And thou, child, shalt be called [the] prophet of [the] Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of [the] LORD to make ready his ways

" — an allusion clearly to Malachi (Mal. 3: 1) as well as to Isaiah. "

To give knowledge of salvation41 to his people by [the] forgiveness of their sins

." It is not that the Jews will be without the remission of their sins; they will have that beside deliverance from their enemies. All this is "

on account of [the] bowels of mercy of our God; whereby [the] day-spring from on high has visited* us, to shine upon them who were sitting in darkness and in [the] shadow of death, to guide our feet into [the] way of peace

."

*"Has visited": so T. R., retained by Tisch., Treg. (text) and Blass, after AC and some cursives with Old Lat. — Other Edd. (W. H., followed by Revv., Weiss) adopt "will visit," as BL, Syrr. Arm.

Such will be the condition in which the Jews will be finally met by God; there will be a special darkness more immediately before the light shines out upon them.

It was when they were in bitter degradation under the Gentiles, as well as in the moral darkness, that the Lord came the first time; still more will this be the case when He comes again. There will be renewed bondage under the power of the West; a stranger king will reign in the land, and a special delusive power of Satan will be there, but the Lord will appear to the discomfiture of all their foes and the full deliverance of His people Israel.

Meanwhile "the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and he was in the deserts until the day of his showing to Israel."42 We have seen that, before the large universal character of the Gospel of Luke appears — the grace of God to man — there is the utmost care to show the goodness and forbearance of the Lord in meeting Israel as they then were. Thus they have the responsibility of refusing their Messiah, before God lays the foundation of the richest grace to man generally.

LUKE 2: 1-7.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 247-256.

We have had the forerunner of Jesus and the announcement of the birth of Jesus. But now this chapter opens with a providential event which we find nowhere else in the Gospels, and yet which explains a fact that is found in the first Gospel as well as in the third. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His parents were in the habit of living in Galilee. How, then, if the ordinary residence of His parents was at Nazareth, which was at one extremity of the land, could he be born at Bethlehem, which was almost at the other?

"

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census should be made of all the habitable world

." Caesar Augustine was the then Emperor of Rome, the last human kingdom of Daniel. Even the Holy Land was put in subjection to these imperial powers, and Caesar used his power and marked it in this that he demanded the presence of every man in his own city, as if all belonged to him. It was a testimony to the total subjection of the habitable world" to himself, not to Christ. This, indeed, will in due time be according to God, the fruit of His own power, when Jesus is manifestly exalted and God's direct power is vested in His hands, Who, being Himself a Divine Person as well as man, will thus exercise all the power as man, yet without derogating in the smallest degree from the rights and authority of God, yea, displaying them gloriously before the world, as He has already established them before God and, to faith, in the cross.

With Caesar Augustine however, it was far different. Even the people of God were placed in servitude; and wonderful to say, the mother of the Messiah was among those, as well as His legal father, who had to pay obedience to the decree of the Roman Emperor. They went up accordingly for the census45 to their own city, the city of David, Bethlehem,44 thus accomplishing the prophecies. And what made it the more remarkable is that, in verse 2, we are told that "the census itself* first took place when Cyrenius43a was governor of Syria." It was not effected at the time here in view as proposed, but was sufficiently carried out to call the parents of our Lord from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, which accomplished not man's census, but God's prophecy. God took care that it should be just fulfilled enough to carry out His purposes. It was not till some years afterwards that Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Then it was carried into effect fully,45 but meanwhile all went up to be enrolled, each to his own city.

*"The census itself" (αὐτή): so ACLΔ and later uncials, with most cursives. — Edd.: "This (αὕτη) was the first census," after BD.

Therefore "Joseph also went up from Galilee,46 out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to David's city, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and family of David), to be enrolled with Mary47 his betrothed wife,*47a she being great with child." From the time that a woman among the Jews was espoused, she was considered legally the wife of him to whom she was betrothed. Thus the Lord, while really Son of His mother Mary, was legally of Joseph; and both Joseph and Mary were of the royal line. The Lord Jesus, therefore, represented David on both sides; but as the law required, He was the descendant of Solomon on the legal side. For no matter how unquestionably He might have been the Son of Mary, descended from the Nathan stem, He could not have been according to law the Messiah as long as there was a living representative of the Solomon branch. But the Lord, being the legally-reputed Son of Joseph as well as Mary's child, was precisely so descended as to be in every required respect "David's Son," the Messiah. I say this quite independently of His Divine glory, which was demanded for other and far deeper reasons.

*"Wife": so AΔ and later uncials, nearly all cursives (including 33, 69) and Amiat. — Edd. omit, after BCpm DL, etc. Syrsin simply "wife" (Mrs. Lewis in Expositor: "under full legal protection of Joseph").

Thus then "while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her first-born son48 and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in the* manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke always loves to present moral features. Accordingly there is an intimation very instructive for us in the circumstance that it was in the manger Jesus was laid, not in the inn. There was no room for them in the inn. The Lord of glory when born into this world was laid in the manger. What a picture of the state of the world! There was no room for Him who was God in the world! The children of men according to their means found their place in the inn as it suited them. Those who had money could command a place proportioned to what they were willing to pay. But the parents of the Lord were in such poverty as to be thoroughly despised at the inn, and the only place where they could find a shelter for the Babe was a manger.

*"The": so Δ and later uncials. Edd. omit, after ABDLΞ.

But this did not hinder the outflow of Divine grace any more than it could deny, except to unbelief, the Divine glory of Him who was laid there. Unbelief never receives that the Lord of heaven and earth could be born in such circumstances and of such parents. In fact, to be born at all, to be really a man, to know beyond all other men the bitterness of the world, the scorn and hatred of men, and finally the cross — all this is utterly stumbling to unbelief. But this is just the truth of God, and the only truth that really makes known God and delivers man. And those who receive it are the simple. Grace makes them such, especially the lowly. It can make the proudest simple, no doubt; but it addresses itself in particular as the rule (and Luke marks the fact) to those that are despised on the earth as Christ was.

Luke 2: 8-20.

"

And there were shepherds in that country49 abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock. And lo,* an angel of [the] LORD stood by49a them and the glory of [the] LORD50 shone

around them, and they were sore afraid

."

Nevertheless, there was no reason. Man, because he is a sinner, is afraid of God, but in truth "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3: 16. The angel in the spirit of this says, "Fear not, for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be" — but not exactly "to all people." For although Luke does finally proclaim the saving grace that goes out to all men, he begins within the strict limits of Israel. and shows God faithful to His people and willing to accomplish all His promises if they would receive Jesus. But they would not; and therefore God was morally justified in turning from the despising Jews to the Gentiles. The true way of understanding this clause is "(which shall be) to all the people," meaning the people of Israel. This is confirmed in the next verse: "For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ [the] Lord."" It was the Anointed of God, whom their fathers had long waited and looked for. The Child51a was now born, the Son given, and unto them, as said the prophet. Isa. 9: 6.

*"Lo": so AD and the later uncials, all cursives, Old Lat. Vulg. Memph. Syrr.; but omitted by Edd., following BLΞ.

"

And this is the sign unto you: ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger

." "A babe" it should be. And so it was: a most significant sign — a Messiah, not in power and glory as the Jews expected, but a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, who in grace was subject to all the realities of the circumstances of a human birth and infancy, and who was found in fact, as to external position, lying in a manger.

*"And lying in a manger": so most Edd., after BLΞ, 1, 33. Tisch., with D, omits "and lying."

But if such was the place of obscurity that He entered, all the world being really out of course and God unwilling to allow such a thought as a sanction by His Son of the state of men in sin; if He gives Him, therefore, a place, as it were, outside, on the other hand there was suddenly "with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good pleasure in men." This is comprising in a few words the whole scope of Divine purpose. The manifestation of the Son, now man, leads to this, not exactly the moral ground of it, or the means by which it will be brought about, but the result as illustrating to their unjealous eyes God's good pleasure in men (not angels). First of all there is, "Glory to God in the highest." Up to the birth of Jesus all had been disappointment in man. The creature had broken down under the best circumstances, and every attempt by any other means to correct it had brought either destruction to men or rebellion against God, growing worse and worse. The deluge had not mended the world, but simply destroyed men. The law had only aggravated the condition of man, provoking their sin into open transgression and sealing them up in condemnation.

*"Good pleasure in men": so corr LΔ and all later uncials, cursives. Syrrpesch hcl (sin.: "good will to"), Copt. Arm. Aeth., with Basil, Gregory, Naz., etc.; but Revv. with Edd. adopt "peace to men of good pleasure" after pm  Bpm AD, Old Lat. Vulg. Goth., with Iren. Origen (Jer.), Hill, etc. See, further, note 52 in Appendix.

But the birth of the Lord Jesus is at once the signal for the angels to sing, "Glory to God in the highest." It would not be merely "Glory to God below," but "in the highest," throughout the whole universe of God, and expressly in its highest places — glory to God at length, everywhere. On earth, where nothing but war had been against God, and with man, confusion, misery, and rebellion — "on earth, peace." Nothing less than this would ensue from the birth of the Messiah, though not all at once; but the heavenly host take in the magnificent issues of His birth who is Father of the age to come. (Isa. 9: 6). That birth, too, was the expression that God's complacency is in men.52 There could not be a greater proof of God's good pleasure than this; for the Son of God did not become an angel but a man. He was God from all eternity, but He became man. This bore witness, irrefragable and evident to every one who reflects, to what an object of love men were to God. The heavenly host therefore only sing of these great outlines. They did not enter into detail; perhaps they did not know how any one was to be brought about. But the great fact was there before them; the Lord from heaven was this Babe, the object of contempt to man, wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger, perhaps as no other babe was. No wonder it drew out the loudest songs of the angels. They see God's glory in it; they see men thus the object of His infinite love and condescension; they anticipate peace for the earth, spite of all appearances, spite of Caesar Augustine or his decrees, spite of the Roman armies, those massive iron hammers that battered down the nations, the beast that trampled what it could not devour (Dan. 7: 7) — spite of all this, "peace on earth." They looked at things as the scene for displaying in man (because the Son was now man) God's glory and grace; and they were right.

When the unwonted vision passed away, the shepherds said one to another, "Let us make our way53 now as far as Bethlehem and let us see this thing that is come to pass, which the LORD has made known to us. And they came with haste, and found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger. And when they had seen [it], they made known about the country* the thing which had been said to them concerning this child. And all who heard [it] wondered at the things said to them by the shepherds."

*Edd. read simply "made known," after BDLΞ, etc. AE, etc., have made known about the country (διεγνώρισαν)."

Thus, in their artless way, they acted upon what was made known to them, upon the report of the angels; and when they had proved its truth, they spread the news. They were anticipating thus far the way of grace. Tidings of such great goodness and joy could not be, ought not to be, confined to the breasts of those to whom it was first communicated. They made it known wherever they could"But Mary kept all these things, pondering [them] in her heart."53a A deeper feeling, no doubt, wrought in her mind. The time was not come for the propagation of the Gospel which was in store: the basis for it was not even laid. But she who must needs have been intimately interested in the wonders that surrounded her — she weighed all, and treasured it all up in her heart. The shepherds, too, simple men, favoured as they had been of God, returned, glorifying and praising Him "for all things that they had heard and seen, as it had been said to them."

Luke 2: 21-40.

We now see the Lord Jesus under the law of Moses, as in the earlier verses, born of woman. For "when eight days were fulfilled for circumcising him,* his name was called Jesus, which was the name given by the angel before he had been conceived in the womb." This name refers both to His being Jehovah and a Saviour, as we are told in Matthew 1: 21. Here the fact simply is mentioned. Nevertheless we have here beyond what we have in Matthew — the Jewish evidence of the poverty of the holy family, as we had before the contempt of man proved in the lowly circumstances in which the Lord was born (verse 7). "And when the days were fulfilled for their† purifying according to the law of Moses,54 they brought him to Jerusalem55 to present [him] to the LORD (as it is written in the law of [the] LORD: Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the LORD, (Ex. 13: 2, 12) and to offer a sacrifice, according to what is said in the law of the LORD, a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons." (Lev. 5: 11). Now, we know from the Pentateuch that this sacrifice was a provision where the parents were extremely poor. Thus Luke preserves the two traits that we have noticed as the characteristics of his Gospel. First, there is the Evangelist showing that the Lord met Israel thoroughly according to the Divine ordinances that He was presented in the strictest compliance with the law "to the Jew first."54 The next feature is the display of moral principles manifested in all that surrounded the Lord on His coming into the world, as well as His ways in it. To the poor the Gospel is preached; and the Lord did not preach the Gospel to the poor as One who was a rich and mighty and distinguished Patron, though entitled even as man to the highest place on earth. But though He was rich, the Lord Jesus tasted what it is to be poor (2 Cor. 8: 9) and despised in all its reality. It was not as a benefactor, which is the way of the world; their great ones are called benefactors, when they spare of their bounty for the destitute. As it is said, "They that exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But ye [shall] not [be] thus." (Luke 22: 25f.) And as we are commanded not to act thus, on the other hand Jesus was surely not so, but the very reverse. Infinitely above all, He nevertheless took His place with the least, with the most obscure and overlooked in the land: and this, as we see, from the very beginning of His earthly course.

*"Him so Edd. with ABL, etc., about 100 cursives (as 1), Old Lat. Amiat. Goth. Memph. "The child" is found in DE, etc., Syrr. Aeth.

†"Their": so Edd. after ABL and later uncials, most cursives, Syrr (except sin.) and versions in general, with Orig. "Her" (Lev. 12: 4) of T.R., with Syrsin, has scarcely any MS. support.

But if there was no natural éclat but evident humiliation in the facts of our Lord's infancy, what was there not of moral glory! This again it was most suitable for Luke to notice, and he alone does so. "And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was just and pious, awaiting the consolation of Israel,56 and [the] Holy Spirit was upon him." The consolation of Israel was come; the Person who brought it in, and who would make it good in due time, was here. But, further, it was revealed to Simeon "by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death before he should see [the] LORD'S Christ."57 These and the like revelations were vouchsafed before the canon of Scripture was complete. "And he came in the Spirit into the temple." It was a part of that same goodness of God, Who would give suitable witnesses, that this godly man came in at the very time when the parents brought in the infant Jesus to do for Him "according to the custom of the law." But he sees that there was in that babe One altogether above the law. In grace He might become subject to it, and His parents were, of course, right in paying every deference to its ordinances. But Simeon "received him into his arms, and blessed God, saying, Lord,22a now thou lettest thy bondman go according to thy word, in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation."57a The law of Moses never could give a sinful man to depart in peace — so to speak, it never ought. Peace must be, in order to be real and righteous, from the God who gave the law present in grace, present as man in this world, and present to suffer for sins, the Just for the unjust. And so He was, for such was Jesus. No wonder, then, that he whose eyes were touched with a better eyesalve than that of earth could see God and His salvation in the Babe — could say, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace." It was not imagination, but sober faith; it was "according to thy word." It was not a mere craving desire, nor a sanguine hope. There is nothing so sure as the testimonies of God and His Word; and he had an intimation that he should not see death until he had seen the Anointed of Jehovah. But to depart in peace according to the Lord's Word was a matter of broader interest; it was for others who might not see the Babe. To him, however, it was pledged and performed. "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation." This was what kings and prophets had desired to see, and now Simeon saw it in the person of Jesus. And so, as it was grace of the most marked character in the favour shown to the aged Simeon, he enters more or less into the dealings of grace by the power of the Spirit of God. Thus he pursues it: ("Mine eyes have seen thy salvation), which thou hast prepared before the face of" — not now "all the (Jewish) people," but "all peoples." Again, it is "a light" not exactly "to lighten the Gentiles," but "for revelation of [the] Gentiles, and [the] glory of thy people Israel."58 To this godly man there was an intimation of the momentous change that was at hand. The salvation of God could not be restricted to one people; if God's salvation was upon earth it must at least in result be before all the nations; as St. Paul said, "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." (Titus 2: 11). That goes farther, no doubt, because it supposes the work done, as well as the person manifested; nevertheless the principle is the same, and it is here.

But further note, "a light for revelation of [the] Gentiles." This is an unusual expression and to be weighed. The Gentiles during God's dealings with Israel were in the dark. Those were the times of ignorance, and God winked at their ways. But now, says the apostle, He commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17: 30). There is no excuse for ignorance longer. The Light shines, the true Light. Christ was that Light, and He is a Light for revelation of the Gentiles. This is the time during which Israel is blinded, and the long hidden Gentiles are revealed, brought out of the degradation in which they had hitherto lain."' But when God has accomplished His work among the Gentiles, that which is added here will be made true, "and the glory of thy people Israel."58a This verse is very important as showing what was to ensue when Israel would reject the Messiah, and before they shall be brought in by and by. This is not the order that we find in the prophets. There the Lord, wherever He is presented as the Glory of Israel, is also seen as blessing the Gentiles subordinately to the chosen people. Here the reversed order is, I think, significant: "a light for revelation of [the] Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." The predicted and regular state of things will follow this exceptional period during which the Gentiles have been revealed. Nevertheless once God has brought the Gentiles into light, He never puts them back into darkness. But this will not hinder Him from bringing Israel to the highest pitch of earthly glory above all the Gentiles. Thus God's wisdom will secure that His goodness to the Gentiles shall never pass away, but at the same time He will accomplish His ancient and special promises to Israel. During the present dispensation these two things are necessarily separated. The Gentiles are being revealed now, and though hereafter they shall not cease to be revealed, Christ will be the glory of His people Israel. Now He is, as it were, their shame, or rather they are His; because they crucified Him, and they have not yet repented of their sin, but added to it their contempt of the Spirit's message of forgiveness on faith in the Gospel.

"

And his father* and mother wondered at the things which were said concerning him.

And Simeon blessed them." Now, too, he is given to supply the key to the fact that the glory of the people Israel should be postponed. He "

said to Mary his mother, Lo, this [child] is set for the fall and rising up of many in Israel; and for a sign spoken against (and even a sword shall go through thine own soul), so that [the] thoughts may be revealed from many hearts

." 58b The personal sorrow of Mary is alluded to, who is to be a witness of the crucifixion of her own Son. Luke always brings out these touches of human affection and sorrow. This is a part of his province, because he particularly portrays the Lord Jesus as a man; and in accordance with which he brings out the feelings of those so nearly connected with Him as His mother. The moral object and effect is added with equal propriety "that [the] thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

*"His father": so Edd., with BDL Syrsin Amiat. Memph. Aeth. Arm. "Joseph" is in AE, etc., 33, 69, the other Syrr. most Old Lat. Goth.

Such is the issue of the rejection of Jesus. If men's hearts are set upon present glory and ease, the cross of Jesus scandalises them. If their hearts, on the contrary, are taught of God to feel the need of redemption through the blood of the Saviour, then the Cross of Christ is most welcome and sweet. If Divine love has value in our eyes, if the alienation of the world from God is strongly felt by our hearts, then the death of Christ will have its just place more or less. On the other hand, to self-righteousness, or self-will, or worldliness the Cross of Christ is just hateful and repulsive in the measure in which it is understood. Where there is the sense of need, where there is the teaching of God, where there is entrance into Divine love, where the world's position in His sight or the Place of faithful testimony for God is appreciated, there the Cross rises in its value before our hearts. Thus the thoughts of many hearts are revealed, and by the Cross above all other tests.

God, however, brings in, besides Simeon, another witness, Anna the prophetess, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

As Simeon was said to be just and pious, so the Spirit loves to record a blessed account of this believing woman, Anna. If he, too, had the spirit of prophecy, so had she. "She was a widow up to* eighty-four years,59 who did not depart from the temple, serving night and day with fastings and prayers." The subjection of these godly ones in Israel to ordinances, or their submission to God according to the law, is carefully noted here. "And she coming up the same hour, gave praise to the LORD,† and spoke of him to all those who waited for redemption in‡59a Jerusalem." The present guidance of God is equally conspicuous in her case as in that of Simeon. There was then, as ever, a remnant according to the election of grace; and God took care that the testimony should reach those whose hearts were prepared for Jesus. Grace might and would in due time go out to the very vilest; but God first of all makes Him known to those whose hearts were already touched, waiting for Jesus. The moral wisdom of such ways seems to me equally apparent and admirable.

*"Up to": so Edd., following ABLΞ, 33, Amiat. Memph. "About" has the support of later uncials (EXΔ, etc.), as of most cursives, and Syrr (sin.: simply 84).

†"The Lord": so A and later uncials, with most cursives, nearly all Old Lat. Amiat. Syrr. Aeth. Arm. Edd. adopt "God," from BDL, etc., Memph.

‡"In": so AD, etc.; but Edd. omit, after BΞ, 1, Syrsin ("of").

Such is the presentation of the Lord as yet in Jewish circumstances, given by our Evangelist, though not without hints and predictions which look out to a larger vista of Divine goodness.

There was the full recognition of the law of the LORD, while the person of Jesus is brought before us with all evidence as the great manifestation of God's grace. This surprises some. They are apt to set law and grace in contradiction to each other. Now for this there is no just reason. It is true neither of the person of Christ nor of His work, any more than of those that are Christ's. In no case does law suffer through the grace of God, but on the contrary, it never receives so important a testimony either to its authority or to its use as through grace. Indeed, it is grace alone which accomplishes the law. Other people talk about it and employ it for their own importance; but in point of fact they weaken it, and even teach or allow in their doctrine that God mitigates it under the Gospel, instead of maintaining all its real authority. This is very strikingly shown in our Lord's case, but it is equally true both in the Cross and in Christianity. Hence in Romans 3 we read that through faith "we establish the law," because the believer rests upon the mighty work of Christ on the cross, which gave the most solemn sanction to the law that it over received or could have. Faith beholds Jesus suffering the curse in all its depth and its bitterness; whereas, in the view I am opposing, God is conceived to depart from the rigour of the law in order to show mercy. The doctrine of the apostle shows, on the contrary, that Jesus underwent the extreme judgment of God for sin and bore all that God could display against our evil when imputed to Him. Therefore nothing but grace remains, so to speak, and becomes the portion of those who believe. Thus faith establishes the law, as legalism undermines it in order to let off the guilty. It is the same principle with the people of God. In Romans 8 it is written, "What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8: 3). It is not merely fulfilled in Him, but in the Christian;, it was established in the Cross and it is fulfilled in us "who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." The reason is because the new nature in the believer always loves the law of God and is subject to it, as nothing else is. This displays itself in the ways of the believer, in holiness, obedience, and love. For he who loves has fulfilled the law; as the apostle says elsewhere, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Rom. 13: 10). Hence we find that in the case of Christ, who was the proper manifestation of God's grace, there was the fullest homage paid to the law; though personally His own title was above law, yet was He in grace made under law as truly as He was made of a woman, and this fittingly and righteously to accomplish redemption.

"

And when they had completed all things according to the law of [the] LORD, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth

."60 The law was owned in Jerusalem; grace takes its place among the insignificant and despised and outcast and good-for-nothing in the eyes of men: indeed, not only in Galilee but in a place proverbially obscure even there — Nazareth. What a wonderful witness of the way of Divine grace! People when they choose a place are apt to consider what pleases them most and will answer their interests best. What pleased God most and answered the interests of grace best was Nazareth. There His Son spent His earliest days. "

And the child grew and waxed strong [in spirit],* filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him

." How entirely independent of human culture,61 of anything that man could bring from without — this Child the Son of God, filled with wisdom; but as it is written, "the grace of God was upon him."

*["In spirit"]: so A and later uncials, most cursives (1, 33, 69) and Syrr. Aeth. Edd. omit, as BDL Syrsin, most Old Lat., Amiat., etc.

"

Now his parents went to Jerusalem* every year at the feast of the passover

." It is this, their yearly visit to Jerusalem, which accounts for their being at Bethlehem when the Magi came up from the East. Certainly the arrival was not immediately after the Babe was born. It can hardly be doubted that it must have been on one of their regular subsequent visits, when they not only went up to Jerusalem, but, as we can understand, they turned aside to Bethlehem, which had now more than ever the deepest interest in their eyes, as the birthplace of the Child that had been given them — the Messiah. On the occasion of this visit, at least a year after His birth, the Magi came up and found the young Child with Mary His mother, and presented unto Him their gifts. And this accounts for the fact that, when Herod found it out, he ordered the children to be killed from two Years and under. He would scarcely have done this, cruel man as he was, had the Child been just born; but because at least a year had passed or more, to make sure of his purpose, he orders all to be killed from two years old and under "according to the time which he had accurately inquired from the Magi." This causes at first sight a difficulty, because the Child is again seen in Bethlehem, whereas we are told that they lived at Nazareth. But there is really nothing to perplex the weakest believer. Luke supplies the link by telling us of the annual return to Jerusalem, while Matthew gives us the additional scene of the visit of the Magi to Bethlehem according to prophecy.62 Nothing would have been easier than, when they were at Jerusalem, to have turned southward to Bethany — nothing more natural than that they should revisit the scene of the most important event in their lives. Indeed, never had anything in interest approached the birth of Jesus since the world began. It was to be eclipsed, or at the least outshone, by the greater and altogether incomparable work of His cross. But this was not yet come.

*"To Jerusalem" is in AC and later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat., Amiat. Goth. Arm. Aeth. Edd. omit, after BDL, Syrr. Memph.

We are next given to see that, when He was twelve years old, a remarkable illustration of His youthful days takes place.63 "When they had completed the days64 as they returned, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem; and his parents* knew not [of it]. . . . And not having found him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him.† And it came to pass, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers and hearing them, and asking them questions" (verses 43, 45f). A more attractive sight morally there is nowhere even in God's Word. Just at the age when there is apt to be neither the simplicity of the child nor the exercised good sense of the man, we find Jesus thus engaged. Others of like age were, no doubt, bent upon their play, or the indulgence of curiosity in such a city, frittering away the most valuable time, that never can return, before the bustle of human life begins and the great struggle in which so many lose themselves continually. But Jesus was found lowly, and at the same time filled with wisdom, using the golden opportunity, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them (a proof of His humility), and asking them questions, a proof of His interest in the Scriptures. It was not enough that the Lord wakened His ear morning by morning to hear as the learned: it was not enough that He gave Him the tongue of the learned that He might know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary. (Isa. 50: 4). But here it is the ear and tongue of the learner in the use of the means at the command of any child in Israel. However taught of God He might be immediately, here He was none the less sitting in the midst of the doctors of Jerusalem, both hearing them and asking them questions. It was not teaching them, though perfectly competent and personally entitled to do so as the Son of God.

*Edd. adopt "His parents," following BDL, 1, 33, Syrsin, Memph., etc. AC and later uncials, most cursives and Old Lat., the other Syrr. and Goth. have "Joseph and His mother."

†"Seeking Him": so A, later uncials, and the cursives. Edd. adopt "seeking Him diligently," after BCDL.

No doubt His very questions were very instructive, such as never had been heard in this world before. Still, this beautiful picture displays the perfect propriety of the child Jesus. For though He was God, He was man; and not only man, but in this special stage of His manhood, as a youth, He shows all deference to those who were older than Himself. Had He acted upon right, He was the Lord of that temple, He might have taken up the word of Malachi, which bore witness to His coming there in power and glory. He might have claimed as Jehovah "suddenly [to] come to his temple: and who shall endure the day of his coming? And who shall stand when He appeareth? . . . He shall sit [as] a refiner and purifier of silver; and he will purify the children of Levi and purge them as gold and silver, that they shall offer unto Jehovah an oblation in righteousness." Mal. 3: 1, 3. But no; He, the Master, is found there as the disciple of the Word of God, as one Who does not for Himself dispense with, but on the contrary, would seek the profit of that Word which was on the lips of these doctors. It was, after all, His Father's Word: so he hears them and asks them questions. "And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding, and answers." Thus His questions led to the manifestation of Divine truth; so yet more His answers, as is evident from this that they also put questions to Him.65

And when His parents "saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said to him, Child, why hast thou dealt thus with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee distressed. And he said to them,66 Why [is it] that ye have sought me? Did ye not know that I ought to be [occupied] in my Father's business?"66a Thus from early youth our Lord had the consciousness of being the Son of God above all earthly claims. But exactly as grace acknowledges the law, so the eternal Son acknowledges His human place as the child of Mary. He asserted and proved that He was really the Son of the Father in His own consciousness and that consequently He must be about His Father's business. It was not open to, or possible for, Him to set aside His Father's will. This was the first object before His heart. But spite of all this devotedness as Son of God, spite of His parents not understanding what He said, He comes down with them "to Nazareth and was in subjection to them," while His mother keeps all these* sayings, little understood, in her heart.

*So Weiss, with corr ACL, etc., Syrcorr, but Revv., as W.H., follow pm: "the."

"

And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men

." Thus we have this fresh notice of the Lord's growth outwardly as well as inwardly. How can we reconcile such intimations with His being God Himself, though man? Most evidently He was always perfect, but then He was the perfect Babe, and the perfect Youth, as we shall also find Him to be in due time the perfect Man. At any given moment He was absolutely perfect, and yet He grew. He advanced from a Babe to a Youth and from a Youth to a Man. And so it was, that, as He grew up, the perfection was in exact harmony with His growth, and proved itself to be so both to God and man. If the immaculate and holy Babe was precious in the sight of God, yet more as youth, and most of all the developed maturity of a man.

It is thus therefore that, while all was perfect and always so, still, that perfection admitted of progress; "and Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favour67 with God and men." But all this, we may observe, is in precise accordance with the spirit and design of our Evangelist, and, in fact, found in this Gospel alone.

LUKE 3: 1-14.*

Matt. 3: 1-12; Mark 1: 1-8.

* Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 256-262.

The dates are given in Luke reckoning from the years of the Roman empire. Judea is but a province of it, the Herods are in power. All this was a very humiliating and significant circumstance for Israel — impossible if the people had been faithful to God. But God does not hide the shame of His people; on the contrary He makes it manifest by this very fact — He gives it a record in His own eternal Word, the Word that liveth and abideth for ever.

"

Now, in the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar,68 Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip Tetrarch of Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias Tetrarch of Abilene,

69 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas."* We see from this that, although the high priests were there, yet even this holy office was affected strangely by the new circumstances of Israel. There was not one high priest but two;70 there was disorder that not only dislocated the people politically, but tainted their religious relations. However, God was faithful and His word

"

came upon 71 John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness

" — even in spite of these circumstances, but in the wilderness. It is no question of the city of the great King now, but of the wilderness; and John the Baptist's dwelling in the wilderness, and the Word of God coming upon him there, speak volumes as to the real state of the holy city. It was not to Zion that the Word of God came.

*"In the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas": so Edd. after ABCDEGHKL, etc., and most cursives. The plural "A. and C. being high priests" is confined to minuscules.

Accordingly, John "came into all the district round the Jordan,72 preaching [the] baptism of repentance for [the] remission of sins." Repentance was what characterised John's preaching; not but that repentance was and abides always a truth obligatory upon every sinful soul that comes to the knowledge of God. Under Christianity repentance, so far from being lessened in its character, is deepened: yet you could not say that it is characteristic of Christianity — faith is much more so. Hence in Galatians the apostle speaks of "when faith was come." (Gal. 3: 23-25). "When repentance was come" would be no description of the new thing, whereas in John the Baptist's preaching it was the emphatic word that described the character of his message. John came therefore "preaching [the] baptism of repentance for [the] remission of sins." He had indeed a peculiar position. It was not law simply nor even prophets, though in truth he was the greatest of prophets; none had arisen greater than John the Baptist. But it was one who was the herald of the Messiah, Whom he proclaimed to be just at the doors — yea, in their midst, as he says — and in view of His immediate coming he calls men to repentance. It was the confession of utter failure with respect to the law and despising of the prophets, but it was also to confess their sins in view of One just coming Who could and would forgive their sins. He preached therefore "[the] baptism of repentance for [the] remission of sins." This was not arbitrary but of Divine authority. "He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." He was really sent to baptize with water; but at the same time there was an intimation given to him that he should see the Spirit descending upon some special Individual — the Messiah; and that the Messiah should be a baptizer (not with water, but) with the Holy Ghost. This was his peculiar mission. Christ, and He alone, baptizes with the Holy Ghost, and this the Lord Jesus did when He went up to heaven. But John baptized upon earth with water. No doubt under Christianity baptism with water still continues and has a very important meaning,  - I do not doubt a good deal deeper than John's. It is not merely baptism unto repentance that "they should believe on him which should come after him." But now baptism is founded on the faith of Him Who has already come and died; consequently, the great point of Christian baptism is burial (not into Christ's life, of course, but) into His death. John could not say this; he saw a living Christ, though he spoke by the Holy Ghost of His being "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1: 29).  How far he entered into the meaning of what he said is another matter. We know for certain that when he was thrown into prison himself afterwards, he was somewhat offended or stumbled, and sent some of his disciples to ask, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Luke 7: 19). It is clear therefore that he looked for a Christ in power to break the chains of the oppressed and to deliver the captives, as well as to preach the Gospel to the poor. But to see a Saviour despised and rejected more and more, and himself, His forerunner, languishing in a prison, these were altogether new and strange thoughts to John the Baptist. Nevertheless God had taken care that his lips should proclaim the mighty work of Christ in both its parts, as the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, and as the One Who baptizes with the Holy Ghost.

Now we have John the Baptist acting here according to Isaiah the prophet. "Voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Only the Spirit of God in Luke takes care to give it the utmost breadth. "Every gorge shall be filled up, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked [places] shall become straight [paths], and the rough places smooth ways. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God."73 (Isa. 40: 3-5). We have not this elsewhere. In Matthew, Mark, and John the quotation stops short of this. But Luke, though he begins with the Jew, does not end with him; but very decidedly goes out to all the nations. Hence expressions that would add largeness and comprehensiveness are particularly added by the Spirit here.

But another peculiarity of Luke is exemplified here also. There is not only exceeding breadth given to the ways of God, but also the Word of God in its moral power is continually enforced. So when John the Baptist speaks to the multitudes that come to be baptized of him, he warns them, as the other Evangelists do also, to flee from the wrath to come, and not to presume upon their privileges of birth, saying, "We have Abraham for [our] father74; for I say to you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham." Moreover, already "the axe is applied to the root of the trees"; judgment was at the door;  - "every tree therefore not producing good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire." This process was what was now going on. So far we have what is common to Luke with Matthew. But we have afterwards what is peculiar. "And the crowds asked him, saying, What should we do then?" And then we have John the Baptist's detailed exhortation to different classes of men. "He answering says* to them, He that has two coats let him give to him that has none; and he that has food let him do likewise." Although John called to repentance, it is a poor and superficial sorrow for sins that simply owns the past and judges, however strongly, the evil that has hitherto broken out in our ways. John lays down suitable conduct for those who professed to repent. God was acting Himself for His own glory in the spirit of this same grace. Repentance prepares the way for grace; it is produced by grace, of course, but at, the same time it leads into a path of grace.

*"Says" is the reading of AD., etc., whilst BCpm LX, 1, 33, 69, have "said," which Edd. (Revv.) adopt. Blass, however, retains λέγει.

So also when the tax-gatherers came to be baptized, instead of dismissing them contemptuously as a mere Jew would have done, he answers their question, "Master what should we do? And he said to them, Take no more [money] than what is appointed to you." Notoriously they were extortioners, their rapacity was proverbial; they plundered the people of whom they were the official tax-gatherers. The soldiers similarly "asked him, saying, And we, what should we do? And he said to them, Oppress no one, nor accuse falsely; and be content with your pay."74a It is clear that here we are warned against violence and corruption, the two great features of men left to themselves But, besides, contentedness with their pay is pressed upon them. It is remarkable how much the spirit of contentment has to do not only with the happiness of a soul but with its holiness. There is scarcely another thing that so tends to disturb our relationship with God and man as discontent. It makes an individual ripe for any evil. It helps, on a great scale, to the revolutions of nations and other social ruptures. On a smaller scale, it subverts the equilibrium of families and the right attitude of individuals as nothing else can. So we read of "unthankful, unholy" classed together by the Spirit of God. We also find unthankfulness mentioned as leading into idolatry. The Gentiles not only did not glorify God as God, but they were unthankful, and they fell into all kinds of moral depravity. There is nothing more important than to cherish a thankfulness of heart, sanctifying the Lord God in our hearts, having confidence in His goodness, and also in the certainty that He has given to ourselves individually exactly the thing that is best for us. But the only way to be thus content, whatever may be our lot, is to look at God as dealing with us in Christ for eternity.

There is thus, under the most homely words of John the Baptist, real moral wisdom from God suitable to men's circumstances here below. We have not here heavenly things; these are the fruit of Christ's redemption. Nevertheless, the sketch that is given us of John the Baptist's teaching, is eminently practical, and suited to deal with the conscience and heart. And we shall find this to be always true as we advance further in our Gospel.

Luke 3: 15-18.

Matt. 3: 11, 12; John 1: 10ff.

John the Baptist's appearance in Israel at this moment struck them the more, because, in consequence of Daniel's famous prophecy of the seventy weeks, and it may be other scriptures, they were at that very time waiting for the Messiah. The expectation was general over the East, no doubt through the Jews who were scattered abroad. Therefore a man so distinguished as John the Baptist was for righteousness raised the question whether he were the Christ75 or not. But his answer was always distinct. He pointed to the fact of his own baptizing with water. This was peculiar to him and a sign to Israel. But even his (if I may so say) coming by water gave him the opportunity of contrasting One Who had come after a far different sort, even looking at power, not to speak of blood. Jesus "came by water and blood." (1 John 5: 6). The point, however, that John contrasted with the water is His baptizing with the Holy Ghost. It was a Person infinitely greater than himself, One Whose dignity was such that the tie of His sandals he was not worthy to unloose; One not only mightier and more dignified, but Who would be distinguished by baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with fire baptizing with the Holy Ghost as the fruit of His first advent, and baptizing with fire as the accompaniment of the second. When the Lord Jesus comes again, He will baptize with fire; He will execute the solemn judgment of God upon the world. Baptizing with the Holy Ghost is what makes the Church (that is, God's present assembly) separate from the Jew even.

The Acts of the Apostles may serve to make this particularly plain. When the disciples were with the Lord after His resurrection, He spoke to them of the things concerning the kingdom, besides giving them many infallible proofs of His own life in resurrection after His suffering. Among the rest, He told them that they were not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father. The Lord therefore distinguished John's from His own mission by this. He baptized with the Holy Ghost, John only with water. Accordingly not many days after this, on the day of Pentecost, the baptism of the Holy Ghost became a fact. The Lord shed forth what was then seen and heard: the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they were thus baptized (as Paul afterwards taught — into one body; that is, the Church). Of the baptism with fire, you will observe, the Lord does not speak one word. The reason is that this was not to he accomplished then. When John is looking onwards, he sees both, but when Christ had actually suffered on the cross, He announces the one and not the other. Baptism with fire will take place when the Lord will be revealed from heaven "in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thess. 1: 7 f.) This is plain from verse 17: "Whose winnowing fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge* his threshing floor, and will gather† the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." This is the baptism with fire.76 "Exhorting them many other things also, he announced [his] glad tidings to the people."

*"And he will thoroughly purge": so ACDL, all later uncials, every cursive, and Amiat.-Edd. adopt "thoroughly to purge," after pm B, Memph. Arm.

†"Will gather": so ACDL, later uncials, cursives, etc.; but Edd. "to gather," with AB, Old Lat., Arm.

Luke 3: 19-20.

Then we have in Luke's remarkable manner a compendious description of John up to his imprisonment. "But Herod the Tetrarch being reproved by him as to Herodias the wife of his brother,* and as to all the wicked things which Herod had done, added this also to all[the rest], that he shut up John in prison." The object is to present a full picture of John77; and hence Luke does not adhere to mere time any more than Matthew, does. Whatever adds to the moral description is Luke's province. John was faithful not only to the lower classes, but also to the highest. His testimony to Christ was decisive, making nothing of his own glory in order to exalt the Lord; and he suffered for it too; he was shut up in prison because of righteousness.

*"His brother": so Edd., after BDELΞ and Old Lat. — ACK and later uncials, with 33, Syrr. Memph. add "Philip."

Luke 3: 21, 22.

Matt. 3: 13-17; Mark 1: 9-11.

And now the door is open for presenting Jesus. And it came to pass "all the people having been baptized, and Jesus having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened." How lovely the picture! The Lord, perfect as He was, did not keep Himself aloof from the people. Morally separate from sinners, nevertheless their confession of sin, which was implied in their baptism, attracted the Lord's heart, and He would be with them, though Himself absolutely sinless. The Holy Jesus also being baptized, and praying — so thoroughly was He found taking His place as the dependent Man upon earth, and while He was praying — the heavens were opened "and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I have found my delight."78 The heavens had never opened before, except in judgment when Ezekiel had seen them. But there was an object upon earth that even God could look upon with delight. There was none in heaven that was adequate to draw out and fix the attention of God; nothing could solicit His complacency: a creature could not, but Jesus, because He was not only God but perfect man, was precisely what met the love of God — of His heart. It was God's delight to look down and see a Man Who could answer to all His affections and nature and mind and judgment about everything. This is beautiful, and shows what the grace of God is in connection with His being baptized when all the people were. Man as such knows nothing of the mind of God. As the heavens are high above the earth, so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts; and the heavens now answer to Jesus on the earth, and the Holy Ghost descends upon Him.

From the very first the Holy Ghost had to do with Jesus as man; we were told so in the first chapter, where it was said (when Mary inquired how she was to be the mother of a child) that the Holy Ghost should come upon her. But Jesus was much more than thus conceived of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost descended upon Him. This is what is called by Luke, in Acts 10: 38, His anointing of God: "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power." The anointing of the Holy Ghost was not to counteract the evil of human nature — this was already secured by His miraculous conception. There was no taint of evil whatever in the humanity of Christ; all was perfectly pure, there being a total absence of sin, sin in nature as well as in act. But now there was more than this; there was the Spirit of God poured upon Him. Him God the Father sealed, and this when He was baptized, before He entered upon His public service. It was the expression of God's perfect delight in Him, and it was also power for service. He alone of all men needed no blood to fit Him, as it were, to be anointed with the Holy oil. I speak now after the language of Exodus and Leviticus. (Ex. 29: 21, Lev. 8: 23f.) Others of His people would receive the Holy Ghost, but this only in virtue of blood, His atoning blood being put upon them. Where the blood was put, the oil could be. But Jesus as man receives the Holy Ghost without blood shed or sprinkled. The Holy Ghost descended upon Him in a bodily shape like a dove. I do not doubt that the outward form of the Spirit's descent was in relation to the character of Christ, just as the cloven tongues as of fire were in relation to the place and work of the disciples on the day of Pentecost. It was not merely a tongue, but a divided tongue, showing that God was now going out to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. It was a tongue of fire, whatever the grace; it was in the Divine judgment of all evil. But in Christ's case there is neither of these characteristics. In bodily shape the Spirit came down like a dove, the emblem of what is proverbially pure and gentle to the last degree. "Holy, harmless, undefiled," (Heb. 7: 26) such was Christ.

But more than this the voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I have found my delight." This voice is of all importance too. It is manifested that Jesus was the delight of God as man, not merely in consequence of a work that was going to be done; it was the Person Who was owned, and His Person too after He had identified Himself with the people who were baptized. They must not mistake nor misinterpret His baptism; it was the baptism of repentance for them, but thoroughly in grace for Him. He had nothing to own. He was about to enter upon a great work, but baptism was in no way the expression of need on His part, nor to fit Him for what He was entering upon. "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased" — not only I am, but I have been well pleased, "have found my delight." It is retrospective, and not present merely.

Luke 3: 23-38.

Then we have in a very remarkable manner the genealogy of Jesus introduced.79 It ought to strike any thoughtful mind that the Spirit of God must have sufficient reason for introducing it here. The natural place we might think for such an account of our Lord's ancestry mould be when He was born, or even before His birth, as we have had one in Matthew. A Jew would require it there, and has it there in the first Gospel; but here it is introduced when He is baptized. The reason is just this, that the genealogy here is brought in, not so much to show whence Jesus was naturally or rather legally, to meet the difficulties of a Jew, and to prove He was truly the Messiah according to the flesh, but to bring out the Person of Jesus on the human side as the Father had just owned Him on the Divine. Accordingly, the genealogy is very peculiar in this — that it traces him up to Adam and to God. Why so? Clearly this has nothing to do with His being the Messiah; but it is expressly to manifest One Whose heart was toward the whole human race. It is the genealogy of grace, as Matthew's is of law. It is not one traced down from the two great fountains of blessing for Israel, Abraham, and David, the stock of promise and the line of royalty. Here it is tracing Him up; this wonderful Person owned as the Son of God, Who is He? So the Spirit of God deigns to show that He was, as it was supposed (He was legitimately counted), the son of Joseph. This implies that the writer of the Gospel was perfectly aware that He was not a mere man, that He was not Joseph's son except before the eyes of men. I presume that the genealogy was really Mary's, but Mary being Joseph's wife) He could be "as was supposed, the son of Joseph," and so on. This will accord with the character of the Gospel, because the Lord Jesus was not a man in virtue of His connection with Joseph, but with Mary. The reality of His manhood depended on His being the son of Mary; nevertheless He was, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was of Heli. Heli, as I take it, was the father of Mary; hence the genealogy here traces Him through Nathan to David; this was His mother's line, as it appears to me. In Matthew He is derived through Solomon, which was Joseph's line. Therefore, as the law required, it was the father who gave Him His title, and thus He had a strict legal title to the throne of David. The great point in the Jewish system was the father. Thus Matthew gives us Joseph's royal genealogy; but Luke furnishes the maternal line through Mary. This indeed was the real one for Christ's humanity; and the object of Luke was to attest the grace of God displayed in the Man Christ Jesus. The humanity of Christ has the largest place throughout this Gospel.

LUKE 4: 1-13.*

Matt. 4: 1-11; Mark 1: 12, 13.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 262-270.

In none of the Synoptic Gospels has the temptation a weightier place than here. Matthew confronts the Messiah with the great enemy of God's people; and, giving the three closing acts just as they took place, reports them as they illustrate dispensation, and the great impending change, which is emphatically his theme. Mark notes the fact in its due time, and the devotedness of the blessed Servant of God thus tempted of the devil in the wilderness, with none but the wild beasts near, till at its close, as we know also from Matthew, angels came and ministered to Him. John characteristically omits the circumstance altogether; for it clearly attached to His being found in fashion as a man (when He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men), and not to His being God. To Luke it was of capital moment; and the Spirit, as we shall see, saw fit to arrange the order of its parts so as the better to carry out the design by our Evangelist.

Here is noted the transition from Jordan of Jesus, "full of the Holy Ghost" (verse 1). It might not at first sight appear to be a likely path; but the more one reflects, the more one may see its wisdom and suitability. He was just baptized, sealed of the Spirit, and, above all, owned by the Father as His beloved Son, forthwith led in the Spirit in the wilderness; and there He was forty days tempted of the devil.80 The principle is true of us too.  -  Sons of God by the faith of Jesus, and consciously so by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, we too know what it is to be tempted by the devil. Temptation is hardly the way in which the devil deals with his children; but when we are delivered, such conflicts begin.

The first in order, and this in Matthew too, is the appeal to natural wants. "And in those days he did not eat anything; and when they were finished, he hungered.* And the devil said to him, If thou be Son of God, speak to this stone that it become bread."81 The Lord at once takes the lowliest ground, really the most elevated morally, that the sustenance of nature is not the first consideration, but living by the Word of God. He waits for a word from Him Whose will He was come to do. He refuses even in His hunger to take a single step in the way of satisfying His sinless wants without Divine direction. The true and only right place of man is dependence; and He having become a man, would not swerve. from the dependence which referred to God instead of following wishes of His own: indeed, His will was to do God's will. "And Jesus answered unto him, saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, (Deut. 8: 3) but by every word of God"†81a (verse 4). Such was the true estate of man, and his right relation to God; and Jesus therein abode, in circumstances of the greatest trial, the bright contrast of the first Adam, who left it where all circumstances were in his favour.

* Before "hungered," AE, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr., etc., put "afterwards, which Edd. omit, with BDL and Old Lat.

†"But by every word of God": so AD, etc., and all later uncials with cursives, Goth., most Syrr.  Rejected by Edd. following BL, Syrsin, Amiat., Sahid., Memph. (from Matthew).

Historically Israel were so tried and failed totally, spite of that constant lesson in the daily manna of their dependence on God and of His unfailing care of them. They hardened their hearts, not hearing His voice; so that forty years long Jehovah was grieved with that generation, and said, "It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways." (Ps. 95: 10). But the heart of Jesus was toward His Father, and He, with the full power of the Spirit, refused to supply even the most legitimate wants of the body, save in obedience. "My meat," as He said later, "is to do the will of him that sent Me." (John 4: 34.)

The next here (the third in Matthew, and, as I believe, in the order of occurrence) is the worldly appeal. "And [the devil]* leading him up into a high mountain,† showed him all the kingdoms of the habitable world in a moment of time. And the devil said to him, I will give thee all this power, and the glory, for it is given up to me,82 and to whomsoever will I give it. If, therefore, thou wilt do homage before me, all‡ shall be thine. And Jesus answering him said, It is written, Thou shalt do homage to the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serve" (verses 5-8). (Deut. 6: 13). The best authenticated text leaves out of the Lord's answer to the devil "Get thee behind me, Satan; for."§ And a little reflection shows that, as the external authority demands this omission, so it seems necessarily to follow from the change of order in which Luke was, I doubt not, guided of God. For the vulgarly received text would give the strange appearance that the Lord told the adversary to get behind or go away, while Satan is represented as staying where he was and tempting the Lord after a new sort. Omit these words, and all flows on in exact connection with the context. Internal evidence is thus in harmony with the external.

*["The devil"]: so AE, etc., Amiat., Syrr. (sin.: "Satan"); but omitted by Edd., after BDL, 1.

†"Into a high mountain": as AD and later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. Goth.; but Edd. omit, following BL, Amiat., etc. (from Matthew).

‡"All": so Edd. after ABDLΔΞ, most cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrr. Memph. "All things" is found in only a few minuscules, and in Amiat.

§"Get thee behind me, Satan," in T. R. after "him" is supported only by A with later uncials, most cursives. Edd. follow BDLX, 1, 33, etc.; and the same authorities with Amiat. omit "for."

In Matthew where the words occur in the third place,83 as in fact it was so, the command to get hence is followed by the devil leaving Him. Thus all is as it should be. In Luke where the transposition occurs, the necessity for omitting the clause is evident; and so it was.

The Lord rebuts the worldly temptations by insisting, according to the written Word, on worshipping the Lord God and serving only Him. Homage to Satan is incompatible with the service of God.

Lastly comes the religious trial. "And he led him to, Jerusalem,84 and set him on the edge of the temple,85 and said to him, If thou be Son of God, cast thyself down hence, for it is written, He shall give charge to his angels concerning thee to keep thee; and on their hands they shall bear thee up, lest in any wise thou strike thy foot against a stone. (Ps. 91: 11f). And Jesus answering said to him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt [the] LORD thy God" (verses 9-12)  (Deut. 6: 16). Here the devil would separate the way from the end, omitting this part of the psalm which he cites. The Lord replies with the saying in Scripture, "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God." To trust Him and count on His gracious ways is not to tempt. The Israelites tempted Jehovah by questioning whether He was in their midst or not; they ought to have reckoned on His presence, and succour, and care. Jesus did not need to prove the faithfulness of God to His own Word; He was sure of it and counted on it. He knew that Jehovah would give His angels charge over Him, and this not outside ' but to keep Him in all His ways. Thus foiled in his misuse of Scripture, as everywhere else, the enemy could do no more then"And the devil having completed every temptation, departed from him for a time."86 Jesus, the Son of God, was victorious, and this in obedience, by the right use of the written Word of God.

Luke 4: 14-30.

It is important to notice that the temptation in the wilderness preceded the active public life of the Lord, as Gethsemane preceded His death in atonement for our sins. It is an utterly false notion that this defeat of Satan in the wilderness was the basis of our redemption. Such, I believe, is Milton's view in his "Paradise Regained." But this theory makes victory to be the means of our deliverance from God instead of suffering, and gives consequently the all-importance to living energy, rather than to God's infinite moral or judicial dealing with our sins on the cross; it puts life in the place of death, and shuts out or ignores expiation. The real object and connection of the temptation is manifest, when we consider that it is the prelude to the Lord's public life here below, in which He was continually acting on His victory over Satan. When the enemy came again at Gethsemane, it was to turn the Lord aside through the terror of death, and specially of such a death as His on the cross. In the wilderness, and on the mountain, and on the pinnacle of the temple (for there were three different sites and circumstances of this temptation) it was to draw Him away from the path of God by the desirable things of the world.

But however this may be, Jesus now returns in the power of the Spirit into Galilee"and a rumour went out into the whole surrounding country about him. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all."87 This is the general description, I apprehend; but the Spirit of God singles out a very special circumstance which illustrates our Lord in the great design of this Gospel. It is peculiar to Luke.88 "He came to Nazareth [Nazara], where he was brought up: and he entered, according to his custom, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.89 And the book of the prophet Esaias was given to him. And having unrolled the book, he found the place where it was written." It was, in fact, the beginning of Isaiah 61.90 This is the more remarkable because the connection of the prophecy is the total ruin of Israel, and the introduction of the kingdom of God and His glory when judgment takes its course. Yet in the midst of this these verses describe our Lord in the fulness of grace. There is no prophet so evangelical, according to ordinary language, as Isaiah; and in Isaiah there is no portion perhaps of the whole prophecy that so breathes the spirit of the Gospel as these very verses. Now what can be more striking than that this should be read on that occasion by Christ, and that the Spirit of God gives Luke alone to record it? Our Lord takes the book and reads, stopping precisely at the point where mercy terminates. It is the description of His grace in ministry; it is not so much His Person as His devoted life, His work, His ways on earth. In fact, it is pretty much what we have in Acts 10: "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Immediately after in the prophecy follows "the day of vengeance of our God." But our Lord does not read these words. Is not this, too, extremely remarkable, that our Lord should stop in the middle of a verse, and read what describes His grace and not what touches on His judgment? Why is this? Because He is come only in grace now. By and by He will come in judgment, and then the other verses of the prophecy will be accomplished. Then it will be both the year of His redeemed when He will bless them, and the day of vengeance when He will execute judgment upon their enemies.

Meanwhile, all that He was about to do in Israel for the present was only gracious activity in the power of the Spirit. To this accordingly God had anointed Him — "to preach glad tidings to [the] poor; he hath sent me [to heal the broken-hearted],* to preach to captives deliverance, and to [the] blind sight, to send forth [the] crushed delivered" — and this is what He was to preach — "[the] acceptable year of [the] LORD." 91 "And he rolled up the book." Now nothing, it is plain, can more aptly suit the object of the Spirit of God in Luke, who is the only writer inspired to record this. All through the Gospel, this is what He is doing. It is the activity of grace among men's misery and sins and need." By and by He will tread the winepress alone, He will expend the fury of the Lord upon His adversaries; but now it is unmingled mercy. Such was Jesus upon the earth, and so Luke describes Him throughout. No wonder therefore that He closed the book. This was all that was needful or true to say about Him now; the rest will be proved in its own time. The judgment of God in the second advent is as true as the grace of God that He has been showing in the first advent.

*Before "to preach deliverance," A, with all later uncials and most cursives, Goth. Syrrpesch hcl hier has the words bracketed, which Edd. reject, after BDLΞ, 33, 69, Syrsin Old Lat. and Amiat., Origen, etc.

Another thing, too, is remarkable and proved by this. It is that the whole state of things since Christ was upon the earth till the second advent is a parenthesis. It is not the accomplishment of prophecy, but the revelation of the mystery that was hid in God that is now brought to view. Prophecy shows us Christ's first and second advents together; but what is between the two advents is filled up by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, Who is forming the Church wherein there is neither Jew nor Gentile. Prophecy always supposes Jew and Gentile. The Church is founded upon the blotting out of this distinction for the time being. It is during the period when Israel does not own the Messiah, which stretches over all the interval between the two advents of Christ, that this new and heavenly work proceeds.

The Lord therefore stopped dead short, and closed the book. When He comes again, He will, as it were, open the book where He left off.92a Meanwhile, His action was exclusively in grace. The Lord draws their particular attention to this; for when He returns the book to the officer who has it in charge, He sits down. People were all gazing at Him in wonder. He tells them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears."

But unbelief at once betrays itself. "Is not this the son of Joseph?" They could not deny the grace,93 but they contemn His person: "He was despised and rejected of men." In point of fact, unbelief is always blind; He was not Joseph's son, 94 except legally — He was God's Son. "And he said to them, Ye will surely say to me this parable, Physician, heal thyself: 95 whatsoever we have heard has taken place in* Capernaum, do here also in thine own country." His answer to their thought was, that "No prophet is acceptable in his [own] country."96 Nevertheless grace shines out all the more because Christ was rejected. It is remarkable that He does not vindicate Himself by power; He does not work any miracles to make good the rights of His own person, but appeals to the Word of God, the Old Testament Scriptures, for what suited the present time. "Of a truth, I say to you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months,97 so that a great famine came upon all the land; and to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidon,† to a woman [that was] a widow." Grace, therefore, when Israel rejects (and they were doing so now), goes out to the Gentiles. Sidon was under the special judgment of God, and there was a widow there, reft of all human resources, and she was the one to whom God sent His prophet in the days of deep distress. When Israel themselves were suffering from a terrible famine, God opened stores for the desolate woman in Sidon. Thus grace goes outside His guilty people. So, too, in the time of Elisha the prophet. Many lepers were in Israel, "and none of them was cleansed, but Naaman the Syrian." Grace is sovereign, and in the days of Jewish unbelief Gentiles are blessed. This Scripture showed; and how beautiful this was and in keeping with Luke! It paves the way for the going forth of the Gospel. When Israel rejected the Lord Jesus, the grace of God must work among the Gentiles, among those who least expect and deserve mercy. How did the men of Nazareth relish this? They were "filled with rage, and rising up, they cast him forth out of the city, and led him up to the brow of the mountain upon which their city was built, so that they might‡ throw him down the precipice." This is the expression of the hatred which follows rejection of grace. When self-righteous men are convicted of wrong without feeling their guilt against God, there are no bounds to their resentment; and the enmity of their hearts is most of all against Jesus.

*T. R. for "in" has ἐν, with AE, etc., and most cursives. Edd. adopt εἰς, which may be "to" or "for" (R.V. "at"), but is probably a colloquial substitute for ἐν, as in verse 44. The critical text is that of BDL, 69.

†"Of Sidonia"; so ABCDL, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat., Memph. "Sidon" appears in EΔ, etc., Syrr.

‡"So that they might," as Edd. after BDL, etc., 1, 33, 69. Memph., in place of "in order to," the reading of AC, etc.

The result of the Lord's first appearance at Nazareth in the synagogue was that, though He Himself characterized His ministry from the Word of God, or rather the Spirit of God had already anticipated it as He then openly proclaimed it, as being the ministry of grace, by reading this scripture and declaring that it was that day fulfilled in their ears, man soon turns from it in anger and dislike. Attracted at first, he revolted from it afterwards, because grace both tells out the ruin of man, and always insists on going out wherever there is need and misery. Nevertheless, the Lord did not make it plainly known that grace should go out to the Gentiles till their rejection of Himself began to manifest itself. And now the same men who were so smitten with the charm of grace at first were ready to turn upon Him and cast Him down headlong from "the brow of the mountain upon which their city was built. But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way."98 His time was not yet come.

Luke 4: 31-37.99, 100.

Mark 1: 21-28.

He "came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,101 and taught them on the Sabbaths. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for his word was with authority."102 This was what Jesus showed. It was not first miracles and then glory, but the truth of God. The Word, not a miracle, forms a connecting link between the soul and God; no miracle can do this — nothing but the Word of God. For the Word addresses itself to faith, while a miracle is done as a sign to unbelief. But as God produces faith by the Word, so He also nourishes it by the Word. This proves the immense value of the Word of God; and Christ's word was with authority.

"And there was in the synagogue a man having a spirit of an unclean demon."103 This is the first great work that is recorded in Luke. Our Lord seems already to have done mighty deeds in Capernaum (that is, in this very place) before He went to Nazareth: but Luke begins with Nazareth, in order to characterise His ministry by that wonderful description in the Word of God which opens out grace to man. Now we find Him in Capernaum, and the first miracle recorded of Him here, whilst He was teaching in the synagogue, was the cure of a man possessed with a spirit of an unclean demon which had the consciousness of the power of Jesus. For the demoniac cried out, "Eh! what have we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene?104 Hast thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy [One] of God." It is remarkable here and elsewhere, the "" and the "we" — the man himself, and yet the identification with the evil spirit. Moreover, this possessed man says, "I know thee who thou art; the Holy [One] of God." This appears to be the same character in which Psalm 89 speaks of Christ, where it says, "Jehovah is our shield; and the Holy One of Israel our King" (verse 18). It is a psalm full of interest because the Holy One there is the sole groundwork of the hopes of the people, as well as the stay of the house of David, otherwise ruined. It is just the same thing in our Gospel, save that Luke goes out more widely. The point of Psalm 89 is that every hope depends on Him. Israel have come to nothing; the glory has waned, and at length departed; the throne is cast down to the ground. But then He is the King, and therefore it is perfectly secured.

The shame of God's servants shall be removed, and their enemies shall surely be put to perpetual reproach, after the downfall of their pride, and all the painful discipline that the people of Israel shall pass through.

Here the unclean spirit prompts the man to acknowledge Jesus as this Holy One. But He refused such testimony; He did not even receive the witness of men, how much less of demons! "Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out from him. And the demon, having thrown him down105 into the midst, came out from him without doing him any injury. And astonishment106 came upon all, and they spoke to one another, saying, What word [is] this! for with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out. And a rumour went out into every place of the country round concerning him." He has thus shown that the power of Christ must first put down Satan (but not without a certain allowed humiliation for man); that this is the chief evil which pollutes and oppresses the world; and that until the day Satan's power is expelled it is no good to expect full deliverance. We must go to the source of the mischief. This, therefore, is the earliest of the miracles of Christ brought before us by Luke.107

Luke 4: 38-44.

Matt. 8: 14-17; Mark 1: 29-39.

But then there is also compassion — deep and effectual pity for men. So our Lord, when He leaves the synagogue, goes into the house of Simon.108 "And Simon's wife's mother was suffering108a under a great109 fever, and they besought him for her. And, standing over her, he rebuked the fever, and it left her; and immediately standing up, she served them." Not only was there power to dismiss the disease with a word, but there was, contrary to all nature, strength communicated to her. A "great" fever leaves a person, even when it is gone, exceedingly weak, and a considerable time must elapse before usual vigour returns. But in this case, as the healing was the fruit of Divine power, Peter's wife's mother not only arose, but served them immediately.

The same evening, "when the sun went down, all they that had persons sick with divers diseases brought them to him; and having laid his hands on every one 110 of them, he healed them." It made no difference. It was not only that He could cure the fever, but He could cure everything. "He laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them." Another thing to be noticed is the manner of it, the tenderness of feeling — He laid His hands on them. This was in no way necessary; a word would have been enough, and the Lord often employed nothing more than a word. But here He shows His human compassion — He laid His hands upon them and healed them. Demons also came out of many, but we find Him here keeping up the testimony to man of the power that Satan had in the world. There are few things more injurious to men than forgetfulness of the power of Satan. At the present time there is exceeding unbelief on the subject. It is regarded as one of the obsolete delusions of the past. But we find most clearly demons going out of many, not in any one peculiar case, "crying out, and saying, Thou art the Son* of God." These acknowledge the Lord, not as the Holy One of Psalm 89, but as the Anointed One, the Son of God, of Psalm 2. He was the King of Israel in both cases. But the Lord accepted not their testimony in any instance. He really was the Holy One and the Son of God, but it was from God that He took His title, and recognition by the demons He refuses. "They knew that He was the Christ."111 What a solemn thing to find that man is even more obdurate than Satan! for the demons were more willing to acknowledge Jesus than the men even who were delivered here from the demons, and who were healed of all their diseases. Man for whom Jesus came! What a proof of the incurable unbelief of man, and the certain ruin of those who refuse the Son of God! Devils believe and tremble. Man, even when he does believe with his natural heart, does not tremble. He may believe, but he is insensible in his belief. Can such faith save him? The only faith that is good for anything is that which brings the sinner in his need and ruin before God, and which sees God in infinite mercy giving His Son to die for him. Anything short of this ends in destruction; and so far from natural faith bettering a man, it only brings out his evil, and turns to corruption the more speedily. It is a kind of complimenting the Son of God, instead of a lowly and a true owning of man's own condition and God's grace.

*"The Son": so Edd., after BCDLΞ, 33, Old Lat., Amiat., Memph., Arm. A and later uncials, as most cursives, Syrr. Aeth. Goth. add "the Christ" before "the Son."

But there is another thing which this chapter brings before us — namely, that our Lord departed112 when it was day "into a desert place; and the crowds sought after* him, and came up to him, and [would have] kept him back113 that he should not go from them. But he said to them, I must needs announce the glad tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for for this I have been† sent forth. And he was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee."‡114 The great object of the coming of Christ was to preach God's kingdom;115 it was bringing God and God's power before men — God's power visiting man in mercy. No healing of diseases or expulsion of demons could satisfy the Lord. And when He had by His miracles attracted attention in any place, it was the more reason for His going to another. He did not seek His own fame; another should come in his own name who would. But for our Lord Jesus to attract a name was a reason for departure, not for staying.

*"Sought after": so Edd., following ABCD, etc., 1, 33, 69. EG and some later uncials have simply "sought."

†"I have been [I was]": so ABCDLΧ, 1, 33, 69. AE and some later uncials have "I am."

‡"Galilee" (Cf. Mark 1: 39): so Blass, with ADΧΓΑΠ, etc., Old Lat., Goth., Syrrpesch hcl. Other Edd. adopt "Judea," after BCLQR, a few cursives, Syrsin, Memph. See further in Appendix, note 114.

LUKE 5: 1-11.118

Matt. 4: 18-22; Mark 1: 16-20.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 271-274.

It will be remarked that the account of the call of Simon and of the rest of his companions, at the Lake of Gennesaret, is given not only more fully in Luke than in any other Evangelist, but in a totally different connection. In Matthew and Mark we find it mentioned immediately after our Lord began to preach, when John was reported to be put into prison. The first thing named then is when Jesus was "walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, cast a net into the sea, for they were fishers; and He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." Both in Matthew 4 and in Mark 1 the account is given in general terms. We have far more detail in Luke. Is this an accident? Contrariwise, it is the fruit of a gracious design of God. Luke had the task confided to him more than any other of bringing out God's grace toward man and in man. Along with this he had also to lay bare the working of man's conscience and heart, especially under the operation of the Spirit of God.

The Lord, then, is shown us calling Simon, not at the time when it actually occurred, but in connection with the development of this great purpose — calling men to be associated with Himself. Hence this notice of their call, which had taken place some time before, (John 1: 40ff.) is reserved till the opening and character of His own ministry have been fully set before us; His reading at Nazareth with grace and nothing but grace to man — not judgment as yet, for He stopped before it; His subsequent comment when they began to show their unbelief, even after their confession of the gracious words which had proceeded out of His mouth; His proof from the law that the unbelief of Israel turns the stream of grace toward the Gentiles, the intimation of what God was going to do now, and their subsequent deadly wrath and indignation; then His course in the power of the Holy Ghost; but above all, His word with power, not nevertheless without mighty works, as in dealing with Satan's dominion over man and all the physical consequences of it., the healing of all diseases and the casting out of demons. But especially He preached the kingdom of God, and that far and wide, fame among men being only an additional reason for moving elsewhere.

Thus it is Man, by the power of the Holy Ghost, entirely above Satanic working and human weakness, delivering mankind, and ministering the Word of God as the sole means of spiritual strength and association with God, as the Spirit is the source of all that is good and great according to God. But even this is not enough for His grace; He would associate men with Himself in good. Hence in the next scene before us the Holy Spirit shows us the Lord calling others. He rejoices in the habitable part of His earth, and His delights are with the sons of men; He associated them with Himself. It was not only for men's pardon that He came, but for salvation and all its fruits. Simon Peter, being the more prominent of those now called, is brought into the foreground. If he is to help others, he must be first helped himself; and man cannot be truly helped without raising the question of sin and settling it in the heart, as well as by Christ outside ourselves.

The Lord now effects this. Standing by the lake, He sees two ships*117 there, and the fishermen engaged in washing their nets, when "the people pressed upon Him to hear the Word of God."118 So he enters "into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and asked him to draw out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the crowds out of the ship. But when he ceased speaking, he said to Simon, Draw out into the deep, and let down your nets for a haul."

*"Two ships": so BD and nearly all later uncials, with most cursives and Old Latin. Tisch, "little ships," after ACL, 33, and some other cursives.

The work must be carried within. Even the Word may seem to fail, but it may be followed up by some act or way on God's part in order to drive it home to the heart. He tells Simon therefore to thrust out and let down the net for a haul. A seaman is apt to think that he understands his own business best; and Simon answered saying, "Master,119 we have laboured through the whole night and have taken nothing; but at thy word I will let down the net." Thus, feeble as his faith might have been at this time, it was real. He bows to One Who naturally could not be considered to know anything of a fisherman's work, but Peter has confidence that He is Messiah, and learns that He is this and, far more, that He had the mind and grace of God. It would be now shown whether He had all power at His command. Simon had reason to know that He had Divine energy as to men on earth; but now there was a new thing, One Who had dominion over the fish of the sea. Sin had greatly hindered the exercise, and even proof, of the large dominion which was originally granted to them. But here was the repairer of all breaches; in Peter's ship was the Second Man, the Lord from heaven. "And having done this, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes." The failure of human resources, as they are to avail themselves of the blessing, is made manifest. "Their net* was breaking, and they beckoned to their partners who were in the other ship to come and help them. And they came and filled both the ships, so that they were sinking." The help of man is as vain as man himself, even for the blessing of God. The day was coming when the net should not break, no matter how large the fishes nor how great the variety. But this is reserved for another age, when the Second Man shall reign in righteousness and power. Here we see the feebleness of this age.

*"Net": so ACΧΓΔΛΠ, etc., most Syrr. — Edd., "Nets (were)", as BDL, etc., Syrsin.

"

But Simon Peter seeing it, fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, Lord. For astonishment had laid hold on him, and on all those who were with him, at the haul of fishes which they had taken

." Now comes the deep moral result for

Peter's heart. The greatness of the Lord's grace as well as His power brought his sinfulness more than over before his soul. A strange moral inconsistency follows. He casts himself at the Lord's feet, and says, "Depart from me." But he does not depart from Jesus. Rather does he fall down as near to Jesus as he can; yet he says, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, Lord." He confesses his unfitness for the presence of the Lord, yet would not lose Him for all worlds — goes to Him, yet feels and owns that He might justly go away from such a sinner. Thus the Lord, Who knew the heart, did that which was eminently calculated to act upon Simon, who knew the powerlessness of man as he is to do what the Lord had done. They had all shown how unable they were; they had "laboured through the whole night, and taken nothing." But the Lord not only knew all, but could do all; and this brings up sin on Simon's conscience.120

But, further, the Lord's answer thereon was, "Fear not, henceforth thou shalt be catching men." He banishes the fear so natural to the heart where sin is, which is even increased at first by the action of the Spirit of God. The Holy Ghost only removes fear by the revelation of Christ, His work, and His word. His operation is to make us know what is calculated to produce fear as well as to lead us to Him Who alone by His grace can banish it. The effect of the state of the first man, when rightly viewed, is to fill with intense fear and horror: as to himself he could not but fear; from Christ he hears, "Fear not." And who is entitled to be heard? "My sheep hear my voice; and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10: 27.) It is blessed to learn from God that our sinfulness, while not only naturally but even spiritually it ought to produce torment, is met, and fear is cast out, by the perfect love of God in Christ. Our Lord, on the ground of that great redemption which He was about to bring in by His blood, was entitled righteously to say, "Fear not." This was the Divine way of forming one that was afterwards to become a fisher of men. He must be in the experience of the blessing of grace himself before he was fit to be the witness of it to others.

"And having run the ships on shore, leaving all, they followed him." 120a Such was the power of grace; it made all things little in comparison with Christ, and of what Christ becomes to the man who believes in Him.

Luke 5: 12-16.

Matt. 8: 1-4; Mark 1: 40-45.

We have seen that the call — the special ministerial call — of Peter and the rest was taken out of its historical place in order to present the Lord uninterruptedly in the activity of His grace, when He entered upon His manifestation.

Now we find two remarkable miracles, which, I believe, set forth sin in two different forms. The first is under the phase of leprosy. "It came to pass, as he was in one of the cities, that behold there was a man full of leprosy." Luke particularly mentions this symptom. It was not in an incipient stage or a slight case, but a man full of leprosy, "and, seeing Jesus, falling on his face, he besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou art able to cleanse me." The man wanted confidence in the Lord's love and good pleasure to meet his need. The Lord, accordingly, showed not only His power but His goodness. "He stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou cleansed." This was by no means necessary for healing. Love, however, does not limit itself to man's necessities, but takes occasion by them to show the great grace of God. Under law it would have been defiling: but we shall never understand the Gospel unless we see that He Who was pleased as man to come under the law was really above law. And we find these two things running through the account of our Lord's life on earth — dispensationally under law, and in His own person above it. Nothing could overthrow the rights and dignity of His person. But now we find Him displaying both what man ought to be towards God and what God is towards man. In the first case He is found under law, but this course of miraculous manifestation was the display of what God is — God present and active in goodness among men, and this in the reality of a man's soul, mind, and affections. So Christ stretched forth His hand and touched him, and, so far from defilement accruing to Himself, the leprosy departed from the man. He "enjoined him to tell no man,"' but go, show thyself to the priest." Thus we have in the injunction a man under law, as truly as we have, in the Lord God Who healed the leper, One above man and consequently above law. "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, as Moses ordained, (Lev. 13: 49.) for a testimony to them." Until the cross, Jesus rigorously maintains the authority of the law. To have been merely under law would have defeated the whole object of the Gospel; it would result in leaving man under his leprosy, under the utter loathsomeness of sin, the hopeless and defiling ruin that sin produces. Therefore if grace was to be shown, Christ must be infinitely above man, must in a human body put forth a hand which is the natural emblem of its work, and touch the man that was lost in sin beyond all human remedy. "I will" — which only God was entitled to say — "be thou cleansed." Divine power at once accompanies the word. Power belongeth unto God."

The Lord would make the healing known, but according to law. "Go, show thyself to the priest," whose business it was to inspect. The priest would have known the reality of the leper's case, and would be the best judge among men of the reality of the cleansing. "Offer for thy cleansing, [according] as Moses ordained,122 for a testimony to them."

There was no provision under law for healing leprosy, but there was provision, when a man was healed, for his purification, his cleansing. None but God could heal. When, therefore, the healed leper came and showed himself to the priest with his offering, it was a proof that God was there in power and grace. (Ps. 103: 3.) When had such a thing been known in Israel? A prophet had once, with characteristic difference, indicated a cure from God, outside Israel. But God was now present in the midst of His people. The conviction would thus be forced upon the priest that God was there in Christ, above law, but yet not overthrowing the law's authority. "Go, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, [according] as Moses ordained, for a testimony to them." If that testimony were received, they would themselves (and in due time openly) enter the ground of grace. "By grace ye are saved," as it is grace, too, that enables us to walk according to God. "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6: 14.) This is the Christian's ground.

Again, the more the Lord forbade his speaking, so much the more went there a fame abroad of Him: and great multitudes came together "to hear, and to be healed by Him of their infirmities."

The Lord, however, instead of yielding to the applause of the multitude, "withdrew 123 himself, and was about in the desert and praying." Nothing can be more beautiful than this retirement for prayer between these two miracles. However truly God, He was man, not only in maintaining the authority of the law, but also in practising dependence upon God.

Luke 5: 17-26.124

Matt. 9: 1-8; Mark 2: 1-12.

"

And it came to pass on one of the days that he was teaching, that there were Pharisees

"

I and doctors of the law sitting by' who were come out of every village of Galilee and Judea, and [out of] Jerusalem: and the power of [the] LORD was [there] to heal them.*

And lo, men bringing on a couch a man who was paralysed:

and they sought to bring him in, and to put [him] before him

." Now we have the other form in which sin is set forth, not so much in its defiling influence, but in the impotence which it produces — in man's total powerlessness under it. Sinful man is not only defiled and defiling, but also has no strength. The Lord accordingly proves Himself equal to meet this result of sin as much as the other. There were difficulties in the way; but what are these to the sense of need and faith? "And not finding what way to bring him in, on account of the crowd, going up on

the house-top

, they let him down

through the tiles,

126 with his little couch,

into the midst before Jesus

."

*"Them": so Blass, with ACDΧΓΔΛΠ, Syrr., Old Lat., etc. Others (as Revv.) "with Him to heal." according to BLΞ, Aeth., and Cyril.

Wherever real faith exists, there is earnestness. Here the difficulties and obstacles only increased and made manifest the desire to meet with Jesus. Accordingly the man submits to all these efforts on the part of those who carried him. He was let down into the very midst of the crowded assembly where Jesus was. "And seeing their faith,126a he said, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee." Not, Man, thy palsy is healed; but, "thy sins are forgiven thee." This is very instructive. In order to reach the powerlessness of a sinner he must be forgiven. There is nothing keeps a man feebler, spiritually, than the lack of a sense of forgiveness. If I am to have the power to serve the living God, I must have the assurance that my sins are forgiven. (Cf. Hebrews 9.) Accordingly the first word of the Lord took up his deepest need, that which, if not supplied, would always leave him without strength. "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee."

But forgiveness on earth at once aroused the incredulous opposition of the scribes and Pharisees. They "began to reason, saying, Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who is able to forgive sins, but God alone?" As God alone could heal a leper, so God alone could forgive sins; so far they were right. The great mistake was that they did not believe Jesus to be God. But then in both these miracles Jesus is man as well as God, and this comes out distinctly here. For, "Jesus, knowing their reasonings, answering, said to them, Why reason ye in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?" One was as plain as the other. He could have said either. He had a true and a gracious spiritual motive for dealing with the real root of the evil first. The deepest necessity of man was not to rise and walk, but first of all to have his sins forgiven. "But that ye may know that the Son of man127 hath power upon earth to forgive sins,128 (he said to the paralysed man,129) I say to thee, Arise and take up thy little couch, and go to thine house." He did not say, "That ye may know that God in heaven will by-and-by forgive sins"; but "that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." Jesus is God; but here it is in His quality of the rejected Messiah, the Son of man, that He has power on earth to remit sins. He has authority from God, as indeed He is God; but still it is as Son of man, which adds immensely to the grace of His ways. The despised Messiah of Israel had authority on earth to forgive sins. Thus, the strength that is imparted by the Holy Ghost to the believer is not at all the ground of the remission of his sins, nor is to be the proof to himself that he is forgiven, but "that ye may know," etc. Others sought to know the reality of this forgiveness, and, above all, of the Son of man's authority to forgive man. This is God's great object. It is not merely doing good to man, but the display of the rejected Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. God is putting honour on Him, not only in heaven but upon earth. Now He is exalted in heaven; but even as the Son of man, the rejected Christ, He has authority on earth to forgive sins; and this the Gospel proclaims. Then the strength to rise up and walk imparted to the poor powerless sinner is just a witness to others of the forgiveness of his sins; but the great thing for such an one is not merely what others see and judge of, but what pertains to himself alone, that none can absolutely know outside, that which is a word from the Lord to his own soul — "Thy sins are forgiven thee."

The public fact, however, acts powerfully upon the beholders. "Immediately standing up before them, having taken up that whereon he was laid, he departed to his house, glorifying God. And amazement seized all, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things today."

They had not the sense of forgiveness, but at least they were filled with fear. It was a new thing in Israel.

Luke 5: 27-39.

Matt. 9: 9-17: Mark 2: 13-22.

We have seen the grace which both cleanses and forgives. The soul needs both. God is "faithful . . . to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9.) But now it will be found that it is not only grace which characterises the power of God, but the direction in which it works. The cleansing and forgiving might have been solely within Jewish precincts. It is true that the latter of the two — the forgiving is tied to the person of the Son of man ("The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins"), and that the title of Son of man supposes His rejection as Messiah. This, therefore, at length, opens the way for His working in grace among men as such — not merely in Israel. But all comes out far more distinctly in the new scene.

And after these things he went forth, and saw a tax-gatherer, Levi by name, sitting at the receipt of taxes; and said to him, Follow me."

The Jews had an especial horror of tax-gatherers. They were their own countrymen; and yet they made themselves the instruments of their Gentile masters in gathering the taxes. Their position constantly gave occasion to the improper exercise of their authority, to oppressing the Jews, and to extorting money on false pretences or to an unlawful amount. Hence, as a class, the publicans were peculiarly in disfavour.

But when grace acts, it calls the evil as well as those whom men would count good. It goes out to the unjust no less than to persons just (as far as men could see). The Lord calls the tax-gatherer, Levi (who is named by himself Matthew, the inspired writer of the first Gospel). He was called, is it mere, in the very act, "sitting at the receipt of taxes." We hear nothing of any antecedent process. There may have been: but nothing is revealed All we know is that, from the midst of this work, naturally odious in the eye of an Israelite, Levi was called to follow Jesus. This was a very significant token of grace, going out even to what was most offensive in the eyes of the chosen people. When God acted in grace, it was necessarily from Himself and for Himself, entirely above the creature; there was no ground in man why such favour should be shown him. If there were any reason in man, it would altogether cease to be the grace of God. Grace means the Divine favour, absolutely without motive save in God Himself, to a good-for-nothing creature, miserable and lost; and the moment that you come down to that which is utterly ruined, what difference does it make what may be the nature of the ruin, or what the means of it? If people are needy and ruined, this is enough for the grace of God in Christ, who calls such that they may be saved and follow Him.

Thus Levi quits all for Jesus: "He forsook all, rose up, and followed him." But more than this: his heart, gladdened by such undeserved and unlooked-for grace, goes out to others. He "made a great entertainment for him in his house — and there was a great crowd of tax-gatherers and others who were at table with them." This was a further carrying out of the same grand truth. God was displaying Himself in Jesus after a sort entirely unexpected by man. It is difficult for us to conceive the light in which the Jews regarded the publicans. But here was a great company of them, and of those who were associated with them; and, wonderful to say, Jesus the Holy One of God, sits down with these publicans and sinners, Jesus was now making known the grace of God. Man never understands this — never appreciates it. On the contrary, he charges grace (implicitly at least) with being indifferent to sin. The truth is, that self-righteousness covers sin, and is always as malignant as it is hypocritical, imputing its own evil to others, especially to grace. There is nothing so holy as grace, nothing which supposes sin to be so very evil. Nevertheless, there is a power in grace which calls and raises entirely above the conventionalities of men. It supposes total guilt and ruin when it comes to deliver; and if it comes to deliver, why should it not work among the neediest and the worst? Were it human, the effort would be unavailing. But it is the revelation of God Himself, and therefore it is efficacious by the gift and in the cross of Christ.

Man, however, objects. "Their scribes and the Pharisees murmured at his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with the tax-gatherers and sinners?" They had not the honesty to complain to Jesus, but vented their spleen against His disciples. But the Lord answers for His people. "Jesus answering said to them, They that are in sound health have not need of a physician; but those that are ill" — a simple but most satisfactory and impressive answer. Grace always enables even a man, a believer, to speak the whole truth; it is the only thing that does. How much more did He, Who was full of grace, speak in the power of truth! Granted that they were sick; they were just the persons for the physician. It is not even said that they were conscious of their sickness. At least God knows the need, and God seeks the needy, and Jesus was God Himself as man presented in grace. As He said, "I am not come to call righteous [persons], but sinful ones to repentance."*130

*It is instructive to observe that in the parallel passage of Matthew and of Mark the best authorities omit "to repentance." How far from the truth is it that repentance is a Jewish thing! Luke, according to the deep moral design of his Gospel, has these words.

Then comes in another truth of immense importance. In reply to the question, "Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make supplications in like manner to those also of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?"*131 "He† said to them, Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber 132 fast while the bridegroom is with them?" They were ignorant of the glory of the person of Him Who was present, as much as of His grace. Had they known the singular dignity of Jesus, they would have seen how incongruous it would have been to fast in His presence. At ordinary times, in view of the evil of the first man, in the sad experience of his rebellion against God, to fast would be appropriate. But bow strange would be His people's fastings in presence of their longed-for King! His very birth was announced by angels as good tidings of great joy, and the heavenly host praised God, saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill towards men." Certainly, then, His disciples should act in consistency with the presence of such a glorious Person, with such a spring of joy to heaven and earth. Would a fast be in keeping with the circumstances? The Lord therefore answers, Can ye make the sons of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?" Gladness of heart suits both the grace and the glory of the Lord: "But days will come when also the bridegroom will have been taken away from them, then shall they fast in those days." The Lord had the full consciousness of what was at hand — of man's fatal, suicidal opposition to God, and to God above all manifest in Ills person. His rejection would soon come,133 and sorrow of heart for the disciples. "Then shall they fast in those days."

*"Why . . . drink?": "Why" (Διαστί) is in pmCD, etc., Old Lat., Syrr., etc., but Edd. omit, as corrBLΞ.

†"He": so A, etc. Edd., "Jesus" after BCDLΞ, 33.

But He furnishes more light than this. He points out the impossibility of making the principles of grace coalesce with the old system. This He sets forth by two similes. 134 The first is the garment: "No one putteth a piece* of a new garment upon an old; otherwise, he will both rend† the new, and the piece which is from the new will not match‡ the old." There can be no harmony between the old thing and the new: law and grace will never mix. But next, He sets it forth under the figure of the new wine. "No one putteth new wine into old skins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be poured out, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine is to be put into new skins, and both are preserved."§ He shows that there is an energy in the new thing which is destructive to the old. Just as the new wine would burst the old skins, and thus the liquor would be lost and the bottles perish, so would fare that which Christ in the Gospel introduces. Where there is the attempt to connect grace with anything of the law, the old no longer retains its true use, and the new completely evaporates. "New wine is to be put into new skins." Christianity has not only an inner principle peculiar to itself, as flowing from the revelation of God in Christ, but also it claims and creates forms adapted to its own nature. It is not a mere system of ordinances and prescriptions. It has living power, and that power makes new vehicles for itself. But man does not like it.

*"No one putteth a piece," etc.: so AC, later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat., and some other versions. Edd. adopt "No one cutteth a piece out of a new garment and putteth it upon an old one; else he will both rend the new and the piece," etc., after BDLΞ, 1, 33, Syrr. "Will rend," so Edd. with BCDLΞ, 33.

†T.R. "rends" is found in AE, etc., Amiat., Syrr., Memph.

‡"Will not match": so Edd. after ABCDL, 33, etc. "Doth not match" is in E, etc., Amiat., Syrr., Memph.

§"And both are preserved": so ACD and later uncials, most cursives (69), Old Latin, Syrr., etc. Edd. omit, following BL, 1, 33, Memph. (from Matthew).

Accordingly the Lord adds what we have at the close of the chapter, and what is peculiar to this Gospel, the general maxim: "And no one, having drunk old wine [straightway]* wisheth for new; for he saith, The old is better."† The legal system is far more suited to the fallen nature of man; it gives importance to himself, and it claims his obedience, and falls in with his reason. Even a natural conscience owns the rightness of the law; but grace is supernatural. Though faith sees how perfectly suitable grace is to God as well as to the new man, and how it is the only hope for a sinful man who repents towards God; nevertheless it is wholly above the reasonings of man, and it is constantly suspected by those who know not its value and power. Man's nature cleaves to its old habits of prejudices, and distrusts the intervention of grace.

*"[Straightway]": so ACcorrE, etc., most cursives (33, 69), Syrr. Edd. omit, after BCpmL, 1, Aeth., Arm., Memph.

†"Better": so ADΔ, etc. Edd. adopt "good," following BL, Syrpesch, Memph. The verse is left out by D and some Western copies of Old Latin.

LUKE 6: 1-5.*

Matt. 12: 1-8; Mark 2: 23-28.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 274-278.

The Evangelist is inspired to introduce these accounts of two Sabbaths here. Very probably also they took place at this point of time. If so, it is because the moral object of the Spirit in Luke coincided here with the historical order. This we may infer from a comparison with the order of Mark, who, as a rule, cleaves to the sequence of events. In Matthew, on the contrary, these facts are reserved for a much later point of his Gospel (Matt. 12). A vast compass both of discourses and miracles is introduced by him before he speaks of these two Sabbath days. And the reason is manifest. Matthew here, as often, departs from the order of occurrence in order to show the long-continued and ample testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, before he makes use of these incidents on the Sabbath, which even the Jews themselves felt to slight their sabbatical practice, and threatened the legal covenant. Ezekiel speaks of the Sabbath as a sign between Jehovah and Israel (Ezek. 20: 12, 20). And now this was about to vanish away. Hence these actions on the Sabbath day are extremely significant. They occur in Matthew, in the chapter where our Lord announces the unforgivable sin of that generation, as also at the close He disowns His natural ties, and speaks of the formation of a new and spiritual relationship, founded on doing the will of His Father in heaven. Then forthwith, in the next chapter, He shows the kingdom of heaven and its course, which was about to be introduced because of the utter apostasy of Israel and the consequent rupture of that economy.

In Mark and Luke this is not the immediate object. They are given, it would appear, as they occurred, and Mark had to tell. Still, it is evident that their mention here falls in with Luke's design remarkably. He takes notice, we saw in the last chapter, of the working of Divine grace, which calls not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Nor will the new things of Christ, the Second Man, mix with the old things. Yet man's preference is undisguised for the old because it suits his habits and self-importance. Grace exalts God, and must be paramount.

In this chapter we are told, "It came to pass" that not on the second Sabbath after the first, but "on the second-first Sabbath"* — a very peculiar phrase, which has perplexed the commentators and critics immensely. It is found in no place or author but here. The only thing which really explains it seems to be a reference to Jewish customs and their feasts.

*(Verse 1) "Second-first Sabbath." The word δευτερωπρώτῳ (or δευτέρῳ πρώτῳ, as in some copies) is, in my judgment, part of the inspired text, as exhibited in the vast majority of manuscripts, uncial and cursive [ACDEHKM(R)SUVX(L)ΔΛΠ, almost all cursives], as well as the Amiatine of Vulg. and other Latin copies, the Gothic, the later Syriac[hcl], etc., not to speak of ample citation and comment in Greek and Latin fathers. The Sinai and Vatican, with L of Paris, omit the word, as do seven cursives [including 1, 33, 69] and several versions [Syrrsin pesch hier, Memph., Aeth.]. For this we may easily account by the difficulty of the phrase and its absence, not only in the corresponding passages of Matthew and Mark, but everywhere else. All attempt to show how so singular a word could have slipped in and have spread, so generally and soon, is a failure; though it may be fair to state that Schultz conjectures that it arose out of insertions, by some of πρώτῳ, by others of δευτέρῳ, which were in the next stage joined together (B.T.).136 It was retained by Tischendorf in his last (eighth) edition, as it is by Blass. See further in Scrivener, ii., p. 347ff. W. H. App., p. 58f, and note 47.

On one of these occasions (Lev. 23: 10-12) the first cut sheaf of corn was waved before God. The disciples were now going through the cornfields. Thus the connection was evident. It was the earliest Sabbath after the first-fruits had been offered. This adds to the striking character of the instruction. The Passover took place immediately before, as we know: the paschal lamb was killed on the fourteenth of Nisan between the evenings. Then followed the great Sabbath immediately, and on the day after, the first sheaf of corn was waved before the Lord. It was the type of Christ's resurrection. The corn of wheat had fallen into the ground and died, but was now risen again. (John 12: 24.) As the killing of the lamb was the type of His death, so was this wave sheaf of His resurrection. From the day on which it was offered, seven weeks were counted complete (of course with their Sabbaths), and then came the next great feast, or that of weeks. The first of these Sabbaths in the seven weeks, counted from the day of the wave sheaf, was not the great paschal Sabbath, but it followed next in succession. The Sabbath that opened the feast of unleavened bread after the Passover was the first, and the following Sabbath day was "the second-first." It was "second" in relation to that great day, the paschal Sabbath, but "first" of the seven which immediately ensued. Thus it was the first Sabbath day after the wave sheaf; and no "Israelite indeed" could have counted it lawful to have eaten of corn till after Jehovah had received His portion.136a

On that Sabbath, then, the disciples, in passing through the cornfields, "were plucking the ears of corn, and eating [them], rubbing them in their hands." This was always allowed, and is still, in Eastern countries round the Holy Land — no doubt a remaining trace of the old traditional habit of the Jews. It is allowed as an act of charity to the hungry. What a condition for the followers of the Lord Jesus to be in! What a proof of His shame and of their need!

But nothing moved the Pharisees: religious bitterness steels the natural heart. "But some of the Pharisees said to them,* Why do ye that which is not lawful to do† on the sabbath?"137 The Lord answered instead of the disciples, "Have ye not read so much as this, what David did when he hungered, he and those who were with him; how he went into the house of God, and took the showbread, and ate and gave to them also who were with him; which it is not lawful that [any] eat unless the priests alone? "The Spirit of God here takes up only David — not the priests of whom also Matthew treats, which was very suitable. He, writing for Jews, would use a proof of the folly of their objection which was before their eyes every day. But Luke refers to the moral analogy in the history of the great king David, who, after his anointing, and before coming to the throne (which was just the Lord's position now), was reduced to such excessive straits that the holy bread was made profane for his sake. God, as it were, refused to hold to ritual where the anointed king and his followers were destitute of the barest necessaries of life. For what did it imply? The depth of evil that ruled the nation. How could God sanction holy bread in such a condition? How could He accept of the showbread of the people as the food of His priests, when all the foundations were clearly out of course? Was not this evident in the hunger of His anointed and of His trusty band? Was not the rejected Son of David as free as the rejected David?

*(Verse 2) "To them so AE, etc., 33, 69, Amiat., Syrr. Edd. omit, after BCpmL, etc., Old Lat., Memph., etc.

†"To do": so ACEL, with later uncials, Syrr., Memph.; but Edd. omit, as BDR, 69, and Amiat.

The Lord closes this part of the subject with the declaration that "the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also."* Thus there is another reason yet more powerful. David was not the Son of man as Jesus was. The Son of man had, in His own person and position, rights altogether superior to any ritual. He was entitled to abrogate it. He would do so formally in due time; for this attached to His personal glory. "The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also," which David was not.

*Codex Bezae Cantab. transposes verse 5 to the end of verse 10. But this licence is small compared with the singular addition which it exhibits in place of that transposed verse 5: — Τῃ αὺτῃ ἡμέρᾳ θεασάμενος τινὰ ἐγαζόμενον τῳ σαββάτῳ εἶπεν αὐτῳ  Ἂνθρωπε, εἰ μὲν οἶδας τί ποιεῖς τί ποῖες, μακὰριος εἶ, εὶ δὲ μὴ οἶδας, ἐπικατάρατος καὶ παραβατὴς εἶ τοῦ νόμου. On the same day having beheld one working on the sabbath, he said to him: Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing, thou art happy; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law." It is surprising that any thoughtful Christian should be rash enough to regard this insertion as authentic; for while the Lord always met the faith of the Gentiles or Samaritans to whom grace gave a deeper perception of His personal glory above law, He does not anticipate, in His dealings in the Gospels, that deliverance of the believer from law which is based on His own death and resurrection as now revealed (B.T.). See, further, note 138 in Appendix.

Luke 6: 6-11.139

Matt. 12: 9-14; Mark 3: 1-6.

Nor is this all. The Lord Jesus on another Sabbath enters the synagogue and teaches, where "there was a man whose right140 hand was withered." And now the scribes and Pharisees with deadly hatred are watching141 to see "whether he would heal on the sabbath, that they might find something of which to accuse him." Such was man on one side: on the other there was a Stranger come down from heaven; a Man also, to fallen man, and with a heart to display heaven's and God's mind perfectly. But those who prided themselves upon their righteousness and wisdom are afraid lest men should be healed by Him at the expense of their ceremonies, and they seek to fasten an accusation against Him. "But he knew their thoughts,142 and said to the man who had the withered hand, Rise up and stand in the midst. And having risen up, he stood [there]." The thing was not done in a corner, but boldly, in presence of them all.

The Lord even challenges them publicly, and says, "I will ask * you if it is † lawful on the sabbath‡ to do good or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy [it]? "They were doing evil; it was His to do good. They were seeking to destroy His life; He was willing to save theirs. "And having looked around on them all, he said to him,§ Stretch out thy hand." It was enough: the man did so, "and his hand was restored as the other."|| How simple, and yet how truly Divine! Was this, then, a work done? Was the Son's healing what God had forbidden? Was this unworthy of God? Was it not, on the contrary, the very expression of what God is? Is not God always doing good? Does He forbear to do good on the Sabbath day? Was not the very Sabbath itself a witness how God loved to do good, and a pledge that He will bring His people into His own rest? Was not Jesus doing so to this sufferer, and giving a witness of the gracious power that will do so fully by and by?

*"I will ask": so AD, later uncials, most cursives, Syrr., Arm., Aeth.; but Edd. adopt "I ask," from BL, Amiat., Memph.

†"If it is": so Edd., after BDL, Syrr., Amiat., Memph. A and many cursives, "what is."

‡"Sabbath": so BDL; for "sabbaths" (T.R.).

§"Him": so Edd., following ABEΔ, etc., Syrr. "The man" is found in DL, 1, 33, 69, Amiat., Memph.

||"As the other": so AD, etc., 1, 69, Syrr. After "restored" some later uncials with 69 insert "whole," which Edd. reject, after ABDKL, many cursives (1, 33), Old Lat., Vulg., Syrr. Memph. (from Matthew), whilst BL and some cursives (33) leave out also "as the other" (so Edd.).

And what was the effect upon unbelief? "They were filled with madness, and spoke together among themselves what they should do to Jesus"; and this because He had shown that God never foregoes His title to do good even on the Sabbath day in a world that is ruined by man's sin and Satan's wiles. A superior power has entered and manifests the defeat of Satan. But, meanwhile, the instruments of Satan are filled, first with his lies, and secondly with his murderous hatred. "They spoke together among themselves what they should do to Jesus." For indeed they had no, communion with God and with His mind. They were only filled with madness, and communed one with another how to injure the Lord, the manifest children of their father, such did not Abraham.143

Luke 6: 12-16.

Mark 3: 13-19.

The pronounced enmity of the religious leaders led our Lord to special prayer. From man He turns to God. But there was another reason. He was about to call others to take up the work in which He had been engaged, and to carry it out to the ends of the earth. "And it came to pass in those days that he went out into the"' mountain to pray, and he spent the night in prayer to God." This special prayer suited both the circumstances of evil on man's side, and the fresh mission of grace on God's part. "And when it was day, he called his disciples; and having chosen out twelve from them whom also he named apostles."145 These were to be His chief envoys in the work.146

Luke 6: 17-19.

Matt. 4: 23-5: 1; Mark 3: 7-12.

"And having descended with them, he stood on a level place." This has been often misunderstood, and some have contrasted the discourse in "the plain" here with the discourse on "the mountain" in Matthew 5, 6, 7. There is no ground for this. The expression does not really mean a plain, but a plateau or level place on the mountain. It was the same discourse, which Matthew set down, without presenting the special circumstances which led to particular parts of it — questions, etc.; whereas Luke was inspired to give it in detached portions here and there, and generally with the questions or other circumstances which led to each particular part.147 The two inspired writers, I doubt not, were governed in this by the special design of the Holy Ghost in each.

It has been irreverently asked whether Luke could thus have written with the Gospel of Matthew before him. The answer is, It would be the highest degree of improbability on mere human principles. Had his Gospel no higher source than a skilful use of existing documents, he could not, in my judgment, have ventured to differ so widely from Matthew, in the disposition of facts and teachings, if he regarded his apostolic predecessor as inspired, and desired to strengthen his testimony, not to perplex souls, nor to furnish objections to men of speculative mind. The course he has pursued is the weightiest conceivable proof of his own direct inspiration, as the fruit of a special design on the part of the Holy Ghost. whether Luke had or had not the Gospel of Matthew in his hands. This I say, accepting fully the identity of the two discourses; for the attempt of the late M. Gaussen and others to establish their difference has long seemed to me a failure, not only in fact but in principle, from reducing the function of the Spirit to that of a reporter instead of an editor, in either case of course unerring.

Here, then, Jesus stood, where a vast multitude might hear Him. "And a crowd* of his disciples and a great multitude of the people from all Judea and Jerusalem, and the sea-coast of Tyre and Sidon, who came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases. And those that were beset by unclean spirits148 were healed. And all the crowd sought to touch him; for power went out from him and healed all."

*"Crowd": so AD and later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat. and Vulg. BL 1, and Syrr. insert "a great."

Luke 6: 20-23.

Matt. 5: 3, 4, 6, 11, 12.

But now we come to what was still better, not for the body nor for this world, but for the soul in relation with God. "And he, lifting up his eyes149 upon his disciples, said, Blessed [are] ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." There is this remarkable difference in the manner of presenting the discourse on the mount here and in the first Gospel. That in Matthew gives it in the abstract, presenting each blessing to such and such a class. "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Luke makes it a more personal address: "Blessed be ye poor.

The reason is manifest. In the one case it is the prophet greater than Moses, Who lays down the principles of the kingdom of heaven in contrast with all Jewish thought, and feeling, and expectation. In the other case it is the Lord comforting the actually gathered disciples, addressing themselves as so separated to Himself, and not merely legislating, so to speak. It was now the time of sorrow; for as bringing the promises in His person, man would not have Him.

Again, it is always "the kingdom of God" in Luke. "The kingdom of heaven" is more dispensational, and finds its perfect place in Matthew. Luke, as ever, holds to that which is moral. Certainly the poor were little in man's kingdom. "Blessed," were they, said the Lord, "for (theirs) is the kingdom of God."

Further, it may be remarked that there is no such fulness here as in Matthew, where we have the complete sevenfold classes of the kingdom, with the supernumerary blessings pronounced on those persecuted, whether (1) for righteousness' sake, or (2) for Christ's sake.

But here we have another difference very notable. There are but four classes of blessing — not seven; but then they are followed by four woes, which in Matthew are reserved to a still greater completeness in Matthew 23, at the end of His ministry, for the same dispensational reason which is adhered to throughout his Gospel. Luke, on the other hand, presents at once, first, the blessings: and immediately after, the woes. It was not the time of ease; judgment was coming. This flows from the moral character of his Gospel, just as we find Moses in Deuteronomy, which has a similar, purpose, telling the people that he sets before them the blessing and at the same time the curse (Deut. 28).

The first blessing, it will be noticed, is that which man always counts the greatest misery. So the poor in this world look to be despised; but "yours is the kingdom of God."149a The next blessing is hungering now, with the certainty of being filled. The third is present sorrow  - with joy promised (that is, in the morning).150 Lastly, "Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you151 [from them], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as wicked, for the Son of man's sake." Luke, it will be noticed, leaves out entirely persecution for righteousness' sake, which finds its fitting, though not exclusive, place in Matthew.

"Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in the heaven: for after this manner did their fathers act towards the prophets." This supposes exercised faith, with the greatest resulting blessing. But the fact that Luke confines himself to the blessedness of those persecuted for the Son of man's sake, beautifully accords with the direct addresses in his four classes. As the blessed here are immediately. before the Lord, so the persecuted here are only for His sake. All is intensely personal.*

*Cf. "Lectures on Matthew," p. 122.

Luke 6: 24-26.

Then follow the woes. "But woe unto you rich! for ye have received your consolation." Nothing more dangerous than ease and satisfaction in this world — there is no greater snare even to the disciple. So again: "Woe unto you that are filled!* for ye shall hunger." This, of course, has its moral bearing. There is leanness for the soul where the heart has all that it desires"Woe unto you† that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep." A still further carrying out of the danger of man's heart. "Woe‡ when all men shall speak well of you!" Here it is not personal only, but relative satisfaction.152 "For after this manner did their fathers to the false prophets." In all respects it is a complete picture of that which is spirituality desirable or to be dreaded. And thus our Evangelist closes this part of the discourse.

*"Filled": so AD, etc., Old Lat., etc. Edd. add "now," following BL and later uncials, 1, 33, 69, Memph.

†"Woe unto you": so A, etc. BKL, etc., 1, 13, 69, have "Woe ye."

‡"Woe": so Edd. with AB and later uncials, 1, 33. — DΔ, 69, Memph. add "to you."

Luke 6: 27-36.153

Matt. 5: 39-48.

There is no such open contrast with the law as in Matthew 5-7. The reason is manifest. Matthew has the Jews full in view, and therefore our Lord contrasts "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you," etc. All that Luke says is, "But I say unto you that hear, I say." The disciples actually addressed were Jews, but the instruction in its own nature goes out to any man, and is profitable for all the faithful, to the Gentile as much as to the Jew. Notwithstanding it was pre-eminently important for a Jew who had been formed on the principles of earthly righteousness. None the less was it full of instruction for the Gentiles when they should be called to hear. The Gentile believer has the same heart as the Jewish, is in the same world, has to do with enemies and those that hate. Hence the value of such a word, "Unto you that hear I say, Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you, bless those that curse you, pray for those that use you despitefully." This is entirely contrary to nature; it is the revelation of what God is, applied to govern the heart of His children. "Love your enemies, do good to those that hate you." It is this that He was doing, and showing in Christ, and the children are called to imitate their Father. "Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children." (Eph. 5: 1.) This is of the deepest importance practically, for Christ is our real key according to that revelation of Him which is given in the New Testament; and this alone enables us to use rightly and intelligently the Old Testament. The Christian who is under grace understands the law far better than the Jew who was under law; at least, he ought to enter into it, as a whole and in all its parts. with a deeper perception of it, than the saints who had to do with its ordinances and ritual. Such is the power of Christ and such the wisdom of God which is our portion in Him.

But, besides these unfoldings of truth, there are the affections that are proper to the Christian. "Bless those that curse you and pray for those that use you despitefully." The Lord looks for the activity of good, and the looking to God on behalf of those who might treat themselves despitefully. Thus it is not only kindness and pity, but there is the earnest and sincere pleading with God for their blessing.

Verse 29 is remarkable as compared with the corresponding portion (verses 39, 40) of Matthew 5. They both deserve our particular consideration and well illustrate the difference of the Gospels, and, what is also of the greatest importance, the manner of inspiration generally. It is a mistake to think that the Spirit of God is limited to a mere report even of what Jesus said. He exercises sovereign rights, while He gives the truth and nothing but the truth; and inasmuch as His aim is to give the whole truth, He is not tied down to the same expression, even while He is furnishing the substance of all that is needed for God's glory.*

*Cf. "Exposition of Mark," p. 10f, and note 6 in Appendix here.

Thus in the Gospel of Matthew the case is of one who sues at law. In that case the object is to take away the coat; and the Lord bids the disciple to let the cloak be taken also. Luke, on the contrary, writes, "him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to thy vest also." It is not a case of legal suing, but of illegal violence; and the spoiler who would take the outer garment is not to be resisted if he proceeds to take the inner one also. This clearly gives a far greater fullness of truth than if the Spirit of God had restricted Himself to only one or other of the two cases. The apparent discrepancies of the Gospels are therefore their perfection, if indeed we value the entire truth of God. Only thus could the different sides of truth be presented in their integrity. The Jew would require especially to be guarded on the side of law; but there is also violence in the world contrary to law; and it was necessary that the disciples should see it to be their calling and privilege to hold fast their heavenly principles in the face of man's force, no less than law. To maintain the character of Christ in our practice is of greater consequence than to keep one's cloak or coat also.

Then the Lord says, "Give to every man that asketh of thee." It is no question of foolish prodigality, but of an open hand and heart to every call of need. "From him that taketh away what is thine ask it not back." It is of all consequence that, as there should be the patient endurance of personal wrong — "unto him that smiteth thee on the cheek, offer also the other" — so there should be also the testimony that our life does not consist in the things which we possess. At the same time, He adds for our own guidance towards others, "As ye wish that men154 should do to you, do ye also to them in like manner: and if ye love those that love you, what thank155 is it to you? for even sinners love those that love them." To love those who love us is not the point for a Christian; it is a mere human principle — as the Lord emphatically says here, "sinners also love those that love them." It is not as in Matthew, publicans or Gentiles, but "sinners," according to the ordinary moral tone of Luke. This was true of man everywhere, and the word "sinner" has a great propriety and emphasis. Not only men, but bad men, may love those who love them. So, too, the doing good to those who do good to us is but a righteous return of which the evil are capable; as indeed lending, when they hope to borrow or to receive. Sinners do quite as much.155a But for us the word is "love your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for nothing in return*; and your reward shall be great." Nor is the reward all. "And ye shall be sons of [the] Highest." How soon it was made their conscious relationship! Thus it becomes the desire and aim — to acquit ourselves according to the relationship grace has given us. "For he is good to the unthankful and wicked." How truly Divine! We ourselves are the witnesses of it in our unconverted days.

*"Hoping for nothing (μηδέν) in return": so W. H., etc., after ABLD, Latt., etc. Tischendorf adopted μηδένα (Revv. marg. "despairing of no man"), following ΞΠpm. Syrr. (sin.: "do not cease hope of men"). We cannot reason on the use of the word [ἀπελπίζειν] elsewhere in the N.T., for this is its only occurrence. What influenced the Revv. is the fact that the word occurs in Polybius in the sense of despairing or giving up in despair . . . But even Liddell and Scott furnish from Diog. L. i. 1-59, an instance of the modification, hoping that a thing will not happen. . . . Verbs compounded with ἀπὁ admit of flexibility enough in sense to cover the meaning attached to the word in our old and other versions. The question then mainly turns on the requirement of the context. And when one weighs verses 30-34 with care, it seems surprising that a sense so unnatural here should be attached to the word inverse 35. Especially consider the immediately preceding verse: what can be simpler than the converse call of grace, love, do good, lend, "hoping for nothing again"? (Cf. Luke 14: 12.) What worthy sense in such a connection is there in "never despairing"? Does it mean that, whatever we may give thus unselfishly in faith, we are to have no fears of coming short for ourselves? If so, it seems needless, mean, and out of character with all the rest. Never despair because of giving or lending to others! Even a generous man might be beyond such fears, not to speak of a son of the Highest exhorted by the Only-begotten of the Father. And what here is the force of the margin "despairing of no man"? If the Revv. understand despairing of no man's honesty or gratitude in repayment, it seems quite contrary to the spirit of verse 30, not to mention that the sequel of verse 35 casts the believer wholly on God's great recompense [B. T.].156

Hence the call in our Gospel does not follow as in Matthew, "Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," but "Be ye therefore* merciful, even as your Father also is merciful." The perfection in Matthew seems to be in allusion to the call on Abraham, whose perfection was to walk in integrity, confiding in the shadow of the Almighty. The disciple, instructed of Jesus, had the Father's Name declared, and his perfection is to illustrate his Father's character in indiscriminate grace — not in the spirit of law. Writing for the Gentiles, Luke simply calls them to be merciful as their Father was merciful. This would be obvious even to such as had not a minute acquaintance with the Old Testament, and therefore incapable of appreciating the delicate allusions to its contents here or there. Any believer could understand the force of such an exhortation as "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged." The tendency to censoriousness, the imputation of evil motives, and the danger of sure retribution, are here brought before us. "Condemn not, and ye shall in nowise be condemned."156a

*"Therefore": so AEPXΔ, etc., Amiat., Syrr. (exc. sin.). Edd. omit after BD LΞ 1, 33, Syrsin Memph.

Luke 6: 37-49.

On the other hand, says our Master, "remit, and it shall be remitted unto you." It is the spirit of grace in the experience of wrongs. "Give, and it shall be given unto you." It is the spirit of large generosity; and who ever knew a giver with nothing to give or receive? Yea, "good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over shall be given157 into your bosom." Men are very far from giving thus; and the Lord leaves it entirely vague. It might be by men or by believers: certainly God thus acts. Whoever gives will find his account sure in the far-surpassing goodness of God. "For with the same measure* with which ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" — whatever the means that He employs and whatever the time of recompense.

*"With the same measure": so AC, later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat. Syrr. BDL, 1, 33, Aeth. Memph. read "with what measure ye mete."

The first principle that the Lord here lays down is the necessity of a man himself seeing in order to lead others aright. This has been constantly lost sight of in Christendom. It was not in the same way necessary to priesthood in Israel, though there were duties of a priest which needed discernment, to judge between clean and unclean. Still, their function lay in mere outward things, which required no spiritual power. But it is not so in Christianity, though there are moral principles — first principles of everyday life — which are unchangeable. Yet as a whole, Christianity does suppose a new nature and the Spirit of God; and he who has not that nature and the power of the Spirit is incapable of rightly helping others. Now, ministry demands this, even in the Gospel. There are varying states; and unless a man is capacitated by his own personal faith as well as by the Word of God, he will misapply Scripture. But it is still clearer in the instruction and guidance practically of believers. He who is called to help them on must necessarily be taught of God, not in mind only but in heart and conscience, well and thoroughly furnished in Scripture, so as rightly to divide the Word of truth. The blind, therefore, cannot lead the blind. Neither is it Christianity that the seeing should lead the blind. The true principle of our calling is, that the seeing should lead the seeing — the very reverse of the blind leading the blind.

Although every believer is supposed to see, yet he may not see clearly. He has the capacity, but may not yet have been exercised in using it. But when the truth has been brought clearly out, he is able to see it without more ado, and, it may be, as distinctly as he who had taught it. Thus that which he receives (whatever the means employed) stands on the Word of God and not on the authority either of Church or of teacher. If the teacher is removed or goes astray, still he sees the truth for himself in the light of God.

Thus it remains true that the seeing, whom God has qualified to lead others, teach the seeing who have light enough from God to follow, and who know that they are not following man but God, in that they intelligently follow those who are taught of God, and who lead them according to His word, that which commends itself by the Holy Spirit to the conscience. So far is ministry therefore from being incompatible with Christianity, that it is characteristic of it. Strictly speaking, it was not a distinctive feature of Judaism. They had priests to transact their religious business for them; but Christians have ministry in order to guide and cheer them on, and strengthen them by God's grace, in doing that which pertains to the whole body of which ministers are but a part. "Can a blind [man] lead a blind [man]? Shall not both fall into [the] ditch?"158 This is precisely what Christendom, by confounding Christianity with Judaism, is falling into rapidly. Some take the side of infidelity, some of superstition. But they both fall into the ditch, on the one side or the other.

On the other hand, "the disciple is not above his teacher." Our portion is according to Christ. Christ was despised, and so are we. Christ was persecuted, and so must the disciple be content to be. He has Christ's portion: if above, so upon earth. "Every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher."158a

Then there is another danger, and that is of censoriousness. The habit of always seeing faults in others is exceedingly to be deprecated and watched against. "And why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother's eye?" What is the true root of it? Invariably, where there is the habit of beholding faults in others, there is an overlooking of our own. "Why lookest thou on the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" In that state of things we cannot help others: we must have our own evil dealt with first. "For how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, allow [me], I will cast out the mote that is in thine eye" (love would meet another's want: self is blind and busy, forgets its own faults, but can be zealous in correcting others for its own glory) — "thyself not seeing the beam that is in thine eye?" Our own fault, unjudged, always obstructs our affording real aid to another. Whereas, where we have judged ourselves, it is not only that we can see more clearly, but we can enter upon the work more humbly and lovingly. It is this that makes a man spiritual. Nothing but self-judgment can ever do it ' coupled with the sense of the Lord's great grace and holiness, which is the crown of self-judgment, by the Spirit's power. But it is only the sense of the Saviour's grace and regard for His holiness, which produces self-judgment; as, on the other hand, the exercise of self-judgment increases our sense of that grace, and keeps us bright in it, instead of letting ourselves be lowered to the level of surrounding circumstances, and the state to which the allowance of flesh would ever reduce us. The Lord speaks very severely of such — "Hypocrite!" and I believe censoriousness as a rule does tend directly to hypocrisy. It leads persons to assume a spirituality which they do not possess; and is this truthful? A person who is continually commenting on others you may set down as more or less hypocritical in pretending to a holiness which is certainly beyond his measure. Such is the Lord's judgment; and you may he sure that the word which He has spoken will so decide at the last day. People forget that there is no way of pretending to spirituality more cheap and more imposing on thoughtless minds than this readiness to speak of the faults of others; but there is scarcely anything that the Lord Jesus more sternly refutes and condemns. "Hypocrite! cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

Then He shows how clearly it is a question of nature. "For there is no good tree which produceth corrupt fruit, nor* a corrupt tree which produceth good fruit." (Cf. Matt. 7: 17-20.) You cannot change the nature. "Every tree is known by its own fruit; for figs are not gathered from thorns, nor grapes vintaged from a bramble." The Lord did not as yet show the action of two natures, and the way in which the fruits of the new creation might be hindered by the allowance of the old. He simply points out the fact that there are two natures, but not their co-existence in the same person, which is the matter of fact even in the real believer. "Every tree is known by its own fruit." This is peculiar to Luke — I mean the putting it in so strong a manner. Matthew says, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Luke makes it more comprehensive and emphatic. "Every tree is known by its own fruit." "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth good; and the wicked [man] out of the wicked† bringeth forth that which is wicked: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh." This is another addition of Luke's in this place. Our words are very weighty in the sight of God, as Matthew reveals in chapter 12 of his Gospel, quite in a different connection: "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." He had in view particularly the great dispensational change when the Jews should be cut off, not only for speaking against the Son of man, but for blaspheming against the Holy Ghost — the sin that cannot be forgiven, into which also the Jews fell. They rejected, not only the humbled Lord Jesus, the Son of man, but they refused the Holy Ghost's testimony to Him when He was glorified. They rejected every evidence that God gave them, and all advance in the ways of God was utterly loathsome to them. The consequence was that they broke out in violent rejection, according to their own evil, of God's good things. "Out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh."158b Their mouth spoke, and they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment, even as men generally shall. of every idle word they shall give account. The Jews have thus lost their place for the time, and God has brought in a new thing.

*Edd. after "nor" add "again," following BΞ 1, 69, Memph. — ACDΔ Syrr. Goth. Aeth. omit.

†"Treasure of his heart": so AC and later uncials, most cursives (33), Syrr. Aeth. Memph. Goth. Edd. omit after BDLΞ, 1, 69, Amiat.

But Luke presents the matter far more as a moral principle. It is true of every man, that out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh: and this is an important test for the state of our souls. Our lips betray the condition of our heart — of our affections. Then there is another thing. If we own Christ to be Lord in word, how come we not to do what He says? The very saying that He is Lord implies the obligation of subjection to Him."  - Why call ye me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things that I say? Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep, and laid a foundation on a rock." (Cf. Matt. 7: 24-27.) Nothing could shake that house. "But a great rain coming, the stream broke upon that house." But in vain: when the flood arose, it could not be shaken; "for it had been founded on the rock."* The heeding the words of Christ is that which survives every shock of the adversary. He who proves his faith thus in his obedience shall never be moved nor ashamed. "And he that has heard and not done," which is precisely what has characterised Christendom and Judaism then and since — "is like a man who hath built a house on the ground, without a foundation, on which the stream broke, and immediately it fell; and the breach of that house was great." So it shall be. The heaviest blow of the Lord returning in glory will fall, not upon pagans who have never heard, but upon the baptized who have heard and not obeyed the Gospel.

*"For it had been founded on the rock" so ACDXΓΔΛΠ, etc., most cursives, Syrrpesch, hcl Old Lat. Goth. Arm. Edd. adopt "on account of its having been well built," after BLΞ, 33, Memph. (from Matt.).

Moralising for others, or bare unfruitful hearing even of Christ's words, is but adding to one's own condemnation. Nothing can be substituted for real obedience of heart. Christ was the obedient as well as the dependent Man, the bright moral contrast of the first man; and such must be and are those who are His. In all respects the discourse supposes and insists on a reproduction of His character in His disciples. It is not only promise come and fulfilled in Christ, but the manifestation of God in Him, and this, now forming the disciples who are thus morally and actually distinguished from the nation.159

LUKE 7: 1-10.*

Matt. 8: 5-13.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 278-286.

We have already had the leper in Luke 5, which Matthew displaces, in order to put it along with the centurion's servant, which opens our chapter; the one being used to show the dealings of the Lord Jesus and the character of His ministry among the Jews, and the other to bear witness to the great change which was about to take place in the going forth of mercy to the Gentiles on the rejection of Israel. Luke, as we have seen, was inspired by the Spirit of God to use it for a wholly different purpose. The leper was put with the paralytic man, not with the centurion, in order to bring out the different moral effects of sin, not the change of dispensation. Here, then, we find that the Lord has fully separated the godly remnant of His disciples and shown out the qualities of God's Kingdom as realised, and Christ's own character as looked for in them: this would extend to the Gentiles also when they were called.

Now He gives us, in the case of the centurion's servant, a manifestation of His power and goodness which carries out the truth still further. There are certain points of difference here, worthy of all note, as compared with Matthew, which we might not expect at first sight. The manner of its relation by Luke brings in two things, one of insertion and the other of omission, both very different from Matthew.160 First, the embassy of the elders is mentioned here, not in Matthew: "A certain centurion's bondman who was dear to him was ill and about to die; and having heard of Jesus he sent to him elders"' of the Jews, begging him that he would come and save his bondman." This brings before us, not only the officer's affection for his servant, but his employment of the elders of the Jews. "But they, being come to Jesus, besought him diligently, saying, He is worthy to whom thou shouldest grant* this, for he loves our nation, and himself has built us the synagogue.162 And Jesus went with them." Then we have a second embassy: "But already when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent to him friends, saying to him, lord, do not trouble thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." Second thoughts are not always best among men. They constantly mar the simplicity of the first impression, which is apt to be direct from the heart or the conscience. But the mind which sees the consequences continually affects to correct these early impulses, and not seldom for the worse. Simplicity of purpose is ruined by secondary and prudential considerations. But it is not so with real faith, which makes us grow; as it is said, "Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 3: 18.) In this case we have what is beautifully characteristic of our Evangelist, both in the first embassy and in the second. The first is his reverence for God's dealings with the Jews shown in his employment of the elders, of those who were the leaders of Israel, to send to Jesus. But next also we see his employment of friends, who more spoke of his own heart. Matthew mentions the case, but far more succinctly. We should not even learn from the first Evangelist but that he came himself: "A centurion came to him, beseeching him." Whereas it is clear there was the intervention of both elders and friends. The clue to it is that old maxim of law or equity, that what one does by another one does by oneself. The second occasion brought out more fully the reconsideration in his soul of the glory of Jesus. It was natural that in sending the Jews he should ask for His presence. For not a Jew only, but a faith that leaned upon Israel, that laid hold, as it were, of the skirt of a Jew, was always bound up with the personal presence of the Messiah; but when he spoke out his own proper feeling, and when friends consequently were the medium of his second mission, he says, "Lord, trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." This brings out two things — the deep sense of the Lord's glory, and a corresponding sense of his own nothingness. "Wherefore neither did I count myself worthy to come to thee." This is left out in Matthew entirely; because Matthew, summing it all up, simply speaks of the centurion. If we had had this alone, then we might have thought that the centurion actually came, and that there was only one message to Jesus. But it was not so. Here as we have the embassies mentioned, it is added by the Spirit of God, "Wherefore neither did I count myself worthy to come to thee."

*"Is worthy . . . thou shouldest g": so Edd. after ABCD, etc., with twenty-one cursives. "Was worthy ... he should g (T.R.) follows GΓΔ and most cursives.

And that was just his state. It looked the saddest case. He was not worthy that the Lord should come: and neither did he think himself worthy that he should go to the Lord. How could mercy flow? Faith finds in each extremity the opportunity for grace worthy of God, and for the glory of such an One as Jesus. "But say by a word, and my servant shall be* healed." Thus the "word," as we habitually find in Luke, has its paramount place. The turning-point is not the bodily presence even of Messiah, but the word. Jesus was man, but He was the vessel of Divine power; therefore He had only to say in a word, and his servant should be healed. His coming to the spot was in no way necessary — His word was enough. "For I also am a man placed under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my bondman, Do this, and he does [it]." That is, his faith owned that Jesus had the very same power, and indeed more; for he was only a man under authority: Jesus, the perfectly dependent and obedient Man, could command all, ever to the glory of God the Father. Even he, under authority as he was, nevertheless had authority himself to order this one and that one, especially his own servant. All things were but servants to Jesus — all subserved God's glory by Him. He had only to speak the word: disease itself must obey. "Say by a word, and my servant shall be healed." "And Jesus hearing this, wondered "' at him, and turning to the crowd following him said, I say unto you, not even in Israel have I found so great faith."

*"My servant shall be": so ACD, etc., with cursives and Syrsin. Edd. adopt "let m. s. be," after BL (T.R. regarded as correction from Matt.).

But, there is an omission — and this was the second point of difference I wished to mark — an omission of what Matthew adds: "But I say unto you, That many shall come from [the] rising and setting [sun], and shall lie down at table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens. But the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." At first sight one might have expected this, particularly in Luke; but a closer inspection will show that its proper place is not here. The Lord does bring it in elsewhere in Luke, namely, in Luke 13, when the time was come for distinctly indicating the chance; and this on moral considerations, and not on dispensational ones only. Whereas Matthew, being intent on the impending change for Israel and the Gentiles, is led of the Spirit to introduce it in this place and time, where no doubt it was uttered. But with equal wisdom Luke reserves it for another connection. I do not doubt that the moral reason for that reservation was this, that while the Lord did acknowledge, if I may so say, the simplicity of the faith of the Gentile — and simplicity in faith is power — while He exceedingly valued that faith which saw much more than a Messiah in Him, which saw God in Him (man though He really was) — saw His power over sickness, even though at a distance from it, which is so effectual a bar to all human resources, but which only displaced One Who was man, but far more than man. Such was to be the faith of the Gentile, in due time, when Jesus should be actually absent from this world, but when all the virtue of Jesus should be as, Or even more, conspicuous in some important respects. Such is Christianity; and the Gentile centurion was an illustrious type of the character of this faith. Nevertheless Christianity being brought out, specially among the Gentiles, as Romans 11 shows us, the continual danger is for the. Gentile to account that the Jew has been cut off that he might be grafted in. Hence there was the wisdom of God in not introducing that solemn judgment upon Israel, as well as the strong expression of the substitution of the Gentile for him in this place. It was evidently to correct Gentile conceit. It is true the Jews were to be judged — in fact, were already under judgment; but that sentence was to be executed still more stringently when the Gentiles were to be gathered in. But the Lord waits a more fitting season for announcing it. Thus the Gentile is taught by this scene the proper feeling towards a Jew. Faith would not despise them. It may go beyond Jewish intervention, but it should honour the Jews in their own place. At the same time, his own danger of presumption, as if he were the exclusive object of God's purpose, is guarded against by the omission of any such sentence here.164

It is needless to say that they that were sent, returning to the house, found the bondman whole who had been ill.165

Luke 7: 11-17.

But there follows, the day after, another scene of great interest, carrying out the picture of our Lord's power more completely; and it is a scene peculiar to Luke. "It came to pass afterwards,* that he went into a city166 called Nain; and many† of his disciples and a great crowd went with him. And as he drew near to the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was carried out, the only son167 of his mother, and she a widow." Two touches very characteristic of our Evangelist, as indeed the whole scene is peculiar to him: he was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. It is the heart of a man touched by the circumstances of desolation, and open to the affections that suited such a case. The Lord of glory deigned to feel, and to bring out by the Holy Ghost these circumstances. "A very considerable crowd [was] ‡ with her." Even man showed his sympathy. What did the Lord? "And the Lord168 seeing her, was moved with compassion for her, and said to her, Weep not."169 He came to banish the tears which sin and misery had brought into the world. I do not say that He came not to weep Himself; for, in banishing it, He must weep as none other wept. But to her He would say in His gracious power, "Weep not; and coming up he touched the bier,170 and the bearers stopped. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Wake up." Vain words had they not been His words, or from any other mouth! What a difference it is who says it! That is what men forget when they think of Christ, or speak of Scripture. They forget it is God's Word, they overlook God in man and by man, the Man Christ Jesus"And the dead sat up and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother."

*"Afterwards": so W. H., Blass, as AB, Syrsin. "The day after": so Tisch. after CDKM. Nearly all cursives, most Syrr. and other versions.

†"Many of": so Tisch. with ACXΔ, most cursives, Goth. Other Edd. omit, after BDLΞ and some versions, as Syrsin and Old Lat.

‡["Was"]: so Edd. after BLΞ, 33, 69, Syrsin Memph. AE, etc., Latt., other Syrr., and Goth. omit.

God was there; God was with that Man in His own power: for what is more characteristic of God than raising the dead? It was even more wondrous than creation. That God should create is, so to speak, natural. That God should raise the dead to life again, after that which is created is fallen into. ruin, that He should show his all-compassing power of retrieving to the uttermost, supposes indeed man's weakness and evil, and the enemy's temporary success, but God superior to all circumstances of hostile power in the creature, and His own just judgment of sin. And this is true most evidently in the Gospel. It is viewed as the quickening voice of the Son of God, and this in view of sin and of eternity. But the Lord shows it in matters of time here. "And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Wake up." And our Evangelist closes with words in keeping with all his spirit: "And he gave him to his mother." If he was a man acquainted with grief, He was a man acquainted with the power of sympathy. He knew how to minister to the heart that was bereaved.171 "And fear seized on all and they glorified God, saying, A great prophet has been raised up* amongst us; and God has visited his people." He had the power of life in the midst of death. He was a prophet, and more than a prophet. God had anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, Who went about indeed doing good.172 "And this report went out in all Judea173 concerning him, and in all the surrounding country."174

*"Has been raised up so Edd. after ABCΙΞ, 1, 33. ERXΔ, 69, Syrsin have "is risen up."

Luke 7: 18-35.

Matt. 11: 2-19.

Up to the end of Luke 6, the Lord is still within the precincts of Israel, though undoubtedly there are principles of grace which intimate much more — the outgoing of Divine mercy towards every soul of man. Yet until the end of that chapter the Lord does not actually go beyond the godly Jews now associated with Himself, and in mission too, as the apostles. If He gathers, He sends out from Himself to gather unto Himself: and their moral traits, which distinguished them from the nation, are laid down with great emphasis and direct personal application to the close of that chapter. Then we have a Gentile's faith, who owns Christ's Divine supremacy over all things, whether even disease or distance here below. Nothing could be too great for Him. Jesus, the day after, proves His power over death. Most truly man, He is nevertheless above nature, so to speak, and that which sin had brought in as God's judgment on the race. Clearly therefore in all this we have what goes beyond Israel as such, and expressly so in the case of the Gentile centurion's servant.

This, accordingly, brings in deeper things. John's disciples reported all these things to their master, who calls two of his disciples and sends them to Jesus,* questioning whether he were "he that is coming, or are we to wait for another?" The Lord, in the same† hour‡ that they stated their errand, cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many that were blind He gave sight. And then He "answering said to them, Go, bring back word to John what ye have seen and heard: that blind see, lame walk, lepers are cleansed, deaf hear, dead are raised, the poor are evangelised; and blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me." It was a solemn answer, and should have been a very touching reproof to John. Here was One Who sought not His own glory, yet He could not but point to that which God was doing, for God was with Him. He "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Acts 10: 38.) God meant this for a witness. But was it not sad and humbling that he who was raised up specially to render witness to Jesus should require witness from Jesus?175 And Jesus, in the overflowing of His grace, gives witness, not only to what God was doing by Himself, but to John also. Thus no flesh glories in His presence. He that glories must glory in the Lord. John himself failed completely in the object for which he had been sent, at least at this crisis. None can bear utter rejection but the Spirit of Christ; nothing else can go through it undimmed, unstained. Christ is not only the great doer, but greatest sufferer; and John did not look for this. He had known what fidelity of witness was in an evil world: but the testifying of the Messiah that He should be a sufferer, and consequently his own share of it as His herald in prison, seem to have been too much for his faith or that of his disciples. He needed at the very least to be confirmed; he needed to have proof positive that Jesus was the predicted Messiah, for himself or for others.175a We have seen the answer given him by our Lord.

*"Jesus": so AD, later uncials, most cursives, Syrr. Old Lat. Memph. Edd. adopt "the Lord," after BRLΞ 33,69, Amiat., etc.

*"In that": so Edd. after BL 1, 69, Memph. AD, 33, Syrr. Amiat. Goth. Arm. have "in the same."

*"Hour": so Edd. following corrBL, 1, 69, Memph. pmL, 69, have "day."

Observe here that there was no point more remarkable in the ordinary ministry of Jesus than His care for the poor. To the poor the gospel was preached. His concern about them was the very reverse of all that was found among men before. If others had cared for the poor, it was but an evidence of the working of His Spirit in them, and nothing characteristic; in Jesus' case it was opening out His heart, if possible, with greater care to them than to any others, the bright hopes that the gospel announces, the display of that which is eternal for the eyes of believers in the midst of present need among those who were most liable to be overwhelmed by it.176 "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." There we find a rebuke, couched certainly in the gentlest terms; nevertheless, it was that which was intended, no doubt, to deal with the conscience. John seems to have been stumbled; but blessed was he whosoever was not offended in Jesus. There was nothing that so grated upon every natural thought of a Jew its the rejection and shame accompanying the Messiah, or those that bore witness of Him. Man was wholly unprepared for it. They had been waiting for long and weary years for the Messiah to bring in deliverance. Now that He was come, that evil should fall with apparent impunity on His servants, and even upon Himself — that they, and He too, should be despised of men — was too much for their faith. They were "offended" in Him.177

Christianity, let me say, has given immense range to the display of all this. Indeed, it is the glory and blessing of the Christian. He is not stumbled at the rejection of Christ. He sees the Cross in the light of heaven, not of the earth; he knows its bearing on eternal things. Present things are not the question. God has brought in the unseen things, and the Christian is familiar with them even now. He accordingly rejoices in the Cross of Christ, and boasts in that which is the overthrow of all the natural thoughts of men, and the judgment of the world, but which is really, by the grace of God, the judgment of sin, and the vindication of His own moral glory. Therefore the Christian triumphs in it. Besides, it is that which gave occasion to the infinite grace of the Lord Jesus, and in all these things he delights. He therefore has the blessing fully; and is strengthened, not offended, by the Cross.

When the messengers of John go away, the Lord can speak in vindication of His servant. After all, viewed, not in connection with what was coming, but according to that which had been and was, who was found among men worthy of such honour? He was no reed shaken with the wind: this they might see any day in the wilderness. Neither was he a man clothed in soft raiment: they must look to kings' courts to find men gorgeously apparelled and living delicately. There is no moral grandeur in any of these things. A prophet then he was, and much more than a prophet. Such is the witness of Jesus: "This is he concerning whom it is written, Behold, I* send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mal. 3: 1.) 178 He was the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. God put singular honour on him. There were many prophets; there was but one John, but one who could be the messenger before His face. Consequently our Lord adds, "Among those that are born of women,179 there is not a greater [prophet]† than John [the Baptist]."‡

*"I" (ἐγώ) is found in AEXΔ, 33, Syrr.; but Edd. omit after BDLΞ, 1, Old Lat. Memph.

†["Prophet"]: inserted in AEGH, later uncials, most cursives, Syrr. Goth. Edd. omit, after BKLM and most Old Lat.

‡["The Baptist"]: ADΔ, etc., most cursives (33), Syrr. and Old Lat. insert. Edd. reject, after BLΞ, 1, Memph.

Yet this, be it noted, brings out so much the more the superior blessing of those who were to be in the new state of things, when prophecy or unfulfilled promise should be no longer, but the basis of the kingdom should be laid on the work of Christ. That new order was coming in, first to faith, then in power; and Luke gives great force to that which was revealed to faith, because it is known through the Word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not yet the visible manifestation of the Kingdom, but none the less God's Kingdom, which was to come in through a rejected Son of man. Redemption may be the basis of better and still more glorious things, but it is the basis of the Kingdom of God: and in that Kingdom the least was greater than the greatest before — greater even than John. The least in that Kingdom would rest on redemption already accomplished; the least would know what it is to be brought to God, sin put away, and the conscience purged. John the Baptist could only look onward to these things. The Christian knows them to be actually come, and by faith his own portion. He is not waiting for them; he has them. Thus he that is least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John.

At the same time, we are told that "all the people" that heard John the Baptist, "and the publicans" too — that is, the mass, even the despised tax-gatherers — "justified God,180 being baptized with the baptism of John." They were right so far. It was a witness of what was coming: it was a confession of their own sin. Thus far they justified God. But the prudent and wise, the religious, learned, and great, "the Pharisees and lawyers," rejected and "frustrated the counsel of God against themselves," because they refused even the preparatory work of John the Baptist. Having refused the lesser testimony, they never passed into the greater things — the reality from God. Having refused that which their own consciences ought to have proved to be true, they were not prepared to receive the gift of His grace. Christ can only in the conscience be received to salvation. Feeling and understanding will never do alone. There must be conscience. Those whose slumbering consciences had been aroused Godward concerning their sins were only too glad to receive Christ. Those whose consciences slept, or were roused but for a moment, were never brought to God savingly. When Christ is received by faith, the conscience is active toward God, the mind and heart rejoice as they enter into and appropriate the blessing, but not otherwise. Where there is no work in the conscience, all is given up speedily. They are "offended" by this or that. Thus, the men of that generation181 were like captious children, "sitting in the market-place, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped to you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned [to you],* and ye have not wept." Whatever God called to was offensive. If God brought in joy, they would not dance: if God brought in a call to mourn, they would not weep. Thus, when John the Baptist came, neither eating bread nor drinking wine, the expression of no communion, because sin was in question (and how could God send one to have communion with sin?), they said he had a demon. "The Son of man is come eating and drinking." Now there could be communion: the rejected Christ is the foundation of all true fellowship with God. But they said, "Behold, an eater and a wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!" Man, thinking well of himself, counts the grace of God to be allowance of sin. When God calls to righteousness, it is too severe for man: when He calls to grace, it is too loose for him. Every way man likes not God: he shrinks in presence of law, and he despises in presence of grace. "And wisdom is justified182 of all her children." And the incident that follows is a striking proof of it in both its parts — the witness of it, not only in her who was a sinner but is now a child of wisdom, but also in him who could not appreciate the One Who is the wisdom of God.

*"To you" (second time): so AP, Syrr. (including sin.), Aeth.; but, omitted by Edd. after BDLΞ, Amiat. Memph. Arm.

Luke 7: 36-50.

As illustrating wisdom justified of all her children, as well as the superiority of the new system of grace, the kingdom of God as it was about to come in, the Spirit leads Luke to give the story of the woman who followed Jesus into the house of the Pharisee (it would seem in His train). All was arranged to bring out the truth and the grace of God with great precision. "One of the Pharisees183 I begged him that he would eat with him." The Lord goes into the house and takes His place at table. "A woman in the city, a sinner," evidently of notorious character,184 "when she knew that he was sitting at meat in the Pharisee's house, took an alabaster box of myrrh, and standing at his feet behind [him] weeping, began to wash his feet with tears, and she wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the myrrh."184a

Faith makes a soul very bold; at the same time, it gives great propriety. But its boldness is inspired by the attractive power of the Object looked to. It is from no qualities of our own. What, for instance, could be more beautifully in season, what more modest and right in feeling and act than the conduct of this hitherto abandoned woman? Now, at least, so much the more glory to the Object of her faith Who brought about this immense change. When she knew that Jesus was invited there, she went too. It was the last place where she would otherwise have ventured. It was Jesus Who emboldened her to go there without invitation. But when she found herself there, she did not ask Peter or James or John or any of them, as the Greeks asked Philip, to see Jesus. She went at once: not merely her own deep sense of need, but her sense of His ineffable grace — the grace of Jesus — gave the entrée at once, and introduced her without further form or ceremony. Completely absorbed in an object, which she may not have defined to her mind to be a Divine Person, but which proved itself to be none the less Divine by its all-overcoming power over her soul, she must have instinctively shrunk from the Pharisee's house under any other circumstances. Ordinarily there was everything to repel, nothing to attract her, in that house. Yet she made no apology for the intrusion; she knew without being told that Jesus made her free to draw near; and there she was found, standing at His feet behind Him, weeping.

Remark, too, how every way, every act, every feature of the case was perfectly suited to express without a word the real truth of her past" well as present, and of His goodness. She began to wash His feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed His feet and anointed them with the ointment. Mary did it another day — did that, which was so similar, that some have even fancied this to be Mary."' But that is a profound mistake. We hear nothing at all of her tears. We do hear of her anointing the feet of Jesus, as well as His head, and wiping them with the hair; so that the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. In both it was an act of devotedness to Jesus; and devotedness does not imitate, but like devotedness to the same object, produces similar effects, though each with its own peculiarity. But besides devotedness, there was in this woman confession of her own self-abasement, of her horror at her sins, of her repentance towards God, and her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That was not the question with Mary. Mary was filled with a sense of the danger that impended over Jesus. She had a vague but true consciousness of His approaching death, so that the Lord counted it an anointing for His burial, gave it Divine value, and expressed what her heart had not uttered even to Himself, but nevertheless what she could not but feel, though she could not articulate it. But in this woman's case it was the unaffected pouring out of a burdened heart, which felt its only relief in thus washing his feet with tears and wiping them with the hairs of her head. Thus, a sense of grace produces effects very similar to a deep sense of His glory. They are both Divine, both of the Spirit of God. A sense of His grace, shaded by the sense of her own sinfulness, was the predominant feeling in this poor woman's mind; as a sense of His glory, shaded by the feeling of approaching danger, was of Mary's.

All this was lost upon the Pharisee; or rather, it stirred up the unbelief of his heart. "When the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, for she is a sinner." His thought was that the being a sinner would unfit for Jesus. Yet he had no adequate notion of the glory of Jesus, nor of His holiness, nor, of course, of His grace: he would not even allow Him to be a prophet. Had He been so, as he thought, He must have seen through the woman who touched Him. Simon knew that the woman was a sinner. It was known commonly in the place. If Jesus had only known her character, it was inconceivable to Simon that He would have allowed her to take such a liberty with His person. But Jesus thoroughly knew her as well as Simon; and if she was a sinner He was a Saviour. Alas! the Pharisee neither felt the sin nor saw the Saviour according to God. Phariseeism is an attempt to take a middle ground between a sinner and a Saviour, and this ignores both the misery of the one and the grace of the other. All worldly religion avoids a real, deep confession, as of sin so of a Saviour. It contents itself with generalities and forms. It admits sin, and it acknowledges a Saviour, after a sort: but the golden mean which in the world's things is so valuable is fatal in what is Divine. This is what Christianity was intended to bring people out of. It is what the faith of God's good news disproves and banishes: for the gospel of salvation stands expressly on the ground of total ruin through sin. Now man, religious man, dislikes all extremes, likes moderate views; but by this moderation of view the depths of sin are unfelt and the Saviour is unhonoured. The Pharisee shows it out in contrast with the woman. He was not a child of wisdom: "wisdom is justified of all, her children." He found ignorance where she found perfect grace; and she was wise. She was a child of wisdom. Wisdom was not justified by him. It was unseen and denied. "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, for she is a sinner." He did not know: such was the Pharisee's account of Jesus.

But Jesus answered what he did not utter. — "Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee;185a and he saith, Teacher, say [it]." And the Lord then tells him the parable of the creditor. "There were two debtors of a certain creditor: one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty" — one a comparatively large and the other a small sum; but neither could pay, and he186 "forgave both of them [their debt]." Who would love him most? The Pharisee would answer on human ground with correctness"I suppose he to whom he forgave the most." The Lord owned that he had rightly judged, and then He at once applies it. "Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house; thou gavest me no water for my feet."

After all, the entertainment that even a Pharisee — a religious man — provides for Jesus is very short. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks: the poor reception betrayed how little his heart welcomed Jesus. Yet he thought to patronise Jesus. This is what natural religion always does. He thought he was doing honour to Him, but instead of that he was nourishing himself, and proved the low conception he had of Jesus by the measured scale of that which he provided for Jesus"I entered into thy house; thou gavest me no water for my feet" — that was an ordinary thing in these countries — "but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair.* Thou gavest me no kiss" — in these lands no strange reception — "but she, from the time I came in, hath not ceased kissing my feet; my head with oil thou didst not anoint"187 — but here again how entirely she went beyond "but she hath anointed my feet with myrrh." Not even a king was so entertained. "For which cause I say unto thee, Her many sins are forgiven, for she loved much; but he to whom little is forgiven loveth little."188

*"Her hair": so Edd. after ABDLΞ, Syrrpesch hcl. Old Lat. Memph. "The hair of her head" is in ED, etc., most cursives (33, 69), Syrrsin cu.

It was evidently not the woman's first sense of the grace of Christ. What she had done was because with her heart she did believe in Him. She believed before she came. Her faith had brought her, but she did not know that her faith saved her. She loved before she came, and all that she did was the fruit of her love; yet not her love, but her faith saved her."189 She loved much, because she was forgiven much; and she felt it. Thus she was led to this love by the deep sense of her sin, and of the attractive grace of the Saviour; and so she must hear how truly she was forgiven. The Lord says to her, "Thy sins are forgiven." This drew out the inward question of those around, and not Simon's only: "They began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgives sins also?"

Here, again, also, it was not the first time. The Lord had said publicly to the palsied man, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." But there was a difference., and a weighty one, between that forgiveness and this. There it was within the bounds of Israel, and it was specially in reference to this world. I do not mean to say that the man may not have been forgiven eternally; but that it was emphatically the forgiveness of sins  - proved by the healing of his body, and both in connection with the earth. Thus it was what may be and has been called governmental forgiveness, and after this sort I suppose it will be that God will act in the millennium. It may or may not be eternal. The millennial reign of Christ will be accompanied by the banishing of diseases and the forgiveness of sins. There will be nothing but blessing everywhere. But whether it be eternal or not will depend, no doubt, on the reality of the work of God in the soul (i.e., on faith).189a

In the case before us the forgiveness has nothing to do with the present life. It is absolute, unconditional, and eternal; and assuredly this will be found by and by in the kingdom of God, as it is now brought out in the power of the Holy Ghost. It was what ought to be in Christianity — a kind of little anticipation or example of what was to be proclaimed in the Gospel; and it is peculiar to Luke. He said to the woman in answer to these doubts, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace"190 — words nowhere said to the palsied man. It was not her love that saved her, but her faith. Love is the exercise of that which is within us — of that new nature which the Holy Ghost imparts, and of which He is Himself the strength. But faith, although of the Spirit of God, nevertheless finds all in its object, in another. Love is more what people call a subjective thing; whereas the essence of faith is that, though in man, it is nevertheless exercised on what is outside him. The whole of that which it depends on is in its object — even Christ. "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." Thus there is present salvation, and this in such power that the Lord can bid her "go in peace." This is precisely what the Gospel now announces freely, and unfolds fully, according to the value of an inestimable, exhaustless Christ and His work."'

LUKE 8: 1-3.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 287-291.

The last chapter broke out into the widest sphere, and brought in Divine power over human sickness and death — yea, more, Divine grace in presence of nothing but sin. Nevertheless moral ways are produced according to God's own nature. Grace does not merely forgive. Those who are forgiven are born anew, and manifest their new life in suitable ways, and this in due season by the power of the Holy Ghost.

In this chapter we find how grace goes forth in service. "It came to pass afterward, that he went through [the country], city by city, and village by village." How indiscriminate is His "preaching and announcing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God"!192 Anywhere and everywhere grace can go as to its sphere, but it distinguishes according to God's will; because He must be sovereign. He pardons whom He will, and whom He will He hardens. The twelve were with Him; and not they only, but "certain women who had been healed of wicked spirits and Infirmities, Mary, who was called Magdalene,193 from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who ministered to him* of their substance." Thus we find grace produces fruits now, in this present life. I think it plain and certain that Mary Magdalene is not the person described in the last chapter as the woman who was a sinner. Tradition fluctuates, some supposing that the forgiven woman was Mary Magdalene, others Mary the sister of Lazarus; but to my own mind the internal evidence is conclusive that she was neither the one nor the other. In fact, there is evident moral beauty in the absence of her name. Considering that she had been a notoriously sinful woman in the city, why name her? The story was not to inform anyone who she was, but what the name of Jesus had been to her. It is His name, not hers, that is the great matter. And hence all the effect produced in her by the Spirit of God is according to this. She does not go before His face, but behind Him. She is at His feet, weeping, washing His feet with tears and wiping them with the hairs of her head. The Spirit of God, therefore, casts a veil over her person. However much she might be the object of grace, there is no indulgence of human curiosity. It was a part of the very plan of the Spirit that her name should not be mentioned. Mary, sister of Lazarus, stands before us in Scripture (whatever legends feign) a character evidently and altogether different, and remarkable, I should judge, for moral purity, as well as for that insight into God's mind which was brought about by the grace that gave it to her.

*"To him": so Wellhausen, with AL, etc., 1, 33, Memph. Arm., Aeth. Edd. (So Harnack) adopt "to them," after BDE and later uncials, 69, Amiat. Syrrpesch cu sin.

So also Mary Magdalene, although a desperate case, manifested evil of a wholly different nature. It was not corruption, but Satan's power. She was possessed; as we are told here, "from whom seven demons had gone out." This was her scriptural description, and uniformly so wherever she is brought before us. Never is moral looseness attributed to her.

But besides Mary Magdalene, one of those who ministered to the Lord of their substance was Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward.194 Thus God called where one might least expect it: and she who was connected with the Court of the false king rejoiced to be permitted to follow the despised but true King, Jesus of Nazareth.

But others were not wanting — "Susanna and Many others," but of whom we know nothing, save that which grace gave them, in honouring Jesus to find their everlasting honour. They were attracted by the Lord Jesus, and ministered to Him as they could.

Luke 8: 4-15.195

Matt. 13: 1-23; Mark 4: 1-20.

"And a great crowd coming together, and those who were coming to Him out of each city, he spoke by parable."196 He was not come to be a king, though the King. He was come to sow, not to gather in and reap. This He will do by and by at the end of the He was come to produce what cannot be found in man — to give a new life that should bear fruit for God. "The sower went out to sow his seed." It is the activity of grace. "And as he sowed, some fell along the way; and it was trodden under foot, and the birds of the heaven devoured it up. And other fell upon the rock; and having sprung up, it was dried up, because it had not moisture; and other fell in the midst of the thorns; and the thorns having sprung up with [it] choked it: and other fell into* the good ground, and having sprung up, bore fruit a hundredfold. As He said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."196a It is remarkable that we have not here, as in Matthew, "Some thirty, some sixty, some a hundredfold." We have only the complete result of grace: the modifying causes are not taken into account. There was good seed sown upon good ground, as He afterwards said, "That in the good ground, these are they who in an honest and good heart, having heard the Word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." The other cases are cases, not of good seed producing fruit imperfectly borne, but we have the moral hindrances to any fruit at all. Luke brings out the sad and painful fact that it is not Satan's power only that hinders souls from being saved and receiving the Word of God. The world hinders, flesh too, as well as Satan. Those are the three enemies that are brought before us.

*"Into": so Edd., following ABLΞ. D Syrsin have "upon."

The first is the open and evident power of Satan: "As he sowed, some fell along the way." There was no pretence of receiving it; it was simply dealt with contemptuously — "it. was trodden under foot, and the birds of the heaven devoured it up."

The next class is, "And other fell upon the rock." There was an appearance here. It spring up, but it was dried up, "because it had not moisture." These represent the persons who, "when they hear, receive the Word with joy, but having no root they believe only for a while, and in time of temptation fall away" — a very serious description; because there is apparent reception, but there is no root. They receive the Word with joy — not with repentance, but only joy. Now, there may be joy; but where there is no spiritual action in the conscience there is no root. This is exceedingly serious, especially in Christendom where people are apt to be taught the elements of Christian truth, and where they may be received on the faith of a parent — not of God's Word, but of a father, or mother, or teacher, brother, sister or anybody, the prevalent religion of the country, the common creed of Christendom. All these things may operate, but it is mere nature. It is the seed sown upon a rock 197: there is no real root; for conscience is the real door. Without conscience the Word of God has no abiding effect. The Spirit of God does not make great scholars, but leads poor sinners to believe and be saved. It matters not who the person may be; scholar or not, he must come as a Sinner, and if as a sinner, with repentance towards God. Now, repentance in its own nature gives a chastened feeling, horror of self, judgment of the whole man, certainty that all one's hope is in God, and the judgment of all that we are. This does not produce joy.198 Other things may gladden the heart, spite of and along with it. The mercy of God seen in Christ is most assuring; but "godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of." They are mistaken who suppose that repentance is sorrow; but, nevertheless, such is its effect, where according to God.

That which fell among thorns represents those who, "having heard, go away, and are choked under the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to perfection." 199 Luke views the matter in its full result, not in an individual, not the new nature hindered, but the new nature producing its full results. It is the Word not received from one cause or another; and where it is received, it is said to be those who, "in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." Along with the Word of God, there is the operation of the Spirit. It is these that produce this honest and good heart.200 Thus the heart is purified by faith, and that, working by the feeling and confession of our sinfulness. Luke, as always, brings out the moral roots, both of that which hinders and also of that which receives the Word. These "having heard the Word,201 keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." 202

There is another point I would just observe. Matthew speaks of understanding — that is the great point with him who speaks of the Word of the kingdom. Luke speaks of the Word of God (not so much of the Kingdom, though we know it was the kingdom of God). But it is the Word of God — "the seed is the Word of God," that they who believe (not they who understand) should be saved. Matthew speaks of hearing and understanding, Luke of believing and being saved. This admirably suits the different objects of the Gospels. Matthew shows us already a people of God dealt with, put to the test by the Messiah proclaiming the kingdom of heaven; and those whose hearts were set on worldly objects did not understand the Messiah, nor care for the word of the Kingdom. But Luke shows us the Word of God dispersed; and although within the limits of Israel as a matter of fact for the time being, yet in its own nature going out to every city and village in the world. In principle already they are tending towards it, and about to be sent out actually in God's due time. Accordingly, it is not merely the Kingdom, but the Word of God. It is for man as such; and hence as the great mass of men outside Israel were wholly ignorant of the Kingdom, it was a question of believing, not of understanding. It is not a word they had already, or knew things either, that they could not understand, but it is a question of believing what God was sending. it was a new testimony to those who had been wholly in the dark, and consequently it was a question to them of believing and being saved. Thus we find, even in the minutest particulars, Luke was inspired to hold to that great design which runs through his Gospel — deep moral principles, and at the same time the going forth of grace towards man from God. It is as it were the Gospel of God in the salvation of men — just what we find in the Epistle to the Romans; and Luke, we must remember, was pre-eminently the companion of the Apostle Paul.

Luke 8: 16-18.

Mark 4: 21-25.

Then there are some further moral principles added. "No one having lighted a lamp, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a couch: but setteth it on a lampstand, that they who enter may see the light." To receive a new nature by the, operation of the Word of God is not enough. God raises up a testimony for Himself. Where a candle is lit, it is not meant to be covered: it is to shine, to give light, "that they who enter may see the light." God loves that the light should be apparent. Is it not there to be seen? 203 "For there is nothing hid which shall not become manifest." Darkness shrinks from the light, and man is in the dark, and loves darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil. But God's resolve is that all shall appear. "For there is nothing hid which shall not become manifest; nor secret which shall not be known and come to light.204 Take heed therefore" — not only what, but — "how ye hear." The mingling of truth and error makes it of the greatest importance what we hear; and in Mark this is the warning: "Take heed what ye hear."205 But Luke regards the heart of man; and it is not only of importance what I hear from another, but how. I hear it myself. My own state may expose me either to receive error or to reject truth. It is not always the fault of what I hear, but my own. "Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given." Having is a proof of valuing. "And whosoever hath not, even that which he seemeth205a to have shall be taken from him." Where any do not really possess, it is not for want of God sending, but because of the unbelief that either has not at all or only seems to have. Nothing but faith possesses: and if I possess a little really, God will vouchsafe me more. "He giveth more grace." James 4: 6.

Luke 8: 19-21.206

Matt. 12: 46-50; Mark 3: 31-35.

Jesus was going everywhere preaching and evangelising, followed by the twelve, and not without the worship of grateful hearts in the women who ministered of their substance. He came not a King as yet, but a Sower, and instead of governing in righteous power, was but creating a light of gracious testimony. He next disowns any association with Himself after the flesh, were it even His mother and His brethren. Whatever love to all, and even subjection to His mother, He owed, He most surely paid in full; but now it was a question of the Word of God, and nothing else would suffice. Thus even before His death and resurrection there was a complete moral break. Flesh does not understand the things of the Spirit. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3: 6.)207 "It was told him [saying], Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, wishing to see thee. But he answering said to them, My mother and my brethren are those who hear the Word of God, and do [it]."*208 Natural links were proving themselves to be nothing now: all must be of God and grace; and this exactly falls in with the tone of our Evangelist.

*["It"]: EX, etc., 69, Memph., express this; but Edd. omit, after ABDLΔ.

Luke 8: 22-25.

Matt. 8: 18, 23-27; Mark 4: 35-41.

Then we find the circumstances of those to whom the Word of God and the testimony of Christ was committed. Jesus goes into a ship with His disciples, and tells them to go over unto the other side of the lake. "And as they sailed he fell asleep; and a sudden squall of wind came down on the lake; and they were being filled [with water]." Humanly speaking, they "were in jeopardy." This was ordered of the Lord, and the enemy was allowed to put forth all his resources; but it was impossible that man should overthrow God, impossible that the Christ of God should perish. All the blessedness of the servants, if wise, would be seen to be concentrated in the Master, and all their security derived from Him. There was therefore no ground to faith why they should be alarmed. He fell asleep; He allowed things to take their course: but whatever might happen, the ship in which Jesus was could not be unsafe for those with Him. Jesus might be tempted of the devil, and might encounter all storms; but He came to destroy the works of the devil and to deliver; not to perish. It is true that, when the time came, He went down Himself into depths of sorrow, suffering, and Divine judgment — far, far greater than anything that the winds or waves could do; but He went down to the death of the Cross, bearing the burden of our sins before God, and enduring all God felt against them, in order that, rising again, He might righteously deliver us to God's glory. The disciples, knowing nothing as they ought, through unbelieving anxiety for themselves (for this it is that blinds the eyes of God's people), come to Him and awake Him with the cry, "Master, master, we perish!" They told the secret. Had their eyes been upon the Master, according to what He was before God, impossible they could have spoken of perishing. Could He perish? No doubt, separated from their Master, they might, nay, must perish; but to say "Master, master" to Jesus, and "we perish" was nothing but unbelief. At the same time they showed, as unbelief always does, their intense selfishness. Their care was for themselves, not for Him. "Then he, rising up,* rebuked the wind and the raging of the water,209 and they ceased, and there was a calm." Any other would have first rebuked them. He rebuked the raging of the wind and water; and when there was a calm He asked them, "Where is your faith?" And, being afraid, they were astonished, saying to one another, "Who, then, is this! that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?" It is evident that all depended upon the Master. The disciples were to be sent forth on a most perilous mission; but the strength was in Him, not in them; and they from the very beginning had to learn that even Jesus inquired, "Where is your faith?"

*"Rising up": so AD and later uncials with cursives, and Syrsin; but Edd. adopt "awaking," after BL, 33.

Luke 8: 26-39.

Matt. 8: 28-34; Mark 1-20.

Then we find another scene: not the enemy's power shown in stirring up what we may call nature against Christ and His disciples, but the direct presence of demons filling a man. We have this desperate case set forth in one who had been thus possessed for a long time.* He had broken with all social order; he "put on no clothes, and did not abide in a house, but in the tombs." A more dreadful picture of human degradation through the possession of demons could not be. "But seeing Jesus, he cried out,† and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beseech thee, torment me not." 210 The demons had the consciousness of the presence of their Conqueror, the Conqueror of Satan. They dreaded to be bruised under His feet; for Christ had commanded the unclean spirit to go out from the man and then we have a further description of this power of Satan: "For very often it had seized him; and he had been bound, kept with chains and fetters; ' and breaking the bonds, he was driven by the demon into the deserts." Jesus was led of the Spirit there, but the devil led this man in misery; whereas Christ went in Divine grace, and in order righteously to break the power of Satan.

*"Had demons a long time": so A, later uncials and most cursives, Syrr, etc.; but Tisch. and W. H. (Revv.) adopt the order of BL, 33, etc., Memph. "For a long time he put on, etc."

†"He cried out": so Edd., with BDL, etc., 33. — AEΔ, etc., 1, 69, have "and crying out."

That the awfulness of the case might be more fully brought out, Jesus asks him, "What is thy name? And he said, Legion: for many demons had entered into him. And they besought* him that he would not command them to go away into the bottomless pit."211 They dreaded their hour. There was the instinctive sense in these demons that Jesus would commit them to the abyss. "And there was there a herd of many 212 swine feeding on the mountain; and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into those; and he suffered them. And the demons, going out from the man, entered into the swine; and the herd rushed down the precipice into the lake, and were choked." This at once roused those who had the charge of them. "But they that fed [them], seeing what had happened, fled, and told† [it] to the city and to the country." They come out, and find the man from whom the demons had gone out, "sitting, clothed and sensible, at the feet of Jesus." 213 "They were afraid." Now the state of the people discloses itself. Had there been one particle of right feeling, they would have given thanks to God; they would have been in the presence of One Who, though to be bruised by him, was to break Satan's power for ever. But though they saw "the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting, clothed and sensible, at the feet of Jesus, they were afraid," though they knew how the demoniac had been healed; still, their own hearts were not won, but the very reverse appeared. "All the multitude of the surrounding country of the Gadarenes‡ asked him to depart from them." Ah, foolish Gadarenes! who bewitched you? They all had, alas! a common interest; but the common interest of men was to get rid of Jesus. That was their one desire. After the certainty of His gracious power, after the plain overthrow of Satan's energy before their eyes, after the deliverance of their fellow, restored now, and sitting, clothed and sensible, all their thought was to beseech Jesus to depart from them, "for they were possessed with great fear." What a proof of the delusion of men! Whatever might be their terrors in presence of the man possessed with a legion of demons, they had greater fear of Jesus, and their hope and object was to get rid of Him as fast as possible. He brought in all that was holy, true, loving. He fed, He healed, He delivered; but man had no heart for God, and consequently sought only how to get rid of Him Who brought in the power of God. Any other person was more welcome. What is man! Such is the world.

*"They besought (παρεκάλουν)": so Edd., after BCD, etc., 1, 33, 69, Memph. Arm. — A, etc., have παρεκάλει (Stephens and Beza), as if "he besought," which is treated as a correction from Mark 5: 10. The classical conjunction of neut. plur. with sing. verb, the Hellenistic Greek of the N.T. does not always follow.

†Before "told" some minuscules have "departing," which Edd. reject after ABCDLΞ, 1, 33, 69, Syrr, etc. (from Matthew).

‡"Gadarenes" (Cf. Luke 5: 26): so Blass, after corr, AD, etc., Syrr cu sin. — "Gergesenes" is the reading (followed by Tisch.) of pm, Ccorr, L, etc., 1, 33, Memph.; "Gerasenes" (W. H., Weiss) of BCpm, D, Old Lat.

Not so with him that was healed. He besought Jesus that he might be with Him, and thus stood in moral contrast with the whole multitude which besought Him to depart from them. He had been in far more awful circumstances than they. But such is the power of God's grace. It creates and forms what we should be. If any one, according to natural antecedents, might have been expected to keep far away from Jesus, it was this demoniac, so completely had he been led captive of Satan at his will. But he was delivered, and so perfectly from the first hour, that his one desire was to be with Jesus. This was the first-fruit of the Spirit's action in a man whom grace had delivered — the untutored instinct of the new man to enjoy the presence of Jesus. The simplest soul that is born of God has this wish.

"But he sent him away, saying, Return to thine house, and relate how great things God hath done for thee." He will have his desire later; meanwhile "Return to thine house." This is of price with the Lord, to show God's wonderful works, not merely to strangers, but to one's own house. Such as they would know best the shame, and sorrow, and degradation to which he had been reduced. Therefore Jesus says, "Return to thine house, and show how great things God hath done for thee." The man in faith bows and understands; whatever might be his heart's desire, he is now to do the good, holy, and acceptable will of the Lord. "He went away through the whole city,214 publishing how great things Jesus had done for him." Mark, it is of Jesus he speaks. Jesus would have him to tell what God had done; and God would have him to tell what Jesus had done. This could not have been had Jesus not been the Son of God Himself. Though the lowliest servant of God, He was none the less also God. The man was right. He was not contravening the will of God, nor breaking the command of Jesus. Its spirit was the more kept, even if in the letter it might sound somewhat differently. God is honoured best when Jesus is most shown forth.

Luke 8: 40-56.

Matt. 9: 18-26; Mark 5: 21-43.

Two other scenes (interwoven, it is true) close the chapter. The Lord is appealed to by Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue. "He, falling at the feet of Jesus, besought him to come to his house." This was the way in which a Jew expected to be healed — by the coming of Messiah to his place. "Because he had an only daughter about twelve years old, and she was dying." 215 Such was the condition of the daughter of Zion now. Israel was proving that there was no life in them; but Christ is entreated, and He goes for the purpose of healing Israel.

While He is on the way, a woman crosses His path, having a most urgent need — "a flux of blood216 twelve years, who having spent all her living* on physicians, could not be cured by anyone. It was therefore a hopeless case, humanly speaking. Nevertheless she comes behind Him in the desperate sense that now was her opportunity, and "touched the hem 117 of His garment. And immediately her flux of blood stopped." The Lord was, of course, conscious of that which was done. If faith feels the grace and power of Jesus in any measure, and applies ever so feebly, hesitatingly, and tearfully, Jesus knows it well, and yearns over that soul. His heart was towards her, and He would have her know it. She touched Him from behind. Jesus would bring her into His presence, face to face, and would have her to know that His hearty consent went with the blessing which she had seemed to steal but really acquired by the touch of faith. Hence He says, "Who has touched me?" It was in vain that Peter or the others sought to explain it away, when all denied. It was in vain to say that the multitude thronged, and therefore why ask who touched Him.† The Lord stood to it: somebody had touched Him. It was not a crowd's pressure: it was not an accident. It was distinctly one who had touched Him. There was the real recourse of faith, however weak. "Jesus said, Someone hath touched me, for I have known that power hath gone out from me." The multitude thronging could extract no virtue: not thus did Jesus heal. No such external pressure is of avail to bring blessing out of Him. But the soul that finds itself near to Jesus, and touches, however timorously, never fails to gather blessing from Him. "And the woman, seeing that she was not hid [this was not the state in which the Lord would leave her, nor any who are blessed], came trembling, and, falling down before him, declared [unto him]‡ before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed." The glory of God was thus secured, and a bright testimony to Him was rendered; but her heart needed also to be thoroughly restored. She must learn what love God has, and how completely Jesus would give her communion with Himself in the blessing conferred. Thus is the Giver known, and the gift enhanced infinitely. It was not something stolen, but freely imparted. Therefore says He, "Be of good courage, daughter."§ He uses the term of affection expressly to banish all terror and uneasiness. "Be of good courage, daughter; thy faith hath healed thee; go in peace. "What a joy it would be to her ever afterwards to know that she had not only got the mercy her body needed from God, but that the Saviour, the Lord God who healed her diseases, the ever blessed Physician, had spoken to her, given her His own warrant, comforted her when her heart was utterly afraid, used terms even of such endearment towards her, owned her faith, feeble as it was, and finally sent her away with a message of peace.

*"Having spent all her living on physicians": so Tisch., from ACDL and later uncials, cursives. — W. H., Weiss and Blass omit, after BD, Syrsin, Arm. (reminiscence of Mark 5: 25).

†"And sayest thou, Who has touched me?": so ACD and later uncials, cursives, Old Lat. and Syrr. Edd. omit, after BL, Sahid. Memph. Arm. (from Mark).

‡After "declared." Cpm, E, and some later uncials have "to him," which Edd. omit, after ABCcorr, DL, 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch cu sin, Old Lat. Memph.

§["Be of good courage"]: so AC, etc., most cursives (33, 69), Syrrpesch hcl, Goth. Aeth. Arm. Edd. omit, after BDLΞ, 1, Syrrcu sin, most Old Lat. Sah. Memph. (from Matthew).

"While he was yet speaking, there cometh one from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying to him, Thy daughter is dead; do not trouble the teacher. But Jesus hearing it, answered him, saying,* Fear not: only believe, and she shall be made well."

*"Saying": so ACD, etc., Syrsin, Memph. Goth. Arm. — Edd. omit, after BL, etc., 1, 33, Syrcu.

Such turns out to be the real condition of Israel, not sick only, but dead. But Jesus carried within Himself the secret of resurrection. He is equal to all emergencies, and knew infinitely better than they both the maiden's need and His own mighty power. He did not come down to do what others might have done. An angel may trouble the pool of Bethesda for a man not too infirm to step in immediately. The Son quickens whom He will. And the Jews, long rebellious in unbelief, long seeking to destroy His name Who by such a claim makes Himself equal with God, will yet own the despised Messiah as their Lord and their God, and the dry bones shall live; and all Israel, at length saved, shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit! Isa. 27: 6. Of this the sick and now dead maiden is the pledge; and He, Who then bids her father fear not but believe, will redeem the pledge He gave of old.

"And when he came to the house, he suffered no one to go in,* but Peter, and John, and James,† 218 and the father of the child and the mother. And all were weeping and lamenting her. But he said, Do not weep; for‡ she hath not died, but sleepeth.219 And they derided him, knowing that she had died. But he, having turned them all out,§ and taking hold of her hand, cried, saying, Child, arise. And her spirit returned, and immediately she rose up; and he commanded [something] to eat to be given to her. And her parents were amazed, but he enjoined them to tell no one what had happened." The spirit of scorn then and there was but a little sample of what is to be; but such can have no portion in the blessing permanently. For while many of Israel that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, with some it will be to shame and everlasting contempt, as surely as with others to everlasting life. Dan. 12: 2. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel. But the word of gracious power shall go forth from Him in Whose eyes the virgin daughter of Zion was not dead, but sleeping; and she shall arise. And He Who at length wakes her up from her death sleep, shall care for her and strengthen her for the great work to which Zion will then be called. It was, however, but a passing act of power then; the time was not yet come for more; and Jesus charged them to tell none what was done. If He were not received Himself, if His word were refused, it was vain to publish His power; unbelief would only turn it to worse evil.

*"Came to": so most texts (Edd.); D has "entered into." — After "to go in," Edd. add "with him," as in BCpmD, etc., 33, 69, Memph. Aeth. which ACcorrR, Syrcu, Goth. Arm. omit.

†"John and James": so Edd., after BCDERΔ, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat. — AL, etc., 33, Amiat., Syrrpesch cur sin, Memph. have "James and John."

‡"For": so Edd., following BCDFL, etc., 1, 33,69, Syrr. Memph. — AER, etc., and Amiat. omit.

§"Having turned them all out, and": so A and most later uncials, etc., 33, 69, Syrrpesch hcl. — Edd. omit, following ABDLX, and cursives, with Syrrcu sin, most Old Lat. Aeth. (regarded as from Mark).

LUKE 9: 1-6.*

Matt. 10: 1-7, 9-11, 14; Mark 6: 7-13.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 292-316.

The last chapter showed Christ's testimony to the change that was coming. This chapter gives us the twelve entrusted with the same testimony. They were to go forth representatives of Christ everywhere, invested with the power of the Kingdom. They had both "power and authority over all demons and to heal diseases," as well as a mission "to proclaim 220 the kingdom of God." The Lord gave them their authority. They were to be manifestly dependent on the King, and in a remarkable way the King's power would open and none should shut, and shut and none could open. Nevertheless, this sovereign power of the King over the hearts of His people Israel was not without the maintenance of their responsibility. Whoever rejected Him must bear his burden. The word, however, is, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staff,* nor wallet, nor bread, nor money."221 It must be manifestly the resources of God, however He might work by men. They were not to care for themselves, not even to have two coats (vests) apiece. "And into whatsoever house ye may have entered, there abide, and thence go forth. And as many as may not receive you, going forth from that city, shake off even† the dust from your feet for a witness against them." Thus then they departed, "and passed through the villages, announcing the glad tidings, and healing everywhere."

*"Staff": so Edd., after BCpmDLΞ, 1, 33, 69 Old Lat. Syrcu, Sah. Aeth. Arm. — "Staves" (Meyer) is found in ACcorrΔ, and other later uncials, many cursives, Syrsin, Goth.

†"Even (the very)": so Tisch., after ACcorrEΔ, etc., Syrr (including sin.), Amiat.; but other Edd. omit, following BCpmDLXΞ, 1, 33.

Luke 9: 7-9.

Matt. 14: 1-2; Mark 6: 14-16.

Then we find the working of conscience in Herod. "And Herod the Tetrarch heard of all the things which were done [by him]:* and was in perplexity, because it was said by some that John was risen from among the dead; and by some, that Elias had appeared; and by others, that one of the old prophets had risen again." Herod's conviction was that he had beheaded John: he knew this too well. "John," he said, "I have beheaded: but who is this of whom I hear such things? And he sought222 to see him." But desire in Divine things, unless it be accompanied by the action of conscience in the sense of sin on the one hand, and of grace on the other on God's part, never comes to any good. Many a man has heard God's testimony gladly, and given it all up. Many a man has had respect for the witnesses; but, as we see in Herod's case, first as to John, it did not hinder him from beheading John; and next, as to Jesus, it did not hinder him from taking his part in the last scene of the uttermost humiliation of the Lord. There was nothing of Divine life in the action of his conscience.  There was no working of grace, because there was no sense of his own sin and need in God's sight, which might drive him to God.

*["By him"]: so AE and most later uncials, nearly all cursives (1, 33), Syrpesch, Amiat. Edd. reject, after BCL, 69, Syrrsincu, Vulg. Sah. Memph. Aeth. Goth. Arm.

Luke 9: 10-17.

Matt. 14: 13-21; Mark. 6: 30-44; John 6: 1-13.

The apostles return, telling the Lord of all that they had done. But it is evident that they knew not how to avail themselves of the power that was entrusted to them. So Jesus takes them, and goes aside "apart223 into224 [a desert place of]* a city, called Bethsaida." And now we see how perfectly Jesus wielded the power of which He was the vessel as man. For although He had turned aside privately, the people follow Him there; "and he received them, and spoke to them of the kingdom of God, and cured those that had need of healing."224a No one ever came amiss to Jesus. No need ever was presented without drawing out His grace. No retirement led Him to treat those who came as intruders. But the difference between the Master and the servant appears. For "the day began to decline,225 and the twelve came and said to him, Send away the crowd, that they may go† into the villages around, and the fields, and lodge, and find victuals: for here we are in a desert place." But this would not suit Jesus. "He said to them, Give ye them to eat." Unbelief begins at once to reckon. They counted the loaves and the fishes: there were but five loaves and two fishes, except they should go and buy meat for all this people. Thus those who ought to have been the witnesses of the power and grace of God are ignorant of the Lord's present resources, and only think of what might be procured by money from man. The Lord says to His disciples — so great was His grace that He would put honour upon them even in their weakness and want of faith — "Make them sit down in companies by fifties. And they did so, and made them all sit down. And taking the five loaves and the two fishes, looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave 226 to the disciples to set before the crowd." Viewed as the Son of man, and the Son of God as man (and so Luke does view Him), God was with Him, not only when He went about doing good, but when men followed Him into the wilderness. There was no difference. Everywhere the grace of God was upon Him, the power of God with Him. So He blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. He fed His poor with bread. It was not the true Bread which came down from heaven, because He, and He alone, was this. But He Who was the true Bread loved to feed them even with the bread that perishes, though He would have loved still better to feed them with that Bread which is unto life eternal. The Lord Jesus alone knows, therefore, how to use all the resources of the kingdom of God. He waited for no special time and for no special circumstances. He is able to bring in the blessing according to need now; for God was with Him, and He was with God touching all circumstances. "And they all ate and were all filled; and there was taken up of what had remained over and above to them twelve hand-baskets." There was more at the end than at the beginning, though five thousand men, besides women and children, had partaken. Such was Jesus; and such will Jesus be when the kingdom of God appears — the furnisher of all the nourishment,. and joy, and blessing of the kingdom. Nor is He less, or other, but the same now,227 though the manner of exhibiting, His gracious power is according to the present purpose of God in the Church. But He is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. Heb. 13: 8.

*["A desert place of"]: so ACΔ and other uncials, most cursives, Goth. Aeth. Arm. Edd. adopt "(into) a city called Bethsaida," with BD ("village") LXX, 33, Sah. Memph. — Amiat. and Old Latin have "a d. p. which is B."

†"Go": so Edd., after ABCDL, etc., Syrsin. 33, 69, — Δ, etc., "go away" (which is in Mark).

Luke 9: 18-27.228

Matt. 16: 13-28; Mark 8: 27-9: 1.

The Lord is again praying alone, as we have found Him in previous parts of this Gospel, and indeed in others. So it was at His baptism, when the Holy Ghost descended on Him,. and afterwards in His ministry, when we are told that He withdrew Himself into the wilderness and prayed. This was. when multitudes came to hear and to be healed, when the power of the Lord was there to heal afresh. So also before He chose the twelve apostles, it is said, "He continued all night in prayer to God." It was after men were communing to kill Him, and before the appointment of the apostles and the discourse on the mount.

Now He is about to disclose, His death. The sense of His entire rejection filled His soul, because of the unbelief of the people; and the Father was about to give the most direct personal witness of His glory, as well as to show what was reserved for Him in the Kingdom. He would own Him as Son of God now, He would display Him by and by as the Son of man. Accordingly "it came to pass, as he was praying alone, his disciples were with him; and he asked them, saying, Who do the crowd say that I am? But they answering said, John the Baptist; but others, Elias; and others, that one of the old prophets has risen again." This elicited from Peter, in reply to the direct question of the Lord —  "But ye, who do ye say that I am?" — the confession that He was the Christ of God.*

*Syrsin omits "of God," as also the Curetonian, and Old Latin, Codex Vercellensis.

It is remarkable how Luke here omits what Matthew records. In point of fact He owned Him to be the Son of God as well; but this is peculiar to Matthew. The reason why it is given in Matthew seems to me because that is the title of Christ's personal glory, which is the joy of the Christian. The Church of God delights in Christ as the Son of the living God; Israel will hail the Christ as the Son of David. The world, all mankind, will be blest by Christ as the Son of man; but the Christian and the Church have their joy in Him as the Son of the living God. It is clearly the most elevated and properly Divine of His titles. It is intrinsic and personal. Along with this we find in Matthew, and in his Gospel alone, the revelation from the Lord Jesus that upon this rock He would build His Church — that is, on this confession of His name. Consequently as Matthew is the only one who gives us His name, and the confession of it by Peter, so the Lord is represented only there as about to build the Church.

All this disappears from Luke. Here Peter simply says "The Christ of God." The Lord "earnestly charging them, enjoined [them] to say this to no man." This is a remarkable word. Why withhold from people that He was the Christ of God? Why this reserve as to His Messiahship? It was useless to bring it forward. Some said one thing, and some another. No man had faith in Him except those who were born of God. Man, as man, rejected Him. The Jews rejected Him. The disciples confessed Him, Peter pre-eminently; but it was no use to go on preaching Him as the Christ or Messiah of Israel. He was the Anointed of God, but in truth He was going to suffer, and consequently the Lord introduces another title in connection with His cross. "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up." It was particularly this very title that the Lord habitually gives Himself. So in Matthew: "Who say ye that I the Son of man am?" Peter then confesses Him as really the Jewish Christ, but also "the son of the living God." The Lord intimates that they must drop the first. It was useless to speak about it, it was too late. Had the people received Him, He would have reigned as Messiah. But, morally speaking, that could not be. On the one hand man was unbelieving, Wicked, and lost; on the other hand it was according to the counsels of God that Jesus was to be put to, death on the cross, and to rise into a new creation in which He would have men His fellows. If Jesus had not been crucified, it would have proved that man was not altogether so evil as God had said. But as man really is profoundly bad, according to the Word of God, it was a moral certainty that man would crucify the Lord Jesus, and so God predicted by His prophets. The Lord now reminds them that the old proclamation as the Christ must close. He was going to die as Son of man. He had His death always before Him. It was the settled counsel of God the Father, and the settled purpose of the Son. He came to die, not only knowing it, but with his heart fully devoted to the accomplishment of the will of God, cost what it might, as it did cost His own death and rejection. In His death He wrought atonement for our sins. Here, however, His death is simply viewed as rejection from man: "The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and the third day be raised up." God's part in the matter, either in judgment of our wickedness or in introducing redemption, is not stated. Assuredly it was then and there, as it was always destined to be; but sometimes the one side of truth, sometimes the other, is presented in Scripture. He is rejected by the heads of the Jews. It was a sad and humbling fact that they should cast off their own Messiah, who was, adds He Himself, to "be raised up the third day."

This suffering of the Son of man at once defines the path for the disciple. "He said to [them] all, If any one will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily,* and follow me."229 It was in no way enjoyment of earthly things. That would be all suited and seasonable in the Kingdom when He reigns as the Christ, as well as Son of man, according to the hopes furnished by the prophets. There we find every kind of proof of God's beneficence, and men's hearts will be filled with gladness. But such is not the character of Christianity. The Cross shows us our true path. If Christ suffered, the Christian cannot expect to be above his Master. Christ was going to the cross; therefore if any man would come after Him, "let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever shall desire to save his life" shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, he shall save it. For what shall a man profit if he shall have gained the whole world, and have destroyed or come under the penalty of the loss of himself?"

*"Daily": so Edd., following ABKL, and later uncials, 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch cu, Amiat. Goth. Memph. Arm., CDEXΔ, etc., many cursives, Syrsin and most Old Latin omit.

The truth comes out. Everything now depends on eternal life. It is no longer a question of living long on the earth. This was, and will be, all very well for the Jew. But the Cross of Christ is the burial of all Jewish thoughts. Hence if a man is careful to save his life now, he will lose it. He may save it in a lower sense, but he will lose it in a deeper. He may save it in this world, but lose it for eternity. But if I am willing to lose it in the lower, I shall save it in the best — the eternal — sense. The death of Christ brings everything to a point: all then becomes the momentous question of eternal life and salvation. The Jews did not think of this. They panted for a great king that would raise them to the pinnacle of earthly greatness. Christianity shows us the One on Whom all turns, Himself crucified; and those who come after the Crucified cannot escape from the cross. Each Christian must deny himself, and that not merely once, but daily taking up His cross, and following Him. "For whosoever shall have been ashamed231 of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man232 be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in that] of the Father, and of the holy angels."

There lies the solemnity of the issue. If ashamed of One rejected and of His words, He will be ashamed of us in glory. We have not Christ personally, but we have Him by faith, His name, and also, as a test of our truth of heart, His words. A man might plead the words of Moses and the prophets; but these would not avail now. A man who merely attached himself to the words of the law and the prophets, to the exclusion of the New Testament, could not be saved. When God brings out the full revelation of Christ, I must go forward and be subject to what God gives. The Jews hold on to the truth of the unity of God in order to deny the truth of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. True faith now values all that God lives. It is not real if it does not value what He gives for the present time. Hence the test is truth freshly used of God for the actual moment, and not merely what was known of old. Unbelief is always wrong; it takes advantage of what is traditional to deny what was newly revealed.

"Whosoever shall have been ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his glory." There we find the proper glory of the Son of man. It is a rejected Man Who is exalted on high; but He will come in His own glory, and "[in that] of the Father, and of the holy angels." His being a man did not at all touch His Divine rights. The angels were all subject to Him as man, He had a title above them because He was God; and He had won a title superior to them, because He had died on the cross. Thus by a double title the Lord Jesus has not only all mankind but angels subject to Him as man. "But I say unto you of a truth, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death233 until they shall have seen the kingdom of God."233a This was a bright witness calculated and intended to strengthen those who were meant to be forward and at the head of things in God's testimony and in the Church. The reference is to Peter, James, and John, who were permitted a sight of the kingdom of God before it comes in power.

Luke 9: 28-36.

Matt. 17: 1-9; Mark 9: 2-9.

Eight days after

,234 when the glory was about to appear, the Lord prays. "And

as he prayed

, the

fashion

[aspect] of his countenance became different, and his raiment white235 [and]

effulgent

." Luke is the only one of the Evangelists who mentions His prayer here, and that, as He prayed, He was transfigured. "And lo,

two men

with him,

who were

Moses and Elias," the representatives of the saints dead and raised, living and changed. Moses died and is here seen as risen, and Elias as the pattern of those who shall be changed. "Who

appearing in glory, spoke of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem

.236 This is the great topic of heavenly discourse. There can be no fact above so precious as the death of Jesus. It will be the grand theme throughout eternity. It is the foundation of all the ways of God in redemption, the highest moral glory of God as it is the fullest proof of ' His love. "They spoke with him of his departure which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem." On earth Jesus takes the highest place, as alas! the lowest also for us and our sins, yet He is, too, the highest in grace, as He will be in the ways of God. It will be so in the days of the Kingdom, when God's counsels shall appear for the earth as well as the heavens.

"

But Peter and those with him were oppressed with sleep

."237 They slept in the garden when Christ was going through His agony, and they were heavy with sleep when Christ's glory was being revealed. Thus man is utterly worthless for communion, whether with suffering or glory, and this, not man without life from God, but the chosen disciples, the future pillars of the work, the most worthy and excellent of the earth. Yet these, as they could not watch one hour when it was a question of the sorrows of Jesus, so they were oppressed with sleep when His glory in His kingdom was revealed. So wholly incapable of answering in his soul to God's display is man of the grace of Christ or of the glory He intends for him.

"

But having fully woke

up (or kept

awake),238 they saw his glory,

and the two men who stood with him.

And it came to pass as they departed from him

, Peter said to Jesus,

Master

, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles,238a one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said." Indeed, he did not know. It was sheer forgetfulness of the personal dignity of Jesus. "Let us make three tabernacles," one for his Master and the other two for His servants, Moses and Elias. Would he, then, put his Master, the Lord of all, on the same level with the head of the law and the chief of the prophets? Peter thought this would be great honour for Him! He was altogether astray. The root of all wrong is depreciation of Jesus. The power for all that is good is faith in His glory. Thus Peter, in a human way, seeking to honour Jesus, in reality lowers Him; and this God the Father would never allow, specially in a disciple. "But as he was saying these things there came a cloud and overshadowed them," the well-known symbol of Jehovah's presence in Israel: it was not a dark, but a bright, cloud, as we are told in another Gospel: "and they feared as

they* entered into the cloud

,"

meaning, I suppose, that the disciples feared as they saw Moses and Elias enter the cloud 219 They could not understand that men, even glorified, should be within the circle of the peculiar presence of Jehovah. The pavilion of His glory might tabernacle over man; but it seemed too much to them that men should thus be at home there, even though it were men in glory.

*"They" (αὐτοὐς): so Edd., with BCL, Memph. Blass, "those" (ἐκείνους), as ADΔ, 1, 33, 69, Sah.

More follows: "There came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." It is no longer a question of Moses and Elias. The law and the prophets were admirable forerunners, and not a tittle can fall unfulfilled to the ground; but the Son of God comes and necessarily takes precedence of all. "This is my beloved* Son: hear him." Do not put Moses and Elias on a level with Him. They were to be heard as the finger-posts which point to Christ; but when Jesus the Son of God is there, He is to be heard. This is Christianity. Almost every working of unbelief in Christianity now consists in lowering Jesus to the law and the prophets, or, at any rate, to man, the first man. No one born of God would slight the law and the prophets; but it is one thing to own them as having Divine authority, quite another to put them on a level with the Son of God. They were Divine witnesses, but the Son must have His own due supremacy. In all things He must have the pre-eminence. (Col. 1: 18.) And so God the Father here insists upon it. "This is my beloved240 Son: hear him."

*"Beloved": so ACDΔ and most later uncials, all cursives, Syrrcu pesch, most Old Lat. and Amiat. Edd. adopt "chosen," after BLΞ, Syrsin, Sah. Memph. Arm.

"

And as the voice was [heard]

Jesus was found alone." This is really the very strength of our souls — that we have but one Person who is or can be the full objective revelation of the mind of God to us. We honour most the Father and we show best the power of the Holy Ghost when we have Jesus before us, and we are following Him day by day. "This one thing I do," says the apostle. (Phil. 3: 13.) "

And they kept silence and told no one in those days any of the things they had seen

."240a

Luke 9: 37-45.

Matt. 17: 14-23; Mark 9: 14-32.

The next scene plunges us at once into the realities of the world as it is, the more painfully felt because of the bright vision of the age to come on the mount of transfiguration, whether in the sample of the kingdom of the Son of man or the inner scene of those who entered the cloud. Here, on the contrary, we have the world as it now is through the power of Satan. "It came to pass that on the following day241 when they came down from the mountain, a great crowd met him. And a man from the crowd cried out saying, Teacher, I beseech thee, look upon my son, for he is mine only child: and behold a spirit takes him and suddenly he cries out; and it tears him with foaming; and with difficulty departed from him after crushing him. And I besought thy disciples that they might cast him out, and they could not." It was a picture, indeed, of Israel and we may say of man. Such was the power of the demon over him; and the fact most distressing was that the disciples were quite unable to meet the case. They were men of God; they were His most honoured servants, already sent out with power and authority by the Lord Jesus, as we saw in the beginning of this chapter: and yet they could not cope with this aggravated form of demoniacal possession.

"And Jesus answering said, O unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you and suffer you? bring hither thy son." The Lord had thus before His mind the vivid feeling of His approaching departure: "how long shall I be with you and suffer you?" It was for want, not of power but of faith, that they could not cast the spirit out. Faith always supposes two things — sense of the weight and yoke of evil that presses on man, and confidence in God as always superior to evil in His gracious power and supreme. There may be failure, but never final defeat where room is left for God to come in, and the heart cleaves to the certainty of His glory concerned in the matter. The lack of this was what grieved the Lord Jesus; their inability was due to want of faith and of self-judgment.

"But as he was yet coming the demon tore him, and dragged him all together. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and gave him back to his father." The Lord had thus before Him a fresh and, if possible, mightier effort of Satan; but His power, or rather the power of God, which He wielded as the self-emptied Son and obedient Man, rose above all the efforts of Satan. He rebukes the unclean spirit and heals the child. "And they were all astonished at the glorious greatness of God." Yet why should they have been? Jesus was God Himself manifest in the flesh. But the blessedness of Jesus  - was this, that He never did anything simply as God, but as the Man Who was dependent on God. Had He not preserved such a place and wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost as man, He would have failed to preserve the perfect place of man and of servant in the world. But this was His human perfection from the time He came born of woman. Nothing could be so powerful as either motive or example to us.

"

And as all wondered at all the things which [Jesus]* did†

he said to his disciples,

Do ye let these

words sink into your ears.

For the Son of man is about to be delivered into men's hands." They were astonished with a wonder which, while it was a homage to what was done, was also an indication of a want of intelligence. The Lord now brings out a far deeper cause of amazement and of adoration, had they only felt it rightly. Alas! it is what unbelief always stumbles at. He who could rebuke all the power, not only of men but of Satan, was nevertheless to be delivered into the hands of men. Such was the purpose of God, such the perfect willingness of Jesus the servant of God and Lord of all! Whatever would demonstrate the truth of man's state and of Satan's power here below; whatever would evince the ruin of the people of God and the destruction of His glory through their ruin on earth; whatever would prove the vanity of all present hopes for man and the world — for this Jesus was willing to encounter all and to suffer from to the uttermost, that God might be first morally, then in power, glorified, and man be set in perfect peace outside it all, first by faith and at last in palpable fact and for ever. The work of atonement came within this most complete humiliation of the Son of man; but these words of Christ speak simply, it is evident, of His suffering at the hands of men.

*["Jesus"]: so AC, etc., Syrrpesch hcl. Edd. omit, after BDLΞ, 1, Syrrsincu, Amiat. Memph. Arm.

†"Did": so Edd., after ABCDL, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. Old Lat. "Had done," EXΔ, etc.

"But they understood not this saying." Yet Scripture was full of it; but the will of man blinds him to what he does not like, and nowhere so much as in Scripture. The Jews greedily caught at the vision of glory and the promises for the people  - the exaltation of their nation and the downfall of their haughty Gentile oppressors. And so the words of God, which described the humiliation of the Messiah, were quite overlooked in general and always misunderstood. Even when our Lord here told them, not in prophetic form, nor with any obscurity of figure, but in the simplest terms possible, they understood not His saying. How little the understanding of Scripture has to do with its language! The true cause of darkness lies in the heart. The only real power of intelligence is in the Holy Spirit, who makes us willing to bow to Christ sensible of our own need of such a Saviour and really in earnest that God should save us on His own terms.

Luke 9: 46-50

Matt. 18: 1-5; Mark 9: 33-40.

This was not the case with the disciples — "They understood not this saying." They had not confidence fully in His love. Confidence in Him has much to do with intelligence of His Word; and even if we do not understand, confidence in Him leads us not to cavil nor to hurry, but to wait and count upon Him that He will surely clear up what we do not understand. He will reveal even this unto us. The disciples merely dropped the matter. "They feared to ask him concerning this saying." The real state of their hearts is brought before us in the next account: "And a reasoning came in amongst them, who should be [the] greatest of them. And Jesus, seeing* the reasoning of their heart, having taken a little child, set it by him, and said to them, Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me. For he who is the least among you all, he is† great." This was what they wanted — to become as little children. It is not here presented as in Matthew, in order to enter the Kingdom, but in relation to Christ and to God Himself. They wished each to be greatest; there was consequently a discussion which of them should have the higher place. A little child does not think about this, but is content with its parents' love and with that which comes before it. It is not occupied with thoughts of itself, nor should it be. Indeed, this is just what is wrought in the heart by conversion; and especially by the subsequent power of the indwelling Spirit of God giving us to see Another's greatness and goodness, in the enjoyment of which we forget ourselves. "Whosoever shall receive this little child in my name receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me." The reception of Jesus is the reception of God Himself and thus the root of real greatness. But practically, flowing from this, to be least is the true greatness of the believer now. Such was Christ Himself. He was willing to take, and did take, the place of the most despised of all.242

*"Seeing": so ACDLΔΞ, etc. Edd. adopt "knowing," as in B, etc.

†"Is": so Edd., with BCL, etc., 1, 33, Syrr" sin, most old Lat., Amiat., Memph. "Shall be" (Blass); AD, etc., nearly all cursives (69), Syrr. Arm.

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw some one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbad him, because he follows not with us. And Jesus said to him, Forbid [him] not; for he that is not against you is for you."* Here comes a considerably subtler form of self. The grossest form was in

*"Against you is for you": so Edd., following BCDLΞ, 33, Old Lat., Syrrcu sin, Memph. Goth. Aeth. Arm. "Against you is for us," pmAΔ. E (T.R.), etc., have "against us is for us" (Mark).

the question which of them should be greatest; but now comes a certain disguise of self, which consists in apparent zeal for the Master's honour. "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us." What a reason! It was well, it was an immense honour, to follow Jesus; but John betrayed himself by his very language "he followeth not with us." Had he kept Jesus before his eye, he never would have uttered the complaint. He would have seen that it was for Jesus to call, as they had been chosen by Him in pure grace unto this honour. It was evident that John looked at it as an interference with the apostles, and a failure in acknowledging their importance. But Jesus, superior to everything of a fleshly nature, answers, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you."† Jesus, in the sense of His humiliation and looking for it even unto death, owns whatever is of God. It was not Satan that cast out Satan. It was the power of God that cast out the demons. Nay, more than this. The demons were cast out in the name of Jesus; why, then, should John have a jealousy so narrow and unworthy? Why should he not own the power that answered to his Master's name. Ah! was it really his Master and not himself that he was thinking of? "He that is not against you is for you." Where it was a question of the unbelief of the nation, Where Jesus was utterly despised, the word then was, "He that is not with me is against me." The converse principle is true, no doubt; but where there was a simple-hearted man, serving God according to the measure of his faith, the Lord vindicates his action in His name. By John's own account the power was there which answered to the name of Jesus. There was one who resisted the demons, using the name of Jesus against them. And there was power; for he did cast them out, and this through the name of Jesus. Had there, therefore, been a true care for the glory of the Lord Jesus, John would rather have rejoiced than have sought his prejudice. "Forbid him not," says the Lord, "for he that is not against you is for you."243

†"Against you is for you": so Edd., following BCDLΞ, 33, Old Lat., Syrrcu sin, Memph. Goth. Aeth. Arm. "Against you is for us," pm AΔ. E (T.R.), etc., have "against us is for us" (Mark).

Luke 9: 51-56.244

"

It came to pass when the days of his being received up were fulfilled he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers before his face. And having gone they entered into a village of the Samaritans that they might make ready for him. And they did not receive him,245 because his face was [turned as] going to Jerusalem

." There was no readiness for the Lord. Their dislike of favoured Jerusalem made them utterly forget the glory of Jesus and the testimony of His gracious power which these very Samaritans had every reason to know and to feel grateful for. But, "

they did not receive him, because his face was

[turned as]

going to Jerusalem

." How often circumstances bring out the state of our hearts! What they would not dare to do, were it simply a question of Jesus, some paltry selfish feeling arouses some latent jealousy and brings all to light. These same men stumble over the personal glory of Jesus; others, attracted by the world, prove that they have no heart for a Saviour, by seeking what it has of present things to bestow. Others, again disliking the inevitable shame of the Cross of Christ, shrink from the trial it, brings them into, and prove that they have no faith because wherever this is real, it looks fixedly and simply to Jesus. Where other objects come in, there is a turning aside; but where real faith is, it welcomes the Cross and receive.. Himself, and to such God gives title to become His children.

What was the effect of Samaritan party-feeling now on the disciples? "And his disciples James and John seeing [it], said, Lord, wilt thou that we speak [that] fire come down from heaven and consume them, as also* Elias did?" Now it was not contrary to the principles of the disciples that Elias should thus be the instrument of Divine judgment; but how painfully did James and John (for now John was not alone), two that afterwards were of great weight and value in the Church of God,246 show their little perception of the grace of Jesus! The Lord of glory passes on, accepting His rejection, and bows to the ungrateful unbelief of the Samaritans. But His two servants, deriving everything of which they could boast, the only One that could take away their evil and bestow the goodness of God on them, under pretence of honouring Jesus, would command fire to come down from heaven and consume them like a Jewish prophet. flow little love had they for souls! As little was it a true regard for Jesus. It was honest Jewish nature, though in apostles. It was no doubt indignation, but this far more springing from themselves than for Jesus. Jesus turned therefore and rebuked them. It was not now simply a correction of what they were saying, but a rebuke to themselves.

*"As also Elias did": so Blass, with ACD, all later uncials, 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch hcl, Memph. Aeth. Other Edd. omit, after BLΞ, and Syrrcu sin, Amiat. and Arm.

"Ye know not of what spirit ye are."246a The next verse would seem to be — the first part at least — an interpolation.* It was not a question of saving souls in this place. If inserted here, It would make man the reason and end; whereas the suggestion was contrary to the display of what God is, and inconsistent with His grace, which does not merely save the soul but fills the heart with the moral glory of the Lord Jesus. "And they went to another village."

*["And said, Ye know not of what spirit ye are"]: so Blass, after D (in part) F, and later uncials, most cursives (1, 69), Syrr, Amiat., etc., Other Edd. reject, following ABCL, etc., 33, Syrsin. See W. H., App., p. 59f. After "are," FKM, more than sixty cursives (1, 69), Syrrcu sin, several Old Lat., and Amiat. have "For the Son of man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to save [them]." Edd. omit, in accordance with ABCDL, etc., many cursives (33).

Luke 9: 57-60.

Matt. 8: 19-22.

In all this context, since the transfiguration, human flesh is judged in its various forms. Indeed, even there the flesh was shown quite incompetent to appreciate the glory of God, or the new things of His kingdom. Thenceforward disciples and man manifest their unbelief and consequent powerlessness before Satan their unintelligence as to the sufferings of the "on of man their worldly ambition, cloaking itself under the Lord's name, though so utterly inconsistent with Him; the party-spirit that overlooks the Spirit of God Who deigns to work sovereignly; and the spirit of grace that God was now showing in Christ as contrasted with all that even an Elias did.

But now we have not the failure of the apostles themselves, but the judgment of those who either were or wanted to be disciples. This is brought before us in the close of the chapter in three different forms successively. "It came to pass,* as they went in the way, one247 said to him, I will follow thee wheresoever thou goest, Lord.† It was apparently a good confession, as it was a zealous resolution; but man never can go before the Lord. No one ever did give himself up to God — he must be called. He who says "I will follow thee" knows not his weakness. When we think what man is and what Jesus is, for man to say "I will follow thee wheresoever thou goest" is manifestly the grossest presumption, yet man sees no presumption in it. So ignorant is man, so besotted in unbelief, that to his eyes real faith seems presumptuous, whereas there is nothing so humble; for faith forgets itself in the goodness and might of Him on Whom it leans. It was the expression of self-confidence to say to Jesus, "I will follow thee wheresoever thou goest, Lord." Now he who does this always miscalculates. He overlooks the glory of Christ and the depth of His grace. He overlooks also his own total want of power and perhaps even his need of forgiveness. No man is competent till he is called by grace to follow the Lord. And when we are called, the Lord does not send us forth at our own charges. He gives liberally the needed wisdom and ability to those who ask Him; but He goes before us. To follow the Lord whithersoever He went, before His death (as in this case), was beyond man. When even Peter, at a later date, said something like it, it was just before he denied the Lord. Such is flesh. "I will follow thee to prison and to death," said Peter; but, in fact, the very shadow of what was coming frightened him. A servant-girl was enough to terrify the chief of the apostles. It made him tell lies with oaths; whereas the same Peter, after the death and resurrection of Christ, when his own conscience had been purified by faith according to the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, became bold as a lion, as he finally followed the Lord, not only to prison but to the death of the cross. But this was altogether the strength-giving effect of God's grace, not of his own power, which utterly failed. When his natural energy was gone, he was stronger than ever: he was only truly strong when he had no strength of his own. The Lord answers the scribe (for such we know him to be from another Gospel): "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven roosting-places, but the Son of man hath not where he may lay his head." The man was judged. He came for what he could get, and the Lord had nothing to give him — nothing but shame, and suffering, and destitution. The foxes might have holes, and the birds of the air nests, but the rejected Messiah had not an earthly resting-place. There was to be found in Israel no man so poor as the Lord Jesus. When He wanted to teach them a lesson of subjection to Caesar, whom their sins had set over them, He had to ask for a penny to be shown Him. We do not know that the Lord ever possessed a fraction. "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have roosting-places; but the Son of man hath not where he may lay his head." It was no use therefore for this man to follow Him in hopes of gaining by it. What could be gained by it on earth, but a share of His rejection? "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Cor. 15: 19.)

*"It came to pass": so ADΔ, etc., Syrpesch, Goth. Edd. omit, after BCL, etc., 33, 69, Syrrcu sin, Memph. Aeth. Arm.

†"Lord": so ACΔ and later uncials, nearly all cursives, Goth. Edd. omit, after BDLΞ, 1, Syrsin, Amiat. Memph.

But now comes another case, considerably different, where the Lord takes the initiative.

"He said to another, Follow me." The flesh, so bold in its offers to go after Jesus, is really slow to follow when He calls; as this man, though called, instantly feels the difficulties, and says, "Lord,* allow me to go first and bury my father." You find this in true believers. When a person has Christianity before his mind as a theory, all seems easy. He thinks he can do anything. Ordinarily, where the faith is genuine, difficulties are felt; and this man pleads the very first of all human duties. What would seem not only reasonable, but so, incumbent on him, as first to go and bury his father? Did not the law command the child to honour father and mother? To be sure; but One was there greater than the law. The, God who gave the law was calling, and if He says, Follow Me, faith gives up everything, even be it father, or mother, or wife, or children, for Christ's sake. Believers must come to, this sooner or later; generally in the long run, every one who thoroughly follows Christ. It is not felt at every moment; but the principle of Christianity is the sovereign call of God in Christ that takes one clean out of the world. Whilst still in the world one belongs to another — absolutely and only to. Christ, to do the will of God. Hence all natural ties must be in comparison like the green withs with which Samson was bound, and which were no more than tow before his all-overcoming strength. The most intimate of natural ties are after all but of flesh; whereas flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The link with Christ is of the Spirit; and the Spirit is mightier than the flesh. Therefore, whatever might be the claim of a dead father, or of what was due to the feelings of a Jew — for the Jew regarded him who did not bury his father with suitable care and affection as lost to all that was proper and as unworthy of any association with them — yet if the distinct person and call of Christ come in, at that moment, surely He must be followed.

*"Lord": so ACL, later uncials, nearly all cursives, Old Lat, Goth. Memph. Edd. omit, after BpmDV, Syrsin.

This was a test; Christ knew all, and not without moral motive had called him at that point precisely rather than any other; and the question for him was whether Christ was more to his soul than any one or thing in the world besides. Was it really so, that standing well with the Jews and with his family was of more consequence to him than Christ, than heaven or hell, than eternity itself? This man may have honestly desired to follow Christ, yet he pleads for a delay on the road. But the Lord's answer to him is "Suffer the dead to bury their own dead,248 but do thou go and announce the kingdom of God" — a perplexing answer to a person whose eye was not single. Thus the Lord tries faith. He does not put things in the simplest possible form to faith or to unbelief — above all, where there is something allowed that hinders. The Lord will be inquired of. So He says here, "Suffer the dead to bury their own dead" — that is, let the dead spiritually bury their natural dead — "but do thou go and announce the kingdom of God." It was not only that this man was called to follow Jesus, but to be a witness for Him, to be a proclaimer of God's kingdom. How could it fare with others, if there was not faith in him to give up all for Christ? One of the reasons why there is so little power in the testimony of Christ is because there is so little faith in those who testify it. Mohammedans, etc., constantly tax Christian missionaries with this: "You profess to have a revelation from God in the Bible; but you yourselves evidently do not act according to that book. How can you seriously ask us to believe? How can we think that you believe it? We believe our books, and if we accept loyally the Koran, with its system of prayers and ablutions, we follow it. We scrupulously conform to the prescriptions of the Prophet. You affirm that Christ preached the sermon on the mount, for instance. Yet you constantly get out of the difficulty of not following it by the plea that the times are changed. We stick to the Koran every day and at all costs. God is the unchangeable God, and He has a constant claim upon the faithful." Thus one of the main obstacles to the conversion of other religionists is the way in which ministers of Christ expose themselves by their want of faith to the mockery of their adversaries. This increases the heart's unbelief, because for the most part professing Christendom does not even pretend to adhere inflexibly to Scripture. They say that times have so altered that they can take only such parts as suit the present day. They think nothing of seeking the world and its glory and everything that will attract flesh. They think to draw some by this means and some by that; whereas the truth is, they are themselves drawn away by the world from the truth and will of God. To court the countenance of man, to seek what the world values, is practically to abandon Christianity for the will of man. It is the living mingling with the dead, instead of leaving the dead to bury their dead. The Lord's call must set aside every other.

Luke 9: 61f.

The third case again differs somewhat. "I will follow thee, Lord; but first allow me to bid adieu to those at my house." There we have one who allows the amenities of life to be "first." It was no such serious detention. It was merely to pay them ordinary courtesy. But the Lord insists upon the absolute renunciation of every hindrance: "No one, having laid his hand249 on [the] plough and looking back is fit250 for the kingdom of God." If Christianity is anything, it is and must be everything. It admits of no rivals and of no delays. It could not be the kingdom of the true God if it tolerated the turning aside of His servants for ever so little. Christ is the first and the last, and must be all to the heart or He becomes nothing through the wiles of the devil.

LUKE 10: 1-12. (To v. 37)*251

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 316-320.

The mission of the Seventy 252 is peculiar to Luke. It has in itself a character of grace about it, though really on its rejection the harbinger of imminent judgment to Israel. All things are now made manifest since the transfiguration of the Lord. The former mission preceded that great event and is given elsewhere; but Luke adds the mission of the seventy. His death, His suffering, His rejection have all been fully announced, and accordingly His departure from the world because of the inability of Israel or even of the disciples to profit by His presence in Israel, and then judgment of all the forms of human nature in hindering the following of Christ or His service. That we have had. Now as concluding the testimony to Israel, this new mission is sent out to announce not only before the revelation of His rejection, but since it, the kingdom of God.

Mark 6: 7; Matt. 9: 37f.

"

After these things the Lord appointed seventy* others also, and sent them

two and two253

before his face into every city and place where he himself was about to come

."254 The Lord's heart felt for the people as He said, "The harvest indeed255 [is] great, but the workmen few." Now there are more labourers raised up by far as the pressure of the need was before His soul. "Supplicate therefore the Lord of the harvest." Nevertheless He was encouraging prayer, because before He tells them to pray He is Himself appointing these seventy to go forth. He was the Lord of the harvest. At the same time He warns them what they were to expect. "Go: behold, I† send you forth as lambs among wolves." He well knew, and they were to know, what man was, even in Israel. Flesh was completely judged. The Jews are no, longer regarded as the lost sheep of Israel, but as wolves with themselves to prey on as lambs.

*"Seventy": so Tisch. Treg. and Revv., as ACL., later uncials, nearly all cursives, Goth. Aeth. W. H., Blass, and Weiss read "seventy-two," after BD, etc., several Old Lat., syrrcu sin.252

†"I" (ἐγώ). "It is I who": so CDLΔ. Edd. omit, as AB (from Matthew).

But there is another thing. While they were thus sent forth in a spirit of grace, exposed to the evil of man, they were to go with the full consciousness of His glory. "Carry neither purse [pouch] nor wallet, nor shoes, and salute no one on the Way." (Matt. 10: 9ff; Mark 6: 8ff.)216 The danger was imminent, the duty was urgent. There was no need of preparation and resources from without; they were entitled to count on the power of His name providing for them in Israel; for He was the King, let men reject as they might. So, on the other hand, there was no time for salutation. Such courtesy is all very well for. the earth and for the present time; but eternity was coming more and more distinctly before the minds of the servants as it was fully before the Lord. "Salute no one on the way." Deeper interests were at stake, and everything that would occupy their minds with that which might be dispensed with was only a hindrance.

"And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace to this house." Thus there was the full word of grace sent forth to them. At the same time, so much the worse for those who rejected it. Nevertheless the peace should turn to them again. It was not war; they had nothing to do with that. "If * a son of peace 257 be there, your peace shall rest upon it: but if not, it shall turn to you again." Peace rejected was returned to themselves. "And in the same house abide, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire."258 There was to be no covetousness, no self-seeking; but, casting themselves upon their allegiance of heart to the Messiah, they were to take such things as were given. While the Messiah acknowledges the worthiness of the labourer, the labourer is worthy of his hire. Those who were of Him would feel it and own it. They were not to go from house to house. This would be derogatory to His glory because it might be charged with a seeming indulgence of self-seeking. The grand point was the solemn claim of the Lord Jesus in Israel.

*"If": so Edd., after the uncials. Only minuscules have "if indeed."

"And into whatsoever city ye may enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you:259 and heal the sick in it, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." There was no want of power, but the word was, "The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." This they were to say to them. It was not a question of miraculous exhibition to strike the mind or eye, or anything for present life merely, but "the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." "But into whatsoever city ye may have entered,* and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, Even the dust of your city, which cleaveth260 to us on the feet† we shake off against you." Thus the rejection of this mission would be most serious, and the very measure of grace out of which it springs would make unbelief the more perilous, and the judgment of it more peremptory. "Even the dust of your city, which cleaveth to us on the feet we shake off against you: but know this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh."‡ It would not alter the truth. They might reject, but the kingdom of God had come nigh unto them.

*"May have entered": so Edd. with BCDLΞ, 1, 33, Amiat. "May enter" is the reading of AΔ, etc.

†"Cleaves to us on the feet": so Edd. after BD, Old Lat. Syrcu. Other uncial copies, besides many cursives, omit "on the feet."

‡After "come nigh," AC, etc., and most cursives (69), add "unto you," which Edd. reject, following BDL, 1, 33, Amiat.

Luke 10: 12-16.

Matt. 11: 21-23.

"I say* unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city. Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the works of power which have taken place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they had long ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down† even to Hades." This is a solemn principle much too easily and too often forgotten. People are apt to pity the heathen and to think of distant lands; but while it is well for those who are thoroughly rejoicing in the Lord to feel for those who want Him, there cannot be a greater delusion than to suppose that when the judgment comes, men as such will be better off, e.g., in England than they are in Tartary. No doubt, wherever there is faith in a rejected Christ, it will bring into heavenly glory; but the rejection of Christ when He was on earth, or now that He is in heaven, is fatal. More particularly the rejection of a heavenly Christ is ruinous; even then the Lord could say, "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you." Not that Israel was not privileged; but privileges despised or misused bring only a deeper perdition upon those who reject or pervert them.

*Before "I say," Tisch. adds "But," with EΞ, etc., Memph., which W. H. and others omit, after BCL.

†"Who hast been raised up": so Weiss and Blass (ὑφώθης), after A, most later uncials, and most cursives (33, 69), all having ὑψωθεῖσα, with Amiat. Other recent Edd. adopt "shalt thou indeed be exalted (ὑφωθήσῃ)," after BDLΞ, Syrcu. Old Lat. Memph.; of these, BD give καταβήσῃ (Treg. Marg., W. H., text, and Weiss), instead of καταβιβασθήσῃ (Revv. and Blass).

Therefore it is that these cities rise up before the Lord. It was bad enough for the cities Chorazin and Bethsaida inasmuch as there had been mighty works done in them and they had not listened, and the Lord said, "If the works of power which have taken place in you had taken place in Tyre and Sidon, they had long ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." Israel were more guilty than the heathen, and the Israel of Christ's day peculiarly so. No heathen had ever listened to such a testimony. To refuse the Word of God is to expose to the judgment of God. "It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you." And if there was one city that had even greater advantages than these, it was Capernaum, which is called His own city, (Matt. 9: 1) where He was pleased to live and labour. And what as to it? "And thou, Capernaum, which hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to Hades" — a still more awful judgment.

But it would not be a light thing now for those who rejected the disciples any more than for those who rejected Himself. He adds, "I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city." Mark, not merely for Tyre and Sidon, but for Sodom. The Lord clothes the words of His disciples with a more awful judgment than His own, because the disciples were more liable to be despised than their Master. Men might take advantage of His disciples and say that they were only men of like passions with themselves, and had their faults, and so they had. But the question was, What was their testimony — their mission? and from whom? What were the blessings held out and what the penalties with which God menaced those who scorned them? They testified of God's kingdom at hand. There was nothing really that had ever been presented to man to compare with this Others as prophets had borne witness of it, but avowedly from a distance; but now that it was at hand, to despise those who preached it would be to despise Jesus and God Himself, as to listen to them would be a true way of honouring Jesus.

"

He

that hears you hears me; and he that rejects you rejects me; and he that rejects me rejects him that sent me

."

It was contempt of God Himself, and this in all the painstaking of grace and loving desire that His people should possess the truth. It is still worse now where mankind refuse the Gospel, because its message is the revelation, not only of the kingdom, but of the grace of God that brings salvation. To put it away from the soul is to insult God in the depth of His love, and knowingly to reject His mercy for eternity. For now it is a question of heaven and hell of eternity with God or away from Him. All depends upon receiving Christ, and the testimony that He sends. The principle of this was begun now in the mission of the disciples, although literally it was addressed to Israel in view of the kingdom. Still deeper things begin to manifest themselves; and whether it be then or now, to reject His testimony, by whomsoever it may be brought, is to reject himself and God.261

Luke 10: 17-20.

The seventy* came back, when their mission was ended and their testimony given, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name." This was a great witness to Messiah's power. Men in Israel always looked, and of course especially the faithful, for the manifestation of Divine power through Messiah over Satan in the world. It was not so much God as such to act directly, as through man in Israel, the Seed of the woman, the Son of David. And now what a sign and a seal was given, seeing that not only did He cast out demons, but they, His servants, through His name, did the same! Nevertheless, the Lord marked this the more to be a conclusory mission to the people and land, and that His Messianic glory, the object of promise, however true, was in no way the great truth that was beginning to unfold itself. Heavenly things were about to come in through His rejection and death. "And he said to them, I beheld 262 Satan as lightning262a fall 262b out of heaven." It was quite true. The exaltation of Satan through man's fall was gone, as it were, before His eyes, and the Lord had the full vista of God's counsel in sight, the total destruction of the enemy's power. "I beheld Satan as lightning fall out of heaven." But while this was true to the Lord's vision who sees things that are not as though they were, suggested by His disciples' casting demons out of men, there were things even better than these, though He fully owned what there was then. "Behold, I give† unto you the power of treading upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall in any wise injure you." He openly confirms what He had given. There was thus authority to trample upon the well-known symbols of Satan's craft and torment for man, and over all the power of the enemy, whatever it might be. They were delivered from all calculated to injure; "nothing shall in any wise injure you." They belonged to the Saviour. "Yet in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subjected to you; but rejoice rather‡ that your names are written in the heavens." To belong to heaven, to be called to that seat of Divine light and blessing, was a far greater prize: the rest was Satan's power broken on the earth, a sample of the earthly kingdom, and the powers of the age to come. But a rejected Christ opens the door into the presence and glory of God. This was a matter of far more real and profound joy — that their names were written in heaven. To this the Jews were utterly blind, as man is still; for his cool assumption of heaven, as if it were a natural end for man, is even more evil and presumptuous. Present power and authority are great in his eyes; heavenly things are little, because they are distant and unseen. Nevertheless they are nigh to faith which beholds them, knowing that they are the great reality, and that present things are only the arena of sin and folly and distance from God. But the disciples must learn this; therefore the Lord would lead their hearts into this deeper joy: "but rejoice that your names are written in the heavens."263

*"The seventy": BD, etc., read "seventy-two," as above (verse 1).

†"Give": so Blass, following ADΔ, etc., most cursives (33, 69), Syrr.-Tisch., W. H., etc., adopt "have given," after BCpmLX, 1, Old Lat. Amiat.

‡A few copies have "rejoice rather"; but the additional word is not in ABCD, etc., 1, 33, 69, Old Lat. Syrr. (Edd.).

Luke 10: 21.

Matt. 11: 25-26.

"

In the same hour

Jesus * rejoiced in

spirit

† and said, I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes: yea, Father; for thus hath it been well-pleasing in thy sight." Now in a legal state of things the wise and prudent have their importance. The law admits of angelic media, and supposes human administrators; it desires things in due order, regulated in a way that commends itself to men's reason and conscience. But grace meets a ruined world when all this is set aside; and Jesus, rejected by those who boasted of the law, rejoices in the grace of God, and thanks Him as the Father, whom the law never revealed. He was Father in His own Divine relationship to the Son, entirely outside the ken of men or the Scope of their thoughts or imaginings. The Jews who had the law never saw the reality of Divine relationship. It was dimly couched under various obscure forms and terms in the Old Testament. For all through God was a veiled One, dwelling in the thick darkness, not revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This comes out clearly in and through Jesus our Lord; as also light and incorruptibility comes to men through the Gospel, not through the law. In the law it was simply one God, the Jehovah-God of Israel, and He only behind the intricate barriers of the Levitical system. But the Gospel shows the veil rent, and, through Him who went down to the cross, the Father known by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Thus Christianity supposes the full revelation of the true God and the persons of the Godhead 264 Hence it was impossible to have a distinct or full, if any, knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost under the law. And it may be a question how far those who are in the spirit of the law enter into it fully now; they may be orthodox, and recognise the general certainty of it but this is a very different thing from entering into and enjoying it practically as the known truth and blessing of the soul.

*"Jesus": so ACE, etc., 33; but Edd. omit, after BDΞ, Amiat., Memph.

†"In (the, or His) spirit": so Blass, after AEGΔ, etc., nearly all cursives, Syrsin. Other Edd. adopt "the Holy Spirit," after BCD, etc., 1, 33, Syrrcu pesch, Old Lat. Memph., which was the text followed in the Vulg., Wycliffe's, and the Rhemish versions.

Our Lord Jesus, then, perfect in everything and with Divine knowledge of all, says, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou hast hid these things from wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes: yea, Fattier; for thus hath it been well-pleasing in thy sight." It was no longer a question of Israel and the land; neither are wisdom and prudence of account now. Things that are highly esteemed among men are judged as an abomination in the sight of God. He had revealed His mind unto babes. Clearly this was grace. There was no claim; and babes would have seemed 'be very last persons to whom God would have revealed what was beyond the wise and prudent, what the vulture's eye had not seen. "Yea, Father; for thus hath it been well-pleasing in thy sight." It was His pleasure; He took complacency in His own love. And grace does not find but makes objects proper to itself and for God's glory. Grace creates, the law does not. It does not give a nature capable of enjoying God, nor can it give an object, still less one worthy of God Himself to rest on; it can only press a claim on man from God. But grace does all this and more through Jesus, Who both gives us a nature capable of enjoying God and is also Himself the Object to be enjoyed.

Hear how He presents Himself even here: "All things have been delivered to me by my Father." It is not now merely the land of Israel or the Jewish people, but "all things"; the Son of man with all things handed up to Him — a higher glory even than dominion over all peoples and tongues (Dan. 7.). It is the universe put under Him; and this because He is the Son of God. "All things (John 3: 13) have been delivered to me by my Father." It is not merely the Ancient of Days giving the universal kingdom under the heaven to the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven; but the rejected Man on earth revealing Himself as the Son of God, the Son of man, who is in heaven, as is said elsewhere, to whom His Father has delivered all things.* We see not yet all things put under Him. But He speaks of a far deeper blessing and glory than even this universal inheritance. "No one knoweth* who the Son is, but the Father." He is a Divine person — the glory of His person is unfathomable; it is for the Father alone to know and delight in, though for us to know it unknown. No man knoweth; indeed, it is not merely no man, but "no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased to reveal [him]." It is clear that none but the Son knows of Himself the Father. But it is not merely true that the Son knows the Father, for He reveals Him to others — "he to whomsoever the Son Is pleased to reveal [him]." This is Christianity; and to lead on the souls of the disciples from their Jewish expectations to the heavenly and Divine truths of Christianity is the object of the Lord Jesus henceforth, as of the Spirit afterwards. It is remarkable that it is said "no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father," but it is not added he to whom He will reveal Him. Thus God envelops the Lord Jesus as it were with a Divine guard against the prying curiosity of the creature; and if the Son humbled Himself in grace to man, God forbids that man should approach that, as it were, holy ground. Not even with unsandaled feet can he tread there. God reserves the knowledge of the Son for Himself; He alone really penetrates the mystery of the Only-begotten. The Son does reveal the Father; but man's mind always breaks itself to pieces when he attempts to unravel the insoluble enigma of Christ's personal glory. All that the saint can, do is to believe and worship. No man knows the Son but the Father. On the other hand, it is our deepest comfort that the Son not only knows the Father but reveals Him. The revelation of the Father in and by the Son is the joy and rest of faith. It is true even of the babes. The little children (παιδία), and not merely the young men and the fathers, know the Father (1 John 2: 14); and this falls in with. these unspeakably blessed words of our Lord in Luke 10: 23f. "And having turned to, the disciples, privately he said, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. For I say unto you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye behold, and did not see [them]; and to hear the things which ye behold, and did not hear [them].† Thus the Lord Jesus, while He is preparing them for greater things, fully owns, the blessedness of the present.266a

* As to the traditional reading in the present tense (γινώσκει not ἔγνω) here, see note 265 in Appendix.

†As to the last clause, see note 266 in Appendix.

Luke 10: 25-28.

Matt. 22: 35-40; Mark 12: 28-34.

The immense change from law to grace was set forth remarkably in the incident which now follows; and the more so, because the law was now directly introduced in order to show what man was under it, and that there is nothing which really fulfils the law but grace. Those who have only the law before them never accomplish it; they only talk about it, and would cover their self-condemnation by despising others if they could.. Those who are under grace are the only persons who do fulfil it (Rom. 8: 3, 4); but they do a great deal more. They understand what is suitable to grace, while in them the righteousness, of the law is fulfilled.

"

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up tempting him, and saying, Teacher, having done that, shall I inherit life eternal?

" He did not ask, "What shall I do to be saved?" The law neither supposes the ruin of a sinner nor proposes salvation. It cannot but address itself to man's competency, if he has any. The law is directed to those who assume that man can do what God requires; and consequently it is on God's part a command of that which is due to Him, what He cannot but ask if they take such a ground with Him. The measure of duty which God proposes to man who thinks himself capable of doing it is the law.267

The lawyer accordingly asks Him as a teacher, what he is to do "to inherit life eternal." The poor broken-hearted jailer at Philippi asked a far different question, and one more befitting a sinner — what he should do to be saved. The lawyer was not in earnest; he was a mere theorist. It was a subject for a discourse or argument. There was no real concern about his soul, no sense of his own condition or of what God is. "What shall I do to inherit life eternal?"267a The Lord answers him"What is written in the law? how readest thou?" because, when he took this ground of doing something to inherit eternal life, he had betaken himself really to the law. Thus the Lord in His wisdom answers the fool according to his folly. A fool thinks he can keep the law, and that this is, the way to inherit eternal life. The Lord accordingly says,. "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" because he is going to convict him of the utter futility of all efforts on that ground. "But he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with* all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thine understanding." That is, the whole man must love the Lord our God inwardly as well as outwardly, "and thy neighbour as thyself." This was excellent as a statement of duty: nothing could be better; 261 but how had he done it? and what hope was there for his soul on any such footing. as this? If he took the ground of doing something to inherit eternal life, this must be the way. He was wrong in the very starting-point of his soul, wrong in what he thought about this great concernment, because he was wrong about God; and indeed he that is wrong about himself must be wrong about God. The great fundamental difference of a soul taught of God is this, that, conscious of his own sinfulness, he looks to God and to His way of being delivered out of it; whereas a mere natural man in general hopes to be able to do something himself for God, so as to put Him under a kind of obligation of giving eternal life. Human thought always denies God's grace, as it denies its own sinfulness and need of grace. However, the answer was all right on that ground, and the Lord says to him to this effect"Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." But he was dead. Now, the law never deals with the man as dead, and therefore in Old Testament times there never was such a thing brought out as moral death. We never find a hint that this was known in the law or even the prophets. But in the Gospels and Epistles man is treated as dead and as wanting eternal life, which the Son of God alone can give; and He gives it, not by law but by grace — two totally opposite principles. Therefore it is by faith that it might be by grace: whereas the law appeals to that human ability of which man is proud. He deems himself competent to do the will of God and thus to live. The Lord answered him, "This do, and thou shalt live," but there is where he was wrong. He could not do it, and on that ground therefore he could not live. He was dead, though he did not know it himself, morally dead while he lived.

*"With." The reading generally approved the first time is ἐξ ("from"); afterwards, ἐν, which Blass has throughout, as D; but this editor, after D and Γ, omits "with all thine understanding." The last words are vouched for by the other copies.

Luke 10: 29-37.

"

But he, desirous of justifying* himself,

" not to justify God but himself, "

said to Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

"170 This is the constant resource of a heart that is not obedient. It makes difficulties and starts objections. "Who is my neighbour?" One would have thought this a very simple question to decide, who one's neighbour was, but the plainest things are just those which the disobedient heart is prone to overlook. Had he entered into the obedience of Jesus (1 Peter 1: 2) he would not have needed to ask the Lord; he would have known himself. He and all must be taught by a parable. "A certain man descended from Jerusalem to Jericho." This is just the course of man. From the place of blessing, Jerusalem, he goes down to that of the curse, Jericho, and there of course falls among thieves. Such is the world. Having no real unselfish love, it does not give, but violently takes where and what it can. He "

fell into

[the hands of]

robbers, who also, having stripped him and inflicted wounds, went away, leaving him in a half-dead state

." This is just the world. "

And a certain priest happened271 to go down that way,

and, seeing him, passed on to the opposite side." There was no kindness, no purpose of love in his heart — only a concurrence of regrettable circumstances for the poor man: it was not the priest's matter. There was no grace active there, and so the priest, this highest expression of the law of God, goes that way, "and meeting him, he passed on to the opposite side." He did not know who his neighbour was any more than the lawyer: self always blinds. Surely he ought to have known; but the law never gives right motives. It claims right conduct from those who have not right motives, in order to show that they are thoroughly and inwardly wrong. By the law is the knowledge of sin; it is never the power of holiness. The law is said to be the strength of sin. It simply shows a man his duty, but convicts him that he does not practise it. So with the Levite. "

And in like manner also a Levite, being at the spot, came and looked [at him], and passed on the opposite side

." He was next the priest in point of position, according to the law; but he looked on the man and did not recognise his neighbour any more than the priest. He too passed by on the other side. "

But a certain Samaritan,

"

who had nothing to do with the law at all,

"

journeying, came to him; and, seeing [him],† was moved with compassion,272 and came up, and bound up his wounds, pouring in273 oil and wine

." There was grace before his eyes which had won his heart, and accordingly he at once finds out his neighbour. Love sees clearly, whatever the heathens may dream. The law merely speaks of his neighbour to a man without heart, who has not ears to hear or eyes to see his neighbour; but grace gives eyes, and ears, and heart. The Samaritan accordingly, when he seeks him, seeks him with the suited provision of grace for the future as well as the present.

"

He put him on his own beast, and took him to [the] inn, and took care of him

." Thus the righteousness of the law was fulfilled in him who walked not after the flesh but after the Spirit. This was precisely the way of grace. It was so that God sent His Son in quest of those who were fallen among thieves, who were more than half dead. They were wholly dead; and the Son of God gave not only all that He had, but Himself. He far exceeded all that man or a creature could do. Only God could so humble Himself and so love; only He could work suitably to His humiliation and His love. And not only does this Samaritan do all the good he can, but he takes measures that, when he himself goes away, the needy one shall be taken care of adequately"

And on the morrow [as he left],‡ taking out two denaria he gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him,§ Take care, of him, and whatever thou shalt expend more,

I

will render to thee on my coming back

." It is the provision of grace which not only furnishes the blessing with all freeness, but secures, it fully when the giver is no longer here. And Jesus will repay when He comes again. He took care Himself of the sinner when He was in the world. He takes care of him now that he is brought in as His sole charge; and when He comes again, all will be repaid.274 "

Which [now]|| of these three seems to thee was275 neighbour [had been neighbour] to him that fell into [the hands of] the robbers? And he said

"

- even this lawyer, because man has a conscience -

"

he that showed him mercy

."

Consequently it is not law that can avail. The great transition, then, is made plain to all who hear. Mercy, and mercy alone, can suit a lost man; but mercy is distasteful because it exalts, God; whereas law is used by man to exalt himself and his capacity. It is only when we believe our own ruin, perhaps after efforts under law, that mercy first saves our souls and then opens our eyes and makes us see a neighbour in each needy soul, without asking who he is. Mercy makes us feel every one that wants our help and compassion to be our neighbour; whereas the spirit of legalism contents itself with asking, "Who is my neighbour?" Without Christ, law merely acts upon the natural man; though it shows a man his duty, it never gives him power or heart to do it. The spirit of grace alone gives Divine motive and power. "What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," etc. (Rom. 8: 3f.) Grace has shone in Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost works according to the same grace in those who have received Jesus, who are not under law but under grace.276

*"Of justifying." BCpmDLΞ have δικαιῶσαι, adopted by Edd.; whilst δικαιοῦν is the form in ACcorrΓΔΛΠ, 1, 33, 69. See note 269 in Appendix.

†["Him"]: so ACDE, etc., 69, Syrr. Edd. omit, as BLΞ, 1, 33, Old Lat.

‡["As he left"]: so ACE, etc., 69, Syrr. Edd. omit, after BDL, etc., 1, 33, Old Lat. Syrrcu sin pesch, Memph.

§"To him": so ACE, etc., most Syrr. Edd. omit, after BDLΞ, 1, 33, Syrsin, Amiat. Memph.

||["Now"]: so ACΔ, etc., 33, 69, most Syrr. Edd. omit, as BLΞ, 1, Syrsin, Amiat.

Luke 10: 38 - 24.

by W. Kelly.

Part 2 of An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke

Edited with annotations, by E. E. Whitfield.

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — luke_app.doc.)

LUKE 10: 38-11: 54.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 321-328.

Luke 10: 38-42.277

We here enter upon a new section of the Gospel. The Spirit of God sets before us, speaking now generally, two things: first, the unspeakable value of the Word of God, and more particularly of the Word of Jesus; secondly, as we shall see another time, the place and exceeding importance for the soul of prayer. But then there are many things to be considered in connection with each of these topics, of which we shall only now look at the first. There is a moral comparison between the two sisters who loved the Lord. She who chose the better portion was the one whose heart clung most to the Word as a link between the soul and God. As we all know, it is by the Word of truth that any are begotten of God, for it is the seed of incorruptible life, that Word which liveth and abideth for ever. But then it is much more than that. It is the means of growth, of cleansing the way, of enjoying God, and consequently of spiritual blessing day by day. This was made very apparent in the difference between Martha and Mary. They were sisters in the flesh, believers both of them, loved of Jesus. Nevertheless, difference there was; and the main cause and evidence of it between the two was the superior value that Mary had for the Word of Jesus. The Word of God has a formative power over the mind and affections, and she is proved to be the one who most prizes the Lord, and who most really and in the truest communion serves Him, who has the deepest value for His Word. This we find as a general principle elsewhere in Scripture ("This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" 1 John 5: 3), and particularly in John 14: 23, "If a man love me, he will keep my word"; but here it comes out practically in the case of Martha and Mary. "A certain woman named Martha received him into her house." She fully owned Him to be the Messiah. There was faith of God's giving in Martha's heart; but it saw no more in Him than simply the Messiah. Her faith did not go farther. "And she had a sister called Mary, who also, having sat down at Jesus'* feet, was listening to his word."

*"Jesus": so ACcorr, later uncials, almost all cursives, with Syrsin, but Revv., as Edd., adopt "the Lord," after DLΞ Syrcu, most Old Lat. Memph. Aeth. Arm.

Mary is not characterised by such a reception of the Lord,. by loving attentions and hospitality, though founded, no doubt, upon a growing out of faith. "Mary sat at Jesus" feet and listened to his word." Some might suppose this to be a far less proof of love; but to Jesus it was incomparably the more acceptable of the two. Martha did honour to Jesus as a believing, righteous Jew might; she owned herself subject, Himself as King, and was as happy as her faith would admit of in thus receiving the Lord to her house in the day of His humiliation; but her sister sat at His feet and heard His Word. In her case it was not so much what she did for the Lord; but she had such a sense of His greatness, and love that her one point was to sit at His feet (an attitude of far deeper humiliation than Martha ever took) with the consciousness of the Divine fulness there was in Him for her. She heard His Word; but Martha "was distracted with much serving." How many there are who are fond of serving the Lord, but are much more full of their own doings for Him than of what He is to them as well as in Himself! This deceives many. They measure faith by their round of bustle and activity. But in truth this always has a great deal of self in it. When true humility animates, there way be much done, but there is little noise. Mary sat at Jesus' feet and heard His Word.278

"

But Martha was distracted with much serving, and, coming up, she said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? speak to her therefore that she may help me

." Thus not only was there a large spice of self-importance in Martha, but she felt herself constantly slighted and incommoded by others. The spirit of egoism measures by itself, and cannot appreciate a love which is deeper than its own, and which issues in ways and forms which have no beauty in its eyes. Therefore Mary, instead of being an object of complacency to Martha, troubled her: Why did Mary not help her? Martha's thoughts circled round herself. Had she been thinking of Jesus, she would not have dictated to Him any more than have complained of Mary. "Lord, dost thou not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? speak to her therefore that she may help me." What want of love and lowliness! She does not even leave it to the Lord to direct. Self is always captious as well as important, and as swift to impute to others as to arrogate to itself what is unbecoming. "Speak to her therefore that she may help me." She forgets that she was but the servant of the Lord. Who was she to wish to control Him? Martha was full of zeal, but of her own ways (not to say her own will) in serving Christ.

Jesus,* however, answers with the dignity that was proper to Him, and the love that always sees true to its mark (for there is nothing that gives such a single eye as genuine affection), but which at the same time vindicates the true-hearted before those who misunderstand them. He loved them both, indeed, and says in reply, "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things." He deals first of all with herself. She ought not to have been thus anxious and careworn. Martha did not know what Paul knew so well: "This one thing I do." (Phil. 3: 13.) There was never a man with such multitudinous occupations as the apostle; there was never another with such a heart for the Church. And yet he could happily employ his hands in making tents, because he would not be burdensome, though he had a right to be so as an apostle of Christ. What was it that carried him through all his unexampled toil and suffering, undistracted and happy? The reason was that one person, the only worthy Object, filled and governed his heart. This made him thoroughly happy in the midst of the deepest afflictions. This "one thing" is precisely what is needful for the child of God, and the very thing that Martha practically had not.279 It was not that she did not believe in the Lord; but she had her own thoughts too. Nature was strong. Jewish feeling and tradition held their ground; all these things wrought actively in her mind; and to such a person receiving the Lord Jesus was not only a question of doing Him honour, but of receiving honour herself too. In such cases self always, more or less, mingles even with the desire to show present respect to Jesus.

*In verse 41, "Jesus" has the support of ACDE and all later uncials, most cursives (1, 69), Syrr. including sin., with Old Lat. and Memph.; but Revv., as Edd., have adopted "the Lord," following Bpm L, Old Lat. and Amiat.

"

But there is need of one; and* Mary hath chosen the good part, such as shall not be taken from her

." There is nothing like it. That good part is prizing Christ and His Word, not thinking what Mary could do for the Lord, but what the Lord could do for Mary. To receive all for her soul from the Lord, instead of receiving Him into her house, was before Mary's soul. This was the one thing needful — it was Christ Himself. He is all, and Mary felt this. That "good part, such as shall not be taken from her" — it is eternal. Martha's honours passed away; they were shortly about to end, for soon Jesus would not be known after the flesh, but must be known, if at all, in a higher glory than that of the Messiah. Soon, therefore, the possibility of receiving Him with a hospitable heart could not be Martha's portion; for at His cross it would necessarily be cut short and disappear. But Mary's position of lowly faith in hearing His Word could be always. Even in heaven the essence of it will not be lost. Communion with Jesus, delight in Jesus, humility of heart before Jesus, will always be true; it is the part of real devotedness and of the deepest. love. Great as faith and hope may be (and their value cannot be over-estimated on earth), still, after all, love is that which abides for ever and love now is in proportion to the power of faith and hope. All these things were incomparably richer and stronger in Mary's heart than in Martha's, and this because Christ filled her heart — this one thing that is needful.

*Blass omits all after second "Martha" as far as "and" (Revv. "for"), after Syrsin and some copies of Old Latin. D contains "thou art troubled." The words reproduced are sustained by the mass of authority recognized by other Edd.; but there is a question as to "There is need of one," which is the reading of ACpm, most later uncials with cursives, Syrrcu and some Old Lat. (Tisch. Treg.). W. H. and Weiss adopt "Few things are needful or one," as in BCcorr L, 1, 33, Memph. Aeth. and Origen. But see Scrivener, ii., p. 349f. The "and" (Treg.) is in AC, etc. Revv., as most Edd.. "for," after BL, 1, 69.

Luke 11: 1-4.

Matt. 6: 9-13.

But blessed as receiving Jesus by faith may be, and sitting at His feet in the delight of love to hear from Him more and, more, prayer must not be forgotten. It has an incalculable value for us here below. It is in this world that we pray. Worship is the outgoing of the heart in heaven. Not that worship for us now is not true, for it is the greatest privilege into which the Christian is brought while on earth. A Christian thus anticipates the mind and employment of heaven. He will still, be a worshipper when glorified; but he is a worshipper here, for the hour "now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." John 4: 23.

Nevertheless, before the soul can worship in anything that, could be said to be the power of the Spirit, prayer is the early and habitual resource day by day; and after Christian worship, is entered into, real prayer abides and always must be for our wants and desires here below.

The disciples felt their need of prayer. They were stirred up to it by the fact that John taught his disciples to pray — They were born of God; but for all that, they lacked power for prayer, their souls were feeble in it. "And it came to pass, as he was in a certain place praying." No one was so prayerful, so dependent on His God and Father, as Jesus; nor does any Evangelist present this so much as Luke, nor, consequently, under so many different circumstances. "When he ceased, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray,280 even as John also taught his disciples. And he said to them, When ye pray, say, Father,* Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.† Give us our needed bread for each day; and forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation."‡

*"Father": so Edd., after BL, 1, Syrsin Amiat., Arm., Origen, Tertullian. ACDE, etc., most cursives (69), Syrcu pesch hcl; most Old Latin, Memph. Aeth. add "Our . . . who art in the heavens" (from Matthew).

†Here ACD, etc., nearly all cursives, Syrrpesch hcl. Old Latin, Memph. Aeth. insert "Thy will be done as in heaven, also on the earth." Edd. omit, as BL, 1, Syrrcu sin, Amiat. Arm. Orig., etc. (from Matthew). Instead of, "Thy kingdom come," Blass, after Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and Marcion (Tert.), reads "May thy Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us," as to which see W. H., App., p. 60. Such a reading is absolutely unknown to any but the Western text.

‡At the end of verse 4, ACD, etc., most cursives, Syrrcu pesch hcl Old Lat. Memph. Aeth. add 1, but deliver us from the evil one." Edd. omit, after pm BL, 1, Syrsin Arm. Origen, etc.

I fully believe that this is the same prayer substantially that we have in Matthew, at the very same time and place. Luke does not adhere to the mere historic sequence of events any more than Matthew. But there is this difference in the way in which Luke and Matthew relate facts or instructions of the Lord: Matthew puts what our Lord says in a certain dispensational order, leaving out the occasions that drew them forth; Luke puts His instructions in their moral order with the facts they illustrate. Thus Luke introduces prayer at this point, after hearing the Word of Jesus; because the Divine Word is what brings the knowledge of Jesus into the soul, as prayer is the outgoing of the heart to Him Who has given and shown us mercy and revealed it to us in His Word. A man must believe before he prays. "How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?" (Rom. 10: 14.) None can believe without the Word of God; but when one has received the Word of God, if it be only to plough up the conscience and attract the heart, one prays.

Thus, the disciples at this time feel their need of prayer, and the Lord teaches them how to pray. The Lord did not give them prayers suitable to the new position and circumstances they would be brought into after redemption. If He had descanted on prayer about the Church, the body of Christ, or the working of the Spirit by the members of that body, it would have been utterly unintelligible to them. The prayers that we have of Paul afterwards could not have suited the condition of the disciples then, because they were not yet in any such standing. The conduct that would suit a married woman with her husband, etc., would be unbecoming in one who was still unmarried. For a woman who is only affianced to be praying about the children she is going to have when she may never have any, or about the household when the wedding-day may never come, would be most evidently out of season. The Lord Jesus perfectly suited what He said to the condition and circumstances of those whom He addressed. The disciples had not received, though quickened of the Holy Ghost, the indwelling Spirit in the way they were going to have Him; consequently they could not pray as on that ground. It is a blunder to suppose that the gift of the Holy Ghost is conversion. When the Lord Jesus went to heaven, He sent down the Holy Ghost. The saints of the Old Testament were converted, but they had not the Holy Ghost as all have who rest on redemption since Pentecost. The disciples wanted to know how to pray, and the Lord gave them a prayer suited to their then circumstances. Only the Spirit of God has given a difference between the form in Matthew and in Luke. One is as Divinely inspired as the other; nothing can be more perfect than both are. The Gospels are absolutely perfect, each for its own object, and we need them all. The difference of their design affects the prayer, as it does everything else.

Our Lord then directs the disciples to their Father. This is the first and very significant word of the prayer. When believers in addressing God now use the titles of Jehovah or Almighty God, do they not forget that they are Christians? When God was intelligently addressed as Almighty, it was in the days of Abraham and the patriarchs. They were the days of promise. Afterwards, when the nation of Israel was called out and put under law, it was as Jehovah-God that He was known. Now it is as Father that the Christian knows Him. (2 Cor. 6: 18.) Luke says simply, "Father" (not "Our Father which art in heaven," as Matthew has it).281

The first petition is, "Hallowed be thy name." The desire is that in every case the heart might make God its object; as we hear in James, "the wisdom that cometh down from above is first pure, then peaceable." (James 3: 17.) It first judges by God, and seeks the glory of God. "Hallowed be thy name." Such is, and ought to be, the prime desire of the renewed mind, that the Father's name should be sanctified in everything. All else must yield to this. "Hallowed be thy name."

The next petition is that His kingdom should come. It is not the kingdom of the Son of man, the kingdom of Christ, that is spoken of here, but the Father's kingdom. It is not it my kingdom come," but "thy kingdom come." The Father's kingdom is distinguished from the Son of man's kingdom. It is the sphere in which the heavenly saints will shine as the sun. The Son of man's kingdom is the sphere in which all people, nations, and languages shall serve Him, and out of which the angels of His power shall cast all things that offend. (Matt. 13: 41.) Heaven and earth will both be put under the Lord Jesus when He comes, and both will constitute the kingdom of God. But the Father's kingdom is the upper department, and the Son of man's kingdom is the lower one. (Compare John 3: 3, 12.) The Lord teaches them to pray for the Father's kingdom. This is blessed and perfect. The Son would teach the children of the Father to wait with reverence and delight for the Father's glory. This was the animating spring of every thought and feeling of His own heart. But the Father's kingdom is not all the scene of glory.

Hence He adds elsewhere, "Thy will be done, is in heaven, so in earth." Though left out of Luke by excellent authority, it is undoubtedly read in the Gospel of Matthew, because the future kingdom will bring in the earth as well as heaven. This confirms the distinction between the Father's kingdom and the Son's. Not merely shall heaven be blessed, but the earth. All is to be made subject in fact, as all is put under His feet in title. The will of God is that all should bow to the Son, and that the crucified One should be exalted. The Son loved to exalt and did exalt the Father at all cost; the Father will accomplish His purpose that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2: 10f.)282

Then comes a petition expressive of dependence on God for our ordinary need. "Give us our needed bread for each day." It takes up the pure and simple need of the body. The word "daily" is a very imperfect expression in English of the original term.  Ἐπιούσιος really means our "sufficient" bread (seemingly a word expressly formed for this idea in contrast with superfluity). One cannot without slighting the wisdom of the Lord ask for more than sufficiency. One ought not to look for more, even from the Lord of heaven and earth. He bids me ask for bread enough for each day's wants.283 Yet it is thoroughly the spirit of the One Who, after He had fed five thousand men with the five loaves and the two fishes, bade the disciples gather up the fragments which remained, that nothing might be lost. And then and thus twelve baskets were in fact filled. How easy it might have seemed for Him by Whom all was supplied to have exerted His power afresh! He would not have an atom to be thrown away because He had unlimited power. What a lesson for us!

Next comes the need of the soul. "Forgive us our sins." It is not merely our debts" (as in Matthew 6): a Jew would understand this but Luke, writing particularly for Gentiles, tells the disciples to say, "Forgive us our sins." This does not refer to a sinner's forgiveness, when he first comes to the knowledge of the Lord, but to the disciple under the daily government of his Father. How misleading, then, it is to make an unconverted person take the ground of asking forgiveness like a child of God! Under the Gospel the way for the unconverted to receive the remission of sins is by faith in the blood of Jesus, by receiving the Gospel itself.284 The common use of it is to confound all truth by mixing up all, the world and children of God, as if they were alike disciples drawing near and asking forgiveness for their daily sins. The forgiveness of a child is all that is spoken of here, the removal of what hinders communion; not that which the Gospel publishes to the most guilty that believe in the Saviour and Lord, but the daily pardon which the believer needs. It is, therefore, the habitual need of the soul, just as the daily bread was that of the body. "For we also forgive every one indebted to us." This is remarkable, because it evidently supposes one who has a forgiving spirit already, and no one really has this except he who is forgiven by the grace of God. And God does hold His children to this. How can a man who does not forgive another pretend to enjoy the forgiveness of his own sins before God? There is a righteous government on our Father's part, and the particular sin which grieves the Lord is not forgiven till we confess it to Him. "If ye do not forgive," says our Lord in Mark 11: 26, "neither will your Father who is in the heavens forgive your offences." It is the cherishing a spirit entirely antagonistic to the Spirit of the Lord. If there were a child in a family going on in a course of self-will, there would be a bar for the time to mutual good feeling. So with God our Father; if there were a persistently bad spirit towards another, so long the Father does not forgive as a question of communion and of daily intercourse with Himself. It ruins the intelligence of Scripture to make it all a question of eternity. In the Epistles of the New Testament the remedy or duty in such circumstances takes the form, not so much of asking forgiveness as of confession, which goes far deeper. To ask for forgiveness is easy enough, and quickly done (as you may learn from your child); to confess one's fault in all its gravity is a very humiliating process, and if not with a view to forgiveness and the restoration of communion, it is a mockery of God. To confess, to judge oneself, is therefore far beyond asking forgiveness.

The last clause here should be, "and lead us not into temptation." The heart, knowing its own weakness, does spread its desire before the Lord; it feels the need of being kept, not of being put to the proof. "Deliver us from evil" is left out in the most ancient copies. The only right and true way of understanding the mind of God, and the best homage to Scripture, is always and only to cleave to that which is undoubtedly of Himself. This is not to take away anything from Scripture; it is to lay aside what is not Scripture. We have these words quite rightly in Matthew besides: we gain by their omission here instead of losing. The question arises, Why should it be given in Matthew and omitted here? "Deliver us from evil" refers, I believe, to the evil one and the exhibition of his power, which a Jew ought always to have before him, that tremendous hour which will be allowed as a final retribution on the nation, before they are delivered for the reign of Christ. As Luke had the Gentiles in view, this was naturally and wisely left out. Deliverance from this scourge would have been less felt by them, and hardly intelligible, as the earthly millennial portion disappears for a similar reason. What is general and moral abides here.285

Luke 11: 5-8.

The Lord here enforces prayer, and this on considerations drawn (as often in Luke) from the human heart, as showing still more powerfully what God feels in answer to the earnestness of men.

"

He said to them, Who among you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight and say unto him, Friend, let me have three loaves; since a friend of mine on a journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? and he within answering should say, Do not disturb me; the door is already shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise up to give [it] thee. I say unto you, although he will not rise up and give [them] to him because he is his friend, because of his shamelessness, at any rate, he will rise up and give him as many as he wanteth

." The, time may seem ever so inopportune, but although a man may not for friendship's sake listen to him who requests the loan of bread, he would rather rise and give than expose himself to trouble. Every one knows that this is apt to be the way of a man with the neighbour who is bold enough to press. He might be ever so much annoyed at the importunate suitor, but still to avoid the trouble of a continued appeal at his door, he yields. At least, such is an ordinary case: "Because of his shamelessness he will rise and give him as many as he wanteth."286

Luke 11: 9-13.

Matt. 7: 7-11.

If such is the way of selfish, ease-loving man, how much more will the God of all grace hearken to those who cry to Him! He is not weary; He never slumbers nor sleeps; He is full of goodness and compassionate care. "I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given unto you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"287 — an evident climax, all tending to urgency of supplication before God: not as if God needed it, but man does; and God values the earnestness of man's heart, although His own is open to the cry of want or distress from the very first. But we know that there are hindrances from other causes, and that the Lord has Himself told us of a kind (speaking of evil spirits) that goes not forth but by prayer and fasting. There we have the highest degree of the soul's abstraction from all else, giving itself up to God's power in order to defeat the devil. "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it will be opened." There is always in Luke, not only an appeal to the feelings of the heart, and man's own concession of what even he would do in order to illustrate the ways of God, infinitely more admirable and excellent, but there is also a comprehensiveness which goes far beyond the narrow bounds of Israel. "Every one that asketh receiveth." Thus we have here the call to importunity of prayer, and the certainty of God's answer.287a

But this is again enforced on the ground of the relationship of a child with a father. "Of whom of you that is a father shall a son ask bread, and [the father] shall give288 him a stone? or also* a fish, and instead of a fish shall give him a serpent? or if also he shall ask an egg, shall give him a scorpion?" How contrary to the feelings of a parent, to mock when he affects to give! to give what is injurious instead of what is good! Impossible that a father, speaking now ordinarily of any father, would be guilty of such ways. "If, therefore, ye, being289 evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more will the Father who [is] of heaven 290 give [the] Holy Spirit291 to them that ask him." In the Gospel of Matthew it is "give good things to them that ask him."291a

*"Bread . . . or also." These words, read by Tischendorf, are questioned by Treg., relegated to marg. by W. H., and rejected by Weiss and Blass, after B Sah. Arm. Origen (from Matthew).

But Luke goes farther, and shows us, not, it is true, the person of the Comforter, as in the Gospel of John, but certainly the Holy Spirit as characterising the gift of the Father's love to those who ask Him. For we must remember that the disciples had not yet the Holy Spirit. They were born of the Spirit, but this is a very different thing from enjoying the gift of the Spirit. To have the Holy Ghost given is over and above conversion or new birth; it is not life, but power; a privilege superadded to the possession of the new nature, and the chief or only means of enjoying God according to all the instincts of that nature, and consequently of entering into His wisdom in the Word of God. This is the richest distinctive gift of Christianity on earth, as Christ on high, the Head to Whom we are united as His body, is the main heavenly characteristic. Neither of these privileges was true as yet; no one had ever enjoyed them since the beginning of the world. The disciples were told then and encouraged to ask their heavenly Father, Who would surely give the Holy Spirit to those who asked Him. The disciples accordingly continued in prayer, as we know from Acts 1: 14; so that even after the Lord died and rose they had not received the Holy Spirit according to this word; they were still expecting. Yet they had received the Spirit as life more abundantly, as the power of His resurrection life; but the gift of the Spirit was something more. It was the indwelling of the Spirit of God, Who would also act in various gifts in the members, and, above all, in baptizing them into one body. All this was accomplished, but not before Pentecost. They were therefore to ask their heavenly Father, and so they did; and the Holy Spirit of promise was given according to the Saviour's word.*

*Cf. "Lectures on Matthew," p. 183f. (2nd ed.)

There may be cases still, I cannot but think, where it would be right thus to ask our Father. This would be souls who are, like the disciples, converted, but who have not yet submitted to the righteousness of God  - who do not yet consciously rest on redemption. In such a state it would be hazardous to say they had received the Holy Ghost while they do not enjoy peace with God. When there is a simple rest by faith on the great work of the Lord Jesus, and not merely faith in His person, then the Holy Ghost is given. Where the blood was put the oil followed, according to the types of Leviticus.

Luke 11: 14-26.292

Matt. 12: 22-30; Mark 3: 22-27.

There is great care in this Gospel to show the connection of Satan with men, just as we have seen the privilege of the believer in the possession of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of God is the power of communion for the new man, for those who are born of God. So Satan is pleased to fill with the power of the demon the old nature of man, in certain cases where God permits him; and the Lord shows the link between the demon and the sickness, weakness, or other malady of body or mind, as we find here in the case of the dumb man: "And he was casting out a demon, and it was dumb; and it came to pass, the demon having gone out, the dumb [man] spoke. And the crowds wondered." It is evident from this that what produced the lack of speech was not physical infirmity, but the demon that dwelt in the man. Directly the demon left he that had been dumb spoke. What the Lord was occupied with here below was in giving a specimen of that which will characterise the world to come. The powers that He exercised, as others afterwards in virtue of His name, were "the powers of the world [or age] to come," as they are called in Heb. 6: 5. The millennial age will thus afford a full display of the defeat of Satan, to the glory of God, and this in and by man. The Lord's curing of bodily diseases, and casting out of demons, was a partial exhibition of what will be public and universal in that day.

"The crowds wondered" on this occasion; but the spirit of unbelief is stronger than the power of evidences. Hence, "some from among them said, By Beelzebub,293 the prince of the demons, casts he out demons." We must distinguish between the instruments of Satan's power and the devil himself. The word "devils" confounds the two things. It is to say "demons." "By Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, casts he out demons." Others did not go quite so far as this; but still, "tempting [him], sought from him a sign out of heaven." Satan does not lead all in the same way, but he suits his action to the flesh of each. Some men are violent in their unbelief, while others are more religious. Some "tempting [him], sought from him a sign out of heaven." They were not content with what God had given, though there could be no external proof more convincing than the expulsion of Satan's power. Hence this was strongly marked at the starting-point of the Lord's ministry in this Gospel as well as Mark's. So it was throughout. The Lord, answering their unbelieving thoughts, says, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house set against a house falleth." It would be suicidal for Satan to undermine his own influence. If also Satan is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom subsist? ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub."

But there is more to be noticed. God had before this occasionally given power to Jews to cast out demons. Faith is always honoured of God; and on the darkest day the Lord did not fall to keep up as it were the holy fire, that His light should not absolutely go out on the earth. "But if I* by Beelzebub cast out demons, your sons — by whom do they cast [them] out? For this reason they shall be your judges." No unbelief on their part ever irritated the Lord. Far from this, He could calmly acknowledge what had been of God among them, though this in no way hindered them from denying God Himself present among men.294 "But if by the finger of God295 I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God is come upon you."

*Weiss retains the emphatic I (ἐγώ) of D here also.

This is an expression of no small importance, "the kingdom of God is come upon you." In another sense it might be said that the kingdom of God was nigh. Here it is said to be come, because Christ was there. Christ brought, as it were, the kingdom of God in His own person. All others require the kingdom of God to come for them to be in the kingdom; but Christ, being a Divine Person, brought that kingdom in Himself, displaying it by His own power, manifested by the overthrow of Satan, by casting out demons. And yet man was blind, more guiltily so than the poor soul before us was, who could not through his dumbness speak the praises of God. For here, when God had proved His power, they were as blind as ever, they could not see God in it, or rather in Jesus.

When the kingdom of heaven is spoken of, it is never said to be come. It could not be said according to Scripture phrase, "The kingdom of heaven is come unto you." Thus "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God" are not quite identical. They agree so far that what in one Gospel is called the kingdom of heaven is called in another Gospel the kingdom of God. Matthew alone speaks of "the kingdom of heaven," as Mark, Luke, and John do of "the kingdom of God." But what is in Matthew called "kingdom of heaven," is called in the other Gospels "kingdom of God," of which last Matthew himself speaks in a few passages. The difference is this: that the kingdom of heaven always supposes a change of dispensation consequent on the Saviour's having taken His place above. He may by and by bring His power below, but He must have come from heaven to bring in the kingdom of heaven. Hence in the future, to establish it in power and glory, it is the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven Who receives that kingdom, and makes it good over all the earth.

The kingdom of heaven never means heaven itself; but rather the rule of the heavens over the earth. When the actual departure on high of the Lord Jesus is spoken of, it is always said to be into heaven, and not into the kingdom of heaven. When the Lord, then, was here below, and manifested His power over Satan, it was the Kingdom of God: it could be so called because the King — the power of God — was there. So here in this place He, by the power of God casting out demons, proved that the kingdom of God was come. What better proof could be asked? Man was totally insufficient for such a work; others might have done so in special answer to prayer. God is always superior to the devil, and it was important that He should prove this from time to time in expelling demons by the sons of Israel who possessed the place of relationship to God that no other people had. But in the Lord's case it was not occasional, exceptional, or partial, but uniform and universal: even where the disciples themselves, using His name, failed to cast them out, He always did it with a word. The Kingdom of God, therefore, was come as a witness of His power, not yet as a state and sphere of manifestation. Both morally and in power, the kingdom of God was come in Him Who bound the strong man and stripped him of his goods.

And this leads me to another remark. The apostle Paul frequently speaks of the kingdom of God, not as a dispensation but as a moral display. He says that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. 14: 17.) He says, too, that "the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Cor. 4: 20.) You could not say "the kingdom of heaven" in these cases. Thus we see the reason why Luke particularly can speak of the kingdom of God, for he is the Evangelist who dwells on the moral side more than any other. Hence, too, there is a stronger link between his language and that of St. Paul than between any other two writers of the New Testament.296

Then the Lord introduces a remarkable figure: "When the strong [man] armed keepeth his own house [court], his goods are in peace; but when the stronger than he coming upon [him], overcometh him, he taketh away his panoply297 in which he trusted, and he will divide the spoil [he has taken] from him." This was going on then. If Satan was the strong man in the figure, Jesus was now stripping him of his goods and dividing his spoils. The whole ministry of Jesus was the evidence of a power superior to Satan in the world. It is true that this did not finally deliver, because it did not touch the judgment of God. It was present and not eternal deliverance. It was the overthrow of Satan, nor, the satisfaction of God. Sin could not yet have been abolished, and judgment must still have remained. No grace, nor power, nor ministry can take away sin, nothing but the sacrifice of Himself.298 That infinitely deeper question was behind, and was settled, not in the life of Jesus, but in His atoning death on the cross. Here He merely speaks of the power then present by a living Christ, which did deliver men from the oppression of Satan, as far as this life was concerned in the world; but not for eternity, not before God. This side of the truth, the victorious power of Christ over Satan in this life, for the earth, has been greatly forgotten in Christendom; and the more so because they bring in the living power of Christ to supplement His death for righteousness and atonement. They have made both life and death necessary for settling the question of a guilty soul for eternity. Consequently they have in practice seen little more than this, forgetting the power of Satan on the one hand, and the power of the Spirit on the other, except in a superstitious way, which only brings the truth into disrepute. These antagonistic realities have been lost sight of; and the grand witness is overlooked that the Lord was giving of a future deliverance of man from Satan's power, when His kingdom will be, not merely in the Spirit's power, but in manifestation. All this has well-nigh dropped out of Christendom. The Jews were feeble about eternal deliverance, but held fast the hope of the kingdom, of blessing in the earth and world by the Messiah, when the power of the serpent. would be evidently broken.

Then we find a most solemn principle in verse 23. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." The presence of Christ brought this out, and more particularly when He was being rejected. When Christ was acceptable, there was no moral test; but when public opinion was universally against Him, and it was evident that to follow Christ was to be slighted by the great and wise, then it proved the strongest criterion. So the Lord now says, "He that is not with me is against me." If I am not with Him I am against Him. The more He is rejected, the more I must throw in my lot with Him. And this is a test, not only for one's person, but also for one's work, as it is added here, "He that gathereth not with me scattereth." The first is more particularly true for the unconverted man, and the second for the converted who is worldly in his work. A man might himself be really with Christ, but yet in his labours he might build or prop up what is of the world. Such a person, no matter what the apparent effects may be, may become the most popular of preachers, and produce widespread effects, philanthropic and religious; but "he that gathereth not with me scattereth," says the Lord. There is no scattering so real in the sight of God as the gathering of Christians on false principles. It is worse than if they were not gathered at all. There is a deeper hindrance to the truth, because there is a spirit of party and denomination that is necessarily hostile to Christ. A false gathering-point substitutes another centre for Christ, and consequently makes greater confusion. "He that gathereth not with me scattereth."299

Then we find the picture of the unclean spirit — that is, the spirit of idolatry. It had once possessed the Jewish nation; but here it is applied in the case, not merely of a nation, but of an individual. It acquires a more moral shape than in the Gospel of Matthew, where it is dispensational. "When the unclean spirit hath gone out of the man, he goeth through dry places, seeking rest; and not finding any, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out." A person might, through evidence and convictions of one sort or another, profess to follow Christ, and be outwardly with Him. But the mere absence of outward evil will never bring a soul to God. God Himself must be known, and Jesus Himself received, not merely the unclean spirit be gone out. A man may leave off evil of a cross kind, he may give up false religion, or, as in this case, idolatry; but all this does not consecrate a man. It is the presence of God in possession of a soul — it is the having a new nature, and not merely the absence of this or that evil — that determines the matter. The unclean spirit can return to the house unless it is already occupied by the power of God's Spirit, which alone effectually shuts Satan out. "And having come, he findeth it swept and adorned." No doubt, as compared with heathenism, there is the absence of much that is abominable and offensive Christian truth is owned; and the unclean spirit, therefore, finds the house, when he returns, swept and garnished. This will be true in Christendom, as it may be also in an individual. After a person has through the outward influence of Christ laid aside evil, the power of Satan gathers fresh fuel; and the man falls into worse evil than if he had never professed His name at all. It is not a simple return to what he was, not merely that the old evil re-asserts its energy, but there is a fresh and complete torrent of evil, a new and worse power of the enemy that takes possession of the soul; and "the last, condition of that man becomes worse than the first."300 An apostate is the most hopeless of all evil men. So it will be with the Jew and so with Christendom; it is the same thing with any man at any time in these circumstances. There is nothing for any one except cleaving to the name of the Lord. Nor is it only a question of glorifying the Lord, but of positive necessity for his own soul.301

Luke 11: 27f.302

The power that delivers a man's body, in this respect breaking the thraldom of Satan, however true, is eclipsed by that which is still more precious. Nevertheless, men could not but feel the homage that was due to power, and this so beneficent. "And it came to pass as he spake these things, a certain woman, lifting up her voice, out of the crowd said to him, Blessed is the womb that has borne thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." This gave the Lord occasion to show what was far better. "But he said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep [it]." Without denying the value of Divine power in such a world as this, yet, said our Lord, "rather blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep [it]." The goodness of God sown in nature, for which (though not alone) the Jews were called to wait, would give place to a superior order of blessing. The very badness of the world's state and of men upon it is the occasion for God to bring in what never passes away, and is destined to endure when the world is gone. There is nothing here below that introduces the eternal like the Word of God. Power, even were it as great as that which Jesus wielded over man or the enemy, is but for a time in its effects; but "he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1 John 2: 17.) And "he that believeth hath everlasting life." (John 3: 36.) "Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep [it]." The Word of God is the link between man on earth and God above; it is the seed of incorruptible life, "which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1: 25.)

Accordingly here again man is put to the proof. He had been already tested by power, and he who could impute that which cast out Satan to Satan himself was self-condemned, It would make Satan more foolish than the most foolish man, for it is a universal principle that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Can it be thought that Satan deliberately destroys his own kingdom and himself? Is he really suicidal? The Jews then showed to what they were fallen when they imputed to Satan the power that cast out demons.

Luke 11: 29-32.

Matt. 12: 38-42.

And now what became of the Jew,. who heard the Word of God and did not keep it? Nothing more terrible.

"

But as the crowds thronged together, he began

to say, This generation is a wicked generation: it seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given to it but the sign of Jonas."* Instead of keeping the Word of God, they were seeking outward tokens. They wanted something visible to their senses, an object tangible in their midst, not only present but earthly and suited to the world. "But there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonas the prophet." The allusion is to one who prophesied in Israel, but who was sent to the Gentiles — to the Minorities.303 "For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, thus shall also the Son of man be to this generation." He, too, the rejected Messiah, would take the place of Son of man, despised and rejected of men.

*"Jonas": here AC and later uncials, most cursives,  -  etc., add "the prophet," which Edd. reject, following BDL, Amiat., etc. (from Matthew).

But more than this: "a queen of the south" and "men, of Nineveh" are brought before us in another way to condemn the Jews of that day.

"A queen304 of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and shall condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, more than Solomon is here." This showed her earnestness of purpose to hear the wisdom of Solomon. The wise and wealthy son of David was not the vessel of the Word of God in his ordinary speech as the Lord Jesus was: yet she came without a single miracle to attract her, without a sign to guide or confirm, and heard the wisdom of Solomon: "and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here." Then, again, men of Nineveh themselves, that great city which had been given up to destruction at last — "men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonas."305 They were willing to own their own evil, their sinfulness, their forgetful ignorance of God, and this at the preaching of Jonas — a prophet comparatively unfaithful, who strove to escape from the mission on which God sent him, "and, behold, more than Jonas is here." But where were the men of this generation, and what? Did they repent? No more did they repent than they showed what was seen in a queen of the south — earnestness of heart in listening to the wise man of her day. Thus there was a double testimony against them; Gentiles, high or low, at one time or another, rose up to condemn the men of Jerusalem.

Luke 11: 33.

Then the Lord brings out another truth, namely, that the fault lay not in the want of signs any more than in the display of power (for we have seen the contrary), but in the state of the heart. That is the only reason why man does not rejoice in or keep the Word of God; it is because his heart is not right with God. No person would prefer darkness to light or pleasure to the Word of God unless the heart were wrong. "No one having lighted a lamp setteth it secret,306 nor under the corn-measure, but on the lamp-stand, that they who enter in may see the light." So it was with the ways of God. There was no defect in his presentation.

Luke 11: 34-36.

Matt. 6: 22f.

The Light was come and God set it in a due and commanding position that all who saw it might be profited. Never was there one who held forth the light of God as Jesus did. He never wavered, for He was the Holy One, the Undefiled, separate from sinners. There was no fault therefore to be found with the Medium; Jesus not only showed perfect light in what He said, but was the Light Himself. All His perfection on Him; yet how had men treated it? Alas! there are other conditions necessary. "The lamp of the* body is thine† eye [therefore] when‡ thine eye is single, thy whole body also is light; but when it is wicked, thy body also is dark." Here we reach so far what man is. It is not here as in John, that Christ is the Light; there we see His personal glory.307

*"The body": so most authorities. D, with most Old Lat., has "thy b."

†"Thine eye": so pm ABCD, etc., Old Lat. (Edd.). EG, etc., most cursives, Syrrcu sin Arm. have "the eye."

‡AC and later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syrrcu sin, read "therefore" besides "when," which Edd. omit, after BDLΔ, Old Lat. Memph.

But Luke always brings in man's state, or moral condition. "The lamp of the body is thine eye." Light alone outside does not enable a man to see. If the eye, physically, is powerless, the light makes no impression. As in John, the light may be ever so true, but, according to Luke, the eye also enters the account; and by nature it is evil and only so. It is not only Christ as Light that is wanted. Eyes to see must be given; its actual state must be considered. "[Therefore] when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is light." It is a question here of moral purpose. If there be no object to divide the heart's attention, if Christ fills the field of vision, the whole body is light. "But when it is wicked, thy body also is dark." And is there not evil in looking to other objects from Christ, in turning away from the only One Who is worthy? "When it is evil thy body also is dark. See, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness." What darkness is comparable to it? This is moral darkness, and fatal to the soul which can see nothing in Christ, or if it seem to see, is evidently indifferent to Christ, indifferent not to one's own soul alone, but to the eternal truth of God. The eye is evil, the body, therefore, is dark indeed.

"See, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness." Such is the end of a carelessness and unfaithfulness to truth. This was becoming the confirmed history of Israel. They had, as compared with the Gentiles, possessed Divine light; but "See that the light which is in thee be not darkness." It was to the last degree becoming their fixed state. They were first indifferent to Christ; finally, they would reject Him to the uttermost — then it would be the darkness of death. "If, therefore, the whole body is light, not having any part dark, it shall be all light, as when the lamp lighteth thee with its brightness." Thus when one has light for oneself, it becomes the means of light for others. In Divine things you cannot separate power for others from testimony to the glory of God.

*Blass, but here again alone, follows D with some copies of Old Latin, in omitting this verse.

Luke 11: 37-52.

Matt. 23: 1-36.

What follows is of a very different character from that which we had before. It is not now the setting aside of Jewish expectations for the Word of God, which the Holy Spirit makes efficacious by judging self, and thus the eye is made single and the whole body full of light. There is no substitution here of God's Word and spiritual blessing for the Messiah, and all the natural mercies and external glory that Israel looked for then and shall look for by and by. Now it is the moral judgment of Israel in their present state; and for this occasion was given, by a certain Pharisee asking the Lord to dine 308 with him. He goes at once. He in noway chooses what was pleasing to Himself. As He entered into the house of a tax-gatherer, and refused none of the company there, so also He declines not to seat Himself at table with a Pharisee. When He went into the tax-gatherer's house, the wonder was how He could eat with sinners; the wonder with the Pharisee now is, "that he had not first washed before dinner." Such was their religion.309 Yet the truth, on the face of things, is that washing is for those who are unclean: He Who was pure and holy did not need it. The Pharisee therefore condemns himself doubly. There is a vague consciousness that he needed cleansing. He shows also his blindness to the personal glory of the Lord Jesus, the only One Who needed nothing from without — the Holy One of Israel, the Holy One of God.

The Lord takes this accordingly as the ground of appeal. He "said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish; but your inward [parts] are full of plunder and wickedness." Their religion, all protest to the contrary notwithstanding,310 was essentially of the outside; and, far from being clean, they were full of plunder and wickedness, plundering others and wicked themselves. Although they had the highest reputation among the people, the Lord pronounces them fools; and what His Word censures now His judgment will act on by and by. The judgment of God is always according to the Word of God. What is condemned by the Word of God now will certainly be condemned by the Lord Jesus when He takes the judicial throne. But it was the same God Who made both the outside and the inside. "Fools, hath not he who hath made the outside made the inside also?" They had forgotten Him; they were anxious only for what was seen of men. The Lord looks upon the heart. They did not think of this. Unbelief is always blind, and fixes, if there be a difference, on things the least important. The reason is manifest: it seeks the praise of men and not that of God. The Lord Jesus, however, bids them "rather give alms of what ye have311: and, behold, all things are clean unto you." He knew well that a Pharisee would do nothing less than this — that intense selfishness characterised the whole party. They were faithless and covetous. Him Whom God gave they despised; what they had they kept for themselves. All things therefore were unclean to them.

But there is much more than this. The Lord pronounces successive woes upon them for their zeal about trifles, their love of religious distinction, and their hypocrisy.312 "Woe unto you, Pharisees! for [beginning with that which was seemingly the least evil] ye tithe the mint and the rue and every herb, and pass by the judgment and the love of God: these ye ought to have done, and not have left those aside." It was really the same root of self, fallen human nature under a religious veil. Why did they thus seek to be distinguished from others? Others gave tithes honestly due to God; the Pharisees laid hold of the most minute points which did not cost much and gave themselves credit in the eyes of men not wiser than themselves, but they slighted judgment and the love of God. Righteousness is a due sense of our relationship to God and man; of it they had no adequate measure whatever before them. The love of God was the last thing that came before or from their hearts.313 "These ye ought to have done, and not have left those aside." Let them value their infinitesimals if they would, but let them not neglect the greatest duties.

But it was not merely this God-dishonouring pettiness. "Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the first seat in the synagogues, and salutations in the market-places." Now we come, not so much to personal conduct and pretension to the strictest conscientiousness, but to their love of public reputation for sanctity and of honour in the religious world.

Another ground detected was lower still. "Woe unto you, [scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites] * for ye are as the sepulchres which appear not, and the men walking over them do not know [it]." Now they are put with the scribes — people learned in the law, who had the character of being the most punctilious in their conduct: both are alike treated as hypocrites — as sepulchres which appear not. Unremoved death, all uncleanness and corruption, was under these fair-seeming religionists.

*After "you," AD (but without "hypocrites"), E, etc., most cursives (69), some Syrr. add "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites." Edd. omit, as BCL, etc., 1. 33, Syrrcu sin, Amiat. Memph. Arm.

One of the lawyers

was offended "and

said to him, Teacher, in saying these things thou insultest us also

." Then the Lord answers them: "

Woe unto you also, doctors of the law!

for ye lay upon men burdens heavy to bear, and yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers." They were notorious for their contempt of the very people from whom they derived their importance.314 It is an easy thing to lay burdens upon others; it is hard to bear them. Christianity is the exact opposite of this. Christ comes down first of all and takes the sorest of all burdens, the judgment of our sin and guilt, our condemnation from God; then He leaves us under the Gospel, without that burden. It is true that, till He comes again, we are groaning in the body, waiting not uncertainly but in confidence for Christ to change us even into the likeness of His glorious body. Hence it is that the practical exercise of Christianity is in liberty and joy. No doubt grace brings with it the highest obligations, but they are those of men who are free and who use their liberty for the One whom they love. It was not so with these doctors of the law. They laid burdens upon men that were grievous to be borne, but they themselves did not touch the burdens with one of their fingers. It is only grace that enables one to manifest what the law requires. The doctors of the law were precisely those who showed the least conscience. They thundered the law at others; they did not subject themselves to any of its precepts, except where it suited them. It is grace which purifies the conscience by faith and strengthens it in the will of God.

But if they did not touch any of the burdens that they laid on others, they built the sepulchres of the prophets. This sounded well and holy. What could be more laudable than that they should honour the ancient sufferers and prophets by building their sepulchres? It was really the spirit of the world. First of all they proved that they were the successors of those who killed them, not the successors of the martyrs but of their murderers. Although it seemed the opposite of what their fathers had done, it was the same love of the world which slew the martyrs in that day, and now led men to build their sepulchres in order to make religious capital out of this pious honour. They would fain have the halo that surrounded those men of God thereby to shine upon themselves. It was the love of the world that made the fathers slay them; and the love of the world it was that led their sons to build these sepulchres over them. There was of course nothing of Christ in those who persecuted the martyrs. Was there a whit more in these men bent on empty self-glorification under cover of the righteous victims of old? Therefore says the Lord, "Ye bear witness then and consent to the works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build [their sepulchres]."And to prove that they were the lineal successors of the murderers of the old martyrs, the Lord adds, "For this reason also the wisdom of God hath said, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of these they shall kill and drive out by persecution." 815 It is expressly put as the wisdom of God, because it is not what would appear to man. The builders of the sepulchres of the sufferers might seem to be the farthest removed from the persecuting violence of the fathers; but not so. The contrary would soon appear. God would test them soon by sending prophets and apostles, some of whom they would slay, and some they would persecute, getting rid of them all in one way or another. "That the blood of all the prophets, which hath been poured out from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the temple; yea, I say unto you, it shall be required of this generation." This is a searching and solemn principle. Man fails from the first, and God pronounces on it. But it is always the last who is the most guilty, because the cases of former slaying of the prophets ought to have aroused their consciences. Their building of sepulchres for the saints whom their fathers slew proved that they knew how wrong it was. But the heart was unchanged; and hence a similar testimony produced no less results, but more evil. God's testimony at the present day arouses quite as much hatred as His warnings of old. Hence, little as the Jews thought it (for they had been long without prophets), now that the truth was sent out in power, the same murderous spirit would be manifested, and God would hold the people guilty of all the blood that had been shed from the foundation of the world. Instead of using the example of their fathers to deter them, they followed their guilty footsteps. They were more guilty, because they despised so, solemn a warning.

*["Their sepulchres"]: ACE, etc., 33, Syrr. Amiat. Memph., have these words, which Edd. omit, after BDL.

So it will be in the latter day. There will be a violent outbreak against the witnesses of Jesus, whose blood will be shed like water — a persecution all the more guilty because men will have known it beforehand; they will have owned the guilt of those who did it, and yet they will fall into the same rut themselves. Alas! unbelief is most of all blind to self.

The Lord pronounces finally one more woe. "Woe unto you, the doctors of the law, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge;316 yourselves have entered in and those who were entering in ye have hindered." So they were doing then as others at this present time. Wisdom was there, truth was there, Christ was there: all that the doctors of the law did was to hinder people from profiting by it, in order to maintain their own importance.

Luke 11: 53f.

"

And as he said these things to them,* the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him vehemently, and to make him speak317 of many things

." They wanted Him to commit Himself — that the Lord might utter something for which they could drag Him to their tribunal, "

watching him [and seeking]† to catch something out of his mouth [that they might accuse him]

."‡ Their hearts were filled, not only with plunder, but with wickedness that would take the shape of violence against the truth and those who bore it, just like their fathers. The first Adam is never changed for the better: he is only evil continually: the more good is shown him, the more evil he proves himself to be.

*"As he said these things to them": so Lachm., followed by Blass, after AD, etc., 1, Syrr. Amiat.; Blass adding "before the people," which is in DX, Old Lat. Syrrcu sin. Treg., W. H., and Weiss adopt, "And as he went out thence," after BCL, 33, Memph.

†["And seeking"]: these words are in ACD, later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat., etc.; but Edd. reject them, after BL, Memph. Aeth.

‡["That they might accuse him"]: as ACD, Syrrcu sin; but Edd. omit, as BL, Memph. Aeth. This affords instance of "conflation" (note 3).

LUKE 12: 1-12.*318

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 328-333.

Matt. 10: 26-33, 19-20; Matt. 12: 32 Mark. 3: 28f.

We have seen the favoured nation set aside, and judgment awaiting "this generation," not glory, and the woes upon those classes among them that stood highest in public estimation, who indeed were now the manifest adversaries of the Messiah. Our chapter opens with the Lord's warning to the multitude who were crowding around Him, to beware of the leaven319 of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Accordingly we find the Lord showing that a new testimony was to be formed, not governed by law, but by the light of God." For there is nothing covered up which shall not be revealed, nor secret that shall not be known." And this testimony, as it was in the light, so also it was to be spread abroad. There was to be nothing hidden, nothing kept silent now. With this entirely falls in the teaching of the Apostle Paul — that now, on the rejection of Israel, God has brought to light the "mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints." (Col. 1: 26.) The same thing is true morally. The heart is laid bare, nature is judged, all now is brought into the light of God. "Therefore, whatsoever ye have said in the darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in chambers shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."320

This is of all-importance, and extremely solemn. Even now God is forming souls in the light; as that which puts them to the test. His own moral nature that detects everything inconsistent with itself. This shows us what a wonderful character Christianity has morally as well as doctrinally. Under the law it was not so; there were many things allowed because of the hardness of their hearts. The veil was not yet rent. God had not brought out His own absolute nature made relative in Christ to judge man by. There was no proper revelation of God Himself under the law, though many revelations from Him. There were commands, there were promises, there were prophecies when things failed; but Jesus is the manifestation of God. Even as He is the only-begotten Son, He is the true Light that now shines; and such also is the atmosphere which the Christian breathes. We walk in the light even as God is in the light. This was altogether new doctrine, especially for the Pharisees to hear. They were characterised by a fair appearance before men, which was hypocrisy in the sight of God. The multitude were warned that an end was coming to all this. Not only will the day of judgment make it manifest, but faith anticipates that day. And now faith is come. Christianity is not of law but of faith; and Christianity alone, both as a question of light and of love, goes forth energetically. Everywhere is the Gospel to be preached, to every creature. Christ's Word is to be proclaimed to all nations — the law was given to Israel.

But there is another consideration also, that now it is not the intervention of present earthly judgments, but the fear of God, Whose eternal judgment is revealed for those who despise His Word. "I say unto you, my friends,321 Fear not those who kill the body, and after this have no more that they can do." The law displayed earthly dealings: now wrath is revealed from Heaven, and this wrath has eternal consequences. It is not merely the setting aside of man's wrath, nor the instructive lesson of all in a chosen nation on the earth, but the certainty that body and soul must be cast into hell. This will be proved true presently for those who are found alive in opposition to God and rejection of His final testimony; and it will be true also at the close of the Kingdom for those who had died in their sins since the world began. Then God will show how truly He is the One to be feared; for the hypocrisy of the Pharisees had its root in the fear of man. They did not fear God. They would stand well with men, especially in the way of religious reputation: is this the true fear of God? "Fear not those who kill the body, and after this have no more that they can do." By redemption we are brought to God. Christianity essentially supposes the putting the soul in the presence of the unseen and eternal. "I will show you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell322; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

But then the Lord brings in motives of comfort, as these were of warning. The present light of God and the future judgment of God were solemn considerations for any soul of man; but now comes in the comfort of His present care and future reward. "Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings (assaria),323 and not one of them is forgotten before God?" What infinite care of God that can descend to the least thing, that man despises most! How much more, then, His care for those who are His witnesses! For now, on the setting aside of the Jewish nation, a fresh body of men to testify for Christ was to be formed, the very hairs of whose head would be numbered. There is nothing that more strengthens one who is bearing witness for the truth than the consciousness of God's love, and that the least one or thing that pertains to him is of interest to God. "But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.324 Fear not therefore*: ye are better than many sparrows."

*"Therefore": so ADE, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. Amiat. Edd. omit, after BLR, some Latt. Memph.

No present consciousness, however, of goodness would be sufficient to maintain a soul now in presence of evil. And God does not set aside the evil, but gives spiritual power to endure; He sends a testimony that utterly condemns the evil, and vouchsafes power to bear. Power is now in suffering for righteousness' or Christ's sake, not in reforming the world; it does not consist in judgment of the world's evil. God alone is competent for this, and He will set aside and judge finally instead of reforming. But, besides all that, the soul needs the comfort of the time when it shall be completely taken out of the power of evil; and the future prospect is bright before us. "But I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, the Son of man325 will confess him also before the angels of God; but he that shall have denied me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Both faithfulness and unfaithfulness bear their consequences in the day of glory. "And whoever shall say a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but unto him that speaketh injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven." This had been proved. Who spoke more against Him than Saul of Tarsus? Who was a more blessed proof and witness of forgiveness than he was? So it will he even with the nation. If "this generation" must suffer, are suffering them now, and are yet to suffer them, still the nation will be forgiven in the end. "But unto him that speaketh injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven." Such is the fate of "this generation." They would reject not only Christ Himself, but the further testimony which, we have seen, it is the object of the Spirit of God to bring before us in this chapter. Now we have a most important element in this new thing. Not only was there light and truthfulness, not only the energy that went out in proclamation and the preservative care of God now, with future reward by-and-by; but, besides all, there is the power of the Holy Ghost. This makes it unspeakably grave. "Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven." What an issue! On the other hand, to the believer what a gracious support! What earnestness also and exercise of love in giving their message must there be in realising that, in a certain sense, it is worse to reject the testimony now that the Holy Ghost is given than when even the Lord Himself was here below! For the Holy Ghost bears witness, not only of Christ, but of His accomplished redemption and His Cross. Then he who rejects the fullest mercy of God, when He has completely put away sin by the sacrifice of His Son, shows himself utterly insensible both to his sin and to God's grace as well as to the glory of Christ. All this the Holy Ghost now brings out without a cloud. Hence to blaspheme Him is unpardonable. "Unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven."326

But the Holy Ghost does not merely act in thus putting so solemn a seal on the testimony; He is also a positive power for him who is engaged in the testimony. "But when they bring you before the synagogues,327 and rulers and the authorities, be not careful how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Spirit shall teach you in the hour itself what should be said." For when the Spirit should be given, there would be no setting aside the evil in the world: this as we know becomes worse and worse. Accordingly, when they should be brought before the powers of the world, "Be not careful," the Lord says unto them, "how or what ye shall answer, or what ye shall say." The spirit of absolute dependence upon God is shown us here. "The Holy Spirit shall teach you in the hour itself what should be said." This completes the first part of the chapter and shows us. the power of the testimony, and thus the danger of those who reject it, and the encouragement of those who are rendering it.

Luke 12: 13-21.328

The rejection of Christ leads to an important change, both in His position and in what men would find in and from Him. A Jew would naturally have looked to the Messiah as the Judge of every vexed question. Even he who valued the Lord Jesus for His unblemished ways and holy conversation might well seek His aid. But it is here shown that His rejection by man changes everything. One cannot reason abstractedly therefore from what the Messiah was as such; we must take into account the fact of the state of man towards Him and God's action thereon. The Cross of Christ, which was to be the fruit and measure of the rejection of the Lord, would have in its train consequences immense, and of all possible difference from what had gone before; and this not only on man's part, but on God's.

Hence, when one of the company said to Him, "Teacher, speak to my brother, to divide the inheritance with me," the Lord answers, "Man, who established me [as] a judge or a divider329 over you?" He was not come to judge. The rejection of Christ leads into that infinite salvation He has wrought, in view of which He declines the settlement of human disputes, He was not come for earthly purposes, but for heavenly. Had He been received by men, He would undoubtedly have divided inheritances here below; but, as they were, He was no judge or divider over men or their affairs here below. But Luke, as is his manner and habit, presents the Lord immediately looking at the moral side of the matter, as indeed the rejection of Christ does lead into the deepest manifestation and understanding of the heart.

The Lord therefore addresses the company on a broader ground. "He said to them, Take heed and keep yourselves from all* covetousness, for [it is] not because a man is in abundance [that] his life is in his possessions." This anxiety for Christ's help to settle questions flows from the heart's desire of something that one has not here below. Maintenance of position is here judged, eagerness after earthly righteousness is exposed — "beware of covetousness." The rejection of Christ and the revelation of heavenly things led into the true path of faith, of confiding in God for whatever He gives, of trusting, not man but Him, for all difficulties, of contentedness with such things as we have. God arranges all to faith. Nor is this the whole matter. The heart has to be watched. "Keep yourselves from all covetousness, for it is not because a man is in abundance [that] his life is in his possessions." "And this too He illustrates, as well as its awful end. There is exceeding selfishness, folly, and danger in what might seem to be earthly prudence. Hear the next words of the Lord. "He spoke a parable to them, saying, The land of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully; and he reasoned within himself, saying, What shall I do, for I have not [a place] where I shall lay up my fruits?" Clearly this man counted that the prime good lay in the abundance of the things that he possessed. His desire was to employ what he had so as to get and keep more of present things.

*"All": so Edd., following ABD, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. Old Lat. Memph. EFG, etc., and most cursives omit.

Systematic selfishness was there, not the reckoning of faith either in its self-sacrifices of suffering or in its active and generous devotedness. There was no eye upon the future outside this world. All was in the present life. It is not that the rich fool made a bad use of what he had according to human judgment, not that he was immoral, but his action did not go beyond gratifying his desire of over-growing abundance. "He said, This will I do; I will take away my granaries, and build greater; and there I will lay up all my produce* and My 330a good things."

*"Produce": so Tisch. after AD and most later uncials. Other Edd. (W. H. "conflation") adopt "corn," following BLX, Sah. Memph. Aeth.

This conduct stands in marked contrast with what the Lord afterwards brings into prominence in Luke 16, where is seen the sacrifice of the present for the future, and that such only are received into everlasting habitations. It is not the means of deliverance from hell, but the character of all who go to heaven. So far they resemble the steward in the parable, whom the lord commended, not for his injustice but for his wisdom. He sacrificed present interests, his master's goods, in order to secure the future. The rich proprietor here, on the contrary, is ever casting down his barns and building greater, in order the better to secure all his fruits and increase his goods. His sole and entire thought was for this present life which, he assumed, would go on unchangeably. The steward looked out for the reverse that was at hand, and acted accordingly. May we feel ourselves stewards in what men would call our own, and act with no less prudence! It was not so with him who said to himself, "Soul, thou hast much good things laid up for many years; repose thyself; eat, drink, be merry." There was both self-satisfaction in what he possessed, and withal the desire for a long enjoyment of present ease. It was the practical Sadduceeism of unbelief.331 "But God said unto him, Fool, this night thy soul shall be required332 of thee; and whose shall be what thou hast prepared?"

He never considered this. God was not in all his thoughts. He had reduced his soul to the merest slavery of the body, instead of keeping under the body, that it might be the servant of the soul, and God the master of both. But no: God was in none of his thoughts; yet God said to him, "Fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee; and whose shall be what thou hast prepared?" He had looked onward for an uninterrupted prosperity in the world. "This night!" Little did he think it. "This night thy soul shall be required of thee . . . Thus is he who layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich333 toward God." Riches before God cannot be without what men short-sightedly count impoverishment of self, using what we have, not for ourselves, but for others. Only such are rich toward God, be their means great or small. If their means are small, they are nevertheless large enough to let them think of others in love and provide for wants greater than their own: if their means are great, their responsibilities are so much the greater. But in every case the gathering up is not for self, but for the service of grace; and this can only be by bringing God into the matter. Such only are rich toward God. Laying up treasure for oneself is the hard labour of self, and the unbelief that reserves for a long dream of enjoyment which the Lord suddenly interrupts.

Vv 12: 22-34.334

Matt. 6: 25-33.

Then the disciples are addressed, and the Lord accordingly rises in the character of His appeal. The other was a warning for men, but for the disciples there was a new path opening. "And he said to his disciples, For this cause I say unto you, Be not careful for life,* what ye shall eat; nor for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than food, and the body than raiment." That is, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what put on. This was a great advance in the instruction given to souls — a guard against anxiety, which depends on faith in God. The Lord gives them an instance from the birds around them. "Consider the ravens, that they sow not nor reap; which have neither storehouse nor granary; and God feedeth them." God's care condescended to watch over even an unclean bird like a raven. "How much better are ye than the birds?"335

*"For life": so Edd. after ABD, etc., 1, Amiat. ED, etc., 33, 69. Sirrcu pesch sin Memph. add "Your."

But we have more than this: the utter powerlessness of man, in what most nearly concerns him, is brought out with matchless beauty and truth. "Which of you, by being careful, can add to his stature one* cubit? If therefore ye cannot [do] even what is least, why are ye careful about the rest?" What concerns the body is least. "Why take ye thought for the rest" "Then we are given a still more graphic instance from the flowers of the field. "Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin." God's care of the vegetable, no less than the animal, world affords striking and familiar proofs which cannot be gainsaid. "They neither toil nor spin." The ravens might seem to do somewhat; but as to the lilies, what can they do? "They neither toil nor spin; but I say unto you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed as one of these." This was not said as to the ravens. "But if God thus clothe the grass, which today is in the field,† and tomorrow is cast into [the] oven" — the meanest thing as it were that He has made in the vegetable kingdom, that which is both common and transient — "how much rather you, O ye of little faith?" The one, therefore, the ravens, rebuked their care for their food, and the lilies their care for their clothing. "If God thus clothe the grass . . . how much rather you, O ye of little faith?" Hence they were to beware of resembling the nations of the world, which know not God. "Seek not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink, and be not in anxiety.336 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after." They were without God. "And your Father [not only God, but your Father] knoweth that ye have need of these things." He advances now until He puts the disciples into the enjoyment of their own relationship with a Father Who cared perfectly for them, and could fail in nothing towards them. The God Who watched over the ravens and the lilies — their Father — would surely care for them. He knows that we have need of these things, and should be trusted by us.

*"One": pmBD, Memph. omit (Edd..); corr AL, etc., with Syrsin insert.

†"The grass, which today is in the f.": so AE and most of the later uncials, besides cursives and Syrsin. Edd. (Revv.) adopt "If God so clothe the grass in [the] field," after BL, etc.

The instruction previously given was rather negative — motives to avoid the ways and objects of the Gentiles, because of their confiding in their Father's care. And now we have more directly positive instruction. "But seek His kingdom;*337 and [all]† these things shall be added unto you." As usual, Luke gives us the moral force of things. "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink," as the apostle says, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. 14: 17.) They were to desire and pursue what God Himself was about to bring in, that which manifests His power in contrast with man's weakness. And so seeking, all other things — all that is needed for this life — all the things that man makes to be so important, should be added unto them. God assuredly takes care of His own. If we seek His things, He does not forget ours; He could not, would not, overlook our need day by day.

*"His": so Edd. following BDL, Memph. AE, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. Amiat. have "kingdom of God."

†["All"]: so AD, etc., 1, 33, 69, Amiat. Memph.; but Edd. reject after BQΔ, etc.

Cf. Matt. 6: 20f.

Further (verse 32), they are not to fear, although a little flock. Their strength did not at all rest on numbers or resources of an earthly kind, but on a most simple and blessed principle it was their Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom. He had delight in it, it was His complacency. This could not fail: why should they fear? Far from it, they were told to sell what they had: "Sell that which ye possess, and give alms." All that would manifest love flowing out to the needy became them. It was their Father's way with them who were once poor indeed, and they were to keep up the family character. They might, it is true, provide bags; but they were to be such as waxed not old, such as heavenly treasure demands. They were not to be of an earthly kind, but rich toward God, "a treasure which doth not fail in the heavens, where thief doth not draw near, nor moth destroy."338 There is nothing forgotten: "God is not unrighteous to forget your work of faith and labour of love"; and what is of importance, too, there is no disappointment with the treasure: no thief approaches it on the one hand, no moth corrupts on the other, "for where your treasure is, there also will your heart be." The object was, that their heart should be settled on things above, and it would be so if their treasure were there. A man is always determined by what he seeks, by his objects. If he sets his heart upon a degrading object, he is degraded; if upon that which is noble and generous, his character is morally elevated. If therefore he is attracted by Christ Who is at the right hand of God, if heavenly treasure is before his eyes, his heart follows his treasure, he is taken entirely above the power of present things, which cannot more drag him down.

Is it too much to say that there is nothing of such moment for the disciple? If he has Christ, it is of all consequence he should see Christ where He is, and the things of Christ, where He sits at the right hand of God. Only to look at Christ on earth would falsify a Christian. Assuredly He is and must be an infinitely blessed Object wherever He is, nor is it that there would be no worthy effect of thus looking at Christ. But we must bear in mind that Christ here below was under law, and connected with Judaism, with its temple, rites, and priesthood; that as yet the great question of redemption was not decided, sin was not judged, evil was not put away; that the world was not given up as hopelessly bad, nor, consequently, was man. Whoever therefore merely looks at Christ as He was here below, shuts himself out from the great truth that all these things are questions already decided; that the world is judged before God, the earth under sentence, heaven opened, redemption accomplished, and sin put away. The soul that only looks at Christ on earth is not merely shut out from all the distinctive truths of Christianity, but is plunged into a state of uncertainty; whereas all under the Gospel ought to be clearly seen and settled. The mighty work of redemption does not remain to be accomplished. This is one reason why the mass of Christians who look at Christ thus are necessarily of doubtful mind, and count assurance to be presumption. The spiritual character is formed accordingly. But our Lord Himself tells us to have "a treasure which doth not fail in the heavens," "for where your treasure is, there also will your heart be." He wished to have them heavenly; and in practice there is no other way than seeing, and knowing, and possessing, in the true sense, our treasure in the heavens. If so, the heart is there also.

Luke 12: 35-48.339

Matt. 14: 42-25: 13.

But there is another thing too. It is good to have before us the object that is before God. It is good to have an object, a true object, that calls one out into a state of patience and expectation. We cannot do without the power of hope; if we have not the true object, we shall have false ones. "Let your loins," therefore, He says, "be girded about, and lamps burning; and ye like men who wait for their lord, whenever he may leave the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." I do not take this expression about returning from the wedding as prophetic, but rather as moral, in accordance with the habitual style of Luke. It is certainly intended to present no aspect of judgment, but of joy, and it is therefore an allusion to the well-known facts constantly before their eyes, a figure taken from them. They were to be waiting for their Lord, not in a judicial sense, but as to One Who returns from a wedding, that when He comes and knocks they may open unto Him immediately. This is another grand point, not only that He is associated with joy, but that they should be free from all earthly encumbrance, so that the moment the Lord knocks, according to the figure, they may open to Him immediately — without distraction or having to get ready. Their hearts are waiting for Him, for their Lord; they love Him, they are waiting for Him. He knocks, and they open to Him immediately. Such is the normal position of the Christian, as waiting for Christ, the only true Object of hope. "Blessed are those bondmen whom the lord [on] coming shall find watching; verily, I say unto you that he will gird himself, and make them recline at table, and coming up will serve them."340 Here their blessing as waiting for Him is shown. We shall find another blessing a little later on; but the blessing here is the watching — not so much working as watching. That is, it is not so much occupation with others as watching for Him, and assuredly this is of some importance to feel. Watching takes precedence even of working. There is no doubt that working has no small value, and that the Lord will remember it and reward it, but watching is far more bound up with His person and with His love. Hence it is said, "Blessed are those bondmen whom their lord on coming shall find watching; verily, I say unto you that he will gird himself, and make them recline at table, and coming up will serve them." All the activity of His love is shown, and His gracious condescension. "And if he come in the second watch, and come in the third watch,* and find [them] thus, blessed are those [bondmen]."† There is intentness therefore upon it. It is not vague; it is sustained; it is carried through the night. They are looking for Him from first to last Blessed are those [bondmen]. But this know, that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched,‡ and not have suffered his house to be digged through. And ye, therefore,§ be ye ready;341 for in the hour in which ye do not think [it] the Son of man cometh." It is not the Messiah taking the throne of His father David, but the rejected Son of man Who is. coming in glory; and blessed are those who are thus waiting and watching for Him. "And ye, therefore, be ye ready."

*Edd. (Revv.) follow BL, etc., 33, "And if in the second and in the third watch, he come": the "come" and "watch" each occur only once in these texts.

†"Those [bondmen]": so AE, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. and Amiat. Tisch. after pm omits both words; other Edd. follow BDL, Syrsin, which have "those" but not "bondmen."

‡"Would have watched": Edd. questioning the words as from Matthew.

§"Therefore": so AE, etc., 1, 33, 69. Edd. omit, after BLQT, Old Lat. Memph.

Our Lord presented His coming as claiming the affections of the saints, and dealing with their moral state. Their loins were to be girded about, their lights burning, themselves like unto men waiting for their Lord. For, their treasure being in the heavens, their hearts would be there also. This connects itself, too, with immediate readiness in receiving Himself, that "when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately." It is the blessedness of watching for Christ, with its infinite joy in result. "Verily I say unto you, that he will gird himself, and make them recline at table, and coming up will serve them."

If He does tarry, and the heart that loves Him finds it long and has need of patience, it is well worth waiting for Him, whatever the delay. "And if he come in the second watch, and come in the third watch, and find [them] thus, blessed are those [bondmen]." At the same time, it is important to add the aspect of His coming for the conscience. The return from the wedding does not present this. "But this know, that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched,. and not have suffered his house to be digged through." Present ease and unwatchfulness in such a world as this always make the return of the Lord to be more or less unwelcome. The only right attitude for love or conscience is the attitude of watching for Him. "And ye, therefore, be ye ready, for in the hour in which ye do not think [it] the Son of man cometh.""'

"

And Peter said to him,* Lord, sayest thou this

parable unto us, or also to all? And the Lord said,

Who then is the faithful and prudent steward, whom his lord will set over his household to give the measure of corn in season?" Now here again appears another aspect. It is the position of one called to be faithful and wise as a steward. It is one whose duty it is, ruling over the master's household, to give their meat in due season, a grave and honourable work. Still, it has not necessarily the intimacy of personal affection which the continual watching for Him supposes. Man, no doubt, thinks very differently; but we are hearing the Word of the Lord, and His Word ever judges, and was meant to judge, the thoughts of men. Accordingly there is a difference in the result. "Blessed is that bondman whom his lord [on] coming shall find doing thus. Verily I say unto you, that he will set him ruler over all that he possesseth" (verses 42-44).343 It is not the return of His love so much as the post of honour in His kingdom. "Blessed" indeed are both; but the heart ought to need little light to discern which is the better of the two. May we answer His love and be true to His trust, and know this two-fold blessedness as our portion when He comes again!

*"To him": so Tisch. with APQT, Syrrsin cu. Other Edd. omit following BDLRX 33, Old Lat.

Undoubtedly much was left here, as elsewhere, to be filled up by the Spirit of God. Our Lord had many things to say, but His disciples could not bear them all then. The accomplishment of redemption, the fall of Israel definitively for the time, the call of the Gentiles, and above all, the revelation of "the mystery," had an immense influence in giving development to the truth of the Lord's return. Nevertheless, it is deeply interesting to notice how admirably the words of the Lord on this occasion present that truth in its two main aspects of grace and responsibility. On these, however, I do not dwell, because the Scripture before us does not enter into detail. It is enough to point out the general truth — a truth, be assured, of great importance to seize in its principles and in its practical consequences.

The Lord next looks at the vast scene of profession, and shows us in a few solemn words how it will be affected by His return. Christendom and man at large will assuredly be judged then, for we are not here looking at the judgment of the great white throne; it is the judgment of the quick, not yet of the dead — a judgment too much forgotten, not only by the careless but by those who exercise the largest influence in the religious world. Judaism always tended to swamp the final judgment by bringing into exclusive prominence the judgment of the world when the nations shall be put down, and Israel, humbled by grace, at length shall be exalted to their promised supremacy under Messiah and the new covenant. But Christendom forgets the judgment of the quick, and its forgetfulness of it is no small part of Satan's device to ruin the testimony of Christ. Not only is the truth of His coming lost as a practical joy for the heart, and as a solemn test for the work, but the bare fact itself is disallowed by confounding that day with the judgment of the dead.

The unbelief of man, however, will not nullify but rather prove the value of the warning of the Lord: "But if that bondman should say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and to drink and to be drunken, the lord of that bondman shall come in a day when he doth not expect it, and in an hour he knoweth not of, and shall cut him in two, and appoint his portion with the unbelievers.344 But that bondman who knew his own lord's will, and had not prepared [himself], nor done his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]. But he who knew [it] not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few. And to every one to whom much is given, much shall be required from him: and to whom [men] have committed much, they will ask from him the more (verses 45-48).

How exact the sketch, save, indeed, that the ruins of Christendom have brought out added horrors to those depicted here, no less than the epistles furnished the fuller display of the truth of Christ's coming! And these horrors are given us at length in such Scriptures as 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Revelation 17, 19.

We see that Christendom, having taken the place of Christian privilege, will be judged accordingly. It is "that bondman." Having no heart nor faith in Christ's coming, men were willing that it should be deferred. The heart was rather relieved than made sick through a hope deferred that was no hope. They said in their heart, "My lord delayeth his coming." The wish was parent to the thought; and in such a state of feeling circumstances will readily be found to justify it. But the moral consequences are soon seen. With Christ's coming no longer before the eye, that servant ere long began "to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and to drink and to be drunken." The spirit of haughty assumption and intolerance was developed on the one hand, and a demoralising intercourse with the world on the other. But "the lord of that bondman shall come in a day when he doth not expect it, and in an hour he knoweth not of. and shall cut him in two, and appoint his portion with the unbelievers." Whatever its profession, the heart of Christendom in that day will be proved to be infidel. No disguises of creed or rite, no activity, nor zeal, will shield it from the just judgment of the Lord at His coming.344a

Nevertheless the Lord is always just, and in that day there will be a marked difference in His dealings with the quick, as He says here. For the servant who "knew his own lord's will, and had not prepared [himself], nor done his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes]"; whereas he who knew it not yet was guilty, though he will not escape, will be beaten with few stripes. The less favoured heathen therefore will not fare so ill in that day as she who sits as a queen with a vain presumption that she will see no sorrow. "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day; death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God Who judgeth her." (Rev. 18: 8.) For it is a fixed thing with Him that where much has been given much shall be required, as even man's conscience and practice confess every day. "To whom [men] have committed much, they will ask from him the more."344b

We have seen the Lord's coming as the Object of their heart's affection, and consequent expectation as the rewarder of service. As the judge of those who have wrought on earth He will deal righteously according to their respective privileges.

Luke 12: 49f.

Matt. 20: 22.

But the Lord now speaks of the effect of His actual presence then: "I have come to cast a fire on the earth; and what will I, if already it hath been kindled?" This is in no way the purpose of His love, but the effect of His presence. He could not but deal as a Discoverer of man's state. Fire is the constant symbol of Divine judgment, and this was morally true even then. He came to save; but, if rejected, it was really the kindling of a fire. This in no way contradicts the great truth of His intrinsic grace. He says, "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened until shall have been accomplished!" He Himself was about to go through the deepest suffering, and this because of the necessary antagonism of God's character to sin, which was not yet judged. It was about to be judged in the person of Christ, absolutely without sin, yet made sin by God on the cross. In devoted love, glorifying God, He would be a sacrifice for sin. This was the baptism with which He was to be baptized, and till this was done, the Lord, as He says here, was straitened. Whatever might be His love, it could not yet flow out in all its fullness. There were barriers among men, and there was beyond all these a hindrance on the side of God's glory. His character, amply displayed for good during Christ's life, had not yet been vindicated as to evil. But in and from His death we find no limits to the proclamation of Divine love. Before that it was more promise within the limits of Israel, not without hints of mercy beyond it. God would be true and faithful to His word, whatever the state of Israel, but He could not send out freely to the Samaritans, and to the world in general, before the Cross. After the Cross this is exactly what He does. The Lord therefore was straitened till this was accomplished.345

Luke 12: 51-53.

Matt. 10: 34-36.

Hence, again, they must not be surprised if, man being what he is, Christ's presence produced conflict, opposition, if men were stirred up into jealousies and envies, hatred and enmity. All these things became manifest in those in whom it had not been seen before. People might have gone on quietly; but Jesus always puts the heart to the test; and if there be not faith, no man knows what he may not do whenever the Truth (as Jesus is) puts him to the proof. "Think ye that I have come to give peace in the earth?" Undoubtedly such will be the effect of His reign by and by, but it is far from being the case now, where good has to make its way and show itself in the midst of evil which is in power. We must always remember that this is an essential characteristic of the time when Jesus was on earth; and it is so still. As far as the world is concerned, evil is in power: good therefore has to maintain itself by faith in conflict with it and superiority over it. It is not that good loves conflict, but that evil will oppose what is good, and, consequently, suffering there must be. "Think ye that I have come to give peace in the earth? Nay, I say unto you; but rather division;346 for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided: three shall be divided against two, and two against three."

This state of moral rupture is simply the result of Christ's coming to the world, as it is man in a state of alienation and opposition, more particularly man with religious privileges, who cannot bear to have all his imaginary good sentenced to death. Therefore the Jews were ever more hostile than Gentiles. The latter could not but see their vanities judged by that which carried its own evidence of light and love along with it; but the Jews had what was really of God, only preparatory, however, and pointing onward to Him, Who was now come, and Whom they would not have, but rejected utterly. In that rejection the baptism spoken of was accomplished, and sin was judged, and God now can be righteous in justifying him who believes, and this solely on the ground of atonement for proved, convicted sin. This, alas! was the last thing a Jew was willing to admit. He would not own that he needed redemption as much as a Gentile, and that a Jew no less than a Gentile must enter the kingdom by being born again. Hence division in families, in no way because the grace of Christ in itself promotes discord, but because man's evil fights against the truth which puts it in the light, and man's hatred refuses the love of which it does not feel the need.

Hence, we come to yet fuller particulars: "the father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."347 The nearest relationships, sex, age, or youth, made no difference. As grace works freely according to the sovereign will of God, so man's hatred is indiscriminate, and in the most unlikely quarters. The Lord is alluding to the prophecy of Micah, who describes in similar terms the worst evil of the last days (Micah 7: 6). It is solemn to find, therefore, that, before the days spoken of by the prophet arrive, the evil was itself now come, and that the presence of Divine love in the person of Jesus provokes it. This could not be if men were not thoroughly bad; but Jesus is the Truth, and therefore brings all things to a head.

Luke 12: 54-59.

Matt. 16: 2f.

In the next verses He appeals to the people, and convicts them of the greatest moral blindness: "He said also to the crowds, When ye see a* cloud rising out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and it happeneth so. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat, and it happeneth. Hypocrites, ye know how to judge of the appearance of the earth and of the heaven; how [is it then that] ye do, not discern† this time?"  - Men were good enough judges of the signs of the weather; they were sufficiently shrewd in forming a judgment as to the present in what they saw; but they utterly failed in what most of all becomes a man — judgment of what is morally above him, judgment of what touches him most closely in his relationship to God, judgment in what concerns his eternal future. In these things they utterly failed, they were hypocrites. Their love of evil, cloaked with a veil of fair religious appearance, made them blind; their love of their own interests made them sharp in discerning and practised in the pursuit of present things. They utterly failed in conscience; and so the Lord goes on to reproach them. It was not only that they were blind as to the signs that God gave outside, themselves; but why did they not even of themselves, as it is said here, judge what was right? This is peculiar to Luke. Matthew speaks of the external signs God was pleased to give them, but they had no eyes for them. Luke alone speaks of the responsibility of judging from themselves, and not merely from what was vouchsafed outside them. The truth is that all was internally wrong with themselves: therefore they did not judge what was right.348

*"A cloud": so Edd. after ABL, etc., 1, 33, 69. DE, etc., have "the c."

†"Ye do not discern": so ADΓΔΠ, later uncials, most cursives and Old Lat. Syrr. Edd. (Revv.) adopt "ye do not know how to discern," according to BL, 33, Sahid. Memph. Aeth.

Matt. 5: 25f.

The Lord hence concludes this part of His discourse with a warning of their actual position: "For as thou goest with thine adversary before a magistrate, strive in the way to be reconciled with him; lest he drag thee away to the judge, and the judge shall deliver* thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison.349 I say unto thee, thou shalt in no wise come out thence, until thou hast paid the very last mite."350 Israel were on their trial now, they were in the way. There was an opportunity of being delivered: would they refuse? Would they throw all away? They might depend upon it, if there was not diligence to avail themselves of what God was now granting them, in the presence of Jesus, justice must take its course; and if so, they must be dragged to the judge, and the judge most assuredly would deliver them to the officer, and the officer would cast them into prison. The result would be that they should in nowise depart thence till they had paid the very last mite. And such in point of fact has been the history of the Jews. They are in prison still, and out of this condition they will not be delivered until the whole debt is paid in the retributive dealings of God, when the Lord will say that Jerusalem has received from His hand double for all her sins. He will not allow her therefore to suffer more. (Isa. 40: 2.) His mercy will undertake her cause in the last day, His hand accomplishing at length what His mouth promised from the first.

*"Shall deliver": so Edd. after ABDT 69. ELXΔ, etc., 1, 33, Syrsin Old Lat. have "(lost the j.) deliver."

LUKE 13: 1-9.351*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 333-336.

The Lord pursues what occupied Him at the close of the last chapter. He is laying bare before them the crisis that was now approaching for Israel. He was the Truth, manifesting the reality of things on earth — for instance, of the Jewish people in the sight of God underneath all religious forms. Nothing eluded Him, and He reveals all that was needful to man. It has not the high character of the truth in John as the revelation of what was in Himself, what God was as displayed in the Word made flesh; but it is equally necessary in its place. According to the general tone of Luke, there is moral dealing with men, and here with Israel.

"

There were present352 some at that season who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with that of their sacrifices

." The cruel and hard-hearted governor had dealt with excessive brutality and had shown his contempt of the Galileans. This furnished a subject for conversation: it was a judgment. They could more easily speak of it as it was a question of Galileans, whom the men of Jerusalem were apt to despise. But the Lord answers them, showing that the time for the kind of discriminative dealing which was in their minds has not really arrived. It will do in the millennium, but it had not and could not come while the Messiah was in humiliation, a Sufferer, sent to die by the same governor who so unworthily used those Galileans — yea, by those highest in Jerusalem whose sin was yet greater; sent, not to have His blood mingled with sacrifices, but to be Himself the Sacrifice for sinners, in the infinite grace of God to all, beginning with Jerusalem. "And he* answering said to them, Think ye that these

Galileans were sinners beyond all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? No, I say to you, but, if ye repent not, ye shall all perish

in like manner." The Lord makes it an appeal to their own conscience, and shows that *the light of Himself on earth reveals the deplorable state of all men Without exception, and, if there be a difference, the exceeding guilt of the Jew in particular. They should all perish except they repented.352a

*He": so Edd. after BLT, Amiat. ADE, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrr. have "Jesus."

He does not here speak of believing, though no doubt it is implied and goes along with faith; but repenting brings in the thought of their sin and their want of all right moral judgment of it. On this He insists, but He does more: He brings forward a case calculated to arrest and search their consciences. They had spoken of Galileans; He reminds them of some nearer home in like case — men of Jerusalem, eighteen of whom had some time ago perished from a tower in Siloam that fell upon them. The Lord accordingly asks them, "Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, think ye that they* were debtors beyond all the men† who dwell in Jerusalem? No, I say to you: but, if ye repent not, ye shall all perish in like manner." It is not so grave before God, nor so near to man's danger or best interests that a special disaster had occurred to Galileans, or to men of Jerusalem. What Jesus shows is the inevitable ruin of all who do not repent. This is characteristic of Christianity. It is the most separative of all things. It severs even out of Israel to God by the judgment of sin as it is and the knowledge of His grace; but at the same time it is the most comprehensive testimony possible. Not only does it go out to all nations to gather from them and put believers on equal privileges whether Jew or Gentile; but it is no less profound than universal, inasmuch as it shows both what God is towards every child of man, and what He is to none but His own children. Indeed, it is a revelation of God in Christ, both for the Church and in His connection with the Whole universe. He is the God and Father of all, "Who is above all and through all and in you all"; (Eph. 4: 6) though this will in no way hinder the destruction of all men who do not repent. Christ, come in humiliation to redeem from sin to God, alone reveals things as they are.

*"They" (αὐτοί): so Edd. after AB, etc., 33, 69, Syrsin Amiat. EΓΔ, etc., 1, Memph., have "these" (οὗτοι).

†"The men": so Edd. after ABDL, etc., 69. E, etc., 33, omit.

Cf. Matt. 21: 19; Mark 11: 13.

The Lord adds a parable also "A certain [man] had a fig-tree planted in his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit upon it, and did not find [any], and he said to the vine-dresser, Behold, [these] three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find none: cut it down: why doth it also render the ground useless? But he answering saith unto him, Sir, let it alone for this year also, until I shall dig about it, and put dung: and if it shall bear fruit,-, but, if not, after that thou shalt cut it down."* This manifests, on a still larger scale, a similar truth; it adds the grounds on which they were so peculiarly responsible. The fig-tree was planted in his vineyard and he came and sought fruit on it and found none, and he said, "Cut it down: why doth it also render the ground useless?" So far from security, nothing could be more critical than the condition of Israel now. It was not for them to be coolly speculating about Galileans and forgetting men of Jerusalem; for the thought's of men are always partial and self-deceptive. The Lord, then, does not merely bring in counter-facts, but shows in a parabolic form their moral history and what was impending from God. It was only through His intervention and intercession that God was willing to bear with Israel. "Behold [these] three years I come seeking fruit on this fig-tree and find none." There was the most ample testimony rendered — more than enough — these three years. 353 "Cut it down: why doth it also render the ground useless? And he answering saith unto him, Sir, let it alone for this year also, until I shall dig about it, and put dung: 354 and if it shall bear fruit,-, and if not, after that "thou shalt cut it down." This was what awaited Israel. The Lord was giving them a last opportunity, as far as His ministry was concerned. We know well that, whatever His pains, whatever the means used, all was vain for the time and that generation. They did not bear fruit; they rejected Himself. "After that thou shalt cut it down." And so it was. Israel has disappeared from its place of testimony: the fig-tree, the emblem of their national existence, is cut down, and withered away. Not that God cannot renew them on a different principle. Grace will interfere and bring in this Messiah for the generation to come; but their national position under the law, even in the feeble condition of a remnant from Babylon, is completely blotted out from their land.. The fig-tree is cut down; so the Lord told them it would be, and so it is.

*Such is the order of words in AD and later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat. Syrr.; but Edd. (as Revv.) read "and if it bear fruit after that (thenceforth)..." as it is in BL, 33, 69, Sah. Memph., etc. Syrsin has "next year thou shalt cut it down."

Luke 13: 10-17.

Although the Lord showed the impending fate of the Jews because of their uselessly cumbering the ground, He did not the less teach in their synagogues on the Sabbath day. It was still the term of patience; and further, grace was in no way hindered from acting individually. "And lo, [there was]* a woman, having a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent together, and wholly356 unable to lift her head up." She did not seek the gracious power of Jesus, but when He saw her, "he called to [her], and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity." Not satisfied with this, He laid His hands upon her. There was far more grace in acting thus than in simply curing her by a word. He could have done the one as easily as the other.

*["There was"]: so AE, etc., 1, 69, Syrrcu pesch sin; but Edd. omit, as BL, etc., 33 Old Lat. Memph.

But grace, though it tenderly stoops to the wretched, does not accommodate itself to the obstinate unbelief of men, more particularly of men who make a show of their religion but who have nothing real in the sight of God. Christ cured her on the Sabbath and in face of the congregation, knowing it would provoke the enmity of the ruler of the synagogue. There is no use in striving to keep fair terms with men who profess to be friends, but are really the enemies, of God. "And immediately she was made straight and glorified God.357 But the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day." Now had he for a moment reflected, he would have seen the folly and wickedness of his affectedly pious indignation; he would have seen that he was fighting against God. But passion in religious matters never reflects; and, being wholly apart from true faith, it is apt to be governed by present interests. So this man, little suspecting that he was carrying on war with God to his own eternal ruin, turns to the people with the words, There are six days in which [people] ought to work; in these* therefore come and be healed and not on the sabbath day." Vain and wicked man, that presumed to lay down the law to God! He was far from keeping the law himself, yet ventured to give law to Him who was not more truly man than God. God is not to work on His own Sabbath day! But as the Lord told the Jews in the Gospel of John, it is a folly to suppose that God, in the presence of such a world, of man and Israel as they are, is keeping the Sabbath. Morally speaking, He could not do so. His love would not permit Him to rest when the earth and human kind are full of sin, wickedness, and misery. Accordingly grace led both the Father and the Son to work for poor guilty man: "My Father workmen hitherto and I work." (John 5: 17.) The Jews might be keeping their Sabbaths in pride; but God was working for man! Alas! the world has as little sense of the holiness as of the love of God; and so the Lord here answers the ruler with stern rebuke: "Hypocrite,† doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the manger and leading [it] away, water [it]?" He does not take His text from the Father, as in the Gospel of John, but from men's own acknowledged ways, what even natural conscience feels to be right, what no legalism can blot out from the heart of man. Luke is the great moralist of the Gospels. It would be cruel towards the poor brute to withhold its necessary provender or drink because of the Sabbath day; and if it would be a mistake of God's mind so to treat one's ox or ass to keep it from what is necessary to its refreshment in natural life, how much more was it not worthy of God to relieve in grace a victim of Satan's power! "And this [woman] who is a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo [these] eighteen years, ought she not to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?" He puts it on the double ground of relationship to Abraham, God's friend, and of subjection to the insulting power of the enemy. A daughter of Abraham, she ought surely to have in their eyes an additional claim, and no less because Satan had bound her for so long a time.358 It was plain therefore that the ruler, under the pretence of high respect for God's institutions, was in truth a satellite of Satan. If true-hearted, he would have rejoiced at the expulsion of that spirit of infirmity by which the woman had been so long bound. The people felt the truth of what Jesus said as well as the grace of His deed. "And as he said these things, all who were opposed to him were ashamed, and all the crowd rejoiced at all the glorious things which were being done by him." Even the open opposers, if not won, were ashamed; but all the people rejoiced, for they at least had a sense of their need and were more free to acknowledge what was good and true. There may not have been power, and there is not without faith, to receive the truth in the love of it (for the heart is alienated from God); but they hailed with joy the Divine power that rescued the miserable. Where there is Divinely given faith, I doubt that the first action of the Spirit of God is joy. The entrance of the Word gives light, and discovers what is within of sin, and guilt, and ruin. But, even without being converted, people who have no particular animosity against the truth presented in Christ and who feel the value of light nowhere else to be seen, may well rejoice. They are not broken down in the sense of their own evil, they are not brought to God, but they rejoice in what is come to men, owning the evident and excellent hand of God, and feeling the difference between Christ, however little seen, and the parchment divinity of the ruler of a synagogue. "All the crowd rejoiced at all the glorious things which were being done by him."

*"These": so D, etc., Latt. Syrr.; but Edd. adopt "them,"' according to ABL, 1, 69.

†"Hypocrites": so most Edd. with ABEL, etc., later uncials, numerous cursives (69), Old Lat. Amiat., Sah. Memph. Blass upholds T.R., "thou hypocrite," which is in DVX, many cursives (1), and Syrr. So all English versions before R.V.

Luke 13: 18-21.

Matt. 13: 31-33; Mark 4: 30-32.

Then the Lord is brought in by our Evangelist, as comparing the kingdom of God to "a grain of mustard [seed] which a man took and cast into his garden." 359 The kingdom of God was not yet coming in that power and glory in which all adversaries should be destroyed. The essential feature of it, evident to every eye which beheld Christ as its actual witness, was the power of God in lowliness displayed in His own humiliation; it was in no way a king governing with external majesty, but a man who takes a grain of mustard seed, a very little germ indeed, and casts it into his garden, where it grows and waxes a great* tree, so that the fowls of the air lodge in its branches. The Lord has before His eye the rising up of a vast worldly power which Christendom should become from the very little beginning planted by Himself then present. Such is the first view that is here given by our Lord. People were premature in rejoicing for all the glorious things that were done by Him, if they counted on a mighty deliverance and kingdom just yet. This would be the result in due time at His coming again, and man would try to found it on what He had already done. No doubt there would be deeper things underneath; but He speaks now of what would be before all the people, before men's eyes. It is Christendom commencing as a little seed in the world and becoming such a power that even the very adversaries themselves should find grateful shelter there. But it is not yet the time for the kingdom of God to come in power and glory. There is Divine power dealing by the Spirit with individual souls, but not at all in the direct public government of the world. Christianity would grow into an outward system of power, but not such as to expel scandals and those who practise lawlessness. Far different is the state of things now. Christendom is become a worldly system, just as much as Mahomedanism or Judaism. It is become an active worldly power in the centre of civilisation, and not a few among those of chief influence in nominal Christianity are the enemies of God and His truth.

*"Great": so A and later uncials, most cursives, Syrpesch Memph. Aeth., but Edd. reject, following BDLT, Syrrcu hier Arm.

But, besides the outward power, our Lord compares the kingdom to "leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened." The man is the figure of the agent in what is done publicly, the woman of the resulting condition of what is done hiddenly. Hence Babylon is compared to the woman in Revelation. There is the spread of doctrine, of creed, of a mere verbal confession which does not suppose faith. It is not only that there is that which, rising from the least beginning, becomes a great and towering power in the earth; but there is also a doctrinal system spread over a defined space (Christendom) which affects men's minds and feelings. This is compared to leaven, and leaven in Scripture is never the symbol of what is good. The leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees was their doctrine, which differed in each, but was far from good.

Here the leaven was hid in the three measures of meal till the whole was leavened. It does not mean all the world becoming Christian — a vain and groundless inference, opposed to many plain Scriptures which treat of this subject expressly. There is a very small part of the world even nominally Christian; a very much larger part consists of Buddhism, Mahomedanism, and of heathenism. We hear of "three measures," a certain definite space of the world which God has permitted to be influenced by nominally Christian doctrine — a witness even more than enough.

Thus the spread of Christendom, as a political power, is set forth by the tree, and the spread of the doctrine of Christian dogma is shown by the leavening of these three measures. Both these things have taken place, and there is nothing in either to hinder the coming of the Lord on the plea that these Scriptures have not been fulfilled. Christendom has long become a great power in the earth, and has spread its doctrine within extensive limits. What sort of doctrine it is, and what sort of power, Scripture elsewhere at least does not leave doubtful; but the object here is not so much to show the character of its power or the quality of its doctrine, as to imply the height of pride to which it would grow, and its prevalence over a defined space. The fact is, that from a little beginning it becomes great in the earth, and is also accompanied by a certain spread of doctrine over a limited area. There is no trace whatever in these parables of the coming millennium, or reign of righteousness, where evil is put down. It is rather this age where evil insinuates itself and reaches the highest places under the protection of Christendom along with the spread of a mere creed without life or the power of the Spirit. How truly both have been and are before all eyes!360

Luke 13: 22-30.

Those who had the chief place and power in Israel the Lord had convicted, under pretence of jealousy for law, of utter hypocrisy and hatred of grace even to the seed of Abraham. Under the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven, He had shown what would be the outward form of the kingdom during His rejection. But this does not hinder His going on for the present with His labour of love: "He went through one city and 'village after another, teaching, and journeying to Jerusalem." He knew right well what was to befall Him there, as indeed is expressly stated at the end of this chapter. One now says to Him"Sir, are such as are to be saved361 few in number?" Are those that shall be saved (the remnant and those destined to salvation) few? The Lord does not gratify such curiosity, but at once speaks to the conscience of him who inquired: Take care that you stand right with God. "Strive with earnestness to enter in through the narrow door,* for many, I say unto you, will endeavour to enter in and will not be able." (Cf. Matt. 7: 13f.) It is not, as is sometimes thought, so much a question between "seeking" and "striving." 362 This would throw the stress upon man, and the difference of his state; though it is true that conversion means a mighty change, and that where the Spirit of God works in grace there must needs be a real earnestness of purpose given. But the true point is that people must "strive to enter in through the strait gate." The strait gate means conversion to God through faith and repentance. It is a person who is not content with being an Israelite, but feels the need of being born again, and so looks to God, who uses the Lord Jesus as the Way. This is to "strive to enter in through the narrow door." "There are many," He says, "who will endeavour to enter in and will not be able," This does not mean that they would seek to enter in by the narrow door; for, if they did so, it would be all right. But they seek to get the blessing of the Kingdom without being born of God; they would like to have all the privileges promised to Israel without being born of water and of the Spirit. This is impossible: "Many will endeavour to enter in, and will not be able." For if they enter, it must be through the narrow door of being born anew.

*"Door": so Edd. after BDL, 1, Arm.; whilst AE and later uncials 33, 69, have "gate."

"

From the time that the master of the house shall have risen up, and shall have shut the door, and ye shall begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord,* open to us; and he answering shall say unto you, I know you† not whence ye are

." (Cf. Matt. 25:11f.) The Lord takes this position outside them through His rejection; they rejected Him and He has no alternative but for the time to reject them, unless God would be a party to the dishonour of His own Son. But whatever be His grace (and He will be most gracious), God shows His complacency in Christ and His resentment at those who, though taking the highest ground of their own merits, proved their unrighteousness, and unbelief, and rebellion against God when He displayed Himself in love and goodness in the Lord Jesus.

*"Lord" (once): so Edd. after BL, Amiat., Memph. ADE, etc., 1, 33, 69, most Syrr. repeat "Lord" (from Matthew). Syrsin has "our Lord."

†"You": so AΔ, Syrsin; but Edd. omit, after BLRT and cursives. Blass reads "you," but omits "whence ye are," as D.

"From the time that the master of the house shall have risen up, and shall have shut the door" — it would be quite unavailing for the Jews to plead that Jesus had come into their midst, that the Messiah had been in their streets, that "they had eaten and drunk in his presence," and He "had taught in their streets." (Cf. Matt. 7: 22f.) This was what most evidenced their guilt. He had been there, and they would not have Him. He had taught in their streets, but they had despised and rejected Him even more than the Gentiles. They had insisted upon His crucifixion when the most hard-hearted of Gentile governors had wished His acquittal.

It is always so. Religious privilege, when misused and abandoned, leaves those who enjoy it worse than before, worse than those who have never enjoyed it. Messiah therefore shall say to them, "I tell you, I do not know you whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity." 363 God could not have mere forms: there must be what suits His nature. This is invariably proved true, when the light of God shines. The Gospel does not mean that God now sanctions what is contrary to Himself. Even in remitting sin through faith He meets what is opposed to Himself, but produces what is according to Himself by His own grace. But He always holds to His own principle, that it is those who "by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honour, and incorruptibility," that have eternal life, and none others. (Rom. 2: 7.) Those "who by patient continuance in well-doing" please Him are to be with Him, and none but they. How this patient continuance in well-doing is produced is another matter, and how souls are awakened to seek after it. Certainly it is not from themselves, but from God. Conversion essentially consists in distrust of self and turning to God. This the Jews had not, and, in spite of all their high pretensions to religion, they were only workers of iniquity. (Cf. Matt. 8: 11f.) "There" — not among the heathen — "shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves cast out." But this is not all — the picture would not be complete if they did not see others brought in too. It is not only the Jews shut out from their fathers when the time of glory comes; but others "shall come from east and west, and from north and south" — that is, the widest ingathering of the Gentiles — "and shall lie down at table in the kingdom of God."364 Thus it was manifest that "there are last which shall be first." Such were the Gentiles; they were called by grace to be first. And "there are first which shall be last." Such were the Jews. They had held the earliest and chief place in the calling of God; but they renounced it for self-righteousness and rejected their Messiah accordingly. The Gentiles would now hear, when the natural children, we may say, of the Kingdom should be thrust out. Grace would conquer where flesh and law had utterly failed, reaping woe to themselves as much as dishonouring God.

Luke 13: 31-35.

Scripture is very careful to press the respect and obedience which are due to authority, but it is not a Christian's work to occupy himself with settling questions of the earth. He has nothing to do with the ways and means whereby kings or other governors have reached their place of authority. There may have been wars, and revolutions, and all sorts of questionable means for them to arrive at such exaltation. What he has to do is to obey, as a matter of fact, those who are in authority. "Let every soul be subject unto higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (Rom. 13: 1.) Scripture does not demand obedience to the powers that ought to be, but to "the powers that be." No doubt this may expose to danger where a revolutionary leader usurps authority for a season; but God will care for results, and the duty of the Christian remains simple and sure. He obeys the powers that be. Notwithstanding, all obedience in man has its limits. There are cases where the Christian is bound, I do not say to be disobedient, still less to set up his own authority (which is never his duty), but "to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5: 29.) Where earthly authority demands sin against God, for instance where a Government interferes with and forbids the stewardship of the believer in proclaiming the name of Christ, it is evident that it is a question of a lower authority setting aside the highest. Consequently the principle of obedience to which the Christian is bound forbids his being swayed by what is of man to abandon what he knows to be the will of God.

Take, again, a peremptory call on a Christian to fight the battles of his country. If he knows his calling, can he join Christ's name with such unholy strife? If right for one side, it is right for another, or the Christian becomes a judge instead of a pilgrim, and the name of the Lord would be thus compromised by brethren on opposite sides, each bound to imbrue their hands in one another's blood, each instruments of hurrying to perdition souls ripening in sins. Is this of Christ? Is it of grace? It may suit the flesh and the world; but it is in vain to plead the Word of God to justify a Christian's finding himself engaged in such work. Will any one dare to call human butchery, at the command of the powers that be, Christ's service? The true reason, why people fail to see here is, either a fleshly mind or an unworthy shrinking from the consequences. They prefer to kill another to please the world, rather than to be killed themselves to please Christ. But they should not ask or expect Christian sympathy with their unbelief or worldly-mindedness. To sympathise, with such is to share their failure in testimony to Christ. To deplore the thing while doing it does not mend matters, but is rather an unwitting testimony of our own lips against our own ways.

In short, the Divine rule is what our Lord Himself laid down with admirable wisdom and perfect truth: "Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's" (20: 25). This alone gives us the true standard of the path of Christ through a world of evil and snares. He Himself seems to act on the same principle here. "The same hour* certain Pharisees came up, saying to him, Get out and go hence, for Herod is desirous to kill thee." The Lord knew better. He knew that, bad as Herod might be, the Pharisees were no better, and that their profession of interest in caring for His person was hypocritical. Whether Herod had made use of this or not, He was not going to be influenced by any such suggestions, direct or indirect, from the enemy. He had His work to do for His Father. As the child, we have seen in this Gospel, He must he about His Father's business. It was not otherwise when the anxiety of His mother was expressed to Him at a later day before His public. work. So now the Lord said to the Pharisees, "Go, tell that fox."

*"The same hour": so Edd. following ABDLXΔ and some other later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat. Sah. Memph. Arm. Aeth. have "the same day."

There is no hiding the truth of things where there is an attempt at interference with the will of God. The cunning that wrought to hinder the Lord's testimony for God was vain. He saw through it all and did not scruple to speak plainly out: "Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out demons, and I do cures365 today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." The Lord was then evidently the vessel of the power of God on earth. The gracious work which He was doing showed man's folly in seeking to hinder God. "Behold, I cast out demons." Not all the power or authority of the world could have done such deeds as these. This was paramount to every consideration: He was here to do the will of God and finish His work.

It was in vain therefore for Pharisees or Herod, under false pretensions, to draw Him aside and thus interrupt the execution of His task. He was obeying God rather than men. He came to do the will of Him who sent Him, and at all cost this must be done. "I accomplish cures today and tomorrow, and the third [day] I am perfected." The work was in hand and assuredly should be done. The Lord, having finished His course, entered into a new position for man through death and resurrection into heavenly glory. "But I must needs walk today, and tomorrow, and the [day] following." He knew better, too, than that any power of man would be permitted to stop Him till His work was completed. He knew beforehand and thoroughly that Jerusalem was the place where He must suffer, and that Pharisees were to play a far more important part in His suffering unto death than even Herod. Man does not know himself. Christ the Truth declares what he is, and shows that it was all known to Him. There is nothing like a single eye, even in man, to see clearly; and Christ was the true Light that made all things manifest.

"

It must not be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem

." Their anxiety, therefore, was a mere pretence. The Lord has His work to do, and devotes Himself to it till it is done. From the beginning and all through He shows clearly as here that He knew where His rejection was. to be. We gather this clearly from a previous chapter, where we are told that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and this, too, when the time was come that He should be received up. He looked onward to His being perfected. He knew right well the pathway through which this lay: it was through death and resurrection. So here; it might be the perishing of the great prophet in Jerusalem, but it was the receiving up of the Lord of glory, now man, after accomplishing redemption, into that glory from which He came. The Lord, therefore, remains perfectly master of the position.

But there is more than this: He was free in His love. Not all the cunning of Herod, nor all the hypocrisy of the Pharisees could turn aside the grace that filled His heart — grace even to those who loved Him not. If His servant could say that, though the more abundantly he loved the less he was loved, (2 Cor. 12: 15) how much more fully true was it of the Master! The disciple was like his Master; but the Master was infinitely perfect. And so love fills His heart as now He utters these solemn words over Jerusalem, guilty of all the blood of the witnesses of God from Abel downwards. He has His own cross before Him; yet He says: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the [city] that killeth the prophets, and stoneth those that are sent unto her; how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen her brood under her wings,366 and ye would not." (Cf. Matt. 23: 37-39.) He was then more than a prophet — the Lord Jehovah. He was one competent to gather; and He had a love that proved its Divine spring, source, and character by His willingness often to have gathered the children of Jerusalem together. He could have been their 'Shield and exceeding great Reward, but they would not. There is no blessing that the will of man cannot shut its eyes to and reject. Flesh can never see aright, because it is always selfish; it does not see God, and consequently misses all that is really good for itself. Man is most of all his own enemy when he is God's enemy; but of all enemies, which are so deadly as religious enemies — as those whose hearts are far from God, though they draw near with their lips and have the place of the highest religious privilege? Such was Jerusalem. They had had the prophets, but they killed them. They had had messengers sent from God to them unweariedly, but they stoned them. And now that He who was the great prophet, Messiah, Jehovah Himself, was in their midst in Divine love, what would they not do to Him! There was no death too ignominious for Him. "Behold, your house is left unto you."* It was their own ruin, when they thought and meant it to be His. But love rises over every hindrance. It is impossible that grace should be defeated in the end for its own purposes. And He adds: "I say unto you, that ye shall not see me [this was judgment, 'Ye shall not see me'], until it come that ye say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of [the] LORD "this is grace. He comes in glory, but in the perfect display of that love which had suffered for them and from them and which will not fail in the end by this very suffering to ensure their eternal blessing.

*After "you," DXΔ, etc., 33, Syrr. Aeth. add "desolate" (Syrsin "forsaken"). Edd. omit, after ABKL, etc., Amiat., 1, 69, Sah. Arm. See note 367 in Appendix.

LUKE 14: 1-6.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 336-339.

The last chapter had closed with the setting aside of the Jew and the judgment of Jerusalem. We have now the moral principles involved set forth in Luke 14. The Lord was asked to "the house of one of the rulers [who was] of the Pharisees to eat bread on [the] sabbath." One might have expected, if there were anything holy or any appreciation of grace, now was the time for it. But not so. They were watching Him. They, ignorant of God, looked for evil, desired evil. God was in none of their thoughts, nor His grace. Yet these were the men who most of all piqued themselves upon their nice observance of the Sabbath day.

But grace will not stay its work or withhold the truth to please men: Jesus was there to make known God and do His will. "And behold, there was a certain dropsical [man] before Him." No religious forms can shut out the ruin that is in the world through sin, and our Lord, filled with the good that was in His heart, answers their thoughts before they uttered them, speaking to the lawyers and Pharisees with the question, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?* His question was an answer to their evil judgments. It was impossible to deny it. Hardened as man was and habituated to evil, he could not say that it was unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day. Yet they really wished that it should be so, and, as we know, made it repeatedly a ground of the most serious accusation against the Lord. However, here He challenges those who were ostensibly the wisest and most righteous in Israel, the lawyers and Pharisees; but "they were silent." The Lord then takes the dropsical man, heals him, and lets him go. Then He answers them further by the question: "Of which of you shall an ass† or an ox fall into a well and he doth not straightway pull him up on the sabbath day?" (Cf. Matt. 12: 11.) This is a little different from His reply to the ruler of the synagogue in the chapter before. There it was more the need of the animal, the ordinary supply of his wants. But here it is a more urgent case. It was not simply that the animal needed watering and must be led to it, but "of which of you shall an ass or an ox fall into a well and he doth not straightway pull him up on the sabbath day?" It was lawful, therefore, to look after the good of an animal on that day. They proved it where their own interests were concerned. God had His interests and love: therefore was Jesus in this world, therefore was He in the Pharisee's house. He had meat to eat that they knew not of. It was not the Pharisee's bread, but to do the will of His Father. In healing the dropsical man He was glorifying His Father. He was boldly acting upon that which even they durst not deny — the right of healing on the Sabbath day. If they could relieve on that day their animals from their pain or danger, what title had they to dispute God's right to heal the miserable among men, among Israel?

*"On the sabbath." Edd. here add "or not," following BDL, 1, 69, Syrcu Memph. The words are not in AEXΔ, etc., cursives in general (33), Syrsin Amiat. Arm., etc. They are attested by some Old Lat. and not by others.

†"An ass": so KLXΠ, etc., 1, 33, Syrrsin hier (sin.: "ox or ass"), Memph. Arm. Aeth. D: πρόβατον (as Matthew). Edd. adopt "a son," after ABEGH and later uncials, many cursives, Syrrcu pesch hcl Sah. Cyril. Alex. The balance of Latt. favours "ass." — D has "sheep." See W.H., App., p. 62, also note 368 in Part II. of this volume.

"And they were not able to answer him to these things." How unanswerably good is the grace and truth of God! (See Matt. 22: 46.)

But it is plain that the heart of Israel was sick and that this very scene showed how much they needed to be healed. But they knew it not. They were hardened against the Holy One Who could do them good. They were maliciously watching Him, instead of presenting themselves in their misery that He might heal them.

Luke 14: 7-11.

Matt. 23: 6.

But the Lord in the next scene puts forth "a parable to those that were invited, remarking how they chose out the first places." It is not only that there is a hindrance of good to others, on the part of those who have no sense of need themselves, but there is a universal desire of self-exaltation. The law does not hinder this: it can only condemn, and that, too, for the most part, what the natural conscience condemns. But Christ here brings in the light of God's grace, of Divine love in an evil world as contrasted with human selfishness. He marked how those that were guests chose out the chief rooms. They sought for themselves; they sought the best. But "when thou art invited," says He who was Himself the perfect Pattern of love and humility — "when thou art invited by anyone to a wedding, do not lay thyself down in the first place at table, lest, perhaps, a more honourable than thee be invited by him. And he who invited thee and him come and say to thee, Give place to this [man]; and thou begin with shame to take the last place." Assuredly it would be so with Israel themselves. They had had the outward call of God, they had chosen the chief seats, and now they were going to lose all place and nation. Jesus was in the fullest contrast with them. He went down to the lowest room, He took it in love for God's glory; and certainly there is One Who will say for Him, Give this man place. Clearly, however, it is an exhortation for every heart and more particularly for those who heed the call of God.

Then comes a more positive word: "When thou hast been invited, go and put thyself down in the lowest place" - He had done so Himself - "that when he who hath invited thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher." He took the form of a servant, was found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name." (Phil. 2: 9.) As He says here, "Then shalt thou have honour before all* that are lying at table with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that abaseth himself shall be exalted." (Cf. Matt. 23: 12.) They are universal principles of God: the one true of Christ and of all that are Christ's, as the other is of the spirit of man. The first Adam sought to exalt himself, but only fell through the deceit of Satan. The Second Man humbled Himself and is set above all principality, and power, and might.

*"All": so most Edd., as ABLX, 1, 33, 69, Syrcu Sah. Memph. Aeth. Blass, after DΓΔ, etc., most cursives, Syrsin Old Lat. Goth. Arm. omits.

Luke 14: 12-14.

Then we find, further, it is not a question only of guests but of a host: He has a word for every man. God looks for love in this world, and this, too, apart from nature. His love is not for one's friends or family alone; it is not on this principle at all. "When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, nor thy kinsfolk, nor rich neighbours, lest it may be they also should invite thee in return and a recompense be made thee." A witness for Christ is marked by that which is supernatural. There is no testimony to His name in merely natural kindness or family affection, but where there is love without a human motive or any hope of recompense, there is a testimony to Him. It is exactly so that God is doing now in the Gospel, and we are called to be imitators of God. It is not meant to be merely in making a feast or a supper, but that grace should stamp its character on all our Christian life. The whole time of the Gospel call, as we shall see farther on, is compared to a feast to which the activity of love is gathering in from the miserable of this world.

Hence, the Lord adds, "When thou makest a feast, call poor, crippled, lame, blind,369 and thou shalt be blessed; for they have not [the means] to recompense thee." How Divinely fine, yet how different from the world and its social order out of which the Christian is called! If we thus act in unselfish self-sacrificing love, God will surely recompense according to all His resources and His nature. This will be at the resurrection of the just, the great and final scene when all that are severed from the world will be seen apart from it, when human selfishness will have disappeared for ever, when they that are Christ's will reign in life by one, Christ Jesus. Anything short of this is not the exercise of the life of Christ, but of our nature in this world; and this is precisely what has no place at the resurrection of the just.

The Lord speaks here of a special resurrection, in which the unjust have no part. Not that these too do not come forth from their graves; for indeed they must rise for judgment. But our text speaks of the resurrection of life in which none can share but those who are just by the grace of God — justified, no doubt, but also just — those that practised the good things, in contrast with those that did the evil. Other Scriptures prove that these two resurrections differ in time as decidedly as in character; and the great New Testament prophecy determines that more than a thousand years separate the one from the other, though the effects for each never pass away. It is manifest also that only the resurrection of the just admits of recompense. For the unjust there can be but righteous retribution.370

Luke 14: 15-24.

Matt. 22: 2-10.

It was an unwonted sound to man. The evidently Divine grace of the Lord acted on the spirit of one of those who were lying at table with Him, who, hearing that which was far more suitable to heaven than ever was as yet seen carried out on earth, said "Blessed [is] he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God."71 Our Lord then proves that this is a great mistake as far as concerns man's readiness to answer the grace of God. Hence He puts the case in the following parable: "A certain man372 made a great supper and invited many." There was no lack of condescension and goodness to win man on God's part. His heart went out to any. He invited according to His own largeness of mercy and grace. "And he sent his bondman at the hour of supper to say to those who were invited, Come, for already all things are ready." This Gospel, like Paul's epistles, shows that God even in His grace does not forsake, in the first instance, prescribed order. So Paul, when he went to any place, went first to the synagogue; and in explaining the Gospel in the epistle to the Romans, says, "To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." (Rom. 2: 10.)

Though God has no respect of persons, He nevertheless does heed the ways that He has Himself established. This makes so much the less excusable the lack of faith on the part of the Jew. God never fails — man always. Favoured man only makes the greater show of his own unbelief. Here the message to them that were bidden was, "Come, for already all things are ready." Such is the invitation of grace. The law makes man the prominent and responsible agent; it is man that is to do this, and, yet more, man that must not do that. Man therein is commanded to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his strength, and with all his mind. But the commandment, just as it is, is wholly unavailing, because in this case man is a sinner and loveless. No law ever produced or called out love. It may demand but cannot create love; it is not within the nature or power of law to do so. God knew this perfectly; and in the gospel He becomes Himself the Great Agent. It is He that loves, and who gives according to the strength of that love in sending His only begotten Son with eternal life in Him — yea, also to die in expiation for sin. Law demonstrated that man, though responsible, had no power to perform. He was incapable of doing God's will because of sin; but his pride was such that he did not, would not, feel his own incapability, or its cause. Were he willing to confess it, God would have shown him grace. But man felt no need of grace any more than his own guilt and powerlessness to meet law. So he slights the call to come, though all things are now ready,

"

And all

"

(says the Lord Jesus) "

without exception began to excuse themselves

." No doubt these were the Jews — the persons who were bidden. "

The first said unto him, I have bought land and I must go out and see it; I pray thee hold me for excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee hold me for excused

."

Not that these things were in themselves wrong; they are the ordinary duties of men. It is not a person who is too drunk to come, or one living in misery in consequence of his grossness, like the prodigal son; but these might be decent, respectable men. They were engrossed in their own things, they had no time for the supper of grace. God invited them, having prepared all things for them; but they were each so preoccupied that none had heart or care for God's invitation. Is not this a true picture of the condition of man — yea, of man who has the Bible, of Christendom no less than Judea? It is an unbelieving excuse founded on alleged duties, certainly on present material interests. But what blindness! Does eternity raise no questions? Not to speak of judgment and its awful issues, has heaven no interest in man's eyes? If Christ or God be nothing, is it nothing to be lost or to be saved?

These are evidently serious questions, but man goes off without the moral courage to seek an answer from God. Here those bidden despised His mercy and grace, as they felt no need of it for their own souls. They lived only for the present. They blotted out all that is really admirable in man according to God's grace. They were living only for nature in its lowest wants — the providing what is necessary for food or for pleasure. The commonest creature of God, a bird or a fly, does as much; the meanest insect not only provides food, but also enjoys itself. Does boastful man by sin degrade himself to be in profession no better than a butterfly, in practice far worse? "Another said, I have married a wife, and on this account I cannot come." He did not even say, "I pray thee hold me for excused." His wife was an excellent reason in his eyes for refusing God's invitation.373 It was a question of a family in this world, not of God hereafter. It is clear that the real root of all unbelief is the absence of sense of sin, and no glory given to God. There is no sense of what God is, either in His claims or in His grace.

Again"The* bondman came up and brought back word of these things to his lord. Then the master of the house in anger said to his bondman, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring here the poor and crippled, and blind, and lame."374 Such is the urgent message of grace, when the proud refuse and God presses it on the most despised. Still we have before us the streets and lanes of the city. I think the Lord had Jerusalem as yet in view, though not put forward distinctly. At any rate, it was that which was orderly and settled in the world: only the despised and the wretched are now the express objects of the invitation. The busy great had slighted it; the lawyers and scribes, the teachers and Pharisees, were indifferent if not opposed. Henceforth it became a question of publicans and sinners, or anybody that was willing, however wretched. "And the bondman said, Sir, it is done as thou hast commanded, and there is still room." Then comes a third message. "The lord said to the bondman, Go out into the ways and fences, and compel to come in, that my house may be filled." Thus we have the clear progress of the Gospel among the Gentiles; and this too with the strong earnestness of Divine mercy.375 "For I say unto you, that not one of those men who were invited" (none of those who had the promises, but trifled with them when they were accomplished) "shall taste of my supper."

*"The": so Edd. following ABD, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat. Memph. Aeth. Arm. EXΓΔ, etc., Syrr. have "that."

Thus the whole case is brought before us, but with remarkable differences from the view given in Matt. 22. There it is much more dispensational. Hence it is "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son." All savours of this: the king, the king's son, the marriage feast — not merely a feast, and again the massages and his action attest it. The first mission there represents the call during Christ's ministry on earth; the second was when the fatlings were killed — that is, the work was done. This is followed by the judgment that fell upon those who despised the Gospel message and maltreated the servants. "The king was wroth and sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned up their cities." There is not a word about this in Luke. It was well that it should be brought forward in the Gospel that was intended for the warning as well as the winning of the Jew. And there only was it written. The destruction of Jerusalem befell the Jews because of their rejection of Christ and of the Holy Ghost in the preaching of the apostles finally. Again, it is only in Matthew that we have the case of the man who was present without a wedding garment, setting forth the advantage that an unbelieving man would take of the Gospel in Christendom, where we have the corruption of those who bear the name of the Lord, and their presumptuous pretension to be Christians without the slightest reality, without a real putting on of Christ. Need I say how common that is in Christendom? All this is left out in Luke, who confines himself to the moral dealings of God.

Luke 14: 25-35.376

Matt. 10: 37f.

On the Lord's departure great multitudes go with Him, to whom He turns with the words, "If any man come to me, and shall not hate 377 his Own father, and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters; yea and his own life too, he cannot be my disciple." They might have thought that at any rate they would treat the Lord better than His message — so little does man know of himself. The Lord would not permit that the multitude then following Him should flatter themselves that the at least were willing to partake of the supper, that they were incapable of treating God with the contempt described in the parable. So the Lord tells them what following Himself involves. The disciple must follow Christ so simply and decidedly that it would seem to other eyes a complete neglect of natural ties, and an indifference to the nearest and strongest claims of kin. Not that the Lord calls for want of affection; but so it might and must look to those who are left behind in His name. The attractive power of grace must be greater than all natural fetters, or any other claims of whatsoever kind, over him who would be His disciple. And more than this: it is a question of carrying one's cross and going after Him. "Whoever doth not carry his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple." It is not enough to come to Him at first, but we must follow Him day by day. Whoever does not this cannot be His disciple. Thus in verse 26 we see the forsaking of all for Christ, and in verse 27 the following Christ with pain and suffering and going on in it.377a

Again, the Lord does not hide the difficulties of the way, but sets them out in two comparisons. The first is of a man intending to build a tower, who had not the wisdom to count the cost before beginning. So it would be with souls now. Undoubtedly it is a great thing to follow Jesus to heaven, but then, it costs something in this world.378 It, is not all joy; but it is well and wise to look at the other side also. Then the Lord gives a further comparison. It is like a king going to war with one who has twice as many forces. Unless I am well backed up, it is impossible for me to resist him who comes against me with twice my array; much less can I make head against him. The inevitable consequence of not having God for us is, that when the enemy is a great way off, we have to send an ambassage and desire conditions of peace. But is it not peace with Satan, and everlasting ruin? "Thus, then, every one of you who forsaketh not all his own possessions cannot be my disciple." A man should be prepared for the worst that man and Satan can do. It is always true, though not always apparent; but Scripture cannot be broken, and in the course of a disciple's experience a time comes when he is thus tried one way or another. It is well therefore to look all thoroughly in the face; but then to refuse Jesus and His call to follow, not to be His disciple, is to be lost for ever.379

Matt. 5: 13; Mark 9: 50.

The Lord closes all with another familiar allusion of everyday life. "Salt [then]* is good; but if the salt also† has become savourless, wherewith shall it be seasoned?"379a There is shown the danger of what begins well turning out ill. What is there in the world so useless as salt when it has lost the one property for which it is valued? "It is proper neither for land, nor for dung; it is cast out." It is worse than useless for any other purpose. So with the disciple who ceases to be Christ's disciple. He is not suited for the world's purposes, and he has forsaken God's. He has too much light or knowledge for entering into the vanities and sins of the world, and he has no enjoyment of grace and truth to keep him in the path of Christ. The expression "men cast it out" is perhaps too precise. It has a virtually indefinite meaning: "they cast it out" — i.e., it is cast out, without saying by whom. Savourless salt becomes an object of contempt and judgment. "He that hath ears to hear let him hear": (Matt. 11: 15.) how solemn the call to conscience!

*["Then"]: so Tisch. following BLX, 69, Memph. Treg. brackets. Other Edd. omit, as ADERΔ, etc., 1, 33, Syrr. Amiat.,

†"Also": so BDLX Syrrcu pesch. It is omitted in AERΓΔ, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrsin Memph.

LUKE 15*380

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 339-345.

In the latter part of Luke 14 we saw the Lord's terms, if I may so say, to the multitude that was following Him. There He laid down that, except a man came to Him hating father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he could not be His disciple. "And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple." Thus first He insists on a thorough break with nature, and next that this shall continue. Hence in His illustrations He sets forth the need of purpose and the danger of undertaking such a business. A man is sure, otherwise, to leave the work undone. And how would it fare if a king with double your forces should come against you? The moral of all this is that man is insufficient, and that God alone can enable a man to quit the world for Christ and to keep following after Christ. The worst of all is to renounce Him after bearing such a name — salt that has lost its savour.

Luke 15: 1-2.

Nevertheless His words drew to Him the outcast and degraded, too wretched not to feel and own their need. The tax-gatherers and sinners, instead of bearing a repulse, were coming near, immensely attracted, to hear what they felt to be the truth, and what conscience bowed to, though they had never heard it before. They heard, indeed, that which they could not but perceive levelled the pretensions of proud men. For the Pharisees and scribes had no notion of following Jesus any more than of coming to Him. They deified self in the name of God. It was their own tradition they valued; and if they seemed to make much of the law, it was not because it was of God, but because it was given to their fathers and identified with their system. Their religion was a settled setting up of self — this was their idol. Hence they murmured at the grace of Christ toward the wretched. For the ways of Christ, like His doctrine, levelled all and showed, according to the subsequent language of St. Paul, that there is no difference. No doubt the man who is in quest of his own passions and pleasures will neither go to Christ nor follow after Him: still less will he who has got a religion of his own on which he plumes himself. Grace goes down to the common level of ruin that sin has already made. It addresses man according to the truth; and the truth is that all is lost. And where is the sense of talking of differences if people are lost? How blind to be classifying among those who are cast into perdition! To be there at all is the awful thing — not the shades of distinction in ways or character that may be found among those who are there. The tremendous fact is that, having all equally sinned against God and lost heaven, they are all equally consigned to hell.

But there is that also in the sayings of the Pharisees and scribes which shows that they, too, felt the point of the truth, and what they resented most was grace. For they murmured saying, "This [man] receiveth sinners380a and eateth with them." Indeed He does; it is His boast. It is the going out of Divine love to receive sinners. And it was His grace as a man that deigned to eat with them. Had He not done so, with whom could He have eaten at all? But in truth, if He deigned to eat with men, He did not choose His company. He had come down and been manifested in the flesh expressly to manifest the grace of God; and, if so, He received sinners and ate with them.

Luke 15: 3-7.

Matt. 18: 12-14.

The Lord answers in a parable — indeed, in three. But the first of them is that which we will look at now. He puts the case of a man — of themselves — having a hundred sheep. "if he loses one of them, doth he not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness381 and go after that which is lost until he find it?" He appeals to them: not one of them but would go after his lost sheep and seek to recover it. With us, indeed, it is not a question here of our going in quest of Christ, but of the man Christ Jesus, the good Shepherd, going after us — that which was lost. Supposing a man has ninety-nine that did not so urgently call on his energetic efforts, he can leave the sheep that abide in comparative safety. The one that is in danger is that which draws out his love until he finds it. "And having found382 it, he layeth it upon his own shoulders rejoicing." It is evidently the work of the Lord Jesus that is set forth here. Who can fail to recognize in it the mighty manifestation of Divine love which characterized Jesus? It was He Who came, He Who undertook the labour; it was His to endure the suffering unto death, even the death of the cross; it was He Who found and saves the lost sheep; it is He Who lays it on His shoulders rejoicing. Whose joy can be compared with His? No doubt the sheep does reap the benefit; yet assuredly it was not the sheep that sought the Shepherd, but the Shepherd the sheep. It was not the sheep that clambered on His shoulders, but He that laid it there with His own hand. And who shall pluck it thence? It was all, all His work. It was the sheep that strayed; and, the longer it was left to itself, the farther it got away from the Shepherd. It was the work of the Lord Jesus, then, both to seek and to save.

But further, He has His joy in it, though it goes forth far beyond the object of His care. "And having come to the house, he calleth together the friends and the neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep." It is altogether to forget the fullness of love that there is in God and in Christ Jesus our Lord, to suppose that it is merely a question of the sinner's need to be saved or his joy when he is. There is a far deeper joy; and this is the foundation of all proper worship. In fact, our joy is not the mere sense of our own personal deliverance, but our appreciation of His delight in delivering us, His joy in our salvation. This is communion, and there can be no worship in the Spirit without it. And such seems to be the bearing of what is figuratively set forth in the parable as described at the close. "He calleth together the friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep."

Thus the heart of man that feels the comfort of recovering what belongs to him could apprehend in some measure how God has joy in saving the lost. At any rate, Christ appeals to the one to vindicate the other. "I say unto you, that thus there shall be joy in heaven for one repenting sinner,382a [more] than over ninety and nine righteous, such as have no need of repentance." But man as such does not rejoice when his fellow turns in sorrow and self-judgment to God. This is not the feeling of the earth where sin and selfishness reign; but assuredly it is the mind of heaven. What joy there is over the repenting sinner! Angels sang at the good news of grace to Israel and to man above all. And so do they rejoice still, as we may fairly gather from the later words of our Lord Jesus. Here it is more general. The manifold wisdom of God in the Church is the continual object and witness to the principalities and powers in heavenly places; the Lord here gives us the assurance that a repentant sinner gives the keynote of joy on high. There are no murmurers there; it is universal delight in love. Is it so with us? Yet we have a new nature not less but more capable of appreciating the joy of grace, not to seek of ourselves, knowing the need of a sinner and the mercy of God's deliverance in Christ as no angel can.

Remark in the last place that it is joy "for one repenting sinner," not exactly over his salvation. It is joy over a soul brought to confess its sin and judge itself and vindicate God. We are apt to be more occupied with the deliverance from imminent danger. In short, we are apt to feel for the human side far more than we enter into God's moral glory or His grace. The joy in heaven is over the repenting sinner.

Luke 15: 8-10.

To my mind it is impossible to avoid the conviction that these parables have a root in God Himself as well as a reference to His operations on the heart of man. As we saw that the first is a most clear prefiguration of Christ's work (the Shepherd being the well-known figure that He Himself adopted to set forth His interest and His grace for those that need Him), so also in the last parable there cannot be a question that the father sets forth God Himself in the relationship that He establishes by grace with the returning prodigal. There is also another sense of that relationship with the elder son, whose self-righteousness was so much the more glaring because of his want of respect and love for such a father, though known, no doubt, on a lower ground.

But if this be so, how can we avoid the conviction that the intermediate parable has a similar connection and that the woman has a propriety and a peculiar fitness, just as much as the shepherd and the father? If, therefore, the shepherd represents the work of the Son of God come as Son of man to seek and to save that which was lost, and if the father shows the relationship in which God reveals Himself to him who is brought back to Him and who learns His love within the house, we cannot doubt that the woman must set forth the ways of God working by His Spirit." We know that the Spirit now particularly deigns, not only to act in man, but also in the Church, and this may account for the fact of the figure of the woman, a woman being habitually used to set forth the Church of God. However this may be, that in some form or another under the woman is set forth the activity of the Spirit of God cannot be questioned. So we shall find that all the details of the parable fit in with this view.

"

Or, what woman having ten drachmas, if she lose one drachma,384 doth not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek carefully till she find it?

" Now we find the lost creature is represented, not by a sheep, which, if it has life of a certain sort, has it only to go astray; not by a man, who is at last, after having perverted all that God gave him, brought into intelligent enjoyment of God; but in this parable the lost piece of money is an inanimate thing, and this is most fitted to express what a lost sinner is in the mind of the Spirit of God. He not only slipped aside, though capable of being the object of a new action by grace outside self to find him; but meanwhile the soul is but a dead thing spiritually, with no more power to return than the missing piece of silver. The propriety, therefore, of this coin being used to represent the sinner where there is evidently not the slightest power to go back to God, where it is utterly helpless, where only the Holy Ghost can avail, is manifest. But the woman does not so easily reconcile herself to. the loss of her piece of silver. She lights a lamp, sweeps the house, and seeks diligently till she finds it. The lamp clearly sets forth the testimony of the Word of God; and this it is particularly in the use of the Spirit of God. The Lord Jesus Himself and God as such are thus spoken of. But it is the Spirit alone who, as we know, brings it home to the heart in conscience or peace, when we are brought to God. The Spirit has the character of agency very peculiarly, and in this agency employs the word. The lamp, therefore, is said here to be lit. But that is not all. The woman sweeps the house and searches diligently till she finds it. There is painstaking love, the removal of obstacles, minute working and searching. Do we not know that this is pre-eminently the part God's Spirit is wont to take? Do we not remember when truth was powerless to reach us? The Lord Jesus is rather the suffering Saviour; His mighty work assumes that form. The Holy Spirit of God is the active agent in the soul. The Father freely gave according to His infinite love and counsels. Having in Himself the deep enjoyment of love, He would bring others, in spite of their sins, to be righteously without them, in order to make themselves happy in the enjoyment of Himself. But the Spirit of God, just as beautifully, engages Himself in activity of effort and ceaseless painstaking, till the lost thing is found.

"

And having found it, she calleth together the friends and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma, which I had lost

."

In every case, whether it be the Son, or the Father, or the Holy Ghost, there is communion. We know that our communion is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ; but it cannot be less familiar to the believer that there is the communion of the Holy Ghost. This is what appears to be set forth here at the close of the second parable: the spreading of universal joy among those who enter into the mind of God. "She calleth together the friends and neighbours, saying, Rejoice with me." Thus on all sides is real delight, every person of the Godhead having His own appropriate place and part in the wonderful work of redemption, but, further, deep Divine joy in the result of redemption. "

Thus I say unto you, There is joy before the angels of God for one repenting sinner

."

It is not here generally in heaven, but joy in the presence of the angels of God. They enter into it. They may not have the same immediate concern in it, but it is in their presence; and they delight in it ungrudgingly and unjealously without being the parties to derive direct or personal results from it. Their joy is in what God delights in, and hence in what He is to the creatures of God. What a new scene of enjoyment, too — joy among those who had been lost to God, and enemies to God! "There is joy before the angels of God for one repenting sinner."

Vv 15: 11-32.385

We have seen the Lord Jesus in His work set forth by the shepherd, and the more hidden but at the same time the active, painstaking operation of the Spirit of God, no less necessary in order to bring home the work to men in both giving the light to see and also searching them out. Now we have in the third parable the effect produced; for the work is not merely conversion or pardon, and therefore Nothing that is done in this way would suffice unless there was the full bringing of the soul to God and also into fellowship with Him, the new and intimate relationship of a son by grace. This is what the third parable accordingly sets forth. And hence it is no longer a sheep or a piece of money, but a man. It is there that we find intelligence and conscience, and so much the more guilt. Such is man's case. The first Adam had a certain relationship to God. When he was formed out of the dust, God dealt with him in tender mercy and gave him special advantages in Eden, privileges of every suited sort. But man fell from God, as the prodigal here left his father's house.

In a general way this is represented by a certain man who had two sons. "And the younger of them said to the father, Father, give to me the share of the property that falleth [to me]. And he divided unto them his living." There was the point of departure, the first and main step of evil. There is scarce anything in which men are apt more to mistake than in what the true nature of sin consists. They measure sin by themselves instead of by God. Now the desire to have one's own way at a distance from God is positive sin and the root of all other sin. Sin against man is sure to follow; but sin against God is the mainspring. What more evident denial of Him in works than to prefer one's own will to His?

The younger son then (which makes the case the more glaring) said to his parent, "Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me." He wished to go away from his father. Man would be at a distance from God, and this in order to be the more at ease to do what he likes. "And he divided unto them his living." Man is tried — he is responsible; but, in fact, he is not hindered from having his way, God only keeping the upper hand for the accomplishment of His own gracious purposes. Still, as far as appearances go, God allows a man to do what he pleases. This alone will tell what sin means, what the heart seeks, what man is with all his pretensions, and the worse the more he pretends.

"

And after not many days the younger son gathering all together went away into a country a long way off, and there dissipated his property, living in debauchery

."

There was eagerness to get away from his father. It was, as far as his will was concerned, a complete abandoning of his father to do his own pleasure. He wished to be so thoroughly at a distance as to act according to his own heart without restraint. There, in a far country, he wastes his substance with riotous living. It is the picture of a man left to himself, doing his own will in this world, with its ruinous consequences for the next as well as this. "

But when he had spent all, there arose a violent famine throughout that country, and

he

began to be in want

." Such, again, is the picture, not only of the active course of sin but of its bitter issues. Sin indulged in brings misery and want. There is a void that nothing can satisfy, and the selfish waste of all means only makes this to be more felt in the end.

So, in the extremity of distress, "he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine." Now we find the sinner's degradation; for love is not there, but self is. The citizen does not treat him as a fellow-citizen, but as a slave. There is no slavery so deep or degrading as that of our own lusts. He is treated accordingly; and what must this sound to a Jewish ear? He is sent into the fields to feed swine. "And he longed to fill his belly with the husks386 which the swine were eating; and no one gave unto him." He is reduced to the lowest degree of want and wretchedness; yet no man gives to him. God is the giver, man grudgingly pays his debts, if he pays them: never to God, only half-heartedly to man. But no man gives: so the prodigal found.

Now we begin the work of God's goodness. He comes to himself, before he comes to God."387 "And coming to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have abundance of bread and I perish here* by famine." It is God giving him the conviction of his state. Hence his feeling is that even those who have the lowest place in his father's house are well and even amply provided for compared with him.

*"Here": so Edd., after BDL, some cursives (1), Syrr. Old Lat. Vulg. Memph. The word is not in APX, etc., nor in most cursives (as 33, 69).

His mind was made up. "I will rise up and go to my father, and I will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven388 and before thee;* I am no longer worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." The last words betray the usual legal state. It is one who conceives that God must act according to his condition. This grace never does. He had wronged his father, he had been guilty of folly, excess, and lewdness; and he could not conceive of his father doing more for him at best than putting him in the lowest place before him, if he received him at all. He felt that he deserved humiliation. Had he judged more justly, he would have gathered that he deserved much worse; that the more favoured he was, seeing that he was so guilty, he must be put away — not merely go away, but be put into outer darkness where should be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.

*Before "I am no longer," EG, etc., most cursives, Syrr. have "and," which Edd. omit, after ABDK. etc., 1, Old Lat. Sah. Memph.

But although there was this wrong reasoning, at bottom there was at least a real sense, however feeble, of his sin, and, what was more and better, a real sense of love in God the Father. If he could only see Him, hear Him, be with Him! He rises accordingly and comes to his father, "but while he was yet a long way of, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell upon his neck and covered him with kisses."

It is not the son who runs; but, even though a long way off, the father saw him. It was the father ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. The son would not have dared to have done so, still less would he have expected his father to do so. But grace always surprises the thoughts of men, and therefore reason can never find it out, but rather denies and opposes and enfeebles it, qualifying it, putting clogs and fetters on it, which only dishonour God, and do not alter the truth, but most surely injure the man. The father, then ran389 and fell on his neck and kissed him. Not a word about his wicked ways! and yet the father it was who had wrought secretly, producing the conviction of his own evil and the yearning after his own presence.

Further, it was the father who deepened all that was of himself in his own soul immensely, now that the prodigal was come to him. It is not true, therefore, that by not putting forward the evil in this case our Lord implied that the father was indifferent to the evil, or that the prodigal son was not to feel his outbreaks or his fleshly nature.389a Surely it should be so much the more, because it was allowed him to judge himself and the past in the light of unspeakable grace. "And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee: I am* no more worthy to be called thy son." He cannot say more. It was impossible in the presence of the father to say "Make me as one of thy hired servants."†390 It was well, as far as it went, to acknowledge that he was no more worthy to be called his son. It was unqualifiedly right to say, "I have sinned against heaven and before thee"; but it would have been still better if he had said not a word about anything of which he could be worthy or unworthy. The sad truth was, that he was worthy of nothing but bonds or death. He deserved to be banished for ever — to be driven out from the presence of his father.

*E, etc., 33, 69, Syrr. have "and I am n. l.," which Edd. reject, after ABD, etc., Old Lat. Memph.

†W. H. add these words in brackets: after BD, etc., Syrhcl Aeth,, which Tisch. and Treg., both of whom cite Augustine, followed by Weiss and Blass, reject as interpolation from verse 19. They are supported by ALΔ, etc., Latt. Syrrsin pesch hier. See further, note 390, in Appendix.

Grace, however, does not give according to what man deserves, but according to Christ. Grace is the outflow of love that is in God, which He feels even towards His enemies. For this reason He sent His Son, and He acts Himself. All must now be of the very best, because it must be in accordance with the grace of God and the gift of Christ. "Bring out* the best robe, and clothe him in [it], and put a ring on his hand, and sandals on his feet,391 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry." The younger son had never worn the best robe before; the elder son never did wear the best robe at all. The best robe was kept for the display of grace.

*"Bring out" so APQ and other later uncials, all cursives, Sah. Syrr. Recent Edd. adopt "Quickly b. o.," as BDLX, Syrsin Old Lat. Goth. Memph. Arm. Aeth. This addition Treg. brackets.

The two sons, therefore (of course, the prodigal before his return), do not represent children of God in the sense of grace, but such as have merely the place of sons of God by nature. Thus Adam is said to be so (Luke 3). All men are spoken of similarly in that sense — even the heathen — in Acts 17: 28, as being endowed with a reasonable soul as men, and as having direct personal responsibility to God in presence of His favours and mercy. It is also doctrinally affirmed in "one God and Father of all" (Eph. 4: 6).

But then, sin has completely separated men from God, as we have seen in this very parable. Grace brings into the nearer and better relationship of "sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26.) The prodigal only enters this state when he at length comes back to his father, confessing his sins and casting himself upon Divine grace.391a The best robe, the ring on his hand, the shoes on his feet, the fatted calf, all these belong, and belong solely, to the relationship of grace, to him who is born of God by believing in the name of Jesus. It is God magnifying Himself to the lost. "For this my son was dead,"' and has come to life, — was lost, and has been found. And they began to be merry."

It is important to note this common joy. It is not only that there is personal blessing for the heart that is brought back to God, but there is the joy of communion, which takes its rise in and its strength from God, whose joy in love is as much deeper than ours as He above us. Nor is it now only in heaven as we saw before, but there is the effect produced on earth, both individually and also in other hearts; and the great power of it all is, after all, communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ, which the Holy Ghost sheds abroad — His love shed abroad in the heart, no doubt, but issuing also in communion with one another. "They began to be merry."

But here we have a farther picture,393 "And his elder son was in the field; and as, coming up, he drew nigh to the house "he heard music and dancing." The joy of true Christian worship, of living fellowship in grace, is unintelligible to the natural heart. This was what struck repugnantly the ears of the elder son. "And having called one of the servants, he inquired what these things might be." He could have understood debt, he could have urged right, he could see and pronounce on failure; but he did not scruple to judge God Himself, as we shall see. The servant "said unto him, Thy brother is come, and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and well." But he became angry, and would not go in. "And* his father went out and besought394 him." His heart was outside the home of his father, nor did he breathe the spirit of the love that was being shown to the returned prodigal. He was a stranger to grace, so he had no part in all this joy. He was pursuing his own things. No doubt he was active and intelligent "in the field," in the world, away from the scene of Divine mercy and spiritual joy.

*"And": so Edd., after ABDL, etc., 1, 33, Old Lat. Goth. Memph. Arm. E and most of the later uncials, nearly all cursives (69), Syrr. Amiat. and Vulg. have "therefore."

When, therefore, the servant told him that his brother had come, and of the way the father had received him, he showed his aversion on the spot, and yet more the more he heard what made the others happy. Grace was to him most irksome and even hateful. Doubtless he took the ground of righteousness, though he had none — plenty of talk and theory, but nothing real. His father comes out in the fullness of love and entreats him. "And he, answering, said to his* father," with that kind of pious, or rather impious, indignation against Divine love which belongs to and does not shock the natural mind, "Behold, these many years I serve thee [hollow and wretched service!]395 and never have I transgressed a commandment of thine [the unhappy sinner had no sense of sin!] and to me thou hast never given a kid, that I might make merry with my friends." Thus he was bold enough to judge the father as the self-righteous shrinks not from judging God. To the thought of the unbeliever He is hard and exacting. There is utter blindness as to all the favours of God, total insensibility of heart as well as conscience. "But when this thy son, who has devoured thy living with harlots, is come, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf." There is manifest dislike of grace and its ways. He does not call the prodigal his brother,395a but tauntingly "thy son." And though it was what the father had given, he calls it "thy living," in every case putting the worst aspect forward.

*"His": so Treg., W. H., after ABDG, etc., 69, Syrsin. Tisch.: "the," after O, Goth. Memph. Arm.

Truly the patience of God is as wondrous as His love. Hence the father perseveres: "But he said unto him, Child [for nothing can exceed the tender mercy of the father, even to the unthankful and the evil, the ungrateful and rebellious son],396 thou art ever with me, and all that is mine is thine." It was just the place of the Jew under the law. But it is the same position that every unconverted man in Christendom takes who is endeavouring to walk after the flesh religiously. It is just so that the natural man in these lands thinks and speaks. And no doubt the Jews had the chief place, and indeed the only place, that God claimed in this earth. All other countries God had given to the children of men, but His land He had reserved for Israel. He had brought them to Himself through redemption of an outward sort and put them under law. The same principle is true of any self-righteous man who is in his way endeavouring to be good and serve God, but insensible to the truth that it is mercy that he wants and delivering grace. "It was right to make merry and rejoice." Wonderful thought! God Himself delighting in the joy of grace and putting Himself in it along with others. "Truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ."

Notice again, "Because this thy brother was dead and has come to life again, and was lost and has been found." "Thy brother" is to be observed. God is not in any way disposed to allow the denial of proper relationship. Hence one of the sins that will draw out the last judgments of the Jews is not merely their base ingratitude toward God, but also their hatred of the grace He is showing to the poor Gentiles in their wretchedness and sin. This we find strongly put by the Apostle Paul: "Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. 2: 16). They cannot endure that others, does of the Gentiles, should hear the Gospel of grace, which their pride of law induced them to despise for themselves.397

LUKE 16: 1-13.*398

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 345-348.

The Lord here addresses His disciples.399

The last chapter consisted of parables spoken to the publicans and sinners that drew near to hear Him in the presence of the murmuring Pharisees and scribes. They had for their object to show how the sovereign grace of God makes the lost to be saved, and in this the mind and temper of Heaven in contrast with the self-righteous of the earth.

Now we have a weighty instruction for disciples. It is no longer sinners shown the way to God, but disciples taught the ways which become them before God, and this in view of the judgment of the world, more particularly of the elect nation. The Jews were now losing their special place. The peculiar privileges of Israel had wrought no deliverance for themselves or for the earth. Contrariwise they had caused the name of God to be blasphemed among the nations. They had been untrue to God; they had been ungracious and even unrighteous to man. The Lord accordingly sets forth in a parable the only wisdom which suits and adorns those who understand the present critical condition of the world.

"

There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and he was accused unto him as wasting his possessions

." This had been done by man, of course, in general, but by the Jew especially, as being the most favoured and therefore under a more stringent responsibility. He was not only a man, but a steward. There was a trust reposed in the Jew beyond all others; and most justly was he accused of wasting his master's goods. What had he done for God? He ought to have been a light in the earth; he ought to have been a guide of the blind; he ought to have been a witness of the true God. But he fell into idolatry when God was displaying Himself in the temple in the Shekinah; and now he was about to reject God Himself in the person of the Messiah,. His Son — a still more profound and gracious display of God. Thus he had altogether lost his opportunities, and wasted the goods of his Master. He had brought shame on the law of God, and the living oracles into contempt through his own vanity and pride.

Hence, in the parable, the master called the steward, and said to him, "What [is] this that400 I hear of thee? Give the reckoning of thy stewardship, for thou canst be no longer steward." The Jew was about to sink down into the level of all other nations, just as in the Old Testament times we hear that God had pronounced him Lo-ammi as set forth in Hosea. Then the last hope was gone, when not only Israel was swept away, but Judah became faithless to the true God. This was confirmed when the returned remnant in the days of Christ proved no better — rather worse. There was a feeble body which represented the Jews who returned from Babylon, and, it might have been a nucleus for the nation; but, instead of this, they were more and more hardened against God, till all ended in their rejecting the Messiah and the Holy Ghost sent. down from heaven.

"

And the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord is taking the stewardship from me; I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg

." He had no power; for the law rather provokes evil ways than gives good. "But what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8: 3f.) On the other hand, the Jew was ashamed to beg. He was unwilling to take the place of a lost, good-for-nothing sinner, entirely dependent on God, looking up that God might do and give what he could not. Alas! the indomitable pride of the Jew rose up in rebellion against God's sentence of his impotence.

"

I know 401 What I will do, that when I shall have been removed from the stewardship I maybe received 401a into their houses

." This was prudent, and the precise point of earthly wisdom in the parable which the Lord commends for our admonition. Well for the Jew had he adopted it! "

He called each of his own lord's debtors, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord! And he said, A hundred measures [baths] of oil.402 And he said unto him, Take thy bill and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then he said to another, And thou, how much owest thou? And he said, A hundred measures (cors)403 of wheat. And * he said unto him, Take thy bill and write eighty

."

*Before "he says," ADP and some versions have "and." Edd. omit, after BLR, 13, 69, Amiat., Memph.

Thus plainly the steward assumes the title to sacrifice the present in view of the future. He acts with the utmost liberality with his master's goods. No doubt it cost him little or nothing. Nor is it the honesty of the step but its prudence which his master commends. He reduced the debt of the first one half, of the second considerably. He thus bound by his favour and leniency these debtors to himself; that, when he was turned out of his place, they might receive him into their houses. There is no ground to suppose that the parable makes light of his dishonesty. He is especially branded as the "unjust steward." Such really was the position and character of the Jew; they were all unrighteous in the sight of God. But had they done what the steward does when about to be discharged? No! He looked forward to the future, and acted at once upon the conviction. Were they not, on the contrary, absorbed in the present? Is not this the great snare of men, and of the Jew as much as others, to sacrifice the future for the present, not the present for the future?

"

And the lord404 praised the unrighteous steward, because he had done prudently. For the sons of this age404a are in respect of their own generation404b more prudent than the sons of light

." They look onward, though it be only on the earth, for they have a keen sense of their best earthly interests; but for the soul, for heaven, for Christ's love, for God's nature and will, men are apt to allow the smallest of present advantages to blot out all just thought of the future. This is an important consideration for our hearts as disciples. What the Lord is insisting upon is that the present — so fugitive and fallacious — is not the real prize for us; that the future — the eternal future — is the thing to consider, and that it should govern the present. For we cannot walk rightly as disciples unless filled with the sense of what is to be, not carried away by what is. What is it that spoils the testimony of disciples now? That they are living chiefly for the present moment. If circumstances guide, what can such be but as governed only by what is wished? This ruins, not merely the sinner as such, but the disciple, because he is only living for himself and the circumstances of this life. It is impossible to glorify the Lord thus. Let us hear His will and wisdom in this parable.

The unjust steward, as here portrayed, though bad in other respects, was wise in this, that he looked out steadily for the future; so that, when he lost his stewardship, he might be received kindly by the men whom he had befriended. For this it matters not that the goods were his master's rather than his own; indeed, we may see the deepest wisdom in the parable as it is, when we come to the application to our own practical conduct. For the only means whereby we can thus look out for the future is by reckoning what people — what self — would call ours, the resources of our master. We have nothing whereby to secure the future, except we use all as belonging to God. But this is the victory of faith, that instead of looking with a natural eye at the present moment, we resolutely contemplate the future, and act accordingly. Then, instead of seeking to hold fast what we have for ourselves, we learn to use all freely as in truth belonging to God. So assuredly those do who gain that which is future and eternal. Hence we find the Lord applies the illustration thus: "And I say unto you,405 make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness,405a that, when it fails,* ye may be received into everlasting habitations."405b  Are you thus making to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness? Instead of keeping money as something precious, treat it as what it really is.

*"It fails": so Edd. after pm ABpm DL, etc., Syrrsin pesch Memph. Arm. Aeth. Cyr. Alex. It has beyond doubt preponderant authority over "ye fail" [T.R. after corr EP, etc., Vulg. Clem. Alex.]; but it is difficult to see its superior force or even propriety (B.T.).

Observe that the Lord gives here an ignominious name to the objects man covets — money, property, and everything of the kind. He calls it, not only mammon, in itself a word of ill omen, but "the mammon of unrighteousness."  He heaps plentiful disdain upon it; just as the apostle Paul counts all that man values most, even religiously as the vilest refuse which should be kept or thrust out of doors. This is a great point; for Saul of Tarsus had not always been disposed thus to sacrifice the present in view of the future. His place as a Jew, his tribe, his family, his earthly thoughts and feelings, his personal advantages, he once estimated as much every way to cherish. But when he viewed them in the light of Christ and of that glory to which he was hastening, he counted them but dung. (Phil. 3: 8.) Who would ever think the earth at its best an object to look back on, when they have the glory before their eyes? Who would talk of getting rid of dung as a great sacrifice? Certainly everything, yet in religion too, of which men are apt most to boast, Paul calls dung; such he counted it, and sob to the last, for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord. Was not this really to act in the wisdom of the steward, not in his injustice, but in his looking out and onward? In Paul's case it was heavenly wisdom; and the love of Christ was its source and spring.

The meaning of the words "that they may receive you" is simply "that ye may be received into everlasting habitations." Just so the apostle says: "That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead." (Ibid., verse 10f.) This answers to being received into everlasting habitations when all that is of earth fails. To be received there is what should be of concern to the heart that loves the Lord and His will. There is no stress to be laid on the form of the phrase "they may receive you." This has misled not a few. Literally this might hold good on earth, as we see in verse 4, but spiritually it simply means "that ye may be received." Compare Luke 6: 38, Luke 12: 20; the first wrongly rendered in the Authorised Version, the last rightly. God alone receives into heaven: no one else has a title to receive there. The expression alludes to the parable, but is used with the utmost vagueness. It is a virtual impersonal — "that reception may be given you into the everlasting tabernacles."

Let us not over-estimate these sacrifices of the present, but imitate the apostle who shows how little he values the best things that earth honours. So our Lord Jesus here says, "He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much."405c (Cf. Matt. 25: 21, 23.) The smallest thing affords a sphere in which one can glorify God; but there must be the disregard of the present in the light of the future. It is something to be generous in money matters; it is very much more to love the Church, and be devoted to the Master, suffering with Him and for Him. But there are countless ways in which He may be magnified. "He that is unrighteous in the least is unrighteous also in much." Yet, as all know, little things constantly test our reality. Many a man might not be dishonest about a thing of great value, but he might make too free in what is petty. There cannot be a greater fallacy than decrying a severe judgment formed about moral failure in matters of little pecuniary value, as it were making much ado about nothing, whereas it is in small things often that a man's true character is best known.

"

If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true?

" The true riches cannot be entrusted where the heart has been false in that which is so trifling in the Lord's eyes as "the unrighteous mammon." 406 Nor is it only that present honour and riches are not "the true," but the mere counters of the hour. There is the further consideration: "

If ye have not been faithful in that which is another's, who shall give unto you your*407 own?

" Present property is not strictly one's own. The whole course of the Christian here is really that of one acting for another, even Christ. We are servants in trust for the Lord. The Christian ought to regard his time, his money, his abilities, his property, as the goods of his Master; and his business is to serve his Master, faithfully carrying out His will. This is of immense importance; because covetousness consists in endeavouring to make earthly things which God has not given your own. The wisdom of the disciple is to count what appears to belong to him as really his Master's.

*"Your own": so Blass, with AD, etc., all cursives, the Latt. Syrrpesch hcl hier Memph. Goth. Arm. Aeth. Hort, followed by Weiss, favours "our own," the reading of B and L. See, further, note 407 in Appendix.

Now, it is easy to be generous with another's money. Count your riches another's and act with all possible liberality in faith of the future. We should thus judge by faith what we have to be Christ's, and then be as free with it as the unjust steward was with his master's goods. Those who enter heaven are not men hard and grasping, as if by possessing more than is needed, a man's life consists of his substance. No doubt the natural spirit of man cleaves to what it counts its own (and perhaps particularly of the Jew), as if the present moment were of all importance. But the true wisdom is to be like the steward in his steady resolve to secure the future by acting freely with what belonged to his lord. When the glory comes, we shall have what is our own. What a wonderful truth, that the wide scene of Christ's glory in which we shall reign with Him will be ours! Then we shall bear power and glory without abusing it; now we can only safely use what we have by counting it Christ's and using it according to His will.

"No servant can serve two masters." If I have not Christ for my Master, I shall make myself so; and the moment we set up our own will, we find ourselves in Satan's service, for the fallen will is Satan's slave. "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and will love the other, or he will cleave to the one and despise the other." In the first we find the stronger case. With a man warm in his feelings everything is apt to be extreme. The other case supposes a person of feeble character. But in one way or another, whatever the character, to attempt this double service is fatal. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." (Matt. 6: 24.) Alas! mammon is the real ecumenical idol; it is the object of widest homage — not only in the world, but, grievous to add, in Christendom. By its own confession (witness the popular prize of that title) mammon now reigns supreme in the hearts of men generally throughout these lands professing the name of the Crucified, who most of all despised and denounced it.408

Luke 16: 14-18.

Next the Pharisees, not the disciples, come before us. They are characterised here as covetous.409 It is not their forms or their legalism but their love of money which was touched by the doctrine of the Lord to the disciples; for after they had "heard all these things," they "sneered at him." The evil against which the disciples were warned was at work in the Pharisees without a check. This state was not less corrupt than haughty.

"

And he said unto them,

Ye

are they who justify themselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which amongst men is highly thought of410 is an abomination before God

." Not so those who are justified before God by faith. Such do not justify themselves before men any more than before God, unless so far as they allow nature, and slip from their own ground of faith. Nevertheless, they are not free from the snare of covetousness; so far as they are influenced by the thoughts of men, they are exposed. "Men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself." (Ps. 49: 18.) The intense selfishness of the heart naturally prefers its own care to that of God: thence is a link of worldly sympathy with the men of this age. Let us therefore beware, for "that which among men is highly thought of, is an abomination before God." No evil more common in the religious world of our own day as truly as in our Lord's. Ease, honour, influence, and position are as highly valued as ever, to the infinite disparagement of the truth. Any one can see how strongly the word of God rejects all these conditions of fallen Adam, and how incongruous they are with the cross of Christ. And they are only a worse abomination where men essay to join such worldliness with heavenly truth.

The Lord next insists upon the crisis that was come. For this, too, adds its emphasis to His rebuke. What is morally true may become more urgently a duty, and such is the fact in the case before us. The religion of the world always takes the ground of Pharisaism; it assumes more or less the present favour of God, and that worldly rank and prosperity are to be taken as a sign of it. Faith looks away from present things since sin came into the world, and each successive step in God's ways is but afresh confirmation of faith. "The law and the prophets [were] until John: from that time the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are preached,"' and every one forceth his way into it." It was in vain, therefore, to rest all upon the law and its rewards to faithfulness. In fact, they had broken the law; and because of this, indeed, were given the prophets, who reproved their iniquities, laid bare the actual state of ruin, and bore witness of a wholly new condition, which would end the present by judgment and introduce a new state, never to pass away. John Baptist, as the immediate herald of the Messiah, insisted on repentance in view of the immediate advent of Christ. This sweeps away all the self-righteousness of man. It is not that the law is not good; the defect lay not there, but in those who, being sinful, felt it not, but assumed to make out a righteousness of their own under law. "Since John's time," says our Lord, "the glad tidings of the kingdom of God are preached." It is not here as in Matthew 11: 12: "The kingdom of the heavens is taken by violence and the violent seize on it." There it is a question of the true hope of Israel, and the necessity of breaking through all that opposes faith. But here it is much more ground opened to man if he believed. "The kingdom of God is preached, and every one forceth his way into it." "Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through their faith. Do we then make law void through faith? Far be it. Yea, we establish law." (Rom. 3: 29f.) Thus the great apostle. So here the Lord says, "And it is easier that the heaven and the earth should pass away than that one tittle of the law should fail." (Matt. 5: 18.) Neither the truth nor faith enfeebles the law; rather do they maintain its authority over all that are under it as well as its intrinsic righteousness. Certainly our Lord not only honoured it to the highest degree, but gave it the weightiest sanction; 412 for He obeyed it perfectly in His life and was made a curse according to it in His death.

But those who while under it hope to stand on that ground before God do really destroy its authority, without intending or even knowing it. For they hope to be saved under law, though they know they have broken it and that it calls for their condemnation. And even those who, "being justified by faith," take the law as their rule of life at the least impair its authority and so put dishonour upon it. For what does the law denounce on those who fail to do the things that it demands? Does it not threaten death on God's part? And have they not failed to keep it? It is in vain therefore to plead that they are' justified persons: the law knows no such distinction. Justified or not, if they fail, do they not enfeeble its solemn threats?

How, then, does the truth set forth the deliverance and maintain the holy walk of the believer? Not by the notion most erroneously taught in the common text of Romans 7: 6: "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held." For the law is not dead. if so, the words of our Lord would be falsified; and not only one tittle of the law but the whole of it would have failed before heaven and earth pass away. But this is notoriously inexact, not only in the Authorised Version, but in the received Greek text, where one letter makes the difference between truth and error. The English margin is right. It is we who are dead to the law, not the law to any. The believer is shown to be dead with Christ, in Romans 6, to sin, and in Romans 7, to the law, "that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." The truth, therefore, is that, even had we been Jews, we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, instead of living under it as our rule. And the very argument of the apostle is founded upon, or at least illustrated by, the principle that one cannot belong to two husbands at the same time without adultery. "If, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress"; if death come in, she is no adulteress though she belong to another man. And so it is with the Christian, for we now belong to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Deliverance from law is essential to true Christian holiness. Excellent as the law is, its rule is to curse the lawless and disobedient; it "is not made for the righteous man" (1 Tim. 1: 9) which every believer is; it is a rule of death for the bad, not of life for the good. Christ only is Life and the Light of life for the believer.

And does it not seem most striking that in the very next verse our Lord uses the same allusion on which the apostle reasons in the beginning of Romans 7? "Every one who putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and every one that marrieth one put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Matt. 5: 32; Matt. 19: 9 Mark 10: 11f.) Undoubtedly both principles apply to the literal fact most truly and in the letter. But can one doubt the connection with the verse before and the context? If so connected, it is a striking instance of the one Spirit throughout Scripture; if not so, it is exceedingly hard to understand why such a statement should close the Lord's words on this subject.413 No doubt the Jews allowed divorce for frivolous causes and marriage after such a divorce, and in both encouraged adultery.414 I cannot but think there is more in the connection here.

Luke 16: 19-31.415

We have seen the conclusion of the earthly state of things; the Jew, who had wasted his master's goods, losing his stewardship; the character of those who receive heavenly things; the close of all the earthly testimony and the necessity of a new one; the kingdom of God preached, which alone was gain (that or nothing); the attempt to keep the old thing being exposed as altogether evil in the sight of God.

This is followed up by the rich man and Lazarus — I was going to say by the parable, but the Lord does not so say, though it has this character, as it seems to me. It puts in a most vivid manner the condition of the soul viewed in the light of the future, not yet of Gehenna, but of torment in Hades. The light, therefore, of the future even before the judgment is let fall upon present things to judge them. "There was a rich man and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, making good cheer in splendour every day." According to a Jew's notion a good fortune, as men say, was happiness. The Jews regarded such prosperity as a mark of God's favour. His name was not to the Lord's mind worth recording, the beggar's was. The rich man had all that heart, or, rather, really flesh, could desire; and he gratified it. But it was all selfish enjoyment: God was not in it, nor was there even care for man. All centred in self. This was put to the proof and made evident by "a poor man named Lazarus,416 [who] lay at his gateway full of sores, and desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell * from the table of the rich man."416a For him it was little more than desire. The rich man cared not for him, but for himself; the dogs were more considerate, and rendered him better favour than their master. They came and licked his sores.

Such was man, such the Jew in present life, according to his thoughts of earthly good; but when death comes, when that stands revealed which was beyond the grave, the difference at once appears in all its solemnity. Then we have things in their true light. "And it came to pass that the poor man died." And how different! There is not a word of his burial: perhaps, indeed, he was not buried; but he "was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom,"417 the place of especial blessedness according to a Jew, in the unseen world, with the most honourable of God's servants waiting on him.

*"With the crumbs which fell": so corr APXΓΔ, etc., nearly all cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrr. Amiat., Memph. Goth. Aeth. Edd. follow pm BL, Sah.: "with what fell."

"

The rich man also died, and was buried

." Here there might be splendour of retinue and ample show of grief in the eyes of men. But "

in Hades

418

lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom

." This is not a picture of the final state of judgment, but of a certain condition after death. This is of great importance. Luke gives us both, confirming what is seen in the Old Testament* and even adding to it. He gives its full prominence to the resurrection elsewhere; but here it was of consequence to know what would be even now for man's profit here below. In Hades, then, "lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he seeth Abraham afar off." We are not judges, save so far as Scripture speaks and we are subject to it, of what is entirely outside our experience. How far those who are lost can have the knowledge of the condition of those who are saved, it is not for as to pronounce on. Scripture is plain as to the distance between them. There is no mingling of the two together. But what would be incredibly distant to man living on the earth may be simply far off to those in the separate state, and the difference between them mutually known. Lazarus, then, according to the Word, was seen in Abraham's bosom by him who was in torment. "

And he, crying out, said, Father Abraham, have compassion on me: and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame

."

*I lay no stress on the bare fact or statement that man became "a living soul," but on the momentous difference of the way in which man alone, according to the Scripture, became such. What purpose had Jehovah Elohim in breathing into the nostrils the breath of life? To say that the fallen child of Adam derives the immortality of his soul. from Christ as distinct from this, or in any way but this, does not to me seem sound doctrine; it rather approaches the crochet of the learned but eccentric H. Dodwell. (B.T.)

Thus we have clear proof that, even before the judgment, the wicked man is in torment.411 Figures no doubt are employed, but these founded on that which would be most intelligible to us. It is through the body that we feel the world. From this the Lord takes figures in order to be understood by those whom He addresses in presenting according to His own wisdom the case of the unseen world. There at least the departed rich man has the sense of the need of mercy. It is well to see that this man does not in any way take the place of an infidel. There is no faith in him assuredly, but still he talks of "Father Abraham"; and though he has never looked to God for mercy, he sees that there at any rate the richest mercy was enjoyed in Abraham's bosom. He asks him, therefore, to send Lazarus that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue. What a very small favour this had been once! utterly despicable — a drop of water, and above all, sent by such as Lazarus! it would have been detestable to him on earth. But the truth appears when man has left this life. Do we, then, hear while on the earth what the Lord says?

"I am suffering in this flame." He who tells us this is Jesus; and we know that He is truth, and that these are true sayings of God. Abraham's answer, too, is most noteworthy. "Child" (says he, for he does not repudiate the connection after the flesh), "remember that thou* hast fully received thy good things in thy lifetime, likewise Lazarus evil things; but now here† he is comforted, and thou art in suffering." He who was of Satan had good things on earth; he who was born of God received evil things here. The earth as it is gives no measure for the judgments of God: when Jesus comes, and the Kingdom is set up, it will be different. But the Jew and men in general have to learn that it is not so now, and that, before He comes, there is still the solemn truth that men show by their ways here how little they believe such words of God as these. But when they die, they will surely prove the truth of what they refused to hear in this world. "Now he is comforted here, and thou art in suffering."

*"Thou": so EXΔ, etc., 1, 33, have the emphatic σύ, which Edd. omit, after BDL, etc.

†"Here": so Edd., following ABD, etc., Syrr. Memph. Sah. Arm. Aeth. The omission in T. R. is supported by a few minuscules (1) only.

It is not the day of Messiah's public Kingdom. Luke lets us see what is deeper even than it, both in good and ill, the unseen portion of the righteous, as well as that of the unjust.420 "And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm is fixed, so that those who desire to pass hence to you cannot, nor do they [who desire to cross] from there pass over unto us." The severance between the good and evil in the intermediate state is incalculably great and fixed. There is no passing from one to the other. The notion of possible mercy in the separate condition is absolutely excluded by Scripture. It is the mere dream of men who wish to cling to evil as long as they can, or at least to enjoy themselves in this world, who therefore despise the warnings of God, being bent on holding fast or acquiring good things here, and utterly careless of the solemn lesson furnished by the rich man and Lazarus. "Between us and you a great chasm is fixed," says Abraham — between the departed righteous and those who die in their sins the separation is complete — "so that* they who desire to pass hence to you cannot." Still less can any pass to Abraham that would come from beyond the gulf. In every way such change is impassible.421

*Dean Alford here as elsewhere renders ὅπως as if it were exactly like in order that."  I believe this to be a mistake in fact; and philologically it is a false principle that two words radically distinct in the same tongue ever mean precisely the same thing. (B.T.)

Thus, as no possibility of change remains for himself, he turns his attention to his family —  "And he said, I beseech thee then, father, that thou wouldst send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, so that he may earnestly testify unto them, that they also may not come to this place of torment."422 But the answer of Abraham brings out another grand truth from the Lord's mind — the all-importance of the Word of God, and this, too, even in its lower forms. The New Testament undoubtedly has fuller and perfect light; but the Old is no less inspired. "But* Abraham saith to him,† They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." Still he pleads: "Nay,423 father Abraham, but if one from the dead should go unto them they will repent." The answer of Abraham is decisive: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, not even if one rise from among [the] dead will they be persuaded."

*"But": so Edd., after ABDF, etc., Amiat. Memph. It is omitted  - by E and 69.

†"To him": so Blass, with AD, Latt. Syrr. Memph. Other Edd. reject, as BL.

There is no proof that can succeed for eternity where the Word of God is rejected. Such is the testimony from the unseen world. I do not deny that, for this world, there may be conviction pressed by crushing judgments of God; but the tale before us is in view of present things before the Kingdom comes, and during this state of things there is no conviction so profound, no proof so deep, as that which is rendered by the Word of God. In fact also our Lord's own resurrection seals the truth of His words. For what so evident proof of the total failure of any other means to arouse man? Though He rose from the dead, out of the midst of a band of armed men set to watch as we know, men were not persuaded, least of all the Jewish priests and elders, who only hardened themselves more completely. As one portion of the people set themselves against the Lord during His life, the rest were equally chagrined by the truth of His resurrection. Thus all the people manifested their unbelief. It was bad to prove their want of sympathy with the only righteous One here below; it was, if possible, worse to refuse the testimony of grace which had raised Him from the dead and sent the message of salvation in His name. This Israel did.

But there was even more than this, and sooner. A Lazarus did proceed from the dead not long after at the call of Jesus, and many of the rich man's brethren came to see him when so raised. But, far from repenting, the chiefs at least, yea the chief priests, consulted together that they might put Lazarus also to death, as well as Him whose resurrection power only provoked their deadly hatred, instead of persuading them to hear Moses and the prophets.424

Hence the rich man who had departed, careless of the truth before man during his life, had no doubt received the due reward of his deeds; but those who rejected the testimony of Christ risen from the dead fall into a still greater gulf. Thus all the people are judged. The only light for the benighted soul, the only testimony that brings eternal life to the dead sinner, is the Word of God, received by faith.

LUKE 17: 1-4.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 349-355.

The chapter opens with instruction which follows from what we have already seen. The Jewish system was judged. It was to be left entirely behind. Present favour and earthly prosperity were no test's of God's estimate. That which is unseen will entirely reverse the actual condition of things. Lazarus quits the world for Abraham's bosom, the rich man is afterwards tormented in hell; but from both the infinite moment of the Word of God is seen for every soul.

Here the Lord lets the disciples425 know the certainty of stumbling-blocks in such a world as this, and the awful doom of those who cause them. "It would be more profitable426 for him if a millstone* were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea," (Cf. Matt. 18: 6f.) says the Lord about any one so offending others. Hence we have to take heed to ourselves, as His disciples; and while guarding against being caused to stumble by others, we have to cherish the grace of God which is as essential to Christianity as the law was to the Jews as their rule. "Take heed to yourselves; if thy brother should sin, rebuke him; and if he should repent, forgive him." (Matt. 18: 15.) It supposes that there is an evil course and current in the world, which may affect every one's brother; but grace is never intended to weaken the moral reprobation of what is evil. "If thy brother should sin, rebuke him; and if he should repent, forgive him."

*"Millstone": so Edd. after BDL, 1, 69, Old Lat. Memph. Arm. In Matt. 18: 6, and Mark 9: 42, it is millstone turned by an ass," as here in A, etc., Syrr..

Repentance is a great word, altogether contrary to the bent of human will. Man may make efforts, but will never repent. Only grace gives real repentance, which, when used in its proper sense, means simply and invariably the judgment of self. Now, this man will never bend to. Amends he may offer, he may endeavour to do good, and repair the evil: but to own self thoroughly wrong without qualification, reserve, or endeavouring to throw the blame on others, is never the nature of man, but the result of the working of Divine grace, and true, therefore, of every soul that is truly renewed. It is impossible for a sinner to be brought to God without repentance. Faith, no doubt, is the spring of all; it alone gives power by the revelation of grace in the person and work of Christ; but repentance is the invariable consequence or concomitant. And so it is in particular cases, as here in trespass, as, "It he should repent, forgive him." This was more especially needful to urge on a Jew, accustomed as he was to severity. And further, grace would hinder one from being wearied any more by ill-doing in others than in well-doing on our part. "If he should sin against thee* seven times in the day, and seven times† should return to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him."Matt. 18: 21f.) It is seven times as showing the failure complete, and in a day, too, as adding to the trial. To men's minds this would indicate the hopelessness of any good in forgiveness. But it is so that God deals with us: He is unwearied in His grace. If it were not so, it would be all over with us, not only when in our sins but even as believers.426a

*"Sin." DXΓΔ, etc., most cursives (33, 69), add "against thee," which Edd. omit, following ABL, 1, Syrr. Amiat. Memph.

†"Seven times (second time). AGD, etc., most cursives, Syrr. Amiat. Aeth. add "in the day"; rejected by Edd. after BDLX, most Old Lat. Memph. Arm.

Luke 17: 5-10.

Cf. Mark 10: 24.

Nevertheless the apostles (for so it is expressed here for our instruction) — "the apostles said to the Lord, Give more faith to us." They felt that such a demand was entirely beyond them.426b "But the Lord said, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard [seed] ye had said unto this sycamine tree,427 Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea; and it would have obeyed you." (Matt. 17: 20; Matt. 21: 21 Mark 11: 23.) Thus faith works what is impossible to man, to nature; and this, too, wherever there is a grain of reality, be it over so small. For whether faith be little or strong, if real, it brings in God; and God is the same God in answer to little faith as to great. There may be a great difference as regards the result for sensible enjoyment; but God answers in His grace the feeblest exercise of faith in Him. "If ye have* faith as a grain of mustard [seed], ye had said unto this sycamine tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou planted in the sea [an entire contrariety to the course of nature], and it would have obeyed you." We must always hold, as believers, the superiority of God to all circumstances.

*"Have": so Edd. as ABFL, etc., 1, 33, 69. DEGH, Old Lat. "had."

At the same time, we have a place of duty here; and the Lord reminds us, therefore, not only of the power of faith above every obstacle, but of the tone of conduct that becomes us in doing our duties, or rather when we have done them. "But which of you [is there] who, having a bondman ploughing or shepherding, when he cometh out of the field will say,* Come and lie down immediately to table? But will he not say unto him, Prepare what I shall sup on, and gird thyself and serve me that I may eat and drink; and after that thou shalt eat and drink?428 Is he thankful to the† bondman because he hath done what was ordered? ‡I judge not."§ Grace in noway weakens the duty that we owe. There are certain proprieties which we must never give up, and of which the Lord here reminds His apostles. The master in such a case does not thank the servant; it is but his obligation, the discharge of the service he undertakes, what he cannot, therefore, forget or omit without wrong.429 "Thus ye, also, when ye shall have done all things that have been ordered you, say, We are unprofitable bondmen; we have done|| that which it was our duty to do."

*"Will say." Edd. (Revv.) add "unto him," following BDLX, 1, 69, Syrr. Old Lat. Memph. Blass, with A, etc., Goth. omits.

†"The": so Edd. after corr ABDLX, Memph. EΔ, etc., have "that."

‡"Ordered." DX, 69, Amiat. Memph. add "him," which Edd. reject, after ABELΔ, etc., 1.

§"I judge not": so Weiss, after Meyer, with AΓ, etc., most cursives, most Old Lat. (33, 69), Syrr. Amiat. Goth. Other Edd., with Alford and Milligan, omit, following BLX, 1, Memph. Arm. Aeth.

||"We h. d." EXΔ, etc., have "for w. h. d." Text, as Edd., after ABDL, 1, Old Lat. Memph.

People are sometimes apt to think that the proper owning of our unprofitable service is when we do not the things commanded; so at least they speak. But the Lord teaches us to feel that we are but unprofitable servants when we have done all the things that are commanded. Not to do our duty is a real wrong to the Master; but when we have done all, it becomes us to say, "We are unprofitable bondmen, we have done that which it was our duty to do." All we are commanded is short of that which Christ deserves; and we have to do with the Christ of God. When we have done that which was our duty to do, is love satisfied? It would go further. Christ loved to obey, ever doing what was enjoined, and hence suffered to the utmost in grace to us and to the glory of God. So love is the fulfilling of the law; and in it we are now called to walk as Christ also loved us and gave Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour. We are indeed unprofitable servants; yet how rich is the place into which grace brings us even now!430

Luke 17: 11-19.

The incident that is here recorded completely falls in with what we have seen. The Spirit of God is indicating not only the break-up of Judaism but the introduction of better things, and very particularly of the liberty of grace. By and by we shall have the liberty of glory; but the saints of God are now entitled to the liberty of grace. Creation will never know this; it "will be delivered from the bondage of corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8: 21.)

"

And it came to pass, as he was going up to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst431 of Samaria and Galilee

." The scene lay in the despised quarters of the land. "

And as he entered into a certain village, ten leprous men met him, who stood afar off

."432

This is a remarkable miracle, peculiar to our Evangelist, who brings before us several incidents of similar character, that are given nowhere else. The selection of the Spirit of God, to carry forward the object He had in view in so inspiring Luke, is thereby manifest. "

And they lifted up [their] voice, saying, Jesus, Master, have compassion on us. And seeing [them] he said to them, Go, show yourselves unto the priests

." The Lord thereby exercised the faith of those addressed, while at the same time He maintained the order of the law for those who are under it. It was a requisition under the law that, if a man was cured, without saying how the cure could be, if the plague of leprosy was healed, the man must present himself to the priest and be cleansed. This was laid down with particular care and detail in Leviticus 14. It was an important requirement in this way, for it became a testimony to the power of God that now wrought on earth. For the question would naturally arise: How came these lepers to be cured? This would at once draw attention to the fact that Jesus was there, and that He was really the vessel of God's power in grace.

Hence, too, the Lord sometimes, as we read elsewhere, touched the leper. But here these men stood afar off. It was not that there was not grace enough in Christ to touch them, but their feeling according to the law was to stand afar off. It was perhaps right in them that it should be so, as it was certainly the grace of His heart that made Him touch the leper who prostrated himself at His feet. So we see in Mark 1: 41. These men, however, standing afar off, lifted up their voice and prayed for His mercy; and His answer was, as with a leper always, "Go show yourselves unto the priests."

But there was another notable feature brought out in the present case, if there was no touch as the sign of the power that removed the leprosy without contracting. defilement, which could only therefore be the power of God, which was above the law, even while He maintained the law. In this case there was a trial of faith, so much the more because they were afar off, and they were bidden to go and show themselves to the priests, without such words as "Be ye cleansed." The Lord did not use that expression in every case, as far as Scripture records. Hence it was, as they went, they were cleansed. They had to go first. They felt nothing the moment they were bidden to go. It was "as they were going they were cleansed."

"

And one of them, seeing

that he was cured

" — for this could not be hid — "

turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice

." Surely this is highly remarkable, though given here only. The lepers were told to go and show themselves to the priests: one of them, and one alone, turned back, when he saw that he was healed, "

glorifying God with a loud voice, and fell on [his] face at his feet, giving him thanks. And he was a Samaritan

."432a We have grace therefore in this place for the worst. But the lowest object of grace is very often the one who enters most into the fullness of grace in God. He may be the neediest among men; but the very depth of his need shows what God is; and hence grace is often seen and enjoyed more simply by a long way than by others who might boast of much better privileges. Certainly it was so here. This Samaritan was far more simple in his thoughts of God, and at once concluded what Jesus must be, not perhaps definitely and distinctly as to His personal glory. At least, he was quite sure that Jesus was the best Representative of God's power and grace in that land. If, therefore, he was to show himself to any one, he would go to Him; if he was to glorify God, it must surely be at the feet of Jesus. He, consequently, who was the farthest removed from the formality of the law and ritual, could all the more readily go straight to Jesus.

"

And Jesus answering said, Were not the ten cleansed? but* the nine, where are they! There have not been found to return and give glory to God, save this stranger

." Now, this is most worthy of our consideration. The Lord Jesus accepts the thanksgiving of this man as being the peculiar token of his faith. The others had equally received a blessing; it was not that they were not thankful, but this man alone had returned to give glory to God, this stranger. The others might show themselves to the priests, carrying out the letter of the word of Jesus; but this stranger's heart was right and his spiritual instinct was of faith. There is nothing good for the soul without the sense of the glory of God. The Samaritan might not have been able to explain, but his heart was thoroughly true and Divinely guided. He was therefore far more right than others who seemed to reason better. The other nine might plead that he was presumptuous, disobedient, and not, like them, acting on the word of the Lord; for Jesus had distinctly told them they must go and show themselves to the priests; whereas he without any express command had turned back to show himself to Jesus, and give thanks at His feet. And appearances favour unbelief.

*"But": so BLX, etc.; AD omit, as Nestle after Tisch., W. H., who questioned it.

But Jesus vindicated him in coming and approved the boldness of his faith, which acted at once on what he instinctively felt to be due to the Lord Jesus. What is still more striking, the Lord says to him, "Rise up and go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole." There is not a word of showing himself to the priest now. He had found God in his soul. He, in the healing of his leprosy, had proved the gracious power of God, he recognised it in Jesus, and so gave Him glory.

When a soul is thus brought to God, there is no question of showing oneself to priests on earth. Priests had their place once for those who were under the law. But when grace delivered from it (in principle only then, for it was not yet the precise time to break down the wall of partition for all), the delivered soul could not possibly be left, still less put, under the law. Therefore says the Lord, "Rise up, and go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole." It is a striking prefiguration of the Gentile who is not under law like the Jew (never was, indeed), and who, when brought to God by His grace now and cleansed from all his defilements, is certainly not put under law. As the apostle says, "Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace." (Rom. 6: 14.) He was to go his way in liberty of heart. This is the calling of a Christian. Christ does not call to the bondage of law. He makes us His freemen, though no doubt also bondmen to Himself. This is a very different thing from being under law, which the Christian is not, even if he had once been a Jew.

Luke 17: 20f.433

The kingdom of God was the national hope of Israel. It was before the minds of all who looked for good from God. It was bound up with the Messiah's presence. Such is the way in which the Kingdom is presented in the Old Testament. Nor does the New Testament in any way set this aside, but confirms the expectation only it discloses the Kingdom in another shape before it is introduced in power when the Lord returns in glory.

Of this, however, the Pharisees knew nothing. They demanded of Him when the kingdom of God should come, thinking only of that which is to be manifest when the Jews shall be brought back from all their wanderings, and restored in their full nationality to the land under the Messiah, and the new covenant. The Lord, as throughout Luke, shows something more and deeper, something that demanded faith, before the establishment of the Kingdom in power. He answers them therefore, "The kingdom of God doth not come with observation." This was what was morally important to know now. The Kingdom would surely come as they looked for it in its own day, and the Lord distinctly lets us see this afterwards. But first of all He insists, as was most according to God, on that which they knew not, and which it most concerned them to know: "The kingdom of God doth not come with observation," (Matt. 24: 23) or outward show.434 "Nor shall they say, Lo here, or, Lo* there; for lo, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." Of this they were wholly ignorant, and this ignorance is fatal: for it was not to know God's king, when He manifested the true power of the Kingdom in victory over Satan, and over all the results of man's subjection to infirmity in this world-when He manifested it positively in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, the dependent and obedient Man, but in the unfailing power of God which wrought by Him. To all this they were blind; they valued it not, because they valued not God. They did desire as a nation that which would elevate them, and overthrow their enemies; they did not desire that which exalts God and humbles man.

*"Lo" (Treg. text) is attested by AD and all later uncials and cursives (1, 33, 69), Amiat.; but other Edd. omit, as BL.

The Lord, therefore, in this His answer, first meets the moral need of the Pharisees, and shows that in the most important sense now, from the time of His rejection till His return in glory, it is no question of "Lo here, and lo there," but of faith to own the glory of His person, and to recognise that the power which wrought is God's. "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you." It was in their midst and they saw it not, because they saw not Him. They thought little of Jesus. This is ruin to every soul who hears but refuses the testimony.435

It will be observed that it is the kingdom of God, not of heaven. It is never said, while Jesus was here, that the kingdom of heaven was come; but Matthew confirms this report in Luke, were that needed, and represents the Lord as saying (Matthew 12: 28), "If I by [the] Spirit of God cast out the demons, then, indeed, the kingdom of God is come upon you." The character of the power proclaimed God's kingdom. He was victor of Satan, and cast out his emissaries: none but the Seed of the woman, the Son of David, could do this. It was reserved for Him. (Matt. 28: 18.) Others might, as God's servants, but He, as the Beloved, in whom His soul delighted. Those who cast the devil out, by God's gracious use of them, were their judges. Satan is not against Satan: else his kingdom would fall. But Messiah was there then, the King of God's kingdom, yet the Jews recognised it not. They rejected Him and He accepts His own rejection, but is exalted in heaven. Thence the kingdom of heaven begins, the rule of the heavens over the earth, now only known really to faith, the responsibility for those who are baptized to walk accordingly. Indeed, thus comes what is commonly called Christendom, the great field where not only wheat but tares grow together. It is, of course, also called the kingdom of God, as always in Luke. Matthew alone speaks of the kingdom of heaven, but he never speaks of the kingdom of heaven save as preached or promised, until the Lord left the earth. In short the kingdom of God was there when Christ was there, the conqueror over Satan, and exhibiting in every direction morally the power of the Spirit. But the kingdom of heaven was not there till from heaven He introduced His rule over the earth.436 When He returns in glory, it will he still the kingdom of heaven: the rule of the heavens will never be lost, certainly not when the Kingdom comes in power and glory.

Luke 17: 22-24. Matt. 24: 23f.

But the Lord next addresses the disciples, and says, "Days are coming when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see [it]."437 Here He can speak freely of the future form of the Kingdom, of which alone the Pharisees thought. The disciples had received the Lord by faith; and, however little intelligent they might be, they apprehended the kingdom of God among them. Hence the Lord could give them Divine light as to the future, when He should establish the Kingdom visibly. "Days are coming when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see [it]." He opens to them His rejection, as well as the efforts of Satan during his rejection. "And they will say unto you, Lo here; or, Lo there. Go not nor follow [them]." (Verse 23.) False Christs should arise; but they were forewarned. "For as the lightning which lightening from [one end] under heaven shineth to [the other end] under heaven, thus* shall the Son of man be in his day."† There will be no question of "Lo here, or, Lo there when Christ comes again any more than when He was here. It was unbelief to say, See here, and See there, when Christ was present in the power that revealed Who He must be and was. It will be unbelief by and by to say, See here, and See there; for the Kingdom will be established in power. They were not to follow such rumours but to heed His Word. He returns not merely as the rejected Messiah, but as the Son of man, the exalted ruler of all nations, peoples, and tongues. His Kingdom shall be manifested under the whole heaven as He comes from heaven.''''

*"Thus." D, with some minuscules, adds "also," which Edd. reject, after ABL, etc., 1, 69, Syrr. Amiat. Memph.

†"In his day": so AL, later uncials, most cursives and versions (Syrrcu sin: "the day of the S. of m."). Blass omits, following BD, Old Lat.

Luke 17: 25-30.

Matt. 24: 37-39; Mark 8: 31.

"

But first he must suffer many things and be rejected of this generation

." This was in principle going on then; the Cross would be its consummation. The moral order is thoroughly according to God: first must He suffer. So we read in 1 Peter 1: 11 of the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow. It must be so in a sinful world for one who seeks not his own glory, but God's, and the real and eternal good of man. It would be impossible to take the Kingdom when man is in a state of sin and rebellion. In grace, then, He accepts the rejection which was inexcusable on their part: and in His rejection He accomplishes atonement. Hence God can righteously introduce the Kingdom with many a rebel pardoned. Only this goes on now whilst He is gathering out the Church, before the Kingdom is set up in visible power. "First he must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." The Christ-rejecting generation was then and continues right through. In the crisis of the latter day, at the end of the age, this generation will still be there. "This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." In the millennial age there will be a new generation who shall praise the Lord and glorify Him for His mercy. But "this generation" is a perverse one, children in whom is no faith. Such were and are the Jews; and such will they abide, till judgment shall have dealt with the mass, who will have fallen into an apostate state and have accepted the Antichrist, leaving only the true remnant  - who shall become a strong nation, the "all Israel"  - who "shall be saved" in that day.439

The Lord next refers to the days of Noah: so should it be in His own days when He comes as the Son of man. It is no question either of receiving the Church or of judging the dead, though the latter will follow at the end, as the former precedes. Here it is distinctly the judgment of the quick on the earth, a truth which has very generally passed out of the mind of Christendom. "They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all [of them]." This cannot refer to any but those alive upon the earth surprised by the deluge. "And in like manner as took place in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded." There was progress in the world; civilisation had advanced, but was it better morally? "But in the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed all [of them]." Men too easily forget that a judgment incomparably more comprehensive, but after the pattern of these two Divine interventions, awaits the world, and more particularly that part of it which has been favoured with the testimony of God. There can be no delusion more ruinous than the notion that because there is much good in the midst of Christendom its doom will not come. The Lord lingers in order to save souls. Such is His long-suffering and grace, but He "is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness." (2 Peter 3: 9.) When His own are gathered out, judgment will proceed so much the more sternly because His grace was seen, its fruits manifested, and His warnings given in vain. As it was then in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot,  - "after this [manner] shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed." For the Lord speaks only of His revelation from heaven in the judgment of the world, not at all of translating the saints to be with Himself in the Father's house.440

Luke 17: 31-33.

Matt. 24: 17f.

"In that day, he who shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not go down to take it away; and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back." It is no question of the destruction of Jerusalem,441 any more than that of the final judgment; and it is absurd to apply it to death. But the mind of man is fertile in expedients to parry the blows of the truth. It is a testimony which keeps the advent of the Lord Jesus to judge the habitable world ever hanging over the heads of careless men.

"

Remember Lot's wife

."

This is a moral touch for those who might seem safer than others, but are not saved. It is peculiar to Luke, and a most searching word for every one whose face and heart are not steadily fixed on the Lord, for she was very near to Lot and seemed to have passed out of all reach of judgment. But her heart was in the city to which she looked back, and she heeded not the admonition of God's messengers, but in her destruction proved the truth of the word which she believed not."' "Whosoever

shall seek to save

* his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose it shall preserve it." 443 There is no security any more than real happiness save in faith, and faith is ever obedient to the Word of the Lord.

*"To Save" (σῶσαι): so ARXΓΔΛΠ and yet later uncials, most cursives, Vulg. —  Blass reads "to preserve" (ζωογονῆσαι) with D. Other Edd.: "to acquire," as BL and some Old Lat.

Luke 17: 34-36.

Matt. 24: 40f.

"

I say unto you, in that night there shall be two [men] upon one bed* one shall be taken444 and the other let go.

Two [Women] shall be grinding together; the one † shall be taken and the other let go." Here again the proof is complete and palpable, that it is no question of the Remains dealing with Jerusalem and the Jews, for the conqueror made no such discrimination among the conquered, nor is it any other providential judgment executed by man, for he is incapable of thus distinguishing. But it is not so with the Son of man, who will thus judge between cattle and cattle whether among the Jews or among the Gentiles.

*"One bed": so most copies. BC omit "one." "One" (Treg.) Blass retains "the one" of T.R., with B, 1, 69.

†"The one": so Elzevir (1624) with corr. BDR, 1, 69 (Edd.).

Judged by the witnesses, verse 36 would appear to have no sufficient authority in our Gospel, but seems plainly to have been imported from the Gospel of Matthew, where it finds its just place.*

*Cf. the uncials DU alone, the Syrr. (including sin.) and most Old Lat. have this verse (Elzevir), Edd. in general reject (from Matthew).

Luke 17: 37.

Matt. 24: 28.

"

And answering they say to him, Where, Lord? And he said to

them, Where the

body [is], there* the eagles will be gathered together

." The executors of God's judgment will not fail to find themselves where an object demands it in that day. Power and righteousness are then together, and a wisdom adequate even to that great occasion. It is the day of Jehovah for the world. The area of judgment is not limited to Judea as in Matthew 24, where a similar but stronger phrase appears — and indeed there is much in common between the two passages. That the Jews may be before the Lord here, too, as the prominent persons warned, is very possible. It is always so where the dealings of God with man and the earth are found; for Israel is Jehovah's son, His firstborn. When the Church or Christians are in view it is not so; for there the distinctions of the Jew or Gentile disappear before Him whom we have put on, and in whom is neither Jew nor Greek. The attempt to apply the passages to the Lord's coming for us, or at least not to distinguish between this and His appearing for the judgment of man, Jew or Gentile, is, that people construe "the eagles" as "the saints"! from Ambrose and Chrysostom, etc., down to Luther and Calvin, etc., and even to Burgon and Wordsworth in our days. They are still more perplexed as to "the body," some taking it as Christ!" others as the "Church," no less than "the eagles others as "the Lord's supper"; some as "the judgment"; others as "heaven"; and none really knowing anything rightly about the matter. Most moderns take "the eagles" as "the Romans," and "the body" as Jerusalem and the Jews. This is nearer the truth, but inadequate when simply applied to the past. M. Henry thinks that "the eagles" may mean both "the saints" and "the Romans"; and Ryle thinks it very probable that all the interpretations hitherto proposed will prove at last incorrect! I have given not nearly all the opinions: but my readers will agree that I have given at least enough, and that miserable comforters are they all, especially such as think that the truth remains to be discovered only at the Second Advent. There is not much living faith in such thoughts. What a descent from our Lord's promise, in John 16: 13, now fulfilled: "When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth . . . and he will show you things to come."

*After "there," Edd. add "also," after BL, etc., 69, Memph.

NOTE. - Quotation marks agree with the author's article in "Bible Treasury," October, 1871, approved by himself, and were possibly intended to emphasise the number of conflicting interpretations.

LUKE 18: 1-8.*

* Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 355-363.

Whether the parable of the importunate widow was uttered as the sequel to the preceding discourse, I am not prepared to say; but this at least is plain, that the parable connects itself very naturally with what had just gone before, though there seems to me a more general form of the truth also (as is common with our Evangelist) so as to fit in admirably with what follows. It forms, therefore, a pendant as well as a transition.

But the connection with Luke 17 is of importance if it were only to guard from the unfounded idea that its direct application is ecclesiastical, that the widow is the Church, and the judge her God and Father in heaven. Such notions are as far as possible from the context, as well as the contents of the parable; and the error lies incomparably deeper than missing the scope of the Scripture before us. It is of the deepest moment to understand as a Divine truth, in our estimate of relationship with God, that Israel was in the position of the married wife (Jeremiah 2; Ezekiel 16) with Jehovah; whereas the marriage-supper of the Lamb is not celebrated till after the saints, changed into His likeness, are translated to heaven, and Babylon has been judged under the last vial of God's wrath. (Revelation 19.) Hence, whatever the anticipative power of faith in realising our place as the bride before the consummation, and whatever the closeness of exhortation founded on Christ's relation to the Church, the apostle speaks of betrothing us to one man or husband to present as a chaste virgin to Christ. So, on the other hand, the specific form of Israel's unfaithfulness was adultery, as we hear so often in the prophets. But it is not so in Christendom, where the grievous corruption is designated under the figure of a great harlot, not an adulteress. (Revelation 17.) The assumption that we are like Israel, the married wife, falsifies our attitude both toward our Lord Jesus and toward the world. it Judaises the Church instead of leaving her in her proper place of waiting for Christ in holy separateness from the world.

Babylon the great, who falsely arrogates this place to herself, naturally follows it up by saying in her heart, "I sit a queen and I am no widow" (as poor Zion is) "and shall see no sorrow"; and so she has glorified herself and lives deliciously. "Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death and mourning and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her." (Rev. 18: 7f.) But here have we no continuing city, though we seek one to come; and in this world we look for tribulation, and through much tribulation to enter the kingdom, being content, yea joyful, to show Christ's rejection where He was put to shame and death, and assured of appearing with Him when He appears in glory. Hence, though we suffer meanwhile with Christ, and glory in affliction, distress, and insult for His name's sake, it is not as orphans or as widowed; for we enjoy the adoption of sons to our God and Father., and are one spirit with the Lord; but for this very reason we are in the secret of the Divine counsels, and await His coming who is on high, not of the world as He is not, till the day arrives for Him to take the world-kingdom and for us to reign with Him. Thus we "reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us." (Rom. 8: 18.) Refusing to assume the air of the wife in rest and possession of His inheritance, we feel that our sorrow here is joined with the communion of His love before He comes to receive us to Himself and to display us with Himself before the world.

In short, then, the parable touches the godly Jewish Remnant rather than the Christian when we come to the exact application of the widow; and this falls in aptly with those saints involved in the judgment of the quick described just before, where one shall be taken and the other left — an earthly scene, it is plain, without a word implying translation to heaven. Still, the Holy Spirit gives the exhortation a more general bearing and with the moral purpose we have so often remarked in our Evangelist. Every saint should profit by it.

"

And he spoke also* a parable to them, to the purport that they† should always pray, and not faint, saying, There was a judge in a city, not fearing God, and not respecting man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came

445

to him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary; and he would not for a time; but afterwards he said within himself, If even I fear not God, and respect not man,

446

at any rate because this widow annoys me, I will avenge her, that she may not by perpetual coming completely harass

447

me

."

*The καί "also" [in AD, etc.] is omitted by some of the best authorities [BLM, some cursive manuscripts [13, 69, etc.], besides Old Lat.]. But, without it the reference or address is certainly to the disciples (αὐτοῖς and αὐτούς), not about other men, as in the A.V. (B.T.)

†"They": so Edd., following ABKL, etc., 69, Memph. Arm. It is omitted in DEG, etc., and many cursives (as 1).

The reflection which the, Lord adds as its second part and application makes all plain to the instructed ear. "And the lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God at all avenge his elect, who cry to him day and night, and he bears* long as to them.448 "I say unto you that he will avenge them speedily. But when the Son of man cometh, shall he indeed find faith on the earth?" It is an à fortiori analogy, which no more views the unjust judge as God than the unjust steward449 in Luke 16 means the disciple. In the two cases it is a powerful or a consolatory appeal. Jesus would encourage one always to pray without fainting if the answer seem to tarry and evil to abound. Even the unrighteous judge would rather see to the right of the most friendless and feeble than be ever stunned with appeals. How much more shall not God interfere on behalf of His elect against their enemies! It is true that He bears long as to His own; but he will avenge them soon, as all will own when the blow falls.

*"And he bears": so Edd., after ABDL, etc., 1, Syrrcu sin Arm., although "bearing" (T.R.) is found in ΓΔΛR, 69.

The attentive reader will note that the deliverance as well as the prayers are Jewish in character,* not patient grace like the Christians. It is not by their going up to meet the Lord, but by Divine judgment on their foes. Still, there is real faith in thus crying day and night to God, Who, if He delay, is not slack concerning His promises, but is bringing souls to, repentance that they too might be saved. And there is perseverance till the answer is given. When the Lord comes, there are elect saints already glorified with Him (Revelation 17: 14; 19: 14); but here they are on earth crying to God till He takes vengeance on those who wronged them. It would seem also, from the question which the Lord puts and does not answer, that faith will be rare then as in the days of Noah and Lot, when few were saved and some nearest to the saved were lost — so feeble and fluctuating the faith, too, that only He could find it.450

*I cannot agree with Mr. [Bp. J. C.] Ryle (who seems to follow, in this, "Trench on the Parables"), that Irenaeus and Hippolytus were far astray in seeing earthly Jerusalem in the widow, though it is hard to say why the unjust judge is Antichrist in particular [see note 449 in App.]. Vitringa's notion that the early Church is the widow, and the Roman Emperors the judge, is in my opinion not only more fanciful, but unsound in principle for reasons already given. There can be no doubt that the parable is meant only to encourage individuals in persevering prayer at any time.

Luke 18: 9-14.

The next section of our Gospel sets forth, first by a parable, then by facts, lastly by the words which passed between the Lord and the twelve, the characteristics which suit the kingdom of God. The connection is with this as we know it now, rather than with its display when the Son of man comes in judgment of the quick as in the preceding parable. Indeed, the exceeding breadth of the lesson about to be taught we learn in the words with which the Evangelist opens: "And he spoke also to some, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and made nothing of all the rest [of them], this parable." It is no dispensational picture of the Divine ways with Jews and Gentiles; it is a moral delineation which tells us how God regards those who plume themselves on their correctness of ways as a ground of confidence with Him, and what His estimate is of those who are broken before Him because of their conscious and now to themselves loathsome sinfulness.

"

Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee, standing, prayed thus to himself: God, I thank thee that I am not as the rest of men, rapacious, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax-gatherer. I fast twice in the week, I tithe every thing that I acquire.* And the tax-gatherer, standing afar off, would not lift up even his eyes to heaven, but was striking upon his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me the sinner. I say unto you, this [man] went down to his house† justified rather than that [other]; for every one who exalteth himself shall be humbled, and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted

."

*"Possess" is the force of the perfect. Here it is rather "to come into possession of" (κτῶμαι). (B.T.)

†"To his house": so most Edd. with mass of authority. Blass omits, as D and Sah.

The Pharisee represents the religious world in its most respectable shape; the tax-gatherer, such as had no character to lose, but whatever he may have been, now truly penitent and looking to God's compassion in self-judgment. How different are the thoughts of God from those of men! A delicate difference is implied in the two forms of the word which we translate "standing" in each case. With the Pharisee the form (σταθείς) implies a stand taken, a putting himself in position, such as one might naturally do in addressing a speech to an assembly. With the tax-gatherer it is the ordinary expression for standing in contradistinction to sitting (ἑστώς).451

Again, the essence of the Pharisee's prayer, if prayer it can be called, is not a confession of sin nor an expression of need even, but a thanksgiving; and this, not for what God had done and been for him, but for what he himself was. He was not, like the rest of men, violent and corrupt, nor even as the tax-gatherer, of whom he cannot speak without a tinge of contempt — "this tax-gatherer." He finally displays his own habits of fasting452 and of religious punctiliousness. Not that he laid false claims; not that he excluded God, but he trusted, as a ground for acceptance, to his righteousness, and he made nothing of others'. He never saw his own sins in the sight of God.

The tax-gatherer, on the contrary, is filled with shame and contrition. He stands afar off with not even his eyes raised to heaven, and beats withal on his breast, saying, "God be compassionate to me, the sinner if ever there was one."453 There is no solid reason to infer that he pleads the Atonement in the word ἱλάσθητι. No doubt the idea of propitiating is expressed by the verb; but it is used far more widely, like its kindred word in Matthew 16: 22, where no one could suppose such an allusion. Whatever the origin or usage of the word, we are not to suppose that the tax-gatherer in employing it thought of the day of atonement, or of the mercy-seat in the holiest; still less are we warranted to attribute to him an intelligence of the mighty work of redemption which Jesus was soon about to accomplish. The word might allude to propitiation; but that he did so in his crying to God thus is another matter altogether. We easily transfer to souls before the death of Christ a knowledge which, however simple and clear to us since the Cross, could not be possessed before.

And this misapprehension has led to another, that the Lord was here pronouncing the tax-gatherer justified as we are who believe in the Lord Jesus and His blood. But this is not the teaching of the passage. The strong assertion of Archbishop Trench that it is, and the fact that Roman Catholic theologians deny it, need neither allure nor deter. It is in vain to say that the sentence of our Lord is that the publican was justified by faith at the time when he is described as going down to his house. There is a distinct comparison with the Pharisee, and it is affirmed that the tax-gatherer went down justified rather than the former. Had justification by faith been meant as in Romans 3-5, no such statement could have been made. There are no degrees in the justification of which Paul speaks

the Lord implies that there are in what He speaks of. Besides the form of the word differs. He is said to have gone down, not dikaiwqeiv" absolutely, but dedikaiwmevno" . . . garj ejkei'non.*454 I do not doubt that this is the true text.†

*The perfect is used as to the state of the Christian viewed as dead with Christ to sin — discharged or cleared from it in God's sight (Rom. 6: 7). (B.T.)

† "Rather than" (ἤ): so A and all the later uncials. W.H., after Treg., adopt the neutral text γαῤ ἐκεῖνον, above or beside that (other), in BL, Old Lat. Sah. Memph. Blass adds μᾶλλον, as D. See, further, note 454, in App.

The common English version seems quite correct, though founded, no doubt, on the vulgarly received text, ἢ ἐκεῖνος. The great mass of uncials and cursives join in giving the strange reading ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος, followed even in his eighth edition by Tischendorf, spite of the Sinai MS. which casts its weight into the scale of the Vatican (B) and Parisian 62 (L), not to speak of D with its not infrequent additions, and some few other authorities.

Dean Alford shows us the danger of misapplying the case to justification, which is his own view, by the remark he adds: "Therefore, he who would seek justification before God must seek it by humility and not by self-righteousness." It is the more to be regretted that this glaring error should have been made by one who had just confessed that we are not to find any doctrinal meanings in ἱλάσθητι. It would have been more consistent not to have pressed δεδικαιωμένος similarly.455

Luke 18: 15-17.456

Matt. 19: 13-15; Mark 10: 13-16.

From the homily on lowliness in view of our sins we are now to receive another, lowliness because of our insignificance. "And they brought to him also infants that he might touch them; but the disciples when they saw [it rebuked them. But Jesus calling them to [him] said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter into it."457 (Matt. 18: 3.) The babes were of great price in the eyes of Jesus, not of the disciples, who, if not rabbis themselves, would have lowered their Master to the level of such an one in contempt of little ones. But this could not be suffered, for it was not the truth. Neither the Son nor the Father so feel toward the weak and evidently dependent. Nor is this. all: "of such is the kingdom of God." Those who enter into His kingdom must by grace receive the Saviour and His word as a child that of its, parents. Self-reliance is excluded and replaced by dependence on God in the sense of our own nothingness.

Luke 18: 18-30.

Matt. 19: 16-29; Mark 10: 17-30.

Next comes the young and rich ruler, who went away sorrowfully from Christ rather than give up the self-importance attached to his manifold possessions. "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, having done what shall I inherit life eternal? 457a And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, God.*458 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother.458a And he said, All these things have I kept from my† youth. And Jesus on hearing [this]‡ said to him, One thing is lacking to thee yet: sell all that thou hast and distribute to poor [men], and thou shalt have treasure in the heavens§; and come, follow me. But he on hearing these things became very sorrowful, for he was exceedingly rich. And Jesus having seen him [become very sorrowful]|| said, How difficult shall those who have riches enter¶ into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to enter through a needle's eye than for a rich [man] to enter into the kingdom of God."

*"One, God": so most authorities (versions and MSS.), as AD, etc., Syrr., etc., followed by Edd. in text. X and Bpm omit and thus read "one God."

†"My": so A, etc., Syrsin Latt., etc. Recent Edd. omit, as BD Syrcu.

‡["This"]: so A, etc.; but Edd. omit, following BDL, 1, 33, 69, Syrrcu sin pesch Memph.

§"The heavens": so Edd. after BD, Memph. (ALR having "heavens" without the article: so Tisch.). "Heaven" is the reading of PX, etc., Old Lat. Amiat.

||"Having seen him [become very sorrowful]": so ADΓΔ, etc., most cursives, Syrr. Old Lat. Edd. adopt "Seeing him, said," following BL, 1, Memph.

¶ "Shall . . . enter": so ADR, and later uncials in general, most cursives, Syrr. Old Lat. Edd. "do . . . enter," after BL.

The case is plain. The young ruler had no sense of sin, no faith in Christ as a Saviour, still less did he believe that a Divine person was there, which indeed He must be to save sinners. He appealed to Jesus as the best expression of goodness in man, the highest in the class in which he counted himself no mean scholar. The Lord answers him on the ground of his question. Did he ask the Lord as the good master or teacher, what thing doing he should inherit eternal life? He took his stand on his own doing; he saw not that he was lost and needed salvation. It had never occurred to him that man as such was out of the way, none good, no, not one. That Jesus was the Son of God and Son of man sent to save was a truth to him unknown. The Lord brings in the commandments of the second table: but his conscience was untouched: "All these things have I kept from my youth."458b "One thing is lacking to thee yet," said Jesus to the self-satisfied yet dissatisfied ruler, conscious that he had not eternal life and that he had no solid security for the future — "Sell all that thou hast, and distribute to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me." The conscience which had resisted the test of law fell at the first touch of Jesus. "And hearing this he became very sorrowful, for he was exceedingly rich."459

Yet how infinitely did the demand fall short of what we know and have in the Master, good indeed, God indeed, who never laid on others a burden which He had not borne,"" who bore one immeasurably greater and under circumstances peculiar to Himself, and for ends redounding to the glory of God, and with the result to every sinful creature on earth of a testimony of grace without limit, and of a blessing without stint where He is received! To the ruler it was overwhelming, impossible, the annihilation of all he valued; for indeed now it was evident that he loved his riches, money, mammon, a thing he had never suspected in himself before; but there it had been all along, discovered now in presence of and by Him Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. 2 Cor. 8: 9. The ruler valued his position and his property, and could not bear to have nothing and be nothing. Oh, what a contrast with Him who "counted it not a matter of robbery to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself, taking a bondsman's form, born in likeness of men; and who, when found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself by becoming obedient as far as death, yea death of the cross." Phil. 2: 6ff.

How plain, too, that worldly prosperity or wealth, fruit of fidelity according to the law, is a danger of the first magnitude for the soul, for eternity! And Jesus did not fail to draw the searching moral for the disciples, ever slow, through unjudged selfishness, to learn it. They knew not yet to what Christians are called, even to be imitators of God as dear children, and to walk in love according to the pattern of Christ. (Eph. 5: 1f.) It is all but impossible, it is impossible, as far as man is concerned, for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.461 "And who can be saved?" is the remark of those who heard a sentence so counter to their secret desires.462 Jesus replied, "The things that are impossible with men are possible with God."462a There, is no other hope of salvation. It is of God, not of man. Yet to save cost God everything, yea His own Son. And "if the righteous are with difficulty saved, where shall the impious and the sinner appear?" (1 Peter 4: 18.) And why wonder at the danger to a rich man through the unrighteous mammon? None can serve two masters. Happy he who through grace makes wealth to be only for Christ's service, looking to have the true riches his own in everlasting glory

Luke 18: 31-34.464

Matt. 20: 17-19; Mark 10: 32-34.

"And Peter said, Behold we have left all* things and have followed thee. And he said to them, Verily I say unto you, There is no one who hath left home, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who shall not get manifold more at this time, and in the age that is coming life eternal."463 But if Peter was thus prompt to speak of their losses for Christ, who certainly repays as God only can both now and through eternity according to the riches of His grace, "he taking the twelve to [him] said to them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things written by the prophets of the Son of man shall be accomplished; for he shall be delivered up to the nations and shall be mocked, and insulted, and spit upon; and when they have scourged him they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise again." Again, what a contrast even with the thoughts and hopes of disciples! Alas! "they understood none of these things; and this word [or matter] was hidden from them, and they did not know what was said." So it ever is where the eye is not single. By faith we understand. Where nature is still valued by saints, the plainest words of Jesus are riddles even to such.465

*"All (πάντα) and": so Treg. (text) following APRXΔΛΠ, etc., most minuscules (33), Goth. Some excellent authorities [BDL, 1, etc., most Old Lat. Amiat. Memph.] have τὰ ἴδια, "our own" (so most Edd. and the Revv.). (B.T.)

Luke 18: 35-43.

Matt. 20: 29-34; Mark 10: 46-52.

The final scene approaches. Jesus is about to enter Jerusalem and to present Himself in the flesh to the Jews for the last time. Our Evangelist slowly traces this journey (Luke 9: 51; Luke 13: 22, 31, 33; Luke 17: 11; Luke 18: 31; Luke 19: 28, 29, 37, 41), with the infinite consequences which flow from that cross which, to human eyes, was His rejection, but which faith knows to be the glorifying of God for ever, as well as the only possible ground of salvation for sinners.

Jericho held a remarkable place as the way to Jerusalem from the Jordan, and of old, when it stood in its might, the key of the position. Hence its solemn destruction under Joshua; hence the curse pronounced on him who should dare to rebuild it. But there Elisha, after the translation of Elijah and his own crossing through the miraculously parted river, healed the waters. So here the Lord, drawing towards the close of His long and last journey, after the transfiguration, performs a miracle of mercy on the blind man. It was an especial sign of His Messiahship; and rightly, therefore, led of God, did the blind man call on Him as Son of David: so the three synoptic Gospels carefully record.

It is to be observed, however, that not Mark nor Luke, but Matthew records the fact that two blind men were healed at this time. Further, Mark, who as usual adds details of the most graphic description, lets us know that the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, was thus healed as the Lord was going out of Jericho, Matthew also intimating that it was on leaving, not entering, the place. Luke, on the other hand, has been generally supposed to say that the miracle was performed on entering Jericho. So all the old English translations, Wickliff, Tyndale, Geneva, Cranmer, the Rhemish, as well as the Authorised: so the Latin, Syriac, and other ancient versions, with most moderns.

But it appears to me that the Greek phrase is so constructed as to avoid any such conclusion, and that the genuine, unforced meaning is "while he was near to Jericho." According to the usage of the New Testament there might have been ground for the objection raised, if Luke had employed the genitive absolute. In strict grammatical nicety there is nothing to tie the sense to the entry into Jericho; it means equally well, as far as language is concerned, while the Lord was in the neighbourhood.

I cannot doubt that what weighed with translators in general is the fact that Luke 19 opens with the Lord's entering and passing through Jericho. Hence it was assumed that the previously mentioned circumstance must have preceded this in time. And it must be owned if Luke, as a rule, adhered to the order of occurrence in his account, it would be most natural to translate Luke 18: 35 as in the Authorised Version. But it has been shown throughout our Gospel that he adopts another and deeper order than the mere sequence of events, and habitually groups the words, works, and ways of our Lord in moral connection, whenever it is needful to this end, putting together what may have been far apart in time.

In the present case it seems to have been in the mind of the Spirit that all three who dwell on the Galilean ministry of Christ should mark Jericho and the healing of the blind there as a common starting-point before His formal appearance in Jerusalem. We can understand, therefore, why Luke, even if the incident of Zacchaeus occurred after the miracle, should, according to his manner, postpone his account of it till he had told us of the blind man healed. But there seems to have been a yet stronger reason of a similar character in the fact that, if the healing had been introduced after Zacchaeus, when (I have no doubt) it really took place, adherence to the mere chronology of the facts would have spoilt the very impressive order actually adopted, in which we see the tale of Zacchaeus, with salvation brought to his house though a chief tax-gatherer, followed at once by the parable of the pounds, which together beautifully set forth the general character and differing objects of the two advents of the Lord, who was about to suffer as the Ground of righteousness and salvation for the lost, instead of at once establishing His throne in Zion as others fondly thought. If this were the design of the inspiring Spirit, as I conceive it certainly to be, gathered from the special character traceable throughout its course, it does not seem possible to suggest any other order so admirably calculated to convey it as that which is pursued. Hence the point in verse 35 was to choose a phrase which, while not breaking the thread of the narrative, and, of course, in words thoroughly consistent with the exact truth, should nevertheless convey the thought of a time or state during which the particular act related took place. This, in my opinion, has been done perfectly in the language of Luke: so much so that, granting the aim to be as I suppose, no man can desire better words to combine what is intimated, or to avoid a false inference for all aware of that design. If, on the contrary, men, however learned, assume a bare order of fact, this naturally would influence their translation; and so I think we may fairly account for the common mistake.

Accordingly there is no need of resorting to any of the various methods of reconciling Luke's account with Matthew and Mark. We are not driven to the harsh supposition that Luke's blind man was healed before entering Jericho, and that the news of this reached Mark's blind man, Bartimaeus, so that he went through a similar process of appeal on the Lord's exit, as Origen and Augustine supposed in early days, Greswell, etc., in our own time. Nor is it necessary (though undoubtedly quite legitimate, and the fact elsewhere) to suppose that Matthew combined the two instances in one summary. Less reasonable is the view of Euthymius, who will have it that all three instances were distinct, and, therefore, that four blind men were healed at this time near Jericho. Nor is there any substantial ground to argue, as men have done from Calvin to Wordsworth, that the blind man began crying as our Lord approached Jericho, but was not healed till another joined him outside, and both received sight as Jesus left the place. Still more violent are the hypotheses of Markland and of Macknight. The truth is that there is nothing in this to reconcile, all that being evidently harmonious, when the language of Luke is seen to be such as falls in with the time and place described more precisely by Matthew and Mark. It may be well, however, to add that Matthew elsewhere names two where Mark and Luke as here speak only of one, as in the case of the demoniacs. (Compare Matthew 8: 28-34 with Mark 5: 1-20 and Luke 8: 26-39.) See also Matthew 9: 27-31. This was all right, when the fact (as here) warranted it, in one writing especially for Jews, with whom it was a maxim to demand at least two witnesses. The other Evangelists were each led to dwell only on the one that best suited the design of his own Gospel.

It is striking also to note that as there was a reason why Matthew, and not Mark nor Luke, should record pairs which were healed, so there is the strongest indirect evidence in this against the very poor theory that the omissions of the first Evangelist were supplied in measure by the second, and yet more by the third and so on. For it was the earliest who in these instances speaks of the two; which is irreconcilable, on the supplementary theory,466 with the second and third mentioning but one. The Holy Spirit made them by His power the vessels for setting forth the various glories of Jesus the Son of God on the earth. Each had his own line given and perfectly carried out, and facts or sayings are recorded by each, whether reported by the others or not, as they bore on his proper objects.

"And it came to pass when he was in the neighbourhood of Jericho, a certain blind man was sitting by the wayside begging; 467 and when he heard the crowd passing, he asked what this might be. And they told him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by, and he called aloud, saying, Jesus, Son of David, pity me. And those in advance rebuked him that he should be silent; but he kept crying much more, Son of David, pity me. And Jesus stopped and ordered him to be brought to him; and when he came near, he asked him, What wilt thou that I should do for thee? And he said, Lord, that I should receive my sight. And Jesus said, Receive sight: thy faith hath healed thee. And immediately he received sight, and followed him, glorifying God. And all the people saw, and gave praise to God."

The Lord was still the rejected One, not understood even by His disciples, yet with a heart towards the most lowly and wretched in Israel who cried to Him in faith. The blind man near Jericho was one of them, and seized the moment of His presence, made known to his sightless eyes by the heedless noise of those who seeing saw not. Blindness in part had happened to Israel in good sooth, blindness most of all to such of them as least acknowledged it. Here was one who, near the city of the curse, dared to confess Him to be the Messiah Whom the religious chiefs had long desired to destroy, and sooner than they hoped were to be allowed to do so, and yet they dared to ask of Him that sign of opening the eyes of the blind peculiar to the Son of David, as even rabbinical tradition confessed. The story of His gracious power was not lost on the blind man. Now was his opportunity: might it not be the last? He called aloud; and the more rebuked, the more by far he cried. If to others Jesus was but the Nazarene, to him none other than David's Son. "Son of David, pity me." And never in vain goes forth the appeal of distress to Him. How pleasant in His ears the persistent call on His name! Jesus stops, commands him to be brought, inquires into his want, and gives all he asks. So will He in the day of His power when Israel (the remnant becoming the people) shall be made willing, shall call on Him and find sight, salvation, and every other good thing to the praise and glory of God.468

But it was still the day of His humiliation, of Israel's blind and wilful unbelief; and Jesus steadily pursued His sorrowful path to the Holy City about to perpetrate the most unhallowed deed of this world's sad history.

LUKE 19: 1-10.*

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 363-368.

The account of Zacchaeus is one of those peculiar to Luke; and we may readily see how strikingly it furthers the moral aim of the Spirit in this Gospel. Its collocation too may be at once explained on the same principle, supposing, as I do, that the facts occurred while the Lord was passing through Jericho, whereas the blind man Bartimaeus did not receive sight till He was on His way outside. But it seemed good to the Holy Ghost here, as often similarly elsewhere, to bring the narrative of Zacchaeus into such a position with the parable that follows as to illustrate by them the general character, not only of His first advent but of His second, thereby correcting many a mistaken thought into which men, yea disciples, were apt to slip then and since.

"

And he entered and was passing through Jericho; and behold a man by name called Zacchaeus,

469

and he was chief tax-gatherer and he was rich. And he was seeking to see Jesus who he was, and could not for the crowd, because he was little in stature. And he ran on before and got up a sycamore

469a

that he might see him, because he was going to pass that [way]. And when he came to the place, Jesus looking up saw him and said to him, Zacchaeus, make haste and come down; for today I must

469b

abide in thy house. And making haste he came down and received him joyfully

."

The Lord had already in parables set forth Divine grace to the lost sinner as such, above all in the prodigal son. We have now the actual history of a publican, a chief tax-gatherer, and a rich man, to whom grace sent salvation that very day. But here it is well to distinguish what is often overlooked. Some allege that Zacchaeus was a man without the fear of God, and unconverted; others compare him with Simeon in the temple. We should not forget that salvation is more than new birth, that it could only then be pronounced by the Messiah, and that it is now in virtue of redemption proclaimed far and wide through faith in His name. It is the primary Christian blessing that a soul needs and receives in a dead and risen Christ; but it should never be confounded with that awakening which accompanies quickening by the Spirit. As the due understanding of this clears up many difficulties created by the confusion prevalent in Christendom from the days of the "fathers" till our own time, so it will be found helpful here. The Lord vindicated the grace of God toward one in the worst possible position, the loathing of the proud Pharisee. He who struggled against the many obstructions in the way, who hesitated not to cast off all conceit of dignity and to brave all ridicule in order to see Jesus, heard with astonishment the voice of the Good Shepherd call His sheep by name and invite Himself to remain at his house. Certainly He was none other than the Messiah, who could thus tell all things and would thus meet the desire of a heart that dared not hope for such an honour. What a wonder, yet no wonder! — He who knew all knew Zacchaeus; He who asked a drink from the Samaritan woman whose life He read asked Himself to the house of the chief tax-gatherer. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God; so that they who heard said, "Who then can be saved?" Now He proves what He then answered, that the things which are impossible with men are possible with God; for assuredly He entered the house, not to get but to give.

But nothing is so unintelligible to a man as God's grace. "And when they saw [it] they all murmured,470 Saying that he had turned into lodge with a sinful man." How blessed that so He could, and so He would! How hopeless the blank for us if it were not so! It suits His love so to deal with those who have not the smallest claim.

"

And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have by false accusation exacted anything of any man, I restore fourfold.

471

And Jesus said to him, Today salvation is come

472

to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham:* for the Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost

."473 It is not that the Lord discredited the chief tax-gatherer's account of his feelings and ways. Such was his character, such his habits, in a sorrowful position doubtless, with a delicate if not scrupulous conscience. But why this before One Who had already proved that all was known to a heart that could not misjudge? Why talk even of what the Spirit had produced in presence of the salvation — bringing grace of God? The Lord denies not, spite of his occupation, that he too was a son of Abraham; but if He Himself were the Messiah, and at this very time presenting Himself as such for the last time on earth, beginning at Jericho, He was the Son of man in grace and humiliation on the way to death, yea, the death of the cross; the Son of man come to save what is lost. What else was worth speaking of? This day salvation was come to his house.

*Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and others regard Zacchaeus as a Gentile. But this is manifestly unsound and inconsistent, even with the letter here, as it is a misconception of the ground of Jewish hatred against tax-gatherers. It was because they, being Jews, yet under cover of their Gentile lords bore hardly on their brethren, and often dishonestly. (B.T.)

Luke 19: 11-27.

Matt. 25: 14-30; Matt. 24: 47.

As this affecting incident maintains the activity of grace according to God's aim in the first advent of the Lord, even while He was testing them for the last time as the Messiah, so the following parable was uttered to dispel the wrong expectations which filled their minds who so soon had forgotten that first He must suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation, and that the introduction of the Lord's world-kingdom must await His second advent. Those who were on the stretch for the immediate setting up of that kingdom were self-deceived. If He was near Jerusalem, He was near the cross, not the manifestation of His kingdom yet. "But as they were hearing these things, he in addition spoke474a parable because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and they thought that the kingdom of God was about to be manifested 475 immediately. He said therefore, A certain high-born man went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.476 And he called ten of his own bondmen and delivered them ten minas,477 and said unto them, Trade while I am coming."*478 It is obvious that this is quite distinct from a similar parable in the last prophetic discourse on Olivet, and this not less certainly distinct in internal marks, as we shall see throughout. There the lord exercises his rights and gives as he pleases according to his knowledge of the varying capacities of his servants. Here all receive the same at starting, and their respective use of the deposit in business (figuratively) is the main point — the responsibility of the servants in the one, the sovereignty of the master in the other. Equally in contrast is the result in each: the good and faithful bondmen in Matthew alike enter into the joy of their lord, while in Luke each receives authority according to his labour and its fruit.

*"While I am coming": so Edd. after ABD, etc. The T.R. "till I come" is the reading of ΓΔΛ, and most of the later uncials, with nearly all minuscules (69).

Again, there are weighty moral instructions connected with this parable, but distinct from what we find later in Matthew. For here we read that, "His citizens hated him and sent a message after him, saying, We will not that this [man] should reign over us."479 Such was the spirit of the Jews, who not only rejected the Messiah, but, as another has well said, sent a message after Him as it were in the martyrs they slew, refusing Him glorified no less than in humiliation.

"And it came to pass on his return, having received the kingdom,480 that he desired his bondmen to whom he gave the money to be called to him in order that he might know what each had gained by trading. And the first came up saying, Lord, thy mina has produced ten minas. And he said to him, Well [done] thou good bondman, because thou hast been faithful in that which is least, be thou in authority over ten cities. And the second came saying, Lord, thy mina has made five minas. And he said also to this one, And thou, be over five cities. And the other came, saying, Lord, behold thy mina which I kept laid up in a napkin. For I feared thee, because thou art a harsh man: thou takest up what thou layedst not down, and reapest what thou didst not sow. He says* to him, Out of thy mouth I will judge thee, wicked bondman. Thou knewest that I am a harsh man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping what I did not sow.481 And why gavest thou not my money into a† bank, and at my coming I should have received482 it with interest? And he said to those that stood by, Take from him the mina and give [it] to him that hath ten. And they said to him, Lord, he has ten minas.‡ I say unto you, that to every one that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not that even which he hath shall be taken." 483 Here we have the responsible service of Christians till Jesus returns, with His judgment then of their service meanwhile. It is not that the faithless bondman will not suffer the results of his unbelief, like the elder brother who despised his father and scorned his brother. But our Evangelist tells the tale of grace, without describing the awful doom of those who corrupt or turn from it. It is In the earthly accompaniment that we hear of Divine vengeance. Thus the picture is made still more complete; for we have also the public execution of judgment on the guilty citizens, the Jews, at His appearing. "Moreover, those mine enemies who would not [have] me to reign over them, bring them here and slay [them] before me."484 The judgment of the habitable world is a truth which practically has dropped out of the life, if not the creeds, of Christendom.

*Before "He says," AFΔ, etc., 33, add "And." Blass, as D: ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, "And He said." Other Edd. omit,  - is BG, etc., 1, 69, Syrr. Amiat. Memph.

†K and a considerable. number of cursives, Syrsin have "the." Edd. omit, after ABD, etc., 1, 33, 69.

‡Blass omits verse 25, as D, 69, Syrrcu sin. other Edd. accept it.

Luke 19: 28-40.

Matt. 21: 1-9; Mark 11: 1-10; John 12: 12-16.

Next follows the approach to Jerusalem.485 The Messiah indeed, but Son of man, presents Himself according to the prophecies going before even when they are not formally cited, with the fullest parabolic instruction just given that the opposition to Him was deliberately wilful and conclusive, for it was not only that His citizens (the Jews) despised Him, coming as He did in humiliation for the deepest purposes of Divine love, but they "hated" Him and sent a message after Him, saying, "We will not have this man to reign over us." Awful to hear from His lips, those were His "enemies," above all others, who would not that He should reign over them. His heavenly glory was at least as repugnant to them as His earthly abasement. They appreciated neither the grace which brought Him down nor the glory to which as man He was exalted. What could He say then but "Bring them here and slay [them] before me"? As ever, the moral springs are laid bare in our Gospel, and, if evil, judged.

"

And when he had said these things, he went on before, going up to Jerusalem

. And it came to pass when he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, towards the mountain called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples, saying, Go away into the village over against you; in which as ye enter ye shall find a colt tied, on which not one of men ever sat: loose and bring it. And if any one ask you, Why do ye loose [it]? thus shall ye say unto him, Because* the Lord hath need of it. And they that were sent, having gone away, found even as he had said to them. And as they were loosing the colt, its owners said to them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, Because the Lord486 hath need of it. And they brought it to Jesus; and, having cast their garments on the colt, they set Jesus thereon;487 and, as he went, they strewed their garments in the way."

*"Because": so Edd. with ABD, etc., 69, Syrr. Amiat. Memph. ERΔ, etc., 1, 33, Syrsin omit.

The labour of ancients and moderns to find in this remarkable incident a type of the Gentiles obedient to the Gospel, as the Lord received and rode on the colt, seems to me far from intelligent. Rather was it very simply the evidence of His Divine knowledge and the assertion among the Jews of His claim as. Jehovah Messiah, verified by facts and by the proved subjection of human hearts where God was pleased to produce it to the honour of His Son. Hence the minuteness with which the words which passed and the accomplishment of all He said are noted by the Spirit. Doubtless, as in all the Gospels, so here it was in meekness and lowliness He entered; still, it was as the King according to the revealed mind of God. It was not yet the day of trouble when Jehovah will hear His Christ with the saying strength of His right hand; nor was yet the time come for the Jew to glory in the name of Jehovah. He alas! as indeed the Gentiles who knew not God, manifested his hostility to the Christ of God. But One was there who for them and us in all the degradation and selfishness and guilt of the fallen race was willing to bear the uttermost rejection of man, the forsaking of God Himself crowning it, that we might be brought to God, owning our sinfulness and resting on the grace which reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

But the power of God, which wrought in hearts prepared by grace as a suitable testimony to Jesus at that moment, was still more pointedly marked in what Luke next records, and Luke only as it is characteristic of the Holy Ghost's design in his account. "And as he was drawing near, already at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began with rejoicing to praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen, saying, Blessed the King that cometh in Jehovah's name*: in heaven peace, and glory in [the] highest.488 And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, Teacher, rebuke thy disciples. And answering he said, I say unto you that, if these shall be silent, the stones will cry out."

It is not merely the crowds or those who went before and followed as in Matthew and Mark; nor is it the cries of the children in the temple, saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David," as in the first Gospel most appropriately. Here we are told of the whole multitude of the disciples, and hence of words only befitting their lips, though surely given of God with a wisdom reaching far beyond their measure, as is known not seldom among the witnesses of Christ. "Peace in heaven and glory in the highest" looks to things higher and more immediate than the preceding words cited from Psalm 118 and common to all four Evangelists.

*"Blessed the King that cometh in Jehovah's name": so corr ALRΓΔ and later uncials, with nearly all cursives, Syrrcu sin Vulg. Goth. B: "the coming One, the King." D and Old Lat.: "He that comes." pm and Origen omit "that comes": so Tisch. followed by Blass, who also rejects "in the name of [the] LORD," but this capriciously.

It is a striking change even from the announcement of another multitude, near the beginning of this Gospel, who suddenly appeared with the angelic herald of the Saviour's birth, and praised God, saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, in men good pleasure." Such was the suited celebration of the Son now incarnate, that marvellous and mighty fact which introduced God Himself into the most touching relations with humanity, and laid the basis for the manifestation of the Father in the person of Christ, as well as for the accomplishment of the infinite work of redemption, on which hangs the righteous vindication of God, and the gracious deliverance of the elect, and the reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth to His own everlasting glory. And the heavenly host speak of the grand result as then invisibly enshrined in Him just born, a babe in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger in Bethlehem. God was pleased to manifest His good pleasure in men, not in angels, and so to fill the highest seats with glory to Himself, and earth with peace.

But, in fact, Jesus was, as the prophets had fully and distinctly foreshown He must be, despised and rejected of men. This postponed in Divine wisdom, though it could not frustrate, the purpose of God. Rather did it make room for a new and higher display of what was hidden in God from ages and generations, and now made known in the Church to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. However this be, the disciples in their outburst of praise (now that the Lord was rejected and with Him meanwhile peace for the earth gone, and division and a sword the consequence of the struggle between light and darkness) do nevertheless anticipate "peace in heaven and glory in the highest." If the former proclaimed the general purpose of God, the latter revealed His ways even when the enemy might seem on the point of triumphing. If earth disown and cast out the Saviour, if the Jews refuse the Messiah because He is incomparably more than the Son of David and come to bring about incomparably deeper and larger purposes, it is but for a season a transfer of the seat of blessing to heaven for the brightest and fullest accomplishment of God's will and mind. The kingdom itself became manifestly of heaven thereby, and the exaltation of the rejected Lord is to sit down meanwhile on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Satan being utterly defeated by man in the person of the woman's Seed on the throne of the highest; and the kingdom over the earth will follow the moment that it pleases the Father, Who is meanwhile forming a people united to Christ His Son, His body, His bride, to be with Him where He is at His coming. Peace is in heaven, because He was going there victoriously, having made peace by the blood of the Cross, Himself our peace now, whether we have been Jews or Greeks.

If Pharisees, insensible to His glory, complained of the praises of the disciples, the Lord could not but tell them that they were more obdurate than the stones beneath and around them.

Luke 19: 41-44.

Observe further that instead of the dispensational lesson of the fig-tree cursed as in Matthew, and in Mark with yet minuter details for instruction in service, we have the grace of the Lord in His weeping over the guilty and doomed city. "And when he drew near, on seeing the city, he wept489 over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least* in this thy† day, the things for thy‡ peace: but now they are hid490 from thine eyes. For days shall come upon thee that thine enemies shall make a rampart about thee and compass thee round and keep thee in on every side, and level thee with the ground and thy children in thee; and not leave in thee stone upon stone; because thou knewest not the season of thy visitation."491 Every word of the warning was punctually fulfilled in the siege of Titus; but what grace shone out of that heart surcharged with grief for the people so blindly to their own ruin refusing Himself Who wept over them in a love thus truly Divine and perfectly human!

*"At least": so Tisch. and Blass, after AR, etc., Syrrcu sin Vulg. Arm. Other Edd. omit, as BDL, Memph. Goth. Aeth.

†"This thy day": so Lachm. and Tisch. after ΔM, etc., Syrsin. Other Edd. (as Revv.) omit "thy," with ABDL, Syrcu Old Lat. Origen, etc.

‡"Thy": so Tisch. with AΔM, etc., Syrrcu sin Vulg. Cyril. Other Edd. omit, following BL, Memph, Aeth. Arm.

Luke 19: 45f.

Matt. 21: 12f.; Mark 15ff.

It was Matthew's office to bring out the woes He solemnly pronounced over the holy city now so unholy, not their civil destruction, but rather the sanctuary once His Father's house, now their house left to them desolate, yet not hopelessly. "For" as He said then, "ye shall not see me till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah." All that is left out in this part of our Gospel, and the more remarkably, as we find the cleansing of the temple afterwards. "And entering into the temple he began to cast out those that sold,* saying to them, It is written, And my house shall be† a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of robbers."492 Without agreeing with Jerome, who saw in the act of our Lord the greatest miracle He ever wrought, one may note profitably how, even at such a moment when irresistible energy accompanied His indignant rebuke of their profanity and cast such unworthy traffic outside the sacred precincts, He employs as ever the written Word as His ground and warrant.

*"Sold." There is great difference in the readings here, some adding "in the temple" or "in it" [AD, etc., most minuscules, Syrr. Old Lat.]: some adding "and those that bought," and some both. So it was in the days of Origen (ed. de la Rue IV. 193), who notices all three forms. It seems probable that the addition grew from the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark. (B.T.) Edd. have simply "sold," as BCL 1, 69, Syrsin Memph. Arm.

†"Shall be": so Edd. after corr BLR, Arm. Origen. ACDΔ, etc., most minuscules, Syrcu Old Lat. have "is."

Luke 19: 47f. Ibid.

In harmony with this we read that "he was teaching day by day in the temple; and the chief priests and the scribes and the principal men493 of the people sought to destroy him, and did not find what they could do, for all the people hung on him while hearing." The Word of God from His lips especially told on the consciences of men. The religious leaders, having long rejected Him, not only lost all right feeling but were given up to a murderous hatred soon to be satisfied. Such ever proves the world when confronted with the light of God; and withal the perfect love of God in Christ only provoked it the more.

LUKE 20: 1-8.*

Matt. 21: 23-27; Mark 11: 27-33.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 369-372.

The Lord is now seen in contact with the various classes of officials and religious and political bodies among the Jews, who successively present themselves in the hope of perplexing and inveigling Him, but in effect to their own confusion. Essaying to judge Him, they expose themselves and are judged by the truth from His lips on their own evidence one after another.

"And it came to pass on one of the* days494 as he was teaching the people in the temple and evangelizing, the chief† priests and the scribes, with the elders, came up, and spoke to him, saying, Tell us by what authority thou doest these things; or who is it that has given thee this authority."

†The common addition of ἐκείνων, "those" [ACE, etc., 33, 69], seems to be a correction from not seeing the connection with Luke 19: 47. BD and Q, at least ten cursives and most of the more ancient versions [Old Lat. Syrrcu pesch Memph.] give the shorter reading. (B.T.)

‡"Chief": so most Edd., following BCDLMQR, 1, 33, 69. Tisch. reads "priests" with AEFG, etc.

It is ever apt to be thus in an evil day. Worldly religion assumes the sanction of God for that which exists, its permanence, and its future triumph. It was so in Israel; and it is so, in Christendom. Prophets then held up the fate of Shiloh to the religious chiefs who reasoned from the promises of guaranteed perpetuity for the temple, its ordinances, its ministers, its devotees, and its system in general; and those who warned like Jeremiah found bitter results in the taunts and persecutions of such as had the world's ear. They denied God's title to tell them the truth. And now a greater than Jeremiah was here; and those who stood on their successional office, and those who claimed special knowledge of the Scriptures, and those of leading influence in the counsels and conduct of the people, demanded His right to act as He did and its source. No wonder they felt the solemn testimony of approaching ruin to all that in which they had their importance; but there was no faith, no conscience toward God. They therefore turned away from the consideration of their own ways and responsibility to the question of His title.494a

The Lord meets them by putting, another question. "And he answering said to them, I also will ask you a [or, one*] word [thing], and tell me: The baptism of John, was it of heaven, or of men? And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we should say, Of heaven, he will say, Why† have ye not believed him? but if we should say, Of men, the whole people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered that they did not know whence [it was]."

*"[One] word": BLR, a few cursives [1, 33, 69] and versions [e.g., Memph.] omit ἕνα [ACDE, etc.], which may be imported from Mark. (B.T.). Revv.: "something" (λόγον).

†The weight of evidence [BEL, etc., 69, Memph.] seems clearly against "then" [ACD, etc., 1, 33, Amiat.]. (B.T.)

The wisdom of the Lord's procedure is worthy of all heed. He Who alone could have taken His stand on personal dignity, and the nearest relationship, and the highest mission, pleads none of these things. He probes their consciences; and, in their desire to escape from the consequences of answering truly, they are compelled to confess their incapacity both to guide others and even to act aright themselves in a matter of the deepest and most general concern to all Israel of that day. "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and at his mouth should they seek the law, for he is the messenger of Jehovah of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, said Jehovah of hosts." So said Malachi, (Mal. 2: 7ff.) and so the Lord proved now. "And I also have made you contemptible and base before all the people, because ye have not kept my ways, but have respect of persons in the law." They could not deny, yet refused to profit by, the moral power of John, Who bore witness to Jesus as Messiah and to Israel's need of repentance. To own, therefore, the baptism of John, a new institution, as of Heaven, without the least appearance of traditional sanctity or claim of antiquity or connection with the priesthood or the temple, was of the most serious import to men who derived all their consequence from the regular course of the law and its ordinances. Besides, it at once decided the question of the Messiah, for John in the strongest and most solemn way declared that Jesus was the Christ. To disown John and his baptism would have been fatal to their credit, for all the people were persuaded that John was a prophet. It was to them a mere question of policy, and hence they shirked answering under cover of a lie. They could not afford to be truthful; they said they knew not whence John's baptism was. They were as void of faith as the heathen.495 He who read their dark hearts wound up with the reply, "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things." It was useless to inform unbelief. Long before the Lord had forbidden His disciples to tell any man that He was the Christ; for He was going to suffer on the cross. "When ye shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [be], and from myself I do nothing, but even as the Father taught me, these things I speak." (John 8.)

Here we have no special application to the Jews in order to let them know that the most despised men and corrupt women go into the kingdom of God before the heads honoured by the people. This has its appropriate place in the Gospel of Matthew. But we have the parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen in all three Synoptic accounts, each with its own special shades of truth.

Luke 20: 9-19.496

Matt. 21: 33-46; Mark 12: 1-12.

"And he began to speak to the people this parable: A* man planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen, and left the country for a long time. And in the season he sent to the 3 husbandmen a bondman that they might give to him of the fruit of the vineyard; but the husbandmen having beaten him sent [him] away empty. And again he sent another bond. man; but they having beaten him also, and cast insult upon him sent [him] away empty. And again he sent a third, and they having wounded him also, cast [him] out. And the lord of the vineyard said, What shall I do.497 I will send my beloved son: perhaps when they see†* they will respect [him]. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir;‡ let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours. And having cast him forth out of the vineyard they killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come498 and destroy those husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it they said, May it never be! But he looking at them said, What then is this that is written? The stone which they that builded rejected, this has become the corner stone. Every one falling on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall crush him to powder."

*"A": so Edd. with BCDEL, etc., 1, 33, Old Lat. Memph. A, 69, Syrr. have "a certain."

†"When they see": so ARΓΔΛΠ, later uncials, most cursives, Syrpesch. Edd. omit, following BCDLQ, 1, 33, Syrcu Memph. Arm.

‡CDLR, most cursives (33, 69), Syrrcu pesch Memph. add "come". Edd. omit, as ABKMQΠ, 1, most Old Latt, Amiat., Goth. Arm.

On the truth common to all it is not needful to speak now. But the reader in comparing may notice the greater fullness of detail in Matthew and Mark than in Luke as to the dealings with Israel, as also the greater minuteness in Mark of the reception the servants and son received. So also observe on the other hand that Mark and Luke speak simply of giving the vineyard to others, Matthew on letting it out to other husbandmen such as shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Responsibility is thus most maintained in Matthew, grace in Luke, both being true and of capital moment. Again, in Matthew it is "he that falleth," in Luke "Every one," etc. There is breadth in judgment as in grace. Mark has not the verse at all, as not bearing on service, the theme of the Spirit by him.

"And the scribes and the chief priests that very hour sought to lay hands on him, and they feared the people; for they knew that he had spoken this parable of (against) them." Again does the Holy Spirit notice their bad conscience, their hatred of Jesus, and their fear of the people. God was in none of their thoughts, else had they repented and believed in Jesus. What a comment on the parable was their desire to lay hands on Him! Thus were they soon to fulfil the voice of the prophets and the parable of the great Prophet Himself.

Luke 20: 20-26.499

Matt. 22: 15-22; Mark 12: 13-17.

And having watched [him] they sent suborned persons pretending to be righteous that they might lay hold of his language so as to deliver him to the power and the authority of the governor. And they asked him, saying, Teacher, we know that thou rightly sayest and teachest and acceptest no [man's] person, but in truth teachest the way 500 of God. Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not? But perceiving their deceit he said to them,* Show me a denarius [penny].†500a Whose image and title has it? And answering they said, Caesar's. And he said to them, Therefore render the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God." The moral depravity of all concerned is here very marked, whether of suborners or suborned. Simplicity of purpose detects and exposes the crafty. Jesus sacrifices no duty.501 Let Caesar have what is his, and God His own. The world-panderers and the zealots were alike foiled, who set one duty against another, doing neither aright because each was seeking self. "And they were not able to lay hold of his word before the people, and wondering at his answer were silent."

*ACD, etc., most cursives, Old Lat. add "Why do ye tempt me?" which Edd. reject, after BL, 1, Syrr. Memph. Goth. Arm. (from Mark).

†After "denarius," CL, 1, 33, 69, Memph., etc., add "and they showed it to Him and He said." Syrsin has "and they showed it to Him" after the question. Edd., however, adhere to ABD, etc., most cursives and Old Lat., Syrcu and Goth.

Luke 20: 27-40.

Matt. 22: 23-33, 46; Mark 12: 18-27, 34.

And some of the Sadducees who deny that there is any resurrection502 came up, and demanded of him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote503 to us, If any one's brother having a wife die and he be* childless, that his brother take the wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were then seven brothers, and the first having taken a wife, died childless; and the second† and the third, took her; and likewise also the seven left no children and died; and lastly the woman died. In the resurrection therefore, of which of them does the woman become wife? For the seven had her as wife. And Jesus‡ said to them, The sons of this age 504 marry and are given in marriage; but those deemed worthy to obtain that age and the resurrection from among [the] dead 505 neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they can die no more, for they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.506 But that the dead rise even Moses showed [in the section] on the bush when he called Jehovah the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.507 But He is not God of dead but of living, for all live to Him."508

*"Be (ῃ)": so most Edd., according to BLP, 1, 33, Syrcu, most Old Lat. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Blass: "die" (ἀποθάνῃ) after AΓΔΛΠ, later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syrsin and Goth.

†Blass retains here "took the woman and he died childless," after APΔΛΠ, etc., most cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrrcu sin Old Lat. Amiat. Other Edd. omit the words, as BDL,

‡Before "said," AEΔ, etc., have "answering," which is rejected by Edd. with BDL, Old Lat. Memph.

We need not combat here men like Dr. Campbell, ably as he wrote on the Gospels, or Dwight, who contend that the point is a future life rather than the resurrection of the body. Not so. The proposed case could hardly have risen but as a difficulty in the ways of a risen body, though it is doubtless true that the Sadducees went further and denied angels and spirits.

Our Gospel, it is of interest to observe here, furnishes several distinct truths beyond what is found in Matthew and Mark. Resurrection from among the dead (not resurrection as such) has its own proper age, a time of special blessedness which the resurrection of the unjust cannot be said to be. It was after this resurrection the apostle longed so ardently, minding no sufferings if by any means he might attain to that. The resurrection of the wicked is for the second death. The resurrection from among the dead is for the righteous who die no more, being equal to angels and sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. The resurrection of the unjust is the awful condition of eternal judgment, as they had rejected Christ and eternal life in Him. God is Abraham's God and will raise the dead to enjoy the promises not yet fulfilled; He is not God of dead men but of living; for to Him all live, even before the resurrection comes as well as when it does come. Thus Luke above all the Evangelists gives us a full glimpse of the separate state, besides the certainty of resurrection and glory. "And some of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. For* they did not dare any more to ask him anything." We shall see that the Lord's turn is come to question them.

*The "and" of T.R. is in ADE, etc., 1, 69, Old Lat. Syrr., and is retained by Blass (as by Hahn and Godet in their expositions). Very ancient authorities (BLR) and a few cursives (1, 33) support γάρ, "for." (B.T.) So W. H.

Luke 20: 41-44.509

Matt. 22: 41-45; Mark 12: 35-37.

As the various parties, the leaders of religions thought in Israel, did not dare any more to ask the Lord anything, He put the crucial question to them; not of course to tempt like them, but to convince them that the Pharisees had no more real faith than the Sadducees, and that the scribes had no more understanding of the Divine Word than the crowd who knew not the law. His, indeed, was a probe to conscience and an appeal to the Scriptures, if peradventure they might hear and live. Alas! they had ears but heard not, and their own Messiah's highest glory they denied, to their own perdition and God's dishonour. And this is no peculiarity of the Jews in that day; it applies as really now, and even more conspicuously among Protestants than among Papists. At bottom, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, earthly religion slights Christ: sometimes by open antagonism, as when His Deity is opposed and His sacrifice set aside; at other times by setting up rival mediators, the virgin, saints, angels, priests, etc., who usurp that which belongs exclusively to Him. To us, then, there is but one Lord, even Jesus Christ; and as we cannot serve two masters, so we cannot have two Saviours; but either men hate the one, and love the other, or else they hold to the one, and despise the other.

"And he said to them, How do they say that the Christ is David's son; and David himself* saith in the book of Psalms, Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine enemies [as] footstool of thy feet? David therefore calleth him Lord; and how is he his son?"

*"And . . . himself": so Blass, after Lachmann, with ADP, Syrr. Vulg. Goth. Others read "for," with BLR, 33, etc.

There is and could be but one answer. The Messiah, David's son, must have been a Divine Person in order to be David's Lord, the everlasting enigma of unbelief, now as then the stumbling-stone to the Jew. Yet is it as certainly if not as clearly and continually presented in the Old Testament as in the New; and as it is essential to His proper dignity and enhances incalculably the grace of God, so it is indispensable that there should be an irrefragable rock of salvation, whether for an Israelite or for any other. Without the Godhead of Jesus, however truly man as He is, Christianity is a delusion, an imposture, and an impossibility, as Judaism was an unmeaning child's play. To Him, God and man in one person, do the law and the prophets bear their unequivocal witness, not more surely to God's righteousness without law than to the Christ's glory above law, however He might deign to be born of woman, born under law, in order to redeem those who were in this position. (Galatians 4.)

But man fears to face the truth till he is born anew. It annihilates his pride, it exposes his vanity in every sense, as well as his guilt and ruin; it makes God the only hope and Saviour. Man does not like what grinds his self-importance to powder, and, unless grace intervene savingly, will risk everlasting destruction rather than yield to the testimony of God. But the truth erects a judgment-seat in the conscience of each believer, who now owns himself lost that he may be saved, and saved exclusively by His grace Who will be the judge, to their endless misery and shame, of all who despise His glory and His mercy now.

To the believer no truth is simpler, none more precious, than the Christ a man yet God, son of David yet David's Lord, the root and the offspring of David, Who came to die, but withal the living and eternal God. On the intrinsic dignity of His person hang the grace of His humiliation and the value of His atonement, and the glory to God of the kingdom He will take and display as Son of man. He is now the Centre to faith of all who are brought to God reconciled by the blood of His Cross; as He will be of all things that are in heaven and that are on earth reconciled by Him; but if not God, equally with the Father, such a place of centre in grace or glory must be a deadly blow at that honour which is due to the only God, because it would be giving to a creature, however exalted, the homage proper to Him alone. His Godhead therefore is essential to His character of the model man; the denial of it logically implies the horrible libel and lie that He is no better than the most fraudulent and successful of impostors. This may serve to prove what the guilt of discrediting the Son of God really is; this explains why whoever denies the Son has not the Father, while he who confesses the Son has the Father also. He who honours not the Son honours not the Father Who sent Him.

Therefore is judgment given only to the Son; because He alone in infinite love stooped to become a man and to die for men, yea for the guiltiest of sinners, who alas! repaid His love by the deepest dishonour, rejecting Him when He came in grace, as they reject Him preached in grace still, Who will judge them as Son of man in that nature because of the assumption of which they despised Him and denied His Godhead. Thus will God compel all, even the proudest unbeliever, to honour the Son as they honour the Father. But this will be to their judgment, not salvation. Eternal life is in hearing Christ's Word now and believing Him Who sent His Son in love; otherwise nothing remains but a resurrection of judgment in vindication of His injured name, the rejection of the Father in the Son.

We need not dwell on other truths wrapped up in the citation from Psalm 110, though of the deepest interest and elsewhere applied in the New Testament. Here the object is as simple as it is fundamental, an inextricable riddle to the incredulous, Jews or Gentiles. But it is especially the former who have ever stopped short there, silenced but not subdued. As for such Gentiles as professed to receive the only solution in His person, the enemy finds other ways to nullify the truth wherever they are unrenewed by grace. False friends are no better than open enemies, but rather worse — ungodly men turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Master and our Lord Jesus Christ, Whose judgment is just and sure, as we see in the solemn epistle of Jude.

Luke 20: 45-47.

Matt. 23: 1, 5-7, 14; Mark 12: 38-40.

"

And as all the people were listening

, he said to the* disciples: Beware of the scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, and love salutations in the market-places, and first seats in the synagogues and first places at the feasts,510 who devour the houses of widows, and as a pretext make long prayers. These shall receive more abundant (severer) judgment."

*"The": so Edd. with BD. "His" is read in AL, etc., Syrsin.

The difference in the object of the Holy Spirit's writing by Matthew and Luke, as well as Mark, comes out here in a striking way. For the former devotes a considerable chapter to their position, their utter failure, and the stern judgment awaiting such hollow formalists from God. Mark and Luke touch the question only, the one as a falsifying of service, the other on moral ground, for the instruction of disciples. What is specially Jewish, either in title or in forms and habits, disappears; what Mark and Luke record is not loving service but selfishness and hypocrisy, the more fatal because of the profanation of God's name.

LUKE 21: 1-4.*

Mark 12: 41-44.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 372-375, and "Elements of Prophecy," chapter ix.

Luke again is with Mark in giving the story of the widow poor but rich, and this doubtless for reasons analogous to their report of the exposure of the proud and empty scribes; Matthew has it not at all. For far different was the Israel of the then day, and with this he is occupied, the judgment coming on Jerusalem, rich but poor, with which the Lord concludes His denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees.

And he looked up and saw the rich casting their gifts into the treasury, but he saw also a certain poor widow casting into it two mites. And he said, Verily I say unto you, that this poor woman hath cast in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have cast into the gifts,* but she out of her need hath cast in all the living which she had." It is a lovely picture of devotedness in the widow; how much lovelier to behold Him, who gave her the faith and drew out her love, admiring and so richly appreciating the fruit of His own grace! May He have so to speak of our wealth toward God in the day that approaches, when mammon and every false estimate shall have disappeared for ever!511

*After "gifts," ADGΓΔΛΠ, nearly, all cursives (33, 69), Syrpesch Old Lat. add "of God," which Edd. omit, as BLX, 1, Syrrcu sin hier Memph.

Luke 21: 5f.

Matt. 24: 1f.; Mark 13: 1f.

Luke alone of the Evangelists notices the fact that the disciples spoke to the Lord about the votive offerings with which the temple was adorned; all three speak of its goodly stones or buildings. But this does not warrant the inference that the prophetic discourse which follows512 belongs to those in the temple, rather than those on the Mount of Olives. It has been properly remarked that the questions are distinct from the Lord's solemn answer to the admiration expressed, and may well have been to the chosen four on retiring thither as we are told He did by night at the end of our chapter.

"And as some512a spoke of the temple that it was adorned with goodly stones and consecrated offerings, he said, [As for] these things which ye are beholding, days are coming in which stone shall not be left upon stone which shall not be thrown down." On the other hand, it is surely without justification to assume that Luke could not have omitted the change of scene and auditory if aware of it. On both sides such reasoning leaves out the Spirit of God, and His having a purpose by each which alone accounts for differences on the basis of His own perfect knowledge of all, not of the writer's ignorance.

Luke 21: 7-9.

Matt. 24: 3-6; Mark 13: 3-7.

"And they asked him saying, Teacher, when then shall these things be? and what [is] the sign when these things are going to take place? And he said, See that ye be not misled. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am [he]; and the time is drawn nigh: go ye not* after them. And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults be not terrified; for these things must first take place,"' but the end [is] not immediately." It will be observed that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to drop the question respecting the coming of the Son of man and the completion of the age. As with Mark, they ask when the destruction of the temple shall be, and the sign of its commencement. The Lord fully replies, but as usual gives much more. But there is neither the completeness of dispensational information right through, nor details as to the consummation of the age, found in the Gospel of Matthew. On the other hand, here only are we given distinct light on the coming siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, here only its subsequent ignominious subjection till the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Other peculiarities of Luke we may see as we proceed through the chapter. The question of the disciples goes no farther than the demolition the Lord spoke of, the Spirit having reserved for Matthew the parabolic history of the course, conduct, and judgment of Christendom as well as the special account of the Jews at the end of the age, and of all the Gentiles gathered before the throne of the Son of man when He is come. The early warning that follows the inquiry here refers to what soon ensued. There may be analogous deceits in the last days; but I apprehend that here we are in view of what has been. If it were the closing scenes, where would be the propriety of assuring the disciples that the end is not immediately? Matthew may take in what soon followed; but the characteristic feature with him is the end of the age, first in general, then specifically, with its shadows before.

*AΓΔΛΠ, etc., most cursives (1, 33, 69), Amiat., here add "therefore." Edd. omit, according to BDLX, Syrrcu sin Old Lat. Aeth. Arm.

Luke 21: 10-19.

Matt. 24: 7-13; Mark 13: 8f. 11-13.

"

Then said he to them,*

Nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: there shrill be both great earthquakes in different places and

pestilences

and famines,† and

there shall be fearful sights and great signs from heaven

. But

before all these things514 they shall lay their hands upon you and persecute you

, delivering up to synagogues

and prisons

, bringing before kings and governors on account of my name; but it shall turn out515

to you

for a testimony.

Settle therefore in your hearts

not to meditate beforehand [your] defence; for I

will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist or reply unto

.‡515a Moreover ye will be delivered up even by parents and brethren and relations

and friends

, and they shall put to death [some] from among you, and ye will be hated by all"" on account of my name;

and a hair of your head shall in no wise perish

. (See above.) By your patient endurance

gain§ your souls

." The strict application of all this to the state of things, whether in the world or among the disciples, before the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans must be evident to every unprejudiced mind. Luke alone sets forth the grace of the Lord in giving His own a mouth and wisdom beyond the craft and power of all adversaries. In Mark they are to speak "whatsoever shall be given you; for not ye are the speakers but the Holy Spirit." Luke also puts in broad terms the consequences of their testimony, which would true in the highest sense for heaven if they were slain.517

*"Then said he to them." These words, omitted by Blass (as in D with some Latt. Syrrcu sin), are retained by other Edd.

†The critical text connects "in different places" with "famines" — "and in different places famines."

‡"To resist or reply unto": such is the order of the verbs in BL, 69 (Edd.), instead of "gainsay or resist."

§"Gain": after Tisch., from DLRXG, etc. Other Edd. (Revv.) adopt κτήσεσθε "ye shall gain," as in AB, Syrrcu pesch hcl Latt. Aeth. Arm. Tertullian, Origen. A reading at least questionable. Ab are but slender authority for a difference of only one letter. (B.T.)

Luke 21: 20-24.

Next we have a graphic picture of the crisis for Jerusalem under Titus. "But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed with armies, then know that its desolation 518 is drawn nigh. Then let those who are in Judea flee unto the mountains,519 and those in the midst of it depart out, and those in the fields not enter into it. For these are days of vengeance,520 that all the things written may be accomplished. Woe* to them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days; for there shall be great distress521 upon the land and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by [the] nations522 until [the] times of [the] nations522a be fulfilled." Here there can be no misunderstanding unless for a preoccupied mind. The siege with its consequences described by our Lord cannot be a future event because it is followed by the humiliating possession of the Jewish capital by one nation after another till the allotted seasons of Gentile supremacy terminate. This is peculiar to our Evangelist, who accordingly speaks of armies encompassing the city, which was true then, not like Matthew and Mark of the abomination of desolation, which can only be verified in its closing throes. Hence, too, the reader may notice that, in spite of a considerable measure of analogy (for there will be a future siege, and even a twofold attack, one of which will be partially successful, the other to the ruin of their enemies, as we learn from Isaiah 28, Isaiah 29, and Zechariah 14), there are the strangest contrasts in the issue; for the future siege will be closed by Jehovah's deliverance and reign, as the past was in the capture and destruction of the people dispersed ever since till the times of the Gentiles are full. Accordingly we hear nothing in this Gospel of the abomination of desolation, nor of the time of tribulation beyond all that was or shall be; we hear of both in Matthew and Mark, where the Spirit contemplates the last days. Here we are told of great distress on the land and wrath on the Jewish people, as indeed there was. The notion that Luke's variation is designed as a paraphrase of Matthew and Mark, a simpler expression in his Gospel for one more obscure in theirs, is most unworthy of the Holy Ghost and destructive of the truth in the first two Gospels if not in the third. There is fresh truth, and not a sacred comment on what the others said.

*"But" before this "woe," is in AC, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrrcu sin Memph. It is not in BDL or most Old Latin and is rejected by Edd.

Luke 21: 25-28.

Matt. 24: 29-31; Mark 13: 24-27.

In verse 25 and onward we are naturally carried on to the conclusion of the Gentile times. "And there shall be signs 523 in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity, for at the roar* of the sea and rolling waves, men ready to die through fear and expectation of the things coming on the habitable earth; for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming524 in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draweth nigh." It is Luke only who mentions the moral signs of men's anguish spite of the deceits and pretensions of that day. No doubt there will be strong delusion and the belief of falsehood; but for this very reason there is no rest nor contentment, for only the grace and truth of God in Christ can give peaceful enjoyment with a good conscience. Hence God will know how to trouble men's dreams and to break up Satan's ease, their horror culminating at the sight of the rejected Lord, the Son of man, coming in a cloud with power and glory. But there will be those then on earth, disciples tried by the evils of that day, for whom even the beginning of these troubles and the tokens of change for the world will be the sure harbinger of deliverance.

*"In perplexity . . . roar": so Tisch., W. H., etc., with ABCLM, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch hcl. Old Lat. Memph. Arm. (Edd.). The text underlying A,V. has the support of DΓΔΛΠ, etc., most cursives, Old Lat. Blass reads: "in perplexity, roar (ἦχος) as (ώς) of, etc." So Syrrcu sin, the latter without "as" (i.e. "the voice of the sea and shaking").

Luke 21: 29-36.

Matt. 24: 32-51; Mark 13: 28-37.

"And he spoke a parable to them, Behold the fig-tree and all the trees: when they already sprout, by looking ye know of your own selves that already summer is near. So also ye, when ye see these things take place, know that the kingdom of God is near.525 Verily I say unto you that this generation shall in no wise pass away until all come to pass. The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall in no wise pass away. But take heed to yourselves lest possibly your hearts be weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness and cares of life, and that day come upon you suddenly unawares, for as a snare* it will come upon all that are settled down upon the face of the whole earth. But watch,† at every season praying that ye may be deemed worthy‡ to escape all these things that are about to come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." We have here an instance of the exceeding accuracy of Scripture even in figures. Who but God could have thought of giving only the fig-tree in Matthew, speaking of Israel, the fig-tree and all the trees in Luke where the Gentiles are mixed up with the troubles of Israel?

*"That day come upon you suddenly; for as a snare": so Blass, as Wordsworth, Milligan, McClellan, after AC, later uncials and most cursives, Syrrcu pesch hcl hier Arm. (Euseb. Basil). Other Edd. (Alford and Revv.) follow BDL, Old Lat. Memph.: "come upon you suddenly as a snare; for it shall come."

†"But watch": as Edd. with BD. "Watch therefore" of T.R. is as ACRL, etc., Syrcu Amiat., Aeth. Memph. Arm.

‡"May be deemed worthy": so Blass, with ACDR and all later uncials, most cursives, Syrr. Old Lat.. Arm. Tertullian. Tisch., W. H., etc., adopt "may have strength" (R.V. "prevail"), following BLX, 1, 33, Memph.

But, this is not the only point of interest in this appendix to the prophecy. For the Lord has given us the positive proof. by the way in which verse 32 stands here, that "this generation" cannot mean a mere chronological space of thirty or even one hundred years, for it is brought in after the running out of Gentile times and the coming of the Son of man with power and glory, events still unfulfilled. Its force is moral; not exactly the nation of Israel but that Christ-rejecting race which then refused their Messiah as they do still. This will go on till all these solemn threats of judgment are accomplished. It is profitable to remark that here, not in doctrine or in practice only, but in these unfoldings of the future, the Lord pledges the impossibility of failing in His words. The Lord does not say that this generation "shall not pass away till the temple is destroyed or the city taken, but till all be fulfilled. Now, He had introduced the subsequent treading down of Jerusalem to the end of Israel's trials at His appearing, and He declares that this generation shall not pass away till then; as indeed it is only then grace will form a new generation, the generation to come. The more we hold fast the continuity of the stream of the prophecy, as distinguished from the crisis in Matthew and Mark, the greater will be seen to be the importance of this remark.526

Notice the strongly moral tone in which the dangers and snares of the days before the Son of man appears are touched by the Lord, an often recurring characteristic of our Evangelist.527

Luke 21: 37f.

The concluding verses are a summary of our Lord's manner or habit at this time, the nights spent on the Mount of Olivet, and by day teaching in the temple, whither all the people came early to hear Him. It was this which led several copyists to insert here the paragraph from John 7: 53 to 8: 11; but there is no real ground for such a transposition, any more than for denying it to be the genuine writing of the last Evangelist, in spite of alleged difficulties.

LUKE 22: 1-2.*

Matt. 26: 1-5; Mark 14: 1f.

The end approaches, with all its solemn and momentous issues, which our Evangelist relates after his wonted manner, adhering to moral connection rather than illustrating dispensational change, or the series of facts in His ministry, or the glory of His person.

Luke 22: 3-6.

Matt. 26: 14-16; Mark 14: 10f.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 375-387.

"Now the feast of unleavened [bread] which [is] called passover was drawing nigh,528 and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might kill him, for they were afraid of the people. And Satan entered into Judas Who is called* Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve; and he went away and spoke with the chief priests and captains529 as to how he should deliver him up to them. And they rejoiced and engaged to give him money; and he agreed fully,530 Was seeking an opportunity to deliver him up to them away from [the] crowd." When the will is thus engaged on the one side and on the other nearness to the Lord was enjoyed without self-judgment, nay, in conscious hypocrisy and the habitual yielding to covetousness; Satan readily found means to, effect his own designs, as a liar and murderer, against the Son of God. Yet how reassuring it is to observe that both man and the devil were powerless till the due moment came for the execution of God's purposes, which their malice even then only subserved, unconsciously and in a way which they counted most sure to hinder and nullify them. But He catcheth the wise in their own craftiness.

*"Called": so BDLX, 69, Memph. Arm. "Surnamed" is found in ACPR, etc., Syrsin.

It may be well here to note that the English Version misleads if it be inferred from verse 3 that it was at this time Satan entered into Judas; for we know from John 13: 27 that it was only after the sop, the latter Gospel also distinguishing this full action of the enemy from the earlier occasion when he had put it into the betrayer's heart. The truth is that Luke has no expression of time here, using only a particle of transition, and therefore contents himself with the broad fact without entering into the detail of its successive stages, which found their fitting place with him whose task of love was to linger on the person of the Lord.

Luke 22: 7-23.

Matt 26: 17-29; Mark 14: 12-25.

"And the day of unleavened [bread]"' came, in which the passover was to be killed. And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare the passover for us, that we may eat. But they said to him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? And he said to them, Behold when ye have entered into the city, a man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water; 532 follow him into the house where he goeth in; and ye shall say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith to thee, Where is the guest-chamber where I may eat the passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready. And they went away and found as he had said to them; and they prepared the Passover."533 There is no ground of difficulty here for him who believes the Word of God. He who beforehand could describe thus minutely the person, place, time, and circumstances was in communion with the Divine power and grace which controlled the heart of the Jewish householder, even though a stranger hitherto, and made him heartily acquiesce in the Lord's using it for the paschal feast with His disciples. That God should thus order all in honour of His Son for the last Passover seems to me beautifully in keeping as a testimony in Jerusalem where the religious chiefs, and even a disciple, with the mass were hardening themselves to their destruction in His rejection and death.

"And when the hour was come, he took his place, and the* apostles with him.534 And he said to them, With desire I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, for I say unto you that I will not any more† at all eat it until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And having received a‡ cup, he gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, I will in no wise drink 535 henceforth§ of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God 136 come." What an expression of tender love for the disciples! For the last time He would eat it with them, not at all more. As to the cup of the Passover,537 they were to take and divide it among themselves, not He with them. The Passover was to be fulfilled in the kingdom of God; and of the fruit of the vine He would in no wise drink henceforth till the kingdom of God come. It is the sign of the passing away of the old system.

*Before "apostles" T.R. has "twelve," from ACEPRΔ, etc., Amiat. Memph. Edd. omit, after BD, Syrsin Old Lat.

†"Not . . . any more" (οὐκέτι): so Weiss and Blass, after Ccorr DP, etc., Syrrcu sin Aeth. Arm. W. H. omit οὐκέτι after ABCpm HL. It can scarcely, however, have been added from Mark (Meyer, Weiss).

‡"A": so Edd. with BCEGH, etc., most cursives. AD, etc., have "the."

§"Henceforth": so Edd. after BDGKLMΠ, 1, Syrcu Egyptians, Arm. Omitted in AC, etc., most cursives, and Old Lat.

Next, the Lord institutes the new thing538 in a foundation sign of it. "And having taken a loaf with thanksgiving he broke and gave [it] to them, saying, This is my body which is given 539 for you;* this do in remembrance of me.540 In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup [is] the new covenant in my blood541 which is poured out for you."* It was a better deliverance on an infinitely better ground, as the cup Was the new covenant in His blood, not the old legal one guarded by penal sanction in the blood of accompanying victims. What immeasurable love breathes in "my body, Which is given for you," "the new covenant in my blood," etc.!542 It will be observed that Luke presents a more personal bearing of the Lord's words here, as in the great discourse of Luke 6. Matthew gives rather the dispensational change in consequence of a rejected Messiah.

*"Which is given for you . . . poured out for you." These words, accepted by Lachm. Tisch. Treg. and Alford, no less than by Wordsworth, as being in all uncials except D, the whole of the cursives and versions except Old Lat. and Syrcu, which last omits verse 20 (in Syrsin it is merely a question of arrangement), are on the "one cup" theory, discredited by W. H. (preceded by Dean Blakesley), Weiss and Blass. The English critics' case against this alleged "interpolation" (from 1 Cor. 11: 24f.) would be found stated in W. H., Vol. II., App., p. 63f. In defence of the title of the words to a place in Luke's text, see Scrivener, Vol. II., p. 351ff., and Expositor, March-April, 1908. See, further, note 539 in Part II. of this volume.

Luke 22: 24.543

Luke 22: 25f.

Matt. 20: 5-27; Mark 10: 42-44.

"

But, behold, the hand of him that delivereth me up [is] with me on the table

; and* the Son of man indeed goeth according to that which is determined, but woe unto that man by whom he is delivered up! And they began to question together among themselves who then it could be of them who was about to do this.

And there was also a strife (and emulation) among them which of them should be accounted greater. But he said to them, The kings of the nations rule over them, and they that exercise authority over them are called benefactors.

544

But ye [shall] not [be] so; but let the greater among you be as the younger, and the leader as he that serveth.

Luke 22: 27-30. —

For which [is] greater, he that is at table, or he that serveth? [Is] not he that is at table? But I am among you as he that serveth. But ye are they who have persevered with me in my temptations.

545

And I appoint unto you as my Father appointed unto me, a kingdom, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom

546

and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel

." The Lord announces the betrayer's presence at that last feast of love. How perfect the grace which knew but never once by behaviour made known the guilty soul! How consummate the guile of him who had so long heartlessly companied with such a Master! Now when His death in all its ineffable fragrance and power for them is before Him, and as a sign little then appreciated by them, He tells out the sad secret which lay on His heart, a bitter burden He felt for him who as yet felt it not at all. And the disciples question who it could be, but none the less strive for the greater place. How humbling for the twelve, especially at such a moment in presence of Him, of the supper before them, and of the cup before Him alone! But such is flesh, in saints of God most of all offensive when allowed to work. No good thing dwells in it. Tenderly but in faithful love the Lord contrasts the way of men with that which He would cultivate and sanction in His own. The condescension of patronage is too low for saints. It is of earth for Nature's great ones. He would have them to serve as Himself. In a ruined, wretched world what can the love that seeks not its own do but serve? The greatest is he that goes down the lowest in service. It is Christ: may we be near Him! Then He turns to what they had been in view of His disposal of the Kingdom according to the Father's mind, and puts the highest value on all they had done. Matchless love surely this. which could thus interpret His calling and keeping them as their continuing with Him in His temptations ' But such is Jesus to us as to them, while in the day of glory each will have his place, yet all according to the same rich, unjealous grace.

*"And": so A, etc., Syrcu sin and Vulg. Edd. follow BDLT, Memph. "for."

Luke 22: 31-34.

Matt. 26: 31-35; Mark 14: 27-31; John 13: 36-38.

But the Lord* makes a special appeal to one while warning all of a common danger. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has begged.547 for† you to sift as wheat, but I have besought for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou, when once turned back 548‡ establish (confirm) thy brethren.549 And he said to him, Lord, with thee I am ready to go both to prison and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter,550 [the] cock shall not crow today before that thou hast thrice denied that thou knowest me." Love not only brings into what itself possesses, but holds out and provides against the greatest possible strain where every appearance must condemn the object loved. Yet it was no lack of love that exposed Peter to the sin of denying his Master, but his self-confidence made shipwreck of his faithfulness. Through grace alone his faith failed not utterly. We see it not only in the tears of bitter self-reproach, but yet more in the earnest ardour after the Lord which went into the tomb whither John had outrun him. But we see the grace of the Lord, which here supplicated beforehand, still shining after all in the message to "the disciples and Peter," in His early appearing to him by himself, and in his later more than re-instatement when all his failure was traced and judged to the root. What can we express but our shame and sorrow that such is nature even in the most zealous, when put to the test, and above all when the Word of the Lord is practically slighted? If we believe not His admonition of our own weakness, we are on the point of proving its truth, perhaps to the uttermost.

*The words "And the Lord said," are in ADQ. Edd. omit, following BLT, Syrsin and Egyptian versions. A precarious omission with no more than three uncials. (B.T.)

†"Has begged for." It is a mistake that ἐξαιτέομαι means always "to have prevailed," though it sometimes bears this force. But it is often no more than begging off, or to have in one's power, as here. "Obtain by asking" (Alford) is clean contrary to the context, and, indeed, to the truth generally. (B.T.)

‡"When once turned back." The verb επιστρέφω is used both for the first turning to the Lord, and for turning back if one have wandered, as here. (B.T.) See, further, note 548 at end of this volume.

Luke 22: 35-38.

The Lord now prepares the disciples for the great change at hand. He contrasts their past experience with that which was coming. "And he said to them, When I sent you without purse and wallet 551 and sandals, did ye lack anything? And they said Nothing. He said therefore to them, But now he that hath a purse [pouch], let him take [it] and likewise his wallet, and he that hath none, let him sell his garment and buy a sword. For I say unto you, that this which is written must yet* be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among lawless. [men]: for also the things concerning me have an end."552 Thus the changes to them depended on Him. Jesus was about to be given up into the hands of wicked men; the protection thrown around Him, as around them, was now to be withdrawn. Clearly this is no question of atonement, though of suffering and rejection in which others could have communion, as the apostle expressly teaches in Philippians 3: 10. Jesus was despised and rejected of men, yea, given up to it finally of God; besides He "who knew no sin" was about to be "made sin" for us.

*"Yet": so Blass (omitting ὅτι, that), with ΔΛΠ, Syrcu Vulg. Arm. Other Edd. omit, after ABDHL, etc., 1, Memph.

Little did the disciples understand their Master. Indeed, flesh and blood can never relish suffering, more especially suffering such as His, where man proves his vileness and opposition to God to the uttermost. Even saints are slow to enter in. They necessarily feel the value of atonement; for otherwise they have no standing-place, not even a well-grounded hope of escape as sinners before God. "And they said, Lord, behold here [are] two swords. And he said to them, It is enough"553 — a correction of their thought, however mild. For had it been a question of the literal use of the sword in self-defence, two must have proved a wholly inadequate means of protection. The Lord had employed the sword, purse, and wallet as symbolic of ordinary means on which the disciples would henceforward be thrown, but certainly not to abandon personally the ground of grace in presence of evil, even to the last degree of insult and injury, on which He had insisted at the beginning of their call and charge as apostles. No more, however, is said; the true sense is left for that day when the Holy Spirit being given would lead them into all the truth. Alas! Christendom has lost the faith of the Spirit's presence as well as the certainty of the truth, into which grace alone has been leading back a feeble remnant as they wait for the return of the Lord Jesus. Truths such as this cannot be appreciated unless we go forth unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach.

Luke 22: 39-46.554.

Matt. 26: 30, 36-46; Mark 14: 26, 32-42.

But now we approach what is still more solemn and sacred ground. "And going out he proceeded according to his custom to the Mount of Olives, and the* disciples also followed him. And when he was at the place, he said to them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation. And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and, having knelt down, he prayed, saying, Father,555 if thou wilt, remove this cup from me, but then, not my will but thine be done." It was, indeed, no wonted occasion even for Him, but the awful moment of the enemy's return, who had departed for a season after his old defeat in the wilderness. But this garden was to behold an equally decisive defeat of the enemy as became the Second man, the Lord from heaven. It was no longer Satan seeking to draw away from the path of obedience by what was desirable in the world. He sought now, if he could not drag Jesus out of the path of obedience, to fill Him with alarm and to kill Him in it. But Jesus shrank from no suffering and weighed before God all that was before Him. He watched and prayed and suffered, being tempted. The disciples failed to pray and entered into temptation, so that nothing but grace delivered them.

*"The": so Edd., following ABDL, etc., Amiat. "His" (T.R.) is the reading of EQΔpm, etc., 69, Syrrcu sin pesch.

The Holy Spirit does not give us the detail of the three prayers of the Lord as in Matthew, but rather a summary of all in one. In both we see His dependence in prayer and His tried but perfect submission to the will of His Father. Here, however, we have what is characteristic of our Evangelist, both in the angelic succour which was sent Him, and in the bloody sweat that accompanied His conflict. It is well known that many Fathers, Greek and Latin, have cast a doubt upon verses 43 and 44. "And an angel appeared to him from heaven strengthening him. And being in conflict he prayed more intently, and his sweat became as clots of blood falling down upon the earth." Several of the more ancient MSS. indeed also omit them, as the Alexandrian, Vatican, and others, beside ancient versions; but they are amply verified by external witnesses, and the truth taught has the closest affinity to the line which Luke was given to take up.* The true humanity and the holy suffering of the Lord Jesus stand out here in the fullest evidence.556

*Cf. "Lectures on Gospels," p. 383f. Besides All, corrRT,

and Akhmim MS., the Sinaitic Syriac omits these verses; whilst pm DFGHKLM, etc., most cursives, Syrrcu pesch hcl hier,

ancient Armenian attest them, as do Old Lat. also Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Augustine, etc. After Lachmann, W. H. (see their App., p. 64ff.) and Weiss question; but Blass, after Treg. Tisch. Meyer, Alford, etc., upholds them. Cf. Scrivener, Vol. II., p. 353ff., and see note 557 in App. Their omission is explicable from lectionary arrangements.

Here again, however, observe that the suffering differs essentially from atonement. For not only does He speak out of the full consciousness of His relationship with the Father but He has also the angelic help which would have been wholly out of season when forsaken of God because of sin-bearing. All was most real. It is not meant that His sweat fell merely like great drops of blood, but that it became this as it were; that is, the sweat was so tinged with blood which exuded from Him in His conflict that it might have seemed pure blood.557 "And rising up from his prayer, he came to the* disciples and found them sleeping from grief. And he said to them, Why sleep558 ye? Rise up and pray that ye enter not into temptation." We shall see presently the result of their sleeping instead of praying. Not only did the absent Judas betray, but all forsook, and even the most prominent of the three chosen to be nearest the Lord denied Him with oaths, denied Him thrice before the cock crew. They entered into temptation and utterly failed. We can only be kept by watching and prayer. Evil is not judged aright save in the presence of God. There the light detects and His grace is sufficient, even for us. But man has no strength against Satan. It must be His light and His grace; without the power of His might we enter only to dishonour our Master, Leaning upon Him, the weakest of saints is more than conqueror. Thus only is the devil resisted and he flees from us.

*"The": so Edd. after BDQRT, Arm. The "his" of T.R. (Elzevir) came from 1, Latt. Syrrcu sin Memph. Aeth.

Luke 22: 47-53.

Matt. 25: 47-56; Mark 14: 43-50; John 18: 3-11.

"As* He was yet speaking, behold, a crowd and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went on before them and drew near to Jesus to kiss him. And Jesus said to him, Judas, deliverest thou up the Son of man with a kiss?"558a How gracious, but how terrible the words of Jesus to him who knew his Master and his Master's haunts enough to deliver Him thus to His enemies! "And those around him, seeing what was about to happen, said,† Lord, shall we smite with [the] sword? And a certain one from among them smote the bondman of the high priest and took off his right ear.558b And Jesus answering said, Suffer thus far; and having touched the ear, he healed him."‡ He could still work miraculously by the Holy Ghost. Indeed, we know from John 18: that He could and did cast them all down to the ground by the power of His name; but here it is the witness of His grace to man, even at such a moment, rather than of His own personal majesty, which was about to be east off and to suffer on the cross. Each incident is of the deepest interest and eminently suited to the Gospel in which it occurs.

*"As," etc.: DE, etc., have "But as." Edd., however, reject the δέ, following ABLRTX, etc., 1, 69, Amiat.

†"Said": AERΔ, etc., 1, 69, Syrr. Amiat. add "to him," which Edd. omit, according to BLTX, Memph.

‡Blass follows D: "And stretching forth his hand, he touched him, and his ear was restored."

"And Jesus said to the chief priests559 and captains of the temple and elders, who had come against him, Have ye come out as against* a robber with swords and sticks? When I was day by day with you in the temple, ye did not stretch out your hands against me; but this is your hour and the power of darkness." God was giving up the Lord Jesus to men before He was forsaken in accomplishing the work of redemption.

*"Against": so most Edd., with BDL, etc. Tisch.: "to," as GH, etc.

Luke 22: 54-62.560

Matt. 26: 57f., 69-75; Mark 14: 53f., 66-72; John 18: 12-18, 25-27.

"And having apprehended him, they led and introduced* [him]† into the house of the high priest. And Peter followed afar off. And having lit a fire in the midst of the court, and sat down together, Peter sat among them. And a certain maid, having seen him sitting by the light fixed her eyes upon him and said, And this [man] was with him. But be denied [him],‡ saying, Woman, I do not know him. And after a short while another561 seeing him, said, And thou art of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. And after the lapse of about one hour, another stoutly maintained, saying, In truth this [man] also was with him, for he is a Galilean too. But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he was yet speaking, a§ cock crew. And the Lord turned round and looked upon Peter562 and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he said to him, Before [the] cock crows today,|| thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter, going forth without, wept "bitterly."¶ We see here the worthlessness of natural courage in the saint and the weakness of one's own love when relied on. Only God can sustain, and this, too, in exercised distrust of self, when the Word is received by faith and the heart abides in dependence on God. A servant-girl frightens an apostle, and the first false step involves others deeper and farther, if possible, from God; for what is our consistency if we be not consistent with the Cross? The unbelief which refuses the humiliating warning of the Lord works out the accomplishment of His Word. But the Lord never fails, and as He had not in faithfulness beforehand, so, after the fact, He does not hide His face from Peter, but turns round and looks at him. His own sufferings did not preoccupy the Lord to the extent of forgetting Peter, and Peter's guilt and shame in no way turned the Lord from him, but rather drew His look towards him. "and Peter remembered the word of the Lord," and his sorrow worked repentance, though the Lord carried it farther still, as we know, after He rose from the dead; for the root of evil must be judged as well as the fruit, if we are to be fully blessed and would know how to hell,) others, as Peter was called to do and did.

*"introduced": so most of the authorities. Blass follows DT, Syrrcu sin, and some Old Lat. with Aeth. in the omission of εἰσήγαγον.

†["Him"]: so EXΔ, etc., 69, Memph. Edd. omit, as ABDKLM, etc., Old Lat.

‡["Him"]: so ADpm EGH, etc., most cursives (69), Amiat. Edd. omit, as BKLM, etc., Syrrcu sin pesch, most Old Lat. and the Egyptian versions.

§"A": so all authorities, except a few of the minuscules, Syrsin and Sah., which have "the."

||"Today": so most Edd., after BKLMT, Syrsin Aeth. Blass omits, as ADΓΔΛ, nearly all cursives, and copies of Old Lat. Syrcu Arm.

¶Verse 62, which W. H. bracket, Blass omits entirely because the verse is absent from some copies of the Old Lat. and he supposes was inserted from Matthew. It is in Syrsin as in all Greek MS., "Peter": so A, etc., Syrr. Vulg. Aeth. Edd. omit, as BDKLM, etc., Syrrcu sin Memph. Arm.

Luke 22: 63-65.

Matt. 26: 67f.; Mark 14: 65.

Then follows the sad tale of men's insolence and blasphemy towards the Lord. "And the men who held him,* mocked him, beating him, and covering him up,† asked him, saying, Prophesy who is it that struck thee? And many other things they were saying blasphemously to Him." Such was the rude evil of the underlings. The chiefs might act with more seeming decorum, but with no less unbelief and scorn of His claims.

Luke 22: 66-71.564

Matt. 26: 59-66; Mark 14: 55-64.

"

And when it was day, the elderhood of the people, both chief priests and scribes, were gathered together, and led him into their‡ council, saying, If thou art the Christ,565 tell us. And he said to them, If I tell you, you will not at all believe; and if I should ask, ye would not at all answer

.§ But||  henceforth shall the Son of Man be sitting on the right hand of the power of God. And

they all said

, Thou, then, art the Son of God? And He said

to them,

Ye

, say that I am. And they said

, What need have we of witness further? For

we

have

ourselves

heard

from his mouth

." There was lying testimony brought against Jesus; but it failed. He was condemned for the truth, which man believed not. He declined to speak of His Messianic dignity, which was already rejected by man, and was about to be replaced by His position as Son of man on the right hand of the power of God. If they all infer that He is the Son of God, say it or gainsay it whoever will, He acknowledges and denies not, but acknowledges that truth which is eternal life to every believer.

*"Him": so Edd., with BDLM, etc., Syrsin Old Lat. Memph. "Jesus" is the reading of AEXΔ, etc., 1, 69, the other Syrr.

†After "covering him up," AXΓΔΛ, etc., most cursives, Amiat., add "smote his face and," which Edd. omit, after BKLM, Syrrcu sin and Egyptians.

‡After "their," ΔΛ, 1, 69, add "own," which is omitted by Edd. as not in BDLT, etc.

§AD, all later uncials, most cursives. Syrr. (including sin.) Old Lat. here add "nor let me go," which Edd. omit, as BLT, Memph.

||"But": so Edd. with ABDLTX, Old Lat. ED, etc., omit. Syrrcu sin have "for."

LUKE 23: 1-25.*

Matt. 27: 2, 11-31; Mark 15: 1-20; John 18: 28-19: 16.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 387-395.

We have next the scene before the Roman governor. Heartless as he was and with little conscience, still wilfulness characterized the Jews. "And the whole multitude of them rose up and led him to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this [man] perverting our* nation and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ, a king." Thus they who were really impatient under the Roman yoke, breaking out from time to time into turbulent opposition, were here forward in the pretence of loyalty. But this was a little thing compared with the blindness of unbelief  - which denied their own Messiah. Nor could any charge be more false. He had departed from them when they wished to make Him a king. He had only just before expressly enjoined that they should render to Caesar the things that were Caesar's, no less than to God the things of God.

*"Our": so Edd. after BDH, etc., 69, Syrr. Old Lat. Memph. Sah. Aeth. Blass, with AEG, etc., and most cursives, adheres to "the."

It will be observed that when "Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? he answering said to him, Thou sayest." The Lord acknowledged the authority that was ordained of God, however He might suffer it. This is the true safeguard of faith, let the authority be ever so faithless. We are called to walk in His steps. We are not of the world even as He is not of the world. By and by we shall reign with Him and shall judge the world; we shall judge even angels. The more are we called above the world in spirit to be subject to God's authority in it: only we must obey God rather than man and therefore suffer where His will and the world's authority come into collision. So the Lord here witnesses a good confession,566 and submits to all the consequences.

But it is striking to observe that the Lord's confession of the truth (for indeed He was the King of the Jews) did not damage His cause before the Roman governor, but with His own people, blinded against the truth. On the contrary, "Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, I find567 no fault in this man. But they insisted, saying, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee568 as far as this." Satan was pushing the incredulity of Israel to the last extremity. It is always so finally with his victims. Christ, in the fulness of His grace and truth, thoroughly brings out what is in man, because He brings in God.

"

But Pilate having heard of Galilee,* demanded if the man were a Galilean. And having learnt that he was of Herod's jurisdiction, he remitted him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem in those days. And when Herod saw Jesus he rejoiced exceedingly, for he was wishing for a long time to see him, because of hearing [much]† of him. And he hoped to see some sign done by him, and questioned him in many words. but he answered him nothing

."569 The silence of the Lord was a very solemn condemnation of Herod, while it gave the fullest opportunity for the rude insolence of his followers as well as of the accusers. "

And the chief priests and the scribes stood and vehemently accused him. And Herod with his troops set him at nought and mocked him, and having arrayed [him] with a splendid

570

robe, sent him back to Pilate

."571 The Spirit of God does not fail to notice here the moral peculiarity of the transaction. There had been a feud between the Governor and the King, but "

Pilate and Herod became friends with one another that very day, for they had been previously at enmity with each other

."572 Thus it is against Christ that Satan contrives to make his union in the world, as the grace of God does by Him and for Him.

*"of Galilee": so ADRXΓΔΛΠ, later uncials, in cursives, Syrr. Old Lat. Sah. Edd. omit, as BLT, Memph.

†["Much"]: so ARXΓΔΛ, later uncials, most minuscules, Syrr. Old Lat. Edd. omit, following BDKLMΠ, 1, Syrrcu sin Sah. Memph. The word is in AERXΓΔΛ, etc., 13, 69, other Syrr. Old Lat.

The closing hour approaches, "And Pilate having called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people said to them, Ye have brought to me this man as turning away the people, and behold I, having made examination in your presence, have found no fault in this man, as to the things of which ye accuse him; nay, nor yet Herod, for I remitted you to him,* and behold, nothing deserving of death is done by him. Having chastised him therefore, I will release him." Such was the boasted equity of the Roman empire, of man. There was no doubt of the innocence of Jesus. The charges of the people had been proved to be fictitious. The hardened judge could. not condemn, but acquit as a matter of justice. He was willing to concede something to please the people, but he was anxious to release the Prisoner. Whether the 17th verse be genuine or not, there can be no doubt from what follows that it was the custom to release a prisoner at this time. Several excellent authorities omit the verse, as the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Parisian uncials (62 and 63), with several very ancient versions, whilst others change its position. Nevertheless the Sinai, with the mass of MSS. and some of the best versions, contains it. On the whole the balance seems in its favour, as it also would be harsh to act upon an unexplained custom.† "Now he was obliged to release one for them at [the] feast. But they cried in full crowd, saying, Away with this [man] and release Barabbas for us; one who for a certain tumult made in the city and murder had been cast into prison." Such was the choice of man, such the value of their loyalty to Caesar, such their care for God's respect for the life of a fellow-creature made in His image. A rebel and a murderer preferred to Jesus!

*"I remitted (ἀνέπεμψα) you to him": so Lachm., Treg., Meyer, Alford, etc., with ADXΓΔΛM, later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syrhcl (txt), most Old Lat. (Cf. verse 10.) Most Syrr. (including sin.) have "I sent him to him." Tisch., W. H. (Revv.), Blass and Weiss adopt "He sent him back (ἀνέπεμψε) to us," following BKLM, etc., the Egyptians and Aeth.

†The versions omitting are the Egyptians and one copy of Old Lat. The uncials containing it, besides , are XΓΔΛM, etc.; all the cursives show it, besides several copies of Old Lat., with Amiat. of Vulg. The Syrr. have it, only that Cureton's and the Sinaitic, as Cod. D., place it after verse 19. Treg., Tisch., Meyer, W. H., Weiss (as from Matthew or Mark) discredit, but Blass (as Wordsworth and Milligan) retains the verse; this critic being of opinion that the omission arose from confusion of the two initial ἀνάγκην δέ and ἀνέκραξαν (verse 18) δέ, and he observed that ἀνάγκην εἶχε is Lucan (xi v. 18).

"Again therefore* Pilate addressed them, wishing to release Jesus. But they kept calling in reply, Crucify, crucify him! And he said the third time 573 to them, Why, what evil has this [man] done? I have found no cause of death in him. Having chastised him therefore, I will release [him]. But they were urgent with loud voices begging that he might be crucified; and their voices [and those of the high priests]† prevailed.574 And Pilate gave sentence that what they begged should take place, and released‡ him who, for tumult and murder, had been cast into prison, for whom they begged, and Jesus he delivered up to their will."575

*"Again therefore": so X, etc. Edd. read "and (δέ) again," as ABDLT, Syrsin Latt. Memph.

†"And of the high priests": so ADTXΔΛΠ, later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. (including sin.). Blass brackets. Other Edd. omit, as BL, most Old Lat., Amiat., Sah.

‡After "released," KMΠ, 1, 69, Syrr. Amiat., add "to them." Edd. omit, with ABD, etc.

Thus all the world was proved guilty before God, but none were so deeply involved as those whom it least became. The people who had the law fell under its curse, not merely because they were disobedient to its requirements, but, worst of all, because they were resolutely bent on the rejection of their own Messiah to death, and this when the heathen sought to let Him go. Such was what the world was proved to be, where the reality came out through Him who alone was real, the Holy and the True. No room for boasting more: there never was, in truth, but now it is evident and impossible to be denied by him who rightly reads the Word of God.*

*Dean Alford remarks that Luke omits the scourging and mocking of Jesus. It is just _possible that he might have omitted the mocking, because he had related a similar incident before Herod; but how shall we say this of the scourging, if he had seen any narrative which contained it? The break between verses 25 and 26 is harsh in the extreme, and if Luke had any materials wherewith to fill it up, I have no doubt he would have done so. Truly, unbelief is not confined to unbelievers, and is to my mind more grievous, as it is less consistent, in the believer. The reasoning is as feeble as the presumption is inexcusable, even if verses 16 and 23 did not prove that scourging is distinctly implied on the part of Pilate. Inspiration does not give all that was known, but the Holy Spirit selects facts and words according to the Divine design in each writer. We know expressly from the last of the Evangelists that much more was known than was recorded (John 20: 30, 31). The nature of the design in Luke excludes the detail of Gentile iniquity,575 and accounts by moral purpose of the Spirit for that omission which was so unworthily, and I will add unintelligently, imputed to the writer's ignorance. To call a break "harsh in the extreme" which is due to the Holy Spirit I must leave every pious reader to characterise. (B.T.)

Luke 23: 26-32.

Matt. 27: 52; Mark 15: 21.

Nevertheless the Spirit of God gives us more. "And as they led him away, they laid hold of a certain Simon, a Cyrenian, 576 coming from [the] country, and put on him the cross to bear [it] after Jesus." There was no restraint now, but if man were lawless, God remembered Simon another day, and his sons are not forgotten in the record of life. (Compare Mark 15: 21 and Romans 16: 13.) It may be a terrible truth that God looks down from heaven and beholds the children of men, and sees none so worthy of reprobation as those who misuse selfishly the highest privileges of His mercy; but when we know Him, or rather, are known of Him, it is not the least of our comforts that God takes account of everything, and knows how to reply in His grace to those who have power and not on the side of the oppressor.

It is not that man lacks feeling: but feeling without faith comes to nothing, no less than mind, or authority, or position, were it the highest in the religious world. The affections of nature may be sweet, but never can be trusted to stand firm to Christ, however moved for a season. "And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who* wailed and lamented him. And Jesus turning to them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me, but weep over yourselves and over your children; for behold, clays are coming in which they will say, Blessed the barren and wombs which bear not and breasts which suckled not. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall upon us, and to the hills, Cover us.577 For if they do these things in the green tree, what shall take place in the dry? "Jesus knew what was in man, despised not the feelings of the women, but trusted Himself to none. Tenderly He warns them of that which man believes not till it comes, for it is a part of man's wisdom to suppose the future uncertain in the words of God, because it is uncertain to man. Fools and slow of heart to believe what the Lord said no less than their own prophets! Had they believed them, they had not refused Him. Had they received Him, days of heaven had dawned upon the earth, on Israel especially, and all the glorious visions of His reign had been accomplished. But Israel was ruined and guilty, man fallen and lost, and all in such a state reject Jesus. Therefore God works out deeper counsels by the Cross of Jesus in heaven and for heaven, now testified by the Holy Ghost sent down here below. These are the counsels and the ways of His grace, but His warnings stand equally, and His Word must be accomplished to the letter. Soon had they an accomplishment, though I do not say that there may not be more in store at the end of the age, when those who refused the true Christ that came in His Father's name shall receive the Antichrist coming in his own. And the overflowing scourge shall pass through and the apostate Jews be trodden down by it. The Messiah was the green tree, the Jews the dry.578 If He because of their wickedness came into such sorrow, what was not reserved to them for their own? For, whatever His grace, God judges righteously.

*After "who," Ccorr EPΔ, etc., 1, add "also," which Edd. reject, after ABCpm DEX, 33, Old Lat. Memph.

Luke 23: 33-49.

Matt. 27: 33-56; Mark 15: 22-41; John 19: 17-30.

"

And two others, malefactors, were led with him to be put to death

."579 Jesus was spared no insult. As He was the song of the drunkard, so He made His grave with the wicked. "

And when they came

* to the place called Skull,580 there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.

And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do

."†581 It is not here, as in Matthew and Mark, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It is the expression of His grace towards sinners, not of His abandonment by God in accomplishing the work of atonement; and it is of the deepest interest to see that, as the answer to the one came in resurrection-power and heavenly glory, so of the other in the proclamation of forgiveness by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.582 Therefore Peter could preach (Acts 3: 17ff.), "And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as also your rulers. But those things which God had showed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing way come from the presence of the Lord," etc. But here again we have to wait. The message of forgiveness was refused. A remnant, indeed, believed, received forgiveness, and rose into better blessings; but the mass have pursued their heedless unbelief to this day, and will sink into deeper darkness. Yet assuredly light shall spring up in the darkest hour, and the remnant of that day shall be brought out of their sins and ignorance alike to be made the strong nation when He appears to reign in glory.

*"Came": so most Edd., after BCDLQ, 33, 69, Syrrcu sin pesch old Lat. Tisch.: "Had gone," as T.R., from AEXΔ, etc.

†After Lachm. W. H. (see their App. p. 67f.) and Weiss discredit this verse as far as "do," on the strength of corr BDpm and Akhmim MS., three cursives, Syrrsin and the Coptic versions. The words are attested by pm ACDcorr QXΓΔΛΠ, etc., nearly all cursives, including 1, 33, 69, Syrrcu pesch hcl hier, several Old Lat., Arm. Aeth., and are accepted by Blass, following Tisch. Treg. Alford, etc.

The horrors of the crucifixion in its detail come before us. "And, parting his garments, they cast lots. And the people stood beholding, and the rulers also* [with them]† sneered, saying, He saved others, let him save himself if this is the Christ, the chosen of God.‡ And the soldiers also were mocking him, coming up§ offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou art the king of the Jews, save thyself. And there was also an inscription over him,|| This is the king of the Jews."583 In every respect the Word of God was accomplished, and the ways of men laid bare. It was no question of a class and its peculiar habits. High and low, the governed and the governors, civil and military, all played their part; and the part of all was enmity against God revealing His love and goodness in His Christ. The folly, too, of man was apparent no less than grace in presence of his wickedness. It was because He was the King of the Jews, as none other had been or can be besides, that He saved not Himself, and can therefore send out the message of salvation now and bring salvation by and by. Little did man, in that day, weigh the import of that which was written over Him in Greek and Roman and Hebrew letters, "This is the king of the Jews." If man wrote it in scorn, God will give it all its own force — God Who overrules the will and the wrath of man to praise Him. Through the Crucified, God will bless the world by and by, Jew and Gentile, high and low, even as His grace gathers out from it now.

*"Also": as ABC, with all other uncials and the mass of cursives. The word is omitted by Tisch., after D and five minuscules.

†"With them": so AΓΔΛΠ, all later uncials, and most cursives, Syrrcu sin hcl. Edd. omit, as BCDL, etc., 33,69, several Old Lat. Memph.

‡Influenced by W. H., the revisers have taken τοῦ θεοῦ as preceding "chosen," and so "God" with a comma after it. Syrsin, however, sustains the earlier punctuation.

§The "and" of T.R. after "coming up," which is in Ccorr EQXΔ, etc., 1, 33, 69, most Syrr. Amiat., Edd. omit, following ABCpm L, etc.

||Between "inscription" and "the king," Lachm., with pm ACcorr DXΔM, etc., all cursives, Syrrpesch hcl, most Old Lat. Arm. Aeth., reads "in Greek and Roman and Hebrew letters." (Cf. John 19: 20.) All later Edd. omit these words, after corr BCpm L, Syrrcu sin and Egyptian versions. Syrsin has "And an inscription was written and placed over him, This is the king of the Jews."

Here God would give a testimony of His grace to man, suited to His Son and suited to the Cross. Hence He was pleased to choose the most hopeless circumstances in the view of nature, and even while delivering a soul, up to this steeped in guilt and degradation, in the agonies of death, and with the forebodings of a judgment incomparably more solemn, even as it is eternal, to secure in the fullest way His own immutable character, and to manifest in practical righteousness the ungodly one whom His grace had justified by faith. All this and much more may be seen in the history which our Evangelist alone gives of the converted robber.

"

Now one of the hanged malefactors reviled him

.*

Art not

thou

the Christ? Save thyself and us. But the other in answer rebuking him said, Dost not even thou fear God, because thou art in the same judgment? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due requital for what we have done, but this [man] has done nothing amiss. And he said to Jesus, Remember me† when thou shalt come in‡ thy kingdom.584 And he§ said to him, Verily, I say unto thee,|| Today585 shalt thou be with me in paradise

."

*"Saying" is here added by ACQR, etc. Edd. omit, as BDL. Most Edd. reproduce as above the reading of BCpm L, etc., Syrrcu sin Sah. Memph. Arm. Aeth. Blass follows D in omission of all after "him." The T.R. has, "If thou art," etc., from ACcorr and all later uncials, all cursives, the other Syrr. and Amiat. The Old Lat. copies are divided.

†Here corr ACcorr, all the later uncials and the minuscules, Syrrcu sin Old Lat. Aeth. add "Lord." Some few, 'but of the highest authority (BCL, the Sahidic and Coptic versions and Origen sometimes) read, "Jesus, remember me," etc. (B.T.). So W. H. and Weiss.

‡"In" before "thy kingdom" is the reading of ACΔM, for which BL, Syrsin have "into": so W. H., Treg. and Revv. in marg. and Weiss. Blass, after D, reads the verse thus: "And turning to the Lord, he said to him, Remember me in the day of thy coming (ἐλεύσεως)." See notes in Part II.

§"He": so Edd., as BL, Sah. "Jesus" is read in ACEQRXΔ, etc., Syrr (including sin.).

||Before "today," Blass introduces "Take courage (θάρσει)," as D.

There is no sufficient reason to suppose that the robber was converted before he was crucified, or even before he had joined his fellow in reviling the Lord. The earlier Gospels give us ground to believe that both were thus guilty, that the rejected Jesus was exposed to this as well as to every other draught of the bitter cup. I am aware that general phrases may be used, but I see no sufficient ground to doubt that each of the robbers did thus join in insulting the Lord of glory. Why should we hesitate? Is it because the conversion of one of them might seem too sudden? — a reason in my judgment wholly insufficient. Conversion is usually, if not always, sudden, though the manifestation of it may not be. The entrance of the soul into enjoyed peace may be lone, delayed and may demand the removal of many hindrances. This is rarely done in a very short time; but it is wholly distinct from conversion, and the two things should not be confounded as they too often are. Conversion is the soul's turning to God through a believing reception of the Lord Jesus; the enjoyment of peace depends on the soul's submission to the righteousness of God when the redemption-work of the Lord Jesus is seen by faith. Hence there are many souls who are truly converted because they have bowed to Jesus, who nevertheless are often cast down and unhappy and burdened, because they do not equally see peace made by the blood of His Cross. Where there is the simple reception of the Gospel the converted soul passes so soon into peace that one can well understand how the two things get confounded in the minds of many; as many others, on the contrary, confound them, because, unconsciously slighting conversion, which frequently plunges the soul in deep exercise and trouble of conscience before God, they only take into account that complete relief and peace which the Gospel ministers.

Certain it is that the malefactor was now converted who rebuked the sin of him, who persisted in reviling the Lord. On the other hand, there may be the surest reviling of the Saviour without one word which man as such would consider blasphemous. In this very instance the impenitent robber simply said, "Art not thou the Christ? Save thyself and us." It was a thought, it was language not unnatural to man's mind under such circumstances. It was blasphemy to the mind of the Spirit. That the promised centre and medium of every blessedness for the earth, for man, and for God here below, should die upon a cross did seem beyond measure strange; that He Who had all power to save others, not to speak of Himself, should be pleased so to die, was naturally incredible. Man does not understand the depth of the humiliation of Jesus any more than the grace of God, or of his own utter need as measured and met by both.

But it is deeply interesting to see that a new-born soul discerns according to God, and this instinctively in virtue of the new nature where no formal teaching had been given or received. The converted robber at once warns his impenitent fellow of his sin, sets before him his danger, confesses his own natural state, his own life, his own ways no less evil than the other's, and in the most serious and feeling way vindicates the glory of the Lord Jesus. "Dost not even thou," said he in a reply of rebuke, "fear God?" The death which was before his spirit gave the gravest tone to it and made him speak out with evident anxiety, and this not so much for himself personally as in compassion for the reviler, however he might feel his sin. There they were, "in the same judgment," as a fact, but how different in God's eyes!

And faith gave him to estimate this aright — the crucifixion of a malefactor unrepentant, of another repentant, and of Him Whose grace drew out the repentance of the latter and hardened the former to the uttermost because he believed not. There is no true fear of God apart from faith; but faith produces not only hope and confidence in God, but also the only genuine sense of what it is to be a sinful man in His sight, and hence the only real humility. Such was the present state of this converted robber. Nothing shows it better than that he should so forget himself as practically to preach to the reviler, to set before him his sin and his danger, to hold up Jesus Christ the righteous. He does not stop to think of the singularity of such words from his own mouth, that be, a wretched, guilty, degraded malefactor, should appear to presume to speak of God to man, to rebuke a fellow-sinner, to maintain unsullied the name of Him Whom the highest authorities had just condemned to die on the cross. This in truth is the humility of faith, not the mere human lowliness of trying to think as ill of ourselves as we can, but the Divinely given sense that we are too bad to think of ourselves at all, because of the perfection we have seen in the Saviour, the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus.

Not that this self-forgetfulness produces the smallest unwillingness to confess our own sins, but on the contrary makes us free to acknowledge them fully, as we see in the words "And we indeed justly, for we receive the just requital for what we have done, but this [man] has done nothing amiss." The converted man owns himself as bad and as justly condemned as the unconverted one, but he takes all care to exempt Jesus from the common character of fallen man. "this [man] has done nothing amiss." How had he learnt it? We know not that he had ever listened to or ever seen Him before; but we may be certain that never before had he such a knowledge as would warrant such language. Was he rash, then? He was taught of God, he had beheld the Lamb of God. On the cross he had seen enough, heard enough, to be certain that there was hanged beside him the long-expected Messiah Who should save His people from their sins and blot out their iniquities as a thick cloud, Who should make reconciliation for iniquity, and bring in everlasting righteousness. As for himself, his wicked life was ending, the forfeit of his crimes, due to the outraged majesty of the laws he had broken. But if there was a just sentence of man in his case, there was forgiveness with God that He might be feared; and the spotless dying Lamb had given him to realise both his own sins and God's holiness as never before.

Without a particle of highmindedness, he felt that the opinion, yea the solemn judgment of man was nothing in Divine things. The high priest had treated the claim of Jesus as blasphemy; the Roman governor had given him up, knowing he was innocent, but afraid of displeasing Caesar, to the murderous will of the Jews. But grace had made single the eye of the converted robber; and his whole body was full of light. He could answer for Jesus as one who was known thoroughly. "This [man] has done nothing amiss." It was contrary to all man's experience, not only to what he knew of himself and of others known to him, but to all ever reported since the world began. Yet it was not more sure that others were sinners than that Jesus was not. It was faith, and exactly such a confession of Jesus as glorified Him at that moment when in the eyes of the world at the lowest point, despised and rejected of men. No angel was here to comfort, no apostle to confess Who He the Son of man was. If all else had forsaken Jesus and fled, the converted robber from the cross was there to confess the crucified Lord, in terms hardly heard before but truly adapted in the wisdom of God to give the lie to unbelief. The God Who opened the lips of babes and sucklings a few days before to set forth His praise wrought in the hanged robber with yet greater power now.

"And he said to Jesus, Remember me when thou shalt come in thy kingdom." An admirable prayer and in beautiful keeping with the whole truth of the position. It is not what we might have thought at first sight suitable to such a case. The Lord described a poor publican as saying acceptably to God, Have mercy upon me, the sinner that I am. The converted robber here has no doubt of the Lord's mercy. He does not ask for a part in His kingdom, but to be remembered by Jesus then. What! He, a robber, to be remembered by the King of kings and Lord of lords? Even so. He was right, and those who would judge him as wrong are so themselves. They enter not, as he did, into the glory of Jesus, Who, as He calls His own sheep by name now, will not forget the last any more than the first then in the perfection of His love. He prays to be remembered when Jesus should come in His kingdom, for he at least believes in the kingdom of the Son of man. Others might set up the inscription without faith over the Crucified, but the name and kingdom of the Crucified were, inscribed on the converted robber's heart.

Remark also how he was guided of the Spirit, not more concerning Christ and His ways and character than about His kingdom. Truly he was taught of God. Some looked only for the kingdom of Messiah here, others since conceive that Jesus is gone into a kingdom far away. He prays to be remembered when Jesus shall come in His kingdom; for, as our Evangelist shows in the parable (Luke 19: 11, etc.), He is gone to a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom and to return. He will be invested with the kingdom on high, as also is shown by the prophet Daniel; but He will surely come in His kingdom instead of merely closing all things here below. Not so will He come in His kingdom. He shall reign over all peoples and tribes and tongues. Yet it is no mere earthly realm, but the kingdom of God, consisting of heavenly things as well as of earthly (John 3: 12); nor is it a kingdom of the Spirit, though the Spirit makes it good now in those who believe, but a real personal kingdom of Jesus; and the converted robber, with all saints, will be remembered when He shall come in His kingdom. The once robber will surely have his place in that. day. He knew Whom he had believed and was persuaded that He is able to keep what he had committed to Him against that day.

But the prayer of, faith, while it surely has its answer according to the measure of our soul's confidence in Divine love according to the Word, has its answer also according to the depths of Divine grace and truth far beyond our measure. So it was now. "And he said to him, Verily, I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." If the prayer of the robber was admirable, much more was the reply of Jesus, a reply ushered in with special emphasis, not for him only to whom it was said, but for us also who believe in Him Who died and rose again for us. The blessings of accomplished redemption are not deferred till that day. They are true now, whether we live or die. We are the Lord's, and we know it; we are bought with a price; we are washed from our sins in His blood. By Him the Father has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. Such is the position, such the standing, such the assured, known privilege of the believer by virtue of redemption. The converted robber was the first soul to taste of this rich and fresh mercy. The Lord assures him, not merely of His remembrance in the kingdom, but of being that very day with Himself in paradise. What a testimony to the all-overcoming and immediate power of His redemption! A robber so purged by His blood as to be that very day with the Son of God, and this, not in heaven only, but in its brightest, highest seats! For such is paradise.

Believer, heed not those who may say that the Lord, separate from the body, abode in gloom till His resurrection. Not so. His spirit was shut up in no prison, but commended by Himself to the Father; and where He is, there too are His saints. Doubtless He had not yet ascended; for ascension, like, resurrection, is predicated of the body; but His spirit went to paradise, and as Adam's paradise of old was the choicest spot of an unfallen earth where all was very good, so is the paradise of God the choicest of heaven. Hence St. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12, connects it with the third heaven; and St: John holds it out as the promised scene of glory where the overcomer shall by and by eat of the tree of life. No believer can conceive that this will be a place of dimness and doubt and restraint, but of Divine and everlasting glory through the Second man, the last Adam.

In this paradise, then, the Lord declares that the converted malefactor should be with Him "today," so completely were his sins blotted out by blood, so rendered capable himself, by and in that new nature which grace gives the believer. Instruction most weighty for us, and a hope full of glory, for it is the present fruit of redemption and the gift of grace to every believer. It was not assuredly his own act of dying which had this virtue for the malefactor, but the death of the Lord; and this is as free and full for every Christian as for him to whose faith it was then made known. To us now it is proclaimed in the Gospel. Shame on those who profess to believe the Gospel, but deny its most precious and eternal blessings. Nor is it merely the dark and queen-like Circe who cheats her victims and destroys them with poisoned cup, and will surely find her plagues from God in one day. How few among those who have cast off her thraldom enjoy the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free! How many with an open Bible overlook the plainest lessons where there is no veil, but man stands immediately confronted with the light of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ! Anything short of this is not the true grace of God, is not the Gospel of the glory of Christ, but the darkening effect of that unbelief, so prevalent in Christendom, which has, is it were, sewn up the veil again with God at a distance within, and man without, wistfully looking for a deliverance as if the Deliverer had not already come and finished the work of redemption. For the soul salvation is come: for the body, no doubt, it waits till Jesus come again. But this is another matter on which we need not inquire more now.

Nor did God permit that so stupendous an event as the death of His Son should leave unaffected that world which He had made, or that legal system which He had set up by Moses In the midst of His earthly people. "And it was now* about [the] sixth hour, and there came darkness over the whole land till [the] ninth hour. And the sun was darkened,†586 and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend‡ my spirit; and, having said this, he expired."587 And the testimony was not without immediate effect on the officer in command at the crucifixion. "Now the centurion, seeing what took place, glorified God, saying, Certainly this [man] was righteous." But the mass were filled with the sense of having committed themselves to they knew not what. "And all the crowds that came together for that sight, having beheld§ the things done, returned beating [their] breasts." Not that some were not there who prized His ministry and were attached to His person, but far off in that day of man's shame and guilt and of Satan's power. "And all those who knew him stood afar off, and women who had accompanied him from Galilee, seeing these things."

*"Now": so BCpm L, Memph., followed by most Edd. Blass omits, as ACcorr DQRXΓΔΛΠ, all later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. Old Latt. Sah. Arm.

†"And the sun was darkened": so Lachm., Treg., Meyer, and Blass after Acorr DQRXΓΔΛMΠ, all later uncials, most cursives, all Syrr. Tisch., W. H. have "the sun being eclipsed" (Revv. "the sun's light failing"), τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος (Weiss, Nestle: ἐκλίποντος), as in BCpm L and Egyptians.

‡"Commend": so Edd., following ABCKM, etc., 33, Syrrcu sin T.R. "will commend" is the reading of ELΔ, etc.

§"Having beheld": so Edd. with BCDL, etc., 33, Syrr. EPQΔ, etc., 69, read "beholding."

Luke 23: 50-56.

Matt 27: 57-61; Mark 15: 42-47; John 19: 38-42.

But God used that very day and His grace who was thus put to death to bring out to distinct association with His name a good and righteous man. If Jesus in His life of rejection had not Joseph openly in His train, the death of the cross made him bold while others fled or stood aloof. "And behold, a man named Joseph, being a councillor and a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathea a city of the Jews, who waited for the kingdom of God, himself went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus; and, having taken down, wrapped in fine linen and placed him* in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. And it was preparation day, and sabbath dusk† was drawing on."588; On their affection, not without darkness, a brighter day was soon to dawn.

*"Him": so Edd., following BCD and most Old Lat. "It" is the reading of AELPXGDLP, all later uncials, and most cursives (33).

†It was evening, not morning, though learned men have forgotten Jewish modes of expressing the day no less than the ignorant. Any one who takes the trouble may soon see how this mistake has embroiled the harmonies, especially as to the details of the death and the resurrection of Christ in point of time. (B.T.: Cf. Wellhausen ad loc.)

LUKE 24: 1-12.*589

Matt. 28: 1-8; Mark 16: 1-8; John 20: 1-13.

*Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 395-407.

The Sabbath day had interrupted the loving labours of the women with their spices. "On the first [day] of the week, very early [at deep dawn] in the morning" they* returned.590 Love is usually quick-sighted; it might have the sense of coming danger where others were dull; it might have the presentiment of death where others saw triumph and the effect of burning zeal for God and His house. None but God could anticipate the resurrection. Their labour was bootless, as far as their own object was concerned, whatever might be the reckoning of grace. In these scenes of profoundest interest Jesus alone is perfection.

*After "prepared," in the rest of the verse, Blass, with Acorr DXΓΠΔ and all later uncials, nearly all minuscules, Syrr. Sah. Arm. and Eusebius, adds "and some others with them." Other Edd. omit, as BCpm L, 33, most Old Lat. Memph.

And they found the stone rolled away591 from the sepulchre; and entering in they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.*592 And it came to pass, in their perplexity about it, that behold, two men593 stood by them in shining raiment. And as they were fearful and bending their faces to the ground, they said to them, Why seek ye the living One among the dead? He is not here, but is risen:† remember how he spoke to you, being yet in Galilee,594 saying, That the Son of man.595 must be delivered up to the hands of sinners, and be crucified, and rise the third day." But men, and even saints, are dull to appreciate the resurrection; it brings God too near to them, for of all things none is more characteristic of Him than raising the dead, and most of all resurrection from among the dead must be learnt by Divine teaching as only He could reveal it of His grace. For this breaks in upon the whole course of the world and displays a power superior to nature, triumphant over Satan, which delivers even from Divine judgment. Here it was the Deliverer Himself: often had He told the disciples of it; He had named even the third day. Yet those who were most faithful, as they understood not at the time, so remembered not afterwards till the fact had taken place and heavenly messengers recalled His words to them afresh. "And they remembered his words; and, returning from the sepulchre,‡ related596 all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene,597 and Joanna, and Mary the [mother] of James, and the rest with them, who§ told these things to the apostles. And these words appeared in their eyes as an idle tale, and they disbelieved them."598

*"Of the Lord Jesus": so Weiss, with some earlier Edd., after ABCL, all other uncials but one, all cursives, Syrr. other than Cureton's and Sinai, Memph. Arm. Aeth. Blass omits the words, which W. H., exceptionally following D and Old Latt., discredits. Cf. R.V. mar-. and see, further, note 592 in App.

†"He is not here, but is risen": so all authorities except D and Itala. Nevertheless, W. H., Blass, and Weiss agree in treating the words as no part of the primitive text.

‡"From the sepulchre": retained by Weiss, as in all authorities but those mentioned in last note, with Memph. and Arm. W. H. brackets; Blass omits.

§"Who": so corr X, etc., Syrr. Memph. Arm. Edd. (Revv.) reject, as pm ABDEFGH, etc., Old Lat. Sah. Aeth., according to which there would be two sentences in the verse; the first ending either with "James" (W. H.) or with "them" (Weiss). Blass omits all after "them."

The resurrection of the Saviour is the foundation of the Gospel; but it is the writers of the Gospels themselves who let us know both the ignorance and the obstinate unbelief of those who were afterwards to be such devoted and honoured witnesses of Jesus. Nor need the believer wonder. For if the Gospel be the revelation of God's grace in Christ, it supposes the utter ruin and good-for-nothingness of man. Doubtless it is humbling, but this is wholesome and needed; no sinner can be too much humbled, no saint too humble; but no humiliation should weaken for a moment our sense of the perfect grace of God. The lesson must be learnt by us in both ways; but of the two the sense of what we are as saints is far more profound than of sinners when just awakening to feel our real state before God. And this is one of the great differences between evangelicalism and the Gospel of God. Evangelicalism owns the fallen and bad estate of man as well as the mercy of God in the Lord Jesus Christ; but it is altogether short when compared with God's standard, death and resurrection. It owns that no power but that of Jesus. can avail; but it is rather a remedy for the sick man than life in resurrection from the dead. It is the same reason which hinders saints now from appreciating themselves dead and risen with Jesus that made the disciples so slow to comprehend the words of Jesus beforehand, and even to receive the fact of His own death and resurrection when accomplished.

We may observe, too, how little flesh could glory in what we have here before us. Out of weakness truly the women were made strong, while they who ought to have been pillars were. weakness itself or worse. The words of the witnesses of the great truth seemed in their eyes a delirious dream, and they who were afterwards to call men to the faith know by their own experience, even as believers, what it is to disbelieve the resurrection. How this would enhance their estimate. of Divine grace! how call out patience no less than burning zeal in proclaiming the risen One to incredulous man! He who had so borne with them could bless any by Him Who died for all.

"But Peter, rising up, ran to the sepulchre, and stooping down he sees the linen clothes lying alone, and went away home,* wondering at what had happened."†599 It is to John we are indebted for telling his part and God's analysis of his own inner man. "Then entered in therefore the other disciple also who came first to the tomb, and he saw and believed. For they had not yet known the scripture that he must rise from the dead." "He saw and believed." It was accepted on evidence: he no longer doubted that Jesus was risen; but it was founded upon his own sight merely of indisputable fact, not on God's Word. "For as yet they knew not the scripture that he must rise from among the dead." Still less was there any intelligent entrance into God's counsels about resurrection, any adequate understanding of its necessary and glorious place in the whole scope of the truth.

*Such is the true connection and rendering of πρὸς ἑαυτόν with ἀπῆλθε, not with θαυμάζων, as in the Authorised Version and many others. (B.T.)

†This verse is retained by Lachm. and Treg., but rejected by Tisch. and Blass, and discredited by W. H. and Weiss, who suppose that it was drawn from John 20: 4. It is, however, attested by AB, 1, Syrrcu sin. The Syrr., with corr and B, omit (as Revv.) κείμενα, "lying (laid)," whilst. pm AKΠ have not μόνα, "alone (by themselves). "

Luke 24: 13-35.600

Mark 16: 12.

Next our Evangelist gives us fully and with the most touching detail that appearing of the risen Lord which the Gospel of Mark sums up in a single verse: "After that he was manifested in another form to two of them as they walked going into the country."

Here I cannot doubt that it is a testimony to the walk of faith to which the Lord, no longer known after the flesh, would lead on His own. It is of no consequence who the unnamed one may have been. They were disciples staggered by the crucifixion of the Messiah, whom grace would comfort, founding their faith on the Word and giving the saints to see Jesus unseen, Whom they knew not while they looked on with natural eyes. One of the ancients, Epiphanius, conjectured the companion of Cleopas to be Nathaniel; among moderns the learned Lightfoot is confident that he was Peter. We may rest assured that both were mistaken, and that he could not have been an apostle; for on returning to Jerusalem the two found "the eleven" among those gathered together. (Verse 33.) The grand point of moment is the Lord's grace in leading them out of human thoughts to Himself as the Object of all the Scriptures, and this, too, as first suffering, then entering His glory.

"

And behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village, distant sixty* stadia from Jerusalem, called Emmaus; and they conversed with one another about all these things which had taken place. And it came to pass while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus himself drawing nigh went with them. But their eyes were holden so as not to know him. And he said to them, What words [are] these which ye interchange with one another as ye walk and are downcast?†

601

And one [of them], named Cleopas,

602

answering said to him, Dost thou sojourn alone in Jerusalem and knowest not

602a

the things come to pass in it in these days? And he said to them, What things? And they said to him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarean,‡ who was

603

a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to [the] judgment of death and crucified him. But

we

had hoped that he was [the one] about to redeem

604

Israel; but then also§ with all these things, this is the third day since these things came to pass. And withal, certain women from among us astonished us, having been early at the sepulchre, and, not having found his body, came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who say that he is alive. And some of those with us went to the sepulchre, and found even as the women also had said; but him they saw not

."605

*"Sixty": so Edd., after ABDL, etc. "One hundred and sixty" is in [Kpm Npm Π, etc., and Old Lat.

†The reading of the Sinaitic, Alexandrian (first hand it would seem), Vatican, Parisian (L. ἔστησαν), confirmed by some excellent ancient versions [Egyptian], is ἐστάθησαν [R.V. "stood still"], the effect of which would be to close the Lord's question with "as ye walk," and to present the words "and they stood downcast" as the consequence before Cleopas answers. This appears to me as remarkably graphic as it is according to the manner of Luke. (B.T.) So Tisch., Treg., W. H., and Weiss. Blass, following D, omits περιπατοῦντες καὶ ἔστε, and also rejects ἐστάθη αν.

‡"Nazarean": so Blass, after ADN, etc. Edd. "Nazarene," with BL.

§"Also": so Edd. with BDL, 1, 33, and Arm. It is not in ANP, etc.

How blessedly we see the way of the Lord Jesus drawing the hearts of men of God with the cords of a man! In resurrection He is still truly man, "the same yesterday, today, and for over," and adapts Himself to the heart, even though, as Mark lets us know in the verse already cited, their eyes were holden so that they should not recognize their Master: He had appeared "in another form." But He drew out their thoughts to lead them into the truth, in order that the very sorrows of His rejection, which seemed so inexplicable to them and inconsistent with their expectations, might be seen to be required by the Divine Word, and thus be a confirmation, not perilous, to their faith. They had looked for redemption by power; they now learn in His suffering to the uttermost, the Just for the unjust, redemption by blood; and not this only, but a new life out of death, and superior to it, witnessed and established and given us in Him, Satan's power in sin and its consequences being vanquished for ever, though for the present only a matter of testimony to the world and of enjoyment by the Holy Ghost to the believer.

"

And he said to them, O senseless and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!

606

Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter

607

into his glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets,

608

he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

"

Such is the real secret of unbelief in believers. They fail because they do not believe all. Having but a partial view of Divine truth, they easily exaggerate here or there; and the rather as, not reading Christ throughout Scripture, they are apt to shirk that rejection in the world now which disciples must accept or at least experience if they follow the Master, as surely as they will share His glory by and by. In the world, as it is, Christ could not but suffer; and everyone who is perfected shall be as He. It is morally inevitable as due to the Divine nature, as well as required by the Word. It could not be otherwise, God being what He is, and man a sinner in thraldom to the enemy. But now He was dead and risen; and they must know Him thus, no longer according to their old and Jewish thoughts. We have Christ's own word for it, that He was in the mind of the Spirit in all the Scriptures; and they are blind or blinded who see Him not in every part of the Bible. He is the truth, but it is only by the Holy Ghost we can find Him even there.

A great lesson was taught during the walk to Emmaus. The accuracy and light of the Scriptures showed where men, and even believers, had overlooked much. The Jews had contented themselves with their general testimony to the hopes of the nation and the glory of the kingdom; but they had passed by, as the Lord proved, what was really deeper and now of the most essential importance — the sufferings of Christ, no less than the higher and heavenly part, at any rate, of the glories which should follow. The Lord condescended to draw the evidence from the written Word of the Old Testament, rather than to take His stand upon present facts alone, or His own fresh revelations. But more was needed than the value of Scripture thus proved, and this He supplies.

"And they drew near to the village where they were going, and he made* as though he would go farther. And they forced him, saying, Stay 609 with us, because it is towards evening and the day is sunk low. And he went in to abide with them. And it came to pass as he was at table with them, having taken the bread, he blessed, and, having broken, gave [it] to them.610 And their eyes were opened thoroughly, and they recognised him, and he disappeared from them."

*Blass reads, as T.R., the imperfect (προσεποιειτο, "he was for m.") with PX, etc.; other Edd., the aorist (προσεποιήσατο), as ABDL, 1.

Not that the occasion was the Eucharist, but that He chose the act of breaking the bread, which He had previously made the symbol of His death for us, to be the moment and means of making Himself known to the two disciples. Thus was He to be known henceforward, no longer after the flesh, but dead and risen. Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ.

Hence, too, the moment he was recognised He vanished from them. It is no longer a visible Messiah, any more than a living one after the flesh. He is only rightly seen by the Christian when unseen, yet He must have come and accomplished the mighty work of redemption first. For this purpose He had died, having glorified His Father on the earth and finished the work given Him to do. But this done, He does not yet take His ' old and predicted place on the throne of David. This awaits the day when Israel shall be brought back repentant and blessed in their own land, under His glorious reign, and all the earth shall reap the fruits to the praise and glory of God the Father. But, for the present, new things have come in. The Redeemer is gone to heaven, not come to Zion, and on earth He is known by His own disciples in the breaking of bread, His presence being exclusively known to faith.

"And they said to one another, Was not our heart burning in us, as he spoke to us on the way,* as he opened to us the scriptures? And having risen up that hour, they returned to Jerusalem and found assembled the eleven and those with them saying, The Lord is indeed risen and hath appeared to Simon.611 And they related the things on the way, and how he was made known to them in the breaking of bread." As the angel had expressly said, "Go, tell his disciples and Peter" (Mark 16: 7), so He appeared to Cephas (1 Corinthians 15: 5), then to the twelve.

*AEPXΔ, etc., 1, 69, Amiat. put "and" before the second "as." This the Edd. omit, with BDL, 33, Memph.

Luke 24: 36-49.

Mark 16: 14-18; John 20: 19-23.

And so it is taught us here, "And while they were talking these things, he himself* stood in their midst, and says to them peace to you.612 But confounded and being frightened, they supposed they beheld a spirit."613 And he said to them, Why are ye troubled, and wherefore do reasonings613a rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones even as ye see me have. And having said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.† And while they were yet unbelieving for joy and wondering, he said to them, Have ye anything to eat here? And they gave him part of a broiled fish [and of a honeycomb].‡ And having taken, he ate before them." It is the Lord Himself, risen from the dead, but a real man, with hands and feet, capable of being handled and seen, not a spirit, but a spiritual body. Of this He gave the fullest proof by proceeding to eat in their presence. As having a body He could eat; as having a spiritual body He did not need to eat.614 Thus the resurrection of the body had its glorious attestation in His own person, the needed and weightiest possible support of their faith. Christianity gives an immensely enlarged scope to the body as well as the soul; for our bodies are now the temple of the Holy Ghost as surely as we are. bought with a price, and exhortations to Christian holiness are founded on this one wondrous fact. Christ was the great Exemplar of man; His body was the temple of God. We are only fitted for it through His redemption.615

*"He himself": so Edd., as BDL, Syrrcu sin Sah. "Jesus himself" is the reading of AEG, with later uncials and most minuscules (1, 33, 69) and Memph. The words, "and says to them, Peace to you," although accepted by Lachm. and Treg., are questioned by most of the Edd., because of absence from D and copies of Old Lat. See John 20: 19. They are in all other MSS. and versions.

†Verse 40 (cf. verse 12) is doubted by most Edd. from its omission in D, the Syrrcu sin and Old Lat., also because of likeness to John 20: 20. It is in AB, all later uncials but Beza's, in the cursives, the other Syrr. and the Egyptians, and is upheld by Lachm. and Treg.

‡["And a honeycomb"]: so EHKM and the other later uncials, the cursives 1, 33, 69, most Syrr. and Old Lat., Memph. Aeth. Arm. Edd. omit, following ABDLΠ, Syrsin.

But, further, there is a message. "And he said unto them, These [are] the* words which I spake unto you, while being yet with you, that all that must be fulfilled that is written in the law of Moses and prophets and psalms concerning me. Then he thoroughly opened their understanding to understand the scriptures, and said to them, Thus it is written† that the Christ should suffer and arise from [the] dead the third day;616 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all the Gentiles beginning at Jerusalem.617 Ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but do ye settle in the city,‡ until ye be endued with power from on high." It was no new thing for the Lord to disclose His death and resurrection. He had been intimating it from before the transfiguration with increasing plainness; but they had heeded little a truth the need of which they did not feel for themselves and the moral glory of which for God they could not yet see. It was impossible to affirm with truth that it was a surprise to Jesus, or that law, psalms, and prophets had overlooked it, for on this truth of His death and resurrection hang the types as a whole, and this is the deepest burden of the prophets and of the psalmist. But now the suffering Christ was risen from among the dead, and repentance and remission of sins must be preached in His name to all the nations with Jerusalem as the starting-point. What wondrous grace! The nations had slain Him at Jerusalem's instigation, but God is active in His love above all the evil of man or of His own people.

*"The": so, Blass, as T.R., from , etc., Syrr. and Latt. Other Edd. follow ABDKL, etc., 33, and Aeth., which have "my."

†"Thus it is written," etc.: so Edd. after BCpm DL, Memph. Aeth. "Thus it behoved" is the reading of ACcorr N, etc., most cursives (1, 33, 69), Syrr. and Vulg.

‡After "city," ACcorr XΓΛΠ, all later uncials, all cursives, Syrr. Arm. Aeth., add "of Jerusalem," which Edd. omit, following BCpm DL, most Old Lat. and Memph.

It is well to note, however, that repentance is preached with remission of sins; nor can we exaggerate its importance if we do not misuse it to depreciate God's work of grace by Jesus Christ our Lord. Many, no doubt, misuse it, and more misunderstand it; but repentance abides a necessity for every soul which looks out of its sins to the Saviour. He has finished the work by which comes remission of sins to the believer; but it is not the faith of God's elect where the soul overlooks its sinfulness, where the Holy Spirit does not produce self-judgment by the Word of God applied to the conscience. Faith, without such a recognition and self-loathing and confession of our sins and state, is only intellectual, and will leave us to lie down in sorrow when we most need solid ground and peace with God. Repentance, on the other hand, Is no preparation for faith, but the accompaniment of it, and is alone real where faith is of God. It is deepened, too, as faith sees more clearly.

It is well to note also that the promise of the Father is distinct from repentance and remission of sins, as it is, again, from the opening of the understanding to understand the Scriptures. These the disciples had already; they had to wait for the promise of the Father. Till the descent of the Spirit they were not endued with power from on high. Then the Holy Ghost, sent down from heaven, wrought variously to the glory of the Lord.

Luke 24: 50-53.618

"And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands, be blessed them. And it came to pass, while he was blessing them, he was separated 619 from them, and was carried up into heaven.* And they having done him homage,† returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God."‡ To that spot outside Jerusalem Jesus had often gone. There was the family that He loved; thither He leads the disciples for the last time on earth, and thence, in the act of blessing, with uplifted hands, He parts from them and is borne up into heaven — the risen Man, the Lord from heaven. What a contrast with him who fell, and all the earth through him, transmitting the curse to his sad descendants! Here it is not the first Adam, but the Last; and "as is the heavenly, such are they also who are heavenly." Filled with peace and joy, what could they do but continually praise and bless God, Who had in the second Man accomplished His own will, though at infinite cost, and perfected them that were sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. They were, and are, perfected in perpetuity: no less a result than this satisfies God's estimate of the sacrifice of His Son. But assuredly the promise of the Father, when fulfilled, did not make the joy less or the praise more scanty. For He is not only power for testimony, but also for the soul, the One Who gives us now the full taste of fellowship, and causes worship to ascend to our God and Father in spirit and in truth. But of this the sequel of Luke, commonly called the Acts of the Apostles, is the due and full witness, and there, if the Lord will, we may enter into the detailed account which the Spirit has given us of His work, whether in individuals or in the Church, to the glory of the Lord Jesus.§ Truly our fellowship is with the Father and With His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

*"And was carried up into heaven": so Lachm., after ABCLXMΛΠ, etc., later uncials, all minuscules, most Syrr. Vulg. Memph., Cyril and Augustine. Other Edd. discredit it, following pm, D, Syrsin, some Old Lat. See W. H., App., p. 73.

†"Having done him homage": so Lachm. and Treg., after all MSS. except Beza's, and versions except most of Old Lat., which other Edd. follow for the bracketing or omission (Tisch.) of these words.

‡"Praising and blessing": so Lachm. and Treg. (text), after corr XΔM, etc., all cursives, some Old Lat., Amiat., etc. W. H. and Weiss omit "praising and," with BCpm L, Syrrsin hier; Tisch. and Blass omit "and blessing," with D and some Latt. Memph. and Augustine. It may be a "conflation." At end, ABCcorr XΔ, etc., 69, Syrr. Amiat. add "Amen," which Edd. omit, as Cpm DLΠ, 1, 33, Syrsin, several Old Lat. Memph.

§See "The Acts of the Apostles, with a New Version of a Corrected Text, Expounded," 2 vols. (1895).

Mark

W. Kelly.

An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark

Edited, with additions, by E. E. Whitfield.

Elliot Stock, 1907

(The reference figures, relate to the notes respectively so numbered in the Appendix — mark_app.doc.)

"The Son of man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister."

Preface

Lectures on the Second Gospel, by the late Mr. W. Kelly, for fifty years editor of the Bible Treasury, passed through that magazine in the years 1865 and 1866, as "Remarks on the Gospel of Mark." These are now reproduced under the title intended by him for their separate publication. He hoped to develop the lectures by the addition of critical apparatus and an examination of the common treatment of the "Synoptic problem." As this was not to be carried out by himself, an endeavour has been made to supply in the present volume something in substitution.

For the English text of this Gospel, in the "Remarks" generally that of the Authorised Version, large use has been made of an anonymous "New Translation" referred to by Dr. F. Field in his "Otium Norvicense." That version was a work of Mr. J. N. Darby, and as such serves better for a volume of Mr. Kelly's writings than any other which might be offered in lieu of his own. The Greek text represented is, accordingly, that which underlies Mr. Darby's translation. The portions peculiar to Mark are here in heavy type. Any deviations from the Authorised Version of Old Testament passages quoted are drawn from the same translation (London: G. Morrish, 1890). Marginal references to parallel passages in the other Gospels have been added.

To the few critical notes which appeared originally, with some taken from other volumes of the magazine, the letters "B.T." are attached; the rest are new. All these foot-notes embrace the latest available evidence, such as that of the Sinai palimpsest, discovered in 1892, of what is considered the oldest Syriac version known. "Edd." (editors) stands for the critical text adopted in 1904 by the British and Foreign Bible Society for its centenary edition of the Greek New Testament, a translation of which, in Bagster's "Workers' New Testament" (1906), is at the command of ordinary English readers.

The Introduction is made up from later papers of Mr. Kelly in the Bible Treasury, especially extracts from those collected in his volume entitled "God's Inspiration of the Scriptures," which will indicate his attitude on the historical and the textual criticism of the Gospels, and that of Mark in particular. These have been developed in the notes arranged as an APPENDIX, where reference is made chiefly to the literature that has appeared within the last forty years. For such notes the editor alone is responsible. Indexes of passages and contents complete the book.

Readers will find "freedom of criticism" applied to the ideas of some of the real leaders in the business of literary and historical criticism of the Bible. To use words of Professor Julius Wellhausen himself, we should have "eyes to see" and should "dare to use them." Anyone familiar with the processes by which Biblical study is carried on by learned Germans knows what generals they are in the army of "hewers of wood and drawers of water"; how admirable in investigation of what lies on the surface; but how their very occupation with details mars their insight, for which ingenuity has to do duty. They have more to learn from Englishmen than we from them: in this country sound sense is seldom lacking. Constant submission by English-speaking people to German critical opinion is in every way a mistake.

May God in His mercy deliver many from the present widespread apostasy, that such may continue in His goodness! Those who would surrender Christ's word cannot be far off from giving up Himself.

E.E.W. March, 1907.

Introduction

§1. BIOGRAPHICAL

Mark (Marcus) was a common Roman praenomen. His Jewish name was John.1 He was converted through Peter (1 Peter 5: 13; cf. Acts 12: 12).2 At the very outset of his Christian course Barnabas (his relation) and Paul took him with them on their missionary travels (Acts 12: 25, Acts 13: 5). John Mark had that light idea of the responsibility of Christian service which is so common: he thought he could take up and put down God's work as he liked, and he left the two leaders to go on with the work by themselves, whilst he went off home again (Acts 13: 13, Acts 15: 36; cf. Acts 4: 36). Then we lose sight of him for six or seven years, which, for all we know, may have been so much lost time; and after that he becomes the passive cause of an exceedingly unfortunate dispute. Paul and Barnabas arrange a further mission, and Barnabas "determines" to take his relation again with them, while Paul "thought not good" to take one who had already deserted his post. This gave rise to so sharp a contention that the two veterans separated. . . . Most of us, perhaps, would have thought it best to leave Mark alone after that; and it comes as quite a surprise that we find him finally charged with the high honour of writing one of the four Gospels. Not only, does Peter take him in hand with that affectionate care which we should expect from one of his nature, but Paul, who had such a disparaging judgment of him in former times, is able to recognise and acknowledge the value of Mark's subsequent service. He mentions him as being one of his five fellow-workers who were "a comfort" to him (Col. 4: 11; cf. Philemon 24) in Rome about A.D. 64, and two years subsequently he tells Timothy to "take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Tim. 4: 11).*

* Bible Treasury, vol. xx., p. 28 ff.

This evangelist, as Luke — mentioned together in 2 Tim. 4: 11 — was doubtless a prophet. It is the prophetic character of gift which especially is in exercise for writing Scripture (Rom. 16: 26). This explains the true source of the authority in such holy writings. To attribute it to Peter 2 for the one and to Paul for the other betrays the worthless character of early tradition, such as it appears in the speculations of Eusebius of Caesarea.†

† "Exposition of 2 Timothy," pp. 138, 172.

§2. DIVINE DESIGN

The second Gospel 3 has for its design the setting forth of the service "of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He who at first failed, but at length was pronounced "profitable for ministry," was just as suitable in the power of the Holy Spirit for that task as Matthew, called from the receipt of customs to be an Apostle, was for the first Gospel. Christ Himself serves in the Gospel, and does mighty works accompanying it, as Mark describes.‡

‡ Cf. "Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Gospels," pp. 152, 156 ff.

The precision which Mark furnishes, partly by his characteristic "straightway" that so often occurs, partly by a perhaps still more definite specifying of time — e.g., in Mark 4: 35 — enables us to clear up some difficulties in the different order of the events* related in the three Synoptic Gospels.3 From a careful comparison it results that, of the four inspired writers, two were led to abstain save in the rarest degree from chronological order; two from their respective designs subordinate that order where requisite to a grouping of events or discourses independently; and of the two, in each case one was an Apostle, the other not. Matthew and Luke were from time to time not bound to simple historic sequence, whereas Mark and John as the rule adhere to it.4

*"Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Gospels," pp. 140-151.

None can be justly called "fragmentary,"5 for each has a specific design impressed on the work, and all that is inserted or omitted may be accounted for on this principle. Where an incident illustrates that which belongs to the scope of all four, they all introduce it, as, for instance, the miracle of the five loaves and the two little fishes. Where it falls in with the province of one only, there it is given, and nowhere else; as the Temple tax in Matt. 17, the deaf stammerer in Mark 7, the penitent woman in Luke 7, and the Samaritan woman in John 4, to mention but one of the many facts, signs, and discourses peculiar to each, and to John abundantly. In some cases three give the same subject-matter, in others but two.

But this is not all. Whilst there are notable phrases and words common to all,6 there are quite as notable differences7 in the mode of communication. Hence speculative minds are tempted to irreverent cutting of the knot they cannot untie;8 whilst unexercised souls fail to gather the profit intended of the Spirit through every shade of difference. For it is a perversion of the truth that the writers were inspired, but not the writings. If 2 Peter 1: 21 warrants the former, still more explicit and distinctly applicable is the claim for the latter in 2 Tim. 3: 16. In the verse preceding we have the "sacred" title of the Old Testament; but in verse 16 the Spirit of God pronounces for "every" thing that falls under the designation of "Scripture." It is not a question of human infirmity, but of God's power. Every Scripture is inspired by God (θεόπνευστος). Not only were the men inspired, but so, according to the Apostle Paul, is the result. Ordinarily their writing, like their words, would have been liable to the imperfections of human speech and the limitations of human thought; but every Scripture, every writing that comes under this category, is God-breathed, and in no way "left" to the mere accidents of human faculties. To mix up with inspiration the manifold errors of copyists in the lapse of ages is illicit and illogical, not to say dishonest, for this is quite another question. All we contend for is the Divine character of indisputable Scripture.

Differences, then, there are; but instead of being the discrepancies which unbelief hastily and improperly calls them because of ignorance, they are the beautiful and instructive effect and evidence of God's varied designs. Take Matt. 8 as an instance — "a solemn assembly of witnesses," as one justly calls it. The leper came, in fact, long before what is called the Sermon on the Mount. "And, behold," in verse 2 ties us down to no date. But as the Holy Spirit had already given a summary of the Lord's deeds of gracious preaching and power in Matt. 4: 23, 24, so He presents details of His teaching in chapters 5: 6, 7, and of His miracles in chapter 8, and again in another way in chapter 9, where the date yields to deeper considerations, and selected proofs are grouped together designedly. In Mark 1: 40-45, where no such purpose operates, we see its place historically. Luke confirms the fact that it was on "one of those days" when Christ was in Capernaum, and before the healing of the paralytic, which in Matthew is reserved for the first case in Matt. 9.

But, to look into details, the leper's cure fitly attested the present power of Jehovah-Messiah which opens Matt. 8. And as this proved His grace toward the Jew that came in his uncleanness and faith (however faltering), the Gentile centurion's great faith next follows, and here only is connected thus. In the Gospel of Luke it has a different place, in Mark it has none. The third fact in chapter 8, the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, so interesting to a Jew, and assuring that grace to the Gentile did not turn Messiah's heart from Israel, seems here inserted with that design, whereas historically it preceded both the previous miracles in date, as shown in Mark 1 and Luke 4. So, of course, did the healing of many demoniacs and sick on that evening after the Sabbath, in fulfilment of Isa. 53: 4. It is not in the least difficult to believe that the Holy Spirit led Matthew to introduce at this point what Luke presents in quite a different connection (Luke 9: 57), and with an addition too. The harmonists who imagine duplicates are no more faithful than the commentators who tax the inspired with discrepancies. The conversation, whenever it occurred, seems given in the first Gospel to show the great vessel of Divine power and grace — i.e., the Messiah consciously rejected, the Son of Man having nowhere to lay His head, yet claiming from a disciple to be followed, even if a father lay dead. We know, too, for certain that the storm which He rebuked and the deliverance of the demoniacs took place after the parables of Matt. 13 were heard and explained.

The septenary of chapter 9 is a similar collection of witnesses following that of chapter 8, which indicates not only His Divine power displayed in Israel, but the growing hatred and jealousy which it excited in the scribes, till it culminated in the Pharisees who sought to poison the multitude with their blasphemy: "By the prince of the demons He casteth out demons." But no more evidence is needed that Matthew was led, where it was required, to state facts and words so as best to give dispensational order, as Luke was led in no less a degree to present moral order. Take the Lord's genealogy as a clear proof, not in Luke 1, but in Luke 3, after the statement of John put in prison, and of the wondrous scene of His baptism following, though, of course, it long preceded what is here recounted. Take, again, the temptation, where Luke puts the third act in the second place as the moral order; whereas the actual fact as represented by Matthew coincided with the dispensational, which it was his function to make known. This necessitated the remarkable omission which the true and ancient text testifies, as distinguished from the common error introduced by copyists, harmonists, and the like, whose false assimilations provoke the rather more evil doubts of their opponents.

How full of interest, as bearing on Divine purpose, to observe that in the Gospel of Mark there is no account of the Lord's reading of Isa. 61 and preaching in the synagogue at Nazareth, any more than Matthew or John gives it! For Luke 4 it was reserved, as Christ's grandly suited introduction to public witness, as we shall see more fully in its place. The introduction for Matthew's Gospel was the striking but wholly different application of Isa. 9, where the light shining in despised Galilee was promised. Nor was Mark given to state this, but only Matthew, whose also it was, above all, to point out the fulfilment of prophecy in the still more despised Messiah, as he only had mentioned the visit of the Magi, and the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the babes, all bearing in the same direction.

Again, Mark was not led to present the remarkable healing of the centurion's servant, which has so prominent a position in the first Gospel, and a still greater length in the third. The leper's cleansing Mark does give, followed by the healing of the paralytic, and very graphically in both cases; but there was no design by him to bring in the witness that Jehovah's power would call in Gentiles when Israel should be cast out, as in Matt. 8, any more than to show, as in Luke 7, the faith of the Gentile, not so seen in Israel, which recognised the power of God in Jesus to command sovereignly and in love, and this in a soul so humbled by grace as to discern His people in the degenerate Jews, loved and honoured for His name's sake.

So, further, in the first Gospel and the second we have no account whatever of the widow's son raised from the dead outside Nain. It had no connection with their scope in particular, and we may presume that it was therefore here omitted. But it had the utmost importance for illustrating Divine power in the highest form, united in our Lord Jesus with the fullest human sympathy, and so it is exactly in accord with the special aim of Luke's Gospel, where alone it is found.

On the same principle we may account for a vast deal of intermediate matter given in the central parts of the first and third Gospels, which does not appear in the Gospel of Mark.9 We are thus delivered from the theories which have occupied many learned men, to the hurt of themselves and of those who trust them. For they have sought on human grounds to explain the different phenomena of the Synoptic Gospels, some advocating a common document,10 others only a general apostolic tradition.11 Again, a supplemental intention has been attributed to those that followed successively the first, for his own contribution to the sum as it gradually appeared and grew.12 Had they believed in the special design imprinted by the Holy Spirit on each and every one of them, erroneous speculation had been spared, to the honour of God's word and to the spiritual profit of His children. The differences which undoubtedly occur would then have been known to be in no case discrepancy, but springing from God's wisdom, not man's weakness, and adding incalculably to the witness of Christ, and consequently to the spiritual intelligence of him that accepts all from God in faith of His truth and love.*

*On "Divine Design" traced chapter by chapter, see continuation of the above in B.T., vol. xiii., p. 124 ff., reproduced in "The Inspiration of the Scriptures," pp. 320-329. As to "Divine Design" being discredited as an a priori theory, see "Lectures on Matthew," p. 8 ff.

Legitimate criticism may seek to gather the true text from reliable documents, in time differing more or less through human infirmity or fault. But it nightly supposes an original Divine deposit. No intelligent person would mix this question with God's inspiration; various readings belong to the distinct region of man's responsibility, as Scripture does to Divine grace. The problem of the true critic is to use all means, external and internal, to recover what was originally written (See §3). What is called "higher criticism" is essentially spurious, either denying God as the Author or impudently pretending to speak for Him, if they go not so far. Even Christians are in danger of heeding what these enemies of the written word assume, when it is said that it nowhere claims Divine authority. Nor is it only inferential evidence that is given throughout the Bible in general, as well as the conclusive proof of the reverence to all then written shown by our Lord, the Lord of all. It is dogmatic truth that God's inspiration is claimed for every Scripture — not merely for all given before the Apostle Paul wrote his last epistle, but for that part which remained to be written. For nothing less is the force of 2 Tim. 3: 16 Every scripture [is] inspired of God and profitable," etc. Had the existing body been meant the article would have been requisite, as in verse 14, which speaks only of the Old Testament. Its absence was no less correct for accrediting with the same source and character all that God might be pleased to vouchsafe till the canon was complete.

Indeed, the Apostle had at an earlier date made in substance the same claim in 1 Cor. 2. Where the Hebrew oracles stopped, the New Testament revealed all that is for God's glory and goodness to communicate (verses 9-12): "Which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those Spirit-taught, communicating spirituals by spirituals," or, if we supply the gap, "spiritual [things] by spiritual [words]." The words were as positively of the Holy Spirit as the thoughts.13 Such is the essential property of Scripture. Thus all was of the Spirit of God — the revelation, the communication, and also the reception. Rationalism denies God in them all, attributing them to man's spirit, which he may elevate in effect to that of God, being in darkness and walking in darkness, and knowing not whither he goes, because darkness blinded his eyes.

Translation, again, like interpretation, as well as editing the text from the varying witnesses, belongs to the responsible use of Scripture, and is quite distinct from the fact of its Divine inspiration. No doubt the conviction that God inspired every Scripture would act powerfully on the spirit of every believer who undertook works so serious, and is intended to make him feel his dependence on God in the use of all diligence and every means duly to attain the end in view. But inspiration means, as one of those employed in it says, that men spoke from God, moved (or borne along) by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1: 21). Hence Scripture is not of man's wit or will, but of God, as no one more clearly than our Lord ever shows, and so of final and Divine authority. Hence, too, the danger and evil for anyone to give, whatever the cause of failure, his own mind and not God's in editing, translating, or interpreting. What God communicated is able to make one wise unto salvation through faith that is in Christ Jesus. "Is it not written?" if truly applied, is absolutely conclusive in His judgment who will judge living and dead. "And the Scripture cannot be broken."

How immense, too, is the privilege! In its later portion it is the revelation of God, not merely from God, but of Himself, and of God speaking to us in a Son — not the Firstborn merely, but the Only-begotten, the revelation of the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit. Oh, the grace, too, of His Son deigning to become man, that we might have what is absolute made relative to us in the tender affections of very man, yet of One who was and is God as His Father. Hence the total change for us in looking at things, seen or unseen, according to God, where the greatest are brought down to our hearts, and the least we learn to be near to God's love; nothing too great for us, nothing too little for God, as said another departed from his labours to be with Christ. Christ alone, Christ fully, accounts for both, and Scripture is the true treasure-house as well as standard of it all, as the Spirit was sent forth from heaven to make it good in us in every way. No tradition could avail for such a stupendous task.

The Spirit of God in recording does not limit Himself to the bare words that Jesus spoke. This I hold to be a matter of no little importance in forming a sound judgment of the Scriptures. The notion to which orthodox men sometimes shut themselves up, in zeal for plenary inspiration, is to my mind altogether mechanical; they think that inspiration necessarily and only gives the exact words that Christ uttered. There seems to me not the slightest necessity for this. Assuredly the Holy Spirit gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The differences are owing to no infirmity, but to His design, and what He has given us is incomparably better than a bare report by so many hands, all meaning to give the same words and facts. . . . Matthew and Luke alike give us the parable of the sower, but Matthew calls it the word of the kingdom, while Luke calls it the word of God. The Lord Jesus may have employed both in His discourse at this time. . . . The Spirit of God did not give us to have both in the same Gospel, but acts with Divine sovereignty. He does not lower the Evangelists into mere literal reporters. . . , The mere mechanical system can never explain inspiration. It finds itself entirely baffled by the fact that the same words are not given in all the Gospels. Take Matthew "Blessed are the poor" (verse 3), and Luke (verse 20) "Blessed are ye poor." This is at once an embarrassing difficulty for the mechanical scheme of inspiration; it is none at all for those who hold to the Holy Spirit's supremacy in employing different men as the vessels of His various objects.*

*The last paragraph has been drawn from "Lectures on the Gospels," pp. 287-289. See further note 13 in Appendix.

§3. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

Although able critics have for a century sought to edit the Greek Testament on documentary evidence of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and early citations, none as yet have succeeded in commanding more than partial confidence. Hence it has been a necessity for any careful and conscientious scholar who would really know the sources to compare several of these editions, and search into the grounds on which their differences depend, so as to have anything like a correct and enlarged view of the text, and to judge fairly of the claims of conflicting readings. . . . Mature spiritual judgment, with continual dependence on the Lord, is just as essential as a sound and thorough familiarity with the ancient witnesses of all kinds.*

* From a review of the Revised Version of the New Testament in B.T., vol. xiii., p. 287 (June, 1881).

Lachmann published a manual edition of the New Testament professedly based on Bentley's idea of exhibiting the text as read in the fourth century . . . at one fell swoop sentenced the mass of the surviving witnesses to an ignominious death, and presented us with a text formed on absolute principles of singular narrowness . . . . 14 The neglect of internal evidence is a fatal objection. But the grand fallacy involved is that a manuscript of the fourth or fifth century must give better readings than one of the seventh or eighth. Now this is in no way certain. There is a presumption in favour of the more ancient manuscript, because each successive transcription tends to introduce new errors in addition to those it repeats. On the other hand, a copy of the ninth century may have been made from one older than any now extant, and certainly some old documents are more corrupt than many of the more recent witnesses. Every ingenuous scholar must own, to say the least, that the oldest manuscripts have some bad readings, and that the modern manuscripts have some that are good.15 Hence the distinction is not between the united evidence of the most ancient documents (Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers), and the common herd of those more recent; for rarely, if ever, is there such unanimous ancient testimony without considerable support from witnesses of a later day. The truth is that almost always, where the old documents really agree, there is large confirmation elsewhere, and where the ancients differ, so do the moderns. It is quite unfounded, therefore, to treat it as a question pure and simple between old and new. Nor is it the important point of research what particular readings existed in the days of Jerome. For notoriously errors of various kinds had then crept into both Greek and Latin copies, and no antiquity can sanctify an error. The true question is: What, using every available means to form a judgment, was the primitive text? It is often forgotten that our oldest documents are but copies. Several centuries elapsed between the original issue of the New Testament Scriptures and any manuscripts now existing. All, therefore, are on the ground of copyists differing only in degree. It is not, then, a comparison between a single eye-witness and many hearsay reporters, unless we have the original autographs. And, in fact, we know that an historian's account, three centuries after alleged facts, may be, and often is, corrected, five hundred or a thousand years after, by recurrence to sources more trustworthy, or by a more patient, comprehensive, and skilful sifting of neglected evidence.

My own conviction is that in certain cases, especially in single words, the most ancient copy that exists may be corrected by another generally inferior, not only in age, but in almost every respect besides, and that internal evidence ought to be used, in dependence upon the Spirit of God,16 where the external authorities are conflicting.*

*From Preface to "The Revelation of John," edited in Greek, with a new English version and a statement of the chief authorities and various readings (London: Williams and Norgate, 1860). For a commendation by Ewald of the views above expressed, see that distinguished scholar's notice of what he describes as this "very useful English work in Jahrbücher (Göttingen, Dieterich, 1861), No. xi., p. 247ff.

MARK 1

Cf. "Introductory Lectures on the Gospels," pp. 140-156.

Mark 1: 1-18.

Cf. Matt. 3: 1-11; Luke 3: 1-17; John 1: 19-30.

Mark gives us the ministry of the Lord. His account is brief; and there are few events which are not recorded by Matthew and Luke. Nevertheless, what a gap there would be in our view of the Saviour's life and work here below if we hid not Mark! In none have we a more characteristic manner of presenting what is given us. In none have we such graphic, vivid life-touches of our Master: not only what He said and did, but how He looked and felt. Besides, there is the evident design of drawing our attention to His Gospel service, and all the incidents chosen, and the peculiar mode in which they are handled, will be found to bear upon this weighty and affecting theme: the Lord God as the servant, in lowly, faithful ministration of the Gospel here below.

The very opening illustrates this. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ; 17 the Son of God†; as it is written in Isaiah the prophet‡: "Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way.§ The voice of one crying," etc." We at once enter on the great business the Holy Ghost had in hand. There is no blowing of trumpets to usher in the King in due style and title. This has its just place in Matthew, where the descent traced from Abraham and David, along the chosen royal line of Solomon too, so admirably agree with God's object there. And the circumstances before and after His birth follow, all carrying out the same end of presenting Jesus as the true and blessed Messiah of Israel. Luke and John, it could be readily shown, were endowed by the Spirit with equally striking and suited wisdom for maintaining the aim of their Gospels respectively; but space forbids for the present our delaying to speak of these things particularly.

† B. Weiss, with corr and most uncials (ABDL, etc.), besides versions, retains "the Son of God," which Nestle, after Tischendorf, etc., omits with pm and cursives. See Westcott and Hort, Appendix, p. 23. As to what the lecturer understood by "Son of God" here, see his remarks on Mark 13: 32.

‡"Isaiah the prophet." The Sinai, Vatican, Cambridge of Beza, Parisian (L), and St. Gall uncials, with some twenty-five cursives, the most ancient versions and express early citations, preserve the true text. "In the prophets," though given in the Alex. and most other manuscripts, is an evident correction made to ease the difficulty. Even on human ground it is absurd to suppose that the writer did not know that the first words quoted were from Mal. 3: 1, and if inspiration be allowed, the only question is as to the principle of thus merging a secondary in a primary quotation. Cf. the somewhat different use of Jeremiah (from that of Isa. 40: 3) in Matt. 27: 9, 10. There is purpose in both, which cursory readers have not seen, and so they have been as quick to impute a slip as the later copyists were to eliminate it. But it is as irreverent as unwise and evil to obscure or deny the truth even in such points as these, because the modes of Scripture application differ from those of ordinary men, and we may not at a first glance be able to appreciate or clear up the profound wisdom of inspiration. Kuster's conjecture that the reading was originally "in the prophet" seems a mere effort to get rid of what he did not understand, which really, like such attempts generally, leaves the chief point where it was (B.T., vol. xiii., p. 300 ff.).

§ AΓΔ, etc., syrhcl arm. goth., Origen here add "before thee." Edd. omit, as BDL, etc.

It is well, however, in noting the beautiful immediateness of the picture here brought before our eyes, to observe that there is no precipitancy, no omission of what was a most important preface for the account of Jesus thus ministering — the previous appearance and services of John the Baptist. To this there seems to be an allusion in the opening words. It was more than prophecy, though in accordance, as verses 2 and 3 prove, with the prophets. "The law and the prophets," we are told elsewhere, "were until John," (Matt. 11: 13) who took a great step in advance — "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." Such was the voice of one crying in the wilderness, after long silence had reigned as to God's testimony in Jerusalem.

Further, is it not touching to see that, if we are about to follow the steps of God's faithful and only perfect Servant, the change which the Holy Ghost, in sovereign wisdom, makes in His citation of Mal. 3: 1 attests the Divine glory of Jesus? In the prophecy it is Jehovah sending His messenger who would prepare the way before Him. In the Evangelist it is still Jehovah sending His messenger, but it is now before "Thy face" — i.e. the face of Jesus Christ. The truth is, Jesus, humble Himself as He might, was Jehovah. Matthew elicits the same truth from His name. "Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for it is He who shall save His people from their sins." Now, the Jews were the people of none but Jehovah. It is the more remarkable in the opening of our Gospel; for Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quotes the Scriptures.* How perfectly it is in keeping with the Gospel, and its opening part also is evident. If the Lord of glory was coming or comes in the form of a servant and the likeness of men, it was most appropriate that prophecy should (not be broken, but) bend before Him, and that a new and still more blessed testimony should begin.

*As to quotations from the Old Testament, see "Lectures on Gospels," p. 162 ff. Cf. note 19 at end.

But where cries this voice of the herald, and where was he baptizing? "In the wilderness." What, then, was the state of Jerusalem and the people of God? They must go outside to John if they would take their right place before God. What he presented was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. The effect was great; I say not savingly, but extensive, and not without touching the conscience. "There went out to him all the district of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." All this is here sketched by Mark, clearly, but rapidly and in brief, without stopping by the way to set before us, as was needful to the purpose of God in Matthew, the proud and false-hearted men who stood in the place of religious leaders of the day, objects of God's certain and scrutinizing judgment.

But if John had his own special place, and if his abode, and garb, and food witnessed his separation from the evil state of Israel, it was his happier task to testify the superiority of Christ's person, and of His ministry, as compared with his own. Nothing is here said of baptizing with fire, as in Matthew and Luke, to both of whose subject it was requisite. But Mark was inspired to speak only of that part of John's testimony which is directly associated with the Lord's Gospel work — namely, baptizing with the Holy Ghost. It is not, of course, that under Christ repentance ceased, and can ever but be, in a world of sin, the necessary pathway of a soul that is born of God. Still, the turning of a soul to God, in a sense of sin and self-judgment, is different from the Divine power which sets evil aside on the basis of a redemption accomplished by the grace of God. This is the characteristic blessing of Christianity.

Mark 1: 9-11.

Matt. 3: 13-17; Luke 3: 21-22; John 1: 31-34.

Yet was Jesus, the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost, Himself baptized by John in the Jordan, Himself receives the Holy Ghost! What a sight and truth! Infinitely above sin and sins (which He did not even know), yet was He baptized with water. He had no unrighteousness to confess, but thus it became Him to fulfil all righteousness. From Nazareth of Galilee came He, who was God over all, blessed for ever. There He dwelt, as Matthew tells us, so that the prophets' saying might be in this, as in all else, fulfilled. Could heaven behold unmoved such grace? Impossible: "And straightway going up from the water, He saw the heavens cleaving asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon Him." What meaning had that act of baptism in the mind of God! "And there came a voice out of the heavens saying, Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee* I have found My delight."† Him," as St. John says, "hath God the Father sealed."‡ It is not merely the fact, but "He saw," etc., which is here recorded. Though truly God, He was man; though a Son, He became a servant, and was now about to enter on His ministry. He receives the Spirit as well as the recognition of His Sonship. He had justified God's sentence on, and call to, Israel — yea, He had in grace joined the souls who had bowed to it in the waters of Jordan; but this could not be without the answer of the Father for His heart's joy in the path He was about to tread. The one was the fulfilment of every kind of righteousness, and not legal only (this in grace, for there was no necessity of evil in His case), the other was His recognition thereon by the Father in the nearest personal relationship, over which His submission to baptism might have cast a cloud to carnal eyes.

*"In thee": so Edd. with BDL, etc., best cursives (33, 69), Old Latin, Syr., etc. "In whom" is the reading of A and later uncials with most cursives.

†Because of "His association with all in Israel who felt and owned their condition in the sight of God . . . the Saviour identifying Himself with the godly-feeling remnant" ("Lectures on the Gospels," p. 19 ff.). Cf. note 19.

‡John 6: 27. Cf. note 30.

Mark 1: 12, 13.

Matt. 4: 1-11; Luke 4: 1-13.

"And immediately the Spirit drives Him out into the wilderness; and He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and was with the wild beasts, and the angels ministered to Him." What a picture of His position in a few words of God! Moses, the lawgiver, had been with God on the mount forty days; Elijah, the prophet, had been in the wilderness with God for the same, sustained without the need of man's food. But what was either miracle compared with the position of Jesus? For Him, the Son, to be with God was, and had been from all eternity, His natural place, so to speak; but now He was come down to the earth, a man among men, and in the wilderness, to which sin had reduced this fair creation, He is for forty days tempted (So Luke 4: 2) of Satan. Man was not there, but the wild beasts were, as our Evangelist so forcibly adds; and there, too, the angels were ministering to Him. It was all His wondrous preparation for a service no less wondrous.20

We have seen thus far in Christ the great preparatives for the service of God, the first of them, at least and of course, modified by His intrinsic and absolute sinlessness. And such I believe to be in measure true of everyone whom the Lord calls to follow in His own path. There is, first, the owning of our true place before God. And what real enjoyment of our spiritual relationship can there be till we bow before God in the truth of our condition? There may be a sort of joy arising from the thought of sins being forgiven; but forgiveness of sins, however sweet and important, is, after all, but an act — an immense, Divine act — of sovereign grace through the blood-shedding of the Saviour. It is not in itself the existence or the enjoyment of our new definite relationship of sons with the Father. This, along with the seal of the Spirit, is what is next given. We, too, led by the Spirit, have the happy witness that we are the children of God. But, following this, there must be the consciousness of what the power of Satan is, and of the wilderness too, before there can be the full ability to serve others in the power of God.

Mark 1: 14-20.

Matt. 4: 12-22; Luke 4: 14, 15, Luke 5: 1-11.

"But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the glad tidings [of the kingdom*] of God." This was the fitting moment for his public ministry. It was an hour little suited for nature, when Messiah's forerunner was tasting the enmity of the world; but Jesus came not to escape the sorrows of love in a hating world, but to make known what God is, in spite of — yea, because of — such a world. Therefore He says: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God† has drawn nigh. Repent and believe in the glad tidings." There was no more delay for the testimony of grace. it was no question of the law, but of repentance and believing in the Gospel. But though it was now the time for Divine action, grace will have sharers of its own joy. Accordingly, we have Simon and Andrew, James and John, called to become fishers of men. They had known and believed in Jesus before, but now they must follow and be with Him. Boats, nets, father — their earthly property, their ordinary occupation, their natural relationship — must yield to the call of Jesus. Not that all are called to go after Jesus thus; but assuredly it is the Holy Ghost who leads the soul that is born again to call Him Lord. Is this confession to be real or is it unmeaning? By His blood we are redeemed to God. We are not our own; we are bought with a price. He is our Lord, not only in great things, but in the smallest matters of everyday life. And sure I am that a crisis comes in the history of believing souls, when they must be put to the proof how far this is true in their experience. For Satan does seek to tempt us, out of the happy place of the servants of Christ, to make ourselves lords, as it were. Are we seeking our own interests, our own pleasure, our own ease? Are we struggling for our own will? Are we seeking to be something in the world, or, at any rate, something in the Church? What is this but to be lords instead of His servants? But to own Him as Lord, to do His will, this is our own proper business. For this we are saved. This is what He died for, and this is what we ought to live for — to own Jesus Lord. To live for ourselves in anything is to defraud Him of His rights, and it is to deny, so far, the great price He paid to make us His.

*"Of the kingdom" disappears with good reason (BL, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrsin Vulg.), though most uncials (AD, etc.) and cursives insert the words, the old versions being pretty evenly divided. It is an addition borrowed from Matthew, whose Gospel it suits perfectly (B.T., ubi supra).

†Matthew uses "kingdom of God" in a few passages where "kingdom of heaven" could not be used (Matt. 6: 33, Matt. 12: 28, Matt. 21: 43). Thus the kingdom of God was there when Christ the King was there; the kingdom of heaven began with Christ going to heaven. By-and-by, when Satan ceases to rule, it will be the kingdom of heaven (and of God too, of course), not in a mystery, but in manifestation. The kingdom of God has also a moral force which kingdom of heaven has not, and in this way is frequently used by St. Paul, and was peculiarly suitable to the Spirit's design in Luke (B. T., March, 18 5 8). See further note 21.

Mark 1: 21 -28.

Luke 4: 31-37.

"And they go into Capernaum, and straightway on the Sabbath He entered into the synagogue and taught. And they were astonished at His doctrine, for He taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes."23 This is the first and essential point in the ministration of God's word, that it should be spoken with authority. Flesh may imitate it. The world thinks that self-will is the only thing that can avail to effect any end. But however strong man's will may seem in the things of men, the certainty of God's will is the one thing by which the Holy Spirit clothes the word with authority in Divine things. This was pre-eminently the case with Christ, for He alone as man had the Lord always before Him. But even with us there should be the speaking with assurance of God's mind and will (1 Peter 4), if we speak for God at all; otherwise it would be better to be silent. With the scribes it is not so. They may reason or they may dazzle, as argument or fancy preponderates. But for us it is better not to speak if we have not the certainty of that which God would have spoken at any given time. By speaking uncertainly we only communicate our own doubts or darkness to others. But if we have by grace the certainty of God's truth, let it be spoken with authority. It is as servant that Christ does so here. He was Himself the perfection of humility; for it is in no way inconsistent with a lowly mind to speak with the fullest authority where we have no doubt about the mind of God.

But next we find "there was* in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, [Let us alone]†: what have we to do with thee, Jesus Nazarene? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God. And, Jesus rebuked Him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And When the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him."24 How strikingly these demoniacal possessions appeared in the presence of Jesus! One might almost think, as we read the Gospels, that all then existing and possible cases had been crowded around Him. But the truth is, there may have been as many before, but the presence of Divine light brought it all out then; the presence of Jesus, the Son of God, drove Satan to bay, and withdrew the mask which may previously have covered his victims. And in a degree this may be observed wherever the power of God's truth and holiness are at work. Does He raise a standard? There opposition will at once be felt, and the enemy will declare himself. The unclean spirit would gladly be left alone, but owns the power of the despised Jesus of Nazareth. The power of Satan could but feel the presence and supremacy of the despised of men, but Holy One of God. Jesus, however, rebukes him, and delivers the possessed, to the astonishment of all, who own the new doctrine by reason of the power which judged and expelled the enemy.‡

*"And there was": so ACD and later uncials, Lat. Syrr. (including sin.), Arm. Go. AEth. Edd. with BL, 1, 33 insert "immediately" after "and."

†"Let us alone (Ah!)." Edd. omit, as BD, Lat. Syrsin pesch, but the words are in A C L, etc., Syrhcl, etc.

‡On verses 23-28, cf. B.T., vol. xxiii., p. 148.

Mark 1: 29-34.

Matt. 8: 14-16; Luke 4: 38-41.

Nor is this all. The Divine word was felt, and demons were forced out. Sickness, too, flees before His touch; and this not only in the individual case of Simon's wife's mother,25 but in crowds of others, miserable and distressed in every form. As to this, indeed, we have but to humble ourselves before God; for the Church was once the seat of this same wondrous energy of rebuking diseases and casting out devils. They were the powers of the age to come. But God has stripped the Church of her ornaments to our shame, and it becomes us to be humbled for it. Let us, however, turn to Jesus. Unwearied with His day of toil and service for others, at even it was still the same. He evermore carries on His work of love; for "when the sun had gone down, they brought to Him all that were suffering, and those that were possessed by demons, and the Whole city was gathered together at the door, and He healed many suffering from various diseases, and cast out many demons,26 and did not stiffer the demons to speak, because they knew Him." He refused that mixed testimony. It must be Divine, in order to be accepted of Him.

Mark 1: 35-39.

Luke 4: 42-44.

But what is so blessed for us and so instructive, too, is the next lovely feature that we find in the Lord as the servant on earth. "In the morning, rising up a great while before day, He went out and departed into a desert place, and there prayed." Occupied though He had been, early and late, with the sorrows of others, yet here we find Him long forestalling the dawn, while it was yet the dark of night, in order to hold intercourse with His Father. And what were the communications between such a Father and such a Son? The Old Testament tells us The Lord Jehovah hath given Me the tongue of the instructed, that I should know how to succour by word him that is weary. He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the instructed." (Isa. 50: 4) The New Testament tells us how He went a great while before day into a desert place, and there He prayed. And if He thus retired to be with God, Himself the Lord God, before He entered upon the work of the day, can we wonder that we fail so much in outward labour, who fail yet more in this inward intimacy with our Father? Be assured, the secret of holy strength and endurance in service is found there alone.

Mark 1: 40-45.

Matt. 8: 1-4; Luke 5: 12-16.

Before we speak of the cleansing of the leper, let us consider a little the structure of our Gospel* as compared with the others. A close inspection will soon satisfy the reader that Mark follows the order of the facts,† as does John, with a very slight exception, so far as he gives us a historical account. Neither Luke nor Matthew adheres to the obvious successional order of events: the former, with a view to developing the moral bearings of the facts, recorded the real condition of man and the admirable resources of Divine grace; the latter, so as to manifest more vividly the change of dispensation consequent on the rejection of the Messiah. This I believe to have been the aim of the Holy Spirit in their Gospels respectively, without pretending to say how far the authors may have entered into the far-reaching purposes of God in their own inspired writings. In general, the character of the New Testament inspiration is intelligent communion with the mind of God, and not an instrumental medium only, as was the case ordinarily with the Jewish prophets (1 Peter 1). The great question, however, is as to God's intention; and He looked to the permanent instruction and blessing of His Church through the written word.

*Cf. "Lectures on the Gospels," pp. 39-43; on "Matthew," pp. 9, 10, 190-196.

†See note 4 to Introduction.

Difference there is, frequent and grave, between the various presentations of the Lord in the Gospels, and this both in the order of the narratives and in the manner in which the separate circumstances and discourses are brought before us. To what are we to attribute these constantly varying shades? Is it to the mere infirmity of good men, who did as well as they could, but could not be expected absolutely to tally, as even the best and ablest will disagree in their thoughts, feelings, apprehensions, and judgments? Or, on the contrary, are we to attribute these seeming discrepancies, not to man's weakness, but to God's wisdom? And are we reverently to ponder their every divergence from one another, as no less fraught with truth than their evident unisons? Not that we would for a moment forget that in the books of Scripture we have the beautiful maintenance of the individual style and manner of the writers. But let us all and always remember that individuality sustained is a very distinct thing from error allowed, and that Divine inspiration neither admits error nor destroys individuality.

That there are numerous and striking differences in the Gospels is plain to all but the most careless reader; that these differences are divinely given, and not the flaws of oversight, is equally certain to the believer. To confess the inspiration of the Evangelists, and withal to attribute to the Gospels mistake of any kind, is to deceive oneself as well as sin against God. Inspiration is no more inspiration if it be compatible with error. To account for the shades of difference, to show how necessary, and reasonable, and divinely perfect they all are, is another matter, and depends on our measure of spiritual understanding and power; but no Christian ought to hesitate for an instant as to resenting every impeachment of the word of God. Now, God has taken care that of the writers of the Gospels, two (Matthew and John) should be Apostles, and two (Mark and Luke) not, though all, of course, are alike inspired. Further, His wisdom has arranged that, of these two classes, one of each (Mark and John) should adhere to chronological order, and the others (Matthew and Luke) should adopt, to a certain extent, a grouping of facts necessarily different from the simple transcription of the facts as they occurred. It is remarkable that to our Evangelist, though not an Apostle, we are indebted for the clearest view of the historical line of our Saviour's ministry, followed by that which closed and crowned it, from the cross to the ascension. The proofs that Mark, in his brief, rapid, but most graphic sketch, preserves the series intact will appear from time to time as we pursue its course. The fact is stated here, the importance of which, if accepted as true, is manifest; for we thus have a standard of sequence whereby we can measure, as on an absolutely perfect scale, the displacements of Matthew and Luke. We have, then, to consider in detail the principle and objects which the Holy Ghost had in view when He led these Evangelists to gather together certain incidents, miracles, or discourses, taken out of their place, but according to an order quite as real as that of Mark, and, of course, still more proper for their own specific design.

The omission or insertion of particular points in one or more Gospels, not in the rest, is due to the same cause. For example, the first dawning of the true light on the hearts of Andrew, John, Peter, etc., is given nowhere but in John 1. "He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out" (John 10: 3). On the other hand, not John, but the other Evangelists, show us their official summons to follow Christ and become fishers of men; but of these Luke only (Luke 5) furnishes, and this out of its actual date, the details of the miraculous draught of fishes which the Lord caused to act with such searching power on the soul of Peter, as well as on his partners. Otherwise the succession of events in Luke coalesces with that of Mark, save that the former alone opens with the scene in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 9: 16-27), which so livingly portrayed the intervention of Divine goodness, Jesus anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power; and, on His rejection by His own people, the overflowing of grace to the Gentiles. Matthew here (Matt. 4: 23-25) has no details, but dwells on His preaching and miracles throughout all Galilee, and its widespread fame and effects; after which broad outline follows the Sermon on the Mount, transplanted from its place as to date, so as to give at the outset a fuller exposition of the principles of the kingdom. Mark has not the sermon; his task was not to unfold the character of the kingdom of heaven in contradistinction to the law (as the prophet like unto and greater than Moses does in Matthew), but to recount the works and Gospel ministry of the Lord. Its place, if it had been inserted there, would have been, I believe, in the middle of chapter 3. Thus, the comparison of the chronological line of things in Mark, as being, so to speak, a fixed scale, greatly facilitates our perception of the displacements in Matthew or Luke and our consideration of the Divine wisdom which, in either case, so ordered their accounts.

To return. "There comes a leper to Him, beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saving to Him, If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean." What a picture of helpless misery this leper kneeling before Jesus! not, therefore, without hope, for he besought the Saviour in his deep distress. There was no cure for leprosy; if God cured, there were offerings for cleansing. "Am I God, to kill and make alive," said the alarmed King of Israel, "that this man sends to me to cure a man of his leprosy?" (2 Kings 5: 7) In truth, to be a leper was to be "as one still-born, half of whose flesh is consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb." (Num. 12: 12) Yet was this leper importunate with Jesus, of whose power he had no doubt. "If Thou wilt, Thou canst cleanse me." This was the only question in a heart broken down to feel his real condition, his urgent and extreme need. Was Jesus willing? And what an answer came to feeble faith! For God will be God evermore, and surpass even our truest thoughts of Himself. "But Jesus,* moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and says to him, I will; be thou cleansed." What new thing was this on earth? A man most surely, yet as surely infinitely more than man: a heart touched with exquisite feelings of pity; a hand stretched to touch a leper! Was this law? Had it been only law, and a mere man in question, there would have been, not the cleansing of the unclean, but the defilement of him who ventured into contact with that loathsome, forbidden object. But descend ever so low as He might in grace, Jesus was the Son of God, a Divine person, who alone of all men could sinlessly say, "I will; be thou cleansed." No exertion of power could have so met the leper's wants, his wants of soul as well as of body. The tenderness, the perfect, unselfish love that touched him — what should not this be to our hearts? Assuredly, it revealed the heart of Jesus as no words alone could have done; and yet the words revealed One who was God on earth. It was Divine grace in man, in Jesus, the perfect servant of God, and the more blessedly serving man's necessities because thus perfectly serving God. Hence immediate cleansing followed, the very reverse of contamination contracted. "And as He spoke,† immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed."

*"Jesus": so ACΓΔ, etc. Edd. ("Workers' New Testament" not following Nestle) omit, as BD.

†"As soon as He had spoken": ACΓΔ, most cursives, Vulg. Syrhcl. Edd. omit, as BDL, a few cursives (including 69), Old Latin, Memph., etc.

"And He sharply charged him, and straightway sent him away, and says to him, See thou say nothing to anyone," etc.27 It was of importance that the priest, at the sight of the leper cleansed, should be compelled to own and witness and, as it were, formally take cognizance of the proof that the hand of God was there at work, not now writing judgment on the proud profanity of man, but in the might, and withal deepest condescension, of grace working the cure of abject and otherwise hopeless wretchedness and suffering, the standing type of a sinner. Besides, grace respects and maintains law till death and resurrection bring in another and surpassing and abiding glory for those who have their portion in it by faith; neither does it seek its own credit, but that God in all things should be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

"But he went out and began to proclaim it much, and to spread the matter abroad, so that He could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places; and they came to Him from every quarter." Jesus sought not His own things; and just as in the previous scene (verse 37) human applause was but the occasion of His turning away from the éclat of miracles to other and more despised work, so here He avoids town for neglected wilds, though ever open to the appeal of need, come whence it may.

We have seen the Lord formally introduced and entering on His public Gospel ministry, endowed with the power of the Spirit and tempted in vain, though to the uttermost, by the devil. We have seen Him, after calling chosen witnesses, expose and expel the unclean spirit which possessed a man. There was the power of God, no less than the authority of the Word. Extreme violent sickness fled and strength was ministered — strength to minister — at His hand; diseases and. demons alike yielded to this Minister of good in an evil day, who sought not their testimony, but the face of His Father, in secret, while men slept. But if preaching the Gospel and driving out devils was His main service, His compassionate heart and hand were open to every cry of need, as the leper proved who came in the abject confession of his misery, whose healing He subjects rigorously to the Levitical law of cleansing, and thus compels the priests themselves to behold, in this very subjection to the law, the evidence of the presence and power of One who was above it.

MARK 2

Cf. "Lectures on Gospels," pp. 156-161.

Mark 2: 1-12.

Matt. 9: 1-8; Luke 5: 17-26.

After an interval spent in desert places with such as flocked to Him by the fame which kept Him from any city, we find our Lord once more in Capernaum; and at once crowds besiege, not the house only, but the very door, to hear the word He was speaking. Alas, Capernaum! wert thou not exalted to heaven? Art thou not brought down to hell? The mighty works done in thee were less mighty than the Word which thus attracted thee, as of one that had a pleasant voice and could play well on an instrument; and yet all fell on heedless hearts and unploughed consciences; and they knew not, though they did know, and will yet, that a prophet, and more than a prophet, was among them. But if the mass listened only with their ears, there was faith which persevered in face of difficulties, and failed not to make its suit to Jesus. What could seem more desperate? The leper at least could come to Him, could beseech, could kneel down to Him: how could the paralytic pierce the throng which severed him from the Saviour? If he could not come himself, he could be brought. And so it was. They come bringing the paralytic on his couch, which was borne of four. "And when they could not come near to Him on account of the crowd, they uncovered the roof28 where he was; and when they had dug it up, they let down the couch on which the paralytic lay." O Lord, how sweet, how refreshing to Thy heart this confidence in Thee, this most eloquent, even if unuttered, appeal to Thy love and power! It was faith, not alone of the patient, but of his bearers; and faith, now as ever, gets not only what it asks, but far more and better. "When Jesus saw their faith, he says to the paralytic, Son, thy sins are forgiven [thee]."*

*"Thee": so Acorr, with later uncials and most cursives. Edd. omit, with BD, etc.

Yes! this was the root of the evil, deeper than either leprosy or paralysis — sin — which man accounts so small a matter, a mere moral scar on the surface! What was sin not to Him who on the cross was made sin? Who put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself? Filled with love, and in view of the faith which has there sought Him out, He acts in the sovereignty of grace and pronounces the wondrous words, "Son, thy sins are forgiven [thee]." He who knew all men, and did not commit Himself to them; He who knew God and His handiwork, commits Himself to faith. It may be weak faith, but it is of God, and His eye was quick to see it, and to bless it according to all the love of His heart. "Son, thy sins are forgiven [thee]."

But Satan, too, had his congregation there. "Certain of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, Why does this man thus speak? He blasphemes.† Who can forgive sins but God only?" They were wise in their own conceits; they were judges of law and Gospel, and neither doers of the one nor believers of the other. They were worse. Rejectors of Christ and His mercy, their proud reason disdained the blessed truth of God; their proud self-righteousness spurned and hated that grace of which they never knew the need. The amplest evidence of holy power, the power of God, in opposition to Satan and in compassion to man, had been vouchsafed; but what of that to reasoning scribes, used to the world as it is, and jealous of their own religious importance? One here below pronouncing the forgiveness of sins to a miserable sinner who had not even sought it! This was in their eves startling, blasphemous, an encroachment on God's prerogative. Not that they cared for God or loved man, but they hated Jesus for His grace; and if it were the truth, their occupation was gone. But no, it could not be; it was unheard of since the world began: "Why does this man thus speak? he blasphemes.29 Who can forgive sins but God only?" Ah! there was the secret; the glory of Jesus was unknown, His Divine dignity entirely left out of the account. The principle they urged was true, the application fatally false. How often this is the rock on which religious unbelievers split and perish!

†"Thus speak? he blasphemes": so Edd. with BDL, Amiatine of Vulg., Memph.; whilst ACG, etc., Syrpesch hcl Arm. Goth. AEth. have "Why does he thus speak blasphemies?"

And yet forthwith He gave them evidence of what and who He was; for He perceived in His spirit that they so reasoned in their hearts, taxed them with their hidden thoughts, and appealed to themselves whether it was easier by a word to convey forgiveness or a bodily cure. Which claim was readiest? Who but a Divine person, or the wielder of Divine power, could say either the one or the other? They were equally easy to God, alike impossible to man. "But that ye may know," says He [in evident reference to Ps. 103: 3], "that the Son of man30 hath power [ἐξουσίαν, the right as well as the ability] on earth to forgive sins (He says to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy couch, and go to thine house. And immediately he arose, took up his couch, and went out before them all, so that all were amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it thus." The outward sign of power guaranteed the gift of grace and both betokened that He who spoke was the Son of man on earth.

It will be observed that, though the Lord does here appropriate to Himself the double character of mercy, which Israel are yet to attribute to Jehovah in Ps. 103, it is not as Christ or Messiah, properly speaking, but as "Son of man." So He was ever wont to speak. It is the title of His manhood, both in suffering rejection and in glory; as such He blesses faith here, as such He will judge unbelief by-and-by (John 5). Thus He vindicated on earth, by the powers of the world to come, that mercy which forgave the sinful soul before them. What a withering rebuke to cavilling scribes! What a triumphant testimony to the gospel of grace in the name of Jesus! And God does not now leave Himself without a witness, where His Spirit carries to the heart the power of that name, and a witness that fails not to tell on the consciences where there are eyes to see the holy strength and liberty of one previously degraded in sin, and shame, and folly. Sin withers the man, as well as covers him with guilt. He who pardons communicates life and power, to the glory of God; and this as Son of man, the name of mercy to the ruined that bow to Him.

Mark 2: 13-17.

Matt, 9: 9-13; Luke 5: 27-32.

The next scene, after the record of His teaching by the seaside, still more opens and manifests the outflowing of grace: the call of Levi, the publican (or Matthew, as he calls himself). What a step and change! From the tax-office to follow Jesus, soon to be an Apostle when the Twelve were ordained (chapter 3)! No trade, no name, was more scandalous in Israel. This was the very occasion for grace, as our Lord proves by His choice. Nor was this all, for as Jesus reclined at table in his house, "many tax-gatherers and sinners lay at table with Jesus and His disciples; for they were many, and they followed Him." In Pharisaic eyes31 He could not have gone lower in familiar love, unless He had turned outright to the Gentiles; for shepherds were not more an abomination to the Egyptians than tax-gatherers were to the scribes and Pharisees. Hence, when they saw Him eat with these reprobates, they say, not to Jesus, but to His disciples (for only pride and mischief were in their hearts), "How is it that He eateth and drinketh with tax-gatherers and sinners?" But this effort to undermine Him with His followers, and so to shake them, only draws out from the Lord His own strong, increasingly strong, expression of grace, as well as His exposure of His and their enemies' self-destructive pride: "When Jesus heard it, he says to them, They that are strong have no need of the physician, but they that are ill. I have not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners." On their own showing, what claim had they on all He had to bestow?

Mark 2: 18-22.

Matt. 1: 14-17; Luke 5: 33-39.

Next, a similar spirit of dishonesty and ill-will, which entangles the disciples of John also, goes to Jesus about His disciples; for they and the Pharisees, who used to fast,32 came to Him asking why His disciples did not. But the Master stands up in their behalf, and shows that a wisdom above their own led them in their weakness. Where was the sense, the propriety, the reverence in lasting if the Bridegroom was there? John Baptist had announced better things; but Pharisaism despised Jesus, and had no heart for the joys of His presence. Let them all learn, however, that days were coming when He should be taken away, and then should they fast in that day.

In truth, the whole scene intimated to those who had ears to hear the grave economical change that was at hand, and that Messiah's presence now was but transitional. His call of Levi and His eating and drinking with publicans were no dark signs that Israel as such were lost: the disciples' enjoyment of His brief stay before His taking away plainly signified the abrupt and impending catastrophe — seemingly His, but really theirs; and the verses that follow bear witness to the new character of God's ways therein, and to their incompatibility with Judaism. Neither its displayed form nor its inner power can blend with the old thing: the kingdom of God, being not in word but in power, must have a new and suited vehicle wherein to work. Legal forms only prove their weakness if there be the energy of the Holy Ghost. The worn-out Jewish garment and old skins disappear: new wine demands new skins.33 Christianity, in its principle and its practice, is a fresh and full development of Divine blessing. It was not a question of mending the old, but accepting the new.

Mark 2: 23-28.

Matt. 12: 1-8; Luke 6: 1-5.

The incident of the first Sabbath Day is here recorded, which, in point of fact, took place at this very time; for we must constantly bear in mind that Mark pursues the thread of history. Our Lord is intimating the break that was about to take place with Judaism, and the introduction of the new character and power of the kingdom of God. Now, this is a very serious truth always, but it was peculiarly solemn to Israel. What more perplexes a godly person than the very thought of God changing His mind? What difficulty greater than the notion that God could, as it were, unsay or undo what He had previously laid down? And I think there ought to be great delicacy in dealing with souls where we find there is a godly jealousy as to this, even though it may be ignorant and not without prejudice. But, still, it was the evident fact that what God set up for a specific purpose in Israel never fully reflected His own mind. Eternal truth, breaking through the clouds of Judaism, shone out in the person of Christ, and is now verified in experience as well as faith by the Spirit's working in the children of God.

In a word, it was never the purpose of God to reveal Himself and bring out all His mind in connection with the Jews, but with the Church. Christianity, and not Judaism, is the expression of God's mind. Christ Himself, properly speaking, is the image of the invisible God, and Christianity is the practical present result. It is the application of the life, mind, and affections of Christ to the heart and walk of those who are brought to God; and this, founded on His work and correspondent to His place in heaven by the Spirit sent down. All through the Jewish system, as well as before it, there were souls waiting for Christ, and the only persons that ever honoured God in the Jewish system were those who, by faith, were above that system. Those alone walked blameless in the various ordinances of the law who looked for the Messiah. It was this expectation, given by the Spirit of God, which lifted them above the earthly thoughts, the grovelling desires, the selfishness of nature. It raised them above themselves, if one may so say, as well as above their fellows, for there is always Divine power in Christ; and although it was far more fully displayed after Christ came, yet, as one may see before the sun rises there is such a thing as the dawn, and streaks that betoken the coming day, so those who looked by the faith of Christ beyond the mere passing shadows which met and satisfied the religiousness of nature — those only honoured God even in the outward ordinances of Israel. It is the same principle now as ever, but in a fuller way, because nothing is more certain than that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the saint of God, in the Christian. But how is it fulfilled? Never merely by endeavouring to keep the law. It never was fulfilled in that way, nor can be. In point of fact, as we know, the men that were thus jealous for the law were themselves the greatest and bitterest of the enemies of the Lord Jesus. You know it was fleshly pride as to the law which blinded them into the delusion that even our blessed Lord Himself did not sufficiently honour it. We easily gather that Paul was taxed with the same reproach; and Stephen, too, was stoned to death because of this fertile and fatal mistake. So that we may lay it down as a fixed point that the men who put the ordinances, or the outward regulations of God, in the place of God and Christ Himself are men that never keep it; even as Stephen told the Jews that they received the law by the disposition of angels, and had not kept it. These were the men whose voices were loudest about it to those who really honoured God in that law as well as in the faith of the Messiah.

Take every believer — I do not say on every occasion, for there is, sad to say, a danger of our own nature working, and that nature neither believes in Jesus nor keeps the law, but is a law-breaking, Christ-denying thing: the flesh is enmity against God Himself, and nature working its own way always dishonours God — but take the believer, not when he is yielding to his own corrupt nature; take him where, in truth alone, so to speak, we can rightly think of a believer as such, in the exercise of his faith, in the manifestation of the new life which the grace of God has given him, and what is the character of this life? It cleaves to God, it delights in His word, it loves His will, it is attracted by whatever manifests Him. All proves that the believer loves God in heart and soul, loves Him better than himself — for he hates himself, and is ready to own, lust so far as faith is in operation, his own folly, his frequent and shameful failure, while he seeks to justify and cleave to God, and delights to make Him known. How comes this? It is that Divine principle of life, the energy of the Spirit of God, acting in the new man which enjoys each thing that flows from and displays God, and is the exercise of the new nature which we derive from God. Again, the believer, just in proportion as he has Christ before his soul, walks in the Spirit according to the will of God. If he has not Christ before him, it is as if he had no new nature. Life is there, but it is only Christ that maintains, and manifests, and brings it out, giving its full exercise and scope. The believer's heart goes out towards misery — yea, towards poor guilty sinners. Flesh despises and hates, or is indifferent; but the new nature, under the Spirit's power, goes out in compassion and desire for another's blessing. There, I say, is love again; and thus you have the two great moral principles, love to God and love to man. The believer, and the believer alone, walks in them. If he has Christ in his eye, he has them in his heart, and the Holy Ghost strengthens him to walk accordingly. It is thus that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those that walk after the Spirit. The Spirit of God is careful to show it is fulfilled in them that walk after the Spirit, not in such as only stand for the law.

Take the Jew, to whom the law was given. Does he manifest real love? I do not say that some are not upright men, possessed of natural benevolence. The question now is of the manifestation of active love to God and man. If men have merely the law before them, what then? The Jew himself is the most striking example and proof that flesh is good for nothing; he is bent upon his own things in this world, coveting a place everywhere, loving money, and so on, of which we are all of us apt to be guilty by nature. Undoubtedly this is the case with the mere unconverted Israelite or the nominal Christian, in whom the Holy Ghost does not act. Unless Christ, either as an object of hope before He came or now since He has come as the object of faith, be before the heart, there is no reality, nor can be, because the flesh is a false and hating thing. Unless a man have a new nature distinct from and above his own, there never is true — that is, Divine — love. The one means of accomplishing the law is to have Christ before and above us, yet in that our portion by faith. Hence it was that Enoch and Noah, and the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who never heard of the law, yet obeyed and pleased God. Were they not holy and godly men? Certainly they were. What made them so? The faith of the woman's seed, the promised Son, the Messiah. Then, when the law was given, what was it that made Moses and Aaron saints of the Lord? The law? Never. It was Christ. It was having Him before their soul. Not that God's law was not honoured, but what enabled them to delight in the expression of God's mind — be it what it might — was their looking for and believing in God's blessed promise of the coming Deliverer, the Kinsman-Redeemer. And now He is come, that which has delivered us from wrath and judgment delivers us also, in proportion as it is the object of our souls, practically from self and the world, from corruption and violence of every kind. Let Christ be forgotten by a believer, what is the effect? He shows the pride, vanity, foolishness, malice, of the old man. It is not, of course, what is proper to him as a believer, but what belonged to him as a man before he believed. Self is allowed to come out and show its own hateful colours when Christ is not the one standard and object who fills the mind's eye and heart.

Now, our Lord, at this very time, brings out, in His pointed acts connected with the Sabbath Day, an illustration of what has been before us, and I take this opportunity of dwelling on it a little in a practical way and also doctrinally, seeking the instruction for our own souls that the Lord gives us in these incidents. It is. true that the first and primary object was to fill up what He had already shown. To put a new piece upon an old garment would only make the rent worse; so to pour new wine into old bottles would only risk the loss both of the wine and the bottles. The attempt to mix the new forms and spirit of the kingdom of God with the old ways of Judaism, would only end, not in mending Judaism, nor in preserving Christianity, but in the ruin of both. And this precisely has been the issue in the history of Christendom. The palpable failure of the outward Christian profession is the practical evidence of this truth. What Satan aimed at was to mingle together the old Jewish ordinances with Christian truth, and the result is such painful confusion that the light of truth and the grace of God are utterly darkened — such a complete jumbling together that simple souls are perplexed, to their exceeding loss and damage. They cannot in such a state see the difference between grace and law, and what it is to be brought under the name of Christ. All these things are dim before them, and hence ensues uncertainty of soul and powerlessness practically in glorifying God.

Our Lord follows this up by the instruction of the Sabbath Day. "It came to pass that He went through the corn-fields on the Sabbath, and His disciples, as they went, began to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said to Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?" Now, it is clear that there was no law of God against the case. The censure was a law of their own, and a notion of men which looks upon an outward fact and makes a system of it — man's constant danger. It is quite true that God had ordained upon the Sabbath Day rest for man and beast, but there was no ground whatever from the law ' of God to forbid a hungry man, as he passed through a field, from plucking the ears of corn to satisfy his want — nay, it was thoroughly according to the beneficence of God to provide from His' people's plenty for such urgent need. There was remarkable care in Israel for the stranger, the bereaved, and the suffering. The poor in the land were not to be forgotten in the joy of harvest, and an express ordinance of God forbade their making clean riddance of the corners of the field. But how came it to pass that there should be famished Israelites thus passing through a cornfield? And if such want existed, was it God or His enemy who turned the Sabbath Day into an iron vice for afflicting the sad at the will of heartless religionists? Thus it was that the Pharisees, in their pretended desire to honour God on the one side, showed, on the other, their complete ignorance of His heart and character, which breathed the fullness of mercy towards want and wretchedness; all was set aside by the miserable codicil that man added to the will of God. But there was One on earth who at once detected the forger's hand that presumed to meddle with the first testament. The Lord stands up for the guiltless. "Have ye never read what David did when he had need and hungered, he and they that were with him? how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar. — [the]* high-priest,34 and ate the shewbread, which it is not lawful save for the priests to eat, and gave also to them that were with him?"

*"[The]": Edd. omit with BLΓ, etc. It is inserted in CΔ, etc., and in cursives 1, 33, 69. is neutral.

Our Lord here points to the rejection of the object of God's counsels — of David, for instance, in his day, who was the anointed king, even while he was the despised one and hunted for his life upon the mountains of Israel. He and his company typified Jesus, and Jesus was found now in circumstances morally similar to those of David, anointed, but not yet come to the crown. Thus it is that the Lord vindicates the disciples and maintains the principle that when God's witness is refused it is madness for the rejectors to pretend to be glorifying God. Were they then despising a greater than David? For such to talk about the Sabbath Day, in order to lay heavier burdens on the righteous, what was it in God's eyes? The Lord of glory was upon earth, and how came it that His disciples wanted even ears of corn to stay their hunger? What a tale this told! How was it that the disciples of Jesus were thus miserable? How out of course must be the foundations for the Lord and His disciples to lack the most ordinary necessaries of life! Who were these praters of malicious words about the Sabbath Day that could forbid even this scanty pittance, while God's mercy would refuse to none, and least of all on that day? But that the Pharisees, rejecting the Lord Jesus, their own Messiah — that they should have the face to abuse the Sabbath against His disciples! David, when he was in destitution because of the wickedness of Saul, who held the throne in an evil way — David and his followers could eat the shewbread, which was only, had things been in order, for the priests. If thus the hallowed bread became common, what was the past to the present? In the presence of the evil that despises God's beloved and faithful witnesses in the earth, the outward ordinances of the Lord lose their application for the time being. The sanctity of ritual disappears before the rejection of the Lord and His people.

"And He says to them, The Sabbath was made on account of man, and not man on account of the Sabbath." The Sabbath was not intended to be a means of increasing the sufferings of poor man. If God sanctified it after the creation, and enacted it at the giving of the law, was it that God wanted to make His people miserable? On the contrary, not only in its higher character and beside the thought of His rest, of which it is a type, the Sabbath was made for man. Pharisees might turn the Sabbath into an engine for torturing man, but, in God's mind, the Sabbath came in most mercifully. There were the days of labour which God Himself had known something of in figure, for there was a time when He had wrought and made the earth; and God Himself was pleased to rest on the Sabbath, and to sanctify it. Then sin came in, and God could no longer own it, and His word is silent. We read of the Sabbath no more until God takes up His people in delivering mercy, and gives them manna from heaven. Then the Sabbath Day becomes again a marked thing, and rest follows, the type of Jesus sent down from above. It disappears from the beginning of the first book of Scripture and reappears in the second. God makes rest once more. He was giving to man in grace when He brought Israel out of Egypt. Of this the Sabbath was the appropriate sign. But Israel, understanding not the grace of God, accepted the conditions of His law. They took their stand upon their own righteousness when God gave them the Ten Commandments, and the consequence was that man under law failed miserably, dishonouring God, setting up calves of gold, bringing discredit, shame, and scandal upon the name of God throughout the whole world. This is no more than we have each done. The Israelites made this fatal mistake when they surrounded Mount Sinai. Instead of reminding God of His promise to Israel, instead of confessing that they could not be trusted, and that it is only the mercy of God that enables anyone to do His will, they, on the contrary, undertook boldly to earn the promised blessings by their own obedience. But they broke down increasingly, till it came to the crisis of David's rejection in Israel. God showed where His heart was, as He loves to do at such a time. Granted that the shewbread was only for the priests, yet for them to keep their consecrated bread and let the anointed king starve would be strange homage to God and the king. And now the Son of David, the Lord of David, was there, and more rejected, more despised, than David himself.

The Lord, after He has thus drawn out of Scripture the true lesson for the day, brings out the general beneficent object of God in the Sabbath for all days. "The Sabbath was made on account of man." The Pharisees thought and spoke as if man was made for the Sabbath, to be put under it thus; but the Sabbath was made for man's good and rest, raising his thoughts above the mere labour of his hands. But He brings in another principle: "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath also." He connects that with the Sabbath being made for man, but breaks out into a greater truth: the person of Christ is above all ordinances. His glory, even as the rejected man, eclipses all the twinkling rites instituted by the Lord Himself. I have no hesitation in saying that the Lord who gave the law at Sinai, and He who afterwards was born and lived a man upon the earth, was the same blessed Divine person. He who always acted throughout the Old Testament in government, who came down and suffered and died upon the cross in grace, He now maintains, not merely that He is Lord of the Sabbath in virtue of being Divine, but of being Son of man; and what is the importance of this? "Son of man" is the title of His rejection. "Son of man" is the name that He assumed when the Jews refused Him as the Messiah. You will find a remarkable proof of this in Matt. 16: 13 and Luke 9: 18 (the same fact recorded in the two different Evangelists). He forbids His disciples to say that He was "the Christ." He leaves aside for a while the glory of His Messiahship: as such He had come and presented Himself to the Jews, but they would not have Him. Now He says, as it were, It is too late: I have given them ample proof — miracle, prophecy, My own ways and words. Everything shows that I am the Messiah, but they will not have Me. It is not that proof is wanting, but their hearts are steeled against all evidences. They are the enemies of God, and proved to be such by refusing what God has fully vouchsafed. Now He takes another character altogether — "Son of man." And what may well and deeply affect us is this — it is as Son of man that He suffers on the cross. "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day." "The Christ" was a title in particular connection with Israel after the flesh. He was their Messiah. He belonged to no other nation. He was the promised King of the Jews. But the Jews would not have Him. Well, says the Lord, you cannot deny that I am Son of man. It is a lowly name, but, after all, the Son of man opens the way to His magnificent rights and glory over all mankind. The Son of man comes in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. The Son of man takes the kingdom over all tribes, and nations, and tongues. What leads to it all? His rejection as Messiah. He suffers as Son of man first, because it is determined, according to God's counsels and grace, to have companions with Him in the very same glory. It is through that very same fact that Christ has suffered as the Son of man, and has surely taken His glory because of it, that we shall be with Him — that all Christians will be without a spot or stain, or any such thing, all through the suffering Son of man. But if I have Him humbled, I have the glorious Son of man.

In the present case, however, the Lord does not go further than "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." He accepts His rejection, but He pleads for His disciples before those who boasted and disputed about the Sabbath, while they were dishonouring the Lord of the Sabbath. Could they deny what David had done, and God had scaled, sanctioned, and recorded for Israel's instruction? That is the first defence. The next is that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for it. The third plea, which is rather a consequence, is that He who was a blessed Man  - the Son of man — is Lord of the Sabbath. It is the glory of His person as the rejected, suffering Man: as such, and not only as God, He is above the Sabbath Day  - its Lord.35

MARK 3.

Mark 3: 1-6.

Matt. 12: 9-14; Luke 6: 6-11.

Jesus is in the synagogue upon another Sabbath Day, and there was a man there which had a withered hand, and they watched Him whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day, that they might accuse Him. How remarkable it is that Satan gets an instinctive sense of what the Lord was going to do. Satan outwits himself in his servants by expecting good from the Lord and the Lord's people. This is a remarkable thing. Again, if you find a child of God doing something wrong the world feels it at once. Even they have an instinctive feeling of what the child of God ought to do. They know that he has no business with the pleasures and vanities of the world. They are surprised to see a Christian there. Why is this? They have not a bit of conscience themselves. Those who have got a purged conscience or those who have got no conscience at all are far more likely to see what is right than those that carry a bad conscience. The man who had no conscience at all offers to follow the Lord wherever He goes. There was no struggle in it, no reality, no moral purpose. It was the mere vanity of the flesh, the same kind of presumption that said, "All that Jehovah has spoken will we do." (Ex. 19: 8) The flesh always assumes its own competency, whereas faith feels that it is only God who can work anything good, and can ripen the fruits from trees of His own planting.

These men, I must repeat, who were assembled in the synagogue expected the Lord to do good. They were looking for this; but they judged from their own thoughts what an awful thing it would be to heal on the Sabbath Day! Our Lord knew what they thought about it, but faith and love are very different things from human prudence. Mere prudence would have led a man not to have given them the smallest excuse, but grace does not mind giving people handles if they are disposed to take them. Grace is bent upon pleasing God, whether people like it or not, and Jesus therefore says to the man that had the withered hand, "Stand forth." He gives it a publicity, and stamps the character of the transaction in the most manifest manner — makes it a sign of what grace is before them all. "He saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil? to save life or to kill? But they were silent, and when he had looked round about on them with anger, being distressed at the hardening of their hearts, he says to the man, Stretch out thine hand, and he stretched it out, and his hand was restored."* But those that would not let our Lord do what was good were ready, even as He hinted Himself, to do what was evil on the Sabbath Day. They conspired to kill Him, the Lord; and to kill Him for what? Because He brought the goodness of God before their very eyes, and they hated God. They would not have allowed it to themselves for a moment that Jesus was even a good man, so blind and perverted is the judgment when the heart is not right! All the grace of Jesus only appeared to their eyes as the most abominable iniquity. We may well think what the heart of man is, and learn hence what our own natural thoughts and feelings are — not a whit better than theirs. The point of this second tale is not so much the passing away of mere ordinances in presence of the rejected Christ, or the supremacy of His person above the highest earthly claim; rather is it the necessary superiority of grace as God's character and work in a world of sin and misery. How came this man with a withered hand in Israel? It was through sin somewhere, and the evident token of misery. Could God rest where there reigned either the one or the other? Was either the manifestation of God? And what were these proud Sabbatarians, these enemies of grace and of Jesus? Were they or was He the true witness of what God is? Not more surely were they false representatives of God's character than Jesus was the manifestation of God's power as well as of His love. Jesus showed both in that word, "Stretch out thine hand," and by its restoration proved that God, the Goodness of goodness, was there. And He was there, not maintaining the Pharisees in their thoughts about His law, but vindicating His own grace, for grace alone can bring blessing into a sin-stricken world. This may suffice for the general teaching of the second Sabbath Day, which I think is full of instruction, as giving us the witness that our Lord bore His patient, gracious ministry in deed as well as in word.

* Ccorr LΓ, Syrrsin hcl add "sound as the other." Edd. omit, with ABCpmD, 33, Amiatine and the rest of Syrr.

But a few words must now be said upon our relation to the Sabbath. When God sanctified and instituted that day, whether you take the time of creation or the giving of the law, it was emphatically the seventh day and no other. No man could have been thought to honour God had he kept the fourth or fifth, or any other but the last day of the week. Instead of this, to have kept the first day of the week would have been an act of rebellion against God. How comes the mighty change? Is it that the first day is simply substituted for the seventh day? Is this what Scripture teaches? Taking the Acts of the Apostles, we find there that the Apostles and others used to go on the Sabbath Day into the synagogue of the Jews — used to teach the Jews on that day whenever there was an open door. On the first day they used to meet with Christians to take the Lord's Supper, or at any other services which might open. There was no such thing as dropping one day for another. Had it been a substitution they would not still have gone on the Sabbath Day with the Jew, and on the first day with the Christian. Yet they did both. At first such of the Christians as had been Jews went to the synagogue, and they were at liberty to take a part in reading Scripture. If this were done now generally the person would be considered an intruder, but in a Jewish synagogue it was allowed and welcomed. The Apostles, therefore, and others were perfectly justified in using this liberty for the truth; they were acting in the spirit of grace. Wherever we can go with a good conscience, and without joining in anything that is contrary to the Word of God, there one may and ought to go if it would be a service to the Lord. But where one is required to join in that or with those we know to be opposed to the will of God, how are we free to go? Are we at liberty in anything to make light of what we know to be disobedience? But in this case there was nothing of the kind, for at the synagogue they simply read the Word of God and gave leave that it should be expounded. Who could say that this was wrong? If we knew that the Scripture and nothing but the Scripture was read upon any day of the week in a so-called church or chapel, and there were perfect room left to help, should one not be delighted to go, if, indeed, there would not be a kind of obligation upon us? If it were a mere crowd of heathen reading the Scriptures, one might enter it and speak with them. The door would be, I believe, open on the Lord's part, and grace would take advantage of it.

These facts are enough, then, to show that it is a great mistake to suppose that the Lord's Day is a mere substitution for the Sabbath. On the contrary, the Lord's Day has a far higher character than the ancient day of rest. Not that one would for a moment forget that the Sabbath Day was divinely appointed. It was founded upon two great truths of God. First, it involved and displayed and promised, as it were (in type at least), creation-rest; it witnessed rest after God had finished His work of creating. The second notable connection with the Sabbath Day was this — it was the day of law. On these two occasions of surpassing moment to man and Israel was the Sabbath brought out by God with peculiar solemnity. The Sabbath Day rests, therefore, upon Divine ground, but it is the ground of creation and law. Is either of the two the Christian place? In no wise. Are you a mere child of man, a creature now? Then you are assuredly sinful, and must be cast into hell. Are you on the ground of law? Then you are lost and condemned, for you are under the curse. But the Christian is on the footing neither of creation nor of law. On what is he, then? He belongs to the new creation and stands in grace — the clean, exact contrast of the foundations of the Sabbath Day. Hence it is that the first day of the week comes before us as a wholly new thing, the holy memorial of Divine blessing, proper to the Christian individually and to the Church of God. And on what basis does it rest? When Christ rose from the grave with a new life to give to every soul that believes in Him at once Israel is set aside. Risen from the dead, what more connection had He with Israel than with the Gentiles? He was entirely above them both. We meet Him there, His work done, in resurrection-life. He is found after that meeting with disciples only, not with Jews and Gentiles, but in the midst of the assembly or that which is the type of it. But He first meets with individual saints, Mary Magdalene and others. We find Him in the assembly on the first day of the week. And the Lord's Day has this character to us now. It is first the day of Christ's resurrection, when not merely the work of redemption was done, but the work of new creation begun in mighty power. Thus the new day is founded, not upon creation, but upon redemption, and it is the expression of grace, not of law.

These are the Scriptural ways of putting the matter. Therefore is it to be maintained not that the Christian man has got no special day in which he meets his Saviour, for he has one incomparably more blessed than the Sabbath of man. It is not that he has not got as good a day as the Sabbath of Israel: he has an infinitely better one. He is not merely remembering a creation which is passed away, but he has entered on a new creation. Not that he is occupied with a paradise that is lost; he looks onward confidently to that which is gained. The paradise of God is opened to him. It is not that he is following and occupied with Adam that fell; he has before his soul the second man, the last Adam, that rose. These are our hopes. He is not, therefore, within the domain of the law that will curse him, but in the atmosphere of grace by which he is saved. This shows us why people, whether they understand the difference or not — all Christians — keep the first day and not the Sabbath. They may call it the Sabbath Day, but this is quite a mistake, and a grievous one. Those who view it as the Sabbath may be most excellent persons, but the notion is seriously an error in doctrine and practice. It is an earthly Jewish principle, and it is a Christian's duty, if he know better, not to spare it, however he may feel for the prejudices of the godly.

I have heard of believers who could say, There is no harm in working upon the Lord's Day. Who put such a thought into their heads? Seeking gain upon the Lord's Day! Why, even the world shames those who do so. Christendom owns the Lord's Day. They may not enter into it intelligently. It is impossible for them to appreciate its roots and fruit. But a Christian behaving more selfishly or loosely than a worldly man — what a picture! How is the Lord's Day, then, to be kept? It is a remarkable fact that nowhere is it made into a commandment. This is not the character of Christianity. When the Lord (as in John) speaks about commandments, they are always of a spiritual nature, and not like an ordinance. Take even Baptism. People may call it an ordinance, but it is a misconception. So as to the Lord's Supper. When the Lord says, "Do this in remembrance of Me," how lowering to call this a commandment! Supposing you were at the dying bed of one who loved you better than anyone else in this world. If he said, Here is my Bible, take it and keep it in remembrance of me, would you call this a commandment? Would it be the reason for keeping the Bible that you had a peremptory injunction to keep it? Such a thought would show that there was no heart there, and very little head either. I can understand a person in authority, if a child lacked feeling and sense, laying down something as a positive charge, just because the child wanted heart to do the right thing, unless it were made a matter of stringent obligation and penalty. But not so does the Lord speak to us. If you love the person who gives you the Bible to keep in remembrance of him it is not as a mere commandment, but his heart gives you this token of his love to you, and your love keeps it, of course, and keeps it best because it is love that does it.

There are places where commandments come in most beautifully. Where in the New Testament do you hear of commandments most? In the Gospels, where the Lord's Supper, Christian Baptism, or both, are shown out, commandments to the Christian are not, as such, mentioned. On the other hand, it is in the Gospel of John that we have the Spirit of God so full of the new commandments that the Lord lays upon us. These were the expressions of His mind. They brought in, not His love only, but His authority, which is blessed whenever it does come in, and the child of God loves and values both thoroughly. But if you bring in such thoughts into the Lord's Supper, what a complete misapprehension of the Lord's mind! It falsifies Baptism and the Lord's Supper to change them into things enjoined in the way of commandment. They are the most precious institutions of the Lord, the symbol and acknowledgment of the great standing facts of Christianity.

As to the Lord's Day, I must again recall the remarkable manner in which it is introduced in the New Testament. There is no positive word such as, "The first day of the week thou shalt keep." Wickedness thence infers that it is not to be kept. Some take advantage not to observe the day because the Lord does not make it a matter of positive command. Another class take advantage of it in another form, and assume that it is the business of the Church to decide in such matters. One is human laxity, and the other the self-importance of man. The Lord's Day comes before us as those that are quickened with Christ, stamped with His own special presence. Christ was, and I believe is, with His disciples in a manner peculiar to that day. I do not say that the Lord did not visit His disciples upon other days. but He was specially and pre-eminently with them gathered together on that day. This is enough for me. If I own the Word of God as that which has supreme power over my soul, if I value every act of Christ as that from which I am to gather Divine instruction, how can this be lost upon me? But the Holy Ghost follows it up. That day which our Lord consecrated with His own presence in the midst of His gathered saints, the Holy Ghost impresses upon His people. It is not brought out in the form of law or injunction or threat; but the Church of God, whatever other days they might meet on, took especial care to meet on this day. There was also a sweet connection between the Lord's Supper and His day. The earliest disciples took that supper every day; they seemed as if they could hardly part when they got together, and they came together as often as they could, and everything gave place to this. Not that I think that the Pentecostal state of things was the most maturely blessed. There was singular power of simplicity in them, and very wonderful manifestation of Divine grace; but I have little doubt there were many souls that went on and grew and enjoyed the Lord more than they ever did on that day. It is an evil, unfounded notion, because the flesh constantly tends to draw the believer back from the first enjoyment of the Lord, to think that therefore it must be so. There is no necessity for declension at all. There is a kind of first fervour and freshness that is very apt to be lost in the soul; but if there is real integrity of heart to the Lord, positive growth in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ will follow. And although there may be a certain kind of joy that is not so great at the end of ten or twenty years as it was on the first day of coming to the knowledge of the Saviour, yet I do not believe that it is therefore a more spiritual state or more glorifying to God. One is the blessedness of an infant, the other of a full-grown soul, more firmly, calmly, unselfishly, it may be, honouring God in its way, provided the soul, along with increase of knowledge, maintains its singleness of heart to the Lord. That is where we fail; but as far as the power of the Spirit of God goes, there is no reason why a soul should not be as happy after fifty years as at the first.

In the course of the New Testament I think you find this very thing — the Spirit of God taking up the first day, and showing that it was not merely a hasty feeling of the disciples, but a truly godly one. The Spirit of God directed it when the Apostles were there, and not only leads them on, but preserves the record of the fact for us. Therefore, in Acts 20: 7, we have it recorded that so it was after the Jerusalem-state, when they went up to the Temple to worship, and used to break bread at home. For, let me say in passing, the margin [of the A.V.] is correct; it is in contrast with worshipping in the Temple. They used to pray in the Temple because they had been Jews, and they took their Christian feast at home. Now, it may have been always the same houses where persons went. There is no such idea as moving about from house to house, but it was at home — i.e., in a private house and not in the Temple. After this state of things was passed away, we hear of assembling to break bread on the Lord's Day, the first day of the week. And, when we think of it, there is peculiar force and blessedness in the first day of the week being the Christian day. What is the idea of the Sabbath Day? I take the first six days to myself, to the world, to earthly things, and then at the end of it, when I may be tired of serving myself and other people, I finish up with the Lord, and give the last day to Him. But now how beautifully the Christian form of the truth comes in! It is the first day. I begin with the Saviour. I begin with His grace. I begin with Him that died for me and rose again. I am not a Jew, I am a Christian, and therefore let us not forget it is the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, for the one, but the first day, which is the Lord's Day, for the other — the day of Him who by His own blood, death, and resurrection has acquired a just title for my eternal and heavenly blessing. He had it in His own person: He was Jehovah the Lord of all, before ever He came into the world; but now He is Lord on another ground — that of redemption, because He has died and risen. There is at once the open door of my blessing — of your blessing — Divine blessing to every poor soul that is brought by grace to receive Him and bow to Him.

We will not dwell further upon this subject now. I have desired to convey with simplicity the general principle of these two Sabbath Days. Instead of pursuing the subjects of the chapter for the present, it seemed better to bring out the Divine character of the Sabbath Day, and the still more blessed and equally Divine character of the first day, the one being the day for the Jew, the other for the Christian. The Sabbath Day will reappear on the earth in the millennium. I mean that the seventh day of the week will be then kept by the Jews. The prophecies are plain that the Sabbath of the Lord is yet to be observed. But by whom? By Israel and by the Gentiles too, for the Gentiles by-and-by will be subordinate to Israel, and both on earthly ground. God's intention is to exalt Israel to the first place on the earth. Meanwhile what becomes of Christians? They will be taken out of the earth altogether, they will be in heaven; all question of particular days will be completely at an end; we shall be in the day of eternity, we shall have entered upon the rest of God, the sabbatism that remains. In spirit we have done so even now, because we have received Christ and eternal life in Christ. But then we shall be manifestly in the eternal day, when there will be neither first day nor last day, but one infinity in the glorified state, blessedly serving our God and the Lamb. But upon the earth, when Israel will be restored and brought back to their own land, and converted by God's goodness there, will they observe the Lord's Day? No; they will keep the Sabbath. If you look at Ezekiel you will see the force of it exactly. You might be able from thence to form a map of Israel's condition in the land; it is given there so distinctly and positively that a person might with little trouble lay down the landmarks of each tribe of Israel.* Thus clear is the Word of God as to the future disposition of each tribe within the borders of the Holy Land. They will have not only a glorious city and temple — the name of it "Jehovah is there"† — but when that day of glory comes they will not be as we are, keeping the day of resurrection, but the Sabbath, which was a sign between the Lord and Israel. Looking at the Scriptures, you will find how often the Sabbath Day is said to be Jehovah's sign to them, and He will cause His people then to keep the Sabbath Day. They will do so in a far more blessed way than ever they did; they will rest upon Christ, though they will not have the same heavenly assurance that the Christian has now. When Christ rose from the dead He had done with the world, and we, too, in Him have done with the world now in the spirit of our souls, and in the character of our relationship to God. "They are not of the world." How far? "Even as I am not of the world." (John 17: 16) Christ is the measure and standard of how far we are not of the world, and not being of the world we have a day that bears the stamp of joy upon it. The day that Christ rose from the dead and was manifested as not of the world — that is the day for the Christian. But inasmuch as the world will be made a blessed world then, and the Lord will make it His own world, they will have a day suited for the world — the Sabbath Day. Nothing can be more plain or more important practically.

*See map, "Palestine of Prophecy," in Bagster's "The Paragraph Bible," in separate issue (Ezek. 48).

†Yahveh-shammah: last verse of Ezekiel.

May our souls, each of us for himself, learn the truth, and, having learnt it, may we be witnesses of it in word and deed! May we stand forth by His grace as those who now have nothing to do in this world but the will of God, for the glory of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ! That is the business of every soul that loves Jesus, and rests upon His blood, and is risen with Him.36

Mark 3: 7-12.

Matt. 12: 15-21; Luke 6: 17-19.

Jesus was now made manifest in the holy grace and power of His ministry, the vanquisher of Satan, and withal subject to God, superior to ordinances even as Son of man and the asserter of God's right to do good in an evil world. Much as man might like to profit for his own interests by His power and the mercy in which it was wielded, enmity to God in Him soon displayed itself. The self-righteous and the profane take counsel how to destroy Him.

But, His hour not being yet come, Jesus withdrew with His disciples to the sea, retiring from the hypocritical malice of His enemies, but unwearied on the errand of love on which He was sent. "And a great multitude from Galilee followed Him, and from Judea, and from Jerusalem,37 and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things He did, came to Him. And He spake to His disciples that a small ship should wait on Him because of the crowd, lest they should press upon Him. For He healed many; so that they beset Him, that they might touch Him, as many as had plagues." After all, how little can man arrest the stream of blessing! Till God's time arrives to yield to the cross the stream of testimony may be diverted, but it will flow to the eternal joy of the poor and needy who bow to Jesus. In the cross it overflowed. But the Lord, intent on the best blessings for man, provides against the overpressure of a crowd too engrossed in the relief of bodily weakness and suffering; while He refuses the testimony of the unclean spirits, compelled to bow and own His glory. It was not for such to make Him known. He received not testimony from man as such, much less from demons.38 What was the value of any recognition of His person unless it were of God's own working by the Spirit?

Mark 3: 13-19.

Matt. 10: 1-4; Luke 6: 12-16.

Far, however, from hiding the light under a bushel our Master now enters on a new and momentous step in the testimony of grace. "And He goes up into the mountain39 [for ministry has its source on high, and in nowise has its sanction from the multitude] and calls whom He Himself would*; and they went to Him, and He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power [to heal diseases and] to cast out demons."† It was an act not only new and strange to man's eye, but in truth independent of Israel and man, and most significant in every point of view. The Lord separates Himself from men to God, and summons in sovereign choice whom He would.; and they came. And if He caused twelve to be with Him specially and to be sent by Him, it was, as in His own case, with marked prominence given to preaching, but with title and ability to heal diseases and expel demons, and even among the Apostles there was a peculiar place assigned from the first to Simon, surnamed by Him Peter,40 and to the sons of Zebedee, whom He surnamed Boanerges40a (verse 17), followed by the rest, though, one of them, Andrew, was certainly among the first who saw and followed Jesus, and was the means of bringing to Jesus his own brother Simon. But there are last who become first, and the Lord, who calls and orders all, alone is wise and worthy. What a testimony to the condition of men and things around! Men — the Jews — needed to be preached to; all was out of course. It was not a question of heathen only. It was in the midst of self-satisfied Israel that the lowly Son of God thus wrought.

*As to this being the place where the Sermon on the Mount would come in, see "Lectures on Matthew," p. 194, and cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 161-168.

†To heal diseases and so ACcorrD, etc., nearly all cursives, Latt. Syrr. Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BCpmL, etc., Memph.

Mark 3: 20-30.

Matt. 12: 22-32; Luke 11: 14-23.

On their coming home, a crowd again assembled so that they could not even eat bread. But His kinsmen felt the reproach of the world, and went out at the singular tidings to lay hold on Him, as if He were out of His mind! They were ashamed of a relative, mad to their thinking, who virtually condemned all the world, especially in what He had just done. It was nature, always blind in Divine things.41

Not so merely — "the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, He has Beelzebub, and By the prince of the demons He casts out demons." They were filled and guided of the enemy, and knew well it was no case of a madman, but of a real power which cast out demons. This their malice attributed to Satan in their effort to explain, weaken, and defame what they could not deny. The energy which dealt with Satan, in mercy to man, was owned; but if they owned it to be of God, their religious importance, their occupation, their gain, was gone. And the highest of occupations is proverbially the basest of trades; and trading in souls and truth or falsehood exposes men to Satan. And the fatal die was cast. And these proud teachers, setting up to be authorized of God to reject His Son, sunk into the merest slaves of Satan. How solemnly and with what unbroken calm the Lord deals with them! "And having called them to Him, He said to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom have become divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house have become divided against itself, that house cannot subsist. And if Satan rise up against himself and be divided, he cannot subsist, but hath an end. But* no one can enter into a strong man's house and spoil his goods, unless he will first bind the strong man; and then he will plunder his house. Verily, I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin,† because they said, He has an unclean spirit." It was not only self-contradictory and attributing good to the evil one, but blasphemous — yea, it was to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and judgment, eternal judgment,42 is the sentence of His lips, "because they said, He has an unclean spirit."

*"But": so recent Edd., with BLΔ, etc., 1, 33, 69, Memph. it is omitted by T.R. with ADΓ, etc., Amiat. Syrr. Goth.

†"Sin" (ἁμαρτήματος), so Edd., with BLΔ, 33, almost all Latt. Syrsin, Memph. Goth. A few cursives have it in the form ἁμαρτίας. "judgment" is the reading of ACcorr and the later uncials, and almost all cursives Syrpesch hcl AEth. See, further, note 42.

Mark 3: 31- 38.

Matt. 12: 46-50; Luke 8: 19-21.

The concluding scene is the grave and fitting sequel for therein the Lord, in the hearing of a crowd that surrounds Him, renounces, as it were, all natural ties, were they the nearest ones of His mother and His brethren,* substituting His disciples, whosoever should do the will of God, in the place of that relationship to Him from which apostate Israel was falling.43

*After "brethren" AD, etc., Syrhcl (mg) Goth. add "and thy sisters," but the omission is sustained by BCLΔ, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch Arm. Memph. AEth. The "Workers' New Testament" has the words without the brackets used by Nestle (after Treg. W. H.). B. Weiss supposes that the omission was due to similarity of ending (ὁμοιοτέλευτον). — As to the attitude of the Lord's kinsfolk (verse 21), cf. "Introductory Lectures," p. 164 ff.

MARK 4

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 168-173.

Mark 4: 1-20.

Matt. 13: 1-23; Luke 8: 4-15.

The Lord Jesus had been announced as the Messiah by His forerunner, had manifested Himself fully as such, so that all were responsible, from the chief authorities down to the people at large. The last chapter showed what the result would be — the crowning testimony of the Spirit rejected as well as the Son of man in person, the unpardonable sin of that rebellious and apostate race, and the formation of new relationships, characterized by the doings of God's will, in lieu of the natural ties which were now solemnly and publicly disowned of the Lord.

This opens the way for a parabolic description of the Saviour's ministry, its course and results, His attitude meanwhile and at the close, as well as the circumstances of His disciples while engaged under Him. Mark does not present a full view of the dispensation of the kingdom of heaven, which has its appropriate place in Matthew. Nevertheless, both he and Luke give us in a very complete manner, each suited to the special aim of the respective Gospels, the Parable of the Sower.

"And He taught them many things by parables, and said to them in His doctrine, Hearken: Behold, the sower went forth to sow, and it came to pass as he sowed, some fell by the wayside,44 and the birds* came and devoured it up. And some fell on rocky ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth; but when the sun arose it was scorched; and because it had no root it withered away. And some fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some a hundred. And He said, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

*"The birds" (simply): so ABCL, 1, 33, 69, Amiat. Syrr. Memph. "Of the sky" is added by DCM and some cursives.

This was His work now, scattering abroad the seed of the Word. There was nothing in man acceptable to God. It was a question of something new and Divine, the fruit of the operation of grace. A new life there must be if fruit unto God be looked for. There was nothing like it before: not even John's preaching went out thus far and wide, and still less the law and the prophets.

But, then, there are divers lessons to be learnt, for the action is always responsible, even where it is not efficacious. The seed was good: there was no defect there; but man, as such, is good for nothing, and the effect, where there is not the saving work of the Spirit, comes to nothing sooner or later. Much, therefore, was, in this point of view, lost.

The first class, where all fails as to result, consists of the wayside hearers. "When they heard," says the Lord in explanation, "Satan cometh immediately and taketh away the word that was sown in them."* This answers to the birds coming and devouring the seed that fell by the roadside. This is the direct, destructive power of the enemy which hinders the entrance of the Word. It does not penetrate below the surface, never goes farther than talk, speculation, or admiration of the preacher. The moral state of death is evidently untouched, and Satan has it all his own way.

*"In them": so ACLΔ, Syrhcl(mg), Edd. read "into them," with B, 1, 69, etc. "In their hearts" appears in D, the later uncials, 33, Amiat. Syrsin pesch hcl(t).

Next, we have the case of the seed that fell on stony ground, where it had but little earth, and the effect was full of instantaneous promise. "Immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: but when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away." Here we have the flesh or nature doing its best, but proving its utter weakness. They are the persons "who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and have no root in themselves, but are for a time; then, tribulation or persecution arising for the word's sake, immediately they are offended." Here the work went no deeper than the affections, without reaching the conscience and convicting it before God. To take the joy of Christianity where there has been no judgment of the life and state as in God's sight is really to slight and ignore Him altogether, making much of self. Haste in reception of the blessing is anything but the indication of a Divine Work. Hence the all-importance of repentance, which has been too much lost sight of through a desire to guard the freeness of grace and deliver the Gospel from legal clogs. But this remedy is, at least, as dangerous as the disease which it was intended to cure. We must not weaken the solemn dealing of the Holy Ghost with the conscience. It is good, wholesome, and essential that the soul should weigh its condition in God's light and pronounce His judgment on itself, though, doubtless, repentance is of faith, and not a preparation for faith. Still, there may be no kind of peace and all but despair as yet. The heart may be ploughed up deeply and with scarcely more than a hope of mercy, which keeps it from utterly sinking; and the Lord in due time brings home the word, "Thy sins, which are many, are forgiven. . . . Thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace." Then, indeed, there is, at once and lastingly, peace and joy in believing.

Where there is not the sounding of the heart thus morally, as in God's sight, the same haste which receives easily gives up without difficulty in presence of fiery trial. Well, in truth, it is for the soul, thus captivated by an imaginative joy through a mere feeling of the beauty, the truth, and the attractiveness of God's most unselfish love in the abstract, which may be mistaken for its own deep enjoyment of His grace to a sin-convicted soul — well it is if it discover the fatal error, and, after being turned aside, if it return, or, rather, turn in reality, to God in divinely wrought sense of its sin and guilt, to find in Christ Jesus the only answer to its wants.

The third case is where some seed fell among thorns but, being choked by the growing thorns, it yielded no fruit. Such are they who hear the word; but the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful (verses 18, 19), a serious and not infrequent thing. May we beware! There are various forms in which the evil works, but it is worldly lust and real selfishness, in distrust of God and indifference to His interests, so that the heart gets either overwhelmed with anxiety or active in the pursuit of present things. The very semblance of devotedness is lost, and the soul goes back, it may be with intense avidity, to the world it had seemed to leave. There are none without the need of God's guard against them all. But ye that are poor, watch against encroaching cares; ye rich, be not enticed by the deceitfulness of riches; both of you, see that ye judge "the lusts of other things!"

On the other hand, there is seed that falls on good ground, and yields fruit, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred: even there the result is chequered, for that which is fatal to the unbeliever may injure grievously the fruitfulness of the faithful. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (verse 9). It is a grave matter for every soul — grave for him that hears; and what is it for him who has no ear to hear?

"And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the Twelve asked of Him the parables.* And He said unto them, Unto you it is given [to know]† the mystery of the kingdom of God; but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that beholding they may behold, and not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest it may be they should be converted, and they should be forgiven.‡ And He said to them, Know ye not this parable and how then will ye be acquainted with all parables He explains the mind of God, not to the Twelve only, but to those who were about Him. They were those within: all else were "without," to whom all things happen in parables, a rebelling people without even a reprover now. But those within have the privilege of knowing the mystery of the kingdom: grace thus wrought distinguishing those separated to Christ from the guilty nation, given up increasingly to judicial darkness, though it reproved them for their want of understanding. 45 Nor was this parable hard to discern, but elementary and fundamental, a sort of introduction to those which were to follow. Nevertheless, the gracious Lord, if He rebukes, proceeds to expound it, as we have seen in verses 14-20.

*"Parables": so Edd., with BCLΔ, Amiat. Memph. The reading of AEΠΣ Syrpesch Goth. AEth. is "parable."

†["To know"]: so Ccorr DΔ, etc., Old Latin Syrpesch hier have the word, but Edd. omit, as ABCpm KLΠ Syrsin.

‡"They should be forgiven": so Edd., with BCL, etc. "Their sins," etc., is found in AD, etc., Syrsin pesch, Old Latin, Memph.

Mark 4: 21-25.

Luke 8: 16-18.

But, beside saving the soul, the engrafted word issues in testimony; and this is the next and characteristic statement of the Lord in our Gospel. "And He said unto them, Is a lamp brought to be put under the bushel, or under the  bed, and not to be set on the lamp-stand? For there is nothing hidden which shall not be manifested; neither does any secret thing take place but that it should come to light. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." The word is not "seed" only to produce fruit, but a lamp to shine in the witness of God's grace and truth in this dark world, even as Christ, lowly as He was, and servant of all, was its perfect expression personally. Was it, then, come to be put under a bushel or a couch, and not, rather, on its own appropriate stand? It could not be: for, in truth, "There is nothing hidden which shall not be manifested; neither does any secret thing take place but that it should come to light. If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear." Thus we have the responsibility to shine in the world, holding forth the word of life; and this with the settled certainty that all must come out, whether of good or evil, closing with the solemn appeal to individual conscience once more.

Again, "He said to them, Take heed what ye hear with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you and unto you [that hear]* shall more be added. For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." It is still responsibility in the service and testimony of the Lord. We must take heed, then, what we hear: for what we receive, we are bound to communicate. Want of value for the treasure of God, want of confidence in His grace, reaps its own bitter harvest. "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you; and unto you shall more be added." Such is the special connection here. Those only possess who give out in grace, and such shall receive yet more abundantly; while they who have not in reality, shall lose even the show they have.46

*["That hear"], as A and later copies, 1, 33, 69, Syr. Arm. Edd. omit, with BCDLΔ, Old Latin, Memph.

Mark 4: 26-29.

The next parable, which is peculiar to our Gospel, is singularly characteristic of it. It is the work of the kingdom. "So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth; and should sleep, and rise up night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow up, he knoweth not how. [For]* the earth bringeth forth fruit of itself; first the blade, then an ear, then the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is produced, immediately he putteth in the sickle, for the harvest is come." The absence and apparent disregard of the Lord are supposed, not His manifestation and active interference. Harvest being come, He reaps, instead of sending His angels, as in Matthew.47

*["For"]: so later uncials, Old Latin, Amiat. Goth. Edd. omit, with ABCL.

Mark 4: 30-34.

Matt. 13: 31-35; Luke 13: 18, 19.

This is followed by the mustard seed, which shows its growth from a small beginning into a great development, and a system of protection on the earth even for the emissaries of the god of this world. "And with many such parables He spoke not to them,48 as they were able to hear. But without a parable He spoke not unto them; and in private He expounded all things to His disciples."*

*"His": so AD and later uncials, almost all cursives (1, 33, 69); whilst Edd. adopt "his own," with BCLΔ and Origen.

Mark 4: 35-41.

Matt. 8: 18, 23-27; Luke 8: 22-25.

The final scene of the chapter sets forth the trials to which His people are exposed in their work, with Him in their midst. Their foolish, selfish unbelief is as plain as His calm supremacy over that which He only could control, and His just rebuke of their timidity, blind to the glory of His person.

MARK 5

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 173-181.

Mark 5: 1-20.

Matt. 8: 28-34; Luke 8: 26-39.

We have still an unfolding of the service of Jesus. In this chapter it is not simply the ministration of the word, with its various hindrances and measures of success as far as God is pleased to work both in quickening power and fruitfulness, and this to the end. Neither is it a picture of the tempest-tossed condition of the disciples, Jesus with them, meanwhile, in their dangers, but apparently heedless till appealed to, yet all through the security of His people.

Now we have another thing, the ministry of Jesus in presence of Satan's power, and the utter confessed weakness and misery of nature. An instructive lesson, indeed, for not only do we see the all-conquering might of Him who was crucified in weakness, but the extent of the deliverance shown forth in him who was both set free from the thraldom of Satan and who afterwards became the active witness to others of the Lord's greatness and power to others. It is not merely sin here, or the lusts of the flesh and the world. We know how continually God does save from human violence and corruption and their consequences. In Legion, however, we have, rather, the direct agency of Satan paramount, if not there. As to this, men ordinarily are incredulous; or, if they admit it ever thus acted, they would limit it to the time of Christ on earth. That there may have been a greater rising up of the enemy's power in opposition to the Son of God when here below is a very different statement, and I believe it; but it is a most erroneous conclusion that his power was then so shattered as a matter of fact that cases of demoniacal possession were never afterward to appear. The New Testament refutes the illusion. After Christ died and rose (and this must have gone in the direction of destroying the energy of Satan further than anything else), He charged His servants to preach the Gospel with this sign accompanying them: "In My name they shall cast out demons." (Mark 16: 17) And so, in the Acts of the Apostles, we find the word confirmed thereby. Sick folks were brought, and persons vexed with unclean spirits; "and they were healed every one" (Acts 5: 16). This was after the descent of the Holy Ghost, too; so that this mighty event, following redemption, had not of itself extinguished cases of possession. Nor was this confined to Peter or the other Apostles; but similar power accompanied Philip, the evangelist, at Samaria. "For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed by them; and many that were paralyzed and lame were healed." I need not dwell on such strong cases as the divining damsel of Philippi, nor that at Ephesus (Acts 19), which the seven sons of Sceva proved to be too real to their cost: they are well known.

The truth is, the great victory of Christ is for faith and the Church's deliverance and joy, though no doubt it was attested largely to the world in miraculous signs, as it will be applied by-and-by in a power which will bind Satan first, and filially crush him for ever. But in the meantime the Church is the scene where Christ's victory and power are made good by the Holy Ghost. The world, so far from being made better, is proved to be farther than ever from God, as Satan is proved to be its prince and god in the cross of Christ, but for this very reason the object for the time of the fullest testimony of God's grace in the name of the Crucified. The Gospel which is sent so abundantly to gather out of the world — mark, not to bless it, but to gather out — treats the world as already condemned, and only awaiting unsparing judgment when Jesus is revealed from heaven. Hence separation from the world49 is the paramount duty of, and only right course for, the Christian. The guilt of the blood of Jesus lies upon it, and the only escape for any soul is by faith in that blood, which, if it bring nigh to God, puts the believer in principle outside and above the world — such is the ground, and seeking, and walk of faith. Hence also, the possible amelioration of the world and of man, as such, is a practical denial of the Gospel, and a deep, though in many cases an unwitting, dishonour to the Lord Jesus. No ignorance justifies the allowance of such thoughts, and the more knowledge of Divine truth there is, the more guilty they are. The grace of God supposes the total ruin of the objects of grace, and the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven will execute Divine vengeance on those who feel not their sin and ruin, and who despise His grace. Mark, then, describes in detail and most graphically the torment of this man with an unclean spirit. "And when he was gone out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man50 with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs; and no one could bind him, not even with chains: because he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been torn asunder by him, and the fetters were shattered: and no one could subdue him. And always, night and day, he was in the tombs, and in the mountains,* crying, and cutting himself with stones." The solitude of death, the rejection of human restraint and influence, the restlessness and the cruelty of that which possessed him, were most conspicuous, but not less so his recognition of a superior power and glory in Jesus. "When he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped Him, and crying with a loud voice, says,† What have I to do with thee, Jesus, Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not. For he was saying to him, Come out of the man, unclean spirit."

*"In the tombs and in the mountains": so Edd., with ABCHL, etc., 1, 33, 69, and versions. DE, etc., have "in the mountains and in the tombs."

†"Says": so Edd., with ABCKL, etc., 1, 33, Cod. Amiat. "Said" is the reading of DE, etc., 69, Memph.

It is remarkable, by the way, how the man is identified with the unclean spirit, just as now in grace the Holy Spirit blends most intimately with the believer. The man cries, "Torment me not," though it was a question of dealing with the spirit. So he answers, "My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought Him much that He would not send them* away out of the country."

*"Them":  as D, etc. Edd. read "him," with L, etc., Syrpesch AEth.

On the other hand, it was of importance to give the distinctest evidence that the dwelling of demons in a man is as certain and real as it is of the utmost gravity. Hence the Lord hears their petition that they should be sent into the great herd of swine51 which was feeding at hand "And immediately* Jesus† gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea [about two thousand],‡ and were choked in the sea." In some instances the possessed had a serious disease also. In Legion's case we hear of none; but even if there had been, it would be absurd to suppose the transfer of disease to all the swine and such an effect as their immediate frantic rush to destruction. But the expulsion of all the demons from the man and their possession of the herd was an opportunity to show their love of destroying when a mightier hand no longer controlled their spiteful malice.

*["Immediately"]:  as AΠΣ, etc., 33, 69, Amiat. Edd. omit, as BCLΔ, I, Memph.

†"Jesus": so AΠΣ, etc., 33, 69, Amiat. Edd. omit, as BCELΔ, I, Memph.

‡"They were" (before "about, etc.") as ACcorrΠ, etc., 33, 69, Syrhcl Goth. Edd. omit, with BCpmDLΔ, I, Amiat.

But, alas! what is man in presence of Jesus, or the merciful power which thus rescued the victim of the devil's torture? "They went out* to see what it was that had taken place. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed by demons and had had the legion sitting [and]† clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid." Yes, afraid before Him who breaks the captivity of the devil; more afraid of Jesus and His grace than of the devil and his works! Nay, more than this. "They that had seen it, told them how it had happened to him that was possessed by demons, and also concerning the swine. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts." Alas! alas! the swine and the demons were to them pleasanter neighbours than the Son of God. They had never sought to be free from either; they did seek to be rid of Jesus. Such is man; such the world was and is.

*"Went out": as pmCD and later uncials, Syrsin pesch Arm, AEth. "Went" (Edd.) is the reading of corr ABKLMUΠcorr, etc., 1, 33, Syrhcl Memph. Goth.

†["And"]: so ACΠ, etc., Syrsin hcl Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BDLΔΣ, 1, 33, 69, Amiat. Memph.

It is sweet to see the reverse of this in the heart of him who was emancipated. Not only was he at ease before the Saviour, "sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind," but all his affections were towards Him, and where Jesus went his desire was to follow. "And when Jesus was come* into the ship, he that had been possessed by demons prayed Him that he might be with Him. "And He† suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thine own people, and tell them how great things the Lord52 hath done for thee, and hath had mercy on thee." The spiritual feeling that knit his soul to Jesus was of God, and would be gratified and satisfied in due time. But the grace of the Lord thought of others in this miserable scene of the enemy's wiles, to whom He would bless the testimony of him that had known so painfully the power of Satan. His "own people," therefore, rather than strangers, were to hear the message. "Tell them," said the Saviour, "how great things the Lord hath done for thee." "And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him; and all wondered." And so may we, not only at the great things done, but at the simple faith displayed. "The Lord" for him was "Jesus."

*"He went": so Edd., with ABCD KLMΔΠΣ, 1, 33, Old Latin. "He had gone" appears in later uncials and most cursives.

†"And He": so Edd., with ABC, etc., 1, 33, Syrpesch hcl Memph. Goth. And (but) Jesus as DE, etc., 69, with most cursives, Old Lat., AEth. Arm.

Mark 5: 21-43.

Matt. 9: 18-26; Luke 8: 40-56.

We have, next, the Lord going at the call of one of the rulers of the synagogue to heal his sick daughter, lying at the point of death.* On the way and in the throng His garment is touched by a woman which had an issue of blood twelve years. Here, too, man was unavailing. Instead of finding relief from those most skilled, "she had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and had found no advantage from it, but had rather grown worse." What a picture of human woe, and how common! "For she said, If I shall touch but His clothes I shall be healed"; and she was right, as faith always is. "Immediately her fountain of blood was dried up: and she knew in her body that she was cured from the scourge." But even conscious assurance is not enough for the grace of God. She had stolen, as it were, the blessing; she must have it a free and full gift from the Lord, face to face. "And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself the power had gone out of Him, turned round in the crowd, and said, Who touched my clothes? And His disciples said unto Him, Thou seest the multitude pressing on Thee, and sayest Thou, Who touched Me? And He looked round about to see her who had done this. But the woman, frightened and trembling, knowing what had taken place in her, came and fell down before Him, and told Him all the truth." Blessed Lord, it is good somehow, anyhow, if it be Thy hand that does it, to be brought to tell Thee all the truth! For of a truth it is but to have the cup filled of Thee to overflowing. "And He said to her, Daughter, thy faith hath healed thee: go in peace, and be whole of thy scourge." Was the blessing less now that the gain of the believer was countersigned of the Lord. Was not the deed of power enhanced by the gracious words that scaled it hers with His own signet?

*Here is found one of the few exceptional dislocations, if not the only one, in Mark, for it would appear from Matt. 9: 18 that while the Lord was speaking of the wine and the bottles (Mark 2: 22), the ruler Jairus came about his daughter ("Introductory Lectures," p. 160 note).

Such is now the blessing that faith seizes while the Lord is on the road to heal the sick daughter of Judah. And if evil news53 met the ruler's ear, while Jesus was crowning His mercy to her who touched Him, how swift is His goodness to shield a feeble heart from despair! "Be not afraid: only believe."54 It was not troubling the Master, but His proper work. With chosen witnesses, pillars of the circumcision, He goes, turns out the vain weepers who scorned His words of comfort, and in presence of the parents and His companions wakes the damsel from the sleep of death, to their great amazement. So at the end of the age He will raise up Israel.

MARK 6

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 181-188.

Mark 6: 1-6.

Matt. 13: 53-58; cf. Luke 4: 16-30.

There are three divisions I would make in the portion before us, in order to examine it more conveniently: First, the unbelieving rejection of Christ in "His own country55"; secondly, the mission of the Twelve; thirdly, the power — yet, alas! fatal weakness, withal — of an unpurged conscience, as illustrated in King Herod's behaviour to John the Baptist.

First, the unwearied Servant comes into His own country, followed by His disciples. "And when the Sabbath was come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and many hearing Him, were astonished, saying, Whence has this man these things? and what is the wisdom that is given to Him,56 and such works of power are done by his hands? Is not this the carpenter,57 the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in Him."

But what a lesson! The power of His teaching was owned, and the mighty works done by His hands; but even the despised Nazarenes stumbled at the lowly Lord — the lowly Servant — of all. The meanest of mankind is not free from the same spirit of the world which blinds the highest. In truth, the god of this world blinds all that are lost. The fact may come out more conspicuously in the princes of this world, where resources cannot help them to discern and proclaim the Lord of glory; but the universality of the moral blindness is shown in such conduct as that of the men of Nazareth to the Lord Jesus. That the true heir to the throne of David, to speak of His regal glory, should be a "carpenter" was and is too much for flesh and blood. And yet, when it is believed, the grace of His humiliation is as striking as the need for it was urgent and absolute, if God was to be glorified and man delivered according to His mind. It is clear, also, that the grace of all He became and endured is only rightly seen by those who see in Him the Son — He is the true God and eternal life.

Here, however, even as prophet He is rejected; and Jesus bows to it is the common lot of those who labour for God in a world which knows them too well to pay them honour, and yet knows them not, as it knew Him not. "A prophet," said He, "is not despised, save in his own country, and among his kinsmen, and in his own house." And as thus He speaks, so He acts, or rather does not act. For "He could there do no work of power, save that He laid His hands upon a few infirm persons, and healed them." How admirable the perfection of His service! It seems to me that nothing displays it more than such ways as these: "He could there do no work of power." Yes, He, the Creator of all, the Sustainer of all, could do nothing mighty there. He was the ever-dependent and obedient man who had come to do, not His own will, but the will of Him that sent Him. "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made"; (John 1: 3) yet He could there do no mighty work. Blessed Lord! greater art Thou to me in Thy weakness thus than in Thy strength, whereby all things consist. And yet there was the gracious exercise of healing as far as was morally consistent with the people and the place in God's eyes. For "He laid His hands upon a few infirm persons, and healed them." "And He marvelled," adds the Spirit of God, "because of their unbelief."58 This did not, however, hinder His testimony in the neighbourhood; for He "went round about the villages teaching."

Mark 6: 7-13.

Matt. 10: 1-15; Luke 9: 1-6.

Secondly, He called the Twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits, and commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only, etc. I do not think the importance of the Lord's sending out His servants, whether the Twelve or others, is adequately estimated by most. It was not yet, it could not be till His death and resurrection, that their mission could have its full character of world-wide grace. Still, it is a most precious principle, this sending out of His messengers with a message of grace, as it was a new thing in the earth. And what a tale it told of the real, though hidden, glory of Him who sent them! For who could thus commission and qualify with power over unclean spirits, save one who was consciously Divine? And what injunctions for His ambassadors! "No wallet, no bread, no money in their belt '59 but shod with sandals, to put not on two coats." Truly, His kingdom and His service were not of this world, else would the Lord have provided otherwise. Yet they went forth with the fullest sense of authority. "And He said to them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart thence." How wise and careful of the dignity of His messengers, as well as watchful lest the message should be compromised by the self-seeking of those charged with it! "And whatsoever place* shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony to them."† That He was the Son of God, the Saviour, did not lessen, but aggravate, the criminality of those who despised Him in their persons. The substance of this preaching was that men should repent. There is no Divine work in the sinner without repentance. There may be a sort of belief of no value without it; indeed, nothing is more common in Christendom. But it is not so where the Holy Spirit is at work, who ploughs up the conscience as well as brings home to the heart the good seed that may be sown. External signs accompanied them; for they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

*"Whatsoever place": Edd., with BL, 69, etc. "Whosoever" has the support of AD, later uncials, almost all cursives, Old Lat. Syrsin pesch.

†The latter part of this verse [in T.R.] seems an accommodation from Matt. 11 and Luke 10, with changes. Yet the ancient testimony is ample (B.T.). The authorities supporting the words "Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrha in [the] day of judgment than for that city" are AEΠΣ, etc., 1, 69, most Syrr. Memph. Edd. follow BCDLΔ, Syrsin Old Lat. and Jerome's Vulgate.

Mark 6: 14-29.

Matt. 14: 1-12; Luke 9: 7-9.

The third point to be noticed now is the solemn history of conscience in King60 Herod, who, on hearing the fame of Jesus, imputed the miracles to John the Baptist, as risen from the dead. There was the usual variety of opinion and uncertainty among men, but Herod's bad conscience made him positive that it was John, whom he had beheaded. What a torment even here it is, unless in the yet more desperate case of those who are religiously seared! The Holy Spirit then turns aside to give the account of the circumstances, and to explain why Herod was thus uneasy and perplexed. The wicked Herodias, whom the tetrarch had guiltily married, though she was his brother's wife, had sought her revenge in vain. For, spite of his censure, John stood high in Herod's esteem as a just and holy man; and Herod, having heard Him, did much,* and listened gladly. But there the fair show ended. Satan found the way to shut him up to a course from which there was no escape, save by repentance and the acknowledgment of his sins. It grew out of a royal revel where Herodias' daughter† danced to the content of Herod and his guests, and drew from the king the rash promise, with an oath, to give her what she asked, to the half of his kingdom. Now was the opportunity of the vindictive adulteress, who instructed her daughter to demand at once the head of John the Baptist upon a dish. And the king (whose fear for John had no higher source than nature), while very sorry, yields for the sake of his character before his guests, immediately sends one of the guard to despatch the prisoner,62 and presents his head to the damsel, as she also does to her mother. What an evident net of Satan's laying for the feet of one who was not without feeling! and how powerless is conscience where God's servant is in one scale and the poor plighted honour of man in the other! How simple it all is in God's presence! The devil's promises are better broken than kept.

*"Did many things": so ACD, etc., all cursives, Old Lat. Syrsin hcl, etc. (see note 61 at end). Edd. follow ABL, Memph. for "was perplexed."

†"The daughter of the same Herodias": so Nestle, etc., with AC, later uncials, most cursives, all vv. (including Syrsin). Hort "His daughter Herodias," which is the reading of BDLΔ.

The latter part of the chapter, as well as the former, is singularly full of instruction for the service of the Lord. First of all we had the Lord's own portion. Not only was He refused in His title of King or the Messiah, but despised as God's servant. They heard His doctrine and were astonished at His wisdom no less than His power, but there was one thing that outweighed all in their minds — "Is not this the carpenter?" And so He was. It appears, hence, that our Lord really thus wrought. He was not only the son of a carpenter, but a carpenter Himself. The Creator of heaven and earth spent a considerable part of His sojourn in this world in this lowly labour day by day.

Our Lord accordingly, shut up from doing great deeds, turns to an unobtrusive work. Although debarred by their unbelief from rendering a conspicuous testimony to His glory, He did lay His hands upon "a few infirm persons, and healed them." There was no such thing in our Lord as mortified feeling; He turns calmly from the scorn that hindered His mighty works there to occupy Himself with cases few and inconsiderable. Can we overlook even in this Christ's perfection as the servant?

The next thing we saw was the sending out of the Twelve. There was the combination of two elements in them hard to reconcile. They were to be placed in circumstances that would leave them open to the contempt of everyone. They were to have no money in their belt, not even two coats, not shoes but sandals; they were to be without wallet or provision for the way. What could seem to be more helpless or more dependent than their condition? Yet none the less they, being sent forth as the messengers of the King, were invested with His own power. One remarkable proof of it was the power given them over unclean spirits. "He began to send them forth by two and two [there was association in their service], and gave them power over unclean spirits." And so sent out, not only did they preach that men should repent, but they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. The paramount thing in the mind of the Lord was the dealing with the power of Satan. There is much unbelief among men as to this. The world has grown old in material inventions, and as times pass over the earth men get so accustomed to the power given to man over external nature that they are apt by these very circumstances to forget and deny the unseen power and wiles of Satan. It was therefore of great importance that the disciples, who were called and sent by God's authority, in going forth through the land of Israel, should be clothed with the Divine power, as far as it was communicable, for Christ's sake.

But there is another thing, too, which is of great importance for the service of the Lord. As they called men to repent, so there is an astonishing answer in the conscience. The word reaches the heart even where it is least likely, as in the case of Herod, who is the instance the Spirit of God gives us here. Where men do not repent, still there is conscience, and the word does not fail to probe it. They may not heed the warning, they may turn from it, they may try to forget it, and may succeed for a time in stifling all right feeling, but the barb is there, and although, as in a strong man, the effect of a wound may not be palpable for a time, still, when the day of weakness comes, then the old wound reappears, and what youthful vigour enabled him to slight may give increasing trouble till the whole scene is closed. We have in Herod the history of a soul that had his conscience reached by the word of God, but nothing more. We know well that there is such a thing as resisting the Holy Ghost on the part of unconverted men; it is the commonest thing possible where God's word is known, though it is not only resisting the word, but the Spirit, of God. Therefore it was that Stephen said, when addressing the Jews, "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7: 51) The Holy Ghost so far uses the word as to touch the conscience, and whosoever refuses this resists both the word and Spirit of God. In Herod's case it was only John's testimony, but it was a mighty one, as far as the conviction of sin was concerned. John the Baptist did not pretend to bring in redemption; his main object was to point to One who was coming. But there was a mighty work produced through him in leading men to the sense that they could not do without the Lord. Thus he brought before men that all was ruined in the sight of God, and that, so far from things being prosperous or happy, the axe was lying at the root of the tree, judgment was at the door. And so it was, only that, first of all, the judgment that man deserved fell, by grace, upon Christ. That was the unlooked-for form in which Divine judgment took place then in the cross. It was a most real dealing of God, but it was a judgment for the time stayed from falling upon the guilty, which fell upon the guiltless Son of God, and thereby redemption is accomplished. The whole work of Christ for the Church of God has come in during the time of man's — Israel's — being left by the Lord to himself. It is the time of God's long-suffering, the world being permitted to follow its own way in the rejection of the Gospel as much as in the crucifixion of Christ. This is what the world is doing now, and soon to consummate, when judgment will come. Thus, conscience is shown in a man that felt what was right, and heard the word gladly for a time. But there was no repentance, no submission of his soul to the conviction that for a moment passed before his mind of what was true, just, and of God. The consequence was that circumstances were so managed by the enemy and permitted of God that Herod should evince the worthlessness of natural conscience even as regards the very person whom he had owned as a prophet. But at any rate all was lost now, and a guilty hour at a banquet, where the desire to gratify one as bad or worse than himself, ensnared his weakness and involved his word. There is the end of natural conscience. Herod orders what he would not have conceived it possible for him to do. But we little know the power of that unclean and subtle adversary the devil. It is just the counterpart of what the Lord was doing in grace by His disciples — He gave them power over the unclean spirit. Men repent, and the power of Satan must be broken in order to this. Here, on the contrary, was a man who knew he was in an evil case; but the power of Satan was never really broken. There was no going to God in the sense that he could not deliver himself. The result was that Herod went on till in this evil hour the terrible deed was done; all was over, and he, no doubt, given over to despair or indifference. Had there been the sense of the grace which is in Christ, there was grace enough to have blotted out that or any sin; but the heart that refuses to bow in conscience to God never acknowledges the grace there is in Christ.

Mark 6: 30-44.

Matt. 14: 13-21; Luke 9: 10-17; John 6: 1-13.

Having thus again a little sketched the truth in this part of the chapter as regards the principles of God for guiding in service, we may pass on. The Apostles gathered themselves unto Jesus, and told Him all things, both what they had done and what they had taught. Now, there was great simplicity in this, and a most wholesome thing it is for anyone engaged in the Lord's work to go to Jesus with what has been done and taught. It is well to examine, and perhaps rehearse; but to whom can we do it with safety but to Jesus? There is such a thing as going out in service, but there should be the returning and telling Jesus all that we have had to do or say. There may be occasions where it is well and comely to cheer others with the wonderful works of God; but there is no time where it is not well and wholesome to go to the Lord about it. In His presence there is no danger of being puffed up, and thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought to think. There we learn how little we are, and the defectiveness even of that which we most desire for the edification of one another. Our Lord thoroughly shows His interest and sympathy in this, and says to them: "Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat." Well for us if we needed thus to rest more — that is to say, if our labours were so abundant, our self-denying efforts for the blessing of others were so continual, that we could be sure that this was the Lord's word for us, "Come ye into a desert place, and rest awhile"! I am afraid that sometimes we rather need to be stirred up to feel what a claim souls have upon us, what we owe, not merely to the saints of God to seek their blessing, but to every creature, for we are debtors to all. Having such a Christ as we have, we ought to feel that we have riches enough for everything — riches of grace in Him, not merely for the saints of God, but for the poorest of sinners. The Twelve had so discharged their mission that our Lord could tell them thus to turn aside and rest awhile. There was more than rest for the body: with Him what repose for the soul! It is a good thing at times to be thus alone, and yet not alone — alone from man that we may be with the only One who can give us fresh strength and, at the same time, adequate lowliness for the better discharge of our service, whatever it may be.

They depart, then, into a desert place by ship privately. Now, it is the Lord's way of goodness that I think so well worthy of note in this place. We do not make enough of the Lord; we are not quite simple in our thoughts of His interest with us in all the details of circumstances day by day; we do not always think of Him as a real, living, tender friend occupied with us and intent upon our good, and even deigning to care for our bodies as well as our souls. Here is the proof of it as to the Twelve.

"And many saw them departing, and recognised them,* and ran together there on foot out of all cities, and outwent them. And [Jesus] when He came out, saw a great crowd, and was moved with compassion for them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things." This is exceedingly sweet, because His object in retiring was to have given His disciples leisure, they had not time so much as even to eat, and the haste of the multitude was really an intrusion, and yet the Lord at once turns to the crowd in love. Here, again, there is no such thing as the slightest expression of disturbed feeling. There was no coldness shown to the intruders. On the contrary, He enters upon this fresh service with the same alacrity that He had turned aside with His disciples in order to give them a little rest by the way. More than that, He looks with compassion upon the multitude, "because they were as sheep not having a shepherd. And He began to teach them many things." He at least knew no leisure; at any rate, where did He ever take advantage of it, although there was infinitely more to try and weary Him as a man than ever fell upon any other? At once He turns to teach these needy men that which they little knew they needed.

*"Recognised them": so Edd., after AKL, etc., many cursives, including 33, Syr. Memph. AEth. EFG, etc., 69, have "him"; whilst BD and Amiat. have neither "him" nor "them." This is an illustration of W. H.'s "conflate" readings (Introduction, p. 95 ff.).

"And when it was already late in the day,63 His disciples came unto Him and said, This is a desert place, and it is already late in the day. Send them away that they may go into the country and into the villages round about, and buy themselves bread, for they have nothing to eat."* Oh, do we not see the reflection of ourselves here? "Send them away." Was that all the disciples could think or say? Had they not profited more by the past experience of their Master? Had they not profited by the grace the Lord had been for so long a time displaying towards poor, shepherdless Israel? "Send them away." Send them away from Jesus! Without refreshment from Jesus! This was what even disciples could propose to the Lord Himself. Is not this what we learn of our own hearts? Do we not continually discover our little ability to count upon grace and to turn its boundless resources to meet present difficulties? When we have seen the Lord's ways we may admire them, but faith is especially shown in knowing how to avail ourselves of what is in Christ for the want that is actually before us. Here the lack was in others; but what a lack in themselves when the unbelief of disciples thus vents itself to the Lord! "Send them away that they may go and buy bread. But He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat." It is always so that He acts — "give." He loves a bountiful giver; He was so Himself, and He was now about to open the hearts of the disciples to feel aright. It was not only what was needed in an authoritative mission throughout the land of Israel when the kingdom was going to be set up, but now it was a heart for the poor, despised, and wretched in Israel. The Lord would give the disciples His own sympathies. He would make them know what they themselves lacked — teach them to feel what there is in Christ even for the men who had no feeling for His wants, no consideration for the Lord in the retirement that He had sought. But this does not change the grace that is in Christ. Whatever may be the fault of another, we have to look well to it that it brings out from us the patient wisdom of grace. It is the hardest thing we have to learn. Here the disciples break down; but it was in the presence of One who only turned it to the account of leading them to a perception of His own grace. This is the great point of the whole chapter; it is the fitting of others for the service on His own approaching and entire rejection.

*Edd.: "buy themselves something" (, fragments) "to eat," with B(D)LΔ Syrsin Memph. Text (the "received") is that of AE, etc., and other Syrr.

Here we have not only adequate power, but adequate affection. Power over the unclean spirit we have seen, moral power through the word, even over a natural man's conscience, had been proved; but now we have the perception of the Lord's feelings, His compassion for a multitude, even though unbelieving. There are many who truly believe in the love the Lord has for the Church, but they do not at all understand the deep pity He has toward poor man as such. Now, this the Lord was showing here. It is not a question merely of believers, but we have persons who, it is plain, were merely seeking to get what they could from Jesus, following Him on their own account — not for life eternal, not because of their sins, nor was it for the miracles even that they had seen, but for what He could give them for this life. The Lord did not refuse even this, but the disciples knew nothing of this grace. They had authority conferred on them they had proved communicated power along with this they had come and told the Lord what they had done and taught. But where was their affection answering to the Lord's? That they had it not is betrayed by their words to Him. The Lord had now to communicate His own thoughts and feelings to them, and He does it after this sort: "He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat." They do not need to go: they do not need to buy. What Jesus tells them is to give — "Give ye them to eat." "And they say unto Him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?" This is another working of unbelief in them. Not that they had the least thought of going and buying; but they wanted to put their insuperable difficulty before their Master. But what do we need such a one as Christ for if not for that which we cannot even touch? The greater the difficulty, the more suited is the occasion for the Lord to display Himself. He is Lord of all; and if He is, what can a difficulty be but only an appeal to His power, and which shows it was ever beyond measure. "Give ye them to eat."

"He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? Go [and] see. And when they knew, they say, Five and two fishes." This is a feature that I think it well to notice, because it is important practically. The Lord loves, however truly working in His own power, to make use of that which we might despise in human wisdom. Moses may plead his impotence, but the Lord will make use of that man of slow speech. If He employ Aaron too, He will put the sentence of death upon everything that flesh leans upon. So now our Lord draws upon the resources that were already in the hands of the disciples. Not that such things as they had could have availed without Him; but that He is ever with us, in one way or another, ever ready to work and bless, according to His almighty power and goodness.

When they brought word that there were five loaves and two fishes, doubtless it was with the conviction that no answer could be less satisfactory. How wise they were in thinking it a vain thing that such a multitude could be fed by anything that they possessed! But it is the way of God to make use of the weak and little as truly as to abase that which is self-confident of its greatness. And as the Lord was about to act upon this very principle with the Twelve, He was now teaching them the same as to the feeding of the multitude then around them. It was the exerting His own creative power on that which was utterly contemptible — at least, in human eyes. The five loaves and two fishes seemed to be absurd for such a multitude. But what was it not in the hands of Jesus?

But He does another thing. He commands that they should sit down by companies upon the green grass, and they sat down in ranks by hundreds and fifties.64 The Lord is not unmindful of outward order and decorum in His arrangements. He was about to work a stupendous miracle, and He arranges the people carefully, bringing before their eyes the conviction of what there was in Him for the need of man. He was really there, the promised One, that was to feed His poor with bread (Ps. 132: 15). Where were they that they had never thought of Him, that they did not count upon such love as this for a still greater want than the bread that perishes for the body? But it was the Lord acting from His own goodness, and in no respect even according to the mind of a disciple. The multitude was unprepared for the work, but the disciples were just as blind. They no more expected what was coming than the multitude. Our being believers is no proof at all we shall have faith for any particular exigency before us. Present dependence upon God is necessary to give us a just thought of the Lord's ways; otherwise we may be as foolish as if we had no faith at all, and we shall be sure to be so if we do not measure the difficulties by Jesus. Bring Him in and the difficulty is at an end.

But, further, the Lord employs the disciples between Himself and the multitude. How continually we find the Lord returning good for their evil, putting honour upon the poor disciples who so little appreciated His feelings of love and compassion! He does not distribute the bread directly, as if He made no account of His servants. He meant to show His disciples that the love of Christ delights to work in human channels. The same unbelief, which on one side sees nothing in Jesus, on the other is apt to overlook and deny the use Jesus makes of suited instruments to dispense His blessings in this world. But as it was Jesus alone who was the source of it all, the disciples were to be the. channels, both learning and teaching what grace could do to them, and through them. The disciples, accordingly, take the bread from the hands of Jesus, and thus it is that the supply is provided for the vast multitude. It was the Lord's way then, and it is His way now. The wonders of His grace are not, as it were, all reserved for His own exclusive hand: for although He alone is the constant, active spring of grace, yet at the same time He works by whom He will, and He puts often the most honour upon the least comely member; for as we know it is in Nature the most vital and essential member that is the most guarded and the least apparent, so it is in His body the Church: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (1 Cor. 1: 31) He Himself was among them as "he that serveth." It is in no way the Lord showing the worth of this one or that one, but displaying His own grace and power according to His own sovereign will. But the disciples must learn that, if they were rebuked and their unbelief made most apparent, the Lord's grace was not altered towards them — nay, His grace could employ them immediately afterwards to be the distributors to the famishing multitude of the bread of His providing. What grace toward them!

The whole scene is most instructive, and particularly so as giving us to see the manner of His own service and the failure of others. "When He had taken the five loaves and two fishes, He looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and kept giving them to His disciples to set before them. And the two fishes He divided among all. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve hand-baskets full of the fragments and of the fishes. And they that ate of the loaves were five thousand men."* The very fragments far exceeded the provision they had at first, but even the fragments were not to be forgotten or despised. What simplicity of care, even where He ensured that there should be the testimony before their eyes of the miraculous character of the whole transaction!

*, 1 and some other copies with Arm. have "about 5,000 men."

Vv.45-52

Matt. 14: 22, 23; John 6: 15-21.

The next scene has also its lesson for us. "Immediately He constrained His disciples to go on board ship, and to go on before to the other side, to Bethsaida,65 while He sends away the crowd. And when He had dismissed them, He departed into the mountain to pray." It was one of the great signs of the Messiah that He would satisfy His poor with bread, as you may remember in Ps. 132. The Lord ought to have been thus recognised, but He was not. Accordingly He sent them away. The people, instead of being gathered to the Lord as to their King, have been for a season at least put aside. He has dismissed the multitude because of their unbelief; He has departed from Israel for a time, and gone on high to take the place of intercession. And while the Lord is there the disciples are exposed to all the storms and fluctuations of this lower scene. "And when evening was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and He alone on the land. And He saw them toiling in rowing, for the wind was contrary to them." It is a little picture of what was to be accomplished by-and-by. The Lord is gone on high now; He is not with the multitude, neither is He in bodily presence with the disciples. He has left the Jews for the time; He is also away from the disciples. They have their work to do, but apparently they make no progress. But in the midst of the contrariety of all things around them He comes again. "About the fourth watch of the night He cometh unto them, walking upon the sea; and would have passed by them. But when they saw Him walking upon the sea they supposed it had been an apparition, and they cried out. For all saw Him, and were troubled. And immediately He talked with them, and says to them, Be of good courage; it is I; be not afraid. And He went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased."65a

Mark 6: 53-56.

Matt. 14: 34-36.

Then we find that, having come to shore with the disciples, the Lord accomplished all that was spoken. "When they had come out of the ship they recognised Him immediately, and ran through that whole region round about, and began to carry about on couches those that were ill, where they heard He was. And whithersoever He entered, into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market-places, and besought Him that they might touch, if it were but the border of His garment; and as many as touched Him were healed." It is a little picture of what will be the consequence of the Lord's return to the earth. When the Lord and His disciples rejoin the shore that He has left, when He comes back again, whatever there is of human woe, wretchedness, weakness, sickness, in this world, all will flee before the presence and touch of the Son of God. He will then and thus manifest His goodness. Accordingly, what we have here is the consummation and triumph of all ministry in His own ministry. The disciples are shown in their weakness meanwhile, but encouraged by the prospect of His return in power and glory, when all shall be made good that the Lord has ever promised, and that He has led His people to expect in this world. It is a good thing for our souls to realize that while our Lord is away we are not to be discouraged by difficulties — not cast down if the wind is contrary and ourselves toiling in vain, yet not in vain. It is He who has sent us across that troubled sea; it is He who meanwhile intercedes for us, and as surely will He come to us; and when He does return, all that is lacking He will supply, all that hinders will be removed, and then will the universe duly, fully exult in its Lord, our Lord and Master, when He shall be exalted from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. This is what the final circumstances of the chapter typify. It may cheer us in any little service that is before us now. It is instruction for the service of the Lord, beginning with His own rejection in shame and ending with His glorious return, when all sickness and misery disappear before His presence.

MARK 7

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 188-190. See also note 66.

Mark 7: 1-23.

Matt. 15: 1-20.

In this chapter the scene is totally changed. It is no longer the accomplishment of promise, nor merely the retiring before the oppressive cruelty of him that was then in the place of outward authority. We have here the Lord morally dealing with, and judging, the religious chiefs of Jerusalem who, in their confidence and pride, undertook to blame His disciples and Himself with them. It was themselves, however, who had made the word of God of none effect through their tradition. Thus we are on ground of peculiar importance at this present time, and indeed at all times in Christendom. For there has never been a time in which this danger has not existed ever since the word of God was given, partially or completely, to the Church. Traditions began to multiply apace when the Apostles passed away. As the word of God, more particularly the New Testament, is not in the form of mere command, there was peculiar openness in Christendom to the influence of tradition. In the Jewish system all was ordered by rule. It was the natural and obvious fashion of the Jewish economy that God regulated all their intercourse, gave positive injunctions as to the whole policy, left scarcely anything open to His people, but prescribed their private and public obligations, whether individual, family, or social — their religious duties as well as their political. In fact, everything was made a matter of plain commandment, and yet even in that system, so inveterate is the heart of man in departing from the living God, that even there we find the leaders of the Jews taking away the people from these expressed commandments of God by putting them under the authority of their own tradition. How comes it that there is this continual tendency in the heart of man, and specially of those that take the place of guides of God's people, no matter when or where you look at it, to supplant His word by their tradition? It is because tradition gives importance to man, leaves room for superiority to self. The consequence is that not merely the religious chiefs are thus fond of gratifying their self-importance by imposing rules of their own, but the people love to have it so. This painful fact is brought out in all the word of God. Thus, throughout the Old Testament, not only were the priests ever rebellious, but the people also: man never was subject to God, but has continually departed from God, in whatever way He might be trying him. This, then, came to an issue between the Lord and the Jewish religionists.

"And the Pharisees and certain of the scribes who came from Jerusalem are gathered together unto Him." They had the highest authority as far as the earth was concerned; they came from the holy city of ancient religion, clothed with the credit of Divine law and authority. "And seeing some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed, hands." Now, there was clearly nothing moral in this — nothing that could touch the soul or that affected a man's relationship with God; but it was contrary to their traditions, and therefore they found fault. It is easy to conceive that this tradition may have had a pious origin. There may have been in the minds of these leaders an idea of keeping up before the people the importance of personal purity; for washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for and insists on holiness in the works of His people. At any rate, such was the custom expected from every professor, whether from that idea or any other of presenting to the minds of the Israelites their duty in the things of God. They may have pleaded indirectly. No doubt it was drawn from the word of God, because there were certain washings which men always practised. Thus, the priests were to wash the sacrifices presented to God, as they had been themselves washed at the time of their consecration, and had always to wash hands and feet before entering the tabernacle. It seemed a reasonable and meet inference that this rite, at once simple and expressive, ought to be observed by every man among the holy people in his ordinary dealings day by day. Who, in fact, could have the necessity of personal purity kept too much before his eyes? But there was precisely where man was in fault. The great principle of the word is that, God being infinitely wise and holy, where He does not lay down any positive injunction of His own, woe to him who infringes liberty. Man, on the contrary, takes advantage of the opening, and, where God has not laid down a law, he makes one of his own. But God has given no warrant thus to legislate; and half the disputes and schisms that have occurred in Christendom are due to this cause. The haste of man to solve a difficulty has recourse to such measures, and the desire of man to enforce his own will where God, instead of laying down anything positive, has left things as a test for the heart, and therefore has purposely abstained from a command. It cannot be surprising that what is thus introduced is almost always evil; but supposing the thing imposed might seem ever so desirable, the principle is always faulty.

I desire to press the immense importance of giving no authority to any rule except the word now written. To hear men of God, to be helped by servants of God, to value an exposition of the truth, is all well, but is a very different thing from an authoritative canon or creed which men impose as binding upon conscience. It is never right to accept thus what comes from man. God alone and His word bind the conscience. His servants may teach, but if they teach aright, it is the truth of God. They bring the word of God to bear upon the conscience, and therefore nobody that understands the place of God's servant would wish to create a divided allegiance by imposing his own thoughts and words. His proper function as a servant is rather to maintain the undisguised supremacy of God's word, so that the conscience may be put under a positive and increased sense of obligation. Whenever the work is well done, and blessed by God's grace, further question is at an end. This is the true aim of such ministry as Scripture recognises. The truth is sufficiently brought out that men's consciences should be called into action. The Spirit of God gives Divine force to it, so that souls are left without excuse. Even in the preaching of the Gospel every unconverted man is under the responsibility of receiving the testimony of God; but still more in Divine things, after we have received the truth and have discovered the inestimable place and value of the word of God. It is of all importance that our souls should hold fast and firm, that whatever the helps imparted through man, whatever the light of God that shines through the vessels He employs, still it is God's light, God's truth; nothing else than God's word ought to be acknowledged as authoritative.

Assuredly the business of a Christian, of a servant of God, now is not to stand between man and God, which was the position of a priest in Judaism, but to put away the obstacles which act as veils, that man may face the truth, and, indeed, God Himself, without being permitted to escape; so that the light that comes from God may shine full upon the conscience and the heart of man. This does not suit man left to himself; it displeases the world, which prefers a distant reserve; and these Pharisees and scribes, though they came from Jerusalem, were really of the world. Hence they reasoned in Divine things, as men do now, from principles that are true enough in worldly things: the word was not mixed with faith in their hearts. No doubt, in the outward world, God has left man to himself in great measure, save that He keeps a certain providential check upon him. Government of the earth is committed to human hands, and man comes under the responsibility of exercising or observing that government here below. But still he is left to judge according to the means God has given. There may be certain landmarks God has laid down; for instance, the sacredness of human life, which God asserted before He called out Abraham, and which is a principle as obligatory now as ever it was. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." This was what God instituted at the time of the Flood; but with such-like slight exceptions, man is left free to arrange, according to the circumstances, the various punishments and rewards in this world. But in Divine things the main point is God dealing, by His word and Spirit, with conscience, as immediately subject to Himself. And hence it is that everything which intercepts the direct application of the Scripture from God Himself to His children is the most positive injury. It is man stepping into the place of God. This at once furnishes a sure test for deciding what is of God and what is not. If you speak to me of helps for understanding the word of God, these exist and are given of God. Such is the object of ministry, which is the service that God has instituted for the purpose of giving effect to His word. But none the less is His word the means of dealing with sinners and of building up His children. True, it is the service of God in His word, not a rival or co-ordinate authority.

On the other hand, tradition is essentially different. It proceeds, not from God, but from man. We find the attempt to introduce it even in the New Testament, and while the Apostle Paul was in the midst of his labours. The Church at Corinth shows, perhaps, the first attempt of the enemy to insinuate human tradition. They had allowed women to preach in the public assembly, which the Apostle denounces. There was a good deal to be argued for it. People might have reasoned — if women had gifts, why should these not be used? If gifts were possessed suited to bring out the truth of God, why not turn these to the utmost account in the Christian assembly? The word of God positively interdicts this. It allows that a woman might prophesy; as, for instance, the four daughters of Philip, the evangelist, no doubt did prophesy. The question is, where and how? In the first place, they were not to prophesy to men, because that would be an inversion of God's order. A woman is not suffered to teach or govern. Consequently, while they were allowed to bring out whatever light they had, even of the highest character, yet it was to be done in subjection to the word of the Lord. A man, as the Apostle shows, is the glory of God, whereas the woman is put under subjection. Man has the official place of superiority to the woman. It could, therefore, never be supposed that God would give a gift to a woman in such sort as to set aside, in so important a manner, the difference established from the beginning, and sanctioned and insisted upon in the New Testament. In the next place, within the public assembly woman's speaking in any form, even asking a question, is forbidden. They are to ask their husbands at home. It was this very thing that drew out the Apostle's condemnation of tradition. The Corinthians seem to have allowed and contended for liberty to be given to these gifted women to speak in the assembly. But the Apostle takes them to task, and urges that if any of them were spiritual or prophets they would be subject to the word of the Lord. On the other hand, if any of them were ignorant, let them be so. What a blow to the would-be-wise speculators to hear their theories treated as mere and wilful ignorance! "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." (1 Cor. 14: 38) These high-flown men were really ignorant of the mind of God.

This, it is evident, is exceedingly important, because it puts us in the presence of the great truth which the Church of God has forgotten and trampled under foot in all ages. The word is not to come out from ourselves. We want the word that comes from God to the Church, and not what the Church, so-called, pretends to utter. The Church never teaches nor rules. That which comes from man or from the Church has no authority whatever; on the contrary, the Church is called to be in the place of subjection to Christ: she is not in the place of the Lord, but of the lady. Jesus is Lord; He alone commands the Church, which is put by God in the place of the woman, as subject to the Lord. This at once becomes a very weighty difference in practice. For we can all remember the day when we thought that human rules in the things of God were right and necessary. It seemed to us as if the ecclesiastical state could not be held together without human regulations. We judged that the present state differs so from what existed of old that it is impossible to apply the word of God in its integrity to the Church now, and therefore new rules must be introduced to suit our days. In admitting such a principle, you do two things — you dishonour the word of God, for the word of God is not a dead letter, like man's: the word of God is a living word now as then. Every Christian believes this for the salvation of his soul, but not for his walk and conduct every day, and, more particularly, not for the worship and government of the Church. Is it not, on the very face of it, a mischievous principle to allow the word of God to be a living authority in one thing and to treat it virtually as obsolete and dead in another? Is it not venturing near the fatal slide of infidelity? I do not say that the persons who speak and act thus are infidel; but it is an infidel principle to consign to the grave any part of God's word, to maintain that all that part which dwells so largely upon the union and worship of Christians, the ways in which they are to walk together in the confession of their Lord, and in common subjection to the word and Spirit of God — that all this is out of date, and no longer obligatory on the saints. But you do another dishonour by such a course, for you not only dethrone the word of God from its supremacy in the conscience, but you exalt the commandments of man: you slight the true authority and recognise a mere usurper. It is evident I must have something that governs me If I am not simply subject to the word of God, I am sure to bow to the word of man. Some may prefer their own thoughts if they think their own wisdom is superior to their neighbour's. But the general form taken is not so much an individual showing self-sufficiency, but rather the union of a number who encourage one another to join in this race of independence, which involves disobedience to the word of God. We are living at a time when Satan does all to lower Scripture, and when God has brought out its value and pressed its practical moment more home upon the conscience than in former days. There was a time when not one of us had ever been exercised upon this subject. It was taken for granted that a human supplement of rules is necessary. But any rule invented by man for the government of Christians is a tradition, and of the worst kind, because it is thus made a thing of positive authority for faith and practice.

The Pharisees in our chapter brought out this conventional washing of hands, and pressed it upon the disciples. The Spirit's comment is that "the Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands diligently,* eat not, holding the tradition of the ancients. And when they come from the market-place, unless they are washed, they do not eat. And many other things there are which they have received to hold, the washing of cups and vessels, brazen utensils, and couches." Every spiritual man must feel the quick, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch, which breathes through the language of the Spirit of God. However subdued the tone may be, the whole thing is treated as utterly weak and childish. The washing of persons is classed with the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion! "Then the Pharisees and scribes ask Him, Why do Thy disciples walk not according to the tradition of the ancients, but eat the bread with defiled† hands?" It is remarkable how the Lord answers them. It is not by discussing the source of the tradition or showing its futility. He deals at once with its broad character and its moral effect on the obedience that is due to God. This is, doubtless, a most admirable pattern for every Christian man. The Lord lays bare the moral fruit of these traditions, and thus the simple escape the snare of the enemy. "He answered and said unto them, Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you, hypocrites,68 as it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Isa. 29: 13)

*"Diligently" (or "frequently," "with vigour," or "with nicety"). The mass of authority [ABD, etc., followed by Edd.] sustains πυγμῃ (D: πυκμῃ). Lit. "with the fist," or "up to the elbow." Tischendorf adopted πυκνά from the Sinaitic copy, confirmed, perhaps, by the Latin (verse 9) and some other versions. St. Gall [as the Syrsin] has neither (B.T.). See, further, note 67.

†"Defiled": so Edd., after pmBD, 1, 33, Memph. Arm. "Unwashed" is found in corr AL, etc., Syr. Goth.

And this is His method of proof. He takes one of these noted traditions and shows that, plausible as it might seem, it was but the cunning slight of deceivers, led by one more cunning than themselves, and destructive of the true fear of God. It drew men into disobedience, and made excuse for sin, or, rather, denied it. Thus their zeal for tradition blinded them to what ordinary conscience must have felt, "for, leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." He does not call it a wicked tradition; it was "of men," and is not to be held. "And He said to them, Well do ye set aside the commandment of God, that ye may observe your own tradition." There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. There is great importance in the principle. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God. Whatever God wills, whatever is His revealed mind on any given subject, demands the believer's reception and obedience. "For, leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of vessels and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

What is the harm of all this? It may not be wise, but is merely innocent, a person might argue. But the Lord does not judge so lightly of nullifying God's commandments by the deference that men show to the will and word of man. "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and he who speaks ill of father or mother, let him surely die." There we have the plain revelation of God's mind. To honour parents is right and of God, to make light of them unfits man to live in God's estimate. How did tradition dissolve so plain a duty? "Ye say, If a man say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is, gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and ye suffer him no more to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God69 through your traditions which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in want; he has received in earthly goods that which would relieve them, but the tradition-mongers have invented a plan to benefit religion so called at the cost of filial duty. If one said "Corban" the duty was totally changed, and that which would have been due to the parent must now be devoted to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban". estopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had devised the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to quiet persons from all trouble of conscience about the word of God.

But the judge and Lord of all meets this at once. Who had given them authority to say, It is Corban? Where had God warranted such a practice? and who were they that dared to substitute their thoughts for the word of God? It was God who called on man to honour his parents, and who denounced all slight done to them. Yet here were men violating, under cloak of religion, both these commandments of God! This tradition of saying "Corban" the Lord treats not only as a wrong done to the parents, but as a rebellious act against the express commandment of God.

For my part I never heard of a tradition introduced into any religious body, or imposed upon any individuals, that was not contrary to the word of God. Such are the rules made by man in the things of God. Indeed, all religious societies have a system, which they do not even profess to have derived from the word of God. There are those now in Christendom that cast themselves upon the word of God alone, but such one would not lower to the level of a religious society. I say, then, that wherever you find men who join together in these voluntary societies, large or small, they introduce a system of their own for the purpose of distinguishing themselves from others, and regulations that they consider necessary for the establishment or extension of the society. They invent and impose human rules, which not only differ from the Scripture, but contradict it. God's word is a living reality, and a complete standard of truth and practice. Everything that man adds as a supplement is a deformity; it is that which, as it does not flow from God, is inconsistent with the light. Man is incompetent to regulate what belongs to God.

Thus persons say it is impossible to go on unless you have rules about ministry; it would not do to have everybody rising up and attempting to minister. It is freely admitted that if there were not the looking to the Holy Ghost there would be confusion, and that even where there is faith in Him there is always the need of self-judgment why one does this or seeks that, but God is equal to all the difficulty. If we submit to the word of God nothing can be more distinct or positive than that there is no such thing as a universal right to minister on one hand, and no such thing as a process or any human means of conferring a title to minister upon a man. Not the Church, but Christ; not the subject woman, but the risen man and Lord, can call to the work of teaching the saints or of preaching the Gospel. It surprises many to hear that there is no such thing as a human institution to warrant the preaching of the Gospel. A single text would destroy my statement if it were not true, but no Scripture can be brought forward. The general practice of Christendom has no Divine ground whatever for its justification. Hence they are obliged to take their stand upon tradition, which contradicts the plain word of God. For if any Christians have the power to preach, which comes only from the Lord, they are not only at liberty, but bound to preach. It is a question of positive responsibility to Him before whose judgment we must all be made manifest. The Lord, if He lights a candle, does not intend it to be put under a bushel, but to be set on a candlestick. It is at man's peril if he attempt to hinder the going forth of the energy of God's Spirit. Whoever has the power of the Spirit to preach should go forth and use it; woe to him if he does not.

Take another case. There is no such thing in the New Testament as a person set apart by any human mode simply to teach the Church. Whereas, when we look around, we see one and the same principle running through a vast variety of forms, from the Pope down to the ranting preacher. All have got their self-devised methods, by which none can be a minister in the denomination unless he go through their own human process. But such a routine is wholly unsound and contradicts the word of God, and every Christian person is bound to give effect to this by renouncing in every way what is contrary to the word of God. Do you think and say that this is too hard? Then it is you who are too bold, not I. For am I not asserting what I can prove? You have your Bibles, and can search for yourselves. But it may be said, Was there no such thing as ordaining? Certainly there was, when Apostles or apostolic men constituted elders, etc. But our Lord still sends, as He used to send, men out to preach the Gospel. But I contend that a human rite, before they permit souls to preach to the world or teach the Church, is a tradition of men and contrary to Scripture. You will find in Scripture that there were persons appointed by the Apostles to take care of tables, persons chosen by the Apostles or their envoys to a certain work of supervision. Some were called elders and others deacons, but neither the one nor the other was necessarily a preacher or teacher. It is nothing but a blunder to confound elders and deacons with ministers of the word as such. Those who were evangelists, or pastors and teachers, exercised their gifts, not because they were made elders or deacons, which they might not be, but because they had a capacity from God to preach, teach, or rule. To confound these gifts with eldership is a great mistake. When once the difference is seen it clears the way, and brings one either outside the traditional paths of Christendom, or, if disobedient, within the range of our Lord's rebuke.

May we all bear in mind how deeply we need to watch against the spirit of tradition! Wherever we impose with absolute authority a thing that does not proceed from God Himself, it is a tradition. It is all very well to take counsel of one another, and it is not a happy feature to oppose others needlessly; but it is of all consequence that we should strengthen each other in this, that nothing but the word of God is entitled or ought to govern the conscience. It will be found that when we let go this principle, and allow a rule to come in and become binding, so that what is not done according to that rule is regarded as a sin, we are gone from the authority of the word of God to that of tradition, perhaps without knowing it ourselves.

The Lord here shows convincingly where these Pharisees and scribes were. They had never considered that their principle of Corban made void the word of God. But let us, too, bear in mind that after we have had any Divine truth pressed upon us we are never the same as before. We may have been simply and honestly ignorant then, but we are thenceforth under the increased yoke of God's known mind, which we either receive in faith or reject, and harden ourselves by rejecting in unbelief. Therefore, let us look to the Lord, that we may cherish a good conscience. This supposes that we have nothing before us which we cleave to or allow inconsistent with God's will. Let us desire and value nothing but what is according to His word, lest peradventure any of us be left where Christ leaves these Pharisees, under the terrible censure that they made void the word of God through their tradition. If but one example was taken up it was a sufficient sample of the things they were doing continually.

Now we turn to another subject — the condition of man. We are first shown that religion without Christ is but hypocrisy, and that man's interference in Divine things ends in setting God's word aside to keep his own tradition. The next thing we see is what man really is, religious or not. "When He had called again the crowd, He said to them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand." The Lord here brings to light the broad principle which of itself would account for His sentence on all tradition. Does it come from man? It is enough. How is it that which springs from such a source is bad and untrustworthy? It concerns every soul, for it is no question of controversial strife. Protestant and Papist, beware of slighting the admonition of the judge of quick and dead. "There is nothing from outside a man, entering into him, can defile him; but the things which go out from him, those it is which defile the man."70 This, if we apply the principle in all its extent, involves the character of tradition; for tradition comes out from man — not a word to man with the authority of God, but a human word that beggarly pride would fain invest with purple and gold to cover its nakedness. This may show the connection, for undoubtedly the Lord here judges the moral issues of the heart and all the ways of man. "If any one have ears to hear, let him hear." The disciples could not understand Him. What a lesson for us! Christ's servants could not understand Him. The very Apostles were slow to believe that man was utterly corrupt. Is there anyone here that doubts the thorough evil, not merely to be found among men, but of man? Does anyone think that human nature can be trusted? Listen to the Saviour — the Saviour of the lost. "If any one have ears to hear, let him hear."

"When He entered indoors from the crowd His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. And He says unto them, Are ye also thus unintelligent? Do ye not perceive that all that is outside entering into the man cannot defile him, because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging* all meats? And He said, That which goeth forth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, go forth evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickednesses, deceit lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness all these wicked things go forth from within, and defile the man."71 There is nothing in the heart of man that so hinders his intelligence as the influence of religious tradition. Not only this, but tradition darkens a disciple wherever it works, and one effect and invariable accompaniment of it is specially insubjection to the humbling truth that there is no good thing in man. I do not deny that God can bring everything that is good into the heart. For He gives His Son, and in Him eternal life; He washes the believer in the precious blood of Christ, and gives the Holy Ghost to dwell in him. Neither do I speak of what is the fruit of Divine grace working in man; but I maintain that what comes out of man as such is invariably bad. As to this the disciples were dull of understanding, yet there was not one obscure word in what Christ uttered. Why is it that Divine truth seems and is so difficult to apprehend? Our obstacle chiefly lies, not in the head, but in the heart and conscience. It is not the bright or the powerful intellect that understands the word of God best; it is the man whose purpose of heart is to serve the Lord. Wherever there is a simple-hearted desire to do His will, "he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." It is not, If thine eye be keen or far-seeing, but "If thine eye be single." (John 7: 17; Matt. 6: 22) What a comfort to a poor soul that is consciously weak, ignorant, foolish, it may be! Such a one, nevertheless, may have a single eye, and consequently see farther, spiritually, than the brightest of men, whose heart is not unreservedly toward the Lord. What in this case hindered singleness of eye? Why were the disciples so undiscerning? Because they did not like to receive such a tremendous sentence on man. They had been accustomed to make conventional differences.

*"Purging" (καθαρίζων). A serious italic supplement by the Revisers appears in verse 19, "This He said." Here is the preliminary question of καθαριζων and καθαριζον, the former undoubtedly carrying much the most weight externally (AB, etc., 1, 69, and some other cursives [followed by Edd.]; καθαριζον, KM and most cursives), if one did not bear in mind how carelessly the best MSS. interchange ω and ο, which almost nullifies their suffrages on the point. The strange version of the Revised Version, "Making all meats clean," seems due to Origen (Comm. in Matt. 15: 10). — K. usually is regarded, if in the neut., as in apposition with the sentence; if in the masculine, as appended in an independent construction, with the gender conformed to τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα, the departure from formal grammar giving the more force to the participle (cf. Moulton's "Winer," p. 778, and Blass, § 70, 10, on the anacoluthon). Indeed, καθαρίζει and καικαθαρίζει are found in some copies, all indicative of the difficulty presented by the construction (B.T.).

The Pharisees and scribes, the great men of Jerusalem, were still of a certain value in their eyes, just as you find the vulgar crowd gaping after the sounding titles of the religious world. How little are the mass of God's children emancipated from the delusion that there is something in these names that guarantees or presupposes real intelligence! Never was it so, and never less than now. Can you point out a time since Christendom began when there was such a complete giving up of the mind of God in the places of highest pretension? There have been seasons when the world was more hostile and the form of hatred more formidable as far as persecution goes, but never was there an hour when Christendom — ay, Protestant Christendom — had so many swamps of indifference to God's authority, with here and there a standard of rebellion against the truth of Christ. This may seem strong, no doubt, but I have made the assertion according to God's word, and, as far as that may go, with a closer study of Christendom in its various phases than many persons. I am not afraid, then, to reassert my conviction that there never has been a display of man's evil heart of unbelief in the shape of indifference on one side, and, on the other, of enmity against the truth, equal to the present aspect of the age. Even when Christendom mumbled over their devotions, saturated with religious fable, and thoroughly subject to a crafty and ignorant priesthood, the word of God was less known and less slighted than now. The dungeon wall of superstition is partially fallen, the light of God's testimony has been seen enough to provoke the malice of men. People are energetic enough in these days, but their energy is against the Gospel. It is not so with all, thank God! but the peculiar feature of the present age is that the active aggression is against Scripture, an organized rebellion proceeding from professors in the high seats of human learning. Not only daring individuals here and there attack Scripture, but the nominal teachers and heads of the clergy combine to do it with comparative impunity, as if they were determined to concentrate the whole weight of their personal and official influence. This has a voice for us; if we have understanding of the times, let us take care that we stand firmly, conscientiously, and uncompromisingly, though humbly, on the foundation of Divine truth, caring for nothing else. We shall be counted harsh: this is always the portion of faithfulness. But the name of the Lord is our tower of strength for the last days, as from the beginning. So Paul warns Timothy in his last Epistle, as he looked at the perils of these days (which are still more emphatically true now than they were then); and what is the resource for them? Not tradition, but the written word of God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable," etc. (2 Tim. 3: 16) It is not teachers, nor godly men raised up, however precious both may be — nothing but Scripture can be a permanent standard of truth.

As to things that defile, they come out of the man. This is true in all things, and all acts of evil. They invariably spring from within, from the corrupt will of man. Thus, for instance, it is plain that if the law execute the capital sentence on a criminal, it is not murder, but, contrariwise, the vindication of God's authority in the earth. It is not a question of evil feeling against the culprit, and there is nothing defiling in it. But if you were so much as to injure a man in deed, word, or thought, there you have what defiles. The moment there is that which is a part of your self-will, without God, which comes out of you, and you yielding to it, there is the taint of defilement. "Murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things go forth from within and defile the man." In a word, we have the doctrine most plainly laid down here that man — i.e., man in his present state — is only the source of that which is evil. I require another absolutely perfect One, who is outside me, to be my life, and such a One I have in Christ. If I am a Christian at all Christ is my life, and the business for me thenceforth is to live on and according to that good which I have found in Christ. Therefore, the happy man is he who is always thinking of and delighting himself in Christ. The man, on the contrary, who is striving to find some good in himself is under the error of the disciples before they learnt to bow to the word of the Lord. His light was too bright, too searching, too severe, too unsparing, for the will of the disciples. They did not accept the truth with simplicity, and therefore they found it a hard saying.

Mark 7: 24-30.

Matt. 15: 21-28.

We have seen that which cometh out of man, and how defiling it all is. We are now to learn what comes from God, and how full of mercy and goodness this is, delivering those oppressed by the devil. But there was, I am persuaded, a significant previous act in our Lord's going from the scene where He had rebuked the traditions of earthly religion, and the universal sink of corruption in the heart and its issues, which they but conceal.72 The only real remedy is the deliverance of sovereign grace in Christ, who arose from thence and "went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon [those world-renowned monuments of God's sure judgment], and entered into an house, and would have no man know it; and He could not be hid. But immediately a certain woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him, and came and fell at His feet." What claim had she? Not the smallest. "The woman was a Greek73 [or Gentile], a Syrophoenician by race." She was from the fertile stock of Israel's enemies, the corrupt and idolatrous despisers of the true God. But if Jesus desired an opportunity to show the grace of God above all question of right, desert, or any conceivable plea, save that of utter misery cast on Divine mercy in Him, never was there a more needy suitor. "And she besought Him that He would cast the demon out of her daughter."

Yet if the faith of the woman was to triumph, none the less was it tried. And I consider that it is morally instructive to observe that the richest grace on the part of Christ does not make the trial of faith less, but more. The soul that is little exercised never cats the kernel of the blessing, never proves the depths that are in God and His grace.

Mark, precise as his Gospel usually is in details, does not give us the particulars of her first appeal to the Saviour as "Son of David," the propriety of which in Matthew is evident. Neither does our Gospel bring out His unwonted silence, and the disciples' entreaty, and the firm statement of His mission as minister of the circumcision, for which also we must turn to Matthew.

Nevertheless, even here our Lord does maintain the principle of "the Jew first," as the simplicity of faith (what is so genuinely intelligent?) in her urges "and also the Gentile." But there is more. Grace speaks out the whole truth, and strengthens its object to bear it, confess it, and delight in it. So here the Lord adds in verse 27: "It is not right to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."74 "And she answered and says to him, Yea, Lord: for even the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." She is taught of the Lord to take her true place; but she cleaves with undoubting assurance to the certainty that He will not deny His. She was no better than a dog; but is not God full of bounty and goodness even to the dogs? "And He said unto her, Because of this saying, go thy way: the demon is gone out of thy daughter." It was the blessed and holy ministry of grace to desperate need.

Mark 7: 31-37.

Matt. 15: 29-31.

The scene that follows illustrates still farther the Saviour's grace, only it is in the ordinary domain of His labours. "And again, departing from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, He came* to the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. And they bring to Him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in speech; and they beseech Him to put His hand upon him." What a picture of the impotence to which sin has reduced man — inability to hear the Lord's voice, incapacity to tell Him his need! Such are those whom the Saviour heals among the despised Galileans or anywhere else. "And He took him aside from the crowd, and put His fingers to his ears, and He spat and touched his tongue; and, looking up to heaven, He groaned, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And immediately his ears were opened, and the band of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plainly. And He charged them that they should tell no man; but the more He charged them, so much the more abundantly they published it; and were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: He makes both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak." It is still the service of love, the heart and the hand of the only perfect Servant. "He has done all things well" was their astonished testimony. May we ever and for all confide in Him! His right hand has not forgotten; His heart is unchanged; He Himself is the "same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." (Heb. 13: 8) May we treasure up the look to heaven, the sigh over the earth, the gracious, interested handling of the sufferer, the word of delivering power, the manner and the measure of the cure! Truly "He has done all things well."

*"Of Tyre and Sidon he came to": so A with later uncials, almost all cursives (including 1, 69), Syrsin pesch hcl. Revised Version with Edd. have "of Tyre. He came through Sidon," after BDLΔ, 33, etc., Old Latin, the Syriac of Jerusalem, Memph. AEth. See, further, note 75.

MARK 8.

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 190-194.

Mark 8: 1-9.

Matt. 15: 32-39.

In the second miracle of the feeding of the multitude we have, of course, a repeated testimony to Christ as the Messiah, the Shepherd of Israel, viewed in the beneficence of His power. It was, indeed, no more than what is predicted of Him "I will abundantly bless her provision; I will satisfy her poor with bread." This was a very significant token to Israel.

In the case of other rulers there is a natural necessity in general that their people should contribute to their sustenance and grandeur; but the Messiah would be the source of nourishment to His subjects. This privilege appertained to and was revealed of Him alone. There never has been, never can be, any other ruler with such a sign attached to his person and with such a character belonging to his rule as this gracious source of supplies to His people. Elsewhere it was the fruit of rapine, robbing the distant to lavish on those at home. The Messiah will act out of His own almighty power and love to Israel. This is the plain meaning of Ps. 132: 15. The force of Scripture has been greatly weakened through the bad habit of spiritualizing it; in point of fact, it is losing the interpretation of Scripture when we limit it to such applications. Undoubtedly, one is entitled to take the spirit of such a word as this, and one may see from it how Christ cares for those who believe in Him and that He now displays more than ever this characteristic goodness in His loving provision for their need.

But to the great mass of God's children at present on the earth what idea does the promise of Ps. 132 present? and what meaning except a passing exercise of compassionate power do they find in these miracles? It is evident that the Spirit of God attached great importance to the fact, for the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels is the feeding of the multitude — at least, the earlier case where the Lord fed the five thousand. This, then, remains true, that in these miracles the Lord was giving the twofold witness of His being the Messiah, competent and willing to carry out all that was most characteristic of Himself, and what no other prince or king could possibly effect, because even for his own State ordinarily dependent upon revenue derived from his lieges. But the Lord Jesus has this singular source and supply of grace in Him, and His kingdom will be marked by it, so that instead of His burdening Israel or draining the world of its wealth to sustain Him, the Lord Jesus Christ will even retain the place of the blessed and only Potentate even when the earth owns Him as King. It will be a day when all burdens shall be taken away and the earth yield her increase. No doubt man's heart will be opened and "a multitude of camels shall cover Zion, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall publish the praises of Jehovah. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall serve thee; they shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will beautify the house of My magnificence. Who are these that come flying as a cloud, and as doves to their dovecotes? For the isles shall await Me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of Jehovah thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, for He hath glorified thee. . . . The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the cypress-tree, pine-tree, and box-tree, to beautify the place of My sanctuary; and I will make the place of My feet glorious. . . . For bronze I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood bronze, and for stones iron; and I will make thine officers peace, and thy rulers righteousness." (Isa. 60: 6-17) But the great distinguishing feature of the earthly kingdom of the Messiah as compared with all others will be this affluence of goodness when the Divine power undertakes all for man in the great day when the Lord's victory over Satan is made good here below. The millennium will not be man brought into the eternal state, but as yet with a body liable to death. There will still be the possibility of evil in the world but the peculiar feature will be that, while the evil is not rooted out and sin is still in the nature of man, and the power of death may be used in particular cases as a judgment on flagrant sin, yet will the power of good by Christ, the great King, prevail over evil: not the struggle of evil with good, but the supremacy of blessing flowing from Jehovah-Messiah throughout the whole earth. If there were a single spot of the earth apart, a solitary nook of nature unvisited by the stream of blessing in "that day," it would be, so far, the triumph of evil over good. We know from Rev. 20 that, after the millennium, the nations will rebel. No beneficence on the part of the Lord, no feeding His poor with bread, will change the heart of fallen man — nay, nor will His displayed glory deter him from mad opposition. The sad proof will be patent that all who are not born of God in the millennium will furnish fresh fuel for Satan to kindle the last rebellion against the Lord; but fire will come down out of heaven and dispose of them judicially, caught in the very act. How overwhelming the evidence of man's good-for-nothingness when glory dawns on the earth, just as much as the present evil age is proving man's good-for-nothingness in despising or abusing grace! The Lord showed that there was no deficiency in power, even while He was here, for the purpose of displaying the power of His kingdom. He that could feed five thousand could have as easily fed five millions. He was pleased to use the commonest material on the spot; it was the Lord of all taking what was there, and so it will be in the millennium, the Lord making all things new — not absolutely, but in a measure, and the figure of the complete work which will close all.

The Christians who only think of heaven blot out the testimony of a vast range of Scripture, whereby the future scene is not merely rendered vague, but gravely falsified, and in the weightiest and most momentous traits, too. For the age to come will be for the most part unprecedented. The habit of thus making everything bend to the present moment is most injurious to our faith, because it dishonours Scripture. It springs from and feeds the spirit of infidelity perhaps as much as any other bias.

The next point I would desire to notice is the special teaching of the two miracles. Why are two facts given us so nearly of the same kind? Is there anything to be gleaned from the circumstances that on one occasion the Lord feeds five thousand, and twelve hand-baskets of fragments were taken up; and on the other, four thousand were fed, and seven hampers were taken up? There are those who are quick to say that such an inquiry is to be too curious, that it is indulging fancy if we attempt to gather a precise meaning; but I hope that few of my readers have such low thoughts of the word of God as to suppose that, besides the mere facts, we have not a display of Christ in moral principle or in a dispensational point of view in what is recorded of Him. We do need to weigh and prize the simplest incidents related, only do not confine Scripture to your horizon or mine. Let us value every fact, but do not let us despise any lesson God may convey thereby. Let us leave room for all He meant to be enjoyed. Little as we may any of us know, we know enough to stand for the truth that all Scripture is not only given by inspiration of God, but profitable; and it is the business of the Christian to beware of indulging in his favourite points or doctrines, and to seek spiritual understanding of all the word and revealed mind of God.

We may inquire, then, besides the confirmation of the Messiah's place in earthly glory and His care for His people, what we have to learn from these miracles. Upon the earlier occasion the Lord gives us the feeding of the multitude first of all, and then His dismissing them and leaving the disciples, as far as His bodily presence is concerned, sending them, under a contrary wind, across a troubled sea, where they tack all night and make little or no progress, while He is upon a mountain in prayer to God. Is not this an evident picture of what has taken place since the Lord dismissed Israel, as it were, for a time, and left the disciples, as far as His bodily presence is concerned? He is above interceding. He has taken a new position altogether; and here are the disciples, during His absence on high, exposed to conflicting elements here below. What could more justly portray the actual dispensation — Israel dismissed after His testimony to them, the disciples as now left by our Lord in this stormy world, and Himself ever living to intercede for them? Moreover, when all seems to be vain, the Lord appears unexpectedly, goes on board along with them, and "immediately the ship was at the land whither they went." What could indicate, as a type, more clearly that, as the effect of the unbelief of Israel, He would leave this world to go on high, and take the place, not of king over the earth to supply His people's necessities (for they, indeed, were not ready for Him), but of priestly advocate in heaven, till He descends and rejoins His tempest-tossed disciples, and brings in healing power and blessing everywhere? (cf. Mark 6: 34-56). Along with this we see, in the earlier miracle, "twelve baskets." This, I think, refers to the way in which man becomes prominent. He is made to be the means of carrying out the mind of the Lord. So it will be by-and-by.

But here in the story before us (chapter 8) of feeding the multitude, where we have the four thousand men fed and the seven baskets left, there is a notable difference. It has nothing to do with any figure of the Lord's ways dispensationally. We see here the Lord taking care of a certain remnant of His people out of His own pure grace. It is not the testimony to the order of events from His rejection by Israel till His return in power and glory. He is the Messiah, of course; but it is the beneficent goodness of His heart that He is showing, spite of His rejection. The Lord will take up a remnant by-and-by in the last days, when the mass are apostates, and He will care for them and supply their need. Meanwhile, He turns to us of the Gentiles in His grace; and what lack we? But whether taken as an earthly or a heavenly remnant, the scene illustrates the fact and certainty of the Lord's tender care of His people now that He has been rejected. There is no leaving them here; He is with His disciples all through.

"In those days, the crowd being again great,* and having nothing to eat, He called the disciples to Him." Now it is not, as in the last, that the disciples come to Him, anxious about the multitude. It was His own doing out of His own loving thought. He said unto them, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they have stayed with Me already three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint on the way, for† some of them are come from far." One gathers hence that the object of the scene is not to furnish a type of the ways of the Lord when He presented Himself to Israel and Israel would not have Him. Here it is simply His provision for the remnant of His people, for the poor that go after Him. They might have little perception of His glory, yet He cares for them. It is entirely a question of Christ's goodness in this case, watching over them and providing for them, more than enough, though nothing would be lost. It was their wretchedness that appealed to His heart; and the Lord took the whole thing in hand Himself, though He privileged the disciples to be channels of His bounty.

*"Again great": so Edd., following BDCLMNΔ, etc., 1, 33, 69, Old Lat., Syrsin Arm. Goth. AEth. Memph. "Very great" has the support of AEFHK, later uncials, and most cursives, Syr. (exc. sin.).

†"For": as A, etc., Amiat., Syrpesch hcl. "And": so Edd., with ABLΔ, 1, 33, Memph. Syrsin.

Accordingly, even when the disciples ask Him, "Whence will one be able to satisfy these with bread here in a desert place?" He inquires, "How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven." The "seven" at the beginning and the end of this case refers, it would seem, not to the question of man's instrumentality (for which "twelve" is the regular symbol in Scripture), but simply to the fulness of provision, scanty in man's eyes, but complete in His eye of grace and power, as well as of that beyond the mere meeting of their present need. It is the Lord's perfect care and compassion for His people. Not only did He satisfy them, but there is completeness stamped upon the whole transaction, to the praise of His goodness and power. "They ate and were satisfied, and they took up of the fragments that remained seven hampers. And they that had eaten* were about four thousand, and He sent them away76.

*["They that had eaten"]: as ACN and later uncials, 1, 69 Latt. Syr. Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BL, 33, Memph.

Mark 8: 10-13.

Matt. 15: 39-16: 4.

"And immediately He went on board ship with His disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha."77 This is another point of distinction I wished to notice. On the former occasion He left His disciples and went alone; at this time He accompanies them. It has no reference to what is going on with the present dispensation, nor to His ascension in order to the exercise of priestly functions in heaven. What we here behold is the Lord's perfect care for His people, and then His presence with the disciples, watching over them and guarding them in the midst of the difficulties of a perverse generation, superstitious or sceptical, but equally unbelieving before God. For the Pharisees came forth and began to argue with Him, "seeking from Him a sign from heaven." This is most painful, for the fact of asking for the signs shows that they had no serious thought about, and no heart for, the remarkable miracles that had been wrought by the Lord. Yet they must have produced a deep and wide impression; for it was impossible that first five thousand men, beside women and children, and then four thousand, could be thus fed without the thing being noised abroad throughout the country. The question of the Pharisees, I presume, grew out of the speculation set afloat by the Lord's having wrought these miracles. At any rate, they wanted a sign from One who had provided the greatest in quantity and quality before their eyes. Could they have given a more awful proof of man's unbelief? A sign! Why, what had all the Lord's ministry been? A sign from heaven! Why, the Lord was Himself the Bread of God which cometh down from heaven; and He had been showing what He was in the-fullness of His love to His people upon. the earth. It is the capricious, rebellious heart of man, discontented with all that God gives. If God gives the fullest earthly sign, according to His word, for an earthly people, they want a sign from heaven.

The Lord treats this demand with unwonted sharpness. He says, and "groaned in His spirit" as He says, "Why doth this generation seek a sign? Verily, I say unto you, a sign shall in no wise be given to this generation. And He left them, and, going again on board ship,* departed to the other side." The Lord's refusal is very striking to my own mind. We know that their demand was not from felt sense of need, nor from desire to have that need supplied; the Lord never refused such an appeal. It was not because they were miserable sinners, not because they drew too largely upon Him They were only changing the form of their unbelief, persistently and ingeniously perverse in refusing all that God's wisdom presented. There was such a multitude and variety of signs as had never before been seen: there was the very substance of every sign in His own person; but there was neither eye to see, nor ear to hear, nor heart to receive, what God gives in Christ. He, therefore, abruptly turns from them, enters a ship, and departs to the other side. The truth is, the time for signs was nearly over. There had been abundance given; but it was never the way of God to multiply signs beyond the occasion for which they are introduced; because, although they may rouse persons at the beginning of a testimony from God, if continued afterwards, they would frustrate the moral object He has in view, if they would not lose their very character of signs. A miracle would cease to be a miracle if continually going on.

*["The ship"]: as AE, etc., 33 Syrsin pesch hcl Arm. Memph. Goth. Edd. omit, with BCLΔ and best copies of Vulgate.

Mark 8: 14-21.

Matt. 16: 5-12.

But deeper than any such question was this fact the truth of God had been presented in every possible form, with all possible outward vouchers and tokens and seals, to awaken, arrest, and attract the chosen people. There was no lack of signs; it was faith they wanted. Accordingly, the Lord, when He goes to the other side, charges the disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. The omission of the Sadducees is to be noticed in this place. Sadduceeism, no doubt, is a withering evil, but it is not the most dangerous. The leaven of the Pharisees, if not that of Herod also, may have a worse character and be a greater hindrance in the confession of Christ. For what is the leaven of the Pharisees? It is the cleaving to outward religious forms of any kind, which practically hide the Lord and His Christ. It is the effect of traditional influence, and may be orthodox in much; but it is religion — self — that is worshipped, rather than the true and living God known in His Son. The next is the leaven of Herod — that is, worldliness, the desire of what will give present reputation or keep up conformity to this world. These are two of the great perils Christians have to watch against. The disciples did not understand the Lord. They thought it was a question of loaves! "They reasoned with one another [saying],* [It is] because we have no bread.""' Sometimes we wonder at such stupidity in the disciples, but if we reflect on our own history, can we not discern our own dulness in understanding the Word of God, our own slowness in following and walking in His will?

*["Saying"]: as ACLN and later copies, nearly all cursives, Syr. Arm. Memph. Goth. AEth. Edd. omit, after BD.

Alas! it is too true a picture of our own hitches and difficulties. It all arises from a want of perception of the truth, and grace, and glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this, again, is because we walk in such feeble self-judgment. It is our own undiscerned will that makes His mind in Scripture dark to us. If our eye were but single, if we walked in a spirit of lowly dependence, to do nothing but follow the Lord, we should find nine-tenths of our difficulties at an end. But we have an old as well as a new nature, which we do well to judge unsparingly. Through the mercy of God we are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit; but the old man seeks to intrude and get the upper hand, and so hinders the believer from following Christ simply and fully. This was at work among the disciples. They thought the Pharisees a respectable sort of people, and they were not prepared for their Master's sweeping condemnation. There is no deliverance from any of these obstacles and snares but in Christ; and there is no possibility of practically walking in the power of Christ unless the flesh is judged. Our Lord rebukes the disciples very decidedly: "Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? Have ye your heart [yet]* hardened?" It was really so. Our Lord all through treats it as an affair of the heart, and not as an intellectual mistake. It is important that we should accustom ourselves to judge things from their moral roots. If we pursue a wrong course, let us beware of excusing ourselves; if we do, we never get either profit by the way or victory in the end. We must discover that which caused the mistake. What was its source? What exposed us to it? Christ was not our only motive. I believe we never do a wrong thing where Christ is the one object before us. It is not that the flesh is not in us, but it is the Holy Ghost, and not the flesh, that has power in us where Christ is the single actuating spring of the heart. What is self-indulgence or the world's esteem to a man who is filled with Christ? This is what the Apostle so earnestly sought for the Ephesian saints — "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." (Eph. 3: 17.) It was not that they might merely have Christ as their Saviour, nor only even that they might obey Christ as their Lord, but that they might have Him dwelling in their hearts by faith. It is the soul occupied with Christ to the exclusion of other objects — Christ abiding as the treasure of the heart; and what power to discern and to act according to Christ where this is so! And what is the effect of an unjudged will? Children of light though we be,. light now in the Lord, yet the light is only in Him for us, and we see it not, if we think, or speak, or act far from the Lord practically. Thus it is we neither remember His ways nor understand Himself79.

*["Yet"]: as AX, etc., 69, Amiat. Syr. Edd. omit, with BCDL, etc., 1, 33, Memph.

Mark 8: 22-26.

The cure of the blind man of Bethsaida is not only a striking, but a sweetly instructive, lesson. Our Blessed Lord shows, if I may so say, all possible interest in the case, both before the miracle was wrought and in the mode of cure. "He took the blind man by the hand, and led him forth out of the village80; and when He had spit on his eyes, and put His hands upon him, He asked him if he beheld* anything." He acts as one would who was deeply concerned, heartily entering into every detail. It is the only instance recorded in Mark of a gradual character; indeed, as far as I know, it is the great standing witness of distinct stages in curing blindness. We have in John 9 an illustrious miracle where sight was given, and not all at once, to the man blind from his birth. But there is a marked peculiarity in the case before us. The fact is that there are two things needful where a Person has not seen at all. One is the faculty of seeing, the other is the power of applying that faculty. Supposing a blind man had visual capacity conveyed to him, it does not follow that he could see thereon. He would not be able to measure distances or to judge with accuracy of the various objects before his eyes. In order to estimate aright any such object, the habit of seeing, comparing, etc., is indispensable. Not only is this true of other creatures, but of man also. We all acquire this gradually; but, growing up as it does from our infancy, it is apt to be overlooked. So true and important, however, is the practice of seeing that if a person who had never seen suddenly received his sight he would not be able at first to discern whether a thing were round or square by barely looking at it; and this though he might have been accustomed to judge of the very same things by the touch. It is a fact of much interest which seems to me to be intimated in the healing of the blind man of Bethsaida. Though the same conclusion was the deduction of human science scarce two hundred years ago,† here you have it quietly assumed in the word of God these eighteen centuries.

*"If he beheld" (lit. beholds): as ADcorrLN, etc., nearly all cursives (1, 69), Amiat. Syr. Goth. Arm. Memph. Edd. "Dost thou behold?" with BCDpmΔ, Memph.

†"I shall here insert a problem of that very ingenious and studious promoter of real knowledge, the learned and worthy Mr. Molineaux, which he was pleased to send me in a letter some months since; it is this: Suppose a man born blind, and now an adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he felt the one and the other, which is the cube, which the sphere. Suppose, then, the cube and sphere placed on a table and the blind man be made to see: query, 'Whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish and tell which is the globe, which the cube?' to which the acute and judicious proposer answers: 'Not.' For though he has the experience of how a globe, how a cube, affects his touch, yet he has not yet obtained the experience, that what affects his touch so or so, must affect his sight so or so; or that a protuberant angle in the cube, that pressed his hand unequally, shall appear to his eye as it does in the cube. I agree with this gentleman . . . in his answer to this his problem; I am of opinion that the blind man at first sight would not be able with certainty to say which was the globe, which the cube, whilst he only saw them; though he could unerringly name them by his touch, and certainly distinguish them by the difference of their figures felt. This I have set down, and leave with my reader, as an occasion for him to consider how much he may be beholden to experience, improvement, and acquired notions, where he thinks he had not the least use of or help from them: and the rather because this observing gentleman further adds, that having, upon the occasion of my book, proposed this to divers very ingenious men, he hardly ever met with one that at first gave the answer to it which he thinks true, till by hearing his reasons they were convinced." ("Locke's Works," vol. i., p. 124, ed. 10.)

First of all, the Lord took the man by the hand and led him out of the village; next, He applied to His eyes that which came from His own mouth, and put His hands upon him. For here He is all through the true servant. It is not enough that the task is done, but the manner of doing it must be that which should glorify God and win the heart of him who is healed. What consideration, what condescension, what taking of trouble, so to speak! A word had been enough. But the Servant-Son of God enters into the case fully, and asks the patient (though He only, He perfectly well, knew all about it) "if he beheld anything" (verse 23). Even in John 9, where the eyes were anointed with a plaster of clay, and the blind man then went and washed in the pool of Siloam, the full cure followed immediately. In the case before us there was a special reason for dividing, not the miraculous remedy so much as the effect. The Lord was showing an exercise of Divine power, which at first sight seems to be not so striking as those more commonly healed by a word or a touch. The man looked up and said he beheld men, for he saw persons walking about, like trees. There is no little difference between a man and a tree, but he could not yet distinguish them (especially if, as I presume, born blind).* All was vague before him. He might, and no doubt did, in his blind estate readily discern between a tree and a man by a touch. But he had not yet learnt to apply his new-born vision, and the miracle purposely halved the cure. His mind could hardly confound the men who moved with trees, but his faculty of vision only showed that the two things were somewhat alike: they were as trees walking. It was all as yet confusion to him. There was naturally no aptitude in using with clearness the faculty he had just acquired.

*I do not think the comparison of men, indistinctly seen, with trees at all disproves his being born blind, as some infer.

"After that He put His hands again upon his eyes, and he looked steadfastly*; and he was restored, and saw all things clearly." "He hath done all things well." As that is a saying peculiar to Mark, so it is everywhere a truth illustrated in it; and it is the great point we have brought out here. It was not only that He did what He did with unfailing energy, but the manner In which He wrought was no less admirable. "He hath done all things well." Mark 7: 37) And never was this more conspicuously shown than in the second application of the Lord's hands to the half-opened eyes, by which the blind man of Bethsaida was made to see all men clearly. "And He sent him to his house, saying, Neither go into the village, nor tell it to any in the village."

*"He looked steadfastly": as Edd., after BCcorrD and a few cursives. "Made him look up": so AN and later uncials, Syrsin.

Mark 8: 27-29.

Matt. 16: 13-16; Luke 9: 18-20.

Next (verse 27 et seq.) we have the good confession, not of the Lord before Pontius Pilate, but of Peter before the Lord, against an unbelieving generation. The Lord puts the question to His disciples: "Who do men say that I am? And they answered Him, saying,* John the Baptist; and others, Elias; but others, One of the prophets." All was uncertainty, and that is all that man ever, and in spite of busy and laborious efforts, arrives at. The painful, toilsome searching of the creature into things too high for it only ends in perplexity and bitter disappointment. It leaves a man totally short of, and utterly in the dark about, that which, after all, is the only thing of prime importance. Some say one thing, some another; but who of all the sons of men does or can say the right thing?

*"Answered": as AD, etc., all cursives, Lat. Syrhcl Arm. Goth. "Spoke": so Edd., following BC, etc., Syrpesch Memph. AEth. "Him, saying": these words T.R. omits, as AN, etc., I, Syr.

And He asked them,* But ye, who say ye that I am? And Peter answers and says to Him, Thou art the Christ81ff.." Now, we have not here, as in Matthew, the Lord pronouncing, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona." How comes that? Neither have we here, as there, the Lord's remarkable address to Peter: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church." Why is all this difference? Because Peter is represented as simply saying here, "Thou art the Christ." Where it is added that he confessed the Lord to be "the Son of the living God," there the special notice was also given that he was blessed, "For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." A confession so singularly rich drew out the Saviour's recognition of His Father's grace to Simon Barjona. Thereon the Lord also exercises His rights, and gives him the new name of "Peter," and adds, "Upon this rock I will build My Church." He was the Son of the living God. If He had been only the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, it would not have been a sufficient basis for the Church. His Messianic dignity (in which He is also spoken of as Son of God, Ps. 2) might have been a sufficient rock for Israel, as it was their faith and hope; but "the Son of the living God" was a revelation of His glory that went far beyond it. The moment you have the Lord known and confessed in this His highest glory, He for the first time begins to announce His building of His Church. That new edifice, which takes the place of Christ-rejecting Israel, is founded upon Him who is not only the Christ, but the Son of the living God. Accordingly, death and resurrection follow as that which not only determined Him to be the Son of God with power, but gives the Christian and the Church their proper character (2 Cor. 5: 15-19; Eph. 1, 2) It is upon this rock the Church is builded. What could show more clearly that the Church is an absolutely new thing? The attempt to make out this sense of the Church in the Old Testament times proves that the true nature of God's present temple is unknown. The important thing is to see the points of distinction and contrast. Those who confound Jewish duties, and experience, and hopes with the revelation of our Lord when the people rejected Him with the fully developed display of Him in the New Testament, and the consequently new responsibilities and joys of the Christian, blot out, not all truth, but every feature that is essentially characteristic of the "one new man" (Eph. 2), and take away what is specially incumbent on the Christian and the Church of God. This, if true, demonstrates the importance for our souls of taking heed to Scripture. There are those who are so steeped in human tradition and so unversed in the dispensational ways of God that to tell them the Church was part of the mystery hidden from ages and only revealed since Pentecost would be to their minds a revival of the monstrous and wicked error of the Manichees. But the word of God is none the less positive and perfectly plain about it. And Christian men would do well to search the Scriptures, and spare their reproaches, lest haply they be found to fight against God.

*"Asked them": so Edd., with BCpmDLΔ. "Saith to them": as ACcorrN, etc., 1, 33, 69, Amiat. Goth. Arm. AEth.

Such, then, was the wide scope, answering to Peter's high confession, in Matthew. The Spirit of God in Mark merely records a. part of that confession, and as He designedly leaves out the most peculiar portion of it ("the Son of the living God"), so we have only, and with equal design, our Lord's answer in part. His being the Son of the living God, though owned, we have seen, was not, and could not be, set forth freely and fully until our Lord, by dying and rising again, put the seal, as it were, to this grand truth; and hence the Apostle Paul was the great witness of it. The first testimony that he renders in the synagogue after his conversion is, according to Acts 9: 20, that Christ "is [not only made Lord, but] the Son of God." Accordingly, also, he brings out the calling, and nature, and hopes of the Church of God in a way beyond all the others.

Mark 8: 31 — Mark 9: 1.

Matt. 16: 21-28; Luke 9: 22-27.

But I would call your attention to the fact that, though here Peter only says, "Thou art the Christ," our Lord charges them that they should tell no man this thing. This He does in all the three Synoptic Gospels. It is a point of instruction much to be heeded. For, first, He had asked them, "Who say ye that I am?" Then, after He had heard the confession of His person from Peter, He binds them to tell none about it. How comes this? It was too late. Full proofs had been vouchsafed. The time was past for presenting Him longer as the Jewish Messiah83. It had been fully told the people; and who did they say He was? But now another thing is not before Him alone, but also set before the disciples — His friends. He is going away; He falls, therefore, back upon another glory that belongs to Him. Rejected as "David's Son," He is owned by faith as "the Son of the living God"; but He is also "the Son of man." He was about to be humbled even unto death, and this could only be in His human nature; even He shall once more return to earth, as the Son of man, in His glory (cf. verse 31 with verse 38) "He charged them that they should tell no man about Him. And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and of the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise. again." Thus He drops the title of "Christ," and insists upon His place as Son of man as the suffering One first, and this from the heads of Israel. He should be killed, and after three days rise again. "And He spoke the saying openly." He forbids them to make known His being the Messiah: that testimony was closed now. There was no good in talking about it; the Jews had refused Him, and would definitely, as the Messiah. He had given them every possible form and degree of testimony, and the effect was that they rejected Him, more especially their religious leaders, more and more bitterly and unbelievingly. The consequence would be His death, as He shows His disciples openly. As Son of man He was going to suffer, and as Son of man to be raised the third day, the real condition of His glory by-and-by. Accordingly, we shall find at the end of the chapter the coming again of the Son of man in glory, with His holy angels, when despisers and all unbelievers shall be made the objects of His shame: just recompense of being ashamed of Him and His words before He thus comes.

But there is another thing of vast moment to notice before we close. We have not only a proof of what man is, in the Jews, the most favoured of men; in the elders, and priests, and scribes, who only become the most active in the scorn and refusal of the Son of man; but His disciples relish not His shame. "And Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him. But He, turning round, and seeing His disciples, rebuked Peter, saying,* Get away behind Me, Satan, for thy mind is not on the things that are of God, but on the things that are of men." What a solemn lesson, that the Lord should find it needful, at such a time, when, as Matthew shows, He pronounces Simon blessed, and puts special honour on him, to rebuke him thus sternly! How worthless is the fleshly mind even in the chief of the twelve Apostles! In rebuking Peter, because of his carnal dislike of the cross of Christ, He could say, "Get away behind me, Satan," because it was flesh's unbelief, selfishness, and presumption, and not the less because veiled under a pious form. He never said to a saint, Get thee hence, as He said to the devil when he arrogated the worship due to God (cf. Matt. 4: 10).† What was it that so roused our Lord? The very snare to which we are all so exposed — the desire of saving self, the preference of an easy path to the cross. Is it not true that we naturally like to escape trial, shame, and rejection; that we shrink from the suffering which doing God's will, if in such a world as this, must ever entail; that we prefer to have a quiet, respectable path in the earth — in short, the best of both worlds? How easily one may be ensnared into this! Peter could not understand why the Messiah should go through all this path of sorrow. Had we been there we might have said or thought yet worse. Peter's remonstrance was not without strong human affection. He heartily loved the Saviour, too. But, unknown to himself, there was the unjudged spirit of the world. He could not bear that their Master should be so dishonoured and so suffer. There was some unbelief of human iniquity. Could the elders, chief priests, and scribes be so wicked, after all? Moreover, there was a want of understanding that there was no other way to deliver man — that this was the only means of glorifying God about man's sin (John 13: 31) Suffer the Lord must unto death, and this under God's hand as well as man's. There could be no salvation without it. And God forbid that we should glory save in the cross, whereby the world is crucified to us and we to the world. Let all know this, the people, the crowd, as well as the disciples: so said Jesus. "Whosoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me84. For whosoever shall desire to save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for My sake and the Gospel's85, shall save itFor what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? For what should* a man give in exchange for his soul? For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when He shall come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels86.ff."

*"Saying": as ADXΓΠ, etc., 1, 33, 69, Old Lat., Syrhcl Goth. Arm. "And says": Edd., with BCLΔ, Memph.

†In Luke 4: 8, "Get thee behind Me, for," is a mere interpolation (B.T.).

The verse which opens chapter 9 clearly belongs to the discourse at the end of chapter 8. Our Lord's promise was fulfilled on "the holy mount." Some of those who stood as He spoke were permitted to see "the kingdom of God come in power88." The reference to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem is arbitrary and incongruous. The special form of the promise is worthy of note. In Matthew it is "the Son of man coming in His kingdom"; in Luke it is simply "the kingdom of God." In the former the personal title of the Lord, as the rejected but glorious man, and so coming in His kingdom, is made prominent; in the latter it is the moral character, as usual, of that display which the chosen witnesses were privileged to behold — the kingdom of God, not of man. Mark, on the other hand, was led to speak of the kingdom of God coming in power. The same substantial truth appears in all; each presents it so as to suit the Divine design of the Gospels respectively. In our Gospel the Blessed Lord is ever the administrator in power of God's kingdom, and even here, in giving expression to this promised sample of the kingdom, hides His glory as much as possible, though in truth He could not be hid.

*"Should": so Edd., with BL, Memph. "Shall" is in ACD, all cursives, and Lat.

MARK 9

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 195-214.

Mark 9: 2-13.

Matt. 17: 1-13; Luke 9: 28-36.

Let us remark that those selfsame witnesses He takes and leads up "on a high mountain apart by themselves," whom afterwards (Mark 14) He takes with Him to Gethsemane. What a change from the glories of the one scene to the exceeding sorrow unto death of the other! Yet was the connection close, and the, end of the Lord full of tenderness to His own: even as the mention of His rejection and death leads the way to the transfiguration in the three early Gospels. What is there, indeed, so real as His sufferings and His glories? How blessed to know and rest on them both in the midst of the vain show of men!

Again, let it be observed that Mark says less of the personal change and more as to His raiment than either Matthew or Luke. "And He was transfigured before them; and His garments became shining, exceeding white [as snow]*, such as fuller on earth could not white them." He is ever the Servant-Son: as profound in His lowliness as He accepts with dignity what comes from above — dignity which manifests its source by a splendour which stains the pride of earthly glory. In Matthew there is no contrast with fuller on earth, but it is added most characteristically that "His face shone as the sun, and His raiment became white as the light" — a most suited image of supreme glory for the great King. In Luke how wonderfully adapted is the description! "And as He prayed, the fashion of His countenance became different, and His raiment was white [and] effulgent." None but he mentions the Lord thus bowing down before His Father at this very moment; even as he directs us to that which was more personal than any other in the mighty change that thereon ensued.

*["Snow"]: as AD and some later uncials, with 33, 69, Amiat. Syrsin pesch Memph. Goth. Edd. omit, after BCLΔ, etc.

"And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answering, says to Jesus, Rabbi89, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; for Thee one, and for Moses one, and for Elias one. For he knew not what to say; for they were filled with fear. And there came a cloud overshadowing them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son90: hear Him.* And suddenly, when they had looked around, they saw no one any longer, save Jesus only with themselves." Having already treated of the scene in Matthew,† I will not dwell on the astonishing circumstance further than to remark that the Lord discloses in this type of God's kingdom what popular theologians so dislike — earthly things mingled, though in no wise confounded, with heavenly things (John 3). There are the glorified, in the persons of Moses and Elias; there are the men in their still unchanged natural bodies, Peter, James, and John; there is the central figure of the Lord, the Head of all things above and below. So it will be when the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is not any more a testimony of word from those who were eyewitnesses of His majesty, but made good and displayed in the day of the Lord.

*As to the omission of "hear Him" in 2 Peter 1: 17, see the "Lectures on Matthew," p. 376 f.

†Ibid., p. 365 ff.

It is mere irreverence to deride what will be by-and-by, or what was then beheld anticipatively, as "a mongrel state of things," "an abhorred mixture of things totally inconsistent with each other." If transient glimpses of glory, if passing visits of glorious beings have been vouchsafed from the beginning down to our Saviour's days, is it that man can read in these no more than a tale that is told? Is there to them no confirmation from the holy mount of the prophetic word which declares that Jehovah's feet shall stand on Mount Olivet, not to dissolve all things as yet, but to be King over all the earth in that day when He shall come, and all His saints with Him? (cf. Zech. 14). "And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith Jehovah I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; and the earth shall hear the corn, and the new wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jizreel. And I will sow her unto me in the land; and I will have mercy upon Lo-ruhamah; and I will say to Lo-Ammi, Thou art my people; and they shall say, My God" (Hosea 2). "Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, for administration of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth; in Him" (Eph. 1: 9). It is in vain to pervert this to the eternal state; it is as distinct from that final condition as from the present ways of God. For as the gathering of the Church is essentially eclectic, and in no sense a gathering of all things in heaven and earth into one, so eternity is after all dispensation (οἰκονομία), administration, or stewardship, is over. The millennial reign, the kingdom of Christ, is the sole answer to this, even as to the other Scriptures. "Let Thy kingdom come, let Thy will be done, as in heaven, so upon the earth" (Matt. 6: 10).

To resume: In reporting to us the voice that spake from the cloud (verse 7), Mark, like Luke, was led of the Spirit to omit the middle clause which Matthew gives us, the expression of the Father's complacency in the Son. But this really imparts special emphasis to Christ's title as Son, and the Father's will that they should hear Him - not now Moses and Elias, whom Peter's unintelligent haste had put on a level with Him. The Divine utterance, too, is scaled by the sudden disappearance of those who represented the law and the prophets, Jesus only being left with the disciples.

"And as they came down from the mountain, He charged them that they should tell no man what they had seen, till the Son of man should be risen from among the dead. And they kept that saying, questioning among themselves what rising from among91 the dead was." If they knew the Scriptures and God's power of resurrection, as the Sadducees did not, certainly the rising from among the dead was as new to them as it is little understood yet by many disciples.

Hence the difficulties of learned men perplexed them. "And they asked Him, saying, Why do the scribes say that Elias must first have come? And He answering, told them, Elias indeed, having come first, restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of Man, that He. must suffer much, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, that Elias also is come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they would, as it is written of him." Our Lord does not dispute the truth pressed by the scribes; but as He points out His own approaching shame and suffering before He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels, so He shows a similar application of Elias's case in the person of John the Baptist, while the strict coming of Elias or Elijah awaits its fulfilment in the latter day92. To faith the forerunner is already come, as well as the Lord Himself. Unbelief must feel both by-and-by.

Mark 9: 14-29.

Matt. 17: 14-20; Luke 9: 37-42.

The foot of the mountain presented a far different scene from the transfiguration glimpse of the kingdom, the disciples encircled by a vast multitude, the scribes questioning with them, and the power of Satan in man unremoved. Christ comes down, and all the people in amazement salute Him. Christ challenges the scribes; but what will He answer him who appealed in vain to the disciples for his son with the dumb spirit, his tormentor? "He answering him saith, O unbelieving generation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? Bring him unto Me." Blessed Lord Jesus! perfect are Thy ways. No love, no tenderness, no long-suffering like Thine; yet didst Thou feel the faithlessness which knew not how by dependence on God and denial of self to draw on that energy which casts out Satan from his strongholds. Yet even in Thy presence, when deliverance, is nigh, how dost Thou try the faith and patience of those who learn all in Thee! "And they brought him unto Him: and when He saw him, immediately the spirit tore him, and he fell on the ground, and rolled foaming." Not even yet came the rebuke of power. "And He asked his father, How long a time is it that it has been like this with him? And he said, From childhood, and often it has cast him both into the fire, and into waters, to destroy him; but if Thou couldst* do anything, be moved with pity on us, and help us. Jesus said to him, If thou couldst [is] believe,† all things are possible to him that believeth. And immediately the father of the child cried out and said [with tears],‡ I believe: help mine unbelief92a." It was certainly but a feeble confession; yet was it true, and the heart was to Him only. "When Jesus saw that the crowd was running up together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And [the spirit] cried out and rent [him]§ much, and came out, and he became as one dead; insomuch that the most said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose. And when He had come into the house, His disciples asked Him privately, Why could not we cast him out? And He said to them, This kind can go out by nothing but by prayer and fasting."|| It is an admirable picture of the ways of gracious power in the deliverance of man, Israel especially, from the well-nigh fatal possession of the enemy, with a serious intimation to the disciples wherein lay the secret of their weakness.

*So Edd., with BD, etc., I. "Canst" is in AC, etc., 33, 69.

†The oldest and best authorities [B, etc., Memph. Arm. AEth., followed by Edd.] omit "to believe," though it has large uncial support [ADN and later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat., Chrys.]. Perhaps the difficulty may have led to the omission. The question of power turns on faith (B.T.). After "believe" Ccorr, 1, 33, 69 and most other cursives, Syr.sin, Chrys., add "Lord," which Edd. omit, after ABCpmD, etc.

‡The evidence [BLΔ, etc., Syrsin Memph. Arm. AEth., followed by Edd.] is strong against "with tears" (B.T.). The words are inserted in DN and later uncials, most cursives, Old Lat., Syr.pesch hcl Goth.

§"Him": so pmACcorr EN, etc., 1, 33, 69, Amiat. Syrr. Memph. Edd. omit, after corrBCpmDLΔ.

||The evidence is weak [Bpm] against "and fasting" (B.T.). The T.R. has the support of ACDLN, etc., most cursives, Old Lat., Syr. (including Sinai palimpsest), and Memph. Lachmann retained the words.

Mark 9: 30-32.

Matt. 17: 22, 23; Luke 9: 43-45 John 7: 18-31; John 10: 32-34.

Alas! it is not lack of power we have to own, but scanty entrance into His mind. The fleshly mind can think and talk of glory here below, but the cross breaks in neither understood nor welcome. "And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and He would not that any man should know it. For He taught His disciples, and said to them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men 93 and they shall kill Him; and after that He is killed, He shall rise again after three days.* But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask Him."

*"After three days": so Edd., after BCpmDLΔ, Syrhcl mg, Memph. — ACcorrEN, etc., 1, 69, Syrsin pesch. have "on the third day."

Mark 9: 33-37.

Matt. 17: 24-18: 5; Luke 9: 46-48.

The truth is that other thoughts preoccupied them, which hindered the inshining of God's grace displayed in the cross, as well as the terrible evidence it gave to the alienation of man from God. The carnal mind which would so end in man was actively at work in themselves; and He knew it, and laid it bare before their eyes. "And He came to Capernaum, and being in the house, He asked them, Of what were ye reasoning* by the way? And they remained silent; for by the way they had been reasoning with one another who [was] greatest." And how gracious and faithful the lesson! "And He sat down and called the Twelve, and says to them, If anyone desire to be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all. And He took a little child, and set him in the midst of them; and when He had taken it in His arms, He said to them, Whosoever shall receive one of such children in My name, receiveth Me; and whoever shall receive Me, receiveth not Me, but Him who sent Me94."

*"Reasoning": ANXΓΔ, etc., 1, 13, 69, Syr. Arm. Goth. AEth. here add "among yourselves" (with one another), which Edd. omit, after BCDL, Amiat. Memph.

Mark 9: 38-42.

Luke 9: 49, 50; Matt, 18: 6.

Nor is it only the disciples as a whole who need reproof and correction from the Master. As Peter on the mount of glory, at the beginning, so. ere the chapter closes, John betrays the spirit of egoism which shrouds the proper glory of Christ in the very effort of nature to exalt Him. "And John answered Him, saying, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in Thy name who does not follow;* and we forbad† him, because he* does not follow us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no one who shall do a miracle in My name, and be able soon [after] to speak evil of Me. For he that is not against us is for us95."

*"Who does not follow": so Nestle, with A(D)N, most cursives, Syrhcl Goth. Arm. Swete and others omit, as BCLΔ, Syrsin pesch, Memph. "Because he" omitted by DX, 1, 69, Lat. Arm. On the conflation here see W. H., "Introduction," p. 150 ff.

†The T.R. is ἐκωλύσαμεν ("forbad"), supported by ACNXΤΠ, etc. Edd. adopt ἀκωλύομεν ("were forbidding"), with BDΓΔ.

It is not as in Matt. 12, where Christ is rejected by the power of unbelief under Satan's instigation, which is blind to the testimony of the Spirit of God that it hates and blasphemes. There compromise is impossible, halfheartedness perilous and fatal. "He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth" (Matt. 12: 30). Men it is a question between Christ and the darkening, blaspheming power of the devil, the only safety is in being with Christ, the only service is gathering with Him. But where no such question is raised, but, on the contrary, some one, little known and little knowing, it may be, is true to the Lord's name97ff. as far as he knows it, let us rejoice to own him, and the Lord's evident honour put on him, though "he does not follow us." He is no enemy, but a friend of that name which he owns as best he knows. "He that is not against us," says the Lord in such a case, "is for us96." So to honour that name in the least thing shall not be forgotten, as also the slighting it, so as to stumble the least believer,* is ruinous to him who is guilty.

*In verse 42 the words "in Me" are supported by ABCcorr ELNXΓΠΣΦΨ, Syrsin pesch hcl, Arm. Goth., but Edd. omit them on the slender basis of Δ, which, presumably, would not have availed for their admission under reversed conditions. It will be observed that the last-found treasure in the convent at Sinai upholds the "received text."

Mark 9: 43-50.

Matt. 18: 8, 9.

This leads the Lord into a warning of searching solemnity. "And if thy hand ensnare thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into99 life maimed, than having the two hands to go away into hell* into the fire unquenchable [where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched].† And if thy foot ensnare thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life lame, than having the two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire unquenchable [where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched].† And if thine eye ensnare thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire: where their worm100 dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." The burden, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched," falls on the conscience-stricken like the bell that tolls the felon to his doom. Would that it might kindle our hearts who believe into an unwonted earnestness on behalf of perishing souls! (cf. 2 Cor. 5: 10, 11).

*The words "into hell" are attested by most and the best copies and versions, but are not in the Sinai palimpsest.

†The clause bracketed in verses 44, 46 is in ADN, 69, Old Latin, Syrpesch hcl Goth. AEth., but Edd. omit, following BCLΔ, etc., and Syrsin.

But there is direct profit for the disciples also. For if "every one shall be salted with fire101," it is also true that "every sacrifice shall be salted with salt";* the former statement, in my opinion, being as large toward man as such as the latter emphatically and exclusively regards the saints set apart to God. "Salt is good," concludes our Lord, "but if the salt have become saltless, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another101a." How precious and practical the exhortation! The first requisite is this holy preservative energy in our souls, and then for one with another a spirit of peace. "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace," adds the Apostle James, (James 3: 18).

*Some witnesses [BLΔ, I, and several other cursives, with Syrsin] followed by the Revisers leave out the latter half of verse 49. [It is supported by ACNS and most later uncials, and by cursives, with Syrpesch, and other versions.] The substance of the truth abides, no doubt, but the solemnity of the warning appears to be enfeebled in the curtailed form; and the distinction between the wicked and righteous as tested by God's judgment, moral in grace, or final in verse 49 (B.T.).

MARK 10.

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 214-227.

Mark 10: 1-12.

Matt. 19: 1-9.

Our Lord now starts on His last journey, leaving Galilee for the borders of Judea and the other side* of the Jordan.102 When crowds resort to Him, He, as He was wont, again taught. And full of moral value and Divine light His teaching is. May our souls weigh it well! We are apt to be one-sided. If we seize the special manifestation of God's grace, we are apt to over look, neglect, or enfeeble the great and unchanging principles of good and evil; if we keep hold of that which abides from first to last, the danger is that we leave not adequate room for His sovereign action at particular times. In Christ, the truth, this was never so. All the ways of God had their place: no one thing was sacrificed to another, yet this, too, without a levelling sameness, for even in God, while all is perfect and all harmonious, each attribute has not equal place, but there is that which is pre-eminent. Jesus, the Son and Servant of God, maintains on every side the truth of God in the face of sin and confusion.

*"And the other side of (beyond)": so Edd., with ABC, Memph. D, etc., 1, 13, 69, with Amiat., omit "and"; whilst AE, etc., and 33 have "by the other side," which is T.R.

First, He vindicates, according to the unstained light and tender goodness of God, the marriage relation. It is the most momentous step of human life, and the pillar of the social fabric. How thankful should we be to have the Lord of glory pronouncing on it in His passage through this world! The need was great. For even in the Holy Land, and among those who stood high for their sanctity, with the law of God before their eyes and its precepts, rightly or wrongly interpreted, continually on their tongues, how low and loose was the theory! how basely selfish the practice! He was here on His errand of love with its eternal issues, yet would He stop in His course, and cause the light of heaven to shine even across the path of dark, designing men, recalling them to hear how God made man to live, as well as removing the veil which hindered disciples from seeing how He who was God would die.

"And Pharisees* came to Him, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting Him. But He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put away. And Jesus answered and said to them, In view of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this commandment. But from [the] beginning of [the] creation God† made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be united to his wife;‡ and the two shall be one flesh: so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (verses 2-9). It is only the facts recorded by historians or the researches of men of learning into the Rabbinical remains which betray the excessive levity of the Jews as to marriage.103 The true obligations of the tie were unknown, and a wife's place had no more stability than a servant's — if so much, indeed. He asks what Moses commanded: they answer what Moses allowed; whereas our Lord shows how evidently it was in respect of their hard-heartedness he so wrote. In truth, the law made nothing perfect. Not the Gospel only, but the beginning of creation, bore its witness to the true thought of God, who made them male and female. How admirably the Lord applies, not only the fact of Gen. 1, but the words of Gen. 2: 24! All other obligations of nature, even the filial, must give place, as their own Pentateuch proved in principle as well as history; and the new relationship from the first was abstractedly indissoluble. They were no longer two, but one flesh, even if not kindred in spirit. This was not merely Adam's language, but God's deed; and if He united, let not man put asunder. Such was the Lord's bright and beautiful unfolding of the law to those who took advantage of what was permitted for a season. Grace and truth ever adorn what the legal spirit perverts to self-righteousness on the one hand or self-indulgence on the other.

*C, etc., 1, 33, have "the" before "Pharisees," which Edd. omit, with ABLΓ, etc., 69, Memph.

†"God": so AD, etc., 1, 69, Jerome's Vulg. Syr. Arm. Goth. AEth. Edd. adopt "He," with BCLΔ, Memph.

‡"And shall be united to his wife": so (AC)D, etc., nearly all cursives, Lat. Syrpesch hcl Memph. AEth. Edd. omit, with B, etc., Syrsin Goth.

To the disciples (in the house, as only Mark here tells us) the Lord gives the stringent reply that, "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if a woman put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery."104 Here is the dark converse of sin in this relationship: no licence of man can consecrate the annulling that tie while in the flesh.

Mark 10: 13-16.

Matt. 19: 13-15; Luke 18: 15-17.

The next incident is equally full of moral loveliness and Divine grace — full of instruction too, as here we have, not Pharisees, but disciples in painful collision with the mind of the Master. "And they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them. But the disciples rebuked those that brought [them]. But when Jesus saw [it], he was indignant, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me; forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive105 the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them." Our Evangelist specially marks the deep displeasure of the Lord. And no wonder! Indeed, it was part of His perfectness. For it was not only that they betrayed their own Rabbi-like self-importance, which makes much of ceremony, much also of knowledge, and overlooks the power of grace and the manifestation of Divine affections; but, besides, they took His place, falsified Him and the God of all grace that sent Him, and the essential character of that kingdom which He was about to establish. Suffer not little children, babes, to come to Him! Hinder them! Why, not only of such is the kingdom of God, but whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a babe shall not enter therein. Such is the Lord's solemn sentence. To be nothing for Jesus to receive is just the condition of entrance. May we too have faith to put our babes with ourselves before Him, and count on His sure blessing!

Mark 10: 17-22.

Matt. 9: 16-22: Luke 18: 18-23.

The Lord had vindicated marriage according to its beginning from God against the Pharisees. He had blessed babes in spite of rebuking, but now rebuked disciples. We have Him next eagerly sought out by the rich young ruler. "And as He went forth into the way, one ran up and kneeled to him, and asked Him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?"106 There was no lack of moral integrity here, no failure in reverence to One who was instinctively felt to be superior, no indolence that avoided trouble; but earnestness was there, honest respect for that righteous man, and a sincere desire to learn a new lesson and take a fresh step in well-doing. It was nature doing its best, yet fundamentally at fault; for his question assumed that man was good and could do good — man as he is. His very salutation of honour to Jesus proved that His person was unknown, and therefore the truth unknown both as to God and man. Had the young ruler believed Him to be the Son of the living God, he would not have accosted Him with "Good Teacher" — a style suitable enough to a respected and honoured teacher, but both needless and improper in addressing One who was equal with God and was God. But the evil of man he had never realised — the total, hopeless sin and ruin of the heart in God's sight. Hence the need of such a One as Jesus was unfelt — of One who, God and man, came down to the depths of sin in Divine love, and is raised up to the throne of God in Divine righteousness; who suffered all on earth from God on behalf of guilty man, that He might have man redeemed, reconciled, justified, glorified, by and with Himself in heaven, and in both, as in all things, God glorified through Jesus Christ.

Our Blessed Lord therefore refuses the honour which ignored the only just foundation for it, jealous for the truth as well as for God's glory, as, indeed, it is the only real love to man. If not God, Christ was not good; if good, He is God.107 "And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one [that is], God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said to Him, Teacher, all these have I observed from my youth. And Jesus beholding him loved him." It is striking to observe these two things following — the comparative severity of our Lord's answer, and the express assertion that He looked upon him and loved him. The one showed how He dealt with amiable nature, intruding into what it knows not; the other, how no curtness of rebuke for spiritual blindness, no consciousness that the young man was faithless and would depart sorrowful at His word, hindered the Saviour's love for that which was sweet and attractive in human nature. Our Lord gave its full value to his honouring of the commandments, which He does not contradict; but He meets him on the ground he had chosen, not of a broken-hearted, convicted sinner asking what he must do to be saved, but of a blameless man who was conscious of nothing wrong in his life, but who felt desires after a more excellent way from One so pre-eminently excellent in his eyes as Jesus, who accordingly "said to him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me, [taking up the cross]."* Jesus had done infinitely more; for, "though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty might be rich." But this ruler knew not the grace of our Lord, though he could not but see His ineffable moral beauty; he knew not His grace, for His glory was unknown to him. Little did he think even when he kneeled to Jesus that there stood before him One who, "subsisting in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be on equality with God, but emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a bondman, and was made in the likeness of men; and having been found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." It was not, then, that He who repudiated all good save in One, save God, shrank from that test which He represented to the good-seeking ruler; yet the one thing the young and ardent Jew lacked was, oh! how incomparably short of the path of Jesus both in life and death. Still, it was far too great a demand on the loveliest sample of humanity which, as far as we read, crossed the path of the Lord; and it made plain in his sad, departing footsteps to others, if it did not discover to his own conscience, the covetousness of his heart, the value he set upon his possessions the trust he had in riches, the little heart he had for treasure in heaven, care for himself rather than for others, even for the poor, of whom the Lord ever thought much, and, above all, that so taking up the cross and following Christ was harder measure than he was prepared for. What is man? Wherein is he to be accounted of? Well may we worship God in the spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. "There is none good but One [that is], God." How true, and how blessed for us that so it is! "Verily every man, [even] the high placed is altogether vanity" (Ps. 39: 5). Jesus had but disclosed the shadow, and not the very image, of Divine goodness in Himself; yet did the beauty of the amiable devotee consume away like a moth. "But he, sad at the word, went away grieved: for he had large possessions."108 Surely every man is vanity.

*The words bracketed are found in A(G)N, etc., 1, 13, 69, and Syrsin pesch AEth., Iren. Edd. omit, after BCDΔ and Old Latin.

Mark 10: 23-27.

Matt. 9: 23-26; Luke 18: 24-27.

The great Prophet, the perfect Minister of grace and truth, turns the incident to the good of His own. "And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, With what difficulty shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" Even the disciples understood not, but were astonished at His words. They, too, knew not there is no good thing in man, or in the advantages of the world, for the kingdom of God. "And Jesus answers again, and says to them, Children, how difficult it is for those who trust in riches* to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And they were exceedingly astonished, saying to one another, And who can be saved? But Jesus looking on them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God." Thus Jesus softens in no respect the rigour of the truth. The very blessings, as men speak, of the flesh and of the world turn out hindrances in Divine things. With men, then, salvation is impossible. It is a question here, too, of God; but, blessed be His name, all things are possible with Him.

*"For those who trust in riches": so ACDN, later uncials, all cursives, most Old Latin, Syr. (including sin.), Arm. Edd. omit, as BΔ.

Mark 10: 28-31.

Matt. 9: 27-30; Luke 18: 28-30.

What hearts are ours that even the solemn circumstance of the ruler, and the still more solemn sentence of the Lord which fell upon the amazed ears of the disciples, drew forth a self-complacent inquiry from him who seemed to be somewhat — yea, a pillar among those nearest to Jesus! "Peter began to say to Him, Lo, it is we who have left all, and have followed Thee. Jesus answered* and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man who hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother [or wife],† or children, or lands, for My sake, and the Gospel's,109 that shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the coming age life eternal.110 But many first shall be last; and the last first." It is much to be noted that the Lord speaks but of abandoning nature for His own sake (and the Gospel's, as is added most appropriately in this Gospel only), even as Peter speaks of their leaving all and following Him. To leave for the reward would be worthless, and, moreover, never stands. Christ is the only efficacious attraction, the motive that governs a renewed heart. There is pasture for the sheep, there is the flock also; but the sheep follow Christ, for they know His voice. Rewards will follow by-and-by, but saints follow not the rewards, but the Lord. As our Evangelist speaks of the Gospel's sake, so he shows that the faithful sufferer receives a hundredfold now in this time for what he has left, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. "But," says the Lord (and if it was a significant word to Peter, is it not for us all?), "many first shall be last, and the last first." Righteous judgment will in the long-run reverse many a thought founded on that which meets the eye. It is the end of the race that tells, not the start, though God is unrighteous to no person and to no act. It is well, therefore, here, as before, to trust in God and His grace. "There is none good but One [that is], God."

*"Answered (answering)": so A, etc., Syrsin pesch, Arm, Goth. Edd. omit, with BD, Memph.

†["Or wife"]: as AC and later uncials, 69, most Syrr. Goth. AEth., but omitted by Edd., after BDΔ, I, Syrsin Memph.

Mark 10: 32-34.

Matt. 20: 17-19; Luke 18: 31-34; John 11: 16-55.

They were now on the road to Jerusalem, where the disciples well knew enmity to their Master was most deadly. Hence, when Jesus went before them, "they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid." They were not more astonished at His calm facing the danger than they shrank from their own exposure to it. They were still attached to earthly life, though they would have liked to have spent it under Messiah's reign, sitting every man under his vine and under his fig-tree, with none to make them afraid. But to follow the path which led through persecution to death was far as yet from being a privilege and honour in their eyes. Even Christ they knew after the flesh: the glory of His death and resurrection was wholly unfelt as yet. Hence the Lord Jesus "took again the Twelve, and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered up to the chief priests, and to the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him up to the nations, and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him; and after three days* He shall rise again." Thus the fullest testimony was given, not indiscriminately, but to chosen witnesses, though complete for the purposes of God among men. Matthew alone singles out, as was suitable, that form of death, the cross, which stumbled the natural mind of the Jew, while Luke, as his manner is, draws attention to the accomplishment of the Scriptures, not in specific detail like Matthew, but as a whole, adding to it the non-intelligence of the disciples.

*"After three days": so Edd., following BCDLΔ, Syrhcl mg, Memph. "The third day" is the reading of AN, etc., all cursives, Jerome's Vulg., Syr sin pesch hcl (t) Arm. AEth., Origen.

Mark 10: 35-45.

Matt. 20: 20-28; Luke 22: 24-28.

Then come the sons of Zebedee, James, and John" (with their mother, as we know from Matthew), "saying [to him],* Teacher, we would that Thou shouldst do for us whatsoever we may ask Thee.† And He said to them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said unto Him, Grant us that we may sit, one on Thy right hand and one on Thy left hand, in thy glory." How often the carnal mind betrays itself in the faithful, even in the domain of faith! How weak as yet were those destined to be pillars! How the Master shines in presence even of the most blessed among His servants! They knew not what they asked. This was no question for the suffering Son of man on His way to the cross; but, rather, Could they drink of what it was His to drink? could they be baptized with the baptism that was before Him? Alas! ambition even in the things of the kingdom is soon followed by confidence in self: "We are able." What an answer! Need we wonder that these two also forsook Jesus and fled in the hour of the cross? Nevertheless, the Lord seals their answer with His promise of His own bitter portion, inward and outward; but lets them know that those high places around Himself in glory were not His to give, but for those for whom it is prepared. He refuses to depart from that morally highest place in such a world as this — God's servant among men. But if the two sons of Zebedee thus betrayed their ignorance of Christ's moral glory, how did the rest carry themselves? Not with sorrow of heart for their brethren. "When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant about James, and John." How often our fleshly resentment at the pride of another makes manifest the pride which dwells in our own hearts, and breaks out in an indignation as unseemly as the evil which provokes it! "But Jesus called them unto Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that those who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is‡ not so among you: but whosoever would be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever would be first of you, shall be bondman of all. For also the Son of man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many."

*["To him"]: so Edd., as BCLΔ, Memph. The words are not found in AE, etc., 1, 69, and Amiatine.

†So Edd., with ABC, etc., 1, 69, Memph.; whilst Γ and others omit.

‡"Is": so Edd., after BCpmD, etc., Old Latin. The T.R. "shall be" is in ACcorrN, later uncials, most cursives, Arm. Memph. Goth.

This is love which serves, not flesh which seeks to be served. It is the animating motive and spirit, and not a question of position, ecclesiastic or ministerial; for I doubt not he who was not a whit behind the very chiefest of the Apostles was the one who was most of all imbued with the mind which was in Christ Jesus, and this not only in his own soul, but also in his service. Paul was bondsman of all. "His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?" (2 Cor. 11: 23-29). It was for the Son of man alone not only to minister, but to give His life a ransom for many.

Mark 10: 46-52.

Matt. 20: 29-34; Luke 18: 35-43.

A new division of our Gospel here opens. It is the Lord's final presentation of Himself to the nation as Messiah. His ministerial work was closed. Here He is viewed as Son of David.

"And they came to Jericho." That city which first opposed itself to the entrance of Israel into the land of promise, but fell by the mighty power of God, when His people submitted themselves to, His word by Joshua; that city which brought the predicted curse on him and his sons who reared it again; that city whose waters were healed, and from whose land barrenness was taken away in grace by the prophet, is the scene of a remarkable display of beneficent power, in answer to the faith that owned the promised Seed and King.

"And as He went out of Jericho, with His disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the wayside begging." I do not doubt that it is the same incident which is recorded in Matt. 20 and in Luke 18. But the differences are so great as to have occasioned doubts of this in some.111 The truth is that each is perfect. Matthew gives the double cure — true to his habit (see Matt. 8) and the exigency of Jewish witness. Luke so states it that the careless might infer that the cure took place as the Lord went into (instead of as He came out of) Jericho. His moral order required the juxtaposition of the tale of Zacchaeus and the parable of the nobleman, as illustrating the scope of the two advents, and hence displaced of necessity the story of the blind man. But Luke takes care to say, not "as he was come nigh unto Jericho" (as the English Bible and others), but "as He was nigh to Jericho," ἐν τῳ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς  Ἰεριχώ, without saying whether it was His coming or His going."' He was in that neighbourhood. Some manuscripts give "the son of Timeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, sat," etc. The Sinai copy has "blind and a beggar."* As usual, our Evangelist relates the facts and even names with characteristic precision. "And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean,† he began to cry out, and say, Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me." No expression of unbelief on the part of others could stifle his own cry of faith. It was, no doubt, in keeping with his wants to call on Him to whom Isaiah of old testified, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened" (Isa. 35: 5). Others knew this Scripture as well as Bartimaeus, but he claimed the blessing from the despised Nazarene. They said they saw, and therefore their sin remained. As for him, he was confessedly miserable, poor, and blind; naked, too, he was content to be, if he might the more readily cast himself on the Lord. The multitude, not feeling their own need, had no sympathy with one who felt his, and sought to drown his importunity. But it was God who had laid it on the heart of the blind beggar — God who, in his appeal to the rejected Messiah, rebuked the incredulity of His people, as miserable and poor and blind as he — yea, more so, incomparably more, because they felt it not, and owned not their King. For them He was but Jesus of Nazareth. "And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Son of David, have mercy on me.

*BDLΔ and , as stated above; the T.R. follows A, etc.

†"Nazaraean": so AC, etc. Edd. adopt "Nazarene," after BLΔ, I, with most Old Latin and Amiatine. See note 112.

The application of this title is the more strikingly in place and season here, because it is the first occurrence and, one may say, the only instance in Mark, common as it is from the first to the corresponding chapter of Matthew. The nearest approach is in the Lord's reference to Ps. 110 in chapter 12. This, as well as Mark 11: 9, 10, may show how truly guided of God Bartimaeus was  -  the type, doubtless, of the remnant of the latter day, whose eyes will be opened of the Messiah before He is in publicly recognised relationship with Jerusalem.

But let us turn to the foreshadowing of the "mercy that endureth for ever." No rebuke came from Jesus. On the contrary, He stood still and said, "Call him.*

*This is, I doubt not, the true reading (BCLΔ, a few cursives, Memph.; followed by Edd.), which bears the graphic stamp of Mark's style. The vulgar text (D, etc., most cursives, Syrpesch AEth, etc.) is here, as elsewhere, due to that love of assimilating the Gospels which in the copyists answers to the love of harmonies among divines, both to the no small marring of the Divine perfection of the Gospels. Compare Luke 18: 40, where "He commanded," etc., is right (B.T.).

"And they call the blind man, saying to him, Be of good comfort, rise , He calls for thee. And he, casting away his garment, rose and came to Jesus." Mark, not Matthew, mentions the cloak cast off in the alacrity* that hastened at the invitation of Jesus, yet Matthew, not Mark, was an eyewitness.

*"Started [sprang] up": so Edd., after BDL, etc., Memph. Goth.; whilst "rose up" is supported by AC, etc., most cursives, Syr. (including sin.), and other versions. The word ἀναπηδᾳν is used only here in the New Testament.

"And Jesus answered and said to him, What wilt thou that I should do for thee? The blind man said to Him, Rabboni [My Master], that I may recover sight. And Jesus answered and said to him, Go, thy faith hath healed thee. And immediately he recovered sight, and was following Jesus in the way." Luke alone adds the expressed moral effect on the part both of the blind man and of all the people that saw the miracle: he glorified God, as they gave Him praise. But this is thoroughly the province of Luke, as must have been observed, in fact, by every reader of ordinary attention.

MARK 11.

Mark 11: 1-11.

Matt. 21: 1-11; Luke 19: 28-40; John 12: 12-16.

The Saviour now proceeds on His last journey to Jerusalem, His final presentation of Himself, as far as testimony went, is the Messiah. His prophetic task had been accomplished and refused; the great work of atonement lay yet before Him. Between the two comes His royal progress, we may call it, to the city of the Great King. Nevertheless, as He was the predicted Prophet like unto Moses, and yet never man spake like this man; as He was the antitype of all the sacrifices, and yet they were but the shadow, not the very image, of the coming good, so there was a character wholly diverse from the manner of kings in the King of kings and Lord of lords, as He came to His own possession here below, His raising and settling the question whether His own people would receive Him.

"And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to113 Bethphage, and Bethany, at113 the Mount of Olives, He sends two of His disciples, and says to them, Go into the village that is over against you; and immediately on entering into it ye will find a colt tied, upon which none of men hath ever sat: loose and bring it. And if anyone say to you, Why do ye this? say, The Lord hath need of it; and immediately. he sends it here."*

*If Lachmann meant by his punctuation or non-punctuation of the two last clauses (for he reads  Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει ὧδε) that it is the Lord who was also  straightway to send the colt, it seems strange that he did not adopt the addition of πάλιν, which occurs in the Sinai, Cambridge (Beza's), Vatican and Paris (L) Manuscripts, and more than tell cursives (B.T.). The text followed above is the critical. See, further, note 114. "Sends": so Edd., after ABCD, etc., Goth. "Will send" is in GUΠΦΨ, I, and some versions. "Again" is without the support of vv.

It is pre-eminently a scene under the governing hand of God. He would and did control the feelings of such as witnessed the colt taken, even as He afterwards directed the deeds and acclamations of the multitude by the way. "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord." Indeed, this is so much the case that I suspect "the Lord" is here, as in Mark 5: 19, left purposely vague. The Lord had need of the ass's colt, whether they referred the title to Jehovah or to the king who thus came in His name. If their faith really recognised the Messiah in Jehovah it was most true, and so much the better for those who did; but I am not sure that it could be asserted as the intention of the Spirit to imply that so much was meant in either of these cases. It is only in the two closing verses of this Gospel that we can certainly gather that He is designated "the Lord." The suitableness of this reserve till the statement of His final triumph by our Evangelist, who devotes himself to His service here below, is strikingly beautiful, and equally so in its absence before and in its presence then.

"And they went away and found a Colt114 tied to the door without at the crossway; and they loose it. And some of those standing there said to them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said to them even as Jesus said: and they suffered them. And they bring the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on it;"', and He sat upon it. And many, strewed their garments on the way, and others beds of twigs, having cut them from the fields.* And those that went before and those that followed cried out, Hosanna! blessed [be] He that cometh in the name of [the] Lord. Blessed [be] the coming kingdom of our father David.† Hosanna in the highest."

*It appears to me that the best readings here are as I have given above [so Edd. below]. The common text is owing to the usual habit of assimilating the Gospel to the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke. The frequency of the present tense in Mark is a feature of his style which gives vividness to what he depicts. The chief departure from the common text is in the last clause, where we have the shorter phrase, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν in the Sinai, Vatican, Rescript of Ephrem S. and L. of Paris, Graeco-Lat. of St. Gall (Δ), besides versions (B.T.). The Sinaitic Syriac goes so far as to omit the words "others . . . fields." "Strewed them on the way" is supported by AD, etc., Old Latin, Syrpesch hcl Goth. Arm.

†"The coming kingdom," etc.: so Edd., after BCL, I, etc. whilst A, etc., have "in the name of the Lord."

It was a singularly bright testimony to the ways of God, and this not alone in the ever-adorable One who thus deigned to offer Himself to the acceptance of His people, but in the suited cries of the multitude, little as they realised the truth of their own words or the gravity of the situation for their nation and city from that day to this. God, I repeat, was moving in the midst. He would have a testimony, true but despised, to the King, humble Himself as He might. Matthew points out the fulfilment of the prophetic oracle in the strange sight of that day. Luke adds "peace in heaven and glory in the highest" in the praise to God which filled the mouths and hearts of the disciples, as well as the blessed Saviour's lament and tears over Jerusalem. It fell more within the domain of Mark to say that He "entered into Jerusalem* into the temple; and having looked round on all things, the hour being already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve."

*"And" (T.R.) before "into" is in AD, etc., Syrsin hcl Goth., but is omitted in the "neutral text" followed by Edd.

Matthew, as often, does not distinguish the stages of the transaction. From his account you could not gather that the Lord merely looked round on all the first day of His visit, and that not till the following day did He cast out those who desecrated the Temple with their buying and selling, as he alone describes the approach to Him there of the blind and lame (Matt. 21: 14) to be healed. I am aware that some have. tried to solve the difficulty by the assumption that Matthew gives us a purging of the Temple on the first day, Mark on the second. But this appears to me definitely set aside by the precision of our Evangelist's language about this second day, who tells us (verse 15) that then, not on the first day, He began to cast out those who sold and bought in the Temple.

John, on the other hand, entirely omits this cleansing of the Temple, but records (John 2) what no one else has done, an early act of similar character before our Lord entered on His public or Galilean ministry. But this is exquisitely in keeping with the whole scope of his Gospel, which starts, as it were, with the point to which the other Evangelists gradually conduct us — the utter rejection of the Lord by His people, who abhorred Him, as He could not but loathe them.

Mark 11: 12-14.

There is a similar merging of a twofold account in one view, if we compare Matthew's description of the cursed fig-tree with Mark's. "And on the morrow, when they came out from Bethany, He was hungry; and seeing a fig-tree from afar having leaves, He came, if perhaps He might find something on it; and having come up to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the time of figs. And, answering, He said to it, Let none eat fruit of thee any more for ever. And His disciples heard." Had it been fig season the fruit might have been already gathered, but as it was not, fruit ought to have been found there, unless the tree were barren. Thus it was the emblem of the Jew, fruitless to God, however abounding in the semblance of life before men. Leaves the tree had, but no fruit. Hence the doom was pronounced — not more surely verified in the fig-tree then than ever since in the empty profession of the Jews.116

Mark 11: 15-18.

Matt. 21: 12-19; Luke 19: 41-48.

After hearing the doom of the barren fig-tree, they come to Jerusalem, and enter the Temple, whence the Lord began to cast out those who sold and bought therein, overthrowing the tables of the money-changers and the seats of the dove-sellers, and suffering none to carry a vessel through the Temple.117 This He followed up by teaching openly what is written in Isa. 56: 7, Jer. 7: 11-God's purpose in the Temple, and meanwhile man's selfish misuse of it. "Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers." The prophetic reproof was not powerless, but it fell into a soil fruitful only in thorns and briers, worthless, and nigh to that curse, if not under it, which had just lit upon the type of their estate. "And the chief priests and the scribes heard [it], and sought how they might destroy Him; for they feared Him, because all the crowd were astonished at His doctrine." Truly their end was to be burned: God was not in their thoughts, but man; and self, not conscience, governed them. But what a picture! The righteous, elect Servant, the Son of God, hated to death — not of the crowd, who, if thoughtless and fickle, at least hung on unwonted words of holy vindication of God, of goodness toward man, of stern rebuke for the proud perverters of sacred things. Alas! it was these, the chiefs of religion, the theologians of that day, who quailed before the light of God, and sought only to extinguish it, that they might still preserve their influence among the men they loved not, but despised. And is the world or its religion better now?

Mark 11: 19-26.

Matt. 21: 20-22.

What could detain Jesus in such a scene, the more revolting because it was in title and responsibility "the holy, city"? Nothing but the errand of holy love on which He came. Hence, at the approach of night, His work for that day done, He retires once more, without the city. Who but the enemy could have insinuated the blasphemous thought that it was because that city was too hallowed ground for Him to rest on as yet?

As they passed next morning, the sight of the fig-tree dried up from the roots118 recalled the curse of yesterday to Peter. The Master's answer was, "Have faith in God" — a more pointed form of speech"" than that in the Gospel of Matthew, and of the gravest moment for the servants of God in presence of the guilt and ruin of that which seems fairest, or, at least, is most esteemed among men. As the fig-tree symbolized the people in their religious pretensions, now manifestly vain, and so judged of Him whose right it was and is, "this mountain" appears to denote rather their "place and nation," which in their unbelief they strove hard to keep under Roman patronage. ("We have no king but Caesar.") Strong as it stood in Jewish eyes, before the faith of the disciples it was doomed, and soon about to be violently rooted up and lost in the sea of Gentiles.* Such is the declared efficacy of faith; but another requisite is (which faith indeed would effect) the spirit of gracious forgiveness toward any who might have wronged or otherwise offended us. In Matthew this has its place in the Sermon on the Mount, and especially in the prayer,120 as the retributive converse appears in the parable of the merciless servant. In Luke the principle comes out in another shape.

*The Received Text is far from correct. The Sinai and other manuscripts [D, 33corr, with 69, etc., Syrsin Arm.] give "If ye have faith in God, verily," etc. But apart from this, the close of verse 23, I think, should be, "but believe that what he speaks comes to pass, he shall have it" [as B, etc.]. "For" at the beginning of the verse appears in ACL and later uncials, most cursives, syrpesch hcl Memph. Goth.]. So in verse 24 [BCL Memph.], "For this reason I say unto you, All things, whatsoever ye shall pray and beg, believe that ye have received, and ye shall have them" (B.T.).

Mark 11: 27-33.

Matt. 21: 23-27; Luke 20: 1-8.

The next visit to Jerusalem confronts the Lord, as He walks about in the Temple, with the chief priests and the scribes and the elders, who demand by what authority He was doing these things, and who gave it Him. Jesus pledges Himself to speak as to His authority, if they answer His question as to John's baptism — was it of heaven or men? It was an appeal to conscience; but conscience they had none, save a bad one, which at once shrank into reserve, fearful to commit itself, not afraid to trifle with God and man. For they reasoned with themselves that, allowing John's baptism to be of heaven, they must receive his testimony to Jesus; asserting it to be of men, they must forfeit the people's favour, John being universally held to be in very deed a prophet. They preferred, therefore, to shelter themselves under a seemingly prudent ignorance. Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If they could only say "We know not," their incompetency was confessed. Those who could not solve, the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge of the Master. In truth, their incapacity was, if possible, less than their hypocritical wickedness: the will was at fault yet more than the understanding. The Lord might well be excused answering such a question to such men. What a position for those who examined His authority to find themselves in! Left under the shadow and shame of their own avowed ignorance in the presence of the gravest religious problem then before them, they are obliged to bow to Him who closes the inquiry with unspeakable dignity, and with the most befitting wisdom — "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Lord, Thou knewest all things; Thou knewest that these men hated Thee!

MARK 12.

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 227-229.

Mark 12: 1-12.

Matt. 21: 33-46; Luke 20: 9-19.

He parable with which this chapter opens sets forth in a few plain words, and in highly pregnant touches, the moral history of Israel as under the dealings of God. In what follows we have the various classes of Israel successively exposing themselves, while they were attempting to perplex the Lord. They thought to judge Him; the result was, they were themselves judged. But in the parable with which the chapter begins the Lord sets forth God's dealings with the nation as a whole. "A man planted a vineyard and made a fence round it." There was everything done on God's part both to give them what was of Himself and separate them from the rest of sinful men. They were duly warned against contamination by heathen corruptions. He "dug a wine-vat." There was every stilted preparation for the full results of their work, and there was also full protection, for He "built a tower." Thus the owner let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country." This set forth their responsibility. The Jewish system in the past is man under probation. "At the season He sent to the husbandmen a bondman, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard." It is the moral trial of man exemplified in Israel's conduct. Man is bound to make returns to God, according to the position in which God has set him. Israel had every possible advantage given them by God. They had priests, religious ordinances, fast-days, feast-days, every help of an outward kind, and even miraculous testimony from time to time. There was nothing wanting that man could have, short of Christ Himself; and even of Him they had the promise, and were after a sort, we know, waiting for Him as their King. They had promises held out to them, and a covenant made with them. In short, there was nothing they had not that could be of any avail had it been possible to have got any good thing out of man. But can any good thing come out of the heart? Is not man a sinner? Is he not utterly defiled and unclean? Can you get a clean thing out of an unclean? It is impossible by any means used to act upon man. You may bring a clean thing among unclean, but if a creature merely it becomes defiled. If it be the Creator, He can deliver, but not even so by merely coming down into the midst of men. It requires more than this — His death. Death is the only door of life and redemption for the lost.

The Lord, then, gives the history of what they did render to God. The servant being sent, "they caught him and beat him, and sent him away empty." There was no fruit to God — nothing but evil. There was insult to Himself and injury to His servants. "And again He sent to them another bondman; and [at] him they threw stones, and* struck [him] on the head, and sent [him] away (not only empty, but) with insult."† One sin leads to a greater sin where it is not judged. "And again]‡ He sent another; and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some." They are rapidly sliding down the descent to destruction. There remained only one possible motive to act upon the heart of man. "Having§ yet [therefore]|| one beloved son,** he sent him also†† last to them, saying, They will reverence my son." Would not One be acceptable who was Infinitely greater in dignity and absolutely without a fault? For even prophets had faults; though there was great power of God in and by them, they were encompassed with infirmities like other men. But the Son was perfection: what if He were to come? Surely they must feel that the Son of God had an incomparably higher claim upon their affections and their reverence. And so it would have been had not man been utterly lost. And what was the moral lesson as to man brought out in the cross. Man was then proved to be utterly corrupt. God allowed it to be shown to the uttermost practically by the people of Israel. Nothing proved it so completely as the mission of the Son of God. The trial then closed in His rejection; but His rejection was their rejection before God. Man, no matter how tried or how greatly privileged, ends in proving his total opposition to God, his hopeless ruin in His sight. "But those husbandmen said to one another, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." It was an opportunity for the will of man not to be lost. Satan led them on to wish to have the world to themselves. This is what man most values — to shut God out of His own world, and it was consummated by no act so much as by their killing the Lord Jesus — by His cross. It was man's rejection of God in the person of His Son. Henceforth he was shown to be evidently not only weak and sinful, but God's enemy. Even when He was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, man not only preferred, but was determined to have the world without God. In fact, this manifests that the world lies in the wicked one; and Satan, who was really the prince of the world before, became, on the casting out of Him who was God, the god of the world then. Man must have some god over him; if he rejects the true God in the person of Christ, Satan becomes his god not really alone, but in this case manifestly. "And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard." This closes the probationary measures.122 "What, therefore,‡‡ shall the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." Nothing is said here of their rendering Him the fruits in their seasons, as we have in Matthew. It is the breaking of the old links with Israel (indeed, with man), and the giving the place of privilege to others. But more than that: the destruction of the old husbandmen follows. This has already taken place in part in the downfall of the Jewish people and of Jerusalem. Nor is this all. "Have ye not read this Scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the corner-stone: this is of the Lord, and it is wonderful in our eyes?"§§ The Spirit does not here introduce the further fact related in Matthew. Not only is the stone to be exalted, the rejected prophet to become the exalted Lord (that is quite in keeping with Mark's object), but in Matthew the other positions of the stone are developed more. First of all, He is a stone of stumbling on the earth; and next the stone, after His exaltation, falls upon its enemies at the close and grinds them to powder. This is connected with the prophecies and their accomplishment for both the Jews and the world. The Jews did trip upon Him in His humiliation when He was upon the earth; but when they finally take the place of adversaries, not only in unbelief, but in deadly opposition, forming, indeed, the chosen party of His great enemy, the Antichrist — upon them He will fall destructively at the end of the age. In Mark, however, it is simply that the rejected stone is exalted. This at once was felt by the hearers.121 "They sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them. And they left Him and went away."

*"Threw stones, and": as AC, etc., Syrpesch hcl Goth. AEth. Edd. omit, after BD, etc., 1, 33, Old Latin, Memph.

†"With insult": so AC, etc., Syrpesch hcl Arm. Goth. AEth. B[D], etc., 1, 33, Old Latin, etc., have "and insulted [him]," as Edd.

‡"Again": so AN, etc., Syr, pesch hcl Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BCD, etc., 33, Memph.

§"Having": so ACDpm, etc., 69, Jerome's Vulg., Memph. Edd. adopt "he had," after BCcorr L, etc., 33, Syr.

||"Therefore": so ACD, etc., Syrhcl. Edd. follow BL, etc., 33, 69, Memph., in omitting the word.

**"One beloved son ": so Edd., after MBCD, etc., Amiat. Memph. A, etc., 1, 33, 69, have "one son, his beloved."

††"Also":  so ACD, etc., Syrhcl Goth. Edd. omit, after BLΔ, etc.

‡‡"Therefore": as ACD, all cursives, Syrpesch hcl Arm. Swete, as Edd., omits, following BL, Memph,

§§Ps. 118: 22 f.

Mark 12: 13 -17.

Matt. 22: 15-22; Luke 20: 20-26.

Now comes the trial of the different classes into which the Jews were divided. "They send unto Him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians to catch Him in His 2 words." Ominous alliance! for ordinarily the Pharisees and Herodians were bitterly hostile to each other. The Pharisees were the great sticklers for religious forms, the Herodians were more the courtier party, the men who cultivated every means of advancing their interests in the world, as the others did for securing a religious reputation. But where Christ is concerned, the most opposed can unite against Him or His truth. "And they come, and say to Him, Teacher, we know that Thou art true, and carest for no one; for Thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth." They stooped to flattery and falsehood to effect their malicious end. What they said was, no doubt, true in itself, but it was utterly false as the expression of their feelings and judgment about Him. "Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? Should we give, or should we not give?" They wished to involve the Lord in a Yea or Nay that would compromise Him either with the Jews or with the Romans. If He said Yes, then He was giving up the hopes of Israel, apparently; He was but sealing them up in their bondage to the Romans. How could He be a true-hearted Jew, or, still more, the Messiah, their expected deliverer, if He left them as much as ever slaves of the Roman power? If He said No, then He would make Himself obnoxious to that jealous Government, and give them a handle against Him as a setter-up of seditious claims for the throne of Palestine. But the Lord replies with consummate and Divine wisdom; and "knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye Me? Bring me a penny that I may see [it]. And they brought [it]. And He says to them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This answer was complete and absolutely perfect, for in truth there was no conscience in them. Had they felt aright they would have been ashamed of the fact that the money current in their land was Roman money. It was their sin: and man, while he rejects Christ, refuses to look at his own sin. The Lord Jesus leaves them where their sin had brought them, makes them feel that it was their own fault and sin that had put them under the Romans' authority. He simply says, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." If you are here by your own fault, subject to Caesar for your sins, own the truth of your state and its cause, and pay what is due to Caesar; but forget not that God never ceases to be God, and see that you render to Him the things that are His. They were neither honest subjects of Caesar, nor were they, still less, faithful to God. Had they been true to Him they would have received the Lord Jesus. But there was neither conscience nor faith.

Mark 12: 18-27.

Matt. 22: 23-33; Luke 20: 27-38.

"Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked Him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, If anyone's brother die, and leave a wife behind, and leave no children, that his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed; and the third likewise. And the seven [took her, and]* left no seed; last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection,† when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her as wife."

*["Took her and"]: so AD (virtually), most later uncials, almost all cursives, Syr, Jerome's Vulg., and other versions. Edd. omit, with BCL, etc., 33.

†ACcorr, etc., 1, Amiat. Syrsin pesch hcl. Arm. AEth. add "therefore" after "resurrection." Edd. omit, after BCpm, etc.

Here, again, it was merely a difficulty. The Sadducees were the infidel party, and all the apparent strength of infidelity lies in putting difficulties, in raising up imaginary cases which do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption. The Lord says to them, "Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God." They betrayed, as usual, their ignorance of the Scriptures, spite of much pretentiousness, else they would not have put such a case. As for difficulties, what are they to the power of God, supposing there were difficulties to man? But what is beyond the power and conception of man is very possible to God; all things are possible even to him that believeth. But the truth is that it was total ignorance to suppose that in the resurrection state such a contingency could arise. The question, besides, took for granted the resurrection, which was exactly what they denied. Scepticism is habitually crooked — not less false than superstition. Whose would this woman be who had the seven husbands successively? The answer is, she would belong to none then. There is no such thing as a resumption of earthly ties in the resurrection. People do not rise from the dead as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters or servants. Next, the Lord meets the question, not on the ground of their difficulty or mistake, but on its own merits according to the word of God. "When they rise from among [the] dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how, in the [section of the] bush, how God spoke unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

This portion He takes, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it is in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees chiefly valued. God never gave the land of Israel in actual possession to Abraham or Isaac or Jacob when * they were alive in their natural bodies; yet He did promise them the land, not merely to their children, but to themselves. Therefore they must rise in order to have that land so promised to them. God gave them the land in promise, but they never possessed it; they must therefore possess it another day. And as this possession cannot be in their dead state, they must live again in order actually to have the promised land. The resurrection, therefore, is proved from God's declaring Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob It is impossible that the promise He made them should not be fulfilled.

Mark 12: 28-34.

Matt. 22: 34-40; Luke 10: 25-28, Luke 20: 39, 40.

Then come the Scribes. One of them, "having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The LORD our God is one LORD; and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding, and with all thy strength.123 This is the first commandment.* And a second like it [is] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." The scribe was obliged to acknowledge the Lord's wisdom.

*"This is the first commandment": so AD, etc., all cursives, Syrsin pesch hcl, most Lat., Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, as B, Memph.

He comprises the pith of the law of God in these two extracts — the love of God, which is unlimited; the love of one's neighbour, not with all the soul and strength, but "as thyself." The first is loving God more than oneself, to the exclusion of every other object as a competitor; the second is loving one's neighbour as oneself. In effect, he that loves God and his neighbour has fulfilled the law, as the Apostle says. Grace goes farther than that — even to the total renunciation of self. The grace of God, which assimilates the Christian spirit, according to the power of his faith, to the revelation which he has made of Christ, leads a person even to death for his brother's sake. "We ought to lay our lives down for the brethren'' (1 John 3: 16), still more for God and the truth. "And the scribe said unto Him, Right, Teacher, Thou hast said the truth; for He* is one, and there is none other; and to love Him with all the heart, and with all the intelligence, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love neighbour as oneself, is more than the burnt-offerings and sacrifices."

*"He": so ABKLM and later uncials, 1, 33, Amiat. "God" is in (D)EF(G)H, 69, Syrsin hcl (corr) Arm., etc.

He owns in his conscience that thus to love God and one's neighbour is far better than all upon which the Jews put such stress and value — the outward forms and ceremonies of the law. But there he ended: he saw not Christ; grace, therefore, was unknown to this man. So that all the Lord could say to him was, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Still, he was outside, for grace alone brings into the kingdom of God through the knowledge of Christ. And whether a person is near or far off from the kingdom of God, it is equally destruction if he does not enter it. This scribe owned what was in the law, but he did not know what was in Christ. The grace of God that brings salvation he knew nothing of. Duty to God and to his neighbour he owned. He set to his seal that the law was good and just (and so it is); not that God is true as revealed in Christ. After this no man durst ask Him anything more. They were answered and silenced in everything.

Mark 12: 35-37.

Matt. 22: 41-46; Luke 20: 41-44.

The Lord now puts His question. It was a brief one, and totally different from the points raised by men. Man's questions were founded either upon present things, or upon improbabilities to his mind, or upon the casuistry of rival duties. Christ's question is founded directly on the Scriptures, and, more than that, on the mystery of His own person, that only link of souls with God. Christ's question had nothing of curiosity in it, nor was it merely one for conscience, but for searching into God's ways and implicit submission to the revelation of Himself. "How say the scribes that the Christ is Son of David?" It was true the Lord did not deny that the scribes saw the truth, but He raised a question which, if answered truly, holding fast the Scriptures, would have led them to the truth about His own Person. In a word, it was this: How is Christ David's Lord as well as David's Son? The scribes saw truly enough that He was David's Son, but David, writing by the Holy Ghost, said that He was his Lord.124 How are these two things to be put together — the lower truth with which the scribes were occupied, and the higher one on which the Holy Ghost specially insists? How was Christ David's Son and David's Lord? The link and foundation of it was this, that while He was man, and as man David's Son, He was much more. In order to be David's Lord, He must be a Divine Person; but more than that, He is exalted into that place. The Lordship of Christ rests, not alone on His being, a Divine Person, but because He was rejected as Son of David. God has exalted Him to be both Lord and Christ. This opens the whole question of Israel's treatment of Christ, as well as of Jehovah's attitude toward Him. In Ps. 110 we read: "Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." Here it is not God sending His well-beloved Son down to the vineyard of Israel, but, when He was cast out, raising Him to His own right hand in heaven. Thus it involves their owning that Israel must have rejected their Messiah, and that when rejected God sets Him at His own right hand in heaven. This, evidently, is the key to the present position of Israel, and leaves room for the calling of the Church; in a word, it is the mystery of the person of Christ and the counsels of God that follows upon His rejection.

Mark 12: 38-40.

Matt. 23; Luke 20: 45-47.

But He does more than this. "He said to them in His doctrine, Beware of the scribes, who like to walk about in long robes, love salutations in the market-places, and first seats in the synagogues, and first places at suppers. It is not only that the doctrine of the scribes is utterly Imperfect, but even in their ways there was much that was morally low and bad. They loved the honour of men, religious honour peculiarly, and therefore the chief seats in the synagogues, besides the uppermost rooms at feasts. Everything that would contribute to their ease and honour in this world was eagerly sought. More than this, they devour widows' houses — that is, they take advantage even of the sorrows of people that would expose them to be more entirely under their influence. Along with this there was great religious ostentation, for a pretence making long prayers. "These shall receive severer judgment."

Mark 12: 41-44.

Luke 21: 1-4.

But now the Lord singles out those with whom He had sympathy on the earth. "Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and saw the crowd casting money into the treasury; and many rich cast in much. And a poor widow came, and cast in two mites, which make a farthing; and He called to [Him] His disciples, and said to them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow hath cast more in than all who have cast into the treasury." The reason He gives: "for all have cast in of their abundance, but she of her want hath cast in all that she had, the whole of her living." God does not go by the amount given; He judges not by what is contributed, but by what is kept behind for self. In this case it was nothing — all was given. Those who gave of their abundance reserved the greater part for themselves; but the test of liberality is not what is given, but what is left. The much that is kept for self-enjoyment is the proof of how little is given. But when there is nothing left, but all is cast into the treasury of God, there is the true working of Divine love and faith. There is what God values, because it is the expression not only of generous giving, but of entire confidence in Himself. This poor woman was a widow, and it might have seemed that she of all others was entitled to keep what little she had; but no — little as it was, all is for God. The dealing with such a small sum might have been a trouble to those who would have to count it, but it was noticed of God, valued by Him, and recorded for us, that we may confide in God, and may give whatever is according to His mind.

MARK 13

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," p. 229 f., and see note 126.

Mark 13: 1-13.

Matt. 24: 1-14; Luke 21: 5-19.

In the succinct account which Mark gives us of the prophetic discourse of our Lord on the Mount of Olives,126 and of the questions that led to it, we have the favoured hearers specified more particularly than elsewhere: Peter, James, John, and Andrew. Mark is characterized by this minuteness of detail, although his is much the shortest of the Gospels.

The Lord, in answer to their question to tell them when these things should be (that is, the overthrow of the great buildings of the Temple),127 and what the sign should be when all these things should be fulfilled, warns them to beware lest any man should deceive them. This admonition is common to all three Evangelists who give the discourse. But here we shall find that the Lord's warnings and instructions are very evidently in view of their service. This has been all through the character of Mark. Christ Himself is the perfect Servant of God, the Prophet here below preaching the Gospel and doing works according to its spirit. So, accordingly, even in His prophecy, He is the Servant still giving them that which would be of such high importance, not only for their souls, but in their work. It is not only prediction of coming judgments, but forewarning and admonishing them in their testimony. They were to beware of deceivers. Next, they were not to be troubled by external appearances, such as wars and rumours of wars, etc.; but in presence of either one or the other they were to know that the end should not be yet.

In addressing the Church, there is great stress laid on an attitude entirely reversed: to it the end is at hand. The language is quite different from this, and it is the more remarkable because the Christian knows that these troublous times of the end are to fall upon the Jewish people, not upon the Church. They are retributive because of the rejection of the true Christ by the Jews; whereas the Church has received the true Christ, and therefore does not come under these judgments. Hence the Christian is always impressed in the word of God with the assurance that the end of all things is at hand. "The night is far spent, the day is at hand" (Rom. 13: 12). The point for the disciples at the Mount of Olives (inasmuch as they were representing, not Christians, but the Remnant of Jewish disciples in the last days) is that, although these distresses and troubles that precede the catastrophe of this age would come, the end is not yet. The Lord was providing doubly for them. He was giving instruction that would be true even then and up to the fall of Jerusalem; and He was making that instruction to suit the latter days also, when Jerusalem should be besieged a second time, and fall in a great part at least, the scourge being sent of God, the great Assyrian power, who will come down upon Jerusalem, because of the abomination that maketh desolate.

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in different places, and there shall be famines and troubles;* these are the beginning of throes."128 The end, therefore, was not yet. But now He turns aside to introduce an instruction that is not given in the other Gospels in this connection. Even where there is anything similar, it is found at an anterior time and for a mission on which they had been sent out, and from which they had returned. Not that I for a moment doubt that the Lord did give it here also. The fact simply is that Matthew and Luke were led of God to convey similar language to us elsewhere, whereas Mark was inspired to give it here; the Lord no doubt gave this instruction on both occasions at least. "Take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to sanhedrims, and to synagogues: ye shall be beaten, and shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. And the Gospel must first be preached to all the nations.129 But when they shall lead you away to deliver you up, be not careful beforehand as to what ye shall speak [nor prepare your discourse],† but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak: for ye are not the speakers, but the Holy Spirit.130 But brother shall deliver up brother to death, and father child; and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all on account of My name; but he that hath endured unto the end, he shall be saved." This is clearly a guidance for their service in the midst of these prophetic events. It is evident also that it suits Mark in a way that is peculiar to himself.

*"And troubles":  as A, etc., all cursives, Syr. Edd. omit, as BDL, Amiat. Memph.

†["Nor prepare your discourse"]: as A and later uncials, most cursives, Syrpesch hcl. Edd. omit, as BLΨ, 1, 33, 69, Syrsin.

Mark 13: 14-23.

Matt. 24: 15-28; Luke 21: 20-24.

Then we come upon the final scene. "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, standing where it* ought not [he that reads, let him consider131], then let those in Judea flee to the mountains" (verse 14). It is plain that this is the general truth that is found elsewhere. "And let him that is on the housetop not come down into the house, neither enter therein, to take away anything out of his house. and let him that is in the field not turn back to take his garment. But woe to those who are with child, and to those who give suck in those days! And pray that it† may not be in the winter-time. For in those days shall be distress, such as there has not been the like since the beginning of creation which God created unto now, and never shall be. And unless [the] LORD had shortened those days, no flesh should have been saved, but on account of the elect whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days."132 Then we find an outburst of warning, not merely as before, but even more determined. "And then if any one shall say to you, Lo, here [is] the Christ; or lo, there; believe [it] not: for false Christs and false prophets shall arise, and give signs and wonders." It is evident that there is a final appearance, a fresh cloud of these deceivers In the latter days, as there was at the earliest application of this prophecy; and this to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But they were warned, "Take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things beforehand."

*There is an interesting dubious reading, "standing where he ought not": ἑστηκότα, BL (followed by Edd.), instead of ἑστός (Steph.), ἑστώς (Elz., Griesbach, Scholz), ἑστηκός (Lachmann and Green), στηκόν (seven cursives, including 1, 69). If the masculine be well founded, it points to the Antichrist, the lawless one of 2 Thess. 2: 4 (B.T.) Cf. Swete in loc., and see note 131a on the verse.

†"It": so Edd., after pmBDL, 69, Jerome's Vulg. "Your flight" has the support of corr A, etc., 1, Syrpesch hcl Memph. Goth. AEth.

Mark 13: 24-32.

Matt. 24: 29-36; Luke 21: 25-33.

Then comes the power of God interfering to cut short the wickedness of man as well as the tribulation. "But in those days, after that tribulation,133 the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light." Figures may be used, but it is clear that it is God who interposes in power; for man cannot accomplish all that is meant, neither can Satan. God alone can change or deal with the sources of power. "And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken." The sense is plain, although in figurative language, showing a total revolution and overthrow of governmental powers. "And then shall they see the Son of man coming134 in clouds with great power and glory; and then shall He send His angels, and shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from end of earth to end of heaven." It is still the Jewish people, or rather the remnant of the nation, the elect of Israel. Accordingly, the parable of the fig-tree is appended. "But learn the parable from the fig-tree. When its branch already becomes tender, and putteth forth the leaves, ye know that the summer is near." The fig-tree is the acknowledged symbol of the people of God. "Thus also, when ye shall see these things happen, know that it is near at the doors. Verily I say unto you that this generation* shall in no wise pass away till all these things take place. The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but My words shall in no wise pass away."

*See "Lectures on Matthew," p. 496 ff., and note 135.

But the Lord also tells us in language peculiar to this Gospel, "of that day or of that hour knoweth no one, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son136, but the Father." He had thoroughly taken the place of Son upon earth. I do not think that it refers to Him, viewed in His highest character, as one with the Father, but as Son and Prophet upon earth. The title of Son applies to Christ in more ways than one. It is true of Him in the Deity, true of Him as born into the world, and true of Him also in the resurrection. It is the second of these that we find here, as in the very first verse of this Gospel we find it said, "Jesus Christ the Son of God." I do not doubt that refers to His being Son of God here below, begotten in time, not the only-begotten of the Father, as we find so often in John. Looking at it in this way, there is little difficulty In understanding that He should speak as not knowing that hour, because He is speaking in His capacity of minister in the place that He took here below, the prophet that was serving God upon earth. So He did not know that hour. We read of Him in Luke as growing in knowledge as well as in stature. "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man" (Luke 2: 52). He was always perfect — perfect as a child, perfect as a young man, perfect as a servant; but, nevertheless, all these were quite distinct from what pertained to Him as the Son, one with the Father in Godhead. So here, without derogating from His own intrinsic glory, He could say that "nor the Son, but the Father" knew of that hour.

Mark 13: 33-37.

Cf. Matt. 24: 42, Matt. 25: 13; Luke 21: 36-41.

"Take heed, watch and pray"* is the application. And then He gives a parabolic instruction in the next two verses admirably adapted to this Gospel. "[It is] as a man gone out of the country who left his house and gave authority to his bondmen" (verse 34). Again, it does not say that He gives authority, to every man, but "to each his work." This entirely harmonizes with Mark. Christ Himself was the great Servant. But now His service was past; He was going away, and taking the place of Lord on high. So He gives authority to His servants, and to every man his work, to each and all their due place. Remark, it is here not so much gifts as work."

*"And pray so ACL, etc., almost all cursives, the Syrr. (sin. omitting "take heed"). Edd. omit, with BD.

"Watch, therefore; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh: even, or midnight, or cock-crowing, or in morning; lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. But what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch." This is decidedly a suited word for a servant watching in the absence of One who was gone, who left His house, but who was coming back again. Thus, from first to last, Mark is true to the great tone and character and object of his Gospel. It is to show the perfect Servant even in His prophetic testimony, and to maintain those in a spirit of service who are waiting and watching for Him here below. The disciples in their then state represented, not Christians, but the Remnant in the latter day, who will be substantially in the same position.

MARK 14

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," p. 230

Mark 14: 1-11.

Matt. 26: 1-16; Luke 22: 1-6; John 12: 1-8.

We have here a supper at Bethany and a supper at Jerusalem: one of them simply a supper in the house of those whom Jesus loved; the other a new thing instituted at the Paschal feast,137 which it was to set aside, while for the Church it was to be the standing memorial of the Lord Jesus that should follow.

But these two suppers have a very weighty place, the death of the Lord Jesus Christ being not only the great central truth of the latter, but also, in the former, what the Spirit of God brought before the spiritual instincts of Mary. She felt it, though not from any positive communication to her, but from that love to the Saviour which the Spirit made sensitive of the danger hanging over Him In a way she could not express. The Lord, who knew her love and all that was at hand, interpreted her act as done with a view to His burying. On both occasions the disciples enter most feebly into the good and the evil, but God Himself made manifest His own hand and mind as that which governed all. This is the more striking because on the occasion of the supper at Bethany, or rather connected with it, the chief priests and scribes, though they sought how they might take Jesus "by craft and kill Him," had fully determined that it should not be "in the feast, lest there be a tumult of the people." God, however, had already from of old decided that it was to be that day and no other — on the foundation feast of all the feasts, on the Passover, which was, in fact, the type of the death of Christ. Thus we have God and man at issue; but I need not say, God carries out His own will, though He does it through the wicked instrumentality of the very men who had resolved it was not so to be. Indeed, it is always thus. God does not govern only His own children, even the destruction of wicked men is not the carrying out of their own will, but of God's will. Therefore it is written, "who were of old ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 4). Again, they were appointed to stumble at the word, being disobedient. It is not that God makes any man to be wicked. But when man, fallen into sin, goes on in his own self-will, loving darkness rather than light, and enslaved to Satan, God nevertheless proves that He always holds the reins, and keeps the tipper hand, and even in the path their lust or passion chooses to take fails not to accomplish His own will. It is like a man who, under intoxication, thinks to carry out some purpose of his, seeks, for instance, to steer to some place on the right hand, but really tumbles into a ditch on the left. So man, after all, cannot but do what God ha., determined beforehand. His will is powerless save to evince ' Ins sin. God's will always governs, though men prove, themselves inexcusably wicked in the way it is brought about. just so here. Man resolved to kill Jesus, but made up his mind that it should not be on the feast-day. God had arranged long before they were born that on the feast-day, their deed was to take place. And so it did.138

As we have seen, also, the supper at Bethany gave occasion to the first conception of the treachery of Judas. Satan put it into his heart. It was a scene of love, but such a scene draws quickly out the hatred of those that have no love. Mary's139 worshipping affection for the person of the Lord, and her sense of His danger, led her on till the house of Bethany was filled with the sweet odour of the ointment she poured forth. But Judas roused the carnal mind of the other disciples; he had no communion with her; Jesus was not precious in his eyes. He, therefore, was carping where Jesus was the adored object of Mary. It was so much taken from his own ill-gotten gains. He only pleaded the cause of the poor, and stirred up the other disciples about it, so that "there were some indignant in themselves, and saying, Why was this waste of the ointment made?" But love, while it would lavish all, never wastes anything; self does, idle folly does, but love never.

The Lord pleaded her cause. "Let her alone; why do ye trouble her? She hath wrought a good work as to Me." There is no work so good as that done to Jesus. Works done for Jesus' sake are good, but what was done to Himself was far better. She had done not the least of what grace had wrought up to that day. "She hath done what she could: she has beforehand anointed My body for the burial.140 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever these* glad tidings may be preached throughout the whole world, what this woman hath done shall be also spoken of for a memorial of her." Most fitly though of grace is this woman's good deed bound up with the name of Jesus, wherever He is preached here below. We have not her name here; we learn it was Mary the sister of Lazarus,139 and this from John, who appropriately lets us know, because He tells us of Jesus calling His own sheep by name. (John 10: 3, John 11: 2) Here the point was not so much who had done it, but that it was done — the ministry, so to speak, of a woman at such a time who loved the Lord Jesus, in view of His burial. Further, we gather from this how one corrupt person can defile even those who have true hearts for Christ. The disciples were quickly caught by Judas's fair pretences on behalf of the poor, and allowed his insinuation to lead themselves into murmurings which reflected on Christ as much as they slighted the devotedness of Mary.

*"These": so AC and later uncials, 1, Cod. Amiat. Edd. omit, as BDL, 69.

In contrast with the love of Mary, Judas goes forth "to the chief priests, to deliver Him up to them."141

Mark 14: 12-16.

Matt. 26: 17-19; Luke 22: 7-13.

But now comes the supper of the Paschal feast 142 at Jerusalem, where the Lord acts as Master of that institution and Creator of a greater one. As on His entrance into Jerusalem they had demanded in the name of the Lord the ass's colt, saying that the Lord had need of him, so here "He sends two of His disciples, and says to them, Go into the city, and a man shall meet you carrying a pitcher of water: follow him. And wheresoever he enters, say to the master of the house, The Teacher says, Where is My guest-chamber, where I may eat the Passover with My disciples? And he will show you a large upper room143 furnished ready: there make ready for us." It was One who, though He was going to die, still went there with royal, Divine rights; He had not forfeited His place as Messiah, though going to suffer as Son of man on the cross. He therefore takes possession is the Master, and the goodman of the house at once, acquiesces in His claim. All was before His eyes. There was no lack of power to act upon the conscience and affections of men. He could have turned all others as He bowed this man's heart. But how then should the Scriptures have been accomplished, and sin blotted out, and God glorified? It was necessary, therefore, that He should go to the cross, not as any victim of necessity, but as One whose will was only to do the will of His Father, accepting all His humiliation from Him.

Mark 14: 17-21.

Matt. 26: 20-25 Luke 22: 21, 22; John 13: 21-26.

"And when it was evening144 He comes with the Twelve. And as they lay at table and were eating,145 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you that eateth with Me shall deliver Me up.146 And they began to be sorrowful, and to say to Him one by one, Is it I? [and another said, Is it I?]."* There was conscious integrity in the disciples, weak as they might be, and fleshly as we know from Luke they were, even in this very scene. But the Lord answers, "One of the Twelve, he who dippeth with Me in the dish. The Son of man goeth indeed as it is written concerning Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is delivered up." It was man's sin, Satan's guile, God's counsel, and Christ's love. But none of these things altered the wickedness of Judas: "Good [were it] for that man147 if he had not been born." He was ordained, we may say, for this condemnation: he was not made wicked by God, but his wickedness was made to take this shape in order to fulfil the counsels of God. One of that company which was chosen to be with Jesus here below was to prove this awful truth — that the nearer a man is externally to blessing, if he does not receive it into his heart, the more distant he is morally from it. There was but one Judas in Israel, and he was nearest to Jesus; there was but one who united all the privileges of such companionship with Jesus to all the guilt of betraying Him.

*["And another said, Is it I?"]: so AD, etc., 1, 69, Orig. Edd. omit, after BCL., etc., Amiat. Syrsin pesch hcl (t).

Mark 14: 22-25.

Matt. 26: 26-29; Luke 22: 14-20.

Then He institutes the supper — His own supper. It was not the Paschal feast,148 and we learn from Luke that He would not touch the Paschal cup. He would drink no more of the fruit of the vine until He drank it new with them in the kingdom of God. He refused that which was the sign of communion in things here below. His Father, God, was before Him, and suffering His will rather than doing it. But meanwhile, before that kingdom come, founded on His suffering unto death, there is the remembrance of a totally different thing — not of a kingdom, power, and glory, but of crucifixion In weakness: His body, ("This is My body"), and His blood, "the blood of the [new]* covenant, shed for many." It was not for the Jew only, but shed for many.149

*["New"]: so Lachmann, with A, etc., 1, 69, Amiat. Syr. Edd. omit, after BCDL, Memph.

Nothing can be simpler than the terms in which He institutes the supper, as given in Mark. It was, I do not doubt, intended both to refer to the Passover as accomplished now, and also to bring in the power of the new covenant for the soul before it comes in for the people of Israel.

Mark 14: 26-31.

Matt. 26: 30-35; Luke 22: 31-34.

The Lord now warns the disciples, not only of what was about to befall Him, but how it would affect them. "All ye shall be offended;* for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad150" (Zech. 13: 7). The cross has its side of shame and pain and danger for us, as well as of salvation through Him who bore our sins there. But here it is the way in which it would prove, not deliver, them of which the Saviour speaks. Does that mighty work of suffering for our sins, does the Atonement, "scatter" the sheep? Is it not, on the contrary, the only righteous foundation on which they are gathered? In virtue of Christ's death for our sins, the sheep, instead of being dispersed, are gathered together into one, even other sheep beyond those which Christ had in the Jewish fold, so that there might be one flock and one Shepherd (John 10, 11). But the smiting of the Shepherd expresses His utter humiliation as Messiah, cut off and having nothing. "I will smite," etc., refers to God's giving the Lord up to feel the reality of His rejection and death. No doubt atonement was therein wrought out. "Smiting" is a more general term; and though Christ takes it from God, it was literally His enemies who did the deed, and so became objects of Divine vengeance, as in Psalm 69. Smiting was the loss, so to speak; atonement was the gain of all. Now, that which was properly expiation or atonement was not the pure, however precious, act of Christ's death. Of course, death was necessary for this as for other objects in the counsels of God; but it is what Jesus went through from and with God when made sin — it is what He suffered for our sins, not only in body, but in soul, under Divine wrath, that the atonement depends on. Many besides Jesus have been crucified, but atonement was in no way wrought there. Many have suffered horrors of torment for the truth's sake in life and up to death, but they would have been the first to abhor the falsehood that their sufferings atoned for themselves any more than for others. Many saints have known what it was to be "smitten" and wounded of God, as the same Psalm testifies. In fact, this was more or less the place of God's servants, the prophets, and of righteous men from time to time in Israel, who accepted their affliction and persecution, whatever it was, from God, and not man. This place the Lord Himself tested to the full, for in all things He must have the pre-eminence. He only wrought atonement, but He knew every sorrow which it was possible for man perfect, the Son of God, to take. The smiting of Him who was the Shepherd, chief not only of the sheep, but of the very prophets whom the Lord had raised up for Israel, refers to that utter cutting off which befell Him on the cross; but the sense of this not only He felt anticipatively, but it was that which was called forth before the cross. There was far more than atonement there. He realised in His soul all the condition in which God's people were, and His own total rejection, through man's sin and folly and Satan's maliciousness. The effect, then, of all this humiliation of the Saviour, even before it was complete on the cross, was the scattering of the disciples: "the sheep shall be scattered abroad." They stumbled and fled the night before the blow actually fell on their Master. They did not understand the thing, any more than some do now the Scriptures which speak of it, though the ground of the difficulty be wholly different. They could not make out why the Messiah should be thus treated, and how God should allow it. For it is plain that Christ took all from God (not man), and imputed all to Him. Faith never considers that afflictions spring out of the dust, but owns our Father's hand in everything, however in itself shameful and cruel if one looks at the secondary agents.

*After "offended" A, etc., 1, 69, Syrpesch hcl sin add "because of Me"; the same authorities, with the exception of Syrsin, having also "this night." Edd. omit all these words, following BCcorr D, etc.

"But after I am risen, I will go before151 you into Galilee." The Lord assumes in resurrection His place of lowly service with the disciples. Peter, however, confident in his own strength and love to Christ, assures the Lord that, although all should be stumbled, not so with him.

Alas! in Divine things there is no more certain forerunner of a fall than self-reliance. And our Lord tells him: "Verily I say unto thee, that thou this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me." So careful and minute is the record of the Lord's warning given in Mark — much more so than anywhere else. "But he spoke [the more]* vehemently, If I should have to die with Thee, I will in no wise deny Thee." However, it was not Peter alone who pledged his faithfulness thus vainly, for it is added, "and likewise also said they all." They knew not their weakness; they knew not what it was to have the power of death pressing upon them. They had not faced the sense of total rejection by the world. Whatever there is of nature yet alive in our hearts is brought out by this. Man as such winces and refuses the trial. It is ever so till by the power of the Holy Ghost we realise our total separation from the world by and in the death of Christ. But to be dead with Him was not yet the known portion of the disciples consequently, not one of them was able to stand. Afterwards it was their privilege, but they had not gone that way heretofore. Jesus must go first. The sheep might follow after His cross in the spirit. But Jesus must needs be the first. In due time, strengthened of His grace through His death, they too might glorify God by their death — death really for the sake of Christ.

*["The more"]: as A, etc., 1, 69. Edd. omit, as BCDL, Old Latin, Memph. Syrhcl.

Mark 14: 32-42.

Matt. 26: 36-46; Luke 22: 39-46.

The Lord, having all the closing scene before His soul, gives Himself to prayer. Now, the effect of prayer is, in the face of deep trial, to make the trial more acutely felt. The presence of God does not make us feel less the wickedness of man, and certainly it does not make us feel less the failures, dangers, and ruin of His people. There could be no question of the smallest shortcoming, no grief on any such score as this in the case of the Lord Jesus; but He realised the more the condition in which those were who belonged to God. Did He not feel the treachery of Judas, the denials of Peter, the flight of all? Even with the apostates in Israel there was no hard indifference: how much more for the saints, the disciples, so shrinking at such a time? He realised the awful crisis that awaited the people of God; He felt, too, what it was for Him, the Messiah, to be utterly refused by the people to their own hurt and destruction — what it was not only for Him who was life to go through death, and such a death as could be known adequately only by Him! When the One that loved Him best hid His face from Him; when He was the object of Divine judgment; when all that was in God of indignation and horror against evil concentrated itself against Christ! Then, again, what feelings of pity for the people who were forsaking their own mercies and the light of God for thick darkness and sorrow, through which they must pass retributively for that which they were about to perpetrate against Himself! All this — yea, infinitely more — was before the Lord, felt and weighed by Him as One whose grace associated Him with the condition of God's people, not substitutionally alone, but in association of heart and in all affliction with them. In atonement He is absolutely alone. He asks no one to pray then, looks then for no comfort from them, nor does an angel come to strengthen Him then. He says "My God" then because it was what God felt against sin that He was enduring. He might and did say "Father" too, because He did not cease to be the Son, any more than He ceased to be the blessed and perfect and obedient man. Thus He said "Father" both before and after that upon the cross. But He cried, "My God, My God," alone that time, as far as New Testament Scripture speaks of His addressing Him, because then for the first time all that God was in hatred of evil burst upon Him without the slightest mitigation or consideration of weakness. Nothing blunted its force. He was competent to bear, and He alone bore, the whole unbroken and unsparing judgment of God, and that without looking for the sympathy of the creature, whether of man or angel.

It was a question between God and Him alone when, on the cross made sin, and retrieving the glory of God that had been compromised by all the world, He alone endured all in His own person. This is the difference between the cross and Gethsemane. At Gethsemane our Lord was, as it is written, "amazed and deeply depressed." He had taken with Him three chosen witnesses, and He "says to them, My soul is full of grief152 even unto death; tarry here and watch." So even these chosen ones He leaves behind; "He went forward a little and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him." It would not have been perfection if He had not thus felt it. It was impossible that He who was life could desire such a death from His Father — from God in wrath against Him. It would have been hardness, not love; but although He felt it perfectly according to God His Father, yet He entirely submits His human will to the Father's. "Abba, Father," He says, "all things are possible unto Thee. Take away this cup from Me; but not what I will, but what Thou [wilt]." He had a real soul, what is dogmatically called a reasonable soul, not a mere principle of vitality. He could not have said this, had it been true, as some have asserted, that the Divine nature in our Lord took the place of a soul.152 He would not have been perfect man had He not taken a soul as well as a body. Therefore could He say: "Not what I will, but what Thou [wilt]."

There was the most entire subjection to the Father, even in the bitterest possible trial that could be conceived. This cup was the cup of wrath on account of sin; not to say "let this cup pass from Me" would have shown insensibility to its character. But our Lord was perfect in everything. He therefore said: "Take away this cup from Me: nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou [wilt]." He comes, and finds the disciples sleeping instead of watching. It grieved Him, and it was right that it should. He warned them, however, for their own sake: "Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation." They did enter into it, and they fell, Peter especially, to whom, indeed, it was that our Lord uttered it. He called them all to watch and pray, but Peter was the one to whom He said: "Sleepest thou? hast thou not been able to watch one hour He had particularly warned Peter before. He adds The spirit indeed [is] willing, but the flesh weak; and again He went away and prayed, and spoke the same words, and when He returned, He found them asleep again (for their eyes were heavy), and they knew not what to answer Him. And He comes the third time, and says to them, Sleep on now and take your rest; it is enough. The hour is come; behold, the Son of man is delivered up into the hand of sinners." He was as one given up to be cut off from the last Passover. From that the hour was come. "Arise, let us go; behold, he that delivereth Me up is at hand." It was not atonement only, but the Shepherd was about to be smitten, and the sheep felt it, and shrank away before the actual blow fell.

Mark 14: 43-52.

Matt. 26: 47-56; Luke 22: 47-53.

"And immediately, while He was yet speaking, Judas comes up, one of the Twelve, and with him a great* multitude, with swords and sticks, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders." The traitor had given the sign of a kiss, and told them to apprehend Him whom he kissed. And he went straight up to Jesus, and says, Rabbi, Rabbi,† and covered Him with kisses; and they laid their hands on Him and took Him." Peter, ready enough to fight, though not to pray, draws his sword and smites the high-priest's servant, and cuts off his ear. The healing is not mentioned in this Gospel, for here the Lord is simply the suffering Son of man, the rejected Prophet of Israel, the smitten Shepherd. What proves His unabated power is not the point here, but His bowing to all shame; and the key is, "the Scripture must be fulfilled." He had never been one to call for such treatment from their hands — coming out against Him as against a thief, but the Scripture must be fulfilled.

*"Great": so ACDL, etc., Syrsin pesch. Edd. omit, with BL, 69, and some vv.

†The best copies omit the second "Rabbi."

"And all forsook Him and fled." Power would have kept them, but to yield to suffering began to take effect upon them. "The sheep were scattered." "And a certain young man followed Him, with a linen cloth cast about his naked body: and [the young men]* seize him; but he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."153 Vigour fails: so does shame. The first assault was enough to drive him away. Man is powerless to face death. The only reason why believers are able to face it — nay, even to welcome it and rejoice in it — is because of Christ Himself and His death. He has taken out the sting but it was not yet done. Consequently the disciples forsook Him and fled, young man and all. In Christ alone, who suffered for us, we stand.

*["The young men"]: so ACcorr, etc., 1, (69), Syrhcl, and other vv; but Edd. omit, after BCpmDLΔ, Amiat. and Memph.

Mark 14: 53-65.

Matt. 26: 47-68; Luke 22: 47-55, 63-71 John 18: 2-24.

"And they led Jesus away to the high-priest. And with him are assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes." There we find afresh trial. Peter follows — afar off, it is true — into the palace of the high-priest, and seats himself with the servants. "And the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrim sought for witness against Jesus to cause Him to be put to death; and found none." They found the will, but not the power; readiness to testify, but even in that they could not succeed. Man fails in everything, except in malice against Jesus. Even with all the suborned testimony on the part of the witnesses, and all the readiness to condemn on the part of the judges, everything failed. The testimony did not agree. As required by law, there must be two or three witnesses agreed; but these agreed not.154 The consequence was that Jesus was rejected, not for the false testimony of man, but on the true testimony of God. It was for His own testimony that they condemned Him. He came witnessing to the truth, and He witnessed to it unto death. The high-priest, astonished, perplexed, and failing to condemn Him on the witness of others, demands, "Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" We are told elsewhere that he puts the oath to Him, or adjures Him, but here it is simply the question without the oath Mark names. The Lord answers, "I am." He witnesses a good confession, not only before Pontius Pilate, but before the high-priest. "And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." He could not, would not, deny the truth about Himself. He might refrain from noticing the false charges of others, but He would not, when challenged, shut up in His own breast the truth of His personal glory. He was the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed. But He was the Son of man also, and was going to take His place above, as well as to come with the clouds of heaven, according to the sure oracles of God. "Then the high-priest, having rent his clothes, says, What need have we any more of witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy."155 To him the truth was no better, so completely scaled in darkness was the head of religion among the Jews. "What think ye? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. And some began to spit on Him, and to cover up His face, and to buffet Him, and to say to Him, Prophesy: and the officers received* Him with the palms of their hands."

*The best manuscripts (ABC, etc., with Syrhcl, Memph., followed by Edd.) substitute ἔλαβον, "received," for ἔβαλλον (ἔβαλον), "did strike" (B.T.). "Did strike" is in EHM, etc., Lat. Syrpesch.

Mark 14: 66-72.

Matt. 26: 69-75; Luke 22: 56-62; John 18: 17, 25-27.

The Shepherd thus must be smitten every way. "I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." And so we find that Peter, having ventured thus far into the palace of the high-priest, yet more feels the effect immediately. "As Peter was beneath in the palace-court, one of the maids of the high-priest comes: and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him and said, And thou wast with the Nazarene Jesus. But he denied, saying, I know not, nor understand what thou sayest." Still, he could not remain in presence of his own falsehood; he goes out into the porch: "and a cock crew."* This was the Lord's warning to him. A maid156 sees him again. It must be so. There was nothing apparently to cause terror, but so utterly powerless was even this most devoted of the disciples — at least, most ardent in his love, and most energetic in his demonstrations — so powerless was he to face even the nearness of death, that it suffices for a servant-maid's word to bring out his denial of the Lord! "And again, after a little, those that stood by said to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou also art a Galilean."† But the more they pressed the truth upon him, the more he retreated, and, in his abject fear, began to curse and to swear.

*"And the [a] cock crew so ACD, etc., and later uncials, nearly all cursives, Syr pesch hcl, and other vv. Edd. omit, with BL.

†After "Galilean" A, etc., most cursives, Syrpesch hcl, add "and thy speech agreeth." Edd. omit, with BCDL, some cursives, and Amiat.

Such was Peter, and such was the process through which he was soon to come out the chief of the Apostles. He had to be broken down to learn the good-for-nothingness of flesh. How entirely thenceforth it must be Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost! "I know157 not this Man of whom ye speak." Yet "this Man" was his Saviour, and he knew it — too well — too ill. "Thou art the Christ," he had said before. What a contrast now! "Who say ye that I am?" Jesus had said to him long before, and his answer was "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." We believe, and are sure." Now he says, "I know not this Man." Jesus to him now was a mere man, unknown of Peter. Yet flesh and blood had not revealed the truth about Christ to him, but the Father which was in heaven. Peter, therefore, was near enough, when the rest were scattered, to add a sharper blow to the many which fell upon Jesus. One of the little number of disciples was a traitor; another, and he the chief of the Apostles, a denier of his Lord.

"And the second time* a cock crew. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus said to him, Before [the] cock crow twice, thou shalt deny Me thrice.158 And when he thought thereon he wept." I do not say that his repentance was complete; you will find that the Lord touched him to the quick some time after. Nevertheless, there was genuine feeling of his sin, shame, and anguish of spirit, though he had not yet been probed to the bottom. He wept as he thought thereon. It is always the word of the Lord that produces real repentance, whether in a saint or a sinner. It is not human feeling, nor shame, nor the fear of being found out — the word wrought within that Jesus spake. It is the washing of water by the word. The word of the Lord does two things: it convicts and it heals; it cleanses as well as detects our evil after a Divine sort. Had Peter believed Christ's word as to his own entire weakness, he would have been kept. But he believed it not. "Though all," he said, "shall be offended, yet will not I." He was ready to die with Him, whereas in truth the mere surface of the scene of Christ's death frightened him so that the more urgently the truth of his relation to Jesus was brought before him, the more he swore that he knew Him not. Such is flesh even in the saint of God — good for nothing everywhere!

*"And the second time": so AC, later uncials, almost all cursives Syrsin hcl, etc. Edd. insert "immediately" after "and," with BLC, Syrpesch, and Old Latin.

MARK 15.

(Isa. 53: 3)

Mark 15: 1-5.

Matt. 27: 1-14; Luke 23: 1-4; John 18: 28.

Next follows the consultation in the morning, after the Lord had been already condemned to "be guilty of death." The result is that the chief priests, the elders, the scribes, the whole council, and, indeed, the whole people consenting, agreed to deliver Jesus to Pilate, the representative of the civil power. Jesus must be condemned by man in every capacity — the religious and civil — the Jews, under the name of religion, having the chief guilt, and being the instigators of the civil authorities, morally compelling them to yield contrary to conscience, as we find in the mock trial before Pilate. Thus we see He was "despised and rejected of men." It was not only by one, but by every class of men. We shall find that as the priests, so the people, and as the governor, so the governed, down to the basest of them, all joined in vilifying the Son of God.

"And Pilate asked Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And He answering said to him, Thou sayest [it]." It was His good confession. (1 Tim. 6: 11.) It was the truth; and He came to bear witness of the truth, which is particularly mentioned in the Gospel of John, where we have not merely what Christ was according to prophecy, nor even what He was as the Servant and great Prophet, doing the will of God and ministering to the need of man, but what He was in His own personal glory. Christ alone is the truth in the fullest sense, save that the Holy Ghost is also called "truth" (1 John 5: 6), as being the inward power in him that believes for laying hold of the revelation of God and realising it. But God as such is never called the truth. Jesus is the truth. The truth is the expression of what God is and what man is. He who is the truth objectively must be both God and man to make known the truth about them. Neither is the Father ever said to be the truth, but Christ, the Son, the Word. He is not only God, but the special One who makes known God; and, being man, he could make known man — yea, being both, He could make known everything. Thus, we never know what life is fully save in Christ, and we never know what death is save in Christ. Again, who ever knows the meaning of judgment aright save in Christ? Who can estimate what the wrath of God is save in Christ? Who can tell what communion with God is save in Christ? It is Christ who shows us what the world is; it is Christ who shows us what heaven is, and by contrast what hell must be. He is the Deliverer from perdition, and He it is who casts away from His own presence into it. Thus He brings out everything as it is, even that which is most opposed to Himself — Satan's power and character, even up to its last form, Antichrist. He is the measure of what Jews and Gentiles are in every respect.  -  This is what some ancient philosophers used to think of man. They said, though falsely, that man is the measure of all things. It is exactly true of Christ, the God-man. He is the measure of all things, though most immeasurably above them, as being supremely God, even as the Father and the Holy Ghost also.

Here, however, before Pilate, our Lord simply owns the truth of what He was according to Jewish expectation. "Art Thou the king of the Jews? And He answering said unto him, Thou sayest [it]." This was all; He had no more to say here. The chief priests accused Him of many things, but He answered nothing. He was not there to defend Himself, but to confess who and what He was. "And Pilate asked Him again, saying, Answerest Thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against Thee.* But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled." His silence produced a far graver effect than anything that could be uttered. There is a time to be silent as there is to speak;159 and silence now was the more convincing to the conscience. He was manifestly superior, morally, to His judge. He was manifesting them all, whatever they might say or judge of Him. But in truth they judged nothing but what was utterly false, and they condemned Him for the truth. Whether it was before the high-priest or before Pontius Pilate, it was the truth He confessed, and for the truth He was condemned by man. All their lies availed nothing. Hence it was not on the ground of what they brought forth, but of what He said, that Jesus was condemned. Only in John's Gospel the Lord states the terrible fact that it was not Pilate himself, but what he was put up to by the Jews. We learn, further, in John that what frightened Pilate specially was that the Jews told him that they had a law, and that by this law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God. His Sonship is affirmed, and Pilate feared it was true. His wife, too, had a dream which added to his alarm, so that God took care there should be a double testimony — the great moral testimony of Christ Himself, and also a sign and token, which suited the Gospel of Matthew, an outward mark given to Pilate's wife in a dream. Our Gospel is much more succinct, and keeps to the order of facts without detail.

*"Witness against thee": so A, etc., 33, 69 Syr. Arm., etc. Edd.: "accuse thee of," as BCD, 1, Ital. Memph. AEth.

Mark 15: 6-15.

Matt. 27: 15-26; Luke 23: 16-25; John 18: 29-40.

The iniquity of the Jews, however, appears everywhere. "But at that feast he used to release to them  one prisoner, whomsoever they begged. And there was one named Barabbas, who lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection. And the multitude, crying aloud,* began to beg him [to do] as he had ever done unto them." So it was the multitude that wished to mark still more their complete subjection to the wicked priests by preferring Barabbas and sealing the death of Jesus. He might still have been delivered, but the infatuated multitude would not hear of it. "But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release to you the King of the Jews? For he knew that the chief priests had delivered Him up through envy. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd that he should rather release Barabbas to them," or, as John's Gospel puts it, "Not this man, but Barabbas. Now, Barabbas was a robber." He was a robber and a murderer — yet such was man's preference to Jesus. "And Pilate answered and said again to them, What will ye, then, that I shall do to Him whom160 ye call [the]† King of the Jews? And they cried out again, "Crucify Him." Pilate, cruel and hardened as he was, still remonstrates: "What evil, then, has He done? And they cried out exceedingly, Crucify Him." They could find no evil, they only imagined it out of the murderous evil of their own hearts. Pilate, utterly without the fear of God, but "desirous of contenting the crowd, released Barabbas to them, and delivered up Jesus, when he had scourged Him, to be crucified." So true it was that, even in this last scene, Jesus delivers others at His own cost and in every sense. He had just before delivered the disciples from being taken; He is now the means of delivering Barabbas himself, wicked as he was. He never saved Himself; He could have done it, of course, but it was the very perfection of the moral glory of Christ to deliver, bless, save, and in all at the expense of Himself.

*"Crying aloud": so corrACN, later uncials, Syr. Arm. Edd. adopt "coming up," with pmBD, Amiat. Memph. Goth.

†"Whom ye call [the]": so Edd., after AB (without "whom") CΔ, 1, 33, 69. AD, 1, 69, Ital. Vulg., omit "whom ye call," whilst some of the later uncials do not show "the."

Mark 15: 16-21.

Matt. 27: 27-31; Luke 23: 26-43; John 19: 1-16.

But, further, every indignity upon the way was heaped upon Him. "The soldiers led Him away into the court [called] Praetorium, and they call together the whole band. And they clothed Him with purple, and bind round on Him a crown of thorns which they had plaited. And they began to salute Him, Hall, King of the Jews!" There was no contempt too gross for Him. "They struck His head with a reed, and spat on Him, and, bending the knee, worshipped Him. And when they had mocked Him, they took off the purple from Him, and put His own garments on Him, and lead Him out to crucify Him." And now, in the spirit of the wickedness of the whole scene, "they compel one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming from the field, the father of Alexander and Rufus (cf. Rom. 16),161 to carry His cross." It would appear that these two sons were afterwards well-known converts brought into the Church; hence the interest of the fact mentioned.161 God's goodness, I suppose, used this very circumstance, wicked as it was on man's part. He would not allow that even His Son's indignity should not turn to the blessing of man. Simon, the father of these two, then, was compelled to bear His cross by those who held the truth, if at all, in unrighteousness.

Mark 15: 22-32.

Matt. 27: 31-44; Luke 23: 26-43; John 19: 17-27.

"And they bring Him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, Place of a skull. And they offered Him [to drink]* wine medicated with myrrh: but He did not take it." The object of giving this was to deaden anguish, the excessive lingering pain of the cross, but He refused. "And having crucified Him, they part His garments, casting lots upon them, what each should take." This, we know from elsewhere, was the distinct accomplishment of Divine prediction, as it was the human sign of one given up to capital punishment. "It was the third hour,162 and they crucified Him. And the superscription of what He was accused of was written over, The King of the Jews." The terms are exceedingly brief in Mark's Gospel. He only mentions the charge or accusation, not (as I conceive) all the formula. The other Gospels give different forms, and it is possible they were written in various languages — one in one language and one in another. If this be the case, Mark only gives the substance. Matthew would naturally give the Hebrew form, Luke the Greek (his Gospel being for Gentiles, as Matthew's was for Jews), while John would give the Latin, the form of that empire under which he himself suffered later on. As that kingdom smote the servant, he records what it had done to the Master, and this in the language of the empire. There is a slight difference in each, which may thus arise from the different languages in which the accusation was written.† At any rate, we know that we have the full Divine truth in the compared matter; and of all ways of accounting for their shades of distinction, none more unworthy of God, nor less reasonable for man, than the notion that they are to be imputed to ignorance or negligence. Each wrote, but under the power of the Spirit; and the result of all is the perfect truth of God.

*["To drink"] is in ACcorrD, etc., all cursives, Jerome's Vulg., Syr. Goth AEth, but is omitted by Edd., with BCpmLΔ Memph.

†See "Lectures on Matthew," p. 551; also note 163.

Mark, like Matthew, mentions the robbers (indeed, all do) as a testimony to the complete humiliation of God's Servant and Son on the cross. Men would not even give Him that place singularly. He was indeed alone in the grace and moral glory of the cross, but to increase the shame of it these two robbers were crucified with Him, one on His right hand, and the other on His left.* Such was its outward appearance; but next, also, His words were turned against Him, not merely on His trial, but in His dying moments. "And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Aha, Thou that destroyest the Temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself, and come down from the cross." How little did they know that His very words were now on the point of being completely accomplished!

*B.T.: As the best uncials (Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinai, Rescript of Paris, Beza's Cambridge, and one now in Munich), with more than forty cursive manuscripts Syrsin), etc., omit verse 28, I do not think any cautious mind can urge its genuineness here. it was probably borrowed from the citation of Isa. 53: 12 in Luke 22: 37 (Revv. as Edd. have rejected the verse which is found in the later uncials, 69, Syrpesch hcl hier Arm. Goth. AEth., and was retained by Lachmann). Cf. "Introductory Lectures," p. 162.

But the chief priests carried it out farther, as usual. Mocking, they "said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; Himself He cannot save." A great truth, though not in the sense in which they meant it. Both its parts, rightly applied, are most true; of course, not that He could not, but that He did not, save Himself  - yea, could not, if grace were to triumph in redemption. "He saved others; Himself He cannot save."* It is the history of Christ upon earth; it is the history, above all, of His cross, where the whole truth of Christ comes out more fully, though under the absolute infliction of Divine wrath for our sins, as well as the greatest strain of outward circumstances, but all borne in perfection. The holiness of Christ that at all cost would put away sin to the glory of God, the love of Christ that at all cost to Himself would bring eternal deliverance to others, the grace of God, was fully seen in Him: the righteous judgment, the truth, and the majesty of God. There was nothing that did not stand vindicated on the cross as nowhere else. It was the resurrection, however, that displayed all, publishing what God felt. He was raised from the dead, as it is said, by the glory of the Father. What was done upon the cross was for others; but what was towards Himself, as well as towards others, appeared in the resurrection and setting of Jesus at God's right hand. But in the mouth of unbelief, the very same expressions bear a totally different character from what they have in the lips of faith. So it is that a worldly man may show that appearance of calm in the presence of death which faith really gives him whose eye is on Jesus: in this one it is peace, in that no better than insensibility. But with ordinary believers, who do not understand the fulness of grace, there are mental anxieties beyond what the unbeliever knows, because the latter does not feel what sin is, and what becomes the glory of God. When a soul believes and yet is not established in grace, it is in trial and trepidation of spirit as to the result, and it ought to be so till the heart is at rest through Christ Jesus.

*See B.T., vol. xxi., p. 307.

How little these chief priests knew the secret of grace! He saved others, said they, and they could not but know it. Himself He would not — did not — save. Nay, in the sense of love and Divine counsel, Himself He could not save. He laid down His life for us — no otherwise could we be saved; and, more than this, obedient to the Father at all cost, determined to carry out His will, even our sanctification. In that sense only He could not save Himself. There was no necessity of death in the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. All other men had the necessity of death through Adam; Christ had not, though He, the last Adam, Christ, sprang from him through His mother; He did not in Himself underlie the consequences of the first Adam at all, though He in grace bore all the consequences on the cross, but not as one under them: He only bore them for others by God's will and in His own sovereign love. Therefore, very expressly, as to His death, He says I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again" (John. 10: 18). He alone of all men could say so since the world began. Adam in paradise could not speak thus; Christ alone had the title according to the rights of His person. His becoming man did not compromise His Divine glory. His being God did not enfeeble His suffering as man. There was no lowering of deity, but, in result, a very real exalting of humanity. Nevertheless, the Scriptures must be fulfilled: the Anointed One must die; God's glory must be vindicated; death must be encountered by dying, and its power broken, not by victory, but by righteousness. For this is the wonderful fruit of the death of Christ: the power of death is exhausted by righteousness, He having taken upon Himself the curse, the judgment of sin, so that God might be glorified even herein. Hence the fullness of blessing and peace to the believer. This gives the Atonement its wonderful place in all the truth of God. Nothing can be substituted for it. He in atonement is the substitute for all others, and everything else as claiming to do with offering for sin is vanished away.

But as to these chief priests, they mockingly cried: "Let the Christ the King of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Yea, so complete was the spirit of unbelief that they who were crucified, even in the midst of their dying agonies, had time to turn round and add to His sufferings. Mark does not mention the conversion of one of these robbers. Luke does, and we know that afterwards the one who was converted, instead of asking Him to come down from the cross, owned Him to be the King before the kingdom comes, believing thus without seeing. The poor soul, therefore, shone through the grace of God, the more because of his own previous darkness; and the darkness of the chief priests who mocked formed the sombre background which made this robber so conspicuous. In the very circumstances, over which the chief priests gloried as the defeat of Jesus, the thief gloried as deliverance for his own soul. But this falls to the province of Luke, who shows us the mercy of God that visits a sinner in his lowest estate — the Son of man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. This runs through Luke more than through any other Gospel. Consequently, also, he shows us the blessedness of the soul in its separate state. This dying thief, when his soul left the cross, would be at once with Jesus in paradise.

Mark, however, mentions the indignity heaped upon Jesus by the robbers, along with their companions, the chief priests, and others.

Mark 15: 33-41.

Matt. 27: 45-56; Luke 23: 44-49; John 19: 28-37.

"And when [the] sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until [the] ninth hour." lit was more than human: God caused a witness of that hour that stood out from all before and after. There was darkness; the very world felt it. As the Lord told the Jews, the stones would cry out unless there were a voice from babes and sucklings. As John the Baptist told them, of these stones God could raise up children to Abraham. So here the insensibility of men, the revilings and scoffings from chief priests down to thieves, against the Son of God, were answered on God's part by the veiling of all nature in presence of the death of Him who created all; there was darkness over the whole land. Above, below, what a scene!

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice [saying],* Eloi, Eloi,164 lama sabachthani? which is being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Ps. 22: 1) It was no exhaustion of nature. Jesus did not die because He could not live, as all others do. He had still the full energy of life. He died not only in atonement, but to take His life again. How else could He have proved the superiority of His life to death, if He had not died? Still less could He have delivered us. "We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5: 10).

*["Saying"]: so AC, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrpesch hcl Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, after BDL, Syrsin Memph.

But more than that. His living again, His raising Himself from the grave, His taking life again, proved that He had conquered death, to which He had so entirely submitted for God's glory. He was put to death. By wicked hands He was crucified and slain; yet it was also entirely voluntary. In every other person death is involuntary. So absolutely is Jesus above mere nature, whether in birth or in death, or all through. Besides, the cry was most peculiar, such as had never been heard from a blessed, holy Man as He was. That which drew it forth was God's forsaking Him there. It was not a mere manifestation of love, though there never was a time when the Father saw more to love in His Son than at that moment; yea, never did He see before then such moral beauty, even in Him. But if He was bearing sin, He must really endure its judgment. The consequence was to be forsaken of God. God must abandon Him who had taken sin upon Him. And He did take our sins, and endured that forsaking which is the inevitable consequence of sin imputed. He who knew no sin knew the cost to the uttermost when made sin for us.

"And some of those that stood by, when they heard [it], said, Behold, he calls for Elias." This seems to be mere scoffing again. There is no reason to suppose they did not know that He said, "My God, My God," not Elias.164 "And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and fixed it on a reed, and gave Him to drink, saying, Let alone, let us see whether Elias comes to take Him down. And Jesus, having uttered a loud cry, expired."165 Now that death was consummated, the only righteous ground of life and redemption, the "veil of the Temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom." The Jewish system was doomed, and sentence executed upon its characteristic and central feature. The veil was that which separated the holy place from the holy of holies; there was no single point in the Jewish system more emphatic than the veil. For what the veil indicated as a figure was God present, but man standing outside; God dealing with the people, but the people unable to draw near to God, having Him with them in the world, but nevertheless not brought to Himself, not able to look upon His glory, kept at a distance from Him under the law. (Cf. Heb. 9: 8, Heb. 10: 19, 20.) The rending of the veil, on the contrary, at once pronounced that all was over with Judaism. As the darkness supernatural was one testimony before His death, so this at His death declared the power of Christ's blood. It was not only God come down to man, but man now, by the blood of Christ, entitled to draw near to God — yea, all who know the value of that blood into the holiest of all. But as far as the Jewish economy was concerned, here was the abolition of it come in principle. The tearing down this chief sign and token was the virtual profaning of the sanctuary, so that now anyone could look into the holiest. It was no longer the high-priest alone venturing within once a year, and that not without blood; but now, because of His blood which they had spilt, little knowing its infinite value, the veil was rent from top to bottom. This was in the first month of the year. The feast in which the high-priest entered was in the seventh month. Thus the destruction of the veil was the more marked now. The truth is that the real application of the day of atonement and the following feast of tabernacles will be when God begins to take up the Jewish people. We are said to have Christ as our Passover; but the day of atonement, viewed as a prophetic type, awaits Israel by-and-by.

Nor was this all. There was a testimony, not only in nature as opposed to the scorn of men and the revilings of the crucified ones that were with Him — not only was there this darkness of nature and rending of the veil for Judaism, but a Gentile was brought forward compelled of God to acknowledge the wonder that was there and then being enacted. "Truly this Man was Son of God." In all likelihood he was a heathen, and did not mean more than to own that Christ was not a mere man, that He was somehow or other what the Chaldean monarch heard and spoke of in Dan. 2, 4. Now, the centurion went farther than they of Babylon. He felt that, though His dwelling was in flesh, yet He was a Divine being, and not the Son of man merely. I do not think that when Nebuchadnezzar says that he saw one like the Son of God, he meant the full truth that we know; for the doctrine of the eternal Sonship was not then revealed, and it could not be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar entered into it, for he was an idolater at that very time. But it was a testimony of his full confidence that it was a supernatural being of some kind," the Son of God." At the same time, the Spirit of God could well give the centurion's or the king's words a shape beyond what either knew. "Truly this Man was Son of God."

Mark 15: 42-47.

Matt. 27: 57-61; Luke 23: 50-56; John 19: 38-42.

The disciples were not there. They, alas! forsook Him and fled; at any rate, they are not mentioned. They were so out of their true place that God could say nothing about them. Yet one who up to this time had shrunk back from the due confession of Jesus was now brought forward. "And when it was already evening, as it was [the] preparation, that is, [the day] before a sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, who himself was awaiting the kingdom of God, came, and took courage,166 and went in to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus." The very circumstances that might have been supposed naturally to have filled him with fear of and shrinking from the consequences were, on the contrary, used of God to bring out a boldness that never had visited Joseph's heart before. He identified himself with Jesus. He had not the precious place of following Him while He was alive, but the death of Jesus brought him to a point, commanded his affections, and made him, therefore, to enter courageously and demand the body of his Master. Pilate, astonished, asks if Jesus was already dead. Naturally, crucifixion is a slow death; people linger sometimes even for days when a person is in ordinary health. But in the case of Jesus it was but for a few hours. There was nothing farther to do. It was not, therefore, a question of mere lingering. Besides, it was the accomplishment of prophecy that not a bone should be broken, which John tells us, who is always occupied with the person of the Lord. It was according to the Scriptures that He should be pierced, but not a bone should be broken; and this most remarkable circumstance John witnessed, and tells us of. Mark does not notice it. Pilate "wondered if He were already dead; and calling to [him] the centurion, he asked him if He had been long dead." It was the rapid death of Jesus, accompanied by the loud voice, that filled the centurion with amazement. This showed that It was not the death of a mere man. He had power to lay down His life. So when he was certified by the centurion Pilate gives leave.

And Joseph "bought fine linen [and] took Him down, and swathed Him in the fine linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was cut out of a rock, and rolled a stone to the door of the sepulchre." And two of the Marys beheld where He was laid. Here at least, then, we have genuine affection. If there was not the intelligence of faith, there was the love that lingered over the Lord they adored with true feeling — the fruit of faith which thus honoured Jesus even in His death.

MARK 16

Cf. "Introductory Lectures," pp. 231-240.

Mark 16: 1-8.

Matt. 28: 1-8; Luke 24: 1-11; John 20: 1-10.

The resurrection not only witnesses the power of death overcome and the perfect condition of man before God, suitable to heaven, but, as regards things here below, it is for him that believes the true solvent of all difficulties. Jesus never was vindicated thoroughly till the resurrection. There was, of course, a rich and mighty testimony before; but it was one which might be gainsaid even by those who saw the miracles — not rightly, but through the power of Satan. Even the practical infidel, the sensual man, could say that his brethren would believe if one came to them from the dead. But we shall find that the unbelief of men is beyond even resurrection, unless there be the grace of God giving it effect.167

In this chapter we have the women coming to the grave of Jesus with love, but no intelligence of resurrection, and, consequently, in grievous perplexity. They had "bought aromatic spices "167a that they might come and anoint Him. The Lord had told the disciples distinctly that He was about to rise from the dead. So small was the faith even of these saints of God that, on the very day He had prepared them to expect His rising, they were occupied with that which was only suitable to a dead Christ, not the risen and living One. "Very early, on the first [day] of the week, they came to the sepulchre when the sun had risen. And they said to one another, Who shall roll us away the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?" But it was done already. "When they looked, they see that the stone has been rolled [away],* for it was very great." Such is the virtue of resurrection, such the power which accompanies it. The hindrance was beyond their capacity to remove; the stone that blocked up the grave was very great. But this made no difference to God; and it was now rolled away. "And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed. But he says to them, Be not amazed. Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified One; He is risen; He is not here; behold the place where they had put Him." Thus their terror vanishes: such is the use the angels make of the resurrection of Christ. Fear is natural to man in a ruined world where sin reigns. Adam had no reason for fear till the fall; what just ground has a believer now for fear, since Christ, who died for him, is risen? He has ample grounds to judge self and its ways, but none to doubt the triumphant results of Christ's work. The whole substance of a believer's blessing consists of and depends on Christ, and in proportion as you mix up self in any way with Him, it is unbelief. If I allow the sense God gives me of my own badness to hinder my peace in Him, it is almost as wrong as the vain dream of my own goodness. It is all a mistake to think Christ can ever mix with the first Adam. It must be either Christ or self, both can never bean object of trust. When we have found Christ, there are certain effects produced by Him through the Holy Ghost; but they are effects, not a cause. Unbelief makes things done by us a cause, but this is invariably false.

*"Rolled away": so AC, with later uncials, all cursives, Syr(sin), hcl, but Edd. "rolled back," after BL.

Now the resurrection proclaims the victory. Although these women were there in presence of angels, they were really in presence of a greater than angels, whom they saw not — of Jesus risen from the dead. Even the saints are called to blessing greater than angels. Why should they be affrighted? The saints are brought into nearness to God that angels never did or can possess. The saints will reign with Christ — angels never do. Thus Satan has been totally defeated in all his thoughts and plans. If his pride was wounded at the Divine purpose of raising man above the angels, God, nevertheless, has raised man (already in Christ, soon in His body the Church), not only above angels, but so high as to unite him who believes now with Christ, the Head of all principalities and powers. Even the world will shortly see the saints glorified with Christ and sharing the same glory with Him. "The glory which Thou gavest Me, I have given them" (John 17: 22). The millennium will be the display of all this, which makes the idea of such an era brought in by the Gospel so monstrously false as well as defective. It makes the glory of the bride to consist in what she is and does in the absence of the Bridegroom, instead of holding out God's glory displayed in Christ, and the Church glorified and reigning with Him. If it was, therefore, a sight painful and unsuitable that these women, heirs of such glory, should be affrighted in presence of an angel, let us bear in mind that, though converted then, they had not yet received the spirit of adoption; and what power can there be without that? There may be the instincts of a new life but no peace nor spiritual energy. "Ye seek Jesus the Nazarene." He knew that their heart was right.

It is beautiful to see that, as in Mark where we have the fall of Peter more fully than elsewhere, so we have the Lord's special consideration of Peter. "Go, tell His disciples and Peter He goes before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him, as He said to you. And they went out,* and fled from the sepulchre; and they trembled and were amazed; and they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid." They little knew the power of resurrection yet: they knew the fact, but not the power.

*"Quickly" (T.R.) after "went out" is feebly supported, and is rejected by Edd., after ABCD and most of the later uncials and the cursives, Old Latin, etc.

Mark 16: 9-11.

Luke 8: 2; John 20: 11-18.

But now we have the scene looked at from another point of view — that is, of service: all is ruled by this great truth.* "Now when He had risen early on the first [day] of the week, He appeared first to Mary of Magdala, out of whom He had cast seven demons." It is not only the angelic message and the proofs of His being risen; but now it is Himself seen as risen first by Mary Magdalene. There is a remarkable putting of circumstances together here. Mary Magdalene had been mentioned before; but here only it is added to her name, "Out of whom he had cast seven demons." These two things are mentioned together. The Son of God comes, as we know, to destroy the works of the devil: He was manifested for that purpose. The defeat of Satan's power, even before this, in the case of Mary Magdalene, was yet more confirmed by this, that the risen conqueror of Satan appeared first to her. The great fact is all that is given us here. In John's Gospel there is the beautiful unfolding of the way in which He takes her out of Judaism. "Touch Me not," Me says to her," for I have not yet ascended to My Father." Thus, henceforth the disciples were going to know Him — no more after the flesh. "But go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God." Do not be looking at Me now as a visible Messiah, destined King over all the earth. I am going to take another place in heaven, and to put you in My relationship on earth, as sons of My Father and your Father, as redeemed to My God and your God. He declares His name unto His brethren; and on that, as the basis and form of relationship, He next gathers them together and praises in the midst of His brethren. He comes there and fills them with joy. "Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord." For Christ is not only the Object, but the Leader of praise. He communicates both the material and the strain of praise to the disciples. Christian worship is in truth His worship transferred to us, and so carried on as we worship His and our Father and God in spirit and in truth. But this theme belongs rather to John.†

*As to verses 9-20 see special note at end of chapter.

†John 20: 17. See "Exposition" of that Gospel, p. 418 ff.

Here it is simply said, "She went and brought word to those that had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen of her, did not believe." It is very remarkable the simplicity with which the Evangelists relate the proofs of the incredulity of the disciples: there is no attempt to gloss it over. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, all tell it out plainly. They knew not the Scriptures, says John, that He must rise from the dead. They saw the fact, but did not take in its connection with the repealed counsels of God. It was believed on in the intelligence of evidence before their eyes, not yet entered into in faith, as it was soon about to be.

Mark 16: 12-15.

Luke 24: 12-35.

"After these things He was manifested in another form to two of them, as they walked, going into the country. And they went and brought word to the rest; neither did they believe them." This is the journey to Emmaus, which is given fully and characteristically in Luke.

Mark 16: 14-18.

Luke 24: 36-49; John 20: 19-29.

"Afterwards He was manifested to the eleven as they lay at table, and reproached them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him risen." In their case it is evident that hardness of heart is laid to their door, as the root of their rejecting the testimony concerning Jesus. Yet it is to them that the Lord shortly after (the Evangelist omitting other matters which might distract) says, "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all the creation." What a wonderful process for fitting those men to preach to others! It must be by being made nothing of in their own eyes. Repentance always goes with faith and humiliation; the finding out what we are, specially towards God and His word, is God's way of making us useful to others. The sense of our own past unbelief is used of God when He sends us out to call others to believe; we can understand their unbelief and feel for them in it, having been so unbelieving ourselves. This is not man's way in what he calls ministry, but it is God's. "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all the creation." After what you have proved of yourselves, be confident in God — not in man, but in the God who was so patient with you, and sent you testimony after testimony, till you were compelled to come in. That same God deigns to use you in His work on behalf of others, and as you have proved how persistent God has been in His goodness to you in your unbelief, so do you go on patiently in His service. "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all the creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be condemned." It is not enough for you and for Christ's glory that you believe: "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Baptism has this importance — not, of course, saving the man before God, for the essential point as to this is believing that which is unseen of men, but baptism is an open sign and witness of this before men. Thus a man stands to what he believes, and confesses it publicly. He does not say, My heart believes in Christ, but there is no need that I should say anything about it. Baptism is the initiatory testimony that one believes in Christ. It is founded upon His death and resurrection. "So many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ, were baptized unto His death. Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism unto death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6: 3 f.). Not according to the first Adam, who mistrusted God and sinned, and became a dead man; but as Christ was obedient unto death, and has brought us life everlasting righteously through His own death. Baptism acknowledges this, and is as good as saying, I renounce all I am, and every hope from man; I know the first Adam, and myself as a child of his, to be dead: all my hope is in the last Adam. When a man is really brought to this, he is a true believer, and baptism outwardly sets forth the truth of Christ. Thus baptism has a decided value as a testimony before God and men. No wonder, therefore, it is said by Peter that "Baptism [while he carefully eschews any ex opere operato efficacy in the same sentence] also doth now save us" 1 Peter 3: 21). If a man refused to be baptized through shrinking from the shame of it, he could not be owned as a Christian at all. Paul, in writing to the Gentiles, shows that the great thing is what has taken place in Christ. Peter insists upon baptism, though he expressly guards them from thinking too much about the outward act; but the grand point is the demand of a good conscience towards God by Christ's resurrection.

Hence it is said here, "He that believeth not shall be condemned." Unbelief was the fatal evil above all to be dreaded. Whether a man was baptized or not, if he did not believe, he must be condemned. There could be no promise of salvation, spite of baptism, if he did not believe. This makes baptism simply consequent on believing; but when we hear of condemnation, it is on the ground of not believing. Alas! millions will be condemned who have been baptized, yet so much the worse because they do not believe.

"And these signs shall follow those that have believed,. in My name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they should drink any deadly thing it shall not injure them; they shall lay hands on the infirm, and they shall be well." There is not a word here as to time. It is not all who believe, but "those that have believed"; and, further, it is not said of those that believe even to the end of the age. Nothing of the kind is intimated. When, on the contrary, the Lord in Matthew commands them to disciple all nations, baptizing and teaching them, He vouchsafes the assurance of His presence with them to the end of the age. The Lord abides with the disciples till the age is completed — all implied in "Lo, I am with you all the days." But it is not so with these signs of Mark. Our Lord's word was fully accomplished to the letter in the particular epoch when these signs were given; but there was no bond of perpetuity. In this way the contrast with Matthew is striking, and the mouth of the objector or deceiver is stopped.

"In My name they shall cast out demons." He begins with power over Satan. They were to go forth in the power of His resurrection. Although He was going away, so far from thereby losing power, they would rather gain in this respect. "Greater works than these shall he do, because I go to My Father" (John 14: 12).The notion of the Jews was that all the great works were to be done when Messiah was on the earth. Not so. In His name, during His absence, His servants should cast out demons, etc. "They shall speak with new* tongues." What a wonderful testimony of God's grace towards all men! They were to speak now of His wonderful works (Acts 2) in the tongues wherewith God had confounded men at the tower of Babel. This was fulfilled, first on the day of Pentecost to the Jews, then to the Gentiles in due time. "They shall take up serpents" — the outward symbol of the power of Satan in this world — that which man instinctively hates since the fall, unless he be so besotted as to worship it. "And if they should drink any deadly thing, it shall not injure them." The power of nature, of things inanimate as well as animate, could not avail against them; but, contrariwise, "they shall lay hands on the infirm, and they shall be well." The beneficial power of good in His name overcomes evil and banishes it.

*"New": so Edd., after ACcorrD, etc., Syrpesch. it is omitted in CpmLΔ, etc.

Mark 16: 19-20.

Luke 24: 50-53.

"The Lord, therefore, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God." The work was done: He sat down. With His great earthly work over, He was the great Servant who could say, "I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do." So He sat down at the right hand of God, the place of power. "And they went forth and preached everywhere." Is the Lord, then, inactive? Nay, "the Lord working with [them]." So true is it from the first verse of Mark to the last, Jesus is the One that doeth all things well, working for men in His life, or, rather, working for sinners; suffering for sins in death; even now working with His servants when He is gone up to heaven. He is the servant of God throughout our Gospel. Even seated at God's right hand, He is the Servant, but "the Lord, working with them and confirming the word by the signs following. [Amen."]*

*"Amen" has the support of Cpm, etc., and some vv., but is rejected by Edd., following ACcorr, 1, 33, Syrr. Arm.

Mark 16: 9-20. — Lachmann, usually presumptuous, did not dare even to bracket a concluding scene worthy of, and inseparable from, the Gospel to which it belongs. . . . Is the omission of B [as to see below] and some copies of the Armenian and Arabic vv., with a single Latin manuscript, is the silence of the Eusebian and Ammonian sections, with the marks in L, etc., to overthrow the vast mass of positive testimony? It seems probable that much of this, if not all, may be accounted for by the difficulty found in harmonizing the passage with others (B.T., vol. i., December, 1857). Possibly it may have been added later by the same hand; for certainly the last verse indicates a date considerably later than that which is usually assigned to the publication of this Gospel. Language can be easily imitated in so short a fragment, whereas writers would freely describe new facts with new expressions, while underneath the surface lie, in my opinion, the most indelible traces of connection with the character and aim stamped on this Evangelist by the Holy Spirit. Would this organic link have been kept up had Apostolic men, during Apostolic times, added the general compendium of the events of the resurrection with which the present Gospel concludes? (B.T., vol. vii., p. 256, April, 1869). I admit that there are certain differences between this portion and the previous part of chapter 16. But, in my judgment, the Spirit purposely put them in a different light. Here it is a question of forming the servants according to that rising from the dead for which He had prepared them. Had the Gospel terminated without. this, we must have had a real gap. . . . This wonderful Gospel of His ministry would have left off with as impotent a conclusion as we could possibly imagine . . . . . . For they were afraid: what conclusion less worthy of the servant Son of God? What must have been the impression left if the doubts of some learned men [see note 168] had the slightest substance in them? Can anyone who knows the character of the Lord and of His ministry conceive for an instant that we should be left with nothing but a message baulked through the alarm of women? [cited in Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," vol. ii., p. 343]. The very freedom of the style, the use of words not elsewhere used, or so used by Mark, and the difficulties of some of the circumstances narrated, tell, to my mind, in favour of its genuineness; for a forger would have adhered to the letter, if he could not so easily catch the spirit of Mark. . . . I am not aware that in all the second Gospel there is a section more characteristic of this Evangelist that the very one that man's temerity has not feared to seize upon, endeavouring to root it from the soil where God planted it. These words are not of man. Every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up. This shall never be rooted up, but abides for ever, let human learning, great or small, say what it will ("Introductory Lectures on the Gospels," p. 233 ff.). The Revisers put, most undeservedly, a certain stigma on chapter 16: 9-20, because B omit these verses, L, with a break, adding a miserable compendium (see Nestle's Greek Text "[British and Foreign Bible Society], and Bagster's Workers' New Testament," p. 108), and many cursives giving them with more or less doubt. No good version of antiquity omits. But a few Fathers, on harmonistic grounds, talk of the accurate copies ending with ejfobou'nto gavr. The positive external proofs and the internal prove not only that it is inspired Scripture, but from none other than Mark himself (B.T., vol. xiii., p. 302).

Mark — Appendix.

Notes by E. E. Whitfield.

Notes on the Introduction

§ 1.

Mark, although he may have been (as Birks thought, p. 235) a Roman Christian on his father's side, was doubtless maternally a Hebrew (Palestinian) Christian (Acts 12: 12). Cf. the Aramaic surname of his cousin Joseph (Acts 4: 36). Hence the Greek used by him would have, as we find, an Aramaic tinge about it. Very noticeable is the frequency with which he gives Aramaic words. At Mark 6: 15, Mark 8: 14, Mark 10: 22, Mark 14: 8, Mark 15: 12, Wellhausen impeaches him of imperfect acquaintance with Greek (as to which see note 78 in particular). Mark's peculiarities, however, are all explicable from the κοινὴ διάλεκτος, used from the time of Polybius to long after the beginning of the Christian era. As to this "Hellenistic" Greek, see Carr, Notes on Luke, pp. 9-14. The second Evangelist does but combine an Aramaic element with strictly colloquial Greek, with which the Roman Christians would be familiar, as this was the language very long used in that community at Rome (Swete, Introduction).

Many have based their belief that this Gospel was composed for the special benefit of Christians at Rome on the presence of numerous Latin expressions in it, but these were current coin throughout the Empire. The reference to Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15: 21) is suggestive, because of mention of a Rufus in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16: 13). But there is something to be said for Birks' view (p. 227 ff.; cf. Bernard, p. 43) that Mark's Gospel had Palestinian Roman readers in view from the fact that no geographical explanation is offered, such as Italians would require, where some (as Wellhausen, Wernle) find vagueness in his statements, so as to attribute to the Evangelist himself imperfect knowledge of the country. As to this, however, see Greswell (p. 98 f.).

2 The treatment of incidents in which Peter is prominent strikes all readers: that which would be honourable to the Apostle is passed over, whilst anything discreditable to him is emphasized. If this be not seen, some support might attach to the Tübingen "tendency theory." Peter's connection with this Gospel acquired, however, a legendary character, more and more as the actual circumstances receded. Papias (A.D. 125) and Irenaeus (A.D. 180) having represented the Gospel as finished after the death of Peter, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) spoke of it as written in his lifetime; Eusebius as with the Apostle's sanction; whilst Jerome (A.D. 420) makes out that Peter dictated it (Pfleiderer, i. 398f.).

As to the extent of the circulation of Mark's Gospel in the early Church, see Burkitt, p. 260 f. The earliest Greek commentary upon it which is extant was that of Victor and others of Antioch (about A.D. 400); the earliest Latin that of our venerable Bede. See, further, note 168.

§2.

3 Since the middle of the second century of our era (with the exception of a statement by Clement of Alexandria, that the two Gospels with genealogies were the first written), the Gospel of Mark has taken the second place, intermediate between those of Matthew and Luke, of the Gospels called "Synoptic" by Griesbach (1790). So in typical authorities such as Muratori's fragment in the West, Athanasius's list of books in the East, neither Mark nor Luke is placed first in a single document. The traditional idea, followed by Origen (third century), has been that Matthew's was the Gospel first of all written, then Mark's; and this belief was accepted by post-Reformation writers of repute, such as Grotius and Bengel. In the nineteenth century Greswell (i., p. 16) adhered to the old view, and it underlies Bernard's esteemed Bampton Lectures on "Progress of Doctrine," where (p. 143 f.) Matthew's close link with the Old Testament and his treatment of the Gospel preached first to "the circumcision" (Rom. 15: 8), have been emphasized. Archbishop Thomson, in his introduction to the first volume of the "Speaker's Commentary" (p. xxxvii. 1.), did not depart from it. Roman Catholic opinion, represented by Hug (1808) and Schanz, maintains the precedence, of Mark over Luke. That W. Kelly's conviction was the same as that of these various writers appears in his "Lectures on Matthew" (p. 376. f.).

From the time of Herder (1780), however, the notion arose that Mark's, the shortest and simplest of the three, was the earliest of the Gospels written. Lachmann (1835) gave formal expression to this belief (see Burkitt, p. 37). For a time, in the hands of the dominant Tübingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, etc.), Matthew's priority held its ground, and as late as the year 1885 H. J. Holtzmann could describe this as a "burning question." It is still an open one, although the suffrages of most experts, including Westcott in England (p. 190), are for Mark (see below under "Synoptic Problem"). Some of these, nevertheless, allow that passages such as Matt. 5: 17, Matt. 10: 6, Matt. 15: 24, tell against their opinion. Certain modern writers have held that Mark was last of the three, whilst some Germans in the middle of the last century have assigned to Luke priority over both Matthew and Mark. Such was already Beza's opinion at the time of the Reformation: he could not believe that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, because of the third Evangelist's apparent criticism, in his Preface, of all predecessors. But it has not been generally supposed that Luke included Matthew and Mark in what he there says. Matthew, at any rate, was an "eye-witness," an "attendant on the Word" (Greswell, p. 75), whilst Mark's Gospel is in close relation to the Apostle Peter's ministry (note 2).

Dean Robinson adopts Professor Harnack's earliest date for Mark, which is A.D. 65; Professor B. Weiss's date is A.D. 67. The corresponding date for Matthew is A.D. 70 (the Epistle of Barnabas, quoting Matthew's Gospel, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as quite recent); and for Luke, A.D. 80. Zahn's dates are, for Mark, A.D. 67; for Luke, A.D. 75; for Matthew, A.D. 85.

The chief result of assigning the earliest date of all to Mark has been that the critics' view of the development of Christian doctrine has been shaped by their interpretation of this Gospel in particular, which is regarded as exhibiting the teaching of the "historical" in distinction from the "Pauline" Christ. Mr. F. W. Newman, in his last book, "Hebrew Jesus," remarked (p. 57): "No one can reasonably doubt that the whole essence of the faith and religion of Jesus of Nazareth finds its expression in the Lord's Prayer." Strange to say, the prayer is not contained in the Gospel of Mark! For reply to the same writer's remarks in "Phases of Faith," p. 173, on the Synoptists in relation to the Deity of Christ, see J. N. Darby, "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 287.

4 There has always been difference of judgment as to which of the Gospels, if any, exhibits the exact sequence of events in the Lord's ministry. Ancient opinion favoured Luke's order; modern is for that of Mark. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 125), according to a passage quoted by Eusebius ("Ecclesiastical History," iii. 39), stated on the information of "John the Elder," a disciple of the Lord, that Mark's record of what He said and did was "not in order." The historian describes Papias as "a man of petty mind," which opinion Réville (i. 291) puts down to the ecclesiastical courtier's dislike of millenarian opinions represented by this Papias; nevertheless, the old Bishop seems to have been wrong in this. Greswell (i., p. 5) and Birks held Mark's order to be the most regular, Greswell going on to say, rightly, that it is confirmed by that in the fourth Gospel. On the other hand, Farrar's much-read "Life of Christ" is based on Luke's order (see edition of 1903, p. 143); and Wright ("New Testament Problems," p. 176 f.), Salmond (art. "Mark" in "Hastings' Dictionary," p. 255), Wellhausen ("Introduction to the Gospels," p. 51), J. Weiss (p. 19), with Wernle ("Sources," pp. 58, 60), are adverse to the now prevalent view, which W. Kelly always maintained. It rests on a firm basis: where Matthew and Luke differ from Mark's order, they differ also from each other; Mark and Matthew constantly differ from Luke, Mark and Luke from Matthew, but we do not find that Matthew and Luke together differ from Mark, save most exceptionally (see Abbott, "Encyclopaedia Biblica," or Bennett, "Primer," and especially Burkitt, p. 36 ff.). It would be found that the first part of Mark coincides with Matthew, but the second with Luke.

5 The "fragmentary" view was advocated by the celebrated Schleiermacher (1817), whose Essay on Luke was translated into English by Bishop Thirlwall (1832). But Mark's Gospel (6: 14) will show us that the Evangelists, selecting their materials (cf. John 20: 30), did not go to work with mere fragments which came to their hand haphazard. Their omissions were due to an entirely different cause from that alleged by writers who measure their knowledge of words and deeds by the limits of their respective records.

A crucial instance is that of the raising of Lazarus. Professor Burkitt writes as to this: "Where are we to put the scene into the historical framework preserved by St. Mark? Can any answer be given except there is no room?" (p. 222). Already had Professor Sanday, in his "Fourth Gospel" (p. 166), written: "The vague, shifting outlines of the Synoptists allow ample room for all the insertions made in them with so much precision by St. John" (cf. John 4: 2, 3). Professor Tischendorf, in his "Synopsis Evangelica," placed the incident between the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth chapters of Mark, and that without awakening sense of dislocation on the part of most students, including Greenleaf, the standard American writer on Evidence, who assigns the same position to it in his "Harmony." But Burkitt goes on to say that the event could not have been unknown "to a well-informed personage like Mark, nor could he have had any reason for suppressing a narrative at once so public and so edifying. . . . Is it possible," he asks, "that anyone who reads the story of Mark can interpolate into it the tale of Lazarus and the notable sensation? . . . Must not the answer be that Mark is silent about the raising of Lazarus because he did not know of it?" (p. 222 f.). Hear now W. Kelly: "Why should the resurrection of Lazarus be omitted in the first three Gospels? Man, if these accounts had been his work, would not have omitted it; he would deem the insertion of it in each Gospel necessary for a full and truthful account. . . . The omission of so stupendous a miracle in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, points out clearly that it is the Spirit of God who wrought sovereignly, and writes by each with a special purpose. . . . This miracle of raising Lazarus does not show us Jesus as the Messiah, or the SERVANT, or the Son of man, but as the Son of God, who gives life and raises the dead, a grand point of doctrine in John 5, and there found alone in the Gospels" ("Lectures on Matthew," p. 437 f.). The difference between the "sayings" of Jesus and "public events" in His life (Burkitt) is of no significance whatever from this point of view. So it is with the whole texture of the Gospels, from Matt. 1 to John 22. Various incidents are recorded by those who did not actually witness them, whilst one or other who did is silent about them. Cf. another quotation in note 7 from an earlier part of Professor Burkitt's book.

6 We here reach one of the two determining elements of the so-called "Synoptic Problem," which has engaged men's minds since the time of Le Clerc (1716), more particularly since the thirties of the last century. It is the conjunction of agreements and differences which makes the problem, from the merely literary point of view, so "complex and difficult," as Professor Sanday has described it in his Bampton Lectures (p. 281). Professor H. J. Holtzmann remarks that, while the idea of inspiration (see note 13) governed scholars' minds, it was the differences which exercised them; that now they canvass the agreements, which the older writers ascribed to the autor primarius. W. Kelly, however, would explain the differences in the same way.

Archbishop Thomson refers agreements to a common source. That there was any such written one is purely hypothetical. Luke's ἄνωθεν (Luke 1: 4) does not tell us, as Newman's "Phases of Faith" (p. 127) might lead unwary readers to suppose, that the third Evangelist used such (cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," reissue, p. 162 f.). If there be any truth at all in a story, we look for substantial agreement in the witnesses.

7 For a historical student, as for a lawyer, it is differences which demand the more consideration. When we have to estimate the value of any statements, as Chrysostom long ago said, the very differences may remove all suspicion of collusion on the part of the witnesses. Now, if "each of the three Gospels represents a different view of our Lord's life and teaching" (Burkitt, p. 131), the solution of differences should usually not be far to seek, even if it seem not at first entirely adequate; and this because we do as yet but "know in part."

A solution of some difficulty of this kind often proposed is that the diversity arises from difference in translation from the Aramaic speech of Christ or of those reporting Him (so Eichhorn: see Schmiedel, col. 1850). There is, says Salmon, the tendency of different translators of a common document to vary in both words and constructions (p. 105 f.). The reference there is to Mark 12: 38, compared with Luke 20: 46. At verse 40 of Mark (as verse 47 of Luke) we have "prayers," but in Matt. 23: 5 "phylacteries": the word "tephillin" means both.

The following simple cases may be taken in further illustration:

1. Reporting the Parable of the Sower, Mark 4: 15 has "Satan," Matt. 13: 29 the "wicked one," Luke 8: 12 "the devil."

2. In the account of the Transfiguration, Mark 9: 5 has "Rabbi," Matt. 17: 4 "Lord," Luke 9: 33 "Master" (as to which last, see Burkitt, p. 113 f.). It is easy to see that for these a mere difference of translation may arise.

3. The superscription on the cross, written in three languages. Mark's narrative (Mark 15: 26), probably read in particular by Roman Christians, would follow the Latin form, the most concise.

4. The parallels to Mark 12: 15 in Matt. 22: 18 and Luke 20: 23 used by Westcott are very interesting, because they exhibit a difference of both verbs and nouns throughout.

But the difference may be one of enlargement or contraction, as in the report of Peter's great" confession. Mark 8: 29 has simply "the Christ," but Luke 9: 20, "the Christ of God," whilst Matt. 16: 16 gives "the Christ, the Son of the living God." Here is a case in which Mr. Kelly's difference of "Divine design," of which the respective writers were instruments, alone will help us. Reference may be made to his "Lectures on the Gospels," and to those specially on Matthew, in a separate volume.

8 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, "Introduction," p. 233 "The Gordian knot, which dogmatics failed to cut, it is for criticism to untie."

9 The characteristic portions of Matthew referred to are Matt. 5 - 7; of Luke: Luke 6: 20 - 8: 3, and Luke 9: 51 - 18: 14.

10 The natural solution — from the literary standpoint — is doubtless that the Synoptists either copy one from another, or make use of a common source (Burkitt, p. 34; cf. Westcott, pp. 184-186).

As common source, Lessing (1785) supposed (it is all a question of hypothesis, note 6) an Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes; and so Eichhorn (1794), whose work was translated into English by Bishop Marsh. Eichhorn held that no Synoptist had used either of the two others. Greswell makes the natural remark (p. 36) that "a primary common source might account for verbal agreements, but not for supplemental arrangement of facts"; and, the more helpful observation (p. 39 f.), that "if you believe in the inspiration of the Gospels, the supposed existence of sources from which the Evangelists derived their materials is not more precarious than unnecessary" (cf. note 13 below). Such is precisely the standpoint of these Lectures.

As far as Mark's Gospel is concerned, the idea of any document being behind it scholars now gradually give up (Burkitt, p. 63 f.). An exception is made with regard to Mark 13: 14, where the words "Let him that readeth understand," Sanday (followed by Burkitt) may be right in saying, "could not have been suggested by oral tradition."

The hypothesis that now holds the field is that our canonical Mark is the common source of Matthew and Luke, so far as regards the matter which these Gospels have in common. In his "Manual Commentary" on the Gospels, H. J. Holtzmann already, seventeen years ago, wrote of it as proven (p. 3). This professorial writer is possessed by the idea that "Christianity is a book religion"; so that for him it does not so far, rise above the level of Islam. Not so, happily, his fellow-critic Bernhard Weiss, for whom it is "a life."

The connection between the Gospels of Mark and Luke is referred by Dean Luckock (i. 7) to the intercourse between these Evangelists, to be gathered from Col. 4: 10-14, Philem. 4. Cf. the affinity of Luke's Gospel to the writings of Paul.

One stage in the conduct of this investigation was marked by, a discussion of the supposed existence of an "original Mark" (Urmarcus, called by French writers Protomarc). English readers are referred for this to Burkitt, p. 40 ff. H. J. Holtzmann and Pfleiderer (i. 401) have been dominated by the idea of such a document having existed in Aramaic. Jülicher (p. 232) and Burkitt, amongst others, think that there was no such document behind the canonical Mark, the last-named German professor referring to the peculiarity of Mark's vocabulary and style, quite unlike a translation.

There remains, however, the question whether any other document, no longer existing, once furnished materials for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Another statement of Papias, also reproduced by Eusebius, appears in all the modern literature upon this topic. According to Papias (as well as Irenaeus and Origen), Matthew wrote λόγια (Oracles: cf. Rom. 3: 2, Heb. 5: 12) in the "Hebrew dialect," by which is understood Aramaic. Each. Papias says, made what he could of this record of "sayings." Its existence is not questioned by W. Kelly, or those like-minded (cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," pp. 102 note, 294). This is the document called "Q" by Wellhausen. Bishop Lightfoot ("Essays on Supernatural Religion," p. 173 f.) and Zahn (as Burkitt; p. 13 5, giving parallels with Mark at p. 147 f.) have thought that it recorded both acts and words of the Lord. Most are of opinion that, while Matthew's Gospel in its Greek form, and Luke may have drawn from this collection, Mark did not; but Ewald, B. Weiss, and Schanz extend its use to the second Gospel also. Of course, the existence of such a collection in Aramaic would carry with it the possibility of a corresponding Greek document. Words of the Lord not in our canonical Gospels seem to have been in circulation. In Acts 20: 35 "remember" indicates that Paul was not speaking by revelation. "There can be no doubt," wrote Neander," that Paul made use of written memoirs of the life of Christ" (p. 7). Some of the Apostle's own writings have not been in like manner rescued from oblivion (1 Cor. 5: 9; Col. 4: 16).

11 Bishop Westcott ("Introduction to the Gospels," p. 164 ff.), Archbishop Thomson, Deans Plumptre and Farrar, with other scholars of the characteristically "English school," and the Swiss Professor F. Godet (on Luke), make it mainly a question of oral tradition, which Westcott conceives lasted to the time of Papias. Zahn shows from the history of the Canon that the Gospels were generally current in the Church from about A.D. 130. In 1 Cor. 15: 5-7, Paul appeals to no written record, but to living witnesses. The tendency in Germany has been to attach ever less importance to oral tradition, which Schmiedel characterises as a "refuge for the destitute" (col. 1845). The Lord's words were brought to the remembrance of the Twelve (John 14: 26). They were to proclaim His sayings from the housetops (Matt. 10: 27; cf. Acts 10: 37, 1 Cor. 15: 3, 1 Tim. 6: 3). Abbott supposes that the Synoptic Gospels were independent expansions of notes taken from "the Apostles' teaching" (Acts 2: 42). Wright dwells much on catechetical instruction (Luke 1: 4 in Greek); but see H. J. Holtzmann's strictures in his "Introduction," and also the remarks in "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 291, on insufficiency of human repetition.

12 On the "supplemental" view, see Westcott, p. 183f. The history of the whole problem, of which this is the last phase discriminated by W. Kelly in the text, would be found lucidly given in H. J. Holtzmann's "Introduction." The Fathers and traditional theology held that Matthew's Gospel was intended to prove the Lord's Messianic claims; that Mark made use of Matthew, according to Augustine, whom Erasmus followed, as an epitomizer; but Koppe, in 1782, rightly denied that such was the case. The Roman Catholic scholar Hug held that Mark gave a chronological arrangement to the materials that he found in Matthew's record; and that Luke, besides using his predecessors' work, as assumed by Augustine in his "De consensu Evangelistarum," i. 2, 4, where "co-operation" is spoken of (said by Schanz, p. 25 ff., to have continued to be the prevalent idea), availed himself of further sources. From the extracts used by Greswell (p. 55 f.) it would seem that Luke was actually acquainted with Matthew's Gospel as well as Mark's. In the third Evangelist's account of the institution of the Lord's Supper some find combination of Matthew and Mark's records with Paul's (1 Cor. 11: 23-25).

Biblical writers do seem to have made use of each other's work: (1) in the Old Testament, for example, Jeremiah of Deuteronomy, Micah of Isaiah, or vice versa; (2) in the New Testament, where the First Epistle of Peter is cognate with the Roman and Ephesian Epistles of Paul, Second Peter with Jude. Paul is supposed by W. Kelly, in his exposition of 1 Tim. (5: 18), to have used Luke's Gospel (Luke 10: 7). Zahn connects Mark 10: 9 with 1 Cor. 7: 10. As to this use by one writer of another, see "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 165.

13 The INSPIRATION of the Bible is a topic which, unhappily, at the present day awakens dissension amongst Christians. The older view is represented by such writers as Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln. Archdeacon Lee of Dublin, and Dean Burgon; that now prevalent, by the British and American Higher Critics and their adherents of the "modern" pulpit.

The slur which imputation of "Bibliolatry" carries with it no more attaches to those cherishing the same conviction as that of W. Kelly than to all Christians worthy of the name who venerate the Bible as an altogether unique sacred Book. The superstitious respect in which a volume of the Bible is held by the Russians is something quite different from the allegiance of such as the lecturer, for whom there is no exchange of the thraldom of "historical Christianity," as it is called, for bondage to the letter of Scripture, so often alleged against the English Reformers. Those who emphasize the guidance of the Spirit are not prone to make that mistake.

Gardner is right in saying, "All compromises are unavailing; we must have either verbal inspiration or scientific criticism, with its results, whatever they may be" ("Exploratio Evangelica," p. 469). It will be seen that the present book unreservedly accepts this issue.

A bogey has been made of plenary (verbal) inspiration by reason of ill-advised statements of extremists (see Ladd, vol. ii., pp. 182, 206 f., 218). To contend for the inerrancy of Hebrew vowel-points and accents (ii. 177), which tyros in that language at the present day know were invented only after the Canon of Scripture was closed, and to set up other like indefensible positions, have brought discredit on the phrase, from which there is difficulty in emancipating it. The "mechanical" view, so called, that God "took possession of every faculty, suspending and superseding it" (Thomson, "Introduction," p. lv.), is negatived by 1 Cor. 7: 40, 2 Cor. 11: 17. As the Archbishop rightly says, "the sacred writers were not machines. . . . If his mind was logical, he reasoned as Paul did; if emotional, he wrote as John wrote." That theory carried with it the idea of dictation, which was a mistake: it is, to begin with, inconsistent with reminiscence (John 14: 26). As to style: "If God has expressly formed the instrument, He can use it for the purpose for which He has formed it. That is style" ("Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 147). Of course, the Holy Spirit has no special language of His own: He did but use the particular writer's language, which none the less bears the impress of the Spirit. One may take 1 Cor. 15: 2 in R.V.: "in what words I preached it unto you." A spiritualist will tell you that a "medium" gives him the spirit's words. Why not, then, God His own in the Bible? To say, as do advocates of the "illumination" theory (as to which see Farrar, "The Bible," etc., p. 111), that inspiration extends only to doctrine, not at all to the language of Scripture, traverses 1 Cor. 2: 13. The word λαλεῖν used there is not applied by Biblical writers exclusively to oral speech (see Rom. 7: 1, Heb. 4: 8, 2 Peter 3: 16, comparing Acts 28: 25). Reference may here be made to the note below on Mark 14: 9, in respect of which Wellhausen has tripped. Few will question the supernatural value of the Lord's own words on earth, and the claim they make upon His disciples. As a Synoptic passage we may take Mark 8: 38, and compare 1 Tim. 4: 6, 1 Tim. 6: 3, where probably the Apostle speaks of his own utterances or communications as "words of our Lord Jesus Christ." That there is a difference between "the word" and "words" appears from John 8: 43 (cf. Davidson, art. "Prophecy" in "Hastings' Dictionary" and note 69). That inspiration attaches to the ῥῆμα as used in Acts 28: 25, where "one" such extends to verse 28, is beyond dispute. Dr. Clifford (p. 88) objects to the American sceptic Ingersoll's remark: "It will not do to say that it (the Bible) is not verbally inspired. If the words are not inspired, what is?" The infidel was perfectly right. It is not those who defend "plenary" inspiration that need any commiseration, but certainly those that deny it. Instead of such concessions conciliating infidelity, they do but encourage it, as the present writer found when concerned with intelligent workmen at Chatham, whose hostility to conventional religion has not been removed, but rather strengthened, by certain summer courses of cathedral sermons in the neighbourhood.

Ancient opinion as to inspiration may be seen in Westcott ("Introduction" Appendix B). Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen certainly went further than moderns; Basil, Chrysostom and Jerome allow for individuality.

After Luther had already expressed his opinion against the idea (Dorner, "History of Protestant Theology," i., 254), a decree of the Council of Trent declared for dictation, somewhat to the embarrassment of the recent Papal Commission. As to the present Catholic position, see Schanz, "A Christian Apology," ch. xiii. Calvin was of much the same mind as the German reformer (Dorner, i., p. 390). Calov and Quenstedt, of the Wittenberg school, in the following century held the most extreme view of "mechanical" inspiration (ii. 128, 131, 136). With them agreed the divines who drew up the Helvetic Confession (1675).

As far as writers like W. Kelly are to be classified, it will be with those whose sympathies go with the "dynamic" view, of "the immediate and indefeasible guidance of the Holy Spirit"; but the miserable idea of mistakes on the part of the Biblical writers is for such entirely excluded. Schaff's moderate statement is to be commended: "We cannot say that the thoughts only are Divine, while the words are altogether human. Both thoughts and words, contents and form, are Divine and human as well." It is the same, he says, as with the Person of Christ.

Leading British theologians, for the most part, now are influenced by the views of Coleridge, which underlie the "general" view (see Farrar, p. 112) represented by Dean Alford, and fostered in the academic teaching of the Old English Universities, as well as Nonconformist theological colleges. It recognises "the action of the Holy Spirit on the heart of the writers, not distinct from the analogous influence on all Christian men." But this is to confound positive inspiration with a strain of high fervour. Nobody could wisely deny a Divine "afflatus" to Christian hymns which impress the spiritual nature of people of different nations in somewhat the same way as Scripture does: such is the hymn by Bernard of Clairvaux, put into English verse by Josiah Conder, which begins, "Thou art the everlasting Word." Hymns and spiritual songs of that high quality go into every hymn-book. Some writers, from the names used by the Apostle appearing in the titles of the LXX, have supposed that the "hymns and spiritual songs" Paul mentions in his Ephesian and Colossian letters were the Old Testament Psalter alone. But with this view W. Kelly could not agree (see his "Reply to Rees").

The school of opinion on inspiration last discriminated in Farrar's book attaches "no attribute of infallibility to Bible phrases and references." As this position is very much the one taken by Martineau and Emerson, it is manifest that with it "Higher Criticism" acquires wide scope, and few safeguards remain. "Calling it inspiration," wrote W. Kelly, "only adds to the delusion" ("Exposition of John," p. 412). Doubtless the Spirit is, as A. B. Bruce said, "the only true guardian of orthodoxy" ("Kingdom of God," p. 336); but, at the same time, you have leading Higher Critics claiming that the movement engineered by themselves is a "breathing of the Spirit." It rather behoves the "spiritual" to acknowledge than to criticize Scripture (1 Cor. 14: 3; cf. John 7: 17, and Ps. 112: 4).

Professor Sanday ("Oracles of God," p. 36) says There is a grave question whether its history is altogether infallible," although Dr. Clifford writes: "Historians were seers, and went down below the surface of things." Réville (i. 257) alleges misreporting and misrepresentation of the Lord's sayings by the Evangelists; and so Dr. Horton in "Revelation and the Bible" (p. 233f.): "Historical criticism may challenge the accuracy of the Evangelists." He himself has assailed that of John ("The Teaching of Jesus"). How any responsible writers can, in the face of Luke 1: 4, state that the Biblical writers do not claim accuracy is an enigma. Thus Wright ventures to say that "the Scriptures themselves protest against the traditional view of the Gospels that they are absolutely true," and his Scripture reference is none other than 1 Cor. 13: 9 f., which does but speak of what is true as far as it goes — i.e., covers nothing in any way false; it concerns what as yet remains unrevealed. Moreover, such use of Paul's words is surely perilous in the light of Mark 13: 32. In the same strain as Dr. A. Wright, Dean Robinson speaks of "an inspiration which does not carry with it the entire accuracy of every detail of historical narrative" ("Thoughts on Inspiration," p. 10).

The unity of the Scripture is manifestly impaired by the very prevalent error that the historical element is purely human. What is one to think of the use made by some of James 3: 2 as evidence of a disclaimer by Biblical writers of infallibility? How, in the name of such British common sense as exists outside of a modern minister's study, can one conceive that the readers of that epistle (in accordance with a favourite canon of interpretation) understood the Apostle's Words in that fashion? For them, as for Luther, his letter would only have been one of "straw."

Associated, strangely enough, with misrepresentation by the Evangelists of the Lord's teaching is the alluring cry of "back to Christ" (the new, Ritschlian, theology). Wellhausen tells you that such a thing is impossible; that the "historical Christ" (cf. note 3 at end) is so much overlaid by "historical Christianity" as to be "played out." Amidst all this wreck, let writer and reader hold fast 1 John 4: 6. What can we know of Christ save as instructed by His commissioned first followers?

Much depends on the use which we make of the Bible for the particular view we take of inspiration. If the word be our daily food, that view will be high; if it is only "studied," a very low view will satisfy. As far as there is any fault, it must be in ourselves. Principal Fairbairn has well said, "Unless God he heard in the soul, He will not be found in the word" ("Christ in Modern Thought," p. 499).

A profound student of Holy Scripture has written: "We are only sure of the truth when we retain the very language of God which contains it" (Darby, "Synopsis of the Books of the Bible," on 2 Tim. 1: 13 ). It was from sharing this conviction that men like Tregelles and Burgon, widely divided in their views of textual criticism, went to work in the same spirit, the former wearing himself out with lifelong devotion to an attempt to arrive at an approximately pure text of the New Testament. Such pains taken by anyone with lower views of inspiration than his it is difficult to appreciate.

As to "the word of God" being "contained in Scripture," see note on 7: 13. Reference may further be made to Sir R. Anderson's trenchant remarks on the whole subject of the present note in his "Bible and Modern Criticism," pp. 83. 177-184.

§3.

14 J. J. Griesbach, Professor at Jena, described by Mr. Kelly in the preface to his edition of the "Greek Text of the Revelation" as "perhaps the most distinguished of modern critics for judicial ability," divided the authorities into Alexandrian (as "B"), Western (as "D"), and Constantinopolitan or Byzantine (as "A"). In his second edition (1796-1806) Griesbach gave preference to the Alexandrian recension.

J. M. A. Scholz, Roman Catholic Professor at Bonn, followed in 1830-1836 with an edition professedly based on Byzantine readings.

Karl Lachmann, mentioned in the text, published his larger edition in 1842-1850, and wherever possible regarded only Alexandrian copies older than the fifth century. He rigidly excluded internal evidence. Although he sought to carry out the idea of Bentley in exhibiting a text current in the fourth century, he neglected to give effect to the English scholar's acknowledgment of the value of the later for correction of slips in the ancient manuscripts. These are respectively called "cursives," or "minuscules," and "uncials."

15 As to the Syrian text, "which underlies the so-called Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, in their "Introduction," § 185, p. 133, admit that it "must be the result of a recension in the proper sense of the word, a work of criticism performed by editors, not merely by scribes."

"The triumph," writes Sir R. Anderson, "of the Westcott-Hort school of textual criticism in the revision of the New Testament was due to either ignorance or neglect of the science of evidence. The mutilation of the Gospels, by making the text agree with certain of the oldest manuscripts, was but an example of the tendency of laymen to disparage indirect evidence when direct evidence is available. No lawyer would accept the authority of those manuscripts against the united voice of the versions and the Fathers" ("Pseudo-Criticism," p. 5). For this, compare Wills on "Circumstantial Evidence," p. 260 (secondary evidence admissible when an original document has been lost), and also the American standard work on "Evidence" of Professor Greenleaf, vol. i., part ii., chapter iv., §§ 84, 509.

16 It is really the application of one's mind to the internal evidence which carries with it the most severe test. How often your merely textual critic may be like the person who, up to a certain point, could only see men as trees walking (Mark 10), because some eye-salve is wanting for spiritual insight! (Rev. 3: 18). Even if it were another hand, as Tregelles and others have supposed, who added the twelve last verses of our Gospel, that man, Aristion or any other, was governed by more sense of spiritual propriety than those now who try to account for the addition by merely historical or literary considerations.  - On the text of Mark, see Blass, "Philology of the Gospels," chapter xi.

NOTES ON MARK 1.

17 Mark 1: 1 — "Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Some, as Meyer and Wellhausen, treat this as a title, corresponding to that in the beginning of Matthew, which view H. J. Holtzmann discredits because of the "according as." "Gospel" here is not used in the literary sense of "book," a meaning which it did not bear until well into the second century, when Justin Martyr, writing about the year 150, speaks of the Gospels as "Memoirs" (ἀπομνημονεύματα). Some writers — the Germans, misled by Luther's version (kept up in the joint critical translation of 1899) — take Mark's words to mean "Gospel concerning Jesus Christ." Zahn, however, sees that the real force is "beginning of the Gospel" as ministered, good news brought, by Him. Cf. Acts 1: 1, Heb. 2: 3, Rev. 19: 10 ("testimony of Jesus Christ"). It is a portraiture of His service, a model for His workmen (cf. 1 Peter 2: 20 ff. with 8: 35, 10: 29 here). Zahn well says that for doctrine about Him the Biblical manner of expression would show περί, as in Acts 28: 31, Rom. 1: 3. See also Hosea 1: 2, referring likewise to W. Kelly's "Exposition of the Epistles of Timothy," p. 4.

18 Mark 1: 2. — With regard to the quotation, Klostermann points out that "prepare the way" in Malachi is, in fact, characteristic of the latter part of Isaiah, and that the absence of "and" is significant — that Mark meant a single prediction (p. 176). Large use of "and" (parataxis) is certainly peculiar to this Gospel, for which, besides the opening chapter (passim), see in particular Mark 3: 13-16 and Mark 10: 32.

Lee (p. 339), after Hengstenberg ("Christology of the Old Testament," iii., p. 608), supposes that Malachi used Isaiah — that is, not to have given an independent prediction (cf. note 12 above).

"Thy [for My] way." J. Weiss (p. 197f.) remarks that "the Christology of Mark is related to that of John more closely than is generally supposed." As to this, reference may be made to Mark 2: 10: 41, 44, (see note there), Mark 3: 15, Mark 6: 7, and to note 3 above. The "priority" of Mark lends no assistance to the theories of writers like Martineau about growth of "mythological attributes of the person of Jesus" ("The Seat of Authority in Religion," ii. 360).

18a In ἐβάπτισα we have a good instance of the flexibility of the later aorist, scarcely differing here from the present. It is not a mere Hebraism.

19 Mark 1: 11. — "I have found my delight." That is, in the self-humiliation of JESUS, seen in His submission to the baptism; not excluding the Lord's earlier life on earth (Gould), nor reference to His preincarnate condition (Swete). Wellhausen strangely renders εὐδόκησα by "I have chosen." If that he intended to conform to Isa. 42: 1, Theodotion's version of which Swete mentions as "probable" reference, the connection (Matt. 12: 17 ff.) of the prophet's words is missed — Christ's rejection by the nation, and God's then taking up the Gentiles. We have here the objective attestation of the sonship (Sanday) for the Lord's own enjoyment. So in Luke 3: 22, whereas in Matt. 3: 17 (cf. John 1: 33) the Spirit records the voice as to the Baptist. See, further, note on Mark 8: 38.

20 Mark 1: 13, 14. — Between these two verses a position may very well be found for the early Judean ministry of the Lord recorded by the fourth Evangelist. Greswell supposes that it lasted six months at least (p. 19). Cf. John 3: 24, John 4: 13, and Acts 10: 37, with Mark 3: 7, 8. In Luke 4: 44 there is a striking variant reading — "the synagogues of Judea" — which finds place in the text of the "Workers' New Testament" and in the margin of the R.V.

21 Mark 1: 15. — Intelligent habitual readers in general of the Gospels suppose that they understand such familiar phrases as "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," without being aware of the extent to which the meaning or bearing of these expressions is canvassed by professional expositors of Scripture. Some scholars (as Schürer, 2, p. 453; Stalker, "Christology," p. 138; and O. Holtzmann, p. 160 ff.) can find no difference between them. Such commonly rely on the acknowledged fact that "heaven," in Jewish usage, may stand sometimes for "God" (H. J. Holtzmann, "New Testament Theology," p. 50), as in Matt. 5: 34 (cf. Matt. 23: 22), Mark 11: 30, Luke 15: 18, John 3: 27. So Bishop Robertson, Bampton Lectures, p. 62f. (cf. Dalman on "Phraseology, of the Mishna," p. 179). But "used as a name of God, we always have the singular (οὐρανός), and never the plural" (Cremer, "Lexicon of New Testament Greek," edited by Urwick, p. 662 f.). It is so in the passages just quoted from each of the Gospels. Writers who so blend the two expressions have no adequate explanation to offer of Matthew's phrase "kingdom of God" in Matt. 12: 28, Matt. 19: 24, Matt. 21: 31. See also Fairbairn, "Studies in the Life of Christ," p. 104.

As to the connection between "kingdom" and "Church," A. B. Bruce says: "The two categories do not entirely coincide. The kingdom is the larger category. It embraces all who by the key of a true knowledge of the historical Christ are admitted within its pale" ("The Kingdom of God," p. 266). Cf. Principal Fairbairn: "The kingdom created the Church, not the Church the kingdom. The parables that explain and illustrate the one are inapplicable to the other. . . . The Church and the kingdom may be more properly contrasted than compared" (op. cit., p. 108), and "the Church began to exist after the Ascension" (p. 110). Dr. Hort wrote helpfully on this subject. "Since Augustine's time," he says, "the kingdom has been simply identified with the Christian Ecclesia. This is a deduction from some of our Lord's sayings taken by themselves, but it cannot, I think, hold its ground when the whole range of His teaching about it is examined. We may speak of the Ecclesia as the visible representation of the kingdom of God, or as the primary instrument of its sway. . . . But we are not justified in identifying the one with the other, so as to be able to apply directly to the Ecclesia whatever is said in the Gospels about the kingdom of heaven or of God" ("The Christian Ecclesia," p. 19). Cf. Dorner, "The Future State," American translation, p. 73 ff. Wellhausen has not advanced beyond Augustine's idea. See his "Introduction," p. 106. The passage has been paraphrased by Burkitt (p. 192 ff.). He, too, treats the kingdom as equivalent to the Church, and misapprehends the distinctive character of the first Gospel. In the volume on Matthew's Gospel (p. 113f.) W. Kelly has: "There is not in all Scripture a single passage where the kingdom of heaven is confounded with the Church, or vice versa."

The phrase "kingdom of heaven," derived from the Old Testament (Dan. 4: 26), meant primarily the visible sovereignty of God established in power and glory (cf. Mark 9: 1). The rejection of Christ has postponed that, and has imparted to the kingdom the form of "mystery" (Matt. 13) which it now takes. The present is the time of the King's "patience" (Rev. 1: 9). In Matt. 28: 18 we find "all power is given unto Me in heaven." Here is the inauguration of the "kingdom of heaven" which, as "kingdom of God," had already affected the earth (Luke 17: 21).

22 Mark 1: 21. — Capernaum (cf. Matt. 9: 1, "His own city"). Trench quotes Chrysostom ("Homily on Matthew"): "Bethlehem bare Him, Nazareth nurtured Him, Capernaum had Him continuously as inhabitant."

23 Mark 1: 22. — For the scribes, see art. s. tit. in the American "Jewish Encyclopaedia," vol. xi. A stupendous fact of the Lord's life on earth is that He had no education commonly so called, although Josephus ("Contra Apion," ii. 25) tells us that "Moses gave commandment to instruct children in the elements of knowledge (γράμματα)." Graetz ("History of the Jews," ii. 148) quotes from the Talmud that "a fatherless child was not brought to be taught" in any synagogue school. Indeed, "there is no evidence," writes Fairbairn, "that in the time of Jesus any schools existed in Nazareth. The wonder both at Nazareth (Mark 6: 2) and Jerusalem (John 7: 15) how He knew His letters proves that He had not been educated in any school" ("Studies in the Life of Christ," p 52; cf. his "City of God," p. 226). The Lord spoke the Aramaic dialect of a Galilean peasant, but Fairbairn goes probably too far in saying that He did not know Greek ("Manchester Lectures on the Miracles of Christ," p. 17). If so, how did He communicate with the Greek woman of Mark 7: 26? Sepphoris, a Greek city, was within five miles of Nazareth, and Greek was spoken throughout that region. Even so, His would be only colloquial Greek, like that which we meet with in the Gospel of Mark. See, further, note 56.

H. J. Holtzmann ("New Testament Theology," p. 129 f.) speaks of the importance of students of the Gospels being acquainted with the vernacular of JESUS. Cf. Burkitt, p. 5 f., where reference is made to Wellhausen's application of such knowledge to the interpretation of the Gospel records, the Cambridge Professor stating that things imperfectly understood by students knowing only Hellenistic Greek are "immediately clear" to those so further equipped. As far as the German Professor's "Commentary on Mark" is concerned, we are not struck with the result as profitable. His treatment of "Son of man" is based on a view of the Aramaic background which Dalman, the leading expert in this branch, rejects (see note on Mark 2: 10). Is it helpful to anyone to be told by Wellhausen (on Mark 1: 4) that the Aramaic equivalent of a Greek passive is an active intransitive (reflexive), illustrated in baptism by "the one baptized" of the classical language being equivalent to "the one dipping (himself)" in the vernacular of Christ? Leaving eccentricities or tricks of language alone, we may recall a solemn question of the Lord at Jerusalem, and His own answer (John 8: 43): "Why do ye not know My speech (λαλίαν)? Because ye cannot hear My word (λόγον)."

As to the scribes (Sir A. F. Hort, "Divinity Professors"), reference may be made to Edersheim, "Life of Jesus the Messiah," if not to Schürer, "History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ," § 25. As to Christian "theology," see note 35.

24 Mark 1: 24. — This incident is vividly exhibited in Delitzsch, "A Day in Capernaum," p. 99.

25 Mark 1: 29. — Klostermann makes use of this verse in illustration of the process of Peter's supposed connection with the second Gospel. The Apostle's "we" and "me" (my) Mark is considered to have simply converted into "they" and "Simon." Klostermann treats 3: 16 similarly.

26 Mark 1: 34. — For the difference between "devil" and "demon," see Trench, "On the Miracles," p. 166f.

27 Mark 1: 43, 44. — Harnack ("What is Christianity?") uses this passage in support of his idea that the Lord "did not assign that critical importance to His miraculous deeds which even the Evangelist Mark attributed to them." On the miraculous, see note 58.

"Say nothing to anyone": lest the priests, hearing of it by anticipation, should discredit the hand of JESUS in it (J. Wesley).

NOTES ON MARK 2.

28 Mark 2: 4. — For description of such a house, see A. M. Thomson, "The Land and the Book," ii., p. 433 f.

29 Mark 2: 7. - Blasphemy is one of the New Testament Greek words which acquired an extension of meaning among the Jews beyond that which they had in the classics. There it meant simply "speaking against" a person, a "blasphemy" thus being the opposite of a "euphemism" (Trench, "Miracles," p. 219). Cf. its use in Mark 14: 64, and for the thought cf. Phil. 2: 6. Bengel has a good note in his "Gnomon" at Matt. 9: 3. Another such word is αἰώνιος, used in Mark 3: 29, where the "Workers' New Testament" renders "age-abiding." Such words illustrate Ps. 12: 6: "The words of Jehovah are pure words, silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times."

30 Mark 2: 10. — Here we meet, for the first time in Mark, with the title Son of man, used characteristically by the Lord of Himself. The lecturer sets forth at the end of this chapter (verse 27 f., cf. the note there) what is undoubtedly its true significance. But the phrase exercises "divines" still, as of old the "scribes" (John 12: 34). H. J. Holtzmann says that the meaning intended is "one of the most intricate questions in New Testament theology" ("Introduction," i., p. 246); and the art. s. tit. in Hastings (vol. iv.) certainly shows the perplexity prominent contemporary writers feel in dealing with it (p. 586). How could anyone really be satisfied with such enlightenment as this article affords? It is, however, like exposés of "modern thought," which Mrs. Humphry Ward deems instruments of a "liberal education." A summary of the points at issue may be useful:

1. Whether "Son of man" does or does not bear a Messianic meaning. Bousset (chapter 10) avers that the majority of scholars regard it as a true Messianic title. Harnack, on the affirmative side, agrees not only with H. J. Holtzmann, but with B. Weiss, whom Stalker (Lect. ii.) and Stevens follow. They are influenced by such passages as Mark 14: 61 f., John 3: 13, and 1 Cor. 15: 45, 47 — some, accordingly, seeing a reference in it to Christ's heavenly origin (so also Dalman). The negative side is taken by Westcott ("Commentary on John's Gospel") and Wendt ("The Teaching of Jesus"). Neander limited himself to saying, "It is certain that this name was not amongst the more usual or best-known names of Messiah" (p. 98).

2. As to the meaning which "Son of man" bears in the Old Testament. The passages discussed are Job 25: 6, Ps. 8: 5 and Ps. 80: 17, Ezek. 2: 1, etc., Dan. 7: 13. Job 25: 6 and Ps. 8, as well as the passages of Ezekiel, are supposed to describe inferiority. A. B. Bruce on Matt. 9: 6 would connect the parallel passage here with those of the Ezekiel type ("humiliation"). Dan. 7: 13, it is generally agreed, stands for superiority. However this may be, H. J. Holtzmann, Dalman, Schmiedel, etc., trace the New Testament use of the title to Daniel; not so Westcott, etc.

3. The relation of the Evangelists' "Son of man" to that in the apocryphal book of Enoch ("Similitudes," chapters xxxvii. — lxxi.) is discussed. This book was for long known only in Ethiopic, but for the last twenty years the first thirty chapters of it have been available in Greek. Deane, in his "Epigrapha," has dealt with so much as concerns the present topic (pp. 49-95; see in particular pp. 62, 89 f.). Amongst others, Réville (i. 192 note) is of opinion that the picture of the "Son of man" in this book "differs entirely from that common to the four Gospels." Stanton and Drummond agree in considering the book post-Christian.

4. With regard to the meaning being (a) "mankind," or (b) simply a "human being." Grotius took it in the first sense; later writers, as Neander (p. 99), Westcott, Stanton ("Jewish and Christian Messiah," part ii., chapter ii.), and Farrar, understand by it the "Ideal of Humanity," and practically a new title, although Ps. 8: 4 and Ps. 80: 17 might seem, from the parallelism in each, to countenance that sense already in the Old Testament. H. J. Holtzmann ("Introduction," p. 39 f.; "New Testament Theology," i., p. 255), Pfleiderer (i. 341, referring to Matt. 9: 8), Wright, Wellhausen ("Jewish and Hebrew History," p. 346), hold that the use of Bar Enosh in Aramaic determines "human being" as the sense, on the ground that B-E is the only equivalent in that language for "man." This view naturally suits such as Martineau ("Seat of Authority in Religion," p. 335 f.). Holtzmann's view, however, Dalman, the leading expert, describes as "a grievous error," "a mare's nest," because in Biblical Aramaic Enosh alone, not B-E, stands for "man," and with him Schmiedel and some others agree.

Theology — call it "systematic" or "scientific" — is certainly not at its best in such uninspiring treatment of this title, after which it is refreshing to find Fairbairn writing that "Son of man" is "no man's son"; that He "has no fellow"; that Christ is "the Son of man"; and, further, "As Son of God, Christ interprets God to man; as Son of man, He interprets man to God" ("Christ in Modern Theology," p. 364).

Following up the lecturer's remarks, which introduce the reader to a very different atmosphere from that of conventional scholarship, we may develop these by reference to the "Synopsis of the Books of the Bible," by Mr. J. N. Darby. The second psalm, he explains, in the light of Acts 4: 25 ff., as exhibiting to us the Son of God, rejected in His character of Messiah; the eighth as setting Him forth "the Son of man," with a higher glory (cf. John 1: 49 ff., John 12: 23, 34). In Mark 9 (see also notes on that chapter) Peter, having confessed Jesus as Messiah, the Lord thereupon drops that title for the time being, to introduce His sufferings as Son of man. In Ezekiel the title "suited the testimony of a God who spoke outside of His people." "It is Christ's own title, looked at as rejected and outside of Israel. He would not, thus rejected, allow His disciples to announce Him as the Christ, for the Son of man was to suffer" (ii., p. 370 f.). "He could not be rejected as Christ without His having a more glorious place destined to Him" (ibid., p. 78). On Dan. 7 the same writer remarks: "It is not now the Messiah, owned as King in Zion, but ONE in the form of the Son of man, a title of far greater and more wide significance. It is the change from Ps. 2 to Ps. 8 brought about by the rejection of the Messiah" (p. 437).

In his "Lectures on Matthew" W. Kelly has remarked, with reference to the use of this title in Acts 7: 52-56, that when the Lord "was refused as Messiah, Stephen, finding that the testimony was rejected, is led of God to testify of Jesus as the exalted Son of man at God's right hand" (p. 352).

Attempts are made to divorce the Synoptic from the Johannine treatment of the Lord's ministry in general; but a comparison of Mark 14: 64 with John 10: 36 would show what a link this title forms between the three first and the fourth Gospels. Cf. Schanz, "A Christian Apology," ii., p. 521. Thus in John 6: 27 we are told that in His baptism (Mark 1: 10 f. and parr.) the Lord was "sealed" as Son of man. Moreover, not only in John's, but in all the other narratives the distinction between the titles "Christ" and "Son of man" is maintained. This is especially noticeable in Luke 9: 26 (cf. Matt. 10: 23), but we meet with it also in Mark 9: 21 f. See also Mark 12: 34, and compare Westcott's note on p. 34 of his "Commentary on John."

In all four Gospels the sufferings of the Son of man as well as His exaltation, are spoken of; His being future Judge (John 5: 22) is but one form of the latter.

Outside the Gospels, besides Acts 7: 52 ff., already mentioned, reference may be made to 1 Cor. 15, Eph. 1, and Heb. 2, and, of course, to Rev. 1: 13 and Rev. 14: 14. On Matt. 9: 6, Bengel connects "on earth" with "Son of man" (as here). Cf. John 3: 13. Neander also accepts the idea of the connection with heaven in the title itself. The Lord, he says, indicated thereby "His elevation above all other men, the Son of God in the Son of man" (p. 100).

See, further, notes on verses 27, 28, and 14: 64; also note on 8: 27 ff. as to the claim of JESUS to be Christ, which, as so much else at the present day, has been wantonly questioned.

31 Mark 2: 16. — As to the Pharisees, see Edersheim's "Life of Jesus the Messiah," if not Réville i., chapter x., or the American "Jewish Encyclopedia," vol. ix.

32 Mark 2: 18. — The Pharisees' idea was that pious people should not, even if they could, be emphatically happy! The remonstrances came both from them (Luke 5: 33) and from John's disciples (Matt. 9: 14).

33 Mark 2: 22. — As to the different Greek words for "new," see Trench, "Synonyms," lx. The νέος (time) applies to the wine, the καινός (quality) to the skins. A. B. Bruce remarks (on Matt. 9: 17): "That which is new in time does not necessarily deteriorate with age; it may even improve. That which is new in quality always deteriorates with age."

34 Mark 2: 26. — A difficulty is raised here from the fact that Abiathar was not the official high-priest at the time of this incident (see 1 Sam. 21: 1; cf. 1 Sam. 22: 11). The confusion of names already arose in the Old Testament text of both Hebrew and Greek; cf. 1 Sam. 22: 20 with 2 Sam. 8: 17 (1 Chron. 18: 16). But "the" before "high-priest" is absent from the Greek of Mark — "Abiathar, a high-priest." Abiathar was doubtless acting for his father at the time, and he was, as Plumptre says (ad loc.) "of David's party, the chief agent in allowing him to take the shewbread." Moreover, the preposition ἐπί may here be taken as "in the presence of" (cf. Greek of 1 Tim. 6: 13).

35 Mark 2: 27, 28. — The questions raised in respect of the designation "Son of man" have been already discussed in note 30 (on verse 10), in anticipation of the lecturer's remarks at this place. Grotius would apply the rules of formal logic to the "man" of the first of these two verses, followed by the "Son of man" of the other (cf. note 29 above); and so H. J. Holtzmann (ad loc.). Bousset likewise finds it "obvious" that Son of man here means "man in general" (p. 185). But much that is "obvious" to any not going beyond the surface of a passage is illusion. The application of logic, which we have to correct in life by our experience, has been baneful in "theology": see as to this Professor Julius Kaftan's standard book on "The Truth of the Christian Religion" (1894), or his recent pamphlet "Jesus and Paulus," especially at pp. 33, 36. All know how forcibly this consideration applies to Calvin's system of doctrine. It is curious that learned men should be anxious to foist conventional logic into the interpretation of such a homely narrative as Mark's is throughout. The reader may look for like treatment by "advanced" writers at Mark 10: 18, Mark 12: 37, where see notes.

It may be desirable here to note the characteristics of theology, or reasoned development of Biblical doctrine, which it has been since the time of Origen. One whose writings are not sufficiently known shall speak. "When a man's mind apprehends the truth, and he seeks to give it a form, he does it according to the capacity of man, which is not its source; the truth as he expresses it, even were it pure, is separated in him from its source and its totality; but, besides this, the shape that a man gives it always bears the stamp of the man's weakness. He has only apprehended it partially, and he only produces a part of it. Accordingly, it is no longer the truth. Moreover, when he separates it from the whole circle of truth in which God has placed it, he must necessarily clothe it in a new form, in a garment which proceeds from man: at once error mixes with it. Thus it is no longer a vital part of the whole: it is partial, and thereby not the truth; and it is, in fact, mixed with error. That is theology" (J. N. Darby, Synopsis," vol. v., on 2 Timothy).

NOTES ON MARK 3.

36 Mark 3: 1-6. — Neander observes as to the incident recorded in these verses that "it is obvious that the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written independently of each other" (p. 275 note).

27 Mark 3: 7, 8. — Farrar rightly finds here an implication of Judean ministry (cf. note 20), the Lord having been "well-known [already] to people at and near Jerusalem." See also verse 22 of this chapter.

38 Mark 3: 12. — We find Chrysostom long ago saying "The Lord would not have the wicked, whether demons or men, bear testimony to His truth" (cited by Isaac Williams, i. 410).

39 Mark 3: 13. — "The mountain." Wernle ("Sources of the Life of Jesus," p. 58) here indulges in miserable criticism of the use of the definite article; as if Mark, from vague acquaintance with the land, thought that there was only one mountain in the district. The definite article in the colloquial style is used to mark mountainous country, highlands. It is the same in more or less classical Hebrew, as at Gen. 12: 8, Gen. 14: 10, Deut. 1: 24 ("ins Gebirge" in German, Kautzsch's "Textbibel," 1899, for which French has a like fitting expression, "à la montagne"). So at Mark 6: 46, Matt. 5: 1, etc.

It is at this point that "the Sermon on the Mount" fits in with Mark's narrative. See, further, last verse of the chapter and note 43.

40 Mark 3: 16. — Klostermann draws from this verse another of his illustrations of how he supposes Peter's communications to Mark took shape in this Gospel (cf. note 25 above).

40a As to "Boanerges," see art. by Prof. Rendel Harris, in Expositor, Feb., 1907.

41 Mark 3: 21. — Farrar writes The Gospels faithfully record what sceptics are pleased to consider so damaging an admission ("Life Of Christ," p. 75). Wernle and others imagine that Matthew's and Luke's omissions were sometimes dictated by the feeling that Mark had divulged incidents derogatory to the Lord's reputation — so little do such writers grasp the singleness of purpose with which plain-speaking, because plain-thinking men, as the sacred writers, were animated. Such an experience of Christ as is here recorded does but reveal the hindrances to devotedness in God's service for which those of one's own flesh and blood in every age are accountable: for the disciple it must be as it was for the Master, as we are told by each of the Evangelists, who, it is alleged, suppressed such incidents in their narratives (Matt. 10: 24, Luke 6: 40).

42 Mark 3: 29. — As to the Biblical usage of such words as αἰώνιος (everlasting), see note 29 above. Etymology is a slender basis to go upon; the usus loquendi all important. Outside the Gospels (as Matt. 25: 46) we have the word contrasted with πρόσκαιρος in 2 Cor. 4: 18. Call it there "timeless," "cyclic," or what you will, it is but to reach some equivalent expression for that which is beyond the limits of human intelligence; this ever needs conditions of time as of space, because apprehension is not the same as comprehension. God himself is αἰωνιος (Rom. 15: 26). If in 2 Thess. 1: 9 destruction is not really "everlasting," then salvation in Heb. 5: 9 will not be either; if fire in Jude 7 be not "eternal," so also glory in 2 Tim. 2: 7. To come to our Gospel; if guilt αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος do not mean endless woe, the "life eternal" of Mark 10: 30 cannot stand for endless bliss. Bishop Moorhouse, in a sermon on "The Teaching of Christ," has actually ventured to insist on the "life" of Matt. 25: 46 not being "eternal"; and logic is, confessedly, on his side. Were it not well to leave that severely alone? (cf. note 35). Dean Farrar, in his "Eternal Hope," here takes refuge in the critical reading ("sin"); but Dr. Beet rightly treats this as equivalent to the "punishment" of Matt. 25: 46. The word κόλασις used there, Trench ("Parables") insists, does not in Biblical Greek bear its classical meaning of that which is corrective, remedial. The reader is referred to Sir R. Anderson's powerful treatment of the whole question in his "Human Destiny."

43 Mark 3: 35. — Adeney (p. 46) notes the obvious implication that the Lord did not, "could not, regard other people in the same light" as the responsive hearers spoken of in this passage. For the "will of God," see the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).

NOTES ON MARK 4.

44 Mark 4: 3-8. — For the local scenery which enters into the Parable of the Sower, reference may be made to Thomson, "The Land and the Book," i., 115, as also to Stanley's description in his "Sinai and Palestine."

45 Mark 4: 10-12. — Compare Matt. 13: 10-17, where the Divine motive behind the Lord's words is made quite clear. The "remnant" is discriminated from the nation at large, whose wilful repudiation of Him as the Messiah, as represented by its leaders, brings upon the mass ("the many" of Dan. 9: 27, Mark's "those without," Luke's "the others") that judicial sentence of blindness which Isaiah (Isa. 6) proclaimed, but modern critics, such as Schmiedel (col. 1866) and Bousset (p. 42), are slow to apprehend. A diatribe of one of these is against the "preposterous dogmatic pedantry of a later age." Jülicher pronounces the words reported by Mark as "impossible in the mouth of Jesus." Compare with such infatuated views Neander's remarks: "There is here expressed "a moral necessity that those destitute of the right will (on which all depends, and without which the Divine drawing is in vain) could understand nothing of the things of the Lord which they saw and heard. So long as they remained as they were, the whole life of Christ, according to the same general law, remained to them an inexplicable parable" (p. 107 f.). Cf. the judicious remarks of Burkitt (p. 88) on the subject. Menzies refers to Rom. 11: 8, comparing Mark 3: 5. Salmond cites Matthew Henry: "A shell that keeps good fruit for the diligent, but keeps it from the slothful." — J. Wesley: (a) would not, (b) could not.

In verse 12 Mark for "that" has ἵνα, for which Matthew has ὅτι. Bengel, nevertheless, would take ἵνα also as consecutive ("so that"), referring to Gen. 22: 14 in the LXX (cf. Luckock, ad loc., the "more merciful rendering"), according to which the people must be supposed to make their own heart fat. See also Sadler's note on Matthew's parallel. Gould thinks that "it is only ironically that God commands the prophet to harden the people by his pungent preaching." Plumptre had already written: "The acceptance of a foreseen result was in Hebrew forms of thought expressed as the working out of an intention" (cf. John 3: 19). At the passage in Matthew he refers to John 12: 40 and Acts 28: 26. With this view agrees what Schanz says on the subject.

46 Mark 4: 25. — Cf. Matt. 13: 12, Luke 8: 18. Neander writes "Whosoever in reality has made to himself a living possession of the truths which he has heard, to him shall more be ever given. But he that has received it only as something dead and outward, shall lose even that which he seems to have, but really has not."

47 Mark 4: 26-29. — The same distinguished theologian last quoted writes on this passage: "Christ intended to impress upon the disciples that their duty was to preach the word (not to make it fruitful). . . . If they only preach the word and do nothing further to it, it will by its own efficacy produce in men a new creation which they must behold with amazement (verse 27). No words could have more effectually . . . rebuked the tendency to ascribe too much to human agencies, and too little to the substantive power of the word itself" (p. 346 f. Cf. Trench, "Parables," p. 290).

48 Mark 4: 33. — Cf. Mark 6: 34, and see, of course, Matt. 13, etc., for such parables. Reference may be made here to the "Lectures on Matthew," p. 279 f.

NOTES ON MARK

5.

49 Deliverance from the world, writes Professor Kaftan, is the keynote of Paul's doctrine of Redemption ("Jesus and Paulus," pp. 50-54), a thought that seems being echoed in these days within the State Church of Prussia.

Amelioration of the world, whether of its moral state or of the material interests of mankind, which goes under the name of "Humanitarianism," and is, according to Cotter Morison and his school, to provide "the religion of the future," is a poor copy of what Christianity left to itself would effect. It is not, of course, to be denied that φιλανθρωπία was known to the pre-Christian moralists; it belongs to the vocabulary of Xenophon and Plato (cf. Acts 28: 2). But, to his credit, Professor Percy Gardner in his book (p. 187) has questioned whether humanitarians from mere "love for man" accomplish what Christ did for man from love of God. See Titus 3: 4, and cf. Acts 10: 38, besides, for the Old Testament, Micah 6: 8.

50 Mark 5: 2. — Out of a comparison of this passage and that in Luke, both speaking of a single demoniac, with the parallel account of Matthew, who tells us of two men so relieved by the Lord, one of the stock difficulties is raised which are trotted out generation after generation. Readers do not always notice that the dual is a peculiarity of Matthew's Gospel: so with his blind men of Jericho and his colt and foal at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. It arises from the Jewish standpoint of his Gospel, and may in some, at least, of the instances be explained by the corresponding need of what, according to the Old Testament, was accounted adequate testimony. Greenleaf, independently of this consideration, cites Le Clerc's maxim: "Qui plura narrat, pauciora complectitur; qui pauciora memorat, plura non negat." The American writer's book is interesting as having been dedicated to his brethren of the legal profession; his points are those which appeal to such as are expert in evidence. The work was written from the believing point of view. Cf. note on Mark 10: 46.

51 Mark 5: 11. — Gadara (Edd. at v. 1 read Gerasenes instead of Gadarenes) was capital of the region in which it was situated, which may account for Mark's adoption of this name (see Thomson, "Land and Book," i. 367, ii. 338). It was a Grecian city (Josephus "Antiquities," xvii. 2, 4), which explains the presence of swine, not to be looked for amidst a Jewish population. The late Professor Huxley, in his magazine controversy with Mr. Gladstone, did his utmost to weaken the statement of Josephus

52 Mark 5: 19. — "The Lord." Luke 8: 39 has ὁ Θέος. Cf. the "Introductory Lectures," p. 196. The only place where κύριος represents JESUS in the unquestioned part of Mark is 11: 3, and then in Christ's own mouth, where see note, and compare that on Mark 16: 19f. Some readers may be glad to be reminded here of John Newton's fine hymn (No. 92 in the Olney collection), which begins "Legion was my name by nature," and probably sprang from his special personal experience.

53 Mark 5: 23. — Cf. Luke 8: 42, 49; also Matt. 9: 18, where Jairus speaks of his daughter as already dead. See Trench, "Miracles," pp. 192 f. "Jairus was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not." The narrative is, as he says, "drawn from the life."

54 Mark 5: 36. — Cf. Luke 8: 50. "Only believe" carries faith in Himself, whose power (Mark 9: 23) is ever involved in any question concerning it, and yet is but one element of it (cf. note on 8: 4). But His Person as such is not so much in the forefront in Mark's as it is in Luke's Gospel. In Mark 9: 42 the words εἰς ἐμέ are rejected by the editors, although well attested — by ABCcorr and later uncials, with 1, 69, Jerome's Vulgate, Syrr., as against Cpm, D and Δ. See, further, note on verses 5 and 6 of the next chapter, and cf. Sir R. Anderson's reply to Harnack's "What is Christianity?" in "Christianized Rationalism" (Twentieth-Century Papers, 1903).

NOTES ON MARK 6.

55 Mark 6: 1. — "His own country." See note 22; also Réville i. 390.

56 Mark 6: 2. — Some remarks have already been made in note 23 upon the "education" (speaking κατὰ ἄνθρωπον) of our blessed Lord. It is quite needless to consider whether He in youth ever entered the portals of such an academy as in the Talmud is called a yesheybah ()$ for the accuracy of the Jews in the taunt recorded in the passage of John cited in the earlier note may remain unquestioned. His "new doctrine" (Mark 1: 27) was His prophetic word, as to which cf. Amos 7: 14 f. It was creative, not created (Schlottmann, § 144; cf. John 7: 46). Wernle, in "Beginnings of Christianity," vol. i., p. 36, describing the Lord as "Layman," says that He "redeemed His listeners from the theologians" (p. 99). May we not add that such redemption is to be had in our day from the critics likewise? As Sir R. Anderson has said in a recent book, we do not propose to exchange thraldom to the one set of men for bondage to the other. Wernle's book has been translated by one cleric and edited by another. "All laymen," we are told by him, "accept the most obvious contradictions, and do not strive after any inner harmony" (p. 379), Surely those who live in the proverbial glass house might withhold their stones. "Laymen" are not so idiotic (see Greek of 1 Cor. 14: 23). Wernle's countryman Weizsäcker ("Textbibel") has rendered ἰδιῶται by Uneingeweihte, "uninitiated" (shall we say in "mysteries"?). Cf. 2: 14 there. The writer of that Epistle co-ordinates them with ἄπιστοι, Ungläubige, "unbelievers." Lawyers, describing critics as "laymen," will tell these that they are miserable judges of evidence, in statements that seem to conflict.

57 Mark 6: 3. — "The carpenter." As to the humiliation of this pursuit, see "Ecclesiasticus," xxxviii. 24-34, and cf. Delitzsch, "Jewish Artisan Life in the Time of Christ" (1902).

In Matt. 13: 55 we have the "carpenter's Son." That is one of the variations from Mark's record found in the first and third Evangelists which some critics idly imagine represent a later tendency to tone down Mark's language, so as to divest the record of the Master of what was considered derogatory to it; whilst others represent Mark as "secondary," because he does not speak of Christ as son of Joseph (Schmiedel, col. 1846). True, such is what "literary analysis" can accomplish. How very appropriate to the second Gospel is the disclosure that the servant Son of God thus wrought with His own hands, sanctifying all human service, and doubtless maintaining a widowed mother!

It is on record that when the Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") was engaged in his last campaign, a Christian soldier was asked by a scornful officer, What was the Carpenter doing just then? The answer received was, "Making a coffin." The Emperor fell in that very battle (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History," v. 8).

"The son of Mary" (cf. Luke 4: 22, "the son of Joseph"). It is common for critics to allege against the virgin-birth of the Lord being historical the fact that Mark is silent about it. In this strain writes Menzies. Mary herself "knows nothing of His having been born in any extraordinary way." If, however, our second Gospel were the earliest, what could be more reasonable than to conclude that during the lifetime of the Lord's mother the circumstances of His birth Divine wisdom and propriety of human feeling combined to withhold? The perfection of the Bible does, of course, lie in its matchless fusion of Divine and human, a truism constantly urged by critics, but feebly apprehended in any helpful, fruitful way by themselves. The Tübingen scholar Baur, who adhered to Matthew's priority, used this verse in support of his idea that Mark did know of the virgin-birth! See, further, note in Farrar, "Life of Christ," p. 63.

As to there being no genealogy in Mark W. Kelly has written: "Who would ask the pedigree of a servant?" ("Exposition of John," p. 8),

58 Mark 6: 5, 6. — Faith in the Person of Christ attaches in the second Gospel to His function as Prophet; in Luke's to, that of Priest; in Matthew to His being the King. With Mark's narrative cf. Peter's words in Acts 3: 22.

A comparison of this place with Matt. 13: 58 affords some critics another illustration of their fad that Matthew, or the "editor" of his Gospel, revised Mark's too naive statements!

A distinction may be made between the "supernatural" and the "miraculous" in respect of the efficacy of ordinary prayer (Drummond, p. 13 f.). Some answers to prayer, however, may fall under the miraculous.

On the general subject of miracles, see notes 27, 54 above.

Schmiedel's discrimination of certain passages of Mark which for him constitute the "foundation pillars for a truly scientific life of Jesus" (cols. 1881-1883 of his article in "Biblical Encyclopaedia"), Fairbairn well characterises as an illusion that mistakes critical ingenuity for historical science ("Philosophy of the Christian Religion," p. 304).

With reference to the passage under consideration, Bousset (p. 56; E.T., p. 49) makes the Lord's being unable all a matter cognizable by human psychology. For the believer it suffices to know the method of the "psychology" which is Divine. Men may have pressure put on them to come within the range of spiritual blessing (Matt. 20: 17-19), but faith is a gracious gift, in no way the result of compulsion. In the first Gospel (Matt. 11: 12) force is exerted by men themselves, who seek God with all their heart (Deut. 4: 29). According to Matt. 22: 11, 12, a man already in the presence of the Host is found not to have accepted that vesture which, according to the custom of ancient princes, was offered by them to their guests (cf. Phil. 3: 12).

One may be sure that Richard Hooker did not foresee the use which would be made in our day of his position in the "Ecclesiastical Polity" that God is Himself governed by His own laws.

59 Mark 6: 8. — "No money in their belt." Dr. R. F. Horton, according to his "Revelation and the Bible" (p. 367), has allowed himself to be strangely misinformed as to the practice of Christians whom he describes as "the most emphatic in maintaining the Divine infallibility of the Bible." He alleges that they "reject the inference of St. Paul in favour of paid ministry." He would be right if by "paid" he merely meant stipulated remuneration, which is unknown in the community amongst whom W. Kelly laboured. It contains most of the few who really act upon the precepts of Scripture bearing on hired ministry (1 Cor. 9: 9, etc.). Material support of ministry exercised in faith is a Divine obligation which they ever recognise.

60 Mark 6: 14. — "The King." Herod's title was "Tetrarch," strictly not "King." Dr. A. B. Bruce, on Matt. 14: 9, says that "it was natural for Mark," writing for Romans, "to use this title, as it was applied freely in Rome to all Eastern rulers" (Cf. Réville, i. 236; and Farrar, "Life of Christ," p. 305, where it is described as a "courtesy title").

60a Mark 6: 15.  - With the Greek of this verse, cf. end of Judges 16: 11, in LXX, "a man like any other ordinary man." Wellhausen's "scarcely Greek" (ad loc.) is poor criticism (cf. notes 1, 78).

61 Mark 6: 20. — Field ("Notes on the Translation of the New Testament," p. 29 f.) inclined to the reading ἐποίει, "did" (many things). "Herod," he remarks, did all but the vital thing — "dismissing his wife."

62 Mark 6: 21. — Wellhausen (ad loc.) relies on the statement of Josephus that the Baptist was executed at Machaerus, on the other side of the Jordan. Even so, there was nothing to prevent the Tetrarch's summoning his Galilean courtiers thence. We meet with scribes and Pharisees "from Jerusalem" among Christ's audience in Galilee or Perea; so in the first verse of the next chapter (cf. Luke 13: 31-34). According to the critic's view, such ministry must have been exercised in the very neighbourhood of the metropolis. From exaggeration in idea of "local colouring," Wellhausen would place the scene of verse 27 here in Galilee ("into the sea"), and not Judea (cf. Burkitt, p. 61).

63 Mark 6: 35. — "Late in the day" i.e.,  between three and six p.m., which time already the French still describe as soir, the first of the Jewish two evenings. In verse 47 we have the second evening (six o'clock to dusk).

64 Mark 6: 40. — The description here is explained by Luke 9: 14. The people were arranged as one hundred in front and fifty deep.

65 Mark 6: 45. — Wellhausen here avails himself of an old difficulty created by comparison of John 6: 17 with Mark's statement. In Mark we find πρός, "Bethsaida"; in John εἰς, "Capernaum." Indeed, εἰς τὸ πέραν, which is sufficiently accredited by the textual evidence (its omission in the Sinaitic Syrian version is insignificant), exhibits the difference of prepositions involved. They occur together again in 11: 1, where εἰς stands for the direction taken; πρός for the point arrived at or actually reached (cf. the quotation in Luke 4: 26). There is no inconsistency, nor "conversion of B. into C.," as Wellhausen puts it. Trench ("Miracles," p. 296) says: "This Bethsaida (cf. John 1: 44) lay on the west side of the lake, in the same direction as Capernaum, and near to it." Wellhausen himself has "not far from Capernaum."

65a Mark 6: 52. —  ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις should not be rendered by concerning the loaves, as R.V., or about, etc., as in the "Workers' New Testament," but by through, etc., as Wellhausen. The loaves supplied the ground of the disciple's misapprehension (cf. ἐπι τῳ ὀνόματι μου in Mark 9: 37, Mark 13: 6).

NOTES ON MARK

7.

66 Mark 7: 1-23. — Wernle here asks: "Why does this controversy about clean and unclean, detached from all other controversies, appear amidst stories about meals?" It is a signal instance of Mark's method, not that of Matthew or Luke, with whom the arrangement is dispensational and moral respectively, of narrating incidents as they actually happened. How could it have anything to do with a device on the Evangelist's part to connect it, for dramatic effect, as this critic suggests (p. 66), with the interview between Jesus and the heathen woman?

67 Mark 7: 3. — The usage explaining the word πυγμῃ may be found in Edersheim, "The Temple, its Ministry," etc., p. 239.

68 Mark 7: 6. — "Hypocrites." The strong language of the Lord which enters into the narratives of both Mark and Matthew in other connections matches whatever can be alleged by Burkitt (p. 227 f.) and others of a more exasperating tone in any of the Johannine discourses.

69 Mark 7: 13. — "The word of God." From the time of the Reformation much has been written as to the connection of this phrase with Scripture, some holding that the two terms are now co-extensive, whilst others maintain the ancient distinction between "the word" as oral and as written. Happily, in this country "the judicious Hooker" wrote, now three hundred years ago, that "we have no word of God but the Scripture." He opposed the Puritans' idea that mere reading of Scripture cannot be effectual ("Ecclesiastical Polity," v. 21, 1, 2).

This standard Anglican writer has expressed himself as follows on the subject of interpretation: "I hold it for a most infallible rule in exposition of sacred Scripture that when a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst" (cf. notes 88, 134). There is, of course, a logical connection between inspiration (note 13) and interpretation.

It is no doubt correct that, as A. B. Davidson has said for the Old Testament (Hastings, vol. iv., p. 127), "the word" stands for the spiritual meaning of the "words" (see John 8: 43, and cf. John 17: 8, 14). It is, however, an exaggeration on the part of Farrar ("The Bible," etc., p. 134 f.; cf. Beet, "Manual of Theology," p. 65) to represent that "nowhere in the New Testament is the Old Testament called the word of God" — that this phrase is used of Christ alone. That "the word of God" is used in the New Testament chiefly of the contemporary oral word, as in Mark 2: 2 (Cf. 2 Tim. 4: 2) and Heb. 13: 7, is unquestionable. But even if such a passage as Heb. 4: 12 could be shown not to refer to Scripture, it seems certain that Mark 7: 13 distinguishes "the word of God" from aught oral. Cf. "it is written in your law" this last word, we know, applies in the New Testament, not only to the Pentateuch, but to the Psalms (John 10: 34). As for the New Testament, when Timothy was enjoined to "preach the word" (2 Tim. 4: 2), this precept was given in close connection with what the Apostle says of the Scriptures (end of chapter 3 — i.e., in the same context), so that the material of the written word can scarcely be excluded from the preaching. Professor Theodor Zahn, in a sermon on James 1: 16 ff., has said: "When we talk of the word of God, we first think of the Bible, the word of God reduced to writing for His community (Church). But James is not speaking of the Bible. . . .  It is possible to honour the Bible, and not to hear thus the voice of God. "

Moreover, God does of course speak to His creatures otherwise than by Scripture. We have, however, to be guided by intimations on the subject (as in the case of the raising up of Cyrus), not by the influence of great names, as Luther (Dorner, "History of Protestant Theology," p. 244). Note here the extravagance of Zwingli: "He who is born of the Spirit requires a book no longer" (Dorner, i. 290 f.; cf. Barclay's "Apology for the Quakers"). It is through the word that any are so born, so that it is the vital principle (which needs sustaining), if we listen to Apostles (1 Peter 1: 23); and those not of God are characterised by ears closed to the inspired writers (1 John 4: 6).

A further momentous question is the interrelation of the Bible and the Church. And, first, does the Church's "sanction" impart to the Scriptures their authority? The Church has not formed the Bible, but it was through Christ's word which we have in the Bible that the Church was "gathered" . . . . . "If the Bible," writes Fairbairn, "is made to depend on the Church, is it not evident that it is not the Bible conceived as a revelation? What the canonizing process produced was not a revelation, but a book." And again: "Hebrews was precisely as much inspired, and possessed exactly as much authority, before as after its incorporation in the Canon," whilst "the continuance of the Spirit is the source of the authority of the word of the living God" ("Christ in Modern Thought," p. 505 ff.). Dorner had already written that the Bible is itself a revelation, "not merely the record of a revelation previously given" ("History of Protestant Theology," ii. 128).

Bishop Gore has written that, for his school, "it becomes more and more difficult to believe in the Bible without believing in the Church" ("Lux Mundi," p. 248; cf. his sermon in 1900 at Westminster Abbey for the British and Foreign Bible Society), which means, doubtless, as Fairbairn puts it, that "as the supremacy of the Bible is weakened, the position of the Church is strengthened." If men thus tell us that our faith must be rooted in the Church's testimony, we need only reply by inquiring, How are we to know that "the Church" is to be trusted? Any rejoinder that the Church rests on the authority of the Bible would he manifest reasoning in a circle.

For the views of such as Dr. James Martineau on Scripture as authority, reference might be made to his "Seat of Authority," book ii., chapter ii. The Deism which passed from this country to Germany, to beget there the Rationalism of the eighteenth century (see Cheyne, "Founders of Criticism"), returned hither in the nineteenth in the form of "Higher Criticism," now running its course; with such a movement Unitarians naturally are in sympathy. They claim as virtual adherents the German leaders of this unholy cause, who, as their comrades in Great Britain, remain in outward conformity to officially orthodox Churches.

The "critics" at present in vogue find no proper place in their vocabulary for Paul's "in part" (1 Cor. 13: 9). With such limitations as they themselves seek to impose, there can be no true progress, no fully scientific because no sufficient accuracy (cf. Sir Wm. Ramsay in the Expositor, December, 1906). Many of them, like souls of old, will not "enter in," nor allow others to do so who lean upon them.

For Roman Catholic treatment of Tradition, see Schanz, "A Christian Apology," ii., ch. xi.

70 Mark 7: 15.  - The Lord here sets aside Mark 11: 43; so the critics wax bold with such an example! It is as with a Swiss hunter who scales an Alpine crag, his child looking on. Let the latter try the same experiment, and what will be the result? There is as little reasonableness in the one process as the other.

71 Mark 7: 18-23. — Use is made of this passage in Sanday's "Lectures on Inspiration," p. 410.

72 Mark 7: 24-30. Wernle ("Sources," p. 60) speaks of fellow-investigators having "split their heads" over the cause of the Lord's going into the region of Tyre and returning to the Sea of Galilee by, way of Sidon (see critical note for verse 31), but spares himself by the "simple" suggestion that the Evangelist, with the record of this interview before him, found it convenient to locate the Lord on heathen ground, and did so accordingly! Such is the "critical" intelligence which goes towards the making of a modern professor!

73 Mark 7: 26. — As to the respective use made of Hebrew, of Aramaic, and of Greek at that period, see Schürer, § 22 f.

74 Mark 7: 27. — Some, as Pfleiderer, contrast the mainly Jewish outlook of Christ's ministry with Paul's "cosmopolitan" view. This can only be rightly understood by reference to Matthew's Gospel, and such helps as the "Lectures" of W. Kelly upon it. Professor Julius Kaftan is one of the few German writers on the subject whose bearings are satisfactory. The Apostle, as he says in a recent pamphlet, did but follow his Master's policy, for him, too, it was ever to the Jew first. Moreover, Kaftan points out how, according to the first, especially Jewish, Gospel, one finds the Lord incurring opposition from the hints He threw out of coming Gentile blessing; and Pfleiderer's extreme form of this antithesis completely breaks down when we reach the light of the third Gospel. It is true that the Lord's own "mission" was to Israel alone (Matt. 15: 24).

75 Mark 7: 31. — See critical note. W. M. Thomson ("The Land and the Book," iii. 481) explains as follows: "He went northward, then eastward, and probably crossed the Jordan at Dan, and came through the region east of that river until He reached the shores of the Lake of Tiberias." Cf. Burkitt, p. 92, and the route map there. The Cambridge professor resists the temptation to follow Wellhausen's conjectural emendation of Sidon into Bethsaida from supposing that Mark had Saidan before him, which he took for Sidon.

NOTES ON MARK

8.

76 Mark 8: 1-9. - Cf, parallel in Matthew. Having had in chapter 6 the record of the feeding of five thousand men, we here meet with the description of another like work of power in behalf of four thousand persons. This time it is not JESUS in the character of Messiah among Israelites as such. The significance of numbers in Scripture is allowed more or less by even German writers (as Ewald); it is illustrated here by the difference between seven baskets as compared with twelve in the previous case, appropriate in a Jewish connection. Chapter 6 sets before us that which was dispensational; in chapter 8 we find the Lord acting as "Creator and Preserver of all mankind." This was seen of old by Hilary amongst others (see Trench).

Modern critics, who never rest on their oars in the quest of novelties, find a "doublet" here. Menzies, amongst British writers, treats the two accounts as only different versions of the same incident. As in most other questions of criticism, our scholars, for the most part, are content to echo the Germans. Wernle ("Sources," p. 66) offers the hypothesis that Mark "was told something of the kind twice over," and will have it that "the similarity of the two accounts is disguised by the interposition of other stories." B. Weiss, adhering to the distinction between them — which it requires only "eyes to see" (see below, note 79) — supposes that there were divergencies in the "Petrine tradition." What a balanced English writer of the first rank says on the subject may be seen by consulting Sanday ("Outlines," p. 123).

77 Mark 8: 10. - Dalmanutha: mentioned here alone in the Gospels. Its site being unknown, the place is marked conjecturally in Perthes' Gotha map between Capernaum and Magdala.

78 Mark 8: 14-16. — Wellhausen, in loc., makes the odd confession: "I do not know whether εἰ μὴ ἕνα ἄρτον οὐκ is Greek." It is perfectly good Greek, although of the Hellenistic type. This Semitic scholar is not as much at home in the New Testament Greek as in the Old Testament Hebrew.

79 Mark 8: 19 f. — The baskets in the earlier miracle were κόφινοι (hand-baskets); in the second, σπυρίδες (hampers). This closely accurate distinction has been often remarked, as by E. J. Holtzmann ("Manual Commentary," p. 191). Some have supposed that it militates against the theory of essentially oral tradition (Burkitt, p. 35).

80 Mark 8: 23. — Why "out of the village"? Trench answers, that the man might be more receptive of deep and lasting impressions ("Miracles," p. 376). For Bethsaida being the place, Greenleaf compares Matt. 11: 21.

81 Mark 8: 27-30. — Cf., of course, parallels in Matt. 16 and Luke 9. This passage has been somewhat anticipated in note 30.

82 Mark 8: 29. — The literature now most in vogue ignores the impressions which must have been left on those disciples who had come to Christ in the first instance through John, by his testimony to Messiah (John 1: 34-51). Difference of judgment as to the historical value of the fourth Gospel becomes vital. How is one to understand their alacrity in Mark 1: 16-20, which implies belief in some human testimony, but for John's narrative? That belief has now ripened into conviction, issuing in confession, which is Divine (Schlottmann, p. 111).

Martineau (most original of the English school) held that the Lord never Himself claimed to be Messiah; that it was "a position made for Him and palmed upon Him by His followers" ("Seat of Authority," p. 331 f.). Réville calls this "proving too much" (ii. 185). Harnack has sense enough to abstain from this negation ("What is Christianity?" p. 133); for the Berlin professor the entry into Jerusalem is decisive.

83 Mark 8: 30. — Another novelty, for which the author, however, has not succeeded in gaining much acceptance, is that of Wrede ("The Messiah Secret," p. 114), that the Lord kept secret His Messianic claim as long as He was upon earth; that it began to be realised only after His resurrection (Acts 2: 30). As to this, any able to use it might consult the book of J. Weiss (p. 45).

The sceptical fads do not stop there. H. J. Holtzmann (on Mark 2: 18) finds another "I" besides "the proper I," because the Lord uses the third person. So Wellhausen (Introduction, p. 97). It is easy to understand the changed form of speech in the light of the transition from "the Christ" to the "Son of man," especially as Sufferer (Mark 9: 31, Mark 10: 33), explained in these Lectures. Cf. those on Matthew, pp. 352, 443.

84 Mark 8: 34. — Adeney well notes on εἴ τις θέλει, κ.τ.λ., that the renunciation Christ looks for is not merely that of a besetting sin, but of self.

85 Mark 8: 35. — "For My sake and the Gospel's" (Cf. Mark 10: 29). It is only in this Gospel we find the words italicised. They illustrate Mark's point of view, in which service is dominant. Not entering into this, Carpenter (p. 186) and Wellhausen can only suggest the influence of Pauline ideas on the form ultimately taken by Marks Gospel. The temptation to assimilate the other accounts seems not to have asserted itself in respect of these words. — As to alleged absence of claims of the SON from the Synoptic Gospels, see Mason, Cambridge Essays, p. 443.

86 Mark 8: 38. — Farrar shows from this that "Son of man" was not a synonym of "Messiah" ("Life of Christ," p. 333). But he seems not to have apprehended its full significance.

87 Ibid. — None of Christ's disciples are to be ashamed of His words — e.g., in Mark 9: 48, Mark 13: 32. All are exhorted by one of His Apostles to "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3), without regard to such restraint as suggested by Bishop Moorhouse's "self-appointed champions of the faith" ("The Teaching of Christ"). Those so criticized may take courage from 1 Cor. 16: 15: ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς ("consecrated themselves"). Some of the official leaders act a very unworthy part at the present day.

As to exaltation of the Son of man, cf. 13: 26, 14: 62.

NOTES ON MARK

9.

88 Mark 9: 1. — "Come in power." The Greek form (ὲληλυθῦιαν) expresses "come in its completeness" as the end of a gradual process (Plumptre).

Trench ("Studies in the Gospels," pp. 185ff.) rightly rejects the idea that Pentecost was the fulfilment of these words. But he falls short of the truth when he sees the fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. J. Scott Russell's views). Even so, partial fulfilment, as he puts it, is "a rehearsal of the final." Pentecost in Acts 2 was that. As to the same writer's connection of Matt. 24: 34 with the complete fulfilment, see notes below on Mark 13: 30. Here, as there, we have illustration of an Apostolic principle as to ἰδία ἐπίλυσις (2 Peter 1: 20).

That the first Christians looked for the return of the Lord in their lifetime, as Bishop Robertson says in his Bampton Lectures, one may suppose to have been the case previously, to the fall of Jerusalem. That event, being unattended by His παρουσία, must have widened their understanding of His words.

Dr. Horton, on the same page of his "Revelation and the Bible" where already an error of his has been pointed out (note 59), goes wrong with Alford over Paul's words in 1 Thess. 4: 15. Neither the elastic use of the Greek present participles there nor the English idiom of the common translation requires our understanding the Apostle to say that he would be one of those alive at the time of the παρουσία. The form of words, it is certain, may be equivalent to "those of us who," etc. So Theodoret, Chrysostom, Bengel, Dean Vaughan, and others (cf. Greek at Heb. 10: 39). Moreover, the Apostle employs the Old Testament formula: he was speaking ἐν κυρίῳ  - i.e., oracularly. It was of God, for the benefit of believers throughout the dispensation, that he expressed thus vaguely the "blessed hope" of that event. See, further, note 134.

89 Mark 9: 5. — Dalman traces all three designations of Rabbi (Mark), Lord (Matthew), and Master (Luke), to the Aramaic equivalent preserved by Mark (cf. note 7).

90 Mark 9: 7. — "Beloved Son." Cf. Mark 1: 11 and 2 Peter 1: 17; so in Matt. 17: 5, but in Luke 9: 35 the critical reading is "chosen," which is very much the equivalent of ἀγαπητός in Semitic languages; whilst in Hellenistic Greek it was a synonym of μονογενής  - only-begotten. In Luke's account (Luke 3: 22) of the baptism of JESUS he uses ἀγαπητός, there unchallenged.

91 Mark 9: 10. — With the Pharisees' idea of resurrection of the dead the disciples were familiar, but resurrection from among the dead, or first resurrection, of which the Lord was Himself to be the "first-fruits" (1 Cor. 15: 20), was an enigma. The Authorised Version did not bring out the force in this connection of the preposition ἐκ.

92 Mark 9: 13. — According to Matthew's parallel, the Lord here made use of Mal. 4: 5, as well as of Mal. 3: 1 in Matt. 2: 10 (cf. Mark 1: 2); whilst the Baptist, according to John 1: 23, quoted Isa. 40: 3, to which alone he appeals. Isaiah set forth the witness of the forerunner.

92a Mark 9: 24. — For other than personal faith inducing grace, cf. Luke 5: 20.

93 Mark 9: 31. — The ἄνθρωποι into whose hands the Lord was to be betrayed were Gentiles. It is impossible to get a satisfactory explanation of the title "Son of man" in a passage like this from the collocation of Son of man and men as treated from the point of view now popular. The Lord was rejected (1) as Christ by the Jews; (2) as Son of man by the Gentiles as well. Under such circumstances, the modern conception of Him as ideal is feeble in the extreme (see notes 30, 35).

94 Mark 9: 37. — The language here resembles that of John's Gospel (Sir A. F. Hort).

95 Mark 9: 38-42. — There is no such break in the connection between verses 37 and 42 as Carpenter supposes (pp. 187, 202). Cf. verses 34 and 38, which describe the same spirit, if from different points of view.

96 Mark 9: 40. — Here we have forbearance commended, in contrast with a sectarian party spirit; whilst Matt. 12: 30 speaks of latitudinarianism as affecting Christ personally. (Renan supposed the passages to be contradictory.) The first Evangelist supplies the principle applicable to ourselves, Mark that applicable to others. Cf. Epistles 1 and 2 of John. Neutrality here means aid; indifference, in Matthew's Gospel, hostility to Christ.

97 Mark 9: 41. — We have here JESUS speaking of Himself as "the Christ." Cf. note 82.

98 Mark 9: 42. — "In Me." See critical note. The same words in Matt. 18: 6 are unquestioned. Cf. note 54, and also Ewald, "Theology of the Old and the New Testament," p. 275 f. It is noticeable that in recording this utterance of the Lord each of the three Synoptists uses a distinct expression for "it were better," etc.: Mark, καλὸν . . . μᾶλλον; Matt. 18: 6, συμφέρει; Luke 17: 2, λυσιτελεῖ.

99 Mark 9: 43 ff. — " Enter into." See Dalman, p. 95, on this terminology.

100 Mark 9: 48. — "Worm." See Isa. 66: 24. It is, of course, metaphorical (Beet, "The Last Things," p. 180 f.). As to recognition by the Pharisees of endless punishment, see Schürer, § 26, or Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 14.

101 Mark 9: 49. — Cf. Keble's lines:

"Salted with fire they seem to show

How spirit lost in endless woe

May undecaying live . . . . "

Mason remarks: "When our Lord says their worm . . . the thought is rather that of unintermittency than that of interminableness" (" The Faith of the Gospel," p. 418 f.).

101a Cf. Col. 4: 6. On germs in Mark of Pauline teaching, see B. Weiss, "Theology of the New Testament," § 63 f., etc., and Cf; note 122.

NOTES ON MARK 10.

102 Mark 10: 1. — As to the route taken, see Burkitt, p. 96, note.

103 Mark 10: 2. — Bennett on the Mishna (p. 72 1.) refers to the Talmudical treatise Gittin (4: 8, 8: 5, 8), for loose views of the Rabbins on the subject of divorce, akin to those prevalent in some American States.

104 Mark 10: 11, 12. — Wellhausen, following D and Syrsin, would read "put away by," as the common reading would violate the Jewish, but be in keeping with Greek and Roman law, conceived to be familiar to Mark's first readers (cf. Wernle, p. 47; Bousset, p. 39). But Burkitt (p. 100 f.) is surely right in seeing a reference to the wanton ways of Salome (Josephus "Antiquities," xv. 7, 10) and Herodias. Greenleaf, too, supposes a natural allusion to an existing legal custom. Cf. 1 Cor. 7: 13 for the effect of adoption of Christianity on marital relations.

105 Mark 10: 15.  - "Receive the kingdom." See Dalman, p. 91; and note above On 9: 47. Cf. Matt. 10: 30, and next note, besides that on verse 30.

106 Mark 10: 17. "Inherit life eternal." Inherit stands for "take possession of," as in Matt. 25: 34 (Dalman). So in Luke 18: 18. In the Synoptic Gospels it is regarded as in reserve; so in Paul's Epistles. Luke 18: 22 tells us that the young man was to have treasure in heaven. Cf. Col. 3: 3.

Some have supposed that there is a difference between "life" and "life eternal," but this is a mistake. See Matt. 19: 16, 17, and Dalman, who shows that in the early and in part contemporary Jewish literature "life" without qualification stands for "life eternal." Outside the Bible (Ps. 133: 3 and Dan. 12: 2) we meet with the expression in the apocryphal Psalm of Solomon (3: 16), 2 Maccabees (vii. 9), and the Book of Enoch (xxxvii. 4), as also in the Aramaic paraphrases ("Targums") used in the synagogues, as at Lev. 18: 5, Deut. 33: 6. See, further, note 110.

107 Mark 10: 18. — Much use has been made of this verse by those interested in obtaining evidence for the notion that, in respect of the Deity of the Saviour, as of much else, there are layers of narrative, in the earliest of which there is no recognition of aught beyond simple humanity. Christ here seems to be taking the position predicted of Him in Ps. 16: 2. The emphasis is not on "Me," but on "good" (Swete). Nothing further need be added to the words of the lecturer here, although reference may be made to his "Lectures on Matthew" (p. 415 f.) for remarks on "goodness" in the parallel passage there; also to "Introductory Lectures," p. 358 f. One may readily see in either passage an intended appeal to the man's sanctified reason. It was a question to be answered by himself. For the use made by Bishop Chase, after Germans (cf. Wernle, p. 42; Bousset, p. 202, E.T.), of the Matthew passage, as if it betrayed the moulding influence of the editor's hand, see Burkitt, p. 17 f., and cf. notes 57, 59 above.

108 Mark 10: 22. — Wellhausen criticizes Mark's ἦν γαρ ἔχων, κ.τ.λ., as "scarcely Greek." It is, of course, for εἴχε, κ.τ.λ., ("he was in possession of many estates"). This use of εἰμί with the participle is very frequent in the best Greek writers (see Blass, §62), and is often noticeable in the sections of Luke's Gospel peculiar to that Evangelist. See, again, note 1.

109 Mark 10: 29. — Cf. Mark 8: 35.

110 Mark 10: 30. — "In the coming age life eternal." For the Jew all blessing is connected with this earth, and expressly in connection with Messiah's reign. The Synoptic Gospels do not go beyond the Old Testament use of the phrase "life eternal" (note 106). In general, says Dalman, "the life of the world to come took the place of eternal life" (cf. Nicene Creed). It is nowhere, however, regarded as lapsing when the eternal state sets in, as some in recent years have supposed. The fourth Gospel regards the title to it as indefeasible (Mark 10: 28 f.).

111 Mark 10: 46-52. — Matthew speaks of two blind men relieved by JESUS as He went out of Jericho; Mark of one only, healed as He was going out from the town; Luke also of one only, healed as the Lord was near to the place (so Kelly — cf. "Lectures on Matthew," p. 440 — after Grotius). Greswell supposed that one was healed as Jesus entered the town (Luke); the other as He left it (Mark). See his "Dissertations," vol. ii., p. 569. Greenleaf says that the Lord may be regarded as "occasionally going out of Jericho, in which city He had made some abode" (cf. 6: 1-8, 22: 10, 40, with 11: 19), and that it was as He thus was returning into the town (Luke 18: 35) that the miracle as described by Luke was wrought. He again refers to Le Clerc's maxim, quoted above at v. 2. Gloag thinks that the miracle was performed on the two simultaneously.

112 Mark 10: 47. — As to the form "Nazarean," see "Exposition of John," p. 375, note.

NOTES ON MARK 11.

113 Mark 11: 1. — On the use of the prepositions here, see note 65.

114 Mark 11: 3. — Field ("Notes," p. 34) supports the view taken by the lecturer that τις, not κύριος, is nominative to ἀποστέλλει  -  i.e., the man is to send them back, not Jesus Christ's ὁ κύριος is manifestly used of Himself. In verse 9 the anarthrous name is for Jehovah. Cf. note 52.

115 Mark 11: 7. — This is another case in which Matthew has two for the other Evangelists' one. Réville (ii. 267) refers to the parallelism in Zech. 9: 9. which he supposes Matthew was "misled." Yet that Evangelist is all the time supposed to be describing what he himself witnessed (see note 50). Origen (speaking of it as the received interpretation), Athanasius, and Augustine understand the foal to stand for the Jew, the colt for the Gentile, use being made also of Mark's "two roads" (verse 4). Cf. Ambrose, that one disciple was sent as if to the circumcision, the other to the uncircumcision (Isaac Williams, ii., p. 340 ff.).

116 Mark 11: 12-14 (and Mark 11: 20-24). — Wellhausen in loc. indulges in another of his characteristic sneers. He may never have so much as heard of the standard English work on the miracles by Trench, from which the following is an extract: The fig-tree "was punished not for being without fruit, but for proclaiming by the voice of those leaves that it had fruit; not for being barren, but for being false; and this was the guilt of Israel, so much deeper than the guilt of the nations." Trench aptly refers to Gen. 3: 7, Hosea 14: 8, Rom. 2: 3, 17-27, Rom. 10: 3, 4, 21, Rom. 11: 7-10. There should be no excuse whatever afforded to writers such as Professor Carpenter for saying of this incident that it is "a stumbling-block to apologists for the Gospel narratives" (p. 32). He, amongst others, might with advantage consult Mr. Kelly's "Lectures on Matthew," p. 443; "Introductory Lectures," p. 88f.; or Mr. Darby's "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 181 of reissue.

Surely Principal Fairbairn goes too far in saying that here was something in nature which surprised Christ as indicative of His limited knowledge ("Christ in Modern Thought," p. 353 note). The surprise is of the same category as that which He experienced in connection with unbelief in Israel.

117 Mark 11: 15-18. — Cf. John 2: 14 ff. Farrar says rightly that it is "impossible to believe that the narratives refer to the same event." Miss Bramston (perhaps echoing Wright or others) says that "it is improbable that He did it twice," but why is not stated ("Sunrise of Revelation").

118 Mark 11: 20. — Schmiedel treats this as contradicting Matt. 21: 19. But in Mark it is only said that the Lord "saw," etc. Anyhow, it is a case of merging by Matthew of two days' events into one, as explained by the lecturer.

119 Mark 11: 22. — "Have faith in [of] God," or Divine faith. See note 54, and cf. the Pauline phrase "righteousness of God."

120 Mark 11: 25. — Note here some of the vocabulary of the forms of prayer recorded in Matt. 6 and Luke 11, which is regarded by all as unquestionably spoken by the "historical Jesus," and for F. W. Newman constituted the one basis of His doctrine (note 3). Yet Mark does not include it in his narrative. It is clear that he knew of the prayer, whether he was acquainted with the raising of Lazarus or not (note 5).

NOTES ON MARK 12.

121 Mark 12: 1-11. —  This is the passage taken by Dr. Abbott in comparison with Matt. 21: 33-44, Luke 20: 9-18, to illustrate the theory of the composition of the Gospels put forth by him in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (see note 11). All the words in the Greek of Mark, save four, he shows, are common to Matthew's and Luke's parallels. The difficulty any mere "compiler" would have had is set forth without any exaggeration.

122 Mark 12: 8. — It is common, with regard to the question of probation, either (1) to uphold the idea that Christians are under the law, or (2) to deny man's complete moral ruin before God, in either alternative impairing Pauline doctrine (Gal. 5: 18, Rom. 6: 14, Rom. 7: 18, Rom. 8: 8). The alleged antithesis between the Synoptic reaching of the Lord on this subject and that of the Apostle is one of the novelties of "modern thought" with which the present generation is harassed. Anyone may understand that the full truth as to human depravity must have become clearer after the Crucifixion; yet the germs of Paul's doctrine, like that of John (John 3), are to be found in Mark 10: 15, the truth of which Matthew's στράφητε (Matt. 18: 3) does but emphasize.

123 Mark 12: 28-34. — The words quoted by the Lord in verse 29 f. are those of the Shema, which it was the duty of males to repeat morning and evening. On the use made by Christ of the Hebrew, Farrar ("Life of Christ," p. 69) writes: "Jesus was acquainted with it, for some of His Scriptural quotations directly refer to the Hebrew original."

124: Mark 12: 35-37. — We are here told that David himself, and that by inspiration (for the Greek, cf. Rev. 1: 10), said that which modern critics deny to him as his words. The old Jewish idea of the authorship of Ps. 110 was that, in David's old age, when he could no longer go out to battle, a Court poet composed it in order to console him. But the Evangelist here tells us that the Lord cited the Psalm definitely as David's own. Not content with the denial of such authorship, some writers go on to represent that Christ here disavowed His being Himself "Son of David" Réville i., p. 47 note, 303 f., 381; Bousset, p. 182). Compare what Professor Sanday says on this subject (article "Son of God," p. 573 in Hastings); Neander (p. 402) "to oppose a one-sided adherence to the one at the expense of the other"; and, for the relation of sonship of God to the Lord's Messianic claims, the article in Hastings just referred to, p. 576.

125 Mark 12: 40. — As to the result of comparing Mark's record with that of Matthew (23: 5), see note 7.

NOTES ON MARK

13.

126 This chapter sets before us Mark's form of the Apocalypse on Mount Olivet, which brings under consideration the general question of prophecy as such. In this Gospel we have the Lord presented as "Prophet," in which character it may be expected that He would engage in prediction. At the present day this supernatural element is but feebly confessed. Scholars in general incline to content themselves with searching for some historical background to each prediction, to which the application of the particular prophecy is then limited. Consequently, a persistent effort is regularly made to establish the fulfilment already of each prediction, so that the margin of unfulfilled prophecy becomes in men's hands rapidly narrower. That which cannot be so explained is deemed "ideal." The writers who favour this treatment of Scripture have themselves to assume the role of prophets. Thus Professor Driver in his popular Looks on Isaiah and Jeremiah, where we are told that there are predictions which never will be fulfilled. But it is impossible for such writers to establish that conditions which seem to have passed away can never reappear. If we are to attach such importance to individual background, let us not forget the principle long ago stated by a master in this department, that history tends to repeat itself (Thucydides) — a useful consideration when studying the pregnant utterances of our Lord recorded in this chapter. Too many now have the "ideal" on the brain; they need themselves to be more practical.

All Scriptural prophecy looks on to the time when "the kingdom of God and the authority of Christ is come" (Rev. 11: 15 -12: 10). For the interpretation of each several prophecy an Apostolic principle serves us: the scope of "no prophecy of Scripture is had from its own (particular) interpretation" (2 Peter 1: 20). Cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 251 of reissue; also the "Lectures on Matthew," p. 377 f., to which frequent reference has been made in these notes.

Because of the difficulty modern professors have in distinguishing in the prophecy before us the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus from analogous events to take place in connection with Christ's second coming, it is useless for expositors of Scripture to allege confusion in the Evangelists' minds or misreporting on their part of what the Lord said on this occasion. One need say nothing here upon such palpable irreverence. The fault lies with moderns in their "critical" presuppositions, as well as in superficial study of the Old Testament and depreciation of the Jew. The gravity of the sins of that people and consequent national judgment are to be overcome by the future blessing assured to them in their Scriptures. Men shrink from believing that aught of the kind must be attended by preliminary judgments, but this remains as true as ever it was. The "germinant" nature of prophecy, which Bacon wrote of three hundred years ago, is true today, and will remain so (Cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 255 f., 270).

Some particular points will be dealt with in the order in which they arise in the chapter, but the reader is expected first carefully to weigh the lecturer's own remarks.

127 Mark 13: 2. — From the vicious standpoint of critics explained in the last preceding note Wernle would date the publication of this Gospel after the year 70 (see note 3), because of the destruction of the Temple being placed in the forefront of the discourse — that is, anything like veritable prediction is denied to our Lord as to mere men like Isaiah; simply human foresight at its best (that in His case likewise faulty!) is allowed.

128 Mark 13: 8. — For "throes" here, cf. Hosea 13: 13.

129 Mark 13: 10. — "The Gospel." As to supposed reflex influence of the theological language of the early Church on the Synoptic vocabulary, see Sanday, "Son of God," in Hastings, p. 573.

120 Mark 13: 11. — In this early Synoptic Gospel we meet already with the promise of the Spirit in the Johannine sense (cf. note 94).

131 Mark 13: 14. — The words of this verse (cf. Matthew's parallel) are supposed to suggest that at the time of the siege of the city a sort of "fly-sheet" containing the Apocalypse in a separate form was in circulation for the guidance of Christians (note 10, cf. Carpenter, p. 197; Burkitt, p. 63 f.).

"He that reads" (see 1 Tim. 4: 13, Rev, 1: 3, and Col. 4: 11). The Greek word implies (cf. "that hear" in Rev.) "reading aloud" that is, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. Cf. Rev. 2: 7, etc., for the importance of such use of Scripture in ministry, worship, etc. The very "reader" may be preacher in the sense of Rom. 10: 14, compared with the passages in Revelation. There is blessing to be had by the "hearer" of such.

"Standing where he ought not." Throughout medieval times "Antichrist" was regarded as Mohammedanism; since the Reformation the Papacy has enjoyed that unhappy distinction in the eyes of Protestant controversialists. To the view in general of the Reformers Dr. C. H. H. Wright adheres in the first of his two volumes on Daniel recently published. According to Dr. Wright, the Jesuits started, as a set-off against the Protestant view, the idea now shared by all premillenarian writers, who have abandoned the Lutheran "Antichrist." Be this as it may, the belief that the "man of sin" (2 Thess. 2: 3, 4) stands either for the political head of the Roman Empire when it is revived (Rev. 13: 1), or for his confederate (ibid., ver. 11) prince of a revived Jewish State, called the false prophet in Rev. 16: 13 (see Kelly, "The Revelation Expounded," third edition, pp. 159-162), agrees, as far as the first alternative is concerned, with the conviction of the primitive Christians, which seems to have passed away definitely only after Constantine's acceptance of Christianity as the religion of the Empire. The "Holy Roman Empire" established by Charlemagne passed away in 1806, and the "temporal power" of the Pope in 1870; but students of prophecy look for a confederacy between the magnates symbolized in Rev. 13 as "beasts." Those who advocate "reunion" of Christendom on the basis of "the primacy of Peter" seem as feebly to apprehend the bearings of the last book of the Bible as supporters of "Zionism" would do. The "Revelation of John" must be studied in close connection with the prophecy on Olivet. Besides Mr. Kelly's writings on the subject, readers would do well to acquaint themselves with the late R. Govett's "The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture," and Sir R. Anderson's "The Coming Prince."

132 Mark 13: 19, 20. — In keeping with the theory of the strictly contemporary character of the account (note 127), Carpenter (ubi supra) here finds "retrospect" in the one verse of what has been "anticipated" in the other. But the Lord's words in verse 20 are to be understood of what had already been predetermined when He spoke. In verse 19 the reference is to the time of "Jacob's trouble" (Jer. 30: 7). The miseries of the Jews during the siege doubtless exemplified what is here set before us, just as the phenomena of Pentecost did Joel's prediction, which in like manner awaits complete fulfilment.

133 Mark 13: 24. — This Gospel has not Matthew's word "immediately." On this Carpenter (p. 198) bases a supposition that Mark here, or his editor, is post eventum ("secondary" to Matthew). Such literary analysis may be ingenious, but Mark's reason for its omission seems hidden from writers who can but indulge in barren conjectures.

134 Mark 13: 26. — Cf. 8: 38, and note ad loc. Here we have what Paul in one of his very earliest letters (2 Thess. 2: 8), speaks of as the ἐπιφάνεια of the Lord, "the appearing of His coming (παρουσία)." The "coming" in its initial stage he has described in his first letter to the same Christians (4: 15). It may be useful at this point to state the ideas of some critics on the subject. We shall take H. J. Holtzmann as a now long-accredited spokesman. In his somewhat famous "Synoptic Gospels," published just before these lectures appeared in the Bible Treasury, this scholar discriminated three aspects of the Second Advent — of His return as dealt with by the Lord when on earth; (a) for judgment (Luke 17: 24), (b) a historical coming (Mark 9: 1), (c,) a spiritual coming (Matt. 18: 20, to which we may add John 14: 18, John 16: 7). All this, it is believed, is very much in accordance with the facts which the Gospel records supply. To the view thus gained we have to add Paul's revelation (1 Thess. 4), which speaks of that not to be confounded with any of Holtzmann's comings. The Apostle's first statement many Christians, misled by the majority of commentaries — e.g., Alford on 2 Thess. 2: 1 — wrongly merge in his supplementary declaration, made to correct the Thessalonians' understanding of his first (see 2 Thess. 2: 2, R.V.). Cf. note 88 above.

135 Mark 13: 30. — "This generation . . . all these things . . . ." From taking "generation" in the temporal sense of the word, Strauss and De Wette represented the Lord as fallible. Others, as Meyer, A. Wright, Swete, preserve their "orthodoxy," while still explaining the word of a period of some thirty to thirty-three years. The difficulty of determining when such a generation should begin — the Lord's contemporaries belonged to different generations relative to their age  -  is altogether ignored. These writers, to begin with, have to assume that such a generation as they think of commenced with His ministry, without anything in the Gospels to appeal to for support. Origen and Chrysostom of old, followed by Wordsworth and Alford (as equivalent to γένος) of recent English commentators, with Dorner and Stier amongst Germans, take "generations," as it must be taken, in its moral meaning. Not only is it so used in the Old Testament (as in Deut. 32: 5, Ps. 24: 6 and Ps. 73: 14, Jer. 8: 3), but in the Gospels themselves (Mark 9: 19, Matt. 17: 17, Luke 16: 8), as elsewhere Acts 2: 40, etc.; cf. Gal. 1: 4). Is not "that day" in verse 32 suggestive of "something at a distance"? (Beet, "Manual of Theology," p. 446 f.).

Verse 10 must be borne in mind in connection with the words "all these things." The convenient makeshift of critics has been mentioned in note 129.

135a Mark 13: 31. — "My words." It is not merely a question in this Gospel of His words (Wellhausen), but of His deeds likewise (see note on last verse of Mark 16).

136 Mark 13: 32. — "Nor the Son." Cf. Matt. 24: 36 in the critical text, followed in the "Workers' New Testament." These words have been supposed by writers of Unitarian tendency to impair the Lord's omniscience, in which they are followed by several in high ecclesiastical position in the English Establishment. The κένωσις (emptying) of the Lord spoken of in Phil. 2: 7 has a bearing on the words.

"it is of course difficult," writes Dean Strong, "to understand how two kinds of consciousness can have been present at one time in one Person" ("Manual of Theology," p. 119). Again, Bishop Gore: "He willed to observe the limits of the science of His age, and He puts Himself in the same relation to its historical knowledge" ("Lux Mundi," p. 205). This idea had already been countenanced by a living prelate. "When He quoted passages from the Old Testament, He might have no more knowledge of their age and actual authors than that which was current in His own time" (Bishop Moorhouse, "Teaching of Christ," p. 47). See, however, more healthy remarks than these in Schaff, "Christ and Christianity," pp. 107-119.

The American writer Gould speaks of the passages having given rise to much ''theological tinkering." He does not himself, certainly, afford any help on the Subject.

Augustine (quoted by Wordsworth in loc.) refers to the elastic force of the word "know," undeniable as regards both Hebrew and Greek. Here the word is οἷδεν (not γινώσκει). Its use may be seen in "I know you not," "the Lord knoweth them that are His . . . . . I knew Him not" (said by John Baptist of Christ, evidently not deriving any ordinary previous acquaintance with JESUS (John 1: 31, 33, Matt. 3: 14, and Luke 1: 36). Cf. Peter's "I know not this Man" (Mark 14: 71).

Some have repudiated explanations offered on the ground that these virtually supported a Docetic view — that is, that our Lord "feigned a condition which did not actually exist for the benefit of His disciples." The Docetists, such as Cerinthus, held that the flesh of Christ was not real (see Strong, p. 99, and cf. Fairbairn, "Christ in Modern Thought," p. 353). Réville (ii. 313), condemning words of a sermon by Bossuet, questions the authenticity of the words, which he supposes were due to Arian influence on the manuscripts of the Gospels. Worst of all, Schmiedel (article on "Gospels" in "Encyclopaedia Biblica," col. 1881) boldly says, "In the person of Jesus we have to do with a completely human being," and that "the Divine is to be sought in Him only in the form in which it is capable of being found in a man." He seems to seek to blunt the edge of these soul-corrupting words by adding what is true — that the historical value of the Gospels goes with the presence of such passages in them.

The devout Bengel's explanation, which most commends itself of all put forth on the "orthodox" side, is that the Lord had no command from the Father to declare that day. For the "authority" of His words, see Mark 1: 2, John 12: 48-50, John 14: 24, and cf. Acts 1: 7 (Greek), Rev. 1: 1 ff., and see remarks of Professor Sanday (article "Son of God" in Hastings), also Dorner, "Person of Christ," i. 54. As to correlative use of the "Father and the Son," reference may be made to Mark 9: 37, Mark 14: 30, comparing Matt. 11: 27, Matt. 28: 19, Luke 10: 22, all of which bear on Harnack's proposition that "the Gospel as Jesus proclaimed it has to do with the Father only, and not with the Son" ("What is Christianity?" p. 147).

With this question is connected that of silence (see Mark 15: 5).

A few words of the late J. N. Darby may be welcome as a conclusion to this note. "In the historical presentation of Christianity the Son is always presented as down here in servant and manhood estate all through John, though in heaven and one with the Father. . . . In Matt. 3 the whole Trinity is revealed, and, we may say, for the first time fully. . . . Hence, No! not the Son, has no difficulty" ("Notes and Comments," vol. ii., from p. 416).

136a Mark 13: 35. — Observe the division of the night, and see on 15: 25.

NOTES ON MARK 14.

137 As to the difficulties felt, and much discussed, in connection with the Synoptic accounts of the last Passover as compared with the fourth Gospel, see note on verse 12.

138 Mark 14: 2. — The lecturer's remarks on the frustration by God of the rulers' desire that our Lord should not suffer at the time of the feast (ἐν τῃ ἑορτῃ) call for earnest consideration in respect of their bearing on the points that come before us at verse 12. It is no question (as Wellhausen puts it on the present verse) of Mark's following the "old" chronology in agreement with John's statement, rather than with the "usual Synoptic chronology." Such "layers" of narrative in the Gospels are veritable cobwebs, not rendered more respectable by the names of distinguished professors associated with them.

139 Mark 14: 3. — "A woman." Pfleiderer (i. 385, note) suggests that the woman was Mark's own mother, whom he identifies with Luke's Mary and also John's Mary, the anointer of His feet. Even critics can do that which Wellhausen satirizes in his note on verses 51, 52 (cf. note 153 here).

140 Mark 14: 8 f.  -  Allowing the Aramaism, it is only necessary to remark that τὸν καιρόν is understood as object of the verb προέλαβε, "seized in good time her opportunity of embalming with myrrh," etc. Whatever Wellhausen may think, it is accurate, idiomatic Greek.

As to "Gospel," see note 17. Here it is, of course, the Gospel of "service," as elsewhere in Mark, not doctrine about Christ (Carpenter, p. 204, and Wellhausen, ad loc.), save as His service and that of the woman to Him are reproduced in the devotion of His followers.

Chrysostom already (about 400 A.D.) in Homily on Matt. 8, spoke of "those who inhabit the British Isles publishing abroad an act done in Judea privately in a house by a woman" (I. Williams, ii. 19).

J. Weiss (p. 5) uses this verse to show how far distant for Mark was the παρουσία (see note 88).

141 Mark 14: 10 f. — Cf, John 18: 2. Wellhausen here finds no "historical connection," because the betrayer's motive is not alleged by the Evangelist. It is, however, stated indirectly. Does such a feeble remark arrogate to itself the name of "criticism "?

142 Mark 14: 12 f. — Cf. verse 1 f. "The first day of unleavened bread, when they used to sacrifice the Passover" (cf. Matt. 26: 17, "on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread"; Luke 22: 7, "the day of unleavened bread"; John 13: 1, "before the feast of the Passover"). This introduces a long-debated question — whether the Passover partaken of by our Lord on the verge of His crucifixion was, as the Synoptists represent, the ordinary Paschal meal, or one in anticipation of it, as John's Gospel some have thought requires us to believe. It will be desirable first to seek to determine the meaning of the expressions used by the Synoptists before considering any specially found in the fourth Gospel.

1. "The first day of unleavened bread." The patristic Greeks took Matthew and Mark's πρώτῃ as equivalent to προτέρᾳ (we might say προτεραίᾳ), "the day before" (the ἄζυμα, "unleavened bread") — a view that was unwittingly confirmed by the Jewish medieval commentator Rashi on Ex. 12: 15, who says that "first day" there means "the day before" (Schanz), the 15th of Nisan being technically the first of these days. As for Luke's "the day," we may compare Gen. 2: 4, noting the words of the third Evangelist, "called the Passover," which are exactly, those used by Josephus in his "Antiquities." If "days of unleavened bread" were called "Passover," we have to do with a whole season.

2. The "feast of the Passover" (John). Lev. 23: 5 f. requires our distinguishing in the original institution the initial "Passover" from the "feast" annexed to it — the "feast of unleavened bread." Each term has to be understood not only in its own proper narrower meaning, but also according to its conventional elastic meaning. The learned Dr. John Lightfoot (seventeenth century) has shown in his "Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae" (Gandell's edition, vol. ii., p. 467f.) on the present passage of Mark that, according to Jewish phraseology, considered with reference to Deut. 16: 2 (cf. Num. 28: 17), oxen ("herds"), or the sacrifices offered after the lamb eaten, were called the "Passover," as well as the lamb itself; and in his notes on John 18: 28 (vol. iii., p. 420f.) he shows, from expressions used by the Rabbins, that it is the chagigah, or festive offering, brought on the fifteenth day (not fourteenth) of Nisan to which John's word "Passover" refers. "Feast" speaks of the whole season, but specifically of that prescribed in Lev. 23: 6 (cf. Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," chapter ix., p. 489).

The American "Jewish Encyclopaedia" (article "Passover," by Emil Hirsch) shows that what was strictly the "Passover" and the "Feast of Unleavened Bread" came naturally to be looked upon as one season, and therefore to have the same designation.

3. All four Evangelists fix the day of the Crucifixion as a Friday, with which agrees the tradition recorded in the Talmud. Wellhausen at Mark 15: 42 renders παρασκεύη as "Friday," in accordance with old Syriac, and also modern Greek. This leads us to inquire what the "preparation" was for. Westcott and others have replied, for the Passover in the narrow sense of the word, but Purves ("Hastings' Dictionary," under "Preparation") holds that it was for the Sabbath and so "preparation of the Passover" would stand for "the preparation in Passover week." Whilst the technical word "preparation" seems to have been in standing use for a weekly function (with Mark 15: 42 cf. Josephus, "Antiquities," xvi. 6, 2, referred to in Grimm's "Lexicon," s.v.), some preparation would be needed for various festivals, and the preliminaries for the Passover in that year would blend with those for the Paschal Sabbath, called "high day" in John 19: 31.

The "Jewish Encyclopaedia" discredits Chwolson's idea that the present calendar for Passover, which excludes Friday as a day for its observance, was in existence then, stating that it is not generally accepted.

To sum up: The Lord and His disciples may be confidently regarded as having taken the initial meal substantially at the same time as the rest of the Jews, within the limits of what Wellhausen (on "Luke") calls the same "official day," referring to Luke 22: 34 there (cf. Mark 14: 30, yet more explicit). The language of John 18: 28 is, in the light of Jewish usages, in no way incompatible with that of Mark 14: 12; and John 19: 14 does but fix the day and hour of what is spoken of in the latter passage, whilst John 19: 31 speaks of preparation simply with manifest reference to the Sabbath alone. The "mistake" that critics have attributed to the Synoptists is a "mare's nest." Most are singularly wanting in what Huxley called "scientific imagination."

Grotius, Hengstenberg, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott, Ellicott, Farrar, Edersheim, W. Kelly ("Exposition of John," p. 392, note), Drummond and Sanday have in turn discussed the question. Grotius supposes that no lamb was used by the Lord (so Luckock, Carr, etc.). Even if it were so, the case would be in line with that of the Jews outside the land. Hengstenberg (on John) follows Lightfoot; Alford settles nothing; Wordsworth is content to follow Chrysostom, who supposes that the Jews broke the law by deferring their observance of the supper until after midnight of the 14th of Nisan. Sir R. Anderson's treatment of the subject in his "Bible and Modern Criticism" (chapter 8) is excellent '

Wright ("Synopsis," p. xxxi.) hesitates not to speak of John as "correcting Mark"; Gardner, of its being "impossible to reconcile the two in accordance with the canons of history" (p. 152 f.). But the language and ways of the period have to be thoroughly investigated before a "reconciliation" can be deemed needful. If it be "quite uncertain," as Professor Gardner says, "which date for the Crucifixion is the true one," does not such "uncertainty," affect only the minds of those who imagine reconciliation is required? Again, there is no excuse for an arch-offender, Schmiedel, saying that the Synoptists (he speaks of Luke) confound the preparation and the Passover itself. It is only those in confusion over the παρασκεύη who could say so; the two could certainly be coincident, and did in that year fall unquestionably on the same day.

See further at verse 18 here, and as to Mark's "third hour," considered in relation to John's "sixth," refer to note on 15: 25 below.

The two disciples, Luke tells us (Luke 22: 8), were Peter and John.

143 Mark 14: 14. — "The Teacher." The person addressed may have been himself a disciple. Conjecture has been employed as to his identity. For "upper room," cf. Acts 1: 13; here it is ἀνάγαιον, there ὑπερῳον.

144 Mark 14: 17. — See note 63.

145 Mark 14: 18. — The Jews had adopted the Roman custom of reclining at meals.

146 Mark 14: 19 f. — The allusion to the betrayer becomes intelligible on reference to John 13.

147 Mark 14: 21. — Note the recurrence of the word ἄνθρωπος, and cf. note on 9: 31. See also Beet, "The Last Things," p. 190.

148 Mark 14: 23. — The benediction was a custom at all Jewish meals (cf. Acts 27: 35).

149 Mark 14: 24. — The order here is significant. The disciples partake of the cup before the Lord speaks of its symbolism. We have in this a corrective of the Catholic idea of the elements, regarded independently of the spiritual condition of the recipient.

The word διαθήκη has probably the meaning of "covenant" everywhere in Biblical Greek, Heb. 9: 16 f. not excepted. See Hatch, "Essays in Biblical Greek," p. 48: "must be invariably taken in the sense of covenant in the New Testament. The word testamentum in early Latin versions meant 'covenant.'"

150 Mark 14: 27. — This may be treated as a paraphrase, the words of Christ agreeing with neither the Masoretic Hebrew text nor the LXX in either of the MSS. B or A (Swete). Wellhausen's suggestion that they come from Theodotion's translation is needless. See Matt. 8: 14 for a clear instance of paraphrase; also Heb. 10: 5, and cf. Gloag, p. 30.

151 Mark 14: 28. — The word προάγειν ("go before") of the shepherd is used likewise in John 10: 4; also of false leaders in 2 John 9.

151a Mark 14: 30. — "This day, even in this night." See note 142 as to Jewish "official" day.

152 Mark 14: 34-39. — Cf. Luke 22: 43, Heb. 5: 7. "My soul is full of grief." This is one of the Gospel passages bearing on our Lord's full humanity, which was early questioned. Thus Apollinaris held that in the Lord the place of a human soul or spirit was taken by the word (λόγος). See Pullan, "Early Christian Doctrine," p. 101; or Dorner, "History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ," vol. ii., p. 35 f.

Wellhausen (ad loc.) truly remarks: "Death itself is not what is terrible, but that which precedes and leads up to it."

153 Mark 14: 51 f. — Some venture to regard the record of this incident as trivial. It is of the same order as Paul's request to Timothy in his second Epistle (2 Tim. 4: 13). The "Irish clergyman" of Mr. F. W. Newman's "Phases of Faith" was restrained from parting with his library by Paul's words there, illustrative of a determination that no part of Scripture should be a dead letter for the author of "The Irrationalism of Infidelity." Nothing would seem to be too commonplace for the Holy Spirit's use.

W. Kelly, in Bible Treasury, vol. xx., p. 28, speaks of his impression that Mark himself is the person intended. So already Townson and Greswell had thought, as Olshausen and Lange, followed by Godet and Réville (ii. 378). Ewald suggested Paul; Plumptre, Lazarus.

154 Mark 14: 61f. — As to the Lord's reticence when first interrogated, see Stalker, p. 151, and Sir R. Anderson's book on "The Silence of God." Observe the association here of the three titles, Christ, Son of God, Son of man. Martineau (p. 133), as Wendt, allows the Messianic sense of Son of God in this place alone (cf. Luke 22: 67-70).

155 Mark 14: 64. — The felt blasphemy is very noticeable in connection with the title "Son of man" (cf. note 30). On the aorist ἠκοὑσατε, see note 18a.

156 Mark 14: 69. — "The maid." A man is spoken of in Luke 22: 58. The two versions are combined in John 18: 25 — "they said" (cf. note 158).

157 Mark 14: 71. — "I know," etc. (οἶδα). See note 136.

158 Mark 14: 72. — "Wept," or "kept weeping" (ἔκλαιεν, imperfect). The passages of the Gospels which afford a complete view of Peter's failure may, be referred to in the following order: John 18: 17, Matt. 26: 69 (Mark 14: 66, Luke 22: 56), Mark 14: 68 f., Matt. 26: 71, John 18: 25, Luke 22: 58, 59, John 18: 26, Matt. 26: 73 (Mark 14: 70-72).

NOTES ON MARK

15.

159 Mark 15: 5. — See note 154.

160 Mark 15: 12. — "That I do to Him," etc. (ποιήσω ὅν). On this Wellhausen ventures to say: "In the Greek the accusative after ποιήσω is incorrect." Such infatuation in a professed scholar is unaccountable. The Greek language was plastic everywhere and at all times. "To do good to a man" is in colloquial Greek εὖ δρᾶν τινα, or ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν τινα, to treat well; κακὸν ποιεῖν πράσσειν, to do ill to, to treat amiss. "What shall I do to [him]?" "How shall I treat [him]?" There is no solecism, no awkwardness in the Evangelist's language here. See Blass, § 34, p. 91, at foot.

161 Mark 15: 21. — See note 1.

162 Mark 15: 25. — Cf. John 19: 14, and note 142. Mark's "third hour" is by "critics" set against John's "sixth hour." Such do not see that, while the second Evangelist is speaking of the Crucifixion, the fourth refers to the outcry before Pilate (Kelly, "Exposition of John," p. 392 f.). It is usual for "reconcilers" to suppose that the Synoptists' statements are based on the strictly Jewish day, those of John on the Roman way of reckoning the civil day. The Jews took the hours from sunrise (our six a.m.), the Romans from midnight, with whom the sixth hour, accordingly, was the same as ours. Then three hours would elapse before the crucifixion (nine a.m.), and these would be taken up by the events recorded in the three first Gospels: the sentence of death, the journey to Golgotha, and the preparations there for the crucifixion. See, however, papers of Sir W. M. Ramsay in the Expositor, referred to by Professor Sanday in "Outlines of the Life of Christ," p. 147. As to Wieseler's idea, see Farrer, "Life of Christ," p. 112 note, where reference is given to Justinian's "Digest" (xli., Titus 3: 6, 7). — The present writer believes that it means the third hour after the last watch of the night (Mark 13: 35).

163 Mark 15: 26. — Cf. Kelly, "Lectures on Matthew," p. 551, and note 7 above (third illustration).

164 Mark 15: 34 f.  -  Eloi. This is the Aramaic form, Eli in Matt. 27: 46 the Hebrew, which Wellhausen supposes was that actually used by the Lord, as having a ring more like Elias. As he says, the Jews could not have misunderstood Eloi, their vernacular.

165 Mark 15: 37. — Nowhere in the Gospels is the word "died" used as the result of our Lord's crucifixion. Here ἐξέπνευσεν, "expired," as in Luke, Matthew's word being ἀφῆκετ.π., "dismissed His spirit," whilst John's is παρέδκνετ.π., "gave up," etc. As to these, see "Exposition of John," p. 398. — The date seems to have been 7 April, A.D. 30.

166 Mark 15: 43. — "Took courage," etc., τολμήσας. Such is Dr. Field's rendering, based on that of the "New Translation," by J. N. Darby, to which the learned editor of the "Hexapla" refers in his "Notes on the Translation of the New Testament" at this passage.

NOTES ON MARK

16.

167 Mark 16: 1-8. — The accounts of the Resurrection given by the four Evangelists have always been closely scrutinised in the service of unbelief, so that the most has been made of apparent discrepancies. The late Professor Rawson Birks, in his "Horae Evangelicae," vol. iii., chapter iii., p. 449 f., entered into an "examination of charges of inconsistency of Mark's account with that of one or other of the rest of the Evangelists," to which any reader may be referred, as also to the later work of Christlieb, "Modern Doubts," p. 468 f.

It is desirable closely to compare the four accounts, and to make sure of the right meaning of the exact expression used by each Evangelist. Something like the following scheme may aid any reader of a book like O. Holtzmann's "Life of Jesus," in which the different accounts are represented as inconsistent with one another.

Mary Magdalene (accompanied by "the other Mary") visited the sepulchre whilst it was yet dark (Matt. 28: 1, John 20: 1). The word ἐπιφώσκειν used by Matthew refers, not to morning, but to evening twilight — "as it began to grow dusk" — i.e., on the Sabbath evening which preceded the morning of the resurrection. See its like use in Luke 23: 54, where Wellhausen remarks that in the Syriac liturgies the expression bears the same sense.

Mary Magdalene goes to tell Peter and John, who come and go again (John 20: 3-10, Luke 24: 12 — omit "then" of A.V.), but Mary Magdalene on her return remains, and sees JESUS (Mark 16: 9, John 20: 11 f.). The other Mary, it seems, in whose company she revisited the sepulchre, carried information to Salome (Mark 16: 1).

Then other women (Luke 24: 10) come, who see the angels and flee, saying, whilst on their flight, nothing to anyone until they meet JESUS, whose words rally them, so that they deliver their message to the eleven as to Galilee (Mark 16: 5-8, Matt. 28: 5-10, Luke 24: 9). Cp. Bp. Chase, Camb. Essays, p. 393.

Mary Magdalene delivers the message confided to her by JESUS to the disciples in general as to the Father (John 20: 17, 18, Mark 16: 9-11).

Luke 24: 13-35 (cf. Mark 16: 12, 13) tells us of the interview between JESUS and the two journeying to Emmaus, and verses 36-49 (Mark 16: 14 f.) of His appearance to the eleven, which was on two consecutive Sundays (John 20: 19-29). Within the next five weeks the disciples must have gone to Galilee, and returned to Judea for the Ascension scene recorded by Luke.

And so, if Mark's "Salome" is set against Luke's "Johanna," the common-sense explanation is that Luke must have included Salome among "the others" he speaks of in the same verse (Luke 24: 10).

Again, in verse 5 here, "a young man." Against this "critical" writers use Luke's "two men" (Luke 24: 4). The women were trembling. Only one of the angels, presumably, was spokesman; to him their attention was attracted.

167a ἠγόρασαν, bought (not, as A.V., on the Friday evening). See Blass, p. 202.

Mark 16: 7. — "He goes before you into Galilee" (so Matt. 28: 7). But for O. Holtzmann (as for Wernle, p. 16) there is a difficulty in the fact that Luke, who tells us about appearances in Judea, says nothing about Galilee in this connection. Throughout the Gospels of Matthew and Mark Galilee is prominent. The Divine design of the Gospels here, as always, comes to our aid (see the "Lectures on Matthew," p. 562 f.).

168 Mark 16: 9-20. — The textual criticism of the closing verses of Mark has been fully discussed by Tregelles, Scrivener, Burgon, Westcott and Hort, Sadler, Salmon, and others. A recent statement will be found in Swete's Introduction to his edition of Mark.

They appear in AC and fifteen other uncials, all cursives, and versions except Syrsin. D has as far as v. 15, whilst Syrcm shows vv. 17-20. Hippolytus quotes verse 19, Irenaeus verse 20. Their place in the Gospel has been recognised by Wetstein and Bengel among the older scholars: by Scheiermacher, De Wette, Bleek, Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Olshausen, Ebrard, Ellicott, Salmon, Wace, etc., among the more recent — in particular by Scrivener and Burgon. Scrivener deals with the external evidence in his "Introduction," pp. 337-344, fourth edition; Burgon with the internal in his, chapter 9. Salmon writes: "We have no evidence that any writer anterior to Eusebius remarked that there was anything abrupt in the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel, or that it gave no testimony to our Lord's resurrection" (p. 146). He, too, discusses the internal evidence, holding that it favours reception of the verses; Morison, the same emphatically, calling the question as to these verses a "romance of criticism, which must, as time goes on, yield to sober truth" (lxxiii).

The following scholars, amongst others, have been more or less adverse to the belief that Mark was the writer: Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, B. Weiss and Zahn.

Tregelles, while questioning that Mark was the writer, treats the verses as authentic and a part of canonical Scripture. He compares them with the last chapter of Deuteronomy ("Printed Text of the New Testament," p. 246 f.).

By those English scholars who do not defend Mark's authorship they are supposed to have been written by Aristion, spoken of by Papias as "a disciple of the Lord."

Dr. Hort's views will be found in "Introduction to Greek New Testament," Appendix, pp. 28-51.

Wright suggests that Mark's Gospel was not copied in his lifetime, and would therefore be little used, thus "narrowly escaping extinction" (Synopsis XIV., cf. Burkitt, p. 260 f.).

Professor Sanday writes: "The most probable view, I think," regarding these verses, "is that they were written to make good a loss through the frayed end of a roll" (Bampton Lectures, p. 380).

Zahn's opinion, that the book remained uncompleted, he rests on the critical canon that, where two mutually exclusive texts, the origin of each of which may be a shorter, well-attested text, compete with this, the shorter must be regarded as the original recension ("Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii., p. 227).

Pfleiderer (i. 395) compares these verses with verses 58-60 of the "Gospel of Peter," which has a like abrupt ending. See also Dean Robinson's lecture on that apocryphal work (p. 29).

So much for the views of those not defending the verses. Since the appearance of the Revised Version, it has been discovered that they are included in Tatian's "Diatessaron," of the early part of the second century. This later phase of the question may have led to some modification of the case against them.

W. Kelly to the end of his life shared Burgon's conviction as to the inordinate respect in which the most ancient copies have in general been held, whilst feeling, perhaps yet more strongly than the late Dean of Chichester, that the text was really tampered with here, as was always the lecturer's belief with regard to another dozen verses in the fourth Gospel (John 7: 53-8: 11).

EDITIONS OF AUTHORS USED

N.B. — Foreign works existing in English translations are recorded under the titles of such; all are cited in the notes by English titles.

BRITISH.

ABBOTT, DR. E. A.: Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Britannica,

9th ed., vol. x. (1879).

Art. "Gospels" in Encyclopaedia Biblica, "Descriptive and Analytic" (1901).

ADENEY, PRINCIPAL: Theology of the New Testament (1894).

ANDERSON, SIR R.: The Bible and Modern Criticism (1902).

Pseudo-Criticism (1904).

BEET, Dr. A.: The Last Things (1905).

A Manual of Theology (1906).

BENNETT, PROFESSOR: The Mishna as illustrating the Gospel (1884).

A Primer of the Bible (1897).

BERNARD, T. D.: Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament

(Bampton Lectures, 1864; 5th ed., 1899).

BIRKS, T. R.: Horae Evangelicae (1852, 1892).

BRUCE, DR. A. B.: The Synoptic Gospels (1897).

The Kingdom of God (1899).

BURGON, DEAN: The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of St. Mark (1871).

BURKITT, PROFESSOR: The Gospel History and its Transmission (1906).

CARPENTER, PROFESSOR: The First Three Gospels (1904).

CLIFFORD, DR. J.: The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1892).

DARBY, J. N.: Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853; reissue, abridged, 1890).

Synopsis of Books of the Bible

(included in Collected Writings, 1867-1883, but also published separately).

The Bible: is it a Revelation of God, and is it inspired of God? (1882).

Inspiration and Interpretation (in vol. ix. of Collected Writings).

DAVIDSON, A. B.: Art. "Prophecy"

in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv. (1903).

DRIVER, PROFESSOR S. R.: Art. "Son of Man"

in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv. (1903).

EDERSHEIM, DR. A.: Life of Jesus the Messiah, 4th ed. (1887).

The Temple: its Ministry and Services in the Time of Christ (1900).

ELLICOTT, Bishop: Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord (1876).

FAIRBAIRN, PRINCIPAL: The City of God (1883).

The Place of Christ in Modern Theology (1893).

Studies in the Life of Christ (9th ed., 1896).

The Philosophy of the Christian Religion (1902).

FARRAR, DEAN: History of Interpretation (1886).

The Bible: its Meaning and Supremacy (1897).

The Life of Lives (1900).

The Life of Christ, memorial ed. (1903).

FIELD. Dr. F.: Notes on the Translation of the New Testament

(Otium Norvicense, Pars 3a, 1899).

GARDNER, PROFESSOR p.: Exploratio Evangelica (1899).

GLOAG, DR. P.: Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (1895),

GORE, BISHOP: Lux Mundi, Essay VIII., 12th ed. (1891).

GRESWELL, E: Dissertations, vol. i. (1837).

HORT, DR. F. J. A., with WESTCOTT: New Testament in Greek, Introduction (1891).

The Christian Ecclesia (1897).

HORT, SIR A. F.: The Gospel according to St. Mark (1902).

HORTON, DR. R. F.: Revelation and the Bible (1892).

KELLY, W.: Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Gospels (1874).

Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew (1896).

Exposition of the Gospel of John (1898).

LUCKOCK, DEAN: Footprints of the Son of Man according to St. Mark (1886).

MARTINEAU, DR. J.: The Seat of Authority in Religion (1890).

MASON, DR. A. J.: The Faith of the Gospel, 3rd ed. (1889).

MENZIES, PROFESSOR A.: The Earliest Gospel (1901).

MOORHOUSE, Bishop: The Teaching of Christ (1891).

MORISON, PROFESSOR: Practical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark,

3rd ed. (1882).

NEWMAN, F. W.: Phases of Faith (1850).

The Hebrew Jesus (1895).

PLUMPTRE, DEAN: Commentary on St. Mark's Gospel

(Bishop Ellicott's Commentary on New Testament, 1884).

ROBERTSON, Bishop: Regnum Dei —

Bampton Lectures on the Kingdom of God (1901).

ROBINSON, DEAN: Lectures on the Gospel of Peter (1892).

The Study of the Gospels (1902).

Some Thoughts on Inspiration (1905).

RUSHBROOKE, W. G.: Synopticon (1880).

SADLER, M. F.: The Gospel according to St. Mark (1884).

SALMON, DR. G.: Introduction to the New Testament, 7th ed. (1894).

SALMOND, PRINCIPAL: Arts. "Mark" and "Eschatology" in

Hastings' Dictionary (1900).

The Century Bible: Mark (1903).

SANDAY, PROFESSOR: The Oracles of God (1891).

Bampton Lectures on Inspiration (1893).

Art. "Gospels" in Smith and Fuller's Bible Dictionary (1893).

Art. "Son of God" in Hastings' Dictionary (1902).

Outlines of the Life of Christ (1905).

SCRIVENER, DR. F. H.: A Plain Intro. to the Criticism of the N. T., 4th ed. (1894).

STALKER, PROFESSOR: The Christology of Jesus — Synoptic Gospels (1899).

STANTON, PROFESSOR: Art. "Gospels" in Hastings' Dictionary, vol. ii. (1899).

STRONG, DEAN: A Manual of Theology (1903).

SWETE, PROFESSOR: The Gospel according to St. Mark, 2nd ed. (1902).

THOMSON, ARCHBISHOP: Art. "Gospels" in Smith's Bible Dictionary (1863).

Introduction to Gospels in Speaker's Commentary on N. T., vol. i. (1878).

THOMSON, W. M.: The Land and the Book, 3 vols. (1881-1886).

TREGELLES, DR. S. P.: Account of the Printed Text of the New Testament (1854).

TRENCH, ARCHBISHOP: Studies in the Gospels (1867).

Notes on the Parables, 15th ed. (1881).

Notes on the Miracles, 13th ed. (1886).

WESTCOTT, Bishop: Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 4th ed. (1872);

see also under Hort, F. J. A.

WRIGHT, DR. A.: New Testament Problems (1898).

Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd. ed. (1906).

AMERICAN.

GOULD, PROFESSOR: Commentary on Mark (1896).

GREENLEAF, PROFESSOR: The Testimony of the Evangelists

examined by the Rules of Evidence (1874).

JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA: (Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1906).

LADD, PROFESSOR: The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (1883).

STEVENS, PROFESSOR: The Teaching of Jesus (1901).

GERMAN.

ABERLE (Roman Catholic Professor): Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1877).

BENGEL, J. A.: Gnomon of the New Testament (T. & T. Clark's ed.).

BLASS, F.: Philology of the Gospels (1898).

Grammar of New Testament Greek (1905).

BOUSSET, PROFESSOR W.: Jesus (1906).

CHRISTLIEB, T.: Modern Doubts (1875).

DALMAN, PROFESSOR G.: The Words of Jesus (1902).

DELITZSCH, F.: A Day in Capernaum (1889).

Jewish Artisan Life in the Time of our Lord (1902).

DORNER, J. A.: History of Protestant Theology (1871).

EWALD, HEINRICH: Revelation: its Nature and Record (1884).

Old and New Testament Theology (1888).

HAMBURGER, RABBI: Real-Encyclopadie für Bibel und Talmud (1886).

HARNACK, PROFESSOR A.: What is Christianity? (1904).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR H. J.: Die Synoptischen Evangelien (1863).

Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1885).

Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament (1891).

Lehrbuch der N. Ttlichen Theologie (1897).

Die Entstehung des Neuen Testamentes (1904).

HOLTZMANN, PROFESSOR O. The Life of Jesus (1904).

JÜLICHER, PROFESSOR: Art. "Marcus im Neuen Testament"

in Hauck's Encyclopadie u. s. w.

Introduction to the New Testament (1904).

KAFTAN, PROFESSOR J.: The Truth of the Christian Religion (1894).

Jesus und Paulus (1906).

KLOSTERMANN, PROFESSOR: Das Marcusevangelium u. s. w. (1867).

MEYER, WEISS: Commentary on Mark (T. & T. Clark's ed., 1901).

NEANDER. A.: The Life of Jesus Christ (4th German ed., 1871).

PFLEIDERER, PROFESSOR O.: Das Urchristentum u. s. w. (1903).

SCHANZ; P. (R.C. Professor): Commentar über das Evangelium des h. Marci    (1881).

SCHLOTTMANN, A.: Kompendium der Biblischen Theologie (1889).

SCHMIEDEL, PROFESSOR: Art. "Gospels," Historical and Synthetical,

in Encyclopaedia Biblica (1901).

SCHüRER, PROFESSOR E.: History of the Jewish People

in the Time of Jesus Christ (1885).

STIER, R.: The Words of the Lord Jesus (1864).

TISCHENDORF, C.: Synopsis Evangelica (7th ed., 1898).

WEISS, PROFESSOR B.: Das Marcusevangelium (1872).

Introduction to the New Testament (1885).

WEISS, PROFESSOR J.: Das alteste Evangelium (1903).

WELLHAUSEN, PROFESSOR J.: Das Evangelium Marci (1903).

Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905).

WERNLE, PROFESSOR P.: The Beginnings of Christianity (1903).

Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu (1905).

ZAHN, PROFESSOR T.: Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1897).

FRENCH.

RÉVILLE, PROFESSOR A.: Jésus de Nazareth (1897).

Matthew 1 - 12.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew.

Preface

The author trusts that the volume may prove a help to those who accept Scripture as the word of God and have confidence in the gracious guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is sent down from heaven to glorify our Lord Jesus. Critical questions have been sparingly discussed here: elsewhere they may be entered into more fully; for truth has nothing to fear, much to gain, from the most thorough sifting, if it be but competent and candid. On the present occasion, however, direct interpretation has been the aim, and the practical profit of souls."

Guernsey, Feb., 1868.

INTRODUCTION

That the Spirit of God, when inspiring Matthew, had in view the aspirations and wants of the Jews, the evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus, and the consequences of His rejection both for them and the Gentiles, is a truth which has forced itself on most Christians who have examined the Gospels with any discriminating care. So large and varied are the internal proofs of such a design that the only wonder is how an intelligent mind could dispute the facts or the inference. Yet we are told that, had a Jewish aim been steadily kept before the Evangelist, the visit of the Gentile Magi could not have been exclusively related by Matthew, any more than the circumcision of Jesus and His frequenting the passovers at Jerusalem could have been exclusively related by Luke if he had written for Gentiles. The objection has no force when it is seen that the Spirit meant by Matthew to trace the alienation of the Jews from such a Messiah as their own Scriptures portray, not alone externally glorious, but first as a divine person though a man, intimating in His very name that He was Jehovah, coming to save His people from their sins, and not merely from their enemies (chap. 1). What a picture follows in chapter 2! Jerusalem troubled at the tidings of His birth, and distant Gentile Magi from the East coming up to do Him homage! Is this the refutation of Matthew's special design? What more beautiful illustration of it could be looked for? And if Luke gives us the most charming glimpses at the godly remnant of Israel, and the Lord Jesus presented first in their midst with the most exact heed to every requirement of the law, how does this set aside the testimony of a Gospel which teems with evidence that God gives us there Christ as traced up to "Adam, which was the son of God," not down from Abraham and David, the depositary of promise and the stock of the kingdom in Israel? Did the objectors forget that the great apostle of the Gentiles regularly carried out the principle on which he insists — "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek?" The inspired writers reflected the richness of God's ways of grace, not the technicality of a human routine.

It is evident also that the apparent discrepancies in the concurrent accounts of the synoptic Gospels must spring either from the infirmity of the human instruments or from the far-reaching wisdom of the Spirit who impressed on each a special design, and so inserted, suppressed, or variously presented, the same substantial fact or truth in pursuance of that design, never giving anything but truth, yet only thus giving the whole truth. Why does unbelief affirm that such a difference of design is an à priori theory? The habitual testimony of each Gospel must decide this question. What can be more manifestly à priori than to impute, on such a ground as this, "demonstrable historical inaccuracies" to the inspired historians of the weightiest matters ever given to man to record? If the sole method of writing a life were that of simple sequence, there might be some appearance of reason; but some of the most famous biographies among men depart in general or in part from the mere order of occurrence. What would be thought of assailing their credit for such a reason as this? The fault lies in those who object, not in Scripture.

It is to me certain that Matthew and Luke were led to follow an exact order, one dispensational, the other moral; that they are far more profoundly instructive than if one or other, or both, had adhered to the very elementary manner of an annalist; and that it is a mere blunder therefore to characterize any resulting difference of arrangement (such as Matt. 8: 28, etc., compared with Mark 5: 1, etc., and Luke 8: 26, etc.) as a real discrepancy. Let such defenders of the faith do their worst: the Christian has nothing to fear, but only to believe, and he shall see the glory of the Lord and the beauty of the truth. Undoubtedly a different arrangement consists with and supposes the same incident variously placed, and with deliberate design, so as to bring out the truth more fully; but how does it prove a "real" discrepancy?

It is allowed on all hands that the Lord may have repeated the same truth, as He often repeated similar miracles. But a difference of design alone accounts for all the phenomena of the Gospels, and this not to the dishonour of the writers, but to the praise of their true and divine Author. Eye-witness and apostolicity fail to meet the case, for two out of the four Evangelists were neither. The foundation of the new building consists of prophets as well as apostles; and though God did supply eyewitnesses, He proved His supremacy by furnishing the most graphic details of our Lord's ministry by the very two who had not seen what they describe with more lifelike touches than are found in those two who describe what they saw. So false is this criterion even in the two apostles, that John alone does not give either the scene of the agony or that of the transfiguration, yet he alone of the Evangelists was among the nearest to both. He alone gives the fall of the armed band to the ground, yet Matthew beheld it equally With himself. And Matthew gives with the greatest fulness the prophetic discourse on Olivet; John not at all, though he is the only Evangelist who was present to hear it.

The Spirit's purpose is the true and only key in every instance. Thus, as to the inscription on the cross, nothing is simpler than the perfection of each report for each Gospel; while it may be that the actual writing contained John's with the addition of Matthew's opening words, the Holy Spirit appropriating each form to His aim in the respective Gospels. Plenary inspiration in no way excludes, but accentuates, special design. The true question is, Are we to attribute their differences of form to the wisdom of God or to the weakness of man? Again, difference of reading is a question of human copies, not of the inspired original. Lastly, the apostle insists not merely that the men were inspired, but that the book — yea, every scripture — is divinely inspired.

There is the strongest evidence to prove that the Greek of Matthew is the original and not a version, though possibly the Evangelist may have also written it in Hebrew for the early Church in Judea. This might lapse, and what was permanently needed abide.

LECTURES ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

Matthew 1

I have thought. it would be profitable to take up one of the Gospels, and to trace, as simply as the Lord enables me, the general outline of the truth revealed there. It is my desire to point out the special object and design of the Holy Ghost, so as to furnish those who value God's word with such hints as may tend to meet some of the difficulties that arise in the minds of many, and also to put in a clearer light great truths that are apt to be passed lightly over. Here I may assume that the Spirit of God has not given us these accounts of our Lord liable to the mistakes of men, but that He has, on the contrary, kept His mighty, unerring hand over those who in themselves were men of like passions with us. In a word, the Holy Ghost has inspired these accounts in order that we might have full certainty that He is their author, and thus they are stamped with His own perfection. As He has been pleased to give us various accounts, so He has had a divine reason for each of them. In short, God has sought His own glory in this, and has secured it.

Now there can be no question, to any one who reads the Gospels with the smallest discernment, that the first is most remarkably adapted to meet the need of Jews, and that it brings out the Old Testament prophecies and other scriptures which found their realization in Jesus. Consequently, there are more scripture citations as applying to our Lord's life and death in this Gospel than in all the others put together. All this was not a thing left to Matthew's discretion. That the Holy Ghost used the mind of man in carrying out His own design is clear; but that He was pleased perfectly to guard and guide him in what he was to give out is what I mean in saying that God inspired Matthew for the purpose.

Besides presenting our Lord in such a way as best to meet the right or wrong thoughts and feelings of a Jew; besides furnishing the proofs more particularly wanted to satisfy his mind, it is evident from the character of the discourses and parables that the rejection of the Messiah by Israel, and the consequences of it to the Gentiles, are here the great prominent thoughts in the mind of the Holy Ghost. Hence there is no ascension scene in Matthew. The Jew, if he had understood the Old Testament prophecies, would have looked for a Messiah to come, suffer, die, and be raised again, "according to the Scriptures." In Matthew we have His death and resurrection, but there He is left; and we should not know from the facts related by him only that Christ went up to heaven at all. We should know it was implied in some of the words that Christ spoke; but in point of fact Matthew leaves us with Christ Himself still upon the earth. The last chapter describes, not the ascension of Christ, nor His session at God's right hand, but His speaking to the disciples here below. Such a presentation of Christ was peculiarly that which the Jews needed to know. It was more suitable to them than to any other people on the earth.

And who was the agent employed, and with what fitness? — one of the twelve who companied with our Lord from the beginning of His ministry till He was taken up from them. So far, of course, he was an evidently competent witness for the Jew, and far more suitable than Mark or Luke would have been, who were not, as far as we know, personal companions of the Lord. But there was this peculiarity — that Matthew was a publican, or tax-gatherer, by profession. Although a Jew, he was in the employment of the Gentiles, which position would make him specially odious to his countrymen. They would look upon him with more suspicion even than upon a stranger. This might make it appear at first sight the more extraordinary that the Holy Ghost should employ such a one to give the account of Jesus as the Messiah. But let us remember that there is another object all through the Gospel of Matthew; that it is not only the record of Jesus as the true Messiah to Israel, but that it shows us His rejection by Israel, and the consequences of their fatal unbelief: — all the barriers which had hitherto existed between Jew and Gentile thrown down — the mercy of God flowing out toward those who were despised, and blessing the Gentile as readily and as fully as the Jew. Thus the admirable propriety of employing Matthew the publican, and its consistency with the scope of his task, are apparent.

These few remarks may help to evince that there was the utmost fitness in the employment of the first of the four Evangelists to do the work appointed for him. If it were our object to examine the rest, it could just as easily be made manifest that each had exactly the right work to do. As we proceed through this Gospel, you will be struck, I doubt not, by the wisdom which chose such a one to give the account of the rejected Messiah, despised by His guilty brethren after the flesh.

But I shall confine myself at present to showing with what wisdom Matthew introduces such an account of the Messiah. For many must have been more or less arrested by the prefatory record of names, and may perhaps have asked, What profit is there to be had from a list like this? But let us never pass over anything in Scripture as a light or even doubtful matter. There is a depth of blessed meaning in the account Matthew gives us of the Lord's genealogy. I must therefore dwell a little on the perfectly beautiful manner in which the Spirit of God has here traced His lineage, and direct attention briefly to the way in which it harmonizes with the divine account of Jesus for the Jew, who would be constantly raising the question whether Jesus was really the Messiah.

It will be observed that the genealogy here differs totally from what we have in Luke, where it is not given at the beginning, but at the end of chapter 3. Thus, in the latter Gospel we learn a great deal about the Lord Jesus before His genealogy appears. Why was this? Luke was writing to the Gentiles, who could not be supposed to be equally, or in the same way, interested in His messianic relations. But when they had learned in some degree who Jesus was, it would be very interesting to see what was His lineage as man, and to trace Him up to Adam, the father of the whole human family. What more suitable than to link Him with the head of the race if the object were to show the grace that would go out toward all mankind, the salvation-bearing grace of God that appears unto all men? One might put that word in Titus 2 as a sort of frontispiece to Luke's Gospel. It is God's grace in the person of His Son, who had become a man, connected as to humanity with the whole family of man, though the nature in Him was ever, only, and altogether holy.

But here, in Matthew, we find ourselves on a narrower ground, circumscribed to a certain family, the royal seed of a certain nation, God's chosen people. Abraham and David are mentioned in the very first verse. "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham," Why are these two names thus selected; and why put together here in this brief summary? Because all the hopes of Israel were bound up with what was revealed to these two persons, David was the great head of the kingdom, the one in whom the true line of Messiah's throne was founded. Saul was merely the fleshly king whom Israel sought passingly for themselves out of their own will. David was the king God chose, and he is here mentioned as the forefather of the Lord's Anointed — "the Son of David." Abraham, again, was the one in whom it was said all the nations of the earth should be blessed. Thus the opening words prepare us for the whole of the Gospel. Christ came with all the reality of the kingdom promised to David's Son. But if He were refused as the Son of David, still, as the Son of Abraham, there was blessing not merely for the Jew, but for the Gentile. He is indeed the Messiah; but if Israel will not have Him, God will during their unbelief bring the nations to taste of His mercy.

Having given us this general view, we come to particulars. We begin with Abraham, tracing Jesus not up to him, but down from him. Every Israelite would begin with Abraham, and would be interested to follow the stages of the line from him on whom they all hung.* "Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren" (ver. 2). This comprehensive notice, "Judas and his brethren," seems to be of importance, and in more ways than one. It does not consist with the notion that our Evangelist in this part of the chapter simply copies the records kept by the Jews. We may be sure that men never register in this fashion. Yet it is evidently in the strictest harmony with this Gospel, for it gives prominence to the royal tribe of whom was the Messiah (Gen. 49: 10), while it reminds the most favoured that others, too long out of sight, were not forgotten of God now that He is giving the genealogy of His Messiah.

* Note that it would be an impossibility now for any Jew to produce his genealogy from Abraham or David, as must be to authenticate the Messianic claim This is given us both on the legal, or Joseph's side, and the natural, or Mary's side, in Matthew and in Luke. The Messiah having come, and being rejected by the Jews, the Romans were permitted to come and destroy their temple, city, and nation; and their genealogical records might well come to an end, as they did. [Ed.

"And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar" (ver. 3). What is the reason for bringing in a woman, for naming Tamar here? There were women of great note in the lineage of the Messiah — persons whom the Jews naturally looked up to as holy and honourable. What Jewish heart would not naturally glow with strong feelings of respect in hearing of Sarah and Rebekah, and the other holy and well-known women recorded in Old Testament history? But there is no mention of them here. On the other hand, Tamar is mentioned. Why is it so? Grace lay underneath this, most rebuking to the flesh, but most precious in its way. There are four women, and only four, who appear in the line, and upon every one of them there was a blot. It is not that all the sources of reproach or shame were of the same kind. But to a proud Jew, with all these women there was connected what was humbling — something that he would have kept in the dark. Oh, wondrous way of God! What can He not do? How striking that the Holy Ghost should not here attract attention to those who would have brought honour in the eyes of Israel — nay, that He should single out these that a carnal Israelite would have held in contempt! The Messiah was to spring from a line in which there had been dismal sin. And where all that is in man would try to hide this and keep it back, the Spirit of God brings it plainly out, so that it shall stand not only in the eternal records of the Old Testament history, but here rehearsed. These, on whom there were such foul blots in the judgment of men, are the only women brought specifically before us. What is man? and what is God? What is man that such things should ever have taken place? And what is God that, instead of covering it, He should have drawn the story out of obscurity and set it in full revealed light, emblazoned, if I may so say, on the genealogy of His own Son! Not at all as if the sin were not exceeding sinful; nor as if God thought lightly of the privileges of His people — still less of the glory of His Son, or what is due to Him. But God, feeling the sin of His own people to be the worst of all sin, yet having introduced in this very Messiah the only One who could save His people from their sins, does not hesitate to bring their sin into the presence of the grace that could and would put it all away. Did the Jew think this was a scandal or dishonour done to the Messiah? From that same seed their Messiah must spring, and from no other line. It was narrowed to the house of David, and to the line of Solomon, and they were in the direct line of Judah's son Phares. No Jew could get out of the difficulty. What are we not taught by this! If the Messiah deigns to link Himself with such a family — if God is pleased so to order things that out of that stock, as concerning the flesh, His own Son, the Holy One of Israel, was to be born — surely there could be none too bad to be received of Him. He came to "save His people from their sins," not to find a people that had no sins. He came with all power to save: He showed grace by the very family whereof He was pleased to be a — or rather the — Branch. God is never confounded; neither, through grace, is he that believes, because he rests upon what God is to him. We never can be anything for God till we know that God is everything for us and to us. But when we know such a God and Father as Jesus reveals Him to us, on one side full of goodness, and on the other no darkness in Him at all, what may we not expect from Him? Who might not now be born of God? Who is there that such a God would reject? Such a hint in Matt. 1 opens the way for the wonders of grace which appear afterward. In one sense no man has such a position of ancient privileges as the Jew; yet, even as to the Messiah, this is the account that the Holy Ghost gives of His lineage. No flesh shall glory in the presence of the Lord.

But that is not all. "Phares begat Ezrom and Salmon begat Booz of Rachab" (vers. 3-5). And who and what was she? A Gentile, and once a harlot! But Rahab is taken out of all her belongings — separated from everything that was her portion by nature. And here she is, in this gospel of Jesus written for the Jew — for the very people who despised and hated Him because He would look upon a Gentile. Rahab was named for heaven already, and no Jew could deny it. She was visited of God; she was delivered outwardly and inwardly' by His mighty grace, brought into and made a part of Israel on earth — yea, by sovereign grace part of the royal line out of which the Messiah must come, and out of which, in point of fact, Jesus, who is God over all, blessed forever, was born. Oh, what marvels of grace dawn upon us while we dwell even on the mere list of names that unbelief would disparage as a dry, if not incorrect, appendage to the word of God! But faith says, I cannot do without the wisdom of God. Certainly His wisdom shines in all that He has written here. He that glories must glory in the Lord.

Might it be thought that Rahab was called in at some distant epoch? But no: "Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David the king." Ruth, loving as she was, yet to a Jew was from a source peculiarly odious. She was a Moabitess, and thus forbidden by the law to enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. Even the Edomite or the Egyptian was held in less abhorrence, and their children might enter in the third generation (Dent. 23: 3-8). Thus was given a still deeper testimony that grace would go out and bless the very worst of the Gentiles. Whether the Jews like it or not, God has Rahab, the once immoral Gentile, and Ruth, the meek daughter of Moab, brought, not only into the nation, but into the direct line from which the Messiah was to arise.

"And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Urias" (ver. 6). With only a few generations intervening, we have these three women, who would, for one reason or another, moral or ceremonial, have been utterly despised and excluded by the same spirit which rejected Jesus and the grace of God. It was, then, no new thought — the divine mercy that was reaching out to gather in the outcast of the Gentiles, that would look upon the vile to deliver and make them holy. It was God's way of old. They could not read the account He gives of their own Messiah's stock without seeing that it was so. And that this was the divinely prescribed channel no Jew could deny. They must all own that the Messiah was to come in no other line than that of Solomon. Oh the grace to us who know what we have been as poor sinners of the Gentiles, what wretchedness was ours, and this because of guilt and sin! "Such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

Hence the first words which introduce the Messiah give the same blessed truth, if there was an ear to hear, or an eye to see, what God had in store and was now pointing to in them. In the case last mentioned there was something more humbling than in any other. For though, of old, Tamar's story had been wretched, yet there were other features, false and lustful and violent, which met in her case that had belonged to Uriah. And this was so much the more dismal because the chief guilt was on that man's part whom God had delighted to honour, even "David the king." Who knows not that it has drawn out the deepest and most touching personal confession of sin ever inspired by the Spirit of God? (Ps. 51) Yet here again we find that he who had to do with this tale of horrors, and who uttered this psalm of sorrowful confession, was the direct forefather of the Messiah. So that, if the Jew looked to those from whom the Messiah had sprung, such must He be according to His earthly ancestors. But God records the blessed display of His ways, both for the winning of the hardest, proudest, and most sinful, and for the unfailing comfort and refreshment of those who love Him.

I need not dwell particularly upon the names that follow. We might see sin upon sin, stain upon stain, interwoven into their various histories. It was one continuous tissue of that which would cause a Jew to blush — what a man never would of himself have dared to bring out about a king that he honoured. God, in His infinite goodness, would not permit these things to slumber. Not a word is said of women who came after the Scripture record terminated; but what Jew could gainsay the lively oracles committed to them? To leave out what a Jew gloried in, and to bring in what he would have concealed through shame, and all in tender mercy to Israel, to sinners, was indeed divine. We may see from this that the mention of these four women is particularly instructive. Man could not have originated it: our place is to learn and adore. Every woman that is named is one that nature would have studiously excluded from the record; but grace made them most prominent in it. Thus the truth taught thereby ought never to be forgotten, and the Jew who wanted to know the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah might learn here what would prepare his heart and conscience for such a Messiah as Jesus is. He is a Messiah come in quest of sinners, who would despise no needy one — not even a poor publican or a harlot. The Messiah so thoroughly reflected what God is in His holy love, so true to all the purposes of God, so perfect an expression of the grace that is in God, that there never was a thought, or feeling, or word of grace in His word, but what the Messiah was come now to make it good in His dealings with poor souls, and first of all with a Jew.

This, then, is the genealogy of Christ as given us here. There are certain omissions in the list, and persons of some learning have been alike weak and daring), enough to impute a mistake to St. Matthew which no intelligent Sunday scholar would have made. For a child could copy what was clearly written out before him; and certainly Matthew could easily have taken the Old Testament and have reproduced the list of names and generations given us in the Chronicles and elsewhere. But there was a divine reason for omitting the particular names of Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah from verse 8 — three generations. Why is it, we may be permitted to ask, that the apostle Matthew drops, of course by inspiration, some of the links of the chain? The Spirit of God was pleased to arrange the ancestry of our Lord into three divisions of fourteen generations each. Now, as there were actually more than fourteen generations between David and the Captivity, it was a matter of necessity that some should be discarded in order to equalize the series, and fourteen only are therefore recorded. Indeed, if you examine the Old Testament Scriptures, you will find that it is not at all uncommon in genealogies to drop some of the links of the chain. More than twice as many as in our verse are omitted in one place (Ezra 7: 3). Now it was Ezra himself who wrote that book, and of course he knew his own descent far more familiarly than we do. And if any of us, by comparison with other parts, can find out the missing links, much more could he. And yet, in giving his own genealogy (chap. 7), the Spirit of God is pleased by him to omit no less than seven generations. This is the more remarkable as no one could exercise his rights as a priest unless he could trace his line up to Aaron without any question as to the succession. I have no doubt that there were special reasons for the omission elsewhere no less than in our Gospel; but the motives for it are a very different question. One of them I have named. There were more than twice seven generations in at least the second division; and this may have been one reason why the writer should omit several of them. But why these in particular? Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, king of Israel, and wife of Jehoram, had thus entered by marriage the royal house of David; and a sorrowful hour it was indeed for Judah. For Athaliah, enraged at the premature end of her son, king Ahaziah, was guilty of a too successful attempt to destroy the seed-royal. But it could not be complete; for that family was selected out of all the families of God's people, never to be entirely extinguished till Shiloh came. There was but a single youthful scion, whom Jehoshabeath saved by concealment in the house of the Lord. The light was covered with a bushel for a time; but it was not put out. The then son of David appeared. It was a time when Judah had fallen into manifold and ever-deepening evil. But as surely as that young Joash was brought out of his darkness, — as truly as the priest was there to anoint the king, and the union of the two things accomplished the great purpose of God,so it will be when the years of man's rebellion against God are full. He will come forth who has been long hidden and forgotten, and all the enemies shall be trampled down; and then will Judah flourish indeed under the King, the true Son of David. For all this was the type of the reappearing of the true Messiah by and by. But my design is not so much to dwell upon that now as to inquire and suggest briefly why it is that we have these few kings omitted. The answer seems to be, that they sprang from Athaliah. Hence they were completely passed over. We find God thus marking His resentment at the introduction of that wicked and idolatrous stock from the house of Ahab. Athaliah's descendants are not mentioned even to the third generation. This appears to be the moral reason why we find three persons left out at this particular point. Then, in verse 11 we read, "And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren at the time of the removal to Babylon." It is evident that the method is summary, Jehoahaz, whom the people made king, and who reigned for but three months, not being specified, and Jehoiakim being often called by the same name as his son Jechonias.

But I will not dwell upon the minuter features of the genealogy. The word of God is infinite; and, no matter what we may have learned, it only puts us in a position to find out our ignorance. When persons are altogether in the dark, they think they know all that is to be known. But as we make real progress, we acquire a deeper sense of how little we know, and at the same time more patience with others who may know a little lessand, very possibly, somewhat more. Spiritual intelligence, instead of puffing up the loving heart, produces an increased feeling of our own littleness. Where it is not so, we have reason to fear that the mind outruns the conscience, and that both are far from being subject to the Holy Ghost.

The generations are divided into three different sections. The first is from Abraham to David, the dawn of glory for the Jews. When David "the king" was there, it was noontime in Israel — sadly chequered, it is true, and clouded through sin; but still it was noon of man's day in Israel. The second division is from thence till the carrying away to Babylon. The third is from that captivity until Christ. This last was clearly the evening history of Israel's past. But that evening is not the close. It ends with the brightest light of all — type of the day when at evening-time there shall be light. just as the prophet Haggai speaks of the house of God, as it then was, being as nothing in comparison of its first glory, and says, "The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts," so a greater than Solomon was here. Although there had been the decline of the splendour of Israel, and Israel was now broken and subject to the Gentiles, the recorded decline ends in the birth of the true Messiah. Throughout the lingering captivity no persecution could destroy that chosen family; because Jesus, the Messiah of God, was to be born of it. The moment that Jesus concludes His career here below, the chain may seem forever broken as regards the earth, but it is only to be riveted to the throne of God in heaven. Jesus is there, alive again for evermore. And Jesus shall come again, and the Jews shall see and weep, even those written in the book; and Jehovah their King, even Jesus, shall reap in joy what He sowed in tears and His own blood.

But let us look for a little at the remaining view given us of our Lord Jesus in this chapter. Joseph is made very prominent. The genealogy itself is that of Joseph, not of Mary. On the other hand, Mary is the principal figure of the two in Luke, and there it is, I believe, her genealogy. Why is this? It was of necessity, for a Jew, that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph. The reason is that Joseph was the direct lineal descendant of the royal branch of David's house. There were two lines that came down unbroken to those days — the house of Solomon and the house of Nathan. Mary was the representative of Nathan's family, as Joseph was of Solomon's. If Mary had been mentioned without her connection with her husband, there would not have been a legal right to the throne of David. It was necessary that the Messiah should be born, not merely of a virgin, nor of a virgin daughter of David, but of one legally united to Joseph, i.e., in the eye of the law, really his wife. This is carefully recorded here for the special instruction of Israel; for an intelligent Jew would at once have asked that question, and everything must be fenced round with holy jealousy. Let people calumniate as they might, Mary must be espoused to Joseph; else the Lord Jesus would not have a proper title to the throne of David, and therefore the stress here is not laid upon Mary but upon Joseph, because the law would have always maintained the claim of Joseph. On the other hand, had Joseph been the real father, there could have been no Saviour at all. As it is, the wonder of divine wisdom shines most conspicuously, making Him legally the son of Joseph, really the son of Mary, who in the truth of His nature is the Son of God. And all three met and merged in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He must be the undisputed heir of Joseph according to the law, and Joseph was espoused to Mary. The child must be born before Joseph ever lived with Mary as his wife, and this we are carefully shown here.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ* was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream," etc. (vers. 18-20). Here the angel appears to Joseph in a dream. In Luke the angel appears to Mary. It is thus in Matthew because Joseph was the important person in the eye of the law; and yet the Messiah must not be, in point of fact, the son of Joseph. All the wit of man could not have understood these ways beforehand; all his power could not have arranged the circumstances. If the law demanded that Jesus should be the heir of Joseph, the prophet demanded that he should not be the son of Joseph, but of a virgin. God humbling Himself was the need of man; man exalted was the counsel of God. How was this, and far more, to be united and reconciled in one person? Jehovah Jesus is the answer. "The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 20).

* Many ancient versions omit "Jesus" from this verse.

God meets the scruples of the godly Israelite, and signifies that most distinguished honour which He had put upon Mary under a guise which for a season had clouded and distressed her. She was the very virgin God had predicted hundreds of years before — " She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus." Here again Joseph was to be the one who publicly acts, while in Luke (Luke 1: 31) Mary names. The difference arises from the point of view the Holy Ghost gives us of our Lord's person in the two Gospels. In Luke He was proving that Jesus, though divine, was very man — a partaker of humanity apart from sin. In our case it is sinful human nature; in His case it was holy. Therefore, in speaking of Him simply as man, it is said in Luke, "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." So He was most truly and properly a man — the child of His virgin mother; and as such, too, He is called the Son of God. In that Gospel one great point was to prove His holy manhood; to show how fully and fitly He could be a Saviour of men, and take up the woes and wretchedness, and on the cross suffer for the sinfulness of others — Himself the Holy One. He was the Son of God, who had actually taken human nature into His own person, who was perfectly and really a man as much as any of us; but a man without sin, yet holy, and not merely innocent. Adam was innocent; Jesus was holy. Holiness does not mean mere absence of evil, but inward power according to God, and so power to withstand evil. When Adam was tempted, he fell. Jesus was tried by every temptation, and Satan exhausted his wiles in vain. All this, however, is most suitable to the Gospel of Luke, where it is accordingly shown that the proper humanity of Jesus flowed from His birth (i.e., from His mother). His legal right to the throne of David flowed from Joseph, and Joseph accordingly is the prominent personage in the Gospel of Matthew.

But He had a title greater than any which Joseph could transmit even from David or Abraham; and this was to be attested in His name, His lowly name of Jesus, Jehovah, the Saviour. "Thou shalt call His name JESUS; for He shall save His people from their sins." Jehovah's people were His people; and He should save them, not merely from their enemies, but from their sins. What a testimony to Him and for them! Blessed for any sinful soul to hear; how especially needed for a people then inflated with boundless hopes of earthly aggrandizement in their expected Messiah!

Here, too, alone in any of the Gospels, it is that we hear of Jesus as "Emmanuel." This is equally instructive and beautiful, because the Jew was apt to forget it. Did he look for a divine Messiah — for one who was God as well as man? Very far from it. Comparatively few of the Jews expected anything so astonishing as this. They craved and looked for a mighty king and conqueror, yet still a mere man. But here we find that the Holy Spirit, by their own prophet Isaiah, besides speaking of Him as man, takes care to show that He was much more than man, that He was God (vers. 22, 23). Matthew alone brings out this clear testimony of the great evangelical prophet — "God with us." So perfectly did God provide for these poor Jews, and develop the neglected seeds of their prophecies, and reflect light on the obscure parts of their law; so that if a Jew rejected the Messiah, he did it to his own eternal ruin. Besides being the son of David and Abraham, then, He was God with us. Such was the true Messiah, and such the witness produced to Israel. Could they reject Matthew's history, if they received Isaiah's prophecy? In vain they worshipped God, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called His name JESUS" (vers. 24, 25). Some of the best authorities (the Sinai., Vat., etc.) omit "her first-born," and so present simply "a son." But there is no doubt that these words are genuine in Luke 2, whence they may have been introduced here. The shorter form appears to me sufficient for the purpose of our Evangelist.

We have been tracing what would have been of peculiar interest for a Jew; but may we also find the blessing of these truths for our own souls. Whatever exalts Jesus, whatever displays the grace of God and puts down the pride of man, is pregnant with blessing for us. By the blessing of God, pursuing these lessons still farther, we shall find how the wisdom of every word of His is justified as we wait on this most illustrious testimony to Jesus the Messiah, to His rejection by Israel, and to the blessings which thence flow out to us once poor Gentiles.

Matthew 2.

I think we shall find in the chapter before us abundant confirmation of the account I have already given of the Holy Ghost's special design by Matthew. That is, we shall see proofs that there is a most careful presentation of Jesus as the true Messiah of God, and of His rejection as such by the Jews; and that God, at the same time, takes advantage of Israel's fall to work out larger and deeper purposes.

The very first incident in the chapter illustrates it. Jesus was born. We do not meet with the same interesting facts, which are given us in Luke, of the very early days of our Lord's infancy: all are passed by, save that we have Christ presented as born in Bethlehem of Judea, the worship of the Magi from the east, and the flight into Egypt. The first fact that the Holy Ghost gives us here is the affecting one that there was no heart for the Messiah in Israel. And this was proved by the most significant circumstances. "Jesus having been born, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship (or do homage to) Him." We are not told how soon this was after His birth. No doubt a considerable time had elapsed. People are often deceived as to this in looking at the scene through the notions of their infancy. We have all seen the pictures of the Babe in the manger, and "the three kings" coming in to worship Him. But the truth is, that the Lord was not just born, as such associations would convey, when the Magi arrived. For His earliest condition in this world we must consult, not Matthew, but Luke.

Some might, it is true, gather a wrong impression from the Authorized Version of verse 1: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king." This does not intimate that the visit followed immediately upon our Saviour's birth, but leaves room for a time more or less considerable afterwards. It simply means, that after He was born these easterns came: many months, or upwards of a year, might have intervened. What confirms this is that the wise men had first seen the star in the east, and most probably at the time of our Lord's birth. After seeing the star, they had of course many a preparation to make before they could set out, and then a long way to travel; and travelling in those days was a hard and tedious matter in the eastern parts of the world. Even when they arrive in Judea, they go up first to Jerusalem to enquire there. All this supposes necessarily the lapse of no little time. Their questions are answered by the scribes. Herod, hearing of it, is troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. He gathers together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, and demands of them where Christ should be born. They tell him in Bethlehem of Judea, upon which he calls the wisemen and sends them there. All this took place be. fore the scene of their worship.

They, when they had heard the king, departed. "And lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." We are not to imagine, according to traditional notions, that the star tracked the way before them to Jerusalem. They saw it in the east, and connected the sight with the promised Messiah; for at that time the prophecies about His speedy appearance had been spread over a considerable part of the world. Many Gentiles were expecting Him, especially in the east. And the greatest and most opposed in the west were aware of such hopes. The last man that was known in the east as a prophet, before the Gentiles were broken in the presence of Israel, was Balaam. No doubt he was a wicked man; but God took advantage of him to utter the most remarkable predictions of Israel's coming glory. And that very prophecy had closed with a reference to the Star that should rise out of Jacob. And now, after many hundred years had passed away, the traces of this prophecy still lingered among the children of the east. It is unlikely, too, that Daniel's prophecies in Babylon, especially that of the seventy weeks, etc., could be unknown, considering his position and the extraordinary events of his day. We can understand that these prophecies would not only be such as the children of Israel would treasure up, but the knowledge of them might spread, especially in those lands. Much of his prophecies might not be clearly understood. Still, they looked for a wonderful personage to arise — a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre out of Israel.

When these strangers, then, saw the star, they set forward to His traditional capital, Jerusalem. It is clear that the star was a meteor of some kind. As it shone in the east, they put the fact of this remarkable phenomenon along with the expectations of the coming king. And this the more, because the easterns were great observers of the heavens, and were therefore more alive to any uncommon appearance. It may have recalled the prophecy of Balaam. Certain it is that they soon started for Jerusalem, where universal report among the Gentiles maintained that the great King was to reign. Having got there, God meets them; and it is remarkable how He does so. It is by His word, and His word interpreted by those who had not the smallest interest of heart in the Messiah. They were quite right in their interpretation; they knew where Messiah was to be born. The Magi probably thought that Jerusalem was to be the spot; but they were told by the scribes that Bethlehem was the predicted birthplace. Alas, the very men who could answer so pertinently showed the not less solemn, because it is a common fact, that it is possible to have a measure of clear knowledge of Scripture and at the same time to have no love for Him of whom all testifies! As to the Magi, ignorant as they were, and though they might have been in the dark as to other things, still their desire was true, and God overruled all. Through these Gentiles, indeed, He sent a testimony to Jerusalem as to the birth of the Messiah. God knew how to accomplish this and to rebuke, through their testimony, those who ought above all to have watched for and hailed their own Messiah. If there was a queen who came from the distant parts of the earth to see king Solomon and to hear his wisdom who was the type of Christ, so was it now. The Holy Ghost wrought on and for these pilgrims from a far country to bring them in presence of the true King. The scribes could answer the questions, but there was no care for the Messiah, and it was for Him that these wise men came. This at once detects the awful state that Jerusalem was in. The effect of the tidings that God's King was born is that, instead of seeking the promised One, instead of being filled with joy to hear of One whom they had not sought, they were all troubled, from the king downward. More particularly, as we learn here, the chief priests and scribes are those whose state demonstrates the utter heartlessness of the nation. They had enough religious knowledge, they had the key in their hand, but they had no heart to enter in.

"Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared" (ver. 7). I call your attention to that, as confirming what I said before. It was after the diligent enquiry of the king from the wise men that he settled in his own mind at what time the Child must have been born. When they, warned of God, had withdrawn themselves instead of returning to Herod, he sent forth the cruel command to kill the children in Bethlehem and all the coasts "from two years old and under" - he naturally inferred that there had been a considerable lapse of time between the birth of Christ and the giving of his wicked order.

If we turn to the Gospel of Luke, we shall see the importance of this. We have there our Lord born, as Matthew shows, in the city of David; but we are told here the circumstances that account for this, for Bethlehem was not the place where Mary and Joseph ordinarily dwelt. It was a village to which they repaired because of the commandment of the Roman emperor, who had sent forth a decree that all the world should be taxed, or enrolled. They, being of the royal family of the Jews, go to Bethlehem, which was the city of David. Thus God brought to pass the accomplishment of the prophecy of Micah through the decree of Caesar Augustus. Nothing was farther from the Roman's thought than the result which his decree was to subserve — the birth of the Messiah in the very place where prophecy demanded it. It appears that the census was not carried out then, but begun, and then stopped for some time. For it is said in Luke 2: 2, "And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," which was several years after. People, not understanding this, have concluded that there was a mistake in Luke. They knew that Cyrenius's government of Syria was subsequent to Christ's nativity, and too hastily inferred that our Evangelist laboured under the impression that the going up of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem took place in his time. But it is they who err, I believe. The decree of Caesar Augustus did not come into full operation or effect till then. It was just sufficiently carried out, when the order for enrolment was given, to induce Joseph and Mary to go up to the city of their lineage; and that was enough. God's object was accomplished. Joseph and Mary went there, and while there her days were fulfilled and she brought forth her firstborn Son, and "wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in the manger." There we have a scene totally different from what we had in Matthew, though this too was at Bethlehem. In all probability they paid more than one visit to the place. It was not far from Jerusalem, and we know that they went there every year to the feast of the passover. I see no reason to doubt that the visit of the Magi took place at another visit on the part of the parents to Bethlehem.

Mark how the circumstances recorded in Matthew differ from those in Luke.

In Matthew, Jerusalem is all troubled by the tidings of the Messiah's birth, while strangers from afar come up to do homage to the King of the Jews. They had seen His star; they knew it was the promised King, and now they are come to worship Him. They arrive at Jerusalem, and when they leave it, on their way to Bethlehem, they are again encouraged of God. The star which they had seen before in the cast, re-appeared and went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was — plain evidence that the star had not accompanied them all the way. And we shall find it true in our own experience, that where we act in simple obedience, we find all that is necessary. God always takes particular care of those who are true to the light, even though it be ever so little; while nothing is more abhorrent to Him than great pretensions to light, without any heart for the true light, which is Christ.

We may observe that, of the reputed parents, Joseph is ever made the prominent person here, as in chapter 1. The vision, of verse 13, was to Joseph. Nevertheless, the Magi," when they were come into the house, saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshipped Him," not her. Their homage was to Him. "And when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." They acknowledged Him, as poor strangers whose greatest honour was to be owned of Him. Jerusalem is outside all this. A usurper was there; an Edomite was ruling. And, as when Christ returns again to the earth there will be a false king in Jerusalem under the influence of the western powers, and in conjunction with the religious heads of Israel, so it was at His first coming. All was entirely opposed to the recognition of Jesus.

In Luke we have quite another order of things. It is not so much one acknowledged as a king, though He was a king, but He is seen there in the lowliest possible condition. The persons that own Him are Jewish shepherds, who had the news made known to them from heaven. The heavenly hosts sing — their hearts delight in the ways of God, in the Saviour — for as such had He been announced to them: "Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be the sign unto you; ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in the manger." This was the very opening of our blessed Lord's life here below, evidently taking place immediately after His birth. The incident of the homage rendered by the Magi was long subsequent. There is not the slightest ground for confounding the two occasions. Each Gospel is true to its special purpose. In Matthew it is a question of His royal rights over Israel and the Gentiles; in Luke we have the perfect lowliness, from His very birth, of the Saviour-Son of Man; heaven's interest in the birth of the earth — despised Christ the Lord, and those poor of the flock, whose hearts are awakened to receive this blessed One — the expression, the means, and the substance of divine grace. "Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people," or rather, "to all the people," for it means the Jews. A much wider circle appears afterwards, but it does not go beyond the Jews yet. To the Jew first, was the divine order.

How beautifully these various accounts harmonize with the Gospels in which they are found? In the one, the King, born some time before, is seen in Bethlehem, but none welcome Him save strangers from the east. From Matthew, we should not be aware of the slightest recognition of the Saviour up to the time of their coming. On the contrary, when the first breath of these tidings is brought to Jerusalem, consternation was the result in all. The king, the priests, the scribes, all are in a state of ferment. There was no heart for Jesus. But God always will have a testimony. If the Jews will not have Him, the Gentiles come; and grace it is that effects this. Unbelieving Jews tell the Magi where the King should be born. They at once act upon it, and the Lord, meeting them on the way, puts them in presence of the King, to whom they present their gifts. It is the Messiah of Israel, but rejected by Israel from His very birth. Jerusalem is with the false king, and cares not to receive Him. Those who were despised as dogs, whom the Jews themselves had to instruct in the first lessons of prophecy, have the glory of being the true recognizers of the claims of the Messiah. How humbling! It is the Messiah come, and owned by the ends of the earth; but slighted and rejected of His own nation. "He came to His own, and His own received Him not." It was important that Israel should know it. Here, through the earliest of the Evangelists, let them learn that it does not arise from any want of evidence on God's part. How did these Gentiles know? And where were the Jews all this time, that they had not recognized their own Messiah? It was a terrible tale, for the truth was the strangest of all things in their ears. Such is God's way: He gives testimony, but man dislikes it because it is of God. To recognize the person of Christ was the difficulty. To see from Scripture that their King was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, was an easy thing; it did not test the conscience, nor put the heart to the proof. But to own that the ignored and despised One, the child of Mary and the heir of Joseph, was the Messiah — this was indeed hard to the flesh. To those who had seen the sign of it in the heavens, who had looked for it in the midst of great darkness, but who had their eyes toward it, all was simple, and they hastened to do Him honour. Now that He was born, they rejoiced, and came from far to have the joy of seeing Him and offering their gifts at His feet.

"And being warned of God in a dream, that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him" (vers. 12, 13). The unbelief that refused the word of God, is now allowed to show how thoroughly it was under the power of Satan, who proves himself, as from the beginning, to be a liar first, then a murderer. But God revealed Herod's purpose; and Joseph, in obedience to His word, takes the young child and His mother by night and departs into Egypt, "and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

I have a word to say about this prophecy, and the application of it to our Lord. We shall have to take into account many prophecies cited in Matthew, but the present quotation has evidently a remarkable character attached to it. It had been said that Israel was God's son, God's firstborn, in Egypt. To them pertained the adoption. The prophet Hosea, seven hundred years after their departure from Egypt, again applies this word to Israel; and now it is used of Christ, as that which fully came within the intent of the inspiring Spirit. How is it that God's taking Israel out of the land of Egypt should be so illustrated in Christ's history? Because Christ is the object of the Holy Ghost in Scripture. It matters not what may be the place of His people: in all their troubles or deliverances, Christ must enter into all. There is no kind of temptation (save, of course, of inward evil) that He has* not known; nor of blessing on God's behalf that He has not proved. Christ goes through the history of His people; and on that principle it is that such scriptures as these are applied to Him. Christ Himself is carried into the very place that had been the furnace of Israel. There it is that He finds His refuge from the false king of Judea. What a picture! Because of the anti-king then reigning in Jerusalem, the true King must flee, and flee, into Egypt. Christ was the true Israel. Compare Isa. 49.

We see from this that no miraculous power is put forth to preserve Emmanuel. It was accomplishing the prophecies — filling up the outline of desolation, morally and nationally, that the Holy Ghost had sketched many a long year before. God was showing how precious to Him was every footstep of His Son. It might seem a trifling circumstance in itself that the Lord was carried into Egypt and came out of it another day. But whatever was the place of Christ — and His place was wherever His people were in their sorrow — He will not permit them to feel a pang without His sharing in it. He knows what it is to be carried into Egypt, and that too in a far more painful way than Israel had experienced. For the bitterest trouble of Christ was from His own people; the most murderous blow aimed at Him was by the king then sitting on the throne in their midst. Failing in this, he sends forth and slays all the children "that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (vers. 16-18). How clearly we find that the Holy Ghost is here providing for the Jew the proof that they were precious in His sight, and that if Christ entered into their they must not wonder if His presence will bring upon themselves the bitterest suffering through their rejection of Him. If Christ has the smallest connection with Israel, they become the object of Satan's animosity. It is Herod, led on by Satan, who issued the order to slay their little ones; but the Messiah is taken away from the scene of his rage. In Israel they have weeping and great mourning. Such were some of the troubles that Israel bring upon themselves; and this is but a little picture of what will befall them in the latter day.

"But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young Child's life. And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel" (ver. 19-21). It is sweet to find "the land of Israel" occurring here. It was not merely the country, as known among men, where poor Jews lived by permission of their Gentile lords. How few look on it as "the land of Israel" now! But God's thoughts are toward His people in connection with the glory of His Son. if Jesus had His earthly tie there, if Emmanuel were now born of the virgin, why should not the land be called the land of Israel? It was the divine purpose completely to expel the foot of the Gentile that was now treading it down. If the people would only bow and receive Him to take His place as their King, how blessed their lot! But would Israel receive Jehovah-Jesus now returning from Egypt? — There was no readiness for Him yet. One Herod passed away; another followed. Hence, when the young Child was taken back into the land of Israel, and Joseph heard "that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (vers. 22, 23).

The method of citation is worthy of note here. Note that it is not one particular prophet, but "the prophets". And by that we are to gather, not that any one inspired writer said these words, but it is the spirit of the prophets who do speak of Him. When we read in one prophet, "They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek"; in another, "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief "; and again, what they should give Him for meat, and in His thirst for drink, and how He should be taunted up to the last — we can understand this application of the prophets. It was the well-understood language expressive of contempt in that day: He should, in other words, be called a Nazarene. Nazareth was the most scorned of places. Not only did the men of Judea proper look down upon Nazareth, but the Galileans themselves despised it, though it was part of their own district. Later on we read of a guileless Israelite who, when he heard of Jesus being there, exclaimed, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Thus, if one spot in Palestine, more than another, would accord with the rejection that was the portion of Christ, it was Nazareth. A striking picture, surely, of One who, while He was the true King, was yet refused by His own people! Gentiles might have done Him reverence; but His own nation was indifferent. How little fruit was there to answer to the culture that God had bestowed upon them! But here was the blessed One who pursues His path of obedience unto death, who would not show His glory by protecting Himself. His people went down into Egypt: He goes down there also. He has to be called out of Egypt: that was His portion. He would not screen Himself from the sorrows of His people: He would share them all. When He does come forth, Israel is still unprepared for Him. His parents turn to Nazareth once more, Joseph having been again divinely instructed in a dream. This is the last mention that we have of him in Matthew. Luke gives us later circumstances; but Joseph wholly disappears before our Lord entered upon His ministry.

When He is called out of Egypt, He cannot go to Jerusalem, nor to Bethlehem either. He was to be despised and rejected: the prophets had said so: their words must be accomplished. Archelaus reigned in Judea a usurper was still there. Joseph, at the warning of God, turns aside to Nazareth, and Jesus dwelt with them; that the word of the prophets might be fulfilled in our Lord's proving to the full what it was to be the most despised of men. He knew it pre-eminently on the cross; but it was His all through. And this is the way that God speaks of the Messiah to Israel. He shows what their hardness of heart and unbelief would entail — even if it were to the Messiah Himself. What a picture of man, and especially of Israel, when such must be His portion! He comes and calls, but no answer greets Him. The unbelief of man hinders the blessing of God. It was the sin of Israel that thus complicated the early history of the King. But future chapters will show that God would turn the very unbelief of Israel into the means of blessing for the despised Gentiles, and that if the Jews rejected the counsel of God, to their own perdition, the Gentiles would hear and receive all blessing in the blessed One.

Thus we find from the beginning of this wonderful book the germs of all that the end will display. We find one who is really the Messiah, ready to accomplish the promises and to take the throne, but the people in no way ready for Him. Israel were steeped in sin; they had no heart for Him. They were full of their own ceremonies, their own light, and the pride of their privileges. All was turned to self-exaltation. Hence Jesus is rejected from the very first. This is the story of man. The after chapters will show us the glorious consequences which God, in His grace, causes to flow even from the rejection of His own Son. Upon that happier theme we may dwell on other occasions.

Matthew 3

We are now carried forward from the return of our Lord into the Holy Land to the days when John the Baptist came insisting upon the grand, essential truth of repentance. And John's ministry is viewed here entirely in connection with the Lord's relation to Israel. It is interesting to compare the different ways in which the Gospels present John himself, as illustrating the manner in which the Holy Ghost uses His divine right to shape and group the materials of our Lord's history according to the exact object in view. A casual reader might scarcely recognize that John the Baptist in John's Gospel was the Baptist of Matthew. The manner in which they are viewed, and the discourses that are recorded, take their form from the particular book in which the Holy Ghost has given them. This, so far from being imperfection, is a part of that admirable method in which God impresses the design which He has in view, and which suits the place which each portion of Scripture has to fill. And what can be of deeper interest, or more strengthening to faith, than to find that the very passages on which unbelief puts its finger as its alleged proofs of the imperfection of Scripture (varieties of statement insuperable to the mind of man), on the contrary, when viewed as part of God's plan for commending His beloved Son, all range into their own places in this great scheme, which is to the glory of Christ. This is the true key to all Scripture; and if that key be of great value from Genesis to Revelation, there is no place, perhaps, where its value is so conspicuous as in the Gospels. In finding four different accounts of our Lord, each presenting things in a different manner, the first thought of man's heart is that each succeeding Gospel must add to or correct what had gone before. But such thoughts only prove, either that the truth was never known, or that it has been forgotten. Is it adequately borne in mind that God is the author of the Gospels? Once admit that simple truth, and it would be evidently blasphemous to suppose that He makes mistakes. Look at the meanest thing that God has made, the minutest insect that the microscope can discover upon the least blade of grass — what does not fill the particular niche for which God created it? I do not deny that sin has brought all kinds of derangements into the natural as well as into the moral world. I admit that man's infirmities may appear even in the word of God: first, in not keeping the sacred deposit free from all corruption; and then in interpreting that word through some feeble medium of his own; and thus, one way or another, hindering the pure revealed light of God.

I have made these few remarks because all readers may not be equally familiar with the great truth of the difference of design in the Gospels, and therefore I do not scruple to draw attention to the immense help it furnishes to the understanding of Scripture, and especially of its apparent discrepancies.

In the chapter before us John the Baptist is presented as fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. He came "preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." In Luke you will find that the prophecy is carried farther down. More is given us than the words we have here. "Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." The range of Luke is wider. "Every valley shall be filled," etc. "All flesh shall see," etc. I ask, Why is that quotation continued farther there? It is the more remarkable because usually Luke does not quote much from the Old Testament, as compared with Matthew. How comes it that Luke departs in this particular instance from his habit?. The reason is obvious. His task was to show the grace of God that brings salvation, and that has appeared to all men. The Holy Ghost leads him therefore to fasten upon those words that display the universal range of God's goodness to man.

But there is another expression that I must dwell upon for a little — "the kingdom of heaven." We are all familiar with it as a phrase often used in Scripture; but possibly not many are equally familiar with its force. Indeed, it is understood very vaguely even by most Christians. To many it conveys the idea of the Church — sometimes the visible, and sometimes the invisible Church. By others it is supposed to mean something tantamount to the gospel, or heaven itself at the end. The expression is derived from the Old Testament, and that is the reason why it appears in Matthew only. As we have already seen, our Evangelist writes with a view to Israel, and therefore lays hold of a phrase which is suggested by the Old Testament, and taken from the prophecy of Daniel, who speaks of the days coming when the heavens should rule. Before that (Dan. 2), we hear that the God of heaven is to set up a kingdom that should never be destroyed — the kingdom of heaven. And again, in Dan. 7, we are told of the Son of Man's coming, and of a universal kingdom which is given Him. Chapter 2 does not give us the person, but the thing itself: so that there might still have been a kingdom without the revelation of the person in whose hands it was held. But chapter 7 completes the circle, and shows us that it is not merely the heavens ruling in the distance, nor a kingdom opening with judgment on earth; but, besides that, there is a glorious Man to whom the rule of heaven will be entrusted. The Son of Man will not simply destroy what opposes God, but will introduce a universal kingdom.

This kingdom John the Baptist came preaching. I do not believe that he was at all aware of the particular form it was to take first. He simply preached the kingdom of heaven as at hand, himself the public and immediate forerunner of the Shepherd of Israel, with the thoughts of a godly Jew, and a special witness that the Messiah was there — that He was about to be manifested, who would execute judgment upon the evil, and introduce good in the power of God, and bring in the glory promised to the fathers; and that all this was about to be inaugurated and established in the person of Christ here below. This, I believe, was the general thought. And we shall find subsequently that for the rejection of Jesus by the Jews John was not at all prepared. This too it was that led to the twofold form taken by the kingdom of heaven. While the old or Jewish view of a kingdom established by power and glory as a visible sovereignty over the earth is postponed, the rejection of Jesus on earth and His ascension to God's right hand lead to the introduction of the kingdom of heaven in a mysterious form; which is, in point of fact, going on now. Thus it has two sides. When Christ went up to heaven and took His place as the rejected here, but the glorified One there, the kingdom of heaven began.

This is a view of the kingdom that we do not find in the Old Testament. To it pertain the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, that were only opened out as the Lord was manifestly rejected by Israel. Thus we see in Matt. 11 John sends two of his disciples to ask whether Jesus was really the Messiah, or were they to look for another? Whether he was himself staggered, or his disciples, or whether both were, it matters little — such was the result. It sounds like an unbelieving question to the Lord. He might well be astonished that Jesus did not deliver the Jews, and bring in the glory for which patriarchs had waited and which prophets had predicted. Strange that instead of this His messenger was in prison; Himself and His disciples despised! Our Lord at once referred to those deeds of power and grace which bespoke the presence of God acting in a new way, and introducing a power evidently in grace — bringing in totally new thoughts, above the habits or hopes of the most godly Jew. These they were to report to John. But He goes farther, and says, "And blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me." This apparently conveys a rebuke to John, and implies that he had been more or less stumbled. Yet it is beautiful to see how at once, after the departure of the messengers, our Lord vindicates the Baptist before the multitude. But after pronouncing John to be the most blessed among those born of women, He suddenly introduces a most startling truth, namely, that great as John was, the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he. This does not refer to the kingdom coming in power and glory, because, when that day comes, Old and New Testament saints must all be raised or changed to have their part in it; as it is said of those who are being called now that they shall sit "with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." What then does our Lord mean? Does He not refer to some form of it that John had not spoken of? And what was this? He goes on farther, and says, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." What an extraordinary statement must this have appeared to those who listened to it then! The Lord is contrasting the kingdom of heaven, in a public, manifest form, with that kingdom as opened to faith — only more blessed as known to faith than to sight. As the Lord afterward said to Thomas, "Because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." This holds good in every dealing of God. Abraham was more blessed when, though in the land of Canaan, he possessed it not, than if it had all been actually his own. He gained a better place in the ways of God from the very fact of his not having one foot of the land in possession. So with David. His reign was morally far more glorious than that of Solomon. His heir had the place of power; but David had that which was unseen, yet nearer to God. We never find that Solomon enters into what was taught by the ark, whereas it was always the great attraction to David's heart. Solomon was found before the great altar which the whole world could see. The ark was within the holiest, where God sat. It was the throne of His Majesty in the midst of Israel. To it the heart of David ever turned. The blessing of faith is always better than the blessing of sight here below, how great soever this may be.

There has been no time in the ways of God so blessed for a soul as the ways of God now. To be born in the Millennium is not at all to be compared with it. It is true that then all will be in subjection to Christ, and the heart might say, Would that we might be born then! But even the believers found in that day on the earth will. not know what it is to enter within the veil, or to have the fellowship of the sufferings of Christ. Neither will they know in the full sense the joy of the Holy Ghost with the privilege of being cast out and scorned by the world for Christ's sake. So that both in the matter of suffering, the enjoyment of what Christ has gone through for us, and His present glory in heaven, our present place is far beyond millennial privileges. For those who suffer now, it will be the best of heavenly blessings then. The peculiarity of the present time is this, that while we are on earth we are consciously dwellers in heaven. We are not of the world, as Christ is not of the world. Our life does not belong to it; our blessing does not spring from it; all our portion is outside this world. And this is communicated to us while we are in the world, to raise us above the world. It is not, as with John here, going into the wilderness — a most seasonable and beautiful expression of what God thought of the city of holiness, Jerusalem, where the priests themselves ministered. John retires from it all. He is outside it in sympathy: the very act in itself declared that the wilderness is better than the city, even though it contain God's temple. But what a solemn declaration of the ruin, not only of the world, but of the favoured people who were the great link between God and men generally!

In this scene behold another thing altogether. It is not man blest, and the earth brought also into blessedness under the personal reign of Christ; but here the heavens were opened upon the Lord Jesus. Never had they opened before upon any one on earth, except as a sign of God's judgment (Ezek. 1). But here first of all the eye of Heaven, of the Father who is in heaven, is directed upon the beloved One. By and by He takes up His place in heaven as the Man who had suffered for sins and brought in the revealed righteousness of God.

The kingdom of heaven then began. From the time that Jesus goes up into heaven till He comes back again the New Testament view of the kingdom of heaven runs on; and in that sense the privilege of the feeblest soul brought to the knowledge of Christ now, transcends anything that ever entered into the heart or mind of men, or even of saints, before the Lord died and rose again. You may dwell upon the blessed walk of Enoch and the bright faith of Abraham; but still this remains true — "Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." There is no honest escape from the conclusion that has been drawn. If persons argue, Is a little child believing in Jesus now more holy and righteous than the blessed saints of old? I answer, That is another matter altogether. He ought to be. But that is not what is said. The Lord lays down that "the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." In a word, it is not a question of what men are; but God is glorifying Christ. Upon Him God is putting honour, and therefore gives such privileges to the least one that believes in Him. Since His death and resurrection, the worshippers once purged have no more conscience of sins. Think of what such a thing would have been to an Old Testament saint! They might look forward to it, but they could not say that it was an accomplished fact. It would have been contrary to the holiness of God, and positive presumption for man, to have this till Christ came and wrought the work that blotted sins completely out.* Now it is presumption not to take with confidence what Christ has done; for He has commanded that remission of sins should be preached in His name. When we enter into the position in which we are set by the work of Christ, it is not only that we have remission: we are made the righteousness of God in Christ: we stand in the relation of sons of God, and are entitled by Christ Himself to say that His God is our God, His Father is our Father. We are entitled to know that we are one with Christ, and that the glory that God has conferred upon His beloved Son He shares with us. The glory conferred, I say; for of course there is His essential divine glory in which none can participate. God never gave Christ to be God. Deity was His own right from all eternity. He could not have Godhead bestowed upon Him. But Christ became man, and as man He was the Son of God; He was not merely so as God. He was the Son of God as born into this world, and as such He has been raised up from the dead; in virtue of which He brings us into the same place before God that He Himself has acquired. He has entirely delivered. us from the place into which He entered for us, enduring the wrath and judgment of God. He brings us into the place to which He is not only entitled Himself, but has acquired a title for us.

*In Gen. 7: 1; Gen. 15: 6, and Ps. 32: 1, 2, 5, etc., we see that some saints of old, as taught of God, may have anticipated blessing beyond the dispensation in which they lived. — [Ed.

But John had no conception of such a compass of blessing. The Jews looked upon the kingdom as the state when Israel would be blessed of God as a nation; and even those that may have more fully understood, still looked for all the power of the kingdom to be brought in, entirely independent of anything on their part. "But the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." The Lord shows that there is an action of faith needed now; that the kingdom of heaven here presented demands the rupture of natural ties and the giving up of previous associations. In the sense of power and glory introduced by a personal Messiah upon the earth, John had already pressed on consciences that it was not a thing of mere ordinance or privilege by birth — that God would not be content except with moral realities. And allow me to say that it is a very solemn thing indeed to claim the privileges of grace for that which is contrary to the nature of God. I am not speaking now of the lost one found by grace, to whom God gives a new life fresh from Himself. But the effect of a soul's receiving life in the person of Christ is that there are produced feelings, thoughts, judgments and ways acceptable to God and akin to His nature. If a person is a child of God, he is like his Father; he has a nature suitable to God, a life that dislikes sin and is surely pained by what is iniquitous in others, but more particularly in himself. Many bad men are strong against evil in others; they are weak where it might touch themselves. But a Christian always begins with self-judgment. That is the reason why, now that there was to be a moral preparation for the Messiah, John preaches, "Repent." Repentance is the soul's moral judgment of itself under the eye of God; the soul's acceptance of His judgment of its state before Him, and bowing to it. John called upon them to repent because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. "For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." This clearly implied two things — that he was but a voice, pretending to nothing, and that the work would be done by another. The voice only was on his part; but the other, whose way he was preparing, was the Lord, Jehovah Himself. "Prepare ye the way of Jehovah."

Then we have the account of John the Baptist himself. "The same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey" — all perfectly suitable to this summons to repentance. As yet it is not grace introduced; this belongs to the kingdom of heaven, when it is fully brought in. But John did not know it thus. He knew that the Messiah was coming, a Messiah who would introduce the power of God and deliver His people. But the deep unfolding of grace, the mighty victory which a suffering Messiah would accomplish for the soul, and the way in which God would be magnified most of all by the putting away of sin by the death of His Son, were thoughts that must wait for another season — not for utterance more or less, but for adequate intelligence. The ark of the Lord must stand still in the waters of Jordan first. Not a foot can pass that way scatheless till the ark has passed in. Most fittingly, therefore, John does not bring out the fulness of divine grace, but the moral call to repentance.

John accordingly is found outside the religion of man, as well as outside his profanity. He was not in Rome, but he was also away from Jerusalem; and this, in the predicted messenger of Jehovah, was a most solemn feature. "Then went out to him Jerusalem., and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" Here is a part of that truth which is exceedingly startling, when we reflect upon it. The Pharisees were, religiously, the most influential in Israel. The Sadducees were the loose, secular, self-indulgent class; the Pharisees, those who stood very firm for what they considered the truth. Yet when John sees them both coming to his baptism, he says, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance" — fruits of a kindred character. He maintains that the day of ceremonialism, or of birthrights, was completely past. The Pharisee might rest upon his religion; the Sadducee upon the fact that he was a child of Abraham. The desire to escape wrath and to have part in the kingdom might be no more than nature. Humbled souls suit the kingdom. Descent from the fathers, the law, the promises even, may be turned into a right against God, who will not allow it, and can raise out of the stones children to Abraham. But there must be, if they would draw near to God, ways of a nature morally suitable to God. "Bring forth, therefore," he says, "fruits meet for repentance." He is not explaining here how a sinner is to be saved, or how God remits sins; but that, if persons take the stand of having to do with God, there must be. what becomes His presence. So the apostle says to the Hebrews, "Follow peace and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." He is not speaking there of what is imputed, but of holiness as a practical thing. This is written to Christians; and the Holy Ghost does not hesitate to insist upon it. So strong is the tendency to reaction in human nature that the very baptized Jews, who had been pleading for the law, might fall into the opposite extreme and think that sin is compatible with the salvation that God gives through grace. But God never allows that His nature can coexist with sanctioned iniquity.

Here then was evidently a stern rebuke for the leading Jews. But, more than that, John adds, "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees" — that is to say, judgment is just at hand (ver. 10) — "therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance" — he does not go beyond this. The remission of sins that he speaks of appears to have been rather a question of the government of God than of that complete putting away of sin which was the fruit of grace when the work of atonement was done. But even so, it was in view of Messiah's advent.

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (ver. 11). There he brings together the two grand features of the first and second comings of Christ. He did not know but that both would go on together. All that might lie between the two was hidden from his eyes. The Old Testament Scriptures did present the first and second advent of the Messiah, but not in such a way as to convey the thought of two distinct epochs. Even after the Lord's death and resurrection, the disciples did not understand this. So John joins these two things — the baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with fire. We know that the baptizing with the Holy Ghost is the power of God's blessing in the kingdom of heaven as it now is. The baptism of fire is that which will accompany the kingdom of heaven as it will be when Christ comes again. There is no such thing in the word of God as the baptism of fire to designate what took place at Pentecost. Baptism with fire is the application of the judgment of God in dealing with men; whereas the day of Pentecost was the outpouring of the grace of God, and the giving of the Holy Ghost to dwell in the saints of God, which referred to the power of the Holy Ghost going forth so as to bear testimony in such sort as would not bear a single evil thing in the heart of men, even while it showed out the grace of God. This is Christianity — the perfect love of God shown to a man that has no claim upon it: all his evil condemned by the grace of God in the death of Christ! And thus it is that a man is made honest in the sight of God and men. He can afford to be guileless about himself, because he knows that God imputes nothing to him. When we read on the day of Pentecost of the tongues being divided, it was to show the going forth of the testimony of God to the Gentile as well as to the Jew. But when Matt. 3 speaks of our Lord's baptizing with fire, the allusion is not to these tongues of fire, but to the execution of righteous judgment when Christ comes again. This appears still more clearly from what follows: "Whose fan is in His hand; and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (ver. 12). It is not at all what He does in saving a soul, but the very contrary. It refers to the time when, men having refused the gospel, nothing remains but the outpouring of vengeance upon them.

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him" (ver. 13). What a cluster of wonders! Jesus coming to be baptized of John, who was avowedly preaching repentance and remission of sins. What could bring the Lord Jesus there? for He never confessed sins, and had none to confess. He challenges even His enemies to convince Him of sin. A man without sin — without the smallest particle of self in any form or degree — the lowliest and most blessed of men — the One who judged everything according to God; and yet He comes to be baptized! John at once felt it — Jesus coming to be baptized of him! To be baptized at all, but, above all, of him whose baptism was that of repentance! What is the clue to this? It is grace — the source and the channel of everything in Jesus. It was not the judgment of God that put Him there; it was not any need in Himself that brought Him there; nothing that He had to acknowledge or confess; but it was grace. For on whom in Israel did God's eye look down with compassion? Upon those that were confessing their sins. Upon such does His eye ever rest. For the next best thing to not being a sinner at all is to confess our sins. We find that this is the first great movement produced by the Holy Ghost in a sinner's soul — the feeling of his true place in the sight of God. Here was the blessed One; and though not one thing naturally could claim His presence, yet grace led Him there. And when John was earnestly hindering Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?" what blessed grace and truth does not our Lord's answer unfold! "Suffer it now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It is all righteousness now to be fulfilled, and not merely the doing of the law. Now it was the righteousness of acknowledging the true state in which even the best part of Israel lay. For if there were any in Israel that showed a feeling for God, it was those who were baptized of John — those who repented in view of the kingdom of heaven. They desired God's promises, and they wished to be ready for the King. And the Lord's heart was there at once; the sympathies of His soul were with those that were humbling themselves in the sense of their sin before God.* The same principle is true of us in proportion as the Spirit of Christ is ungrieved in our souls. Even if it is a question of acknowledging anything to man, who is the person you can most open your heart to? The spiritual man — he who is walking most above sin — his is the bosom to which you can open out your sin more fully than to another. "If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of meekness." It was exactly the perfection of the holiness of Christ that could enable Him so to act: another might have feared appearances. If Christ had been merely innocent, instead of holy, should we have found Him there? Never. Holiness implies divine power against sin; innocence is merely the absence of sin. Thus we find our Lord, in the full consciousness of His own perfect holiness, coming to the baptism of John, and taking His place with those in Israel who felt aright toward God.

* We may say that the Lord, in being baptized in Jordan, was identifying Himself with the true-hearted in Israel who came confessing their sins. Grace brought Him where sin had brought them, and us all. The Good Shepherd "entereth in by the door" and takes His place with the sheep He had come to save by the sacrifice of Himself. His baptism pointed to this. — [Ed.

"And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Does it not seem that this wonderful testimony of God the Father was the consequence of Christ's fulfilling all righteousness in the waters of Jordan? It was the answer of God to the place that Christ, in His grace, had taken. It was God, jealous for the glory of His Son, who would not permit that a suspicion should rest upon this loveliest and lowliest of acts. And therefore, lest the full grace of it should not be felt, how quick is God the Father to say, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased "! Do not think He has sin. But if you are there, He is with you: if the sheep are in the waters, the shepherd must enter them too. The Father at once vindicates His Son: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It is not that He was well pleased with that act merely, but it is the retrospective expression of God's delight. It refutes all that the poor mind of man might have — has — gathered out of this transaction. It is always thus in the word of God. If there be, so to speak, a locked door, the key is always beside it. If there is a heart that counts upon God, and knows the perfection of His character, and is jealous over the honour, of His beloved Son, God is always with such. Man has endeavoured to take advantage of the Lord's grace, taking thus His place with the godly in Israel, in order to lower His person and His position even in relation to God Himself. But when we read with chastened spirits, what do we hear? "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." We shall by and by find the importance of this in connection with what follows; but I leave the subject for the present. There is nothing in the whole compass of God's word so full of blessing to the believer as the person of Christ and His ways; but it requires great jealousy over self and the special guidance of the Holy Ghost; for who is sufficient for these things?

Matthew 4.

There are two things that we may notice before our Lord is tempted of the devil. The first is that He is most emphatically recognized as the Son of God by His Father; secondly, that He is anointed as man by the Holy Ghost. Now a similar thing is true of the believer — of course in an inferior way. Still the believer is owned as a son of God, and has the Spirit of God given to him before he becomes the proper object of the enemy's temptations. And this is an important distinction to bear in mind. Strictly speaking, the relation which the sinner bears to the enemy is not as subject to be tempted. He is a captive; he is led by the devil at his will. This is a very distinct thing from temptation; for it supposes a person thoroughly under the power of Satan. We are tempted when we are out of the enemy's power, and because we are sons of God. Thus, you see, all men have to do with Satan in one way or another. The mass of mankind are his slaves; but those delivered by the power of God, those who by grace are God's children, become the objects of his assault in the way of temptation. It is not so much his power that such have to dread; for when the soul has received Jesus, Satan's power is really void; it is completely broken for the believer. And therefore it is that we are warned rather against his wiles. In certain cases there may be the suffering from his fiery darts; but even this is not his power, which is nothing to the believer while he is looking to Christ; he has only to resist, and the devil will flee from him. If Satan had really power, it is clear that he would not flee. But he has lost it as regards the soul that has received Christ. But then, while to faith the power of Satan is a thing destroyed in the cross of Jesus, his wiles are a very serious matter; and we ought not to be ignorant of his devices. Now God has been graciously pleased to give us his manner of dealing with our blessed Lord. That this is intended for our use, and the great pattern and principle of the temptations of Satan at any time, is clear from many obvious and weighty considerations.

Besides, we know from the Gospel of Luke that in the case of our Lord there was a very long-continued temptation of Satan, of which we have no details. We are only told the fact that Jesus was tempted of the devil during forty days. But the great temptations which the Holy Ghost has been pleased to record for us are those that took place at the end of the forty days. May we not gather hence that in the temptation of our Lord there were two parts: first, that not common to man, but peculiar to our Lord? For we are subject to no such circumstances as being driven into the wilderness for forty days. But, secondly, we are exposed to such as are given to us at the close. The Lord seems to cast a veil over the first, and discloses carefully what in principle every child of God may be tempted by some time or another. We shall see that these three temptations, presented by Matthew and Luke in a different order, give us an admirable insight into the ways of Satan when he thus assails the children of God. But it is exceedingly sweet to see that before Satan is allowed to tempt at all, the blessedness of the Son's recognition by the Father is most fully brought out. And indeed it is something akin which renders any one obnoxious to the hatred of Satan. The enemy is well aware when God converts and quickens a soul hitherto dead in trespasses and sins; and at once he is prepared with his temptations. They need not, of course, come in the same order as our Lord's; but they seem to be, more or less, of a similar character with those revealed here.

It is clear that the first temptation grew out of our Lord's actual circumstances. He had been all this time in the wilderness without food, and at the end of the forty days he was a hungered. When Moses was without food on the mount for the same time, he was with God, and miraculously sustained. But the wonderful thing here is that the time was spent with the enemy. None had ever been so, or will be so again. To be all that time in the presence of Satan, dependent on God, was the greatest moral honour, though the severest trial, that man had ever passed through. Throughout the Lord is seen as Son of man, though also as Son of God.

The introductory notice shows us that temptation was going on all the time our Lord was in the wilderness. "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." Whatever may be the aim of Satan, this is one main part of his tactics — he insinuates a doubt, a doubt of our own relationship with God. "If Thou be the Son of God." Now, search the word of God as you may, never will you find His Spirit leading a soul to doubt. Nor can anything, indeed, be more opposed to His way than sanctioning mistrust of God. And it shows the exceeding subtlety of Satan that he has actually made the children of God themselves to be his instruments, not only by permitting doubts in themselves, but helping to raise them in others, often on the mistaken plea that not to be confident with God is a sign of humility, and of a desire to be lowly! But faith says, "We are always confident." Not that we are to shrink from self-examination: we do find this pressed in Scripture. Thus, in 1 Cor. 11 the believers are evidently exhorted to examine themselves, but not with any idea of producing doubt. On the contrary, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat"; for the question was about the Lord's Supper. On the strength of His grace, the believer is to examine himself in the thought of going to the table of the Lord. It is not a question whether he is to go or stay away: we do not find this in Scripture. Nor do I find, on the other hand, that because I am a Christian it is no matter what state I may be in spiritually. But a man is to examine himself, and so to eat. He is sure to find that which calls for humiliation. It is important for a soul to draw near to God, and to have His light cast upon all that is there. This will give ground for humbling oneself, not for staying away. Such is what the Spirit of God lays down as a general rule for the Lord's Supper. Of course, I am not speaking now of cases of open sin, where the vindication of the Lord's glory is required. These suppose a man's practising sin, and not examining himself. But I am speaking now of the ordinary walk of the child of God, and what we read there is careful inquiry as to what he finds within himself; but "so let him eat."

"If Thou be the Son of God." Our Lord did not look like it. There was nothing outwardly to carry the demonstration of it. If it had been so, there would have been no room left for faith at all. Satan takes advantage of the lowliness of our Lord in the place that He took as man. And indeed nothing could be more singular than His being found in the wilderness ', and, as we read in Mark., with the wild beasts. If He was really the Son of God, Maker of heaven and earth, what a place to be in, and led there by the Spirit, after the Father had spoken from heaven and acknowledged Him to be His beloved Son! But so it was. And so it is now, in a lower sense, with the children of God. For no matter how much blessed they may be of God, or how truly owned as His sons and having His Spirit dwelling within them, they also, in their measure, have their wilderness. "As My Father hath sent Me into the world, even so send I you into the world." Not into some pleasant place where there is no room for trial, but the very contrary. Because we belong to God and to heaven, because we have the Holy Ghost sealing us unto the day of redemption, we have to encounter Satan, but with the certainty that his power is broken, and that his wiles are what we have to resist. This questioning the relationship of Christ with God shows how truly Satan was at work. But the Lord does not pronounce him to be Satan until open rebellion is manifested against God. When it is mere subtlety, He does not call him Satan. There are two ways in which the enemy is described in Scripture. He is called Satan and the devil. The latter is the term which implies his accusing character and his wiles; the former refers to his power as adversary.

We must wait, even when we suspect it is the power of evil at work, before we pronounce it absolutely. For if there is such a fact as the devil tempting, God also puts a soul to the test, and this may be very sharp. Moreover, even God Himself does not act till a thing is manifest. He shows wonderful patience, most contrary to the haste of man. He comes down to see whether the evil is so great, as in the case of Adam, yea, of Sodom and Gomorrah. But it always remains true that whatever God may be in other things, quick as He is to hear the cry of His own in sorrow, He is exceedingly slow to judge; and there is nothing that more marks the knowledge of Christ practically, and the effect of it in our own souls, than where the same thing is made true in us. Hastiness to judge is man's way in proportion to his want of grace; and patience is not a question of knowledge, but of love that lingers over another, unwilling to pronounce till every hope is gone. The rising in the flesh, which looked so threatening, might turn out after all to be only on the surface, and not deep-seated. So here we see patience even in our Lord's dealing with the adversary. It is only when he thoroughly makes manifest what he is — only when he demands the worship due to God alone — that our Lord says, "Get thee behind Me, Satan." The adversary then flees instantly. But the Lord lets him thoroughly discover himself first. This is divinely wise. Because, although the Lord knew him to be Satan all the time, what pattern would this be for us? The Lord is here the blessed man in the presence of Satan, showing us how we have to carry ourselves in the temptations that come upon us as saints of God.

And let me say another word with regard to temptation. In the sense we have it here, it is entirely from without. Our Lord never knew what it was to be tempted from within. He was "in all points tempted like as we are." But the Holy Ghost qualifies this by adding, "yet without sin."* It was not merely that He did not yield to sin, but He never had the principle of it — never the least motion of any thought or wish contrary to God. He never knew sin. It is in this we so differ from Him. We have cause of deep humiliation sometimes, because, besides having to do with the devil without, we have an evil nature within — what Scripture calls "the flesh," i.e., the self, the spring of insubordination and of enmity against God. It is the fountain of unloving, wilful, ungodly desires in us, which naturally never seeks God's will , save only in a spirit of fear; never seeks it as that which is loved — we never do till born of God. Even afterward the same wicked principle is still there; but we have a new life implanted of God in our souls, which delights in His will.

*The exact translation of the Greek expression is, "Who was in all things like-tempted, sin apart." — [Ed.

But though the temptations of our Lord which we have here were from without, still Satan adapted them to the circumstances in which our Lord then stood. He had been for forty days without food, and the first word of the tempter is, "If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (vers. 3, 4). Our Lord refers to Deuteronomy, alluding to the manna, the daily food of Israel, which involved dependence upon God, and showed that Israel did not need the resources of the world to sustain them. They did not require some rich country to supply them out of its abundant harvest; neither did they depend upon gold and silver. Israel, before they had a land to cultivate and the means of gathering from it, were taught alone with God. In the wilderness, where He had brought them out as His first-born son, He puts them to the proof; and the way of it was, whether they were content with God and with the fare that God provided for them day by day. Alas, they were not!

Here the scene is entirely changed. It is a man in the wilderness; and Satan is there — not God. In spirit He ever dwelt with His Father; for even when on earth He was "the Son of man which is in heaven." He combined thus two things in His own person. Day by day He was the man dependent upon God for everything. And this was the first great temptation of the devil — the appeal to His earthly natural warts. It was no sin to be hungry; but it would have been a sin to distrust God because of the desert place. Did not God know that there was no bread there'? and was it not His Spirit who had lead Him there? Had God told Him to leave the wilderness, or to make the stones into bread? He would not use His own power independently of God's word. And it is the constant mark of the way of the Holy Ghost in the children of God that they do not use miraculous power for themselves or for their friends. If we look at it in the New Testament, we find Paul working miracles and using the power of God to heal the sick around. But was it ever used for his own circle? On the contrary, Paul leaves Trophimus sick at Miletus, and displays about him all the anxiety of one who might never have had power to heal the body. When Epaphroditus was sick, we see the exercise of a faith which knew that the will of God, with acquiescence in it, was worth a thousand miracles. Miracles had not in themselves the high character of exercising the soul in dependence upon God. To obey God, to submit to Him, to have confidence in Him, is that of which the natural man is incapable. Power alone never reaches so high. Therefore, in the case of our Lord Himself, we never find that He puts His works of might on a level with obedience. Nay, He even speaks of His disciples as those who should do greater works than He Himself had done. But obedience was what characterized Christ: this never was found in a mere child of Adam.

Here, in the face of Satan, our Lord finds His strength; not in doing miracles, or in any provision that He might have made for Himself, but in the word of God. Hunger might have legitimate wants, but here He was, tried by Satan, and He will not step out of the trial till it is over; He will not shift His circumstances or lift one finger for Himself: He waits upon God. "Man shall not live by bread alone," He answers, "but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." God's word had led Him there, for the Holy Ghost acts by the word, and He would not leave the wilderness till God's word led Him out. This completely set aside Satan's temptations. But more: it brought out the real secret of living in dependence upon God day by day, for the food of the new life is the word of God. Of what immense importance this shows the written word to be, and having it as our household bread day by day; not merely reading it as a task or formal duty, but, as it is indeed, the divinely-suitable provision for the child of God! It is good for every one to study it, because it is in every way for the good of the soul day by day to read it intelligently, heartily, as those that receive it from God Himself. And God does not give that which the heart of man cannot take in, but what is adapted to our daily wants, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

This, then, is the answer of our Lord to the first temptation. Why should He turn the stones into bread? He hung upon God's word: His Father had not told Him to do so. So should it ever be with us. Where we have no clear expression of the mind of God, it is always our place to wait till we have. Sometimes it may show our weakness that we do not know the mind of God, and this is distasteful to us. Restlessness would like to go somewhere, or do something, but this is not faith. Faith proves itself in waiting for God to manifest His will.

The next temptation was not a personal one, but connected with religion, as the first had been in respect of bodily wants. We shall find that the order is different in Luke. But here, in the second temptation mentioned, is what I may call the religious temptation. The Lord had said that man should "live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The devil then takes Him up into the holy city, sets Him upon a pinnacle of the temple, and founds his temptation upon that very point in our Lord's answer — the word of God. He says, as it were, Here is a word of God for you: "He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone." Very true. It was God's word, and evidently spoken of the Messiah. But what was Satan using it for? He says, "If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written," etc. This was making a move without God — doing something by oneself. Scripture did not say, Cast Thyself down, because God has given His angels charge concerning Thee, lest Thou shouldst dash Thy foot against a stone. The Lord would not turn aside from Scripture because Satan had misused it. He shows us, in the most instructive way, that we are not to be moved from our stronghold because it may be turned against us. Our Lord does not enter into nice distinctions, nor analyze what Satan had said, but He has given us that which ought to be, if I may so say, the standard mode of dealing for every Christian man. There are those who might have spiritual discrimination to see that Satan was perverting the scripture which he quoted; but many might not. The Lord takes a broad ground in dealing with the adversary. He stands upon what each Christian should know and feel, and this is, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord Thy God . He cites a plain positive word of God which Satan was destroying by the use he made of psalm 91. Now that is the stronghold of a believer who may have to do with one that reasons subtly from Scripture, "It is written again." He can appeal to that which is palpable and clear. It will be found that where a person systematically misapplies Scripture, he destroys some fundamental principle of the word of God. Whatever is false is contrary to some plain passage of Scripture. Now this is a great mercy. The believer holds fast to what is sure; he will not quit what he does understand for something that he does not. He may be perplexed by what the adversary is producing, and may have only a growing suspicion that he is wrong. But he may say to himself, I never can give up that which is beyond a doubt for that which I do not know. In other words, he holds the light, and refuses the darkness.

It is thus, it seems to me, our Lord deals with Satan. He could at once have set him aside on grounds of reasoning, and have shown the perverted end to which Satan was applying Scripture; but He rather deals with him on moral grounds, which every Christian is capable of judging. Do I find a scripture used for the purpose of making me distrust God? At once I take my stand on "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." What is meant by this? I am never to doubt the Lord will be for me. If I do anything to prove Him, to see whether He will be for me, this is at once unbelief and disobedience. It is an allusion to Israel's history again, and another quotation from the book of Deuteronomy. Indeed, our Lord quotes every answer to the temptations, as has been long ago remarked, from the book of Deuteronomy. You will find in Exodus 17 that the Israelites tempted the Lord by asking, Is He among us or no? This does not mean that they provoked Him by idolatry, or refusal to do His will. It is not a question there of open sin, but of unbelief of His goodness and presence — unbelief, in a word, of God's being for us. This is exactly what our Lord pleads. Cast Myself down in order to find that the scripture is true and that the angels will bear Me up! I do not need to do such a thing; I am very certain that if I were cast down the angels would be there to sustain Me. If you have a person whom you suspect of dishonesty on your premises, you may perhaps be disposed to test him in some way or other. But who would think of testing one that he had full confidence in? Now that is exactly the import of our Lord's answer, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." His soul resented the idea of trying God, to see whether He would sustain His Son. God might try Him; Satan might put Him to the test; but as to His tempting the Lord, as if the Lord His God required to be put to the proof whether He would be true to His word — away with such a thought! He would not hear of it for a moment.

The temptation which is second in Matthew, Luke gives as the third. Why is this? Surely we ought not to read Scripture as if such differences were not intended to suggest inquiry. We have to take care that we do not misinterpret Scripture; but Scripture is meant to be understood. I say of these different orders in which the temptations are put, both are right, both are inspired of God. If they were both intended to report the temptation exactly as it took place, it is clear they are not right; but God had a much higher object. God wrote for our instruction, and God has been pleased, in the different Gospels, to put the facts in the way that is most instructive. Matthew simply gives the temptation historically, as it took place. Therefore in Matthew we have notes of time: "Then the devil taketh Him up," etc. In Luke there is no such thought; it is simply, "And the devil," etc. This word at once prepares us for it. It is clear there were these different temptations, but Luke puts them so as not to tell us the order in which they occurred.

This is a general remark, true of the whole Gospel of Luke, that he habitually departs from the mere order of fact to give an arrangement suited to the design which he had in view. As a whole, the Gospel of Luke is characterized by' putting the facts of our Lord's life in an order that suited the doctrine He was teaching. Thus you will find in Luke that even the genealogy of our Lord is not given in its regular place; there is a departure from the mere natural series; and there is, instead, a moral order. Take the case of the Lord's prayer: Luke puts that in a totally different place from Matthew, who gives it in the wondrous discourse commonly called the sermon on the mount; and as prayer formed a most important part of the new principles the Lord was bringing out, so it formed one of the main subjects of the Lord's discourse. Luke reserves that prayer till Luke 11, because our Lord is pointing out there the grand means of spiritual life, how it is to be kept up and sustained in the soul. And this he shows us from the history of Martha and Mary (Luke 10). Why was it that Jesus approved of the path and walk of Mary rather than of Martha? It is not that He did not love them all, nor was it that Martha had not a real personal love to the Saviour, and that her heart was not true to Him. But there was an immense difference between them. What and why was it? Luke gives us the moral difference. When Martha was all busied with what she could do for the Lord, to show her love to Him, Mary was occupied with the Lord Himself — seated at His feet, listening to His word. The one was full of what she could do for Christ; the other, full of Christ Himself; and nothing that she could do was of the smallest consequence in her eyes, compared with Christ Himself. Thus we find, in another instance, Mary breaking the alabaster box to anoint the feet of Jesus — an action little accounted of by others; yet what she had done should be recorded throughout the whole world. Our Lord brings out in Luke this great point — the word of God, the waiting upon Jesus, being the first great means of strengthening the new and spiritual life; and therefore, immediately after this account of these sisters, we have the request of the disciples to be taught how to pray. It really took place long before; but they are put together in that special form by Luke to mark the connection of the word of God with prayer.

So, in the temptation, Luke departs from the order of fact and gives us the moral sequence. Matthew simply names the facts here as they took place. Luke puts them in the order of magnitude, and rises from the natural trial to the worldly one, and then to the religious temptation. For it is perfectly plain that the temptation by the word of God was much harder for one who valued His word above everything than that which lay in an appeal to natural wants or to worldly ambition. Therefore Luke keeps this temptation to the last. In Matthew it is not so, but we have, in the third place, the temptation by the world. "Again, the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me" (vers. 8, 9). Here at once the devil was manifest. The very idea of presenting any object of obeisance and worship between the soul and God was at once to detect that he was either the devil himself or an instrument of the devil. The Lord therefore at once pronounces him "Satan." "Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (ver. 10). If it had been an apostle, it would have been just the same. If such a one had been so completely led away as to hint such a thing, the Lord would have said "Satan" all the same. Is not this most solemn with us in dealing with Christians even who may have become for the time instruments of Satan? The Lord did not hesitate on one occasion to say, "Satan" to Peter himself; and yet he was the chief of the twelve — the first in dignity among the apostles of the Lamb. And yet our Lord Himself, after He had put signal honour, upon Peter and given him a new name, does not hesitate to say "Satan" to Peter as to the enemy himself. All this brings out an important principle, for our own ways in having to do even with a child of God.

In answering the third and last temptation, our Lord still confines Himself to the book of Deuteronomy. Why? Because Deuteronomy is the book that regards Israel after they had completely failed under the law, and when God brings in the new principle of grace and shows not the mere righteousness of the law, but that which is of faith. The apostle Paul also quotes from Deuteronomy for the same purpose. It is the book that indicates the place of obedience when it is no longer a mere question of observance under the law. The Lord Jesus is here taking that very place. He is not witnessing what He could have done as a divine person. As such He would have taken ground where we could not follow Him. But throughout this temptation He takes the posture that becomes us and all that desire to follow Him. The only thing right and becoming for a godly man, in meeting temptations, is the ground of the obedience of faith: one thus stands in the confidence of what God is in His goodness. The Lord would on no account swerve from what was the due and comely place for a servant of God in Israel. If a person was godly, his place was to confess and to be baptized with the baptism of repentance. Our Lord at once finds Himself with such, though in His case it was the fulfilling of righteousness, while with us it is the acknowledgment of sin. He who alone could have taken His stand upon legal righteousness, takes it as in every way vindicating God, not upon the mere righteousness of man. Satan may put temptation before Him in every form; but it is of no use. His only care is to vindicate God, and never to arrogate anything to Himself. The enemy was foiled, to God's glory, by an obedient and dependent man.

I believe that the principles brought before us in this chapter are of the greatest practical importance for the children of God. The few remarks I have made may help to direct souls to the value, practically, of these temptations of our Lord for guidance in our own path. I therefore commend the whole subject to the attention of the reader, as one that, although it may have come before us many a time, and we may have often meditated upon its practical value, may still claim our thought, as it will surely repay our prayerful study.

It may be instructive to compare the different ways in which the Holy Ghost introduces our Lord's ministry in the Gospels. And when I speak of His ministry, you will understand that I mean His public service, for there was much appertaining to the Lord — miracles performed and remarkable discourses uttered — before His ministerial course was formally entered on. What I desire now to notice is the wisdom with which He has given us a distinct view of our Lord in each of these different inspired accounts. We may reverently follow Him who has been pleased to furnish them so variously — omitting certain statements in some, and presenting them in others; altering now and then the order of narrating events to accomplish thus His purpose more perfectly. In comparing these accounts we may see that the Holy Ghost always preserves the grand design of each Gospel, and this is the basis of all just interpretation. We shall find, steadily keeping in view what He is aiming at, that we have in this the principle on which the Gospels were written, and consequently what alone will enable us to understand them aright.

I have already shown, to commence with the Gospel of Matthew, that throughout the Holy Ghost is setting before us the Messiah with the fullest proofs of His mission from God, but, alas, a suffering and a rejected One, and this specially by His own people; and, among them, rejected most of all by such as, humanly speaking, had most reason to receive Him. Were any peculiarly remarkable for their righteousness in the estimate of the nation? If Pharisees were so, who so bitter against Him? Were any celebrated for their knowledge of Scripture? The scribes were those combined with the Pharisees against Him. The priests, jealous of their position, would naturally oppose one who brought out the reality of a divine power, administered by the Son of man upon earth, in the forgiveness of sing. Now all these things come out with striking force and clearness in the Gospel of Matthew. But although we are not arrived at these details as yet, still the main design of the Holy Ghost discovers itself in the manner in which our Lord is presented as entering upon His public ministry in the portion that is now before us.

First of all, no notice is taken in Matthew of all that passed at Jerusalem. Humanly speaking, Matthew was as likely to have known and inquired into the earlier circumstances of our Lord, and particularly His connection with that city, as the beloved disciple John. Yet of a great deal given in John not a word appears in Matthew. In the fourth Gospel we have a deputation from Jerusalem to see John the Baptist first, and then our Lord is acknowledged as Lamb of God and as He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. Then we have our Lord making Himself known to various persons; among them, to Simon Peter, after Andrew his brother had already been in the company of the wondrous Stranger. Then Philip is called, who finds Nathanael; and thus the work of the Lord spreads from one soul to another, either by the Lord attracting to Himself directly, or through the intervention of those already called. All this is entirely omitted here. Then, again, in John 2 is given the first miracle, or sign, in which Christ set forth His glory — the turning of water into wine; after which our Lord goes up to Jerusalem and executes judgment upon the covetousness that then reigned even in the boasted city of holiness. We have also a little incidental view of what our Lord was doing during this time at Jerusalem. He was working miraculous signs there, and many were believing on Him, though in a natural way. Jesus, it is said, "did not commit Himself unto them, because He knew all men"; but He does open the great doctrine of the new birth, and brings out the cross — Himself to be made sin thus, as the serpent had been lifted up by Moses in the wilderness, that whosoever believed in Him "should not perish, but have everlasting life." All this took place before the circumstances recorded by Matthew. When this is seen, it must strike any observing reader of the word of God. It could not be that those things were unknown to Matthew: they could not fail to be named and dwelt on if, apart from inspiration, you look at him as a mere disciple. Andrew, Peter and John, and the rest, would have conversed on their first acquaintance with the Saviour over and over again. Yet Matthew does not say one word about it; neither does Mark or Luke — only John. Now, when we examine the Gospels themselves, we find the real solution. It is not the ignorance of one Evangelist, nor the knowledge of another, that accounts either for the omissions or for the insertions. God gives such an account of Jesus as would perfectly impress the lesson He was teaching in each Gospel.

Why does all we have noticed appear appropriately in John? Clearly because it falls in with the truth that is taught there. In John we have the utter ruin of man — of the world — from the outset. The first chapter shows us the practical evidence of what Judaism was — the Lord not received by His own, however duly coming, and thus calling His own sheep by name, and leading them out. For the testimony of John Baptist had no abiding effect upon the mass; it might pass from mouth to mouth, but it fell unheeded upon the ears of those that had no faith: "Ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you." Now we have the sheep individually called by name, and one of them receiving a new name thoroughly in keeping with the character of John's Gospel. In Matthew we have none of these striking incidents, because therein the Holy Ghost brings before us Jehovah-Jesus, the Messiah, working miracles, accomplishing prophecy, expounding the kingdom of heaven — but in want, despised, and the companion of such in Galilee; for He is not seen here as the Son of God, whether from everlasting or as born into the world; but He Himself takes a place in separation, to make good the great oracle that the prophet Isaiah had been inspired of God to reveal hundreds of years before. For you will remark that our Lord's leaving Nazareth and coming to dwell in Capernaum is brought in here as the fulfilment of that which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." It was outside the regular allotment of Israel, in that part of it which is yet to belong to Israel, which certain of the tribes had taken possession of, though, strictly speaking, it was beyond the proper limits of the promised land. The Lord goes through Galilee of the Gentiles, and in all that He was doing He fulfilled the prophecy. The Jews ought surely to have known it. The people which sat in darkness thus "saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. "

Now, if we turn to the prophet Isaiah, we shall find the importance of this quotation somewhat more. It is part of a grave prophetic strain, in which the Lord lays bare the exceeding rebelliousness of Israel, and the judgments falling upon His people, because they would not hearken to His voice. His hand was stretched out against them: "For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still" (Isa. 5: 25). In the midst of these dealings of God we have the glory of the Lord revealed (chap. 6). Now we know, as John 12 declares, that this glory is in the person of Christ. Accordingly it is announced in Isa. 7 that there was to be a birth wholly above nature. It was no longer One sitting upon a high throne, removed from men, though men receiving a message of mercy from Him in the midst of judgment, but chapter 7 reveals the great fact of the incarnation. The King of glory, Jehovah of hosts, was to become a babe, born of a virgin. The next chapter reveals another fact. Israel no more cared for the glorious Child of the virgin than for the warnings of God before. On the contrary, they despised and rejected Him. Consequently, chapter 8 supposes a godly remnant more and more isolated in the midst of a fearful state of things in Israel, who, joining with the Gentiles, will be saying, "A confederacy." Israel then takes the place of utter unbelief. The Jews will be leaders in this rebellion against God. But in the midst of it all, what is He doing? "Bind up the testimony, seal the law among My disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and wonders in Israel, from the Lord of hosts which dwelleth in Mount Zion." That is, there is a distinct declaration that God will be pleased to have a little remnant in the midst of Israel; and while Israel rejects the Messiah, a separated remnant appears, and the blessing would come at last in all the fulness of grace. Still it would be a small, despised thing in the beginning; and this is exactly the circumstance that our Lord now was bringing out in evidence. "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits . . . should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Accordingly the prophecy goes on: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first He lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light [the Messiah]: they that dwell in the. land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." He shows afterward in this prophecy that (while the Gentile affliction upon the nation would be heavier than ever, and the Roman oppression far exceed the Chaldean of old, yet) the Messiah would be there, despised and rejected of men, nay, of the Jews, and that at this very time, when thus set at naught by the people that ought to have known His glory, great light, would spring up in the most despised place, in Galilee of the nations, among the poorest of Israel, where Gentiles were mixed up with them — people who could not even speak their own tongue properly. There should this bright and heavenly light spring up; there the Messiah would be owned and received. Thus we can see how thoroughly this prophecy suits the Gospel we are considering. For we have here one who is Jehovah-Messiah, a divine king — not a mere man, but slighted by the nation and despised by the leaders, making Himself known in grace to those who were the most scorned in the outskirts as you go out toward the Gentiles. What kings had looked for in vain, what prophets had desired to see, it was for their eyes to look upon. The Lord begins to separate Himself a remnant in Israel in Galilee of the Gentiles. This keeps up and confirms the object of Matthew from the first.

But there is more than this. "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (ver. 17). It is clear that this begins His public preaching. The discourse to Nicodemus was entirely different. Why have we nothing like the Samaritan woman in Matthew? How does it fit in with the Gospel of John? In Matthew the subject is the accomplishment of the prophecies about the Messiah, and God showing there was on His part no failure of testimony till the Baptist's work closes. Jesus awaits this in Matthew. In John He waits for nothing. He gives there the grandest possible testimony about the kingdom of God; the necessity of a life which man has not naturally, that God alone can give; and the necessity of the cross as the expression of God's judgment of sin in grace to sinners — to the world. So that the discourse in John 3 consists of these two parts — a life given of God that is perfectly holy; and Jesus dying in atonement for the sins of the old life, which never could enter into the presence of God. For though believers must have the new life, yet this cannot blot out sin. Death is needed as well as life, and the Saviour provides both. He is the source of life as the Son of God, and He dies as the Son of man. And this is what He strikingly brings out in the beginning of John's Gospel.

In Matthew, as I have said, we have Jesus waiting till the testimony of John the Baptist is closed, and then He enters upon His public ministry. These things are perfectly harmonious. If it had been said our Lord preached the kingdom of heaven to Nicodemus, there might have seemed to be a contradiction; but He did not. To him He showed the necessity of a new birth for any to see the kingdom of God. But in Matthew He is looking at what concerns the earth — the kingdom of heaven according to the prophecy of Daniel. He therefore waits till his earthly forerunner had finished his task. Hence Matthew leaves out all allusion to anything public about Christ before John is cast into prison. He presents to the Jews the kingdom of heaven as that which was according to their prophets.

In the Gospel of Luke let us see how our Lord's ministry is opened. Chapter 4 will suffice for my purpose. The Lord returns in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: "And there went out a fame of Him through all the region round about. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up." This is a previous scene; He is not in Capernaum yet. Matthew leaves it all out. This is the more striking because Luke was not one of those personally with our Lord, while Matthew was. But unless you believe that it is God who has guided the hand of every writer, and put His own seal upon it, you are incapable of understanding Scripture; you will add your own thoughts, instead of being subject to the mind of God. What we want is to confide in God, who is shedding on us His own blessed and infinite light. Why does God give us this incident at Nazareth in Luke and nowhere else? Is it the Messiah? No; such is not the object of Luke. Nor is it His ministry in the order in which it occurred: this you will find in Mark. But Luke, as well as Matthew, changes the order of events, for the purpose of bringing out the moral object of each Gospel. Luke gives us this circumstance in the synagogue; Matthew does not. If any one has read the Gospel of Luke with spiritual intelligence, what is the uniform impression conveyed to the mind? There is the blessed Man, anointed of the Holy Ghost, who goes about doing good. Indeed, this is precisely the way in which Peter sums up the life of Jesus in the Acts, when preaching Him to Cornelius — "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him." And then he gives an account of His wonderful work in His death and resurrection, and its fruits to the believer.

Opening, then, Luke's Gospel, what is the first incident of our Lord's ministry recorded there? At Nazareth, the most despised village in Galilee, the place where our Lord was sure to be scorned — in His own country, where He had been living all the days of His private life of blessed obedience rendered to man and of dependence upon God — in this same place He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read from the prophet Isaiah where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor: He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, . . . to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And He closed the book." He stopped in the very middle of a sentence. Why so? For the most precious reason. He was come here as a herald of grace, the minister of divine goodness to poor, miserable men. There was judgment mingled with mercy in the prophecy of Isaiah. The Gospel of Matthew points out judgment upon the Jews and mercy to despised Galilee. But here it is a larger thing. In Luke there is not a word about judgment; nothing appears but the fulness of grace that was in Christ. He was come with all power and willingness to bless: the Spirit of Jehovah was upon Him for the purpose. He was sent to preach the acceptable year of the Lord — and there and then He closed the book. He would not add the next words, which announced "the day of vengeance of our God." He most significantly stops before a word is said of that day. As to the actual errand on which Jesus was come from heaven, it was not to execute vengeance: this was only what man would by and by compel Him to do by refusing grace. But He came to show divine love flowing in a perfect, unceasing stream from His heart. This was what our Lord opened out here. Where does such a scene as this suit? Exactly the place where it occurs — the Gospel of Luke only. You could not transplant it to Matthew, or even to John. There is a character about it that pertains to this Gospel and none other. Some of the circumstances of our Lord's ministry are given in all the Gospels, but this is not: because it flows in the current of Luke, there it is found, and there alone.

This will help to illustrate the characteristic and divinely-arranged differences of the Gospels. Harmonizing is the attempt to squeeze into one mould things which are not the same. Thus, if I may add a few words as to the account in Luke, we have more in corroboration. While they hung upon His lips to hear the gracious words, as the Holy Ghost characterizes them, all eyes fastened upon Him. "He began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. . . . And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? "Such was their blindness of heart. He was despised and rejected of men; not only of the proud men of Jerusalem, but even at Nazareth. This is Luke's object, who demonstrates the deeper thought still — that it was not only men who might be built up in the law, but that the heart of man was against Him wherever He was. Let it be at Nazareth, and let Him utter the most gracious words that ever fell from the lips of man, still scorn followed. "And He said unto them, Ye will surely say unto Me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also, here in Thy country." We learn here that the Lord had done many things elsewhere, and things that had taken place previously to this; but the Spirit of God records this first at length. The Lord accordingly brings in another thing that I must refer to. He takes instances from Jewish history to illustrate the unbelief of the Jews and the goodness of God to the Gentiles: "I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up; . . . but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta," etc. That is to say, He shows that in the unbelief of Israel God turns to the Gentiles, and that they should hear. There was this grand point in Luke's Gospel — not only the display of the fulness of the grace that was in Jesus, but God going out to the Gentiles, and in mercy to them. The first recorded discourse of our Lord in Luke brings out the very object of the Gospel. Accordingly, when the Lord uttered these words, they "were filled with wrath, and rose up, and thrust Him out of the city, and led Him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast Him down headlong. But He, passing through the midst of them, went His way, and came down to Capernaum." And then we have the Lord dealing with a man that was possessed with a devil. This is the first miracle detailed here; and it is only in the next chapter that we find our Lord calling Simon Peter, Andrew, and the rest, to follow Him; all which is given with the greatest possible care. At once we are struck with the difference.

For when we turn back to Matthew there is not a word about Nazareth, or the casting out of a devil from a man possessed; but simply our Lord, when He began to preach, was walking by the sea of Galilee, and "saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And He saith unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men" (vers. 18, 19). The account is given very succinctly. The particulars are not found; but we do get them in Luke, and, I presume, for this reason, that his is specially the Gospel where we see the moral analysis of the human heart. There are two things specially brought out in Luke — what God's heart is toward man, and what man's heart is naturally toward God; and, besides this, what he becomes through the grace of God. Take the parable of the prodigal, for instance. Have you not there God's grace and the wickedness of man's heart fully brought out? and then his coming to himself and being lost in the goodness of God toward him? This is just the Gospel of Luke, the sum and substance of the whole book. It is one reason why you have the experience of Peter when first called to service; how the Lord met his fears, and fitted him to become a fisher of men. And Peter is there made a prominent person: such experience is worthless except in an individual. Experience must be a thing between the soul and Christ; and the moment it becomes vague, or a matter of public notoriety, all is gone; it becomes then rather a snare for the conscience. There is the danger of repeating what we have heard from others, or of keeping back what is bad as to our own souls. It must be a matter of individual conscience with the Lord. Hence Luke gives us one individual singled out, and the minute account of what he passes through with the Lord.

This is not Matthew's point. There it is the rejected Messiah, now that His forerunner is cast into prison, who. will Himself soon find that there is worse than a prison in store for him. But for all that, the Lord will accomplish the prophecies. He is, in the most despised place, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah that predicted the law bound up among His disciples at the very time that the Lord was hiding His face from Israel. Now He wants to have persons who are suited to be the representatives of this godly remnant in Israel. Therefore He calls first two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother. It would be a mistake to suppose that this was our Lord's first acquaintance with them. They knew the Lord long before. How do we know this? John tells us. If you examine the point, you will find that all the incidents in the first four chapters of John's Gospel occurred before this scene. The circumstances recorded of our Lord in Jerusalem, in Galilee, and with the woman of Samaria even, all took place before Simon and Andrew were called away from their work. In order to call for a special line of service, there is a second work of Christ necessary.

It is one thing for Christ to reveal Himself to a soul; it is another to make that soul a fisher of men. There is a special faith needed in order to act upon the souls of others. The simple saving faith that appropriates Christ for one's own soul is not at all the same thing as understanding. the call of Christ summoning one away from all the natural objects of this life to do His work. This comes out here. The Lord, in His rejection, calls, and causes His voice to be heard by these four men, and by others also. They had already believed in Him, and had everlasting life; but even with everlasting life a man may be following a good deal of the world, and, being occupied with what contributes to his own ease here below, remain a member of the society of men. Many that are godly still continue mixed up with the world; but in order for the Lord to make them to be the companions of His own service, and to fit them for carrying out His own objects, He must call them away. But they have got a father: what is to be done? No matter; the call of Christ is paramount to every other claim. They were casting a net into the sea; and He saith unto them, "Follow Me." But they might have caught ever so much fish: what of that? "They straightway left their nets, and followed Him. And going on from thence, He saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them" (vers. 20, 21). No doubt it was a struggle. They were mending their nets with their father when the Lord called them; but they immediately left their nets and their father, and followed Him. And for this reason: they knew who Christ was; that He was the Messiah, the blessed object of hope that God had from the beginning promised to the fathers; and now the children had it. He called them. Could they not trust all they had in His hands, and confide in His care for their father? Surely they could. The very same faith which gave them to follow Jesus, not alone as a giver of everlasting life, but as One to whom they now belonged as servants, could enable them to confide all that they had pertaining to them in this world into His keeping. Surely, if the Lord called them, His call must be superior to their natural obligations. This was an extraordinary case. We do not find that persons in general are called to such a work as this; but it may be there are occasions where the Lord has those that He summons to serve Him in this special way. How could one be of use to the souls of others unless he have known somewhat of this trial for his own soul? The Lord is presented here as thus forming this godly remnant for Himself from the very beginning. "Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel." This was what the Lord was now doing; but it is not all. "Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And His fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto Him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those which had the palsy, and He healed them" (vers. 23, 24).

Now, mark, there is nowhere, except in Matthew, such a series of the Lord's works and teaching compressed into a couple of verses. In Matthew they are crowded into a cluster, before we have the teaching commonly called "the sermon on the mount." Why is it that the ordinary current of the Lord's ministry is brought before us here in this comprehensive form? It is intended to show, after the Lord had called these disciples, the universal attention that was drawn to His doctrine. The Lord had been giving a full testimony everywhere through all Galilee, and his fame had spread through all Syria; persons had been attracted from all quarters; and the Holy Ghost then gives us the outline of the kingdom of heaven in its objects and character. The circumstances are so arranged by the Holy Ghost as to show the universal attention directed to it. When all are on tip-toe to hear Him, then the Lord unfolds the character of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew knew perfectly well that the sermon on the mount was really uttered long after. He heard it himself. Yet Matthew's own call is not given till chapter 9. It was subsequent to the call of the twelve disciples that our Lord took His place upon the mount; but Matthew records it long before. The object is to mark, not the time when our Lord uttered this discourse, but the change announced. There were, first, all these mighty deeds that witnessed to His being the true Messiah; and then His doctrine was perfectly brought out. The sermon on the mount need not be considered, historically, as one continuous discourse, but may have been divided into different parts. It is nowhere said that it was all uttered in strict consecution. We have only the general fact that then He spoke thus on the mount, and there He taught the people. It may have been given in several discourses, with the circumstances giving rise to this part or that omitted in Matthew. The human mind compares these things together, and finding that in Luke different portions of it are given in a different connection, while in Matthew all are given together, instead of confiding in the certainty that God is right, jumps at once to the conclusion that there is confusion in these scriptures. There is really perfection. It is the Holy Ghost shaping all according to the object He has before Him.

Another time I hope, if the Lord will, to enter carefully into this most blessed discourse of our Lord's, to evince its grand importance in itself, and its appropriateness in Matthew, where alone we have it so fully. In Mark and John it is not given at all; in Luke only in detached fragments; in Matthew as a whole. But now I merely commend to you the subject we have been looking at, trusting that the general remarks Already made may prove an incentive to further and prayerful examination. May the hints thrown out help some to a more profitable reading of God's word, and more intelligent entrance into His mind, beside., giving a key to apparent difficulties in the Gospels.

Matthew 5

It has been already explained, though briefly, that one reason of the Spirit of God in putting the sermon on the mount out of its historical place in Matthew, if we may so speak, and giving it to us before many of the events which took place subsequently, was this: that the whole Gospel was written upon the principle of convincing Jews; first, to show who Jesus was — their Messiah (a man, but Jehovah), the LORD God of Israel; then to give full proofs of what He really was as their Messiah, according to prophecy, by miracle, moral principles and ways, both in His own person and in His doctrine.* In order to give the greater weight to His doctrine, the Spirit of God, in my opinion, has been pleased, first, to give as a general sketch the deeds of miraculous power which roused universal attention. The report went abroad everywhere, so that there was no possible ground of excuse for unbelief to argue that there was not sufficient publicity; that God had not sounded the trumpet loud enough for the tribes of Israel to hear. Far from that: throughout all Syria His fame had gone forth, and great multitudes followed Him from Galilee, and Decapolis, and Jerusalem, and Judea, and from beyond Jordan. All this is brought forward here and grouped together at the end of chapter 4.

* A third point, I may add here, of immense moment was to make evident the consequences of His rejection by the Jews, not only to them but to the Gentiles; that is, the change of economy which turned on that solemn fact.

And just as there is this grouping of the miracles of Christ, which might have been severed from one another by a long space of time, so, I apprehend, the sermon on the mount was not necessarily a continuous discourse, unbroken by time or circumstances, but that the Holy Ghost has seen fit to arrange it so as to give the whole moral unity of the doctrine of Christ as to the kingdom of heaven, and specially so as to counteract the earthly views of the people of Israel.

Luke, on the contrary, was inspired of the Holy Ghost to give the questions that originated certain portions of the discourse, and the circumstances that accompanied it; and, again, to keep certain parts of that discourse back, connecting them with facts that occurred from time to time in our Lord's ministry, the actual incidents being thus interwoven in moral correspondence with any particular doctrine of our Lord. In some places of Luke the Spirit of God takes the liberty, according to His sovereign wisdom, of keeping back certain portions, and bringing in a part here and there according to the object He has in view. The great feature of Luke's Gospel, which runs through it from beginning to end, being its moral aim, we can perfectly understand how suitable it was that, if there were circumstances in Christ's life which were a sort of practical comment on His discourse, there you should have the discourse and the facts put together.

Now, as to the discourse itself, the Lord here clearly speaks as the Messiah, the Prophet-King of the Jews. But besides, all through you will find that the discourse supposes the rejection of the King. It is not brought clearly out yet, but this is what underlies it all. The King has the sense of the true state of the people, who had no heart for Him. Hence there is a certain tinge of sorrow that runs through it. That must ever characterize real godliness in the world as it is: a strange thing for Israel, and specially strange in the lips of the King, of One possessed of such power that, had it been a question of using His resources, He could have changed all in a moment. The miracles which accompanied His steps proved that there was nothing beyond His reach, if it were only a question of Himself. But you will find in all the ways of God that while He always makes good His counsels — so that if He predicts a kingdom and takes it in hand to set it up He will certainly accomplish it — nevertheless, He first presents the thought to man, to Israel, because they were His chosen race. Man has thus the responsibility of receiving or rejecting that which is the mind of God, before grace and power give it effect. But man always fails, no matter what God's purpose may be. His purpose is good, it is holy, and true; it exalts God but abases the sinner: this is enough for man. He feels that he is made nothing of, and he rejects whatever does not gratify his vanity. Man invariably sets himself against the thoughts of God: consequently there is pain and sorrow — rejection of God Himself. And the wonderful thing that the history of this world exhibits is God submitting to be rejected and insulted; allowing poor weak man, a worm, to repel His benign advances and refuse His goodness; to turn everything that God gives and promises into the display of his own pride and glory against the majesty and will of God. All this is the truth about man, so the tinge of it runs through this blessed discourse of our Lord. And as He is now bringing out (which is the great purport of the early part of this chapter) the character of the people who would suit the kingdom of heaven, He proclaims that their character was to be formed by His own. If there was men's dislike and contempt for what was of God, He shows that those who really belong to Him must have a spirit and ways characterized by, and in sympathy with His own. I only say "sympathy" here, because the truth of a divine life given to the believer is not spoken of in this discourse. Redemption never is touched upon, as it is not the subject of the sermon on the mount. If a person, therefore, wanted to know how to be saved, he ought not to look here with the thought of finding an answer. It could not be found in it, because the Lord is bringing out the kingdom of heaven and the sort of people that are suitable to that kingdom. It is clear that He is speaking of His own disciples, and therefore is not showing bow one alienated from God could be delivered from such a position. He is speaking about saints, not about sinners. He could lay down what is according to His heart; not at all the way for a soul consciously at a distance from God to be brought near. The sermon on the mount treats not of salvation, but of the character and conduct of those that belong to Christ — the true yet rejected King. But when we examine these beatitudes closely, we shall find an astonishing depth in them, and a beautiful order too.

The first blessedness, then, attaches to a fundamental trait which is inseparable from every soul brought to God, and that knows God. "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Nothing more contrary to man! What people call "a man of spirit," is exactly the opposite of being poor in spirit. A man of spirit is one who — such as Cain was — is determined not to be beaten; a soul who would fight it out with God Himself. He who is "poor in spirit" is the very opposite of this. It is a person who is broken, who feels that the dust is his right place. And every soul that knows God must, more or less, be there. He may get out of this place; for although it is a solemn thing, yet it is easy enough to rise again, to forget our right place before God; it is even a danger for those who have been brought into the liberty of Christ. When there is sincerity of heart a man is apt to be low, specially if not quite sure that all is clear between his soul and God. But when full relief is brought to his spirit, when he knows the fulness and certainty of redemption in Christ Jesus, if then he look away from Jesus and take his place among men, there you will have the old spirit revived, the spirit of man in its worst form — so terrible is the effect of a departure from God in order to mingle with men. The poor in spirit, first in order, the Lord lays down as a sort of foundation, as being inseparable from a soul that is brought to God: — he may not even know what full liberty is, but there is this stamp, never absent where the Holy Ghost works in the soul — that is, poverty of spirit. It may be encroached on by other things, or it may fade away through the influence of false doctrine, or worldly thoughts and practice, but still there it was, and there, in the midst of all the rubbish, it is; and God knows how to bring a man down again, if he has forgotten his true place. "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (ver. 3). If He is speaking about the kingdom, He forthwith says these are the people to whom it belongs. By the "kingdom of heaven" He does not mean heaven: it never means heaven, but always takes in the earth as under the rule of heaven. You will find that many persons are in the habit of confounding these things. "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven," they think means "theirs is heaven." Whereas the Lord is not referring to heaven, but to the rule of the heavens over an earthly scene. It refers to the scene of the ruling Messiah; those who are poor in spirit belong to that system of which He is the Head. He does not ,peak of the Church here. There might have been the kingdom of heaven and no Church at all. It is not till the sixteenth chapter of this Gospel that the subject of the Church is broached, and then it is a thing promised and expressly distinguished from the kingdom of heaven. There is not in all Scripture a single passage where the kingdom of heaven is confounded with the Church, or vice versa. "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This is the primary foundation, the broad characteristic feature of all that belong to Jesus.

"Blessed are they that mourn" is the second feature. There is more activity of life, more depth of feeling, more entrance into the condition of things around them. To be "poor in spirit" would be true if there were not a single other soul in the world; he thus feels because of what he is in himself; it is a question between him and God that makes him to be poor in spirit. But "blessed are they that mourn" is not merely what we find in our own condition, but the holy sorrow that a saint tastes in finding himself in such a world as this, and, oh, how little able to maintain the glory of God! So there is this holy sorrow in the second part. The first is the child of God experiencing the earliest feelings of holiness in his soul; the second is the sense of what is due to God — a feeling it may be of great weakness, and yet of what becomes the honour of God, and how little it is upheld by himself or others. "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted" (ver. 4). There is not a single sigh that goes up to God but He treasures and will answer it; "Ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves." Here, then, we have the sorrowing of the godly soul.

But in the third case we come to that which is much deeper and more chastened. It is a condition of soul produced by a fuller acquaintance with God, and is especially the way in which God elsewhere describes the blessed One Himself. He was "meek and lowly in heart;" and this was what the Lord said after He had been groaning in spirit, for He knew what it was to have a deeper sorrow than we have spoken of, over the condition of men and the rejection of God that He witnessed here below. He could only say "Woe" to those cities in which He had done so many mighty works; and then Capernaum comes in for the deepest condemnation, because the mightiest works of all were done there in vain. And what could Jesus do but groan in spirit as He thought of such utter spurning of God, and indifference to His own love? But at the same hour we find He rejoices in spirit, and says, "I thank Thee, O Father." Such is the blessed proof of matchless meekness in Jesus. The same hour which sees the depth of His sorrow over man sees also His perfect bowing to God, though at the cost of everything to Himself. Conscious of this, He says, "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me: for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Now, then, I think I may be bold to say that this meekness, which was found in its absolute perfectness in Jesus, is also what the gradually deepening knowledge of the ways of God, even in the sense of the abounding wickedness of this world and of the failure of what bears the name of Christ, produces in the saint of God. For, in the midst. of all that he sees around him, there is the discerning of the hidden purpose of God that is going on in spite of everything; so that the heart, instead of being fretted by the evil which it witnesses and which it cannot set aside, instead of the least feeling of envy at the prosperity of the wicked, finds its resource in God — "the Lord of heaven and earth" — an expression most blessed because it marks the absolute control in which everything is held by God. Jesus is the meek one, and those that belong to Jesus are trained to this meekness also. "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth" (ver. 5). The earth — why not heaven? The earth is the scene of all this evil, causing such sorrow and mourning. But now, having better learnt God's ways, they can commit all to Him. Meekness is not merely to have a sense of nothingness in ourselves, or to be filled with sorrow for the opposition to God here below; but it is rather the calmness which leaves things with God, and bends to God, and thankfully owns the will of God, even where naturally it may be most trying to ourselves.

The fourth blessedness is much more active. "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled" (ver. 6). Perfect soul-satisfaction they shall have. Whatever was the form of the spiritual feeling of the heart, there is always the perfect answer to it on God's part. If there was sorrow, they shall be comforted; if there was meekness, they shall inherit the earth, the very place of their trial here. Now, there is this activity of spiritual feeling, the going out after what was according to God, and what maintained the will of God, especially as made known to a Jew in the Old Testament. Therefore it is called hungering and thirsting after righteousness. We learn deeper principles in the New Testament still, which had to be brought out when the disciples were able to bear them.

This closes what we may call the first section of the beatitudes. You will find that they are divided, as the series of Scripture often are, into four and three. We have had four classes of persons pronounced "blessed." All the traits ought to be found in one individual, but some will be more prominent in one than another. For instance, we may see great activity in one, astonishing meekness in another. The principle of all is in every soul that is born of God. In verse 7 we enter upon a rather different class: and it will be found that the last three have got a common character, as the first four have.

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy" (ver. 7). As righteousness is the key note of the first four, so grace is that which lies at the root of the latter three; and, therefore, the very first of them demonstrates not merely that they are righteous and that they feel what is due to God, but they appreciate the love of God, and maintain it in the midst of surrounding evil. Yea, there is something more blessed still: and what is that? "Blessed are the merciful." There is nothing on which God more takes His stand (as the active principle of His being in a world of sin) than His mercy. The only possibility of salvation to a single soul is that there is mercy in God; that He is rich in mercy; that there is no bound to His mercy; that there is nothing in man, if he only bows to His Son, which can hinder His constant flowing spring of mercy. "Blessed," then, "are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." It is not only a question of the forgiveness of their sins, but of mercy in everything. It is a blessed thing to hail the smallest sign of mercy in the saints, to take the little, and look for much more. "Blessed are the merciful." They will find, not that there is not difficulty and trial, but that though they shall know the cost of it, they shall know the sweetness of it; they shall taste afresh what the mercy of God is towards their own souls, in the exercise of mercy towards others. This is the characteristic feature of the new class of blessing; just as poverty of spirit was the introduction to the first blessings, so mercy is to these.

The next is the consequence of this, as in the former class. If a man does not think much of himself, men will take advantage of him. If a man is bold and boastful and self-exalting, even saints may suffer it (2 Cor. 11). If he does well to himself, men will praise him (Ps. 49). But the contrary of all this is what God works in the saint. No matter what he may be, he is broken down before God: he learns the vanity of what man is; he is content to be nothing. And the effect is that he suffers. Poverty of spirit will be followed by mourning. Then there is the meekness as there is deepening acquaintance with God, and withal the hungering and thirsting after righteousness.

But now it is mercy; and the effect of mercy is not a compromising of the holiness of God, but a larger and deeper standard of it. The fuller your hold of grace is, the higher will be your maintenance of holiness. If you only regard grace, as a wretched selfish being, to find an excuse for sin, no doubt it will be perverted. And so He speaks at once of the simple normal effect of tasting of this spring of mercy. They are "pure in heart." This is the next class, and it is, I believe, the consequence of the first — of being merciful. "Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God." It is exactly what is proper to God; for He alone is pure absolutely. Thus also He was perfectly reflected in His beloved Son. For not a single thought or feeling ever sullied divine perfectness in the heart of Jesus. In this case He is just telling out what He Himself was. How could He but put His own characteristics before those who belonged to Him? For indeed He is their life. It is Christ in us that produces what is according to God by the Holy Ghost — that blessed One whose very coming into the world was the witness of perfect grace and mercy on God's part; for we know God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son for it. And He was there, a man — the faithful witness of the mercy and of the purity of God. He, when He came with His heart full of mercy towards the vilest, was yet the very fulness and pattern of the purity of God in, its perfection. "He that sent me," He could say, "is with me; ... for I do always those things that please Him." The only way of doing anything to please God is by the cherished consciousness of being in the presence of God; and there is no possibility of this, except as I am drawn there in the liberty of grace and as knowing the love of God to me, as brought to Him in Christ. But this is not revealed here; for the Lord is rather unfolding the moral qualities of those that belong to Him.

The third and closing form of these beatitudes is, "Blessed are the peace-makers; for they shall be called the children of God" (ver. 9). Here we have the active side again, of which we saw an analogy in the closing one of the first four. These go out making peace, if there is any possibility of the peace of God being brought into the scene; and if it cannot be, they are content to wait on God, and look up to Him, that He may make this peace in His own time. And as this peace-making can belong only to God Himself, so these saints that are enriched with these blessed qualities of the grace of God as well as His righteousness, with His active mercy, and its effects are equally found now characterized as peace-makers. "They shall be called the children of God." Oh, this is a sweet title — sons of God! Is it not because it was the reflection of His own nature — of what God Himself is? The stamp of God is upon them. There is no one thing that more indicates God manifested in His children than peace-making. This was what God was doing, what His heart is set upon. Here are found men upon the earth who shall be called "the sons of God" — a new title from God Himself.

Then follow two blessings of exceeding interest. They add much to the beauty of the scene and complete the picture in a most striking way. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (ver. 10). This is evidently to begin over again. The first blessedness was, "Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;" and the next three were all marked by righteousness. It is the first thing that God produces in a new-born soul. He who is awakened takes up God's cause against himself. He is, in measure at least, broken down, poor in spirit; and God looks for him to grow in poverty of spirit to the last. But here it is not so much what they are, as what their lot is from others. The last two beatitudes speak of their portion in the world from the hands of other people. The first four are characterized by intrinsic righteousness — the last three by intrinsic grace. These two, then, answer, one to the first four, and the other to the last three. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." This does not go beyond the blessed state of things that the power of God will bring in upon the earth in connection with the Messiah. Being rejected, the kingdom of heaven is His with a stronger and deeper title, as it were — certainly with the means of blessing by grace for the lost. A suffering and despised Messiah is still dearer to the heart of God than if received all at once. And if He does not lose the kingdom because He was persecuted, neither do they. "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Persecuted, not merely by the Gentiles or the Jews, but for righteousness' sake. Do not be looking at the people that persecute you, but at the reason why you are persecuted. If it is because you desire to be found in obedience to the will of God, blessed are you. You fear to sin? you suffer for it? Blessed are they which suffer for righteousness' sake: they will have their portion with the Messiah Himself.

But now we have, finally, another blessedness. And mark the change. "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you for My sake." This change to ye is exceedingly precious. It is not merely put in an abstract form — "Blessed are they;" but it is a personal thing. He looks at the disciples there, knows what they were to go through for His sake, and gives them the highest and nearest place in His love. "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you . . . for My sake." It is not now for righteousness' sake, but "for My sake." There is something still more precious than righteousness, and that is Christ. And when you have Christ, you can have nothing higher. Blessed indeed to be persecuted for His sake! The difference is just this: when a man suffers for righteousness' sake, it supposes that some evil has been put before him which he refuses. He would have perhaps to subscribe something against his conscience, and he cannot, nor would dare, to do it. He is offered a tempting bait, but it involves that which he knows is contrary to God. All is in vain: the tempter's object is seen. Righteousness prevails, and he suffers. He not only loses what is offered, but he is evil spoken of too. Blessed are they who suffer thus for righteousness' sake! But for Christ's sake is quite a different thing. There the enemy essays great execution. He tempts the soul with such questions as these: Is there any reason why you should stand up for Jesus and the gospel? There is no need for being so zealous for the truth. Why go out of your way so far for this person or that thing? Now in these cases it is not a question of a sin, open or covert. For, in the case of suffering for Christ's sake, it is the activity of grace that goes out to others. It answers to the last three of the seven beatitudes. A soul that is filled with a sense of mercy cannot refrain his lips. He who knows what God is, could not be silent merely because of what men think or do. Blessed are ye who thus suffer for Christ's name! The power of grace prevails there. Too often, alas, motives of prudence come in: people are afraid of giving offence to others, of losing influence for self, of spoiling the prospect of the children, etc. But the energy of grace, looking at all this, still says Christ is worth infinitely more; Christ commands my soul — I must follow Him. In suffering for righteousness' sake, a soul eschews evil earnestly and peremptorily, committing itself at all cost to what is right; but in the other it discerns the path of Christ — that which the gospel, the worship, or the will, of the Lord calls to, and at once throws itself with its whole heart on the Lord's side. Then comes in the comfort of that sweet word, "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you.... for My sake." The Lord could not refrain the expression of His soul's delight in His saints: "Blessed are ye. . . . Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven." Observe it is not now in the kingdom of heaven, but" in heaven." He identifies these with a higher place altogether. It is not only the power of God over the earth, and His giving them a portion here, but it is taking them out of the earthly scene to be with Himself above. "For so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." What an honour to follow in earthly rejection and scorn those who preceded us in special communion with God — the heralds of Him for whom we suffer now! We may clearly then consider that these two final blessednesses, the persecutions for righteousness' sake and for Christ's sake, answer respectively to the first four blessings and to the last three.

In Luke, where we have these blessings brought before us, we have none for righteousness' sake — only for His name's sake. Hence in all the cases it is," Blessed are ye." To some it may seem a delicate shade, but the difference is characteristic of the two Gospels. Matthew takes in the larger view, and specially that view of the principles of the kingdom of heaven which was suited to the understanding of a Jew, to bring him out of his mere Judaism, or to show him higher principles. Luke, whatever the principles are, gives them all under the form of grace, and treats them as our Lord's direct addresses to the disciples before Him — "Blessed are ye." Even if he takes up the subject of the poor, he drops the abstract form of Matthew, and makes it all personal. Everything is connected with the Lord Himself, and not merely with righteousness. This is exceedingly beautiful. And if we pursue further the next few verses, which give, not so much the characteristics of the people as their general attitude in the world — the place in which they are set in the earth by God — we have it in a very few words, and strongly confirming the distinction which has been drawn between righteousness' and Christ's name's sake. Also, if you examine the 1st epistle of Peter, you will find this remarkably corroborated there also.

"Ye are the salt of the earth." Salt is the only thing that cannot be salted, because it is the preservative principle itself; but if this is gone, it cannot be replaced. "If the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" The salt of the earth is the relation of the disciples here to that which already had the testimony of God, and therefore the expression "earth," or "the land," which was specially true of the Jewish land then. If you speak about the earth now, it is Christendom — the place that enjoys, either really or professedly, the light of God's truth. This is what may be called the earth. And this is the place which will finally be the scene of the greatest apostasy; for such evil is only possible where light has been enjoyed and departed from. In Revelation, where the closing results of the age are given, the earth appears in a most solemn manner; and then we have the peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues — what we should call heathen lands. But the earth means the once-favoured scene of professing Christianity, where the energies of the mind of men have been at work, the scene where the testimony of God had once shed its light; then, alas, abandoned to utter apostasy.

"Ye are the salt of the earth" — they were the real preservative principle there: all the rest, the Lord intimates, were good for nothing. But, let us note, He gives a solemn warning that there is a danger that the salt should lose its savour. He is not now speaking of the question whether a saint can fall away or not. People go with their own questions to Scripture, and pervert the word of God to suit their previous thoughts. The Lord is not raising the question whether life is. ever lost; but He is speaking of certain persons who are in a given position; and among them there may be persons who take it heedlessly, or even falsely, and then comes the fading away of all that they had once possessed. He announces their judgment — a most contemptuous one — to be passed upon that which took so high a place without reality.

"Ye are the light of the world." This is another thing. Bearing in mind the distinction drawn in the series of the beatitudes and of the persecutions, we have the key to these two verses. The salt of the earth represents the righteous principle. This evidently involves the clinging to the eternal rights of God and the maintenance before the world of what is due to His character; but it is gone when that which bears the name of God falls below what even men think proper, and they scoff against what is called religion. All respect vanishes, and men think that the condition of Christians is a fair subject for ridicule. But now, in verse 14, we have not only the principle of righteousness, but of grace — the outflowing and strength of grace. And here we find a new title given to the disciples, as descriptive of their public testimony — ,'the light of the world." The light is clearly that which diffuses itself. The salt is what ought to be inward, but the light is that which scatters itself abroad. "A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid." There was to be a diffusion of its testimony around. Man does not light a candle to put it under a corn measure, but on a candlestick, "and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." After this manner let your light shine before men, "that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Mark it well.

We have looked at these two striking sketches of the testimony of believers here below as the salt of the earth, the preservative energy in the midst of profession; and as the light of the world going out in the activities of love toward the poor world; and the danger of the salt losing its savour. and of the light being put under a bushel. Now we find the great object of God in this twofold testimony. It is not merely a question of the blessing of souls, for there is not a word about evangelizing or saving sinners, but of the walk of saints. There is a grave question that God raises about His saints, and this is about their own ways apart from other people. Calls to the unconverted we find abundantly elsewhere, and none can exaggerate their importance for the world; but the sermon on the mount is God's call to the converted. It is their character, their position, their testimony distinctively; and if others are thought of throughout, it is not so much a question of winning them, as of the saints reflecting what comes from above. This light is what comes from Christ. It is not, Let your good works shine before men. When people talk about this verse thinking of their own works, they are generally not good works at all; but even if they were, works are not light. Light is that which comes from God, without admixture of man. Good works are the fruit of its action upon the soul; but it is the light which is to shine before men. It is the confession of Christ that is the point before God. It is not merely certain things to be done. The light shining is the great object here, though doing good ought to flow from it. If I make doing good everything, it is a lower thought than that which is before the mind of God. An infidel can feel that a shivering man needs a coat or a blanket. The natural man may be fully alive to the wants of others; but if I merely take these works and make them the prominent aim, I really do nothing more than an unbeliever might. The moment you make good works the object, and their shining before men, you find yourself on common ground with Jews and heathen. God's people are apt thus to destroy their testimony. What so bad, in the way of a thing done professedly for God, as a work that leaves out Christ, and that shows a man who loves Christ to be on comfortable terms with those that hate Him? This is what the Lord warns the saints against. They are not to be thinking about their works, but that the light of God should shine. Works will follow, and much better works than where a person is always occupied with them. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven " (ver. 16). Let your confession of what God is in His nature and of what Christ is in His own person and ways — let your acknowledgment of Him be the thing that is felt by and brought before men; and then, when they see your good works, they will glorify your Father which is in heaven. Instead of saying, What a good man such a one is, they will glorify God on his behalf — connecting what you do with your confession of Christ.

The Lord grant that this, as it is the word and the will of Christ, may be that to which we surrender ourselves, and which we desire above all things for our own souls and for those who are dear to us; and if we see the forgetfulness of it in any saints of God, may we remember them in prayer, and seek to help them by the testimony of His truth, which, if it does not carry the heart with it, may at least reach the conscience and bear fruit later.

We have seen our Lord's statement of the character, and also of the position, proper to the heirs of the kingdom of heaven. We have found Him pronouncing those "blessed" whom man would not have counted so. But our Lord was the perfect pattern of all this. And what could have sounded more unreasonable, specially to a Jew, than to hear one deliberately and emphatically call those blessed and happy who were despised, scorned, hated, persecuted, yea, thought ill of, and treated as malefactors? No doubt it was expressly for righteousness' sake and Christ's sake. But to the Jew the coming of the Messiah was looked forward to as the crown of his joy — that most auspicious event on which all was to turn for Israel, both as to the accomplishment of God's promises made to the fathers and the fulfilment of the magnificent predictions which involve the overthrow of their enemies, the humiliation of the Gentiles, and the glory of Israel. Therefore, to suppose that the receiving of Him who was the Messiah would now entail inevitable shame and suffering in the world was indeed an enormous shock to their most cherished expectations. But our Lord insists upon it, declaring such only to be blessed — blessed with a new kind of blessedness, far beyond what a Jew could conceive. And this is part of the privileges into which we too are brought by faith of Christ. The instruction of our Lord in the sermon on the mount only comes out in stronger forms now that He has taken His place in heaven. The enmity of man has also come out to its full measure. The world has joined with the Jews in enmity to the children of God. And so the last book of the New Testament shows that those who take the name of Jews, without any reality, remain to the end the most hostile to all true testimony of Christ on the earth.

In the portion that follows we enter upon a most important subject. If there was this new kind of blessedness, so foreign to the thoughts of Israel after the flesh, what was the relation of the law to Christ's doctrine and the new state of things about to be introduced? Did not the law come from God through Moses? If Christ brought in that which was so unexpected, even by the disciples, what would be the bearing of this truth upon that which they had previously received through God's inspired servants, and for which they had His own authority? Weaken the authority of the law, and it is clear that you destroy the foundation on which the gospel rests; for the law was of God as certainly as the gospel. Hence came in a most weighty question, especially for an Israelite: what was the bearing of the doctrine of Christ, respecting the kingdom of heaven, upon the precepts of the law? The Lord opens this subject (vers. 17-48) with these words: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets." They might have thought so from the fact of His having introduced something not mentioned in either; but "Think not," He says, "that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." I take this word "fulfil" in its largest sense. In His own person the Lord fulfilled the law and the prophets, in His own ways, in righteous subjection and obedience. His life here below exhibited its beauty for the first time without flaw. His death was the most solemn sanction which the law ever could receive, because the curse that it pronounced upon the guilty, the Saviour took upon Himself. There was nothing the Saviour would not undergo, rather than God should have dishonour. But our Lord's words warrant, I think, a further application. There is an expansion of the law, or δικαίωμα (righteous requirement), giving to its moral element the largest scope, so that all which was honouring to God in it should be brought out in its fullest power and extent. The light of heaven was now let fall upon the law, and the law interpreted, not by weak, failing men, but by One who had no reason to evade one jot of its requirements; whose heart, full of love, thought only of the honour and the will of God; whose zeal for His Father's house consumed Him, and who restored that which He took not away. Who but He could expound the law thus — not as the scribes, but in the heavenly light? For the commandment of God is exceeding broad, whether we look at its making an end of all perfection in man, or the sum of it in Christ.

Far from annulling the law, the Lord, on the contrary, illustrated it more brightly than ever, and gave it a spiritual application that man was entirely unprepared for before He came. And this is what the Lord proceeds to do in the wonderful discourse that follows. After having said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled," He adds, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (vers. 18-20). Our Lord is going to expand the great moral principles of the law into commandments that flow from Himself, and not merely from Moses, and shows that this would be the great thing whereby persons would be tested. It would no longer be a question of the ten words spoken on Sinai merely; but, while recognizing their full value, He was about to open out the mind of God in a way so much deeper than had ever been thought of before that this would henceforth be the great test.

Hence He says, when referring to the practical use of these commandments of His, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" — an expression that has not the smallest reference to justification, but to the practical appreciation of and walking in the right relations of the believer toward God and toward men. The righteousness spoken of here is entirely of a practical kind. This may strike many persons sharply, perhaps. They may be somewhat perplexed to understand how practical righteousness is made to be the means of entering into the kingdom of heaven. But, let me repeat, the sermon on the mount never shows us how a sinner is to be saved. If there were the smallest allusion to practical righteousness where a sinner's justification is concerned, there would be ground to be startled; but there can be none whatever for the saint who understands and is subject to God's will. God insists upon godliness in His people. ,Without holiness no man shall seethe Lord." There can be no question that the Lord shows in John 15 that the unfruitful branches must be cut off, and that, just as the withered branches of the natural vine are cast into the fire to be burned, so fruitless professors of the name of Christ can look for no better portion.

Bearing fruit is the test of life. These things are stated in the strongest terms all through Scripture. In John 5: 28, 29 it is said, "The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation," or "judgment." There is no disguising the solemn truth that God will and must have that which is good and holy and righteous in His own people. They are not God's people at all who are not characterized as the doers of that which is acceptable in His sight. If this were put before a sinner as a means of reconciliation with God, or of having sins blotted out before Him, it would be the denial of Christ and of His redemption. But only hold fast that all the means of being brought nigh to God are found in Christ — that the sole way by which a sinner is connected with the blessing of Christ is by faith, without the works of the law — only maintain this, and there is not the least inconsistency nor difficulty in understanding that the same God who gives a soul to believe in Christ, works in that soul by the Holy Ghost to produce what is practically according to Himself. For what purpose does God give him the life of Christ and the Holy Ghost, if only the remission of the sins were needed? But God is not satisfied with this. He imparts the life of Christ to a soul, and gives that soul the Holy Spirit to dwell in him; and as the Spirit is not the spring of weakness or of fear "but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," God looks for suited ways and for the exercise of spiritual wisdom and judgment in passing through the present trying scene.

While they looked up with ignorant eyes to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, our Lord declares that this sort of righteousness will not do. The righteousness that goes up to the temple every day, that prides itself upon long prayers, large ,alms, and broad phylacteries, will not stand in the sight of God. There must be something far deeper and more according to the holy, loving nature of God. Because with all that appearance of outward religion, there might be always, as there generally was in fact, no sense of sin, nor of the grace of God. This proves the all-importance of being right, first, in our thoughts about God; and we can only be so by receiving the testimony of God about His Son. In the case of the Pharisees we have sinful man denying his sin, and utterly obscuring and denying God's true character as the God of grace. These teachings of our Lord were rejected by the outward religionists, and their righteousness was such as you might expect from people who were ignorant of themselves and of God. It gained reputation for them, but there it all ended; they looked for their reward now, and they had it. . But our Lord says to the disciples, Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the 'kingdom of heaven."

Allow me to ask the question here, How is it that God accomplishes this in regard to a soul that believes now? There is a great secret that does not come out in this sermon. First of all, there is a load of unrighteousness on the sinner. How is that to be dealt with, and the sinner to be made fit for and introduced into the kingdom of heaven? Through faith, he is born again; he acquires a new nature, a life which as much flows from the grace of God as the bearing of his sins by Christ upon the cross. There is the foundation of practical righteousness. The true beginning of all moral goodness in a sinner — as it has been said and as it deserves to be often repeated — is the sense and confession of his lack of it, nay, of his badness. Never is anything right with God in a man till he gives himself up as all wrong. When he is brought down to this, he is thrown upon God, and God reveals Christ as His gift to the poor sinner. He is morally broken down, feeling and owning that he is lost, unless God appears for him; he receives Christ, and what then? "He that believeth hath everlasting life." What is the nature of that life? In its character perfectly righteous and holy. The man is then at once fitted for God's kingdom. "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." But when he is born again, he does enter there. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," The scribes and Pharisees were only working on and by the flesh; they did not believe that they were dead in the sight of God; neither do men now. But what the believer begins with is, that he is a dead man, that he requires a new life, and that the new life which he receives in Christ is suitable to the kingdom of heaven. It is upon this new nature that God acts, and works by the Spirit this practical righteousness; so that it remains in every sense true, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven."

But the Lord does not here explain how this would be. He only declares. that what was suitable to God's nature was not to be found in human Jewish righteousness, and that it must be for the kingdom.

Now He takes up the law in its various parts, at least what has to do with men. Here He does not enter into what touches God directly, but first of all takes up that which flows from human violence, and after this the great flagrant example of human corruption; for violence and corruption are the two outstanding forms of human iniquity. Before the flood even, such was the condition of men: "The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." Here, in verse 21, we have the light of the kingdom cast on the command, "Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment." The law took cognizance of this extreme form of violence; but our Lord gives length, breadth, height, and depth to it: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" (ver. 22). That is, our Lord treats as now coming under the same category with murder, in the sight of God, every kind of violence, and feeling, and expression; anything of contempt and hatred, whatever expresses the ill-feeling of the heart; any putting down of another, the will to annihilate others as far as character or influence is concerned: all this is no better than murder in God's searching eye. He is expanding the law; He is showing now One who looks at and judges the feeling of the heart. Therefore it is not at all a question merely of the consequences of violence to a man, for there might be no very bad effect produced by these words of anger, but they proved the state of the heart; and this is what the Lord is dealing with here. "Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift" (vers. 23, 24). He is not yet manifesting the Christian in his entire separation from the Jewish system. These words clearly show a connection with Israel — though the principle applies to a Christian; for the altar has no reference to the Lord's table.

"Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" (vers. 25, 26). I believe that Israel were guilty of that very folly — Israel as a people — that they did not agree with the adversary quickly. There was the Messiah, and they, being adversaries of Him, treated Him as their adversary and compelled God to be against them by their unbelief. The position of Israel morally, in the sight of God, was very much the one shown us here. There was a murderous feeling in their heart against Jesus. Herod was the expression of it at His birth, and it went through all the ministry of Christ, as the cross proved how utterly there was that unrelenting hatred in the heart of the Jews against their own Messiah. They did not agree with their adversary quickly, and the judge could only deliver them to the officer to be cast into prison; and there they remain until this day. The Jewish nation, from their rejection of the Messiah, have been shut out from all the promises of God; as a nation they have been committed to prison, and there they must remain till the uttermost farthing is paid. In Isaiah we have the Lord speaking comfortably to Jerusalem: "Cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." Thus, while we come into His favour now, while we through the grace of God receive the fulness of blessing through Christ Jesus now, yet there can be no doubt that rich blessing is in store for Jerusalem. For God in His mercy will one day say to her, Your iniquity I now pardon: I will make you no longer the witness of My vengeance on the earth. And why is Israel not permitted to this day to amalgamate with the nations? There they remain, kept apart from all other people by God. But God has in store for them His signal mercy. "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem . . . for she hath received at the Lord's hand double for all her sins." This figure we find elsewhere beautifully set forth in the case of the man guilty of blood, who fled to the city of refuge provided by God. And the book of Numbers teaches that there the man abode, out of the land of his possession, till the death, not of the manslayer, but of the high priest that is anointed with oil. The priesthood of our Lord is referred to there. When the Lord has completed His heavenly people and gathered them in where they do not need the activity of His intercession; when we are in the full results of all that Christ has wrought for us, the High Priest shall then take His place on His own throne. Then will be the termination of His present heavenly priesthood, and blood-guilty Israel will return to the land of their possession. I have no doubt that this is the just application of that beautiful type. I cannot understand what proper interpretation there could be of the death of the high priest anointed with oil, if you appropriate it to a Christian now; but apply it to the Jew, and nothing is plainer. Christ will terminate that character of priesthood that He is engaged in for us now, and will enter on a new form of blessing for Israel.

But there is another thing besides violence: there is the corrupt element in the heart of man — the heart lusting for that which it has not. This is taken up in the next word of our Lord: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee . . . And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (vers. 27-30). That is, whatever in our walk, or in our ways, or in our service, whatever it might be that exposes a soul to the danger of yielding to these unholy feelings, should never be spared, but departed from at any cost. There must be the excision of everything that is hurtful to the soul; the members of the body, such as the eye desiring and the hand which would take, being used as showing the various ways in which the heart might be entangled. The cutting off of these members sets forth a heart thoroughly exercised in self-judgment; not prompted to excuse itself by saying that it had not actually committed the sin, but whatever exposed to it must be given up.

The Lord then denounces the easy dissolution of the tie of marriage: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery" (vers. 31, 32). Thus our Lord shows that though there might be serious difficulties, still this human relationship receives the strong sanction of God's ordinance. Though an earthly relationship, the light of heaven is thrown upon it, the sanctity of marriage held up, and the possibility of allowing anything to interfere with its holiness entirely put down by Christ, save only where there was that which interrupted it in the sight of God, in which case the act of separation would be only a declaration of its being already actually broken.

The next case (vers. 33-37) brings us into a different order of things: it is the use of the name of the Lord. Here the reference is not a judicial oath, i.e., an oath administered by a magistrate. In some countries this might savour. of heathenism or popery, and no Christian ought to take such an oath. But if the declaration be simply God's authority, introduced by the magistrate to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I do not see that the Lord in any wise absolves the Christian's obligation to this. But the matter here relates to communication between man and man. "Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black." They were simply the asseverations of common life among the Jews. If our Lord had meant to forbid the Christian from taking judicial oaths, would He not have instanced the oath that was usual in the courts of those days? But the oaths that He brings before us were what the Jews were in the habit of using when their word was questioned by their fellow-men, not what was employed before the magistrate. So far from thinking that a Christian is doing right in refusing a judicial oath, I believe he is doing wrong not to take it when the magistrate requires his testimony, when there is nothing to offend conscience in the form of the oath. If the magistrate does not acknowledge God in the oath, still the Christian is bound to acknowledge God in the magistrate, who is, to the Christian, a servant of God in the outward things of this world. Even the Assyrian was the rod of God, all the while that he thought only of carrying out his own purposes against Israel. Much more the magistrate, let him be who or what he may, represents the truth of God's external authority in the world, and the Christian ought to respect this, more by far than the men of the world; and therefore the oath, which simply demands the truth on ground of that authority, is a holy thing and not to be refused. The Christian, doubtless, has no business with prosecuting another himself. On the contrary, he owes it to Christ and His grace to let the world, if it will, abuse him — he may protest by word against it, and then leave it with the Lord. When our Lord Himself was dealt with unrighteously, He convicts the person of it, and there it ends, as man would think, for ever. There is no such thing as seeking to get present reparation of His wrongs. So should it be with Christians. There may be the moral conviction of those that do the wrong, but the taking it patiently is acceptable with God.

There is no way in which the Christian so shows how much he is above the world, as when he seeks not the world's vindication in anything. If we belong to the world, we ought all to be volunteers. If the world is our home, a man is called upon to do battle for it. But for the Christian this world is not the scene of his interests, and why fight for what does not belong to him? If a Christian fight in and with the world (save his own spiritual warfare), he is out of his place. It is the duty of men, as such, to repel wrong; and if the Lord uses the world in order to put down revolution and make peace, the Christian may well look up and give thanks. It is a great mercy. But the truth which the believer has to get firmly settled in his own soul, is that "they are not of the world." To what measure are they not of the world? "They are not of the world even as I am not of the world." In John 17, where our Lord repeats this wondrous word, He speaks in view of going to heaven, as if He were no longer on earth at all. Thus, in the spirit of one away from the world, He says, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." A little before He had said, "Now I am no more in the world." His going up to heaven is what gives its character to the Christian and to the Church. A Christian is not merely a believer, but a believer called to the enjoyment of Christ while He is in heaven. And, as Christ our Head is out of the world, so the Christian is in spirit lifted above the world, and is to show the strength of his faith as above his mere natural feeling. Nothing makes a man look so foolish as having no side in this world. Christians do not like to be nonentities; they are apt, one way or another, to wish their influence to be felt. But the Lord delivers from this.

It is below our calling, then, to indulge in affirmations beyond the simple statements of truth. "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil" (ver. 37). It is worthy of note, as a practical proof of the distinction here drawn, how our Lord acted when He was before the high priest. He was silent till the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once he answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?

Our Lord comes next to the case of any practical injury that may be done us. It is not that it is wrong for a man to punish according to the injury that has been inflicted upon another. "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is perfectly righteous; but our Lord intimates that we ought to be much more than righteous, we ought to be gracious; and He presses this as the climax of this part of the discourse. First, He had strengthened the righteousness of the law, extended its depths, and put aside its license; now He goes further. He shows that there is a principle in His own ways and life which teaches the Christian that he is not to seek retaliation. "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." It is clear the Lord has no reference here to what governments have to do. The New Testament is written for the Christian, for that which has a separate existence and a peculiar calling in the midst of earthly systems and peoples. It belongs to those who are heavenly while they are walking upon earth. We become such by the reception of Christ, and to such the Lord says, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Personal injury is meant here. The evil done may be ever so undeserved, but it has to be overcome with good. Show that you are willing to take even more for Christ's sake. I 'And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." There the law' is evoked: that is, a man lays a claim, perhaps falsely, to one part of your clothing, and if he will "sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Here it seems not exactly a man appealing to the law, but the public officers themselves. "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." The great principle our Lord marks in this — whether it is human violence, or the law ever so hardly or wrongly applied, — that while, according to the law, you might go one step, according to the gospel you would go two. Grace does twice as much as the law, whatever may be the point in hand. It was never intended in anywise to supplant obligations or to lower responsibilities, but, on the contrary, to give power and force to everything that is righteous in the sight of God. The law might say, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;" here there is not only the endurance of that which is positively wrong, but grace that gives more than is asked. "The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." And this is one way of practically showing how far we value grace. It is not a question of the mere letter of our Lord's words. If you were to limit it merely to a blow on the face it would be a very poor thing; but the word of Christ is that which conveys to me the spirit that pleases God, and gives me the reality of grace. And grace is not the vindication of self nor the punishment of a wrong, but the endurance of evil and the triumph of good over it. Christ is speaking of what a Christian has to put up with from the world through which he passes. He is to receive tribulation as the discipline which God sees to be good for his soul; the great spectacle before men and angels — that there are men on this earth who are allowed and rejoice to suffer for Christ, because they have learned to give up their own will, to sacrifice their own rights, and to suffer wrongfully, looking onward to the day when the Lord will own whatever has been their sorrow for His sake, and when all evil shall be judged most solemnly at His appearing and kingdom.

Our Lord says, in verse 42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." It is an example of a great general principle that the Lord is insisting upon; as He had laid bare the character of violence, so here of another thing — the solicitation that addresses itself to the kindness of heart of a Christian. "Give to him that asketh thee." Most certainly this is, a comely and a gracious thing; but it is perfectly plain the Lord is not pressing upon His people that the thing be done heedlessly, nor as a mere gratification of their feelings, but with a conscience towards God. Supposing a person came to ask you for something, and you have reason to think that he would spend it improperly, you must limit it. Why not? He might say to you, Did not the Lord enjoin, "Give to him that asketh thee?" Certainly; but the Lord has given certain other words by which I judge as to the propriety of giving in each particular case. The asker might be going to do what I am sure would be absurd or wrong; am I still to give? or is not another principle introduced, namely, due discrimination? Perhaps he that asks has plans of his own which I believe to be worldly: am I to gratify his worldliness? What the Lord has in view is real need; and as there was wont to be great indifference to this among the Jews, as indeed such is apt to be everywhere, the Lord not merely insists upon the Christian helping his brother, but takes the broadest ground in urging generous giving; not, of course, for anything we may get by it, but out of love according to God.

"Give to him that asketh thee." We all know there are those who would impose. This shuts up and often hinders pity; and it may oftener still be an excuse for not showing pity. The Lord is guarding against the snare, and shows the great moral value, for our own souls and for the glory of God, of habitual, considerate, ungrudging kindness towards the distressed in this world. Not that I am always to give what a person asks, for he may seek something foolish; but still "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." Do you count up how often you have been deceived? Even then why be sore? You are entitled, at the word of Jesus, to do it as unto your Father. The receiver of your bounty may apply it to a bad use: that is his responsibility. I am bound to cultivate unsuspicious generosity, and this quite independent of mere friendship. Even the publicans and sinners are kind to those who are kind to them; but what ought a Christian to be? Christ determines the position, conduct and spirit of the Christian. As He was a sufferer, they are not to resist evil. If there was need, the Lord's heart went out to it. They might turn His love against Himself, and use the gifts of His grace for their own purposes, like the man who was healed, heedless of the Lord's warning and the sense of His benefits. But the Lord,, perfectly knowing it all, goes on steadfastly in His path of doing good, not in the mere vague thought of benevolence to man, but in the holy service of His Father.

But now a word as to what follows. It is the very pith and essence of that which concerns our relation towards others here below; the great active principle from which all right conduct flows. This is the question of the true character and limits of love. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy" (ver. 43). This was the expression that the Jews drew from the general tenor of the law. There had been the sanction of God for the extermination of their enemies; and from that they drew the principle, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." Here was a thing that the law never could teach — it is grace. In a thousand practical instances, the question is not whether the thing is right. We often hear Christians asking, Is such a thing wrong? But this is not the sole question for the Christian. Suppose wrong is done him; what is to be his feeling then? If there is enmity to him in another, what is he to cherish in his own heart? "Love your enemies . . . do good to them that hate you . . . that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven;" thus they show in practical ways that they belong to such a parentage, "For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.... Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (vers. 44-48).

This has no reference to the question of whether there is sin in our nature or not. There is always the evil principle in a man as long as he lives here below. But what the Lord insists on is this: Our Father is the perfect pattern in His ways with His enemies now, and He calls upon us to be thorough in that same grace and love in which our Father deals. It is in pointed contrast with the Jew, or with anything that had been enjoined before. Abraham was not called to walk in this way. He was, I believe, justified in arming his servants for the recovery of Lot; 'as were the Israelites in taking up the sword against the Canaanites. But we are called on (as a rule of Christian life, as that which governs our thoughts and feelings and ways) to walk on the principle of gracious long-suffering. We are in the midst of the enemies of Christ, of our enemies too because of Him. It may not come out at once, nor always. Persecution may pass out of fashion, but the enmity is always there; and if God were only to remove certain restraints, the old hatred would burst out as ever. Nevertheless, only one course is open to the Christian who desires to walk as Christ walked; "Love your enemies;" and this really not by a mere show of smooth ways or words. We know that, in certain cases, to go and speak to an angry person would only draw out bitterness of wrath, and there the right course would be to keep away; but under all circumstances there should be all readiness to seek the blessing of our adversary. To do real kindness to one who has injured me, even if it should never be known by a creature upon earth, is the only thing worthy of a Christian. The Lord thus gives us opportunities of showing love to those that hate us. When the provocation occurs, we should have it settled in our souls that the Christian is here for the purpose of expressing Christ; for indeed we are His epistle, known and read of all men. We ought to desire to reflect what Christ would have done under the same circumstances.

May the Lord grant that this may be true of our own souls, first in secret feeling with Him, and then as manifested lowlily and unselfishly toward others. Let us remember there is no Victory for us but what is an outward reflection of secret victory over self with the Lord. Begin there, and it is surely won in the presence of men, though we may have to wait for it.

Matthew 6

Matthew 6 begins with what is higher even than what we have had. The various exhortations of chapter 5 brought out Christian principle in contradistinction to what was required or allowed under the law. Now the law is dropped: there is no longer any express allusion to it in our Lord's discourse. The first principle of all godliness comes out now in its sweetest shape, namely, the having to do with our Father in secret; who understands us, sees all that is passing within and around us, hears and counsels us, as, indeed, He takes the deepest interest in us. It is the inner, divine relationship of the saint that comes out in this chapter — our spiritual bonds with God our Father, and the conduct that ought to flow from them. Hence, says our Lord, "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them." I take the liberty of altering the word "alms" into "righteousness" (ver. 1), which last a few of the very best authorities support. There are those that differ here as elsewhere, but, at the same time, internal and spiritual reasons confirm the external grounds. Thus, if you use the word "alms" in the first verse, is there not a mere repetition in the next verse? On the other hand, take the word as "righteousness" (so the margin), and all is plain. The context supports it. For it will be observed in the following verses our Lord divides righteousness into three distinct portions: first, almsgiving; next, prayer; thirdly, fasting. That these are the three parts of the righteous ways of the saint, as viewed by our Lord in this discourse, is evident.

(1) With regard to alms, which was a very practical thing, the principle of mercy comes in, as it might not in all cases of giving. It is a thing done seriously and solemnly, and the heart is drawn out. It is done in the sight of God. The general admonition is this: "Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore" (founded upon this exhortation) "when thou doest thine alms," which was one branch of this righteousness, "do not sound a trumpet before thee "; alluding to certain ways of notoriety and self-commendation then adopted by the Jews — the spirit of which belongs to men at all times. There are few things in which human vanity betrays itself more glaringly than the desire to be known by almsgiving. And what is it that brings true deliverance from this snare of nature? "When thou doest alms (observe, He now makes it entirely individual), do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret Himself shall reward thee openly. That is, it is not merely that one is not to blazon abroad what is done, but not to oneself even. Not only another's left hand is not to know what your right hand does, but your own left hand ought not. Cutting are the Lord's words to everything like self-gratulation. The grand point is this: that all be done to our Father. It is not a question of duty simply; but our Father's love has been brought out, and this is His will concerning us. He knows what is best, — and we are ignorant of it. We might think to supply the greatest happiness by surrounding ourselves with what we most like; but the letting slip the means of personal enjoyment will open to us fresh sources of blessing. Besides, what we ought to desire is that the alms may be "in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret Himself shall reward thee openly." We shall find this repeated at every point of what is here called our "righteousness." Room is ever made for the flesh where there is not the cultivated habit of what is done being between our Father and ourselves. Nay, more, our Lord would have us dismiss the very thought into the bosom of the Father, who will not forget it.

(2) We have the same thing as to prayer. The allusion is, it would seem, to the practice that every day, when a particular hour came round, people were found praying in public rather than miss the moment. It is clear that all this was, at best, most legal, and opened the door for display and hypocrisy, It utterly overlooks the grand truth which Christianity brings out so fully, that. to do things for testimony, or as a law, or in any way for others to see, or for ourselves to think of, is totally wrong. We have to do with our Father, and our Father in secret. Therefore our Lord says, "Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly" (ver. 6). This is in no way denying the propriety of public prayer; but united supplication is not at all referred to here.

As to "the Lord's Prayer," it was for those disciples individually who required to be instructed in the very first principles of Christianity. For this is part of what the apostle calls "the word of the beginning of Christ" when he says, "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do if God permit." The apostle allows that all these were very important truths; they are truths that godly Jews ought to have known before redemption was accomplished, but these did not bring in the full power of Christianity. They were quite true, and will ever remain true. There never can be anything to weaken the importance of repentance from dead works and faith toward God. But it is not even said, faith in Christ. No doubt faith Godward always abides; but still, till Christ died and rose, there was a great deal of truth that even the disciples were not able to bear. Our Lord Himself says so. Therefore the apostle tells them, "Leaving the word of the beginning of Christ" (that which Christ here below brought out, and which was perfectly suited to the then state of the disciples), "let us go on unto perfection." There is no such thought as giving that up; but assuming that as a settled truth, let us go on to the understanding of Christ as He now is, which is the meaning here of the word "perfection." It is not a better state of our own flesh; neither does it refer to anything that we are to be in a future life; but to the full doctrine of Christ as He now is, and glorified in heaven — as brought out in this epistle. Christ is in heaven; there is His priesthood; He entered in the power of His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. It is Christ as He is now above; there you have this perfection. In the same epistle he speaks of Christ as "made perfect" through sufferings. He was always perfect as a person — never could be anything else. Had there been any flaw in Christ on earth, He must have been, like the offering that had a blemish in it, incapable of being offered for us. In the Jewish sacrifices, if the animal died of itself it could not even be eaten. So, as to our Lord, had there been the principle of death in Him at all, if He were not the living one in every sense. without the smallest tendency to death, never could He be God's foundation, nor ours. He did truly suffer death, the willing victim on the cross; but this was just because death had no hold on Him. Every son of Adam has mortality at work in him. The Second Man could say even here below, "I am the resurrection and the life." Such is the truth as to Christ Himself. While it is perfectly true that Christ was always morally perfect — perfect, too, not only in His divine nature, but in His humanity — absolutely stainless and acceptable unto God; yet for all that there was a mountain of sin that needed to be removed from us, and a new condition to be entered, in which He could associate us with Himself. Though absolutely sinless in Himself, He was made perfect through sufferings; He passed through this course of sufferings into the blessedness in which He stands now as our High Priest before God.

Upon the subject of the Lord's Prayer I will only make a few remarks now. But again I would notice that it is entirely individual. Many might unite in saying, "Our Father;" but a soul in his own closet still would say "Our Father," because he thinks of others, disciples, elsewhere. , Yet it is plain that the Lord does not anticipate the use of this prayer, save in the closet and for the condition in which the disciples were. We have no hint that it was employed formally after the day of Pentecost. There were other wants and desires, other expressions of affection toward God, brought out then, into which the Holy Ghost would lead those who were passed out of the condition of nonage by having received Him into their hearts, whereby they could cry, "Abba, Father." Such is the key to the change, and the New Testament is perfectly clear upon it. (Compare Gal. 3: 23-26; Gal. 4: 1-7.)

However, let us look at the prayer itself; for nothing can be more blessed, and all the truth of it abides for us. "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do, for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking" (ver. 7). Now it is plain that our Lord does not forbid repetition, but vain repetition. We find our Lord Himself, when He was in an agony in the garden, repeating three times the same words. But vain, formal repetition, whether words read out of a book, or framed sentences of the mind, He does positively forbid. Again, let me press the plain fact, that our Lord here is not providing for the public wants of the Church; nor do we hear that it was so understood. There is not the smallest thought of such a thing after the gift of the Holy Ghost, when the Church was formed and at work in this world. So that while the Lord's Prayer was given as the most perfect model of prayer, and may have been used as it stands by the disciples previously to the death of our Lord and the gift of the Holy Ghost, yet it seems plain that afterwards it was not so. The New Testament is, of course, the only test of this. When we come to tradition, we shall find all sorts of difficulty on this as on other subjects, but the word of God is not obscure. In no way does it leave us uncertain as to what God's mind is: else indeed the very purpose of a revelation would be defeated. What then is the permanent use of the prayer? Why is it given in Scripture? The principle always abides true. There is not a clause of that prayer, I believe, but what one might proffer now, even to "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors." For it is a mistake to suppose that it puts the sinner upon the ground of prayer in order to acquire forgiveness of his sins. Our Lord speaks of the believer — the child of God, Our daily faults and short-comings we need to spread before our God and Father, as He encourages us to do day by day. It is a question of His government who, without respect of persons, judges according to the work of each; and hence He will not own the petition of one who cherishes an unforgiving disposition toward others, even if they have done us ever so grievous wrong.

The habit of self-searching and confessing to our Father is a very important one in Christian experience; so that this clause I believe to be as true and applicable at the present time as it was to the disciples then. When the poor publican said, "God be merciful to me a sinner," we have another thing as appropriate in his case as this was to the child of God saying "Our Father." Again, when the Holy Ghost was given, and the child was able to draw near to the Father in the name of Christ, you have something different still. The Lord's Prayer does not clothe the believer with the name of Christ. What is meant by asking the Father in that name? Can it be merely saying, "In His name" at the end of a prayer? When Christ died and rose again, He gave the believer His own standing before God; and then to ask the Father in the name of Christ is to ask in the consciousness that my Father loves me as He loves Christ; that my Father has given me the acceptance of Christ Himself before Him, having completely blotted out all my evil, so as to be made the righteousness of God in Christ. To pray in the value of this is asking in His name * (Compare John 16.) When the soul draws near, consciously brought nigh to God, it may be said to ask in His name. There is not a soul using the Lord's Prayer as a form that has a real understanding of what it is to ask the Father in the name of Christ. They have never entered into that great truth. Hence, perhaps in their very next petition, they take the place of miserable sinners, deprecating the wrath of God, and still under law. Is it possible for a soul that knows what it is to stand before God as Christ is, to be thus systematically in doubt and uncertainty? It was the case with the Jew; but as a Christian, my place is in Christ, and there is no condemnation: otherwise there cannot be the spirit of adoption, or the exercised function of priests to God. We are made priests to God by virtue of this blessed standing — here upon earth, and we need to exercise it. The conscience is brought to this — you cannot walk with Christ and with the world. And the Christian is properly a man who enters into heavenly thoughts and relationships while he is walking through the world. This is the vocation wherewith we are called. Whether Christians know and do it or not, nothing less does Christ look for from them. "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." This is true from the time that we receive Christ. From that moment we owe it to Christ, if we would be true soldiers of His, to take our place as those who are not of the world, even as He is not.

This will suffice to show that while the Lord's Prayer always remains inestimably precious, yet it was given to meet the individual wants of the disciples, and that the further revelation of divine truth modified their condition, and would thus lead into another strain of desires, which, in fact, were not then given expression to. It seems to me a happy reflection that it is our Lord Himself who tells us this. "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name." What do I gather from this? That one may use the Lord's Prayer every day, and never have asked anything in the name of Christ. "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy maybe full. "At that day ye shall ask in My name." What day does this mean? A still future time? No, but the present; the day that the Holy Ghost brought in when He came down from heaven. It is this which is connected with that full revelation of truth which is so essential to Christian joy and blessedness, and to the unworldly and heavenly walk of the children of God; and where the one is not entered into, the .other cannot be. There may be vigour of faith and personal love to Christ, but for all that a soul will still savour. of the world in spirit and religious position till he has entered into this blessed place which the Holy Ghost now gives us of drawing near to God in the name of Christ.

I must now pass on to one of the most important practical exhortations which our Saviour gives us in connection with prayer — the spirit of forgiveness. He has known little of prayer who does not know the hindrances which austerity of spirit brings with it. This was one of the things that our Lord had specially in view. "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (vers. 14, 15). He does not mean that the disciples would not have their sins forgiven in the day of judgment, but speaks of forgiving trespasses as a matter of the daily care and training of God. I may have a child guilty of something that is wrong, but does it therefore lose its relationship? It is my child still, but I do not speak to it in the same way that I would had it been walking in obedience. The father waits till the child feels its sin. In the case of earthly parents, we sometimes do not take sufficient notice of what is wrong, at other times we may deal with things only as they touch ourselves. We may correct, as it is said in Hebrews, "after our own pleasure," but God for our profit. Our Father always keeps His eye upon what is most blessed for us, but for this very reason He does betimes chasten us. "What son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" If we were not sons, we might perhaps get off; but as surely as we are, the Father's rod comes upon us for our wrongs, though we may think them little; but though painful for the present, if it be His will, we may be assured that He will make the things that may seem most against us to be unquestionably for us. To maintain the spirit of love, and specially of love toward those that wrong us, costs somewhat; but blessing will be ours in the end, and indeed also by the way.

(3) We now come to the subject of fasting. I believe there is a real value in fasting that few of us know much about. If, on particular occasions which call for special individual prayer, one were to unite fasting with it, I have no doubt the blessing of it would be felt. There is humbling of spirit expressed in it. There are prayers which are most suitably accompanied by standing, others by kneeling. Fasting is one of those things in which the body shows its sympathy with what the spirit is passing through; it is a means of expressing our desire to be low before God, and in the attitude of humiliation. But lest the flesh should take advantage of even what is for the mortifying of the body, the Lord enjoins that means be taken rather not to appear unto men to fast than to permit any display. For although a true Christian would shrink from putting on false appearances, the devil would cheat him into doing it unless he is very jealous in self-watchfulness before God. "Thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly" (vers. 17, 18).

Then follow the exhortations with regard to the things of this life. And, first, as to the laying up of treasures upon earth. The Lord brings in a principle, not of natural interest, but of spiritual wisdom and freedom from care, which the soul enjoys that does not want anything here below. Supposing there is something that one very much values upon earth, there is proportionate fear lest the thief or some corroding thing should spoil our treasure. Very different is that which the Lord enjoins that we should seek: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal," a most solemn test for examining ourselves by. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (vers. 19-21). We may detect where we are by that which our thoughts chiefly rest upon. If they are heavenward, blessed are we; but if earthward, we shall find that those very things upon which our hearts are set will prove a sorrow one day or another. The Lord traces all this to one grand root — you cannot serve two masters. You have not two hearts, but one; and your heart will be with that which you value most. Everything is thus followed up to its source: God on the one hand and mammon on the other. Mammon is what sums up the raises of the heart of man as to all things here. It may manifest itself in different forms, but this is the root — covetousness. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought [be not anxious] for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on." The great point is indifference to present things, or rather, a peaceful trust about them; not because we do not value the mercies of God, but because we have confidence in our Father's love and care about us. The apostle Paul shows us the most beautiful expression of this when he says, "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." He had known changes of circumstances — what it was to have nothing, and what it was to have abundance; but the great point was his thorough content with God's portion for him. This was not a thing that he passed through lightly, but he had learned it. It was a matter of attainment — of judging of things in the light of God's presence and love. The blessing is to be looking onward with this thought: our Father deals with us now with a view to glory; as the apostle adds, "My God shall supply all your need, according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus." How sweet that is! "My God" — the God that I have proved, whose affection I have tasted. I can count upon Him for you as well as for me; and He "shall supply all your need," not merely according to the riches of His grace, but according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. He has taken you from this world as His children: He is going to have you the companions of His Son above; and he deals with you now according to your place and position then. Whatever is suitable to this great plan of His glory and love, l he Lord will give us to prove the consequence of that.

May the Lord strengthen us, that we may accept this with thankful hearts, knowing that we are not our own masters! The Lord will preserve us from the dangers, the snares, the pains, which our haste or wilfulness in leaving Him out of these outward things brings with it. He shows us in this chapter the exceeding folly of it, even as to the body. He takes instances from the outward world to show how God may be confided in to accomplish His own purposes best. And more than that, He reminds us that these outward things, on which we are tempted to lay such great stress, are only the objects that the Gentiles seek after. A Gentile was a term used in speaking of a man without God, in contrast with a Jew who had God in an outward manner in this world. A Christian is a man who has God in heaven as his Father. "Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." Therefore, as our Father knows this, why should we doubt Him? We do not distrust our earthly father; much less then should we doubt our heavenly Father.

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." It is not that we are to seek first the kingdom of God and then these things; but seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all the rest will come.

"Take, therefore, no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself." That is, our Lord prepares us for this, that the anxiety which dreads an evil thing on the morrow is nothing but unbelief. When the morrow comes, the evil may not be there; if it comes, God will be there. He may allow us to taste what it is to indulge in our own wills; but if our souls are subject to Him, how often the evil that is dreaded never appears. When the heart bows to the will of God about some sorrow that we dread, how often the sorrow is taken away, and the Lord meets us with unexpected kindness and goodness. He is able to make even the sorrow to be all blessing. Whatever be His will it is good. 'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Matthew 7

We now come to a very distinct portion of our Lord's discourse. It is not so much the establishing of the right relations of a soul with God our Father — the hidden inner life of the Christian — but now we have the mutual relations of the disciples with one another, their conduct toward men, the different dangers which they have to dread, and, above all things, the sure ruin for every soul that names the name of Christ if hearing and not doing His sayings. The wise man hears and does. And so the chapter closes. I would desire to dwell a little upon these various points of instruction which our Lord brings before us. Of course it will not be possible to enter thoroughly into all; for, I need not say, the sayings of our Lord are peculiarly pregnant with profoundness of thought. There is no portion of God's word where you find a more characteristic depth than here.

The point with which the Lord Jesus opens is this. He had before this shown fully that we are to act in grace as children of our Father; but that was more particularly with the world, with our enemies, with persons that wrong us. But then a serious and practical difficulty might elsewhere arise. Supposing that among the wrongdoers were some that bore the name of Christ, what then? How are we to feel about and to deal with them? No doubt there is a difference, and a very weighty one. Still there is a thing that we have to take care of before we touch the question of another's conduct; and that is, to watch against the spirit of censoriousness in ourselves, the habit or tendency to impute evil motives in that which we do not know and which does not meet the eye. We all know what a snare this is to the heart of man, and that it is more particularly the danger of some, through natural character and unwatchfulness as to the allowed habit. There is more discernment in some than in others, and such ought peculiarly to watch against it. It is not that they are to have their eyes shut to what is evil; but they are not to suspect what is not uncovered, nor to go beyond the evidence God gives. This is a most important practical safeguard, without which it is impossible to walk together according to God. People may be together as so many separate units, without any real sympathy or power to enter into the sorrows, difficulties, trials, and it may be the evil, of others. Yet all that has a claim upon the heart of a disciple. Even that which is wrong calls upon love to find out God's way of dealing with what is contrary to God. For the essence of love is, that it seeks the good of the object that is beloved, and this without reference to self. It may have the bitterness of knowing that it is not loved in return, as the apostle Paul knew, even in early days, and with real Christians — yea, with persons singularly endowed by the Spirit of God. God has been pleased thus to give us these solemn lessons of what the heart is, even in saints of God.

Under all circumstances, this great truth is obligatory on the conscience: "judge not, that ye be not judged" (ver. 1). On the other hand, this principle can be easily abused by the selfishness of man. Were a person going on in an evil course and using this passage to deny the title of brethren to judge his conduct, it is clear that he betrays a want of conscience and of spiritual understanding. His eye is blinded by self, and he is merely turning the Lord's words into an excuse for sin. The Lord did not, in anywise, mean to weaken the holy judgment of evil; on the contrary, He, in due time, binds this solemnly upon His people: "Do not ye judge them that are within?" It was the fault of the Corinthians that they did not judge those that were in their midst. It is plain, therefore, that there is a sense in which I am to judge, and another in which I am not. There are cases where I should disregard the Lord's holiness if I did not judge, and there are cases where the Lord forbids it, and warns me that to do so is to bring judgment upon myself. This is a very practical question for the Christian — where to judge and where not to judge. Whatever comes out plainly — what God presents to the eye of His people, so that they know it for themselves, or on testimony which they cannot doubt — they are surely bound to judge. In a word, we are always responsible to abhor that which is offensive to God, whether known directly or indirectly; for "God is not mocked," and the children of God ought not to be governed by mere technicalities, of which the cunning craft of the enemy can easily take advantage.

But what does our Lord mean here: "judge not, that ye be not judged?" He refers not to that which is plain, but to what is concealed; to that which, if it does exist, God has not yet laid the evidence before the eyes of His people. We are not responsible to judge what we do not know; on the contrary, we are bound to watch against the spirit of surmising evil or imputing motives. It may be that there is evil, and of the gravest character, as in the case of Judas. Our Lord said of him: "One of you is a devil;" and purposely kept the disciples in the dark about the particulars. just remark, by the way, that it is only in the Gospel of John, which shows us that our Lord's knowledge of Judas Iscariot was that of a divine person. He says it long before anything came out. In the other Gospels all is reserved till the eve of His betrayal: but John was led by the Holy Ghost to remember how the Lord had told them it was so from the beginning; and yet, though He knew it, they were only to confide in His knowledge of it; for if the Lord bore with him, were not they to do the same? If He did not give them directions how to deal with the evil, they were to wait. That is always the resource of faith, which never hurries, especially in so solemn a case. 1' He that believeth shall not make haste."

All is open to God, all is in His hands, and patience is the word, until His time comes for dealing with what is contrary to Him. The Lord lets Judas manifest himself thoroughly, and then it was no question of bearing with the traitor. While there are certain cases of evil that we are to judge, there are questions that He does not ask the Church to solve.

We have to take care that we go not before God, lest we might find ourselves in detail, if not in the main, against God. We must not break that which is bruised by yielding to personal or party feelings. What a danger this is. The inevitable effect of a judging spirit is that we get judged ourselves. The soul, whose habit is censorious, is universally ill spoken of. "With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." Then the Lord puts a particular case: "Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (ver. 3). That is, where this proneness to judge is, there is another still more serious evil — an habitually unjudged evil in the spirit, which makes the person restless, and desirous of proving others to be wrong too. "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" (ver. 4). The mote, of course, was but little, but it was made a great deal of, and the beam, an enormous thing, was passed by. The Lord is bringing out, in the most emphatic way, the danger of a suspicious judicial spirit. And He shows that the way to deal rightly, if we desire the good of His people and their deliverance from evil, is to begin with self-judgment. If we really wish to have the mote out of our brother's eye, how is it to be done? Let us begin with the grave faults we know so little, corrected and confessed, in ourselves: this is worthy of Christ. What is His way of dealing with it? Does He say of the mote in our brother's eye, Bring it to the judges? Not at all; you must probe yourself. The soul is to begin there. When I judge the evil that my conscience knows, or that, if my conscience does not know now, it may learn in God's presence — if I begin with this, I shall then see clearly what concerns others; I shall have a heart fitted to enter into their circumstances, an eye purged from what unfits the heart to feel with God about others. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" (ver. 5). This may be found in a believer, in principle; though when the Lord says, "Thou hypocrite," He alludes to the evil in its full form; but even in ourselves, we know it in measure, and what can be more opposed to simplicity and godly sincerity? Hypocrisy is the most hateful evil that can be found under the name of Christ — a thing that even the natural conscience writhes under and rejects. "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Often and often we find that when the beam is gone, the mote is not to be seen, having already disappeared. And where the heart is set upon the Lord, would we be sorry to find ourselves mistaken about our brother? Should I not rejoice to find the grace of the Lord in my brother, if I discover in self-judgment myself only to be wrong? This, may be painful to one, but the love of Christ in the believer's heart is gratified to know that Christ is spared this further dishonour.

This, then, is the first great principle our Lord here enjoins. The habit of judging others is to be watched against earnestly; and this, too, because it brings bitterness upon the spirit that indulges it, and unfits the soul for being able to deal rightly with another: for we are set in the body, as the apostle Paul shows, for the purpose of helping one another; and we are all members one of another.

But there is another thing. In watching against hasty and harsh judgment, there might be the abuse of grace. And the Lord immediately couples this with the former: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." We must carefully remember that the Lord is not here speaking about the gospel going out to sinners. God forbid that we should not carry out the grace of God to every quarter under heaven, because nothing less than this ought to be the desire and effort of every saint of God. All ought to have the spirit of active love going out after others, energetic desires for the salvation and the blessing of souls; for it were a sad shortcoming if it went not beyond souls being brought to Christ. Seeking to grow up into Christ and glorify Him in all things, to know and do the will of God is our calling. In this verse the Lord is not taking up the question of the gospel going out indiscriminately; for, if there be a difference, the gospel best suits those called "dogs", which, to the Jews, was a figure of all that is abominable. Speaking of thieves, drunkards, extortioners, etc., the apostle says: "Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

It might be asked, Is not the wickedness of one man greater than that of another? On an earthly platform, one might say, Much every way; but God does not, in saving souls, make these distinctions. So, speaking of believers from among the Jews, the apostle says they had been "children of wrath, even as others." There may have been highly moral characters among them. Did this dispose them better towards God's grace? Alas, where the soul finds a justification of itself in what it is, nothing can be more dangerous. The apostle himself had been an example of this very thing. It is a hard thing for a man who had been building on his righteousness to bow to the truth that he can only enter heaven upon the ground of a publican and a sinner. But so it must be, if the soul is to receive salvation from God through the faith of Jesus.

The Lord, then, is not in anywise restraining the gospel from going out to every quarter; but He speaks of the relations of His own people with the unholy. The believer is not to bring out for these the special treasures that are the Christian portion. The gospel is the riches of God's grace to the world. But, besides the gospel, we have the special affections of Christ to the Church, His loving care for His servants, the hope! of His coining again, the glorious prospects of the Church as His bride, etc. If you were to talk about these things, which we may call the pearls of the saints, with those out of Christ, you are on wrong ground. If you were to insist upon the duties of the faithful in worldly company, then it is giving that which is holy unto the dogs. There is blessed provision for "the dogs" — the crumbs that fall from the Master's table. And such is the great grace of God toward us, that the crumbs which fall to our portion, Gentiles as we were, are the best.

Whatever may be the benefits promised to the Jew, the grace of God has brought out in the gospel fuller blessings than ever was promised to Israel. What can Israel have to compare with the mighty deliverance of God that we know now? The consciousness of being completely cleansed from all sin; of having the righteousness of God for ours at once and for ever in Christ; of present access to Him as Father through a rent veil; and made His temple through the Holy Ghost dwelling in us. As the Lord Himself said to the woman of Samaria, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give Me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water." Where Christ is received now, by whomsoever it may be, there is this fulness of blessing, and the well is within the believer. "The water that I shall give hilt shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life." Thus we may see how wide and perfect is His grace, while it forbids certain things being thrown indiscriminately among the ungodly. Any act that implies fellowship between a believer and an unbeliever is false. Take, for instance, the question of worship, and the habit of calling the whole round of devotions worship. Worship supposes communion with the Father and the Son, and with each other in it. But the system which, founded on an easy rite which pretends to regenerate all, unites believers and unbelievers in one common form and calls it worship, is casting what is holy unto dogs. Is it not a thinly-disguised attempt to put the sheep and dogs upon the same ground? In vain. You cannot unite before God the enemies of Christ and those that belong to Him. You cannot mingle as one people those that have got life and those that have not. The attempt to do so is sin, and constant dishonour of the Lord. All effort to have a worship of this mixed character is going in the very teeth of the sixth verse.

On the other hand, preaching the gospel, where it is kept distinct from worship, is right and blessed. When the day of judgment comes upon this world, where does the worst stroke fall? Not upon the openly profane world, but upon Babylon, because Babylon is the confusion of what is of Christ with evil — the attempt to make communion between light and darkness. "Come out of her, My people," says the Lord, "that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Partaker of her sins is the grave affair with God. It is the acceptance of a common ground upon which the Church and the world can join; when the very object of God, and that for which Christ died, was that He might have a separate people unto Himself, so as to be, by their very consecration unto God, a light in this world — not a witness of pride, saying, "Stand by, I am holier than thou," but Christ's epistle, that tells the world where the living water is to be found, and bids them come: "Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely."

Where we do not confound the religion of the world with the worship that goes up to God from His people, there you will also have the true line of demarcation — where we ought to judge and where we ought not. There will be active service towards the world with the gospel, but a careful separation of the Church from the world. This is also true individually. Yet persons take advantage of the word of God that says, "If an unbeliever bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go," etc.; but take care how you go, and for what. If you go self-confident, you will but dishonour Christ; if to please yourself, this is poor ground; if to please other people, it is little better.

There may be occasions when the love of Christ would constrain a soul to go and bear a testimony to His love in a worldly company, yet if we knew how easily words may be said, and things done, that imply communion with that which is contrary to Christ, there would be fear and trembling; but where there is self-confidence, there never can be the power of God.

But now the Lord, having finished the subject of the abuse of judgment and the abuse of grace, indicates the necessity of intercourse with God, and this very particularly in connection with what we have been seeing. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" (ver. 7). Here we have different degrees, increasing measures of earnestness in pleading with God: "For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened" (ver. 8). And then He gives them an argument to encourage them in this: "What man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?" (vers. 9-11). There is a very interesting difference in the passage that answers to this in Luke 11, where, instead of saying, "give good things to them that ask Him," it is said, "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?" The Holy Spirit was not yet given. It was not that He did not act in the world, but He was not yet personally imparted, because that Jesus was not yet glorified. Scripture says this expressly. Thus, until the time when He was poured out from heaven, it was quite right to pray for the Spirit to be given; and the Gentiles in particular being persons that were ignorant about it, this is expressly mentioned in the Gospel of Luke, which especially contemplates the Gentiles. For who can read that Gospel without having the conviction that there is a careful eye upon those that have a Gentile origin? It was written by a Gentile, and to a Gentile; and all through it traces the Lord as Son of Man, a title which links itself, not with the Jewish nation properly and peculiarly, but with all men. This is the great want of man — the Holy Spirit, which was about to be given, and He is the great power of prayer, as it is said, "Praying in the Holy Ghost." Luke was led to specify that special gift which those that pray would need in order to give them energy in prayer.

But, returning to Matthew, we have the whole passage wound up by this word, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (ver. 12). This is in no way dealing with men according to their ways, but the contrary. It is saying, as it were, "You who know the heavenly Father, who know what His grace to the evil is, you know what is comely in His sight; always act upon that. Never act merely according to what another does toward you, but according to what you would that another should do to you. If you have the slightest love in your heart, you would desire that they should act as children of your Father." Whatever another person may do, my business is to do to them what I would that they should do to me; namely, to act in a way becoming the child of a heavenly Father. "This is the law and the prophets." He is giving them exceeding breadth, extracting the essence of all that was blessed there. This was clearly the gracious wish of a soul that knew God, even under the law; and nothing less than this could be the ground of action before God.

But now we come to dangers. There are not only brethren to try us, but now He says, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (vers. 13-15). There is a moral connection between the two things. One main feature of that which is false is the attempt to make the gate large and the road broad; to deny the special manner in which God calls souls to the knowledge of Himself. How the arrangements in the religious world interfere with this! Take, for instance, the parcelling out of those that belonged to God into companies, as if they were the sheep of man, which people do not scruple to call "our church," or "such a one's flock." God's rights, His claims, His calling a soul to walk in responsibility to Himself, are all interfered with by such things. We never find even an apostle saying, "My flock." It is always, "The flock of God," because this brings in responsibility to God. If they are His flock, I must take care that I do not lead them astray. It must be the object of my soul, in having to do with a Christian, to bring his soul into direct connection with God Himself, to say, "This is one of God's sheep." What a change this would make in the tone and ways of pastors, if it were viewed as the flock of God! It is the business of the true servant to keep them in the narrow path on which they have entered.

But there is also the broad-road-going world, who think that they can belong to God by profession of Christ and trying to keep the commandments. There has been the widening of the gate, the broadening of the road, in connection with which the Lord says, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." The true teachers sent from God suffer with the false ones if they are mixed up with the world. Being all bound together for common objects, whether they belong to God or not, those that are really true are often drawn of the rest into what they know to be wrong, And remember another solemn thing. The devil never would be able to accomplish any plan in Christendom if he could not get good people to join the bad in it. Unbelief constantly uses as an excuse, "Such a good man is here "; "The excellent Mr. — does that." But is the opinion and conduct of a Christian to be the criterion by which I judge? If so, there is nothing I may not fall into; for what evil thing is there that a man, and even a believer, has not done? You know what David had to confess before the Lord. And this is the way the devil takes to keep other persons quiet in evil. The sole standard for the believer is the written word of God; and this is the special security in these last days. When Paul was leaving the Ephesian saints, it was "to God and to the word of His grace" that he commended them. Grievous wolves might enter in among them, not sparing the flock; and of their own selves men might arise, speaking perverse things; but the sole safeguard, as a rule of faith and conduct for the saints, is God's holy writ.

Mass is the most wicked act of the most corrupt thing under the sun; but if the grace of God could enter there, and work by His Spirit, spite of the elevated host, who shall put limits? But is this a reason why I should go to a Roman Catholic chapel, worship the wafer, or pray to the Virgin? God in His sovereign grace can go anywhere; but if I desire to walk as a Christian, how am I to do it? There is but one standard — the will of God; and the will of God can be learned only through the Scriptures. I cannot reason from any amount of blessing there, nor from any apparent weakness here. Persons might be allowed to seem very weak for the express purpose of showing that the power is not in them, but in God. Although the apostles were such mighty men, they were often allowed to appear feeble indeed in the eyes of others. It was that which exposed Paul to be thought not an apostle by the Corinthians, though they, of all men, ought to have known better. All this shows that I cannot reason either from blessing that God's grace may work, or from the weakness of God's children. What we want is that which has no fault at all, and this is the word of God. I need it for my rule as a Christian man, and as walking together with all saints. If we act upon that Word, and nothing else, we ,;hall find God with us. It will be called bigotry; but this is part of the reproach of Christ. Faith will always appear proud to those who have none; but it will be proved in the day of the Lord to be the only humility, and that. everything which is not faith is pride, or no better. Faith admits that he who has it is nothing — that he has no power nor wisdom of his own, and he looks to God. May we be strong in faith, giving glory to Him!

But, again, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." The Lord does not here speak simply of men being known by their fruits, but of false prophets (vers. 15-20). "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Where grace is denied, the holiness is hollow, or, at best, legal. Wherever grace is really held and preached, you will find two things — much greater care in what concerns God than where it is not equally known, and also greater tenderness, forbearance, and patience in what merely touches man. Winking at sin is one thing, but unscriptural severity is very far from divine righteousness, and may co-exist with the allowance of self in many a form. There are certain sins that call for rebuke, but it is only in the gravest cases that there ought to be extreme measures. We are not left to make laws about evil for ourselves: we are under responsibility to another, even to our Lord. We ought not in this to trust ourselves, but to learn the wisdom of God and confide in the perfectness of His word; and our business is to carry out what we find there. Let the help come from where it may, if we can thus but follow the word of God more fully, we ought to be exceedingly grateful.

Solemn, most solemn, are the words that follow, as the Lord's eye scans the field of profession. "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven, Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity" (vers. 21-23). The Lord shows the stability of His word for the obedient heart, from the figure of a man building upon a rock; He shows also, as none but He could, the end of every one who hears and does not His sayings. But I must not enter upon this now.

The Lord grant that our hearts may be towards Himself! We shall be able to help one another, and we shall be helped of His own grace. Weak as we are, we shall be made to stand. And if through unwatchfulness we have slipped, the Lord will graciously set us upon our feet again.

May He grant us singleness of eye!

Matthew 8

I can well understand a man who received and revered the Bible as the word of the living God, finding himself at fault when he closely examines the Gospels, which recount the Lord's ministry. A casual reader might find no difficulty; but at first, nothing would be more probable than that he who carefully compared the different accounts might be perplexed — I will not say stumbled, because he has too much confidence in the word of God. In comparing the Gospels, he finds that they differ very considerably in the way in which the same facts are recorded in different Gospels. He finds one arrangement in Matthew, another in Mark, and a third in Luke; and yet all these he is sure are right. But he cannot make out how, if the Spirit of God really inspired the different Evangelists to give a perfect history of Christ, there should at the same time be these apparent discrepancies. He is obliged to cast himself upon God, and to enquire whether there be not some principle which can account for these changes of position, and for the different mode in which the same circumstances are displayed. The moment that he thus approaches these Gospels, light will dawn upon his soul. He begins to see that the Holy Ghost was not merely giving the testimony of so many witnesses, but that while they thoroughly agree at bottom, the Holy Ghost had assigned a special office to each of them, so that their writings present the Lord in various and distinct attitudes. It remains to enquire what are these several points of view, and how they may both give occasion to and explain the variety of statement that is undoubtedly to be found therein.

I have already shown that in the Gospel of Matthew the Holy Ghost has been depicting Jesus in His relationship to Israel, and that this accounts for the genealogy given us in chapter 1, which quite differs from what we have in the Gospel of Luke. It is specially His genealogy as Messiah, which is, of course, important and interesting to Israel, who looked for a ruler of the seed of David. At the same time the Holy Ghost took particular care to correct the narrow worldly thoughts of the Jews, and shows that while He was, according to the flesh, of the seed of Israel, He was also the Lord God; and if Emmanuel and Jehovah, His special work as a. divine person was to save His people from their sins. He may go out far beyond that people and bless Gentiles no less than Jews; but saving from sins was clearly an expectation of Christ that ought to have been gathered from the Prophets. The Jews expected that when Messiah came, He would be the exalted Head over them as a nation; that they consequently would become the head, and the Gentiles the tail. All this they had rightly inferred from the prophetic word; but there was a great deal more that they had not discerned. Messiah is bent upon their spiritual as well as their natural blessing; and all present hopes must fade away before the question of sin; yea, their sins. Jesus accepts His rejection from them, and effects on the cross for them that very redemption which they thought so little about.

How thoroughly, too, it falls in with the Gospel of Matthew that we should have a long discourse like that of the sermon on the mount without interruption; the whole being given us as a continuous word from our Lord. All interruptions, if there were any, are carefully excluded, so as to bring Him out on the mount in pointed antithesis to Moses, by whom God was bringing in an earthly kingdom; but now it is because He manifests the heavenly King, contrary to everything the Jews were expecting.

The Holy Ghost proceeds in this Gospel to give us the facts of our Lord's life still in connection with this great thought. The Gospel of Matthew is the presentation to Israel of Jesus as their divine Messiah, their rejection of Him in that character, and what God would do in consequence. We shall see whether the facts that are given us even in this chapter do not bear upon this special aspect of our Lord. From the Gospel of Mark it would be impossible to collect it in the same way. In Matthew the mere order of history is here neglected, and facts are brought together that took place months apart. It is not at all the object of the Holy Ghost by Matthew, or even Luke, to give the facts in the order in which they happened, which Mark does. Those that examine the Gospel of Mark with care will find notes of time, expressions such as "immediately," etc., where things are left vague in the other Gospels. The phrases of rapid transition, or of instant sequence, of course bind together the different occurrences thus brought into juxtaposition. In Matthew this is entirely disregarded; and of all the chapters in this Gospel, there is not one, perhaps, that so entirely sets aside the mere succession of dates as the very one before us. But if this be so, to what are we to attribute it? Why, we may reverently ask, does the Holy Ghost in Matthew disregard the order in which things followed one another? Was it that Matthew did not know the time in which they occurred? Had it been only a man writing a history for his own pleasure, could he not have ascertained with tolerable certainty when it was that each fact occurred? And when he first had published his statement, would anything have been easier than for the other Evangelists to follow, and give their accounts in accordance with his?

But the contrary is the case. Mark takes up a different line of things, and Luke another, while John has a character to himself. On the very face of it we are driven to one of two suppositions. Either the Evangelists were as careless men as ever wrote accounts of their Master, giving different accounts as if to perplex the reader, or it was the Holy Ghost who presented the facts in various ways, so as to illustrate the glory of Christ far more than what mere repetition would have accomplished. The latter is surely the truth. Any other supposition is as irrational as irreverent. For, even supposing that the apostles had written different accounts and had made mistakes, they could very easily have corrected each other's mistakes; but the reason why no such correction appears was not human error or defect, but divine perfection. It was the Holy Ghost who was pleased to shape these Gospels in the particular form most calculated to bring out the person, mission, or various relations of Christ. The Gospel of Mark proves that the healing of the leper took place at a different time from what you might have gathered from this chapter — in fact, long before the sermon on the mount. In chapter 1 we have the Lord described as preaching in their synagogues through all Galilee, and casting out devils: "And there came a leper to Him, beseeching . . . If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean" (Mark 1: 40-45). Now, we cannot doubt this is the same story as in Matthew 8. But if we read the next chapter of Mark, what is the first thing mentioned after this? "Again He entered into Capernaum after some days, and it was noised that He was in the house . . . and they come unto Him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four." Clearly here we have a fact, the cure of the paralytic man, which Matthew does not give us till Matthew 9, after a storm which Mark describes in Mark 4, and after the case of the demoniac, which only appears in Mark 5; so that it is perfectly plain that one of the two Evangelists must have departed from the order of history; and as Mark, by his strict notes of time, evidences that he does not, Matthew must be concluded to have so done. In Mark 3 we have our Lord going up the mountain, and calling the disciples to Him; and there is the place accordingly in this Gospel, where the sermon on the mount would, if inserted at all, come in. Thus, it was considerably after what took place in Matthew 8: 2-4 that the sermon on the mount was uttered: but Mark does not give us that sermon, because his great object was the gospel ministry and characteristic works of Christ; and therefore the doctrinal expositions of our Lord are left out. Where brief words of our Lord accompany what He did, they are given; but nothing more.

It may make what I have been saying still plainer, if in Mark 1 we observe further the actual order. Simon and Andrew are called, in verse 16; James and John, verse 19; and straightway, having gone to Capernaum, He entered on the sabbath day into the synagogue, and taught. There we have the man with the unclean spirit: the fact took place a little after the final call of Andrew and Simon, of James and John, The unclean spirit was cast out; "and immediately His fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee. And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell Him of her," etc. Hence we have positive certainty, from God's own word, that the healing of Peter's wife's mother took place a short time after the call of Peter and Andrew, and considerably before the healing of the leper. Carrying this back to our chapter in Matthew, we see the importance of it; for here the healing of Peter's mother-in-law only appears in the middle of the chapter. The cleansing of the leper is given first, then the healing of the centurion's servant, and after that, of Peter's wife's mother; whereas, from Mark, we know for a certainty that Peter's wife's mother was healed long before the leper.

Looking at Mark again, we find that, on the evening of the same sabbath, after He had healed Peter's wife's mother, "they brought unto Him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And He healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils. . . . And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, He went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed, "which is clearly the same scene alluded to in Matthew 8, and would come in after verse 17. The fact of His going to the desert and praying is not mentioned here; but it took place at the same time. Then, in Mark, we have His going into Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out devils; and after that, He heals the leper. What I draw from this is that, as Mark tells us the very day on which these things happened, we must take him for a witness of their order as to time. When I go back to Matthew, do I find any intimation of the time in which all these events took place? Not a word. It is simply said, "When He was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him" (ver. 1), and then we have the healing of the leper. There is nothing to prove that the leper came at that particular time. All that is said is, "And behold, there came a leper," etc. — an Old Testament form of expression. Whether the healing of the leper took place before He came down, or after, we are not told here. From Mark we infer that the sermon on the mount was given long after, and that the healing of Peter's wife's mother took place before the healing of the leper.

Why, let us ask, would it not have suited this Gospel of Matthew to put the healing of Peter's wife's mother first, then the leper, and lastly the centurion? — for you will find that in the order of time, this was really the succession. The centurion came up after the sermon was over, and Christ was in Capernaum; the leper had been healed a considerable time before, and Simon's mother-in-law earlier yet.

But what is the great truth taught by these facts as they are arranged in the Gospel of Matthew? The Lord is met by a leper. You know what a loathsome thing leprosy was. Notoriously, it was not only most offensive, but hopeless, as far as man was concerned. It is true that in Leviticus we have ceremonies for the cleansing of a leper, but who could give a ceremony for the cure of a leper? Who take away that disease after it had once infected a man? Luke, the beloved physician, gives us the notice that he was "full of leprosy;" the other Evangelists do not state anything but the simple fact that he was a leper. This was enough. Because, to the Jews, the question was whether there was any leprosy at all: if such it was, they could have nothing to say to him till he was cured and cleansed. The Spirit of God uses leprosy as a type of sin, in all the loathsomeness that it produces. Palsy brings out the thought of powerlessness. Both are true of the sinner. He is without strength, and he is unclean in the presence of God. Jesus heals the leper. This at once illustrates the power of Jehovah-Jesus upon earth, and more than that; for it was not merely a question of His power, but of His grace, His love, His willingness to put forth all His might on behalf of His people. For the whole people of Israel were like that leper. The prophet Isaiah had said so long before; and they were not better now. The Lord repeats the sentence of Isaiah: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy," etc., and this leper was a type of the moral condition of Israel in the presence of the Messiah. But, whether few or many, let them only present themselves in all their vileness before the Messiah, and how would the Messiah deal with them? The Messiah is there. He has got the power, but the leper is not sure of His will. "Lord," He says, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean." We may remember the distress of the king of Israel in the days of Elisha, when the king of Syria sent Naaman to him that he might be recovered of his leprosy: how, when he had read the letter, "he rent his clothes, and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" Only God could do it: every Jew knew this; and this is what the Holy Ghost is desirous of showing. We have had the testimony that Jesus was a man, and yet Jehovah — able to save His people from their sins. But here comes out His presentation to Israel in particular cases, where the Holy Ghost, instead of giving a mere general and historical outline, as in chapter 4, singles out special instances, for the purpose of illustrating the Lord's relation to Israel, and the manifested effects of it. The leper is the first case, where we have, as it were, the microscope applied by the Spirit of God, that we may see clearly how the Lord carried Himself toward Israel; what ought to have been the place of Israel; and what was their real conduct. At once, when the leper acknowledges His power and confesses His person, "Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean;" when it was merely the question of His will and of His affections, immediately there comes the answer of divine love as well as power: "I will, be thou clean; and immediately his leprosy was cleansed." He put forth His hand and touched him. It was not only God, but God manifest in the flesh — One who entered fully into the poor leper's anxiety, yet proved Himself paramount to the law. His touch — it was that of Jehovah. God's touch! The law could only put the leper at a distance; but if God gives a law, He is superior in grace to the law that He gives. The heart of this leper trembled, afraid lest the blessed Lord should be unwilling to bless him; but He puts forth His hand, He touches him: none else would. The Lord's touch, instead of contracting defilement to Himself, banishes defilement from the leper. Immediately he is cleansed. Jesus then says to him, "See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded for a testimony unto them." There was no desire that He should publish what Jesus was: God might tell His works. He says, "See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priest," etc. Nothing could be more blessed. It was not yet the time for the law to be set aside. Jesus waits. The cross must come in before the law could be set aside in any way. We are delivered from the law by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is the great doctrine of the epistle to the Romans — that we are dead to the law, of course in His death, that we might "be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." Up to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, there is the most careful guarding of the law. After resurrection, saints passed into another relationship with Him who was risen from the dead. Here we find there was a sedulous maintenance of the claims of God's law; and it always was so until the cross. Therefore He says, "Go, show thyself to the priest." Also, had the man gone telling it to every one instead of to the priest, the great enemy might have found means to misrepresent the work, to deny the miracle, to try and make out that he was not the man who had been a leper. Alas! was it the wish of man's heart to show that Jesus had not wrought such a miracle? But Jesus says, "Go, show thyself to the priest. "Why? Because the priest himself would be the authentic witness that Jesus was Jehovah. The priest that knew the man was a leper before, that had pronounced him unclean, that had put him outside, would now see that the man was cured. Who had done it? None but God could heal the leper. Jesus, then, was God; Jesus was Jehovah; the God of Israel was in the land. The priest's mouth would be obliged to confess the glory of Christ's person. "Offer the gift that Moses commanded for a testimony unto them." When had there been the offering of that gift? They had no power to heal the leper, and thus could not offer the gift. So that Jesus had bowed to the obligations of the law, and yet had done what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh. But here was One who was God — God having sent His own Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh." God Himself, and God's own Son withal, He was here working this mighty work that proved His dignity, and He made the priest himself to be the witness of it.

But now we are to hear a different tale; Jesus enters into Capernaum. When, we are not told. It had no connection with the story of the leper; but the Holy Ghost puts them together, because it brings in the Gentiles. We have had the Jew set forth in the history of the leper and the gift Moses commanded for a testimony to Israel. But now there is a centurion that comes and tells about his servant; and this brings in a new kind of confession of the Lord altogether. Here there is no touching — no connection with Christ after the flesh. Hence it is rather the way in which the Gentile knows Christ. The Jew looked for. a Christ that would put forth His hand — a Saviour personally present among them — bringing in this divine power and healing them: as the Scripture had said, "I am the Lord God that healeth thee." And here He was come; but they did not know Him so. And the next witness, that we have brought together in Matthew, but nowhere else, is the centurion; because God would show that the natural children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were going to be cut off. They would not worship Him as the poor leper did. The testimony to the priest would be disregarded. They become more and more opposed to His claims. God says, as it were, If you Jews will not have my Son, I will send a testimony to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles will hear. Upon the rejection of Jesus by the Jew, upon Israel's refusal of Him who had proved Himself to be Jehovah-God in forgiving all their iniquities and healing all their diseases, what then follows? The door of faith is opened to the Gentiles.

Thus, we have the story of the centurion, which is taken out of its place and put here purposely. And even in the details of the history there are very noticeable differences. You have not the embassy of the Jews in connection with the centurion. This is left out in Matthew, but inserted in Luke. Thus, while Matthew's Gospel gives everything that might be calculated to meet the conscience of Israel, it abstains from giving that which they might have prided themselves on. It was wholesome for the Gentiles that they should hear of the embassy of this good man. He was like the Gentile laying his hand upon the skirt of him that was a Jew, taking his place behind Israel. But his faith goes beyond this; for we find that he comes and beseeches the Lord, and brings out his own personal faith in the most blessed manner. When Jesus says to him, "I will come and heal him," at once his heart is manifest. He answers, "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof." For just as he, the centurion, could say to one, "Go, and he goeth; to another, Come, and he cometh; and to his servant, Do this, and he doeth it," how much more could the Lord "speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed?" Jesus had indeed authority over all diseases; but was it merely a question of His putting His hand upon the leper? Not at all. He had only to utter the word, and it was done. The centurion assumes the grand truth that Jesus was God (not merely Messiah), and therefore full of ability to heal. In short, he looks at Him in a still higher way, not as one whose presence must be connected with the putting forth of power, but as one who had only to speak the word, and it was done. This brings in the character of the word of God, and the absence of Jesus from those who now profit by His grace.

Such is our position. Jesus is away and unseen. We hear His word, lay hold of it, and are saved. This is the beautiful way in which we are here given the different bearing of the Lord on the Jew and on the Gentile; but we learn, moreover, that the blessing would be refused by Israel, and the Gentiles would become the objects of mercy, as it is said here, "Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (vers. 10, 11), that is, many Gentiles shall come. Neither is this all: "But the children of the kingdom" — the natural children that were the seed, but not the true children according to Abraham's faith, these should be "cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Rejecting their Messiah, the Jews as a nation were going to be rejected. There would only be a line of believing ones; but the mass of Israel should be rejected until the fulness of the Gentiles have come in.

Thus we have here a wonderful view of our Lord in accordance with the general strain of the Gospel of Matthew. We have Jesus proving Himself to be Jehovah-Jesus, ready to heal wherever there was faith — but where was it? The leper might represent the godly remnant; 'but as to the mass of Israel, we have their doom pronounced here, and in the very same incident which proves that the grace of God which Israel refused would make a larger channel for itself among the Gentiles, who would partake of the mercies which the Jews rejected. This is just what is here put together in these two stories. Jesus gives proof to Israel that He was a divine Messiah. If they scorned it, the Gentiles would hear. But then there is another thing of great importance, and which shows why the healing of Peter's wife's mother is kept in this Gospel till after these events, although Mark gives it before. Mark furnishes the history of the ministry of Christ as it happened. Why does not Matthew the same? Divine wisdom is stamped upon this, as upon everything in the word of God. I believe it is reserved by Matthew for this place because Israel might have the idea that, when the mercy of God flowed out to the Gentiles, His heart might be turned away from them. The maid was not dead, but sleeping: this is the state of Israel now, And as surely as the Lord did raise her up, so surely will He in a future day awaken the sleeping daughter of Zion. We have got better blessing and higher glory now. But it is necessary for the truth of God's word that Israel should be blessed too; for if God could break His word to Israel, could we trust it for ourselves? Now God positively promised the eventual final glory of Israel on the earth. The only thing needed is that we should not confound these things; that we should not be ignorant either of the Scripture or of the power of God.

In this case we have an incident brought before us which proves that (though the Lord knew the unbelief of Israel and predicted it; and though He knew also that the Gentiles were now to come in by faith) His heart could not but linger over Israel. Therefore, as I think, the Holy Ghost, to illustrate this, brings in here the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. This third incident, then, the healing of Peter's wife's mother, I think we may infer was for Peter's sake, whatever may have been the other reasons. It is a natural relationship, and you will find that the great scene for this is Israel. Peter was the apostle of the circumcision; so that I have not a question that one of the reasons why this event is brought in here is to show that the unbelief of Israel would not finally alienate the Lord's heart. There He was, still healing all their diseases, as was witnessed even to the crowd around the door, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." The Lord, when He wrought a miracle, entered in spirit into the circumstances of him whom He was relieving. If the miracle brought out His divine power, there was also the divine sympathy that entered into the depth of the need that He relieved.

After this, we have the Lord preparing to go to the other side. But this gives occasion for certain persons to be brought out in their true character and ways, and for the Lord to manifest His own. Now when did this happen? This brings out a most peculiar feature of the Gospel of Matthew, and shows how entirely the Holy Ghost was above the mere routine of dates. Look at the Gospel of Luke, and you will find that the conversation with these men, which is recorded here, took place after the transfiguration. In Luke 9 we are told that after the transfiguration had taken place, the Lord stedfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem; and then, in verse 57, it is said, "It came to pass, that as they went in the way, a certain man said unto Him, Lord, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head. And He said unto another, Follow Me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father" (Luke 9: 57-62). Now, am I too bold in thinking that this was the same incident that we have recorded in Matthew? It is not probable that our Lord should have the same things repeated at different times; nor could we fairly conceive of two distinct persons copying one another so exactly. But mark its importance, if this be so. It took place a very long time after, and yet it is put in here by Matthew. Why? Because it illustrates this — that while the Lord had all this love in His heart toward Israel, spite of their unbelief, there was no heart in Israel toward Him. What was His condition now? He had not even where to lay His head. What a thing for the Messiah of Israel to be obliged to say, when a man offered to follow Him, "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head."

This is the first time where He uses the expression "Son of Man." It is no longer "Son of David." "Son of Man" is the title of Christ as rejected or glorified. There is no question which of the two it was here. Even His own people will not have Him. And He is going away to the other side — He must leave them. He has done, it now, as we know. But this man proposes to follow Him. The Lord knew all that was in his heart — a mere carnal Jew, who thought by following Jesus to get a good place with the Messiah. The Lord tells him He had no place to give him. There was not even a nest for the Messiah. What was there for the flesh, offering to follow Christ, to find? The Lord unveils his heart, shows its own deception in seeking something for itself, while Himself had not even a spot which the meanest and most mischievous creature He had made might possess. Had not the foxes their holes, and the birds of the air their nests? But the Son of Man had not even where to lay His head. How could the flesh pretend to follow our Lord? To a disciple who said, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father," the Lord could say, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead" (vers. 21, 22). Mark the difference. Where the call of Christ is, there may be great reluctance, trial felt, and struggling on the part of nature; still the word is, "Follow Me." When you get a thoroughly carnal man in the presence of the gospel, there is not this backwardness — none of this trial. He thinks it is all beautiful, but it does not lay hold of his soul; and very soon circumstances occur to draw his heart away to other things, and at last the man sinks down again to his own level. But where the Lord does say, "Follow Me," how often the soul, before or at the time, says, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father." Natural relationship had a very serious claim. His father was lying dead: he must go and bury him. People might say, A man must make the burying of his father so urgent that everything must give way to it. Not at all, says the Lord, Christ's claim ought to be stronger still. If the call of Christ is heard, even as the father lies dead, waiting for burial, we must forego even this. The world may say, There is a man that talks about Christ, and yet does not love his father. But we must be prepared for this: and if we are not, it is because we do not yet understand the supreme value of our Christ. You will find that natural ties and duties in this world are always apt to come in as a hindrance between Christ and the soul. The claims of nature are continually pressed upon one. But no matter whether it be father or mother, or brother or sister, or son or daughter, where the call of Christ is clear, take care that you do not say, Suffer me to do such and such a thing first. The word of Jesus is, Follow Me, and let the dead bury their dead."

Then the Lord goes. We find Him entering into a ship and His disciples following Him. And thereon follows the history of the tempest, and of the miracle that Jesus wrought in calming the winds and the sea. Now when did this really take place? On the evening of the day when the seven parables of Matthew 13 were uttered, before the transfiguration, but long after the other events mentioned in this chapter. Mark lets us know this positively in the chapter that records the parables (Mark 4) — the very same that are given us in Matthew 13, with this addition, "With many such parables spake He the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; but without a parable spake He not unto them. And when they were alone (when they had entered into the house, as it is given us in Matthew 13), He expounded all things to His disciples. And the same day, when the even was come, He saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side." Then follows the same history that we have here in Matthew 8; and after they come to the other side, there is the man with the legion of devils. There need not be a question that this is the same scene, but brought out in an entirely different connection, and only occurred a considerable time after its mention here in Matthew.

What follows from this? That the Holy Ghost in Matthew only gives us historical order where it falls in with the special object of the Gospel. All this marks the perfect wisdom of God: and none but God would have thought of such a thing. But how few think of it, or even understand it now. Does it not show the slowness of our hearts to take in the full meaning of the word of God? What is the Lord teaching in these two scenes? We see Him here alone with His disciples. The godly part of Israel are now separated with Himself and exposed to all that the enemies of God could do against them. But it only serves to enlist the power of the Lord for them. Everything is subdued at His bidding. So is it in our own experience. There is never a difficulty, trial, or painful circumstance in which we appear to be utterly overwhelmed by the power of Satan in this world, but that, if our eye is towards Christ, and we appeal to Him, we shall know His power most truly put forth on our behalf. When they realize whom they had in the same boat with them and cry, saying, "Lord save us, we perish," He rises and rebukes the wind and the sea. "And there was a great calm." So that the very shipmen marvelled, saying, "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him!" The disciples knew it in a still deeper way, but the others were astonished.

But this is not all. It might evince what Christ is for the godly who were with Him. But there were two men, far indeed from the Messiah for they were among the tombs, possessed with devils, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way — just the picture of the most desperate power of Satan in the world. One of them, as we are told elsewhere, went by the name of Legion, because many devils were entered into him. You could not have worse than this. The power of Satan was stronger than all the fetters of men.

But the Lord is there. The devils believe and tremble. They felt His presence. But the day was not come for Satan to be dispossessed of his title over the world. As yet, it was only the proof of the power to do it: but the full exercise of that power was reserved for another day. I doubt not that our Evangelist gives the casting out of the demons as a witness of Christ's power to deliver the Jewish remnant; and therefore the Holy Ghost, here only, names the two men; as, on the other hand, the possessed herd of swine seems to represent the destruction of the unclean mass of Israel in the latter day.

The history brings out this also — that Satan has power in a twofold way, not. only in the dreadful excesses of those who are completely under his influence, but in the quiet enmity of the heart that could lead others to go to Jesus in order to beseech Him to depart out of their coasts. What a solemn thing it is to know that the secret influence of Satan over the heart, that creates the wish to get rid of Jesus, is even more fatal, personally, than when Satan makes a man to be the witness of his awful power. But so it was then, and so it is that men perish now.

That is the history of the men that wish Jesus to depart from them. The Lord grant us that happy knowledge of Himself, that entering into what He is to us now, which gives the soul calmness and rest in His love, and the certainty of His presence with those that belong to Him: "I am with you alway, even unto the consummation of the age." May we know what it is to have Jesus to take care of us, and produce a great calm, whatever may be the effect of the stirring up of Satan's power against us. The Lord give us to look at Jesus. If it be from our first knowledge of sin to our last trial in this world, it is all a question of whether I trust in myself or in the Lord,

Matthew 9

Whoever attentively examines this chapter with the following one, can hardly fail to see that the proper break is at the end of verse 35, the last three verses forming properly the introduction to chapter 10. What we have in chapter 9, as far as I have understood, is the effect of the presence of Jesus upon the religious leaders of Israel: I believe this is the great subject. Chapter 8 gave us the outline of the Lord's presence in Israel, and its results. That is, it was a general picture; and therefore we saw that the Holy Spirit entirely neglects the mere historical order, putting together passages in the life of Christ that were separated, in point of fact, by months or even a year. There is not here the slightest attempt on the part of the Spirit of God to present them as they happened; but on the contrary, the Holy Ghost goes out of His way for the purpose of culling from different times and places certain grand facts that illustrated the Messiah's presence amidst His people, His rejection by Israel, and what the results of this rejection would be. What we saw was that, first of all, He was proved to be God, the God of Israel — Jehovah; to whom the cleansing of leprosy was merely the question of His will; for even the leper did not doubt His power. "If Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean." None but God could do this. Now none had so strong a feeling about this loathsome evil as a Jew, because God Himself had laid down so carefully the nature and proof of leprosy in His law. For it was a question of hopeless uncleanness — the solemn emphatic lesson of how horrible sin is, in its effects and in itself. God can cure and God can cleanse: nobody else can. It was not exactly a case of forgiving, but of cleansing and putting away defilement. The Spirit of God reserved the question of forgiveness (which is connected with the rights of God and with His judicial character, as the cleansing of leprosy is more particularly connected with His holiness) till the chapter we are about to look at now. In the first of these chapters (Matt. 8) there was the broad feature that Messiah was there — God Himself in grace, and not acting according to the law, which would have banished the leper outside of dwelling-place and people and His own presence. A most wonderful fact to realize on earth and in Israel that a person was there, as plainly God in His power as He was God in His love! The law merely laid down that which was right, but could give no power, and only condemn the unrighteous. It must make the case of a sinner hopeless, just because it is God's law, for the law can never mix with sin. But here was One who had given the law and yet was above the law. It is evident, indeed, that unless there be some principle in God paramount to the law, there eau be no rescue for the guilty. But grace is that principle. And here was One who showed in His acts and words that He was in nothing more manifestly God than in the fulness of His grace. He touched the leper and said, "I will; be thou clean." The state of this man was just the picture of the true condition of Israel; and what the Lord did for the solitary leper, He was equally willing to do for the whole nation; but "He came to His own, and His own received Him not." Would God then be baffled in His love? If the Jew refused Him, what of the Gentile? They should hear; and therefore we have immediately following the centurion and his servant. But I will not repeat the facts of chapter 8. In the chapter before us now we have, not the general picture of God's presence and its results in Israel, but its special bearings upon the religious leaders of the people.

We begin again with the Lord's giving a remarkable case of healing; not the obvious case of leprosy, which ought to have struck any Jew, but another equally illustrative. "He entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into His own city" (ver. 1) — that is, Capernaum. Thus we are upon narrower ground now. Capernaum was the place where the Lord lived and wrought His mightiest miracles, and which for that very reason afterwards comes in for the most fearful woe that He could pronounce. This is a most solemn principle. When the day of the Lord comes, the heaviest blow of judgment will fall, not upon the dark parts of the earth, but upon the favoured ones where there has been most light, but alas, most unfaithfulness. For my own part, I do not doubt our own land must suffer in a special measure; but, above all, Jerusalem, and Rome too, to which latter place the most remarkable of all the epistles was written, as laying down the foundations of Christianity, but where there has been the greatest departure. They will come under the judgment of God in a most emphatic manner, not only religiously but civilly. No matter who reigns, or who may be put down, this must be the case wherever, in spite of the special favours of God and the light of His word spread abroad, persons have remained unfaithful, and have even become more lax and superstitious or sceptical. The Lord will remove those that are His before the judgment, and the rest will remain to suffer His just retribution. "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man."

In this scene the Lord shows the moral necessity for such a judgment. Nor was it merely in the land of the Gergesenes, or of Nazareth. But take the people who ought to have known the Scriptures more than others, whose very profession it was to know and teach them — what was their estimate of Jesus? It is this which comes out in our chapter. "Behold, they brought to Him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer" — a most blessed word, meeting the whole case of the man; a word to touch his affections and meet his conscience. Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. There was comfort for both his heart and conscience. His sins ought to have laid more heavily upon his heart than his palsy did upon his body; but this word met all his need. "And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth" (ver. 3). In this chapter, it is not the scribe in his vain fleshly confidence professing to show honour to Jesus; but the scribes are judging and condemning Him. To their view Jesus was blaspheming when He said, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." Awful delusion of man's evil heart. "This man blasphemeth!" And these were not ignorant people, who said within themselves, "This man blasphemeth." "But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk?" And now He brings out a word which ought at once to have told upon the scribes, who were familiar with the Scriptures, where it was said of Israel's God, "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases," and of which they now had an exemplification before their eyes.

This is not the experience of a saint now, though we can take it up in a most blessed sense. But can we say that, "Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases," is the way the Lord deals now with Christians? Where He forgives a person's iniquities, does He necessarily heal all their diseases? Whereas, here it is evident that the Lord contemplated the union of the cure of bodily diseases with the forgiveness of sins in the same people and at the same time. When will this be? When God takes the government of the world into His own hands. When the One who was crucified will be glorified — not only in heaven, but here below; when that day comes, the outward world, the body of man, and particularly of God's own people Israel, will feel the immediate effect. While we can take the spirit of the Psalms, so far as they apply to our condition now, let us not forget there is much in the Psalms that is not applicable to ourselves.

The forgiveness of iniquities and the healing of bodily distempers, were both promised to Israel, and so the Lord accomplishes both here. He shows that, in His person and by His ministry now in the midst of Israel, there was the witness of the power to do both. That they might know that the Son of Man had "power on earth to forgive sins (then saith He to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. And he arose and departed to his house." There was a proof of the reality of the forgiveness in the fact that the disease was healed before their eyes. The union of these two things ought forcibly to have struck a scribe. In this miracle we have the strongest testimony of what the glory of His person was.

This then was the Lord's answer to the blasphemy of the scribes who charged Him with blasphemy. "But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men" (ver. 8). Alas, they did not know that it was the power of God exercised by one who Himself was God. They saw that He was the vessel of the power of God, and this was all. A man might be this, and not be God. He might be pleased to work miracles even by a bad man. So that, while they gave glory to God who had given such power to a man, there was no real faith in the person of Christ. But the great object of the miracle is the bringing out of the true state of heart in the ecclesiastical chiefs of the people. A solemn judgment, to apply any time, begins to dawn with this chapter; and before we have done with it, we shall find that the case is closed, as far as they are concerned. Jehovah-Jesus was intolerable to Israel.; but, most of all, to those who had the highest reputation for learning and sanctity.

The Lord passes from this scene, and sees "a man named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He saith unto him, Follow Me; and he arose and followed Him." If we compare the Gospels of Mark and Luke, we find that both the palsied man's case and the call of Levi took place long before many of the circumstances that we have already had; but they are reserved for two special purposes in Matthew's account. They are given at the beginning of Mark 2 as they happened in order of time; but the Spirit of God, in Matthew, puts them out of that order for the purpose of giving large pictures, after a dispensational sort, of our Lord's presence upon earth and its consequences for Israel; and all the facts that would bear upon their blindness for a time and future restoration are grouped together.

Here we see the effect of His presence upon the religious guides. Matthew's call was a most significant one. The Spirit of God led him to give his name here — the name by which he was afterwards known both on earth and in heaven. Matthew accordingly shows the grace of the Lord, spite of the animosities of those scribes against Him, and the form that His grace took in consequence of their unbelief. He goes out and calls Matthew as he was sitting at the receipt of custom. Other people had brought the palsied man, but Matthew does not seem to have manifested faith before the summons of Jesus. It was not Matthew who sought Jesus, but Jesus who called Matthew, busied about the tax, of which he was the licensed gatherer. The publicans were always classed with the sinners, and the Lord goes and calls the publican Matthew as he was in the performance of his office, sitting at the receipt of custom. Obedient to the Messiah's call, Matthew not only follows Him at once, but invites Jesus to sit at meat in the house. "And, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto His disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" It was a positive clear subversion of all propriety and order in the eyes of a Jew. To sit down at meat without the least feeling of contempt for these publicans and sinners was, indeed, strange in the eyes of the Pharisees. What was the Lord doing? He was displaying God's grace increasingly — all the more unbelief broke out from the merely outwardly-religious people: for persons can have thoughts of God, but not founded upon His word, and may be ever so earnest out of their own minds and hearts, but without either faith or light from God. On the one hand, these men proved their total unbelief in Jesus and His glory; but, on the other hand, God, in the person of Jesus, was going farther in His grace and more counter to the thoughts of these religious people in Israel. He calls Matthew, and He eats with these publicans and sinners; and when fault is found with it by the Pharisees to the disciples, the Lord at once produces that blessed word from the Old Testament, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" — for "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." He vindicates this call and maintains it, not as an exceptional case, but as a principle.

It was what God was come down to make good upon earth. It was not the law, but grace now. This gives rise to something further, and a very instructive word from the Lord is brought before us here. The disciples were found fault with because they did not fast like the disciples of John and the Pharisees. And the Lord gives this reason for it: "Can the children of the bride-chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?" That is, He shows the absurdity of fasting when the source of all their joy was there. How utterly contrary would it have been to their faith in Him, the Messiah, to submit to this mark of sorrow and humiliation, in the presence of the spring of all their joy and gladness! But there was something deeper than that to be learned. There was not only the presence of One that the disciples understood, and that the others did not, but the Lord shows that you cannot mingle the prescriptions that flow from the law with the principles and power of divine grace (a most important principle, and the very one that Christendom has practically destroyed). For what has brought about the present state of Christendom? Christianity is the system of grace in Christ maintained in holiness by the Holy Ghost among those that believe. Christendom is the great house of profession, where there are unclean vessels mingled with those that are to honour where principles abound and reign that never came from Christ, and that are adopted, some of them from Judaism, others out of people's own wit, without respect to the Bible. But what the Lord shows is, that even if you take what God once sanctioned under the law, it will not do now. The same God who tried Israel by the law has sent the gospel; and it is the gospel that He is sending now, and not the law. It is grace that we have to do with. It is Christ risen and in heaven that I am in relationship with, and not with the law. I am dead to the, law if I am a Christian. Christendom has forgotten and departed from that; and, arguing from the premises that the law is good, and the gospel also, they say, Will it not be much surer to put them together? The result is, that what our Lord said should not be done, men have been aiming at with the utmost diligence. They have tried to put the new wine into old bottles: that is to say, put the joy-producing grace into the receptacles of legal principles. The Lord has brought in new wine, and He wants new bottles.

The inner virtue and power of Christianity must clothe itself with its own proper forms. The new garments are the due manifestation of the gospel, which totally differs from ways framed according to the law. Legalism is the old garb, and it is despising the goodness of God to merely patch up the old one. And after all, it will never succeed. The attempt will only make the old worse. This is what Christendom has done. It has tried to mend the old garment with the new piece — to bring a certain measure of Christian morals into the old garment as a sort of improvement upon Judaism. And what has been the result? Besides, there is the pouring of the new wine into old bottles. There is a certain measure of the preaching of Christ, but it is so much in connection with the old bottles! These verses embrace both the outward development and the inward power, and show that Christianity is entirely a new thing, and one that cannot be mingled with the law. If you find a man who thinks he has got some righteousness of his own, you can cut him down by the law. This is the legitimate use of the law. He is really ungodly, and you use the law to prove that he is so. But in the Christian we have one who is godly; and the law, as Paul expressly insists, is not for him. I am not to put the new wine into old bottles, nor the old into new. This leads the Lord to bring out the entire newness of the conduct and principles that flow from Himself and from His grace. And all this was strongly opposed to the thoughts and prejudices of the scribes and Pharisees, who came in afterwards with their questions about fasts. Not that fasting is not a Christian duty (we already looked at this in chapter 6); but then, it must be on Christian principles, and not on Jewish ones.

Now we come to an incident of the deepest interest. A ruler of the synagogue sends for our Lord to heal his daughter, then comes and worships Him, saying, "My daughter is even now dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall live. And Jesus arose and followed him, and so did His disciples" (vers. 18, 19). That was exactly an illustration of the Lord's attitude towards Israel. He was there with life in Himself? Israel was like the maid that needed Him; she had no life in her: such was Israel's condition. But the Lord is at once roused, and goes at the call of the ruler. He owns the claim of faith, let it be ever so feeble. The centurion knew that a word would be enough; but this Jewish ruler, with the natural thought of a Jew, wants the Lord to come to his house and lay His hand upon his daughter that she might live. He connected the Lord's personal presence with the blessing that was to be conferred upon his sick child; whereas, we Gentiles walk by faith, and not by sight. We believe in and love one that we do not see. The Jews look for one whom they shall see; and they will have Him in this way. As Thomas, after eight days, was allowed to see the Lord, and bidden to thrust his hand into His side, and see in His hands the print of the nails, so will it be with Israel. "They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced." Whereas, we believe in Him on whom we have not looked. So that our position is a totally different one from that of Israel.

Now in this case the Lord hears the summons, and goes at once to raise up the dead daughter of the Jewish ruler. But while He is going, a woman touches Him. While the Lord's errand is to Israel — and so it was, and it only remains suspended — while He is on the way, whoever comes, whoever touches, gets the blessing. No unbelief of scribes, no self -righteousness of Pharisees, ever would or could hinder the Lord in His mission of love. He was about to bring in new principles which would not mix with the law — grace that would go out to all, and would meet the worst; which is plainly set forth by this woman who comes and touches Him. But first of all you have the pledge of the resurrection of Israel; for we have the warrant of the word of God for looking at the condition of Israel as one of death. Look, for instance, at Ezek. 37, where Israel is compared to dry bones. "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost. . . . Behold, O My people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves. . . . And ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land." So, I believe, in this miracle. It represents, not merely the conversion of dead sinners, but the raising of Israel as a nation. The Lord was refused by the people who had the deepest responsibility to receive Him; but most surely, as He raised up that young woman from the bed of death, so surely will He restore Israel in a day that is coming. But meanwhile, whoever comes gets the healing and the blessing. So it was with this poor woman. The Lord not only gives her the consciousness that she is healed, but lets her know that His affections were thoroughly with her. "Daughter" He says to her, "be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole." There was at once the word of assurance. The Lord puts His seal upon what her faith had done, though she had done it tremblingly.* Then, in due time, we have the raising up of the one who was dead, in whom it was not a question of faith, but of the power of God and of His faithfulness to His own promise.

*Let us note this open confession of Christ unto salvation. In Mark 5: 30-34 and Luke 8: 45-48 we see how the Lord draws out and urges the timid soul to an open confession of grace received through the touch of faith. Then follow the Lord's blessed words of assurance and of relationship: "Daughter, . . . go in peace," which her confession brings out, to her lasting joy and comfort. Ed.

After this (ver. 27) we find that two blind men follow Him: elsewhere only one of them is mentioned; but I believe that both are mentioned here for the same reason as we had the two demoniacs. They cry and say to Him, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on us." It is the confession of Christ as connected with Israel. They address Him as Son of David. The Lord asked them, "Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto Him, Yea, Lord. Then touched He their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. And their eyes were opened" (vers. 28-30). Then came the dumb man possessed with a devil: "And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake; and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel" (ver. 33). I believe that all this is brought together for the same purpose. The Lord was giving type after type, and pledge upon pledge, that Israel would not be forgotten, that Israel would be raised out of death: let them be ever so blind, they would see; ever so dumb, they would speak. Let the Pharisees and scribes be utterly unbelieving and blasphemous, and ready to turn away all from Christ — let it be so now; but death would give way, blindness would be removed, speech would be given to Israel, in a day that was coming. The very confession of the multitude was, that it had never been so seen in Israel.

Let me repeat that in thus applying these miracles of our Lord I am not at all denying the blessing of any part of these for a soul now. But this is no reason to prove that the Lord has not an ulterior view which we ought not to forget. "But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils" (ver. 34). What could be worse than this? Was it not in principle blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Such is the form which that sin took then. There was the power of the Holy Ghost which wrought in Christ and through Him; and they attributed this power to Satan. There could not be anything more determined than such hostility. They were not able to deny the righteousness of the man, nor the facts of superhuman energy; but they might attribute the power that was entirely above man, not to God, but to the adversary; and they did so. Their ruin was complete and final. What more terrible! Nothing could convince a man where all these evidences and appeals had been lavished upon him; and the end of it all was that, not the ignorant only, but the wise, the religious, the Pharisee priding himself in the law, the choicest part to man's eye of the chosen nation — even they said, "He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils."

Nothing more is needed. The Lord might send out a testimony through others; but as far as His own ministry was concerned, it was virtually at an end. He sends out the twelve immediately after; but it all comes to the same thing. The Lord is utterly rejected, as we see in Matthew 11. And then Matthew 12 gives the final pronouncing of the judgment on that generation. That sin of which they had been guilty would ripen into blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and could not be forgiven them, either in this age or in that to come. The consequence is that the Lord turns from the unbelieving race, and introduces the kingdom of heaven, in connection with which He gives us all the parables in Matthew 13. He takes the place of a sower, no longer. looking to gather fruit from Israel, and addresses Himself to the new work in this world that He was about to undertake — which He still carries on to the present moment, though now through the instrumentality of others. So that the beauty of all this arrangement of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be surpassed, though the other Gospels are, for their own objects, equally perfect. Each presents the facts of our Lord's history so as to give a distinct view of Christ's person or service, with the effects of its display; and we ought to understand them all.

May the Lord grant that the effect of looking at these things may be, not only that we may know the Scriptures, but Jesus better! This is what we have most of all to cultivate — that we may understand the ways of God, the wonderful ways of His love, all expressed in Jesus.

Matthew 10

At the close of the previous chapter our Lord, in looking upon the lost sheep of the house of Israel, speaks of them in deep pity as sheep without a shepherd. What the Pharisees really were had fully come out: not but what He knew it before; but the circumstances of their entire rejection of Himself, and their hatred, coming out more and more decidedly, brought up before His spirit the exposure of God's sheep. If their spirit was implacable against Him in whom there was no sin, who was God's own Son, the Shepherd of Israel, what must not be the sorrowful lot of those who had infirmities and failures which laid them open to the malice of those who cared not for them for God's sake, who would have the keenest and most suspicious eye for everything weak and foolish about them! Let us always remember the grace of the Lord, that even that which is humiliating in us draws out nothing but His compassion. I am not now speaking of sin, but of that which is infirm; for infirmities and sins are two different things. We do not want the Lord's sympathy with evil. The Lord has suffered and died for our sin. But we do want sympathy with us in our ignorance, weakness, trembling, liability to anxieties, cares, troubles: in all these things which make us suffer here we do want sympathy; and the Lord has it fully with us. This was also the case with Israel. Unconscious of their miserable condition, Jesus calls upon the disciples, in the love of His own heart, to pray the Lord of the harvest that He would send forth labourers into His harvest. It was His harvest, and His labourers alone could gather. But immediately after — and this is remarkable — He shows that He is the Lord of the harvest Himself; and He sends forth labourers The next chapter illustrates this, and beautifully evinces the scope of Matthew, who portrays Him as the One who should save His people from their sins — Emmanuel, God with us. Mark the circumstances. This takes place upon His rejection by Israel. His own ministry, full of grace as well as power, we have seen fully exhibited, and terminating in the utter indifference of Israel and the hatred of the religious leaders. Matthew 8 gives us the people, and Matthew 9 their guides, thus severally manifesting themselves.

Now chapter 10 shows that Jesus, as Lord of the harvest, sends forth labourers and this too with full authority and power given to them. But observe, it is still in special connection with Israel; and the Lord is conscious from the beginning of rejection by Israel. Meanwhile it is a Jewish mission of the twelve Jewish apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I take this quite literally, and not as if it were said of the Church, which is never spoken of as lost sheep; but the sheep of Israel in their desolate condition are most aptly so described. Before the Church is gathered, what we want is a Saviour. We Gentiles were not sheep at all, but dogs, in our Evangelist's point of view. (See Matt. 15) And after we have been brought into the Church, we are not, and cannot be, lost sheep. Whereas these poor of the flock are spoken of as lost sheep of the house of Israel. For up to this time the work was not done by which they could be put in the known position of salvation.

Again, when our Lord is sending them forth, it is said, "He called unto Him His twelve disciples, and gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease" (ver. 1). This was peculiarly their mission. Not a word is said about preaching what we call the gospel, or teaching the whole counsel of God; but they were to go with messianic power against Satan and bodily diseases, as a testimony to Israel. They were to declare the kingdom of heaven. "As ye go," said our Lord, "preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (ver. 7). But the great characteristic feature of the mission was the conferring upon them power against demons and diseases. The appropriateness of this, in connection with Israel, is manifest. It was a bright evidence that the true King, Jehovah, was there, who was able Himself not only to cast out devils, but to confer that power upon His servants. Who but the King, the Lord of hosts, could do this? It was a testimony much greater than if the power had been confined to His own person. The ability to impart power to others (which was what Simon Magus, hoping to profit by it, so earnestly coveted) God here shows to be in His own Son. Now the servants were to be sent out, and in due order — twelve of them, in relation to the twelve tribes of the house of Israel. We find afterward the promise that they should "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." There need be no question, therefore, that this was a Jewish mission. When the Church was called, God broke in upon the mere Jewish order by calling an extraordinary apostle, with a special view to the Gentiles — one who was called after Christ had died, and risen, and had taken His place at the right hand of God. Then came in this new work in the calling of the Church, and the apostle Paul became the characteristic minister of the Church, though the twelve had their place too. But at this time the twelve apostles were to be (what Paul was not) the ministers to Israel in testimony of the kingdom of heaven. For, observe, the strictest injunction was given them that they were not to go outside the limits of Israel; not even to visit the Samaritans, nor to enter into the cities of the Gentiles. Their business was solely with the lost sheep of the house of Israel: a positive proof that it means those of the Jews who had a sense of sin, and who were willing to receive the testimony of the true Messiah. With them, their business was exclusively. It is the more remarkable, because in this Gospel we are told that after He had died and was risen, the Lord sent them out to the Gentiles; but then it was on the evident ground that His death had come in. "I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me." Christ upon the cross becomes the attractive centre for man, as well as the foundation of all the counsels of God. Now in this case we have nothing of the sort. The Lord's death is not even referred to. His rejection is brought out, but nothing is said as to the building of a new structure — the Church. There was the waiting for still further rejection before this could be disclosed, as in Matthew 16.

But here the Lord Jesus sends forth the twelve, and commands them, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat" (vers. 5-10). That is, they were to go just as they were, with the coat they had upon them, with the shoes they had then on their feet. They were not to provide anything, or to lay up any store as a means of support during their mission. This is not a universal rule for the servants of God at all times. It was a peculiar mission, for a special time, and with reference to Israel only. It was not the gospel of God's grace, but of the kingdom. The two go together now; but then it was not so. Israel did not receive the testimony of the kingdom; an entire change comes in, and the kingdom of heaven, in outward establishment, remains in suspension. The calling of God now to the Gentiles comes in as a vast parenthesis between this message to the lost sheep in Israel and its full accomplishment in the last days. Whatever the Lord commands must be accomplished, but nothing is perfectly fulfilled till the Lord takes all in hand Himself.

Everything that is to be taken up by Christ in power and glory by and by is first committed to man. But man fails everywhere, Israel as a nation breaks down, the Church has become worldly and scattered. All will yet be to the praise of Christ Himself. Thus, no matter what you look at in the ways of God, there is, as a rule, first presenting it to man; it is made to rest upon him to see if he can bear the responsibility and the glory; and he cannot. But whatever man has failed in is destined to rest upon the shoulders of Christ in the day of glory, and all will then come to perfection, and will shine out in more than pristine brightness, and redound to His glory.

The twelve were sent out on this mission, and instructed to depend upon Christ alone. He would provide for them. They were to announce the kingdom of heaven; and He, the King, would undertake all charges. They were to go with the fullest confidence in Him. Now, although His servants are not to look to the world, or to use human means of acting upon saints, and although they may confidently look to God to provide for them, still they are not put in the same circumstances as these disciples. The difference is strongly marked. Take, for instance, such a command as this: "Into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence" (ver. 11). Is a man going out with the gospel now to ask who is worthy? He seeks the unworthy. But this was a mission to Israel; and Jehovah wanted the excellent in the earth, those whose hearts really desired the Messiah. "And when ye come into a house, salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you." This is not at all the way of the gospel now. On the contrary, it is peace with God that the servant of Christ is entitled to proclaim to His enemies. The direct bearing of the gospel is toward those who are in misery — the vile and forlorn; because the gospel is the fulness of God's grace to man who has nothing whatever to give to God. If they are but broken down, feel that they are utterly unfit for God, and that God has provided such a Saviour as His word declares, then we cannot trust Him too fully or too simply. The essence of the gospel is this: That God does not ask me to give, but to receive. This is the gospel of God — the gospel of His Son; but here, in Matthew, it is the gospel of the kingdom. You will constantly find this phrase in Matthew. This gospel goes out to those that are worthy. If the house were worthy, the messenger's peace comes upon it; and if not, it returns. ,,And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" — judgment would be upon them. "Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city" — just because they had the messengers of the kingdom coining to them with a gracious message, and they would not receive them.

From verse 16 the Lord warns them of the circumstances in which the gospel of the kingdom was to be preached. "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." That is, He calls for prudence, heavenly prudence. There was to be entire holiness in the object and character of the prudence, and free from any just charge of being injurious to men. "But beware of men" — do not suppose that, although you go forth with love in your hearts, you will not meet with wolves. The Jews are plainly intimated. "Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings." While hating the Gentile yoke, they would be quite willing to invoke Gentile authority where it became a question of Christ's followers. The Jews would drag them before the Gentile kings and governors, abhorred as they were. But our Lord adds this gracious word' 'for My sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles."

Thus God turns the weapons of the adversary against himself. "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath Thou wilt restrain." One cannot but feel that such a truth as this, though it has special application to apostles setting out on this mission, most surely remains for us. "But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." At the same time He prepares them for most heartless conduct toward them, even from relatives. The brother would know the habits of his brother, the father would know all about the child, and the child about the father: all this would be turned against the servants of Christ. "Ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved" (vers. 19-22). "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel," or, as the margin has it, "finished the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come" — a remarkable statement. It recalls the expression that I made use of before, the Church is a great parenthesis. The mission of the apostles was abruptly terminated by the death of Christ. They still carried it out afterwards for a while, but it was terminated completely by the destruction of Jerusalem: the whole thing was ended for the time being, but not for ever. The calling of the Church was then taken up; and when the Lord has taken the Church out of the world to heaven, God will again raise up witnesses to the Messiah upon earth, when the Jew shall be converted. God has declared that He would give His land to His people, and He will do so, for His gifts and calling are without repentance. God's faithfulness is involved in it, that the Jewish people must be restored to their own land when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. The calling of the fulness of the Gentiles is the parenthesis that is going on now. When this is over the Lord resumes His links with Israel. They will go back to the land in unbelief. The testimony of the kingdom, which was begun in the time of our Lord by the apostles, will again be taken up until the Son of Man will come. Then "He will send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire. . . . Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The Lord will accomplish fully in that day what was committed to man, and which broke down through man's weak or wicked hand. Then everything under the Branch of Israel shall be glorious. This, I conceive, is what goes along with the remarkable expression that they should not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man came. The whole period of the Lord's turning aside to call in the Gentiles is passed over in silence. He speaks of what was going out then, and of what will be resumed in Israel — passing over what is being done meanwhile.

In the latter part of the chapter the Lord gives sweet motives to encourage them. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord: if they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of His household?" (vers. 24, 25).

He was proving this now, and they would have to feel it in their turn. "Fear them not therefore." The first motive for not fearing is: I have traversed the same path; do not be afraid. "Fear them not . . . for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known." As much as to say: You will understand the reasons and motives of people's unbelief another day, if not now. Every one that knows the truth and does not follow it, must have a dislike to those who do. As it was with Me, so will it be with you: but do not be alarmed. Be full of good courage, and persevere in the testimony. "What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops" (ver. 27). He encourages them to the greatest openness and boldness. A second admonition not to fear is on another ground: And what harm can they do? They cannot touch the soul; nor can they even touch the body unless your heavenly Father allows it. "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." They cannot injure you, There is nothing which a believer has to dread, except grieving and sinning against God. Therefore He immediately adds, "Rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." A fearful thing is before God's enemies — the destruction of soul and body in hell!

"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not, therefore; ye are of more value than many sparrows" (vers. 29-31). The special, the minute care of our Father for His own children is drawn from this, that the very sparrow, though so despised and trivial a bird among men, yet cannot fall to the ground "without your Father." He might have said, Without God; but He said, Your Father — a father's love is concerned for his children.

From verse 32 to the end of the chapter, we have the importance of the confession of Christ, and the effects of it in this world. The first great principle is this: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven." We have had the Father's care; we have now the Son's confession by and by. The Father's care we know upon earth, whatever may be the trial. The Son's confession of us will be in heaven, when all the scene of trial is over.

Then He warns them that the result of their testimony may be very painful — households getting into confusion, members of a family at variance one with another. Be not surprised. "Think not," He says, "that I am come to send peace on earth." We know that the Lord can give us peace always by all means: but He is speaking here of the entrance of His testimony, through His disciples, into a world that hates Him. Inevitably, then, the two principles come into collision. It is not that He desires confusion, but it is the natural effect of the knowledge of Christ entering a house where some of its members reject Him.

As it is in the world, so in the house. There are those that believe and those that believe not. "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." Dream not that everything is going to be triumphant. The day is coming when the Lord will cause peace to flow as a river; but such is not the effect of His first coming. It is the badge of war now, because of the opposition which unbelief always creates against the truth. "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." The Lord boldly meets the case. I am come to bring in My principle, and it sets child against parent. Now this becomes one of our severest trials — the effect that the testimony of God has upon families. People speak of households being broken up and kindred disunited. The Lord already uses the same words and strengthens us for it. "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it" (vers. 37-39). He shows that His coming would bring the opposite to a path of ease in this world. Yea, we must make up our minds to suffer trial, rejection and scorn. But then He adds the other side: "He that receiveth you receiveth Me; and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me." There would be those that would receive, as well as those that would reject. "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet" (that is, as a prophet), if he knew he was a servant of God, and received him as such, in the face of shame and scorn, he should have the same reward as a prophet himself. "And he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man" — other people might call him unrighteous, but he receives him, not as a mere man or friend, but as righteous, and he "shall receive a righteous man's reward." He proves that his own heart is right with God. We show our real state of soul by the opinion we pronounce. Supposing I speak or act unwarrantably against a good man doing his duty, I show that I am not with God in that particular thing. On the other hand, if I have faith to discern what is of God, and to take my part with him in the face of general desertion, happy am I indeed. God alone enables a man to do so. We show where our hearts are by our judgments of and conduct toward others.

"And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward" (ver. 42). It would be the evidence that the Spirit was at work in his soul — his heart drawn out in mercy to, and sympathy with, those who are of God in this world. He should in nowise lose his reward. It is the outward conduct springing from the inward principle. In all these cases it is clearly the Jewish mission of these disciples. I believe we thus get the true character of the chapter and the place it occupies in this Gospel.

The point of view in this whole chapter is, the Lord, as Lord of the harvest, not only bidding them to pray that labourers be sent into the harvest (Matt. 9: 38), but Himself anticipating the prayer. "Before they call, I will answer;" and the Lord is acting in the very spirit of that which will be fully true in the last days. He is Himself sending forth the labourers.

In Luke 22: 35, referring to this very mission, the Lord asks, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing." Then the Lord tells them now to provide themselves with purse, and scrip, and sword: the very things which they were not to do before, they were to do from that time. The Lord abrogates what He had before enjoined, as far as the special circumstances were concerned. His goodness and love to them, and their walking in wisdom and harmlessness, would abide; but the peculiar character of this mission terminated at the death of Christ. It will, I conceive, be taken up again by others at a future day: but the disciples actually sent out were soon to be called to a new work, founded upon redemption and the resurrection of our Lord.

Matthew 11

The chapter at which we are arrived is full of interest and importance, especially as it is a kind of transition. What gives occasion for the Spirit of God to bring out this transition from the testimony to Israel to the new order of things which the Lord was about to introduce, is that John the Baptist, in prison because of his own rejection, is found in exercise as to personal faith and patience. While fulfilling his prophetic office, none could be more unwavering than John in his testimony to Christ. But there may be moments when faith is put thoroughly to the proof, and when the strongest may know what it is to be "cast down, though not destroyed."

Certainly this was the case with John the Baptist. It was not merely his disciples that were stumbled by his being in prison. Infidels ask now, If Scripture be truth, how is it that people do not receive it? Why is it not more widely spread? etc.

We know that at first tens of thousands confessed and followed the name of Jesus in one city alone;. and the moral weight was great, for they walked in superiority to the world. We know, too, how far and wide the power of Christianity has spread: still, the great difficulty comes up again, and we find that what works in the mind of a sceptic may be found more or less disquieting the believer, because fallen nature is in the believer still; and what Scripture calls "the flesh" is always an unbelieving thing. Hence it came to pass that, blessed as John the Baptist was, yet he sent his disciples with the query, "Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" Questions seem to have passed through his mind, and a confirmation of faith was wanted. Even a prophet is not beyond Satan's assault. And here we have this favoured and otherwise faithful man putting such a question, the very last that we might have expected. Instead of answering with the confidence of faith the question of his disciples, if it was such, John sends some of them to Jesus, saying, "Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" The Lord replies, "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see . . . and blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me" (vers. 4, 6).

Our Lord's answer evinces that it was not John's disciples merely, but himself also that was shaken. These are the two parts of Christ's ministry — His words and His works, "Those things which ye do hear and see;" the word always having the higher place; the works being what would appeal rather to the senses; whereas the word of Christ is that which deals with the heart and conscience by the Spirit. They were to go and tell John what they heard and saw; and therein we have what the Old Testament had predicted as signs and effects of the Messiah's power. We have not, I believe, one case of curing the blind before Christ came. It was a miracle which, according to Jewish tradition, was reserved for the Son of David. He it was who. according to Isaiah 35, was to open the eyes of the blind. The Lord puts the blind receiving their sight as the first outward miracle to indicate that He was really the Christ that was to come; and last, but not least weighty, is "the poor have the gospel preached to them." What is it but a testimony of the exceeding tender mercy of God that, while the gospel is intended for all, it is especially adapted to those that know misery, trial, contempt in a selfish world? The Lord adds, "Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in Me." What a word of warning. A man sent from God for a witness, that all might believe in Christ; and when this very man is put thoroughly to the test, the Lord has to bear witness to him, instead of his bearing witness to the Lord. How constantly do we see man breaking down when tested; but what a blessed thing that we have such a God to go to, if He be only counted on.

But when these messengers departed, the Lord shows His tender compassion and regard for him, and begins to vindicate the same John who had shown his feebleness under suffering and protracted hope. He asks them, "What went ye out into the wilderness to see?" A superficial judgment might have concluded it was but "a reed shaken with the wind" when John sent disciples with his question. But no, the Lord will not allow it. He maintains the honour and integrity of John. He has sent a little rebuke to John privately by his disciples; but before the multitudes He clothes him with honour "But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?" It is in courts that you look for the grandeur of the world. "Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet," because John had a peculiar place and honour that no prophet had assigned to him — to be the immediate forerunner of the Lord, the herald of the Messiah Himself. John not only was a prophet, but the prophets prophesied of John; and the Lord says of him, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist. "

But mark this word, a striking one, in this transitional chapter, "Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he" (ver. 11). What is the meaning? In saying, "Among those born of women there had not risen a greater than John the Baptist," the Lord is excepted. He is speaking of John, not as compared with Himself, but with others. He was the greatest born of women; "Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." It means clearly that there was a new order of things commencing, in which the privileges that God's sovereign grace would confer would be so great, that the least in the dispensation about to open would be greater than the greatest in all the past. Of course this is not as to anything in themselves; the faith of a weak believer now is not greater than a man's mighty faith in times past; nor is some poor soul, anxious and troubled about his acceptance, in a healthier state than those who could rejoice like Simeon in God their Saviour. Yet the Lord does say that the greatest of those gone by is less than the least now.

"The kingdom of heaven" never means heaven: they are different ideas as well as expressions. "The kingdom of heaven" always means that which, while it has its source in heaven, has its sphere upon earth. It may be applied, as it often is, to what is going on now; or, as sometimes, to what will go on when the Lord comes in glory, and brings His rule in a manifested form to bear upon the earth. But the kingdom of heaven always supposes the earth as the scene upon which the privileges of heaven are made known.

The Lord Jesus sees Himself rejected; but God, in His sovereign way and grace turns the rejection of Jesus to the introduction of far greater blessing than if Jesus had been received. Supposing the Lord had been accepted by man when He came, He would have blessed man and kept him alive upon the earth: He would have bound the devil, and brought in countless mercies for the creature in general. Still, what would have been all that without the vindication of God in the matter of sin? Neither moral glory nor supreme love would have been shown as they now are. For what could it be more than divine energy barring out the power of Satan?

But the death of Christ is, at once, the depth of man's wickedness and the height of God's goodness; for in the Cross the one proved his utter hatred and iniquity, the other His perfect holy love. It was man's unrighteousness that put Him there — it was God's grace that brought Him there; and Christ risen from the dead takes His place as the beginning, the Head of a new creation, and displays it in His own person now to faith in them that believe; puts them in this place of blessing while they are still in this world struggling with the devil; sheds the joy of redemption into their hearts, and fills them with the certainty that they are born of God — their sins being all forgiven — and they are only waiting for Him to come and crown the work of His love, when they shall be raised from the dead and changed into His glory. It is true to faith now, and will be true to sight by and by; but it is true always from the time it was introduced. It began with Christ's ascension into heaven, and it will terminate by Christ's descent from heaven, when He will bring in this power of the kingdom over the earth. What, then, has the least believer got now? Look at saints of old. John the Baptist was resting upon promises. Even he, blessed as he was, could not say, My sins are blotted out, mine iniquities are all gone. Before the death and resurrection of Christ, saints could with joy look forward and say, It will be blessed indeed! They might be sure that it was God's intention; but it was not an accomplished thing. And, after all, if you were in prison, you would know the difference between a promise to bring you out and the fact of your liberty when fairly out. This is just the difference. The atoning work is done, and the consequence is, that all who believe are now entitled to say, Sin is no longer upon me in the presence of of God. And this is not true of some Christians in particular, but every Christian should take the place that God gives him in Christ. And what would be the effect of this? Christians would not walk with the world in the way they do.

What I find, then, in the word of God is this: there was a new dispensation about to open, in which the very least is invested with privileges that the greatest could not possess before. And this, because God sets infinite value upon the death of His Son. God puts the greatest possible honour upon the death of Christ.

As an earthly sovereign puts particular honour upon an epoch of special joy to himself, still more faith may expect that God should attach peculiar glory to that work of Christ by which redemption has been accomplished, through the death and resurrection of His Son.

Now, everything is done, and God can invite souls — not to forget their sins, or turn away their eyes from them; but looking at them fairly and fully before the cross of Christ — He calls upon them to say, "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." Knowing this, we must see how entirely evil is the place of a priest now — one man put in a position to draw near to God for others. Every Christian is a priest now. All Christians are not ministers. This is another thing. Ministry and priesthood, though so often confounded, are entirely distinct and different. It is a God-given privilege now, that every believer is a priest of God: that is, he is entitled to draw near into the holiest of all, sin judged, all his iniquities purged away, so that he may be thoroughly happy in the presence of God while he is upon earth. All this is only a part of the privileges of the least in the kingdom of heaven now. And remember this, all the grand prerogatives of Christianity are common privileges. One man may preach, and another may not; but this says nothing about the privileges of the kingdom. Paul, as a servant of God, had something which others had not: a gifted person might preach even without divine life in the soul. Caiaphas might testify, and Balaam too, and both utter true things; and Paul is willing to take such a place, to show that one might preach to others, and yet, if regardless of holiness, be himself a castaway. But this has nothing to do with the blessings I have been speaking of as the portion of believers now.

The privileges of the kingdom are now the universal heritage of the family of faith; the least of them is greater even than John the Baptist. Great misunderstanding has been shown as to the meaning of this verse. It has been taught that the least in the kingdom of heaven is Jesus Himself! — Jesus, of course, in His humiliation, in His going to the cross. But what misapprehension of the mind of God is there manifested by such a remark. For the kingdom of heaven was not yet come. It was. preached, but not yet actually set up. And Jesus, far from being "the least" in that kingdom, was Himself the King; so that it would be derogatory to His person to call Him even the greatest, not to speak of "the least" in the kingdom. It would be want of reverence, as well as of intelligence, to say that He was in the kingdom at all. It would be more true to say that the kingdom was in Him, both morally, and in divine power.

"If I," says He to the Jews, "cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." It was arrived in His person: He being the King, and having the power thereof. But if you look at "the kingdom of heaven" as a state of things introduced into this world, Christ had to go up to heaven first — a rejected King, no doubt, but still as such to sit on the right hand of God — and thereon the kingdom of heaven commenced. The kingdom was not actually established till Jesus went up on high. Then it began, first spiritually, as by and by it will shine in power and glory. Hence it is clear that in this chapter we stand upon the confines of the past dispensation, and of the one that was about to open. John the Baptist is on the scene as the last and greatest witness of that which was closing. Elijah was to come; this might have been fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. John was doing the moral work that was associated with Elijah's mission — preparing the way for the Lord. I do not say that Elijah may not come another day, but John was the then witness of Elijah's service. He was come "in the spirit and power of Elias:" and, as our Lord says a little after, "If ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Such he was to faith. Like the kingdom of heaven now, it is a testimony to the future kingdom when displayed in power and glory. John was to faith then what Elias will be by and by. The kingdom of heaven is to faith now what the kingdom of heaven will be to sight hereafter. The Lord intimates that a dispensation of faith is coming in, when the promises were not to be accomplished in the letter.

But just as John the Baptist was cast into prison (a tremendous trial for a Jew who looked at him as a great prophet to usher in the Messiah in visible majesty), so He says here, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." It has to be received by the attentive ear of faith. How extraordinary it must have appeared to the disciples that the forerunner of the Messiah should be in prison, and the Messiah Himself afterwards nailed upon the cross! But before the outward glory comes, redemption through suffering must be effected. Hence, the least now who has this blessing of faith, who enjoys these astonishing privileges which the Holy Ghost is bringing out as the gift of God's sovereign grace, is greater than John the Baptist. For it is God's doing and giving and ordering. It is His joy by Christ to bless the man that has not the smallest claim upon Him. And such is His work now. But what would be the effect of this among the Jews? Our Lord compares them to capricious people who would neither do one thing nor another. If gladness is going on, they have no sympathy with it; neither have they with sorrow. John the Baptist called them to mourn: they had no heart for it. Then came Jesus, bidding them, as it were, to rejoice at the glad tidings of great joy: but they heeded Him not. They liked neither: John was too strict, and the Lord too gracious. They could not bear either. The truth is, man dislikes God; and there is no greater proof of his ignorance of himself than that he does not believe it. Whatever they might plead in the way of abuse of John the Baptist, or of Himself, "Wisdom is justified of her children."

Accordingly the Lord shows how wisdom was justified, positively and negatively. "He began to upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! . . . And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works," etc. (vers. 20-24). What more solemn! They refuse the voice of heavenly wisdom; and the result must be in judgment more unsparing than that which had of old made Sodom the monument of God's vengeance. Was there one place or city in the land more favoured than another? It was Capernaum, where most of His miracles were wrought: and yet this very city should be brought down to hell. Even the notoriously depraved Sodom had not come under so fearful a sentence. The Lord only visits in judgment when means and calls for repentance are exhausted; but when He does judge, who shall be able to stand? Thus should wisdom be justified, may I say, by those that are not her children.

But then we have the positive part. "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." From the pronounced "woe," Jesus could turn round and say, "I thank Thee, O Father." Not that the events recorded here took place together. The whole scene about John the Baptist occurred long before the Lord alluded to the wise and prudent rejecting Him, and the babes receiving Him. The Gospel of Luke occasionally gives precise marks of time, and shows that the Lord's reception of John's messengers was at an early period of His ministry, very shortly after the healing of the centurion's servant; whereas His thanking the Father was after the return of the seventy disciples who were sent out on the final testimony, which is not mentioned in Matthew at all. The Holy Ghost in our Gospel puts aside, in general, mere successions of time, and welds together separated events to illustrate the great truth that it was His object here to bring out, viz., the true Messiah, presented with adequate proofs to Israel, but rejected; and this turned, of God's grace, to be the occasion of better blessings than if the Lord had been received.

And while the solemn sight of man's growing rejection is before us, Jesus says, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth" (hopes not limited to the earth now, but God looked to as Lord of heaven and earth — sovereign over all things), "because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things are delivered unto Me of My Father." The throne of Israel may be refused Him; the Jews may reject, the leaders despise Him: all this may be, but what is the result? Not merely what was promised to David or Solomon, but "All things are delivered unto Me of My Father." Where were such thoughts as these divulged before? In the Psalms, in the Prophets, or where do you get anything like them? The rejected Messiah is refused by man: He submits to it. They strip Him of His robes of Messianic glory, and what comes out? He is the Son of the Father, the Son of God from all eternity, the blessed divine Person who could look up and say, "Father." Refuse Him in His earthly dignity, and He only shines in His heavenly one; despise Him as a man, and He is manifestly God.

"And no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him" (ver. 27). He is revealing the Father now. It is not merely that He is come to accomplish the promises of God, but He is revealing the Father — bringing souls into a deeper knowledge of God than was possible before. "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." It is perfect grace: no restriction; no setting the Jew in the foremost seat of honour. But "Come unto Me, all ye that labour" — Jew or Gentile, it matters not. Are you miserable? Can you find no comfort? "Come unto Me, all ye that labour and I will give you rest." It is without condition or qualification if the needy but go to Him. In John we have,,, All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh unto Me I will in no wise cast out." This is the proof of the Father's drawing — that I go to Jesus. It is the Son of the Father, in John; for grace is always found most full and free where the Son is brought out in all His glory.

"Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light" (vers. 29, 30). Grace does not leave men to do as they list, but enables the heart that receives it to desire the will of God. So, after saying, "I will give you rest," our Lord adds, "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls." Mark the difference. In verse 2 8 it is, "Come unto Me. . . . and I will give you rest" — it is pure grace to the soul in need, with nothing but its sins to bring; but in saying, "Take My yoke upon you. . . . and ye shall find rest to your souls," He speaks of subjection to Him, and the effect is finding rest to our souls. When the sinner goes in his wretchedness to Jesus, the Saviour gives him rest — "without money and without price." But if that soul does not follow on in the ways of Christ, he becomes miserable, and loses the comfort he had at first. Why? He has not taken Christ's yoke upon him. The terms on which the Lord gives rest to the sinner are, "Come unto Me," just as you are. The terms on which the believer finds rest are, "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart." The Lord keeps His moral government over His people, and they are more disturbed than any, if not subject to Christ; they can neither enjoy Him nor the world. If I have found such a Saviour, and yet am not bearing His yoke, God does not intend that I should be happy. All else is a false happiness.

Matthew 12

Matthew 12 completes the picture of the transition begun in chapter 11, and shows that, before God, the crisis was come. The Lord might continue to become the object of still deeper rejection, but the spirit that crucified Him had already manifested itself clearly. In the centre of this chapter we have the warning of the unpardonable sin, not merely against the Messiah, but against the Holy Ghost bearing His testimony to the Messiah; and, further, the fact that Israel as a nation would be guilty of that sin, and hence be given up to the power of Satan beyond example in all their sad history. So that the evil for which God had allowed them to be carried captive to Babylon was little in comparison with the iniquity of which they were now, in spirit, guilty, and into which they were about to sink. This brings the crisis closing the announcement of the kingdom to Israel; and chapter 13 introduces a new thing — the kingdom of heaven about to begin in its present mysterious form, because of the rejection of the Messiah.

I must now proceed to show how far all the incidents in this chapter are in harmony with the leading thought — the break between Christ and Israel. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not here confine Himself to the mere order of time in which the events took place. "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath-day through the corn, and His disciples were hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat" (ver. 1). We are not to suppose that "at that time" means "at that exact moment." It is a general term, embracing connected events, though there might be months between them. It is not like "immediately," or "forthwith," or "the week after," etc. What did intervene we must gather from the other Gospels. In Mark we find that the scene of the corn-fields took place early in our Lord's ministry. Thus, in chapter 2, on the sabbath-day following the call of Levi and the discourse about fasting, we are told that "He went through the corn-fields," Here we have this incident taken completely out of its historical connection. Mark adheres to the order of events: Matthew departs from it in order to give the great change consequent on the Messiah's rejection by Israel. Our Lord's word of woe upon Chorazin and Bethsaida, and the blessedness of those who received Him, was spoken by no means early. Here they are put together, because the object of the Holy Ghost in Matthew is to show this change.. Hence, what would prove the change is selected and reserved for this place.

In short, the Holy Ghost is giving us an historical picture apart from the mere date in which the events took place; and the events and discourses that illustrate the great transition are all grouped together. The disciples passed through the corn, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat, according to the liberty allowed them in the law. ,,When the Pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath-day." Our Lord then cites two incidents: one of them a constantly-recurring fact among the priests; the other recorded of their most conspicuous king, David; both proving the sin and the utter ruin of Israel. What was the state of things when David was obliged to use the showbread? Was it not because the true king was a despised, persecuted man — because the king of their own hearts' choice was there? It was the same thing now. The sin . of Israel profaned the holy bread. God would not accept aught as holy from people that were living in sin. No ceremonial is worth a straw if the heart does not honour Christ. Why were the disciples reduced to pluck and eat the ears of corn? Why were the followers ,of the true King reduced to hunger?

Besides, "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath-days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?" (ver. 5). The priests did a very important work upon that day. They offered sacrifices then, because there was sin; and the people's sin demands what, according to the letter of the law, would seem to a Pharisee to be a breach of it. It does not matter what the law may ordinarily claim, if there is sin on the part of God's people, sacrifice cannot be deferred. Thus, whether you take the particular instance of the Lord's anointed in Saul's day, or the constant priestly service on the sabbath-day, one thing ,accounted for all disorder, whether real or apparent — Israel were sinners. They had allowed the chosen of the Lord to be hunted upon the mountains when he was there; and a greater than David was here. And so as to the priests and their work. One infinitely greater than the temple was there — Messiah Himself: and what was not their indifference, nay, their enmity, towards Him?

Another sabbath-day was necessary to complete the sketch. And now Jesus does work Himself; and these two things are brought together here. "When He was departed thence, He went into their synagogue; and behold, there was a man which had his hand withered; and they asked Him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath-days? that they might accuse Him." The Lord accepted the challenge. "He said unto them, What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out?" Of course they would deliver the poor sheep out of the pit, because it was their own sheep. They had no conscience about doing what was to their own advantage because it was the sabbath-day. And the Lord does not blame them; but He presses this most pungent conclusion upon them — "How much, then, is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath-days." In a word, He shows by this second case, that not only was Israel a guilty people respecting the true Beloved, but that, if they knew their own condition, would own themselves to be like the man with the withered hand, in need of His mighty power. He was there in grace to accomplish all necessary healing. The Lord pressed upon them their dismal condition. The whole nation before God was morally as withered as that man's hand physically; but not willing, alas, to be healed like him. "Then saith He to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth, and it was restored whole as the other" (ver. 13). Why is this recorded here as having occurred on the sabbath-day — especially in connection with the incident of the corn-field? In the first, the Lord proves Israel's guilt in contrast with the sanctity of the sabbath; and in the second, He declares Himself thereto work restoration even on the sabbath. It is an account of all importance, because the Lord is, as it were, tearing in pieces the outward letter of the bond between Him and Israel, of which the sabbath-day was a special sign.

I may here observe, the Lord's day differs essentially from the sabbath; and in the early Church there was scrupulous care taken not to confound the two things. The sabbath and the Lord's day are signs of wholly distinct truths. The first owed its origin to God hallowing His rest when creation was done; and it was the token that, when God would finish His works, there would be a holy rest for man. Then sin came in, and all was ruined. We do not hear a word about it (at least, directly), till a people is called out from among all others to serve the true God, as His chosen nation. We have seen, in the Old Testament as well as the New, how utterly they failed; and now the only hope of having a true sabbath is when Christ Himself shall bring it in. When Adam sinned, death passed upon all, and the creation-rest was broken. Then (after the type of Christ in the manna, with the sabbath following), came in the law, which took up the sabbath, incorporated it in the ten words and the statutes of Israel, and made it not only a hallowed day, but a day of command, which was enjoined upon them like the other nine words; a day in which every Israelite was bound, not only to abstain from work himself, but to give rest to everything that was his. It was not a question of a spiritual people. All Israel were bound by it, and they shared its rest along with their cattle. The Lord's day, on the other hand, never was heard of till Christ rose from the dead. Thence issued an entirely new order of things. Christ, the beginning, the Head of a new creation, rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Thus, while the old world goes on, sin still at work, and Satan not yet bound, God has wrought salvation, which He is giving to every soul that believes. These recognize that Christ risen is their Saviour, and that they consequently have new life in Him. This, and much more than this, they come together to acknowledge on the Lord's day. They "show the Lord's death till He come." Nothing can be plainer in Scripture, if our desire is to know and follow the word of God. It was no longer a question of whether people were Jews or Gentiles. Were they Christians? Had they Christ as their life and Lord? If they thankfully confessed Him, the Lord's day was the day for them. Such of the Christians as had been Jews continued to frequent the synagogue on the sabbath. But this only shows the more plainly that it was not a mere change of day. To the Roman saints the apostle insists that the man who regarded the day, to the Lord he regarded it; and that the man who regarded it not, to the Lord he did not regard it. Was this the Lord's day? No, but Jewish days and fasts. The apostle would never treat the Lord's day as optionally to be regarded or not. Some of these believers saw that they were delivered from the law, and did not observe the Jewish feasts or fasts. The Gentiles, of course, were not under the law at all. But some, at any rate, of the Jewish believers, still had a conscience about the ancient holydays, and of them the apostle speaks. The Lord's day never was and never will be a Jewish day. It has its own proper character stamped upon it; and Christians, though not under the law as Jews with the sabbath, are yet by grace called on far more solemnly to use it for the Lord, as that which summons them to meet together in the name of Jesus, in separation from this world, conscious of redemption and justification through His death and resurrection. It is the type of the blessing that the Christian has got, yet to be manifested in glory. The world always confounds it, as do many Christians, with the sabbath. One hears sometimes real believers, but uninstructed, talk of the "Christian sabbath." This is, of course, because they do not see their deliverance from the law, and the consequences which flow from their belonging to Him who is risen from the dead. The apostle develops these blessed truths.

Our Lord merely deals with the Jews here. His disciples were not hindered from plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath, as on another He openly wrought a miracle in the presence of all (thus giving occasion for the Pharisees who sought one against Him). It is true that the works were works of mercy and goodness; but there was no necessity for either, had there not been a purpose. He could have spoken without doing a single thing. So with the blind man in the Gospel of John. All the clay in the world could not have cured him, but for the power of our Lord. His word would have been enough; but He does something Himself, and makes the man do something else upon the sabbath. We are told expressly, "It was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes." The Lord was breaking the seal of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel. The sabbath scaled that bond, and was in Israel now worse than useless in God's sight, because the people who pretended to keep the sabbath so carefully, were the bitterest enemies of His Son. It was utterly false to subject Him to the Sabbath. The Son of Man was "Lord even of the sabbath day." He takes that ground boldly, as we are here told (ver. 8), and the following sabbath performs this miracle. The Pharisees felt that it was a death-blow to their whole system, and they, gathering together, "held a council against Him how they might destroy Him." This was the first conclave for the purpose of putting Him to death. Jesus, knowing it, withdraws Himself from thence, "and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all" — a picture of what He would do when Israel put Him to death. Thenceforth, the great work was to be among the Gentiles. The prophet Isaiah is quoted in connection with this occurrence, to show what our Lord's character was: "Behold My Servant, whom I have chosen; My Beloved, in whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles: He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall any man hear His voice in the streets; a bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His name shall the Gentiles trust."

The Lord was departing from Israel; but this is not all. There is a final testimony before He pronounces sentence upon Israel: "Then was brought unto Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and He healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." This was the condition in which Israel was about to be, without an eye or a voice for Jesus; the apt figure of the nation's condition, the Messiah unseen and His praise unuttered in their midst. And here is the solemn thing. The poor, the ignorant, all the people might cry, "Is not this the Son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?" — He condescends to reason with them. "And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (vers. 27, 28). But they were dumb and blind. The man that submitted to Jesus was healed; but the Pharisees were consulting to slay the Son of David. The Lord answers them yet more. He tells them that now it was come to a point. "He that is not with Me is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad." All depended upon being and acting with Him; wherefore our Lord adds, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men" (ver. 31). The reason of it was this: not only the Son of Man was working these miracles, but the power of the Holy Ghost was there too. Although Jesus might submit to humiliation, He could not but assert the glory of God. The Holy Spirit was putting forth these mighty deeds, and the unbelief that refused the testimony of the Spirit when Jesus was there, would be even stronger against it on His departure. They would prove themselves to be like their fathers: "Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." And what the consequence? They would be guilty of the unpardonable sin, of rejecting (not only Jesus Himself, as a man presented here, but) the power of the Holy Ghost, whether working in Him then, or now by Him and for Him.

It is the final rejection of the Spirit's testimony to Christ. It was true when the Lord was here, but is still more complete now that He is in heaven. They refused Christ on earth, and after He went up to heaven, when, through the power of the Holy Ghost, His name alone caused the dead to rise, and thus proved even more His glory than what He had done personally when here below. Those who resisted such testimony as this were evidently hopelessly lost in unbelief and scorn of God in the person of His Son. Therefore our Lord pronounces this blasphemy to be such as nothing can meet. It is not ignorance which thus rejects Christ. A man may be without light; and when it comes, he may, through grace, be enabled to receive Him. But he who refuses all divine testimony, and makes the displayed power of the Holy Ghost the occasion of showing his spite against Jesus, is evidently lost for ever: he bears the unmistakable stamp of perdition upon his brow. This was exactly the sin into which Israel were fast falling. The Holy Ghost might be sent down, and work even greater acts of power than the Lord Himself had done; it made no change in their heart. The blaspheming unbelieving race of Israel should be forgiven neither in this "age," nor in that which is to come. I am not particular about the word "dispensation" — which means a certain course of time, ruled by particular principles; but the point is, that neither in this age (αἰῶν) nor in that which is to come, could this sin be forgiven. The age to come is that wherein the children of Israel are to be under the Messiah's rule; as now, and since the Babylonish captivity, they have been under the rule of the Gentiles. This sin should be forgiven neither now nor then. As to all other iniquity, there was still a hope that what was not forgiven now might be when the Messiah came. Granted that there is unlimited forgiveness for every soul that receives Him; but they refused Him: they attributed the Spirit's power working in His person to Beelzebub; and that blasphemy would never be forgiven. Such was the growing danger of Israel. Rejecting the Messiah thus, they are doomed. It was rejecting the Holy Ghost's testimony; and a new work of God must then be brought in.

Hence the Lord pronounces them a generation of vipers. "The tree is known by his fruit." It. was a bad tree, and no good fruit would He expect from it. "O generation of vipers," He adds, "how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word (that is, I suppose, everything betraying contempt for God) that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (vers. 34-37). What God insists upon is testimony to Jesus. These idle words betray the heart's rejection of Jesus, and slight the Holy Ghost's testimony to Him. "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." It is with the mouth that confession is made unto salvation; and the words that leave out Jesus prove that the heart prefers its sin to Him. The words of the mouth evidence the state of the heart. They are the outward expression of the feelings, and they show a man in one way as much as his conduct does in another. If the heart is evil, the words are evil, the conduct is evil: all therefore comes into judgment.

After this the Pharisees ask a sign, and the Lord gives them a most significant one: but, before that, He pronounces His moral sentence on the nation: "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas" (ver. 39). What was the special feature of Jonah as a prophet? To whom did he prophesy? He was sent away from Israel to the Gentiles; and, more than that, before Jonah performed his message aright, he must pass through the figure of death and resurrection. So obstinate was he in not going where he was bidden, that the Lord took care Jonah should be pitched out of the ship; and then He dealt with him as a dead man, and wrought a great work in his soul. Jonah having passed through this most remarkable type of death and resurrection was now ready for the message that the Lord gives him. This is the sign which the Lord puts before the Pharisees. Such was the state of the Jewish nation that He must leave them and go to the Gentiles; and that too after death and resurrection in reality, when Israel's hopes had perished. The Lord has blessing in store for Israel by and by; but for the present all is lost for them. They had rejected their Lord. God was going now to occupy Himself with the Gentiles. Hence it is that the instances used to confirm this are, first, the case of the men of Nineveh, who repented at the preaching of Jonah; "and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." Then the queen of Sheba, also a Gentile, who did not merely repent because of sin, but showed an energy of faith, I may say, worthy of all note, without even a message sent to her. Such was the ardour of her heart, and her desire after wisdom, that, hearing of Solomon, she hastened in order to hear it from his own lips. What a rebuke for Israel! "A greater than Solomon is here"; and wisdom as much beyond Solomon's as the person of Jesus was above that of Solomon. But they were an evil and adulterous generation. They knew not that their Maker was their husband; they despised Him; and, adds our Lord, "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it." But now He proclaims what will be their final condition. The link of Israel to Himself was broken; and for this blasphemous contempt of the Spirit's testimony to Jesus as the Son of Man they should be judged.

This is what the Lord now shows. "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none" (ver. 43). Every student of Scripture will acknowledge that the unclean spirit means idolatry, and its worship connects with demons, instead of God. Are we to suppose that our Lord suddenly breaks off from what He had been saying of the nation to treat of mere individuals? Clearly it is about Israel. As a nation Israel never fell into idolatry after the return from Babylon, as before. Not that they were better men; but the unclean spirit of idolatry was no longer their special temptation. There were new ways in which the devil tempted them to sin, if not after the old sort. The house had been swept and garnished. Such it was when our Lord was here below. Israel had laid aside their idolatrous habits; they went to the synagogue every sabbath day; and they were zealous enough to compass sea and land to make a proselyte. The house was apparently clean, and nothing outwardly to shock the eye if you looked at it. But the unclean spirit is to go back. "Then goeth he and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." The unclean spirit is to return, with the full power of Satan — "seven spirits more wicked than himself." More wicked than idolatry! The figure of a man is used to illustrate the state of Israel, as the words that follow plainly show: "Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." And when is that to be? It is their last state, yet to be. The empty, swept and garnished state existing then may be still going on. Humanly speaking, they may be moral. They may not abandon the books of Moses, but take their stand as worshipping none but the true God. This will go on for a certain time, but not forever; for we know from Scripture that God has kept that nation for special purposes, first in judgment, and then in mercy. He will convert them, and make them a holy, as they are the lineal, seed of Abraham. Israel is yet to show the last results of Satan's power over their souls before God converts a remnant, and makes it a strong, a saved nation.

But meanwhile, what was He going to do? Was He merely pronouncing judgment on Israel? Far from it. While He yet was speaking to the people one came and told Him, "Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Thee" (ver. 47). The Lord immediately takes this opportunity to show that He no longer acknowledged mere relationships according to the flesh. He had special relationship with Israel, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came." He owns it no longer. They would not have Him, and will become the tenement for the devil in all his power — their last state to be worse than their first. But, says the Lord, I am going to have a new thing now — a people according to My own heart. And so He stretches forth His hand toward His disciples, and says, "Behold My mother and My brethren." His only true relations were those who received the word of God, and did it. "Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother" — He renounced all earthly connection) for the present time. The only tie He acknowledges now is relationship to a heavenly Father, formed through the word of God received into the soul.

Thus we have in this chapter the Lord closing with Israel, as far as testimony is concerned. In the next chapter we shall find what comes dispensationally of those new relations that the Lord was about to unfold.

Matthew 13 - 28.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew.

Matthew 13

At the close of the previous chapter our Lord disowned all the natural ties which bound Him to Israel. I speak now simply of His bringing it out as a matter of teaching; for we know that, historically, the moment for finally breaking with them was the cross. But ministerially, if we may so say, the break occurred and was indicated now. He took advantage of an allusion to his mother and brethren to say who His real kindred were — no longer those who were connected with Him after the flesh: the only family He could own now were such as did the will of His Father in heaven. He recognizes nothing but the tie formed by the word of God received into the heart and obeyed accordingly. The Holy Ghost pursues this subject by recording, in a connected form, a number of parables which were intended to show the source, the character, the conduct and the issues of this new family, or at least of those who professed to belong to it. This is the subject of Matthew 13. A striking instance it is how manifestly the Holy Ghost has grouped the materials into the particular shape in which we actually have them; for we know that our Lord spoke more parables than are here given. Comparing it with the Gospel of Mark, we find a parable that differs materially from any which appears in Matthew. In Mark it is a person who sows the ground and sleeps and rises night and day, waiting for the germination and the full growth and the ripening of the corn, and then himself gathers it in. This diverges very considerably from all the parables of the earlier Gospel; yet we know from Mark that the parable in question was uttered on the same day. "With many such parables spake He the Word unto them, as they were able to hear it; but without a parable spake He not unto them. . . . And the same day, when the even was come, He saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side."

Just as the Holy Ghost selects certain parables in Mark which are inserted, while others are left out (and the same in Luke), so also was it the case in Matthew. The Holy Ghost is conveying fully God's mind about the new testimony, commonly called Christianity, and even Christendom. Accordingly, the very beginning of this chapter prepares us for the new scene. "The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside" (ver. 1), Up to this time the house of God was connected with Israel. There God dwelt, as far as this could be said of the earth; He counted it as His habitation. But Jesus went out of the house, and sat by the seaside. We all know that the sea, in the symbolic language of the Old and New Testaments, is used to represent masses of men, roving hither and thither outside, and not under the settled government of God. "And great multitudes were gathered unto Him, so that He went into a ship and sat." From thence He teaches them. "And the whole multitude stood on the shore." The very action of our Lord indicated that there was to be a very widespread testimony. The parables themselves are not confined to the sphere of our Lord's previous dealings, but take in a much more extensive range than anything which He had spoken in past times. "He spake many things unto them in parables" (ver. 3). It is not intimated that we have all the parables our Lord spoke; but the Holy Ghost here gives us seven connected parables, all brought together and compacted into a consistent system, as I shall endeavour to show. The Holy Ghost is clearly exercising a certain authority as to the parables selected here, for we all know that seven is the scriptural number for that which is complete: whether it speak of good or evil, spiritually, seven is regularly the number used. When the symbol of twelve is used it expresses completeness, not spiritual, but as to what has to do with man. Where human administration is brought into prominence for carrying out the purposes of God, there the number twelve appears. Hence we have the twelve apostles, who had a peculiar relation to the twelve tribes of Israel; but when the Church is to be presented, we hear again the number seven — "the seven churches." However that may be, we have seven parables here, for the purpose of giving a complete account of the new order of things about to begin — Christendom and Christianity, the true as well as the spurious.

The first question, then, that occurs is, How comes it that we have this series of parables here and nowhere else? Certain of them are in Mark, and certain in Luke; but nowhere, except in Matthew, have we seven, the complete list. The answer is this: Nothing can be more beautiful, or more proper, than that they should be given in a Gospel presenting Jesus as the Messiah to Israel; then, on His rejection, showing what God would next bring out. To the disciples, when their hopes were melting away, what could be of deeper interest than to know the nature and end of this testimony? If the Lord should send out His word among the Gentiles, what would be the result? Accordingly, Matthew's Gospel is the only one that gives us a complete sketch of the kingdom of heaven; as it also gives us the intimation that the Lord was going to found the Church. It is only in Matthew that we have both brought out. This, however, I reserve for another day; but I must observe that the kingdom of heaven is not the same thing as the Church, but rather the scene where the authority of Christ is owned, at least outwardly. It may be real or not, but every professing Christian is in the kingdom of heaven. Every person who, even in an external rite, confesses Christ, is not a mere Jew or Gentile, but in the kingdom. It is a very different thing from a man's being born again and being baptized by the Holy Ghost into the body of Christ. Whoso bears the name of Christ belongs to the kingdom of heaven. It may be that he is only a tare there, but still there he is. This is a very solemn thing. Wherever Christ is outwardly confessed, there is a responsibility beyond that which attaches to the rest of the world.

The first parable clearly was true when our Lord was on earth. It is very general, and would apply to the Lord in person or in spirit. Hence it may be said to be always going on; for we find in the second parable the Lord presented again, still sowing good seed: only here it is the "kingdom of heaven" that is likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. The first is Christ's work in publishing the word among men, while He was here below. The second rather applies to our Lord sowing by means of His servants; that is, the Holy Ghost working through them according to the will of the Lord while He is above, the kingdom of heaven being then set up. This at once furnishes an important key to the whole subject. But inasmuch as the matter of the first parable is very general, there is a great deal in all the moral teaching of it which applies as truly now as when our Lord was upon earth. "A sower went forth to sow" — a weighty truth indeed. It was not thus that the Jews looked for their Messiah. The prophets bore witness of a glorious ruler, who would establish His kingdom in their midst. No doubt there were plain predictions of His suffering as well as of His exaltation. Our parable describes neither suffering nor outward glory; but a work carried on by the Lord, of a distinct character from anything the Jew would naturally draw from the bulk of the prophecies. Nevertheless, our Lord, I conceive, was alluding to Isaiah. It is not exactly the gospel of grace and salvation to the poor, wretched, and guilty, but it is one who, instead of coming to claim the fruits of the vineyard set up in Israel, has to begin an entirely new work. A sower going forth to sow marks evidently the commencement of that which did not exist before. The Lord is beginning a work not previously known in this world. "And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up." That was clearly the most desperate case of all. It was null and void, not because of any fault of the seed, but from the destructive agency of the fowls which devoured what was sown.

Next we have, "Some [that] fell upon stony (rocky) places, where they had not much earth, and forthwith they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth." There was a more hopeful appearance in this case. The word was received, but the ground was stony; there was no depth of earth. Appearances were very quick — "forthwith they sprung up." There is little or no sense of sin. All is taken in but too readily. "The plan of salvation" may be thought to be excellent; the enlightenment of the mind may be undeniable; but such an one has never measured his awful condition in God's sight. The good word of God is tasted, but the ground is rocky. Conscience has not been properly exercised. Whereas, in a real work of heart, conscience is the soil in which the word of God takes effect. There never can be a real work of God without a sense of sin. Where warm feelings are excited, but sin slurred over, it is the case spoken of here — the word received at once, but the ground remains really unbroken — rocky. There is no root because there is no depth of earth: consequently, "when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root they withered away."

But, further, "Some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up and choked them." This is another case; not exactly that wherein the heart received the word at once. And we should have as little confidence in the heart as in the head. The flesh differs in different individuals. Some may have more mind, and some more feeling. But neither can savingly receive the word of God, unless the Holy Ghost acts on the conscience and produces the sense of being utterly lost. Where this is the case, it is a real work of God, which sorrows and difficulties will only deepen. Those that received the seed among thorns are a class devoured by the anxieties of this age, and led away by the deceitfulness of riches, which choke the word, so that no fruit comes to perfection.

But now comes the good ground. "Other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (vers. 8, 9). The sower here is the Lord Himself, yet out of four casts of the seed, three are unsuccessful. It is only the last case where the seed bears ripe fruit; and even there the issue is chequered and hindered — "some a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold" — natural things still hinder fruitfulness, more or less.

What a tale of man's heart and the world these parables disclose! Even where the heart does not refuse, but outwardly receives the truth, it can abandon it as quickly. The same will that makes a man gladly receive the gospel, makes him drop it in the face of difficulties. But, in some cases, the word does produce blessed effects. It fell upon good ground, and brought forth fruit indifferent degrees. "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." A solemn admonition to souls, to look well to it whether or not they produce according to the truth they have received.

The disciples now come and say unto Him, "Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?" and the Lord makes it an occasion to explain these things unto them. "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." The same parable would be just like the cloud of Israel in a former day — full of light to those within, full of obscurity to those without. Thus it is with the sayings of our Lord. So solemn was the crisis with unbelieving Israel now, that it was not His intention to give clearer light. Conscience was gone. They had the Lord in their midst, bringing in full light, and He was refused, especially by the religious leaders. He had now broken with them: here was the clue to His conduct. "To you it is given to know," etc. It was kept from the multitude, and this because they had already rejected the clearest possible proofs that Jesus was the Messiah of God. But, as He says here, "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance." Such was the case with the disciples. They had already received His person, and now the Lord would supply with truth to lead them on. "But whosoever hath not" (the Christ-rejecting Israel), "from him shall be taken away even that he hath" — the Lord's bodily presence and the evidence of miracle would soon pass away. "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not; neither do they understand" (ver. 13). That judicial sentence of darkness which Isaiah had pronounced upon them hundreds of years before, was now to be sealed, though the Holy Ghost still gives them a fresh testimony. And this very passage is afterwards quoted to mark that it is a finished thing with Israel. They loved darkness rather than light. What is the good of a light to one that shuts his eyes? Therefore would the light be taken away too. "But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see and have not seen them: and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them" (vers. 16, 17).

Then follows the explanation of the parable. We have the meaning of "the fowls of the air" given us. It is not left to any conjecture of our own. "When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom" (this was being preached then: it is not exactly the word of the gospel," but "of the kingdom") and understandeth it not," etc. In Luke it is not called "the word of the kingdom," nor is it said, "understandeth it not." It is interesting to observe the difference, because it shows the way in which the Holy Ghost has acted in this Gospel. Compare Luke 13. The first of these parables is given us in Luke 8: 11. "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God" — not the word of the kingdom, but "of God." There is, of course, a great deal in common between the two; but the Spirit had a wise reason for using the different expressions. It would, rather, be giving an opportunity to an enemy, unless there had been some good grounds for it. I repeat that it is "the word of the kingdom" in Matthew, and "of God" in Luke. In the latter we have "that they should believe," and in the former, "that they should understand." What is taught by the difference? It is manifest that, in Matthew, the Holy Ghost has the Jewish people particularly in view; whereas in Luke, the Lord had particularly the Gentiles be. fore Him. They understood that there was a great kingdom which God was about to establish, and destined to swallow up all their kingdoms. With the Jews, already familiar with the word of God, their great point was understanding what God taught — which self-righteousness never understands. You might be controverted had you said to a Jew, You do not believe what Isaiah says; and a serious question came, Do you understand it? But for the Gentile, who had not the lively oracles, instead of setting up his own wisdom, the question was believing. what God said; and this is what we have in Luke. In Matthew, speaking to a people. who had the word already, the great thing was to understand it. This they did not. The Lord shows that, if they heard with their ears, they did not understand with their hearts. This difference, when connected with the different ideas and objects of the two Gospels, is alike interesting and instructive.

"When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not" (ver. 19). Another solemn truth we learn from this: the great thing that hinders spiritual understanding is religious prejudice. The Jews were charged with not understanding. They were not idolators or open infidels, but had a system of religion in their minds in which they had been trained from infancy, which darkened their intelligence of what the Lord was bringing out. So it is now. But among the heathen, though the state be morally evil, yet in the barren waste the word of God might be freely sown, and, by grace, be believed. That is not the case where people have been nurtured in ordinances and superstition: there the difficulty is to understand the word. "Then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in the heart." The answer to the fowls, in the first parable, as we saw, is the wicked one taking away the word of the kingdom as soon as it is sown.

"But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it" (ver. 20). There you have the heart, moved in its affections, but without exercise of conscience. Anon with joy the word is received. There is great gladness about it, but there it ends. It is only the Holy Ghost acting upon the conscience that gives what things are in God's sight. "Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while; for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended."

Then we have the thorny ground: "He also that received seed among the thorns is he. that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful." There is a case that might have seemed promising for a time; but anxiety about this world, or the flattering ease of prosperity here below, rendered him unfruitful, and all is over. "But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it" (all through it is spiritual understanding); "which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."

Now we come to the first of the similitudes of the kingdom of heaven. The parable of the sower was the preparatory work of our Lord upon earth. "Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way" (vers. 24, 25) — exactly what has come to pass in the profession of Christ. There are two things necessary for the inroad of evil among Christians. The first is, the unwatchfulness of the Christians themselves. They get into a careless state, they sleep; and the enemy comes and sows tares. This began at an early epoch in Christendom. We find the germs even in the Acts, and still more in the Epistles. 1 Thessalonians is the first inspired epistle that the apostle Paul wrote; and the second was written shortly after. There he tells them that the mystery of iniquity was already at work; that the apostasy and the man of sin were to follow; and that when the lawlessness should be fully manifest (instead of working. secretly), then the Lord would put an end to the lawless one and all concerned. The mystery of iniquity is akin to the sowing of the tares spoken of here. Some time after, "when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit" — when Christianity began to make rapid strides in the earth, "then appeared the tares also." But it is evident that the tares were sown almost immediately after the good seed. No matter what the work of God is, Satan is always close upon its heels. When man was made, he listened to the serpent, and fell. When God gave the law, it was broken even before it was committed into the hands of Israel. Such is always the history of man.

So the mischief is done in the field, and never repaired. The tares are not for the present taken out of the field: there is no judgment of them. Does this mean that we are to have tares in the Church. If the kingdom of heaven meant the Church, there ought to be no discipline at all: uncleanness of flesh or spirit, swearers, drunkards, adulterers, schismatics, heretics, antichrists, would have to be allowed within it. Here is the importance of seeing the distinction between the Church and the kingdom. Of the tares now in the kingdom of heaven the Lord says: "Let both grow together until the harvest" (ver. 30), that is, till He come in judgment. Were the kingdom of heaven the same as the Church, it would, I repeat, amount to no less than this: that no evil, let it be ever so flagrant or plain, is to be put out of the Church till the day of judgment. We see, then, the importance of making these distinctions, which too many despise. They are all-important for truth and holiness; nor is there a single word of God that we can do without.

But this parable has nothing to do with the question of Church communion. It is "the kingdom of heaven" that is spoken of — the scene of the confession of Christ, whether true or false. Thus Greeks, Copts, Nestorians, Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, are in the kingdom of heaven; not believers only, but all who outwardly profess Christ's name. Some may be immoral or heretical, yet are not to be put out of the kingdom of heaven. But would it be right to receive ouch at the table of the Lord? God forbid! The Church (the assembly of God) and the kingdom of heaven are two different things. A person falling into open sin is not to be allowed in Church communion; but you cannot put him out of the kingdom of heaven. In fact, it could only be done by taking away his life; for the rooting up of the tares involves this. And this is what worldly Christianity did fall into, in no very long space of time after the apostles were departed from the earth. Temporal punishments were brought in for discipline; laws were made for the purpose of handing over the refractory to the subservient civil power. If they did not honour the so-called church, they were not to be suffered to live. Thus, the very evil our Lord had been guarding the disciples against came to pass: and the emperor Constantine used the sword to repress ecclesiastical offenders. He and his successors introduced temporal punishments to deal with the tares, to try and root them up. Take the church of Rome, where you have .;o thoroughly the confusion of the Church with the kingdom of heaven: they claim, if a man is a heretic, to hand him over to the courts of the world to be burnt; and they never confess or correct the wrong, because they pretend to be infallible. Supposing that their victims even were tares, this is to put them out of the kingdom. If you root up a tare from the field, you kill it. There may be men outside profaning the name of God; but we must leave them for God to deal with.

For Christian responsibility towards those who surround the Lord's table we have full instructions in what is written about the Church. "The field is the world;" but the Church only embraces those who are members of Christ's body. Take 1 Corinthians, where the Holy Ghost gives us the order of God's house and its discipline. Supposing some there are guilty of unrepented sin; such persons are not to be owned, while they are going on in that sin. A real saint might fall into open sin, but the Church, knowing it, is bound to intervene to express God's judgment about the sin. Were they deliberately to allow such an one to come to the Lord's table, they would in effect make the Lord a party to that sin. The question is not whether the person be converted or not. If unconverted, men have no business in the Church; if converted, sin is not to be winked at. The guilty are not put out of the kingdom of heaven; they are to be put out of the Church. So that the teaching of the word of God is most plain as to both these truths. It is wrong to use worldly punishments to deal with a wicked person in spiritual matters. I may seek the good of his soul, and maintain God's honour with regard to sin, but this is no reason for using worldly punishment. The unconverted are to be judged by the Lord at His appearing. This is the teaching of the parable of the tares; and it gives a very solemn view of Christianity. There is a remedy for evil which enters the Church, but not yet for evil in the world.

This is the only Gospel containing the parable of the tares. Luke gives the leaven. Matthew has the tares also. It particularly teaches patience for the present, in contrast with Jewish judicial dealings, as well as with their just expectation of a cleared field under the reign of Messiah. The Jews would say, Why should we allow enemies, ungodly heretics? Even when our Lord was here below, and some Samaritans received Him not, James and John wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them. But the Lord had not then come for judgment, but to save. The judgment of the world must wait for His return.

But we have further instruction. "Let both grow together until the harvest; and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into My barn" (ver. 30). Thus the heavenly saints are to be gathered into the Lord's barn, to be taken out of the earth to heaven. But "the time of the harvest" implies a certain period occupied with the various processes of ingathering. It is not said that the wheat is to be bound in bundles in order to be taken to heaven. There is no intimation of any special preparatory work about the saints before they are taken up. But there is such a dealing of God with the tares. The angels are to gather the tares in bundles before the Lord clears them out of the field. I do not pretend to say how that will be, or whether the system of associations in the present day may not pave the way for the final action of the Lord as regards the tares. But the principle of worldly association is growing apace.

The parable of the wheat-field had fully shown, what must have been an unexpected blow to the thoughts of the disciples, that the opening dispensation would, as regards man's maintaining the glory of God, fail as completely as the past one. Israel had dishonoured God; they had wrought, not deliverance, but shame and confusion in the earth; they had failed under law, and would reject grace so thoroughly that the King would be obliged to send His armies to destroy those murderers and burn up their city. But if there was to be a new work in gathering disciples to the name of Jesus by the word preached to them; was that also to be spoiled in the hands of man? The salvation of souls is indeed secure in God's hands; but the trial of what is committed to man's responsibility turns out now, as ever, a complete failure. Man came short of the glory of God in Paradise, and outside he corrupted his way and filled the earth with violence. Afterwards God chose a people to put them to the test, and they broke down. And now came the new trial: What would become of the disciples who professed the name of Christ? The answer has been given: "While men slept, the enemy sowed tares;" and the solemn announcement declares that no zeal on their part could remedy the evil. They might be faithful and earnest themselves; but the evil that has been done by the introduction of the tares — false professors of Christ's name — will never be eradicated. The Lord evidently speaks of the vast field of Christian profession, and of the sad fact that evil was to be introduced from the very beginning; and, once brought in, it would never be turned out till the Lord Himself returns to judgment, and by His angels gathers the tares in bundles to burn them, while the wheat is gathered into the barn.

If the Church is in our thoughts in reading Matthew 13, we shall never understand the chapter. "The field is the world" — the sphere where the name of the Lord is professed, and extending much beyond what could be called the Church. There might be, and are, many persons who would call themselves Christians, and yet show by their ways that there was no real faith in them. These are called "tares." There are many, whom nobody believes to be born of God, who, nevertheless, would be shocked if they were regarded as infidels. They acknowledge Christ as the Saviour of the world, the true Messiah, but it is as entirely inoperative upon their souls, as theirs was who believed in Christ when they saw the miracles which He did (John 2: 23). Jesus does not commit Himself to such now any more than He did then.

The next parable intimates that the evil would not be merely the intermingling of a false profession, but something quite different would surely follow. It might be connected with the tares, and grow out of them; but another parable was required to set it forth. Beginning with the smallest nucleus, most humble as regards this world, there was to be that which would assume vast proportions in the earth, which would strike its roots deeply among the institutions of men, and rise up into a system of vast power and earthly influence. This is the mustard-seed springing into a great tree, into whose branches the birds of the air come and lodge. These last the Lord had already explained as the wicked one, or his emissaries. (Comp. vers. 4 and 19.) We must never depart from the meaning of a symbol in a chapter unless there be some fresh and express reason for it, which in this case does not appear. Thus we have the smallest of all the seeds that grow into anything like a tree; and from this very small beginning there comes a stem with branches sufficiently capacious to yield a shelter and a home to the birds of the air. What a change for the Christian profession! The destroyer is now housed in its bosom!

Then follows the third parable, again of a different nature. It is not a seed, good or bad. It is not the small now becoming lofty and large, a protective power in the earth, and for what? But here we find that there would be the spread of doctrine within — "leaven," used here, as well as elsewhere, for doctrine. For instance, we have "the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees," which our Lord called ,leaven." The thought here is to symbolize that which spreads and permeates what is exposed to it. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened" (ver. 33). The three measures of meal are not legitimately assumed to mean the whole world, as many have done, and still do.* It is not usual to find the truth make such way. We know what the heart is, and we may infer that the doctrine which is so thoroughly spread under the name of Christ must be very far departed from its original purity when it becomes welcome to masses of men. We have, moreover, seen the tares — which do not imply anything good — mingled with the wheat. We have had the mustard-seed grown into a tree, and strangely harbouring the birds of the air, which erst preyed on the seed that Christ sowed. Again, whenever "leaven" occurs symbolically in the word of God, it is never employed save to characterize corruption which tends to work actively and spread; so that it must not be assumed to be the extension of the gospel. The meaning, I doubt not, is a system of doctrine which fills and gives its tone to a certain given mass of men. On the other hand, the gospel is the seed — the incorruptible seed — of life, as being God's testimony to Christ and His work. Leaven has nowhere anything to do with Christ or giving life, but expressly the contrary. Hence there is not the smallest analogy between the action of leaven and the reception of life in Christ through the gospel. I believe that the leaven here sets forth the propagandism of dogmas and decrees, after that Christendom became a great power in the earth (answering to the tree — which was the case, historically, in the time of Constantine the Great). We know that the result of this was an awful departure from the truth. When Christianity grew into respectability in the world, instead of being persecuted and a reproach, crowds of men were brought in. A whole army was baptized at the word of command. Now the sword was used to defend or enforce Christianity.

* If we but turn to Scripture as its own interpreter, the "three measures of meal" in the parable would naturally refer us to the meal offerings prescribed in the law. They were to be food for the priests, eaten in the holy place, without leaven. See Lev. 6: 14-17, and 1 Cor. 5: 8.

"No meat (meal) offering which ye shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven" (Lev. 2: 11) — the woman here in the parable is doing what the law strictly forbids. Leaven being always in Scripture a type of evil, putting it in the meal is introducing evil doctrine in the bread of God — the food of His people. See John 6: 32, 33.

The woman too in this parable should remind us of Eve leading "in the transgression"; and still more of "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants," etc. (Rev. 2: 20) — again doing what is forbidden. See 1 Tim. 2: 12-14. Why should commentators interpret leaven as good spreading out, or the gospel subduing the whole world? It is like the twelve in Luke IS: 31-34 to whom the Lord spoke of His rejection, His sufferings, death, and resurrection; but "they understood none of these things." In their mind the kingdom was about to be restored to Israel; so they could not understand the plainest words about Messiah's rejection. Preconceived ideas prevent the reception of most simply-expressed truth. Ed.

Observe, too, that thus the interpretation flows on harmoniously. We have parables devoted to distinct things, which may have a certain measure of analogy one to another, and yet set forth distinct truths in an order which cannot but commend itself to a spiritual, unprejudiced mind. Much depends on a, due understanding of that which is meant by "the kingdom of heaven." ' Let us not forget that it is simply the authority of the Lord in heaven acknowledged upon the earth. When it becomes a thing the world takes cognizance of as a civilizing power in the earth, it is no longer the mere field sown with good seed which the enemy may spoil with bad, but the towering tree, and the wide and deeply-working leaven. Such is the very unexpected disclosure which our Lord makes. The multitude might admire, but the wise would understand. The disciples needed to be instructed that there was to be a state of things wholly different from what they expected; that although the Messiah was come, He was going away; that, while He would be in the heavens, the kingdom would be introduced in patience, not power — mysteriously, and not yet to sight; and that therein the devil would be allowed to work just as before, only taking his usual advantage to spoil and corrupt, in a special way, the new truth and condition about to be introduced.

So far, then, these parables show the gradual growth of evil. First, there is the mingling of a little evil with a great deal of good, as in the case of the wheat field. Then the rising up of that which is high and influential from the lowly origin of early Christianity. Instead of having tribulation in the world, the christian body becomes a patron or benefactor, exercising authority in it, and the most aspiring of the world seeking to it for what they want. After that a great propagation of doctrine suited to worldly conditions follows, as the folly of Paganism and the narrowness of Judaism became the more apparent to men, and as their interests carried them with the new worldly system.

Mark a change now. The Lord ceases to address Himself to the multitude, who had been in view thus far. As it is said, "All these spake Jesus to the multitude: and without a parable spake He not unto them." But now Jesus sends the multitude away, and goes into the house. I would call your attention to this, because it divides the parables, and inaugurates a distinct set. The parables which follow were not such as the multitude could see or enter into. In the separation of these last three parables from the previous four, we have an analogy to those feasts set forth in Leviticus 23, where after the passover and the unleavened bread, the offering of the first-fruits and the feast of weeks following one another, you have an interruption; after which come the feasts of trumpets, of atonement, and, finally, of tabernacles. The apostle teaches us that Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us; so that we have to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread inseparably connected with it. Then we have the resurrection of Christ — the sheaf of first-fruits, followed by Pentecost, as we read in Acts 2, "When the day of Pentecost was fully come." These feasts are accomplished in us Christians. But the feast of trumpets, the day of atonement, and the feast of tabernacles which follow the first four, it would be absurd to apply to the Church; their application will be to the Jews. Thus, as in the middle of Leviticus 23 the break indicates a new order of subjects, so in this chapter, where it is just as marked. And while the first parables apply to the outward profession of Christ's name, the final ones pertain especially and intimately to what concerns real Christians. The multitude could not enter into them. They were the secrets of the family, and, therefore, the Lord calls the disciples within, and there He unfolds all to them.

But before He enters upon a new subject, He gives further information on the former. The disciples ask Him, "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field." Ignorant as they might be, still they had confidence in their Lord, and that what He had spoken He was willing to explain. "He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man: the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom: but the tares are the children of the wicked one" (vers. 37, 38). The Son of Man and the wicked one, it has been well remarked, are opposed to each other. As in the Trinity, we know there is a suited part which each blessed Person bears in their work of blessing, so the sad contrast appears in evil outside. As the Father brings out specially His love, and separates from the world through the revelation of it in Christ; as you have the Holy Ghost, in contrariety to the flesh, the great agent of all the Father's grace, counsels, and ways; so Scripture holds forth Satan always acting as the grand personal antagonist of the Son. The Son of God has come "that He might destroy the works of the devil." The devil makes use of the world to entangle people, to excite the flesh, stirring up the natural liking of the heart for present honour and ease. In opposition to all this, the Son of God presents the glory of the Father as the object for which He was working by the Holy Ghost.

Discrimination runs strongly through the Lord's explanation to the disciples in the house. In the first of the parables, the good is thoroughly separate from the evil, but in the last of the three all is merged into an undistinguished lump. At first, all was plain. On the one hand the Son of Man sows the good seed, and the result is the children of the kingdom. On the other hand, there is the enemy, and he is sowing his bad seed — false doctrines, heresies, etc.; and the result of this is the children of the wicked one. The devil has taken the opportunity of Christianity for making men worse than if there never had been any fresh and heavenly revelation. In God's sight, that which falsely bears the name of Christ is a more wicked thing than any other. Never has so much righteous blood been shed as by the hand of so-called religion, and from whom it shall be required. See Matt. 23: 34-36. Popery has been the full carrying out of this earthly religion. And every religious system of the world tends to persecute whatever falls not in with it. The bitterness and opposition towards those who are seeking to follow the Lord in our day is the same kind of thing that broke out into the horrors of the dark ages, and lingers still in the "holy office" of the inquisition when and where ever it holds up its head.

To continue: "The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels." "The world" inverse 38 must not be confounded with "the world" in verse 39. They are totally distinct words and things. "The world" inverse 39 means the age. It is a course of time, and not a geographical sphere. In verse 38 the sphere is intended, wherein the gospel goes forth; in verse 39 it is the space of time in which the gospel is either advancing or hindered by the enemy's power. The harvest is the consummation of the age, that is, of the present dispensation — the time while the Lord is absent, and the gospel is being proclaimed over the earth. Grace is actively going forth now. The only means which God employs to act upon souls are of a moral or spiritual sort. The angels introduce providential judgment; while the gospel lays hold of poor sinners to save them. The Lord intimates here that an end will be put to the present sending out of the word of the kingdom, and a day when the effects of Satan's working must be fully developed and judged. "The reapers are the angels." We have nothing to do with the judicial part, only with the spread of the good; the angels, with the judgment of the wicked. "As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world." The same word is used for "world" in verse 40 as in verse 39. Unfortunately, our version gives only the same English word in all.

Many scriptures show a future time and state of things for the world totally different from what the gospel contemplates. I will refer to one or two in the prophets. Take Isaiah 11, which speaks first of our Lord under the figure of a branch out of the roots of Jesse. It is plain that this is true of Christ, whether at His first or second advent. He was born an Israelite, and of the family of David. And again, as to the Holy Ghost resting upon Him, we know that this was true of Him when He was a man here below: but in verse 4 we find another thing: "With righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." If you argue that this applies now, because in the kingdom of heaven the Lord acts upon the souls of the meek, etc., I ask you to read a few words more: ,,And He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." Is the Lord doing this now? Clearly not. Instead of slaying. the wicked with the breath of His lips, is He not converting the wicked by the word of His grace? — in entire contrast with what is described here. In Rev. 19 we have the same period of judgment, where the Lord is seen with a sword proceeding out of His mouth. It represents righteous judgment executed by the bare word of the Lord. As He spoke the world into being, He will speak the wicked into perdition. Taking this as the indubitable meaning of what is mentioned here in Isaiah, what follows? — a state of things quite unlike what we have now under the gospel: "Righteousness shall be the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. . . . They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."

All this is not what we have now. Instead of the world being converted by preaching the gospel, Scripture emphatically declares that in the latter days perilous times should come; and that in the last times shall prevail, not the truth of Christ, but the lie of Antichrist (1 John 2); not the triumph of the good, but of the bad, till the Lord puts forth His own hand; and this is what is reserved for His appearing and kingdom. "He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." The Lord is not smiting the earth now. He has opened heaven: but by and by He will take the earth. In the Revelation you have the vision of the mighty angel, with his right foot upon the sea and the left on the earth. It is the Lord taking the whole universe under His own immediate government. Now the mystery of iniquity is left unjudged. Evil is allowed to go on rampant in the world. But this will not be for ever The mystery of God is to be finished. Then will begin this amazing change, "the regeneration," as our Lord styles it, when the Spirit of God shall be poured out, and the earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. But till these times of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord, Scripture calls the intervening space the evil age. So in Galatians 1: 4, not the material world is meant, but the moral course of things, that is, "this present evil age." The new age, on the contrary, will be glorious, holy and blessed.

In the very next verse, of Isaiah 11, we have the restoration of God's ancient people foretold, the gathering in of all Israel as well as. of Judah. At the return from the Babylonish captivity such was not the case. A small fraction of Judah and Benjamin came back, and only a few individuals of Israel. The ten tribes are universally called "the lost tribes;" whereas, "It shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And He shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim. . . . And the Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea" — a thing that has never been done, nor anything like it. "And with His mighty wind shall He shake His hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people which shall be left from Assyria, like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt." Both in the Egyptian sea and in the Nile there be will this great work of God, outstripping what He did when He brought the people out the first time by Moses and Aaron.

This will be the age to come, but in the present age the tares and the wheat are to grow together till the harvest, which is the consummation of this age; and when it arrives, the Lord sends forth His angels, "and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." The severing then takes place: the tares are gathered and cast into a furnace of fire, and "then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Mark the accuracy of the expression, I' Then shall they shine forth;" not "Then shall they be caught up." It will be a new age, in which is no mingling of the good and bad: but the gathering out of the wicked for judgment closes this age, in order that the good may be blessed in the next.

So here, we have the upper region, called the kingdom of the Father; and the lower, the kingdom of the Son of Man. "The Son of Man shall send forth His angels , and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity." These are not even allowed to be on the earth, but are cast into a furnace of fire. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Both are "the kingdom of God." What a glorious prospect! Is it not a sweet thought that even this present scene of ruin and confusion is to be delivered? that God is to have the joy of His heart, not only in filling the heavens with His glory, but in the Son of Man honoured in the very place where He was rejected?

But let us now look at the next parable. The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field, the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field" (ver. 44). This is the first of the new parables within the house. The Lord is there showing, not the state of things found under the public profession of the name of Christ, but the hidden things, or those which require discernment. It is a treasure hid in a field, which a man finds and hides, and for joy thereof sells all that he hath and buys the field. I am aware that it is the habit of persons to apply this to a soul finding Christ. But what does the man in the parable do? He sells all that he has to buy the field. Is this the way for a man to be saved? If so, salvation is a question not of faith, but of giving up everything to gain Christ, which is not grace, but works carried to the utmost. When a man has Christ, he would doubtless give up everything for Him. But these are not the terms on which a man first receives Christ for his soul's need. But this is not all: "The field is the world." Am I to buy the world in order to obtain Christ? This only shows the difficulties into which we fall whenever we depart from the simplicity of Scripture. The Lord Himself confutes such an interpretation. He shows that there is one Man, one only, who saw this treasure in the midst of the confusion. It is Himself, who gave up all His rights in order that He might have sinners washed in His blood and redeemed to God; it was He who bought the world, in order to acquire the treasure He valued. The two things are distinctly presented in John 17: 2, "As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given Him." There is the treasure: "As many as Thou hast given Him." He buys the whole, the outside world, in order to possess this hidden treasure.

But, moreover, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it" (vers. 45, 46). The parable of the hid treasure did not sufficiently convey what the saints are to Christ. For the treasure might consist of a hundred thousand pieces of gold and silver. And how would this mark the blessedness and beauty of the Church? The merchantman finds "one pearl of great price." The Lord does not see merely the preciousness of the saints, but the unity and heavenly beauty of the assembly. Every saint is precious to Christ; but 'He loved the Church, and gave Himself for it." That is what is seen here — "One pearl of great price." I do not in the least doubt that its spirit may be applied to every Christian; but I believe it is intended to set forth the loveliness of the Church in the eyes of Christ. It could not be fully said of a man awaking to believe the gospel, that he is seeking goodly pearls? And before conversion, the sinner is rather feeding on husks with the swine. Here it is one who seeks "goodly pearls," which no unconverted man ever really sought. There is no possibility of applying these parables except to the Lord Himself. How blessed it is that, in the midst of all the confusion which the devil has wrought, Christ sees in His saints a treasure, and the beauty of His Church, spite of all infirmities and failure!

Then we have all wound up by the parable of the net which is thrown into the sea (vers. 47-50). It is a figure used to remind us that our energies and desires must be directed after those who are floating about in the sea of the world. The net is cast into the sea, and gathers of every kind, "which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." Who are "they"? Never do we find the angels gathering the good, but always severing the wicked for judgment. The fishers were men, like the servants in the first parable. But it is not only the gospel that we have here. The net gathers in of every kind. It is shown us that out of every class, before the Lord returns in judgment, there was to be a mighty operation of the Spirit through the fishers of men, gathering saints together in a way quite unexampled. May not the spirit of this be going on now? The gospel is going out with remarkable power over all lands. But there is another action — the gathering the good together and putting them into vessels. The bad are cast away; but this is not the end of them. "The angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire." The angels' business is always with the wicked; the servants' with the good. The severing of the wicked from among the just is not the fishermen's work at all; and their casting of the bad away is not the same thing as the furnace of fire.*

* In a pamphlet "The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven" by F. W. Grant, the meaning of these three parables is made luminous. The "treasure hid in the field," setting forth Israel, Jehovah's "peculiar treasure" (Ps. 134: 4) — sought by the Lord, who acquires title over field and treasure by His humiliation and sufferings unto death; and now keeps the hidden treasure for a future day.

Then "the pearl of great price" — the Church which He loves and for which "He gave Himself," and will adorn Himself with it as His companion and bride, in heavenly glory.

Then "the net" cast into the Gentile sea after the Church is "caught up" to meet her Bridegroom-the Gospel of the Kingdom going out and gathering a multitude, to be sorted by the administrators of the government of God at the close of that brief age. We commend the pamphlet to the reader, also the "Numerical Bible" on the Gospels, by the same author. Ed.

In commenting on chapters 8 and 9 of our Gospel, some striking instances of displacement have been already pointed out. Thus the incidents of crossing the lake in the storm, of the cured demoniacs, of the raised daughter of Jairus, and of the woman healed on the way, belong, as matters of history, to the interval between the parables we have been lately occupied with and the despising of our blessed Lord, which our Evangelist proceeds to* set down next in order. I have sought to explain the principle on which, as I believe, the Holy Spirit was pleased to act in thus arranging the events, so as most vividly to develop our Lord's Messianic ministry in Israel, with His rejection and its consequences. Hence it is that the intervening facts having been inserted in that earlier portion, the unbelief of Israel in presence of His teaching naturally follows. He was in His own country and taught them in their synagogues; but the result, spite of astonishment at His wisdom and mighty works, is the scornful inquiry, "Is not this the carpenter's son? . . . And they were offended in Him." A prophet He is, but without honour in His own country and in His own house. The manifestation of glory is not denied; but Him in whom it was manifested, is not received according to God, but judged according to the sight and apprehensions of nature (vers. 54-58).

Matthew 14

Nor is this the whole sad truth. About this time the twelve were sent forth. This we have had in chapter 10, forming part of the special series of events transplanted into that part of the Gospel; but, in point of time, it followed the people's fleshly judgment of Christ. Their mission was beautifully given before by Matthew, so as to complete the picture of Christ's patient persevering grace with Israel, as well as to testify the rights of His person as Jehovah, the Lord of the harvest. Here consequently the fact is omitted, but the effect appears. "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist: he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him."

This gives occasion to the Spirit of God to tell the tale (vers. 3-12) of the extinction of John the Baptist's testimony in his own blood. It was not only a blinded people, but in their midst ruled a false and reckless king, who feared not first to imprison, and finally to slay, that blessed witness of God. Not that he did not fear the multitude (ver. 5); for his passions would have impelled to do the deed; nor that he had not sorrow and qualms when it came to the point (ver. g); but what can these restraints avail against the wiles and power of Satan? Bad as Herod was, he was not altogether without a conscience, and the preaching of John had reached it, so far at least as to render him uneasy.' But the issue was what one might expect who knows that an enemy is behind the scene, hating all that is of God, and goading man on to be his own slave and God's foe, in the gratification of lust and the maintenance of honour worse than vanity. What an insight into the world and the heart we have here from God! And with what holy simplicity all is laid bare which it would be profitable for us to hear and weigh! "Man being in honour abideth not; he is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly; yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning." So sang the Psalmist, and surely it was right and of God. "And he (the king) sent and beheaded John in the prison; and his head was brought in a charger and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother" (vers. 10, 11). Such is man, and such woman, without God.

When word was brought to the Lord about John's death, He marks His sense of the act at once — "He departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof, they followed Him." There was no insensibility in Him, whatever His longsuffering and grace. He felt the grievous wrong done to God and His testimony and His servant. It was the harbinger of a storm still more violent and a deed of blood darker far — the awful sin of His own rejection. He would not hurry the moment, but retires. He was a sufferer, a perfect sufferer, as well as a sacrifice; and while His sufferings rose to their height in that most solemn hour when He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, it would be to ignore much if we limited our thoughts and feelings of His love and moral glory to His closing agony. The Lord, then, so much the more felt the evil, because of His unselfish love and unstained holiness. It is ever felt most in God's presence, where Jesus felt everything. The work of rejection goes on.

Did this deep sense in His spirit of the growing power of evil in Israel interrupt the course of His love? Far from it. "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and He healed their sick" (ver. 14). Let murderous unbelief act as it may, He was Jehovah, present here below in humiliation, but in divine power and grace.

The disciples poorly profit by His grace, and leave small space for the display of His beneficent power. So, when it was evening, they "came to Him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals" (ver. 15). "Send the multitude away!" — Away from Jesus? what a proposal! The greatness of the strait, the urgency of the need, the difficulty of the circumstances, which to unbelief are so many reasons for men to do what they can, are to faith just so much the more the plea and occasion for the Lord to show what He is. "Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat." Oh, the dullness of man! — the folly and slowness of heart in disciples to believe all! And yet, beloved friends, have we not seen it? Have we not proved the selfsame thing in ourselves? What lack of care for others! What measuring of their wants, in the forgetfulness of Him who has all power in heaven and on earth, and who, in the same breath that assures us of it, has sent us forth to meet the deepest necessities of sin-darkened souls!

"And they say unto Him, We have here but five loaves and two fishes." Ah! were they, are we, so blind as to overlook that it is not a question of what, but whom, we have? Jesus is nothing to the flesh even of disciples.

He said, "Bring them hither to Me." Oh for more simplicity in thus bringing every lack and every scanty supply to Him whose it is to provide, not for us only, but for all the exigencies of His love; to reckon on Him more habitually as One who cannot act beneath Himself.

"And He commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, He blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children" (vers. 19-21).

How blessed the scene, and how the perfectness of Christ shines through it all! In nothing does He depart from grace, spite of the recent display of murderous hatred in Herod; His very retiring apart before it is but a further step in the path of His sorrow and humiliation; and yet there, in the desert, to this great multitude, drawn out by their wants, comes forth this striking testimony. Should they not have assuredly gathered who and what He was? Jehovah had chosen Zion — had desired it for His habitation — had said, "This is My rest forever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it." But now an Edomite was there, the slave of a ravening Gentile; and the people would have it so, and the chief priests would shortly cry, "We have no king but Caesar." Nevertheless, the rejected One spreads a table in the wilderness, abundantly blesses Zion's provision, and satisfies her poor with bread. The miracle may not be the fulfilment of Psalm 132: 5, but it is the witness that He was there who could, and yet will, fulfil it. He is the Messiah, but the rejected Messiah, as ever in our Gospel. He satisfies His poor with bread, but it is in the wilderness, whither He had withdrawn apart from the unbelieving nation and the wilful apostate king.

But now a change opens on our view. For "straightway Jesus constrained His disciples to get into a ship and to go before Him unto the other side, while He sent the multitudes away. And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, He was there alone" (vers. 22, 23). The crown was not yet to flourish upon Himself. He must leave His ancient people because of their unbelief, and take a new position on high, and call out a remnant to another state of things also. Rejected as Messiah on earth, He would not be a king by the will of man to gratify the worldly lusts of any, but go above, and there exercise His priesthood before God. It is an exact picture of what the Lord has done. Meanwhile, if the masses of Israel ("the great congregation") are dismissed, His elect are ushered into a scene of troubles in the absence of their Master during the night of man's day. "The ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary."

Such were some of the consequences of Christ's rejection. Apart on high, and not in the wilderness, He prays for His own; locally severed, and yet in truth far nearer, He prays for the disciples left alone, to outward appearance. They are "such as should be saved," the chosen ones, companions of His own humiliation while the nation despised Him.

"And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered Him and said, Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come unto Thee on the water. And He said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth His hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" (vers. 25-31.) Without dwelling now on the moral lesson, with which we are all more or less familiar, a few words on the typical instructions conveyed by the passage may be welcome.

He will leave His intercessional place above, and rejoin His disciples when their troubles and perplexity are deepest. The mountain, the sea, storm and calm, darkness and light, are all, as to security, alike to Christ; but His taking part in the distress is the terror of the natural mind. At first even the disciples "were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear," only hushed by the sign of His speedy presence. This hardly goes beyond the circumstances and condition of the Jewish remnant. If there be any part which does, it is set forth in Peter, who, on the word of Jesus, quits the ship (which presents the ordinary state of the remnant), and goes to meet the Saviour outside all support of nature. It is our part to cross the world by divine power; for we walk by faith, and not by sight. The wind was not hushed, the waves as threatening as ever; but had not Peter heard that word "Come"; and was it not enough? It was ample as from the Lord and God of all. "And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus." As long as Jesus and His word were before his heart, there was no failure any more than danger. "But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me." Peter failed, as the Church has failed, to walk toward Christ and with Christ; but, as in his case so in ours, Christ has been faithful, and has delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in "whom we trust that He will yet deliver." "And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art the Son of God" (vers. 32, 33).

Jesus now rejoins the remnant, and calm immediately follows, and He is owned there as the Son of God. Nor this only, for "they came into the land of Gennesaret. And when the men of that place had knowledge of Him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto Him all that were diseased, and besought Him that they might only touch the hem of His garment; and as .many as touched were made perfectly whole" (vers. 34-36). The Lord is now joyfully received in the very scene where before He had been rejected. It is the blessing and healing of a distressed and groaning world, consequent on His return in acknowledged power and glory.

Matthew 15

We find in this chapter striking evidence of the great change which was now fast coming in through the rejection of Jesus by Israel. For, first, we have certain religious guides, "Scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem," who had the best spiritual opportunities of their nation, and who came clothed with all that savoured of antiquity and outward sanctity. These men put the question to our Lord, "Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." The Lord proceeds to deal with conscience. He does not enter into an abstract discussion about tradition; nor does He dispute with them as to the authority of the elders; but He at once lays hold of the plain fact that, in their zeal for the tradition of the elders, they were setting themselves point-blank against the clear, positive commandment of God. This I believe to be the invariable effect of tradition, no matter with whom it may be found. If we take up the history of Christendom, and consider any rule that ever was invented, it will be found to carry those who follow it in opposition to the mind of God. It may seem to be the most natural thing possible, and growing out of the new circumstances, of the Church; but we are never safe in departing from God's word for any other standard.

I am not now contending for the bare literal interpretation of Scripture. A certain course that the word of God binds upon His saints in dealing with one evil may not be their duty at some other crisis. New circumstances modify the path the Church ought to pursue. Were you to apply the directions given for judging immorality to fatal error touching our Lord's person, you would have a very insufficient measure of discipline. False doctrine does not touch the natural conscience as gross conduct. Nay, you may too often find a believer drawn away by his affections to make excuses for those who are fundamentally heterodox. All sorts of difficulties fill the mind where the eye is not really single. Many might thus be involved who did not themselves hold the false doctrine. If I hold the principle of dealing with none but him who brings not the doctrine of Christ, it will not do; for there may be others entangled with it. What is any individual, what is the Church even, in comparison with the Saviour, the Son of the Father? Accordingly, the rule laid down by the Spirit for vindicating Christ's person from blasphemous assailants, or their partisans, is far more stringent than where it is a question of moral corruption, be it ever so bad.

Again, there is a strong tendency to stereotype our own previous practice, and when some fresh evil comes in, to insist on what was done before, or generally, without inquiring afresh of God and searching into His word in view of the actual case before us and our own responsibility. The spirit of dependence is needed in order to walk rightly with God. There is in the written word of God that which will meet every claim; but each case should be a renewed occasion for consulting that word in His presence who gave it. People like to be consistent with themselves, and to hold fast former opinions and practices.

Our Lord, in this place, asserts that deference to mere human tradition leads into direct disobedience of God's will. Washing the hands might have seemed to be a most proper act. Nobody could pretend that Scripture forbade it; and, no doubt, the Jewish doctors could press its great significance. They might very well argue how calculated it was to keep before their minds the purity God insists on, and especially that we ought never to receive anything from His hand without putting away all defilement from ours. They might reason thus to a people who loved all outward routine. At all events they might say, What was the harm of such a tradition? But our Lord simply comes to this issue: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? "By means of their tradition God was disobeyed. The command to honour the father and mother was the first commandment with promise, as the apostle says in writing to the Ephesians. Other commandments had the threat of death annexed to them; this commandment carried the promise of long life upon the earth. The apostle's reasoning is, that, if a Jewish child was not only bound, but encouraged by such a promise, to venerate his parents, how much more is a christian child to obey them — not merely in the law, but in the Lord.

The Lord, then, confronts the Pharisees with, "God commanded, saying, honour thy father and mother; and he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Honour to parents was valued by God; and disrespect was deadly in His sight — "But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father or his mother . . ." The Jews had brought in a cheat (to quiet their consciences) by which they might free themselves from the obligation to meet filial duties. They had only to pronounce the word, "It is a gift" (Corban), and a parent might be forgotten! Doubtless, it was one of their authorized traditions, and for the priest's profit, but in God's sight a direct breach of His command. "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." And this is what tradition usually does, whether in Romanism or elsewhere. To add to Scripture is ruinous: it does not matter by whom it may be done, or for whatever holy motives men may allege; God is jealous about it, and will not have His word enlarged or amended. Revelation is complete, and our simple business is to be obedient to the word of God.

Take, for instance, the choice of a minister. People, Christians, say, We must send for ministers, and choose between them who is to be ours. I am willing to conceive care and conscience in exercising their judgment. But where is the warrant for choosing any one whatever to preach the gospel, or to teach the Church? Is there one precept, or one instance, in all the New Testament? Did God, then, not foresee the difficulties and the wants of congregations? Surely He did. Why, then, is there absence of all such directions for them? Because it was a sin to do it; not only not His mind but contrary to it. There is not a single case, nor anything like it, in Scripture from the time the Holy Ghost was sent down at Pentecost. Yet multitudes of churches are spoken of in Scripture. What, then, is a congregation to do when they want a minister? Why not search and see the Scripture way of meeting the need? The difficulty arises from their being in a false position already. The central truth of the Church is the presence of the Holy Ghost. I am speaking now of the Christian assembly, wherein the Spirit is personally present to act according to His own will in the midst of disciples there gathered for the purpose of glorifying God and exalting Christ. In such a meeting the question of choosing a minister would not arise. So that, if you take this common Protestant tradition of choosing a minister, it is in distinct opposition to the word of God. It might be good for a Christian assembly to feel their weakness. There might be none with any special gift among them: some might be able to help in worship and prayer, though not in preaching or teaching. But the blessed comfort is that, even if there were none specially gifted in the Word, the Holy Ghost is able to edify the saints without such. God in His wisdom may be pleased to raise up none in a particular assembly, or He may send there two, three, or more to minister. I do not believe that any one man has sufficient gifts for the Church. The notion of having a single person to be the exclusive organ of the communications of God to His people is a wrong to them and, above all, to the Lord. At, the Reformation the point was to get the Bible that poor souls might learn of Christ for their salvation. But nearly all that was known of the truth ended there. The Reformation never touched the true question of the Church. The reformers had to deal with a very rough enemy. They had to blow up the masses of rock in the quarry; and we must not find fault if they could not fashion the stones nor build them with equal skill. But we ought not to stop at their hewings.

Here, with the Pharisees, it was not mere following tradition, but using it to indulge hypocritical selfishness. "Ye hypocrites," says our Lord," well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me." Those who pretended such zeal for the law were the while destroying it by their tradition, dishonouring God's own authority in the earthly relationships He had established and honoured. So He adds, "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Upon this, the Lord calls the multitude, and says to them, "Hear and understand: not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." It is the religious leaders chiefly that occupy themselves with tradition. The great general snare is denying the evil of men. The deception which Satan constantly uses now is the idea that man is not so bad but moral culture may improve him. The progress of the world is astonishing, they say. There are societies for promoting every philanthropic object, and for the improvement of man. The faults are sought for in the circumstances of surroundings instead of in man. Here is a word that pronounces on these efforts of men in the gross: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." The real secret of man's deplorable condition is his heart. This affects all that comes out.

It is not in any wise what God made. Man is now a corrupt creature, whose corruption is imparted to what he takes in. Therefore mere restraining of the flesh is entirely useless in God's sight and essentially false. The Lord says to the multitude, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Observe, He has done with the question of Jerusalem and of tradition. He speaks of what touches human nature. Man is lost. But no one thoroughly believes this about himself, till he has found Christ. He may believe he is a sinner, but does he believe he is so bad that no good toward God can be got out of him? Is not the prevalent theory and effort to better man's condition? But our Lord declares here that the heart is bad; and till the heart is reached, all else is vain. "But the word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart." God's way is to deal with the heart. What so simple, so blessed, so mighty, as the gospel? And the gospel needs no handmaid? The handmaid has lost her mission and is discharged. Hagar was sent out of the house, and the son born after the flesh only mocks the child of promise. Man is not now in a state of probation. The trial has been made. God has pronounced that the flesh is utterly worthless; and yet man is constantly re-trying the question, instead of believing God.

The disciples did not altogether relish what the Lord had been saying. They came and said unto Him, "Knowest Thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?" They might not be offended themselves, but were disposed to sympathize with the people who were. But our Lord answers still more sternly, "Every plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up." There needs a new life from God, not an improving of the old one. A plant of heavenly origin must be planted, then, and the heavenly Father must do it. Every other plant shall be rooted up. "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind." Reasoning with these Pharisees is altogether vain. They require first principles, and the work of God in their souls. All discussion therefore is useless. "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind." He did not apply this to the multitude, but to the leaders that were stumbled by the doctrine of man's total corruption. Such are best left to their own devices. "Let them alone . . . And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

But the Lord does not leave the disciples where they were. Peter answers and says unto Him, "Declare unto us this parable." What did he mean by calling it a parable? He did not understand it himself. Here was one, the very chief of the twelve apostles, and he cannot understand our Lord when He tells them that man is altogether wrong — his heart most of all; making that which comes out of him evil — not that which goes in. And this is a parable! The difficulty of Scripture arises less from difficult language than from unpalatable truth. Truth is contrary to people's wishes; they cannot see it, because they do not like to receive it. A man may not be always conscious of this himself, but it is the real secret that God sees. The obstacle consists in man's dislike of the truth. Jesus answered, "Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." The source of man's evil is from within. And, therefore, until there is a new life brought in — till man is born again, of water and of the Spirit — all is useless. "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man."

Here closes our Lord's blessed and weighty instruction, showing that the day of outward forms was past, and that it was now a question of the reality of man's state in the sight of God.

The Lord now turns away from these scribes and Pharisees and goes to the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, at the very extremity of the Holy Land, and that particular quarter of the border of it which had been expressly the scene of the judgments of God.

In chapter 11 our Lord had referred to them, and said that it would be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for the cities where His mighty works had been done. They were proverbial as the monuments of God's vengeance among the Gentiles.* There a woman of Canaan meets Him. If there was one race more particularly under God's ban, it was Canaan. "Cursed be Canaan," said Noah. The youth, Canaan, seems to have been specially the leader of his father in his wickedness against his grandfather Noah. "Cursed be Canaan. A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." And when Israel was brought into the land, the Canaanites, sunken in deep corruption, were to be exterminated without mercy. Their abominations had gone up to heaven with a cry for vengeance from God. Here, this woman came out of the coasts of Canaan, and cries unto Him, saying, "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, Thou Son of David: my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" (ver. 22). If we could conceive any case most opposed to what we had before — scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem, full of learning and outward veneration for the law — we have it in this poor woman of Canaan.

*The overthrow of Tyre predicted in Isa. 23 and Ezek. 26 was only partially accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar who took Judah away captive to Babylon. This ancient and princely merchant-city upon the sea was afterwards not only captured but utterly destroyed by Alexander according to Ezek. 26: 3, 4, who sold the remnant of her inhabitants into slavery. — [Ed.

The circumstances too were dreadful. Not only was it in Tyre and Sidon, recalling the judgments of God, but the devil had taken possession of her daughter. All these circumstances together made the case as deplorable as one could find. How was the Lord to deal with her? The Lord shows, in meeting her case, a great change in His ways. The Jews He had pronounced hypocrites; their worship intolerable to God, and declared such through their own prophets: for in pronouncing them hypocrites, He did it out of the lips of their own prophet Isaiah. Now comes one that had not the smallest tie with Israel. How would the Messiah deal with her? She cries unto Him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But He answered her not a word." Not a word!

Why was this? She was on totally wrong ground. What had she to do with the Son of David? Had the Lord merely been the Son of David, could He have given her the blessing He had in His heart? She appealed to Him as if she were one of a chosen people who had claims upon Him as their Messiah. Was it ever promised that Messiah was to heal the Canaanites? Not a word about it. When the Messiah does come as Son of David, the Canaanites will not be there. Look at Zechariah 14, when our Lord shall be King over all the earth, "In that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of Hosts." The judgments which were not thoroughly executed by Israel, because they were unfaithful to the trust of the Lord, are to be executed when the Son of David will take His inheritance. This woman was altogether confused about it. She had the conviction that He was much more than the Son of David, but she did not know how to bring it out. It is, I think, in much the same way that many persons now, anxious about their sins, have tried the Lord's Prayer, and have asked the Father to forgive them their sins as they forgive others. They go to God as their Father, and ask of Him to deal with them as children. But this is the very thing which is not yet settled. Are they children? Can they say that God is their Father? They would shrink from it. It is that which they chiefly desire, but they fear it is not so; that is, they have no right to draw near to God on the footing of a relationship which does not exist. And when persons are thus confused, they never get thorough peace to their souls. Sometimes they are hoping they are children of God, sometimes fearing they are not, cast down with the sense of the evil within them. The fact is, they do not understand the matter at all. They are quite right in wishing to turn to God, but they do not know how to do it. They fear going to God just as they are giving up all thought of having promises or anything else. This shows the wrongness of an anxious soul seeking after God on the ground of promises. A good deal is said about sinners "grasping the promises:" but promises in the Old Testament were for Israel; in the New, for Christians. But you are neither an Israelite nor a Christian. A soul brought to that point is confounded.

It is good for a soul to be brought to this: I have no claim upon God for anything; I am a lost sinner. If God shakes a person from what they have no right to, if He strips them of everything, it is for the purpose of giving them a blessing that He has a right to give them. People forget that now it is the righteousness of God — God's right to bless through Christ Jesus, according to all that is in His heart. Men are lost; but they are afraid to confess the true ruin in which they are found. To this the Lord was leading the poor woman of Canaan. He was bringing her down to feel that she had no right to the promises — made indeed to Israel, but where were any promises to the Canaanites? Thus, on the ground of His being the Son of David it was impossible for the Lord to give her what she asked. She did not understand this. She thought that if an Israelite might go on the ground of promise, she might. But it is a mistake. The poor woman thus made it meet not to answer her. It was grace and tenderness that led Him not to answer her: He remains silent till she drops the ground that she had first taken.

But the disciples were not silent; they wanted to get rid of her importunity; they did not like the trouble of her. "They came and besought Him, saying, Send her away, for she crieth after us." But the Lord confirms what has been already said as to the wrongness of her plea. He says, as it were, She does not belong to the house of Israel: I cannot give her a blessing on the ground she takes, but I will not send her away without a blessing. He was there with special privileges to the sheep of the house of Israel, but she was not a sheep. "He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Then the poor woman "came and worshipped Him, saying, Lord, help me." She drops the words "Son of David." She no longer uses the title which connects Him with Israel, but acknowledges generally His authority. Now He answers her, though she is not yet low enough. When she appeals to Him as Lord, a suitable title, He answers, "It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." The moment that this is uttered, all the secret is out. "Truth, Lord," she says, "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." She takes the place of being a dog. She acknowledges that Israel was, in the outward ways of God, the favoured people, as children eating of bread upon the table; whereas, the Gentiles were but the dogs underneath. She acknowledges it, and it is very humbling. People do not like it now. But she is brought down to it. The Lord may, for the purpose of leading us into deeper blessing, break us down to the very lowest point of the truth about ourselves. But was there no blessing even for a dog? She falls back upon this truth: Let it be that I am a dog; has not God some blessing for me? Here the Lord meets her with fullest blessing. He meets her with the strongest approbation of her faith — "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt." The Lord had pronounced the sentence upon the nation of the Jews who were only hypocrites, and gone out to the Gentiles. Faith meets Him there; a faith that penetrates through outward circumstances, and bears the discovery of the low place we ought to take; and the poor woman is blessed to her heart's content. "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Unlimited grace is bestowed upon a Gentile under special curse; and the heart of our Lord is refreshed by her faith.

But there is more. Having visited the Gentiles, the Lord now returns to Israel in sovereign goodness. "Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the Sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain and sat down there. And great multitudes came unto Him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and He healed them: insomuch that the multitude wondered when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel" (vers. 29-31). I consider that this is a picture of Israel feeling their real condition. They are coming to Jesus, looking to Him, and saying, as it were, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." They are to speak thus by and by; and the Lord declared they should not see Him till they should say, "Blessed be He that cometh in the name of the Lord." What they saw in Jesus led them to glorify the God of Israel. Thus the Lord will have relations with Israel. They come, not now in controversy, but as a poor, maimed, blind, and miserable multitude; and the Lord heals them all. But this is not all: He feeds them as well as heals them; and we have the beautiful miracle of the loaves.

But mark the differences. In a former case, the disciples were for sending the multitudes away; and the Lord allowed them to show out their unbelief., In the present instance, it is Christ Himself who thinks of them and purposes to bless them. "I have compassion on the multitude," He says, "because they continue with Me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way" (ver. 32). You may remember that it is said in Hosea 6, "After two days will He revive us; in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight." It is the adequate time of the trial of the people. Literally, it was the time our Lord lay in the grave. But it is connected also with the future blessing of Israel. "I will not send them away fasting lest they faint by the way. And His disciples say unto Him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?" How slow they are to learn the resources of Christ, as before to learn the worthlessness of man! "Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few fishes." It is not now five loaves and twelve baskets full left; but with seven loaves they begin, and with seven baskets full they end. The reason is this: seven stands for spiritual completeness in Scripture, and this is intended to show the fulness with which the Lord makes the blessing to flow to His people — the fulness of provision that they have in Him. "He took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude." I conceive this to be a picture of the Lord providing amply for the Jews — the beloved people of His choice, whom He never can abandon, to whom He must accomplish His promises, because He is the faithful God. Here the Lord, out of His own heart, is providing fully even for their bodily refreshment. This will be the character of the millennial day, when not only the soul will be blessed, but when every kind of mercy will abound; God vindicating His earth from the hand of Satan, who had long defiled it. In the seven loaves before they ate, and the seven baskets of fragments taken up after they had eaten, you have the idea of completeness, an ample store for the present and for wants to come.

Matthew 16

In the last chapter, which introduces a new part of the subject in Matthew, we saw two great pictures: first, the hypocritical disobedience of those who boasted of the law completely exposed out of their own prophets, as well as by the touchstone of the Lord Himself; and, secondly, the true nature of grace shown to one whose circumstances demanded nothing but sovereign mercy if she were to be blessed at all. At the close, the Lord's patient and perfect grace towards Israel is manifested, spite of the condition of the Jewish leaders. If He compassionated the Gentiles, His heart still yearned over His people, and He showed it by repeating the great miracle of feeding thousands in their needy condition; with no figure here of retirement from earth, which we saw in chapter 14, following the first miracle of feeding the multitudes — the type of our Lord's occupation at the right hand of God.

Now we have another picture, quite distinct from the previous one, though akin to it. It is not the flagrant disobedience of the law through human tradition, but unbelief — the source of all disobedience. Hence, in the language employed by the Holy Ghost, there is only a shade of difference between the words unbelief and disobedience. The former is the root of which the latter is the fruit. Having shown us the gross systematic violation of God's law, even by those who were religious leaders in Israel, and having convicted them of it, a deeper principle is now brought out, All that disobedience Godward flowed from unbelief of Himself, and, consequently, misapprehension of their own moral condition. These two things always go together. Ignorance of self flows from ignorance of God; and ignorance of both ourselves and God is proved by despising Jesus. And what is true in full of the unbeliever, partially applies to the Christian who in any measure slights the will and person of the Lord. All these are only the workings of that heart of unbelief of which the apostle warns even believers. The grand provision against this, the operation of the Holy Ghost, in contrast with the working of the natural mind of man, comes out here plainly.

"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting, desired that He would show them a sign from heaven." They were beginning the same story over again; but now it is higher up the source, and, of course, therefore, worse in principle. It is an awful thing to find opposed parties with one only thing uniting them — dislike of Jesus; persons who could have torn each other to pieces at another time, but this is their gathering point — tempting Jesus. "The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting," etc. There was no conflict between the scribes and Pharisees, but a wide chasm separated the Sadducees and Pharisees. Those were the freethinkers of the day; these the champions who stood up for ordinances and the authority of the law. But both joined to tempt Jesus. They desired a sign from heaven. The most significant token that God ever gave man was before them in the person of His Son, who eclipsed all other signs. But such is unbelief, that it can go into the presence of the full manifestation of God, can gaze at a light brighter than the sun at noonday, and there and then ask God to give a farthing candle.

But Jesus "answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" (vers. 2, 3). Their own moral condition was the sign and proof that judgment was imminent. For those who could see, there was the fair weather, the Day-spring from on high that had visited them in Jesus. They saw it not! But could they not discern the foul weather! They were in the presence of the Messiah, and were asking for a sign from heaven! The God that made heaven and earth was there, but the darkness comprehended it not. "He came to His own and His own received Him not." They were utterly blind. They could discern physical changes, but had no perception of moral and spiritual glories actually before them. How truly — "A wicked and adulterous generation seek after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And He left them and departed."

Men constantly err as to the character of Jesus. They imagine that He could use no strong language and feel no anger; yet there it is in the Word, written in the light. Unbelief is always blind, and betrays its blindness most against Jesus. The same unbelief that could not then discern who and what Jesus was, sees not now Jesus coming, and discerns not the signs of their own impending ruin. It is the moral condition of men, no matter where they are, only the more remarkably manifested where the light of God is.

Our Lord does not hesitate to touch the evil with unsparing hand. He was the perfect manifestation of love: but let men remember He is the one who said, "wicked and adulterous generation," "generation of vipers," etc."? It flows from true love — if men would but bow to the truth that convicts them. To submit to God's word, to the truth now, in this world, is to be saved; to be convicted of the truth only in the next world is to be lost for ever. Christ was the faithful and true Witness; He brought God face to face with man, and caused His perfect light to shine upon them. Jesus can meet a soul in its ruin; He may eat with publicans to show that He is able to receive sinners — yea, came to seek and to save the lost, and to forgive sins to the uttermost; but He will never give any sign to satisfy the unbelief that rejects Him. These Pharisees and Sadducees would not hear His voice of grace, and they had to hear their own sentence from the judge of all the earth: "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas." Had Jesus not been there, to ask for a sign would not have been so wicked; but His presence made it audacious unbelief and frightful hypocrisy. And what was this sign? The sign of one that disappeared from the earth; that, through the figure of death, passed away from the Jewish people, and after a while was given back to them. It was the symbol of death and resurrection, and our Lord immediately acted upon it. He "left them and departed." He would pass under the power of death; He would rise again, and the message which Israel had despised, He would carry to the Gentiles.

But there are other forms of unbelief; and the next scene (ver. 5) is with His disciples: so true is it that what you find working in its grossest shape in an unconverted man may be traced, in another way perhaps, in believers. "Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." They did not understand Him; they reasoned among themselves; and whenever Christians begin to reason, they never understand anything. "They reasoned among themselves saying, It is because we have taken no bread."

There is such a thing, of course, as sound and solid deduction. The difference is that wrong reasoning always starts from man and tries to rise to God, while right reasoning starts from God towards man. The natural mind can only infer from his experience, and thus forms his ideas of what God must be. This is the basis of human speculation in divine things; whereas, God is the source, strength and guide of the thoughts of faith. How do I know God? In the Bible, which is the revelation of Christ from the first of Genesis to the end of Revelation. I see Him there, the key-stone of the arch, the centre of all Scripture speaks of; and unless the connection of Christ with everything is seen, nothing is understood aright. There is the first grand fallacy, the leaving out of God's revealing Himself in His Son. It is not the light behind the veil as under the Jewish system, but infinite blessing now that God has come to man, and man is brought to God. In the life of Christ I see God drawing nigh to man, and in His death man brought nigh to God. The veil is rent; all is out, of man on the one hand, and of God on the other, as far as God is pleased to reveal Himself to man in this world. All stands in the boldest relief in the life and death of Christ. But disciples are apt to be very dull about these things now as ever; and so when He warned them about the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they thought that He was merely speaking of something for daily life — very much like what we see at the present time. But our Lord "said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread" (ver. 8). Why did they not think of Christ? Would they have troubled themselves about loaves if they had thought rightly of Him? Impossible! They were anxious, or thought Him so, about bread! "Do ye not yet understand," says the Lord, "neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that He bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (vers. 9-12). And this is what disciples even now often misapprehend. They do not understand the hatefulness of unsound doctrine. They are alive to moral evils. If a person gets drunk or falls into any other gross scandal, they know, of course, it is very wicked; but if the leaven of evil doctrine work, they do not feel it. Why is it that disciples are more careful of that which mere natural conscience can judge, than of doctrine which destroys the foundation of everything both for this world and for that which is to come? What a serious thing that disciples should need to be warned of this by the Lord, and even then not understand! He had to explain it to them. There was the darkening influence of unbelief among the disciples, making the body the great aim, and not seeing the all-importance of these corrupt doctrines, which menaced souls in so many insidious forms around them.

But there is another way and scene in which unbelief works. This chapter is the dissection of the root of many a form of unbelief. "By faith we understand," says the apostle to the Hebrews. The worldly man tries to understand first and then to believe; the Christian begins with the feeblest understanding, perhaps, but he believes God: his confidence is in One above himself; and thus, out of the stone there is raised up a child unto Abraham. The Lord now questions the disciples as to the real gist of all the matter, whether among Pharisees, Sadducees, or disciples themselves. "He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" It is now Christ's person which comes out; and this, I need hardly say, is deeper than all other doctrine. "Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets" (vers. 13, 14). There are so many opinions among men, unbelief argues, that certainty is impossible. Some say one thing and some another: you talk of truth and Scripture; yet, after all, it is only your view. But what says faith? Certainty, from God, is our portion, the moment that we see who Jesus is. He is the only remedy that banishes difficulty and doubt from the mind of man. "Whom say ye that I am?" (ver. 15). This was for the purpose of bringing out now what is the pivot of man's blessing and God's glory, and becomes the turning point of the chapter. Among these very disciples we are to have a blessed confession from one of them — the power of God working in a man who had been rebuked for his want of faith before, as he was indeed just after. When we are really broken down before God about our little faith, the Lord can reveal some deeper higher view of Himself than we ever had before. The disciples had mentioned the various opinions of men: one said He was Elias; another, John the Baptist, etc. "But whom say ye that lam? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Glorious confession! In the Psalms He is spoken of as the Son of God, but very differently. There He is dealing with the kings of the earth, who are called upon to take care how they behave themselves. But the Holy Ghost now lifts up the veil to show that the "Son of the living God" involves depths far beyond an earthly dominion, howsoever glorious. He is the Son of that living God who can communicate life even to those dead in sin. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven."

First, the Father is revealing; and the moment Christ hears Himself confessed as the Son of the living God, He also sets His own seal and honours the confessor. It is the assertion of one who at once rises up to His own intrinsic dignity: "And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." He gives Simon a new name. As God had given to Abraham, Sarah, etc., because of some fresh manifestation of Himself, so does the Son of God. It had been prophetically announced before; but now comes out for the first time the reason why it was affixed to him. "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." What rock? The confession Peter had made that Jesus was the Son of the living God. On this the Church is built. Israel was governed by a law; the Church is raised on a solid and imperishable and divine foundation — on the person of the Son of the living God. And when this fuller confession breaks from the lips of Peter, the answer comes, Thou art Peter — thou art a stone: a man that derivest thy name from this Rock on which the Church is built.

In the early chapters of the Acts, Peter always speaks of Jesus as God's holy Servant. He speaks of Him as a man who went about doing good; as the Messiah. slain by the wicked hands of men, whom God raised up from the dead. Whatever Peter might know Jesus to be, yet when preaching to the Jews, he presents Him to them simply as the Christ, as the predicted Son of David, who had walked here below, whom they had crucified and God had raised again. Then, at Stephen's martyrdom, a new term is used about the Lord. That blessed witness looks up and says, "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." It is not now merely Jesus as the Messiah, but "the Son of Man," which implies His rejection. When He was refused as the Messiah, Stephen, finding that this testimony was rejected, is led of God to testify of Jesus as the exalted Son of Man at God's right hand. When Paul is converted, which is given in the next chapter but one, he straightway preaches "Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God." He did not merely confess Him, but preached Him as such. And to Paul was entrusted the great work of bringing out the truth about "the Church of God."

So here, upon Peter's confession, the Lord says, "Upon this rock I will build My Church." You understand the glory of My Person; I will show you the work I am going to accomplish. Mark the expression. It is not, I have been building; but I will build My Church. He had not built it yet, nor begun to build it: it was altogether new. I do not mean there had not been souls believing in Him before, and regenerate of the Spirit; but. the aggregate of saints from the beginning to the end of time it is an error to call "the Church." It is a common notion which has not one shred of Scripture for it. The expression in Acts 7: 38, "The church in the wilderness," means the whole congregation — the mass of Israel — the greater part of whose carcasses fell in the wilderness. Can you call that "the Church of God?" There were but few believers among them. People are deceived in this by the sound. The word, "church in the wilderness," merely means the congregation there. The very same word is applied to the confused assembly in Acts 19, which would have torn Paul to pieces. If it were translated like Acts 7, it would be the "church in the theatre," and the blunder is obvious. The word that is translated "church" simply means assembly. To find out what is the nature of the assembly, we must examine the scriptural usage and the object of the Holy Ghost. For you might have a good or bad assembly: an assembly of Jews, of Gentiles, or of God's assembly distinct from either and contrasted with both, as can be readily and undeniably seen in 1 Cor. 10: 32. Now it is this last which we mean, i.e., God's assembly, when we speak of "the Church."

What then, to return, does our Lord intimate when He says, "Upon this rock I will build My Church"? Clearly something that He was going to erect upon the confession that He was the Son of the living God, whom death could not conquer, but only give occasion to the shining forth of His glory by resurrection. "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hades" — the power of death — "shall not prevail against it." This last does not mean the place of the lost, but the condition of separate spirits. "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

The Church and the kingdom of heaven are not the same thing. It is never said that Christ gave the keys of the Church to Peter. Had the keys of the Church or of heaven been given to him, I do not wonder that the people should have imagined a pope. But "the kingdom of heaven" means the new dispensation about to begin on earth. God. was going to open a new economy, free to Jews and Gentiles, the keys of which He committed to Peter. One of these keys was used, if I may so say, at Pentecost when he preached to the Jews; and the other, when he preached to the Gentiles.* It was the opening of the kingdom to people, whether Jews or Gentiles. "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (ver. 19). The eternal forgiveness of sins has to do with God only, though there is a sense in which forgiving was committed to Peter and the other apostles, which remains true now. Whenever the Church acts in the name of the Lord, and really does His will, the stamp of God is upon their deeds. "My Church," built upon this rock, is His body — the temple of believers built upon Himself. But "the kingdom of heaven" embraces every one that confesses the name of Christ. This was begun by preaching and baptizing. When a man is baptized, he enters "the kingdom of heaven," even if he should turn out a hypocrite. He will never be in heaven, of course, if he is an unbeliever; but he is in "the kingdom of heaven." He may either be a tare or real wheat in the kingdom of heaven; an evil or a faithful servant; a foolish virgin or a wise one. The kingdom of heaven takes in the whole scene of Christian profession.

*It has been thought that the "baptizing" and "teaching," which the risen Lord commanded in sending the disciples to all nations Matt. 28: 18-20 are really the "keys" of the kingdom. — [Ed.

But, as we have seen, when Christ speaks of "My Church," it is another thing. It is what is built upon the recognition and confession of His person — "the Son of the living God." We know that "he that believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." And, again, "He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God overcometh the world." But there is a deeper power of the Holy Ghost in acknowledging Him as the Son of God; and the higher the acknowledgment of Christ, the more spiritual energy in going through this world and overcoming it. If one believer is more spiritual than another, it is because he knows and values the person of Christ better. All power for Christian walk and testimony depends upon the appreciation of Christ.

Mark also the order of our Lord's words. First, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Christ must be found outside the Church, and before it; Christ must be discerned first and foremost by the individual soul; Christ and what He is must, before and above all, be revealed to the heart by the Father. He may employ persons who belong to the Church as instruments, or may directly use His own word. But whatever the means employed, it is the Father revealing the glory of the Son to a poor sinful man; and when this is settled with the individual, Christ says, "Upon this rock I will build My Church." Faith in Christ is essentially God's order and way before the question of the Church comes in. This is one great controversy between God and the mystery of iniquity which is now working in this world. The aim of the Holy Ghost is to glorify Christ; whereas that of the other is to glorify self. The Holy Ghost is carrying on this blessed revelation that the Father has made of the Son; and when the individual question is settled, then comes the corporate privilege and responsibility — the Church.

If I have got Christ, it is infinitely blessed. But I ought to believe, also, that He is building His Church. Do I know my place there? Am I found walking in the light of Christ — a living stone in that which He is building — in healthy action as a member of His body? Salvation was wrought here upon earth, and here it is that the Church is being built upon this rock; and the gates of hades — the invisible state, or separate condition — shall not prevail against it. Death may come in, but the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord says in Revelation that He has the keys of death and hades. The death of the Christian is in the hands of Christ. By the cross He has annulled the power of Satan, and He is the Lord both of the dead and of the living; death is not our Lord, but Christ. "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether, therefore, we live or die, we are the Lord's." The Lord has absolute right over us; and therefore death is robbed of all that makes it so terrible. In Revelation you have the Lord with the keys of death and hades. The keys of the kingdom of heaven He gives to Peter because he it was who was to preach to Jews and Gentiles. The door was flung open on the day of Pentecost first, and afterward yet more widely when the Gentiles were brought in.

Administration is also committed to Peter, both in binding and loosing; it is authority to act publicly here below, with the promise of ratification above: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That is first said to Peter; and doubtless, from what we have in Matt. 18: 18: "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," the binding and the loosing applies also to the other disciples; not to the apostles only, but, I believe, to the disciples as such. Compare also the charge in John 20: 19-23. On that principle people are received into the Christian Church, and on that principle wicked persons are put away till repentance justifies their restoration. Apostles or disciples do not forgive sins as a matter of eternal judgment, of course, which God alone has the power to do. But God requires of us to judge a person's state for reception into or exclusion from the circle which confesses the name of Christ here below. In Acts 5 Peter bound their sin on Ananias and Sapphira. This does not prove that they were lost; but the sin was bound upon them, and brought present judgment. Neither Peter nor Paul was at Corinth; and there the Lord Himself laid His hand upon the guilty: some were weak and sickly, and some had fallen asleep. This does not decide against their final salvation — rather, indeed, the contrary. When they were judged of the Lord they were chastened, that they should not be condemned with the world (that is, that they should not be lost). They might be taken away by death, and yet be saved in the day of the Lord. The Church puts away a wicked person. The man at Corinth, whom they were told to excommunicate, was guilty of heinous sin, but was not lost. He was delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be "saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." In the next epistle we find this person so overwhelmed with sorrow on account of his sin that they were charged to confirm their love to him. Simple indeed is the binding and loosing which people often make so mysterious. The only sins that the Church ought to judge are those that come out so palpably as to demand public repudiation according to the word of God. The Church is not to be a petty tribunal of judgment for everything. We ought never to claim the assembly's intervention except about the evil that is so plain as to be entitled to carry the consciences of all along with it. This I take to be the meaning of binding and loosing.

"Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ." A remarkable change comes here. Peter had confessed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God: now the Lord charges them to tell no one that He was the Christ. It was as good as saying, It is too late; I am rejected as the Christ — the Messiah, the Anointed of Jehovah. He is refused by Israel, and He accepts the fact. But mark another thing: "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day" (ver. 2 1). In Luke 9: 20, we are told, "He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God." "The Son of the living God" is not mentioned in Luke: consequently, nothing is said about the building of the Church. How perfect is Scripture! In Luke the Lord goes on to say, "The Son of Man must suffer many things," etc. There is a great distinction between "the Christ" and "the Son of Man." The latter is His title as rejected, then as exalted in heaven.

Forbidding the disciples to tell that He was the Christ is the turning-point in Christ's ministry. The meaning is that Christ drops His Jewish title, and He speaks of His Church. Before it comes, He says, "Upon this rock I will build My Church." From that time He began to show unto them how that He must "go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." Luke adds that "He must first suffer," etc. All this is connected with the building of the Church, which began to be built after Christ rose from the dead and took His place in heaven. In Ephesians the Church is spoken of only after Christ's resurrection and His taking a new place in heaven have been brought out. We had God choosing the saints in Christ Jesus, but, not the Church. Election is an individual thing. He chose us — you and me, and all the other saints — that "we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." But when Paul has introduced Christ's death and resurrection, he says that God "gave Him to, be the head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all."

But mark a solemn fact. Immediately after Simon had made this glorious confession of the Lord Jesus, he is called, not Peter, but Satan! He had not said one improper word, according to human judgment. He had not even indulged in haste, as was often his wont. The Lord never called mere excitement "Satan"; but He so called Peter. because he sought to turn Him away from suffering and death. The secret was this: Peter had his mind on an earthly kingdom, and neither fully felt what sin was nor what the grace of God was. He stood in the way of the Lord's going to the cross. Was it not for Peter that He was going there? Had Peter thought of this, would he have said, "Be it far from Thee, Lord?" It was man thwarting Christ, and He pronounces it Satan. "He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (ver. 23). Peter thus feeling and acting connects with the mystery of iniquity; not with what was taught by the Father.

Our Lord turns to the disciples and puts before them that not merely is He going to the cross, but they must be prepared to follow Him there. If I am to be in the true path of Jesus, I must deny myself and take up the cross and follow — not the disciples — not this church or that church, but — Jesus Himself. I must turn from what is pleasing to my heart naturally. I must meet with shame and rejection in this present evil world. If not, depend upon it, I am not following Jesus; and remember, it is a dangerous thing to believe in Jesus without following Him. Following Jesus maybe like losing one's life. At the present time much confession of Christ is, comparatively, an easy matter. There is little opposition, or persecution. People imagine that the world is changed; they talk of progress and enlightenment. The truth is, Christians are changed. Let us ask ourselves whether we desire to be found taking up our cross and following Jesus. "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it" (vers. 24, 25).

What lessons for our souls! The flesh easily arrogates superiority over the spirit; and indulgence to the path of ease comes in (though of Satan) under the specious plea of love and kindness. Is the cross of Christ our glory? Are we willing to suffer in doing His will? What a delusion is present honour and enjoyment!

Matthew 17

Our previous chapter has shown us Jesus rejected as Christ or Messiah, confessed as the Son of the living God, and about to return in glory as the Son of Man. But along with the glory in which He is to come and reward each according to his works, we have His suffering: not merely rejection, but His being put to death — raised the third day indeed, but still the suffering Son of Man, and to return in glory. Following up the subject of His Father's glory, in which He declares He is to come with His angels and judge in His kingdom, we have now a picture given on the holy mount — a striking picture in a twofold point of view. The glory, as we saw, of the kingdom depends upon His being the Son of Man, the exalted Man who had erst suffered, and in whose hands all glory is committed — who had at every cost retrieved the honour of God, and is to make effectual the blessing of man; who, by virtue of His suffering, has already brought to naught the power of Satan for those who believe, and who eventually, when the kingdom comes, is to expel Satan altogether, and bring in that for which God has been waiting — a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. Accordingly, "After six days" (type of the ordinary term of work here below), "Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart" (ver. 1). That is, He takes chosen witnesses; for it was merely a testimony to the kingdom — the sample of what He had referred to when He said, "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

The point there is the Son of Man coming, rather than the kingdom itself; and what follows in our chapter is only a partial illustration of the glory of the rejected Son of Man. Partial though it be, nothing could be more blessed, save the kingdom itself; and faith brings us into a very real present realizing of that which is to be. It is "the substantiating of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The kingdom, of which our Lord spoke, is not yet arrived, of course. When it is said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," He speaks of a kingdom which we do enter now. For John does not present it as a thing of mere outward manifestation, but gives a deeper revelation of the kingdom, true now, into which every one that is born of God comes, and which shall yet be displayed in its heavenly and its earthly power. But Matthew, who takes up the Jewish part, or Old Testament predictions of the kingdom, sketches us the presentation of the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

The Lord, accordingly, takes these disciples "up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them. And His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light." The sun is the image of supreme glory, as that which rules the day. "And behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with Him" — Moses, by whom the law was given, and Elias, the grand sample of the prophets, who recalled the people to the law of Jehovah. They were thus the pillars of the Jewish system, to whom every true Israelite looked back with the deepest feelings of reverence: one of them singled out as the only Jew taken to heaven, without passing through death; the other, lest he should become an object of worship after his death, having the singular honour of being buried by Jehovah. These two appear in the presence of our Lord. They were known to be Moses and Elias: there seems to have been no difficulty in recognizing them. So, in the resurrection-state, the distinction of persons will be kept up thoroughly. There will be no such thing as that kind of sameness which blots out the peculiarities of each. Though earthly relationships shall have passed away, and no peculiar earthly links which connected one with another on earth will survive, in heaven, yet each will retain his own individuality — with this mighty difference, of course, that all saints will bear the image of the heavenly; for while in the body we all resemble fallen Adam now, yet we are not all lost in one common indistinguishable throng. We each have our own proper character and our peculiar conformation of body. So in glory each will be known for what he is. Moses and Elias are seen as glorified, but as Moses and Elias still; and the Lord is transfigured in their midst. "Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If Thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for Thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias" — showing that he perfectly well knew which was which. "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and, behold, a voice out of the cloud which said, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him" (vers. 4, 5).

Herein, I conceive, lies the depth of the whole passage. Peter, meaning to do honour to his Master, but in a human way — still savouring in a measure the things of men and not of God — proposes to put his Master on common ground with the heads of the law and of the prophets. But it must not be. Whatever might be the honour of Moses, whatever the special charge of Elias, who were they, and what, in the presence of the Son of God? The Son may make nothing of Himself; but the Father loves the Son. Peter would put Him on a level with the most honoured of mankind; but the Father's purpose is that every knee shall bow to Him — that all men shall honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. Man never does this, seeing simply man in the Son, in no adequate way honouring Him with divine homage. Faith does, for it sees God in the Son, hears God in Him, and also finds Him in the peculiarly blessed relationship with the Father. For if Jesus were conceived to be simply God, and not the Son, it would be an incomparably less blessed revelation than that which we actually have. As to ourselves, if we had a divine nature without the blessed relationship of sonship before the Father, we should lose the very sweetest part of our blessing. And it is not barely the deity of Jesus that has to be owned (though this lies at the bottom of all truth), but the eternal relationship of the Son with the Father. Not merely was He Son in this world: it is most dangerous to limit the Sonship of Christ thus, for it is from all eternity. People reason, that because He is called Son, He must have a beginning in time, subsequently to the Father. All such argumentation ought to be banished from the soul of a Christian. The Scripture doctrine has no reference to priority of time. He is called Son in respect of affection and intimate nearness of relationship. It is the pattern of the blessed place into which grace brings us through union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Though in Him, of course, there are ineffable heights and depths beyond. But if we are simple about it, we gather from it the deepest joy that is to be found in the knowledge of the true God — and that in His Son.

The Father, then, interrupts the word of Peter, and answers Himself. The bright cloud that overshadowed them, Peter knew to be the cloud of Jehovah's presence: and the Father adds, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It is not, This is your Messiah — He was that, of course, but He brings out the grand New Testament revelation of Jesus. He reveals Him as His own beloved Son, and His unqualified delight in Him. "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear ye Him" — this last also a statement of all importance. What was Moses, and what Elias now? They are entirely left out here by the Father. I need not say that every one who knows Jesus as the Son of God would be very far from despising Moses and Elias. They who understand grace have a far deeper respect for the law than the man who muddles grace and law together. The only full way to value anything that is of God is in the intelligence of His grace. I do not understand myself nor God till I know His grace; and I cannot know His grace, except as I see it revealed in His Son. "The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." He was full of grace and truth.

"Hear ye Him," is the Father's demand. It is no longer, Hear Moses, or Hear Elias, but "Hear ye HIM." Could anything be more startling to a Jew? All must give place to the Son. The dignity of the others is not denied, nor their due position slighted. To assert the glory of the sun in the heavens is in no way to despise the stars. God set Moses in his place, and Elias in another, as He saw fit; but what were they compared with His Son? How plain and sad that men should still be making two tabernacles — one for Moses (if not for Elias), and one for the Lord Jesus! They talk about God being the unchangeable God: but He who ordained the night made the day; and as surely as He once spake the law, He has now sent the gospel. I see here the display of the glory of God, showing out now one part of His character and now another.

This is not changing. God gives us to see His different attributes, and His various wisdom, and His infinite glory; but I must see each in its own sphere, and understand the intent for which God has given each. Moses and Elias were the two great cardinal points of the Jewish system; but now there is One who eclipses all that system — Jesus, the Son of God; and in presence of Him not even the representatives of the law or the prophets are to be heard. There is a fulness of truth that comes out in the Son of God; and if I want to understand the mind of God, as it concerns me now, I must hear Him. This was most difficult for a Jew to enter into, because His religion was based upon the law. Now, the beloved Son of God in whom the Father Himself expresses His perfect satisfaction is set before all — "Hear ye Him."

As Jesus is the object of the Father's infinite love, so He is the means of that same love reaching even to us. If I see Him to be the beloved Son of the Father, my soul rests upon Him and enters into communion with the Father. "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ." What is fellowship? It is our having common joy in a common object which we share with one another. We share in the joy of the Father and of the Son. The Father bids me hear the Son, and the Son declares the Father. We have fellowship with the Father, who points out to our hearts Him in whom He Himself delighted; we have fellowship with the Son, inasmuch as He makes known to us the Father. How shall I know the Father? — how know His feelings? In one way: I look at His Son, and I see the Father. The Son speaks, and I hear His voice. I know how He acts; I know His love — a love that can come down to the very vilest. Such was Christ; and now I am sure such is the Father also. I know what God the Father is when I follow the Son and listen to the Son. It is the Father He is revealing, not Himself: the Son came to make known what the Father is in a world that knew Him not. Even those who had faith, what thoughts had they about the Father? We have only to look at the disciples to see what scant answer to the Father's heart. Although they were born of God, up to this time they knew not the Father was revealing Himself in Jesus. Philip said, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." Not that he did not divinely know Jesus as the Messiah; but he had not entered into the blessedness of what He was as the Son revealing the Father. It was only after the Holy Ghost came down, after the Son's departure to heaven, that they acquired the consciousness of the grace wherein they stood. So, yet more, the apostle Paul says, "Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more." To know Christ at the right hand of God — to appreciate what He is there, is to know Him far better than if we had heard every discourse, and seen every miracle of His upon earth. The Holy Ghost brings it out more fully through His word. I am not saying now how far we enter practically into what the Holy Ghost is teaching, because this must after all, and rightly, depend on the measure of our spirituality. But the Holy Ghost is here to take of the things of Christ and show them to us — to make His glory known, and His sufferings, as it is the Father's delight that He should be known. But there were many things that they could not then bear. When the Holy Ghost was come, He should lead them into all truth.

Such is the object of the Father. He takes occasion of the glory of Jesus, manifested as Son of Man, to show that a still deeper glory attaches to Him. The kingdom of Christ by no means exhausts the glory of His person: and it is as connected with His deeper glory that the existence of the Church is brought out. It was the confession of His Sonship that elicited the word, "Upon this rock I will build My Church." This is the pith of the New Testament revelation — it is the Father revealing His Son, and the Spirit enabling us to receive what the Son is, both as the image of the in ' visible God, and as introducing us into fellowship with the Father. It is not God merely known as such, but the Father in the Son made known by the Holy Ghost. Hence it is that here in a Gospel especially written for Jewish believers, the Holy Ghost particularly marks this. (Compare the close of Matt. 11).

The disciples, confounded by what they heard, fall on their faces and are sore afraid. There was no communion with it yet. For the present they enter into it but slightly, though it was afterwards recalled to them by the Spirit of God. "And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only" (vers. 7, 8). The heavenly vision had passed away for a time: they were on the mount alone with Jesus. What a joy! — if it vanish, He abides!

Let us just refer, briefly, to the account of this scene as given in the other Gospels. In Mark, the words, "In whom I am well pleased" are left out. The emphatic point, forgotten nowhere, is that He was the Son — in Mark, as in Matthew (not a Servant only, though truly such) — who is to be heard. But Matthew adds, "In whom I am well pleased." The satisfaction of the Father in the Son is given as the ground why He should be heard, as the full expression of His mind. In Luke we have another thing: "Behold, there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias" (Luke 9: 30). They are called "men" here in a distinct manner — this Gospel having been written more particularly in view of men at large. These men "appeared in glory, and spake of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem." It is the subject of their conversation — of the deepest interest for us all. The death and sufferings of Jesus are the great theme on which men in glory converse with Jesus, the Son of God. And Jerusalem — Jerusalem! — would be the place of His death, instead of welcoming Him to reign! But we find here the sad traits of human weakness: Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. Here again we find the Father's affection for His Son. The highest glories of Judaism wane — the Son is to be heard. The moral features are prominent throughout.

But, let us observe, John leaves out the transfiguration altogether; because his proper work was to dwell, not upon Christ's outward manifestation to the world as Son of Man in His kingdom, but on His eternal glory as the only-begotten Son of God; or, as he says himself, "We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father."

In 2 Peter 1: 16-18, we have an allusion to this scene. It is said there, "He received from God the Father honour and glory" (confirming the remark, that this scene does not show us so much His essential glory as that which He received from God the Father) — "when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory" (or the cloud, which was the known external symbol of Jehovah's majesty), "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Peter leaves out "Hear ye Him," because, the revelation of Jesus having come out, the point that remains is the Father's delight in Jesus. I do not pretend to say how far the inspired writers knew all the mind of God in such a thing: they wrote as moved by the Holy Ghost.

As the disciples came down from the mount, the Lord charges them, saying, "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead" (ver. g). It was no longer a question of testifying to the kingdom of Christ. This was rejected. The vision was for the disciples, for strengthening their faith in Jesus. The Lord was occupying Himself with the souls of believers, not with the world. There is always a period when testimony of an outward kind may close. You may remember the time when Paul separates the disciples that were at Ephesus from the multitude, and leads them into what more particularly concerned them. For the time, till the Holy Ghost was given, till the Lord was risen from the dead, and power came from on high to make these things a fresh starting-point, it was of no use to speak of them any further.

Then we have, "His disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come and restore all things; but I say unto you that Elias has come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed" (vers. 10-12). He shows that, to faith, Elias was come. If the nation had received the word preached by John, Elias' mission would have been fulfilled, according to the prophecy in Malachi; but the nation refusing Jesus as well as His forerunner, faith alone could recognize the testimony of John the Baptist as being virtually that of Elias. This accords with the statement we had in Matthew 11, "If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was to come;" showing that it was not Elias actually and literally, but the spirit and power of Elias in the person of John the Baptist. The Messiah is coming in glory by and by, and Elias is coming too. But the Messiah was come in weakness now, and humiliation, and His forerunner had been put to death. It was Elias who was come in the person of the suffering John the Baptist, and his testimony was despised. The disciples are led into the secret of this: "Elias is come already, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist" (vers. 12, 13).

But at the foot of that same mountain where the Lord displayed the glory of the kingdom, Satan also displayed his power. It was not broken yet. The kingdom was only a matter of testimony. The disciples failed to draw on the resources of Christ to put down the power of the enemy. A man comes to the Lord, kneeling down to Him and saying, "Lord, have mercy on my son; for he is lunatic and sore vexed; for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water" — the most opposite trials were thus brought together. "And I brought him to Thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to Me. And Jesus rebuked the devil, and he departed out of him. And the child was cured from that very hour" (vers. 15-18). The disciples wanted to know how it was that they could not cast him out, and He tells them, "Because of your unbelief." It is as sad as wonderful that unbelief is at the root of the difficulties Satan foists in; for he has lost his power over those that have faith. This child is a lunatic and sore vexed; but unbelief is unable to use the power of God, which ought to have been at the command of the disciples. "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place." The least working of faith in the soul is so far available for present difficulties. The power of the world, the settled power of anything here, which is what the mountain sets forth, would completely disappear before faith. "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (vers. 20, 21). There must be dependence upon God in the conflict with the power of evil. It was Christ's moral glory and the secret of strength. The assumption of power, because of association with Jesus, simply fails and turns to shame. There must also be self-emptiness and self-denial, that God may act. When Jesus descends all Satan's power is broken and vanishes.

Then comes another declaration of His sufferings, but I will not dwell upon this now, beyond remarking that, as in Matthew 16: 21 we had His sufferings through the Jews (elders, chief priests and scribes), so here it is rather Gentile rejection: "The Son of Man shall be betrayed into the hands of men." This follows the manifestation of His glory as Son of Man, while the other followed the confession of His still deeper glory as Son of God.

In conclusion, let us look at the beautiful lesson in the piece of money demanded for the temple. Peter there answers quickly according to his usual warmth of character. When the tax-gatherer came, who was connected with the temple, and the usual fee was demanded, Peter answered, very hastily, that of course his Master would pay the tribute. His mind went not beyond their Jewish position. It was not that any king of the earth was demanding tribute now of them; this was for Jehovah's temple. And our Lord anticipates Peter when they come to the house, and says to him, "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? — of their children or of strangers?" Peter answers truly enough, "Of strangers." Then Jesus says to him, "Then are the children free." Nothing can be more beautiful than the truth taught us here: whatever be the glory of the coming kingdom, whatever the power of Satan, which disappears before the word of Jesus, whatever the faith which can remove mountains, nothing can take the Son of God out of the place of grace. He is the King, and Peter one of the "children" who are free, and yet to whom this demand was made. "Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them," says the Lord, "go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money, that take, and give unto them for Me and thee" (ver. 27).

This is the great wonder of Christ, and the practical wonder of Christianity, that while we have the consciousness of glory, and ought to pass through the world as sons of glory as well as sons of God, for this very reason the Lord calls us to be the humblest and meekest, taking no place upon the earth — I do not mean claiming no place for Christ, of course. It is our business to live for Christ and the truth: but where it is a question of ourselves, to be willing to be trampled on and counted as the off-scouring of the world. Flesh and blood are against it; but it is the power of the Spirit of God raising us above nature.

The Lord provides for all demands. He directs Peter how to find the piece of money, and says, "That take, and give unto them for Me and thee." What a joy that Jesus associates us with Himself, and provides for everything! — that Jesus, who proves Himself in this very thing to be God the Creator, with divine knowledge, having the command of the restless deep, making a fish to provide the money needed to pay the tax of the temple, should thus give us a place with Himself, and undertake for all our need! Nothing can more beautifully show us how, with the consciousness of glory, our place should ever be that of the bending and lowliness of Christ. How blessedly the Son stooped to be the servant, and leads the children into the same path of grace!

The Lord grant us to know how to reconcile these two things. We can only do it so far as our eye is upon Christ.

Matthew 18

In Matthew 16 we had two subjects connected with the revelation of the Lord's person to Simon Peter: one of them, the Church, entirely new, or for the first time divulged; the other, the familiar subject of the kingdom of heaven. We shall find in the chapter before us these two things again brought together — not confounded or identified. We are called to see the kingdom and the Church in their practical bearing. We have already learned that the Lord was to build the Church. "Upon this rock" (the confession of His person) "I will build My Church." Afterward, He promised to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

Now we find (connected, I think, with the principle which actuated Himself) the consciousness of glory, and of the absolute command of all that He had made. He was the Lord of heaven and earth — if, in grace, He paid the tribute of the temple; for grace gives up its rights; at least, it does not seek to claim and exercise them for the present. And in the very consciousness of the possession of all glory, it can bow in this evil world. But, then, carefully observe that the soul is never to yield God's rights, but our own. We must be as unbending as a flint wherever God is in question. Grace never surrenders the true holiness, the claim, or will, of God; in fact, it is what strengthens the soul to value them and walk in them. There is often a practical difficulty that people do not understand. While we are called upon to walk in grace, it is a misuse of grace to suppose it to be an allowance of evil or indifference to it in our relations with God. Grace, while it meets us in our ruin, imparts a power we had not before, because it reveals Christ, strengthens the soul, gives a new life, and acts upon that life so as to carry us forward in the obedience as well as in the enjoyment of Christ. Our Lord shows that this ought to govern everything.

But first we have the spirit that befits us. "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" This furnishes opportunity for our Lord to indicate the spirit that becomes the kingdom of heaven: "Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (ver. 3). Now this is what is wrought in a soul when it is converted: there is a new life given, even Christ. Hence there is much more than a change. That would be very far short of the truth as to a Christian. Of course the Christian is a changed man; but then the change is because of something still deeper. A Christian is a man born again, possessing a life now that he possessed not before. I do not mean merely that he lives after a new sort, but that he has a, new life given to him which he had not before. It is in this way that he becomes a little child. Then this new life has to be cultivated and strengthened. Our natural life as men develops, or it may be checked and hindered by various circumstances. So it is with the spiritual life.

Our Lord shows here what is the characteristic moral feature that suits the kingdom of heaven; and this in opposition to Jewish thoughts of greatness. They were still thinking of the kingdom according to certain Old Testament delineations of it. When David came to the kingdom, his followers that had been faithful before were exalted according to their previous worth. You have the three great chiefs, and then thirty other warriors, and so on; all of them having their place determined by the way in which they had carried themselves in the day of trial. The disciples came with similar thoughts to our Lord, full of what they had done and suffered. The same spirit broke out on many occasions, even at the last supper. Our Lord here uses it to show that the spirit He loves in His disciples is to be nothing — to be without a thought of self, in a spirit of lowliness, dependence, and trust, that does not think about itself. This is the natural feeling of a little one. In the spiritual child this self-forgetfulness is exactly the right feeling. The little child is the standing witness of true greatness in the kingdom of heaven. In our Lord Himself this was shown, fully. The wonder was that He who knew everything, who had all power and might, could take the place of a little child; yet He did. And, indeed, you may be sure that the lowliness of a child is in no wise incompatible with a person being deeply taught in the things of God. It is not a lowliness that shows itself in phrases or forms, but the reality of meekness that confides not in itself, but in the living God; and this has the respect which God Himself loves there should be toward those around it. Perfect humility was just as much a feature of our Lord Jesus as the consciousness of His glory. The two things may go well together; and you cannot have becoming Christian humility unless there be the consciousness of glory. To behave ourselves lowlily, as children of God, is the beautiful thing the Lord is here putting before us.

"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (ver. 4). It is not merely the becoming like little children as begotten of God, but there, is the practical humbling of ourselves. And not only the humbling of ourselves, but how we feel toward others: "Whosoever shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me." Whatever may be the lowliness of the Christian, he should be viewed with all the glory of Christ, which is meant by receiving him in the name of Christ. It is a person that does not defend his rights, nor assert his own glory, but is willing to bend and make way for any one, while conscious of the glory that rests upon him. There may be the very opposite of this — "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me." What is meant by this? Anything calculated to shake their confidence in Christ, to put a stumbling-block in their way. It does not mean anything said in faithful love to their soul. People may take offence at this; but it is not what is spoken of here., It is what tends to shake the confidence of the little one in God Himself. "Whoso shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." These things are constantly occurring in the world. Therefore, says the Lord, "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." What is to be done? The Lord shows in two forms the way to guard against these stumbling-blocks. The first is this — I must begin with myself. This is the most important means of not stumbling another. "Wherefore, if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off and cast them from thee." It may be in one's service, or in one's walk; but if thy hand or foot become the occasion of stumbling (something in which the enemy takes advantage against God), deal resolutely at once with the evil thing. "It is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire" (vers. 6-8).

The Lord always puts the full result of evil before the soul. In speaking of the kingdom of heaven, He takes into account that there may be persons in it false as well as true. He therefore speaks generally. He does not pronounce upon them; for some may be truly born of God and others not. The Lord solemnly puts before them that such as are indifferent about sin are not of God. It is impossible for a soul to be regenerate and habitually careless about that which grieves the Holy Ghost. Therefore He puts before them the certainty of such being cast into everlasting fire. Of no one who is born of God could this be said. But as there may be in the kingdom of heaven a false profession as well as a true, the believer is to look well to it, that he do not allow sin in any of his members. "And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire." It may cost ever so much, but God is not a hard Master; none is so tender and loving. And yet it is God giving us His mind by the Lord Jesus, showing us that this is the only way of dealing with that which may become an occasion of sin. (Compare Eph. 5: 5, 6).

The first great source of offense to others, and which must be first removed, is that which is a stumbling-block to our own souls. We must begin with self-judgment. But there is also the despising the little ones that belong to God. "Take heed," says our Lord, "that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven.* For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost" (vers. 10, 11). A beautiful word, especially as it is so broadly stated by our Lord as to take in literally a little child as well as the little ones that believe in Him. I believe this chapter was meant to give encouragement touching little ones. The plea on which our Lord goes is, not that they were innocent (which is the way in which they are so often spoken of among men), but that the Son of Man came to save that which was lost. It supposes the taint of sin, but that the Son of Man came to meet it: so that we are entitled to have confidence in the Lord, not for our own souls only, but for the little ones too.

* What our Lord calls here "their angels" seem to be the spirits of children now in heaven — the spirit representing the person in the present state until the resurrection. Compare Acts 12: 15; Heb. 12: 23, and Rev. 1: 20 — this last representing the assembly. A "guardian angel," of which some speak as the meaning here, does not seem to give a good reason for the Lord's warning; nor is it anywhere mentioned in Scripture. Ed.

But our Lord goes further. "How think ye? If a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it; verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (vers. 12-14). No doubt we can embrace all those that are saved on the same principle. The Gospel of Luke shows us (Luke 15) this very parable applied to any sinner. But here the Lord is taking it up in connection with the foregoing, namely, right feelings for one who belongs to the kingdom of heaven. Starting from' a little child whom He sets in the midst, He carries the thought of the little one all through this part of His discourse. And now He closes with the proof, in His own mission, of the interest which the Father takes in these little ones.

Then the Lord applies it to our practical conduct. Supposing your brother does you wrong; an evil word, perhaps, or an unkind action done against you — something that you feel deeply as a real personal trespass against you; it is a sin, of course. Nobody knows it, probably, but himself and you. What are you to do? At once this great principle is applied: When you were ruined and far from God, what met your case? Did God wait till you put away your sin? He sent His own Son to seek you, to save you. "The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost." This is the principle for you to act upon. You belong to God; you are a child of God. Your brother has wronged you? Go you to him, and seek to set him right., It is the activity of love which the Lord Jesus presses upon His disciples. We are to seek the deliverance, in the power of divine love, of those who have wandered from God. The flesh feels and resents wrong done against itself. But grace does not shroud itself up in its own dignity, waiting for the offender to come and humble himself and own his wrong. The Son of Man came to seek the lost. I want you, He says, to be walking after the same principle, to be vessels of the same love — to be characterized by grace, going out after that which has sinned against God. This is a great difficulty, unless the soul is fresh in the love of God, and enjoying what God is for him. How does God feel about the child that has done wrong? His loving desire is to have him right. When the child is near enough to know the Father's heart he goes out to do the Father's will. A wrong may have been done against him, but he does not think about that. It is his brother who has slipped into evil, and the desire of his heart is to have the brother righted who had gone astray — not to vindicate self, but that his soul may be restored to the Lord.

"Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone" (ver. 15). It is not here the case of a sin known to a great many, but some personal trespass only known to you two. Go, then, to him, and tell him his fault between you and him alone. "If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Love is bent on gaining the brother. So it is to him that understands and feels with Christ. It is not the offender, but thy brother that is the thought before the heart: "Thou hast gained thy brother."*

*Forgiveness is necessarily based on the "hearing," — "if he shall hear thee" — which shows the heart is not continuing in the wrong. Ed.

"But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Is it possible he may resist one or two who come to him, witnesses of the love of Christ? He has refused Christ pleading by one; can he refuse Christ now that He pleads by more? It may be, alas, that he will. "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church." The Church means the assembly of God in the place to which these all belong. "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" (ver. 17). The assembly, then, is told of the guilty person's fault. The thing has been investigated and pressed home. The Church warns and entreats this man, but he refuses to hear; and the consequence is — "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." A most solemn issue! A man who is called a brother in the verse before is to me as a heathen man and a publican now. We are not to suppose the man to be a drunkard or a thief; but showing the hardness of self-will and a spirit of self-justification. It may arise out of small circumstances; but this unbending pride about himself and his own fault is that on which he may, according to the Lord, be regarded as a heathen man and a publican — no more to acknowledge him in his impenitent state. And yet it may spring mainly from the spirit of justifying oneself. In the case of open sin or wickedness, the duty of the Church is clear: the person is put away. Nor would there be reason in such a case for going one at a time, and then one or two more. But the Lord shows here how the end of this personal trespass might be that the Church has finally to hear it — and it may lead to something more.

"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." It is not a mere question of agreement, but of what is done in the name of the Lord. (See 1 Cor. 5: 4.) "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, That if two of you shall agree on the earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them." Whether for discipline or for making requests of God, the Lord lays down this great principle, that where two or three are gathered together unto His name, He is in the midst of them. Nothing could be more sweet and encouraging. And I am persuaded that the Lord had in view the present ruin of the Church, when there might be ever so few gathered aright, assembled in obedience to the word of God, and carrying it out according to the will of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But a person may ask, Are any upon that ground? I can only say that the Christians who fall back on Scripture, owning the faithful presence of the Spirit in the assembly on earth, are taking an immense deal of trouble for a delusion if they are not. They are very foolish in acting as they do unless they are sure that it is according to the mind of God. Ought you to have more doubt how Christians should meet together for worship or mutual edification than about any other directions in the word of God? If we are not restrained by human rules, if the word of God alone is followed, there is entire liberty to carry out its directions. But while speaking thus confidently, on the other hand ought we not to take a very low place? When members of Christ's body are scattered here and there, humiliation alone becomes us; not only because of others' ways, but our own. For what have we been to Christ and the Church? It would be very wrong to call ourselves the Church; but if we were only two or three meeting in the name of Christ, we should have the same sanction and Christ's presence as if we had the twelve apostles with us. If through unbelief and weakness the Church at large were broken up and scattered, and if, in all this confusion, there were only two or three who had faith to act upon the Lord's will, for them the word would still be true, "Where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst of them." It is the presence of Christ and obedience to Him that give sanction to their acts. If the Church has fallen into ruin, the business of those who feel this is to depart from known evil — "Cease to do evil; learn to do well." We always have to come back to first principles when things get astray. This is the obligation of a Christian man.

Peter then asks our Lord, "How oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?" (ver. 21.) We had instruction how we were to act in the case of a personal trespass. But Peter raises another question. Supposing my brother sins against me over and over, how often am I to forgive him? The answer is, "I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven." In the kingdom of heaven — not under the law, but under the rule of the rejected Christ — forgiveness is unlimited. How wonderful — the deeper holiness revealed in Christianity, is at the same time, that which feels with deepest love, and goes out with it to others! So we find here, "I say not unto thee, Until seven times," which was Peter's idea of the largest grace, "but, Until seventy times seven." Our Lord insists that there really was no end to forgiveness. It is always to be in the heart of the Christian.

"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king which would take account of his servants" (ver. 23). And then we have two servants brought before us. The king forgives one of them who had been very guilty (who owed him ten thousand talents — practically, a debt that never could be paid by a servant). On his entreaty, the king forgives him. The servant then goes out and meets a fellow-servant who owes him a hundred pence — a small sum indeed in comparison with that which had just been forgiven to himself. Yet he seizes his fellow-servant by the throat, saying, "Pay me that thou owest." And the king hearing it summons the guilty man before him. What is taught by this? It is a comparison of the kingdom of heaven, and refers to a state of things established here below by God's will. While we may, and must, take the principle to ourselves, much more is taught than this.* Taken in the large way, the servant that owes the ten thousand talents represents the Jew, peculiarly favoured of God, who yet had contracted the enormous debt that he never could pay. When they had completed this debt by the death of their Messiah, a message of forgiveness was sent them — "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out." They had only to do so, and their sins would be blotted out: God would send the Messiah again, and bring in the times of refreshing. The Holy Ghost, answering the prayer of our Lord upon the cross, uses Peter to tell them, "I wot, brethren, that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. . . . Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," even as the Lord had said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Thus the servant had heard the sound of forgiveness to himself, yet with no real apprehension of it. He goes out and casts a fellow-servant into prison for a very small debt. This is the way in which the Jews acted toward the Gentiles. And thus all the debt that God had forgiven them became fastened upon them. The master says to the servant, "O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (vers. 32-34).

* While forgiveness or retension of guilt governmentally is the subject of this kingdom parable, an unforgiving, relentless spirit would show a heart untouched by God's mercy, with eternal consequences attaching. — [Ed.

I do not doubt that you may apply this to an individual who has heard the gospel, and who does not act according to it. The principle of it is true now of any mere professor of the gospel in these days, who acts like a worldly man. But taking it on the broader scale, you must bring in the dealings of God with the Jews. The day is coming when the Lord will say that Jerusalem has received of His hand double for all her sins. He will apply to them the blood of Christ, which can outweigh the ten thousand talents, and more. But the unbelieving generation of Israel are cast into prison, and will never come out: the remnant will, by the grace of God; and the Lord will make of the remnant a strong nation.

Meanwhile, for us the great principle of forgiveness is what we have need to remember. We have specially to remind our souls in the case of anything that is against ourselves. May we at once look steadfastly at what our God and Father has done for us! If we can, in the presence of such grace, be hard for some trifling thing done against ourselves, let us bethink ourselves how the Lord judges here.

May the Lord grant that His words may not be in vain for us, that we may seek to remember the exceeding grace that has abounded towards our souls, and what God looks for from us!

Matthew 19

We have had the announcement of the kingdom of heaven and then of the Church. We have seen them as distinct, though connected, in Matthew 16; then in Matthew 18, the practical ways which suit them. It was necessary also to bring out the relation of the kingdom to God's order in nature. The relationships which God has established in nature are entirely apart from the new creation, and are carried on when a soul enters the new creation. The believer is still a man here be low, although as a Christian he is called not to act on human principles, but to do the will of God. It was therefore of much importance to know if the new things affect the recognition of that which had been already set up in nature. Accordingly, this chapter largely reveals the mutual relations of what is of grace and what is in nature. I am, of course, using the word "nature," not in the sense of "the flesh," which expresses the principle and exercise of self-will, but of that which God ordained in this world before sin came in, and survives the ruin. It is only the man that understands grace that can enter into and thoroughly recognize the outward natural order in the world. Grace never leads a person to slight anything God has introduced, it matters not what it might be. Take for example the law; what a profound error to suppose that the gospel weakens or annuls God's law! On the contrary, as the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 3, by faith "we establish the law." If I am on legal ground, there is terror, anxiety, darkness; the dread of meeting God as a judge: the law keeps up all these thoughts as long as I am here, and very properly. Hence, it is only the man who knows that he is saved by grace, lifted above the region to which the law applies its death-stroke, who can gravely, yet in peace, look at it and own its power, because he is in Christ, above all condemnation. A believer can do it, just because he is not under law; for, "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." If he were under the law even as to his own walk and communion, and not his standing before God, he must be miserable; the more so, in proportion as he is honest in regard to the law. The attempt to be happy under the law is a most painful struggle, with the danger too of deceiving ourselves and others. From all this grace delivers the soul, setting it on a new ground. But the believer can look with delight and see the wisdom and holiness of God that shine in His every arrangement and all His moral government. The law indeed is a testimony to what God forbids or wishes, but not the revelation of what He is. This you cannot find outside Christ. However, the law holds up the standard of that which God demands of man. It shows His intolerance of evil, and the necessary judgment of those who practise it. But we should be helplessly and hopelessly miserable if this were all; and it is only when the soul has laid hold of the grace of God that it can take pleasure in His ways.

This chapter, then, surveys the relationships of nature in the light of the kingdom. The first and most fundamental is that of marriage. "The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (ver. 3). There you have the conduct of such as are on legal ground. There is really no respect for God, no genuine regard for His law. The Lord at once vindicates from Scripture the institution and the sanctity of marriage: "Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" (ver. 4). That is, He shows it is not a mere question of what came in by the law, but He goes to the sources. God had first established it; and, far from dissolving the tie as men list, He made a single pair, and therefore only to be the one for the other. All other relationships were light in comparison of this closest tie — even union. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh." Next to the relationship of marriage is the tie of a child to its parents. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of marriage as a natural institution. Who would talk of a child leaving his father and mother for any cause? The Pharisees even would not think of such a thing. ,What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." They were ready with an answer: "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" (ver. 7). There was really no such command: a divorce was simply allowed.

Our Lord draws the distinction perfectly. Moses suffered certain things not according to the original archetypal intention of God. Nor should this be matter of wonder, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not impart goodness. The law might be perfect for its own object, but it perfected nothing, nor was it ever the intention of God that it should. But more than this: there were certain concessions contained in the law which did not at all express the divine mind; for God therein was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not contemplate a man as born of God; Christianity does. Men of faith during the law were of course born of God. But the law itself drew no line between regenerate and unregenerate; it addressed all Israel, and not believers only; hence suffered certain things in view of the hardness of their hearts. So that our Lord, while intimating a certain consideration of Israel's condition in the flesh, at the same time vindicated God's law from the corrupt deductions of these selfish Pharisees. "From the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (vers. 8, g). Our Lord adds here what was not in the law, and brings out the full mind of God touching this relationship. There is but one just cause for which it may be dissolved; or rather, marriage must be dissolved morally in order to terminate as a matter of fact. In case of fornication, the tie is all gone before God; and the putting away merely proclaims before man what has already taken place in God's sight. All is made perfectly clear. The righteousness of the law is established as far as it went, but it stops short of perfection by admitting in certain cases a less evil to avoid a greater. Our Lord supplies the needed truth — going up to the very beginning, and on to the end also.

Thus it is that Christ, the true light, alone and always introduces the perfect mind of God, supplying all deficiencies and making all perfect. This is the aim, work and effect of grace. Nevertheless, "His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (ver. 10). Alas! the selfishness of the heart even in disciples. It was so much the custom then to dismiss the wife because of petty dislike, etc., that it shocked them to hear the Lord insisting on the indissolubility of the marriage. tie.

But, says the Lord, "All men receive not this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (vers. 11, 12). There, I apprehend that, while maintaining the institution of marriage naturally, the Lord shows there is a power of God that can raise people above it. The apostle Paul was acting in the spirit of this verse, when he gives us his own judgment as one that had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7: 25). Doubtless he was called to a remarkable work, which would have made due attention to family relationship very difficult. His business lay and took him everywhere. Wherever there were churches to care for, wherever souls cried, Come over and help us — and far beyond the calls of saints or men, the Holy Ghost laid it on his devoted heart. With wife or family to care for, the work of the Lord could not have been so thoroughly done. Hence the wise and gracious judgment of the apostle, not given as a command, but left to weigh on the spiritual mind. The last of the three classes in the verse is figuratively expressed: it means, plainly, living unmarried for God's glory. But mark, it is a gift, not a law, much less a caste. Only such receive it to whom it is given." It is put as a privilege. As the apostle presses the honourableness of marriage, he was the last to lay the smallest slur on such a tie; but he also knew of a higher and all-absorbing love, an entrance, in measure, into the affections of Christ for the Church. Still this is not an imposed obligation, but a special call and gift of grace in which he rejoiced to glorify his Master. The appreciation of the love of Christ to the Church had formed him in its own pattern. Observe here, it is "made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" — that order of things which depends on Christ now in heaven. And hence, strong in the grace that shines in Him at the right hand of God, they to whom it is given walk above the natural ties of life — not despising them; but honouring them, while individually surrendering themselves to that goodly portion which shall not be taken from them.

And now children are brought unto Him — little ones, apt to be despised. What in this world so helpless and dependent as a babe? "Then were brought unto Him little children, that He should put His hands on them, and pray" (ver. 13). The disciples thought it an annoyance or a liberty, and "rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And He laid His hands on them, and departed thence" (vers. 13-15). So completely were all the demands of love met even where the desire seemed ever so unseasonable. For why should the Lord of heaven and earth occupy Himself with putting His hands upon little ones? But love is not restrained by human reason, and the unworthy thoughts of the disciples were set aside, who thought babes unworthy of His notice. Ah! how little they knew Him, long as they had been with Him. Was it not worthy of Him so to bless the very least in man's eyes? How important a lesson for our souls is this? It need not be one connected with ourselves; it might be another's child. Do we claim the Lord for it? What is His feeling? He is great, He is mighty; but He despiseth not any.

Before His glory there is not so much difference between a world and a worm. The world is a mere cipher, if God measures by Himself. But then, the feeblest may be the object of His deepest love and care. Our Lord looked at these babes, oh, with what interest! They are the objects of the Father's love, for whom He gave His Son, and whom the Son came to save. Each had a soul: and what was its value? What to be a vessel of grace in this world, and of glory in the bright eternal day? The disciples did not enter in these thoughts; and how little our own souls enter into them. Jesus not only blessed the babes, but rebuked the disciples, who had misrepresented Him; and He says, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto Me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." A withering word for pride. Were the disciples "of such" at that moment, or at least in that act?

And now a young man "came and said unto Him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" He was evidently a lovely natural character; one who combined in his person every quality that was estimable; one who had not only all that men think productive of happiness in this world, but apparently sincere in desiring to know and do the will of God. And, further, he was attracted by and came to Jesus. In another Gospel we read that "Jesus loved him;" not because he believed in and followed Jesus; for, alas, we know he did not. But there are various forms of divine love, besides that which embraces us as returned prodigals. While we have a special love for the children of God, and in the things of God ought to value only that which is of the Holy Ghost, it does not follow that we are not to admire a fine mind or a naturally beautiful character. If we do not, it only proves that we do not understand the mind of God as here manifested in Jesus. Even as to creation, am I to look coldly, or not at all, at rivers or mountains, the sea, the sky, valleys, forests, trees, flowers, that God has made? It is a total mistake that spirituality renders dull to His outward works. But am I to set my mind upon these sights? Are we to travel far and wide for the purpose of visiting what all the world counts worthy to be seen? If in my path of serving Christ a grand or beautiful prospect passes before me, I do not think that He whose handiwork it is calls me to close my eyes or mind. The Lord Himself draws attention to the lilies of the field brighter than Solomon in all his glory. Man admires that which enables him to indulge his self-love and ambition in this world. That is merely the flesh. But as to the beautiful, morally or in nature, grace, instead of despising, values all that is good in its own sphere, and does homage to the God who thus displayed His wisdom and power. Grace despises neither what is in creation nor what is in man. This young man the Lord "loved," when certainly as yet there was no faith at all. He went away from Jesus in sorrow. But what believer ever did, since the world began? His sorrow was because he was not prepared for the path of faith. Jesus desired him to follow Him, but not as a rich man. He would have been delighted to do "some great thing;" but the Lord laid bare self in his heart. He knew that (spite all that naturally, and even according to the law, was beautiful in him), there was self-importance at bottom — the flesh turning these very advantages into a reason for not following Jesus. But as nothing at all, he must follow Jesus. "Good Master," said he," what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" He had not learned the first lesson a Christian knows, what a convicted sinner is learning — that he is lost. The youth showed that he had never felt his own ruin. He assumed that he was capable of doing good; but the sinner is like the leper in Leviticus 13, who could not bring an offering to God, but only remain outside crying, "Unclean, unclean." The young man had no sense of sin. He regarded eternal life as the result of a man's doing good. He had been doing the law; and, as far as he knew, he never broke it.

Our Lord says to him, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." He may take him up on that ground. This man had no idea that the one to whom he was speaking was God Himself. He merely went to Him as a good man. On this footing the Lord would not allow Himself to be called good. God alone is. The Lord at first simply deals with him on his own ground. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto Him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (vers. 17-19). The Lord quotes the commands that relate to human duties — the second table of the law, as it is called. "All these," says the young man, have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? But says the Lord, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me,." And what then? "When the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." He loved his possessions better than he loved Jesus. This gave our Lord an opportunity for unfolding another truth, and one most startling to a Jew, who regarded wealth as a sign of the blessing of God. It was in a similar spirit that the friends of job also acted, though they were Gentiles; for in truth it is the judgment of fleshly righteousness. They thought that God must be against job because he had got into unheard-of trial. The Lord brings out, in view of the kingdom of heaven, the solemn truth that the advantages of the flesh are positive hindrances to the Spirit.

"Then said Jesus unto His disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly" (that is, with difficulty; not, he cannot, but "shall hardly") "enter into the kingdom of heaven." Emphatically He repeats it, "Again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" (beyond nature, of course) "than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When His disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?" The Lord faces their objection: "Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible (vers. 24-26)." If it was a question of man's doing anything to get into the kingdom, riches are only so much hindrance. And so it is with all else counted desirable. Whatever I may have, and trust in, whether it be moral ways, position, or what not — these are but impediments as far as concerns the kingdom, and make it impossible to man. But with God (and we may bless Him for it) all things are possible, no matter what the difficulty. Therefore God chooses in His grace to call all sorts and conditions of people. We read of a person called out of Herod's court; we read of saints in Caesar's household. A great company of the priests believed; so did Barnabas the Levite, with his houses and lands; nay, above all, Saul of Tarsus, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. All these difficulties only gave God the opportunity to overcome all obstacles by His own power and grace.

When Peter heard how hard it was for the rich to be saved, he thought it time for him to speak of what they had given up for the Lord's sake, and to learn what they should get for it. ,Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?" How painfully natural was this! "Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (vers. 28, 29). There is nothing the believer does or suffers but what will be remembered in the kingdom. While this is most blessed, it is also a very solemn thought. Our ways now, though they have nothing to do with the remission of our sins, are yet of all consequence as a testimony to Christ, and will bear very decidedly on our future place in the kingdom. We must not use the doctrine of grace to deny that of rewards; but even so, Christ is the sole motive for the saint. We shall receive for the thing's done in the body according to that we have done, whether it be good or bad, as the Lord shows plainly here. The twelve had followed the rejected Lord, albeit His own grace had given them the power. It was not they who had chosen Him, but He had chosen them. They are now cheered by the assurance that in the blessed time of the regeneration, when the Lord will work a grand change in this world (for as He regenerates a sinner, so will He, as it were, regenerate the world), their work and suffering for His name will not be forgotten of Him.

Remember that what is spoken of here does not refer to heaven: there is still better work in heaven than judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Yet it is a glorious destiny reserved for the twelve apostles during the reign of Christ over the earth. A similar glory is designed for other saints of God, as we read in 1 Cor. 6: 2: "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?" There it is used to show the incongruity of a saint seeking the world's judgment in a matter between himself and another; for the Christian's portion and blessing are entirely apart from the world, and he should be true to the objects for which Christ has called him.

As to all the natural relationships and advantages of this life, if lost for His name's sake, the losers shall receive a hundredfold and inherit everlasting life. The Gospel of John speaks of everlasting life as a thing that we possess now: the others speak of it as future. We have it indeed now dwelling in us; we shall then enter its own dwelling-place, and shall have its fulness in glory by and by. "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." What a hint to Peter — and to us all! A self-righteous claim is a ready snare, and soon finds its level. The leaving of all, if valued, has lost all its value. Thus many who began to run well turned aside from grace to law; and Peter himself was blamed by the last (but first) of the apostles, as we know from the Galatians.

The Lord make His grace the strength of our hearts; and if we have suffered the loss of any or of all things, may we still count them dung that we may win Him!

Matthew 20

The last chapter closed with the important doctrine that in the kingdom the Lord will remember all suffering and service here for His name's sake. But it is evident that though this be an undoubted truth of Scripture, referred to in Paul's epistles, and elsewhere in the New Testament, it is one which the heart would be ready to abuse to self -righteousness; and that a person forgetting that all is of grace might be disposed to make a claim upon God by reason of anything which He had enabled one to do. Hence a parable is added with a totally different principle, in which the prominent thought is the sovereignty of God, for the express purpose, I think, of guarding against such effects. For God is not unrighteous to forget our work and labour of love which we may have shown toward His name: but there is a danger for us in it. It does not follow, because God will not forget what His people do for Him, that His people are to treasure it up themselves. We have but one thing to set our souls upon: it is Christ Himself; as the apostle said, "This one thing I do: forgetting those things that are behind, and reaching forth unto those things that are before" — not forgetting what we have done wrong: the very reverse of this will be even in glory. When there is not a vestige of humiliation left, we shall have a more lively sense than ever of our manifold failures; but not as producing one feeling of doubt, or fear, or unhappiness. Such thoughts would be contrary to the presence of God. It is a good thing for the believer, while holding fast his full blessing, to think of what he is — to humble himself day by day in the sight of God; always remembering that true humiliation is on the ground of our being children of God. A person who had some office about the Queen, and had proper respect for her, would be thinking of her, not of himself. How much more when we are in the presence of God! This ought to fill our souls with joy in the worship of the Lord. What is comely for the saint, what is most acceptable to God, is not the constant bringing in of ourselves in one way or another, right as this may be, in a certain sense, in our closet. But the praise of God for what He is — above all, in the knowledge of His Son and of His work — is the great end of all the dealings of God with His children. The consciousness of our nothingness really shows the deepest and most real humility. Where there is habitual carelessness and lack of dependence, with their sad results, there will not be a preparedness of heart for worship. The proper thought connected with the Lord's table is that I am going to meet with Christ, to praise Him together with His saints; and this — the sense of being in His presence — keeps a check upon our spirits.

In order to keep us in this sense of grace, the Spirit of God recurs in this chapter to the sovereignty of God, the counteractive to the self-righteousness that is to be found even in the heart of a disciple. Peter said,', We have left all, and followed Thee," and the Lord assures him that it would not be forgotten; but He immediately adds the parable of the householder. Here we find, not the principle of rewards. or righteous recognition of the service done by His people, but God's own rights, His own sovereignty. Hence there are no differences here — no one specially remembered because he had won souls to Christ, or left all for Christ. The principle is, that while God will infallibly own every service and loss for the sake of Christ, yet He maintains His own title to do as He will. Some poor soul may be brought to the knowledge of Christ at the day of his death. God claims His own title to give what He pleases, to give to those who have not wrought anything at all — as we may think — just what is good in His own eyes. This is a very different principle from what we had in the last chapter, and exceedingly counter to the mind of man. "The kingdom of heaven is like to a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard" (vers. 1, 2).

The common application of this parable to the salvation of the soul is a mistake. For this is that which Christ wrought for, suffered for, and lives for, independently of man. The poor sinner has just to give himself up to be saved by Christ. When brought to an end of himself, acknowledging that he deserves nothing but hell, how sweet that God brings before such a soul that Jesus Christ (and this is a faithful saying) came into the world to save sinners! When content to be saved as nothing but a sinner, and by nothing but Christ, there and then only is true rest given of Him. Wherever one thinks to contribute his part, it will be — only uncertainty, and doubts, and difficulties. Christ alone is our salvation. The man that is saved contributes nothing but his sins. But in this parable the question is not this; it is the work of each servant, as the Lord is pleased to call to labour in His vineyard. If He please, He' will put all upon an equal footing. He will reward the work that is done, but He will give as He will.

"When he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour and saw others standing idle in the market-place; and said unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way" (vers. 2-4). It is not grace in the sense of salvation here. Whatsoever is right I will give you." It is God that judges what is becoming. "Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise." And, singular to say, "about the eleventh hour he went out." What a heart this tells! What infinite goodness! that God, who recognizes every service and suffering done for Himself, yet keeps intact the prerogative of going out at the last moment to bring in souls, and occupy them with what might seem to be a little service! But He can give grace to do that little well. "About the eleventh hour he went out . . . and saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first" (vers. 6-8). "Beginning from the last." The last are always spoken of first in this parable. So the steward is told to begin from the last unto the first. And again, when the master of the vineyard has to speak himself, it is the same thing: "The last shall be first, and the first last." It is the sovereignty of grace in giving as He pleases; not alone in saving, but in rewarding in the time of glory; for this is what is spoken of.

Of course the last received their wages thankfully. But when the first heard about it, they began to think themselves entitled to more — they who had borne the burden and heat of the day. But the master reminds them that all was a settled thing before they entered on their work. In their selfishness, they forgot both the terms and the righteousness of him with whom they had to do. If, out of the liberality of his heart, he was pleased to give to the last even as to the first, what was that to them? God maintains His own rights. It is of greatest importance for our souls that we hold to the rights of God in everything. Persons will argue as to whether it is righteous for God to elect this person or that. But on the ground of righteousness all are lost, and for ever. Now, if God is pleased to use His mercy according to His wisdom, and for His glory, toward these poor lost ones, who is to dispute with Him? "Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?" God is entitled to act according to what is in His heart: and "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Is He entitled to act from Himself? He cannot act from man on the grounds of righteousness.There is no foundation on which he can thus deal; it is entirely a question of His own good pleasure. And we must remember there is not a man that is lost but rejects the mercy of God, despises it, or uses it for his own selfish purposes in this world. The man that is saved is the only one that has a true sense of sin, that gives himself up as lost, and falls back upon God's mercy in Christ to save a lost sinner.

To the complainant, the goodman of the house answered, "Friend, I do thee no wrong. Didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way; I will give unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?" (vers. 13-15). There comes out the whole secret. Man, yea, a professing disciple, a labourer in His vineyard, may be disputing because he thinks himself entitled to more than another who, in his opinion, has done little as compared with himself. The question of being a child of God does not enter in this parable; and, as to service, one may be a true servant or a mere hireling.

I would just ask, Why in the last chapter it was, "Many that are first shall be last, and the last first," and here, "The last shall be first, and the first last?" In speaking about rewards, according to the work done, the failure of man is intimated; for indeed weakness soon shows itself — "The first shall be last." But in this new parable it is the sovereignty of God that never fails; consequently here, "The last shall be first and the first last." "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present evil world." There was a first, we may say, who became last — a labourer for the Lord, who had not given up Christianity, but grown tired of the path of unremitting service for Christ. If, instead of honour now, the thousands of those who are engaged in the service of Christ were to receive scorn and persecution, there would be no slight thinning of their ranks. But shame and suffering must be looked for by him who intelligently seeks to serve faithfully the Lord in this world. Demas may have been a believer; but the trial and reproach, the love of ease and other things all came strongly over his spirit, and he abandoned the service of the Lord. "All seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's" is a similar principle.

And now the Lord is going up to Jerusalem, and prepares His disciples for still greater trouble. I 'Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him: and the third day He shall rise again" (vers. 18, 19). Even after this, so selfish is the heart of man, the mother of Zebedee's children comes to Him with her sons, who were among the apostles themselves; and, paying her worship to Him, she desires a certain thing of Him. "And He said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto Him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on Thy right hand and the other on the left, in Thy kingdom" (ver. 21). So perfect is the humiliation of Christ, such His self-abandonment (He, the only One who had perfect knowledge of, and right to everything by His personal glory), that He says, I have no place to give in My kingdom — it is not mine to give, save as My Father may desire. But I have something to give you now: it is suffering. Yes, suffering for and with Him is what Christ gives His servants now — a high privilege. When the apostle Paul was converted, he asked, "What wilt Thou have me to do?" The Lord tells him what great things he should suffer for His name's sake. The highest honour we can have here is suffering with and for Christ. This our Lord lets the mother of Zebedee's children know. "Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able" (ver. 22). He took in two different kinds of suffering: the cup, which is inward suffering; and the baptism, which expresses what we are immersed into outwardly. The two include every kind of trial, inward and outward. He is not here speaking about the cross in atonement, for there can be no fellowship in this. But there might be the cross in rejection, though not as atonement. There may be the sharing of what Christ suffered from man, but not of what He suffered from God. When He was suffering for sin on the cross, relationship is dropped, as He bows in infinite grace to the place of judgment. He is made sin. He realizes what it is to be forsaken of God, making Himself responsible for the sins of men. He says, therefore, in that terrible moment on the cross, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? In this we can have no part. God forsook Jesus that He might not forsake us. God never forsakes a Christian nor hides Himself from him.

When the Lord says, "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able." They did not know what they said, any more than what they asked. For, when our Lord was only in danger of death, we find that they all forsook Him and fled. As for one of them, if he did venture into the hall of judgment, it was merely, as it were, under the high priest's robe; that is, on the plea of being known to him. When Peter followed on his own ground, it was only to show his utter weakness. In presence of such a cup as this, and such a baptism, the Lord says, "Ye shall indeed drink of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with" (not, ye are able): "but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father" (ver. 23). I would just remark that the words which are put in italics (and inserted without warrant) mar the sense very much. Without them the sense is better. It was His to give to those only to whom the Father destined it. Christ is the administrator of the rewards of the kingdom. As He was the Servant in suffering, He also shall dispense the rewards and glories of the kingdom.

"And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren" (ver. 24). No doubt it seemed a very right thing to put down these two brethren who were so full of themselves. But why were they thus indignant? Their pride was wounded; they too were full of themselves. Christ was not filled with indignation — it was a sorrow to Him: but they were moved with hot feeling against the two brethren. We have to take care. Often where we seek to pull down those that seek to exalt themselves, there is self or! our part too. Suppose one of us has fallen into sin. There is often a good deal of strong feeling about it: but is this the best way of showing our sense of sin? Those who feel most for God, feel also the deepest for those who have slipped away from Him. "If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. "

"But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great exercise authority upon them" (ver. 25). He put His finger upon that very love of greatness in themselves. They were loud in condemning it in James and John; but their feeling betrayed the same thing in their own hearts. "It shall not be so among you," says the Lord, "but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." There is a difference between the two words. The word translated "minister "means a servant. But in verse 27 it is a bondman or slave. Do you want to be really great according to the principles of My kingdom? Go down as low as you can. Do you want to be the greatest? Go down the lowest of all. Whoever has least of self is greatest in the Lord's eyes. For "the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (ver. 28). He took the lowest place of all, and gave His life a ransom for many. Blessed for ever be His name!

The last verses properly belong to the next chapter, which is the approach of our Lord to Jerusalem from the way of Jericho. And it is necessary to take the two chapters together, to have the proper connection of all that is given us here. But I cannot close this part of the subject without recalling attention to the principles of the kingdom of God as shown us by Christ Himself. What a call for self-renouncing service! What a joy to think that everything that now is a trial will be found as a joy in that kingdom! There are some who think they are favoured with few opportunities for serving the Lord — who are shut out from what their hearts would desire. Let us remember that He who knows everything has a right to give as He will to His own and of His own. He will do the very best according to His heart. Our one business now is to think of Him who came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. That is our prime call and need — to be Christ's servants in serving each other.

In the transfiguration we had a picture of the coming kingdom; Christ, the Head and Centre, with representatives of its heavenly and earthly aspects; on the one side, Moses and Elias glorified; and on the other, the three disciples in their natural bodies. This was a turning point in the history of our Lord's course, which John passes by, but it is given fully in the other three Gospels. The Cross, because of sin, is the foundation of all glory. There could be nothing stable or holy without it. It is the sole channel through which flows all our blessings; and Christ's decease, we know from Luke, was the theme on the holy mount. But John gives us nothing of that scene; because he is occupied with Christ as the Son. In John we have, not the human side, but the deity of the Lord Jesus: His rejection by Israel, and Israel's consequent rejection by God, are assumed from the beginning of that Gospel: as we read, "He came to His own, and His own received Him not." Now the transfiguration does not bring out the deity of Christ, but His glory as exalted Son of Man, owned withal as Son of God. This was a sample of the glory of the Lord in His future kingdom; with the types of some risen and heavenly, and of others in their natural or earthly state. But John does not show us the kingdom, but the Father's house. The world may in some measure, see the glory, as fore shown on the mount, but this is not our best portion. While we look for "that blessed hope" and the appearing of the glory, our hope is to be with Christ in the many-mansioned house of the Father — a hope which is far beyond any blessing of the kingdom. Neither will it be displayed. The secrets of love and communion of Christ with the Church are not for display before the world. Doubtless the glory and the place of power which the Church will possess in the coming kingdom will be displayed; for these form some of the chief features in the millennial reign. Thus the mount of transfiguration holds an important place in the three synoptic Gospels, as showing Christ in the capacity of Messiah, Servant, and Son of Man. As such, He will be displayed after the pattern in the mount, and accordingly, the three Evangelists, who present Christ in these three aspects, give us the transfiguration. The thought of present reception by the Jews, as we have seen, had been entirely given up, and the new thing coming in begins to be announced. Christ must suffer and die.

The end of our chapter, from Matthew 20: 30, is a preface to Matthew 21, where we have the last formal presentation of the King — not with the thought of being received; but for the filling up of man's iniquity and the accomplishment of the counsels of God, He presents Himself as such. The Lord is on His way to Jerusalem, and two blind men cry unto Him, Have mercy on us, O Lord, Thou Son of David! If they knew nothing of the impending crisis, they notwithstanding were completely in the spirit of the scene. The Holy Ghost was acting upon them that they might bear testimony to Jesus, who was now for the last time to be publicly presented as Heir to the throne. What a picture! The seeing ones, in their blind hardness of heart, rejecting their own Messiah, though owned of Gentiles as the born King of the Jews; and the poor blind ones, through faith, loudly confessing Him the true King. Perhaps their principal, their one desire, may have been to be healed of their blindness. Be it so; but God, at any rate, gave to their faith the proper object and the just confession for that moment, for He was guiding the scene. Whatever was the thought of the blind men in crying after the Lord, God's design was that there should be a suited testimony rendered to His King, the "Son of David." A Jew would well understand all that was implied in the title. What a condemnation of Pharisees and scribes who had rejected Christ! The highest point of view is not always the most proper. The circumstances vary. Thus the confession of Christ as "Son of David" was more in keeping here than if they had said, "Thou Son of God." We have only to weigh the various titles to see that in hailing Him according to His Jewish glory, they uttered that which was in unison with what God was then doing.

Let me ask, reverently, Why should the resurrection of Lazarus be omitted in the first three Gospels? Man, if these accounts had been his work, would not have omitted it, surely. It would have been thought far too important to be left out under any consideration. The omission of so stupendous a miracle, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, points out clearly that it is the Spirit of God who wrought sovereignty and writes by each with a special purpose. If so, that which men call inconsistencies and imperfections, are really perfections in God's word. It was a part of the purpose of God to omit the miracle in some, for He only presents those facts which suit His design in each Gospel. This miracle of raising Lazarus does not show us Christ as the Messiah, or the Servant, or the Son of Man, but as the Son of God, who gives life and raises the dead — a grand point of doctrine in John 5 — therefore it is given in John's Gospel alone. There were other miracles of raising the dead in the other Gospels; but the truth of the Sonship and present glory of Jesus in communion with the Father is not in these others the prominent one. It is not, therefore, as Son of God that He appears in them. Take, for instance, the raising the widow's son at Nain. What are the circumstances brought into emphasis there? He was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Luke, or rather the Spirit, is careful to note this; for it is what gives point to the touching story. "He restored him to his mother." It is the Lord's human sympathy, the Lord as Son of Man, which is the object here. True, He must have been Son of God, or He could not have thus raised the dead. If the Godhead and relation to the Father, of Him who was made flesh, had been the only truth to show, the attendant circumstances need not have been narrated; the Gospel of John might have sufficed, as it does, to display eminently the Lord Jesus as the Son.

All this manifests the perfectness of the word of God. When the mind is subject to Him this is seen, and He teaches those who submit themselves and confide in Him. A blind man is healed in John 9, (not these near Jericho, who appeal to Jesus) but, as Jesus passed by, He saw a man blind from his birth. Rejected of men, Jesus was going about seeking for objects on whom to bestow His blessing; the Son who, unsought, saw the deep need, and dealt accordingly. It was an opportunity of working the works of God. He waits for nothing, goes to the man, and the work is done, though it was the sabbath-day. How could the Son of God rest in the presence of sin and wretchedness, whatever religious pride might feel? The Lord leaves him not until he can own Him "Son of God," and worship. Moreover, we may say, John never mentions a miracle simply for the display of power, but to attest the divine glory of Christ. In Matthew it is the rejected Messiah. Here (in chap. 20), being despised by the nation, God makes two blind men bear testimony to Him as Son of David; which, when thus owned by the nation, will bring in Israel's restoration with triumphant power.

The place (near Jericho) was accursed. But if Jesus has come as Messiah, although the Jews reject Him, He shows Himself to be Jehovah — not only Messiah under the law, but Jehovah above it; and so He blesses them even at Jericho, and they followed Him. This was the place that Israel should have taken: they ought to have known their King. The two blind men were a witness for Him, and against them. There was a competent testimony — "In the mouth of two witnesses," etc. Mark and Luke, whose object was not to bring out testimony valid according to the law, mention only one.

Matthew 21

Jesus comes to the Mount of Olives. The Jews well knew what was prophesied concerning this mountain; they ought to have entered into the spirit of what the Lord was doing.

The sending for the colt shows the Lord as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to all. "The Lord (Jehovah) hath need of them."* What more thorough than His knowledge of circumstances in the womb of the future? How evident His control over the owner's mind and feeling! Meek as He was, sitting upon an ass, the King of Zion according to the prophet, He was indeed as surely Jehovah as Messiah coming in His name — the "need of them" as amazing as the glory of His person.

* Matthew alone mentions "an ass tied, and a colt with her," according to Zech. 9: 9. "They brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments upon them, and He sat upon them" (vers. 2, 7). The three other Gospels mention the colt only. Here, in Matthew, the old Israel and the renewed nation are thus connected. The Lord's entry in Jerusalem is upon the "colt, the foal of an ass" — the new Israel will bring Him in with Hosannas! The dispensational view in Matthew is thus again set before us. The ass was, according to the law, "unclean"; but its foal might be redeemed. See Job 11: 12; Ex. 13:13; Ex. 34:20, etc. Ed.

The Lord goes onward to Jerusalem. And the multitude cry, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" They apply Psalm 118 to Messiah, and they were right. They might be very unintelligent, and some perhaps may have joined later in the fearful cry, "His blood be upon us;" but here the Lord guides the scene. He comes to the city; but He is unknown: His own know Him not. They ask, "Who is this?" So little understanding had the multitude, that they answer, "This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." But though they only see Jesus of Galilee, yet He shows Himself as King, and takes a place of authority and power. He enters into the temple, and overthrows the tables of the money-changers, etc. This may certainly be looked at as a miraculous incident; for it was astonishing that He whom they knew only as the prophet of Nazareth should so boldly enter their temple, and drive out all who were desecrating it. But they turn not upon Him. The power of the God of the temple was there, and they flee; their consciences doubtless echoing the Lord's words, that they had made His house a den of thieves. But here we see, not only the testimony of the crowd to the kingship of Jesus, but the response to it, as it were, in the act of Jesus. As if He had said, "You hail Me as King, and I will demonstrate that I am." Accordingly, He reigns, as it were, in righteousness, and cleanses the defiled temple. Into what a state had the Jews not fallen! 'My house . . . the house of prayer . . . but ye have made it a den of thieves! "

There were two cleansings — one before our Lord's public ministry, and the other at its close. John records the first; Matthew the last.

In our Gospel it is an act of Messianic power, where He cleanses His own house, or, at least, acts for God, as His King. In John it is rather zeal for the injured honour of His Father's house — "Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise." A collateral reason, why John tells us of the first cleansing in the beginning of his Gospel, is that he assumes the rejection of Israel at once. Hence their rejection by Christ, set forth in this act, was the inevitable consequence of their rejection of Him: and this is the point from which John sets out when he begins with the ways of the Lord before His ministry.

But now the blind and the lame come to Him to be healed. "He healed their diseases and forgave their iniquities." Both these classes were the hated of David's soul — the effect of the taunt upon David (2 Sam. 5: 6-8). How blessed the contrast in the Son of David! He turns out the selfish religionists from the temple, and receives there the poor, blind, and lame, and heals them — perfect righteousness and perfect grace.

On the one hand, there are the voices of the children crying, "Hosanna," etc. — the ascription of praise to Him as King, the Son of David; on the other, there is the Lord acting as King, and doing that which the Jews well knew had been prophesied of their King. He was there the confessed King; yet not by the chief priests and scribes, who took umbrage, wilfully and knowingly rejecting Him — "We will not have this man to reign over us." Naturally, therefore, they seek to stop the mouths of the children, and ask Jesus to rebuke them: "Hearest Thou what these say?" But the Lord sanctions their praises: "Have ye never heard, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise" (ver. 16). The power of Jehovah was there, and there was a mouth to own it, though only in babes and sucklings. So "He left them" — a significant and solemn act. They rejected Him, and He abandons them, turning His back upon the beloved city.

Returning to Jerusalem on the next day, the Lord is hungered, and seeks fruit from the fig-tree, but finds none. He then pronounces a curse upon it, and presently it withered away. The sentence on the fig-tree was an emblematic curse upon the people — Israel was the fig-tree. The Lord found nothing but leaves, and the word is that henceforth no fruit shall grow upon it for ever. The nation had failed in fruit to God, when they had every means and opportunity for glorifying and serving Him; and now all their advantages are taken away, and the old stock is given up — a dead tree.

Mark says that the time of figs was not yet. Many have been perplexed at this, as if the Lord sought figs at a time when there could be none. The meaning is, that the time for the gathering of figs was not come — the time of figs was not yet. There ought to have been a show of fruit, but there were only leaves — only outward profession. It was thoroughly barren. The disciples wondered; but the Lord says to them further, "If ye shall say to this mountain (symbolizing Israel's place among the nations, as exalted among them), Be thou cast into the sea," etc. This has been done. Not only is there no fruit borne for God, but Israel, as a nation, has been cast into the sea — as lost in the mass of people — trodden down and oppressed under the feet of the Gentiles.

The chief priests and the elders of Israel now come to attack the Lord: they demand of Him, "By what authority doest Thou these things?" — the driving out the traders from the temple precincts — "and who gave Thee this authority?" It was not given by them, indeed; and their eyes were closed as to His glory. Our Lord answers by asking what were their thoughts of John's baptism. He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. How evident had been the accomplishment of the ancient oracles in His person, in His life and in His ministry! How full the testimony of signs and wonders wrought by Him! Yet their question proved how vain all had been, as His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? Little did they think that as they sought to canvass the Lord of glory, they were in truth but discovering their own distance and alienation from God. So, indeed, it ever is. Our judgment, or refusal to judge, of what concerns Christ is an unfailing gauge of our own condition. In this instance (vers. 23-27) the want of conscience was manifest — nowhere so fatal as in religious guides. "They reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; He will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people: for all hold John as a prophet." God was not in their thoughts; and thus all was false and wrong. And if God be not the object, self is the idol. These chief priests were at bottom but slaves of the people over whose faith, or superstition, they had dominion. "We fear the people." This at least was true. "And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell." To what a miserable subterfuge they are driven — blind guides by their own acknowledgment! To such the Lord declines to give any account of His authority. Again and again they had seen the works of His gracious power, and their question furnished the proof that an answer was useless. They would not see if they could.

But our Lord does more. In the parable of the two sons He convicts these religious leaders of being farther away from God than the most despised classes in the land. "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not," etc. (ver. 32.) Decent lip-homage forms — "I go, sir; and went not" — such was the religion of those who stood highest in the world's estimate of that day. Hypocrisy was there, to cover self-will and pride with the cloak of religiousness, which made them more obdurate than people who disgraced the decencies of society in riotous or otherwise disreputable ways. They were more accessible to the stirring appeals of John than these Pharisees. Deaf to the call of righteousness, they were hardened as well against the operations of God's grace, even where it was most conspicuous. "And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." Repentance awakens the sense of relationship to God as the one sinned against. The resolutions of nature begin and end in "I go, sir." The Spirit of God produces the deep conviction of sin against Him, with neither room for nor desire of excuse. But it is lost for worldly religion, which, resisting alike God's testimony and the evidence of conversion in others, sinks into increasing darkness and hostility to God. The judge of all therefore pronounces these proud, self-complacent men worse than those they scorned. They were no judges now — they were judged.

Again, the Lord bids them hear another parable, setting forth not merely their conduct toward God, but God's dealing with them, in a twofold form: first, in view of human responsibility as under law; and, secondly, in view of God's grace under the kingdom of heaven. The former is developed in the parable of the householder (vers. 33-41); the latter, in the king's marriage-feast for his son (Matt. 22: 1-14). Let us look at the first.

"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it" (vers. 33, 34). It is a picture founded on and filling up the sketch of Isa. 5 — a picture of God's peculiar favours to Israel. "What could have been done more to My vineyard that I have not done in it?" He had brought them out of Egypt, and settled them in a goodly land, with every advantage afforded by His goodness and power. There was definite arrangement, abundant blessing, ample protection. Then He looked for fruit, reminding them of His rights by the prophets. "And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another" (ver. 35). There was full patience too. "Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise." Was there a single possibility that remained? a hope, however forlorn? "Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son." Alas, it was but the crowning of their iniquity, and the occasion of bringing out their guilt and hopeless ruin! For "when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him" (vers. 37-39). They recognized the Messiah then, but only so as to provoke their malice and worldly lusts. "Let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance." It was not only lack of fruit, persistent refusal of all the just claims of God and robbing Him of every due return, but the fullest outbreak of rebellious hatred, when tested by the presence of the Son of God in their midst. Probation is over; the question of man's state and of God's efforts to get fruit from His vineyard is at an end. The death of the rejected Messiah has closed this book. Man — the Jew — ought to have made a becoming answer to God for the benefits so lavishly showered on him; but his answer was — the cross. It is too late to talk of what men should be. Tried by God under the most favourable circumstances, they betrayed and shed the innocent blood; they killed the Heir to seize on His inheritance. Hence judgment is now the only portion man under law has to expect. "When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?" Seared as the poor Jews were, they could not but confess the sad truth, "He, will miserably destroy those wicked men," etc. (ver. 41). The wickedness of the husbandmen failed to achieve its own selfish end, as surely as it had never rendered fruits meet for Him whose provident care left men without excuse. But the rights of the householder were intact; and if there was still "the lord of the vineyard," was He indifferent to the accumulated guilt of wronged servants and of His outraged Son? It could not be. He must, themselves being the witnesses, avenge the more summarily, because of His long patience and incomparable love so shamefully spurned and defied. Others would have the vineyard let, to them, who should render Him the fruits in their seasons.

Thus the death of Christ is viewed in this parable, not as in the counsels of God, but as the climax of man's sin and the closing scene of his responsibility. Whether law or prophets or Christ sought fruit for God, all was vain, not because God's claim was not righteous, but because man — aye, favoured man, with every conceivable help — was hopelessly evil. In this aspect the rejection of the Messiah had the most solemn meaning; for it demonstrated, beyond appeal, that man, the Jew, had no love for God, by whom he had been blessed. it was not only that he was evil and unrighteous, but he could not endure perfect love and goodness in the person of Christ. Had there been a single particle of divine light or love in men's heart, they would have reverenced the Son; but now the full proof stood out, that the natural man is hopelessly bad; and that the presence of a divine Person, who came in love and goodness, a Man among men, gave only the final opportunity to strike the most malicious and insulting blow at God Himself. In a word, man was now shown and pronounced to be LOST. "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth Me hateth My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin. but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father." Christ's death was the grand turning-point in the ways of God; the moral history of man, in the most important sense, terminates there.

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" (ver. 42). It was the conduct of those who took the lead in Israel, revealed in their own Scriptures. Marvellous doing On the Lord's part! — in manifest reversal of such as set themselves up, and were accepted, as acting in His name: yet to be marvellous in Israel's eyes, when the now hidden but exalted Saviour comes forth, the joy of a converted people, who shall then welcome and for ever bless their once-rejected King; for truly His mercy endures for ever. Meanwhile His lips utter the sentence of sure rejection from their high estate: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom .of God [not of heaven, for this they had not] shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (ver. 43). Nor was this all: for "whosoever shall fall on this stone" (Himself in humiliation) 'I shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall" (i.e., consequent on His exaltation), "it will grind him to powder" (ver. 44). Thus, He sets forth the ensuing stumbles of unbelief; and further, the positive execution of destructive judgment, whether individual or national, Jewish or Gentile, at His appearing in glory. (Compare Daniel 2.)

It is in all respects a notable scene, and the Lord, now drawing to the conclusion of His testimony, speaks with piercing decision. So that, spiritually impotent and dull as the chief priests and Pharisees might be, and couched as His words were in parables, the drift and aim were distinctly felt. And yet, whatever their murderous will, they could do nothing till His hour was come; for the people in a measure bowed to His word, and took Him fora prophet. He brought God in presence of their conscience, and their awe feebly answered to His words of coming woe.

Matthew 22

We are not positively informed that the parable of the marriage feast was uttered at this time. It is introduced in so general a manner that one could well conceive it the same as that which Luke, with more definite marks of time, presents in the fourteenth chapter of his Gospel. However this may have been, nothing can exceed the beautiful propriety of its occurrence here, as the sequel to the latter part of the previous chapter. For, as the vineyard sets forth the Lord's righteous claim from Israel, on the ground of what He had entrusted to them, so the wedding sets forth the new thing, and hence is a comparison of "the kingdom of heaven" — not now fruit sought as a debt due to God from man, but God displaying the resources of His own glory and love in honour of His Son, and man is invited to share. We have nothing properly here of the Church or assembly, but the kingdom. Consequently, though the parable goes beyond the Jewish economy, so elaborately treated in the preceding portion, and Christ's own personal presence on earth, it does not take in corporate privilege, but individual conduct, as variously affected by God's astonishing mercy, and this in view of and flowing from the place of Christ as glorified on high. The characteristic point is that it is an exposition, not of Israel's ways toward the Lord, but of the King's ways who would magnify His Son; though here, as before, unbelief and rebellion never fail to meet their just recompense. It had been proved that God could not trust man: would man now trust God, and come at His word, and be a partaker of His delight in His Son?

It is manifest that here we are no longer on Old Testament ground with its solemn prophetic warnings. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding; and they would not come" (vers. 2, 3). Our Evangelist, true to the plan and design of the Holy Ghost, presents this striking picture after that of the Messiah's rejection. What would be the fresh intervention of God? and how received of man, especially of Israel? In Luke, I may mention by the way, the dispensational connection does not appear; but the Spirit gives rather a view of what God is to mankind generally, and even puts it as "a certain man" making a supper with unexampled generosity, not the "King" acting for the glory of "His Son." In both Gospels the parable represents, not righteous requirement as under the law, but the way in which grace goes out to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. He "sent forth His servants to call them that were bidden [Israel], but they would not come." The kingdom was not come, but announced, while the Lord was here below. "Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (ver. 4).

Mark the difference. On the first mission of the servants He did not say "All things are ready," but only on the second, when Christ meanwhile had died and risen, and the kingdom was actually established on His ascension. It is the Gospel of the kingdom after His work, as compared with the Gospel before it. The two messages are thus distinguished; the rejection of Christ and His death being the turning-point. Matthew alone gives us this striking difference; Luke at once begins, with equal propriety for his task, with "Come: for all things are now ready," dwelling, with details not found in Matthew, on the excuses made by the heart for despising the gospel.

The King was active, then, and His honour at stake in having a feast worthy of His Son. Not even the cross turned Him aside from His great purpose of having a people near Him and happy in honour of His Son. On the contrary, if grace works, as it does, the interrupted message is renewed with new and more urgent appeals to the invited; and now by other servants beyond the twelve and the seventy. So we have in the beginning of Acts (Acts 2 - 4) the special announcement to Israel as the children of the covenant — "To them that were bidden." The first sending out, then, was during the life of the Messiah to call the privileged people; afterwards, there was the second and specific testimony of grace to the same people when the work of redemption was done.

What was the effect? "They made light of it, and went their way, one to his farm, another to his merchandise." God was not in their thoughts, but a man's own field or his trade; and, alas, as God increases in the testimony of His grace, man grows bolder in his slight and opposition. "And the remnant took His servants and entreated them spitefully and slew them" (vers. 5, 6). This is what you find in measure in the Acts of the Apostles. The message is disregarded in the earlier chapters; in chapters 7 and 12, the servants are outraged and slain. The issue is then fore shown — judgment on the Jews and Jerusalem. "When the king heard thereof he was wroth; and he sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city" (ver. 7). Who does not see in this the fate of the Jewish nation and the destruction of their city? This is not found in Luke: how suitable to Matthew, I need not point out.

But God will have His house filled with guests; and if those peculiarly favoured would not come, and incurred wrath to the uttermost, divine grace will not be thwarted by human wilfulness — evil must be overcome of good. "Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready; but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage" (vers. 8, 9). Here is an indiscriminate call to every soul by the gospel. "So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all, as many as they found, both bad and good; and the wedding was furnished with guests" (ver. 10). The gospel goes out to men as they are, and wherever received produces, by grace, that which is according to God, instead of demanding it. Hence all are welcome, bad and good — a dying thief or a woman that was a sinner, a Lydia or a Cornelius. The question was not their character, but the feast for the King's Son; and to this they were freely called. Grace, far from asking, gives fitness to stand before Him in peace.

Yes, there is produced a necessary, indispensable fitness. A wedding garment is due to the wedding-feast. This the King, of His own magnificent bounty, provided, and it was for each guest to wear it: who that honoured the King and the occasion would not? The servants did not look for such garments outside: they were not worn on the highways, but within at the wedding. Nor was it the point for the guests to appear in their best. It was the King's affair to give. Come who might, there was enough and to spare; "all things were ready."

This is the great essential truth of the gospel. So far from looking for anything in man agreeable to God, the glad tidings come on His part on the express ground that all is ruined, wretched, guilty, on the sinner's part. "Let him that is athirst come; yea, whosoever will."

But where the heart is not right with God, it never submits to His righteousness; man, in this case, prefers to stand on his own foundation. Either he thinks he can raise a claim on God by being or doing something, or he ventures. within, careless both of himself and God. Such was the man whom the king finds without the wedding-garment. It was despising the holiness as well as the grace of God, and proved that he was utterly a stranger to the feast. What did he think of, or care for, the feelings of the King bent upon the glorifying of His Son? For this is the true and real secret: God lavishes mercy on sinners for the sake of His Son. Opportunity is thus given to put honour on His name. Does my soul bow to it and Him? — it is salvation. The heart may go through much exercise, but the only key to His astonishing goodness to us is God's feeling toward His Son. If I may venture so to speak, the Lord Jesus has put the Father under obligation so to act. He has so lived and died to glorify God at all cost, that God (I say it reverently) is bound to show this grace, show what He is, on account of His Son. Hence that remarkable expression in Paul's epistles, "The righteousness of God." It is no longer man's righteousness sought by the law, but God righteous in justifying such as have faith in His Son, when man has been proved to have utterly and in every way failed. Because of the infinite value of the Cross, God loves to put honour on Christ; and if a soul but plead His name, it becomes a question of God's righteousness in justifying him freely, of His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

Strikingly is the truth shown by the King's dealing with the Christ-despising intruder! "And when the king came to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding-garment" (ver. 11). This was the ground of immediate action. No question was started of what the man had been or done. The servants had been commissioned to bring in the bad as well as the good. "Such were some of you," says the apostle. Indeed, this man may have been the most correct, moral, and religious of the company, like the young ruler who left the Lord in sorrow. But, whether he were a degraded sinner or a self-righteous soul, one thing is certain — he had not on a wedding-garment. This at once arrested the King's eye. This man was setting at naught the King's grace — it was openly dishonouring His Son.

The wedding-garment is Christ. This guest therefore came before the King without Christ. He had not put on Christ! Whatever the pretence, it was all and only himself, not Christ, and that is everlasting ruin and condemnation to a sinner. Whereas, the very chief of sinners that accepts Christ as his sole confidence to stand before God, thereby justifies and exalts Him and His grace. It is as a man broken down in thoughts of himself, looking up and saying, I cannot trust what I have been nor even what I desire to be, but I can trust what Thou art to me in the gift of Thy Son. And such confidence in God produces deep loathing of self, real uprightness of soul, as well as true desire to do the will of God. But this man knew not, believed not, that nothing from earth suits the divine presence — only what is purchased by the precious blood of Jesus. He had no sense of the grace which invited him, nor of the holiness that befits the presence of God. The King accordingly says to him, "Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless" (ver. 12). He was in spirit and before God entirely outside the feast; else he would have felt the absolute need of an array in keeping with the King's joy and the Son's bridals. And judgment cast him out of that scene for which he had no heart — cast him out where the unbelieving, in hopeless wretchedness and self-reproach, must honour the Son. It is not merely governmental vengeance, such as that which providentially slew the murderers and fired their city, but final judgment on him who spurned grace by presuming to draw near to God without putting on Christ. "Then said the King to the servants (not the bondmen of verses 3, 4, etc.), Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Was this solemn sentence rare because one man only exemplifies it? Nay, verily; 'for many are called, but few are chosen" (vers. 13, 14).

Thus terminated the double trial of the nation; first, on the ground of their responsibility as under the law, and next, as tested by the message of grace. The rest of the chapter judges in detail all ',he various classes in Israel who successively sought to judge and ensnare the Lord, bringing into relief their position, and winding up all with a question which they could not answer without understanding His position and withal His glorious Person.

"Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent out unto Him their disciples with the Herodians." What an alliance! The Pharisees (partisans of strict Judaism and the law) and the Herodians (the political time-servers of that day, whom the former hated cordially), join in flattering Jesus to ensnare Him by the question of Jewish title against the Gentile. Would He, the Messiah, gainsay the hopes and exalted privileges of Israel as a nation? If not, how escape the charge of treason against Caesar? Diabolical craft was there, but divine wisdom brings in the just balance of truth as to God and human authority, and the difficulty vanishes. It was the rebellion of the Jews against Jehovah which gave occasion to His subjecting them to their heathen lords. Were they humbled because of it, and seeking the resources of God's grace? Nay, but proud and boastful; and their conflicting parties at this very time uniting in deadly opposition to God, plotting against their own, and His, Messiah. "Tell us, therefore: what thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the tribute money" (vers. 17-19). They brought a denarius, and owned to Caesar's image and superscription upon it, and heard the sentence of Wisdom: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Had the Jews honoured Him, they had never been in bondage to Gentile dominion; but now, being so through their own sin and folly, they were bound to accept their humiliation. Neither Pharisee nor Herodian felt the sin; and if one felt the shame which the other gloried in, the Lord, while forcing them to face the real position to which their iniquity had reduced them, pointed out that which, if they heeded it, would be the speedy harbinger of a divine deliverance.

"The same day came to Him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked Him, saying, Moses said," etc. (vers. 23-33). Thus unbelief is as false and dishonest as pretended human righteousness. If the Pharisees could be in league with Herodians and affect loyalty to Caesar so could the sceptic Sadducees plead Moses, as if the inspired word had plenary authority over their conscience! But the Lord, as He laid bare the hypocrisy of those who stood high as religionists, equally detected what the sceptic never suspects, that their difficulties flow not only from overlooking the power of God, but from downright ignorance — whatever maybe their self-conceit. "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Faith, on the contrary, sees clearly, just as it counts on God according to the revelation of Himself in the Word.

The Lord not only shows their sophism to be sheer misapprehension of the resurrection-state, but proves (and that from Moses too, without going further) that the resurrection of the dead is an essential part of God's purpose and truth. An additional statement is given in Luke as to the intermediate living of the separate spirit. But in our Gospel the one point is that the dead rise, because God declared Himself to be the God of the fathers even after their death; and confessedly He is not the God of the dead (the extinct, as the Sadducees thought), but of the living. If He were their God in their state when He spoke to Moses, He must be the God of the dead, which the Sadducees had been the first to deny. It was the more important so to reveal Himself to Moses, through whom the system of the law was given, and to which the Sadducees pretended to adhere.

But if the Pharisees retired with wonder, they were far from subdued; and, indeed, they bestir themselves afresh when their sceptical rivals were put to silence. They assemble together; then a lawyer "tempts" Him, only to elicit a perfect summary of practical righteousness. They talked and tempted: Jesus was the expression of all the perfectness of law and prophets; and far, far more — the image of God Himself in grace as well as righteousness here below: not as Adam, who rebelled against God — not as Cain, who loved not his neighbour, but slew his brother (vers. 34-40).

And now it belonged to the Lord to ask them the question of questions, not only for a Pharisee, but for any soul: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" He was David's son — most true. But was this truth the whole truth? "How then does David in spirit call him Lord, saying, Jehovah

said unto my Lord?" etc. How was He both David's Son and David's Lord? It was the key to all Scripture — the way, the truth, the life — the explanation of His position, the only hope for theirs. But they were dumb. They knew nothing, and could answer nothing. "Neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions."

Matthew 23

They were all silenced, those who pretended to most light! Not believing in Christ, they were destitute of the only key to Scripture; and Psalm 110, bright as its testimony is to their own Messiah, was a thick cloud, not only to Egyptians now as of old, but to Israel. They saw not His glory, and were therefore hopelessly puzzled how to understand that David, speaking by the Spirit, should call his son his Lord.

In this chapter the Lord pronounces the doom of the nation, and most of all — not those whom man would chiefly denounce; not the openly lawless, licentious, or violent; nor the ease-loving, sceptical Sadducees, but — of those who stood highest in general esteem for their religious knowledge and sanctity. Conscience, man, the very world, can with more or less exactness judge of immoral grossness. God sees and eschews what looks fair to human eyes and is withal false and unholy. And the word of God is explicit that so it is to be. The heaviest woes yet in store for this world are not for heathen darkness, but, as for rebellious Judaism, so for corrupt Christendom, where most truth is known and the highest privileges conferred, but, alas, where their power is despised and denied. .Not that, when God arises to judge, the pagan nations will go unpunished. They too shall drink of the cup. Yet, "Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." Even so with professing Christendom: the fuller the light bestowed, the richer the grace of God revealed in the gospel, so much the graver reasons for unsparing judgments on hypocritical profession, when the knell of divine vengeance tolls for those "who know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Lord sees not as man seeth, whether in grace or in judgment; for man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart. Thus did Jesus speak in the scene before us.

It is remarkable, however, that in the first instance He spoke "to the multitudes and to His disciples." They were yet to a great extent viewed together — this till the death and resurrection of Christ; and even then the Holy Ghost slowly breaks one old tie after another, and only utters His last word to the Jewish remnant (then Christian, of course) by more than one witness not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. But separation there was not, nor could be, till the cross.

It was, then, part of our Lord's Jewish mission to say that "the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" (vers. 2, 3). But there was the careful warning against making the scribes and Pharisees in anywise personal standards of good and evil. "Do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not." They were in themselves beacons, patterns of wrong, not of right (vers. 3-7). Still, not only were the disciples classed with the multitude, but in the very strongest denunciations of these religious guides they were bound as yet by the Lord to acknowledge those who sat in Moses' seat. There they were in fact, and the Lord maintains, instead of dissolving, the obligation to own them and whatever they set forth, not of their own traditions, but from the law. This was to honour God Himself, spite of the hypocrites who only sought man's honour for themselves, and it affords no warrant for false apostles or their self-deceived successors now. For the apostles had no seats like that of Moses; and Christianity is not a system of ordinance or formal observance like the law, but, where real, is the fruit of the Spirit through life in Christ, which is formed and fed by the word of God.

It has been urged, confidently enough of late, and in quarters where one might have hoped for better things, that as the saints in Old Testament times looked for Christ, and eternal life was theirs by faith, though they were under the law, so we who now believe in Christ are nevertheless, and in the same sense, under the law like them, though, like them, we are justified by faith. Plausible, and even fair, as this may seem to some, I have no hesitation in pronouncing it extremely evil. It is a deliberate putting souls back into the condition from which the work of Christ has extricated us. The Jews of old were placed under the law for the wise purpose of God, till the promised Seed came to work a complete deliverance; and the saints in their midst, though they rose above that position by faith, were all their lifetime subject to bondage and the spirit of fear. Christ has set us free, by the great grace of God, through His own death and resurrection; and we have thereon received the Spirit of sonship whereby we cry, Abba, Father. And yet, spite of the plainest testimony of God to the momentous change brought about by the coming of His Son, and the accomplishment of His work, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, it is openly, seriously proposed, as if it were part of the faith once delivered to the saints, that this wondrous working and display of divine grace should be set aside, with their results to the believer, and that the soul should be replaced under the old yoke and in the old condition! Doubtless 'this is precisely what Satan aims at, an effort to blot out all that is distinctive of Christianity by a return to Judaism. Only one maybe amazed to find so barefaced an avowal of the matter in men professing evangelical light.

The true answer, then, to such misunderstandings of Matthew 23 and the misapplications of similar portions of Holy Writ, is that as yet our Lord was adhering (and so He did to the last moment) to His proper Messianic mission; and this supposed and maintained the nation and the remnant under the law, and not in the delivering power of His resurrection. Which of the disciples could yet say, "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation." Now, on the contrary, this is the normal language of the Christian. It is not a question of special attainment nor of extraordinary faith, but of simple present subjection to the full Christian testimony in the New Testament. Even were we Jews, the old tie is dissolved by death, and we are married to another, even to Christ raised from the dead. Thus to have the law as well as Christ for our guide and rule is like having two husbands at one time, and is a sort of spiritual adultery.

Surely also we can and ought to take the moral profit of our Lord's censure of the scribes and Pharisees: for what is the heart! We have to beware of imposing on others that which we are remiss to observe ourselves. We have to watch against doing works to be seen of men. We have to pray against the allowance of the world's spirit — the love of pre-eminence, both within and without (vers. 4-7). Hence the word is, "Be not ye called Rabbi; for One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no one your father upon the earth; for One is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for One is your Master, even Christ." The question here is not of the various gifts which the Lord confers by the Holy Ghost on His members in His body the Church, but of religions authority in the world and a certain status and respect by virtue of ecclesiastical office or position. But the great moral principle of the kingdom (which is always true) is enforced here: "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (vers. 8-12). The cross and the heavenly glory would but deepen the value and significance of these words of the Saviour; but even before either, and independently of the new order of things in the Church, they bore His stamp and were current for the kingdom.

In marked contrast with this pattern of true service for the disciples were the scribes and Pharisees, on whom the Lord next proceeds to pronounce eight solemn woes (vers. 13-33).* What else could He say of men who not only entered not the kingdom of heaven, but hindered those disposed to enter? What else could be due to those who sought religious influence over the weak and defenceless for gain? Granted that their proselyting zeal was untiring, what was the fruit in souls before God? Were not the taught, as usual, the truest index of such teachers, as being more simple and unreserved as to their ways and aim and spirit? Then the Lord lays bare their hair-splitting distinctions, which really made void the authority of God, insisting, as they did, on the pettiest exactions to the neglect of the plainest everlasting moral truths. Next is detected the effort after external look, whatever might be the impurity within; and this both in their labour and in their lives and persons, which were full of guile and self-will, crowned by affected great veneration for the prophets and the righteous who had suffered of old, and no longer acted on the conscience. This last gave them the more credit. There is no cheaper nor more successful means of gaining a religious reputation than this show of honour for the righteous who are dead and gone, especially if they connect themselves with them in appearance, as being of the same association. The succession seems natural, and it sounds hard to charge those who honour the dead saints in this day with the same rebellious spirit which persecuted and slew them in their own day. But the Lord would put them to a speedy and decisive test, and prove the real bent and spirit of the world's religion. 'I Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (vers. 34, 35). It was morally the same race and character all through. In righteous judgment the Lord adds, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Thus should be judged in the full measure what was begun by their fathers and completed by themselves. Hypocrites and serpents, how could such escape the judgment of hell?

*Verse 14 is generally omitted by the editor's as having no sufficient MSS. authority here, though found in Mark and Luke. The "woes" here pronounced upon the scribes and Pharisees therefore are seven, not eight. — [Ed.

But, how touching! Here is the Lord's lament over the guilty city — His own city: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (vers. 37, 38). His glory shines out more than ever; the rejected Messiah is in truth Jehovah. He would have gathered (and how often 1) but they would not. It was no longer His house nor His Father's, but their's, and it is left unto them desolate. Nevertheless, if it he a most solemnly judicial word, there is hope in the end: "For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord." Israel are yet to see their King, but not till a goodly remnant of them are converted to welcome Him in Jehovah's name.

Matthew 24

In this prophecy of our Lord on which we are now to enter, we see a confirmation of a great principle of God: that He never opens out the future of judgments on the rebellious, and of deliverance for His own people, till sin has so developed itself as to manifest total ruin. Take the very first instances in the Bible. When was it said that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head? When the woman was beguiled, and man was in transgression through the wiles of the enemy; when sin had entered into the world, and death by sin. Again, the prophecy of Enoch, given us by Jude, was uttered when the term of God's patience with the then world was almost closed, and the flood was about to bear witness of His judgment on man's corruption and violence.

Thus, whether we look at the first prediction of Christ before the expulsion from Eden, or at the testimony of the Lord's coming to judge before the deluge, prophecy comes in when man has wholly broken down. So Noah, when failure in his own family, and in himself too, had come in, we see him led of the Holy Ghost into a prophetic summary of the whole world's history, beginning with the judgment of him who despised his father (even though it were to his own shame), and proceeding with the blessing of Shem and the portion of Japhet. So, later on, with the prophecies of Balaam and of Moses, "yea, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those that follow after;" for Samuel's is the striking epoch which the New Testament singles out as the commencement of the great line of the prophets. And why? It was the day when Israel openly abandoned God as their King, consummating the sin which their heart conceived in the desert, when they sought a captain in order to return into Egypt. It was a proud crisis in Israel, whose blessedness lay in being a people separated from all around by and to Jehovah their God, who would surely have provided them a king of His own choice, had they waited for Him, instead of choosing for themselves, to God's dishonour and their own degradation and sorrow, in order to be like the nations.

The same principle conspicuously applies to the time when the great prophetic books were written — Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest. It was when all present hope had fled, and David's sons wrought no deliverance, but rather through their towering iniquity and profane insults of God, He was at last morally forced to pronounce the nation Lo-ammi" — not My people." Before, and during, and after the captivity, the Spirit of prophecy laid bare the sin of kings, and priests, and prophets (false ones), and people, but pointed to the coming Messiah and the new covenant. And Him we have seen in our Gospel actually come, but growingly and utterly rejected by Israel, and all their own promises and hopes in Him; and now in the near prospect of His own death at their hands, and by it their worst of deaths, the rejected Lord takes up this prophetic strain.

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple." For what was it now? A corpse, and no more. "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."* "And His disciples came to Him for to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down" (vers. 1, 2). The hearts of the disciples then, as too often now, were occupied with the present appearances, and the great show of grandeur in God's service; the halo of associations was bright before their eyes. But Jesus passes sentence on all that even they admired on earth. In truth, when He left the temple, all was gone which gave it value in the sight of God. Outside Jesus, what is there in this world but vain show or worse? And how does the Lord deliver His own from the power of tradition and every other source of attraction for the heart? He opens out the communications of His own mind, and casts the light of the future on the present. How often worldliness unjudged in a Christian's heart betrays itself by want of relish for God's unfolding of what He is going to do! How can I enjoy the coming of the Lord if it is to throw down much that I am seeking to build up in the world? A man, for instance, may be trying to gain or keep a status by his ability, and hoping that his sons may outstrip himself by the superior advantages they enjoy. On some such idea is founded all human greatness; it is "the world," in fact. Christ's coming again is a truth which demolishes the whole fabric; because, if we really look for His coming as that which may be from day to day — if we realize that we are set like servants at the door with the handle in hand, waiting for Him to knock (we know not how soon), and desiring to open to Him immediately ("Blessed are those servants!") — if such is our attitude, how can we have time or heart for that which occupies the busy Christ-forgetting world? Moreover, we are .not of the world, even as Christ is not; and as for means and agents to carry on its plans, the world will never be in lack of men to do its work. But we have a higher business, and it is beneath us to seek the honours of the world that rejects our Lord. Let our outward position be ever so menial or trying, what so glorious as in it to serve our Lord Christ? And He is coming.

*The Lord of the temple was rejected; the house of Israel was given up; the Glory was returning to heaven. (Compare Ezek. 10: 2-4, 18, 19, and Ezek. 11: 22, 23.) When the judgments upon Israel have turned them back to the Lord, the Glory returns the same way it had departed. Compare Ezek. 43: 1-4, and Zech. 14: 1-9. Ed.

In the cross we see God humbling Himself — the only One of all greatness stooping low to save my soul — the only One who commands all, becoming the Servant of all. A person cannot receive the truth of the Cross without having in measure his walk in accord with the spirit of it. Yet how much saints of God regard the cross, not so much as that by which the world is crucified unto them and they unto the world, but rather as the remedy by which they are set free from fear, to make themselves a comfortable place in the world! The Christian ought to be the happiest of men; but his happiness should consist in what he knows is his portion in and with Christ. Meanwhile, our service and obedience are to be formed according to the spirit of the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. Man's evil and God's grace thoroughly came out in the cross; all met there: and upon this great truth is founded what is said often in Scripture, "The end of all things is at hand;" because all has been brought out in moral ways and in dispensational dealings between God and man.

The Lord takes up the disciples where they were. They were believing godly Jews. Their associations connected Christ and the temple together. They knew that He was the Messiah of Israel, and they expected Him to judge the Romans and gather all the scattered ones of the seed of Abraham from the four winds of heaven. They looked for all the prophecies about the land and the city to be accomplished. There was no thought in the minds of the disciples at this time of Jesus going to heaven and staying there for a long time, nor of the scattering of Israel, and the Gentiles being brought in to the knowledge of Christ. Consequently this great prophecy on the mount of Olives starts with the disciples and with their condition. Their hearts were too much occupied with the buildings of the temple. But the Lord, now rejected, announces that "there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." This excited greatly the desire of the disciples to understand how such things were to come to pass. They were aware from the prophecies that there was a time of dismal sorrow for Israel, and they did not know how to put this together with their predicted blessing. They ask Him, therefore, "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Thy coming and the end of the world (age)?" (vers. 2, 3).

"Thy coming" means "the Lord's presence with them on earth;" and "the end of the age" is a totally different word from. that translated "world" elsewhere, it means here the end of the time during which our Lord should be absent from them. They wished to know the sign of His presence with them. They knew there could never be such desolation if their Messiah was reigning over them. They wished to know when the time of sorrow should come, and what should be the sign of His own presence that should close it and bring in unending joy.

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many" (vers. 4, 5). In the Epistles it is never exactly such a thought as warning persons against false Christs, for the Epistles are addressed to Christians; and a Christian could not be deceived by a man's pretensions to be Christ. It is most appropriate here, because the disciples are viewed in this chapter, not as the representatives of us Christians now, but of future godly Jews. We, as Christians, have nothing to do with the destruction of the temple; it does not affect us in any way. These disciples were, as the godly remnant of the nation, looking for the Messiah to bring in glory. The Lord, therefore, warns them that if any should arise among them, saying, I am Christ, they were not to believe them. The time was come when the true Messiah ought to appear. And He had appeared, but Israel had rejected Him, hardening themselves in the lie that our Lord could not be the promised One. But Israel had not given up the hope of the Messiah yet, and this exposes them to the delusion spoken of here (i.e., to persons saying, I am Christ). At any rate, the rejection of the true Christ lays them open to the reception of a false Christ. Our Lord had warned them of this. "I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not. If another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If a messiah were to come full of self and Satan, the nation should be given up to receive the false, as a just retribution for having rejected the True. The disciples were the representatives of godly Jews, and were warned of what should befall their nation. But take the epistle of John and what have you there? "Beloved, believe not every spirit." Why? Because the great thing that the Church is distinguished by is the presence of the Holy Ghost; and the deceit which we have to watch against is false spirits, not false Christs, though there are many antichrists. The danger of Christians is grieving the Holy Ghost — nay, listening to false spirits. "Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world." There are false prophets now, and evil spirits work in them. In these days, faith both in the Holy Ghost and in Satan's power is very much weakened. People only look at the man; whereas Scripture makes a great deal of God and of Satan. What gives Satan power over a professor of the name of Christ is the allowance of sin. Satan has not one atom of power against a child of God who is looking to Jesus; but where self is allowed, it is an opportunity for Satan to come in.

Here it is a question of false Christs, because our Lord was speaking to the disciples about Jewish circumstances and hopes, though he afterwards turns to Christian subjects. The prophecy consists of three great parts. The Jewish remnant have their history thoroughly described; then comes the portion of Christians, and afterwards that of the Gentiles. The prophecy divides itself into these three sections. The Jews are first brought forward, because the disciples were not yet taken out of their Jewish position: only when Christ was crucified was the wall of partition broken down. Our Lord's intention was to take up a Jewish remnant and show that there would be a company in the latter day on the same ground as these disciples — the Christian would come in between. This we have described in the latter part of the chapter, and in the greater part of Matthew 25. Then we have the Gentiles, "all nations," gathered before the Son of Man. Such is the thread of connection between the parts of this great discourse.

"Many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet" (vers. 5, 6). Observe, there are two great moral warnings given by our Lord. First, they were to beware of a true hope falsely applied. False Christs would take advantage of the fact that the Jews ought to be looking for Christ, and they would pretend to be Christ. Secondly, they might be terrified by the enemy who knows how to use such circumstances. Verse 6, therefore, guards them against alarms: "Ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars." Clearly this is not for the Christian, for where does the Holy Ghost warn the Christian about trouble from wars and rumours of wars? We find nothing about it in the Epistles, where the Christian Church is properly brought out? Is this denying the importance of the Lord's warning? God forbid!

But the portion we are looking at does not refer to Christians, but to the Jewish disciples as they then were, and as they will be. Our calling takes place after our Lord went to heaven and before He returns in glory, whereas the Jewish remnant will be found in the latter day on similar ground and with hopes like those the disciples had whom our Lord was here addressing. If we want to put things rightly together in the word of God, we must notice what and to whom He speaks. If I, a Gentile, take up the language of a Jew, a great mistake is made; or if a Christian adopt the language of either Jew or Gentile, there is again an equal mistake. Therefore it is that such stress is laid on "rightly dividing the word of truth." We find various ways of God according to His sovereign will about those with whom He is dealing, and we must take care to apply His word aright. The disciples, as the Jewish remnant, having a peculiar calling in a particular land, the land of Judea, if they heard of wars and rumours of wars, they were not to be troubled: "For all these things must come to pass; but the end is not yet." Do we ever find the apostles saying, The end is not yet, for us? On the contrary, it is said of us (1 Cor. 10), "Upon whom the ends of the world are come;" whereas, the Lord in addressing the Jewish remnant, says, "the end is not yet" — because many things must yet be accomplished before the Jews can come into their blessing. But for Christians, all things even now are ours in Christ; the blessing is never put off, though we await the crown at His coming.

Practically, too, the difference is immensely important; for the Christian is not of the world, even as Christ is not, which could not be equally said of the Jewish body to be called in the latter day. For us "wars and rumours of wars" ought not to be a source of trouble, though surely they should be an occasion of holy concern and intercession in the spirit of grace, and this for all engaged. The Jewish remnant, on the contrary, will not be separated after this heavenly manner; and the earthly struggles which will then rage in and around the land cannot but affect them greatly: so that they will need especially to cherish confidence in the Saviour's words, and not be troubled as if the issue were a doubtful one, or themselves forgotten in that dark day. They must wait patiently; "for nation shall rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." It is evident that the language is only applicable in its full force to Jews — believing ones, no doubt, but still Jews in the midst of a nation judicially chastised for their apostasy from God and the rejection of their own Messiah.

The Lord therefore prepares the Jewish disciples or remnant for their special trials, partially true after His own departure till Jerusalem's destruction, and to be more fully verified before Jerusalem is again owned, after the destruction of the Antichrist. "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all nations [or the Gentiles] for My name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another" (vers. 9, 10). There should be false profession and hatred of the true, even among themselves — not only troubles without: "And many false prophets shall rise and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold; but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Thus there is a certain defined period of endurance — an end to come as truly as there was a beginning of sorrows. But what trial, and darkness, and suffering, and scandal before that end comes! When our Lord, in the Gospel of John, speaks of the Christian's lot, he never names either a beginning or an end, but rather implies that tribulation should be expected throughout his career: "In the world ye shall have tribulation." And such is the constant language and thought in the Epistles, where beyond question our calling is in view.

Then follows a final sign. "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (ver. 14). The gospel of God's grace is not the same as the gospel of the kingdom. Both should be preached — that God is saving souls of His mere favour now through Christ; and that there is a kingdom which He is going to establish by His power shortly, which is to embrace all the earth. Before the end come, there will therefore be a special testimony of this coming of the Lord, as He here intimates. So in Revelation 14 an angel is seen by John in the prophetic vision, having the everlasting gospel to preach to the dwellers on earth and to every nation, and "saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." Now it cannot be said that the hour of His judgments is come; for it is, on the contrary and expressly, the day of His grace and salvation. Clearly, therefore, the inference is that, just before the close of this age, there will be a remarkable energy of the Spirit in the midst of the Jews; and from that very people who rejected Jesus of old, messengers of the kingdom shall go forth, touched by His grace, to announce the speedy fall of divine judgment and the establishment of the kingdom of the heavens in power and glory. Who, in God's mercy, so suited to proclaim the returning Messiah as some out of the very nation who of old had nailed Him to the cross — to proclaim Him now among all the proud Gentiles whose then representative had inscribed over His cross, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews "? The testimony shall go forth universally, then. How humbling for Christendom! with popery, with Mohammedanism, and paganism too, still prevalent over Asia and Africa — the great bulk of mankind. And yet Christian men close their eyes to the plainest and most solemn facts, and boast of the triumphs of the gospel! No: the Gentiles have been wise in their own conceits, though sovereign grace has wrought, spite of all; but it is reserved for other witnesses, when the "falling away" shall have been complete in Christendom and the man of sin revealed, to proclaim the coming kingdom in all the habitable earth.

In verse 15 the Lord shows us, not general tokens of the approaching end, or what should distinguish the end in general from the earlier throes of Israel, but points to circumstances of the most definite character, which may be applied perhaps partially to what occurred before the fall of Jerusalem under Titus, but which can only be fulfilled in the future of Israel if we duly heed the peculiarity of the scene, the connection of the prophecy, and, above all, the consummation in which all is to terminate.

First, then, our Lord points to a Jewish prophet. "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand,)" etc. The parenthesis warns that the prediction might be misunderstood — at any rate, demanded attention. Two passages of the prophecy (Dan. 11: 31 and Dan. 12: 11) speak of this abomination; but I have no hesitation in saying that the former was a foreshadowing of the doings of Antiochus Epiphanes centuries before Christ, and that the latter is the one referred to here, and still unaccomplished. Entirely distinct from the epoch of Antiochus, Dan. 12 speaks of another idol which brings desolation in its train, and this expressly "at the time of the end." "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." in this we have another link of connection with our Lord's words — "whoso readeth, let him understand." "And from the time that the daily [sacrifice] shall be taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days." Thus, besides the idolatrous evil imposed by the notorious king of the north, Antiochus, long before the Lord appeared, Daniel looks onward to a similar evil at the close of Israel's sorrows, the destruction of which immediately precedes their final deliverance. "Blessed is he that waiteth." As to this last, our Lord cites the Jewish prophet, and casts further light on the selfsame time and circumstances.

The conclusion is clear and certain: in verse 15 of Matthew 24 our Lord alludes to that part of Daniel which is yet future, not to what was history when He spoke this on the mount of Olives. I am aware that some have confounded the matter with what we read in Dan. 8 and 9. But "the transgression of desolation" is not the same as "the abomination of desolation"; nor can we absolutely identify "the last end of the indignation" with "the time of the end." (Compare Isa. 10.) The distinctions of Scripture are as much to be noted as the points of resemblance and of contact. The last verse of Dan. 9 might seem to have stronger claims. There we have a covenant confirmed for one week; and then, in the midst of the week, sacrifice and oblation are made to cease; after which, because of the protection given to abominations, or idols, there is a desolator "even until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (i.e., Jerusalem). I have thus given what I conceive to be the true sense of this important passage, because, when it is stated with precision, the supposed resemblance to "the abomination of desolation" disappears. A desolator who comes because of the wing (i.e., protection) of abominations is very distinct from the abomination that makes desolate, or the idol which is yet to stand in the sanctuary. With the setting up of this abomination the date of one thousand two hundred and ninety days is connected. Even for those who interpret this as so many years, it is impossible to apply the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem or its temple by the Romans. Had it been so, the period of blessing must long ere this have arrived for Israel. Has the prophecy then failed? No; but the readers have failed in understanding it. We must correct, not the language of Scripture, but our interpretations: we must go back to God's word again and again, and see whether we have not mistaken our bearings.

The truth is that the understanding of Dan. 12 is of all moment for reaping due profit from Matt. 24. In its first verse we have a plain landmark: "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people." There can be no just doubt that Daniel's people means the Jews, and that a mighty intervention on their behalf is intimated; but, as usual, not without the severest trial of faith. For "there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." This our Lord has unquestionably in view in verse 21: "Then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." There cannot be two tribulations for the same people, each of which is greatest: both statements refer to the same trouble. Now Daniel is positive that "at that time thy people (the Jews) shall be delivered." Who can pretend that Michael stood up for Israel against Titus any more than against Nebuchadnezzar? Does not everybody know that at that time, far from being delivered, they were completely vanquished by the Romans, ,and that those who escaped the sword were sold as slaves and scattered over the world? God was then against, not for, Israel; and, as the King in the parable, He was wroth, sent forth His armies, destroyed those murderers, and fired their city. Here, on the contrary, the unequalled hour of sorrow is just before their deliverance on God's part, not before their captivity.

Carrying this back to our chapter, the sight of the desolating idol in the holy place is the signal for flight. "Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains" (ver. 16). There is no thought of a sign to Christians as such, but to Jewish disciples in the holy land; and this that they may instantly retire from the scene of danger. "Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!" (vers. 17-19.) It has been tried to find in this the warning on which some fled to Pella in the interval after the Roman lieutenant surrounded the city, and before the final sack under the victorious commander. But this arises from confounding Luke 21: 20-24 with Matt. 24: 15-21; whereas they are demonstrably distinct, spite of a measure of analogy between them. It perfectly fell within the province given of the Spirit to the great Gentile Evangelist to notice the past Roman siege, as well as the present supremacy of the nations which tread down Jerusalem till their times are fulfilled. Matthew, however, had his own proper task in giving the grand future crisis, at least from verse 15. And it is evident that as the abomination in the holy place differs widely from armies compassing Jerusalem, so there was ample space for the most leisurely departure from the menaced city (yes, for the most impeded and infirm of either sex to go) after Cestius Gallus withdrew. I conclude, therefore, that by Matthew our Lord gives us what bears on the time of the end; by Luke, what refers to the past, and the present too, cursorily, as well as the future. Matthew, for instance, could not speak, like Luke, of Jerusalem being trodden down of the Gentiles, because he is here occupied only with the horrors which immediately precede Israel's blessing and deliverance. Luke has both an earlier and a later time of trouble: Matthew, from verse 15, confines himself to this latter time.

"But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (vers. 20, 21). How considerate the Lord is! And how surely His disciples in that day may count on His care, that their petitions will be answered, so that, urgent as their flight must be, neither the inclement season nor the day of Jewish rest shall hinder! Here again is another proof that not Christians, but His Jewish followers, are here contemplated. Holy as is the Sabbath, I have no hesitation in saying that the Lord's day, with which the Church has to do, is founded on a deeper sanctity. The believer has now to beware, on the one hand of confounding the Sabbath with the Lord's day, and on the other of supposing that, because the Lord's day is not the Sabbath, it may therefore be turned to a selfish or worldly account. The Sabbath is the holy memorial of creation and of the law, as the Lord's day is of grace and of the new creation in the resurrection of the Saviour. As Christians we are neither of the old creation nor under the law, but stand on the totally different ground of Christ dead and risen. The Sabbath was for man and the Jew — the last day of the week, and one simply of rest, to be shared with the ox and the ass. This is not the Christian idea, which begins the week with the Lord, gives the best to Him in worship, and is free to labour for Him to all lengths in the midst of the world's sin and misery.

Thus we have at every step a fresh testimony to the real bearing of the prophecy. For us the holy place is in heaven, not in Jerusalem; for us it is no question of escaping some unexampled tribulation, but of being prepared for suffering with and for Christ, and rejoicing in it always; for us, gathered out of all nations and tongues, the mountains round Judea are no suited hiding-place; nor could the winter or the Sabbath day be a just source of alarm. Every word is for us to ponder and profit by; but the evidence unmistakably points to a converted body of Jews in the latter day, not standing in Church light and privilege, but having Jewish hopes; and while awaiting the Messiah, warned how to escape the deceits and overwhelming trouble of that day. It is a question of flesh being saved (ver. 22), and not of fellowship with Christ's sufferings and conformity to His death, so as, whatever the cost, to have part in the resurrection from among the dead. Hence, too, there is no thought here of Christ's coming to receive us to Himself and to give us mansions where He is in the Father's house, but of His appearing in glory to destroy enemies, to judge what was dead and offensive to God, and to deliver the scattered elect of Israel. For their sake, those days of terror should be shortened. With this agree the warnings in verses 23-28: "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders," etc. (vers. 23, 24.) Could such a delusion be addressed even to the simplest Christian who waits for the Son of God from heaven? Yet it is very intelligible if we think of these future Jewish disciples, who might expect something akin from a prediction such as Zech. 14, where we find that the mount of Olives is the appointed spot on which Jehovah-Messiah is yet to stand. We can well conceive rumours for such saints that Messiah was in the desert or in the secret chambers: they might deceive those who expected to meet the Lord on earth, not those who know that they are to join Him and the risen ones in the air (1 Thess. 4; 2 Thess. 2).

The manner of His presence for delivering the Jews is then made known as the guard against their deceits: "For as the lightning cometh," etc. The figures (vers. 27, 28), which illustrate the presence of the Son of Man, convey the thought of sudden, terrible manifestation, and of rapid, inevitable judgment on what is then but a lifeless body before God, whatever may have been its pretensions. Nothing like this is spoken of, however, when Scripture describes the descent of the Lord to receive His risen saints. And what is the result of thus misapplying these verses? The revolting interpretation that "the carcass" means Christ, and "the eagles" the transfigured saints, or the converse, calls for censure, not comment. Nor is it needful to refute the claim set up for the Roman standards. Applied to Israel, all is simple. The carcass represents the apostate part of that nation; the eagles, or vultures, are the figure of the judgments that fall upon it. It is not only that there will be the lightning-like display of Christ in judgment, but the agents of His wrath shall know where and how to deal with that which is abominable in God's sight. The allusion is to Job 39: 30.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened," etc. (vers. 29-31). I can hardly be asked to notice the old effort to apply these verses to the Roman triumph over Jerusalem. On the face of it, could this be said to be "immediately after the tribulation?" or was it not rather the crowning of Jewish sorrow? — not the glorious reversal of their sufferings by a divine deliverance. Whatever prodigies Josephus reports, were rather during the tribulation he records; whereas the signs spoken of here, literal or figurative, are to follow "the tribulation of those days" (i.e., the future crisis of Jerusalem). No; One greater than Titus is here; and an event is announced in connection with that poor people, which will change the face and condition of all nations. "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet; and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." The elect throughout are the chosen seed of Israel (vers. 22, 24, 31. Compare Isaiah 65.) Other elect there are, no doubt; but we, must ever interpret by the context; and this in the present case seems perfectly evident. The Son of Man in heaven, and seen there, is, I conceive, the sign to those on earth. This fills all the tribes with mourning; and Christ visibly comes to judgment. Other scriptures show that the heavenly saints have been already translated, and are then to accompany their Lord; but here nothing of this appears. It would have been premature. Besides, the object of this portion of the prophecy is to show His coming for the relief and ingathering of His elect out of Israel. Hence, it is as Son of Man (that is, judicially, see John 5: 27) that He is present; and hence, too, He sends His angels with loud trumpet-sound. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27: 13). It is the proclamation, not alone of the acceptable year of the Lord, but of the day of God's vengeance. "And ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel." The four winds in connection with Israel are no difficulty, but rather the contrary. (See Zech. 2: 6.) As the Lord had scattered and spread them abroad "as the four winds of the heaven," so now are His chosen ones to be gathered in.

The general outline and the special view of the Jewish portion have been given thus far in chapter 24. This is next illustrated, both from nature (vers. 32, 33), and from Scripture (vers. 34, 35), and closed by a suitable application (vers. 42-44).

"From the fig-tree learn the [or, its] parable" (ver. 32). The fig-tree is the well-known symbol of Jewish nationality. We saw it, in Matthew 21, bearing nothing but leaves — that generation given up to the curse of perpetual fruitlessness, whatever grace may do for the generation to come. In Luke 21 the word is, "Behold the fig-tree and all the trees," because the Holy Ghost all through, and notably in that chapter, introduces the Gentiles. Luke takes in a larger scope than Matthew, and expressly treats of Jerusalem's sorrows in connection with "the times of the Gentiles." Hence the difference even in the illustrative figures. Here it is the tree, with renewed signs of life — Jewish nationality revived: "When its branch has now become tender and the leaves are shooting, ye know that summer is nigh; so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is nigh by the doors" (i.e., the end of this age, and the beginning of the next under Messiah and the new covenant). But solemnly the Saviour warns that "this generation," this Christ-rejecting race in Israel, shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled!

The notion that all was fulfilled in the past siege of Jerusalem, founded on a narrow and unscriptural sense of this passage, is from not hearing what the Lord says to the disciples. By the term "generation" in a genealogy (as Matt. 1), or where the context requires it (as Luke 1: 50), a life-time no doubt is meant: but where is it so used in the prophetic Scriptures — the Psalms, etc.? The meaning herein is moral rather than chronological; as, for instance, in Psalm 12: 7, "Thou shalt keep them, O Lord; Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." The words "for ever" prove a prolonged force; and accordingly the passage intimates that Jehovah shall preserve the godly from their lawless oppressors, "from this generation for ever." It is a distinct and conclusive refutation of those who would limit the phrase to the short epoch of a man's lifetime. So, in Deuteronomy 32: 5, 20, we find generation similarly used, not to convey a period, but to express the moral characteristics of Israel. Again, in the Psalms we have "the generation to come," which is not confined to a mere term of thirty or a hundred years. So also in Prov. 30: 11-14: "There is a generation that curseth their father. . . There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes," etc., where the character of certain classes is considered; even plainer, if possible, is the usage in the synoptic Gospels. Thus, in Matthew 11: 16, "Whereunto shall I liken this generation?" means such as then lived, characterized by the moral capriciousness which set them in opposition to God's testimony, whatever it might be, in righteousness or in grace. But evidently, though people then alive are primarily in view, the moral identity of the same features might extend indefinitely, and so from age to age it would still be "this generation." Compare Matthew 12: 39, 41, 42, 45, which last verse shows the unity of the "generation" in its final judgment (not yet exhausted) with that which emerged from the Babylonish captivity. Again, note chapter 23: 36, "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation" — a generation which would continue till all the predictions of judgment that Christ uttered shall be fulfilled (chap. 24: 34). As it is plain from what has been already shown, that much remains to be accomplished, "this generation" still subsists, and will, till all is over. And how true it is! Here are the Jews — the wonder of every thoughtful mind — not merely a broken, scattered, and withal perpetuated race; not only distinct, spite of mighty effort from without to blot them out, and from within to amalgamate with others, but with the same unbelief, rejection and scorn of Jesus their Messiah as on the day He pronounced their sentence. All these things — speaking of their earlier and their latest sorrows — should come to pass before that wicked generation shall disappear. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." That which incredulity counts most stable, the scene of its idolatry or )f its self-exaltation, shall vanish; but the words of Christ, let them be about Israel or others, shall abide for ever.

But if all be thus sure and unfailing, the Father alone knows the day and hour (ver. 36). Ample and distinct signs the Saviour had announced already, and the wise shall understand; "but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand." "But as the days of Noah, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not till the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be" (vers. 37-39). Here is another testimony that our Lord in this position speaks of the Jewish disciples of the latter day (represented by those who then surrounded Him), and not of the Church. For His illustration is taken from the preservation of Noah and his house through the waters of the deluge; whereas the Holy Ghost, through Paul, illustrates our hope according to the pattern of Enoch, caught up to heaven, entirely apart from the scenes and circumstances of judgment here below.

Moreover, when the Son of Man thus comes in judgment upon living men here below, it will not be, as when the Romans or others took Jerusalem, indiscriminate slaughter or captivity; but whether in the open country or the duties of home, whether men or women, there will be righteous discernment of individuals. "Then shall two be in the field, the one is taken and the other left; two women grinding at the mill, the one is taken and the other left" (vers. 40, 41). The meaning clearly is that one is taken away judicially, and the other left to enjoy the blessings of Christ's reign, who shall judge God's people with righteousness and His poor with judgment. It is the converse of our change, when the dead in Christ shall rise first, and we, the living who remain, shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air; for those who are left, in our case, are left to be punished with everlasting destruction from His presence. But the Lord will also have an earthly people. He waits till the heavenly saints are gathered to Him above, and then begins to sow, if I may thus speak, for earthly blessing, in which case His coming as Son of Man will be for the removal of the wicked, leaving the righteous undisturbed in peace. "There shall be a handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains; the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon; and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. His name shall endure for ever: His name shall continue as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in Him: all nations shall call Him blessed. — Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be His glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with His glory. Amen, and Amen" (Ps. 72: 16-19).

"Watch therefore, for ye know not at what hour (or day*) your Lord is coming." The dealings with Israel, ending with the rescue of the just in their midst, involve the judgment of the self-secure and unconscious world. Accordingly, in these transitional verses (42-44) we have an allusion to a wider sphere than the Jews or their land, in which the godly remnant would be found — protected, but still there. God would know how to deliver the godly out of temptation. There they are, however, surrounded by snares and foes, but preserved: a totally different position from ours, who will previously be taken above, in the sovereign grace and wisdom of our Saviour. "But know this, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in an hour when ye think not the Son of Man is coming." The object is evidently a practical warning to the godly on earth to be ready. They had been comforted in view of trouble and violence; they had been set on their guard against the religious deceits of the old serpent; they had been solemnly assured of the stability of the Lord's words in the very point where Gentile conceit has misled even true believers; they are now exhorted to vigilance and readiness for their coming Lord, that they might not only escape the fowlers, but stand before the Son of Man. For the world, it will be like the unexpected thief, breaking in upon them in their supposed security.

*  Ἥμέρα, day (instead of the common reading ὥρα, "hour,") has excellent authority.

From verse 45 to Matthew 25: 30, we enter on the parables which pertain to Christendom only, and not to the Jewish remnant. We may regard it as an appendix to the Jewish aspect of which the Lord had been speaking thus far. Hence here we have so distinct a portraiture of profession, true and false. Whenever we touch what is properly " Christian, God deals with the heart and conscience. He is calling out and forming those who are to be the companions of His Son in heavenly glory. Therefore nothing is passed by; all is judged of God in its real light. Hence, too, there is no limit here of either place or people. Christianity is above time, and of and for heaven, though it may be divulged in fact on earth during the gap in the dispensations of God made by the rejection of Israel for a season. Christianity is a revelation of grace flowing from Him who now speaks not from earth but from heaven. It is not, I need hardly insist, that evil is slighted. No mistake can be more profound or fatal than that grace implies levity about sin. On the contrary, grace is the very strongest condemnation of all evil, as it is indeed not the mere claim of what man ought to be toward God, but the revelation of what God is toward man in the judgment of his sin in the cross of Christ. Therefore, it is the fullest display of divine hatred and judgment of evil; but this is in Christ, at the cost of His own beloved Son, so as to save the most guilty who believe. When dealing with His earthly people under the law, many things were allowed, for the hardness of their heart, which never had His sanction. But when the complete display of grace shines, as it does now, evil is not borne with but judged. Such is Christianity in principle and in fact. And hence it is that, for the true Christian, all the time for his earthly sojourn is a season of self-judgment; or if he fail in this, the assembly is bound to judge his ways; and if they fail, the Lord judges him and them, holily, but in grace, that they should not be condemned with the world. He may expose false profession here, and now, if He see fit, but the end of it we see in all these three parables. Grace never winks at evil; and if evil take advantage of grace for its own purposes, the issue is frightful, and it will be manifestly so at the coming of the Lord.

And this leads me to remark that the Lord's coming has a two-fold character. First of all, there is His coming in full grace, entirely apart from all question of our service, and consequently of special rewards in the kingdom in which we are to be manifested along with Christ. But we must bear in mind that this manifestation to the world in the future kingdom is far from being the highest part of His glory or even ours, as it does not elicit the deepest exercise of His grace. In receiving us to Himself, on the other hand, all is purely from Himself. It is His own love who would thus have us with and as Himself. It is thus we find John puts the coming of Christ in His Gospel (Matthew 14); nor am I aware that it is ever treated otherwise there. In the Revelation we find both ways. In the first chapter the testimony is, "Behold, He cometh with the clouds," etc. Plainly there is no trace of the saints caught up there, but "Every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him." The Bride nowhere appears in that scene, but rather what is public and affects the world universally, and especially the blood-guilty Jews; and all are mourning. But the last chapter could not close without letting us know that there is, spite of all evil and woe and judgment, such an one as the Bride awaiting her heavenly Bridegroom. No sooner does He announce Himself the root and offspring of David, the bright and Morning Star, than the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." Here we have the intimate intercourse of heart between the Lord and the Church. It is impossible for any one not born of God to say "Come," though there may be those who are so born and yet ignorant of their full privilege of union with Christ. And for them, I doubt not, gracious provision is made in the word, "Let him that heareth say, Come." But in no case can the world or an unforgiven soul take up such a call; to such it would indeed be the madness of presumption, for to them His coming must be sure and endless destruction. Again, it is not merely saving flesh, or deliverance out of misery and danger by the overthrow of their enemies: the Holy Ghost never puts the aspect of Christ's coming for us in any such light. We shall have rest, and those who trouble us shall have tribulation in the day of His appearing; but we go to meet the Saviour, and to be with Him for ever; and meanwhile, it is our sweet earthly privilege to suffer for His sake now. We are left for a while in a world where everything is against us because against Him, and we belong to Him. But we know that He waits to come for us, and we wait for Him from heaven; and while the waiting lasts, we are to expect, if faithful to the Lord, nothing but suffering from the world; yet happy in it, assured that glory in heaven and the cross on earth go together. The cup of trial, the reproach and scorn of men, maybe less at one time than another. This is for our Father to give as He sees fit. But if we look for aught else as our natural portion here as Christians, we are unfaithful to our calling. Rejection is ours because we are His: "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not."

As the Bridegroom, then, the Lord has nothing but love in His heart to the Bride. Nor is there a question of any save His own. He has told them He is coming; and the greater the power of the Spirit in the soul, the more ardently does the Bride say, 'Come." In this heavenly meeting of the Lord with the Bride, how incongruous that other eyes should see, or that wailing throngs should intrude into or witness such a meeting! Scripture does not so speak.

The Jew, the world, which refused the true Christ, will receive the Antichrist. This is what men will fall into; and in the midst of their delusion and apparent triumph the Lord will come in judgment. But when He thus comes, it will not be alone. Others, His heavenly saints, appear along with Him in glory. This is what we see in Col. 3: 4; 1 Thess. 3: 13, and with detail in Rev. 19. Not angels only, but His saints follow Him out of heaven, clothed in white linen, and on white horses, according to the striking figures of the Apocalypse. The saints had been in heaven before the day of the world's judgment. They must have been removed from earth to heaven before this, in order to follow Him out of heaven and be with Him when that day dawns; and this could only have been through His coming to receive them to Himself. Hence, again, it appears that His coming has a double character, according to the object of each of its steps or stages. He comes to gather to Himself all His saints, dead or living, and shall present them in the Father's house, that where He is, there they may be also. In due time afterwards He brings them with Him, judging the Beast and the false Prophet, the Jews, and the Gentiles, as well as every false professor of His name. This is still His coming, or state of presence: only now it is (what the former act, when He takes us to be with Him, is never called) His "appearing," the "shining forth of His coming" (2 Thess. 2: 8), His "revelation," and His "day."

With this second act of the Lord's coming, or His "day," is connected the appraisal of our service, and the assigning of reward for work that has been done. For all must be manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, and each must receive the things done in the body, whether good or bad. Some find a difficulty in bowing to both truths; but if subject to the Word, we shall overlook neither the common blessedness of the saints in the full grace of the Saviour at His coming, nor the recognition of individual faithfulness, or the lack of it, in the rewards of the kingdom. When we read of the many mansions, we are not to dream of one being more glorious than another. The truth conveyed is that we are to be as near and dear as sons can be in the Father's presence, through the perfect love and work of the Son. In this point of view I see no difference whatever. All are brought absolutely nigh, all loved with the love wherewith Christ was loved, and having His portion, as far as can be for the creature. But am I therefore to deny that "every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour?" or that in some cases the work will abide, as in others it will be burnt? or that, as the parable teaches, one servant may receive ten cities, and another five?

It will be found accordingly, that there is a close connection in Scripture between Christ's day, or appearing, and present exhortations to fidelity. Thus, Timothy is exhorted to keep the commandment without spot, unrebukable until the appearing of our Lord Jesus. So the apostle, in 2 Timothy 4, speaks of the "crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." The results of faithfulness, or of unfaithfulness, are only manifested then. It is the day of display before the world; and "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we also appear with Him in glory" (Col. 3: 4). Hence it is as awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus that the apostle speaks of the Corinthian saints as coming short in no gift, and at once brings in the thoughts of His day. So Christ's day is the blessed end and solemn test of all, in writing to the Philippians. Of the epistles to the Thessalonians I need say the less, as they present in the clearest way both these truths.

Returning now to the first of the three parables (ver. 45) which refer to the Christian profession, I would make the general remark, from what we have been examining, that while the words "appearing," "day," etc., are special (and never used, I think, except where responsibility is concerned) the word "coming" is general; and though applicable, if the context so require it, to cases of responsibility, it is in itself of wider character and is used therefore to express our Lord's return in nothing but grace. In other words, the appearing, day, or revelation of Christ is still His coming or presence; but His coming does not necessarily mean His appearing, revelation, or day. He may come without appearing, and I believe that there is proof from Scripture that so it is when He receives us to Himself on high; but His "appearing" is that further stage of His coming again, when every eye shall see Him.

"Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household to give them meat in due season?" It is not a question of evangelizing here, but of care for the household. The principle of trading outside with the Master's gifts will come by and by (Matt. 25: 14, et seq.); but here the great thing is that, as the Lord loves His saints ("whose house are we") so He makes much of faithful or faithless service within that sphere. For I need not say that faithfulness to the Lord involves no denial of the ministry He provides. Ministry when real is of God; though the mode in which it is exercised is often wrong and unscriptural. Ministry is not Jewish, but characteristic of Christianity. But it is a thing very apt to lose its true character. Instead of being Christ's servants in His household, many sink into the agents of a particular body. In such a case it always flows from the church or denomination. Real ministry is from Christ and Him alone. Therefore the apostle says he was the servant or bondman of Jesus Christ, never deriving his mission from the Church or being responsible to it for his work. The gospel and the Church were the spheres of his service (Col. 1); but its giver and his Lord was Christ Himself exclusively. It appears to me that this is necessary, in order that ministry should be recognized as divine; and nothing but divine Ministry is owned in Scripture, nor should be by God's people now. This, then, is the first thing our Lord insists on, that the faithful and wise servant whom the Lord makes ruler over His household be found doing His work, caring for what is so near to Christ. It is a most painful proof of the low state of the Church in these days that such service is regarded as "waste" of precious ointment. So completely have even God's children fallen from the thought of true ministry that they think it idleness or proselytism to attend to those that are within. Why not preach to those without, say they, and seek to bring such to the knowledge of Christ? But this is not the first thing our Lord presses. The "faithful and wise servant" had to do with those within: his object was to give them their meat in due season; and the Lord pronounces that servant blessed., "Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." Others might raise questions as to the servant's title; but He simply says, If I find you "so doing," blessed are you. The great point is to be doing His will. It is not title or position, but doing the work which the Lord wishes to be done.

But now comes the other side of the picture. "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants and to eat and drink with the drunken" (vers. 48, 49). There you have the great danger of the professed servants of Christ in this world. First, wronging the fellow-servants by assuming an arbitrary place. Authority is right where it is exercised under obedience to Christ. No change of circumstances or condition alters the truth that the Lord remains head of the Church, and raises up servants at all times to carry out His wishes with authority. But here it is man's will, where the servant takes the place of the Master, and begins to smite his fellow-servants. Secondly, along with that, there is evil communication with the world. It is not said that he is himself drunken; but there is association with the world. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." Where the thought of the Lord is gone, ministry loses its true character. There will be oppression towards those within, and evil commerce with those without. "The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (vers. 50, 51), It supposes that the servant still pursues the same course, and is found there when the Lord comes — his heart thoroughly with the world. He began by saying in his heart, My Lord delayeth His coming. This is far more than wrong thoughts about the coming of the Lord, which some saints might hold without this Scripture applying to them. If there were, on the other hand, persons professing to look for the Lord's coming and acting as if they did not believe it, they are much more like the servant saying in his heart, My Lord delayeth His coming. What the Lord judges is not a mere mistake or doctrinal blunder; but it is the state of the heart — content that Christ should stay away. If we are desiring something great and of esteem among men, how can we say, "Come?" His coming would spoil all our schemes. We may talk about the Lord's coming and be learned about prophecy; but the Lord looks at the heart and not at the appearance. Let the profession be ever so loud or high, He see where souls cleave to the world and do not want Him.

Matthew 25

"Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins." We have here the general aspect of those who bear the name of Christ. The kingdom of heaven here implies a certain economy at a given point of time. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom" (ver. 1). "Their lamps" set forth the light of profession. They were witnesses for the Lord, and their calling was to meet the Saviour. That was to be the attitude of the Christian from the first, going forth to meet the Bridegroom. Christianity does not mean that its professors remain where they are, and so look for Christ, but that they leave everything in order to go out and meet the Bridegroom. Some of the early believers were Jews, and some were Gentiles; but they abandoned for Christ their previous connections, their position in the world, and all that they hitherto valued. They had a new object; they knew that the only blessed one in the sight of God was the Saviour; they were waiting for Him, who is in heaven, and they go out to meet Him who has promised to come again. This is the true expectation of the Christian. There ought to be no fixing of dates, but the certain hope that the Lord is coming — we know not when. The stronger such a hope is in our hearts, the more completely separated shall we be from the plans and projects of this world.

"And five of them were wise, and five were foolish." The kingdom of heaven becomes a thing of profession. As in the case of the servants there was an evil as well as a faithful servant, so here we have five wise and five foolish virgins. "They that were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them." They were persons who had the lamp of profession but no oil. Some have thought that they were Christians who failed in looking for the Lord to come. But I believe this to be false, because the foolish proved their folly in this — that they took no oil in their lamps. What does this imply? Oil is the type of the Holy Ghost. We read in 1 John 2 of an "unction from the Holy One." Will anyone maintain that there are real Christians who have not this "unction "? The wise virgins set forth true believers, the foolish ones mere professors; these took the name of Christ, but there was nothing that could fit them for the presence of Christ. Our power of enjoying Christ is entirely by the Holy Ghost. The natural man may admire Christ, but only at a distance, and without an awakened or a purged conscience. There is no living link of relationship between the heart of the natural man and Christ; and therefore man crucified Him. These foolish virgins, having no oil in their lamps, showed that they possessed nothing that could enable them to welcome Christ. The Holy Ghost alone can fit men to stand in the confession of His name to do His work. The oil was that which fed the lamp, and these foolish virgins had none. "But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept" (vers. 4, 5). They all dropped practically the hope of Christ's coming: there was no difference in that. There were true Christians and false, but all were in this respect asleep. Thus, while the original calling of Christians was to wait for Christ's return, being united to Him by the Holy Ghost, yet was there to be a universal slumber as to expecting Christ. But the Lord adds, "At midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him" (ver. 6). Plainly, that cry was the movement of the Holy Ghost Himself. It was the power and grace of God which sent it out by the means that He saw fitting. We are not told how, but it plainly reveals a general movement among Christian professors — a revival of the truth of the coming of the Lord. "Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps" (ver. 7). The cry affected even those who had not the Holy Ghost dwelling in them.

But now comes out the solemn difference. "The foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out," or rather, "are going out." They had lit their wicks, but there was no oil. The light of mere nature burns soon and rapidly, but there is nothing that implies the Spirit of God — they had never had oil. "But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you; but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves." I need not say that the terms on which God sells and man buys the Holy Ghost are, "without money and without price "; but the great point is that every soul must have to do with God. The believer listens, and bows to God in this world; the unbeliever will quail before God in the next world. Grace compels souls to come in and to have to do with Him now, in this world; but if I refuse to face God about my sins here below, I shall find myself lost forever. Now is the day of salvation; and it is only a delusion of the devil to persuade the heart to defer it to a more convenient season. If I go to God about my sins, and because I believe that Jesus is a Saviour, I shall find, not merely Jesus the Son of God but the Holy Ghost given, by whom I shall be able to enjoy the Saviour. The wise had this oil, and they could await the coming of the Lord in peace. But the foolish ones are unacquainted with His grace. And to whom do they go? Not to those who sell without money and without price. "While they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut." Afterward, as we see in the painful picture of the foolish virgins, they come, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore; for ye know neither the day nor the hour."*

*The words "wherein the Son of Man cometh" have no substantial manuscript authority in this verse. This is no particular view of mine, but it is the judgment of every competent person who has examined the original testimonies.

When the Lord is set forth as coming in the way of judgment, He is spoken of as Son of Man. Here He is represented as the Bridegroom; and if the words "Son of Man" were really to be read here, it would be hard indeed to account for them. How plain that you cannot add anything to Scripture without spoiling it! Our Lord here appears in an aspect of grace toward His saints; and this is one reason why you have no description of the judgment about to fall upon the foolish virgins. The displayed execution of divine vengeance would be incongruous with His title of Bridegroom. No doubt even here the door is shut; and our Lord tells the foolish virgins, when they appeal to Him to open, "I know you not"; but He thereon immediately turns the fact to the spiritual profit of His disciples: "Watch therefore; for ye know neither the day nor the hour" (ver. 13).

Then comes another parable. "For the kingdom of heaven is [or, literally, "It is] as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey" (vers. 14, 15). There our Lord is represented as leaving this world and going to a far country. This is a remarkable way in which our Lord is presented here. In Matthew His home is supposed to be on the earth, because He is the Messiah who came to His own, even if His own received Him not. As the rejected Messiah He leaves His home, and goes, the suffering but glorified Son of Man, to the far country, which is clearly heaven. And while He is gone there He has His servants to whom He has committed certain of His goods; and with these they are to labour "Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents" (ver. 16). Here we have another kind of ministry. It is not serving the household, and giving them meat in due season, as in Matt. 24: 45. It is trading, or going out to others. This is a characteristic of Christianity. In Judaism there was no such thing as the Lord sending His servants here and there to gain souls; but when the Lord Jesus left this world and went up to heaven, He thus sent them out. He left them means to trade withal. It is the activity of grace that goes out to seek sinners, as well as spread the testimony of the truth of God among saints.

If the Lord calls to service He also gives according to our several ability. The character of the gift put at our disposal is suited, in the Giver's wisdom, both to the object and the vessel. There is sovereignty, and all is wisely ordered. , How could it be otherwise, seeing that it is the Lord who calls? It is here too that Christendom has so largely failed. Were a man now to begin to preach and teach without some human sanction, many would regard it as a piece of assumption, if not presumption; whereas, in truth, if I look for authority from the churches to preach or serve the Lord, I shall be sinning against Christ. Any appointment by men for such a purpose is unauthorized by and opposed to the mind of Christ; and those whom they would consider acting irregularly are in reality in the lowly path of obedience, and will find their vindication in the great day. It is entirely a question between Christ and His own servants. He gives one to be a prophet, another an evangelist, another a pastor and teacher (Eph. 4). But there are two things in the servant — both of them of importance. He gave them gifts, but it was according to their several ability. The Lord does not call any one to special service who has not an ability for the trust committed to him. The servant must have certain natural and acquired qualifications, besides the power of the Spirit of God. He gave them talents — to one five, to another two, and to another one. Here you have the energy of the Holy Ghost — the power that the Lord gives from on high, over and above His choice of each man "according to his several ability."

It is plain from this that there are certain qualities in the servant independent of the gift that the Lord puts into him. His natural powers are the vessel that contains the gift, and wherein the gift is to be exercised. If the Lord calls a man to be a preacher, there is supposed a natural aptitude for it. Again, the gift may be increased. First, there is the ability of the man before and when he is converted; next, the Lord gives him a gift that he never possessed before; thirdly, if. he does not stir up his gift, there may be a weakening, if not loss. He may become unfaithful, and may lose power. But if a man waits upon the Lord, there may, on the contrary, be increased power given to him. Many think that the one qualification of the servant of God is that of the. Spirit. This is, of course, essential, and most blessed; but it is not all. The truth is that Christ gives gifts; but He gives them "according to the ability" of the individual. The union of the two facts, the ability of the servant and the sovereignly-bestowed gift given him to trade with, is of all-importance to keep distinctly in view.

But to proceed: "After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained besides them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant" (vers. 19-21). In chapter 24 it was the "faithful and wise" servant, because, where it is a question of the household, wisdom is needed. But here it is "thou good and faithful servant." Both are called "faithful"; but, in the exercise of the gifts which the Lord send,; out to the world with the message of grace, the goodness of God is characteristic. What is the source of all grace in the servant of the Lord? It is the appreciation of God's goodness. This comes out by contrast in the case of the slothful servant. An unconverted man might have a gift from the Lord. The slothful servant was clearly one that never had the knowledge of God: proved in that he did not believe in the goodness of the Lord: he had no confidence in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. In this the evil servant showed what he was. He says, "I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strewed. And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed" (vers. 24-26). His lord takes him upon his own ground. If the servant judges him to be hard, On your own ground, he says, "Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury." According to his self-defence, he had utterly failed: and so it is always. The man who talks about the justice of God cannot for an instant stand before it; while he who casts himself humbly upon the grace of God will be found to walk soberly, righteously, godly, in this present evil world. The denier of the goodness of God is invariably a bad man himself.

So in the matter of our service: whether we have two talents or five, and use them for Him, the Lord will return it to our souls again, and in the day that is coming give us to hear those blessed words, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

We now come to a subject viewed, I apprehend, with much prejudice by many. It has been perverted, I grieve to say, even by those who love the Saviour and own both the general blessedness of those that belong to Him and the sure doom of those that despise Him. But though all Christians must be in the main agreed on these fundamental truths, when we come to inquire what the Lord intended us to gather from His taking His seat upon the throne of His glory; when we would ascertain who the parties are that the Lord has before Him in this scene, and what the special destiny of the blessed is, we meet with the most various opinions. The root of the difficulty may be traced generally to one thought — the anxiety, even of Christians, to find that which bears upon their own lot. Not being thoroughly at rest touching their acceptance with God, there is ordinarily a disposition to warp Scripture, partly to escape what they dread, and partly to gather comfort for their troubled souls. The greater part of God's children are, more or less, in spirit under the law; and wherever such are honest in this condition, they must be miserable. Comparatively few know the fulness of deliverance in Christ; few know what it is to be dead to the law and married to another, even to Him who is risen from the dead. They may hear and repeat the words of Scripture, thinking they mean something good; but the real meaning and blessing of being dead to the law and united to a risen Saviour very few appreciate. This is the reason why so many are not in a state to understand the word of God. Not enjoying in peace their own position in Christ, they seize upon every promise, with small regard to the objects God had in view. Thus seeking assurance for their own souls, when the Lord speaks of certain Gentiles as "sheep," they think it means us, because we are so called elsewhere, as in John 10. They find these are blessed of the Father, and thence conclude that it can be no other than our hope. Again, certain are here spoken of as "brethren" of the King; and they take it for granted it means ourselves — Christians. In this superficial way Scripture is misunderstood, and the very comfort that souls are grasping after as surely eludes them. Wherever we turn aside the edge of the word of God, and appropriate indiscriminately what is said of persons in a wholly different position, there is loss. God has so arranged everything that the best portion for us is what God has given. We cannot mend the counsels of God, nor add to the riches of His grace. If we know the love that God has to us in Christ, we know the best thing that we can find in earth or heaven. The moment we lay hold of this, and see how greatly we are blest, we cease from the anxiety that each good word of God should converge on ourselves; we see His infinitely greater object, even Christ, and we can delight in others being blest even in what we have not. This is most important practically — that we should be so satisfied with God's love to us, and the portion He has given us in Christ as to rejoice in all that He is pleased to give to others. Are we not sure our Father withholds from us nothing but what would interfere with our blessing? So reading this parable, or prophetic description, we are under no constraint. We can examine it with other scriptures, and see whom the. Lord has in view, and inquire what their portion is to be.

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations" (vers. 31, 32). Here are proofs enough of what the time and circumstances are of which our Lord speaks. He is taking His seat upon His own throne as the Son of Man. He is gathering before Him all the nations. When will this be? Here, at least, it will not be contended that something past is in question. The Lord Jesus is not even yet seated upon His own throne. When on earth He had no throne; when He went to heaven, He sat down on His Father's throne, as says Rev. 3: 21: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne." According to this promise, when it shall be fulfilled, He must have left His Father's throne and sat down on His own throne. It is a future thing. Every scripture that touches on our Lord's actual place shows that He is now seated on the Father's throne. But Scripture also shows that He is to sit on His own throne; and this is what we have here. All things in heaven and in earth shall be put under the government of the Lord Jesus. He will be the head of all glory, heavenly and earthly. Of which does this portion speak? Are there any circumstances with which our Lord surrounds His throne that make the answer plain? "Before Him shall be gathered all nations." Are nations in heaven? Clearly not. Who can imagine so gross a thing? When the boundary is crossed that separates the things seen from the unseen, no such earthly sight lowers or distracts the worship above. When men are risen from the dead, they will no longer be known as English or French: these national distinctions, for them, terminate. Their future lot is decided according to their reception or rejection of Jesus in the present life. This future throne of the Son of Man is accordingly connected with a time-state on the earth. The more every word is weighed, the more this will be evident to the unbiased.

If we compare it, in the next place, with a resurrection scene, their distinctiveness will be apparent. In Rev. 20: 11, "I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." There can be no question about this throne. It can have nothing to do with the earth, because the text itself tells us that the earth and heaven fled away. I learn at once the positive contrast between Matthew and Revelation. In the latter only do we hear a word about heaven and earth fleeing away; in the former only we have very plain indications that the Lord is taking His throne in the government of the earth and of men living on it — not judging the dead when the kingdom is about to be given up. Those gathered before Him here are "all the nations" — a term never used about the dead or the risen, but only applied to men here below, and indeed applied only to the Gentiles as distinct from the Jews. For we have already had the Jews in Matthew 24, and now we see the Gentiles; between these two are the parables applying to the Christian profession.

Thus nothing can be more orderly than the whole connection of this prophecy on the mount. The Jews came first, as indeed the disciples themselves still were such; then the parables of the house servant, the virgins, and the talents, which describe the Christian position, soon to be developed, when the Jews should reject the Holy Ghost's testimony. Lastly, another section closes all: neither Jews nor Christians, but "all the nations," or Gentiles, to whom the testimony of the kingdom is to be sent out,* and among whom the Holy Ghost will work (Satan working too, lest they should be brought out of darkness into God's marvellous light). In Rev. 20 We find a great white throne. "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand. . ." Thus you see the character of this throne at once. Not a living man is there in natural life, but the dead now raised are summoned for judgment before the great white throne. In Matt. 25 not a single dead man is spoken of; in Rev. 20 not a single living man. In Matthew the persons called before the throne are "all the Gentiles," or nations; in Revelation, none but "the dead." "And the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." When we come to look closely into Matt. 25, the principle of judgment is not according to works generally, but only a particular test is pressed upon them — faithful or unfaithful treatment of the king's brethren. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." There is not a word about this in Matt. 25; and, indeed, the expression of "nations" involves, without a question, the inference that they were not risen from the dead. It is the judgment of those commonly called "the quick" — those living upon the earth at that time — and they are dealt with according to their behaviour to the messengers of the gospel of the kingdom. This will show it is a great error to suppose that all the judgments in the word of God mean one and the same thing. We must leave room for differences here as elsewhere. God indeed is able to meet every difficulty, and to bring out His own perfections in dealing with all that comes before Him.

* This also corresponds with the last three parables of the 13th chapter, as we saw. — [Ed.

Gathering up the contrast of Rev. 20, let us turn to the closing scene in Matt. 25. The title "Son of Man" at once prepares you for a judgment connected with the earth and with persons living there. No doubt the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven, but He comes to judge the world and the people on it. It may be even said of churches or assemblies, as in Rev. 1; but whatever the object of the judgment, it is the Lord judging persons still alive upon the earth, and not the dead.

"And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." It is a careful and divine discrimination — not a mere act of vengeance which deals with masses, in which all might be overwhelmed in common ruin. He separates them one from another. At the great white throne, where the dead stand to be judged, there is no need of separating them there. But here there is a mingled company. Such a mixture is never found in heaven or hell, but only on the earth. Thus every clause gives proof that our Lord speaks of a judgment of the living on the earth. He separates them "as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." It follows that the persons meant by "the sheep" and "the goats" are respectively the righteous and the ungodly among the nations then living on the earth, when our Lord comes to judge in His quality of Son of Man. It is not now what we have seen in Matthew 24, where He shines suddenly like lightning. Here it is the calm, but most solemn judgment, with everlasting results, according to the discrimination which the Lord makes between individuals. When the judgment of the dead takes place before the great white throne, the heavens and earth are fled away; so that the Lord must have come before then, or there would be no earth as it is now to come to, as we all confess He shall come.

Our Lord, then, is here separating the godly from among the ungodly in those living nations. He disposes of them thus: "Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (ver. 34). However blessed they are, He does not describe them as children of their Father. I do not deny that they are children of God; but He says, "children of My Father." No doubt the words said to them are very precious; but do they reach up to the height of the blessing the grace of God has given us in Christ now? There is nothing here about "blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." They are called to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world. When God laid the foundations of the earth, He was looking onward to this blessed time. Satan's getting power over man was only a fearful interruption, but not one whose consequences the Lord could not overmaster and purge out: He means to do it; and to have this world the scene of incomparably greater blessedness than its present misery is through Satan's work. God means to give the kingdom of this world to His Son — yea, He will have the whole universe put under Christ. Our Lord had a right in His own glory to everything; but He humbled Himself, and laid down His life to deliver us and creation out of Satan's hand, and establish a new and righteous title over all, and bring it back to God.

Again, let it be noted that there is not a word about His bride here. He speaks as "the King," and He is never spoken of as such in His relation to the Church. In Revelation 15 the expression "King of saints" should be "King of nations," quoted from the words of Jeremiah. It is a title we can rejoice in, but it is not His relationship to us. We are called by grace to be members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. Here, in His capacity of King, the Lord severs the righteous Gentiles from their unrighteous fellows — "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Ephesians 1 speaks of our being "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world;" it is a choice independent of the scene of creation, in connection with which these blessed Gentiles have their portion. Our place may be rather said to be with Him who created all. The world may disappear; but our blessing is identified with Himself. The thief on the cross asked, "Lord, remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom." But our Lord says, "Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." To be with Christ is better than the kingdom — which we also shall inherit. Christ Himself is far beyond all the glory displayed in and to the world. His love ever goes beyond our faith, giving more than we ask of Him.

The blessing given to these godly ones from among the Gentiles, is the inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them by the Father from the foundation of the world. It showed they were possessors of eternal life: "I was a hungered, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me" (vers. 35, 36). Observe what they answer: "Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, Lord. when saw we Thee a hungered, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink?" Could a Christian say such a thing in heaven, where we shall know even as we are known? But these godly Gentiles are evidently in their natural bodies still. And the Lord is instructing them even after He appears in glory. However blessed this scene may be, still it is the Lord as Son of Man judging all nations and blessing the righteous from among them, who, up to that moment, were ignorant that in showing acts of love and kindness towards Christ's messengers, it was so much done towards Christ Himself. Their last lesson was the first that Paul learned on the road to Damascus — the truth that startled his soul: "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Paul was taught of the Lord that to persecute the saints living on the earth was to persecute Christ in heaven: they and Christ are one. It is evident that these Gentile sheep set forth men still in the condition that requires and receives instruction from Christ.

"And the king shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto Me" (ver. 40). Who are "these my brethren?" We have had the sheep and goats — the righteous and the unrighteous Gentiles; but who are the King's brethren? Those whom the Lord will send out before He comes in the glory of the kingdom; men sent to announce that He is coming in His kingdom. The sheep showed them love — care — sympathy in their sorrows. So that these brethren of the King must have been exposed to tribulation before the King appears. The conclusion is obvious that, in that day, the ground on which He will deal with the nations will be this, -"How did you behave to My messengers?" The King's messengers, immediately before He appears in glory, will go forth preaching the gospel of the kingdom everywhere; and when the King takes His throne, those that received the gospel of the kingdom among the nations are recognized as "sheep," and the despisers perish as "goats." Those that honour the message treat the messengers well — caring for them, and identifying themselves with them — "companions of them that were so used." The Lord remembers this, and counts what was done to His messengers as done to Himself. It will be as truly the work of the Holy Spirit as our entrance into the far fuller testimony of His love now. Their astonishment before His throne at having done anything to Him in the person of His brethren, proves that they were not in the Christian position, though truly believers.

But who were these "brethren?" From general principles of Scripture and the special teaching of this prophetical discourse, there call be little doubt that the King's brethren will be godly Israelites, employed by the Lord, after the Church has been caught up to heaven, to be the heralds of the coming King and kingdom. We know that the Church is to be taken away before the time of the last great tribulation. "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth." But here there are saints found on the earth — not kept from the hour of temptation, but living on the earth during it, and preaching this gospel of the kingdom. And according to the way in which they are received, the nations will be cursed or blessed. There was no gospel of the kingdom preached before or after the flood, and it is the gospel of the grace of God that is being preached now. The gospel of the kingdom is often confounded with this. I have no doubt, therefore, that the King's brethren are a class, godly Israelites, whom Christ will own as His brethren. There are some blessings the Jewish saints will have that neither you nor I will possess; there are others we shall have that they will not enjoy.

But there is a very solemn back-ground to the blessed entrance into the kingdom: "Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (ver. 41). Observe, He does not say, Cursed of My Father, answering to "Blessed of My Father." God hates putting away. So when the awful moment comes for the curse to be pronounced on these wicked Gentiles, it is "Depart from Me, ye cursed." I believe it is the deepest sorrow to God, and throws all the onus of destruction on those whose own sin it was, who rejected His love and holiness and glory in rejecting His Son. "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." In the other case the kingdom was said to be "prepared for you:" not so when speaking about the curse. Hell was not prepared for poor guilty man. He deserves it; but it was prepared for the devil and his angels. Where the souls rejected the testimony, he does pronounce them cursed. He is the King, the judge. But whether it be the great white throne, or this earthly throne, it is "everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." There was no hope of deliverance for these fallen angels — no redemption for them. They wilfully and without a tempter departed from God. Man was tempted by an enemy; and God feels for guilty man, drawn away by a mightier, if not more guilty, rebel than himself. How solemn to think that it was prepared for others, and that men share it with these rebellious spirits? It was not in the heart of God to make a hell for miserable man: it was prepared for the devil and his angels. But there were those who preferred the devil to God; and to such He says, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The same test is applied to them as to the godly before — the treatment of the King and of His messengers, or rather of Him in them.

To us, although the same principle is involved, yet, in one way, what is yet deeper comes in. All turns upon — What think ye of Christ? Do you believe on the Son of God? "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1 John 5). The sinner is obliged to face the person of the Son of God, and it becomes an urgent, all-absorbing, eternal question that must be decided by the soul — Do I prefer Christ to the world? Do I prefer Christ or self? The Lord grant that we may be wise, and know how to find in Christ both the salvation and the power of God. For the same blessed One who gave us life gives us power for every practical difficulty. "This the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

Matthew 26

The Lord had rendered His testimony, as the Faithful Witness, in deeds as well as words. He had finished all the sayings which proclaimed Him to be the Prophet like unto Moses, as prophesied by him (Deut. 18: 15), but incomparably greater withal, and who was henceforth to be heard on peril of eternal ruin. And now the hour approached, the solemn hour of His sufferings; and Jesus passes into it in spirit, with the calm dignity suited to Himself alone.

The religious guides were resolved on His death. The chief priests, the scribes, the elders, all of one mind in this, assembled at the high priest's palace. They consulted, they plotted; but after all, if they consummated their infamy, they unwittingly accomplished the words of Christ to His disciples, rather than their own plan of wickedness. They said to each other, "Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people" (ver. 5); but He said to His disciples, "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified" (ver. 2). Did they wish to kill Him? They must do it then. Man has his wickedness, and God has His way. But little did either the friends or the foes of Jesus know how the determinate counsel of God was to be brought to pass. A traitor from within the innermost circle, fit instrument for Satan's scheming malice, must lift up his heel against the Saviour, the leader of that adulterous and now apostate generation into the pit of perdition. The enemy degrades morally his victims — ever the consequence of evil — and the beautiful offering of love (fruit of the Holy Ghost in her who poured the very precious ointment from the alabaster box on the head of Jesus) gave occasion to the basest motives in Judas, and the final success of the tempter over a soul, spite of the constant seeing and hearing of Christ, long inured to secret guilt (vers. 6-16).

I am compelled through circumstances to glance but cursorily at these final and affecting scenes. Yet let us not fail to observe, first for our warning, how easy it is for eleven good men to be led astray by the fair pretences of one bad man, who was influenced by evil feelings unknown to them. Alas! the flesh, even in the regenerate, remains ever the same hateful thing, and there is no good for the believer save where Christ is the object and controls the heart. Next, for our joy, how sweet to find that love to Christ is surely vindicated of Him and has the Spirit's guidance in the weakest one, spite of the murmurs of those who seem ever so high and strong! Thirdly, if a saint manifested her estimate of Jesus — so lavishly in the judgment of utilitarian unbelief — what was His value in the eyes of the bribing priests and of the betrayer? "And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver" (ver. is). A slave's price was enough for the despised Lord of all! (Compare Ex. 21: 32; Zech. 11: 12, 13.)

Still, in the face of all, the Lord pursues His path of love and holy calm; and when the disciples inquire His pleasure as to the place for eating the paschal feast, He speaks as the conscious Messiah, let Him be ever so rejected: "Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with My disciples" (ver. 18). As the twelve were eating, He tells out the grief of His heart: "Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me" (ver. 21) — which fails not to elicit the reality of their affections and their deep grief. If Judas imitated their inquiry of innocence, fearful that his own silence would detect him, and, it may be, counting on ignorance because of the Lord's generality of expression ("one of you"), he only thereby hears his doom brought personally home. Prophecy was accomplished, "but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed."

Nothing, however, arrests the flow of Christ's love. "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (vers. 26-28). The bread, but especially the cup, set forth the Messiah, not alive on earth, but rejected and slain. The broad truth is given here, as by Mark, in "This is My body," without dwelling on the grace which gave it; it is the truth in itself without accessories seen elsewhere. Stress is laid on "My blood of the new covenant which is shed for many," because the refusal of the Messiah by Israel, and His death, opened the way for others outside — for Gentiles; and it was important for our Evangelist to note this. Luke has it, "shed for you" (i.e., for the believers in Jesus); Matthew adds, "for the remission of sins," in contrast with the blood of the old covenant, which held forth its penal sanction: for the blood in Ex. 24 sealed on the people their promise of obedience to the law under menace of death: here, in the Saviour's blood, they drink the witness of their sins blotted out and gone. "But," adds He, "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (ver. 29). He is henceforth separated from joy with them till the Father's kingdom come: then He will resume His association with delight in His people here below., The godly drink His blood with thankful praise now: by and by He will drink the wine of joy new with us in the Father's kingdom. Till then He is the heavenly Nazarite; and so, consequently, should we be in spirit.

After the supper they sang a hymn — how blessed at such a time! — and repaired to Olivet (ver. 30). With ineffable grace the Lord lets them know the trial which should befall and shake them all that very night, and this according to the written Word, even as that which He had shown concerning Himself. (Compare vers. 24 and 31.) The flesh had proved itself and its worth in the "goodly price" it set on Jesus; it was also to prove the value of its self-confidence and of its boasted courage on His behalf — "All ye shall be offended because of Me," etc. Peter, who most trusted His own love for the Saviour, proved it bitterly for himself and glaringly to others (vers. 32-35). Thus the end of the trials would be to confirm their faith and deepen their distrust of self, making Christ their all in everything; and He, risen, would go before them into Galilee, resuming in resurrection-power the relationship which He had with them there in the days of His flesh.

The next scene, in the garden, equally perfect in its display of Jesus, and most humbling in its exhibition of the choicest of the apostles, shows us the picture, not of holy calm in the full knowledge of all that awaited Himself and His disciples, but of anguish to the uttermost, and of death realized in all its horrors as before God (vers. 36-46). What an insight Gethsemane gives us of Him, Jehovah-Messiah though He was, as the Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief! Who ever saw affliction as He? Not only had Jesus to know the depths of the cross in atonement as none other could; bow His head under the full, unsparing judgment of God when made sin for us; but He underwent beyond all others the anticipative pressure of death on His soul as the power of Satan, feeling it perfectly, and the more deeply by taking it from His Father's and not from the enemy's hand. It was the "strong crying and tears" to His Father now, as afterward to God as such when it was a question of actual sin-bearing on the tree. "And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with Me" (vers. 37, 38). When the cross came, there was no such call to disciples to watch with Him. He was alone, absolutely, essentially, for us — that is, for our sins — with none of men or angels in any way or measure near Him (morally speaking) — alone, when God forsook and hid His face from Him on whose head met all our iniquities. Here, in Gethsemane, it was pleading as a Son with His Father, when "He went a little farther, and fell on His face [prostrate in His earnestness], and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt" (ver. 39). He watched, and prayed, and entered not into temptation, though tempted to the uttermost. But He finds the disciples asleep: they could not watch with Him one hour. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak"; and so it was again and again with them, till He bade them sleep, but warned them that the hour was at hand, as the traitor drew near.

But the same flesh which drags down to sleep when the Lord called to watch and pray is zealous enough with carnal weapons when Judas came with his deceitful kiss and a multitude following (vers. 47, etc,), though it preserved not from, but rather led into, either forsaking the Master or denying Him. Jesus, past the conflict at Gethsemane, in all dignity and peace before man, goes forward to meet God's will at their wicked hands; in meekest words (vers. 50-54) laying bare the base evil of Judas, the rash weakness of His inconsiderate defender, and points to His approaching death, spite of His title to command legions of angels in His behalf — who withal speaks worlds into existence and annuls the wicked by His word. But He was a prisoner for the will of God, not of man's power.

Before Caiaphas (vers. 57-68) He is counted guilty of death — not because the falsehood of the witnesses succeeded, but because of His own confession of the truth. He, the Son of God, come in fulness of grace and truth as He was, they should henceforth see Him, the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of heaven — His present position and His manifestation when He comes in power and glory.

Yet, in the midst of His rejection and contumely at the hands of high and low among His own outward people, Jesus causes His mighty word to be remembered by poor Peter, bold now in denying Him with cursing and swearing (vers. 69-75). "And he went out and wept bitterly." Oh, what a servant! what a Lord!

Matthew 27

All through this Gospel the Holy Ghost bears in mind very particularly our Lord's relations with Israel. Hence, in the preceding chapters, where we had the destruction of Jerusalem foretold, care was taken to bring out also the preservation of a godly remnant of Israel — a fact which would be of special comfort to His own people. And, just as we have seen in that prophetic testimony, so in the narrative of the crucifixion, what comes out peculiarly in Matthew's Gospel is the part which Israel took in that solemn act, in their accomplishment of what was written in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, touching their rejection of their own Messiah. Our Evangelist wrote with express view to the Jews, and hence it was of the greatest importance to convince them that God had accomplished the promises in the sending of the Messiah, whom Israel's unbelief had refused and crucified by Gentile hands on the tree. What would be the special value of quoting from the Law and the Prophets to Gentiles? The Old Testament Scriptures formed a book of which the heathen had the scantiest knowledge. We do find references to these Scriptures in Luke, just enough to give a link, but that is all. But Matthew, while written for all surely, has Israel especially in view. Hence it is that the Lord is so distinctly and care fully presented as Messiah in this Gospel; but from the first enough is intimated to show His rejection. In the subsequent details we see not only broad predictions accomplished, but the progress and development of that enmity. The guilt of the religious leaders is prominent, and their religious evil works, which are especially offensive to God; the devil bringing in the name of God to give effect to and to sanction what is done by man.

Hence the activity of evil here is by the priests. "When the morning was come" — they rise early to accomplish their design. And mark, it is said, "all the chief priests," etc. This shows the utter ruin and blindness of the nation. It was a most startling fact, and a capital one for a Jew to understand (for a Jew knew that the priesthood was instituted and ordered of God), that those who ought to have been the sure guides of the people were their misleaders in the greatest of all sins. Were not the sons of Aaron divinely chosen? Were not these their successors? Were not the Jews a people called out from the rest of the world to own the true God and His law? All most true surely; but what were they and their leaders now about? Taking counsel and planning to destroy their Messiah! And these were the men who had the best light of any nation! All the use man made of the light possessed was to become more hardened and bitter in rejecting the Son of God! "And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor" (ver. 2). Whatever part the Gentiles take in it, God takes care to point out that the Jews were not only the instigators but the open prosecutors in the awful deed.

"Then Judas, which had betrayed Him, repented himself. . . . saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood" (vers. 3, 4). Awful picture of what Satan brings about in a wretched human heart! Only the farther from Jesus morally because he was the nearer externally. Most of all guilty are those who have the greatest outward privileges while the truth of God does not govern the soul. We see, too, the mockery of Satan — the way in which he cheats his victims. Manifestly Judas did not expect such an end for Jesus. He had known the Lord in imminent peril before; he had seen Him, when the people took up stones to cast at Him, hiding Himself, going through the midst of them, and passing on His way. He knew how Jesus could walk on the sea — how He could conquer all the obstacles of nature; and why not the raging storm of human passion and violence? But Judas was deceived, whatever his calculations may have been; he yielded to covetousness; he bargained for the blood of Jesus. To his horror, he found it but too true. And Satan, who had led him on by his love of money, leaves him without hope — in black despair. He goes to the priests, who heartlessly turn away from a miserable, despairing soul. Alas, confession of sin without confidence in God for His grace, is worthless — fruitless of any good. Cleave to God, my soul! and give Him credit for what He is in Christ. But there is no faith where Jesus is not loved; and Judas had neither. All the outward nearness he had enjoyed before was only a greater weight upon his lost soul now. What a thing is the end of sin even in this world, sin against Jesus!

Judas brings the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders with the confession, "I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." They could not deny the truth of this; but with utter heartlessness, more hardened if possible than Judas' own heart, they say, "What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself" (vers. 4, 5). Many a one sells Jesus virtually, if not literally. Let every soul look to it that his sin be not in some way akin to that of Judas. If God is calling sinners to a knowledge of His Son, and of His grace by Him, it is an awful thing to reject Him; it is selling Jesus for some object in this world which either we seek to attain or love too well to part with. In Judas this came out in its worst form; but perdition is not confined to him who is the son of perdition.

"And the chief priests took the silver pieces," etc. Conscience would have told them that theirs was the guilt of bribing Judas to betray Jesus, but it had long been seared as with a hot iron, and now was utterly dead toward God, as it shows itself heartlessly cruel toward Judas. Religion without Christ only serves as the means to cheat the soul. They said, "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood." Here was religion; but where was conscience in giving the money for Jesus? "And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day" (vers. 7, 8). The memory of their guilt is thus perpetuated to their own condemnation. And this is a picture of what the people had become — the chief priests as the pattern of what the nation was. A field of blood that land remains to this day; a field "to bury strangers in." Israel being cast out of their own land, it is left to others, if only to be buried there.*

* This rather applies to the Jews themselves. Cast out of their own land on account of the blood of the Just One, of which they maid, "His blood be on us, and on our children," they have been "strangers" among all nations in the world since — where they have their graves, but not their home. — [Ed.

But it is not the chief priests and elders, nor the wretched condition of Judas, nor the perpetuation of Israel's wickedness, foretold by the prophet, that occupies us now. It is our Lord Himself, standing before the governor. He acknowledges the power of the world when Pilate asks Him, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" To the chief priests and elders He answers nothing. Pilate, struck by the silence and moral dignity of his prisoner, desires His release, sees through the malice of the people, and proposes to them a choice, such as was the governor's custom: "Whom will ye that I release unto you?" But he had to find out the hatred with which men regarded Jesus: there is no person or thing the malice of man does not prefer to Him. God takes care, too, that there should be a home testimony to the conscience of the governor. His wife sent a message, saying, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him" (ver. 19). This, which is recorded only in Matthew, disturbed Pilate the more. All of it God ordered that man's iniquity in rejecting Jesus should be evident and without excuse. Then observe the solemn lesson: "The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus" (ver. 20). The greater the moral advantages, where there is not simple faith in God, the greater the hatred of Jesus. The reception or rejection of Jesus now is the same thing in principle, though, no doubt, the circumstances of the world are changed.

Persons may know just enough of Jesus for their souls' salvation, and experience little of the world's rejection; but if I really cling to a crucified and now glorified Christ, I must know what it is to have the scorn and ill-will of the world. If the world rejected Him, I must be prepared for the same thing. We cannot make both heaven and earth our object any more than we can serve God and mammon. The cross and the glory go together. The Lord presented hopes of blessing on the earth to Israel if they had received Him; but they refused, and this brought in the cross of Jesus. God knew it was inevitable, because of man's wickedness; it was the occasion of bringing in His purpose as to the Church and heavenly glory; but we must prepare for as much as man chooses to do in the present state of society. It is a lie of Satan that man is altered for the better during the last eighteen hundred years; the natural man's heart is always the same, though there may be times when it comes to a crisis. The very people, who "wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of His mouth," the same day sought to cast Jesus down headlong. And what was it that brought out their enmity? The assertion of man's evil and God's true grace. Man cannot endure the thought that his salvation depends upon God's mercy, and is for the worst of sinners, as for any other. "Is it possible," he says, "that I, who have tried to serve God for so many years, should be treated like a drunkard, a swindler, or a harlot?" He turns round on God, and becomes His open enemy. But, after all, it is not a question of justice to man in the salvation of a sinner. It must be grace, if God saves any; and this He delights to show. Nor is it a partial remedy, for there is no case so desperate that His grace cannot reach.

"Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ? They all say unto Him, Let Him be crucified." Here we see the bitter unrighteousness of these religious men; and if Pilate seemed too sensible at first to act thus, we shall also see what his righteousness amounts to. He asks, "Why, what evil hath He done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let Him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water," etc. (vers. 23, 24). This is what the world's righteousness amounts to, whether in the chief priests or in the Roman. True righteousness is only found where God governs. One alone in this scene is found in the patience, goodness, wisdom of God — perfect in every way. When it was the time to speak, His word is spoken; when it was the time to be silent, He holds His peace. He was God upon earth, and all His ways perfect. But this is not the great point here. As John's Gospel specially develops the deity of our Lord, and Luke His humanity, in Matthew we see Him as Messiah; therefore Pilate asks Him here, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" When Pilate had "washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it" (as if that could relieve him of the fearful crime he was perpetrating), all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children" and there the dark, fatal stain abides to this day. "When he (Pilate) had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified." And this is the righteousness of the judge! This was he who had just before called Jesus a just man. Then come the soldiers. They too, and all, are proved guilty. Not a class or condition of man but evinces its hatred of God in the person of His Son — shown, too, in that which was their pride. For what base cowardice is that which tramples down one who suffers unresistingly! "And they stripped Him, and put on Him a scarlet robe. And when they had plaited a crown of thorns, they put it upon His head; . . . and they spat upon Him, and took the reed, and smote Him on the head," etc. (vers. 28-30). The soldiers' tyranny comes out in this connection: they compel one in nowise implicated to do a service which they would not do — "As they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear His cross."

At the cross "they gave Him vinegar to drink mingled with gall" (ver. 34). We must not confound this circumstance with that mentioned in John where the Lord says, "I thirst." In Matthew's narrative it was the stupefying draft administered to prisoners before they suffered; and this the Lord would not drink. Whereas in John, the Lord, while on the cross, fulfils a scripture. In John He is regarded, not as One who did not suffer, but withal as the absolute Master over all circumstances. Alive therefore to the honour of Scripture, and in fulfilment of a word which had not as yet received its accomplishment, He says, "I thirst." "And they filled a sponge with vinegar. . . . and put it to His mouth." He did drink the vinegar then. But here in Matthew, on the contrary, "when He had tasted thereof, He would not drink" (ver. 34) — He wished for no alleviation from man. "And they crucified Him, and parted His garments, casting lots."

The superscription differs in the various Gospels. We must remember that Pilate wrote it in three different languages, and it may not, therefore, have been exactly the same in each. One Gospel (Mark) does not profess to give anything but the substance of what was written, the accusation, or charge, against Him; in the others the Holy Ghost gives the words. And what appropriateness is here! "This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (ver. 37). The great thing for the Jew is the identifying of their Messiah and King with Jesus. In Luke the word "Jesus" ought to be omitted, as in the best authorities. It is really, "The King of the Jews, this!" and means, "this fellow" — a term of contempt. The object there is to show that "He is despised and rejected of men ": here, "He came to His own, and His own received Him not because, though the Gentile shares the guilt, it is the Jew who leads Pilate to condemn Him to death. In John we have, characteristically, the fullest form of all — "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." The reason is, it unites two things in our Lord not anywhere else so brought into juxtaposition — the most complete humiliation and the highest glory. He by whom all things were made, God Himself, was a man of "Nazareth." The beauty of this must appear to any spiritual mind. Throughout John's Gospel the Lord is both higher and lower than anywhere else.

"The thieves also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth" (ver. 44). They found time to revile Jesus too, venting their bodily anguish in mockery of the Son of God. Oh, beloved friends, was there ever such a scene?

We have briefly looked at man's part, but what was God doing there? "About the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (ver. 46.) We have full evidence that this was not the exhaustion of nature. And "when He had cried again with a loud voice, He yielded up the ghost" (ver. 50). Our Lord died a willing victim. Man might will His death, and be the instrument of it. A man He became, that as a man He might die: but in every circumstance it is so marked as to show that He was there who could as easily have swept away a world as of old He laid the foundations of heaven and earth by His word. He "yielded up the ghost; and, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent" (vers. 50, 51). Nature was made to yield its testimony above and below; and the darkness over the land was no mere eclipse. The Jewish system, too, yielded its solemn witness in the rent veil — the shadows were passing away: the fulfilment of them, the great Reality, had come. Unrent, it had been the symbol that man could not draw near to God. Under the law it could never be. God dwelt then in the thick darkness. But in the death of Jesus fulness of grace has come. God and man may now meet face to face. The blood is sprinkled upon and before the mercy-seat, and man is invited to draw near with holy boldness. It is due to that precious blood. God in Him had come down from heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. For every soul that believes, it is done. The Jewish system might linger on, like a corpse waiting so many days for burial; but the rending of the veil was the soul severed from the body. Thus there was witness on every hand — from the earth, the heaven, the law, and the unseen world. Jesus has the keys of hades and of death. The very graves were unlocked when Jesus died, if the bodies of the saints did not rise till after the resurrection. He was Himself the first-fruits, and the power of life was brought in through His resurrection. What testimony could be more complete? The centurion set for the watch, heathen as he was, no doubt, "feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

"And many women were there beholding afar off." But where were the disciples? Oh, what withering condemnation of all boasted courage! They had forsaken Jesus and fled; but here were these women, contrary to their natural timidity, "out of weakness made strong," beholding, even though afar off. In Joseph of Arimathea we see a man who had a great deal to lose: a rich man and a counselor, and withal a secret disciple of Jesus. Now God brings him to a point when you might least expect it. With the death of Jesus on the cross — "numbered with the transgressors" — he goes to Pilate, begs His body, and having laid it in his own new tomb, rolls a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, unwittingly fulfilling Isa. 53: 9 — "with the rich in His death." If apostles and disciples fled, God can, and does, raise up testimony for His name's sake.

We have traced the history of self in this chapter. If we had all the riches, the learning, the power, of this world, none, nor all, of these could make us happy. Jesus can, and does. But let us remember that we are in the enemy's country, which has shown its treachery to our Master. If we do not feel that we are passing through the camp of those who crucified Jesus, we are in danger of falling into some ambuscade of the enemy. The Lord grant us that calmness of faith which is not occupied with self, but with Him who His own self bore our sins in His own body on the tree!

Matthew 28

The special purpose of this Gospel appears in the account of the Lord's death and resurrection as plainly as elsewhere. Hardly any portion, indeed, more strikingly illustrates it than the chapter before us. Thus we have no mention of our Lord's ascension. If we had only Matt. 28, we should not have known as a fact that the Lord went up to heaven at all. It is impossible without a special purpose that the apostle could have omitted an event so glorious and interesting. Not that this omission is a defect in Matthew's narrative; on the contrary, it is a part and proof of its perfection, when the scope is understood. Were the ascension scene introduced here, it would be out of keeping with the history that closes in our chapter. Yet even now it is one of the points that learned men stumble over. Neglecting the evidence of design, they reason a priori, and consequently cannot understand why such an event should be left out by our Evangelist. Evidently they do not believe, in any full sense, that God wrote these Gospels; else they would conclude that the fault lay in their ignorance and misreasoning. A simple-hearted believer, though he may not understand why, rests satisfied that the omission in Matthew is as perfect as the insertion of it in Luke; everything is as it should be in the word of God, as He wrote it. And the notion that something is now wanting, which Matthew once wrote as a conclusion, is contrary to all evidence, external and internal.

Before closing, I shall endeavour to show how its presence here would be incongruous and detract from the beauty of the picture God was supplying: on the other hand, its presence where it does occur elsewhere is, I need hardly add, equally beautiful and necessary. Events are selected in connection with the immediate subject. Taking the chapter as it comes, we see that the Holy Ghost here confines Himself to a Messiah risen from the dead, who meets His disciples in Galilee, outside the rebellious city. In other parts of this Gospel the ascension is implied or assumed, as in Matthew 13: 41; Matthew 16: 27, 28; Matthew 22: 44; Matthew 24; Matthew 25; and, above all, Matthew 26: 64. It was therefore not omitted ignorantly, nor has any accident robbed us of it in the original. I only say this as entirely refuting the foolish and irreverent reasoning of men, chiefly moderns.

"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn, etc. (ver. 1) This was not the morning of the resurrection-day, but the evening previous to it. We, with our western reckonings of time, might think only of the early twilight; but it means simply that the week was drawing to its close. We must remember that to a Jewish mind evening twilight commenced the new day.* An exactly similar phrase occurs in Luke 23: 54, where the Jewish sense cannot be doubted. The Holy Ghost does not continue the description of this visit of the women to the sepulchre. There is no real ground for connecting the circumstances of the first three verses of this chapter.** The first merely presents the devotedness of these holy women. When the disciples had gone to their own homes, these women, spite of natural fears at such a place and time, could not stay away. They had prepared spices for embalming the body, but rested the sabbath-day (as we read in Luke), according to the commandment. "It was just getting dusk" is the true thought here. It was the twilight after the sabbath. Their hearts took them to the grave, being bound up with Jesus, as soon as the sabbath-law permitted.

* This is according to Gen. 1: 5: "And the evening and the morning were the first day." So vers. 8, 13, etc.: to this the Jewish reckoning conformed. If we believe that Gen. 1 has also a symbolical application, as others have clearly shown, the omission of "evening and morning" on the seventh day very significantly points to God's rest (and ours with Him) in new creation, where sin shall not enter, and His rest shall not be broken. — [Ed.

**This is quite in keeping with what we have found in Matthew elsewhere. The reader can compare καὶ ἰδ ού ("and behold") in Matthew 8: 2 with the same in Matthew 28: 2. The true connection is in the object of the narrator, not in mere time, There is no ground to suppose the women witnessed the earthquake: the soldiers, I believe, alone did.

"And, behold, there was a great earthquake," etc. This was an after-occurrence; how long after is not said. We have simply a narrative of events one after another, in these early verses, without defining the intervals of time. We rnust not confound the visit of the women here (in verse 1) with their visit on the morning of the first day mentioned by Mark and in our verse 5, etc. The Lord was not on this last occasion in the sepulchre, and the angel, descending and rolling away the stone, had nothing directly to do with the Lord's rising. No such interposition was in any way necessary to Him. God raised Him, and He Himself rose — taking up His life as He had laid it down. Such is the scriptural doctrine of the resurrection. This angelic action was, I suppose, to call the attention of men to the Divine act in the resurrection of Jesus, and the more fully to set aside the deceits or the reasonings of enemies.* So the angel's word is, "Come, see the place where the Lord lay."

*Perhaps more especially for the comfort and assurance of the sorrowing disciples, as well as the announcement to them of the resurrection of Jesus.  Ed.

One remarkable consequence of the resurrection is always pressed: the angel says, "Fear not ye." That mighty act of God is intended forever to dispel the alarm of those who believe in Jesus, by giving them the certainty of His intervention on their behalf. Up to the advent and resurrection of Jesus there was a measure of darkness and uncertainty, however great the kindness and mercy shown by the Lord. The resurrection left all the world apparently undisturbed; but what was the great resulting truth and blessing for the people of God? To faith it is the triumph of God over the last efforts of sin and the power of Satan. No doubt death is still in the world, pursuing its ravages. And what is the resurrection to you? says the caviller. Everything, if Christ is my life. I am entitled to have the comfort of it; my soul is welcome to drink into the joy of it, though my body does not yet share the deliverance. God has shown me in the cross of Christ the perfect witness of suffering for sin. Man believes not that He is the Son.. and cannot understand how God could allow His best-beloved to suffer. Others too had cried to God; and, spite of all their faults, they had been heard; yet, in the extremity of Christ's sufferings, and spite of His grace and glory, and of the Father's love to Him, He cried and was not heard! For truly, in all His life He was the beloved One over whom the heavens opened with delight. But upon the cross the crisis is come, and all js changed. It might have seemed to the world that all was over with the claims of Jesus. He had died on the cross, and by His own confession was forsaken of God. Was all now as man or the devil desired? On the third day God interferes: Jesus rose from the dead, and all the power of earth and hell was shaken to its. centre. Resurrection settled everything in peace for the believer. Every cause for fear and unbelieving sorrow was buried in the grave of Christ. Every blessing overflows in Him risen. How much is made of this in the Epistles! Nothing is more fundamental or more insisted on. Vague thoughts of God's goodness, love, etc., would not be enough for the solid comfort of God's people. Full, settled peace is founded on the solid basis to which God points — the death and resurrection of Jesus. If His death meets all my evil, His resurrection is the spring and pattern of the new life and acceptance — beyond sin, and death, and judgment. Our life, our peace, our new place before God, are now to be associated with Jesus risen.

The course of the world was not interrupted by the Lord's resurrection. Men slept as usual, and rose as if nothing had happened. Yet was it the greatest work of power that God had ever wrought; yea (founded on the deepest suffering that ever was endured), it was the greatest work He ever will do; and I say this looking on to the day when everything shall be made new according to His glory. These are the consequences of Christ's resurrection, the applications of the power put forth therein. But if the world was indifferent to it, what should it be to us? Say not it is a little thing because it is as yet a matter of faith. Into the midst of this scene of weakness and death the mighty power of God has entered, and has been put forth here in the resurrection of Christ. No more could God do, nor needs to do, to blot out sin: it has been put away by the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus was treated as if He were covered with it, as if it were all His own. If it was to be removed, He must bear it thoroughly: He did so, and now it is gone; and we rest upon what God tells us of Him and it. This is what tests the soul's confidence in God. Am I willing to trust God, when I cannot trust myself? Sin brought in distrust of God; but the gift, death and resurrection of Christ more than restore what was lost, and establish the soul in such a knowledge of God as no angel ever did or can possess. What my soul wants is, not that God should be so merciful as not to destroy me because of my sins, but a full deliverance with a full judgment of sin (Rom. 8: 1, 3). We can not have fellowship with God except on the ground of sin being taken away righteously. Jesus crucified has abolished sin before God for those who believe. To believe God about the death of His Son because of our sin is to take God's part against ourselves. Before Him to acknowledge ourselves lost sinners is repentance toward God, and inseparable from faith.

Perfect love is in God, and comes out of the depth of His own holy being. God became a man that He might go through the whole moral question of sin: that done in Christ is the triumph of grace. No wonder then that the angel could say, "Fear not ye." The resurrection shows every hindrance gone. The angel acknowledges Him as Lord ("Come and see the place where the Lord lay"); but what a blessing to be able to say our Lord! What a joy thus to own that risen One who was crucified as entitled in everything to command! No doubt, what made His work of value was that He was God Himself — One who, while He was a man, was infinitely above man — a daysman — One who could lay His hand upon both. The angel intimates this, that in the presence of a risen Saviour there was nothing for the most timid believer to fear. On the other hand, Acts 17: 31 says: "He [God] hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead." If I do not trust to a risen Saviour for the deliverance of my soul, I participate in the guilt of His death. If I have not fled for refuge to Him, I belong to the same firm, as it were, that crucified Him. But by faith in Him I am washed from this guilt by His blood. How just that the provision of grace which signs the believer's deliverance should, if despised, become the dead weight that sinks the world! If I believe Him, I know it was man that crucified Jesus; and not merely profane man; for the guilt pervades all. And there is one only door of deliverance for any, and this is Jesus crucified. "Fear not ye." There is no need of alarm, for He is risen. "I know that ye seek Jesus," etc. It was the heart set upon Jesus that was valued. It had ever been in the mind of God to blot out sin; but now it was all gone; and God was waiting for this to declare the glad tidings. He who was full of holy love in giving Jesus to die, now raised Him up from the dead, and gave Him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God. If my faith and hope are in God, my delight is in Christ; if in myself, Christ becomes to me a cipher, and I justly perish forever. If I have not Christ for my rest and delight, for my Saviour and Lord, here, I must by and by quail before Him as my judge.

And now, returning to the women, they were to go and tell His disciples that Jesus was risen from the dead, and was going before them into Galilee. In Luke there is no notice of Galilee, but there He joins the two disciples going to Emmaus; and when they returned to Jerusalem the same evening, they "found the eleven gathered together. . . . saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Jesus Himself appears in their midst. All circumstances there have Jerusalem as their centre. In Matthew the great point pressed is the meeting-place assigned in Galilee. And why? Is it not remarkable on the face of it that one should give the meeting of Jesus with His disciples in Jerusalem, the other in Galilee? Has not God some truth to teach me hereby,? We are apt to measure the importance of a truth by its results to ourselves; but the true standard is its bearing on the glory of God. The way in which God gives us His truth, after all, is also the best for us. Throughout the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is found in Galilee. Jerusalem refuses Him, was troubled at His birth, and cast Him out unto death, even the death of the cross. "We did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted," exactly describes their feeling. They looked in the Messiah for something suited to their earthly idea; they vented their disappointment in the rejection of the Son of God. In accordance with this, then, Matthew records that the scene of His living labours, as also where He manifested Himself as risen after the house of Israel rejected Him, was Galilee — the place of Jewish scorn. He shows Himself anew in despised Galilee of the Gentiles, when all power is given to Him in heaven and earth; and there He gives the godly remnant from His ancient people their great commission.

"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them," etc. In John, where Mary recovers her beloved Lord, as she thinks, He says, "Touch Me not." How comes it that here, when the women came and held Him by the feet, our Lord does not forbid it? A totally different truth is thus set forth by these acts. The great hope of Israel was to have Christ in their midst. But to us the absence of Christ on high, while we go through our time of trial, is just as characteristic as His presence will be to them. John speaks fully of our Lord's going away: another scene of glory entirely distinct from this world is brought out there. Hence the teaching implied is, as it were, You may have been looking as Jews for a scene where I shall be personally present; but instead of this, I tell you of My present place on high, and the many mansions that I go to prepare for you in My Father's house. He reveals to them a heavenly hope totally distinct from His reigning over His people in this world: therefore in John the Lord says to Mary, "Touch Me not, for . . . I ascend," etc. But in Matthew we are shown Jesus rejected by Jerusalem, yet found in Galilee, even after His resurrection. Whatever His power and glory now, and the comfort and blessing to His own, He is still, as regards the Jews and Jerusalem, the rejected and despised Messiah. Hence it is that on this occasion He confirms the message of the angel, saying to the women, "Be not afraid: go tell My brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see Me" (ver. 10).

The governor wielded the power of the Roman kingdom; but who were they that secretly instigated him? The false religionists of their day — the priests, utterly blinded of the devil. Always without simplicity of heart, they assembled together with the elders and took counsel; and those who bribed a treacherous disciple with "thirty pieces of silver" to put Christ to death, gave "large money" now to deny the truth of His resurrection. Such is man, such is the world; and, solemn to say, such is its highest and proudest phase. Such it was then: is the moral complexion altered now? If we read the Bible aright, we shall find in it not only the record of the past, but the divine lesson-book of the present and the future. May we read it for our own souls! Certain it is that the Jews, and especially the religious chiefs, took the lead in evil and in opposition to God before Christ's death (Matt. 26, 27), while He lay in the grave (Matt. 27: 62-66), and after He rose again (Matt. 28: 11-15). But unbelief is after all as weak against God as faith is mighty with and by Him. Their own guard became the clearest, most unwitting and least suspected witness of the resurrection. What a testimony was the alarm of the soldiers, added to the doubts of His own disciples! It became more than unbelief now; it was a deliberate, wilful lie; and there are the Jews "until this day." Their fears were, without their meaning it, a sure testimony to Jesus; but their enmity leads them on now to reject What they knew was the truth, even if they perished everlastingly.

"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted" (vers. 16, 17). "Some doubted" — and these were disciples. How good is God! how above the thoughts of man! Man would have held back the fact. Why say that some of His disciples doubted? Would it not stumble others? but it is profitable to know the depth of our unbelieving hearts — to see that even in the presence of a risen Jesus "some doubted." No matter what His love to His children, God never hides their sins, nor makes light of them.

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. . . . And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Now it appears to me that with such a word as this the ascension scene would be incongruous. He had said, "Lo, I am with you alway"; and there the curtain drops — the unbroken blessedness of this promise rings on the heart! Thus the keeping out of view His departure seems to me to crown the beauty of the parting promise, and of the whole Gospel.

And why not here "repentance and remission of sins"? why not "preach the gospel to every creature "? What is the peculiar fitness of this conclusion of Matthew? The Lord, rejected as the Jewish Messiah, opens out fresh dealings of God with men. Before, they were not to go even to Samaritans; but here an entirely new sphere is opened. It is no longer God having His peculiar dwelling-place in one nation; it is now this larger thought — "Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 19).* Baptism is here in contrast with circumcision, and the fuller revelation of the Godhead is contrasted with the name Jehovah by which God was known to Israel. "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This falls in with the sermon on the mount, where the Lord says, in contrast with them of old time, "But I say unto you." He was the Prophet like unto Moses whom God had promised to raise up, and to whom they were bound to harken. What special guidance was this for Jewish disciples! They were to teach all things that Jesus had commanded. He was the beloved Son of God who now was to be heard pre-eminently. It was not a question of putting the Gentiles under the law — which has been the ruin of Christendom, the denial of Christianity, and the deep dishonour of Christ Himself.

* It is still "the kingdom," but no longer confined to Israel. — [Ed.

And here all closes. The disciples were about to enter on a troubled scene; but, "Lo, I [Jesus] am with you all the days, unto the consummation of the age." And this was and is enough for faith. The Lord grant that we may confide our souls, both for this age and forever, to that Word which shall stand when heaven and earth pass away!

Philemon., An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to.

W. Kelly.

With translation of an amended text.

Introduction.

This letter, an appendix to the Pastoral Epistles, has a character of its own; so much so that those, whose mania it has been to doubt its genuineness as an inspired communication of the apostle, have without difficulty put together some slight appearances on which to build their destructive argument. Indeed Dr. Ellicott, one sees, does not include the letter to Philemon, but gives those only to Timothy and Titus as the Pastoral Epistles; and in this he does not differ from others. Nevertheless, allowing a marked difference, it is their beautiful complement and follows them so naturally that we may without violence class them together, rather than leave the letter to Philemon absolutely isolated.

But peculiarities there could not but be in a document so distinct from the governing instructions given to Paul's fellow-labourers in their general work of superintendence. For the subject-matter before us is the opposite side of gracious care in a matter of domestic life. Divine love actively applies itself, in a manner essentially its own, to the ease of a runaway slave from Colosse, who had been brought to God through the apostle during his first imprisonment in Rome. For the date of this Epistle is at least as certain as that of the Second to Timothy, which was the latest of the apostle's writings, just before his imminent death that closed the second imprisonment in the great metropolis: a date, as all know, far more defined than that of the First Epistle to Timothy or of the letter to Titus. It was written, generally speaking, about the same time as those to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, as well as to the Philippians.

It is clear too from a comparison of the apostolic statements that Colosse in Phrygia was the city wherein lived Philemon, Archippus (it would seem) being an inmate of his house. Nor was this all that characterised it. As there was one assembly in the house of Nymphas the Laodicean, while we hear of the assembly of Laodiceans, so we read of the assembly in Philemon's house, though there was the assembly of Colossian faithful besides. All the saints composed the assembly in that locality; yet this in no way forbade, but well consisted with, the assembly in this house or in that.

The simple believer may wonder that it should be necessary to insist on what is so plain an inference from Col. 4: 9, 17 compared with our Epistle, that Philemon, and Onesimus of course, as well as Archippus, resided in Colosse. Yet Grotius (Annott. in V. et N. Test. in loco) will have it that Philemon was not only an inhabitant of Ephesus, but an elder or bishop of the church there. And of late Wieseler contends that Philemon and the others belonged to Laodicea! Is it worth while to expose the feeble and false reasoning put forth in support of such strange suppositions? It is probable indeed, as the apostle had not visited Colosse or Laodicea before he wrote his Epistle to the former (Col. 2: 1), that Philemon may have heard and received the truth at Ephesus (Acts 19: 10); he was certainly indebted to the apostle for his conversion (Philemon 19). But "fellow-worker" is much too general a word to bear the construction that Philemon was set apart to the charge either of presbyter or of deacon. He laboured in the truth, he cared for the saints; and the apostle owned him as his joint-workman, just as later still the apostle John acknowledged Gaius (3 John 5-8) on grounds at least as broad. Whatever the character of his work, it is undefined in an Epistle which from its nature does not set forth official distinction for the apostle himself, nor for Archippus, though we know from Col. 4: 17 that the latter had a distinct ministry in the Lord which he was exhorted to fulfil. In our Epistle, however, the Holy Spirit for the wisest and best reasons would have all to be on the footing of grace.

This then is the key-note. The apostle acts in a practical way on the incomparable grace of Christ. It Is not merely that God despises not any, or that human compassion flows out toward the misery of one's fellow, even if a slave, yea so much the more because he was. There is the finest and liveliest field for the affections; but the spring is from above, and the power is in the Holy Spirit, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, Whose is the glory and the dominion unto the ages of the ages. The title of the master is frankly admitted not only by Paul in word but also by the returning slave in deed. There is no glossing over the wrong done. Whatever was due positively or negatively, Paul will have it set to his account and becomes absolutely responsible for all. For true grace never enfeebles law nor shirks righteousness, but on the contrary establishes it, while itself rises far above and flows out freely and immeasurably beyond.

The infinite reality of Christ fills the apostle's heart, as it habitually did. The providence of God directed the feet of the fugitive to Rome, where detection was hardest for one so insignificant in the midst of a vast population with extremes of grandeur and degradation, of wealth and penury, yet even the lowest not without mortification lavished on them from the lords of the world, sinking to utter ruin through sinful pleasures and systematic selfishness which enervated all far more than they satisfied any. There, through whatever motive led or possibly without one, the grace of God gave Onesimus to hear Paul and to believe the gospel It became his joy to serve the apostle, specially in his sufferings for Christ and the gospel's sake; but a single eye to Christ lays on Paul's heart the earthly master he had wronged. He too feels bound, and the gospel beyond all fortified his sense of the obligation, to return to his master at all cost, let the consequences be what they might. Hence the apostle, whatever his love to his son in the gospel, whatever his value for the services of love then rendered and acceptable, whatever his pity for one whose misconduct had exposed him to severe punishment for his own wrong and as an example to others, was led of the Spirit to write this Epistle instinct with the grace of the gospel from the first line to the last, as may be shown more clearly in weighing its every word.

It has been termed "the polite Epistle," one cannot say with christian propriety, though it be quite true that those who pique themselves most on their nice sense of honour and courtesy, of tact and courage, of prudence and friendship, of purity and tenderness, on the ground of human nature or of social standing, must feel themselves in the presence of what exceeds not their experience only but their ideal. It is not "the gentleman"* that stands revealed in the Epistle, but "the Christian"; and this is not in theory or exhortation only but in living reality; that we, having the same Christ and the same Spirit, may by grace make the same divine word good ourselves, and so commend this scripture all the more to others. In fact all round it is the exercise of divine life, which the Holy Spirit promotes, growing out of a mere domestic question calculated without Christ to provoke much anger, or to be condoned in condescending good nature and human self-complacency. As Christians we are exhorted to be imitators of God.

* It may be worth while pointing out here that "courteously" is used appropriately, both of Julius the Roman centurion (φιλανθρώπως, better "kindly"), Acts 27: 3, and of Publius the chief man of Melita (φιλοφρόνως), Acts 28: 7. In 1 Peter 3: 8 it is excluded on solid ground by intelligent critical editors who read the more suited "humble-minded" (ταπεινόφρονες). Again, συναπαγόμενοι in Rom. 12: 16 means a voluntary course of love, not "condescend" (as in the A. and R. versions), but "consorting along with" the lowly, as Gal. 2: 13 and 2 Peter 3: 17 shows its bad sense. Certainly Zos. Hist. v. 6 does not support "condescending to" rather sharing or being involved in the common capture of Hellas. "Condescend to" keeps our social station as men "living in the world"; whereas as Christians we died with Christ to this and far more, and we are as such exhorted to bear ourselves away from it all, and along with the lowly ones (or, lowly things).

Doddridge seems to have been the first to suggest the comparison of Pliny the younger's letter to Sabinianus (ix. 21), not merely the brief sequel of thanks which Alford cites (ix. 24): models, both of them, of fine natural sentiments expressed with beauty, terseness and force, as became a refined Roman of ability and rank, who writes to conciliate an intimate friend with his freedman that had offended and been discarded. In the heathen, as we might expect, nothing rises above self. In the Christian the love of Christ is drawn out on behalf of one brought to God from the depths of sin and wretchedness, whose conscience prompted a return to his master armed with authority to punish his delinquency; but that master a Christian dear to the apostle, not only for other things but for his habitually gracious bearing to the saints.

Philemon therefore Paul here addresses, to guard from the impulses of nature and from the jealous exercise of legal rights as in a man of the world, yea rather to lead into the communion of Christ's love in a case where it was readily liable to be overlooked. He would have him show "the kindness of God," like the man after God's heart in the O. T. to the family of his enemy, where a ground of love and truth presented itself. And was there not a better basis here, where by sovereign grace Onesimus was in Christ as truly as Philemon? Did not Philemon also rejoice to have the opportunity of being "an imitator of God"? This the apostle was about that time inculcating on the Ephesian faithful, to walk in love even as Christ also loved and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odour of a sweet smell? How he pleads like Christ our Advocate in the face of sin on our part will appear in the details of the Epistle.

Notice also with what address the apostle brings in "the sister" wife, and the service of Archippus, as well as the assembly in Philemon's house; that love might be the more strengthened, severally and together, and the head of the house be led in the way of grace, not by constraint from without or within, but of a ready mind according to God.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO PHILEMON.

There were few or perhaps no great buildings in which the saints then congregated exclusively. Unity was maintained all the more strikingly in the Spirit's power, because they might meet in ever so many rooms or halls of a city. They were one body, not in idea or in a mere outward appearance, but in blessed truth, living reality, and holy practice. He who was a member of Christ was a member everywhere according to the place grace gave him in the one body, the church; and this was carefully insisted on alike as privilege and duty. Never do we hear of assemblies in a city, no matter what the extent of the city, or the number of the saints therein, or consequently of the meeting-places for convenience' sake. It is the church in Jerusalem, in Ephesus, etc., whether they met together in one company or in ten. Coming together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ) supposes unity of purpose: the place might or might not be one, as has been proved fully. Even if they met in several quarters for convenience, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ would still be true. So long as they acted in faith of the Lord's presence in their midst, it was the local expression of "one body and one Spirit." "Into one place" limits the gathering unduly and might be quite false as a fact. "Together" is the true thought, which leaves the fact open according to circumstances, but always as maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, if the Lord and the word of His grace be honoured. It was "for the same purpose."

The apostle opens his letter with that spiritual appropriateness which marks every scripture, in a wisdom higher than man's, yet with a gracious purpose which was suited to act on man's heart and turn the occasion to the richest profit from God. The assertion of his authority, however important in its place, as to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Colossians, as well as to Timothy and Titus, is with no less propriety absent from his address to the Philippians and the Thessalonians (to say nothing of the Hebrews), as well as to Philemon. The motive for that absence may have a shade of difference in each; but there is the common ground of grace taken, instead of putting forward his primary position in the church. This however is only negative. We shall see that there is here as elsewhere what is positive, no less than carrying forward the end which the Holy Spirit had in view, as is ever the fact in scripture.

"Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy the brother, to Philemon our beloved and fellow-worker, and to Apphia the sister, and to Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the assembly in thy house: grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ" (Philemon 1-3).

When Paul wrote to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and the Philippians, he was no less a "prisoner of Jesus Christ," than when he drew up his letter to Philemon. Indeed he twice alludes impressively to the fact in the body of the Epistle to the Ephesians as well as towards its close (Eph. 3: 1, Eph. 4: 1, Eph. 6: 20), as he touches on it to the Philippians (Phil. 1: 13, 14), and to the Colossians (Col. 4: 4, cf. 10 also). To Philemon only he so designates himself at once in his salutation, "Paul, prisoner of Christ Jesus." This was the badge of honour with which he presented himself. "In behalf of you Gentiles" was a beautiful appeal to the Ephesians. Here the addition would have been out of place. It set forth Christ Jesus, and was all the more simple and direct to the heart of Philemon. It was not a bow drawn by a man at a venture, but an arrow of love aimed by a hand directed of the Holy Spirit.

"And Timothy the (or, our) brother:" was this haphazard? Surely not. He who was long so dear to the apostle, and now in the most trusted fellowship of government, and the sharer of his deepest solicitude both for sound doctrine and godly order, an overseer of overseers, is joined in the address, but just as carefully apart from ecclesiastical office as in his own case "Timothy the brother." All must here stand in gracious affection. Was not he too a "brother" on behalf of whom the Epistle was written?

Nor is there less divine skill in the way the master of the house is approached: "to Philemon our beloved and fellow-worker" — possibly "the beloved and our fellow-worker." If there was a draught now to be made, it was on one whose affection in the Lord, known and proved, had made him (as it ever does) the beloved of all saints that knew; especially of the apostle whose heart strongly sympathised with and appreciated every soul that kept himself in the love of God, to say nothing of the personal link to which Philemon 20 alludes in its latter half. Besides, Paul describes Philemon as the fellow-worker of himself and Timothy. Can we conceive such an expression of honourable consideration without a powerful effect on his soul, especially as it came from one as far as possible from lightness of speech, who could write, if any man might so venture, "as of sincerity, as of God, before God we speak in Christ?" Flattering discourse was as far from him as covetousness or self-seeking in any shape. For him to call Philemon "fellow-worker" of himself and Timothy, what a cheer to one serving God amidst all sorts of trial and discouragement!

But there is a remarkable peculiarity that follows. The apostle here only incorporates a woman's name in the address of his Epistle. Doubtless it is the only communication of his where it was tolerable. Here it is admirably in place. For a wife has far more to do with the practical guidance of the house than her husband. And the question of a run-away slave must touch a mistress closely, as it would affect all the family. Hence the gracious wisdom in the exceptional step of including Apphia, who, one can scarcely doubt, was Philemon's wife, certainly holding the chief female place in his household. We may see in the Second Epistle of John the only other, yet even more striking, exception; for that Epistle is addressed exclusively "to the elect lady and her children": a fact quite unique in scripture. The reason is as obvious as solemn. The person of Christ was at stake; and a gracious woman and her children would be peculiarly exposed to Satan's wiles, if one, known in brighter circumstances but now "an antichrist," sought an opening into her house to prey on generous but exposed souls, if not to undermine the doctrine of Christ. Hence the direct address "to the elect lady and her children;" and hence too the peremptory course enjoined.

In fact it is grace acknowledging the due claim of Apphia to be considered in the proper sphere of a saintly woman. She is carefully said to be "the sister." She had her title in the Lord; her conscience, mind, and heart were respected in the matter. The reading of the Received Text ("the beloved" as in Tyndale, Cranmer, and "our beloved" as in A.V.) rests on inferior witnesses. Wiclif and the English Version of Rheims follow the later copies of the Vulgate, which mix the wrong and the right ("most dere sister," "our deerest sister"). But the ancient manuscripts, followed by such copies of the Vulgate as the Am. Tol. and Harl., give the true and only appropriate reading "the sister." Christian relationship is recognised, and familiarity is avoided. Not that "beloved" might not he suitable in other cases; but it may be doubted that Paul would have so spoken of Persis, unless he could add "who laboured much in the Lord;" and this too, not when standing alone, but in a crowd of others of whom he had something distinctive to say.

Then we have one annexed, after those who stood at the head of the house, "and to Archippus our fellow-soldier." It is the same man who is enjoined in Col. 4: 17 to take heed to the ministry he had received in the Lord, that he should fulfil it. There is no ground to imagine him a son any more than "chaplain" of Philemon; but that he laboured in the assembly there as elsewhere is clear from scripture. Nor can one avoid the conviction that courage and endurance in spiritual warfare led the apostle to mark not only Epaphroditus but Archippus as "fellow-soldier." Terms, such as this, are never applied but with the utmost precision, as is true of every word in scripture.

Lastly we read, "and to the assembly (or, church) in thy house." This does not mean exclusively the Christian inmates, but those accustomed to meet there as gathered to the Lord's name. Such appears to be the force of the phrase wherever it occurs (Rom. 16: 5, 1 Cor. 16: 19, Col. 4: 15). There were many Christian households; but the assembly in any given house implied that there was a meeting in the house, as here in Philemon's. This Paul includes in his address; for the saints who met in that house, whether of the household or not, were now to be face to face with Onesimus. They might or might not have known his misconduct in the past. He was now in Christ, and, returning to his master, he thus would come directly before the assembly in his house. Therefore is care taken to associate the assembly there with that which would affect them all. For fellowship of saints is real and precious, and none the less because a poor slave, now a Christian, is the occasion of putting it to the proof: Christ is the all, and He is in all.

But in writing to the Colossian saints generally the apostle refers to "Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother," as of them (i. e., a Colossian inhabitant), but says not a word of what fills the Epistle to Philemon. It was as important to secure the cordial fellowship of his household and of the meeting in his house in a family matter, as it was right to withhold it from the Colossians as a whole. The church is one body; but the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ guards the delicate propriety of the Christian household, or at most those saints who meet in the house. To these all, to these only, would he open his heart about Onesimus.

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ" (Philemon 3). So the apostle greeted the saints in Rome, in Ephesus, in Philippi; so as to the church in Corinth, and the churches in Galatia, more briefly to those in Colosse, still more so in his First to the Thessalonians, quite fully in his Second. To Timothy, if not Titus, he adds "mercy" as needed by the individual. And how blessed it is, whatever the form! What an unfailing spring, and how worthy the effect! What better, what so good, could the Father bestow on His children, or the Lord on His servants?

"I thank my God always making mention of thee in my prayers, hearing of thy love and of the faith which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints, so that the fellowship of thy faith may become effectual in the acknowledgment of every good thing that is in us* toward Christ. For we have great joy and encouragement in thy love, because the bowels† of the saints are refreshed through thee, brother" (Philemon 4-7).

*Here the MSS. differ, ὑμῖν, "you" in F G P, many cursives, and most ancient versions etc.; while A C D E K L, about 50 juniors several good ancient versions, and some fathers read ἡμῖν, "us."

† The Revisers seem to have yielded to bad taste in discarding here and elsewhere the strong scriptural word "bowels" for the feebler "hearts," which has its own expression. How came they to retain "belly" in the good sense of John 7: 38? Had it been the suggestion of the American Committee, it would be less surprising.

He begins as usual with owning all that was divinely wrought in the heart and ways of Philemon who is personally and even pointedly addressed throughout. He only takes in the rest at the close (Philemon 25), as he had associated them with him here at the beginning. But of him individually he speaks, as he thanks his God always, making mention of him in his prayers, hearing of his love and the faith which he had towards the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints; and this so that the communion of his faith might become operative in recognising every good thing that is in us Christward. It is not love that is here prominent but faith, though in Philemon 5 love took precedence of faith, which is an unusual order (compare Eph. 1, Col. 1). But here the apostle would have Philemon in fellowship of faith with all that are Christ's, and this in practical power, acknowledging every good thing that is in us toward Christ. How mischievous when saints never rise above the sense of our natural evil, dwelling only on the heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked! Is there no reality in the new creation? no power in the ever-indwelling Holy Spirit that makes good Christ in us?

The apostle counted on all that was worthy of the Saviour and suited to redemption in Philemon. He expects that it is but a fresh occasion for the working of the love and faith known hitherto, and a ground of prayer with thanksgiving. Hence it is that the pressure of his own apostolic authority would have been as unseasonable as the meddling of brothers or the coercion of church action. How different the gracious intervention of Paul prisoner of Jesus Christ and the assembly in the house deeply interested in it all!

Undoubtedly there had been evil in Onesimus, and in his desertion of his master. But is it not the word of God to overcome evil with good, instead of being overcome by it? Is it not so that grace has wrought for us and in us? Nothing different is looked for now, but rather accordance with that course of grace which had characterised Philemon. "For I had much joy* and encouragement in thy love because the bowels of the saints were refreshed through thee, brother" (ver. 7). What a home-thrust of love in that last word, as and where it is! Scripture teaches us to use it, not merely as the formal title of Christians, but with telling force where the occasion calls for it emphatically. Certainly it is so applied here by Paul, as of old to him (Acts 9: 17), when this word must have fallen on his heart as dew from Jehovah, as showers upon the grass.

* χάριν is the clerical error of K L P, and many cursives and fathers, one of whom says χάριν ἔχομεν τουτέστι χάραν ἔχομεν. Tischendorf only discarded it in his eighth edition.

It is one of the melancholy signs and proofs of where the church is now, that even in the most earnest children of God there is but little thought of refreshing the hearts of the saints. Zeal is absorbed in the simple conversion of sinners. The glory of God in the church goes for nothing, the love of Christ for His body and every member is ignored for the most part. If some faint idea rises, it is chiefly of a benevolent kind, which Doddridge here expresses when he thinks only of the "poor" saints. Surely a call to the converted has been a crying want for well nigh eighteen hundred years. One says not this to lessen pity for the perishing, but to urge the claims of Christ's glory and grace on the saved. The flock, the beautiful flock of the Lord, oh I how scattered and famished. If this is grievous in the Lord's eyes, what should it be to us who love Him and it?

We come here to the immediate object of the Epistle, for which the introduction so admirably prepared the way. Would Philemon now swerve, through pre-occupation with his rights or the influence of worldly feeling and practice, from that practical grace, which had filled the apostle with so much the more joy because the hearts of the saints had been refreshed by him? Was the relationship of "brother" henceforth to lose its value in his eyes? This certainly the apostle did not anticipate, but counted on the triumph of divine love.

"Wherefore, having much boldness to enjoin thee what is befitting, for love's sake I rather entreat, being such a one as Paul aged and now also prisoner of Christ Jesus. I entreat thee for my child whom I begot in bonds,* Onesimus, the once unprofitable to thee but now profitable both† to thee and to me; whom I send back to thee,† in person,† that is my bowels; whom I could wish to have kept with myself, that for thee he might minister to me in the bonds of the gospel. But without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy good might not be as of necessity but of willingness. For perhaps he was therefore parted for a time that thou mightest have him for ever, no longer as a bondman but above a bondman, a brother beloved, specially to me but how much rather to thee, both in [the] flesh and in [the] Lord" (Philemon 8-16).

*The Text. Rec. adds μου, but the best are adverse.

† The Text. Rec. followed by A.V, as being supported by many copies departs singularly from the older witnesses. It omits καὶ "both" before the first σοὶ, as well as the second σοὶ itself, and instead of this gives σὺ δὲ and adds προσλαβοῦ from ver. 17, whereas αὐτὸν is really in apposition with the object preceding.

It is one of the peculiar and mightiest characteristics of the gospel with which the apostle here makes the appeal: the assertion of a title, true, just, and indisputable, which he none the less foregoes in order to have free and full scope for grace in the one appealed to. So Christ lived, moved, and had His being here below; so did He most impressively lead His own into that mind which they are called evermore by faith to possess and represent every day. Hear Him (Matt. 17) anticipating Peter, who had been quick to assure the half-shekel collectors of his Master's readiness to pay like a staunch Jew. "What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive custom or tribute? from their sons or from strangers? And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said, Therefore are the sons free. But lest we cause them to stumble, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a stater (= a shekel): that take and give to them for Me and for thee."

Undoubtedly the law had a direct claim on every son of Israel. But had not Simon only a little before confessed Jesus to be Son of the living God? and later still, when he would hastily have put Moses and Elijah on a level with Him, dazzled by the glory of the kingdom, had he not been corrected by the Father owning Jesus as His beloved Son, the One now to be heard? All this was from the time when, in view of His sufferings and the glories that should follow, He forbade the disciples to tell any man that He was the Messiah. The mighty change was at hand: the larger and heavenly glory founded on His death, entailing on His own similar rejection meanwhile, till God vindicate His glory publicly at His return.

How blessedly the practical fruit appears in our Lord! He leads on Peter from Jewish thoughts into His mind ere long to stamp him in word and deed. By his confession "the sons" of the king "are free;" and Son He confessedly was in His own right, as we become by grace through His redemption brought to His Father and our Father, His God and our God. This lifts the Christian therefore above all thoughts Jewish or Gentile. "But lest we cause them to stumble, go," etc. And thereon follows a most strikingly suitable miracle attesting His divine power, as His anticipation of Peter did His divine knowledge. A fish obeys its Creator and furnishes in its mouth the precise sum required of those under the law, which Peter was to pay for the Master as well as for himself! It is grace in every way flowing from infinite glory, but this in the humiliation and obedience of a man, for the present insisting on none of His rights, but associating believers in His own relationship, as far as this could be, as well as in His lowly ways here below.

It was in this spirit the apostle wrote, "Wherefore, having much boldness in Christ to enjoin on thee what is befitting, for love's sake I rather entreat (or, exhort)." To command what is right is certainly not wrong in one possessed of due authority. But grace, while it respects law in its own sphere, acts incomparably above law in a sphere of its own, of which Christ is the centre and the fulness, the object, pattern, and motive. The apostle therefore, whatever the rights of his position and this even "in Christ," puts love forward, and thus only beseeches one who like himself realised his incalculable debt to the love of God in Christ our Lord. Nor this only; in connection with his entreaty he brings in the affecting circumstances of himself, Paul, an old man and bondman or slave of Christ Jesus. He entreats for his child, for such was the runaway no less than Timothy. He adds whom he begot in his bonds; and this, which could not be said even of Timothy, was not written without purpose for Philemon's bears who could not say as much of himself either.

But if he speaks thus touchingly on behalf of Onesimus, he does not refrain from allowing his altogether unsatisfactory conduct in the past: "Onesimus, that was once to thee unprofitable, but now both to thee and to me profitable." He had found the Lord; he was brought to God, and was His child, not merely Paul's. What more could Philemon ask as a guarantee of serviceableness? If he thought of himself as an injured master on the one hand, and on the other of the ingratitude and every other wrong of Onesimus, irritation might be natural, as well as justice and a warning pleaded. Yet if the grace that is in Christ Jesus could not but be recalled by the apostle's words to Philemon, was he to be in unison with Christ or discordant? This question, though not formally asked, could not really be evaded. The Christian is here to reflect Christ. Such is to be his daily walk, his greatest business.

Not that the apostle had forgotten the title of the master over his slave: "Whom I send back to thee" (Philemon 11). Our idiom can hardly bear "I sent"; so in Philemon 19 we must say, "I write." It is the epistolary aorist, as they call it, the writer going on to the time of reading. Philemon was thus reinstated; Onesimus returned to his master; the apostle sent him back. He did not write a letter to secure terms for the slave beforehand, nor to make a bargain with the master. If this could scarce be according to the law, still less would it answer to the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ. He sends Onesimus back "in person, that is, mine own bowels," or my very heart! Is not this the mind of heaven? Yea, rather it is to live Christ.

Wondrous to know and say, heaven looked down to Christ on earth, finding such a display of love for the worthless as heaven itself could not furnish. And now it was for Philemon to prove the ground of his heart and the simplicity of his faith. Love me, love my dog, say men. The apostle says of Onesimus, He is my very bowels. Could such a one be a light object to Philemon? Assuredly Christ, Who never changes, changes us for all things and all things to us.. For the ignoble things of the world, and the despised did God choose, and the things that are not, that He might bring to nought the things that are; so that no flesh should boast before God. "But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus Who was made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." If the gospel be true, as there was no difference in that all sinned, so there is none in the great salvation. Onesimus, Philemon, Paul are alike blessed perfectly. Was Philemon insensible to grace so unspeakable, so unthinkable, yet most real and sure and believed?

Nor does the apostle's advocacy stop even here. "whom I could wish to have kept with myself, that for thee (or, in thy behalf) he might minister to me in the bonds of the gospel; but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy good might not be as of necessity but of willingness" (Philemon 13, 14). Love is of God, but it is always holy and always free. Hence therefore was the advocate sensitively careful that all should flow through Philemon's heart under the action of the Spirit to Christ's honour. His grace had been magnified in the slave: could he look for aught else in the master? Whatever might be his need as a prisoner for Christ, whatever his appreciation of the service of love, he looks for it from Philemon no less than in Onesimus.

And what can be finer than the simple yet deep and true suggestion that follows? "For perhaps he therefore was parted for a time, that thou mightest have him for ever, no more as a bondman but above a bondman, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord" (Philemon 15, 16). Words these are, weighty words of love that will never die, not sentimental, nor the play of a lively mind, still less the expression of dignified self-complacancy in condescension, but the outpouring of a heart constrained by the love of Christ; the privilege of which it is in a world of sin and selfishness and death, not only to view things on the side of God, but to share that love which, by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, enables those that live of His life to live no longer to themselves but to Him Who for them died and rose again.

Thus could the apostle interpret the otherwise unworthy escapade of Onesimus; and yet he adds a delicate "perhaps" if he might, as he trusted, carry along Philemon with himself. Some of us know the brutality of Roman or Greek masters in such cases; and it has not been at all peculiar to those places and times. But the Christian may and ought to see things in the light and love and interests of Christ. Thus he does not even say that Onesimus departed, but "perhaps for this reason he was parted for a time, that thou mightest have him fully (ἀπέχῃς) for ever." For truly the Christian tie is not temporary but everlasting.

Had Onesimus served ever so faithfully and without the least interval of desertion, after all a heathen could have no link with a Christian beyond the things that perish. But in the admirable grace of God, the poor heathen slave had, in his separation from the household to which he belonged, heard the voice of Christ and returned, that Philemon might have him as never before, no longer as a bondman (though bondman he was, and he would be the last to dispute the fact), but above a bondman through the Son of God Who became a bondman to make him His freedman, yea a brother beloved, as Paul assured and Philemon would rejoice to learn: a brother beloved, specially to me, says the apostle, whom God employed in that work of His love for eternity, yet now and here to be testified, that others may heed the same call, and, if believing, enter into the same blessing. For there are open arms on Christ's part, and God is glorified thereby, and heaven rejoices therein' whatever be the scorn and enmity of a lost race rushing away from God heedlessly, under the guidance of a rebel mightier than themselves, whose power and wiles are the deadlier the more they are ignored.

A brother beloved, says the apostle, "specially to me," of all outside Philemon; for the tie was intimate and most dear to him who begot him, and in bonds too. Yet he adds "but how much rather to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." For Philemon had known him habitually and stood in a relationship of nearness, which the apostle still recognises ("in the flesh"), whilst he asserts a new one ("in the Lord") which can never grow old.

How blessed is that grace of God, which in the cross condemned sin far more deeply than law ever did or could, yet has reached to us in our lowest state to seat us far above princes, yea, or principalities and powers; for by the Spirit we are one with Christ Himself on the throne of God. Yet is it the only principle that has power to keep everything in its place, after having put them there. The grace that conciliates a runaway slave with his master is the same, which, only in a deeper form and way, conciliates a sinner with God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. It is grace too which maintains love amidst and above all provocations and injuries. It is grace which hinders salvation from turning to pride of heart and licentiousness of walk. Without it man would pervert the gospel into a cloak of maliciousness, and make the church of God a scene of democratic levelling and socialistic robbery.

By grace all Christians are brethren; but by the same grace God set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, etc.; every one we may say in his own order, but as it pleased Him. And as the Christian slave is Christ's freedman, so the Christian master is glad to own himself Christ's bondman. To ground Christian privilege on the rights of man is to deny the grace of God, and can end only in the worst lawlessness. It is our blessedness to be ever dependent on God, as Christ was; to receive all from His hand, and have the bitterest things thus made sweet. Thus is our lot best maintained, when most forlorn; and the lines are fallen to us in pleasant places, a goodly heritage; whereas all otherwise, if we see aright, must fill the heart with dreariness and disappointment.

The nice tact of the apostle's appeal is as striking as the deep ground of grace on which all is based, as ought to be in the dealings of saints one with another. The circumstances of the case we have seen enhanced this. For on the one hand the wrong done by Onesimus was great and manifest, and denied by none, least of all by himself or the blessed apostle. On the other hand, grace had wrought savingly and therefore with fruit of righteousness and peace in the returned runaway. God had intervened after the offence, not merely giving repentance and remission of sins through His Son, but as ever along with that boon the positive gift of eternal life and of the Holy Spirit. As one who had believed in God, and been justified by His grace, Onesimus came to place himself unreservedly in his master's hands, animated and strengthened doubtless to this by the apostolic instrument of divine blessing, who was no less jealous that divine grace might work as unreservedly and simply in Philemon's heart. Believing masters and bondmen are alike debtors to grace, alike responsible to see to it that they pay diligent attention to good works. And the best of all works is to answer practically in spirit, word, and deed, to the gracious Master of us all who believe, whether free or bond.

To represent Christ's goodness aright in his ways is the daily problem that each Christian has to solve. Does it not demand grace every hour? Unquestionably; but did not His love provide for every need from the start? "Of His fulness we all received, and grace for grace." But is not present and continual dependence needed? Beyond any doubt: else the gift of abounding grace would make us independent of God, the greatest dishonour of Christ, the deepest shame of a Christian. Through Christ we have got and possess (ἐσχήκαμεν) the access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. It is a constant place of favour before Him as children of God, in pointed contrast with the most favoured sons, not of Adam merely, but of Israel under the law with its. necessary effect of bondage gendering fear of death and condemnation. But the fulness of grace possessed and known is only the more to draw out the clinging to grace, and to wither self-confidence, for every duty, for every call of love, hour by hour. Hence the word is, Thou therefore, my child (as the apostle impressed on another blessed by his means), be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 2:1). It is there for us, but we always need to wait on Him for it. Dependence on and confidence in Him are the sinews of obedience. Otherwise we fail and have none justly to blame but ourselves for slighting that grace to which we owe everything we boast, if indeed we may boast save in Christ and His cross, its deepest proof and most wondrous display.

With this sense of grace filling his own heart the apostle says, "If then thou countess me a partner, receive him as me. But if he wronged thee or oweth thee aught, put this to my account: I Paul write with mine own hand, I will repay; that I say not to thee that thou owest to me besides even thine own self. Yea, brother, let me have profit of thee in [the] Lord; refresh my bowels in Christ" (Philemon 17-20).

These are burning words of the love that never fails; for it has its spring in God Himself; and Christ, as He was Himself the fulness of it, and not a mere stream or emanation, so has He made it to spring up in us who believe, and to flow out as rivers of living water. It is inseparable from the Holy Ghost given to us in energising power, as the first man is judged that the Second may be here magnified in us, glorified on high as He is.

And what did not Philemon feel, when he heard words which we may readily conceive he had never had addressed to him, as no occasion had occurred to draw them forth, though the same love was always there? It was not a magnate but a slave, once worthless and guilty, now the everlasting object of the love of Christ which stirred the depths of the apostle's heart, who in his turn would kindle the holiest affections of Philemon as never before. Yet to be Paul's imitator, as he was of Christ, had evidently been the saintly ambition of Philemon hitherto; and Paul would have it fired with fresh zeal now. "If thou holdest me [not an imitator only, great as this honour was, but] a partner." What! Philemon reckon the great apostle partner with him! It was even so he read with his own eyes and under the apostle's own hand. It hung, it is true, on his receiving Onesimus, nay far more than this, on his receiving Onesimus as Paul! "Receive him as me." Can aught match the wonders of grace? Receive the repentant runaway slave as the apostle! Yet if grace had its way, could it be adequately otherwise? What men, still ungodly and children of wrath, falsely claim throughout Christendom to the shame of faith, the gospel and Christ Himself give. Onesimus was in truth a child of God and a member of Christ. This the others are not, by any scriptural judgment however "charitable," though they may be tares in the kingdom of heaven; for certainly they are not wheat. Yet charity would not bolster up false hopes, but warn them of judgment, while preaching to them the grace of God in Christ, if peradventure they might believe and be saved ere it be too late.

The poorest Christian, once the most depraved or guilty of men, is in Christ no less than the greatest of apostles. Of one as much as another is it written by another apostle, "Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because even as He is, we also are in this world" (1 John 4: 17). It is not imagination nor exaggeration, but the wondrous yet sober and certain truth of God. Onesimus even then was, in virtue of divine love in Christ, perfected as Christ Himself in God's eyes, and therefore to the eye and heart of faith. So it was with Paul; and so he would have it with Philemon.

Then what more consummate than the address of his advocacy? What we love intensely we strive to do best; and here the Holy Spirit inspired all infallibly. "But if he wronged or oweth thee aught, this put to my account: I Paul write with mine own hand, I will repay; that I say not to thee, that thou owest besides even thyself to me." Could appeal of love be more irresistible? Grace does not, could not, deny the evils it forgives; even law does not condemn the sinner comparably with the condemnation of sin. (root, as well as branch and fruit) in the cross of Christ. Grace proves sin to be so hopelessly bad that only God sending His own Son in the likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin [i.e., as a sacrifice for it], could surmount its otherwise impossibility (τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου). But evil has been perfectly met in the cross, and God there glorified even as. to sin in the suffering Son of man; so that even righteousness has only the happy task of pronouncing the justification of them that believe.

How without effort the apostle breathes and speaks nothing but grace, and grace reigning through righteousness! "If he wronged or oweth thee aught, put this to my account." Would Philemon answer in a spirit of law or grace? Were he indeed as merciless as the servant in the parable which closes Matt. 18, Paul stands forth with repeated personal emphasis in the spirit of loving substitution: "I Paul write with mine own hand, I will repay." But he will not let Philemon go even here without a gracious (certainly not a Parthian) arrow, however effectual, "That I say not to thee, how thou owest besides even thyself to me." Here was a debt indeed, which Philemon would be the last to forget or to under-estimate. And if the apostle had not reminded him before, as may well be doubted, he does not fail to allude now to good purpose however passingly. Even to say a word was more than enough for the heart of so good a man, in presence of a debt that never could be paid. What in comparison was any bad debt on the score of the poor slave? Philemon owed, gladly owed, himself to Paul.

Again, all this is wound up by the touching close of this appeal; "Yea, brother, let me have profit of thee in [the] Lord: refresh my bowels in Christ." As he began so touchingly with "brother" in ver. 7, so not less does he reiterate it here in Philemon 20. It was not in vain for Philemon. Paul sought earnest love, not condescension. The gain that he yearned after was Philemon's yet more than his own, without telling him so. Grace on his part in presence of the present need and all past provocation would be the most balmy refreshment to the wounds and sufferings of the aged apostle. Selfishness was excluded. All he sought was in the Lord — in Christ. There the quality is never strained, and the blessing threefold. May we know, enjoy, and manifest it, for whom these undying words of God are given which were primarily addressed to Philemon and those concerned.

There is a beautiful supplement, by no means unconnected in purpose with the direct appeal now concluded, which we do well to ponder. "Having confidence of thine obedience I write to thee, knowing that thou wilt do even beyond what I say. But withal prepare me also a lodging; for I hope that through your prayers I shall be granted to you" (Philemon 21, Philemon 22). Comparing this with Col. 4: 9 where Onesimus is introduced to the Colossian brethren in the most formal manner as "the faithful and beloved brother who is [one] of you," I think he is not mistaken who infers that the apostle looked for more in the transformed bondman than a simple saint; and that he was therefore the more urgent for a new triumph of grace in Philemon, not only in taking back to his heart the wrong-doer, but in setting him free.

Bondage could not annul that liberty wherewith Christ delivers; but if called to serve the Lord, in the gospel for instance, the circumstances of slavery must hinder activity not a little. The apostle does but hint at more than he said: Philemon, as well as the rest, and not least Apphia, would easily see more. and correctly; for love, divine love at least, gives sharply discerning eyes. The apostle's announced visit too would not hinder all he desired for Onesimus, uttered or unexpressed. The lodging might be outside or within the house of Philemon, the language being purposely vague, the intent that nothing should be by constraint but of a willing mind. The prayers of the saints too are sought as ever; for the apostle says no more than "I hope." Prayers would help on more than his coming.

The salutations follow, which include with one omission several names that appear in the Epistle to the Colossians written and sent at the same time. Yet are there instructive differences to be noted. Here Epaphras takes the first place, as Aristarchus the Thessalonian in the longer Epistle; yet there Epaphras has much fuller mention, and such as would endear him to the Colossians. "Epaphras, my fellow-captive in Christ Jesus, saluteth thee; Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow-workers" (Philemon 23, Philemon 24). It is not "fellow-soldier," as said of Archippus in ver. 2, an expression applied to Epaphroditus in Phil. 2: 25, and best illustrated by the "soldier" of Christ Jesus in 2 Tim. 2. It is not exactly δέσμιος, "prisoner," as Paul speaks of himself in this and in other Epistles. Nor have we sufficient reason to say that Andronicus, Junias, and Epaphras were literally bound in a chain as the apostle was for Christ's sake. Yet is it a word of force, and means a captive, or war prisoner. Certainly we hear of no external event in the conflicts of the gospel that furnishes a ground for such a title. Meyer after Fritzsche suggests the idea that certain of the apostle's companions voluntarily shared his prison by turns: and that it was the turn of Aristarchus when he was writing to the Colossians, of Epaphras when he wrote to Philemon. By this he would explain why Aristarchus is here συνεργὸς and there συναιχμάλωτος, whilst Epaphras is there σύνδουλος and here συναιχμάλωτος. This is ingenious no doubt; but Rom. 16: 7 presents no small difficulty to receiving it.

Mark follows next, the first of those called simply "fellow-workers." Here is no such introduction of him as to the Colossians. Nor was it called for here as it was there, and in 2 Tim. 4 also, where the apostle confirms to the end a restoration of confidence referred to those in Colosse, in accordance with injunctions previously received.

The omitted name of "Jesus that was called Justus" was honoured enough by the mention in Col. 4: 11. There was no need of sending to Philemon the salutation of one so little known. Then comes Aristarchus, of whom enough has been remarked already, followed by Demas, who appears in Col. 4: 14 without a word: a preparation in God's mind, it would seem, for a sadder "mention in 2 Tim. 4: 10. Luke, styled "the beloved physician" in Col. 4: 14, here comes the last named of the fellow-workers: a clear proof that the order in no way marks, as men do, the spiritual value or the honourable rank of those brought before us.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Philemon 25) is the final greeting of the apostle to them all. This is in the exactest keeping with the Epistle. It is the answer on the practical side (and what is the good of truth in which we do not live and walk?) to grace reigning through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The apostle does not fail to wish it to all saints, and in every Epistle of his great or small. It may be more or less enlarged or abridged in its form; but it is found at the bottom everywhere; and in none is the wish of faith and love more seasonable than here.

LONDON: THOMAS WESTON, 53, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1901.

The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians.

W. Kelly.

W. K. Translation.

Philippians 1. (1) Paul and Timothy, bondmen of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi with bishops and deacons. (2) Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.

(3) I thank my God upon my whole remembrance of you, (4) always in my every supplication for you all making the supplication with joy (5) for your fellowship with the gospel from the first day until now, (6) being confident of this very thing, that he who began in you a good work will complete [it] until [the] day of Jesus Christ; (7) even as it is righteous for me to think this of you all, because ye have me in your heart, and both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye are all fellow-partakers of my grace. (8) For God is my witness, how I long after you all in [the] bowels of Jesus Christ. (9) And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all intelligence, (10) that ye may approve the things that are excellent;* that ye may be pure and without offence against [the] day of Christ, (11) being filled with the fruit of righteousness that [is] by Jesus Christ unto God's praise and glory.

*Or, "prove the things that differ."

(12) But I wish you to know, brethren, that my affairs have turned out rather for furtherance of the gospel, (13) so that my bonds have been manifest in Christ in the whole of the praetorium and to all the rest; (14) and that the most of the brethren in [the] Lord, being confident by my bonds, more abundantly dare to speak the word fearlessly. (15) Some, indeed, also for envy and strife, but some also for goodwill, preach the Christ: (16) these, indeed, out of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; (17) but these out of contention announce the Christ, not purely, thinning to stir up tribulation for my bonds. (18) What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is announced, and in this I rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice; (19) for I know that this will turn to me for salvation through your supplication and [the] supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, (20) according to my earnest expectation and hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed; but in all boldness, as always now also, Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death. (21) For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die gain; (22) but if to live in flesh, this to me [is] worth while; and what I shall choose I know not. (23) But I am perplexed by the two, having the desire for departing and being with Christ, for it is very far better; (24) but remaining in the flesh is more necessary on your account; (25) and having this confidence, I know that I shall remain and abide with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; (26) that your boast may abound in Christ Jesus in me through my presence again with you. (27) Only conduct yourselves worthily of the gospel of Christ; that, whether coming and seeing you or absent, I may hear of your concerns, that ye stand in one spirit, with one soul striving together with the faith of the gospel; (28) and not frightened in anything by the adversaries, which is to them a showing forth of destruction, but to you of salvation, and this from God; (29) because to you has been given on behalf of Christ, not only the believing on him, but also the suffering for him; (30) having the same conflict as ye saw in me and now hear of in me.

Philippians 2. (1) If therefore [there be] any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of [the] Spirit, if any bowels and compassions, (2) fulfil my joy, that ye may mind the same thing, having the same love, joined in soul, minding the one thing: (3) nothing in strifefulness, or vainglory, but in lowly-mindedness esteeming one another more excellent than themselves: (4) regarding each not his own things, but each also those of others. (5) For let this mind be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus; (6) who, being* in God's form, thought it not an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; (7) but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form, being come in men's likeness; (8) and being found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (9) Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave him the name that [is] above every name, (10) that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and infernal [beings], (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, unto God [the] Father's glory.

* Or, "subsisting."

(12) So that, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, with fear and trembling work out your own salvation; (13) for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (14) Do all things without murmurings and reasonings; (15) that ye may be blameless and sincere, irreproachable children of God amidst a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights* in [the] world, (16) holding forth [the] word of life, for a boast to me in Christ's day, that not in vain I ran nor in vain laboured. (17) But if also I am poured out upon the sacrifice and ministration of your faith, I rejoice, and rejoice with you all; (18) and in the same thing do ye rejoice, and rejoice with me. (19) But I hope in [the] Lord Jesus soon to send Timothy to you, that I also may be cheered knowing about you. (20) For I have none like-minded who will have a genuine care about you; (21) for they all see} their own things, not those of Jesus Christ. (22) But the proof of him ye know, that, as a child a father, with me he served in the gospel. (23) Him therefore I hope to send as soon as I shall see my concerns. (24) But I trust in [the] Lord that I also myself shall come soon. (25) But I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow-labourer and fellow-soldier, but your messenger and minister to my wants; (26) since he was longing after you all and uneasy because ye heard that he was sick. (27) For indeed he was sick near to death; but God pitied him, and not him only, but me also, that I should not have sorrow upon sorrow. (28) The more diligently therefore I sent him, that seeing him again ye may rejoice and I be the less sorrowful. (29) Receive him therefore in [the] Lord with all joy, and hold such in honour; (30) because for the work of Christ he was nigh even to death, endangering his life that he might fill up the remainder of your ministrations toward me.

* Or, "light-bearers."

Philippians 3. (1) For the rest, my brethren, rejoice in [the] Lord. To write these things to you [is] not irksome to me, but safe for you. (2) See to dogs, see to evil workers, see to the concision; (3) for we are the circumcision that worship God in Spirit and boast in Christ Jesus, and have no trust in flesh. (4) Though I have a trusting even in flesh; if any other seem to trust in flesh, I more: (5) in circumcision of eight days, of [the] race of Israel, of [the] tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, according to law a Pharisee, (6) according to zeal persecuting the church, according to righteousness that [is] in law* blameless. (7) But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss on account of Christ. (8) But moreover also I count all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on whose account I lost all things and count them to be refuse that I may win Christ, (9) and be found in him, not having my righteousness that [is] of law, but that [which is] by faith of Christ, the righteousness of God on faith; (10) to know him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, (11) if by any means I may arrive at the resurrection that [is] from [the] dead. (12) Not that I already received [it] or am already perfected; but I pursue if I may also lay hold, for that also I have been laid hold of by Christ. (13) Brethren, I do not reckon myself to have laid hold; (14) but one thing — forgetting the things behind, and stretching out to the things before, I pursue goalward unto the prize of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus. (15) As many therefore as [are] perfect, let us mind this. And if in anything ye are differently minded, this also will God reveal to you. (16) Nevertheless unto what we have attained, walk by the same [, mind the same]. (17) Be joint-imitators of me, brethren, and mark those so walking as ye have us for a pattern. (18) For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, the enemies of the cross of Christ, (19) whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is] the belly, and they glory in their shame, who mind the things of earth. (20) For our commonwealth** has its being in [the] heavens, from whence also we await [as] Saviour [the] Lord Jesus Christ, (21) who shall transform our body of humiliation, conformed to his body of glory according to the working of his ability also to subject all things to him. Philippians 4. (1) So that, my brethren beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand in [the] Lord, beloved.

*Or, "according to legal righteousness."

**Or, "conversation."

(2) Euodia I exhort, and Syntyche I exhort, to mind the same thing in [the] Lord; (3) yea, I beseech thee also, genuine yokefellow, help them, seeing that they shared my conflicts in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life.

(4) Rejoice in [the] Lord always: again I will say, rejoice. (5) Let your mildness be known to all men. The Lord [is] near. (6) Be anxious about nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. (7) And the peace of God, that surpasseth every understanding, shall keep your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus. (8) For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever noble, whatsoever just, whatsoever pure, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good report, if there [is] any virtue, and if any praise, these things consider. (9) Those things which ye also learned, and received, and heard, and saw in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you.

(10) But I rejoiced in [the] Lord greatly that now at length ye flourished again in thinking for my interest, while yet also ye did think but had no opportunity. (11) Not that I speak in regard to want; for I learned in the circumstances in which I am to find competence. (12) I know also to be abased, I know also to abound. In everything and in all things I am initiated both to be filled and to hunger, both to abound and to be in want. (13) In all things I am strong in him that empowereth me. (14) Nevertheless ye did well in sharing with my tribulation. (15) But ye also, O Philippians, know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I came out of Macedonia, no assembly communicated with me for an account of giving and receiving, unless ye alone; (16) for even in Thessalonica both once and twice ye sent for my need. (17) Not that I am seeking the gift, but I am seeking the fruit that aboundeth unto your account. (18) But I have all things and abound; I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God. (19) But my God will fully supply all your need according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (20) Now to our God and Father [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

(21) Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren that [are] with me salute you. (22) All the saints salute you, but especially those of the household of Caesar. (23) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen.

Philippians 1

Let us seek, with the blessing of God, to develop a little the special features of this epistle on which we now enter. For the better understanding of what comes before us, we may also compare its character with that of others. Some of its features may be gathered from the very first verse. The Apostle introduces himself in the simplest possible manner: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Elsewhere, even if he presents himself as a servant, he does not fail also to add his apostolic title, or some other distinction by which God had separated him from the rest of his brethren. But here it is not so. He is led of the Holy Ghost to present himself upon the broadest ground to the children of God in Philippi; on this he could fully associate Timotheus with himself. Thus we may gather from the very start of the epistle that we are not to look for the wonderful unfoldings of Christian and Church truth, such as we have in Romans, Corinthians, or Ephesians, where the apostleship of Paul is most carefully stated.

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle" (Rom. 1). He was not an apostle by birth, but by the call of God. He adds further, that they were saints by the very same divine call whereby he was an apostle — "called to be saints," both through the sovereign grace of God. There was nothing in either that could have been an inherent claim upon God. There was deadly sin in both; but the grace of God that had called them to be saints, had called him to be not a saint only, but an apostle. As such, he addresses them in the full consciousness of the place that Christ had given him and them, unfolding the truth from the very first foundations on which the gospel rests, the grace of God, and the ruin of man. Hence in that epistle you have something that more approaches to a doctrinal treatise than in any other portion of the New Testament. God took care that no apostle ever visited Rome, till there were many saints already there, and then He wrote by the Apostle Paul. The proud imperial city cannot boast of an apostolic foundation; yet, spite of that, man has put in the claim and pressed it with fire and sword. Paul, however, wrote in the fullness of his own apostleship and brings out the truth of God to them most carefully, so that the very ignorance of the Roman saints was the occasion for the Holy Ghost to give us the most elaborate statement of Christian truth which the Word of God contains. By Christian truth, I mean the individual instruction which the soul wants in order to the consciousness of its solid standing before God and the duties which flow from it. There the Apostle writes expressly as an apostle. It could not be understood as a human composition. There must be the authority of God, claimed by the Apostle; and while he strengthens them in their position of saints, by the very same he makes room for that development of Christian truth, for which the epistle is remarkable.

In the Corinthians he addresses them, not merely as saints, as individual Christians, but as an assembly; and there also he asserts his apostleship. Does not this serve to illustrate the truth that there is not a word inserted or omitted in Scripture, but what is full of instruction for our souls if we are willing to be instructed? To the Corinthians he does not add as in Romans, "a servant of Jesus Christ," but simply, "called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God." There he carefully puts Sosthenes upon his own proper ground, as a brother, while he distinguishes his own apostleship. The reason is obvious. The Corinthians were in a turbulent state, going so far as even to gainsay the apostleship of Paul. But God never lowers what He has given because men do not like it. It was a part, not more of God's grace to Paul, than of his humble obedience before God, to act and speak as an apostle; if he had not, he would have failed in his duty; he would not have done that which was essential for the glory of God and the good of the saints. Everything is in its proper place. So if the Corinthians were questioning what God had wrought in and by the Apostle Paul, and the place He had given him in His wisdom, the Apostle asserts it with dignity; or rather, the Holy Ghost represents him only as an apostle to them, speaks of others but not as apostles, and addresses the Corinthians as "the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours."

None but one who knew what God is to His saints, and how He holds to the power of His own grace, would have contemplated those at Corinth in such sort as this; none but a heart that understood God's love to His own, and, alas! to what lengths they may be drawn aside where the flesh gains advantage — none but one admirably, divinely acquainted with his own heart and with God — could ever have addressed them in the language with which that epistle opens. But it was God who was writing through His Apostle. And as the conduct of the Church on earth is the thesis of the epistle to the Corinthians, He shows us there the principle of putting away and of receiving again, the administration of the Lord's supper, and its moral meaning; the working of the various gifts in the Church, etc. All these things, as being the functions of the Church, are found in the epistles to the Corinthians. But even in the exercise of gifts, it is gifts in the assembly. Therefore, there is no reference to evangelizing in 1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14, because the evangelist's gift does not, of course, find its exercise within the Church. He goes, properly speaking, outside the Church, in order to exercise that gift. You have prophets, teachers, etc. All these were gifts of a still higher order and regularly exercised in the assembly of God.

Here also we shall see how appropriately the preface falls in with the object of the Holy Ghost throughout: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Now this is the only church where we have the "bishops and deacons" addressed as well as the saints. The reason may have been that it was, more or less, a transition state. We have three things in the Church of the New Testament. The first is — apostles, acting in the full power of their gift and office. Then, besides deacons, bishops or elders (for these two mean the same officials, only called by a different name), apostolically appointed to the charge which the Lord had given them; the bishops having to do with that which is internal, the deacons with that which is external, but both of them local offices, while the Apostle had his authority from the Lord everywhere The Holy Ghost shows us thus the full regimen in the churches; that is to say, the apostles acting in their high place, who were called to establish the foundations of the Church practically, and to govern it upon a large scale throughout the whole breadth of the Church of God upon earth; and beside them, these local guides, the bishops and deacons.

Third. The Apostle was now separated from the church, and hence no longer able to watch over the saints personally. He writes accordingly to those who had no longer his apostolic care, not only where they had not, but, in this case, where they had bishops and deacons. Yet in the latest epistles, where the Apostle is filled with the sense of his speedy departure, there is not the slightest allusion to any provision for perpetuating these officers — not even when writing confidentially to one whom he had called on to ordain elders in Crete, nor to another invested with a charge at Ephesus.

Thus, this epistle brings us to a sort of transition. It supposes the assembly in ecclesiastical order. But the Apostle's absence in person seems to be intended of God to prepare the Church for the absence of apostles entirely. Thus God graciously gave the Church a kind of preparation for their removal from the scene. Practically, even while Paul was on the earth, he was shut out from them, and gone from the scene, as far as regarded apostolic vigilance. The time was coming when there would be no longer apostolically appointed bishops and deacons. The Spirit of God was, it would appear, thereby accustoming the Church to find in God the only stable means of support when apostles would be no longer within reach of those who used to look to them and to claim their wisdom in their difficulties. But though the Apostle was not there, they had the "bishops and deacons," not a bishop and several deacons, and still less bishops and presbyters (or, priests) and deacons, but several of the higher spiritual guides as well as of the lower.

In those days a bishopric was not a great worldly prize, but a serious spiritual care which, however excellent an employment, was no object of ambition or means of lucre. "If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work"; but it called for such self-denial, such constant trial by night and day, deeper even in the Church than from the world without, that it was by no means a thing for the best qualified in the Spirit to rush into, but to take up with the utmost gravity, as that to which he was called of God. For this, among other reasons, the Church never pretended to choose or constitute a bishop. It was invariably by apostolic authority. One or more apostles acted in this — not necessarily Paul only or the twelve. It might be a Barnabas; at least we find in certain cases Paul and Barnabas acting together in choosing elders or bishops. But this may show what a delicate task it was. The Lord never gives it to any person except an apostle or an apostolic man (that is, a man sent out by an apostle to do that work for him, such as Titus and perhaps Timothy). But there the Scripture account closes; and while we have provision for the Church going on, and the certainty of gifts supplied to the end, there is no means laid down for perpetuating the appointment of elders and bishops.

Was there, then, forgetfulness of ordinary need on the Apostle's, nay, on God's part? For this is really what the matter comes to; and he who supposes that anything of the kind was omitted in Scripture thus carelessly, in effect impeaches the faithful wisdom of God. Who wrote Scripture? Either you resort to the wretched notion that God was indifferent and the apostles forgot, or, acknowledging that Scripture flows from the highest source, you have no escape from the conclusion that God was intentionally silent as to the future supply of elders or bishops. But the God who knew and ordered everything from the beginning forgot nothing; on the contrary, He expressly, in His own wisdom, left no means, in the foreseen ruin of Christendom, for continuing the appointment of elders and deacons. Was it not then desirable, if not necessary, for churches to have such? Surely, if we reason thus, apostles were as loudly called for as the lower officials.

The fact is most evident that the same God who has seen fit to withhold a continuous line of apostles? has not been pleased to give the means for a scriptural continuance of bishops and deacons. How is it then that we have no such officers now? Most simple is the answer. Because we have no apostles to appoint them. Will you tell me if anybody else has got them? Let us at least be willing to acknowledge our real lack in this respect; it is our duty to God, because it is the truth; and the owning it keeps one from much presumption. For in general Christendom is doing, without apostles, what is only lawful to be done by or with them. The appointment of elders and deacons goes upon the notion that there is an adequate power still resident in men or the Church. But the only scriptural ordaining power is an apostle acting directly or indirectly. Titus or Timothy could not go and ordain elders except as and where authorized by the apostles. Hence when Titus had done this work, he was to come back to the Apostle. He was not in anywise one who had invested in him a certain fund to apply at all times where and how he pleased. Scripture represents that he was acting under apostolic guidance. But after the apostles were gone, not a word about the power acting through these or other delegates of the Apostle.

God forbid that we should pretend either to make an apostle or to make light of his absence! It is more humble to say, We are thankful to use what God has given and whatever God may continue to give, without pretending to more. Is there not faith, and lowliness, and obedience in the position that acknowledges the present want in the Church, and that simply acts according to the power that remains, which is all-sufficient for every need and danger? The true way to glorify God is not to assume an apostolic authority that we do not possess, but to act confiding in the power and presence of the Holy Ghost who does remain. It was distinctly the Lord Himself who, working by the Holy Ghost, acted upon all the saints, and who put each of them in that particular place in the body that He saw fit. It is not a question of our drawing inferences from a man's gifts that he is an apostle. To be an apostle required the express, personal call of the Lord in a remarkable way; and without this there never was adequate ordaining power, personally or by deputy.

As this may help to meet a question that often arises in the minds of Christians, and suggested by a verse such as we have before us, I have thought it well to meet the difficulty, trusting to the Word and Spirit of God.

The Apostle, then, introduces himself and Timothy as "the servants of Jesus Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus." It is not exactly "to the church," as in writing to the Corinthians or the Thessalonians, but to "all the saints." We may gather from this that he is about to speak of what is individual rather than of what belonged to them as a public assembly; but it is not, as in Romans, on the basis of redemption. He was going to enlarge on their walk with God, saluting them as usual with the words, "grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

Before he opens the epistle, the Apostle breaks forth in thanksgiving to God. "I thank my God," an expression often used in this epistle. It also is individual, knowing now the God in whom he trusted, besides being the expression of affection and of nearness. First, says the Apostle, "I thank my God upon my whole remembrance of you" (for such is the true force), "always in every prayer of mine for you all, making request with joy." This leads me to make the observation, that nearness to God is always accompanied by the heart overflowing with the joy which His realized presence necessarily produces, as well as by a spirit of intercession for the objects of God's love on earth. There may be at the same time the deepest exercise of spirit, and not without the keenest pain; because in the presence of God every sin, sorrow, and shame is more truly and fully felt. What God is, is known, and therefore perfect peace; what man is, and therefore the failure is realized and the dishonour brought on Christ is entered into by the Spirit. But here joy is the prevalent and abiding feeling, the great characteristic effect of the presence of God imprinted on the soul, where the conscience is void of offence toward God and man.

Not that even Paul could thus speak of every assembly, or every saint of God — far from it. His whole remembrance of the Philippian saints opened the sluices of thanksgiving to God. Yet, from the beginning, there was need of prayer; and he was continually supplicating for them all, and this with joy, "for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now." What a wonderful thing that a man, though he were the great Apostle of the Gentiles, could so feel, and that there were here below saints of whom he could so write! Alas! in these selfish days we little know what we have lost, and whence we are fallen. He never prayed for these Philippians but with joy, and yet he was constantly bearing them before God. Had the Apostle been here, could he have thought so of us? Yet, wonderful as it was, it was the simple truth; and it is wholesome for our souls to judge ourselves by such a standard.

Another feature of the epistle to the Philippians is, that the practical condition of the soul is here developed more fully than anywhere else; and this not so much doctrinally as in action and experience. The Apostle lays bare his own motives as well as walk, and even Christ's also. Hence it is peculiarly in this epistle that we find displayed the exercise of individual Christian life. Here we have the power of the Spirit of God acting in the soul of the believer, enabling him to realize Christ in the heart and path here below. But what gave rise to this character of instruction? What circumstances brought it out? The absence of the Apostle from the Philippians, and from his ordinary ministry, while he was imprisoned at Rome. It was not, as at Corinth, that his absence brought out their ostentatious vanity, and party spirit, and worldly laxity, and quarrelings. It led the Philippians to feel the necessity of living increasingly with, and for, and to Christ. There was nothing for it but each one looking, and helping his brother to look, to the Lord Himself. This being the effect produced, the Apostle was full of joy in thinking of them. He had been several years away, and externally in the most dismal circumstances himself; but his joy was not dimmed one whit. On the contrary, there is not another epistle so full of actually tasted happiness; and yet there was never an epistle written when all on earth seemed more clouded and filled with sorrow. So thoroughly is Christ the one circumstance that rules all others to the believer.

When moving about and seeing both the devotedness of the saints, and sinners everywhere brought to God, one can understand the Apostle's continual joy and praise. But think of him in prison for years, chained between two soldiers, debarred from the work that he loved, and others taking advantage of his absence to grieve him, preaching the very gospel out of contention and strife; and yet his heart was so running over with joy that he was filling others with it!

Such is the character of the epistle to the Philippians. If there be a witness of the power of the Spirit of God working through human affections, through the heart of a saint on earth, in the midst of all weakness and trial, it is found here. It is not the picture of a man down under trying circumstances, for under them he never is, but consciously more than conqueror. Not that he never knew what it was to be cast down. He who wrote the second epistle to the Corinthians fully experienced all that which God in His grace made to be a kind of moral preparation for bringing out the comfort that was needed by the saints then and at all times. But this epistle shows us that there is not a single symptom of weariness any more than of perturbation of spirit. You could not tell from it that there was any flesh at all, though he was one who fully took the flesh into account elsewhere, as in Romans and Corinthians, where you have a fearful picture of what may be the condition of the Christian and of the Church.

Not only in Philippians is there no trace of this, but neither is there the dwelling upon our privileges and blessings, as in Ephesians 1. What we have is the enjoyed power of the Spirit of God, that lifts a man day by day above the earth, even when he is walking upon it; and this by making Christ everything to the soul, so that the trials are but occasions of deeper enjoyment, let them be ever so many and grave. This is what we specially want as Christians in order to glorify God; and this is what the Holy Ghost urges on us when we have entered into our proper Christian birthright, individually, as in Romans, and our membership of the Church, as in Corinthians, and our blessing in heavenly places in Christ, as in Ephesians.

Then comes the question, How am I enjoying and carrying out these wondrous privileges, as a saint of God upon earth? To suppose that this is a hard question, and gendering bondage, would be to impeach the perfect goodness of God, as well as to fall into a snare of the devil. What God desires is that we should be blest yet more than we are. He would thus make us more happy. The epistle to the Philippians is one to fill the heart with joy, if there be an eye for Christ. He thanks his God for them for their "fellowship with the gospel from the first day until now." What going out of heart, and sustained vigour! It is not now "the fellowship of His Son," as in 1 Corinthians, which indeed would be true of a Christian under any circumstances. So if Satan had contrived to turn a saint again to folly and sin, the Holy Ghost could remind him that God is faithful by whom he was called unto the fellowship of His Son. And can He have fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness? This is the reason why we should cry to God that, if He have called any to the fellowship of His Son, He would not allow the enemy to drag them into the dirt, but rouse their conscience to their grievous inconsistency.

But there is more. Here it is their fellowship with the gospel, not merely as a blessed message they had received themselves, but in its progress, conflicts, dangers, difficulties, etc. It does not necessarily mean preaching it, but, what was as good, or in itself even better — their hearts thoroughly in and with it. Need I hesitate to say that whatever may be the honour put upon those called to spread the gospel, to have a heart in unison with the gospel is a portion superior to any services as such? Most simply and heartily were the Philippians' affections thus bound up with the gospel; they identified themselves first and last with its career. This was really fellowship with God in the spread of His own glad tidings through the world. The Apostle valued such hearts especially. Nothing less than the sustaining power of the Spirit of God had so wrought in these dear Philippians.

The way in which the gospel had reached them we hear in Acts 16. It began with Paul in prison, when his feet were in the stocks; yet withal, in the midst of shame and pain, he and his companion singing praises to God at midnight! And here we have him, if alone, again a prisoner; and the praises of God are again heard — unwontedly in the great city of Rome. The Philippians were far away; but he could hear them, as it were none the less, singing praises to God, even as he was singing praises to God for them. It was the same blessed fellowship with the gospel that had characterized not him only, but them too, from the very first day until now.

But he goes further, and says, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you, will complete it against the day of Jesus Christ." Remark the ground of his confidence. In the Corinthians it is because God was faithful. In Galatians, where there was a still a more serious trial, the Apostle says he was in doubt of them, till he thinks of the Lord; and then he has his heart lit up with a comforting hope that they were Christians after all. People that were practically slighting (little as they thought or intended it, yet virtually slighting) Christ for worldly elements — he could hardly understand how such could be Christians. To turn from a crucified and risen Christ to the rites of an earthly religion is worse than bare earthliness, destructive as this is. Here it is another thing. His confidence is grounded not merely on what God is in character and counsel, but on what he saw of Christ, by the Holy Ghost, in them. Thinking of what they had been and were then, could he hesitate to recognize the evident handiwork of God through His Son? He saw such an unequivocal enjoyment of Christ, and such an identification of interests with Him upon earth, that his confidence was not only in a general way that he would see them with Christ by-and-by, but in the solidity of the work of God in them all the way through. He who had begun in them a good work, he was sure, would complete it unto (or, against) the day of Jesus Christ (v. 6).

"Even as it is meet" (or, "just") "for me to think thus of you all, because ye have me in your heart." v. 7. Such is the version given in the margin, which here prevents the right force of the verse. It was due to them, he means, not merely because he loved them, but he felt and had proof that they had him in their hearts. A blessed bond for hearts at all times is the name of Christ and His gospel. How continually, too, one finds the state of the saints accurately measured and set in evidence by the state of their affections toward anyone that is identified with the work of God on the earth! There will be the strongest possible attempt of Satan to bring an alienation of feeling and a turning of the saints against all such, whether absent or present. It was so in the days of the Apostle Paul; those who were simply cleaving to the Lord crave to him also. It was the very reverse of a mere fleshly feeling, which was sought by his adversaries who, flattering others, were flattered in turn. Paul was perfectly sensible that the more abundantly he loved, the less he was loved; and what a handle this gave to Satan to turn away the saints from the truth.

False teachers and men who may be really converted, but whose flesh is little judged, and whose worldliness is great, always seek to win persons as a party round themselves, by sparing the flesh and humouring the natural character, so as at last to have their own way without question. (2 Cor. 11: 19, 20) The Apostle's object was to win to Christ. But faithfulness called him often to tread on what was painful to one and another. As long as love flowed freely and Christ was looked to, it was well; but when mortified feeling wrought, because they did not mortify their members on the earth, the tendency was constantly toward making parties, divisions, offences, the forerunners of yet worse evil. But if the Apostle was one who scorned such a thought as gathering a party round himself, these saints had him in their hearts.

He valued this love. How was it shown? "Inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye are all partakers of my grace." They were casting themselves, heart and soul, into the activities and sufferings of the grace of God in the Apostle. Did his bonds make them ashamed or suspicious? To have a friend in jail never was of good report. Did they begin to say in themselves, He must have been doing something wrong because he was a prisoner? On the contrary, seeing that the Apostle Paul had come into the deepest suffering, they looked upon it as the highest honour. If he had gone up to Jerusalem, it was not to spare himself; and though this visit may have been a mistake, certainly it was one of which no person ought to speak lightly. It was a thorough self-sacrifice every step of the way. The Apostle, though he was now as a consequence a prisoner in Rome, never yields to a spirit of regret, still less of repining, but regards all in the good hand of God as furthering the cause of Christ. Did not, for example, his own bonds turn to praise of God? There he was perfectly happy, perhaps never so happy as thus bound. The Philippian saints understood what it was to draw from the divine spring; and consequently their hearts were with him in joy as well as sympathy. Did it weaken the Apostle's love for them personally? "God is my record how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ." v. 8. Happiness as the Lord's prisoner dulled none of his warmest feelings of love toward them.

But besides all this, his love for them made him intensely solicitous about their real wants, and he turns to the Lord for them accordingly. "And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more, in knowledge and in all judgment." v. 9. He wished that they should love (not less, but) with a fuller knowledge and an exercised intelligence. Love, or charity, is the basis, else there would be no building up; this being laid and abounding, full knowledge, instead of puffing up, guides and guards. The more the intelligence is, if it be real and spiritual, the greater the desire to grow in it. Those who do not see anything in Scripture as an object for constant search, and growth, and desire after more, are those, it is to be feared, who see scarce anything in it that is divine. Directly it is discerned that there is infinite light in it, desire to know more and more is a necessary consequence. But it is for practice. And this epistle shows us spiritual progress in the Apostle and in the saints more fully than any other, while it is the epistle that shows us the strongest desire after going on. This is what we know from experience. Whenever we begin to be satisfied with what we have got, there is an end of progress; but when we make a little real advance, we want to make more. Such was the case with these saints, who are prayed for therefore, "That ye may approve things that are excellent," etc. They needed to grow in intelligence, in order that they might be able to judge of things, and so lay hold of what was more excellent.

"That ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." v. 10. Wonderful thought! The Apostle actually prays for these believers as if he conceived it possible that, growing in love and intelligence, they might walk the path of faith till the day of Christ without a single false step; Paul's marvel, perhaps, would have been that we should count it wonderful. Alas! we know we fail day by day, because we are unspiritual. Why do we let out a vain word or show a wrong feeling? Because we are not realizing the presence and the grace of God. No progress in the things of God will ever keep a person — nothing but actual nearness to Him and dependence on Him. What is a Christian, and what the condition and experience which Scripture recognizes for him here below? He is by grace brought, in virtue of Christ's blood, into the presence of God; who has a power within him, the Holy Ghost, and a power without to lean upon, even the Lord Jesus Christ, and this uninterruptedly and always. Such is the theory; but what is the practice? As far as it is realized, the path is without a single stumble. And let us remember that such is the only sanctioned path for all saints. It belongs not of right to some advanced souls. It is what every Christian has to desire. We can, therefore, readily understand how souls, hearing such thoughts as these, should embrace the idea of a state of perfection. But though the scheme is erroneous and utterly short of our true standard in the second Man, the last Adam, a Christian ought never contentedly to settle down in the thought that he must fail and sin day by day. What is this but calm acquiescence with dishonouring Christ? If we do fail, let us at least always say, It was our own fault, our own unwatchfulness, through not making use of the grace and strength we have in Christ. The treasure there is open for us, and we have only to draw upon it; and the effect is a staid, calm, spiritual progress, the flesh judged, the heart overflowing with happiness in Christ, the path without a stumble till the day of Christ.

More than this, let it be remarked, he prays that they might be filled with the fruit of righteousness, not merely such and such righteous acts in detail, but the blessed product of righteousness by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God (v. 11). There is no thought of, nor room for, imposing the law here, which is rather shut out from being the proper standard for the Christian. There is another, who is both our new object and our rule, even Christ Himself, the image of God, the life and power of fruit bearing for the believer. What a rule for our practical, everyday walk!

From the introduction, which bears ample witness of the Apostle's love in the Spirit to the Philippian saints of his confidence in them and his earnest desire for them, we enter on the first great topic on which he writes — his own condition at Rome. He felt that it was needful to lay it before them in the light of the Lord, not merely because of their affectionate solicitude, not only again because of evil workers, who would gladly make it a handle against himself and his ministry; but chiefly with the holy and loving end of turning it to their profit and even their establishment in the truth and diligence in the work and singleness of purpose in cleaving to the Lord.

Indeed the Apostle had every ground to expect a blessing through that which Satan was perverting to injure souls. It had already issued in good fruit as regarded the work of the gospel; and he looks for just as good fruit as to all that concerned himself, either in the present or in the future, whether by life or by death. Such is the confidence and joy of faith. It overcomes the world; it realizes Christ's victory over the enemy. What can man, what can Satan, do with one who is careful about nothing, but in everything gives thanks? What can either avail to disconcert one whose comfort is in God and who interprets all circumstances by His love, with unshaken reliance on His wisdom and goodness?

Such a one was the Apostle, who now proceeds to turn for the salvation of the saints at Philippi, so tenderly loved, what the malice of Satan and of his instruments would be sure to catch at greedily as a means of alarming some and stumbling others, as if God too cared not for His Church or His servant. It is experience we have unfolded rather than doctrine; it is the rich, and mellow, and mature fruit of the Spirit in the Apostle's own heart as he expounds to them the facts of his own daily life according to God. What a privilege to hear! and how sweet to know that it was not written merely, nor as much, to inform us of him as to conform the saints practically to Christ thereby! Blessedly as the lesson was learned in the bonds that lay upon Paul, for our sakes, no doubt, it has been written. Therefore was the Apostle inspired. Inspiration, however, does not exclude the heart's holy feelings.

"But I wish you to know, brethren, that my condition (literally, what concerns me) has turned out rather (that is, rather than otherwise) unto the furtherance of the gospel; so that my bonds have become manifest in Christ in the whole praetorium and to all the rest." vv. 12, 13. The devil had hoped to merge the Apostle in the common crowd of criminals; but God, ever watchful for good, made it plain that His servant was a prisoner for no moral offence, but because of Christ. Thus the enemy's cunning device had ended in a testimony for the Saviour, and the gospel penetrated where before it was wholly unknown. His bonds were manifestly in Christ's cause. The grace of Christ was made known, and His servant was vindicated.

But this was not all. For as the Apostle tells them further, "Most of the brethren in the Lord, having confidence in my bonds, dare more abundantly to speak the word without fear." v. 14. Here was another step in the blessing, and of rich promise too. How unexpected of the enemy! He, however, was on the alert; and if he could not silence the tongues that bore their testimony to the Saviour, would not fail to bring in mixed motives and tempt some to an unhallowed spirit and aim, even in a work so holy. It was not undiscerned of the Apostle; neither did it disturb in the least his triumphant assurance that all things were working together for good, not only to them that love God, but to the advance of the glad tidings of His grace; so this too he does not hide in sorrow or shame, but cheerfully explains. "Some indeed also on account of envy and strife, but some also on account of goodwill, preach the Christ; these indeed out of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but those out of contention, proclaim the Christ, not purely, supposing to stir up tribulation for my bonds." vv. 15-17.

The truth is that the Apostle was then and there in the happiest enjoyment of that truth which, not so long before, he had held before the saints at Rome. He was glorying in tribulations by the way, as well as in the hope of God's glory at the end; and not only so, but glorying in God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5: 1, 2, 11). His bonds but proved how entirely the liberty of grace is independent of all that man or Satan can rage against him who stands fast in it and has Him before his heart, by whom alone it came and could be given. There was no blindness to the feelings of some whose zeal in no way concealed their malevolent desires; but nothing weakened the spring of his joy in God, nor his thankful perception that, whatever man meant, the testimony of grace was going out widely and energetically; and Christ was held up and exalted more and more. For it was no question here of doctrine; there is no ground to think that even the contentious men did not preach soundly. It was the good that God intended that occupied Paul's thoughts, whatever might be in theirs. Hence he breaks forth in that blessed expression of an unselfish, full heart, "What then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice, yea and will rejoice." v. 18. How happy is the simplicity, how deep the wisdom of faith, which thus sees in everything, even where flesh intrudes into the Lord's work, the defeat of Satan! What a present blessing to his soul who, thus delivered from self-confidence on the one hand and anxiety on the other, sees the sure, steady, onward working of God for the glory of Christ, even as by-and-by when Christ is displayed in His kingdom, all will be ordered to the glory of God the Father! (Phil. 2) Hence in the consciousness of the progress of gospel testimony and his own blessing through all that to which his imprisonment had given occasion, the Apostle can say, "I know that this will turn to my salvation through your supplication and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ; according to my earnest expectation, and hope that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but, in all boldness, as always, now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death." vv. 19, 20. Imprisoned, he could not separate himself from the mighty conflict which was on foot in the world; he knew victory was assured, however hotly the enemy might contest. Salvation here means the final defeat of the enemy, and so it is throughout our epistle, never a past thing as in Ephesians 2 and 2 Timothy 1: 9, but always future, as in 2 Timothy 2 and 2 Timothy 3, manifestly. In Philippians, as in Hebrews, etc., it is the full deliverance at the close. Both views are true, and each has its own importance.

We have seen the expectation and hope of the Apostle, that in nothing he should be ashamed, but in all boldness as always, now also Christ should be magnified in his body, whether by life or by death. His eye was thus on Christ, not for the beginning and the end only, but all the way. In the next verse, 21, he proceeds to vindicate the confidence of his heart. For, says he, "to me to live is Christ and to die is gain." To be spiritually minded, the Apostle tells us elsewhere, is life and peace. Here, speaking of his own daily practice, he shows he had but one aim, motive, object, and business — Christ. And this was said, not at the start of his career, in the overwhelming sense of the Saviour's grace to His proud and self-righteous persecutor, but after long years of unequalled toil, peril, affliction without and sorrows within the Church. "To me to live is Christ." No doubt, the principle was true from the beginning of his eventful life as a Christian. Still, as little do I doubt that it was emphatically and more than ever verified at the very time he was writing, a prisoner in the imperial city.

It is remarkable to what debates and difficulties the verse has given occasion, though the language is plain, the construction unambiguous, and sense as weighty as it is clear. "Interpreters [says a famous man] have hitherto, in my opinion, given a wrong rendering and exposition to this passage; for they mane this distinction, that Christ was life to Paul and death was gain." Certainly this is not the meaning of the Holy Ghost who gave the Apostle to say that to him to live (that is, here below) is Christ and to die gain. That Christ was his life is most true, and is the doctrine of Galatians and Colossians in passages full of beauty and interest. (See Gal. 2; Col. 3.) But here it is no question of doctrine, standing, or life in Christ. The whole matter is the character of his living day by day; and this he declares is "Christ," even as the ceasing to live or to die, he says, would be "gain." And what does this writer substitute? "I, on the other hand, make Christ the subject of discourse in both clauses, so that He is declared to be gain to him both in life and in death; for it is customary with the Greeks to leave the word pros to be understood. Besides that this meaning is less forced, it also corresponds better with the foregoing statement, and contains more complete doctrine. He declares that it is indifferent to him whether he lives or dies, because, having Christ, he reckons both to be gain. So Calvin, followed by Beza, who adds that "Christ" is the subject of both members and "gain" the predicate, and that the ellipse of kata is not only tolerable but an Atticism! The reader may rest assured that a more vicious and violent rendering has rarely been offered. The truth is that "to live" is the subject, "Christ" the predicate of the first proposition; "to die" is the subject, "gain" the predicate of the second, as in the authorized version. The real force is lost by this strange dislocation of the French reformers, and the true connection is broken.

"For me to live is Christ and to die gain; but if to live in flesh is before me, this to me is worth the while; and what I shall choose, I know not, but I am pressed by the two, having the desire for departing and being with Christ, for it is far better, but to continue in the flesh is more needful for you. And having confidence of this, I know that I shall remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in your faith, that your boast may abound in Christ Jesus through me by my presence again with you." vv. 21-26. Thus the Apostle compares his continuance in life with dying; the former were to him worth while, and what to choose he could not say. Thus there was perplexity from the two things; for he certainly had the desire to slip all that anchored him here and to be with Christ; whereas, on the other hand, he felt that his abiding here would be more necessary on account of the saints. This is no sooner fairly before him than all is clear. There is no more pressure from two sides. He is confident; he knows he will remain and stay with them all for their progress and joy in their faith. How sweet and disinterested is the love which the Holy Ghost gives to the heart that is centred on Christ! Their spiritual interest turns the scale, whatever his personal desire.

Sure I am that we have most of us lost much by failing to realize that to us too this path is open, and that it is the will of our God concerning us. Too little are any of us conscious of the weakening, darkening, deadening effect on our spiritual experience of allowing any object or desire but Christ. How often, for instance, it seems to be taken for granted that a brief season after conversion is not only the due time for first love, but the only time when it is to be expected! In what bright contrast with all such thoughts stands the record we have read of the blessed Apostle's experience! Was it not meant for the Philippians? Is it not also for us? God never intimates in His Word that the saint must droop after conversion; that love, zeal, simplicity of faith must become increasingly poorer and weaker. There are dangers no doubt; but early days have theirs as well as later, and much passes muster at first through lack of spirituality. Where there is full purpose of heart in cleaving to the Lord, He gives, on the contrary, a deepening acquaintance with Himself. It is not, To me to live is for the gospel or even the Church, but, "To me to live is Christ." To have Him as the one absorbing, governing motive of the life, day by day, is the strength as well as test of all that is of God; it gives, as nothing else can give, everything its divine place and proportion. "To me to live is Christ" seems to me much more than to say, "To die is gain." For this is true of many a saint's experience, who could hardly say that. Yet there is not a clause more characteristic; it is the very pith of our epistle. Christian experience is the point. In Philippians, above all others, it is the development of the great problem, how we are to live Christ. As for Paul, it was the one thing he did; and so death, which naturally threatens the loss of this and that and all things, he, on the contrary, realized to be gain. This is the truth, and he enjoyed it.

For years the Apostle, a prisoner, had death before him as a not improbable contingency. Yet assuredly his eye is only the brighter, his strength not abated, but grown, his exercised acquaintance with God, His will and ways, larger than ever. Hence, instead of his thinking it was a question for the emperor to determine, he sees, feels, and speaks as if God had put it all into his own hands; just as in another chapter he says, "I can do all things through Christ (or Him) who strengthens me." Here you have him sitting in judgment on the point whether he is to live or die. He drops Caesar altogether and views it as if God were asking His servant whether he was going to live or die. His answer is that it would be much better for himself to die, but that for the sake of the Church it would be expedient for him to live somewhat longer. Thus the decision of the question is eminently Christlike, against his own strong desire, because his eye was single, and he sacrificed self for the good of the Church. Accordingly he concludes, with wonderful faith and unselfishness, that he is going to live.

"I am in a strait between the two, having the desire for departing and being with Christ, which is very far better: nevertheless to continue in the flesh is more needful for you." Inasmuch as in his heart Christ thus predominated, who certainly was not balancing questions about his own gain, but other people's good; so Paul, therefore, thinks of and in His mind and says, "Having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith: that your boast may be more abundant in Jesus Christ through me by my presence with you again." I do not know a more astonishing and instructive proof of the power of the Spirit of God, in giving a man fellowship practically with God. The flesh being broken and judged in him, he could enter into the mind and feelings of God, and Christ's heart about the Church. Was it really desirable for the Church that Paul should abide? Then, without hesitation and without fleshly feeling, he can say, Paul will abide. Thus he settles the matter and speaks calmly and confidently of seeing them again. Yet is it a man in prison, exposed to the most reckless of Roman emperors, who thinks, decides, says all this!

At the same time he adds, "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ; that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for (or rather with) the faith of the gospel." His heart's desire, when he came and saw them again, was to see them all unitedly happy, and not only this flowing in of Christ, but such a flowing out of Him that their hearts should be free to spread the knowledge of the gospel everywhere.

Next, he wished to hear that they were frightened in nothing by the adversaries, which is to them a proof of destruction, but "of your salvation, and this from God, because unto you is given, in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake." From this scripture it is evidently of great moment spiritually that we should keep up in our souls good courage in face of the foe, and confidence in God, not only for our own sake, but for others. There is no testimony more gracious, nor more solemn to our adversaries. But how blessed to know that the day comes when, if we are walking with God, every opposer, no matter how proud, will disappear; when all the malice, and wiles, and power that can be brought to put the saints down will only elicit the power of God in their favour! Faith knows all the power of God is its own before that day comes.

It is of the greatest importance that we should cherish calm, and lowly, and patient confidence in God, and that the heart should rest in His love; but this can never be, unless there be present subjection to Christ and enjoyment of what He is toward our souls. To their adversaries this boldness was a demonstration of perdition, as well as of their own final triumph over all that Satan could aim at their hurt. God intended this, because it was given them in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake. Paul, who was suffering for Christ's sake at that very moment, was thoroughly happy in it, and commends the place to them. It was a good gift of grace; he could say, "The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places," though he was a prisoner. They had the same conflict as they saw in him when a prisoner at Philippi and now heard of in Rome. May our own souls prize this blessed place, if the Lord vouchsafe it in any measure to us!

Philippians 2

We saw in chapter 1 how refreshing to the Apostle was the state of the Philippians, looked at as a whole; for, undoubtedly, there was that which needed correction in particular cases. Still their practical condition, and more especially as shown in the fellowship of the gospel, drew out powerfully his affections to them, as indeed their own were drawn out. Now this very fellowship bore witness to the healthful and fervent state of their souls toward the Lord, His workmen, and His work. For fellowship with the gospel is a great deal more than merely helping on the conversion of souls. Babes that are just born to God, souls that have made ever so little progress in the truth, are capable of feeling strong sympathy with the calling in of the lost, with the glad tidings flowing out to souls, with the joy of newly quickened and pardoned souls brought to the knowledge of Christ. But there was much more implied in the Philippians' "fellowship with the gospel." It is plain that the bent and strength of their whole life was that of persons who thoroughly identified themselves with its conflicts and sorrows as well as its joys. There was nothing in them so to arrest and occupy the Spirit of God, that they could not be in the very same current with Himself, in the magnifying of Christ and the blessing of souls.

And thus it was that they were privileged to have fellowship with the Apostle himself. "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." All these things had been in action, and the Apostle viewed each little offering to him, while he was in prison for the gospel's sake, in the light of Christ's holy, spiritual affections which had dictated it. In the case of the Philippians, it would appear that it was not merely the way in which the grace of God values the service of the saints. He interpreted it, not according to the thoughts of the saints, but according to His own, seeing, therefore, far deeper value in it than the human spirit had which had been led of the Holy Ghost in the service.

Take, for instance, Mary in the gospels, and the way in which the blessed Saviour viewed her act of devotedness in spending upon His Person the box of precious ointment which she had reserved for that time Where there is singleness of eye, there is One guiding the saints, though they may not know it distinctly. There is no ground to suppose Mary distinctly appreciated that she was anointing the Lord for His burial; but His divine grace gave it that value. The love that was in her heart felt instinctively that some awful danger threatened Him; that a heavy dark cloud was gathering over Him, which others feebly, if at all, entered into. In truth, God was in this intuition of divine affection.

But you may see something, perhaps, analogous in the providential care which God by times exercises; and there is even more than providence in the care of a Christian parent with a child. There is a feeling of undefined but real uneasiness — the Spirit of God giving a certain consciousness of peril — and this often calls forth the affection of the parents to the child in such sort as to avert the imminent danger or alleviate the sufferings in the highest degree. In a still higher sense this was true in the dealings of God with Mary. Alas! little indeed were the disciples in the secret, though they ought to have known what was impending more than any others, had it been a question of familiar intercourse and knowledge.

Certainly they had larger opportunities than ever Mary enjoyed; but it is far from being such knowledge that gives the deepest insight — far from being earthly circumstances that account for the insight of love. There is a cause which lies deeper still — the power of the Spirit of God acting in a simple, upright, loving heart, that feels intensely for the object of its reverence, for Christ Himself. If our eye is to our Lord, we may be sure that He will work with and in us as well as for us. He will not fail to give us the opportunity for serving Him in the most fitting manner and at the right moment. Mary had this box we know not how long; but there was One who loved Mary, and who wished to vouchsafe her the desired privilege of showing her love to His Son. He it was who led Mary (despised as indifferent by her believing but bustling sister) at this very time to bring out her love. Thus, besides ordinary intelligent guidance, there may be guidance under the skilful hands of Him who cares for us, and now acts yet more intimately by His Spirit dwelling in us.

In the case of the Philippians, there was the conscious fellowship of the Spirit; there was remarkable devotedness and spirituality among them, so that God could put particular honour upon them. In this respect they are in striking contrast not only with the Galatians but with the Corinthians also. Not that but these two were born of God; there was no difference in this. We are expressly told the Corinthians were called into the fellowship of the Son of God; such they were as truly as the Philippians were. It is of them that the Holy Ghost says, "God is faithful by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord." But there was a mighty difference here. There was not the same fellowship with the gospel among the Corinthians, and therefore it may be that the Apostle desires that they might have "the communion of the Holy Ghost" (2 Cor. 13: 14). Assuredly till then it had been enjoyed by them scantily. (Compare 1 Cor. 3; 4; etc.)

But in looking at the Philippians he could say, "If there be therefore any consolation [or rather encouragement] in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit," etc. There was all this practical display of Christ so fully at work among them; such tenderness in their spirit, such entering into the mind of God touching the mighty conflict in which the Apostle was engaged, that they identified themselves heart and soul with the Apostle He says, therefore, If there be all this (which he doubted not but assumed), "fulfil ye my joy that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." Here was their failure; they were not sufficiently of one mind; nor were they cherishing, as they should, the same love. Hence there was a measure of dissension among them at this time. True, it may seem to have been about the work of the Lord, in which they were truly zealous. Sorrowful as this was in itself, still this was not so low and unworthy as mere squabbling with one another, such as we hear of among the Corinthians. Not that it was to be treated lightly, but even the very failure and the cause of it proved that they were in a more spiritual state than the Corinthians.

In the same way you may find among the children of God now that which answers to the trial of an Abraham or of a Lot. Just Lot, dwelling among the wicked in the cities of the plain, was vexed from day to day with their unrighteous and ungodly deeds. What unbridled wickedness filled the scene which first attracted his too covetous eyes! Strange that a saint could find his home there for a season! Abraham failed, no doubt; but what a contrast even between the failure of an Abraham and of a Lot! When the latter, through unwatchfulness, fell into a sin which led the way to worse, it was not only a painful blot, but the consequences of it remained for ages to be adversaries to the people of God. Out of the miserable circumstances which closed his life, we see a shameful result and a constant affliction. Indeed the Israel of God will prove it yet in the latter days. On the other hand, Abraham had his trials and failures, and surely the Lord did notice and rebuke them in His righteous government. But though this shows that there is nothing worthy of God in man, that no good thing dwells in the natural man, even of a saint, that the flesh is fleshly, let it be in whom it may; yet, for all that, the character of Abraham's very slips and unfaithfulness tells us that he was in a spiritual condition wholly different from his nephew Lot.

Just so it was, in measure, with the Corinthians and the Philippians. In the latter there was a want of unity, of judgment, and mind, but they were filled with the fervour of the Spirit; they were carried out in earnest wishes for the gospel and the good of God's people. Thus, even where you find the service of the Lord the prominent thought, there is always room for the flesh to act. There is nothing like having Christ Himself for our object. This was what Paul knew and lived in, and wished them to know better. Service brings in room for the human mind and feelings and energy. We are in danger of being occupied unduly with that which we do or what we suffer. Behind it lurks also the dangers of comparison, and so of envy, self-seeking, and strife. How blessedly the Apostle in Philippians 1 laid before them his feeling in presence of a far deeper, wider and more painful experience, we have seen already. It appears there was something of this kind at worn among the Philippians. Accordingly he here intimates to them that there was something necessary to complete his joy. He would see them of the same mind, and this by having not the same notions but the same love, with union of soul minding one thing. His own spirit was enjoying Christ increasingly. The earth, and man upon it, was a very little thing before his eyes; the thoughts of heaven were everything to him, so that he could say, "To me to live is Christ." This made his heart sensitive on their account, because there was something short of Christ, some objects besides Him in them. He desires fullness of joy in them.

The Spirit of God gives hearts, purified by faith, a common object, even Christ. What he had known in them made him the more alive to that which was defective in these saints. He therefore makes a great deal of what he might have withheld if writing to others. In an assembly where there was much that dishonoured God, it would be useless to notice every detail. Wisdom would apply the grace of Christ to the overwhelming evils that met one's eye; lesser things would remain to be disposed of afterward by the same power. But in writing to saints in a comparatively good state, even a little speck assumes importance in the mind of the Spirit. There was something they might do or remedy to fill the cup of the Apostle's joy. How gladly he would hear that they shone in unity of spirit! He owned and felt their love; would that they cultivated the same mutually! How could they be more like-minded? If the mind were set upon one thing, they would all have the same mind. God has one object for His saints, and that object is Christ. With Paul, every aim, every duty was subordinate to Him; as it is said in the next chapter, "this one thing I do"; so here he wished to produce this one, common mind in the Philippian saints.

He then touches on that which they had to watch against. "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory." It is humbling, but too true, that the principle of the grossest evil outside works even among the saints of God. The traces might be so faint that none but an apostle's eye could perceive them. But God enabled His servant to discern in them what was not of Christ. Hence he sets before them the dangers alike of opposing one another and of exalting self, strife, and vainglory. Oh! how apt they are to creep in and sully the service of God! The chapter before had shown some elsewhere taking advantage of the Apostle's bonds to preach Christ of envy and strife. And there he had triumphed by faith and could rejoice that, any how, Christ was preached. Now he warns the beloved Philippians against something similar in their midst. The principle was there, and he does not fail to lay it upon their heart.

How is the spirit of opposition and self-exaltation to be overcome? "In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." What a blessed thought! and how evidently divine! How could strife or vainglory exist along with it? When one thinks of self, God would have one to feel our own amazing shortcomings. To have such sweet and heavenly privileges in Christ, to be loved by Him, and yet to make such paltry returns as even our hearts know to be altogether unworthy of Him, is our bitter experience as to ourselves. Whereas when we look at another, we can readily feel not only how blessedly Christ is for him, and how faithful is His goodness, but love leads us to cover failings, to see and keep before us that which is lovely and of good report in the saints — if there be any virtue and if there be any praise, to think on these things. This appears to lie at the root of the exhortation, and it is evident that it thus becomes a simple and happy duty. "In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."

In short, it is made good on the one hand by the consciousness of our own blessing through grace in presence of our miserable answer to it in heart and way; and on the other hand, by the thankful discernment of another beheld as the object of the Lord's tender love and all its fruits, without the thought of drawbacks. Of their evil the Lord would not have us to think, but of what Christ is to and in them. For here there is no question of discipline, but of the ordinary, happy state of God's children. Certainly the Philippian assembly consisted of men who were full of simple-hearted earnestness in pushing out the frontiers of Christ's kingdom and whose hearts were rejoicing in Him. But toward one another there was the need of greater tenderness.

Besides, if one more than others was abused everywhere, it was the Apostle Paul. He was pre-eminently treated as the off-scouring of all things. All Asia was turned away from him. Where was there a man to identify himself with his cause? Evidently this was the result of a faithful, self-denying, holy course in the gospel, which from time to time offended hundreds even of the children of God. He could not but touch the worldliness of one, the flesh of another. Above all, he roused the judaizers on one hand, and on the other all schismatics, heretics, etc. All this makes a man dreaded and disliked; and none ever knew more of this bitter trial than the Apostle Paul. But in the case of the Philippians there was the contrary effect. Their hearts crave to him so much the more in the hour of his imprisonment at Rome, when there was this far sorer sorrow of an amazing alienation on the part of many who had been blessed through his means. This faithful love of the Philippians could not but rejoice the Apostle's heart.

It is one thing to indulge a fleshly dependence upon an instrument of God, quite another to have the same interests with him, so as to be knit more closely than ever in the time of sorrow. This was fellowship indeed, as far as it went; and it did go far, but not so far as the Apostle desired for them. He thought of their things, not of his merely; and accordingly, he now gives them another word: "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others." If they loved him so much, why not love each other more than they did? Why so occupied with their own thoughts?

This egotism was another fertile source of evil. We all know that we are apt to value qualities which we possess ourselves and to slight those of others. This is unjudged nature; for, where there is power of love, it works in a direction quite the contrary. There would be the consciousness of how weak and unworthy we are, and the little use we make of what God gives us; there would be the valuing of what we see in another, that we have not got ourselves. How good for the Church to have all this and far more!

There he brings in what is the great secret of deliverance from all these strivings of potsherd nature — "the mind that was in Christ Jesus" (v. 5). In this chapter you will observe it is Christ as He was; in the next it is Christ as He is. Here it is Christ coming down, though of course He is thereon exalted. The point pressed is that we should look at the mind of Christ that was displayed in Him while here below. In Philippians 3 it is not so much the mind or moral purpose that was in Him, as it is His Person as an object, a glorious, attractive object now in heaven, the prize for which he was running, Christ Himself above, the kernel of all his joy. Here (Phil. 2) it is the unselfish mind of love that seeks nothing of its own, but the good of others at all costs; this is the mind that was in Christ.

The Apostle proceeds to enforce lowliness in love, by setting the way of the Lord Himself before their eyes. This is the true "rule of life" for the believer since His manifestation; not even all the written Word alone, but that Word seen livingly in Christ, who is made a spring of power by the Holy Ghost to his soul that is occupied with Him. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal [on equality] with God; but made himself of no reputation [emptied himself]," etc. vv. 5-7.

What an illustrious testimony to the true, proper, intrinsic deity of Christ! It is all the stronger because, like many more, it is indirect. Who but a person consciously God in the highest sense could adopt not merely the unhesitating assumption of such language as "Before Abraham was, I am," or, "I and my Father are one," but the no less real, though hidden, claim to Godhead which lies under the very words which unbelief so eagerly seizes against Him? Where would be the sense of any other man (and man He surely was and is) saying, "My Father is greater than I"? A strange piece of information in the mouth (I will not say of a Socrates or a Bacon merely, but) of a Moses or a Daniel, a Peter or a Paul; but in Him, how suitable and even needful, yet only so because He was truly God and equal with the Father, as He was man, the sent One, and so the Father was greater than He! Take again that striking declaration in John 17: 3, "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Of course He was man, He deigned to be born of woman, else unbelief would have no ground of argument on that score. But what mere man ever dared, save the vilest imposter, calmly to class himself with God, yea, to speak of the knowledge of the only true God, and of Him, as life everlasting?

So again, the scripture before us. Nothing can be conceived more conclusively to prove His own supremely divine glory than the simple statement of the text. Gabriel, yea, the archangel Michael, has no higher dignity than that of being God's servant, in the sphere assigned to each. The Son of God alone had to empty Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. All others were, at best, God's servants; and nothing could increase that dignity for them or lift them above it. Of Christ alone it was true, that He took a bondservant's form; and of Him alone could it be true, because He was in the form of God. In this nature He subsisted originally, as truly as He received a bondman's; both were real, equally real — the one intrinsic, the other that which He condescended to assume in infinite grace.

Nor was this all. When "found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." v. 8. This is another distinct step in His descent of grace to glorify God. First, it was humiliation for Him to become a servant and a man; next, being man, He humbled Himself as far as death in His obedience (the blessed converse of Adam's disobedience unto death). And that death was the extreme of human shame, besides its atoning character. Yet must we carefully bear in mind that it would be as impossible for a divine person to cease to be God, as for a man to become a divine person. But it was the joy and triumph of divine grace that He who was God, equally with the Father, when about to become a man, did not carry down the glory and power of the Godhead to confound man before Him, but rather emptied Himself; contrariwise perfection morally was seen in this. Thus He was thoroughly the dependent man, not once falling into self-reliance, but under all circumstances, and in the face of the utmost difficulties, the very fullest pattern and exhibition of One who waited upon God, who set the Lord always before Him, who never acted from Himself, but whose meat and drink it was to do the will of His Father in heaven; in a word, He became a perfect servant. This is what we have here.

Christ is said to have been in the form of God; that is, it was not in mere appearance, but it had that form, and not a creature's. The form of God means that He has His and no other form. He was then in that nature of being, and nothing else; He had no creature being whatever; He was simply and solely God the Son. He, subsisting in this condition, did not think it robbery to be equal with God. He was God; yet, in the place of man which He truly entered, He had, as was meet, the willingness to be nothing. He made Himself of no reputation. How admirable! How magnifying to God! He put in abeyance all His glory. It was not even in angelic majesty that He deigned to become a servant, but in the likeness of men. Here we have the form of a servant as well as the form of God, but that does not in anywise mean that He was not really both. In truth, as He was very God, so He became the veriest servant that God or man ever saw.

But we may go yet further. "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Mark that. There are two great stages in the advent and humiliation of the Son of God. The first is in respect of His divine nature or proper deity; He emptied Himself. He would not act on a ground which exempted Him from human obedience, when He takes the place of a servant here below. Indeed, we may say that He would act upon what God the Father was to Him, not upon what He the Son was to the Father. On the one hand, though He were a Son, He learned obedience through the things that He suffered. On the other, if He had not been a divine person — the Son no doubt — He would not have been the perfect man that He was. But He walks on through unheard-of shame, sorrow, and suffering, as one that sought only the will and glory of His Father in everything. He would choose nothing, not even in saving sinners or receiving a soul (John 6). He would act in nothing apart from the Father. He would have only those whom the Father draws. Whom the Father gives Him, whoever comes to Him, He welcomes them; He will in no wise cast any out, be they ever so bad. What a proof that He is thoroughly the servant, when He, the Saviour, absolutely puts aside all choice of those He will save! When acting as Lord with His apostles, He tells us that He chose; but in the question of salvation, He virtually says, Here I am, a Saviour; and whoever is drawn to Me by the Father, that is enough for Me; whoever comes, I will save. No matter who or what it was, you have in the Lord Jesus this perfect subjection and self-abnegation, and this too in the only person that never had a will to sin, whose will cared not for its own way in anything. He was the only man that never used His own will; His will as man was unreservedly in subjection to God. But we find another thing: if He emptied Himself of His deity,* when He took the form of a servant, when He does become a man, He humbles Himself and becomes obedient as far as death.

{*I append here a note by W. J. Hocking as Mr. Kelly was attacked for this phrase, it having been taken out of context. References are made by WJH to Mr. Kelly's comments in 'The Christian Annotator' these can also be found on this CD. The references to Mr. Darby's comments on the subject can be found on the 'Darby Disk' from STEM Publishing.  L.H. -

Christ Jesus Emptying Himself

In his Epistle to the Philippians Paul exhorts the saints to avoid all self-exaltation and to cultivate a spirit of humility (Phil. 2: 1-4). The apostle does not press humility of disposition as a virtue in an abstract sense, but as a unique excellence perfectly exemplified by Christ Jesus. He writes, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; Who, being in the form of God . . . emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form " (Phil. 2: 5-7).

From this revelation by the Spirit of God concerning the incarnation of the Son of God we learn that its outstanding feature lay in His making Himself of no reputation, or emptying Himself, the latter being a preferable rendering of the Greek text.* The apostle teaches that Christ Jesus Who was in "the form of God" voluntarily took upon Himself "the form of a servant (or bond-slave)," whereby He "emptied Himself." Being "in the likeness of men," He abstained from using the prerogatives of His deity apart from the will of Him that sent Him. This act of self-abnegation expressed "the mind which was in Christ Jesus," which "mind" the apostle desired should be in His saints also.

*The comment of a great scholar on Phil. 2: 7. is "emptied, stripped Himself of the insignia of majesty"; and again, "He divested Himself, not of His divine nature, for this was impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity. This He did by taking upon Him the form of a servant" (Commentary on Philippians, 12th ed., 1908, by Bp. Lightfoot.).

In connection with Christ's self-emptying, a charge of heterodoxy has been brought against the late William Kelly, based, as it seems, upon a half-dozen words occurring in one of his early lectures on this Epistle. This charge of false doctrine is preposterous, but we hope is not as malicious as it is ill-founded. The words of W.K. quoted against him are: "He (Christ) emptied Himself of His deity." And on the evidence of this brief sentence, it is declared that W.K. taught that on becoming man Christ ceased to be God, founding this serious accusation upon what is merely their own hasty interpretation of a brief sentence selected from the speaker's somewhat lengthy expository remarks upon the Philippian passage (2: 5-8).

Indeed, the falsity of this implication is evident even from the speaker's remarks which precede the words quoted. Before using them, W.K. had made clear to his audience what he himself considered was conveyed by the passage he was expounding (2: 5-8), and especially the sense of the phrase, "emptied Himself." He taught his hearers that "emptied Himself" meant not that Christ Jesus in taking the form of a bond-servant thereby dispossessed Himself of His absolute deity, but of its prerogatives by abstaining from using these on His own initiative.

But on this point, we may let W.K. speak for himself. From the long passage (some five pages of print) dealing with chap. 2: 5-8 we have selected from the Notes the following extracts, dealing with the deity of Christ Jesus.

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal (on equality) with God, but made Himself of no reputation (emptied Himself), taking a bondman's form, being come in men's likeness" (Phil. 2: 5-7). What an illustrious testimony to the true, proper, intrinsic deity of Christ! It is all the stronger because, like many more, it is indirect (p. 46). . . . Nothing can be conceived more conclusively to prove is own supremely divine glory than the simple statement of the text, . . . Of Christ alone it was true that He took a bond-servant's form; and of Him alone could it be true, because He was in the form of God. In this nature He subsisted originally, as truly as He received a bondman's; both were real, equally real: the one intrinsic, the other that which He condescended to assume in infinite grace (p. 47). . . .

"Yet must we carefully bear in mind that it would be as impossible for a divine person to cease to be God as for a man to become a divine person. But it was the joy and triumph of divine grace that He Who was God equally with the Father, when about to become a man, did not carry down the glory and power of the Godhead to confound man before Him, but rather emptied Himself. . . He was God: yet in the place of man which He truly entered He had, as was meet, the willingness to be nothing. He made Himself of no reputation (emptied Himself). How admirable! How magnifying to God! He put in abeyance all His glory (pp. 47-8). . . .

"There are two great stages in the advent and humiliation of the Son of God. The first is in respect of His divine nature or proper deity He emptied Himself. He would not act on a ground which exempted Him from human obedience when He takes the place of servant here below (p. 49). . . . But we find another thing; if He emptied Himself of His deity when He took the form of a servant, when He does become a man He humbles Himself and becomes obedient as far as death" (p. 50).

From these extracts it will be seen that W.K. maintained the full deity of Christ Jesus and also that His deity was unimpaired when He took manhood. Being in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondman. Of His own will, He divested Himself of His prerogatives as God, choosing not to command as God but to obey as a servant. All the inherent rights of deity are His inalienably; obedience, however, is a function not of deity, but of one who takes the place of submission to the will of another. Being God, and being come in man's likeness, Christ Jesus undertook the place of servitude. "Though He were Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered" (Heb. 5: 8). Yet He, "according to flesh, is the Christ, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom. 9: 5).

Such is the doctrine of scripture concerning Christ Jesus, and from this doctrine W.K. does not appear to depart even in the sentence over which some seem to have stumbled through lack of attention to its context. In his address, W.K. was at this point passing from the consideration of vv. 5-7 to ver. 8. In the former the subject is Christ's humiliation; as One in "the form of God," He takes "the form of a servant." In the latter, Christ further humbles Himself and is obedient as man even to crucifixion. Referring to this transition of subject, the lecturer said, "But we find another thing: if He emptied Himself of His deity when He took the form of a servant (vv. 5-7), when He does become a man He humbles Himself and becomes obedient as far as death" (ver. 8). "Deity" and "man" are the two key-words in the two sections of this sentence, and the word "if" should be noted especially.

Obviously, W.K.'s teaching is not fairly represented by quoting only six words from this sentence, and also by omitting the little word "if." Thus, "He emptied Himself of His deity" is made to appear as an independent and absolute sentence, which it was not intended to be. The author did not say Christ did so, but "if" He did so. The speaker's object at this stage was to point out that in verse 7 Christ's humiliation is related to His deity, and in verse 8 to His humanity.

W.K. is not alone in this interpretation. The same distinction is pointed out by J.N.D. in his "Synopsis" of the passage. In similar language he states that as God Christ emptied Himself and as man He humbled Himself. He writes, "Christ . . . when He was in the form of God, emptied Himself, through love, of all His outward glory, of the form of God. and took the form of a man; and even when He was in the form of man, still humbled Himself. It was a second thing which He did in humbling Himself. As God, He emptied Himself; as man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient even unto death. His humiliation itself is a proof that He is God. God only could leave His first estate in the sovereign rights of His love. It is sin for any creature so to do" (pp. 468-9).

Deity is manifested by the exercise of its attributes and prerogatives. In His incarnation, these were suppressed by Christ, but were not abandoned, which could not be. Hence Christ appeared among men as One Who had (to use W.K.'s phrase) "emptied Himself of His deity." As it were, He had laid aside His garments (His seamless robe) and girded Himself with a towel for menial service at the disciples' feet. His dis-robing did not affect His personal relationship to them as the Lord and the Teacher (John 13: 14). When Christ Jesus emptied Himself for obedience, He was still God, for it could not be otherwise. But, if we may so speak, He was pleased that in His incarnation His deity should remain quiescent, and His bond-service appear.

In the wilderness after His baptism Christ Jesus was twice tempted by Satan to exercise His own deity and do what is impossible to man, though possible to God. But having emptied Himself for service and being there as bond-servant, He remained steadfast in His obedience to and compliance with His Father's will. Hence He neither made stones bread, nor cast Himself down from the temple to prove Himself to be the Son of God, which nevertheless He was, and is.

In the garden of Gethsemane Christ is seen to he the self-emptied One, choosing the Father's will, and not His own. There in agonized anticipation of the cup before Him, He cried, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I (emphatic) will, but as Thou wilt" (Matt. 26: 39). Along with omniscient knowledge of what was before Him on the morrow, there was the display of the spirit, not of self-assertion and of escape, but of self-surrender and submission. He laid aside His own will, accepting His Father's, and on the cross doing that will, offering Himself to God in the sweet savour of His perfect obedience as Jehovah's Servant.

We conclude with three other quotations from J.N.D.'s ministry, all referring to Christ's emptying Himself in His incarnation: (1) "There are two degrees in Christ's humiliation. He first strips Himself of His own glory, and becomes man; then, being man, He goes down even unto the death of the cross;" (2) "He laid aside the form of Godhead, and was found as a man; and, being a man, He took upon Him the form of a servant;" (3) "Leaving God in the glory, leaving the form of God, in abeyance, He became a servant for the blessing of others." All three extracts are taken from his Collected Writings (Vol. 27 pp. 255, 274, 323). They all treat of the stoop of grace taken by Christ Jesus when He was found in fashion as a man, and all note the two stages in His humiliation as W.K. also indicates.

NOTE.-The following is a brief history of the phrase under consideration. It first appeared nearly a century ago in W. Kelly's "Notes on the Epistle to the Philippians" (The Bible Treasury. Vol. 5). The words in question occur in the article on pp. 283-4 (June, 1865). These notes being compiled from shorthand reports of W.K.'s oral ministry were issued in book form in 1867, and entitled "Lectures on the Epistle to the Philippians." Since that date, fresh impressions from the original have been published, without revision, as required.

In connection with W.K.'s phrase, "emptied Himself of His deity," it is interesting to record a remark of his on the same subject made some ten years previously and occurring in The Christian Annotator for the year 1855. in that journal (vol. ii. p. 91), a contributor, writing on the parables of the treasure and the pearl (Matt. 13: 44-46) stated, "The man is He Who parted with all He had, even His Godhead, which He laid aside, and . . bought . ." On p. 119 of the same volume, in criticizing this remark on our Lord's renunciation. W.K. wrote, "Our Lord does not, and cannot, cease to be 'over all, God blessed for ever.'" As a result, on p. 158 the author of the remark "heartily" withdrew his original expression, substituting for "Godhead" the "glory of the Godhead." He had spoken without due deliberation.

It will be observed that W.K., before using the phrase. "emptied Himself of His deity" had fully explained what it could not mean, viz., that Christ Jesus yielded up the possession of His deity or His Godhead, or His Essential Being, which is an impossibility. In His flesh He was still God, blessed for ever. Taking the form of a bond-slave, He thus emptied Himself, subjecting Himself absolutely to, the will of Another. For our sakes, "He being rich became poor": an unsolved mystery to the understanding, but an amazing comfort and unending joy to the heart of faith.}

This is important because it shows, among others things, this also, that death was not the natural portion of our Lord as man, but that to which, when found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient. There was no death for Him merely as man, for death was the wages of sin, not of man as such without sin, still less of the Holy One of God. How could He come under death? In this was the contrast between Him and the first Adam. The first Adam became disobedient unto death; Christ, on the contrary, obeyed unto death. No other was competent so to lay down His life. Sinners had none to give; life was due to God, and they had no title to offer it. It would have been sin to have pretended to it. But in Christ all is reversed. His death in a world of sin is His glory — not only perfect grace, but the vindication of God in all His character. "I have power," He says, "to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." In the laying down of His life, He was accomplishing the glory of God. "Now is the Son of man glorified and God is glorified in him.'' So while God was pleased with and exalted in every step of the Lord Jesus Christ's life, yet the deepest moral glory of God shines out in His death. Never was nor could be such obedience before or in any other. He "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

In this chapter it is not a question of putting away sin. It is ignorance of the mind of God to confine the death of Christ, even to that astonishing part of it, while fully admitting that there is not, nor ever will be, anything to compare with it. But the death of Christ, for instance, takes in the reconciliation of all things, as well as the bringing us who believe unto God; for now that the world is fallen under vanity, without that death there could not be the righteous gathering up again out of the ruin that which is manifestly marred and spoiled by the power of Satan. Again, where without it was the perfect display of what God is? Where else the utmost extent of Christ's suffering and humiliation, and obedience in them? The truth, love, holiness, wisdom, and majesty of God were all to the fullest degree vindicated in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a single feature of God but what, though it expresses itself elsewhere in Christ, finds its richest and most complete answer in His death. Here it is the perfect servant, who would not stop short at any one thing, and this not merely in the truest love to us, but absolutely for the glory of God. It is in this point of view that His death is referred to here; and the Spirit of God adds (vv. 9, 10), "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, that at [in virtue of] the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly, and earthly, and infernal [ones]."

It is not merely a question of saints or of Israel, but "every knee shall bow," etc. This takes in angels and saints, and even those who are forever under the judgment of God, for to "under the earth" attaches the worst possible sense. Thus the infernal beings, the lost, come in here; the verse includes those that have rejected salvation, no less than those who confess the Saviour. It is the universal subjection of all to Christ. Jesus has won the title even as man. If unbelievers despised Him as man, as Son of man He will judge them. As man they must bow to Him. The lowly name that was His as Nazarene on the earth must be honoured everywhere; God's glory is concerned in it. In the name of Jesus or in virtue of His name, "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." v. 11.

It is not, again, a question of His being Son (which of course He was from all eternity), but Lord also. We know that the spirit of this is true for the believer now. Every soul that is now born of God bows his knee in virtue of the name of Jesus, and to Jesus. The Christian now confesses by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is Lord; but this homage will be made good to an incomparably larger extent by and by. But then it will be too late for salvation. It is now received by faith which finds blessedness and eternal life in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ whom He has sent. Neither is there any man that confesses Him to be the Lord by the Holy Ghost but a saved person. But there will be more than this by and by. When the day of grace is past and God is not merely gathering out an elect body, the Church, but putting down all opposing authority, then the name of Jesus will be throughout the universe owned even by those who do it by compulsion, and who by that very acknowledgment confess their own eternal misery.

In Ephesians 1: 10 we are told of God's purpose for the dispensation of the fullness of times to "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth." There is not a word, it has often been remarked, about things under the earth, because there it is not a question of universal compulsory acknowledgment of Christ even by the devils and the lost, but very simply of all things being put under the headship of Christ. Neither lost men nor devils will ever stand in any such relation to Christ. He will surely judge them both. In Ephesians it is Christ viewed as the head of the whole creation of God, all things heavenly and earthly being summed up under His administration. Besides that, He is the head of the Church, which consequently shares His place of exaltation over all things heavenly and earthly, as being the bride of the true and last Adam. "He has made Him to be Head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all." Christ fills all in all; but the Church is that which fills up the mystic, glorified man, just as Eve was necessary to the completeness of God's thoughts as to the first Adam.

The Church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. This mystery is great and largely treated in Ephesians; but it is not the subject of our epistle, where the aim is practical, enforced from One who came down from infinite glory and made Himself nothing, and who now is exalted and made Lord of all, so that every creature must bow. This is put before the Philippians as the most powerful of motives and weightiest of examples for self-abnegation, in love, to God's glory.

As a whole, we have seen that the state of the Philippian saints was good and healthy. It was not with them as with the Galatians, over whose speedy lapse into error — and what error it was! — the Apostle had to marvel and mourn. And as in doctrine, so in practice, what a change for the worse! Their love, once excessive one might say, was turned into bitterness and contempt, as the sweetest thing in nature, if soured, becomes the sourest of all. "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you that ye might affect them." Gal. 4: 13-17. "But," adds the Apostle, with cutting severity, "it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you."

What a refreshing contrast was the condition of the Philippians! It was not only that their love was true and fervent, proving their fellowship with the gospel and their hearty sympathy with those engaged in its labours and sufferings; but their faithfulness shone out yet more when the Apostle was not in their midst. "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence. . . ." What reserve in his tone to the one, and what opening of affections, heartily expressed, to the other! And no wonder. In Galatia, Christ was shaded under nature; religion it might be, but unsubject to God, aye, and unloving too, in spite of vain talk about love. In Philippi, Christ was increasingly the object; love was in true and wholesome exercise; and obedience grew firmly, because liberty and responsibility were happily realized, even the more in the absence of the Apostle and without his immediate help.

Accordingly he exhorts them thus: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in you both the willing and the working of [according to] his good pleasure." In Ephesians 2, the saints are viewed as seated together in heavenly places in Christ; they are regarded here as working out their own salvation with fear and trembling. How can we put these two things together? With perfect ease, if we are simply subject to the Word of God.

If you try to make out that there is only one meaning of salvation in the New Testament, you are in a difficulty indeed; and you will find that there is no possibility of making the passages square. In fact, nothing is more certain and easy to ascertain, than that salvation in the New Testament is more frequently spoken of as a process incomplete as yet, a thing not finished, than as a completed end. It is not then a question of taking away something, but of getting a further idea. Take Romans 13: 11, 12, for instance. There we find salvation spoken of as not yet arrived. "Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." From the context we find that it is connected with "tint day" being at hand; so the salvation spoken of there is evidently a thing that we have not actually got, no doubt, coming nearer and nearer every day, but only ours in fact when the day is come. "The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." Salvation here, therefore, is manifestly future.

In the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1, 5, 9, 10), the same thing appears, though it be not so marked in expression. Take Hebrews again as a very plain instance. It is said there (Heb. 7: 25) that Jesus is "able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him." The passage plainly is limited to believers. It is a saving of those that are in living relationship to God. Christ is looked at as a priest, and He is a priest only for God's people — believers. It would, therefore, be an illegitimate use of the verse to apply it to the salvation of sinners as such. Again, in chapter 9, "As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." There cannot be the shadow of a doubt that there the Spirit speaks of salvation (salvation of bodies, and not merely of souls) as a thing only effectuated when Christ in person appears to us, when He receives us to Himself in and to His own glory.

But without going through all similar statements in other epistles, let me refer to the first epistle of Peter. It appears to me that, with the exception of a single phrase in 1 Peter 1: 9, salvation is always regarded as a thing not yet accomplished, and only indeed accomplished in the redemption of the body. That one phrase is: "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of [your] souls." Now soul salvation will not be more complete for believers after Christ comes than now when they believe and are being carried through the wilderness; it is an already enjoyed blessing as regards the resting place of faith. But, with that exception, salvation in Peter applies to the deliverance that crowns the close of all the difficulties we may encounter in the passage through the desert-world, as well as to the present guardian care of our God who brings us safely through. It is a salvation only completed at the appearing of Jesus. (See 1 Peter 1: 5; 1 Peter 2: 2, "grow unto salvation" in the critical text; and 1 Peter 4: 18.)

This too I believe to be the meaning of "salvation" in the epistle to the Philippians; and that it is so will appear still more clearly when we come to Philippians 3, where our Lord is spoken of as a "Saviour," even when He comes to transform the body. "Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change," etc. The real meaning is, We look for the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, who will change our body of humiliation, that it should be conformed to His body of glory. There is the character of the salvation; it is a question not of the soul merely, but of our bodies. If we accept this thought as a true one and as the real scope of salvation throughout the context, interpreting the language here by the general object that the Holy Ghost has in view, the meaning of our verse 12 becomes plain: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." It is as if the Apostle said, I am no longer with you to warn, exhort, and stir you up when your courage is flagging — you are now thrown entirely upon God You have got the ordinary helps of bishops and deacons, but there is no present apostolic care to look to.

No doubt the Apostle's absence was an immense loss. But God is able to turn any loss into gain, and this was the gain for them, that they were more consciously in dependence on the resources of God Himself. When the Apostle was there, they could go to him with whatever question arose; they might seek counsel direct from him. Now his departure leads them to wait upon God Himself for guidance. The effect on the spiritual would be to make them feel the need of being more prayerful and more circumspect than ever. "As ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. I am not there to watch over you and to give you my counsel and help in difficulties, and emergencies, and dangers. You have to do with a mighty, subtle, active foe. Hence you have not to look to the hills, but to God, and to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

If the Apostle was not there, but in prison far away, God, he says, is there. It is God who worketh in you. That would give solemnity of feeling, but it would also infuse confidence. There would be fear and trembling in their hearts, feeling that it is a bitter, painful thing to compromise God in any way by want of jealous self-judgment in their walk — fear and trembling because of the seriousness of the conflict. They had to do with Satan in his efforts against them. But on the other hand, God was with them, working in them. It was not the idea of anxiety and dread lest they should break down and be lost, but because of the struggle in which they were engaged with the enemy, without the presence of an apostle to render them his invaluable succour.

But now he turns to those things in which they might be to blame and certainly about which they had to be on their guard. "Do all things without murmurings and disputings [or reasonings]: that ye may be blameless and harmless [simple, or sincere], irreproachable children of God, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world." He calls them to that which would be manifestly a blameless walk and spirit in the eyes of the crooked and perverse round about them. But beside this, he looks for that which would direct in them, and show men clearly the way to be delivered from their wretchedness and sin; lights in the world, "holding forth the word of life"; and this with the motive to their affections, "that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain, nor laboured in vain."

But now he puts another consideration before them. What if he, Paul, should be called to die in the career of the gospel? Up to this point he had been communicating his mind and feelings to them with the thought that he was going to live; he had stated his own conviction that God meant him to continue a little longer here below for the good of the Church. But he suggests the supposition of his death. Granting that he might suffer unto death, what then? "But if also I be poured out upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all." To him it was the very reverse of a pain or trouble, the thought of being thus a libation upon what he sweetly calls the sacrifice and service of their faith. Nay, more, he calls on them to share his feelings. "For the same cause also do ye joy and rejoice with me." Thus the Apostle triumphs, turning not only his imprisonment into a question of joy, but also the anticipation, were it God's will, of his laying down his life in the work. He is even congratulating them upon the joyful news. How mighty and unselfish is the power of faith! He calls upon them that there should be this perfect reciprocity of joy through faith, that they might take it as a personal honour, and feel a common interest in his joy, as much as if it were for themselves. This is just what love does produce. As the Apostle identified himself with them, so they, in their measure, would identify themselves with him. May the Lord grant us to know it better through His grace.

"But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state." What a beautiful sample of the same self-denying love which the Apostle had pointed out in Christ and was seeking to form in the hearts of the Philippians! We know what Timothy was to the Apostle, but though to lose him, especially then, might be the greatest privation to himself, still he says, "I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you."

Divine love thinks of the good of others, and grace had wrought this in the Apostle. It was to furnish nothing of its own. He desired to know their state that his own heart might be comforted. Is not this the mind which was also in Christ Jesus? The imprisoned Apostle sent Timotheus from himself to them in the hope of getting good tidings of these saints that were so dear to his heart. "For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state" — no one with such genuine affection and care, not merely for me, but for you. "For all seek their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son the father, he hath served with me in the gospel." There was at once what was the common bond. The love of Christ filled both and made them both serve. They were doing the same thing. There was mutual confidence for the same reason; for Christ and stumbling-blocks are incompatible. "Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly."

What then does he add? He could not come as yet himself; he was delaying Timothy till the result of his trial should be known, that the Philippians might have the latest intelligence about that which he was sure would be near to their hearts. But would he leave them without a word meanwhile? Far from it. He says, "Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour." We see how love delights to share all things with others. He chooses terms which would link Epaphroditus with himself — "my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier." There was everything that could clothe him with honour and endear him to the saints, "but your messenger and he that ministered to my wants." He had all these insignia of honour in the cause of Christ. Nothing can be sweeter than this unfolding of affection; but it could only be, because the state of the Philippians had been thoroughly sound with God. We see nothing of this when he writes to the Galatians or Corinthians. So far from being sound in state, they were not even sound in the faith. The Galatians, we know, were letting slip justification; the consequence is, there is not an epistle so reserved and distant, as we may see in the marked absence of personal salutation. He wrote to them as a duty, as an urgent service springing from his love that desired their deliverance; but he had no kind of liberty in letting out his affections in the way we find here. God Himself led him to act thus differently.

"For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. For indeed he was sick, nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow." I cannot conceive a more admirable picture of divine affections flowing out without hindrance to these saints. He descants upon what Timothy was to him, whom he hoped to send to them, and now upon Epaphroditus who had come from them as their messenger. His heart glows, and he opened out all his feelings about this link between himself and them. "He longed after you all and was full of heaviness," not because he was sick himself or was nigh unto death, but "because that ye had heard that he had been sick."

Such was the heart of Epaphroditus; such was Paul's to see and record it. Both were desirous that they should be relieved, by knowing how the Lord had shown Himself on their behalf. "But God had mercy on him, and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. See how the Apostle loves to trace the goodness of God, not merely toward the person who was the immediate object of God's dealings, but toward himself also. Scripture nowhere intimates such a thing in the mind of God as looking coldly upon the sickness or death of His children. Too often this is the case with us, as if it did not much matter, or it were a point of spirituality to be like a stone.

There is such a thing as the Spirit of God identifying Himself with human affections, as well as with divine ones. We find divine affections in Philippians 1, and human affections here in Philippians 2. The Holy Spirit has been pleased not only to bring down divine affections, so to speak, and put them into us, but also to animate the human affections of the saints. Christ Himself had them in His heart, for He was truly man. And now the Spirit of God gives another and higher value to these affections in the saints of God. This is as plain as it is important. The Holy Ghost mingles Himself, so to speak, with all. "I sent him therefore the more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful." The Apostle does not say, And that I may rejoice too. There is no unreality, nothing but transparent truthfulness here, as well as the most blessed love. It is "that ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful." He did feel the pang of parting with Epaphroditus, but he could rejoice that such a help went to them, because they would rejoice; and he himself would be the less sorrowful. It was his loss, but assuredly it would be their gain.

"Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness, and hold such in reputation." Remark how careful he is to commend his fellow labourer to the esteem of the saints. Epaphroditus does not seem to have been a man of much outward mark. But men highly gifted ought to be tenacious on behalf of those of lesser gift. Certainly in the case of the Apostle, instead of being jealous as to others, there is the greatest desire to keep up their value in the eyes of the saints. "Hold such in reputation." Others might have feared for Epaphroditus or others like him, lest they might be puffed up. "Receive him," he says, "with all gladness, and hold such in reputation; because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me." We do not find any great account of what he had done in preaching or teaching; but there was the earnest, unselfish service of love in this blessed man of God, and that was enough for the Apostle Paul and ought to be also for God's children.

The Lord grant that we may be thus quick to discern and thus hearty in our appreciation of what is of Christ in others, whoever they may be, cultivating not so much keenness of eye for that which is painful and inconsistent in the saints, as steady desire for whatever brings Christ before the soul, whatever gives the ring of true metal, whatever bears the stamp of the Spirit of God.

Philippians 3

The Apostle had touched on various sources of joy to himself and the saints he was addressing. It was with joy he made supplication for them all (Phil. 1: 4). It was with joy, and ever new joy, that he beheld his very bonds giving a fresh impulse to the preaching of Christ (Phil. 1: 18). So too he is assured of his continuance with them all for their progress and joy of faith, that their boasting might abound in Christ through him (Phil. 1: 25). Next, he called on them to fulfil his joy (Phil. 2: 2), not merely by the proof of their love to him, but by cultivating unity of mind and mutual love according to Christ, who, though the highest, made Himself the lowest in grace, and is now exalted to the pinnacle of glory. "Yea, and if I be offered (or, poured forth) on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy and rejoice with you all. For the same cause also do ye joy and rejoice with me." Phil. 2: 17, 18. So, again, the Apostle sends away his companion and solace, Epaphroditus, when recovered, to the Philippians, who were uneasy at the tidings of his dangerous sickness, "that when ye see him again, ye may rejoice, and that I may be less sorrowful." Phil. 2: 28.

But there is a joy independent of all passing circumstances, and deeper than all others, because it is nearer to, yea, it is the one spring of all joy, it is to this the Apostle now calls them. "Finally [or, for the rest], my brethren, rejoice in the Lord." It is of the deepest moment that we, that all saints, should heed the call. It is due to Him, in whom we are exhorted to rejoice, that we should bear a true testimony in this respect. I say not a testimony worthy of Him, for none is, save that which God the Father has borne and bears, and that which the Holy Ghost renders in word and deed. Still, great as our shortcoming is, the Holy Ghost is in us to give a divine appreciation of the Lord. May we not then dishonour Him by gloomy thoughts, by unbelieving feelings, by ways that betoken fear, doubt, dissatisfaction, yearning after creature pleasure in one form or another; but may we be enabled by faith, heartily, simply, alone or with others, in public and in private, to "rejoice in the Lord."

It was thus with Paul and Silas when the foundation of the assembly at Philippi was laid at midnight in the prison, and the jailer and his house were gathered among the first fruits (Acts 16: 25-34). Long labours had intervened, many years of reproach and suffering. The heart of the Apostle fresh as ever, though a prisoner at Rome, calls on the saints to "rejoice in the Lord." So he had taught when with them; so he had already urged in this letter, though now he presses it with greater distinctness as to its ground and spring. "To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe." It was no trouble to him, for he loved them too well to mind it. It was safe for them, for Satan threatened otherwise. Joy in the Lord is the truest safeguard against the religious snares of the enemy. Where the truth is known, the grand thing is to have the affections kept on the right object, and withal in happy liberty. This is secured by rejoicing in the Lord, which supposes the heart at rest in His grace, and Himself known and beloved, the most attractive and precious object before us. Put Him at a distance, wrap Him in clouds and darkness, think of Him mainly as the inflexible Judge about to be revealed in flaming fire taking vengeance, mix all this up with your own associations and relationships to Him, and with your experience; and is it any wonder that, under such conditions, peace is unknown, and eternal life a question unsolved and insoluble till the day of death or judgment? In such a state "rejoice in the Lord" has no tangible place, no practical application, not even a distinct meaning; and the soul is exposed, but for divine mercy which by other means may hinder all, to sink lower and lower into the dregs and deceits of Judaizers.

Hence, says the Apostle, "beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." v. 2. There is not only a warning to take heed, but accumulated and bitter scorn of these high-minded men. For, rejecting grace and not submitting to the righteousness of God, they were restlessly prowling about, themselves unclean, whatever their pretensions; their work mischievous, their boasted privileges not only null but despicable in the extreme. There were "the dogs" now, not Gentiles even, still less Christians, as such, but the Judaizers. Evil workmen were they, and not the circumcision, which they affected literally or in principle — they were but "the concision." "For we," the Apostle says with emphasis, "are the circumcision (whatever we might have been in the flesh, Jews or Gentiles — it mattered not), who worship God in the Spirit, [or, according to the best MSS, 'who worship by God's Spirit'], and boast in Christ Jesus, and trust not in flesh" v. 3.

It is a mistake to imagine that these adversaries of God's work advocated a return to mere Judaism. Such there were elsewhere, as in Hebrews, but they are treated as apostates. The class here in view consists rather of persons who professed Christianity, but sought to blend the law along with it, a system of evil which, far from being rare, is the commonest thing nowadays. Do you not hear of a fresh recourse to the cross, and fresh sprinkling of the blood to restore the soul? Are there not souls who take the place of God's children and Church, and yet confess themselves miserable sinners, crying for mercy — sheep of His pasture, yet tied and bound with the chain of their sins? Does not this return to Jewish experience, under tutors and governors, ignore Christianity and annul redemption and the Spirit of adoption? Are there not notions still of holy places and holy castes, holy feast days and fast days, and administration of sacraments among those baptized into Christ's death? The Word of God is read, Christ is more or less preached, but these unquestionable Jewish elements are mingled with what is Christian. Hence human forms of prayer, ordinances, etc., take the place of God's Spirit as the power of worship; law-fulfilling (though by Christ) is openly boasted as the door into heaven, and our only title of righteousness; and thus to be risen with Christ, to be not in flesh but in Spirit, is supposed to be a fanatical dream, instead of the only condition which the Holy Ghost now recognizes as properly Christian.

Next, in verses 4-6, the Apostle briefly exposes the entire baselessness of their claims in comparison of his own, if flesh availed in divine things. "Though I [again speaking emphatically] have trust in flesh also; if another think to trust in flesh, I more: in circumcision of eight days, of the race of Israel, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, persecuting the Church; as to righteousness that is in the law, blameless." Thus, on grounds of the best earthly stock, due honour to ancient and divine ordinances, a high rank acquired in the school of tradition, an utter repudiation and hatred of new light in religion, and a life blameless according to the law, who could stand as firmly as Paul? "But," adds he, "what things were gain to me, these I counted loss on account of Christ. But so then I also count all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord, on account of whom I suffered the loss of all, and count them to be dung [refuse], that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my righteousness, which [is] of law, but that which is by faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God on my faith; to know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if by any means I may arrive at the resurrection which is from out of the dead." vv. 7-11.

What was it, then, which had wrought so deep, so permanent, and, as we know from Acts 9, so sudden a change? What poured contempt on every natural, on every religious advantage from his birth up to the day when, with credentials from the high priest, he neared Damascus? It was the heavenly vision which arrested him on the way; it was Christ seen in glory, yet one with those whom his infatuated zeal was persecuting to prison and death. "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest." Sure that He whose light shone on him brighter than the noonday sun was no other than the Lord God of Israel, the astonished Saul of Tarsus learns from His own mouth that He was the Crucified, whose disciples he would have up to this conscientiously exterminated. No wonder, then, that the converted, delivered Israelite, obedient to the heavenly vision, judges all things by this new and divine light. A new creature in Christ, for him old things had passed away, all things were become new; all things were of that God who reconciled to Himself by Jesus Christ. Hence the things that were to him gains, he counted loss on account of Christ; yea, all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge, as he says with such affection, "of Christ Jesus my Lord," on whose account he not only suffered the loss of all at first, but now to the last continued to count them refuse that he might gain Christ (or, have Him for gain). What was his boasted righteousness now? His one thought was to be found in Christ, not having any such righteousness of his own, which must be legal, but that which is by faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God grounded on faith; to know Christ and the power of His resurrection (not even Christ on this side the grave), and the fellowship of His sufferings. His eye was on Christ above, and if he added aught of Christ here, it was not in His deeds of power, nor His recognition of the ancient sheepfold, but in the moral glory of His sufferings. It was in that which proved the total alienation of man from God in his good things, not in his bad alone; in his religion, and not merely in his lusts and passions. His own experience was the witness of it His confidence in the tradition of the elders, in Israel, in the law even, was ruin and rebellion to God as He now reveals Himself in Him who died and rose and ascended. Nothing, consequently, has the trust of his soul or value in his eyes, but Christ; and even if he could have anything else that looked good, he would know none but Christ, and have nothing but Christ the sufferer, risen and in heaven, as his portion. Hence conformity to His death was now a jewel to be won, rather than an evil to be shunned. Let the path be ever so dangerous, come what might, all would be welcome, "if by any means I may arrive at the resurrection from out of the dead." v. 11. This last is not an expression of fear or failure, but of a heart which so prized the blessing of being thus with Christ as to mind no suffering that might intervene.

Whatever the pathway might be, the Apostle intimated, as we have seen, that he must be there. Such was the value of the resurrection of the just in his eyes. Like the Israelite in Psalm 84 on his way to Jerusalem, the ways were in his heart. He loved the way of Jesus, of His sufferings, of the cross, and not merely the glory at the end. "Not as though I had already attained [literally, received, i.e., the prize], or am already perfected." It was not a question merely of the soul's happiness. "I would to God," he had said to king Agrippa, "that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." Who of all men was so happy as the Apostle Paul? Yet he warns us against supposing that he had yet obtained what he desired. There is no such thing as getting the prize till we are in the resurrection from among the dead. But he adds, "I follow after [or pursue], if also I may lay hold, for that also I am laid hold on by Christ." v. 12. He keeps his eye fixed upon Christ all the way through as well as at last. This was the strength of his triumphing over all the difficulties that lay between. No present experience, no actual joy detains his heart from God's end. The Apostle wanted to gain possession of Christ by and by; but also Christ had possession of himself already.

"Brethren, I count not myself to have laid hold [whatever others might dream]; but one thing, forgetting the things behind, and stretching out to the things before, I pursue . . . ." v. 13. The Apostle does not mean that one ought to overlook, or that he did overlook his past sins and failures. On the contrary, it is most evil to forget what Christ has suffered for our sakes, and also the manifold ways wherein we have dishonoured God. This will not at all interfere with settled peace — rather the reverse. A man can rejoice so much the more in the Lord if he fully judge his failure. It is the tendency of a conscience not thoroughly happy to desire to escape from thinking of anything in which we have consciously turned aside to the grief of the Holy Ghost. It is a right thing to search ourselves through and through; it is right to ask God to search and try us, and to lead us in the way everlasting. Confidence in grace, so far from weakening the sense of our own shortcomings or covering over our failure, is the very spring that enables us to see and deal with the reality of things in the presence of God. Thus the Apostle speaks of "forgetting the things behind," not with reference to his failure, but rather to his points of progress, the steps or stages in which he had made advance in the knowledge of Christ. Instead of dwelling upon any attainment, as if it were something to be thought of (like the Pharisee comparing himself with his neighbour), here we have this blessed man forgetting all that might have fed self-complacency or been creditable to himself. His back was on the ground traversed. "Stretching out to the things before, I pursue toward the goal for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." v. 14. This can only be in the resurrection state. Till then he was content to run. This was his one business. It was to live Christ, because Christ was his object.

But now follows another thing which we need to bear in mind. We find different conditions and not at all the same degree of progress made by the children of God. What then is the grand principle to guide us? Let us suppose a company of believers gathered together, all of the same mind, every one of them brought up to think exactly alike, from baptism with water to the coming and kingdom of Christ, their minds made up and consenting even about points of detail. Would this satisfy the heart? Would it give a just witness to the ways of God toward His children? I dare not think so. It is sweet where God brings souls by exercise of spiritual judgment under the guidance of the Holy Ghost to feel alike. But where sameness is the result of dinning one doctrine into people's heads, and by rules and regulations which squeeze minds into monotony, can anything be more miserable? The Apostle lays down the only divine rule for dealing with these cases. We have to do with a state of things where there exist all varieties of attainments. In heaven we shall know as we are known; but the question is how to bear ourselves about these things here. It is a natural desire that all should grow and rise to a certain height of the stature of Christ. But are we not apt to confound the point desired with our own idea of it? to desire that people should have our mind. This we have to guard against, and the true corrective is given here.

"As many, therefore, as be perfect, let us be thus minded." v. 15. He speaks of himself and others also, as being "perfect"; but there is no contradiction of what went before. When he had, in verse 12, disclaimed as yet the reception of the prize and being perfected, he meant that he was not yet out of the conflict in a resurrection condition. But when he here exhorts "as many as be perfect," he means those who are of full age in the faith, thoroughly grounded in the Christian position, entering into it by faith and spiritual intelligence. It means a Christian who is not a babe, but full grown; not, of course, a Christian who has thoroughly finished his course, for this is in resurrection, but one who has become a man in Christ. He shall not have grown up into the full likeness of Christ till He comes and transforms us like to His glory. But there is such a thing even here as growing into the full knowledge of the mind of God, and it is through having got Christ in glory before us now the personal object of our souls. But suppose there are others among the children of God still in difficulty and doubt, what then? Are we to make them adopt our feelings and judgment about things? Certainly not. It would be a positive loss, unless it were by the power of the Holy Ghost leading the saints into a fuller apprehension of Christ.

The reference here is not to such matters of faith or practice as preclude difference. We ought not to have a hesitation where the glory of the Lord is concerned. There can be no question about sin. It is taken for granted in the Bible that no difference of mind could be tolerated where Christ is at stake. All saints instinctively see the enormity of bringing in moral evil to the table of the Lord. The Holy Ghost counts upon our resenting affronts to God. Allegiance to Him commands the conscience and rouses the heart of every saint of God if properly stated. These things God reckons upon. Nor is it only the wise and intelligent who are able to judge things of the sort, but the babes also. The only cases that ought to be brought before the Church as such are those which every believer is able to judge. It is quite a mistake to drag habitually everything before the assembly; but where things come out of an evidently immoral or of a heretical character, there any saint rejects the poison, one as much as another. It is not the babes who have difficulties or who give trouble, as a general rule. How often clever, intelligent people do the mischief, while the simple-minded would feel the evil of such things at once! Here, on the contrary, the matters spoken of are such as some saints might feel, and not others. There might be practical or doctrinal questions, as the particular manner in which children ought to be brought up, or the style of living, furniture or house. There one must be content to point out the holy principles of God, not to assume hastily that our own measure is such that we ought to attempt to make every other adjust his children or house by it. God is jealous that He should have the forming of His saints. A good example is precious, and we cannot be too careful as to the ways we allow. But having said this, it is for the children of God to examine themselves conscientiously by His Word. In such things we must be patient and look for the action of God by His own truth on the souls of His saints.

We may suggest what we can of the truth of God to influence the heart; but there is no absolute rule to be laid down by any on points like these. One has often known persons who began strongly with a certain idea which governed them, and with which they zealously sought to govern others. How long does it stand? In the very thing on which they have prided themselves, they are apt to break down. It is Christ whom God makes the standard of everything. All else fails. Why push so strongly and in haste? "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." There is no need then to be anxious. "Nevertheless whereto we have attained, walk by the same." v. 16. So far as we are occupied with Christ together and see His mind or will, it is of great importance that we should walk together.

But the Apostle goes farther; he refers to his own example and points out as a beacon the walk of some, once owned as brethren. Need I say that it was no fleshly thing in the Apostle thus to speak of himself? As a mere man, a person would be ashamed to talk about himself; it would be but a piece of vanity. The Apostle was so completely raised above the thoughts of men, he so thoroughly realized the power of God in Christ, that it just illustrated the energy of the Spirit in him. He was led of the Holy Ghost to speak thus. He calls upon them therefore to be imitators together of him, and to mark those that walk so as ye have us for an example (v. 17). "For many walk of whom I have told you often and now tell you even weeping that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose god is the belly and glory in their shame, who mind earthly things." v. 18, 19. We are not even told whether these men had been put away from the Church of God. They are characterized as enemies of the cross of Christ, and yet they may not have been formally without. If so, what a deplorable state of things before the eyes of the Apostle! persons probably not guilty of such flagrant wickedness as to require excision, and yet the source of the deepest sorrow to the Apostle. They were going on carelessly, indifferently. How awful to view some within perhaps with less hope than others put away for flagrant sin! We all know how truly this is verified in the present state of Christendom. How many bear the name of Christ who by their ways show there is not the slightest breath of divine life in them! Professing to know God, in works they deny Him.

This drew out the tears of the Apostle even in the midst of his joy; but he turns it to a practical profit, calling on the saints to take heed. Let us watch against the beginnings of self-indulgence or allowing earthliness. "For our conversation (citizenship) is in heaven"; our real association is with Him who is there. Whatever we might have been as citizens of the earth, it is at an end now and forever. We belong to Christ on high. It is not merely that we are going there, but we belong to heaven now. Our commonwealth, our citizenship, is there; and therefore from thence also "we look for the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour." He has decided to have us in entire fellowship with the home to which we pertain, because it is His. He is coming from heaven; and, when He does, "he will change our body of humiliation so as to be conformed to the body of his glory according to the working whereby he is able also to subdue all things to himself." Then we shall be manifested what we now are in call, life, and desire. We are now heavenly, and then we shall be declared and proved to be so. We belong to heaven even while we are upon the earth; then it will be made plain that we had no real link with the earth, but with Christ above.

The Lord grant that we may seek to bring this into everything with which we have to do, into the heart, the home, and the whole life. He has made us His friends, and may we be enabled, with a purged conscience and with a heart rejoicing in Himself, to look onward to that blessed moment when we shall prove Him true to all the hopes He has given us.

Philippians 4

The main truth which was in the mind of the Apostle, and which the Lord was using him to lay upon the hearts of the Philippian saints, was now clearly expressed and enforced. The rest of the epistle, this last chapter, consists rather in the connected exhortations and practical use to which it was turned for present profit. Indeed it may have been noticed that, throughout, this epistle is eminently practical. Every whit of it has an immediate and important bearing upon the communion and walk of the saint of God. Of course in a general way there is no truth which is not meant to deal with the heart and walk in some way or another; yet I do not hesitate to say that this epistle is remarkable for nothing more than for its being the personal experience of the Apostle himself seeking to raise the experience of the saints at Philippi to the same measure, yea, according to the standard of Christ Himself. Accordingly, having shown us Christ fully, both as an example here below and as a motive in heaven (the earthly example being specially given in Phil. 2, and the heavenly motive in Phil. 3) now comes the practical object to which it is applied.

"Therefore," says he, "my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and my crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved." It is evident that the spiritual affections of the Apostle were deeply moved. Brotherly love was flowing out powerfully, and not the less because he had been occupied with Christ, with the deep feeling of what Christ had been and is, and with the joyous anticipation of that which the saints are destined to be when they see Him coming from heaven in the fullness of His grace and power, changing even their very bodies of humiliation that they may be fashioned like unto His glorious body. Salvation being only then and there complete, he bids them "so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved." And so much the more because it would appear that there were some among them who were at variance one with another.

Things were working there which separated in the way of affection, or at least, in the service of the Lord, those who had been engaged in it from earliest days. And this may be found where there is nothing at work of a scandalous character, because the very ardour and zeal of the servant of God may easily carry him, if there be not adequate occupation with Christ, into danger; even service ensnares and imperils where it becomes an object instead of Christ. It would appear that such was the case with some active saints at Philippi. "I beseech Euodia, and I beseech Syntyche that they be of the same mind in the Lord; yea, I entreat thee also true yoke-fellow, help them [i.e., these women just named], seeing that they contended with me in the gospel, with Clement also and the rest of my fellow-labourers whose names are in the book of life."

Now, it is plain that there are two things which the Apostle here presses. First is the great importance of having the same mind not only in the Lord but also in the work of the Lord. The danger is of having some aim or way of our own in that holy occupation. The Lord is assuredly jealous over those whom He employs, and He works continually to preserve each servant in the immediate sense of his own responsibility to Himself. No one need fear that this would interfere with mutual respect or hinder the outflow of divine affection linking together the various servants of God. Man would think so because he must judge from his own selfish heart. It is the flesh that seeks its own things; while the Spirit of Christ, whatever may be its holy judgment of evil, is never selfish. It is the grossest mistake to suppose that where the heart is brought to estimate all things according to God, you bring in an element of division between brethren; not this, but the indulgence of flesh opens the door to strife and schism.

Supposing a child of God who has gone astray, what is it that separates him from his brethren? Nothing but the evil that has been indulged in. The Holy Ghost acts in the man's soul; now he feels, confesses, and separates from that which is fleshly. At once the balance is restored and you are more united in love with that erring soul than, perhaps, you ever were before. Up to that time there may have been much which hindered fellowship. The irritability of spirit, the censoriousness, the vanity, the self-confidence broke out too often in the very service and worship of God — all this had previously produced many an anxious feeling for spiritual minds, and this just because there was real love to his soul. The consequence was so far that which separated, not in outward walk, but in fellowship of heart; whereas the moment there was the genuine action of the Holy Spirit of God — sin having actually, perhaps, broken out because of nature not being judged and the separation having become complete — the moment the evil is dealt with even in the man's spirit, and he owns frankly that he has sinned against the Lord, your heart is knit to him and you have a confidence in him which may never have existed before.

The notion is false, therefore, that serious judgment of evil is what divides between brethren. On the contrary, it is evil (not separation from it) which sows discord or makes separation necessary among brethren. Gracious separation from evil knits the hearts of those who are true with the Lord. It is holiness in fact. Apart from sin there is the enjoyment of God Himself and of His good and acceptable will. In this world holiness implies the judgment of evil and separation from it in heart and practice, as far as we are concerned. The cross of the Lord Jesus Christ is that which gathers the children of God on the ground that all their evil has been judged there and separated from them forever by His death.

No matter how you look at it, in every case it is evil that divides, and it is the judgment of evil that unites hearts, in an evil world according to God. Any unity of the children of God would be a positive sin against Him if it were not founded upon separation from evil. Having referred to the broad and fundamental principle of separation from evil, which will be found to be eminently practical, we may turn now to see its application to the matter before us.

At Philippi there rose before the Apostle's heart godly persons there at work; but work is not always Christ and may be division. The tendency is not uncommon to disparage what another is found doing, and to exalt ourselves in what we know to be our own line of things. This tends to break up happy fellowship of heart; and, where there is anything of a spiritual atmosphere, these things are deeply felt. Among the Corinthians this was but a small thing compared with the grosser evils that were active in their midst; but at Philippi where the state was comparatively healthy and blessed, where also the spirit of obedience reigned as we know, the lack of harmony from whatever cause it may have sprung becomes of importance; and the variance therefore of these two sisters is pressed home by the Spirit of God, but not before ample comfort had been ministered, which would encourage their hearts to look to Christ.

How tender, and withal how personal, is the appeal to each of these Christian women! "I exhort Euodia and I exhort Syntyche that they be of the same mind in the Lord." He begins with the Lord, not with the service, though the variance may have grown up in its course. He calls on them one by one (for one might hear if not the other) to be of the same mind in the Lord. Depend upon it that, where the Lord occupies us, differences soon dwindle. Having each the eye fixed upon the Lord, there is found a common object of attraction, and thus the enemy's hope of producing alienation is defeated at once.

He adds a request also to his true yokefellow. I suppose the reference is to Epaphroditus, of whom he had spoken with ardent affection in Philippians 2. "Yoke" in Scripture is a badge of union or of subjection, as the case may be, in service. Thus, in 2 Corinthians 6, the believer is told not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Many narrow that scripture to the natural relationship of marriage. But though the marriage tie between believers and unbelievers is evidently not according to God, yet I doubt that there is any particular allusion to it in that scripture. The object there of the Spirit of God is to take up the commixture of the believer with the unbeliever in the service and worship of God. The Apostle brings forward the temple of God as well as individual matters, and shows that we are not to have fellowship corporately any more than individually with unbelievers. I only refer to it now because it is often put aside from the consciences of the children of God through the mistaken habit of referring it to marriage; whereas, it is plain on the face of it that the direction the Holy Ghost gives would not strictly apply to marriage.

Bad as it is for a believer to marry an unbeliever, God does not even then say, Come out from the relationship; leave your wife; part from your husband. Apply it to its legitimate object (that is, fellowship with unbelievers in the things of God), and then you have a maxim of deep and urgent importance. I am not to unite with the world in any one thing that concerns the service and worship of God. This is the true meaning of being unequally yoked. "Come out and be separate" is then the special word that applies to any such unholy alliance.

This makes all plain, when men ask if we are not to do anything for the world. If there is sorrow and want, am I not to help sufferers? Surely if there be a peculiar duty to the household of faith, I am also bound to do good unto all men; but there is no yoking together with others outside Christ in this, and no communion. The worldly man gives because he is generous, or feels for the need of the person, or is expected to give. The child of God does it because it is the will of God. The one acts on the ground of nature, the other in faith. Even in the most ordinary necessary acts, as eating and drinking, I may and ought to do it all to God's glory.

Suppose a man drowning, or a house on fire, there is a claim of course on any man; but to use the help that a servant of God might render on such occasions, as a reason for joining the world with the saint in the service of God, is to deceive or be deceived — it may be, willingly. I have no hesitation in saying that to put an unbeliever on the ground of joining in prayers and hymns and taking the Lord's supper, to sanction his joining with you in such services, is as far as you can to damage if not destroy his soul. No believer would act thus without an object other than Christ. What the Holy Ghost seeks for the unregenerate soul is to convince him of his ruin; but, if yoked with you in God's work or temple, you are cheating him (or he you) into a false ground. You thus far treat him as an acceptable worshipper and make him think that he is doing God's service as truly, though perhaps not so well, as yourself. This is as contrary to holiness as to love, equally opposed to God's glory and man's good.

Were these godly, energetic women now apart in spirit? He not only exhorts each separately, but asks Epaphroditus as I suppose, the true yokefellow of the Apostle, to help them. For these women had shared the Apostle's sufferings in the gospel when it entered Philippi. It is not, "And entreat thee," as in the English version or the commonly received text; nor is it, "Yea and," etc. The best authorities omit "and" altogether, which was a corruption of "yea." For the Apostle is continuing in verse 3 the same thought as in verse 2, and is urging his dear and true yokefellow at Philippi to succour those previously named women (not others, as the ordinary rendering might convey), "the which" (haitines) or "since they" contended with him in the gospel. It is not said that they preached; there is no reference to public service here.

There is a great difference between preaching the gospel and sharing the contentions of the gospel. Even a man might have laboured diligently and never have preached in his life; and there might be some striving every day in the gospel as diligently, or more so even, than those who preached it every day. There is beautiful choice in the language of the Holy Ghost. We all ought to know that the New Testament puts the Christian woman in the place of exceeding blessedness, removing every thought that would give her an inferior place in Christ; but it puts her also at the same time in the background, wherever it is a case of public action. Here officially, so to speak, the man is called to be uncovered, the woman to be veiled. She is thus, as it were, put behind the man; whereas, when you speak of our privileges in Christ, there is neither male nor female. It is of importance to see where there is no difference and where there is.

The first epistle to the Corinthians is most plain that the head of the woman is the man; and as Christ is the glory of the man, so the man is the glory of the woman. We find there the administrative difference between the man and the woman. When you come to the heavenly privileges we have in Christ, all these distinctions disappear. There is no public action that I know in the world or in the Church allotted to the Christian woman. As to private dealing with souls, the case is different. In their father's house, the four daughters of Philip may have prophesied. They were evidently highly gifted women; for it is not said of them that they laboured in the gospel, but that they prophesied — one of the highest forms of gift from Christ. At the same time the Holy Spirit, who tells us that a woman might and did prophesy as a fact, instructs us that it is forbidden to a woman to speak in the Church where prophesying properly had its course. But there a woman was forbidden to speak, not even allowed to ask a question, much less to give an answer. Yet as to the private scene, at home, even with an Apollos, a woman might fitly act; that is, if she acted under and with her husband. Priscilla might be of more spiritual weight than Aquilla; but this very thing would lead her to be the more careful to take an unobtrusive lowly place. The yokefellow of the Apostle seems to have been somewhat timid of helping these women. The Apostle, accordingly, entreats him also as he had exhorted him. "Help those women in that they contended with me in the gospel." They were not putting themselves forward in an unseemly public sort, but they had shared the early trials of the gospel with the Apostle Paul.

At Corinth the women assumed much, and the Apostle manifests his sense of it by the reproachful demand, if the Word of God came out from them, or if it came to them only (1 Cor. 14: 36). Thus, and not only thus, had they quite slipped aside from that which prevailed in the churches of the saints. No doubt they reasoned that, if women had gifts, why should they not exercise them in all places? But He who gives the gift is alone entitled to say when, how, and by whom it is to be exercised. At Philippi where there was an obedient spirit, there might have been too great reluctance to meddle with these otherwise estimable women who were estranged from each other. The Apostle bids Epaphroditus to render his help. "Help them who are such as contended with me in the gospel." He gives them special praise. They strove for and with him in the work. He joins himself with those persons whom his yokefellow may have been rather afraid of. He joins them also with Clement and other fellow labourers. What tenderness in touching the case! He encourages the fellowship in the service of the gospel not only with faithful men, but with women whose faithfulness was not forgotten because there were painful hindrances just now.

But now, leaving the question of variance among them, he returns to his topic of exceeding joy. He had been encouraging one who had his sympathy and confidence to help these women. He now calls on all to rejoice in the Lord alway. If he touched on these sorrows, let them not suppose that he wanted to dampen their joy; on the contrary, "Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say rejoice." This, let me repeat, is an important thing practically. It is a total mistake when we allow difficulties or differences among the saints of God to hinder our perfect delight in the Lord. Do we desire the glory of Christ among those who are His? I must always maintain that glory in my own soul if I am to be a witness to Christ among others. Is the Lord's love affected or at least enfeebled by these passing circumstances? Is His glory less bright because some shades of self have betrayed themselves over the brow of His saints? Surely not. Thus he turns to the keynote of the epistle, that joy in the Lord of which he had been speaking as his own portion now, and by-and-by in chapters 1 and 2, and that to which they were called in chapter 3 and again in chapter 4.

Is it not a sorrow to think where Christians have got to in this respect — how this answer of heart to Christ has faded away from the hearts of so many; how even the assembling together to remember Christ in His supper does not always awaken fullness of joy, but often an uneasy feeling and most painful shrinking back from His table as if it concealed some hidden danger, some lion in the way, instead of Jesus my Saviour and Lord, who loved me and gave Himself for me? What humiliation of spirit ought to be ours as we think of all that thus dishonours the name of Christ. But does God intend that even this should hinder our joy? In no wise. Let the ruined state of God's people be in Israel or in the Church, those who felt it most invariably enjoyed the greatest nearness to Himself and most of all entered into His own joy, while at the same time they mourned the more over the shortcomings of those bearing His name. The two things go together. Show me hearts which, though godly, are not happy; hearts over-occupied with the circumstances of the Church, constantly talking about the evil and low condition here and there; and you will never show me souls that deeply enjoy the Lord and His grace; whereas in the person who really enjoys the Lord and has the consciousness of what Christ and the Church of God are in Christ and should be in the power of the Spirit now, who therefore best estimates what Christendom has become, there will be the two things harmonized — the heart resting upon Christ, dwelling in His love; while, at the same time, man's weakness and Satan's malice in ruining all can be rightly judged. These two things we have to cultivate.

"Let your moderation [mildness] be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful [anxious] about nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." vv. 5, 6. To prayer is added thanksgiving, because the Lord is entitled to it. The heart should not forget what a God we are making our requests to. In the confidence of this let us thank Him, even when we are spreading our wants before Him. But he had said before this, "Let your moderation be known unto all men." Supposing there is someone who has seen us a little off our balance in standing upon our rights, real or imaginary, something which contradicted the gentleness of Christ, ought we not to feel humbled, and take an early opportunity to wipe off what may have given a false impression to that man's soul? God would have our readiness to yield, not resist, known, and this not sometimes or to some persons, but to all men. By moderation the Apostle means that spirit of meekness which can only be where the will is not allowed to work actively for that which we may desire. And what a reason why we need not be anxious to assert a claim, even when we are right! "The Lord is at hand." Where there is the happy feeling in the soul that one is doing that which pleases God, there is generally the readiness of trust in the Lord that puts aside anxiety and leaves all in His hands. Besides, He is coming soon.

He will bring out everything that is according to Himself. He will bless every desire wherever there may have been a true testimony for Himself. He will give effect to it in that day. "The Lord is at hand." He is not come yet, but you can go to Him now and lay all your requests before Him, assured that He is near, that He is coming. And what is the result? "The peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." v. 7. When the heart commits to God all that would be a burden to it, the consequence is that His peace, the peace in which He moves and lives, guards us from the entrance of all that would harass. The sources of care are cast into the Lord's lap, and the peace of God Himself, which surpasses every understanding, becomes our protection.

Wherever we have grace to spread before God what would have tried us (had we thought of it and kept it before our spirits), there is infallibly His own peace as the answer of God to it. The affections are at rest, and the working of the mind that would otherwise forecast evil. Hence all is calmed down by the peace of God Himself.

Peace is viewed in more ways than one in Scripture. The peace of God here has nothing to do with the purging of conscience. It is a question of keeping heart and mind. Where conscience is yet burdened, there is but one way of finding peace. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Sins were there, and how was the moral nature and majesty of God to be vindicated about sin? Far from God, in all our ways at war with God, how could we have peace with Him? The only door, through which we, poor enemies, pass out of such a condition into peace with God, is by believing the testimony He has given of His Son. But this is "peace with God," not "the peace of God." If I endeavour to get comfort for my conscience by spreading out my need before God, there is never full rest of conscience. The only means entitled to give rest to the sin-stricken is faith in God's assurance that sins are blotted out by the blood, and sin has been perfectly judged in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. "By him all that believe are justified." If one's own state mingles for a single moment with this, it is a delusion on such a ground to reckon upon peace with God. But if I believe on Christ and what He has done, I can boldly say that Christ deserved that even my sins should be forgiven. Therefore I can add, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God." The value is not in the faith, but in our Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot get the blessing without believing, but it is an answer to the worth of Christ in God's sight.

But, besides this settled peace which we have through the work of Christ, there is the practical peace of God, which has nothing to do with the remission of sins (though assuming it as a settled thing for a foundation), but of the circumstances through which the believer passes day by day. Paul was in prison, when he wrote to the Philippians, unable to build up the churches or to labour in the gospel. He might have been cast down in spirit, but he never was more happy in his life. How is this? Because, instead of being anxious and troubled about the danger of the Church and the afflictions of individuals, about souls that were perishing, he looked at them in connection with God, instead of looking at them as connected with himself. If God was in peace about these things, why should not he too be? Thus the simple resource of spreading out all before God and casting it off himself into the bosom of his Father had for its effect that God's peace kept his heart and mind. Nor was it special to the Apostle. He puts it before the saints as that which ought to be equally their portion. It is evident there is no room left for anxiety. God would not have His children burdened or troubled about circumstances. Till the Lord come, this is the blessed source of relief. God is here working, and His peace keeps our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus, where we give Him His honour and our trust.

But even this is not all, for there are other things which claim or test us besides anxieties and cares. There is our ordinary Christian life; what can strengthen us in it? Here is the word, the apostolic counsel (v. 8), "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true." There may not be many bright spots, but there are some; am I not to think of them? This is what I am called upon to do — to be quick of discernment, seeing not what is bad but what is good. I may have to judge what is evil, but what God looks for is that the spirit should be occupied with the good. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest [rather, venerable, or noble], whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Our consciences can answer whether these are the things we are most apt to think about. If we are swift to hear not of these things but all that is painful, while slow to hear whatever is of God, the consequence is, instead of having the God of peace as our companion, we have ourselves and others hindered by evil thoughts and communications. For that which the soul wants is only what is good. We are not exhorted to be learned in the iniquity of world or church, but "wise unto that which is good and simple concerning evil." God has given those whom He qualifies to judge evil — spiritual men who can take it up as a duty to Him, and with sorrow and love toward those concerned — but these God employs, among other purposes, for the sake of keeping His saints in general out of the need of such tasks. It is happy that we are not all called upon to search and pry into evil, seeing and hearing its details; but that, while the Lord may graciously interfere to guard us from being mistaken, our proper wisdom is growing in what is according to God.

Why, ordinarily, should a simple child of God occupy himself, for instance, with a bad book or a false teacher? It is enough for us if we have good ground to know that a thing is mischievous, and all we have then to do is to avoid it. If, on the contrary, I know of something good, it has a claim on love and respect; it is not only for myself but for others. We are never right if we shut up our hearts from the sympathy of Christ with the members of His body or the workings of His Spirit here below. If there were even a poor Roman Catholic priest, who knew and brought out the truth of God more plainly than others, let us not say, "can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" but, come and see if any thing come with adequate evidence of having God's stamp upon it. Let us not limit Him who is above all circumstances; even if there be that which is most distressing, let us thank God that His gracious power refuses to be bound by any limits of man. It is of great importance that we should have largeness of heart to think of all that is good, wherever it may be.

"Those things which ye both learned, and received, and heard, and saw in me, do." v. 9. If ever there was a man with a large heart, it was the Apostle Paul. And yet no servant of God had a deeper view of evil, and a more intense abhorrence of it. Here the Spirit directs them by what they had seen in his own spirit and ways. It is not matter of doctrine but his practical life. This goes farther than supplanting anxiety by the safeguard of God's own peace; it is the practical power of positive good. What is the effect upon the heart? "The God of peace shall be with you." "The God of peace" is far more than even "the peace of God." It is Himself the source; it is the enjoyment of His own blessed presence in this way. There is relief in having the "peace of God" as the guard of our hearts and minds; there is power in having "the God of peace" with us. Want we anything? Impossible. "But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at the last your care of me flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity." They had shown love to the Apostle Paul at a previous time, as we find afterward (v. 16) where he contrasts "the beginning of the gospel" with "at the last."

The Philippians had been favoured of God and had shown their love to the Apostle in their early days. He had not forgotten it. It would appear that he rarely received from the saints of God, perhaps because he met with but few even among them that could have been trusted. It would have wrought evil by reason of their want of spiritual feeling. They might have thought something of it, or the gospel might have suffered in their minds or with others through it. But the Philippians were sufficiently simple and spiritual, and we know what delicate feelings the power of the Spirit can produce. They, accordingly, had the privilege of ministering to his wants. This the Apostle alludes to, and with exceeding sweetness of feeling on his part. He felt that the word, "at the last," might be construed into a kind of reproach, as if they had forgotten him for a long time. He hastens to add therefore, "wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity" (v. 10). On the other hand, he guards them against supposing he wanted more from them. "Not that I speak in respect of want" (v. 11).

In the corrupt heart of man, the very expression of gratitude may be an oblique hint that further favours would not be amiss. The Apostle cuts off all thought of this by the words, "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." This is not indigenous to human nature. Even Paul may not always have known it; he had learned it. "I know both how to be abased and I know how to abound." v. 12. His experience had known betimes what it was to be in absolute want, as he knew what it was to have want of nothing. "Everywhere and in all things I am instructed, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer. I can do all things through him [the true reading] who strengtheneth me." A wonderful thing for a man in prison to say, one who apparently was in most abject circumstances, and in no small danger — unable to do anything, men would say. But faith speaks according to God, and the man who can do nothing in the judgment of his fellows, is the very one who could say he had strength for all things in Him that strengthened him (v. 13).

When the world comes into collision with a Christian, when it criminates, robs, and imprisons him, when the Christian is evidently as happy as before, the world cannot but feel it has come into contact with a power that is entirely above its own. Whenever it is not so, we have failed. What the world should find in us, under all circumstances, is the expression of Christ and His strength. It is not merely when the trial comes that we should go to the Lord and spread out our failure before Him; we ought to be with Him before it. If we wait for the trial, we shall not stand. In our Lord's case you will find that where there was victory in the power of faith, our Lord went through the suffering before it came. He went through it with God, yet no one felt trial as He. This therefore does not make the suffering less, but the contrary.

Take the garden of Gethsemane as an instance. What saint but our Lord ever sweated drops of blood in the prospect of death? Hence others may have entered into it in some little degree; and the measure has always been the power of the Spirit of God giving them to feel what is contrary to God in this world; for in this world whoever loves most suffers most. But here was one who had suffered much, who knew rejection as few men ever knew it, who had found the world's enmity as it is the lot of not many to prove. And yet this man, under these circumstances, says he has strength for all things through Him who strengthened him. Be assured that a blessed strengthener is near every one who leans upon Him. Paul does not speak here of apostolic privilege, but as a saint, a ground on which he can link himself with us, that we may learn to walk in the same path which he was treading himself. Having freely owned their love (in vv. 14-16), having shown that it was because he desired fruit that might abound to their account in verse 17, he closes all with this: "I have all and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." v. 18. And, marvelous to say, he is a giver himself. At any rate he counts upon One who would give everything that was needed in full supply. "But my God shall supply all your need, according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." v. 19.

What language from a man who had just been in want, and whose want had been supplied by these saints! Now he turns round and says, "My God shall supply all your need." The God whose love and care and resources he had proved through all his Christian career — "my God," he says, "shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." He is supplying the saints now according to all the wealth of His resources even in glory in Christ. There the shadow of a want will be unknown, but God is acting according to the same riches now. Therefore the Apostle breaks forth in praise to God forthwith. "Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever, Amen." v. 20.

There is a notable change in phraseology. He says first, "My God shall supply all your need," and afterward, "our God and Father." When it is a question of experimental knowledge and confidence, he could not say "our God," because they might not have the same measure of acquaintance with His love as he had who had proved and learned so profoundly and variedly what God is. But when he ascribes unto the ages of ages glory to God the Father, he cannot but join them fully with himself. "Now unto our God and Father be glory," etc. His heart goes out to all believers. "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus." v. 21. What a joy for those in Philippi to hear of brethren in unexpected quarters! The Apostle had gone to Rome to be tried before Caesar. Now, it appears, there were those of the imperial household who sent special salutation through the Apostle to the Philippians. "The brethren which are with me greet you. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household." vv. 21, 22.

The heart gets wonderful relief in seeing the things that are lovely and of good report, and calculated to give our hearts confidence in the darkest day. Whatever the great trial of the present time (and never were there subtler snares or more imminent danger), there is no less grace in God, no less blessing to men in view of all. Let us not forget the word, "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice." v. 4. This epistle was not written as looking back upon the day of Pentecost, but for a time when the Apostle was cut off from helping the churches, and when the saints were warned that they must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. But the trial is yet sharper for the spirit, if not bodily, for those who would walk with the Lord now. Let us not doubt His love, but be sure that God is above all circumstances. If God has cast our lot in these days, let us not doubt His goodness, but know that we may have as deep and even deeper joy because the joy is less in saints, less in circumstances, and more exclusively in Christ.

It was sin that hindered the Church's blessedness in these ways and others; but since we have been called when and where we are now, may we eschew the unbelieving wish to exchange for any other. It is a question very simply of faith in God. He loves us and He cares for us. May our hearts answer to the perfections of His grace. While feeling the sorrow of the saints, of the gospel, of the Church more deeply, as all affects the glory of God, let us leave room in our hearts to count upon a known, tried God, who ever will be God, superior to all difficulties, foes, snares, and sorrows. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." v. 23.

Revelation of John

Translation by W. Kelly.

REVELATION 1

1 REVELATION of Jesus Christ which God gave him to shew his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and sending by his angel he signified it to his servant John; 2 who testified the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ — whatsoever things he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it; for the time is at hand.

4 JOHN to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him that is and that was and that is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before his throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. To him that loveth us and washed us from our sins in his blood, 6 and he made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father: to him be the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages. Amen.

7 Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and those which pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth shall wail on account of him. Yea, Amen. 8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, that is and that was and that is to come, the Almighty.

9 I, John, your brother and joint-partaker in tribulation and the kingdom and patience in Christ [Jesus], was in the isle that is called Patmos, because of the word of God and [because of] the testimony of Jesus [Christ]. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a loud voice as of a trumpet, 11 saying, What thou seest write in a book, and send to the seven churches; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice which was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lamp-stands, 13 and in the midst of the [seven] lamp-stands one like the Son of man, clad in a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the paps with a golden girdle: 14 his head and his hairs white as white wool, as snow; and his eyes as a flame of fire; 15 and his feet like fine brass, as glowing in a furnace; and his voice as a voice of many waters: 16 and he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance as the sun shineth in its strength. 17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead: and he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one: and I was dead, and, behold, I am alive unto the ages of the ages; and I have the keys of death and of hades. 19 Write therefore the things which thou sawest, and the things which are, and the things which are about to come to pass after these: 20 the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest on my right hand, and the seven golden lamp-stands; the seven stars are angels of the seven churches, and the seven lamp-stands are seven churches.

REVELATION 2

1 To the angel of the church that is in Ephesus write, These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, that walketh in the midst of the seven golden lamp-stands: 2 I know thy works and [thy] toil and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men; and thou hast tried those that call themselves apostles and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 and hast patience, and hast borne for my name's sake, and art not wearied. 4 But I have against thee that thou hast relaxed thy first love. 5 Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and practise the first works; but if not, I am coming to thee [quickly], and will remove thy lampstand out of its place, except thou repent. 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. 7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh I will give him to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of [my] God.

8 And to the angel of the church that is in Smyrna write, These things saith the first and the last, who was dead and lived: 9 I know [thy works and] thy tribulation and poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but a synagogue of Satan. 10 Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast of you into prison that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life. 11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. He that overcometh shall in no wise be hurt of the second death.

12 And to the angel of the church that is in Pergamos write, These things saith he that hath the sharp two-edged sword: 13 I know [thy works, and] where thou dwellest, where the throne of Satan is; and thou holdest fast my name and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein was Antipas, my faithful witness who was killed among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14 But I have a few things against thee, [because] thou hast there some that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication. 15 So hast thou also some that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes in like manner. 16 Repent therefore; but if not, I am coming to thee quickly, and will fight with them with the sword of my mouth. 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, I will give him of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth save he that receiveth it. 18 And to the angel of the church that is in Thyatira write, These things saith the Son of God, that hath his eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass: 19 I know thy works and love and faith and service, and thy patience, and thy last works more than the first. 20 But I have against thee that thou lettest alone the woman Jezebel that calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and deceiveth my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent, and she willeth not to repent of her fornication. 22 Behold, I cast her into a bed, and those that commit fornication with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth reins and hearts; and I will give you each according to your works. 24 But to you I say, the rest that are in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine which have not known the depths of Satan (as they say): I put upon you no other burden: 25 but that which ye have hold fast till I shall come.

26 And he that overcometh and he that keepeth my works until the end, I will give him authority over the nations; 27 and he shall rule them with an iron rod, — as the vessels of a potter are broken to shivers: as I also received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

REVELATION 3

1 And to the angel of the church that is in Sardis write, These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain which were about to die: for I have not found thy works complete before my God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard; and keep it, and repent. If therefore thou watch not, I will come [upon thee] as a thief, and thou shalt in no wise know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 But thou hast a few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, he shall be clothed in white garments; and I will in no wise blot out his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

7 And to the angel of the church that is in Philadelphia write, These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no one shall shut, and that shutteth and no one shall open: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have set before thee an open door which no one can shut: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan those that say they are Jews and are not but lie: behold, I will make them to come and do homage before thy feet, and know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial that is about to come on all the habitable world, to try those that dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown. 12 He that overcometh, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall never go out more: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, that cometh down out of the heaven from my God, and my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

14 And to the angel of the church that is in Laodicea write, These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God: 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So, because thou art lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich and am become rich and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art the wretched and the pitiable and poor and blind and naked; 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold purified by fire that thou mayest wax rich, and white garments that thou mayest be clothed and the shame of thy nakedness may not be manifested; and eye-salve to anoint thine eyes that thou mayest see. 19 I, as many as I love, rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any one hear my voice, and open the door, I will [both] come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 He that overcometh, I will give him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

REVELATION 4

1 After these things I saw, and, behold, a door opened in the heaven; and the first voice which I heard as of a trumpet talking with me said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee the things which must come to pass after these. 2 [And] immediately I was in the Spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in the heaven, and upon the throne one sitting: 3 and he that sat in appearance like a jasper stone and a sardius: and a rainbow round about the throne in appearance like an emerald. 4 And round about the throne were twenty-four thrones: and upon the twenty-four thrones I saw elders sitting clothed in white garments, and upon their heads golden crowns. 5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and voices and thunders; and seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; 6 and before the throne as a sea of glass like crystal; and in the midst of the throne, and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes before and behind: 7 and the first living creature like a lion, and the second living creature like a calf, and the third living creature had the face as of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. 8 And the four living creatures, having each of them six wings, round about and within are full of eyes; and they have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty that was and that is and that is to come. 9 And when the living creatures shall give glory and honour and thanks to him that sitteth on the throne unto the ages of the ages, 10 the twenty-four elders shall fall down before him that sitteth on the throne, and shall worship him that liveth unto the ages of the ages, and shall cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11 Thou art worthy, O Lord [and our God], to receive the glory and the honour and the power: for thou createdest all things, and because of thy will they were and were created.

REVELATION 5

1 And I saw upon the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book and to loose the seals thereof? 3 And no one in the heaven nor on the earth nor under the earth was able to open the book neither to look thereon. 4 And I wept much, because no one was able to open the book neither to look thereon. 5 And one of the elders saith to me, Weep not: behold, the lion hath overcome that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David, that openeth the book and the seven seals thereof. 6 And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as slain, having seven horns and seven eyes which are the [seven] Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took [the book] out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. 8 And when he took the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having each a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which is the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sing a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and hast bought [us] to God by thy blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation; 10 and hast made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth. 11 And I saw, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders: and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that is slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing. 13 And every creature which is in the heaven and on the earth and under the earth and [such as are] on the sea and all things in them heard I saying, To him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honour and the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages. 14 And the four living creatures said, Amen: and the elders fell down and worshipped.

REVELATION 6

1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying, as a voice of thunder, Come. 2 And I saw, and, behold, a white horse, and he that sat upon him having a bow; and there was given him a crown: and he came out conquering and that he might conquer.

3 And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, Come. 4 And there came out another horse that was red: and to him that sat upon him it was given him to take peace from the earth, and that they should slay one another; and there was given him a great sword.

5 And when he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and, behold, a black horse, and he that sat upon him had a balance in his hand. 6 And I heard [as] a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius; and the oil and the wine thou must not hurt.

7 And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature's voice saying, Come. 8 And I saw, and, behold, a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was death, and hades followed with him; and there was given him authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword and with hunger and with death and by the beasts of the earth.

9 And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those slain because of the word of God and because of the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on those that dwell on the earth? 11 And there was given them [each] a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet for a [little] space, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren should be completed that were to be killed even as they.

12 And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; 13 and the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree shaken by a great wind casteth its untimely figs. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth and the great men and the chiliarchs and the rich and the mighty and every bondman and freeman hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they say to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 for the great day of his wrath is come; and who is able to stand?

REVELATION 7

1 [And] after this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that no wind should blow on the earth nor on the sea nor upon any tree. 2 And I saw another angel rising up from the east, having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3 saying, Hurt not the earth nor the sea nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads. 4 And I heard the number of the sealed — a hundred and forty-four thousand sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel; 5 out of the tribe of Juda twelve thousand sealed; out of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand; 6 out of the tribe of Aser twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Nephthalim twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Manasses twelve thousand; 7 out of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand;

8 out of the tribe of Zabulon twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand sealed.

9 After these things I saw, and, behold, a great multitude, which no one could number, out of every nation and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 and they cry with a loud voice, saying, The salvation to our God that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb. 11 And all the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell before the throne upon their faces, and worshipped God, 12 saying, Amen: The blessing and the glory and the wisdom and the thanksgiving and the honour and the power and the strength to our God unto the ages of the ages. [Amen.] 13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, These that are clothed with white robes, who are they, and whence came they? 14 And I said to him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 Therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he that sitteth on the throne shall tabernacle over them. 16 They shall hunger no more neither thirst any more nor in any wise shall the sun fall upon them nor any heat. 17 For the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall tend them and shall lead them to fountains of waters of life, and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

REVELATION 8

1 And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in the heaven about half an hour. 2 And I saw the seven angels who stand before God; and there were given to them seven trumpets. 3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given him much incense, that he should give efficacy to the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar that was before the throne. 4 And the smoke of the incense rose up with the prayers of the saints out of the angel's hand before God. 5 And the angel took the censer and filled it with the fire of the altar and cast it unto the earth; and there were thunders and lightnings and voices and an earthquake.

6 And the seven angels that had the seven trumpets prepared themselves that they should sound. 7 And the first sounded; and there was hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast unto the earth; and the third of the earth was burnt up, and the third of the trees was burnt up, and all the green grass was burnt up.

8 And the second angel sounded; and as a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea; and the third of the sea became blood: 9 and the third of the creatures that were in the sea that had life died; and the third of the ships were destroyed.

10 And the third angel sounded; and there fell out of the heaven a great star burning as a torch, and it fell upon the third of the rivers and upon the fountains of the waters. 11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood; and the third of the waters became wormwood; and many of the men died of the waters because they were made bitter.

12 And the fourth angel sounded; and the third of the sun was smitten and the third of the moon and the third of the stars, that the third of them might be darkened, and the day should not shine for the third thereof and the night likewise.

13 And I saw, and I heard an eagle flying in mid-heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe to those that dwell on the earth from the rest of the voices of the trumpet of the three angels that are to sound!

REVELATION 9

1 And the fifth angel sounded; and I saw a star fallen out of the heaven unto the earth, and there was given him the key of the pit of the abyss. 2 And he opened the pit of the abyss, and smoke arose out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace: and the sun was darkened and the air by the smoke of the pit. 3 And out of the smoke came forth locusts unto the earth, and there was given them power as the scorpions of the earth have power. 4 And it was said to them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth nor any green thing nor any tree, but the men which have not the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 And it was given them that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months; and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion when it striketh a man. 6 And in those days shall men seek death and shall in no wise find it, and shall desire to die, and death fleeth from them. 7 And the likenesses of the locusts were like horses prepared for war, and upon their heads as crowns like gold, and their faces as the faces of men. 8 And they had hair as hair of women, and their teeth were as of lions. 9 And they had breastplates as iron breastplates, and the sound of their wings was as a sound of chariots of many horses running unto war. 10 And they have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails was their power to hurt men five months. 11 They have a king over them, the angel of the abyss: his name in Hebrew is Abaddon; and in the Greek he hath the name Apollyon.

12 The first woe is past; behold, there come two woes more after these things.

13 And the sixth angel sounded; and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar that is before God, 14 saying to the sixth angel that had the trumpet, Loose the four angels that are bound at the great river Euphrates. 15 And the four angels were loosed that were prepared for the hour and day and month and year, that they might slay the third of men. 16 And the number of the armies of the cavalry was two myriads of myriads: I heard the number of them. 17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and those that sat on them, having breastplates of fire and of jacinth and of brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceeded fire and smoke and brimstone. 18 By these three plagues were killed the third of men, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone that proceeded out of their mouths. 19 For the power of the horses is in their mouth and in their tails: for their tails are like serpents and have heads; and with them they do hurt.

20 And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood which can neither see nor hear nor walk; 21 and they repented not of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their fornication nor of their thefts.

REVELATION 10

1 And I saw another strong angel coming down out of the heaven, clothed with a cloud; and the rainbow on his head, and his face as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: 2 and he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot on the sea, and the left on the earth, 3 and cried with a loud voice, as a lion roareth: and when he cried, the seven thunders uttered their own voices. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from the heaven, saying, Seal the things which the seven thunders spoke, and write them not. 5 And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the earth lifted up his right hand unto the heaven, 6 and sware by him that liveth unto the ages of the ages, who created the heaven and the things therein, and the earth and the things therein, and the sea and the things therein, that there should be no more space, 7 but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he announced the glad tidings to his servants the prophets. 8 And the voice which I heard from heaven was again speaking with me, and said, Go, take the book that is open in the hand of the angel that standeth on the sea and on the earth. 9 And I went away to the angel, saying to him that he should give me the little book. And he said to me, Take, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey. 10 And I took the little book out of the hand of the angel, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey, and when I ate it, my belly was made bitter. 11 And they say to me, Thou must again prophesy of peoples and [of] nations and tongues and many kings.

REVELATION 11

1 And there was given me a reed like a rod, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those that worship therein. 2 And the court that is without the temple cast out, and measure it not; for it was given to the nations: and the holy city shall they tread forty [and] two months. 3 And I will give efficacy to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed with sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two lamp-stands that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if any one desire to hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any one desire to hurt them, thus must he be killed. 6 These have authority to shut the heaven that no rain fall during the days of their prophecy; and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague as often as they will. 7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that riseth up out of the abyss shall make war with them and shall overcome them and shall kill them. 8 And their dead body shall be on the street of the great city which is called spiritually Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 And some of the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations see their dead body three days and a half, and do not suffer their dead bodies to be put into a sepulchre. 10 And those that dwell on the earth rejoice over them and make merry and shall send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those that dwell on the earth. 11 And after the three days and a half the spirit of life from God entered [into] them, and they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon those that beheld them. 12 And I heard a loud voice out of the heaven saying to them, Come up hither. And they went up to the heaven in the cloud; and their enemies beheld them. 13 And in that hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth of the city fell, and there were slain in the earthquake seven thousand names of men: and the rest became afraid, and gave glory to the God of the heaven.

14 The second woe is past; behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in the heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world hath become our Lord's and his Christ's, and he shall reign unto the ages of the ages. 16 And the twenty-four elders, who sit before God upon their thrones, fell upon their faces and worshipped God, 17 saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God the Almighty, that art and that wast; because thou hast taken thy great power and reigned. 18 And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the little and the great; and to destroy those that destroy the earth.

19 And there was opened the temple of God [that is] in the heaven, and there was seen the ark of his covenant in his temple; and there were lightnings and voices and thunders [and an earthquake] and great hail.

REVELATION 12

1 And a great sign was seen in the heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 and being with child she crieth, travailing and pained to bring forth. 3 And there was seen another sign in the heaven; and, behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. 4 And his tail draweth the third of the stars of the heaven, and cast them unto the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman that was about to bring forth, that when she brought forth he might devour her child. 5 And she brought forth a male son, who is to rule all the nations with an iron rod: and her child was caught up to God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they should nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days. 7 And there was war in the heaven: Michael and his angels went to war with the dragon: and the dragon made war and his angels; 8 and he prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in the heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, the ancient serpent, that is called the Devil and Satan, that deceiveth the whole habitable world: he was cast into the earth, and his angels were cast with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in the heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast out that accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life unto death. 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that tabernacle in them. Woe to the earth and to the sea! for the devil is gone down unto you, having great fury, knowing that he hath a short time. 13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the male child. 14 And there were given to the woman [the] two wings of the great eagle, that she should fly into the wilderness into her place, where she is nourished there a time and times and half a time from the serpent's face. 15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman water as a river, that he might make her as carried away by a river.

16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was wroth at the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus.

REVELATION 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like a leopard, and his feet as a bear's, and his mouth as a lion's mouth; and the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as slain unto death; and his deadly wound was healed: and the whole earth wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon, because he gave the authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? and who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy; and there was given him authority to work forty-two months. 6 And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle [and] those that tabernacle in the heaven. 7 And it was given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and there was given him authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. 8 And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, of whom the name is not written in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain, from the world's foundation. 9 If any one hath an ear, let him hear. 10 If any one is for captivity, into captivity he goeth; if any one will kill with sword, with sword must he be killed. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I saw another beast rising up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And all the authority of the first beast he exerciseth before him, and causeth the earth and those that dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great signs, so that even fire he maketh come down out of the heaven unto the earth before men; 14 and he deceiveth those that dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to do before the beast, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, who hath the wound of the sword and lived. 15 And it was given him to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause [that] as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, the little and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that they should give them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead, 17 and that no one may be able to buy or sell, save he that hath the mark, the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is a man's number; and his number is 666.

REVELATION 14

1 And I saw, and, behold, the Lamb standing upon the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice out of the heaven, as a voice of many waters and as a voice of loud thunder: and the voice which I heard was as of harpers harping with their harps; 3 and they sing [as] a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song but the hundred forty and four thousand that were bought from the earth. 4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These [are] they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were bought from among men, first-fruits to God and to the Lamb: 5 and in their mouth was found no falsehood; [for] they are blameless.

6 And I saw [another] angel flying in mid-heaven, having the everlasting gospel to announce unto those that sit on the earth, and unto every nation and tribe and tongue and people, 7 saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give him glory; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made the heaven and the earth and [the] sea and fountains of waters.

8 And another, a second angel followed, saying, Fallen [fallen] is Babylon the great, who hath given all the nations to drink of the wine of the fury of her fornication.

9 And another, a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any one worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, 10 even he shall drink of the wine of the indignation of God that is mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb: 11 and the smoke of their torment riseth up unto the ages of the ages; and they have no rest day and night, that worship the beast and his image, and if any one receiveth the mark of his name. 12 Here is the patience of the saints, that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice out of the heaven, saying, Write, Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord henceforth. Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their toils; for their works follow with them.

14 And I saw, and, behold, a white cloud; and upon the cloud I saw one sitting like the Son of man, having upon his head a golden crown and in his hand a sharp sickle. 15 And another angel came forth out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Send thy sickle and reap; for the time to reap hath come : for the harvest of the earth is dried up. 16 And he that sat upon the cloud put his sickle upon the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came forth out of the temple that is in the heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came forth out of the altar, having authority over the fire, and cried with a loud voice to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Send thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. 19 And the angel put his sickle unto the earth, and gathered the fruit of the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the indignation of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came forth out of the winepress unto the bridles of the horses, a thousand six hundred stadia off.

REVELATION 15

1 And I saw another sign in the heaven, great and wonderful: seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them was finished the indignation of God.

2 And I saw as a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those that won the victory over the beast, [and over his image,] and over the number of his name, standing upon the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and wonderful are thy works, O Lord God the Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of the nations. 4 Who shall not fear, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all the nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy righteousnesses were manifested.

5 And after these things I saw, and there was opened the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in the heaven; 6 and the seven angels that had the seven plagues came [out of the temple], clad in pure bright linen, and girt round about their breasts with golden girdles.

7 And one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls, full of the indignation of God that liveth unto the ages of the ages. 8 And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, from his power; and no one was able to enter into the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were finished.

REVELATION 16

1 And I heard a loud voice [out of the temple] saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the seven bowls of the indignation of God unto the earth.

2 And the first went away and poured out his bowl unto the earth; and there came an evil and grievous sore upon the men that had the mark of the beast, and upon those that worshipped his image.

3 And the second poured out his bowl into the sea; and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living soul died, those in the sea.

4 And the third poured out his bowl into the rivers and [into] the fountains of waters; and they became blood. 5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Righteous art thou that art and that wast holy, because thou hast judged these things. 6 For they shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou gavest them blood to drink: they are worthy. 7 And I heard the altar say, Yea, O Lord God the Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.

8 And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given him to scorch men with fire. 9 And the men were scorched with great scorching, and blasphemed the name of God that had authority over these plagues; and they repented not to give him glory.

10 And the fifth poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for the pain, 11 and blasphemed the God of the heaven for their pains and for their sores, and repented not of their works.

12 And the sixth poured out his bowl upon the great river, the Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings that are from the east might be prepared. 13 And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits as frogs. 14 For they are spirits of demons working signs, who go forth unto the kings of the whole habitable world to gather them together unto the war of [that] great day of God the Almighty. 15 (Behold, I come as a thief: blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his raiment, that he walk not naked, and they see not his shame.) 16 And they gathered them together unto the place that is called in Hebrew Harmagedon.

17 And the seventh poured out his bowl upon the air; and there came forth a loud voice from the temple [of the heaven], from the throne, saying, It is done. 18 And there were lightnings and voices and thunders, and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since a man was on the earth — such an earthquake, so great. 19 And the great city became three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and Babylon the great was remembered before God to give her the cup of the wine of the indignation of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were found. 21 And great hail as of a talent's weight cometh down out of the heaven upon men: and men blasphemed God for the plague of the hail; because the plague thereof is exceeding great.

REVELATION 17

1 And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls, and spoke with me, saying, Come hither; I will shew thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth on [the] many waters; 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and those that inhabit the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting upon a scarlet beast full of [the] names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was clothed with purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication, 5 and upon the forehead a name written: Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus; and when I saw her, I wondered with great wonder. 7 And the angel said to me, Wherefore didst thou wonder? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that beareth her, that hath the seven heads and the ten horns. 8 The beast which thou sawest was and is not, and is to rise up out of the abyss and go into perdition: and they shall wonder that dwell on the earth, of whom the name is not written in the book of life from the world's foundation, when they behold the beast that he was and is not and shall be present. 9 Here is the mind that hath wisdom. 10 The seven heads are seven mountains, where the woman sitteth on them; and they are seven kings: five are fallen, one is, the other is not yet come; and when he shall have come, he must continue a short space. 11 And the beast which was and is not, even he is an eighth and is of the seven and goeth into perdition. 12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings which have not yet received a kingdom; but they receive authority as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind and give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them (for he is Lord of lords and King of kings), and those that are with him , called and chosen and faithful. 15 And he saith to me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put into their hearts to accomplish his mind, and to accomplish one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God shall be finished. 18 And the woman whom thou sawest is the great city that hath kingship over the kings of the earth.

REVELATION 18

1 After these things I saw another angel coming down out of the heaven, having great authority; and the earth was illumined with his glory. 2 And he cried with a strong voice, saying, Fallen [fallen] is Babylon the great, and is become a habitation of demons, and a haunt of every unclean spirit, and a haunt of every unclean and hated bird. 3 For of the wine of the fury of her fornication all the nations drank, and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth became rich by the power of her luxury. 4 And I heard another voice out of the heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: 5 for her sins have reached unto the heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her as she also rendered, and double [the] double according to her works: in the cup which she mixed mix to her double. 7 How much she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so much torment and mourning give her. Because in her heart she saith, I sit a queen and am no widow and shall in no wise see mourning; 8 therefore in one day shall her plagues come, death and mourning and famine; and she shall be utterly burnt with fire: for strong is the Lord God that judged her. 9 And the kings of the earth that committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her shall weep and wail on account of her, when they see the smoke of her burning, 10 standing afar off because of the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city Babylon, the strong city! for in one hour came thy judgment. 11 And the merchants of the earth weep and mourn on account of her; for their lading no one buyeth any more — 12 lading of gold and of silver and of precious stone and of pearl and of fine linen and of purple and of silk and of scarlet; and all thyine wood and all furniture of ivory and all furniture of most precious wood, and of brass and of iron and of marble; 13 and cinnamon and amomum and incense and unguent and frankincense and wine and oil and fine flour and wheat and cattle and sheep, and of horses and of chariots and of bodies and souls of men. 14 And the fruits of the desire of thy soul have departed from thee, and all the sumptuous and the bright things have perished from thee, and never shall they find them any more.

15 The merchants of these things that became rich by her shall stand afar off because of the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning, 16 saying, Woe, woe, the great city, that was clothed with fine linen and purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stone and pearls! 17 for in one hour were so great riches made desolate. And every pilot and every voyager and sailors and as many as trade by the sea stood afar off, 18 and cried, seeing the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like the great city! 19 And they cast dust upon their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, wherein all that had ships in the sea became rich by reason of her costliness! for in one hour was she made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets: for God hath judged your judgment on her. 21 And a strong angel took up a stone as a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall Babylon the great city be cast down, and shall in no wise be found more. 22 And no voice of harpers and musicians and pipers and trumpeters shall be heard any more in thee; and no craftsman of any craft shall be found any more in thee; and no sound of millstone shall be heard any more in thee; 23 and no light of lamp shall shine any more in thee; and no voice of bridegroom and of bride shall be heard any more in thee; for thy merchants were the great ones of the earth; for by thy sorcery were all the nations deceived. 24 And in her the blood of prophets and of saints was found, and of all that were slain on the earth.

REVELATION 19

1 After these things I heard as a loud voice of a great multitude in the heaven, saying, Alleluia! the salvation, the glory, and the power of our God: 2 for true and righteous are his judgments; for he hath judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. 3 And a second time they said, Alleluia! and her smoke riseth up unto the ages of the ages. 4 And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshipped God that sitteth on the throne, saying, Amen, Alleluia! 5 And a voice came forth out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, the little and the great. 6 And I heard as a voice of a great multitude, and as a voice of many waters, and as a voice of strong thunders, saying, Alleluia! for the Lord [our] God the Almighty hath reigned. 7 Let us be glad and rejoice and give the glory to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. 8 And to her it was granted that she should be clothed with fine linen bright [and] pure: for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of the saints. 9 And he saith to me, Write: Blessed are those that are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith to me, These are the true words of God. 10 And I fell before his feet to worship him. And he saith to me, See thou do it not: I am fellow-servant of thee and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

11 And I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were [as] a flame of fire, and upon his head were many diadems; he had [names written and] a name written which no one knoweth but he himself; 13 and he was clothed with a garment dyed with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies that are in the heaven followed him upon white horses, clad in white pure fine linen. 15 And out of his mouth proceeded a [two-edged] sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with an iron rod: and he treadeth the winepress of the wine of the indignation of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 And he hath upon the garment and upon his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in mid-heaven, Come, gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God; 18 that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of chiliarchs, and the flesh of strong men, and the flesh of horses, and of those that sit on them, and the flesh of all, both free and bond, and both little and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war with him that sat on the horse and with his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought the signs before him, with which he deceived those that had received the mark of the beast and those that worshipped his image: they two were cast alive into the lake of fire that burneth with brimstone.

21 And the rest were slain with the sword of him that sat on the horse — the sword that came forth out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

REVELATION 20

1 And I saw an angel coming down from the heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain upon his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, the ancient serpent, which is the Devil and Satan , and bound him a thousand years, 3 and cast him into the abyss, and shut and sealed it over him, that he might deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished: after these must he be loosed a little space.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and the souls of those beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God; and those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand: and they lived and reigned with Christ [the] thousand years. 5 [And] the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7 And when the thousand years shall have been finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 and shall go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together unto the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up upon the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the encampment of the saints and the beloved city: and there came down fire out of the heaven [from God] and devoured them. 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast also into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet are; and they shall be tormented day and night unto the ages of the ages.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the little, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things written in the books according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and hades gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged each according to their works. 14 And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if any one was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.

REVELATION 21

1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away; and the sea is no more. 2 And the holy city, new Jerusalem, I saw coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice out of the throne, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. 4 And [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, and no mourning nor crying nor pain shall be any more: for the first things have passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith [to me], Write: for these words are faithful and true. 6 And he said to me, They are done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To him that is athirst I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be God to him, and he shall be a son to me. 8 But for the cowardly and faithless and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

9 And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, having the glory of God. 11 Its light was like a stone most precious, as a jasper stone clear as crystal; 12 it had a wall great and high; it had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel: 13 on the east three gates, and on the north three gates, and on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden measuring rod to measure the city and the gates of it and the wall of it. 16 And the city lieth quadrangular, and the length of it is as much as the breadth; and he measured the city with the reed — twelve thousand stadia: the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall of it, an hundred forty and four cubits, a man's measure which is of the angel. 18 And the building of its wall was jasper; and the city pure gold like pure glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone; the first foundation jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolyte, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprasus, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one of the gates severally was of one pearl: and the street of the city pure gold as transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple in it: for the Lord God the Almighty is the temple of it, and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon, that they should shine on it: for the glory of God illumined it, and the Lamb is the lamp of it. 24 And the nations shall walk by its light; and the kings of the earth bring their glory unto it. 25 And the gates of it shall in no wise be shut by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations unto it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing common, and one practising abomination and a lie; but those that are written in the Lamb's book of life.

REVELATION 22

1 And he shewed me a river of water of life bright as crystal proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street of it and of the river, on this side and on that side, was the tree of life producing twelve fruits, every month yielding its fruit; and the leaves of the tree for healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him, 4 and shall see his face; and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night [there] and no need of lamp and sunlight; for the Lord God will illumine them: and they shall reign unto the ages of the ages.

6 And he said to me, These words are faithful and true; and the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets hath sent his angel to shew his servants the things which must come to pass shortly. 7 And, behold, I am coming quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John was he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and [when I] saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that shewed me these things. 9 And he saith to me, See thou do it not: I am fellow-servant of thee and of thy brethren the prophets and of those that keep the words of this book: worship God. 10 And he saith to me, Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: [for] the time is at hand. 11 He that is unjust, let him do unjustly still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him practise righteousness still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. 12 Behold, I am coming quickly; and my reward with me to give each as his work is. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Blessed are those that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15 Without are the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolaters and every one that loveth and practiseth a lie.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright [and] the morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come; let him that willeth take life's water freely. 18 I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any one add to them, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 and if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city that are written in this book.

20 He that testifieth these things saith, Yea, I am coming quickly. Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ] be with all [the saints. Amen.]

An Exposition of Revelation.

W. Kelly.

Preface.

Some, who know that my volume of Lectures on the Revelation is still in demand and in print, may wonder that I should write another and a smaller book on the same subject. But the aim now in hand is to provide a compact help for those who dislike anything like controversy or even lengthy discussion on questions raised by men of learning. Not a line is taken from the larger book, of which I have not read a word while writing the present little volume, which will be found to furnish views not a little clearer, more accurate, and more mature.

The reader may be assured that the amended text here translated rests on the best authority of ancient date, using internal evidence to decide where the oldest MSS. and Versions differ. Let one instance show how human frailty may mislead: the Received Text, Elzevirs' second edition of 1633, like the first, had λαῳ (people) for ναῳ (temple) in Revelation 3: 12. The Dutch printers who claimed an exorbitant value for their Greek

Testament had not a single manuscript or ancient version to support their preposterous reading. They had probably adopted it from R. Stephens' fourth edition of 1561; for he had given the right word — ναῳ — in his three previous issues of 1546, 1549, and 1550. Who had misled Stephens at last? Not Beza, as far as I know; for after giving ναῳ rightly in his first edition of 1559, he printed λαῳ in 1565 and in 1582, but corrected himself in 1588 and in 1598. It was probably a misprint, but it influenced not a few because of his reputation as a scholar and a divine. He makes no comment either when he went wrong or when he got right. But the misreading spread beyond Stephens, Beza, or the Elzevirs.

As to the application of the prophecy, it may be well to say here that I do not doubt God intended to help His children by what is generally called the Protestant interpretation, but taking the Trumpets as following the Seals, not as concurrent which appears to me nothing but confusion. Yet the scheme fails when it is made complete and exclusive. I cannot but admire the wisdom and goodness of God in granting a vague reference to that protracted history from the prophet's day (nowhere clearer than in foreshadowing the Saracenic and the Turkish Woes of Revelation 9); while the full and minute bearing awaits the crisis at the consummation of the age. It is no real objection that this attributes a twofold force to the bulk of the Apocalypse. Why not, if its internal contents point to this conclusion? That the book has a depth beyond all other prophecies is apparent to such as have adequately studied it. But does not such a prophecy as the Lord's in the earlier verses of Matthew 24 present a similar instance? For they assuredly did apply to the Christian disciples in the land and elsewhere, as they will again to the godly Jewish remnant before this age ends.

The all-important points for intelligence of the Revelation, though ordinarily overlooked, are the continuous sense of "the things which are," as distinguished from those "which are about to be after these"; the real meaning of the vision in Revelation 4, 5, before the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls; and the right understanding of the heavens opened in Revelation 19: 11, etc., after the marriage of the bride above, and before the Lord appears with His saints for the judgment of the quick. To these keynotes may be added the deep supplement beginning with Revelation 12.

I can only pray for His blessing, already promised to him that reads, and to those that hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it; for the time is near. Apart from Christ we can do nothing acceptable to God, any more than enter into His mind; for the Holy Spirit works to glorify the Lord, not the first man.

London, April 25th, 1901.

The Revelation.

That God should have chosen John to be His channel for the closing volume of the New Testament is worthy of our consideration, and need surprise none. His heart, filled with the love of Christ and with a deep sense of His personal glory, made him a suited vessel for the Holy Spirit's communication of his Gospel, his Epistles, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ. No doubt many Johns were on earth, not a few of them in the church of God, yet none but one was entitled to introduce himself as he does in Revelation 1: 1, 4, 9; Revelation 22: 8. It was not only the John who was in Patmos, but who could say, "I came to be" (ἐγενόμην) there for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. The emperor who exiled him dreamt ma of the divine purpose. But could it apply to any John but one? The foundation was laid in his Gospel; and there he only appears as the disciple whom Jesus loved. It was enough: who could dispute the hand that wrote it? The Epistles suppose his Gospel already written; the fuller one allows no name but the Name above every name; yet is the tone throughout that of the beloved disciple unmistakably. To the shorter pair he prefixes "the elder" respectively to the elect lady and her children, and to Gauis the beloved. Do we need more to discern the writer? But it was due to a prophetic book, above all one so profound and lofty and far-reaching, that the name of him that wrote it should be given, yet with a simplicity and a dignity all his own, a wondrous reflex of the Lord Jesus in His servant.

Nor is it a new thing for God to set out the strongest contrasts by the same inspired writer The apostle Peter, who opened the door of the kingdom for the Jews, was chosen to open it for the Gentiles also (Acts 2, 10). Again, he who was the apostle of the uncircumcision called the Jewish believers at length to go forth to Jesus without the camp bearing His reproach. So too the devoted witness of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ was, in God's mind if not in man's, the most fitting medium for revealing the judgments of God coming on the earth. In this lay the moral reason; that Christ, if rejected as the gift of God's grace and hence the object of faith, is His executor of judgment (John 5: 21-29). If men despise the fourfold testimony (there also pointed out) which God gave to His Son, what can be so imperative? The decline, the corruption, and the apostasy of Christendom only make the judicial intervention of God indispensable, in order to clear away rebellious lawlessness, and to establish His kingdom in righteousness, power, and glory. Now that the truth was about to be set at naught as the law had been before in Israel, John was, more than any other, the one left on earth, a suffering exile, to make known the solemn vision of God avenging the injured rights of His own Son, the Son of Man; and this, first by providential inflictions, and at last by Jesus, the Word of God, Himself coming in the personal execution of judgment.

Hence, although there are striking contrasts in form, subject, and issues between the Gospel of John and the Revelation, the person of the Lord Jesus is pre-eminently kept before us in both as the object of God's care and honour. Therefore, even those who could little cuter into the scope of its prophetic visions have gathered unspeakable comfort from the various displays of Christ Himself furnished by this book, especially in times of trial, rejection, and persecution. Who that knows ecclesiastical history, who that has present acquaintance with souls, is not aware that the faithful, with ever so little light but under hardship, have found exceeding nourishment and help in the Apocalypse? Men of mere learning too often have made it as dry as an old almanac.

It is not the Father made known in and by the Son, but the "revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him." Even in that Gospel, which is so fragrant with His divine love, we have the frequent, not to say constant, admonition of the remarkable position which Christ takes. He is carefully regarded as the sent One who lived on account of the Father, as in the Gospel man on earth, so in the Revelation man most truly wherever He may be seen, whether in heaven or on earth, yet in both as truly God, the Eternal. The book is Jesus Christ's revelation, "which God gave to him."

In the Gospel (John 5: 26) it is said the Father gave the Son to have life in Himself. Nothing can more demonstrate how loyally He accepts, and will not speak inconsistently with, the place of man to which He stooped. For in Him was life: yea, He was the eternal life which was with the Father before the worlds were. Nevertheless, having become man in divine grace, He speaks according to the lowly position which He entered here. In glory it is just the same, as we see in the book before us. "Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show to his bondmen." The terms "show" here and "signified" in the clause that succeeds are used with striking propriety, when we consider the visions on the one hand and the signs and symbols on the other which characterise the book. The aim is not to bring them out of that position, or to entitle them to the dignity of children of God. This characterises the Gospel, which distinctively is the revelation of grace and truth in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son. Here it is what God was going to do for His glory as the rejected One, who, therefore, shows it to His "bondmen" — a term that suits those who might be in another relationship, after the church closes its history on earth, during a brief crisis of exceptional judgments.

Hence the comprehensive term is clearly employed with divine wisdom, "to show to his bondmen the things which must shortly come to pass" Remark that it is not "the things which are about to come to pass," which is exactly right in ver. 19, where, after the past vision, the present and the future are distinguished. Here it is to show His bondmen "the things which must come to pass shortly." If Jonah was sent with a warning of minatory character to arouse Nineveh to repent and thus escape their threatened ruin, John was to show the things which, as the guilt was intolerable, must (δεῖ) come to pass shortly. The apostasy of Christendom entails not conditional threats, but necessary and inevitable judgments. The critical facts are disclosed in which we see the church condition set aside because of its final and utter failure to shed the light of the sanctuary, till its last phase becomes so nauseous that the. Lord spues it out of His mouth. Then follow judgments on the world with strokes of ever-increasing severity, in which God was about to maintain the glory of the firstborn, whom He at length introduces personally into the world to reign.

"And he sent and signified (it) through his angel to his bondman John." Sons of God are not contemplated as such, but bondmen of Jesus. Again, "angel" is not without the best reason named with the revelation which God here gives. In the Gospel we read of eternal life in the Son, and this by the grace of God given to the believer; as the Holy Ghost was the only One competent to minister and effectuate such grace according to the counsels of God, and in the ordering of His love. The judicial character of the Revelation calls for a quite different style of communication, and reserve replaces the intimacy of grace. The intervention of "His angel" is therefore to be thus accounted for, as in itself it was fitting.

Here we have visions in display of God's judicial ways, visions of judgment which He would inflict on the ever-growing iniquity of man when ripe. In the Gospel John may speak, but he speaks as one who had seen, and above all heard, the Lord — one who could bear his own testimony for whatever he utters. He may speak but seldom of himself, and efface himself otherwise so effectually, that there are not wanting those who question whether after all the writer could be "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The doubt is quite unfounded certainly; but none can charge John with putting himself forward by the manner in which he writes. So too in his Epistles, which contemplate the Christian company, or a family, or a friend, the one aim is to place the children of God in immediate communion with the Father and the Son. The inspired apostle wrote them all, no doubt, and the various members of God's family, as well as the servants of the Lord, are owned in their place. But therein He who is God our Father manifestly instructs, comforts, and admonishes His own.

But here we meet intervention on every side. God gives a revelation of Jesus to show to His bondmen the things which must shortly come to pass; and Jesus passes it on through His angel to His bondman John; and John testifies accordingly. Thus we have all sorts of links in the chain, and we may ask why. For it is novel, especially in the New Testament. How comes this remarkable introduction of the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to Him, and from Him through an angel to one bondman to show the future to His other bondmen? How is it that we here miss the direct dealing with us, the immediateness of address which is our portion elsewhere? The reason, as solemn as it is instructive, is implied indeed in the analogy of the Old Testament; for God did not always address His people there. Yet habitually God's messengers were sent to Israel, even when prophets were raised up. At first all addressed the people in His name. The word of Jehovah was sent to Jehovah's people. But what an affecting change took place when the message became indirect? See the book of Daniel as the fullest proof of it. And no doubt it was really meant for the people; but God gave it to Daniel, and only so.

This opens the true meaning of the remarkable change in the Apocalypse as compared with the rest of the New Testament. When the children of Israel had hopelessly betrayed the Lord, and their departure was complete before His eyes, not only in the first rent-off portion or the ten tribes of Israel but in the remaining two, when not only Judah apostatised but even the house of David, the anointed king, the last regular link; between Jehovah and His people, then He addressed His people no more but only a chosen faithful servant as His witness. It was a sure token that all was over for the present as to immediateness of communion between God and His people. God could no longer recognise them as His own: they were Lo-Ammi, not My-people, as He had warned before through Hosea. Applying this to the church and to our own circumstances, is it not most grave?

It is not in the least doubted that God proves Himself faithful in the worst of times. No deduction could be more false than that Daniel, his three companions, and possibly others also, were not personally as pleasant to Him as David was. Did He not look with exceeding satisfaction in His grace upon the servant who felt and answered to His own feelings about His people? It was precisely because of this that Daniel received so exceptional an honour. In a certain sense it was better to be a Daniel in the midst of ruin than to have had the best position when times were prosperous. When all was out of course to stand faithful was a greater proof of fidelity, than to be so when things were regular. Thus grace is equal to every difficulty, and a time of ruin gives occasion for more grace.

But the solemn fact faces us that such a crisis even then came: the church of God is no longer directly addressed in the book. John stands in a position analogous to Daniel; he, not that which still bore the name of the Lord here below, becomes now the object of communications from the Lord Jesus. However the grace of the Lord might act, however He might animate as well as warn, still the address is made directly to His servant John, and not to the church. Even where we have addresses, as we find in chapters 2 and 3, they are not immediately to the churches, but to their "angels." It is manifest that all accentuates the same serious conclusion, the ruin of the Christian testimony in its responsibility. This does not touch the stability of grace, or of God's faithfulness; but it tells the old and humbling story of what man is, however blessed.

Hence and thus John "testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." It seems here restricted, not meaning the truth in general, nor the gospel in particular, though we cannot doubt that John did preach the gospel, and did nourish the church of God in all His revealed truth. This however is not the subject of the Apocalypse, nor the sense of our text. All is here limited to that which "he saw"; which is of importance to apprehend the force of the passage, as also the character of the book. The word "and" must vanish, if we respect the best authorities; for a third description is not meant, but rather an explanation restricting the other two. But how are we to understand the word of God and the testimony of Jesus here? The answer is given by the last clause when "and" is taken away. It consists of the visions recorded in this book, "whatsoever [or all] things that he saw." John receives a new character of word and testimony, his visions; but it is none the less God's word and Christ's witness.

Accordingly the Apocalypse can be slighted only by unbelief; for it, no less than the Gospels or the Epistles, is here styled "the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." They revealed grace; it announces judgments. What a rebuke to proud scholars and prejudiced theologians, too unspiritual to appreciate the book, and too self-complacent to learn! It is thus carefully ushered in, but in the prophetic method morally fitting for the series of visions which John saw. This is of so much the greater emphasis, as it is apparently designed in an express manner to counteract the tendency (but too common notwithstanding) to treat the Apocalypse as of less, if not doubtful, value, and of precarious authority. But no: it is stamped to John by our Lord Jesus as the word of God and His own testimony. We know that too many disputers of this age have in their folly dared to insult the book. The Judge of quick and dead more carefully authenticates it than any other in the canon of scripture. If it consists not of that which directly edifies the Christian in the privileges of grace, it urgently announces the doom of such as despise God and prefer their own ideas and will to His revelation.

Be it remarked too, that a special blessing is prefixed to the prophecy. Was it not expressly and graciously to encourage His bondmen, as well as to foreclose the cavils of unbelief? "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein." It is even for those to hear and keep who could not read; and blessed are such. What can one think of those who all but exclude it from their liturgies? What of those who boast of their freedom from these forms, and are no less disrespectful and unbelieving? Doubt not its practical power. No one ever decried the book whom it did not morally condemn; none read or hear, and keep it without rich blessing.

The stated reason given is much to be weighed; for it is not, as men often assume, because we are to be in the predicted circumstances. As a matter of fact, the Christian, the church, does not pass through the special troubles here described. Not a word to this effect is implied, but quite a different reason is given. As the book itself lets us know that the church will be on high outside the scene of earth's exceeding troubles and inflicted judgments, so the motive assigned in the preface is of a strikingly holy nature, adapted to all those who walk by faith, not by sight, and free from all selfish considerations: "for the fit time [is] at hand." It is not that the time is actually come, so that we must go through all or any of the strictly future part; but the fit time is near. God therefore writes for our comfort, admonition, and general blessing in whatever way it may be wanted; He takes for granted that we are interested in whatever He has to say to us. "For the fit time is at hand." It is a false principle therefore that we can only be profited by that which concerns ourselves, or supposes us to be in the actual circumstances described. The words are to be heard, the things written in the book to be kept; not the seven Epistles only, but all its contents to the end of all things. Prophecy edifies those who believe God before it comes to pass. It is a proof against unbelievers when fulfilled; but its true aim and best blessing is for those who heed it before.

Then comes the salutation. Here too all is as peculiar in itself as suitable to the book on which we enter: "John to the seven churches which [are] in Asia." The First Epistle of John is essentially for all saints in its nature and contents, as the absence of local address implies. It treats of what never passes, of eternal life not in Christ only but possessed by all the faithful, "which thing is true in him and in you." But here local churches were no less requisite, for reasons to appear, in full variety, and so as to account for judicial extinction. This could not have been if the saints were viewed as the object of sovereign grace, as in the Epistle to the Ephesians. With solemn responsibility, as here, it is easy and plain.

Again on no other occasion do we find anything akin to this. Hitherto we read of the saints receiving an epistle in one place or another. A particular assembly, or the assemblies of a wide district like Galatia, may be addressed. Never but here is an address given to a distinct number of assemblies, particularly one so definite and significant symbolically as "seven." Surely something is meant outside the ordinary course of things, where so unexampled a style is adopted. The spiritual usage of "seven" in prophetic scripture cannot be questioned. Nor is it confined to prophecy, for the same force holds good wherever symbol is employed. In typical scripture also seven is the regular sign of spiritual completeness.

Who then but uninstructed or prejudiced minds can question that the Lord meant more than the actual assemblies in the province of Asia? That the letters were written and sent to literal congregations from Ephesus to Laodicea admits of no dispute. But can one doubt that these were chosen, and the addresses shaped to them, so as to bring before those who have ears to hear the complete circle of the Lord's testimony here below, as long as there should be anything possessed (responsibly, if not fully) of a church character? The state of things might be one of ruin, for the first church had to fear its lamp removed; it might become even gross and false, as much was in several: still an ecclesiastical profession subsisted if only for His dealing in judgment. This never appears after chap. 4. No such condition exists afterwards; thenceforth the ecclesiastical footing disappears for man's allegiance. In short, as long as church responsibility exists here below, these addresses apply as such, and no longer. Low as we are, and bound to humble ourselves for the actual state of ruin and scattering of the church as a divine institution, who is bold enough to deny that the Lord still owns and deals judicially at least, though this be far from all, with a church status on earth? Revelation 4 tells us much more in confirmation; but this in its own time and due place.

"To the seven churches which [are] in Asia: Grace [be] to you, and peace, from him that is, and that was, and that is to come." It is not "from the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," or any other form found in the apostolic Epistles. The salutation is from God in His own being, the ever-existing One, He who is, and who was, and who is to come. It asserts the continuity of His present being emphatically with the past and with the future. It is not "He who was, and is, and is to come," as in Rev. 4: 8, but "He who is, and who was, and who is to come." His essential being is set in the first place, and not only that He is the God of ages or Jehovah, the name: revealed to the sons of Israel. "And from the seven Spirits that [are] before his throne." Here again we find a description of the Holy Ghost expressly in government, and with decided difference from what meets us in the New Testament generally. The allusion is clear to Isaiah 11: 2, where the sevenfold power of the Holy Ghost in government is connected with the person and for the kingdom of the Messiah. "And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest," etc. This is taken up here, and applied in a far larger way for purposes suitable to the Apocalyptic prophecy, which contemplates the ruin of Christendom.

Indeed the same remark will be found true of all the use that is made of Old Testament citations and allusions in the Apocalypse. Constant reference is made to the Law, Psalms, and Prophets; but it is never a mere repetition of what was found there. This would be in effect to deprive ourselves of the Apocalypse, instead of apprehending its peculiar profit. If one identifies the Jerusalem of Isaiah with the New Jerusalem of the Revelation, or sets the Babylon of Jeremiah to exhaust the Apocalyptic Babylon, it is clear that this is just to lose the special instruction God is here giving us. Doubtless it is a main source of confusion on the scope of the Apocalypse to this day. Yet if we do not take into account the Old Testament oracles as to Babylon or Jerusalem, if we slight the instruction derived from the prophets generally, we are hardly prepared for appreciating or even understanding the Apocalypse as a whole. Thus, either to dislocate the New absolutely from the Old, or to see no more than a rehearsal of the Old in the New, is an almost equal error. There is a divine link in all, as the Spirit's mind had an unmistakable reference; but the Apocalypse gives an incomparably wider range, and a more profound character, and none the less because the present things are shown to be out of course, and demand to be set aside. The Apocalypse looks on things after the Holy Ghost had taken His place in the Christian and in the church on earth; above all it was after the Son had appeared, manifested God the Father, and accomplished redemption here below. Hence all the fulness of divine light which had come out in Christ's person and work, as well as by the Spirit for the church of God, is necessary to remember in order to seize the just bearing of the Apocalypse.

The seven Spirits then refer, beyond fair doubt, to the Holy Ghost acting with all variety in the way of government ("before his throne"). How different from the truth of the same Spirit sent forth from heaven, and baptising the saints into the one body of Christ here below! But there is no just ground for thinking of created spirits or angels in this connection any more than in Rev. 5: 6. Never do the seven Spirits pay worship to God; and the reason is, that they mean God's Spirit. It is only in Christianity and the church that we know God as He is — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In government, whether of Old or in Apocalyptic scenes, He is not so revealed. But it is an offence against truth to mix up Creator and creature. It is the completeness of the Holy Ghost's energy as an overruling power. What the application of this may be depends on the context where it is used. It is in relation to Christ dealing ecclesiastically in Revelation 3, and again in His relation to the earth in Revelation 5; but it is always the Spirit in full variety of governmental power, rather than the same Spirit viewed in His unity as forming the church into one body. This we have had already in the Pauline Epistles, where the proper sphere of the Christian as a member of Christ's body is treated especially, and indeed only there.

God as such is thus introduced in Old Testament style and character, but applied to New Testament subjects in a far larger way; the Holy Ghost also is similarly brought before us; and so too with our Lord. "And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the prince [or, ruler] of the kings of the earth." Indeed there is nothing more remarkable, especially when we bear in mind who the writer is, than the absence here of Christ's proper relationship to the children of God. Revelation of grace is precisely what is not found in this book, if one search into the character of its visions generally. "Jesus Christ" appears as the Faithful Witness. This clearly He was on the earth when man wholly failed. In a very different tone it was John's topic everywhere. We may look on the Lord as gone up to heaven, where Paul loved to contemplate Him glorified; but John habitually points to Christ the eternal Word and Son as He was here below. If he speaks of Him as the Lamb above, the description is founded on His having been the rejected sufferer on earth. Next He is "the firstborn of the dead." This too He was on earth. Satan, who had the power of death, had nothing in Him; but by the grace and for the glory of God He died, and rose victorious, the Firstborn of the dead. Again, as "the prince of the kings of the earth," He waits to be displayed when He comes by-and-by to earth. But what He is now for us in God's presence and does in heaven in activity of grace is exactly what we have not given us here. There is the most careful exclusion from the book of His heavenly position as Head or even our High Priest. Even the present grace which livingly connects Him with the Christian is left out.

Thus the Lord Jesus is here brought before us as Man on earth, required specially for the purpose of this prophetic book. God was announced in His own eternal being; the Holy Ghost in His varied fulness of governmental power; the Lord Jesus in that which connected Him not with heaven but with the earth, even if risen from the dead, and the coming King of kings. He is for this and perhaps other reasons put in the last place.

But when Christ is named, the voice of Christians is at once heard. This is so much the more remarkable, because it is one of the sweet exceptional ripples which cross the ordinary current of the book at the end as well as at the beginning. It is not so when the course of the visions is fairly entered on. Before these begin Christians are heard, as the bride is after the visions close. The name of Jesus is enough to stir the heart, for those who know Him as we do, in a suited doxology. He may not be described in His relationships peculiar to us, but He who is described is the One that loves us and that we love. So we say, "To him that loveth us" (for this is the true reading and rendering, not merely that "loved" us) — "to him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his blood; and he made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father; to him [be] the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages." What was a condition to Israel, and a condition they broke forthwith by their rebellion against Jehovah in idolatry, is to us an accomplished fact, and an abiding gift of grace through redemption, not the place of priests only but of kings. Even here, or anywhere else in the book, it is not said "to our Father," however true this be in itself. All is in keeping with the aim of the Revelation "to his God and Father." We are regarded not in the nearness of God's children, but in conferred dignity and office. "To him be the glory and the might for ever and ever." He is worthy.

As this is the heart's outpouring of its own delight in Jesus, so the next verse gives a warning testimony suitable to the book, lest there should be any weakening of what Jesus will be to those who stand in no such relation to Him. "Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they which [οἵτινες] pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth [or, land] shall wail [or, beat their breasts] at him." This clearly is judicial, and has nothing to do with His presence or coming for us. But after our own delight and thanksgiving have gone forth toward Jesus, the solemn testimony to others quite suitably follows the song of praise, which had (if one may say, involuntarily, certainly of the Holy Spirit in our hearts) burst forth at His name. It is Christ coming in judgment. He shall be seen by every soul — if there be any difference, to the sorest anguish above all — by those that pierced Him (i.e. the Jews). "Yea, Amen." We have learnt to bow and bless God.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith [the] Lord God, that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty." He who is the Source and Doer of all, who communicates everything that can be made known to man, He it is who here speaks, the Lord God, the Eternal, and the Almighty putting His voucher on the book from the beginning. The words, as often elsewhere in John's writings, purposely mix up God and Christ. But here it is the divine sanction of every word, whether in vetting aside the guilty present or in establishing the future down to the eternal state. None but the true God could speak to it; and John expressly says that Jesus is the true God. For the prophecy embraces God's judgment of the world, of living and dead, in a regular order beyond all other books, till time melts into eternity, and all things are made new.

Then John describes himself in a manner adapted to the testimony he is called to render: "I John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and patience in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus." There is to be ample employment of symbol; but literal fact is carefully stated: the place, a bare and stern isle of the Sporades, where the apostle was banished for the truth's sake; and also the very day when he saw the vision. How all here said harmonises with what afterwards comes out! The whole book supposes saints in tribulation, with their spiritual experience formed into the associations of the kingdom rather than those of Christ's body the church, as yet surely suffering on account of the word of God and of the testimony of Jesus. Particular care is taken to show this to us.

Not that the full church relationship was lacking to John; but he stands here as prophet rather than apostle, a representative man for others as well as ourselves. While therefore he had all that is properly Christian, he also had special communications of another sort for saints who follow us at the end of this age, when "the tribulation" will be emphatically verified. Thus he introduces himself here as a joint partaker, not of God's promise in Christ by the gospel, but in His kingdom and patience. It is true for us all, but in special harmony with the latter-day sufferers, and not specifically with the church. The place here presented is of course a Christian's; but that is put forward which belonged to others, who should not have the same corporate standing as ourselves. Yet there is a careful guard against any supposition that he was not in the full enjoyment of his due place in Christ.

This seems to be one reason why it pleased God to give the visions of the book on the Lord's day. "I became in Spirit on the Lord's day." It is not "the day of the Lord," as has been strangely fancied, but expressed by a wholly different phrase, which guards from any such thought (ἐν τῃ κυριακῃ ἡμέρᾳ). It is the characteristic day of the Christian, the birthday of his distinctive blessing, as it assuredly ought to be an especial joy of his heart, because it is the resurrection day of grace and new creation, not the seventh day of old creation rest and law. In the day of the Lord no churches are recognised on earth, nor is the Lord in any such relation as here appears. It opens in Revelation 19: 11. The Greek phrase in the two cases wholly differs. "The Lord's day," like "the Lord's Supper," is unique; "the day of the Lord" is always expressed differently, often as it occurs in both Old Testament and New.

On that day the inspired writer John came under the power of the Holy Spirit to take in and give out the visions he was to see. "And I heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet." It was significant, no doubt, that the voice was "behind" him. The main object of all prophecy tended rather to have thrown him forward. But before the Spirit of God could fitly launch into the visions of the future, there must be a retrospective glance. Therefore in these preliminary chapters our Lord is seen as Son of Man judging in the midst of the seven lamps. God only discloses the distinct future when the existing object of His care is done with. In the Spirit John must be, both to shut out every impression from external objects, and to give him an entrance into all that God was about to reveal. Yet first of all we should recognise the fact that it was on the Lord's day; and next that, before he was shown what lay before, he must turn to the voice behind him and learn what the Lord judged of that which bore His name on the earth. But how new to John "a great voice as of a trumpet" from the Lord Jesus! How different from the good Shepherd's voice he and the other sheep heard and knew! A loud voice as of a trumpet summoned attention imperatively: compare Exodus 19: 19. So it will for another end in that day (Isa. 27: 13; Matt. 24: 31). In the normal state of the church it would have been incongruous.

Omit the spurious opening clause, and read after it, "saying, What thou seest, write." The reference of the voice behind is exclusively to the seven assemblies. When the proper prophecy is about to begin, the first voice which he heard as of a trumpet says, "Come up hither." There is no question then of a voice behind: he goes upward, given to look into the future. But there must first be a retrospective notice, in which the Lord pronounces His judgment on that which bore the name of Christendom here below. "What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] to the seven churches; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. And I turned to see the voice which was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lamps [or, lampstands]." These were responsible light-bearers, not the stands alone of course but their lamps, viewed according to God's mind about them constituted in divine righteousness. Therefore were they "golden." It is a great principle, and remarkably characterises John's writings So the standard for the Christian is not in anywise the law (it was so for the Jew); for us it is Christ Himself, and cannot without the utmost loss be anything else. "He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk" — how? Like an Israelite? Not so; for the Christian ought to remember that he is a heavenly man (1 Cor. 15: 48), not a man of dust like Adam. He "ought himself also so to walk even as he (Christ) walked." The Christian is not under law but under grace; and this, not for salvation only, but for present walk (Rom. 6). If he have the blessing in faith, he cannot evade the responsibility in practice.

Thus it is with the seven golden lamps. All must be and was measured according to God's mind, and the place in which He set the assemblies. Consistency with Him as God revealed in Christ is their rule. Hence it is they appear as "golden" damps. They had from God divine righteousness as their character; but they come under moral judgment as to their ways. How many saints there are who in their personal walk are pious and vigilant, and yet entirely overlook that their corporate responsibility to the Lord is no less obligatory! Here the question is about that public testimony to His word and name. For John saw "in the midst of the [seven] lamps one son-of-man like, clothed with a garment down to the foot." The one seen was like a son of man. Christ was not like, but truly, "the Son of Man." Yet this phrase says more than the inspired text. Like "the" Son of Man might enfeeble or deny the truth. One like a son of man was seen at a glance. That He was the Son of Man became soon plain enough; but here as everywhere we must adhere to scripture.

There is not now the sign of activity; the robe was not tucked up for gracious service with girded loins. The Son of Man is seen clad in the flowing garb of dignity reaching to the feet, and He is "girt about the breasts with a golden girdle." Divine righteousness girds Him at the breasts in dignity as judge, not at the loins for strenuous work of grace. But He is Ancient of days as well as Son of Man. "And his head and his hairs [were] white as white wool, as snow; and his eyes as a flame of fire; and his feet like fine brass, as if they glowed in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters, and having in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth a sharp two-edged sword going forth; and his countenance as the sun shineth in its power." His eyes indicated scathing and consuming judgment; His feet, inflexible and unsparing firmness in it; His voice bespoke resistless majesty. Subordinate rulers ecclesiastical were in His right hand of power; out of His mouth went forth the word that judged with unerring decision on both sides, and His countenance with supreme authority and might shine forth as the great light that rules the day.

Do even the children of God believe that these are the characteristics of Christ walking in the midst of the churches? How many a saint, jealous and self-judging as to his personal ways before God, excuses his ecclesiastical associations as of no real living moment! He might know with entire assurance that the worship, the ministry, and the general state are wholly at issue with God's word; but he has been taught to regard all these as necessary evils, which he has to bear. How opposed to this laxity is the responsibility which the Lord here enforces! For what means His eyes as a flame of fire? What His feet as if they glowed in a furnace? What a sharp two-edged sword going forth out of His mouth? Is He not at war with the loose or latitudinarian?

Hence we have to remark that Christ is seen, not as Head, nor as Priest, nor Advocate, but in a judicial point of view. He is spoken of as Son of Man; and, as we know, this is the aspect in which it is given Him to execute every kind of judgment, as is expressly so taught in John's own Gospel. He is judging the lamps set to shed light in a world of darkness, and this at the very time the light grew dim and precarious, if not at first expiring. Yet with this another feature betrays John, suiting him as the writer strikingly. He that is seen as Son of Man is described with those marks which belong distinctively to the "Ancient of days." Daniel sees the "Ancient of days" in one way, and the Son of Man in another, though even there the Ancient of days came, indicating their oneness (7). John sees the Son of Man with the qualities of the Ancient of days. He is man; but the man seen then and thus is a divine person, the eternal God Himself. Let me ask, Whose style does this identification of nature fall in with but the writer's that we are now reading? Does it not convince more than ever, not so much similarity of phrase which might be imitated? Morally speaking Jesus must execute judgment; but John does not lose sight of His divine glory, even where the subject is not grace; but judgment, with the kingdom to follow everywhere anticipated.

A threefold glory of Christ appears: what is personal in the robe, girdle, and hair; what is relative in His eyes, feet, and voice; and finally, what is official in His right hand, mouth, and countenance. But there is more also. For it is said, "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last." It was no similitude of mere man, but the Lord. Such terms alone become One who is divine. He who is first is necessarily God; and He who is first, being God, must certainly be last. Jesus declares Himself to be all this; yea, more than this, "the living one, and I became dead." He deigned not only to become man, but as willingly to die, cost what it might, as His death did everything to blot out the evil and prepare for all blessing. The phrase is the strongest way of putting the matter. It is not merely that He died: this is not quite what He says here, though it is said elsewhere, and very truly. He says that He "became" dead. This forcibly implies His own willingness to die, as indeed He became what did not belong to Him personally, and what seemed extraordinarily incongruous with the glorious person as already described. Is it not conveyed in the peculiarity of the phrase? So careful is the Holy Ghost to watch over the dignity of Christ even in that which told out the depths of His humiliation. "And, behold, I am living unto the ages of the ages." He is the vanquisher of death, and of him who had its power. We must leave out the word "Amen," which here, being spurious, only and evidently mars the sense.

Let it suffice once for all to say that the text adopted rests on the basis of the ancient and best authorities. There is positive evidence of a convincing and satisfactory kind for the insertions, omissions, or changes throughout. Do not imagine that in this there is arbitrary innovation. The real innovators were those who departed by slip or by will from the very words of the Spirit. Arbitrariness now would be in maintaining what has insufficient authority against that which is as certain as can be. Error surely is not in seeking the oldest and best supported text, but in allowing tradition to tie us to comparatively modern and certainly to mistaken, if not corrupted, readings. We are bound in everything to yield to the highest authority, with the context to help us in deciding where the best manuscripts differ as they do. So in the next words our Lord really says, "And I have the keys of death and of hades"; and who but He could say them? Not so runs the common text; but that is the true order. No one goes to Hades before he dies, Death being in relation to the body, Hades to the separate spirit. How truly Christ died and lived, that He might be Lord of both dead and living!

"Write therefore [improperly omitted] the things which thou sawest, and the things which are, and what is* about to take place after these." This gives us, as is familiar to most Christian readers, the general threefold division of the book of Revelation. The things that he saw were the glory of Christ in relation to this book, as described in the first chapter, on which we have already touched. Short as the account is, one can hardly exaggerate its importance in itself and for all that follows; for it is the Lord revealed as assuming formally a judicial character. "The things which are" express not merely the then present, but the prolonged condition set forth in the addresses to the seven churches. The expression is striking; because, while applying to the existing seven assemblies, it naturally conveys (when the epistles to them are adequately understood) that the churches were somehow to exist continuously. A formal prophecy would have falsified the church's hope as a constant and vital reality. Divine wisdom gave such an extension to "the things which are" as should bear on the successive states of the church as long as it should be here on earth. We can see now why it was. Possibly, when the epistles were sent out in the days of John, no particular emphasis might be laid on "the things that are"; the saints would naturally be absorbed in the call on themselves. But inasmuch as analogous states have since gone on to the present, the immense force such a phrase when duly weighed carries in itself becomes evident. Nothing would then be allowed to weaken waiting for Christ as our proximate hope; but if He tarried, it is an abiding appeal as long as the church abides here below.

* It is not without interest to note the singular, which puts together as a mass the future "after these things" "The things which are" we find in the plural, each of them being distinctive in a way not so applicable to the judgments on the world in the Seals, Trumpets, and Vials, which series differ not so much in kind as in growing severity, which is morally just.

Singular to say, an effort has been revived which never ought to have been made to explain its force, especially in the light of what goes before and of what follows. The Greek, except in very careless style, cannot bear "and what they signify"; for this would require τίνα (or ἅτία) instead of ἅ, thus giving a different force to the second ἃ from the first and third. N.T. phraseology allows no such laxity; and the context, being dislocated thereby, totally forbids it. Others seek to attain the same result by the plea that εἰσὶν may practically mean "signify" here, as sometimes elsewhere. But there is no analogy here with any such cases; and for the plain and conclusive reason, that in none of them is there a distinction compared with the past and the future. The only sound and satisfactory rendering, therefore, is that adopted in the A. and R. versions, and indeed in almost all others, modern as well as ancient. There is necessarily a closer connection with "the things which thou hast seen," in which was the vision of the Son of Man judging in the midst of the golden lamps; but to "the things that are" belongs its own distinct importance as conveyed in the seven epistles, and by its peculiarity lending itself to the continuous existence of the present state.

"What is about to take place after these" is the exact translation of the next phrase. Even "afterward" would be here equivocal. "After these things" gives the true sense required, as it is the closely literal rendering. Not another instance in the Revelation can bear the vague "hereafter," or even "afterward" which is meant in John 13: 7. Here again the context fixes the precision of its general usage, and forbids the looser application, which might be, where no line of distinction is drawn between past and present. The beginning of Rev. 4 confirms fully the exact rendering "after these things." The strictly future division of the book cannot begin whilst a church condition exists.

A little more follows. "The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest on my right hand, and the seven golden lamps: the seven stars are angels of the seven churches; and the seven lamps are seven churches." As the lamps symbolise churches, so do the stars their angels. Surely "the mystery" prepares us for views of the subordinate lights or angels, and of the lamps or churches far beyond the letter of then existing facts. What "mystery" was there in the historical facts of these seven churches in proconsular Asia? It seems inconceivable that such a word should be employed here if no more had been intended than the actual circumstances. But if these "seven" were selected for this prophetic book to represent in divine wisdom successive phases of the existing church state, however protracted, the propriety of the term becomes apparent Thus, too, is explained the application of "the stars," well known in the ancient prophecy of Daniel, but due here to the extraordinary and abnormal state of the Christian testimony and a state of decline and approaching ruin; for the last of them indicates no revival or recovery, but the Lord spueing it out of His mouth.

In each letter the Lord addresses "the angel." Who and what is he? The regular charges of elder) and deacons are passed over in silence; nor are the gifts of the ascended Christ in evidence. But a new title at issue with the sanctioned order hitherto would be a strange thing on our Lord's part, when on man's a decline had set in. We never hear of "angel" as an official title in the ordinary arrangements of the New Testament. "The angel" is a term for the leader that suits chaps. 2 and 3 of such a prophetic book as the Revelation, just as literal angels are in keeping with the book of Daniel. Does it mean what we commonly call an angelic being? Not here surely, where "angels of the churches" are spoken of. If we hear of the angel of fire, and even of the angel of Jesus Christ, as of Jehovah elsewhere, there is no difficulty, though all these be outside the thoughts and language of the Epistles. But it is very new to hear of the angel of this or that assembly. Again, we can understand an angel employed, a spiritual messenger from on high, as the means of communication between the Lord and His servant John; but how harsh to suppose that His servant John writes a letter from Christ to a literal angel! This is one of the clear difficulties in which those are involved who suppose angelic beings to be here meant. The nature of the case precludes it.

As "angel" is used in the sense of a representative, so in reference to the assemblies the Lord here avails Himself of this general idea. A messenger or moral representative of each assembly is implied. "Angel" was used of a human representative. For instance, when John the Baptist sent two of his disciples, there was a representation of his mind by these men when they gave the message of him who sent them (Luke 7: 24). The representative force appears also in Acts 12: 15 (only here it was of a spiritual character); and so in Matthew 18: 10. But it assumes a different shape when it was a question of assemblies. They were His chief lights, representing each the assembly, and so became His medium in judging its state according to the divine standard.

If therefore we look at the abstract nature of the angel of the church, what is taught by the term? Presumably this, that the Lord had in view not necessarily an elder, nor a teacher, but one who might be either or both; but before His mind he truly represented, and was in a special way bound up with the responsibility of, the state of the assembly. Whoever that might be was meant by the angel of the church. The state of Christianity, or rather of the churches, made this reserve suitable morally. The Lord adopts it in judging, rather than the ordinary medium of either the gifts or the local charges. It is the prophetic character of the book, the critical condition of the churches, which accounts not only for the angel representatives, but for the separate view of the churches. For the unity of the body of Christ is a wholly distinct truth, and stands on the basis of divine counsels now and for ever made good by and in Christ the Head. "The seven churches" have their own moral bearing as introducing God's future dealings with the world when they vanish from the scene. All effort, from this special aim, to set aside unity, and to supplant it by independency, is as unintelligent as it is vain and evil. To deduce from the stars and the candlesticks new officials and congregational independency would be to overthrow the nature of ministry and the unity of the church, as already taught wherever the Holy Spirit reveals either truth. But what does man's will not essay? "The things that are" abide still, though going on from danger at the beginning to utter rejection at the last: a strange time and state to organise the church anew, and an unheard of function.

Revelation 2

"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden lamps." Here we are on broad ground. The characteristics are general. The first epistle, the message to the angel of the church in Ephesus, looks at the state of the Christian testimony on the earth in its most comprehensive form, and, as one may suppose, from the days of the apostle John himself. The Lord accordingly presents Himself with similar latitude, "He that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden lamps." The position, both ministerial and ecclesiastical, is ruled by His relationship to the angels (i.e. those that morally represented the assemblies to His eye), and to the churches in view. The "star" is that which acted on the assembly — the vessel of light from the Lord to bear on the condition of the assembly. If that light were ineffectual, if evil mixed with it, the state of the assembly would partake of it; if bright, the assembly would be elevated morally thereby. In Him who held the seven stars in His right hand, and walked in the midst of the seven golden lamps, we have Christ not merely holding fast those ideal representatives, but also judicially interested in the assemblies themselves. In short, it is Christ in His fullest but most general ministerial and ecclesiastical aspect according to the governmental tenor of the book.

The state of the church in Ephesus has the same generality. "I know thy works, and [thy] labour, and patience (or, endurance), and that thou canst not bear evil [men]; and thou didst try those that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and thou didst find them liars." There was some faithfulness, and this particularly in dealing with the wickedness which Satan sought to bring in at that time. The apostles were disappearing, and perhaps had all disappeared save John. One can understand that then naturally Satan would endeavour to furnish instruments nothing loath to claim succession. The church in Ephesus tried these pretended apostles, specially the angel, as one that helped them much by grace from the Lord. The "star" so far acted upon the church for good. When such assumption was essayed, they were one in trying and refusing those who set up to be what they were not.

But much more is here. Persistent faithfulness and devotedness still characterised them at Ephesus. "And thou hast patience, and didst bear for my name, and hast not wearied. But I have against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love." This is the Lords complaint against them. It is plain that here as ever is the first departure, the general but sure symptom of declension. What injures, and finally ruins, is invariably from within, not from without. In vain does Satan seek to cast down those who, resting on Christ's love, have Him as the cherished object of their soul and life. Was it not thus when the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by Paul? Had they now left their first love? Was it with them as once when Christ was all, and flesh only evil in their eyes? Alas! the failure in this respect. They had here relaxed, not in their works: these went on diligently. There were works, and labour, and endurance. But where now the work of faith? Where the labour of love? Where the endurance of hope? The power that had produced the mighty results was no longer active, nor could be. The effect continued; the spring was gone. They had relaxed in their first love. It was all over with them, unless they judged themselves, and in the power of the Holy Ghost gave to Christ His place.

"Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I am coming to thee,* and will remove thy lamp out of its place, except thou repent." Whether it be Christ as He is represented or the description of the church's state, whether the fault that is charged home or the remedy proposed, whether the judgment threatened or the promise held out, — all is of the most general description. So thoroughly does the Lord adhere to topics of the largest and most common import in the letter to the angel of the assembly in Ephesus. Yet how solemn to hear the gracious Lord, as His present judgment of the actual state of the assembly in Ephesus, threaten this choice church which Paul planted with the removal of its lamp! Such a sentence does not mean that individual saints lose the portion of grace, but that the assembly forfeits its public place of light-bearer, because of its unjudged condition. Even then the Lord, however grieved, does not fail to note its hatred, shared with Himself, of allowing and glossing over iniquity, as the next words show. "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans,** which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: to him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of [my] God." Here again all is large and comprehensive. What can be wider than this promise?

* Erasmus edited τάχει from his faulty MS. ταχεῖ, but the Complutensian editors, Colinaeus, and others read ταχύ, which is as right in ver. 16, as it is here inappropriate. For there is no "quickly" in the Lord's coming to remove the lamp, though He does come quickly to fight with the corruption of the church.

** In the lately discovered work (at first wrongly imputed to Origen) of Hippolytus on Heresies, vii. 36, their leader is said to have taught indifference of actions and of meats. But the Bishop of Portus Romanus, like others, may draw only from what scripture implies.

In the letter to the angel of the church in Smyrna, a totally different state of things appears. It is essentially a special case instead of the general one first seen. After declension from apostolic purity, above all from first love, the Lord was pleased to afflict; He allowed all sorts of trial to befall His people by letting loose the power of Satan working by Gentile persecutors. "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These things saith the First and the Last, who became dead and lived: I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the blasphemy of those that call themselves Jews, and they are not, but a synagogue of Satan." It is not now a trial by false claimants. A new evil appears. As long as true apostles were on earth, Satan was never able to get Judaism recognised in the church of God. The council in Jerusalem expressly exempted the Gentiles from being put under the yoke of law. And the apostle of uncircumcision showed on his own ground that it was really to annul Christ, and to fall from grace, if the law, introduced either for justification or for a rule of life, were imposed on the Christian. For justification this is manifest; but for a rule of life it is not so apparent, yet it is just as real a denial of the gospel. If Christ be the rule of life for the Christian, and the law be the rule of death as Jews ought to know (though they do not), it is evident that for a Christian to abandon that for this tends to apostasy. The early fathers thus Judaised; and the leaven has gone on working ever since. To take the position of a Jew virtually is to be one of those that say they are such and are not, but are, alas! Satan's synagogue.

The Lord here contemplates these evil workers (which is what crying up of works comes to) forming a distinct party. It is not merely Satan struggling to get in Judaism by individuals, but, as He says here, "the blasphemy" (railing or calumny) "of those that say they are Jews, and are not, but a synagogue of Satan." They have now a compact character, and can be spoken of as a synagogue. It was not merely the tendency of individuals. Individuals there were before, but this is much more. It is a formed and known party of the highest possible pretension. They set up to be more righteous and holy than the rest, whom they denounced as antinomian because these stood in the true grace of God. They were themselves corrupters of the gospel and destroyers of living Christianity without knowing it. Deceived by Satan, they were his zealous instruments, so much the more actively deceiving others, because perhaps earnest and honest after the flesh.

The patristic party, those commonly called "the Fathers," seem the leaders in the evil here referred to. They had the awful ignominy of systematically Judaising the church. They also exercised this influence in all ages, and even over the Puritans. Here, if one mistake not, their formation as a system is stigmatised by the Lord Jesus. Sometimes offensive against Himself, always ignorant of His work and heavenly relations, they were blindly opposed to faith in God's sovereign grace. Their character is plain. They dragged down the Christian from his true heavenly associations to that of a spurious Jew. What is still more the significant point for John, they lost even the truth of a real life given to us in Christ. Thus whether it be the depraving of souls or forming a catholic body after an earthly mould, or whether it be depriving them of known life in Christ (at least as far as false doctrine could go), and hence failing to walk as He walked, to pat them under Jewish ordinances, the Fathers, as a class, fully earned the distinction here assigned by the Lord.

When things were regulated after the Jewish pattern, the whole beauty and aim of the church of God was ruined in principle. But the point of interest here is, that succession and ordinances became defined as a system about this time. Such is the great fact found among the ante-Nicene Fathers. Here the Lord seems to notice its working at the same time that God was in a measure using for good those faithful during the heathen persecutions. Even then Satan was not idle in forming his synagogue "of those that say they are Jews, and are not." On the other hand, Christ said in view of the sufferer, "Fear not the things which thou art about to suffer: behold, the devil is about to cast of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have a tribulation of ten days." The trial was not unlimited: the Lord defined the term of their endurance. "Become faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches; he that overcometh shall in no wise be hurt of the second death." They might experience the first; they should be untouched by that death which follows and is final. It is a question of faith in God. Through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamum" comes a very different message. This too is special. "These things saith he which hath the sharp two-edged sword; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest." It may be a very serious thing where our position is. They were dwelling "where Satan's throne [is]." How came this? One can understand their passing through the sense of his wiles; but to dwell where he reigns is fearfully significant. Did they like to be near a throne, although it were the throne of Satan — to have a standing there? Did they love the glitter of the world's power, and relish its favour, alien from God as it is?

The condition supposed comes out clearly in such a writer of that day as Eusebius, who regarded the change brought in by Constantine as the fulfilment of the glowing vision of the Kingdom in the prophets. Thenceforth it was the church reigning on earth. They claimed the delusion of which the Corinthians were disabused. The church now taking the place of the world made it to be worldliness sanctioned in principle. So he says in his Life of Constantine (iii. 15), "It looked like the very image of the kingdom of Christ, and was altogether more like a dream than a reality." Yes, this at least is true. It was the dream of that day and since; it had no reality for the mind of Christ.

Yet the Lord owns whatever is good. "And thou holdest fast my name, and didst not deny my faith." It is notable, and was no small mercy, that, after the great persecutions, when Christendom and even Christians had been seduced into accepting the patronage of the world, there remained faithfulness in refusing all efforts to deny the deity of Christ. Under the same Constantine, who cast the world's shield over Christianity, was the battle fought and won against the Arian foe. It was under his authority, and indeed by his call, that the famous council sat at Nicaea, and the faith of the Trinity was publicly established. Christians needed no such bulwark, but Christendom did. Thus the creed commonly called Nicene,* which had for its object the assertion of Christ's consubstantial deity, was then published. Is it not fair to believe that this state of things is referred to here? "Even in those days wherein [was] Antipas my faithful witness, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth." What a solemn conjunction, that there should be close proximity to Satan's throne without, yet withal the mercy of God still maintaining the fundamental faith of Christ's own personal glory!

* Yet that very creed testifies to the mischief already wrought in making the church a ground of faith, instead of scripture only. For the Nicene Creed asserts, not believing in the church, but believing the church — a very different thing. Faith believes God. The church is not infallible, as it ought to be if to be believed. How true it is that "evil communications corrupt good manners"! People might own the divinity of Christ, yet set up the church in a false position.

"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there [men] holding the doctrine of Balaam." Clericalism came in rapidly after this. The world's authority brought in worldly objects; and now the ministry became a clergy, a proud and perhaps profitable profession. The framers of this were such as held the doctrine of Balaam. Simultaneously with this of course was the introduction of all kinds of compromise with the world. The clergy encouraged by a misuse of scripture every sort of commerce with the world's ways; as it is said here, "who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." No one doubts that all this is figuratively expressed; but the drift is plain enough where the conscience is not blunted. If the same evils exist, and that which would keep the church as a chaste virgin espoused to Christ is gone, no wonder that these warnings are misunderstood. Worldliness had got in, as it still remains, and, alas! is palliated most by those who owe their professional status to its corrupt and corrupting influence. The unbelief which let in the mischief keeps it in, decrying the true application of the two edged sword now as then. Christians were dazzled by the world's power and glory, which was put forth doubtless in protecting, not themselves only, but the public faith of Christendom in that day. But none the less did they fatally compromise Christ by alliance with the world, followed by practical return to the circle, out of which grace had taken the saints in order to union with Christ in glory.

"So hast thou also [men] holding the doctrine of Nicolaitans in like manner." To the angel of the church in Ephesus the Lord had denounced "the deeds of the Nicolaitans"; but now the iniquity in question (antinomianism, we conceive) had become a. doctrine; so that it seems compared with the iniquitous doctrine of the Balaamites. "Repent therefore; or else I am coming to thee quickly, and will war against them with the sword of my mouth." Thus the Lord was no longer fighting in defence of

His own people, nor was He employing the enemy's hatred and persecution to nip in the bud or prune evil excrescences. We have seen this just before: a greater trial now appears. Alas! the state of those that bore His own name was such that He was obliged to deal thus sternly with them. Enemies were within. But His coming here as to the Ephesian angel does not mean His personal presence, but His judicial visitation while unseen.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: to him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the hidden manna." When the church was snared by the bait of public glory, the encouragement to faith was the hidden manna. Let there be at least individual, even if here unvalued, faithfulness to the Lord Jesus. Some saints might be true to His name, though it was not the time when they were led or forced into the position of a remnant. There was not yet the fidelity that came out from the public body, corrupt as it was. Energy of faith failed for, this; but individual fidelity to Christ was not lacking; where this was, "to him," says the Lord, "will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and upon the stone a new name written, which none knoweth save the receiver." To the true heart His approval is enough, nearer and dearer than any triumph before the universe.

Then follows the last of these four churches, but the first where the call to hear is changed. "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write." One cannot doubt that this letter contains an apt adumbration, as far as could be there in present facts, of what was found in mediaeval times. "These things saith the Son of God, he that hath his eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass." Christ is revealed now, not only in the all-discerning power of moral judgment, but also judicially prepared to act against evil: "His feet are like fine brass." "I know thy works, and the love, and the faith, and the service, and thy patience, and thy last works [to be] more than the first." There was here and there devotedness in the middle ages, spite of the darkness and ignorance that prevailed in point of doctrine. But those who loved the Lord showed their love then, not so much by intelligence in His ways as by unsparing and habitual self-denial. One does not surely speak of superstition, either as to Mary or the church when each was made a sort of bona Dea, but of the fruit of looking to Christ however simply.

"But I have against thee, that thou sufferest the woman (perhaps 'thy wife') Jezebel." This was a new kind of evil altogether. It is not clericalism now, nor persons holding the doctrine of Nicolaitans or that of Balaam, but a formed state as the symbol of a woman regularly represents. Examine the use of woman symbolically, and this will be found true. The man is the agent who goes forward; the woman is the state of things (here most evil) produced. Hence Jezebel is the appropriate symbol now, as Balaam was just before. The activity was in the clergy, who brought in base compromise with the world, and sold the honour of Christ for silver and gold, for ease and dignity. The worst, Jezebel, came later. Such was the public state of things produced in the middle ages, and tolerated under the shelter of the Lord's name, the corruption of former things, and the beginning of new which should go on till the Lord come in person.

"She that calleth herself a prophetess." It is precisely the claim of the so-called church, the assumption of permanent infallibility, the setting up to be a sort of inspired authority to enunciate doctrine, and to direct discipline beyond error. Is not this exactly what Romanism professes" Does it not then stand in the place of Jezebel? "And teachest and seducest my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." All was the fruit of falling from grace long before; but far greater is the maturity now. "And I gave her space that she should repent; and she will not repent of her fornication. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. And I will kill her children with death." Jezebel was a mother indeed: a holy mother, said the deceivers and deceived. What judged the Lord? what said those who preferred to die rather than commit adultery with her? This flagrant church-world corruption became now a settled institution. It was no mere transient cloud of error, but a body in the highest worldly position, a queen who also pretended to the highest spiritual power as a prophetess so-called, now permanently settled in Christendom, giving birth to a distinct progeny of profane lawlessness — "her children." Yet remark the distinction drawn between "my servants," however misled, and Jezebel's children. The Lord does not confound the pious who groaned and suffered and the proud that were exalted and persecuted. But sit a queen as she may, the Lord knows how to deal with her and her lovers, and will not spare. "And all the churches shall know that I am he that searcheth reins and hearts: and I will give to you, each one, according to your works."

"But to you I say, the rest (or, remnant) in Thyatira." The new fact is here plain. For thus we must read the text and render it, leaving out "and unto." The common text which gives rise to the current versions spoils the sense. It is to "the rest," or the remnant, in Thyatira, "as many as have not this doctrine," that the Lord thus turns. Here we have for the first time the formal recognition of saints not included in the public state of the assembly, yet not so openly separate as was found at a later day. There and then they are a witnessing body more or less in spirit, apart from that which set up in grievous pretension but in profoundly wicked communion with Jezebel; so the Lord judged and stigmatised what man called "our mother, the holy catholic church." To this remnant He says, "As many as have not known this doctrine, which knew not the depths of Satan, as they say, I cast upon you none other burden but that which ye have hold fast till I come." Thus the Lord speaks with exceeding tenderness of those that were true to His name. He did not expect great things from them. Can one reasonably doubt that those commonly called the Waldenses and Albigenses, and others perhaps of similar character, are in view here? They were simple and ardent, but with no considerable amount of knowledge, if measured by a fuller and richer testimony which the Lord afterwards raised up. None can judge fairly of them by the abuse and misrepresentation of their enemies.

The Lord at the close gives a promise suited to the condition. "He that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations." This wicked Jezebel not only persecuted the true saints of God, but sought universal supremacy — a world-wide dominion over soul and body and all things. The Lord bids them in effect to have nothing to do with her, and He will give the true authority when He takes it Himself. Let them abide in the place of patience, even though tribulation arise, as there must be if any are content to endure for Christ's sake now. "And he shall rule them with iron rod, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also received of my Father. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." The faithful will share Christ's authority at His coming, and be associated with Himself in His kingdom. But even this is not enough for grace. "And I will give him the morning star." This means, not association with Christ in His reign over the earth, but yet more in that which is proper to Him above the world altogether. The heavenly hope of being with Christ before the day breaks is promised, as well as part in His world-kingdom. Only those who watch for Him shall see the Morning Star. All the world must see the Sun of righteousness when He shines forth in His day.

Here the notable change takes place. The call to hear begins to follow the promise, instead of being before it. The reason is that a remnant is here formed. The public state of the church now requires the change. The Lord thenceforth puts the promise first, and this because it is vain to expect the church as a whole to receive it. The address is to the overcomer, who is therefore put before the call to hear. In the three previous churches, as all may notice, the call to hear is first, because the Lord is still dealing with the general conscience of the church. This is given up now. A remnant only overcome, and the promise is for them. The Lord henceforth takes notice of these in His call; as for others, it is all over with their fidelity.

Accordingly, if Thyatira were not made the beginning, as perhaps in strictness might have been best, the division of the next chapter (3) seems not to be unhappy at this point. For there is a marked turning-point with the last three churches. The ground of such a thought lies in the fact that the introduction to Sardis indicates the Lord beginning a new state of things. The ancient ecclesiastical or catholic phase of the church terminates with Thyatira: nevertheless Thyatira has also the peculiar trait that, though the close of the public state of the church, it is the beginning of those conditions which go on till the Lord's coming. It is therefore transitional. Thyatira, it is hard to doubt, contains within it the mystic representative of Romanism. This can scarce be denied to Jezebel; whilst "the remnant" represents those who, without being Protestants, form a witnessing company apart from Popery before the Reformation. The beginning of the third chapter introduces formally what may be called the Protestant phase of things, after the film stand for God's word.

Thus we have had the general condition of declension; next the early persecution from the heathen; then the power of the world patronising the church; finally, besides the remnant which in simplicity resisted the evil, we have Romanism, which alone, by the mention of Christ's personal coming, is supposed to go on to the end. The churches before do not continue. But Thyatira first represents that which abides. This applies also to the churches which follow.

Revelation 3

"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars." There is an evident allusion to the manner in which the Lord presented Himself to the church in Ephesus, but with a marked difference. Ephesus was the first presentation of the general public state. Sardis gives the rise of the new state of things, not strictly ecclesiastical — the Lord acting in the way of testimony rather than in that precise order. Hence it is not said here that He held in His right hand the seven stars and walked in the midst of the seven golden lampstands: this was ecclesiastical strictly. But here He "has" the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars. He changes not, but does not describe Himself as before. Yet all power, all governing energy, is in His hands, and the seven stars, that is to say, all the instrumental lights by which He acts on souls here below. Let them not look to the world — to the powers that be. "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." Such was Protestantism after the impulse of the Reformation passed. How sad but true! The decline was sure if slow. They did lean on the world; and what can the issue of this be for those who are not of the world, as Christ is not?

"Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die: for I have not found thy works completed before my God" Hence what judges the actual state is this, that they have the testimony of God's word much more fully shall those who had sunk into the mere ecclesiastical formalism of the middle ages. There the word of God had been overlaid and kept away, because the priests and the gospel can never go together in unison. It is, and always must be, the effect of the clerical principle to substitute the authority of man (more or less) for that of the Lord, and to weaken and hinder the immediate action of the Spirit by the word of God on the conscience. One speaks not of individual clergymen, but of clericalism wherever found, Catholic or denominational, nationalist or dissenting. Earthly priests are its extreme expression.

But the Protestant principle is a different one. People may not be true to their principles, and often are not. Has not every one, say they, the right of private judgment? God's rights were thus easily forgotten. Yet one of the grandest points fought for at the Reformation, and gained for Protestantism, whatever might be its defects, was this; — that man has fairly, freely, and openly the Bible. God's word is there to deal with human conscience. Men often speak of justification by faith; but even Luther himself hardly got thoroughly clear as to the truth of it. If, on the one hand, Romanists are miserably deluded, Protestants, on the other, do not understand the righteousness of God to this day. They have the truth in a measure, but not so as to clear souls from bondage, or bring them distinctly into liberty, peace, and the power of the Spirit. Had Luther settled peace in his soul, as the state in which he walked, We have many of us heard what conflicts he had, not merely at the beginning of his career, but to the end. Nor do we mean conflicts about the church or its leaders, but about his soul. It is needless here to cite passages from his extant writings, which prove how sorely he was tried by inward conflicts of unbelief. These amply prove how far he was from the calm enjoyment of the holy deliverance of the gospel; but it is an error to impute them to any other cause than a lack of clear knowledge of grace. In such a state all sorts of things may trouble the man, however able or honoured he may be, who cannot without a question rest on the Lord. Assuredly Luther is one from whom we may all learn much; whose courage, faithfulness, self-renunciation, and endurance are edifying and instructive. At the same time it is useless to blink the fact: energetic as he was and used of God largely, he was behind in the understanding both of the church and of the gospel.

In spite of drawbacks, an open Bible was won for God's children in particular, and for man also. This very thing condemned the state of Protestantism in result; because, while the Bible was freely read, scarce any one thought of forming all upon it or of being regulated by it only. Nothing is more common among Protestants than to admit a thing to be certain and true because it is in the word of God, without any serious intention or thought of acting upon it. Is not this a humbling fact? Romanists are in general too ignorant to know what is or is not in the Bible; for except the common-places of controversy with Protestants, they know little of its contents. Tell them that this or that, however momentous, is found there, and they look amazed. They rarely know it as a whole, having never read it save (?) under the eye of the directing priest, their confessor. The Protestant can read the Bible at liberty, which is a real and precious boon; but for this very reason the Protestant incurs no light responsibility.

"I have not found thy works completed before my God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heardest, and keep [it], and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come [on thee] as a thief." It is a sweeping intimation of the same way in which the Lord threatens to come on the world. Now if there be in the state of Protestantism one thing more marked than another, it is that they fall back on the world to deliver themselves from the power of the pope or the ecclesiastic. This has ever been the chief snare, as it is now. If even what belongs to the world be touched, they are in no small agitation about it. The church in danger because the tithes are assailed! Why, such wealth is real poverty, and the evident shame of an early lapse into Judaism. What would the apostles have thought of a claim so earthly and opposed to the true and heavenly separateness of Christ's body!

Let none infer that in saying, this one feels little for saints. Nor is it doubted that it is a great Sin to wipe off all public recognition of God in the world. But leaning on the world has let in the world; and if the godly complain of accrediting unbelievers as the faithful, their leaders are quick to stifle conscience with the cry, We must not judge! But this is not a true judgment of charity which spares no pains to own every saint and to warn that we may win to God sinners. The false start has led to far worse than in earlier days. Impossible to believe that the unblushing worldliness one sees in the modern combination of Dissenters with Papists and sceptics springs from just, holy, or unselfish motives. It is rather to be imputed to the latitudinarian spirit of infidelity, which admits also of a buckling to superstition. Doubtless the infidels hope to gain the day, as the superstitious are no less confident in their hopes. The truth is that the devil will have the upper hand to the destruction of them both, and then find that the Lord will appear in His day for personal judgment of all adversaries, and the rebuke of all unbelief.

The angel of the church in Sardis is warned that if he should not watch, the Lord will come on him unexpectedly as a thief. It is not at all so that His coming is spoken of for His own. These wait for Him in bright hope, without fear for themselves of His thief-like surprise. How can it be such for those who in faith and love look and long for Him? His coming is their joy; and they watch more than watchman for the dawn. The figure of the thief is therefore employed for the sleeping world or worldly-minded souls. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5 with 1 Thessalonians 4; also Matthew 24: 43 and Revelation 16: 15. If people walk with the worldly in divine things, it is not only that the unrenewed are in danger of being deceived, but that believers lose the joy of their own relationship. The world is attracted by the good words and fair speeches which deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. So solemnly does this language suppose that the assembly at Sardis had passed out of the practical attitude of waiting for the Lord who waits for them. It is an easy transition to pass into great dread of Him as a judge. They had slipped into the world, and share its fears and anxieties. They little knew or had lost the sense of Christ's peace left with them. Such souls lack the joy of His coming for them to receive to Himself those whom He loves. The unwelcome visitation of a thief would be incongruous if they were enjoying the blessed hope according to His own word, that He comes quickly.

"Thou hast a few names in Sardis which defiled not their garments, and they shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy." This is said without the enfeebling "even" of the common text, and they are cheered before the promise repeats it. Where the scriptures are read freely, we may look for some real good even in untoward associations. This has been always the case. Precious souls are there, and our happy service is to help them, if we can, to a better knowledge of His grace, — not, of course, to make light of their worldly ways, yet in love to feel for them as the Lord fully does. "He that overcometh, he* shall be clothed in white garments; and I will not blot his name out of the book of life, and will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."

* The οὕτως ("thus") of some very ancient MSS. and versions has needlessly perplexed critics and expositors. No error is more common than the confusion of o and w in the old copies, as here for οὕτος ("he"). It is emphasised for good reason.

In the next place stands a great contrast. "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no one shall shut; and shutteth, and no one shall open." Every word of Christ's presentation of Himself differs from that given in Rev. 1. This marks generally the change in the chapter, and especially the part before us. The address to Sardis also, although allusive to that of Ephesus, is nevertheless clearly meant to stand distinguished from it. It is a recommencement, and so far analogous with that to Ephesus; but the manner in which the Lord is presented is not the same. His having the seven Spirits of God is distinct from the first and normal picture. But where is anything here similar to the description of the Lord Jesus given before? It is a new state of things; and in the details of Philadelphia there is far more evidence of it.

The descriptions of the second chapter generally repeat what was found in the vision John had at first seen. The one exception is in Thyatira, where He is described as the Son of God; and this marks the fact of a transition, the beginning of a changed condition. It is a church state in responsibility though not in true power, being an ecclesiastical body which presents horrors to the Lord's eyes, but not without a remnant dear to Him. This at the same time goes down to the end, and brings in distinctly the Lord's coming. For, be it observed, the personal coming of the Lord is not introduced in any of the first three; from Thyatira it is, because the condition sketched out goes on till then. It was not so with Ephesus, with Smyrna, or with Pergamum: the only semblance of it is in threats of present visitation. To Thyatira, or at least the remnant there, it is given personally, and to Sardis judicially. But Philadelphia has it in all grace, as a bright and proximate hope.

Indeed to the angel of the church in Philadelphia is prominently brought out the Lord in His moral glory, what He is, not merely what He has. It is now Christ Himself, and this as One that faith discovers in the beauty of holiness, not dependent on the vision of glory seen before, but Christ as He genuinely is in Himself, "he that is holy, he that is true." But He is also seen according to the largeness of His glory. Absorbed with Him and resting in His love, the heart delights in all that is His. Faith sees that the Holy and the True is the same that has the key of David. Old Testament prophecy, or dispensational truth, can be freely introduced now. It is "he that openeth and no one shall shut; and shutteth, and no one shall open." His control is guaranteed. "I know thy works: behold I have set before thee an opened door, and none can shut it: for thou hast little strength." There is perfect liberty now, liberty for worship and service, for every one that would serve the Lord. They are supposed not to be marked by such mighty doings as were before. If Sardis did great exploits, Philadelphia knew nothing of the sort. Are we content to be littler to be of no esteem in the world? never to set up for anything that men wonder at or admire?

Notoriety is not true of Philadelphia, which is rather formed by faith of a rejected Christ. We know of what small account He was to the world; so it is with the saints in Philadelphia. Has this fellowship with Him no price in His eyes? "Thou hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name" Jesus was marked by valuing His Father's word and loving His Father's name, the only One that could also truly say to Satan as true of Himself, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." So here the Philadelphian saints are distinguished by the same living in the dependence of faith. In their measure each could say with the apostle, "For me to live is Christ." To some it might appear a small thing not to deny Christ's name; but is anything more precious to the Lord? Once it was a question of not denying His faith, as was found in Pergamum; but here it is Himself as revealed. What He is is the main point. Orthodoxy, if ever so real, does not suffice, but His person, though absent on high, and the glory due to Him in our souls.

"Behold, I make [or, give] of the synagogue of Satan, that say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie." Is not this the revival of that dreadful scourge that had afflicted the early church (as in Smyrna)? Have we not heard of it? And have we not seen it ourselves? How comes it, that for so many hundreds of years only a part of what the Fathers had laboured at sank into the minds of men, a considerable portion being rejected by Protestantism; but now, when God brings out this fresh witnessing, there rises a counter-testimony? Satan revives the old Judaising spirit, at the very time that God reasserts the true principle of Christian brotherhood, and, above all, makes Christ Himself to be all to His own. Here we have for our instruction the fact, that the synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews, and are not, revives. How stand the facts, How are they even in this country? What is commonly called Puseyism has this character; and the system is in no way confined to this country but holds equally abroad, as in Germany, America, and elsewhere. In fact it is a fair show in the flesh wherever Protestantism is found; and, above all, wherever this is provoked either by scepticism on the one hand, or on the other by truth that condemns both with any real measure of heavenly light. In order to defend themselves on a religious footing, men fall back on a system of ordinances and of the law. This seems meant by the synagogue of Satan here. They claim sacerdotalism and practise ritualism, both irreconcilable with Christianity.

But the Lord will compel the recognition of His own testimony and witnesses. We do not say when, where, or how; but as surely as He lives will the Lord vindicate the truth He has given as it were back again for His name. Only let us bear in mind that the favour and power vanish when the witnesses lose sight of Christ and preach themselves. May we have grace to merge ourselves truly in Him! "Behold, I will cause them to come and do homage before thy feet, and to know that I loved thee."

Nor is this all. As we know, there is a perilous time awaiting the world, the hour not exactly of tribulation but "of temptation." This hour of trial, it seems, falls within the Apocalyptic future, or "the things which are about to be after these things." It is not merely the time of horrors when Satan in a rage is expelled from on high, and when the Beast, energised by him, rises to his full height of persecuting power, but the previous period of trouble and seduction. "The hour of temptation" is a term larger than the "great tribulation" of Revelation 7, and still more so than the unparalleled tribulation which is to befall the land of Israel (Dan. 12, Matt. 24, Mark 13). If so, how rich and full is the promise, "Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of the trial (or, temptation) which is about to come on all the habitable world, to try them that dwell on the earth"? In vain men try to escape. The hour of temptation must come on all the inhabited world. Perhaps some remember when people used to flee to Canada, in order to escape "the great tribulation," which they expected to fall on the old empire of the Beast revived. But the scheme was a mistake, their flight foolish. The hour of temptation will catch men, no matter where they may hide; for it is about to come on the whole habitable world, "to try them that dwell on the earth." How blessed to be here a sojourner, whose living associations are with Christ in heaven!

Who then can escape? Those who at Christ's call are to be caught up to heaven. They will not be in that hour. It is not merely that they will not be in the mace but they will he kept "out of the hour," of the coming temptation. What a full and bright exemption! Such is the strength of the promise and its blessedness, that the Lord promises His own to be kept even out of its time. The simple and sure way to keep any from the hour is to take them altogether out of the scene. The Irvingites used to talk about the Lord having a little Zoar. How poor and earthly its comparison! It is not, however, a question of geography, or of a distant and secret place of shelter, but of complete removal from the period filled by the temptation coming on all the habitable world. This is worthily secured by translating them to heaven before the time of the world-trial arrives; and this the promise before us imports. The godly remnant of Jews, on the other hand, having to do with a special and fiery but circumscribed tribulation in Jerusalem, have only to flee to the mountains in order to escape, till Jesus appears in glory to the confusion of their foes. It is quite another thing for Christians. How readily errors for the church tale a Jewish shape!

"*I come quickly!" There is not a word about His coming as a thief now, but with joy. The Lord will have revived the true hope of His return; there are those who now wait thus for Christ, and this epistle seems emphatically to apply to such. "I come quickly!" In principle it is true for all that are really faithful. Happy they for whom Christ is all! What association with Himself in glory He promises! Lot it be ours now in faith and patience, yea keeping the word of Christ's patience. "Hold fast what thou hast, that no one take thy crown." It is a great grace never to go back from known truth; and none can be so exposed as those who have received much, and of a high order. Watch and pray. "He that overcometh, him will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, that cometh down out of the heaven from my God, and my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." He will be as much marked by power in the day of glory, as by contentedly dependent weakness in God's present ways of grace. He suffers with Christ and waits for Him, if not with Him. To be a pillar in the temple of My God is as truly a figure for the day of glory as the synagogue of Satan is a figure now. For literally there is no temple in the new Jerusalem. It is the one of little strength now made manifestly strong in that day and in God's blessed presence. And thus it is with each promise associating us with Christ in all the scenes of bliss.

* "Behold" is not warranted by the best authorities.

There remains the last epistle to the angel of the church in Laodicea; and on this but a few words may suffice. "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." The church in its responsibility on earth was to be set aside, most of all at the last, for being an unfaithful witness. The Laodicean picture is, of course, most distinct, but seems to be largely the result of dislike and contempt for the testimony that the Lord had previously raised up. If people despise the grace and truth valued by those who truly wait for the Lord, they are in danger of falling into the awful condition here set forth. Certainly here Christ is no longer the loved and satisfying object of the heart; nor is there any such sense of His person as leads into waiting for Him; still less can there be glorying in weakness that the power of Christ may rest on one. There is the desire to be great, to be esteemed of men, "rich, and increased in goods, and in need of nothing." We find here a state therefore, that leaves ample room for man's thoughts and ways.

Hence the Lord introduces Himself to them as the Amen; all security lies in the Christ of God. He only is "the faithful and true witness." This is exactly what the church ought to have been but was not; and therefore He has to take that place Himself. It was so before when He was here below in grace; now He must resume it in judicial power rend glory, than which one can hardly conceive a greater rebuke for the condition of those whose obligation was to be faithful and true witnesses Besides He is "the beginning of the creation of God." This sets aside the first man altogether, and most justly, for Laodicea is the glorification of man and of his resources in the church. He begins that new work, which God delights in as according to His nature.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would that thou wert cold or hot. Thus, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spue thee out of my mouth." Being neutral in principle and practice, they were half-hearted toward Christ. Nor is any place more likely to generate neutrality than an outwardly true position, if self-judgment be not maintained with godly sincerity. The more one stands in the forefront of the battle, with the responsible testimony of God, the more His grace and truth are in letter brought out before others, if there be not also walk according to the light, sooner or later comes a lapse back into neutrality, if not active enmity. For heart and conscience are not animated and governed by the power of God's Spirit through living faith in Christ. Indifference to all that is good must follow; and the only kind of zeal, if zeal can so exist, will be for what is of the first man, worldly, and bad.

This is Laodiceanism. So repulsive does the Master declare it to be, that one need not wonder that most are unwilling for it to be their lot, or that it can be, as it is, the last recorded phase before the church is traced no more on earth. People vainly dream of progress, and flatter themselves. "Thus because thou art neither cold nor hot, I am about to spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and am grown rich, and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art the wretched one and the miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked; I counsel thee to buy of me gold purified by fire." They wanted everything that was characteristic of Christianity: "gold" or divine righteousness in Christ, "that thou mayest be rich"; "and white garments," or the righteousnesses of saints, "that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not be manifested; and eyesalve to anoint shine eyes, that thou mayest see." They had lost the perception of what God values. All was dark as to truth, and uncertain as to moral judgment. Holy separateness and savour were gone. "As many as I dearly love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking: if any one hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." The Lord presents Himself even there in His pitiful way to meet their every want

"He that overcometh, I will give him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."

The utmost promised in the word that closes the epistle goes not beyond reigning with Him. It is not anything special. For every one that has part in the first resurrection reigns with Christ, as even shall the Jewish sufferers under earlier enemies, or later under the Beast. It is a mistake therefore to suppose that it is a singular distinction. For all amounts to this, that the Lord will hold, after all, to His own truth in spite of unfaithfulness. There may be individual reality, even where the surroundings are miserably untoward. But all that are born of God and are Christ's share the kingdom.

Such is the bearing of the seven churches to which the Lord was pleased to send the letters contained in the second and third chapters. We have found substantial reason and ample evidence in their own contents, as well as in the character of the book itself, to look for a meaning far more comprehensive than only the historical notice of the Asiatic churches then primarily addressed. That John wrote to these seven churches is indisputable; but that no more was meant ought not to be assumed. "The things that are" is an unusual and suggestive expression. The septenary number in itself is significant, and its division into three and four. Again, the order of their contents, as well as their nature severally, points to a continuative inference. There are depicted successive phases of strikingly varied ecclesiastical states, as objects of the Lord's judgment from the threat on the first till the spuing out of the last. Further it is plain, if certain phases do not abide, that at a given point in their course the language implies that the latter ones continue up to Christ's coming. From Thyatira inclusively those also that follow, as they successively arise, go on together till then.

Thus one gathers from the internal evidence that the three earlier churches are severed in character from the rest; for though all are alike typical and successive from the apostle's day, only the last four are used as fore-shadows of the successive states to continue up to the Lord's advent. The promises to the overcomers in Thyatira, the threat to the worldly-minded in Sardis, the comforting assurance to those that keep the word of Christ's patience in Philadelphia, and the closing sentence to the angel of the church in Laodicea are clear enough to indicate far more than any past application. "The things that are" in other words are not yet closed; they have not become the things that were Who is bold enough to suppose that the predicted hour of universal temptation is past, or that faithful souls have been somehow kept out of it? Will it be said that the last stage is reached for the church on earth? that Christ has already and definitely spued its final representative out of His mouth? If it be so, ought not every saint on earth to sit in sackcloth and ashes deploring the irreparable ruin? Not a hint is given of restoration when this pass is reached. The next chapter discloses what follows. It is worthy of all heed on our part, if indeed we believe the crisis in Laodicea as well as the promise to him that overcomes in Philadelphia. There was enough in the then existing state of Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea to call forth the Lord's words; but who believes that each of the epistles to them left no room for a much more exhaustive fulfilment?

From this point we have the Spirit of God leading the prophet into the understanding of (not the church state, but) that which must follow when churches are no longer to exist. Thus it becomes a question of dealing with the world, not without testimonies from God in the midst of gradually swelling troubles; but His witnesses henceforward are of Jewish or Gentile character, never thenceforth of the church on earth. Believers we do see, of course, some of the chosen people, others of the nations; but we hear of no real church condition after the second and third chapters. The Jewish saints are expressly distinct from the Gentile: a state quite incompatible with the church, seeing that it is the essence of its nature that such distinctions within are wholly abolished. For Christ has broken down the middle wall of enclosure, having annulled the enmity in His flesh, that He might form the two in Himself into one new man, making peace, and might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Can there be a more striking proof of the way in which the patent facts of the word of God are habitually passed over than that a change so immense has been so constantly overlooked?

Revelation 4: 1.

When John sent the epistles to the seven Asiatic churches, what, one may well ask, was there to fulfil the introductory chaps. 4 and 5? Those who look at the seven churches as only past have nothing to say that explains it: all is vague and jejune. Historical authorities are equally at fault. It is the grand and impressive opening of "the things which must take place after these," that is, "after the things which are" (the sevenfold course of things ecclesiastical). The new things cannot begin till the existing things, however protracted, come to an end. The future is in contrast with the present state of things; but the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ is not even announced till long after in Revelation 11: 15, and even then much has to be done before it is established here below as in Revelation 20: 4.

Chapters 4 and 5 therefore introduce an interval of the deepest interest, and of all importance to discriminate. From Revelation 6 preparatory dealings of God with men generally (whether Israel or the nations), and with remnants out of both, follow the existing church period, and fill the transition that intervenes before the kingdom comes for the earth in power and glory. Hence we shall find conspicuous among other dates the well-known prophetic term of Daniel under its three forms of a time, times, and a half, of forty-two months, and of twelve hundred and sixty days. But what came to pass, after the letters were despatched to the seven churches in Asia, which accounts for this glorious preliminary vision in heaven which the prophet was caught up to behold? Does it not suppose the total passing away of that church state, which we all believe still to subsist? Does it not reveal, "after these things," the action of God's throne by judgments on the world, to put the Lord Jesus in possession of His long-promised inheritance of all things?

The church condition indeed is not, strictly speaking, the subject of prophecy, which deals with the world, and shows us divine judgments coming on its evil, when God is about to make room for glory according to His own mind. Such is the great theme of the book of Revelation. But inasmuch as there were Christian assemblies then, the Spirit of God is pleased to preface it with a most remarkable panoramic view of the church condition, as long as it should subsist before the Lord on the earth. We have seen this given with the most striking wisdom, so as to suit at the time of John, yet also as long as Christianity goes on, always applying and increasingly, not every part at once, but with sufficient light to give children of God full satisfaction as to the mind of the Lord. The churches delineated in these seven epistles are "the things that are," a phrase which naturally lends itself to continuance. It is not prophecy; yet the letters of Christ afford, as time passes, divine light on the succeeding states Christendom assumes. Nevertheless the coming of the Lord remains thus in God's wisdom the ever-present and constant hope of the Christian. So indeed the Lord took care to guard against misuse of His parabolic instruction.

Thus the change is immense as a whole, and the revealed details only the more disclose its true nature. There is no vision henceforth of the Son of Man in the midst of churches. No more are churches recognised when "the things which are about to take place after these" begin. Revelation 22: 16 is no exception; for this applies only in John's day, or at most as long as the existing condition abides. It is only in the conclusory appeals of the book, and has nothing to do with the predicted things to succeed the present. Chapter 4 lets us see a quite new sight in heaven after the existing things terminate on earth.

"After these things I saw, and, behold, a door opened in the heaven, and the first voice which I heard as of a trumpet speaking with me, saying, Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must take place after these things. Immediately I became in Spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in the heaven, and upon the throne one sitting, and the sitter [was] in appearance like a stone jasper and sardius; and a rainbow round the throne in appearance like an emerald. And round the throne [were] twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones [I saw] twenty-four elders sitting, clothed with white garments, and upon their heads golden crowns. And out of the throne proceed lightnings and voices and thunders; and seven torches of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; and before the throne as a sea of glass like crystal. And in the midst of the throne and around the throne [were] four living creatures full of eyes before and behind; and the first living creature like a lion, and the second living creature like a young ox, and the third living creature having the face as of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, having each one of them respectively six wings, are full of eyes round and within; and they have no intermission day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy Lord, the Almighty God, that was and that is, and that is to come. And when the living creatures shall give glory and honour and thanksgiving to him that sitteth upon the throne, that liveth unto the ages of the ages, the twenty-four elders shall fall before him that sitteth upon the throne, and shall do homage to him that liveth unto the ages of the ages, and shall cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honour and the power; because thou didst create all things, and for thy will they were, and were created."

At the epoch where the chapter first applies, the day of the Lord is not come; but a vast change previous to it has taken place, and brought strange sights before the Seer. The scene is shifted from earth to heaven. It is no longer a question of the churches: they are over, and disappear. "After these things" the prophet saw; "and, behold, a door opened in the heaven," and the first voice which he heard trumpet-like says, "Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must take place after these things" — a phrase which nowhere in the N.T. admits of the vague sense of "hereafter," least of all in this part of the Revelation, where it is in manifest contrast with "the things which are." A brief interval there may be, followed by the things which are about to take place, and must, "after these things" or the existing church status.

For such a sight immediately John became in Spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in the heaven, and upon the throne One sitting in appearance like stone of jasper and sardius. The same stones figure, especially the first, in the glories of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21), where we are helped by its crystallising character. This has induced some to imagine the diamond against all usage of the word. There is no room for such a fancy; for the aim is to show that the jasper here, like the gold — not only pure, but "like pure glass" — is above all nature in its symbolical application. If jasper be naturally semi-opaque, gold is so wholly. Here they are emphatically translucent. As the sardius is fiery red, jasper was not to oppose but strengthen the judicial appearance of His glory who sat the central object of the scene, not on the propitiatory or mercy-seat but upon the throne. He is about to judge the world in the way of providential chastisements with increasing severity, before He sends the Firstborn Heir of all things to bring in the kingdom.

God would judge; but a rainbow round the throne, in appearance like an emerald, indicated that though about to judge unsparingly, He remembered His covenant, not with Israel yet, still less His grace to the saints, but to creation on which many blows must soon fall. For as the issue creation was about to be delivered from the thraldom under which it-as yet groans, and shall be set free from corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. The kingdom of Christ will have it in full joy and peace, before the eternal day when all things are made new in the deepest sense.

Another notable object meets his eye: round the throne are twenty-four thrones, and upon the thrones twenty-four elders* sitting, arrayed in white garments, and upon their heads crowns of gold. Isaiah saw no such company in Isa. 6; nor did Ezekiel in his opening chapter: Ezek. 1 or at any other time; nor does Stephen hint it in Acts 7; nor Paul in 2 Corinthians 12. Daniel indeed saw thrones set up (not "cast down"); but they were empty. John here and now saw them filled with four-and-twenty elders, the chiefs of the twenty-four courses of priesthood. They exercised priestly functions in Rev. 5: 8. But they are a royal priesthood also; they wear crowns of gold and sit on thrones; and their garb is in accord. Can there be a doubt that they are the glorified saints?

* "Elders" seems a descriptive term eminently in keeping with the heavenly redeemed. For it is appropriated already in Hebrews 11 to the O.T. saints, who though they obtained witness through faith, did not receive the promise, God having foreseen, or provided, some better thing for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. Here they are seen together made perfect; and assuredly, if the term is one of dignity, due to those who eschewed the wisdom of the age for the wisdom that comes from above, those who now have the mind of Christ by the Spirit may well be so called too. They are both elders in the sense of firstfruits of Christ before the great harvest that is to follow in a day to come.

Scripture, be it observed, never speaks thus of disembodied souls any more than of angels. The symbolic heads of the heavenly and royal priesthood are complete. From Revelation 4 to 19, when the kingdom comes in power and the enemies are made Christ's footstool, the number stands unchanged. From first to last are twenty-four elders: there is no addition; whereas, if the souls of saints separate from the body were meant, how many must have, from the day John saw them, been adding continually? The elders therefore represent not the unclothed who depart to be with Christ, but the full complement of those whose mortal was swallowed up by life, the saints of both O. and N. Tests. changed at Christ's coming and caught up to be with Him in the Father's house. His coming between Revelation 3 and 4 falls in precisely with the existing facts and the vision of what follows. What else accounts for the disappearance of churches? What else explains the sight of the symbolic representatives in full of the saints destined to heavenly glory, who shall accompany Christ when He comes with His holy myriads to execute judgment against all the ungodly? (See Rev. 19: 14.)

Some no doubt wonder that there is no vision of the translation of the saints to heaven, save perhaps mystically in Revelation 12, as we shall see. John 14 had clearly spoken of it; 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5 had revealed the different characters of the Lord's coming and of His day; and 2 Thessalonians 2 had shown their true correlation, in correction of false teachers who sought to alarm by the rumour that the day was come, and in recall of the saints to the hope of His coming and gathering to Him above before that day of terror and judgment for the earth. Hence the sight of the twenty-four elders enthroned and crowned above must convey the clearest proof that Christ had come and taken His own to heaven ere this vision could be given.

Another consideration of no small force in confirming this remark is, that the judicial character of the Revelation excludes that wondrous act, which is one of sovereign grace, and entirely apart from vision of judgments, with parenthetic disclosures here and there of mercy in the midst of judgment. Here we find it not described but presupposed in the plainest way, and so strongly confirmed that any other hypothesis is fairly untenable.

It is not here the Father's throne, nor the throne of the God of grace. Out of it proceed lightnings and voices and thunders. This is in no way its expression while God is occupied with the gospel of His grace, or now making known to the principalities and authorities in the heavenlies through the church His all-various wisdom according to an eternal purpose which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord. It precisely suits the transition after the saints are caught up, and the world comes under God's strokes, before the Lord shall be revealed from heaven with angels of His power in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those that know not God, and on those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, on Gentiles and on Jews, no church being mentioned on earth (compare 1 Cor. 10: 32).

Again the symbol of the Spirit's action agrees with the change. It is not parted tongues as of fire sitting upon each one, in testimony to all mankind of a Saviour Lord and His work of redemption, but seven torches of fire burning before the throne, the fulness of consuming light and judgment on evil. Still less was it the Spirit descending as a dove and coming on the Lord Jesus here below. Each appearance was perfectly appropriate. So it is here for the judicial dealings of God about to take place in an apostate world.

"We have an altar," says Hebrews 13: 10 to the Christian Jews, "whereof they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle." But no altar is in this scene. It was no more needed by those who kind it fully, when the Jews lost it save in form: the saints were in heaven. It is made all the more striking, because the prophet did see before the throne as it were a glass sea like crystal (which glass at that time was far from like). Some have tried hard to divert this emblem from the molten sea for the priests to wash in, but in vain. For it is an allusive contrast of marked significance. Those taken to heaven and glorified wanted "the washing of water by the word" no more. It is a sea, not of water, but of glass (not the material of the vessel, but its contents). This declares that it is not purifying but fixed purity, which never could be true till the saints were all changed at Christ's coming, as the symbol attests.

Next is seen a more difficult sign to read aright. "And in the midst of the throne and around the throne four living creatures full of eyes before and behind." The chief creatures of earth and air (not of the sea), which were saved in Noah's ark, furnished the forms; the lion, the young ox, the man, and the eagle. They were emblems of power, firmness, intelligence, and rapidity, though indeed Each one had six wings, that is, only short of perfection in movement. They were the cherubim, but distinguished strikingly from the manifestations to Ezekiel, and incorporating also the seraphic qualities seen by Isaiah. They were full of eyes, not only before and bellied but round and within; their perception was complete and intrinsic; and they have no cessation day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy Lord, the Almighty God, that was and that is and that is to come. Thus do they celebrate the Holy One, and in His O.T. names of the Lord, the Almighty God, and Jehovah; for here it is so in all strictness, rather than as we read in Rev. 1: 4 and 8. "Our" God and Father is wholly absent; as even in chap. 1 the utmost approach was to Christ's God and Father. For the three preliminary chapters (however full of divine profit, yet occupied with the judgment of the churches) are but the avenue, through the things seen and the things that are, to what was about to take place after these, the proper and strict prophecy of the book.

It is to be remarked that there is dead silence as to angels in our chapter, whereas they distinctly appear in Rev. 5: 2, 11, 12. This suggests what solves the difficulty often and largely felt. For the living creatures in themselves present the attributes of providential power in the execution of judgment; but the comparison of the chapters points to change in its administration from the angels who are now the agents to the redeemed who are to be. Hence in Rev. 4 the angels are merged as it were in the living creatures; in Rev. 5 they are distinguished in view of Christ's co-heirs, to whom and not to angels God will subject the inhabited earth to come (Heb. 2). The rendering of "beasts" in this case is still more unhappy than the belittling of "thrones" into "seats." It is quite a different word in Rev. 6: 8 literally, and elsewhere symbolically.

And beautiful it is to see that, as often observed, the elders sat unmoved on their thrones before the judicial display of God's glory, and the signs of His displeasure in the lightnings and voices and thunders which went forth from His throne, with all other solemn tokens of coming judgment. But when the living creatures give glory and honour and thanksgiving to Him that sits on the throne, that lives for ever and ever, the elders fall and pay homage, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honour and the power; because thou didst create all the things, and for (or, on account of) thy will they were and were created. It was not only worship, but in full spiritual intelligence. Those that are a new creation in Christ enter into God's rights as Creator; which earth's inhabitants, and especially apostate Christians, are about to dispute and deny. Their zeal is in due season and character. For God's will the whole was in being, as it was also created.

Revelation 5.

Here is shown for the first time the Lamb presented distinctly and definitely in the scene. It was not so even in Rev. 4, where we have seen the display of the judicial glory of God in His various earthly or dispensational characters, save His full millennial one, but not His special revelation now as our Father. In itself we know that Jehovah God embraces and is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Yet here the Holy Ghost is seen not in His unity of person and working, but in His variety of governmental activity as the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth; and the Lord Jesus is not yet discriminated as such. The glorious vision of Him who sits on the throne may include therefore both the Father and the Son; it is rather God as such, than the revelation of each in the Godhead, the general or generic nature, not personal distinction.

But here in the opening verses a formal challenge is made which at once displays the glory, worth, and victory of the Lamb, the holy earth-rejected Sufferer, whose blood has bought for God those who were under sin, and indeed all creation. There is to be in consequence the full blessing of man and of the creature on God's part; yea, saints not only delivered, but, even before the deliverance is displayed, led into full understanding of God's mind and will. Christ is just as necessarily the wisdom of God as He is the power of God. Without Him no creature can apprehend His ways or purposes, any more than a sinner knows salvation without Him. We need, and how blessed that we have, Christ for everything! Thus, whatever the glory of the scene before the prophet in chap. iv., that which follows shows us the wondrous person and way in which man is brought into the consciousness of the blessing, and the appreciation of the divine plan and glory.

"And I saw on the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a great voice, Who [is] worthy to open the book, and to loose its seals? And no one in the heaven, or on the earth, or underneath the earth, was able to open the book or to look on it. And I wept much because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look on it. And one of the elders saith to me, Weep not: behold, the Lion that [is] of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath overcome, to open the book and its seven seals." What creature could open these Seals? None anywhere. But the strong angel proclaims, and the Lord Jesus comes forward to answer the proclamation. He takes up the challenge after a sufficient space to prove the impotence of all others. The comfort assured to John by the elder is thus justified; for the elders understand. And he sees the Lion of the tribe of Judah to be the Lamb, despised on earth, exalted in heaven, who advances and takes the book out of the right hand of Him that sat on the throne. The Lamb is here described as the Root of David; at the close (22: 16) He describes Himself as the Root and the Offspring of David. How great is His grace! Then they all, living creatures and elders together, fall down before the Lamb with a new song.

"And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took [it] out of the right hand of the sitter on the throne. And when he took the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fall before the Lamb, having each a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy thou art to take the book, and to open its seals, because thou west slain and didst purchase to God with thy blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and madest them to our God a kingdom and priests; and they shall reign over the earth." The Lamb is marked by perfect power and wisdom, but it is in the Spirit on high as before on earth (cp. Acts 1: 2). And His own sing of His shed blood.

It is striking that after this, as we are told, "And I saw and heard a voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders: and their number was ten thousands of ten thousands, and thousands of thousands, saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and blessing." Here we have the angels, who are now distinctly named. How comes it that no angels appear in Rev. 4? And why have we them in Rev. 5? There is always the wisest reason in the ways of God of which scripture speaks, and we are encouraged by the Spirit to inquire humbly but trustfully. The inference it warrants seems to be this: that the assumption of the book into the hands of the Lamb, and His preparing to open the seals, marks a change of administration. Up to that point of time angels have held an executory ministry of power from God. Where judgments were in question, or other extraordinary intervention on His part, angels were the instruments; whereas from this time we gather the title to a marked change for the world to come in those that are Christ's above.

The title of the glorified saints is thus asserted. We know for certain, as a matter of doctrine in Hebrews 2, that the inhabited world to come is to be put not under angels, but under Christ and those that are His in heavenly glory. Here the seer is admitted to a prophetic glimpse that falls in with the doctrine of St. Paul. In other words, when the Lamb is brought definitely into the scene, then and not before, we see the elders and the living creatures united in the new song. As one company they join in praising the Lamb. They sing, "Worthy art thou, because thou west slain and didst purchase." Thus we have them combined in a new fashion; and, as a consequence, the angels are now definitely distinguished. Supposing that previously the administration of judgment was in the hand of angels, it is easily understood that they would not be distinguished from the living creatures in Rev. 4, because the living creatures set forth the agencies of God's executory judgment. Whereas in Rev. 5, if there be a change in administration, and the angels that used to be the executors are no longer so recognised in view of the kingdom, but the power is to be in the hands of the glorified saints, it is simple enough that the angels fall back from the cherubim, being eclipsed by the heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. If previously angels were seen in the living creatures, they henceforward retire from this dignity to their own place, and therefore no longer fall under that symbol.

From this it follows that the four living creatures might be at one time angels, at another saints. The symbol sets forth, not so much the persons that are entrusted with these judgments, as the character of the attributes in action. Scripture, however, affords elements to solve the question, here by the marked absence of angels, who, as we know, are the beings God employed in His providential dealings with the world, and this both in Old Testament times and still in the days of the New Testament. The church is only in course of formation; but when complete, the glorified saints are caught up, and the First-begotten is anew owned in His title, they too will be owned in theirs. For as the Lord is coming to take visibly the kingdom, we can readily understand that the change of administration is first made manifest in heaven before being displayed on earth. If this be admitted, the change is accounted for in Rev. 5. The general fact is in Rev. 4; this administrative change in Rev. 5. Hence the cherubim and the elders unite to sing.

All the results are anticipated for every creature when once the note is struck (vers. 13, 14). "And every creature which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and which are on the sea and all things that [are] in them, heard I saying, To him that sitteth on the throne and to the Lamb, the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the might unto the ages of the ages. And the four living creatures said, Amen; and the elders fell down and did homage."*

* The omission of "him that liveth unto the ages of the ages" is fully established, and finely illustrates how a spurious clause takes away from the truth. For as read by the best copies the homage was to the Lamb as well as to God as such. It is attested more fully than the omission of ἡμᾶς in ver. 9, though for this sufficient is given, and required by the context.

As a matter of fact, "the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God" (Rom. 8: 19). But their presence glorified on high, before that revelation, was so momentous as to call forth by the Spirit the ascription to the ear of heaven from every creature above or below before deliverance actually came. So the Lord said on earth, when the seventy reported the demons subject to them in His name, "I beheld Satan fallen from heaven." All would follow duly the keynote then struck.

Next we come to the opening of the Seals. Revelation 6 has a character of completeness about it, with this only exception, that the seventh Seal is the introduction to the Trumpets in the beginning of Rev. 8. This does not call for many words. The Seals open to us God's preparatory steps, but in this fixed order, and springing from natural causes. They were secret, and they needed to be opened. "And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as a voice of thunder, Come. And I saw; and, behold, a white horse, and he that sat upon it having a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he came forth conquering and that he might conquer. And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, Come. And another, a red horse, came forth; and to him that sat upon it, to him it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should slay one another; and there was given to him a great sword. And when he opened the third seal, I heard the living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and, behold, a black horse, and he that sat upon it having a balance in his hand. And I heard as a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, A choenix of wheat for a denary, and three choenixes of barley for a denary; and the oil and the wine injure not. And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and, behold, a pale horse, and he that sat upon it, his name death, and hades followed with him; and authority was given to them over the fourth of the earth to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and by the beasts of the earth."

Surely it is plain enough that we ought not to have here, and after the other three horses, the words "And see." They are wanting in the best text* for all these passages. In every one of the cases the sentence ought only to be "Come." The difference comes to this, that "Come and see" would be addressed to John; whereas according to the better MSS. "Come" is addressed by the living creature to the rider upon the horse. Clearly this makes all possible difference. It is not the elders here; but one of the living creatures steps forward when the first Seal is opened, and says, Come; and at once comes forth a rider upon a white horse, etc. An elder explains as to Christ, or those that are His if liable to be misunderstood; a living creature acts from God for events in His providence. Let us inquire into the force of each Seal severally; but before we do, may we not notice the strange fancy that one of the living creatures saying "as a voice of thunder" could be a cry to the Lord Jesus to come? Not only would it be wholly incongruous with these cherubs, but quite out of harmony with the context.

* Yet in every instance the Sinai MS. supports the inferior copies against the Alexandrian, the Rescript of Paris, and the Porphyrian Uncial, with the better cursives, etc. The Sinaitic is often careless, especially in the Revelation.

"I saw, and, behold, a white horse: and he that sat upon it had a bow; and a crown was given to him: and he went (or, came) forth conquering and that he might conquer." It is the answer to the call. The first then advances, and the character of his action is prosperity in conquest. Every trait shows this. It is the earliest state that the Spirit of God notices as then to be brought about in the world. A mighty conqueror shall appear here below. This has been applied to a great variety of things and persons. It has been held to mean the triumphs of the gospel! by some Christ's coming again! by others Antichrist, and one knows not what. But we may safely gather from the first Seal that God judicially employs a conqueror who is to carry everything before him. A crown was given him. This would be the notable event among men, which is the first to happen on earth after the translation of the glorified to heaven at Christ's coming, in fact after Rev. 4 and 5. How absurd to talk of it as "victory for God's church and people"!

"And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, Come. And another came forth, a red horse; and to him that sat upon it, to him it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should slay one another; and there was given to him a great sword." The difference is here marked. It is necessarily by bloodshed in the second Seal, which implies carnage if not civil war. The rider is not on a white horse, the symbol of victory; but mounted on another, a red horse, with a great sword, he has a commission to kill. Aggressive power which subjugates is meant by the horse in every colour; but in the first case that power seems to subject men bloodlessly. He had a bow, emblematic of distant warfare, not close or hand to hand. The measures are so successful — the name itself carries such prestige with it — that it becomes one onward career of conquest without necessarily involving slaughter. But in the second Seal the great point is that the peace of the earth is taken away, and "that they should slay one another." It may be the horror of civil warfare.

In the third Seal it is the colour of mourning. "And when he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and behold, a black horse, and he that sat upon it having a balance in his hand. And I heard as a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, A choenix of wheat for a denary, and three choenixes of barley for a denary; and the oil and the wine do not injure." A black horse is not an emblem of prosperity. The price was a rate of scarcity. The ordinary price not long before we know to have been incomparably less; for notoriously a denarius would have procured as much as fifteen choenixes. Now it is needless to say that so great a rise in the price of wheat would make a serious difference. However this may have been, the rate current in St. John's day, or rather some time after, is not a question easily settled. Naturally rates differ. The increase of civilisation and other causes tend to make it somewhat fluctuating. That it is hard to ascertain with nicety the prices at the supposed epoch is plain, from the fact that men of ability and conscience have supported every variety of opinion; but is it worth while to spend more time on the point? The colour of the horse decisively proves what the nature of the case must be. Mourning would be strange if it were either a time of plenty or one governed by a just price; black suits a time of scarcity. Some will be surprised to hear that each of these views has had defenders. There are but three possible ways of taking it; and each one of these has had staunch support. There is no certainty in man. The word of God makes the matter plain to a simple mind.

The unlettered in this country or any other cannot know much details about the price of barley or wheat of old; but any one sees that the black colour is significant of gloom, especially as contrasted with white, that it is not indicative of joy or justice, but naturally of distress; and therefore one takes this with the other points to judge of the third horse and its rider.

"And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and, behold, a pale horse and he that sat upon him, his name death, and hades followed with him; and authority was given to him over the fourth of the earth to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." The fourth Seal shows a pale or livid horse, the hue of dissolution. It is a mixture of God's ordinary chastisements, falling concurrently on the earth, in the last of these four Seals to a limited extent. It is apparent that all the four are homogeneous.

It is not three and four of the seven, as with the churches; the first four Seals have a common external character. The fifth bears on God's people in suffering to blood, and thus introduces things deeper in His eyes; and so the four living creatures, active as to ordinary affairs in providence, are now silent.

"And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those that had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held; and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Sovereign, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on those that dwell on the earth? And there was given to them, to each one a white robe; and it was said to them that they should rest yet a little while, till both their fellow-bondmen and their brethren who were about to be killed as they too should be fulfilled."

Under the altar are disclosed the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God, and for their testimony; yet they cry aloud for vengeance to the Sovereign Master, and are vindicated before God, but must wait. Others, both their fellow-servants and their brethren, are about to be killed (as they were) ere that day comes. But they rest meanwhile. Many a person thinks that those in question are Christians. But if we look more closely into the passage, we may learn that this again confirms the antecedent removal of the church to heaven. Is theirs a prayer or desire according to the grace of the gospel? Reasoning is hardly needful on a point so manifest. He who understands the general drift of the New Testament, and the special prayers there recorded by the Holy Ghost for our instruction, would be satisfied but for a false bias. Take Stephen's prayer, after our blessed Lord the pattern of all that is perfect. On the other hand we have similar language elsewhere: but where? In the Psalms and the Prophets. Thus we have all the evidence that can be required. The evidence of the New Testament proves that these are not the sanctioned prayers of the Christian; the evidence of the Old Testament, that just such were the prayers of persons whose feelings and experience and desires were founded on Israelitish hopes.

Does not this exactly fall in with what has been already seen? that once the glorified saints shall have passed out of the scene, God will be at work in the formation of a new testimony with its own peculiarities. It is not of course that the facts of the New Testament are obliterated, but the souls of the saints will be then led into what was revealed of old, because God is about to accomplish what was then predicted. For the time will be at hand for God to rule the earth under the Lord's direct rule. Of this the Old Testament is full, the earth blessed under the reign of the heavens: as the N.T. views Christ as head of both. The earth, and the earthly people Israel, shall rejoice with the nations, all then enjoying the days of heaven here below. Accordingly these souls show us their condition and hopes; they pray for earthly judgments. They desire not, when suffering even to death, that their enemies should be converted, but that God would avenge their blood on them. Nothing can be simpler or surer than the inference.

The departed are told that they are not the only faithful to be given up to a violent end: others must follow later. Till then God does not appear for the accomplishment of that judgment for which they cried. They must wait therefore for the further and, as we know, more furious outburst of persecution. After that God will deal with the earth. Thus we have here the latest persecution in prospect, as well as the earlier one, of the Apocalyptic period distinctly given. The apostle Paul had spoken of himself as ready to be offered up: so these had been, and their souls are seen therefore under the altar in the vision. They were renewed indeed, and understood what Israel ought to do; but they were not on the ground of Christian faith and church intelligence as we ought to be. Of course it is a vision, but a vision with weighty and plain intimations to us. If they had not the indwelling Paraclete as we have, they had the Spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 19: 10). Judgment yet lingers till the predicted final outpouring of man's apostate rage, when the Lord will appear and put down all enemies for the establishing of God's kingdom everywhere.

The next Seal lets us know that God was not indifferent meanwhile; for the sixth Seal may be regarded as a kind of immediate consequence on the foregoing cry. "And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth hair, and the whole moon became as blood; and the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree shaken by a great wind casteth its untimely figs. And the heaven was removed as a book (or, scroll) rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." This furnished the appearance before the seer in the vision We are not to suppose that heaven and earth will be physically confounded when the prediction is fulfilled. He saw all this before his eyes as signs, of which the meaning has to be considered. We have to find out by their symbolic use elsewhere what is intended here by the changes which passed over sun, moon, stars, and the earth in the vision.. The result of course depends on our just application of scripture by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. But no one is entitled to read into this Seal the Lord's advent without one word from God to justify it. The context also renders the notion untenable and impossible, if we hold fast what is written. It dislocates the structure of the book.

To help us we have plain language, not figures. "And the kings of the earth, and the grandees, and the chiliarchs, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman, and [every] freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: because the great day of his wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" This it is well to heed, because it would be evident that if the heaven literally was removed as a scroll, and every mountain and island moved out of its place, there could be no place to hide in. Thus to take it as other than symbolic representation would be self-contradictory. Such then is not the true force. If heaven really disappear, and the earth be moved according to the import of these terms in a pseudo-literal way, how could the various classes of terrified men truly say to the mountains, "Fall on us and hide us"? Plainly therefore the vision, like its predecessors, is symbolical. The prophet indeed beheld these objects heavenly and earthly in utter confusion; but the meaning must be sought on the ordinary principles of interpretation. It is a complete revolution of authority high and low, an unexampled convulsion of all classes of mankind, within its own sphere; the effect of which is to overturn the foundations of power and authority for the world, and to fill men's minds with the apprehension that the day of judgment is come.

It is not the first time indeed that people have so dreaded; but it will be again worse than it has ever been. Such is the effect of the sixth Seal when its judgment is accomplished, after the risen saints are taken to heaven, and indeed subsequent to a murderous persecution of the saints who follow us on earth. The persecuting powers and those subject to them will be visited judicially, and there will ensue a complete disruption of authority on the earth. The rulers will have misused their power, and now. a revolution on a vast scale takes place. Such seems to be the meaning of the vision. The effect on men, when they see the total overturning of all that is established in authority here below, will be that they imagine the day of the Lord is come. But it is an error to confound their saying so with God's declaration of it. Not He but they say that the great day of the Lamb's wrath is come.

There is no excuse for so mistaken an interpretation: it is only what these frightened men exclaim. The fact is that the great day does not arrive for a considerable space afterward, as the Revelation itself clearly proves. But men are so alarmed by this visitation that they think it must be His predicted day, and they say so. It is sure and evident that the great day of His wrath is not yet come. For a considerable time after this epoch our prophecy prepares for that day, revealing it in Rev. 14, 17, and describing it in Rev. 19. When it really comes, so infatuated are men in that day that they will fight against the Lamb; but the Lamb shall overcome them. Satan will have destroyed their dread when there is most ground for it.

Revelation 7

After this, so far is the great day of His wrath from being come that we find (in the parenthesis of chap. 7) God accomplishing mighty works of saving mercy. More signal and severe judgments impend and are to be next predicted. But in this intervening episode God tells us of a numbered complement for His seal from every tribe of Israel, and of a Gentile crowd in numbers numberless to be saved, comforted, and blessed. The first is the sealing of 144,000 out of the twelve tribes of Israel by an angel of singular authority that ascends from the sun-rising. "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascend from the sun-rising, having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a great voice to the four angels to whom it was given to injure the earth and the sea, saying, Injure not the earth and the sea nor the trees, till we shall have scaled the servants of our God upon their foreheads. And I heard the number of the sealed, a hundred [and] forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the children of Israel: out of the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand sealed; out of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Naphthali twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand sealed." That pious men should doubt Israel as a fact here is strange, especially with a crowd of saved Gentiles immediately following. One can understand Ephraim "joined to idols" omitted, as well as Dan for similar guilt: one of the great horrors of Christendom, as this book points out. Levi and Joseph take their place.

Next there is vouchsafed to the prophet the sight of a crowd of Gentiles. "After these things I saw, and, behold, a great crowd which no one could number, out of every nation, and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and they cry with a great voice, saying, Salvation to our God that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb. And all the angels were standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell before the throne upon their faces, and did homage to God, saying, Amen: the blessing, and the glory, and the wisdom, and the thanksgiving, and the honour, and the power, and the strength to our God, unto the ages of ages. Amen. And one out of the elders answered saying to me, These that are clothed with the white robes, who are they, and whence came they? And I said to him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him by day and by night in his temple, and he that sitteth on the throne shall spread his tabernacle over them. They shall hunger no more, nor shall they thirst more; neither shall the sun at all strike upon them, nor any heat. For the Lamb that [is] in the midst of the throne shall tend them, and shall lead them unto fountains of waters of life; and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes."

Here they do not sing like the elders, but they ascribe "salvation to God" in the quality of sitting on the throne (we have seen in this book, His judicial throne), and to the Lamb. In other words, the ascription could not have been made before Rev. 4. Its tenor supposes the vast change for the risen saints to have taken place. It is not the fruit of a testimony during the past or the present. All this is merely men's imagination, without the smallest foundation in scripture So far from its being a picture of the redeemed of all times, it is expressly said to be a countless throng out of Gentiles distinguished from Israel; and this not now or of old, but in relation to God as He governs judicially at a future time It is not universal therefore. These Gentiles stand in manifest contrast with the sealed out of Israel; but they are no less distinct from the elders or glorified saints. They do not even sing a (or as a) new song, like the Jewish remnant on mount Zion (Rev. 14: 3); but like them they are quite distinct from the glorified saints represented by the elders. With joy they wave palms.

Here we read that one of the elders talked about the Gentile crowd, and explained who they were to the prophet, as he evidently without this would have been at fault. If the elders mean the glorified saints, these Gentiles cannot. Most assuredly they are not all the saints, because the hundred and forty-four thousand of Israel we have seen expressly distinguished from them; and so are the Jewish remnant in Rev. 14. Who are they and what? They are a crowd of Gentiles to be preserved by God's gracious power in these last days. Not a word implies that here they were glorified; there is no reason to doubt that they were still in their natural bodies. If they are said to be "before the throne," this cannot overthrow the many proofs that they are alive on the earth. Thus the woman, for instance (in Rev. 12), is also described as seen in heaven; but this is only where the prophet saw her in the vision. Why are we necessarily to gather that these Gentiles belong to heaven? The seer saw them there, but whether "before the throne" means that they are actually in heaven is another question, to be decided by the evidence as a whole.

In this case it is plain from other statements that they are not heavenly; and to it are weighty objections. First of all they are definitely contra-distinguished from Israel, who clearly are on earth, and thus naturally this company would be on earth too, the one Jewish, and the other Gentile. Next they "come out of the great tribulation." Far from its being a general body in respect to all time, this proves that it is a future and peculiar though countless group; for it consists only of Gentiles preserved and blessed of God as coming out of "the great tribulation."

In the millennial time there will be a great ingathering of the Gentiles; but those before us precede that day. They are saints from among the Gentiles at the great crisis, called to the knowledge of God by the preaching of the "gospel of the kingdom," or the "everlasting gospel," of which we hear respectively in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Revelation. The Lord Himself tells the disciples that "this gospel of the kingdom" shall be "preached in all the world for a witness unto all the nations" (or all the Gentiles); "and then shall the end come." Is not this the very time spoken of here? It is clearly not a general summary of what God is doing now, but a description of what is yet to be, specially just before the end, when "the great tribulation" bursts out. John saw the fruit of divine grace even then in this vast crowd from among the Gentiles. The details of the description fall in with and confirm this inference. But the unparalleled tribulation is to fall on the Jews, as we are also told. This is far wider, and not so severe.

Attention has been already drawn to the fact that they are distinguished from the elders. If these represent the glorified saints, those are not the same company. If we admit that the elders represent. those caught up, the inference seems plain and certain that this Gentile throng cannot. The same body might be represented at different times by a different symbol, but hardly by two symbols at the same time, or by a symbolic and a literal description together.

Thus we may have Christians set forth by a train of virgins at one time, and by the bride at another; but the same parable carefully avoids the confusion. Such an incongruous mixture is foreign to scripture. It is not even found amongst sensible men, leaving out the word of God. The prophet tells us that one of the elders answers his own inquiry, "What are these that are clothed in white robes? and whence came they?" "These are they who come out of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." They are saints, though quite distinct from the elders. They are restricted to the time of "the great tribulation," and therefore after the glorified were taken to heaven. "Therefore are they before the throne of God" is a description, not of their local place, but of their moral position; they stand in view of, and in connection with, God that sits on the throne. This, as already seen, restricts the crowd to the transition period; and they stand related to God governmentally acting, not in this day of grace.

Unmistakably, be it observed, there is nothing vague or general, as is often supposed. For the throne here differs from what it is now, as the millennial throne will differ from both. 'I hat very aspect of the throne may he called its Apocalyptic character, to distinguish it from what went before or will come after. The elder describes it as a crowd entirely distinct from his own company, and, like the sealed of Israel, peculiar to that future day. They are saved Gentiles of that time. They are never said to be "around the throne," still less to be enthroned themselves. Further, not only are they before the throne of God, but it is added, "and serve him day and night in his temple." But this severs them from the bride or new Jerusalem wherein is no temple, and no night there. They will he highly favoured in nearness to God, but on earth, though distinct from the millennial nations, as being in relation with God and the Lamb before that day. Compare the blessed of the nations in Matt. 25: 34-40.

Again it is said, "He that sitteth on the throne shall" — not exactly "dwell among them," but — "spread his tabernacle over them." It is the gracious shelter of God's care and goodness that is set forth. This is of importance; because, though God now dwells by the Holy Ghost in the church as His habitation through the Spirit, it will not be so when these Gentiles will be called to the enjoyment of His favour. He will vouchsafe what is more suited to their character and state — His protection. Of old God had His pillar of cloud, a defence and a canopy over the camp of Israel (though He also dwelt in their midst). Here too He graciously promises it, not to the sealed of Israel that are to know His care, but to these hitherto besotted Gentiles. It is added that "they shall not hunger any more, nor thirst any more; neither shall the sun at all fall on them, nor any heat." Can any one question that such a solace is much more adapted to a people about to be relieved and blessed on the earth, than to men in a glorified state above? Where would be the propriety of a promise to risen men on high, that they shall hunger or thirst no more! If to a people on earth, we can all understand the comfort of its assurance. "For the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall tend them, and shall lead them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes." We must not let traditional misapplication deprive us of other truth, of God's mercy even in that terrible day to both the sealed out of Israel and to these countless Gentiles for blessing on the earth, itself to be then reconciled.

Revelation 8

At length comes the seventh Seal. This is important, because it guards us effectually against the idea that the sixth Seal goes down to the end, as many excellent men have imagined of old and in our day. But it is clearly incorrect. The seventh Seal is necessarily after the sixth. If there is an order in the others, we need not doubt that the seventh Seal introduces seven Trumpets which follow each other in succession like the Seals. These are described from Rev. 8 and onward, and, far more evidently than the Seals, are inflictions from God. "And when he opened the seventh seal, silence took place in the heaven about half an hour." There was a brief pause of solemn expectancy, the lull that precedes the storm about to blow, only held down by the four angels, as we were told in Rev. 7: 1. "And I saw the seven angels that stand before God; and seven trumpets were given to them." Heaven takes note of God's ways. The silence was there, not on earth. Signal judgments impended for all creation. How strange to fancy that silence for about half an hour in heaven could prefigure the millennial rest! Yet the error naturally flows from the hypothesis entertained by not a few worthy men that the seventh Seal points to the millennial rest, and that the Trumpets go back and concurrently lead us to the same conclusion. Is it too much to say that the idea is wholly imaginative and without one solid reason for it?

Then we see the remarkable fact, even more than any already alluded to: an angel of peculiarly august character in priestly function. "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, that he might give (efficacy) to the prayers of all the saints at the golden altar which [was] before the throne." Hence it follows that, while there are glorified saints above, saints are not wanting on earth who are objects of care to the great High Priest, however little their light or great their trial. We have the clear intimation that while the glorified are above, others will be in their natural bodies, yet accredited as saints here below. Yet it is not so much mercy and grace found of which we hear, but of judgments to fall on the wicked.

But it demands our special attention, that under the Trumpets the Lord Jesus assumes the angelic character. Angels are prominent at this juncture. We no longer hear of Him as the Lamb. As such He had opened the Seals; but here as the Trumpets were blown by angels, so the Angel of the covenant (who is the second person in the Trinity, commonly so called) falls back on that which was so familiar in the Old Testament presentation of Himself. Not of course that He divests Himself of His humanity: this could not be; and if any should imagine it, it would be contrary to all truth. The Son of God since the incarnation always abides the man Christ Jesus. From the time that He took manhood into union with His divine person, never will He divest Himself of it. But this evidently does not prevent His assuming whatever appearance is suited to the prophetic necessity of the case; and this is just what we find here under the Trumpets. It is observable that an increasingly figurative style of language is employed. All other objects become more distant in this series of visions than before; and so Christ Himself is seen more vaguely (i.e. not in His distinct human reality, but here angelically).

"And the smoke of the incense went up with the prayers of the saints out of the angel's hand before God. And the angel took the censer, and filled it out of the fire of the altar, and cast [it] unto the earth; and there took place voices, and thunders, and lightnings, and an earthquake." Further, in this new septenary we must prepare ourselves for even greater visitations of God's judgments. There were lightnings and voices and thunders in Rev. 4, but there is more now. Besides those we find an earthquake added. The effect among men becomes more intense. The angels are employed in providential judgments, as in providence generally. We can understand such a character of ministration, when the saints no longer witness to death as under the Seals, but are merged in the world save to God's eye: Rome's boast, but His horror.

"And the first sounded trumpet, and there was hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast unto the earth." This was a violent down-pouring of displeasure from God on the earth. Hail implies this. fire, we know, is the constant symbol of God's consuming judgment, and here even mingled with blood, i.e. destruction to life in the point of view intended. We have to consider whether it be simple physical decease, or dissolution in some special respect; and here it appears to be deprivation of life spiritual or Godward, rather than natural death.

It will be noticed in these divine visitations that the third part is regularly introduced. What is the prophetic meaning of "the third "? The answer seems given us in Rev. 12 (i.e. the distinctively Roman or western empire). For we know that the dragon's tail is to prevail over the leaders pre-eminently in the west, casting them down, as the figure runs, from the heaven to the earth. If this be so, "the third" would convey the varied consumption of the Roman empire in the west. Of course one cannot be expected in a brief sketch to enter on a discussion of the grounds for this view, any more than for other schemes which have been set up in its place. One able writer contends for the Greek or Eastern Empire, because the Macedonian was the third of the four great empires of Dan. 2, and Dan. 7. But "the third part" is quite another thought and phrase. It is enough now to state what one believes to be the fact.

Accordingly at least the earlier Trumpets (though not these only) are a specific visitation of judgment on the properly western empire. Not only was this visited, but "the third of the trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up." This is notable. The dignitaries within that sphere were consumed, but there was also a universal interference with the prosperity of men. Any "pause of judgment" at this point is pure fancy: the word of God utterly ignores it. Of such an episode the prophet neither says nor implies the least trace. The only revealed "pause" is in verse 13, portending the still more tremendous Trumpets of woe.

"And the second angel sounded trumpet, and as a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third of the sea became blood; and the third of the creatures which were in the sea, which had life, died; and the third of the ships was destroyed" It was in this case a great earthly power, which in divine judgment deals with the masses in a revolutionary state to their destruction. Thus not merely the world under stable government, but that which is or when it is in a state of agitation and disorder; and we find the same deadly effects here also putting an end, it would seem, to their trade and commerce.

"The third angel sounded trumpet, and there fell out of the heaven a great star, burning as it were a torch, and it fell upon the third of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood; and the third of the waters became wormwood; and many of the men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." Here the fall of a great dignitary or ruler, whose influence was judicially turned to poison all the springs and channels of popular influence, comes before us. The sources and means of refreshing intercourse among men are visited by God's embittering judgment.

"The fourth angel sounded trumpet, and the third of the sun was smitten, and the third of the moon and the third of the stars; so that the third of them should be darkened, and that the day should not appear for the third of it, and the night likewise." The fourth sounds its warning to all the governing powers — supreme, derivative, and subordinate — which must come under God's judgment, and all within the western empire. Learned men have sought to explain this judgment by an eclipse; and scientific men have argued for some such notion as agreeing with the phrase here employed. But this style of accommodation is quite untenable. The effect described by the prophet is far beyond any eclipse. It is symbolic presentation, and wholly beyond nature, to denote the extinction of all government within the western empire.

Even so worse is at hand, as next the eagle cries. "And I saw, and I heard an eagle flying in mid-heaven, saying with a great voice, Woe, woe, woe, to those that dwell on the earth, because of the remaining voices of the trumpet of the three angels that are about to sound." It is a vivid image of rapidly approaching judgments, "angel" having slipped in inadvertently for the better reading "eagle," through scribes who did not appreciate the symbolic style. The Woes are to fall expressly on those settled down on the earth. It is not now on the circumstances and surroundings of men, but directly on themselves. Here again notice how systematic is this book. The last three are distinguished thus from the first four.

Revelation 9

In chapter 9 the two next or fifth and sixth Trumpets are described with minute care, as indeed these are two of the Woe-trumpets. There remains the third Woe-trumpet, the last of the seven, which is set forth at the end of Rev. 11, and brings us the closing scene in a general way to the end.

The first of the Woe-trumpets consists of the symbolic locusts led by the ominous Apollyon, to whom was given, as its angel, the key of the abyss. For that they are not to be understood of the literal insects is clear, if only for this reason, that these are expressly said not to feed on that which is the natural food of locusts. The well-known creature, with most portentous qualities and powers added, becomes the descriptive sign of these marauders from the abyss. They were to injure not the vegetable realm, but man expressly, and from a source not human but diabolical. It is a darkening and tormenting evil let loose from the pit on the unsealed (those of Israel who had no such favour from God), not on what they valued merely but on themselves, by instruments boasting a righteous commission from God (for they had upon their heads as crowns like gold), yet not even men in their true place, but weakly subject. For they had the hair of women, if the faces of men. They were given such power as the scorpions have; and their object for a torment of five months was the men who lacked the seal of God on their foreheads. And the envenomed sting produced such anguish that men preferred death but found it not. How graphic the picture of this scourge from the abyss! Like horses were they prepared for war, their teeth as those of lions, their breastplates as of iron, and the sound of their wings as of chariots of many horses running unto war. Thus were combined a darkening influence from beneath to shut out heavenly light and healthful means with aggressive force of imposing character and a tormenting power as of a false prophet; "for the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail"; and these have tails like scorpions, and their power is in their tail. As their breasts were steeled against all force to pierce them, so were they led by a king who tells the tale of the enemy behind all.

"And the fifth angel sounded trumpet: and I saw a star out of the heaven fallen unto the earth, and there was given to him the key of the pit of the abyss. And he opened the pit of the abyss, and smoke went up out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun was darkened and the air from the smoke of the pit. And out of the smoke came forth locusts unto the earth, and to them was given power [or, authority] as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was said to them that they should not injure the grass of the earth nor any green thing nor any tree, but the men which [οἵτινες] have not the seal of God on their foreheads. And it was given to them that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months; and their torment [was] as a scorpion's torment when it striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death and shall in no way find it; and they shall desire to die, and death fleeth from them. And the likenesses of the locusts [were] like horses prepared for war; and upon their heads as crowns of gold, and their faces as men's faces; and they had hair as women's hair; and their teeth were as of lions. And they kind breastplates as iron breastplates, and the sound of their wings [was] as the sound of chariots of many horses running unto war. And they have tails like scorpions, and stings; and their power was in their tails to injure men five months. They have a king over them, the angel of the abyss, his name in Hebrew Abaddon, and in the Greek he hath a name Apollyon [destroyer].

"One woe is past; behold, there come two woes more after these things." Here too is a revealed "pause of judgment."

To another remark your attention is called, that the first Woe-trumpet answers in the way of contrast to the hundred and forty-four thousand that were sealed out of Israel; as the second Woe-trumpet (namely, that of the Euphratean horsemen) answers by a similar contrast to the countless multitude out of the Gentiles. As some perhaps may consider this contrast vague and indefinite, let us endeavour to make the meaning plainer. It is expressly said that the locusts of the vision were to carry on their tormenting, scorpion-like devastations, except on those that were sealed. Here then is an allusion clearly to those whom God set apart from Israel in Revelation 7; and this is at issue with the hypothesis of parallel series of judgments; for it is under the fifth Trumpet we are told of the unsealed, whereas it is in the parenthesis of the sixth Seal that the sealing was effected.

On the other hand, in the Euphratean horsemen we see far more of aggressive and destructive power, though there is also serpent-like torment. But torment is the main characteristic of the locust Woe; the horsemen Woe is more distinctively the onward progress of aggressive power portrayed in energetic colours. They fall on men and destroy them; and here "the third" reappears. According to the force given already, this would imply that the Woe falls on the Gentiles indeed, more particularly on the western empire, from the east Their "mouth" is characteristically prominent, and not their tails only as in the locust judgment. "And out of their mouths proceedeth fire and smoke and brimstone." Even the tails are not compared to scorpions but to serpents having heads, not so much a tormenting stroke as deliberate Satanic purpose. Their breastplates are not as iron but of fire and jacinth and brimstone, savouring of the very lake of fire.

"And the sixth angel sounded trumpet; and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar that [is] before God, saying to the sixth angel that had the trumpet, Loose the four angels that are bound at the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed that were prepared for the hour and day and month and year, that they might kill the third of men. And the number of the armies of the cavalry [was] twice ten thousand times ten thousand: I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and those that sat upon them, having breastplates of fire and jacinth and brimstone; and the heads of the horses [were] as lions' heads, and out of their mouths proceedeth fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three strokes were the third of men killed, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horses is in their mouth and in their tails; for their tails [are] like serpents, having heads, and with them they injure. And the rest of the men who were not killed with these strokes repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. And they repented not of their murders, nor of their sorceries [or, drugs], nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."

Here a voice from the four horns of the golden altar (and how significant that it should come from thence!) summons a swift and overwhelming and destructive host from the east to slay men of the western empire. For it is not "torment" now but death, though not without Satan's power of deceit as in the preceding Woe. In their inflictions a time limit appears, first a short term followed next by a longer one. There was also a term in the preceding Woe, as indeed they are evidently allied, though with notable points of difference. Here too, as the summons came from the four horns of the altar of intercession, so it was to the four angels that were bound at the great river, which was the boundary of the eastern powers. It was sweeping indeed.

It seems that these two Woes represent what will be verified in the early doings of the Antichrist in Judea, and of the Assyrian or eastern leader. The first or the locust raid consists of a tormenting infliction. Here accordingly we have Abaddon, the destroyer, their king, who is set forth in a peculiar fashion as angel of the abyss. It is not of course the issue yet fairly formed; but we can quite comprehend that there is to be an early manifestation of evil; just as grace will effect the beginning of that which is good in the remnant.

Here then we have these Woe-trumpets. First of all a tormenting Woe falls on the land, but not on those sealed out of the twelve tribes of Israel. Next the Euphratean horsemen are let loose on the western powers, overwhelming all Christendom, and in particular that west as the special object of the judgment of God. The former is emphatically torment from Satan on the reprobate Jews; as the latter is a most scathing infliction of man's aggressive energy, though not this only, from the east on the corrupt and idolatrous western world. The killing of the third of men represents, not the merely physical end, but the destruction even of all confession of relationship with the only true God. What an awful sketch of what had once received the gospel, professedly at least, and stood forth as God's church on earth! "And the rest of the men who were not killed by these strokes repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk. And they repented not of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts." Think of such a description divinely furnished of those who were not ostensibly apostate but still keeping up the name of Christianity, before the falling away was complete, as the book has yet to tell us! For "thou shalt see greater abominations than these"; not only the unclean spirit returned to the house empty, swept, and garnished, but taking to himself seven different spirits more wicked than himself, so that the last state is worse than the first. Then shall the vilest of men be worshipped as God in the temple of God, the west no less committed to this blasphemy than the mass of the Jews. But who believes the divine report?

Revelation 10.

Chapter 10 in the Trumpets answers to Rev. 7 in the Seals. It forms an important parenthesis, which comes in between the sixth and seventh Trumpets, just as the securing chapter (7) came in between the sixth and seventh Seals: so orderly is the Apocalypse. "And I saw another strong angel coming down out of the heaven, clothed with a cloud, and the rainbow [was] on his head, and his countenance as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire, and having in his hand a little open book. And he set his right foot on the sea, and the left on the earth, and cried with a loud voice as a lion roareth. And when he cried, the seven thunders uttered their own voices. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; and I heard a voice out of the heaven saying Seal the things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not."

Thus we have again the Lord in angelic appearance. As before in high-priestly function, He is the angel here with royal claim. A mighty angel comes down out of the heaven, the source of His action, clothed with a cloud, the special sign of Jehovah's majesty (Isa. 19: 1): none but He has the title to come thus clothed. Further, the rainbow is on His head. He occupies Himself with divine mercy toward the creation. It is not now a question of round the throne; here is a step taken in advance. He approaches the earth, and He asserts His indisputable claim to all creation as that which is His right. "And his face was as the sun," with supreme authority; "and his feet as pillars of fire," with firmness of divine judgment. "And he had in his hand a little book open; and he set his right foot on the sea, and his left on the earth, and cried with a loud voice, as a lion roareth." And the seven thunders answered on Jehovah's part; the God of glory fully asserts His title. It is no sealed-up book now, but a little one and open: sea or earth are alike His. John was going to write what the thunders said, but is forbidden. The disclosures were to be sealed; but there was to be no more delay.

"And the angel whom I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his right hand unto the heaven, and swore by him that liveth unto the ages of the ages, who created the heaven and the things that therein are, and the earth and the things that therein are, and the sea and the things that are therein, that there should be no longer delay; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound trumpet, the mystery of God also is finished, as he announced the glad news to his own bondmen the prophets." There was no more to be any lapse of time allowed. God would terminate the mystery of His present seeming inaction in the public government of the earth. Now He may allow the world, with slight check, to go on in its own way. Men may sin, and, as far as direct intervention is concerned, God appears not, whatever be the interferences exceptionally. But the time is coming when God will surely visit sin, and this immediately and effectually when no toleration can be for anything contrary to Himself. Such is the blessed age to which all the prophets look onward; and the angel here swears that the time is approaching. There is going to be no more delay; but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall sound trumpet as he is about to do, the mystery of God also should be completed (lit. "and was finished the," etc.). The mystery here is, not Christ and the church, but God's allowing evil to go on in its present course with apparent impunity. Its end is now anticipated. His direct reign is at hand (Rev. 11: 15).

"And the voice which I heard out of the heaven [was] again speaking with me and saying, Go, take the little book that is open in the hand of the angel that standeth on the sea and on the earth. And I went off unto the angel, saying to him to give me the little book. And he saith to me, Take and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey. And I took the little book out of the hand of the angel, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey; and when I had eaten it, my belly was made bitter. And they say [or, he saith] to me, Thou must prophesy again as to peoples and nations and tongues and kings many." The meaning of this soon appeals more clearly. There is a kind of appendix of prophecy where he renews his course for especial reasons. It is what may be called the second volume of "the things which are about to be after these," and begins with Rev. 12 and onward.

Meanwhile notice the evident contrast between the little book which the prophet here takes and eats, and the great book we have seen already sealed up with seven seals. It was sweet as honey to the taste that the true and all-worthy King should reign; but how bitter to the feelings that judgment unsparing should fall on the mass of the Jews, and yet more on proud Christendom, both apostate and worse. Why a little book? and why open? A little book, because it treats of a comparatively contracted sphere, already familiar in the prophets; and open, because things are no longer described in the mysterious guise in which the Seals and yet more the Trumpets arrayed them. All is going to be plain for what comes out here. Is it not the case accordingly in Rev. 11? The language is ordinary, with figures rather than symbols.

Revelation 11.

"And there was given to me a reed like a rod, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given to the Gentiles, and they shall' tread under foot the holy city forty-two months." Their treading down is soon to come to an end; and Jerusalem appears in the foreground. This is the centre of concern now, while the Beast may ravage there, though his own sphere be in the western world "And I will give* to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." Their task is for a time comparatively short — for three years and a half. "These are the two olive trees, and the two lamps that stand before the Lord of the earth." The witnesses are two, not because necessarily limited to two only, but as giving an adequate testimony according to the law. It is not the Messianic order yet.

* Probably here, as in Rev. 8: 3, the word implies "efficacy" or "power," as our Authorised translators saw in one text if not in the other.

One often hears, for the purpose of illustrating the Revelation, a reference to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or the like; but we should bear in mind that these prophecies are not in their structure symbolical. Therefore the reasoning founded on the books and style of Jeremiah or Isaiah (Ezekiel being partly symbolical, partly figurative) cannot decide for Daniel or the Apocalypse. Here the figures have a language of their own. Thus the regular meaning of "two," if figuratively used, is competent testimony — enough and not more than enough. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." According to Jewish law a case could not be decided by one witness; there must be at least two for valid proof and judgment.

"And if any one desire to injure them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any one desire to injure them, he must thus be killed." Clearly in this parenthesis we have not yet Israel as a whole in view, but a remnant of true worshippers owned, while the mass are given up, and the raising up of witnesses in sorrow, yet guarded by power after a Jewish sort, till the Beast, of whom we shall hear far more, rises up to kill them. For now that Christ's title to the universe is asserted, Satan pushes forward the Beast to claim the earth for himself.

But is this the testimony of the gospel? Is it thus the Lord protects the preachers of the gospel of His grace? Did fire ever proceed out of the mouths of evangelists? Did a teacher ever devour his enemies? Was it on this principle that even Ananias and Sapphira fell dead? Are these the ways of Christianity? Is it not evident that we are here in a new atmosphere, that a state of things is before us altogether different from that which reigned during the church condition, though even then sin might be unto death in peculiar cases? No more proofs are needed as enough has been given. "These have authority to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy." That is, they are something like Elijah "And they have authority over the waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth as often as they will with every plague." In this respect they resemble Moses also. It is not meant that they are Moses and Elias personally; but that the character of their testimony is similar, and the sanctions of it such as God gave in the days of those two honoured servants of old. "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that cometh up out of the abyss shall make war with them, and shall overcome them and shall kill them." They are however preserved In spite of the Beast, till their work is done; but directly their testimony is completed, the Beast is allowed to overcome them. This is anticipation; and so the description of the Beast is characteristic rather than an existing fact. That is to say, all had not yet been given him which was to be.

So it was with the Lord. The utmost pressure was brought against Him in His service. So their hour, we may say, has not yet come, just as He said of Himself before them. There was all possible willingness to destroy them long before, but somehow it could not be done; for the Lord protected them till they had done their mission. But we see the character of grace which filled the Lord Jesus, and essentially belonged to Him. Here we meet with the earthly retributive dealing of the Old Testament. The Spirit will form them thus; and no wonder, because in fact God is recurring to that which He promised then, but has never yet performed. He is going to perform it now He does not merely purpose to gather people for heavenly glory; He will govern on earth the Jews and the Gentiles in their several places — Israel nearest to Himself. He must have an earthly people, as well as His family on high. When the heavenly saints are changed, then He begins with the earthly. He will never mix them all up together. This makes nothing but the greatest confusion.

"And their body [is] on the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." It was Jerusalem, but spiritually called Sodom and Egypt; because of the wickedness of the people and their prince. It had no less abominations than Sodom; it had all the darkness and the moral bondage of Egypt; but it was really the place where their Lord had been crucified (i.e. Jerusalem). So the witnesses fell, and men in various measures showed their satisfaction. "And [some] of the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations see their body three days and a half, and do not suffer their dead bodies to be put into a tomb. And those that dwell on the earth rejoice over them, and [their hatred being more intense] make merry, and they shall send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those that dwell on the earth. And after the three days and a half a spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon those beholding them. And I heard a great voice out of the heaven, saying to them, Come up here; and they went up to the heaven in the cloud, and their enemies beheld them. And in that hour came a great earthquake, and the tenth of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain seven thousand names of men; and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven."

"The second woe is past; behold, the third woe cometh quickly." This is to be as emphatically from God, as the first came from the abyss on the wicked Israelites, and the second from the multitudinous powers of the east on the faithless west. For it is the seventh Trumpet. This is important for understanding the structure of the book. The seventh Trumpet brings us down to the close in a general but final summary. This is clear, though often overlooked. "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in the heaven, saying, The kingdom of the world of our Lord and of his Christ is come." You must translate it a little more exactly, and with a better text too. "The kingdom of the world" (or "the world-kingdom," if our tongue admits of such a combination) "of our Lord and of his Christ is come." It is not merely power in general conferred in heaven, but "the world-kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ is come, and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the twenty-four elders that sit before God upon their thrones fell on their faces, and did homage to God, saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God the Almighty, that art, and that wast; because thou hast taken thy great power, and didst reign. And the nations were enraged, and thy wrath is come."

Here, it will be observed, the end of the age is supposed to be now arrived. It is not merely frightened kings and peoples who say so, but the voice of those who know in heaven. The nations were enraged, and God's wrath come; but further, "the time of the dead to be judged." Not a word here speaks of the saints caught up to heaven; it is a later hour. "And the time of the dead to be judged, and to give the reward to thy bondmen the prophets, and to the saints, and to those that fear thy name, small and great, and to destroy those that destroy the earth." No mention is made here about taking them to heaven, but of recompensing them. There can be no such thing as conferring that reward till the public manifestation of the Lord Jesus. They had, in fact, been translated long before, and were seen glorified in heaven since the beginning of Rev. 4. The taking of those changed out of the scene is quite another association of truth. The reward in due time will fail to none that fear the Lord's name, small and great; but He will also destroy those that destroy the earth at that time. It is the general course of judgment summarised to the close, and proclaimed on high.

This is the true conclusion of Rev. 11. The next verse (19), though arranged in our Bibles as the end of the chapter, is properly the beginning of a new series. For the prophetic part of the book divides into two portions at this point. This is another landmark that cannot be despised, if we would acquaint ourselves with its structure and the bearing of its contents. And it is absolutely requisite to have a generally correct understanding of its outline; else we are in imminent risk of making confusion, the moment we venture to put the parts together, or to form anything like a right connected view of that which it conveys to us. The seventh Trumpet brings us down to the end in a general way.

This is the habit of prophecy. Take, for instance, our Lord's prophecy in Matthew 24. There, first of all, we are given the broad outline as far as verse 14 to the "gospel of the kingdom" preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations; and then the end comes. Having thus brought us down to the close comprehensively, the Lord turns back, and specifies a particular part of that history in a confined sphere, namely, from the time that the abomination of desolation is set up in the holy place. This clearly is a little time before the end. It does not indeed go back absolutely to the beginning, but it returns a certain way, in order to set forth a far fuller and more precise view of the appalling state of things found in Jerusalem before the end comes.

Just so is it in the Revelation. The Seals and the Trumpets which follow one another conduct us from the time that the church is seen in heaven glorified till "the time of the dead to be judged," as well as the day of wrath for the nations on the earth. Evidently this is the end of the age. Then, in the portion which begins with the last verse of Rev. 11, we return for a special communication. The prophet had been told that he must prophesy again before many peoples and kings; and from this point seems to be his prophesying again.

"And the temple of God in the heaven was opened." It is not a door opened in heaven to give us the veil lifted up from what must take place on the earth as regarded in the mind of God. This John did see, the general view being now closed; and we cuter on a distinct line which connects itself with O.T. prophecy. It is not now the throne; but the temple of God in heaven was opened, "and there was seen the ark of his covenant in his temple." This is the resumption of the divine link with His ancient people Israel.

Not that it is yet the day of blessedness for the Jew. Nor is heaven itself opened for Jesus, attended by risen saints, to appear for the judgment of the Beast and the False Prophet with their train. It is still a transition state of things, but a further advance. When God deigns to look upon and gives us to see the ark of His covenant, He is going to assert His fidelity to the people. Of old He gave promises, and will shortly accomplish all which had been assured to their fathers. The ark of His covenant is the sign of the unfailing certainty of that to which He bound Himself. Doubtless as the Gospels show, and the Epistles prove, we do now enjoy the blessings of the new covenant as far as is compatible with higher privileges; yet prophetically its direct establishment awaits Israel, and this is here pledged. Blessed tokens now come to view, with even aggravated proof that God will be then dealing with the world, not in grace as now, but in ever-growing severity of judgment.

"And there were lightnings, and voices, and thunders," and besides not "an earthquake" only but "great hail." It was not yet "the day": on the contrary the deepest darkness must intervene. Judicial ways still prevail, and more than before. In the first scene of Rev. 4, when the door was seen open in heaven, there were "lightnings, and voices, and thunders," but not even an earthquake. In Rev. 8 this addition appears. Now besides all the rest there is "great hail." Clearly therefore we are thus prepared for greater detail in the judgments from heaven inflicted on the earth.

Revelation 12

Signs are beheld above: the sources, principles, and agents in the coming crisis are seen on high. "There appeared a great sign in the heaven." The being seen in heaven shows that it is not a mere history of what takes place on earth, but a view given of God's purpose. Though seen above, the woman represented is to be Israel on the earth. The symbol is of the chosen people as a whole, for a future state of things which God means to establish here below. Utterly weak in herself, she was "clothed with the sun." Israel shall be invested with supreme authority on earth, long as she has been desolate and down-trodden by the Gentiles. "And the moon under her feet" intimates that the condition of legal ordinances (or, as some would regard it, derivative rule), instead of governing her as of old, shall be under her feet. How aptly the moon sets forth the reflected light of the Mosaic system to any thoughtful mind! What are feasts, new moons, or sabbaths to the Christian? In the millennium this will not be out of sight, as now under Christianity, but reappear: only when Jehovah is truly honoured as her husband, there will be manifest subordination, as may be seen in Ezekiel's prophecy.

More than this appears. "And on her head a crown of twelve stars." There will be the fullest administrative authority in man, not only for use but to adorn her. In short, whether it be supreme, derivative, or subordinate authority, all is now assured to her. Israel is therefore to be the manifest vessel of God's mighty purposes for the earth; and God here so looks at her and presents her to the prophet's eye. But this is not all. Another glory is here, greater than all; for "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." What could Israel do without Jehovah's Anointed, the Messiah? "She was with child, and crieth, travailing in birth, in pain to be delivered." It is not yet the day for joyous and triumphant accomplishment of the divine purpose, when before Zion travails she is to bring forth, and before her pain come, she is to be delivered of a man-child; as Isaiah proclaims to Israel in his last chapter. There is weakness and suffering yet, but all is secured, and the end pledged on high. Compare Micah 5: 2, 3, where, as here, the birth of Messiah (for the woman is the mother, not the bride) is connected with the future day of Israel's deliverance. Only in the Revelation is the man-child caught up meanwhile to God and to His throne, of which we have more to say in its place.

"And there appeared another sign in the heaven, and, behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads." It is Satan, but here invested with the form of the most determined and successful enemy that Israel ever had. For crushing as was the overthrow under Nebuchadnezzar, the Roman power trod down Jerusalem with a more tremendous and permanent tyranny. Besides, as the Roman Beast collided with Christ once, so must it be destroyed at His appearing. This therefore makes the unfolding of the double sign so much the more striking. Not that the deliverance is yet come; but Israel and the enemy are confronted before the prophet according to God's mind. What a mighty encouragement before Israel passes through the worst trouble!

The dragon has seven heads, as it is here said, or the completeness of ruling authority; and ten horns, not twelve, but at any rate an approach to it, in the instruments of the power wielded in the west. Man is never truly complete. God gave the woman twelve stars. The dragon has but ten horns. And this appears to look on to the last days; for the empire, whilst it possessed imperial unity, never had ten co-ordinate and subordinate kings, as the Beast will surely have before its judgment (Rev. 17: 12, 17). It is the dragon too we may say in purpose. But God would not allow that completeness of administrative power even in form which belonged to the woman. All will be in due order when the Lord Jesus takes the government of the earth into His hands in the age to come. "Verily I say to you, That ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The twelve apostles of the Lamb are destined to a special place of honourable trust.

"And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth." Does not this imply that the third part is the distinctively Roman side of the empire? It was "the third part" we saw in the Trumpets, both in the four earlier ones and also in the sixth. This seems to set forth the western empire, or what was properly Roman. The Romans actually possessed, because they conquered, a great deal that belonged to Greece for instance, and Medo-Persia and Babylon. This last was far east; but the properly Roman part was western Europe. There the dragon's malignant influence was to be particularly felt, at least in those that filled the place of rulers. It "drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them unto the earth; and the dragon standeth before the woman that was about to bring forth, that he might devour her child as soon as she should bring forth." It is Christ above all that he dreads. The old serpent is the constant foe of Christ in the war of all time. "And she brought forth a man-child, who is about to rule [or, tend] all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne."

Some things call for explanation here. First, a notion prevails that the woman is the church. Many Christians have so conceived. A few words are sufficient to dispel the illusion, and do. How could the church be the mother of Christ? Viewed figuratively as a woman, the church is the bride of Christ (as we see in Rev. 19, 21, 22); whereas the Jewish body is truly represented as His mother. Christ, as man, came of the Jews after the flesh. And He plainly is the One here described as the Man-child. The same truth is evident in the scriptures, whether we take the Psalms or the Prophets. "Unto us," says Isaiah, "a child is born, a son is given." Again, in the second Psalm, we find that He who is honoured by God Himself as the Son is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. The Lord Jesus is the destined Ruler here prominent, as the woman is Israel in full corporate character for dominion on the earth. To the daughter of Zion shall come the first dominion, the kingdom to the daughter of Jerusalem, as Micah predicts.

It may be no small difficulty how to bring herein the birth of Christ. Observe then that here the Spirit of God is not proceeding with the course of the prophecy. For the seventh Trumpet brought in the end in a general way. It has been already explained that here we have supplemental matter of the highest moment. Another thing should be taken into account, that in this portion no date serves to fix the time when the birth of the Man-child takes place. But if emphatically timeless, why should the birth of the Man-child be introduced here, seeing that the Lord had been born, had lived, had died and gone to heaven long before? While introducing Israel according to His purpose, God in this striking manner rehearses it mystically, and combines it with His and our translation to heaven after the style of O.T. prophecy. The disclosure of God's covenant dealings with Israel in order to their eventual restoration furnishes the occasion. All are, as in this prophetic perspective, introduced here together, Christ being both the Bridegroom of the church, and the King of Israel and of all the nations, though only the last of these relationships suits this place save mystically.

God is not at all disposing the purposes before us as a question of time, but of connection with Christ their centre. The prophet is about to enter into the final scenes of the world; but before this is done, God's counsel is shown as to Israel. This brings forward the devil in his evil antagonism to that counsel; for it was assuredly what the adversary most of all dreaded. Scripture lets us see Satan invariably opposing Christ with greater tenacity of purpose and hatred and pride than any other. Recognising in Him the fatal bruiser of himself and the great deliverer of man and creation to God's glory, a constant and direct enmity on Satan's part to the Son of God is familiar throughout the Bible. But there is more than this: Satan sets himself against His connection with the now poor and despised people of Israel. Hence before God espouses the part of Israel, the fact is shown that Christ is caught up to Him and to His throne. Not a word drops about His life; not a word here about His death or His resurrection. This proves to us how mystical the statement is. Had it been an historical summary, we must have had those stupendous events on which depends all reconciliation with God for man and the universe. But all this is entirely passed over. Like the woman, the Man-child is viewed in God's purpose. The reason seems just this, that here is intimated, as in O.T. prophecy, how the Lord and His people are wrapped up in the same symbol. Just so, in a yet more intimate way, what is said about Christ applies to the Christian. Compare Isaiah 1. 8, 9, and Romans 8: 33-35.

On this mystical principle then the rapture of the Man child to God and His throne involves the rapture of the saints in itself. The explanation why it could be thus introduced here depends on the truth that Christ and the church are one, and have the common destiny of ruling the nations with a rod of iron. Inasmuch as He went up to heaven, so also the church is to be caught up. "So also is Christ," says the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12: 12, when speaking of the church; for we must naturally suppose the allusion is to the body rather than to the Head. Yet he does not say, so also is the church, but "so also is Christ." In a similar spirit this prophecy shows us the Male of might taken to heaven, entirely above the reach of Satan's malice. If this be so, it has a remarkable bearing on what has been already asserted as to the book. We here begin over again, with divine purposes and their unseen action and aims as the object of the Holy Ghost in this latter portion. It is a supplemental volume, revealing secret springs and the great agents, with mercies too, of the closing scenes.

This is strictly in order. The heavenly saints are above. It is now a question of preparing the earthly people, Israel, for their place here below. Put for heavenly and for earthly people all turns on Christ. Hence Christ being born of Israel, there is and ought to be first set forth that connection of His. Next is the devil's opposition to the counsels of God, and hindrance for the time being; which gives occasion to the Lord Himself taking His place in heaven, the church following Him into heaven, without a date to either, like a binary star. In short, the first portion of the chapter is a mystical representation of the Lord's relationship with Israel and of Satan's deadly antagonism; then the Lord's removal out of the scene to heaven, which gives room for God's binding up, as it were, with Christ's disappearance to heaven the saints' translation there. In this way the rapture of the Man-child is not brought in here historically, but in mystic connection; and the great agents are all in their place according to God's mind.

If this be borne in mind, the whole subject is considerably cleared. "She brought forth a man-child to rule all the nations with a rod of iron." There is no difficulty in applying this to the Man-child, viewed not personally and alone but mystically; and the less, because this very promise is made to the church in Thyatira, or rather to the faithful there. It will be remembered that at the end of Revelation ii. it was expressly said that the Lord would give to the overcomer power over the nations, and he should rule them with iron rod, broken to pieces like vessels of pottery, just as He Himself received of His Father. But where for the present is Israel? Hidden in the wilderness, yet preserved till God's public kingdom appears. "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should nourish her there a thousand two hundred [and] sixty days." The days are numbered for the tried; as elsewhere in the shortest form compressed for like purpose as to the Beast's reign.

In verse 7 is a new scene; and here from counsel we come much more to facts, though unseen by men on the earth. It is not God's counsels or principles viewed in His mind, but positive events; first of all from above, as later on we shall find consequent changes on the earth. The mystery of God awaits its term. Its completion will surely come. But even before His world-kingdom come, what a vast and striking change! Saints will no longer have to wrestle with the spirituals of wickedness in the heavenlies! Satan can never again play the part of accuser on high.

"And there came war in the heaven: Michael and his angels to war with the dragon; and the dragon warred and his angels, and prevailed not; nor was their place found any more in the heaven. And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent that is called Devil and Satan, that deceiveth the whole habitable world, was cast unto the earth; and his angels were cast with him. And I heard a great voice in the heaven, saying, Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ; because the accuser of our brethren is cast down, that accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony, and loved not their life unto death. For this be glad, O heavens, and ye that tabernacle in them." It is evident that at this time persons are spoken of as being above who sympathise deeply with their suffering brethren on earth. Such is the incontestable fact. Who are they but those one with Christ, the Male of might? Compare Rev. 13: 6. They anticipate from Satan's catastrophe the entire establishment of the kingdom, though three and a half times have yet to pass in fact. Satan has lost that access to the presence of God in the quality of accuser of the brethren which he had previously possessed; nor will he ever regain the highest seat of his power then lost, the pledge of ruin ever more and more irretrievable. He is no longer able to fill heaven with his bitter taunts and accusations of the saints of God. What a blessed change for them! What a relief to those on high!

"Woe," it is added, "to the earth and to the sea! because the devil hath gone down to you, having great fury, knowing that he hath a short season." This clearly connects the dispossession of Satan from his heavenly seat with the crisis of Jews and Gentiles at the end of the present age. We find here the hidden reason. Why should there be then such an unwonted storm of persecution? why such tremendous doings of Satan here below for a short time, the three years and a half before the close? Here it is explained. Satan cannot longer accuse above; accordingly he does while he can his worst below. He is cast down to earth, never to regain the heavens: a fact of deep import and of pregnant consequence. Again, he will be banished from the earth, as we shall find, into the bottomless pit by-and-by; and though he be let loose thence for a short time, it is only for his irremediable destruction; for he is cast then (not merely into the pit or abyss, but) into the lake of fire, whence none ever comes back.

Such is the revealed course of the dealings of God with the great enemy of men from first to last. How strange to fancy that such amazing events took place ages ago without the saints of God knowing it! From Rev. 4 there is a throne of judgment, not of grace; from Rev. 12 Satan has no longer access to heaven; and there is therefore no more room for wrestling against spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places. Our struggle against them is so characteristic of the Christian, that any interpretation of the Revelation is convicted of error, which assumes that it ceases while the church is on earth. The Epistle to the Ephesians must thereby be no longer applicable: a consequence necessarily flowing from the error, and as certainly false and impossible.

From verse 13 the history is pursued not from the heavens, but on the earth. "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the male. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished shore a time and times and half a time from the serpent's face." Thus power is given to escape, rapid means of flight from Satan's persecution; not power to withstand Satan, and fight the battle out with him, but ample facility to hide from his violence. This is conveyed by the two wings of the great eagle — a figure of vigorous means to escape. The most energetic image of flight in nature is vividly applied to the case in hand

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the river." The endeavour to stir up impetuous action, excited by his craft to overwhelm the Jews, is vain; for "the earth," or what was then under settled government, "helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus." By these are meant such of the Jews as then are known for subjection to God and a certain witness of Jesus. If the woman represents a more general state of Israel, the remnant of her seed are the witnessing portion. The mass, or "the many" of the future as Daniel calls them, will be quite apostate. The Jews of that day will thus vary much. Even among the godly then some will be much more energetic and intelligent than others, as we see in Daniel 12. Satan hastens therefore, and sets himself to put down those chosen vessels in the testimony of Jesus, a testimony not so much of communion for the Christian, but distinctly in the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 13

The next chapter unfolds the plans that Satan adopts to accomplish his long-cherished design of supplanting (not only gospel and church as now, but) all testimony on earth to the coming kingdom of God. It is the apostasy: Old and New Testaments are alike denied. Of two especial methods he will avail himself, suited to catch a twofold class of men never wanting in this world. Many natural men like power, others like religion. It is clear that man's heart runs either after intellect and power, or, if conscience be active, into religious form to quiet it. The devil will therefore put forward two main instruments as leaders of systems that express human nature on either side, exactly suiting what man's heart seeks and will have.

Satan has designed from the beginning to set up himself in man as God. For he too will work by man, as God Himself is pleased to develop all His wondrous ways and counsels in man. As the Lord Jesus is not only a divine person, but the expression of the divine glory no less than of His grace in man; and as the church is the object of Christ's love in heavenly blessedness, and Israel for the earth; so the enemy (who cannot originate but only corrupt the truth, and lie by a sort of profane imitation of the counsels of God) will have his Beasts no less certainly than God has His Lamb. In Revelation 13 this is made plain. There are to be two Beasts or imperial powers; the first distinctively political, the second religious, both of them apostate and allies.

"And I* stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like a leopardess, and his feet as of a bear, and his mouth as a lion's mouth. And the dragon gave to him his power and his throne and great authority. And one of his heads [I saw] as slain unto death, and his death-stroke was healed, and the whole earth wondered after the beast. And they did homage to the dragon because he gave the authority to the beast, and they did homage to the beast, saying, Who is like the beast? and who can make war with him? And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and authority was given him to act forty-two months. And he opened his mouth for blasphemies against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle, [and] those that tabernacle in the heaven. And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority was given to him over every tribe and people and tongue and nation. And all that dwell on the earth shall do homage to him, whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain. If any one hath an ear, let him hear. If any is for [or, leadeth into] captivity, into captivity he goeth. If any one shall kill by sword, by sword must he be killed. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

* The true reading is uncertain, as it turns on a letter easily added or dropped. The three best uncials, two cursives, and most of the ancient versions support the third person; BP, the mass of cursives, the Memph., etc., the first person. Here Tisch. even in his last edition yields to the weight of the internal grounds in deciding for the latter.

The Beast that was beheld emerging from the then revolutionary state of the world is just adapted for the dragon to energise in opposition to God's purpose and will. In Rev. 12 the dragon was seen similarly characterised as the beast. Both have the forms of power peculiar to the Roman empire. But there is a difference also: "And upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy." The dragon has the diadems on his heads; the Beast shows us more the final fact — the horns diademed. The dragon represents the enemy of Christ in his political employment of the Roman empire generally. It is the principle; and the heads or successive forms of power are crowned. The horns as a fact are only developed a little before its history closes in perdition. On the other hand, in the first Beast we see, not merely the hidden spirit of evil making use of the power of Rome in its various changes, but the empire in its final state when the deadly wound done to the imperial head is to be healed, and Satan shall have given to it thus revived his power, his throne, and great authority. Now this is the very time when the ten horns receive authority as kings; they are to reign simultaneously and continuously with the Beast, as Rev. 17 informs us. Hence the horns of the Beast are seen diademed (not the heads, as in the dragon's case originally).

Further the Beast is described afterwards, though with remarkable points of difference if we examine the Beasts, as at first made known to Daniel (7). "And the beast which I saw was like a leopard (or, panther), and its feet as of a bear, and its mouth as a lion's." Here we have, not the territories, but certain qualities that resemble all the three first-named Beasts of the prophet Daniel. Satan does not originate, but adopts whatever will suit of that which has been. Hence he endeavours by this most singular amalgamation to bring out in its final phase the Beast or fourth empire (for there is none to succeed), so as to show pretension to everything known of old, as well as evil without parallel.

What is meant by "the Beast"? The imperial system of Rome revived. All the empires refused to recognise God above. Man was made to own Him, and he alone does as taught of God. Man alone of all beings in the earth was made to look up to One above, and is responsible to do the will of God. A beast does not look up but down; it has no sense of an unseen superior, no conscience toward God. "The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God." In principle this is true of every unrenewed man; but here it is the more tremendous, because an empire ought to be the reflection of the authority that God in His providence conferred on it. No empire has avoided the moral sentence implied in the symbols: expediency has ever guided, not God; but this Beast will go beyond all that have gone before in lawless contempt of God and in blasphemies (vers. 5, 6).

When John wrote, the fourth Beast was in power; but the prophet was given to see that out of a state of political convulsion, just before the last three years and a half, and connected with Satan's expulsion from heaven by the power of God, a Beast rises up out of the sea answering to the old Roman empire. That is, there will be a state of total confusion in the west, and an imperial power will rise up. "And I saw one of its heads as wounded to death; and its deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." There are sufficient grounds for gathering that the wounded head was the imperial form of power. After having been long extinct, it reappears in the latter day. But there is a great deal more than simply the revival of imperialism, which draws out the astonishment of the world. They had thought it all over with the Roman empire. They could easily understand a new empire; a French, or a Teutonic kingdom, or any other of large space and population; but the revival of the Roman empire will take the world by surprise. The grounds of this assertion, however, depend on Rev. 17, which will appear in its place. Vers. 5, 6 define its character and duration.

It is not simply that the empire had the distinctive heads and horns of the Roman empire, with qualities by-and-by that belonged to the previous empires; it was marked by the revival of imperialism at the close under Satan's authority. For "they did homage to the dragon, because he gave the authority to the beast: and they did homage to the beast, saying, Who [is] like the beast, and who is able to war with him?" It is evident from the context that an apostate and idolatrous state appears in the world. The dragon and the Beast are alike set up against God. This first Beast represents the western empire. The religious chief will not be in the west but in Jerusalem, and becomes, as we learn elsewhere, a special object of worship in the temple of God there at the close, as 2 Thessalonians 2 indicates, as well as Daniel 11: 36-38. He is the second Beast of our chapter.

This is a difficulty to some, because it is distinctly said that the man of sin will not tolerate any other object of worship. But these wicked personages work together, and are allies. To worship the one is pretty much to worship the other; just as, in regard to the true God, there is no worship of one person in the Godhead without the same homage due to the others. It is in vain for any to pretend to honour the Father without the Son, and he that worships the Father and the Son can only pay it in the power of the Holy Ghost. When we worship God as such, when we say "God," not Father only is meant, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. So precisely is this awful counterpart, the fruit of the energy of satanic craft and power at the close. The worshipping of the dragon and of the Beast seems, therefore, consistent with divine worship paid to the man of sin, the contrast to "Jesus Christ the Righteous." They are, as has often been said with justice, the great counter-trinity, the trinity of evil creatures as opposed to the Trinity of the Godhead. The devil is clearly the source of it all; but the public leader of his power politically is the first Beast; and the grand religious agent, who works out crafty plans and even miracles in its support, is the second Beast of this chapter, or the man of sin in the great prophetic Epistle.

This appears to be the true and mutual bearing of all, if we bow to these scriptures. Differences of thought exist here as in almost everything else. But in a world of doubt objection to it has no force. The only question is, What best satisfies the word of God? what most faithfully answers not merely to its letter but its grand principles? So far from any real obstacle in the fact of these three different objects being alike honoured in worship, the force and awful nature of the case cannot well be understood unless this is seen as the revealed truth.

At this time it is evident that there is a people in heaven removed from exposure to the power either of Satan or of the public instruments of his malice in the world. There are also saints here below fully exposed to his hatred. The tabernacle above may be blasphemed, and those that dwell there Satan may revile, but cannot even accuse them longer before God. He turns therefore to deadly persecution on the earth. "And it was given him to make war with the saints" (clearly these are not in heaven), "and to overcome them; and authority was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all that dwell upon the earth shall do him homage." There is an invariable distinction between the Gentiles at large in the world, and "those that dwell on the earth." The difference is that the former class is a broader term, embracing the world generally; whereas by the latter is meant the narrower sphere, whose character of earthliness is the more decided, because they had heard and hated the heavenly testimony of Christ and the church. Names and forms might be still held; but apostate hearts deliberately preferred earth to heaven, and would surely have their portion in neither, but in the lake of fire.

It is solemn to see that this is what Christendom hastens to become: infidelity and superstition are rapidly working toward it now. The stream flows forward to this earthly and godless issue. Never since the gospel was preached were men more thoroughly settling down in the endeavour to make earth their paradise. They consequently forget heaven day by day, only thinking of it as a necessity when they die, and cannot avoid leaving the world. But as for habitually turning to heaven, as a hope full of joy or glory, still less as in faith a present home for the affections, whenever was it less livingly kept in the minds and hearts of men? One lack accounts for it all: Christ is not all, but the heart is divided between the first man and the Second. Such unbelief prepares for the designation given to the people that did hear of heaven, but deliberately at last give up all its hopes to settle down on the earth. They dwell on the earth. The others are "every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation," who have heard comparatively little about the gospel. The Beast will endeavour to deal with both. Alas! "all that dwell upon the earth shall do homage to him, whose name is not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain."

Carefully bear in mind that "from the foundation of the world" belongs not to "slain," but to the writing of the name. The Lamb was not slain from the foundation of the world, though there was the eternal purpose; but the name was written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain. Compare Revelation 17: 8, where the omission of the slain Lamb makes the true connection plain and certain.

"If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that is for captivity, into Captivity he goeth." It is a statement to guard the saints from taking power into their own hands. They might cry to God, they might ask Him to arise and judge the earth; but they were not to resist evil. As the Beast would take power, so should he suffer the consequence. He might; lead into captivity, but into captivity he goes. He might kill with the sword, but so he must be killed himself: indeed his would be a far more awful doom. Patience, with this retributive sanction annexed, is put as a general principle, and stated in such a form as to apply to any one. It was surely and particularly meant to guard the saints from mistake only too natural. "Here is the patience and faith of the saints" This gives the application.

In the latter part of the chapter we have a second Beast. "And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and it had two lamb-like horns, and it spoke as a dragon. And it exerciseth all the authority of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and those that dwell in it to do homage to the first beast, whose death-wound was healed. And he worketh great signs, that he should cause even fire to come down out of the heaven unto the earth in the sight of men. And he deceiveth those that dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to work before the beast, saying to those that dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast that hath the stroke of the sword and lived. And it was given him to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as should not do homage to the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bondmen, that they should have a mark given them on their right hand or upon their forehead, and that no one should be able to buy or sell, save he that hath the mark, the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is a man's number, and his number [is] six hundred [and] sixty-six."

This calls for more attention, because there is danger of some confusion and difficulty on this subject. Let it be observed that the second Beast more particularly resembles in wickedness what the Lord Jesus is in goodness. It is indeed a "Beast"; that is, he affects to be a composite system of power, though outwardly on a far smaller scale than the first Beast. Still it is a Beast, and not merely a horn; he has two, indeed, of peculiar character. "He had two horns like a lamb." There was the pretence of resembling the Messiah, and it would appear, not in priestly but in prophetic and kingly power. But "he spoke as a dragon." There was really the expression of Satan. — "And he exercises all the authority of the first brass in his presence." Thus the second Beast is the more energetic of the two, and the active instrument of the darkest evil, the man of sin who denies the Man of righteousness, Christ Jesus.

So it has been when enormous wickedness has been forged for this world. Its promoters, the persons that exercise the influence (sometimes unseen, sometimes publicly), put religion forward as the rule. The religion of the earth is the prolific source of all the worst evil done under the sun. How different the wisdom that cometh down from above to form in Christ the service and the worship of the saints! The devil could not accomplish his plans if there was not such a thing as earthly religion. Is not this an awful and solemn fact for those that have the smallest connection with it?

The second Beast or Antichrist does not come out of the sea, or the turbulent state of the nations, but out of the earth. It is a more settled state of things when this Beast appears. Then he exercises all the authority of the first Beast before him, that is, in his presence, and with his full sanction. And he makes the earth and those that dwell in it to do homage to the first Beast. For there is a full understanding between them. In 2 Thessalonians 2 we do not hear of this, but that he claims worship, and is himself worshipped as God. No priest as such affects any claim of the sort. He arrogates no less to himself, sitting down in the temple of God and showing himself that he is God.

It makes the whole matter plain, if we remember that the first Beast leads the Roman empire, but as revived with a seat restricted to the west. On the other hand, the second Beast, though in league with the first Beast he may mislead men far and wide, claims for himself the land of Palestine with a Jewish form of glory. If one look into 2 Thessalonians 2 it is clear that we are in view of what will be in the land of Judea, and not in Rome. It is "the temple of God" that is particularly seen, where the man of sin sets himself up as an object of worship. Only we must take care to read scripture with scripture. If one treat 2 Thessalonians 2 as giving all that the Bible tells about the man of sin, scripture is foreclosed, and one must have an imperfect account. On the other hand, if we take only Revelation 13, we shall want certain elements necessary for completing the sketch. All this is arranged with consummate wisdom by God, because He does not wish us to read only one part of His word, but that we should thoroughly search into every other. He does not give a proper understanding of holy writ, unless we confide therein and value all that He has given us. Consequently it is only by putting together these scriptures, as to which there is ample light for our guidance, that we can in our measure enter into His mind.

As the first part of the chapter brings before us a mighty external power identifiable with the Roman empire, equally certain is it that 2 Thessalonians 2 describes not a merely civil system so much as a religious power. An utterly lawless personage is the man of sin, but still essentially a religious power with the highest claim. It arrogates to itself Christ's place and the reverence that belongs to God. Now this is precisely what characterises the second Beast. It had two horns. Their character is connected with the whole testimony of John. For any one who has looked into his Gospel will see that, even as to our blessed Lord Himself, its general bent is to trace what He was on earth, rather than what He is in heaven, where is His proper and unquestionable priesthood for the heavenly saints, in contrast with Aaron's on earth for the earthly people. There are exceptional passages, no doubt; but while Paul's object directs us to Christ in heaven as the special character of his witness, John on the contrary draws particular attention to what He was on earth.

This is not without importance for the meaning of these two horns. The Lord Jesus was the great prophet on earth; and assuredly He will reign as king over all the earth. But what lies between? He is priest; but He is priest in heaven (Heb. 8: 4). Accordingly it is not the place of John but of Paul to bring out the heavenly priesthood of Christ. John never directly treats of Christ above as Priest or as Head. He dwells on His advocacy there (which has an aim quite distinct from His priesthood) in Rev. 13, and again on His coming to take us above in Rev. 14, as parts of Rev. 17 and 20 too are exceptions. But the general teaching of John is on Christ manifesting God here below; as no less clearly Paul's doctrine is man in Him glorified above.

But when the Antichrist appears, he does not take the place of priest; far higher will be his assumption. He sets up to be the Prophet that should come, and the great King, imitating what Messiah was expected to be for Israel. He has two horns, not seven. It is a lame imitation; he has not at all the full power of Christ. In the Lord we saw perfection of power and fulness of wisdom for government. In the Antichrist there is the pretension to what belonged to Christ connected with the earth, with the most marked absence of what pertains to Him in heaven.

This is no mean evidence, by the way, that the idea of finding in the papacy its full meaning is a mistake; for the essential feature of the papacy lies in its assumption to be a living earthly representative of Christ's priesthood. It is the corruption of what is heavenly, not Messianic. Popery is much more the antichurch than the Antichrist. But when Revelation 13 is fulfilled, no question can be of the church here any longer. The Christian body will be no more seen on earth; the saints of the high places who had been here will then be on high.

Accordingly it is not a mere sham clothing with the priestly power of Christ which the Antichrist puts on, but a false assumption of His prophetical place which was on the earth, and of His kingly sphere which will also be thereon. This personage with two horns like a lamb is active in the performance of great signs and wonders. He has a double activity. First of all, he borrows the controlling influence of the Roman empire, exercising all the authority of the first Beast in his sight. Besides this, he does a vast deal on his own account which the Roman emperor could not do. He imitates the power not only of Christ but of God. He claims to be the Jehovah God of Israel. Just as Jesus is Jehovah as well as Messiah, so this vessel of Satan's power in Jerusalem will emulate what God did by Elijah to disprove the claims of Baal. Fire then came down and consumed the sacrifice of old, God demonstrating as clearly that Baal was not God as that Jehovah is so. So the second Beast will do wonders, if not really, "before men." Thus he deceives them that dwell on the earth by reason of those signs which it was given him to work before the Beast. The signs were in their sight.

All this marks the Antichrist. The first Beast works no miracles whatever; he astonishes the world by reviving the long dead western empire: but this is a different thing, and cannot properly be called a sign. It may and will amaze men, but is no proper miracle. The Beast out of the earth, who is incomparably more subtle than the first, works great signs; no doubt it is by Satan's energy, but still he works them. The consequence is that he deceives those that dwell on the earth, saying to them especially "to make an image to the beast, which hath the stroke of the sword, and lived." More than this, we read that "it was given him to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Whatever shame be the boast of liberty, as at the first French Revolution, the real future will be the most ruthless and despotic oppression to death over all who do not bow down, not only to the Beast, but to his image that is made by diabolical power or trickery to pronounce sentence like a judge.

The various guesses made respecting the number of the Beast are inadequate. It may be one of those secrets that cannot be unravelled until the person appears, when at least "the wise" shall understand. That we are to understand it now is more than we ought to assume. What moral profit could it serve? Assuredly everything that can edify and refresh the soul, all that can be used by the Holy Ghost for real blessing in separating us from the world and attaching us to heaven, and above all to Christ, we may gather now from the Revelation rightly understood. Indeed we ought thus to gather more than those who are to be in the circumstances can reap in their day. But there may be points of minute application kept back by the wise reserve of God, who does not indulge mere curiosity, as this would be. Such knowledge will be of practical importance only when the time comes; and therefore this may be just one of those points in which the Lord does not now gratify men's minds. Many explanations which have been offered entirely and obviously fail; for instance, "apostasy" and such like. "Apostasy" is not the number of a man; nor for similar reasons can "apostate" stand, nor perhaps "the Latin man."

Revelation 14

Next we come to chapter 14, where we have neither the counsels of God as opposed by Satan (hitherto in heaven to accuse before God, but at that day cast down unto earth), nor the plan and instruments by which Satan gives battle to those divine counsels. This we have had in Revelation 12 and Revelation 13. But now we enter on another line of things. What is God doing with and for His own? Nothing? Impossible! He does what is active in good for His then purposes. God is pleased to reveal to us a variety of ways in which He will put forth His power, and send both testimony and warning suited to the crisis; and this is given with remarkable completeness throughout the seven divisions to which this chapter naturally lends itself.

The first is a full numbered multitude separated to the Lamb on mount Zion. It is no repetition of the sealed company in Revelation 7, no mere securing out of the twelve-tribed whole. Judah had a guilt which Ephraim, far away, did not share; and grace there works, as one might say, "beginning at Jerusalem." The Lord Jesus is about to insist on His rights in the midst of Israel; and Zion is the known centre of royal grace. "Royal" is said, because it is Christ asserting His title as Son of David; but it is also royal "grace," because it supposes the total ruin of Israel, and that the Lord in pure favour begins at Zion to gather round Himself once more. This accordingly is the first form in which God displays His action for the last days. The devil may have his Beasts and horns; God has His Lamb; and the Lamb now is not seen on the throne in heaven, or taking a book; He stands on mount Zion. It is a notable point of progress toward the kingdom that is clearly brought into view before the close. It answers more to the style of David than to the settled reign of peace in Solomon's day. But how unintelligent to fancy that these out of Judah any more than the scaled out of Israel in chap. vii. are Christians! It is opposed, not only by internal reasons but by the structure of the book, which shows the heavenly saints changed and with the Lord Jesus (chap. 4). These saints are expressly in verse 3 distinct from the crowned elders, like the Gentile crowd in Rev. 7: 9-17.

"And I saw, and, behold, the Lamb stood upon the mount Zion, and with him a hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." They are associated with the earth-rejected Messiah; and in the vision they are seen with Him on mount Zion. It is not a question of "their" Father. No such relationship is ever found in the Apocalypse, but the Lamb's name and "his Father's name written on their foreheads."

"And I heard a voice out of the heaven, as a voice of many waters, and as a voice of great thunder; and the voice which I heard [was] as of harpers harping with their harps; and they sing as a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders: and no one could learn the song but the hundred [and] forty-four thousand that had been bought from the earth. These are they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." They had not corrupted themselves; and the Lamb was their leader. With Babylonish wickedness they had nothing to do; pure in spirit they were associated with the holy Sufferer. "These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were bought from among men, first-fruits to God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are blameless." "Before the throne of God" is spurious.

Such is the first action of God. It forms a complete remnant, not from the twelve tribes of Israel, such as we saw in Rev. 7, nor simply sealed for security against providential judgments. This is particularly out of Jews proper; first-fruits to God and the Lamb, gathered out from those guilty of His rejection. Now God answers all that and other wickedness by this merciful and honourable separation to the Lamb, who is about to be installed in His royal seat on mount Zion. They not only follow Him as Messiah, but as the holy Sufferer and rejected One.

The next scene gives us an angel with a message to Gentiles. "And I saw another angel fly in mid heaven, having an everlasting gospel to preach to those that sit on the earth, and unto every nation, and tribe, and tongue, and people." Why is it called "everlasting"? Remember that the gospel as now preached is a special gospel in character, fulness, and time, in no way an "everlasting" gospel. Nobody ever heard the gospel of the grace of God till Jesus died, rose, and went to heaven. The gospel as it should be preached in and out of Christendom depends on the most stupendous facts ever accomplished here below, for which God waited more than four thousand years even of man's dwelling on the earth before He would or could righteously send it forth. Consequently the gospel of His grace as we know it is never in scripture called an "everlasting gospel." Do not most use these terms without thinking what they really mean? When they speak of the "everlasting gospel," they have probably a vague notion that it connects us with eternity. They think it a grand and worthy epithet, conveying one really knows not what. It is a mistake, if scripture is to decide.

"Everlasting gospel" means what it says: those glad tidings which always have been and always will be true. Whatever else God has made known to man, this has always abode unchanging. The glad tidings of God since man fell were that He purposed, by the woman's Seed, Christ Jesus, to bless man and to crush Satan. Even the end of all things will proclaim the selfsame thing. The millennium will be the display and demonstrative testimony to it. When judgment in every form is over, in the new heavens and the new earth man will be thoroughly and for ever blest, and God will be with them, their God.

The declaration of this truth, as here described, is an everlasting gospel. In the latter day it will act as setting aside the lie of Satan, who puts and would fain keep man in a position of estrangement from God. For He is morally forced to be the judge of men, instead of being the blesser of all that believe on the earth. All misrepresentation of God is the fruit of Satan's wiles; but the everlasting gospel presents God as the blesser of man and creation. This was His word ere sin entered, and this He will certainly bring to pass (not of course for every individual). Alas! most listen to Satan and despise God's mercy in Christ, especially such as having heard reject the gospel of His grace. And these are lost for ever. But God is love as surely as He is light: what ought He to be to all who persistently by grace honour both the Son and the Father?

The way in which the subject is spoken of here confirms this. "Fear God, and give glory to him" (there is thus the evident contradiction of idolatry); "for the hour of his judgment is come." Then will be the downfall of those that turn from God to all the vanities of the nations, as ready to trust in the creature as to distrust the true God. "And do homage to him that made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" It is the universal message of God to man, founded on His creative glory. The solemn threat of His speedy judgments is a ground for pressing on the defiled conscience of man the claim of the honour solely due to Him.

There are no doubt many who think it an extraordinary circumstance that God should send out such a message as this in days rapidly approaching. Let us consider why it is to be so. Men conjecture out of their own position and judge from their own circumstances. But none can understand aright as long as he reasons and concludes thus. Not so is any part of the Bible understood, least of all perhaps prophecy. If it be a question of our conduct or duty, it is indispensable to stand on our proper relationship; we must abide carefully in the place that God has given us, while bowing to the word of God that applies to us there. How can we act intelligently or rightly as Christians unless we, knowing what it means, believe as Christians? We only glorify our God and Father just so far as we as children look up to Him as our Father, and as saints own Him as our God. This is surely true.

But here we no longer find Christians on earth There are elect Jews; there are nations preached to, along with "those that sit [or, are settled] on the earth." That is, there are men in fixed unbelief under this designation, as well as the mass of nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. It seems then that God comes down, as it were, to meet them on the lowest possible ground of His own truth. They are called to fear God and give glory to Him and this is on the footing that He is Judge, just about to deal with His own world. He calls upon them to do homage to the Creator, away from the idolatry of those that worship the creature.

At this present moment there is the working of a leaven that will end in idolatry, especially (if there be in this a difference) for the higher and educated orders of this country to drag into it the lower also. In the humbler classes their gross love for sensible objects, pleasant sounds, impressive processions, and striking shows prepares them for it. But there is the active instilling of a spirit, no doubt more subtle and refined among educated men, which will infallibly school them into naturalistic idolatry before many years are over. There is, on the one hand, the material tendency of modern science and literature; there is, on the other, the condescending patronage of times that are past: the excessive cultivation of art, music, flower-shows, the revival of Greek plays and aesthetics generally, perhaps of the Olympic games, etc. On these dangerous tracks all that is now energetically leavening the world tends to bring man back to heathenism again. The truth of Christ is to their minds severe and exclusive. How much more "light and sweetness" to have a Pantheon for Him and all other objects of veneration! Schiller strove for it, and Goethe with his maxim of "the good of evil," and Max Müller with his philosophy of religions.

However this may sound to those most confident in their unbelief, we must remember that another cause of a most solemn nature is plainly revealed: God is going to pour out a judicial delusion on Christendom. It is what the apostle calls the apostasy, or "falling away"; and it is at hand. He will not only inflict severe blows of judgment but give men up to believe a lie — the great lie of the devil — the easy-going god of indifference to man, if indeed there be a god. The great truth of all times is that God, the Creator of all, the God who has now revealed Himself in Christ and by redemption, alone is the due object of worship and service. So far then is this message from being a strange thing, that it appears exactly suitable to man as he will then be situated, and is no less appropriate to God's wisdom and goodness.

Another consideration perhaps may help some as connected with this and confirmatory of it, founded on the last part of Matthew 25, where all the nations are called up before the Son of Man when He sits as King on the throne of His glory. Surely this cannot be in heaven but on earth: how could "all the nations" be seen on high? It will be remembered that He tells those whom He designates as the "sheep" that, inasmuch as they did what they had done to His "brethren," it was really to Him; as on the other hand the insults fell on Him which were aimed at them. These acts of kindness, or of hostile indifference, will be owned by the Lord when He judges the quick. It is no use for people to call it the general judgment, or the judgment of our works. It has nothing to do with us who believe on Him now. The one principle before us in this scripture is His dealing with the living Gentiles, or all nations according to their ways with His brethren. To act aright then will require real power of God through grace. The pressure against His messengers at that time will be enormous. If any receive them well, it will be from faith, however small may be the measure of their faith. That to honour His brethren is virtually to honour Himself, they had not themselves known. When they stand in presence of the King, how astonished they are that He should regard what was done to the messengers of His gospel in the last days as if done to Himself! When men are raised from the dead, they know as they are known; but these are the nations alive in flesh. Compare Matthew 24: 14.

Certainly these Gentiles were wrought in by divine grace, yet evidently they are far from what is called "intelligent." How often must one beware of making too much of this! What a constant snare it is to slip into unconscious or inconsiderate criticism! Men are apt to give themselves an exaggerated importance on the score of their knowledge. God attaches a far higher value to the heed paid to the Lord Himself, and to those He sends out. It is a crucial test. Then most of all it will be so, because these messages will go forth to the nations on the earth before the end comes. Growingly lifted up and self-satisfied, the nations are summoned by Jewish messengers (poor and contemptible in most eyes), who will solemnly proclaim the kingdom just at hand; for the King is coming in person to judge the quick apart from and before the judgment of the dead. Some souls here and there will receive them, not only treating them in love, but this because they receive the message. The power of the Spirit alone gives them faith. None less than God Himself inclines their heart. Accordingly the Lord here refers to its reception, with the grace that accompanied it, as evidence of their heeding Himself in the persons of His brethren, the messengers.

This is similar to, if not the same as, the everlasting gospel. It is called by Matthew the "gospel of the kingdom." The "gospel of the kingdom" and the "everlasting gospel" are substantially like. In the Revelation it is thus described, because it was always in the purpose of God, through the bruised Seed of the woman, to crush the foe and to bless man himself here below. This Matthew, in accordance with his design, calls rather the "gospel of the kingdom," because Christ is going to be King of a kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world. S. John, it would seem, calls it an "everlasting gospel," because it is in contrast with special messages from time to time (Heb. 4: 2), as well as with all that had to do with man as he is here below. At this most corrupt time the suited glad tidings will be sent forth, and certain souls will receive it by God's grace. Thus the second scene in the chapter is the proclamation of an everlasting gospel to those settled down on the earth, and to the nations, etc., as the first section was the separation of a remnant of Jews to the Lamb on mount Zion. Both point, as do other visions of the book, to the various operations of God's goodness, and to the different groups of blessing He will form. Is it incredible that God should thus work in honour of Christ the Lamb? How good is the God we adore!

The third section, which may be passed over with comparatively few words, is the warning of Babylon's fall. "And another, a second angel, followed, saying, Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, which hath made all nations drink of the wine of the fury of her fornication." It is the first notice of man's mock-church, once and long the chief source of ecclesiastical corruption, and still further lapsing into Gentile abominations in the future. But we shall hear in due time unmistakable marks and instructive details of an object so repulsive to God, and so deceptive for the natural man.

The fourth is a warning of fatal danger from the Beast. "And the third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If any one doeth homage to the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand, he also shall drink of the wine of the fury of God, that hath been mingled unmixed in the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up unto ages of ages: and they have no rest day and night, who do homage to the beast and his image, and if any one receiveth the mark of his name." So far these divine dealings go in pairs; as the work among the Jews, and then a final testimony to the Gentiles (though here we have angelic intervention, not in the first case); next is sent the warning about Babylon, and another yet more urgent about the Beast. "Here is the endurance of the saints, that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Grace and love could guard them, though they be confessors of a faith by no means up to the measure of the "one faith" of Christians, but suited of God to their day.

Then comes the fifth, which is very different. It is a declaration, that "blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, from henceforth." From this time nobody that belongs to the Lord is going to die, and those that die in the Lord (i.e. in fact all who have thus died since Rev. 4, 5) are on the eve of blessedness, not by personal exemption but by sharing the first resurrection and the reign with Christ, which terminates persecution and death for His name. The wicked must pay the wages of sin, and be destroyed by the judgments of God; but there shall be no more dying in the Lord after this. As a class these are to be blessed (not to die) henceforth. "And I heard a voice out of the heaven saying, Write, Blessed [are] the dead which die in [the] Lord, from henceforth. Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; for their works follow with them." There is an end of such sorrow and labour: the Lord is going to take the world and all things in hand.

Accordingly the next scene runs, "And I saw, and, behold, a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sitting son-of-man-like, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Send thy sickle, and reap; for the hour to reap is come; for the harvest of the earth is dried. And he that sat upon the cloud thrust (or, put) his sickle upon the earth; and the earth was reaped." It is not here a question of gathering in. One Son-of-Man-like is seen with the crown of gold, King of righteousness, not yet manifested as King of peace, which will surely follow in its season (Heb. 7: 2).

Then comes the close of all these things. "And another angel came out of the temple that [is] in the heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the altar, that had authority over the fire; and called with a great voice to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Send thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripened." This goes further. How growingly intense is the repeated "sharp sickle"! For the harvest the call was out of the temple; here it is out of the temple that is in the heaven. It is not only wrath on earth but from heaven. Another angel comes out from the altar (i.e. the place of human responsibility, where God manifests Himself to sinners in the sacrifice of Christ, judging sins but in grace). O ye that idolise forms and rites, postures and impostures, beware; yours is not worship in spirit and truth! Could an apostle if here recognise you as keeping the unity of the Spirit,

So much the more tremendous is His vengeance on the earthly religionists who despise Christ and the cross in word and in deed. This angel has authority over the fire, the sign of detective and consuming judgment. "And the angel put his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and put [it] into the great winepress of the fury of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress unto the bridles of the horses for a thousand six hundred stades" (or furlongs).

In short then, if we sum up this series we have here the harvest and the vintage, the two great forms of divine judgment at the close: the harvest being that judgment which discerns between the just and the unjust; and the vintage being the infliction of unmingled wrath on apostate religion, "the vine of the earth," the object of God's special abhorrence. For in plain and direct terms we have seven distinct acts in which God will interfere in the way, first of grace for a double testimony; then of warnings to the world; next also of comfort as to His deceased; finally of judging the evil results, as far as the quick are concerned, at the advent of the Son of Man.

Here closes the striking series of Rev. 12 - 14, which are not in historical sequence of the successive Trumpets, or at least of the seventh, but go back to give us the secret springs of the crisis to which we were brought generally in the seventh Trumpet, the plans of Satan when he lost access to heaven for ever, and what God meanwhile does for His glory to the end of the age. Then we resume a fresh and final septenary of divine inflictions, the seven last Bowls of God's fury to be poured out on man's apostate and impenitent iniquity.

Revelation 15

A peculiar scene is described in chaps. 15, 16. On this one we need not now bestow more than a few words. Thus it connects itself with what came before us in Rev. 11: 15-18. Still more plainly it contains that which is shown us in Rev. 17, 18, the judgment of Babylon. "And I saw another sign in the heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having seven strokes, the last; for in them is finished the fury [ὁ Θυμὸς] of God." You will observe that it is not yet the Lord's appearing. This is of importance to show the structure of this portion of the book. We must carefully beware of supposing that the seven Bowls or Vials are after the Son of Man is come for the harvest and the vintage of the earth, which are at the end. We must go back, therefore, not to the beginning of Rev. 14 but before its last acts. The last of the Bowls, or the seventh, is the fall of Babylon. This judgment of course corresponds with the third dealing of God in Rev. 14. The first is the separation of the godly Jewish remnant; the second, an everlasting gospel to the Gentiles; and the third, the fall of Babylon. Thus the last Bowl of wrath only brings us up to the same point. Hence the Bowls must not in any way be supposed to follow after Rev. 14, but only after its earlier part at the utmost. This is important, because each true landmark helps to gather a juster idea how to place chronologically the various portions of the book. The last Bowl is also the last outpouring of God's wrath before the Lord Jesus appears. It synchronises with the third out of seven consecutive acts in 14. The end of Rev. 16 does not in point of time fall lower than the third step in those of Rev. 14. The fifth from its nature is not a judgment,. but a comfort peculiarly seasonable at that juncture. Certainly the fourth, sixth, and seventh parts of Rev. 14 are events necessarily subsequent to the seven Bowls of God's wrath, which close before the Son of Man appears.

Let us look then a little into the subject. "And I saw as a sea of glass." Here it is distinguished in its accompaniments from the description in Rev. 4. There the elders were seen on thrones, with the sea of glass bearing its silent but strong testimony that these saints had done with earthly needs and defilements. A sea of glass would not avail for those who required the washing of water by the word. Their immunity is indicated by that symbol. This is not only intelligible but even plain. When the glorified saints are caught up to heaven, they no longer want what was set forth by the laver and its water to purify. The sea of glass attests that the purity was henceforth fixed. The fact is that they were outside and above the earth, where water is needed to cleanse the daily defilements. It is not blood we need for a perpetual standing, but the daily application of the washing of water by the word. If the Advocate wash not our feet, then have we no part with Him.

Here it is not merely a sea of glass, but mingled with fire. What does this teach? That these saints passed through the time of fearful fiery tribulation, as did not the elders. The absence of the fire in connection with the elders is just as significant as the presence of fire in connection with the saints in collision with the Beast and the False Prophet, of whom we are now hearing. If people ask, Are the saints to pass through the time of tribulation? the right answer is this, What saints are meant? Those represented by the elders were caught up to heaven at Christ's coming before that time. Scripture is positive. If one only means that saints called afterwards pass through that day of inflicted trial, it is unquestionable. In short we have only to distinguish persons and times, and all becomes plain: by confounding the two all is made a mass of obscurity. But scripture cannot be broken.

"And those that come conquerors from the beast, and from his image, and from the number of his name, standing, upon the sea of glass, having harps of God." The victory over the Beast is never predicated of the elders in any sort; nor is there any association with the elders here. It is a closing scene of fearful trial'. This is important The only victors here noticed are confined to the time when Satan's last plans will be consummated. These are seen, as a sign in heaven, delivered if they died before the Beast falls. At the least the fact is undeniable that these conquerors belong exclusively to the time of the last efforts of the devil through the Beast and the False Prophet. They are strictly speaking therefore Apocalyptic saints, and the final company of those who refused to bow.

It will be recollected that according to Rev. 6 the first sufferers who died for the truth were to wait for another company to be killed as they were. But it is a mistake on every ground to interpret either the one chapter or the other as of Christ and the church. So with those standing upon the sea of glass mingled with fire. The structure of the book proves each to be a special company, and all distinct from the twenty-four elders, who really do represent the entire aggregate of those that rise at Christ's coming Although these joyful sufferers may have fallen under the enemy's hand, they really come off victors, and are here seen standing on the sea of glass having harps of God. It was therefore rightly styled "mingled with fire"; for this tribulation transcends all before. Their melody in praise of the Lord was none the worse for the sea of fiery trial through which they pass into His presence. The harps were of God, not man's.

"And they sing the song of Moses, servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." Thus it is plain that they are not Christians in the strict or true sense of the word. Assuredly they are saints most really, but they had not such relations as now subsist spiritually; they knew not the bond which is made good by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in those who are now associated with Christ. So exclusive is it for us that those who were under Moses are under him no more; they own no master or head but Christ. The souls of whom we here read retain their link with Jewish things, though beyond a doubt they serve God and the Lamb. Hence we hear of them "saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God the Almighty; righteous and true [are] thy ways, O King" — not "of saints" but — "of the nations."

There is beyond doubt no such thought or phrase in scripture as "King of saints." It is one of the worst readings of the rather vicious Text. Rec. of the Revelation. Not only is it against the best witnesses, but it conveys an unfounded notion of mischievous consequence For what can go more to destroy in principle and practice the proper relationship of the saints to the Lord? Elsewhere we never hear of such a thing as "King of saints," nor has it any just sense. To the saints the Lord Jesus stands undoubtedly as their Lord and Master; but "King" is a relationship with a nation living on the earth. It is not a connection that pertains to the new man. Besides, even these if martyred belong actually to heaven, where such a relationship would be strange indeed. Thus it is strange doctrine as well as a fictitious reading. The allusion is to Jeremiah 10: 7. There all may find "king of nations," with other words which are cited here. If these saints were not exclusively Gentiles, at least they comprehended such; and this has to be borne in mind in reading the passage. The true title then is "king of the Gentiles" or "nations." No doubt King of the Jews He is; but those in particular who were Gentiles themselves would and ought to rejoice in being able to praise Him as King of nations, as the Jewish prophet fully recognised of old.

"Who shall not fear [thee], O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only [art] holy (or, gracious): for all the nations shall come and do homage before thee." Here again it is not Israel, but all the nations shall come. "For thy righteousnesses were manifested." They anticipate the triumph reserved for God in the day of power and glory at Christ's second advent.

"And after these things I saw, and the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in the heaven was opened: and out of the temple came the seven angels that had the seven plagues, clothed in pure bright linen, and girded about their breasts with golden girdles And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the fury of God that liveth unto the ages of the ages. And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no one was able to enter into the temple, till the seven strokes of the seven angels were fulfilled." It is not now the ark of God's covenant seen in the opened temple; it is characterised as the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in the heaven (not yet on earth); and judgments follow on apostate Gentiles, not the revelation of the divine counsels touching Israel. Doubtless the mass or many of the Jews worship at this time the man of sin in the ostensible temple of God, as it was historically and to their extreme guilt. But truly before God this house, which the Lord left in His day as "their house" and "desolate" indeed, will then be Satan's house beyond any other on earth.

Revelation 16

In chapter 16 we have these seven Bowls poured out. It is not now "the third" as under the Trumpets, with which the analogy is close; there is no restriction to the western sphere of Rome. The whole apostate region is smitten, and with yet more severity. "And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go and pour out the seven bowls of the fury of God unto the earth. And the first went, and poured out his bowl unto the earth, and it became an evil and grievous sore upon the men that had the mark of the beast, and those that did homage to his image." Here it is God's hand smiting with utter pain the men who were either slaves or worshippers of the Beast, though it resembled the plagues on Egypt, not yet the destruction in the Red Sea.

"And the second poured his bowl into the sea; and it became blood as of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea." The infliction here fell on the unsettled and revolutionary state outside "the earth" of the preceding stroke. Spiritual rather than physical death is meant.

Then follows another stroke. "And the third poured out his bowl into the rivers and the fountains of the waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Righteous art thou that art, and wast, the holy (or, gracious) One, because thou didst thus judge; because they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and thou gavest them blood to drink: they are worthy. And I heard the altar saying, Yea, Lord God the Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments." The moral character and springs on which men think and act become deadly; and this in retribution for the heartless cruelty of Christendom, as at that time also, toward saints and prophets. For God does not forget such ways, however concealed afterwards under tombs, and statues, and titles of pretended honour, since their death.

"And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun; and it was given to it to scorch men with fire. And the men were burnt with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, that had the authority over these plagues, and did not repent to give him glory." Here it is not the sun, moon, and stars in accord with the great earthquake of the sixth Seal; nor yet their third part darkened as at the fourth Trumpet; but the supreme governing power scorching men beyond endurance. Yet men blaspheme God's name all the more in the hardness of their impenitent hearts.

There is the usual order, as we have seen in the other series of seven judgments: four, and then three to follow. All the different departments of nature, whatever may be symbolised by them (and their meaning seems neither indeterminate nor obscure) were to be visited by the Bowls of God's fury.

The three later Bowls, like the three Woe-trumpets, come to the closest quarters with men, and ever more and more unsparing.

The fifth angel poured out his Bowl on the throne of the Beast. It is clear therefore that we have here a Gentile sphere before us, which fits in with the prefatory scene. "The fifth angel poured out his bowl upon the throne of the beast; and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven for their pains and for their sores, and repented not of their works" Assuredly this does not agree with the imaginary picture some Futurists have painted of the Beast's kingdom; any more than some poets conceive of Satan reigning in hell. We can readily presume that he held out Elysian fields as a bait to his subjects; but on his kingdom darkness fell, and his people gnawed their tongues in their blasphemy against the God of heaven.

Thence we are transported to the east. "And the sixth angel poured out his bowl upon the great river Euphrates; and its water was dried up, that the way of the kings [that] are from the sun-rising might be prepared." The Euphrates was the old boundary that separated the empire on its oriental frontiers from the vast hordes of uncivilised north-eastern nations destined to come into conflict with the powers of the west in the latter day. Thus the way is made plain for them to come forward and enter into the final struggle. This seems to be what the drying up of the great river means. What a striking proof of the orderly structure of the book it is, that here in the sixth Bowl occurs a parenthesis, as we saw at the same point of the sixth Seal and of the sixth Trumpet!

"And I saw out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are the spirits of demons, working signs, which go forth unto the kings (not 'of the earth and') of the whole habitable world, to gather them to the war of the great day of God the Almighty." The three unclean spirits express the hatred of the dragon as the personal enemy of Christ, of the resurrection Beast from the pit or the revived Roman empire, and of the false prophet or Antichrist in the land. There is about to be a universal uprising and fight to the death between the east and the west. But the Lord has designs which neither side knows or regards, and He is no indifferent spectator. "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And they (or, he) gathered them together unto the place called in the Hebrew tongue Harmagedon." Compare Judges 5: 19, 20. From verses 13 to 16 is the parenthesis in this septenary, as always.

Here it may be seasonable to point out the difference, in principle as in fact, which distinguishes the first act in the Lord's coming again for the heavenly saints, from the second which applies to Israel and the earth. We are to be caught up to meet Him who will present us in the Father's house. The godly Jews in the day of His appearing are to be delivered at what seems to be the last gasp by His destruction of their Gentile foes and of their own apostate brethren, when He descends to establish the kingdom in power and glory over all the earth.

Lastly comes the seventh angel, who deals with the world still more decidedly and universally by pouring out on the air. "And the seventh angel poured out his bowl upon the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of the heaven, from the throne, saying, It is come. And there were lightnings, and voices, and thunders; and there was a great earthquake," not only vast but unexampled, "such as was not since men were on the earth, such an earthquake, so great." Clearly therefore judgment from heaven becomes yet more crushing in its blows on man here below. For the Bowl was poured on that which acts immediately on all here below, and is most essential to health and life.

"And the great city came (ἐγένετο) into three parts; and the cities of the nations fell; and great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. And every island fled, and mountains were not found. And a great hail as of a talent-weight cometh down out of the heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the stroke of the hail, for its stroke is exceeding great." "The great city" is civilisation in its general extent, and is distinguished from "the cities of the nations" (that is, of the nations outside "the great city") that fell in their local centres; but "great Babylon" is envenomed by that implacable cruelty which is inseparable from worldly religion, its corruption and idolatries. God did not forget her course who had long departed from His grace and truth. This enables us to put the warning of the fall of Babylon into its true place in the sevenfold series of God's dealings in Rev. 14. The end of chap. 16 brings us there, but goes no farther. It stops short of the Lord's appearing. None of these varied intimations could be spared without loss, though the hasty mind of man may count them strange and disorderly.

Revelation 17

It is necessary to bear in mind, if we have not observed it before, that Revelation 17 does not pursue the chronological course of the prophecy. It is an episode of special objects already treated, not being of the visions that carry us onward in historic sequence. It is a retrogressive description of Babylon in relation with the Beast and the kings, who were brought before us last under the Bowls of God's wrath.

This chapter explains how it was that Babylon became so offensive to God, and wherefore He judged her thus sternly; while the destroying Beast and his horns await the breath and sword of the Lord's mouth.. In giving the description of Babylon, the Holy Spirit enters yet more into an account of her relations with the powers, and gives important particulars of that imperial system of which Rev. 13 in its earlier verses told us not a little. Accordingly these are the two main objects of judgment brought before us in the chapter. Indeed the Beast's judgment carries us beyond all into defeat under the hand of the Lamb, the details of which are reserved for chap. 19. We must therefore look now into the two objects, Babylon and the Beast.

The principle is clear. Man has always sinned in one or other of these two ways, looking now at evil in its broadest forms. The "strange woman" figures corruption, human nature indulging itself in its own selfish desires, irrespective of God's will. The Beast is the expression of man's will raising itself up in direct antagonism to God. In short one may be described as corruption, and the other as violence; for we see both before the deluge (Gen. 6: 11, 12), and they go down to the close. More than this on the subject is given with great precision in scripture, because it is just the principle of sin in one or other form from the beginning.

Here then we read, "And one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, Come hither; I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon the many waters, with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication."

"And he carried me away in Spirit into a wilderness." It is a thorough waste as to the knowledge or enjoyment of God. So in Isaiah 21 the prophet opens the chapter with that which was far beyond the horizon of the keenest creature view: "the burden of the wilderness of the sea," so different from the burden which he saw and gave in Rev. 13, 14, as "the golden city." Hence some refer a "wilderness" here to the campagna of Rome, and its desolation under the Popes as contrasted with its prosperous and populous splendour under the Caesars. This is no doubt true and significant, though spiritual drought and dreariness seem more consonant to the Spirit's expression.

A new symbol appears. "And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-coloured beast," the well-known emblem of the Roman empire, "full of names of blasphemy" in its wicked opposition to God, and invested with its special forms of power, but with a full combination, "having seven heads and ten horns." For the Spirit of God regards it in its final shape and completeness, as far as it was to be attained. "And the woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and decked (or, gilded) with gold and precious stone and pearls.' Nor is it perhaps unworthy of note, as has been remarked, that her officials alone in Christendom array themselves in these colours of the world's glory.

Babylon is in direct contrast with the true church, and like the Lord, heavenly glory hers, but meanwhile despised and rejected of men. Everything that could attract the natural man was there; and all that which looks fairest ought to be, she thinks, devoted to religion. Religion! Ah! it is nothing but ecclesiastical pride and corruption as a whole, though individuals may groan in secret, shrinking back into base superstition through alarm at Protestant free thought or worldliness; a religion of grace and truth unknown, of indulgences in sin for money, of dogmatic falsehood like transubstantiation or papal infallibility, of the most bloodthirsty cruelty to real saints of God, of debasing honour to filthy relics, of blasphemous worship paid to saints, angels, and above all the Virgin. Granted that Rome holds a little that is true; but she is keener still for many a lie and fraud; and "no lie is of the truth," says God's word.

But here we see more, "having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication."* Idolatry is the awful stamp that she bears, and this too both in what she gives to man, and in what is written on her forehead before God. "And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth." Her outward grandeur in numbers, rank, wealth, and pomp impose on high and low; but the plague-spot is her idolatry. As Israel's was against the One God, so hers is more guiltily against the One Mediator, the divine and only remedy in grace and truth.

* Most copies, it would seem, read τῆς γῆς, "of the earth" the Alex. and others give αὐτῆς, "of her." The Sinai MS. has both.

Men have been beguiled here and there, and from an early date, to set aside the true bearing of this chapter. Sometimes they have contended for its application to pagan Rome. Sometimes again they have sought to turn it aside toward Jerusalem in her corrupt state. But a grave consideration soon disposes of both views by her relation to the Beast, and by other particulars to be shown farther on. The application to old pagan Rome is harsh and purposeless enough; but the attempt to refer it to Jerusalem is of all schemes the most absurd. For, far from being borne up by the empire, Jerusalem was and is trodden down by it and other Gentile powers. If there was any nation since John's day, which did not sustain but persecute and suppress Jerusalem, it was Rome, instead of presenting a gaudy harlot mounted on the proud and heartless empire.

The notion that what we have here is said of a future city of Babylon in Chaldea seems no less vain. There is a distinct contrast between the city now described and the ancient Babylon, in that the latter was built on the plain of Shinar, while the former is expressly said to have seven heads, and these explained to mean seven mountains or hills. There is no doubt more in the symbol than the literal hills of Rome, because they are said to be also seven kings or governing powers. Yet we are not at liberty to eliminate such a feature out of the description. It is written to be believed, not to be ignored or explained away. And the second sense of these mountains is as inapplicable to a Chaldean city as the first.

The attempt to apply Babylon to ancient Rome is further unhappy; and for a plain reason. As long as Rome was pagan, there was neither the full bearing of the seven heads, nor did so much as one of the ten horns exist. Any decem-regal division of the broken empire in the west was long after Rome had ceased to be heathen. Nobody can dispute that there arose a remarkable cluster of kingdoms in Europe, as the issue providentially of the fragments when the barbarians broke up the unity of the Roman empire. With that love of freedom which they carried from their wild forests, they destroyed the iron rule that bound men down, and set up their several kingdoms in the different parts of the dismembered empire. Thus the attempt to apply it during the pagan period is altogether futile on the face of the matter. Scripture affords much light to decide the true bearing of the prophecy; and no application to the past can possibly satisfy all the conditions satisfactorily. If ancient times fail fully to meet the requirements of the chapter, it is evident that the Middle Ages passed without any accomplishment as a whole; the Beast, in any consistent sense of the thing and word, was then non-existent. For the fulfilment of the prophecy, we must look onward to the latter day.

This falls in with what we have seen of the book in general. But it is not denied that certain elements which figure in the Apocalypse then existed and still exist. No one can soberly deny that Babylon in some sort had a place then; but that the special and the full character of Babylon was manifested as here portrayed is another matter. We may surely say her cup was not yet full. Not yet was that fairly out before men which God foresaw, as it finally provokes His judgment. Again it seems demonstrable that the relation to the Beast, at last brought before us, must in all fairness be allowed to look onward to a later stage of Babylon. Thus there is no question that some of the actors in the final scenes of the great drama were already there, as the reigning city, and the old Roman empire. Moral elements too were not wanting: the mystery of lawlessness had long been at work, though the enemy had not yet brought in the apostasy, still less the manifestation of the lawless one. But much as may have subsisted then, the Spirit here presents as a whole what cannot be found realised at any point of time in the past. We must perforce look for a still more complete development before the Lamb judges the Beast, after the ten horns along with him shall have destroyed Babylon. Did emperor or pope lead in this?

There is another remark to make. It is hard to see how Rome's city, or anything civil connected with it, could be called "mystery." Partly because of this, many excellent men have endeavoured to apply the vision to Romanism; and this religious system has an incomparably nearer connection with the mysterious harlot than anything yet spoken of. Rome in some form is the woman described in the chapter. The seven heads or hills clearly point to that city, which of all cities might best and indeed alone be known as ruling over the kings of the earth. There is therefore much truth in the Protestant application of the chapter, as compared with the Praeterist theory of pagan Rome. Yet it will be found imperfect, for reasons which ought to be clear to unbiassed and spiritual minds.

There stands the solemn brand graven, not on the blasphemous Beast but on the forehead of its rider, "Mystery, Babylon the great." The question is, why is she thus designated? If only an imperial city, what has this to do with "mystery"? The simple fact of conquering far and wide, and of exercising vast political power in the earth, constitutes no title to such a name. A "mystery" points to something undiscoverable by the natural mind of man. It is a secret which requires the distinct and fresh light of God to unravel, but which when thus revealed becomes plain So it is with this very Babylon that comes before us. Justly does she gather her title from the old fountain of idols and of nature's union for power without God. Confusion too is here the characteristic element. The designation is taken from the renowned city of the Chaldeans, the first spot notorious in both respects.

In short it would seem that God has hedged round His own draft of Babylon, so as to make it quits plain that Rome, city and system, figures in the scene. It may be taken to involve mediaeval application, though the full result will not be till the end of the ago. For where was the Beast after the past barbarian irruption and the resulting many-kingdomed state? Again, that it supposes Rome after it had professed the name of Christ is surely not to be doubted, if only from the expression "mystery" attached to Babylon. It clearly contrasts this mystery with another. We have not to learn what the other mystery means; we know well that it is according to God and of godliness. But here is a mystery altogether different: "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunk with the. blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus; and seeing her, I wondered with a great wonder."

Here were joined good and evil in godless union, for the worse, not for the better, an alliance unholy in principle, irremediable therefore in practice, between God and the natural man who substitutes rites for the quickening word of God's grace, for the blood of Christ, and for the power of the Spirit; and who employs the name of the Lord as a cover for gross covetousness, ambition, and cruelty, yet more excessive than the vulgar world. All these things have their place in Babylon the great. She is the mother of the harlots, but also (and with still deeper guilt) of the abominations of the earth. This means the idolatries of the earth, real shameless idolatry too, not merely that subtle working of the idolatrous spirit that Christians had to guard against from early days (1 John 5: 21). Here it is the positive worship of the creature besides the Creator, yea, and notoriously more than Him. For who knows not the horrors of Mariolatry? Babylon is the parent of the prostitutes and of the abominations (or, idolatries) of the earth. It is not therefore a question of virtual idols suitable to ensnare children of God, but of that open image worship which is of the earth itself, or rather of him who is the prince of the power of the air, thorough going palpable idolatry. What is the crucifix and the Mass? What the veneration of angels and saints? What the honour paid to dead men's bones, hair, nail-parings, and old clothes? Relics indeed!

Such is God's account of Babylon the great. Take notice of this (which confirms the true application), that when John saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, he wondered with a great wonder. Had it been simply a persecution from pagan Rome, who could marvel at its contempt of the truth and hatred of those who confess it? That a proud heathen metropolis, devoted to the worship of Mars, of Jupiter, of Venus, and other wicked monstrosities of pagan mythology, should be irritated with the gospel which exposes it all, and should consequently persecute the faithful, must be expected, and is a necessary result, directly that the uncompromising spirit of Christianity was known. Had those who preached said nothing about idol vanities, were they content to present the gospel as a better thing than anything the pagans could boast, the pagans themselves might have acknowledged thus much. Indeed it is pretty well ascertained that there was a discussion among them, even to the suggestion by one of their emperors, whether Christ should not be owned and worshipped in the Pantheon, before Constantine, and not so far from the earlier ages of the gospel. But none ever thought of giving Christ the only place due to Him. For Christ, as the Son of the Father and witnessed by the Holy Spirit, must be not only supreme but exclusive. Nor was anything more repulsive and fatal to paganism in every form than the truth revealed in Christ, which necessarily displaces everything that is not itself, because He is the truth definite and complete. Consequently Christianity, as being directly aggressive on the falsehood of heathenism, was of all things the most obnoxious to Rome. That pagan Rome therefore must set itself against Christianity was to be expected; it could amaze no one.

But the prophet was astounded that a mysterious form of evil, the counter-testimony of the enemy (not antichrist, but antichurch), could seem, and should be largely accepted as, the holy catholic church of God. He did marvel greatly that Christendom, if not Christianity, should with such a claim become the bitterest of persecutors, more murderously incensed against the witnesses of Jesus and the saints than ever paganism had been in any country or during all ages. This naturally filled him with intense wonder.

"And the angel said to me, Wherefore didst thou wonder? "Had he really penetrated under the surface, and seen that beneath the fair guise of Christendom the woman was, of all things under the sun, the most corrupt and hateful to God, it would not be so surprising. Therefore says the angel, "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, that hath* the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that thou sawest, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose name was not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that it was, and is not, and shall be present."

* The description here is simply character, not dates. If a person drew from this, for instance, that the Beast was to carry the woman, Babylon, when it had as a fact all that is meant by the seven heads and the ten horns, it would be an error. The angel implies nothing of the sort. It is a question here of distinctive character, apart from that of historical time, for which we must consider other scriptures.

The closing phase here is the description of the Beast in its last state, in which it will come into collision with Babylon. Let us bear this in mind. It will help to convince that, whatever may have been the past conditions of the Beast, here is a future one; and in that future one the Beast is to perish. For, remark, the Beast or Roman empire is described here as that which once existed, which then ceased to exist, and which assumes a final shape when it reappears from the abyss. Bad as pagan Rome was, it would be exaggeration to affirm that it ever had come out of the bottomless pit. When the apostle Paul wrote to the saints at Rome, he particularly specified the then duty of absolute subjection on the part of Christians to the powers then existing. Of course the application to the Roman empire would be immediate in the mind of any Christian at Rome. No one doubted the character of the emperor; there never had been a worse. Yet God took this very opportunity to lay it en the Christians as their duty to the worldly authority outside and over them. It was ruled generally that the worldly powers were ordained of God. But it is a very different thing to emerge from the abyss.

For there is a time coming when power will cease to be ordained of God. This is the point to which the last phase of the Beast refers. God in His providence did sanction the world-empires of old; and the principle continues as long as the church is here below. Hence we have to own the divine source of government, even when its holders abandon or have revoked all such thoughts themselves, but perhaps regard their rule in the world as a thing flowing from the people irrespectively of God. But the day is at hand when Satan will be allowed to have things his own way. For a short time (what a mercy that it is to be only so!) Satan will bring forth an empire suited to his purposes; as it will work on human self-will and the unbelief which denies God and Hi'; truth. It will be not only apostate but openly claiming to be God, and excluding the true God. But if thus it comes up out of the abyss, it is to go into perdition. It is added, "and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose name is not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that it was, and it is not and it shall be present." "Yet is" is an unfortunate expression, but it is the fault of the bad Greek text of Erasmus, Stephens, etc. It should be, "and shall be present."* There is no thought of making such a paradox to perplex the mind. The true reading here is neither hard nor doubtful save to unbelief. There is no conundrum in the message whatever. It is all plain and simple reference to the Beast "that it was, and it is not, and it shall be present."

* Even the Complutensian editors gave the right text here; and it would seem that Erasmus failed to use his MS. aright. For according to unquestionable testimony the Reuchlinian copy has καὶ πάρεστι like some half-dozen cursives, which was probably a mistake for πάρεσται. But καίπρε ἐστίν was unmitigated error.

No wonder that the earthly-minded wonder; for all this will be a great reversal of man's history and political maxims. There never has been a like experience. What mighty empire has existed, then become extinct, and finally reappeared, with higher pretensions and peculiar power, only to perish with unexampled horrors? It is altogether foreign to history. One of the most approved axioms is that kingdoms are just like men in this respect, that they begin, rise, and fall. As man does not believe in the resurrection of man, it is no wonder that he does not look for the resurrection of the empire. The marked difference is that in a dead man's case it is God who raises him, whereas for the defunct empire not God but the devil will revive it again. Beyond controversy it is so unusual and abnormal a reappearance that it is altogether exceptional in the world's history. Accordingly the resuscitated Roman empire will carry men away by a storm of wonder at its revival. Little do they know, because they believe not what is here written, that it is to come out of the abyss. That is, Satan will be the spring of its final rise and strange energy; he, and not God in any way whatever, will give it its character; as also he gives it his power and his throne and great authority.

"Here is the mind that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there (or, they) are seven kings." The double force of the symbol has been already touched on. "The five are fallen, the one is, the other did not yet come." That is, the sixth head (reigning in that day) was the imperial form of government. Can anything of the sort be plainer? It is a time-note of signal value. The seventh should follow for a little; and the seventh was in one respect to be an eighth. "And the beast which was, and is not, even he is an eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction." If in one sense an eighth, in another sense it would be of the seven; "eighth" perhaps, because of its extraordinary resurrection character, yet "one of the seven" because it is outwardly a head of rule again. This explains the wounded head that was afterwards healed. It is of the seven in that point of view, because it is old imperialism; but it is an eighth, because it has a diabolical source and strangely new character when raised up again. There never had been anything of the kind before.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which received no kingdom yet; but they receive authority as kings (not at, but for) one hour with the beast." They are all to reign concurrently with the Beast. This also is a no less important element for understanding the chapter. All who have looked back on the history know that when the ten kings appeared there was no real Beast or imperial power. It was the destruction of the imperial unity of Rome that gave occasion for the well-known kingdoms (ten, less or more) which the Gothic and other barbarians set up afterwards. We know that sometimes shore were nine or less, sometimes eleven or more; but supposing all this perfectly clear and true according to history, they did not receive their power as kings for one and the same time with the Beast.

The very reverse is the undeniable fact. They received their power as kings when the Beast ceased to exist. Thus the difference is complete between past history (if we look at the extinction of the empire and the rise of the divided kingdoms) and the certain fulfilment of the prophecy in the future, when we believe what God has really told us. The language is neither difficult nor ambiguous. Man alone is to blame who has misapplied it. Yet one allows freely a partial application already. We can quite understand that God would comfort His people in the dark ages by this book; and a very imperfect glimpse at its real meaning might in His grace serve to cheer them on in their trials as far as it went. From Rome saints had suffered; and it was easy to see that the revealed persecutress is called Babylon, but identified with the governing city of Rome. So far they were right. Nor is there any rem reason to wonder at their deriving help from partial light. It was but an imperfect view they had even of justification; a far scantier perception, if they could be said to have had any, about Christ's headship of the church, His priesthood, or almost anything else. And how little a glimpse had they of prophecy! But we can understand that the Lord could and did make that little go far, and do no little good.

But is there any reason why we should content ourselves with the measure enjoyed of old? Such is the hard bondage which historical tradition imposes on its votaries. Holding on to what others knew before them or little more, they reduce themselves to a minimum of the truth. When God is gracious, His word rich, full, and deep, is it not sad to see His children satisfied with just enough to save their souls, or keep them from positive starvation? In presence of grace surely this is not for His glory, any more than for their own blessing. The only right principle in everything is to go to the sources and streams of divine truth, there to seek refreshment and strength and fitness for whatever our God calls us to. Unquestionably He has been of late awakening the attention of His children remarkably to the value of His word, and not least of all to the portion we are now examining.

It is plain that the verse contemplates a new state of things in the future, and neither the Roman power when there was one head of empire, nor the eastern or Byzantine part of it after that partition, still less in the west the state of division under the kings who succeeded the deposition of Augustulus. In the mediaeval state there may have been ten kings (in contrast with the ancient state of the Beast without them), but no Beast or imperial system with its subordinate chiefs or vassal kings. This is what drove men to the idea of making the pope to be the Beast. But the idea is wholly insufficient to cover or meet the word of God, which gives clear and strong reasons to prove the mistake of applying this to the pope as its complete meaning or fulfilment. For that which comes distinctly before us in this one verse is the twofold fact that the ten horns here contemplated receive their kingly power for the same hour or time as the Beast, not subsequently when his rule was extinguished. He on the contrary receives his power and they receive theirs for one and the same time. They are contemporaneous.

This disposes of many a web of comments; for we find at once what is simple enough for any child of God who believes this to be God's word for us to understand. Bringing in history has embroiled the subject; and those who appeal most to its evidence are the men who seem in this to ignore plain facts. But the most ordinary knowledge suffices; for who does not know from the Bible that there was a Roman empire when Christ was born, ruled by Caesar Augustus, and no such state as that empire divided into ten kingdoms? Of course there must needs be a consultation with the kings, when the kings become an accredited part of that empire, as rulers subordinate to the Beast. But then it was an absolute decree that went forth, and this indisputably from a single head of the undivided empire. Centuries after came in, not only the division into cast and west, but the broken up state of the west, when there ceased to be an imperial head. But the prophecy points to the Beast revived and the ten subject kings reigning over its western breadth for the same time, before divine judgment destroys them all at the coming of Christ and of His saints with Him. Hence this certainly must be future.

Now this precisely fits in, let me say, with the state of feeling in these modern times; for "constitutionalism," as men call it, is the fruit of the Teutonic system supervening on that of the broken up Roman empire. It was the barbarians who brought in the prevalent ideas of feudalism and of liberty. Accordingly they have firmly stood for freedom; so that all efforts to reconstitute the empire which have been tried over and over again have hitherto issued in total failure. The great reason is manifest: there is a hindrance — "one that letteth." It cannot be done till the moment comes. When its own season arrives, as it surely will, the divine hinderer is to be "out of the way," and the devil is then allowed to do his worst. The political side of this is described here with surprising brightness and brevity. The ten horns with the Beast are all to receive authority, the Beast of course wielding the imperial power, they as kings reigning, all during one and the same time before the end comes. Clearly therefore it is future. It is impossible to refer it to the past with any show even of reasonable probability, to say nothing of reality or truth. Scripture and facts refute all such theories.

"These have one mind, and give their own power and authority to the beast." Hitherto the reverse of this has been verified in history. The horns have constantly opposed each other, and even sometimes the pope. Since then the world has not seen the imperial power to which all bow. Have we not all heard of "the balance of power"? This is what nations have been constantly occupied with, lest any one power should become the Beast. If some few have joined on one side, some are sure to help the other; because they are jealous of any one acquiring such a preponderant authority and power as to govern the rest. But in the time really contemplated all this political shuffling will be over. Then when Satan's success seems complete, the Lord has His word to say. "these shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them (for he is Lord of lords and King of kings), and they that are with him, called, and chosen, and faithful." His saints, already on high, come with Him. It is the second act of His coming.

But still we have more to hear of Babylon yet. Her part in the corruption of the high and the intoxication of the low — her idolatrous character — has come before us. We have seen her misguidance of the Beast; but a collision comes. The woman had been allowed to ride the Beast, to influence and govern the empire first. But the friendships of the bad, as the Stagirite felt, do not last. At last she becomes the object of hatred to the ten horns and the Beast, who expose, rob, and destroy her. "And he saith to me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and crowds, and nations, and tongues; and the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. For God gave to their hearts to do his mind, and to do one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is the great city which hath kingship over the kings of the earth." "The waters" indicate her influence stretching out far beyond the empire. It is a sad fact, and the words a true prediction.

The Gothic hordes were not yet incorporated with the empire, still less were they horns of the Beast, nor did they give their power to it but rather destroyed it. They broke up the Beast yet more than Babylon. Past history therefore in no way suits the prophecy. "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast." Here we must say that our Authorised Version, and not merely it but the common uncritical Greek Testaments, are quite astray. This is known so well, and on such decided grounds, that it would be unbecoming to withhold the fact. There is no uncertainty whatever in the case. It is certain that we ought to rend (not "upon" but) "and* the beast" — a difference of great importance The horns and the Beast join in hating the harlot. Not only are they supposed to be co-existent, but united in their change of feeling against Babylon. "These shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire."

* It now appears that the Cod. Reuchlin. Capnionis, which was used by Erasmus, and lately discovered after a long obscurity by Dr. Franz Delitzsch, reads καὶ (not ἐπὶ) τὸ θ. as did the Complut. Polyglott, and all editions of the least critical value. Scholz's note ("rec. cum cdd. pl.") is a myth. Who can cite MSS. in its favour, though some versions represent it?

It is not the gospel nor the Holy Spirit, but the lawless revived Latin empire with its vassal kingdoms of the west, which combine to destroy Babylon. Unhallowed love will end in bitter hate. They will then treat her with contempt and shameful exposure. Next they will seize her resources. Finally they will destroy her. Can anything be less reasonable than that the various rulers of the western powers, catholic kings, join the pope in destroying his own city, or his own church, whichever Babylon may be made? Some evade the difficulty by referring the desolation to the Gothic powers; and these pious Protestants, as if they were mere Praeterists! What confusion! Is there not reason enough for saying that not even the shadow of solid ground appears for the system, when it denies the future crisis?

Hence the effort of some to prop up a manifestly false reading. It is due to the exigency of a notion which fears and is irreconcilable with the truth in this place. "The ten horns which thou sawest AND the beast" gives unquestionably the right sense of the verse. But it disproves the Protestant historicalism which refuses to allow an evil to come worse even than popery.

Thus everything implies their simultaneous presence for the same time and for common action with the Beast, in plundering and then destroying Babylon. God uses them for this object, their at length setting her aside, the great religious corruptress, whose centre is found at Rome. We can easily understand that the overthrow of the ecclesiastical power is necessary to leave a field unimpeded for the imperial power to develop itself in its final form of apostasy, blasphemy, and rebellion against the Lord. For religion, be it ever so corrupt, acts as a restraint on human will, as an ordinary government does, however evil. Even the worst of governments is better than none. That a corrupt religion is better than none, one does not say: but it may trouble men, putting a thorn in the side of those who want no religion at all. Hence the horns and the Beast join together and desolate the harlot. That kings had dallied with her, that the Beast had once borne her up, will only turn to gall the more bitter for her, who, faithless to God, had staked the usurped and abused name of Christ to Will worldly power and glory now lost for ever. "For God gave to their hearts to do his mind, and to do one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." It is a time of strong delusion, be it remembered.

"And the woman whom thou sawest is the great city which hath kingship over the kings of the earth." None but Rome corresponds. "The woman" is the more general symbol designating her as the great imperial city; "the harlot" is her corrupt religious character, embracing papal Rome but extending to the apostate days of the Beast and the Antichrist.

Revelation 18

Chapter 18 need not delay us long. It is not. the warning beforehand, as in Rev. 14, announcing Babylon's fall before the fact; nor is it its exact place as the last of the Bowls of God's wrath; nor yet as in Rev.17 the relation of Babylon to the Beast and the kings of the earth in contrast with the Bride's to the Lamb and the millennial kings as in Rev. 21. It is the catastrophe viewed as come, with a preceding call to God's people, and consequent on her ruin the lamentations of all from kings to seamen over her who had contributed to their pleasure and earthly greed. But there is a call for the joy of heaven, and of saints, apostles, and prophets, that God has judged her, the shameless deceiver and prostitute.

Thus runs the introduction. "And after these things I saw another angel descending out of the heaven, having great authority: and the earth was lightened with his glory, and he cried, saying, Fallen, fallen, is Babylon the great, and become a habitation of demons, and a hold of every unclean spirit, and a hold of every unclean and hated bird; because of the wine of the fury* of her fornication all the nations have drunk, and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich by the might of her luxury. And I heard another voice out of heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her strokes; for her sins reached up to the heaven, and God remembered her unrighteousnesses. Award her, even as she awarded, and double to her double according to her works: in the cup which she mixed, mix to her double. How much she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so much give her torment and grief: because she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and in no wise shall I see grief. For this reason in one day shall come her strokes, death, and grief, and famine; and she shall be burnt with fire; for strong [is] the Lord God that judgeth her."

* "Poison" has been suggested by pious and learned men. But it is better rendered homogeneously with what is said elsewhere. we cannot apply "poison" to God's wrath, but we may with many scriptures employ "fury" to mark His extreme indignation, and Babylon's excessive deception and unbridled iniquity.

It is a description, as we readily see, not of the corrupt woman's relation to the Beast but of the city's fall, with certain dirges put into the month of the different classes that groan because of her extinction here below. But along with that, God warns of her total ruin, and calls on His people (verse 4) to come out of her. "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins reached up to the heaven, and God remembered her unrighteousnesses." Then the word is, "Award her even as she awarded you, and double to her double according to her works: in the cup which she mixed, mix to her double. How much she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so much give her torment and grief: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall in no wise see grief."

Babylon is viewed in this chapter not so much in her mysterious and religious form, giving currency to every kind of confusion of truth and error, of good and evil, intoxicating, corrupting, and seducing, as all can see, through her wickedly ecclesiastical influence; she is regarded here as the most conspicuous aider and abettor of the world in its luxuries and delicacies and the pride of life, or what men call "civilisation."

This is accordingly traced in our chapter with considerable detail, and unto the sorrow and vexation of all the different classes who on the fall of Babylon groaned over her destruction, and the loss of their wealth and enjoyment, or their occupation.

"And the kings of the earth, that committed fornication with her and lived luxuriously, shall weep and wail over her, when they behold the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Woe, woe, the great city Babylon, the strong city, because in one hour came thy judgment. And the merchants of the earth weep and grieve over her, because no one buyeth their lading any more, lading of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet; and all thyine wood, and every vessel of ivory, and every vessel of precious wood; and of brass, and of iron, and of marble; and cinnamon, and spice, and incense." Nor are these by any means all. "And unguent, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and cattle and sheep, and of horses and chariots, and of bodies, and souls of men. And the ripe fruits thy soul desired are departed from thee, and all the fair and bright things are perished from thee, and they shall find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, who were enriched by her, shall stand afar off for fear of her torment, weeping, and grieving, saying, Woe, woe, the great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, for in one hour so great wealth was desolated. And every steersman, and every one sailing to a place, and sailors, and as many as ply their work on the sea stood afar off, and kept crying as they beheld the smoke of her burning, saying, What [city] is like the great city 7 And they cast dust upon their heads, and kept crying, weeping, and grieving, saying, Woe, woe, the great city in which all that had ships in the sea were enriched by her costliness; for in one hour was she desolated. Rejoice over her, heaven, and ye saints and ye apostles and ye prophets; for God judged your judgment upon her."

Yet is it a profound error to infer from the divine denunciation of her far-reaching and malignant influence as the centre, and factor, and patron of the world's luxury, that so vast an impulse to commerce is Babylon's worst virus. That she, proclaiming herself the church, should thus play the harlot instead of being a chaste virgin for Christ, is no doubt monstrously false and evil. But to combine idolatry with the Lord's name is viler still and unpardonable before God; to which must be added her implacable and deadly hatred of all that truly bear witness to God and His Anointed.

But the graphic account does not end until the Spirit of God shows us another figure of Babylon's downfall. "And a strong angel took up a stone as a great millstone, and cast [it] into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall be cast down Babylon the great city, and shall be found no more at all; and voice of harp-singers and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no artificer of any art shall be found any more at all in thee; and voice of millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; and light of lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and voice of bridegroom and bride shall be heard no more at all in thee; because thy merchants were the grandees of the earth, because by thy sorcery all the nations were deceived. kind in her was found blood[s] of prophets and saints, and of all that were slain on the earth." The reason is given at the close; not only "for by thy witchcraft were all the nations deceived," but above all "and in her was found blood of prophets and saints, and of all that were slain on the earth."

What a solemn and weighty fact in the government of God! How can it be said that this vile, corrupt, idolatrous system of the last days was guilty of the blood of all the martyrs? She followed and had inherited the spirit of all, from the days of Cain, who had lifted up their hands against their righteous brethren. Instead of taking warning from the wickedness of those before her, who had seduced on the one hand and persecuted on the other, she had, when she could, gone on increasing in both, until at last the blow of divine judgment came. It is thus that God is wont to deal as a rule in His judgments, not necessarily on the one that first introduces an evil, but on those that inherit the guilt and perhaps aggravate it, instead of being warned by it. When God does judge, it is not merely for the evil fruits of those then judged but for all from its first budding till that day. Far from being unrighteous, this is, on the contrary, the highest justice from a divine point of view in public government.

We may illustrate it by the members of a family, and suppose, for instance, a drunken father. If the sons had a spark of right feeling, not only must they feel the utmost shame and pain on account of their parent, but they would endeavour (like the two sons of Noah, who had a due sense of what was proper) to cast some mantle of love over that which they could not deny, yet would not look at; but surely above all things they would watch against that shameful sin Alas! there is a son in the family, who, instead of being admonished by his father's sin, tales licence from it to indulge in the same. On him the blow falls, not on the unhappy parent The son is doubly guilty, because he saw his father's nakedness, yet felt it not enough to turn away in silent sorrow. He ought to have felt the shame as holily hating the sin itself, yet withal in deep compassion for his parent But far from this, the unwitting exposure he wilfully exposed in mockery, not in grief. Then and thus is guilt aggravated in the case of his wicked son.

It is a similar case here. Babylon had once heard the varied testimony of God; for what had she not heard of truth? The gospel had been preached at Rome, as she of Chaldea had heard of law and prophet. The Roman Babylon too must hear the final testimony of God, the gospel of the kingdom that is to go forth in the last days; but she loves earthly pleasure and power, and refuses truth in any measure. She despises everything really divine; she will only use whatever of God's word she can pervert for increasing her own importance, and gaining a greater ascendancy over the consciences of men, whilst enjoying herself more luxuriously in the present life. For it is here to obliterate all remembrance of heaven, and to make this world such a paradise as suits her, which she embellishes, not with pure and undefiled religion, but with the arts of men, the idolatries of the world, and the snares of Satan.

This it is which will bring out the indignant judgment of God upon the last phase of Babylon, so that the guilt of all blood of holy ones shed on the earth shall be imputed to her, and she may be judged accordingly. It does not hinder, of course, that in the judgment of the dead each man is judged for his own sin. This remains true. The day of the Lord on the world in no way sets aside His dealing with souls individually for eternity. The judgment of the dead is strictly individual judgments in this world are not. His blows on the quick come more nationally as on Israel; incomparably more severe, as in possession of greater privileges, is the judgment of corrupt Christendom, or Babylon here so called. But according to His principle of government it is not merely personal guilt, but that which, from despising the testimony of God, thus morally accumulates from age to age in the ratio of the testimony of God and of men's wickedness indulged in spite of it. All Israel too shall be saved (Rom. 11: 26) as a people, and for the glory of Jehovah on the earth. But there is neither restoration nor mercy for Babylon, but unmitigated destruction, extinction at length through God's indignant judgment.

Revelation 19.

"After these things I heard as a great voice of a great crowd in the heaven, saying, Hallelujah, the salvation, and the glory, and the power of our God: for true and righteous [are] his judgments; because he judged the great harlot, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And a second time they said, Hallelujah; and her smoke goeth up unto the ages of the ages." The Spirit of God contrasts with the fall of Babylon the marriage of the bride, the Lamb's wife.* Babylon was the spurious church as long as the church was in question, and the final corrupter, when churches were no longer, and there came forth the closing testimony of God's judgments on the world. There was an unclean form of open heathenism, in connection with the Jews in times past. Then it was the literal Babylon, of course; here it is symbolical. A mysterious lawlessness inherits the well-known name of Babylon when Rome is brought forward; nor does it merely embrace Christian times but the end of the age after the saints are gone, when the course of divine judgment sets in. Bear this in mind: to leave the last part out is fatal to any accurate understanding of the Revelation.

* It may interest some to understand how the Romanist endeavour to divert the prophecy from its evident application to this system wholly fails. They assume that, if Babylon means the corrupt church, the symbol must be a married woman false to her husband, not a harlot. But no: their assumption confounds, as they habitually do, the church with Israel, which was indeed married to Jehovah. But the church is, or ought to be, a chaste virgin; and the marriage is future and in heaven, as Rev. 19: 7-9 proves. Hence the only correct figure for the corrupt and false church is the "harlot," as in Rev. 17, not adulteress.

"And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and did homage to God that sitteth on the throne, saying, Amen, Hallelujah." The heavenly saints are viewed still as the heads of the glorified priesthood, and also have the administration of God's government. But it is the last time. "And a voice out of the throne came forth, saying, Praise our God, all ye his bondmen, [and] ye that fear him, the small and the great. And I heard as a voice of a great crowd, and as a voice of many waters, and as a voice of strong thunders, saying, Hallelujah, for the Lord God the Almighty reigneth.* Let us rejoice and exult, and give the glory to him: because the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife made herself ready" The elders as usual understand the mind of God. The judgment of great Babylon, the harlot, connects itself with the marriage of the Lamb in heaven, and the bride's getting ready to share His appearing in glory also, and the reign of the Lord God the Almighty about to begin over the earth. Now that we have the symbol of the bride before us, that of the elders and the living creatures disappears. The bride is in view, and the guests.

* It is the aorist in Greek, which in such a case as this it is difficult correctly to represent in English; for neither "reigned" nor "hath reigned" clearly conveys that God just entered on His kingdom; they rather imply that it was past. It anticipates that He reigned as a fact.

Are we then to understand that the elders and the living creatures are together taken absolutely as the bride now? that those who were meant under the figures of the elders and of the living creatures assume the name and figure of the bride? It hardly means this exactly. The elders answer to the heads of the heavenly priesthood (embracing in the glorified state the Old Testament saints and those of the New); they are by no means limited to the church, Christ's body. When the Lamb and His purchase by blood were celebrated in heaven, the four living creatures joined the elders, though hitherto quite distinct. The glorified saints are not royal priests only but administer power in the world to come far beyond angels now. The living creatures were from Revelation 5 coupled with the elders, as we find them in the beginning of Revelation 19.

But now, when those symbols disappear because of a new action of God (namely, the consummation of the church's joy), we have not the bride alone but another class of saints, who at once come forward. Only one thing, as far as scripture speaks and we know, was requisite. The saints must all be manifested before the tribunal of Christ, that each may receive the things [done] in [or through] the body. In full grace they had been changed and translated to heaven. But righteousness has its place also, before the marriage as well as in the manifestation with Christ, each in due place. Thus, it would seem, the bride made herself ready; and her dress confirms it. "And to her was given that she should be clothed in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of saints." This is sometimes misunderstood. It is not what Christ puts on them, but a recognition even at this time of whatever has been morally of God, the working undeniably of the Spirit of Christ. But this each saint has, though the blessed thought here is that the church has it not merely in the way of each possessing his own; the bride has it as a whole, the church in glory. The individual does not love his own fruit. This romaine true also in its own place, as we shall find; and when it is a question of reward, it is the grand point. But when the bride is seen above, such is the way in which it is presented here, as shown by verse 8. The Spirit of God implies that here it is not the righteousness Christ is made to us, whereby we are accounted righteous, but righteousnesses personal and actual. What Christ is remains as the foundation truth. Before God we need and have that which is found only by and in Christ, which has another and a higher character compared with the righteousnesses of the saints.

But this is not all. "He saith to me, Write, Blessed [are] they that are called unto the marriage-supper of the Lamb." Here ample ground appears for saying that the four-and-twenty elders and the four living creatures are not the church only, because when the bride comes forward, we have others too. The guests, or those that were called to the marriage-supper of the Lamb, refer clearly to the Old Testament saints. They are there in the quality not of the bride but of those invited to the marriage of the Lamb. They can hardly be the Apocalyptic saints, for the simple reason that, as shown in the next chapter, those sufferer unto death are not yet raised from the dead. These remain as yet in the condition of separate spirits. But not such is the way in which the guests are spoken of.

It seems therefore to be incontrovertible fact that the elders and the living creatures comprehend both the Old Testament saints and the church or the bride of Christ. Consequently, when the bride appears, those others, the Old Testament saints who had been included in the elders and the living creatures, are now seen as a separate company. This may seem to some a little difficult, but it is of no use to evade difficulties. We have to face what seems hard, bowing to the word and seeking to learn through all. We do not mend matters by foregone or hasty conclusions, which only complicate the truth, as we are bound to account for the presence of the other saints at the marriage-supper of the lamb, who appear as guests, not in the quality of the bride. In general this has been either passed over altogether, or some unsatisfactory inference has been drawn which cannot satisfy but embroils the prophecy.

"And he saith to me, These are the true sayings of God. And I fell before his feet to do him homage; and he saith to me, See [thou do it] not: I am fellow-bondman of thee and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus. Do homage to God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 'The last is a reciprocal sentence, which admits of either member preceding or following, as they are equivalent. "The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus."

John's error gave rise to a weighty admonition. It is not only that the angel corrects the act by asserting that he is a fellow-servant of him and of his brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. On this account it was wholly wrong to pay homage to him instead of to the God who had sent him to serve. But he tells us further that the spirit of prophecy that characterises this boor; is the testimony of Jesus. Thus divine testimony is not confined to the gospel or to the church, but the prophetic spirit which is peculiar to the Revelation as a whole, after the church is translated, is equally the testimony of Jesus. This is most important, because it might be (as it has been) forgotten by those who make the gospel and the corresponding presence of the Spirit to be the same at all times; as others have thought (because after Revelation 4, 5 the sequel treats of Jew separate from Gentile, and the world an object of God's judgments) that this cannot be a testimony of Jesus. But "the spirit of prophecy" (such it is all through the Revelation after the seven churches are done with) "is the testimony of Jesus." To us the Holy Spirit is rather as a spirit of communion with Christ. This was the new and special privilege of Christianity. By-and-by, after our translation to heaven, He will work, and as vitally, in those who bow to God in the reception of the prophetic testimony, which is here owned to be none the less "the testimony of Jesus."

"And I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon [called] faithful and true, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war; and his eyes a flame of fire, and upon his head many diadems, having a name written which no one knoweth but himself, and clothed with a garment dipped in blood; and his name is called The Word of God."

Thus heaven is opened, and for a sight most solemn. It is not now the temple opened there, and the ark of the covenant seen when Israel's remembrance comes to view as the object of God's counsels; nor is it a door opened above, as we saw when the prophet was given his introduction to the prophecy of God's dealings with the world as a whole: though in both cases all manifestly clusters round the Lord Jesus. But now the heaven is itself opened for yet graver facts, and of incalculable moment for man and the universe and the enemy. Christ Himself is about to be displayed enforcing His rights as King of kings, and Lord of lords; and this in the face of the world. Victorious power put forth to subdue is the meaning of the white horse. It is no longer a question of sustaining His saints in grace, but of sovereign power for judging the earth. There was judicial discernment with the distinct possession of all titles to sovereignty. Only now is He seen with this royal or imperial emblem. We learn hence how mistaken it is to conceive of the Lord as King in the preliminary vision of Rev. 1, "the things which John saw." This is not His relation to the churches, or "the things which are." He is the long-robed Priest judging them, and finally setting them aside, before "the things which are about to take place after these." Nor is this emblem of His coming forth to judge and reign over the earth seen while the glorified are in heaven, as in Rev. 4, 5; nor in fact in any scene on high till the Lord comes forth to take His inheritance in person as here.

He appears in indisputable human glory; but the greatest care is taken to let us know that He had that which was above man and the creature in general; for "no one knoweth the Son but the Father." Have we not here what answers to those words? This name none knew but He Himself. He was a divine person, whatever new position He assumes towards the world. His vesture dipped in blood shows that He comes to execute vengeance, an unmistakable sign of death for rebels. He had been the Word of God in the revelation of grace; when known by-and-by, it will be as the executor of God's judgments. In both ways He equally expresses what God is. The Gospel and the Revelation of John perfectly disclose both, whether it be in grace or in judgment.

"And the armies that [were] in the heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white, pure. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp [two-edged] sword, that with it he might smite the nations; and he shall rule (or, tend) them with an iron rod; and he treadeth the winepress of the fury of God the Almighty. And he hath upon his garment and upon his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

Here we learn of what His train consists. They are glorified saints, though no doubt angels may be there also. This is confirmed by Rev. 17: 14, where it was told us that saints are with Him when He comes. When the Beast dares to fight with the Lamb, He shall overcome the Beast; and they that are with Him, "called and chosen and faithful" — terms, as a whole, entirely inapplicable to the angels. The angels are never "called," although they may be "chosen"; and though termed holy, they are never spoken of as "faithful." "Faithful" is what belongs to a man of God. It supposes the exercise and the object of faith. "Called" would be most evidently out of court, because calling supposes that the person is brought out of one condition and raised into another and a better one. This is never the case with an angel. Fallen angels are not called, and holy angels never need to be — they are kept. Calling is the fruit of active grace on God's part toward man, and only toward him when fallen. Even man himself when he was innocent in Eden was not "called." Directly he sinned, the word of God came, and he was called by grace through faith.

It is evident therefore, that the saints in a glorified state are here represented as following the Lord out of heaven. They are not seen now as the bride. This would have been altogether inappropriate for such a progress. When the King comes forth riding to victory in the judgment of the wicked in the world, it is not in the quality of bride but of armies or hosts that the saints follow Him. But they include no doubt the guests as well; all the glorified saints of O. and N.T. take their place in His train.

Nevertheless it may be remarked, that these saints are not said to be executers of judgment as Christ is.* It is to Him that God has given all judgment, not necessarily to us. We may have a special task in it; but this is not the work for us. We are to judge the world, even angels (1 Cor. 6); but this will be in our reigning with Christ. Hence there is no sword proceeding out of our mouth; nor are the saints or heavenly hosts said to be arrayed in such a fashion as the Lord. It is simply said that the glorified are to follow the Lord in victorious power, and nothing more "clothed in fine linen, bright, pure." Angels, we know from other scriptures, will be there; yet of this we hear nothing here. But "out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron." What makes it all the more notable is that the rod of iron is promised to us, not the sword. There is the reigning dignity, but not the execution of judgment in the awful emblems attributed to the Lord Himself. For He "treadeth the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty," another character of judgment never attributed to the saints. "And he hath upon his garment and upon his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords." Supremacy of rule and lordship belongs to Him no less than to the Father, or God as God (1 Tim. 6: 15).

* It is the more strikingly characteristic, because of such language as Ps. 149: 6-9, which speaks of all the saints contemplated on earth for the day of Jehovah.

The proclamation of the angel follows, inviting all birds of prey to the supper of the great God, to eat the flesh of all the great and small of the earth. "And I saw an (one) angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a great voice, saying to all the birds that fly in mid-heal on, Come, gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God; that ye may eat flesh of kings, and flesh of chiliarchs, and flesh of strong ones, and flesh of horses, and of those that sit on them, and flesh of all, both free and bond, both small and great." A sad and humbling end for human pride at any time; saddest of all after the corruption of the church and apostasy from law and gospel, when modern civilisation will have proved itself faithless and hostile to God and His Son.

Lastly comes the gathering and the battle. "And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken" (caught alive), "and with him the false prophet that wrought signs before him, with which he deceived those that received the mark of the beast, and those that worshipped his image." The second Beast is no longer seen as an earthly power, but as a prophet, of course the False Prophet. All the energy to mislead men in the presence of the first Beast was long in his hands; now nothing more is spoken of. Thus he is morally judged. So from Daniel 7, and Daniel 9 we may see that the Roman emperor (who professes himself then the firm ally of the Jews) overrules covenants, however firm, and puts down any deference to sacrifice or offering, times or laws. His will is supreme, and dictates the protection of abominations or idols; and the False Prophet carries it out.

"Alive the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with brimstone." Thus eternal judgment was executed at once. They were caught in flagrant treason and rebellion against Jehovah and His Christ: what further need of any process of judgment! "And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat on the horse, which [sword] proceedeth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh." Their doom was just, but by no means after the same sort as the two leaders; theirs was condign. But how sad for us to think that so it will be with the kingdoms of the west, and that their services with their kings and captains are thus to perish! Is not Great Britain to be one of them? Can Christian men suffer their eyes to be darkened by leaders who do not believe prophecy in general and sneer at this profound book in particular?

Revelation 20

A new and immensely important fact is described — the binding of Satan. He is no longer to be allowed to prowl about the world ensnaring and destroying. It is not his final judgment. "And I saw an angel coming down from the heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years and cast him into the abyss, and shut and sealed [it] over him, that he should no more deceive the nations, till the thousand years should be completed: after these things he must be loosed a little time." The unclean spirits when cast out by the Lord deprecated consignment to the abyss before the time. Immense will be the relief for man and the earth when they are thus shut up, as we see their prince here.

Then we come to a disclosure of wondrous blessing. "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them: and [I saw] the souls of those beheaded on account of the witness of Jesus, and on account of the word of God: and those who did not homage to the beast, nor his image, and received not his mark upon their forehead, and upon their hand; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Not many words are required to show that it is no mere figure of the new birth on the one hand, or of a flourishing state for the gospel or the church. It is the foreshadow of a real resurrection. Here the vision was of thrones with sitters already there, and of others now caused to join them, who had suffered unto death for the truth; of which the inspired explanation is, "This the first resurrection." Let us look at the different groups that have part in the first resurrection.

First, the thrones were already filled. Instead of judgment being executed on them, it was "given to them." They themselves were to judge. Scripture is clear that the saints are destined to be invested with judicial authority of a glorious nature. We shall reign with Christ. These are the same saints whom we have seen set forth by the twenty-four elders in heaven, next, by the bride and the guests at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, and finally by the armies that followed Him out of heaven. They are the heavenly saints generally up to the Lord's coming to receive and set them in the Father's house.

It is no longer a question either of celebrating the preliminary ways of God's government, or of the war with the Beast and kings of the earth. Accordingly we have the power of evil restrained beyond all example; and ruling in righteousness as never seen before. There are thrones filled with persons come from heaven in the train of Christ, who now reign along with Him. The language of symbol is as definite as any other. There is no lack of precision, but the very reverse. Peculiarly compact energy attaches to symbolic language.

But there is, in the details which come next, much of interest and consequence to observe, in that an accession follows of the souls of those beheaded on account of the witness of Jesus, and on account of the word of God. These are the martyrs of Rev. 6: 9-11, long before seen under the altar, and poured out like burnt-offerings to God. They had cried to the Sovereign ruler to avenge their blood on their foes, but were told they must wait a little for others, their fellow-bondmen and their brethren, to be killed as they were. Here accordingly we have them all. For there is added another company of faithful men who suffered when the Beast set up his worst and final pretensions. But these would not do homage to the Beast, or his image, nor would they receive the mark. These compose the third class here spoken of. We can understand the special mention of these two sections of the saints who suffered after the rapture to heaven. For they did not live for the power and glory of the kingdom. But if they died for Christ, God takes care they shall not lose, but share the first resurrection. They thereby become saints of the high places.

The first were the saints who came out of heaven after Christ, already in the changed or glorified condition. Consequently it was seen that they sat upon the thrones at once; while the two latter classes, described in the rest of the verse, were still in the separate state — "and the souls of those that were beheaded," etc. "Souls" alone often means persons, as is familiarly known. But here it is "the souls of," etc. It is a different phrase, and of different sense. It means the souls of beheaded persons. He first saw their disembodied condition; then another similar class; and next states that "they lived." It is a raising up of both classes from the dead to join others already raised. For there were thrones, and people sat upon them, changed before this into the image of Christ's glory. Then were seen others in the condition of souls who bore testimony after the first, those beheaded for the witness of Jesus and the word of God; lastly, those who refused the Beast in every form, — a testimony more negative than the former, but not less real. The evidence of the third class might have been given a little more distinctly than in our version; not "and which had not," but rather, "and those who did not do homage to the beast, nor his image, and received not his mark upon their forehead, and upon their hand." As these were in the separate state, it is added, "and they lived." Thus only were they enabled to reign with Christ.

What can be simpler or more beautiful than the way in which this verse sums up for the sufferers what the Revelation had promised? After "the things which are" the visions of this book open, not with the rapture of saints to heaven, but with the sight of saints already in heaven. They are often before the seer in his visions, but seen always in a complete condition There is no addition to their number. Accordingly the translation of the church with the Old Testament saints must have already taken place before Rev. 4 begins, all such being caught up at the self-same time to be with the Lord above. We have seen also that these follow the Lord out of heaven (Rev. 19: 14), and are next seen enthroned (Rev. 20: 4). When the Lord takes His own throne, they are given theirs by grace. Further, we find that the saints who had suffered for Christ, during the time that the glorified were in heaven, are now reunited to their bodies and "live," the Lord waiting for the last martyr that He might not leave out one of those who had died for His name. All the sufferers, either in the early persecutions of Revelation 6, or in the later persecutions (Rev. 13, 15) up to Babylon's extinction, were now raised from the dead. "They lived," and were put thereby into a condition suitable for reigning with Christ, no less than the already changed Old Testament saints and the church itself. The dead saints were now all raised to reign over the earth.

Nor is this all here. Another sort of resurrection awaits all others, resurrection of judgment. Such is the meaning of the verse, "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection," which includes all that reign with Christ during the thousand years.

Let it be here carefully observed that the first resurrection does not mean all rising exactly at the same moment. Undoubtedly the change of all shore caught up takes place in the twinkling of an eye; but this in no way denies that other bodies are to be raised at a different time. For certain there are two acts of resurrection: one when the Old Testament saints and the church are caught up to heaven; the other when Satan is bound, after the Beast and False Prophet are thrown into the lake of fire, as well as Babylon judged. From the manner in which resurrection is referred to in scripture, does not God leave room for this? "I will raise him up at the last day." "At the last day" does not mean an instant of time.

To see this plainly adds immense clearness in the understanding of the book. "The first resurrection" does not intimate that there is but one act of raising, but that all who share this resurrection, whenever raised, are raised before the millennium begins. When Christ reigns, all such have part in the first resurrection. First Christ Himself was raised at least 1,800 years before the church; then the church, with the Old Testament saints; then these Apocalyptic saints at the least some years after. This gives a full and just view of the various parties that have a share in this resurrection. "This is the first resurrection Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: over them the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." It is clearly a personal reward to those who had suffered. How mischievous the thought that the church is ever to reign without Christ, though natural to man's heart! The Corinthian saints dropped into it (1 Cor. 4: 8) and were rebuked for its unspirituality and worldliness. What more opposed to the portion of the apostles, as of Christ? We are called to suffer now, not to reign. "If we endure, we shall also reign together." We rightly look to be glorified together with Him, but not apart from Him. To a loyal Christian heart, no reign of saints could satisfy or even be tolerated without Christ, the Firstborn among many brethren.

When the thousand years expire, Satan reappears on the scene to the sorrow and ruin of the Gentiles who were not born of God. But it is for the last time, not of this age only, but of the various dispensations of God. "And when the thousand years are completed, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations that [are] in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war." This is clearly of moral importance. The glory of the kingdom does not preserve when men in their natural state are exposed to the adversary. Even in that day the distant nations, "the number of whom is as the sand of the sea," fall a prey to Satan. If we had not this fact revealed, we should have lost a crowning proof of man's evil and of Satan's wiles and power.

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city." The beloved city is Jerusalem; the camp of the saints is a larger circle and embraces all of Israel and those Gentiles who, being converted, refuse Satan's deceit. They flocked to that centre. It is an evident contrast with the state supposed in the wheat-and-tare field of Christendom which is found at the end of this age. Wheat and tares grow together till the process of judgment separates. At the end of the millennium the righteous and the wicked form two distinct arrays, though even the surrounding camp of the God-fearing Gentiles forms now a wider circle, distinct from the beloved city Jerusalem on earth, where the Jews were. But the good and bad were not mixed up as now. The unrenewed of the nations compass them both with their countless hosts, as if to eat them up like grasshoppers. "And fire came down out of the heaven [from God], and devoured them. And the devil that deceiveth them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] both the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night unto the ages of the ages."

But another scene follows still more solemn, the most awe-inspiring of all for man to contemplate, yet full of blessing for such as are Christ's to look onward to, putting down every enemy and trace of evil, and vindicating good where the creature altogether failed. Here is seen but one throne. It is the last judgment, the eternal judgment. Even when God was judging providentially, in the beginning of the Apocalyptic visions (Rev. 4), associated thrones were seen. When Christ came personally to judge and govern the quick (Rev. 20: 4), thrones were seen; for the risen saints reign with Him But now there is but one throne: Christ judges the dead. Not a word implies His then coming, but the risen wicked stand before the throne.

"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled and place was not found for them." This is of immense moment doctrinally, because it decisively proves that it is altogether unfounded to assume, as is popularly done, that the Lord only returns at this juncture. By the coming of the Lord all must mean His coining to the habitable earth. But manifestly, if the Lord does not come before this, there is no world to come to; for the earth and heavens were fled. The common notion therefore, that the coming of the Lord is at this point, is an evident fallacy upon the face of the scripture which describes it, not to speak of others that confirm it elsewhere. It is not a syllogism that is wanted or that can satisfy here: we only require, only believe, the word of God. A single verse dispels clouds of arguments.

Afterwards no doubt a new heaven and a new earth are seen; but who contends that this is the sphere to which the Lord comes? He will come as He went (Acts 1: 11). "His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east." To this earth He is coming, not to the new earth in the eternal state. To the same world in which He suffered He will, according to the scriptures, come back, and for seasons of refreshing from His presence. Then will be, not the day of the destruction of the universe, but times for restoring all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets since time began. These glorious times have never yet been accomplished, and therefore must be before eternity. They are reserved for Christ's presence and reign, as He waits for the joint-heirs before He enters on it. But for the eternal judgment heaven and earth fled away; when it is over, we see the new and eternal universe. Hence He must have come back previously to both. With this agrees His coming out of heaven in judgment of the earth, described in Revelation 19. He came to the world, and avenged His people on the Beast and the False Prophet with the kings and their armies; after which the risen saints reign with Him over the earth a thousand years. This it is, not on but over the earth. He with the glorified saints will have their home on high; none the less shall they reign over this world for the allotted time. Compare John 17: 22, 23.

Then, as seen, comes the final test of the nations of the earth after that kingdom has run its course, when the devil, let loose for a little, once more deceives flesh and blood after the analogy of all other dispensations. Even the age of visible glory cannot change the heart of man; though in the absence of the enemy and the controlling presence of the great King, they rendered feigned obedience for a long while. The kingdom can govern and bless but not convert man. Even the proclamation of the grace of God is powerless save it be brought home by the quickening energy of His own Spirit. In short no testimony can avail, no work, power, or glory, without the word of God applied by the Spirit of God. But in this is shown — what it is of importance to see — the true nature of the kingdom or millennial reign. "That day" does not mean a time when everybody will be converted, but when the Lord Jesus will govern righteously, when overt evil will at once be judged, and good be sustained wondrously for a thousand years. If any wrong should be done, it does not slip through. As far as the display of government goes, it is according to God morally and for His glory, though secret elements of evil may be there, never allowed to appear, but kept under if not expelled. But that the heart of man even so is not renewed becomes manifest, when Satan at the close deceives all that are not converted; and these, as we are told, are countless "as the sand of the sea."

Do not wonder at the vast numbers, or at their defection. The thousand years of peace and plenty will have given occasion for an ever-growing population, spite of a world thinned by divine judgments which open that era. It is to be supposed that it must far exceed anything yet seen on the face of the earth. At the beginning and all through the Apocalyptic transition there will have been carnage, and worse and worse, among both the western powers and those of the east. In fact all the nations will be desolated by judgments of one kind or another. For all that, the world abiding for a thousand years (with every outward blessing and the most admirable government administered by the blessed Lord Himself) will issue in the teeming and prosperous and long-living races of mankind. Since sin entered, the state of nature will be unexampled for the fruits of the earth and the enjoyment of all that God has made here below. Consequently an increase in population follows such as never has been approached since the world was made. Yet it afterwards appears that Satan will not fail to turn the masses of the nations into one vast rebellion against the objects of God's special favour on the earth, "the saints" who form then a vast "camp" round "the beloved city" of Israel. There will not be as now tares and wheat growing together; the righteous at once flock around the holy metropolis of the earth at that unwonted sight; and fire out of the heaven settles the insurrection. But now comes the judgment of the wicked for eternity which is in question.

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne, and books were opened, and another book was opened, which is of life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books according to their works." Before "God" is a spurious reading.

After this is not the destruction of those rebels by divine judgment, but the dissolution of heaven and earth. Jesus sits upon the great white throne. It is the judgment of the dead as such, who now rise and give account of their deeds. All the dead are there who had not part in the first resurrection. The nature of the case exempts of course the saints of the millennium;* and this very simply, because they are never said to die. There is no scriptural reason to infer that any saints die during the thousand years, but rather the contrary. Scripture is positive in Isaiah 65 that death during the millennium only comes as a specific judgment because of open rebellion. When a person dies, it will be a positive curse from God; if he die even a hundred years old, it will be like a babe dying now. Man converted will then not merely reach the natural term of a thousand years (as did neither Adam nor Methuselah), but pass that bound. If alive before the thousand years, he lives after the thousand years; in fact, he shall never taste death. From general principles we may be assured that the saints of the millennial earth will be changed when the heaven and the earth disappear. Assuredly they will be preserved through that crisis in some way suitable to divine wisdom. God has not told us how, nor is it ours to pry. He has reserved the matter, though not without enough to guide our thoughts. It is one of those cases which every now and then appear where God checks and reproves our curiosity, as He alone knows how to do perfectly. "Flesh and blood," we know, "cannot inherit the kingdom of God." According to the general scope of scripture, then, we may be quite sure that these saints, kept during this universal dissolution of the atmospheric heaven and the earth, will be translated to "new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness," in a condition new and meet for the eternal state into which they are ushered. Let others speculate, if they will; he who essays to conceive the detail is striving to draw a bow beyond the power of man.

* None, however, can be exempt from being manifested before the judgment-seat of Christ, or from giving an account of all done in the body. But no believer comes into judgment. (John 5: 24 compared with Rom. 14: and 2 Cor. 5) It is due to the Lord that all should be there manifested; it would be a great loss to the saints if it were not so. But to those who have not Christ, and are therefore found "naked," how awful, utter, and unending is their judgment when it comes!

The dead were judged, but not out of the book of life which has nothing to do with judgment. "The dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works." Why then is the book of life mentioned? Not because any of their names were written therein, but in proof that they were not. The book of life will confirm what is gathered from the books. If the books proclaim the evil works of the dead that stand before the throne, the book of life offers no defence on the score of God's grace. Scripture records no name whatever as written there among those judged. There was the sad register of undeniable sins on the one side; there was no writing of the name on the other side. Thus, whether the books or the book be examined, all conspire to declare the justice, the solemn but most affecting righteousness, of God's final irrevocable sentence. They were judged, each one, according to their works. "And if any one was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." Thus the only use that seems made of the book is negative and exclusive. Not that any of those judged (and the scene described is solely a resurrection of judgment) are said to be written there: we are shown rather that they were not found in that book.

Neither the sea nor the unseen world could longer hide their prisoners. "And the sea gave up the dead that [were] in it, and death and hades gave up the dead that [were] in them: and they were judged, each one, according to their works."

Again, Death and Hades are said to come to their end, personified as enemies. "And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." Thus was concluded all dealing on the Lord's part with both soul and body, and all that pertains to either. The race was now in the resurrection state either for good or for ill; and thus it must be for ever. Death and Hades, which had so long been executioners in a world where sin reigned, and still did their occasional office when righteousness reigned, themselves disappear where all traces of sin are consigned for ever. God is "all in all."

Revelation 21.

In the first eight verses of chap. 21 we have the new heaven and the new earth, but besides, awful to say, the lake of fire. Indeed it must be so, because, as we read in the end of the last chapter, there the lost were cast. But still it is an unspeakably solemn fact to read, which we are bound to preach. Even in the perfect state of eternity, while there is the brightness of the heaven and of the earth into which no evil can enter, we equally see the evil that ever has been, all the wicked of every clime and of every age, cast into the fixed condition of eternal judgment in the lake of fire. "The sea is no more" — a fact quite different from the millennium. The sea, so important for all life as it is, vanishes thence, no more needed, nor even consistent with the new and eternal conditions.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the heaven, saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he shall tabernacle with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God. And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; nor grief nor cry nor distress shall be any more; [for] the first things passed away. And he that sitteth on the throne said,

Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write, for these words are true and faithful. And he said to me, It is come to pass. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that thirsteth of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But for the fearful and unbelieving [and sinners] and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part [is] in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death." What a picture of eternity! How worthy of God, and how different from the dreams of monks and priests, on the one hand, and on the other from all the impostures of the east!

Observe a singularly important fact. All the dispensational names of God disappear. It is only "God" and "men" now. There is nothing more to hear of "nations"; nothing remains of separate countries and kingdoms, of kindreds or tongues. It is the eternal state; and, in fact, the fullest description of that state furnished in the Bible. But 1 Corinthians 15: 24-28 reveals a great truth not here spoken of, yet quite consistent with it, that as Christ received the millennial kingdom as man, He gives it up when the aim shall be fulfilled. His rights as God remain unchanging.

Although there is such a levelling of temporal distinctions, and men have to do directly with God (men raised from the dead, in their changed condition, according to Christ in His counsels), we still see the Jerusalem on high, "the holy city, new Jerusalem," separate from the rest of those that fill the new heaven and earth. This is of great importance; because if the new Jerusalem be, as no doubt it is, the bride the Lamb's wife, then we have her separate condition asserted in eternity. This is His tabernacle, and it is regarded as a distinct object, no doubt associated with men, but not confounded with them. Men are not regarded as composing this tabernacle; they co-exist. It is no longer above (that is in the thousand years), but come down, that God may thus tabernacle with men, and Himself be with them; their God. What rest! These things the overcomer shall inherit.

All things are thus made new; and further, "these words are faithful and true." Nothing more needs to be done. As God is the beginning, so is He the end; nor this only, but the Revealer of all from first to last. As His grace furnished freely of the fountain of the water of life to the thirsty one, and thus strengthened him to win the victory over the world and him who ever opposes God and His Son; so the fearful who did not trust Him, and the unbelieving, with the sad train of evildoers that springs from such dishonour of God, have their portion where His wrath burns unquenchably. They judged themselves unworthy of life eternal; on them the second death exerts its resistless power. Hence no scheme can be less intelligent, or more inconsistent, than the strange disarrangement of such as synchronise Rev. 21: 1-8 with the millennium. Such exposition is indeed lame, halt, and blind. Sometimes the one thing, sometimes the other, cannot pass muster.

Here occurs a remarkable change in the sequence of the visions, though easily understood; for it must be evident that there can be nothing to follow this in point of time, seeing that it is the eternal state. Here then we unquestionably go back to be shown an important object in the prophecy which could not, without interrupting its course, have been described before. Yet in this it is as we saw in Revelation 17, after Babylon had been brought before us in the course of the prophecy. Babylon had been seen twice: first, in the septenary of God's warnings and testimonies (Rev. 14); and then as the object of God's judgment under the seven Bowls (Rev. 16). Afterwards a full description of Babylon and its relation to the Beast and the ten kings is given. It would have been awkward to bring in this long description before, because the flow of the prophetic stream would have been interrupted. It is a subsequent appendix in Rev. 17 and 18.

An exactly similar order is repeated here, and it becomes the more apparent from the similarity of the introduction on each occasion. "And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls full of the seven last strokes, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Who does not see that this is precisely analogous to the verse which opened the description of Babylon (Rev. 17: 1), Is it too much to believe that God intended this analogy to be noted by us? In neither case is it a pursuance of the prophetic course of time. But this is a description of the holy city previously (Rev. 19: 6-8) to our deep interest set before us, just as the other was a description of the corrupt city, whose judgment had been fully announced. We had Babylon with a spuriously ecclesiastical but a really murderous character, and at the same time guilty of corruption with the kings of the earth and riding the Beast, with the closing catastrophe.

Here is seen coming down out of heaven from God the holy city, which is declared to be the bride, the Lamb's wife, in the plainest contrast with the vile harlot. Yet to this heavenly city, after Christ comes, the kings of the earth bring their offerings and their homage, in contrast with her maddening excitement of the nations, her filthy fornication with their rulers, her blood-guiltiness as to the saints of Jesus, and her abominations against God. In short Babylon, the disgusting counterpart of the holy city, in earthly ambition seeks the kings and the masses for her own lusts, while God's church suffers now in patient faith and love, and shall reign when Christ reigns. The one therefore throws much light upon the other.

But we may also notice that the truth as to this proves its exceeding importance. For if we heed the plain fact of retrospect at this point, there is a complete removal of the difficulty caused by taking the last vision of this book as part of the prophetic series which began in Revelation 19. Clearly it is an added digression for the purpose of fully describing an object already named passingly in the foregoing series, which really closes at Revelation 21: 8. As Revelation 17 was a descriptive digression, so is the portion from chapter 21: 9. The account given of Babylon in Revelation 17 does not follow Revelation 14 or 16 in point of prophetic time, but wholly differs from them in this respect. It gives a retrogressive account of Babylon's character, and shows how its enormity morally compelled the divine judgment. So here a description is given of the bride, the Lamb's wife; and we learn how it is that God will use her as the vessel of His glory for unmeasured goodness and blessing in the millennium, as the devil during this age has used Babylon, seeking and abusing the world's glory, unto the dishonour of God and of His Son, to accomplish his destructive plans of evil here below. Just as the city of man's confusion was seen in her vile, degraded, and degrading relations with the Beast and the kings of the earth, this city is seen in her pure and glorious relations with the Lamb, and with the kings and the nations of the earth also.

"And he carried me away in Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, having the glory of God." It is not into a wilderness the prophet is now carried, but set on "a mountain great and high," and shown, not the great but "the holy city Jerusalem." The great city before was either earthly Jerusalem or yet more Babylon. Here we have to guard against a prevalent error. The holy city shown to the prophet is declared to be, not the abode of the bride but the bride herself, viewed here in a governmental point of view, the metropolis of the kingdom to come and indeed of all creation, still with special reference to the kings and the nations of the earth. Earthly Jerusalem, so prominent everywhere in the Old Testament prophets, is not seen here, but the holy city that comes down out of heaven from God; and she is the bride of the Lamb. It is still in a governmental aspect. For the city is seen now as the holy vessel of divine power coming down out of the heaven from God for governing the earth during the millennium, "having the glory of God: and her light-bearing was like a stone most precious, as jasper stone like crystal," which naturally jasper is not, any more than gold is like pure glass. It is intentionally supernatural and symbolic.

Then follows a description of the wall, gates, foundations, and general position. "Having a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names inscribed which are [those] of the twelve tribes of [the] children of Israel." It was important, just because it is the bride, the Lamb's wife, to show that angels serve there, and further, that Israel is not forgotten. The very name indeed shows a similar design; yet we must not forget that the church can only be heavenly. Still God does not conceal His ways with His old people. As the angels here are seen in the quality of porters that stand at the gates; so for the twelve tribes of Israel, they are merely written there. No hint whatever is given that they constitute any part of the city, but there is the inscription of their names outside. That city will be a constant remembrancer of those who went before restored Israel here below, as undoubtedly it will be used for their blessing during the millennium, when all the families of the earth are also blessed. It is plain that the city's aspect is central for the universe, yet not without a special thought and mark of Israel; and is it not quite right that it should be so? "On [the] east three gates, on [the] north three gates, on [the] south three gates, and on [the] west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." These would appear to be (save Judas Iscariot, of course) the twelve apostles peculiarly associated with Christ in His suffering path on the earth God is sovereign. It is not meant that he who was more honoured in service than any of the twelve, he whom the Lord used for bringing out the church of the heavenly places, will not have his own most singular dignity in this glorious scene. Still God acts in a wisdom far above man, and holds to His principles even there. The twelve apostles of the Lamb will accordingly have their own special place. We may be very sure that God will not give a worse place to the apostle Paul; yet we may discern that this is scarcely his place.

"And he that spoke with me had a golden reed au a measure, that he might measure the city, and its gates, and its wall. And the city lieth four-square, and its length [is] as great as the breadth. And he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs: the length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. And he measured its wall a hundred [and] forty-four cubits, a man's measure, that is [the] angel's." If the last be the thickness of the wall, which otherwise does not appear, it has been suggested that it was not for protection against a foe. As a whole it was a cube. Infinite it could not be, but finite perfection. Thus there is a completeness and perfection about it suited to its then present and everlasting character.

Afterwards we come to its intrinsic description, and this — of the building of its wall, its foundations, its gates, and its street. Jasper kept up the manifestation of God's governmental glory, as gold divine righteousness in access to God, and this like pure glass where was no question of evil but transparent purity. The very foundations displayed the varied out-shinings of His nature. It was no question longer of testifying on the High Priest's breast how precious were His people to Him. And what a figure of moral beauty in the twelve gates, each of which was one pearl, utterly beyond nature! "And the building of its wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like pure glass The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst.* And the twelve gates [were] twelve pearls, each one of the gates severally was of one pearl. And the street of the city [was] pure gold, transparent as glass." How it all lifts us up above man and nature!

* It may interest the reader to know that the most learned of authorities, in his History of Precious Stones, avows his profound wonder at the arrangement of the twelve foundation courses of the New Jerusalem. Notoriously it differs wholly from that of the High Priest's breast-plate, or rationale as the Latins have rendered the λογεῖον or περιστήθιον." "Instead of this S. John has most ingeniously disposed of them according to their various shades of the same colour, as the following list will demonstrate, taking them in order from the bottom upwards." "So minute an acquaintance with the nicest shades of colour of the precious stones will more forcibly impress the reader, if he should attempt to arrange from memory, and by his own casually acquired knowledge alone, twelve gems, or even half that number, according to their proper tints. The 'sainted seer' alludes in other passages . . . in a very technical manner" [iv. xxi. 11]...." Such allusions display that exact knowledge of particulars, only possessed by persons dealing in precious stones or from other circumstances obliged to have a practical acquaintance with their nature; which could never have been found in a Galilean fisherman, unless we choose to cut the knot of the difficulty with the ever-ready sword of verbal inspiration." Oh! the helplessness of man's ability and erudition, when he fears to believe in God's writing His word through man. The difficulty then vanishes, and is solved to His glory, without recourse to cutting any knot. How sad when a clergyman is not ashamed to avow his scepticism, and prefers to leave unsolved so striking a dilemma, as he frankly acknowledges, rather than own the divine source, character, and authority of scripture! All is simple and sure to faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

Further, a negative point of great importance is presented by the seer. "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty is its temple, and the Lamb." This was no real lack. On the contrary, it proved the immediateness of communion. The temple would suppose a medium. The absence of a temple is therefore no loss but a gain for this city. It furnishes material for a contrast between the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly city, because if there be one thing more remarkable than another in Ezekiel's description, it is the temple to be. But here there is none; a temple is for the earth. The heavenly city, which is the full expression of blessedness on high, has no temple because it is all temple. "And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they should shine for it." This too must not be viewed as if it were a loss. As for the earthly land and city, the moon will have her light increased to that of the sun, and the sun shall be sevenfold. But here there is neither; and this again is an evidence of gain immeasurable. "For the glory of God enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." Creature lights are gone, that the divine may illumine.

After "the nations" in verse 24 omit the words "of them which are saved." The best authorities leave out this addition, without which we have the true force of the verse. It is a wholly unwarranted interpolation. "The nations shall wall: in the light of it." Any one of spiritual judgment can see that it should not be "nations of them which are saved." What would be the meaning, if so read? We can understand a remnant saved out of one or more nations; but who ever heard of "nations of them which are saved"? It is altogether unfeasible, and it shows how carelessly people read the Bible that they are not stopped by such an expression. "The saved" is a term which, so far from belonging to the nations, is expressly applied to the Jewish remnant when it is a technical term. But "nations of them which are saved" is an altogether anomalous expression, and betrays man as its blundering author.

But it is plain that the nations are not in the city. "And the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour unto it" — not into, but unto. That is, it is an expression of the homage that they pay. The word means either as the context may require. "And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for night shall not be there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations unto it. And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, nor one making abomination and a lie; but only those written in the book of life of the Lamb." Moral unfitness has its solemn censure; but sovereign grace must be asserted also as in the last clause. Only such objects of divine love were here admissible.

Revelation 22.

Another glorious description follows. "And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, going out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." The last words indicate a new governmental form of deep interest. It is not now lightnings and thunders and voices: these were the characters of provisional judgment that filled the interval after the church was gone, and before the reign with Christ. But when Christ and the church peacefully reign, that is the imagery which suits. "In the midst of its street and of the river, on this side and on that, [was] life's tree" — not merely as the original one, but now according to the fulness of the provision of God's grace for man on the earth, yet also for man in glory — "bearing twelve fruits, in each month yielding its fruit; and the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations." In Eden's paradise there was no "healing" power; there was the tree of life, but only death for the disobedient. Man on the earth has his portion in the goodness of a God who is manifesting His kingdom; and from the heavenly city is provision for healing the nations; whereas "the nation and kingdom that will not serve 'Zion' shall perish."

"And no curse shall be any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him, and they shall see his face, and his name [shall be] on their foreheads. And night shall not be any more; and they need no light of lamp, and light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light; and they shall reign unto the ages of the ages." The reign for a thousand years is not all. In another way as here the saints shall reign without limit. (See Rom. 5: 17.) The pure in heart shall see God, as they shall serve Him in glory. The description closes in verse 5

After that we have suited admonitions to the end of this book. On these a few words may suffice.

Verses 6, 7, commend these sayings afresh; and the coming of the Lord is urged in connection with them. "And he said to me, These words are faithful and true; and the Lord, the God of the prophets, sent his angel to show to his bondmen the things which must shortly come to pass. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book." Responsibility is here impressed in this respect, as we have seen before also.

But it is added, "And I John am he that heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to do homage before the feet of the angel that showed me these things. And he saith to me, See [that thou do it] not: I am fellow-bondman with thee and with thy brethren the prophets, and with them that keep the words of this book. Do homage to God. And he saith to me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book." Again the character of it, as derived from Christianity having already taken its place, is here asserted. In Daniel's time, expressly to Daniel himself, the book was to be sealed, and even the old oracles were sealed then: not so John's. "And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." In Daniel's time it was not at hand. But now Christ is come, and is dead, risen, and glorified. To the church the end is always near. In her own course, and in the matters of her portion, the church does not know time at al!. All that instinctively belongs to the body of Christ is unearthly and unworldly. The church is heavenly; and in heaven are no times or seasons. There may be lights of the heaven to mark times and seasons for the earth; and to the lamp of prophecy we do well to pay heed. But the church consists of souls called out from the earth, and is not of the world: consequently to the Christian the time is always at hand.

When Christ at God's right hand was announced even from the very beginning, He was ready to judge the quick and the dead. He remains in this condition of readiness from the time when He sat at God's right hand till the present. The church goes on according to the will of the Lord, who might according to His own purpose lengthen or abridge the space. It is entirely in God's hand, and in none other's. Whereas for the Jew, there are necessary dates and momentous changes that must take place; and hence, as Daniel represents the Jew, we have the difference kept up. To the Christian this book is not sealed. All is opened, and this because we have the Holy Ghost dwelling in us; "for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."

Therefore we find in connection with the book a most solemn warning: "Let him that is unrighteous be unrighteous still; and let the filthy be filthy still ; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Here is intimated that the time will come on earth, when the testimony of grace terminates. All after that is fixed for good or ill. With this too the Lord's coming is fitly connected. "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me to render to each as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed [are] they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie." When the hour comes that is spoken of here, it is not for us, but for those who will be found after we are gone. All is then fixed. There will be no time for seeking mercy at the last: whatever the state in which the Lord at His coming will find men, all is closed up and fixed. We see that it is in connection with the foregoing, not His coming for such as do keep the sayings of it, but for those whom He shall find here below, "to give to each as his work is."

Further, Jesus here introduces Himself, as well as sends His angel. '"I Jesus sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright the morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come: and let him that heareth say, Come: and let him that is athirst come: let him that will take life's water freely." Thus the name of Christ, not merely as the Root and the Offspring of David but as the bright Morning-star, calls out responsively the heart of the church, and this too under the guiding activity of the Holy Ghost. The church cannot hear of Him as the bright Morning-star without at once desiring that He should come. She does not say, it is true, "Come quickly." This would not be fitting for the church or for the Christian. Patience or endurance of hope is what becomes us. Nor could it have had weight, even if suited. But it is blessed that He says, "I come quickly"; and it is only Christ who in scripture ever says so. We as properly say, "Come." Desire as we may that He should come quickly, we leave this to Him, because we know His love and can trust Him. If He tarries, it is not that He is "slack concerning his promise," but that His long-suffering brings salvation to many. And who could defraud either the soul of salvation, or the Lord of showing it? It is Himself thus presented and as the bright Morning-star who brings into activity the church in her due expression of affection as bride. Here at the end we are outside the governmental strain of the book, as we see for the saints individually at the beginning of the parenthesis in Revelation 1: 5, 6.

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come." It is to Jesus. To whom else could they say it? The bride breathes out the word to the Bridegroom; and the Holy Spirit is He that gives fervour to her desire that Christ should come. But there is a message also to others. There is a word, even if one entered little into the bride's consciousness, to him that hears: "Let him that heareth say, Come." He is encouraged to repeat the same cry. As a believer, be not afraid though you may know but little; for the Lord neither forgets nor slights real faith, however unintelligent. Has He not this class in view when He invites those who hear His voice to say, "Come "

The bride properly represents such as enter into the normal possession and enjoyment of the privileges nearest to Christ: if there are many who fall short of this practically, they are provided for in grace. "Let him that heareth say, Come." At least they know the Saviour's love and hear His voice, and, far from these being left out, they are invited individually to say, "Come." To hear Him may not be the appropriation of all; but it is an incalculable boon for the soul, the turning-point of all blessing. It is just the way into all, if it be not the entrance upon all and its enjoyment actually. "Let him that heareth say, Come." There is nothing in the coming of Jesus to harm or disturb him; there is everything in His coming to soothe, cheer, and satisfy. At that moment he will be changed and conformed to the image of God's Son. The image of the man of dust shall give place to that of the Heavenly One, who shall transform our body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory according to the working whereby He has power even to subdue all things to Himself. At once and for ever he shall be like Himself inwardly and outwardly: what can be so assuring to the saint?

But while there is such a bridal, and such a believer's, call for Christ to come, it is not overlooked how many there are insensible to Him. To such His coming could be no joy, but in their state dismay and despair. The hope of His coming draws out on their behalf the deep feelings and earnest appeals of those who wait for Him. Hence the added calls of grace, "And let him that thirsteth come; he that will, let him take life's water freely." Not either of these classes outside is asked to say, "Come." This would be vain, untrue, and profane, till they have drunk life's water in His name. But even as they are, grace calls on each of these to come to the still accessible and ready and unfailing Saviour. Be one ever so overwhelmed with sense of sin, ever so conscious of having paid the penalty of long turning from the Fountain of living waters, "let him that thirsteth come." Jesus ever lives, and is ever near, now to give life's water. Yea, if only made willing by God's grace to receive the indispensable boon, which neither believer nor church can supply, Jesus stoops to his need: "he that will, let him take life's water freely." But, O reader, forget not that grace despised ends in judgment; and the deeper the grace, the more sure and severe God's judgment; and Jesus the Lord shall pronounce and execute it.

Then follows a tremendous warning against any meddling with the words of this book: "I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any one add unto these, God shall add unto him the strokes that are written in this book; and if any one take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, that are written in this book." Its integrity is thus guarded, if any warning could alarm audacious self-confident man.

"He that testifieth these things saith, Yea, I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus." What care to keep the hearts of His own fixed and fervent and constant in the blessed hope! And this, not only by His assurance, but by the revealed and ready response of the inspired writer. We misread prophecy, if we put off that hope. "The grace of the Lord Jesus [Christ be] with all the saints. Amen." So ends this book, and the Bible.

Revelation 1 - 3.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of Lectures on the Book of Revelation.

(The Translation by W. Kelly of the Revelation of John is included as the file revtrans.doc. Search for 'revelation /2/ john'.)

Preface.

The Lectures here presented to the reader were taken in shorthand, and printed in 1858-9 in a periodical form, with additions or retrenchments throughout. In 1861 a new and corrected edition appeared, preceded in 1860 by a critical edition of the Greek text with a close English translation and a full statement of the authorities (MSS., versions, and early citations) and various readings in the notes. In 1868 a new edition in the periodical form was issued, and the following year again in the collected form.

I trust that, in spite of many hindrances to such a revision as one might desire, the present edition will be found not only enlarged, but more accurate, though few are likely to be so sensible of its defects as myself. May the gracious Lord, who deigned to use it for the good of souls, even when certainly encumbered with greater drawbacks, bless its fresh circulation to the refreshment of His own and the warning of the careless or even the scornful among such as know Him not!

Introduction.

That the day in which we live is serious and fraught with change of the gravest character is doubted by no thoughtful mind. A sage of this world has issued his Latter-day Pamphlets. For near a century the air has been full of revolution. Men take pleasure, especially in experimental science, which has yielded not a few brilliant results, and some of them eminently practical in facilitating the intercourse of men and minds. Hence a tendency to glorify success, especially in material things, and to look more than ever for progress in the future. The past is either slighted utterly or condoned patronisingly and with pity. All things are made matters of question. The age prepares to put the most venerable authority on its trial speculatively as it will in fact ere long. But it essays a more audacious flight; it already counts itself wiser than God's word, and will soon accept a man as God Himself in His temple.

Has the Holy Spirit wrought after no special sort in presence of Satan's activity and new wiles? As it is according to God to work invariably for His own glory but in ways admirably adapted to the dangers and wants of His own, so has He proved in our day. He has recalled His children far and wide to Christ's person and work, to the Spirit and His presence, to their own forgotten privileges as Christians and the church now, as well as to the hope of His coming shortly.

Hence if on one side the world's restless love of change has imperilled the solid hold of what is good and of God, on the other side grace has disabused many of prejudices, detected faulty or imperfect views, and opened hearts to truths stored in scripture but in vain till the Holy Ghost made them living. To this the powerful conviction that the Lord is at hand contributed largely, as it raised in hearts and consciences the solemn question of the church's state and of our own as individuals.

Thus for good as for evil it does not satisfy to cite the ways and thoughts of men in the last few centuries. Some doubtless drench themselves with the dregs of the dark ages; others go back to the impressions of the first four centuries after Christ, and think they have done much when they find themselves coinciding with the Greek or Latin ecclesiastics of those days. But not a few there are, I thank the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who have been taught of Him to confide only in the scriptures by the Spirit — not in testimony since the apostles, but in their divinely-inspired writings.

If the spirit of revolution or of superstition slight the work which God effected by the labours of the reformers, faith values indeed and gives God thanks for what He did then, but goes straight up to the fresh fountains of revealed truth, and owns these to be the needed, sweet, and sure resource of divine grace for an hour when evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.

It appears to me then that, while it is wanton to reject the work of the Lord's servants either at the Reformation or in days before or since, it is not the wisdom which befits the believer at any time, least of all in face of our increasing snares and perils, to stop short of the sources which are as accessible to us as to those who originally received them, which only unbelief prompted men to forsake, to the grief of the Spirit and their own irreparable loss. It is good to respect Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Cranmer, Jewell; it is better — yea, a bounden duty to test what these said and others, respectable indeed but inferior to them, to test their thoughts by the living and abiding word of God. Why swear to the words of an earthly master, or of a school which sprung later from his words, when God has vouchsafed His own, and given us the Spirit who abides in us for ever?

Rationalism can find not a little material and an apparent sanction for its own bolder impiety from the unguarded words of the greatest of reformers. Pious Protestants cherish the memory of their works, and ban, on their words as articles of faith and hope. But there is no need for the Christian to be a Protestant, no excuse for becoming a rationalist. Why not take the whole written word and trust the Holy Spirit to give us all the truth suited to the exigencies of today, as He was pleased to strengthen others yesterday? The word of God as such claims our homage as the sole rule, and this too as a whole, not that measure only which was blessed to and in others who have passed before us. The Reformation is not Christianity, nor are Luther and his fellows the apostle Paul and the other apostles.

I am thoroughly convinced that the admirable men of the Reformation, though greatly beyond those who followed in the or seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, were no more spiritually fit to traverse safely the field of prophecy than their descendants at the present time. It is a thing as unknown among Protestants as among Romanists to meet with souls consciously dead to sin and law, standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ makes free. Still less do they apprehend aright the union of saints with Christ by the Spirit, and the character of the assembly of God as the body of Christ or even as the house of God. Unacquainted with these truths, as little emancipated individually from every hindrance and bond as their systems are from the Popish leaven of a consecrated caste with its efficacious rites, they habitually gravitate toward Judaism, and this in a prophetic scheme quite as much as in doctrine and walk.

The grounds of this judgment the reader may find too abundantly, if otherwise he himself knows it not, in these lectures. It is useless, save for party purposes, to meet the charge by peremptory denial and haughty contempt. I am sure I love the reformers with a hearty affection in the Lord, as I do those who adopt their views as a standard in our day; but I believe that it is no disparagement to either if we, profiting it may be by their footsteps, seek to go on to know the word of the Lord more fully.

The reader will see that there is frequent reference in these pages to Mr. E. B. Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae. I meant this as an act of sincere respect to him and his elaborate commentary, the best representative of the Protestant school. It is with regret that one observes a ruffled tone in his notice of my criticisms.* His answers I shall here review in the hope that he may be convinced of oversight at least in some important details, if not in grave first principles.

*Thus his note 3 to p. 643 is a great exaggeration of anything I expected, which was, not that he would abandon his general scheme (no such exorbitant thought being ever anticipated), but that he might see how incorrect were some of his positions,. not only in detailed points, but even in the structural division of Rev. 21.

And first I must say that it is not fairly put (i.p. 18) to assert that 1, whom he is pleased to classify "on the Futurist side," have distinctly renounced many of the chief dogmas of the original "Futurist school." I might have let this pass, though in my opinion likely to produce the erroneous impression that I had put forth futurism once and since "renounced" many of its chief dogmas; but taken alone, with his still stronger language in the same direction (iv. p. 644), it seemed due both to Mr. Elliott and to his readers to correct the error. "In fine (says he), we may, I think, safely conclude to receive Mr. W. Kelly's judgment, so far as it goes, in favour of the Protestant Historical view of the Apocalyptic prophecy, as that forced upon a person originally altogether prejudiced against it." Mr. E. has not the least warrant for these last words. I am sorry to occupy space about a personal matter. It is more important to state that, years before the first edition of the Horae Apocalypticae appeared in 1844, there were Christians who waited for Christ and looked for the personal Antichrist, with the many momentous consequences of both views, yet held the general application of the Apocalypse to the saints and the world since the time of St. John, as stated in my lectures. Nor ought Mr. Elliott to have forgotten this (as I doubt not he did); for I have so told him orally and given him a work by a friend of mine to that effect, which was published in 1839. He should not therefore have spoken of "renouncing" futurist dogmas once entertained, any more than of "a person originally altogether opposed to the Protestant view."

On another point too I am surprised that such a man should so gravely misunderstand. He contrasts with Mr. Barker's vague and indefinite views my writing "distinctly and expressly, and moreover in a certain way authoritatively, as if speaking as the organ of a not unimportant party in the Christian Church" — this because of my using the word "we" sufficiently often to leave this impression. (e.g. Introd. p. ix.) Let me say in few words that I am simply comparing the thoughts of such as like myself admit a partial application of the Revelation to the past, but believe that the errand and close fulfilment of its central prophetic visions — Rev. 6 to Rev. 16 — will be after the translation of those set forth by the elders or glorified saints, and in order to their appearing with Christ in glory. I am not alone in these convictions, which are shared by many intelligent persons, both Anglican and Nonconformist, besides those who like myself refuse to take a sectarian place in the present chaos of Christendom. Whatever of "authoritativeness" was in my words is due solely to my firm conviction of the divine word, not in the least to being the organ of a party important or not, a thing as far from the fact as foreign to my own feeling and judgment of what is due to the Lord and the church.

The first and main difference which severs Mr. E. and myself as interpreting the book is his denial of that which to me is certain, that the epistles to the seven Asiatic churches were intended to give more than the actual state in St. John's day, and to figure successively the most characteristic phases of the church from apostolic times to the consummation. Mr. E. in a periodical long since defunct had urged some objections to the late Mr. Trotter's statement of similar convictions in his well-known Plain Papers. It seemed to Mr. E. inconsistent with the analogy of scripture prophecy and with plain fact.*

*I cite the substance of the remarks that follow from the Introduction of the same edition, pp. iv.-vi.

My answer was that it is in vain to appeal to Dan. 2, 7, 11, or other such prophecies, which have no analogy with the addresses of the Lord Jesus to these Christian assemblies. These are manifestly sui generis and have no connection with the fortunes of the world, or the successive rising and setting of its powers. Supposing such quasi-prophetic sketches to have been intended of God, the intermingling of the chief changes of civil government among men would be to my mind an incongruous mixture, instead of being a necessary element of consistency.

Next it is said to be contrary to plain fact; because in more than one of the epistles the prominent characteristics of the church addressed disagree utterly from the state of the Christian church at the assigned era. So, for example, very specially in that to Thyatira, where nothing less than an unintentional* mutilation is charged on the effort to make out a case at all plausible for applying it to the dominion of Popery in the dark ages, the eye being fixed on the exception Jezebel, not on the church in Thyatira. Whereas, instead of prevalent irreligion and the almost complete extinction of testimony for Christ, the epistle depicts a high state of piety in the general professing body there: and with the power in their hands, which it was their grand fault not duly to exercise, of interdicting and stopping the teaching of the woman Jezebel.

*In the H.A., iv. 642, note, Mr. E. says "Not 'intentional' mutilation; as Mr. W. K. very unwarrantably represents me as saying. I had, and have, too much regard for Mr. T. to entertain such an idea." This somewhat startled me, as I had certainly written as Mr. E. said unintentional; and so it was in all the copies of my book that I could see. Accordingly I wrote to Mr. E. asking whether it was the fact that his copy of my book made me represent him as saying "intentional" where I had really written the precise reverse, as he said himself. It was possible of course that in his particular copy the printer might, by some singular accident if not intention, have thrown out the important prefix "un" which had led him to so strong and rash a charge against me, who certainly would not on any account misrepresent any man. Mr. E. wrote immediately a private acknowledgement that it was his mistake, not my misrepresentation. I understood from him that he had been troubled before he wrote his critique with an attack of a complaint which often leads men to see things in a wrong light. Any one is liable to a mistake, particularly if he writes a rejoinder, when it is not a case of the "double sight" he imputes metaphorically to me in the same page, but under the influence of such a malady (not morally, but physically) not quite passed away. But I humbly think that he owed it to the Lord, his readers, and himself, to have publicly corrected so gross and groundless an insinuation, instead of leaving it to me now nine years after it was disseminated to all the world.

Such is a full statement of this objection; but it has no real force. For it must be borne in mind that our [i.e. Mr. T.'s and my] hypothesis assumes a twofold application, and therefore necessarily shuts out a rigid facsimile, which supposes a single set of circumstances wherein it can be verified. The churches are addressed as such, that is, as standing on the footing on which Christ had set the church, though the evils that were come or coming in are notified to those churches as thus responsible. The address is not to Balaam or Jezebel, but to assemblies where the germs of those symbolic forms of iniquity were found, and therein to those who had the consciousness of the Christian profession. Plainly therefore it is the character, not necessarily the extent, of the evil (or of the state, whatever it might be), which is or could be noticed here. If it was general deadness, such is the state indicated, and that in a particular order; if the seductions of false teachers were aimed at, this is also found; but in no case is there an attempt to define the extent of the sphere which might be thus leavened.

Hence I do not see in Thyatira a broken centre in the array of evidence, but rather an unmistakably strong and conspicuous front. The solemn principle that appears in it is that even there the church was then the birthplace of children born to Jezebel in adultery. The point is not the number of her children; but that, up to the Lord's warning, the saints accepted this condition of things. There might be ever so abundant works and service, faith and love. Still the evil of Jezebel was allowed. The good was no doubt far more prominent in the primitive Christian assembly, the evil no longer an exception winked at, but infinitely more developed and systematized in mediaeval Christendom; though I am far from thinking that, in these dark ages, there may not have been an amount of loving though unintelligent devotedness, of which it becomes not men of the present hour to speak too lightly. In short the epistle applied literally to Thyatira in St. John's days, while for him who has ears to hear there is much to intimate a further reference to a time when Jezebel and her children might have the upper hand, a faithful remnant be defined most strikingly, and faith called to look onward to the Lord's coming as the only solace.

It is quite the mistake of Mr. E. that this view implies that Protestants are "the synagogue of Satan." For I agree with many, living as well as dead, that Protestantism is set forth by Sardis. The other most sweeping sentence of the Holy Ghost prefigured those who insist on a traditional religion of sacramentalism and succession, the modern Judaizers, who have put forth such painfully successful efforts to revive a system of doctrine and rites, which, nipped in the bud by apostolic vigilance, especially by St. Paul, afterwards expanded into gigantic proportions in the catholic days of early Christendom, even before the empire had renounced Paganism, and of course long before the full-blown Popery of Rome. (Compare Rev. 2: 9 with Rev. 3: 9) Can anything more exactly describe them, though good men, like a Barnabas of old, may be ensnared in it for a while?

The argument drawn from the agreement or from the discord of commentators, Mr. E. probably knows I do not consider entitled to much attention. But, from the days of Abbot Joachim at least till our own, it is impossible to deny that some of the most godly and thoughtful students of the book have embraced the view of a. prophetic is well as historical sense of these epistles. Brightman, Forbes, Mede, More, Gill, Sir I. Newton, Vitringa, and Cunninghame, are among the names of departed writers, who might well claim respectful attention, especially from their companions of the Protestant school. Shades of difference there are between these and others; but all agree in the common principle of a continuous and periodistic force appertaining to the seven epistles. And so far is this from being a peculiarity of those who look for a future personal Antichrist, that, on the contrary mere futurism is opposed to it as decidedly as praeterism.

In short I do not affirm that the seven epistles to the Asiatic churches are strictly prophetic, like "the things which must be after these," which are the prophecies of the book. But I do hold that, just as Daniel 3 - 6 gives us historical facts divinely selected, "is ever the case with inspiration, and in strict keeping as prophetic types with the formal visions of the prophet, so is it with the mystery of the seven golden candlesticks. They had, like the incidents recorded of the kings in Babylon, a bearing deeper than the history, and like them also they pave the way for the predictions which follow. As with all types or parables, it is only a cavil to insist on a technical minuteness of application in order to throw overboard the profound lessons of truth they convey to the circumcised ear. The objection of Mr. E. is the less reasonable in the instance of Thyatira, because in types every one familiar with them knows that the woman typically represents a given slate, good or evil, the man rather activity in good or evil. On the other hand, it was important to guard against the notion that God sanctioned so frightful a state of Popery, which was but an enormous falling away from the truth, the real witnesses in His eyes being now "the rest" or "remnant," who were then first defined in this typico-historic sketch of Christendom. For myself, though I may fail to convince those who are strongly committed to a denial of the protracted view of "the things that are," I cannot see how, if the Spirit had designed such a view, the elements for it could have been otherwise so admirably disposed to that end without destroying its past use. What Mr. E. taunts as "a most curious double view" is really characteristic of scripture in general; and of all the inspired writers, he who is at once the deepest and the most sober is the one who most frequently initiates us into this use of Old Testament facts and persons. That it should be employed in a more orderly method and a more complete measure in the Revelation than in preceding books of prophecy is exactly in harmony with what is true in all other respects of that book as compared with the prophets who went before St. John, Why should deep-reaching perfectness be incredible in his eyes? Ample reasons have been given for so interpreting these epistles, besides answering his objections in a way satisfactory to many unbiassed men.

Nor does Mr. E. attempt fairly to grapple with the vision of the twenty-four crowned elders in Rev. 4, 5, corroborated by their position throughout the book, as proving the translation of the saints after the seven churches are closed and before the proper prophetic action begins. "A. double view truly marvellous!" (p. 648) is a feeble reply to a plain fact which I urge afresh on Mr. E., and which neither he nor any other historicalist has ever fairly faced. There is scarce more difficulty in the mode of the twofold application here than in the ordinary difference of the type and its antitype (p. 644). Such a difference is credible to Mr. E. in the high priest literally and typically; nor is there a whit more of particularity in the Apocalypse than in Leviticus. The order and accuracy in detail are divinely perfect throughout Scripture, though Dr. Fairbairn in his Typology is as slow to believe in the figures of the law as Mr. E. in those of the Apocalypse. I am sure that "my more intelligent readers" will agree with me that this is little to the credit of two men who have undertaken a task to which they prove themselves somewhat unequal, and that such reasoning and pleasantry, or whatever it may be best designated, will be acceptable to such only as feebly know the scriptures and the power of God.

Thus was the case put in my former Introduction: "In passing it may here be asked, What satisfactory reason can historicalists offer for the occurrence of such scenes [as Rev. 4, 5] at this point? It is easy to make remarks on the heavenly company and the Apocalyptic scenery; that is, particular points in the vision; but why and how have we such a vision here at all? There is no serious attempt that I know of to account for the disappearance of churches on earth thenceforward, nor for the fact that the full company of the royal priesthood, or at least the representative heads of all the courses, are then seen in heaven. What event was there in Mr. E.'s view, immediately before the reign of Nerva, which could call out the special joy and worship of heaven, or the new action with which God and the Lamb begin to occupy themselves? If that wondrous change, the removal to heaven of the saints now glorified, be supposed to have taken place, all is explained. A turning point is reached in the application of the ways of God, who, having gathered to Himself His heavenly redeemed from the beginning to that epoch, then proceeds to reveal the process of His providence for accomplishing His earthly purposes to His own glory and that of Christ; that is, His future dealings not as now with the one body wherein is neither Jew nor Gentile, but expressly with Israel and the nations, remnants of whom will be raised up to bear a testimony to the plans which God will have in hand. Not that He will not have His saints and witnesses among them both; but they are so foreshown in the character of their experiences Godward and manward, and the attitude of God Himself toward them and men generally is so described, as to evince a condition essentially different from that which subsists now; and all most confirmatory of the idea that the rapture of the saints will then be an accomplished fact. Nothing simpler, if the church state, 'the things which are,' continue no longer, the risen saints be gone to meet the Lord in the air, and the eve of the great crisis of the earth come. Not a hint is dropped that the crowned and enthroned elders are disembodied spirits, but the contrary is implied in all that is said of them. When souls are meant, they are so specified, as in Rev. 6 and 20. Moreover the elders are a complete symbol. Whatever the special portion in glory assigned to subsequent sufferers, the elders remain a definite company from Rev. 4 to 19, and receive no addition to their number. Their complement is made up from the first presentation above, and that figure only vanishes when the marriage of the Lamb is come, and a new symbol is needed to convey the new circumstances of the saints already transfigured and taken to heaven.

"On the protracted Protestant scheme, which I believe to have a certain measure of truth, the vision may be regarded vaguely as a sort of pictured pledge, or perhaps anticipation, of the church's heavenly glory, while the providential actings of God toward the world are afterwards unfolded. But when we raise the question of exact and full interpretation, I see no reason to doubt that these chapters reveal the position of the glorified saints above, after churches are no longer spoken of on earth, and before the Lord and His armies emerge from heaven for the war with the beast and the reign over the earth. It is properly a scene in heaven after the actual ecclesiastical state is closed, and before the millennium commences — a scene which inaugurates the very momentous interval between the two, when it becomes a question of judicial inflictions from God, and new classes of saints, invested with a testimony most appreciably distinct from the church, are called to glorify Him in the midst of the fires."

If Mr. E. thinks he has truth, and cares for many who believe him utterly wrong as to this which I am convinced is the key to the just and full understanding of the Apocalypse, he would do well to put forth all he can in meeting the brief statement now repeated with the detailed proofs which are continually referred to as evidence presents itself through my lectures on the Revelation. If I am right, the closer his examination the less he will have to regret it; if he can show me wrong, I trust I shall be truly grateful for his serving the Lord in correcting me and those swayed by my statements

In his tabular scheme given of the Apocalyptic plan according to my thoughts (p. 645), I have only to remark that it is the coming Roman prince who breaks covenant with the Jews, very likely in concert with the Antichrist or wilful king in the holy land; that is, the beast from the sea in all probability along with the second beast (from the earth or land), if we speak in the symbolic language of Rev. 13. As they are thus of one mind and policy, the confusion of these two practically is of little moment. Not so if (as I understand Mr. E.'s vi.) he makes me teach that the Assyrian is the last head of the reunited Roman empire. The Assyrian may be identified, as I judge, with the king of the north (Dan. 11), but he is certainly not the Apocalyptic beast from the abyss, any more than he is the king in the holy land with whom he wages war at the time of the end. I wonder that an intelligent man like the author of H. A. could so misconstrue some of the main points of my book, whereon I have strongly objected to the muddle of ancients and moderns. Here Mr. E. seems to make me just like the rest where I stand firmly opposed. So again I do not understand his representing my thought thus at the close of all -

"Great white Throne.

1000 days."

Can any reader divine? It crossed me that he perhaps meant 1000 years; but he knows well that I consider his putting the great white throne before, instead of after, the thousand years and the short space that follows, a blunder of the greatest magnitude, though he is not quite alone: two writers at least had preceded him in so flagrant a perversion of the chapter. But 1000 days or years are alike wrongly imputed to me; for I judge that eternity (the new heaven and earth in the most absolute sense) is the one and only thing that follows the resurrection and judgment of the wicked dead, who have their portion in the lake of fire.

In his "Addendum" (pp. 644-653) Mr. E. complains of sundry strong animadversions of mine on certain points of his Apocalyptic Exposition "by no means altogether in that spirit of fairness and candour which might have been anticipated from the courteous notice of myself and my Commentary in his Introduction." He has certainly overrated the careful study I had given to the H. A., though it is true that I bore in review the book as a whole in revising the reports of my lectures for the press. These he arranges under two heads as follows: — 1st, Mr. E.'s asserted errors in the adoption of certain wrong readings of the Apocalyptic Greek Text, as readings of quite insufficient authority; 2ndly asserted errors in certain of his renderings of the Greek, and of his historical applications of the prophecy. "1. Asserted erroneous readings of the Greek text preferred in the Horae." Of these Mr. E. selects four, which he seems to think most important.

"1. In Apoc. xi. 8, Mr. E. repeatedly but incorrectly, of course through oversight, represents the reading in the critical editions [he says now] επι της πλατειας της πολεως της μεγαλης (contradistinctively, I presume, to πλ. πολ. της μεγ., without the της). So Mr. K., p. 198." The reader will be surprised, and I doubt not Mr. E. himself, to hear that I do noting of the kind; and that Mr. E. not only misunderstood but, misquotes me is the whole point of the matter. What I really say is, "Were the reading such as Mr. E. repeatedly represents it (of course through oversight), πλατειᾳ της π. της μ. (H. A., [4th ed.] vol. ii. p. 396, note 4, and yet more incorrectly in vol. iv. p. 543, note 2), there had been no room for this rendering ['the great street of the city'], which some very competent judges prefer."

Really it is beyond measure careless to add a fresh series of blunders now. The fact is, though it was always in my eyes a point of no moment, Mr. E. misquoted the Greek text from the New Testament in his fourth edition, and misquotes me in his fifth, and has evidently not seen that all this is exclusively and inexcusably his own mistake, which strongly illustrates my accusation of the great want of critical knowledge and tact, not only a conspicuous feature in a man of his general ability and acquirements, but most injurious to a commentator on a book which from its wretched state in the received text demands these qualities more than any other in the New Testament.

Here then I reiterate to the letter my statement, which Mr. E. must see., if instead of trying to defend himself from a charge of nothing more than oversight, he will kindly compare the two references to his fourth edition according to my note. I did not object to the τῆς, for it is my own reading, as it is that of every critical editor of the Revelation, save Griesbach and Scholz. But in that fourth edition he misquoted πλατειᾳ for πλατείας, the unquestionable reading of all MSS.; but on the second occasion referred to he says εν τῃ πλατειᾳ της πολεως της μεγαλης, which differs in the first three words from every known copy and edition. Had Mr E. taken the trouble to read his own quotations with my remarks, comparing both with any Greek Testament whatever (not to speak of a critical edition), he would have seen that I was simply correcting two misquotations of his, the last much the worst, which last is repeated once more with its three first words quite wrong in the 5th edition, iv. 579, note l — not p. 580, which contains no such reference. What Mr. E. deduces at the end of the paragraph of course therefore falls to the ground. The whole case is no bad example of the extreme looseness of citation in the H. A. Had he looked into my Greek text, he would have seen that I read as all save the two already named, who seem to have neglected entirely their own evidence, as well as much since better known. Bishop Middleton is quite right in what he says that the article is required before πόλεως. Even the Complutensian edition is correct, and though Erasmus introduced the error into the first published edition and all those which followed, it is now known that it was his own error, not the bad reading of his manuscript; for Codex Reuchlini exhibits ἐπὶ τῆς πλ. τῆς π.

2. At page 203 Mr. X. animadverts on my preferring the reading ηνοιγη ὁ ναος του Θεου εν τῳ ουρανῳ, in Apoc. xi. 19, to ηνοιγη ὁ ναος του Θ. ὁ εν τῳ ουρ., which he regards as that of best MS. authority. In reply to which charge I have to say that what I prefer is the reading of Griesbach, Scholz, Heinrichs, Tregelles, Alford; Wordsworth alone of the critical editors by me preferring the other reading."

What I do say in my page 203 makes Mr. E.'s present statement just cited more serious than the former one, and is to my mind unaccountable in a careful scholar. "The true reading is probably ὁ ἐν τῳ οὐρανῳ (i.e. which is in heaven). At any rate, so the Alexandrian and the Paris rescript, the Leicester, L Vatican cursive (579), the Middlehill, the Montfort, and one of the Parham (17) manuscripts say, not to speak of the Cod. Coislin. of Andreas and Victorinus. Mr. E. is also quite wrong in saying that 'according to Tregelles this is a mistake.' It is true that in his first edition, he omits this various reading though long before noted by Walton, Bengel (Wetstein probably [I now add certainly]), and even adopted without question in the text, not of Wordsworth only, but of Lachmann and Tischendorf, as it appears to be by Tregelles, judging from the new edition of 1859 [which gave the English only, not the Greek]. How it was that Mr. E. did not End it in the critical editions of Griesbach and of Scholz, it is not for me to say; but there it unquestionably may be found by any who examine them. In Hahn's manual one could not rightly expect such a thing." Such was my notice of Mr. E.'s note 5, page 478, vol. ii., fourth edition, where he had the temerity to say "Wordsworth reads ὁ ναος του Θεου ὁ εν τῳ ουρανῳ, with the article ὁ: as if in A and C. [!!] But according to Tregelles this is a mistake. Nor do I find it in any of the critical editions, whether Griesbach, Scholz, Hahn, Tregelles, or Heinrichs. And in the parallel passage, Apoc. xv. 5, Wordsworth, as well as all the others, read ηνοιγη ὁ ναος. . . . εν τῳ ουρανῳ." Now it must be evident to any candid mind that my fault with E. was not the question of adopting ὁ, for I myself bracketed it in my Greek text, and therefore doubted it more than the greatest of modern critics, and only used the word "probably" in the note before Mr. E. What I charged him with was the extraordinary tissue of errors, which he now, one is sorry to see, evades by an argument about the reading He distinctly affirmed in his fourth edition that when W. read the disputed ὁ as if in A and C, this was a, mistake according to Tregelles. I denied both the mistake and that T. says anything of the sort. Dr. T. knows the readings of the Revelation far too well to be guilty of an assertion so monstrous in the eyes of any one acquainted with such matters. He never said so. He omitted this various reading in his first edition — a rare fault with him; for the book was. in most respects very well done and abounded in sound information. But T.'s omission (which the most careful may fall into sometimes) is no warrant for using his name to deny ὁ to be the reading of A and C, as it certainly is. And I corroborated this by referring to Tregelles's new edition (English) of 1859, in which he gives the clause, "And the temple of God* which is in heaven was opened." This can leave no doubt how utterly mistaken Mr. E. was. Further, though not adopted in the text of Griesbach or Scholz, the reading is given with the authorities then ascertained.

*In his explanation of marks used Dr., T, says, "An asterisk (*) is inserted whenever the ancient text differs from the modern."

I must add too that the changes in the new note seem to show that Mr. E. was aware in measure that his statement in the fourth edition could not be justified. For he has materially modified the matter in his fifth edition (ii. 489, note 5): "Wordsworth comments on this, as if ὁ ναος του Θεου ὁ εν τῳ ουρανῳ, with the article ὁ, were the true reading. But such is not the case. I do not find it in any of the critical editions, whether of Griesbach, Scholz, Hahn, Tregelles, Heinrichs, or Wordsworth himself. Moreover, in the parallel," etc. It is some satisfaction to me that, if Mr. E. defends himself so bravely in vol iv. when he is criticising me, it is very plain that he silently used the correction afforded as to some Of the chief points here which disappear from the fifth edition as compared with the fourth. It is odd to class Hahn and Heinrichs with the principal critics, and to leave out several which have cleared the ground or advanced the frontiers since Griesbach and Scholz. I presume the reason why Mr. E. could not find the reading ὁ in the critical editions is that he uses mere manuals, not their real editions wherein they present the various readings whether adopted or not. But the question here with Mr. E. was not the reading but the facts which were altogether misstated in ed. 4, and only in part stated rightly in ed. 5. It is a province, as I have always judged, in which Mr. E. is not at home; and the self-defence, he may be assured, will only fix it more by calling attention to the facts among all who are competent to form a solid opinion on the subject.

Lastly Mr. E. states what is absolutely contrary to fact when he says in his zeal that "Mr. Kelly, indeed, would here too [Apoc. xv. 5] read ὁ εν τῳ ουρανῳ: for he gives as the English, 'the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened;' not 'was opened in heaven.' But altogether, so far as I know, without authority. And why? It seems to be only because of its suiting his peculiar interpretation of the passage, and of the Apocalyptic scenery; the very fault he has so often and wrongly ascribed to me."

The simple answer to all this is that I do not read ὁ in Rev. 15: 5, as Mr. E. may see in the Greek text published the year before the edition of the lectures he cites, which is there translated as nearly as possible in the order of the Greek, "there was opened the testimony of the tabernacle in heaven." Further it is not the fact that in giving the words as he says in the lecture I make the smallest use of them in the way he imputes as a motive to me. The whole of this remark therefore is due to imagination, and certainly not of a noble or amiable kind.

"3rdly comes my adoption in the fourth seal (H. A., vol. i. p. 189, 4th ed., or in this 5th ed., p. 201) of a reading correspondent with Jerome's well known Latin translation in the Vulgate, super quatuor partes terrae, 'on the four parts of the earth;' instead of that found in our Greek MSS. all but [is it not altogether?] universally, επι το τεταρτον της γης, 'on the fourth part of the earth.'" Here the case is simple enough. There are five uncial MSS. of the Revelation, and upwards of a hundred cursives, in not one of which has there been found the smallest ground for justifying Jerome's "quatuor partes." Two or three later Latins who used the Vulgate (not always without discrepancy) give the same very naturally; but neither Greek ecclesiastical writer nor Oriental, nor any version save the Vulgate, countenances the change. In my judgment it is critically discreditable and doctrinally dangerous to adopt such a change on such a precarious footing. Nothing like it can be produced from the entire New Testament. Why should it be here? How much better to leave the difficulty unsolved than to adopt a resource so desperate? Mr. E. refers to my own principle of using internal evidence. Certainly I do to decide between readings with good external support on both sides, never where all the direct witnesses are on one side, and you have hear-say evidence of one type on the other side. The rest of Mr. E.'s reasons and remarks as to this I can happily leave with a brief answer. That there should be difficulty according to the historical scheme in finding a precise fulfilment of "the fourth part" I can well believe; but this is in perfect harmony with my view, which supposes vagueness in that application and precision only in the future. In itself the fourth part is thoroughly plain and intelligible. That it cannot be readily adjusted to history is an obstacle to Mr. E., not to me.

4. There is noticed by Mr. K. 'the flagrant proof of my proneness to prefer a manifestly spurious reading where my hypothesis requires' in my preference of επι το θηριον to και το θηρ. in Apoc. 17: 16. So W. K., p. 304. And no doubt the evidence of Greek MSS. is very strong in favour of the και. Moreover, I have in the course of this last revision of my book found that I was mistaken in supposing that the early Hippolytus read επι, in common with the early Latin Father Tertullian, and also probably with Jerome; being misled by the Latin translation of Hippolytus'. 'De Christo of Antichristo.' Hence my confidence in decidedly preferring the επι is less strong than before." As Mr. E. speaks thus moderately of the point raised, I do not feel it needful to swell this introduction with an answer to his stout defence of the Protestant scheme and assault on futurism, supposing kaiv to be the true reading, as I am satisfied it is. Any one who knows Mr. E.'s system will be able to judge, spite of his arguments, whether his system can sustain the shock given to it by the inspired prediction that the beast and the ten horns unite their fury against Rome, first in rendering it contemptible, next in enriching themselves with its substance, and lastly in its destruction. The effort to bring in the beast joining the Goths and Vandals to destroy the old heathen city is more worthy of Bossuet than of Mr. E.; and the rather is the phrase of the Spirit is most precise. It is the whore, not the woman merely; that is, it is the corrupt religious state, not Rome viewed simply as a city. Further, it is a state of final revulsion after the beast had carried her in ease and honour and influence, and just before the war of the beast and the kings with the Lamb. Any spiritual man can judge whether this suits the Protestant scheme of the prophecy.

"1. Says Mr. Kelly, 'Mr. E. contends for the strangest possible version of εις, as= after, or at the expiration of the aggregated period, of the hour, day, month, and year in Apoc. ix. 15.' So p. 150. When Mr. K. has shown that the same Greek preposition placed before a time, times, and half a time in Dan. 12, as well as before the 1335 days in a verse immediately following, does not mean before [it should be after], or at the expiration of, those aggregated periods, he will be in a better position for so expressing himself about my rendering of the clause in Apoc. 9: 15. But, though he had these parallel passages before his eyes in my Commentary, as very mainly my justification in the rendering of Apoc. ix. 15, Mr. K. makes no allusion to them."

Mr. E. should have understood better my motive for silence. The two passages "very mainly" rested on for justification are not parallel. The first certainly cannot bear the smallest approach to the meaning he would put on them. Indeed Mr. E. gives the Greek according to the received punctuation (not as he says of the Septuagint copies, but) of Theodotion's version, and then translates without regard to that punctuation; for he clearly should put at least a comma at the end of the clause, the effect of which would be nearly what he gives with a period in his foot-note. But, to avoid the smallest charge of forcing anything, I shall cite Sir L. C. L. Brenton's version, "that it should be for a time of times* and half a time: when the dispersion is ended, they shall know these things." Now if this be so, this witness must disappear.

*So it is in Holmes and Parsons' text, εἰς καιρὸν καιρῶν καὶ ἥη καιροῦ. Many MSS. and editions however give καιρούς for καιρῶν.

But Mr. E. is very confident as to verse 12, where however Sir C. B. equally fails him, for he translates it thus, "Blessed is he that waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." This latest and most exact rendering of the Greek Bible is then opposed to the desired issue.

But I must go farther, while allowing of course that there are cases where εἰς may mean for the space, or to the amount of, as εἰς ἐνιαυτόν "for a year," that is, not till it begins merely, but for that term. Such I believe is the true sense of the last case, not after or at the expiration of, which even, if true in fact for the blessed person, is in no way the sense of the word either here or anywhere else. But the important point which every scholar must see is that the structure of the clause in Revelation has nothing akin to that in Daniel, on which depends the precise shade of meaning intended and legitimate. Mr. E.'s notions are most vague and uncritical, as I have often had occasion to notice with regret; and he is mistaken if he thinks that the examples adduced could not be multiplied. Thus he reasons at length on the possible difference of ἀποκτείνωσιν, as if it might be taken either as the present or as the aorist subj.; whereas the real turning point is the connection with ἠτοιμασμένοι, as well as with the purpose expressed in the last clause. Now I affirm, without fear of contradiction from any unbiassed man competent to deal with these questions, that the sense of such a phrase is and can only be "prepared for, or as we say idiomatically against, the hour," etc. No doubt those are wrong who confound the perfect participle with either the present or the aorist. It is neither the course of preparation nor the simple historical fact that they were prepared, but the present result of a past preparation, as usual in such forms. But this does not touch the true force of εις, any more than the question whether the slaying the third of men be a continuous action, or one viewed as summed up in its conclusion. The nearest and a true parallel that I observe in the New Testament is John 12: 7, εἰς τὴν ἡμέραν τοῦ ἐνταφιασμοῦ μου τετήρηκεν αὐτό. Here it is the finite verb, not the participle; but this does not affect the question. Indeed the sense is beyond controversy. It was for or against the day of Christ's burial she had kept the unguent, certainly not after or at its expiration, whatever others may have done. It is just the same with the phrase in the Revelation, though the nature of the case may forbid the absurdity of after being so conspicuous. Had it been said in Dan. 12, "Blessed is he that comes to the 1260 days," or even to the 1290 days, I could understand Mr. E.'s argument, though even so it would seem to me invalid. But the period is one which overlaps these times of horror and destruction, and, as I believe, goes up to the day of settling Judah and Israel in the land, though the millennial age may not be in its full character till the 1335 days. We can readily see then that he who arrives at these days is blessed indeed. And the Hebrew confirms this as the true meaning. But in Rev. 9 it is an aggregated period which must elapse before the end of the slaying. To begin the work of slaughter at the end of that period is contrary to all analogy of dates, and untenable according to the true force of the phrase employed. If εἰς can mean after, it can as truly mean before, and language would dissolve into a linguistic chaos. It appears therefore that Mr. E. by his bold challenge only secures the exposure of his erroneous criticism; and with all the respect that I retain for excellent points in the book, it appears to me plain enough that critical acumen in the Greek tongue is as weak a point in the Horae Apoc. as acquaintance with the sources of the text and the comparative value of readings.

"2. I utterly reject Mr. E. Is statement that 'at one and the same time' is the true rendering of the Greek phrase in Apoc. 17 of μιαν ὡραν μετα τού θηριου. It should be, he says, for the same time, marking duration, not epoch or occasion. So Mr. K., p. 300. But as in the preceding case, so here let me say, when Mr. K. has succeeded in setting aside the parallels of John 4: 52, Acts 10: 3, and Rev. 3: 3, adduced by me in loc., where the accusative of time is unquestionably in the sense of epoch at which, it will be time enough to reply to him further on this point."

How others may regard such an answer it is not for me to say. But I avow that to me the effort to escape the regular rule in the use of the accusative and the dative of time seems far beneath a Christian of less reputation than the author of H. A. For there is not the remotest resemblance between these three exceptional instances culled out of the New Testament and the ordinary construction under which falls Rev. 17: 12. This I pointed out at some length in the note to which the citation refers. There is no rule whatever without an exception. What can one think of the judgment which musters a few exceptions against the plainest examples of a plain principle of the Greek language? The true scholar would rather seek to understand what lay secretly under the three irregularities, and thus to account for them, instead of perverting them to set aside instances where no such modifying influences wrought.

Thus, to take the first, any scholar ought to observe that the reason why the accusative is found is not because it can ever in itself mean the point at which a given fact occurred. This is the force of the temporal dative, though it properly requires the preposition ἐν to define it. The accusative here is due solely to the context. The courtier enquired from his servant τὴν ὥραν in which his son got better. And they said to him, Yesterday ὥραν ἑβδόμην the fever left him. It is the former clause which thus influences the latter. But this mould not justify the conclusion that, when such a disturbing cause did not interfere, the accusative could have been employed per se. Hence in the very next verse, when it does not operate, the grammar returns to its ordinary conditions. The father knew therefore that it was ἐν τῃ ὥρᾳ ἐν ῃ κ.τ.λ.

As to the second, Mr. E. is not entitled to cite it, because the very best manuscripts, the Sinai, Alexandrian, Vatican, Palimpsest of Paris, and the Laudian of Oxford, with more than twenty cursives and other authorities, give ὡσεὶ περὶ ὥραν ἐνάτην, and so it is edited by Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, as well as Tischendorf in his most recent (8th) edition.

There remains only Rev. 3: 4, which is strange indeed either to misunderstand in itself or to compare with the phrase in debate. The reason for the accusative is even more obvious and closer than in John 4: 52, though similar in principle. It depends on the γνῳς just before· οὐ μὴ γνῳς ποίαν ὥραν ἥξω ἐπὶ σέ. If the construction were filled up, it would be τὴν ὥραν ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ. As far as grammar is concerned therefore, it was open to omit either the accusative or the dative, as both would be cumbrous and uncalled for. So in Matt. 24: 42 we have οὐκ οἴδατε ποίᾳ ὥρᾳ, in our passage we have γνῳς ποίαν ὥραν. But to infer from this that, where no such reason occurs for a compendious mixed construction, the accusative can be used for a point of time or the dative for duration, or that the radical difference does not always really abide underneath such an ellipse, is contrary to every just thought of language.* We are not at liberty to reason from these peculiar instances to others wholly different; it is as illogical as can be.

*Such his always been my conviction, as any one can see in the earliest edition. But I thought it might be more satisfactory to others, perhaps to Mr. E., if I submitted the point of grammar to the learned author of the latest and most elaborate work of the kind which has emanated from Oxford. The following is the reply: — "I have no doubt but that in the two passages, John 4: 52, Rev. 3: 3, the accusative depends upon the verb. In the latter the full construction would be ποία ἦν ὥρα ἐν ῃ, or more briefly and simply ὥραν ἐν ῃ (or ῃ alone) κ.τ.λ.; and the relative is attracted to the accusative and prefixed to it, just like ὃν τρόπον, ὃν χρόνον, etc. In the former (John 4: 53) this full construction does occur, the attraction being prevented by the insertion of ἐν before the relative. In Acts 10: 3, the accusative is used, just as it would be with a περί for an indefinite and general notion of time; and I have no doubt but that the writer followed the analogy of περί, though he chose to express the notion by ὡσεί [that is, even according to the common text, without περί]. Moreover, where time is indefinitely expressed, it is in reality a space of time and not a point, and its construction would follow the analogy of the expression for a space of time (accusative) rather than that of the expression for a point of time (dative). When you say, 'about three o'clock,' there is no definite point presented to the mind, but a space extending (say) from ten minutes before to ten minutes after. This seems to be the philosophy of the accusative after περί in such expressions. To my mind then neither of the three passages justify the taking μίαν ὥραν (Rev. 17: 12) as a point of time. I am happy to say that I have no theological or mystical bias one way or the other; I really do not know which of the various Apocalyptical parties I am favouring when I say that to my mind, looking at it grammatically, the words can only mean 'one and the same space of time with the beast,' not 'one and the same point of time.' My answer would have been sent sooner, had I not been from home, so that the letter was some time in reaching me. I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, W. E. Jelf."

I have in my lectures shown the importance of the true force of the accusative in Rev. 17: 12. Like "at," it supposes the same starting-point for the beast and the ten horns; but it adds the other, and this the main and intended, information that they receive authority as kin" for one hour with the beast: not the Roman empire as once without the kings, nor the kings as afterwards without the empire, but both together, the revived empire in its place, the kings in theirs, enduring for the same space till they all perish together at the appearing of Jesus.

3. It is the question of the seven thunders; but inasmuch as Mr. E. adds nothing, we can dismiss it without farther notice.

4. Here, as Mr. E. admits that the rendering of Rev. 11: 9 in his former editions was unsatisfactory, I am happy to say little. It seems to me plain, however, from the context, that the sense is not merely that their testimony was perfected but finished when the beast slays them.

In 5 and 6 we have the questions whether the ναός includes the court sometimes, and whether toads and frogs are interchangeable, both of which Mr. E. answers affirmatively, which I doubt.

His 7 calls for a fuller notice. "At p. 246 Mr. K. insists on the right translation of ενεστηκεν in 2 Thess. 2: 2 being 'is present;' not as in our English authorized version, and as in the Horae, 'is at hand.' At p. 92 of my vol. iii., in this edition, my readers will find the point more fully argued out than before; and the latter rendering of the word, I may unhesitatingly say, on the grounds of Greek criticism, fully justified. Let me only here ask Mr. X. the question how he supposes the Thessalonian Christians could have believed that the day of the Lord was then actually present, when putting together the two facts — first, that they knew from St. Paul's former epistles that the primary event of the day of the Lord would be the gathering of Christ's saints, both the dead and the living, to meet Christ in the air; secondly, that neither themselves nor even St. Paul had thus far been made the subjects of that promised blessed rapture? Will Mr. K. be agitated by the idea of the day of Christ having begun, so long as he is conscious that neither on himself nor on any of his most honoured Christian friends has any change taken place?"

The reader will find in the text and note, pp. 299-304, a tolerably complete refutation of what I judge to be mistaken in Mr. E.'s. argument. He starts with the common error* of confounding the presence of the Lord to gather His saints with the day of the Lord to execute judgment on His enemies. This necessarily vitiates all that follows, as it misses wholly the force and even sense of the apostle's opening entreaty. For where would be the wisdom of entreating them for the sake of the same thing as that in respect of which he was going to disabuse their mind? The apostle is guilty of no such slip or paralogism. He begs them by reason, or for the sake, of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him that they be not soon shaken in mind [or literally "from their mind," though it is hardly English] . . . . . . . as that the day of the Lord is present. This to my thinking is not only intelligible but plain and conclusive for the object in hand when we distinguish according to the light given in 1 Thess. 4 and 5, where these two things, the presence and the day of the Lord, are both discussed and distinguished as here. It was the false teachers who brought in confusion, and, instead of holding up the bright hope of Christ's coming to receive His own to Himself as the apostle did and does everywhere, sought to fill and alarm them with the terrors of the day of the Lord — that term of solemn judicial dealing which abounds in Old Testament prophecy. It is well known that it has there an incipient application to such a frightful judgment as befell Babylon, Egypt, or other earthly states. In some such way the misleaders at Thessalonica seem to have interpreted the trouble through which, we can see from the first epistle, the saints there were then passing. They pretended, like many since their time, that the dread day was come, pretending to the Spirit's revelation of it, teaching it, and even led on by the enemy to allege a letter purporting to be from the apostle to that effect. If they so misunderstood the first epistle, as Jerome throws out and E. doubts not, it is certainly not the meaning of δἰ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δἰ ἡμῶν. I know what Paley says; but, pace tanti viri, the apostle here means a suppositious letter falsely bearing his name, not his own epistle: yet this is the only basis they have for the thought.

*The want of light that prevails among commentators in general on the subject of prophecy affects their criticism seriously. Thus assuming, as they almost all do with excessive vagueness, that the coming of the Lord to gather His saints is the theme about which the apostle is about to give instruction in the verses which follow, many were influenced to translate ὑπέρ here as nearly equivalent to περί whereas this is hardly the case with verbs of prayer, beseeching, etc., like ἐρωτάω. Each has its own appropriated force, as any intelligent man can verify with a Greek Concordance. Had these writers seen that he entreats the saints on account of their own bright hope not to be alarmed by the false rumour that the day of the world's judgment was arrived, they would have avoided an error singularly gross and grave, not so much lexically, though certainly phraseologically (for ἐρωτάω ὑπέρ means, "I beg, not concerning or with regard to, but on account of, by reason of, by or for the sake of"), but mainly because of the contextual fact that he urges the one as a motive of comfort against the uneasiness inspired by the mistake as to the other, instead of treating of one and the same thing throughout. Dan. 2: 18; Rom. 9: 27; 2 Cor. 5: 12, 2 Cor. 7: 4, 2 Cor. 8: 23, 2 Cor. 9: 3; Phil. 1: 7; 2 Thess. 1: 4, on which Mr. E. leans with Rosenmüller, Macknight, Whitby, etc., are beside the mark; they none of them follow a verb of entreaty. It is true that both ὑπέρ and may often be translated "for," and ὑπέρ sometimes even "concerning;" but there are limits to such approximations of meaning as a scholar knows, instead of vaguely catching at a possible sense and applying it to suit a purpose. Words of entreaty, as far as I have noticed, exclude such a sense when joined with ὐπέρ and require περί. It is absurd to identify them at random.

Mr. E. contends (ii. 92) for "partly" some forged words or letter ascribed to St. Paul, and "partly too" misconstruction of words which he had really written in his first epistle about Christ's coming again to gather to Himself His saints both quick and dead. But this is utterly baseless. There is but one clause for the inference, and the Greek phrase cannot possibly mean both. It is only laxity of mind or negligence which could seriously think of extracting partly the one thing and partly the other from words which can bear but one unequivocal meaning. Had the apostle intended his own epistle, he would have so expressed it. He might have said (as he does later in this very chapter, where such is his intention) δἰ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν, or rather, as he would in that case have referred to his previously existing letter, διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, with or without ἡμῶν. But to convey such an idea, he could not have written as he does at δἰ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δἰ ἡμῶν, which can only signify a letter falsely professing to come through the apostle and his companions. Hence says Theodoret, μήτε εἰ προσποιοῖντο χρησμωδεῖν καὶ προφητεύειν ; τοῦτο γὰρ λὲγει, Μήτε διὰ πνεύματος· μήτε εἰ πλασάμενοι ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστολὴν προφέροιεν, μήτε εἰ ἀγράφως αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι λέγοιεν. (Opera, iii. 532, ed. Schulze.)* If they claimed the apostle's authority for their affirmation in writing or in word, it was spurious, as far as the apostle informs us and we therefore have ground to believe; not a question of misunderstanding either his oral teaching or his first epistle. Of this there can be no doubt for such as fairly judge the words with a competent knowledge of the Greek tongue, or pay due heed to any right translation of the words. For in no language whatever is Mr. E.'s inference well founded or defensible.

* I understand Chrysostom to be of the same mind (Opera, iv. 231, 232, ed. and the ablest of modem German expositors, as well as Ellicott and Alford.

I have already perhaps sufficiently anticipated the answer to Mr. E.'s questions without delaying to notice the mistake which treats the gathering of the saints as an event, primary or not, of the day of the Lord (which scripture never does); but I reply that, though the Thessalonians had been set right as to the dead saints by the first epistle, the second proves that they were liable to go astray as to the living saints, and needed therefore fresh instruction. They already knew the fact, that the Lord would come to translate the saints, deceased or alive, and that His day is to fall with swift destruction on the world; but the mutual relation of these two things they clearly did not know, and hence were open to those who pretended that the day was arrived with its dangers and troubles before the presence of the Lord to gather them home on high. The heresiarchs at Thessalonica probably taught a quasi-spiritual day of the Lord, as others went so far later as to teach similarly that the resurrection had taken place already. There is not the least force therefore in what Mr. E. urges, particularly as 1 Thess. does not unfold the relative order of the two events, the presence and the day of the Lord, in such a way as to preclude the false rumour which is refuted in 2 Thess. We know now that such a notion must be unfounded; but how this could have been known before the second epistle was written is, I believe, beyond Mr. E.'s power to prove.

The reader has before him the substance of Mr. E.'s critique on my criticism. He has left many remarks without notice, in which I consider him wrong: how far he has defended himself to purpose in those he selected for a reply, it is for others to judge rather than for me to say more. It must be plain what my opinion is. Were it the object to give a complete review of the Horae Apocalypticae, faults and defects especially in the intelligent criticism of the text could be enormously increased from the first chapter to the last. From the first I have ever felt that this was one of the chief drawbacks; and a singular sight it is to me that, with a great deal of interesting history and ingenious applications of antiquities, such a book should give continual evidence of the want of an average amount and exactitude of knowledge in what ought to be the groundwork — the best readings and their evidence. I also think that the version preferred is too often vulnerable. The grand desideratum of all however is of another sort: I need not rehearse it here, having often pressed it in the lectures and the notes. There is an absence throughout of truth as to the heavenly relations of Christ and the church; and hence failure in discriminating between the proper Christian hope and prophecy. This in such a book must needs be ruinous if true, as I firmly believe it to be. Of course it is to me matter of regret that Mr E. should say or think that my criticisms on his book were wanting in fairness and candour; but the reader will have perceived that the reason was in part or wholly due to the fact that he has not even understood many errors already pointed out. I have always considered the H. A. peculiarly defective in this, that the author did not first diligently ascertain, according to his best judgment or that of the ablest critical inquirers, the true text, and then seek to expound it. I can honestly say that such has been my own course; whereas his book constantly gives the impression of one who up to its fifth edition is not. yet in possession of the full grounds for a sound judgment, of a mind either unused or not adapted to the resolution of such questions, and consequently choosing, as his system seemed to require, such readings as suited, not those which command the acceptance of the most competent judges on the broadest basis. I believe I could make good this opinion of Mr. E.'s book throughout every chapter, if it were called for; and the attentive reader of my lectures will have seen many more instances than the author has sought to defend. But I will take as an example. the first and last chapters, with one in the middle of the book, which Mr. E. professes to give as corrected by critical authority.

(1.) Rev. 1: 2 presents an instance of extreme carelessness. How could any one, unless barely reprinting the received text or the Authorised Version, intelligently keep τε in the Greek text or the last "and" in English? The best MSS. and versions are unanimous; and so are all careful editors. The erroneous addition falsifies the sense; for it makes of John's visions a third division of his testimony, instead of representing them as qualifying the word of God and the testimony of Jesus which he testified. (2.) His neglect of the present form of the participle τῳ ἀγαπῶντι is a glaring fault in verse 5; but I have dwelt so much on its force in its proper place in the following pages, that I need say no more. The external authority is overwhelming in its favour and against the vulgar aorist which E. continues without remark. (3.) The καί with ἀδελφός in verse 9 is contrary to the best authorities, and even to Erasmus' Cod. Reuchlini, though he (not the Complut.) inserted it in his text. It is a manifest clog to the sense. In the same verse should be a still more needed restoration of the right reading by striking out ἐν τῃ, "in the," before kingdom, which mars the sense. I say nothing of two disputed questions in the same verse; but Mr. E. is as silent about the two certain and necessary changes as he is about the points which may be considered still sub judice. (4.) Mr. E. properly omits the ill-attested clauses in verse 11, but does not bring out the distinctive force of ἐλάλει as supplanting the common ἐλάλησε in verse 12. (5.) In verse 14 he gives the Authorised Version where it differs from the received text as much as from that approved by all judicious critics and required by the best witnesses. It should be "white as white wool, as snow." (6.) Verses 17, 18, he fails to represent according to any good text. It should be, "I am the first and the last, and the living one [or "he that liveth"]; and I was [or became] dead," etc. (7.) He omits the beautiful and emphatic οὖν of the best authorities in verse 19: "Write therefore," etc. Minor points are omitted, but such errors as these are found too commonly to allow the claim of the H. A. to take rank as a critical work up to the fair requirements of earnest and intelligent students in our days. The favourable opinion of an English judge or of an Edinburgh reviewer will not affect the judgment of any competent to pronounce on questions in which one could not fairly expect such persons to be at home. The first requisite in a comment surely is that it be founded on a correct text. Is it so with the H. A.? I believe it is not.

Let us now review the last chapter similarly. (1.) In the first verse Mr. E. gives, without the least warrant, "the" river of the water of life. It should be of course "a river of water of life." All agree in omitting the καθαρόν of the received text. (2.) In verse 3 there is a needless departure from the regular sense of the καί. On the disputed reading in verse 5 I say nothing; but (3.) verse 8 is as loosely given in the Horae as the Authorised Version. F, or surely it must be, "And I John am [or was] he that heard and saw these things;" and in this order, spite of and some cursives. (4.) In verse 12 the true reading I believe to be ἐστίν "is" as in , A, and two cursives in the Vatican. Still, as the Rescript of Paris and the Porphyrian uncial are here deficient and the Basilian Vatican with the other cursives opposed, I would say no more than that an exact commentator ought to have noticed a good reading, which is far more energetic than the common one, even if he adhered to the received text, ἔσται, "shall be." (5.) In verse 13 I suppose there can be no doubt Mr. E. is wrong in adhering to the order of the common text, contrary to the critics who follow the ancient MSS. (6.) In verse 14, though agreeing with Mr. E. in adopting πλύνοντες τ. στολὰς αὐτῶν on the authority of , A, 7, 38 against all other known manuscripts, I cannot accept his connecting this verse with Rev. 7: 9, 13, 14; as if the one were the anticipation, the other the realization, but rather as a similar blessing possessed by two distinct classes of saints. (7.) "For" (δέ) in verse 15 is absent from the best MSS. and editions. Its insertion in H. A. spoils the contrast intended. (8.) The readings in verse 16 may be considered doubtful; but there need be no hesitation in striking out καί from the received text before ὁ θέλων, which Mr. E. keeps in. Again, it is wrong to say as he does, "of the waters of life." "Of the fountain of the water of life" is all right in Rev. 21: 6; here it is simply "life's water," without a various reading.

I will finally take a central portion (Rev. 11), with a view to a similar test. (1.) Mr. E. is far too reluctant in accepting the critical correction of the received text in verse 1; and the difficulty of construction is due to not seeing the Hebraism of the style. (Compare Rev. 4: 1; Rev. 14: 6, 7; Rev. 19: 7.) The Sinaitic and Porphyrian uncials confirm the Alexandrian and upwards of thirty cursives, with most of the ancient versions, against the reading of the Basilian Vatican, and ten cursives, with the later Syriac and the Armenian; which is indeed an evident gloss to get rid of the seemingly harsh phrase in the original text. The Sinaitic alone reads λέγει for λέγων; but this is of no moment, especially in the Revelation, where slips of the kind are more than usually common. (2.) On E.'s version of τελέσωσι in the sense of perfected, to avoid its natural meaning, "completed," I will not here delay further than to express dissent. (3.) Surely "in that hour" is the right rendering of ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῃ ὥρᾳ, rather than "at that same time." It is a fair question as to ἤκουσα or ἤκουσαν, the latter having decidedly the best ancient evidence in its favour, as well as the more modern copies from which the received text was drawn; but the former has good authority, uncial and cursive, supported by most of the ancient versions, and the general analogy of the phrase in the book. (4.) καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος is rejected by the Sinaitic, the Porphyrian, the Basilian Vatican (B 2066), as well as A and C, and the mass of cursives; also by the Complut. and even by Erasmus' Cod. Reuchl., though he boldly inserted it (probably out of deference to the Vulgate, not knowing that its best copies, Amiat. Fuld. Demidov. and Harl., reject the clause). Mr. E. might have been therefore a little bolder, had he known the facts more fully. (5.) I have elsewhere discussed the question of ὁ ἐν τῳ οὐρανῳ, so that I need say no more here. What Mr. E. remarks on it is incorrect; but I do not say that it is "the true reading." In 1860 I bracketed the article before ejn as doubtful; I should be disposed to do the same in 1871.

This will serve as a sample of the H. A., examined at the beginning, middle and end, in order to test its critical accuracy as to the text, which is evidently the most fundamental of all questions for the commentator who aims at precision on a solid footing.

LECTURES ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

Revelation 1.

Every Christian of spiritual intelligence must have felt more or less fully the peculiar character of the book on the study of which we now enter. It is a "revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him." It is evident that the Lord Jesus is viewed here, not in His place of intimacy as the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father, but in one of comparative distance. It is His revelation, but, moreover, the revelation which God gave Him. Somewhat similar is the remarkable expression which has perplexed so many in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 13: 32), "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man: no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." He is the servant Son of God all through that Gospel; and it is the perfection of a servant not to know what his lord does — to know, if we may so say, only what he is told. Here Christ receives a revelation from God; for, however exalted, it is the position He took as man which comes out conspicuously in the Revelation. And what makes this the more striking is that, of all the inspired writers of the New Testament, none dwells with such fulness upon His supreme and divine glory as John in his Gospel. In the Revelation, on the other hand, it is the same John who brings out with the greatest detail His human glory, but without hiding that He is God.

In keeping with this, the Revelation is "to show his servants things which must shortly come to pass." How very different is the tone of John 15: 15 "Henceforth I call you not servants;" and also of John 16 speaking of the Spirit, "He shall glorify me, for He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I that He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you." So we see through the Gospel from first to last, that the design of the Spirit is to give the disciples the title and consciousness of their sonship with and through Jesus, the Son of God in the highest sense. Thus in John 1: 11, 12, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the children of God." And again, after His death and resurrection, the Lord says, John 20, "Go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God." Of course they were servants also, and there is not a shade of incongruity. Still the difference of the relationships is immense, and the Revelation clearly is addressed to the lower of these relations. The reason, I presume, is, partly because God is therein making known a certain course of earthly events with which the lower position is most in harmony (the higher one of sons being more suitable to communion with the Father and with His Son); and partly because God seems here to prepare the way for dealing with His people in the latter day, when their position as His servants will be more or less manifested, but not the enjoyment of nearness as sons — I allude to the interval after the removal of the church.

The next words greatly confirm this; for the Lord." sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." That is, the prophetic communication is made, not directly, but through the intervention of an angel; and John is no longer spoken of as "the disciple whom Jesus loved, which also leaned upon his breast at supper," but as "his servant," "who testified the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever things he saw."' It has to be remarked here, that the last If and" ought to disappear, which makes no small difference in the sense. For whatever things he saw" must not be regarded as a third and additional division, but rather as explaining or limiting the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. The visions of John compose "the word of God and the testimony of Jesus" here intended. How many have slighted them! Let them learn how they are characterised by the Lord here, and tremble lest their blind depreciation come into collision with His sentence. It is the word of God who gives the revelation; it is the testimony of Jesus (not to but of Jesus) who testified the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, whatever things he saw. (Compare Rev. 22: 8.)

Very different indeed is the revelation of God here, and the testimony which Jesus bears in this book, from what we find in John's Gospel. The Word of God there is the Lord Jesus Himself, who in the beginning was with God and was God; the full and personal expression of God, and that not merely as the Creator of all things, but in perfect grace. "In him was life, and the life was the light of men." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory (the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." In the Revelation, on the contrary, even when He is spoken of as the Word of God, it is as the expression of divine judgment, because the whole book is eminently judicial. "He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called the Word of God." (Rev. 19: 13.) So too in the Gospel the testimony that Jesus Christ renders is to the Father, as it is throughout the Father's joy to bear witness of the Son. Indeed the Son Himself, towards the close of His ministry, sums up the pith and character of the testimony there in these few words: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14: 9.)

All this makes the distinctive features of the Revelation to stand out in broader contrast. For throughout the book the very name of the Father occurs but rarely, and even where it does, the object is in no way the revelation of His love as Father to His family. In Rev. 1: 1, Rev. 3: 21, and Rev. 14: 2, He is spoken of as such in relation to Jesus only, The grand subject is God manifested in His judgments, as well as the beneficent power of His kingdom here below at the appearing of the Lord Jesus, "King of kings and Lord of lords." Even when the churches are in question, it is even about them to another, not to themselves directly.

"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things therein written: for the time is at hand." What a serious mistake in the face of such words as these for Christians to think that this book or any part of it is unprofitable, and that it may be safely set aside either as too difficult to understand, or, if understood, as having no practical bearing upon the soul! It is remarkable indeed with what special care the Lord has commended it, not only here at the commencement but at the close, where we read, "These sayings are faithful and true; and the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to show his servants the things which must shortly come to pass. Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book." It would seem that the Lord's prescient eye anticipated in such warnings the neglect with which the Apocalypse would be treated by His servants, and that He was thus solemnly guarding them against it by commending the book emphatically to their study and use. It is a little remarkable, by the way, that a somewhat similar admonition occurs in the close of 1 Thessalonians, which was the first of Paul's epistles, and the one which above all others develops the grand truth of the coming of the Lord. In Rev. 1: 3 the Lord takes pains to encourage every possible class of people who might come in contact with the book. Not only the individual who reads is pronounced blessed, but those who hear its words and keep (or observe) what is written therein. And certain I all! that the Lord does not fail to encourage His saints who count on His assured faithfulness and blessing. He has never turned aside from using it for good, and especially in times of danger, spite of all contempt or perversion.

The objection to the study of prophecy arises from a root of unbelief, sometimes deeply hidden, which supposes all blessing to depend on the measure in which a subject bears immediately on one's self or one's circumstances. Thus when some cry out, That is not essential, I would ask, Essential to what? If they mean essential to salvation, we agree. But then on what a ground do such objectors stand! The anxiety to examine only what they deem indispensable to salvation shows that they have no consciousness of salvation themselves, and that this need of their souls is the only thing they are alive to. Now all hold that not prophecy but the gospel should be put before the unconverted. The coming of Christ in glory, which is the centre of unfulfilled prophecy, ought to be terror to their hearts, instead of a mere question for interesting discussion. To the believer indeed His coming is "that blessed hope." We wait for the Son of God from heaven, and we await Him not only without anxiety but with joy, because we know Him to be "Jesus which delivered us from the wrath to come." But for any man, who has not, peace by faith in Him dead and risen, to occupy his mind either with this, the church's hope, or with the events of which prophecy treats, is but a diversion of which the enemy can make fearful use, if it be not a proof of litter deadness of conscience as to his own condition before God, — though I am far from saying, that God may not make use of that truth to arouse it. On the other hand prophecy is essential to our due appreciation of Christ's glory and of the glory that is to be revealed. To slight prophecy therefore is to despise unwittingly that glory and the grace which has made it known to us. It is the plainest evidence of the selfishness of our hearts, which wants every word of God to be directly about ourselves.

God takes for granted that His children love to hear whatever will exalt the Lord Jesus. The result too is striking and serious: where Christ is the object of our hearts, all is peace; where our own happiness is the first thought, there is wont to be disappointment and uncertainty.

Another form in which this egotism works, and must be watched against, even among those who do hear the words of this prophecy, is the assumption that its visions are about the church — that the seals, trumpets, and vials, for instance, are of chief value and interest, because they concern ourselves (i.e., the church) either in the past or in the future. But this is a fundamental mistake, as we may gather from the very words of the verse before us. The divine ground alleged for the importance of taking heed to this book lies not in the time being come or our being in the circumstances described, but in their being near; "for the time is at hand." How far it contemplates those on Christian or church ground, when we see a wholly different state come in before this age closes, then in the millennium and finally in eternity, is a question for investigation as we proceed in the study of the book. But even from the opening it seems clearly as unfounded to assume from our possession of the book that we must be in the predicted circumstances, as to reason from God's confidential announcement to Abraham, that he necessarily in his own person was concerned in the doomed cities of the plain. The principle is erroneous, overlooks the grace in which the Christian stands, and ignores the fact that there are to be in the latter day servants of God in a different position from ours, and more immediately mixed up with its horrors, though warned and saved, as just Lot was in time to escape the worst. If nevertheless the book in the apostle's days could profit saints of God who were not personally concerned in the judgments, equally at least may it avail for us. The Lord grant that we may increasingly value the place in which He has set us, peacefully "knowing these things before."

Ver. 1-6. "John to the seven churches which are in Asia."* Even the three verses already looked at give us a certain measure of insight into the peculiar features of this book, which are obviously distinct from the other parts of the New Testament. God reverts a great deal to the principles on which He had acted in Old Testament times. One can see that the positive edification of the church is not the subject, nor the unfolding of God's special dealings in mercy. We have here to do with His judgment of evil, whether in the churches or in the world. In perfect harmony with this, God introduces Himself to His people by a style and title that differs from the rest of the apostolic addresses. "Grace to you and peace from him that is, and that was, and that is to come." It is generally what answers in the New Testament to Jehovah in the Old. There is this peculiarity, that He is here revealed as first He that is in His absolute ever-present being, then He that was, and He that is to come. The "I am" takes precedence, but He was before, and is the coming One. God of old revealed Himself to Israel as the unchangeable One, "the same yesterday, today, and for ever." But now He speaks in the language of the Gentiles, and by these words — "Him that is, and that was, and that is to come," translates as it were that name of Jehovah, never before so communicated to them. He is going to return to His ancient people Israel; but before He does so, there must necessarily be a sweeping judgment upon the professing mass that calls itself by the name of the church. Thus, when God has set Christendom aside, He will bring in Israel again — no longer on the ground of law but of grace. The law executed death on sinful man, but the grace of God substituted the person of the Son of God, as in Heb. 2: 9 it is written, "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." But God, in the death of the Lord Jesus, also gave a stronger expression of His hatred of sin than in any other dealing. So in witness of, and as an answer to, His death does grace now flow out to the very worst. In that day Israel will know this for themselves; but they will know better what Jehovah means. And of what mighty import it will prove to them that His personal name in the government of this world is the precious token given to them nationally the title of relationship in which they have Him revealed as their God! This book then is the transition from a morally judged Christendom to "that day."

*By Asia is meant not even Asia Minor, but that part of its western coast which constituted the Roman proconsular province. The kingdom of Pergamus had that title given to it, just as part of the Carthaginian territory was called the province of Libya or Africa. Some account for the absence of allusion to Colosse and Hierapolis by the circumstance that they were destroyed by an earthquake soon after St. Paul's epistle to the former. If Eusebius and Tacitus refer to the same fact (for their dates differ), it seems that Laodicea, though involved in the catastrophe, was rebuilt before the reign of Domitian. But adopting the earlier date of the Roman historian (A.D. 61), how can this consist with the usual reference of the Colossian epistle to A.D. 64? May I also express my surprise that the strange notion of Theodoret, that St. Paul founded the churches of Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, should be held by any unbiassed person? I am aware of Lardner's elaborate effort. But Col. 2, if rightly understood, includes the Colossians and Laodiceans among those who had not seen the apostle in the flesh.

Again, the style in which the Holy Ghost is here introduced is as strikingly characteristic of the book as what we have just traced; and so too is the way in which the Lord Jesus Himself is spoken of after that. "Grace be to you and peace . . . . from the seven Spirits who are before his throne." Of course, the same Holy Ghost, known as the "One Spirit" in the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, is here mentioned as "the seven Spirits which are before his throne." He is spoken of as the "One Spirit," where it is a question of the one body, the church, as in Eph. 4: 4. But here it is the "seven Spirits;" because, when God shall have finished His present work in the church, He will infallibly exit off the faithless (Jewish or Gentile), and will no longer gather Jews and Gentiles into one body on the earth. On the contrary, in the millennial kingdom on earth, Israel is to be put above the Gentiles. (Compare Isaiah 2: 2-4, 11, 12, 24, 35, 49, 54, 55, 59, 65, and the prophets generally.) It will be a different state of things altogether; and the Holy Ghost therefore is regarded in His various fulness of operations (as He is in connection with Messiah in Isaiah 11), and not in His heavenly unity. It is added, "who are before his throne," because the main subject of this book is the government of God; first providentially and preparatorily in the seals trumpets and vials; next personally at our Lord's appearing till the kingdom be given up and God be all in all.

In general, when we have "grace be to you and peace," it is from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ." But in this place the order is as different as the style: first it is "from him that is, and that was, and that is to come," i.e., from Jehovah; then "from the seven Spirits," etc.; and lastly "from Jesus Christ." I think this departure from the usual order is because Jesus is here spoken of, not so much as related to the believer nor in His divine glory as Son of God, but in special reference to the earth and His rightful claims over the world.

The Lord is first viewed as "the faithful witness." All other witnesses Lad more or less failed. He alone had been the faithful witness of God and for God on the earth. But this was at all cost to Himself. But though put to death, it was the defeat of this world's prince, not of Christ; and hence in resurrection He stands "the first-begotten of the dead." He is the first who entered into resurrection-life in this wondrous may which defied corruption to touch it. "Being raised from the dead, he dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." But much more than this is conveyed. He is the heir and chief of the new estate, according to divine righteousness and counsels, of man beyond death and the grave, Lord not only of the living but of the dead, and this proved and displayed in the power of His resurrection. This He is, as faithful witness He was. So moreover He will prove to be at His coming in glory "the Prince of the kings of the earth," when it is a question of the government of the world. All these things are connected with what He was, is, and will be, as man. It is Jesus viewed in His earthly connections, or at least without speaking of what He is in heaven. His intermediate relation to the church (as its Head, and as the "great High-priest") disappears, as not falling in with the design of the divine government here.

But mark the beauty of what follows. The moment Jesus is presented to the churches, and announced as "the faithful witness, the first-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth," the answer of joy and praise can be withheld no longer. The saints interrupt, if one may so say, the message of John, and break forth into a song of thanksgiving — "To him that loveth us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us a kingdom * — priests to his God and Father." He satisfies the affections by His love, He has cleared the conscience by His blood, and has put us in such glorious relationships as He stands in Himself to God and the Father. Yet even here it is not the distinctively Christian relationship. It is not sonship known by the Spirit of His Son in our hearts, nor is it our membership of Christ's body. It is blessed to have access as priests, glorious to reign with Him; but in both we share with the Apocalyptic sufferers at the end of the age. (See Rev. 5: 10, and especially Rev. 20: 4.) What is common will be true for all; but this does not hinder distinction of privilege.

*It is a clear allusion to Exodus 19, and follows the Hebrew idiom in the true reading, not exactly kings and priests here, but "a kingdom, priests." There is of course this essential difference, that there it was but an offer conditional on Israel's legal obedience; here grace has given us the position, but the position itself is formulated Jewishly like all else, as the reader may have seen and may see yet more.

There is a little alteration that should be made on excellent authority in this verse, which greatly adds to its sweetness and force. In the correct text it is "To him that loveth us," not "that loved us." It is quite true that "Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." Eph. 5 shows us this; — equally true, that He "loved me and gave himself for me," as in Gal. 2. But the first of Revelation shows us the present love of Jesus. It is not that He is always washing us from our sins: He washed us with His own blood once for all, and does not require so to wash us again. There is however the practical cleansing day by day — the washing of water by the word; but this is not what is spoken of here, but in His blood, a finished work, and one that lasts all through to His praise. But how blessed it is to know, while listening to the very book which most unfolds the ways and means by which God is about to put aside unfaithful Christendom, and to judge the evil of the world, that in presence of all this we can look up in the full confidence of His present abiding love, and say — "To him that loveth us, and washed* us from our sins in his blood . . . to him be the glory and the might unto the ages of the ages. Amen."

*Another reading λύσαντι, "loosed," is supported by the three best uncials A C, L few good cursives, the Syriac, some Slav. copies, and early writers. But ου might be easily merged in υ, and the idea of washing seems most in keeping with the style elsewhere. The common reading is supported by B P, the vast majority of the cursives, versions, and citations. Doctrinally the difference of sense is unimportant.

After the salutation, "Grace be to you and peace," etc., we had an interruption. It was the voice of the heavenly saints breaking forth into a strain of praise. Now we have (verse 7) those solemn but blessed words, "Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye see him, and those who pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so (or "Yea"), Amen." This is not a part of the song, but a testimony quite distinct from it. And we often find these two things: that which forms the communion of a saint of God, and then that which is or should be his testimony.

The communion with each other is a great element of Christian happiness. Now it is the presentation of Christ and the knowledge of Him and of our portion in Him which produces the sense of fellowship and calls out worship. Besides this, the believer is acquainted by God with what is coming upon the world. And this is a part of our testimony, but not the theme with which the heart should be most filled. With a person who merely dwells on prophecy you may find interesting and grave topics, but not much fellowship of heart. For, however true may be his judgment of passing events, however sound his expectation of the future, grace in Christ alone leads to communion. It would be quite wrong to despise prophecy, and he who does will be sure to fall into some snare or other. But if the Christian is always occupied with the details of prophecy, there never will be power for heavenly worship; nor does it necessarily deliver a man from the ways of the world. A person may have impressions correct enough about the Jews, the judgments on Babylon and the beast, etc., who may not yet walk in separation from the world. But when the heart is set upon Christ, and these predicted things come in as a sort of background then they all find their level. The Holy Spirit leads us into all the truth, glorifying Christ, and also showing us "things to come."

So in 2 Peter 1: 19 it is said, speaking of the word of prophecy, "whereunto ye do well that ye take heed." It is important that I should see what is coming and that I should not indulge myself in an easy path here below. To know that the Lord is coming to judge the habitable world ought never to be a comfort to those who are swimming with its current. But there is something else that may well be the delight of the soul — day-dawning and the day-star arising in the heart. Peter does not here speak of the day arriving for the world, but affirms that the word of prophecy is an admirable lamp until you get heavenly light, and the day-star arises in your heart. It is the heart awakening to better hopes than Israel's, and of Christ Himself coming for us as its own proper portion. How many still as then, and naturally most of all among Jewish Christians, do not rise above a hope, formed by Old Testament prophecy, which is true and important, but not the heavenly hope given to us? This is never presented in scripture as a bare prophetic event. Christ waited for and known as One who may come at any time to gather us together to Himself — such is the form taken by our blessed hope. It is the apostle Paul who, while fully presenting the appearing and the kingdom, specially brings out the hope of the church. John too looks at Christ as the Bridegroom, at what He is for the heart, after he has closed the general testimony of the Revelation to His judicial dealings and government.

When the Lord comes to receive us, He is not said to come "with the clouds." When He ascended, a cloud received Him. Even so will it be with us: we shall be caught up together in clouds to meet Him. But here He is manifested for judgment of the world, and especially of the Jews. "Behold, he cometh with the clouds." This is a revelation known and testified by the heavenly saints, who cannot but love His appearing as that which will break the yoke of evil for the world, and secure God's glory and blessing to all creation here below; but it is not their own peculiar joy in communion. "Even so, Amen."

In Colossians the association of the saints with Christ is very fully brought out in Colossians 2, 3. He is my life, and I am identified with Him. Thus, inasmuch as Christ my Saviour is dead to the world, with Him I also have died to the world. Hence not only is my treasure there, but the very religion of the world is judged, because Christ was cast out by the world's religion. And when He our life shall be manifested, then shall we too be manifested with Him in glory. So here, when He comes with the clouds, every eye shall see Him. But this will not be the case when He comes to gather His own to Himself on high. (2 Thess. 2: l.) God is gathering the friends of Christ round the name of Christ now. The church is a body that is called while Christ is not seen, and the Christian, having his portion in Him now, is hidden with Him. "Your life is hid with Christ, in God." Next we are caught up to meet Him. After that (how lone, after we may seek to learn) God brings us with Him at His revelation from heaven. Not now chosen witnesses, but "every eye" shall see Him then, and especially the Jews, characterized as having pierced Him (compare Zech. 12: 10 with John 19: 37), and all the tribes of the earth shall wail because of Him. The words will equally bear the sense of "the land;" in which case the clause would take in not the Jews only but the whole δωδεκάφυλον or twelve-tribed nationality of Israel. Let the reader judge which best suits the context, as well as the enumeration of the verse. It is certainly not the twelve tribes in those who pierced Him, but of Israel distinguished from the more direct guilt of Judah, unless it be still wider.

In this verse then it is not the Lord coming to meet His own and gather them to Himself in the air; but "every eye shall see him . . . . . and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." When the Lord comes to translate the church, it will be far otherwise. God has joined us even now by the Spirit to Christ in heaven, according to all the efficacy of His death and resurrection. As far as the spirit is concerned this is true nosy, and it will be true of the body itself when Christ comes. The resurrection of Christ calls me to live thoroughly to God, as the death of Christ makes me as truly dead in principle to the world as if I were already buried. In practice, alas! we have to own sad falling short. Still, says the apostle, "your life is hid," etc. It is the life of Christ you have received. As long as Christ is hidden, you are hidden also. But the time is at hand when this will no longer be the case. "When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." When Christ comes to receive the church, no eye will see Him but those for whom Christ comes. When the world sees Christ, it will be when He comes in glory, bringing His saints with Him — revealed from heaven with the angels of His power, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God (the Gentiles), and on them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Jews). If the world were to see Christ coming alone in glory before the church is caught up to Him, the inseparable association of which the apostle Paul made so much to the Colossians, would cease to be true. But scripture cannot be broken. The world can never see Christ, coming to receive the saints, because then they must have seen Him without them and before them; whereas the same moment of His appearing is to be the epoch of our appearing with Him. He will come for us; and we subsequently come along with Him. And this does not merely rest on a word here and there: it is the doctrine of the whole passage. The same truth is shown and confirmed by other proofs throughout the New Testament.

With Christ, by His death we are dead to the world; united to Him risen we are risen, and are therefore to have our hearts set upon heavenly things before we see them. And more than that: Christ, is not always to be hidden. He is about to be manifested; and when He is, we too shall be manifested along with Him. It is plain that Christ and the church must have been together before they are manifested to the world, if they are to appear together. In Rev. 19: 11 we have this taught beyond all doubt. "I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True. . . . . And the armies that are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clad in fine linen, white, pure." The horse is an emblem of aggressive power; the white horse, of this power prospering or victorious. Here it is the Lord Jesus coming in judgment, substantially the same time when He comes with the clouds. These armies that were seen in the prophetic vision following Him out of heaven, clad in fine linen, are not angels. The text says that the fine linen (βύσσινον) is the righteousnesses of saints. Now it is to be remarked that, although angels are described in Revelation 15 as being "clad in pure bright linen," a different word (λίνον) is used. Thus the heavenly saints are those described in Revelation 19 as the armies of heaven, etc. They were in heaven therefore before the way was opened for Christ to come out in judgment; they had been caught up to meet Him before; and now they follow Him from heaven when He comes. I doubt not that angels are in His train also, as appears from other texts; but they do not seem spoken of here.

There are thus two important and different stages of the Lord's second coming. First of all He will come to receive His people to Himself, and the church ought always to be waiting for this. In the next place He will come to judge the world, when He has already taken up the heavenly saints, and wickedness rises to its head apace. Then suddenly the heavens will open, and the Lord Jesus Christ will come and the church with Him, appearing together in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Is it asked how? Israel was not told how they were to be delivered out of Egypt. Jehovah was going to deliver them; but He did not explain the method before it came to pass. And the Lord is going to take the church to heaven by His coming. Besides this, He will judge the wickedness of the world; but then the church will come along with Him from heaven.

Verse 8. Here, it seems to me, that we have God as such, though as always not to the exclusion of Christ,* uttering the titles of His various but divine glory, as a sort of seal of the foregoing and an introductory basis for what follows: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, He that is, and that was, and that is to come, the Almighty." The first (the ἄλφα and the ὦ) is evidently a name most suited to the book which so admirably closes the written communications of God. He is the God of Israel, the ever subsisting Eternal, who had sustained the fathers, and thus attests the truth, not of the solemn warning alone just given, but of all here revealed to the end of time. Assuredly all His names here announced, it would be wholesome for the saints to remember, whether for us before the trial, or for those who shall be called on to pass through it. It is to be observed however that the special revelation to the Christian is precisely what is omitted here. He does not call Himself our Father in this prophecy. This, and the reason for it, readers have too often forgotten. Our hope and prophecy differ, as heaven does from the earth.

*At the close of the book (Rev. 22: 13) the Lord takes similar titles; for if He were the exalted man and is to come and to judge as such, He was much more, and no designation of the Eternal God could exceed the dignity of His person. But the words of the common text in verse 11 ("I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last and") are an interpolation there, and mar the symmetry of the context. All the best MSS., versions, etc. reject them, and require "God" in verse 8.

Verse 9 is not quite correctly given in the ordinary text. "I John, your brother and companion in tribulation." The word "also" is left out in the best copies. And what follows should be read thus: "your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience in Christ [Jesus]." The trouble, reign and patience all go together. He purposely speaks of himself, not as a member of the body of Christ, but as their brother and companion in tribulation (perhaps because, after the church is taken away, there will still be saints on earth and our brethren, John puts himself along with them. The Holy Ghost loves us, whatever specialities of privilege may come in, as much as possible to take our place along with the saints of God at all times. The book of Revelation was written for the church, just when it was drifting into a state of ruin. In Rev. 6 we have some of these companions in tribulation; but what they say proves that they do not belong to the church. "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood . . . . . We find a proper Christian appeal to God in the case of Stephen — "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." The Christian is always called to suffer in the world. These Apocalyptic saints will understand that the Lord is about to judge, and they will ask Him to do so. It would be wrong now to ask this, for it is the day of grace still. Faith habitually takes its language from what God is doing, and He is dealing in race and not in judgment now. We are called to retire from the way of the world, and to attach our hearts simply to all that is glorious and heavenly, for this is the present object of Christ. The white robes given to these sufferers in Revelation 6 are an evident mark of God's approbation. They were to rest till their brethren who should be killed as they were should be fulfilled. Judgment must then take its course.

"In the tribulation and kingdom and patience." It will be the kingdom of Christ, in power when the tribulation and patience are all over. But now the circumstances of that kingdom involve tribulation. The kingdom of heaven as presented in the prophecy of Daniel is no mystery. It means the reign of heaven on (or over) the earth. But Christ, instead of getting His rightful place as Messiah when He came, was rejected, and went up to heaven; and thus it is that the mysteries of the kingdom come in while He is there unseen, save to faith. Hence it is that there "lust now be suffering and endurance in the kingdom is it actually is for the Christian. When Christ appears in glory, all this will be at an end. Then will come the kingdom and power. (See Rev. 12) It is the kingdom and patience in Christ now. That word "patience," or endurance, is to be weighed well. We have communion with Jesus in this patient expectation; we wait for what He waits. A man that is born anew now is not in the kingdom and power, but in the kingdom and patience in Christ. Hence suffering here below naturally follows. So here the apostle John was thrown into the isle of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus." It was, I presume, for his faithful work as an apostle in the gospel and in the church, ministering Christ, in both. But he was inspired to speak of it in the tone of this book for reasons already suggested.

Thus the ground on which John addresses the churches is not expressly as an apostle, but as their brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience in Christ Jesus One remarkable trait which Christianity has brought out is, that God has opened to us another kingdom of an order differing from the earthly or Jewish one — a kingdom in which for the present there is tribulation, as far as our circumstances are concerned, and patient hope the corresponding and distinguishing grace; for Christ's love has made us kings, and we shall reign with Him.

But the church has slipped out of its place of suffering and endurance; it has sought and taken the place of power in the world — the place that had belonged only to the Jews of right, and to the Gentile empires in divine sovereignty because of Israel's sins. In the presence of general failure it becomes no one to be high-minded; where there is real separation from evil, may there be humility! Wherever it is a question of ceasing to do evil, there is great need of looking to the Lord, lest one should say, "This is what I have done, and what others have not done." Say rather it is all the Lord's grace. But those Christians who desire to stand aloof from the evil around them are in evident danger of giving themselves somewhat of credit for doing something that others are not doing. In the presence of evil that we may have done and left, the effects of which we have still to judge in ourselves, it is not a time to indulge in high thoughts of ourselves.

When God executes His purposes towards the earth, His people will have fellowship with what He is doing, as of old in the land of Egypt, in the wilderness, and in Canaan. But when we look at Christianity, it is not a question of earthly purposes, but of Jesus crucified through weakness, and of power put forth to raise Him again from the dead. There will be again a most solemn dealing on God's part when Christ will judge not only the living but the dead. But for us the fire of God's wrath has fallen upon Christ; His judgment was borne in grace by His beloved Son. And now God is imprinting on the hearts of His people heavenly glory. He is forming their character by these two great facts which meet in Christ; the one is the cross, and the other is the glory into which He ascended. What God has thus done in Christ is what He wants us to have communion with. As the Israelites had the law engraven on stones, so by the Spirit should Christ be written on our hearts and ways. The life of a creature may be lost, but what the believer has is the life of Christ; and can the life of Christ ever perish? Christ went through death in order that He might give a character of life which death could not touch. When the Lord God made man, He made him out of the dust of the field, but He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and therefore is it that the soul is immortal. Adam had this life direct from the breath of the Lord God. Sin, however, may touch it, and the second death — eternal misery in the lake of fire for soul and body. But that which Christ breathed after He rose from the dead John 20: 22) was a life which death never could conquer, nor even assail more, over which nothing had a claim; and such is the life of every believer.

And yet there are those who fancy that the life of a believer may be lost! I can only say that God does not deal with those who so think according to their thoughts of Him. The life is as strong in the Arminian as in the Calvinist, because it is the life of Christ. When a man is conscious that he has gravely failed against God, he is in danger of yielding to the fear that his blessing is gone. But no; you have sinned against that life, and against Him who is the source of it; but the life itself is there still, and cannot be touched; it is eternal. Again, where a person is occupied in looking at the spiritual life within him, he will never have comfort. The proof that he is a Christian is that he has received the testimony of God's love in Jesus.

Verse 10. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." John does not merely intimate that he had the Spirit as every Christian has, nor that he was filled with the Spirit as the Christian should be, but that he became as completely characterized by His power for the divine purpose of seeing and writing these visions, as he is for evil who is possessed of an unclean spirit. It was on the Lord's day or first day of the week. For the Lord's day" is not at all the same thing as the "day of the Lord (ἡμέρα Κυρίου)." The same expression (κυριακός) was used with regard to the Lord's supper, because it was not a common meal, but a holy and divinely instituted memorial of the Lord. So the Lord's day is not a common day, but one specially set apart, not as a command, but as the expression of the highest privilege, for the worship of the Lord. The sabbath was the last day which Jehovah claimed out of man's week; the Lord's day is the first day of God's week, and in a sense, we may say, of His eternity. The Christian begins with the Lord's day, that this may as it were give a character to all the days of the week. In spirit the Christian is risen, and every day belongs to the Lord. Therefore is he to bring up the standard of each day that follows in the week to that blessed beginning — the Lord's day. To bring down the Lord's day to the level of another day only shows how gladly the heart drinks in anything that takes away somewhat from Christ. The man who only obeys Christ because he must do so has not the spirit of obedience at all. We are sanctified not only to the blood of sprinkling, but to the obedience of Jesus Christ — to the obedience of sons under grace, not to that of mere servants under law. The lawlessness which despises the Lord's day is hateful; but that is no reason why Christians should destroy its character by confounding the Lord's day, the new creation-day, with the sabbath of nature or of the law.

On that day then, specially dear to the Christian, bright visions of glory passed before the prophet's eye. First, John tells us what he saw on that occasion: this is what we have in the rest of the first chapter (Rev. 1: 12-20). It was the vision of the glory of Christ's person in the midst of the seven golden lampstands. "The things which are" (ver. 19) we have in Revelation 2, 3, which describe the condition of the churches at that time. The third division of the Revelation consists of "the things which shall be after these." The version "hereafter" is vague, for it might mean thousands of years after. "After these" expresses the sense of the phrase much better. It means what was about to happen immediately after "the things which are" now — i.e. after the church-condition. Those we have from Rev. 4 to the end of the book. The "things which are" continue still (in the most important application of the book). And what next? "What is about to happen after these things," when the church has ceased to subsist on earth.

Let us look a little at what the apostle saw. First of all, he hears behind him "a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying,* What thou seest write in a book (or roll), and send to the seven churches: unto Ephesus," etc. (ver. 11) "And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And, being turned I saw seven "golden lamp-stands." These were evidently derived from the light of the tabernacle. Only in this case the lamp-stands were separate, so that the Lord could stand between them. They were golden, as in divine righteousness set here to give light. Such was their responsibility. But another object fixes the attention of the prophet: Christ was in their midst as a judge. In the midst of the seven candlesticks he sees not exactly the Son of man, but "one like [the or a] Son of man." He is really God, but He is not so presented in the first instance here. From John 5 we may learn the force of this, and why it is in this instance Son of man, and not Son of God. As Son of God He is one who quickens, because He is a divine person; He quickens in communion with the Father. Thus giving life He is called the Son of God; but as Son of man He executes judgment, because God will have Him honoured in the very nature in which man outraged Him. This at once shows us the bearing of what we have in the Revelation. It is as Son of Man on the earth that Christ is here presented; and as such He is about to execute judgment upon the seven churches, as well as by and by upon the world. For thus it is He will inherit all things, though otherwise also.

*It is well known that the words in the common text here, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and" have no sufficient authority, and were evidently inserted by the mistake of some scribe. Admirable where God inserts them repeatedly in this book, they only mar the connection here when man added them wrongly.

The "garment down to the foot," with which He was clothed, indicates not activity of work, but rather dignified priestly judgment. "Gold," as here in the girdle, is the symbol of divine righteousness; linen is explained to be what is saintly and displayed before men. "His head and his hairs were white as white wool, as snow." Thus, besides being Son of man, and being seen in the garb and place of priestly discrimination there are the emblems too of divine glory, as appears by comparing this passage with Daniel 7. What is said of the Ancient of days by Daniel is applied to the Son of man by John,* the Ancient of days being the eternal God. John sees here that the Son of man is Himself the Ancient of days; as indeed Daniel shows Him coming as such (7: 22). The same who wrote "The Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "the Word was made flesh," beholds now in prophetic vision the combination of humanity with the emblems they appropriated to Deity in the person of the Son of man. The head and hairs being "white as white wool, as snow," show fulness of divine wisdom. There is no mitre as if He were acting as high priest in gracious intercession; He is judging. Still less do we see the crown or diadem. The time for His reign is not yet come. He is set down on the Father's throne; not yet on His own.

*The article is wanting in Greek — to indicate the character in which Christ was seen: "a son of man" therefore is too vague and not the sense. If the article Lad been inserted, it would have conveyed the idea of Him as the known person whom John loved and followed on earth, rather than the character in which He appeared now.

"His eyes like a flame of fire" set forth the penetration that marked Him in judgment. "His feet like fine brass,* as if burned in a furnace" — they could not contract any defilement, and are unbending in judicial strength, as dealing with responsible man according to God. "His voice as the voice of many waters" expressed resistless power and majesty outside the control of men (verses 12-15). Such He is personally and relatively.

*The word χαλκολβάνῳ seems compounded of χαλκός, Copper, and laban , white — a compound of Greek and Hebrew, which has been conjectured to harmonize with the book. Compare in this chapter ναὶ ἀμήν, ver. 7; also Rev. 9: 11; and perhaps elsewhere.

Official description follows in verse 16. "And he had in his right hand seven stars," the emblem of the angels, or representative rulers, of the seven churches. "A sharp two-edged sword," the word of judgment, not morally alone, but to death where needed, and this even against the apostles at the end, went out of His mouth; because in the Lord Jesus Christ to speak the word is at once to strike the blow. "He spake, and it was done." "His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." Supreme authority in government was His as man. Such He was officially. The churches angels were represented as "stars" only, as being of course subordinate to the Lord as instruments of heavenly light. Clearly then we have in the Lord sovereign authority, and universal in its range, as the stars are His administrative lights in the churches, which He maintains by His power. He judges by His word those who have it or refuse it.

When John sees this wonderful vision of the Son of man, he falls at His feet as dead. But the Lord puts His right hand of sustaining power upon His servant who lay trembling, nay as dead, before Him, and says, "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I became dead, and, behold, I am alive unto the ages of ages."* Here is no deprecating the more than homage of His servant, but the re-assuring him whose nature was as it were withered up before Him. He is Jehovah yet man; but if He had not died, we should not have known Him in the blessed character and energy of life that He has proved now — life more abundantly. Who then could say, "Fear not" as He? Christianity presents Christ as having passed through death, and as risen in triumph for God and His people. John is going to hear about judgments, and the wiles, power, and wrath of Satan beyond the previous experience of men; but the knowledge that the right hand of Him who was alive for evermore had been upon him, and the words of His mouth, would give him strength and courage for everything to come. And as this is the spirit in which the book was written, so it should be read.

*The "Amen," though read by B and most of the cursives, seems due to the copyists making the phrase a doxology, either through unconscious habit, or designedly adding ἀμήν as a correction.

"Behold, I am alive unto the ages of ages, and have the keys of death and of hades." The succession of these words in the common text is a mistake. Hades follows death, and does not go before it. (Rev. 6) See also Rev. 20 where we have "death and hades" mentioned several times in their regular order. And so in the best authorities it is here. When the Lord says that He has the keys of death and of hades, He intimates that He is the absolute master of all that might threaten man whether for the body or the soul. Satan's power in this respect is annulled; Christ has it all.

Accordingly also, in verse 19, there ought on the best authority to be read a little word which adds somewhat to the force and connection. "Write therefore what thou hast seen:" because I am risen from the dead and am alive for evermore, and the sole ruler of death and hades, write therefore. He who bade John write (verses 11, 19) was the Son of man, with the characteristics of the Ancient of days; but He was also the living victorious Lord, the security against terror and death, the strengthener of His servants in presence of glory. "Write therefore what thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which are about to be after these." Human nature might well be confounded by the sight; but He who was revealed to John characterised Himself both as God and as the man who had passed through death and destroyed Satan's title and held the power for His own. And this was to be written, this revelation of Jesus as seen of John, as well as the existing church-state, and the things which should follow (17-19).

Verse 20 explains the mystery of the stars and lamp-stands, as already indicated. It is the connecting link between the vision of Christ and the judgment of the church, or house of God on earth (Rev. 2, 3), as long as its existence there is recognized as the object of His government. After that it is the judgment of the world from God's throne in heaven, and Jews and Gentiles are variously dealt with, but churches never in that part of the book. All this, and the reasons for it, will appear more distinctly as we proceed.

It is plain, from Revelation 1: 4, 11, and from what follows, that seven actually existing churches of provincial Asia were primarily meant. But while it is true that there were special reasons for addressing those particular churches, it does not to my own mind admit of a doubt, that they were selected with the further and larger design of presenting successive pictures of the church in general from the apostolic days to the close of its existence on earth. Hence it is that there were seven golden lamp-stands, seven being the well-known symbol of spiritual completeness. There might have been other churches as well or better known, and one of these seven had been already addressed formally by the great apostle of the Gentiles. But Ephesus is again taken up, and six other churches are associated, so as to make up a mystical and perfect sketch of the more important moral features which then existed, and which at the same time would successively be developed in the after history of the professing body upon the earth.* Many things which might seem most important in the eyes of men and even of Christians are passed by, for the Lord sees not as man sees.

*Every believer in the inspiration of the Apocalypse of course admits the ever-living application of the moral pictures set forth in Rev. 2, 3, as is true of the Acts in the New Testament, or of the histories in the Old Testament. But the idea that the seven churches represent all churches, or the general state and character in John's day, appears to be mere confusion. The truth is, that each represents a distinct moral state, in which the professing body, wholly or in part, might he at some given time. In a word, that the local assemblies then exhibited the special features described is true; but they could not all characterise the then existing slate of the church in general, because they set forth different and even opposed moral conditions. If we admit then, as we must, an enlarged application, beyond that to the actual assemblies or to mere individual conduct, the natural reference is to successive phases of spiritual condition, good or bad, in the history of the Christian profession. Perhaps the extreme partisans of the Protestant school of interpretation are not generally aware that their learned leader, Mede, thus expresses himself in his more mature "Short Observations on the Apocalypse" (Works, p. 905): — "If we consider their number being seven, which is a number of revolution of time, and therefore in this book the seals and trumpets and vials also are seven; and if we consider the choice of the Holy Ghost, in that He taketh neither all, no, nor the most famous church in the world, as Antioch, etc., and such no doubt had need of instruction, as well as those here named; — if these things be well considered, may it not seem that these seven churches, besides this literal respect, were intended to be as patterns and types of the several ages of the catholic church à principio ad finem, that so these seven churches should prophetically sample unto us a sevenfold successive temper and condition of the whole visible church, according to the several ages thereof, answering to the pattern of the seven churches here? And if this be granted, viz., that they were intended to be so many patterns of so many states of the church, succeeding in the like order the churches are named, then surely the first church (viz., the Ephesian state) must be first, and the last be the last," etc.

Another striking feature claims our notice and admiration. It might have seemed impossible to reconcile prophetic light, as to the successive phases the church might assume from the apostolic time as long as it is found here below, with the continual expectation of Christ. But divine wisdom solved the difficulty even here, as the same end is secured in the Gospels and Epistles. The Lord was pleased to address seven contemporaneous and actually existing assemblies; but, in dealing with existing facts, He knew how to select and shape His instruction, so as to suit the states which should follow till He comes. What a comment on the Lord's answer to Peter's query, "Lord, what shall this man [John] do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me." In this part of the book mere literal time is excluded. It is not future but present, however protracted — "the things which are."

But it will be found, I think, that He has here given prominence to those features, whether good or bad, which should reappear, and most aptly set forth what He foresaw to be of the deepest moment for him who might have an ear to hear till He comes again. And this extensive application seems to be strongly confirmed by that clause of the threefold division in Revelation 1: 19, which bears on these churches. They are characterized as "the things which are." No doubt they existed then in the time of John; but if they continued to exist, and if seeds that were then sown germinated yet more in after days, and thus imparted a graver significance to the words and warnings of our Lord, that subsisting state of the church on earth would still be fitly designated "the things which are."

Thus Ephesus is the first great sample of decline through a relaxation or abandonment of first love. But was not this the notorious fact in Christendom generally before the last apostle departed to be with the Lord? If in those days and yet more in the times much followed, there was a similar moral state, what more apt and natural than to treat the moral circumstances so as to convey the general lesson? Again, without questioning that the message to Smyrna fully applied at that time, it is easy to see that the great and repeated persecutions which broke out upon Christians from the heathen are admirably set forth by it. So again the Balaam element would naturally come into neat distinctness, when the world patronised instead of persecuting. Then further Jezebel is an immense advance in evil; and though no doubt there was that which furnished occasion for these references at the time when the Apocalypse was given, can it be denied that the outline was filled up in a most striking way, after the throne of the world established Christianity by its edicts, and when at a later epoch still the professing church formed a guilty union with virtual heathenism and enmity to the truth of God

This glance, rapid as it is, over Revelation 2, 3, will show, on the one hand, why I conceive that the Apocalyptic churches are to be viewed as having a real, if indirect, prophetic bearing upon the subsequent states of the church as they presented themselves to the Lord's all-searching judgment. On the other hand it is clear, that to have made this bearing so marked as to be apparent from the first — to have given a distinct chronological history, if one may so say — would have falsified the true posture of the church in habitually waiting for the Lord from heaven. For the Lord has nowhere else so spoken to or about the church as to keep it necessarily waiting for ages upon the earth. Of course the Lord knew that it would be so; but He revealed nothing that would interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessed hope of the Lord's return as an immediate thing. In the parables of the Gospels which set forth His return, while space is left for delay, room is left for His coming, if so it pleased God, in their lifetime whom He then addressed. And so it is here. Thou — in the seven churches the full course of the church on earth is comprised in such varying and at last concurrent phases as it seemed fit to the Lord to notice, He took care to found all on facts then present before His divinely piercing gaze, so as to maintain the balance of truth undisturbed.

Some have taken advantage of this indistinctness to deny that these seven churches have the successive and protracted character which I have alluded to; but the evidence will appear more fully as we look at each church severally. Another consideration which ought to weigh much is, that after these two chapters (Rev. 2, 3) churches are nowhere referred to as existing longer on the earth. In the concluding remarks of the book (Rev. 22: 16) the Lord says that he has sent His angel to testify these things in the churches. But throughout the entire course of the visions, and in all that is intimated of the condition of men here below, after Rev. 3 right onward, there is the most unaccountable silence as to the church on earth, if the church be really there; while nothing is more simple, if that state of things be closed. And this quite agrees with Revelation 1: 19 The things which are, and the things which shall come to pass after these." After the churches are done with, and no longer seen as such upon the earth, the directly prophetic portion of the book begins to have its course.

Further it seems that the introduction of a new phase in the succession of the churches does not necessarily imply the disappearance of what had been before it. In a word, after the new condition appears, there may be still the co-existence of older ones, and each may run on in its own sphere. This appears to be distinctly true of the last four, being marked thenceforth by a distinct reference to the Lord's coming, as may be seen in Thyatira and the churches which follow.

Thus much may be said of the churches as a whole. Responsibility on earth is the question: not the privileges of the church or the saints in Christ, but the obligation of the churches to represent Him, and His estimate of their state. The lightbearers are formally under His scrutiny and judgment. Paul long before (1 Tim.) had shown the church of the living God to be the pillar and ground of the truth. Nowhere else in the world is the truth so inscribed and held up as in that house of God; but even he (2 Tim. 2) lets us see that such a privilege and responsibility would in no way preserve it from ruin; for in this his last epistle he described its condition as that of a great house with vessels not to honour only but to dishonour, from which last the godly man had to purge himself. John here sets before us the solemn fact of (not the church judging, but) the Lord morally judging the churches by His word. Alas! the church pretending to be a judge, and hence becoming a murderous false prophetess, is a part of the evil that is judged in the church at Thyatira, as we shall see in Revelation 2.

Thyatira has another distinctive mark, in that it first has the Lord's coming, not spiritually or providentially as in the message to Ephesus and Pergamos, but actually, and hence, while these may have passed away, goes down to the end, as do those states which follow — Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, remarkable for being addressed by the Lord in characteristics either in part or wholly different from His appearance in the vision of Rev. 1, the characteristics of which last were uniformly employed in the addresses of the first three churches. And if we cannot but discern Popery in the Jezebel of Thyatira, not without the faithful remnant which in its simplicity refused her abominations and bore up against her bloodiest policy, can we fail to see in Sardis the cold correctness of Protestantism verging toward the world, with whose doom it is threatened; in Philadelphia a testimony feeble but dependent on Christ, cleaving to His word and not denying His name, with "that blessed hope" full in view; and in Laodicea that finally nauseous state of self-complacent indifferentism which is more than ever rising up around us?

Revelation 2.

EPHESUS.

We will now look at the first of the seven churches more particularly (verses 1-7). First., let us observe that John is told to write to the angel of the church in Ephesus. The address is no longer to "the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." Nor is it to the saints with the bishops and deacons, as the word was to the Philippian church. Why is this? The Lord's ways are always full of grace; but they are righteous withal, and the church was a fallen and falling thing so that He could no longer address them in His familiar love as formerly. Thus there was departure of the most serious kind from Himself, and John is directed to address, not the church, but its angel or representative. The angels spoken of in these epistles were men, and must not be confounded with the class of spiritual beings called angels.* The apostle John is employed by the Lord to send a message to them, and it would be contrary to all the ways of God to use man as a messenger to angels in the ordinary meaning of the word. Angels often acted between God and man, but not men between Him and angels.

*Origen and Andreas adopted the latter meaning, but Epiphanius and others expressly reject it. Many moderns suppose that the term is derived from the synagogue and that it answers to the שליח צי בור and חזן הכנסח. But if this be so, the angel of the church cannot mean even a presbyter, much less the president or chief of the presbyters, as Vitringa argues, but rather what is called clerk or sexton. The New Testament term for this chazan or angel of the synagogue seems to be ὑπηρέτης, who had the care of the books, etc. (Luke 4: 20.) The ruler, or ἀρχισυνάγωγος, was quite distinct; and of these there were several. (Acts 13: 15.) Compare Lightfoot. (Opp. ii. pp. 279, 310.) Some on the other hand supposed that envoys may have been sent from the churches in Asia to John, that hence they were called ἄγγελοι ἐκκλησιῶν (as John's disciples sent to the Lord were, Luke 7: 24; others sent by the Lord Himself while here below, Luke 9: 52, and the spies sent by Joshua, James 2: 25), and that the Lord accordingly so addresses them in the messages which He commands to be written to the churches. But I prefer the idea of representatives, as most in keeping with the prophecy as a whole.

But, further, there is no sufficient ground to affirm that the angel here addressed, though a man, is in such an official place necessarily as a bishop or elder.* He might have such a charge, or he might not. "The angel" always gives the thought of representation. In the Old Testament we have the angel of Jehovah, of the covenant, etc., and in Daniel we read of angels who were identified with Israel or other powers. In the New Testament we have the angels of the little children always beholding the face of their Father in heaven, which clearly means their representatives. So of Peter, in Acts 12, they said it was his angel. We may gather then that the angel here, though a man, is in some way or another the ideal responsible representative of an assembly. Hence, it could be said, "I will remove thy lamp-stand." It would be extremely objectionable to make this a defined official place, as it would introduce not merely a novelty, but one that clashes with all that is elsewhere taught in scripture as to the assembly. But it will not be doubted that in assemblies we find, as a fact, a particular person whom the Lord specially links with the assembly as characterizing it: he is morally identified with it, and receives from the Lord either praise or condemnation according to the state of the assembly.

*We know from Acts 20: 17, 28, that in the church at Ephesus elders or bishops were duly appointed, as was usual at any rate in assemblies at all mature where an apostle or in apostolic delegate like Titus could visit them for the purpose. But we have no ground to believe that "angel" ever was an official title for a chief ruler. It is probable, however, that the misunderstanding of this very term may have suggested or confirmed the invention of episcopacy, which was at first congregational rather than diocesan. Ignatius so singularly harps on that dignitary even in the most reduced form of his few genuine epistles as to give the idea of one anxious to accredit a comparatively new institution. It is certain that scripture does not countenance it unless it be in this prophetic book of mysterious symbol — a precarious basis for a most important charge which is ignored in the scriptures devoted to questions of rule.

Here the angel is directly charged with the state of the assembly. The address being to him, and not to the assembly, put them as it were at, farther distance from the Lord. What a tale this tells of the dreadful condition into which the church had got! He could no longer address these assemblies immediately. He had spoken directly to the Corinthians even; for, guilty as they were, they had not so loved Him and then relaxed. But here the message is, "Thou hast left thy first love." Yet, if the church were not faithful, He had a faithful servant at least in John; and he it is who in the first instance is addressed. And be it ever remembered that the church has never since recovered from that failure and place of comparative distance.* The church, the house of God, is a complete ruin here below. And in ruin the first thing that becomes us is that we feel it before Him.

*In this sense it is that we can understand how the churches, turning a deaf ear to these messages of Christ as they certainly did ere long, ceased to be recognized of God, and thus the strictly prophetic part, ἃ μέλλει γίνεσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα, a might apply in an inchoate or partial and protracted way ever since, while in a full and final sense there remains the absolute cutting off of the faithless Gentile profession, and the brief crisis of the latter when the prophetic portion is punctually carried out to the letter. This seems to be much confirmed by the mode employed to describe this abnormal ecclesiastical state, ἅ εἰσι, "the thing; which are," which easily admit of indefinite prolongation. It is not the seven churches, nor the messages to them, but a phrase easily applicable both to their then condition, and to the protracted state of ruin in which we are now.

This in no way touches eternal salvation; but the certainty of salvation is abused when employed to lessen what is due to God. In fact there is never a real sense of sin before conversion; for if it could thus be, it would be accompanied with absolute despair. But after we have not conversion only but perfect peace, we can bear to look at our sin, and we can afford to judge it thoroughly. A holy angel does not know God as we ought to do — I do not say as we do, though that be true also. An angel enters into the wonders of God's power, "hearkening unto the voice of his word." But the depths of God come out, marvellous to say, about our sin, and in His Only-begotten, "seen of angels" indeed, but in living relationship with us.

Here the Lord presents Himself as the One "that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, that walketh in the midst of the seven golden lamp-stands" (verse 1). He speaks of Himself as having authority over all the representatives of the heavenly light, and going about among the vessels of His testimony. The representative is addressed; the assembly is none the less responsible and dealt with accordingly. He is come to investigate, to judge — not yet of course the ungodly world, but — the assembly in Ephesus. What a difference between such a sight as this, and the view we have of Him and of the church too in Ephesians 1, 2! There He is seated at God's right hand in the heavenly places, and there too God has made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Here He is walking in the midst of the candlesticks. His hand is needed; for none but He could meet the difficulties. But is it not solemn that He is so presented to that very church to which Paul had opened out the fulness of His heavenly grace, the fulness of their own blessing in Him? But here He is obliged, as it were, to walk and vindicate His authority, not among those who know Him not, but where His love had once been well known — alas! now forgotten and dishonoured.

Observe the general character, as has been truly remarked, of this the first address throughout all its parts. Such is Christ's description; such too the sin; such the warning to the angel; and such the promise to the overcomer. The Lord's position is ecclesiastical generally, holding the seven stars and walking in the midst of the seven golden lamp-stands.

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men; and thou hast tried those that call themselves apostles and are not, and hast found them liars: and thou hast patience, and hast borne for my name's sake and art not wearied" (verses 2, 3).* Thus there were many things to praise. There was patience, and this is the first if not the greatest, that Paul gives of his own apostleship. More than this, nothing is more ready to break down than patience, after it has stood many a trial. But here at Ephesus there was endurance. (Compare verses 2, 3.) Again, where there is patience, there might be the tendency to pass over evil, or at least evil men. But it was not so here. They had borne for His name's sake, but they could not bear evil persons; and they had tried those that pretended to the highest place — to be apostles, and had found them liars. And thus they had gone on and were not weary. How sweet of the Lord (in His sorrow and, if we may so say, His disappointed love) thus to begin with all that was good!

*The common text, followed by the Authorized version, is in some respects corrupted. Their toil was known, and endurance they were not only eminent for, but they had it still. They had proved intolerant of evil persons, and especially of such as falsely claimed high ecclesiastical authority, whilst they had manifested their willingness to bear wrongs or afflictions for Christ's sake, and in all this they were not weary. Such is the sense of the right readings and the true order. A few MSS. (16, 37, 38, 69), and versions drop οὐ before κεκοπίακας, perhaps to seem verbally consistent with κόπον in the verse before; but the evidence for what I have given seems overwhelming.

But though there was what He could praise, He had against them that they had left their first love. It is quite evident that this is nothing special, but the general spirit or principle of declension of the church at large. Indeed it is very broad: so the angels that left their first estate; so Adam; so Israel. Alas! we must add now the assembly of God, blessed and loved beyond them all. They had let slip the consciousness of the Lord's love to them, and hence the fresh energy of their own love to Him had waned. What produced love in them was their appreciation of the Lord's love.

Let me just remark that the word "somewhat," in verse 4, seems to weaken the sense. It might convey the idea that the Lord had but little against them whereas, in truth, He was exceedingly grieved. Not to feel His love, not to return it consequently, was no small failure, especially where that love had once been enjoyed. But now it was faded, and what would not follow in time? "Remember, therefore, whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I coming unto thee, and I will remove thy lamp-stand out of its place, except thou repent." Solemn announcement! Not only is an assembly liable to lose its place of holding up the holy light of God, but assured that so it must be if it depart from first love and repent not. It is a much easier thing to be zealous in doing than in repenting. But even this would not satisfy His heart, unless they got back to that first love which had produced their first works: otherwise the lamp-stand must be removed. The spring of grace is as gone.

I doubt, on grounds both external and internal, that "quickly" should be in ver. 5. For when He thus comes to judge the ways of His own people, can it be so said? Doubtless, when He comes, whether to fight with the Nicolaitans, or to take us to Himself, it is quickly. (Rev. 2: 16; Rev. 3: 11; Rev. 22: 7, 12, 20.) But the Lord gives space for repentance, even if it were to Jezebel; and how much more to His beloved Ephesians?

The removal of the lamp-stand does not imply that the church might not go on apparently as before; but that it lost its place as a trustworthy witness for the Lord. Here again all is general: it would suit the Christian everywhere. Nothing makes up for distance between His people (or between the soul) and Christ. And such was the case, not merely with the assembly in Ephesus, but with the church generally, I think we may say, even then. This to my mind confirms the successional aim of "the things which are." Outward testimony might go on, but that is not what the lord most values; though value it He does, as far as it is simple, genuine, and faithful. Still He cannot but prize most of all hearts devoted to Himself, the fruit of His own personal, self-sacrificing, perfect love. He has a spouse upon earth, whom He desires to see with no object but Himself, kept pure for Him from the world and its ways. God has called us for this. . . not only for salvation, and for a witness to Himself in godliness, though this is most true and important, but beyond all for Christ — a bride for His Son! Surely this should be our first and last and constant and dearest thought; for we are affianced to Christ. and He at least has proved the fulness and faithfulness of His love to us! But what of ours?

The effect of thus looking at Christ is that the Christian is kept in the dust, and yet always rejoicing in Him. For the sense of failure in ourselves and others would be oppressive, but that we are entitled to find our joy in One who has never failed, and who notwithstanding loves us who have given such a feeble and faltering witness for Him. Hence if we but go to Him so known, even in sorrowful confession, He will not let us part without blessing and strength. It is due to Him to own and feel our sin; but to be occupied merely with failure never gives power: Christ. must have the glory. And assuredly He who has delivered us from the wrath to come, He who can save from hell, can keep or snatch from every ditch on earth. Only let the Christian confess his sin, cleaving to Jesus; this vindicates the name of Him who comes to his succour, and then the victory is sure.

But what a comfort and how reassuring to find that, after His censure, the Lord again speaks of what He can commend! "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate" (verse 6). The essence of Nicolaitanism seems to have been the abuse of grace to the disregard of Christian or even moral practice. The Ephesian saints had failed in cleaving with fresh fervour to that which is good, but they had fellowship with the Lord, rejecting false pretensions, and abhorring what is evil. People often say, there is no such thing as a perfect church on earth. I would ask such what they mean by a perfect church. Will any Christian man tell me that we are not to aim at everything consistent with the holiness of God? I claim for the church just what must be allowed for every individual Christian. As there may be too many faults in the individual, so there may be in the church. But then there is this blessedness, that as there is One who dwells in the individual to guide and bless him, so the same Spirit dwells in the church, and Christ cleanses it with the washing of water by the word. It is with the assembly as with the individual, that has both the Holy Ghost, who is the power of good, and the flesh which lusts against him. As in a man the soul may be said to pervade the whole body, animating it in every part; so does the Spirit act in the church of God. When persons maintain that unholiness way be tolerated because no man is free from sin, it is Antinomianism; and I believe it to be the very principle of the Nicolaitans. Each individual is bound to be ready to meet the Lord, having nothing left to be wound up when He comes. The Lord looks for the same thing from the assembly, because there is a divine power against evil in the church as in the saint.

Then comes the promise, with the word of admonition before it, but all general, like the danger and the threat. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God" (verse 7).

As for the paradise of creation, man bid been put there anti tried by the simplest test of obedience in a single instance; but he fell. Now a new scene is opened. It is no longer the garden of Eden, but the paradise of God — "of my God," says the Lord Jesus — not of God only, in contrast with man, but of "my God" as Jesus knew Him. Into this redemption brings us. And therein is no tree of responsibility that could bring in sorrow and death. The tree of life alone is there, which the glorified saint shall enjoy in peace. The church in Ephesus had fallen, it is true, from first love: but is anything too hard or good for the Lord? Did any feel deeply and aright the wrong that was done to His grace? If there was but one who overcame (and overcoming must be by strong faith, not mere preservation of original blessing; it is overcoming inside the church too), to him was this promise given to comfort and cheer his soul. The Lord's (trace is just as full now. May there be no soul here who has not ears to hear: if there are any who have, may they hear and overcome!

It is all well to "hear the church" in discipline, confiding in Him who is in the midst. But when the church leaves its first love, and claims all the more loudly to be heard, taking the place of Christ or of the Spirit, pretending to teach, what then? "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches." Individual responsibility comes distinctly out now as a principle for the Christian, as in Matthew 13 for the disciple, after the proclamation in Matthew 12 of the judgment of Israel.

SMYRNA.

In the message to Ephesus we have seen departure from first standing. The next state is a different one. We have the church at Smyrna in trouble; the saints of God are suffering. They may have thought the fiery trial some strange thing that had happened to them. But, on the contrary, it is more true that the Lord is grieved with a Christian when He leaves him without trouble for righteousness or for His name's sake. The Lord had Himself known tribulation to the utmost; but in Him it was only the trial of the good that was within, and the bringing out of His perfection. And poor as we are, we too may know trial apart from our evil. The Lord has two objects in view when He lays His hand upon a Christian in the way of chastening. it may come either because there has been something wrong, or because he is in danger of it and this is little felt by him. When David was out of tribulation, he falls into a snare. When his circumstances were full of trouble, then it was that he (inspired, of course, by the Holy Ghost) poured out those sweet strains that we read with joy to this day. The desire to get out of trial is a perilous thing for the soul. The trial may be sent to show us what we really are, or, what is better, to prove what God is for us and to us: but it may be also sent to prevent us from falling into sin. The Lord in His love thus often averts the evil which He sees and we do not. I do not doubt that there is another and a deeper character of suffering, even fellowship with the sufferings of Christ, which must not be confounded with the Lord's faithful discipline, though sometimes it would seem the two things may be in a measure combined. In a certain sense all saints suffer row with Him, though all may not be called to suffer for Him.

In Smyrna the Lord appears to have been meeting the declension from first love that had set in, and in order to do this He sent tribulation. It is no uncommon case — thanks to His name, for He is good and faithful. In what capacity does He speak to them? "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead and is alive." His title, first of all, is that of a divine Person as against Satan. The Spirit claims for Jesus here, what Isaiah had before challenged for Jehovah. (Isaiah 41: 4.) And what was there that could not be claimed for Him? He "which was dead and is alive." What a comfort for those who were in trial! Who is that speaks to them in their tribulation? The One who had been in the deepest of sorrow and had gone through death itself He who was the First and the Last, and who had formed all — He was the One that had died and was alive again. And this is the very One that I have to flee to in my trial. You will see thereby what a connection there is between the quickening of the dead and the comfort of those who are in trial. (Compare 2 Cor. 1-5) Jesus was God, but He was man also. He was the suffering man, and He was the triumphant man; and as such He was able to comfort them in their tribulation. What had He not gone through Himself?

"I know [thy works and] tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich,) and the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (verse 9). The word "Jews" here is used symbolically It was a name given to the nation that was known as God's people, above all others, in olden time; and these symbols were taken from the Old Testament. It seems to mean persons who, taking the place of being children of God, went back to hereditary religion. On the one hand, there was this outward trouble, which the Lord allowed for their blessing and, on the other, there were those who were insisting on Jewish principles. (Phil. 3: 2.) But the Lord says, "Fear not those things which thou shalt suffer." Do not mind what persons say, or things done against you. "Behold the devil shall cast from among you into prison, that ye may be tried." Thus, by God's grace, the enemy himself is used as an instrument for the good of God's people in the persecutions which he stirs up against them. There is nothing, on the other hand, whereby Satan more effectually draws aside than through a sort of quiet, easy-going, half-and-half Christianity. God grant that His children may be preserved from having two faces or characters — that the Christian may never be worldly with worldly people, and then put on the ways and words of a saint with his brethren.

It is no new thing for the Lord thus to allow the efforts and enmity of Satan for the blessing of His saints. In the case of Job we see the same thing: indeed the Lord probed his servant there far mere deeply. At each successive trial from Satan Job retained his integrity, and blessed the Lord, but the Lord showed Job himself — the very thing he needed for the full blessedness of turning away from self to the Lord. Then He showed him God, and Job's comfort at last was as deep as his self-abasement.

Job had no idea that he thought too much of himself; but this was just what God had to show him he did. He loved to recall the time when the fruits of godliness in him drew forth the respect and esteem of men. But God showed him how evil a thing it is to be occupied with the effects of grace in himself or on others. What the enemy of God and man could not do, Job's friends did. He could stand against the temptations of Satan, but he was provoked to folly by his friends coming to condole with him, and giving their misdirected opinions. When a person talks much about grace, not a little unjudged self is apt to be found there, we may be sure. Even Job had to be put in the furnace to find out that there was a great deal more besides grace in him. But though Satan might tempt without success, and his friends only provoke, when the Lord Himself comes in, then Job is soon thoroughly humbled. He sees himself in the light of the presence of God, and exclaims, "Mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes." but the end of the Lord is as good at least as His beginning. He is ever pitiful, and of tender mercy. When Job thinks nothing of himself in the presence of God, the true stream of grace flows out, and he prays for his friends. "And the Lord turned the captivity of Job when he prayed for his friends."

The case of Smyrna follows that of Ephesus. As already hinted, I should apply the church of Smyrna to the time when the church was called to pass through the tribulation that followed the era of the apostles — the persecutions that were inflicted on the Christians by the Roman emperors. But it is good to remember that all is measured of the Lord. "Behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days" (verse 10). The sufferings, death for Christ's sake, etc., of the Christians, were the few bright spots and manifestations of life in the second and beginning of the third centuries.

"Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" (ver. 10). The distinction of God's servants in glory is an important doctrine. For while it is essential to maintain that the very same grace which pardoned the thief on the cross was needed to save Paul of Tarsus, yet it would be a grand mistake to suppose that the thief will have the same reward in glory. Nevertheless we must not be afraid when the Lord says to us, "I know thy works." For though the vessels that are to contain the blessing may not be equally large, the little cup will be as full as the big one; and filled, if I may so say, with the same materials of joy and blessing. In a glorified state there will be no such thing, of course, as a person being tried — no question of being faithful or unfaithful then. Before we get there, spiritual differences exist; and when we are there, the distinctions of Christ's kingdom will answer to the character and measure of service here below. though the sovereignty of God must be maintained also. (Matt. 19, 20)

There follows this suited word of comfort to the faithful in Smyrna: "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death" (verse 11). Do not fear the first death; it is only a servant to usher you into the presence of God: the second death will not injure you. The Lord is like that tree of old which was cast into the waters of Marah. He went into the bitterest waters of death, which have thus been changed into sweetness and refreshing for its.

PERGAMOS.

The Lord here announces Himself to the of the church in Pergamos as One armed with all-piercing power by the word of God, the two-edged sword that judges (verse 12). In the book of Revelation the sharp sword is at the command of the Lord Jesus as the instrument of judgment,. What the sword is in the hands of man, so is the word that reveals God searching out and cutting through all obstacles. This the Lord applies in power; it decides all questions that have to do with Him. There is always a great and beautiful connection between the way or title in which He presents Himself and the state of the church which He is addressing. It was because the word was no longer that which had living energy to judge in the church, that the Lord Jesus takes care to prove that it had never lost its power in His hands. As the first church shows us declension set in, even in the days of the apostle John, and Smyrna the time of persecution from the heathen, so here we have a totally different state of things. Pergamos is the scene of Satan's flattering power or seduction, which was just what he used after the violence of persecution had spent itself. It was a more dangerous device than the second; for when set on anything that is wrong, there is nothing that more shows a case far gone and desperate than God's giving one up to his own will without further remonstrance. "Ephraim is joined unto idols: let him alone." In the case of Smyrna we see the clean contrary of this: the Lord was intercepting the power of Satan through persecution from without, which was used of God to hinder the growing corruption within.

Afterwards the god of this world promised Christians every worldly advantage. The emperor himself offered to become a Christian, though he put off baptism till his death-bed. There was no plainer proof how completely the church had fallen through forgetfulness of the Lord's name, than when it accepted the emperor's terms and the patronage of the world. Even those who were saved had entirely lost sight of what the church was, as not belonging to the world, but of heaven. The Roman empire was essentially the world's power. The church had been called out to be the standing witness of these two things: first of the world's ruin; and secondly of God's love. But when we see the church shaking hands with the world all is gone, and the church slips down into the mind of this age. If the world gains in some respects, the church loses in everything; and no wonder, because it is at the cost of the will and glory of Christ.

Satan's "throne" is the sense: in presence of it, who does not see the propriety with which the Lord presents Himself, as armed with the sharp two-edged sword? It is the same word as is used for "seat" as well as "throne" in other parts of this very book; but here it is properly a "throne," because Satan is spoken of in respect of authority. It is obvious that all this exactly describes the state of things in Constantine's time. Instead of being at the stake and suffering for Christ's sake, the church was now yoked with the world in a mere profession of Christianity; for as the world did not really rise to Christ. the church must sink to the world's level. No wonder the Lord says thereon, "Thou dwellest where Satan's throne is." Yet He allows all that He can, even where this miserable association was found — His assembly dwelling where Satan's throne was. They maintained still His name, and did not deny the faith which was given to the saints; but this was all. They held fast His personal glory, and did not deny that which was revealed of Him because of flesh and blood. They believed of Him what eye had not seen — His Deity. Against this Satan's wiles were directed, as of late he had sought to destroy those who confessed the truth. They had just come out of the great persecution in which Antipas was slain. But now the church at Pergamos, instead of suffering, was dwelling quietly in the world. Like Lot, they too had their righteous souls vexed with the ungodliness of those around.

The Lord accordingly brings forward the things of which He had to warn them. "Thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam" (verse 14). What was the leading feature we see in the son of Beor? He was led by his covetousness to try and serve the bad king of Moab by cursing the people of God. When God gave him an answer, he goes to God a second time, because his heart wanted its own way. And it is solemn to learn that if God gives you up you may get what you want. Balaam afterwards falls into even worse evil. He was indeed a man whose heart was not with God. He said some true things, but his spirit was not in them He always speaks as it were from without, as a miserable man, afar from the blessing which he saw. "I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh," etc. He goes on step by step, until he lends himself to be the corrupter through the world even of God's chosen people.

And so it was with the church. Even the philosophers began to take up Christian truth, and in the writings of the fathers we find pretty much what we have here. What fornication is in moral things, such was their illicit commerce with the world in the things of God. There were, I doubt not, witnesses who were made very little account of, save in heaven; but one of the men who had the largest and most lasting influence of all, Augustine, was a true saint of God, and, though it may not mean much, the greatest light of the western church. He had held the name of Christ and had not denied his faith. All agree that these epistles applied primarily to the churches to which John wrote; but many do not see that they also apply to different stages of the church, and describe its various states successively.

The doctrine of the Nicolaitans* seems an evil from within, as that of Balaam was rather from without. Such it was in principle and doctrine now. We read of their deeds in Ephesus, but this went farther and deeper. It was a corruption of grace, a turning it to licentiousness. Sanctity is the greatest snare if it be not real, yea, if it flows not from the truth; yet nothing more terrible than that grace, where it is known or at least talked of, should be abused. If we search our own hearts and ways, we shall find that it is the very thing we all tend to do. Grace has set us completely free through Him who died and rose again; and what claim has it not on our hearts? Do we not often treat God's grace to us in the very same way that our children in their most hardened mood treat us? They then take all as a matter of right. Though creation has been brought under subjection to vanity on account of Adam's sin, yet there is no moral evil connected with its lower forms. But in man's case it is not so. Knowing the evil, he yet goes on in it. And even when we have got the certainty of deliverance, if the joy of it have passed away in a measure, we begin to use the Lord's grace just to serve ourselves. This, carried out without conscience, is Nicolaitanism.

*The true reading of verse 15 is "likewise," instead of "which thing I hate," which was probably copied from Rev. 2: 6. The sense is, that there were such as held the Nicolaitan doctrine, as well as those who held that of Balaam.

God's grace was meant to bind us thoroughly to Himself. We might see a person fall into evil (and this, of course, is truly sorrowful in a Christian), but there is a great deal more of evil that others do not see. God gives us the opportunity of judging ourselves when no one else perhaps knows anything about it If we do not judge it, then the end here below is, that the very world may pronounce on it; and we may be sure what a vast amount of evil must have gone on in secret, when God allows one to fall so that the careless world judges one's course as evil. But we must not be discouraged. It is just where the truth is most preached and held that Satan will invariably try to bring in the worst conduct and heresies, in order to bring shame upon the testimony of God. When a man slips from a pinnacle or height, he must have a fall so much the more terrible; as also it will be much more manifest to the world than if he had merely upset on the plain.

The Lord does not say, "I will fight against thee with the sword of my mouth," but "against them" (ver. 16). The sword of judgment may, it is true, act in taking them away by death, as in the else of the Corinthian saints, who were judged of the Lord here below that they might not afterwards be condemned with the world. Christian discipline does not mean putting away those who are not Christians from those who are; rather it contemplates the purging out of Christians who are walking wrongly, in order to maintain the honour and holiness of the Lord in their midst. Mercy is the great motive of discipline, next to the maintaining of Christ's character in the church. It is at the bottom of the Lord's ways with us, and surely it should be so for its with others.

The fact of the church's getting into the world isolated at once the faithful Christian. The church only became invisible sin. It was not God's intention, it is not according to His heart, that it should ever be so, though I believe that all was permitted and ordered wisely. God did not make a light to be hid, but to be set on its due stand. Such was the fact now: Catholicism reigned, if you take the protracted view, which soon paved the way for Popery. But if the word penetrated him who had an ear to hear, it gave secret fellowship with Christ when the public position had become settledly false. Hence to a true-hearted saint, amid all this ruin and confusion, He says, "I will give to eat of the hidden manna" (verse 17). The manna represents Christ Himself as He came down from heaven and took a place of abasement in the world. Those who were slipping away into the world are reminded of the place which Christ took down here. The "hidden manna" refers to the use which was made of the manna for the ark: a certain portion of it was taken into the holy place as a memorial before God. The faithful are to eat not of the manna only, but of the hidden manna.

It is not merely that we shall share in and enjoy with Christ all His glory as exalted on high and as displayed before the world, but God will give us special communion with Christ as He was here below. How sweet in glory it will be, that He who will have brought us into all the enjoyment and peace of heaven is the same One we have known in all His path of sorrow and rejection in this world, with whom we have shared it ever so feebly here, feeding on Him as our portion even now! The white stone was a mark of entire acquittal. May we be thus looking forward to Christ; and may God give us to taste His own delight in His Son as He was here below in His outcast position! Along with this goes the white stone, the portion of souls faithful to Christ in a state of things like that of Pergamos, when the church and the world were enjoying themselves together. When in heaven such will enjoy the same food that sustained them here. Christ will be there more than ever to enjoy on high; and such shall have the white stone, "and on the stone a new name written, which no one knoweth save he that receiveth it" (i.e., the expression of Christ's own secret satisfaction in the way in which you have suffered for Him and served Him below). Assuredly the heart will most prize what Christ will give between Himself and it alone — what none will know but ourselves and Himself. The Lord grant that we may be separate from every allurement which Satan offers through the world, although none should know all but Himself now. Even in glory the joy of His secret approval will not be lost but known more profoundly than ever.

CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE APOCALYPTIC EPISTLES.

There is an important change of arrangement that occurs in this chapter, beginning with the epistle to Thyatira. In the first three churches the warning word ("He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches") comes before the promise; but all the four concluding churches have the promise before the call to hear. These at least will be found to be the representatives of states of the church which go down to the end.

Now there must be a reason for such a change — a sufficient reason why the Holy Ghost should uniformly adopt one arrangement in the three earlier epistles, and as uniformly depart from this and adopt another arrangement in the four last. There is nothing haphazard in the word. As everything He has done in His dealings with man, as all that He has made even in creation has its purpose impressed by Him, so is it much more with that word which develops His ways and displays His moral glory. And this is of vast practical moment to us. For remember the secret of strength is in a Spirit-taught knowledge of God and His ways in Christ. To enter into and enjoy the thoughts and feelings of God, as manifested in what He does and says in His own revelation of Himself, is that which wins and keeps, purifies and strengthens the heart of the believer. Israel did not understand His ways, and therefore never knowing His heart, they erred in their own; as it is said, "they do always err in their heart, for they have not known my ways." Moses, on the other hand, did appreciate the heart of God, and accordingly of him it is written, that "the Lord made known His ways unto Moses."

In the first three churches, then, the call to hear is addressed formally to the whole assembly concerned; but in the last four the change of situation appears to mark greater reserve. It seems to be intimated by this, that none is expected to hear but he who overcomes. Therefore this class is thenceforth, in a manner, singled out from the rest.* Evil has now set in over the professing body; so that the promise is not, and could no longer be, held out in the old indiscriminate way. From this distinction we gather a remnant begins to be more and more clearly indicated.

*It is a singular oversight that any thoughtful reader should meet the question, "To whom does the Spirit address these words?" by the answer, "To the angels of those churches," even supposing the angels to be their "bishops," which has been shown to be not only unfounded but contrary to the tone and object of the Revelation. It is a sorry thing to deduce either episcopacy or congregational ministry from a most solemn appeal to him that has ears to hear, when the church is being morally judged. The Spirit speaks to the churches, but the individual is made prominent even here; and this, still more strikingly viewed as following the overcomer, from and after Thyatira.

Something analogous to this appears elsewhere. Thus in the seven parables of Matt. 13 the last three were unquestionably marked off from their predecessors, and were addressed to a higher degree of spirituality. The first four were uttered outside to the multitude, the last three to the disciples only within the house. Wherever we find in the Bible a series of parables, prophetic visions, or the like, grouped together as these are, there is commonly, not to say invariably, some such line drawn between those which commence with a general bearing and those which become more special and narrow as we approach the goal. This is strikingly true of these Apocalyptic epistles, the last four of which sever the overcomer from the unfaithful surrounding mass. In short the formation of a faithful remnant, who were at first, I suppose, only morally separate from the mass which bore the Lord's name (now alas! untruly), becomes increasingly distinct. In the case of Thyatira the Spirit of God seems to make the principle plain and patent, as will appear presently.

THYATIRA.

The Lord Jesus introduces Himself here in His character of Son of God, followed by a description borrowed in the main from the vision which the apostle had seen in Rev. 1. "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, These things saith the Son of God that hath his eyes as a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass" (verse 18).

If we trace what the scriptures say of the Lord Jesus viewed thus, two things more particularly are seen. As Son of God, He is the source and sovereign giver of life. (John 5) The life which we by faith derive ("for he that believeth hath everlasting life") from the Lord Jesus Christ is life, in such power, that even the bodies of such as possess it in Him will rise from the graves to a life-resurrection; while others who have it not must rise to a judgment-resurrection. (John 5: 28, 29.) In the resurrection of judgment none can be saved. No Christian will appear before the judgment-seat of Christ as a criminal to be tried. All Christians will appear before it (as must all men); but the result before the world will be, in spite of loss of reward in certain cases, their glorious manifestation as justified men. But if you or I had to appear to see whether we were righteous, and so could escape condemnation, could there be one ray of hope for us? Notwithstanding there never can be, or at least there never ought to be, a doubt as to the absolute salvation of those who have life in and from the Son of God. The judgment-seat of Christ will clearly display them as justified persons. But we need not and should not wait for the judgment-seat to know that we are justified; we are dishonouring God's grace and His Son's work not to know it now, "whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us." Faith is entitled by divine warrant to a full justification now and here below, according to the worth and acceptance of the Lord Jesus in God's sight.

And this leads us to the second of the privileges alluded to, as connected with the "Son of God." He gives liberty as well as life. "If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." (John 8: 36.) These are the two great aspects of blessing which characterise Jesus as the Son of God. He imparts not only life but liberty too. Not that they have always or necessarily gone together. For a man might have spiritual life and yet be in grievous bondage, as one observes too often. This is also what we read of in Rom. 7. A person who is converted has life, but may be withal the most miserable of men is re his own experience. "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" In Rom. 8 we have the answer of grace. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free [or delivered me] from the law of sin and death." Liberty now goes with the life of the Son of God, for He is the risen Lord who died for me and discharged me from all the claims of law, and of every other thing or one which might else arrest my blessing The servant does not abide ever in the house, he might have notice to quit; but there is no such thing as the son's leaving the house. And it is thus as sons God puts us in His house, in the place of full and holy liberty.

What a searching but blessed title this was for the Lord Jesus to take, especially if He were not only providing for the then need of the assembly in Thyatira, but picturing besides that state of departure from truth, and even the depths of Satan, which characterized the middle ages! In Ephesus, when almost all the apostles had disappeared from the world, there was decay of first love; in Smyrna, persecution from the heathen powers; then in Pergamos, the allusion is plain to the era when Christianity gained the ascendant in the world, and when consequently the church consummated and sealed the loss of her sacred and heavenly separateness upon the earth. The power of the world never gained a greater victory than when it was externally vanquished by the cross; when, by merely professing Christ's name in baptism, all the Roman world was treated as born of God; in short, when apparently heathenism, but really Christianity, succumbed before the rising still of Christendom. In many respects it may have been a mercy for mankind, as it certainly was the greatest event in the government of the world since the flood; but who can estimate the loss for the saints, and the dishonour of their Lord, when the Christian body exchanged their place of suffering now in grace, hoping for glory with Christ at His coming, for present authority in, yea over, the world? In Thyatira we arrive at a period darker still — the natural consequences of those pleasures of sin for a season. When the empire professed the cross and arrayed it with gold, it was not only that God's children were favoured and caressed, instead of having to wander in sheep-skins and goat-skins, or to hide in dens and caves of the earth, but inevitably their enemies were attracted, and the Balaam-state became developed, and man ran greedily after error for reward. But the Jezebel-state is worse even than that, and most significant of the bloody and idolatrous prophetess who sought to be universal mistress in the so-called dark ages, and dark indeed they were! Of this I believe the church in Thyatira to be the remarkable foreshadowing.

But the Lord loves to praise what He can, and it is in a dreary time that He is glad to be able to approve of the least good. Here in the growing darkness of the public state, there was growing devotedness among the real saints. "I know thy works, and love, and faith, and service,* and thy patience, and thy last works [to be] more than the first" (verse 19). "And thy works" ought to be left out, and the clause following should be, "and thy last works," etc., on ample authority. This the sense, I think, fully confirms to a spiritual mind. "But I have against thee that thou sufferest the woman [or, thy wife] Jezebel that calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and deceiveth my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." Thus there was much energy and devoted service; but withal the greatest evil threatened them or even then was at work.

*This is the true order.

When Jezebel sat as a queen in Israel all was ruin and confusion; but the Lord did not fail to raise up a suited witness for Himself It was then that we find an Elijah and an Elisha, and even another where naturally one might least expect it — in the very house where evil was paramount. There was he who gave refuge and food to the persecuted prophets of the Lord. Just as in the New Testament we hear of saints chiefly to be saluted who were of Caesar's household, so of old there was in Obadiah, who feared the Lord greatly, over the house of Ahab, "which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up." It was then too was found the remnant of 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. I think the Lord would have said of that remnant what we have in the epistle to Thyatira — "Thy last works more than the first." The wickedness of those who surrounded them made their faithfulness more precious to the Lord; and He praises them more, perhaps we may add, than if they had lived in a day less trying; just as, on the other Lane], He cannot but deal most sternly with evil, which is done in a day of special light and mercy. How many Ananiases and Sapphiras have there been since Pentecostal times, who have not been visited in the same open and unsparing way as when great grace was upon all! This is an encouragement to us who know ourselves to be exposed, not indeed to a storm of persecution, but to a season far more perilous. There never was a time when man thought better of himself; and this is so much the graver sin, inasmuch as the testimony of God's truth to the contrary has been widely spread abroad. I do not deny that it is a day of no small effort anion, Christians. But "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams;" and never has there been less subjection to the will of God than at this moment. There is much association, which sounds well, — much taking counsel together; but confederacy is one thing, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit is another and widely different thing. But the Lord says, "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word." The matter of real weight is not getting Christians together, even if they were all Christians, but together in the Lord's way, and for the Lord's glory as their object — the "one thing" they have to do. If but two or three are thus gathered unto His name, we have his own assurance that His power and blessing will be there, spite of all appearances to the contrary. Had we two or three thousand together, but not in immediate subjection to the Lord Jesus, we should have only shame and sorrow in the end, however it might look for awhile. If we are seeking to please men, so far we cannot be the servants of Christ.

It was then, it seems to me, when the Lord has before His eye the state of a church which might well prefigure the dark development of an after-day (when the saints should be in great bondage, and that which was altogether alien in the midst persecuting them, and His own authority null in practice), that He brings out His title of "Son of God," whose eyes were as a flame of fire, and His feet like burnished brass. Peter of old had confessed Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God; and thereon the Lord, immediately after pronouncing him blessed and emphatically naming him by the new name He had given, adds, "upon this rock I will build my church." Now alas! the Lord anticipates that the professing church would lose its balance and set itself up virtually in His own place, giving out that she, the lady, "that calleth herself a prophetess," was to be heard in matters of faith, not He, the Lord. Here then we have the assertion of His personal glory and the attributes of His all-searching and unbending judgment of men — a serious but comforting thought for His own people, who might be in the midst of this sad confusion, and the perfect provision of His wisdom to deliver them from what was setting or set in. They would need and enjoy the immutable foundation, the Son of God, and the assurance that His church built on that rock could not fail, when public appearances were against it as against Himself in Israel. They were worse than nothing in the eyes of their persecutors; they were precious in Christ. It was a severer trial than from Jews or heathens; but the Son of God was no heedless spectator of all. So too His promise (26, 27) ought to guard them from seeking a present kingdom, a so-called spiritual millennium without Christ, where they should be either free to enjoy the world or entitled to govern it as yet.

In the church at Thyatira there were faithful and loving souls, earnest too, especially in good works; but there was this plague-spot also — the sufferance of "the woman* Jezebel." Jezebel, as we are told here, was a false prophetess, who was teaching and deceiving Christ's servants to commit fornication and eat idolatrous sacrifices. This was worse than the iniquity of him who loved the wages of unrighteousness, a step farther even in Balaam's line. "And I gave her space to repent, and she is not willing to repent of her fornication. Behold, I cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of her works. And I will kill her children with death, and all the churches will know that I am he that searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give to you, each one, according to your works" (verses 21-23).

*The Sinai and Porphyrian uncials lend their strong support to the Paris palimpsest, with many cursives and versions, against the insertion of σοῦ, as read in Codd. A. 2, and many cursives, etc., which would require the rendering of "thy wife."

What could be more shocking than the evil here foreshown! Jezebel, as all knew, was one who added violence to corruption, the counsellor of blood, the active hater of all God's witnesses, the patroness in private and public of the idolatrous priests and prophets of Baal. And now in Thyatira was found that which intimated to the Lord's eye the dark and cruel idolatry which was to be formally taught and imposed by a pretended infallible authority within the bosom of the professing church. Even now the actual germ could not be hid from Him whose eyes were as a flame of fire. Jezebel was there and "her children" too. It was a deep and lasting source of evil. But the judgment of her and of all that sprang from her was severe, however it might seem to linger. The Lord discerns different degrees of connection; but none should go unpunished, let Christendom decide as they might that evil must be allowed under His adored name. Repentance was absolutely refused, though the Lord had given ample space for it. "Fornication" (for such is the figure used) was both taught and practised. Long patience on His part is the sure sign, both that the object to be judged was in a thoroughly evil condition (else He comes quickly in the jealous care of true love that counts on a true answer), and that when the judgment comes, it must be definitive and unsparing. "The woman," it has been long-remarked, symbolizes the general state, as "the man" has the place of responsible activity.

The words "a few things," in verse 20, must disappear. It was not a little complaint, but one of unusual gravity and communication. The phrase crept in, I conceive, from verse 14, as there is otherwise resemblance enough to suggest such an assimilation to a copyist. But on a closer inspection the difference, as we have seen, is great, especially if we are to read "thy wife* Jezebel." The sin of fornication or adultery here is symbolical of that wicked commerce with the world, which is in the same relation to the Christian or the church, as intermarriage with a Canaanite would have been to an Israelite. To eat idol-sacrifices sets forth communion with what had a direct link with the power of Satan; for "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God;" and it is an easy thing, little as men may think it or Christians may estimate aright its enormity, to have fellowship with devils.

*But see the preceding note.

Besides the leading corruptress and fountain-head of the mischief, we have two classes of persons mentioned who were guilty in a positive way. There were Christ's servants whom she deceived to illicit commerce with the world, and there were others who were the immediate offspring of Jezebel, "her children." With each one the Lord would deal according to his works. He was the righteous Judge, and man as such must be judged, and all, saints or sinners, must be manifested before His judgment-seat. Yet it is remarkable how the Lord avoids saying that the saints will be judged. "I will give," says He, to you, to each according to your works;" and so in Revelation 22: 12, and many similar scriptures. On the one hand we are positively told that the believer shall not come into judgment (for John 5: 24 means "judgment" and not "condemnation," however certainly this is the result of it). On the other hand we know from Rev. 20: 12, 13, that the wicked are to stand before the throne, and to be judged, each one according to their works. Their resurrection is one of judgment (and in effect, of condemnation) contrasted with that of the righteous, which is a life-resurrection. Thus it is certain, that if put on my trial for salvation or perdition, according as my works deserve, I must be lost, for I have sinned and have sin; yet is it equally sure that the Lord is not unrighteous to forget the work and labour of love, and so He will give to each one according to his works. Christ Himself, Christ's love, is the only right motive for a Christian in anything; but there are rewards for those who have suffered for Christ and been cast out for righteousness' or for His name's sake.

The remnant comes out with great clearness in the next verse. "But to you I say, the rest (or "remnant;" omitting the words "and unto," which have no right to be here) in Thyatira" (verse 24). Here we have a faithful few, who are called "the rest," distinguished from the mass in Thyatira. The Lord had been speaking of His servants who had been seduced to dally with the evil of Jezebel, and of her own children, for which last class there was to be no mercy from Him. Then another class is addressed, the remnant, or "you that remain." The corrupt exterior body goes on, and there is a remnant that the Lord now hid specially in view. He supposes them to be ignorant of what Christendom then counted knowledge, and only says, "as many as have not this doctrine, who such as) have not known the depths of Satan (as they speak), I put upon you no other burden: but that which ye have hold fast till I come" (verses 24, 25). These "depths of Satan" they had not known. They valued no knowledge which undermined the call to holiness. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and this beginning at least they cherished; and they were right. It might seem but insignificant; but they had kept clear of a great evil, and holding their little fast, they would surely have their reward when the Lord comes. There were those who suffered much for Christ, who witnessed for Him in these dark ages. Such were (if not the Albigenses) the Waldenses and others. "You, the rest in Thyatira," I take to refer to these persecuted companies, who held tenaciously what they had from God, mainly practical piety and religious ways. They did not know much, but they were a remnant separated in conscience and suffering from the evil around them, especially from Jezebel. Their comfort lies in no promise of amendment to the church, but in a hope outside all on earth, even the kingdom and coming of Christ in person. Meanwhile they are called to overcome and keep Christ's works unto the end.

There could not be a more admirable sketch in a few words than what we have here. And it is not a little remarkable that the book of the Revelation was much prized by these saints. Indeed this has always been more or less the case in times of persecution: not that it is the best motive; for the book is valued most when the Lord leads His people to wait for His return. But His tenderness to His sufferers in a dark day is most sweet; and what a promise! — "And he that overcometh, and he that keepeth my works until the end, I will give him authority over the nations," etc. (verses 26, 27). What the mediaeval church arrogantly and wickedly sought, the saints then persecuted or despised are yet to possess in the coming and kingdom of their Lord, and these hopes accordingly are here brought in as their suited objects. The guilty church was not more cruel towards the true saints than ambitious of power over the world. Things ecclesiastical had got to their grossest point. But it is good to wait for the Lord's way and time: He is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. When the earthly power has been put aside and judged, those who have suffered with Christ shall reign with Him. But He adds more than authority over the nations, and ruling them with a rod of iron . . . . as Christ also received of His Father. "And I will give him the morning star" (verse 28). Is not this blessed? not merely association with Christ in the day of His power, when the stronghold of men shall be broken to shivers like the vessels of a potter, but "gathering together unto Him" before that day. The hope abides in all its fulness, and as fresh as at the first. Christ only could so speak and act.

The sun, when it rises, summons man to his busy toil, but the morning-star shines for those only who sleep not as do others — for those who watch as children of light and of the day. We shall be with Christ doubtless when the day of glory dawns upon the world; but the morning-star is before the day, and Christ not only says, I am . . . . the bright and morning star," but "I will give the morning-star." He will come and receive His heavenly ones before they appear with Him in glory. May we be true to Him in the refusal of present ease, and honour, and power! May we follow Him, taking up our cross and denying ourselves daily! He will not forget us in His day, and He will give us ere it comes the morning star.

I would here add, in closing this sketch of Rev. 2, that Thyatira has a sort of transitional place, being linked with the three preceding churches as on church-ground, whatever the corruption allowed which characterized its public state. On the other hand, it is connected with the three churches which follow on the ground of truth or testimony (not regularly ecclesiastical), both as being the first of those marked by the change of position in the call to hear, and as also expressly running down to the end. The others were transient phases. This begins the more permanent states in view of the Lord's advent. It may be noticed accordingly that the dealing after Thyatira, when threatened, falls on the angel: up to this it had been either on the candlestick, as in Ephesus, or on the evil-doers, as in Pergamos and Thyatira. Smyrna and Philadelphia have a special exemption, one in each of the two series. To the angel of the church in Sardis the word is, "I will come on thee as a thief;" when similar language was used in a former case, Christ said, "I will fight against them," etc.; "I will cast her" and "I will kill her children," etc. In the latter series it is a question of a separated witness in Christendom, where fidelity is everything, as with the disciples in the Gospels. Judgment must fall on the whole, though not without distinguishing the true-hearted. In this new part (with a slight exception in Sardis, which is necessary and only proves the rule) the titles of Christ are distinct from those seen in the opening vision of Rev. 1, and point to His future reign. This is seen with special emphasis in Laodicea, so that "the things that are" may vanish away thenceforth, as in fact they do.

Revelation 3.

SARDIS.

It may be assumed that any discerning reader will perceive that we are entering upon an entirely new order of things in this chapter, or, at least, a sort of fresh start. What was described in the vision of Christ walking in the midst of the candlesticks is not here as in Rev. 2, unless it be the "seven stars," no longer, however, held in His right hand. It is quite true that what we have been looking at in the former chapter may still exist and be verified at the same time with new features as they are brought out here. Not only may there be points morally like what we have seen in Ephesus, Smyrna, or Pergamos, but a continuing public state like the evil depicted in the message to the angel of the assembly in Thyatira, which goes on to the end in a way that differs from its predecessors. We find in Sardis another condition, and one which answers to the general state of Protestantism after the Reformation. We have not so much open evil, like idolatry and the other horrors that have been described before; but now we have a more correct outward form and orthodox aspect of things. As the four churches in the second chapter follow on consecutively, and describe the state of things before the rise of Luther, etc., so Sardis describes what followed the Reformation, when the glow and fervour of truth and the first flush of blessing had passed away, and a cold formalism had set in.

The way in which the Lord presents Himself is wonderfully suitable. "These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars" (verse 1). This is a new point of view in which to see Christ. In Revelation 1 "the seven Spirits" were distinct from His person and connected with the throne. The seven Spirits of God refer to the Holy Spirit of God, viewed in His various perfections and the ways in which He works; and this not so much in the church as towards the world. In Rev. 5, when the churches are done with, the Lord Jesus is described symbolically as a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth — the Holy Ghost as acting with a view to the government of the earth. It is not the Holy Ghost in all the fulness of the blessing into which He brought the church in its unity or dwelling there. It is the expression of the Spirit in fulness of quality and power to make good God's will on earth.

But whatever might be the condition of the church, the Lord Jesus possesses the complete power of the Spirit of God, and at the same time fulness of spiritual authority. There were no two things more separated than these at the time of the Reformation. There was then a large body calling itself the church, which claimed the power of settling everything, as being the spouse of Christ. No wonder that the claim of infallibility was strongly advanced; for assuredly those who assume irresponsible authority as Christ's vicar to settle the affairs of the church, to define doctrine, etc., ought to be infallible. This body had wrought for acres, gathering influence for itself; but at last the struggle came, and it was proved to be a mass of the greatest evil against God and His Son that had ever been congregated on the earth. There might have been true saints of God in it at the worst of times; and even from an early day some excellent men had even helped to give the see of Rome a false and absurd authority. St. Bernard himself sanctioned the persecutions of the Waldenses.

But God can turn such lessons to our profit. For it is well to bear in mind that there cannot be a greater fallacy than to abide in what is wrong merely because we find true saints of God there. Indeed the great aim of Satan is to gain all by getting good people to do bad things. When at last the crisis arrived, and men rose up in a considerable part of the world against this frightful evil, there ensued a divorce between the two thoughts of ecclesiastical authority and spiritual power. Instead of its being a body that claimed both, in derogation and in spite of Christ's rights, everything ecclesiastical fell into disorder, and men fell back on the power of the world in order to gain freedom from the dominion of the Pope.

Thus Protestantism was always wrong ecclesiastically from the very beginning, because it looked up to the civil ruler as the one in whose hand ecclesiastical authority was vested; so that if the church had been under Popery the ruler of the world, the world now became in Protestantism the ruler of the church. It is not a question of church and state that politicians may discuss; which is a great deal too narrow and low a question for a Christian. There is but one thing satisfactory — to be in the path of Christ, giving honour to Him.

"I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." This describes the cold and formal ways of religion that were found after the Reformation among those that were not really Christians. The Lord Jesus shows what He disapproves of in Protestantism. Why not be thoroughly Christians? It was a poor thing to boast of not being as bad as Jezebel; it was death if not abomination.

In Protestant lands there is ordinarily a measure of truth, as there is still more commonly liberty of conscience. But the object of God is not merely to deliver either from gross evils, or from mistake in detail, but that the soul should be right with God, and should allow the Lord to have His way and glory in the Christian assembly — liberty for the Lord to work by the Holy Ghost according to His will. When He is allowed His right place, there is the blessed fruit of it in love and holy liberty. It is not a human liberty derived from the power of the world that we want (though God forbid that we should speak a word against the powers that be in their sphere), but the liberty of the Holy Ghost. It is the sin of Christians to let the powers assume a false position in divine things. The Lord Jesus touches the root of the whole matter in the way in which He presents Himself to the church of Sardis. Whether it is spiritual power or the outward authority flowing from it, the Lord claims it all as belonging to Him. In Ephesus it was said that He held the seven stars in His night hand, and walked in the midst of the seven golden lamp-stands; but here are united the two things, inward spiritual power, and outward authority. he hath the Spirits of God and the stars. It is not said here that He holds the stars in His right hand, but only that they are His, as well as the fulness of spiritual competency; still less is He said to be walking in the midst of the lamp-stands. It is an assertion of His rights, not of their exercise.

In the great mass of Protestant churches they gave up, as it were, the regulation of the stars into the hands of the powers that be. On the other hand, the persons who revolted from that fell into the sad evil of suffering the church to have the stars in its own keeping. There is not such a doctrine in the whole scripture as either the world or the church having this kind of authority in its own hands. The Lord Jesus has still all under Himself. He has not given it up. Therefore let the church only own what He is, and He will act accordingly. When there is faith to look to Him in His place as Head of the church, He will assuredly supply every need. If He listens to the simplest cry of His lambs, does He not enter into the deep need of the church? Is it not an object near His heart and affecting His moral glory? He took His headship of the church only in heavenly glory, and He went on high not merely to be, but to act, as Head. What is the character of His functions in this respect? He exercises authority, having persons to act under Him here below. Thus the existence of rule and gift in the church of God is the result; and these are not touched by the ruin of the church. The Lord, anticipating the time when there would be a revolt from under the spurious authority of the body calling itself the church, and foreseeing all the confusion that would be the result, presents Himself as the One who is superior to it all. Whatever may be the condition of things here, strength is in Christ: and we can never find strength in looking at the condition of the church, but at Christ.

When the apostles were here below, they were empowered to act for Christ in a very special way; but when they were taken away, the real source of the power in which they had acted subordinately to Christ was not dried up; the Lord Jesus has it all in His own keeping still. There was a name to live, but real death. He was speaking of their condition as a body, and not as individuals. "Be watchful, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die: for I have not found thy works perfect [filled up] before my God." Here we. have again a very striking feature of what took place in Protestantism. In the desire to escape from the abuse of works by the Romish system, it is evident that Christian practice lost its due place in the minds of many — its place for those who have been brought nigh to God. For God does look for a real separate and distinct path to be taken by His people; and He finds fault with Sardis because of their failure in this. The saints of God even in Thyatira were commended of God for their earnestness, in spite of all evil. Their last works* were more than the first. Protestantism has weakened the idea of obedience, under the plea of "no perfection," either in the church or in the individual. Thus there has been a lowering of the just criterion wherever Protestantism has prevailed: but our God looks for perfection as the standard His children should judge themselves by — I do not say attain. He has grace to meet failures; but it is quite another thing for persons to settle down in self-complacency, from not having the divine standard before their eyes. The Lord always goes back to this.

*I am far from thinking the Romanist idea of works sounder than their depreciation of faith. The remnant in Thyatira, viewed mystically, were not Romanists, but persecuted by Jezebel.

It is better, in seeking to have that standard before us, to fail in carrying it out, than to succeed ever so much, if we gave it up. For what does the Lord most value? The heart that wants to please Him. The child may come to its father and say, "See what a pretty thing I have been making;" but if the parent had told him to do something else, he would ask the child, "Is that what I desired you to do?" The Lord has His own will, which meets us in our first need as sinners awakened, and is the source of our very salvation. But it is far from the natural thought of the heart, which dislikes subjection to another's will. It is but part of the lie of the enemy. The will of God, we know, was that which accomplished our sanctification, through Him who said, "Lo, I come to do thy will." In Rom. 10 the apostle puts our part of the matter in contrast with Jewish feeling. They thought, if they accomplished as much of the law as they could, that God was merciful and would make up the rest; but the apostle shows that subjection to the righteousness of God is salvation. God's will is the very spring. and power of our blessing, not only in the matter of forgiveness, but all the way through. Take God's ways in the church. These were subjects that were particularly neglected at the Reformation. Individual truth, such as justification by faith, was brought out forcibly and over a large field. But this was made the great point and aim of everything, and the consequence was that people never knew thoroughly they were justified. The moment one makes one's own blessing the one or chief object of research in the Bible, never can anything be known aright; but he who receives God's thoughts and objects is sure to know directly that he is saved and blessed indeed. He cannot look at the cross of Christ without seeing at the same time his utter ruin, and his complete deliverance in the resurrection. If a man hesitates whether he is so very bad as God declares, he has to wait before he enjoys the riches of His grace; but if he trust himself unhesitatingly in God's hands, there is not a blessing that does not flow abundantly. We find ourselves to be as bad or worse than Israel, and then we are brought inside a circle of goodness and mercy superior to any thing they ever possessed.

At the Reformation all this was comparatively lost sight of; and, in escaping from the fearful net of popery, men fell into the sin of putting church power into the hands of the civil magistrate. Others again, who avoided this evil, made what they considered a true church to be the depository of this power; whereas it is Christ Himself still working by the Holy Ghost who maintains His own lordship, a truth which is taught at large in the epistles. Supposing a person labours as a pastor or a teacher, from what authority is he to act? Apostles or their envoys did choose those who had to do with local matters; yet wherever it was a question simply of ministry, in the word there was no appointment from the first. Even in the case of choosing a successor to the vacant seat of Judas, the apostles did not themselves elect, but threw it out of their own hands into those of the Lord. (Acts 1: 24.) And when the Lord afterwards chose another apostle, we find "one Ananias" indeed sent to baptize him; but there was no idea of that disciple, or any one else, making him an apostle. In what we have afterwards (Acts 13), i.e. the case of hands being laid on the apostles Paul and Barnabas, it was not a bestowal of any orders or mission, for it was done by men inferior to themselves in point of spiritual gift and power; but was simply their brethren commending them to the Lord before they set out on a particular missionary tour to the Gentiles. We have a right to look for the Lord to maintain His authority in the church. In all ages we find Him helping His people in their need, and doing His work by His servants. If a person wants to preach, he naturally thinks he must have the warrant of some authority; but if we seek an. authority at all, we should have a competent one. Although there may be more respectability in the world where these outward credentials are looked for, the question arises, Does the Lord require authority to validate a person's preaching the gospel? The apostles did appoint elders and deacons; but these might or they might not be preachers and teachers: their being deacons was another thing altogether. Philip was a preacher of the gospel, but this depended on his having a from Christ as the Head of the church, and not on his being one of "the seven." Men have slipped into habitual departure. from God's principles; and this is called "order," because it is the most prevalent custom now in the professing church. Yet when we thus give up true principles, we slip into wrong practice. The Lord attaches great importance to our owning Him as the One who has all power and authority in His own hands. The moment we recognise this it so much the more binds the conscience. If one knows a thing to be wrong, the conscience is held to it. One may not be able to see at once what is the right path to take; but to cease from what is evil is evidently the first step, and it is imperative.

The connection between the end of the second verse ("I have not found thy works perfect before God") and what follows ("Remember, therefore, how thou hast received and heard," etc.) is to be remarked. He recalls them to what they had received from God Himself at the first. No such thought is allowed as that because things are not as they were then, therefore every church has a right to form its own laws. If it would be downright rebellion to say, because the Queen does not live in Ireland, that therefore the Irish people were at liberty to make what laws they pleased, it is as bad or worse if we think that because things are changed, the apostles gone, and confusion come into the church, men are left free to desert the word of Christ and do their own wills: the Lord has left us His. The very word of God which tells me what I once was, but that I am washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, this same portion enters into all questions of the assembly, and the working of the Holy Ghost in it by whom He will. (1 Cor. 12) There may be no tongues, or gifts of miracles, and healings; but is the Holy Ghost here What He continues to do is according to the same principle and presence as at first, though in a very different measure of power: else we have no divine rule in these things.

Remark that the Lord's coming is spoken of just in the way it was threatened on the world. (See 1 Thess. 5) "If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief" (verse 3). He would come upon them when they were not aware — suddenly and unwelcome. Had they not got into the world? Let them then beware of the portion of the world. If you have taken the world's ease, you must needs dread the world's judgment. Such is not the way in which the Lord speaks of His coming to the church. In reality and in all the extent of the words, it will be upon the professing mass, and not upon real believers, that the Lord will come as a thief.

"But thou hast a few names in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, he* shall be clothed in white raiment" (verses 4, 5). The Lord brings in this suited comfort, that as some in Sardis had sought to act faithfully on earth, they should walk with Him in white. As they had maintained real personal purity here below, they should appear in full justification of their ways before God above. But this is spoken of individually. The state of the church as a whole was beyond question worldly, and as such it should be judged.

*The Alexandrian and Paris uncials with a fair support from cursives, and especially from versions, read οὕτως "thus;" but the Basilian, Vat. and Porphyrian uncials, and most of the juniors with some versions read οὗτος. Cod. Sinaitica gives the former first, and then corrects it by the latter, and perhaps by the original scribe. Externally therefore the balance is nearly even. But in the older MSS. especially the interchange of ο and ω is so common as to make their evidence in such cases of slight value. Internal consideration greatly inclines in my opinion to οὖτος, as in the text.

The moment a person ascertains that his association is contrary to the word, he should feel how grave that fact is, and consider what is due to the Lord. It might seem incredible, if one did not know the fact, that there have been and are men of God, guides of the flock, who not only abide in evil which they know, but seek to find a palliative in the circumstances of a righteous Asa or a godly Jehoshaphat, who nevertheless did not remove the high places. Alas! that the solemn revelations of God should be thus perverted so as to serve the ends of the enemy, and that a repeated warning should be tortured into a justification of sin. "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness." It is not enough to correct thoughts, and rest there; but if the Lord has given a judgment, is it not in order that the walk may be correspondent? Satan contrives to make the path of the Lord appear dark and sad; as he colours a worldly course with the semblance of humility, order, and the like. But the word makes all plain now, as power will by and by even to the world.

May we walk with the Lord now, and surely we shall walk with Him in white hereafter! Instead of a blotted name, ours He will confess before His Father and the holy angels.

PHILADELPHIA

The tone of the epistle to Philadelphia must, I think, confirm the idea presented as to Sardis, that in this portion (Rev. 3) we have not so much the early church, or that of the middle ages, but what is found, or is developed, in modern times, Sardis is the beginning of this: a state of things not marked by flagrant evil, but by one sad and fatal characteristic — it is negative. Any fair persons, who have thought deeply on what is called Protestantism, must know that this is the sorrowful thing which we, who have been Protestants and thus share its shame, have to acknowledge. Men stand up too much, at least too self-complacently, for certain controversial points, which hide in a great measure their own wants and failures; they pride themselves on keeping apart from certain evils, such as the supremacy of the Pope, the infallible authority of the church, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and angels, the doctrine of the mass, purgatory, etc. Supposing the most rigid orthodoxy as to these, there might be a thousand evils of another character, yet, together with outward correctness, the heart be thoroughly away from the love and honour of the Lord. This is precisely what we saw in Sardis — a name to live, but yet dead. As in Israel when the Lord was on earth, the old idolatry had passed away, the unclean spirit had left the house, and had not returned; so the swept and garnished condition of the house answers to that which followed the Reformation. But we must distinguish between that and the work which God gave the Reformers to do. Let none speak disparagingly of these men, whether Luther or others. But while God was working in that great movement. it would have been better and holier if they had left earthly governments to their own proper functions. No doubt their patrons spared them persecutions and secured them honours, which, instead of helping on God's work, proved a great hindrance. And so, when the fervour of first zeal had passed away, the state of things corresponds with Sardis.

In Philadelphia we have something totally different. The first thing that strikes us is not what the Lord does or has, but what the Lord is Himself. If there is anything that delivers from mere dogma, with all its chilling influences, it is, I apprehend, the person of the Lord appreciated in any special way. And this is seen in the epistle to Philadelphia. The Lord here presents Himself personally more than in any other of these epistles. It is true He is said to have the key of David; but before anything appears about this, He says that He is the Holy One and the True. In the other epistles we do not find the Lord characterised in the same moral point of view. This is, in my opinion, what grace has been making good in God's children during late years. The impulse given to evangelization by the spread of Bibles and missionary efforts has marked it outwardly; but inwardly the sense of ruin has been used of the Spirit to lead the saints to the word, and hence to a fuller appreciation of the person of Christ — the only object in which we can rest through the Holy Ghost, as He was God the Father's when He walked on earth.

There is something very beautiful in the way in which the grace of the Lord operates, after the epistle to Sardis, which was in a dead worldly state. Christ made Himself known; and He is the resurrection and the life. And what can give new life, put the church in its proper attitude, or bring a remnant to the walk and sentiments which become a time of ruin, but the Lord presenting Himself personally? This is characteristic of John's Gospel; the person of Christ in His rights, not only humbling Himself to death, but baptizing with the Holy Ghost, in the activity of gracious power which is suitable to His glory. The first portion of it brings His person before us; the second, the other Comforter, whom the absent Lord was to send down from heaven. It is beautiful thus to see the place that John's Gospel has in the scriptures of God. It was written very late, the last of all the gospels, and suited to a day of declension. There is no question of Jerusalem or of the Jews, as the immediate object of God, even in the way of testimony. They are noticed as a people outside, whom God his nothing to do with for the time. Hence the Lord speaks of the passover as a "feast of the Jews," and so on. In Matthew, on the contrary, there is the recognition of Israel for the truth of God. The boar out of the wood may waste, and the beast devour, but it is Israel's land still; and Jerusalem is called the holy city, even in connection with Christ's death and resurrection. In John all that is at an end. Not only had Jerusalem and the Jews forfeited all claim upon God, having departed from Him as Jehovah, and the law and the prophets, but they had rejected Christ; yea, and when the Holy Ghost came, they rejected Him too, and would not listen to Him any more; so that there was no resource. God had manifested Himself in every possible way. No manifestation of God, where man was under law, could do any good. Individuals laid hold of God's grace all through, but the nation was under law. The Gospel of John starts from this point, that all was darkness, and there the True Light shines though the darkness comprehends it not. In Him was life. This ever remains true, though He may deal judicially here.

But to return to these churches: there had been declension from first love, suffering from heathen power, Satan tempting through the power of the world, Jezebel seducing to idolatry, and, in short, every kind of evil commerce with the world, with persecution, but now we find a modern state — outward cleanness, but the heart given up to itself. (See 2 Tim. 3) Sardis gives us this picture: some walking purely, but there was no such thing as the heart thoroughly subjected to the Lord. But will He be content with this? The Lord must raise up a witness for Himself; and the only way whereby He makes a person an adequate witness for Himself is by presenting Himself to the affections. The moment we see the Lord Himself, there is strength to serve Him with gladness.

Here the Lord, disgusted with the state of Sardis, comes, as it were, saying, "I want to have the heart, and must have it." He removes the veil brought in through the sin of the professing church. When they see that Blessed One, so to speak, a little nearer, there is a state that answers (but oh how feebly!) to His desires for their heart, which will be made good without fail, when we shall see Him as He is.

"Thou hast a little strength." It is not the way of God to produce great strength at a time of general ruin. At the era of the return from the Babylonish captivity, the Lord wrought in great grace. There was no outward power; on the contrary, they were so apparently contemptible, that it was the taunt of their enemies that a fox could jump over their wall. But we find the same sort of spirit as in Philadelphia. They build no fortification to keep out the Samaritans; the Lord was a wall of fire round about them; but the first thing they erect is an altar to Him. The Lord was the first object of their hearts. If He was their wall, they could afford to wait before building another. There was no such thing as the angel smiting the first-born, no miracle wrought on their behalf, not a word about plagues on their enemies; but "my Spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not." Whenever Israel were afraid of their adversaries, they had no strength; but in looking to the Lord they forgot enemies.

When we lean on Him now, it strikes more terror into the hearts of those who are against Him than anything else. When the heart is true to the Lord, it tells upon the conscience of others. What joy that the Lord's heart is toward His people! It is this which produces proper feelings toward Him and toward one another. The very name of this church is significant of the relationship which He had established; but it is also important to remember that it is a holy relationship we bear to one another. While it is certain that those who care for one another's heavenly interest will not be careless otherwise, still the church is not a club, where men must be ready to help on each other, right or wrong. This would be Chartism or any thing rather than the brotherhood of the Lord.

The first words are the key. "He that is holy, he that is true" (verse 7). Look at the first Epistle of John. The expression is not often used about the Lord, but we find it there. In the second chapter of that epistle, speaking to the little ones of the family of God, it is written, "Ye have an unction from the HOLY ONE, and ye know all things." He that is Holy, He that is true, has all for them. There might be weakness, but He has the key of David. In the genealogy of our Lord in Matthew we find the expression, David "the king," not Solomon the king or any other; because David is the person who first characterized royalty in Israel. He was the man according to God's own heart. As long as David walked in faith, no difficulties could stand in his way. True, the type was imperfect: no type reaches the mark, because it is not Christ, though it may be a witness of Him. We see the failure of the man; but where the power of God wrought in David what was bright, and blessed, and good, we have the germ, as it were, of that which we see fully in the Lord. "The key of David" represents administrative power, the means of access to whatever he possessed. Thus it is said (Isa. 22), "the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut," etc. This was the consequence; he who had it had all things under his hand; and it was his business to take care of everything.

The Lord presents Himself as having the key of David. Therefore they ought not to look to the power of the world, nor to man; for if He had the key, it was the very thing they wanted. The energy of man might be at work all around, Jezebel, false prophets, etc.; but there was this Blessed One, the Holy and the True; and so much the more needed, because they were weak. They had so little strength that, perhaps, they could not even open the door; but He says that He had opened it for them; He had brought them into a large place where there was no such thing as bondage or constraint. It is plain that the Lord is here marked according to what He is personally and morally; not only as the great source of holiness and truth, but as the Holy One and the True. We find the latter also in the first Epistle of John. "We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ;" but there he goes farther still, "This is the true God and eternal life." Thus then we have the Lord's person brought before them: it was what they coveted. They valued Christ. They wished to know more of Him; and He knew their heart. So it is said, "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." They were tried by a mere form of godliness; they knew it was as possible to be lost or to dishonour the Lord in orthodoxy as in the world. They turn to the Lord, and He presents Himself as the Holy One and the True; not as against them, but full of tenderness and grace, putting before them an open door, and giving them the certainty that no man could shut it.

"Thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name" (ver. 8). Here we have three expressions concerning them. They are in a state not marked by outward note or strength. Like Himself, they are unknown to the world, but they had kept His word; and more than this, they had not denied His name. Consider what it is to keep Christ's word. It is evident there had been a departure from His word. It might have been circulated; but had it been cherished? Had it been loved and sought into, as for hid treasure? Was it for this thing that men met together to pray and read — that they might understand it better? What a movement in advance for the church, where the Lord's person becomes more than ever the object, and the word as His word! It is not mere evangelization, blessed as that is in its place, and in its effect on the world. But here it is the inner circle of the saints, who love, serve, and adore Christ for Himself.

In this epistle we also find the great value of the name of the Lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 1 the address is not to the Corinthians alone, but "to all who in every place call upon" that name. In other words, the first Epistle to the Corinthians is in no way, more than the second, of private application, but for all Christians everywhere. In fact the generalizing address is not put so strongly in any other; and this, perhaps, because the Spirit of God foresaw that, more than any other, it would be set aside. In these days, when there is no extraordinary manifestation of power, men might say, It is not for us, it belongs to a day that is bygone. True, it is of no use to talk of regulating tongues, if you have not got them. But we have the Holy Ghost, and, blessed be God! the church will never know the day when it will be without the Holy Ghost. Look at its darkest hour — the middle ages, Romanism, etc. The Holy Ghost was always there, not indeed justifying evil, or putting His seal upon disobedience, but He was there for the certainty of faith, according to the Lord's word, "He shall abide with you for ever." The idea of looking for the Holy Ghost to be poured out again on us is utterly wrong. Such is the Jewish hope. For the church to make such a petition is in effect to deny that it is the church. It may be well for us to throw ourselves down before the Lord, and own that we have acted as we had it not. But let us bless God that we have the Spirit, not only dwelling in individuals, but binding us together for an habitation of God. The manifestation of this is broken, it is true, but the fact remains; just as we say of a man whose circumstances are bad, that he is a ruined man, while the man still exists. This gives us ground for humbling ourselves the more; that the church had the Spirit and yet went wrong. Men might say, If we had a Pentecost now, and the Holy Ghost sent down again, we should go right; but the fact is that, when they had the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, they declined and fell. What God calls upon us to do is, not now to wait for fresh gifts of power, but to humble ourselves before Him, because we have gone, even as Christians, in the saddest opposition to His will. Alas! though the Holy Ghost dwelt there, one golden calf after another has been set up, till there is as much sin as was in Israel. This is what the Lord calls us to feel. The sympathies of the Philadelphian saints were with Him.

Clearly then what the Spirit presents is a despised company, but the word of Christ specially prized, and the Lord's name maintained. We have learned that the church is never bound to go on in sin. "Let him that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." There may be moral iniquity and worldly lusts; and what is there so bad as church iniquity, except that which is against the person of Christ Himself? If a man perseveres in violating the outward order of the church, it is evil, but not to be compared with sin against the Lord Jesus personally. This is the worst evil (2 John 7), and the test of souls. The first of all duties is that the heart should be true to Christ. God looks for it. The Father will have Him honoured Himself.

Here then we see Christ bringing Himself out personally to the church, and this not with a general expression of love, but manifesting a special attachment of His heart to them. Hence it is said, "I have loved thee." The Lord loves all His people, but it is equally true that He has special affections. There may be a peculiar link between Him and saints at particular times of danger and trial. His grace removes the hindrances and makes it to be enjoyed in its strength. They know His place in glory, but that which touches their hearts is that He loves them in all that glory. His love is the great basis and spring of their love.

"Thou hast a little strength." He knows they are weak; but they have "kept my word and not denied my name." See here the personal links — "my word," and "my name." The name of Christ apprehended by the soul is salvation; but it is much more; it is all. When the heart is brought down to submit to God's judgment of its sin, He Himself brings before that soul Christ's name; when it finds that it has no name in which to stand before God, He says, Here is a name, My Son's name. Faith supposes a man giving himself up as a good-for-nothing, and saying, "God has been good to me, when I was only bad for Him." God has laid down this name as a foundation-stone for the poor sinner. It looks weak; it is called a "stumbling-stone," as it is to unbelief; but I ought to believe in it. if I merely look at the gospel, I am lost, because then I reason about it; but if I believe it, I am saved. What did Abraham do? He did not reason; he considered not his own body which was dead, but he gave glory to God. If he had felt strong, he might have sought glory to himself. This is one practical aim that God effects, that we may know our own nothingness.

But is this the only use of Christ's name? No: He assembles round Himself, Jesus is the great object and attractive point to which the Holy Ghost gathers. Suppose it were the question of a person coming in who holds what people call, Calvinistic views or Arminian, never having learnt fully the ruin of man; you may say, "We do not like to be troubled." But the test is, what does the Lord say? Has He no power to judge that question? Has He delegated it to our discretion? The Lord has named His name over that saint, and I am therefore to receive him. Another comes and says, "I hear you receive all Christians; but I do not believe that Christ was exempt from the fall, either in His nature or in His relation to God." "No," we reply, "you cannot use the name of Christian to dishonour Christ." But wherever a man is found humbly confessing the name of the Lord (whether he be churchman or dissenter, that is not the point), we are bound to receive him. It is sorrowful that the church should have these names of variance: they will all be at an end by and by. But we must not gainsay the name of the Lord now. Wherever it is heard it becomes a passport all over the church. It is no question of joining us: he who is joined to Christ is indeed joined to us. True, the Lord has His servants; but we do not acknowledge any one as a centre in the church but Christ.

A further use of the name of the Lord is in discipline. What is the object of discipline? Not to keep up our character, but that His name should have its just place and honour, keeping it bright even where Satan's throne is. In the very camp of the enemy there is a name that cannot be put down. The Holy Ghost is there, not merely to give us comfort, but, having delivered us from anxiety about our own sins, He leaves us free to care for Christ and to serve Him. The question in the maintenance of discipline is, Is there departure from iniquity? The Lord never acknowledges anything as the church where iniquity is sanctioned. There is a difference between sin detected there, and the sanction of sin when detected. Any iniquity may break out; it did in the apostolic churches. The man was put away at Corinth because he was a Christian (as it is said, "that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"). It might be thought, from the terrible nature of his sin, that he could not have been one. The Holy Ghost shows us thereby that if a Christian slips away from Christ, he is capable of anything except positive indifference to Christ Himself. From this I think the Holy Ghost would always keep; as in the case of Solomon's judgment, the false woman was determined at all events to have her half of the child, while the real mother would rather yield it than let its life be touched. But a Christian may fall into a cold state of feeling about Christ, unnatural as this may seem; and when in this state, so as not to have a just sense of the name of the Lord, what good can be expected of him? It was not so with the Philadelphian saints. They did not deny His name; and the Lord uses the tenderest expressions of love towards them. All ecclesiastical pretension, it has been well said, was against them. They were quite despised by those who said they were Jews. But He says of them, "I will make them come. and worship before thy feet," etc. (verse 9.) They were in the midst of a great deal of profession that was hollow. But the Lord promises to vindicate them by His own power. What comfort there is in not seeking to vindicate ourselves, but in going on with the Lord!

It is of the utmost importance to see that the name of the Lord will never oblige a man to choose between two evils; and this is, in my judgment, what God has been pressing of late. There is a path without evil. Not that the flesh of man may not bring in evil; but if a man persists in any sin, you say he is not walking as a Christian; he cannot be owned as a Christian, though we pray for him. Again, take a company of Christians. Evil comes in. We cannot say, "These are not Christians." No, but bring in the authority of the Lord's name to put the evil away. He having absolute authority, it is ours to take the place of full subjection to Him. The church belongs to God. If it were ours, we might make our own rules; but woe be to the man that meddles with the church of God, bringing in his own regulations! This was, it would seem, what was felt by these Philadelphians. They valued the authority of the name of the Lord. They avowed that they were weak, but they knew that the power of Christ was strong enough to keep them. Why should they be afraid? When Christians own His name as a gathering centre, it is not said that evil will not come in; but looking to the power of the Lord Jesus and His Spirit, we do not mean to sanction evil. Let us only leave the door open for the Lord to come in. There may be much to try our patience; but what we have to do is to wait on the Lord. This is what the Lord seeks — that we should have confidence in what He is and has, taking the place of weakness and dependence in prayer, however much we may be tried.

It is of great interest to note here the re-appearance of the Catholic system at this point. It developed itself first in its fulness in the era of early heathen persecution under the fathers so called — the Smyrna period. (Compare Rev. 2: 9.) Now it comes up again, the enemy's counterfeit, the real antagonist of the testimony of God in our own day. But the Lord will compel them yet to recognise where the truth is, and where the Lord's approving love rests especially. "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie" (ver. 9). These claimed to be exclusively the covenant people; others (in particular those meant by the assembly in Philadelphia) they regarded as outside, unworthy of a name save of contempt. For this it is which tries the saint, not persecution from open external enemies as also in Smyrna. The boasters in tradition, antiquity, priesthood, order, and ordinances, shall yet be forced to acknowledge those they despised as the beloved of the Lord. Fidelity to Him, however feeble, is precious in His eyes.

In Pergamos they kept His word: here they did more. "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will keep thee from the hour of temptation" (ver. 10). In these churches the Lord evidently looks forward to a state of things up to the very close. It is plain that, as the hour of temptation is still future, room is left for the application of this promise up to the end. This is not His word only, but of His patience. Christ is coming to receive His church, and afterwards to be the Judge of all the earth. But we are not looking for signs. God will graciously give signs to the Jews, but the church was never called to be guided in its thoughts by what it saw, like Thomas. "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." It was when the Lord was no longer seen that the church was born into the world; and since then the church is waiting but was never meant to depend on outward tokens. It was when He took His place above as Head that His body, the church, was formed; for there could not be a body except there were first a head. God would have the church waiting not for signs, but for Christ Himself. He will cause His voice to be heard, and the dead in Christ shall rise . . . . and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Christ is waiting for this patiently. As far as I have noticed, the Lord does not speak about His coming as if there were any haste connected with it. He waits patiently for it. He lingers in His love, that there may be a lengthening of mercy to the world, and that souls may be brought to Him. The church knows that He is waiting, and is called to the same patience — to have fellowship with Him in His patience.

"I will keep thee from the hour of temptation" (verse 10). This is not the portion of the Jews. To them, when the time of trial comes, God says, "Come, my people, enter into thy chambers." (Isaiah 26) Ours is the place of Abraham. He had not to fly to a little Zoar like Lot, who was saved indeed out of the judgment, but not much to his honour. The Lord had a heavenly-minded saint, as well as an earthly-minded one. Abraham was not in the sphere of that temptation at all. So the church will be kept from the coming hour. This is our confidence — not merely preserved in or through it, but "from" it. Take another figure — that of the deluge. Enoch had been translated to heaven before the flood, while Noah was carried through its waters. Thus God gives us blessed witnesses from the beginning of the two-fold preservation, like Enoch and Abraham in spirit on the one hand, and on the other like Noah and Lot. These last were in the circumstances of the trial; and this will be the case with the converted remnant of Israel during the time of the dreadful judgments. The Christian's hope is to be with the Lord in heaven, and the church ought to be looking for it. Assuredly the cry is now going forth, "Behold the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."

Let me ask, have you gone out? There were those who not only believed when they heard the cry, but went out. Have you left everything that is contrary to Him? — what you know — not what I know — to be contrary to Him? Ask yourselves whether you are ready to meet Him: if so, you need not be afraid. Be assured that anything the will of man wants to keep is not worth the pains. It is gain to go out from all to meet Him; it is joy to be in the path of His sorrow. Has this reached your heart? Do not be content with saying, "I have got oil in my vessel, and it does not matter where I am." What more selfish and unholy? The Lord grant that such may not be your feeling! He has saved me that I may think of Him. He wishes me to go out to meet Him — to value the precious hope of His coming. Are you then keeping His word? Do you not know? This is a question between your own conscience and the Lord. When you have kept what you do know, you will learn more and find it the truest liberty ever to serve Him.

"I am coming quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no one take thy crown" (verse 11). This is a precious word. The Lord spoke of coming like a thief even to Sardis, which had taken the world as its mistress, and allowed the unpurged to govern in place of the Lord. Here He comes as one that has a crown to give. The Lord Himself coming to meet us is the jewel He has given us to keep. May He grant us to hold it fast, that it be not taken from us!

We are indeed weak now, but the Lord says, "If you are content to be weak now, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God." A pillar is the emblem of strength (that which supported the temple) contrasted with weakness. It is a hard thing to be content to be weak. To flesh it is comfortable to feel the world's strength under one. But if willing to appear what we are now, the Lord tells us what He will do for us then: "I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God" (verse 12). As I have known my God, I will bring you into fellowship with me. You were content to wait for my coming, and none shall take your crown. For those who have thought of Christ now, Christ will provide all the joy He can give them then. The Lord grant that this may be our comfort while we wait for Him! We may for Christ be outside all that looks strong and orderly. In that day we shall go no more out, but enjoy the most intimate association with Christ, be a pillar in the temple of His God, and have the name of His God and of the city of His God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and His new name described on us.

Weak as these were they took the place of weakness; and as they had thought of His word and of His name, the Lord says, When I have you in my temple, I will write upon you "my new name," and will make you a pillar "in the temple of my God." He does not say the throne, which would be the expression of power, but the temple, which is another thought from the throne. The temple is the place of worship, where God is exalted in the beauty of holiness. Just so, when it was a question of the worship of God, David wears an ephod. His own wife despised him (she was looking at him as the son-in-law of her father Saul the king) because he did not come out in some robe suitable to royalty: but David had the thought of God before him, and in his eyes it was his greatest possible exaltation to wear the ephod, and so to serve Jehovah and rejoice in His goodness who deigned to be in their midst.

So the Philadelphians seem specially those who entered into worship, because they appreciated the person and character of the Lord Jesus. It is this that draws out the heart. Thus when Jesus revealed Himself after giving sight (John 9), the blind man paid Him homage. Worship is little enjoyed in general even by real children of God. A man might receive favour from God, and give thanks heartily for it, and yet know little of worship. This is a higher step and nearer to Himself. it does not merely appreciate the favours that come down to us from God, but what the God is who gives them. Real worship is always this. The Father seeks worshippers, but it is to draw them back to the source from which the grace has flowed. Not that the word worship is used in the address to Philadelphia, except in verse 9, where it is in quite a different sense, merely signifying that the men, who were now scorners, would have to humble themselves and give honour to these whom they had despised. Worship is the drawing near to God in the appreciation not only of what He does but of Himself. There is this which always prepares the way for worship — the full and simple knowledge of our being brought near to God as well as of the work of Christ and its blessed results for us.

LAODICEA.

We have already noticed the strong contrast between the state of Sardis and the previous order of things. Gross corruption, open evil, persecution, hatred of the holiness and truth of God, false prophets had reigned in Thyatira, though there was a remnant found there, and a faithful remnant. If Thyatira represents the dark ages, when the Lord had His faithful saints hidden away in nooks and corners of the world, in Sardis we have a correct appearance of things — a name to live, and death almost universal; yet even in Sardis there were those who had not defiled their garments. If there is so marked a distinction between Sardis and Thyatira, there is an equally strong line of demarcation between Philadelphia and Laodicea.

"To the angel of the church in Laodicea," not "of the Laodiceans." (So, as to the first, it should be "the church in Ephesus." Rev. 2: l.)

Let us look at the character that God gives of this church, and what He brings to light of its condition. If there are two churches that stand in more pointed contrast to one another, it is surely these last. The reason, I think, is this; that when God works in any special way, when He puts forth His grace in some new form and light, it always, since the slipping aside of Christendom, draws in its train a peculiarly dark shadow. So we saw in Philadelphia a bright picture. They were weak, but they were to depend on Him in peace; for the Lord had opened the door, and He would keep it so. Christ was all their confidence, in contrast with the pretentious religionists who appear at the same time claiming to be the people of God with no care for Christ. The church should have been by the Holy Spirit a real testimony to the new creation, of which Christ is both the only source and the bright exemplar. But it had wholly failed and never so much as in this last phase. For when we come to look at Laodicea, what a difference we find!

Does the Lord here speak of waiting upon their need, having the key of David, and presenting Himself as the object of their affections — as the holy and true One, in His moral grandeur, which called out all the heart to worship Him? Does He not now speak in another tone? "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God." The end of haughty profession was at hand. He was the "Amen," the only securer of divine promise, the solitary "faithful and true Witness," when all else had failed. This presentation of Himself supposes that those to whom He was writing were utterly faithless and had revived the old things which had been buried in the grave of Christ. Even a saint like Job was not in the presence of God when he was thinking so much about himself. ("When the ear heard me and the eye saw me," etc.) We may say he was in the presence of himself and not of God. It is always a poor sign if we see a man stop to look at himself, whether his good or his bad self. Even if converted, why should we thus dwell on the change in ourselves? This is not to forget the things that are behind (which does not mean, by the way, our sins, but our progress): if the Lord has given us to take a step forward, it is that we may get nearer to Himself, and increase in the knowledge of God. Along with this there will always be increase in the knowledge of ourselves, but never in the way of self-admiration. As belonging to Christ, He is the object that happily keeps us low. When Job was brought at the close really into the presence of God, he was in the dust. He did not know what it was to be thoroughly nothing before God till he was brought there, and his eye saw Him. Before, he had been looking more at what God had produced in him, but now he saw himself to be as dust. After this we find him even praying for his friends, and we have burnt-offerings. This was the spirit of intercession and worship too. It appears to me that such was the spirit into which the Philadelphian church had been brought. They understood worship, because they in their measure knew Him that was from the beginning. The Lord loves us to be strong in Christ, growing up into Him in all things.

In Laodicea there was no such thought — nothing like an entrance into the riches of the Lord's grace. There is nothing we ought to feel our lack in so much as in worship, just because we do value it. It is spiritual feeling though feeble indeed, that makes us alive to our little power of worship. Be assured that the spirit of worship is our true power for service. Thus in John 10 the Lord says, "I am the door: by me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." It is no longer the Jewish sheepfold and the bondage of the law, but perfect liberty, going in for worship and out for service, everywhere finding food and blessing. How sweet to think that the time is coming when we shall go in, never to come out more! It will be always service in immediate connection with the lord Himself — enjoyment of the presence of God and of the Lamb — eternal worship. And let me again ask, For whom would this be a welcome and happy promise? For those who had valued and enjoyed worship here below; as in Ps. 84, "They will be still praising thee." The place where the Lord dwelt was graven even in the hearts of those going there — "in whose heart are the ways." They felt that they must get where God was, and there they dwell.

The Lord does not reveal Himself in the same personal way, and still less ecclesiastically; but certain qualities and titles belonging to Him are taken up, which reach out from what He had been for God to that which links Him with the new scene in which He is about to be displayed as Head over all. This cannot fail. He was "the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God." They had failed in everything, they had been unfaithful witnesses; but He as good as says to them, "You have not met a single thought of my heart. I will now present myself to you as all you should have been." He was also "the beginning of the creation of God" (verse 14). Christendom is at its beginning, certainly from apostolic days, a rejected witness. Christ is in relationship with the new creation.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot" (verse 15). This is latitudinarianism. It is not ignorance that works this deadly mischief, but the heart remaining indifferent to the truth, after it has been fully brought before it. Such an one does not want the truth, because he feels the sacrifice and the separation from the world which must ensue, if it be really followed. We ought to bear, wherever there is unwilling ignorance; but indifference to truth is quite another thing, and hateful in the sight of the Lord.

Thus latitudinarianism is never the condition of souls that are simple-hearted, but of those by whom the truth has been heard and who are not prepared for the cross. God's truth must put people's hearts to the test. It is not merely something I have to learn, but I am proved. If the sheep is in a healthy condition, it will hear the Shepherd's voice, and not even know the voice of strangers; but if the sheep strays after others, it becomes so confounded that it may cease to distinguish the well-known voice. This arises in Laodicea, and, as it would appear, from despising the testimony given in the former church. Laodicea is the fruit of the rejection of the special truth that formed Philadelphia. There He showed Himself, and assured each heart that received Him, that as His name was everything to us on earth, so He will give us His new name in the time of glory. Every affection that has been spiritual, all that the Lord wrought in our hearts, shall come out more brightly in heaven. To Laodicea He says, "Thou art neither cold nor hot. They must have had some stimulant, as the cold was not absolute. They were not honest. Laodicea is the last state of decay, which the Lord could not allow to go on any longer — a time when persons have had a great deal of truth in a certain fashion, but their souls not touched by it. If the heart had been in ever so little a measure true, even though ignorant, it would have enjoyed all that came from the Lord. In 1 John 2 the persons who are said to have an unction from the Holy One; and to know all things, are not the "fathers" (who of course had been thus anointed also) but "the babes." The ability to judge what is not of Christ depends on the heart being true to Him. Hence the youngest saint, if single-eyed, can discern with certainty, where the theologian is lost in endless genealogies.

Every spirit that confesses not but denies Christ (the Christ of God) is of antichrist. There were, there are now, many antichrists, and the place to look for them is where He has been named. If Christ had not been known, there could not have been an antichrist, which was the dark shadow that followed the truth. As surely as the Lord works in His gracious way, Satan is at work too. To be "lukewarm" was to be false with the pretension of the truth; and the Lord says, "I will spue thee out of my mouth." There is not such a contemptuous expression used by Him anywhere else that I know. This is sensibly different from the dealing with Sardis, where the general judgment of Protestantism is given, — judged like the world, and the Lord coming as a thief. Is this the way that we measure things? We should have said probably that Jezebel was to be felt most about; but would it have struck us that to be lukewarm was the worst of all? Yet this was what drew forth all the Lord's indignation, and He only is wise.

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods," etc. (verse 16). Here is a plain proof that they had heard a great deal about the truth. They thought themselves rich. Learning and intellectualism in religion they counted a prize. If these grow (at least in extent, even though not in depth), what ground for satisfaction? The spread of the outward knowledge of God is what hastens on the last crisis — God's final judgment and setting aside of all that bears His name falsely and self-complacently. They had sought man and the world, which promise much to the eye. But this is no righteous judgment; for nature thus allowed in the church is so much loss, to the utter exclusion of what is divine and heavenly — the real and bitter impoverishment unto all true riches. This the Lord proceeds next to lay before the angel. Absence of discernment follows. "And knowest not that thou art the wretched, and the miserable, and poor, and blind" (ver. 17). This was because they had rejected the testimony of God. His testimony always produces the sense of being nothing but it never weakens confidence in Him. There may be tests, — the Epistles of John are full of them; but there never is such a thought as the Spirit leading a believer to doubt God's being for him. He may and surely will work in a soul that is slipping aside from the Lord to bring him back; He may make us feel our weakness; but it is not at all His way to produce a doubt of the truth; and it is ever a sign of the flesh being at work, "lusting against the Spirit," when we give way to distrust. The Spirit of God always, wherever He is, aims at making a man thoroughly humble himself, judging and renouncing the folly of the flesh. There is and must be reality and truthfulness in God's presence.

Laodicea says, "I am rich, and am become rich, and have need of nothing." But we have the Spirit of God pronouncing this to be carnal presumption, the heart knowing not its need, and refusing grace. There had been momentary warmth, which made it so hateful to God. But this is just what men are doing who talk about the church of the future. The early times they call the infancy of the church; afterwards the church became overgrown and haughty: and now they are looking for a church of the future, when it will be no longer subject, but will act for itself — will act like a man. Alas! where will not these aspirations end? For God will be left out of the so-called church, and His authority got rid of.

This is working now extensively. And are God's children. lukewarm about it? about God's truth being shut out? Remember what the Lord here says, "I will spue thee out of my mouth." It would be a grave mistake to suppose that there were no good men among them. It is no question however of individuals, but of the assembly: as such the Lord said He would spue them out of His mouth. People cannot congregate in large masses without Laodiceanism as the result, if it be not also the spring. Popularity is one thing; quite another the Spirit of God gathering souls to Christ at the present time. The Lord be thanked if there are a few gathered out to His name! Let God's children remember that they must answer to the Lord Jesus, whether they are represented by Laodicea or not; whether they are living for Christ, or for what merely bears His name as a veil over indifferentism.

Yet the Lord does not give them up. He says, "I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire," etc. (verse 18.) Gold is used as the symbol of intrinsic righteousness in God's nature, or divine righteousness; and white raiment or linen stands for the righteousnesses of saints, as we see from Revelation 19.

Divine righteousness had slipped from their thoughts. They were neither appreciating the righteousness of God, which a Christian is made in Christ, nor the practical righteousness displayed before men, which the Spirit leads in. So He counsels them to buy of Him the true gold, and white raiment that there might be the holiness that became them before others. "Anoint thine eye with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." There was the secret — the lack of unction from the Holy One. They did not see anything properly, not even their need of divine righteousness.

"As many as I love I rebuke and chasten; be zealous, therefore, and repent" (verse 19). Depend upon it that this is the Lord's voice for the present moment. Here alas! it was what the Laodiceans needed. The Lord is dealing with His people; He constantly puts before them something to humble them in their thoughts of themselves: He does not tell them to do or try something new, but calls on them "to repent." He does not ask them to stretch their wings for some greater flight in the future, but to see where they are, and to confess their failure. But this is irksome to the light self-complacent heart.

The call to repentance here, however, as in Sardis, differs greatly from that in the message to Ephesus and Pergamos, where all were thus urged on penalty of the Lord's solemn chastening, whether general or special. Thyatira had here too an intermediate place: "I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not." Hence the threat of judgment followed, and the vast change ensued in all its extent.

It is a far higher thing to suffer for Christ and with Christ than to be active in doing. When the Apostle once asked, "What shall I do?" the Lord answered, "I shall show thee what great things thou must suffer." This is what the Lord specially prizes — not mere sufferings as men, but sufferings for Christ. "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him."

Here they were persons as sunken as they were proud, called upon to be zealous and repent, to humble themselves before God on account of their condition. Yet the Lord utters a gracious word, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (verse 20). Is it not a solemn thing that the Lord should be there, thus taking the place of one outside? Nevertheless He was ready to come in where He found a soul true to Him. "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him," etc. Need it be said that this is not an address to the world in order to be saved? In John 10 the Lord presents Himself in full grace, saying, "I am the door, by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved." But here He speaks thus to the church. What a solemn position! How utterly fallen now! What ought to be the enjoyed portion of all the church, whether in approaching God or in display before men, or in the communion of Christ, is proffered in pure grace to him who hearkens and humbles himself before the grace of the Lord. He certainly had no sympathy with their self-satisfaction. He stood outside, knocking at the door, if perchance there should be a heart within, not too much occupied with the things and the persons around, that would open to Him. To such He says, "I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me." But it is all individual. In presence of the gravest departure, are we to say, "there is no hope"? Not so; for the Lord is standing at the door and knocking. There may not be many to answer His call, but some will; and the promise is, "To him that overcometh will I give to sit down with me in my throne; even as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne."

It is a mistake to suppose that this is comparatively a glorious promise: we are apt to think so, because we naturally value display. But God does not estimate things thus. His holy love, proving itself divine most of all when Christ humbled Himself, in coming down to man and dying for him — this is the standard of value, rather than power or glory. He could make a thousand worlds with far more ease than He gave His Son to suffer. I do not question the grace of such a word, spite of such evil; but our sharing the kingdom with Christ is not the most blessed thing we shall enjoy. And the promise here does not go farther. What we have and shall have in Christ Himself is much more precious. Yet is this a portion with Christ In John 17: 23 the Lord shows that the display of glory is for the vindication of Himself before the world. All the glory disclosed in the future will be the proof to the world, that they may know that the Father loves us as He loved His Son. But we are entitled to know it by the Holy Ghost now. We do not wait till then to know the love that has given us the glory — a deeper thing than the appearing to the world, or thrones in the kingdom. The personal affection of the Lord to His people is a better portion than anything displayed before men or angels.

Here the Lord closes the churches. He had reached the last phase. The wisdom of God has provided in these chapters not so much deep truth as what requires conscience: this rather than great ability is what we are to understand. The need for guidance is the eye fixed on Christ. Besides these epistles being messages to local churches in the name of St. John, we have seen in them a sketch of the whole history of the church till the Lord comes. For properly speaking the Lord's addresses to the churches themselves or their angels constitute "the things which are," or the actual state in John's day. The addresses, while primarily connected with the facts then existing, go far beyond them, and reach out into a prolonged moral application, till there is no longer any recognised assembly, the last (though with mercy to individuals) having been summarily rejected as a public witness by the Lord. After that we never hear of the churches any more upon the earth. On the contrary the curtain drops, and we have a new scene altogether. The seer no longer turns round to see who spoke behind him on earth,* but hears the same voice above, whither he is now invited to ascend. The government of the world from the throne in heaven, its accompaniments and consequences, are the things which follow, when the church's time — state is closed. After this we have individual. saints both among the twelve tribes of Israel and out of all nations mentioned as such, but this only makes the contrast more striking. Henceforward, if specified at all, they are named as Jews and Gentiles, because there was no longer any thing of the nature of the assembly of God upon earth: for the very meaning and essence of the church is, that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, because all are one in Christ.

*The chief opponent of the future or rather protracted application of the Apocalyptic epistles, draws from the local direction of the voice that, according to a mode of interpretation then prevalent, the visions about to be shown would refer to events yet future and behind, in the course of time. (Horae Apocalypticae, 5th edition, vol. i. page 70.) If there be any truth in that interpretation, it strongly confirms the future bearing of the seven addresses. But it is certain from Rev. 4: 1, that when the purely prophetic visions are about to begin, the speaker's voice is above, not behind. What the turning to the voice behind in Revelation 1 really shows is, that the prophet's eye was forward, as it were, in the direction of the kingdom, and that he was recalled to take notice of the churches, "the things which are," as justifying the Lord in His setting aside of Christendom in order to the introduction of His kingdom in power, when patience shall no longer be demanded. For the Lord will create new heavens and a new earth: first, in a partial preparatory sense — the millennium; and then fully and finally, the eternal state. The church state is thus emphatically treated as present time.

In the detail of these seven epistles there is also abundant practical instruction. It is true that the Spirit addressed them to the churches; but "he that hath an ear" is expressly enjoined to give heed; and this to the challenges of the Lord sent to them all. Such application, however, falls more fittingly within the domain of ordinary ministry in the word.

It may be well, now that we have gone over the ground of the Apocalyptic epistles, to notice the objections urged against the larger view of their meaning by Bishop Newton. "Many contend, and among them such learned men as More and Vitringa, that the seven epistles are prophetical of so many successive periods and states of the church, from the beginning to the conclusion of all. But it doth not appear that there are, or were to be, seven periods of the church, neither more nor less; and no two men can agree in assigning the same periods. There are likewise in these epistles several innate characters which were peculiar to the church of that age, and cannot be so well applied to the church of any other age. Besides other arguments, there is also this plain reason; the last state of the church is described in this very book as the most glorious of all, but in the last state in these epistles, that of Laodicea, the church is represented as 'wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.'" (Newton's Works, vol. i., p. 549, edition 1782.)

Now it is plain that "it doth not appear" is rather an assumption than a proof. Why does it not appear? Another might urge the same objection, and perhaps with quite as much weight, against the seven seals, trumpets, and vials. God has been pleased to specify in each of these instances seven salient points, so to speak, as His complete account of each. "The main subjects of this book," the Bishop had just before remarked, "are comprised of sevens, seven churches, seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials, as seven was also a mystical number throughout the Old Testament." If this answer satisfy as to the seven vials, why not as to the seven epistles? Doubtless more spirituality may be required for right discernment in the latter than in the former case; because one series relates to external judgments in the world, whereas the other series takes cognisance of such remarkable spiritual conditions, good and bad, in the history of the church, as it seemed good to the Lord to notice. Hence à priori one might be prepared for a greater divergence of judgment among Christians in their adaptation of Rev. 2, 3, than in their views of any other parts of the book. If there had been therefore a considerable measure of truth in what he says, the general principle would till remain undisturbed. But this is not the case. There is a striking agreement as regards the first three or four churches. This of course is not urged as in the least degree authoritative, but as a sufficient answer to the charge of hopeless discrepancy preferred by Bp. Newton. Retort would be easy on the discordant schemes of interpreting the seals, trumpets, and vials.

It is singular, however, that the Bishop bears testimony in the next page to the mystical meaning of the epistle to Smyrna. For the "tribulation ten days" is there explained of the greatest persecution that the primitive church ever endured, Diocletian's persecution, which lasted ten years, and grievously afflicted all the Eastern churches. Conscious that such an application, not in the promises attached but in the body of the epistle, is fatal to his own exclusively literal application, the Bishop thereon allows that the "promissory or threatening part foretells something of their future condition," and asserts that "in this sense, and in no other, can these epistles be said to be prophetical" (p. 550):

But how stop here, once you own, as he does in the Smyrnean epistle, a bearing beyond the bare single church in or near that age, once you extend its scope to all the East, and its date to the beginning of the fourth century? Indeed, that fierce persecution was not confined to the East; for all the empire, not excepting Spain and Britain, was stained with Christian blood. If the principle is true in one epistle, why not in all? And in fact was not general declension within as clearly marked in Ephesus, as persecution from without in Smyrna? and does not Pergamos portray the corrupting influences of worldly exaltation, as palpably as Thyatira sets forth the proud unrelenting false prophetess of Popery?

No doubt the unsactisfactory character attached by our Lord to Sardis must be painful and startling to those whose eye is filled with ordinary Protestantism and its decent orthodoxy. And perhaps yet more distasteful is the sight of another and a subsequent testimony, which sets those who bear it in weakness and scorn outside the religious world, with the coming of Christ their blessed and animating hope.

But it is plain that the picture of the last assembly, in its deplorable lukewarmness and the Lord's peremptory rejection of it, was the great difficulty to Bishop Newton, because of its inconsistency with his theory of the last state of the church, "described in this very book as the most glorious of all." But this is a total mistake. The Revelation never describes the church on earth after Laodicea. The glorious description, to which the Bishop refers is probably in Rev. 19-21, where the entire church is glorified above. In a word this reason is plainly invalid. The bride of the Lamb is to reign; but this does not contradict the solemn testimony of the Laodicean epistle, that the last state of Christendom here below is to be, like that of Israel before it, "worse than the first." The general testimony of the New Testament entirely confirms the witness borne by this particular part, as appears from Luke 17: 26-37; 2 Thess. 2: 1-12; 2 Tim. 3: 1-5; 2 Peter 2, 3; 1 John 2: 18; Jude 11-19. The gratuitous assumption that the last phase of the church's condition on earth must be the brightest is then clearly opposed to the direct testimony of Christ and the Apostles, as well as to the solemn warning of the Apocalypse. How humbling that all this should be explained away for many souls by the unintelligent reasons we have just disproved! Nor is the evil speculative only, but very great practically; and the danger becomes every day greater for those thus misled. For if the soul be taught to view events as gradually moving on toward a glorious future for the closing years of the gospel here below, it cannot but be thrown off its guard and exposed to a loss of discernment in its desire after such a consummation, instead of being called to watch as during a long sad night, and to judge each new move and measure, as good soldiers in an enemy's land. And if it be certain that the falling away or apostacy is the predicted issue, the means taken for the widest development and apparent triumph of the church on earth, must finally at least be but means for consummating that apostacy, and a prime object for the Lord's judgment at His appearing.

Revelation 4 - 11.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of Lectures on the Book of Revelation.

(The Translation by W. Kelly of the Revelation of John is included as the file revtrans.doc. Search for 'revelation /2/ john'.)

Revelation 4.

We are now come to the strictly prophetic part of the book of Revelation. The seven churches formed together what the Holy Ghost calls "the things which are." And the Son of man was seen judging the house of God on earth, represented by the Asiatic churches. They existed in the time of St. John; and in a mystic sort at least, they have an existence continuous, and to a certain extent successive, as long as there is any testimony rendered by the professing body on the earth. If the literal application is past, the protracted representative bearing still goes on. In Revelation 1: 19 we were told that, besides "the things which thou hast seen" and "the things which are," there is a third division — "the things which shall be hereafter." The word "hereafter" is vague, whereas the sense intended appears to be precise: it should be read "the things which shall be after these," meaning what is to follow after the church has come to an end on the earth. Its present history closes here, though it will have a better existence in heaven, and it will reign over the earth too in the day of millennial glory. We then arrive at this wholly prophetical portion. Revelation 4 and 5 are a kind of preface to "the things which shall be after these." Their great object is to show us, not events occurring on the earth, but the attitude or aspect in which God appears, and the place of those who are nearest to Him, during the occurrence of these future events, or the crisis of the present age. I must here dwell a little on the first of these chapters.

"After these things I looked, and, behold, a door opened in heaven, and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet, talking with me;" etc. (ver. 1). The "first voice" here does not mean the first of the voices that were about to speak, as some have strangely thought, but the voice that John had already heard in Revelation 1 — the voice of Him who had been in the midst of the seven golden lamp-stands. It still addresses him like a trumpet, no longer from earth but from heaven. There was a door there, and the voice spake from thence, so that this portion of the book supposes the earth done with for the moment, and the scene lies above. It is not merely that saints render testimony on the earth, but the voice speaks from heaven, showing the things that should follow the church-condition on earth now concluded. "Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must happen after these things" John is said to be immediately in the Spirit (ver. 2); that is, by the Holy Ghost's power he was rapt and characterised, so as to enter into the new scenes he was now to behold.

"Behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat," etc. God is not named as such in this account, save as "He that sat upon the throne." John is about to show us what the aspect seemed of the One who sits upon the throne, while there is that in God which "no man hath seen or can see. This is a representation, in a symbolical way, of the glory of God. He may assume any appearance that pleases Him; but as far as He permitted it to be displayed here, it was what could be compared to these precious stones. In Revelation 21 the bride, the New Jerusalem, comes down "out of heaven from God, having the glory of God; her light [was] like a stone most precious, as a jasper stone," etc. It is quite evident that this cannot be the essential glory of God. It rather means, I think, that it was not a human but a divine glory. There is in God that which He can confer upon the creature, and there is that which is incommunicable. Here divine glory is meant in contrast with creature glory — not that which would derogate from His majesty, but be a reflection of it. Her light was like a jasper stone; the wall also was of jasper (verse 18), and the first foundation (verse 19).* The general appearance of the city was as it were of jasper. This a little answers, I think, to the view we have in Revelation 4 of what John enjoyed of the sight of Him that sat upon the throne. In Rom. 5: 2 it is said, not only that we have access to the grace of God in which we stand, but that we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. That glory of Him who sat on the throne, as far as it could be viewed by the creature, was presented under the figure of jasper and sardius (verse 3); and when the church comes forth in the glory of God, her light will be jasper-like. That is, the thought of God's glory, not man's, is the thing conveyed to the mind. Even in the "eternal day," there will be no such change as God abandoning or lowering the dignity of His own proper Godhead; for there must always be an infinite difference between God and the most exalted of His creatures. Still, there is a resemblance between the glory of God as seen by man, and the church's glory by and by. And this answers exactly to the words of our Lord in the Gospel of John (John 17: 22, 23): "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."

*The application of the jasper, in the account of the heavenly city, seems decisively to set aside the notion that the colour of this stone was intended to convey something in the appearance very awful as well as glorious. It is utterly out of the question to attribute such a feature to the New Jerusalem, of which the figure is used still more emphatically. I cannot but think, therefore, that we must search for a meaning in keeping with both, and that the idea of glory and splendour best meets all requirements.

Far more untenable is the view that the jasper sets forth the incarnation. It appears to me to fall in with not a single occurrence of the figure; it sets Revelation 4 hopelessly at variance with Revelation 5, and it would involve, I fear, serious aberration from sound doctrine, if carried out in Revelation 21.

But, besides the appearance of divine glory, there was a rainbow round about the throne. This evidently carries our thoughts back to the covenant that God made, not with His people Israel, but with the earth at large. The covenant with His people is noticed for the first time in Revelation 11, where we have heaven opened and the ark of His testament seen in His temple. It is not the new covenant itself; for when this is brought about, there will be no earthquakes, and lightnings, and thunders, etc., but the day of peace and blessing for Israel. But at the time to which that vision refers, God will show that He has respect to His covenant. Here the rainbow is God's remembrance of His covenant with the earth. The ark spoken of in Revelation 11 is God's remembrance of His covenant with His people. God is going to pour forth judgments on the earth and on those who had the responsibility of being His people. But He takes pains to show that, before a single judgment falls, there is mercy in store. Before He touches creation, there is the sign of His covenant with the earth, just as when He is forced to pour down plagues on His people Israel, the ark of His covenant is seen. The rainbow was the witness that God had not let slip His ancient word: He could not forget it. The rainbow is the sign of mercy. It spans the heavens, and takes in earth and sea, the whole compass of that blessed security of which God had hung out the token on high. And now we have the rainbow not merely over the world, but round about the throne in heaven. This is not its usual place; but it was comforting for John to see, in the midst of all that bright glory, how God wished to fill the heart with confidence. He had not merely the vision of what was coming on earth, but in the circle of the divine manifestation and power the rainbow is seen above. If God shows us His own glory at the same time, the rainbow would tell us that God is true — that He was purposely putting man in mind of His pledge, given after the great judgment of old, and the rather as now He set it in this peculiar place, where a rainbow had never been seen before, in order to assure our hearts. But though peculiar, what could be more in character? For it is the throne of God the Almighty, the Creator and supreme Lord of all things.

Perhaps it is needless to remark that no such things will happen literally; but the vision was a panoramic sign, putting all before the eyes of the prophet — a most lively and admirable way of conveying what God meant to teach. When persons are once thoroughly founded in His grace, nothing is more important than the study of this book. But it may be injurious to souls who have not been so established to get absorbed in the Revelation.

First, then, we have the throne of One who is the centre and source of all the action, God's glory and majesty being set forth by the symbol of the jasper and sardine; and next there is the rainbow, the familiar emblem of God's faithfulness to creation. The rainbow was of a particular kind, "in appearance like an emerald" (verse 3). We could scarcely have colours more opposed than those which represented the divine majesty, and the emerald so refreshing for the eye to look upon. The Holy Ghost gives us a vivid impression by these simple symbols. For this book was not written for great scholars; it was intended for suffering saints. Even by men of the world it has been noticed, that the Revelation was specially the book sought into by persecuted Christians; and certain it is that, while those who make it a field for human research and speculation go wrong here and everywhere else, a general or even bright idea would present itself to the mind of in unlettered believer, who looks up to God and desires the glory of His Son.

The first thought suggested to one by the chapter is, that the only true place from which to look at the things coming to pass after the seven churches is heaven. It is not upon and from the earth that we can rightly judge of these events. It is from above that we must learn and look; if we are earthly-minded, we shall never understand them. If I am merely on the level of the scene upon which the judgments are passing, I shall endeavour to make the best of present things, and to put off the judgments; I am not entering in by the door opened in heaven. A heavenly standing must be taken as the ground, and the only ground, on which these visions can be rightly estimated.

The main object seen is God and His throne — His power ruling in providence. The throne is not in itself connected with priesthood, but with the power whence divine government proceeds. God would establish souls in the thought that He governs, even in the midst of all the wickedness that was to be developed in the time of the beasts, or the final apostacy. The vision is of the throne of One who did not need to be named, but who permits His glory to be seen as far as it can be by the creature. From His throne above He is dealing with the world. Then we have His throne surrounded by the remembrance of His covenant with creation. Next, in the fourth verse, the prophet sees that, round about the central throne of God, there are other thrones. The reason why thrones here are preferable to "seats" is, that it is an essential part of the vision to show that the persons seated there were possessed of kingly dignity. The same word means a throne and a seat, and the choice is only determined by the connection in which it stands. We should not say of a person in humble life that he was sitting upon a throne, nor of the sovereign when in state that he was upon a seat. We can judge by the subject-matter.

Around the throne of God then, in the scene of such glory as man perhaps never saw before, there are other thrones with elders seated on them — that is, those endowed with wisdom from on high, who entered into the thoughts and counsels of God. They are clothed in white raiment, answering to their priestly, as their crowns do to their kingly, dignity. They are clearly saints and at home in heaven by glory around the great central throne before the world's judgment begins. The number of these is twenty-four, corresponding with the twenty-four courses of priesthood in Israel. When the forerunner of the Lord was to be born, his father Zacharias was a priest of the course or order of Abia. In 1 Chron. 24 we must look to see these divisions, and we find the eighth was the one in question. The priesthood was divided into these courses in order that each in succession might take up the work of the priesthood, every course having its own chief priest. The High Priest is not named here: we all know who He is; but we have the twenty-four elders answering to these twenty-four courses of priesthood, or rather to the chiefs who represented them (verse 4).

But a deeply interesting inquiry. arises: If these crowned and enthroned elders represent the heavenly saints, as few will deny, when and to what condition does the vision apply? Does it speak (1) of those who have departed to be with Christ? Or (2) does it foreshadow the manifested kingdom of Christ and His saints during the millennium? Now it appears certain that both these questions must be answered in the negative, and that the time of Revelation 4, and therefore the interval during which the elders are thus engaged on high, is after the separate state is over, as far as they are concerned, and before the millennial reign begins.

For (1) it is obvious that the symbol of the twenty-four elders implies the sum of the heads of the heavenly priesthood — not a part, however large, but the whole. There were just so many courses, and no more. In the vision they are complete; and in the reality, which it symbolizes, this can never be the case, while the saints are absent from the body and thus present with the Lord. During that state of things there will always be members of the church on the earth. For "we shall not all sleep." And when, at the Lord's return, the dead in Christ shall rise first, "we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." That is to say, the symbol understood and interpreted aright requires that all the members of Christ should be together and in the same condition; and as this will never be true of the separate spirits, it necessarily follows that the vision will be realized only when "we shall all be changed" and with the Lord.

But (2) it is clear, that whatever may be anticipatively presented in the songs of the elders, or of others who catch up as it were the chorus of their strains, both the actions of the elders, and the entire heavenly scenery, in which they take so prominent a part from Rev. 4 to Rev. 19, suppose that the reigning over the earth does not arrive as a literal fact till Christ and His saints have left heaven for the judgment of His enemies. But the full complement of the elders is made up a considerable time previously: none can deny they are in heaven before and during the seals, trumpets, and vials. The inference is plain. The saints represented by them must be as a whole in heaven before these judgments begin to be fulfilled. The millennium does not come till Rev. 20; the elders, shadowing the glorified saints, are with the Lord in their changed bodies lone, before. When He comes from heaven to the destruction of the beast, they follow, and with Him they subsequently reign for a thousand years. Others, I doubt not, will be joined with them in that reign: these will not be glorified in their bodies till Rev. 20, having suffered after the rapture of the church under the beast, etc. But Rev. 4 intimates, that the rapture will then have taken place, and that the saints caught up are viewed as a royal priesthood, interested, as having the mind of Christ, in the trials, sufferings, testimony, and hopes of those who succeed themselves, as witnesses for God, during the hour of temptation which will then come upon all the world, to try those that dwell on the earth. Even for the raptured saints on high it is not yet the time for the marriage of the Lamb; and therefore, as well as for other reasons, they are here regarded, not as the body or bride, but as kings and priests worshipping and as yet waiting for their manifestation in glory when they shall judge the world.

There is a solemn connection with this in Ezekiel, where we have twenty-five men named (Ezek. 8: 16); and to my own mind it appears that they were the whole of the heads of the priesthood — the twenty-four chiefs and the high priest besides. But where were they now? Alas! they were the promoters of the idolatry and wickedness perpetrated in the temple of Jehovah. They were there not is those whose raiment told of the blood that cleanses, but the corrupters of God's holy standard and the defilers of Israel, leading them on to apostacy; so that, if judgment is to be inflicted, it must begin with the house of God. There is a tacit contrast between the scene here described and that in Ezekiel. There we had the living creatures first, the symbol of the executive judgments Of God — of His judicial power putting down evil. The earthly result of the action of these living creatures, as seen in Ezekiel, might be the destruction of Jerusalem; but this was only what man saw.

The cherubim and the living creatures (ζῶα) are the same substantially; they must be carefully distinguished from the beasts (θηρία) we read of afterwards. The first mention of the cherubim is in the early part of the book of Genesis. (Gen. 3) When sin entered the world, immediately we find them: they were the beings to whom the work of judgment was entrusted. "He placed in the garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword, to keep the way of the tree of life." The emblem of their power was the flaming sword. Again, if we look at the second book of Moses ' we find the cherubim in a new but blessed way. Where were they looking? Within. Had they been looking outwards, they would have seen sinners; had they looked under, that is, into the ark, they would have seen the law; but they were looking within on the mercy-seat, where the blood of atonement was sprinkled. There was the blood that spoke of the perfect mercy of God which had met and triumphed over sin; and there was the power of God — both combined in preserving the glory of God, and both really for man instead of against him.

If we examine this again in the time of Solomon, we find a remarkable difference. The position of the cherubim completely changes, for instead of looking within they are looking out, because Solomon's day typifies the time of glory, when the true Man and Prince of Peace shall rule. And why should they not look out then? Sin will have been judged, and, instead of the goodness of the Believed falling as it were in drops here and there, the King shall come down like rain on the mown grass; as showers that water the earth, and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory — the just answer to the glory of David's Son. When mercy will have had its full way, and judgment has been executed, there will be nothing to hinder the cherubim from proclaiming the goodness of the Jehovah.

But in Ezekiel a terrible crisis came. The mercy-seat had been despised, and Solomon's glory had faded away. Israel was sinning with a high hand, and now the very temple itself was the spot where the greatest dishonour was done to God, and there the cherubim again as good as ask, Can God have nothing to do with this wicked people? Judgment must have its course. Accordingly they leave Israel, though they bring judgment on the land. They are only seen again as giving the signal for judgment, and putting it in force by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

We have the same thing in Revelation, with this difference, that in Ezekiel the living creatures are seen more in connection with the earth; and this may be the reason why they are there said to have wheels as well as wings. In Revelation, the earthly people being dropped for a season, and a heavenly people called, they are simply seen with the wings suited for heaven, and not the wheels suited for earth. From this omission it is easily seen that, if God is going to speak about judgment, the very form that the executive of His, judgment takes tells us that a heavenly interruption has come in, ere the world's history is resumed. Is it not then of immense importance, if we are to view these things aright, to get a firm footing on the ground on which the apostle stood — to enter in, as it were, by the door opened in heaven?

But, besides this, "Out of the throne proceed lightnings, and voices, and thunders" (verse 5). Evidently this is not the throne that we draw near to; for ours is a throne of grace, and this is emphatically of judgment. Its aspect described here has nothing whatever to do with grace. There proceeds later on from the throne a stream clear as crystal, as in the view of the throne mentioned in Rev. 22; but here "are lightnings, and voices, and thunders," etc., expressive of God's terrors. Even the symbolic likeness given here of God's Spirit is in keeping with it. "There were seven lamps [or torches] of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God." The Holy Ghost does not take the symbol of lamps of fire when God's grace to the church is set forth. No doubt on the day of Pentecost we have tongues as of fire, a beautiful emblem of what God was then about to do; for it was divine force that gave those unlettered men to speak in every tongue. On the Lord Jesus He descended in the form of a dove; but this was quite a different thing from what we have in Revelation. Here it is the consuming power of the Spirit of God. Fire is the well-known emblem of the searching holiness of God. The Holy Ghost in full perfection as light and as a fire burning up evil is the representation that the Spirit gives of His own relation to this epoch. It is plain that the reference is not to the millennial kingdom, for then a stream clear as crystal is to proceed out of the throne of God; still less would such a symbol apply to His action in the body of Christ during the present time. Nor is God's throne now one from which proceed lightnings and thunders.

To what period then is the reference? To a short space between the two, when God has done His present church-work and before the millennial glory begins. The present is the time when God is gathering out His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, and forming the bride; and now there is a throne of grace where we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help. Here, on the contrary, His judgments issue from the throne, and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of judgment and burning, just as much as the throne is judicial and the source of terrors for the earth. Thus then it is neither the peaceful era of the millennial glory nor the present display of unbounded grace, but a time between the two. It is not conceivable for a person to have just light upon this book who does not see that the Revelation fills up the interval after the Lord has taken the church, and before He comes out of heaven and the church along with Him. (Rev. 19) I speak, of course, of the prophetic visions which fill the body of the book, and not of the three introductory chapters, nor of the close, when the Lord is about to appear. There the whole scene is changed; the heavens are opened to send forth the Lord Jesus, for the purpose of putting the last stroke of judgment to man's iniquity and Satan's power, and then we have the full flow of blessing far and wide. Here we have the time that precedes it — an interval of most solemn character for the world, when the heavenly saints shall have been caught up.

"And before the throne there was a set of glass" (verse 6). It is not a sea of water, where persons could bathe, but a sea of glass. The Holy Ghost uses the washing of water now by the word for the purpose of purging defilement. There was no longer need for this in those before the throne. In Revelation 15 another class is mentioned as standing upon a sea of glass, showing that it is not there a question of the Spirit's power in dealing with what is contrary to God, but the victory is won. So here all question of the trial of the heavenly saints is over. The scene where they had been tried is now closed (Rev. 4), and they are seated round God's own throne.

Here too are the four living creatures, full of eyes before and behind, which are the symbol of discernment; for though it is judgment they have to execute, it is not, we need hardly say, unintelligible judgment. "The first living creature was like a lion, the second like a calf, the third had the face as of a man, and the fourth was like a flying eagle" (verse 7). The various symbols are taken from the heads of God's creation here below, and represent different qualities of His judgments: the lion as the head of wild beasts, the ox or calf the head of cattle, man of intelligent beings, and the eagle of birds. The lion conveys the idea of strength or majestic power, the ox of patient endurance, the man of intelligence, and the eagle of rapidity. God shows us the strength, patience, intelligence, and rapidity with which His judgments should be executed. The four living creatures, having each of them six wings, denoted supernatural rapidity, and the eyes within intrinsic discernment (verse 8). Some have supposed, chiefly from the nearness of the living creatures to the supreme throne, that they, rather than the elders, must set forth the church.* But this is quite a misconception. The reason, as it seems, why the living creatures are thus near, is because they are the judicial executive, and providential judgments will then be in progress. They characterize the action of the throne.

*All admit that the cherubim are invariable attendants on the throne of God, and that they were therefore, when in the most holy place, made of the same piece of gold as the ark — itself on which Jehovah sat. But it is argued that, though in till the Old Testament instances they were angelic, because the law had been ordained by angels (Gal. 3: 17), they might become human in the Apocalypse, because the world to come is to be made subject to man. (Hebrews 2: 5.) Thus the cherubim and the elders would represent the saints in a twofold aspect, active and contemplative. And certainly it is a notable fact, as another has remarked, that before the Lamb appears and takes the book, there are no angels mentioned who praise, and the cherubim or living creatures only express or celebrate the holy character of God, but are not associated with intelligent worship; whereas, when the Lamb is in the scene, the elders and cherubim join in intelligent worship, and the angels are expressly distinguished. But more may be said when we treat of Revelation 5.

"And they have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come." This is a remarkable word. It is not occupation with evil; but when God shows us the means or agencies by which He executes judgment, we have one unceasing cry as regards Him — "Holy, holy, holy."

One of the most important features of this scene for the soul is that the elders symbolize the heavenly saints in glory, the heads of the heavenly priesthood, found in their blessed employ above. But observe that when they are seen there first they are perfectly familiar with the scene: there is no hurry and no anxiety. They are peacefully seated on the thrones. There is no trembling even in the presence of God. These thunders and lightnings and judgments might proceed from His throne, but still they sit peacefully on their thrones: not a single movement is produced. And what is it that does move them? They were entirely undisturbed by terror: judgment does not shake them from the thrones; but when those living creatures shall give glory and honour and thanks to; Him that sat on the throne, the four-and-twenty elders shall fall down, etc. Directly honour is given by the executors of judgment to Him that sat upon the throne, the elders worship. What satisfaction in God — what certainty that sin was at an end — does this show? He is surely going to judge, but He will not judge those who are made His righteousness in Christ. They are in sympathy with Him; and when the living creatures address God and ascribe glory and honour and thanks to Him, then it is that they rise from their thrones and are found prostrate before Him. More than that, in their homage they cast their crowns before the throne, saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive the glory and the honour and the power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy will they were, and were created," They enter into His personal worthiness in a way that the living creatures do not, and with greater spiritual intelligence. They are elders; they understand here the creatorial and providential glory of God, just as in Rev. 5 we see that they enter into the worthiness and work of the Lamb. "For thou didst create all things," etc. It is not, "are created and were created;" but for His will, or pleasure, they were in existence, even as they were originated at first (verses 10, 11). Thus their praise embraces the two great thoughts in the chapter — the creation glory and the governmental glory of God. "They were" (or they existed now under the care and the government of God), "and they were created" (or to Him they owed their origination).

It is not merely what we shall feel then that God reveals to us; but He desires us to enter now into what we shall have then. This glory is given us already. Assuredly we shall not have such a place then, if we have not got its title upon earth. It is ours now by faith, though then we shall have it in its fulness. What enables the elders to be so calm in the midst of judgment? That which God had done for them through the cross of Jesus. But God has done this now. In Christ was wrought as perfect a work upon earth as there could be in heaven. He will not do another or a better work there, though it may be enjoyed more above. But God has revealed this scene to His own that they may now enter into it intelligently, and may be worshippers according to its spirit, even upon earth, seeing the glory which will be theirs in heaven. Worship is a more serious thing than is supposed by many. Anything that does not suit the presence of God in heaven is unfit for the presence of God on earth, Even in outward things He looks for our hearts to be exercised. It is a bad sign when the children of God allow themselves in any thing that is inconsistent with His presence. We are responsible that the worship of God should be conducted in a way worthy of Him — in solemnity but in liberty. We should be careful that we do not distract others, but rather help one another to enjoy Him better.,

The Lord grant that, walking in holy liberty, and remembering that it is not the order of the flesh or of forms that we have to keep up, we may be preserved from thinking that His order is less reverent than man's! May He vouchsafe us to seek what becomes the presence of Him whom we come together to exalt! He has given us the place of worshippers: may we worship Him in spirit and in truth! A better relation or employment God Himself could not give even in heaven.

Revelation 5.

We have had in the preceding chapter a sight of the greatest significance and interest; God unfolding the interior, so to speak, of heaven — its thoughts and its employment, before the fall of a single blow of judgment upon the earth comes before us. But the picture would have been incomplete, if the Holy Ghost had not added the scene which we have revealed to us in this chapter. For if there was a divine manifestation, and the elders entered with spiritual intelligence into the worship of God, acknowledging His glory in creation and in providential government, yet they had no song there, much less did they sing "the new song." Now it is the great object of the chapter before us to show this other and fuller way in which the elders are found prostrating themselves before the Lamb, and worshipping Him. The Holy Ghost tales particular pains to point out that God, as He discloses Himself, must be the object, spring, and foundation of all the adoration from the creature that follows. It is not an image conceived by the mind of man; that would be an idol. We must have a divine revelation to have divine truth and acceptable worship. The images of Rev. 4 left God in a sort of mysterious grandeur and majesty. Accordingly the worship of the elders did not go beyond recognising that God had created and sustained all things. It was His glory in creation and in providence, and theirs was suited intelligent praise.

In this chapter we have a sweeter scene. And why? Because we have the Lamb. What blessing does He not bring! He has blotted out sin — has removed the sting of death — has brought us nigh to God, and has put a song in our mouth fit for His presence on high. In this blessed portion of the word we have, as the great subject of it, the bearing of redemption on the occupation or worship of heaven, and the connection of it with the counsels and ways of God on the earth. As long as it was only the creation-glory of God, we had no book at all. But now the prophet looks, and he sees in the right hand of Him that sat on the throne a book-roll written within and on the back side, sealed up with seven seals (verse 1). In ancient times a book was a manuscript roll, written only in the inside in ordinary cases. But here there is a fulness of revelation. It flows over, as it were, and is inscribed on the back as well as within, and altogether is secured by seven seals.

But observe that, if God is seen with this book in His hand, it is only the Lamb who opens, and in connection with the Lamb that the contents of the book appear. How plain that there never can be any opening out of God's mind as regards things to come without the knowledge of Christ and of His glory in respect of them! Every Christian knows that there is no such thing as being saved without Christ; but many do not perceive that there is no real understanding of prophecy without Christ, nor any right knowledge of what the church is.

Thus men easily make religious societies, and call them churches. But I do not hesitate to say that it were easier to make heaven and earth than to make the church of God. But man's presumption has risen to such a height that the highest and holiest things of God are made the work (not to say the sport) of human hands, because they have practically divorced the church from Christ. They treat the subject as optional and external, instead of owning that it is the especial field of the deepest and purest operations of the Spirit, the dearest object of the affections and the witness of the chief glories of Christ. The ordering of the church and the ways of God therein bring out the very depths and heights of divine wisdom and grace.

Again, one main difficulty now, as ever, is that those whom the Holy Ghost brings together round the name of the Lord are apt to carry with them a load of notions out of the country from whence they come — the long-cherished thoughts and habits which they have got to unlearn. They have also the same flesh as others — the same vanity, haste, conceit, etc. We must remember that what other people have done we are in no less danger of doing ourselves. If the church fell away so soon after God had brought out His new and blessed counsels of heavenly grace here below, it is much more easy now (when Christendom has forsaken and well-nigh forgotten its best privileges) to fall again into the same error and unfaithfulness. The great root of the mischief is the tendency to look at the church as ours, not Christ's. You never know the full truth of anything that concerns either God or ourselves apart from Christ. It remains always true that "the law was given by Moses" (and he was a most honoured servant of God), but "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

It is the same with prophetical interpretations. If I connect prophecy with myself, with my country, or my time, I may find in the seventh vial the last French Revolution, or the potato disease, or the Asiatic cholera, or the Crimean war, or the more recent struggles in Germany, Italy, and France. I may read the land "bordering with wings" of Great Britain and her colonies; I may interpret the vessels of bulrushes (Isa. 18) of her iron steamers. Do you think this too absurd? Christian men do so think, and this because they connect things with themselves instead of with Christ. The moment, on the other hand, anything is viewed in relation to Christ, He is the light, and we are delivered from these thoughts of men. For what is our country or our time? Neither one nor other is Christ. If I seek communion with Him, I shall at once be free from the desire to make something connected with myself the centre of. my system. If people look with an historical eye at the fall of the Roman empire or at the rise of the Papacy, at the dark ages, or at the previous invasions of the barbarians, they think it all very interesting, and assume that God could not have left these out of His book — that He must have said something about a transition so important. Thus even the invention of gunpowder has been conceived to be anticipated in Rev. 9, the discovery of America in Rev. 10, and the political importance of Protestantism in Rev. 11. In short, what is too wild for men to think they have not found out in the Apocalypse? And these things are put forth even by godly men. Is not God warning us by all this? May we be preserved from the same snare which has led away persons naturally as sober (or as weak) as we are! He shows us that no amount of information, learning, or ingenuity — nay, that not even piety — will enable us to understand God, or His word. What then will? Christ only.

The Lamb is the key to the things of God, and not our own minds. There are many who think that, the church being the peculiar object of God's love, all prophecy must refer to it. Most erroneous idea! The reverse is true. It would be more true to say that the church is never the subject about which prophecy occupies itself. Its proper province is to treat of earthly events; but the church has its place in heavenly glory When we come really to apprehend this book, we find that judgment is the subject of it; and the express object of these two chapters is to show that, before one of the judgments comes from the throne, the church is taken out of the scene, and is housed, we may say, in heavenly glory. The joint-heirs being then with Christ, God prepares to introduce the First-born Heir into the world. Unless this is seen, the Revelation as a whole cannot be understood. A person might derive comfort from particular parts, but this is not comprehending the book. To understand the scope of the prophecy, I must make Christ the object, and not the church; otherwise I am out of the line of vision in which the Spirit wrote it. Not the church, but Christ, is the centre of God's kingdom. Astronomers used to think that the earth was the centre round which the other heavenly bodies revolved, judging superficially by what presented itself to the senses. Christ is the true sun and centre of God's system.

Here then we find God about to unveil what man's mind could not possibly discover. "A strong angel proclaims with a loud voice," etc. (verse 2). Angels are those that "excel in strength" — not in intelligence. It is nowhere taught that they possess the same kind of spiritual understanding as the members of the body of Christ, The angels are never said, nor could they be said, to be sealed with the Holy Ghost. But He it is, witnessing to Christ, who is the power of intelligence in the feeblest child of God. If I want to know the true place of the church, the body, I must look at the place of Christ the Head; and if I desire to learn what God is going to do with the earth, I must examine God's account of Christ as Son of David and as Son of man. If I am (unwittingly, no doubt) putting the church in His stead, I shall get all wrong. It is most true that God loves His saints, and intends that they shall share with Christ the rule over all the earth. Man draws from this the conclusion that the church must go on and prosper here below; but when the divine revelations touching Christ are weighed more fully, I learn another truth — that Christ, is coming in the way of judgment. This of course supposes that the professing body has not fulfilled its mission; for if it had, who would there be in Christendom for God to pour out His judgment upon? "That servant who knew his Lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Look at the truth God brings before us here. First, there is the book, that is to say, the revelation of the counsels of God as to the earth. Not a creature was found worthy to open the book, neither to look thereon. The prophet weeps because of this (verses 3, 4). It should be borne in mind that in this book the apostle, John is not presented in his full place as an apostle to the church, but rather as a prophet. He was, it is true, a most honoured member of the body of Christ; but the object of the book is to not show our nearness to God in that relationship as a prophet of intermediate judgment and of final glory John writes. He is not here viewed as having perfect communion with what was passing around him. But this is very much the characteristic of what is described of the Old Testament seers; as it is said in 1 Peter 1: 10, 11, "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired," etc. It may be also that the prophet John is here found in this position in the main, because the book of the Apocalypse was not merely intended for the church which was to be translated to heaven, and then symbolically seen there; but it also meant to help a body of witnesses to be found on earth after the church is removed, who will go through tremendous suffering in: the last times. He is a representative man, but rather as it seems of those who are to enjoy the Spirit of prophecy here below in Israel, after the removal of the church to heaven, than of those who as sons are entitled by grace to communion with their Father's heart.

The elders show us the true place that belongs to the heavenly saints; and accordingly when John was weeping much, one of the elders, who thoroughly understood the matter, says to him, "Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and the seven seals thereof" (verse 5). There at once we find the Lord Jesus introduced. His person is brought out, but it is in connection with the earthly purposes of God. He is in relation with David here. Jesse's son was he whom Jehovah elected King of Israel. (Psalm 78) He was emphatically David "the king" This title therefore expresses the purposes of God about Christ, as far as the earth and Israel are concerned.

Judah we know to be the tribe from which sprang the Christ or Messiah. Hence the style and character in which the elder announced the only One who could open the book — "the Lion of the tribe of Judah." Majesty and power among wild beasts upon earth are conveyed by the metaphor employed. Jacob compared Judah to a lion. One great chain runs through all scripture. The Holy Ghost who spoke by Jacob on his death-bed speaks now through John, and reveals that, rejected as He may be on earth, the Lion of the tribe of Judah is owned on high, the One in whom God's purposes all centre. He is also "the root of David." This implies more than being David's Son: He is David's Lord. He might be of David's line, but He is David's root, the real though secret cause of all his titles and promises; just as John the Baptist said that He who came after him really was before him. But there is another remarkable intimation. It is not merely said that He is worthy, but that He hath prevailed." That little word "prevailed" (conquered or overcame) is bound up with the whole subject of the chapter It is the victory of Jesus by His blood. The Lord Jesus had personal worthiness at any time to take the book, but if He had received and opened it on the ground of His own worthiness alone, what would this have availed for us? All must have been sealed to us still. Therefore the Lord not only proved that He had personal worthiness to open the book which contained these future counsels of God, but He prevailed, and by virtue of that prevailing we are entitled to listen and to understand the mind of God even as to the future.

"And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as it had been slain," etc. (ver. 6). John had heard of a Lion, but now that he came to look, it was a Lamb. When he expected to see the symbol of power, there stood before all the picture of most holy suffering and rejection. And this was the emblem of Christ as seen even on the throne in all the glory of heaven — a smitten One, guileless and unresisting "a Lamb as it had been slain." He is clothed with perfection of power; the seven horns no doubt mean as much. The seven eyes are the symbol of perfect intelligence — the fulness of the Spirit, here in respect of earth and its government. But the One who is seen with all the power and wisdom is the Lamb. The basis I believe, of all our blessing stands in that blessed truth. The Lord of glory has become a Lamb, and as such must be known, if we are to profit by Him.

The Lamb, as in John 1: 29, is what answers to the idea of redemption. Even with the Jews, when the lamb was offered up morning and evening God was showing that, if a poor sinful people had anything to do with Him, and if He could go on with them, it was because of the lamb. Those who by faith understood looked forward, however obscurely, to a better Lamb. God's Son was to become God's Lamb. And now that He is sent away from the world, He is the rejected One, and though glorified in heaven, He still bears there the marks of the sufferer. He is seen in the midst of the throne a Lamb as it had been slain.

Yet the sacrifice of the Lamb is not so much the subject of the Holy Ghost here as His being the holy sufferer accepted above. Only foundation for the sinner, He is also the pattern and the source of the hopes of His own, and for this reason, that if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him. Here then, as everywhere, we find that the King of kings and Lord of lords was the greatest of sufferers. God brings those two thoughts into connection in Rev. 17 — the suffering and rejected Lamb, and the King of kings. Why? Because God would show us all glory resting on Christ, the earth-rejected and despised One. The very cross, which seemed to be the death-blow of all hopes for Israel, opens the way for better thoughts and higher counsels of glory than ever. If we looked at Calvary in itself, it might have appeared that all was at an end, and hope itself for ever laid in the grave; for there was the One who might have blessed them, and vanquished Satan, and terminated human misery and sin, Himself cast out and crucified! All seemed to be nipped in the bud, and prematurely closed in the death of Christ; and yet such was the very way God took that He might readily and eternally bless according to His own heart. What seemed for the time to be the victory of Satan was really the triumph of God for ever over him and his works.

Observe, it is as the Lamb that the Lord Jesus takes His place in heaven. What is the practical effect of this on our souls? The more a man enters into it, the less does he look for a place of honour and esteem in the world. He knows well that, while Satan is god of this world, and Christ hid in God, truth must be despised here below; and consequently he is not surprised if he sees prosperity crowning that which is evil. He will be prepared for all this, because it is just the history of Christ. The slain Lamb brings before us the whole moral course of the world. But one thing more let me ask, Does the Lamb bring before your soul your own history? Do you know what it is to be cast out because of Christ, not because you deserve to be rejected (though in another sense this is true), but because you desire to stand for the Lord Jesus at all cost?

But there is another side: Christ is glorified now — not indeed as yet in the eyes of the world. But heaven is opened to our view, and we find that He who was most despised here is exalted in heaven, and that God has gathered there round the Lamb that was slain others into association with Him. I ask, Has He called you? Has He given you the portion of the slain Lamb on the earth? If you are a Christian, you ought not to be happy without knowing something of this. A saint ought to be pained if he finds that, instead of realizing, he does not know what such language means. God desires that we should know it, not only about Christ, but as our own portion here on earth.

In the days of old David, though God's anointed king, knew sorrow and rejection, while another king had the power for the time. So now, though the power of the beast is not yet fully developed, the world gets ready for him to come and govern it. David was cast out, despised, insulted — thought, or at least by insinuation said by Nabal, to be some run-away from his master; and certainly appearances looked very unpromising, surrounded as he was in the cave of Adullam by a band of the distressed and indebted in Israel. There were many of his followers who, as far as nature was concerned, may have justly deserved to be thought lightly of. But what a change grace makes! David was the special person whom God's heart rested on, and they knew it, and gathered round the object of God's love. There was a dignity that now accrued to them because of their companionship with David. We can hardly be more miserable and weak than we are, but as that one object gave all the value to the inmates of the cave of Adullam, so it is from association with Christ that all our blessing flows. The priests of God were even drawn there by David. But a greater than David is come, and God has sent down the Holy Ghost that we may know that the despised One is now in glory. And the Lord grant that we may have more practical acquaintance with His place of rejection here below, and not want to escape or deny it! There is nothing the flesh dislikes so much as to be despised. It is comparatively easy to buckle up one's strength to meet persecution or determined opposition, but it is another thing to be content in being nothing at all. In us, worms as we are, this touches the will most; yet this is exactly what the Lord of glory, Jesus, condescended to be; and the enmity that despised Him rose to its climax at the cross. In spite of all the pretended enlightenment and liberalism of the present day, the spirit of the world is not really changed. I would not trust for a single moment that which arises from mere indifference toward God, or from glorifying the rights of man. Men count truth and error all as one, have no conscience toward God, and preach respect for each other. The spirit of the age that now looks and speaks so fair might at any moment rise up fiercely against God, and then we should learn the truth of our experience, that it is a slain Lamb whom we know and worship on high. We should discover the reality of it, and of fellowship with Him, and it would arouse many a saint of God from the slumber in which he is now; for even the wise virgins may sleep. "Awake! thou that sleepest" is said to Christians. If you have been asleep among dead things and persons, the Lord grant that you may not remain in this condition, but speedily clear yourself from these, "and Christ shall give you light!"

It is the slain Lamb that is evidently the great centre of heavenly worship. Now that sin is come into the world, the creative glory of God is not enough, nor even His providential government. If He is to be glorified, save in pure judgment of His adversaries, if displays of merciful goodness are to be known in such a world as this, if a new song is to be sung in heaven, there must be redemption, and this not by power only, but by suffering and blood. Hence, as the central throne in the preceding chapter was filled by the Lord God, the Almighty, so here the central object on whom all blessing for the creature depends, to whom, equally with Him who sat on the throne, worship is offered, is the Lamb. All heaven honours Him as the Father is honoured. He is the First-born, the Heir, not only by rights of creation and intrinsic personal glory, but by redemption the divinely appointed "Heir of all things." God destines the wide universe for His sceptre. But how and on what plea would Christ take the inheritance? By power? Surely, all power was His. In the day of His humiliation the demons were subject to the least of His servants through His name. Even then He could say, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven," the energy of the seventy in casting out demons being to His spirit, I apprehend, the sign and earnest of complete victory in due time. "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy." Why not take the inheritance then and there? After the evidence of such triumphs over the usurper, why go down unto death, even the death of the cross? "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Because God must be vindicated in His majesty, love, wisdom, and righteousness. Because Christ could not accept a defiled inheritance. (Compare Col. 1: 20 and Heb. 9: 21-23.) Because He would not reign alone, and in this He and His Father were of one mind. In His grace He would have joint-heirs, the sharers of His glory. Such a reconciliation was only possible through death, even if the offering were the body of His flesh, all spotless flesh as it was. Peace could not be made stably and divinely save through the blood of His cross. Therefore is it that He is here seen and sung as the Lamb. God means assuredly to bring the First-begotten into the habitable world; and the book in His right hand describes, I suppose, the process whereby the inheritance is to be put into His hands; but purchase by blood, blessed be His name, is the ground on which all is taken. When He receives the book, all is in motion. As in Rev. 4, when the living creatures pay honour to God, the twenty-four elders fall down and do homage, so here, when the Lamb takes the book out of the right hand of Him that sat on the throne, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders are prostrate before Him. Though it might be opened for the purpose of striking some blow, there was no apprehension, no trouble, no concern about themselves in particular; they fell down before the Lamb. It was not a question of merely receiving from God, but they would exalt Him. Far from taking away anything from God, on the contrary, in the very presence of the throne and of Him that sat on it, the Lamb is the object of worship, the source of its purest and deepest strains. God is best glorified when the Lamb has His meed of praise.

They had "each a harp and golden bowls* full of odours, which are the prayers of saints." In the tabernacle service of the wilderness silver trumpets were used for holy purposes by the priests. David first introduced the harp, separating the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, for songs in the house of the Lord with cymbals, psalteries, and harps. These, like the priests, were divided into twenty-four classes; so that the allusion is obvious, with that measure of difference which is characteristic of the Apocalypse. Priestly and choral services are here blended in perfection. Does not this also serve to show that the elders only are here said to have harps and basons of incense? In Rev. 15 the four living creatures give the angels the seven golden bowls full of divine wrath. Thus all is in keeping: the elders being the heads of royal priesthood, as the cherubim wait on the execution of God's judgments, though both unite (Rev. 5) in the fullest homage to the Lamb. But who are those "saints" that pray? The elders, or the church, were in heaven, and in full choir of praise. Whose prayers then are these,? They come from saints who will suffer when the church is above. The elders are those heavenly saints who have been removed previously, including perhaps the Old Testament saints. They are in the place of adoration and praise, whereas prayer implies reed. If they have to do with prayers, it is the prayers of others, not their own. Besides they sing a new song, that of the Lamb's purchase by blood, saying, "Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain," etc.

*The reviewer in Evangelical Christendom, August, 1860, p. 451, objects, among other departures from "the time-honoured expressions of our venerable Saxon Bible," that I have given "bowls" instead of "vials." But surely he must be aware that "a small bottle" is not intended by φιάλη here, or anywhere else in the book, but rather a broad open vessel or bason. Compare in the LXX. Ex. 27: 3; Ex. 38: 3; Num. 7 passim: also answering to other Hebrew words, Num. 4: 14; 2 Chron. 4: 16, etc. We ought not to sacrifice the sense to sound. The English word "vial," though derived from the Greek, really misleads. Habit or the ear may account for such a preference.

A very important change occurs in this verse, well known to every person tolerably acquainted with the original scriptures. Persons who have studied the most ancient manuscripts and other witnesses of this book, all agree that it is, "and hast made them to our God kings (or a kingdom) and priests" (ver. 10). Who are those meant by "them" and made kings and priests "to our God"? They do not speak of themselves.

Indeed, I am prepared to go farther, and am bound to state my firm impression that in the ninth verse the word "us" was put in by copyists who supposed that the elders were celebrating their own blessing.* But the elders are so perfectly at rest about themselves, that they can be occupied about others. I believe, accordingly, that the true sense is this: "Thou art worthy to take the book, . . . . for thou wast slain, and hast bought to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made them to our God kings and priests; and they shall reign over the earth." They are speaking about the saints whose prayers they were offering As they were occupied with their prayers, so here they were praising the Lord for His goodness to the saints still on earth. They intimate that in taking above the heavenly saints, He had not done with His rich mercy; that, even in the midst of His judgments, He would have a purchased people, who were to share the glory of the kingdom as a royal priesthood, instead of being swallowed up in the delusions of antichrist.

*It cannot be denied that the true readings of Rev. 5: 9, 10, are some of them unusually hard to be decided. Out of five there are four uncial MSS. available, one of the oldest being deficient from Rev. 3: 19, to 5: 16. The versions too are conflicting, and so are the editors. There is no doubt, however, that we are obliged to read αὐτούς, "them" (and not ἡμᾶς, "us") in verse 10, on the authority of the four uncials (the palimpsest of Paris being here deficient and so leaving us one short), forty cursives, and many ancient versions. But evidently that substitution, true and certain as it is, of them for "us" in verse 10, obscures or destroys the connection with the preceding verse, if "us" is supposed to hold its ground in verse 9. And this is the more noticeable, as both clauses form part of the same song in the mouth of the same personages. For what more incongruous than "redeemed us.............and made them," when no other class has been referred to between the clauses? Hence the strangest solutions of the difficulty have been proposed. Thus Prof. 31. Stuart, who takes for granted the correctness of the text of Griesbach and Scholz, refers the αὐτούς of verse 10 to φυλῆς, γλώσσης κ.τ.λ. i.e. "thou hast made every tribe," etc., "to be kings and priests." Now, limit this as you may, it is a construction awkward in the extreme, and without parallel in St. John, or perhaps in any other author. Besides, it ignores, instead of solving, the enigma. For ἡμᾶς ἐκ is left out of the result, and if the same party is intended (as Prof. S. thinks), the question is, why should "us" be used in verse 9, and "them" in verse 10? The alternative to which the Professor is reduced, of portioning out this short song between the living creatures and the elders, and thus accounting for the change in the pronouns, strikes one as an evidence of the difficulty rather than of its removal. Singular to say, he alludes to the true key, as it seems to me, as if it had no authority beyond the conjecture of an eccentric German. The truth is that in one of the best manuscripts (A or the Codex Alexandrinus) which contain the passage, ἡμᾶς in verse 9 does not appear; nor is any equivalent given in one of the oldest extant versions, the Aethiopic of the fourth century. It is also wanting in a cursive MS. known in Codex Borgiae. I admit that in this case the amount of testimony is far from being considerable. Nevertheless the omission seemed probable to Griesbach; and in fact it is dropped in some of the latest editions of the Greek Testament, which appeal to ancient authority. Tischendorf omitted it from the first, as he does still: Lachmann had it in his earlier manual, but erased it in his second and more correct edition: and the younger Buttmann has it not in his recent manual Greek Testament (Leipsic, 1856): so Dean Alford. These critics have arrived at that conclusion on independent principles, and on purely external grounds. If it be sound, the construction is elliptical but frequent, especially in the writings of St. John (compare John 16: 17; 2 John 4; Rev. 2: 10; Rev. 3: 9; Rev. 11: 9). There can be no objection, therefore, on the score of phraseology, but, on the contrary, the sentence runs quite in his style without ἡμᾶς. Some scribe, ignorant of this, and supposing that the saints in heaven must needs sing there of their own redemption, as they had done on earth (Rev. 1: 5, 6), may have inserted the first ἡμᾶς. This, in turn, producing a jar with the αὐτούς in the following verse, would naturally require the further demand of taking its place there; and that again would lead to the change in the person of the verb in the last clause. The internal considerations I believe to be very weighty in favour of the omission; but these have been, perhaps, sufficiently given above in the text. The reading ἠγόρασας τῳ θειῳ ἡμῶν (as in Cod. 44) appears to be the original text. The Alexandrian MS. which is the nearest among those that diverge, followed pretty closely by the Aethiopic, omits ἡμῶν in verse 9 and τῳ θεῳ ἡμῶν in verse 10. But these words are unquestionably genuine, and add much to the proof that the elders praised the Lamb for His redemption of others, distinct from themselves.

These anticipated companions are the same probably that we see in Revelation 6 as "souls under the altar, slain for the word of God," etc.; and in Revelation 14, "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth," etc.; and in Revelation 15, "Them that had gotten the victory over the beast," etc. There are other allusions also in the body of the book to the righteous. Clearly they were saints of God upon the earth in conflict or tribulation, after the elders (who, as we saw, represent the church or the heavenly saints) were translated to heaven. As to the saints who won the victory over the beast, "they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." Observe the mingled character of the scene. True, it was the song of the Lamb; but it was the song of Moses too: it was partly earthly and partly heavenly. Again, in Revelation 20: 4, it is said, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them." These are the elders, already risen or changed, seated upon the thrones "And I saw the souls of them, that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God" (i.e., the people whose souls he had seen in Revelation 6); and, again, those "which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads;" these last being the persons that had sung the song of victory in Revelation 15. Thus the two classes which had suffered, after the rapture of the church, are at length united with the rest in glory, and all reign together with Christ.

It will be remarked how thoroughly the whole agrees with the song in Revelation 5. The elders are in heaven, in the enjoyment of God and the Lamb; but there are saints on earth who are praying, and the elders above are occupied about their prayers, and celebrate the worthiness and work of the Lamb in behalf of others who should reign over the earth as well as themselves.* Instead of this taking a single fraction away from us, it adds indirectly, if not in itself, to the place of glory in which the church is seen in heaven. They are so fully blest that they can heartily rejoice in the good of others. There are some too apt to be restless if they are not always listening to the gospel for themselves — not because they value it more than others, but because they are not thoroughly established in grace. When our hearts are quite satisfied, we do not feel the need of anxiously picking and choosing in the scriptures; we prefer the Lord to choose for us, and are thankful, because it may be something to His praise that we perhaps have not known before, or a weapon we may want in our next conflict with the enemy. Whatever exalts Christ and glorifies Him is that which we should delight in. Whatever detects the deceitfulness of our hearts is most salutary to us. When the elders are found thanking God, they take up His goodness to those who are suffering on the earth, and they bless the Lamb because He had been slain and had bought these also to their God. It was their delight to think of that work so rich in results for God — to think of others from every quarter who should share the kingdom over the earth.

*I cannot but think Mr. E.'s remarks and notes on this (Horae Apoc. i. pp. 86-96) confused and unsatisfactory. He reasons from vulgar readings which no, competent critic, whatever may be his bias, can entertain. It is easy to convert a preconceived opinion into a decision that our own view is much more simple. It is also a serious mistake to say that the sense is "substantially the same," whether we have us or they in verse 10. Again, the Sinaitic and Porphyrian MSS. turn the scale in favour of the twenty-two cursives, and the better ancient versions, which support βασιλεύσουσιν against A B, eighteen cursives, etc., exhibiting the present tense. but ἡμᾶς and βασιλεύομεν are indefensible and manifestly the work of a meddling corrector. It is strange too that the question of the ellipse in verse 9 is passed over in silence, seeing that there "us" is, to say the least, doubtful; and if spurious removes the main reason for viewing the ζῶα as redeemed. Mr. E. treats this last idea as "unquestionable," of which there is really no proof whatever. It is evident, further, that there is much embarrassment as to the condition of the elders, in one page referring their insignia to the resurrection-state, and in the next concluding that it is the division of the church consisting of the departed in paradise especially, that we must suppose depicted here. Finally, it is erroneous to speak of "the general assembly of the church;" for πανηγύρει belongs to the clause about the angels. But letting this pass (as the authorised version misleads many in Heb. 12), what is meant by the apparent distinction, in p. 94, between the church of the first-born, and the spirits of just men made perfect? I quite allow this; but I do not see its consistency with Mr. E.'s statement about the elders and cherubim.

The angels take up, not the new song in view of the Lamb's purchase, but His worthiness to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Loudly do they proclaim His title to dominion whom man despised and slew. "Worthy [not "art thou," but] is the Lamb that was slain" (verses 11, 12). They do not sing of His purchase, because they were not so bought; they have not to do with it, though they are sustained by the power of God; but those who have known their need as poor sinners can well sing the new song. The angels speak of His worth and His death, but they do not chant the deep and joyous notes of the blood-bought. If I look at the gift and person of Christ, I can see how God's character comes out, and His love is manifested. if I look at the great work of Christ., and what I have in and with Him as He is, I can see how the love of God with us is perfected. But where is anything in the glory of heaven that shines so much as the cross of Christ? We may follow Jesus on the earth, and see the holiness of God; we may glance above, and see how He delights in having us happy around Him; we may look again at Jesus in His path on earth, seeking out the lost, the miserable, and laying His hands on babes, even touching the leper; but whether we think of the holiness or the love of God, of His righteousness or His grace, it is in the cross where all is found and displayed to faith, as we can get it nowhere else.

"And every creature which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth,* and such as are on the sea, and all things in them, heard I saying, Blessing, . . . to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever" (verse 13). The chord is touched, the keynote sounded, and heard at last in heaven. If the Lamb takes the book, not a creature but responds in joy to the ear of the seer, as now the whole of the lower universe groans in sorrow because of Adam's sin. Why should they not rejoice if God and the Lamb unite to deliver? Doubtless it is but the opening out of the Lamb's title-deed; and much remains to be done in destroying the works of the devil. and those that destroy the earth. Still this is the sure signal, and before God every creature anticipates in sympathy.

*Every creature "under the earth," ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς, must be carefully distinguished, notwithstanding Bengel, from the καταχθονίων in Phil. 2: 10. The former, I suppose, means the things, animate or inanimate, beneath the earth's surface which anticipate in the vision, their deliverance from corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. They cannot of course share the liberty of grace which we enjoy; but when we are in the glory, it will be the pledge of their glorious change speedily to follow. The latter in Philippians means the infernal beings, who must bow with every knee elsewhere at (or in) the name of Jesus. I am aware that Dean Alford, with Theodoret, etc., takes καταχ. as the dead; but this, though a classical usage of the word, seems to be far from the scope of the passage.

All bow down before the Lamb. The myriads of angels join in acknowledgement of His death; but it is the place of the heavenly saints to enter into the sense of its efficacy, yea, and into the deep joy — God's joy — in the blessing of others, and not merely their own. The four living creatures set to it their seal, and say "Amen." but the elders fall down and do homage.* They did not merely yield their assent to all, but their hearts went along with it. It is ever their place.

*It is well to note that all the reliable authorities, including all the five uncials, a vast body of cursives, and most versions, etc., omit ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἱῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. How admirably this omission coalesces with the context and maintains the glory of God and the Lamb as the common object of homage on the part of the elders is evident.

Such a subject as this may well leave one immensely behind. We must be living very much in its depths in order to feel it aright, or to give it an adequate expression. But if I have directed attention to the blessedness of Christ as the slain Lamb, and shown that God makes Him to be the key for understanding His otherwise hidden purposes, I shall be thankful. Even to understand God's purposes about the earth, we must see the Lamb. It is only in communion with Him that we can enter into them. To appreciate what follows, we must be subject to God's thoughts of Christ; we must no back to what God begins with; we must see and hear the Lamb. The Lord grant that such may be our better portion? We shall be near that Blessed One, in whose person and work shines all that is gracious and blessed in God, from whom we can learn in peace His most solemn judgment of man's rebellion and apostasy.

Revelation 6

From the two preceding chapters the lessons are apparent, and I do not doubt should be learned: firstly, God sits on the throne, whence proceed lightnings, voices, and thunders; secondly, all things are given into the hands of the Lamb, who unfolds all; thirdly, the perfect security and the blessed employment of the heavenly saints, then removed from the scene of trial; and this long before the day of the Lord, when their blessing will be manifested fully to the world. The moment the soul and the body, or both (the soul now, the soul and body united at the coming of Christ), leave this world, there is for the saints, I believe, immediate enjoyment of the Lord. Is that a scriptural thought which, in a hymn we sometimes sing, about "soaring to worlds unknown"? Does scripture intimate anything at all like a soul journeying on a voyage of discovery? On the contrary does it not meet with peaceful and immediate entrance into the presence of the Lord? When heaven is allowed to burst for a moment upon men on the earth (as, for instance, at the birth and the transfiguration, and in the cases of Stephen, Paul, etc.) it appears that there is no such great distance between them. Of course it is not a question of mere physical space. But there is a divine power which at once brings a person out of the present state of existence into the enjoyed presence of the Lord. So when He Himself was speaking to the poor dying thief, it was "today shalt thou be with me in paradise," — that very day. There is nothing to my mind like the poetical sentiment of soaring to worlds unknown.

But while the soul goes at once into the presence of the Lord in the case of death, and "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye," the saints will be caught up at the coming of Christ; yet we must remember that their manifestation will be a different and later event. Other passages prove or imply an interval. But we should not be able so plainly to gather from other scriptures how considerable it will be between their gathering to the Lord and their manifestation to the world, but for the prophetic part of the Revelation, which makes it quite clear. God has important purposes to fulfil during this interval. He has to put the earth into a condition to receive the Lord Jesus, who as the great Heir of all things must be put in possession of the inheritance. But, further, He purposes to bring the joint-heirs from heaven along with Jesus. Accordingly the interval is filled up with the preparations for all this. To accomplish it, there must be judgments upon the world's wickedness; but, parallel with these judgments, we have some signal acts of divine mercy. When the great and terrible day of Jehovah comes, there will be forbearance no longer with such as are found evil; "the door is shut." But during the intervening time there will be testimony and the reception of it among both Jews and Gentiles; but so much the more surely judgment for those who, having heard the gospel now, will have rejected it. I see small ground to conclude that there will be hope of mercy for such. There will be an interval of some years, in which God will work in judgment and in mercy — judgments increasing in severity on these favoured lands where the gospel has been preached; but I doubt any such thing as the grace that now is. The sad reverse will appear. God will give up to blind hardness those who have now refused His mercy. He will, as it were, retire from these countries to save outside them; and from those who have been talking so self-complacently about the light with which they are favoured, God will then, if I read prophecy aright, turn to such as are now far away from the gospel.

Is it not a solemn thought that, where the light of Christendom is now most found, there will be the greatest darkness of apostacy? As to this scripture it is plain enough. (2 Thess. 2) He lets us know that the favoured scene of God's mercy, where He is now at work and His word is most circulated, is destined to fall back into the most frightful and fatal idolatry — into the union of infidelity along with it — into anti-christianism. (Dan. 11: 36 et seqq.; Rev. 13.) Such a change may be set down as the gloomy dream of a feverish mind. But this is because men prefer to believe their own thoughts and fancies, and do not take the trouble of searching into God's word to see what is there. Alas! do not too many in Christendom even make the prophetic word a butt for their ridicule? Will it be believed that men pride themselves on their ignorance of a great part of scripture? Would it be conceived, if it were not the fact, that the wise and prudent hold as an axiom that prophecy was not given to show us what is coming, but only, when the events are past, to prove that God had foreknown them? Surely the Christian wants no proof of this; and prophecy is given that the believer should know how God opens to us His secrets about what He is going to do on the earth. We have the word and the Spirit to make us understand it. But if Christians have not faith in the prophetic word, it cannot profit them; for, like the rest of scripture, that word must be mixed with faith in them that hear it.

One important thing, then, we have seen to be assumed — the removal of the heavenly saints from the earth. In Rev. 4, 5 and throughout the body of the book they are no longer found there. They are glorified in heaven, and yet it is not until Rev. 19 that they are manifested, when they come out of heaven. Between these two points we have evidently a long series of events. We have seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials, with various episodes of great interest and importance. These three different series of judgments are not executed by the Lord in person. It is manifest that they must occur after the Lord has come to receive His church, but before He executes His grand personal judgment in Rev. 19. For it is beyond dispute that, before the saints are taken to the Lord and so can come with Him, He must have come for them. How then did those symbolised by the four and twenty glorified elders get to heaven?

It may be said, they might have been taken into this position individually through death, or that their souls might be glorified there. But there is no such thought in scripture as the souls of the saints being seated on thrones, and having crowns on their heads. Neither do the souls of the saints form the complete headship of heavenly priests, as taught us by the four and twenty elders; for we know from 1 Thess. 4 that part of the heavenly company will be found alive on earth up to the presence of the Lord which raises the dead and changes the living believers. There can be no such completeness, then, as is meant by the symbol till the Lord will have translated both to meet Him above. The allusion is to the twenty-four orders of the priesthood set up by king David. Now Christ is at that time about to take the place of king, and, just as before the kingdom of Solomon was established, David divided the priesthood into twenty-four courses, so we find that before the true Solomon, the Lord Jesus, comes out in all His glory, we have the antitypical courses as a whole. The heavenly priesthood is seen complete.

It might be asked, Why is it only the heads that are seen, and not the body of the priesthood? It appears probable, but I only offer it as a suggestion, that those that are taken up when the Lord comes will form the heads of the priesthood, and that those who suffer after and join them may be the subordinate body. Twenty-four is necessarily the complete sum of the courses, or of their chiefs. Now, the souls in heaven can never be even that completed; because till Christ comes, there will always be a part of the church remaining on the earth, as we have just seen. I conceive, therefore, that by the full priestly number twenty-four surrounding the throne, God intends to show that they are not that portion which consists of the souls in paradise;* for it requires the addition of us who are alive and remain, in order to make up the church of the firstborn, or the then complete sum of the risen and changed saints. The heavenly saints up to that time must then be necessarily removed to their seats on high.

*The reader of the Horae Apoc. will remember how embarrassed the author is on this very point (i. 91-96). He is compelled to own that the elders' insignia point to the resurrection-state after Christ's coming, page 92; yet in the next page, 93, he says, it seems that it is especially the departed in paradise that we must suppose figured here. For want of seeing the distinction between the παρουσία of the Lord and the ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (2 Thess. 2: 1, 8), these and other perplexities constantly spring up.

How and when did this take place? There is no real difficulty about their translation, because they never can be removed as a complete body, and changed, till the Lord Jesus comes Himself; as He said, "If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself." And this evidently is not sending angels for them. We find angels sent to gather in elect Jews, or Israel, from the four quarters of heaven (Matt. 24); but to gather in His church He comes Himself. And this falls in with what we said elsewhere. The saints in Thessalonica were told to wait for God's Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1); and as to those who were gone, they were not to sorrow as those who had no hope. For the lord Himself — not merely by angelic or providential intervention, but the Lord Himself — would descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God. There might be angels, but there is not a word said about them here. When the Lord is revealed executing vengeance angels will accompany Him; but here, at the descent of the Lord Himself, "the dead in Christ shall rise first," forming one portion of the heavenly saints; then "we which are alive and remain" shall be caught up together with them. There and then, as it seems to me, we have the twenty-four elders, evidently the whole of the priestly heads. The saints whose bodies are in their graves are raised first, then the surviving saints are changed, by the presence of the Lord. There is but the barest interval of a moment between those two momentous effects of the voice of the Son of God. And so shall we, caught up together, ever be with the Lord.

This most solemn and blessed event must occur therefore between Revelation 3 and 4. It is not described, because the object of the Revelation is not to show the Lord's coming in the way of grace, though there are of course allusions to it. There is an entire passing over of His presence to meet His heavenly saints in the prophetic visions of the Revelation, but a full description of His coming with them in Rev. 19. This last is what is styled elsewhere the appearing or day of the Lord, when He punishes with everlasting destruction from His presence, and from the glory of His power. During this interval the heavenly saints are with the Lord above; all the members of the church are there, and in their bodies of glory. The first mention of them is in Revelation 4, where we find not angels, but redeemed men — persons whose very vesture of white, whose thrones, and crowns of gold, are all connected with redemption — persons who are evidently exercising their priesthood before God in Rev. 5. These are the elders. How did they get there? The Lord must have come, and have gathered them to Himself in the air, and so have accomplished His promise to them: — "In my Father's house are many mansions." "I will come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am ye may be also. So now when this future scene arrives, having prepared the place, He will have come for them, and taken them to the Father's house.

It is remarkable, however, as showing the character of this book, that, although we do see them in the presence of God, it is not called the house of the Father. On the contrary, it is a throne that is seen; and so too, when He who sits thereon is named, it is not as the Father, but as the Lord God Almighty. When we speak of God as "the Father," it is to express the nearest place of affection into which God has brought us; and when we hear of God as "the Lord God Almighty," it is connected with the putting forth of Divine power and government. "God," as such, is the most general and abstract name, and implies no relationship with another being. But to be called "the Father" necessarily implies the closest relationship of love, whether spoken in the highest and intrinsic and eternal sense of Jesus as the Son of the Father, or subordinately of those whom He has taken into the adoption of sons, loved with the same love. (John 17 and 1 John 3.)

In Genesis 1 creation is the subject, and God (or Elohim) is spoken of as the One who originates. In the next chapter of Genesis He is called the "Lord (or Jehovah) God," because He is there entering into special connection with His creatures, and Adam is put in the place of responsibility to Him as Jehovah-Elohim, that is the God of creation in moral relationship. How perfect is every word of God! Infidels, instead of seeing the perfectness of His word, have only reasoned from their own ignorance and impotence, and have endeavoured to prove that these chapters must have been written by two different persons, because of the different titles given to God. But instead of being the varying style of different men, it is the wisdom of God that discovers itself in these distinctions. When the relationship of authority occurs, and man is put under the test of obedience, Jehovah-Elohim is the title used; but when in the New Testament He enters into relationship with sons, it is "the Father." He did not bring out the latter name as a formal name until THE SON came, who opened, so to speak, the sluice, that all God's grace might flow out, and specially in His resurrection by virtue of His death. But between the two extremes of the trial of the creature in Eden and the accomplishment of redemption, God brought out first the name of Almighty, and next that of Jehovah. Abraham was called to leave his own country and kindred, called to be a pilgrim, having none but God to look to, and so Jehovah most suitably reveals Himself to him as El-Shaddai, God Almighty. (Gen. 17: l.) Subsequently He makes Himself known to Israel by His name Jehovah, as a ground of national relationship.

Here the Lord constantly brings out these names, but not that of Father, or at least not to us, but to Jesus. Just as the scene is not the Father's house, but the throne, so the title taken by God is not that of Father. The centre of this heavenly scene is the throne of God, and the saints are not alluded to as enjoying mansions with the Son in the Father's house, but are seen enthroned. God will be no longer gathering the church on earth; Jesus will have come for it, and gone above. When the church was the object of God's care on the earth, they even here below called Him Father; but when He is going to execute judgment on the earth, they, already raptured and in heaven, understand it and address Him accordingly.

The Lord's coming, then, to receive the church must have been before the facts which answer to the vision of the twenty-four enthroned elders. Some people may be slow to believe that the prophecy would pass over such an important event in silence. But it is forgotten that, whenever and wherever you put it, there is silence as to the act of the saints' rapture in the book of Revelation. The only question is, Where according to our best light from scripture is it to be understood here? It must, in my judgment, be supposed before the heavenly saints can be seen as a complete body above, which is in Revelation 4. The Lord will then have come and received the glorified saints, and given them their place in the presence of God, before any of the judgments come on the world. Terrible things in righteousness are going to be enacted, but the saints will be above them all. The seals, and vials, and trumpets, have no terrors for them; they call out from the glorified not trembling, but worship only. Nay, these risen ones will be occupied, it seems, about their brethren who are still in the midst of trial; for there shall be saints called after the present work of God in forming the church is done with, brethren who will suffer on the earth after we are gone. Of these the central part of the Revelation treats (Rev. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, etc.). Again there will be godly souls alive when the King comes to sit on the throne of His glory, and all the nations are gathered before Him, whom He will call "my brethren." As is plain in the latter part of Matt. 25, the living Gentiles, or nations then on the earth, will be treated according to the way in which they may have behaved to the messengers of the King. The sheep will have proved themselves to have faith in the King, because they have received His servants; the conduct of the goats will have shown their incredulity. For when all the preliminary warnings given to those on the earth are over; when all the judgments that proceed from the throne in rapid succession have been proved to be in vain, and the rebellious hearts of men are only rising higher against God, the Lord says as it were, "I will send them no more chastenings, will wait no longer for a repentance which is refused, but will come myself and sweep them away to destruction." Accordingly this day of judgment on the quick we have in Revelation 19. And the interval, from Revelation 4 and 5 to Revelation 19, is filled by new dealings of God in providential judgments, by intermingled mercy to Jews and Gentiles, and by glances at the heavenly saints in the presence of God.

No doubt the souls of dying saints go to God during the interval, but whatever may be the blessedness reserved for such (Rev. 14: 13), the saints who are already changed remain there through the whole period. The heavenly saints, including those that are true Christians now, those that have been such before, and the Old Testament saints, may be caught up at any time to be with the Lord. I know no scriptural ground which entitles a believer to say, He will not come tomorrow. Who can affirm with divine authority that there is something yet remaining to be done before, that there must be a delay? No doubt there may be more or less time to intervene, but scripture never puts the delay between us and Christ's coming, but before His day. As a servant with his hand upon the door, and on the stretch as it were for his master's arrival, so as to be able when he comes to open unto him immediately-such is the true attitude of the child of God now. So says our Lord Himself. He would have, if so we may speak, everything settled up. He looks for practical readiness at all times. Not as though we could do anything by way of preparation. Thanks be to God, He has made us meet through the grace of Christ. But there may be things in our ways and walk, in our spirit and hopes and objects, which will not stand the light of His presence. Whatever we do, we should seek to enter on nothing that renders the thought of the lord's coming unwelcome.

We must then, if wise, beware of speculations or plans which suppose us to have a long time before us. The Lord desires us to be as travellers passing through a foreign land, and withal going out in desire to meet Him who is speedily coming for us. The Lord may be a little longer than we think; but He is coming, and this too at an hour when men think not. His coming will immediately act on all the heavenly saints, raising the dead, changing the living, and removing both to Himself above. Then follow the scenes of Rev. 4 and 5, which let us see the interest of the glorified saints in the righteous who suffer on the earth, after the others are gone to heaven. They cannot apply fully, either while only a part of the church is above and in the separate state; or when the millennial reign is arrived. They suppose an interval between these two things, when the Lord will have come and changed them into His risen likeness, and before they accompany Him from heaven in order to judge and reign.*

*It will be observed that this, if well-founded, decides the question of the true and proper application of the rest of the book. For what more weighty than to know whether it speaks throughout its central visions of the time during which the church is still on earth, or of the days which follow — the great crisis when the church is not here but risen, and God is dealing with the earth after another pattern? To say that it is given to us to know these visions proves nothing. All scripture is given to us and is good for us, but it in certainly not all about us; and we are most profited, not by the fancy that God is always thinking of us, but by really understanding its objects, scope, and end. Had Abraham imagined that he was to be involved in the impending catastrophe of Sodom because the Lord graciously revealed it to him before it came to pass, such a delusion would have done him harm. It was not to Lot who was there, but to Abraham who was not, that the fullest communication was made. And so it will be, I doubt not. A remnant is to be saved — saved as through fire. May our place be above it all — above the world in spirit now, and looking down upon its plans and progress with the abiding consciousness of a judgment that hastens — destined to be actually above when that judgment comes.

Next we come to the earthly course of "the things that must be after these." The seals are not judgments executed by the Lord, but of a providential nature. Some, because of the white horse, have thought that the first seal applied to Christ. On the face of it, what more strange than to conceive Him so represented, seeing that He it is who, as the Lamb, opens the seals successively, and, when clearly alluded to under the contents of the sixth seal, still preserves the name of the Lamb! And yet stranger that He should enter on a course of conquest at the very time, if you take it historically, when all Asia had turned away from Paul; when Timothy had the sad and sure foreboding of evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse; when John himself had written, or was about to write, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Nevertheless most of the ancients and not a few moderns begin their comments with this false start.

Some, again, refer it to the second advent; but this quite upsets the order of the seals fixed by the Holy Ghost, and indeed the structure of all the book. It is true that in Rev. 19 where the Lord comes judicially and in person, He is represented as riding upon a white horse. But there is all the difference possible between that vision of the white horse and the opening of Rev. 6. This horse does not issue from heaven, as that in Rev. 19 does. Next, there is not a word in Rev. 6 about the rider, which necessarily means Christ; whereas in Rev. 19 He is called Faithful and True, and said to judge and make war in righteousness. Of whom could this be said save of One? His eyes were as a flame of fire. His written name none knew but Himself. The Word of God — King of kings, Lord of lords — can be the titles of none but Jesus. Not to speak of the blood-dipped vesture, the sword proceeding out of the mouth, the iron rod wherewith to rule, and the treading the wine-press of divine wrath, are descriptions in Rev. 19 to which nothing answers in the rider of Rev. 6. No armies followed here, clothed in fine linen, etc. And though the rider is said to have a crown given to him, the word is quite different from that employed in Rev. 19, which signifies a kingly diadem, the crown of royalty. The earlier Romans were fond of a sort of chaplet, which did not to their mind, like the imperial diadem, convey the idea of absolute authority and that is the crown mentioned in Revelation 6.

Furthermore, there are two frequent figures or symbols used in scripture to express power; the one is the throne, and the other is the horse. Thus we have already seen the supreme throne above, and now we have the horse with the rider on earth. The same thing is seen in Rev. 19 and Rev. 20. The symbol of horses in the one chapter, and of thrones in the other. The difference between the bearing is this: When power is meant by putting down of rival or opposing authority on earth, "the horse" is taken, as from its use in war, it is intended to subdue; but when the victory is won, and it is a question not of subjugation, but of governing and judging, "the throne" is used, as being the fit emblem of rule over those who have been thus subdued or are subject. When Christ is going to put down His enemies, He is seen in the vision of chap. 19 on the horse, used to represent the exertion of His power to subdue; when the subsequent sway is meant, thrones appear in chap. 20. It would be quite weak, of course, for persons to confound this symbolic use with a material horse or throne. The idea of the former is power to subdue, and of the latter is dominion after the victory has been gained. The throne may also be used, as it is afterwards, for the solemn and eternal judgment of the dead — a throne of stainless holiness. Still even here, it is Christ's judgment before the kingdom is given up to God. (1 Cor. 15; 2 Tim. 4)

Of course we cannot apply the four horses and their riders to the great empires, three of which had long disappeared. Equally untenable at least is the notion that four successive religions are intended, especially when one hears it gravely laid down that Infidelity closes the list, which primitive Christianity opens, followed by Mahomedanism and Popery. It is hard to say whether such thoughts are most opposed to time or place, to congruity or context. Again, it is agreed that it is harsh in the extreme, and in almost every point of view, to understand the first seal of Christ or the church in early gospel triumphs, and then the three subsequent ones of the Roman empire or emperors.

But it is important here to notice, that there is positive ground from the Apocalypse itself to deny the assumption that the horse means the Roman empire. I do not refer to passages like Revelation 9: 17, where literal cavalry seem to be meant; but Revelation 19 furnishes an example of its symbolic use. Does the Lord on the white horse mean His direction of the Roman empire? Or the white horses of the linen-clad hosts, do they imply imperial powers? Surely we must look for an interpretation more in keeping with its usage elsewhere. It means, in my judgment, a militant aggressive agency towards the earth, though it may be from heaven. Hence, as in Zech. 1, it may apply to the Lord, or to the various imperial powers which succeeded Babylon. And so the chariots with the horses of various colours in Zech. 6. But as distinguished from the horns (Rev. 1: 19), the former symbol rather refers to the providential instruments behind the scene, and connected especially with these empires, than to the rulers themselves or their realms. Plainly therefore there is no ground from the book itself or from Zechariah, to which the allusion is obvious, to interpret the horse simply of the Roman empire.

Nor is there better ground in profane history to maintain that the horse is the special sign of that people and power. And no wonder. For the Roman infantry was more characteristic of their military power than their cavalry. No doubt the horse abounds on their medals, but not more comparatively than among other warlike nations, particularly in the east, who so set forth their victories. It had formerly been one of the Roman standards of war, but for two centuries before Domitian all the varieties had given way to the eagle.

Abstractly, then, the horse cannot be regarded as the necessary national badge of Rome, or emblem of the Roman empire. Whether it be referred to here must depend on contextual considerations. And here it appears to me that the fourth seal rises up conclusively against such a view, the four seals being providential judgments homogeneous in character but differing in form. The Roman earth may be the sphere, but this has nothing to do with the symbolic force of the horse in the passage.

Without further discussion let me state my own view. We have a regular series of providential judgments. The first is the white horse, the symbol of triumphant and prosperous power. "He that sat on him had a bow" (verse 2). The bow is the symbol of distant warfare.* His course is evidently that of unchecked victory. The moment he appears, he conquers. The battle is won without a struggle, and apparently without the carnage of the second judgment, where the sword, the symbol of close hand-to-hand fighting, is used. But this first conqueror is some mighty one who sweeps over the earth, and gains victory after victory by the prestige of his name and reputation. There is no intimation of slaughter here.

*The ingenuity of Mr. E.'s attempt to make out in the bow an allusion to the Cretan origin of Nerva's ancestry is undeniable. Yet even if one admitted a more precise reference to past history than I conceive to be intended, I am convinced that the meaning of the symbols is not to be sought in recondite points of antiquarian research, but rather on the surface, or at least in the broad and natural features of the scriptural portrait.

But the second judgment is of a more appalling character. There went out a horse that was red, and the one who sits upon him is not the proudly prosperous victor to whom people tamely submit, but one who, if he wins, waves his standard over heaps of slain. Accordingly, he has a blood-red horse — the symbol of power connected with frightful carnage. The result of the first seal (i.e. of the victorious career of the white-horse rider) may have been peace and comparatively bloodless changes; but all is sanguinary under the second seal (ver. 4). The fiery-red horse, the peace taken from the earth, the mutual slaughter, the great sword, are tokens too plain to be misunderstood.

The third horse is black, the hue of mourning. It is a colour chosen to show that there must next follow peculiar sorrows, caused not now by bloodshed, but by scarcity, and perhaps, we may add, to man's feeling, a most capricious famine.* Here we have the voice proclaiming (ver. 6), "A choenix of wheat for a denarius, and three choenixes of barley for a denarius; and see that thou hurt not the oil and the wine." The penny in our country would give the idea of something insignificant in value, but in those times and lands, a choenix of wheat for a denarius was very costly; for not long before men could procure seven or eight choenixes for the money. A denarius was given for the daily wage, and was barely enough for a man's daily food; for the choenix of wheat appears to have been a minimum, being the allowance given to a slave. But while there should be this scarcity of the very staff of life, there was a command not to touch the luxuries of life, the oil and the wine. What the richer Classes require was not to be touched, but only what people want of the prime necessaries of life. God is laying His hand upon the world.

*It is almost incredible the amount of discussion, if not of careful research, which has been expended on this verse, and especially on the import of "a measure of wheat for a penny" (i.e. a choenix, or about 1.5 pint English, for a denarius, or about 8d. of our money). Is a time of scarcity or abundance indicated? Or does the verse proclaim an authoritative adjustment of a due average price? It appears to me that, (1) occurring as the third seal does in a series of providential judgments, such a question ought not to have been raised by the least enlightened reader; for, in such a connection, how incongruous the idea of plenty or a fair price! And (2) are not these thoughts particularly contradicted by the details of the seal in question, as e.g. by the black or mourning colour of the horse, and by the balances in the hand of the rider? (Compare with the last Lev. 26: 26.) The facts of the case are on the whole plain and decisive. Thus from Cicero's Orations, we learn that the Senate estimated wheat at four serterces the modius (= 8 times the choenix); and, what is more important, that the then market price in Sicily was two serterces, or at most three. "Hoc reprehendo, quod, cum in Sicilia HS II tritici modius esset . . . . . summum HS ternis . . . . . tum iste pro tritici modiis singulis ternos ab aratoribus denario exegit." (In Verr. Act. ii. lib. iv. 81.) The inference is that the extortion was, say, half the Apocalyptic price. Again, it is allowed that the ordinary price under the Emperor Julian and his successors (i.e. long after St. John) was moderate. From the Misopogon it seems that the price of the modius was then about 12d. of our money, and therefore the choenix = 1.5d. or less than a fifth of the Apocalyptic rate. But it is argued from a passage in the Natural History of the older Pliny (lib. xviii. 10), that in his time, which was a little before the Apocalypse was written, the medium price of wheat was about the same as in the text. This would be the more extraordinary, not only as opposed to Roman experience both before and after, but also because that laborious compiler does not speak of the prices then current as extravagant. We know that in nothing are MSS. less to be relied on than in numerals. Besides it would seem that several elements more or less mistaken have concurred to perplex the case. "The comparison of ancient and modern prices of corn is a difficult subject, and the results hitherto obtained are unsatisfactory." (English Cyclopaedia, Arts and Sciences, vol. iii. col. 251.) It is well known that Dr. Arbuthnot's tables no longer carry their former authority, and that modern scholars reject some of his premises, and most of his conclusions. Now it was on his computations chiefly that the author of the Horae Apoc. depended. But (1) if I understand Pliny, he speaks in the passage cited, not of the price of broad, but of flour, which then cost forty asses the modius. But it would appear that the similago or flour spoken of was by no means coarse, though there might be finer; for out of a peck of wheat came but a half peck of this flour, with a large residue of pollen, coarse meal, and bran. (2) There is no evidence that I am aware of in St. John's time to set aside the common Attic choenix, which was the eighth (not the fourth) part of a modius or peck. The verses of Fannius Rhemnius are not forgotten, nor the reading which Facciolati and others prefer, which reduces the quantum of the choenix one half, and thus harmonizes with other authors. And why were they cited if it be another scale, seeing that he lived a considerable time after not St. John only, but even the epoch to which the Protestant historical school would refer the accomplishment of the third seal? (3) The denarius, no doubt, in very early times equalled ten asses, whence the name was derived; but it is notorious that about the second Punic war, B.C. 214, it was by law made equivalent to sixteen asses, save in military pay, fines, etc., which were reckoned by the old standard. Who or what will the reader suppose is our authority for this? The very same work of Pliny (lib. xxxiii. 3). Nay, more, in the same chapter we are informed that, forty years later, the Papyrian law reduced the as one half. It is absolutely necessary to bear in mind these extensive changes in order to avoid the astounding results in which Dr. A. lands his followers. The true inference, it seems to me, is that the price in the Revelation shows decided and painful scarcity, as it exceeds that of the Cassian law eight times, and the actual Sicilian market price of Cicero's day yet more (xii. 76). It seems about as fair to cite on the one side the starvation price related by Caesar (De Bell. Civ. i. 52), as the poetical licence of Martial on the other. There is hardly a siege or a lengthened campaign, even now, without raising the price to a degree that would be fabulous under other circumstances. The adulteration of the denarius under the second Severus to a third of its original value is deemed by Mr. E. to set right his great difficulty in the price of the wheat. But the question is as to its value in exchange. Wheat must be excessively dear, if a man could not do more than procure a quart for his day's labour. Nor would there be any disposition to employ labourers, if the prices of provisions were such that a man's daily wages were swallowed up in buying five or six lbs. of barley. The ratio of the barley to the wheat is, I admit, singular, as it was and is usually one-half, instead of a third. In, Rome, however, wheat was the food of men, barley of horses; and it was a military penalty to use barley. According to Seneca a slave's monthly allowance then consisted of five modii (= 40 choenixes), and five denarii. Under the emperors Roman citizens (save senators) received corn gratuitously, and the tessera was inherited, bequeathed, or sold. For such to buy at the price prescribed must press heavily indeed. Jerome's interpretation of Eusebius' Chronicon puts the modius at six drachmae or denarii, during the famine in Greece in the eighth or ninth year of the Emperor Claudius. Syncellus doubles this, which Scaliger prefers. It is but fair to add that the Armenian text edited by P. J. B. Auchor (ii. 153, 193, Ven. 1818) confirms this emendation.

Yet such events as these might happen in ordinary times. There might be some great conqueror any time, and this might be followed by bloody struggles; and this again by famine, etc. And in the fourth seal we have God's four sore plagues let loose together, the sword, famine, death, and pestilence, and the wild beasts of the earth, but here limited to a fourth part. They are but preparatory chastisements as yet. "And behold a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hades followed with him" (verse 8). In Ezekiel 14 you will find that these four same things are mentioned together in connection with Israel. In these first judgments God does not proceed to any very extraordinary measures. A conqueror is no rare thing in the earth, a bloody and perhaps civil war not uncommon. These might be followed by a famine, and that naturally enough might breed pestilence, etc. Thus man would account for these things, and the wise are caught in their own craftiness. But we know before, through God's word, that there is a time of conquest coming — then of bloody warfare — next of dearth — and lastly of the outpouring of God's sore plagues. The heavenly saints must be set in rest and peace in the presence of God — the church must be safely sheltered before these judgments begin.

The next scene, under the fifth seal, is a remarkable one. The living creatures drop their cry of "Come,"* which was connected only with external judgments in providence. But now we have a series of events somewhat different. The fifth seal discloses that God has a people on earth still. Who are these that are suffering now? The prophet sees their souls under the altar, where they are as holocausts offered up. Though dead, they yet speak. They were slain because of the word of God, and because of their testimony. Man after that has no more that he can do. They call for retribution; for after the Lord has taken home His heavenly saints, He will begin to call earthly ones. They will not of course be born again by a different Spirit, but they will be called to a different path, and will not know God in the same full and near way wherein He reveals Himself to us now, and as we ought to know Him. These saints will have "the Spirit of prophecy." Such was the mode the Holy Ghost wrought in the Old Testament saints. The effect of the Spirit of prophecy was that they were waiting for Christ to come for the accomplishment of promise and prophecy; and so these saints will wait for Christ to appear in glory. All their hopes hang on Him, who is to be their deliverer from circumstances of such excessive sorrow.

*It may be well to mention in this note my opinion that the words "and see" (which, according to the common text and the authorised version, follow "Come" in the call of the four living creatures) appear to be an interpolation. In the case of the second (verse 3) there in no difference of judgment among critical editors of the least note; but, strange to say, Griesbach and Scholz retain the ordinary sense in the last two, and, in the first case of all, Knapp along with them. Buttmann, Hahn, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles omit the words uniformly, and, as I think, with reason. The difference as to interpretation would be this: as the text. rec. stands, it in a call from each living creature to John; but if they merely cry "Come," it would seem to be a direct address to the riders on the several horses, who accordingly come forth at their bidding. The connection of the living creatures with the action of the horsemen in providence is made clearer and stronger by this little change. Besides, it entirely precludes such remarks as those of Mr. A. Jenour in his Rationale Apocalypticum, vol. i. pp. 214-217. That ἔρχου refers to Revelation 22: 17, 22, and means the groaning of creation or a prayer for Christ's coming, is quite wrong. Why should any of these be "in a voice of thunder?" That the call of divine providence should be so heard is natural.

Not thus do we expect Christ for ourselves. We have rest in Him now. Though surely looking for Christ to come, we have present communion with Him in peace, and the title, whether slain or not, always to rejoice in Him. It does not become Christians when persecuted to say, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge, and avenge our blood?" Stephen "cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." Such also is the only right and suitable prayer for the saints of the heavenly calling.

But here the sufferers are on different ground. They take up the position, and express the sentiments described in the Psalms, which call for divine vengeance. Hence such as think that the Psalms are intended to convey our place and proper feelings as Christians find great difficulty in understanding the language of imprecation that is used in them. It is an error so to apply them; for "what the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law" is the apostle's comment after quoting from the Psalms. (Rom. 3) But when the church is removed, God — from His place on the throne — will pour out the judgments described in this prophecy; and then it is that these Psalms fully apply. God deals in mercy now: then it will be earthly judgment. When these visions are really accomplishing, God will show not as now the exceeding riches of His grace, but the exceeding terrors of His righteous wrath: and so when that day comes, and men are yet heedless, the saints living or dying say, "How long, O Lord," etc.

"And a white robe was given unto each one of them" (verse 11). That is, vindication has been accorded them, though they do not take their place on thrones till Revelation 20. Disembodied spirits are never said to sit there. We do not read of spirits glorified, but of bodies, when they enter on their destined blessedness above. They will reign with Christ. Thus, after the church is gone, there will be persons who witness for God here below, but taking up totally different language — the claim of retribution and not long-suffering grace. It was a holy duty once to exterminate the Canaanites; it would be far from a Christian's place now. How unbecoming for us, if God would show mercy! But when He introduces His kingdom by judgments, that conduct will be right and suitable which would not now be in season. When God sees that the due moment is arrived for the earth to be chastised and judged, it will be a holy thing to take part in it. But if the Christian were to occupy himself in judging bad people on the earth now, he would be doing what the Lord is not doing — nay, the very reverse of what engages Him He is now at work in marvels of grace, and thus all who understand Him will be acting in the same spirit.

The tremendous convulsion (verse 12) of the sixth seal comes apparently in answer to the prayer of the saints who are concerned. The language at the close of the chapter shows that the powers and instruments high or low of the persecuting world received an earnest of their doom, as truly as the slain ones in the seal before have their recognition in part before they inherit the kingdom. Their blood, we may say, cried to the Lord of Sabaoth. They lived unto God, and shall surely rise again; but they must wait. Another class of martyrs must yet be made up. "It was said to them that they should rest yet a little space, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed even as they, should be completed." No account of the killing of these saints appears here: we must seek for this in other and subsequent parts of the book. The earlier sufferers meanwhile enjoy the result of righteousness, and are owned of God; but they are to await the filling up of a new and distinct band of martyred brethren, who are to suffer up to the close. Then retribution will come. Iniquity must reach its height and do its worst ere the hour of full divine judgment. Another and final outburst of persecution must precede. But mark here also that no such hope is held out to a single individual as the Lord's translating them without passing through death.

We have stated that the heavenly saints (that is, the dead in Christ, and we who remain to the coming of the Lord) have already been taken from the earth, as Revelation 4 had shown, the fifth chapter adding another thing, that while they are above, there are righteous persons on earth in whose prayers the risen saints are interested. That is to say, those above are found in the place of intercession; and there is nothing sweeter than that place — nothing in which we are practically brought nearer to Christ, save in our immediate relationship to Himself. The church is destined to have that privilege in glory, as we have it now in grace for all men (1 Tim. 2) — the privilege of intercession for others still in trial on the earth. The church will take the deepest concern in their sorrows, blessings, and hopes.

But who are these sufferers on earth? In Rev. 6: 9, as we have seen, there was a dreadful slaughter of the saints. They cried with a loud voice, and we are permitted with and through St. John to hear their cry. They appeal to God as the Sovereign and arbiter of every soul. "How long, O Lord, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Evidently this is not a Christian cry: I do not say it will not be a believing one, but suited to their circumstances and to the then dealings of God. People are so narrow that they think a person can never be a believer without being a Christian. It is quite true that now a believer is, of course, a Christian. Even the babes know the Father. "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." But in divine things we ought always to gather our thoughts and our language from scripture, not from our own imagination. Now, though Abraham and all the Old Testament saints were born of the Spirit, yet they were not Christians in a proper New Testament sense. For a Christian is not only one who has faith in Christ, but one to whose faith Christ dead and risen has been presented by God, and who has, consequently, the Holy Ghost uniting him to Christ in heaven. But this was not and could not be till Christ had come and finished the work of redemption. They had the new birth no doubt, for to be born again does not necessarily imply that the work of atonement had been previously accomplished; but still there is a difference of position into which the accomplished work, and the consequent presence of the Spirit during Christ's absence in heaven, has brought us.

From those under the altar, then, we do not hear Christian accents, but that which reminds us of the state and feelings revealed of old. From the time that the Lord Jesus came into the world, and went up on high, as the rejected One now glorified — from that time the sufferings of Christ as the righteous witness for God, and in perfect grace to man, become, so to speak, reproduced in His people. The Holy Ghost puts them in sympathy with Christ. What was in a measure true before was now the appointed portion for the saints. None but Christ could possibly know suffering from God for bearing sin. But part of the suffering even of the cross was because Christ was put there through the wickedness of men: another and a far deeper part was, that He was put there by the grace of God for the vindication of His holiness, and the deliverance of the sinner. In the last He suffered for us; in the first we may and should suffer with Him. Hence, the apostle Paul did not hesitate to say, "That I may know him and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death." A Christian might share the sufferings of Christ, in the sense of being cast out even unto death. The apostle himself had it often literally before him in this way. (See 2 Cor. 1; 2 Cor. 4.) He knew the fellowship of Christ's sufferings; Stephen knew the same.

Such is not this cry. Here the sufferers were under the deep feeling of the wrong that was done to them, and they called only for the judgment of God. How different the state of things when persons. instead of shrinking from prison and from judgment, thanked God and went away full of joy, because they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus! Is this what we get here? No doubt, the world is as unrighteous as ever; but is there not something more blessed now than appeals to God to deal with the world as the world has dealt with us? This was the state of things when men had to do with the law; as the principle of righteous retribution will appear again in the millennial day, when they will have the law written on their hearts. As far as the moral import (δικαίωμα) of the law is concerned, God makes that good in His people now. But there is another principle which is being displayed now in every form; for God's grace is going out to the lost. Christ's death is the greatest manifestation of that grace, and the Holy Ghost works after this pattern in the hearts of His people. But the cry under the fifth seal is that sin may be laid to the charge of their oppressors, and vengeance taken accordingly. This is righteousness, but not grace. Let us bear in mind, however, that God does not allow us to take up a righteous or a gracious cry just when we like. We are always wrong when, under suffering from the world, a gracious cry is not brought out by the blow. When we have to do with one another, we are entitled to look for godly and righteous ways from Christians: indeed, it is part of the character of a Christian to feel what is wrong, as well as to value what is right. (Rom. 12.) But there should always be power to rise above evil, and to bring out Christ to meet it, whether it be in the way of discipline for those within, or of intercession for those that are without. God is dealing in perfect grace, and so should we, with the world.

Here, in the seals and sequel of the Revelation, it is another state of things God is judging in a preparatory way for His people; it is another order of relationship, not that in which He has set us till the Lord receives us to Himself. Accordingly it is the Jewish expectation of deliverance through God's destruction of the adversaries, not the Christian's hope of removal out of the scene to heaven. Righteous vengeance is invoked on those that dwell on the earth. Not that vindictiveness is implied, but assuredly it is not practical grace. They look therefore for God to judge, instead of longing, as we should do, for Christ to come and take us to Himself. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come."

Remark, that the word used here for "Lord" is not the one that is generally employed; but the same term occurs in Luke 2: 29, Acts 4: 24, Jude 4. It means the Lord as "sovereign master." It is also used in 2 Peter 2: 1: "Even denying the Lord that bought them." We have not here the nearness in which we know Him as "our Lord," but the general authoritative relation in which the Lord is the Master of the whole world — of all men, whether bad or good. It is never said that those who know Christ by the Holy Ghost can deny the Lord who bought them.

However that may be, the appeal is answered by the throes of nature universally, presenting in symbols to the prophet's eye what was coming. "And I beheld when he opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth its untimely figs, when it is shaken by a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places" (verses 12-14). The heavens are convulsed from one end to the other; the stars fall, etc., evidently, as it seems to me, in the vision only. "And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the chieftains, and the rich, and the mighty, and every bondman and free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and they say to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his* wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" (verses 15-17.) Every class of men is in agitation through these impending judgments. It is not really the great day of the Lamb's wrath, yet people think that it is. They fear that the last day is already come.

*The Vulgate with good authority, in we have seen, has "their" wrath (ipsorum, not ipsius). But I take this opportunity of saying that, invaluable as the best Latin copies are as a support of ancient and excellent readings, it seems a perilous thing to throw aside all the MSS. and every other version, and all the early writers save those who merely echo the Vulgate, as Mr. Elliott does in following its "quattuor partes" (verse 8). There is really no ground but the exigencies of his system. To square with facts, according to his application, it should have been not the fourth, but the whole of the Roman empire. Hence Jerome's manifest oversight is adopted, and it is argued that he must have had ancient witnesses now lost! But this is most unreasonable when we see that Jerome is often loose. To take this chapter alone, is it pretended that "vocem," in verse 1, the omission of "et," in verse 2, "singulae," in verse 9, "insulae," in verse 14, rest on original authority? Are they not evidently due to mere laxity of rendering? And why impute "quattuor partes" to a higher source? The wonder is that we have not some of the later Greek manuscripts influenced by the Latin in verse 8, as perhaps 26 was in verses 1 and 2. We know there are stupendous blunders occasionally in the best copies of the Vulgate, as in 1 Cor. 15: 51; Heb. 11: 21. Why give it a place in this verse, which is not claimed for it in any other verse of Old or New Testament? Besides, is it according to the analogy of this book, or of any other book, to speak of "four parts," if the entire empire were intended? The attempted historical answer of quadripartition seems to me extremely meagre. This, of course, is matter of opinion. But it is serious when the author is so enamoured of his theory as to bid his readers "well in that if the prophecy here differ from the history, it differs from, and is inconsistent with, itself also: seeing that the whole horse is depicted with the pale death-like hue, not its fourth part only." — H.A., i. 201. This is bolder than man ought to be with God's word, unless there were infinitely graver grounds against the text. The inference from the horse I have, I think, shown to be unsound.

An idea has prevailed with many that this seal represents the epiphany of the Lord in judgment at the end of the age. This has disposed them to understand the description as a literal account of the heavenly and earthly changes which accompany that great event. But there is no solid foundation for such thoughts. In the first place, the seventh seal is not yet opened, so that the end it cannot be, even if one adopted the system which supposes the trumpets to be a rehearsal from another point of view. Again, not a word occurs alluding to the presence of the Lord. There is a great earthquake; but the appearing of Jesus is incomparably more serious than any possible commotion in the world. The difference is manifest, if we compare these verses with Rev. 19: 11-21, and with 1 Thess. 5; 2 Thess. 1; Luke 17: 24-37, etc. Not to speak of the sixth trumpet, under the seventh vial (which must surely be owned as at least not earlier than the sixth seal) there is an earthquake, of which the Holy Ghost speaks in still stronger terms. Yet we know that this is before the day of the Lord; for all admit that the vials are poured out before He comes as a thief. And à fortiori why not the sixth seal? Had these convulsions been given under the seventh seal, there might have seemed more tenable ground: as it is there is really none.

There is also this marked difference between our seal and the passages in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, with which some would connect it, that in the latter the Son of man is expressly said to be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, in the former, as has been remarked, there is not a trace of it. It is represented under the seal, that all men in their terror say to the mountains and rocks, (is this literal, after they had been moved out of their places?) "Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his* wrath is come; and who is able to stand?" But it is a revelation, not of that which God declares about the time or circumstances, but of men's alarm and its effect on their consciences. To take what John saw in the vision as so many physical realities, to be then verified in the literal sun, moon, stars, and heaven, is, I think, an opinion adopted without due consideration. Would there, could there, be need for any to invoke the fall of the mountains and rocks, if the stars really fell unto the earth? Could men or the globe survive such a shock? Besides, it is plain that the description alludes at any rate to passages in the Old Testament, such as Isa. 13, 34; Ezek. 32: 7, 8, and Joel 2. Now the last distinctly states that the signs therein predicted are before the great and terrible day of the Lord come, and the first had its accomplishment in the past fall of Babylon, though there be also types of a more solemn and universal catastrophe at the close.

*The Sinai MS., the palimpsest of Paris, and the excellent Vatican cursive, conventionally known as 38, with the Vulgate and Syriac, read αὐτῶν, "their." which admirably fits in with the context.

All this is to my mind decisive that the sixth seal, according to its natural place in the prophecy, in no way means the great day of the Lord, but sets forth, first in figures and then in simple language, an overwhelming revolution which overthrows existing institutions and governmental order. The authorities, supreme, dependent, and subordinate, are broken up. The shock is universal. They think the last reckoning is come. Not the Lord, but their bad and affrighted consciences call it the day of His wrath. But when that day does come (as in Revelation 19), they are bold as lions. The very frequency of divine judgment acts upon the hard hearts of men; and so, though the trumpets have yet to blow, and the judgments become more and more intense, yet when the Lord comes in person, instead of calling on the mountains to cover them, they are found fighting against Himself. When their consciences were not so hardened, they were alarmed; but when the great day arrives, they are in open rebellion against Christ. What a thing is the heart of man! and what an infinite mercy which has brought us, not in the thought of His wrath — though the Lord grant that this may be used to awaken some souls — but by His grace to enjoy the peace He has made by the blood of His cross! He will have us also in the full fruition of our heavenly blessedness, when all these judgments are passing beneath us. To be above in the presence of Him who will then direct and at last execute all needful infliction — this is to be our portion. The Lord grant that we may walk in His grace now, not dragged down into the spirit of the world, nor standing for our own rights. Alas! if sinful men begin to talk about their rights, let them remember that in the sight of God the only thing they have a right to is to be lost for ever. If He dealt with us on that ground, when — how could we be saved? But He has forgiven us all our wrongs, and has given us the joy of standing for His rights. May we be true to Him and to His cross!

Revelation 7

The careful reader of the Revelation will have noticed that this chapter does not perform any part, properly speaking, of the course of events. That is to say, it is neither one of the seals, nor of the trumpets, nor of the vials. We have not finished the seals yet. In the sixth chapter we have had six seals, and there is a seventh that comes before us in Revelation 8. What then is the meaning of Revelation 7? It is an interval — a sort of parenthesis in these events — that occurs between the sixth and seventh seals. Under the sixth seal there is a frightful catastrophe among kings and subjects, high and low, calling to the rocks and mountains to fall on them, and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. To their minds His day was come.

On the other hand, when He opens the seventh seal (Rev. 8), there is silence in heaven about the space of half-an-hour: so that the whole of Rev. 7 is no link in the regular chain of the history foreseen. Yet this apparent interruption of historic sequence is just as orderly as the formally numbered series of the judgments, because all that God does is perfect: every detail is fixed with the greatest care and nicety. What confirms this is that, when we come to the seven trumpets, the sixth trumpet is given in Rev. 9 and the seventh does not appear till Rev. 11: 15; so that the whole of Rev. 10 and the larger part of Rev. 11 form a great parenthetic revelation of events, similar to what we have in the chapter before us. Indeed to me it is still more remarkable in the trumpets; for you will observe in Rev. 9: 12 it is said, "One woe is past, and behold there come two woes," etc.; and then we have the sixth angel sounding, and the description of the Euphratean horsemen But it is not till Rev. 11: 14 that "the second woe is past," evidently referring to the Euphratean horsemen mentioned before in Rev. 9. So that the whole scene of the mighty angel coming down from heaven, of the little book that was to be taken and eaten by the seer, of the temple and worshippers measured, of the court and city abandoned for forty-two mouths, of the two witnesses, their testimony, death, resurrection, and ascension, — all this forms part of the striking episode. Thus, as there is a parenthesis between the sixth and seventh seals, there is an exactly corresponding one between the sixth and seventh trumpets; and not only so, but we have something analogous in the vials. If you look at the sixth vial (Rev. 16: 12), you will find there is an interruption between it and the seventh. First the water of the great river Euphrates is dried up, that the way of the kings from the East might be prepared, and then we have a totally different subject. "I saw three unclean spirits . . . . they are the spirits of demons;" and then, distinct again from this, "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth," etc. This is a brief but singular parenthesis, containing both the account of the evil and the lord's coming in judgment on it. I only refer to it now for the purpose of showing that there is nothing but what is laid down with the most astonishing precision of purpose in God's word, and in this book, it may be added, conspicuously.

Taken up at first sight, the Revelation may appear all a maze; but it is not so really; for the impression arises from ignorant haste or from incapacity to discern. The fact is, that people bring certain feelings or wishes with them to the book, instead of waiting in the desire to know what God thinks and speaks to them in it. Let us take the highest ground of faith for the word of God, and maintain that the Holy Ghost is the only power for understanding any part of that word. Whether for a man's soul, for his salvation and hopes, for his practical guidance, either individually or corporately, for his ways in the church or in the world, for his instruction as to the worship and the service of God, or even as to his relative duties on earth, whatever it be, there is divine light for every step of the way; and the only reason why we do not all see it is, because we have not the single eye which faith produces. It is faith that receives the blessing; and I believe that, as it is ever true that "according to thy faith so be it unto thee," it will also be blindness according to the measure of unbelief. The Lord always gives what faith counts on from Himself; unbelief inevitably finds the barrenness that it deserves.

In this chapter, however, it had long been a difficulty how there could be here the sealing of a body of elect Jews and the vision of an innumerable company of spared Gentiles, when their blessing only comes at a later part of the book.* But the moment I learnt that it was all a parenthesis, and that the actual time when the sealed remnant of Israel and the saved Gentiles come into public action and take their place upon the stage is another thing altogether, that difficulty was at an end. God for our comfort, while the judgments are going on, allows the curtain to part for a little moment, and we see that they are all safe under His eye and ready to be manifested in due time. But when they come publicly into view is another question. In Revelation 14 there is a body spoken of, 144,000, of whom the Lamb is the centre, and these stand with Him on mount Zion, having His name and His Father's name written on their foreheads. That body is evidently similar to, though not the same as, the 144,000 that we have here; and perhaps also we may compare, but not identify, the "nations" in Rev. 21: 24-26 with the countless host of Gentiles here. Still more striking is the resemblance to the sheep of Matt. 25, because these are not merely the blessed Gentiles of the millennial day, but had stood the test during the interval of grievous trial which preceded it. And observe that the sheep in that passage are distinguished from the King's brethren who have a position yet nearer to Himself — Jewish saints who, after the church is taken to heaven, will be entrusted with the gospel of the kingdom, which is to be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations before the end comes. Thus, in Matt. 25: 31-46, Israelitish brethren of the King, just before the close, test the Gentiles, who at His appearing are summoned before His throne, and discriminated as blessed or cursed, their faith or unbelief being proved by the way they had carried themselves towards the messengers of the coming kingdom in the time of their sorrowful testimony. Millions of the nations will be born during the peaceful millennial reign, for whom the loosing of Satan at its close will be fatal, even were all spared at first born of God.

*Not many of my readers will be more disposed than myself to accept Mr. Elliott's way of accounting for the occurrence of the sealing and palm-bearing visions at this particular time. Augustine, the celebrated Bishop of Hippo, flourished at the date to which he applies the sixth seal, or rather its consequences! Mr. E has culled from his copious writings whatever might be supposed to strengthen this far-fetched idea; and certainly it would be strange if in so large a field he did not find abundance to his hand. But when he begs "the reader to pause and consider with himself, whether he can possibly imagine any two symbolic figurations that would more exactly symbolize the doctrinal revelations made to Augustine than those that were exhibited at the exactly correspondent epoch in the Patmos visions to the representative man St. John," I must answer that I think if the vision of the holy city Jerusalem had been inserted after the sealing and instead of the palm-bearers, Mr. E. would have sung yet louder in praise of so marvellous a foreshadowing of Augustine's great work De Civitate Dei. Let the candid reader judge.

In this chapter, then, there are simply two striking scenes, connected in sense if not as to epoch, outside the regular march of things. The Spirit of God, who laid down the historical order of the divine judgments, leaves that for the moment and shows us that God has mercy in store even in the coming day of distress. Israel will be in frightful circumstances: "Jerusalem shall receive of Jehovah's hand double for all her sins." As she had been strong in her hatred against the Lord, so will He reckon that His vengeance has been doubly poured forth upon the guilty city. We have had judgments, first beginning with comparatively ordinary events, such as a great conqueror going forth, bloodshed, scarcity, God's sore plague (death referring to the body and hades to the soul); then a remorseless outburst of persecution on God's people; next a universal and dreadful convulsion before the eyes of the seer, affecting heaven, earth, and sea, the greatest alarm and bewilderment among men, who think that the day of the Lamb's wrath is come. But that day was not come then. When it does arrive, the Lord will execute judgment in person on the dead and the living. But now it is a panic which leads men to dread judgment-day. And the kings of the earth, and the nobles, and the chieftains, and the rich, and the mighty, and every one, bond and free, were in the utmost consternation.

But here we find that the Lord stops and draws us aside for a season to show us what His mercy is going to do. "[And] after this I saw four angels . . . . holding the four winds of the earth." They are kept in cheek for the moment. "And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads" (verses 2, 3). Some have conceived that the sealing angel is Christ, partly because it is assumed that the work done is communicating the Holy Spirit of promise, the seal of redemption. To me all this is more than doubtful. It is not till we reach the trumpet series that our Lord ever assumes the angelic form and title. Whether we look at the seals, or at the parenthesis between the two last, He is invariably, where the reference is certain, spoken of as the Lamb. Again, this angel rises up from the sun-rising. I can readily apply such a movement to angels subject to the Son of man, ascending and descending to do His pleasure. But when the Lord appears in angelic garb, He either ministers as High Priest with the golden censer, or He comes down with unmistakable tokens and proclamation of His dominion and power. In the present scene nothing is said which unequivocally reveals His own glory. Much has been made of the phrase "till we have sealed," as if it corresponded with the allusion to the persons in the Godhead, as in Gen. 1: 26. I am surprised that the rest of the sentence was not observed to be incompatible with such a meaning Would Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (which in that case would be the sense) say, "till we have sealed the servants of our God?" The idea seems to me unfounded. Nor even if our Lord exclusively could be imagined so to speak, does it seem to be consistent with His dignity. He teaches His disciples to say "our Father," but does not say it with them. When He does associate them with Himself risen from the dead, it is even then "My Father and your Father, my God and your God" — never "our God."

The meaning then is, that before the various judgments are poured out on creation, God will have appropriated a certain people for Himself. They are sealed with the seal of the living God; that is, a character is put upon them as set apart to God. Cain had a very different mark put upon him by Jehovah; it was to screen him from man's judgment. Here also protection may be involved. At any rate, they are sealed on their foreheads, which, of course, means no physical mark, but God's setting them apart for Himself, and, I suppose, publicly. Who are the sealed ones? A measured remnant from His ancient people.

Thus the angels are seen restraining the judgments that are about to fall on all creation, and we have the seal of God upon a certain chosen number out of Israel. He will have an election from that people, but it will be a personal and individual election — not a merely national one as of old. When David attempted to number the people, it was a presumptuous sin, but here it is the grace of God appropriating a complement of the tribes of Israel to Himself. The number 144,000 is a regular and complete number, though it be a mystical one, as I suppose, with a view to God's use of the favoured nation here below. The number twelve always has a reference to what is perfect for God's accomplishment of His work, administered by man. This may be seen in the twelve tribes of Israel, twelve patriarchs, twelve apostles, and even the twelve gates and twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem. It is a perfect number where human administration comes in. Hence, when the nation of Israel are to be brought in again, it is the multiple of twelve that we have, and this expressed in thousands; the full result, as far as Israel is concerned, of the administration that God will commit to man.

An important question has been raised here, whether the tribes of Israel are to be interpreted literally or mystically. For the latter sense it is argued, that the very first vision of the seven candlesticks, borrowed from the Jewish sanctuary, and the allusions in the seven epistles that follow, but more particularly in Revelation 3: 12 compared with Revelation 21: 12, sustain the Christian meaning throughout the book. But does not such reasoning overlook the fact that the application of Jewish emblems to the churches, while they are expressly spoken of here below, and of others to the church, either glorified above or following Christ out of heaven in the day of the Lord, is totally distinct horn the question whether certain symbols, taken from Israel, may not also apply to a different class of witnesses on earth between those two points? The real question is about the interval, when churches are no longer spoken of, and before the bride appears with the Bridegroom in glory. To state the question aright is enough to show the inconclusiveness of the argument, as applied (not to Rev. 1, 2, 3, nor in Rev. 21: 12, where in the main we all agree, but) to the prophetic visions from Revelation 6 onward.

Besides, it is allowed by the more intelligent of the historical school, that about the close of the age the Jews will be converted and take the lead in the earthly song of praise on the occasion. This may be put too late in the book and founded on the feeble evidence of the occurrence of the Hebrew word "Hallelujah" in Rev. 19: 3. Still the fact is admitted — an Apocalyptic prophecy of that which is to happen before the appearing of the Lord. What is more, a large part of the same school,* represented by one of their most popular books, (Bp. Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies; Works, i. pp. 578, 579,) understand the tribes of Israel to be meant in their natural historical import, and apply the prophecy to the vast influx of converted Jews in the reign of Constantine. In fact the earliest Christian writer who alludes to the chapter, Irenaeus the pious Bishop of Lyons, unhesitatingly solves the omission of Dan so as to prove that he considered the actual tribes of Israel to be meant, So also speaks Victorinus in one passage at least of the earliest extant commentary on the book. Others soon began to veer towards the allegorizing method, till at length the anti-Judaic theory became much the more general view.

*Mr. Birks widely differs from Mr. Elliott, and this too in perhaps the most acrimonious attack ever made on futuro-literalism. Even Mr. B. confesses that "in the abstract, it can neither be unreasonable nor improbable that they should be a direct object of the prophecy, and, since no more appropriate symbol could be found for them, that they should be, so to speak, their own emblem. Those who view the book in general as symbolical may, therefore, without inconsistency, conceive literal Jews to be designed." (Elements of Prophecy, pp. 256, 257, the "masterly work" in which, according to Mr. E., the writer has shown himself the martel and hammer of truth against the reveries of the futurists.)

But it may be well to notice briefly the reasons alleged by one of the ablest advocates of the mystical class — Vitringa. First he argues that if the names were to be taken in the letter, so must the number. But does this follow? And if it were a necessity, what is to hinder? He who reserved 7,000 in Elijah's day may seal 144,000 of Israel in a future epoch. But I see no need for this. The people might be literal, the number symbolical, without difficulty save to one fascinated by the love of excessive simplification. It is not denied that symbols exist, nor that they yield a determinate sense; but to look for a sort of pictorial consistency in all the parts is contrary to the facts everywhere. Moreover what could be the meaning of a mystical Reuben, Gad, Asher, etc.? Nobody that I know pretends to assign a distinctive signification, unless persons in the last degree fanciful. Yet if they are to be so taken, one might expect each to have a meaning, which is looked for in vain in those who plead strenuously for the general idea. Next it is urged that by the sealed must be understood God's elect, who are to be preserved from an otherwise universal calamity; and who can assert these to be Jews only? But who affirms that none are elect save these? We shall see presently that the scope of the prophecy and the connection of the passage intimate the contrary. The false assumption therefore is, not that the sealed thousands are out of the actual tribes of Israel only, but that there will be no other saints than these. Thirdly the omission of Dan seems to be at least as great a difficulty on the mystical as on the literal hypothesis. In the blessing of Moses (Deut. 33) Simeon is left out. Is this list of the tribes, then, to be taken allegorically? Fourthly, the alleged parallel text, Rev. 14: 1, by no means proves that the tribes are not literally of Israel. The 144,000 in Rev. 14 are saints on earth, not long before the final catastrophe, and in contrast with those defiled by Babylon and enslaved by the Beast. That they are not the church, but rather a godly remnant of Israelites associated in the Spirit's mind with the suffering but now exalted Christ, is what writers of this stamp have never even fairly weighed, much less have they decided on good grounds one way or the other.

On the other hand, I conceive that the specification of the tribes is inconsistent with any sense but the literal. Then again the contradistinction is as plain and positive as words can make it, between the sealed numbers out of Israel and the innumerable multitude from all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues. So that the mystical theory, when closely examined, cannot escape the charge of absurdity; for it identifies the sealed Israelites with the palm-bearing Gentiles, spite of the evident and express contrast on the face of the chapter. This results from trying to make out that the Gentile crowd consists of all the aggregated generations of the elect from the tribes. As to the sealed ones, not a hint appears of a succession: indeed the command to suspend the action of the four winds till after the sealing implies the contrary. It was a precise limited hour, as it was a special class. But what clenches the matter is that the palm-bearing Gentiles (i.e., according to some, the Christian church in its heavenly completeness) are all described as coming out of the great tribulation - a tribulation which even they view as following the days of Constantine. Thus all seems to me strong and conclusive that the sealed here are literal Israelites — not only of Israel, but Israel, the Israel of God; as the mystical reading of the first part of the chapter, with the literal understanding of the rest, involves its advocates in consequences the more gross where it is most systematically pursued.

With regard to the tribes mentioned, there is a certain peculiarity on which I can say little. There are the sons of the various wives of Jacob: first, the two sons of Leah, Judah and Reuben; then of Zilpah, Leah's maid, Gad and Asher; then Naphtali, the son of the maid Bilhah, and instead of Dan her other son, Manasseh (Joseph's firstborn) is substituted. Then there are the four sons of Leah, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun; and finally, the sons of Rachel, Joseph, and Benjamin. Clearly we have the sons arranged according to the different mothers, the offspring of the bondwomen being intermingled with that of the free. Dan, who had been the most conspicuous for idolatry, is left out, and instead of Ephraim, the younger son of Joseph, Joseph himself appears. We find here the sealed of Israel, but the tribes numbered and arranged in a singular manner. They are no longer merely taken up in a natural way according to the order of birth, but God seems to intimate that He would make them a spiritual people also, stamped with His seal. They will then be Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile. Nor is Dan at last disinherited. (Ezek. 48: 1, 32.)

Nor this only; God is also going to save a multitude of Gentiles, and here no numbering appears. This is a most refreshing thought from its largeness. For though from them God is now gathering a people to His name, yet when we think of the multitudes that are immersed in darkness, of the myriads on myriads of men in heathen countries, of a handful — yea, perhaps but one — among them here and there having the knowledge of God, it is an afflicting and humbling reflection. But is it not remarkable that when God is to show us the increasing wickedness of both Jew and Gentile, and when His judgments are about to fall, we find there is this multitude of Israel numbered with the greatest care, and God not forgetful of the poor Gentiles? They may not be put in the same high place as the Jews, yet God will bless them wonderfully notwithstanding. But the prophet, who had just known the election of Israel sealed and had heard the number of them, has to turn to one of the elders in order to learn who the countless company are. They were to John a new unknown crowd among the blessed. If they were sealed on their foreheads, is it reasonable that they should just after seem so strange?

The multitude spoken of here is distinct from, if not in contrast with, the church; and it is thus that we ascertain it clearly. The elders represent the heavenly saints as the heads of priesthood. Now God might use two different symbols to mean the same body; as, for instance, the wise virgins and the good and faithful servants in Matt. 25 are successive representatives of the heavenly saints. But here we have the Gentile multitude and the elders given as distinct parties in the same scene. Again you have the elders doing one thing and the multitude doing another. Above all, note that the way in which God speaks of this multitude totally separates them both from the church of God and from the Old Testament saints. This cannot be so clearly seen in our authorized translation, but the right version in verse 14 is this: "These are they which come out of the great tribulation." One could understand of course that as a figure the whole of this dispensation might be called a time of tribulation, or even of great tribulation. But here it is not merely said, "These are, they which came out of great tribulation," but "out of the great tribulation." It is not possible to make "the great tribulation" extend over all the time between the first and second comings of Christ. Even the vague Protestant interpreters make it specific, but apply it, as is natural in them, to the fierce persecutions of the Papacy — "the great predicted tribulation of the coming apostacy and Antichrist." The phrase means a special time of trouble, and we gather from elsewhere that it is yet to come; and it is exactly this time that the central part of the Revelation includes, and chiefly covers. In the epistle to Thyatira it was said, "Behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." May we not judge that the threat of this great tribulation is to be fulfilled now. The scene of the church is closed, the great tribulation comes on apace, and those who had professed Christianity but who had gone back into idolatry would be cast into it with others. Thus, what God shows us here is a multitude of saved Gentiles: not the Jews, for we have had them just before; and not Christians, for these will then be in heaven. Those are a Gentile body called after the church is taken up; they are to be in the great tribulation but shall be preserved through it.

We shall find the great tribulation spoken of in several parts of the word of God. In Jeremiah it is named in connection with the Jews. (Jer. 30: 7.) "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it; it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it." There is to be a time of excessive anguish, which closes with the day of the Lord, and Jacob is to be saved out of it; so that there you have the Jew in trouble, and the Jew delivered out of it. But in Daniel it is still more explicit. (Dan. 12.) The angel speaks of Daniel's own people, the Jews. "At that time . . . . there shall be a time of trouble.

such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." This is "the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it." It is evidently the plain counterpart of the words of Jeremiah; and it warrants the inference that there is to be a future "time of trouble, such as never was" — the immediate precursor of deliverance for Jacob's people as spoken of in these prophecies.

In Matthew 24 the Lord Himself refers to it: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." There again we have the same time, the Lord quoting the very passage of Daniel just cited. It is quite plain that He is speaking only of Jews, because they are supposed to be connected with the temple, and they are told to pray that their flight be not on the sabbath day, in which case they could not go beyond a sabbath day's journey, nor in winter. In either case there would be a hindrance to their flight, whether on God's part, or in the circumstances of the season. We have the same thing referred to in Mark, but Luke seems to speak in a more general way.

What parties then are to be in the scene of the tribulation? First a Jewish one spoken of in the Prophets and the Gospels, the object of God's care, who will deal tenderly with a remnant of Israel, and deliver them out of their distresses. Then in Rev. 7: 9 we hear of a Gentile multitude. But neither party is the church.

Never have we God dealing thus with the Jew and with the Gentile as such, and forming the church at the same time; for then God would have at least two, if not three, objects — not various only but opposed objects — of special affection on the earth at the same time, with quite different modes and aims of action.

Suppose there were two persons, whom the Lord was bringing near to Himself. If He were dealing with the Jew, He would have acknowledged an earthly temple, priesthood, and worship. The Lord Jesus recognised the Jews as such when He was on earth, and in a still more blessed way He will do so in the day that is coming. But as long as the Lord is occupied with forming the church, Jewish order ceases to have any claim. Thus then suppose that God were blessing the Jews as Jews, and at the same time forming the church on earth, if two persons were converted, the one might say, I must still have my priest and go to the temple; while another would exclaim, There is no priest but Christ, and the temple is in heaven. See the confusion that would spring from God's owning an earthly and a heavenly people at the same time here below.

In this time of tribulation, when the Lord will recognize the Jew (or the godly remnant) to a certain extent, the church will not be in the scene. The objects of deliverance will be elect Jews and elect Gentiles, each distinct from the other, and not the church of God, where both are united and all distinctions disappear. We have seen direct proof of the removal of the church in Rev. 4 and 5. Here there is indirect evidence, because we have Jews sealed and Gentiles saved, and the latter expressly distinguished from the elders or heavenly saints. The sealing of the Jews included the election from the whole twelve tribes of Israel, except where there was a special brand of evil, as in the case of Dan. But the moment we find the Jew, we have God looking also, though separately, at the nations; because, having once visited the Gentile with His mercy, He will never take it back. Thus, when here He speaks of mercy to a complement of Israel, there is also salvation to a multitude out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue.

We saw that if the guilty Christian professors went on in their sin with Jezebel, they would be given up, and would be left to go through great tribulation. Here we find the great tribulation come; and not only are Israelites sealed, but a multitude of Gentiles are delivered out of it. The Old Testament does not speak of Gentiles being delivered thence, but Jews. Meantime, God has been sending salvation to the Gentiles. Hence in the New Testament prophecy Gentile deliverance is as prominent as Jewish deliverance is in the Old Testament. God shows that, in the last days, He is going to save a vast throng of Gentiles. But will it be so in these countries where the light of the gospel has shone and has been despised? "They received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2: 10-12.) God will visit those who have not enjoyed this testimony, the external peoples who have not had Christ rightly presented to them. The church has completely failed in what God looks for from us. He called on the church to take up the cross and to follow Christ; but the church has, in practice, given up the cross and followed the world. All this has hardened the heathen, who find that the church does not bring forth the fruits that are suitable to the grace and truth which we profess to have found in Christ. But God, in His fulness of mercy, will go to those outside. Thus I believe that these very countries which have set themselves up as the centre from whence the light emanates will then be in antichristian idolatry, while those which have been in darkness will come out into light. It will only be the tale of Galilee of the nations again, when Jerusalem despised and lost the Son of God — alas! how long.

Here we see the blessed result. There will be this innumerable multitude of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues, who stand before the throne* and before the Lamb. Theirs are the robes of righteousness,† and their palms are the palms of victory; but they do not sing the new song. There is nothing like the high and exulting tone of Rev. 5, no intercession for others, nay, not a word of being made kings and priests to God. They cry with a loud voice, "Salvation unto our God who sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb." They are saved persons, but the ascription is limited to the title that He takes upon the throne and to the Lamb. God is not now sitting upon the throne that is described here: at least it is not thus He reveals Himself while the church is on earth. He will by and by take His place there as One issuing judgments; and the great point seems to be, that although it is a time of preparatory wrath and judicial action, yet God is showing signal mercy, even to Gentiles. In verse 13, we have the elders looking upon the scene. How could they be looking upon themselves? Yet this must be the case, if the elders and the innumerable multitude are both supposed to set forth the church. We have two distinct parties. If the elders are the church, the multitude is not; and if the multitude is, then the elders cannot be. I well understand a man having a picture taken of himself in one suit of clothing at one time and in a different suit at another. But we could not possibly have a portrait of a man taken at the same moment with two different sets of robes upon him, so as to display distinct characters, and fulfil opposite functions together.

*John's vision of them there does not imply that they are to be in heaven, rather than on the earth, when the kingdom comes. "Before the throne and before the Lamb" is moral rather than local. (Compare Rev. 12: 1; Rev. 14: 3.) It merely expresses where the prophet beholds them in the mind of God. The description with which the chapter closes conveys the idea of people delivered from bitter sorrow, and sheltered for ever. No doubt this will be inexpressible comfort to them: but nothing they say rises to the height of the joy and intelligence which are seen in the elders, nor is anything said of them which at all sets them on equal ground with these. They are never presented with crowns nor seated on thrones like the twenty-four. They are in relationship with God when He is no longer viewed as seated on a throne of grace such as we know now, but as on a throne whence judgments proceed. All harmonizes with the interval of introductory government which precedes the millennium.

† It has been sought to draw out the contrast between these Gentiles in Rev. 7 and our own position in Rev. 1: 5, 6, by dwelling on the different statements, that they washed their robes, and that He washed us. But such comparisons often lead to grave misconception, as indeed this has done. I wish, therefore, explicitly to state my own conviction (in which, doubtless, the writer referred to would cordially join), that the salvation of all the saved at all times depends on the work of Christ, and that the Spirit is the only efficacious applier of it to any soul. The real question is as to the various dealings of God and His sovereign arrangements among the saved. Scripture, in my opinion, is quite clear as to all this, if men would but give up preconceived notions and wait on God for the answer.

In the church of God which is being called now there is neither Jew nor Gentile. The moment you find the distinction kept up between them, there cannot be the church. Whenever you separate the Jew from the Gentile, you are off church-ground. Before the death and resurrection of Christ, God was not forming Jew and Gentile into one body. Thus, even when the Lord Jesus was upon earth, He forbade His disciples to go to the Gentiles, or so much as enter the Samaritan cities. But when He, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, was about to form the church, He charged them to go everywhere and preach the gospel to every creature, instead of merely seeking out him that was worthy in Israel. Thus, a complete change was evinced in the ways of God, not as if He knew not the end from the beginning, but with a view to fresh displays of His glory in His Son. So too when the present calling closes, His mercy will flow out in fresh channels, as we have seen.

I trust, then, it has been shown plainly that the subject of this chapter is not the church, but Israel and the Gentiles blessed as such. Indeed, one need not hesitate to say that, if any person supposed Rev. 7 treated of the church, it would argue that he had no true idea of its nature and calling — that he had no conception of what the Holy Ghost connects with the body of Christ here below.* The church of God is essentially a heavenly body that entirely sets aside all distinction of Jew and Gentile. The scope, if not object, of this chapter shows that these distinctions reappear at the time that is referred to. We have first a company of Israel, then an innumerable crowd out of the Gentiles. Besides these, that class of the redeemed formed out of the Jews and Gentiles, and long familiar to us in this book (namely, the crowned elders), are seen as a distinct body altogether.

*The following extract from Dr. John Owen's Prelim. Dissert. to his Comment on the Hebrews (Exer. vi.) is endorsed with strong commendation by a living Professor of Theology, and may serve as evidence of the darkness that reigns on the subject. "At the coming of the Messiah, there was not one church taken away, and another set up in its room; but the church continued the same, in those that were the children of Abraham according to the faith. The Christian church is not another church, but the very same that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, and interested in the same covenant. The olive tree was the same; only some branches were broken and others grafted into it: the Jews fell, and the Gentiles came in their room. And this doth and must determine the difference between the Jews and Christians about the promises of the Old Testament. They are all made unto the church. No individual hath any interest in them, but by virtue of his membership with the church. This church is, and always was, one and the same. With whomsoever it remains, the promises are theirs; and that, not by application or analogy, but directly and properly. They belong as immediately at this day, either to Jews (?) or Christians, as they did of old to any. The question is with whom is this church which is founded on the promised seed in the covenant? for where it is, there is Zion, Jerusalem, Israel, Jacob, the temple of God." There is not a clause that is not an error; for even where there is a certain substratum of truth, the use is fallacious. The Judaising of the church on this scheme is complete. The truth is that Dr. O. confounds the calling of the church, according to the mystery hid from ages and generations, with the earthly order in which the promises are administered. Thus the doctrine of Ephesians, Colossians, and other such scriptures, is left out and unknown; that is, the doctrine of a body united to Christ its glorified head, and manifested on earth by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Such a state of things did not exist before Christ's first advent, nor can it be after His second. As to the inheritance of the promises, we share this with the saints of old; but it is not our peculiar place of blessing. The church, as such, is quite a distinct thing, though the members of it are, with others, heirs through Christ. So with the olive tree; doubtless the Gentiles are now grafted in: but is it possible a spiritual man could confound this with the body of Christ? The Jews were natural branches, the olive was their own olive tree: even the unbelieving branches formed part of it, though at length broken off to let Gentiles in. Does one word of this bring out the church as shown in Eph. 1, 2? Is not all above nature here? In that one body, it is not Jews making way for Gentiles, but the believers, whether Jew or Gentile, brought out of their old previous condition, reconciled in one by the cross, and builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. All this is neutralised by Dr. Owen's theory. At least, as regards the future, Mr. Elliott renounces it. "The church of the firstborn, the bride, may be complete; but it does not follow that none afterwards can be saved. What is said of the kings of the earth, walking in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, seems to me to imply an enjoyment of the blessing by other parties, besides those that constitute Christ's bride, the New Jerusalem. The very statement of Christ's being a priest upon His throne (if applicable, all I think it is, to the millennia] era) implies Christ's still exercising His intercessory and other priestly functions. And it I am correct in my view of John 17: 21, 23, it was a marked point in His earliest intercessory prayer that the world's believing on Him generally might be the result of the distinctive manifestation in glory of the church of His disciples of the present dispensation; — that manifestation which, as all agree, will be only at His second coming." (H. A., iv. p. 187.) Every one must allow that in the millennium the olive tree will flourish more than ever, and the Abrahamic promises be fulfilled to the letter. If then the church, Christ's bride, is distinct from the millennial saints, albeit these last inherit the promises and are branches in the olive tree, the principle is evidently given up. The same thing, then, may be true of the Old Testament saints. It becomes a question of the testimony of scripture. Now this, we have seen, pronounces clearly that the church of God, Christ's body, depends on the gift and presence of the Holy Ghost, consequent on the death, resurrection, and glorification of the Saviour. (Matt. 16: 18; John 7: 39; John 14-16; Acts 1, 2; 1 Cor. 12, etc.)

Thus we have in this chapter "the Jew, the Gentile, and the church of God" — sealed Jews and saved Gentiles, for the earth, as I suppose, and the church with the Old Testament saints preserved for heavenly glory. While the elect of the twelve tribes are said to have great mercy shown them, and the Gentiles too, who might have been thought to be forgotten then (ver. 14-17), yet it is not the same exalted privilege that we shall enjoy. "They" (i.e., these spared Gentiles) "serve day and night in his temple." But when the Holy Ghost is showing us our special place of blessing, the prophet says, "I saw no temple therein." In Revelation 21, where he describes the bride or the heavenly Jerusalem, it is a state of things totally different from what we have here. Though it be the city where you might above all expect to find a sanctuary, he says, "I saw no temple therein." Why is this? Because that city is the symbol of the bride, and when God brings out the blessedness and glory of the church, He speaks of it as drawing near to Himself, so that there shall be none but Christ between Him and them, if we can call that between, where Christ Himself is the image of the invisible God, the One who reveals God to us and who is God. It excludes the idea of the temple. Here, on the contrary, we have the temple. One of their greatest privileges spoken of is that they serve Him day and night in His temple, and "He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell again among them." There might seem to be a difficulty in this, but there really is a careful guard against the thought that might be drawn from the words "dwell among them." The true meaning is, God having His tabernacle over them, not among them. In Rev. 21 we find God dwelling among men. It is not the same phrase at all. Similar in English, it is totally different in the Greek. In Revelation 7 the idea is that the presence of God overshadows the Gentiles, but there is no such thing intended as God's taking His place among them. They are blessed of God, overshadowed and protected as Israel of old under the cloud of His presence. Like them too in the future (Isa. 49), they shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the sun nor heat smite them; blessed expressions, but rather conveying an earthly position than a heavenly one. We have the Lamb Himself to feed us now. Even here He gives us to have in us wells of water springing up into everlasting life, and out of us flow rivers of living water.

I have been endeavouring to prove, then, that God's purposes are not limited by what He is doing now. Besides forming the heavenly body, the church, and conferring upon it the highest privileges even He can give, God is going to visit the Gentiles by and by. They will be remembered; and this will be done in the midst of the most appalling judgments which precede the great day. And God makes plain our own position amidst it all; for we see the elders distinct, and they have the mind of Christ. This last is the portion of the church even on earth, just as Joseph was in his time the depositary of God's wisdom. Whether in prison or out of prison, he entered into the thoughts of God and was able to explain them to others. This is the place that God's goodness puts us in, alas! how little it is prized or acted on. It is one of the most precious privileges that belongs to the church of God, save the position in which God sets us as brought nigh in Christ to Himself. There ought to be the power of announcing the revealed thoughts of God by the Holy Ghost.

Revelation 8

To me it is manifest that the seventh seal is followed by a short but solemn pause, which again is introductory to a new course of divine inflictions.* "And when he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour. And I saw the seven angels who stand before God; and to them were given seven trumpets." Now these judgments that come before us under the trumpets are of a somewhat different character from what we have seen in the seals. In the first place, the seals in general appear to have a larger extent, but the blows were not so severe. It is true we had in Rev. 6: 8 a certain limitation (viz. the fourth part), used with regard to the extent of the blow then to be struck. But in the other instances there was no such restraint; whereas in most of the trumpets it is the third part, with some slight exceptions. The trumpets, then, may be less extensive in their range, but it will by and by appear that they are more intensely judicial than the seals.

*Strange as it may seem that so simple a matter should give rise to long doubt and interminable discussion, such is the fact. Perhaps the earliest interpretation on record, that of Victorinus (a martyr in Diocletian's persecution) applies the half-hour's silence to the beginning of eternal rest. And this remains the resource still of most who understand the seven seals to embrace the outline of events in providence, down to the second advent of the Lord, save that some would rather style the seventh seal a pause at His return. It is plain that the view rests mainly upon the assumption that the sixth seal introduced the day of the Lord, with its dependent sealing and palm-bearing visions representing the consummated glory of the blessed. Nobody can conceive that silence in heaven for half-an-hour would have been so viewed, unless the seal before had necessitated to their minds some such reference. And yet it is evidently unnatural; for if we had the rest, be it millennial or eternal, described fully in the close of Revelation 7, why did it need a fresh seal to inaugurate or continue it in the commencement of Revelation 8? And with what propriety, either as to time or character, is it conveyed in the seventh seal? This has led others to adopt the still stranger idea that the sixth seal closes the sequence of events, the seventh being merely indicative of a separation between this series and the parallel one of the trumpets. And the very curious circumstance is, that some who receive this anomalous arrangement have persuaded themselves that theirs is the only perfect clue to the order of the book, whereas it is nothing but hopeless confusion. That I may not be charged with injustice, let me give the following statement from Three Letters on the Prophecies, pp. 2, 3, by J. H. Frere, reprinted in 1859. "Every commentator who has hitherto written on the Apocalypse, by erroneously understanding the mention of the seventh seal having been opened, which occurs at Revelation 8: 1, to be an introduction of the events of that seal, has committed the greatest possible chronological error: embracing in the midst of the seals, and therefore amidst the events of time, the eternal state of the glorified church, represented by the vision of the palm-bearing multitude before the throne, of the preceding chapter (Rev. 7: 9-17): so that no chronological arrangement of the Apocalypse has as yet even been proposed, seeing that eternity has thus been universally introduced between the sixth and seventh seals. The Apocalypse, however, will be found really to consist of these chronological histories, viz., the seven seals, contained in Revelation 6 and 7, concluding with the vision of the eternal state; the seven trumpets, consisting of Revelation 8 to 10: 7, concluding (like the prophecy of Daniel, Revelation 12: 7) with the vision of Christ assuring His church, by the solemnity of an oath, that he regards their sufferings and sets bounds to their duration; and the little opened book (Rev. 10: 8 to 14.) concluding with the great judgment of the treading of the wine-press of Armageddon." It is manifest that this unheard of and systematic disorder is due to the great primary error that Rev. 6: 17 is a prophecy of the wrath of the Lamb, instead of being the predicted expression of men's apprehension at that early epoch of judgment. The seventh seal is rendered meaningless, the sixth seal being virtually made the seventh, and the contents of it and of the parenthetical Revelation 7 entirely misunderstood. Equally are the trumpets mistaken. They do not conclude with Christ's oath, any more than the preceding series concluded with the vision of the eternal state. Neither does the little open book conclude with Armageddon. Like the sealing and palm-bearing visions, it is a parenthesis revealed within the limits of the sixth trumpet, instead of following the seventh trumpet. The reader will, therefore, see the immense importance of steadily resisting the too common error as to the sixth seal, and will understand why I have rum the risk of repeating its confutation too frequently.

Further, we find that the very name indicates a difference. The trumpet sets forth a loud and solemn call of God. It is God summoning men; for if they have rejected His grace, they must hear, even if they forget, these sharp warnings of His judgment. The seals might not so readily have been regarded as divine interferences, unless God had beforehand told us that such they were, with their nature and their order. In themselves, and especially in the first four, they ushered in disastrous but not unprecedented occurrences. But when we come to the trumpets it is not so requisite to announce that they are heaven-sent judgments. Their sound or summons is quite plain and urgent. They appeal far more unmistakably to men.

But there is another remarkable difference and of a more spiritual nature. The Lamb disappears under these new scenes. The Lord Jesus is not spoken of in that point of view while these destructive judgments run their course. This supposes and marks a great change, and we have to enquire what God would have us to gather from it. If the Lord Jesus is introduced at all, it is in another guise or aspect, and not as the Lamb. It is not the Lamb that takes the golden censer, but an angel. I do not deny that Christ is referred to, but it. is in His angelic connection or at least in an angelic form. He is presented in a more distant way than ever the church or the Christian, as such, knows Him in. In Heb. 2 we find that the Holy Ghost reasons upon the fact of Christ's having taken the place of man. "For verily he took not on him [the nature of] angels," etc. In our version the expression is too strong and the italics a mistake. The meaning is that He did not take up the angels: they were not the object of God's calling nor of His redemption. Jesus took hold of the seed of Abraham (as it is given correctly in the margin), and because of this, "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." He did not undertake the cause of angels. He stands in no such relationship towards them. Still there is nothing, as it seems to me, to contradict the idea that the Lord Jesus may be and is intended in Revelation 8 as the officiating angel at the altar; for indeed He is the Head of everything, the head of all principality and power. Why, then, might He not be viewed here in exalted, angelic glory? The personage spoken of acts as the angel-priest. Undoubtedly it is not thus that He has to do with the heavenly saints, and that He ministers before God for us. But then the Lord at the point of time to which we are come in the prophecy, has entirely done with His ministration for the partakers of the heavenly calling, at least so far as provision for their failure is concerned; but we learn His interest in another class of saints — in "all the saints" of course — who will be upon the earth when the church has been taken up to heaven.

There is less introduction here of the suffering saints of God than anywhere else. The judgments fall almost entirely upon the world, upon men in their circumstances and persons, and finally upon men in their responsible relationship to God. Outwardly the saints would seem to be mixed up with them. This accounts for the absence of the Lamb; for wherever He appears as such in the book of the Revelation, it is Christ in His character of the holy and earth-rejected sufferer. Accordingly, the Lamb is peculiarly brought out where there are sufferers mentioned. For that word remains always true, that "when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them." He never puts them in a path of which He has not tasted the bitterest sorrow before them. Here He retires, as it were, and is only seen in comparatively distant, angelic glory.

Remark also how full of symbols the chapter is, and, from the first trumpet, of how external a kind. Everywhere mysteriousness prevails. It is not God opening out His heart of complacency in those He loves. Whenever this is the subject. He speaks as it were face to face. He is simple and explicit. Without leaving this book, take for instance Rev. 14. There He is going to speak of persons who were, or were to be, exposed to all sorts of trials, because of association with Jesus; and the first thing that we see on the mount Sion is the Lamb, and the portion of the wicked follows in the most distinct manner. So again in Rev. 12 "they overcame him [the dragon-accuser] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto death." But here we have God's dealings with the world, and the scantiest notice of His own people as separate class; and as the world has no claim on God, whatever His mercy to it, as the world has no tie with Him and only despises His love, so God speaks but of His earthly judgments in forms more and more awful. He does not bring persons so distinctly forward as in other scenes; and thus, as I conceive, even the person of the Lord Jesus is therefore not set forth evidently. For here, as elsewhere, we find that there is the most surprising harmony governing all scripture, when once the key to it. is seen.

First of all there are the angels standing before God, and they take their trumpets, the seventh seal being a sort of preparation, or a signal, for a renewed course and another class of judgment. But before this begins we have an angel-priest. There are those to whom God is faithful, for His eyes are over the righteous, and His ears open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. Though there may be but a passing glimpse at the saints, yet God would never have us to forget that even at this time there are objects of His care on the earth.

"And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given him much incense." Wherever the altar occurs without qualification, it invariably means, I believe, the brazen altar — the first means or point of contact between God and men on earth. There the holocaust was burnt, and the other offerings of sweet savour; thence was the fire taken, in order to cause the incense to ascend from its appropriate altar in the holy place. And this, as it flows from or agrees with the rest of scripture, so it is in perfect accord with its uses in the Revelation (Rev. 6: 9; Rev. 11: 1; Rev. 14: 18; Rev. 16: 7). Where the altar of incense is in question, it is characterized as "the golden altar" before the throne, or before God (Rev. 8: 3; Rev. 9: 13). Both are referred to here. Had the same altar been intended in the beginning as in the end of verse 3, the full description would surely have been furnished at the first mention rather than at the second. Nor is there more difficulty as to seeing the great altar in the heavenly vision here, than the sea or laver in Rev. 4; for according to the Jewish type they were equally in the court. At this altar then which connected the fire with the offering and acceptance of Christ, the angel stood with the golden censer pertaining to the holy of holies. The very phrase conveys to my mind that it was not his usual place: he came and stood there. In the authorised version it is said of the incense "that he should offer it with the prayers," etc. But if we take the phrase as it is given in Rev. 11, the sense becomes plainer and more just. There we read (ver. 3), "I will give power unto my two witnesses." Now it is exactly the same form of expression here, and means that He should give power to the prayers or render them efficacious. "And the smoke of the incense which came with the prayers of the saints ascended up before God," etc. (verse 4.) What is the effect of the prayers and the incense? All would feel that the Holy Ghost does not lead persons to pray for what is contrary to the mind of God, though when a mistaken prayer is offered, He will listen in His long-suffering, and knows how to teach His children the foolishness of such requests. But none can say that the Holy Ghost ever suggested or sustained a prayer which was not according to God's purpose. Observe also that incense out of the angel's hand accompanies these prayers of the saints, and they are offered up to God.

But the fifth verse records a new action: "And the angel took the censer and filled it with fire of the altar." Surely this is the brazen altar, where not the incense but the fire was burning. The result is, not the efficacy of Christ's work comes up before God in more and more sweetness (as we see in the case of the offerings put on the brazen altar in Leviticus), but that here the fire was cast into the earth, and immediately followed "thunderings, and lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake." So that thus we find evidently prayer of another character and with a different effect produced — nay, the very priest himself viewed in another manner, as compared with what is going on now. For us Jesus the Son of God has passed through the heavens, a High Priest who was in all points tempted like us, apart from sin. He died for our sins, He can sympathize with our infirmities, having suffered to the utmost both in temptation and atonement. Our God also is on a throne of grace, whence mercy and grace come forth to help in time of need. (Heb. 4.) Again, our attitude towards those without is akin; and hence supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, are and ought to be made for all men.

But here is not mercy but judgment; for though there may be the incense and the prayers of saints, the immediate issue is that the symbols of God's judgments are seen taking effect through the earth. There is perfect congruity in all the scenes that are portrayed here. Although a priest, and saints, and an altar (both altars, as it seems to me), and incense, and the censer, and the fire are all found in due order, yet it is in communion with God chastising the earth: hence too the place of comparative distance already noticed. If the Lord is brought out at all, it is as an angel and not in His full dignity as the Son of God consecrated for evermore. Of course He is always the Son of God, but He has other dignities beside, and here the prophetic vision presents Him in a totally different title and glory.

Again does it not seem an unintelligent inference, be it made by Historicalist or by Futurist, that "all the saints" is a phrase which necessarily involves the conclusion that the church of God is meant? The question must be judged by the convictions we have as to the bearing of all this part of the book. And it has been abundantly shown that, ever since Revelation 4 began, the church is viewed as already and wholly glorified in heaven. Hence the church is really out of the question here, and these are all the saints on earth subsequently for whom deliverance is prepared. The angel offers their prayers, and judgment on earth for their deliverance is the reply. The ordinary reasoning is therefore beside the mark. All the saints are of course the Lord's people — a converted class, Jewish or Gentile. That this is what scripture calls christians or the church is another matter, which the objectors would do well to inquire into.

"And the seven angels that had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound. And the first sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood," etc. The general bearing of this is apparent. These things are not to be taken in their mere obvious or physical drift. Supposing one looks at such a thing literally as a mountain falling into the sea (verse 8), would it ever turn the water into blood? Nothing of the sort. The fact is that these were pictures that passed before the eyes of the prophet. What the figures meant we have to gather from the general tenor of the word, by the teaching of the Spirit, I presume that even the prophet himself had to learn their meaning from the scriptures. For here we have St. John, not in the place of one before whom all was naked and open and at once understood, but rather simply as a Seer. He is not necessarily able, as a matter of course, to enter fully into all that is passing before him, but has need to mark, learn, and inwardly digest. We come in the Apocalypse to the ground of prophecy, and this is a different region from that in which the Holy Ghost opens out to us the things of Christ in the way of communion. Indeed what is told us of the prophet John himself throughout the book shows that he did not always nor of necessity appreciate the meaning of that which he beheld in the Spirit. In other words he saw a sort of panorama, and recorded the visions just as they appeared to himself; and we have to use the word of God by the Spirit to know what the symbols imply. We are not to suppose that the event itself will be a mere formal repetition of what the prefiguration was, but a reality answering to the foreseen shadow.*

*The excessive fancifulness and uncertainty of the schemes of interpreting the trumpets, especially of those who deny that they follow the seals and attempt to deduce a stream parallel to them, may be gleaned from the subjoined sketch drawn up by one of the ablest of themselves. "It will be enough to select nine or ten commentators, of considerable eminence and reputation, that the diversity of their views, in detail, may be seen; while there is uniform agreement in the main idea, that these trumpets denote political judgments which fell in the early ages on the Roman empire. Let us compare Mede, Cressener, Sir Isaac Newton, Whiston, and Lowman; and of living authors, Mr. Faber, Mr. Cuninghame, Mr. Frere, and Dr. Keith, with the last of whom Mr. Elliott nearly agrees in the arrangement of this part of the prophecy. The first trumpet begins, according to Lowman, in the time of Constantine; according to Mr. Cuninghame and Mr. Frere, with the death of Valentinian, A.D. 376, and ends with the death of Theodosius, A.D. 395. But Mede, Newton, Dr. Keith, and Mr. Elliott, make it begin with the death of Theodosius, and reach to the death of Alaric, A.D. 410. Cressener and Whiston include in it both periods. Mr. Faber agrees with Mode and Newton in its commencement, but continues it forty years after Alaric's death, A.D. 395-450. The second, according to Lowman, Mr. Cuninghame, and Mr. Frere, reaches from Theodosius to Alaric, the exact interval which Mede, Newton, Dr. Keith, and Mr. Elliott assign to the first. Mede refers it to the fall of the Roman sovereignty, A.D. 410-455; Cressener, to the Transalpine invasions, A.D. 410-448; Sir Isaac Newton, to the Visigoths and Vandals, 407-427; Whiston, Mr. Faber, and Dr. Keith, to the Vandals only, but within different limits, A.D. 407-460, 439-417, and 429-477 respectively. The third trumpet by Sir Isaac Newton is applied to the Vandals, A.D. 427-430; by Whiston, Mr. Cuninghame, and Dr. Keith, to Attila and the Huns, A.D. 441-452; by Mede, Cressener, and Lowman, to the troubles of Italy, or setting of the Western Caesar, A.D. 450-476; by Mr. Faber, to the same, within narrow limits, A.D. 462-476; and by Mr. Frere, to the Nestorian heresy. Lastly, the fourth is referred by Mr. Cuninghame to the fall of the empire, A.D. 455-476; by Whiston, to the extinction itself, A.D. 476; by Mede, Cressener, Lowman, and Dr. Keith, to the subsequent eclipse of Rome, A.D. 476-540; by Sir Isaac Newton, to the wars of Beliarius, A.D. 535-552; by Mr. Faber and Mr. Frere, to the reign of Phocas and the Persian invasion of the East, A.D. 602-610. The remark of Mr. Faber on these differences, in earlier writers, is very natural and just. 'While they agree that the downfall of the Roman power in the West is at least the most prominent object of the prophecy, scarcely any two expositors concur as to the division of that subject among the several trumpets, that are supposed to relate to it. The general result brought out is the subversion of the Western empire, but the particular steps are as multifarious and discordant as can well be imagined. So curious a circumstance may well be deemed the opprobrium of Apocalyptic interpretation, and may naturally lead us to suspect that the true key to the distinct application of the four first trumpets has never yet been found, or, if found, has never yet been satisfactorily used.' The natural inference from this strange variety of opinion among the best expositors is, that the historical divisions they have adopted or assumed are dim and vague, when compared with the distinctness of the emblems in the four trumpets.' — Birks' Mystery of Providence, pp. 103, 104. I must add, however, that few have exceeded Mr. B. in the loose rein he has allowed himself in applying this chapter. Verses 2-4 are called the season of intercession, and are applied to the time from Nerva till after Aurelius (A.D. 86-180) — why then, more than at any other epoch, does not clearly appear. Then verses 5, 6, are the warning and preparation (A.D. 181-248); next, verse 7, the first trumpet (A.D. 250-268), with an imaginary pause of judgment (A.D. 270-365); verses 8, 9, the second (A.D. 365-476); verses 10, 11, the third (A.D. 431-565); verse 12, the fourth (A.D. 540-622). Verse 13 might be thought to denote at least as much as the invisible pause of judgment between verses 7 and 8, but it is passed by without any chronological notice. Indeed, the first woe is made to trench even upon the fourth trumpet, being dated A.D. 609-1063, as the second A.D. 1037-1453. But I have reason to believe the author has abandoned it, and now in the main coalesces with Mr. Elliott.

Thus, when the first blast is sounded, there comes a violent tempest of hail and fire mingled with blood — the blood distinguishing it from all previous storms, as being beyond nature. This betokened or ushered in a furious, sanguinary, and destructive outburst that would agitate and rage over its sphere. "And the third* of the earth was burnt up, and the third of the trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up" (verse 7). This evidently does not refer to the literal earth, trees, or herbage. In scripture grass is the symbol commonly used to denote man in his weakness, his very glory being like the flower of grass. Human prosperity then would be set forth by green grass. Here we have a judgment of God upon it. Not a certain part only, however large, but the whole of it is destroyed. The trees represent such as are high and exalted among men. It is a very common symbol in the word of God to express those that are deeply rooted, with a lofty bearing and extensive influence here below. (Look for instance at Ezek. 31: 3; Dan. 4, etc.) Thus, then, a blow is struck at a defined part of the scene of God's moral dealings; and both the low universally, and the higher classes to a large extent, feel the ruinous effects.

*"The third" is an expression often occurring in the first four trumpets. It refers, as I conceive, to the Western part of the Roman empire. In Revelation 9 we find it again in a different connection where it must be modified in meaning; for there can be no doubt, I think, that the first two woe-trumpets (whatever may be thought of the last) find their local application in the East. In fact, this is so clear that one writer of our day would rule the use of the phrase in Revelation 8 by its undoubted oriental (or, as he perhaps would can it, Greek) reference in the following chapter. But this is obviously illegitimate, and the ordinal allusion to the third emblem of Daniel is an error. In itself "the third" defines nothing, save that there is a tri-partite division. It is equally applicable to any of the three parts: to ascertain which particularly is meant we must take the context into account.

The second blow supposes a great change; it falls on the sea, and so refers not to that sphere which is under special and settled government, but to what is or will then be in a state of confusion and anarchy. The nations which are in this condition do not remain scatheless. "And the second angel sounded: and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea; and the third of the sea became blood; and the third of the creatures which were in the sea, that had life, died; and the third of the ships were destroyed." If Jeremiah be consulted, it will be seen that these things are not explained arbitrarily or out of mere imagination. As this is not so common a judgment, it would seem that God deigns to furnish us with another example; for just where we should be likely to make mistakes, there God comes in with light and instruction. The "mountain burning with fire" represents a system of power, itself under the judgment of God and the occasion of judgment to others. In Jer. 51: 25 it is said, "Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the Lord, which destroyest all the earth; and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain." There we have what answers, in some measure, to what we have here. Babylon, in Jeremiah, was to be "a burnt mountain," hurled down from its place of eminence. Here the mountain is said to be "burning." Babylon was itself to be as a consumed or destroyed mountain. Here the mountain is the means of destroying others, as in the Jewish prophet: "O destroying mountain, saith the Lord, which destroyest all the earth."

A mountain is regularly the symbol of settled and exalted power; but here it is cast into the sea, because it is made the means of judgment to others, and not merely the object of judgment itself. The Lord Jesus Himself uses a part of the figure with regard to Israel. Seeing a fig-tree with nothing but leaves, He pronounced that no fruit should grow, nor man eat of it henceforward for ever. He had come and found no fruit upon it, only abundance of leaves. And presently the fig-tree withered away. Now almost every person who has read the word of God with care has viewed that fig-tree as the symbol of Israel, responsible to bear fruit unto God, but completely failing to do so. The fig-tree was figurative of "that generation," and in connection with this the Lord says to His disciples, "ye shall not only do this . . . . but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done." And so it was done; for no sooner had the apostles' testimony gone out to Israel, and Israel had utterly rejected what the Holy Ghost preached to them therein, than judgment came upon them. It was not merely that they bore no fruit, but there was a positive judgment and an uprooting from where they were. The mountain was cast into the sea; the place and nation of Israel completely disappeared in the mass of the Gentiles. This was much more than their merely ceasing to produce fruit. Their polity was broken up and completely vanished, just as much as a mountain would be that was torn up from its base and cast into the sea.

So here a great power, that seemed to be settled, is removed from its place, and that power is not so much shattered itself as it is made the means of suffering to others. It is burning with fire, and the consequence is destruction to the third of living creatures and ships in the sea, the whole being a figure taken from what would be the effect of a volcano cast into the sea. It is thus that the Lord fills up the picture of destruction by a great consuming power that falls upon confused masses of people, with human carnage and political anarchy as the result. There may be some more precise meaning, but I am only presenting what little I see of the symbols, independent of their application to a particular time, place, or people.

The third judgment in the series of the trumpets is of another kind. "The third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a torch, and it fell upon the third of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third of the waters became wormwood; and many of the men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." Now a star, as we have seen in an earlier chapter, though in another connection (Rev. 1: 20), is the figure of one who holds a place of subordinate authority — one who may give light to others — subject himself to another, but still ruling. Here it is a degraded ruler, a dignitary fallen from his place of authority. Waters are the symbol of people unformed, fountains are the sources of their refreshment, and a river that which characterises their course. A certain proportion is tainted by the fall of the star or ruler, which embitters whatever it touches, and many die because of the waters being made bitter. Here the infliction seems not so much of a political kind as the previous judgment; it is rather the poisoning of all that ought to be the means of blessing to man and that concerns his ordinary life.

Under the fourth trumpet there is something higher. The waters are poisoned before; but now we find that the highest authorities are touched. It is not a star that falls from heaven, but the third of the sun, and the third of the moon, and the third of the stars are smitten; "that the third of them might be darkened, and the day should not shine for the third thereof, and the night likewise." I apprehend that this is a judgment of God on the supreme as well as the inferior authorities of the world within the given range, which are all to a certain extent extinguished, or at least eclipsed.

An important question now arises — the proper fulfilment of these trumpet judgments. It is evident, however, that the answer must depend on the still larger issue of the time and condition to which the prophetic vision in general applies. For this is no matter of detail, but of broad principle, and it is not for me to deny the immense practical consequences of the true application on the one hand, or of views which mislead on the other. Believing that the seven epistles had an immediate literal bearing on the actual Asiatic assemblies of St. John's day, I for one cannot doubt that the seals prefigured the course of the Roman Empire from that epoch onward, and that they have thus had an application by no means immaterial (substantially as the ordinary historical system insists) down to the overthrow of paganism and the nominal supremacy of Christianity, with the natural results of vast accessions of souls from Israel in a measure, but far more from the Gentiles in that sphere and day. According to this idea, the early trumpets appear to me almost of necessity to refer: first, to the Gothic invasions of Alaric, Rhadagaisus, etc.; secondly, to the depredations of Genseric and his Vandals; thirdly, to the "scourge of God," as Attila the Hun was pleased to entitle himself; and fourthly, to the memorable era signalised by the extinction of the Roman empire in the west.

But fully allowing these intimations to be contained within the scope of the visions thus far, it is to my own mind manifest that the seven epistles are stamped with the most comprehensive aims, and from strong internal marks imply the varying phases which the house of God in its protracted existence here below would assume, till the Lord removes the faithful to heaven, keeping them out of the hour of temptation which awaits the earthly-minded, and spueing out of His mouth the self-complacent mass of Christendom. In harmony with this continuous and successive view of the churches, which in one shape or another has commended itself to godly and discerning enquirers of different ages, the most simple interpretation of Revelation 4 and 5 is, that they suppose the rapture and glorification of the church of the firstborn to have taken place, and that Revelation 6 et seqq. begin to receive their grand fulfilment subsequent to that event. It is easy for an ingenious mind to conjure up difficulties and to muster objections in formidable array: no part of scripture, nor truth revealed in it, is exempt from exposure to attacks exactly similar. But nobody can deny that, going by the sacred text itself, this is the most natural way of taking Rev. 4, 5, or that the common theory leaves these admirable scriptures without adequate adaptation to the then circumstances, whether we look at the scene as a whole or at the particular figures therein exhibited. Their occurrence here, on the ordinary view, is an enormous, unexplained and perhaps, it may be added, inexplicable difficulty; but with the rapture of the saints, then an accomplished fact as the key, they are a beautiful and needed preface to all that follows.

Nor this only; for Rev. 6 and the chapters that succeed raise the fundamental question, whether churches or Christians, in the proper sense of the terms, are any longer involved in the scenes they depict on earth, when their full, and not merely their inchoate, accomplishment is in progress. Why should writers on prophecy, without anything like reasonable show of evidence, assume the affirmative? Why not prove it, if they can? The more indispensable the point may be to the popular system, the less satisfactory to unbiassed persons it seems to find its advocates preserving a silence so absolute, not indeed as regards reiterating, and reasoning from that assumption, but as to attempting a demonstration. Who can allege that the proposition is self-evident? Who does not know that there are many intelligent students of the prophetic word who believe that not the church but a godly Jewish remnant, with Gentiles converted but separate, are the parties contemplated and directly concerned in the struggles of the latter day? Is it not worth discussing? What prophetic question more vital or more comprehensive? It would not be charitable to impute this singular reticence to a feeling of contempt for their brethren, neither would it be fair to insinuate that they are conscious of their own inability to give some appearance of scriptural proof in favour of their sentiments.

We deny that these prophecies, precious as they are for our profit, are fully, much less exclusively, about the church: if any assert that such is the case, on them lies the burden of proving it. It is simply taken for granted. Would it not be better to gather up and present, as forcibly as may be, the evidence which strikes their own minds? We appeal to the very scriptures in debate, some as clearly evincing a glorified condition of the Christian body in heaven, before the earthly judicial events transpire, others as clear that Jews and Gentiles, distinct from each other and not associated in one body like the church, are after this seen on earth, and that they are the real objects in the crisis of the close. If we are right, a vast amount of the differences among those who study the subject would be decided without further contest. Why then waste time in the shallow fields of Germanising Praeterists or of Romanising Futurists? Why not grapple with the evidence produced by Christians who are, through God's mercy, at least as far removed from Babylon as the most zealous of Protestants can pretend to be? If this, as I am sure, be the sound and satisfactory interpretation, we are not compelled to bend the past into a reluctant and far-fetched accomplishment, nor are we at liberty to explain away the frequent and obvious indices of the future. It satisfies all just requirement that there be an unforced and general resemblance, sufficient to show the direct finger of God, yet not such as to exhaust the prediction, but rather to leave room for a still closer final application when the saints, body and soul, are above.

"And I beheld and heard an eagle* flying through mid-heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the dwellers on the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels which are yet to sound" (verse 13). It was an eagle, I believe, which John saw here, an angel in Rev. 14: 6, to which our verse may have been assimilated, if the two words were not confounded by mere carelessness. The eagle's flight in mid-heaven was the dark and most suited harbinger of coming woe. Nor is there any real difficulty in its loud utterance; for the altar itself is, in the true text, made to speak in Revelation 16: 7.

*Mr. E. refers after Zullig to the "learned critic" Wolf's preference of the common text. I doubt that he would have cited such an auxiliary, if he had been aware that the main object of the Curae Philol. seems to be the maintenance of the received readings against the best authorities, and especially in opposition to Bengel. Besides, he is far from positive in this, though greatly suspecting αἐτοῦ. "Quod si tamen aquilae mentio facta censeri debeat, malim omnino cum Seideliano codice et Primasio legere ἀγγέλου ὡς αἐτοῦ πετωμένου. " — (C. P., vol. v. p. 514.)

We have had the preliminary judgments ushered in by the first four trumpets. They dealt, to a certain extent, with man's prosperity high or low — first, in the settled ordered system, and next in a state of confusion; then the blow fell on the means of human enjoyment, turned into bitterness and destruction; and lastly, the whole fabric of political rule, supreme and subordinate, has to suffer a notable eclipse.* Thus, it was a judgment of circumstances, rather than a personal visitation. But we also see a closing intimation of still deeper inflictions, marked off in the most definite way from the series that preceded: "Woe, woe, woe, to those that dwell on the earth," etc. The unsealed do not escape in the first; the third of men are killed in the second. Under the last we come, in a general way, to the end of all.

*I know but must demur to the reasoning of Mr. E. in behalf of the supposition that the literal and the symbolical are mingled in these trumpets. The general examples of figure and fact from Ps. 22 prove nothing for such a book as the Apocalypse. The real question, as he feels himself, is one of admitting literal geography into obviously symbolical prophecies. So, again, an incidental allusion (as in Ezek. 27: 26; Ezek. 32: 6, 7; Ps. 80: 8, 11; Jer. 3: 6,) is not fairly to be compared with an elaborate orderly series of symbolical images, as in our prophecy, where earth and sea have a definite meaning, quite independent of literal locality; the former referring to the scene of settled government, and the latter to a state of anarchy (cf. Rev. 12: 12; Rev. 13: 2, 11). Indeed, the instances of Rev. 13: are admitted on all hands. It is most natural, therefore, to adhere to the same sense of the prophetic language in our chapter. The meaning afforded also seems simple and excellent, without the incongruous mixture contended for. And as we saw under the seals, so here in the trumpet series, the fourth, not to speak of the third, presents an insuperable barrier. For surely, we must take the heavenly luminaries in a homogeneous sense; and how then can these be understood literally? The occurrence of the figure in the woe-trumpets would not have been so conclusive; for a difference there is, when we enter on the fifth trumpet. But it is in the fourth that we have sun, moon, and stars smitten. If these, then, are confessedly symbolical, why cut the thread of consistency? why not interpret the three preceding trumpets, as to land, sea, river, and fountains, in a kindred spirit? The sole reason I can conceive for the opposite course is the difficulty that is found in adapting the successive inroads of the barbarians, in a sufficiently definite form, to the various trumpet-blasts. But even so, what ineffectual effort and uncertainty after all! If I understand the Horae A., i. in loco, "the burning of trees and herbage" is viewed physically by one who is generally the intrepid antagonist of literalism in the mouths of his Futurist friends. Why not expound the burning of the third of the earth, which critics admit must be received into the text? Taken figuratively, all is easy and plain, as well as harmonious. Again, if the thunders, lightnings, voices, and earthquake in Revelation 8: 5 are answered by the primary insurrection of the Goths under Alaric, immediately after the death of Theodosius the Great, what is the analogous reference of the lightnings, voices, and thunders of Revelation 4: 5? Mr. Birks has urged repeated instances where the prefiguration ill accords with Mr. E.'s alleged fulfilment in history; but I am not careful to insist on such points.

"The dwellers on earth" may have a local significance, especially during the great final crisis. But it appears to me that a survey of the various occurrences of the phrase warrants the conclusion that a moral force is the chief and most prominent intention of the Spirit. Twice has it been seen in the Apocalypse before this, and it plays an increasingly grave part as we draw near the close. First it is found in the epistle to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, where the Lord promises to keep those who kept the word of His patience, from the hour of temptation, which is to come upon all the habitable world, to try them that dwell on the earth. (Rev. 3: 10.) The reason, I suppose, why the earthly-minded are brought out so distinctly there is, because the church in question supposes an unusual apprehension of Christ, and this in a heavenly way, both as to present enjoyment of Him, and as to the hope of His return. Hence the contrast of the portion of those whose hearts were here below. They shall eat the bitter fruit of their choice when the great tribulation comes, as those whose affections are set on heavenly things will then actually be where they dwell now in spirit. Next under the fifth seal (Rev. 6: 10) the souls of the early Apocalyptic sufferers are represented as calling upon the Sovereign Lord to judge and avenge their blood on "them that dwell on the earth." These will then have broken out into relentless, deadly persecution against the witnesses, whom God will have on earth when the seals are being fulfilled. Now under the woe-trumpets, we find them to be the special objects. Further details we must defer till we come to the chapters that treat of them more particularly.

Revelation 9

A prefatory remark I may be permitted to make is, that our chapter furnishes an incidental proof that the trumpets are not coincident with the seals. For the sealing, was given in the large parenthesis (Rev. 7) which followed the sixth seal, whereas it is referred to, not after the sixth trumpet, but before it. This could not be if the two series of judgments ran parallel to each other. The natural, and I believe true, inference is, that the seals had finished their course before the trumpets begin, so that when the fifth trumpet sounds the first "woe," the men of the earth fall under its predicted torment, those who were sealed being referred to as in the scene, but exempted from the scourge. How could there be a commission to hurt nothing but those men who have not the seal of God, if there had been no sealing yet? If the sealing had already taken place, parallelism there is not between the respective seals and trumpets, nor can they even harmonize in point of time. They are consecutive, and not concurrent, and the last seal, as we have seen, is the mere prelude of silence for the new series of divine plagues to commence. How could that be if they were to be accomplished side by side? For if the first six seals confessedly follow in regular order, the seventh must be the last in accomplishment, as well as in revelation; but the seventh, instead of shadowing some additional dealing in providence like its predecessors, is only a brief pause in heaven ushering in another and more severe class of decreed judgments. And of these trumpets we must now enter upon the fifth and sixth (that is, the first two woes), to which Rev. 9 is devoted.

"And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fallen from heaven unto she earth; and to him was given the key of the pit of the abyss. And he opened the pit of the abyss; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And out of the smoke came locusts unto the earth, and to them was given power as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, nor any tree, but the men who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads" (verses 1-4).

The star fallen from heaven to earth is a dignitary in an apostate state; for a real personage is intended, as the next words show — "to him was given the key of the pit of the abyss." The allusion seems evident to Isaiah 14: 12, where the king of Babylon is taunted with "How art thou fallen, O Lucifer [i.e., day-star], son of the morning? . . . . Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." Here it is not his doom, but the authority he was permitted to exercise over the abyss, which is the expression of the source of Satanic evil and misery. "He opened the pit of the abyss, and there arose a smoke out of it, as the smoke of a great furnace," the symbol of a delusion which darkens the mind of man. "The sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit." The supreme power and all healthful social influence suffer pre-eminently from its blinding effects. Nor was this the sole result. "Out of the smoke came locusts," the figure of the aggressive instruments of rapine, and these clothed with a singular power of torment, "as the scorpions of the earth have power." The command given shows, I think very plainly, the error of such as apply the locusts in a literal way. They were not to hurt the grass of the earth, etc., that is, their natural food, if real locusts were meant. Men were to be the objects of these symbolic depredators-men, save God's sealed ones. And yet it was the destiny of these marauders not to kill, but to torment men five months (verse 5). It is a limited predatory chastisement, not judgment-day. "And their torment [was] as the torment of a scorpion when it striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death fleeth from them" (verse 6). Nothing on earth can exceed the agony of conscience which will be inflicted on their victims. It is a yet stronger colouring of wretchedness than that in which Jeremiah (Jer. 8: 3) depicts the desolated and dispersed Jews in all the places whither they should be driven in the Lord's sore displeasure.

But there is a further description. "And the likenesses of the locusts [were] like horses prepared for battle; and [there were] on their heads as it were crowns of gold; and their faces [were] as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as [the teeth] of lions. And they had breastplates as it were iron breastplates, and the sound of their wings [was] as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they have tails like scorpions, and stings;* and their power [was] in their tails to hurt men five months. They have as king over them the angel of the abyss; his name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon; and in the Greek tongue he hath the name Apollyon" (verses 7-11).

*The common reading is followed by the authorised version, "and there were stings: and their power was to hurt men five mouths."

They were not mere plunderers, but had warlike energy, and they claimed for their onward-rushing career the righteous sanction of God, whose image and glory they bore outwardly, whereas in truth they were thoroughly subject to man and Satan too. Ferocity is theirs, and hearts steeled against every emotion of pity in their swift career. But their worst power was the venom of falsehood which followed. It was the energy of false doctrine, represented by the scorpion sting in the tail. And we know from elsewhere, "the prophet that speaketh lies, he is the tail."

Finally, the king is the angel of the abyss, the same perhaps as the fallen star, who had the key of the pit. If so, it is a dark Satanic destroyer, if not Satan. It is in this world that the devil is so exalted, its prince; he is ruler also of the power of the air and the god of this age. In the abyss he will be bound as a prisoner for a long season; in hell he will be tormented for ever and ever, the most miserable object there, and in no wise ruling as king in either the one or the other. So poets dream; but not so says the scripture.

"And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels that are bound at the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, that were prepared for* the hour and day and month and year, for to slay the third of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen [was] two† myriads of myriads I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and those that sat on them, having breastplates fiery and hyacinthine and brimstone-like; and the heads of the horses [were] as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three plagues was the third of men killed, by the fire, and the smoke, and the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. For the power of the horses is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and wood: which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts" (verses 13-21).

*Mr. Elliott seems singularly unfortunate in his remarks on the Greek text. Thus, in verse 15, he contends for the strangest possible version of εἰς as = after, or at the expiration of, the aggregated period in question; and he twice in i. p. 518,519, speaks of ἀποκτεῖναι, a form and import different from ἵνα ἀποκτείυωσιν, the true phrase beyond all doubt, as he gives it in p. 521. It needs no reasoning to see that the action is not momentary but continuous, and that the preposition therefore has its ordinary sense, as Mr. Birks has properly remarked.

†Mr. E. is quite wrong (H. A., i. p. 480, note) in supposing that Griesbach prefers altogether to reject the δύο. Michaelis considers it "a very improbable reading" in the ill-considered and unsound last chapter of his Introduction. No such doubt is expressed, but, on the contrary, δύο is the reading preferred, both in Griesbach's first and second edition, and in the London reprint, 1810, 1818. This odd mistake is repeated in yet stronger terms in note 2 to p. 605, where it is said that Griesbach, on external evidence, prefers the more simple reading μ. μ. "which seems to me preferable on internal also." The common text, read by many cursives, turns out to be that of the Sinai MS., and its equivalent in sense appears in the Alexandrian and the Porphyrian uncials, and a few good later copies. B and very many others, supported by the Arabic of the Polyglotts and a Slav. MS., but contrary to all other ancient versions, omit δύο. Matthaei follows them in that reading, which is the easier of the two. All other editors of note, like Griesbach, retain the δύο, δὑς, or δίς.

It is the voice of the Lord, no doubt, which is heard from the horns of the golden altar. But what a solemn sound is this — above all, issuing thence? For ordinarily that altar is the special witness of His all-prevailing intercession. Thence the incense rose up before God. It was the horns of the brazen altar merely which received the blood of the sin-offering, when an individual sinned, whether a ruler or one of the common people. But when the whole congregation were guilty, the priest was commanded to put some of the victim's blood on the horns of the golden altar; for the communion of the people as a whole was interrupted, and needed to be restored. Here how different! The voice from the four horns of the golden altar orders the angel of the sixth trumpet to loose the four angels that were up to that time bound at (or by) the Euphrates. There they had been prepared for (not "an," but) the hour and day and month and year to slay the third of men. They were prepared, not during that time, much less when it was expired, but with a view to it: when that hour and day and month and year arrived, or rather until the term was over, they were ready to accomplish their prescribed slaughter. They destroyed men by apostacy.

Still, if it be terrible to hear such a signal from the altar of incense, how comforting to think that all in the judgment is so minutely ordered and fore-ordained of the Lord! He it is who first gives the word, and gives it to the holy angel. The angel again looses the four bound at the Euphrates. The evil can only act when and as far as is allowed of the good, and the good, however they may excel in strength, only do His commandments, hearkening unto the voice of His word. The notion that we are to identify the four here with the angels who restrained the winds in Rev. 7 is strange, seeing that contrast is marked, not resemblance. Here they are not restraining but restrained, which is nowhere said of the holy angels. There they stood at the four corners of the earth, as separate as they could be; here all are bound in the same spot.

As to the character of the second woe itself, it is not torment like the first, but destruction of life. Not that there is no element of false prophecy here, as also was there; "for the power* of the horses," it is said, "is in their mouth and in their tails: for their tails [are] like serpents, and have heads, and with them they do hurt." That is, venomous error they propagated and left behind them, and this with more settled plan than in the locust-woe. The locusts in the first woe had scorpion-like tails and stings: the horses in the second had serpent-like tails, which had heads. But they had power in their mouth also. "And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and those that sat on them, having breastplates of fire and jacinth, and like brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths proceeded fire and smoke and brimstone." It is the judicial power of Satan, as far as God permits that. Besides, it far surpasses in energy and aggressive destructive warfare the preceding woe. This was spiritual — evilly so, of course; the second is more destructive, though in its train follows the injury of the enemies' delusion and falsehood. It seems also more varied as far as leaders go; for the other had but one, this had four angelic agents at the head.

*In note 5 top. 513 of the Horae Apoc., vol. i., Mr. E. omits, "Mill reads" in his last edition, and contents himself with the remark "αἱ εξουσιαι αυτων, 'their authorities are in their tails,' is the notable reading in some MSS. The word is similarly used in the plural, Luke 12: 11; Rom. 13: 1, etc." How strange is the effect of a system! The truth is that the plural here is due to Erasmus's which R. Stephens followed! And Mill's text is merely third edition with some errata corrected. It is clear from Mill's note that the evidence is entirely adverse. There is not a shadow of doubt that the singular is right; and probably αἱ γὰρ οὐραί led to αἱ γὰρ ἐξουσίαι.

"And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues repented not," etc. Humbling lesson, and most needful to remember! God has been sending judgment upon judgment, first on men's circumstances, and then on themselves, and in this last case torment, and finally death itself. But it is in vain. Such is man after all this, that he repents not of his evil, either religiously or morally. Satan's last effort remains.

The reader will perceive that I am merely anxious to present the leading feature of each woe, as far as I am enabled, so as in some measure to help souls to the understanding of the prophecy. This, he will remember, is a very distinct thing from the application of a Prophecy. The question of the persons, or places, or times alluded to, may be deeply interesting, but it is subordinate to the understanding of the book.

For my own part, I do not doubt that the common application of the locusts to the Saracens and of the Euphratean horsemen to the Turks is well founded. But we have seen repeatedly that the fulfilment of the. Revelation cannot properly be before the heavenly saints are caught up, and the earthly people are once more the objects of God's dealings on the earth and in their own land, though by no means to the exclusion of divine testimony and its blessed effects among the Gentiles. According to this later and final accomplishment, the second woe would be fulfilled, I suppose, in the early ravages of the north-eastern (or Assyrian) armies, as the first might be antichrist's delusive agency in the land of Palestine. I conceive that when the prophecy will be realised in all its precision, the scene where these mysterious locusts are to enact their bitter but transitory torment will be the land where at that time the Jews will have largely gathered, but as regards the mass in unbelief. The unsealed naturally points to them and most probably to their land. For it will be noticed that there is no "third" under this trumpet to intimate the direction of the woe, nor any index that I observe, save the exemption of the sealed. The rest of the Jews were still in judicial blindness, and are the implied objects of this judgment. If they are the preparatory movements of these two powers, each is as decidedly opposed to the other as both are to the Lord Jesus: they are to be successively judged and destroyed when He comes in power and glory.

It is interesting to observe that the same chapter of Isaiah (Isa. 14), which I referred to as an illustration of the star fallen from heaven (i.e., the chief personage under the first woe), treats also of the Assyrian enemy, which I judge to be the full meaning of those who figure under the second woe. "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand; that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot; then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (verses 24-27.) The difference is that Isaiah gives us the end of their career for the deliverance of Israel, while St. John shows, us rather its beginning and course, as a scourge upon apostate Judaism and Christendom. It would be a mistake to limit Isaiah to the bygone history, or to take the past as more than a type of the future' however important in its day. For in the history the Assyrian fell first, and Babylon's doom was long after. In the prophecy it is the last representative of Babylon (i.e., the beast of the crisis,) who is destroyed first, and then he who answers to the great Assyrian leader of the nations shall come to his end, and none shall help him. So it is written in Isaiah 10: 12, "Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks," etc. Our chapter of the Revelation gives us some of the early policy of the Assyrian, if not of antichrist, or of their respective parties.

According to the more vague and protracted historical application, which I conceive to have been comprehended in the divine purpose of these visions, it may be asked how this chapter is to be understood. I have already briefly shown how the earlier trumpets brought us down to the extinction of the Western Roman empire. Pursuing the same thread, the fifth trumpet has a distinct bearing upon the Saracenic infliction, as the sixth refers to the furious onset of the Turks. Hence one is quite willing to allow the general reference of the fallen star to Mohammed, who was the instrument of Satan in opening on the world the delusion of the abyss, with all its darkening effects. Certainly the description suits in many of its characteristic features, not the gradual growth and spread of the doctrinal and moral pravities of Christendom, but that host of marauders who, embracing with ardour the hell-inspired creed of the Arabian false prophet, sprang forth on their ambitious and fanatical career. Not that I can accept without serious drawback much that has been made of the local or national significance of the locusts and the scorpions, the horses and the lions, the faces of men, the hair of women, and the breastplates of iron. For instance, it is plain that the nation, whose rapid devastation of Palestine is portrayed in Joel 2 (the prototype of the Apocalyptic locusts), has nothing to do with the Saracens or Arabia, but is rather the northern array, "the Assyrian," of which the Jewish prophets so often speak Compare also Nahum 3: 17, the reference of which confirms the same thing. An exactly similar argument applies to the use of "scorpions" as in Ezek. 2: 6, where it is used figuratively as here, but with not the most distant glance at the robbers of the desert. As to the "horses" the very next vision of the Euphratean warriors refutes the notion of a geographical reference; for the Turks are a totally distinct race and emerged from a different quarter; and yet horses are just as prominent here as in the prophecy of their precursors.* Also, in the one we have the heads, in the other the teeth, of "lions." This therefore destroys anything like an exclusively distinct usage, not to speak of the manifold application which other scriptures indicate. The truth is that the Spirit is making up an apt and complete symbolic picture, and in no way ties Himself to the animals, etc., peculiar to the country.

*Compare also what some of these very writers found upon the horses of Rev. 6. Egypt is the first power historically celebrated for its horses. (Ex. 15.) So it was the great market in Solomon's day (1 Kings 10: 28), as Togarmah was for Tyre. (Ezek. 27: 14.) See Isaiah 31: 1, 3. In Zechariah they symbolize the various imperial powers.

To my mind the intention is moral, not geographical; and this kind of teaching detracts from the real force of Scripture, occupying the mind with that which may be partially true in a natural way, but not I believe the object of the Holy Ghost. Hence does it not seem almost trifling to extract from the faces of men, the hair of women, and crowns like gold, an allusion to beard or moustache, coupled with literal flowing hair, surmounted by a turban? Taken as emblems of character, the dignity of the divine word is vindicated and felt. The locusts naturally point to countless swarms, devouring in specified limits, but more distinguished by the tormenting sting of false doctrine. The unsealed, the men of the earth, were the victims of the scourge, but the object was a conquering propagandism: not the extinction of prosperity, but rather the maintenance of it at the expense of the truth, and this for a limited period. The resemblance to horses prepared for battle is the expression of their aggressive attitude, and the crowns like gold seem to intimate their vaunted confidence in a divinely-righteous mission of victory. Their faces as of men, but with the hair of women, may denote that, with all their claim to act authoritatively in the name of God, they were nevertheless subject to the merest human authority, and not to God after all. The iron breastplates, the lion-teeth, the sounding wings, I regard as the figure of the unflinching courage of fanaticism (their strongest armour), and the ferocious depredations that accompanied their wonderfully rapid warfare. The Hebrew name of their king confirms, in my opinion, the full reference to the special wasting of the Jews, as also a connection with the Eastern Empire may be implied in the Greek.

I have thus rehearsed the spiritual significance of the first woe's emissaries, stating particularly what might be supposed to prefigure the past accomplishment, according to which the five months, of course, must be taken as months of years. But I protest against the arbitrariness of interpreting one part of the account literally and the other figuratively. Again, if we examine it closely, the utmost allowable is some such partial incipient accomplishment. For it is plain that the prophet of Mecca was more like a rising star than a fallen dignitary; insomuch that Mede, with the earlier writers in general, applies it to Satan, as others to the Pope, etc. Again, the command not to kill is very hard to reconcile with the exterminating policy of the Saracenic incursions; and the term of 150 years has been doubled by some of great weight, because of a repeated mention (but compare Rev. 20), in order to eke out a more plausible solution. Even this improbable inference from the twofold statement of the five months labours under its own difficulties, as others have sufficiently shown.

As regards the second woe, the first difficulty which the protracted view has to encounter is the meaning of the four angels that were bound by the Euphrates. Most of the Protestant school apply them to four Mussulman powers, either successive or contemporaneous. But, says Mr. Elliott,* "the interpretations are found on examination to be one and all inadmissible. As the commissioning and loosening of the four angels in vision was but a single act, so the agencies symbolized must necessarily have been at one and the same time loosed or commissioned: by which consideration alone all such successions of destroying agencies seemed excluded, as Vitringa and after him Woodhouse have suggested in explanation. And as to contemporary Turkman dynasties, whether we refer to the list given by Mede, and by Newton after him, or that by Faber and by Keith, from Mills and Gibbon, there is no quaternion of them that can be shown either to have combined together in the destruction of the Greek empire, — to have been all locally situated by the Euphrates, — to have had existence at the time asserted to be that of the commissioning of the four angels, — or to have continued in existence up to the time of the completion of the commission given, in the destruction of the Greek empire. In short, the manifest inconsistency with historic fact of every such attempted solution has been hitherto, in the minds of the more thoughtful and learned prophetic students, like as it were a millstone about the neck of the whole Turkish theory of interpretation." This at least is a candid confession, especially when we consider that it is about a prophecy which has been acquiesced in more generally than any other perhaps in the Apocalypse.

*Horae Apoc., i. pp. 488, 490.

But what is the view suggested that is to leave the general application unencumbered? The resource of superhuman angelic intelligences directing the subordinate human energies, and this without reference to the number of earthly instruments employed. In fact Mr. E. identifies these angels at the Euphrates with the angels parenthetically introduced in the sixth seal (Rev. 7), and reasons from the assumption that the judgments of the preceding trumpets were the probable results of their actings. But this, it is clear, does not hang well together with the scheme which insists that the fallen star of the first woe was not an angelic being but Mohammed. Consistency would demand, one would think, that if the angel of the abyss in the preceding trumpet sets forth a man, these four must represent similar leaders. Certainly these are in contrast with the angels whose office it was rather to restrain the winds than to urge on their devastating blasts. All the accessory circumstances strengthen their distinction. Again, the use made of the fire and smoke and brimstone which issued out of the horses' mouths, as if they prefigured the Turkish artillery, of the breastplates of fire and jacinth and brimstone, as an allusion to the Ottoman warlike apparel of scarlet, blue, and yellow, and of the serpent-like horsetails having heads, as the emblem of Turkish pashas, seems to me both inconsistent with other parts of the Apocalypse, and (shall I say?) grotesque in itself.

I deny not the application of the horsemen and horses to the past inroads of the Turks, as distinguished from their Saracen predecessors, devoting themselves to their destructive task in the Eastern Roman or Greek empire, with far more of system, and with more permanent results. In their fierce career they breathed out in no slight measure, along with all the old diabolical delusion, an infernal spirit of judgment; and as were their weapons, such was their armour. Fire and brimstone represent the most extreme form of divine judgment; for they are the same symbols used of the lake of fire at the end of all things into which the wicked dead, after their resurrection and judgment, are to be cast. Again, it was this peculiarly Satanic power, not like the scorpion now, but the serpent, to which the Holy Ghost draws attention as the grand source of mischief. The moral false-prophet action is there, and this too invested with authority; for the tails had heads, and with them they do hurt. Throughout the permitted sphere the result was the utter extinction of Christian profession, while the rest, alas! heeded not the warning. But these features, in my judgment, involve elements still more terrible than anything yet seen on earth; so that all confirms me in the conviction that we must look for another and final answer to the imagery, in the last scourge for the corrupt and idolatrous East.* An awful sketch is given after the judgment has run its course: "And the Test of the men who were not killed by these plagues repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold and silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk; neither repented they of their murders nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornications, nor of their thefts." Thus even the apostacy of those who fell under the scourge from God fails to awaken the seared consciences of men, all the worse for having seen but slighting the light of the gospel. Nothing then remains but a state of abandonment to all immorality and superstition.

*It may be seasonable here to notice briefly Dr. D. M'Causland's Latter Days of Jerusalem and Rome. He regards (pp. 212, 213) the flood prevailing 150 days upon the earth as the type of the fifth trumpet visitation; but why the destruction of all flesh should typify the torment, not the death, of the future victims, does not appear. The sixth trumpet, he thinks, confirms this, because the time prescribed there (391 days and an hour) carries us down, if reckoned on the scale of a day for a year, from the deluge to the epoch of the judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. Now supposing there were no chronological objections, where is the congruity of taking the five months literally in the first woe, and the hour and day and month and year symbolically in the second? Besides, here again the destruction in the type exceeds the proportion of the antitype; and, what is more material, our Lord applies both the deluge and the destruction of Sodom to the days of the Son of man, and the day when He is revealed. These would answer to Rev. 19, not to Revelation 9, which discloses preliminary chastisements. Still less can I accept the singular idea that the four angels or their chivalry set forth Israel and Ephraim flying on the shoulders of the Philistines towards the west, and purging away the filth of Jerusalem. For "the men" he conceives to be the unsealed, who were to be tormented but not killed by the antichristian locusts: the horsemen of Israel finish the work.

The same friend who directed Mr. E.'s attention to Griesbach's citation of ἀνέμους and ἄνεμοι from 30 (Cod. Guelph. of the fourteenth century) for ἀγγ in verses 14, 15, recalls this variation to me. It is also supported by 98. (Cod. Bodl. Can. of the sixteenth century.) But I agree with the editors in general that it is barely worth a notice.

Revelation 10

Some will remember a resemblance already pointed out between the two orders of seals and trumpets. When we come to the sixth in each series, there is an interruption of a most interesting kind. We saw that after the sixth seal there was such an episode, not of judgment but of mercy — God interfering on behalf of man, after the most signal convulsion among men and things on the earth; and not only so, but the powers of the heavens also shaken. Then we found God showing us that in the midst of judgment He remembers mercy. For there was the sealing of a full complement out of the twelve tribes of Israel, and besides clear and affecting proof was furnished that the poor Gentiles were not forgotten. Thus, when the prophet looks, he sees a countless multitude out of all nations, and kindreds, and peoples, and tongues. These were evidently delivered by the great goodness of God, and come out of that terrible tribulation that is yet to be. Now in Rev. 9 we have had the sixth trumpet; and, answering to what we have seen in the seals, there is an interruption between it and the seventh trumpet, which is only announced in Rev. 11: 15. There is a vision described of a very marked, and, considering the visions that accompanied all the trumpets, of an extraordinary character. A mighty angel comes down from heaven, who appears to be the Lord Himself So we saw in a previous chapter the angel-priest at the golden altar, putting incense to the prayers of the saints which He offered up to God. And I suppose few would imagine that God could commit this service of the heavenly sanctuary to any mere created being. In the Old Testament Jehovah had occasionally assumed an angelic form; and as this book brings us back to a great deal which is akin to the Jewish Scriptures, herein may be one reason why we have Christ thus taking the form of an angel. As before the trumpets were blown, the angel who gave the signal for all was seen in a priestly point of view, here he is in power preparing the way of the kingdom. Accordingly there is every circumstance of majesty surrounding him.

"And I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud." The cloud, as any one will recollect who is conversant with scripture idea and phrase, was the well-known badge of Jehovah's presence. When the Lamb's blood was shed and Israel were being led out of the land of their bondage, God Himself went before them as the angel of the covenant, and the cloud was the visible form or token of it. (Ex. 13: 21; Ex. 23: 20, 23; Ex. 40: 36, 38; Num. 9: 15-23.) In the angel that we have here there is much that seems to indicate the presence of the Lord Himself, laying claim to the possession of the world at large. One remarkable sample may be remembered even in the New Testament, at the time when there was a little foreshadowing given of the coming kingdom. Now what was it that testified to the immediate presence of God? and what made Peter and John tremble, accustomed though they were to the company of Jesus and to the most marvellous effects of His power? "They feared as they entered into the cloud," because the cloud was the known and peculiar mark of Jehovah's presence.

Here then, I think, it was no mere creature, but the Creator Himself, who took the form of an angel. It may be too the Lord retreating, if one may so say, from all that would have linked Him manifestly and directly with His people, and this for a very solemn reason. His people during the trumpets are supposed to have, only not wholly, lost their distinctive separation and to be sunk down into the world, so that God morally could not own in a public way His connection with them. In Hebrews 11 it is said of certain believers that God was not ashamed to be called their God. Alas! there are saints of whom God would be ashamed to be called their God. It was not so with the early patriarchs, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: God was their God. But He never calls Himself the God of Lot. This is a serious matter for thought, and our hearts ought to watch against anything that could make Him ashamed to be called our God. It has been alluded to before, when we noticed that the Lord is never spoken of in this series as the Lamb, because the people of God will have got so much mixed up with unbelievers. When these judgments fall, the saints will be painfully merged in the world, so that much of the chastisement will come upon both. Remember also that the Lord tells us the slips of His people that we may be warned by them. How sad to use the prophecy of unfaithfulness in order to justify it, and to attribute the effects of our unbelief to the providence of God!

At the time of the trumpets there is an ominous silence as to the people of God. There is just an allusion to their exemption from the torment of the apostates in Revelation 9: 4; but this is the only distinct reference till the parenthesis of Revelation 10 and 11 if you apply the seals and trumpets to the past history of the world, the meaning is so plain that most thoughtful Christians have agreed in the main. Constantine brought in Christianity by force of arms. The consequence of this was the great downfall of Paganism, with intimations of mercy by the by, and the seventh seal was followed by silence in heaven for about half an hour. No false expectation could be there. God knew that, so far from the world being made really better by that astonishing change, all would end in the frightful consequences of grace abused, corrupted, and despised. The vast body which had given up idolatry for the profession of Christianity would ripen for judgment. The immediate result here is the coming in of these trumpets. And what then? God was ashamed of Christendom; heaven was silent now, and yet we know joy is felt there over one sinner that repents. It was, externally at least, a swamp of forms; and where was the Rock of salvation? Alas! He is once more lightly esteemed.

Connected with this, I think, the Lord Jesus is no longer spoken of as the Son of man, much less as the Lamb, if seen here, He is in angelic guise. And as before (in order to distinguish Him particularly from all others) He was engaged with the incense at the golden altar; so here we find He was "clothed with a cloud" — the badge of Jehovah's glory; "and the rainbow [was] over his head," that is, the pledge of God's unchanging covenant with creation. "His face [was] as it were the sun." The sun is ever the symbol of supreme glory in rule, and the face of this angel is said to be like the sun. So it was on the holy mount (Matt. 17: 2), and when John saw his Lord again at Patmos. (Rev. 1: 16.) "His feet as pillars of fire" united, it would seem, the solidity of the "pillar" and the thorough final judgment that is so constantly conveyed by "fire." He plants the left on the sea, meaning the unformed masses of the outside world, and the right on the earth, i.e., that part of the world which is favoured with divine testimony and government. In other words, it is the Lord's universal claim over men, over the world. It is a public declaration of His right, not in respect of the church, but of the earth: not yet His actual investiture as Son of man, but a dealing of providential character, which involves a recommencing of testimony preparatory to His speedy assumption of universal dominion.

But a further step has to be taken now. It is not, as in Revelation 5, God seated upon His throne with the sealed book in His right hand, and then the Lamb opening the book as the One who had prevailed to do so. And how prevailed? Through death. It is not by creature-strength that the man of God conquers. The victories that will shine most and brightest are always those cast, so to speak, in the mould of the death of the Lord Jesus. In poor man's case it is life first and then death, because we are by nature dead in trespasses and sins; but in that of the Lord Jesus it is death first and then resurrection-life; and such is the pattern for the Christian's faith to realize. Our whole life, as believers, should flow according to the same cross that has wrought our salvation; for the cross is God's power for us all the way through. (Gal. 6.) It is God who has given us to suffer, and then comes power practically; but this is, perhaps always, after there has been more or less a realization of weakness and suffering. (2 Cor. 12; 2 Cor. 13: 4.) A man cannot win Christian victories until he is ban and low before God. He must be broken down in one way or another. And blessed it is if we are broken down in the presence of Christ; for if it be not there, we must be broken down, if one may say so, in our own presence, and haply too in that of others. In Revelation 5, however, Christ opens the book that was unintelligible to all the mind of man, and He shows, us from the seals certain judgments of God, so little removed from ordinary events in providence that we should scarce have known them to be judgments, save by that divine unveiling. But the Lamb unfolds all, and we find that God is at work to introduce the kingdom of the First-begotten, to put the Heir in actual possession of the inheritance.

In the chapter before us there is a difference. It is not a sealed book that we have, but an open one: and it is also emphatically a little book. There is nothing mysterious about the matter. We come here to a notable change in the Revelation. Instead of its being as hitherto, events that were the secret effects of God's unseen hand, there is a manifestation of His power and purpose with regard to His people. All becomes quite plain. We have no longer symbolical locusts, having a king (cf. Prov. 30: 27), or strange and strangely numerous horses and horsemen, etc. It is now God's open, brief, and decisive actings. This I apprehend to be the difference between the two books. The first was in the hand of God and sealed, so that none could open it, save the blessed One who suffered all for the glory of God. Here it is an open book, which the prophet takes from the angel's hand; and immediately we have no longer the more secret or enigmatical appearances of earlier visions, but the temple, the holy city, the Gentiles treading it under foot — all an obvious manifestation that God is acting on the Jews. We have before had the sealing a certain number out of the tribes of Israel, scattered, as I suppose, throughout the whole world. But here (Rev. 11) we come to a smaller scale, where God's dealings are concentrated on Jerusalem, the sanctuary. altar, worshippers, two witnesses, etc., and where they are also brought out so plainly that there need be no mistake as to what God means thereby. The beast as such also appears here in undisguised and tremendous opposition against God and His servants. And evidently the lord Jesus is showing that the time approaches when He must take all into His own hands. This then is an open book, because all that it Contains is perfectly plain; and it is a very little book, because but a short time and a narrow compass are contemplated in it.

"And he cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth, and when he had cried, the seven thunders uttered their own voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered [them], I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying, Seal the things which the seven thunders uttered and write them not"* (ver. 3, 4). "Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing? . . . shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it? Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?" (Amos 3.) I cannot but regard this passage of the Jewish prophet as in various elements illustrative of the vision we are examining. Again, thunder in the Old Testament was constantly the expression of God's authority in the way of judgment. We are summoned to hear this awful announcement of God's judgments. John was about to write, but a voice from heaven forbids it. He was not to communicate the details of what God was going to do now. But the angel "lifted up his right hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven . . . . that there should be no more space [or delay], but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he should be about to sound, the mystery of God also should be finished, as he announced to his servants the prophets"† (verses 5-7).

*In the first clause of v. 4, the uncial MSS. A B C P, the majority of cursives, and almost all the ancient versions, besides Greek and Latin fathers, omit τὰς φωνὰς ἑαυτῶν, and the rendering would then be, "And when the seven thunders had spoken," for English hardly admits of the absolute "had uttered." I suppose that the phrase was assimilated to the close of verse 3, whereas the true form is corroborated by the latter clauses of verse 4. The difference in sense would be that these thunders not only emitted their own proper sounds, but conveyed something intelligible to the prophet. At the end of verse 4, μὴ αὐτὰ γράφῃς is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of manuscripts. The common text has ταῦτα with a few cursives, most of which, with the old Cappadocian commentator Andreas, read μετά for μή. This last, I presume, was the mere blunder of a scribe, who probably confounded a contraction of the former with the latter, and this might be the more readily, inasmuch as μετὰ ταῦτα ("after these things") is a frequent formula in Revelation. It is curious that this obvious mistake, yielding a sense totally different from, and nearly opposite to, the one intended, has been followed in more than one of the old foreign editions, beginning, if I mistake not, with the Complutensian, though the fact is not stated by Tregelles, etc. There are also discrepancies as to the form of the last word, but there is the less reason to record them, as that which some authorities give is not even sense.

†The right readings here, I believe, are χρόνος οὐκἐτι ἔσται . . . . καὶ ἐτελέσθη. The former confirms the sense given in the text and evidently means that there shall be no longer space or delay, but in the days, etc. "The time shall not be yet" would require ὁ καιρός instead of χρόνος, and οὔπω rather than οὐκέτι, which, in constructions like the present, means "no more." Others take it as "a [mystical] time;" but this also in scripture is always καιρός. The meaning which results from the latter very accurately falls in with the sentiment, for ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν avoids the indefiniteness of the mere future, and intimates that, when the seventh angel should just sound, the mystery of God should also be finished, or literally "was finished," the Greek aorist being employed to express the summariness of its completion — its coincidence, as it were, with that seventh blast. Bp. Middleton (and before him, it seems, Piscator and Vitringa) suggested a Hebraism as the source of this peculiar use of the aorist; for the Hebrew preterite very frequently stands for the future when that tense goes before and is joined by the conjunction. Indeed, as Gesenius remarks (Rödiger's ed., § 124, 6), the Pret. with Vau conversive relates to futurity, Also when it is not preceded by a future tense, but by some other indication of futurity, and even where none such appears. This solution, if it be true here, confirms καὶ ἐτελέσθη. Here, again, τελεσθήσεται would leave a vague future open, and another form is employed, which may appear harsh at first, but the propriety of which becomes apparent, the more the requirements of the passage are understood. Τελεσθῃ is good in sense, and fairly supported; but it is easier than ἐτελέσθη and may have been the correction of a copyist. The converse appears to me improbable.

I apprehend that people often gather a vague if not wrong notion from those words, "there shall be time no longer." Many imagine that it means there was then to be an end of time, and eternity was to begin. But this is not at all the sense, and the case shows the importance of seeking light from God. The meaning is, that God would no longer allow time to run on before He interfered with the course of this world. It is not that eternity was at once to begin, but that there should be no longer any lapse of time before His last summons to the world and the introduction of a new dispensation, in which He will deal in an open manner with men on the earth. Since the rejection and ascension of the Lord Jesus, men — "His citizens" have sent a message after Him, saying (at least in their hearts), "We will not have this man to reign over us." Such has been the voice of the world ever since He went into the far country. The real desire of man is to be rid of Christ; and in general he thinks he is. And no wonder he dislikes to hear of His return in power and glory; for the scriptures declare expressly that Christ is to judge man, and man does not like to stand before his judge. Hence he puts off as long as possible the warning of Christ's advent to judge sin and sinners. The Lord intimates here that there is to be ere long a close put to the present delay. All the time that Christ is away at the right hand of God there is a suspense of judgment. But God feels deeply for His people, suffering as they must during the interval of Christ's rejection; and now He is not going to allow such a state of things to continue any longer, for there are the evident signs and tokens of the Lord's coming to deal with His enemies.

The mighty angel swears that there should be no further delay (not before eternity, but) before the day of the Lord. The space or day spoken of here is man's day, and when this ends, the day of the Lord begins, which latter in scripture is never confounded with eternity, because that day has an end; whereas of course eternity never can terminate. Viewed from every side, the real force then is "that there should be no longer delay." And remark the words in the following verse: "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he should be about to sound, the mystery of God should be finished," etc. These words at once contradict the thought that eternity was to follow immediately. On the contrary, after this the whole of the millennium comes in; after it a little season, and then eternity. Souls are sometimes hindered from entering into the truth of God by one little word, and so I believe it has been with this passage. Often when a slight obscurity is cleared up, heaps of difficulties disappear.

God will put a stop to the present delay: "the mystery of God" will then be finished. This I take to mean the secret of His allowing Satan to have his own way, and man too (that is to say, the wonder of evil prospering and of good being trodden under foot) God cheeks, no doubt, the evil in a measure, partly through human government and partly through His own providential dealings. And indeed it is an immense mercy that there are such restraints upon the evil of this world. For what would it be without them, when, even in the midst of God's providential cheeks, wickedness is often so triumphant, and godliness thrown to the ground? Still there is an influence for evil that no government can root out, and good that is belied and so has comparatively little influence. That is what seems so mysterious a thing to us, when we know God and how He hates evil. But it is soon coming to an end. God is about to touch all that is contrary to Himself, to bring all that has been promised from of old, and to give credit for all that has been done according to Himself And He is going to do this by His Son. The One whom man despised and rejected is the very person whom God will send to reduce all into holy order and beauty out of the existing mass of confusion.

"The mystery of God" must not be confounded with the mystery of His will in Eph. 1: 9. This last is what has been always near to His heart, for it involves the glory not of the church only but of Christ. It is "according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself." There was no one that suggested it. It was His own will. And what is the mystery of His will? "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him." All these things that Satan has scattered now will be reunited in one under Christ. Mercy and truth will then meet together, righteousness and peace kiss each other. This is true even now for the believer, as far as his own reconciliation to God is concerned. Satan may challenge you. — How can it be had in the presence of so much evil within? No wonder that this cuts right into the conscience of the man that doubts God, and even of the one that believes Him, if he is looking at himself. When occupied with myself these doubts may well arise, but not if I am looking only to Christ. He alone is entitled to give me rest before God. It is Christ alone who can dissipate the waves and the winds. Satan has set man against God in every way, even against goodness coming down from Him; but God is not going to allow evil to pass a certain limit. Though Satan's opposition is allowed to frustrate God's plans for the present, yet every one of the ways in which He has been at work in the earth from the first is destined to triumph and to triumph together in the end. (Hosea 2: 21, 23.) There was a man set up in Adam; there was government put into the hands of Noah; there was God's calling given to Abraham; there was the long and patient test of the law; finally, there was the mission of His Son and of His Spirit. All these things, so to speak, have been streams from God flowing through this earth. They have been refused or corrupted by man from the first, and through the enemy's power men will abuse these very dealings of God to bring in the most daring and deadly conspiracy that the world has ever seen — Satan and man combined against God, who will allow all this evil to come out, and will then put an end to it by judgment. This is the finishing of the mystery.

But that which is called "the mystery of His will" is not the subject of prophecy. Christ will be the Head of all blessing and He will gather all things in united blessing under His own headship — all that Satan had contrived to spoil. What God made originally was merely in a condition of innocence. but what the Lord Jesus will accomplish in the end, the reconciliation of all things, will be beyond Satan's power to touch. All will be gathered together in one, even in Christ their chief. And another thing it is well to state. In this mystery of God's will we are not merely to be blessed under Christ, but in order to get the full character of the blessing, we are blessed with Him. And this is what we have here in Ephesians: not that we will be a sort of inheritance for Christ, but we are joint-heirs with Him. In that great mystery of God in Christ, there are two thoughts — Christ's universal headship, and the church's union to Him. There is no such thing as our being united under Christ's power; but all things that ever have been made are to he united under His headship; and, wonderful thought! the church is to share all that glory along with Him. it is not what belongs to Christ as a divine person, but what He takes as the reward of redemption. And this very work gives Him a title to bestow it on whom God will. The church is united as the body and bride of Him who is the Lord of all. She is the Eve of the Second Adam. In Ephesians 5 St. Paul takes up more particularly the latter part of the subject. Christ is to present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. The great mystery brought out there is the nearness, the love, the intimacy of bridal relationship between Christ and the church.

In the Epistle to the Colossians you have the same thing referred to (Col. 2: 2): "To the acknowledgement of the mystery of God [and of the Father, and of Christ]." These last words seem inserted without adequate authority, and when persons try to mend scripture, they only damage it. There is a certain great mystery spoken of in Colossians 1 (Col. 1: 26.) The meaning of the word mystery is a secret. It may not be a secret now, but it means a thing that was a secret. Where there is anything that people cannot understand, they are apt to designate it a mystery. But in scripture it means a truth that God kept hid, but that is so no longer — something which they did not know as men or Jews, but that Christ was to teach them as Christians. There is another statement about it in the next verse: "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

As to the predictions of Christ in the Old Testament, it is a mistake to call this or the fact itself a mystery: enough was quite plain. What the Jewish prophets proclaimed was a Messiah coming who would reign over them, and who would unite salvation with being "the great King." What they did not understand, though revealed, was His humiliation and death. They stumbled over Him. Again "the mystery" is a term never applied to Christ's death and resurrection. This was not a secret at all, but on the contrary is very plainly predicted in Isaiah 53, Psalms 16, 22, 69, 106, and many other passages.

But it was a mystery that, when Christ was rejected by His people, and during the time of His exaltation in heaven, God would make Him to be the Head of a heavenly body, chosen by His grace out of all — Jews or Gentiles. This was not treated of in the Old Testament. There were certain things that we can now show to be types of it, but they never would have yielded the least light upon it, if the mystery had not been brought out. There was no such thing then, nor even any such predicted, as Jew and Gentile being blessed together in one body; and this is the reason why it is called "the mystery hidden from ages and from generations." It was a secret hid in God that the prophets did not touch upon. When the Jews have. their Messiah, it will not be as the hope of glory, but as the One who Himself brings in the glory. When the time comes for the blessing they are looking for, there will be no doubt about it, for all will be manifested, whether for friends or foes; neither will it be a hope, but the actual accomplishment of glory in their midst. But now there is an extraordinary state of things that God is effecting among the Gentiles while the Jews are cast off. The Gentiles have Christ now, not as bringing in glory visibly on the earth, as it will be among the Jews by and by, but they have Him in them the hope of glory by and by, and in heaven.

The term "mystery of God" may be used in our chapter, because it was specially during the time of God's non-intervention with the world that He had been working out the wonderful secret of Christ and the church. Now this was done with. Still the mystery of evil being permitted to prosper goes on for a time longer — that passiveness of God, whereby He does not hinder evil from having the upper hand, and good from being trampled down. It should soon close, as He declared the glad tidings to His servants the prophets. The voice speaks again and says, "Go take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel," etc. (verse 8.) Accordingly John takes the book, and finds it, when he has eaten, in his mouth sweet as honey; but when he ponders its contents, and digests its results, how bitter within So it is and will be. When we see how God will accomplish all, it must be pain to think what is reserved for man, as indeed it is to know how perseveringly he rebels against God, and forsakes his own mercies.

The Lord grant that what has been of God for the clearing of our standing from earthly principles, and awakening a just feeling of the exceeding dignity of the place in which God has put us, may be impressed upon our hearts. None are in so responsible a place as those who are occupied with heavenly things. And let us not suppose that position, or even truth, will of itself keep a soul: nothing but the spirit of God can; and He never will, where there is not dependence and self-judgment. He is come to glorify Christ. The Lord grant that we may watch and pray! For while the truth is calculated to separate from the world, yet where it is abused and degenerates into that knowledge which pulls up, one is prepared for the worst results.

It remains to add a few words as usual on the past measure of accomplishment which this parenthetical vision has received. I am not disposed to question its general application to that wonderful divine intervention, the Reformation. The Eastern empire had for some time succumbed to the furious onset of the Turks; the West was not a whit less steeped and impenitent than before in abominable idolatry and imposture, when that sudden light from on high shone upon astonished Europe. Not that the grace of Christ was deeply realized, or reflected in the Reformation. The testimony of its leading spirit, Luther, expressed itself in a way more akin to the lightnings and thunders of Sinai, and savoured too often of earth rather than of heaven. In fact it is this comparative earthliness of character, which enables the Historicalists to find so many apparent coincidences between that great work and the vision before us. It is just because Luther so much approximated, not to St. Paul's line of ministry, but to the prophetic testimony of Jesus which is yet to be borne by the latter-day witnesses, that there seems so much in common between the tenor of his life and the tendency of his labours, and the predictions of what they are to teach and do and suffer by and by. The idea of comparing it with the original sending out of the gospel and formation of the church at Pentecost is, I cannot but feel, a gross misconception.

Besides, is it true that there is not a particular in the vision to which the Reformation does not exactly answer? Does the blaze of the Sun of righteousness intimate the republication of His gospel? I do not doubt that the full meaning of the vision involves a public testimony to the coming of "the day;" but for this reason the gospel is excluded, as any spiritual person may see who dispassionately weighs Mal. 4. For the essence of the gospel is that therein God justifies the ungodly and saves the lost; whereas it is "unto you [the godly remnant of the Jews] that the Sun of righteousness arises with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith Jehovah of hosts. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant." There may be a measure of resemblance between this and the aims and course (though not the issue) of the more warlike Reformers; but in that very proportion it is the reverse of the gospel, or of the practical conduct which flows from and is suitable to it.

Again the cloud recalls the deliverance of Israel, as the rainbow does the covenant with the earth, when government was instituted; the pillars of fire represent judicial firmness, and the loud lion-like voice is the terror-striking assertion of His rights, preceded by the significant claim laid to the whole world, and followed by the complete utterance of God's power. These with the little open book (which appears to mean known prophecy relative to the city and temple) are all of them features entirely agreeing with the approaching resumption of the Lord's relations with Jerusalem and the Jews, and the world in general, but not one of them, as it seems to me, in its full import like the gospel of God's grace. Heaven and the church are entirely unseen: it is a question of an earthly people, and hence of kings and nations; it is the recommencement, not of evangelising, much less of edifying the body of Christ, but of the prophetic testimony here below. The decree is declared. Jehovah's anointed King is about to take Zion, His hill of holiness, nay, the nations for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. He is no longer to ask the Father for the heavenly sons, but for the, world itself — no longer to set apart by the truth for association with Himself above, but to reduce people with a rod of iron, and to dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth." Such is the obvious connection of the scene before us. In view of this, it is a preliminary interference. Had the Reformers understood the high calling of the saints, or the nature, character, and consequences of our union with Christ in heavenly places, there would have been a contrast, not an analogy. In truth it was (I repeat) the effect of their lack of spiritual intelligence as Christians, and their approximation to godly Jews, which imprinted on their movement whatever assimilation there is to the scene we are reviewing.

Further, the attempt to make it the complete answer involves at least the ordinary amount of strain, and I might almost add of the absurd. For, in his haste to apply the principle of allusive reference, as it has been called, the author of the Horae Apoc. does not even glance at the connection of the seven thunders with Christ. It was too good an opportunity to lose for an allusion to the thunders of the Vatican. But here, strange to say, and in opposition as it appears to me to the very principle invoked, Mr. Elliott wrests these thunders from Him who is the primary figure in the vision, and applies them exclusively to the Pope! The reasoning that is offered in support of the proposition, so monstrous to any mind not under the overwhelming bias of a system, appears to me wholly groundless, though not unworthy of Mr. E.'s well-known ingenuity. 1. The vocality of the thunders is not altogether unprecedented in this book (Rev. 6: 1), and besides, the trumpets are said to have the same (Rev. 8: 13). Compare also Rev. 16: 7 for the altar. The supposed parallel in John 12: 28 is certainly not in favour of papal oracles. 2. The reflective pronoun no doubt implies that the voices were their own, the sounds proper to the thunders spoken of; but that they were in opposition to the angel's crying as with lion's roar is the most unnatural of inferences. Whatever may be thought of the theory of an allusion to Leo X., even so the analogy of every other vision is in favour of the thought that the direct reference is the full expression of divine power, as God's seal upon the angel's assertion of title. 3. It seems to me almost awful to lay it down that the proposition, "write them not," implies that the voices were "not the true sayings of God, but instead thereof false, and an imposture." (H. A., vol. ii. p. 105.) The real reason is very simple. The general fact, that "the voice of Jehovah" echoes the claims of Christ to the possession of the world is given; the details are not to be written. The apostle Paul was caught up into paradise and heard secrets (ἄρρητα ῥήματα) which it is not allowed for man to utter. The prophet John was about to write what the thunders divulged, but the voice from heaven commands the things to be sealed, not written — a mode of dealing most extraordinary, if the utterances are supposed to be the false decrees of Rome, but well harmonizing with the conclusion that other things were yet to be revealed, before the power of God was enforced and the earthly rights of Christ are made good by judgment. 4. Hence, I utterly reject, as a mere corollary of the last error, the idea of reference here to the seven hills of Rome. Hitherto the septenary usage of the Revelation has been entirely independent of that local sign, which occurs only in Rev. 17, where the context proves that Rome is in question. Here, for the same reason of the connection, the Roman hills are an intrusion, while the idea of completeness is the natural sense. 5. This also accounts for the prefixed article, as in the case of the seven angels (Rev. 8), who, I presume, have no special connection with that city. As to the opinion that there is nothing but the Papal bulls to which the seven Apocalyptic thunders have been made to answer, it is natural in the quarter whence it flows; but when the writer adds "or can be," he passes, I humbly think, beyond the bounds of wisdom or modesty. None of us is the measure of divine knowledge nor of what the Lord may bestow. Further, I for one confess my inability to discern, even with the special pleading of the Horae, the peculiar suitability of the angel's oath to the prevalent convictions of the Reforming fathers or their Protestant children. Savonarola and others before him seem to have been rather more full of the nearness of Christ's kingdom than Luther and his coadjutors. What the great German expected was rather the destruction of the Pope's kingdom by the word alone, and this founded on his construction of Daniel quite as much as St. Paul; i.e. it seems to me, in contrast with the open book and the angel's most solemn announcement. Nor did Melancthon improve on Luther, when he assigned Dan. 7 to Mohammedanism and Dan. 8 to the Papacy. Neither can I admit that prophesying, as addressed to John, and predicated of the two witnesses, or indeed ever, is the mere function of expounding the scriptures and exhorting from them, as fulfilled in every faithful gospel minister. The notion, too, that in the words, "Go take the little book," and "thou must prophesy again," we are to read (not now of course, an allusive reference, but) a sort of prefiguration of the deacon's ordination to preach the gospel or Christian ministry, and of the taking in hand the New Testament to translate it into the vernacular tongue; and yet more, that St. John's being made representative of the faithful ministers of the Reformation at this epoch intimates that they were all in the line of evangelical succession, is to me more like playing with feelings than a grave exposition of this chapter. It is the attempt to apply the details to the past, which betrays the unsatisfactoriness of the exclusive Protestant scheme: a bearing on it, definite enough to show that such a work as the Reformation was not overlooked of God, in the protracted application of the book, I have already admitted. The full literal carrying out of every word awaits the end of the age.

Revelation 11

From the moment that God begins to deal with the earth in an open manner, Israel naturally comes forward and also the Gentiles as connected with them. (Dent. 32: 8, 9.) We have had the twelve tribes scattered abroad and a measured number sealed; but the land of Judea and Jerusalem is the great foreground of the picture that we see here. "Rise," it is said to the prophet, "and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein." The altar, I think, clearly refers to the brazen altar; for the golden altar was included in the temple. "They that worship therein" are persons who are characterized by nearness to God. The altar was the expression of true approach to God, and they have drawn near Him. It was the place of the burnt-offering which marked the acceptance of the person. Now this shows us that here we have God owning a certain number of people on the earth as capable of drawing near to Him. "Measure the temple," etc., meant, I suppose, that God appropriated thus far Himself (verse 1).*

*The received text gives καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος αἱστήκει, the Complutensian, following several MSS., has the same words, thus — καὶ αἱστ. ὁ ἄγγ. Erasmus and R. Stephens had more rightly left them out, as do the Alexandrian MS., more than thirty cursives, and all the ancient versions, save the Arm. and Syr., which in the Apocalypse are not seldom encumbered with glosses. The present addition was probably drawn from Zechariah 3: 3 through the scholiast Andreas. The elliptical construction perplexed people, and disposed them to adopt some such interpolation. Beza was the first. after the Complutensian editors, who sanctioned the clause in the common printed copies; and this to avoid the absurdity of the reed's seeming to speak. But there is no necessity, as he himself admits, for such a meaning, if we do adhere to the best authorities. At the same time it is a mistake to say that the words are wanting in all the most ancient Greek MSS.; for A P omit and B has them, while C being deficient cannot therefore be cited.

"And the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles; and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months" (ver. 2). The Jew is owned to a certain extent by God; and consequently their city is spoken of as the holy city, and the Gentiles as those who were defiling and treading it under foot. But it is important, before we go any farther, to enquire whether there is any reference in other scriptures to this same period, spoken of here as forty and two months. It will not be doubted that the prophecy of Daniel is the book which most nearly answers in the Old Testament to the Apocalypse in the New. We find there a period mentioned of three years and a half, called in mystical language "a time, times, and a half." Let us turn to Daniel 7. There we find the Gentile powers represented as wild beasts, having in part some resemblances in nature. There was a winged lion and a bear; and the leopard was presented as a four-winged witness to the swiftness of conquest men would see in the power represented by that beast. Every one knows there never was an empire in antiquity like the Macedonian under Alexander for spreading itself by rapid conquest; and not only this, but it had its roots deep, so that even to this day the remains of the Grecian empire are seen; and these, not exhumed as it were, but in living effects. The fourth beast was of a composite character, unlike anything that had been before. Upon its head were ten horns, and after them in their midst another little horn was seen by the prophet to emerge. This last takes the place of three others, and becomes the great object with which the Spirit of God is occupied, not of course because of anything good connected with it, but because of its deadly hostility to God and His people. Daniel looks at him more particularly in his political, and the Revelation in his politico-religious character. It is with this fourth Gentile empire, the Roman beast, and in relation to the Jews, that the period is given.

It does seem no slight hallucination of mind to divert these scriptures from Judea, and to transport Rome into them. But the cause is apparent. Men had been so occupied with the controversies between Protestantism and Popery, that they naturally looked through the scriptures to find something about the pope; and finding there was one person more wicked than any other (the antichrist), they came to the conclusion that the antichrist and the pope were the same thing. Now, it is true that they both do similar things to a certain extent; but when you look into the scriptures, antichrist finds his place in Judea, and in connection with the Jewish people, in a way the pope has never done. I do not say the pope may not do so; but it is impossible yet to apply fully and exclusively what is said about the antichrist to the pope as such. There is a future system of lawlessness, and a future person at its head, who will rise up against Christ in His Jewish rights and glory, uniting political power with religious pretension, and this in the city of the great King. There are many antichrists, it is true, and the pope may truthfully be regarded as one of them; but not as the antichrist who is to come. That is reserved for the time immediately preceding Christ's appearing from heaven. He will personally affect and oppose the Lord Jesus, and will by Him personally be put down. People ought to be prepared for this; but they, on the contrary, imagine that Popery is the last antichrist, and that it is getting so decrepit as to be well-nigh sinking into its grave. But the Bible is clear that the most hateful development of lawlessness is yet to come; and that when it arrives it will carry away, not Popish countries only, but Protestant ones, and the Jews themselves, in its fatal delusions.

In Daniel 7 the little horn is said to speak great words against the Most High, land shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hands, until a time, and times, and the dividing of time." Now it appears to me perfectly certain that the "times and laws" in question here are those the prophet Daniel was familiar with. These "times" had to do with Israel's festivals, and the "laws" with the Jewish polity or ritual. The saints of the Most High were those whom the prophet knew and was interested in; just as in Revelation 12 "the children of thy people" (i.e., Daniel's people) are intended. This shows that a special enemy of God's people in Judea who will arise in that day is here spoken of. He meddles with the Jews when they have begun to be owned in a measure by God. This iniquitous power wears out the saints of the high places, and thinks to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand. Not that the saints should be so given, for God never relinquishes them to the enemy: He may permit saints to be worried for a while, but He never gives them up. It is the times and laws that are thus given for a season, because the nation is not owned thoroughly till the Messiah comes. As yet it is only a partial recognition of their worship. These are then to be abandoned to him "for a time, and times, and the dividing of time." You have this same period referred to in the forty-two months, which is exactly the same length of time, taking "a time" as meaning a year.

In Daniel 9, you have another note of time, the famous seventy weeks (verse 26). "And after threescore and two (or rather, after the threescore, in addition to the previous seven) weeks shall Messiah be cut off and (margin) shall have nothing;" i.e., after sixty-nine of the seventy weeks Messiah is cut off. Then an interruption follows on account of this; all the weeks do not expire. There remains one, the last, to be fulfilled, which is kept separate, like a link wrenched off from the preceding chain. You will observe that, after the death of Messiah the Prince, another prince is alluded to as yet to come; and he is evidently an antagonistic prince, a prince of the Roman people. The grave mistake is made by many, that this prince was Titus, who came and took the city of Jerusalem; but it is not so. The verse does not state that the prince should destroy, etc.; but "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and sanctuary;" and so they did. The Romans came under that general. But when we are told of "the people of the prince that shall come," it is a plain intimation to my mind that there was a certain great ruler to forlorn prince connected with the Roman empire. His people were to come first, which they did under Titus; afterwards the prince comes himself, which I believe to be still future. For mark well, that the past destruction of the city and sanctuary is not included in the course of the seventy weeks at all. It is after the sixty-ninth, and before the seventieth begins. There was a chain, so to speak, of sixty-nine weeks of years up to the death of Christ; then it was broken. There was an important link, the seventieth week, remaining. What becomes of it? The last verse takes it up, and is clear enough that this seventieth week has to do (not with Christ but) with His enemy who is to have a manifest connection with the Roman people, and also with the Jews. Observe that in the twenty-sixth verse, after the threescore and two weeks in addition to the seven, when the Messiah is cut off, there is no mention of the weeks. In what comes after, we have no date, till we enter upon verse 27; showing that what intervenes is not counted as a part of the continuous line of the weeks. "The end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end thereof desolations are determined." The city and sanctuary were destroyed long since, but the desolations are "unto the end;" and they still go on.

Till lately, of all people of the earth a Jew had the greatest difficulty to get into the land. There is a change coming over the spirit of the nations towards Israel, I admit. Some of the Gentiles seem to forget that the Jew is under a peculiar judgment of God. This is no excuse for dealing harshly, of course, but it is a grave reason why men should not meddle with them politically. For the Jew to be so mixed up with the Gentiles is a sort of apostacy, and for the Gentile it is to despise God's judgment and eventually to incur it. It will be found that God cannot be with such an union. When the Gentiles have given up every thought of divine election of the Jew, I believe that the hand of God will confound their schemes, and that He will interfere to bring out His people distinctly and separately from all others, first for judgment and then for blessing. When all seems to be quiet and prospering, God will spoil what man thinks he is doing; for He has not finally cast off Israel. The Jew may have given up God and have amalgamated with the Gentile; but God will never forget that He chose the fathers and made promises as to the children. True, the Jews undertook to be His people and miserably failed in fulfilling their obligations; but God will not fail to accomplish His purpose. When the Gentile mariners had got Jonah in their ship, God was determined to have him out. If they did not cast him forth into the sea, God would break their ship to get His prophet out so as to be with Himself and His work. So it will be in the day that speedily approaches.

From Isaiah 18 we find that there is to be a partial restoration of Israel by Gentile power, chiefly through the influence of a certain maritime power "that sendeth ambassadors by the sea." They may bring some of the Jews back to their own land, but the Jews will still be rebellious and unbelieving. All seems to flourish, but suddenly there comes a blight from God. Quite unexpectedly He allows the ancient enmity to break out among the Gentiles against the Jews. "The fowls," as it is said, "shall summer upon them; and all the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them." Every kind of unrelenting hatred is shown once more. They are the dead body; and where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. The Gentiles who seemed to be so kind will again stand aloof from them, and as of old unite for the purpose of crushing them. And what will be the end? The Gentiles having relapsed into their old hatred against Israel, God will espouse the cause of His people. He refrains while man is meddling; but when an immense host comes up against them, in that very day "shall the present be brought unto Jehovah of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their beginning hitherto." God, as I understand the prophet to say, will bring a present to Himself of His long-scattered and persecuted Israel.

This will show how naturally in the Revelation we have a reorganization of the Jewish polity and worship, after the church has been caught up to heaven and before the appearing of Christ. We see a little remnant in the midst of the mass which were to be given over to the Gentiles. For forty-two months the holy city is to be trodden under foot. The Lord allows a certain period to go on as far as the many were concerned, but He measures the temple, and the altar, and them that worship therein for Himself This remnant might be killed, but He values them. When some of the Jews are thus in their own land, but Israel as a whole is not yet thoroughly brought in by God, the predicted Roman prince will come, who will "confirm a [not the] covenant with [the] many for one week." I am aware that some apply this to Christ, But the Lord never made a covenant for a week or for seven years. It is impossible rightly to refer the words to any covenant the Lord ever made, much less to a covenant made since His death. "The everlasting covenant" is obviously the contrast, and not the accomplishment, of a covenant made for a week. Many apply it thus; but those who so interpret Dan. 9: 27 have forgotten that Christ had been looked at as "cut off" in the previous verse.

"In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate," etc. Here we have subsequent events of a totally different nature. How and when, it will be asked, are we to suppose this arrest of sacrifice and oblation? Who and whence is the personage who causes them to cease? Messiah, the Prince, and "the prince that shall come" — are they the same person, or different individuals? The history ends as to the Messiah with verse 26. "The people" of that coming prince were the enemies of Israel. subject to an opposed power, and not Messiah's people. In verse 27 the prince, whose coming was announced in verse 26, is himself come; and he it is who confirms a covenant with the "many," or mass of the Jews, for one week; but in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, etc. The language may be somewhat obscure, but at least it is quite plain that there is to be a certain prince after the death of Christ, — a Roman prince — whose people first come for a desolation lone, accomplished, and at length he comes. After that he appears upon the stage, the last week of Daniel begins. This interruption between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks may seem strange, and people may ask, How can there be such a gap? But it is not without precedent. The same thing in principle occurs in Luke 4, when the Lord was reading in Isaiah. The portion read was the description of His own ministry in Isa. 61: 1, 2: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. . . . . He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted . . . . . to preach the acceptable year of Jehovah. . . . And he closed the book." He did not finish the sentence. Why? Because, if one may reverentially answer, the prophecy went on with "the day of vengeance of our God." Proclaiming the acceptable year of the Lord was what Christ did at His first coming, but it was not then the day of Jehovah's vengeance; so that the whole of Christianity and the calling of the Church came in between the acceptable year of Jehovah and the day of vengeance. When Christ came in humiliation and love, it was the acceptable year of Jehovah, and therefore He closed the book; but the day of vengeance is deferred till the Lord comes again in glory.

So here in Daniel, the sixty-nine weeks run on till Messiah is cut off, and then we have an evident gap. The destruction of Jerusalem is not included in the course of the sixty-nine weeks, and as evidently does not take place in the seventieth week. For if you interpret the last week as commencing from the death of the Messiah, this would only give seven years, whereas Jerusalem was not taken till forty years after the death of Christ.* The seventieth week had nothing to say to that siege, and in point of fact the wars and desolations were given before we arrive at the seventieth week, which is not named till the last verse.

*If, with Ussher, the death of Christ be put in the midst of the seventieth week, it appears to me that the confusion is only increased. For, in all fairness of interpretation, the last week does not begin to be accomplished until the city and the sanctuary have been destroyed by the Romans, not to speak of a course of subsequent desolation. So that the Ussherian view of verse 27 really puts the death of Christ at least three and a half years after the destruction of Jerusalem, if the latter part of verse 26 is duly considered. The truth is, the right understanding of the prophecy itself leaves room for, and supposes, a gap of undefined length after the Messiah is cut off, before the last week commences. It is certain that the Roman invasion and the Jewish sorrows that follow, exclusive of the closing dealings of the coming prince, are not in the sixty-nine weeks any more than in the seventieth. The text itself therefore proves this long interval.

In the last or 27th verse a covenant is made. Did Titus, did any Roman prince, make a covenant with the Jews for one week? And further it is said, "In the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." This shows that there is to be a renewal of religious service by the Jews at Jerusalem in the latter day. Sacrifice and oblation will have been restored; and this prince, in spite of the covenant made with them, puts an end to all. And what then? Abominations, which means idolatry, are publicly set up and protected. They are to be brought into the sanctuary itself, which was not the case at the past destruction of Jerusalem. Then there was much appalling wickedness — every other kind of crime and madness, but no idolatry. Here, on the contrary, there is supposed to be the open support of idolatry in the temple. This does not answer to the capture by Titus, nor to the death of the Lord Jesus Christ; for at that time the unclean spirit of idolatry had departed out of the nation, which from the time of the Babylonish captivity, excepting the defilement of Antiochus, had kept clear of such abominations, and in that sense was "empty, swept, and garnished." But we know that unclean spirit is to return in greater force than ever. (Matt. 12: 45.) Christendom and Judaism will each contribute to the last form of evil-antichristianism. You may remember that the Pharisees charged the Lord, when He was upon earth, with doing His miracles by Satanic power, and the meaning of the parable then given to them is really the history of Israel itself. The old unclean spirit had gone away. The people or their leaders were full of zeal for their ordinances. But what does the Lord say? That the old and long-departed unclean spirit was to return. And when it does, it will bring with it seven other spirits worse than itself. The Jews are to fall into idolatry, in union with antichristianism, and their last state will be worse than the first. (Compare also Isa. 65, 66.)

But let us now go back to the Revelation. There is this state of things in Israel — a measure of recognition on God's part, and worship going on, though the outward profession is given over to Gentile oppression. And remark, that the Lord says, "I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth" (verse 3). The Lord mentions them as so many days here, rather than as forty-two months, it would seem, to mark His value for their testimony. He makes, so to speak, as much of it as He can. He does not sum it together, as when speaking of the beast (Rev. 13: 5). Lovingly he speaks of the time as days, as though He were counting them all out. "They shall testify a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth" — a testimony borne in sorrow. It is not Christianity, nor is it the state of things that will subsist after Messiah has appeared in glory. But it is the time of transition after the church has been taken away, and before it comes out of heaven with the Lord Jesus — the time when man will have brought in God's people to their land, at least the mass of them thoroughly unfit to be in relation with God. There is a little remnant of believing ones, there is worship, and besides a prophetic testimony, but evidently Jewish in its character. In Zechariah, though there are two olive-trees mentioned, there is only one candlestick; here there are two, because they are the two witnesses who prophesy of the coming earthly glory, but who do not bring it in personally. That is to say, it is not the regular order of God, but a proof that His eye is upon His people for good before full blessing comes.

"And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed" (verse 5). This shows that it was not proper Christian testimony, nor the corresponding practical fruits. It was the very thing the Son would not do when He was upon earth (save, of course, in the figurative sense of Luke 12: 49), and that He rebuked James and John for desiring. (Luke 9: 54, 55.) Here, on the contrary, fire proceeds out of their mouth, and devours their enemies — a perfectly right thing when God is about to take the place of Judge on earth. But the Lord does not take that place now. He is saving sinners, and otherwise displaying full grace; and as long as He so acts, He does not desire His people to be the depositaries of earthly power. Thus, the miracles of His servants, during this time of the display of His grace, have not been of a destroying nature. The Lord might deal with a person now because of some sin, as with the Corinthian saints: I do not see why He should not at any time. But it would be foreign to Christianity and contrary to all that it breathes, if a saint, because another was evilly opposed to him, wished his death or injury. Christianity shows that the victory grace gives us is to show love and kindness to one's enemy. It may be heaping coals of fire upon his head; but such is the Lord's way — overcoming evil with good. Yet it is the Lord who here sanctions the destructive power which accompanies the testimony of His Jewish witnesses; for He says, "I will give [power] to my two witnesses . . . . And if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed." it is what He means them to do — what evidently is to be done according to the thought of God. It indicates another condition, and not the Christian called to suffer unresistingly. It is the close of the age when Christianity will have done its work, and the Lord will again begin to act on the Jews.

Besides, their ministry and miracles have the same character as that which is attached to those of Moses and Elias. Thus they "have authority over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues," as in the time of Moses; and "they have authority to shut heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophecy," as in the time of Elias (verse 6). And in fact what will be found in these times answers much to what you have in Moses and Elijah. There was idolatry in Israel then and a remarkable testimony of Elijah against it. God Himself chastised His people — the heavens were as brass towards them. So will it be found again. The person who then sways the destinies of Israel will be an apostate who admits and enforces idolatry. Again, Israel will be found in subjection to Gentile authority, as they were in the days of Moses; yet there will be a little remnant set apart for God. But although these two witnesses are guarded for a certain time by miracles, yet the moment the days are over they have no power, so to speak. The beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit makes war with them, and they are killed like others.

"And their dead bodies [shall be] on the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified" (verse 8). It is perfectly plain that this is Jerusalem. Many think it is Rome, because as has been said before, Protestants are absorbed in, and biassed by, their controversies with Popery. God attaches the greatest possible interest to His people Israel, when His rights as to the earth are in question. But why is there not more said about Popery in the scriptures? Because God never acknowledges His church as an earthly people. The politics, pursuits, and interests of this world are well enough for those who have nothing but an earthly portion and want no earthly intruder; but to strive with the potsherds of the earth is beneath those of heavenly birth.

We have now come down in this chapter to Jerusalem, the centre of God's dealings and testimony, and of the opposition from the abyss. Their great antagonist is plainly mentioned here, for the first time in the Revelation, as "the beast," just as if you had known all about him before. It is a remarkable power, not merely arising, as in Rev. 13, out of the sea, but here, as in Rev. 17, said to ascend "out of the bottomless pit." This empire does not arise out of the earth, the symbol of a state of settled government, as the second beast in Rev. 13: 11, nor only out of the sea, which sets forth an unsettled revolutionary condition. There is the extraordinary and awful feature added in this passage, that it rises out of the abyss. Satan has to do with its last state. It has been a darling project of men from time to time to form a vast universal empire. Charlemagne tried it, but he failed. He never got the old Roman earth under his hand. And some can remember another who had the same thing near his heart, but he too failed and died a miserable exile. But the time hastens when that very scheme will be realised. In other empires there has always been the providence of God overruling. There was God above them, God calling on His people to show allegiance to the powers that be, no matter how they were formed. The Christian was not to meddle with them, but to acknowledge them and to pay tribute. But there is an empire about to be formed, that will be as thoroughly under the immediate power of Satan, as all past empires have been under the providence of God; and God will withdraw that care and cheek that He has hitherto kept over the kingdoms of the world and will allow all to ripen to a head under Satan. Justly, therefore, is this empire said to arise out of the bottomless pit.

This corresponds with what we have in Daniel. The person that would specially meddle with the Jews (Rev. 7: 25; Rev. 9: 27) is the Roman beast, the leader of that very empire which in its last state God does not own. When Jesus was born, the fourth or Roman empire was there, and God took advantage of its decrees to bring the heir of David to Bethlehem. It was "the beast" that was there. In Rev. 17 it is written, "the beast that was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" (verse 8). But observe a notable feature that Daniel does not furnish, and that John does. He gives three successive stages of the Roman empire. It was existing in John's time; then it was to cease; and last of all it should arise out of the bottomless pit, special Satanic influence being connected with its final state. The beast "that is not" describes exactly its present condition of non-existence. The Goths and Vandals came down upon it, and the old Roman empire came to ruin. Since then, men have never been able to re-organize it, because God has another thought. He has laid it down in His word that it is to be re-organized, not by man, but by Satan's power. Its sources will be from beneath. How remarkable is all this! We have had the decline and fall of the Roman empire, but there is one thing that no historian could trace — that prophecy alone could and does give; viz., the restoration of the Roman empire. May we see it, not as being on earth, but as looking on it from heaven!

I believe that those who reject the gospel now will, if then alive, be carried away by the dreadful delusions of that day. They will receive the ' mark of the beast in their right hand or in their foreheads; they will worship his image; and it is written by God that those who do shall be tormented in everlasting fire. The world may fancy, from all the increase of grandeur and prosperity and luxury which will be brought in then or previously, that the millennium is come; but it will be Satan's millennium. That is the fate reserved for these countries; for it is part of the righteous judgment of God, that where the gospel has been preached, and the world has trifled with it, even allowing idolatry for political purposes, He will withdraw the light and send them strong delusion And then Satan will bring out the man of sin. There is immense practical importance in all this. People may ask, "What is the good of it all to us as Christians, if we are to be taken away before?" Such a way of speaking slights what God has been pleased to reveal to us. When God spoke beforehand about the destruction of Sodom did Abraham say, What has that to do with me? God would have our hearts to be drawn out in praise and thanksgiving for His grace and His love to our own souls, but He tells us also the sad doom which awaits the world, and awakens the spirit of intercession as with Abraham for Lot for unfaithful saints who may be mixed up with it.

I would just remark, as to the two witnesses, that there is no necessity to take them as two persons: they might be two hundred. They are viewed as two witnesses (whether literally so or not), because it is a divine principle that "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. God was giving a sufficient testimony. These maintained Christ's title to the earth, that He was "the Lord* of the earth," and this excited enmity. "The beast" might not so much have cared if they had said "the Lord of heaven;" but they claimed the earth, not for themselves, but for Him, and men will not bear it.

* The received reading θεοῦ is not without the support of some cursives, AEth., Slav., etc. But all the uncials and most cursives, versions, and fathers read κυρίου. The former was probably due to the tempting antithesis τῳ θεῳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, in verse 13.

Unbelief likes present enjoyment, and anything which interferes with this and makes conscience uneasy is hateful and unwelcome. And so, when the testimony is finished, and the witnesses are overthrown, not only the beast but two great parties of mankind are affected by their fall. "And some of the peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations, see their dead bodies three days and an half, and do not suffer their dead bodies to be put into a grave; and they that dwell on the earth rejoice over them . . . and shall send," etc. (verses 9, 10.) It is not the first or the only time that we have this distinction drawn between "peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations," and "those that dwell on the earth." The latter does not mean men in earth merely; it carries a moral force with it, and means those who are essentially earthly-minded, who do not in heart and ways rise above the earth. The dead bodies of the witnesses are on the street of the great city; and they of the people, and kindred, and nations see them there three days and a half, and do not suffer them to be put in graves. This was bad enough — being the malice of man against those who witnessed for God. But "they that dwell on the earth" go much farther. For in their case, there is positive rejoicing and making merry, and sending gifts one to another. And why was all this? Because it is said, "these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth."

This is not a mere imaginary distinction, nor only founded upon one passage. If you look elsewhere, you will find the same thing. Thus in Revelation 14: 6, "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people," there is the converse of what we have here. We first find the mass of the Gentile people, who show out their evil against the two witnesses by not allowing their dead bodies to be buried. But the special rejoicing is on the part of the dwellers on the earth, or the earthly-minded. But in chapter 14 we find God sends a solemn message, the everlasting gospel. And with whom does He begin? With the worst — "them that dwell on the earth," τοὺς καθημένους, literally "that sit," which seems stronger than τοὺς κατοικοῦντας, and then the message is extended to men generally. And on examination you will find this thoroughly confirmed by other passages. In other words, to "dwell on the earth" is not a mere vague description of men, but it expresses a moral condition.

But to return: God interferes. "And after three days and an half, the [or a] Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them. And they* heard a loud voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in the cloud; and their enemies beheld them" (verses 11, 12). It is not merely in a cloud (as in the authorised version), but in the cloud. I suppose it was the cloud seen in the beginning of Revelation 10, which encircled the mighty angel. The cloud, the known especial emblem of Jehovah's presence, was that which received the witnesses and proved that their Lord, the Lord of heaven as well as earth, was for them. They ascended up to heaven in the very face of their enemies. "And in the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven." One word I would say, before going farther, on a remarkable distinction that occurs in this same verse. The witnesses testified for the Lord of the earth; but the people that were affrighted, when they saw how the cause of His martyred servants was vindicated, gave glory to the God of heaven. It will be then an easier thing for men to acknowledge God above in a vague sort of way, than to own Him as the Lord of the earth, concerning Himself about what men do here below. The former might be merely to regard Him as One seen in the distance; though in a higher sense I may know Him as One that comes down to give me a portion with Himself above. Thus God in heaven is either exceedingly near to His people, or far off to those who are merely acted upon by transient terror. The worldly man can well allow the thought of God afar from himself; and this is just what we have here. They were alarmed by what was near. But there was no reception of the testimony, no conversion. They should have bowed to the Lord of the earth. They gave glory to the God of heaven. But it is too late. There was slain in the earthquake "seven thousand names of men," as the margin gives it literally.

*The four best ancient uncials that are known as yet, ' A C P, with very many cursives confirm the received reading, which is rather strengthened, it seems to me, by the fact that elsewhere the book has ἤκουσα. For assimilation, under such circumstances, whether by accident or design, is far more probable than the introduction of a difference. If this be so, the sense is that the witnesses had a public and glorious vindication in the sight and hearing of their enemies.

First of all, we have seen the priestly remnant occupied in the worship of God — His holy remnant in the midst of the Jews in the latter day. After this we have the witnesses, who did not bring out on God's part what He is manifesting now, but asserted His rights with regard to the future, as prophecy naturally implies. Another remark I may here make. In the Revelation an expression occurs that has often been misunderstood. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." The meaning is not that all prophecy refers to the Lord Jesus Christ (which in a certain sense may be true), but that the witness of Jesus such as this book contains — what Jesus testifies in the Revelation is the spirit of prophecy. It is the Holy Spirit as He is shown us throughout the book; not bringing into present communion with the Lord Jesus in heaven, but communicating what He is to do by and by. They, the witnesses, asserted the title of Christ to the earth. Whatever men might say, the Lord was the one to whom it belonged, and He would soon come and make good their record.

There is a third thing that the end of the chapter contains. Besides a priestly place, and then a prophetical testimony, there comes the kingdom. The trumpet sounds. And now it is not, as in the case of the witnesses, a proclamation fenced by miraculous power — that has come to a close — their own blood has sealed their work. But if it looked as if the beast had played an easy part in their death God points to another thine,: "The seventh angel sounded, and there were loud voices in heaven," etc. There is the announcement of a kingdom, heard not upon earth, but in heaven, and therefore, as soon as it is made, those that had the mind of Christ, "the twenty-four elders, who sit before God on their thrones, fell upon their faces and worshipped God." A little word I would desire to say upon this verse 15. As it stands now, it has a very weakened turn given to it: "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ." The true force is: "The world-kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ is come." This gives, in my opinion, a very different and weightier meaning to the verse. It is the world-kingdom; and why? Because this book has shown us from the very beginning that there was another order of kingdom altogether. In Revelation 1 John spoke of himself as a "brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience in Christ." Thus the kingdom of Christ is there, and yet characterized, or at least accompanied, by tribulation and patience! But the angel heralds in the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ, as to this world. Previously it had been one only known to faith and calling for patience — a thing consequently that the world would not believe. Talk to them of a kingdom where people suffer, and where Christ allows them to suffer, instead of maintaining His rights! And this is exactly what God's children have been called to go through from that day to this.

But let me here say that this shows the extreme error of many good people who think it quite right to use earthly power in seeking to establish the cause of Christ. For, not to speak of Romanism but to look at Puritanism, they completely forget that the kingdom of Christ now is the kingdom of patience, and not of power. They judged because theirs was the right as they believed, therefore they ought not to suffer; whereas the only thing that God insists on is, that because the world is wrong and they right, therefore His children must suffer. Hence Peter testifies, "If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." There evidently you have the great moral consequence of Christ's kingdom in practical things: a Christian is not buffeted because he is wrong, but because he does well. There is such a thing, even among God's people, as the being buffeted because they have gone astray. What was the trial of Lot? And what that of Abraham? It was to prove that the latter was faithful; but Lot's was because he was unfaithful. Not that Abraham was always true to God; but unfaithfulness with him was the exception, whereas I am afraid it was too often the case with poor Lot. No doubt, Lot was more happy in his outward circumstances. He was in the gate of the city, as we are told — sitting where he ought not, though where the flesh would like to be. We are not to suppose that he was drawn into the ungodliness of the community wherein he dwelt. No doubt he could expostulate very well as to the evil they were doing; but evidently he was in the place of dishonour, as far as God was concerned, though not in the commission of open sin, if we only think of moral conduct. He was delivered through God's mercy, but ignominiously. His sons-in-law remained behind; his wife was made a lasting monument of her folly and sin.

Abraham knew another kind of sorrow, the sorrow of a man that knew God, and that had come out at His word. We do find failure in Abraham, as for instance in Genesis 12 and 20. But though there were slips, still — looking at his spirit and walk as a whole — Abraham was a most blessed man of God, and a sample of faith to all, as God Himself puts him before us in Heb. 11 and elsewhere. He knew trial, because he was true to God and to his calling. Lot knew it, because he was grasping after some present thing, a place in the world. And what was the issue? A blow comes on that part of the world, and Lot was carried away by it; and all that he had set his affections upon was swept away, and only restored to him by Abraham's timely succour, to be lost for ever when the judgment of Sodom came. At the close a dark spot of shame fastens upon that man, and he had bitterly to learn that for the believer a worldly path is one of frequent pain and disappointment, which, if persevered in, ensures present sorrow, and leaves behind it alike seeds of misery and fruits of shame. We must have one or other kind of suffering, if we are children of God at all; either the suffering that comes upon the world, if we are unfaithful to God, or the sufferings of Christ because we confess Him.

Thus the seventh angel gives the signal that the mysterious form of the kingdom is at an end. Heavenly voices proclaim that this world's kingdom is become that of the Lord and His Christ. Instead of merely having a kingdom open to faith, and that none but believers value — a kingdom whose earthly portion is tribulation and waiting for the Lord, the only place that hope can take now — instead of this we have an entire change. God will no longer allow the world to be the camp, and parade, and sport of Satan; and when the seventh trumpet sounds, it is announced that this world's kingdom of the Lord is come. If it be objected that the Lord Himself in John 18 declares that His kingdom is not of this world, I reply that this is beside the mark This world is never the source of His kingdom; but is it not destined to be its sphere? It was not His kingdom then, but this does not prove that it is not to be His kingdom at some future time, when He will fight and His servants too, though in a new way. Here you have the positive word of God that the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ is come. The sovereignty of the universe is transferred to the Lord Jesus: "And he shall reign unto the ages of the ages." Of course such a phrase as this must be taken in connection with the whole subject. When eternity is spoken of, it must be taken in its full and unlimited extent; but here it can only mean "for ever" in the sense of as long as the world lasts. And I feel, though it is not the brightest thought which our souls can enjoy in connection with the future, yet that the Lord Jesus is to take the throne of the world is a very great rest to the heart in all the present confusion. It lifts one out of the spirit of the present; because if I know that this is not the place of the church, but that I am now in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, I shall not be wanting honour or power in this world. We are to have a much better place in heaven, and the saints who will be on earth, when the Lord appears and we are with Him in glory, will be in the place of subjects. But what is the place of those who are in the kingdom and patience in Christ Jesus? We shall not be subjects merely of Christ when He thus comes, but kings reigning with Him. Even now those who are rejected for Christ are rejected kings. They do not merely sing, "He loveth us," but "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father."

The Lord will have a kingdom suited to the earth; but the Jews are not destined to be kings. They will have on earth a very honoured place; but even when the nation is converted to Him, they will never have the nearness that belongs to every soul, Jew or Gentile, who believes in Christ now. Our portion may seem to unbelief to be a most trying one, and trying it is now. But the Lord Jesus has trodden the path before, and known suffering such as none other could. He has gone through it all, and when He comes and takes the kingdom, He will assign His sufferers their place. They will be like the near companions of David when he came to the throne; there was David in the cave of Adullam, and David hunted about upon the mountains by Saul; but it was David's faith, as a means, that had kindled the flame in their hearts. They caught the tone of David's soul; and though they had a time of sorrow, and there were many foolish men like Nabal who could taunt him with being some runaway servant, yet while David was rather quick to feel and too ready to gird his sword to his thigh, he takes a word from even a weaker vessel, and retreats into the better place of grace — the place of doing well, suffering for it and taking it patiently. And soon came the throne. What then? The poor ones that had known his path of suffering, and had shared his sorrows in the day of his rejection were now to share his honours. Where was Jonathan in that day? It is true that his heart clung to David, but his faith was not equal to the trial. And what was the consequence? He fell on the mountains of Gilboa with his miserable father; and he whose heart would willingly have given the first place to David, and who had already stripped himself for David's sake, now falls with the world with which he had outwardly remained to the last. Thus whatever may be our affection for Christ, if I remain in a false worldly position, it will never be to my honour in the day of Christ, when they that suffer shall reign with Him. May we wait for that kingdom with hearts exercised by the truth!

It will be found that there are many persons who hear reluctantly about the kingdom of Christ, professing always to like something touching more on the immediate need of the soul. But does not God know better what we want? What we most need is not to trust ourselves, but the living God. Always giving the first and last place to the cross of Christ, may we not forget that His kingdom is coming. Though the cross is the only resting-place for the sinner, the kingdom is what cheers and encourages the saint in his path of faith and patience. There were those that followed David in his sufferings — separated, wherever they went, from all around. They were gathered from all conditions, and out of all parts; but it was being round David, and sharing God's thoughts and purposes about him, which sustained them. Though God has anointed the Lord Jesus Christ for it, still He has not yet taken the kingdom in the sense of the world-kingdom that I have been speaking of. Having been rejected and crucified, He is gone above and we wait for Him, suffering meanwhile. But the day fast comes when it will no longer be tribulation and patience, but power and glory. All will be brought under subjection to Christ, and He will reign for ever and ever.

When this is heard in heaven, the twenty-four elders rise from their thrones (verse 16). How sweet is this! Before, when glory was ascribed to God, or the Lamb appeared, they rose and cast themselves down before Him. They were ready for everything that exalted the Godhead. If it be as the Creator (Rev. 4), they prostrate themselves before Him that sat on the throne; or if they hear of the slain Lamb who is about to unveil the secrets of futurity (Rev. 5), they fall down before Him and proclaim Him worthy.

So here now the last trumpet sounds, "the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ" is announced, and forthwith the twenty-four elders are on their faces, giving God thanks, because He had taken to Him His great power and had reigned. It is true that it must be through much sorrow for guilty men. For the sword of judgment has to clear the way, that the sceptre of righteousness may have free course. "The nations were angry, and thy wrath is come," etc. But they knew well that, though man must come down with a crash, he will be exalted in the only true and enduring way in the kingdom of our Lord and of His Anointed. And so they give thanks to the Lord God Almighty, "that art, and wast [and art to come]" (verse 17). I beg leave to omit the last clause, "and art to come" — not as a conjecture (for conjecture on scripture is presumption), but because of what the best witnesses for the word of God really maintain. The clause, "and art to come," was put in to make it square with other passages which contain a similar phrase.

In the first chapter you may remember that the salutation was, "Grace unto you, and peace, from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come." All these three clauses are from God. They assert that He is Jehovah, the One that is, and was, and is to come; they are almost a translation into the Greek of the name Jehovah — One who is always the same. A similar phrase appears in Revelation 1: 8, only there it is not John's salutation to the churches, but the direct word of God Himself: "I am Alpha and Omega, saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty," evidently pointing to the unchanging continuity of His being. In Rev. 4 there is a little departure from the order given in the previous passages, and quite rightly: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come;" not "which is, and was," etc., but here, "which was and is." It may seem a slight change, but it is not without meaning. The emphasis in Rev. 1 is thrown upon the words, "which is," because God is presenting Himself as the ever-existing One. "Which was" is put first in Revelation 4, possibly because the living creatures (who had been the instruments of God's judgments in past dispensations, as they will be in the future) may look back upon the past, and therefore do not lay stress upon "which is," but begin with what God had been all through the past. Certainly they had been seen first at the garden of Eden as Cherubim (Gen. 3); next they formed a sort of representation of the judicial power of God in the tabernacle and in the temple (Ex. 25; 1 Kings 6); and then finally they were active when Jerusalem was swept away, and judgment came upon Israel. In Rev. 4, Ezek. 1, Ezek. 11 these living creatures, which had been the witnesses of God's ways all through, begin with what God was, the perfection of His being as, if one may so say, it had been historically unfolding. In Rev. 11 there is the omission of the words, "and art to come," perhaps because the arrival of the world-kingdom of the Lord is here celebrated, so that there was no need to add anything. Before He came in His kingdom it was appropriate; but it would be hardly suitable here. As I find that the best authorities reject the words, it is surely legitimate to try to show how the better reading harmonizes with the truth of God in the passage itself.

The general meaning of the next verse (18) is plain. "The nations were wroth, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged," etc., all which was to be executed afterwards. It is a sort of comprehensive view of what would take place from the beginning of the kingdom, when the various corruptions should be judged, and during the millennium up to "the end," when all judgment closes.

The three great thoughts then of this chapter, as we have seen, are priestly worship; next a prophetic testimony; and finally the kingdom announced in heaven as come. The Lord grant that our hearts, brought into the enjoyment of such privileges, may be with Christ, not merely because of the blessing, but for His own sake! Christ is better than all the blessings that come even from Him; and we shall never rightly enjoy what He gives, except in proportion as we enjoy Himself.

That the greater part of the chapter refers to the antipapal witnesses, crowned by the Reformation, though urged with confidence and with no lack of ingenuity, I cannot but regard as a total failure, involving in some places a sense not only different from, but the reverse of, the express language of the prophecy. Thus the giving of a reed like a rod to John is supposed to denote the royal authorization of the Reformer whom the prophet here impersonated. This is said to have been fulfilled after the death of Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, when his brother and successor John assumed to himself supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, and exercised it resolutely by forming new ecclesiastical constitutions, modelled on the principles of Luther, the example being followed elsewhere in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and afterwards in England. How singular that men of God should be so prepossessed with Protestantism, and so enamoured even of its blots, as to turn the word of God into a sanction of the very things in which the Reformers departed from scripture as widely perhaps as they did from Rome! I am aware that the application of the rod in this passage to the intervention of civil authority is at least as old as Brightman; but this ought to have given time for considering, and rejecting so unworthy a notion. Nothing can be simpler, it seems to me, than the truth intended. In prospect of the approaching divine government of the earth, Israel and their land become as ever the central object. The Lord therefore takes special cognizance of them, marking what He owns and what He leaves out. The outside multitude are disowned; account is taken only of those who worshipped within — a distinction far indeed from being true of Protestants in contrast with Papists. The reed was the instrument of measurement, not of gold (as for the heavenly Jerusalem), but "like a rod." There seems an allusion to Zech. 2 (and Ezek. 40: 3), with just such differences as in the reference of verse 4 to Zech. 4. There it is a measuring line (σχοινίον γεωμετρικόν), and the entire city is to be measured. Here it is but a special part, measured by that which was not longer than a staff, which the Lord reserved as His portion during the crisis, the rest being profaned by the Gentiles for forty-two months. It is very far from being the due re-establishment of Jerusalem, but it is the little pledge of all that is to follow. A similar remark applies here as before. Precisely so far as the Reformers slipped into Jewish ideas and order, instead of falling back upon the true and heavenly peculiarities of the church of God, there may be an appearance of definite fulfilment. Had they walked in separation from the world, the author of Horae Apoc. must have lost a large proportion of his apparent identifications.

In the two witnesses, which is the next subject of importance, this comes out very clearly. Their earlier history is supposed to be retrospectively given, along with what remained to be fulfilled. As to their personality, we are agreed: they are not things or books, but persons who testify. But the testimony of Jesus, it is well to note, means not merely for Him, but the spirit of prophecy proper to this book. The gospel is not the subject. Further, the two olive-trees and the two candlesticks have nothing to do with the churches (or ἅ εἰσιν). That theme is completely closed, as we have seen repeatedly; and we are here avowedly in presence of the proclamation of Christ's title to land and sea. Hence, as it is added, these stand "before the Lord of the earth." In a word, the connection is not with the church-state, which then will have long past, but with the order predicted in Zech. 4, which undoubtedly refers to the millennial provision for the light of God in the midst of Israel.

Doubtless, there are points of distinction; for our chapter belongs in its full meaning to the interval after the rapture of the saints and before the thousand years. There is one candlestick all of gold in Zechariah, with its bowl, its seven lamps, its seven pipes, and an olive-tree on either side; perfect unity and perfect development. Whatever may have been the then historical accomplishment in Zerubbabel and Joshua, the two anointed ones of the Jewish prophet point in their fulness to the kingly and priestly offices of Christ, the grand means of dispensing and maintaining divine light in "the world to come." Here it is only a testimony to these things; and therefore, as the least sufficient testimony according to the law, there were two witnesses. The oil here is associated, not with joy, but with mourning; and the witnesses are clothed, not with the garment of praise, but with the sackcloth of affliction. Avenging power is theirs, like that of Moses and Elijah. How vain to bend all this to the witnessing Christians, Western or Eastern, earlier or later! Their calling practically was to resist not evil, to love their enemies, to bless those who cursed them, to do good to such as hated them, to pray for their persecutors; and this, as the Lord expressly illustrated it, after the pattern of their heavenly Father, who, instead of shutting heaven that it rain not, contrariwise sends it in indiscriminate mercy on just and unjust.

Of course, on the historical view (which in a general way I allow), the days of their prophecy are years, and the judgments must be taken figuratively. But how, if it be pretended that this is all fulfilled? Had the Paulicians and the Waldenses (supposing them to be true witnesses untainted by heresy) authority to withhold the dew of grace all their days, or to smite with plagues as often as they would? To curse the earth with a spiritual drought is still more tremendous than if it were in a physical sense, even though their power embraced heaven, earth, the waters, and their enemies. I perceive, however, that an effort is made to escape the difficulty of the devouring fire that issues from them, by referring to the final fiery judgment on the adversaries (H. A., ii. pp. 203, 407); but what can be lamer than such shifts? Present judicial power, continuous or occasional, against all opposers is the true and full meaning: like Elijah's in the midst of an apostate people, and like Moses' in the midst of a people oppressed and enslaved by the Gentiles. But as their testimony is prophetic and not the gospel, so it is armed with judgment instead of breathing grace. Righteous vengeance guards the claims of the Lord of the earth. Heaven is the source, centre, and home of grace. It is in the vaguest conceivable way that a delineation like this can be made to suit proper Christian witnesses; and it is chiefly the mixture of Jewish feeling and conduct, found alas! too often and especially in dark times, which lends a colour to such applications. I hardly like to notice the fancied coincidence of the black goatskin of the Vaudois and the sackcloth, or of the motto of the Counts of Lucerna (lux lucet in tenebris) and the candlestick.

But now comes another obvious and grave objection to the scheme of the Horae Apocalypticae. The natural meaning of verse 7 of course is, that when their 1260 days of testimony have expired the beast kills the witnesses. But this does not fit in with past facts. Criticism is therefore summoned to substitute an ambiguous word, so as to convey that after their death many of the days may yet remain to run out. Difficulties are pressed, but they are not insuperable. For the witnesses have an exceptional place, and therefore might be miraculously maintained for their allotted period, while saints generally were suffering and slain. And the beast's forty-two months might coincide with the 1260 days of the witnesses consistently with the brief interval of three and a half days' exposure and their rise and ascent to heaven, the earthquake, etc. For what act against God or His people is attributed to him afterwards? I know of none. So that it might still be true that their testimony and his "practising" close together, while a short space might intervene before the execution of God's judgments on the beast in the height of his triumph. In other words, the forty-two months define the epoch not of the beast's destruction, but of his being permitted "to work." Daniel entirely strengthens this conclusion; for we find in Rev. 12 an interval of some length after the three and a half years before full blessing comes.

It is extraordinary that a learned person should cite Gal. 5: 16 and Heb. 9: 6, as parallel with Rev. 11: 7. For it is plain from the absence of the article that the first passage goes no farther than fulfilling flesh's lust. That is it could not mean the termination of the whole career of lust. The anarthrous usage here is, in fact, the strong and needed assurance that walking in the Spirit is the divine safeguard against fulfilling anything of the sort. In our text it is a definite testimony, of which the length had been carefully specified; and whether you translate it finished or completed, the full time is, it seems to me, necessarily involved. The passage in Heb. 9, every scholar must know, has no bearing on the case, because the tense implies a continued or habitually repeated action; while the tense in Rev. 10 implies an action complete or concluded. Indeed, it is plain that to the interpreters in general this word has proved an insuperable difficulty. Hence the rendering of Mede, "when they shall be about finishing," and so Bishop Newton. Equally offensive to mere grammar is that of Daubuz, "whilst they shall perform their testimony;" or the earlier view of Mr. Elliott,* "when the witnesses shall have been fulfilling." The truth is that, interpreted with simplicity, according to the regular meaning of the word and in harmony with the context, the witnesses are divinely protected the 1260 days of their testimony. Then, their mission having been completed, and not before, God permits that the beast should fight, overcome, and slay them. But this, applied strictly on the year-day scale, completely destroys Mr. E.'s interpretation in particular, if not the Protestant school generally, save that some of them refer a part as being yet unfulfilled to the future.

*Is it right to refer to Hippolytus, as if he agreed with Mr. E.'s idea of the witnesses making complete their testimony, long before the whole period assigned, or their own death? The very reverse was his belief.

Manifestly the previous dislocation of the prophecy leads to the next error, that "the great street of the city," or "the street of the great city" (verse 8), refers to Rome and not Jerusalem. Now, I am not disposed to deny that, on the prolonged view, such an application is left room for, especially considering the peculiar way in which the city is here alluded to. But this is the utmost which can be fairly granted, and it not at all excludes the closing fulfilment in the actual city wherein the Lord of the witnesses was crucified. The context seems to me quite decisive that Jerusalem is intended; for nobody doubts that, whether literally or figuratively understood, the holy city of the opening verses (the centre of the testimony, though in the face of profaning Gentiles) is not Rome but Jerusalem. It is agreed that the beast is Roman, but this in no way strengthens the theory that Rome is the city here intended. His making war upon the witnesses is, on the contrary, much more naturally applicable to a locality not under his own immediate jurisdiction. No doubt Babylon is the symbolic designation of Rome in Revelation 17, where Rome is confessedly the great city, and so of course in Revelation 14, 16. But Babylon has not been named as yet, and there is no reason why Jerusalem also should not be so styled; especially as the figurative terms, Sodom and Egypt conjoined, are nowhere else connected with Rome, and the fact which winds up the description ("where also their Lord was crucified") points to Jerusalem.* If it were said ἑκλήθη historically (or κέκληται, the present result of the past), there might have been more difficulty; for, though scripture had already likened Jerusalem of old to Sodom, it had not to Egypt. But the reference is to the moral features of Jerusalem, as it is to be in the days of the witnesses, and so καλεῖται is strictly correct. And certainly if Nineveh had the title as well as the Chaldean Babylon in the Old Testament, it is hard to see why, in the Apocalypse, Jerusalem might not have it as well as Rome, supposing that the context looks that way. Thus the question to what city our chapter refers must be judged by the conclusion to which we come as to all this part of the Revelation, and as to Revelation 10 and 11 in particular. The grand point is that the things which come to pass after "the things that are" do not belong (save in the general moral bearing already and so often acknowledged) to the present order of things, but to the transitional epoch when God is about to bring the First-born into the inhabited earth. Therefore He will then be busied with the provisional government of the world, and hence specially with the Jews, who are the prominent object and direct instrument of His earthly rule. Accordingly the witnesses, as we have remarked before, are said to stand before the Lord of "the earth;" for this is in question, not His ways with the church.

*Were the reading such as Mr. E. repeatedly represents it (of course through oversight), πλατειᾳ της π. της μ. (H. A., vol. ii. p. 409, note 4, and yet more incorrectly in vol. iv. p. 579, note 1), there had been no room for this rendering, which some very competent judges prefer.

Hence, whatever may be thought of the coincidence in mystic reckoning between the not very truthful speech at the Fifth Lateran Council, ("Jam nemo reclamat, nullus obsistit,") which in the skilful hands of Mr. E. is made to denote the extinction of the witnesses, and Luther's posting up his theses at Wittemberg three and a half years afterwards, which denotes their resurrection, I cannot but regard the interpretation as forced an unnatural. The only unbiassed way of taking the account is that the 1260 days were fulfilled when the prophets were slain. What more absurd than to imply that, in spite of their death, they are still safe and sound for centuries afterwards, and that the sackcloth testimony on earth can co-exist* with their ascent to heaven, understand heaven as one may? But once the Protestant scheme is made the exclusive fulfilment, can one be surprised that the marvellous explanations given to the earlier part of the chapter are only surpassed by increasing wonders in the latter portion? Certainly few councils had less claim to be considered made up of delegates from the peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, and nations, than that almost exclusively Italian assembly. Dean Waddington, who did not write for the purpose of illustrating Rev. 11, records that the Bohemian heresy "was again rising into formidable attention" at this very time. Who can think that the breath of the orator slew them? If they refused to answer the summons to Rome, John Huss had done the same before them, and Luther did so after them. It may have been want of courage; but Prague, Augsburg, and Worms were not the same thing as such a council held in Rome. I need not dwell on the enactment refusing Christian burial to heretics, the Pope's extraordinary donation of — not the golden rose only, but — the sovereignty of half the Eastern world to the King of Portugal, the grant of a plenary papal indulgence, the singing of the Te Deum, or the splendour of the dinners and fêtes given on the triumphant close of the Council.

*The alleged case of Rev. 7: 1, 2, has nothing, to my mind, in common.

But the deductions from verses 12, 13, must not be passed over. The call to the witnesses is made a summons from the highest authorities to ascend "the heaven of political elevation and dignity," and was fulfilled first by the pacification of Nuremberg (1532), and yet more by the Peace of Passau twenty years after. The cloud is conceived to imply that these political triumphs were the terminating result of Christ's special intervention, and to identify the cause of the witnesses with the Reformation. The effects of this mighty revolution in the overthrow of the tenth part of the city, and the slaying of seven chiliads,* are set forth as the fall of papal dominion in England, and in the seven Dutch United Provinces. And the ascending Protestants gave glory to the God of heaven, as on Mary's death, Elizabeth's accession, the destruction of the Armada, and the reign of William III. Thus, commercial and maritime and colonial power crowning Protestant England and Holland, it began to appear why the covenant angel planted his right foot on the sea, his left only on the mainland. Insular, missionary, England was to be the principal instrument of asserting Christ's claims to universal dominion and gospel truth against papal usurpation and lies. Could one ask for more palpable evidence of the absurd and mischievous effects of a wrong system? To refute such trifling with the word of God appears to me hardly called for. And what can we say to the delusion that the loud voices in heaven, under the seventh trumpet (verse 15), proceeded from "the religious world of the great Protestant powers?" Or that its general indications coincide with the more prominent characteristics and concomitants of the past French Revolution? (vol. iii. p. 338.) We must impute these extravagancies to the necessity of the case; for the text requires that the last woe should follow quickly after that of the Turks (verse 14). Hence the desire to make out something in the seventeenth century, because of the great Reformation of the sixteenth, so as to fill up the great gap that follows. It is the more strange, as Mr. E. had already (vol. ii. p. 474) made the seventh trumpet to include not the events alone, that are preparatory to Christ's reign, but the millennium itself, and even all other revealed events beyond it.

*Some readers will be curious to learn by what process of legerdemain these slain chiliads can be metamorphosed into the Protestant Dutch provinces which threw off the Spanish yoke. Cocceius threw out the notion first, but it was rejected by Vitringa and the more sober commentators, till Mr. E. re-asserted it. It is said that the Hebrew equivalent, alaph was used in the course of Jewish history for a tribal subdivision, without reference to that number, and even for the district in question. On this very slender basis, in conjunction with the old error of the Christian twelve tribes of Israel, all is founded. The fact is, that χιλιάς in the Apocalypse and the New Testament generally, is used in no such contradistinction to the numeral adjective. It is applied, in the simplest possible way, to soldiers, believers, and Israelites. It is said of angels, of men, and of a measure. Nor is there in the Septuagint the least real ground that I can see for taking the word in even one instance as a province, or territorial subdivision. Yet the substantive occurs more commonly than the adjective. The truth is that, according to the meaning of the verse, the seven thousand (or complete body devoted to death) fell with the tenth part of the city, not those there, and these here. And the affrighted remnant consists of the other inhabitants of the guilty city, in contrast with the complement of the slain in the sphere of the earthquake's ravages.

In verse 19 I think that the opening of the temple in heaven marks a new portion of the book, and that it is therefore connected, not so much with what went before, as with what follows; for it is clear that the verses before (15-18) gave the sounding of the last trumpet, and the announcement of the consequences of God's taking to Him His great power and reigning — not the mere sway of man, but the power of God put forth in an altogether new way. There was a sample of His power, but not in connection with Christ, at the time when He fought the battles of His people and put down the Canaanites. But then it was exercised within failing, guilty Israel, without their Messiah; and consequently that power was often obliged to be put forth against themselves, and not against their enemies only, because God can never have alliance with sin. But now, under the last trumpet, the kingdom of the Lord God and of His Christ was come, and this is what the earth looks for, and the Lord Himself too; for He is waiting "till His enemies be made His footstool" Then the whole scene here below will be changed. He will come and execute wrath as terrible as His patience has been divine; and the effect will be that, "when His judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." There will be the presence of the Lord Jesus and the absence of Satan; there will be, not only the execution of wrath on the living, but finally also she judgment of the dead. And these things seem to be brought together under the same trumpet. All is anticipated from the beginning of the kingdom to the end of it — all the main displays of divine glory in the government of both quick and dead. And there evidently the subject closes; for the opening of the temple of God in heaven (verse 19) ushers in another and wholly different vision, which has not directly to do with God in His kingdom, but here first of all it is a new theme that comes before us.

Revelation 12 - 18.

W. Kelly.

Part 3 of Lectures on the Book of Revelation.

(The Translation by W. Kelly of the Revelation of John is included as the file revtrans.doc. Search for 'revelation /2/ john'.)

Revelation 12

Under the seventh trumpet the elders anticipated the effects of the throne being actually established over the earth. But now the temple is again seen, so that we go back here, for we have God's purposes in connection with the Lord Jesus from the very beginning — the man child who was to rule all the nation with a rod of iron being clearly, as I think, Christ Himself. It is God reverting to His purpose in Christ, born as the heir of the world — not in relation to the calling of the church, but as the man of might, destined to govern all, and with no feeble hand. It appears to me that this accounts for another remarkable feature of the vision. Christ's death and resurrection are not alluded to, but His birth and His rapture (not His death) are given in a summary manner. We have the woman in pain to be delivered; and the man child is born; and then we have Him taken away to the throne of God above. Of course this is not given as history. The Lord Jesus had been born and had died long ago: if it had been history, His all-important death would not, could not, have been passed over.

Here it is plain the Holy Ghost connects the birth of Christ and His rapture to the throne of God in heaven with Israel and the purposes of God about them. The birth of Christ is of special importance to Israel. The genealogy of the Messiah is therefore carefully given in Matt. 1; and in Matt. 2 we find all Jerusalem was troubled at His birth. This was the working of the dragon. Herod was a sort of expression of the dragon's power, who would gladly have devoured the child as soon as it was born. through that evil king as his instrument. The child was delivered; but in the history, instead of being taken up to the throne of God, He was carried down into Egypt. So that our chapter cannot be regarded as historical, in the early part at least; and even where historical facts are alluded to, they are not arranged in order of fact at all, but simply linked with God's thoughts about Israel. The church as such is passed over. It may be involved mystically in the person and destiny of the man child, but there is no gradual unfolding of the thoughts of God as to His having a heavenly bride for His Son. Nothing is said about a bride for the man child. We have the mother, but not the Lamb's wife here. Israel was the mother of Christ. It was of them, as concerning the flesh, that the Christ was born. This is the great point which the apostle Paul urges on the Jews in Romans 9, because the Jews thought he made light of their privileges, and was against them, in consequence of the strong way in which he brought out God's mercy to the Gentiles. But it was not so at all. He demonstrates, in fact, that they overlooked their highest distinction. To them were given the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. They had the fathers too, and last of all, to them was given a Son, the man child, whom they knew not — the Christ; for of them as to the flesh He came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Far from lessening the just glory of Israel, the apostle had a much more exalted view of it than themselves.

As in Rom. 9 Paul does not go on to speak of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, so it is here. Accordingly these two thoughts are connected in Rev. 12. The man child is brought forth, but leaves the scene where the dragon was opposed to Him, and takes His place upon the throne of God, which none but a divine person was entitled to do. By and by He will sit on His own throne, but that will be when He governs the earth in a direct and public way; for God will never give up the right and title of the Lord Jesus to the earth as well as to the heavens. He has acquired a title by redemption, besides His essential one as Creator. But then He is going to do much better than to rule all nations with a rod of iron, or even bless His earthly people. His heart is to be shown. He must have a free course and a due object for all His love. Christ wants to have those that deserve nothing but judgment as the sharers of His glory above. What is done by Christ and for Christ, whilst is He is upon the throne of God, is not alluded to here. Israel is in question. These few thoughts may be helpful to understand the proper place and bearing of this new vision.

The temple of God then is opened in heaven,* and there was seen in it the ark of His covenant, the pledge of His faithfulness to His people. For, as we have observed in the last chapter, there was a certain measured remnant that drew near to God in the way of worship, and to these witnesses was given a testimony to the Lord's rights over the earth, as finally there was the announcement of the kingdom. Now we have another train of idea. There was the throne, and a rainbow round about it in Rev. 4. Here there is the temple, and the ark of God's covenant seen in it. This may prepare the way for the difference between the two subjects. There it was God's power over creation. Providential judgments were about to fall upon the earth, and the rainbow was to show, before a judgment was experienced, that even then God would remember mercy. The rainbow round the throne in Revelation 4, and round the head of the mighty angel in Revelation 10 before the sounding of this last trumpet, guaranteed that God was working, not for the destruction, but for the deliverance of the earth. But now we come to a further point; for blessed as the throne is, it does not bring us into such depths of God's character, as do the associations of the temple and the ark. Displays of divine power are not so much what draw out our hearts in worship, as when we draw near to the dwelling-place and home of God Himself; for though there is no one thing we have so truly to be ashamed of as our poor and inadequate answer to His holiness, yet it is just there God has met us in His grace.

*The true reading may not improbably be ὁ ἐν τῶ οὐρανῶ which is in heaven. At any rate so the Alexandrian, and the Paris rescript, the Leicester, a Vatican cursive (579), the Middlehill, the Mortfort and one of the Parham (17) manuscripts say, not to speak of the Cod. Coislin. of Andreas and Victorinus: not so the Sinai, Basilian-Vat., and Porphyrian uncials, with the mass of cursives. Mr. E. is also quite wrong in saying that "according to Tregelles this is a mistake." It is true that, in his first edition, he inadvertently omitted to name this various reading, though long before noted by Walton, Mill, Bengel, (Wetstein probably,) and even adopted without question in the text, not of Wordsworth only, but of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Green, and it appears Tregelles also, judging from the new edition of 1859. How it was that Mr. E. did not find it in the critical editions of Griesbach and of Scholz, it is not for me to say: but there it unquestionably may be found by any who examine them. In Hahn's slight manual one could not rightly expect it given. To cite Rev. 15: 5 where there is no difference of reading cannot decide one way or another as to Rev. 11: 19, where there is such weighty testimony on both sides. The chief bearing of the later occurrence would perhaps be to encourage assimilation in a bold scribe. Besides the article is often dropped carelessly, and especially might be in such a form as this, where its force is not at first sight apparent.

Now He is going to show us not merely creation and mankind smitten, but Satan's connection with the final apostacy of this age. There had been a figurative allusion to his influence in Rev. 9: 2, where smoke issues out of the abyss or bottomless pit; then, in Rev. 11: 7, the beast ascends out of that pit; but here the evil source is thoroughly disclosed. And is it not precious to find that, before God discovers to us the tide of full evil, and shows us not merely the development and the instruments among men, but the great hidden spring of it all, and the person of him who puts himself at its head, and who is yet to work out this tremendous conspiracy against God — to find that before all this the temple of God in heaven was opened, and there was seen in His temple the ark of His covenant?* For the heart under such circumstances wants not the manifestation of God's power merely, but to know that His holiness is secured, and that in virtue of it His people stand. Accordingly we find that when the temple is opened above, it is not a rainbow that is seen, but God's connection with His people is set forth in the ark which now appears; for the ark was always nearest to God, and what faith therefore most clave to. Israel showed themselves to be dead to all right and godly feeling, when they were willing to expose it even in the hope of deliverance from the Philistines. The dying grief of Eli, and the living transports of David, alike show what the ark was in the eyes of the true-hearted. Here it is the ark of God's covenant in heaven; not merely that of Israel which might be taken away. Even the wise king did not adequately value the ark of old. And this shows the superiority of David; for faith is always, if I may so say, wiser than wisdom. If we had the largest human intelligence, and even the highest natural wisdom that God can confer, it never rises up to the height of simple faith. Solomon appears before the great altar. It was a magnificent spectacle, and he was an august king, and brought suited offerings. But David showed his faith in this, that it was not the altar merely which he prized, but the ark most of all. The ark was a hidden thing; not even the high priest could see it, save wrapped in clouds of incense. One had to walk by faith and not by sight, in order to appreciate the ark of God. Therefore David could not rest until the ark had its settled place in Israel; and he never had deeper joy than when the ark came back to Jerusalem. It is time that the ark brought judgment upon all who despised it, and even David's heart was afraid for a time, and the ark rested in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite. But David regained the spring of confidence in God, which generally so marked his career; for we find him afterwards rejoicing when the ark was welcomed back more than ever he did in all his victories put together.

*Mr. E. remarks (iii. 308, note 4), "It is clear that this word ought to have been here translated covenant not testament. Indeed so I think, always in the New Testament specially inclusive of Heb. 9?" I should say in every place, except in Heb. 9: 16, 17, where the reference is clearly to the "inheritance" just named in verse 15. This, it seems to me, furnishes occasion to the inspired writer to found a fresh illustration of the all-important death of Christ upon the idea of a will or testament, which comes into effect only on the demise of the testator, τοῦ διαθεμένου. The latter word never means covenanting victim, nor do I believe it possible that it could. It was technically used for disposing of property. If these two verses be read parenthetically and with this sense, all is clear. I have no wish to speak dogmatically on a point so nice; but such is the view which commends itself most to me.

Here, it is not the ark of man's covenant at all, but of God's covenant; the temple of God in heaven is opened, not on earth yet (i.e. it is only the purpose of God about it); and associated with this the ark of His covenant is seen, the sure pledge of mercy, and sign of faithfulness to His people. But still the circumstances were such as called for judgment; and accordingly "there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail,"* all of which were the tokens of God's judgment. The day of peace and glory was yet to come. Thus you get these two things united: first, the pledges of God's interest in, and triumph for, His people; and then the signs of His judgment upon the evil that must be set aside before the time of full blessing.

*It is amazing that the true relation of this verse escaped the notice of so many able Christian men, owing perhaps to the mere fact of its being unfortunately tacked to the end of Rev. 11, instead of opening the new division commencing with Rev. 12. if Mr. Elliott had only observed it, he might have been spared much trouble; but then he would have lost the coincidence of the "great hail" with the storm in July, 1788!! and the "earthquake" of the French Revolution in 1789. But the hailstorm he had hitherto interpreted as an invasion from the cold north-east. Where is the consistency of this vaunted scheme? And what had the opening of the temple of God, or the sight of the ark of His covenant there, to do with the French democrats?

"And there appeared a great sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (verse 1). I think it probable there may be an allusion here to the well-known dream that Joseph had of the sun, moon, and stars, explained by himself as alluding to his parents and brethren. Here the symbols are more general, and naturally refer — the sun to supreme glory, the moon to that which is derived, and the stars to inferior or subordinate authority. All this is seen in connection with Israel; for God intends, as far as this world is concerned, all power and glory to circle round Israel. As for the church, she will have all in perfection with Christ, and in Christ; but as far as the earth is concerned, Israel will be the centre. The woman is the symbol of God's purpose as bound up with Israel.

In the next verse we have another thing; it is the man by the woman. And so we find that "being with child, she crieth, travailing in birth, and pained to bring forth;" and a little after we read (verse 5) that "she brought forth a man child who is to rule all the nations," etc. Thus we see it was not the woman who was of such importance for her own sake, though clothed with all these symbols of glorious power; but the reason is because from her comes the man child. And we shall find this thought is not at all foreign to scripture. Take for instance the Psalms, where the same thing is alluded to in a mystical way. Thus in Psalm 87 the word is that the Lord is exalted; His foundation is in the holy mountain. He is challenging the world to compare their best with what He can produce. "Jehovah loveth the gates of Zion," etc. He chose Zion out of all the cities of Israel, because God's sovereign choice must be carried out, even among His people. "I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me." Rahab was the figurative name for Egypt, and Egypt and Babylon were the most famous nations in the Psalmist's time. Philistia, with Tyre and Ethiopia, were, no doubt, powers of inferior order, but extremely celebrated for their trade, commerce, skill, etc. Of them it shall be said, "This man was born there." And of Zion, "This and that man was born in her, and the Highest himself shall establish her. Jehovah shall count," etc. I believe there is a dim allusion to the birth of the Christ, where God and His people glory so to speak, (whatever other men may have been,) that this man was born there. The reference is, I think, to the Lord Jesus chiefly, if not alone. Let others boast of their great men, but "Jehovah shall count when he writeth up the people, that THIS man was born there." When He writeth up the people, of whom does He think? Why of Christ; of the One that was born of the woman, born of Israel, and now caught up to heaven. When we are on the look-out for Christ, passages will be found to bear upon Him, more or less distinctly, all through scripture; for He who wrote the scriptures had Christ ever in view. It is not the death of Christ we hear in this Psalm, because this would have brought the sin of the Jews prominently before them. But it is His birth, which was or should have been unmingled joy. And therefore when Jesus was born, the heavenly hosts broke forth in praises, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will in men." There was no trouble among them, whatever might be the feelings of Herod and all Jerusalem. Their great joy was what Christ would be for God and men, and especially for the city of David: in other words, just the suited feelings of those heavenly ones, that were not occupied with themselves, permitted to see the counsels of God as to His people.

There is another scripture or two I would briefly refer to, where we may get help as to the meaning of this woman and her child, not merely as to the fact of the birth, but in its connection with prophecy. Micah 5 furnishes a passage that both acquires and gives light when compared with Rev. 12. "Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops; he hath laid siege against us; they shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek." The last words set forth, what we have not in the Revelation, the rejection of Christ and the dishonour done to Him by His own people. Then the Holy Ghost interrupts the course of the chapter by a parenthesis; for such is the whole of verse 2. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." It is Christ after the flesh who is God over all, blessed for ever. There you have the two points of the glory of Christ: His glory as a man, as Messiah; and withal, the One whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Then having shown who this was (the man to be smitten but a divine person, which had made the sin of smiting Him unpardonable, if it had not been for infinite mercy), He takes up again what we had in the first verse. "They shall smite the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek . . . Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel."

Mark the term of their being given up by God — "until the time" of the birth. This shows that we are not to take the allusion to the birth of the man child as a literal reference to Christ's birth into the world, but rather in conjunction with the accomplishment of the purposes of God respecting Israel. Christ was born (Micah 5: 2): then comes His rejection, and, as it were measuring His rejection on earth and His exaltation in heaven, the calling of the church. But the prophecy here passes by all that has to do with the church and takes up Christ's birth figuratively, connecting it with the unfolding of the divine purposes, which is itself symbolized by a birth. The Judge of Israel is smitten with a rod upon the cheek, and therefore Israel is given up until the time when, to use the language of Jeremiah, Jacob's trouble is come, but he shall be saved out of it. Here it is put figuratively, as Zion travailing till the birth of this great purpose of God touching Israel. "Then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel." All the time the church is being called, the remnant of the Jews ("those who should be saved") are taken out of Israel, cease to look for Jewish hopes as their portion, and are absorbed into the church. But when God's earthly purpose begins to take effect in the latter day, the remnant of that time will form part of Israel and will resume their ancient Jewish place. The natural branches shall be grafted into their own olive-tree.

Another scripture speaks of Zion's bringing forth; but it is of a very different kind. In the last chapter of Isaiah the allusion is to a birth, but there it is said to be in one day. "A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Jehovah that rendereth recompence to his enemies. Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith Jehovah: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God. Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her." It is evidently not the time spoken of in Rev. 12. So that it is plain that there are three chief critical points connected with Israel's history. First, there is the birth of the Messiah; secondly, the passage in Micah, the ripening and effect of God's counsels regarding Israel, which is to be connected with Rev. 12 where God brings out His purpose concerning Israel, before the beast and antichrist are shown fully; and, thirdly, this passage in Isaiah 66 which is a sort of contrast with the others, the circumstances mentioned being the express reverse of those that accompany natural birth and of the figure used in our chapter. The three passages may be put together thus: — first, Micah 5 shows us the birth of Christ, and Israel given up till the result of God's counsels as to them shall appear by and by; next, Rev. 12 unfolds the time of sorrow* just before the last tribulation, when Satan, losing his old seats, attempts new plans in order to frustrate God's design to bless and magnify Israel; and then, lastly, Isaiah 66 is the time when all sorrow is past, and when before Zion travailed she brought forth — Israel's full and sudden blessing after the Lord has appeared. All previous sorrow flees away by reason of the joy that fills the city of Zion, or is only remembered to enhance it.

*Some, shrinking from the hypothesis that the birth of Christ is here alluded to, as being at variance with the exclusively future bearing of the Apocalypse incline to the view that the parturition of the woman means, in symbol, the formation of Christ in the hearts of Israel, or a certain part of them, before the final crisis. (Compare Gal. 4: 19.)

But now, going back to our chapter, we find that, besides the woman and the man child, there is another sign; a great antagonist of God appears — not the beast, but a much more serious power — "a great red dragon." And there is this remarkable circumstance — the same description which is applied to the beast is used of the dragon. How comes this? That Satan is the great red dragon there can be no doubt; this very chapter tells us so in verse 9: and yet he is described with the various characteristics that we find in the Roman empire (Rev. 13: 1), "having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns." I believe the reason is, that Satan is viewed in connection with earthly power. Just as the woman was seen invested with symbols of power from above which God has given her, so here Satan is clothed with the fulness of earthly authority. He has seven heads, the symbol of deliberative power, that which rules and guides, and ten horns, the symbol of kings or kingly dignities. He is the prince of the world, who surrounds himself with all power connected with the earth. The Roman empire is the grand representative of the power of Satan. But when we look at that empire in Revelation 13 we see this difference. The crowns were upon the heads of the dragon, but upon the horns of the beast. That is, in the Roman empire we have the exercise of the power represented as a matter of fact, but in Satan's case merely as a matter of principle or the root of the thing. Satan is the great moving spring, though unseen. It is a question of source and character, not of history.

First, then, we have had the thought and plan of God in respect to Israel and Christ. And it is plain that it is the destiny of the man child, not as yet the exercise of His dominion over all the nations; for if it were the latter, the woman would not have to flee to the wilderness, nor would the dragon be permitted to make war on her and the rest of her seed. To apply this historically is to entirely miss the teaching of God, who is here showing out His purpose, and no more as yet. Then the dragon appears, the one that God looks at as the ruler of this world, the prince of the power of the air, clothed with the same symbols of earthly power as we find later on in the Roman empire, save that in this last the crowns are upon the horns, or those actually swaying the power. (Rev. 13.) "And his tail draweth the third of the stars of heaven" (verse 4). This seems to be his malignant power in the way of false teaching and prophesying. In Isaiah 9 we are told that "the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail." The tail of the dragon does not set forth his earthly power, but his influence, through false teaching, in misleading souls, and specially those that were in the place of rule and authority — "the stars of heaven." "And the dragon stood before the woman that was about to bring forth, that when she brought forth he might devour her child." How wonderfully all scripture hangs together! For if you begin with the very first portion of scripture that speaks of the serpent, the woman and that subtle foe are seen face to face; and more than this, God appears on the scene where Satan had apparently gained a great triumph, and then it is that He gives the blessed revelation that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head." Here, at the close of scripture, the same parties reappear, but with marked differences. In the garden of Eden it was the serpent's success, but here the certain triumph of God; there it was the devil's craft, but here it is God's power, long displayed in patience, but all-glorious in the end. God permits the dragon to stand before the woman, ready to devour her child as soon as it was born. The dragon shows out his spite and wickedness to the last degree and in the next chapter his plans. Meanwhile, God turns even the suffering into more positive blessing for the faithful. The very certainty that He could crush the dragon gives Him patience to wait, and He wants His people to be like Himself.

I would just observe that we must not take the chapter as if it were all consecutive. Verse 7 begins a new division. And a proof that all does not follow in immediate order is this; the casting out of the dragon from heaven unto the earth precedes the woman's flight into the wilderness, and is in point of fact the reason of it (see verse 13), though only stated afterwards. The truth is, that the first six verses give us the complete picture. In the divine purpose, there is the woman clothed with the heavenly orbs, setting forth the power which God alone can confer. But there is another side of the picture. When the man child is brought forth, the mother is seen in weakness, and is obliged to fly for her life into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God.* God thinks so much of the time she spends there, that He does not call it "a time, times, and a half," but counts up, so to speak, every day she is there, "that they should feed her there a thousand, two hundred, and threescore days." Then comes a new scene in verse 7. It is no longer what takes place on earth, but in heaven, as it is to many a new thing, and startling. A war is intimated on high. How is that? A war in heaven? It is an easy thing to imagine the enemy of souls upon the earth, and a war with him there. But the war begins elsewhere. "And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven."

*It is true that εἰς may be translated unto or towards, no less than into: to decide which is meant, we must carefully examine the nature of the case, and the context. But Luke 9: 56, 57, in no wise proves that the woman was fleeing merely towards the wilderness; because we have various occurrences related immediately after the evangelist says that they proceeded unto another village — occurrences expressly said to be while they were on their way. So with Acts 8: 25; Acts 18: 18, etc. The two wings of the great eagle convey the very reverse of a gradual movement thither. Nor does the parenthetic account of the war in heaven confirm the notion of progressive stages.

If the Bible is implicitly believed, its intimation is distinct that Satan has power to draw near, and to accuse the saints before God. People may be staggered, and say, it cannot be; but it is better to be guided by the word of God than by the notions of men. The book of Job shows it; 1 Kings 22 also, and perhaps Zech. 3. You may say that these are visions; but we take the Epistle to the Ephesians, and there we are told by St. Paul that our conflict is not like that of Israel, who fought with the Canaanites. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world (or the world-rulers of this darkness), against spiritual [powers] of wickedness in heavenly places." Some use this verse in order to justify Christian persons resisting the powers of this world, in plain contradiction of Rom. 13 and other passages. But the principalities and powers in high places, in Eph. 6: 12, do not mean men at all. They are evil spirits, in contrast with men. The conflict of Israel was with living men on earth, while that of Christians is with wicked spirits in heavenly places. Of course, Satan cannot draw near into the immediate presence of God, into that light wherein God dwells, which none can approach unto; but he can draw near enough to accuse God's people before God Himself. The heavenly places here mean the heavens in general, and not merely what is called the third or highest heaven. As far as the lower heavens extend, Satan has access; there can be no doubt that he is prince of the power of the air.

Israel had to fight in order to acquire possession of their inheritance. The land was given to them in title, and before Moses was taken away from this life, the Lord Himself took him to the mountain-top, and showed him all the land of Gilead unto Dan, etc., calling the districts by the names of the tribes of Israel, as if they had been already there. But in order to enjoy their possessions, they had to fight for them; and so have we now. There is no such thing as enjoying the heavenly portion of the church without conflict with the enemy, and that is the reason why so many do not enjoy it. If the Christian does not enter his full heavenly portion here below, it is because he is occupied either with himself or with the world, or some other idol of the enemy, and then he cannot enjoy it. The great object of Satan is to hinder our enjoying, tasting, and living on our heavenly blessings in Christ; and in the same proportion that the world or the flesh is allowed, and so the door is left open to Satan to darken our eyes, we cannot see the goodly land. There must be victory over Satan before we can enter in. The adversary has not merely power through men's lusts below, but specially in connection with the heavenly places — power of hindering Christians from appreciating their portion here. But there is an end coming to that, though not without a struggle. God will put a stop to all Satan's means of access to heaven.

There is a text, often found obscure, that I cannot but connect with this. In Hebrews 9 where the various applications of the death of Christ are spoken of, there is the following allusion to the heavenly places: "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." One reason, I suppose, is because Satan was allowed so long to have access there as an accuser. God would long since have shown His own sense of the defilement produced there by the foe, if it were not for the death of Christ. But as He bears with the rebellion of the world, so does He also with another rebellion, the audacity of Satan, who ventures to intrude himself even into His own presence, to carry the accusations of His people before Him. But let us not forget that if there be one who loves to accuse, there is another to intercede, the Advocate, who never slumbers nor sleeps. There may be the devil against the saints, but there is Christ for them, who ever lives to make intercession. By and by God will not allow Satan any longer to taint the air of heaven. He is forcibly cast down thence, and has only power to deal with mankind in an earthly way. "Woe to the earth and to the sea! for the devil is come down to you" (verse 12), etc. — that is, to those nations who are in a settled or in an unsettled condition. Satan is henceforth entirely prevented from usurping his higher place, as prince of the power of the air. The heavens will then be cleared of him and his angels, never to regain their place above. He may come out on the earth again for a little season, after he has been bound, but he will never more appear in heaven as the accuser of the brethren before God. The momentous difference in the ways of God with His people is very marked here. All through the present time the accuser has a place in heaven, but at the predicted epoch he is cast out, and his place is not found any more there. Now, you will observe that this naturally, not to say necessarily, supposes the removal of the church to heaven before the change takes place; and for this reason, that if we suppose the church to be still on earth, when the devil and his angels are cast out of heaven, it would no longer be true of us that we wrestle with wicked spirits in heavenly places. Such will not be the condition of the saints, either during the millennium or in the great tribulation that precedes it.

Three years and a half roll on their course, after Satan is cast down to the earth, during which the woman and her seed (that is, Israel) are the objects of his persecution. "And the great dragon was cast [out], the old serpent that is called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were cast [out] with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven saying, Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast [out] that accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony; and they loved not their life unto death" (verses 9-11). "The blood of the Lamb;" this was what kept their conscience good, and gave them confidence before God. Their conscience was purged by the blood of Christ, and, besides that, they had their testimony for God. He gave them the blood of the Lamb as well as the word of their testimony, and they overcame by both. The one cleansed them before God, the other they held before men. "Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them." There are at this time dwellers in heaven, and they are to rejoice because Satan is cast down from heaven. The church is on high at the time of which John speaks; the saints are already taken away from the earth. "And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent" (verses 13, 14).

Now, it is plain that this brings us back to verse 6. The important link given us in verses 7-13 was needed, and after that we have consecutive order. We are brought down to the fact of the dragon's persecuting the woman and her child, and the woman's flight into the desert; and then the Spirit of God goes back to show us the deeper reasons, and higher source of all. Satan will have to leave his place in heaven, and now in a rage, "knowing that he has but a short time," he comes down to the earth to do his worst. He hates the woman, well knowing her seed is to crush him; so that all his long-cherished enmity is concentrated upon the woman and her seed. This is what leads the woman to flee into the wilderness. The enmity of Satan, not merely because she has brought forth a child destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron, but because Satan is cast down to earth. Satan was once innocent, but he departed from the place of a creature, admiring himself, and setting himself up against God. Now when Satan is cast down from heaven, he shows out all his evil feeling against God, by persecuting the woman and her seed.

"To the woman were given two wings of the great eagle," etc. Observe the difference here (analogous to Rev. 11), "where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time." In a former verse the time seems to be made, as it were, as long as possible, because, as I conceive, God's care for her was then the grand point. She had a place prepared for her of God, and when His care and preparation are in question, He lengthens out the time as much as possible; but where it is a question of the devil's power, He foreshortens it. It appears to be the same period, only put in a different way.*

*Dr. M'Causland (Latter Days of Jerusalem and Rome, pp. 314, 326) conceives that the 1260 days, forty-two months or three and a half times, are but abstract indices of the indefinite period of the present dispensation during which the Jewish body continues, like its type Elijah, in the wilderness, unvisited by the dew of the Spirit. Primasius in early days contended for a somewhat similar view; but while he thought that the dates were intended to include the period of the Christian dispensation, he also allowed their literal application to the find tribulation.

The serpent, so spoken of because of his subtle enmity, now adopts a new device. He "cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman," etc. (verse 15, 16.) This sets forth some providential means used of God to deliver His earthly people and purpose from the instruments of the enemy, then put into a state of great commotion. These last are represented by the waters issuing as a river from the dragon's mouth (people that are under the immediate influence of the devil); while evidently the earth helping the woman means the more settled parts of the world, used providentially to resist the efforts of Satan to overwhelm the Jews. "The earth" in this book may have morally a guilty character; but God can create a diversion where He sees fit, and so bring to nought that which is calculated to overwhelm His people.

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the remnant of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus" (verse 17). It might be a difficulty to some that a Jewish remnant should have the testimony of Jesus. But if you have followed me in former chapters, it will not be insuperable; because "the testimony of Jesus" in the book of Revelation is always of Jesus coming back again as the Heir of the world, and not of His relations in full heavenly grace that we know now. The Jewish remnant will not enjoy the same communion with the Lord Jesus that the church actually possesses; but they will stand in faith, and they will have the testimony which Jesus is rendering in the Apocalypse. In Revelation 1 we read, "The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass," etc. It is, we have often seen, a certain revelation which God gave to Jesus, connected with events that were shortly to come to pass. This in the next verse is called "the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ." So in Rev. 19: 10, "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy," which shows clearly that it is a prophetic knowledge of Jesus. Thus the testimony rendered in this book, though equally divine, differs from the blessed way in which God unfolds Christ now to the church which is His body. The remnant will have such a knowledge as the saints in the Old Testament times possessed — greater probably in amount, but similar, it seems to me, in kind. They will be waiting for Jesus to come. They will say, with penitent hearts, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of Jehovah." They will plead, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood?" I do not deny that they may have the New Testament before their eyes; but there will be no power to apply the New Testament facts to their own souls, as far at least as present peace and communion are concerned. What a proof that not merely the word is required, but the Holy Ghost to open it out, for the rest and enjoyment of the soul!

Some of us, even as Christians, have had no light as to certain truths, until in the grace of God He was pleased to remove the film from our eyes. And God does this ordinarily by specific means; for it is not His way to enable persons to take up the Bible and understand it, independently of His provision for the perfecting of the saints. God teaches His children, but in general it is through those He has given for the good of the church, and, though never tied down to that order, He does not set aside the wise and gracious arrangement that He has formed and will perpetuate as long as the church endures. Nourishment is ministered by joints and bands, and thus all the body knit together increases with the increase of God. What would enable us to do without one another is a thing that God never gives or sanctions. Supposing a person were cast upon a desert island, God would bless him in his solitary reading of the word with prayer; but where there are other means and opportunities, such as assembling ourselves together for instruction, for reading the scriptures, for public preaching, exhortation, etc., to neglect or despise them is the will of man and not the guidance of the Spirit of God.

These saints, like those of old, will fear Jehovah, and obey the voice of His servant, but withal must walk in darkness, and have no light, till the Lord returns in glory. Our place is identified with that of Christ Himself, risen and glorified. Compare Isa. 50: 8, 9, with Rom. 8: 33, 34, for the latter, and Isa. 50: 10, 11, for the former. Christians may not always act according to the light, but they walk in the light, as He is in the light. "He that followeth me," says our Lord, "shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." The remnant of that day will trust in the name of Jehovah, and stay upon their God; but it will be after another sort. Thomas in John 20, as compared with the other disciples, may illustrate this.

And now let us briefly notice the historical theory, as stated by one of the latest and ablest of its advocates. The woman is, of course, the Christian church, which is actually said to be not merely united as one, but morally bright and beautiful in the days of Constantine! ascendant for the first time in the political heaven; with the sunshine of the highest (Constantine) of the three imperial dignities, and the light of the second (Licinius); and with the chief bishops as a starry coronal, the heads, now imperially recognized, of the δωδεκάφυλον of the Christian Israel. (Horae Apoc., iii. pp. 17, 18.) Three pages after, the civil authorities are viewed as the moon, perhaps because of Licinius's apostacy and subsequent death. And the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is the old Roman paganism, concentrated for the time in Maximin's prohibiting the Christian assemblies, and even killing their bishops in his third of the empire. Again, Constantine reappears as the man child — a baptised (?) emperor, the son of Christ's faithful church, elevated over the whole empire to an avowedly Christian throne, that might be called the throne of God like Solomon's. And the ruling with an iron rod means the discountenance of pagans increasing almost to oppression, till at length, under Theodosius, all toleration ended, and their worship was interdicted under the severest penalties. But Mr. E., apparently not quite satisfied with this exposition, offers us the alternative of Mr. Biley, who thinks that the question here was one of fundamental orthodoxy, rather than of political eminence, and that the birth and exaltation of the man child refer to the solemn public profession of Christ's divinity, and its dogmatic establishment in the general Council of Nice.

Where is one to begin, where end, in unravelling this tangled web? Almost the only thing consistent is the melancholy result (God forbid that I should say intention) of degrading the living word of God. If something like the real point of the chapter is glanced at, it is to discard it summarily. Thus, it was too plain to be quite overlooked, that Christ is destined to rule all nations with a rod of iron (Psalm 2), and that this is made part of the promises to the Christians who overcome. (Rev. 2.) But all such reference Mr. E. considers excluded by the context. For, argues he, the woman is shown immediately after to be persecuted by the dragon, and then to spend 1260 days in the wilderness. But how does this set aside the other — the figure of Christ, take it personally or mystically, as the destined governor of all the nations? On this view, what can be clearer? The woman is Israel, first seen in heaven in the glorious purpose of God, and hence arrayed with that supreme power which is to rule the day, with the moon — which, from the context, may here be a symbol of legal ordinances — under her feet, and with the perfection of administrative authority as her crown of glory. It is not a question of historical fact, but of divine counsels. Accordingly, in spite of such a view on God's part, the woman is seen the object of Satan's enmity in the Roman empire, who, foiled in his wishes against the raptured Man of might, directs his efforts against the woman, or Israel, fled into the wilderness, desolate but preserved of God for her destined time of sorrow. I do not deny here, more than elsewhere, a vague analogy to the imperial overthrow of the power of the enemy in idolatry. All I insist on is, that the past accomplishment in no wise meets all the features of the case, and that the system which sees nothing else really makes God Himself the author of that judaizing of the church which, kept in cheek by the apostolic power, soon became doctrinally rampant in the writings of the early fathers, and from the time of Constantine was the established mould in which the Christian profession was cast. Hence, historically, the date does not at all answer. Mr. E. seems to be shy of defining the 1260 years of the woman's place in the wilderness. He considers the time soon after Constantine when the true orthodox church became insulated, invisible in respect of its public worship, and more and more straitened for spiritual sustenance: the latter a most unusual effect of persecution; the former an unaccountable result, if the eldest son of the true church had the chief power in the empire, and the old paganism of Rome showed itself — not in a thousand years and more of persecution, but — in the mere transient efforts of Maximin and Licinius first, and of Julian somewhat later.

And if heathenism and Arianism are strangely put together to make out the war of the dragon and his angels in heaven, what can serious Christians think of the notion that Eusebius's extravagant flattery of Constantine, and the unwarranted joy and expectations of the dominant party of that day, are the exact echo of the prefigurative voice heard saying, "Now hath come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ?" Certainly I do not wonder that the eye which can see in Zech. 3 compared with Ezra 4 a reference to the accusation of the Jews before the Persian king's court by their Samaritan foes, should read the fulfilment of "Rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them," in the imperial edict which proclaimed liberty to those who had been enslaved or condemned to the mines. (Horae Apoc., vol. iii. pp. 29-32.) Of similar character is the criticism, borrowed from Daubuz, that the use of the uncommon plural from heavens, instead of heaven, indicates the then union of elevation in heart to the spiritual heaven, and elevation and dignity to the heaven of worldly rank.

Then again, when we turn from the parenthetic heavenly war, and its consequences (verses 7-12) to the dragon's doings on earth, we are told that the two wings of the great eagle were fulfilled in Theodosius the Great, whose lot it was to unite the Eastern and Western divisions of the empire under his own sway, and use all his power as a protector and nursing father to the orthodox church. Under these wings Augustine's ministry is said not only to have furnished present food, but nourishment for its long long sojourn in the wilderness. How the dragon, or old Roman pagan power, should now have the seven heads and ten horns, from Constantine to Theodosius, does not appear. It is to the historicalist an obviously insuperable difficulty, as to which I see not a word of explanation, even in the most voluminous commentary that defends the view. And supposing e.g., that Theodosius could be the sun, the male child, and the great eagle's wines all at once, it is hard to connect the dragon with the governing power of the Roman empire in that day. Does ',the pagan remnant" answer to the persecuting dragon, as our chapter describes him? I do not wonder also that it is found convenient to combine all possible ideas of the flood from the serpent's mouth, and to make that a mixture of foreign invaders and heresies, of physical force and doctrinal error, employed to overwhelm the true church, so as to pass off a hazy application to the hordes of Goths, Vandals, etc., who inundated the empire after the death of Theodosius. But "the earth helped the woman," i.e., according to Mr. E., the Roman population, superstitious and earthly as they are confessed to have been, did service to Christ's church; and in their bloody wars the barbarians were so thinned, that their incorporation with the conquered followed, and their religion passed through Arianism into orthodoxy. The flood was thus swallowed up! If some very few stood forth as witnesses, like Vigilantius, etc., against such the dragon proceeded to plot, and so procure their destruction. To state the scheme is in my judgment a sufficient refutation.

On the other hand, the fulfilment in the crisis is sufficiently intelligible, whatever measure of partial resemblance there may have been in past events. The seventh trumpet has brought us down in a general way to the very end. From Rev. 11: 19 we begin an entirely new subject, of which that verse is as it were the preface. The ark of His covenant is seen in His temple above: it is not yet the actual bringing of the house of Israel and the house of Judah under the efficacy of the new covenant but it is its pledge. The sources of all, whether on God's part or the enemy's, are disclosed; and hence, as there confessedly is retrogression, so I think there is nothing harsh in the supposition that the birth and rapture to heaven of Israel's Messiah may be shown the special object of Satan's hatred, and the occasion of his intensest and ever-increasing hatred to the Jews and to God's counsels about them. I can also understand that the rapture of the man child may include that of the church — like a binary star, the two-foldness of which appears on adequate inspection. It is thus in the Old Testament that we find the church involved. so to speak, in Christ. The first great act of our Lords kingdom will be, I believe, the dejection of Satan and the wicked spirits, from the heavenly places (cf. Eph. 6: 12, and Rev. 12: 7-12). On earth the question of Israel, God's chosen people, is raised at once; and whether as dragon or serpent, all his resources are put in requisition against God's purpose in that people (yet in abeyance), and against the godly remnant who have the testimony (prophetically, I conceive) of Jesus, as the man of God's right hand, the Son of man whom He made strong for Himself. The development of his plans we shall find in the chapter which follows.

Revelation 13

We have seen that Revelation 12 goes back as well as forward, and connects the purpose of God which is to be brought out in the latter day with the Messiah and even with His birth. Thus, while the Lord Jesus Christ is to my mind clearly referred to as the man child, yet it is not His birth merely or historically, but His birth as it is linked with this future plan of God, which the book reveals here. The moment Christ is thus referred to (that is, Christ evidently viewed as the Head, not of the church, but of Israel ruling "all nations with a rod of iron," and taking the government of the world into His own hands), Satan appears in personal opposition. It is no other than might be looked for; for God Himself had said in the garden of Eden, that He would put enmity between the serpent and the woman, between his seed and her seed. This was revealed at the beginning, and here we have it fulfilled at the very close. Without telling us the least about His humiliation, the man child was caught up to God and to His throne. Thus it is clear that it is not a bare statement of the Lord's life, but such facts are referred to — the two great cardinal ones of His birth and of His rapture to the presence and throne of God — in order to furnish connecting links with what God has to do by and by with Israel. All the intermediate workings of God in the church are left entirely out, except as we may suppose the church to be involved in the destiny of the man child, who is now hid with God, but is yet to reign. Just as what is said about Christ in the Old Testament is applied to the church or the Christian in the New Testament; but still, most true and blessed as that is, it is an indirect use. Here then we have the Messiah in relation to the future purpose of God as regards Israel.

Then follows the vision of a war in heaven. Not the Lord Jesus Christ, but angelic power is seen used of God to put down the rebel angels, Satan and his host. And from that moment Satan loses his power above (that is to say, the most important part of it, the most serious in itself, the most dishonouring to God, the most dangerous to the people of God) — his power in heavenly places, which is referred to in Ephesians 6 and other passages. Accordingly, when Satan loses that place, there is joy in heaven, and a voice proclaims that "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ." But yet, as far as the earth was concerned, the kingdom was not actually come: only Satan had lost his place above.

So we find a little answering to this, that our Lord alludes to Satan's fall from heaven in the gospel of Luke; and I notice it because some have thence supposed that Satan had been expelled from the heavens long ago. It is in Rev. 10, when the disciples return to the Lord, full of joy because the devils even were subject to them. The answer is that He "beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven." Now a person might set the words in the evangelist against the fall of Satan that is described in the Apocalypse as still future. But evidently this would be a misuse of scripture. We may always rest assured that the Bible agrees with itself. It is ignorance and unbelief to set one part of God's word against another. To an unbiassed mind, I think it is certain that the fall of Satan in the prophecy is described as a prospective event, which is to take place three years and a half (however that may be taken) before the destruction of the beast and the binding of Satan himself. Consequently it is a fall that in St. John's time at least was yet future. The immediate effect was to be a dreadful persecution against the woman and her seed. Again, I have endeavoured to set forth a variety of considerations, from which it is clear to me that before this event the church must have been taken to heaven. Such the reader will remember has been the uniform deduction I have drawn all through our former chapters (Rev. 4-6); so that the fall of Satan, intimated here, must be an event subsequent to the removal of the glorified saints to heaven. What then does the Lord Jesus Christ mean when He says, "I beheld Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven?" When He sees and hears the effects of the disciples' service in His name, then the vision of Satan's catastrophe passes before His eyes, and the full consequences of His power are hailed in the then earnest of it. He looks on to the final crisis and the downfall of the Evil One, when the disciples announced so notable a sample of "the powers of the world to come." It was the first great blow struck by men at Satan's power; and therefore He anticipates the end from the beginning, and, so to speak, in a sort of musing, contemplative vision, He beheld the adversary fall from the highest scene of his usurpation.

Nor is this an uncommon thing in scripture. In another gospel, when the Greeks come up to the feast desiring to see Jesus, what does He say? "The hour is come that the Son of man should be glorified." He was going to the cross and to death; yet He declares that the hour was come that He should be glorified. How was this? If you take it in a mere literal way, it seems to me that the force of the passage is lost. Jesus sees in the Greeks that were before Him a sample of the ingathering of the Gentiles; and the Lord perfectly well knew that the only thing that would draw the Gentiles must be His own cross and His glory in heaven. So that He looks through all the intervening scene that was before Him, for He had to accomplish redemption and to ascend on high. But from this little sample He connects all with His glorification, and speaks of it as of a present fact.

Again when Judas goes out, and the Lord Jesus Christ repeats similar words, it is, I presume, on the same principle. (John 13: 31.)

Is not Rev. 5: 13 analogous? A remarkable movement was seen in the vision affecting the universe, when the sealed book was taken in hand by the Lamb. It is not merely that we had the living creatures prostrate, and the elders taking up the new song, and the myriads of angels with their loud voice of praise; but there is a chorus in which the whole creation joined. "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." It was like striking a key-note that would never cease to vibrate, till the remotest bounds of creation would be filled with the glory of God and the Lamb. But the time of full blessing was here anticipated; it was in fact the Lamb's receiving the book of the inheritance which called forth these overflowings of worship and joy. After this followed the opening of the seals, which was but the prelude of the latter-day judgments; and these would go on increasing in severity till Christ Himself comes executing wrath. (Rev. 19.) Not till then would the glory appear, and these anticipations be realised. (Rev. 21, 22.) From the first event, however, that was a link in the chain, the end is welcomed. This is the mind of Christ.

And so it is in Luke 10. The Lord does not there refer to Satan's fall as a fact actually accomplished then; but He looks on through what was true at that time to his future and more complete humiliation, which we see here. And even this fall of Satan is by no means the last exertion of the power of God against the enemy. For until then Satan had scarcely been touched, save to faith. It is true that in the cross of Christ he had been judged in principle (John 12: 31); but, as a literal fact, he was not yet shaken from his throne of the world. Doubtless, in the cross, the great work of God in virtue of which he is to be cast out from heaven was accomplished, so that it only remains a question of time and of the will of God. And first of all, he loses the heavenly part of the power which he has usurped. Then he comes down to the earth in a rage, knowing that he has but a short time. This brings us to Revelation 13; for there we get the detail of the doings of Satan here below, i.e., upon the sea and the earth (the sea, as we have before seen, symbolizing what was not under regular government, and the earth that part of the world which enjoys a state of order). The two together make up the world as a whole, or a given sphere of it, under whatever condition.

The prophet,* it in said, was set or stood upon the sand of the sea. In a later portion (Rev. 17) he is carried in the Spirit into the wilderness; and afterwards (Rev. 21) to a great and high mountain. Here, as everywhere, all is in keeping with the scene. "I stood upon the sand of the sea." The reason is manifest. John is about to see a great beast emerging out of the sea, and accordingly he takes in the vision a suited place. "And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea." You must remember that all these visions were like a great panorama that passed before the eye of the prophet. What the meaning of the symbols used is, we have to find out by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. The sea sets forth the unformed mass of the people under a troubled state of the world — people in great agitation, like the restless waves of the deep. It is that which represents a revolutionary condition among men. And it is out of that mass of anarchy and confusion that an imperial power rises. This power is called "the beast," The same thing appears in Dan. 7; but with this difference. The Jewish prophet sees successively four beasts emerge from the sea; not one merely, as we have in the beginning of Rev. 13. There was the first beast like a lion, the second like a bear, the third like a leopard, and a fourth beast of a peculiar kind. And then, before the explanation is given, one in the form of a son of man comes with the clouds of heaven, in contrast with the powers that came up from a tumultuous sea. It was a kingdom heavenly in its source, and a king who was to use the power of God which is to be established over the earth in the person of the Lord as Son of man, instead of being left in God's sovereignty to those successive and ferocious beasts. The rising of the beasts out of the sea, upon which the four winds of heaven strove, portrays probably the vast commotion of peoples that preceded the formation of the four great empires. And it is an interesting fact, that the foundations of those states which afterwards became possessed of the imperial power were all laid about the same time. They emerged from obscurity and political chaos pretty nearly together. God in His sovereignty gave power to each in succession. First, there was the Babylonian, then the Medo-Persian, then the Greek or Macedonian, and lastly the Roman.

*The reader should know that this is one of the most contested readings in the book. The difference in Greek is but a letter more or less; but in the one case John is meant, in the other the dragon. The Alexandrian, Paris, anti Porphyrian uncials, with the Middlehill and Montfort MSS., are confirmed by most of the ancient versions and two old Latin commentators in the latter sense; and all other known MSS., including the Sinai and Vatican uncials, with the Coptic, etc., and the Greek commentators, give the former. Modern editors and commentators are not less divided. The comparison of our text with Rev. 10: 5-10 will perhaps suffice to show that there is no internal incongruity in assigning such a position to John. Dan. 10: 4, 5, Dan. 12: 5, ought to be borne in mind. On the other hand, if it be "he stood," I do not see that it attributes providential power to Satan, which would be very objectionable.

In this case John sees but one beast rise. The sea sets forth a troubled state of nations, and the fourth and last beast mentioned by Daniel is seen by the prophet coming out of it. The first three beasts had had their day, and they were gone. The fourth or Roman empire had followed, and was then in being, and power. It was the authority of the Roman beast, which had at this very time cast John into Patmos. It seems to be its final rise, previous to its destruction which John sees here, but what was to take place between its first appearance as an empire and this reappearance is not yet described. There can be no doubt, from the description given, that it is the Roman empire. It is said to have "seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns;" the same things that we saw in Satan (Rev. 12: 3), where he was regarded as the possessor of the power of the world, and specially that of Rome. We all may remember how he said to the Lord Jesus, when showing Him all the kingdoms of the world, "All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them; for this is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it." Now here he gives it to the Roman beast. Satan was, of course, an usurper; but still he was the prince of the world in fact, and as such he has seven heads and ten horns. But as Satan, he does not present himself openly before men. He must have some representative or agent. He must disguise himself, and work through another, and take a human form and instrumentality; even as God was pleased to do the same to accomplish His blessed purposes of grace. And so does Satan — awful counterpart in malice of God's goodness in Christ! The agent described, through whom he works. is the Roman empire in its last phase. He took advantage of men's lust for power, because that which is the object of ambition in the world is power. And here you have a vast imperial power, which was at first owned of God. As far as rising out of the sea was concerned, God could still have owned it; but when it is said to arise out of the bottomless pit, the source is in no way providential, but expressly of the enemy.

But besides these seven heads and ten horns, there were upon the latter ten crowns. Let me just say that I have no doubt the ten horns ought to be mentioned before the heads: "having ten horns and seven heads, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads names of blasphemy" (verse 1). Not that one would attach undue importance to the order, save that we ought always to be right; but the two clauses of the verse agree in putting the horns first, perhaps because the beast is regarded here as having these powers in actual exercise, whereas Satan had them virtually only. Blasphemy, not mere heathenism, characterizes his heads.

"And the beast which I saw was like a leopard." This was the general resemblance of its body, and it refers to the Macedonian empire, so notoriously marked by its swiftness of conquest. "His feet were as the feet of a bear," which refers to the Persian, and implies great tenacity of grasp; "and his mouth as the mouth of a lion" denoting its voraciousness, as in Nebuchadnezzar's career and kingdom. Thus the Roman empire. in its last stage at least, would unite in itself the several characteristics of the former empires. And indeed such was the ordinary policy of the Romans. They did not interfere with what they found in the various nations they conquered. They endeavoured to incorporate into their own system whatever had helped on the power of those nations. They did not force their own customs upon others, but cultivated whatever they found advantageous, and turned it to their own use. So this beast, as we see here, was made up of the diverse qualities of power that had given weight to its imperial predecessors.

But there is one remarkable difference from all of them, and even from its own original condition. "The dragon gave him his power, and his throne, and great authority" (verse 2). This notable distinction is subsequent to Satan's fall from heaven. He wants to have a medium for acting universally upon men, in the centre of the world's civilisation and activity, for the short time that he is allowed to do as he pleases on earth. Accordingly, to the Roman beast which had imperial authority providentially from God he gives his own peculiar dragon power. This is a thing that has never yet been seen on the earth in the full sense of the word — this union of the imperial authority with the positive impartation of Satanic energy. But the prophet sees more than this connected with the beast's investiture by the dragon. "And [I saw] one of his heads as it were slain to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and the whole earth wondered after the beast" (verse 3). I am inclined to think that the wounded head was the imperial form of government. (Comp. Rev. 17: 10.) The heads that were, as we have seen, connected with the dragon (Rev. 12: 3) as well as with the beast, represent the different forms of power which had existed successively. Of these one was to be lost, as it were wounded to death, but at this time was to be revived again through Satanic agency. All the world is surprised, and no wonder. They will be seized with extreme astonishment at the revival of the Roman empire, with more than its ancient splendour.

And now, if we look at Daniel, we find a remarkable fact introduced there, connected with its divided state at the close, and of course also with its previous divisions after it had ceased to exist as an empire. The image in Dan. 2 has got feet, "part of iron and part of clay." There is weakness consequently. That metal represents the original Roman element in its strength, while the clay was a foreign ingredient, which brought in weakness when it sought to coalesce with the iron.* "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay" (verse 43). This exactly accounts for the state of things found in Western Europe. The history of this part of the world was completely changed by the inroads of the barbarians about the fifth century after Christ. There was a time when one vast consolidated power had universal and undisputed sway — the iron power of Rome. But at the epoch named swarms of barbarians, near about the same time and from the north and east, came down on the empire and assailed it at almost every point. It fell. But mighty as these barbarians were in overthrowing, they could only establish little separate kingdoms; and since then no hand has been able to gather up the broken fragments and put them firmly together again. It has not been for want of the disposition to do so; for, on the contrary, all sorts of expedients have been tried — sometimes the sword, sometimes policy, sometimes intermarriage-but in vain. And thus it has remained under the providence of God. There has been no unity, so that the prevailing and favourite expression of modem policy has been and is "the balance of power." It means really keeping a respectable distance among the scattered members of what was once a united body. Mutual jealousies and the spirit of independence in each have ever effectually hindered re-union. The ordinary aim has been, by the formation of parties among the powers, to cheek and prevent the preponderance of any one.

*Dr. M'Causland (Latter Days of Jerusalem and Rome, pp. 336, 353) interprets the miry clay of the spiritual power exercised by the Papacy, and the iron of the temporal power of Rome; but this is, for obvious and conclusive reasons to my mind, wholly untenable.

But though that wound seemed to be unto death, it was healed notwithstanding. "I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed." That is, at the period of which the vision speaks, the Roman power is to be consolidated afresh: not as formerly, with God's good hand over it and controlling all, whatever might have been the ways of individual emperors; but all is abandoned to the will of the beast as the immediate instrument of Satan. Satan can no longer accuse the saints before God, but now he is at work on the earth to produce open blasphemy against God. And this is first done by means of political influence. There is the Roman empire reorganised, and the imperial power revived, and a head over it that gathers everything under his own control, so that all the world wonders after the beast to whom the dragon had given his power, and throne, and great authority. In the next verse we have not merely this; but "they worshipped the beast saying, Who is like the beast? and who is able to make war with him?" (verse 4.)

What a fickle thing is man! No doubt, just before there had been a state of anarchy and confusion, and thence the beast arose and becomes an object of wonder and worship to men weary of all their previous turmoil, and strife, and insecurity. Something like it was seen in a neighbouring country. Men were convulsed by a revolution which tore up all the landmarks and filled their minds with anxiety and restlessness. And what came out of that? A strong hand takes the reins, a military despotism, a quasi-imperial power. And what was enacted on a small scale, because in one country only, will prevail in all the western powers of Europe. So that instead of men having things to themselves, some vigorous chief will take the rule. but it will not be the hand of man merely, but the dragon's power. God will permit him to have his own way; and so for a short time he is allowed to do his very worst. Then, besides distinct governments and rulers, each over his own country, there will be an imperial unity under one great head, who will wield their power and preside over all. Thus will be accomplished those desires of men that have hitherto proved but idle dreams, or at most abortive efforts.

There is a passage in an early epistle I would briefly notice, which refers to what has hindered, and hinders still, the development of this and other allied wickedness. It is in 2 Thess. 2: 6, 7: "And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one who now letteth until he be taken out of the way. And then shall the lawless one be revealed," etc. There is a restraint that God puts upon the lawlessness of the world; and I conceive the Holy Ghost who acts here below is the One spoken of here as "he who now letteth" or hindereth. Still, after the church has been taken away, God will carry on a testimony, though of another sort, and Satan will be kept in cheek for a season at least. This restraint will be maintained by the operation of the Holy Ghost in a providential way. When this dealing of God ceases, the Holy Ghost will no longer "let," as the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth; that is, the power which the Holy Ghost exerts over the world, and not merely in the church, will no longer be put forth as now to keep Satan under. "He who now letteth" will "be taken out of the way." People do not know how much they owe to this restraint of Satan from doing his worst. But the time will come when God will cease to hinder; and then Satan will for a season carry all before him on the earth. He raises up a person as head, and men are charmed with the grandeur of his energy, exercised as it will be without conscience towards God — charmed with the comparative ease that will result from having one person supreme over all. In short, they will have in many ways what is suited to meet the idolatry and pride of the heart. For men are, like children, constantly disappointed with their own schemes and even successes. Besides, having refused the love of the truth, they will readily fall into whatever snare Satan may put before them. So that, after a previous storm of revolutions, they will gladly fall down and worship the beast and the dragon that gave him his power. But further, the worship of the beast in the day that is coming will be of a different character from common idolatry. They will not merely be adorers of him, along with gods many and lords many, as the heathen of old. There will be an utter denial of any god above the one who is adored as such on earth. This miserable being whom Satan fills will be the object of their worship; and the dragon shares it.

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy: and power was given unto him to practise [or continue] * forty-two months" (verse 5). Nobody doubts, I suppose, that this is connected with Dan. 7. The same kind of language is heard applying to and for the same time. If we examine that chapter, some of the thoughts I have uttered will be found to be confirmed. It is said (Dan, 7: 7) that the fourth beast differs from all its predecessors. "It had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up another little horn" (verse 8). There is nothing of this in the Revelation. The little horn, at least as such, is not mentioned there. But this is not all. Before him "were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots." He takes possession of the territory of three of the horns, so that but seven remain out of the ten. "In this horn were eyes like the eyes of man," — the symbol of intelligence, "and a mouth speaking great things," — the utterance of pride and blasphemy against God. (Compare verse 25.) This is what brings on judgment from God — not of course the white-throne judgment of the dead, but the judgment of the quick, and of the habitable world. And so it is written in the eleventh verse: "I beheld, then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame." Now observe that there is this difference between Daniel's prophecy and John's — what Daniel says about the little horn John says about the beast. (Compare Rev. 13: 5, 6, with Dan. 7: 8, 25.) The reason is this: John gives us the character or principle, and Daniel the detail of historical facts. The fact was to be, that in the Roman empire there should arise ten kings, three† of whom disappear before the force or fraud of another king, the little horn — a power obscure in its first origin, but acquiring actual possession of three kingdoms, and then becoming the real director of all the rest. In the Revelation (where of course it is assumed that what had been disclosed in Daniel is already known), the Holy Ghost does not go back to the historical details, but speaks as if the emperor and the empire were one.

*Grammatically speaking the authorised version is good here. Compare Acts 15: 33; Acts 18: 23; Acts 20: 3. The Hebraistic absolute sense is according to the analogy of Dan. 8: 12, 24, and Dan 11 passim. Bengel, Griesbach, and others, doubted as to the word in any sense, and considered it probably an interpolation from verse 7. I believe, on the contrary, that the peculiarity of the expression, to those that did not bear in mind the phraseology of Daniel, led some of the scribes to insert πόλεμον before or after ποιῆσαι, as B, most MSS. (14 πολεμῆσαι), and led other authorities, as the Armenian version, Irenaeus, etc., to omit ποιῆσαι. 4 Dionysius Alex. (ap. Euseb.) has καὶ μῆνες. On the whole I conceive that Erasmus and R. Stephens rightly read ποιῆσαι, and that the Complutensian editors and the Elzivers wrongly admitted πόλεμον. The true sense appears to be to practise, work, act, or do, rather than merely "continue." The ancient versions are singularly vague, but to my mind they indicate action more or less energetic or specific, and not bare continuance; and so, it seems to me, the great majority of the best modern translators. Dr. M'Causland (pp. 300, 361) prefers "to make forty-two months," i.e., to drive out the Jew into the wilderness for that period. This may be a "literal" version; but I cannot commend its "propriety." Is it not plain that the acting of the beast is in contradistinction to his speaking? He blasphemes God in every possible way, His name, His tabernacle, and those that dwell in heaven; and more than this, license is given him to carry all out practically for forty-two months.

†Even Mr. E. gives up the popular notion, sanctioned by Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, etc., that this was fulfilled in the subjection of Rome, part of Lombardy, and Ravenna, to the Pope. But is his own theory much better? How can the destruction of the Vandals in Corsica and Sardinia, or of the Ostrogoths in Italy by Justinian's general Belisarius, and of the Lombards long after by Pepin and Charlemagne, answer to the little horn's subduing three kings? Even of this petty territory, which is so strangely exaggerated into three kingdoms, the Pope has long possessed but a portion: if all the parts remained, they would scarce make one real kingdom. The little horn, on the contrary, conquers for himself, and becomes pre-eminently great.

We are bound to acknowledge "the powers that be;" but when Satan has given the beast his authority, it is another thing altogether: we owe no allegiance to Satan. In point of fact, he is the one who leads on the beast into all his own depths and heights of sin. For the beast "opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name and his tabernacle, [and]* them that dwell in heaven" (verse 6). The Roman empire is the chariot, so to speak, in which this furious rider is driving.

*It is not correct to say, with the author of the Horae Apocalypticae, that the conjunction is wanting in all the critical editions, for Griesbach, Knapp, Scholz, Tischendorf, etc., retain it with the Vatican, Porphyrian, and uncials, a good many MSS., and almost all the ancient versions, save the Syriac. Still there is grave authority ( A C, twenty-eight cursives, etc.) against kaiv, which is therefore dropped by some excellent editors, as Matthaei, Lachmann, etc. I have, accordingly, thought it right to bracket the word, though my opinion is in favour of receiving it.

But let us look further at Daniel 7. "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them (verse 21). . . . And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the high [places], and shall think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hands until a time, and times, and the dividing of times." It is the same period of forty-two months that we have here in Rev. 13: — "a time," which means "year;" and "times," two years; "and the dividing of time," half a year. I have no question that it is the person referred to in Daniel, under the name of the little horn, who here appears under that of the beast. There he is the "horn," because Daniel gives us the gradual succession of the history, and adds the special Jewish part, the gift of times and laws into his hand; here, because he is viewed as having all the power and authority of the imperial system, he is called "the beast." He opens his mouth "in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle, and them that tabernacle in heaven." For this was the great object of Satan, who uses the beast as his mouthpiece. It was from heaven he had been cast out; and God in heaven, and those whom He calls into relationship with Himself there are peculiarly odious to Satan and to this self-exalting beast. "They that dwell in heaven" are unbearable to them. There is no one thing that stirs the world even now so much as this. It does not always dislike godliness when connected with things on the earth: it can appreciate love in a measure, for men can selfishly profit by it. But the moment there is a godliness which cares not for the things of the earth — not merely in the refusal of evil things, for they could understand this — but in deliberate separation even when men are doing their best, (i.e., seeking to be religious and to honour God in their own way,) nothing so excites men's hatred now; much more so when that day comes. For then Satan will have lost all power and place in heaven, and have only the earth to work in, and the thought of blessedness above is hateful to him. He endeavours to make men think that the beast is God, and takes advantage, I suppose, of the prophecies in scripture to make them believe that the predicted good time is arrived, that God is come back to the world, that men have nothing to do but to enjoy all the blessings of the earth and of the day spoken of when God was to scatter His enemies. Satan seeks that men should antedate this under himself and without God. He will know what is at hand and his own torment when that day arrives. He will endeavour to turn to account the very promises of God, for cheating the world into the belief that these times of chiefest evil are the days of heaven on the earth. This is the time described here, when conscience towards God will be completely null and void, and what was true of Pharaoh on a small scale will be verified in entire Christendom. It will be given up to judicial hardening and then destroyed. It is just what the Spirit shows us in 2 Thess. 2: 11, 12, when God, grieved with this world because of their rejection of the truth, will allow man and Satan to do their worst together. "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." And I most fully believe not only that God will do so righteously, but that the righteousness of it will be apprehended by any soul who is subject to His word.

Here, then, we have the means by which Satan accomplished his purposes. He has given his vast power to the beast, and now he makes him an object of worship. "And it was given unto him to make wax with the saints and to overcome them: and authority was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him of whom the name is not written in the book of life of the slain Lamb, from the foundation of the world" (verses 7, 8). Here is the same distinction that I have alluded to before. "All that dwell on the earth" are a worse class than the tribes, peoples, tongues, and nations, meaning those that have abandoned heaven and heavenly hopes, and are fully committed to the latter-day delusions. In the case of "every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation," authority was given to the beast over them; but as to "those that dwell on the earth," they are completely subject to him and to his malignant influence. "All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him." That is not said about the others, but these are completely given up. When it says, "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," the idea is. not that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, though people commonly draw from it the inference, as in 1 Peter 1: 19, 20, of the purpose of God. But the true meaning of the verse, I apprehend, is that their names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of the slain Lamb. And, comparing this with Rev. 17: 8, we find that the Spirit has left out a portion, which makes all clear by removing any doubt of the true connection. "And they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world." The Holy Spirit has left out "of the Lamb that was slain," and puts together the writing in the book of life, with "from the foundation of the world." The language of Peter, etc., (1 Peter 1: 20,) where he speaks of the Lord Jesus as an unblemished, spotless lamb, "who verily was ordained before the foundation of the world," has quite another bearing.

Then comes a solemn word of warning, on which I need not dwell at length. "If any man hath an ear, let him hear." If any man leadeth into captivity, into captivity he goeth: if any man killeth with the sword, he must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints" (verses 9, 10). That is a general maxim, true of any one; true even for the beast. If he has been leading others into captivity, he is to go into that or worse himself: if he has killed with the sword, he must also be killed, But it is specially intended for the guidance of the saints, who might naturally infer, from the wickedness of the beast, and his league with the dragon, that they were at liberty to resist him. And there is, I believe, the reason why this is said, lest the saint should be tempted to forget his place or God's supremacy and sure judgment. Their place was not to take the sword in their own defence. If they did so, what would be the result? Even then, whatever their character, whatever the beast's, God would hold to His principles. They must expect what they sought to inflict. It is the law of God's retributive government. The apostle Paul, in Eph. 6, does not scruple to use the voice of the law as to the honour due to a parent. "Honour thy father and mother . . . . that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Of course he does not mean that a Christian should look forward to living on the earth as a reward for honouring parents. It was a principle laid down of old by God, and the apostle, referring to the earthly promise, merely shows that even under the law there was a special blessing attached to it. It was the first commandment with promise. So here the Spirit of God gives a general principle, true at all times, applicable alike to foes and friends. "If any man," etc. — it does not matter who. It is a false position for the Christian to assume the place of power in the world. What makes it the more striking is that the saints spoken of here are Jewish, who of all others might think it very right to resist with all their might. If the beast blasphemed and persecuted grievously, they might say, "Surely we are entitled to stand up in defence of our religion and our lives." But says the Lord, "If any man have an ear, let him hear . . . . he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." If He lets him have his way for a season, what is our calling? "Here is the patience and the faith of the saints" — faith as regards God, and patience as regards the enemy. Thus God will so much the more appear on behalf of His sufferers. And if the place of faith and patience belongs to those Jewish saints who have a comparatively earthly position, how much more to us who have nothing but a heavenly one? (Comp. Matt. 26: 52.)

Our great business, next to enjoying Christ and delighting in His love, should be to cultivate what is according to His will: so that we should not give a false witness of what He is and has done for us. We are not of the world; and the moment we fall back upon the resources of nature, upon our own personal power, influence, or authority, we have deserted Christian ground. In family relationships, to act according to our place of authority is a perfectly right thing. Nor will the blessing of God be with those who do not maintain the relative place that God has set them in: as of a father or child, a husband or wife, etc. The affections, most important as they are, are not everything. God is to be respected in the order that He establishes and sanctions. These are things which are not touched by our heavenly place; on the contrary, this gives us an opportunity of showing we have got in Christ a fresh power for every legitimate relation. But to take our part as having an interest in this world is quite another thing, and not the place of the Christian; but rather to pass lightly over it, as those that know their portion with God in heaven. Christ is coming to judge the world, which God regards as guilty of the blood of His Son, and only ripening for judgment. This truth habitually before our souls would preserve us from much that dishonours the Lord in us as Christians.

May all we learn be used to our blessing in separating us from what is to end so dismally! The outward effects of conduct are not enough. The church is regarded as having the mind of Christ, and we are responsible to God to keep out of the secret snares and springs by which Satan is bringing about this evil. For we have to do with his working in a still more subtle way than his acts in the world. May we not forget what God is to us for the present claims of His glory! We have the most blessed opportunity of being faithful to Christ now. It is vain to look wistfully at others, and to imagine what we could do if in their circumstances. God is equal to all the difficulty of our own position and time, and would give us the needed strength if we waited on Him. The only reason why we are apt to magnify the strangeness, etc., of circumstances, is because our eye is not single to Christ. When we see Him in everything, the danger, difficulty, and temptation are all at an end.

Verses 11-18. The rise of the second beast is strongly distinguished from that of the one already noticed. First, there was the beast out of the sea; now we read, "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth." The earth we have seen, all through the Revelation, to be the symbol of that which politically is established and in order — the proper scene of the testimony and ways of God and of settled human government. Its privileges may be abused; it may lapse into a state of frightful moral darkness; for it is just where there is any blessing from above that there is the danger of corruption and apostacy. The sea on the contrary is a loose, disorganised aspect of the world. Chronologically, too, this might intimate that the rise of the second beast is subsequent to that of the first. When the seven-headed monster rises, all is in a state of agitation; but when and where the second beast comes up, things are consolidated after a fashion. The land now is spoken of — no longer the water, the sport of every wind. But the personage described as "coming up out of the earth" is not a mere individual. It is a political, oppressing power that acts without conscience toward God — a beast.* It may be, and I doubt not this is, one particular individual that exercises the power, as with the first beast. But "beast," as a symbol, does not mean an individual as such, but an imperial power, sometimes with revolting satellites subject to itself.

*Mr. Elliott considers the two-horned lamb-like beast to represent the papal clergy, secular and regular, united under the Pope, as the western patriarch, and supporting him in his loftier character of Christ's vicar or antichrist. Matt. 7: 15, he thinks, almost precludes the possibility of error in thus interpreting the symbol of the anti-christian clerical body. But does not a "beast," in prophetic imagery, always imply a political corporation or civil power, never (certainly elsewhere) a priestly class however organised? Ought such an element to be left out in interpreting the chapter?

Next, this beast was evidently of an extraordinary kind; for it is characterized by an imitation of Christ. It has "two horns like a lamb." The Lord, we must have observed, through the Revelation, is often spoken of as the "Iamb." While seated upon the throne of God, while described as Himself the great Sufferer, actively sympathizing with the suffering people of God, He is seen as a "Lamb." But when the saints slip out of and abandon their proper lot of earthly rejection, the Lord ceases to be thus symbolized. He seems ashamed of them and retreats to a distance, and is seen as an angel and not any longer as a Lamb. The extraordinary thing that we see here is that this beast assumes to be like Christ. He has two horns like a lamb. He makes a sort of pretension to be like Christ in official power. While the horn is used as a symbol of a king, it may also mean simply power. It was so used when speaking of David, "the horn of his anointed," etc.; but still more is this meaning of it apparent if we look at the Lord Jesus, who is seen in this book as having seven horns and seven eyes. Clearly the seven horns there cannot be seven kings; so that the horns, according to the context, either might mean kings, or they might be simply power. In the former beast we are told they signify kings; but per se they need not, and here they seem not to mean more than power. It is not the perfection of power as seen in the Lamb, but only pretension to it; there were two horns. The Spirit of God has been pleased to show us in chapter 17 of this book, that the ten horns of the first beast are ten kings. (Rev. 17: 12.)

So far, then, all is plain about this second beast. It is a corporate power that grows up when all was formed and orderly, and consequently arising after the appearance of the first beast. More than that. He arrogates to himself the power of Christ (he has two horns like a lamb); but his speech betrays him — he speaks as a dragon. Out of the abundance of the heart, we know, the mouth speaks. Whatever he may appear to be outwardly, when he does give utterance to the real sentiments of his heart, it is the voice of the dragon. Of this the draconic voice is the expression. It is the great active power of evil in the latter day; and this is one difference between these beasts. The first beast is the one for show: it catches the profane world through the display of power and glory. The second beast is much the more energetic of the two. It is the one that most takes the place of Christ — is a false Christ, or rather is antichrist — i.e., the very expression of Satan in his direct opposition to Christ. When Satan was seen (Rev. 12) waiting to devour the man child as soon as it was born, he is not as the serpent, but as the dragon. And here, in order to the ripening of his last designs, this beast speaks as a dragon.

But it may be interesting to look at some of the scriptures that apply to the second beast, for there is often a good deal of confusion about them; and it is not to be wondered at, for these two beasts are so closely bound together in the last days, that it is a difficult matter to determine which of them is the antichrist. The word "Antichrist" is only found in the Epistles of John. And there we must look if we would see what is implied in that name. In 1 John 2 the Holy Ghost writes as to this to the babes of God's family. For it is not at all a true principle that the young in Christ are only to know Him for the salvation of their own souls. The reason, I suppose, for thus writing to them was, because they were in special danger from the snares and deceits of the enemy; and the Lord, while He preserves, does not want us to be kept blindfold. Christian guidance is not unintelligent. It is not the blind leading the blind, nor even the seeing leading the blind; but it is the seeing leading the seeing. God does give help and instruction; but the Holy Ghost takes particular pains to show that He appeals not to the saints' ignorance, but to their knowledge of the truth. "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that the antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." There we learn with certainty what was working from and in the time of the Apostle John, what has been increasing ever since, and bearing a terrible harvest up to the present time, though the fruit of it, the antichrist, may not yet be fully ripe. "Even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time." That was the proof — not good, as men think, but the deep evil of antichrist spreading. "They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." What a solemn thing!

The persons displaying the spirit of antichrist were individuals that had once professed the name of Christ. In fact, there could not be an antichrist unless there had been some previous profession of Christ. There must necessarily be some truth; for Satan cannot invent. He can imitate; he can corrupt God's truth, and use it for his own purposes, and put it in new and evil forms, so as to give the appearance of truth to what is positive error: "for no lie is of the truth. Thus the great antichrist is to come: but even then were there many antichrists. These persons, painful to say, had once been in the family of God. There they had been, outwardly in the place of children, but not of course in reality. Then "they went out form us, but they were not of us." Next he says, "Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" But he goes farther. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is the first feature. But there are greater abominations. "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." There are two states spoken of here. First, there is the denial that Jesus is the Messiah, the last degree of that infidelity which every unbelieving Jew shows who rejects Christ from that day to this. But the terrible thing is, that it is found in those who had once taken their place in confessing Jesus to be the Christ. Of him who will finally be the leader in giving it up and renouncing, it is said, "he is a liar." But more than that. He is not only a liar, but an antichrist "that denieth the Father and the Son." Jesus was the Messiah, and much more: the Father was displayed in Him. If I look at the Messiah as suck, I do not necessarily and fully see the Father there. In Him is the truth of the kingdom of God; in Him the display of His power and faithfulness to His people. But there is something far more blessed than the kingdom; for when I have the thought of the Father, I rise not merely into the region of divine power, but into that of the highest, holiest, most intimate affections. It is evident that what we know in the presence of God now is an infinitely nearer thing than the glory that He will give or display by and by. This will tell others what His feelings are toward us, proving the love we are brought into now. We do not wait for the kingdom to know this; but by the Holy Ghost we draw near to God now, in the most blessed way in which He here reveals Himself. Of course when in heaven we shall have a more unalloyed knowledge of His love, an enjoyment never interrupted by the workings of a carnal mind or by worldly influences. Every hindrance will be removed — all idols will vanish; for every present thing which becomes an object to the mind, instead of Christ, is really an idol. We shall be out of and above all this when we are taken to be with the Lord. But the love of the Father is just as true and perfect now, and we by the Holy Ghost are privileged to enjoy it. We shall enter more fully into the love then, but the love itself is the same even now. It is the rejection, then, not merely of the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus, but of His divine glory as the Son, that brings in antichrist. All the love of the Father has come out in Christ, witnessed by the Holy Ghost. That involves, not merely the Jewish revelation, but the Christian; and it supposes too that Messiah has not only come and been rejected, but has brought out all His divine and heavenly glory. For His being the Son of the Father has nothing to do with the earth. His eternal Sonship is evidently a truth transcending entirely His Messianic rights and position. It would have been equally true if there had been no earth or providential dealings. It was His eternal relation and glory; and therefore, when the Holy Ghost wants to bring us into our full place of blessedness, it is the Father that He brings out. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings." Where? Here? Not at all. "In heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." So that the seat of our blessing is entirely outside and above the whole scene of the lower creation. And if a man utterly rejects and despises that, renouncing His glory whom he had once owned, what is he? An antichrist. What he does on a small scale, the antichrist will do on a larger one.

I refer to the Epistles of John, because there we have the antichrist mentioned, not as a beast as in the Revelation, but as the end and chief of those who had once been in the family of God outwardly, had gone out from it, abandoning and denying the blessed truth about the Father and the Son, which they seemed to have received. "He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son." On the other hand, we read, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." God always makes the utmost account of His Son. If you deny the Son, everything is gone; whereas "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." When I possess the Son of God and my heart finds satisfaction in Him, I know the Father. "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also."

Then, after exhorting them to let that abide in them which they had heard from the beginning, that so they might continue in the Son and in the Father, John closes the matter thus: "These things have I written unto you concerning them which seduce you." It was an evil that was at work from the very beginning. And what mercy is there even in this! As the evil did exist, and must be manifested at some time or another, God allowed it to break out then, so as to put His own revealed sentence upon it. We should never have dared to have said such strong things of those whom we had even known as friends or as brethren so-called. Call them liars! How shocking and uucharitable! men would say. But the moment that any men set themselves against (or rather deny) the full revelation of the Son of God, the Holy Ghost knows no quarter; and I believe that we ought not. If the heart is unprepared for this, you will find another thing that goes along with it. Wherever unbroken self-love, sensitiveness, and tenacity reign about what touches ourselves, there is but little care for the Lord Jesus. You cannot have two master affections. When the heart is single to Christ, He lifts us above personal feelings; but where the heart's care is for ourselves, there will not be found much devotedness to Him, nor jealousy for His name.

In 1 John 4 the apostle refers to the spirit of the evil. "Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." Why does the Holy Ghost introduce it here? There are many false prophets, as had been said in the first verse, gone out into the world: and so I believe there are now. But it is a most difficult thing to realize it at the time in which we live. We can see it in times that are past; but the great difficulty is the discerning of what is at work now. We are in the very same circumstances that the saints were in then. For as surely as the Holy Ghost continues to work, so surely will the subtle power of Satan be there to oppose. "Every spirit that confesseth not," etc. Such is the power or principle of antichrist "whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." It is not the antichrist fully developed yet, but the spirit of it working among men, just as much as the Holy Ghost was working also. The earliest sphere is not in the profane world; it must begin with those who had once borne the name of Christ. Satan could not forge such a rebellion against God, but among those who profess to believe the truth.

Again, there is a notice of this in the second Epistle of John, where it is said that "many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not Jesus Christ come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." It is no longer a question of justification by faith simply, or of the law, but a more serious thing still. It is Satan, not only attacking the work of Christ and seeking to get persons to add something, and so to take away from its glory, but deprecating and denying the person of the Son. Important as the work of Christ is to us, the person of Christ is the centre and substance of all truth and glory. In presence of such a theme, I desire not to discuss but to worship. The reason why persons care more for the work of Christ is because they rightly feel they cannot be saved without it; but once we have got peace of conscience, Christ's person becomes the most precious object of our hearts. He is God's delight; and what is most precious to Him, we shall find to be the most blessed, and full of blessing for us. It is not merely he that denies Jesus Christ come in the flesh, but he that does not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh: this is a deceiver and an antichrist. The Holy Ghost becomes, if we may so say, bolder in His statements. Does He lower the standard, because Satan apparently gains ground, and becomes more and more audacious against Christ? And are we to say, "We must not be so particular now, because there is so much evil;" and "there is no hope, because the church is in ruins?" On the contrary the Spirit, making provision for the latest time, uses stronger language than ever. He says (verse 10), "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him good speed [greeting]." We are to have nothing to say to him. Not only was he not to be received into the church, the house of the living God, but not even into a Christian's house. He must have no sanction nor footing among the saints; for the Christian's house ought to be a fortress for the name of the Lord, a reflection of what the Lord loves and produces — where He is owned and honoured. Even ordinary greeting is to be refused. No matter if it be only to the lady that he is writing — one who is not called to teach or to rule. But when it is a question of Christ, it is in vain to talk about her being a woman, as an excuse for laxity. She wants Christ; she owes all to Christ; and if she is a woman, is she not bound to make Christ the first question, the object of her soul? Therefore, if any person touches Christ, no matter who or what she may be, her allegiance to Christ calls for promptness and decision. That at once becomes the governing motive to faith, and the one grand responsibility of her soul. Whether it be persons who have the spirit of antichrist, or the great antichrist himself that is coming, antagonism to Christ is there; and this decides all to a true heart.

In the Revelation antichrist is described, not merely as a deceiver, but as a "beast," as an earthly power which has a subject kingdom — an imperial system. in fact, rather than a purely spiritual malignant influence, as in the Epistles of John. If we look a little at some of the Jewish prophets, we shall find more about him. I refer more particularly to Daniel 11. Towards the close (verse 36) we read these words: "The king shall do according to his will; . . . . and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods." Who can deny you have a self-exalting personage in the land of Judea? This is very plain; for lower down it is said that "in his estate shall he honour the god of forces: a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strongholds with a strange god, etc. . . . . . And he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain." Now, I think that wherever the Holy Ghost speaks of a land in this way, as the land, it refers to the land of Israel. He speaks of it as the Lord's own land. This is confirmed a verse or two afterwards (verse 41). "He [the king of the north] shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown." Thus a great northern antagonist is to come against the king (verse 40) "like a whirlwind, with chariots and with horsemen," etc. Most evidently, then, the glorious land spoken of here is the very country which "the king" had been distributing to his favourites. In short, he is a king in the land of Judea, and it is expressly said that the period, policy, and conflicts described are "at the time of the end." Then "shall the king of the south push at him [the king in Judea]; and the king of the north shall come against him," etc.

If this be so, several points are cleared in these verses. First of all a king, who does according to his own will, establishes himself in the land of Palestine. But while you may find the moral features that link him with the "antichrist" of John, he is viewed here as an earthly power, and is thus connected with one of the beasts of the Revelation. But more than that, he is to exalt and magnify himself above every god. This was a novel feature. The Roman emperors had honours paid to them in life and after death as divine; yet never above every god. But "the king" shall magnify himself supremely; and this in a land that was specially Jehovah's above all others, and amongst a people whom God had called out to be a witness against all idolatry; and yet this man claims a new and most audacious worship, as the Most High in God's land and temple. (Compare 2 Thess. 2.) For bad as Israel had been of old, enflaming themselves "with idols under every green tree," here we have the sight, hitherto unknown, of a man setting himself up as the supreme God. And yet he has an object of worship himself: for man must have an idol which enslaves him, unless he is truly exalted, as alone he can be in bowing down before the true God. In reality he is most elevated when most subject to God. For man, unlike God, cannot suffice in and for himself without another. He must either raise his eyes to the true God, or degrade them on a false one. Even the very person who will try to get all beneath him, as supreme object of worship, will himself have something to which he is subject. And so we find (verse 37) that while he does not regard the God of his fathers (which confirms his being a Jew), nor the desire of women (which probably refers to the Messiah), nor regard any god, for he shall magnify himself above all; yet the Spirit of God shows us this apparent self-contradiction (verse 38). "In his estate shall he honour the god of forces." All others are to honour him, but he has this false god whom he himself honours "with gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory . . . . . And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him, and the king of the north shall come against him. He shall enter also into the glorious land."

Now here plainly we have Palestine. The kings of the south and north are so called with reference to the land of Judea. The king of the north, described as coming against him with this large force, is the enemy so familiar in the prophets, while the king of the south is the then sovereign of Egypt.

These two powers come up against "the king," who, I apprehend, is the antichrist of scripture. The Holy Ghost does not here describe his rise. There was no need to say who he was, but he is brought in quite abruptly. Thus, if verse 35 be examined, one sees clearly that it speaks of some who had understanding, referring to what took place in the time of the Maccabees, when a celebrated and most wicked prince, Antiochus Epiphanes, persecuted the Jews, many of whom then withstood him in a remarkable way. There might have been a good deal of nature and the spirit of the world in their feelings and actions; nevertheless they resisted all efforts to turn them away from Jehovah to idols. Some of them fell, and this was in order to try others, and "to purge and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed."

Here precisely comes in the space where the Spirit of God drops the past history. He first gives us the struggle between Antiochus and his adversaries, followed by the exploits and the sufferings of those who had understanding in Israel. The history of Israel is then in abeyance, and we are at once carried on to "the time of the end." Between these two points there is a suspension of their history.

What is the next thing? "And the king shall do according to his will." We are not here told anything about his origin or progress; we hear nothing whence he comes; we have only that peculiar phrase, "the king," as if this would be intimation enough who was intended. Nor is it the only place in Scripture where "the king" is spoken of. Look at the close of Isaiah 30 and you will find "the king" introduced there in no less singular a manner. The reason, I believe, is this; that the Jews, while they were looking for Christ, were also looking for antichrist, a great prince who should trample down the godly among them in their final tribulation. It was plain in prophecy and so understood by them. In this ch. 30 the Spirit of God describes two enemies of Israel. First in verse 31 it is said, "For through the voice of Jehovah, shall the Assyrian be broken down which smote with a rod." This is the king of the north that figures in Daniel, typified in the early prophet perhaps by Sennacherib, who was the Assyrian of that day, but of course only a foreshadow of the great northern enemy at the close. Then again it is said, "And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which Jehovah shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps; and in battles of shaking will he fight with it." Thus, although there will be such sorrow and trial, there will be joy too: "it shall be with tabrets and harps." "For Tophet is ordained of old: for the king also it is prepared." This I believe to be the force of it — "for the king also." Thus, if the statement made be correct, you have at the closing scene the judgment of God on these two great enemies of Israel — the Assyrian, and "the king" who is introduced here without a word of preparation.

In Isaiah 57 the same thing appears. I refer to it the more, as some might argue that in Isa. 30 "the Assyrian" and "the king" are identical. But in Isa. 57 it would be impossible to maintain this. The prophet has just been describing the appalling moral evil of the last days among the Jews. Then suddenly he says (ver. 9), "Thou wentest to the king with ointment," etc. It is plain from this, that "the king" is some special antagonist of God, not attacking the Jews from without like the Assyrian, but setting himself up within as king over the people of God. It was not necessary to define what king, because it was a familiar idea to Israel, so that the Holy Ghost could introduce him without a word of preface. They knew there was the terrible king to come — the last great enemy of God and the Jews in the land. The Assyrian is an enemy of God and of Israel too, but not in the land; for he fights against "the king" who is reigning there. The last wilful king is the object of attack to the last mighty Assyrian. Outrageously wicked as both are to be, they do not at all agree in their wickedness. They stand in each other's way. There never can be lasting peace between them, and this is exactly what Daniel 11 shows us. The forty-first verse is not at all a description of "the king." He seems to be lost to view, and there follows the account of the proud king of Assyria. The Holy Ghost presses on to the end of the Assyrian's career, leaving that of "the king."

Looking now at the New Testament, we shall find some new features about this king. In 2 Thess. 2* we have the fullest account of him that the Epistles of St. Paul afford. In verse 3 it is said, "Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come,] except there come the falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." There is first the falling away, that is the special apostacy. The man of sin is another and subsequent thing. The apostacy prepares the way for the revelation of the man of sin. Thus the French revolution answers to the apostacy rather than Romanism, which confesses truths, but all of them put out of their right place. There will be a further and more terrible development of the apostacy, though this illustrates it. But there is to be more than that — the man of sin. Who is he? The Lord Jesus Christ was the man of righteousness. This is the antagonist — the man of sin — "the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." Just the Fame sort of moral features that we see in Daniel about "the king," we have in this man of sin. "So that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Here we have another point. He is evidently one reigning at Jerusalem. He sits "in the temple of God," which, I see no reason to doubt, means the literal and well-known temple there.† At the same time, if anybody likes to apply the principle of this scripture to one who may pervert the place of the church, and make it an engine and sphere for exalting himself in now, I have nothing to object. I dare say that it may legitimately be so applied — at least in part; but I think that it looks on to a person who arrogates to himself the honour due only to the true God. "Remember ye not," the apostle says, "that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work." Only there is one that hinders. When that hindrance is removed, the lawless one will immediately be seen, and in due time his judgment come when the Lord appears.

*I take the opportunity of stating my conviction, which I have reason to know Mr. Birks shares, that the auth. ver. is quite justified in giving "by the coming (or presence) of our Lord Jesus Christ," rather than "with regard to." So it is in the AEthiopic probably, the Arabic, Gothic, Syriac, and Vulgate. Mr. Elliott, and the commentators he follows, have overlooked the most important elements for deciding the true meaning. It is not a question of ὑπέρ only, but of ὑπέρ with a verb of entreating, which yields regularly the sense "for the sake of" or "by." (Matthiae's Gr. Gram. vol. ii. § 582; Jelf, vol. ii. § 630.)

Bp. Ellicott avoids the error of Mr. Elliott, who doubts whether ὑπέρ ever bears what he calls the "adjurative sense;" but, while admitting that it is "grammatically tenable," he contends that it is by no means "exegetically probable," and that it is without precedent in the New Testament. But the latter is an unreasonable objection; because there in no other instance in the New Testament, that I know, of ἐρωτὰω, or an equivalent word, with this preposition (save 2 Cor. 5: 20, which Wahl takes as = per, Mr. Green as "on behalf of," which is inapplicable here; but I wave this as doubtful); and therefore we must be regulated by its ordinary force in such constructions. But we have frequently ἐπ. with περί there, which carries a sense entirely different.

Again, the real source of the difficulty is owing to the exegetical mistake that the presence of the Lord is the same thing as His day. It would be most unnatural, as Dean Alford argues, that the apostle should conjure them by that concerning which he was about to teach them. But the apostle does no such thing; on the contrary, he entreats them by "the coming" of Christ with all its cheering associations and its bright hope — the gathering of the saints to their Lord, that they should not be agitated by the terrors of "the day," which false teachers pretended was actually present. Both the Dean of Canterbury and Bishop of Bristol agree with me that ενέστηκεν means "is already come," not merely "at hand," as very faultily represented in the English Bible. St. Paul in the first Epistle had already taught the Thessalonians their hope, as he had also in his oral ministry respecting the man of sin, and the hindrance which actually operated against his manifestation. He now puts these truths in their order, and beseeches them by Christ's coming, as a known motive on account of which they should not be moved by the false alarm that this familiar and dreaded day of trouble was arrived. It is the presence (παρουσία) of the Lord which gathers the saints to meet Him above; it is the epiphany or shining forth of His presence which destroys the lawless one below — a manifestly subsequent event, spite of Bengel, as appears beyond a doubt from comparing it with Rev. 19. The saints are already with Christ, and follow Him out of heaven for the judgment of the beast and the false prophet and their adherents. The document on which the errorists rested was a pretended letter of the apostle, not the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, as some wrongly assert: and the feeling they sought to excite was not the hope of Christ's coming, but the fear of His day. The criticism and the doctrine of the Horae Apoc. as to this are unfounded.

Others are no better. Schleusner who is quoted writes loosely; and the words of Hesychius (vol. i. col. 1233, ed. Alberti) do not warrant the inference that the same word in the same tense means either present or future; for προκείμενον seems only a following up of πάροντα, not another variety of signification. The verb is generally used for what lies stretched before, as (meats) ready laid, the question in hand, things already settled and agreed on. I am not aware of its ever distinctly meaning the future. But so emphatically the contrary is ἐνεστώς that, as is well known, grammarians have selected it as the proper term for the present tense (χρόνος ἐνεστώς). The latest (sixth) edition of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon shows their statement modified as to this; as in fact none of the three instances cited from classical authors (Ar. Nub. 779, Isaeus, 88. 40, Dem. 896. 49) necessarily means impending, Lat. imminens. Dr. Scott has himself acknowledged to me that they may all, as I believe they all do, mean "present," and thus harmonize instead of clashing with the regular force of the word everywhere else, both in the Sept. (including the Apocrypha) and the New Testament. Thus the passage in the Clouds means "while one suit was still pending," i.e., actually going on, not impending or future. Again, Mr. E. does not appear to have hit the force of Isaeus on the estate of Hagnias; and here, though I have no doubt whatever, I prefer for obvious reasons to cite from the celebrated Sir W. Jones's version, p. 139 (London, 1779). "Moreover the inheritance of Hagnias is not yet well secured to me, since some actions brought against the witnesses for perjury will make it necessary for me to obtain a second adjudication," This is a very different thing from an "impending trial;" and confirms the general rule instead of being an exception for which we have to account. In the demurrer in reference to Apaturius, the third alleged exception, the suits were already begun when they came to arbitration.

So the argument on πάρεστιν, John 11: 28-30, is invalid for Mr. E. and rather strengthens what he contends against. For our Lord had actually quitted the place where He was when the news of the sickness of Lazarus arrived, traversed the considerable intervening distance, and was only just outside the village. Πάρεστιν is strictly true there, and in no way modifies ἐνέστηκεν in our text. If the false teachers at Thessalonica taught that the Lord had left the right hand of God and begun the judgments of "that day," without having yet caught up the saints in Thessalonica or anywhere else, it would be quite parallel to the case of John 11. The word therefore retains here also and everywhere its characteristic sense.

†The allusion is obvious and undeniable to Dan. 11, which has the Jews and their land in view, not the church. This I consider entirely confirmed by Matt. 24: 15, which certainly refers to a thing and time subsequent to Christ's rejection by the Jews and His rejection of them; but as clearly, to my mind, looks on to a time when He will again have a godly remnant, in the midst of an unbelieving generation governed by a false king under Roman influence. If, under such circumstances, the temple can be called the "holy place," why way it not be also "the temple of God?" The reasoning from what the house of God is now, while the church abides here, is quite nugatory. Compare also "the holy city" in Matt. 27: 53. God's purpose is not revoked, spite of Israel's guilt.

Just as the apostle John says, "Even now are there many antichrists;" so here the mystery of iniquity was already working: only one was holding things in abeyance just now. "He who now letteth [will let] until he be taken out of the way." I do not the least doubt that the hinderer is the power of the Spirit of God, not merely dwelling in the church, but acting in the way of control in the world, as the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. If it were simply the Holy Ghost dwelling in the church, the moment the church was taken away, the man of sin would be revealed. But it appears that the lawless one will not arrive at his full stature and manifestation immediately on the rapture of the saints. There will be an interval and a testimony which God will give. When this testimony disappears, or is put down by violence, the man of sin comes out full-blown. This seems to be the hour when the Holy Ghost ceases to restrain. He lets men show out then just what they are; and all their wickedness comes forth. The Holy Ghost thus no longer controlling the earth, Satan will be allowed to mature his worst plans for a very brief moment.

This, I think, is the time, and such its character, when the hinderer or hindrance will be taken out of the way. The early Christians used for many years to pray for the continuance of the Roman empire, because they thought it was the letting thing; that gone, they expected the lawless one to be revealed forthwith. And as its diabolical form is assuredly to arise after a previous existence and extinction, there was a certain measure of truth in their thought. But the Roman empire has long been extinct, and yet the man of sin in his full development has not yet been revealed. The re-appearance of the empire, not its extinction, is the critical epoch; and that will depend on the Holy Ghost's ceasing to restrain. When it does take place, all the evil of man and of Satan comes out without measure or disguise. "Only he who now letteth [will let] until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the shining forth of his presence."

Revelation 19 describes this destruction. In that chapter (verse 20), after a previous description of the coming of the Lord in judgment, it is said, "The beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him . . . . These both were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone." They are, without doubt, the same systems or persons already characterized as the beasts from the sea and the earth in Rev. 13. Now it is plain that one or other of these two beasts is antichrist. The question still remains, which of them is that man of sin? Is it the great power of the world, the beast that rises out of the sea? Or is it the other energetic beast that rises out of the earth, imitating Christ in royal and prophetic power? Disposed to think it is the latter,* I can frankly allow that I see difficulties, and believe it is not a thing to be dogmatized upon. Indeed these beasts are so closely linked together in their actions and objects, and also in their final doom, that we cannot be surprised if many find it hard to decide, or if intelligent minds come to different conclusions. But the more that I weigh what is said in St. Paul about the man of sin, and in St. John's Epistles about the antichrist, my mind looks out for the beast that has most appearance of rivalling and opposing Christ. This I find emphatically in the beast that rises out of the earth.

*So Hippolytus Romanus, a martyr under Maximin or Decius, and said by Photius to have been a disciple of Irenaeus. It would seem from Jerome that he wrote formally on the Apocalypse, beside the short treatise still extant περὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν  Ἰ. Χ. καὶ περί τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. In this last (§ 49) he thus speaks of the second beast: τὸ μὲν οὖν θηρίον ἀναβαῖνον ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὴν βασιλείαν τὴν τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου ἐσομένην λέγει.

Let us now consider a little what the chapter further gives us, bringing the light that we have gathered from other parts of the scriptures to bear upon our enquiry. After the description of the beast in verse 11, we read of the exercise of his power (verse 12). "He exerciseth all the authority of the first beast before him," that is, in his presence. He is the energetic power, the one that cares much more for real influence and energy than for outward show which was what the first beast most valued. "He caused the earth and those that dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." Observe again here that those that dwell on the earth are abandoned to his delusive power.

Some, seeing that the second beast works to procure worship for the first beast, have conceived that 2 Thess. 2 negatives the idea that the second beast is the same as the man of sin; because there he is represented as allowing no other object of worship than himself. But it is manifest that there are three persons who are closely connected together in this scene — the dragon, the world-power or first beast, and the politico-religious or second beast. It appears from Rev. 13: 4, that the dragon is worshipped as well as the first beast; so that whether we suppose the first beast or the second to be the antichrist and man of sin, the difficulty would remain nearly the same. In either case the worship is shared by another. In point of fact, they are the anti-trinity, and find their bond in the unseen power of Satan.

The second beast is very important. He is the really active power in the Holy Land. The beast out of the sea has his dominion over the west, with large influence beyond it; but Palestine or Jerusalem is not his sphere, save that he destroys the witnesses and falls there. It is the second beast that is the great power known to the Holy Land. "He doeth great signs, so that he maketh even fire come down from heaven unto the earth in the sight of men" (verse 13). What imparts such deep and painful interest to the miracle is this: it was the special sign whereby Elijah confounded the false prophets of Baal. When the whole question lay between God and Baal, what was the turning-point that decided the claims of Jehovah against the false god? It was this very thing — fire coming down from heaven. It had been a familiar token in Israel, and one that they might justly connect with the direct approval and power of God. For He had caused fire to come down from heaven at various times, as a signal proof of His approbation. Fire came out from before the Lord when the priests were consecrated; the same thing too when the temple was built and hallowed by Solomon. (2 Chron. 7.) "Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house." It was the crowning evidence of Jehovah's presence connected with Israel — of His presence filling the scene and accepting their sacrifices.

Here then is this frightful imitator and antagonist of the Lord Jesus, who sets himself up to be the God of Israel as well as the Christ. The true Messiah was the God of Israel, and here we find His majesty and claims and power emulated; the antichrist too must cause fire to come down from heaven. I do not say fire really from heaven, but the appearance of it; in the sight of men it was fire coming from heaven. As Satan could imitate, so here was this wicked power, whose presence was after the working of Satan, doing apparently what Elijah had done. The same proof that Elijah had given for Jehovah, against Baal is the one that he offers here in his own name. It is an awful scene, and still more so if compared with the passage in 2 Thess. 2: 9. For, sad to say, the very same words that are used in speaking of the miracles of Christ, in Acts 2: 22, are applied here by the Holy Ghost to the man of sin. "Jesus of Nazareth," said St. Peter, "a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs." So in 2 Thess. the lawless man is one "whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." The peculiar signs of Christ, that men should know the truth, are imitated by this impostor. He performs for falsehood similar things, and men are completely taken in and deceived.

What prepares the way for such an end is the dissatisfaction that men will feel with Christendom as it is. I acknowledge that they justly speak evil against the state into which Christianity has got. When it loses its heavenly separateness, and is mingled with worldly principles, confusion is the result. They forget that Satan is the god of this world. Hence he has blinded them entirely as to what the church of God is, and what is due to the name of His Son here below. Christ is plainly left out of the question, and even the truthfulness is wanting which would be required by men in the commonest things of this life. It is not that one would desire to say a word against others; but God forbid that we should not judge, with all heart and conscience, a thing that is even beneath common honesty in the things of this life. When the church, or the individual Christian, ceases to judge, or if it condemn in heart, allows in practice, in the holiest things, that which a natural man does not in human and social relations; so that even the very world can see that what clothes itself with the name of Christ is all wrong; — when such a time as this arrives, can God longer refrain? Judgment is coming apace; and what a mercy it is that God has given us something sweet as our hope and happiness, and not the perpetual dark foreboding of most certain judgment! Our portion is outside the sphere of the world. Judgment there must be before the world, can be fully blest. If a person were merely to dwell on evil and its judgment, do you think it would give Power to act for good? It is not the showing up of what is wrong, but bringing grace and truth to act on our souls which gives power: otherwise it might only be getting out of one form of evil to fall into another. The only real security is the getting near to Christ: we help other souls just so far as we put them in contact with Him.

We have seen, then, that this great enemy of God will be permitted to do wonders in imitation of the power of Christ, and in support of his claim to be Jehovah. It is not surprising that he deceives those that dwell on the earth. And what rapidly prepares the way, and ripens men for all, is that they are now listening to Satan, who has been dissolving confidence in the miracles of Christ, and the scriptures which relate them. Thus, when men not only review but see the horrors of what has taken place in Christendom under their eyes, and when they are left without the love of the truth in their hearts, they will be at the mercy of Satan. Then, when men's desires are gratified without conscience, and God Himself in righteous retribution sends strong delusion that they should believe the lie, (saying to them, so to speak, "You have refused the truth that you might be saved: now, then, have all you like,") — then this personage comes forward, and these wonders are done that affect to be signs from heaven. Is it amazing that they fall down and worship the beast and his image?

It is Satan, of course, who is behind the scenes; but his slave, the second beast, "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast: saying to them that dwell on the earth,* that they should make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live. And he had power to give life [or breath] . . . that the image of the beast should both speak and cause† that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed" (verses 14, 15).

*I am not prepared to affirm that "the abomination of desolation," of which our Lord speaks in Matt. 24, referring to Daniel 12: 11, is the same as "the image" before us. It is absurd to suppose that our Lord alluded to the defilement of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. (Dan. 11: 31.) This was long past; whereas He is warning of another abomination yet future and final. Hence too it may be observed that the phrase given by the evangelist answers exactly (not to Dan. 11: 31, but) to Dan. 12: 11 in the LXX. In Dan. 8: 13 it is another thing, "the transgression of desolation;" and in Dan. 9: 27, though there may be a link of connection it is, I think, "because of the wing, i.e. (the protection) of abominations [them shall be] a desolator;" a very distinct statement, even if it be allowed to refer to the same time. The sense is that antichrist sets up idolatry in the temple, because of which a desolator appears in the person of the great northern enemy of Israel. The effort to apply it to the Romans under Titus, or to the Pope, is utterly vain. The former is probably due to the error of confounding Matt. 24: 15, etc., with Luke 21: 21. It is the latter only who brings in the Roman siege and captivity, as he alone treats of the times of the Gentiles. Matthew on the other hand, equally inspired of God, leaves out this part of our Lord's great prophecy, and dwells at length on the closing crisis, in answer to the question of the end of the age, which Luke accordingly omits.

†It is possible that the meaning may be, "that the image of the beast should both speak and act [or practise]; in order that as many," etc. If so, the statement attributes to the beast's image the same things which characterise the beast it) verse 5.

Observe, by the way, a further proof that this second beast is after the final rise of the first beast; for he causes an image to be made "to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live." "And he caused all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive* a mark on their right hand or on their forehead. And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, the name of the beast, or the number of his name" (verses 16, 17). That mark was a seal of subjection or slavery to the beast.

*Literally, "that they should give them," i.e., that a mark should be given them. Compare Rev. 10: 11, "they say to me," i.e., it is said. (See Luke 6: 38; Luke 12: 20; Luke 16: 9, for a similar usage, the first and especially the last of which am often misunderstood.)

"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man, and his number [is] 666" (verse 18). I do not pretend to solve any, such question as this. It would be easy to repeat what others have thought. Some of the early Christians, especially the pious Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, supposed that it was "the Latin man." Others have found various names, in accordance with their polemics and prejudices. Romanists discovered in it the enigma of Luther Protestants, the name of more than one Pope. Mahomet in ancient, and Napoleon in modern times have been imagined. But are such notions better than conundrums? It is not the way of the Spirit to occupy God's people with reckoning letters or numbers after this vague fashion. May we not be satisfied that this is one of the points of detail left for "the wise" of the latter day, and that when the time comes the clue will be given, and all the light that may be required? For there is in the ways of God a sort of economy, at least when we come to matters of detail and application. Just as He does not give a saint the strength to bear him through a special trial till it is at the doors, so the Lord may only vouchsafe the needed instruction about this number when the man himself appears.

The application of the prophecy to a particular person will be the point then. It seems premature and useless to discuss such a question till the parties are on the stage. The wise shall understand then, and all will be as clear as day to them, but not to the wicked. (See Dan. 12.) The general truth, however, is plain. There is this second "beast," the active, energetic power that opposes Christ; but when the day of reckoning comes, and the judgment of the Lord is upon him, he will be no longer spoken of as a beast, but as the "false prophet" that wrought miracles. (Rev. 19: 20.) Supposing the second beast to be antichrist, I am inclined to think that there is a spurious imitation of Christ in his causing the first beast to be worshipped. The Lord Jesus spake and wrought for the purpose of exalting God the Father, while the Father Himself makes Christ the special object. "Let all the angels of God worship him" [the Son]; and again, "that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." So it is with the beast. He will help to exalt the great world-power; but withal he equally, and yet more in spiritual things, exalts himself. He has horns like a lamb. That is, he pretends to the power of Christ. But he speaks as a dragon (i.e., the expression of his mind is Satanic). Being a beast, it is intimated that he is invested with temporal authority; while he is also expressly designated a false prophet. Thus it is a personal antagonist of what Christ was and will be, rather than of what He is. Popery — Anti-Christendom, if you will — is a travesty of Christ's priesthood, and will perish with all that partakes its sin in the gainsaying of Korah. But here (when Christ, having closed His heavenly work, is about to assume His earthly royal dignity) is one who opposes and exalts himself in the city of the great king. For it is the Holy Land that is the central seat of his power and deceits. He is, I think, the person that the Lord Jesus referred to in contrast with Himself in a passage just quoted in part, where He sums up all in a few little words ( John 5: 43); "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." The Jews would not have Him who came from the Father. His sent One and servant, though His equal in honour and power, had so come and been refused. But there was one whom they are to receive, one who will flatter and exalt man in sin; for he will own no authority higher than his own, and this is the echo of man's will. Him I believe to be the personage we have here — one who, as to actual territorial dominion and external splendour, may have a superior, but who in point of spiritual energy and weight is pre-eminent.

Having already given so fully that which seems to me the true view of the very important chapter which has just occupied us, I need not say much of counter-expositions, many grounds of which have been already set aside by anticipation. Mr. Elliott is perhaps more than usually confident in his hypothesis that the beast from the sea represents the character and history of the Roman Popes and Papal Christendom, and the two-horned beast the Papal clergy, with the image of the beast as the Papal councils. It is impossible to call this, at least, the Protestant interpretation. For even Luther made the first beast to be the Latin secular, the second the spiritual, power; while Bullinger viewed the former as the Pagan Roman empire, as did Foxe. Brightman, no doubt, was even more zealous than Mr. E., for he makes both beasts to set forth the Popes. But what is of more consequence, the learned Joseph Mede, and, as far as I can collect, Dr. Cressener, Jurieu and Daubuz certainly rejected these notions, regarding the first beast as the Roman secular empire, and the second as the ecclesiastical beast, though with characteristic points of difference. So, in the main, Sir I. Newton. If we enquire of their successors nearer our own day, the case is no better by Mr. Elliott's own account. "The explanation of this first beast as the secular Emperor and Empire of Western Christendom, and of the second beast as the Pope and Pontifical Empire, so as most of our modern English expositors have taken it; (e.g., Faber, Cuninghame, Bickersteth, etc.;) but I conceive to have been one of the most plain, as well as most fatal, of Protestant expository errors" (vol. iii. p. 109, note 2). Surely then, if so plain and fatal, Mr. E.'s elaborate array of evidence, and acute correction of the Protestant expository error, have been successful with every fair mind! Alas! no. Perhaps the chief independent exposition, since the Horae Apoc., is the Rationale Apocalypticum of Mr. Alfred Jenour (2 vols. 8vo, 1852); and there I read that the wild beast from the sea "must symbolize an empire about to rise after the ancient Heathen empire had been destroyed, and which would be, as it were, that empire revived. It must represent too, I think, obviously a secular empire, not a spiritual or ecclesiastical dominion. There is nothing to indicate that it partakes in any degree of a spiritual or ecclesiastical character. And I cannot, therefore, but express my astonishment that so many commentators should have acquiesced in the interpretation which makes this sea-born wild beast the Papacy. There is not a single feature in the description of the beast itself that can with propriety be so applied. It is, as I have said, a secular not a spiritual power we have here delineated" (vol. ii. p. 75).

On the one hand, then, I agree with Mr. Elliott that it is impossible fairly to interpret the beast from the sea of the empire founded by Clovis and completed by Charlemagne. Neither the seven heads nor the ten horns, neither the dragon-character, nor in any sense the duration, can bear a reasonable application to it. On the other hand, I am compelled to agree with the earliest down to the latest, and including some of the very ablest of Protestants, that not the Papacy is meant but the secular Roman Empire. The conclusion is irresistible. Allowing an inconclusive accomplishment in the Papacy and its clerical supports, I steadily adhere to the conviction that the future alone can exhibit the fulfilment of all the features predicted, without constraint and in all their strength.

It is not true that the Papacy has the command of the Western powers which is here supposed, still less practises for 1260 years with such unlimited dominion. It is not true that the Pope has authority given him over every kindred and people and tongue and nation, even if you confound this with (instead of distinguishing it from) the dwellers in the Roman world. It is not true that the Pope is the object of all the world's wonder, nor that the confession is extorted, "Who is able to make war with him?" Nor do all, save the elect, in Western Christendom worship him. Need I show how palpably inapplicable is the second beast to those wolves in sheep's clothing, the Papal clergy? Do they exercise the enormous power, all the power, of the first beast? And in what fair sense do they perform great miracles or signs, so as to make fire come down from heaven in men's sight? Is it possible that any person, save blinded by system, could be content with such an accomplishment as the wicked and idolatrous figment of the mass, or the lightnings of the Vatican?

The Lord grant that we may deny ungodliness and worldly 1usts, and this not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake! Yea, may we be separated to Christ in a spirit of heavenly grace! How base to think we can take care when the time comes? Baser still, if possible, to plead that the church of God will be previously taken out of the way to heaven — that because all will be right then, we can afford to do wrong now! Remember, that Meanwhile, as the apostle said, are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. Now, if you are allowing the spirit of the world, or are trifling with any of the influences of antichrist at the present moment, what would you do if exposed to all the fearful persecutions on the one hand, and to all the temptations on the other, of the day when the man of sin will be revealed? God's grace might strengthen me to face all danger, and to refuse every blandishment, rather than abjure the true and worship the false God and Christ. But is it not most solemn and humbling if I join (no matter what the motive) in any fellowship with known evil?

And here is the great, moral, present value of prophecy. I see the frightful fall at the end, and can trace the stream that runs down to it. Perhaps the way is long and winding, and the river does not seem so perilous; but look a little lower down, where the word of God lifts up the misty veil which shrouds the future, and behold the fatal speed with which all, who float there are engulfed to their utter destruction! There are many currents connected with the world, and I may not see in their sources and first flowings the full extent of the evil which is the inevitable result. In prophecy God graciously shows me the end from the beginning; so that, if I heed it not, I am dishonouring the warning of His love, who would have me "knowing these things before." Let us also beware not merely of one evil, but of its every form: especially let us not meddle with it wherever it assumes a Christ-like form in association with the world. Here we have the end of the open, blasphemous power, as well as of the more active and subtle spiritual evil of the crisis.* Men will be caught in one or other of these snares-the bold infidelity or the religious pravity of the last days. However they may differ in appearance, they are found in the strictest, saddest, most fatal union at the close. The Lord grant that our hearts may be kept looking to Christ and waiting for Him from heaven! There is no full comfort or blessing, except so far as the eye is single to Him.

*It is not surprising that those who are greatly occupied with present things feel the deepest amazement and abhorrence, not at the antichrist as futurists depict it, but at Popery as it has been and is, with its recognition of so much revealed truth, and withal its destruction of the efficacy of redemption and of all immediate relationship with God, not to speak of its hideous idolatries and its systematic persecution of those who do not bow to it, let them be saints or not. But the more such minds bring out its subtle hypocrisy, the more they seem to prove that Romanism corresponds with the mystery of iniquity. Of course, its working in apostolic days was but a germ of what afterwards went on, till it issued in that frightful corruption which Protestants have done faithful service in exposing with unquestionable vigour and earnestness. Hence, in Rev. 17 it is the corrupt woman (not the ravening beast) whose name is "Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth." And observe, it was the sight of the woman which caused John to wonder so exceedingly. Still, "the apostacy," as I read scripture, implies the public renunciation of Christian truth, not an orthodox maintenance of the cardinal facts, at any rate, of the gospel, such as Romanism holds up; and the session and worship of the man of sin in the temple of God implies a defiance of Jehovah, under the false expectation of Israel, which looks onward to another and more daring form of Satan's power.

Revelation 14

This chapter is the concluding one of the episode that separates the trumpets from the vials. We heard the events under the last trumpet announced; but the details and the means of their actual accomplishment were not revealed to us. There were songs in heaven celebrating its results; but the immediate effect of the last trumpet on earth was only spoken of in a general way; and this going down to the end of all, including even the final judgment of the dead.*

*Hence it is going too far, and indeed not only without proof but inaccurate, to say that the vials are the evolution of the seventh trumpet. It is of no weight to allege that the trumpets are the development of the last seal. This I doubt not, because there is absolutely nothing under that seal, save a half-hour's silence in heaven, and then the trumpets are given to the seven angels, etc. But there is nothing analogous at the close of Rev. 11. For on the face of the matter, Revelation 12, 13, 14 intervene, the last of which contains the vision of a scene of judgment by the Son of man, which is unquestionably subsequent to the vials. Again, what more fanciful than the opistho-graphic theory (Horae Apocalypticae, vol. i. p. 99; iii. p. 4), that is, the notion that the writing without and within answers to the twofold series of visions, one of which, relating to matter chiefly secular, ends in Revelation 11, and the other of which, chiefly ecclesiastical, begins after that? Certainly, neither Ezekiel 3: 9, 10, nor Zechariah 5: 1-3 lends the slightest countenance to it, but rather the contrary.

Then the Holy Ghost, as we have seen, in Revelation 12, 13, turns aside to show us the source, character, and leading instruments of the last outbreak of evil, on which the vials were to be poured out, after which the Lord is to act in personal vengeance. We are come, let us suppose, in some comprehensive history, to an account of a battle which decides the fate of the world at any time. The author stops to describe the previous state of the parties and the causes that led to the crisis. Exactly so with what we have here the earnest of retribution, as it were, is given us under the vials. Thus, Revelation 12 and 13, not to speak of Revelation 14, show us what it was that led to such a dreadful out-pouring of God's wrath. So that, though they may appear to be an interruption, it was necessary for impressing on us adequately the horribleness of the evil the Lord was dealing with. We saw in Revelation 12 that Satan was the mighty and subtle spring behind the scene, hating and opposing Christ and His people from the very beginning. Then there was the war in heaven between Michael and the dragon, with their respective angels; and finally the conduct of Satan, when cast down unto the earth, was traced and explained. Again, Revelation 13 shows us that, just as God revealed Himself to man, not only in tables of stone, but in the person of His Son, in order that men might see divine grace so as no tables of stone could display it (but rather the reverse), and that they might hear it in their own familiar tones; so Satan finds a policy suited to his ends, in taking up men on earth and making them the instruments and expression of his will. Accordingly he acts by the two beasts which represent two great systems or their leaders that will be at work during the short season of our adversary's great wrath on earth. The violence of the world and its pride and blasphemy are set forth by the beast that rises out of the sea. The beast from the earth is as much suited to ensnare men who desire a religion which excludes God and panders to man and the world, as the other intimidated them by its power, or enticed them by its appeals to their ambition and love of outward show.

But then the question arises, If Satan is so busy himself and his instruments, what is God doing? Is He inactive — indifferent He could not be — all this time? Revelation 14 seems to be the answer to that question. The perversion of everything God has given to man, and of all Satan can devise, will come to a fearful issue then in a few short months and years. Dreadful as it all is, and though God will have seemingly given up the world, just to see what Satan and men together will make of it, yet none the less God even then and there will be at work. And first, it is not now the heavens, nor the earth, nor the sea: none of these is the ground or scene of what is brought before us in the early verses of this chapter. There is a new spot introduced-one not mentioned before, yet a most important one and full of significance. "And I looked, and, lo! the Lamb stood on the mount Sion." Now let us just pause for a moment and enquire what are the ideas that the Holy Ghost conveys by or connects with the hill of Zion. The Apocalypse everywhere supposes an acquaintance with the other parts of the word of God, from Genesis even to the close of the New Testament. It would be difficult to find any part of scripture that is not required in order to come to a full understanding of this wonderful prophecy.

Let us take the present allusion to Zion as an instance. If I do not know what God teaches elsewhere by mount Zion, how shall I understand what is meant by this opening vision of Rev. 14? The first occasion where Zion comes into view is in the history of David, when he became king over all Israel. (2 Sam. 5) And what was the state of the people then? Israel had previously chosen a king after their own heart; one that reflected them, that could go at their head and fight their battles. "We will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations." Saul was their choice, David the elect of God. Not that David did not need the mercy and forgiveness of God; for indeed after God's favour to him he fell grievously. Beyond question, however, David entered into and responded to the thoughts of God in a most remarkable way. He sinned, it is true, but who felt and owned his sin more thoroughly? Who more than he vindicated God against himself? Neither, on the other hand, did God make light of his sin because he delighted in David. The deed was secret, but it was published upon the housetop. He had dealt treacherously with his faithful servant, and had defiled his servant's house. And what a tale of sorrow did his own house show for many a long year afterwards! (2 Sam. 12.) It was then under David, when Israel had been in confusion, when the priests had corrupted them and the king had wrought no deliverance, when all were in rebellion against God and constantly exposed to the razzias and tyranny of their Philistine neighbours. All was in ruin; the sanctuary, in what a state was it! The very tabernacle and the ark of God were severed. Thus, in all respects, sacred and political, great and small, public and private, the picture was most dismal. And it was then that God began to work energetically by His Spirit in the people. Justly were they suffering under the law which they had undertaken at Sinai. True, there was mercy and faithfulness too, in the midst of all, on God's part; but still evil was fast increasing, and in Israel there was no hope and no resource. And what then? God calls David out step by step, and Zion acquires a most marked place in his history. It was there David's city was built, the seat of his royalty. It may not be thought much of now in the world, but in one sense all the blessing of this world as such is suspended over that little spot; and never will there be rest or glory for the earth until the city, which was a stay in the downward progress of Israel, and was meant to be a resting-place for faith, shall by and by be taken up by God. In the Psalms and the Prophets it constantly reappears, the Spirit of Christ ever leading on the hearts, of the saints to anticipate the full result which the early type promised as it were in the germ.

In Hebrews 12 the Holy Ghost refers to it, though perhaps in a different way. Still the great thought is the intervention of God's race. The passage contrasts the position of Israel with that of the Christian; and, after having described the vision of Sinai, with its blackness, and darkness, and tempest — all most terrible even to the mediator, it proceeds: — "But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," etc. Now there we see just the same great and precious principle. Israel had come to Sinai, and that was the mountain that characterised their whole course from beginning to end. And what was the result of it? As it began with darkness and distance, so it ended with misery and death. As they were and Sinai was, they could not but shrink back from God; for there God was in His majesty of judgment — not in the love that comes down and puts itself under the burden, in order to take it away. That could not be at Sinai; for there it was a just God in the presence of sinners only; and therefore He could but overawe and fill all with terror and the forebodings of judgment. Bounds must be set round the mountain. If even an unconscious beast touched it, death was the penalty; and this was Sinai. "But ye are come," says the Spirit, "unto mount Sion," the mount" of God's intervention in grace, as Sinai was of man's responsibility; and with Sinai, what could be the effect for the sinner? Only to press his conscience with the terror of death. The Israelite was as good as a dead man, when he stood there, being already a sinner; and death would be as surely executed, after he left the burning mount. The Apostle shows the Christian ground of grace, the exact opposite of man trembling before a God who righteously demanded what the flesh could not do. Now, it is God who has come down — it is God who has accomplished His work of love. When Zion first appeared by name, it was when Israel-people, priests, king — had utterly failed. Then God entered unsought, established the king of his own choice in Zion, and raised him and his son to such a pitch of glory as never was or will be in Israel again, till the true David comes and plants His royal glory on Zion, never more to be moved.

The principle involved in Zion, then, is God's activity for His people in the way of grace, when all was lost under the law. This gives the mountain of Zion its true force in Rev. 14. It is the gracious interference of God on behalf of those who sit with the holy sufferer — the Lamb. God acts for His Son, securing His glory on earth and gathering round Him in heart a remnant, not merely sealed as the servants of God (like a similar band out of the twelve tribes of Israel in Revelation 7), but brought into association with the Lamb in Zion, that is, with God's royal purposes in grace. These seem to me sufferers of Judah, who pass through the unequalled tribulation, which it is not said that the other remnant do. This is what is meant by their standing with the Lamb on the mount Zion. There St. John saw them. Of course, I do not mean that in fact they will be on Zion, or that they will necessarily understand what this symbol sets forth. The question is, what God was conveying to John's mind or to any who desire to understand the sayings of this book. It was, I believe, God's special interference on behalf of His people in the last days. He will associate with the Lord Jesus Christ, as the suffering Messiah, a full, numbered, godly remnant, who will be brought into fellowship with Him. There stand in the vision the hundred and forty-four thousand, having the Lamb's name and His Father's name written on their foreheads. It is not said that they know God as their Father. The Revelation never contemplates us in the position of children, much less does it so present the Jewish remnant. Thus, even when speaking of the church, we are said to be made kings and priests unto God and His Father, rather than ours. And this is the more remarkable in John, because no other evangelist takes so much pains to show the relationship of children in which God has put us before Himself now. Thus, in John 20, directly the Lord is risen from the dead, the message to His disciples is, "Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." Nothing of this appears here, because the Revelation is not so much intended to open our nearness of relationship to God as our Father, but rather His judgment and glory, though with mercy for a remnant. I speak of the prophetic and earthly portion — not, of course, of that which gives us a glimpse of things above. Thus, the name of the Lamb and the name of His Father (for so it ought to be read) written on their foreheads is in contrast with the name of the beast in Revelation 13. The beast's name or mark was put on the right hand or forehead of his followers. The Lamb's name and His Fathers these hundred and forty-four thousand have on their foreheads — not in their hearts only, if we may so speak; they were evidently and openly the Lamb's.

"And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of loud thunder:* and the voice which I heard [was] as it were of harpers, harping with their harps. And they sing [as it were] a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders; and none could learn that song but the hundred forty [and] four thousand that were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, first-fruits to God and to the Lamb" (ver. 2-4). Thus they are characterized, besides learning the new song of heaven, negatively by their holy separateness from all the various kinds of idolatry which will then prevail on earth, and positively by their faithful allegiance to the Lamb, whatever the fiery trial. Instead of becoming the slaves of the beast, they were redeemed for the earth's first-fruits to God and the Lamb. They are a very peculiar class, a sort of link between heaven and the earth from which they were redeemed. They were untainted by the corrupt influences of that evil day, and especially are they free from the idolatries that will be one of its most grievous marks. I do not mean idolatry in a. vague or virtual sense (as we are warned against covetousness, which is such morally), but positive, literal idolatry. Many may think it absurd to talk about the worship of idols reappearing in lands neither popish nor pagan; but this would only show how little man's heart is known and the power of Satan. The word of God is perfectly explicit that the last days will be characterized by the grossest spirit of idolatry, and this in the most enlightened parts of Christendom, yea, in Jerusalem itself, which will then put forth once more the highest pretensions. It is an apostacy that the heart of man is quite capable of, and to which Christendom will be given up by God, as a just retribution for refusing the love of the truth that they might be saved. "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." if He will give them up to their own natural lusts; and the heart prefers any and every thing to God.

*"A voice," says Mr. Elliott (H. A., vol. iii. p. 312), "as of many waters, and of a great thunder, — that is of people and princes, — uniting to swell it. There can be no question, I conceive, as to some happy crisis in the earthly fortunes of Christ's saints and people being so prefigured; — some crisis during the Papal beast's reign, or at least before his destruction." And this he goes on to expound of the Reformation. Let the reader turn to Rev. 1, and ask himself the consistency of such an interpretation of the "voice as the sound of many waters." What room is there for dragging in "people" here? and what more for "princes" in Revelation 6: 1, where the living creature, as with voice of thunder, summons the rider on the white horse? No reason, indeed, is more decisive against so earthly a view, than that which is furnished by the very text which Mr. E. would have us compare (i.e. Rev. 19: 6); for surely if ever there can he conceived a moment when princes and people are not in unison with heaven's new anthem of praise, it is in the crisis which follows the destruction of Babylon and precedes their own still more awful fate in the war with the Lamb.

The saints, associated to the prophet's eye with the Iamb on Zion, are said not to be defiled with women; i.e., they were preserved from the corruptions that surrounded them. They walked in virgin purity. Neither do they wonder after the beast. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersover he goeth. "They were redeemed from among men, first-fruits to God and to the Lamb." They were first-fruits: the harvest would follow in due course. (See verses 14, 16.) "And in their mouth was found no guile [or rather no lie, ψεῦδος], for they are without fault." It is added in our common Bible, "before the throne of God" (verse 5);* but these last words ought not to be there. The best authorities leave them out: and a slight consideration will show how wrongly inserted they seem to be. "They are without fault," or blameless, it is true; but "blameless" here refers, I think, to their practical conduct. If compared with men from whom they were redeemed, such they were. In their presence they were without fault. But suppose God puts them before His throne to search into what they have been here, measured by His holiness — this is another thing. There I need forgiveness; there I need to stand, not in my own blamelessness, but made the righteousness of God in Christ. If I stand as an individual, viewed not in Christ but according to my actual ways, shall I say that I am blameless here? It may make this a little clearer, if we remember 1 John 1, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" we do not know the truth about ourselves, and we have no fellowship with Christ in discerning the evil that is there. But "if we say that we have not sinned," we make God a liar, which is far worse than deceiving ourselves. We make Him a liar, and His word is not in us; for He has declared the contrary over and over. But in 1 John 3 what a change! "He that committeth sin is of the devil;" and "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil." How can we reconcile these two things? How account for the immense difference of the language in Revelation 1 and Revelation 3? Most simply. In chapter 1 the Holy Ghost is leading the Christian to view himself in the light of God's presence: he is before the Father and the Son. He stands before God, if I may so say — not exactly before the throne — but before the Father and the Son. And what will a man say when he stands there? Will he say, I have no sin; I have not sinned? None there will say it. Whoever says so here proves that the truth is not in him — that the word has never searched him. But when God compares His child with those who do not know Himself after a divine sort, He says, "he doth not commit sin," and "he cannot sin."

* It is curious that Mr. Elliott (H. A., iii. part iv. chapter x.), though he rightly rejects or doubts the clause ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ, nevertheless repeatedly, both in Greek and English, inserts another clause which has absolutely no warrant, as far as I know. He says in the text of p. 311 (and also in p. 323), "they were without fault before God," and then in the foot-note gives αμωμοι ενωπιον του Θεου. He adds, "Compare my observation on the words ενωπιον του θηριου, said in Apoc. xiii. of the lambskin-covered beast's responsibility to the beast antichrist as his supervisor, p. 206-208 supra. The words within brackets are implied if not expressed." Now, while I do not question that politically the second beast subserves the first, I demur to the proof drawn from this phrase. Thus, Rev. 1: 4 — the first occurrence of ἐνώπιον in the book — is adverse. Subordination is not the idea. As little does the next occurrence, Rev. 4: 14, bear him out: indeed it refutes the inference. Balaam taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel — certainly not under their cognizance and judgment. Compare also Rev. 3: 8, 9; Rev. 4: 6; Rev. 12: 4, 10. Nay, in Revelation 13, the verse which follows the one on which Mr. E. dwells is in my judgment a sufficient answer. For while verse 12, if justly so interpreted, would suit the papal supremacy, how square it with verse 13? For there we have the signs or miracles wrought ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, before men. If Mr. E.'s theory of what is "presignified by this little word" in verse 12 be applied to verse 13, it would teach the Protestant principle of private judgment, quite as much as the other justifies "Coram Petro." The truth is that the view has no foundation.

See Numbers. There we perceive Israel in a state of great disorder and failure, every form of unbelief and unfaithfulness in their journeying. But the moment an enemy comes forward, and comes to curse the people of God — that same Israel which had tempted and provoked Him ten times and more, what does He say then? Why, that He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, neither has He seen perverseness in Israel! "Jehovah his God is with him, and the shout of a king is among them." In the very persons with whom He had found fault so often, when speaking to themselves, He can see none now. Let Satan and the world take in hand to damage His people, and all His heart is in movement on their behalf.

As this verse stands now in the common text, with the words "before the throne of God" added to it, we could only understand it as being true in Christ; but here the sense requires, if I mistake not, that it be practical conduct. God looks at them as undefiled and truthful, because they have been kept by grace from all the idols of Babylon and the delusive power of the beast; and thus they are blameless. I only notice this to show that many of these little changes add to the great sum of Christian truth. Every blot or error which creeps into the word of God will be found to impair its accuracy and to detract from its perfect beauty.

The second thing that we note in the chapter is an angel flying in the midst of heaven, having everlasting glad tidings to preach unto them that dwell [or, literally, that sit] on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people. I am aware that some have applied this to the great spread of evangelical missions to the heathen in these last days. But is it the way to understand prophecy — ever striving to find some present accomplishment of it? We must look at the context as a whole. If no such thing be admitted as a new group of suffering Jews, connected with Christ in the hope of the kingdom in Israel, it is in vain to look for the angel with the everlasting gospel in the missionary efforts of the last half century. Nor would the message itself in any way suit the present purposes of God. The ground on which the angel appeals to them is that the hour of God's judgment is come. Is this the case now? Evidently not. Is not the day of grace in full contrast with the hour of judgment? It is still true that "now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." As yet the door is open. It is forcing scripture to say "the hour of his judgment is come." But when the time for the accomplishment of this arrives, it will be the sure warning of the Lord for men. For then the closing judgments are about to be executed, and the outpouring of God's wrath is just at hand. Now you cannot reconcile all this with the day of blessing and grace, as if they could both run on together. And yet there are those who say we are in the midst of the vials! But this (where it is understood not partially, but in full and finally) indicates the almost total eclipse which befalls the truth in the minds of men, when they can suppose that the day of God's grace and the hour of His judgment are the same thing, or can be at the same time.

And when we proceed a little closely to examine the message itself, we find that it has altogether another sound from the glad tidings which God is proclaiming now. Does it call souls everywhere to repent., because God has raised up a man from the dead by whom He will judge the world in righteousness? (Acts 17: 31.) Thus Paul preached in his day; and thus it is right to preach now a Christ dead, risen, and coming again to judge the world. It speaks of the hour of divine judgment, but there is not a word about a risen man — nothing about a Saviour or His redemption. "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (verse 7). Now, I ask, is this the kind of message that would suit to go about the country with? Telling persons to worship God that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and fountains of waters? Everlastingly true as it is, is it the special message now? God forbid that the creation-glory of God should be denied! It is exceedingly important; but its proper application is when God has finished the work, now in hand, of saving and calling out the church (Christ's body) for heavenly glory. When Satan has accomplished his great purpose of making men not only reject the true God when He came as man, but worship a man as God on earth, what will not be the urgent need and value of that message then? It will be the contradiction given to everything the beast and the dragon conspire to bring in. When all this iniquitous false worship is going on, it will require positive faith in the one living and true God not to give way and fall under the power of the delusion. For Satan will have made it to be at the peril of a man's life and subsistence not to yield.

And so here is this message sent: "Fear God, and give glory to him." All the world had sunk in idolatry, worshipping the beast and falling down before him. Satan could not prevail on the Son of God to fall down and worship him; but he will have the beast as his tool and all the world is drawn after him. "Worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." These are the claims of God to supreme worship at the time when "the earth" will be completely carried away by the anti-christian delusion.

But persons may ask, "Why is it called everlasting glad tidings or gospel?" Perhaps because it is always true. It has been so from the beginning, and up to the close it must be unchanged. "Fear God, and give glory to him." The peculiar ground on which it is put here ("for the hour of his judgment is come") could not always apply. But still the word, "Fear God . . . . worship him that made heaven and earth" (that is, the glory of God proved or witnessed in creation), is of course always a standing, fundamental truth. But it will be emphatically regarded and brought out when Satan has gained over the world to deny the true God, and to worship a creature instead of the Creator.

The seventh verse is pretty plain; but I add a few words more with regard to the term "gospel." It is used in scripture with much more latitude than men are now accustomed to. The glad tidings to Israel in the wilderness held out that they should inherit the land of promise. It was glad tidings to Abraham that in him should all nations be blessed. (Gal. 3: 8.) The glad tidings in the time of John the Baptist, and preached by him, meant in substance that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. So also the Lord Himself preached and His disciples during His ministry on earth. But the people would not have Him; and the consequence was that, though the kingdom was set up, it was so in a way that differed emphatically from what the people expected who looked for it. It was set up in the person of the rejected King in heaven, till He comes again in power, when it will be established manifestly over the earth. Thus we have different messages, different glad tidings, according to the various subjects or hopes that God was presenting at different times. But the everlasting gospel necessarily was before Abraham, or any other of these special glad tidings. It has always been, and must be, that God is the only worthy object of worship. "There is none good but one — God." And when the blessed day does dawn — when the King comes in His glory — when the kingdom prepared before the foundation of the world will be enjoyed — when God will have His blessed ones around Him from the north and south, from the east and from the west (not only the risen ones, but also those in their natural bodies who will be spared and be blessed on the earth, at the same time that the risen saints will enjoy heavenly glory under the headship of the only One who can concentrate all in blessing), what will be the due and needed message previously? Why this: "Fear God, and give glory to him." Evidently then it is called with perfect reason, "the everlasting gospel." You will observe that it is sent "to them that dwell on the earth," as well as "to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people;" thus keeping up the distinction that we have noticed before. They will both hear the testimony; but if those "who dwell on the earth" will not receive it, through the mercy of God the nations, kindreds, tongues, and people will in part receive it. (Compare Psalm 96 and Matt. 24: 14 with the results in Matt. 25: 31-46.)

After this comes another message — the fall of Babylon. I do not mean to dwell on it just now, as we shall find a great deal about that city in other chapters of this book: for Babylon was so important as to require a special notice to itself. But as it was evidently the active source of corruption, intoxicating men and drawing them away from the living God, so now He sends this, the death-knell of Babylon. The object here, probably, was to give its place in the order of God's dealings at the close of the dispensation, its relation to what went before and to what follows after (verse 8).

In the next place, we have the solemn warning to those who worshipped the beast and received his mark, the sure and everlasting torment of all who were thus carried away by him. There are many who apply these prophecies about Babylon and the beast in an exclusive way to Rome; but while the seven-hilled city has many of the principles of Babylon and the beast, yet it is impossible to find their complete and united fulfilment in Popery as it now is or has been. Besides, the beast and Babylon are not the same thing; for the beast destroys Babylon. And will Rome destroy itself? Certainly, the elements of Babylon are to be found there; but if the matter be looked at more closely, all cannot be found in Rome. For my own part, I believe that Rome, more than any other system, already is in a very true moral sense Babylon, and that it will yet contain and manifest all the elements of that vile corruptress. But for this very reason it cannot be the beast; for the beast it is which destroys Babylon, and after that the beast, falling into its own worst and open rebellion against God, perishes. The worst state of the beast is after Babylon has been destroyed; for then it exalts itself to heaven, only to be cast down to hell; but we shall have the fall of both fully by and by. "Here is the patience of the saints" (verses 9-12).

The fifth division is the word touching the saints that die in the Lord. "And I heard a voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow with them" (verse 13). It does not mean those who die throughout the present dispensation. When Christian people die now, it is blessed; but here the Spirit speaks of a future class, all of whom will die. You must take these things connected together as a whole — not a little bit that suits present circumstances, leaving out the rest which does not. What is the real meaning of the verse? What is God's mind? It is the saints who die in that day. Many will be killed: the blood of the saints will flow. The everlasting glad tidings had been announced; the hour of judgment was come, as the angel proclaimed; so that it might seem a dreadful thing for persons to be killed just when God is going to introduce His kingdom. But, on the contrary, the voice says, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth." Do not be alarmed by it. They will only get a better kind of glory. What will be the portion of those that die in the Lord then? They will reign with Christ and His heavenly saints. Revelation 20 proves that those who die under the persecutions of the beast will be raised again to join the heavenly saints that will have been taken away before. "Blessed are the dead," etc., cannot in strictness apply to the church, because all belonging to the church will not die. Some will be alive and remaining at the coming of the Lord, who are to be changed without passing through death; whereas these are persons who all die, as a class. It refers exclusively to those who die in the Lord at that time; and shows that, instead of losing their place in the kingdom of Christ, they will gain an advanced position of blessing. Their company also is complete, and their full blessedness just coming without further waiting — blessed from henceforth (verse 13).

The spirit of it may be applied now; but the intention of the Holy Ghost seems to have been the comfort of persons who will die before the beast is judged and the heavenly glory appears. It might be thought that they had lost something; but it is not so. The voice from heaven says, "Write, Blessed henceforth the dead that die in the Lord: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." The Holy Ghost adds His "Yea" of sweet sympathy, true to the saints in joy and in sorrow, groaning with their infirmities, and rejoicing with their speedy triumph and reward.

Then follow the two closing scenes of this chapter. The first is the vision of one like the Son of man* sitting on a white cloud, "having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle." It is a vision grounded upon the idea of a harvest: that is, it is a separating judgment (verses 14-16). There is that which must be cast away, and that which will be gathered in. Perhaps with this we may compare what is said in the Gospels — "one shall be taken and the other left; so shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." (Luke 17.) In the next judgment, we have a different character of dealing. It is the vintage of the earth, not its harvest. There is no good, and therefore no separation here. In the harvest there was; but when you come to the vintage, a more serious state is found. It is not the genuine vine, but the "vine of the earth." The Lord Jesus is the only true vine: and if we are fruit-bearing branches, it must be by abiding in Him. But here it is "the vine of the earth." And what does the Lord do with this vine of the earth and its clusters? There is nothing but unmixed judgment — no mercy whatever to mitigate it. The fruit is gathered and cast into the great winepress of the wrath of God. Then follows the image of unsparing judgment. "The winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."† It is an awful figure of carnage — blood flowing in a deep stream for about 200 miles. This is not to be taken in a mere literal way; but the great idea which God presents is that of a judgment where there is nothing but wrath to the very uttermost upon the apostates. Who ever heard of such a thing in any history of human events? It is entirely beyond all that man could execute. When the reality comes, it will be still more terrible than the figure, which has passed as a prophetic picture before the eye of the prophet (verses 17-20). The bloodshed might be of religious apostates from all parts of Christendom; but it appears to be especially Jewish, as the scene is the land. The winepress was trodden without the city — i.e., I suppose, Jerusalem. (Compare Joel 3.)

*Mr. Jenour revives a doubt as to "the Son of man," and suggests an application, symbolically, to the Jews then to be converted, and the great evangelists of that day! just as Vitringa long ago applied it to those princes, etc., whom God employed at the Reformation in executing his dealings in providence' But there is no force in the objection that St. John would hardly have said of Christ "one like to the Son of man." For it is exactly what he does say in Revelation 1, where beyond controversy our Lord alone can be meant. Likeness to a character, rather than to a person, is meant; and hence the phrase is anarthrous, as in Dan. 7: 13.

†Jerome remarked the coincidence of this with the length of Palestine, and Fuller, Faber, etc., apply it literally to that land, as the great future Aceldama. Mede, on the other hand (as we are told in the Horae Apoc.), suggests the fact of a similar length in the States of the Church from Rome to Verona.

In Isa. 63 we have the Lord treading the winepress, but it appears to be a more distant scene. There He is coming from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah. Here it is "without the city," and vengeance on those who had been religiously guilty in connection with it. They had heard of mercy, but it had been despised; and now the judgment is come, and for them there is nothing else. The mercy had been only abused; and what is there that God so feels and judges?

In this chapter, then, we have the full outline of the dealings of God in the latter-day crisis. There are seven divisions of it. First, there is the full remnant of godly Jews associated with the Lamb on mount Sion, in sympathy with His sufferings and waiting for the kingdom. Secondly, a testimony to the Gentile nations scattered all over the world as well as to those seated on the prophetic earth. Thirdly, the fall of Babylon. Fourthly, the fearful doom, both in this world and in the next, of such as should worship the beast and his image, or receive the mark of his name. Fifthly, the blessedness from that time of those that die in the Lord. Sixthly, the discriminating process of the harvest. And seventhly, the awful infliction of vengeance on religious apostacy; the first, at least, of these two last acts of judgment being executed by the Son of man, which necessarily supposes the very close of the age: the wrath, not of God only, but of the Lamb.

Thus the sevenfold series appears in this sketch of the final ways of God, whether of mercy or of judgment. It is thoroughly in accordance with the Revelation. We have had seven seals, seven trumpets, as there are also seven vials. Here too, though not formally numbered, we have the seven dealings of God that make up a complete account; but the details, as they are given afterwards, may come before us another time. Although it is not about us, yet what a mercy it is to feel that we do not always require to think about ourselves when reading the Bible! Many suppose it a very spiritual thing to be always asking, What is there for me? But we ought to desire all the blessing that God can give us. and not merely a little Zoar. "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it," saith Jehovah. If I desire to have my cup running over, and thus to be strengthened in serving Him, I shall want to know all that God can tell me about Christ. And is it not something, and good for me, to know that Christ is to have His complete remnant, not merely when glory comes, but before it comes, associated in their measure with Him in suffering — like David when he came to mount Zion? Then who were they that shared his honours? Those who had been the companions of his rejection. So here with these 144,000. They will not have the same heavenly glory that is reserved for the church of the first-born; for either we have the very best blessings now, or none. All Christians stand now in the most glorious privileges which it is possible for children of God to enjoy. Whatever its pretensions, it is a time when Christ is thoroughly rejected by the world. God desires that we should find treasure enough in Christ to despise the world — to put its bribes under our feet. The hard thing is to take the place of the rejection of Christ, and to be happy in keeping it.

And now that we have viewed this chapter as the closing scene of the earth, the end of the age, more particularly God's working therein with reference to the evil of that day, it may be well to glance briefly at the historical application. None could learn the new song, it is allowed, but the 144,000 — none but those converted and illuminated by the Spirit of God, a company elected out of the Protestant nations (as before out of the Christianized nations under Constantine); and yet with singular inconsistency the voice of the waters and great thunders implied "the uniting of both nations and princes in the song." (Horae Apocalypticae, vol. iii. pp. 288, 289.) Were the Protestant nations ever the election of grace? Mr. Jenour, not unreasonably dissatisfied with the mere repetition of a similar class in Rev. 7 and 14, tries to vary the tune, and suggests that those in the former chapter are a Jewish elect remnant, these in our chapter a Gentile one.* Now, I would press one question upon those inclined to either of the views mentioned: How could a Christian election (either under Constantine or at the Reformation, whether an election out of Jews or Gentiles) be styled firstfruits to God and to the Lamb? If the church, strictly so called, will he then completed, nothing is more intelligible; but on the scheme which regards the testimony and the body formed thereby as the same continuously, a reasonable explanation does not appear. If it be a special gathering out of Judah, associated with a suffering Messiah, and anticipating the kingdom, what clearer? Hence, there is no room for interpolating the declension of the eighteenth century into the prophecy — no place for such additions to the words of this book as that "the voice of the 144,000 waxed fainter and feebler, and the tokens of their presence more obscure in all the continental Protestant countries and churches," while the light of England burned brighter!

*Dr. M'Causland (Latter Days of Jerusalem and Rome, pp. 154-160, 398-400), falls into a singular cycle of errors: first, that the same company are intended in Rev. 7, 14; secondly, that they are the faithful Jews before Christ's first advent; thirdly, that the second company in chapter 7 (verses 9-14) are in no way Gentile, but a yet future class of the redeemed of Israel to be taken out of the nations, etc., whither they are now dispersed; fourthly, that these in Revelation 14 have the name of the Father on their foreheads — not the name of Christ, whereas the true text (represented by the uncials, A B C, upwards of forty cursives, nearly all the ancient versions with the Greek and Latin fathers) expressly says "his [the Lamb's] name and his Father's name." Besides, the insertion of ὡς, "as it were," before "the new song," is by no means certain. It is omitted by the Vatican and Porphyrian uncials, with nearly forty cursives, most versions, Origen, Methodius, Arethas, etc.

Of the second division — the angel with everlasting glad tidings — enough has been said already to show why one cannot allow anything save a general reference either to the era of the Reformers, or to that of recent missionary societies. And I take this opportunity of stating my conviction that the Reformation (blessed as it was in breaking the dominion of Popery, in spreading the Bible and Bible-reading far and wide, and in asserting strongly, if not clearly, justification by faith) did not bring out the light of God even as to regeneration, and maintained substantially the same clerical system as before. That is, reformed doctrine and polity fail utterly, as a confession of the truth of the Holy Ghost's operations, whether in quickening souls or yet more in His sovereign action in the Christian assembly. Justification, as then understood, did not necessarily suppose perception of God's mind as to the operations of the Spirit. It is to me clear and certain that the reformed national bodies have never been free from confusion and even error on these subjects, which are of capital moment both to individuals and to the church.

One might have expected that, if the proclamation of Babylon's fall (verse 8) had been fulfilled, those who so think would have tried to make out some show of facts to account for its appearance here, after the epoch of evangelic missions. It may he alleged that it is something yet future. But such does not appear to be Mr. E.'s opinion, because he joins on the message of this angel, with hardly a shred of comment, to that of the angel evangelist; and he distinctly dwells on the third flying angel as yet unfulfilled. May we not then press the query: What has taken place at all adequately answering to the second angel's mission?

As to the third flying angel, Mr. E. thinks its prefiguration requires, among other things, a sufficiently general agreement among Christ's faithful Protestant servants, as to what is meant both by the beast and the beast's image, to give weight to the judgment denounced against their worshippers. That is, if I understand him, there ought to be a general acquiescence in the system of the Horae Apocalypticae, an abandonment of all reference to the secular Roman empire, and an adoption of the discovery that the beast's image means the general councils of Papal Christendom, especially of Trent. I am assured that the impression on the mind of most intelligent Christians is growingly opposed to such theories, and the absoluteness of the warning as to any individual who worships the beast, etc., cannot (save by a violence which convinces no dispassionate person) be said to be fulfilled in Popery, abominable as the system is. In the crisis of antichrist it will be literally true. (Compare 2 Thess. 2: 10-12.)

The harvest and the vintage call for no especial remark, as there is no question of their futurity, and Christ is admitted to be viewed therein as the initiator and completer of these final judgments. Why they should not indicate the time of His great predicted second advent does not clearly appear (H. A., vol. iv. p. 11): in reality there is no ground to doubt it, as far as I see. The fact of a distinct subsequent vision of the conflict with the beast does not hinder this. They may all well be various presentations of judgment when He comes in the clouds of heaven. The error is the reducing as much as possible to events in providence.

Revelation 15

We are now come to a new division of the book. The last three chapters (12, 13, 14.) formed a most important portion to themselves; they gave the whole history of the closing dealings of God, and of the last plans of Satan, as far as the present dispensation is concerned. And not only that, but before either Satan's ways or God's dealings were brought out, the hidden source of both was entered into. We saw in Revelation 12 the victorious man child born, and the dragon and his angels cast down from heaven. Thus we have two great parties in the scene with their chiefs opposed face to face. Whatever might have been the instruments of Satan's power here below, seen in Revelation 13, and whatever the ways of God in His grace or in His judgments in Revelation 14, all flowed down from that man child, the object of Satan's fear and hatred. Then we come to a new subject. There was a great wonder or sign spoken of in Revelation 12: 1. Here it is said, "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God." We are resuming once more the course of historical events. Under the last trumpet you may remember the word was, "The nations were wroth, and thy wrath is come." Now I think it must naturally strike any one that here God's wrath is come, and the nations not merely angry but blaspheming to the last degree. So far each fresh stroke of God, instead of humbling man, only drew out this intensity of enmity against the Lord. The seventh trumpet brought us up to the close in a general way; and here we have some of the details, but not all. There were two parties described under the vials that we have more particularly afterwards. Revelation 17 refers to Babylon and the beast in their mutual relations. In Revelation 18 we have the destruction of Babylon, and in Revelation 19 the judgment of the beast.

There is another remark also that I must make. Revelation 14 gives us these events all together. We had there what may be called the religious actings of God — His dealing with man on the earth, as accountable for the use or abuse of revealed light, and responsible to own and worship God alone. These vials take up rather the outward civil history or secular condition of man, though the same thing may, in certain cases, have both a religious bearing and a secular one. For instance, look at Babylon: she is evidently the great corrupt and corrupting power in religion; but this does not hinder Babylon from meddling largely in the things of the world. And, in fact, this is one of the evils which form Babylon — the bringing in the spirit of the world even into spiritual questions, and thus producing confusion, hateful to God and most seductive to men. Hence we get Babylon in Revelation 14 as well as in Revelation 16. Chapter 14 gives us a summary of God's dealings at the end of the age in respect of religious matters, whether bright or dark, grace, testimony, and judgment. It thus helps us a good deal as to putting the closing events in the order in which they come to pass. For instance, the fall of Babylon is the third link brought before us in the chain of chapter 14. First, we see the complete remnant of godly suffering Jews — a holy remnant, associated by grace with the Lamb on mount Zion. Then follows the testimony of everlasting glad tidings to the earth and all nations. And thirdly, there is the fall of Babylon. On the other hand, in the vials the fall of Babylon is the last of the seven. From this we gather that the judgments set forth by the preceding six vials must be before the fall of Babylon. That is, the first six vials may be successively accomplished while the Jewish remnant is being formed, and the everlasting gospel is going out to the Gentiles. The last vial involves the fall of Babylon, which answers to and is the third link in the chain of events given us in chapter 14. This is of importance in order to hinder confusion. The warning as to the worship of the beast, the pronounced blessedness of those who died in the Lord, the harvest, and the vintage of the earth, are events clearly all subsequent to Babylon's fall.

Having had then the general and orderly view of God's ways both in mercy and judgment, now we learn in Revelation 16 a part of these ways, the details of some of which are connected with Revelation 14: 8, and perhaps simultaneous with what precedes that verse. It must not be supposed, therefore, that the vials take place after chapter 14; the earlier ones might be poured out while the remnant there spoken of is being formed, and the testimony going on. Or they might occur rapidly after these, and before the fall of Babylon; but certainly the last vial includes the fall of Babylon; and its fall is as clearly before the very solemn events which follow that announcement in the latter part of chapter 14.

But now let us look a little at the scene introductory to the vials. "I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire." This is a type borrowed, though with changes, from the temple.* The tabernacle had the laver, the temple its molten sea — a larger vessel, but of a similar nature in which the priests used to wash their feet and hands when they went in to do the service of the Lord. In this case it is a sea of glass, and therefore not used for purification. It was not a sea of water, but was solid. Its being of glass indicates a state of firm and settled purity. It was not that which was used to cleanse, but the image of purity that nothing can defile. These saints are no longer in the circumstances where they have need of cleansing through the washing of water by the word. That was over. Now it was "a sea of glass mingled with fire;" showing plainly through what circumstances those connected with that sea had passed. They had experienced fiery tribulation, they had glorified God in the fires. This plainly does not refer to the church. "In the world ye shall have tribulation" does apply to us. But this refers to special tribulation — "the tribulation" of which scripture frequently speaks. "I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire. and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image" (clearly, then, they are contemporaries of the beast), "and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God." Thus what is referred to here is not washing in the sea, but standing on it. Their earthly circumstances characterize them; but the scene of conflict is now past. The Spirit of God anticipates all which marks those who had been troubled by the beast, but who are viewed as victorious over him. They were persons who had been cleansed already; they had done with the present scene, and were now out of it all. They were standing on the sea of glass. Not only this, but they had "harps of God." That is, they are occupied with divine joy and praise, the contrast of all they had passed through.

*Simple as this may appear, the force of the sea of glass has been, in my judgment, entirely misunderstood both here and in Rev. 4 by Mr. Elliott an others. Thus, in the Horae Apoc., i. pp. 84, 85, the singular error of Vitringa is adopted, which confounds it with the firmament like the terrible crystal of Ezekiel; and in a note it is objected to the true reference, (1) That John is describing what was in the inner sanctuary, not in the court without; (2) That it is represented as of glass, not brazen; and (3) That there is no allusion to the layer in any of the Apocalyptic visions. The reply is obvious. 1. The Spirit of God distinctly applies the position of souls under the altar in Rev. 6 to the souls of martyrs in heaven. Now, the altar and the laver were equally in the court. Compare also Rev. 8 where both altars are found in the same heavenly scene, in contradistinction to the earth. 2. The vessel is not denied to he made of glass, but the meaning is that the sea, or what answered to it, was of glass, not water. 3. The last is not a reason, but an assumption of the very question. I should be disposed to put the converse, and to ask, whether it would not be strange in the midst of temple — scenery so marked to have nothing answering to the molten sea. If the "sea" here be the counterpart of the "sea" in Kings and Chronicles, then the layer is alluded to in these visions. Next, it is agreed (H. A., iii. pp. 468, 469) that, were the "sea" in Rev. 15 a "re-mention" of that in Rev. 4, the definite article ought to have been prefixed; nay, that even on its first mention it was entitled to the article because of its notoriety. Here again the answer is manifest. The seven golden lamp-stands of Rev. 1 nobody doubts to be an allusion to the well-known candlestick of the Jewish sanctuary, and yet there is no article on their first occurrence. If the reason of its omission here, as distinguished from the altars and the ark, is due to the striking difference between them (the Jewish one being single and seven-branched, the Apocalyptic consisting of seven separate lamps), the game remark applies to our matter; for water was the point in the Jewish temple — sea, glass is as express in the Apocalyptic, because the purifying of those in relation with it was complete. So again, it is no wonder that in Rev. 15 the article is not prefixed, seeing that another change appears there. It is for the first time a sea "mingled with fire", — emblematic of the excessively severe trial through which the victors had passed. The analogy of Apocalyptic usage also confirms this; for the "beast" is anarthrous in Rev. 13: 1, 17: 3, though, as I agree with Mr. E., it is the same power already mentioned in Rev. 11: 7.

And what is offered in lieu of the temple-sea? The burning lava of a volcano, or overflow of French revolutionary fury inundating the anti-Christian territory of continental Europe; and, naturally, the harpers represent the triumphs of living revived Protestantism in insular England under Wilberforce now, as formerly there had been for others under Augustine and Luther! As a sea of lava or even of water would be an incongruous place whereon to stand, one cannot be surprised that "on the sea" has been changed into "by," which I admit the preposition will bear. On my view, however, its more ordinary meaning holds good. Mr. E. lays stress on ἐκ τοῦ θ. κ. τ. λ. as implying not only conquest over, but separation from, the party conquered. Can it be because his supposed harpers were not in any way within the fiery, scene of tribulation? I should rather infer that they had been in the furnace, but were come victors out of all. Again, the reasoning on the present participle is unsound (H. A., iii. pp. 465-467), for nothing is more common when accompanied by the article than its abstract use. Thus, to take the first which presents itself, in Matt. 2: 20, οἱ ζητοῦντες certainly does not imply that they were still in the field. Compare also Rev. 7: 14, said of a multitude which is anticipatively viewed as already in the rest of God. It is, I believe, just the same in ch. 15

I would just observe, though it be a slight circumstance, that there is a short clause here which should be left out. It is said in verse 2, "Them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name." But the clause "and over his mark" has no business here whatever. The same thing occurs in Revelation 13: 17: "That no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Now the truth is that the little word "or" inserted there before the clause "the name of the beast" ought to disappear. The difference in the sense is that "the mark" might be either the name of the beast or the number of his name; not some third thing distinct from these two, as the ordinary text might suggest. There were two ways in which the beast marked his followers; one was by his name, and the other by the number of his name: but there would be no sense in saying, "the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." The number was his mark, though not the only one; there was the name besides — the one, I suppose, being closer and more appropriate than the other. Here, then, were those (Rev. 15) who had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name. Even in the English Bible the word "and over the number" is printed in italics, and only adds to the confusion with the words "over his mark." I refer to it to show that wherever there is even such a little word as "or" introduced by man into the scripture, the sense is impaired. In the language which the Spirit uses, it is but a letter that makes the difference; but you cannot even put a letter into the word of God without so far injuring its beauty and perfectness. Through the mercy of God, His children may get little harm through such blemishes; but it is in part because they do not think enough about it. If they were to work a system out of them, they might fall into some serious mistake in not a few cases. But happily (this is the way God mercifully shields them) they do not really receive the false doctrine; they do not know what it means, and therefore leave it. But evidently God is little honoured where persons merely escape error because they do not understand it. It is the mercy of God thus to preserve His people from evil; but it is His overruling hand rather than the intelligent guidance of the Spirit. The book of Revelation has suffered more than any other from the carelessness of man; and as we are looking into its contents, and it seems desirable for God's children to have clear thoughts about His word, I thought it better to notice it, however small a matter it may appear. I remember having myself been perplexed to make out the difference between the mark of the beast and its name and its number. But having examined the question more closely, I found that there was really nothing to decide about. A little fox had slipped in and spoiled the vine. In short, the mark was not something different from the name or its number, but was the general term for both — the name expressing probably a more intimate and entire subjection to the beast than the number of his name.

Those who had won the victory over the beast were not his creatures or slaves; far from it — they were the servants of God. Here they were seen standing in conscious victory, outside all the scene of their conflicts, having the harps of God. And they sing: it is intelligent praise. "They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." There is a double character in their praise, quite different from the song of the elders. It is very blessed, but not the same thing. The strain of the elders was far deeper. These saints are not here spoken of as priests of God, much less the heads of heavenly priesthood; nor have they the emblems of royal dignity. They sing the song of Moses. They were true saints, but with an undoubtedly Jewish character. They sing the song of the Lamb too. If they did not know the Saviour, they would not be saints at all. But withal they sing the song of Moses. They will not stand exactly in the Christian position that we now enjoy. They will be in circumstances of trial, when the church has passed out of the scene into heaven. But still the Lord will have a company of saints then who will suffer for Him even unto death; for the beast has power to slay — and it may be thus that, by their own blood as well as by the blood of the Lamb,* they gain the victory over him.

*Of course, the Lamb's blood alone avails for sin with God.

Here they are seen at rest, like Israel of old, on the triumphant side of the Red Sea, to which there seems an allusion; as the plagues of the next chapter clearly refer to those that fell upon the land of Egypt. "They sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God the Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of the nations" (verse 3). Now if we look at Psalm 103: 7, we find that the Holy Ghost brings into prominence these two things — the ways of Jehovah and His acts. "He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel." The distinction is between the deep hidden ways of the Lord which Moses knew, and the public acts which were conspicuous before all Israel. Here these saints take up, not His ways first, but His displayed works. "Great and marvellous are thy works, O Lord God the Almighty." And then they rise to celebrate His ways. "Just and true are thy ways, thou King of the nations" — I must say so, for King of saints is a thing unknown in any part of the Bible. But King of nations, given in the margin, is most true. It is a reference to Jeremiah 10: "Thou art great (verse 6), and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?"

Just to show the general truth, I would observe that, while Christ is King, yea King of kings and Lord of lords, and while it is our joy to acknowledge it (for Christians indeed are the only persons now who rightly know the Lord Jesus to be King), yet it is remarkable how the Holy Ghost avoids calling Him King in relation to the church. I am aware that well-known hymns may speak of Him as "Our Prophet, Priest, and King." Scripture often calls Him King, but never in that relation to us.* Of course, the object of God's word is not to weaken our subjection to Christ. Whatever weakens that comes not from the Spirit, but from Satan. But is it not plain, that the relation of a king and people is not so close and binding, neither is it so full and all-embracing in its authority, nor does it involve such elements of affection, as the relationship of Bridegroom or of the Head? And this is the way in which scripture views the church. There is the deepest and most constant subjection, but it is that of members to their Head, of the bride to the Bridegroom. Thus is the church subject to Christ. It is true that we are translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, but in what capacity? He has made us kings in it. So we are represented as singing in the first chapter of this very prophecy, "Unto him that loveth us, and hath washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father."

* Mr. Elliott hesitatingly inclines to "King of ages" in his text) H. A., iii. p. 473) up to the last edition; but in his note, supported by C and a Paris cursive, Coislin 202, with the Vulgate and other versions, he ventured the opinion that the (undoubtedly false) vulgar reading ἁγίων seems "best of all to suit the context." To me this reluctance to bow to the best reading ἐθνῶν (supported by the Alex., Porph. and Vat. uncials, forty-five cursives, the AEthiopic, Arabic of the Polyglotts, Coptic, not to speak of the correction in the Sinai MS., Slav. MSS., Greek and some Latin fathers) is not happy. I am glad however to see that he omits this, and seems content with the better authorities in his fifth edition. Page 461 by a misprint gives C as well as A for εθνων: it should be B.

While it is perfectly certain, then, that we are in the kingdom, yet are we there not as subjects, though assuredly subject. We joyfully own Christ as our Lord, whose grace has made us kings with him, and not as a mere people at a distance under Him. This in no way lessens our responsibility to obey Him, any more than it takes from His glory. It puts us in the place of showing obedience on a firmer ground and from higher motives; it is not the weakness of flesh under law, but the heart purified by faith and strengthened by grace. He fills us with a sense of the glory, of which we are joint-heirs with Himself. He raises us in hope to the throne; but the effect is that, even in heaven, we shall fall down and cast our crowns before Him. He loves that our obedience should take as it were the form of worship. So we see how the Lord preserves these two things intact. On the one hand, He delights that we should look up and know that the Lord Jesus is ever immeasurably above us: but then, on the other hand, Christ has set us now in earnest of the Spirit, as by and by in possession, on thrones, that He may show that it is not merely as servants, nor as a people that we are subject, but as those whom His perfect and divine love has associated with Himself; for we are one with Him. He will put us on thrones around Him — on His own throne; but even then subjection to Christ can never disappear. Never will it be anything else, whether in the kingdom or in the eternal state. Wherever you look, never can the church so far forget what she owes her Lord and Bridegroom as to wish it otherwise. It were to abuse His grace to take from His glory; and the church must and ought to resent that. If the elders at the sight only of His taking the book fall down before the Lamb and worship, much more should the thought of any indignity offered to Him call forth the strongest feelings of indignation and horror. The church may be and is loved of Christ; but in anywise to take equal around with Him were to display that spirit of antichrist, "whereof we have heard that it shall come, and even now already is it in the world."

"Just and true are thy ways, thou King of nations." If I apprehend aright, the reason why "nations" are introduced here is that these vials were about to be poured out very particularly upon the Gentiles. Under the trumpets, and in Revelation 12-14, we had the Jews, or at least the Jewish remnant, in an especial way the object of covenant mercy. The very phrase (Rev. 11), "the ark of the covenant," connects itself with that nation; for the covenant was made with them. Therefore we saw too that the woman in the next chapter (Rev. 12) represented Israel. Then we had the Remnant of godly Jews. (Rev. 14) But now these saints are celebrating the righteous ways of God with the Gentiles, or nations. He is King of nations — not merely of the Jews. Jewish relationships appear in both, but they are distinct visions, opened each by a very different sign.

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments were made manifest." The word used for "holy" here is an unusual one. It is the same that is used where scripture speaks of the mercies of David, and its Hebrew counterpart is frequently found in the Psalms. For there are two words in both languages to express holiness. There is the common word for "holy," which, for instance, occurs in Rev. 4 "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty." It always implies separation from evil — absolute separation. The holiness spoken of here implies mercy, which is quite another thought. We are about to hear of the vials, and the first thought would be, "how dreadful!" God's wrath is going to be fulfilled. But who and what is the God whose wrath is about to be consummated? He whose holiness is full of mercy. "Thou only art holy." It is the holiness of mercy. "For all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments were made manifest." They look through the judgments, and they see the end always is that "the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." So that, though this storm of judgment may be about to fall, they look to the end from the beginning, and they celebrate accordingly the holiness of the One who in judgment remembers mercy. No doubt there must be wrath, and God must complete it; because the first outpouring of it will only make men more hardened. But let it be observed, it is not a question of Christ; there is no such thing as the wrath of the Lamb here, not even in men's minds; it is the wrath of God. In Revelation 14 He who reaps the harvest is the Son of man. But here God acts according to His own part, before Christ comes from heaven to execute wrath. This indicates that the vials end before the final judgments of chapter 14 commence, because the close of the chapter shows us the Son of man coming Himself to execute judgment.

And therefore they can say as they look up, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord? . . . for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments were made manifest" (verse 4). Another important truth; for, as we are told in Isaiah 26, as long as God deals in mercy, what does man? He takes advantage of it, and refuses to "learn righteousness." But the time comes when the Lord will lift up His arm in judgment; and what then? "When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness." So here, "All nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments were made manifest." Such would be the ultimate result.

The prophet again looks, "And the temple* of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened" (verse 5). Mark the difference. In Revelation 11: 19 (which introduces the scene of Revelation 12-14 before the vials) the temple was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant seen; but no ark appears now. There it was the fit pledge of the security of God's faithfulness — of His unchanging purposes towards His people Israel. But here His enemies are in question rather than His people; and there is nothing but the tabernacle of the testimony, which is inaugurated as it were in judgments on the men of the earth. It is opened for wrath as yet, not for gospel triumphs. It is God's testimony judicially to the condition of man. Man is guilty: what then could result? "The seven angels came out of the temple." And terrible to say, they come out of that in which no ark was now seen. And what would be, what is, the effect? Nothing but wrath — the more awful because it flows from the sanctuary. They "came out of the temple, having the seven plagues." This was all that God could do for man now. "Clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles. And one of the four living creatures" — the great presiding executors of the providential judgments of God — "gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials." The word means bowls or cups, and is taken from the vessels used for pouring out drink-offerings, etc., before the Lord. It is not drink-offerings now, but wrath coming down from God — "seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever. And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no one was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." Thus, neither present worship of God nor intercession was any longer possible. It was vain for any one to attempt entering there: the smoke of the fire of God's righteous anger filled the temple, the smoke proving the fire that was there. Thus there was no possibility for any one, not even for a priest, to enter. None could draw near now: wrath, the smoke of judgment, filled it. Just as at Sinai, where smoke is represented as going up from the mountain as the smoke of a furnace; and as in Psalm 18, "There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured." So now there is the image of God's offended majesty against sin. There was nothing He looked upon here below that called for mercy on their behalf. The time was past for intercession. Accordingly the judgments rolled forth, and the wrath of God is finished (verse 6-8).

*It is extraordinary that the author of the Horae Apoc. should say that ναός or temple is sometimes used more largely of the whole, including the altar-court; stranger still that he should cite Rev. 11: 1, 2, in proof, seeing that the altar and the outer court are so expressly distinguished there (as I believe always). There is another word to comprehend ill, namely, ἱερόν, which is never used in the Apocalypse, though it occurs repeatedly in other parts of the New Testament. So also the door of the tabernacle and the hanging at the court-gate are not confounded in scripture.

Revelation 16

Now I must say a little on the details of God's judgments in Revelation 16. It is a painful subject and humbling, when we think that this is the declared end of man's vaunted progress. I will endeavour, then, briefly to glance at these seven plagues. "And I heard a loud voice out of the temple, saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God unto the earth" (verse 1). Wrath is no longer restricted to the third or fourth part, but the whole scene is given up to judgment There is not only an increase of severity, but the whole of that which had once the light of God, and had far and wide enjoyed outward privileges, is in complete apostacy, and given up to His wrath.

"And the first went away and poured out his vial unto the earth; and there came a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshipped his image. And the second poured out his vial unto the sea," etc.

The first four vials resembled the trumpets in this, that they both fall on the earth and sea, on the rivers and fountains of water, and finally on the sun. There may be certain differences; for in the trumpet it was the third part only of the sun that was smitten. Here it is simply said, "the sun." Still it was the same sort of sphere. Further, I think the objects of these plagues, the earth, sea, etc., are not to be taken in a merely literal way. The language is symbolical. Not that there would be to my own mind the slightest difficulty in believing that God could do these things in a literal way, if this were His will. He has turned the waters of Egypt into blood, filled a kingdom with darkness, and inflicted plagues similar to what we have here: so that there is no difficulty in conceiving such a thing again. But the only question is, whether this is what we are to gather from the chapter before us. I think it is not; and that God here alludes to plagues that were once literal in the land of Egypt, but that are now referred to symbolically, representing certain judgments of God. First, the ordered and settled parts of the world are smitten as with an ulcerous distemper, where men were branded with subjection to the apostate civil power and his idolatry. Next, there is a judgment on the sea; that is, on the outside regions, where profession of life quite died out. The third, I conceive, represents by rivers people formed into a separate condition of nationality, like waters flowing in a distinct channel, under special local influence; and by the fountains rather the springs of a nation's prosperity. All the active principles assume the form of death. The third judgment comes down to smaller details than the former ones. The fourth is on the public supreme authority.

In verses 5-7 we have a word or two which, when corrected or rightly read, adds to the full force and clearness of the passage. "Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast," etc. I noted (on Rev. 11) that the words, "and shalt be," were of no force at all here, and that another word is the best attested — the Holy One." It is the very same word that occurs in Revelation 16: 4 — the less usual one for "holy." Before these vials are poured out, God is celebrated in His merciful holiness. "Thou art righteous." This was plain, for God was pouring out His wrath upon men in their iniquity, just because He was righteous. But more than this — "which art and wast, the Holy One." Before the vials are poured out, and now again while they are in course of pouring out, that remains true. The angel of the waters attests His graciousness, even while He was judging thus, which might have seemed to contradict it. He too, from below, answers to the song above. If the saints, at rest on the sea of glass, celebrate Him as merciful in holiness, the angel confirms it.

"For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou gavest them blood to drink; they are worthy" (verse 6). There was righteous retribution — they were worthy in an awful sense. "And I heard" not another out of the altar, but "I heard the altar say" (verse 7). It may seem extraordinary to speak of "the altar saying," and no doubt the other words were put in because people thought it so strange. But there is nothing really contrary to prophetic usage if it he taken in a symbolical way. No person would intentionally foist a difficulty into scripture: but it is too common to try and remove that which is not understood out of the word, thus to make it plain according to ordinary modes of thought. Besides, you have what might prepare the way for it elsewhere. In Revelation 9: 13, it is said, "I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God." Here (Rev. 16) the figure goes farther: the voice is said to be that of the altar itself. To me it confirms what we have had various occasions to remark — the fact and impropriety of men's meddling with scripture. "I heard the altar say" has great force for this reason. In an earlier part of the book, the souls of those that were "slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held," were seen under the altar. Now here that altar which had witnessed their blood is said to cry out to God, and to own that His judgments are true and righteous. In the first book of the Bible, the earth is spoken of as crying out to God about the blood of Abel: much more should not the altar cry about the blood of God's martyred saints? To my own mind it is uncommonly pertinent. If it had been merely an angel, this would have been a comparatively distant link; for an angel, though ministering for them who shall be heirs of salvation, does not enter so directly into their sufferings, and can scarcely be said to have immediate sympathy with them. But God not only had seen the bones of His slaughtered saints scattered upon the cold mountains, as poets sing, but regards His saints as so many burnt-offerings rising up before Him whose blood, or rather the altar which witnessed it, calls for indignation and wrath. The Lord may seem to slumber for a season, but when He awakes, as one out of sleep, He will surely avenge their blood on them that dwell on the earth. And now it is at hand. Great Babylon had not yet come into remembrance, though from the beginning the special corruptress of the truth, and drunken with the blood of the saints. But meanwhile the altar could not hold its peace, and the Lord listens and hears. For the God who heeds the groans of the creature will surely answer the altar's cry about His slain ones.

"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire" (verse 8). It is a judgment on the sun, the figure of supreme government; so that what ought to have been the means of light and comfort — that greater light which rules the day — now becomes the means of scorching men with fire. The effect of its tyranny is intolerable. "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which had authority over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory" (verse 9).

"And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the throne of the beast," etc. (verse 10.) We are now entering upon a somewhat different class of judgments; for the last three vials differ from the first four, just as the last three trumpets had a different character from the rest. And so with the seals also. It is evident that the fifth, sixth, and seventh vials are apart from the preceding four. The judgment falls upon the throne of the beast and upon his kingdom — not upon the beast himself, who is apparently untouched by these vials. He is reserved for the judgment of the Lord Jesus Himself at His coming, and will be destroyed by His appearing. Here the stroke is merely upon the seat of his authority; and just as of old king Pharaoh was hardened, so here men blasphemed the God of heaven, and repented not of their deeds (verse 11). When God manifests Himself as the God of the earth, this will not be possible.

"And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates, and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings" — not exactly of the east, but — "that are from the east might be prepared" (verse 12). The Euphrates was the great eastern boundary of the Roman empire: it was the regular line to which they carried their conquests. So that the drying up of the Euphrates would seem to mean that this side of the empire would be left open as a way for the eastern powers to come and mingle with those of the west, or to assault them. One effect of this vial, then, would be the removal of the eastern barrier, and thus the way of the kings from the east is prepared probably for the great closing conflicts.

But there is more than this. "I saw out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs"* (ver. 13). It is just before the end. These murmuring spirits issued out of the mouth of the three powers which we have seen in Revelation 13: out of the dragon, the open enemy of Christ; out of the beast, the revived Roman Empire; and out of the false prophet, the ecclesiastical beast that had lamb-like horns, imitating Christ's power, but now spoken of only in his deceptive religious character. "For they are the spirits of demons, working signs, who go forth unto the kings of the whole habitable world, to gather them unto the battle of [that] great day of God the Almighty." This confirms what I have just stated about the Euphrates. It is a general collision of the kings of all the habitable world. Not only the western powers are arrayed for the war, but the eastern also. It is the great day.

*Most readers of the Horae Apoc. will remember that, after giving evidence of the working of the frog-like unclean spirits in England (the draconic spirit of heathen-like anti-social infidelity, the Popish spirit, the Tractarian spirit), Mr. E recurs to the hopeful strain of a bright future for his country, and conjectures that France may be the country called to the bad pre-eminence of being the chief secular power employed by these demons to gather the world's powers to the last great war of Armageddon. "There is a curious heraldic fact," he adds, (vol. iii. pp. 533, 534) "accordant with this view, which (considering how frequently such national emblems have been had in view in the Apocalyptic figurations) I cannot permit myself to pass over in silence, though by no means wishing to insist much on it; viz., that, as the three spirits do each and all most assuredly energize in the French nation and priesthood, so their Apocalyptic symbol, the three frogs, are the old arms of France." And then we have a plate in illustration of the alleged fact, with some subjoined annotations. Now, it happens that natural history comes in as an awkward witness here, for the "fact" turns out that Mr. E. confounds crapaud with grenouille; or, as the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana say (and so Court de Gebelin), cited by himself, the arms of France, as some affirm, bear three toads sable, etc. In a word, in order to convey correctly such a reference, the Greek should have been ὡς φρῦνοι, rather than βάτραχοι. Four other authors he produces say frogs; but this seems loose, and not to set aside the more precise word. Of course I think the point trilling in the extreme.

But now comes an important parenthesis. As was shown under the sixth seal and the sixth trumpet, so here we find an interruption also. "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame" (verse 15). It is the Lord coming, but then He is coming in judgment to surprise the earth; and this is the reason why the figure is used. The thief comes unexpected and unwelcome: still more unpalatable will be the Lord's coming to the earth. But there will be saints to whom it will be welcome, to whom His appearing will bring deliverance by the judgment of their enemies. And they are enjoined to watch closely the daily life. "Behold, I come as a thief." Not so the Lord presents Himself to us, save as telling us how He will appear to the world or the professing mass cast into it. When speaking to us He says, "Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown." Need one say how much more blessed is this word? The idea of coming as a thief involves surprise. To us He will come as a gracious One, who loves that we should have the rest of our affections and our glory in and with Himself: this is our own proper portion and hope, Here it is not rapture to heaven, but Jewish deliverance by judgment.

Then, after closing the parenthesis, it is said, "And he gathered them together into a place, called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon." It might seem strange that it should be said, "He gathered;" for in the fourteenth verse the evil spirits, or spirits of demons, were those that went forth to gather the kings together. The reason is this. In the language that the Holy Ghost employed, the word is capable of meaning either he or they gathered. There are certain cases where, in that language, it is doubtful whether "they" or "he" be meant; and this is one. The word "demons" is of such a nature, that the verb which has it for its subject might be either singular or plural. Here the subject is not expressed, so that it is quite optional as far as this is concerned: all depends upon the sense of the context. If it be "He gathered," the reference of course is to God Almighty, who might be said to do it through the 'intervention of these unclean spirits. If it be "they gathered, it would simply mean that the spirits of demons had accomplished the purpose for which they were sent forth. In verse 14, they proceeded to gather the kings; and in verse 16, the kings are gathered together.

The place of gathering that is mentioned here, called in Hebrew Armageddon, is, I think, an allusion to Judges 5: 17. "The kings came and fought: then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo." It was not that Megiddo was a place of any great size or note. God looks to the principle at issue. Israel was in a low state. There was a prophetess that the Lord used to inspire them with courage; and when encouraged by her, they won a great victory over their enemies. The same place is referred to in 2 Chron. 35: 22, when Josiah received his death-wound in battle with the king of Egypt. But I doubt that this is the incident referred to by the Spirit of God here. For Megiddo in the day of the Judges was a memento of joy and triumph to Israel. In the time of Josiah it was a place of gloom; all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. It was "the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley* of Megiddon" (Zech. 12: 11), which led historically to the writing of the book of Lamentations. For this reason I think that Armageddon (i.e. the mountain of Megiddo) here refers not to the sorrow for Josiah in 2 Chronicles, but to the gathering and defeat of the Gentile kings in Judges. For here it is the Lord beating down the nations. He had been acknowledged as king of the nations in Rev. 15; and therefore, to make this an allusion to a time when the godly Jewish monarch was slain by a Gentile would be little appropriate. But to derive it from the day when Israel had been led on to victory even by a woman well fits into the scene that is here described, when the kings of the whole world will be gathered only for a more terrible destruction.

*A mountain of course implies a valley. The singular variation of A (ποταμόν, river) may have been either taken from the waters of Megiddon in Judges 5: 9, or more probably was a blunder for τόπον, just as in Revelation 15 A C, three cursives, not to speak of some MSS. mentioned by Andreas, Bede, support λίθον, stone! for λίνον. The Harleian cursive of the eleventh century (5537) exhibits the still stranger ληνόν.

A few words must suffice for the last vial. "The seventh angel poured out his vial upon the air; and there come forth a loud voice from the temple [of heaven], from the throne, saying, It is done" (verse 17). This is a more penetrating judgment, and one more affecting men and their very life-breath than any we have yet seen. It is on the air, necessary to the existence of men. Symbolically it represents a judgment on something that is as essential to the life and comfort of men as that which we breathe. All is over as regards God's wrath here poured out.

"And there were lightnings and voices and thunders: and there was a great earthquake, such as was not seen since a man was on the earth, so mighty an earthquake and so great. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell," etc. There was a vast and unexampled convulsion of civil associations — breaking up, not only what is called here "the great city" (which means all that was established within the Roman empire), but more than that, the cities of the nations fell; that is, it was the ruin of all that the nations outside Rome had built up politically. And furthermore, Babylon the great — that counterfeit of the bride, and hitherto successful system of religious evil, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth; Babylon the great — came up in remembrance before God to receive from Him the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. The latter term, Babylon the great, refers rather to moral character or idolatry.

"And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. And there fell upon men great hail, about the weight of a talent, out of heaven, and men blasphemed God," etc. (verses 20, 21.) It is not necessary that I should speak particularly of the explanation offered by the leading historicalists. The hailstorm Mr. E. used to apply to some fearful infliction of France, the most northerly of the Papal kingdoms, much as he had surmised in the minor judgments, as be would say, of the seventh trumpet. And so it yet stands in the text of Horae Apoc., vol. iv. p. 23. But in a note he observes that many expositors prefer to explain it of the Russian power. "And in revising my work, and comparing this prophecy with one in Ezekiel 38, 39, which seems to point to Russia's taking part in the great pre-millennial conflict, as will be noticed in the end of my next chapter, I cannot but incline to the same view. I observe that the great hail is here predicted as falling after, not before, the great city's tri-partition." Having already expressed ray opinion on the similar case of Rev. 11: 19, and shown the error of connecting this verse with the seventh trumpet, which is the assumption of these writers, I need only remark that the reference to Ezekiel is peculiarly unhappy, because the scene there is Palestine, not the Papal empire or the west; and that the issue is not the infliction of a plague on others, and God blasphemed in consequence, but the utter discomfiture of the Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, with his vast company, and God sanctified thereby. "And I will plead against him with pestilence, and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire and brimstone." Thus it is God who plagues the invading Russian with great hailstones, not they who so fall on others. "Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself (not then men blaspheming God because of the plague of the hail); and I will be known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am the Lord." Indeed, the reader has simply to examine the context of the Jewish prophet in order to be satisfied of the absurdity of connecting that scene with the hailstorm of the seventh vial. For the Jews, nay, Israel as a whole, are supposed to be at that time restored and united in their own land, when Gog invades it through lust of conquest. There is no ground to think that such is the case under the vials. Neither does Mr. E. so judge, if I understand his remarks on the first occurrence of "Hallelujah" in Rev. 19, which he views as an indication of the conversion of the Jews, after the final catastrophe of Babylon, when the outpouring of the vials is completed and has marked the time for it.

Before God establishes His purposes in power, you see a moral accomplishment working either in His people or in the world. Thus, if God is to bring about a separation of His people by judgment, which we had in Revelation 15, I doubt not that His people are even now being separated graciously by the Spirit of God. If, on the other hand, there is to be a delusion over men's hearts, so that even the judgments of God will only aggravate the evil to all appearance, something analogous is at work in our day. Is it not a fearful sign that Christians, in the face of such words as these, can look for any real amelioration of things as they are? Here we have the true closing scene disclosed by God after all the efforts and boasts of men. The most favoured part of the earth, its civilized and moral centre, is to be full of apostacy, and the wrath of God must be finished there. This must be ere the Lord Jesus Christ will come in glory to set up His kingdom; for He it is in person who shall deal with the beast. Under the vials it is God chastising in wrath. But what is the effect? Men blaspheme God. Instead of repenting, they become worse and worse at every step.

It is a terrible thing to see this evil morally spreading over the world; but the Lord is also separating, by faith and affection, to Himself. May we hold fast grace! We shall need it. It is the only place, not merely of privileges, but of security. What should we think of the man who would merely go as far as he thinks he must not to be lost — who wants to be saved, but withal to be allowed to sin as much as in his opinion he may, so as to escape at last? But as the Lord is separating by personal affection to Himself, where there is faith, so, on the other hand, the opposite of it we find where faith is lacking. God gives up men to delusion, and all that He does in the way of judgment only hardens them. Preparatorily this is going on now: men are yielding to and choosing their own delusions. The full pure truth is distasteful and dreaded. So that, in spite of God's Spirit working to present truth with all simplicity to His people, men are obstinately comforting themselves with the dream that things after all are not so bad; that if there are things to be regretted, the remedy is at hand. For now there are so many ways of helping on the poor — such delightful minglings of the rich with them — such promising unions which invite all men to come together and join, spite of their little differences, for the great object of social advancement, the improvement of Christendom, and the regeneration of the world. But all this is founded on the miserable delusion which ignores and denies that God's wrath is to be filled up and poured out upon Christendom. It is impossible that Christians, who realise that such judgments are near, could lend themselves to schemes which assume the very reverse. Suppose a person going to execution — what would be thought of a Christian man who, knowing this, would occupy the criminal's time with chemical experiments, or a lecture on mechanics? Much less would one who feels the solemn truth that the world lies under such a sentence as God's word declares. Christ alone is the power of God to set things right. When He comes, and not before, the tide of evil will be stemmed, and Satan bound: but not even divine judgments apart from Christ can avail.

May we be in earnest, always seeking to connect Christ with our testimony! That is the great practical purport of all for the present moment. Sometimes we may hinder blessing by presenting the truth, but not in Christ, if I may so say. The heart must be sadly perverted, if it refuses Him. The Lord grant that we may keep these two things before our souls — thorough separation from all that is of the world, and this place of victory held with joy, our hearts taking up the song of which the Lamb is the subject, as He alone gives us the power to sing it. May we ever think of the world as a judged scene, conscious of the terrible wrath it cannot escape! This will not make us distrustful of the power of Christ to deliver individuals, but it will preserve us from any insensibility as to either the world's evil, or the divine judgment which awaits it.

Revelation 17

The Spirit of God has shown us the destruction of Babylon under the last vial. We are now to learn in the chapter before us what was her special evil, what there was so hateful to God in Babylon; not only what her own conduct was, but what there was in her connection with others, that God could endure no longer — why it was that He singled her out above all others for His vengeance. And this is not a thing that we can put aside from us, as perhaps some others may be in the Apocalypse, as comparatively foreign or distant. For though there may be, and I doubt not will be, a further development of Babylon, yet God looks at it as a moral whole; as a system of corruption that has been at work, and that is still at work. When judgment can delay no longer, it may have taken a peculiarly aggravated form; but the evil exists and is active. Babylon is not so much the snare of a profane man, as it is that of one who, having a certain idea of religion, seeks to reconcile it with the world. It is then that the corrupting influence becomes a source of chief danger to the soul.

Now we shall find that, first of all, the chapter gives us the vision which the Apostle John is taken to see; and next we have a certain explanation of that vision. The angel's word commences more particularly in this way at the seventh verse, while the first six verses are occupied with recounting the vision. One other remark I would make before proceeding farther. This chapter does not carry us forward as a matter of history. It is rather the Holy Ghost looking back upon the character, conduct, and relationships of that Babylon which had been already shown as the object of the judgment of God. This is worthy of note, because, if not seen, there is inevitable confusion in our thoughts of the book. In Revelation 14 we had the fall of Babylon in connection with the evil workings of Satan, and with the dealings of God in goodness or power, including the Son of man's judgment at the close. Now, it is of no little moment to have the precise niche where this intervention of God is to be looked for, and that we had in the next place. For we have seen in the providential judgments of God — by which I mean those which are executed by angels, and not by Christ directly — Babylon reserved for the last stroke of His wrath tinder the seventh vial. It is God acting — God still employing angels. The Lord Jesus is thus far quiescent, if I may so say; not acting yet in vengeance personally upon the earth.

In Rev. 17 the Holy Ghost stops to enter into the details of the moral cause of Babylon's terrible fall. "There came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore; that sitteth on [the]* many waters" (ver. 1). it is described as a harlot here; not only as a woman, but as a corrupt and licentious one. And I suppose that no dispassionate person would doubt that this term is used in special reference to religious corruption. A little lower down in the third verse, Babylon is said to be sitting on the beast; here she sits by the many waters. There is a slight difference in the Greek. Sitting by the many waters does not mean that she was literally or locally thereupon, but beside them. Thus, you may say, for instance, that London is seated on the Thames. Now no one of common understanding would suppose the meaning to be that London was actually situated and built over the bed of the river, but that the Thames is the stream which characterizes London. So here in the same way we have the whore described as seated on (i.e. beside) the many waters. These are explained in verse 19. "The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." The figure implies the wide-spread influence which this abandoned woman exercises. But there is more than that. In the second verse it is said, "with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication. and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication." This is something more than her seat by the mass of waters. It is immediate intercourse of an evil kind carried on with the kings of the earth — her power in drawing away and seducing the affections from Christ, who is the only worthy object of all love and worship. In the sphere where God's light had been displayed, the chiefs or leaders are led away by the corruptress, and the people are entirely ruined as to all discernment of the mind of God.

*The article (twice) is omitted by A P, seven cursives, Hippolytus and Andreas. I have therefore bracketed it as a mark of doubt, though disposed to lean towards its reception, spite of its absence in the Sept. Ver. of Jer. 51: 13, etc. It is strange that any should imagine a reference in Dan. 7: 2, or Rev. 13: 1, any more than here, to the literal Mediterranean. In Hebrew (or Chaldee) "the great sea" when used of the Mediterranean is a totally distinct phrase.

Nothing, then, can be plainer than the general bearing of these few verses. We have the vast influence of Babylon set forth by the figure of a woman seated beside many waters; next we have the great leaders of Christendom, the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication with her; and then the inhabitants of the earth stupefied with the wine of her fornication. There are different degrees of guilt, but all were the result of connection more or less intimate with Babylon. "So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness" (verse 3). In spite of all her pride and worldly glory, to the saint of God the wilderness is the only place where the Spirit leads him to behold her. Had John gone in his own spirit (so to speak), it might have carried him to look at Babylon, not in the wilderness, but rather in the mirage of some garden of the Lord. But he was carried away by the Spirit of the Lord into the wilderness, and there he sees the harlot sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast; a closer thing and of more ominous import, as we noticed, than her description at the end of verse 1. This shows us the actual position of the woman. She has supremacy over the Roman empire. For there can be no legitimate question that the beast here brought before us is that same Roman empire, of which we have heard such terrible doings, and so portentous a doom, in previous chapters. It is the beast that is full of the names of blasphemy, as his heads were so viewed in Rev. 13: 1. Babylon is a whore or corrupting system; but blasphemy is what belongs to the beast. It is a more open and audacious evil. The woman's way is more seductive, and one that lays hold of the affections. But blasphemy is the expression of a power that fears neither God nor man. As for the woman, though seated on the beast, glad to be exalted through him, and willing to use him for her own purposes, yet is she distinctively the religious system of the world. She is "arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls:" the obvious figures of all that the world counts great and glorious and beautiful here below. But she has also "a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" (verse 4). In spite of all her glittering, gaudy splendour, how the Holy Ghost brings out together with it what is most nauseous! He has no words too strong to express His sense of what He sees in the cup. It is "full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication." By "abominations" in scripture regularly is meant idolatry. This is the gravest distinguishing feature in Babylon. As the beast was full of names of blasphemy, so was the harlot's cup full of abominations. But besides the idols, there was this corrupting influence, here called the uncleanness of her fornication. They are two distinct things. There might be the depraving influence without the idols; but in Babylon both are actively at work.

In the Apocalyptic churches it was observed that in Pergamos appears the doctrine of Balaam, who taught among other things to commit fornication. When we came to Thyatira, there we saw Jezebel, who imposed idolatry by force. Here in Babylon both are united. The evils that crept into Christendom in those earlier days, discerned in Pergamos and Thyatira, both appear concentrated and undisguised in the cup of this wicked woman. They were budding then; now they are full-blown in all their hatefulness before the prophet. They may be tricked out in all the meretricious tinsel of this world; but nothing could change or hide their real character before God.

"And upon her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth" (verse 5). There was great pretension to truth — a masterpiece of the enemy in counterfeiting the revealed ways of God. The mystery of Christ and the church had been revealed; now there is the mystery of this anti-church; not the mystery of faith and godliness, but of lawlessness — Babylon the great seated on the beast, the awful contrast of the church which is subject unto Christ. Here she rules the beast. The holy city, Jerusalem, comes down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, — not "that great city"* but, — the holy city, which is the true way in which God characterizes the bride, the Lamb's wife, the glorified church. This religious system, on the contrary, sprang from the earth (not to say more than that), enticed into its defiling embrace the kings of the earth, and extended its malignant influence far and wide. Such was Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth. Whatever evil thing was used by Satan for the purpose of ensnaring the affections from Christ, whatever idolatrous object took His place, she is the mother of them all. Babylon is the great parent of all the worldly systems, and of the idolatries used by the enemy to draw away souls entirely from the Lord.

*The common text of Rev. 21: 10 is faulty.

But there is another thing mentioned in the vision still more extraordinary to the prophet's mind. He could not doubt the religious character of this woman, Babylon the great; he sees her at the same time drunken with the blood of the saints. He could well understand a religious system becoming corrupt. Jerusalem itself had, alas! become as Sodom and Gomorrah, first for guilt and afterwards well-nigh for judgment. But that the woman should be drunken with the blood of the saints was what filled even John's mind with great astonishment. Bad as passion is, it is not the worst thing that the heart of man is capable of. The deceivableness of false religion is that in which Satan displays his direct power. For the very thing which God has given for light and blessing, to win the heart and to bring into fellowship with Himself, is abused by the enemy to make a man a worse man than ever — twofold more the child of hell than before.

But astonished as John must have been of old to hear such a sentence upon beloved but guilty Jerusalem, here he has to wonder still more when he learns that the woman who had assumed the place of the church should not only end in the same blood-guiltiness, but should be drunken with the blood of the very martyrs of Christ Himself This was what filled his mind with amazement indeed (verse 6).

And we now come to the explanation which the angel furnishes of the vision. It is of deep importance; for you will find that when God interprets, He not merely opens to us that which needed solution, but He gives us truth more abundantly. "And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and the ten horns" (verse 7). This is in fact the main subject of the chapter; it is a description of the woman more particularly, and of her connections with the beast, the Roman empire. For manifestly and beyond denial, the woman and the beast are two distinct things. For if the beast be the Roman empire, as those will have seen who have followed me through this book, the woman cannot be. She may be seated upon the beast, but for that very mason she is not the same thing. And not only is the woman distinct from the beast, but, as we find afterwards, the beast turns against the woman and takes his part in destroying her.

Therefore it is quite evident, that it is impossible to suppose the woman and the beast to be the same thing. In the end they are so violently opposed, that the one becomes the destruction of the other. So that the woman must necessarily be some power distinct from the empire. We shall find more reasons that confirm their distinction.

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and is to ascend out of the abyss, and go into destruction; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall be present" (verse 8). I have no hesitation in saying that so runs the last clause of the verse. This would not be questioned by those who are sufficiently acquainted with the subject to form an opinion. Persons may differ in the explanation of the verse; but there can be no doubt that such is the true reading. The common text here is almost contradictory of itself, and affords no just sense.

Now let us consider a little what is taught by this verse. The beast is the Roman empire, as we have before seen. But we learn here that that empire was to cease to be. The countries and peoples that composed it would remain; but its imperial unity would cease to exist. The fractional parts would be there, each nation having its own independent government, but there would be no corporate bond. Such is their condition in our day, as it has been for more than a thousand years. "The beast which thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss." The angel characterizes this empire as no other empire ever has been or could be. It was first found in its strength, then to cease, and afterwards to rise again. But there is an exceedingly grave feature that attaches to the reappearance of the empire; it is to have a diabolical character. And as it comes from Satan, so must it end with Satan: it shall "go into destruction."

These things could not be said in the same sense or strictness of any other empire. None that has appeared yet upon earth but what has had its rise, its splendour for a little while in full power, and then its extinction, sudden or gradual, never to rise again. I am not aware of any example to the contrary. Most peculiar is the lot of that empire which was so prominent in the apostle John's mind. It existed in the time of John: under it indeed he was personally suffering. But it was to terminate its career; and then, after a condition of non-existence, to rise out of the abyss or bottomless pit. "They that dwell on the earth shall wonder . . . . when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall be present." When this beast reappears in its last Satanic phase, men would be carried away by their excessive admiration of it.

"Here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth" (verse 9). This is a material point, though simple. It is a local mark, intended to indicate to the wise mind, where this woman has her seat. There ought not to be the least doubt that it is a reference to Rome. The word "Babylon" had been used, it is true, in speaking of it, as Sodom and Egypt were figuratively applied to Jerusalem in Revelation 11; but the Chaldean capital had nothing to do with the city of Rev. 17. That had long passed away as an imperial city; whereas in verse 18 it is said of this Babylon that "it reigneth over the kings of the earth." More than this, the literal Babylon in Chaldea was built on the plain of Shinar. Here the woman was seated on seven mountains; and all the world is aware that such is the well-known characteristic of Rome. In prose or in poetry, if any city were described as being seated upon seven hills, every one would say, That must be Rome.

But we have an additional explanation in the following verse. "There [or they] are seven kings: the five are fallen, the one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he cometh, he must continue a short space" (verse 10). Here the Holy Ghost, without entering into detail, refers to the various forms of government which were to succeed each other in the famous city Rome: seven heads or kings; but not contemporary: for five, as it is said, were fallen; one is, and the other is not yet come. This implies succession. Five different modes of government had already passed away. "One is," namely, the imperial form then subsisting, when the apostle lived — the line of Caesars. Another of the seven was not yet come, which, when it did, must continue a short space.

"And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into destruction" (verse 11). There is this peculiar character attributed to the beast here, that in one sense he would be (if the seven, and in another he would form an eighth or extraordinary beast. It would in certain respects be a new form of power altogether, while in others it would be but a revival of what had gone before. The reason is, that the beast at first might be like any other empire. It might owe its rise providentially to human revolutions; for men when they have tried democracy are apt to grow weary and disappointed, and then some vigorous arm takes advantage of the reaction, and a despotic power is the not unnatural result. I have no doubt this will be the history of the west. The eighth head, though an individual ruler, is spoken of as the beast or empire, because he is morally the empire, directing as supreme all its authority. He is of the seven, for there will be a continuance or taking up of some such form of power as before. But he will be the eighth, because there will be something so peculiar as to deserve a name to itself That new feature may refer perhaps to the diabolical power that stamps the beast in his last or quasi-resurrection state.

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet, but receive authority as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and authority to the beast." It is not that we are to suppose "one hour" to mean mystically, or literally, such a brief division of time as it has been the vain attempt of so many persons to try and make out. But the meaning is that these are kings who receive royal authority for one and the same time* with the beast.

*Quite agreeing with Mr. E. that the notion of horal brevity is untenable, must utterly reject his statement (H. A., iii. pp. 81, 82, and often elsewhere) that "at one and the same time" is either the most natural or the true rendering. It is almost past comprehension how a scholar could have committed himself to what he says in his notes: "There is no doubt that accusative of time may (!) signify duration; but seldom, I believe, except after verbs signifying action such as may imply time; not often after verbs, like λαμβανω, of action instantly, completed." The truth is, as every person of learning must know, that as a rule the temporal accusative distinctively denotes duration, while the dative is just as notoriously used for a point of time, and the genitive when time is conceived as the necessary condition of the action, and therefore antecedent to it. Nor is this confined to certain words only. "All verbs imply a notion of time (says Jelf, vol. ii. p. 377) over which the action extends, coincident and co-extensive with it; whence all verbs may have an accusative case of this coincident notion of time, if it be required definitely to express it." That I may not appear to have drawn the distinction of the Greek cases for controversial purposes, I must cite further from Jelf, § 606, obs. 2. "The genitive, accusative, and dative, therefore, are all used to express relations of time, and they differ as follows: the time is represented by the genitive as the antecedent condition of the action; by the dative as the space wherein the action took place; while the accusative expresses the duration of the action. So compare ταύτης τῆς ἡμέρας οἱ Ἕλληνες ἐμαχέσαντο, this day giving them the occasion, with ταυτῃ τῃ ἡμέρᾳ, on this day, and ταύτην τὴν ἡμέραν, throughout this day." These general principles find the fullest illustration in the Hellenistic of the LXX. and the New Testament, as well as in classical Greek. See, for the time at which (the dative), Gen. 2: 2, 3, 17; Gen. 3: 5; Gen. 5: 1, 2; Gen. 6: 4; Gen. 7: 11, 13; Gen. 8: 4, 5, 13, 14; Gen. 14: 4, 5; Gen. 15: 16, 18; Gen. 17: 26; Gen. 19: 33, 34, 35; Gen. 21: 4, 8; Gen. 22: 3, etc. But why thus run through the occurrences? It were to cite from every book of the Bible, wherein epochs are spoken of. I will only therefore refer to the Apocalypse, as it may be alleged that the Greek is peculiar there: Rev. 1: 10; Rev. 2: 13; Rev. 9: 6; Rev. 10: 7; 11, 13; Rev. 18: 8, 10, 16, 19. On the contrary, when duration is intended, the accusative is employed with equal regularity: Gen. 3: 14, 17; Gen. 5: 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, etc., passim; Gen. 7: 4, 12, 17, 24. Gen. 8: 10, 12, 22; Gen. 9: 28; Gen. 11: 11-26 — in every verse, etc. So in Rev. 2: 10 (in the text of B, thirty-two cursives, and apparently the ancient versions, Arethas, and the Catena, while A C many cursives, Andreas, etc., have ἡμερῶν); Rev. 6: 11; Rev. 8: 1; Rev. 9: 5, 10; Rev. 11: 2, 3, 6 (so in A B C P, most cursives, Hippolytus, Andreas — save in one manuscript — Arethas and the Catena), 9; Rev. 12: 6, 14; Rev. 13: 5; Rev. 17: 10 (not to speak of 12); Rev. 20: 2, 4, 6. It is certain, therefore, that the most natural rendering of μίαν ὥραν is (not at, but) for one hour. (Compare Daniel 4: 9; Matt. 20: 12; 26: 40.) As to the action expressed by the verb, the objection is futile. If the angel bound Satan for a thousand years, the ten horns may assuredly receive kingly authority for one and the same time with the beast. It is not the mere act of binding or receiving, but the effect which spreads over the given time. Is it denied then that the point of time is ever found in the accusative? Not at all; "but this only (says Jelf, § 571, obs. i.) in general notions of time, such as seasonably, lastly, where the accusative stands for the cognate substantive." Nobody can pretend that such is the case in the disputed clause. And in my opinion it is more than questionable in the three exceptions which are produced (as if they were the ordinary construction!) from the New Testament: John 4: 52, Acts 10: 3, and Rev. 3: 3. As to Acts 10: 3, we know that the best manuscripts, the Alexandrian, the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Palimpsest of Paris, the Laudian of Oxford, not to speak of some twenty-five juniors and other good authorities, insert περί, as all do in verse 9. As to John 4: 52, may it not be accounted for by a reference to the question of the nobleman? He enquired the hour, τὴν ὥραν, ἐν ῃ. The servants answer, Yesterday ἑβδόμην ὥραν. Then he knew that it was ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῃ ὥρᾳ in which Jesus had spoken the word of healing power. So again, I think, Rev. 3: 3 in probably due to a sort of mixed construction dependent on γνῳς. It may not be known generally that this is one of the instances alleged by unfriendly criticism in evidence that the Apocalypse employs the accusative of time contrary to good usage. But this, says Professor Stuart, is the only instance of the kind in the whole book. He explains it thus: "The time which is at the ultimate extent of his coming is here the prominent idea, and therefore the accusative is allowable." (Comment. Apoc. p. 204.) Matt. 24: 41, 42, 43, 44, 50; Luke 12: 39, 46, show plainly enough the usage undisturbed by special causes. The difficulty is merely technical in the exceptional cases, which entirely differ from the text in question. As to it I see no ground for a doubt, nor have I any theory to uphold by it; for the true rendering implies the same starting-point, but it also determines the equal duration of the beast and the ten horns. The AEthiopic and Arabic understood the phrase as expressive of duration, the Syriac and Latin as a point of time. But why attach such moment to the Vulgate on a nicety like this, when the words which conclude the verse contain the gross blunder of rendering μετὰ τοῦ θ. as if it were μ. τὸ θ.? Some copies add "et" also — "[et] post bestiam." Cyril and Theodoret do not touch the question. Can Mr. E, produce a single instance from any correct writer where μίαν ὥραν or ἡμέραν, as here without a mixed construction, is used save for during one hour or day?

Abstractedly, ever so many years might be meant, or only a short period. It is not a question of what an "hour" means. These ten horns should not merely have their period of authority, but they receive it for one and the same time with the beast. This is most important to the due understanding of this verse. It overthrows all the prophetical systems which have attempted to make out that this chapter has been exhausted in the past or present. The common view of the chapter may have a certain measure of truth; because, as I fully believe, the book of Revelation was intended to be partially accomplished all through the dispensation; but the complete fulfilment is only at the close. The barbarian hordes came down from the north and east of Europe and Asia, about the fifth century, and overspread the Roman empire, bursting over Europe from all points, and attacking it within and on every side, so that the empire, already too extended, and crumbling under its own weight, found it impossible to hold up against these vigorous and repeated assaults from so many quarters. By degrees the Goths and Vandals, etc., settled themselves in the various parts of that which was once united. They were the enemies that destroyed the empire.

But this is not what is shown us in the chapter. It tells us that these kings receive authority for one hour with the beast. Supposing that these barbarian kingdoms had been exactly ten in number, even this does not answer to what we have here; because we are told that these ten kings receive authority for one and the same time with the beast. They only received their power when the beast was dead, when the Roman empire had fallen. They destroyed the beast first, and then erected themselves into independent kingdoms.

Nothing can get rid of the sure and simple fact that these powers were not kingdoms in the empire while the empire lasted. They had not power with the beast, much less did they give their power and strength to the beast. For nothing is more certain than that when they became kingdoms, it was at the expense of the empire. When it was gone, they took up the broken fragments, and converted them into separate kingdoms, France, Spain, etc.; but the empire as such was fallen. The beast that is described here acquires power as an empire at the same time that these kings receive their power as kings. In other words, they are contemporary powers, the beast and the horns, and not that which we find in history at all. This prophecy shows us that the empire is only formed as such again at the same time that these ten kingdoms have their final power. They are co-existing, and have their dominion together — each of these several kingdoms working to a common end under the beast.

Thus in the facts of the past we know there was a united unbroken power, when the Roman empire governed the western world,* and did not admit of different independent kingdoms within its own limits. There was no such thing then as the kings of Spain, France, Italy, etc. It was an all-absorbing power, and would never have allowed such separate kingdoms to cluster round the imperial city. But the peculiarity of the future revived empire is that it will admit of distinct kings. Two things will be united which never were before. First, there has been the empire without kings — at least, so it was in the west, which is the question here. Then there were kings without the empire. The new feature will be this: neither the beast without the kings, nor the kings without the beast; but both the beast and the kingdoms going on together. This is what never has existed before.

*That is, the properly Roman part only of the empire, as we gather from Dan. 2: 34, 35, and Dan. 7 — not to speak of Dan. 11; from all which it is plain that the iron-clay kingdom does not refer to what was once under the Roman sway outside Europe, but to the western part which never belonged to Greece. Persia, or Babylon.

Hence the chapter gives us a view of the Roman empire as it will be resuscitated by the power of Satan, and shows that then it is destined to have the peculiar stamp of the enemy upon it. God Himself allows him to have his way for a short space, and to perpetrate all his wickedness before the end. Just as Judas was filled with Satan when he was about to betray the Lord for the price of a slave. He was under the influence of Satan before; but it is said then that Satan entered into him. He or his high-priest was the son of perdition: and this is the very name that is given to the future power that will rise up against the Lord from heaven. This empire is to rise up out of the bottomless pit, and to be clothed with a diabolical character and energy; and when it comes up, there are to be ten kingdoms, or kings, exercising regal power for the same period with the beast.

The next verse (13) shows us the policy common to them. "These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast." They are not jealous of the beast; their great object is to exalt him and to aggrandize his power. And what is the issue? what the use they make of their combined power? "These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him, called and chosen and faithful" (ver. 14). So it is evident from this, that the heavenly saints are already gone to the Lord. It is not that the Lord receives them now; they are with Him in the conflict, and before the conflict begins. And this is confirmed by Revelation 19: 14: "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, clean and white." Whence did they follow Him? Is it not from heaven? Christ is coming to attack the great adversary upon the earth whom Satan employs. But it is heaven that opens, and thence not only Christ comes, but "they that are with him, called and chosen and faithful."

This is not a description of angels: for though angels may be said to be "chosen" or "elect," they are never said to be "called." "Called" is a title only used of men, and supposes the working of grace. Angels are not, and I think could not be, "called;" for if an angel were in a position of evil, he could not be delivered out of it; and if he were in a holy position, he would not need "calling." Calling always presumes a condition out of which the called are brought. The believer is brought from a place of sin and misery into one of salvation and blessing. This is true of man alone. He, is the only creature of God that is called, through God's grace, out of a state of ruin into the blessedness and glory of redemption. And as in Revelation 17: 14 there is this expression which shows us positively that saints and not angels are spoken of, so in Revelation 19: 14 we are told that the armies which follow the Lamb out of heaven are "clothed in fine linen, white and clean." Now it is said in the same chapter (verse 8) that fine linen is the righteousness of saints. People may ask, Are not angels said to be clothed in linen? Yes, they are; but it is not the same term that is used for instance in Rev. 15: 6. The Spirit of God employs a different expression to describe it, never confounding the two things. The plain inference then is that the glorified saints are in heaven with the Lord, before this conflict begins — not that they then meet the Lord in the air. When the Lord comes, we do meet Him in the air. Then it is that He will take us to heaven. But when He comes in order to judge and make war, we come with Him from heaven. How long a time may have expired while we are in heaven, and before we appear with the Lord, we do not know; but the coming of the Lord for the saints is an event that takes place some time before He comes with them. When He comes with the saints, it is for the purpose of judging the beast and his adherents. The church will come with Him then, and the Old Testament saints too; for they will have been caught up to the Lord at the same time that we are, I doubt not. "These shall make war with the Lamb" — but the victory is sure — "and the Lamb shall overcome them, . . . . and they that are with him, called, and chosen, and faithful."

"And he said unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire" (verses 15, 16). This is another verse of great value for understanding the chapter. The common text thus says, "the ten horns which thou sawest upon* the beast;" but it ought to be read, "the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast." The importance of the change in this (and there is the best authority for it), that when people read, "the ten horns upon the beast," they might have imagined that, the Roman empire being gone, then these ten horns took its place. This would very well have suited the past history. But, as we have seen before, that the ten horns receive their kingdom for the same time with the beast, so here the Spirit of God says, "the ten horns which thou sawest and the beast." Thus any person who weighs this with verse 12 would perceive how mistaken the usual thought is. "The ten horns which thou sawest and the beast, these shall hate the whom, and shall make her desolate," etc.†

*Here is another flagrant proof of Mr. E.'s proneness to prefer a manifestly spurious reading which his hypothesis requires to the reading which has the support of the best authorities, and the suffrages of perhaps every critic of weight. But he now omits his words in the fifth edition, "I think with Daubuz, that this reading (και) is most unlikely. He writes thus: 'This (και) is the reading of the Complutensian edition; but the rest have epi to qhrion instead of και το θηριον. This last is not consistent with the description, or distinction, of the ten horns and the beast; and therefore I have received the other in my translation. For the beast, as such, can never (!) be said to hate the whore; but the horns upon the beast may' (p. 795). Vitringa too adopts the reading επι, 'decem cornu quae vidisti in Bestia.' Bellarmine urges the reading και, in defence of the Papacy against Protestants. 'For how can Bishops of Rome be antichrist,' he argues, 'when antichrist is to join with the ten kings and destroy Rome?' But the infallible Vulgate, we saw, as well as his brother Romanists, Ribera á Lapide, Malvenda, etc., are here against him. The prophetic sword's edge cannot be so averted from Rome. Bellarmine admits the beast to be antichrist, and the woman of the seven hills to be Rome. And what their pictured relation to each other in the vision but that of the closest intimacy and alliance? If και be read, what is said of the beast's hating the woman, etc., can be understood only of the city of Rome, not the church of Rome. For the apostate church's false prophet continues with the beast to the end. So Apoc. 19: 19. Compare what is said of treading the winepress without the city, p. 15 supra." (H.A., vol. iv. p. 30, note l.) He now adds, "But see my note 3 on p. 74 of vol. iii. in support of the reading επι. I there cite Tertullian and Hippolytus, two Fathers of earlier date than any extant Greek MSS. of the Apocalypse in support of επι. It is the reading too of most copies of the Vulgate: Decem cornu[a] quae vidisti in Bestia, and adopted by the Romanists, Ribera, á Lapide, Malvenda, etc., as well as by our Protestant interpreters, Vitringa, Daubuz," etc. I have examined these citations, and am satisfied that neither Tertullian nor Hippolytus touch the question of ἐπί. Neither quotes the verse, nor says a word but what one who received χαί might say. Their codices too are far inferior in antiquity to the great uncials of the Apocalypse. The best copies of the Vulgate (Amiat. Fuld. Tolet. Demidov. etc.) read "et;" so that no critic could hesitate that Jerome, "that most critical of all the Fathers," rejected the reading which has crept into the inferior Greek and Latin manuscripts clean contrary to Mr. E.'s statement in vol. iii. p. 74, note 3. The healing of the wounded head is quite consistent with the destruction of the whore. As to the Romanist and Protestant commentators, not one of those cited was conversant with questions of text. So Desmarets, in his treatise on Antichrist, is imprudent enough to say, "Emendatissimi codices plerique. omnes, Stephanorum, nominatim, habeat ἐπί." Can one wonder that Professor Delitzsch says, One untruth is the mother of the rest? Even Erasmus went against his authority; for Cod. Reuchl. is now known to read καί, not ἐπί. It is not even correct to speak of Tichonius; for he and Bede omit the phrase. On the whole, Bengel (a wild commentator on the book, but a true critic everywhere) was justified in saying of the common reading, "Fecit Erasmus, quem hic quoque sequntur, qui solent, editores quanquam lectionem hanc Latinis deterioribus fictam vel solus Andreas Caesariensis redarguit." "Inanis esset tot codicum collatio, si talium quoque locorum germana lectio aut postponeretur sine fine, aut saltem in ancipiti relinqueretur." Even the prejudiced Wolff, who differed from Bengel wherever it was possible, here truly remarks, "Vel omnium vel plerumque codicum Graecorum consensus nun parvi fieri debet."

That Daubuz (1720) should have laboured under a mistake as to the comparative claims of the two readings one can conceive; that Vitringa, spite of his historical lore and general ability in expounding, should have ignored the best witnesses then known, is not perhaps very wonderful. But it is passing strange that in the face of the unanimity of critical editors, presenting every shade of religious prejudice and prepossession, such as Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Matthaei, Scholz, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Vater, etc., who had no preconceived notions to blind their judgment, Mr. Elliott should persist in an opinion so unfounded. It is not a small matter to slight the evidence of the three uncials, forty cursives (some of the highest character), of the AEthiopic, Arabic of the Polyglotts, Syriac, etc. If Wilkins is to be depended on, the Coptic, it seems, should be added. As to the Vulgate, Mr. E. is misinformed. The common printed text, no doubt, has "in bestia;" but the very ancient and best copies (including the Amiatine in the Laurentian Library of Florence, and others already named) read "et bestiam." Whatever may be the inconsistency of Popish apologists, I cannot admire Protestant special pleading which contends for a reading that is utterly indefensible. In this instance, at least, it is plain which of the two is most open to the charge of blunting the edge of the prophetic sword. Rome is Babylon; but the ten horns AND the beast (hardly the Pope!) are yet to unite in destroying her. It is not the first intimacy or alliance which has closed in hatred and violence. The false prophet continues with the beast to the end; but this neither proves nor disproves that Babylon is the Romish church. Why may there not be a new form of religious wickedness in the Holy Land, even when Rome city and church shall have disappeared?

†The attempt of Protestants is vain to reconcile this statement with their theory that the woman and the beast refer to the church or city of Rome and the Papacy. Thus it has been recently argued that the woman is the Roma Dea, both Pagan and Papal, the scene representing Rome itself, in the latter point of view, the angel's explanation including also the previous pagan history. Accordingly the idea is that the ten horns undiademed are the Gothic powers desolating Rome, diademed are the same kingdoms giving their power to the Pope. For certainly the barbarians ravaged the empire as a whole, not the city exclusively, and out of the dismembered empire formed their own independent kingdoms. That is, the beast was that which they spoiled and destroyed much more than the woman. Nor were they united in a common feeling of hatred towards Rome. Envy, covetousness, lust of conquest would more aptly characterize the motives of the particular barbarians who attacked the city. Still less can it be said that, diademed or not, they gave their power to the Pope. It would be more true to say that they derived it from him as their ecclesiastical and spiritual head. For my part I altogether admit the principle that the explanation gives us, not merely the key to what was originally seen, but additional truth. Only, as I have shown the absurdity is in supposing that the fresh information is something about the past pagan form of Rome. On the contrary it really furnishes the future closing aspect, when the beast and the ten horns have a common policy, first in wreaking their hatred and indulging their avarice on the whore, and then in mustering their forces with one consent for the final conflict with the Lamb. The beast is to ascend from the abyss, and the Lord of lords descend from the throne of God. The chapter gives us character and description, not dates. The history is resumed in Revelation 19, first as to heaven, and next as to earth; Revelation 17, 18 forming a descriptive episode.

A little sample of this, not of course executed by the beast or by the kings, but by the will of the people, appears in the French revolution of the last century. There you had an infuriate people rising up against the woman (the ecclesiastical power that had ruled the earth being completely given up to the rage of the multitude, and men enriching themselves at her expense). But we must never meet one wrong by being guilty of another. The Christian way to deal with evil is ever by grace lifting us above it. Events that have been seen on a small scale will be then realised on a larger one. Good men — men worthy of honour and in other respects wise — have not only desired to get rid of Babylon, but have been too apt to sanction any means with that aim. I say not that saints are not to rejoice in her fall; but that they ought not to mix themselves up with the instruments of it, nor to cherish unfounded hopes of blessing then and thence.

Rome will always be the central city of this corrupt system. "The woman which thou sawest is the great city that hath sway over the kings of the earth" (verse 18). There will, no doubt, be a further development of it before the close; for she who sits as queen has given proof even in our own days that she can invent new doctrines, and boast new miracles, developing wickedness without conscience and with feeble protest, nay, in the midst of all but universal acclamations. And it will be true, I conceive, of Rome, as in all other cases, that before the judgment comes, her cup will be full. It was so with the iniquity of the Amorites, when God judged them. But God will employ the powers of the earth to deal with Babylon. No doubt the kings will think well of themselves for getting rid of such a scandal; but then the means used may be as bad as that evil itself. And what will be the issue? The millennium? Quite the contrary — they will make war with the Lamb. They will not only have got rid of Babylon, but will combine against Christ in the most direct and deadly way. When this day comes man, instead of being any the better for having turned against Babylon, will give all his power to the beast: and, bad as Babylon is, the beast is more openly wicked. Nothing is more hateful to God under the sun than religion, where it is used as a cover for corruption; and this is Babylon. But as for the beast and the false prophet, they will deny God altogether. As we read in the Psalms, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Babylon is not that wilful rebellious spirit. Therefore, after having destroyed Babylon and eaten her flesh and burnt her with fire, after having enriched themselves at her expense, and having destroyed her, we find that those avenging powers will go to fight with the Lamb; they will set themselves in open opposition to the One of God's choice, the holy and heavenly Sufferer.

"For God hath put in their hearts to do his mind, and to do one mind, and give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be finished" (verse 17). How remarkable it is to observe that thus it is man accomplishing the words of God, when his only thought is that he, in hatred to God, is blotting out the most corrupt sham from the face of the earth! No doubt Babylon will have deserved it; but the kings, without knowing how, are but doing servile work for Him whose authority they disown. In vain they will have had all God's dealings under the law before their eyes; they will have had the whole Christian revelation of grace and holiness, founded on and shown in the cross of Jesus, only to despise it; they will have heard and rejected the latter-day testimony, the gospel of the kingdom, which will be given by other, and I believe by Jewish, witnesses, after the church has been taken to heaven. Anything pretending to be a new testimony, while the church is on earth, must be false. But when the church is gone, God will take up His people Israel again, and will give a testimony, not so much meeting souls so as to put them in connection with Christ in heaven, which He is doing now, but sending out far and wide through the habitable world, as a witness to all nations, the glad tidings that God's King is coming to set up His kingdom; "and then shall the end come."

It is fellowship with Christ as the suffering One which gives us deliverance from the spirit of the beast, the spirit of proud independence. How shall we overcome with the Lamb? We must be with Him, and this is what. gives the victory now. Our strength, in whatever comes before us, is to ask, How does the Lord feel touching it? Supposing I am invited to go to some great sight, to join in some movement that may be very attractive naturally, the question is, Does the Lord sympathize with it? Is He there? And if this applies to all other questions, still more does it decide in what concerns the holiest things, as for instance worship. What does the Lord sanction and value in His praise? What is most according to His heart and mind? What really and intelligently and obediently gives Him honour? Such is the sole key for faith in this world; it unlocks many a difficulty, and through the opened door there is a plain path for our feet.

The Lord grant that none of us may put aside those solemn truths! To neglect His warning is the very thing that tends so far to bring about the state of things of which we have been speaking. That which carries away in this direction now is slighting the words of God; though we shall in the end be fulfilling them to our own shame. We shall be proving how little we have known of real heart-subjection to God — how little we had appreciated the grace in which we stand, and how little rejoiced in the hope of His glory. We shall manifest that we have not counted it an honour to bow, and to give up what we may like, or what others might like for us, where it was really a question of God's will. For to us this should decide all; because "we are sanctified unto the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," that is, to the same character of obedience which marked the Lord Jesus here below. It is not Christian to obey Christ merely because we must. Christ never obeyed thus. If a man only does a thing because if he does it not he knows he must be punished, it shows plainly that his heart is not in it — he does not want to obey. Christian obedience is the desire of doing a thing because it is the will of God, and the Holy Ghost gives us power through presenting Christ to our affections. Remember that to this we are sanctified. Cleansed by the blood of sprinkling, instead of its being a menace of death, as in Ex. 24, we are sanctified unto the obedience of Jesus Christ. We are not under the law but under grace, and led of the Spirit of God. May we enjoy the power of His spirit and the fulness of His salvation! Bear in mind. however, that we are thus saved, not for ourselves, but to obey after the same pattern and measure of obedience as that of Jesus.

Revelation 18

I think that the case of Babylon illustrates strikingly how a judgment which is said to be God's may, at the same time, be executed by men. In Rev. 17 we saw that God will make use of the ten horns or kings, into whose dominions the Roman earth, at the close of this dispensation, will be divided, and will give especial prominence to what is called "the beast," that is, the power that gives a bond to those otherwise broken parts. The great imperial chief, and the various separate but no longer independent powers, his vassals, will be the instruments that God will employ for inflicting His judgment upon Babylon.

Now in Revelation 18 not a word of this occurs; and the difference is so obvious and great at first sight, that some have laid it down with decision that the judgment in Revelation 17 is previous to that in chapter 18; that the destruction of Babylon in the former is merely a human one; that her doom in the latter is subsequent and directly from God. But I would not dogmatize as to this explanation, conceiving, on the contrary, that in the same judgment you may have God's and man's side of the matter, God dealing providentially, and men as His hand in striking the blow. If there be a real distinction, the "fall" precedes the final destruction; a total degradation of her state ensues upon the assault of the civil powers, followed by an urgent call to God's people to come out; and then her utter everlasting destruction on the part of God.

If we look at Babylon in the Old Testament, justly did the prophets speak of its destruction as the day of the Lord upon it. "This is the work of Jehovah of Hosts in the land of the Chaldeans." (Jer. 1.) At the same time it is quite certain that the medium through which God brought about the ruin of Babylon was the celebrated Cyrus, the leader of the Medo-Persian army. In the same way, in Rev. 17, we see the actual human instruments. The influence of Babylon extended much beyond, but the ten horns of the Roman earth were those powers that radiated as it were from her very centre. And therefore it may be that God mentions in that chapter that these powers which seemed to be so linked with Babylon as her abject slaves (the imperial power itself having been but a beast of burden to her) are to turn round at a certain time appointed by God, and to wreak their vengeance, scorn, and hatred upon her. They have human objects, no doubt, but they are accomplishing this work of God's righteous retribution. God will have put it into their hearts to agree, and give their kingdom to the beast, until His words be consummated.

But in Rev. 18 human instruments disappear, and when this other angel comes down from heaven, he says not a word of those that God had employed as the means of the fall of Babylon; they are left out, and the Lord God it is that judges her. God could just as easily have destroyed Babylon without the ten kings as with them. They were in no way necessary. But it is a part of His government of the earth, if she had reigned over kings and committed fornication with them before, to employ the ten horns to humble her at the end. They might be bad men with bad objects. It is therefore necessary to show the saints distinctly that God is against Babylon. Let us now consider a little this new point of view, in which we have only two parties presented in the scene. There is Babylon upon earth and there is God in heaven; and the Lord God is against the proud queenly city that had been the constant enemy of God and of His people — that had been the instrument of Satan to entice and draw away her victims into an evil alliance and into idolatry. Such is the way Babylon is looked at here. And yet this Babylon is the one that arrogated to herself the place and function of making God known. For the great city is no longer a heathen power: not like Babylon of old, a stranger outside, and used of God as a means of inflicting chastisement on His people Israel. I conceive that the Babylon of Revelation is most clearly a reference to Old Testament Babylon, but applied to New Testament subjects. In the Old Testament, the great thought of God was His people and land: and there was also a city on which His eye rested with special affection. For He not only loved the people, but was interested in what He gave the people. But that has entirely passed away since the rejected Christ was crucified. From that moment till now there has been no one place more holy than another. That which had been the holy city was now as it were Aceldama, the field stained with the blood of the Lord Jesus. But God's eye saw that in process of time the great city of the earth would profess Christ's name, and would take advantage of His own revelation, and out of the corrupted and fallen state of Christianity would make a system of its own — borrowing all that it could take from Judaism, and mingling it with its own Gentile evil, so as thus to work out a system most hateful to God, and seducing to man.

I have no doubt, therefore, that in this chapter it is Rome that is the peculiar object of God's judgment. Not that Rome is all that is meant by Babylon, but that Rome is the centre of it; because it is of all others the most guilty in God's sight. Not Rome in the pagan form; not merely Rome in our own days, bad as it is, and becoming increasingly wicked. But I think that the Babylon of the Apocalypse is not merely that system which is now opposed to Christianity, but Babylon when it will have opposed the last testimony that God will send — this testimony of the Son of man's kingdom that is about to be set up over His beloved people. For God never gives up His purpose. It is part of the character of God never to repent of His gifts and calling. Where it is not a purpose of mercy but a threat, God may and loves to bend. That He does so we know from the case of Nineveh; though the blow was then struck and will be again at some future time. He will allow men to say that He has changed his mind when it is a question of delaying a punishment for sin; but whenever, on the other side, it is God's purpose to bless a people, He never gives up that. This is worthy of God. He is full of mercy. He will allow His prophecy against Nineveh sent through His servant Jonah to appear to be set aside; He does not mind what men say about that. He is quite willing for them to think that He has in mercy changed His mind, and that the sentence of destruction has been set aside, where there has been humbling and repentance before God. But the blessed thing we find is this, that though man's failure, the church's failure, and the like may seem to have jeoparded the blessed purpose that God has in store for His people, and for His own glory, all that is of God comes out only the brighter another day.

Let us look at Babylon in its past history, and consider how that name was suited to express the special evil that was to grow up out of the corruption of Christianity. In Genesis 10 we have the first mention of Babel. And there we have it connected with a wilful man, who had first shown his cunning with regard to brute beasts, and who soon began to turn against his fellows all the craft and experience he had acquired in a lower sphere. Nimrod is the first person with whom you have Babel associated. It is man concentrating power in. himself But in the next chapter (Gen. 11) we have another idea. It is not only one man exalting himself and others subjected to him by fraud or force, but a grand effort of men gathering themselves together to build something permanent and strong and high — a tower that would reach toward heaven, and gain them a name upon earth. Here, then, we have the two thoughts that are always more or less connected with Babylon. It may take the form of an individual who exalts himself, or of men combining for some notable enterprise or it may be a mixture of both principles.

Now this you have further and still more plainly developed, when you come down to the history of the Jewish nation. God called them out as a people, and gave them special privileges and blessings. They fell into idolatry, the sin which sprang from Babylon as its great and primitive source; and Babylon becomes the chief means of judgment for the people of God, and the scene of Judah's captivity. There again we behold Nebuchadnezzar, the golden head of the image, answering to Nimrod, and the great city that he built, which answers to the tower of Babel — the two ideas being united, as indeed they soon became at first; for Babel was the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom. The natural heart covets present exaltation for man on the earth, and this too clothed with a religious sanction, but with an idolatrous intent.

Now the Holy Ghost in the New Testament takes up the term "Babylon" and applies it to the corruption that was to issue in professing Christendom. When God saves souls, He does not allow them to choose their own path in the world; still less can He own their choosing their own path in the church. He who understands his place as belonging to God has his will broken. He is privileged to treat his nature as a dead and evil thing; not on the ground of a slave working for something and because he must, but in the liberty of a son of God — of one who has been blessed by God, and who has the interests of his Father at heart. But it is not his Father's will that at the present time he should meddle with the world, or have a place in it. According to God's mind the world is not good enough for the Christian, because it is practically under the power of the enemy. There is a time coming when the world will be put under the children of God, when they will judge the world. But this can never be until Satan is set aside, and Christ publicly exalted over the earth as well as in heaven. Meanwhile the saints have to wait in faith and patience. And this is the argument which the apostle urges in 1 Cor. 6 why brethren in Christ should have nothing to do with the world's judgments now. It was beneath their dignity as children of God to carry their differences there; it was vain to try to reform the world. Such a thought never entered the apostle's mind. For faith, while it delights in the deliverance of poor sinners, looks at the world with God as already judged, and only waiting for the execution of the sentence at Christ's coming.

But while the apostle exhorts to subjection to the powers that be, he never says, You brethren, that have posts of honour in the earth, you are to continue there. This would have been to defeat the object of God, whose children are not of the world, even as Christ is not of the world. For God is not now undertaking to govern the world, save in His secret providence of course. When the kingdom of this world as a fact becomes His, He begins by judging the corrupters of the earth, and more particularly every iniquity done under the name of Christ. This is not what God does now: He is rather testing the souls of His people in a place of temptation, where everything is contrary to His name. If they are faithful, they will suffer persecution; if unfaithful, they may be made much of by the world. They may have its ease and honour, but they assuredly will be used by Satan to keep all quiet; for nothing furnishes such a sanction to evil as a good man who joins the world and gives it countenance. Remember Lot He was in the gate of Sodom, the place where justice was administered. His position there was as dishonouring to God as it was miserable to himself. He had to be forced out of it at last; but even before he was taken out of Sodom, the well-watered plains had lost their value in, his eyes. Remember also Lot's wife.

His righteous soul was vexed with their unlawful deeds, he himself was the object of their taunts. "This one fellow," said they, "came into sojourn, and he will needs be a judge." They saw the incongruity of his position, as worldly men generally are quick to perceive the failures of the believer. Alas! it is easy to understand how a man may be godly in the main, and yet found in circumstances where a Christian ought not to be, and that so far he is not a true witness for God. Whether I look at the individual Christian or at the church, I see that God's object is to have a testimony to His own glory in the world; to have those who are for Him, not in the way of putting down the world, much less of seeking to get the honour and riches of the world; but willing for Christ's sake to abandon what they liked best, because they look not at the things which are seen, but at the unseen and eternal. This is grace's triumph, and so far as it is true of us, we are real witnesses for God. On the other hand, if we are seeking to gain or retain the world along with Christ, the principle of Babylon is begun.

No doubt, Rev. 17, 18 go much farther than this, and show that a vast religiously corrupting system is meant. This is made very plain by comparing Rev. 17: 1, 2, 3, with Rev. 21: 9, 10, 11. In Rev. 17: 1, it is said, "There came one of the seven angels,. . . . and talked with me, saying, Come hither; I will show thee the judgment [or sentence] of the great whore, that sitteth by the many waters." But again, in Rev. 21: 9, we have another scene. "There came unto me one of the seven angels, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Now it is evident that the Holy Ghost uses the same kind of introduction for these two women, for the purpose, I think, of our connecting them together. The same guide, one of the seven-vial angels, takes John, and shows him in the wilderness this earthly and corrupt woman; afterwards, in the closing scene, he takes him to an exceedingly high mountain, and shows him a heavenly one. As the heavenly woman is the symbol of the heavenly church, so is Babylon of a corrupt religious body. It is that which takes the place of the church, and of being the witness for God upon earth, while it carries on every wicked commerce with those who are exalted here below. There is first, as usual, the carnal and earthly, then the spiritual and heavenly. After the false system of men and Satan disappears, the true is displayed in the glory of God.

Now, though we may look for a future development of Babylon, as opposing God's final testimony of the kingdom to all nations before the end come, yet I think that, even at the present moment, there need be no difficulty in judging where the features of Babylon are found most fully. It is a religious system that governs a number of kings, not an establishment that is at the mercy of the secular government. This is sin, but it is not the wickedness spoken of here. Babylon is an incomparably darker, deeper, and more wide-spread system of religious corruption — arrogating to itself the name of the church of God exclusively, setting itself above kings, intriguing with them, but at the same time maintaining its supremacy above them all; stupefying the masses with the poison of her exciting falsehoods: arrayed in all the meretricious splendour of the world; the fountain-head of the worst idolatry under the sun; and finally manifesting a spirit of blood-thirsty persecution against the true saints and witnesses of Jesus, under the usurped pretence of His will and authority. There is one that does claim this place — one that takes it as given by God — one whose seat and centre are found in the very heart of what was once the Roman empire — a religious system that affects universal dominion, and that, in order to accomplish it, either wins by every enticing art, or extinguishes all opposition in the blood of heretics so-called, her victims. "By thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" (verses 23, 24). For any unprejudiced person who reads this description of Babylon calmly, and asks himself, What is that professing Christian body so abounding in idols, so authoritative over the kings of the earth, so indulgent to the wicked, and so cruel to the righteous? it is impossible not to see the answer.*

*The effort of the celebrated and subtle Bossuet to torn aside the application of Babylon in Rev. 17 and 18 from Christianised or Papal Rome is not only weak, but when duly sifted brings out the truth more evidently. His argument is that the church being married to Christ, the guilty church would be an adulteress rather than a harlot. The answer is, not merely that fornication is the generic term, is every one may see in both Old and New Testaments, but that. even applied with the utmost rigour, a harlot most correctly describes the present sin, because the church is now espoused to Christ, not married. The marriage, according to the Apocalypse, is only consummated after Babylon's final judgment in Revelation 19.

As to the Greek and Oriental churches, as to the English, Scotch, and other reformed national establishments, they are more or less notoriously subservient to the government which has to do with each of them. This may be, and I believe is evil. But there are two ways in which a religious system may act contrary to Christ: either by a guilty subjection to the world, or by a still more guilty supremacy over it — in short, by being the world's slave or the world's mistress. At the present time there is only one religious system which pretends to have kings at its feet; and this is the system of Rome, which therefore answers to Babylon. It is a great mistake to suppose that we have done with it, or that its day is over. Rome may yet have a short-lived triumph. Its emissaries are actively abroad all over the world, and the foundations of Protestantism are being undermined everywhere. Those who are looking for Christianity, as things are, to overthrow all its adversaries on earth, are in my opinion in great danger of being deceived, through the unscriptural hope of getting a church as great or greater in good than that of Rome is in evil. For there will come a fearful struggle yet, and Rome, as I conceive, will seem to acquire vast influence, and to put down every contrary voice, except the feeble whisper of the few witnesses spoken of here, who either die by her or come out of her. God will hear them, but as far as all open or public testimony for Him is concerned, it will be swamped by Babylon. And as to putting Babylon down, it is not by the gospel, or by the force of truth that it will be done, but by the will and wrath of men. Wherever Romanism gains the day, infidelity is the necessary consequence; and, therefore, Babylon always prepares the way for the last effort of the beast against the Lamb. But before the close, the beast gets thoroughly the upper hand, and Babylon becomes food for him and the ten horns.

Is this what is introduced to us here? Man is left out; the ten horns are not once alluded to in Revelation 18, though the kings of the earth are. The difference is this. "In the kings of the earth," I apprehend, are embraced all those rulers of Christendom with whom she had been on terms of bad intimacy, or who had had evil connection with her. The ten horns are the chiefs of the final divided state of the empire and the active instruments of her devastation, as we are told in Revelation 17. The kings of the earth are her mourners, not her burners Here in chapter 18 her hour is come, and it is the Lord God that hath judged her.

You will observe the voice from heaven here: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues" (verse 4). The receiving of her plagues is not the divine motive for separation. Men would be anxious enough about that. But the great thing that God looks for from His people is this — that they should not be partakers of her sins. I would put it to every Christian, how far is he in sympathy with God's mind touching Babylon and its sins? How far does he feel the evil of it, and judge it?

Babylon does not seek heaven, but the earth — not the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow, but to sit as a queen and to see no sorrow. Babylon is content with worldly exaltation. If you steer clear of this, Babylon has no attractions for you; and the present danger of every soul from Babylon is the gradual caring for and allowance in Christians of what man values on the earth. Of late years there has been no little change in the thoughts of Christians as to the present enjoyment of prosperity and pleasure in this world. But there is amazing danger in it. For what is the great thought of it all? Man rising, progressing, exalting himself — man showing what he can do, and how improve; and this is sought to be connected with the name and sanction of Christ! Alas! it is Babylon the great (verses 9-19). In her we see the end of the heart's desire, along with Christ, to enjoy all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. I do not wonder at an unconverted man seeking to make the world pleasant: Cain did it, and there is such a thing now as going in the way of Cain. These are the people that handle all sorts of musical instruments, and the artificers in brass and iron. It is true that these things sprang up in a very early hour of the world, but still the Spirit of God does not tell us for nothing that they were in the family of Cain, not in the family of Seth.

Every child of man stands responsible to God, whether converted or not, to own his outcast state as a sinner: he has no right to drown his conscience in the pleasures and glory of the world. But bad as this may be, the thing that God most hates, and that He will judge in an awful and public manner, even in this world, is the tacking on the name of Christ to the indulgence of worldly lusts. Is it not the desire, even of many Christians, to have the grandeur and riches of the world at their back? I do not doubt that they heartily wish to have people converted, but they would like them to bring their earthly influence along with them. This is the spirit of Babylon. What the Lord looks for from us is doing the will of God, suffering for it, and taking it patiently. Any of these things which the heart covets will be found to involve the will of man. There is not a single position of distinction or of glory in the world but what requires a man to give up a good conscience towards God. In other words, you cannot be a member of the world and act faithfully as a member of Christ. If you value and wish to follow the world, you will make all sorts of excuses, and argue for a compromise; but this only shows how far the leaven of Babylon has affected your soul.

God gathers souls round Jesus — that is, Jesus rejected, and gone up to heaven. Therefore the Church is based on these two fundamental truths. She has got the cross, and she is united to Christ in heavenly glory by the Holy Ghost sent down. And the cross and heavenly glory will not mingle with the world. This is the very thing that puts my heart to the test. If Christ is my object, I shall not want the world; I shall be looking up it may be feebly, but still looking up to heaven; and there will be the one object that God uses to strengthen me by, giving me willingness to suffer in the consciousness of having Christ in the glory. Whenever the church craves after something else, as the esteem and honour of the world, or even social improvement, she denies her proper glory.

Popery mistook the true character of the church, followed the Jewish system, and thought that people ought to bring their gold and silver and precious stones and goodly things to honour the Lord with. (See verses 12-14.) But God was wiser than men, and shows that all this pretence of honouring God is a mere sham, and that what people really want is to honour themselves. They are seeking what attracts and makes them an object of attraction, whilst they cover up their real object under the plea of the name of Christ. This is what God will judge, and what infects the whole of Christendom increasingly before judgment comes. You may ask me how that can be possible, when there are so many societies growing up, and such an active energy, religious and moral, dealing with the various forms of public evil throughout the world. I am not telling you what I see, but what God's word shows — the all but universal prevalence before the close of a corrupt system, which plainly has its centre in Rome, though taking a larger compass, so as to embrace every religious institution* which, however opposed it may seem to Popery now, does not link a soul with heaven. There is no safety for any person who is building on the earth. The heavenly saints will be taken away before the judgment falls upon Babylon. They are not referred to in that word, "Come out of her, my people." This is spoken of God's earthly people† by and by. But at the same time, its principle fully applies. For the essence of Babylon is the union of the world with the name of Christ. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."

*Babylon is not only herself "the great harlot," but "the mother of the harlots and the abominations of the earth." There are more of kindred corruptions in religion, though Rome is pre-eminent, "the mother and mistress," as she claims, of others.

†Hence there is no need to adopt Vitringa's odd notion, that verse 6 is addressed to the kings, nor to destroy the distinctive practical calling of the church by supposing that she is to be the avenger of Babylon's wrongs. God's retributive justice will send its more fitting appeal to His people the Jews, who are to be the witnesses of His righteous government here below.

The Lord will not hold any man guiltless who has a conscience of what is due to Christ and does not follow it. To such I would say, this is what you will prove: you will go on for a time and be troubled with the truth, for it will condemn you; but ere long you will find that all taste for it is lost; you will tire of it and even turn against it, and then will become morally ripe for Babylon when it bids seriously for you. If I am guilty of the spirit of Babylon, this is what God looks at, as far as I am concerned. The person who travels in her path cannot but be a partaker of her sin. And who so oppose the truth, as those that corrupt it? Who so hate, as those that are condemned of themselves?

There is a great work, not only of dissolving and breaking up what is old, but uniting and amalgamating for various purposes, going on now; and as this was found in Babylon at the very beginning (Gen. 11), so, in the long run, it will be found to serve the purpose of that great city before the Lord God has for ever judged her.

There will be, I believe from various scriptures, an astonishing mixture of professing Christianity with Judaism: and the latter, as judged by the new and full revelation of Christ in the New Testament, is no better than heathenism. (Gal. 4.) We know how tender the Spirit was in bearing with the weakness, the scruples, the attachment to old religious habits in such of the Christians as had been Jews (Rom. 14); but it was a very different thing when teachers sought to impose Jewish ordinances on the Gentile converts. The same Spirit treated a ritual borrowed by Gentiles from Jews as the same thing in principle as old and open pagan idolatry. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Popery is the most salient and hateful exhibition of this amalgam now; but greater abominations shall appear. Sacramentalism and rationalism, in these and other Protestant lands, are each provoking the other to excesses previously unexampled. When too was ever known such public indifference, which desires leisure for commerce abroad and social development at home? The result will appear in the last stages of Babylon and the beast.

In the scene before us we have had the lament of kings, merchants, and all who had to do with the unholy traffic of Babylon. Heaven, and especially the "saints" (for so it should be read) and the apostles and the prophets, are called to rejoice at God's judgment: "God hath avenged you [or literally, judged your judgment] on her." In the mighty angel's solemn act and word, which closes the chapter (verses 21-24), not only are set forth the violence of her ruin and its totality, but the reason of it as regards the nations — deceiving them all by her sorceries. The last verse adds another and awful cause — Babylon's inheritance of Jerusalem in blood-guiltiness. "And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth."

The Lord grant that, instead of merely looking without and occupying ourselves with condemning others, we may take good care that our own souls are preserved from the contaminations of Babylon. May our affections be kept true to Himself — the only real guard against the seductions of the enemy! We are espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Revelation 19 - 22.

W. Kelly.

Part 4 of Lectures on the Book of Revelation.

(The Translation by W. Kelly of the Revelation of John is included as the file revtrans.doc. Search for 'revelation /2/ john'.)

Revelation 19

We are now approaching a brighter and happier portion of the book. The providential judgments of God, whether more secret like the seals, more loudly summoning men to repent like the trumpets, or more positive and distinct wrath like the vials, have had their full course. And now, when Babylon who had set herself up to represent God in His grace and truth arrogated to herself exclusively the name of the church, the spouse of Christ — when she was set aside for ever, there was a burden gone — a heavy burden that had long grieved the heavens and corrupted the earth.

There was freedom, so to speak, now for God to make good the precious things which He had in His heart for poor beguiled men; and that too, as it ought to be, through and to the praise of the Lamb. Hence you have two things connected together at the beginning of this chapter. The first is the call to rejoice. "The great whore" had presented an obstinate barrier to blessing; not simply because she was evil, but because her profession had been all that was holy and true, while in effect she it was who above all had been active in corrupting grace and truth as far as possible; she had utterly and systematically denied Christ in effect, though parading everywhere the outward symbol of His cross. In vain for her had God's character shone out in Christ; in vain had God pronounced on man and the world; in vain begun a new creation whose Head took His place in heavenly glory. She associated His name with the flesh and the earth, and there sought and laid up her treasures. In vain had God brought light and incorruptibility to light by the gospel. She plunged men into deeper uncertainty and more positive error than ever, teaching them that every gift of God, and even salvation, may be bought with money; cheating souls to sleep by the hope that all would go on well, and that the Lord was not yet coming in judgment. Thus had she shut up, as far as could be, the streams of blessing from the world. But now the true and righteous judgment of God had smitten her, and there is rejoicing in heaven.

In Revelation 18 there was universal earthly sorrow. The kings of the earth who had committed fornication with her lamented. The merchants that had been enriched by her were wailing, Indeed, there was no class free from her snares, and now all that had had to do with her were full of sorrow over Babylon. But heaven was called to rejoice, and here we have the answer: "I heard as it were a loud voice of much people in heaven," not exactly, I heard a great voice of much people, but "as it were a loud voice," etc. The words "as it were" have been dropped, but I believe they ought to be inserted; just as a little lower down, in verse 6, it is said, "I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters," etc. "And her smoke rose up for ever and ever." As far as Babylon was concerned, this was her sad amen, if I may so say, to the joy of heaven.

But we are not left with a vague rumour of praise and gladness, not knowing from whom exactly it comes. There appear the twenty-four elders, who had understanding of the mind of Christ, and the four living creatures, that had been from the beginning associated with the providential judgments of God, or at least a certain part of them. These "fell down and worshipped God that sat upon the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia" (ver. 4). It is not Christ, who has taken His place upon His own throne yet, but they worship "God that sat on the throne," etc. "And a voice came out of the throne," for all must speak now, "saying, Praise our God, all ye His servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as it were the voice of mighty thunders, saying, Alleluia; for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice and give honour to him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready" (ver. 5-7).

This is the second part. Not only is the harlot's day over, but the consummation of the bride's blessing is come. it is important to observe that this is not the moment when the Lord comes to receive the heavenly church. It is a scene in heaven, not the Lord Jesus meeting His saints in the air. A few verses lower down we do get heaven opened, and Christ comes out of it, and the saints follow Him. Nothing, therefore, can be more simple or certain than the inference that the saints were already there. They must have been in heaven before, in order to follow Christ thence when He comes to judge. Now, I ask, how did they get there? They are not said to be now taken up to the Father's house. We have the old familiar parties in heaven. But we have a new fact: the bride is married in heaven — the one for whom Christ reserves the brightest grace and glory — she gets ready; and now is announced, not merely the song of triumph, because of the judgment of evil, but the marriage of the Lamb. "Let us be glad and rejoice." It is grace that flows out to others. "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white." As for the other woman, she had somehow fine linen too, with her pearls and her other adornments. (Rev. 18: 12,) But it was never said of Babylon that it was granted her. We do not hear how she got it. But to the Lamb's wife, to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen. The fine linen is the righteousnesses of saints (verse 8). God does not forget the work of faith or labour of love.

"And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb." There is evidently a peculiar solemnity in winding up this account. We are called upon to pause and listen and weigh. "These are the true sayings of God." To the suffering one, the one that had shared the Lamb's path of sorrow upon earth, to her was now given the fullest joy above. But the marriage scene of the Lamb is only intimated, and not described here. The purpose of the Revelation is not to show us the Father's house, nor its inner scenes. God is never even called our Father in this book, because it opens out, not the intimacy of His love to us, but rather the righteous ways of God — the establishment of the kingdom and the end, when He is all in all. True, there must be the stern unsparing judgment of all this evil, and this we have had. But when God's part comes, and the full blessedness of the church, there is but an announcement of it — the bride has made herself ready. It is left there comparatively hidden. We are told of the invitations to it, as it is said in verse 9: "Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb."

And now I would just ask you to pause before going farther. Is it too much to suppose that the bride, the Lamb's wife, is a different symbol, that is, represents a class of saints different from these blessed ones who are invited to her marriage? Who is it that God means by these two distinct symbols? As to the bride, the Lamb's wife, few would have the least difficulty. Almost every one sees in her the church — the one that is constantly presented in the New Testament scripture as the heavenly bride of the Lord Jesus Christ. One turns to Eph. 5, where this relationship is brought out, and the development in her behalf of the fulness of Christ's affections. Observe, by the way, that there it is not merely a question of a future epoch, because the Holy Ghost shows that this is a relationship established now. "Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it" It is true, from the very first moment when God began to form the church on earth by the presence of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.

The church is always regarded as a real and subsisting body, because wherever the Holy Ghost is, there is the church. The Holy Ghost was sent down, and it is His personal presence that forms the church. That is the reason why those saints who depart to be with Christ are not directly spoken of as the church. Of course, individually they are members of the church, but the scriptures which speak of the church contemplate its existence as the body of Christ on earth. Ordinarily men talk of the church visible and invisible, militant and triumphant, and think that if Christians depart to be with Christ, there more particularly, and in the truest season, is the church. Yet the word of God never so speaks, but predicates the church of such as are called even here below, and are baptized by one Spirit into one body. No doubt, when all are gathered together as a fact in heaven, it will be the church, and is so spoken of in Eph. 5: 27, and perhaps a few more texts. But in general in scripture, where the church is spoken of, it means the actual assembly of God on the earth at any given time. The Holy Ghost was there; and wherever the Holy Ghost dwells, He knits and joins the body into one. This is a weighty truth, and involves the most important consequences.

For I repeat, we are put into this relationship with Christ at the present moment. It is not that we have the hope merely of being made the bride of Christ by and by: we are espoused to Christ now. We shall have the marriage or the actual consummation by and by, when all the members are brought in. But the great and blessed and practical thing for our souls is, that we are brought into this position of union now. It is not only that the affection on which the marriage is grounded is true now; but more than this, the Holy Ghost is on earth uniting the saints to Christ in heaven, and making them as truly one with Him now as they ever will be. When Christ comes, there will be the removal of all hindrances — the putting aside of what Satan employs to make us forget our relationship to Christ, and the change of our vile body according to the body of His glory. But it is important to remember that our oneness with Christ as His body depends on the presence of the Holy Ghost, who has knit us up with Christ in heaven. We are one with Him now.

Here, then, the Holy Ghost seems to show that there are others to be there, not as the bride, but as guests, so to speak. These are the called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. You may remember John the Baptist speaking of himself as the friend of the Bridegroom. I presume that those who are here said to be invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb answer somewhat to the friends of the Bridegroom. They are not angels, for the word "called unto the marriage" would not be said of angels. These last are never characterised as "called" because the elect angels have always abode in their first estate. The calling of God comes to those who are in a low place to deliver them out of it. We have all, I suppose, been in the habit of assuming that if a man is a saint of God he necessarily belongs to the church, and that there is only one common blessing for all saints of all times. Here you find the contrary laid down plainly, and upon the face of scripture. You have here a marriage supper, and one singled out for especial joy, called the bride, the Lamb's wife (composed, it may be, of myriads of people, but here recognized in unity of blessing, being united under one term, that of "the bride," to show that they have the same portion of love and blessedness). But this is not true of all saints, for there are others who are not in this position; they are present as guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb, not as His bride.

"And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God." What strikes me is the remarkable way in which that solemn appeal comes in, anticipating that man too would depart from His word. John was going to worship the angel! — the other extreme; but such extremes often meet.

We had a similar caution in the beginning of the book. The Holy Ghost there says, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein." He knew well that many would treat the book lightly, and, not understanding, would count it dry and unprofitable. Alas! for such as say, "There is nothing for my soul there!" There is no book in the Bible where the Holy Ghost so encourages you at the very threshold to hear what God says therein, as the Book of the Revelation. And what makes it the more striking is, that the same kind of admonition occurs at the end, when we have been brought to the close of all the dealings of God, in the last chapter. "And he said unto me, These things are faithful and true . . . . Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book:" not merely that keepeth the sayings of some particular and choice parts of it, but of the book as a whole. There is the broadest statement: "Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." Thus the Holy Ghost seems to have taken especial pains to warn us against the unbelief of our hearts, as well as against our idolatry (verses 9, 10).

But more particularly (verse 9) it would seem that we have a guard against the indiscriminate notions which have generally prevailed, even among Christians.

"Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God." Besides the Bride, there are other blessed persons who will be there. Now, looking at Heb. 12, I find that in the roll of blessing there are other classes besides the church of the first-born ones. "But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, the general assembly." For it is well known that such is the true meaning and connection of the verse. "The general assembly" does not belong to "the church of the first-born," but to myriads of angels in verse 22. It may help to make it plain to any reader if it be borne in mind that the word "and" is always the connecting link, which introduces every fresh clause. And this is allowed by those who have no pretensions to what is called dispensational light — that is, by men who simply give their opinion on the genuine structure of the sentence. This being admitted, observe what is next given here: "Ye are come . . . . to the church of the first-born ones, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." I am aware that there are some who say that all these mean the same thing; that the heavenly Jerusalem, and mount Zion, as well as the spirits of just men made perfect, are substantially no other than the church of the first-born. But just look at the passage again, and consider if such a thought is allowable for a moment. God Himself is spoken of here, and Jesus the Mediator, and myriads of angels. Does any man mean to say, that these are all the same thing? And yet this might as well be said, if the other objects in the scene are not expressly distinct.

What then is the real meaning of these clauses? "Ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." When mount Zion was referred to, a Jew would naturally think of the earthly city around that celebrated mountain. But the Holy Ghost says, this is not your portion. You are come to the heavenly Jerusalem;* not to the city of dying David, but to the city of the living God. Then we have "an innumerable company of angels;" and this is called "the general assembly."

*It is not seen here as in Revelation, where it is the symbol of the glorified church itself, but rather as the blessed and ordered home of the heavenly saints, as I think it is in Heb. 11: 10, 16. In the epistle the city is objective, in the Apocalypse subjective.

Here plainly we have different objects of millennial glory to which the saints were already said to be come in spirit. There is the mount Zion. Next is the heavenly city the image of the glory that is coming by and by — the city for which Abraham and the other patriarchs waited. Then we have the angelic host. Next we see the church of the first-born, not merely the local scene of heavenly glory, but the complete assembly of the heirs who are written in heaven in contrast with the earthly firstborn Israel. Then we rise up to God the Judge of all. The Spirit has led us on from the mount Zion. And now we are brought down from God in His judicial character to the spirits of just men made perfect. It is a very remarkable position in which these are put. We probably, if we had had to do with it, might have set them first; but the object was to correct the Jewish tendencies of those here addressed, and to give prominence to what was heavenly. Then, having the heavenly seat of glory, and the church in their due place, we get God Himself as the Judge of all, and, following this, those saints who had known God as so acting on the earth. Hence they are called here the spirits of just men made perfect. They are, I think, clearly the Old Testament saints. (Compare Rev. 11: 39, 40.) For they, and not the church, are a class that could be most aptly described as the spirits of just men made perfect. They were in the separate condition then, and are so still. This will never be true of the church as a whole. When the moment comes for the church to leave the world and meet the Lord, there will be a part of the church upon the earth, not in the condition of spirits at all: there will be those that are alive ad remain to the coming of the Lord. Of the church it is said, "We shall not all sleep." So that this description never can apply to the church of God as such.

We have had the church already separate and distinct from the spirits of just men made perfect. It is not more certain that these are saints than that they are not the church. Carry the light of this back to Rev. 19. We read there of the church having made herself ready, and are not surprised to read also, as a distinct symbol in the same circle, "Blessed are they that are called* unto the marriage supper of the Lamb" (verse 9). Are they not plainly all the risen saints, save those baptized into the one body, the bride of Christ?

*Mr. E. puts in his text, and half promises in his note 4 (vol. iv. p. 52), to consider the question whether those called to the Lamb's marriage supper were a class the same as, or distinct from, the bride herself; but no trace appears, that I can see, either in Revelation 3 following or anywhere else.

The note of Daubuz will interest many. "It is one thing to be marriage, and another to be invited to a marriage feast. This is evident; and the Holy Ghost distinguishes very well the different states of these two sorts of persons. The bride, to whom [fine, linen] is given, being the persons to whom a perfect justification and the effects of it are awarded, are persons in a state of resurrection, to whom Christ has performed His pre-contract. But they who sic only invited to the feast cannot be the same as those that are married. They who are glorified with Bysse, and thereby declared fully justified and holy must of course be happy; but this happiness is pronounced to another sort of persons. Who are they then? Even the, converted nations, (?) all such men as, having not yet tasted of death and appeared before God's judgment seat, till Death and Hades are removed, are still in this life, and in a state of infirmity as to their flesh; not being indeed impeccable, but assisted very much by very great and extraordinary effusions of grace. However, the Holy Ghost doth not pronounce them holy, which in this place would be taken for perfect holiness, but barely happy; whereas those who have a share in the first resurrection are blessed and holy both. This blessing and happiness consists, as it is expressed in Revelation 21: 24, in this, that they walk in the light of the New Jerusalem," etc. (Perp. Comm. p. 869.) Readers may differ in the measure of their acquiescence with these thoughts; but who will not admit their interest and acuteness?

John then, instead of paying homage to the angel (so natural to the heart), was to feel that the angel is the fellow-servant of himself and of his brethren that have the testimony of Jesus. All such homage is due to God. For we must also remember that the testimony of Jesus is not limited to Christianity, nor to the Spirit's presence in the church. What He works as the Spirit of prophecy (and so He will work in the saints after our translation to heaven) is the testimony of Jesus as truly as what He gives us now as the power of our communion with the Father and the Son.

But now we have another scene. It is no longer what is going on above, but heaven is open: "And behold, a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness doth he judge and make war." It is not a door opened in heaven, nor the prophet caught up there, as we have seen in Revelation 4. Nor is it anything that had been done then or there. But now heaven is open, and the symbol of the power appears which comes to subdue the earth, not without the signs of victory. The horse is always the symbol of power connected with the earth; and it has the colour of prosperity. It is a white horse. None, I trust, would be so foolish as to imagine that, when this blessed scene really comes, it will be a question of horses literally. It is the symbol that passed before the eye of the prophet, employed to show certain realities that will take place by and by. Heaven is seen opened for the purpose of victory over the earth. And the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is plainly referred to as the rider: He is the one who directs the power — "He that sitteth on him [called] Faithful and True, and in righteousness doth he judge and make war" (verse 11). This is the subject of the chapter. In the next chapter it is not a white horse that is seen, but a throne, which is the symbol of another character altogether. The throne is for rule, not conquest: the horse is for conquest, not a reign. The Lord Jesus is here seen putting forth His power to put down His enemies; as in Revelation 20 we have the picture of His reign.

Next, "His eyes were as a flame of fire." That is, there is divine discernment in judging. "And on his head were many diadems" or royal crowns. And he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself" (verse 12). It is not merely in a certain conferred glory that He comes forth, but in the exercise of His own divine power. It is quite true that He has a name given to Him, as we see in Phil. 2. "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." But here it seems not to be that name of Lord which we all confess, but one "which no man knew but he himself." He has a glory that is essentially His own, distinct from that which was His reward and incapable of being shared with others; a glory which He has in His own right as a divine person. The name of the Lord here appears to express this, what He really is in His own nature. So, speaking of His person, it is said in Matt. 11, "No man knoweth the Son but the Father." And it is remarkable how this is stated, in order to guard against the workings of our minds. Wherever there is a question of His Son, God is ever jealous about it. When speaking about the Father it is added, "and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him;" but it is not said that the Father reveals the Son to any one. "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father" — and there we stop. May we not say that thus God guards against the familiarity with which man would venture to analyze the person of Christ? There is nothing so offensive to God as this irreverence. The humanity and the humiliation of the Lord Jesus Christ are brought out plainly in scripture.

But there is no person in the Trinity whose divine glory is more strongly maintained than the Son's — perhaps none so much. It is remarkable that while the same sort of expression is used about God as such in Rom. 1: 25, and about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in 2 Cor. 11: 31, as about Christ in Rom. 9: 6, yet there is a further expression about the Lord Jesus that is not used about the Father. God the Father is said to be blessed for evermore, and Christ "God over all blessed for evermore." The Holy Spirit knew that man was prepared to outrage the person and envy the glory of the Son, and foresaw that, even where they professed to know Him, He would be crucified afresh and put to open shame. Therefore it is that there is no one thing the Holy Ghost more insists upon, than the glory of the Lord Jesus, as indeed He is the constant object of the enemy's attacks. It is the true key to almost every question of doctrinal difficulty one meets among the children of God. Whenever our souls are firmly fixed on God's thought of glorifying Him, all the power of Satan will be used to hinder in vain. When Christ's person and will are fully seen, difficulty, whatever it may be, is at an end. And so with our practical dilemmas also: the moment we catch the connection with Christ, the difficulty is clean gone. Satan would hinder our having anything to do with Christ about it. He shuts out the glory and the word of Christ from our eyes; and when that is the case, we are ready to fall into any snare: for the same blinding power that destroys a worldly man darkens and hinders the Christian.

But to return. We next hear that the Lord "was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood" (verse 13). It is not now suffering but avenging. He is coming to execute righteousness and takes His well-known title in revealing God to us. "The Word of God" had been peculiarly the name when the subject was the manifestation of grace and truth which He used for bringing us round Himself, and putting us in His own position. Here He is the Word of God as manifesting divine judgment. I do not think the Holy Ghost refers to that name in the verse before. It appears to me that the name written which no man knew but He Himself is purposely left in obscurity, that we may not forget the perfect, divine and essential glory of the Son of God.

Now we learn that the Lord for judgment did not come alone. When He came out of the opened heaven, there were armies that followed. "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean" (verse 14). And observe, that the words, "which were," though they are printed in italics, are rightly inserted. The sense would be substantially the same whether you read it with those words or not; and therefore the English translators, seeing that it ought to be understood, but not knowing that it was really a part of the text, inserted the phrase in italics; but it ought to be adopted. "The armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." I have no doubt that angels will be in the train of Christ, for in some other parts of scripture angels are mentioned as coming with Him, and not saints, as for instance in 2 Thess. 1: 7. In this passage saints are mentioned and not angels. Such is the way of the Lord. He does not state things as man does. He has always a moral object in view, and therefore just brings out that part of the truth which bears on the particular subject in hand. Thus in Matt. 25, where the Son of man is seen seated upon the throne of His glory, all the holy angels are mentioned as being with Him. And why? Because the angels have a special connection with Him as the Head of human glory. (See Matt. 13: 41; 16: 27; Luke 9: 22.) If the Queen of England were setting out upon some great political occasion, she would be accompanied by ministers of state. But if she were going to visit her army, those officials need not be there; but she would require the presence of the great military authorities. If this is so among the things of men, much more is there a suitable order in the things of God. The Lord is called the Son of man in reference to His glory as connected with the earth: and when He takes the world under His government, He has got His angels whom He employs as the messengers of His power. But He is not called here "Son of man," but "the Word of God," and angels are not mentioned in connection with that name. As the Word of God, Christ makes Him known. Here He expresses God in the way of judgment. He had shown Him in the way of grace; as we have in the Gospel of John. Thus the Lord Jesus is the expression of all God's ways, whether in perfect grace or perfect judgment.

Here then, the armies that followed Him out of heaven are saints.* This very chapter decides the question, it seems to me; because in the eighth verse, the fine linen with which they are clothed (and it is the same word that is used) is said to be the righteousnesses of saints. Others might be there, but could not well be mentioned where the Lord is described as the Word of God. Whereas the mention of the hosts of heavenly saints is very important; and for this reason: the chapter gives us the deeper connection of the saints with Christ. You have the bride of Christ, the marriage of the Lamb, and the consummation of the church's joy in heaven. As far as the world is concerned, no stranger intermeddles with that joy.

*It is difficult to say how Mr. E. understands this. He asks, parenthetically (Horae Apoc. vol. iv. p, 53), "were they not his saints, 'the called and chosen and faithful?'" But in what condition? Were they already changed? Or are they still imagined to be in the separate state? It does not appear, that I can perceive, what his judgment, as to this important question, may be. We know, from p. 50, he infers that no translation of the living saints, or the resurrection of the saints departed this life, will have taken place up to the time figured by the chorus of song at the beginning of our chapter, and this became the scenery of the in-most temple, with its throne and seated Divinity, and the elders and living creatures attendant near it, the mystical representatives of the expectant church in Paradise, remain still figured in the vision as before. That is, he deduces consequences from the most unreasonable assumption, which he had stated, though hesitatingly, in commenting on Revelation 4, 5, that the crowned and enthroned and complete heads of heavenly priesthood mean that portion of Christians who are gone, to be with Christ, separate spirits, not glorified men. This error arises from denying the transitional period, filled with the most momentous changes, which spans the interval between the coming of the Lord to gather His saints to Himself, and the appearing of His coming which destroys the lawless one and all his company. (Compare 2 Thess. 2: 1 and 8.) Is it meant, I ask, that at the marriage of the Lamb, when the Lambs wife had made herself ready, there was no more than spirits separate from the body 9 To me all this is quite simple, because I firmly believe that what is properly called the church had been translated and in the glorified state ever since Revelation 4. But on Mr. E.'s hypothesis, all seems inextricable confusion. If I catch the meaning of his note 4, vol. iv. p. 203, he dissents from Daubuz, who contends, from the dress of the hosts that followed Christ, that they were the risen saints, now associated with Christ in judgment and afterwards in reigning. But text and notes of Part vi. chap. iv. present hardly any thing but a jumble of times, places, persons, and dealings of God. I am sorry to speak in such strong terms; but the truth should be dearer to us than every other consideration.

But now God is going to put down all the wickedness of man and of Satan on earth. Hence the Word of God comes from heaven; and those that had been the companions of His rejection are now the companions of His judgment. As it is said in Revelation 17: 14, "The Lamb shall overcome them . . . . and they that are with him, called, and chosen, and faithful." There was the announcement that, when the battle came, He would not be alone, but that the saints would be with Him — called by grace, elect, and faithful ones; and accordingly here they are. "The armies which were in heaven followed him, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." They may not be all who will follow, but it is of importance to see that these are saints.

The description proceeds: "Out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he may smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God" (verse 15). This is a simple description of the various judgments that the Lord will execute when He comes. First, there is the word of power set forth by the sharp sword going out of His mouth. If any must be destroyed, it is enough for the Lord Jesus Christ to speak. "He spake and it was done." The judgment was executed. But besides, "He shall rule them with a rod of iron." This is the judgment which is referred to in Revelation 2, where there is a promise to those of Thyatira who overcome, that they shall have fellowship with Christ in this judgment of the nations. "And he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." This is the unsparing judgment that we have seen before in Revelation 14. It is vengeance on religious wickedness, which is always reserved for the severest stroke that God can inflict. "And he hath upon his vesture and upon his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords" (verse 16) — the same title that we have seen in Revelation 17: 14.

But while there was an invitation to the marriage supper of the Lamb, there is another and very different supper, the great supper of God. Here it is not the blessed whom God's grace invites. An angel speaks obedient to His word, and the instrument of His power, standing in the sun — the symbol of supreme authority. For it is not now a thing done in a corner. There are no terms of forbearance: all must be thoroughly open. Nor is it now a partial, but a complete and final judgment. "And he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God (for so it should be read); that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great" (verses 17, 18). It is the same sort of contrast, I think, that we may have seen in Rev. 14, where we had the first-fruits at the beginning of the chapter, and afterwards the harvest before the chapter closes. Here you have the supper of the Lamb above; and the great supper of God that He will make for those that prey on the remains of the dead.

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet,* that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image" (verses 19, 20). You will observe that one is here called the false prophet. He has apparently lost his world-power, and is therefore not presented now as the second beast rising from the earth with lamb-like horns (i.e., the imitator of Christ's power); He is the false prophet simply. Whatever dominion he had is now merged, and he is seen in his ecclesiastical character, as a teacher of lies in the capacity of foe to God's truth. Babylon was gone, but there was still this wicked ecclesiastical power who had wrought with the beast, and both now meet with the same tremendous judgment at the hand of God. "These both were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone."

*Mr. Birks seems to be, I will not say accurate, but less under the influence of human system and bias than most of the Protestant school. Thus, in his Two Later Visions of Daniel, p. 337, he admits that it may be inferred, from a careful comparison of several scriptures, that at this time the temple described in Ezekiel will have been built, and that then this fierce and mighty king will seat himself as a sovereign, and claim to be the object of a divine adoration." I doubt as to the identity with Ezekiel's temple, but this is a question of detail. Again in the following page he says, "The Papacy, denoted by the wilful king, in its last hour will fill up the measure of its apostacy, and gather to itself those partial features of antichrist, which are now to be seen in the Mahometan delusion, and its open rejection of the Son of God. At the same time, a leader will arise, the last personal head of the compound system of evil, and the heathen Antiochus, the Pope, and the Turk contribute to supply the features of his iniquity. The wilful king in this last stage of his power, and represented now by this leader, will gather on himself the predicted character of a king of the north, and then come down like a whirlwind on the land of Israel." Here there is the most palpable confusion of the two opposed chiefs, the wilful king in the Holy Land, and the northern king who assails him there. But I cite the passage to show that fair-minded men, spite of preconception, are obliged to admit the all-importance of the future crisis in Judea.

There had been two men singled out from all others for special mercy and glory. One was in the early antediluvian world, when it was fast coming to its close. "He walked with God, and was not, for God took him." And when the world had grown older in sin, and God's separated people had far departed from Him, God did interpose again, and would show that there are no times, however evil, when His servants may not walk with Him. Thus, when Israel was altogether debased in sin, and God had put His servant in the midst of that wicked and corrupt and apostate people Israel; then and there it was that Elijah gave his testimony, and he too, without dying, was chosen of God to be taken up to heaven.

And here, in most miserable contrast, we find two singled out from all others, — two men as remarkable for Satan, as Enoch and Elijah had been for God. And these men, the heads of their respective powers of wickedness (the open blaspheming power of the beast; and the more intriguing, corrupting energy of the false prophet, who had specially set himself against the Lord Jesus Christ), are found together. If God had interposed to show signal mercy in bringing alive to heaven, so now God interposes to send alive down to hell. They had been leaders in evil; they had worn down the saints and overcome them before men. Now their day comes — "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him." — "These both were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone!"

The Lord judges their followers too, but not with so terrible a doom. They remain to be judged another day — they must stand and appear before God. Meanwhile they "are slain with the sword of Him that sat upon the horse: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." But as for the twain, God required as it were nothing more: they were the worst leaders of the world's lawlessness, and therefore judgment takes its course summarily and for ever. I know of no judgment so tremendous in scripture as that these men, untried, should be cast into hell before Satan himself! Yet the goats or Gentile rebels in Matt. 25 approach it.

And, solemn thought! the time is fast approaching. It is difficult to realize that such will soon be the doom of the rulers of these western lands. They will be found gathered for battle near Jerusalem. For, as Christendom began with Jerusalem, so the last and terrible end of Christendom will be there. As the Roman empire will reappear, so there will be found a chief of its political power sustaining and sustained by the religious chief of the east. Such is the crisis which, as God shows plainly in His word, awaits the world. And I have the firm conviction, without pretending to fix the time that the train is being laid even now. Thus we see the remarkable prominence which in our day is given to the east, and its growing connection with the west. These are facts before our eyes; but it is well known to many readers that these same things have been affirmed years before any of these facts had taken place.* They were stated with the same confidence as now, and to some of those who may read these pages. Thus what is going on in the world comes in as a remarkable confirmation of prophecy. It is not the circumstances which enable us to judge aright; but taking the word of God alone, we may have a full persuasion in our souls. For whether we see the events or not, no man ever believed the word of God and was ashamed. "The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision."

*This was written above fifteen years since. I need hardly add what fresh and strong evidence is furnished by the late war (and peace) in Italy.

The Lord grant that we may remember that there will be a power of deceit in the world that will carry men away! Men may fancy that they will discern and reject the beast and the false prophet. This only shows that they have very little idea of the influence and working of Satan. His most dangerous power lies now, not in that which looks outwardly bad, but in what seems quiet and fair. Thus is it still, as it was when Christ was here. The man possessed with a legion of demons received deliverance and blessing. But what did the Gadarenes do? They besought the Lord to depart out of their coasts.

Let me ask you, do you not prefer something to Christ? You may not show active enmity to His name. You may hear the gospel: but have you received it? If not, you are rejecting it. God does not allow one to say, there is something to be done first. He has done everything. Therefore, it comes to be a question of positive rejection — bidding Christ depart. The Lord grant that such may not be your present guilt and eternal misery!

Revelation 20

The first three verses of this chapter are closely connected with the one that goes before. For there we see the judgment of the beast and the false prophet, and of their adherents. Here we have what God saw fit to inflict for the present upon the real unseen leader of all the mischief — the devil. But there is this difference, that it is not Christ who deals with Satan. It was the shining forth of His coming that destroyed the beast and the false prophet. They were taken and were both cast alive into the lake of fire. And so we learn in Revelation 20: 10, when Satan's turn came for being cast there also, it is into that lake where the beast and the false prophet already were, and where they shall be tormented for ever and ever. But it was not yet the time for the last and most terrible judgment of Satan. God's trial of the world was not quite over, and therefore, perhaps, God did not interfere by Christ in person, but through an angel. Before Christ inflicts the last crushing blow upon Satan, an angel is employed to limit his power and liberty for a certain period. This is what we have here. Satan is restrained for a thousand years; and the risen saints judge the world.

Many persons have raised difficulties as to this chapter, as indeed to all the rest of the book, on the ground of the figurative language. But no objection could be less reasonable; for figurative or symbolic language is used in scripture from the first book to the last. So that if you neglect one part of God's word on this ground, you are in danger of slighting all. It is the commonest thing possible. Take the language of God Himself in Eden, the words which the Holy Ghost used for the comfort and salvation of souls from the day that man was fallen by sin. Even there we find that God used highly metaphorical language.

But if a soul was needy, and through grace desired to understand God, there was always a sure way. God waited patiently, and taught and led on His children. No doubt there was room for growth; but then there was room for unbelief too, and the evil heart could readily find difficulties to stumble over. But faith always finds out the way to understand God. Not but that there are things hard to such as we are; yet faith pursues its narrow path through obstacles and dangers, because God has said, "they shall be all taught of God." Nevertheless, the language in which God was pleased to pronounce judgment on the enemy and to intimate a Redeemer was so figurative, that an unbelieving Jew like Josephus could pervert it and apply it merely to the natural dislike that men have to serpents, and their desire to get rid of them wherever found! Of course such a notion sprang from not understanding the mind of God, and the Jewish historian was ignorant of scripture and of the power of God.

And remember that I do not use the word "ignorant" here to describe the lack of human learning, any more than scripture does, when it says of certain persons that "they are unlearned and unstable." They might be as wise as Plato and prudent as Aristotle, but they were not learned in God's will and in the knowledge of His mind. This is the learning that we should value and cultivate — a thing that never can be gleaned in the schools of this world. On the contrary, if a man prosecute human learning as a means of understanding the things of God, he is sure to go astray, because this per se is never from the Holy Ghost. Doubtless he who has got human learning may make use of it for God. But the great point is, that the man of God must make learning and everything that is of man to be his servant; whereas the mind of man, as such, makes learning his master and becomes its slave. Hence the danger of all such things proving positive hindrances, even to the Christian, save so far as he is led by the Spirit of God. The only possible way of understanding God's word is by subjection to the Holy Ghost; and the test is Christ, because the object of the Spirit is to exalt Him. Therefore it is that you never can separate growth in the things of God from the moral state of the soul. It is true that a man who has learned a great deal of truth may slip into a bad state of soul: but, in general, sound knowledge of the things of God and a wise gracious application of the truth flow from communion with God.

I have made these few remarks not doubting that many of my readers know them to be true from their own experience; but some perhaps may learn from them why they make small progress in the things of God. The true way is to seek the glory of Christ. Where a man is bent upon this, he must learn, no doubt; but all is open and clear before him, because he is in the current of the Holy Ghost, whose office is to take of the things of Jesus and to show them unto us. "When he is come . . . . he shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you:" for Christ, not man, is the aim and end of the Spirit.

Doubtless, as to the earliest book of the Bible, Genesis, all will acknowledge it to be a perfect model of perspicuity. It is the most simple book, containing profound truth, that ever was written. In this book where God was putting us in His nursery school, yet what do we find? Not seldom bold and figurative language. Hence, if I am to give up the scriptures because of figures, I must give them up from Genesis to Revelation.

The revelation of the woman's Seed that was to bruise the serpent's head was the very word on which salvation hung; the blessed truth that faith laid hold of at all times. Take a case. Abel's faith, that expressed itself in the offering which he brought, was grounded upon this word. He believed that the Lord Jesus was coming (though he did not yet know that name), who would be bruised in order to destroy the serpent — One who would suffer, whose heel would be bruised, though eventually He would crush the bruiser.

This shows that faith is a very distinct thing from the ability to explain the figures of a passage, the general sense and certainty of which may yet be clearly seen. So much so that even now, if you were to take a Christian and ask him to explain all the particulars of that verse — what was meant by the Seed of the woman and that of the serpent, the enmity between them and the bruising of the head and of the heel, though he might be perfectly certain that it speaks of Christ, and might understand the general meaning of all, yet he would find a great deal of difficulty in explaining what each thing meant. But there lies the blessedness of God's word, that people are not saved by having clear thoughts on the obscure; but God knows how to direct every soul that is saved to the right object. Their hearts rest upon a Christ who has suffered for them and completely destroyed the destroyer. They may not be able to bring out their thoughts clearly to others; but the faith of the taught knows the truth perhaps as well as the teacher, though the latter alone can develop it with convincing plainness. This shows that even where God employs these figures, the general thought is sufficiently plain. To expound them by words might be an insuperable difficulty to the soul that has no question of the general sense.

Here an angel comes down out of heaven. This angel, in the prophetic vision, has the key of the abyss and a great chain hanging on his hand (verse 1). He is seen laying hold of "the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan," the well-known enemy of God and man; and then follows the use of the key and the chain, the key for shutting him up and the chain for binding him fast. Obviously these are figures, but they are familiar to the simplest mind. There is no one, however ignorant about some things, who need misunderstand what is meant. The Spirit of God takes advantage of the commonest things of every-day life to describe an act of judgment that is about to be accomplished in His providence by and by. God intends to restrain Satan, and will not suffer his going about to deceive the world as he does now; but it will be only for a season (verses 2, 3). He is not thrown into the lake of fire at once, but is a prisoner in the bottomless pit, which is the expression of the place, under the control of Satan ordinarily, that will then be made the place of his confinement. (Compare Revelation 9, 11 and 17.)

It is certain from God's word that Satan is not yet shut up on the contrary, that he goes about now seeking to deceive and to destroy souls. The New Testament always supposes this. It is perfectly clear that Satan is an enemy still at large; that he is active in his rebellion against God, in the falsehood that he spreads among men, and in the death and ruin that he causes everywhere. But this is to close when, for a certain limited time, the earth will be freed from his deceits. This is all that I need to draw from the passage. I am not going to discuss whether the thousand years are to be taken literally or mystically; for this is a question of detail and decree only. But beyond a doubt the period has a beginning and has an end; nor can it have begun yet, because Satan is not bound. The New Testament epistles suppose that Satan still carries on his devices hinders the work of God, has to be resisted, and is going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. So that there must be a vast change when the time comes for his restraint. And God will have to cast His people upon other parts of His word, which would not apply to the past or the present. The saints then will be in many respects in a totally different state, In that day Christ will be reigning over the earth, having it under His direct control; and assuredly the change will be incalculably great. Satan too will be bound, and God's people then will not require the same discipline through the word of God as those do now who have to encounter the assaults of Satan and his accusations. God will deal with them according to the condition in which they will be placed, and for which His word provides.

Allow me to repeat that it is chiefly the influence of prejudice, with which persons approach the book of the Revelation, that makes it appear so difficult. People say that so many good men have made mistakes in interpreting it, that there is no sure way for the simple to take it up profitably. But this is to the dishonour of God; for He has given the book to be understood by His people at large, peculiarly commending it to His servants. Special promises of blessing He attaches to such as read, hear, and keep it, foreseeing the delusion abroad with regard to its obscurity. But why is it the devil's object to hinder people from reading this book? Why is it that, in what are called Christian churches, every other part of the Bible is read, while the book of Revelation is scarcely looked at? Even the Apocrypha is read by some, while of the "true sayings of God" only a few fragments here and there are used for public services. The reason is because there is no book in the Bible that Satan fears more, and justly too. It announces first his sure humiliation by angelic power, and then his destruction afterwards. Other books show his partial temporary successes; this dwells on his overthrow, and therefore must he dread it. Again, if you have here the account of God's putting down Satan, you have also very fully brought out the awful height of power to which he rises before the end. For the divine principle is never to judge evil until it has rejected all the patience of God, abused His goodness, and become thoroughly unbearable. Had Christians felt that Satan's object was to conceal his own wiles, and power, and ruin, by leading them to neglect this book, they might have been more on their guard. But this is the last thing he wants people to suspect; for then they at once get upon the ground where the Spirit of God can lead them on; whereas, if they assume that the book is so dark as to be, practically unintelligible, they are so far exposed to his delusion, though God is faithful, who will not suffer them to be tempted above that they are able.

In the next verse we get another thing, the portion of the blessed. What will Christ be doing, and what they who are with Him, now that the victory is won? "And I saw thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them" (verse 4). The heads, civil and ecclesiastical, of the evil in the world had been summarily judged; the hidden source of all was next set aside "till the thousand years should be finished." But now the Lord Jesus has taken the kingdom of the world. Still the object here is not so much to show us Christ's reign, because this was a familiar truth, found throughout all scripture, and one that was well known to the Old Testament saints; and so habitually were they waiting for the Messiah, and so prevalent was the expectation of His kingdom, even in the mass of unconverted Israel, that Satan took advantage of it to make men refuse the grace of Christ coming in humiliation. Here His reigning is of course implied, as the central pivot of the blessing; but His people, or at least His sufferers, are specified with the utmost clearness.

This then may be one reason why prominence is here given to those who reign with Christ. God felt deeply for His saints. They were under keen trial and temptation. He takes pains to show that, if they had suffered, they were also to reign with Him. And therefore, as it seems to me, it is not there said, I saw a great throne, but "I saw thrones."* As the Lord Jesus Christ Himself had said to the disciples, "In my Father's house are many mansions." He does not speak of one peculiar mansion there for Himself, but He says, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." Was it not in the same spirit that the prophet here had the vision of these thrones? And they were not vacant. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." They were now to exercise judgment.

*Daubuz notices another distinction well worthy of remark, but in a way which needs correction. "These thrones, whose number is not defined [as in Rev. 4], are to be very carefully distinguished from the twenty-four thrones here mentioned." (Perp. Comm. p. 925.) So say I; but when he goes on to teach that the state of the Christian church and its primitive and militant institution were signified by the enthroned elders, I reject such an explanation, as do almost all Christians. Yet that there is a notable difference between that state of things and the millennial one before us now is manifest. The only satisfactory solution, I am satisfied, depends on the rapture of the heavenly saints, previous to the fulfilment of Revelation 4, and the interval spent before they appear with Christ in glory, as we ace in Revelation 19, 20.

Evidently this is an accomplishment of the word in 1 Cor. 6. The apostle there, addressing the saints at Corinth, says, "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" And here they are judging the world. But more than that. The Lord had said to the twelve apostles, "Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Many persons think that this will only be fulfilled in heaven. But there can be no such state of things there. The twelve tribes are not above. They are only known as such upon earth. Here below they will be found as an object of government; and so the prophets speak. What will there be for saints to judge in heaven? When the glorified are there, where will be the men to judge above? All will be blessed there. These will have passed out of the scene of judgment.

It is plain therefore that this scene is one that cannot apply to heaven: and that it supposes the earth as a sphere of judgment. Those in question reign over the earth. I say, "over the, earth," for there is no reason to believe that this world will be the home of the risen saints of God. They may visit it from time to time, as we know the Lord Himself will; but their proper dwelling-place will not be the earth. Even now our blessing is in heavenly places in Christ; much more evidently will it be when we are glorified. The blessing is heavenly in its source, character, and sphere. But while we shall thus have blessing in heavenly places, the earth will be the lower and subject province — full of interest and glory to God, but a comparatively outside domain. Just as a man who owns an estate may have a grand family seat in it; but this does not hinder his having property outside, which he must leave his house in order to see. And so it will be hereafter. The glory above will be the rest and centre of the heavenly saints; but besides that they will judge the earth.* Accordingly it is written here, "I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given unto them." They were the destined assessors of the Lord in judging or government.

*There is no doubt that the earliest Christian writers show that a personal millennial reign of Christ was the early prevalent doctrine. But truth needs no exaggeration. It is painful that such a man as Mede (Works, book iii. p. 683, 4th edition) should have insisted on interpolating a negative in the statement of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. § 80), where the father, after confessing the faith of himself and many others in a future rebuilding of Jerusalem and the literal reign and blessedness of risen saints with Christ, admits on the other hand that there are many holding the true and godly doctrine of Christians who do not acknowledge it. The fact is that there is not the slightest manuscript authority for the insertion, and the internal evidence is, in my opinion, decidedly against it. Thirlby has very properly pointed out that Justin distinguishes between two sets of the orthodox, as may be seen by comparing the close of the same section: one of them, in all respects (κατὰ πάντα) right minded, has no doubt about the millennial reign, etc.; the rest were sound in general, but opposed to chiliasm. Nevertheless, Mede's οὐ has been allowed by many in England from Tillotson down to Mr. Bickersteth, and Daillè's μή (De Poenis et Satisfact. p. 493) has found favour abroad till recently. Even Mr. Jenour (Rat. Apoc. vol. ii. pp. 318, 319) continues to cite the passage in its corrupted form, and without remark.

But that was not all. "And [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God." Mark the word "souls." It is strictly correct. There are many who, in the main agreeing that this vision represents a judgment exercised by heavenly saints over men upon earth, understand the "souls" spoken of here to mean persons according to a common usage of scripture. But I do not believe that this is the true explanation. Why not take the word "souls" here as meaning those who were in the separate state? Thus, the apostle John saw in the vision, first, thrones with persons seated upon them; secondly, a certain number of disembodied people, the souls of them that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God; and besides, thirdly, a class of those "the which had not worshipped the beast nor yet his image, and had not received his mark upon their forehead, or in their hand." Had he meant persons in their ordinary state, he might have said, I saw the souls that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, etc.; but not "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded." Just as it was said of Jacob, "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt . . . . all the souls were threescore and six." It is not said there "all the souls of them," or "of the people that came," etc. (Compare Rev. 6: 9.)

Here, then, John beheld in the vision some that were already risen from the dead and seated upon thrones. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them." The reference seems purposely general, and implies "the armies" previously described (Revelation 19: 14). Those who followed the Lord from heaven to war are now His companions in His government of the earth. Next, he saw a company "that had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God." These were not yet raised from the dead, but were still in the condition of separate spirits. And there was a third class — persons who had not worshipped the beast, nor submitted to his pretensions in any form or degree. The two last were distinct but connected classes of people, who when first seen were in the separate state. "And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." That is, they were reunited to their bodies; for this of course is what is meant by "they lived." It might have been thought that they had missed their blessing, or at least the privilege of reigning with Christ during the thousand years. There were thrones, and persons in their risen bodies who already occupied them. What then was to become of those who, after the removal of the former to heaven, were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and who were not till long after raised from the dead? What was to be the portion not only of these, but of the last class that at a still later day refused to worship the beast or receive his mark? "They lived." They are now seen, just before the reign, united to their bodies; and, together with those that had been previously raised and already seen enthroned, they reigned with Christ a thousand years.*

*"I cannot consent (says Dean Alford) to distort the words from their plain sense and chronological place in the prophecy, on account of any considerations of difficulty, or any risk of abuses which the doctrine of the millennium may bring with it. Those who lived next to the Apostles, and the whole church for 300 years, understood them in the plain literal sense; and it is a strange sight in these days to see expositors, who are among the first in reverence of antiquity, complacently casting aside the most cogent instance of consensus which primitive antiquity presents. As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκροί only at the end of a specified period after that first, — if, in ἔζησαν such a passage, the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave; then there is an end of all significance in language, and scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. If the first resurrection is spiritual, then so is the second, which I suppose none will be hardy enough to maintain; but if the second is literal, so is the first, which, in common with the whole primitive church and many of the best modern expositors, I do maintain, and receive as an article of faith and hope." (Vol. iv. part ii.) I have only to add, as to "chronological place," that as the sitters on thrones, or first group in this vision, are not represented as souls, so they are not meant to be included in "they lived." Their living and destiny to reign with Christ was plain enough from their session on thrones. Of the subsequent martyrs, and the confessors in the final crisis, it is now said, these join the others in resurrection, and share the reign just beginning.

Thus we have a bright and interesting light thrown by and on the Revelation. For there are passages in it which this verse helps to clear up; while they, on the other hand, throw light back on a verse which is not intelligible unless these distinctions are seen.

Let us consider yet a little more the different classes here spoken of. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them." Evidently these first objects are introduced most abruptly. We are not told where they came from, nor who they were — probably because the Holy Ghost takes for granted. that we know enough about them through the previous statements of the book. Just before they had come out of the opened heaven. (Rev. 19.) When the rider on the white horse, the Lord Jesus, came out as a man of war, the armies that were there followed Him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure. I have already tried to prove that these were the saints who had been already taken up to heaven, and ever and anon shown to be there from the commencement of Revelation 4. They were seen then and repeatedly afterwards under the symbol of the twenty-four crowned elders. It will hardly be disputed that these elders represent the heavenly saints. I do not pretend to decide whether it is the church exclusively or not. Very likely both the church and the Old Testament saints are included; but one thing at least is very clear, that heavenly saints are meant. They follow Christ out of heaven when He comes to make war with the beast, etc.; and now, when Christ takes His throne, when He is not merely seen on a white horse going forth to conquer and subdue, but He takes the throne to reign triumphantly, they too are seen on thrones along with Him. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them."

Every believer knows that in some sense Christ is to sit on His throne and to judge; but some might think that it was too high a place for Christians to be on thrones with Him; while others, who have etherealized into mist the direct meaning of the mass of scriptures that treat of the hopes of the saints and the prospects of the world, imagine that they will be merely in the vague distance of heaven, enjoying everlasting happiness with Christ, but having nothing whatever to do with the earth. For my own part, I do not believe that governing the world is by any means the highest part of the saint's glory; but it will be an important element of Christ's glory, and therefore surely not beneath the church. None can overlook or deny this without loss to their soul. When rightly held, it has no little practical influence. For if I am to judge the world then, God would not have me meddling with the world now. This was the very argument that the apostle Paul used when blaming the Corinthian believers, because they went before the judgment-seat of men. It is beneath the Christian calling. Of course, I do not mean by this in any way to slight the powers that be. A Christian ought to be ready any day and in all things to show them respect. He can afford to be the humblest man in the world, because he is the highest one. He has got a better exaltation that will shine most when this world has come to nothing. What a wonderful thing that we are anointed kings now, before the actual glory dawns, like David, who was consecrated king long before, as a fact, he was exalted to the kingdom! The holy, royal oil was upon him, even when he was hunted about by king Saul upon the mountains. So, in a yet higher sense, we too are anointed by the Holy Ghost, and this not only that we may be able to enter into the things of God, but as made kings and priests to God. Hence God looks for us not only to offer spiritual worship to Him now, but under all circumstances to preserve the sense of our dignity as His kings. (Compare 1 Peter 2: 5, 9.) The world may mock and call us fanatics, but the world has done worse to God Himself. Alas! evil communications corrupt good manners; and Christians have fallen from the truth that is according to godliness as to this.

They have sought to have the world and Christ too. People may object that at best it is a hope so purely future as to have no present bearing. But the Spirit of God addresses us as possessing this treasure now, as having in principle all that Christ is going to display in us in His kingdom by and by. Hence we are responsible to God to walk in the faith of it now. It was so in the highest way in the Lord Jesus Christ. He knew that he was a king; and when Satan came and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, offering to five them to Him if He fell down and worshipped him, the Lord utterly rejected all. But Satan, as it were, repeated the offer to the church, and she at length accepted it. In seeking the glory of the world, she has sought honour where Satan is the prince. Can any man read his Bible and not own the truth of this? What did the Lord Jesus do when men wanted to make Him a king? He departed from them. When He stood before Pilate, He admitted that He was a king, but said, "My kingdom is not of this world . . . . Now is my kingdom not from hence." By and by it will be. "The kingdom of the world shall become our Lord's and his Christ's." And when it passes into His hands, the reign of Christians will begin. His people will share the kingdom along with Him. Hence faith waits for this: and meanwhile we are put to the test now, "as having nothing, and yet possessing all things."

To some it will appear presumption to claim such a privilege now. But not so. It is faith, and its fruit is growing separation from the world. The principle is the thing of value. For if a man only strive for the simplest thing in this world that is an object to him, — for some present (even if it be a petty) distinction, there is the trace of the enemy's work. God looks for holy separateness from the world in all" His saints: they are not of the world, even as Christ is not of it. Let it only be in proportion to a man's spirituality and intelligence. Thus, when a Christian begins his path of faith, God does not say to him all at once, You must cut off this and renounce that; He leaves room for the exercise of grace and progress in truth. In the day that salvation came to the house of Zaccheus, the Lord said not a word of his odious position in the world as a Jewish tax-gatherer. Nor are we told, in the case of Cornelius, that he must forthwith give up his place as a centurion of the Italian band; because the whole blessedness of God's ways would be destroyed by laying down and enforcing rules in that fashion. The church is not governed by a code of formalities. She is led on by the power of the Spirit of God according to His word. Just as with a child; when of tender years he speaks as a child, understands as a child, and thinks as a child. One could not wish babes to assume the ways of adults. So it is with spiritual children. The Lord does not look for such to be occupied with the things of men and fathers in Christ. He leaves room for growth in grace. Now, if a man is in a bad state, he takes advantage of grace, and asks, Is there any harm in this? Is there any command for that? Sometimes a soul only refrains from evil doings, in the thought that if he persists he is in danger of being lost. But what God values is simple-hearted obedience; the doing God's will because it is His will, because it is delight to do His will, because it glorifies Him. He saves us by His grace, and saves us so as not to see a single fault in us. And now He says, If I have saved you and put you in such sureness and perfection of blessing before me, the thing that I look for is your heart, its confidence in my love and wisdom, your worship and your obedience.

But God also gives us the knowledge of the coming kingdom that we are to share with Christ our Lord. It is well to remember that the Spirit of God does not bring about the kingdom. Not He, but the Lord Jesus only is the king. Thus Christ's presence is essential to the kingdom, at least in the full manifested sense. It would be a kingdom without a king, if Christ were not personally there; and therefore it is said, "They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Christ Himself was present, and He is the centre of all glory, and blessing, and joy. In Rev. 19 we had Christ and them coming out of heaven in judgment, and thereon in Rev. 20 the kingdom is established in peace over the earth.

This may answer the first question, as to who they are whom John first saw sitting on the thrones, and of course in risen bodies. They are heavenly saints, including (if not exclusively) the church. The next question is, Who are those whose souls were seen not at first united to their bodies? The answer is plain. If Rev. 4, 5 show us glorified saints under the symbol of the twenty-four elders, and corresponding with those first mentioned in our verse, Rev. 6 lets us into another scene. It tells us that there will be saints called to suffer after that, whose souls John then saw under the altar. They had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held, and they call upon God to judge and avenge their blood on them that dwell on the earth. Who are these saints that appeal to God's vengeance? It is not the church in this case, one can answer with the utmost confidence. It could not be indeed; for the church had been already removed to heaven. But, besides, is the church ever said, in scripture, to call upon God to judge and avenge the blood of saints shed on the earth? It would falsify the very design of God in the church, and in the individual Christian too. We are the epistle of Christ, called expressly to show out His glory in Christ, and His grace towards the world ever since the cross. And as God has allowed men to put to death His own Son, and, so far from judging the guilt, has only made it an occasion for showing more grace still, so the church is called to suffer, and if need be even to death, for His name's sake, without such a thought or wish as calling for vengeance.

Take a plain and signal example of this in Stephen. He was most grievously trodden down. they cast him out of the city and stoned him. But he kneels down and cries, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." It was with a loud voice too, for it was not a thing that his heart did not feel earnestly; and the Holy Ghost desired that those who were round him should know his heart's desire about them, guilty as they were of his blood. Was this calling upon God to avenge his blood? The very contrary; and so all through. Look at the apostles Peter and John, who when they were beaten depart from the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus. Look again at the first Epistle of Peter; and what do you find there? This is the principle: "If when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called."

On the other hand, the world could not go on for a day on such a around as this; it must go to pieces, if evil were not to be punished, and those who did well and suffered wrongfully were merely to give thanks. But such exhortations were not intended for the world. And there is the mistake so often made. Men forget that the church was called to be a witness of heaven — was meant to express the mind and grace of Christ, while walking upon the earth. This is our "one thing" — our business here below. Of course, this need not hinder the providing things honest in the sight of all men. It is right for the Christian to do this, but let him weigh well how he does it. Our behaviour in the most ordinary employment should be a testimony to this — that we are not of the world; that we look not for honour and credit in the world, but to glorify Christ in heaven; that instead of seeking to help on the plans of men, and to be an ornament in the world, our mission is to make Him known to it, and to do His will during the little while we are here.

But to return. We have seen that, though the enthroned elders are in heaven (Rev. 4, 5), there are afterwards saints on earth, new witnesses who are called to suffer unto death for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus; but who, when they die, cry for God to avenge their blood on their enemies. Nor is that wrong in them, though it would be foreign to us, because it is not the will of God concerning us. But when God has formed the church, and, after it has been taken to heaven, has raised up fresh witnesses for Himself on earth, He will begin to deal with the world judicially Himself. And therefore when these holy sufferers cry to God against their adversaries, they will have communion with Him; and this is what faith always seeks — communion with God in what He is actually doing or about to do. God does not thus interfere to judge the world now, and therefore His saints should not ask Him, as these do, to judge and avenge. God now endures in perfect patience the wickedness of the world; and therefore a Christian should rather ask God to turn His long-suffering into salvation for souls. But when Rev. 6 is being fulfilled, God will pour down judgment upon judgment; and the witnesses for God in that day will ask God to judge, and rightly. They take up the language of the Psalms, in general so misunderstood and misapplied now, but then most appropriate and prophetically provided of God.

This shows then, that there is to be a very different state of things after the church has been taken away. God begins then to act in the way of judgment, and those whose hearts are converted, and who desired His glory, will be in great darkness compared with the church. Still, their godly testimony will be intolerable to the powers of the world, who will spill their blood like water. The sufferers will cry to God for judgment, and He will hear them. Look at Revelation 6: 9, 10, 11: "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." Observe how this agrees with the two classes mentioned in Revelation 20: 4: "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God." For mark the answer. They cry, "How long, O Master, holy and true," etc. "And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them that they should rest yet for a little while, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." When the earlier sufferers, after the removal of the church, had been called out and slain, they were told of another and subsequent class who should be killed as they before the full judgment.

This is exactly what we find in our Revelation 20. First, there are those who sit on the thrones, invested with royal judgment; next, there are those who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God; and, thirdly, their brethren who, as it was said in Revelation 6, had yet to be completed. These, when the beast brought out his idolatry, etc., and it was a question of being killed or of worshipping him, refused. . . they were faithful unto death. Well, here they are. "I saw . . . . and those who had not worshipped the beast, nor his image, and had not received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands." Thus the Revelation gives us the full answer, as to these three classes. The twenty-four elders correspond with those who sit on the thrones; the second class are the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, etc., we had in Revelation 6; and then the latter part of the book shows "their brethren that should be killed as they themselves were," and for whom they were told to wait. In Rev. 13: 7, it was said that it was given to the beast to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And move than that The latter half of the chapter supplies another part of the description, and shows us how these saints came to be characterized in Revelation 20 as those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image, neither had received his mark on their forehead, or in their hand. In verse 14 the second beast is said (Rev. 13) to deceive "them that dwell on the earth, on account of those miracles which he had power to do in the presence of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword and did live. And he had power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Now this most clearly pertains to the last or third class. Those referred to in Revelation 14: 12, 13, are probably the same. But again, see Revelation 15: 2: "I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God." Thus the Revelation answers fully the question, Who are these saints? It shows us, first, the risen saints, who had been taken up to heaven, and who come out with Christ. This is one reason why they are seen separate from the two other classes. They are viewed on the thrones at once, because they are already changed into the likeness of Christ's glorious body. But the others are merely seen, up to this moment, as souls, and of course not glorified. We hear of glorified bodies, but never of glorified souls in scripture. The soul of the believer goes to be with Christ after death, but it has to be reunited with the body, before it can be spoken of as in a glorified condition. The only perfect state is, when we shall bear the image of the heavenly; when we shall be raised or changed into His likeness.

If we look at 1 Cor. 15 we shall see that quite plainly. It is said there, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . . . and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible, must," not merely put off corruption, but "put on incorruption, and this mortal" must not merely slip off this mortal coil, as men say, but "put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality"-evidently the glorified state — "then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." Death is not swallowed up in victory when a Christian dies and goes to be with Christ; but when He comes, and the dead are raised, and the living changed. What was done individually in the case of Enoch and Elijah, will be done on a grand scale at His coming. All the living saints then will be changed, and will go to be with the Lord, without passing through death. These, risen or changed, having been taken up to heaven, will come thence with Christ, and are here seen on thrones.

But what next is the history of those saints on earth, who are called after the previous saints have been removed to meet the Lord? The Revelation shows us their sufferings for righteousness' sake and their death. What becomes of them afterwards? The church had been already raised and glorified, and these sufferers are slain before the reign of Christ commences. Are these then, who have so suffered, not to reign? Are they to forfeit their blessings, because they have resisted unto blood, striving against sin? This could never be. "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded . . . . and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." They too are raised from the dead; they join the others already glorified, and all reign together with Christ in "the kingdom."

I apprehend, but I only give it as an opinion, that their resurrection takes place at or about this time. The beast and the false prophet have been put down; Satan has been cast into the abyss, and the millennial reign of Christ and His risen saints is now about to commence. The Lord waits, as it were, for the very last moment. He wants not a soul of His holy sufferers to be left out of this their special reward. The beast had persecuted up to the last, and God delays till that moment, that every one who has suffered with Christ be included in the privilege of being glorified together. If the account of the resurrection had been given when the previously-risen saints were translated to heaven (i.e., before Rev. 4), there might have been doubt and anxiety as to the fate of those who suffer after the church was taken up. One can understand why this notice of resurrection is put here. It was the special object of God to comfort those who subsequently had to suffer and die for Christ, and to show that they would not be forgotten by Him. They are now raised to join the saints already risen; "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." God puts off their resurrection till just before Christ's reign, and then those that had meanwhile suffered for Him are raised up.

"But the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." "The rest of the dead:" — who were they? The beginning of verse 4 includes, as I conceive, not only the church, but the Old Testament saints; that is, all the heavenly saints taken up to be with Christ, when He will have come to receive them unto Himself in the air. Next we had the first band of sufferers before the beast came to the height of his power; and then the last band that suffer because they will refuse to worship him. These were the three classes of saints now alike living and reigning with Christ. "The rest of the dead" must then be the wicked dead, because the first resurrection included all the righteous dead.

It answers, in fact, to what our Lord called "the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14: 14), save that it is more detailed, if not more comprehensive. So then there is a special resurrection that belongs to the just, and this without a word about the unjust. There is a resurrection of the unjust; and when the Apostle Paul spoke in Acts 24 before Felix, he testified to his belief in the resurrection both of just and unjust. But when the Lord Jesus was raising the consciences of his disciples to what was good and of value before God, He set forth the resurrection of the just alone.

But this is not all. There were men trying to bring the doctrine of the resurrection into ridicule.

We find on another occasion that certain of the Sadducees came to Him, putting a difficulty, because of a woman supposed to be married to seven brethren. In the case reasoned on these seven successively died, and last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection then, they ask, whose wife should she be of the seven? The Lord at once points out that the difficulty was founded on ignorance of scripture or of the power of God. In the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, but shall be like the angels; that is, like them in that respect, not in all things, for they will judge angels; but like them in so far as this, that there will be no distinction of sex — neither marrying nor given in marriage. "Neither can they die any more." But He adds, "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, [or rather 'dispensation'] and the resurrection from the dead," etc. This would be an extraordinary expression, if all were raised at the same time. "They that shall be counted worthy to obtain that age;" for the last word does not refer to the material world, but to a special dispensation or age, which the unworthy do not obtain. Weigh the force of the phrase. The resurrection of the saints is in an age peculiar to themselves. "They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that age (the other dead are only raised after it), and the resurrection from the dead." The resurrection of Christ was not merely a resurrection of the dead, but out of the dead. He left them undisturbed in their tombs. There were certain saints who rose with Him, or rather came out of their graves after His resurrection; but the great mass of the dead were so far unaffected by Christ's resurrection. And so is it with the saints in principle. Theirs is to be a resurrection from among the dead. The rest of the dead must rise at another time; but they who shall be accounted worthy shall obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead. They shall not die any more. Could God show more strongly, than by this language, a distinct and prior resurrection of the saints of God?

Hear also the language of Paul in Phil. 3: 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection from the dead." In common Bibles, no doubt, it is "the resurrection of the dead;" but I have no hesitation in saying that this is a complete mistake. The true and only meaning of the verse, according to the best authorities, is, "if by any means I might attain to the resurrection out of (or from among) the dead." It may seem to some but a slight change; but if we want to know the mind of God, it makes a weighty difference; because, if it is "resurrection from the dead," it implies that while the rest of the dead remain in their graves, there is a resurrection not common to all mankind, bad and good, but belonging only to those that are dear to God. The apostle considered this resurrection to be so bright and blessed, that he says in effect, I care not what the sufferings and trouble may be, let the road be what it may — if I am but there; this is what I wait for and desire at all cost, For when he said, "if by any means I might attain," not a shade of doubt is implied as to his having part in the first resurrection; but rather that he so valued the prize as to mind not what the path of suffering might be that led to the goal.

Now let us carry the light of this back to the Revelation. The reference in "the rest of the dead" is to the wicked dead. A resurrection was shown of all the departed saints up to the display of the kingdom. "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (verse 5). There is no difficulty really in the passage; but men have their own thoughts and opinions, and cannot make scripture square with them, whereas all is as plain as God could make it. "This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection" (verse 6). How beautifully this answers to what the Lord had said to the Sadducees, "They that are accounted worthy to obtain that age, and the resurrection from the dead!" So again St. Paul: "If by any means I might attain to the resurrection from the dead."

"On such the second death hath no power." Mark once more the force of the Lord's words in the gospel: "Neither can they die any more." As for the persons left to be raised after the thousand years are over, they are to die another and most woeful death — the second death. By it all those who had not part in the first resurrection are to die. Theirs shall be the second death — meaning that extinction of all hopes of blessing when all else is blessed in heaven and earth, and they perpetually abide under the wrath of God. They are cast into the lake of fire. As for those who have part in the first resurrection "they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years;" and afterwards shall they reign in life by Him for ever and ever.

The last three verses that we looked at form a kind of parenthesis in the chapter, something like what we saw in Revelation 12. There the war in heaven and the consequent casting down of Satan came in, and then the history which had been alluded to before (verse 6) was resumed in verse 13. Here is something similar, for the seventh verse continues the history that had been already begun just at the close of the third verse. We find there Satan bound for a thousand years, and consequently his power of seducing the nations into rebellion against God intercepted for a time. After these things, we are told, he must be loosed for a little season. The seventh verse anticipates his loosing and its effects. "When the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together unto the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (verse 8). Evidently therefore verses 4-6 form a parenthesis — important, no doubt, but still a parenthesis, and not a part of the regular history found here. One reason why it is given here may be to show that, during this same period when Satan is bound, there is the blessed side — not only the evil one restrained, but Christ and His saints reigning over the earth. It is never said that we shall reign on the earth.

In Revelation 5: 10, I have already shown that the common version of that verse which conveys this is somewhat inaccurate, and that the true thought of the Spirit of God is not the place where the saints of God then dwell, but the sphere of their reign. "They shall reign over the earth." The importance of the change is not so much as an isolated fact, but because it is connected with the whole scheme of truth; and it is a part of this scheme that the heavenly saints are never to be mingled with people on the earth. The promise of the first place of earthly blessing belongs to Israel, and therefore it would make the utmost confusion, if the heavenly, glorified saints were jumbled with men in their natural bodies in this world. In fact, one of the strongest objections that many Christians urge to the reign of Christ over the earth is founded on the notion that premillennialism supposes the glorified saints to be mixed up with the people then alive here below. But this is a great mistake.

The church will have its own proper glory; but withal there will be two orders or spheres of blessing, and one of a higher character than the other. All things in heaven will be gathered under the headship of Christ; but, beside this, all things on earth will be at the same time under the same government. Such is the peculiarity of the millennium. There will be the heavenly portion above, and the earthly one below, connected together, but not confounded. This is distinctly taught in Eph. 1: 10, where the apostle says that the mystery of God's will has been made known "according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself for the administration of the fulness of times, to gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in him." I am aware there are many who suppose that it speaks of the gospel dispensation now going on. But this is unfounded The church is not a gathering of all nations, but on the contrary an elect body out of them all. It never was and never will be a gathering of all nations, peoples, and kindreds, and tongues, into one. Besides, the verse speaks of a gathering of all things. There is a gathering together of the children of God; for Christ died that He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. But here it is a question not of persons, but things. When the glorious administration takes place of which the apostle speaks, all things are to be put under Christ's headship. He has all under His headship now in title, but not as an actual displayed fact.

Daniel does not say that all was to be put under the Son of man, nor does the Holy Ghost reveal that secret of God's will in the Old Testament. There was the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven. But the New Testament shows us more; it teaches us that, at the very same time when all things on earth will be put under His government, all things in heaven will be put under Him too. Nor this merely in a providential way as now, but directly and personally. The Lord, of course is above Satan, the god and prince of the world that now is. He does act providentially now; and, beside that, He has the full personal title to exercise all glory, heavenly and earthly. But the time when He enforces the title, and takes all things under His hand, is future. If He had taken it now in an immediate way, all wickedness would be put down. None could sin without judgment; neither would there be such a thing as righteousness suffering, or iniquity exalted. All this is a proof that, in the full actual sense, the Lord Jesus Christ is not yet reigning, however true it may be to faith. Look, for instance, at Psalm 97: "The Lord reigneth." People quote this, as if applied when the Holy Ghost wrote, or now at any rate. But the next words refute this; because, when the Lord does reign as here meant, the earth will rejoice, etc. Whereas, it is plain from Romans 8, not to speak of every day's experience, that the earth is groaning in misery, and that the whole creation travails in pain until now, which is the very reverse of rejoicing. But when the Psalms meet their full accomplishment, all creation will be delivered and will rejoice under the reign of Jehovah. Faith can say that the Lord reigns now: but He is not yet exerting royal power over the earth.

When Christ comes in His kingdom every opponent will have to be put down, and consequently there must be judgment. The beast and the false prophet were set aside, as we see in Revelation 19, and then comes the reign. And although everyone is not to be converted, no open sin will be permitted. It may be a "feigned obedience" that is rendered by a large part of the people upon the earth, but still in some sort it will be obedience, even from "the sons of the stranger." That is the true thought of the millennial reign. It means a time, not when there will be no evil, but when evil will be suppressed by the presence of the Lord; when the heavenly glory will be in immediate connection with the delivered and gladsome earth; when the earthly people will be restored to their own land, converted, and owning that blessed One whom their fathers crucified; for in Zech. 12-14 we see the very circumstances, at least as to the earth, that I allude to. In the last chapter the Lord is "king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord and his name one." This is precisely the millennium. All nations are seen coming up to own the Lord: if any refuse, they are to be chastised. The Spirit of God particularly notices the punishment, viz., the withdrawal of rain from such nations as should not come up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In Egypt, where such a want would not be felt, the land having other sources of fertility, there should be another punishment, "the plague wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen," etc. Plainly, then, the prophecy shows us the earthly glory under the reign of the lord.

But Ephesians 1 points us not merely to the heavenly glory, but to the union under Christ of the heavenlies and the earthlies — of all things both which are in the heavens and which are on the earth. It is not that all are to be reduced to the same level, but that all must be gathered in one united system, as having one head over all, even Christ. But the church is not included in any of these things. We are not confounded with either; on the contrary, we are spoken of as those who have obtained an inheritance in Christ over all. The church is not to be a glorious people only, over which Christ is to reign. We are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ — not merely heirs under Christ, but with Him — according to the blessed type given at the very beginning of man's history, where, while Adam had the glory of being head over this lower world, his wife shares the dominion in virtue of her union with him. The church is the spiritual Eve of the Lord Jesus, the bride of the last Adam. This may somewhat explain the force of the words in Ephesians 1: 10, 23, and it shows us the importance of the day we are looking at in Revelation 20. For "the thousand years" answer to this very period, when the administration will be in the hands of the Lord Jesus, the exalted and manifested Head over all things, and the church will share all along with Him.

There is another remark that I would make. It is the New Testament alone that gives us the statement of the period of the reign. It is there that we find its duration of a thousand years defined. Almost all prophecy refers to it, but here its bounds are assigned, and its relation to the eternal state which succeeds.

In one sense Christ will reign, and the saints also, for ever and ever. So it is laid down doctrinally, apart from time, as in Romans 5: 17, where it is said, "they shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." This does not refer to the millennial reign particularly, which is only a part of the reigning in life by Christ Jesus. Our life in Christ, being an everlasting one, involves to my mind that in a certain real and important sense there will be a reigning blessedly and gloriously with Christ for ever and ever. But, on the other hand, where we hear of a kingdom given to Christ, which He surrenders before the end to God even the Father, this special reign for a limited time has also a bearing on the heavenly saints. Of course the proper divine glory of Christ is distinct from these glories and can be communicated to none. But God spoke of a special reward — the reward of suffering for Christ. "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him." "If so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." All this bears on the millennial reign. Christ will be then publicly exalted in the world — in the very place where He was despised and rejected. And the saints will be publicly exalted with Christ in the place of their shame and sorrow, where they have followed Christ with feeble and faltering steps, but where they clave to the name of Jesus, in spite of loss and reproach. But besides these special rewards, there is the glory, blessedness, and joy which will never pass away.

The millennium will be a time when many saints are to be brought to the knowledge of the Lord. It will be the great harvest of blessing — the time celebrated with such rapture in the Psalms and Prophets, when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea. This does not imply necessarily that every person who knows the glory of Jehovah will know His grace, and be converted. Nevertheless, many will be brought to the Lord. But there will also be a true and real knowledge of God given at that very time. For the Holy Ghost will be poured out from on high in a special manner, of which the day of ]Pentecost was in comparison only like the former rain, while that will be as the latter rain. It was the foreshadowing of future fulness of blessing — greater at least in extent — which will be realised in the millennium.

Now the saints of "that day" will never suffer as a privilege, never know what it is to follow Christ in reproach, and to be cast out with Him. Consequently they will not reign in the kingdom. All saints from the beginning, and up to the millennium, will have suffered with Christ more or less. But the church having pre-eminently known the fellowship of His sufferings, will have special glory. And those saints who will be brought in after the millennium has commenced, and who have never known His sufferings, will not so share the kingdom. Those before it will be brought into the scene of glory, and changed, because corruption never can inherit incorruption. Therefore, when they are brought in where God makes all things new, there can be no question of their bearing the likeness of Christ, because they are part of the family of the last Adam, and as being in connection with Christ, and having His life, that life will have all its way as to both body and soul: they will be changed into His likeness. It is true that we have no positive statement as to the millennial saints, when this change will take place. But we may gather, I think, from general principles, that it will be in the interval after the millennium is over, and before the new heavens and new earth appear with their blessed inhabitants. But this silence of scripture has left room for some to be beguiled into the strange notion that the millennial saints will remain in their natural bodies, marrying and giving in marriage, throughout all eternity! Such a notion as this has no warrant whatever in the word of God. It resulted from always interpreting the expression "for ever and ever," as if it must mean eternity necessarily and in every case; whereas in some places it does, in others not.

Supposing that God's word speaks of an earthly state of things, and uses the expression, "reigning for ever and ever," as in Daniel 7 and Luke 1, it cannot be understood absolutely. The words must be limited by the subject-matter of which God is speaking. Thus in human things, if a man buys a house "for ever," it does not mean throughout eternity, but as long as the world goes on in its present form and way; his right holds good while the earth subsists as left in the hands of man. So God uses the phrase, "for ever and ever," when treating of earthly things and people. Only the case is far stronger than in ordinary human transactions: for a revolution may despise and destroy every such deed of conveyance. But the kingdom of Christ, before which all opposing authority must bow and become null, will assuredly secure Israel in all the promises of God. Thus "reigning over the house of Jacob" cannot but be modified by this — as long as the house of Jacob exists as such. But when the expression is in connection with the new heavens and earth in the full sense, Israel is no longer found nationally: such earthly distinctions disappear, when men are raised from the dead or changed. When eternal life or eternal punishment is spoken of, we must take the expression in the largest sense, because these things have nothing to do with the earth; they belong to the resurrection-state. If applied to earthly things, it must be taken in a limited sense, but when applied to things outside this world, it must be taken absolutely in all its extent. So in Daniel 7: 27 "the kingdom under the whole heaven," which is given to the people of the saints of the high places, is said to be an everlasting kingdom. This, I apprehend, is the same period that is called here the thousand years.

The Holy Ghost, in the New Testament, gives us the winding up of all the ways of God, and shows us that what may have appeared to the Old Testament saints to be an absolutely everlasting condition, is limited and qualified by further revelations, which make known to us two stages, as it were, instead of one. Thus the earthly kingdom spoken of in Daniel is to be "everlasting" in this sense, that it will never pass out of the dominion of Christ — never be taken out of His hands and given to another (as previous empires had been taken from their respective rulers), but it will remain as lone, as God has an earthly kingdom at all in His hands, and in the hands of the saints of the high places. When the earthly state ceases, and that kingdom is given up, Christ reigns everlastingly, though in another way. For in the eternal state it will evidently not be a question of all people, nations, and languages serving Him.

This chapter passes cursorily over the millennial state, as far as men on earth are concerned. If persons wish to look at the earthly part of the thousand years, they must search into the Old Testament. There it is spoken of constantly as "that day" — when the Gentiles will be brought in and blessed — when God's name will be exalted — when there will be a suspension of all warfare and strife. It is the day when the wilderness shall rejoice and blossom like the garden of Eden, and when the ransomed of the Lord shall come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads — and all sorrow and sighing shall flee away. These words are descriptions that the Holy Ghost gives of this blessed period in the kingdom. Many have been disposed to take the prophetic accounts of the millennium figuratively; but they must allow that these figures may be much more fully accomplished than they suppose. In other words, I take the glowing accounts given of the millennium in the Old Testament prophecies as emblems of real and abundant blessings on earth. These figures may have a sort of spiritual meaning too. But, allowing this, we do not take away the simple and natural meaning of the phrase. For instance, scripture speaks of the wolf and the lamb, and other animals that now devour one another, living together in union and peace. They may be applied as figures to describe what will be morally true of men, though I do not myself believe that this is the real intent.

For why should not God bring back the creatures that He has made, and about which He takes a far greater interest than men suppose, to a state at least as good as that in which they were created? Why should not God root out all the evil consequences that sin has brought in, physically as well as morally? Because the sin of Adam had effects far beyond his own race: all that was put under his dominion got into ruin and disorder. And this is not a mere imaginative notion of ruin, nor a fanciful exposition of Old Testament prophecy. It is the doctrine plainly and positively laid down in Rom. 8. It is written there that "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that had subjected the same," in plain allusion to the fall of him that was over the creature. He fell; and creation, being under the headship of Adam, fell alone, with him. It was he who made it subject to vanity; misery and death came in through him. For there is no reason to suppose that death would have reigned with regard to the brute creation of the Adamic world, any more than with regard to man, if sin had not entered. I am aware that the wise men of this world often speak of fossil remains which show the death of animals before man was created. Into such disquisitions I do not enter, but would only say that there was not the same state of things under Adam. Supposing now the facts and inferences of geologists to be sound — whatever living creatures may have been made and destroyed in the earth before Adam was created, scripture is entirely silent about them; and so I desire to be in expounding it. They are questions of no moral importance, and therefore a Christian need not meddle with them. I add that these theories, if true, do not contradict scripture in the slightest degree. For there is no trace of man connected with that state of things which preceded Adam; and scripture passes over it, hastening to what is immediately connected with him. When the human race begins upon the earth, the moral dealings of God are gradually developed. But man quickly fell, and then creation was degraded through its fallen head. Death, as far as regards the Adamic world, entered through the disobedience of Adam — death directly as to men, and, as a consequence, its ravages spread throughout all the lower living creation.

When the Second Man, exalted above the heavens, shall come again, He will not merely have such a dominion as the first Adam had, when all things in heaven and earth shall be put under His glorious sway. There is not a single spot or creature of God's universe but what will feel the effects of His glorious power, whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself. Thus, if once man fell, bringing in sin and death and misery, and if all the attempts of the race to remedy the mischief, outward and inward, have been but expedients and no real cure, the Lord Jesus will be the good and sovereign and almighty Healer of every evil and sorrow of creation. And God will have such joy — His own joy — in relieving all the wretchedness that sin had brought about according to His estimate of the worth of His Son. And if all up to this time will have been but the filling up of man's cup of woe, how blessed will be the time when God reverses the history, and when His own Son, no longer rejected and despised, shall fill the throne of His earthly and heavenly glory! When all wickedness shall be put down, and righteousness for ever exalted, not by bare power and glory, but by the One who in grace had borne all the sorrow first, and suffered the consequences of all the wickedness, according to the full holiness of God, upon the cross! And how sweet to think that God will there show that there is not an evil, nor a degradation, nor a pang for which He has not some suited and glorious answer in and through His Son! For He will then put forth all His might to glorify His own Son in the presence of all flesh, even of those who sent the message after Him, "We will not have this man to reign over us." But when the blessed One returns, having received the kingdom, and will reign as the risen exalted Son of man, all creation will feel the gladdening effects of the Saviour's headship and rule.

The Lord will exalt Israel on earth and make them, who have been so peculiarly His bitter enemies, to lead the song of praise with their once rejected Messiah, now in the midst of the congregation. Then it is that they will take up Psalm 100, the psalm of thanksgiving, and will invite all lands to come and praise the Lord; yea, to enter His courts with praise. What a contrast to all that has gone on, or is going on still! How different from the hatred which the Jews have ever shown against the mere sound of grace going out to the Gentiles! For when Paul tells them how the Lord had said to him as he prayed in the temple at Jerusalem, "Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles, they heard him to that word; but it was more than their proud hearts could brook, and so they lifted up their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: it is not fit that he should live." But how will grace have changed and enlarged the narrow hearts of Israel, when they will themselves go forth with the invitations of mercy to the Gentiles who had insulted them in all their weary wanderings over the face of the earth, and who had trodden down Jerusalem during their appointed times

The Jews, like Cain, have the mark of the Lord on them that they shall not be utterly extinguished, in spite of their blood-guiltiness. But the Lord will give them repentance in the latter day, and thenceforward they will be the suited and blessed heralds of His grace to the uttermost parts of the earth.

This time of blessedness under the Messiah is what is found so often and so fully in the Old Testament scriptures. The gospels, too, open with similar expectations on the part of the Jewish saints. But farther light begins to dawn as the rejection of Christ becomes more decided, till at length, redemption being accomplished, the Holy Ghost was sent down from heaven, and He brought out the full mind of God. Then it was that the distinction between the kingdom and the eternal state was made plain. (1 Cor. 15: 24-28.) It was shown that the earthly reign of Christ, which in the Old Testament might have appeared unlimited, will in reality come to a close when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power.

There are many who think that the millennial state of things is to be gradually brought in by the preaching of the gospel, and other agencies that are now in operation. No doubt they look for God to bless them in a still greater degree; for no Christian, perhaps, would say that present appearances warrant such expectations. But they think that if, instead of the few, there were many servants of God, and that if it pleased God to bless the word to the conversion of multitudes everywhere, and if a spirit of greater love and union and devotedness prevailed among those that love the name of Christ generally, there and then would be the reign of Christ on the earth.

Now, I would ask, How do we know that there is to be a millennium at all? You answer, From the word of God. But how is the millennium to be brought about? Humility would answer, we must learn this too from the word of God. We all acknowledge that the earth is to be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea. How is this to be effected? It is remarkable that in the very scripture (Isaiah 11: 9) where these. words occur, the Holy Ghost intimates that judgment must precede this time of blessing. (See verse 4.) In that passage the universal spread of the knowledge of Jehovah is made to follow His smiting the earth with the rod of His mouth, and His slaying the wicked with the breath of His lips — the very scripture that the apostle Paul applies in 2 Thess. 2: 8 to the destruction of antichrist, the man of sin. The lord Jesus shall consume him with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him with the brightness or manifestation of His coming.

It is perfectly true then and agreed, that there is to be a millennial time of blessing on the earth; and the answer to the question how it is to be introduced is this: the same scripture which reveals that blessed change tells us that it is to be brought in by the Lord's coming and smiting the wicked one; in other words by judgment, and not by the preaching of the gospel, The gospel is of all importance for calling souls from earth to heaven; but it is not the means of dealing with the whole world, and filling it with blessing. It is the means of gathering the church out of the world to Christ. When judgment has had its full course, then the Lord will send out His servants. The Lord will give the word, and great will be the company of those that publish it. "Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." The present dispensation is one of gathering out in separation from the world. The gospel ought to be preached to all but not with the vain hope that all are ever to believe it. Thus the Lord, in Mark 16, while bidding His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, takes pains to add, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." He prepares them for an individual and partial reception of it. Thus they would not be cast down, if they found but a few here and there who received the word of life. It might be but a Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. And what were they to the crowds who listened to the apostle on Mars' hill? It was a matter of joy and thankfulness to hear of any who believed to eternal life, for it is thus that God preserves His servants from being cast down. It is well to know that all are not going to receive the gospel, but that God is accomplishing His own purposes. Therefore, when the Lord blesses the word and awakens the conscience of a poor sinner here and there, it is a cause of rejoicing.

But we know that as a whole evil will increase, and "evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." How can that be, if the millennial blessing is to be the result of the present or such like efforts of Christians in the gospel? But the Lord is to smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and to slay the wicked with the breath of His lips, which is said to be like a stream of brimstone. (Isaiah 30: 33.) Is that like the gospel? It is the exact opposite — a figure of destructive judgment. The gospel delivers from Tophet, but the judgment of the Lord casts into it irrevocably. Clearly then it is a judgment from the hand of God Himself, and not one which man, much less the church, will execute. It is not the business of the church to cast into Tophet. No power but God's can consign to hell.

But there is another thing that characterizes the millennium — the binding of Satan in the abyss. Can the church bind Satan? Will anyone tell me that Satan can be absolutely hindered from deceiving the world by men? But there can be no universal blessing for the world till he is bound; and every Christian must acknowledge that God alone can either bind or crush Satan. He may employ an angel, or associate the saints with Himself, as it is said in Rom. 16: 20, "The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly." The church is united to Christ, and then will be actually with Him who, as the woman's seed, is to bruise the serpent's head; but the power is in Christ, and not in the church. He will put down all adversaries when that day of judgment comes; as it is said, "He will smite the nations, and rule them with a rod of iron." (Rev. 19.) And we shall do the same in virtue of our association with Christ. (Rev. 2.) In the reign of peace (Rev. 20: 4, 6) we shall still be associated with Him. It is by the church in its heavenly condition, not while we are on the earth, that Satan will be thus bruised.

But it is perfectly clear, on the other hand, that the millennium is not exclusively the reign of the glorified saints; the earth as such, with its inhabitants, will be brought into deliverance and blessing This we saw in Eph. 1: 1.0, where the true key to its character appears — the union of heavenly and earthly glory under one and the same Head, in whom also we, the body, have obtained an inheritance. There will be Jews and Gentiles, blessed as such in their natural bodies on the earth, the subjects of the kingdom; while the glorified saints will be the instruments of blessing to the earth.

Now the earth is made miserable, and men hardly know how far they are gone in rebellion through sin. This is not all; for there is an unseen enemy, a dark and untiring adversary of God and man, who has his hosts of wicked angels subject to himself (Rev. 12), and uses them as the instruments of his seduction. All this will pass away; and those very scenes which are now filled by wicked spirits, the heavenly places (not of course the place where God dwells in His unapproachable glory, but the lower heavens that are connected with the earth) will be a part of the dominion of the church in glory, and the heavenly saints will be as much used to be the means of joy and blessing to the world as the wicked spirits are now the chief agents of all its misery. They may for a little season emerge from their prison after the millennium, to lead the distant nations of the earth into a last conspiracy against the Lord; but they will never regain their former access to the heavenly places, where their influence was the more subtle and dangerous.

Then will dawn the day of the greatest glory for the world. Of course, I am not speaking of the cross; for there is no exaltation Christ will ever have given Him that can be compared with the real, deep glory of His death. It has as it were put it into the power of God to show mercy according to His own heart; and therefore there is not a single joy of the millennium but what will flow from the cross of Jesus. Nay, it has eternal consequences, and not for the millennium only. But the age to come, or millennium, while very important, and a time of wonderful blessing, will be imperfect. And for this reason: there will be men still in their natural bodies upon the earth, many of whom will be unconverted. Accordingly, this chapter shows us that, after the termination of the thousand years, "Satan will be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together unto the wax; the number of whom is as the sand of the sea" (verses 7, 8). We do not read this in the Old Testament; for as it does not intimate the close of the reign, so neither does it show us the epoch when Satan will be let loose. The terms in which the judgment, upon the evil one is spoken of there might be construed into a single stroke, which made an end of the matter,

From Isaiah 24 we learn that the scene of the punishment of the high ones is to be on high, as the kings of the earth will be punished on the earth. It is evident that by the host of the high ones the Spirit of God does not refer to exalted men on the earth (for they are in contrast with the kings of the earth), but to the powers of evil in the heavenly places. (Compare Eph. 6: 12.) This is exactly what we find, though with fuller detail, in Rev. 12, 19, 20. The kings of the earth meet with their punishment on the earth, while Satan and his minions suffer, the host of the high ones, on high. Satan is cast out to the earth, and his angels are cast out with him. Their place is found no more in heaven. The particulars are not given till the Revelation. That day will see the judgment of all foes above or below. For that this is the millennial day requires no proof.

Next in Isaiah 25: 6 it is said, "And in this mountain shall Jehovah of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined." It is a time of blessedness never known before. Nor is it confined to a certain number gathered out as now, but "in this mountain shall Jehovah of hosts make unto all people a feast," etc. "This mountain" is said of the land of Palestine, because it will be to the whole earth the spot where Jehovah will be exalted. Of course this is to be understood morally, not physically. Remark what we have in the next verse. "And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people." The Lord will destroy the darkness that is over the face of all nations now, "and the veil that is spread over all nations." But this era will be also characterized by the resurrection. "He will swallow up death in victory," evidently referring to the first resurrection spoken of in the Revelation. Then only is the victory complete. (Comp. 1 Cor. 15.) "And the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it." It is the time of blessing for the Jewish people, "And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us." Here beyond a doubt it is persons upon earth that need to be saved. The church is saved already, and we do not wait for "that day" to come that our God should save us. They will be saved in the day of glory; we are saved in the day of grace. "This is our God: we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. For in this mountain shall the hand of Jehovah rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill." There we have one of the neighbouring enemies of Israel trodden down; for it is to be a day of judgment as well as blessing

In Isaiah 26 it is written, "In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city," etc. In the latter part of it, which I would refer to because of its importance, Israel says, "We have been with child, we have been in pain . . . . we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth," etc. "Thy dead men shall live" (the words "together with" having no kind of business there), "my dead body shall they arise." "Thy dead men," that is the Jewish people, who are regarded in a figure as being dead; just as in Ezekiel, where they are represented as not only dead but in their graves. But as the Lord causes His wind to pass over those dry bones, and they live; so here, "Thy dead men shall live, my dead body shall they arise." Not merely thy dead body, but mine. I own them — they belong to me. Jehovah appropriates them as His, dead though they may be. But they are to be so no longer; they shall "arise." "Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee." This is not like the church. The heavenly saints do not enter into their chambers on earth, but are taken away to be in the Father's house in heaven. But here is a question of the Jewish people. They are comforted, and are told to arise out of their degradation; "for thy dew is as the dew of herbs." "Come, my people . . . . . hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast." The indignation that God had so long against His people will be turned now into indignation against their enemies. The Assyrian, used heretofore as God's rod for chastening Israel, must now meet with his own final doom. "For, behold, Jehovah cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain." And yet this is manifestly the time when He introduces the millennium, not after it is over. Jehovah comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth. Is this Eke the gospel, where instead of proclaiming the remission of their sins He comes to punish them? Not at all. Further, "In that day Jehovah, with his sore and great and strong sword, shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent: and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." Doubtless there is a general reference to the wicked one, Satan the ancient serpent. Only here he is not viewed as having a place on high, but defeated and rejected here below. He is not spoken of with the same minuteness as in the Revelation, which gives us the full light of God on the subject and the details.

Moreover we find that at the end of the millennium God will show that the day of glory (the thousand years, which form the part of the day of Jehovah, when Satan is bound and the Lord Jesus reigns manifestly) will no more convert souls of itself than the day of grace and the publishing of the gospel to the ends of the earth. For if the day of grace requires the immediate power of God to save an individual soul, of course the same power will be requisite here below in the day of glory. Whilst the Lord is there, evil will be kept down; there will be no leader of man in his evil. But the moment Satan is allowed to come out of his place, and again exercises his power, we have plain proof that the heart of man is unchanged. He goes out to the four corners of the earth to deceive the nations, and gathers them together for destruction.

These nations are called by a symbolic name, which is a sort of allusion to the enemies of Israel spoken of in Ezek. 38, 39. But they are not the same, and must be carefully distinguished. For in Ezekiel Gog is literally an individual person — the prince of the vast north-eastern territories and peoples, known in our time as the empire of Russia. Gog is to be the then leader of that country, which is called in scripture "the land of Magog." Indeed this is the positive meaning of the words rendered in our Bibles "chief prince." It ought to be "prince of Rosh." But when the scriptures were translated into Latin, which had a great influence on succeeding versions, the Russian empire did not exist, and could not be known by that name. For the north of Europe and Asia was then merely inhabited by hordes of wandering barbarians, called Sarmatians, Scythians, etc. So when the corrector of the old Latin, Jerome, came to the Hebrew "Rosh," he thought it must be taken not as the name of a people, but as a common noun, meaning "head" or "chief;" just as the Franks, besides giving their name to a neighbouring country which they conquered, also meant "free men." Hence probably in our version "Rosh" was translated chief, which the Hebrew word might equally well bear, if a proper name were not required by the context; for "prince of chief, Meshech and Tubal" makes no good sense. Therefore, I suppose the translators, not knowing what better to make of it, put the clause down vaguely as "chief prince of Meshech and Tubal." However, it is well known that learned persons who had no light, or a very partial one, on prophecy — scholars who examined  the subject a hundred years ago — concluded that Russia was meant. But what is much more important, the Greek version, or Septuagint, made nearly two centuries before Christ, left it as Ῥώς. They did not know what place or race was meant; but seeing that Meshech and Tubal were given as proper names, they understood the preceding word similarly. Thus Gog is really to be "the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal," which will all be found in the Russian empire.* Ezekiel then shows that, when God restores Israel and plants them in their own land, Russia is to be the last great enemy that comes up to attack them, and meets with its own demolition from the hands of God on the mountains of Israel. His prophecy, I think, does not bear on recent events, save as these may lead on to it; much less is it to be confounded with the gathering of Gog and Magog described in verses 8, 9. It cannot mean the same as these; for the Jewish prophet speaks of a vast confederacy before the millennium, or at least at the very beginning of it; while in the Revelation it is after the thousand years are past.

*So even Gesenius in the later results of his researches. It has been objected on the authority of Luitprand's Chronicle, etc., that the only people then called Russians by way of distinction were the dynasty of Norsemen, who under Ruric acquired the throne of Muscovy. "Gens quaedam est sub Aquilonis parte constituta, quam a qualitate corporis Graeci vocant Russos; nos vero a positione loci vocamus Nordmannos." (De Rebus Impp. et Regg. v. 6, p. 95, ed. Antverpiae, 1640.) But I do not see the force of the argument. If Ezekiel predicts that the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal shall come up to Palestine in the latter day, what has the mediaeval history of the people Rosh to do with it? If Cush or Phut is to suffer in Egypt or in the lower Euphrates, it matters little from what point they first migrated The prince of Rosh may have sprung from the Northmen, and acquired sway over the descendants of Meshech and Tubal: how does the coming of the Russi from Scandinavia hinder this? Besides there is no doubt of the emigration of a large part at least of the Northerns from the East. The Cushites, Goths, Scyths, are pretty nearly at bottom the same people, as the Druidical religion is of an Oriental source, the north of India having been one great settlement. It is too much to assume that this ecclesiastic nicely distinguished the men of the north who were beginning to make themselves felt and feared at Constantinople. The plain fact is before us that the Seventy translate this, ἄρχοντα Ῥώς, Μεσὸχ και Θοβέλ. Now  Ῥως is the designation the later Greeks use for the Russians, as we see in the Byzantine historians.

Gog and Magog here are symbolical expressions, founded, it is true, upon the prophet of the Chebar, but entirely distinct. The word by Ezekiel has its accomplishment when Israel is restored. (See Ezek. 36, 37.) Gog comes up when they are dwelling in their unwalled villages, and thinks to make them an easy prey; but the Lord interferes. Gog is put down, and Israel live and flourish quietly in their land. Here they are symbols borrowed from Old Testament circumstances, but applied to a time long subsequent. The last enemy which Israel had to encounter before the millennium was the literal Gog; the last rebellion after it derives its name from that well-remembered effort, of the outside nations. Countless swarms from the four quarters of the earth, under the guidance of Satan, will repeat (never to be repeated again) what the Russian chief will have done before them. They will go up on the breadth of the earth, and compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city. Of course the earthly people and city are meant; for Israel will then be a body of saints, a holy people, and Jerusalem will be the beloved city, not in mere name, but then in truth the city of the great King. These nations come up and surround them, and God will, if I may say so, be compelled to destroy them for ever. "Fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them" (verse 9). Fire is always the figure of God's judgment. Thus do they perish. Their leader is not touched by this judgment: a worse fate is reserved for him. "And the devil that deceiveth them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also [are] the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." His followers are destroyed by a divine judgment upon earth, but the devil who had led them by his deceits is cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.

But there is another scene that follows — the most solemn for man where all indeed is solemn. "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sitteth on it, from whose face fled the earth and the heaven; and there was found no place for them" (verse 11). Mark it well. There are many persons who suppose this to be the time of the coming of Christ, and who consequently put the millennium before His coming. But this will not bear the light of scripture. Without going to proofs outside the chapter, I would just take another ground, which is short and simple, and to my mind perfectly conclusive of the question. When the Lord Jesus comes, He comes to the earth from heaven. This is the universal belief, as far as I know, of all persons who have any defined thoughts about the matter. But such is not the case here. For the Lord sits on a great white throne, and instead of His coming from heaven to earth, both earth and heaven are all gone. It cannot be His coming to the earth, for there is no earth to come to. The entire system of earth and heaven, as they now are, will have vanished out of the scene not annihilated but destroyed; for there is a great difference between those two thoughts. However, the earth is no longer found filling its own place; it has disappeared. The great white throne is not therefore on the earth at all; for from the face of Him that sat on it the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. Lest it should be thought that their fleeing away was a mere figure of speech, it is added that "there was found no place for them." And it is said in 2 Peter 3 they shall be dissolved and their elements melt with fervent heat. Observe then that, when Christ is seen seated on the great white throne, the earth and the heaven are fled away. What are we to draw from it? Either the Lord Jesus Christ must have come before this, or He will never come to the earth at all; for it would not be the same thing to suppose that He merely comes to the new earth. after all judgment — even of the wicked dead — is over. Now we know that "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" — "ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead." The general faith of Christians is that He will come back to this earth. His feet shall stand in a day yet future on the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and which thenceforward is to be not destroyed, but divided in the midst as a witness of it. These circumstances cannot apply to what St. John calls the new heaven and new earth, but before the last physical change. When the great white throne is found the earth is gone, and therefore the coming of Christ to the earth must have been before that final scene of judgment. In point of fact, too, we have had the coming of Christ already described in Revelation 19, and His reign in the early part of Revelation 20. This gives distinctness to the character of the great white throne.* Nothing can be more simple, if you take it in the order in which God arranges it. But man is ever perverse; and so he blots out the coming of Christ from chapter 19 where it is given, and imagines it in Revelation 20: 11, where it is not and cannot be.

*Most extraordinary is the error for which the later editions of the Horae Apoc., vol. iv. pp. 210-218, are distinguished from their predecessors: the great white throne is now supposed to have been in exercise at the opening as well as at the close of the thousand years. The late Duke of Manchester and a few others had endorsed the same fancy. If Mr. E. "does not see anything in St. John's description" of the blessed reign over the earth, in contrast with the fleeing away of heaven and earth in the subsequent picture, to negative the idea, reasoning, I fear, would be vain. The omission of a detailed account of the Lord's throne in the previous verses is no real difficulty. His reign, and that of the glorified saints generally, we have seen to be distinctly implied in verse 4: they had been amply promised and predicted elsewhere. The needed revelation in this place is exactly what God provides — the comfortable assurance that those called to testify and auger, after the translation of the Old Testament saints and the church, would equally reign with Him during the thousand years, not to speak of eternal blessedness, which was a matter of course.

Observe also that the judgment of the great white throne is not a general judgment, any more than the resurrection spoken of here is a general resurrection. The idea of mixture then is mere imagination. I hold that every soul of man (i.e., of those that have died) must be in one or other resurrection. But scripture shows us that, the resurrection of the just is a totally different thing and at a different time from the resurrection of the unjust: they have nothing in common, save that in both cases soul and body must be reunited for ever. There is no scripture for an indiscriminate rising of all. A few passages are used to make out a show of proof. The Lord says in John 5: 28, "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,* and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment." But this does not show that they will rise at the same time. The hour is coming in which both these classes shall rise; but instead of saying that they are all to rise in one common or indiscriminate resurrection, He takes pains to state that they that have done good are to come forth from their graves for a life-resurrection, and they that have done evil for a judgment-resurrection. There are two resurrections, then, not a common one. The very passage that men cite to prove a general resurrection teaches in fact the reverse. St. John's Gospel shows their distinctness in character; his Revelation shows their distinctness in time.

*Not a syllable intimates that there will be one majestic uttered summons, as Dr. Brown assumes. (Christ's Second Coming, 4th ed., pp. 193, 194.) Nor is the last trump, or the trump of God, connected with any save the righteous. This trumpet-sound, we know from scripture, is one. The voice of the Son of God, scripture with equal distinctness informs us, is to call from the grave both those that have practised good and those that have done evil; but the passage itself indicates two contrasted resurrections, which are separated by a distinction far deeper than, though confirmed by, the difference of their respective epochs. The question whether His voice is to be kept up through a thousand years is a mere cavil. There is nothing to forbid, but on the contrary everything, in my opinion, to strengthen the thought that the Lord will cause His glorious voice to be heard in closing judgment after the millennium, as in crowning grace before it.

Persons may say, "the hour is coming implies that all are to be raised much about the same time. But the word "hour" is often used in scripture (and indeed everywhere else) in a large sense. It might comprehend a thousand years or more; so that if one resurrection took place at the beginning of the millennium and the other at the end of it, it might still be the same "hour." "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear it shall live." (John 5: 25.) This refers to what has been going on ever since Christ was on earth up to this very moment. "The hour" there takes in nearly two thousand years; and surely it is not too much to infer that "the hour" in verse 28 might embrace, if necessary, a period equally long. Scripture decides it. The same John who shows us the rise of all flesh from the grave, divided into two contrasted resurrections of men characterized by opposite moral qualities, shows us with no less plainness and certainty the interval between these resurrections. The chapter that we are now examining in the Revelation is the answer to the question, and proves that there will be an interval of at least a thousand years between the two.

But this is not all. There is a deep fundamental difference in the nature of the resurrections, as well as a distinction of time. In the gospel of John, the first is said to be a resurrection of life, the second is one of judgment. In the former are the righteous; all who are judged in the latter are the evil. Our translators call it the resurrection of "damnation" though the Teal meaning of the word is "judgment." It is the same word that is used in a verse or two before (verses 21-27). "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son . . . . . and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." And it is necessary to bear this in mind, that Christ, while as the Son of God He gives life, as Son of man comes to execute judgment in His kingdom. He gives life to the believer, and executes judgment on the unbeliever. So there are two resurrections answering to these titles. There is the resurrection of life or the resurrection of the believer. It is the application to his body of that power of life which he has already in his soul. But those who have refused Christ, what will they have? The resurrection of judgment. They have despised Christ now; they cannot escape the resurrection of judgment then.

Looking then at Revelation 20, is not this what we have here? First there was the resurrection of life, of "those that have done good." "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection." What was said about them? They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. It is a life-resurrection. But look at the others, the wicked — "they that have done evil." "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished." What have you here? "The rest of the dead lived not again till," etc. So they do rise. "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before the throne." None but dead are there, and how differently do they appear before the throne! "And the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (ver. 12).

Now I fully believe that the saints of God will have all their works examined: what they have done in the body will come out. We shall have praise or censure according to our faithfulness or unfaithfulness, when the Lord Jesus takes His place on the judgment-seat, and we stand before Him and are manifested there. It is St. Paul that tells us this. (Rom. 14; 2 Cor. 5)

But the Holy Ghost's object by St. John is to contrast the two resurrections. Therefore not a word is said in the account of the first resurrection about our appealing before Him, that each may receive the things done in the body, whether good or bad; but we are represented as judging others. Such is the way in which the life-resurrection is described. "I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." They do, of course, give an account of themselves to the Lord, and receive accordingly; but the Holy Ghost has His own wise reasons for omitting all allusion to it here. It is a resurrection of life in the gospel; and so it is in the Revelation. But when we come to the rest of the dead who have not done good, when they are raised and stand before the throne, what a contrast to a life-resurrection! They have only done evil; and when the book of life is opened, no name is to be found there; for this is not a resurrection of life but of judgment. They are to be judged according to their works, written in these other books; but their works are calling aloud for judgment. Their works being only and always evil, they are judged according to them; and what is the result? There might be a difference among them in some respects: there were great and small. But they were all alike in this — they were not found written in the book of life; and whosoever was not found written there, "was cast into the lake of fire." Not a word is said or hinted that they were written there. This is a resurrection of those who have no part in that book, and they are cast into the lake of fire. It is, as if God were saying, The books of their works call for judgment: is there nothing to be said in defence of these wretched men? The book of life is accordingly opened; but they are not found there: the last hope is gone; and if "any one was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire" (verse 15). It is the resurrection of judgment. There is no life, no mercy there. Those that had their part in the life-resurrection had been raised long before, and never come into judgment at all; for it is said (John 5: 24), "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment [the same word as in verses 22, 27, 29]; but is passed from death unto life."

Nothing then can be more certain than that this is a separate resurrection, distinct in character, and long severed in time. The resurrection of life had taken place long ago, and now comes the resurrection of judgment. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it." The depths which man could but imperfectly explore cannot hide for a moment longer. Nay, the unseen world, over which he has no control, is also forced to give up its miserable inmates. "Death and Hades delivered up the dead that were in them: and they were judged each according to their works" (verse 13). And their works condemn them Not a word is said about them in the book of life, and they are cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. They are raised from their first death to be cast for ever into that place of torment, whence there is no escape.

The, other scripture of most weight, often used for the purpose of proving a general resurrection, is the one in Daniel. What do we find there? It is written in Daniel 12: 1: "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people [meaning Daniel's people, the Jews]; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time." Evidently, this is not the millennium. "And at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book." This is not the time when the church is delivered; for we have been delivered long ago through the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. But since the cross of Christ, the Jewish people have only been in misery: that cross was their guilt. They cried, "His blood be on us and on our children." The time of their greatest suffering is to be immediately before the hour of their deliverance. (Jer. 30: 7.) Our deliverance, as theirs, is through the sufferings of Another; but what we suffer is after our deliverance. For the Jews it is a different destiny. They have a tremendous tribulation to go through yet; and it is to be the worst they will have ever had. But immediately after this their final deliverance comes — "At that time thy people shall be delivered," etc. They will not only be delivered as a people, but they will be saved and converted individually, according to God's purpose — "every one that shall be found written in the book." "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

This is commonly applied to the resurrection; but I am persuaded that it does not apply to the rising of the body. It is a figure which is taken from it indeed, and which supposes that great truth to be known. But it is the same kind of expression, and applied to a similar subject and end, that I have referred to in Isa. 26: 19, where Israel was described as "my dead body," and was called on, as one dwelling in the dust, to awake and sing. So here it is said, "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This does not suit any scheme of interpretation, if it be applied to a literal bodily resurrection of good and bad at the same moment. You will observe that this is before the millennium. It is evidently before the time of deliverance and blessing. There is a time of trouble immediately after which Daniel's people are delivered, and those who might have been forgotten (sleeping as it were among the Gentiles), reappear, but not all for the same end — some to shame, and some to everlasting life. (Compare also Isaiah 66: 20, 24.) This does not answer the purpose of those who quote the text. For their idea is, that there is the millennium first, and then the resurrection of good and bad. This resurrection, literal or figurative, is before the millennium, and after it is a time of greater trouble than Israel ever knew.

My conviction therefore is that Dan. 12 refers to the Jews. First, in verse 1, those who are to be delivered are spoken of in connection with the land of Palestine. Then it is shown that many of them who have been sleeping in the dust of the earth will come out of their degradation, will awake, some to everlasting life, etc. Some of those Jews that are to come forward out of their hiding-places all over the earth would prove to be rebels and be treated accordingly; while others will learn that the Lord has wrought with them for His name's sake. We may compare this with Ezekiel 37, where the dry bones set forth the house of Israel. No doubt can be left on any serious mind as to that passage; for the Lord Himself has interpreted it as the figure of the future resurrection of Israel. "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves." And if in Daniel it is said that some are to have everlasting life, Ezekiel says that the Lord will put His Spirit in them. It is a spiritual as well as a national restoration. So the passage in Daniel refers to a figurative resurrection of Israel, when some will awake out of their moral death.

We may now come back to Rev. 20 with the increased conviction that the doctrine of one general resurrection is a total mistake, and that God's word teaches a resurrection of the just and another of the unjust. This which is spoken of at the close of our chapter is solely of the wicked dead; it is a resurrection of judgment. I appeal to you whether you could rest the salvation of your souls on your works. I admit that our works will be examined, and that we shall receive accordingly; but this is not the same thing as being judged according to them. In the one case the person is accepted, but his works are reviewed for praise or blame; in the other, the person is judged according to works that are not mingled, but altogether bad and only such. For a natural or unconverted man has no life towards God; therefore he can have nothing but evil works to be judged for. Not so with the believer. No doubt there are works sometimes mingled, sometimes even worse in him: but he has a standing beyond all that he is; else salvation were impossible righteously and in peace. He has the new nature that God has given and will not take away; he has also redemption, the forgiveness of sins — both in Christ. His works will be examined, and they have a most important bearing on the position that the Lord will assign him in His kingdom. To be saved or lost is never a question of reward, but of the grace and power of Christ. When we talk of reward, it is a debt due for work done; but when of salvation, it is never spoken of in scripture as a reward of works. It is the grace of Christ — the fruit of His work and suffering, which God has given us in sovereign love.

And when we stand before Christ, it will not be to take our trial for condemnation or acquittal: this would be to deny our justification and the value of His own work. All our ways will be manifested in God's light, and the Lord will bring us triumphantly through; but He will not pass over a single deed, word, or thought that has been against Him. And as a Christian now can before God examine his ways, pass judgment upon them, and thank God for His faithful discipline; so it will be in a still brighter and more blessed and perfect way before the judgment-seat of Christ. It will then be no question of being saved only, but of vindicating the Lord's glory and goodness. Solemn certainly; but is it a thing that we ought to dread? We shall have to be thankful for it through all eternity. For self-judgment even now is no small blessing — next perhaps in value to the joy of grace which leads to our worshipping God and serving Him faithfully in the Spirit. We shall not have a word to say in justification of any fault; but the Lord will have much to say for us. He will bring out all that we have done, and we shall receive according to it. For evil we shall suffer loss; for good He will give us reward.

But what a difference is here! The dead now stand before the throne: what an end! Not annihilation, but incomparably worse — destruction. They have no life — nothing but dead works. They refused Christ; they rejected whatever testimony God tried them by; and what do their works deserve? They are cast into the lake of fire. Death and Hades are now no longer needed; they are personified as the enemies of God and man, and as such are in the vision (verse 14) cast into the lake of fire also.*

*Some will be startled to hear that Mr. E. (H. A., vol. iv. pp. 197-204) applies Matt. 25: 31, etc., to the rapture of the living saints, the dead having been immediately before raised and caught up. Then follows, as he conceives, the catastrophe of an unprecedented disruption of the earth's crust, as far as the Roman world is concerned, the risen saints being perhaps (!) the attendants of the Lord's coming and judgment. In a note to page 291 it is said that, though there may be a primary reference to the judgment of the living at Christ's coming, yet secondarily a more extensive judgment of the dead too may be included. The truth is that all is confusion. In fact the sheep are distinguished from the King's brethren, as well as contrasted with the goats. Not a word implies resurrection or rapture to heaven. It is a glorious scene on earth, subsequent to Christ's appearing, and therefore to the removal of the heavenly saints, and a judicial dealing not with the dead but the living; and not with all the living, but all the nations or Gentiles who are disposed of on the ground of their behaviour to the King, as presented by His brethren who had announced the kingdom (cf. Matt. 24: 14) before the end came. There is not a trace of resemblance to the scene of the great white throne, nor any judgment of the dead. There is no issue beyond the solemn and final one, for those concerned, of honouring or despising the King in His messenger Besides, the insuperable difficulty for Mr. E and for most expositors is the place which the revelation of the first resurrection occupies, viz., after the destruction of the beast. The non-recognition of a previous rapture of saints, to whom the Apocalyptic sufferers are added just before the millennium, is the occasion of these errors, the denial of the true and proper character of the church being probably the grand source of all.

We hear of none but unbelievers here. Only such indeed come into judgment, as we know from Him who assures us that believers do not come there; and none with whom God enters into judgment are or can be justified. It is the judgment of the dead after all the righteous who slept in Christ had been raised to reign with Him long before. The saints who lived do not enter this judgment, though no doubt they, like ourselves, shall render an account of all to God.

Revelation 21

It would have been a happier division of these chapters if Revelation 21: 1-8 had been made a part of the same series of events which was given in Revelation 20, following it in unbroken succession. There is a very decided termination of the chain at the close of the eighth verse of this chapter. Thence to the end, and taking in the first five verses of Revelation 22, we have another connected portion. The first eight verses refer to a totally different time from what follows. From Revelation 21: 9 we have to go back again to the millennium; whereas the previous verses of the chapter are the fullest account that the word of God furnishes of the new heavens and new earth, in the proper sense of the words. This is subsequent to the thousand years' reign, to the great white throne, and of course to the complete dissolution of the heavens and earth that now are, which were found when that throne was set up. Then, when this account of the eternal state is closed, the Spirit of God supplies a very important appendix, if I may be allowed the expression, on the state of things during the millennium, which was not given when that epoch was noticed in the historical sequence of Rev. 19, 20, 21: 1-8.

But perhaps it may be asked by some objectors, What is the authority for dividing the chapters thus? Why not take the whole of Revelation 21 (as it was probably understood by those who made the division) as one and the same time? Why not suppose that the account of the New Jerusalem in verse 10 refers to the same date as the mention of it in verse 2? The answer is simple. In the eternal state God has to do with men. All time distinctions are at an end. There is no such thing then as kings and nations. Accordingly, this we do find in the first eight verses. Take for example the third verse: "And I heard a loud voice out of heaven [or the throne], saying, Behold the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God." Whereas, if we look at the latter part of the chapter, we have again to do with nations and earthly kings. "And the nations shall walk by means of its light; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory," etc. When eternity begins, God has done dealing with things according to the order of the world-kings and nations, and the like provisions of a temporal nature. All this implies government, as government supposes that there is evil which requires suppression. Consequently, in the latter part of our chapter it is not the eternal condition which we have, but a previous state, the early verses (1-5) of Revelation 22 being the continuation of this description. There a tree is described, "and the leaves of the tree [are] for healing of the nations." That is, at the time of which the verse speaks not only are there nations, but they are not removed from the need of healing, and God supplies what they want. This must convince any unprejudiced mind that the Spirit of God in Revelation 22 does not refer to what follows the last judgment, when all that is connected with the world is entirely closed, but that He goes back to a previous state when God is still governing It will be observed also that in the portion relative to the millennium (that is, from verse 9 of Rev. 21) we have dispensational names, such as the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb; not so in Revelation 21: 1-8, which discloses eternity, where God shall be all in all.

But it may help souls still further to remark, that it is the manner of God in this book to take a retrospect. I say this to show that I am not at all arguing for something without precedent, in the order in which, as I conceive, these events are arranged. Take, for instance, Revelation 14. There we had seen a regular sevenfold series of events, in the course of which the fall of Babylon occupies the third place. After that comes the judgment on the worshippers of the beast; next the Holy Ghost pronounces the blessedness of those that die in the Lord; then the Lord's coming in judgment, presented in two ways, as reaping the harvest, and as trampling the winepress (the harvest, a judgment of discrimination, and the vintage one of pure vengeance). Babylon there has got its place assigned very clearly. But long after this in the prophecy, when the Spirit of God has given us the seven vials of God's wrath, we have Babylon again. The fall of Babylon is under the seventh vial. And this is important: for the Holy Ghost then proceeds to describe the character and conduct of Babylon, that required such a fearful visitation from the hand of God. In this case the Holy Ghost has carried us down in Revelation 14 to events subsequent to Babylon's fall, and even to the Lord's coming in judgment; and then He returns to show us details about Babylon and her connection with the beast, and the kings of the earth, in Revelation 17-18.

Now it appears to me that this exactly answers to the order of the events in Revelation 21. There is a striking analogy in the way in which Babylon and the heavenly Jerusalem are introduced, and though, of course, there is the strongest and most marked contrast between the two objects themselves, still there is enough to make it manifest that the Holy Ghost had them together in His mind, as it seems to me. Thus, in Rev. 17: 1, it is said, "There came one of the seven angels that had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither; I will show thee the judgment of the great harlot that sits by the many waters." Such is the announcement, where the vision goes back to describe Babylon and her doom. Just so are we introduced to the counterpart of this vision in Rev. 21, which looks back at the bride, the Lamb's wife. "And there came one of the seven angels that had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." As Babylon had had its place defined in the historic line of events, and then that line being completed, the Holy Ghost stopped to disclose, retrospectively and at full, those moral ways which had forced God, so to speak, to judge her; so exactly the Lamb's wife, the New Jerusalem, had been seen in both capacities, in the final sketch of the history up to the very end. And now the Holy Ghost goes back to describe the same New Jerusalem, with reference to the millennial reign, and the kings and nations then to be on earth. We have seen the bride, the Lamb's wife, that had made herself ready, in Revelation 19: 7. We have had in Revelation 21: 2 the New Jerusalem spoken of as coming down from God out of heaven, still fresh in bridal beauty, after more than a thousand years have passed away. But now in 21: 9 the very important fact comes out, that the bride, the Lamb's wife, is the holy city Jerusalem. "There came unto me one of the seven angels . . . and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me [not that great city, but] the holy city Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God." John was called to see the bride, and looking, he saw the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, if we had the bride in relation to the Lamb in Revelation 19, and as the holy city, New Jerusalem, in relation to the eternal state, verse 9 and the following verses of this chapter show us that, during the interval between the marriage of the Lamb, and the new heaven and earth in the eternal state, she has a very blessed place in the eyes of God and man. It is the church's millennial display.

These few prefatory remarks may clear the way, and prove that I am not assuming more than can be demonstrated in taking the first eight verses as the proper sequel of the series of events found in Revelation 19 - 20, and the rest of this chapter from verse 9, as a retrogressive description of the millennial state. There are evidently the strongest reasons for it, and indeed, any other interpretation is, I conceive, out of the question, if the context be duly weighed. It is impossible for an unbiassed and instructed person, who carefully considers the circumstances here described, to suppose that what follows the 9th verse can synchronize with the section which immediately precedes. They are, as already remarked, two irreconcileable states of things.*

*Had Mr. Elliott sufficiently weighed these considerations, I cannot think that he would have left the readers of the Horae Apoc. (vol. iv. pp. 210-218) in such perplexity as to the chronological place of these visions of the New Jerusalem. The reason why "such strong arguments," as he confesses, "press antagonistically" for the millennial and the post-millennial reference is, because each aide has a measure of truth left out of the account by the ether. On the one hand, it is not only the cursory but the most careful reader who is compelled to allow that Revelation 21: 1-8, fairly interpreted, is post-millennial. On the. other hand, the internal evidence from verse 9 is equally conclusive that, with this new vision of the Seer, we begin a retrospective glance at the same city during the millennium, though of come its own intrinsic blessedness and glory will abide for ever.

What is it that the Holy Ghost shows the apostle, after the old heaven and earth had disappeared and the last judgment? "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and the sea was no more." These words are not to be taken in a mere preparatory and moral sense. The prophet Isaiah had spoken in that way. In Isaiah 65 a new heavens and a new earth were announced: but how differently! There the language must be taken in a very qualified sense indeed. "For, behold (verse 17), I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people; and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." Clearly this is a very bright change, but it is an earthly condition. There are infants and old men here; and though the description is purposely contrasted with anything the world has yet seen, still it is a time-state of blessedness, and not of eternity. The apostle John shows us in the Revelation the new heaven and the new earth, not in a relative sense but in the most absolute. In the Old Testament they are limited, because connected with Israel upon the earth. So it is said of the Lord, "He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end." This is an Old Testament hope, though said in the New, and it means of course that He shall reign over the house of Jacob as long as it exists as such upon the earth. When the earth disappears and Israel is no longer seen as a nation, they will be blessed, no doubt, in another and better way; but there will be no reign of Christ over them as an earthly people here below; so that this kingdom, while it has no end as lone, as the earth subsists, must necessarily be, limited by the earth's continuance. It is thus that I understand the new heavens and the new earth spoken of in Isaiah. The New Testament uses the phrase fully and absolutely, as an unending state; but in the Old Testament it is tied down to the earthly relations of which the Holy Ghost was then speaking.

What makes it still clearer is that the next verse (Isaiah 65: 21) goes on to say, "And they shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit . . . . mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord," etc. Now all this is most cheering. So again, "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together . . . . They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord." Glowing and beautiful as this picture is of what the Lord can accomplish, it is in connection with the earth and an earthly people. It is not the eternal state, but an exceedingly glorious day when death will be the exception and life the rule. I say that death will be thus rare, at least in the Holy Land, because of that verse, "The child shall die an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." The meaning is, that if a person dies at a hundred years old, he will still be comparatively a child; and that even when death occurs at that age, it is only as the result of an express curse of God. Thus will it be during the millennium.

And this seems to answer a question often asked: What will become of all the righteous people during that wonderful reign? If the first resurrection is then past, and in the second resurrection none but the wicked dead are raised, what can be the destiny of the righteous who live during the millennium? The truth is, there is no scripture proof that such die during the thousand years. What is said supposes the contrary. Therefore, if they die not during the millennium, there are no righteous to be raised at the end of it. The resurrection at the end remains consequently for the wicked dead solely. The righteous will be raised before the millennium the wicked after it. The just who live during the reign of Christ are not called to die at all, as far as scripture informs us. We may be sure that these millennial saints will be changed into the likeness of Christ; they will be transplanted into the new heavens and earth. We are not called upon to conjecture how this will be. It is sufficient for us to know that, though they are not described as dying during the millennium, and therefore do not need to be raised; yet when the new earth appears men are found upon it quite distinct from the New Jerusalem (i.e., the symbol of the glorified heavenly saints). I believe that verse 3 warrants this statement. "Behold, the tabernacle of God [or the city that descends] is with men," etc.

Another proof that Isaiah does not speak of the eternal state described here is this: When the new heavens and earth are seen by the New Testament prophet, the old are said to be passed away, and the sea no longer exists. Not so in Isaiah's prophecy. There it was rather the spirit or pledge of the new that came into the old; a shadow of what was to be, and not the very image or accomplishment of the thing. They are said prophetically to be "new," because of the great joy and blessing that God will give to His people Israel in their land. In the Revelation "there was no more sea." In the Old Testament, on the contrary, "the abundance of the sea (it is said) shall be converted unto thee . . . . Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first." (Isaiah 60.) There can be no just doubt that this chapter speaks of the same time as Isaiah 65. "For thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." This and other passages prove that there is still to be sea at the time spoken of by Isaiah: the isles and ships necessarily suppose it; and "the isles afar off" are introduced between the two statements of the new heavens and new earth in Isaiah 65 and Isaiah 66.

Here in Revelation not merely the present dispensation but the present heaven and earth have passed away, and give place to "all things made new." Doubtless the new heaven and earth will be made out of the old. Just as the resurrection-body will be formed out of the present body of humiliation by the power of God, so are the present earth and heavens destined to a kindred transformation. After the dissolution they will reappear in the form of the new heavens and earth. "No more sea" would be impossible without a miracle, as long as life in its present condition has to be maintained. The sea, as my reader knows, is absolutely necessary to animated nature as it is. Man could not exist without it; and so with regard to every animal and even vegetable upon the face of the earth, not to speak of the vast world of waters. But when time is done — when there is no longer the natural life that is sustained by God — when the millennium shall have yielded the brightest witness to this as well as to every other fruit of His wisdom and goodness and power — a new state of things altogether will ensue, and this perfect and everlasting. There will be new heavens and a new earth; for the first heavens and first earth are passed away; and there is no more sea. Perfection is come for the universe.

But that is not all — Into this dwelling-place and scene of order that God will have made, so remarkably distinguished from all that has been before, and even from that which accompanies the reign of His own Messiah, John sees "the holy city, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice out of heaven, saying, Behold the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, their God" (verses 2, 3). I apprehend that the New Jerusalem is the tabernacle of God. It is where He abides in a very special sense. And this tabernacle of God descends out of heaven to be with men. The heavenly saints compose the tabernacle of God; while those that are found upon the new earth are simply described as "men." They are no longer Jews and Gentiles then, as in the millennium; this will have all passed away with "the first or former things." Every distinction which had to do with time is at an end. When a saint is risen or changed, he is no longer a Jew or a Greek; he is a man, though bearing the image of the heavenly. So here God has to do with men, and "he shall dwell with them and they shall be his people; and God himself shall be with them, their God." Instead of regarding it from a distance, God will not merely come to visit the scene that His hand has made for man as of old in the garden of Eden; but He will dwell eternally in their midst. "And God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; and no sorrow, nor crying, nor pain, shall any more be; for the first things are passed away" (verse 4). Unquestionably the figures that are used to describe this state of things are derived from Isaiah — figures which the Spirit of God had applied primarily to millennial blessedness. Isaiah predicts a glorious but earthly condition, which God will make true of the just during the millennium. Blessedness will then be the rule, sorrow the exception. Similar terms, but with striking differences, the Holy Ghost now takes up and applies in a far deeper and really unqualified sense.

And if we look for a moment at 2 Peter 3 we shall find, I think, a link between Isaiah and Revelation. It, is written in 2 Peter 3: 10, "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. The earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. . . . The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." Now it appears to me plain that this is what takes place at the epoch of the great white throne. For the moment the Lord is on that throne, the earth and heaven flee from before His face, and there is found no place for them. It is a part of "the day of the Lord." which day comprehends the whole time from the Lord's interference to judge the world, taking His great power and reigning, until He delivers up the kingdom, after the millennium and the subsequent judgments are over.* "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness; looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."

*My friend Dr. Brown will forgive me for thinking that the argument, even in its amended shape (Second Advent, p. 289), which he "believes it to be impossible to answer," is a complete and obvious fallacy. I deny that the day of the Lord, as St. Peter uses it, is the mere epoch of the Lord's coming, but rather the entire period covered by His reign and judgment. Hence the millennium, as well as the final dissolution of the actual heaven and earth, may and do occur within the compass of His day, while His coming may precede them both. His mistake lies in identifying the day with the coming of the Lord.

Now this is the state described, with fuller details of time and character, by the apostle John. The new heaven and earth are what we find in the beginning of Revelation 21. These are the new heavens and earth, "wherein dwelleth righteousness." Righteousness is at home there, because there God dwells, and this can only be because righteousness is the pervading feature. It is plain that the Holy Spirit in St. Peter refers to the passage of Isaiah, as it is said, "We according to his promise." But still He gives it a larger and deeper meaning. And St. John, the last of the New Testament writers, takes up the same thought, and puts each truth in its place. He shows us that while the millennium may be a partial fulfilment of it, the full force of the expression will not appear till the millennium is over; and then, when all is according to divine thought and purpose, God will rest, and men — not Israel only, but redeemed and glorified men — shall be His people, and He their God.

To one other scripture I must refer, in order to connect the various passages which bear on the eternal state. In 1 Cor. 15: 23 we read that every one is to be raised in his own order: "Christ the first-fruits [who is raised already]; afterward they that are Christ's at His coming. Then cometh the end, when he delivers up [which is the true reading] the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall put down all rule and all authority and power." This is the task of Christ during the millennium: He will abolish all opposing rule, subjecting to Himself every adversary and all things unto the glory of God the Father; for such is the ultimate object of His exaltation, as we see from Phil. 2. "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." This exactly harmonizes with Rev. 20 - 21, where we find, first the reign of Christ, then death destroyed, and after that the new heaven and earth, which is the time when Christ is said in 1 Cor. 15: 24 to deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. Not that Christ will cease to reign divinely: but the special human reign of Christ will terminate — that is His reigning for a given period over an earthly people, and the world at large, which the heavenly saints in glory will share along with Him. This will end. All the righteous will at last be in a risen or changed condition, all the wicked dead cast into the lake of fire, and the kingdom closes. Its surrender to God the Father in no way touches the personal glory of the Lord Jesus. The kingdom that Christ has during the millennium is not what He has as God, but as the risen man — as the One who was humbled, but has been exalted. This He delivers up to God, even the Father (Himself also as man taking the place of subjection in glory, as of old He did in grace on the earth), that God — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — may be all in all — God as such having the place of supremacy throughout eternity. But although the human or mediatorial kingdom of Christ will terminate, not so the divine kingdom; and therefore we, being made partakers of the divine nature, are said to reign for ever and ever. (Rev. 22.) So in Romans 5 it is said, "We shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." Of course, partaking of the divine nature does not touch the incommunicable glory of the Godhead. But it remains true that we have an eternal life, and that its endless character flows from the fact that it is given to us by One who, though truly man, is a divine person, by Him who is the living One and was dead, and, behold, is alive for evermore. "We shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ" — a reign which is not limited in time any more than sphere.

You will observe that it is God who is prominent through this portion, exactly answering to what we saw in 1 Cor. 15: 28. "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith [to me], Write; for these words are true and faithful" (verse 5). He speaks that sits on the throne. We do not get the Lamb mentioned. It is the glory of God in the fullest possible sense that we have here. "And he said to me, They are done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." No doubt Christ is the Alpha and the Omega too, as we find in Revelation 22: 13; but it is not the Lord as such that acts and speaks here, but God. "I will give him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit these things; and I will be a God to him, and he shall be a son to me" (verses 6, 7). Nothing can be plainer than that it is God as such who is speaking all through. "But for the cowardly, and unbelievers, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers and idolaters, and all the false, their part [shall be] in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (verse 8). A most awful word of warning, and especially as used here! For mark the force of it. It is then God shall be all in all — God who is love. But He is not merely love, which is a false and infidel thought; He is light as well as love. It as much appertains to God to be holy as to be gracious; and the very same portion of His word teaches us both these truths. And here is the final proof of it. In love He comes down to be with His people. They may be men, but they are no longer in weakness and sorrow; for God Himself has wiped away every tear from their eyes. But He is light, and therefore in presence of all things new, where righteousness dwells in peace, when there is no evil or sin, but separation from it for ever by the power of God; even then the portion of the wicked is in the lake burning with fire and brimstone. Note well that this is the eternal state. Remember that in the eternal state there is the doom, the never-ending doom, of those who have rejected Christ and taken their stand on their own miserable self. Here is the award from God Himself. Their part is the second death, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, as the Lord Jesus so touchingly expresses it No declaration can be more solemn than that of Rev. 21: 8, not only because of its character, but because of its place. When God will have rest in the new heavens and earth — when He will come down to abide among men, because there will no longer be any evil to check — His dwelling with them — then it is that the awful scene presents itself of evil and its hopeless unending torment. This is what God teaches us in His picture of the eternal world. There is not only the bright side, but none the less the lake of fire, which has its course; nor does a word intimate that its horrors will ever come to an end.

But now the Holy Ghost, having brought us to "the end" in the most absolute sense, leads us back again. We have seen the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, when this eternal condition begins. But what is its relation to the millennial earth? If we had only the previous revelations, we could not have answered this clearly. The bride, the Lamb's wife, has had her joy consummated in heaven; then as the New Jerusalem, after the millennium, she has taken her place as regards the new heavens and earth; but what is her relation to those here below during the millennium? This is now made plain. "There came one of the seven angels that had, etc. . . . and talked to me, saying, Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Its lustre [was] like a stone most precious, as a jasper stone crystal-clear." It appears to me that this account of the city's bright lustre like a jasper has a very close connection with what had just before been said of it, as having the "glory of God." For when God Himself was seen on the throne in Revelation 4, He was in appearance like a jasper and a sardis. Here the New Jerusalem has God's glory, and its lustre is jasper-like. But this is not all. "It had a wall great and high," and after this we are told in the 18th verse that "the building of its wall was of jasper." Hence it is plain that this is peculiarly the stone which is used to describe the glory of God, as far as it can be seen by a creature — not the glory of God which the creature cannot see. For God has a glory which no man eau approach unto. But He is pleased also to display His glory suitably to the capacity of a creature; and the precious stone used to set this forth is in the book of Revelation the jasper.

Besides this, we are told it had "twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names inscribed, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel." The number "twelve" is particularly mentioned throughout the account of the New Jerusalem. It was just before said that the city had the glory of God, in the hope of which we rejoice. (Rom. 5: 2.) Here we find that this hope, for which we wait and in which we rejoice, is enjoyed. But God is pleased to remember that He is dealing with people on the earth, and the New Jerusalem has a very special relation to men during the millennium. Accordingly, there are twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel written upon them. At the gates stand twelve angels, showing their subordination. In this day of glory the angel is happy to be a porter at the gate of the heavenly city — happy, if he do not enter, to have his work and mission outside. "Unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak." (Heb. 2.) "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . . . Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" (1 Cor. 6.) "And the wall of the city hath twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (verse 14:). Eph. 2: 20 gives us, I think, the force of the symbol. "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the. saints . . . . and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." No doubt the whole building is growing up into an holy temple in the Lord. But we are built upon "the foundation of the apostles and prophets," both of the New Testament. If Old Testament prophets had been meant, they would naturally, to avoid mistake, have been set before apostles; but the expression as it stands seems purposely framed to guard against such a misconception. The prophets of the Old Testament were the filling up of the law, besides testifying future things, judgments, the new covenant, etc. The law and the prophets, as it is said, were until John. (See also Matt. 5: 17.) Their authority never can be destroyed. But when Messiah was rejected by Israel, and redemption was accomplished on the cross, there was a new foundation laid for a new work of God, entirely distinct from what the law or the prophets, or even John the Baptist, contemplated. It is the foundation of the [New Testament] apostles and prophets, and it is upon this that the New Jerusalem is built. Now God has brought out His full mind as a foundation of truth.

Certain things were yet reserved in Old Testament times. Look at Deuteronomy (Deut. 29: 29). "The secret things," says Moses there, "belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever, that we may do all the works of this law." Revealed things here have to do with the law and its consequences, for the purpose of enforcing obedience. But the secret things, which then belonged to God, are themselves now revealed — the resources of grace, when all was ruin under the law. And this is what the apostle Paul lays such stress on, while he tells us how that by revelation God made known to him the mystery or secret, "whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ; which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." And so Col. 1: 26. The Holy Ghost had brought out what had been a secret thing in the days of old. The mystery is revealed. This full revelation of truth appears to be called the foundation of the apostles and prophets on which the Church is built. Therefore it is said in 1 Tim. 3: 13, that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth." The truth has come out, and God has as it were no secrets now. All that He chose to reveal. all that would be of service to the creature, and to the glory of His own Son, God has brought out; so that, in this sense and in every other, it may be said, that "the darkness passeth, and the true light now shineth." So then upon this broad and deep foundation — where not merely the dealings of God with individuals, or a people connected with His promises or His government are shown out; but where all that can be known of God by the creature has been revealed in His Son — upon this foundation the Church is built. And this is now made manifest to His saints, which was hidden but is now revealed. "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." They were the instruments of this revelation.

"And he that talked with me had a golden reed as a measure, that he might measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. And the city lieth quadrangular, and the length is as great as the breadth. . . . The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal" (verses 15, 17). It was the image of the perfection of a city "whose builder and maker is God." I do not mean that this description is to be taken as if it were of a literal city. I conceive that it is a purely symbolical picture as to certain relations of the bride, the Lamb's wife. The scripture itself most positively says that it is (not the dwelling-place of the redeemed, but) the bride herself described as a city. Just as the apostate church, the vast idolatrous ecclesiastical system so often spoken of in this book, was symbolized as the great city Babylon; so here the glorified Church is characterized as the bride, the Lamb's wife, in contrast with the great harlot, and as the holy city descending out of heaven from God, in contrast with the great city which rules over the rulers of the earth. When we read, then, of the city forming a quadrangle, of equal length, breadth, and height, it is simply to be understood as figurative of its perfectness. At the same time these symbols must not be run into one another. For immediately after it is said, "he measured the wall thereof, of an hundred and forty-four cubits, — a man's measure, that is, of an angel" (verse 17). Now the city's height was previously given as equal to the length and breadth, i.e., twelve thousand furlongs. This of course is enormously greater than a hundred and forty-four cubits, which is expressly made to refer to the height of the wall First, we have the general idea of a city which is every way square, a cube in fact; then, when we come to the details of the wall, a height is given which shows that we are not to look for mere literal consistency as if it were a portrait. The number twelve keeps up the idea of a perfection in reference to man.

"And the building of its wall was of jasper; and the city [was] pure gold, like clear glass" (verse 18). We have already found the meaning of these two figures, the gold and the glass, in an earlier part of the book The Lord counselled the Laodicean church in its fallen state to buy of Him "gold tried in the fire." It is invariably the figure of divine righteousness — of righteousness that can stand the searching fire of God's judgment. Human righteousness could not bear it, and so is never represented by gold, but rather by white linen. God could cleanse this and leave it without spot or slain. But fire would be destruction to it; whereas, with regard to the gold, it would only bring out its perfection. Accordingly this city is of pure gold, "like clear glass." Holiness, now fixed and without flaw, also marks the city. With regard to our need of holiness, the means of it are represented under the figure of water, because it is a question of cleansing from defilement in a practical way. In the Revelation this is not the case; for from the fourth chapter the saints who are put in connection with holiness are risen saints, and consequently are beyond the means of cleansing. They are therefore represented, as also in the case of that body of saints mentioned in Revelation 15, as on a sea of glass, because it is purity and this in a fixed unalterable condition. Their state is no longer that which might need to be cleansed. It is holiness that repels everything defiling. So here the city is of pure gold, like unto clear glass. In Rev. 15 it is remarkable that the sea of glass is said to be mingled with fire, which was not the case in Rev. 4; and this because the saints spoken of there had not only gone through this complete purging, and were now in a state of unalterable purity, but they had gone through the last terrible tribulation, of which fire is the known figure. From this tribulation the raptured saints of Rev. 4 had been exempt. Thus then we have the city of pure gold, like clear glass; that is, divine righteousness has its full way now, and holiness beyond nature that nothing can touch.

"And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones: the first foundation jasper, etc. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one severally of the gates was out of one pearl:* and the street of the city was pure gold, as transparent glass" (verse 19-21). Without pretending to give the spiritual meaning of the various precious stones, we may learn thence that in every variety of beauty will God array His people in that day of glory. There will be different rays of His glory reflected through them, set forth by these different precious stones. In God's own case it is not so. His essential glory is not described after this fashion. It is full concentrated light. It is not what is broken up into a variety of hues, if we may so say, as in the case of the glory He confers on the church. God is light, and He dwells in light which no man can approach unto. The rainbow of many colours was the sign by which God showed His covenant with creation, and His various ways with poor man. But when it is the lustre of the saints in heavenly glory, and the way in which God will display the beauty of His people, — for He does see beauty in them, — these precious stones are the emblems employed.

*Some readers will be astonished to hear that a man of Michaelis' reputation should adduce this as an instance of "false translation." (Int. N. T., vol. iv. p. 507.) It is not uninstructive to mark the process of mind it betrays — the very same which leads many to reject the Bible, and this writer himself to asperse the Apocalypse. "A pearl, whether we consider the rotundity of the figure, or the softness of its mass, is very ill-qualified to become the gate of a city, even if that city exists only in poetical description." But what if it be morally didactic in a symbolic prophecy? "The word used in the Greek is margarith", and that ought to be rendered precious stone! for this is the meaning ascribed to the word in Chaldee . . . M. is used perhaps in the same sense, Matt. 13: 45, 46." To refute this seems to me quite needless. Every one can see how definite is the Seer's description of the various precious stones, and the spiritual man will feel the blank created by the absence of the "pearl."

"And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; each one severally of the gates was of one pearl." Such they appeared to men outside: something quite beyond nature. It is a description that alludes to the earthly Jerusalem; but in the latter city, what is really found existing in nature will be brought to adorn it. Here the beauty of the church is set forth by a supernatural imagery: each one of the gates was made out of one pearl. They are symbols which set forth the perfect and divine beauty that God will put upon His people. This is already true of them in Christ, but actually and personally will they thus shine in that day. Each gate being of one pearl would show I suppose, the special likeness of Christ and fellowship with Christ, which God will grant to His people — to the church. In Matthew 13 we have, as I conceive, the Lord Jesus as a merchantman in quest of goodly pearls; who, when He had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that He had and bought it. It is the beauty of the church, as viewed in God's mind, which if one may say it, fascinated the Lord Jesus, so that He parted with all His earthly glory to get that pearl: a strong expression indeed, but not too strong to convey His appreciation of the church. But we know that if the Lord saw any beauty in the church, it was all derived from Himself. He saw the church as she was in the mind and purpose of God, and sells all that He might purchase this pearl of great price, which after all is but the reflection of His own beauty. So here, the spotless pearl, the perfection of moral beauty that had been so precious in the eyes of Christ, is the figure of what, even at the entrance, will appear in the eyes of men and angels.

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God, the Almighty, is its temple, and the Lamb" (verse 22). This is very important For perhaps some one may say, What has all this to do with the saint now? I answer, The world must wait for the day of glory to see the beauty of the church. And we, like the world, are so often unbelieving, that we are apt to see only the dark painful circumstances of the church, if we escape the delusive dream of an improving Christendom. Which of us carries habitually constantly in our hearts the delight of the Lord Jesus in opening out what the church is going to be — nay, what it is in His eye and to His heart? Our unbelief as to this is one main secret source of our murmuring and rebellious spirit. I do not say that we ought not to feel the failure of God's church as things are on earth: God forbid such a thought! But we might feel it more lovingly and more keenly too had we a deeper sense of its nearness to Christ and the glory it is soon to shine in. A good deal of what we feel, when evil is seen in the children of God, is because self is touched. We are all inclined to deal hardly enough with a person's vanity, pride, or things of the kind. Why? Is it not too frequently because it wounds us? We have possibly not had the share of respect and importance to which we fancied ourselves entitled, and we are readily sore about it. But this is not according to Christ. Not that we should be insensible to the ways of the flesh and the world, but we should feel all with Christ and not for ourselves. What can enable us? Nothing but the heart filled with Christ and the exceedingly blessed place in which He puts us. We are called to exhibit the Lord Jesus now. It is not merely that we are to be members of His flesh, and of His bones, but that so we are now; and therefore love and desire for God's glory would lead us to seek ways answering to this in the church and before men. What God will show to the whole universe by and by, He would have. us to look for in His people now.

When that day comes there will be no hindrances; but the action of the Holy Ghost is to make good in us what will be perfectly manifest then, and what is true in principle now. If there is a spot upon another who is to shine alone, with Christ then, this stirs up our affections that the evil may be removed in God's way and for His glory. And this it is which so increases our sense of shame that such blots should be upon ourselves. It is evident to me that the Holy Ghost reveals the description of the divine glory that is to be in the church, in order to act with great practical power on our souls now, the word being mixed with faith in them that hear it. The real reason why it so little profits us is that we are such unbelieving believers. We are believers; but is it not humiliating that we can pass over such precious fruits of Christ's love, such bright visions of assured glory, as if we did not need them now, or as if they were not the faithful and true words of God? We shall be in glory by and by, and know as we are known; but it is revealed to those who are not in it yet, that their souls may be full of the joy of it now, and that the effects of it may be manifest even to the world that despises them. The Holy Spirit is the earnest of the inheritance, as well as the seal of redemption.

But this is true not of the beauty only in which the church is to shine then; there is another thing, which ought to have a mighty influence upon us now. There is an immediate relation to God in the way of worship: and what then? The symbol here used is that of a city, and therefore we are not described as priests. If we were spoken of as persons, we should be described as brought near to God, that is, as priests; and so we are in Rev. 20: 6. But here it is a city — and a city in which there is no temple: not because there was no special seat of the presence of God there, but because His presence filled it all and equally. The access to God is immediate. But this also is a truth applicable now. (Hebrews 10.) Here below there is no temple nor priests now between us and God. Undoubtedly we have above the great and faithful High Priest — a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. But there will be below, during the future kingdom, for those on earth that need Him, when "He shall sit as a Priest upon his throne." Thus, to the Christian there is neither temple nor priest on earth now. We stand, as to our faith, in the immediate presence of God, with His perfect favour shining on us. If persons do not feel this, it is because they do not believe it. We must always believe a. thing on God's word first; and the more simply we believe, the more shall we enjoy the comfort, strength, and fruits of the truth.

"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God, the Almighty, is the temple, and the Lamb. And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they should shine on it." No earthly nor even heavenly lights of the old creation are. wanted there. "For the glory of God lightened it, and the light [literally, lamp] thereof is the Lamb" (verse 23). How wonderfully all this description falls in with a few words in John 17, to which I must refer before going farther.

In His astonishing prayer (if we can call that a prayer, which is more like the Son unbosoming Himself to the Father) the Lord says, "The glory which thou gavest me, I have given them." It was divine, but not His Godhead glory, for this never can be given, belonging to God, and none else. The Lord Jesus had Godhead glory, but not given to Him, because He had it essentially; He had it in His own right, as being God, from all eternity. But what the Father gave to Him as man, He gave to His disciples: "that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Now this exactly corresponds with what we have in the Revelation, for the holy city is seen there descending out of heaven from God: and the Lamb is in it, and the Lord God makes Himself known, so to speak, specially in Him; for the Lamb is not merely the light, but the vessel of it, or light-bearer. We may consider the light diffused, as it is said, "the glory of God had lightened it;" but if we want to see the light concentrated, where are we to look? The Lamb is that light. Thus does God make Himself to shine through all the glorious city: the Lamb is the great concentrating object, diffusing light over the whole scene. This, then, is the order of it — "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know,"* etc. The Lamb makes God known to them, as they make Him known to all others. This is what appears in the Revelation. "The nations shall walk by means of its light." not in the light of the Lamb immediately, but by means of the light of the heavenly city: precisely what we find in John 17; "that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." There is, I apprehend, what answers to the nations walking by means of the light of the city. Through these nations the church had passed in the days of her pilgrimage, and been despised because of her fellowship with Christ. (1 John 3: l.) For, as He had been there and unknown, "therefore the world knoweth us not." But now, when the bright day shines, when Jesus, long absent and rejected, the blessed and exalted man, the Lord from heaven, comes in His glory, Himself the faithful witness and accomplishment of the glory of God, as indeed He is the brightness of it, He will not be seen apart from His bride.

*It is very evident that the author of the H. A. (vol. iv. pp. 184, 196) does not understand this passage, which he justly conceives to be too often misapprehended and misapplied. For while he rightly affirms that verses 22, 23, apply to the time of glorification, the only time of perfect and displayed unity, it is a mistake to confound this with the unity prayed for in verses 20, 21, which is as clearly a question of grace and testimony to the world, as the other will be of glory and the world's knowledge. The truth is that unity is asked. for in three forms. There is, first, that which is absolute and in the twelve apostles, in verse 11, "that they may be one, as we." Secondly, there is that which should embrace those who were to believe through the apostles' word, "that they all" (whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free) "should be one" (not by virtue of the law of Jehovah and the enforced rites and ordinances of the Levitical system, but by the revelation of the Father and the Son); "as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe" (not yet know, but believe) "that thou hast sent me." Such a testimony the gathered saints were while they walked in heavenly unity here below. Then comes the third and crowning form, which it is impossible for the world to deny, when they behold the saints appearing in the same glory with Christ; and therefore it is added, "that the world may know that thou hast sent me," but this is not all, "and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." How gainsay it, when Christ and the church burst upon their astonished eyes in a community of glory? But this does not interfere with the preceding truth, which ought not to be weakened, that the Lord desired the present unity of all His disciples, as a means and powerful witness to the world that they might believe in His mission from the Father. In fact, this abides an important part of practical responsibility, and it is not wise to turn from it. because it is grossly perverted to purposes of earthly power and pride by the world-church in all its varieties. In the Acts of the Apostles we are shown the facts, while the Epistles demonstrate the importance of the doctrine.

"We shall appear with Him in glory;" and the nations shall walk by means of the light of the glorified whom they had so long cast out. Even their kings bring their glory to it.* It is necessary to state this, lest persons should imagine that there was a communication of a direct kind between the inhabitants of the earth and the heavenly city. But though the city was seen to come down from heaven, it is not here said to come down to the earth, so as to be with men, as it does when the new heaven and earth are come. Here its glory is over the earth; accordingly the kings and the nations bring their glory and honour unto it, in the way of homage, I suppose, to Him who dwells there. "And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day; for there shall be no night there." No danger threatens the city; on the contrary, "They shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations to it." Of course, it is in the same sense as in verse 24. "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing unclean, or one that works abomination and a lie: but those that are written in the Lamb's book of life." Thus, the fullest scope is given to the holiness of God, and the impure and abominable and false excluded from His presence, as indeed they are morally and altogether unfit for it; but withal His sovereignty is maintained intact. None enter there, except those enrolled in the book of life of the Lamb.

*Not into, but unto, for which in Greek there is but one word, εἰς.

It has been already remarked that the first five verses of Rev. 22 are necessary to complete the vision: but I think it better to reserve them for my next lecture, when the conclusion of the book will also be shown in due order.

Revelation 22

It is one of the interesting features of this book, that it can only be properly understood when taken in connection with all the rest of the word of God. And, singular to say too, God has linked together, in a very remarkable manner, the last book of the scripture and the very first. For example, here we fall upon images which the Holy Ghost uses to describe the blessedness of the heavenly city in its relation to the earth during the millennium; and whence are these images derived? I must go to the beginning of the book of God, to Genesis — nay, to the very beginning of Genesis itself. There I find a tree of life, rivers, etc., to which evidently the Holy Ghost refers in the passage before us.

Now this seems to me to be a striking indication of God's object, so dovetailing His whole word together, that in order to acquire the full meaning of any part, I must take it in connection with the whole. And this is all the more important, inasmuch as that same word of God shows us different states and dispensations in total contrast with one another. There was the time of innocence; there was the time when there was nothing but sin, as far as man was concerned — evil without a cheek, until the judgment of God came in the flood and destroyed all, save the few in the ark. Then was given the law, and then the gospel, each having a wholly different object. And now we await the great closing scene of this age, when all that God has wrought on the earth, all that revelation has brought out of His mind, but corrupted by man, will have been manifested in its results. In order to understand what the Holy Ghost tells me about these results, I must begin at the very beginning. Now, looking at Genesis we find that, though there is a sort of analogy in the time of innocence when God was dealing with the creature responsible of course to maintain his place of innocence, yet there is a most blessed contrast in the future, which brings out still more conspicuously the depths of grace which God will show in this holy city.

Let us look then a little at the differences. In Genesis we find that there were four rivers; and of these rivers, although we know little or nothing of the two first, at any rate it is clear that the two last, the Euphrates and Hiddekel or Tigris, were connected with some of the most painful passages in the history of God's earthly people at a later day. On these rivers were built the two most famous cities of antiquity; the Tigris on which Nineveh stood, and the Euphrates on which Babylon was built. I speak now, of course, of a time long subsequent to Adam, or even the deluge. And though the flood may have effaced, as it doubtless did, many other features of the antediluvian earth, still we find these two rivers again. As for Paradise, it was gone, but these rivers were to play an important part in the history of man, and especially of that which acquires a moment greater than its own, from being mingled with the vicissitudes and the chastenings of God's people Israel. These two rivers were identified with the powers that were to be the ruin of Israel and Judah respectively. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, which carried the great mass of the ten tribes of Israel into captivity. Babylon was the power afterwards used of God for the captivity of that which seemed to stand firm for God, no less than for David's house, but which ere long fell into greater unfaithfulness than backsliding Israel. Thus these rivers, which had been at first connected with Paradise, became afterwards the representatives of the powers of men that were used to scourge the guilty people of God.

Then again there were two trees in the garden of Eden: one of the knowledge of good and evil, and the other of life. Now whatever might have been the blessing vouchsafed to man in the tree of life, it was wholly useless to him, because the other tree put him to a test which man could not stand. He broke down; he listened to the voice of his wife who had herself listened to the serpent, and he became rebellious. The consequence was that the tree of life was no longer available for his use: had it been so it would only have perpetuated a life of sin and misery. So that while there was judgment in the act of God that placed the cherubim with the flaming sword to shut out man from the tree of life, mercy was mingled with it. God had reserved for man a better thing — the tree of grace, if we may so say. Thus when we come to the closing account, we have neither the various rivers of Eden nor a tree to test man on God's part. There is but one river and one tree. All that was connected with man's weakness and sin, and the chastening of God's people is gone. The relies of shame and the discipline of sorrow are needed no longer. The paradise of man had failed, Israel had failed, the church had failed. Now it is the paradise, the people, and the city of God, who is showing Himself and His glory there; and therefore all that was merely for the testing or the discipline of man completely disappears; and now shine out God's love, Its heavenly grace, His faithfulness to Israel, His sovereign mercy to the Gentiles, His righteous and beneficent rule. The Lord and Saviour had come in; He had by Himself borne the effects of what God's people deserved, and had made it possible for Him righteously to show them nothing but love, giving them life and atonement and cleansing through Himself, His Son.

"He showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and of the river on this side and on that side [was] the tree of life, bearing twelve [manner of] fruits, each month yielding its fruits; and the leaves of the tree [are] for healing of the nations" (verses 1, 2). Now here it is evident that we have pure grace reigning through righteousness, as far as the tree and the river are concerned. There is nothing liable to be corrupted by the power of Satan. Neither is there anything like the cherubim, jealous in keeping away man, alas! sinful. Quite the contrary. This tree of life brings forth fruit every month. Of course it is a figure. There will be no mere literal tree or river; but as the river of life's water symbolizes the abundant life and blessing which will flow through the city (that is, the Bride, the Lamb's wife), so here follows the benignant provision for healing the nations. There is a reserve as to the twelve fruits, which may set forth a far higher and more various supply for the constant refreshment of the heavenly saints; but the leaves are expressly said to be for the healing of the nations.

This is the more remarkable, for it must be familiar to us that, even in the coming day of glory the earthly Jerusalem, though in some respects figures are borrowed thence, furnishes in others a very different picture in the prophets. Take, for instance, the description in Isaiah 60. It had been said in Isaiah 59 that the Redeemer should come to Zion, and then in chapter 60 we have the description of the city. "Therefore thy gates shall be open continually: they shall not be shut day nor night," etc. But what is the principle of the earthly Jerusalem's relation to the nations? "The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." It is unsparing righteousness and judgment which govern God compels honour to be paid to His people who had been despised and trampled down among the nations. For we know how the Jews, even now in Christendom, are looked on with contempt and scorn: and if from their wealth, or other causes they get into favour with the world, it is considered a wonderful piece of liberality Men give themselves a good deal of credit for it, and in general act thus on most mistaken ground, either sceptical or pseudo-Christian. They have been so habituated to despise them that these concessions are only wrung out, and often through such false principles as the rights of men, etc. Of course I am merely referring to facts well known in the history of the world; as Christians, we have nothing to do with such questions, though we may judge them. For a Christian is set here for one purpose only — to witness for Christ, rejected by the world but exalted in heaven; to act in accordance with the grace and glory of a Christ who is now at the right hand of God. When this is lost sight of, he is salt without savour. A person may be philanthropic and essay to do much good in the world; but God has a higher object for us than any plans of ours.

And this brief digression flows out of our present theme. For whether it be the church before glory, or when glory comes, as here, the only becoming thing for us is the manifestation of grace. It is the character of grace that always gives the truth of God about the church; it is the manifestation of Himself, as He has displayed Himself and still does in Christ. This the apostle brings out in Ephesians 5, where it is said, "Be ye therefore followers [imitators] of God." And how? "As dear children, and walk in love." In what way? In the chapter before he had spoken of Christ as the offering through which God could forgive sin (verse 32), and therefore we ought to forgive one another, "even as God in Christ hath forgiven you." But in chapter 5 he goes much farther. "Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour." There is the full character of grace at once, which gives him who knows and walks in it the power of Christ in going forth among men. If I see my brother here or there, his mind filled with erroneous thoughts and hopes, and himself without conscience or with feeble qualms doing things contrary to the Lord, how would God stir my affections towards him? I must always act out of the grace in which God deals towards the saint, and I must lift up his soul, if I can, to know what God feels towards him and His will about him. If he perceives the grace in which God has acted, he will be prepared to learn what he owes to Him. Thus the apostle always speaks. Look again at the Ephesians. What had St. Paul been doing from the beginning of the epistle to chapter 5? He had shown the perfect love of God towards them, and the place of oneness with Christ in which He has set them: and now he as it were says, Walk you in the love Christ has shown you.

We find the same thing here. It is not now the thunders, and lightnings, and voices out of God's presence. All this has completely disappeared. In Rev. 4 such were the sights and sounds which emanated from the throne. They were suited then, and necessary to uphold and express the holiness of Him who sat there. They were the witness of His feeling when, the church being removed to heaven, man was left to exalt himself, only checked by providential judgments. Here there is nothing of the sort. The throne of God and of the Lamb is seen; and what issues from it? A river of water of life, bright as crystal. And why is this? Because the throne here is set in connection with the heavenly city, and this city being the symbol of the glorified saints, the church's habitual character even in glory is grace. Not only was it a river of life, not of death, but the leaves of the tree were for the healing (not destruction) of the nations.

Jerusalem here below is the city of earthly righteousness — the place where God will have brought the Jews through exceeding trouble. They must undergo a terrible tribulation first — the time of Jacob's trouble, but he will be delivered out of it. It will be a righteously measured chastening, because of their sins. They will pass through all that sorrow which God Himself is judicially to inflict; but the indignation is to cease, and this with the destruction of those who were its instruments. "For yet a very little while and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction." God will take up the cause of His people, and the calling of Israel in the millennium will savour of that righteousness which has marked the dealings of God towards them publicly, whatever may have been the hidden spring of grace. All the nations shall go up to Jerusalem when the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains. And "out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." The law is the rule of righteousness; grace is another thine, altogether. It is not a rule of righteousness, with death the inevitable penalty. It is true that grace reigns through righteousness, but then it is the righteousness of God, not of man; and this, under His gracious culture, fills the saint with the fruit of righteousness, which is through Jesus Christ to His own glory and praise.

Here we have then a scene of perfect grace. Nothing could exceed the blessing in relation to man. The number twelve is always used in reference to the dealings of God with man by means of human administration. Seven is the number of perfection in relation to the things of God, or rather to the spiritual side, whether good or evil — twelve in relation to the human side, Thus, when God chose the patriarchs, there were twelve: they had a reference, I suppose, not only to the tribes which sprang from them, but to the rest of mankind generally. And again, when the apostles were called, there were twelve, answering to the twelve tribes of Israel. The moment we have the apostle who was specially entrusted with the great work of putting the church on its firm and heavenly foundations, irrespective of earthly arrangement, the number twelve is broken, and apostles independent of the twelve appear. (Acts 14: 4, 14; Eph. 4.) This may explain a little further what I meant by saying that the twelve gates, twelve foundations, etc., which we saw in Rev. 21, set forth the aspect of this city towards man. It is viewed in its public governmental character. So in the tree too. By its bearing twelve manner of fruits, and yielding its fruit every month is shown the aspect of it towards man. Accordingly we are told next that "the leaves of the tree were for healing of the nations."

Another thing is clear, that this scene refers not to the eternal, but to the millennial state. For in eternity nations will not exist as such; neither will any need healing then. Carefully bear this in mind, however, that if we look at the heavenly city itself, it is eternal. It will make little difference to the city whether seen in the millennium, or in the eternal state that succeeds. There were two descents of the city in Rev. 21 — one at the beginning of the millennium, and the other at the commencement of the eternal state. The second verse of that chapter gives us its descent when the eternal state is come, and the tenth verse its descent for the millennium. The reason, I think, is that at the end of the millennium the old heaven and earth pass away; and naturally the city would disappear from the scene of the convulsion. Then, when the new earth dawns on our view, the heavenly city again comes down, and takes its place permanently in the new heavens and earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. This is necessary to remark; because, while at the end of the thousand years all will be changed, still the heavenly city will abide for ever. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." There will be certain offices which the glorified church will cease to discharge towards the earth after the millennium is over: but its intrinsic blessedness remains the same. Consequently, it is said here, "There shall be no more curse." Thenceforth this is as true evermore for the heavenly city, as it can be for the new heaven and earth afterwards.

"And the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it: and his servants shall serve him: and they shall see his face, and his name [shall be] on their foreheads. And there shall be no night there, [or more,] and they shall have no need of lamp and light [of the sun]" — the one representing the light of man's making, and the other of God: but all that suited this world is past for the city. "For the Lord God shall shed light upon them: and they shall reign for ever and ever" (verse 3-5). The expression "to the ages of the ages," I apprehend, must be taken in the strongest sense here. It does not refer only to what is called "the kingdom," though of course the reigning begins then. In 1 Cor. 15: 24 it is a kingdom which Christ delivers up at a definite point called "the end." "The end" implies that the thousand years and the judgment of the dead have taken place; for this judgment is part of Christ's "kingdom" — its great closing act, we may say. All this forms a part of the kingdom; and when it is over, and death, the last enemy, has been destroyed, then the Lord Jesus delivers up the kingdom to God.

The object of the kingdom is to reduce every enemy to subjection; and this being accomplished, that special human kingdom terminates. But if there will then be a great change as regards the earthly saints in their natural bodies below, not so with those who are in the heavenly places, already glorified. They will reign for ever and ever: it will be true throughout all eternity. These words seem here to be used without restriction. All the account, from the 9th verse of Rev. 21 to verse 5, inclusively, of Rev. 22, presents the relation of the heavenly city to the earth during the millennium. But there are certain features in it which are true everlastingly. One of these characteristics, besides its unchangeable intrinsic glory, is, that the service of the saints will be for ever and ever. So as to the reigning. The mode of the reign, as of the service, may be changed after the earthly kingdom is closed; but, in themselves, they will, I apprehend, endure for ever and ever.

Now we are come to the closing comments of the prophet, and the conversation that takes place between him and the angel in reference to the prophecy, as well as the final message from the Lord Jesus Himself. Strictly speaking, the fifth verse ends the prophecy. But just as we have a prefatory charge at the beginning of the book, so here we have a sort of formal conclusion.

You will observe that the coming of the Lord Jesus is referred to no less than three times, and that each has a different connection in these farewell words of the Lord. The first time is in the 7th verse, evidently in dependence on verse 6. "And he said unto me, These words are faithful and true: and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show to his servants the things which must come to pass shortly. And, behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book" (verses 6, 7). The Lord Jesus here links His coming with the blessing of the man who attends to the words of the prophecy. In strict connection with this, the Holy Ghost solemnly commends the prophecy which was now brought to a close. The Lord Jesus, no doubt, foresaw the measure of slight which would be put upon this book, and the efforts of men to put it aside.

I do not like to refer to particular religious societies; but allow me to say a word about one which is a reformed body and well known. And yet, extraordinary to say, in that which is arranged for the express purpose of giving the entire word of God to the people in daily portions, how is it that the book of Revelation is given? — Why, it is only used, a little bit at a time, on one or two special occasions, and at other seasons not at all, while even part of the Apocrypha is read! It appears to me that the Lord was here guarding His people against all such disrespect, open or more subtle, to the book of the Revelation.* Nor is it merely where these lessons are fixed, that there is a slight put upon it: let not others, differently situated, suppose themselves to be guiltless. Take those who have no formal division of the scriptures day by day: do you find this book honoured by them as the Lord enjoins! You will learn that in general, though God's children have not agreed to dishonour it, yet, as a practical fact, this book has been pushed aside, save for controversial, historical, or imaginative purposes. There is hardly an attempt to expound it simply and practically. Few servants, indeed, deal it out in due season, so as to make it a part of the household bread of the family of God. Even when interpretations of it are ventured on, are they not in general most crude — the far-fetched notions of an antiquarian, or degrading comparisons with an infidel historian or a daily newspaper?

*I have hardly spoken more plainly here than the Dean of Canterbury does on Rev. 1: 3. "If the words are to be understood as above, they form at least a solemn rebuke to the practice of the Church of England, which omits with one or two exceptions the whole of this book from her public readings. Not one word of the precious messages of the Spirit to the Churches is ever heard in the public services of a Church never weary of appealing to her Scriptural liturgies,"

What a solemn thing it is to depart from God's word! The Lord Jesus puts the book before His people as a light shining in a dark place — not at all as a mere exercise for men of learning in a speculative mood. It was meant for all the children of God, for their souls' profit, and to help their communion with God. He wanted them not only to know His grace, but the judgments that were coming upon the world. He desired them to understand that the book, which shows the world's course and doom, equally indicates their deliverance out of the judgment. For the Revelation makes it plain, that, before there is a word of the judgment, the church is seen in the presence of God: from the beginning of Revelation 4 we see her above. How plain it is that the words of the prophecy are all of the greatest importance to God's people! He desires they should be happy in the fellowship He gives them with Himself before these things come to pass. "Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book." And why has it been comparatively so valueless as to its practical bearing? Because the prophecy has been severed from the promise. The word of grace, "Behold, I come quickly," has not been distinguished from "the sayings of the prophecy of this book." And hence the church's portion has been confounded with the judgments of the world. The Revelation supposes that God's children are waiting for the coming of Christ, which ought indeed to be their bright hope from day to day. Where this is not the case, I believe that it is morally impossible to enter into or enjoy its disclosures. "Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book." The Lord is coming quickly. But if we are not looking for Him with hearts at rest through His grace, we are sure to pervert His sayings, instead of turning them to profit.

When John heard and saw these things, he fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that showed them. He had done so previously (Rev. 19: 10).* Possibly the grandeur of the vision may have led him to suppose that it was Christ Himself taking that form. But he is immediately corrected. The angel says to him, "I am thy fellow-servant," or rather, "the fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets." As it stands in our Bible, the statement is somewhat ambiguous. It might seem, as it stands, to convey that the angel was one of his brethren, the prophets. Of course this is not the meaning; but instead of being the Lord, and an object of worship, the angel was the fellow-servant of John, and of John's brethren the prophets. "See thou do it not; for I am the fellow-servant of thee, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God,"

*It may be as well to observe here, that, in the reciprocal proposition, so often vaguely applied or misapplied, "the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus," we are not to understand a testimony to Jesus," but that which He gave, and, in general throughout the Apocalypse, His prophetic testimony, whether committed to an angel or to His servants. It is incorrect therefore to say that this means to Jesus; which is regularly expressed either by the dative, or if a genitive be used, with περί. The angelic communicator was but a fellow-servant of John's: God was to be worshipped.

But he adds more, and a very important thought it is, practically, for God's children. You may remember in the last chapter of Daniel it is written (verse 4), "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Now mark in what a wonderful place God has put His church, as we gather from comparing Revelation 22.

He was sending His word to the most favoured man that could be found among all the favoured prophets of the Old Testament — "a man greatly beloved." But although there had been given him so plain and distinct a prophecy of Christ's coming and death, other words were. added, as to which it was said, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book even to the time of the end." Here the same Spirit addresses John, and says to him, "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand" (verse 10). How comes this to pass? The whole calling of the church is at the time of the end. From the day that the church began its actual existence here below, it was the time of the end; and all through her history, still it is the time of the end. Of course I do not mean that it is distinctively the time of the end for the Jews, who must wait for the development of all on the platform of literal facts; but therein lies the peculiarity of the church's calling. She is above times and seasons, though she knows them; she has nothing to do with dates, or signs, or outward events, any more than with the world, of whose history they are the natural and necessary accompaniment. The church is lifted up above such a scene; she is heavenly. Such is the place where we are put by the grace of God, entirely outside all the computations which refer to the government of this world.

As for the Jew, of whom Daniel was the type, he must wait till the time of the end is historically come, till the knowledge is given by God to those who have understanding then. Until that time all is sealed up for Israel. This is not the case with the church represented by John. To him it is said, "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book."

But here is the error made by many excellent persons. Sir Isaac Newton. a man of the highest reputation in human science, applied this shutting up and sealing of the book in Daniel to the church. The consequence was that he gave it up as a thing that could not be understood till the time of the end. Had he compared the passage in Daniel with the closing words of St. John's Revelation, he would have learnt that the very words that were hidden from the Jewish prophet are expressly opened to the Christian. If Daniel was to seal, John is expressly told not to seal. And why? Because Christ had come, and is gone into heaven. and is on the right hand of God, ready to judge quick and dead; He was rejected, and from that moment it is morally the time of the end. And so the New Testament writers speak. The apostle John says, "Little children, it is the last time;" Peter writes, "The end of all things is at hand;" James, "The Judge standeth before the door." So wrote St. Paul: "Now all these things happened unto them as ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" [or ends of the ages are met]. And so Heb. 9: 26. Thus you have substantially the same great truth from the Epistles of Paul, of Peter, and of James, down to the Revelation.

This it is, I conceive, that is supposed, when John is told not to shut up the words of the prophecy of this book. It is to be used and understood now in virtue of the knowledge of Christ and with the Holy Ghost given by Christ as an unction whereby we know all things. To us the time is always at hand. The words of this book are not sealed to us; so that it is unbelief, if instead of taking the book as it were to Christ who is the light to reveal this as all else, we submit it to the world and its wisdom which can but darken. This, I doubt not, is the root and reason of the mistakes and difficulties so prevalent with regard to the interpretation of the book. In order to understand this and every other part of scripture, I must see what God is doing for the glory of His Son. As a Christian I am encouraged to read the prophecy: its sayings are not sealed to those who have the mind of Christ. If I were a Jew, I should have to wait till the time of the end arrive in the full prophetic sense, i.e., the end of the age. Then the wise among the Jews shall understand; they are the godly intelligent remnant. With such a remnant in principle (called, it is true, into better hopes) the church began.

But some may say, There were certain things in Daniel which were to be sealed, and others which were not: why may not these last (not the first) have been the things John was there told not to seal? I reply that the Revelation supposes all the truth we find in Daniel and a great deal more. It could not be understood, if Daniel were not; while there are many truths added in the Revelation which were not given to Daniel. Such a plea is therefore unavailing. The fact is that Daniel speaks in the most general terms, and is told to shut up the words and seal the book — not merely certain parts of it. The Revelation goes over the same ground as Daniel with respect to the last empire, giving many things of a still wider scope and far more profoundly — things which grew out of the Christian apostacy, in addition to the previous ruin of Israel and the future wickedness both of them and the Gentiles. Therefore, if there was any book in the New Testament which one might naturally expect to be sealed up, it is the Revelation; for as it is the last, so it is the most difficult, abstruse, and comprehensive of all the books of the Bible. Therefore when the Holy Ghost says, "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book," I conceive that we have implied a clear intimation of the peculiar privileges of the Christian. It supposes him to stand in the full light of God; and thus what may have been hidden before is now fully revealed, seeing that Christ has come and made us members of His body, and given us the Holy Ghost who searches all things, yea, the deep things of God. This, to my mind, is the reason why it is said, "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book." It is a consequence of redemption.

It is important in another way not always seen. The events signified by the prophetic visions of the Revelation never enable one to understand the book itself If they were to take place today, this would not of itself give intelligence as to the Revelation. The sole key to prophecy is the Holy Ghost, who is the only One that can make known its relation to Christ; and, without seeing this relation, we never understand it. Take one of the clearest and most defined of prophecies — that of the seventy weeks in Daniel. Persons generally allow that it has been accomplished. But ask of them its real meaning; and they will show how little it is understood. They have a vague idea that it is accomplished, and little more. It is not therefore the events themselves which explain the word: we need the teaching of the Spirit, which is as necessary to interpret prophecy as any other part of the scriptures. Events may be the accomplishments of particular prophecy and a witness of its truth to those who doubt; but they never of themselves afford the just interpretation of the prophecy. They undoubtedly corroborate it when accomplished, and may be useful to stop the mouth of a gainsayer. But (as it has been long ago remarked by another) you must understand the prophecy itself, before you can apply it to the. events; and when you do understand it, you have what God desired to give your faith, independently of the events. In fact, to refute such a notion we have only to weigh what is said here, as everywhere else in it: "Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand." The value to us, to the church, is beforehand, whatever may be the use for those who shall be in the scene when the events arrive.

But now listen to a most solemn truth. When the time is actually come of which the prophecy treats, what is the condition of men? It is fixed, for ever fixed for all — hopelessly for some. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him work righteousness still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still" (Verse 11). That is, it is not the time when there can be moral change; not a time when there can be the conversion of sinners — When a man who is under the power of Satan can be delivered from it and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. All this is at an end. Then he that is unjust must remain unjust, and he that is filthy remains filthy still. Men are solemnly settled in the condition in which they are found. The day of grace is over, the day of judgment will be come, and the door will then be shut.

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and my reward is with me, to give each as his work is" (verse 12). Evidently this confirms what has been remarked. When that day comes, it is the judgment of the living. It is the Lord's coming, not here spoken of as an encouragement to him who hears and keeps the words of the prophecy of the book, but rather in the way of discriminating judgment. "I [am] the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (verse 13). That is, the Lord Jesus, beside what is peculiar to Himself, takes the same title here that God Himself did in Rev. 21: 6. As God was the sum and substance of all revelation, being, or action, so was Christ. "No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." "Blessed [are] they that do his commandments [or wash their robes], that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Without [are] the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the whoremongers, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one loving and practising a lie" (verses 14, 15).

But next we have another thing. It is not the Lord's coming now, as an encouragement to those who should keep the sayings of the prophecy of this book; nor yet His coming as dealing with every man, His advent in the way of judgment and His reward with Him to give each individual as his work is. We have seen the holy and the righteous having their portion, and the filthy and unrighteous their judgment. But the Lord has His own proper and full relation to the church. Consequently His voice is now heard with marked emphasis here: "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David" (verse 16). That is, He refers to His divine and His human character. But beside this He has a special relationship to us — "the bright [and] the morning star."

When the Lord comes in His glory to the world, it is as the Sun of righteousness with healing in His wings, for those that have been broken, and scattered, and peeled, — a people terrible from their beginning hitherto. But then He appears in terror to tread down those that have despised Him under His feet. Not so does He present Himself to us. It is not for us the image of the sun, when man should sleep no longer. When the Sun of righteousness calls man up, not then to work as he works now; it summons him that he may bow to Him whom he had long slighted, and in due time hear his doom pronounced by the Lord of glory, whom he can despise no longer. Thus will He appear to the world, and "all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble. And the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

But for those who watch during the night of man's day before the Lord appears in His glory, for those who watch with bridal affections, not sleeping as do others — how does He speak to such? How is He made known to them? "I am the bright, the morning star." Blessed star of morn before the day comes! We watch not for the day, but for Him during the night, and He will give us the morning star, the harbinger of the dawn. A blessed place it is — the place of our love and hope: it will never be disappointed of its joy, and the Lord Jesus Christ will surely come, as the bright and morning star to us. He cheers us while we wait, and will quickly come for us Himself. We may have to tarry somewhat; at least it may seem long to us. For those who waste their time in slumber, it will be alas! too short; but for those that wait for Him and yearn to see Him, the hope might seem to be long deferred. Instead of growing weary and sick, may our hearts, on the contrary, be filled with the joy and constancy of assurance that the Lord is coming soon! He is the bright and morning star.

But more: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come." What a blessed thought for us that the Holy, Ghost Himself is the One who takes up the word and says, "Come!" He groans with us, entering into our sorrows, now that He is come down. He is not the less divine, I need not say; but withal He has condescended to identify Himself, as it were, with our hearts, and be the sharer of our feelings. But it is not groans that we have now; not such is the mind of the Spirit, when He thinks of the Lord Jesus coming for us. There is the calm and peaceful earnestness of desire. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come." It is most strengthening to know that it is the voice of the Holy Ghost Himself which says to the Lord Jesus "Come." It would not have been nearly so blessed, had only the bride said, "Come." But it is "the Spirit and the bride." She had done many things wrong, had made many mistakes in thought and feeling and ways. But now it is the Spirit, the Holy Ghost Himself who says, Come. He it is who leads the heart to desire the coming of Jesus; He is the energy of the church in bidding Jesus welcome. "The Spirit and the bride, say, Come." It is in looking up to Jesus that the church or the Christian says, Come; not looking down to the poor sinner and telling him to come. The Holy Ghost leads and inspires the heart of the bride thus to cry, not only in sympathy of sorrow, but in communion with the joy with which she looks up in the hope of the Bridegroom's return.

And not only so, but "let him that heareth say, Come." If I have only heard the voice of Jesus, I am entitled to say, Come. Perhaps there are some who say, Oh that I could be happy in asking the Lord to come! How can I say, Come, when I am so unworthy? The Lord warrants you to say, Come. It is not merely the bride filled with the Holy Ghost that says, Come — entering into her full privileges; but "let him that heareth say, Come." Have you heard His voice, and tasted that He is gracious? Do you not know that He is the good Shepherd? I might be the very feeblest and weakest one, shrinking through ignorance from the Lord's coming at once; yet here I have the Holy Ghost inviting me to take up the very same word that the Spirit and the bride take up. "Let him that heareth say, Come."

Most evident it is also here that the going out of the first affections of the heart towards Christ and His coming does not harden the heart towards the poor world, nor make us indifferent to the conversion of the lost; but the very contrary. Whatever estimate man may form of their own efforts, my conviction is, that the people who most desire the conversion of sinners are, caeteris paribus, those who most desire the coming of the Lord Jesus. I do not believe that the men that want to put Him off are those that pray and labour most for the conversion of souls. What is it leads such to desire it? They labour for it because they see souls perishing everlastingly, and they justly feel that all are miserable without Christ. But they have these feelings only in common with all their brethren. We all believe that men will be cast into hell if they do not receive the gospel, and it grieves us to see them rejecting the Saviour; we have these feelings as well as they. But we have another spring which they have not. It is indeed the Lord's way, and this is better than theirs. He understands what is good for poor sinners and poor saints incomparably better than His servants do. Now He shows here that it is the same Spirit who looks up to Jesus and says, Come, who also can turn us round to lost sinners with the invitation, "let him that is athirst come." It is there we have the other side. It is not here the Spirit directing the church in looking up to the Lord and saying, Come; but the heart is now directed to the world and saying, "Let him that is athirst come; whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (verse 17).

The sinner is not told to say, Come. Observe the great and plain difference in the latter part of the verse. In the first two clauses they say, Come; but in the latter part they do not bid Jesus come, but are invited to come themselves: "Let him that is athirst come," etc.

Thus God shows that the first thought of my heart should be towards Jesus. If true to Him, I shall desire His coming. The Spirit prompts and sanctions this desire. And what is the effect on my feelings towards the world? It will give me a heavenly reason for desiring the conversion of sinners. I shall have the same moral motives, and the same affections, which act on my brethren who put off the coming of the Lord. And I shall have besides all the impetus which the hope of Christ's speedy coming can give me, and the sense of the danger of those to whom His coming can be nothing but certain judgment, even in this world. The more a Christian looks for Christ's coming at any moment, the more ardent must be his desire, and the more earnest his importuning, that souls should come and take the water of life.

In this verse 17 then God unfolds our twofold relation. He shows me my relation to Christ, which ought to be the first thought of my heart — not merely that my soul should be at peace if He came, but filled with the earnestness of affection that desires His coming. And He shows me that, when I am right there, I shall turn round with quickened zeal in the sense of the grace of Christ, and shall say to every one that is athirst, Come. More than that. If I see a soul that may not perhaps thirst deeply, but who is willing to come, I shall not tell him to wait till he is very thirsty. I shall bid him come at once, and welcome; for the word is, "whosoever let him take the water of life freely." If there is only the desire of the heart, it comes from God, and no one rightly says, You must wait till you have gone through this or that experience. If a man has not got so far in realizing his state, I am not to keep him away. The water of life is for whosoever will. He is directed to come and drink of it freely. What fulness of grace fills the scene when the Lord brings our place before us!

"I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any one shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, that are written in this book" (verses 18, 19). You will observe that the tree and the city mentioned here answer to what we found in verse 14. Those that do His commandments (or rather, according to the critical text, "those that wash their robes") are blessed, and have a title to the tree of life, and entrance by the gates into the city. But as for such as take away from the words of this book, God shall take away their portion from both the tree and the city which are written of in this book. They shall have no access thereto.

The Lord had said if any man would add to or take away from the words of the prophecy of this book, in either way dishonouring it, He would assuredly know and feel and resent it. But He could not close with such words as these. He has reserved, as it were, the best wine to the last. He had already spoken of His coming in the way of judgment, and of His coming for the church, in full grace; and now He could not leave us with a note of sorrow. He must bring back our hearts to gladness and joy at the thought of His coming again; and so He says, "He that testifieth these things saith, Surely, I come quickly. Amen." Immediately John as representing the church answers, "Come, Lord Jesus." It is the ready reply of his heart to the Lord.

And if it is our privilege to look to Christ and hear His voice; if we have known some little of the joy of being even now in union with Himself, made members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones; if we are waiting as those conscious of our bridal relationship to Christ, and assured that we shall have the bride's portion, in presence of the Lamb for evermore, the Lord grant that this may be the answer of our hearts and lips — "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. May we not cherish high thoughts for ourselves, nor for the church, much less for the world! It is a blinding delusion to look for better days while Jesus is away. There are good days in store, even for this poor world — days of heaven upon the earth; but the Lord must come before them — and He must have us for Himself first of all. The Lord will never have a time of real abiding joy for the world as a whole, till He has had the Church with Himself. For, as we see in Romans 8, "the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." The manifestation spoken of there will be in glory St. Paul had been speaking before of the glory which shall be revealed in us, when our bodies shall be changed, and made like the glorious body of Christ. We are not like the Son of God now, as regards our bodies. Too well we know that we bear the image of the earthly still: but we shall bear the image of the heavenly. And then, when God sees us shining in the likeness of His own Son, He will have no reason to be ashamed of us. He will not present us before the universe, till our bodies are as worthy of Him as is the new life that He has given to our souls. When the sons of God are manifested, then creation will cease to groan, and the earth and heavens, filled with blessedness, will declare both the glory and the goodness of God. "The floods will clap their hands, and the hills be joyful together before Jehovah." Then it will be found that the blessed hope, and the appearing of the glory that the Lord has set before us, will issue in praises of joy and gladness, which will reach the most distant parts of earth, and the utmost bounds of creation.

May the Lord grant that we may say, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus;" that we may say it for ourselves, as for all the church, and, in a sense for all creation too, the blessing of which depends on our being manifested along with Christ! Meanwhile, the grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints!

Romans 1 - 7.

W. Kelly.

Part 1 of Notes on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans, with a new translation,

Preface.

He who writes a book does in that very act profess, unless he be a thoughtless man, that he has somewhat of profit to offer the reader. To some this might seem unlikely, when ever so slight a survey is taken of the many works written on the Epistle to the Romans. Nevertheless, such is the wealth of the mine, on the one hand, such the faithfulness of God's Spirit, on the other, that I doubt if any servant of Christ has ever seriously sought into that great communication of God through the apostle Paul without results of value for others. By this brief exposition I too trust in the Lord to help souls in the understanding of that which shall never perish, so that they may walk more freely and firmly in His ways. Enough one knows, however little it may be, to be assured how much remains to be gathered by those who may yet labour in faith till the Lord comes.

October 1, 1873.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE TEXT ACCORDING TO ANCIENT AUTHORITY.

Romans 1. Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, set apart unto God's gospel, 2 which he had before promised through his prophets in holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, that was born of David's seed according to flesh, 4 that was marked out Son of God in power according to [the] Spirit of holiness by resurrection of [the] dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received grace and apostleship unto obedience of faith among all the Gentiles* in behalf of his name; 6 among whom are ye also, called of Jesus Christ, 7 to all that are in Rome beloved of God, called saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.

* Or, nations.

8 First I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you, always at my prayers 10 beseeching, if by any means now at least I shall be prospered by the will of God to come to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift in order to your being established; 12 that is, to be comforted together among you through the faith which is in one another, both yours and mine.

13 But I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that I often proposed to come to you and was hindered until the present, that I might have some fruit among you too, even as also among the other Gentiles. 14 Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and unintelligent, I am debtor; 15 so on my part there is readiness to preach the gospel to you also that [are] in Rome; 16 for I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is God's power unto salvation to every one that believeth, both to Jew first and to Greek. 17 For God's righteousness in it is revealed by faith unto faith, even as it is written, 'But the righteous shall live by faith.'

18 For there is revealed God's wrath from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness. 19 Because what maybe known of God is manifest among them, for God made [it] manifest to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from [the] world's creation are perceived, being understood by the works, both his eternal power and Godhead, that they might be inexcusable. 21 Because, having known God, they glorified him not as God nor were thankful, but became vain in their thoughts, and their heart void of understanding was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of winged and four-footed and creeping [creatures]. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness so that their bodies were dishonoured among them; 25 which exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and served and reverenced the creature rather than* the Creator who is blessed for ever,* Amen. 26 On this account God gave them up to vile passions; for both their females exchanged the natural use into the unnatural, 27 and likewise the males also, leaving the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males working out unseemliness, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they disapproved to have God in acknowledgment,† God gave them up unto a reprobate mind to do improper things; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, ill-will; whisperers, 30 slanderers, God-hated, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 void of understanding, faithless, without natural affection, pitiless; 32 which, knowing right well the righteous award of God that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only practise them but also have a fellow-pleasure in those that do [them].

*Literally "beyond," and "unto the ages."

†Or, 'in [their] knowledge.'

Romans 2. Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, every one that judgest: for wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon those that do such things. 3 And dost thou reckon this, O man that judgest those that do such things and practisest them, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5 But according to thy hardness and unrepentant heart thou treasurest to thyself wrath in [the] day of wrath and revelation of God's righteous judgment, 6 who shall render to each according to his works: 7 to those that with patience in good work seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life; 8 but to those that are contentious and disobey the truth but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation, 9 tribulation and anguish on every soul of man that worketh out evil, both of Jew first and of Greek; 10 but glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good, both to Jew first and to Greek; 11 for there is no regard of person with God. 12 For as many as without law have sinned without law also shall perish; and as many as have sinned in law shall be judged by law 13 (for not the hearers of law [are] just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified. 14 For when Gentiles which have no law practise by nature the things of the law, these having no law are a law to themselves; 15 which evince the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also joining its testimony and their thoughts also one with another accusing or also excusing) 16 in [the] day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel by Jesus Christ.

17 But if thou art named a Jew, and restest on law, and boastest in God, 18 and knowest the will, and provest the things that differ,* being instructed out of the law, 19 and hast confidence that thou thyself art a guide of blind, a light of those in darkness, 20 an instructor of foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law: 21 thou then that teachest another, dost thou not teach thyself? thou that preachest not to steal, dost thou steal? 22 thou that sayest not to commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou who boastest in law, through the transgression of' the law dost thou dishonour God? 24 For the name of God on your account is blasphemed among the Gentiles, even as it is written. 25 For circumcision indeed profiteth if thou do law; but if thou be a transgressor of law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. 26 If then the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision, 27 and the natural uncircumcision, fulfilling the law, judge thee that in the way of letter and circumcision transgressest law? 28 For he that is outwardly a Jew is not [one], nor [is] that which is outward in flesh circumcision, 29 but he that [is so] hiddenly [is] a Jew, and circumcision of heart in spirit, not in letter, the praise of whom [is] not of men but of God.

*It might mean the consequence of this process, "approvest the things that are excellent."

Romans 3. What then [is] the superiority of the Jew, or what the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way; for, first, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 For what if some believed not? shall their unbelief make void the faith* of God? 4 Let it not be, but let God be true and every man false, even as it is written, 'That thou mightest be justified in thy words, and overcome when thou art judged.' 5 But if our unrighteousness commend God's righteousness, what shall we say? [Is] God unrighteous who inflicteth wrath? I speak according to man. 6 Let it not be: since how shall God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God abounded in my lie to his glory, why any longer am I too judged as a sinner? 8 and not, even as we are slanderously reported, and even as some give out that we say, 'Let us do evil that good things may come?' whose judgment is just.

* That is, His faithfulness or good faith.

9 What then? are we better? Not at all; for we have before charged both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin, 10 even as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not one; 11 there is not the [man] that understandeth; there is not the [man] that seeketh out God. 12 All went out of the way, together they became unprofitable; there is none that practiseth kindness, there is not so much as one.' 13 'An open grave [is] their throat; with their tongues they used deceit; venom of asps [is] under their lips; 14 whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; 15 swift [are] their feet to shed blood; 16 ruin and misery [are] in their ways; 17 and no way of peace they knew. 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.' 19 Now we know that what ever things the law saith, it speaketh to those that [are] in the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be under judgment with God. 20 Wherefore by works of law no flesh shall be justified before him, for by law [is] knowledge of sin.

21 But now apart from law God's righteousness is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, 22 even God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all sinned, and come short of the glory of God, 24 being justified gratuitously by his grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiatory* through faith in his blood, for a declaration of his righteousness on account of the praeter-mission of the sins that had been before, in the forbearance of God, 26 with a view to the declaration of his righteousness in the present time, in order to his being just and justifying him that [is] of faith in Jesus. 27 Where then [is] boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? of works? No, but through [the] law of faith. 28 We reckon then that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Is he, pray, the God of Jews only? [Is he] not also of Gentiles? Yes, of Gentiles also; 30 since God [is] one who shall justify [the] circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through† faith? 31 Do we then make void law through† faith? Let it not be: nay, we establish law.

*That is, a mercy-seat as in Hebrews 9: 5.

†The article follows, meaning the faith actually exercised by any.

Romans 4. What then shall we say that Abraham our fore-father according to flesh hath found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath matter whereof to boast, but not before God. 3 For what doth the scripture say? 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.' 4 Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt; 5 but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. 6 Just as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works. 7 'Blessed they whose iniquities have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered; 8 blessed [the] man to whom the Lord will in no way reckon sin.'

9 This blessedness then [cometh it] upon the circumcision or also upon the uncircumcision? For we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received [the] sign of circumcision as seal of the righteousness of the faith that [he had] in uncircumcision, in order to his being father of all that believe in a state of uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned to them also, 12 and father of circumcision not only to those circumcised but also to those that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham while in uncircumcision.

13 For not by law was [the] promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world, but by righteousness of faith. 14 For if those that are of law [be] heirs, faith is made vain and the promise is annulled. 15 For the law worketh out wrath; but where no law is, [there is] no transgression. 16 On this account [it is] of faith that [it might be] according to grace, in order to the promise being sure to all the seed, not only to that which [is] of the law, but also to that which [is] of Abraham's faith, who is father of us all 17 (even as it is written, 'A father of many nations* I have made thee') before God whom he believed, that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that be not as being; 18 who against hope believed in hope, in order to his becoming father of many nations† according to that which was spoken, 'So shall be thy seed.' 19 And not being weak in faith, he considered [not] his own body now dead, being about a hundred years old, and the deadening of Sarah's womb, 20 yet as to the promise of God wavered not through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and fully persuaded that what he hath promised he is also able to perform. 22 Wherefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written on his account alone that it was reckoned to him, 24 but on our account also, to whom it shall be reckoned, to us that believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord out of [the] dead, who was given up on account of our offences and was raised on account of our justification.‡

*Or Gentiles," as ἐθνῶν is elsewhere translated.

†Or Gentiles."

‡The form of the word here and in Rom. 5: 18 means the act of justification, not the thing done or its ground.

Romans 5. Having then, been justified by faith, we have* peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 through whom also we have had the access into this grace wherein we stand, and boast in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only [so], but we also boast in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh out endurance; 4 and endurance proof, and proof hope: 5 and hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit that was given to us. 6 For Christ, while we were yet weak, died in due time for ungodly [men]. 7 For hardly in behalf of a righteous [man] will one die: for in behalf of the good [man] perhaps one even dareth to die; 8 but God commendeth his own love towards us, because, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having been now justified by his blood, we shall be saved by him from wrath. 10 For if while enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but boasting also in God by our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom now we have received the reconciliation.

*Very excellent and ancient MSS. read ἔχωμεν, which however to my mind suits not the context, for this is doctrine, not exhortation. It is well known that the best copies often faultily interchange ω with ο, as I presume they did here. Under such circumstances internal evidence is entitled to great weight. Thus in 1 Corinthians 15: 49 the authorities (save B. and very few others) read φορέσωμεν, which, I am bold to say, no sober Christian of intelligence can accept as in keeping with the context or even sound doctrine.

12 On this account as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and thus death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: 13 (for until law sin was in [the] world, but no sin is put to account when there is no law; 14 but death reigned from Adam till Moses even over those that had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of the coming [one]. 15 But [shall] not, as the offence, so also* [be] the free gift? for if by the offence of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abound unto the many. 16 And [shall] not, as by one having sinned, [be] the gift? For the judgment [was] of one unto condemnation, but the free gift [was] of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the one, much more they that receive the abundance of the grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by the one Jesus Christ:) 18 So then as by one offence [it was] toward all men for condemnation, so also by one accomplished righteousness† toward all men for justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many shall be constituted righteous. 20 But law came in by the way, in order that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace over-abounded that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto life eternal by Jesus Christ our Lord.

*Probably Mr. Darby (who first, as far as I know, adopted the interrogative form) was not aware that this idea was suggested by the famous Bentley, as appears from the papers in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, lately edited by Mr. A. A. Ellis, page 28.

†It is the same word, δικαίωμα, as is translated "justification" in verse 16. See also Rom. 1: 32; Rom. 2: 26; Rom. 8: 4.

Romans 6. What then shall we say? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Let it not be. We which died to sin, how shall we live any longer in it? 3 What, know ye not that as many of us as were baptized unto Christ Jesus were baptized unto his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death, that as Christ was raised out of [the] dead by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we are become identified with the likeness of his death, so also of his resurrection shall we be, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be disannulled, that we should no longer serve sin. 7 For he that died hath been justified from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him, 9 knowing that Christ risen out of [the] dead dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, to sin he died once for all; but in that he liveth, he liveth to God. 11 So also do ye reckon yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body to obey [it in] its lusts, 13 nor be yielding your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but yield yourselves to God as alive out of [the] dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Are we to sin, because we are not under law but under grace? Let it not be. 16 Know ye not that to whom ye are yielding yourselves as bondservants for obedience, ye are bondservants to him whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But thanks to God that ye were bondservants of sin, but ye obeyed from the heart the form of teaching unto which ye were delivered; 18 and having been freed from sin ye became bondservants to righteousness. 19 I speak humanly on account of the weakness of your flesh; for as ye yielded your members in bondage to uncleanness and to lawlessness unto lawlessness, so now yield your members in bondage to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were bondservants of sin, ye were free in respect to righteousness.

21 What fruit then had you at that time? [Things] of which ye are now ashamed, for the end of those things [is] death. 22 But now freed from sin, and made bondservants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal. 23 For the wages of sin [is] death, but the free gift of God life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7. What, are ye ignorant, brethren, for I speak to [such as] know law, that the law hath dominion over the man as long time as he liveth? 2 For the married woman is bound to the living husband by law; but if the husband die, she is quit from the law of her husband. 3 So then, while the husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she belong to another man; but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress by belonging to another man. 4 So that, my brethren, ye also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that ye should belong to another, him that was raised out of [the] dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that [were] by the law wrought in our members bringing forth fruit to death; 6 but now have we got quittance from the law, having died in what we were held so as for us to serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.

7 What then shall we say? [Is] the law sin? Let it not be. Nay, I had not known sin unless by law; for* lust also I had not been conscious of, unless the law had said, 'Thou shalt not lust.' 8 But sin having taken occasion by the commandment wrought in me every lust; for apart from law sin is dead. 9 But I was alive apart from law once; but, the commandment having come, sin revived and I died, 10 and the commandment that [was] unto life, this was found to me unto death. 11 For sin having taken a point of attack by the commandment deceived me and by it slew [me]. 12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. 13 Did then the good become death to me? Let it not be; but sin, that it might appear sin, working out death to me by the good, that sin might become excessively sinful by the commandment. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I work out I own not; for I do not what I will, but what I hate, this I practise. 16 But if what I will not, this I practise, I consent to the law that [it is] right. 17 But now no longer am I working it out, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, no good dwelleth; for to will is present with me, but to work out the right 19 [is] not; for I practise not good which I will, but evil which I will not, this I do. 20 But if what I will not, this I practise, no longer am I working it out, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then the law, for me wishing to practise the right, that the evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I [am]! who shall deliver me out of this body of death? 25 I thank God† through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I myself with the mind am serving God's law, but with the flesh sin's law.

*The article is in the Greek, implying what was actually there.

†The Vatican and other ancient authorities give "thanks to God," but the Sinai, Alex., and the mass of other MSS., support εὐχαριστῶ.

Romans  8. There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent his own Son in likeness of flesh of sin and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us that walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit. 5 For those that are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh, but those according to Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind of the flesh [is] death, and the mind of the Spirit [is] life and peace; 7 because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, for indeed it cannot; 8 but those that are in flesh cannot please God. 9 Ye however are not in flesh but in Spirit, if so be God's Spirit dwell in you. But if anyone has not Christ's Spirit, he is not of him. 10 But if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead on account of sin, and the Spirit life, on account of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus out of [the] dead dwell in you, he that raised Christ out of [the] dead shall quicken your mortal bodies also on account of his Spirit that dwelleth in you. 12 So then, brethren, debtors we are not to the flesh to live according to flesh; 13 for if ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if by [the] Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14 For as many as are being led by God's Spirit, these are God's sons. 15 For ye received not a spirit of bondage again unto fear, but ye received a Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father. 16 The Spirit itself jointly testifieth with our Spirit that we are God's children; 17 and, if children, heirs also; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ; if at least we suffer together, that we may also together be glorified.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy of comparison with the glory about to be revealed in regard to us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation awaiteth the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For to vanity the creation was subjected, not willingly but on account of him that subjected [it], in hope 21 that the creation itself too shall be freed from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that all the creation groaneth together and travaileth together until now; 23 and not only [so], but ourselves too, having the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves within ourselves are groaning, awaiting [the] adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For by hope were we saved; but hope seen is no hope; for what one seeth, why also doth he hope for [it]? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, in patience we await. 26 And likewise too the Spirit joineth help to our weakness; for what we should pray for as we ought we know not, but the Spirit itself pleadeth for us with unutterable groanings; 27 and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because according to God it pleadeth in behalf of saints. 28 But we do know that all things work together for good to those that love God, to those that are called according to purpose. 29 For whom he foreknew, he also predetermined [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he should be first-born among many brethren. 30 But whom he predetermined, them also he called, and whom he called, them also he justified, and whom he justified, them also he glorified.

31 What then shall we say to these things? if God [be] for us, who against us? 32 He at least that spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely grant us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? [It is] God that justifieth: 34 who is he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather risen too, who is also at [the] right hand of God, who also pleadeth for us: 35 who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? 36 according as it is written, 'For thy sake are we being put to death all the day long, we have been reckoned as sheep of slaughter.' 37 But in all these things we more than overcome by him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God that [is] in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 9. Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in [the] Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart, 3 for I could wish, I myself, to be a curse from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to flesh, 4 which are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the lawgiving and the service and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ as far as according to flesh, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen. 6 Not however that the word of God hath failed; for not all those that are of Israel [are] Israel; 7 nor because they are Abraham's seed, [are] they all children, but 'In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee.' 8 That is, not the children of the flesh, these [are] children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed; 9 for this word is of promise, 'According to this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.' 10 And not only [so], but also Rebecca having conceived by one, Isaac our father, 11 for [the children] being not yet born, nor having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might remain, not of works but of him that calleth, 12 it was said to her, 'The greater shall serve the lesser,' 13 according as it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'

14 What then shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Let it not be. 15 For to Moses he saith, 'I will have mercy on whomsoever I have mercy and will pity whomsoever I pity.' 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that hath mercy. 17 For the scripture saith to Pharaoh, 'For this very thing I raised thee up, so that I might display in thee my power, and that my name might be declared in all the earth.' 18 So then on whom he willeth he hath mercy and whom he willeth he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say to me then, Why then doth he yet find fault? for his purpose who resisteth? 20 Nay rather, O man, who art thou that answerest against God? Shall the thing moulded say to him that moulded, Why madest thou me thus? 21 Or hath the potter no authority over the clay out of the same lump to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour? 22 And if God, willing to display his wrath and to make known his power, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, 23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory 24 us whom he also called not only out of Jews, but also out of Gentiles, 25 as also in Hosea he saith, 'I will call that which [is] not-my-people, My people, and the not-beloved, Beloved;' 26 and 'It shall be in the place where it was said to them, Ye are not my people, there they be called sons of [the] living God.' 27 But Esaias crieth concerning Israel, 'Were the number of the sons of Israel as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved, 28 for he is completing and cutting short the matter in righteousness, because a matter cut short will [the] Lord make on the earth.' 29 And according as Esaias said before, 'Unless [the] Lord of Hosts had left us a seed, we had become as Sodom and been made like as Gomorrha.'

30 What then shall we say? That Gentiles which followed not after righteousness obtained righteousness, even [the] righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel following after a law of righteousness attained not unto a law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because not by faith but as by works [of law], for they stumbled at the stone of stumbling, 33 even as it is written, 'Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and rock of offence; and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed.'

Romans 10. Brethren, the delight of my heart and my supplication to God, on their behalf [is] for salvation. 2 For I bear witness to them that they have zeal for God but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ [is the] end of law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness that [is] by the law, that the man who hath done those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness that [is] by faith thus speaketh, 'Say not in thine heart, Who shall go up into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down; 7 or, 'Who shall go down into the deep?' that is, to bring up Christ from [the] dead:' 8 but what saith it? 'The word is near thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart;' that is, the word of faith which we preach: 9 that, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth [the] Lord Jesus and believe in thine heart that God raised him out of [the] dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart belief is unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Every 'one that believeth on him shall not be ashamed;' 12 For there is no difference of Jew and Greek, for the same Lord of all [is] rich toward all that call upon him. 13 For everyone whosoever shall call on the name of [the] Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? and how believe in him of whom they heard not? and how hear without a preacher? 15 and how preach unless they have been sent? According as it is written, 'How beautiful the feet of those that announce glad tidings of peace, of those that announce glad tidings of good things!' 16 But not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias says, 'Lord, who believed our report?' 17 Therefore faith [is] by report, but the report through God's word. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Nay, rather 'Unto all the earth went out their voice, and unto the ends of the habitable earth their words.' 19 But I say, Did Israel not know? First, Moses saith 'I will make you jealous through [those] not a nation, through a nation void of understanding I will make you angry.' 20 But Esaias is very bold and saith, 'I was found by those not seeking me, I became manifested to those not inquiring for me;' 21 but with regard to Israel he saith, 'All the day long I spread out my hands toward a people disobedient and gainsaying.'

Romans 11. I say then, Did God thrust away his people? Let it not be; for I also am an Israelite, of Abraham's seed, of [the] tribe of Benjamin. 2 God had not thrust away his people whom he foreknew. What, know ye not what the scripture saith in Elias's [case]; how he pleadeth with God against Israel? 3 'Lord, thy prophets they slew, thy altars they digged down, and I was left alone, and they seek my life.' 4 But what saith the divine answer to him? 'I left for myself seven thousand men which never bowed knee to Baal.' 5 So then in the present time also there hath been a remnant according to election of grace; 6 and if by grace, no longer by works, since [otherwise] grace becometh no longer grace.

7 What then? That which Israel seeketh after, this it did not obtain, but the election obtained [it]; but the rest were hardened, 8 even as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of slumber, eyes so as not to see, and ears so as not to hear, until this day.' 9 And David saith, 'Let their table be for a snare and for a trap and for a stumbling-block and for a recompense to them: 10 let their eyes be darkened so as not to see, and their back ever bend thou down.'

11 I say then, Did they stumble that they should fall? Let it not be; but by their slip [there is] salvation to the Gentiles, in order to make them jealous. 12 But if their slip [be the] world's riches and their loss [the] Gentiles' riches, how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you the Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am apostle of Gentiles I glorify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may stir to jealousy my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if the rejection of them [be the] world's reconciliation, what their reception but life out of [the] dead?

16 But if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also; and if holy the root, the branches also. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou being a wild olive wert grafted in among them and becamest a fellow-partaker of the root and the fatness of the olive tree, 18 boast not against the branches; but if thou boastest against [them], thou bearest not the root but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in. 20 Right: through unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest through faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, [fear] lest somehow thee he will not even spare. 22 Behold then God's goodness and severity: upon those that fell severity, and upon thee God's goodness, if thou abide in the goodness; since [otherwise] thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they too, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if thou hast been cut out of the naturally wild olive tree, and contrary to nature wert grafted into a good olive tree, how much more shall these that [are] natural be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not wish you, brethren, to be ignorant of this mystery, that ye be not wise in your own eyes, that hardness hath happened in part to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles come in; 26 and so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, 'There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer; he shall turn away ungodlinesses from Jacob. 27 And this [is] for them the covenant on my part, when I shall have taken away their sins.' 28 As to the gospel, [they are] enemies on your account, but as to the election beloved on account of the fathers; 29 for indefeasible* are [the] gifts and the calling of God. 30 For as ye once were disobedient to God but now have been shown mercy through their disobedience, 31 so also these have now disobeyed your mercy, that they also may have mercy shown to themselves. 32 For God hath shut all together into disobedience that to all he might show mercy.

33 O depth of God's riches and wisdom and knowledge! how unsearchable his judgments and untraceable his ways! 34 For who knew [the] Lord's mind? or who became his counsellor! 35 or who first gave him and it shall be repaid him? 36 For of him and through him and unto him [are] all things: to him [be] the glory for ever. Amen.

*Or "irrevocable," not subject to change of mind.

Romans 12. I exhort you then, brethren, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, your intelligent service; 2 and not to fashion†† yourselves to this age but to be transformed by the renewing of the mind that ye may prove what [is] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. 3 For through the grace of God that is given to me, I say to every one that is among you not to be high-minded above what he ought to be minded, but to be minded to sobermindedness as God to each hath dealt a measure of faith. 4 For just as in one body we have many members, but the members have not all the same function, 5 so we, the many, are one body in Christ, but individually members of one another. 6 But having gifts different according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith; 7 or service, [let us be occupied] in service; or he that teacheth, in teaching; 8 or he. that exhorteth, in exhortation; he that bestoweth, with simplicity;* he that presideth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 9 Let love [be] unfeigned, abhorring evil, cleaving to good; 10 in brotherly love affectionate to one another; in honour anticipating one another; 11 in diligence not slothful, in spirit fervent, serving the Lord 12 in hope rejoicing; in tribulation enduring, in prayer persevering; 13 communicating to the wants of the saints, pursuing hospitality. 14 Bless those that persecute you; bless and curse not. 15 Rejoice with those that rejoice, and weep with those that weep. 16 Be of the same mind one toward another, not minding high things, but consorting with† the lowly. Be not wise in your own eyes: 17 repay to none evil for evil; providing things right in the sight of all men; 18 if possible, on your part be at peace with all men; 19 avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath; for it is written, 'To me [belongeth] vengeance, I will requite, saith the Lord. 20 Nay,‡ 'if thine enemy should be hungry, feed him; if he should thirst, give him drink; for, this doing, thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head.' 21 Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

††An excellent reading of most ancient MSS is "and do not fashion," etc.

*This in effect is "liberality."

†Such is the true force of συναπαγόμενοι, and "condescending to" would be rather an evil the apostle guards us against by bidding us associate with the lowly. The latter is of Christ, the former of the world.

‡The most ancient text seems to be ἀλλὰ ἐὰν π. as in A B P and some good cursives and versions; a few also drop the ἀλλ (which Griesbach thought probable and Mr. Green follows).

Romans 13. Let every soul be subject to authorities above [it]. For there is no authority unless from God; and those that are have been ordained by God. 2 So that he that setteth himself against the authority withstandeth the ordinance of God; and those that withstand shall receive judgment for themselves. 3 For the rulers are no terror for the good work but for the evil. And dost thou wish not to be afraid of the authority? Practise good and thou shalt have praise for it; 4 for it is God's servant to thee for good. But if thou practise evil, be afraid; for not in vain doth it wear the sword; for God's servant it is, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore [there is] a necessity to be subject not only on account of wrath but also on account of conscience. 6 For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God's officers, ever attending unto this very thing. 7 Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. 8 To none owe anything unless to love one another; for he that loveth the other hath fulfilled law. 9 For 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not lust,' and if [there be] any other commandment, in this word it is summed up, in 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' 10 Love worketh no ill to one's neighbour; love therefore is law's fulness.* 11 And this, knowing the time, that [it is] already time that we should awake from sleep; for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, and the day is near: let us therefore put off the deeds of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 As in daylight, let us walk becomingly, not in revels and drunkenness, not in chambering and indecency, not in strife and envy; 14 but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and take no forethought of the flesh with a view to lusts.

* Or, "fulfilment."

Romans 14. But him that is weak in the faith receive not unto decisions† of reasonings. 2 One person hath faith to eat all things, but he that is weak eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth; and stand he shall, for his master is able to make him stand. 5 One [person] judgeth day more than day, another judgeth every day [alike]. Let each be fully assured in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day doth regard to [the] Lord, and he that regardeth not the day to [the] Lord doth not regard; and he that eateth eateth to [the] Lord, for he giveth thanks to God, and he that eateth not to [the] Lord eateth not and giveth thanks to God. 7 For none of us liveth to himself and none dieth to himself; 8 for both if we should live, to the Lord we live, and if we die, to the Lord we die; therefore both if we should live and if we should die, we are the Lord's. 9 For unto this [end] Christ died and lived, that he might be Lord both of dead and living. 10 But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? or thou too, why despisest thou thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. 11 For it is written, 'I live, saith [the] Lord, that to me shall bow every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God.' 12 So then each of us shall give account concerning himself to God. 13 Let us then no longer judge one another, but judge ye this rather, not to set an occasion of stumbling or offence for one's brother.

† Or, "doubts," doubtful points.

14 I know and am persuaded in [the] Lord Jesus that nothing [is] unclean by itself; unless to him that reckoneth anything to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. 15 For if on account of meat thy brother is grieved, thou art no longer walking in love. Do not with thy meat destroy him for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be ill spoken of; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in [the] Holy Ghost; 18 for he that in this serveth Christ [is] acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue the things of peace and the things of edifying one another. 20 Do not for the sake of meat pull down the work of God. All things are clean; but [it is] evil to the man that eateth while stumbling. 21 [It is] right not to eat flesh nor drink wine nor anything in which thy brother stumbleth [or is offended or is weak]. 22 Hast thou faith? to thyself have [it] before God. Happy [is] he that judgeth not himself in what he approveth; 23 but he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [it is] not of faith; but everything which [is] not of faith is sin.

Romans 15. But we, the strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Let each of us please his neighbour unto good for edification. 3 For even Christ pleased not himself, but even as it is written, 'The reproaches of those that are reproaching thee fell on me.' 4 For as many things as were written before were written for our instruction, that through endurance and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope. 5 Now the God of patience and of comfort give you to be like-minded one with another according to Christ Jesus, 6 that with one accord, with one mouth, ye may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Wherefore receive ye one another according as Christ also received you unto God's glory.

8 For I say that Christ became a minister of [the] circumcision for God's truth to confirm the promises of the fathers; 9 and that the Gentiles should glorify God for mercy, even as it is written, 'On this account I will confess to thee among [the] Gentiles, and to thy name will I sing.' 10 And again he saith, 'Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people;' 11 and, again, 'Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and give him praise, all ye people.' 12 And again Esaias saith, 'There shall be the root of Jesse, and he that standeth up to rule Gentiles: on him shall Gentiles hope.' 13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope by the power of [the] Holy Ghost.

14 But I am persuaded, my brethren, even I myself about you, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. 15 But I have written to you, brethren, more boldly in measure, as reminding you on account of the grace that was given to me by God, 16 in order to my being a minister of Jesus Christ unto the Gentiles, as a sacred rite ministering the gospel of God that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by [the] Holy Ghost. 17 I have therefore my boasting in Christ Jesus in things relative to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of anything of what Christ has wrought not by me for [the] obedience of [the] Gentiles by word and deed, 19 in [the] power of signs and wonders, in [the] power of [the Holy] Spirit; so that, from Jerusalem and in a circle as far as Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, 20 yet so making it a point of honour to preach, not where Christ was named, that I might not build upon another's foundation: 21 but even as it is written, 'They to whom it was not told concerning him shall see, and they who have not heard shall understand.' 22 Wherefore also I have been these many times hindered from coming to you; 23 but now, having no longer place in these regions, and having a longing to come to you for many years past, 24 whenever I go into Spain [I will come to you, for]* I hope while passing through to see you, and by you to be sent forward thither, if first I be in measure filled with you. 25 But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering to the saints; 26 for Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints that [are] at Jerusalem. 27 For they were pleased, and they are their debtors; for if in their spiritual things the Gentiles had a share, they ought also in things carnal to minister to them. 28 Having finished this therefore and sealed to them this fruit, I shall set off by you into Spain. 29 And I know that, on coming to you, I shall come in [the] fulness of [the] blessing of Christ. 30 Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayer for me to God, 31 that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judea, and my ministry that [is] for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints; 32 that in joy coming to you by God's will I may be refreshed with you. 33 And the God of peace [be] with you all. Amen.

*The bracketed words are not in the most ancient copies.

Romans 16. But I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, being a deaconess of the assembly that [is] in Cenchrea; 2 that ye may welcome her in [the] Lord worthily of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she may need you; for she herself too hath been a helper of many and of myself. 3 Salute Prisca and Aquila, my work-fellows in Christ Jesus 4 (which* for my life staked their own neck; to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the Gentiles), 5 and the assembly at their house. Salute Epaenetus my beloved, who is a firstfruit of Asia for Christ. 6 Salute Maria which* laboured much for us. 7 Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, which* are noted among the apostles, who also before me were in Christ. 8 Salute Amplias my beloved in [the] Lord. 9 Salute Urbanus our work-fellow in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. 10 Salute Apelles, the approved in Christ. Salute those of the [household] of Aristobulus. 11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Salute those of the [household] of Narcissus that are in [the] Lord. 12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa that labour in [the] Lord. Salute Persis the beloved which* laboured much in [the] Lord. 13 Salute Rufus the chosen in [the] Lord, and his mother and mine. 14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that [are] with them. 15 Salute Philologus and Julias, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints. 16 Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the assemblies of Christ salute you.

* I have thus throughout rendered the various forms of ὅστις, distinct from ὅς, as denoting character and not fact only.

17 But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those that make divisions and occasions of stumbling-blocks contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them. 18 For such as they serve not our Lord [Jesus] Christ, but their own belly, and by kind speaking and fairness of speech deceive the hearts of the harmless. 19 For your obedience hath reached unto all. Over you then I rejoice, but I wish you to be wise in regard to good and simple in regard to evil. 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. 21 There salute you Timothy my work-fellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen. 22 I Tertius, that wrote the epistle, salute you in [the] Lord. 23 Gaius, the host of me and of the whole assembly, saluteth you. Erastus, the steward of the city, saluteth you, and Quartus the brother. 24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to [the] revelation of [the] mystery kept secret in everlasting times, 26 but now manifested and by prophetic scriptures, according to the eternal God's command, made known for obedience of faith unto all the Gentiles, 27 to God only wise, by Jesus Christ, to whom [be] the glory for ever. Amen.

INTRODUCTION.

The Epistle to the Romans, though not the highest in its character of truth, more comprehensively than any other sets forth God's glad tidings, and this with a method and depth which attest not merely the style of Paul but the wisdom of the Holy Spirit who inspired the great apostle of the Gentiles. His Son (for so the apostle preached Him from the first, Acts 9: 20.) is the object of faith, come of David's seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead. Thus the connection with the Old Testament is maintained, while the way is open for a new order of things through resurrection wherein guilt was removed, sin judged, and life manifested victorious over the enemy in his last stronghold of death, yea, with a title superior to God's eternal judgment.

Then, after presenting himself suitably, as apostle by call to those called at Rome, he testifies his thanks for their faith, and his great desire to see them, whatever the hindrances till then, for their mutual refreshment. He desired fruit there as elsewhere, being debtor to all. He was not ashamed of the gospel (or glad tidings): it is God's power to salvation to every believer, because divine righteousness is revealed in it by faith to faith, as the prophet declared in a dark day for Israel. Thus, if the Son is the object of faith, the believer has part in God's righteousness.* Man had no righteousness for God, who reveals His to man; and hence it is a question of believing. For His wrath is revealed from heaven against all impiety, and unrighteousness of men holding the truth in unrighteousness: the one embracing every shade of heathenism or ungodliness, the other especially Jews or, as we can now add, Christendom. How deep the need, how grave the danger, of sinful man.

*Had a Jew unswervingly obeyed the law, it had been human righteousness and himself accepted accordingly. But in the cross of Christ we see not merely the Father glorified in obedience, but God glorified as to sin, so that He is righteous now in setting Christ at His own right hand and justifying us accordingly by and in Him. This is divine righteousness.

To the end of Romans 1 the Gentiles are convicted of their impiety in a brief but appalling sketch, confirmed too truly by all that remains of antiquity, utterly depraved not only by their lusts and passions but yet more by their idolatry which sanctioned, yea, provoked and even consecrated their worst evils. It will be observed therefore that the apostle does not trace the ruin to the beginning of the world but only since the flood when men inexcusably slighted the testimony of creation, and, knowing God, glorified Him not as God, but professing to be wise became fools, and setting up idols were given up by the one true God above them, whom they would not serve, to become slaves of every vileness below them.

The opening of Romans 2 looks at the moralists, at men, Gentiles or Jews, who speculated on good but were a prey like others to the wickedness they condemned, despising the riches of God's goodness as they forgot His judgment, with whom is no respect of persons, those who sin without law perishing also without it, and those who sin in it to be judged by it in the day when God judges the secrets of men, according to the apostle's gospel, by Jesus Christ. Here he names the "Jew first" and the "Greek" in judgment, as before in the administration of the gospel. For judgment takes account of all things, and hence of superior advantages, each giving account according to his light and receiving according to his deeds. For salvation is according to grace, reward or judgment according to works. Thus both tests are applied, what they fell from, and what God will bring in at Christ's coming and kingdom. And as wrath revealed from heaven stood in contrast on God's side with earthly judgments in providence, so here on man's side does the judgment of the secrets of the heart.

The Jews are then distinctively and expressly brought forward, who with better light were no better morally, for the name of God was blasphemed on their account. So far is circumcision from availing them against their base inconsistencies that it becomes contrariwise uncircumcision, even as uncircumcision keeping the requirements of the law should be reckoned for circumcision, judging such as with letter and uncircumcision transgressed law. Sin is shown to be the great leveller, as righteousness does not fail to exalt. A transgressing Jew was as bad as, indeed worse than, a Gentile; a Gentile who wrought righteousness no less acceptable than a Jew. God will have moral reality; and this, wherever found, alone secures His praise.

This raised the question, in Romans 3, of the superiority of the Jew, or of the profit of circumcision. The apostle allows it in every way, and first in being entrusted with the oracles of God. But man's unfaithfulness in no way hinders the certainty or the justice of God's judging the world. Nor do outward privileges in any wise suppose or secure a better condition, though aggravating responsibility. And the fact that what the law or Old Testament says, it speaks to those under it (that is, to the Jews), totally convicts them; for it declares in the plainest terms that there is none righteous, none that understandeth, none that doeth good, all gone out of the way, and no fear of God before their eyes. Thus, as the beginning of the argument proved the Gentiles ruined, so does the end the Jews: the result is, every mouth stopped and all the world under judgment to God. What is His sentence? Is there no mercy? There is His righteousness by Christ Jesus, righteousness which justifies the believer. Doubtless by works of law no flesh shall be justified, for by law is knowledge of sin, the very reverse of sins forgiven, or of righteousness.

Law therefore cannot help Israel, still less a Gentile. What is the resource then? The apostle returns to the thesis which preceded his reasoning, and, with so much the more evidence of its urgent necessity, affirms that now apart from law God's righteousness is manifested. A truly wonderful statement, in which we have the relation of the gospel to the Old Testament, its universal direction, and its application in fact as being contingent on faith, while it meets all on the ground of sheer ruin and so of pure grace. It proclaims the work of the Lord which answers to the mercy-seat with the atoning blood of Jehovah's lot sprinkled on and before it, thus a righteous ground laying both to justify the forbearance of God in dealing with the saints of old or their sins in past times, and to display now that God is just, while He justifies him that believes in Jesus. By faith boasting is thus excluded, and God is shown to be the God who justifies both Jew and Gentile while law itself is established instead of being made void.

There is nothing to hinder our understanding δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in its usual sense of an attribute or quality of God, because it is also δικαιοσύνη ἐκ πιστεως, for indeed it is revealed in the gospel for us to believe, and therefore we could profit by it on no other principle. It is of course χωρὶς νόμου "apart from law" (Rom. 3: 21), which, if obeyed, would have been man's, not God's, righteousness. The δωρεά or free giving of righteousness (Rom. 5: 17) is perfectly consistent with this: God's grace was the source of this gift; it was no question of one's work or fitness as under law. So Romans 10: 3, Philippians 3: 9, are both thoroughly in harmony with the fact that the apostle speaks of divine righteousness, or God's consistency with Himself in justifying the believer through the redemption that is in Christ. Undoubtedly it is a righteousness of which He is the author (as Phil. 3: 9 teaches), and which He approves; but it is below the mark merely to say this. For if man be imagined to have obeyed the law, it would have been a righteousness available before God; and man would have lived instead of dying. But this would have been neither eternal life in the Son, nor God's righteousness but man's. Hence the definition of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Reiche, De Wette, etc., is unsatisfactory, as Luther's version, which is a paraphrase expressive of it, is erroneous. A righteousness which God might give or approve need not be His own, which the apostle over and over declares it to be. Of course, it is not divine justice abstractly (which is perhaps the unconscious difficulty of most who approach the subject), but God just in virtue of the Saviour's work. How does He estimate it, how act on it, for the believer? The infusion of divine righteousness has no just sense or appears to confound justification with life; whilst the idea that it means mercy is a poor evasion which weakens the grand truth that not His love only but His justice justifies the believer in Jesus.

The remarkable fact may here be noticed that confessedly the majority of commentators, who shrink from the plain meaning of the phrase in Romans 1: 17, and even in Romans 3: 21, 22, confess that in verses 25, 26, it does signify, not God's mercy, nor His method of justification or act of justifying (which in Greek is expressed by δικαίωσις), nor that righteousness which is acceptable to God, but His justice. Here this is allowed to be the proper meaning of the terms, and what the context demands. Not merely did justice seem compromised by praetermission of past sins, and therefore require vindication, but the work of Christ had so glorified God in the judgment of sin that it was only just for God to remit sins, yea, to justify him that is of faith in Christ Jesus. And so, it cannot be denied, the apostle but explains what he means by δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, when he adds that God set forth Christ a propitiatory, or mercy-seat, that He might be just and justify the believer. If then it be so, that δ. Θ. can only mean God's righteousness where it is fully expounded (as in vers. 25, 26), how unreasonable to give the same phrase a different force in the same context! (Vers. 21, 22, just before.) If this be owned, with what consistency can one question its meaning in Romans 1: 17? Even Romans 3: 5 makes this apparent, for there beyond controversy the phrase means the consistently of God with His character (that is, His righteousness) in judging the world which rejects Christ, as the other passages show His righteousness in justifying those who believe in His name. Compare also Matthew 6: 33, James 1: 20. Elsewhere (save in 2 Cor. 5: 21, which stands alone in using the abstract for concrete, but otherwise strengthens the same truth) the terms in the Epistles of St. Paul signify God's justice in justifying those who, resting by faith on Jesus and His blood, are accepted in all the value of His acceptance before God.

Romans 4 confirms the principle of faith for justification by the example of Abraham, backed up by David's testimony in Psalm 32; and this before the law or even circumcision. Thus, if the Jews contended for the inheritance by law or ordinances, they must shut him out who had it by promise, and therefore by faith: if they were his children really, they must receive all from God on a ground that ensures the promise to all the seed, Gentile no less than Jewish; and the rather, as in his case and Sarah's they were as good as dead, and their accomplishing of the promise out of the question, that God alone might be looked to as able to quicken the dead; just as we, Christians, believe, not here simply on Jesus, but on Him that raised from among the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered for our offences, and raised for our justification.

The consequences of being thus justified by faith are stated in the first half of Romans 5: peace with God, His actual grace or favour, and the hope of His glory in which we boast; nor in this only, but in tribulations because of their effect experimentally; yea, finally, boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom now we have received the reconciliation.

But the work of Christ goes much farther than remission of sins or the display of divine love to us in view of guilt, however important it is that we begin with this. Pardon refers to our sins which must otherwise be dealt with in the day of judgment; but there rises also the question of our nature or actual state, not merely of our bad works but of the sin that produced them. Here it is not personal guilt, nor Jews and Gentiles convicted as before, but the race with its head, and the sin which came in by that one man, though each also has his own sins. This clearly brings us up to Adam, though (thank God) also in presence of Christ, the law which came in meanwhile and by-the-by only shaping sins into offences and causing them to abound. Now, if a single man righteously involved all his family in sin and death, who can dispute the righteous title of God that the grace of another man, Christ, should abound to His family for eternal life? Such is the argument from Romans 5: 12.

If grace be so rich in every way and for ever, should we continue in sin that grace may abound? It is a denial in effect of Christianity: so we learn in Romans 6. We that died to sin, how shall we longer live in it? We were buried with Christ by baptism unto death that we should walk in newness of life. Our old man was crucified together that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin. For he that died is justified from sin. Thus we are to reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Sin shall not have dominion, for we are not under law but under grace. Shall we sin then because we are thus? Certainly not. We were slaves of sin, but now, freed from it, we have become slaves of righteousness and of God, have our fruit unto holiness, and the end, worthy of His grace, eternal life.

Romans 7 handles the question of freedom from the law, as it was already shown that grace strengthens against sin, instead of making it a light or open matter. The married woman is bound by law to her husband as long is he is alive: death severs this bond. So are we made dead to the law by the body of Christ that we should belong to another who has been raised from among the dead in order that we might bear fruit to God. We were in the flesh, but now are cleared from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held, so that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter. Observe however that it is not by abrogation of the law but by our death to it, that grace acts.

Not that the law is sin, but sin, getting an occasion or point of attack by the commandment, works every lust, deceives, slays, and also becomes exceeding sinful. But though renewed, the person finds himself without strength, discerns evil in his nature as distinct from himself, delights in the law of God yet sees another law in his members bringing him into captivity, and so learns in conscious wretchedness the value of Christ for deliverance no less than pardon, though this in no way alters the two natures.

Romans 8 closes the discussion with the fullest statement of the results of Christ's work in death and resurrection for the Christian. Three divisions present themselves: first, the deliverance pursued even to the raising of the mortal body, the Spirit being regarded as characterizing that life and state; secondly, the relations of the Holy Ghost to the Christian as acting in, with, and on him in power and person; and, thirdly, God for us in the face of every trying experience and all hostility from the creature, fully and triumphantly securing us.

First, what a status for those in Christ! The necessary action of their new nature, the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, bespeaks their deliverance from the law of sin and death; as again God has already condemned in the cross sin in the flesh, not merely in its outbreak, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For there are persons characterized by each in life and character, the mind of the one death, of the other life and peace; and this, because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God, and they that are in it cannot please Him, while Christians are not in it, but in Spirit, and so, Christ being in them, they hold the body as dead on account of sin, as the Spirit is life on account of righteousness. But even their mortal bodies will be raised on account of His Spirit that dwells in them. Secondly, the Spirit is a Spirit of sonship and an earnest of the glory that is coming, and we meanwhile groan by the Spirit, and God thus finds the mind of the Spirit, not selfishness, in us, while He makes all work for good. Thirdly, along with God's purpose of conforming us to the image of His Son in glory, we have divine power assuring us so that, come what will, nothing shall separate from His love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 9-11 follow the doctrine, and have for their object to conciliate the special promises to Israel with the indiscriminate grace to sinners as such without exception in the gospel.

In Romans 9 the apostle shows that not he but the Jews could be more justly censured for making light of the peculiar privileges of Israel; as in truth he loved them quite as fervently as Moses. It was a question of God's call in Isaac. Nay, more, we see fleshly right still more manifestly excluded by the blessing of Jacob in disparagement of Esau, and this before the birth of the twins. It is a question thus of sovereign grace. Did they then complain of God's unrighteousness? It was all for Israel, that sovereignty of God: else what had become of them ruined before the golden calf at Sinai, had not God said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy?" On the other hand Pharaoh is the witness of His hardening and judgments. Does man yet find fault because, God acts as He will? This is met by asserting God's title to judge man, and rebuking man's pretension to judge God. He has power; but how does He use it? With the utmost long-suffering toward the vessels of wrath, and in the richest mercy to its vessels, the latter being in themselves no better than the former. Thus mercy calls Gentiles who had no privileges and Jews who had lost all. Hosea and Isaiah, more than once, confirm all, showing not only Gentiles called but Israel stumbling at the stumbling-stone laid in Zion, while faith only would not be ashamed.

In Romans 10 the apostle expresses his heart's desire on their behalf for salvation. But their zeal was not according to knowledge. They were ignorant of, and did not submit to, God's righteousness, seeking to establish their own. For Christ ends law (and all such efforts are legal) for righteousness to everyone that believes. They speak incompatibly, that which is of law, and what is of faith; but God's righteousness is that of faith, Christ is the ground of it, and salvation the result, which therefore is as open to the Gentile as to the Jew who believed. Hence a testimony was sent out by God; and if few Jews received it, none the less did it go out unto all the earth; and here testimonies thicken from law and prophets to show God found by Gentiles, and Israel disobedient and gainsaying.

Romans 11 proves that the rejection of Israel is neither complete nor final, corroborated by the olive tree which lets us see the cutting off that awaits unfaithful Christendom no less surely than what befell the Jew, but that the Redeemer would yet come out of Zion turning away ungodlinesses from Jacob, and so all Israel be saved, coming in at length as an object of mercy no less than a Gentile. This drew out the transports of the apostle as he thought of the depth of the riches of God's wisdom and knowledge.

From Romans 12 we enter on practical exhortations formally. The apostle beseeches the saints by the compassions of God to present their bodies a living sacrifice, without conformity to this world, but transformed by the renewing of their mind, to cultivate a sober, not a high, mind, as God dealt to each. For we being many are one body in Christ, and members one of another, with gifts differing which each should occupy himself in. More general calls follow, grace here too reigning through righteousness in the walk and spirit, widening toward men at large which draws out the caution against avenging ourselves: rather should we, as God does, overcome evil with good.

Romans 13 exhibits the relation of the saints to outward government in the world; subjection to what is thus set up of God, whatever it be, in the world, so that to oppose the authority is to resist His ordinance, on account not only of wrath but of conscience also; and on this account paying tribute and to all their dues, owing no man anything but love, the fulfilment of the law. And this too, urged the more by the nearness of the day, in the light of which we should walk, remembering that the night is far spent, and not gratifying flesh which loves the dark.

Then in Romans 14 follows the duty of brotherly forbearance, rendered at Rome in those days the more incumbent because of so many Jews and Gentiles meeting together there as Christians. The weak, as they are called, who were burdened with scruples, were not to judge the strong, who knew their liberty; neither were the strong to despise the weak. Conscience must be respected; Christ is Lord of dead and living: and to God every one of us must give account. Rather let one judge to put no stumbling-block in a brother's way, nor thus for meat destroy him for whom Christ died. Peace and edification should be sought, but also a good conscience, for whatever is not of faith is sin. The beginning of Romans 15 concludes this question with Him who pleased not Himself but bore the reproaches men cast on God, thus entitling the Christian to all the comfort of the scriptures which speak of Christ, and strengthening us to receive one another, as Christ did, to God's glory.

Next we have, from verse 8, a statement of God's ways in the gospel justified by the Old Testament, and of his own ministry among us Gentiles, as a reason for thus exhorting them, though giving them credit for goodness and knowledge and ability to admonish one another. From Jerusalem and in a circle round to Illyricum he had fully preached the gospel, and so aiming, not where Christ was named, but where they had not heard of Him; and now that his work was done in the East, his old and strong desire to visit the West, after a deacon's service for the poor of the saints in Jerusalem (for nothing comes amiss to love), revives the hope to see the Roman saints on his way to Spain. But God had plans of His own; and if Paul was not saved from unbelieving brethren after the flesh in Judea, it was but to give him more the fellowship of Christ's sufferings who was delivered to the Gentiles by the Jews.

Romans 16 finishes with commendation of a sister Phoebe, servant of the assembly at Cenchreae, salutations minute and varied in the appreciation of all that was lovely and of good report, and warnings against those who make divisions and stumbling-blocks contrary to the doctrine they had learnt. To turn away from such men eaten up with self-importance is the best answer to their kind speaking and fairness of speech. Here as elsewhere we should be wise to what is good and simple to evil. The God of peace will see to all that is above us, bruising Satan under our feet shortly. How much do we not need the grace of our Lord with us now!

The apostle's amanuensis, Tertius, adds his salutation, as do a few others. The Epistle closes with a doxology wonderfully suited to all we have had before us, yet intimating truth (not here developed) in harmony with which was his preaching. In the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians is this hidden mystery fully set out, the Epistles to the Corinthians acting as a link of transition, but each in due place and season, and all important for the saint and for the church. To the only wise God through Jesus Christ be glory for ever. Amen.

NOTES

ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Romans 1.

It was ordered in the wisdom of God that no apostle should plant the gospel in the imperial city. Rome cannot boast truthfully of a church apostolic in its origin, like Jerusalem, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and many more less considerable. We know that on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was first given, there were Roman Jews, sojourning in Jerusalem, who heard the gospel there. (Acts 2; compare also Rom. 16: 7.) These may have carried the glad tidings westward, if not before, at least when the persecution that arose on the case of Stephen scattered all save the apostles. We are sure that some who were then dispersed went to Phenice and Cyprus as well as to Antioch, and that at this last place they preached to Greeks and not to Jews only.

But whatever the particular means used to make known Christ there, it is certain that till Paul wrote and afterwards came to Rome, no apostle had visited that city. Yet an evidently considerable number of saints were there; and, in my judgment, the epistle itself affords clear and full indication that they consisted of persons from among Jews as well as Gentiles.

These were among the circumstances which drew out an epistle from the great apostle which yields to no other in importance. Hence have we here so comprehensive a treatise, and withal so fundamental; not on Church relationship, but man's state as a sinner, and then his justification by the work and death and resurrection of Christ; that is, the privileges of individual saints through redemption, as well as the total ruin of man and his need of this mighty intervention of God in the gospel. Had the apostle laid the foundation of the work at Rome, had he gone there, as he had ardently wished, to impart some spiritual gift, we could scarcely have had such a development as we now possess. For in either case he would naturally have taught them face to face what is now embodied for ever in the epistle. Before he could pay them a visit and establish them orally, their state called out this remarkable fulness of truth from the rudiments of truth upwards. Their mingled composition of Jews and Gentiles required the question of the law to be solved as to both justification and walk, as well as the reconciliation of the actual display of indiscriminate grace in the gospel with the special promises to Israel. It demanded a full explanation of human responsibility, whether in Jew or in Greek. For the same reason too it was needed, here especially, to set forth chiefly in exhortation the general walk of the Christians in relation to each other and to the powers that be (at that time heathen), with the peremptory claims of holiness on the one hand, and on the other the true nature and limits of brotherly forbearance in things indifferent.

The salutation or address of the apostle is unusually full. "Paul, a bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated unto God's gospel, which he promised before by his prophets in holy scripture, concerning his Son, that came of David's seed as to flesh, that was marked out God's Son in power as to spirit of holiness by resurrection of [the] dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom we received grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, in behalf of his name; among whom are ye also, called of Jesus Christ: to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints, grace to you and peace from God our Father and [the] Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 1-7.)

"Bondman of Jesus Christ" is the boast of one who knew the true holy liberty of grace as perhaps no other heart was taught and enjoyed so well. This was a general designation and should be true, is true, of each Christian. But. Paul next speaks of himself as a "called apostle." Apostleship was not successional like a Jewish priest, nor elect of the assembly like the seven who cared for tables at Jerusalem: still less was it a question of self-assumption He was an apostle by calling as the saints were called. (Ver. 7.) No doubt, from his mother's womb Saul of Tarsus had been separated, as he was afterwards called by God's grace. But here it appears to me that the separation was more distinctly "for God's gospel," and therefore may refer rather to Acts 13: 2. God's glad tidings is a precious truth, the direct and explicit contradiction of man's natural thought of Him who gives to all liberally and upbraids not. Doubtless this can only be in and through Christ; still it is God who loves, gives, sends, it is His gospel. What a blessed starting-point for the apostle! What an exhaustless fountain-head!

But if the fulness of spontaneous and active love in God toward man be a truth ever new by reason of the constant prevalence of human thoughts even in the saints, it was no new thing to God. (Ver. 2.) It was late in the world's history when this gospel went forth; but He had promised it before through His prophets in holy writ — through the prophets who ever appear of old when all on man's part was hopeless. So one of the earliest that wrote prophecies said, "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help. I will be thy king; where is any other that may save thee?" So another, the last of them, wrote, "I am Jehovah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Had the Jews, had the priests even, despised His name? "From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles." Such is a sample of what He proclaimed beforehand through His prophets. Space would fail to cite even a small portion. What went before as far as this verse notices was God's promise (for the law is not yet touched on); His gospel is not promise but accomplishment. Before Christ and His work, it could not be more than promised. Now, whatever be the promises, in Him is the Yea and in Him the Amen.

How can these things be? What can account either for such precious promises, or for the still more precious accomplishment on which God's gospel is founded and goes forth to man? The answer is clear, worthy, and amply sufficient. All turns on the Son of God: His glad tidings are concerning Him. (Ver. 3.) His person comes before us here in two ways: first, as born of the seed of David according to the flesh which He had condescended to; secondly, as defined or declared Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection. These two views of our Lord are respectively in relation to what we have just seen, — the promises and the gospel. The true Beloved, the Son of David, came, object and fulfiller and fulfilment of every promise of God; but man, and especially the people who had the promises, received Him not, but cast Him out even to death, the death of the cross. God, infinitely glorified therein, raised Him up who had already raised dead persons, and will raise all. "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Thus in every way resurrection marks Him out as Son of God in power, pre-eminently so when He rose in His own person after being crucified in weakness, and this according to the Spirit of holiness which characterized Him all the days of His flesh. Thus, as the coming of Christ was the presentation of the promise, God's gospel supposes not only the divine glory of His person but the mighty power of His resurrection which demonstrates the value and efficacy of His death. (Ver. 4.) In life sin and Satan touched Him not, who ever walked in the Spirit and according to the word of God; on the cross, made sin for us, He annulled him who had the power of death, though resurrection alone adequately determines His power and glorious person.

Jesus consequently, risen from the dead in power, acts as Lord and Christ, "our Lord," "by whom we have received grace and apostleship." (Ver. 5.) It is He who sends from on high. As once on earth, Lord of the harvest, He sent forth first the twelve and afterwards other seventy also; so ascended He gave gifts to men. Nor was it only that the apostolic call was itself a mark of grace. In Paul's case the grace that arrested and quickened him to God was at one and the same time with the choice of him as a witness to all men of what he had seen and heard. Such a call could not, so to speak, but be of deeper character and larger sphere than that of others who had been appointed of the Lord while here below. Hence it was "for obedience of faith" (not exactly that which faith leads and strengthens to, but faith — obedience, the heart bowing to the divine message of His grace) "in all the nations" as the scene of testimony. Taken out from among the people and the nations, to these last the Lord sent him, as we are told in Acts 26. Again, we are here told, it was "for" or "on behalf of the name of Christ."

Such was his passport: what was theirs? "Among whom are ye also, called of Jesus Christ." They were among the nations, and his commission was toward all the nations. Was he a called apostle? So were they saints, not by birth nor by ordinance, but by the call of Jesus Christ who had called him as apostle. (Ver. 6.)

This entitled Paul then to address "all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints;" this made it his heart's joy, as it was the Holy Ghost's inspiring him, to wish them "grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 7.) These privileges they had tasted already through the faith of Christ; but the apostle owns himself their debtor and proceeds to put to their account that which would enrich them exceedingly. May we too enjoy increasingly Him who is their source through the One who alone can make Him known!

Take any part of the Old Testament and compare it with these opening words. How evident and immense the difference, aim, character, and scope! One may well wonder this never occurred to those who would assimilate the testimony of God and state of man before and after the coming of Christ. What is there, for instance, like it in the five books of Moses, or the historical books that follow? In vain do you search the Psalms and other poetical books for a parallel. Not even the prophets describe or predict such a state of things. Glorious things are spoken for Israel; mercy from God which will not fail to reach and bless the poor Gentiles; deliverance and joy for the long-travailing earth and lower creation in general: — all this and more we have abundantly from the prophets and even in the Psalms. But there is nothing resembling the tone even of the Apostle's salutation and preface to the Roman saints, any more than what meets us in the rest of the epistles of the New Testament. A new thing was before God here below, answering to a new thing, the greatest of all, in heaven — His own Son, as man who was risen and gone on high after having expiated our sins on the cross. From this, as the central object, the Holy Ghost works, sent down to make God known in Christ come and gone, and to give believers a part in the infinite work Christ has effected for them. This revealed object conforms the hearts that know it, though not all equally, yet all in measure after its own nature. Such is Christianity.

Here, as everywhere in the epistles, illustrations, examples, and proofs abound; not that there was not faith before, not that the Spirit did not at all times work suitably to God's character and dealings. Hence there never was a day of difficulty or darkness of old which did not give occasion for some worthy display of God's wisdom and goodness, and this through, as well as to, those that knew Him in His grace. But these displays were of course according to the task He had then in hand, whether before the flood or after it, whether in the time of simple promise or after the law was given, whether amidst the sorrows of the captivity or when the Messiah was presented to the responsibility of the returned remnant in the land. Certainly for saints now as of old there are objective truths, there are traits of inward experience and of outward practice, which always abide in substance. But this identity in much that is of no small moment only makes the fact the more striking that there are differences of incalculable importance, not merely for us but as connected with God's glory. Who could conceive before redemption such feelings, thoughts, language as we have here before us? Who that has the smallest spiritual perception could think of Enoch or Noah, Isaac or Jacob, Moses or Joshua, David or Solomon, Isaiah or Jeremiah, yea even Peter or John in the days of our Lord's ministry, uttering such words as these to saints at Rome, many of them Gentiles? "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you, always at the time of my prayers entreating, if by any means now at length I shall be prospered by the will of God to come to you: for I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift in order to your being established; that is, to be comforted mutually in you by the faith in each other, both yours and mine." (Ver. 8-12.)

Entirely independent of fleshly tie or national connection or a school of opinion or any other relationship of time, it was a bond which, resting on the unseen and eternal, knit the heart of him who wrote to souls for the most part never seen before. An affection ardent and sustained continually bore them on his heart before God and delighted in the good report of their faith announced in the whole world, as it then might easily be from that seat of central authority which made its will and mind felt to and beyond the extremities of its vast empire. Hence his longing to see them for no selfish interest but for their spiritual blessing through the faith which produces and reproduces joy now in the midst of rejection, and blessing that will never fade or be forgotten. Such were among the effects of God's gospel now realized in and expressed by him who, without that blessed knowledge of Christ, had been the fiercest zealot of the straitest sect of the Pharisees, persecuting to prison and death all that dared even of his own nation to call on the name of Jesus of Nazareth; now the untiring herald of divine grace, in that same Jesus dead and risen, as unlimited as the sin and misery of man; the warm sympathizer with God-given faith in all who bore that despised name. He himself was emphatically a man of faith — faith working by love which sought not theirs but them, not this world's ease or honour but God's will and glory in the good of souls, everlastingly indeed but now also, not as if it were a doubtful essay but a willing blessing from the God whose grace he knew for himself and could count on for all His children.

Fervour of affection too was natural, so to speak, to one thus living with God, "my God," while in this world, joy (not in iniquity, as wretched flesh delights in what is of and like itself, but) in what was of God "through Jesus Christ," though only known by report everywhere. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed in the whole world." He could appeal to God for the best of all evidences of his thankfulness to Him for it, and love to them. "For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son." His mention of them was incessant, always beseeching on occasion of his prayers, that, if God so pleased, he might somehow be permitted now at least to visit them. What evident and godly sincerity! What motives wrought of the Spirit in one who owned himself the chief of sinners, and less than the least of all saints!

Mark the change of expression here in passing. It is the gospel of God's Son now, not simply of God, however beautiful this was in its place. (Ver. 1.) But now the apostle is not thinking of the source which characterized the glad tidings, but of the manner and means in which His grace wrought to deliver the lost. It was therefore the gospel of His Son as well as His own. Here, too, the apostle names his own serving God "in my spirit;" i.e., not with mere outward works or a bare sense of imperious duty, but with inwardly active and intelligent devotedness in the glad tidings of God's Son.

One of this world's sages has dared to impute to the holy apostle pious craft and holy flattery; but this was, no doubt, a judgment founded on his own spirit and his incapacity of appreciating the delicate feelings which grace renders easy and habitual. Not so: though the apostle had his commission from the Lord to the Gentiles as such, he would exercise it according to Christ. It is the tact of tender love toward those who were saints of God in such a place, not the manoeuvring of a skilful party-leader, which we see here, when he tells them of his strong desire to see them — that he might impart some spiritual gift in order to their establishment: that is, as he explains, to be mutually comforted among them by each other's faith, both theirs and his. Yet the will of God governed his steps, whatever might be his affectionate longing after their good.

Nor was it a new thing, this desire to see them. "Now I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that I often proposed to come to you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among the other Gentiles. Both to Greeks and Barbarians, both to wise and to unintelligent, I am debtor; so, as far as concerns me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that [are] in Rome." (Ver. 13-15.) Whatever might be the special preoccupation which hindered the apostle's execution of what was in his heart, God manifestly did not mean the great western city, the capital of the world, to have an early visit of one in Paul's position. If he owned the debt of love to all nations and conditions, certainly Rome could not but have attractions, especially as some already called out from the world were there. On his part, then, there was no reluctance but all readiness to go to Rome.

Let none imagine that the grandeur of that great city kept him back through awe of it or shame of Christ. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, both to Jew first and to Greek." (Ver. 16.) All else was but man, or appealed to man. The gospel was God's power for saving, not a mere rule to condemn. Consequently it went out to every one that believes, Jew or Greek, though to Jew first who had the law and the promises too. Such was the order even for the great apostle of the uncircumcision, at least while the first tabernacle subsisted.

"For God's righteousness is revealed in it by faith unto faith, even as it is written, But the just shall live by faith." (Ver. 17.)

This verse is so important in itself, of so large a bearing on the epistle as well as the doctrine of the gospel elsewhere, and withal so perplexed by the conflicting thoughts even of true believers, not to speak of theologians of all schools, that it demands and will surely repay our careful consideration in dependence on our God.

The first thing to be remarked is that δικαιοσύνη does not mean justification, but here at least, as in most passages where this phrase occurs, righteousness, and this justifying. It is therefore kept distinct by the apostle from δικαίωσις (Rom. 4: 25; Rom. 5: 18.), which expresses the act of justifying, or the effect — justification; as δικαίωμα sets forth accomplished righteousness in justification or in judgment, righteous requirement whether morally or as an ordinance or decree. (Luke 1: 6; Rom. 1: 32; Rom. 2: 26; Rom. 5: 16, 18; Rom. 8: 4; Heb. 9: 1, 10; Rev. 15: 4; Rev. 19: 8.) Thus δικαιοσύνη retains its regular signification of habit or quality of righteousness.

Next, observe that it is Θεοῦ, God's righteousness, not man's — divine righteousness revealed in the gospel, not human righteousness required in the law. There is no question here either of infusion or of imputation. As for infusion,* it is wholly wrong; as to imputation, it is a precious truth insisted on in Romans 4, where the apostle draws from the case of Abraham that the believer's faith is reckoned for (or as) righteousness. For God in His grace can afford to justify the ungodly soul who believes on Him — can and does reckon righteousness to him apart from works, according to Psalm 32.

*This is the Romish or Tridentine doctrine, which, though it uses the phrase "righteousness of God," means thereby inherent righteousness wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart of man, expressly "non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae, et non modo reputamur sed vere justi nominantur et sumus," etc. Thus justification, being confounded with practical holiness, is really set aside. (Can. et Decr. Conc. Trid. Sessio VI., capp. vii. xvi.) Bellarmine is very explicit to the same effect. (De Controv. Tom. IV, de justif. ii. passim.)

Here, however, the apostle does not enter on an exposition of the ground on which God could consistently with His character justify a sinful man. But as he had declared he was not ashamed of the gospel because it is God's power for salvation to every believer Jew or Greek, so he now explains that it has this saving character because God's righteousness is revealed in it "by faith," and consequently "to faith."

In Titus 2 the apostle looks at the source of the gospel. It is the grace of God. Lost man needs that saving grace which is only in God and has now appeared free and full in Christ Jesus and His redemption. But here in Romans 1 the stress is on His righteousness, not on His mercy, though indeed it is the richest mercy, but it is much more. In the gospel is His righteousness revealed. The awakened sinner does repent, does detest his sins, judges himself as wholly and nothing but evil in God's sight, and so humbly, thankfully casts himself on Christ. But in the gospel is revealed not the victory of the soul striving against sin, but God's righteous consistency with Himself in revealing to the believer a salvation entirely outside himself and therefore ἐκ πίστεως, by or of faith, out of that principle and no other. Sovereign grace alone could have thought of it, or given it thus freely to him who deserved nothing less; but the conscience of the sinner touched of the Spirit could not have peace whilst a charge of guilt remained. The righteousness of God, without the gospel, would and must have made a short work of the guilty — most have judged them at once and for ever. But the gospel is God's power for salvation because in it is His righteousness revealed in the way of faith. Were it by works of law man must win and merit life, but it is wholly in contrast with such a scheme, and man, being guilty and so lost on any such ground, disappears, save as the object of God's salvation which now triumphs in the blessed fact that it is His righteousness also. Hence it is of faith that it might be according to grace, and so open to any and every believer; for as we are told elsewhere (Gal. 3.) "the law is not of faith;" and it works wrath. (Rom. 4.) Clearly, then, there is great precision, as ever in the language of Scripture. Human righteousness is expressly excluded, as it would be indeed inconsistent with the entire context, which supposes man to be lost, if it were only because the gospel is God's power for salvation: and which immediately after (ver. 18 et seqq.) proceeds to demonstrate the universality and completeness of man's ruin. The gospel is the revelation of divine righteousness.* It is God who justifies, and He is just in justifying, him who believes.

* The peculiarly anarthrous form of the proposition must strike any careful reader. This is owing to the fact that the apostle is describing the character of the gospel, not explaining as yet how God can so act (as he does in Romans 3: 24-26, and elsewhere).

It is of immense moment to see this great truth. It is not merely a righteousness which God provides and gives, or which avails with Him,† though both be quite true. The meaning is, what the words say — "God's righteousness" — without for the present going farther. Who doubts the force of God's power just before, or God's wrath just after? Why should men stumble at the similar phrase between? Romans 3: 21-26 is explicit enough to help to a definite judgment.

† Δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ = neither ἡ ἐκ Θ. δ. nor δ. παρὰ Θ.

One reason of the difficulty is that some never seem to think of righteousness apart from imputation; and as we cannot speak of imputing God's righteousness, so they, in their own mind, change the expression of Scripture and prefer to express their thought as the "imputed righteousness of Christ," which again leaves room for other consequences. Now as a principle we must hold to the superiority of Scripture and the forms which the inspiring wisdom of God has given to His own truth. That Christ was absolutely and perfectly righteous every Christian believes; that imputation has a most weighty place in the matter of our justification is to my mind both undeniably certain and essential to the gospel. Nevertheless, the truth remains that, where God's righteousness occurs in Scripture, imputation is not employed. Nor do I believe it could be; because as God's righteousness could not be inherent, so on the other hand imputing God's righteousness has no meaning.* Here it is His righteousness revealed in the gospel. Chapter 3 shows how this can be righteously. Being not merely deficient but guilty sinners, we cannot be justified without the blood of Christ dying in atonement for our sins. Hence, therefore, entirely apart from law, divine righteousness is by faith of Him who thus wrought redemption, and God is just and justifies him who is of faith in Jesus. But God was so glorified in the cross of Christ, that He raised Him up and seated Him in glory at His own right hand — not only forgave us, but seated us in Christ in heavenly places. This is God's righteousness, which is revealed to faith. Nothing less is righteously due to Christ because of His redemption work. It is the contrast of law — work in all respects. God is righteous in treating not Christ only but the believer in Him according to the worth of redemption in His own eyes. By virtue of His work God accounts us righteous who believe; we are made the righteousness of God in Him.

* It may be well to add that some, having the sense that there is and must be practical reality in those who stand in true relationship with God, have from time to time clouded this subject and slipped to either side of the truth; and I refer to this the rather because there exists much want of scriptural intelligence, as well as ignorance even of facts easy enough to ascertain. Thus in and even before 1550 there broke out a serious feud among the Lutherans, which, though not confined to the point of divine righteousness, nevertheless had this for one of the most serious questions in dispute. Andrew Osiander (Professor of theology at Konigsberg, a man of mystical turn of mind and fond of bold and novel speculation) taught that it is only through the eternal and essential righteousness which resides in Christ as God or in His divine nature united to the human, that man obtains righteousness. Of this divine righteousness he partakes by faith. Thereby Christ dwells in man, and with Christ divine righteousness: in virtue of which righteousness, present in the regenerate, God regards them, though sinners, as righteous in the name of that righteousness. (See J. L. Moshemii Institt. H E. Saec. xvi. Sect. iii. pars ii. § 35.) This naturally and justly aroused the opposition of Melancthon; but Osiander's death did not end the mischief, — for Stancar (Professor of Hebrew in the same place, and of turbulence equal to his colleague) fell into an opposite extreme and almost as dangerous. For if Osiander excluded the manhood of Christ, his antagonist excluded the divine nature from redemption. Evidently, however, Osiander's doctrine is substantially that of the mystics, and confounds life, or the new nature, with the believer's justification. There is not the smallest resemblance between it, and that which has been expounded in the text. It is God's righteousness inherent or infused in the believer's heart, not revealed in the gospel. In fact, there was the activity of a mind which saw that the believer partakes of the divine nature but confounded this with the wholly distinct truth that he is accounted righteous according to the acceptance of Christ Himself before God. In short, Osiander abused regeneration to deny justification or imputation of righteousness, and confounded union with Christ, as many do now, with both. This may be seen in Calvin's Institutes, Book III., chapter xi., § 11. The following extract may be useful in showing how far those who have talked of Osiander have either understood his doctrine or are free from the snare into which he fell. "Ridet eos Osiander qui justificari docent esse verbum forense: quia oporteat nos re ipsa esse justos: nihil etiam magis respuit quam nos justificari gratuita imputatione. Agedum si nos Deus non justificat absolvendo et ignoscendo, quid sibi vult illud Pauli? Erat Deus, etc., 2 Cor. 5: 20, 21. Primum obtineo justos censeri qui Deo reconciliantur; modus inseritur quod Deus ignoscendo justificet: sicuti alio loco justificatio accusationi opponitur; quae antithesis clare demonstrat sumptam esse loquendi formam à forensi usu." I purposely quote Calvin's reproof of the Lutheran for his mockery of imputation under the plea that we must be in reality just, which is indeed to deride a capital truth of the gospel. No Christian doubts, on the other hand, the value or necessity of practical righteousness apart from justification. (See Phil. 1: 9-11.)

At Sinai, in the law, man's righteousness was claimed but found wanting. In the gospel God's righteousness is revealed, complete and perfect. Promised before, it was only revealed when all was accomplished which is its ground. Being revealed, it is a question of faith, not of desert nor victory, nor power within, but contrariwise of looking out of self to God's righteousness in Christ.

As divine righteousness is revealed by faith (ἐκ πίστεως), so is it unto or for faith (εἰς πίστιν): the one excluding works of law as the way or principle on which it is revealed; the other including faith wherever it may be, and whatever the measure. It is singular that the Authorized Version should give "from faith" here and "by faith" for the same phrase in the same verse. The former appears to me objectionable in this connection; because it insinuates the idea of growth from one degree of faith to another, as some ancients and moderns have avowed. On the other hand, to take ἐκ π. (by faith) with δ. Θ. (God's righteousness) is due perhaps to the difficulty some have found in assigning to each phrase its own definite value.

Again, the reader must beware of the notion which some found on the present tense of the verb ἀποκαλύπτεται, as if it warrants the idea of a gradually more complete realization of the state of justification.* I do not doubt that faith grows and so apprehension and enjoyment of our blessing in Christ, but the thing revealed in the gospel to faith is complete: divine righteousness repudiates any other thought, whatever may be the measure in which the heart apprehends it.

* Calvin may illustrate the danger of this; for he draws from it, that as our faith makes progress and advances in this knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time. What can be looser than such language?

Not even a Jew could deny that the prophet Habakkuk (2: 4) affirms the same principle; and the slight difference from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint bears witness, it seems to me, that these words are cited for so much and no more: "even as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

The apostle next proceeds to show what it was that made the gospel so necessary to man and so suitable to God. The gospel is God's power to salvation, and so a revelation of His righteousness, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. When man evidently had, or was convicted of having, no righteousness for God, He revealed His own in the gospel, which was consequently open for faith wherever it existed, being by faith, and not by works of law, to which the Jew laid claim. To this truth also the prophet Habakkuk gave his emphatic testimony.

That God should thus deal with man was absolutely needful if man were to find salvation. "For God's wrath is revealed from heaven upon all impiety and unrighteousness of men that hold the truth in unrighteousness."

The fathers and the children of Israel were not without experience of divine wrath on earth. They had seen it consume the cities of the plain of Sodom. They had known His wondrous chastisements in the field of Zoan till the waters of the Red Sea, rebuked for their sakes, covered their proud enemies, so that not one was left. They had felt its edge when the Lord created a new thing, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up quickly Korah, Dathan, and Abiram with their company. Man, the race, had already proved it indeed in the flood which took them all away, save those secured in the ark. But these and other kindred acts of judgment of old were providential and earthly. There was as yet no revelation of God's wrath from heaven. These divine actings were visible in their effects if not arresting men before the eyes of their fellows on earth.

Now, concurrently with the glad tidings, not exactly therein, divine wrath is revealed from heaven (ver. 18.). This is in no way executed yet, but it is being revealed; and man, being sinful, is seen to be utterly, manifestly, unfit for God's presence. God Himself is no longer hidden. He has been manifested in flesh: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." His nature thus disclosed is absolutely intolerant of sin, as it must be also of sinners, but for His righteousness revealed in the gospel, which justifies the believer by the faith of Christ. Still the same Christ, whose atonement is the groundwork of the gospel, makes known God as He is, and nowhere more proved to be at war for ever with evil than in the cross, where Jesus who knew no sin, yet made sin for us, tasted not death only but the divine abandonment, that our sins might be dealt with according to the unsparing judgment of God. Hence, along with the gospel, there is revealed His wrath from heaven, which goes far beyond any conceivable temporal strokes of His hand on earth; for these (though of course a testimony to, and as far as they went in harmony with, this nature) were but a part of His governmental dealings, not the full expression of His nature as when we come to the expiation of Christ.

Hence this divine wrath revealed from heaven has for its object every kind of godlessness (πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν) and especially men's unrighteousness that hold the truth in unrighteousness. It is no longer a particular nation under a law which judged acts of transgression, though it gave the knowledge of a sinful root underneath, while the rest of the nations were comparatively overlooked. 'Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3: 1, 2.) The veil is rent; and God shining out, as it were, discerns and judges all everywhere inconsistent with Himself. At the same time He sends in the gospel a free and full remission of sins to every believer. Thus, while every form of Gentile evil is morally judged as contrary to God's nature, the Jew, if unrighteous, is implied from the outset to be in a yet more awful condition. "Salvation is of the Jews." They had the promises, and the law, and in part at least the truth. But the language is so comprehensive as to be quite as applicable, if not more so, to the professing Christian now with his enlarged light, grace, and the truth more fully revealed in Christ. Increase of privileges, if abused, is but increase of condemnation. And what more just, the enemies of God themselves being judges and the cause their own? Thus it seems to me that πᾶσαν ("all") extends to the second part of the description as well as to the first, and embraces every sort of unrighteousness where men hold the truth in unrighteousness, no less than every kind of impiety. Such men might not be strictly impious; they possess the truth; but along with this, being unrighteous, they cause the truth and name of God to be thereby blasphemed.

Some find a difficulty in the last clause, and, assuming that κατεχόντων, if here taken in the sense of "holding," must have it only in the lowest degree, they contend for the meaning of "holding back" or restraint as in 2 Thessalonians 2: 6, 7, which they persuade themselves is suitable to our context. My conviction is that κατέχω retains here its usual emphasis of possession or holding fast, where moral things are in question, and that this is necessary to the solemn lesson here conveyed. For the apostle is speaking of God's wrath as against not merely all impiety in general but specifically men's unrighteousness who ever so stubbornly keep the truth in unrighteousness. God is not mocked. His Spirit is the Holy Spirit as well as the Spirit of truth. He must have the truth held in righteousness; for otherwise it is not Christ, the Second Man, but only the first man in another shape, and in a shape pre-eminently hateful to Himself. How many feel keenly, dispute hotly, and in other days have contended in deadly warfare for the truth they held, whose works denied God, being abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate! The Jews were a standing witness of this perilous religion then: Christendom, Popery, Protestantism, the truest dogmatic reaching you please, is not a whit safer now, where the professor does not pursue holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

Nothing can be simpler and more certain than this truth, once it is stated and understood. But the value of it is apparent from the fact that the Fathers so-called, almost if not quite unanimously, overlooked and denied it. Their system, even that of pious and able men like Augustine, was that the wicked, though lost, would derive some considerable assuagement during their everlasting punishment because of their baptism. Most fatal and offensive error! The very reverse is true. "That servant which knew his lord's will and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew it not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

Again, this verse is not, as some suppose, limited as a preface to the proof of Gentile depravity; it is rather the thesis in brief, which is opened out in the rest of Romans 1, 2, 3, down to verse 21, which resumes the treatment of God's righteousness, and begins the details of that which we had in Romans 1: 17. I understand, therefore, that verse 18 gives first the general description of human ungodliness in every phase, and then the unrighteousness which was at that time most conspicuous in the Jews who combined with practical injustice a tenacious hold or possession of the truth: the former demonstrated to the end of Romans 1; the latter (after the transition of Rom. 2: 1-16.) pursued from Romans 2: 17 to Romans 3: 20. Had this two-fold aspect been apprehended in the verse before us, the rendering of the Authorized Version would not have been deserted for "restraining the truth by unrighteousness," which is a sense framed to meet the condition of the heathen who were supposed here to be alone in the apostle's view. The same misconception wrought mischief in lowering the character both of the revelation of God's wrath from heaven, and of the truth in order to meet paganism. Admit the universal scope of the moral description with a specific reference to those who held the truth in unrighteousness, and the sense which results is as easy as it is all-important, the fitting introduction to the entire episode that follows till the apostle takes up his proper theme, God's righteousness revealed in the gospel.

The apostle next proceeds to set forth the proofs of the guilt of men, because of which the wrath of God awaits them. And first he takes up impiety, or the evil which characterized the vast majority of the world, as later on he addresses himself to that subtler iniquity which consisted in holding the truth along with practical unrighteousness, then found among Jews as now in Christendom. This division of the subject, it will be seen, is not only closer to the language of the context but it preserves us from the mistake of such as attribute a knowledge of "the truth" to the heathen as such. In fact verse 19 begins with the earlier of the two classes of evil we have seen distinguished in verse 18, and the subject is pursued to the end of the chapter. It is distinctively the Gentile portion, and presents the moral ground which necessitated and justified the unsparing judgment of God.

Two reasons are assigned why His wrath is thus revealed upon all impiety. The first (ver. 19, 20.) is their inexcusable neglect of the testimony of creation to His eternal power and divinity; the second (ver. 21.), their abandonment of the traditional knowledge of God they had as late as the day of (not Adam, but even) Noah. Thus man was unfaithful to knowledge he possessed and to evidence around him.

"Because what is to be known of God is manifest among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For the invisible things of him from the world's creation are perceived, being understood by his work, both his eternal power and divinity, so that they should be inexcusable." The general force is plain. A few expressions may call for more detailed explanation. Τὸ γνωστόν means here, I think, not the knowledge (ἡ γνῶσις) or what was known of God, but, as the English Version, "that which may be known" of Him. It is the knowable rather than the known. The evidence was ample and distinct, but their eyes were dull. Next, I see no sufficient ground to take the phrase ἐν αὐτοῖς in an emphatic sense, but in one more general. Had self-knowledge been appealed to, as many conceive, it appears to me that the proper word for subjective knowledge must have been employed, and, further, the reflexive pronoun. It was expressly an objective character of knowledge which lay open in the midst; and this is confirmed by the added intimation — "for God manifested it to them," not the action of conscience, which finds its more appropriate place in Romans 2 where moral perception and conduct is discussed.

But how did God manifest to men what may be known to Him? This is answered in verse 20. For His invisible things, not all of course, but His eternal power and divinity, since the creation of the world, are perceived, being mentally apprehended by His works. The things He made were before all eyes, and, as we know, did not fail to produce convictions far above the ordinary strain of human thought prostrated by superstition and bewildered by philosophy: so much so that even the famous positivist of ancient times could not write his treatise on the world without affirming that "God, though He is invisible to every mortal being, is seen from the works themselves."

The phrase, ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, "from the world's creation," can signify the foundation or source of the suggestion as easily and surely as the earliest starting point of time; but the latter seems to me preferable here, because the things made by God are immediately afterwards named as furnishing the groundwork for the mind to infer their Maker by.

Again, it is notorious that θειότης (from θεῖος, divine), here translated "Godhead" in the Authorized Version, has a wholly different force from θεότες (from Θεός, God) in Colossians 2: 9. In the latter case it would quite fall short of the apostle's object to predicate divinity of the person of Christ: all the fulness of the Deity, or Godhead in the strictest sense, he says, dwells in Him bodily. In the former case, there is no such distinct personality supposed, but the more general sense that man may gather of a nature not creaturely but creatorial as evidenced in His works, the fruit of His power. It is a real, though the lowest, kind of testimony.

The next ground is not the knowable but the positively known. "Because, having known God, they glorified him not as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into* a likeness of an image† of corruptible man and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles." (Ver. 21-23.) A traditional knowledge of God is in question; and as the former regarded man with evidence from the beginning calculated and adequate to indicate a divine First Cause, so the objective knowledge of God here spoken of was the portion of man even after the flood: indeed not till after that mighty event do we hear of idolatry. But man was unequal to the task of preserving the holy deposit; and this, because of his moral state. When they did know God, they neither glorified Him as such, nor were they thankful. This left room for vain reasonings, which again darkened the heart instead of leading it into light. It was the self-sufficiency, and so the folly, of the creature. For light is only seen in God's light, and man must sink into darkness when not morally elevated by looking up to One above him. The humbling proof appeared too soon; and philosophy but sealed the evil to which superstitious fear led the way. An unacknowledged Supreme was rapidly forgotten, and the glory of the incorruptible God exchanged for a likeness of an image of corruptible man, yea, into objects ever lowering till creation's lords, now the victims of this debasing delusion, worship the most loathsome reptile which eats the dust.

*Or, "for."

†  Ὁμοίωμα and εἰκών are not the same and are both needed to complete the apostle's thought. The one means a thing made like, or likeness; the other, a representative or image, whether externally resembling or not. This explains why the forms of ὅμοιος are never used of the Son in relation to the Father; for He, who was God in the beginning before creation and yet with God, could not be said to be merely like God. But when incarnate He could be, and is said to be, the image of the invisible God. On the other hand, it was no derogation but the highest distinction for God to say of the first Adam that He would make him "in our image, after our likeness;" i.e., representing Him here below, and withal sinless morally like as He was. The tracing of the application both in Genesis and in the New Testament is deeply interesting and will prove how little the Fathers or modern books based on their ideas have caught the truth conveyed. They exalt the first man as unduly as they lower the glory of the Second; and this through the influence of Platonism. Fallen as he is, man is still God's image. To curse him is to curse one that was made after His likeness. In the resurrection the saint will be like Christ and conformed to His image as the Firstborn among many brethren.

How admirably these few words refute the theory of progress in which the would-be wise have indulged in ancient and in modern times: a theory as contrary to their own vaunted reason as to fact. For what a Being could He be who would leave His intelligent and morally responsible creature, man, to grope his cheerless miserable way from the horrors of nature worship, and the darkness of polytheism, to juster notions of Himself and His attributes! Where is the wisdom, where the love, where the justice of such a scheme? The error consists in reasoning from progress in material things, or even from the intellectual domain, to moral condition: progress in those Scripture admits since the fall which means the very reverse in this. No: man departed more and more from God till the flood; after it he gave up the knowledge of God for the worship of the creature. The race fell into ever increasing error and evil, till a partial revelation by Moses and the complete manifestation of God in Christ judged morally the heathen world, proving its declension, not progress, its insensibility to right reason, and its departure from true traditions into the degradation of idolatry.

The consequence of idolatry is invariably under the moral judgment of God utter uncleanness among its votaries; and this in all its varieties but perhaps most conspicuously, as a divine retribution, among those who set up the human form, — "corruptible man," — though it was certainly not wanting where they worshipped that which was beneath man, birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles, alone or combined.

"Wherefore also God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness to dishonour their bodies among them [-selves], who changed the truth of God for falsehood and venerated and served the creature more than the Creator who is blessed for ever, Amen." (Ver. 24, 25.) If the soul abandons the truth of God, all is wrong, whatever appearances may say for the present. This was the great falsehood. Not to be in dependence and obedience is to be false to the relationship of a creature. Yet is there a step still farther down in evil, — the giving to the creature the honour that belongs to God only. It is exactly, and in this order, what Satan did, who was a liar from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, for there was no truth in him. Fallen man does his own will and is simply thus the slave of Satan. It may be in lusts, or in a religion of his own imagination, the one evidently degrading him, the other promising to elevate. But in truth it is Satan's, not God's promise, and is the full absolute lie which seals him up in all moral degradation not only for mind but for the body also. Such was heathenism, from which Judaism was powerless to deliver man, though a witness against his state. For God as yet dwelt behind a veil, and if at times He disclosed His way without a veil, it was but angelically, which is only a healing testimony to the sin-sick and not the quickening power needed by man, by all dead in trespasses and sin. (Comp. John 5.) God revealed in Christ, and this in eternal life as well as redemption, alone meets the case. Such is Christianity as now brought home and enjoyed in the power of the Holy Ghost, who accordingly puts more abundant honour on our uncomely parts and for the first time develops the vast importance of the body in God's service. See Romans 6, 12; 1 Corinthians 6, 15; 2 Corinthians 5, etc.

"On this account God gave them up unto passions of dishonour; for both their females changed the natural use into the contrary of nature, and likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their desire toward one another; males with males working out unseemliness, and fully receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was due." (Ver. 26, 27.) In this graphic but most grave sketch of the humiliating picture, which the classics fill up in so different a tone (for "the unjust knoweth no shame"), the weaker vessel comes first, as indeed the shamelessness was there most apparent and human depravity proved most complete and hopeless. The apostle does not deign to characterize them (though the greatest and highest, sages of earth, monarchs, conquerors, poets, philosophers, and what not) as men and women, but as "females" and "males," characterized by ways below the brute, given up of God, and even now enduring the meet reward of their deeds.

"And even as they approved not to have God in knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do things unbecoming; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, guile, ill-disposition; whisperers, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boasters, inventors of mischiefs, disobedient to parents, without understanding, perfidious, without natural affection, unmerciful; who, well knowing the righteous decree of God that those who do such things are worthy of death, not only do them but also take complacency in those who do them." (Ver. 28-32.) What pit of immorality can be lower than this last?

The word ἀδόκιμος is here as elsewhere translated "reprobate," as this well suits the phrase and contrasts their not approving to retain God in their knowledge with His giving them over to a "disapproved" mind. But it may rightly bear an active sense, and would then mean an "undiscerning" mind, as the sentence on their presumption in rejecting God after pretending to test and try the matter. It will be observed that in verse 29 I have omitted on good external authority πορνείᾳ ("fornication"), as the internal appears to me to turn the scale against it. As for the resemblance to πονηρίᾳ, it might act either in giving room to its insertion by mistake, or to its omission. But I think that the first class consists of personal evil; the second of that which is relative; as the third brings out, not roots of moral pravity, abstractedly viewed, whether personal or relative, but developed wicked characters, and this in an order neither unsystematic nor difficult to discern.  Ἀσπόνδους is deficient in authority, being omitted in the best and most ancient manuscripts. "Implacable" is therefore left out of verse 31. It was probably introduced here because of its connection with ἄστοργοι in 2 Timothy 3: 3.

Romans 2.

The proof of human depravity and need is not yet complete. There is another character of evil contrasted yet connected with the description in the last verse of chapter 1 and most offensive in the sight of God. Men judge others and yet do the same things, and thus condemn themselves. How can this in any way arrest or even mitigate the sentence of God? It was and is common among speculative men, moralists, and the like. In truth it is no small aggravation To say "we see" exposes us, who none the less practise iniquity, to hear from the just Judge of all, that "our sin remaineth." For the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, and the judging in others what they themselves live in justifies their own righteous doom. Say what they please, God's sentence is according to truth upon those that do such things. He will, He must, have reality, and conscience knows it. Instead of open sympathy with others who sin, they may judge it as wrong; but if they do the same, how can such moral trifling, or those guilty of it, stand before God?

"Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, every one that judgest; for wherein thou judgest the other, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon those that do such things. And dost thou reckon this, O man, that judgest those that do such things, and doest them, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" (Ver. 1-4.) The truth is that philosophy knows not God, and so easily forgets His judgment, as it never can conceive His love. It is self-satisfied and has man for its object, not God. Hence His lavish goodness and His patience are despised, and His end in all is a lesson never learnt.

Repentance is the work of God in the soul on the moral side. It is inseparable from the new nature, and flows from the energy of the Spirit as faith in Jesus does; in no way the preparation for faith, but its accompaniment and fruit. Nevertheless, by this I do not mean faith exercised as to the infinite work of Christ. There may be as yet but a looking to Him longingly and hopefully; and, along with this expectation of good from Him according to God's word, that word turns the eye of conscience inwardly, and the man now converted judges himself as well as his ways before God. This deepens also, instead of diminishing, as the soul grows in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. There was always repentance as truly as faith wrought in souls; and though this may have assumed a legal shape under law, repentance is not in anywise done with now, but is wrought all the more profoundly under the gospel. Different schools of doctrine have drawn a wrong inference, one from Romans 2: 4, the other from 2 Corinthians 7: 10. On the one side it is thought that the perception of God's goodness is repentance; on the other side that it is godly sorrow for sin. Scripture says nothing of the sort in either case, and intimates that, while repentance always supposes a change of mind, it goes much farther, and is a matter of conscience in the light of God, and not a purely intellectual process. As the goodness of God leads to repentance, so sorrow according to Him works repentance. There is such a thing as sorrowing unto repentance, as there is repentance unto salvation. It is thus a far deeper dealing with the soul than many suppose. Self is judged without reserve, and the will goes wholly with the new man. Sorrow according to God may still have a struggle: when one repents truly, the evil is disliked inwardly, and one has got free from it. "Surely after I was turned, I repented; and after I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth." (Jer. 31: 19.)

Moralizing without conscience has a peculiarly hardening effect, and the long-suffering goodness of God is then misused to slight His leading. God is not mocked; it is only thou, O man, who thus deceivest thyself. "But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest to thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of God's righteous judgment." (Ver. 5.) Such is the solemn sanction which accompanies the gospel: not national, earthly, and providential judgments, but divine wrath, wrath already revealed from heaven, to take its awful course in its day when the day of grace is over. The law inflicted its temporal chastisements; with the gospel goes the revelation of "how much sorer punishment," even eternal; and this most of all when the gospel is refused or abused. For there is a righteous judgment of God, "who shall render to each according to his work: to those that in patience of good work seek for glory, honour, and incorruptibility, eternal life; but to those that are contentious and disobey the truth and obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath." (Ver. 6-8.) The appraisal and the rendering are individual; and, as we shall see farther on, the secrets of the heart appear.

It is important to note that eternal life is viewed not only as a present possession for the believer in Christ, but as the future issue of a devoted pathway for His name. The Gospel of John develops the former; the other three show us the latter; as our apostle elsewhere in this epistle (Rom. 6: 22, 23) gives us both brought together in the same context. But now, says he of Christians, "being made free from sin and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." On the other hand, the wages of sin, though death, are not death only, but after it the judgment, as Hebrews 9 states in accordance with what we have here.

In the next verse the apostle for the first time points directly at the Jew, no less than the Gentile, as obnoxious to divine judgment. We have seen with what consideration he approaches this subject, which, once cleared, is to hold so prominent a place in the epistle. In Romans 1 he had begun with the bright side, and affirmed the gospel to be God's power unto salvation to every one that believes, both to Jew first and to Greek. Now, in Romans 2, when handling, not the gospel that saves the lost, but the immutable principles of God's righteous government, he brings out the alternative —  "tribulation and anguish on every soul of man that worketh evil, both of Jew first and of Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, both to Jew first and to Greek; for there is no regard of person with God." (Ver. 9-11.) Such are His ways. Time, place, people can make no radical difference with Him, save that possession of privileges brings with it a prior responsibility, and this with evident justice. If the man who enjoys religious light works out evil notwithstanding, is he less guilty than his less favoured fellow-sinner? If he heeds the warning and testimony of God, working out that which is good, God will not withhold "glory, honour, and peace;" and neither last nor least stands the Jew thus found in His sight, though, as Peter truly declared on a great occasion, God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that fears Him and works righteousness is acceptable to Him. How this is made good in souls every believer knows. It is the fruit of His own grace; for it is not in man to direct his stops, nor in good in him or to be got from him, save when faith enables him to do His good pleasure: without faith it is impossible to please Him. Nor is it for a moment to be allowed that Romans 2 can clash either with Romans 1 or with Romans 3. Without such grace of God and faith of man there is no good about him: on the contrary, he needs God's power to save him. But God is here laying down His own inflexibly just ways as dealing morally with man. The believer, no doubt, is the only one who works good, the only possessor therefore of glory, honour, and peace; and while the Jew (as long as he had a place of relationship with God, and even till judgment manifestly closed it) had the precedence, the Gentile is not overlooked, but comes up in gracious remembrance before God, as we see in Cornelius and his house.

But, next, the apostle goes farther, and formally lays down that, while in every instance God will judge righteously, superiority of privilege entails deeper obligations and corresponding strictness in judgment: "for as many as without law have sinned, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law (for not the hearers of law are just with God, but the doers of law shall be justified. For whenever Gentiles, which have no law, do by nature the things of the law, these having no law are a law to themselves; who evince the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences also joining its testimony, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel by Jesus Christ." (Ver. 12-16.) Thus there can be no prescriptive title of exemption to the Jew in the day of judgment, as he fondly hoped. The very standing as God's witness in the earth, which that people had enjoyed in contrast with the Gentiles, bears with it their liability to a closer scrutiny when God deals, not in external inflictions on the nations, but with the heart and its ways in His sight, however hidden from man. Could even the Jew question the equity of this procedure? He must assuredly abandon his own fatal presumption — that the righteous God would close His eyes to the wickedness of His own ancient people: if he still maintained, as he ought, the special advantage of Israel, he could not deny their augmented responsibility compared with the Gentile.

In other ways also these passages are of great weight and value. Men are apt to reason on this as on other subjects after an abstract sort. From one true God who gave His law, as He had made and shall judge all men, many assume that all alike are under that law, and shall be judged by it, and that no other method is possible without sullying God's truth, righteousness, authority, and honour. But he who is subject to the word of God, and stands intelligently by faith in His favour, knows that the dogmatism of a Pharisee is no better than the scepticism of a Sadducee, that neither knows the scripture, and that, as the latter denies the power, so the former sets aside His grace and also His righteousness. For the apostle elaborately shows as an incontestable truth here and elsewhere that there were men without law, as certainly as others under law. Who they were is equally clear and sure: Gentiles had not law, Jews had; and this was a main element of the different ground on which they should be tried. In vain would they weaken what the apostle says in verse 12 by that which he adds in verses 14, 15, that Gentiles, having no law, whenever they do the duties of the law, are a law to themselves, spite of having no law. It would be better to seek to understand the latter verses which need a little attention and reflection, rather than to overthrow what is so plain and positive in both; for in these passages, as everywhere, the doctrine is that Gentiles were without law, in contradistinction from Jews who were under law. (Compare Rom. 3: 19, 1 Cor. 9: 20, 21.) In Romans 1, where Gentile responsibility and guilt are treated, it is not a question of law, but of the testimony of creation and of the traditional knowledge of God they at first possessed. Here, in Romans 2, the Jewish boast of the law is turned to a serious purpose, as it is the basis of the apostle's proof that they cannot escape from being judged of God by the higher and fuller standard of His law.

It is argued by some who would neutralize these differences, that Gentiles are said to have the law written in their hearts. Why not look into what the apostle actually says and means, instead of twisting a few words into a contradiction of his express doctrine? It would be strange indeed, and say but little for Christianity, if heathens possessed as such that which the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 10: 15, 16.) affirms to be one of the grand and distinctive blessings of the New Covenant. This kind of theology teaches that the heathen have already the law written in their hearts. But the apostle does not stultify himself, as this would imply, — does not predicate of the heathen that immense mercy of God which the New Covenant holds out to faith based on redemption in Christ. What he really teaches is that whenever (for indeed it was scanty and rare) Gentiles do by nature the things of the law, they evince the law's work written in their hearts. He says not that the law, as these uninstructed men assume, but that its work, was written therein. For instance, let a heathen gather somehow the duty of honouring his parents: this, though he may have never heard of the law, is a law to him. So far the work of the law (not the law itself) is said to be written in his heart. His conscience thenceforth accuses or excuses him according to his conduct; and God in judgment will take all fully into account by and by. But this in no way interferes with the opening principle that some sin without being under law and so perish, as others more guiltily sin under law, and so shall be judged; for the question in judgment is not privilege but fidelity according to what we know or may know. Not the law-hearers are just with God but the law-doers shall be justified. This is invariably true; as scripture declares, faith accepts and judgment will display.

Accordingly we have the character of judgment declared in verse 16 conformably to what the apostle calls his gospel. Providential scourges, earthly chastening, or destruction, are true dealings of God and so revealed, not only in the Jewish scriptures, but in the prophecies of the New Testament also. But the judgment of the secrets of men is a different and far deeper truth: and this finds its suited revelation in the gospel as Paul presented it, where man is judged fully, both outwardly and inwardly, in presence of the saving grace of God and the heavenly glory of Christ the risen man, who is the life and the righteousness of the believer. This is Paul's gospel, and God's judgment of man (yea, of his heart's secrets by Jesus Christ in the great day that hastens) is according to that gospel. (Comp. Rom. 1: 17, 18.)

The apostle now advances another step in his appeal to conscience. He addresses himself next to the Jew, not classing him with the Gentile alone. Did the Jew value himself on his singular place among men, on his possession of a divine revelation, on the true God as his God, on the knowledge of His will, on his own consequent ability to try the things that differ and hence decide for the more excellent? did he assume a conscious superiority to his Gentile neighbours, through confidence in himself as thus standing on a vantage ground which gave him to look down on the wisest of other nations as but blind, and in the dark, and foolish, and babes, being destitute of that embodiment of knowledge and truth which the law afforded himself? Be it so, but if all this were so, how was it with the Jew in fact? The greater the privilege, the less excusable if he was faithless to the light he had and as bad as the heathen he despised.

"But if* thou art named a Jew, and restest on law, and boastest in God, and knowest his will, and provest the things that differ, being instructed out of the law, and hast confidence that thou thyself art a guide of blind, a light of those in darkness, an instructor of fools, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law: thou then that teachest another dost thou not teach thyself? thou that preachest not to steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest not to commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou who boastest in the law, through transgression of the law dost thou dishonour God? For the name of God on your account is blasphemed among the Gentiles even as it is written." (Ver. 17-24.)

*But if (εἰ δὲ) is unquestionably the right reading, not ἴδε ("behold") as in the Received Text and Authorized Version, which seems to have been a correction to ease the sense, if not a mere blunder in copying.

Thus severely, but severely because it was with the irresistible force of truth, does the apostle turn to the utter shame of the Jew the very ground on which he had entrenched himself in pride and vain glory. If there was conscience, he must own himself more guilty than the Gentile; if there was none, his insensibility would not make his sin and folly less manifest to all who fear God and estimate man aright. On his own showing his boasted knowledge of the law brought no saving power along with it for himself, whatever fuel it might supply for his arrogant abuse of it in contempt of others. Who, then, more signally dishonoured God? Was it not written even more strongly still in their own prophets? What said Isaiah (Isa. 52: 5.)? and what Ezekiel (Ezek. 36: 20-23.)? No doubt their foreign lords made them to howl; but was it not true that Israel profaned Jehovah's holy name among the heathen whither they went?

The issue of the reasoning is given in the concluding verses. A religious form cannot cover the contradiction morally of its own spirit; and on the other hand, where the spirit is truly found, God will approve of this spite of the absence (it may be unavoidably) of the form. He will and must have reality in that which concerns men in relation to Himself. "For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a transgressor of law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. If then the uncircumcision keeps the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision; and the natural uncircumcision fulfilling the law, judge thee that in the way of letter and circumcision transgressest law? For he that is outwardly a Jew is not [one], nor is that which is outward in flesh circumcision, but he that is hiddenly a Jew, and circumcision of heart in spirit, not in letter, the praise of whom [is] not of men but of God." As the principle is clear, so are the persons who alone are acceptable with God. External circumstances cannot over-ride His character and ways and judgment. The apostle does not here enunciate the fundamental truth of either Christianity or the Church in which dispensational differences vanish away in the light of a Christ dead and risen in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek. But it is of deep interest to observe how the profoundly just dealing of God which he is asserting, and which could not but commend itself to the conscience even of him whom it most condemns, fits in with that mighty development of truth, the revelation of the mystery, which it was Paul's province above all others to make known to us. As on the one hand the mere outward Jew is nothing nor the rite abstracted from its meaning; so on the other hand that only has praise with God which is hidden and heart work, not in letter but in spirit. Such an one, he strikingly adds (in allusion it would seem to the name of Judah and of a Jew) even if his brethren curse, or men hate, shall have his praise of God.

ROMANS 3.

The apostle's statement at the end of Romans 2 had laid down with irresistible force for the conscience that God will have reality rather than form. Let the Jew then beware. This gives occasion to objections which are met in the earlier part of Romans 3: 1-8.

"What therefore [is] the superiority of the Jew, or what the profit of circumcision?" To this or at least the former of these questions the apostle replies, "Much in every way; for, first, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God." In its proper place he enumerates the various high distinctions of Israel; but here he singles out, as foremost, that which had been their constant, and most precious privilege, the possession of God's written word; and the rather too as this was most suited to demonstrate their moral delinquency. For what use had they made of it? Where was the fruit of so great a favour?

Here again there is an anticipation of any argument founded, however unreasonably, on Jewish refractoriness which knew that the glory of God can never fail. "For what if some believed not? shall their unbelief make void the faith of God? Let it not be, but let God be true and every man false, even as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, and overcome when thou art judged." God holds fast infallibly to His truth, and men fail in faithfulness because of want of faith, which is insensible to sin, trusts self and has no confidence in God. That there is any, the smallest, failure on God's part he indignantly repudiates, and insists that He at least be vindicated to man's shame and confession of his own evil; even as David found his only resource in acknowledging his sin to God, clearing Him at all cost to himself. Indeed this is the secret of blessing for the sinner; and the willingness to own his ruined estate God operates in the heart by the revelation of His own grace. Our sins justify His words.

Of this the objector would again take advantage by contending that God could not then consistently punish us. Hence the apostle cuts off such misuse of the truth by what follows. "But if our unrighteousness commend God's righteousness, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who inflicteth wrath? I speak according to man. Let it not be: since how shall God judge the world?" This last was an axiom with the Jew, who was willing enough to allow justice in dealing with the earth at large (as, e.g., Abraham had entrenched himself on it in favour of exempting Lot from the destruction then impending over the cities of the plain). Impossible that there can be unrighteousness in God. But this very consideration was fatal to the fond delusion of self-security to which an unrighteous Jew yielded. God brings Himself glory even in face of man's iniquity; but iniquity is none the less, nor the less surely to be judged of God for all that. Hence he allows the objection to betray its own heinousness and leaves it when thus self-exposed without an answer, as necessarily condemned even by the most ordinary natural conscience. "For if the truth of God abounded in my lie to his glory, why any longer am I too judged as a sinner? and not, even as we are slanderously reported, and even as some give out that we say, 'Let us do evil that good may come?' — whose judgment is just." Such reasoning resembled what was falsely put into the mouth of the Christian, and proved too truly of the Jewish adversary that, in seeking to escape the conviction of his own hopeless exposure to God's judgment, he was obliged, as with the stiffest legalist is so often the case, to slip into principles of very gross antinomianism. It must always be thus, where men, cloaking their sins, hope for mercy from God; and the more inconsistently, as they ignore His grace and confess that He is the judge of all.

Next, from verse 9 the general argument is resumed, all the stronger for the interruption which rebuked the vain struggles and detailed cavils of the Jew. "What therefore? are we better? Not at all; for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin, even as it is written, There is none righteous, not one; there is not the [man] that understandeth; there is not the [nation] that seeketh God. All went out of the way, thus then they became unprofitable; there is none that doeth kindness, there is not so much as one. Their throat [is] an open grave; with their tongues they used deceit; venom of asps [is] under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; swift [are] their feet to shed blood; ruin and misery [are] in their ways, and no way of peace they knew. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that whatever things the law saith, it speaketh to those that are in the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world come under judgment with God; because by works of law no flesh shall be justified before him, for by law is knowledge of sin." (Ver. 9-20.) The Jew then is no better. The Gentiles were utterly degraded and guilty, as we saw in Romans 1; the Jews had brought shame on the Lord in proportion to their exceeding privileges. To clench this last point the apostle cites from the Psalms and prophets, especially Psalm 53 and Isaiah 59. Righteousness, intelligence, and even desire after God were not to be found, but all gone aside, and useless morally. Nay, every whit of them was corrupt or violent, — throats tongues, lips, feet, eyes. And this, as is remarked: was God's estimate, not of men merely but of the Jew, and addresses itself to those under itself as no Jew would deny.

The overwhelming conclusion, then, is that every mouth is closed and the whole world comes in guilty before God. The Jew never doubted the wickedness of the idolatrous Greeks, Romans, or other Gentiles. This to him was patent and unquestionable. But the flattering and most mistaken inference of immunity he drew from his own position, as having God's law and ordinances. No, reasons the apostle, this demonstrates your guilt to be even greater than the heathens, if you are no less immoral than they; and that such is the fact certainly flows from the revealed sentence of the law on the people who have that law.

Thus all stand inexcusable in their guilt before God; and this, because law-works cannot justify — still less of course the works that man's mind suggests, or that the will of others may extort. If any works could justify anybody, those of God's law must be the surest benefit to the Jew. But the truth is that no flesh shall be justified from any such source in His sight; for contrariwise law never produces holiness but is only the means of arriving at a full knowledge of sin.

There is another point I would notice as to the two chief portions which the apostle quotes from the Old Testament. The psalm and the prophecy already referred to terminate respectively — the former, with an earnest wish that the turning-point for Israel were come out of Zion, their captivity giving place to the long-looked-for joy and deliverance — the latter, with the declaration that the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and the covenant of blessing be theirs for ever. That is, both texts in their original connection close their sad account of Israel's sin with the yearning after, and the distinct prediction of, the kingdom of God restored to Israel with all accompanying blessedness and glory. But in the New Testament they are followed by the indiscriminate grace of God to every sinner that believes in Christ. In the former it is redemption by power; in the latter it is redemption by blood, which is come in meanwhile, before the Redeemer appears in power and glory, as He will soon.

Hitherto it has been for the most part negative statement or argument. The proof is complete that the Jew has righteousness for God no more than the Gentile, whom no Jew could doubt to be hopelessly ruined in sin, as indeed the state of the heathen, before the gospel testimony went forth, was to the last degree deplorable. But it had been shown from their own Psalms and Prophets that Israel was wholly evil in the sight of God; and to demonstrate this the Apostle needs nothing but the admitted postulate that, whatever things the law says, it speaks to those that are under the law; i.e., the Jews. Thus, both being demonstrated to be mere sinners (the Jews who had most pretension by the most sweeping and express testimonies of their own boasted divine oracles), every mouth was stopped, and all the world obnoxious to God's judgment. Law made its possessors no better, could not justify, but only give full knowledge of sin — sorrowful result for the sinner!

Then, what law could not do, God does by His good news. "But now without law God's righteousness is manifested, being testified by the law and the prophets, even God's righteousness through faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe." What fulness of truth, and what a compressed and precise expression of it! Man's righteousness was nowhere among the Gentiles. It had been asked for by the law among the Jews; but the law received no answer save of guilt. Those among them whose conscience was upright acknowledged that all their righteousnesses were as filthy rags, and that their iniquities, like the wind, had taken them away — that for their sins and for the iniquities of their fathers, the Jews had become a reproach to all that were about them. In the very writings which confessed their ruin the prophets spoke of Jehovah bringing near His righteousness. "My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth." "My salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." "My righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation." "My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed." (Isaiah 46, 56; Daniel 9: 16, 24.) So, in the types of the law, the entire sacrificial system sets forth a righteousness of God outside man, yet most truly for him, which meets its only adequate significance in the mighty work and death of Jesus. But the law and the prophets were only witnesses, testifying that this divine righteousness was not come, but coming; the shadows of a substance not yet present, the prediction of what was to be, and then near to come. Now it is come and manifested. It is quite independent of law, on the wholly different principle of grace, though the law as well as the prophets bore an anticipative witness to it. Law (not in its types, but in its proper character) appeals to the individual's own obedience, knows nothing of a substitute. Grace always supposes the intervention of God Himself in His Son, who in the cross establishes the right of God to bless him that believes in Jesus. It is not simply His prerogative of mercy; it is His righteousness. For the blood of the only acceptable victim is shed, the sacrifice is offered, the judgment of the sins has fallen on Him, He has accepted it all. This then is the new sort of righteousness; not man's, which, if it existed, must be according to the law; not the sinner's, of course (for he, being a sinner, has none which can avail), but God's, according to the types of the law and the declarations of the prophets, now no longer hidden or even promised, but manifested. He who believes God's testimony in the gospel to Jesus Christ His Son, confesses his sins and trusts God, not himself; he sees and owns what God can righteously do for him through the cross, and thus shares in His righteousness.

The manuscripts differ as to the text here. Some of the most ancient (the Sinai, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Rescript of Paris, beside some juniors, versions, and fathers) omit καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας ("and upon all"). But I agree with the judgment of those who retain the received text in this, and I have little doubt that the words were omitted through the eye or ear resting on one πάντας so as to overlook the other. Possibly indeed one scribe or more may have designedly left out the clause, fancying it to be a mistake from not apprehending the scope, and conceiving, like some commentators (e. g., Dean Alford), that there is no real difference of meaning in the prepositions. But this is incorrect. There is no difference of words in scripture without a different sense, though sometimes the shade is so fine as to be more easily felt than expressed. Here the distinct force of the clause is plain and important. The former (εἰς πάντας) marks the direction of God's righteousness. It is not, like the law, restricted to a single nation; it addresses itself "unto all" men without exception; but the benefit depends on faith in Jesus Christ, and hence it only reaches and takes effect "upon all that believe." This distinction is of great practical value; but it turns mainly on the difference of the prepositions. Divine righteousness was in principle applicable to all, but in fact applied only to all believers.

It was no question of right in man, but in God, and this through Christ's redemption. "For there is no difference; for all sinned, and do come short of the glory of God." When man was innocent, he simply enjoyed the creature gifts around in thankfulness to Him who had set him in the midst of all and over all which God had pronounced "very good." But when he sinned, God appeared and could have no test to try him by short of His glory, which drives out sinful man from before His face. Hence the necessity for divine grace if he is to be justified. This accordingly is the immediate topic of discourse: "being justified [i.e. all who are being justified] gratuitously by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiatory through faith in his blood, for a declaration of his righteousness on account of the praeter-mission of the sins that had been before in the forbearance of God, with a view to the declaration of his righteousness in the present time, in order to his being just and justifying him that is of faith in Jesus."

Thus the utter sin of man makes it an absolute necessity that, if he is to be justified at all, he must be justified gratuitously by God's grace. The question of desert or previous fitness is excluded. This suits the grace and majesty of God quite as much as the abject need of man. His grace moreover does no dishonour to His holy and righteous character, but the very reverse; and all through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. What is the ransom He purposed and has found? Christ a propitiatory through faith in His blood whom He set forth for a declaration of His righteousness. For God passed over the sins of believers in Old Testament times, looking forward to Christ's blood to vindicate Him, and forbearing all the while. But now it is not a matter of forbearance. The debt is cancelled, the blood is shed, His righteousness is no longer in prospect, but brought in and manifested, and God is proved to be just in justifying him that believes in Jesus. (Ver. 26.)

This therefore exalts God and His Son, but leaves no room for the boasting of those who trust in themselves that they are righteous. "Where then [is] boasting? It was excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by [the] law of faith. For we reckon that a man is justified by faith without works of law. Is he the God of Jews only? [Is he] not also of Gentiles? Yea of Gentiles also; since God is one who shall justify [the] circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through their faith? Do we then make void law through faith? Far be it: but we establish law." (Ver. 27-31.) The principle of faith shuts the door against glorying in one's own works, because it means justification by faith apart from works of law. But the moment it is allowed that this is God's sanctioned way, He is certainly not God of Jews more than of Gentiles, but is one and the same to both, who will justify circumcised persons not by law as they expect, but by faith, and if uncircumcised have faith, through it He will justify them also.

Is this destruction of law as a principle? The very opposite. Law never had such a sanction as in the gospel proposed to faith, whether one looks at the sinner totally condemned under it or at Christ made a curse on the cross. On the other hand, those who would treat Christians as under the law for their rule do enfeeble its authority, because these are taught to hope for salvation at the same time that they fail to meet its requirements. This is not to establish law, but to make it void.

ROMANS 4.

The previous reasoning, and especially the statement of the apostle towards the close of Romans 3, had made justification to depend evidently and exclusively on the expiatory work of Jesus. God was thereby just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. And this, as he had further shown, at once opens the door of grace to Gentiles as well as Jews, while it establishes law instead of annulling its authority (as the salvation of sinners on any other principle must).

This naturally raised the question of the saints in Old Testament times, before Jesus and the gospel which, since His advent, is preached to every creature. How does the doctrine agree with God's ways in their case? Accordingly the apostle takes two instances which would naturally occur to a Jewish objector: one the depositary of promise from God, as regards the chosen people; the other the true type of royalty over them according to God — Abraham and David, but especially Abraham. Both, we shall see, confirm the great argument instead of presenting the smallest difficulty to be removed.

"What therefore shall we say that Abraham, our [fore-]father according to the flesh, hath found?* For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath matter of boast, but not before God. For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness." (Ver. 1-5.)

* The manuscripts differ widely in this place. The Vatican is not alone in omitting εὑρηκέναι ("hath found"), which would yield a very easy sense. Most of the copies place εὑρηκέναι before κατὰ σάρκα, but the best have it after ἐροῦμεν. Προπάτορα is the reading of but few, but perhaps enough; as πατέρα is the usual form and might easily have slipped in.

What, then, is the true inference from the history of Abraham? If justified by works, certainly the credit would be his; but this is never found before God. And with this the scripture accords; for it speaks not of his goodness before his call or acceptance, but expressly of his faith in God's word as that which he exercised, and which was accounted as righteousness. (Gen. 15: 6.) No Jew who bowed to the divine authority of the Pentateuch could dispute this. Was it, then, consistent or at issue with the gospel? If a man work, the reward is not viewed as a gratuity, but as the wages due to him; but if, instead of working, he believes on Him that justifies the ungodly, what a magnificent proof and conclusion that his faith is reckoned for righteousness! This is free grace, and the very reverse of a debt according to law; and such was the principle of God's dealings with their great forefather according to the inspired account of Moses.

Take again the testimony of David. Does he fall in with the gospel or contradict the legislator? The sweet psalmist of Israel confirms them, for he pronounces those blessed whom the law could only curse. "Just as David also speaketh of the blessedness of the man to whom God reckoneth righteousness without works. Blessed [they] whose iniquities were forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed a man whose sin the Lord will in no way reckon." (Ver. 6-8.) Unquestionably this is justification not by good, but in spite of evil works. It is God's grace blessing, not His law cursing, where there was no righteousness, but only lawlessness and sin; yet the Lord reckons no sin whatever, but righteousness without works. No doubt, man is supposed to be altogether evil and without excuse; but this is the revelation of the God of all grace as He loves to be known by sinful man. He justifies those who need it most — the ungodly. "This blessedness, therefore, [is it] upon the circumcision or also upon the uncircumcision? for we say that to Abraham faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received [the] sign of circumcision, a seal of the faith that [he had] in uncircumcision, in order to his being the father of all that believe while uncircumcised, in order that righteousness might be reckoned to them also; and father of circumcision, net only to those circumcised, but also to those that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham while uncircumcised." (Ver. 9-12.)

We have seen, then, faith counted as righteousness to Abraham, corroborated by the testimony of David to the blessedness of those whose bad works were remitted and to whom the Lord reckoned no sin. But a new question arises for the Jewish mind — Were not those blessed in the enjoyment of circumcision? Is it not limited to persons within that pale? Again the apostle brings in Abraham. Could any Jew slight him or hesitate as to the conditions of his blessing? How, therefore, in his case was faith reckoned to him? after or before he was circumcised? Beyond doubt, when he was uncircumcised, as their own inspired record made plain and sure. Circumcision was but a sign he received considerably later, as sealing the faith he had while in an uncircumcised state. Thus is Abraham more than any other fitted to be father of all that believe while uncircumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them; and father of circumcision (not of the circumcised, or Jews, as some perversely understand, but), of true separation to God, whether for the circumcised or for those also that walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham whilst uncircumcised.

The Jew, therefore, could not cite Abraham without being compelled by the scriptural history to allow that this precedent illustrates the grace of God in justifying the heathen more forcibly, if possible, than in its application to his own circumcised and lineal seed. God, if He pleased, could have justified Abraham after bringing him under the rite of circumcision; but He saw fit to do the very reverse. Not only was faith reckoned as righteousness to Abraham, but it was also beyond cavil whilst he was still uncircumcised; and circumcision was in no way a means of the grace that justifies, but a seal of the righteousness that was reckoned to him long before that sign was instituted by God.

Justification, then, is not of works: else man might boast of himself, instead of God being glorified. It is really according to grace, and not debt; and God reserves His prerogative of justifying the ungodly. Thus God and man have their due place; and as Abraham illustrated the principle, so David speaks of the pronouncing a blessing after this sort in Psalm 32. Nothing but imputing righteousness without works could avail for the justifying of a sinner. Nor this only; for the very man, with whom circumcision began as the command of God, was expressly justified by faith before he was circumcised. So manifestly did God order all in His wisdom and goodness that circumcision should be but a seal of the righteousness of faith which Abraham had while yet uncircumcised. Thus the Gentiles or the uncircumcised were especially provided for in the unquestionable facts recorded in the first book of the Pentateuch, as no Jew could deny. Abraham was father of all believers in a state like his own, and father of circumcision (i.e., separation to God, couched under that act which set forth mortification of the flesh) not only to the circumcised, but also to those that walk in the footsteps of the faith the ancestor of Israel had before circumcision. Believers from among the Gentiles were thus as truly circumcised in the highest sense as Jewish ones.

"For not by law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of [the] world, but by righteousness of faith. For if those of law [be] heirs, faith is made vain and the promise is annulled." (Ver. 13, l4.)

The apostle now reasons from the necessary principle of God's promise. This excludes law and supposes faith — righteousness. For evidently law supposes the obedience of man as the condition of receiving the boon which is in question. It was not so in God's dealings with Abraham or his seed. There was not a word about His law when God gave promise to Abraham in Genesis 12, and to his seed in Genesis 22. The promise implies God's fulfilment of it; the law claimed man's obedience of its demands. They are thus, while each is admirable for its own end, absolutely different and mutually exclusive. The promised inheritance is not by law, but by another sort of righteousness. It was annexed to faith; and this is so true, that if those who stand on law are heirs, no room is left for faith and the promise comes thus to nought. "For the law worketh out wrath; but where no law is, there is no transgression." (Ver. 15.) The application is as clear as it is momentous, and this positively as well as negatively. The thing law generally, and in particular the law of God given by Moses, provokes by its very excellence the hostile self-will of man, and so detects his enmity and works out wrath in result. On the other hand, where there is no law, there is no transgression. It is no question of sin here, but of violating positive prescription, which latter of course could not be till the lawgiver uttered the enactments definitely. Then as law existed, it could be transgressed. But it was not yet promulgated in the time of Abraham, who had that wholly different thing — the promise.

The conclusion is, that as law would have defeated the promise of God and brought wrath on man, instead of the inheritance, "on this account [it is] of faith, that [it might be] according to grace in order to the promise being sure to all the seed, not only to that which is of law, but also to that which is of Abraham's faith, who is father of us all (even as it is written, A father of many nations I have made thee), before God whom he believed, that quickeneth the dead and calleth the things that are not as if they are; who against hope believed in hope, in order to his becoming father of many nations according to that which was spoken, So shall be thy seed." (Ver. 16-18.) As faith is opposed to works, so is grace to law; while the grace of God who gave the promise makes the sole and withal the large door of faith to open for Gentiles no less than Jews. Had law been the principle, Israel who boasted of possessing the law, though blind to their breaches of it and to their own enhanced exposure to wrath, could alone have made an effort, however vainly. But grace goes out to the Gentile no less than to the Jew who could hardly limit Abraham's paternity of "many nations" to his own people.

Here too another point of great value is noticed. The God whom Abraham believed quickens the dead and calls things that have no being as though they had. This was rendered evident not only by the fact that Sarah bore no child to Abraham, but by their great age when the promise was given. They were as good as dead, and a child of theirs had no existence. But what of all this to God? Long before the time God spoke, Abraham against hope believed in hope. What a pattern of faith! On the human side all was hopeless; on God's part there was simply His word. But Abraham believed, hoped, and was not ashamed. God could not fail to make good what He said: "So shall be thy seed."

We are thus gradually advancing to the great principle of resurrection, which, while it bears mainly on life, as we shall see in Romans 5-8, plays also a most momentous part in justification. For this too the case of Abraham is employed: "And, not being weak in faith, he considered [not] his own body now dead, being about a hundred years old, and the deadening of Sarah's womb, yet as to the promise of God wavered not through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and fully assured that what he hath promised he is able also to perform." (Ver. 19-21.) The promise of God was beyond hope, and contrary to it, if he reasoned from himself and Sarah; but yet he believed in hope, because God had declared he should have posterity numerous as the stars and the sand. Faith reasons from God and His word, not from self or circumstances.

In verse 19 there occurs a remarkable difference of reading; and yet, strange to say, though that which results is as opposite as can be, in either way the sense is good. For both appear to suit and carry on the argument, though of course one alone is the true and intended comment of the Spirit on the state of Abraham. There is excellent and perhaps adequate authority of every kind* (manuscripts, versions, and ancient citations) for dropping the negative particle, which is therefore marked as doubtful in the version just before the reader's eye. If οὐ be an interpolation, the meaning would be that Abraham, instead of slighting the obstacles, took full account of them all (Gen. 17: 17), yet as regards the promise of God had no hesitation through unbelief, but on the contrary was inwardly strengthened in faith. If the ordinary reading be right, the meaning is that, far from being weak in faith, he paid no heed to the facts before his eyes whether in himself or in his wife, nor staggered at the promise of God through unbelief, but found strength in faith, giving glory to Him and satisfied that He was able also to perform the promise.

* The Sinai, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Rescript of Paris (C.), with a few cursives, some of the oldest and best copies of the Vulgate, the Syriac (not the later or Philox.), the Coptic, the Erpenian Arabic, and some Greek and Latin fathers did not read οὐ. Lachmann accordingly leaves it out, and Griesbach counted it a probable omission. Tischendorf too omitted it in his first edition, but replaced it in the second and those subsequent. Meyer adheres to the common text.

"Wherefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Now it was not written on his account alone that it was reckoned to him, but on our account also, to whom it shall be reckoned — [us] that believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord out of [the] dead, who was delivered† for our offences and was raised for our justification." (Ver. 22-25.)

† Διά with the accus. means "for," "on account of," either retrospectively or prospectively, according to the requirement of the context (as here we have instances of each). The active force of δικαίωσις forbids "because of," as does Romans 5: 1, which makes faith necessary to justification. I have therefore preferred "for" as admitting of a similar latitude in English.

Thus as faith was reckoned for righteousness to the father of the faithful, so is it to the believer now. But the apostle takes care to point out the difference as well as the analogy. The faith not of Abraham only but of all the Old Testament saints was exercised on promise. They all in a large sense waited for the accomplishment of what God held out, sure that He could not lie, and was able also to perform. But in the great ulterior object of their hope they were expecting One who was only promised and not yet come.

It is not so with the Christian; for though he, like the elders, obtains a good report by faith, and has his faith reckoned for righteousness, yet the personal object of hope is come, and has wrought the infinite work of redemption. This is an incalculable change, and fraught with mighty consequences. It is not of course that much does not remain to be effected when Christ comes again (changing the saints then alive, raising the dead believers, judging the quick and finally the dead who had no part in the first resurrection, and closing all in the eternal state); but as to the foundation of all this and more, as to that work which alone could glorify God and justify sinful man, it is already done so perfectly that it admits of not a hairbreadth from God or man to render it more complete or efficacious. Such is the gospel of the grace of God; it is not promise, but accomplishment; and so absolutely, we may boldly say, that, if not now done in the cross, in the death and resurrection of Him who hung there, it never can be done — not even by Him. Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him. Without His death in atonement, nothing was done which could adequately vindicate God about sin. In His death, God is glorified perfectly and for ever. He has put away sin by His sacrifice. By His one offering for our sins, they are gone for the believer. This is no question of hope, but of faith in the efficacy of His redemption, which we already possess through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Hence we are viewed in scripture as receiving the end of our faith, namely, the salvation of our souls, though we have to wait for the change of our bodies into His glorious likeness at His coming for us. Besides, there are gracious promises of care in both natural and spiritual necessities along the path here below. But the great fact remains for faith, that the atoning work is done.

Let it be remarked, further, that here it is not a question of the Saviour's blood as in Romans 3, but of God that raised Jesus our Lord from among the dead. The truth insisted on is not His grace who suffered all for our sins. It is the mighty intervention of God on our behalf in triumphant power, raising out of the dead Him who gave Himself to bear our judgment; or rather as it is here written, who was delivered on account of our offences and was raised to secure our justification. Thus, in Romans 3: 26 the point is faith in Jesus; here, it is on Him that raised up Jesus. Such is the God whom we know. The fathers knew Him as He was pleased to reveal at that time and link Himself with them. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob was the giver of promises assuredly to be accomplished in His time. But our God, while the same blessed and blessing Almighty, is (as we can say) far more than this. The Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the Father — He had declared Him — He who was full of grace and truth. Nor this only; for Jesus, conqueror of Satan in life, went down for us into death, was delivered for our offences, and therein so glorified God that His righteousness could not but bring Him up from the dead. The sins that were laid on Him, where are they? Gone for ever: blotted out by His precious blood. Could God leave Him in death who had thus afresh retrieved His glory and bound up with it the means of our eternal blessing? Impossible. He raised Jesus therefore from the dead and gave Him glory, that our faith and hope might be in God.

As God, then, is thus made known to the believer now, so it will be noticed that all is here closed in justifying us. In the same verse of Romans 3, which has been already compared, we read that He might be ''just and the justifier" of him that believeth in Jesus. For as we look on the blood of Jesus shed in expiation God has necessarily a judicial character. Sins must be judged according to all the holiness of a nature to which they are infinitely abhorrent. Here therefore God is declared to be just and the justifier of the believer. But in the end of Romans 4 we see that it is no longer a question of righteous satisfaction, as this had been completely settled in the blood of Jesus. Not so with justification. This derives an immensely increased value from the resurrection of Jesus which gloriously displayed in the Deliverer's person the victory that was won for us. He was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justifying. It is our Red Sea, and not merely our Passover

ROMANS 5.

The weighty theme of justification has been now fully treated, on the side both of Christ's blood shed in expiation and of His resurrection as carried through death in the power of God; that is to say, both negatively and positively, bearing all the consequences of our sins and manifesting the new estate in which He stands before God.

In the former half of our chapter the apostle draws out the consequences of justification. From verse 12 he enters on a new part of his subject which runs down to the end of Romans 8 and is practically an appendix to what goes before.

"Having therefore been justified by faith, we have* peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also had access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in hope of the glory of God."

* This is an instance of a reading which differs from that given in the great majority of first-class authorities (the Sinai, Alexandrian, Vatican, Rescript of Paris, Clermont uncials, many excellent cursives, ancient versions, and fathers), yet, as it appears to me, most in keeping with the requirements of the context. For ἔχωμεν ("let us have") brings in an exhortation which agrees neither with what goes before nor with what follows, as the christian reader can judge for himself. The fact is that nothing is easier than to account for the various reading, for the interchange of the short with the long vowel or a diphthong that corresponds to it is most familiar to all acquainted with the critical history of the text. Thus inadvertence may have introduced the long ω instead of the short ο. Besides, the subjunctive suits man's mind, when conscious of wants Godward (and such is the state of most), rather than the indicative which expresses the blessing possessed already. Just so we see in 1 Corinthians 15, as another has remarked, where the Vatican stands alone of the Uncials in supporting some modern copies against the mass of ancient MSS., which favour an unquestionable error. , A, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, with the great majority of cursives, the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, Gothic, Sclavonic, and many ancient ecclesiastical writers read φορέσωμεν, the subjunctive (instead of the indicative as in the common and correct text).

Peace with God we have as the first notable result of justification. Our previous state was enmity and war with God. But now that He has justified us by faith of Christ, we can look back at all the past, so humiliating to our souls, and yet we have peace with God.

It is a mistake to confound this with the ordinary apostolic salutation, which desires grace to the saints and "peace from God." These we need continually, and feel so much the more to be needed because we have peace with God. Again, "the peace of God," of which the apostle speaks in Philippians 4, is quite distinct; for it too is the want of the Christian in his daily circumstances. While he is enjoying peace with God as to his state, spite of the deep sense he may have of past guilt, he may not have the peace of God guarding his heart and his thoughts by Christ Jesus. He may be tried greatly and distracted, because anxious about this or that; if in one thing and another he fail by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving to make known his requests to God, he will assuredly fail to enjoy the guardian power of His peace. This therefore differs indisputably from that primary blessedness, the fruit of justification, which the apostle treats as the common portion of believers in his Epistle to the Romans.

The next effect it is as important as sweet to take into account. Through our Lord Jesus Christ we have also, as a permanent blessing given already to us, the title of access into this favour wherein we stand. If the former was in view of all we had done in past hostility to God, this contemplates our actual place and the feeling which reigns where we stand. Blessed be God! it is grace that reigns there. Not a breath is there, save of favour toward us who deserved alas! to be cast out and contemned for our unworthy ways, even since we have been brought to God. We do not stand under law: this were to fall from grace, the sure precursor of falling into sin, as well as the denial of the Saviour and of His precious redemption, and of our own blessing. The access we have had through our Lord Jesus Christ is into the grace, the true grace of God, and there alone we stand; anywhere else we must fall from everything good and into all evil.

But there is a third result which must not be passed by. The greater the boon, whether you look at the past with its dark sin or at the present with the settled sunshine of God's favour, so much the less can one bear to think of such blessedness coming to nought; and to nought it must all come, did the rich effects of justification depend on ourselves. But they do not. They come to us faith-wise, and they rest on Christ through whom alone they are our portion. They are not temporal like Adam's tenure of Eden, or Israel's possession of Canaan. They are secured through Him who died for our sins and is raised out of the dead. Can He lose the blessings He has thus won? No more can we for whom He won them. Hence we can exultingly look on the future. Not more certainly do we stand in present grace than "boast in hope of the glory of God." Less than this does not suit our God to hold out before us. He will have us to be with and as Christ in His own glory. With, us who believe He deals as to past, present, and future, according to what our Lord Jesus deserves and His eternal redemption. If the righteousness be God's righteousness, not man's, if divine righteousness be the starting-point, no wonder that the grace of God is the ground in which we stand, and that the glory of God is the sole adequate hope, whether we consider the person or the work of the Saviour. May we boast of it and Him!

The soul that believes has been thus shown us enjoying the results of justification absolute and complete. Admirable as a groundwork, nevertheless it is not everything. God would bless the believer according to what is in His heart, yet with full consideration of passing circumstances. And this last is what the apostle can speak of, now that the course is clear from the starting-point to the goal of God's glory, the hope of which makes the heart exult.

Nevertheless we are in the place of trial still, we are in the wilderness, though sheltered by the blood of the Lamb and redeemed from Egypt and its prince. Indeed properly here above all are we put to the proof; here, where no resources appear, God calls us to depend on and confide in Himself; here especially the enemy seeks to make us murmur in unbelief both as to the journey and as to the hope at the end of it. Egypt is the house of bondage; the wilderness is the scene of temptation; the land calls for conflict with the powers of darkness. The first two verses suppose us outside Egypt, and looking onward with joyful anticipation to the mountain of Jehovah's inheritance, the place He has made for Himself to dwell in.

Meanwhile there is nothing but desert around. Do we boast in hope notwithstanding? Assuredly, "and not only [so], but we boast in tribulations also." This flesh can never do; it may affect stoical insensibility: but faith, while it increases our feeling, alone gives us to triumph.

Here, however, there is a process to which we need to take heed. In hoping for the glory of God, our boast is direct. It is not so with our tribulations. We should and do boast in them, but it is not immediate. It is the fruit of intelligent apprehension of God's gracious aim in these afflictions. Hence the apostle proceeds to set out how we are brought thus to traverse the judgment of nature. We boast in tribulations, says he; "knowing that tribulation worketh endurance; and endurance, experience; and experience, hope; and hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost that was given to us."

Such is the shining pathway of the Christian even here, because Christ is before the heart: otherwise, tribulation works out the impatience of the first man, not endurance through the Second. Then endurance sustained in faith works out experience (i.e., the proof of what is tested and stands); as this again, from what God is shown to be in gracious present care, strengthens hope; and this does not put to shame by failure and disappointment; because the Holy Ghost sheds abroad in our hearts the love of God, who loved us when there was nothing lovable in us, as we are shown after self is thus detected and judged, the world seen in its true colours, and God more than ever proved, and prized, and trusted.

This verse is remarkable as the first which speaks either of the Spirit given to us, or of the love of God which is thereby shed forth in us. We have His righteousness fully displayed and applied before there is any allusion to either. That God is wise in this, it is almost needless to remark. It is well that the soul should be shut up to that which is absolutely perfect outside ourselves on God's part and in virtue, not of the Spirit's work in us, but of Christ's for us. And so it is. Then in the path of subsequent christian experience, he can touch on and in due time unfold the love of God shed abroad in us, and the Holy Ghost given to us. We can then bear it safely. Had it been brought in before this, the heart would have readily turned to its own workings and affections from Christ and God's righteousness revealed in the gospel.

It may have been noticed that, though the apostle had carefully proved the ruin of man and the righteousness of God in which the believer has part, it is not so with His love. Of this he first speaks here as a thing not demonstrated but known and enjoyed. He assumes it from the common consciousness of Christians. It is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given to us.

Next we have God's love not thus subjectively viewed, but its display pointed out and grounded on the great objective fact of the death of Christ for us and outside us. "For while we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for [the] ungodly." (Ver. 6.) How admirable the wisdom of God, and how wholesome! For even the believer convinced of his ungodliness is slow to appreciate his powerlessness. It was good to know that as man all was lost, and he had to do either with God's wrath in unbelief, or with His righteousness by faith. There is then the love of God in us, yea, shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost; but the foundation of it is in Christ's death, when we had as little strength as we were far from godliness. This was just the opportunity for grace; and for such Christ died.

It is not after this sort that the creature — that man — loves. "For scarcely for a just [man] will one die." Righteousness, as such, one esteems and values; but it does not draw out love so that one would die for a merely righteous person. Not that man's heart is not capable of strong affections; "for one might for the good* [man] even dare to die." (Ver. 7.) None among the sons of Adam could surpass such love as this.

* The article is here inserted, not before δικαίου but before ἀγαθοῦ. One would hardly die for any just person simply as such; but it might be for some known good man, whose excellence had powerfully acted on the heart of another.

"But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Ver. 8.) This is characteristically divine and sovereign. We were powerless, unjust, evil, nothing but sinners, on the one hand; and God, on the other, had no motive for His love other than itself. It is emphatically His own love. As another apostle puts it, God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Only God can love thus. Man, the saint even, must have a motive without; God has none. He, and He only, is love. The spring is within, and He needs no object without to call it forth. Those whom His grace makes objects of His love are wholly and absolutely unlovable as to themselves, yet He loves them spite of all they are. While they were yet sinners, Christ died for them — the fullest proof of their sin and of God's love. Nothing less could avail; nothing more blessed could be done even by Him; nothing different would suit Himself. Thus He commends His own love. What a resting-place for both heart and conscience! He forgets nothing, judges all, yet loves us with a love that is perfect and altogether peculiar.

How admirable are the ways of God in Christianity! There is nothing which opens so vast a field for activity, either in love or in mind; for the truth revealed is the revelation in Christ of Him who is infinite. Yet withal is it the most simple adaptation to the wants of every heart awakened to its real state in relation to God and indeed also to man. Thus the display of His love in the death of Christ comes down to the child, while it wholly transcends the highest soarings of poor but proud philosophy. There is the most profound truth, but it is embodied in facts which speak to every heart and conscience when the will has been dealt with by the Holy Spirit. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us; and in this God commends His own love toward us.

We have now to note the reasoning of the apostle, not indeed to prove the love of God; but, beginning with it as known through the Holy Ghost given to us, he draws conclusions after a truly divine sort. Thus the consciousness of the Christian has its just and full place, and so has the proof of divine love. However shed abroad in the heart, its demonstration rests on the gift of Christ and His death for us, wholly without us. This presents the love of God toward us absolutely free from mixture with anything in us or of us. Hence, as there was nothing to draw it out and fix it on us, the result is no less sure. The reasoning is not at all from divine counsels about us or promises made to us, but from what God is; and He is love — love proved in Christ's dying for us, while we were yet sinners. "Much more therefore, having been now justified by* his blood, we shall be saved through him from wrath." Most sound and conclusive!

* The preposition ἐν here and in the next verse I have translated "by." It is a far more intimate relation (= "in virtue of," "in the power of") than is expressed by διά, which, with the genitive as in each of these verses, signifies a means or instrument ("through"), as sometimes also in a certain condition ("with")- a sense which it occasionally bears in the accusative also. Compare Galatians 4: 13 with Romans 2: 27.

But he proceeds in the next place to develop and apply it yet more definitely. "For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Neither the weakness nor the positive enmity of man hindered that love but furnished the deepest occasion for its display. Certainly there is nothing that can frustrate its results now. We were but sinners then; we have been justified in virtue of Christ's blood now. We were foes of God, but have now been reconciled to Him through the death of His Son — infinitely precious in His sight, infinitely efficacious in its effects for us. Impossible that such love could fail for those whom it placed in a relationship so excellent. Assuredly the blood, the death, of Christ has done great things for us: now that he is risen again for our justifying, is all to prove abortive? It could not be. The wrath of God awaits the unbelieving soul, yea, abides on him that submits not to the Son. But we have received Him, believing on His name; we have been justified in the power of His blood; and we shall be saved through Him from that wrath.

How could it be otherwise? For us even now there is reconciliation. On the ground of the blood of Christ God has reconciled us to Himself. Not only are we no longer alienated, but He has brought us back and put us before Him according to His own grace, not reinstated merely (as if it were a replacing us in Adamic blessing), but according to His own nature and purpose by redemption. It is the due and normal place before God who would bless us in view of Christ and the results of His work for us on the cross. God reconciles: man, the believer, is reconciled, and this through the death of His Son. There was His own love without limit in Christ; nevertheless, even that love alone could not have sufficed to meet the case. No love in se could have saved us who were enemies from His just wrath. The death of Christ puts everything in its due place, and conciliates all. Neither wrath on God's part nor enmity on ours is ignored. Christ shed His blood, and died; the believer is justified and reconciled, and God's love, which so wrought in Christ and for us, will yet have the results of His gracious purpose in perfection. If He justified us when evil and rebellious by the death of Christ, much more (now that we stand in a new and holy relationship where all is made good for us by and with God) shall we be saved by His life.

Yet there is another boast we have as believers, in virtue of Christ's death and resurrection; and it is infinite, though entered on already. It is not now simply in hope of the glory of God; nor is it in our tribulations, looking on to the end of the Lord in them and the consequent profit meanwhile. This had drawn out a most blessed unfolding of what God is. His love is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Ghost given to us. He commends His own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. There are consequences drawn; but they are not drawn from counsels about us, but from what He is, and has done for us when we were in our sins. There was no motive but in Himself; the objects of His love were the merest sinners. Hence we exult in much more than His ways with us, or the glorious hoped for result; "and not only [so], but also [we are] boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now received the reconciliation."

Truly this is the climax: we exult in God! Higher we cannot go. In this we do boast through our Lord Jesus Christ. He has given us the most excellent gifts, but, better than all, Himself. For this, as for all the rest, we are indebted to Jesus; and we may even say, boldly yet most truly, that only through Jesus could God be what He is as the highest spring, ground, and object, of our boasting. "Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him," said the Saviour, "God will glorify him in himself and will straightway glorify him." "And not only so, but we glory in God through our Lord Jesus." Blessed fruit above, yea and even below!

Through Him also now we received the reconciliation; for so the apostle wrote, not the propitiation, but the "reconciliation." Without that mighty work of Christ on the cross we could not indeed, being sinners, be reconciled to God; but this is the theme here — the complete making good of our case with God with whom we had been at war, and from whom we were wholly estranged by our sins. In Romans 3: 25, we were shown how God justified us freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom He set forth a propitiatory (or mercy-seat) through faith in His blood. Thus He could be propitious spite of our sins which were fully met by the blood of Jesus. But the first half of Romans 5 brings in His love and consequently the reconciliation, which we have now received through Christ, impossible without His atoning death, but going much farther in itself.

The chapters that follow can scarcely be thought to carry the soul into a deeper blessedness. Privileges are there very fully developed, security is more elaborately affirmed of the Christian in the face of adverse circumstances and enemies, in Romans 8 above all; but I know not that any joy even there rises up to the boasting in God we find here. It is at once the occasion for the heart both of the most profound repose and of the utmost spiritual activity. Worship is its expression. The outflow of the joy of the redeemed in the rest of God is thus anticipated. We begin the new song that will never end; and as it is here and now through our Lord Jesus, is it not so much the sweeter to our God? Thus the deepest inward poison that Satan insinuated into man at the fall is not merely counteracted but triumphed over to the praise of God. He thus acquires His due place; but it is such a place of trustful delight as never could have been for the creature save as the result of Himself known as He is now by redemption — the God who has reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ.

From this verse to the end of Romans 8, we have not so much a distinct portion of the Epistle as a needed and most weighty appendix to that which precedes. Hitherto the great truth of the remission of the believer's sins has been fully set forth, closing with the blessed privileges which belong to the justified man, but still in that connection — the expiatory efficacy of the blood of Jesus, and this displayed in His resurrection. Precious as it all is, it is not every thing the believer wants. He may be miserable in the discovery of what he finds within himself, and if he know not the truth that applies to his difficulties on this score, he is in danger of yielding to hardness on one side, or of bearing a burdened spirit of bondage on the other. How many saints have never learnt the extent of their deliverance, and go mourning from day to day under efforts which they would be the first to confess unavailing against their inward corruption! How many settle down callously balancing their faith in the forgiveness of their sins by the blood of Christ as a set-off against a plague which they suppose must needs be, and of course with no more power over it than those who are honestly but in vain struggling to get better. Neither the one nor the other understands the value to them of the sentence already executed on the old man in the cross, nor their own new place before God in Christ risen from the dead. This it is the Spirit's object to unfold in what follows.

"On this account, as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed unto all men for that all sinned." (Ver. 12.)

There is no need to reduce the apostle's language to a formal regularity. The utterance of the Spirit's mind, through a heart and understanding which felt its value as none ever did, clothed itself in a form more akin to that which was enunciated than man's rhetoric ever conceived. A broken sentence, with a long interruption following before the answer was given, suits the subject here, no less than the most parenthetic chapter in the scripture falls in with the task the apostle had in hand in Ephesians 3. This coincidence of the remarkable form with the great facts and doctrines under discussion cannot be questioned even by those who see nothing beyond the fortuitous even in the Bible. Verses 13-17 form a digression that ends in meeting objections and helping on the argument; and then verse 18 resumes the matter of verse 12 under a more compact shape and furnishes the consequent of what was there introduced but left unfinished.

Nor does there seem to be any great difficulty in apprehending the propriety and bearing of particular phrases in this verse. The opening words have given rise to much needless and unintelligent questioning. The connection is as evident as it is important. God's love being the source, and Christ — the death and resurrection of Christ especially — the channel of redemption with such wondrous results to the believer, "on this account" (διὰ τοῦτο) we are free to approach another side of this mighty and fruitful theme — the two heads with their respective families and the two natures of the believer, derived from Adam and Christ, with the relation of the Holy Ghost to us. In the same verse the last words have also been much debated. Undoubtedly the new subject is sin, the fallen estate of man, marked and closed by death; but there is no right reason to exclude from this and other expressions of the section the actual sinning of mankind.  Ἐφ᾽ ῳ does not mean "in whom;" nor is there warrant, while translating these words correctly, to add to the sentence that all died in the person of Adam. The point beyond all prominent is the way in which one man may affect the world. However preoccupied the Jew might be by the individual dealing of the law with each soul under it, it was impossible even for him to deny that such is the plain fact standing in the written word at the beginning of the world's sad moral history. Undoubtedly by one man, sin, the thing sin, entered; and this at once broke up the ground on which all was then ordered. As it was rebellion against God, so was it fatal to man. Thereby death, the enemy so dreaded of man, entered.

Thus the change most solemnly affecting the world came in long before the Jew existed or consequently before their boasted law was given. The Jew must look somewhere more largely, and accurately too, into the scriptures. He must not flatter his national vanity or religious pride with the delusion that all hinges either on Israel or on their law. Adam was before them both and affects all mankind (the Jews not excepted). True, the momentous history that shows us how sin and death entered is humbling indeed; but anything will the heart turn into a vaunt. At any rate, that incalculably grave event was outside the Jew in itself, and in consequences went far beyond them. It was not outside man, but contrariwise "by one man;" yet its effect, death, permeated the world.

But the apostle takes care to add to this one man's sin those of all others — "and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned." Thus the last clause is expressly to guard against the exclusion of the sins of men generally. We must therefore beware of enfeebling either side of the case. In the very scripture which opens the discussion of the universal bearing of Adam's sin on the human race (for it is no question here of Israel in particular) the connection of men's own sins with their death is carefully added. No one doubts that infants and idiots die, and this through Adam's sin; but the Spirit does not exclude the consequence where personal guilt can apply. The position of ruin to which the fall consigned the race is not severed from the evil workings of the nature now fallen in all men. Adam's sin is the cause but not the sole account and whole case of the bitter lot of man.

Now if one man, according to God's word and consistently with His character and ways, could plunge the world in death by sin, was it inconsistent with the true God by one man to bring in justification of life which addresses itself to all men? This the apostle proceeds to show elaborately and with divine precision in the verses that follow, which I will not further anticipate.

The parenthesis now begins. The apostle meets a possible objection, and certainly proves that the existence of sin is independent of law. "For until [the] law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law." Thus the Jew could not even make the miserable boast (for what will not man boast of?) that the law preceded sin. The very object of law is to prove the sin of men. Alas! it is not confined to Israel; it is universal. "Sin was in the world," where the law was not. When it was given by Moses, it put sin to account; but sin was already there, and far more widely than the sphere which law contemplated when it came. Law could work no remedy for sinners; it could only register — not get rid of — sin. Law gave sin the character of offence; sin, where law spoke, became the transgression of a positive and known commandment. "Where no law is, there is no transgression." It is a pernicious mistake to understand that the apostle denies sin to be where no law exists. Sin is not the transgression of the law, though transgression assuredly is sin. But sin is a wider and deeper thing. The Authorized Version notwithstanding, 1 John 3: 4 teaches really otherwise — that sin is lawlessness, and not necessarily the violation of law. Thus both apostles are restored to harmony, instead of either clashing mischievously or tempting an expositor to a still more mischievous paring down of the truth to save appearances. Never is this needed with scripture. As being the word of God, we must eschew and resent all such manipulations of its language. It is only our ignorance which finds difficulties; it is ill-will which sets one passage in antagonism to another. If John could have meant us to gather that sin and transgression of law are the same thing, nothing could save the statement from opposition to our text.

This is yet more apparent from the support the Apostle Paul adds in verse 14 to what was laid down in verse 13: "But death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that sinned not in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was coming." The two points are named when a positive commandment was imposed by God. Adam had a law; by Moses the law was made known. Between them there was no dealing with men by either the one or the other; yet men sinned as scripture abundantly shows. Hence death reigned, for it is the wages (not of transgression only but) of sin. It reigned in the case of Adam and Eve; it reigned from Moses' day; but not at either epoch only, but between them, when there was no law. Death reigned over all those that sinned; for sin they did, even though it was not in the likeness of our first parents' transgression. Their antediluvian posterity, as well as those who followed the flood down to the gift of law from Sinai, could not sin as their father in Eden or the children of Israel after they heard the ten words. But they sinned, they did their own will, they were corrupt and violent, as they afterwards added idolatry to their evil ways. Accordingly death reigned even over them; for they were sinners, though not transgressors, like Adam at first and Israel afterwards.

It is interesting to note that the apostle refers here to Hosea 6: 7: "But they, like men, transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." The margin gives the true sense, which is lost in the vagueness of "men" in the text. "They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant." Israel had the law, as Adam a law; and both transgressed the bond by which they were held. But all between Adam and Moses were on a different footing. They were not a whit less truly sinners, but they had no law or laws proposed to them by God which they broke. So the nations in contrast with Israel are ever styled "sinners of the Gentiles." Having sinned without law, they perished without law; while the Jews who had the law sinned in the law and were thus transgressors, which the Gentiles who had not the law could not be. But the Jews were not sinners only but transgressors. Hence it is written, "Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." The law put sin to their account. Not so with the Gentiles: God winked at these times of ignorance.

Nothing, however, is said of Gentiles in our verses, for we are here led up to times before the Jews were called, or the Gentiles consequently could be left aside. We see the sons of Adam down to the promulgation of God's law at Sinai. If on the one hand there was no law to charge sin to the account of the guilty, there was on the other hand the reign of death, and this over sinners, if not transgressors, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. Men at large were guilty and died accordingly. We are here then in presence, not of the law and its special aims and its peculiar sphere, but of sin flowing down from its first source, Adam, through all the streams which descended thence. If law was not there to set sin to account, as it does precisely and in detail, their death was the witness that they were all sinners, whose dread wages were duly paid. Thus Adam, as we shall see more fully soon, is a figure of the coming One, of Christ (i.e., of a federal head who was to follow the first).*

*I am surprised Mr. Green should understand τοῦ μέλλοντος "of the future;" for the context points unequivocally to a person, and to one person only, Christ, not to time coming merely.

Having spoken of Adam as typical of Christ, the apostle at once proceeds to guard and clear the statement. The point of comparison is the bearing of a head on his family. He that believed the scripture (and every Jew was tenacious of the Pentateuch) must own that Adam's fall brought a condition of sin and a sentence of death on his descendants. Such was the sorrowful beginning of the Old Testament, such the key to the history of the race ever since. It was in vain then to make all a question of law. Not so: granted that what the law says it speaks to those under the law. The fact was plain that the fundamental book of the law shows a far deeper, wider, earlier principle, yea, so early that it embraces all the children of Adam from the first. Could any Jew deny the scripture, the facts, or the moral ground? It was certain then, and must be conceded by hint who believes the first book of Moses that Adam's fall involved in universal ruin those who sprang from him; for he, while innocent, had no son! His family headship was only after he sinned.

Now if it were a righteous dealing, as no Jew would dispute, so to involve a whole race in the consequences of what one man, their father, did amiss, Israel of all men should be the last to question the principle and the wondrous grace of God in the headship of the Lord Jesus. What Adam was to his descendants in evil and its consequences, Christ is in good to all who are His by faith. Thus the first man is a figure of the Second.

"But not as [is] the offence, so also the free gift; for if by the offence of the one the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift in the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded unto the many." (Ver. 15.) Thus the apostle qualifies the analogy. The difference is an immense advantage on the side of good. How could it be otherwise with such a source of goodness as God, and with such a channel and ground and object as the man Christ Jesus? To punish, smite, destroy, was a grief, so to speak, to God; to bless is His delight, and now to the full, since Christ has made it righteous by the removal of all hindrances. The superior dignity of Christ and the exhaustless fountain of God's grace of which He was the expression secure the vast preponderance for the free gift, as against the offence.

Nor is it a difference of measure only but of kind. "And not as by one having sinned [is] the gift; for the judgment [was] from one unto condemnation, but the free gift from many offences unto justification." (Ver. 16.) The people or parties affected were before us in verse 15; the things which indicate it are prominent here. In the former contrast "the many" were respectively made to depend on "the one," though "much more" for those in relation to Christ. In the contrast before us one act on the part of the head that sinned sentenced into condemnation; whereas the free gift, spite of many offences, was for a state of accomplished righteousness.

And this he confirms by the overflowing results in the next verse 17: "For if by the offence of the one death reigned by the one, much more they that receive the abundance of the grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by the one, Jesus Christ." Thus the result is triumphant, and this not only for men dead by sin, but also for those that had the aggravation of offences under law. Believers being Christ's, let them have been what they may, Gentile no less than Jewish, receive abundance of grace and of the free gift of righteousness, and shall reign in life by the one Jesus Christ. It is not merely that life is to reign, in contrast with death, but they shall reign in life through Christ. Calvin thinks these two equivalent; what is said is really far more blessed. For faith the contrast of grace with the first man always exceeds. If the balance is not so exact in rhetoric, the believer may enjoy so much the more the precious affluence of the word and the Spirit now, as he will the crowning blessedness in glory by and by.

It is evidently an argument drawn from the righteous governmental ways of God to His grace. If, looking at Adam, the head of nature, it was worthy of Him not to limit the consequences of sin to him who fell, surely it was much more worthy to extend the effects of grace according to His own nature and the glory of Christ from Him who rose to all who derived their life from such a source! and this whether we consider the objects (ver. 15), the circumstances (ver. 16), or the results. (Ver. 17.)

The argument is now resumed from verse 12, but strengthened by the parenthetical instruction of verses 13-17. This both enforced the analogy between Adam and Christ for evil and good over those who pertain to them respectively, and also pointed out the enormous preponderance of good over evil in Christ, as is but due to the glory of His person and the grace of His work. If the one by a single offence involved all that were his in death, the other brings blessing to His family spite of countless offences.

"So then as by one offence [the bearing was] unto all men unto condemnation, so also by one accomplished righteousness unto all men unto justifying of life. For as by the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many shall be constituted righteous." (Ver. 18, 19.)

There is no reasonable doubt that the marginal correction of our English Bible ("by one offence") should be adopted, in preference to the text — "by one man's offence," however weighty and from various sides the names which have espoused the latter. The Sinai Manuscript actually inserts ἀνθρώπου here, as we find in some minuscules also. But this is an unquestionable error. The point of the verse, as it appears to me, was to present the direction respectively, apart from the actual issues, whether on Adam's part or on Christ's. Hence the strikingly elliptic, as well as the broadly characteristic, form of verse 18. There is no need (as in the Authorized Version) to bring in κρίμα or χάρισμα from the parenthesis. If we understand ἐγένετο* [it was], this suffices, though we may conform the phrase more to English ears by saying "the bearing was." But it is more to maintain the idea of direction here by giving εἰς the force of "unto," "for," or "towards" rather than "upon," which is more suited to convey the notion of the definitive effect or result. This, we shall see, it is the object of the following verse 19 to supply, and in contradistinction from verse 18. And, as has been observed by another, this is confirmed by Romans 3: 22 where we have two classes distinguished — εἰς πάντας, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (easily merged into one δἰ ὁμοιοτέλευτον or the double occurrence of πάντας, whereas it is hardly possible to conceive one clause enlarged into two). Here the distinctive force of εἰς and ἐπί is plain: the former gives the bearing of God's righteousness by faith of Jesus Christ "unto all" (and so the gospel is preached to every creature); the latter gives the result (and, as we know the gospel has its blessed effect "upon all those that believe," and upon them only).

*It appears to me, because of contextual reasons, that ἀπέβη (as Meyer, Winer, etc.) is rather strong.

The meaning, then, I conceive to be that "as through one offence" all men were threatened with condemnation; so through one accomplished righteousness all had the door opened unto a justifying (not by blood alone, but) of life in Christ risen from the dead. But therein we see only the native tendency, on one side of Adam's act, and on the other of Christ's, without taking into account the modification of God's effectual grace or of man's persistent unbelief.

Accordingly, verse 19 is requisite to complete this part of the subject. "For as by one man's disobedience the many were constituted sinners, so by the obedience of the one shall the many be constituted righteous." It is the final result which is here contemplated; and as this is certainly and necessarily limited to the household of faith, it would have been false to have said πάντας "all" in the last clause. For it is not a question in any of these verses of merely raising the dead just and unjust, as many divines in old and modern times have unintelligently imagined. For the vast majority of mankind, dying in unbelief, must rise for a resurrection of judgment, which is as far removed as it is possible for facts and words to make it from justification or justifying of life.

First the scope and then the result of Adam's position and of Christ's are here set before us and explained by the Holy Spirit. As it is certain from scripture that not all men but only such as are Christ's have life, eternal life, and are justified by faith, so in this verse, devoted to the presentation of the result, it was not possible to adopt a larger term common to the two heads (the disobedient and the obedient) than "the many" or "the mass" (οἱ πόλλοι) identified with each. In point of fact the Adam party, according to nature and for some time, embraces the whole human race; and therefore in this way "the many" in the first clause of verse 19 may be said to answer to "all men" in verse 18. But this I must be forgiven for considering a superficial method of solving the question, and altogether unwarrantable as applied to both classes. The second οἱ πόλλοι is unequivocally and exclusively "the children" given to Christ and in no possible sense humanity as actually saved and recovered. They are not identical with the "all men" of the verse before; for there it was but the gracious aspect of the work of Christ, and therefore not (as some say) all men who receive and embrace its truth, but universal. Here it is the positive effect, and so restricted to those who believe (i.e., those who live through Christ, as the preceding οἱ πόλλοι derive their being from fallen Adam). There is no "total" in this verse, but "the [known] many" in relation to "the one" definite person who represented each his own company. It is not the same total in the two verses, nor is there any total expressed in the latter of them. As the ruin of Adam went to destroy all the race, so the work of Christ goes out for the blessing of all. As in fact the Adam mass were constituted sinners through his disobedience, so by Christ's obedience His own are constituted righteous. Here all is explicit result, and not character; and hence the article is used in Greek as pointedly as the preceding verse exhibited the anarthrous construction: in both cases with the utmost accuracy, and with a perfection altogether admirable, with which no writings of man can compare. Where the apostle speaks of "all men," the aim is to show the tendency whether from the first man or from the Second; where he speaks of "the many," the definitive effect is set before us.

Thus Calvinism and Arminianism are both at fault; and the truth conveyed is larger than the one and more definite than the other, refusing the fetters of human system, and yet exhibiting a precise as well as an infinite character, being the revealed truth of God.

Thus the doctrine of headship, and of a race or family depending on the head for evil or good, has been distinctly laid down; and Adam and Christ stand confronted as those respectively under whom all ultimately must be classed. This necessarily brought in a wholly different principle from the law which is necessarily individual in its character, and claims from each under itself what he must do if he pretends to stand for himself before God. But the apostle does not close this part of the subject without a notice of the relative place of the law. Since he introduced the theme of sin, as distinguished from sins, in connection with the two heads, he had only alluded to the law negatively to show that sin is a deeper question than law, and, so far from depending on it, existed before it: only it is not put to account when no law exists.

Now we are told what was the true object of law. The Jew, and all Judaizers, at once assume that it could be for nothing else than righteousness. Alas! the blindness of man at his best estate where human thoughts prevail, and not the understanding of the revealed mind of God. But he is fallen; and fallen man thinks as highly of himself as meanly of Christ. Nothing but this can account for the perverse ingenuity with which, even in spite of the blessed light of the gospel, the truth as to this is eluded and opposed. What can be plainer than the inspired statement? "But law came in that the offence might abound." One can see how it is that men dislike a sentence which annihilates their moral ground; but it is an astonishing proof of the deleterious effects of theology that christian men can uphold their false systems of thought against such words of inspiration.

Every word is uttered with the greatest accuracy. Thus the apostle speaks of the legal state of things, and hence employs the word νόμος, "law," here as in verse 13 without the article. It is clearly the Mosaic law that is in question; yet if it be, Middleton allows that the rejection of the article is not here authorized by any of the canons (i.e., of his own treatise). And this is true. The case is one which demonstrates the defectiveness of his theory. Even in verse 13 the preposition has nothing to do with the true solution; and his notion though still followed by very many scholars, that the use or non-use of the article is a license after prepositions, is a total fallacy. It may call for more nicety of observation to account for cases with certain prepositions, but nothing more. The regular usage, with or without prepositions, is to present a phrase in the anarthrous form wherever a characteristic state is meant rather than a fact or an abstraction. So here it was the state of things when God gave His law through Moses to Israel which enters the discussion; and, hence, νόμος (not ὁ ν.) was the correct form. Again, the reasoning of Macknight is of no force; for it is not the point whether the Mosaic law was ushered into the world with pomp and notoriety, or privily. Not the historical fact, but the resulting state is here meant. Further, there is no need to take παρεισῆλθεν as necessarily implying in entrance by stealth or privily. The true idea appears to be that the legal state came in by the by. Neither was it the original mould, in which man was made, nor is it the final condition to which he is destined. It came in not directly, but ancillarily, for a special though subordinate purpose, between the entrance of sin and the coming of the Saviour. Hence law in the abstract is uncalled for, even if the phrase would admit of it. But this is carefully excluded, quite as much as giving prominence to the objective historical fact, which also would be out of place.

But law, the legal state, came in by the way in order that the offence might abound. The sense is not that sin might abound: God is in no way or degree its author. Sin, as had been already shown, was in the world, quite independently of law and before it was given by Moses. But law came in, that the offence might abound; that, sin being already there, its evil might be made manifest and horrible by taking the shape of open contempt of God's known authority. This was worthy of God and wholesome for man. And such was the object and issue of the legal state. Sin, I repeat, was not created by it; but it was provoked by the restraint put on its gratification: the very presence of God's revealed claim on man's conscience made the offence to abound. The evil of man was there and at work; and the expression and authoritative demand of his duty only drew out unmistakably what was at work. Self-will only the more chafes, the more it is subjected to an authority which opposes its every desire. But this is the truth of man's moral state; and it is good, as far as it goes, that he should know the truth about himself.

There is no reason therefore to escape from the plain and certain meaning of these inspired words. Chrysostom was wrong in this, and has misled thousands. He denied that the apostle spoke of intention or aim, but only of result, and fell into the error of saying that the law was given, not that the offence might abound, but to diminish and take it away. This was to contradict the apostle, not to expound him.

So, again, Macknight asks if one can imagine that no offence abounded in the world which could be punished with death till the law of Moses was promulgated? and that grace did not superabound till the offence against the law abounded? He therefore argues for "the law of Nature," which silently entered the moment Adam and Eve were reprieved. What can be more distressing than this confusion?

It must be evident to him who believes the word of God, and understands His dealings ever so little, that between the fall and the promulgation of the law at Sinai was precisely the time when men were left to prove what flesh is without the restraint of law; that afterward Israel became the proof that a legal state did not in itself mend matters, but caused the offence to abound. So the apostle instructs us in this chapter, the truth of which is otherwise apparent in the facts of the Old Testament and the condition of Israel.

"But where sin abounded, grace far exceeded; that, as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord."

Here too it is impossible to conceive language more apposite or precise. The apostle does not say, it will be noticed, where "the offence" abounded; for this would limit the sphere to the area of the legal state. All that wherein a Jew boasted was the causing the offence to abound. What a withering of pride without an exaggeration or an effort! But grace went out in its triumph far beyond the narrow bounds of law; it went out into the world where sinful man lay, not to Israel only. "Where sin abounded, grace far exceeded." And grace too had its characteristic purpose, or God rather by it. What was this? "That as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Here if anywhere is an aim and result which do honour even to God and His Son. In presence of such a gospel we are not ashamed, but boast. To vaunt of law is to vaunt of what condemns and kills, for it makes the offence to abound. In grace we may and ought to exult. God delights in it. It came, as did truth, by Christ Jesus who is full of both. And specially may we boast, that grace reigned. Had law reigned, what must have been our just doom! But grace reigns (not without but) through righteousness; for the work of redemption is done, and God justifies in consequence according to His sense of its worth. Thus it is not more surely a fountain of grace than a righteous ground and channel. And hence the issue is according to God; it is eternal life, and this through Jesus Christ our Lord. He is risen from the dead, and gives life more abundantly. All is thus as secure as it is perfect. God is glorified as He should be; and this, as it ought to be, through the only One, even Jesus, who has retrieved all and turned by His death and resurrection even sin itself into an occasion of such a glorifying of God, and such a blessing of the believer, as could never else have been. These are the ways, and this the victory, grace through our Lord Jesus.

ROMANS 6.

That grace should so triumphantly rise above sin, even where sin abounded most, leads to the various objections of unbelief and the answers of the Holy Spirit for our furtherance and joy of faith. Grace in no way slights sin. From first to last Christianity and evil are proved to be incompatible.

"What then shall we say? Let us continue in sin that grace may abound? Let it not be. We who died to sin, how shall we still live in it? Are ye ignorant that as many of us as were baptized unto Christ Jesus were baptized unto his death? Therefore we were buried with him by baptism unto death, that, as Christ was raised from among [the] dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life." (Ver. 1-4.)

Is this then the deduction from the gospel of God? May we continue in sin, in order that His grace may be the more richly displayed? Away with such a thought. But here the apostle deals with the wicked inference or imputation, not from its intrinsic heinousness, nor from its reflection on the character of God, as in Romans 3: 8, but from its flat contradiction of Christianity in its first principles. It is not again a motive drawn from the sense we have of our Saviour's love; it is not here a question how can we so wound His heart or grieve the Holy Spirit of God.

The apostle replies from the starting-point of each confessor of Christ. Not merely did He die for our sins, laying us under an infinite obligation, but we died to sin:* how then shall we longer live in it? This is the meaning of our baptism. Are you ignorant of so plain a truth? It is not some special quality of blessing that is the privilege of a few Christians only; it is the common property of all the baptized. As many of us as were baptized unto Christ Jesus were baptized unto His death.

*The notion of Macknight and Rosenmüller, that death by sin is intended, misses all the force of the passage, and is clean contrary to the argument in the context, which is founded on our being baptized unto the death of Christ.

Thus is laid down clearly and beyond question the fundamental truth that not more surely did Christ die for us, than we died to sin in His death. Our baptism sets forth this as well as that. The conclusion is inevitable: "We were buried then with him by baptism unto death, that, as Christ was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life."

Let us weigh the immense importance of this truth stated with the simplicity and the force characteristic of a divine revelation.

Evangelicalism (whether in national or dissenting bodies) takes its stand (at least it used to do so) on the truth of Christ dying for our sins. This is most true, and a capital truth; without which there is no bringing of the soul to God, no divine judgment of our iniquities, no possible sense of pardon. But it is very far from being the truth even of the Saviour's death, to speak of no more now. Hence evangelicalism, as such, having no real apprehension of our death in Christ, never understands the force and place of baptism, is habitually infirm as to christian walk, and is apt to take the comfort of forgiveness by the blood of Christ so as to mix with the world and enjoy the life that now is, often helping on the delusion of ameliorating man and improving Christendom.

Mysticism on the other hand, whether Catholic or Protestant, dissatisfied with the worldly case and self-complacency of the evangelicals, is ever pining after a deeper reality, but seeks it within. Hence the continual effort of the pietist school is to die to self and so to enjoy God, unless perhaps with the few who flatter themselves that they have arrived at such a state of perfection as they can rest in. But for the mass, and I suppose indeed all whose conscience retains its activity, they never go beyond godly desires and inward strainings after holiness. They cannot dwell consciously in God's love to them as a settled fact known in Christ, producing self-forgetfulness in presence of His own perfect grace which made Christ to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The system tends even in its fairest samples to turn the eye inwardly in a search after a love which may aspire to resemble as closely as possible the love of God, and so satisfy itself with the hope of a life ever higher and higher. Hence pious sentimentalism, which is little more than imagination at work in religion, reigns in the heart, not grace through righteousness.

Thus the ground the apostle here insists on is ignored by evangelicals and mystics; and indeed in Christendom at large it is excluded by its legalism and ordinances as decidedly as by rationalism. They are all, in every part, judged by the simple elementary truth couched under and expressed in baptism, that the Christian is dead to sin. To teach that we ought to die to sin is well meant, but it is not the truth, and therefore can but deeply injure the soul in its real wants. The true view is, no doubt, the reverse of death in sin; it is death to sin. Grace gives us this blessed portion — gives it now in this world from the commencement of our career — gives it once for all as the one baptism recognizes. Hence the Christian is false to the primary truth he confesses who should live still in sin. In his baptism he owns he died in Christ. He is bound to walk accordingly — as one already and always dead to sin.

Is there then no mortification? no practical carrying out of death with Christ? Unquestionably. It is the constant duty of the Christian; but then, mark well the difference: — christian practice consists, not in our dying to sin, but in our putting to death our members which are on the earth, even the various lusts of the old man. In his baptism the believer openly renounces all hope of himself or the first man; nor does he, like a Jew, merely hope for a Messiah to be born and reign on the throne of David. In baptism he confesses His death, and his own death therein — not only his sin but its end in the death of Christ. If we had not another life, who could thus give up his own life as dead? Yet what is attested in baptism is not life but death — our death to sin in Christ's death — which we could not do save as living through Him.

Thus it is as different from Jewish ground as from that of the Gentiles who know not God, some of whose sages in West as well as East have tried to die to sin. The distinctive christian ground is that, as baptized unto Christ's death, we died to Pin from the commencement of our career. "We were buried then with him in baptism unto death, that, even as Christ was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life." It is a poor interpretation to take the Father's glory as equivalent to His almightiness or power. Every motive which animates Him morally, every way and end whereby He is set forth in His perfections, all that goes forth in excellence and delight, not toward the creature only but His Son, was exercised in raising up the Lord Jesus. After such a standard are we too called to walk in newness of life. It is no longer a question of original creation, still less of fallen Adam, but of Christ, who is the life of which by grace we live; and He is risen. May we walk accordingly!

The apostle carries out the comparison of our blessing after the pattern of Christ to actual resurrection. "For if we have become united in nature with the likeness of his death, we shall be also [with that] of his resurrection, knowing this that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin. For he that died has been justified from sin."

Resurrection, as far as we are concerned, is a matter of hope. We have part with Christ in His death; we shall have in resurrection also for our bodies. Meanwhile, we, as alive through Him risen, have all the benefit of His death as a power delivering from sin. Our old man we know to be crucified with Him. Without this the root of evil had not been dealt with, nor consequently had we against self that weapon of divine temper which a God of resurrection puts in our hands. Nor is it a feeling — a consciousness — of death which might only minister to self-satisfaction. It is a fact objectively known, though only within the ken of faith: knowing (γινώσκοντες) this, etc. Thus only as a practical means can the body of sin come to nought, that we should no more be slaves to it. Here the point of need is liberty from sin to do the holy will of God for those who were only slaves of sin. There is no other way, though when we take this the path of faith, there is much to help us along the road. If I have died, it is evident that there is no longer a question of sinning. A dead man cannot sin more; and the Christian is given to know himself dead in Christ's death that he may henceforth enjoy this quittance from the power of sin. How can one dead be charged with going on in sin? For he that died (ἀποθάνων, the completed act) has been justified (δεδικαίωται, the subsisting effect of the past action) from sin. It is a deliverance worthy of God both in His wisdom and in His holiness; and as it is of grace, so it is by faith.

Hence verse 8 repeats the conclusion as to the future which follows from the death and resurrection of Christ. "Now if we died with Christ, we believe we shall also live with him." Our condition when actually risen is once more anticipated and rehearsed. "Knowing that Christ being raised from among [the] dead dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over him." It is interesting to note the difference here. We only know because we are taught it, as a truth outside us, that our old man has been crucified with Christ. It is not really, what so many would like to make it, a matter of subjective experience; for this would flatter the flesh in its pious frames and aspirations, instead of honouring the grace of God in the death of Christ. On the other hand we have the inward conscious knowledge (εἰδότες) that Christ, being risen, dies no more: death has no more dominion over Him. It is not a mere outward fact of knowledge: we feel from our soul that so it is and must be. Sin never had dominion over Him, but death had, that God might be glorified, sin judged, Satan's power abolished, and we delivered.

"For in that he died, he died to sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth to God." Life has now the victory, so much the more strikingly and conspicuously because that death seemed to gain it at first. Thus as sin never had the least advantage, so death has lost its claim through His bowing to it and thus securing our freedom who have part in His death. If sin's wages are death, what a gain to us His death has been who, personally without sin, was made sin by God for us, as truly as we became the righteousness of God in Him.

Not of course that on the cross He was not as holy as in all that preceded it; but He gave Himself to be judicially treated according to all that was imputed to Him, and for which in grace He became responsible. In nothing did He spare Himself; in nothing did God, who forsook Him thus identified with our sin and all its consequences under divine judgment, that we might come out free. By dying all was ended; and we, having our part with Him, have done with sin. "So also do ye reckon yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." We are entitled so to reckon ourselves; we ought to do so; we wrong the death and resurrection of Christ if we do not account ourselves thus dead to sin and alive to God in Him — a great and wondrous boon to those who delight to have an end of sin, a real if but a small part of Christianity, yet even this, I may say, ignored in Christendom, its force misunderstood, its joy untasted.

It is to be observed that verse 11 carries the subject beyond the reasoning of verse 8, where our living with Christ is shown to be a just and sure consequence for the believer: if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him. It is future. But now we have a weighty present result founded on what intervenes, especially verse 10. Christ died to sin once and lives to God; and He is the life as well as the resurrection. As thus alive to God, all closed as to sin in His death, we live of His life, and are thus also to reckon ourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God, not here with Him, but through or in virtue of (ἐν) Him. This epistle never, in its doctrinal province, goes so far as union with Him, though it does employ the truth of the body to enforce the right use of spiritual gifts on Christians. In the Epistle to the Ephesians we are shown to be quickened together with Christ and raised up together with Him. Here however we are alive to God in Him.

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body that ye should obey its lusts."* (Ver. 12.) The truth is then, not that sin is dead, but that we are entitled by Christ's death and resurrection to regard ourselves in the account of faith as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign. It is personified here as elsewhere sometimes, seeking the upper hand in our mortal body so as to subject us to its lusts. But through Christ it has no claim over us. As He lives to God who died to sin once for all, so also we are to reckon ourselves done with the dominion of sin and not to obey its lusts. As dead to sin we owe it no allegiance whatever.

*Beza notices the critical reading as that of the old interpreter (the Vulgate) and of Augustine, and as also so found in one Greek. This may serve to show how much more fully and accurately the authorities are now known; for it is so read in the Sinai, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Rescript of Paris (C); in six cursives; in the Coptic, Sahidic, Syriac, Æthiopic, Armenian, etc., besides the Latin, not to speak of many fathers Greek and Latin.

Nor is this all. The apostle pushes the matter farther. "Neither yield your members instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but yield yourselves to God as alive from out of dead [men], and your members instruments of righteousness to God." (Ver. 13.) The first occurrence of "yield" means, in the form of the word, the habit of yielding; the second, by its form, implies the surrender already made. It is not a gradual improvement of the nature or the will as men speak, but the giving up of ourselves in a single and complete act to God as alive from among the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness to God.

This is the new place of positive blessing given to us, counting ourselves thus by faith. Such is the present practical consequence, as we have seen also what is future for us. "For sin shall not have dominion over you" — not sin as a personified ruler now, but no sin in any shape or measure; "for ye are not under law* but under grace." (Ver. 14.) This closes the foregoing discussion and prepares for a new step taken in the argument following.

*The commentators torture themselves to reconcile these words with their own views, which they condemn; but even Calvin and Beza own that it is a question of law, moral law (not the law of our members, nor of ceremonies, still less national or political law). "Quare non est dubium, quin hic aliquam ab ipsa Domini Lege manumissionem indicare voluerit," says the former (in loco). That is, the context decides for him beyond doubt that the apostle meant here to indicate some freedom from the very law of the Lord. But his explanation is altogether imperfect and unsound, falling in with and helping on mere natural thoughts, and thus contributing to bring about the low state of practice which prevails even among the godly portion of the Reformed. "Therefore, lest broken in mind by a consciousness of their infirmity they should despond, he seasonably comes to their help, by interposing a consolation derived from the consideration that their works are not now tested by the severe criterion of the law, but God, remitting their impurity, accepts them kindly and benignantly . . . . Therefore not to be under law means that we are no longer exposed to the law as requiring perfect righteousness, with death pronounced on all who have in any part deviated from it." The notion is that, being under grace, we are freed from the rigorous exactions of law. Thus grace becomes a sort of mitigated law, which is just what flesh would desire — a law that prescribes but has no power to condemn. That this must of itself lead to laxity, and is therefore really Antinomian in principle, seems evident and certain. It is an unwarrantable mixture of law and grace, which destroys the true character and scope of both. The truth is that Christ redeemed such believers as were under law from the curse; but He has in no way taken away its curse from law. Our blessing is of faith that it might be by grace; but the law, as scripture says, is not of faith. As we were justified by faith, so by it we walk, for we are not under law but under grace. He who abstains from murder simply because the law forbids it is a wicked man, and not a believer.

What a blessed comfort thus far and how uncompromisingly laid down in the very portion that refutes the flesh's misuse of God's mercy and of the Christian's liberty! "Ye are not under law but under grace."

It is painful to see how those who profess to believe the gospel, valuing both Christ and His work, elude the force of His word, and essay to foist on the Christian subjection to law, which the Spirit is here flatly negativing. The law is the strength of sin; for by its restraint and interdict it can but provoke the flesh. It never gives power of holiness any more than life: grace, not law, quickens, saves, and strengthens. If believers could be under law, sin must have dominion over them.

It is in vain to say that the apostle is here treating of our being accounted righteous in Christ. Not so: he is discussing the walk of the Christian in answer to the cavil that grace tends to sanction lax ways. It is a question therefore of a rule of life, of its principle and spring. The objectors then as now had fallen into the error of supposing that the law, though unable to give the remission of sins, is the rule of righteousness for the Christian. Justification from sin, not from sins, is the point in hand, and as the blood of Christ washes away the sins of the believer in the sight of God, so he is cleansed from sin; not simply by Christ's dying for him, but by his dying with Christ. For he that died is justified from sin. The nature is in question, and consequently the walk of the believer; and the remedy here, as everywhere, is in Christ; but it is in death with Him of which baptism is the sign.

Nor can there be a less holy doctrine than the notion so prevalent among the Puritans as well as others still less intelligent and with less godly desire, that the death of Christ has taken away the condemnatory power of the law for faith, but left the Christian under it as a directory of his ways. A law which can no longer condemn departure from itself or those guilty of it is nugatory. It is of the essence of law not only to prescribe duty but to condemn any and every infraction of its requirements. Hence our apostle teaches elsewhere, "as many as are of the works of the law" (i.e., as many people as are on the ground or principle of works of law, not merely as many as have broken the law) "are under the curse."

It is false doctrine, then, and really Antinomian in its basis, that the law has lost its sting or condemnatory power for those under it. Such is not the boon of redemption. The law is not dead. It retains all its force against the wicked, as the apostle shows. It is not an evil thing but excellent, when used lawfully; but it is unlawfully imposed on the righteous and holy. The Christian, even if he had been a Jew, is not under law but under grace; and this not by the death of law, which cannot be and ought not to be, but by his own death with Christ. As a dead man can sin no more, so the law does not apply to one viewed as dead. Such is God's way of considering the Christian, not only atoned for but dead with Christ; and faith considers him who possesses it as God does. Thus the law remains inviolable; and the deliverance of the Christian consists, not in the weakening or even mitigation of the law, but in the change of place which grace gives. The believer died with Christ, and is thus justified from sin and freed from law. Nebuchadnezzar's furnace did not burn the less, though the three Hebrews were preserved unscathed. The curse fell on Christ crucified; the believer is in Christ risen. "There is therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."

Verse 15 puts a new question. It is no longer, as in verse 1, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may exceed?" This is the primary objection to grace for Christians just delivered from the ruin of the first man. Moral relaxation is dreaded, if where sin abounded, grace still more exceeded. It was met by counter questions which prove that grace does not merely help by motive against sin, but delivers the believer from it by that most decisive and ultimate weapon, even death. How shall we that died to sin live any longer in it? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto Christ Jesus were baptized unto his death? Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism unto death . . . . He that died is justified from sin. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Christ Jesus our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign. Such is the apostle's argument in answer to the first question.

"What then? are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? Let it not be." (Ver. 15.) Thus his second question is not answered by our death with Christ. That we cannot live longer in sin is conclusively set aside by the fact that we died to sin with Christ and therefore are not to abide in it. All this sinful first Adam life is closed to us, both for the future in resurrection and for the present in the part we have with Christ for our souls. Christ dead and risen is the pattern for faith; His death is the principle of present deliverance from the reign of sin. But do we not need a mighty spring to move, and cheer, and strengthen us along the way of the Lord? Unquestionably we do; and this is none other than grace. Nothing else could keep the believer from yielding his members as implements of unrighteousness to sin, nothing else could enable him to act consistently with that surrender of himself, once for all, to God and of his members as implements of righteousness to God, which is characteristic of the Christian. And we are under grace, the power for holiness, as the Jew was under law, the strength of the sin he was so slow to feel and confess. And therefore sin, which for the present has absolutely governed the chosen nation, shall not lord it over the Christian. May we then sin because we are not under law that condemns, but under God's free unmerited favour that imputes no sin, but justifies and saves? Far be it from us. Is it thus we would or could use our liberty? What could be more base? If I am by Christ thus freed, for what, for whom, shall I use my freedom? "Know ye not that to what ye yield yourselves bondmen to obey, ye are bondmen to what ye obey, whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness?"* (Ver. 16.)

*Think of Calvin's temerity in saying that the apostle "improprie locutus est," and this for so petty and technical a reason as this: "nam si partes partibus reddere voluisset dicendum erat: sive justitiae in vitam." The apostle does (in ver. 19) guard his use of the figure of bondage; but here all is perfectly accurate — far more so than the correspondency suggested. "Righteousness unto life" might be gravely misunderstood and seems in every way a questionable statement.

This again is another characteristic of Christianity. Christ makes the soul, once the slave of sin, to be free, and calls it to stand fast in His liberty, never again to be held in a yoke of bondage. For there is no middle ground or other alternative. But grace uses this liberty to be so much the more His bondman, free from sin to serve the Lord Christ. It was precisely what He did here below, evermore the true and perfect servant. Into this love always leads. With Him we have communion in this, and in order to express its absoluteness we, however free from our old slavery, are said to be bondmen of Jesus, His will and work, or, as suits the argument here, "of obedience unto righteousness." The Christian's righteousness is never doing things because they are right, which is pride, independence, or deification of self, but because they are God's will for us. We must obey in order to practical righteousness. How complete the change from all we were! "But thanks to God that ye were bondmen of sin, but ye obeyed from [the] heart [the] form of teaching into which ye were delivered." (Ver. 17.)

Man does not suffice for himself; for he is but a creature and therefore necessarily dependent on God. If he seeks to be his own master, if he affects independence, he only falls the more thoroughly under Satan; and, instead of obeying God, he becomes the slave of sin. From this servitude redemption delivers the believer, but only to bind him heartily (and so much the more because under grace, not law) to do as the christian form of teaching instructs us; for obedience is always according to, and measured by, the relationship in which we stand. Legal obedience, if practicable, is not that which grace produces, which is in unison with the truth in Christ — that mould, as it were, into which the believer is cast.

Such then is the character and effect of christian deliverance and the vital connection which we shall see more fully afterwards between redemption by Christ and life in Him. "Being made free from sin ye became enslaved to righteousness." (Ver. 18.) Two masters no man can serve. Freed from sin, we are now indissolubly bound to righteousness. Grace is the only power for righteousness. The law defined and demanded that measure and form of righteousness which God could not but exact from man in the flesh. But grace, under which the Christian is, makes good in his practice what we have been taught since Christ is revealed. Thus the very fact that God does not impute iniquity to the believer encourages and fortifies him in willing self-surrender to the Lord, instead of simply provoking sin and condemning the sinner as law did and could do nothing else. Under grace we are free, but withal servants. Freed from sin, we become bondmen to righteousness. Such is the effect of our hearty obedience of the gospel.

As the first question of our chapter, then, is met by the great fact of God's judgment of the old man and deliverance of the Christian by the death and resurrection of Christ, as he confesses his own death with Christ (witnessed in baptism from the starting-point of Christianity), so the second is an appeal to his motives as set free according to the liberty of grace. Is he going to use it for sinning? Not as the power of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15), grace is the power of holiness and makes him who is under it a more devoted bondman of righteousness to the God who imputes no sin, than the law even asked, but never obtained, with all its rewards and penalties: why this is will appear fully and definitely in Romans 7, where the special question of man under law, even though converted and indeed only as converted, is brought to issue.

For having spoken of the Christian as enslaved to righteousness, the apostle hastens to excuse his language. He had shown the impossibility of a middle place, maintaining the absoluteness of the surrender to God, which is made good in the heart and ways of the believer; he had characterized the new relation as one of bondage to righteousness. This required explanation; for in truth it is real, and the only real, liberty of heart; yet is the bond none the less firm and thorough. "I speak after a human sort on account of the weakness of your flesh; for as ye yielded your members in bondage to uncleanness and to lawlessness unto lawlessness, so now yield your members to righteousness unto holiness." (Ver. 19.) Their former estate manifested its corruption and wilfulness increasingly. Evil ripens and waxes worse and worse. Willing service issues not only in a just appreciation of our relative place to God and man, but in an ever deepening sense of separation to God. To this the saints are exhorted. The life is exercised and progress is looked for. Righteousness is here the practical maintenance of our responsibility according to the relation in which we now stand to God (our mere creature-place as of the first Adam being closed by death). Holiness is the intrinsic delight of the new life in good and its abhorrence of evil, according to God as revealed in Christ.

"For when ye were bondmen of sin, ye were free to righteousness. What fruit had ye then at that time? [Things] of which ye are now ashamed. For the end of those things [is] death." (Ver. 20, 21.) There seems to be a grave but cutting irony in this allusion to their old condition, when the only freedom they knew was in respect to righteousness. They were slaves of sin and had nothing to do with righteousness. And what was the result? Nothing to boast of certainly: how much to fill these representatives with shame! And what is the .end of those things? Death.

Here then we stand on the ground of motives which test the heart. It is no longer, as at the beginning of the chapter, a great fact which is true of the Christian because he has a part with Christ in His death, and so is dead to sin and lives to God. It is an appeal to his appreciation of the grace of God which has freed him from his slavery to sin. To what account and use then is he going to turn his freedom? What was the fruit of his old life when he was free enough in relation to righteousness? Nothing, as far as he was concerned, but a source of present shame, save death the end.

How admirable is the wisdom of the inspired word! The sense of grace thus corrects the otherwise inevitable effect of the light of God, cast on the past and the present and the future: for if it were possible that a soul should be awakened to a just sense of its sinfulness and then left with earnest desires to serve God, to a new life, battling with its old evil, how occupied with self must be the whole of its experience! Alas! so it is too deeply as well as extensively among real children of God, who imperfectly know the blessed consequences for them of the work of Christ. They are not redeemed to be put under law, but contrariwise under grace. Saved by grace, they stand in grace. And this is the strongest motive to the renewed mind, the most fatal snare to the hypocritical professor, the ready objection of the natural mind, which sees the latter without being able to estimate the former.

"But now freed from sin, and made bondmen to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal." Observe the relation of grace. It is not slaves to the law, but bondservice to God. Man in flesh was tried by the ten words; but they were too weighty for his weakness, and only riveted a chain of judgment on his guilt. But now, emancipated by the death and resurrection of Christ, received by faith, having the life of Him risen from the dead as well as redemption — the forgiveness of sins, we are freed from sin and enslaved to God. Hence follows not a mere test by certain commands, but subjection to Himself who speaks to us by all His word. Every part of scripture has His authority to our souls: only we must learn by the Spirit its just application; and this, holding fast our association with Christ no longer as in the first Adam. It is clear that this both gives a more intimate relation to God, and opens a boundless sphere in which our obedience is to be exercised.

Nor is it only subjection to God, which takes the place of the Jewish position under law; but, thus walking, we have our "fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal." Such is the pathway here, and such its crown in glory by and by. There is growth in the value of good and its issue in the attracted separation of the heart from evil to God; and the end is suited to the way, though surely according to the personal dignity of Christ, and that which alone meets the character and counsels of God.

"For the wages of sin [is] death; but the free gift of God life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord." This is a summary of the general truth; it is the result on man's side and on God's. He does not limit it to transgression, though of course its wages are no less; he takes man, the Gentile sinner, as well as the Jewish transgressor. Both were sinners; and the wages of sin is death. But the blessing is quite as rich and free: eternal life is the need of the Jew no less than of the Gentile: it is God's free gift, and thus equally open to either or both. Let it be carefully noted that the Holy Spirit, by the structure of the phrase, carefully avoids intimating that the wages of sin are limited to death; for in truth judgment remains, and is appointed to man no less than death. Together they are the full wages of sin. Nor would it be safe to affirm that even eternal life exhausts the free gift of God; for, as we shall find in Romans 8, no less than in many scriptures more, He gives the Holy Ghost to be the portion of the believer, not to speak of the relation of son and the accompanying inheritance. Boundless indeed is His grace to us in Christ Jesus our Lord.

ROMANS 7.

The apostle had already laid down that sin should not have dominion over the Christian, because he is not under law but under grace. He now unfolds the relations of the believer, even had he been a Jew, to the law; and this he does with admirable wisdom which the mass of his best expositors that it has been my lot to see, not to speak of others, have failed to appreciate

"Or are ye ignorant, brethren, for I speak to [men] knowing law, that the law has dominion over the man as long time as he lives? For the married woman is bound to the living husband by law; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband." (Ver. 1, 2.) Thus death is the grand principle, as with sin, so with law. It is indeed a confessed and universal axiom. It was fitting to take up the woman rather than the man, because he is treating of our responsibility to do the will of the Lord; and it is emphatically the woman's place to obey her husband. But this, as he demonstrates, is quite independent of the law, which simply deals with man alive in the flesh. Now his thesis in the preceding chapter was the death of the Christian with Christ, which is no less true and forcible when applied to the law as to sin. During the husband's life the wife is bound; if he have died, she is quit. Death severs the bond. "Therefore then, while the husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she belong to another man. But if the husband die, she is free from the law so as not to be an adulteress by belonging to another man." (Ver. 3.) It is difficult to conceive a blow more destructive to the common notion of putting the Christian under the law as his rule of life. Two husbands are intolerable. Not only is the law not the actual husband, but the apostle will not hear of Christ and the law. It must be Christ alone. To admit of any other association is to be false to Him. If the law had been the old husband, such is no longer the relationship of the Christian. Death having come in, the former obligation terminates, and there is freedom to belong to another without fear of adultery, even to Christ exclusively. Compare for our practice Phil. 3: 13, 14.

"So that, my brethren, ye also have been put to death to the law by the body of Christ that ye should belong to another — him that was raised out of [the] dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." (Ver. 5.) Far from its being the aim of God to maintain the rule of the law, the express design and effect of grace is to bring the Christian (even if a Jew formerly) out of the old relationship into an absolutely new one founded on the death of Christ, that he should henceforth belong exclusively to Him risen from among the dead, and this in order to glorify God by fruits acceptable to Him.

It will be observed, however, that the apostle carefully abstains from the least insinuation that the law is dead. Not so does God deliver. The law lives to curse and kill all within its sphere. But we by death with Christ pass out of its power to touch us; and having a new husband, even Christ risen, we dare not allow any other spiritual rule: else we are guilty of what is most grievous in His eyes and an utter breach of our new relationship. And this alone secures fruitfulness Godward. Subjection to Christ fulfils the law without thinking of any one or thing but Him. You cannot serve, you ought not to serve, two masters.

"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that [were] by the law wrought in our members to the bearing fruit to death; but now have we got discharge from the law, having died in what we were held, so as for us to serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Ver. 6.)

Thus evidently the flesh and the law (as we may add the world) are correlative; and the Christian belongs to neither, but to Christ, and to Him risen from the dead. We are no longer in the flesh; we were there, and to this state the law applied: it is made not for the righteous, but the unrighteous. The Christian is dead to law, not it to anybody. Not only does the law work death and condemnation to the unbeliever, but the Christian who meddles with it as a rule for his path will prove it, if taught of God, to be a rule, not of life, but of death. As Christ is our life, so is He our pattern and power through the Holy Ghost, who forms us according to the word which reveals Him to our souls.

It is scarcely needful to point out how false is the doctrine of the common text and translation, which the margin corrects. If true, Antinomianism would follow, than which nothing is more false and evil. Death to law as well as to sin is the fruit of Christ's death and resurrection, and the privilege of the Christian. The law lives to condemn every living soul who pretends to a righteousness of his own.

The passage on which we now enter has been the occasion of as extraordinary discord in thought and comment as any other in the epistle, and I cannot but think with small fruit as to intelligence of God's mind revealed in it. The source of the difficulty is the ordinary one — ignorance of the Christian's position or standing, and consequently of his relation to the law. Had the six preceding verses of Romans 7 been understood, there would have been no such obscurity and no room for such divergence among those who have discussed it. But death with Christ to sin and law is an unknown region, and the loss to souls from ignorance of it is incalculable.

The point, which divides the mass of those who have written and preached on it, as well is of multitudes of those influenced by them, is the question whether the experience described is that of a natural man or of a Christian. It is assumed on both sides that one or other it must be. But the assumption is an error, and the failure of both lies exactly here. It is impossible rightly to understand the passage if applied either to a natural man or to a Christian. There may be, there is, a transitional state constantly found in souls when they are born again, but not yet in conscious deliverance; and this is the precise state, here in question. Paul may have passed as most do through this experience more or less during the three days, when without sight he neither ate nor drank. He was converted then, no longer therefore a natural man, but not yet filled with the Holy Ghost. Certainly he personates the case and reasons it out fully from verse 7 to the end of the chapter. It is the case of one quickened, but not yet submitting to the righteousness of God. Hence, being jealous for God but ignorant of the full place in which redemption sets the believer, such a soul places itself under law; and the operation of the law is therefore exhibited to us. There is an awakened conscience, but no power. If the new nature were not there, such experience could not be: if the Holy Ghost were there, power would follow, as we see in Romans 8 where we have the proper normal state of the Christian. The state described, however, is in no case I believe final, but transitional, though bad and legal teaching may keep a soul in it till grace acts fully, it may be, on a deathbed, or what is equivalent.

"What then shall we say? [Is] the law sin? Let it not be. But I should not have known sin unless by law; for lust also I had not known unless the law had said, Thou shalt not lust. But sin, having taken occasion by the commandment, wrought out in me every [manner of] lust; for apart from law sin [is] dead. But I was alive apart from law once; but the commandment having come, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment that [was] unto life was even found for me unto death. For sin, having taken occasion by the commandment, deceived, and by it slew me. So that the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good. Did then the good become death to me? Let it not be; but sin, that it might appear sin, working out death to me by the good, that sin might become excessively sinful by the commandment." (Ver. 7-13.)

Thus the apostle takes pains to relieve the law of all censure. Far from this, it was the excellency of the law which was so fatal to the sinner. It knows no mercy; it cannot mitigate its terms or its punishment. By the law is the full knowledge of sin, said the apostle in Romans 3. So here, whether objectively or in inward consciousness, law is the means of its discovery, not from any defect in law but from the sinfulness of sin, which is here personified as the foe that is seizing a point for attacking man. But here the apostle is occupied with the proof not of guilty acts but of an alien rebellious nature, and hence singles out the last commandment, the prohibition of covetousness or lust, as the most adapted to convict of sin, not merely of sins. And how true this is! Who does not know the irritation produced by a restraint on the will? So all manner of lust is excited, for apart from law sin is dead: let the commandment have come, and all is over. It never did, it cannot, improve the flesh, but contrariwise provokes it by the curb applied. What is really wanted is a new nature and a transforming object; but law neither communicates the one nor reveals the other: grace does both through Christ our Lord. The fault is solely in the first man, the deliverance is exclusively in the Second. Law sets forth what man ought to be, but condemns him necessarily for the sin it makes active and manifest, without the smallest power to save from it any more than to strengthen against it. On the contrary, says the apostle, "I was alive apart from law once, but, the commandment having come, sin revived and I died." Thus what pointed to life only proved an instrument of death. But if the living man die, law cannot quicken the dead. It is the Son's to quicken whom He will, even as the Father does. But here again the apostle is careful to lay all blame on sin, which, having taken occasion by the commandment, slew by it the deceived man. Thus the law is vindicated, the nature it in vain appeals to is alone in fault; for the commandment is holy, just, and good. Did then the good become death to me? asks the apostle. Not so; it is sin here again he treats as the true culprit, "sin that it might appear sin, working out death to me by the good, that sin might become excessively sinful by the commandment." Could the Jew, however prejudiced against grace, however prepossessed in favour of law, complain with justice? Is it not the evident truth?

The apostle turns now to a discussion of the working of the law, and the discovery which the renewed man makes of no good thing in him, that is, in his flesh. It is one set free reflecting on his state when under law. "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal,* sold under sin." (Ver. 14.) Thus it is opened by the technical expression of christian knowledge, and this inwardly. But the soul is shut up to a sense of its own overwhelming evil. Only observe it is the bitter sense of bondage to sin, and not the love of sin. Still, though it is one born again, there is no strength whatever. "For what I work out I know (or, own) not, for not what I wish I do, but what I hate this I am doing. But if what I do not wish this I am doing, I agree to the law that [it is] good; but now [it is] no longer I that work it out, but the sin that dwelleth in me." (Ver. 15-17.) It is no small anguish for the soul to feel, who had thought that to be forgiven was all, and that after this nothing but light and joy remained. And now to find oneself weighed down by a constant inward dead weight of evil, to prove experimentally that one is a slave to sin, effort only making it manifest, is a distress as grave as it is unexpected. He learns, however, that it is not himself that loves sin, for he really hates it. Sin is there, and it is not himself now, as he learns even in this painful experience. But what a wretched state! what slavery!

* The best authorities (, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc.) read σάρκινος, not σαρκικὸς as in the received text. The difference is that the former is a confession of being mere flesh physically. So it is in 2 Cor. 3: 3; Heb. 7: 16, and probably in 1 Cor. 3: 1 (but not in verses 3, 4, where the other form is clearly right). In Rom. 15: 27; 1 Cor. 9: 11; 2 Cor. 1: 12; 2 Cor. 10: 4; 1 Peter 2: 11, it is σαρκικός, in most of which the physical idea of flesh would be out of place. In our text the difference is of some importance as corroborating the scope of the passage that the will was not engaged. Were this meant to be expressed, σαρκικὸς would be the more proper term.

It is evident that the state described is not that of deliverance; it is not therefore the normal state of the Christian, but one of transition. The reader will be perhaps as pleased as I with the substance of the following note, which I did not expect from Doddridge. "The apostle here, by a very dexterous turn, changes the person and speaks as of himself. This he elsewhere does (Rom. 3: 6; 1 Cor. 10: 30; chap. 4: 6) when he is only personating another character. And the character here assumed is that of a man, first ignorant of the law, then under it, and sincerely desiring to please God, but finding to his sorrow the weakness of the motives it suggested, and the sad discouragement under which it left him; and last of all with transport discovering the gospel, and gaining pardon and strength, peace and joy by it. But to suppose he speaks all these things of himself or the confirmed Christian — that he really was when he wrote this epistle — is not only foreign but contrary to the whole scope of his discourse, as well as to what is expressly asserted, Rom. 8: 2."

It is a question of power coming in, not of will; for he is supposed to will the contrary, but alas! does what he wills not. Thus the moral character of both natures is made plain. The flesh never goes along with the moral judgment and desire of the renewed man while under law. But it is well to observe that there is another discussion in verses 18-20 leading to the same result and closing similarly, only with greater emphasis personally in its course. "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, no good dwelleth; for to will is present with me, but to work out the good [is] not; for I am not doing good which I wish; but evil which I wish not, this I do. But if what I wish not, this I am doing, [it is] no longer I that work it out, but the sin that dwelleth in me." (Ver. 18-20.)

It is a renewed "I," but obliged to feel that it is powerless. The hated evil continually gains the day, and the good that is acknowledged and valued slips through undone — a dreadful lesson, yet the truth of our nature, wholesome and needful to learn. Grace turns it to excellent account, and ere long, if there be simplicity and subjection of heart through the Holy Ghost to Christ.

In all the previous process it is striking to see how totally eclipsed is every object and power of faith. It is throughout self, though not self indulged and gratified, but self proving to itself intense cause of misery and disappointment. Christ in the end becomes all the more welcome; and the deliverance is of grace, not activity of self, through Him. After this activity in the energy of the Spirit can safely follow: before it, if possible, it would only veil the knowledge of self from us, and so far hide the truth and foster both self-love and self-righteousness.

It will be observed too, how admirably the apostle, while asserting fully the new place which grace gives by our having part with Christ in His death, guards the law from all impeachment. Let the Jew be ever so sensitive, God's honour is safe; and it was not Paul who forgot or wounded it, whatever the adversaries of the gospel averred. As the law was not sin, so it was not death. The entire fault lay in man's sin, not in God's law. The converted feel this and cleave to the law, let it be ever so peremptory and painful. But it never does nor can deliver; on the contrary, it demonstrates the abject, thorough, hopeless bondage to sin in which our nature is held — the more felt, the more the sanctity of the law is owned. Under law, therefore, the renewed soul finds peace impossible. Impossible in this state to do anything but condemn oneself. This is true and good as far as it goes, but it is not the christian state, though it is the condition in which Christians must find themselves till they know deliverance from their state of sin, and not the forgiveness of their sins alone.

We see progress before full sense of emancipation comes. It is in the second discussion, not the first, that the soul is represented as saying "in me, that is, in my flesh, no good dwelleth." The distinction of the new nature from the old becomes more apparent, though power is still wanting. The next verses show us how the misery is brought to a crisis, but through grace to a close.

Verses 21-23 furnish the conclusion from the discussion we have seen doubly pursued. "I find then the law for me wishing to do the right thing that evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man, but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members." Guilt is not the matter in hand, but power, or rather the total absence of it; so that, with the best possible dispositions and desires, all ends in captivity to sin, though it is now hated. It is not the soul in the death and darkness of nature, but renewed. God is loved, evil abhorred; but the soul finds itself powerless either to give effect to the one or to avoid the other. There is progress notwithstanding, sad as the experience is still, and slow as the soul itself may be, to realize or allow it. Hence, he now speaks of the opposition he finds in his members, the law of sin that is there. There is a growing sense of distinctness, as well as of internal conflict. This does not give peace any more than power — far from it. As far as feeling goes, never was he more intensely miserable.

But the deepening of the darkness precedes the light of day. New light dawns when all seemed most forlorn. "Wretched man I! who shall deliver me out of this body of death?" This expression of distress, not without hope, yet bordering on despair, is the direct road to the Deliverer. The mistake was looking to himself, the humiliating process was the discovery of his own powerlessness for good however loved, against his own evil however honestly detested. All turns on the question of a Deliverer outside self. All expectation of victory over self by himself is proved to be the sheerest vanity of vanities. Another becomes the true and sole resource. Who that other is remains not for a moment an object of hesitation to the believer. The inquiry has only to be raised in order to receive the most decided and triumphant answer. "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Jesus is not alone the one ground of pardon through His blood-shedding; He is equally the Deliverer from the withering sense of death which the believer experiences when, honestly seeking to subdue his own will and work out the good he delights in and eschew the ill he hates. Broken to nothingness by the continual proof of his own failure, spite of prayer, watching, and efforts of every conceivable kind, he abandons himself as hopelessly wretched, looks out of himself inquiringly, and answers at once the demand of his soul with a song of thanksgiving for Jesus.

The Spirit of God, however, takes care at once to guard the soul, now humble and filled with praise, from the illusion that the flesh is changed for the better. Not so: the two natures retain each its own character. "Therefore then I myself with the mind serve God's law, but with the flesh sin's law." (Ver. 25.) We shall see more of the deliverance itself, and its consequences, in the following chapter. Meanwhile we learn here that, if the flesh acts at all, it can only be to sin. Such is its law. Deliverance does not alter the bent of man's nature, which is the same in all, in the Christian as in the unbeliever. Only the former, not the latter, has a new nature, deliverance in and through Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the power of enjoying his privileges and of walking accordingly, as we shall soon learn.

Romans 8 - 16.

W. Kelly.

Part 2 of Notes on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans, with a new translation,

ROMANS 8

We have seen in Romans 7, first, the doctrine in the opening verses; then the discussion of the manner in which the law works in the soul that is born again but that does not realize the deliverance with which he began, not only conflict under law but the discovery of the two natures, and besides of one's own powerlessness though renewed — an experience which closes however not in the utter wretchedness which is its immediate result but in looking completely out of self to God's deliverance in and through Christ, though the two natures abide none the less for all that, each with its own unchanged characteristics.

The beginning of Romans 8 is in some respects (as indeed in a larger sense is the entire chapter) a summary and conclusion in relation to the previous reasoning. Still the argument and the revelation of the truth are also pushed on, though there is allusion to the points already cleared in the discussion from Romans 5: 12 to the close of Romans 7. Nothing can well be conceived more striking than the grandly explicit, and distinct, and comprehensive affirmation of verse 1. "There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus." It is the broad truth laid down with all clearness for all who are set in this new place of acceptance — "in Christ Jesus." For such he could not say more, he would not say less, as to the question before us; and what he says is said absolutely and peremptorily. There is purposely no loophole for modifying or enfeebling the deliverance.

Therefore I cannot at all agree with those who admit that the clause in the received text and ordinary translation is (i.e., thus the latter half in the Authorized Version)* immaterial. Believing it to be spurious on the best and ample authority, I am of opinion that it is of great importance to the force of the passage that the gloss added should be rejected. These words are of the greatest value in verse 4; they are an incubus, a dead weight, in verse 1. Here. they would necessarily tend to act as a qualifying clause and throw the soul on an examination of walk as the means of certifying that one is in Christ Jesus. Now the duty of self-judgment as to my heart and ways is freely admitted; but it is not the way to ascertain that I am in Christ. If I did gather from my walk and spirit the assurance of such a standing for my soul, it would be in the highest degree self-righteous and presumptuous. The man whose assurance was founded on the good estimate he had formed of his own inward and outward ways would be an object not enviable but of the deepest pity. The true place of self-judgment for the Christian according to scripture is, while holding fast that by grace we are in Christ and hence possessors of the highest privileges, that we should detect our shortcomings and their causes in order to humble ourselves for practical inconsistencies of any kind measured by that exalted standard. If introduced here, it would dislocate all truth, impair all grace, and eventually destroy all the springs of power in walk.

*The great uncials , B, C, D, F, G, with some good cursives and ancient versions omit, while A, D (corr.), omit the last part. The English Version even so is incorrect; for, if genuine, the meaning would be "those in Christ Jesus who walk," or "those who in Christ Jesus walk," etc. (not "them which are in Christ Jesus who walk.")

The passage then in its true form denies all condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. It is not sins proved nor sins remitted in God's righteousness through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; nor is it even the love of God shown so much the more because the object of it is a sinner ungodly and without strength. All this is in view of the sinner as such, though supposed to believe in Jesus. But here the old man is seen to be crucified, and the believer dead with Christ and alive to God in virtue of Him risen from the dead. In a word, they are viewed as being in an altogether new place, in Christ Jesus; where condemnation is not, and cannot be. It is not a question of degree but an absolute fact, true of all real Christians. They are one as much as another in Christ Jesus and outside condemnation. To say that in proportion as he is imbued with the Spirit of Christ he is free from condemnation is to miss the truth here revealed, however momentous it surely is for the Christian to be thus imbued. But here I repeat it is a question of the place grace gives them in Christ and not of their measure of making it good in feeling and ways. "In Christ" rightly understood precludes all question of degree or doubt quoad hoc. Bring in the walk, and therein at once we find abundant grounds, I will not say for doubt (which is always unjustifiable and profitless), but for sorrow and humiliation, and the more so because we are "in Christ Jesus."

We have seen the precious principle of no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus re-asserted with yet greater strength and absoluteness than when first introduced in the latter half of Romans 5. Not only are such not condemned, but there is no condemnation for them. They are in Christ, and there no possible condemnation can reach. Undoubtedly they are justified; but what is said goes farther than justification by blood. Justifying of life is supposed; but there is more, as we shall see presently. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death."

Questions have been raised here as to "the law," used at the beginning and at the end of this sentence. There is no real difficulty nor ground for doubt. The apostle has already given us to see his use of the term for a given principle acting uniformly, as when he speaks of "law of faith" (Rom. 3: 27) in contrast with "law of works;" and later still "law in my members," or "of sin," there contradistinguished from the law of my mind."

The meaning then is the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus acting constantly to a given end. Undoubtedly this is only since the gospel was preached, but it does not therefore mean the gospel. Nor does the apostle say life only, but "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." In the distressing conflict under law, described in the latter portion of Romans 7, there was life: else there would have been insensibility to sin; but not the power of the Spirit working in and with it: else there would have been liberty, and not the bondage that there was then.

John 20: 22 may illustrate the expression. The Spirit is not apart from quickening the soul; but here was more. It was life more abundantly, life in resurrection. Jesus risen breathed on the disciples, already quickened, and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." It was not mere conversion; still less was it the appointment to an office or the conferring of a gift (χάρισμα). It was life according to the position of Jesus now risen from the dead and no longer under law, and with this the Spirit is distinctly associated. The fruit of this we see in the disciples thenceforward. It is not that they might not make mistakes in thought, or word, or deed; but we see after this a liberty, joy, and intelligence unknown before.

So here "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." For the last time in this discussion the "me" is spoken of. If the distress was personal, so is the deliverance; if he had reasoned out the case of one bound under law, transferred in its application to himself, so to himself he transferred the application of the freedom enjoyed. Sin and death were no longer a governing principle, and this by the very fact of the life in Christ which he had by the Spirit. It is not, as Theodore of Mopsuestia (in loc. p. 67, ed. Fritzsche) thinks, and many since, that he is anticipating the resurrection or future state, but the actual condition of the Christian. The freedom was his by the Holy Ghost when he left off seeking victory over indwelling evil by efforts under law, was willing to yield himself up as powerless for the good he desired, and submitted to the righteousness of God. Then the Spirit working in the life given proved Himself to be not of weakness any more than of fear; but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Thus it is plain that the resurrection of Christ, which is the fountain of the life as we have it in Him, is the link between our justification and the practical holiness which God looks for and secures in the Christian. It is erroneous to treat this verse, or even the first, as a mere summary of justification. Calvin is nearer the mark than such as Haldane and Hodge who so limit it. Nevertheless, as I do not think the leader of Geneva warranted to speak as he does of the apostle's language, so it appears to me that he betrays his own defective acquaintance with the gospel in the same sentence. "By the law of the Spirit he improperly designates the Spirit of God, who sprinkles our souls with the blood of Christ, not only to cleanse us from the stain of sin as regards guilt, but to sanctify us to true purity."* The mistake is exclusively in the commentator, who did not comprehend the profound and accurately expressed wisdom of the apostle. To have confessed his own ignorance, when he found himself out of his depth, would have been more modest, rather than to have adopted language hard to reconcile with a becoming sense of God's word. Does He call things improperly? Thus far Calvin's temerity, the more glaring because of the ignorance betrayed in what follows. For we have here to do, not with the blood of Christ sprinkling souls, but with the Spirit acting with the fixity of a law in the life which is ours in Christ — a life which is in resurrection power and hence has freed us from the power of sin and death: otherwise sin and death must have governed. It is no question of pardon here but freedom from the constant operation of sin and its wages. Our very life, now that the Spirit is given, declares and proves us freed.

* "Legem spiritus improprie vocat Dei Spiritum, qui animas nostras Christi sanguine aspergit, non tantum ut a peccati labe emundet quoad reatum; sed in veram puritatem sanctificet." — In loc. cit. ed. Tholuck.

"The law of sin and death" does not mean the law of God, as some of the divines strangely said through making "the law of the Spirit" to be the gospel; it simply means the uniform principle of the flesh in moral character and in result. Power is in the Spirit who has shown us our place in Christ and set us free as alive to God in Him. Thus the common place of no condemnation to those that are in Christ is shown to be inseparable from a new life in the power of the Spirit in Christ risen, which freed us from sin and death as a law; and this is made intensely personal. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." The next two verses will explain how God in His grace has effected this, without enfeebling, yea, maintaining in no other way so well, His holy condemnation of evil — of our evil.

Evidently, then, the resurrection, the death and resurrection of Jesus, is the basis of all this doctrine. It was viewed as the seal of redemption at the close of Romans 4. For He was delivered up for our offences and raised for our justification. But there is much more in His resurrection. It is a spring of life, and this too in the manifestation of victory over all the consequences of sin and death. Such is the power of Christ's resurrection even now for the believer as far as concerns the soul. And herein lies the real and mighty link between justification and practical holiness. Not only has the Christian been justified by blood, but he has justifying of life in Christ; yea, the life of Him risen from the dead when all charge and judgment have had their course, sin been put away, and God glorified. Where this truth is not seen, a godly soul may well have fears, if not anxieties, as to the issue, and must naturally insist on the guards due to the grace of God in redemption; where it is simply and fully seen, there must be — there ought to be — confidence in the heart purified by faith. Not that there is not here below the need of habitual self-judgment; but, along with this, one is entitled, in looking to Christ dead and risen, to be as sure of the character of His life as of the efficacy of His blood. In both the believer finds his blessedness. But some, it must be spoken to their shame, are ignorant of the true character of God and of deliverance in and by Christ the Lord. Emancipation from the law of sin and death is the effect, as the apostle declares, of the law of the Spirit of life in the Saviour. The moral ground of this on God's part is shown in verse 3, the practical result on our part in verse 4.

The same uncertainty which obscures the force of verses 1, 2, prevails as to verses 3, 4. Some regard the question handled as exclusively justification; others as no less exclusively the extirpation of the dominion of sin. It appears to me certain, that, while the subject is sin rather than sins, the apostle is summing up, and hence not confining himself to a single point, and that each of the contending parties has missed not only truth held by their opponents, but much which both have failed to see. Imperfect views of redemption occasion, if they are not the same thing as, these defects. The new place of the believer is feebly seen on either side. With this the chapter opens, not Christ in the believer (though this is also true, and will be shown shortly in the chapter), but the believer in Christ, and hence "no condemnation" proclaimed. Next, it is shown that the very life given, being in the power of the Spirit, the life of Christ risen, is the witness of our deliverance. Neither sin nor death remains a law to us, as we see in the state described in Romans 7. But there is more. The powerlessness of the law is confronted with the efficacy of redemption, and this to the moral end of the believer's practical obedience. Such is the outline and connection of the four verses, as will appear more in detail presently.

"For what the law could not do, in that* it was weak through the flesh,† God having sent his own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to flesh but according to Spirit." (Ver. 3, 4.)

*The expression ἐν ῳ seems to be used with a certain variety of application. It is either want of knowledge or strength of system which alone can account for the effort of some moderns to restrict it to the sense "wherein." Nevertheless it never, that I am aware of, passes the bounds of correct usage, so as to be used, as Grotius says, for ἐφ᾽ ῳ, which expresses the condition or occasion under which a thing is done or occurs; while ἐν ῳ is the time, sphere, state, or power in question. Alford is singularly vacillating; for whilst on our text he says "because" (not 'wherein,' as in Romans 2: 1, but 'in that') and refers in his margin to Hebrews 2: 18; on the latter text he says, 4 'in that which,' and remarks, "The ordinary rendering is to take ἐν ῳ as equivalent to 'forasmuch as,' 'in that,' English Version, and to justify it by the Hebrew.But it is doubtful whether ἐν ῳ has ever this meaning absolutely.(!) It seems only to approach to it through 'quatenus,' 'in as far as,' which is an extension of its strict meaning, 'in that particular in which,' 'wherein.' (!!) And this slightly extended meaning is preferable in all the places usually cited to justify the other: e.g., Rom. 8: 3; Heb. 6: 17." It is a little strong to send us to a reference and then to nullify the meaning first, and add there a new reference (Heb. 6: 17), where he contradicts himself again and substantially confirms his first statement, for he there says, "in which behalf," nearly equivalent to "wherefore," which he expressly prefers to "in which."

†I reject the notion that διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς means "in having to act through the flesh," or "through the medium of the flesh." No doubt the construction is decisive against "on account of the flesh;" but διά with a genitive often means in a given state, though oftener still "by means of."

There is no need to supply anything, as the first clause, grammatically, is in apposition with what follows; doctrinally, in contradistinction. It was not within the power of the law to meet the case, for though law spiritually applied might detect sin, the characteristic sin of fallen human nature, it must condemn the person too in whom the sin was found. It was therefore wholly unavailing for the purposes of grace; it could curse, it could sentence, it could not save. It was essentially therefore for sinful man a ministry of condemnation and of death. "The flesh," or natural condition of the race, was a state that admitted of no alternative. God would and did take the matter in hand, not by Moses through whom the law was given, but by the mission of His own Son. "Grace and truth came — was — through Jesus Christ." Then, and by Him only, was this seen in the world. "The Word was made flesh." God sent Him in likeness of flesh of sin, in real flesh and blood; not like a man, but in truth a man; in likeness not of flesh, but of flesh of sin. Such was the flesh of His mother, and of her was He born as truly as any son of any mother; but without an earthly father as to His birth. What was begotten in Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Wherefore also the Holy Thing that was in due season born was called the Son of God — for this reason of His supernatural and holy generation; though for higher reasons also of divine and eternal glory, of which not Luke but John is the appointed herald.

God sent Him then in likeness of flesh of sin, not in sinful flesh, but in its likeness; and in Him, the Son, the Father was glorified in a world departed from God, of which Satan was the prince; tried as never man was tried, and found perfect in each and all, in word and deed, in thought and feeling, inwardly, outwardly, every way, perfect; as God the Father had never before found in anyone or anything. Yet blessed and refreshing as is such a sight in such a world, and in such a nature, fraught with infinite results for the divine glory, all had come to nought for the deliverance of any from sin's guilt or power, if God had done no more. Christ had glorified the Father as a holy, obedient, dependent man, who never did, never sought His own will, but God's. But man was wilful, wretched, guilty, lost. God sent His own Son therefore, not alone as the exhibition of human perfection, and divine grace and truth withal, but also "for sin," περὶ ἁμαρτίας. It is the very reverse of an indefinite statement, being the well-known technical expression for sin-offering (as in Heb. 10, and the LXX.), and therefore distinctly pointing to the death, as the previous clause to the life, of Christ.

Thus was solved the otherwise insoluble problem: God had done it in and by His own Son to His own glory, and thus holily and righteously for sinful man. Impossible without the death of the Son of God. But now in Him, a sacrifice for sin (not more acceptable in His life than a sin-bearer in death, when consequently God must and did forsake even Him), God executed sentence of condemnation, not on sinners but on sin, sin in the flesh, and this expiatorily; for He made Jesus, who knew no sin, sin for us, that we might become God's righteousness in Him. There is therefore now no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. Not only has the Christian a new life in Christ risen by the Spirit, of which the law is liberation and liberty; but God laid the moral ground for such grace as this, in the utter condemnation of sin in the flesh, by His manifestation to take away our sins, in whom is no sin.

Thus was vindicated the free gift of God to us, eternal life, the righteous groundwork on which even now we possess in Christ that risen life with which no sin ever mingles, though we have still the old and evil nature of our own to mortify day by day.

And if the Son of man was glorified, and God glorified in Him thus, was there no present moral result in those whose new life He was in the infinite grace of our God? This could not be; and the apostle adds in the next words the answer. God so wrought in Christ, in order that the requirement (the righteous claim, τὸ δικαίωμα) of the law might be fulfilled in us that walk not according to flesh, but according to Spirit. This, I cordially grant, applies not to justification, as so many of the divines erroneously teach. It is the practical consequence of justification, or rather of the infinite work of the Saviour, in those who receive Him; but this is no reason why we should overlook, with many other divines, the equally sure and yet more solemnly important basis for our holy walk in His atonement.

Another remark it is well to add on verse 4:- how admirably it falls in with Romans 6: 14! It is only when the Holy Ghost works in a soul quickened with the life of Christ risen from the dead, by virtue of redemption through His blood, that power follows against sin. When practically under law, i.e., labouring to correct and improve the flesh, as too many saints are (like the case described in the latter half of Rom. 7), there is no power; and, spite of a renewed mind, there is constant failure and grief of heart in consequence. Christ, not the law, Christ in grace and truth, Christ dead and risen, is the sole power of holiness by the working of the Holy Spirit in us; and the heart answers in love to God and man, so that what the law required of those under itself, but in vain, is really fulfilled in those who are not under law but under grace.

The apostle proceeds to contrast more at length those who walk according to flesh with those who are in Christ. He shows that in both cases there is a nature with its own objects. It is not a question here of some faithful and others failing; "for those who are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those according to Spirit, the things of the Spirit." Each class has its own sphere, which engages its mind and feelings. Manner or measure is not before us; but flesh and Spirit, or rather those characterized by them, go out after their respective natures and love or hate accordingly. Duty has its place, and is invariably claimed and regulated by the relationship in which people stand; but here another topic is under discussion, not so much relative position and its responsibilities as the new principle and power of the Christian compared with all other men. He is characterized, not by flesh (i.e., human nature fallen, estranged from God, and as we shall see, enmity against Him) but the Spirit, and this identifying itself with the very being and state of the Christian, just as we see in the case of demoniacs that they were bound up with their evil possession, so that the man and the unclean spirit could only be severed by God's power. Further on we have the Holy Spirit treated as an indwelling person, who acts in and with the believer; but here it is a characteristic state predicated of the Christian, contrasted with that of all other men out of which he is brought by faith in Christ. For all were alike in the same state, "in flesh," as born of Adam; but those according to the Spirit mind the things of the Spirit, things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it entered the heart of man to consider, things which God hath prepared for those that love Him.

Here it may be profitable to observe that the Spirit is not once brought before us in the first great division of our Epistle (Rom. 1 - 5: 11) till redemption, the remission of sins, was fully established, cleared and done with. It is only in the conclusion (Rom. 5: 1-11) which winds up this part of the apostle's argument that he introduces (ver. 5) the earliest mention of the Holy Ghost. "And hope maketh not ashamed. because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." In the appendix of doctrine on the divine deliverance, not from sins, but from sin, the method of procedure is exactly similar; the Holy Spirit only reappears in Romans 8 which is the conclusion to this most momentous addition. Only here, as connected more with practical state and walk, we meet with a rich development and great variety of application, instead of the passing though sweet allusion of Romans 5.

Nor will the thoughtful Christian find it hard to discern the wisdom of God in both. For even in the face of this remarkable omission of the Spirit in the discussion of man's unrighteousness, and then of God's righteousness in the gospel by faith of Christ, man is prone enough to drag in what God has left out; and believers continually doom themselves to a lack of peace with God by an inquisitive search in themselves after the effects of the Spirit which might satisfy them of their renewal and acceptance. Now it is not denied for a moment that none but the Spirit quickens by the word, revealing Christ to the soul; yet this truth, acknowledged on all sides, makes the absence of reference to the Holy Ghost given so much the more notable.

Till redemption is known, God would direct the eye to Christ: He alone who died for the sinner is entitled to give him comfort in respect and in spite of his sins. His blood alone cleanses from all sin. It may be, it is, wholesome to look within as well as without, and to learn more and more what a sinner I am; but God will have me to look outside myself to Christ exclusively for pardon. To look within for righteousness by the Spirit enabling me is illusive, nay ruinous. I must be content with, and rejoice in, the blessedness David describes of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works. Like Abraham, I need not be discouraged by my own weakness, or the inability of all around to help; I ought like him to give glory to God; for it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification. And therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

After all this it is that God speaks to us of the gift of the Spirit, and the love that is shed abroad in our hearts by Him. We can bear this truth then, as then only indeed we are sealed by the Spirit. For though the Spirit can and does quicken one dead in trespasses and sins, He never seals a soul in such a state; He seals only where there is life and cleansing by the shed blood of the Saviour. Christ no doubt had the Holy Ghost descending and abiding on Him apart from blood; but He was the Holy One of God and came to redeem others, not to be redeemed. But none other was or could be sealed save as a consequence of His redemption. Hence we see in the Acts and the Epistles of the Apostles that the Holy Spirit was given in His name, even the quickened not being thus sealed till they submitted themselves (which was not always an immediate sequence) to the righteousness of God.

But here the allusion is brief. There is no dwelling on the internal operations of the Spirit till we come to Romans 8. The reason seems manifest. It would not be meat in due season till the mighty result of Christ's death and resurrection was applied to our nature, to our conscious and intelligent deliverance (by faith of His work) from the sense and power of sin, as well as from guilt by our sins against God. Christendom affords solemn lessons, not only in the past but in the present, of the dangers those run who take a different route. For what is the necessary result of mixing up an inward search after the fruits and witness of the Spirit with the anxieties of the soul anxious, and it may be quickened? It can be none other than either to buoy him up with a joy founded on feelings more or less self-righteous, or to plunge him, if conscientious, into the depths of distress, endeavouring to extract a miserable comfort from the very fact that he is so harassed with a sense of sin while he clings to the barest hope that he may be a child of God.

When the apostle has set forth fully the work of redemption, when we know, as believers in Christ, not merely the sins effaced by His precious blood, but sin in the flesh condemned — both morally in Him who was absolutely free from it, yet withal in grace to us bearing its consequences judicially as a sacrifice for it that there might be no condemnation to those that are in Him — when this is learnt solidly by divine teaching, we are in a position to profit by the fullest instructions in the ways of God by His Spirit in respect of us. Here accordingly there is neither silence nor stint.

But it cannot be too rigidly insisted on that God's condemnation of sin was on the cross in the sacrifice of Christ for it. Those who deny that the soul's deliverance can be till we actually die, are no less in error than others who affirm that it means the new and sanctifying power of the Spirit by Christ. Both have to be taught a great truth which they have overlooked. Undoubtedly there is more before us than justification from our sins. It is a question of how to be rid of the burden of sin, indwelling sin; and till we lay hold of the revealed answer in Christ, the Spirit convicts of sin, instead of delivering from it. The answer is that God condemned sin in Him who was sent in the likeness of flesh of sin; but as a sacrifice for sin. Therefore to faith sin is as completely annulled as our sins — both righteously, but in grace, both by Him who for both suffered at God's hand that we might be delivered and know our deliverance now by the faith of Jesus Christ our Lord. We must not confound the effect of this in victory over sin with the act of God who thus condemned sin in the flesh. Christ's own personal overthrow of Satan and manifestation of uniform and spotless holiness here below would have but riveted condemnation on us more hopelessly, had He not also suffered for us on the cross. His sinlessness is incontestable; but it is ignorance and false doctrine to say that the condemnation of sin in the flesh is owing to it, not to His sacrifice for sin. Multitudes of divines may crowd the valley of indecision, and so say or write; but it is in vain. May their error perish, but not themselves! The sacrifice of Christ is the ground of our emancipation by the Spirit of life from the law of sin and death, as it is in order to a holy walk. The law, holy as it is, could effect neither; it claimed but never received righteousness, as it condemned the sinner without ever reaching sin in the flesh. This God did in Christ's sacrifice for sin, with its infinite blessing for us in both standing and walk. The law dealt with the old nature, the flesh. exposing its sinful character, but weak through it. The Spirit strengthens the new nature; and thus the believer, feeding on the word, walks accordingly, loving God and his neighbour.

Then follows the explanation why those who are in Christ walk according to the Spirit. If they were after flesh, the mind and affection would be on the things of the flesh. Source, character, and conduct go together. Flesh is never sublimated into spirit; nor does spirit sink or change to flesh; for, as the Lord said, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Even Adam unfallen was not spirit. Hence there was no question of resurrection or of heaven till all of original state was lost by sin. The Last Adam brings in the "better thing." Flesh cannot rise above itself, though it may fall into the depths of Satan. Even in its best estate we may perhaps say, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I [Christ] shall give him shall never thirst: but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life."

And as the essential character thus differs, as well as the range and objects of flesh and Spirit, so also the issues. "For the mind of the flesh [is] death, but the mind of the Spirit life and peace." (Ver. 6.) The flesh has not one pulse of life Godward, however active in its pursuits and pleasures here. On the other hand, the mind of the Spirit, its exercise of thought and feeling, is life and peace. It was so in Christ; and so it is in the Christian. How a sinner is to find either life from God or peace with God is not the subject-matter in hand, but the moral bent and result of flesh and Spirit. Flesh satisfies itself, or at least its desires are set on things seen and felt apart from God or His word; the Spirit cannot rest short of the love and the glory of Christ. And as this only is the life of the Spirit, so it is peace of heart. In every sense God has called us in peace; whereas, there is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. How could it be otherwise with fallen humanity? "Because the mind of the flesh [is] enmity against God; for to the law of God it is not subject;" nor need one wonder, "for it is not possible. But they then that are in flesh cannot please God." (Ver. 7, 8.)

Awful conclusion for man as he is! Would that he laid it to heart as the truth, the sentence pronounced by the Judge of all the earth! No fruit for God grows on that tree for ever. There is and must be for the believer a new life in order to fruit-bearing. Not the things that are seen, the things of the flesh, but the revelation of the unseen, the word of God Himself, seen by faith in Christ, nourishes this life; for without faith, the same apostle tells us in another epistle, it is impossible to please God. Now the flesh never trusts God; its mind is enmity against Him. The law brings in His authority and interdicts to the flesh its own way, which is everything to it. Hence its independence proves to be enmity against God; for in virtue of seeking its own will it neither does nor can subject itself to His law. Obedience is essentially incompatible with the self-will, the ἀνομία, of the flesh, which would cease to be itself if it obeyed God. Hence the application of the principle to the unrenewed. "And they that are in flesh cannot please God," whose complacency is in the man that ever sought and did God's will, not His own, and thus ever practised the things agreeable to His Father.

To be in flesh then is hopeless ruin, its mind being at variance with God, and in utter insubjection to His law; and this is the sad condition of all the sons of fallen Adam. It is not however the standing of the Christian. As in the beginning of our chapter he is said to be in Christ and consequently outside every possible condemnation, so here it is said, "but ye are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed God's Spirit dwell in you."

Thus the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is the witness and proof that we are "in Spirit," and consequently not in flesh. But it would be a mistake to conclude that this condition was not reached and supposed in the preceding chapters. Indeed Romans 7: 5 unquestionably implies the contrary — "for when we were in the flesh," etc.; consequently we are not in the flesh now as Christians. So in Romans 6, the saints were bondmen of sin but now freed from it, bound therefore to reckon themselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus, under grace and not under law. This cannot be without life and the Spirit. The man who is alive of that new life takes the place of death at the word of the Lord, and attests the end of the old man in his own person. But in Romans 8, for reasons already given, the apostle is free to develop the relation of the Spirit to the Christian, and His various operations in and with the soul as far as would be suitable to the epistle in hand. We are in Spirit, if at all events God's Spirit dwell in us. Now that it is evident that man is equally weak and ungodly, now that he has learnt that the way of God is not by victory over sin, but (owning his total powerlessness to recover or do well) by the work of Christ and death with Him, he can safely hear of the ways of the Spirit. He will not now seek by efforts to get free, for he has surrendered to the solemn and humbling fact of what he is as well as confessed his misdoings. God is wise and good in this as in all else: for if He strengthened the converted soul in its desire to gain the victory over indwelling evil by the work of the Spirit, it would make the work of Christ incomparably less prized and the soul satisfied with itself under pretence of trusting in the Spirit.

In truth scripture knows no such thing as trusting in the working of the Spirit in us as distinguished from trusting in ourselves or in our works. For what the Spirit enables us as God's children to do is ever counted as our own, and will be remembered and rewarded accordingly when God proves Himself not unrighteous to forget our work and the love shown to His name.

Deliverance is by death — the death of Christ, with whom we died. But we are alive to God in Him, and the Spirit dwells in us. We can then without presumption say that we are not in flesh. We are not viewed as mere men, characterized by the first Adam state and responsibilities; as it had been already shown that we are not under law, like Israel, but under grace. Not, I must add, that we are not responsible, but that our responsibility is of a new character, founded on the new relationship which grace has given us when delivered from our old state of ruined men. "Ye are not in flesh." Nothing short of this is the due language of the Christian. It is the most general expression for nature, for man as he is; and, as Christians, such is not our condition. We are "in Spirit," not merely under the dominion of our own renewed mind; but that which was first set before us as being "in Christ" is here said to be "in Spirit," a condition formed by the action of the Holy Ghost who is glorifying Christ according to the will and mission of the Father.

Let us bear in mind that it is more than being born of the Spirit, which in fact embraces all saints, and is not more true of the Christian than of the Old Testament or of the millennial saint. But to be "in Spirit" goes farther, and is proved by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit after Jesus died, rose, and went on high. "But ye are not in flesh but in Spirit, if at all events God's Spirit dwell in you." Christ risen is a life-giving Spirit, as we see in John 20; exalted, He sends down the Holy Spirit as power. (Acts 2.) If one really believes in Christ — i.e., the gospel, he receives the Spirit and so can be said to be "in Spirit." This is the sole recognized condition, though there may be a state short of it for a season. The case described or personated by the apostle in the central and latter part of Romans 7 is that of one born of the Spirit, but not yet "in Spirit," which is the proper christian state.

Observe that it is no question here of measure, or of moral disposition, but of new facts in the realm of grace. Certainly he of whom they are true is intended to realize their truth and to walk accordingly. Still it is important to see that God reveals to the Christian, not as a special privilege of a favoured soul here and there, but as a broad certain characteristic of those now called according to His purpose, that they are not in flesh but in Spirit. There is no mingling of the two states. We were in the one; we are now in the other. It is not a state, again, after our death physically, but after Christ's death, at least when it can also be said that we died with Him. It is therefore true of the Christian now in this world, absolutely true from the beginning of his career on earth as a Christian till its close. I speak of course of the true believer only.

Is there no partial state recognized here? No fluctuating, no uncertainty, no mixing up of the old Adam state and Christ? Not in the slightest degree. "Ye are not in flesh but in Spirit." Is the Christian then without the flesh? Clearly not; but the true state and statement of the case is, not that he is in flesh, but that flesh is in him. The old nature is there, and ready to break out into sin if there be not self-judgment, watchfulness against the enemy, and looking to Christ. The flesh is beyond doubt in the believer: only he is no longer in flesh, but in that new estate of which Christ is the display and the Holy Spirit is the power and character. The flesh is an evil thing, always to be hated and in nothing allowed. The Christian however is entitled to know that he is not in flesh, but that he is clean contrary to it as to his condition — in Spirit, always supposing that God's Spirit dwells in him. Anything anomalous or intermediate is not here taken into account. The apostle contrasts this previous natural state with the full christian position, not strictly speaking, with the new birth. Thus the Spirit's dwelling in the believer is used as the then public testimony on God's part. This must be modified in the present confusion of doctrine, as well as the absence of manifestations in power. Yet the great substantial truth abides unchanged.

"But if any one hath not Christ's Spirit, he is not his." This parenthetical statement is to be weighed without deducing, as is often done, what it was clearly not intended to convey. Thus some would draw from it that the Old Testament saints must have had Christ's Spirit in the sense here discussed, as others again would deny a condition of soul in which one may be quickened, as in the latter part of Romans, without being sealed, examples of which are so frequent in the Acts of the Apostles. But the fact is that the apostle is now treating of one who is no Christian at all save in outward name, like Simon Magus, in contrast with those. who have Christ's Spirit. And this seems to be confirmed by the use of αὐτοῦ rather than αὐτῳ. Where the soul submits to divine righteousness in Christ, the Father seals with the Spirit. Here I suppose He is designated "Christ's," not as if it were another Spirit than God's, but as having displayed Himself there above all in the perfection of a life consecrated to God from first to last. Grace gives the Spirit to all that believe on Him now, not necessarily when the soul is first ploughed up, but assuredly on receiving the word of truth, the gospel of salvation. So sure is it, that if one has not His Spirit, one is not of Him.

It is evident that the apostle is here closing the answer to the question in the latter verses of Romans 7: "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?" In the answer there are three parts. The first is, that as Christians we start with a position of deliverance in Christ (Rom. 8: 1) and the possession of a life of liberty (ver. 2), in both its parts founded on and justified by the cross of Christ (ver. 3). There could be, and there ought to be, no deliverance, unless sin were righteously atoned for and blotted out before God. Ought a single sinner to be set free, if God's glory were enfeebled by it? But it is not so. On the contrary never was such glory brought to God as by the cross of the Lord Jesus; never such a display of righteousness as well as of love as in the cross; and more than this, there never can be such a display again. The one spot and hour and act and person that stands out from the whole of this world's history from eternity and to eternity, distinct from all that ever was or ever will be, is the cross of the Lord Jesus; and yet it was in consequence of this very cross that God could deal in such tender mercy before it came; and it is in consequence of it that God will never rest in His love till all sin is completely gone, all evil judged, and all His mercy has had its full result in the accomplishment of His purposes. No wonder therefore that the cross of the Lord Jesus has brought in a signal change even now. It would not have been worthy of God had He not given by it a present deliverance to him that believes in Christ.

This deliverance then consists of these two parts: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that we are placed in and as Christ before God. For Christ was not an individual solely, who simply came and did a great work for others, but apart from bearing our sins He is a public man in an infinitely better sense than any other could be. The queen, for instance, is a public person. As sovereign she gives expression to whatever is the law of the land; her sign-manual is supreme authority. Properly speaking there is no statute law without her. I use this merely as an illustration. But the Lord Jesus is a public person in an infinitely higher yet closer and nearer way, because no subject could be said to be in the sovereign as the Christian is in Christ. She may represent the people that she governs, but there could be nothing more intimate in their relation to her. The wonderful truth of redemption shows that the Lord Jesus is a public person so far as to give us a place in Himself above, and not only in identifying Himself with our guilt before God which He did once for all on the cross. In another sense He died for every man. Nothing can be more certain than that both are true, that He died for those that believe, and that He died for every man — with this difference, that the believer alone can say that He bore our sins in His own body on the tree. But it is the guilt of the natural man that, Christ having died for all, he nevertheless rejects Him. Yes, the deepest aggravation of unbelief is that, though Christ came for every creature, none would have Him. Not a living soul would have had Him unless by the special grace of God that opens a believer's eyes and inclines his heart to receive Him. This God does for the elect, though all be responsible.

But the Lord Jesus is more than a Saviour who died for us and our guilt. He is now the great pattern of One who, having been under the most intolerable judgment of sin, rose from the dead perfectly delivered and in the fullest sunshine of divine delight and peace and joy to show us where the Christian is and how God looks upon him. Is not his place in Christ Jesus, risen from the dead? Is he not entitled to look up and say, There is where I am? I am not denying that here we are still walking in this poor wretched world; but God's word warrants us as Christians to receive what He has done in Christ and to say that we are thus in Him. As a man, I look back at Adam and see his sin, the power of his natural affections carrying him away. When he fell, did he remain the noble creature he was before he fell? Alas! he was deceitful, yet insolent, willing to throw the blame upon his wife or upon God in order to excuse himself. So every sinful man is apt to be not only bold against God but a coward with a bad conscience. And this is what we are in our natural state, some showing more of the insolence, others of the cowardice. There is not a bold man that is not sometimes a coward, and alas! there is no man so timid that he is not sometimes insolent. How complete the moral havoc before God and man!

God then has brought in this perfect deliverance now, but only for the soul in its standing in the first place. He that has received Christ has this wonderful boon, not only his sins forgiven, but his sin so judged that God can and does put him in Christ, and as Christ before Himself. He is entitled to repeat the language of faith and say, I am in Christ Jesus, and there is therefore no condemnation. How can there be condemnation for Christ? It is Christ that settles and determines the place that grace has given me as a believer. Consequently I may humbly say, as the word of God for my soul, There is no condemnation.

But there is more than this. He will not allow it to be merely vague, lest it might appear intangible general blessing, but as pointed and personal as can be. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." It is not merely the death of Christ Jesus. His death in itself never gives full christian liberty. It met my guilt, but I want more than this; I want a power of life that has won the victory. And this is what I have through grace. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." No wonder therefore that people, when not aware of this, are always occupied with a miserable toil under the law, rather hoping than knowing their sins forgiven. But the blood of Jesus, His mighty work, in death, simply meets their guilt and puts away the iniquities of the old man. Do you not also need the power of a new and risen life? This is what follows. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." Such is the second part of the deliverance. First, there is no condemnation in Christ; next, this power of life in Christ is mine; and both these things are vindicated by the cross of Christ which he mentions in the following verse. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." The practical consequence follows: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Is there then no flesh? There is the old evil nature in the believer; but he is not in flesh, he is in Christ. You cannot be in sin and in Christ at the same time; you cannot be in Adam and in Christ together. You were in Adam as man, but are in Christ as a Christian. Hence the apostle goes so far as to declare that the Christian is not in flesh at all. Does this mean that we are perfect and nothing else? Not in the least. It does suppose that you are made perfect in Christ, but it admits the humiliating fact that flesh is in us: otherwise we should never do wrong at all, there would be no self, no vanity or pride in us. But if we are not in flesh, as has been often said, flesh is in us as a matter of fact. "Ye are not in flesh" is God's estimate of the deliverance already given us in Christ Jesus.

Verse 10 does not speak about our being in Christ, but rather the converse, which is sometimes forgotten by the children of God. Not only am I in Christ, but Christ is in me as a believer. The effect of knowing that I am in Christ is that there is no condemnation: not merely am I not condemned in this or that, but all condemnation is absolutely annulled. There could not be anything of the sort for the Christian. God must condemn His own Son if He condemned those that are in Him; and every Christian is in Him. I grant you that people may make a bad use of this, but those who go on thus are not to be regarded as Christians at all, as indeed they never were. They were professors and nothing but professors; light-hearted men that would treat the Lord Jesus as they would one of their fellows, and the grace and truth of God as a common thing, making God the servant of their own lusts. Now He can be a Saviour from all evil, but never a servant to the will and passions of men. But what He loves is grace, where a poor sinner, miserable because of his sins, and hearing the announcement of His gift of Christ, comes to Him to be saved. Could God with Christ in His presence say No? Contrariwise, the measure of His salvation is that, first of all, as to our standing, we are put in Christ risen from the dead, who is his life in the power of the Spirit. Next, there is the active working of the Spirit of God in the believer. This is what is spoken of here: "If Christ be in you, the body [is] dead because of sin, but the Spirit life, because of righteousness." If I allow the body its own will, there is nothing but sin produced. How am I to get power against its dragging me into sin? Hold it for dead: this is the prescription. "If Christ be in you" — he is not speaking of unbelievers, but simply about Christians. To them the word is, If Christ be in you. Remember, this is what you are to do: count the body as a dead thing; do not pamper it, never yield to it. It there be the allowance of the active will therein, it is not merely the body, it becomes then simply "flesh." Where rein is given to the will, irrespective of course of God's, the body is but the instrument of sin, not of righteousness. Thus the way for the Christian to get power against the sin that is in him is to count the body dead. Is he that is dead to allow such and such an evil thing to work? When you cease to hold it for dead, there is sin; but if you do, the Spirit works in moral power. "The Spirit [is] life, because of righteousness."

It is only so far as you do not yield to your own will that sin is practically null and void, and the Spirit of God acts freely. The apostle is looking at the actual working of the Spirit of God in us. It is not life simply viewed as ours, but as in exercise, a matter of experience day by day. What is between these two points (i.e., the soul's deliverance as in verses 1, 2, and the resurrection of our bodies)? "If Christ be in you, the body [is] dead because of sin, but the Spirit life because of righteousness." Righteousness is not found simply by seeing that I am in Christ. This alone will not do. A man who merely talks about being in Christ and makes this his Christianity will turn out very bad indeed. He is merely making Christ a means for getting off eternal condemnation and present responsibility, but this will not do. As sure as you have got Christ and you are in Christ, Christ is in you; and if Christ is in you, take care you do not allow self to work. Where the body is not treated as dead but as alive, and is allowed to have its way, sin must be the result. If you treat it as dead, its career is cut short, its course is closed, and the Spirit of God deigns to become the sole spring of what you are seeking.

And let no one suppose that this is bondage. It is christian liberty. To do a thing because you must do it is never christian liberty. A slave thus works because he must; and we also, when in a low state, are apt to make a law of everything. When the affections are not flowing, we are only kept from what is openly evil, because there is a servile dread of doing what our consciences know is contrary to God. When this is the case, I am forgetting my ground of duty. What is it? Even now Christ is in me. If Christ be in me here, I am responsible to do His will. How is this to be done? I have got my body: if I allow it to have its own will and way, it will land me in sin. Treat it as dead; and let the one spring of what you desire be that which pleases the Holy Spirit. "The Spirit [is] life because of righteousness." There is no practical righteousness produced in the Christian, except by the power of the Spirit of God. If the body is allowed loose rein in what we desire, it is only sin. The Spirit, on the contrary, is life in the practical sense, and this is the only way of righteousness for our walk.

But then there is a third point of the deliverance, this is, that, "if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you" (which we have been shown now to be the case, not only dwelling in us but also life because of righteousness), "he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by [or rather because of] his Spirit that dwelleth in you." This is a rich and precious word. As sure as you now have the Spirit of God dwelling in you — the Spirit that raised up the humbled man Jesus, He that raised up the glorious One, who was made Lord and Christ, will raise up your mortal bodies. We have to mark the contrast of His personal name "Jesus" as compared with what follows. "He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies" and this "because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Deliverance is then complete.

I grant you there is no power intrinsically, there is mortality, working in our bodies; but "he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you." What a sure hope and full portion is that of the Christian! For thus I am delivered in my soul; I am called to give my testimony practically by the Holy Ghost that I am delivered, instead of being a man under law or in the flesh; and, again, I shall be raised. Even this mortal body shall be quickened — not a new body created and given me, but this mortal body shall be changed. This is no mere fresh creation but the most glorious proof of God's love and grace towards us. The mortal body shall be raised because of His Spirit that dwelleth in us. The Holy One who now dwells in us will never let go His claim to the mortal body in which He now dwells. He dwells in us, because of the risen life of Christ that is in the redeemed. If redemption had not been accomplished, and the life of Christ had not been given to us, He could not dwell in us; but where these are, He as it were says, There I must be. The Holy Ghost cannot be separated from Christ in the believer. He acts as one who loves to be there to the glory of Christ; and thus He strengthens us, the active mighty spring of good and the watchful guard against evil. "The Spirit [is] life because of righteousness." But as sure as this is the case, "if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you."

The practical conclusion of the apostle follows. "So, then, brethren, we are debtors not to the flesh, to live according to flesh. For if ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if by [the] Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Ver. 12, 13.) The deliverance of the Christian gives him the fullest title against the flesh; and he has the power of the Spirit that he should live according to Christ, not according to flesh. The structure of the phraseology is peculiar, but I believe admirably wise. The sentence looks unfinished and sounds as if another member were wanting to complete it. But God is always right; and no addition is needful or even admissible: if anything were added, it would but detract from the force of the truth as now stated. "We are debtors not to the flesh to live according to flesh." Used to the schools and forms of man, one waits for some such statement to be added as that we are debtors to the Spirit or to Christ the Lord. This the inspired writer avoids saying. He knows the tendency to legalism, and would cut off excuse first. He would maintain us in liberty, the full liberty with which Christ set us free. But there is no enfeebling of responsibility. On the one hand, "If ye live according to flesh, ye are about to die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live" on the other hand. The former is a natural and necessary consequence; the latter is a gracious and assuring pledge from God.

"For as many as are led by God's Spirit, they are sons of God." (Ver. 14.) Here we begin to hear of our relationship in contrast with the place of servants or slaves, which Israel had under law. It also paves the way for the introduction of the Spirit as the personal agent, instead of being viewed simply as characterizing our new nature and status in contrast with flesh. But it is not correct to say that υἱὸς Θεοῦ differs from τέκνον Θ. in implying the higher and more mature and conscious member of God's family. The true distinction is that the former is the less intimate of the two and does not necessarily suppose a proper birth-tie. It need not go beyond public position by adoption, without being really born into the family, but in full contradistinction in every case to the place of a slave. Hence John, who treats of life, never speaks of us as "sons;" for the word is wrongly rendered so in John 1: 12 and in 1 John 3: 1, 2. It should be "children," as being truly born of God. Nor is this at all enfeebled by the fact on the other side that Jesus is never called τέκνον but υἱός. It would be derogatory to, and a denial of, His eternal glory to speak of Him as God's τέκνον (child). But He is Son (υἱός) in more senses than one. He is Son of God as born in time and viewed on earth in His predicted association with Israel as their Messiah and king. (Psalm 2.) He is determined as Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1.) And what is more important than all, and the basis of all, He is Son of God, only-begotten Son in the Father's bosom, entirely apart from the time of His manifestation or the results of His work of redemption, Son of the Father in His own nature and personal relationship in that eternal subsistence which is essential to the Godhead and characteristic of it. For this last we have chiefly to consult the Gospel and Epistles of John. Nothing therefore can be more correct than the language of all the inspired writers; nothing more feeble than its appreciation by theological writers even with the facts and words before their eyes. But the source of their failure is quite intelligible: a sense of Christ's glory as inadequate as of the derived privileges of the Christian.

Thus we have seen the weighty and momentous fact that the Holy Spirit in distinct personal action associates Himself with the Christian. It is not only that He produces a new spiritual being and estate into which those who are Christ's are now brought: this we have had largely, but there is more insisted on here. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Not merely must one be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God (John 3: 5); not merely did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit, as Spirit of life more abundantly, when the risen Jesus breathed on them (John 20: 22); but now the Holy Ghost, personally present, guided these richly favoured saints in the conscious dignity of God's sons. There is liberty where He is, not law; yet the moral result which law demanded grace produced; for if they in dependence look to the Lord Jesus, and to their God and Father, He on His part is no spirit of weakness or of cowardice, but of power and of love and of a sound mind, and by Him are they thus led.

"For ye received not a spirit of bondage again to [or for] fear; but ye received a spirit of sonship, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (Ver. 15.) Gentiles though they were (for there is no allusion here as in Romans 7 to such as know the law), they were not brought into the spiritual condition of the saints in Old Testament times, especially indeed of those under law, who through fear of death were subject to bondage during the whole of their life. Out of this the Jewish saints were brought by the gospel, which equally met the Gentile who had never experienced the legal discipline, but had lain here and there, seemingly overlooked in their wild course of lawlessness and idolatry. The one as much as the other received a spirit of adoption or sonship, as indeed it is said elsewhere: "because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." The Holy Ghost could not but act in unison with the Son who had revealed the Father, and would give the sense of no relationship short of sons. The slaves had morally closed their history, not only by persistent rebellion, but by war to the death of the Son of God. From a lost world grace was saving, and placing those who believed in the Lord Jesus in the position of sons; and the Holy Ghost personally deigned to lead them, beside imparting a nature conformable to God and distinct from man though made good in man. It is in contrast then not merely with Gentile license and boldness, but with Jewish bondage and fear; and the Spirit gives us to cry, Abba, Father. So cried Jesus in Gethsemane, not on the cross. If we cry thus, it is the expression of dependence on and confidence in our Father, not of a suffering such as His, where His utter abandonment draws forth the still deeper and essentially distinct "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, heirs also; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if indeed we suffer with [him] that we may also be glorified with [him]." (Ver. 16, 17.)

Thus the Holy Spirit takes part in all. Does He content Himself only with imparting a new and divine nature? By no means. He has His appropriate internal witness; He Himself bears it with our spirit that we are of the very family of God, as indeed we are born of God. But now it is not alone the fact but the conscious joy of it. Christianity is not objective only, but just as remarkable for the gift by grace of inner power and comfort; the Son reveals the Father, and gives the Spirit. It is not merely the gospel believed, but a real inward witnessing of the Spirit with ours that we are God's children. There is far more no doubt; but this there is, and it is of consequence to recognize it. Some may have substituted it for the testimony to Christ and redemption; but we must avoid the error of denying it. He would not be absent from the joy of the saint. Have we not this consciousness of being God's children? Whence have we it? Is it a process of reasoning from the gospel? God forbid. Let us call realities by their right names. It is the Spirit itself witnessing with our spirit that we are children of God. How Calvinists or Arminians misuse it may be of importance in each case; but this is the truth of God, realized in every simple-minded Christian, whether opposing parties hear or forbear.

Here the reasoning, it will be remarked, is not to our being God's children, but from it. The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God: the inference is, that if children, we are also heirs. Wondrous to say, we are "heirs of God;" more wonderful still, "joint-heirs with Christ." Israel were the lot of Jehovah's inheritance. Not such is our place; we are heirs of what God possesses; and this is both asserted in all its fulness as well as accounted for in our added title — "joint-heirs with Christ." We are to share all things with Him, for as all things are His by right of creation and redemption, so are they ours by His grace who has placed in the utmost possible nearness to Himself. There is indeed the condition of suffering with Him in order that we may be glorified together; but this He makes good in all that are His. It is not suffering for Him; for all Christians do not. But all suffer with Him, who have the divine nature, even Himself as their life, in an evil world, which constantly wounds and tries those who have that nature. It will not be so in the millennial age; when, as the state of things will preclude suffering, so there will be no specific glorification with Him as the hope of such sufferers. Special trials and rewards will be no more, though there will still remain the reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ our Lord, for ever, But the reign with Him for a thousand years will be past, as also concurrently the place of suffering with Him.

Thus our association with Christ brings us into the new place which He has entered by death and resurrection, and into the relationship of sons. Yea, the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs — heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ, the Heir of all things. But this supposes moral conformity with Him in this world, before we are conformed to His image in glory as in verses 29, 30, if we are suffering together that we may be also glorified together. This suffering flows from possessing life in Him whilst passing through a scene where all is opposed to Him; and the indwelling of the Spirit, instead of hindering this holy sorrow, is rather the spring of energy both in keen apprehension and deep feeling of every way in which Christ is dishonoured, and in meek endurance of all by which we may be tried according to the will of God. Hence, if this place of suffering in the world as it now is be a necessary consequence of divine life surrounded by all that is working out its way of misery, estrangement, and rebellion against Him, it is an immense privilege to suffer with Christ, cheered along the road by the prospect of sharing His glory.

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present season [are] of no account in comparison with the coming glory to be revealed in regard to us."* No Christian doubts that the apostle estimates according to divine truth; and certainly if none had by God's sovereign will and power of the Spirit such a vivid foresight of the coming glory, none of those that followed Christ ever tasted as He of sorrows by the way. And this is made known to us that we may rest and rejoice in the reckoning. The divine excellency will then shine forth unhindered, and we shall have the fellowship of His delight everywhere.

*The phraseology seems to me choice and precise. It is not ἡμῖν, which after ἀποκαλυφθῆναι would be ambiguous and is already appropriated to the sense of receiving spiritual communication. It is not ἐν ἡμῖν, which makes or tends to make the glory concentrated and terminated in us. Εἰς ἡμᾶς leaves room for us to be reached by the glory but takes it in universally.

Far as the distance may seem between creation in general and those whom grace has now taken out of its ruin and associated in so intimate and complete a way with Christ as the Christian knows it, there is a link of the most direct and momentous sort. "For the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but on account of him who made [it] subject, in hope that† even the creation itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." Here, as it is a passage of very great interest and value, so ignorance of the truth conveyed has embarassed most of those who have sought to expound it, whether orally or in formal commentaries. There is no real difficulty where the main drift of the apostle is caught. The perplexity, as is usually the case, is brought in with notions extraneous to his reasoning. Let us then consider briefly the truth conveyed, and that which has made it obscure to the mass of readers.

†Or, "in hope: because."

Both the present sufferings and the future glory in the apostle's mind touch on the creation, which he here personifies. It is represented first of all as on the stretch of outlook, waiting for the revelation of the sons of God. Externally His sons do not differ in bodily appearance, power, or glory from the rest of mankind; they may be weak, they may suffer, as also they fall asleep or die while the Lord tarries on high. But after the resurrection or change, at His coming, they are to be manifested in glory with Christ when He is thus manifested also. Creation too awaits this blissful moment. Its deliverance from its actual misery hinges on them and their revelation.

Nor is there any ground of surprise at such a connection with men; for creation was made subject to vanity, not of course by its own will, but on his account who made it subject. Man was set by God as the head of the lower creation. When he fell, creation shared his ruin. When the sons of God are revealed at the appearing of Christ, there will be a proof that it was made dependent on them, and that the hope of emancipation is not in vain. If it was righteous that by the fall of its head creation should be subjected to vanity, how consistent and worthy of God that the redemption of His children and heirs should be followed by its glorious retrievement!

To explain this of the Gentile world, as is done by Whitby and others, is poor indeed; as also Doddridge's notion that it is merely the whole unevangelized world looking out eagerly for such a remedy and relief as the gospel brings, by which humanity would be secured from vanity and corruption, and inferior creatures from tyranny and abuse.

The apostle however is not speaking of the prevalency of the gospel of grace, but of the incoming and display of glory, and hence of the divine power which will free the creation, ruined by man, according to His own counsels. When the heirs are glorified around the great Firstborn and appear with Him in glory, then and thus is the inheritance to emerge from the thraldom under which it has long groaned, "the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." Compare Isa. 11, Isa. 12, Isa. 25, Isa. 32, Isa. 35-51, Isa. 60-65; Jer. 31-33; Ezek. 36-48; Dan. 2: 44, 45; Dan. 7: 14, 27; Dan. 12; Hosea 1: 11; Hosea 2; Hosea 3: 5; Joel 3; Amos 9; Obadiah 17, Obadiah 21; Jonah (typically); Micah 4, Micah 5, Micah 7; Nahum 1: 15; Hab. 3; Zeph. 3; Haggai 2: 6-9, 21-23; Zech. 2: 4-13, Zech. 6, Zech. 8-14; Mal. 3, Mal. 4. It is the regeneration of which our Lord spoke when His rights shall be made good in the full and duly ordered blessing of Israel on earth. (Matt. 19.) It is the administration of the fulness of times when God's will is to gather up together all things in Christ, the things which are in the heavens and the things which are on the earth, even in Him in whom we also have obtained an inheritance. (Eph. 1: 10, 11.) For the reconciliation is to take in all things, not merely the saints who are now reconciled. (Col. 1.) This will be the rest of God (Heb. 4); and then will be manifested the wide and various circles of blessedness and glory, fruit of pure grace, to which we are come before they come in fact for the earth (Heb. 12), the world-kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, who shall reign unto the ages of the ages (Rev. 11), as is set forth in a crowd of other scriptures.

The creation was not made (as it now is) in decay, degradation, suffering, death. That God originally designed that it should be in such confusion and misery would be hard to digest; but the scriptures teach the contrary, as it shows that, whilst subjected to its present disorder on account of man's guilt and ruin, it longs not in vain for deliverance, but awaits in hope His revelation in glory. The very struggle of everything for life and against sickness witnesses that it is fallen to rise. Thus not only is the riddle of what now is solved by God's account of the past, but His word casts its own bright light on the future; for, though subjected to vanity, it was "in hope that even the creation itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." It is only by faith that any enter into the liberty of grace; and this is the portion even now of God's children under the gospel. Creation cannot of necessity know such liberty, being unintelligent even where it is animate; but even itself shall exchange the slavery of corruption by which it is now held down for the liberty of glory when the children of God are glorified. Thus all will be vindicated on God's part, and all in due order. There can be no communion between us and creation in grace; there will be in glory when the power of God deals with all creation in honour of Christ's death, whose blood has bought not the treasure only but the field, the world which contained it, yea, all things.

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth together and travaileth in pain together until now; and not only [so], but ourselves, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body. For by hope were we saved; but a hope seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he also hope for? But if we hope for what we see not, we await with patience." (Ver. 22-25.) Here is the most decisive evidence, were more wanted, of the distinction between the creation* on the one hand and the Christian on the other. And observe that the contrast is drawn most sharply and exclusively; for "all the creation" is distinguished from "ourselves." Again, the mistake of embracing impenitent souls within "the creation" here intended is no less plain; for it is certain that, as their will is engaged, contrary to what is said of the subjection of the creation to vanity, so their earnest expectation awaits anything rather than the revelation of the sons of God, and they will be cast into hell instead of being delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of glory.

*Theodoret (in loc. ed. Sirmondi, tom. iii.) seems to err on the side of comprehending too much; for he includes not only the material universe, heaven, earth, sea, air, sun, moon, all the visible, but the invisible besides, angels, archangel(s?), powers, authorities, principalities. It is true that he is not consistent; for, in commenting on verse 20, he is obliged to restrain the subjection to vanity to all the visible creation by the decree of the Creator; yet in verse 22 he extends it even to the invisible on the rather far-fetched plea that, if angels rejoice over a repentant sinner, they must needs be saddened at the sight of our delinquencies. The same writer, I may add, is quite wrong, like others since his day, in fancying that by the first-fruits of the Spirit, the apostle implies the gift to us of manifold more of the Spirit in the age to come. The reader will notice how commonly current errors are due to the fathers, or perhaps independently to the same corrupt root of unbelief which slights the teaching of the scriptures.

As Christians then we are not deceived by appearances and the mind and will of man who would fain hide the testimony to his own guilt and ruin in the wretchedness of creation dragged down by his fault. For we know that it is all in groans and throes till now: neither Christ's coming in grace and humiliation, nor the gospel preached in the power of the Spirit sent down from heaven set this aside, but called believers to glory above it, and to virtue in spite of it. Yet the groaning of creation was not only unintelligent but selfish, though in no way a matter of indifference to God, whatever it may be to dreamy or hard philosophy. And ourselves too, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan in ourselves, awaiting as sonship the redemption of our bodies. For the body of the believer has not yet experienced the power of Christ, and thus we have our link with the groaning creation. And the Spirit gives us so much the more to groan because we have access by faith into this favour in which we stand and we exult in hope of the glory of God. Our groaning therefore is not unintelligent, nor is it simply because of our personal suffering; but in fellowship with Christ, in horror of abounding evil, in love of good despised, in yearning after man and in desire for God's truth and majesty. The Spirit, though of power and love and discreetness, makes us so much the more long for the day, when we shall be changed and manifestly sons of God as sons of the resurrection. It is not the sorrow of ignorant unbelieving uncertainty, but of the inward mind and heart over what is far from God and unlike Him, because of knowing what He is in Christ and in full confidence that we shall be like Him in that day. For we have only salvation by hope, not yet seen or in present possession; we hope for it complete according to Christ risen, and with patience await. It is well worth while.

We have seen the function of the Spirit in bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, as we saw previously the new condition which He forms in contrast with the flesh, and in which we now find ourselves by grace — in Spirit if so be that the Spirit of God dwells in us. Then we had the apostle contrasting the creation as it now groans with the liberty of glory when the sons of God, the heirs, are manifested in glory at the appearing of Christ; and along with this, the groaning of the saints, whose bodies are not yet delivered, no longer because of selfish feelings but in the interests and sympathies of divine love.

Now we are told of the relation of the indwelling Spirit to this state of weakness and suffering.

"And likewise the Spirit also joineth help to our weakness; for we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedeth* with unutterable groanings, and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he intercedeth for saints according to God."

*The received text inserts here ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν contrary to the best authorities. It seems to me implied, and needless to say, if not rather narrowing the thought. In the following verse we have ὑπὲρ ἁγίων expressed in its due place.

Thus the blessed Spirit of God will not be severed from our weakness, now that He deigns to take His abode in us because of Christ's redemption. Even he who could work signs and miracles did not differ from his brethren by exemption from infirmity. Rather was Paul, the greatest of apostles, more than any other sensible of it. Caught up to the third heaven (whether in the body or out of it, he could not tell), he gloried of such an one, not of himself save in his weaknesses. And when he prayed to the Lord for the removal of the thorn for the flesh given to him, what was the answer? Not its departure; but "my grace sufficeth for thee; for my power is made perfect in weakness." "Most gladly therefore," says he, "will I rather glory in my weaknesses that the power of Christ may rest upon me."

It was not otherwise with the perfect pattern of all excellency in man here below. "Jesus wept." He was deeply pained, sighing sorely in His Spirit. He knew what to say and what to do, conscious that the Father always heard Him. But we do not know what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself pleads for us with groanings unutterable. It is not now simply Christ with us but the Spirit in us, condescending to give our groanings a character entirely above the mere feelings of human sorrow. We feel the evil of the misery; we do not know what to ask; but at least we groan. Wondrous grace! the Spirit associates Himself with our groaning; and the searcher of the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit. Instead of slighting the ignorance which cannot ask a suitable means of relief, He interprets us by His mind who dwells in us, and who intercedes for saints (for of them only is it a question) according to God. It is not merely "according to his will," as in the Authorized Version, but according to Himself. The inference of Macedonius from the passage is the working of the spirit of man wholly ignorant of God's mind which he altogether missed; nay, it is worse than this, it betrays the beguiling power of the serpent, for it evinces that enmity to God and man which not only loses all the comfort of the truth but turns the word to the dishonour of the Holy Spirit. For the unhappy man concluded from the text that the Spirit must be inferior to God and a creature, because He prays to God for us. He knew not grace, he appreciated not the moral glory of God which stoops to serve, as love must do, if it save sinners in an evil world. Man can understand power in God; but love, especially love active spite of evil, humbling itself, and sympathizing, he overlooks and denies even to the denial of God Himself in those of whom it is predicated. The believer knows it as his deepest joy, and never adores with so full a sense of what God is as when he sees the Father declared in the Son, and knows that even his groans come up before God clothed with a divine character because of the Holy Ghost who is in us by the grace of our God. Just as evil spirits identified the miserable man who was thus possessed with their demoniacal character, and an individual was called Legion because many demons were entered into him; so the Spirit of God not less but more in divine goodness and power identifies us with Himself spite of our weakness and our ignorance, not for a moment lowering His own dignity but meeting us in love as only God could, and as even God would only in virtue of redemption.

These verses are a transitional link from the work of the Spirit in us to the bold challenge in the conclusion of the chapter (ver. 31-39), grounded on the assurance that God is for us against all adversaries and spite of every weakness. That they may be rightly viewed thus is apparent. First, there is a distinct allusion, in the opening words, to the previous clause, which traced the value and comfort of the Spirit in helping our infirmity. For He, when we know not what to pray for as we ought, Himself intercedes for us with unutterable groanings, yet according to God. Secondly, on the other hand, they are in bearing still more intimately a groundwork for what follows; for they set forth in a striking and connected manner the purpose of God as far as it is consistent with our epistle to treat of it.

We do not know what we should pray for as we ought; "but we do know that to those that love God all things work together for good, to those that are called according to purpose. Because those whom he foreknew he also predestined [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he should be the firstborn among many brethren. But whom he predestined, those he also called; and whom he called, those he also justified. but whom he justified, those he also glorified." (Ver. 28-30.) The chain is thus complete from His own purpose in eternity to their glorification for eternity. It is the activity, extent, and scope of the grace of God for its objects apart from all circumstances, and, as we shall see later, in spite of them, let them be what they may, because they are but creature causes or effects, whilst God is for us and supreme above all, not a mere causa causata, but the one causa causans.

Even Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12, did not know what to pray for as he ought; but the Lord was faithful and made the sufficiency of His grace known — an answer far better than the prayer. And yet not Paul only, but even we know that all things work together for good — not merely shall, but do now, and this for others as well as ourselves, for those that love God. Otherwise sorrows irritate. Here they are twice blessed, blessed to those exercised by them, blessed to other children of God; in short, to those that love Him and to those that are called according to purpose, for this is here carefully stated, lest the love of God on our part might enfeeble the thought of grace on His. Hence purpose and calling according to it are put forward.

It is important to observe that the apostle does not speak of a passive or naked foreknowledge (ver. 29) as if God only saw beforehand what some would be, and do, or believe. His foreknowledge is of persons, not of their state or conduct; it is not what, but "whom" He foreknew.

Further, those whom He foreknew, all of them and no others, He also fore-ordained to be conformed to the image of His Son. It is plain and well to note that we have the end bound up with the beginning; for the conformity here spoken of is not of that sort which is now produced in the soul practically by the Spirit through the word. The latter is most true, and often insisted on elsewhere, as in John 13, John 15; Rom. 12, Rom. 13; 1 Cor. 5, 1 Cor. 6; 2 Cor. 3: 18, 2 Cor. 7: 1, Gal. 5: 16, 25; Eph. 2: 10, Eph. 4, Eph. 5, etc. 1 John 3: 2, 3, combines both: "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him is he is." This is the conformity to the image of His Son of which the apostle here speaks; whereas the moral work in the heart of the believer is spoken of in the following verse: "And every man that hath this hope in him (i.e., founded on Christ) purifieth himself even as he (Christ) is pure." There is and can be no less a standard for the Christian, whatever may have been the rule by which the Jew was tried. The purifying goes on now within us, but answers rather to the central teaching of our chapter; the likeness to Christ in glory, which will be seen in us when Christ is manifested, is the conformity to His image which is here assured to us.

It seems harsh, however, with Augustine and others to drag in sins here among the "all things;" for though no doubt grace can turn everything to account, scripture is the more careful to guard against the least real appearance of dealing lightly with that which is morally offensive to God.

Thus God fore-ordained the objects of His foreknowledge to conformity with the image of His Son in resurrection glory. Then they will be as He, according to divine counsels, in the predestined condition of man, the first-born among many brethren. The corn of wheat which died, but sprang up again, will have borne much fruit, Himself alike the pattern and the power; for nothing short of this meets the purpose according to which we have been called. The saints shall be manifestly then sons of God being sons of the resurrection, when He will transform the body of humiliation into conformity to His body of glory. For if God delights in His own Son as the risen man, such and nothing less is the destiny to which He has ordained us beforehand. Nevertheless, whatever the communion, rightly will our Lord have His due place in that bright family — the chief or "Firstborn among many brethren."

Verse 30 pursues the matter, connecting the ways of God in time with what is before and out of time. "But whom he predestinated, those he also called." It is not only the call of grace in a general way, but made effectual to such as He foreknew and foreordained. "And whom he called, those he also justified." Justification, like the call, is in time, and even subsequent to the call by the gospel. The Calvinists greatly err who teach that Christ rose because we were justified, a notion as subversive of sound doctrine as of holiness, and quite opposed to the scriptures which bind it up with faith.* But this is not the only danger here.

*It is mere ignorance, and a superficial mind, to infer that διά must mean the same thing in the two clauses of Romans 4: 25 any more than "for" by which our translators render it. In the first it means "because of," in the second, "for the sake of;" or "on account of" in both cases, but with a force decidedly different, as Romans 5: 1 ought to prove to any fair mind. We cannot be justified apart from faith, but on that principle and by that only.

For on the other side the Arminians are in error who apply συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (conformed to the image of His Son) to holiness, as verse 30 abundantly confirms. For while foreknowledge, predestination, calling, and justification are set out in regular order, the series is suddenly closed by the words "but whom he justified, those he also glorified," without one word about that spiritual conformity which we all confess to be a necessary condition in the salvation of a soul.

Was this omission an oversight of man, or divine intention? The latter only, I am persuaded; and with a wisdom by no means hard to discern. We are here in presence of the apostle's unfolding of God's purpose in its application to us and our security in the face of all difficulties and dangers. Now it is clear that the inner work would draw off to questions of our state. However important this may be, it were out of place here, besides the fact that it had been already insisted on with care and fulness after the opening verses of this chapter. In its own place the Holy Spirit had pressed it strongly and with solemn warning for any and every soul bearing the Lord's name. But here God would give the believer the unmingled comfort of what He is for us; and this excludes what He does within us, wholesome and indispensable though it may be.

It will be observed too that (ἐδόξασεν) "glorified" is an aorist, no less than the other verbs in verse 30. This is due to a similar reason. All is looked at from God's side and purpose, not as if the call, justification, and glorification were already accomplished facts, but because the Spirit is emphatically asserting the whole from first to last, as assured in His eyes and by His word who does these things, known from eternity in His own everlasting now.

We now enter on the distinct portion which closes this division of the epistle, where the apostle interrogates and, I may say, challenges all adversaries in presence of the rich and varied provisions of redemption.

"What then shall we say to these things? If God [is] for us, who [shall be] against us? He who spared not his own Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" (Ver. 31, 32.)

It is no longer that we are in Christ and Christ in us, nor is it the witness and work of the Spirit in us whether in joy or sorrow; but the deduction from all that God is for us, not only superior to all that would hurt us, but leading to the bold question, Who dare be against us? All is measured by God's gift of His own Son, not spared but delivered up for us all; a plain and irrefragable answer to every doubt both of the reality of His love and of its extent; and this for the entire family of God. There was one object above all dear and precious to God, His own Son; and it was His own Son whom for us He spared in no way, but for us all surrendered Him to all that is dreadful in our eyes, to His heart infinitely worse — who knew His Father's love and felt evil as none but He could. That God should in His grace secure all things to us after such a gift is what we cannot but feel to be easily understood and suitable to His love, if not even necessarily due to the glory of Christ. Nothing can be lacking by the way: in the end we shall share all things with Him who is the Heir of all things. He made all, has reconciled all and will take all under His glorious sway; but we shall reign with Him. He is head over all to the Church which is His body, says our apostle elsewhere. Here he does not pursue the counsels of God but affirms the principle of grace in righteousness as applied to our individual relationship. It was no sudden thought but a settled design which went right through to glory with Christ, after the full trial and demonstration of the uniform and complete failure of the first man. It is now a question of the Second man and of those that are His; and thus it is as plain as it is sure that God is for them; and if so, who is against them? Our sins have been remitted, sin in the flesh condemned, ourselves believing in Jesus and His blood, yea dead with Him and alive in Him to God: who then is against us? God has proved Himself for us where we had most ground for dread, and dread of Him above all; for against Him had we sinned. But in nothing has He shown His grace so deep and conspicuous as in our hopelessly evil state; in nothing so exhibited the worth and efficacy of the redemption through His Son. We are entitled then in faith to ask: "If God [is] for us, who [shall be] against us?" We are entitled to count that He who spared not His own Son will along with Him lavish on us everything good for us now, everything glorious by and by.

If His Son is the measureless measure of His love to us, "who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" In this epistle the Spirit glories in connecting the objects He is handling with God. Not only is the righteousness, the grace, the glory, God's, but so also is the gospel at the very commencement, and so here are the elect. The enemy had better beware of meddling with God's elect. What did Satan make of it when it was only Joshua the type of One greater, only about Jerusalem that he dared to resist? Did not Jehovah then take up the matter for the encouragement of the guilty whom He meant to save in sovereign mercy? Did He not declare that He had chosen Jerusalem, a brand plucked out of the fire? Not more distant but nearer is His relationship with us; not darker but far more clear the revelation of His grace to us since the death and resurrection of His own Son. Just as God interposed for the high priest in Zechariah 3, so here (says the apostle), "[It is] God that justifieth: who [is] he that condemneth?" This I think is the true way of arranging as well as punctuating the clauses. The Authorized Version impairs the link between the end of verse 33 and the beginning of verse 34, as also between the rest of verse 34 and verse 35; while others seem to me to injure the force by putting a note of interrogation at the end of verses 33 and 34.

Remark here that God is represented as the Justifier. It is not only that we have been justified by faith, justified before God, but He justifies. How does He justify? Is it not with that absolute perfection in which He carries on His work and His ways? Is it less perfect where He justifies those He destines to be conformed to the image of His Son in virtue of His infinite work on the cross?

But if there be an analogy with one prophet, there is a clear allusion to another. Isaiah 1. introduces God's elect Servant, substituted for Israel who had rejected Him, and shows that He was not more certainly the obedient and suffering One than the Jehovah God of Israel who made heaven and earth. Hence whatever the indignities He endured, the issue is sure, and all through He reckons on the fullest vindication. He in the midst of His shame, though thinking it not robbery to be on equality with God, can say "the Lord Jehovah will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up." (Isaiah 50: 7-9.)

What Christ says in the prophecy the apostle does not hesitate to apply to the Christian. How blessed is this identification! It is the more striking too because immediately follow words descriptive neither of Himself nor of the Christian who now enjoys His righteous vindication along with Him, but of the godly remnant who have to walk in darkness, though trusting in the name of Jehovah while they obey the voice of His servant (ver. 10), and of the godless mass who with increasing unbelief turn to every refuge of lies to end all in sorrow, shame, and judgment. (Ver. 11) This brings out very definitely the peculiar blessedness of the Christian through known redemption, and the indwelling of the Spirit who glorifies Christ in their behalf as cannot be with even the righteous remnant.

It was needful to point out our distinctive position before a psalm is quoted (ver. 36) where we are viewed in circumstances analogous to theirs. For both are true: we have much that is common to all saints till Christ comes; but we and they have respectively what is characteristic and peculiar. Compare Psalm 44: 22.

"[It is] God that justifieth: who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, but rather was raised, who is also at [the] right hand of God, who also intercedeth for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? even as it is written, 'For thy sake we are being put to death all the day; we were reckoned sheep for slaughter.' Nay but in all these things we more than conquer through him that loved us." (Ver. 32-37.)

Here not only have we Christ presented in the full extent of His work from His death on the cross through resurrection to His presence and activity of intercession for us at God's right hand, as the ground for the challenge, Who shall sever us from the love of Christ but the difficulties and perils and sufferings for us along the road are mustered and arrayed in all their strength in order to prove its fidelity and unfathomable depth. Certainly, if we now, as the godly of old and ere long in the latter day, taste somewhat the bitterness of the way and the obstacles the enemy puts before us, Christ drank that cup and more to the dregs. Not only did He drink what was and could be His alone; but which of our afflictions was He a stranger to? Deeper by far, and felt according to the competency of His person to estimate and suffer, they became only the demonstration of His perfect love to us, Himself all the while the faithful witness. Christ who is risen and on high has been in them all, having gone down incomparably lower than the lowest of us. None of these then shall separate us from the love of Christ.

Thus God has proved Himself for us, first, in the gift of His own Son and of all things with Him; secondly, in justifying us Himself according to His value for Christ and His work; thirdly, in the love of Christ who has borne witness of its strength here below in all possible trials that could separate us from any other as surely as He is exercising it for us before God in virtue of redemption. "In all these things we more than conquer through him that loved us."

"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,* nor height nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ver. 38, 39.) Here we have still deeper difficulties, not the visible, but the invisible, the spiritual; but after all (sum them all up as the apostle does in his climax), they are but the creature, and they are arrayed at their strongest in order to be blotted out as nothing in presence of the all-vanquishing love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

*This is the true place of δυνάμεις according to ample authority of the highest order. The oldest Greek MSS. which give the place of "powers" as in the common text are two uncials of the ninth century, but they are supported by several very ancient versions which were (probably through inadvertence) swayed by Ephesians 1: 21, Ephesians 3: 10, Ephesians 6: 12; and Colossians 2: 15.

For here, as the suited winding up, let it be remarked that it is the love of God, rather than of Christ as in verse 35. Each is exactly in place; the love of Christ as evident in suffering to the utmost for us here, and animated with the self-same love in His intercession in heaven for us who suffer still where He suffered; the love of God none the less real if less in sight, His immense and unchanging love whose grace planned all, gave all, forgave all, justified all, sustains all, and will bring all to that fulness of love and joy and glory which can satisfy such a God and the redemption of such a Saviour. If "the love of Christ" is our boast for its tender fidelity in fathoming all depths and pleading our cause above all heights, the immutable strength of "the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord," before all and through all and to all eternity, imparts the fullest rest and confidence to our hearts.

ROMANS 9

The apostle now enters on a new section of the epistle in Romans 9-11, the main object of which is to reconcile the indiscriminate call of Gentiles and Jews with the special promises made to Israel. In this task he overthrows the fleshly pretensions of those who rested on nothing but a line of natural descent from Abraham; he proves that special promise has from the first been the principle of God; he points to sovereign mercy as the only hope for a people such as even Israel had shown themselves to be; he annihilates the poor and selfish and proud reasoning which arraigns the rights and righteousness of God, when the fact is that man is utterly unrighteous before Him; he demonstrates that according to the Jewish prophets Israel would be rejected, Gentiles called, and only a remnant of the ancient people saved; he shows that their rejection was owing to their failure in meeting the law of righteousness which they had deliberately chosen instead of the righteousness which grace gives by faith, while the Gentiles received it gladly, Christ being the grand test for both; he insists that this did not hinder his love and prayer for Israel that they might be saved, but salvation could only be by accepting Christ the end of the law for righteousness to the believer according to the secret of grace intimated in Deuteronomy 30, supported and carried out by Isaiah 28: 16 and Joel 2: 32, which last opens the door of faith to more than Israel, even to those who, if they had not the law, might hear the glad tidings of good things (Isaiah 52), which God sends out. He points out that the very unbelief of this on the part of the Jews fulfils Isaiah 53; that the Psalms (Ps. 19) attest the wide-spread universal message of God, and that, while the law warned them of God's provoking them to jealousy by a no-people, the prophet (Isaiah 65) is bolder still and explicitly announces God found by those who sought Him not (Gentiles), while Israel are condemned as a disobedient and gainsaying people. But the apostle would not close the subject without the most distinct statement, as well as proof from the prophets themselves, that God had not finally cast off His people Israel: first, there is always a remnant according to the election of grace, of which the apostle himself was witness; secondly, their fall was expressly to provoke Israel to jealousy, and therefore not to reject them even for a time; and, thirdly, on the ruin of the Gentile by unbelief and slight of God's goodness as of Israel before, all Israel shall be saved according to the written word of God (Isaiah 59), all His ways of mercy and wisdom causing the apostle to burst forth into thanksgiving and adoration. Such is the general outline and argument, which maintains responsibility on the one side and the promises of God on the other, and reconciles the indiscriminate ways of God in the gospel now with the accomplishment of a special glory for Israel as well as the general blessing of Gentiles or the nations in the age to come on earth. Heavenly grace is not in question here. Hence it is the olive tree, not the one new man, of which we read.

The apostle then begins this most instructive episode, in which he explains the ways of God, with the solemn assurance of his fervent affection, and hence his distress for Israel in their present low estate and exposure to judgment.

"Truth I say in Christ; I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in [the] Holy Spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart, for I was wishing* — I myself — to be a curse from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to flesh." (Ver. 1-3.) It is plain that he alludes there to the love Moses had proved so well, as God records it in the law; and he intimates that he loved them not a whit less. It was a wish that had passed through his soul. He does not refer to the days of his Pharisaism; for great as his zeal was, his love as a Christian and an apostle was far deeper as well as wholly unselfish. In his old unenlightened condition there was no question of such a feeling for them; as he had no right sense of their peril any more than of his own. On the other hand he does not lay it down as the deliberate wish of his present mind; but as a passionate self-sacrificing desire which had been in his heart, impossible no doubt, but evincing the strength of his burning love for Israel, as well as his sense of their extreme peril and utter ruin.† Hence he dwells on his ties of relationship with them.

*There is no doubt that the imperfect will bear the idiomatic sense given in the Authorized Version: "I could wish." (Comp. Acts 25: 22; Gal. 4: 20.) The question is, whether the apostle does not go farther here and affirm that he had actually so wished, not soberly, but still as a fact, not that he did or could so wish as a fixed principle. So the Vulgate's "optabam," supported by the other ancient versions apparently, spite of the Latin of the Polyglott. Erasmus gives "optarem," and in the same sense E. Schmid, Schott, Naebe, etc.

† Jesus alone could have this as His distinctive suffering and boast in love. It was to endure all and be made a curse and sin, and this not only for His brethren according to flesh but for His worst enemies. And in this, at cost of all, He lets us know what God is in love to us, but in His righteousness withal.

This leads him to speak of their privileges. Those who hate others lose no opportunity of detracting from them and denying at any rate favours that seem peculiarly theirs from God. Love makes the most of what is possessed by its object. Judged by such a test, there could be no doubt of the love of the apostle who sets out the marks of God's goodness to Israel as none else had ever done before, not even Gamaliel, least of all his Sadducean enemies. Who could produce from tradition, yea, from the living oracles themselves such a bright roll as Paul here unfolds before those who ignorantly taxed him with making light of the blessings God had vouchsafed to his kinsmen according to flesh? "who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the lawgiving and the service and the promises; whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] Christ as to flesh, that is over all God blessed unto the ages. Amen." (Ver. 4, 5.)

Thus he gives them the divinely conferred name of victory with God and man, which they derived from their father Jacob; then he alludes to the name Jehovah deigned to call them by in His summons to Pharaoh — "my son, my firstborn." Next he directs attention to the shechinah or glory-cloud which led out the people from Egypt through the wilderness into Canaan. After this he speaks of those solemn covenants which God made first with the fathers, but assuredly at least including that which He will make in the latter day with the sons. Then he names the lawgiving, before which all the boasts of ancient or modern times are but the merest smoke compared with the blaze of Sinai or the marvellous condescension which deigned from the tabernacle to treat of their least as well as greatest matters. The religions services or ordinances of worship next follow; for they justly claim to be the only ritual with its priesthood which God ever instituted for a people on earth. This however would have been short indeed without "the promises;" as these naturally are followed by "the fathers," and all is crowned by the Messiah. And here beyond doubt the apostle does not hide His glory. Let the Jews say all they might of Him whom they expected, they can never rise above what Paul delights to tell of Messiah. Alas! they would fain lower Him to the measure of their own desires; and, worse still, modern unbelief in Christendom answers to the old darkness of Judaism. The apostle however does not more surely lay down His descent from the fathers as to flesh, than His proper Godhead in His other and divine nature, "He that is" (says he) "above all God blessed for ever. Amen." A more illustrious testimony there cannot be. But Satan for a while had blinded the eyes of Israel, so that they forsake their own mercies and deny a truth which, did they but see it, they would recognize as both their brightest jewel and the solid ground of all their hoped for blessing.

Very needless difficulty has been raised about the terms ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός.  The Noetian heretics of old drew from this and other scriptures that God the Father suffered. Others in opposing so flagrant an error were too anxious to restrict ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων to the Father, especially as He is unquestionably so qualified in Ephesians 4: 6. But there is no real difficulty; and it is only ignorance or heterodoxy which finds any; for scripture is plain in attributing not merely θειότητα but θεότητα to Christ. He is God, as is the Father, and also the Holy Ghost. They are each and all styled Jehovah, the name incommunicable to the creature, let it be ever so exalted. The Son did not deem it a matter of plunder to be on equality with God. He emptied Himself in taking a servant's shape; whereas even the archangel is at best but a servant and never can be other: it is Michael's blessedness and part to be serving God. Not so the Son: He humbled Himself to take the place of a servant, being in His own proper nature and dignity infinitely above it. He learned obedience by the things which He suffered; He had only known what it was to command; but, taking that position in communion with the love and counsels of the Father, He was therein the perfect pattern of all lowly obedience. How base to take advantage of His grace to despise His glory!-to be so occupied with the humiliation to which He stooped to glorify God the Father, and show us both God and man in His own person and ways, and above all to accomplish redemption — to be so filled, I may say, with the circumstances of shame into which He went down in love as to forget who He is in Himself that for us descended so low! No; He that was the perfect man was very God, equally with the Father and the Holy Ghost. All things were made not only by Him but for Him.

But is not this true of the Father? Assuredly: yet this in no way impeaches the title of the Son. Scripture is plain as to both. God as such in the true and full sense is and must be supreme. This attaches to the persons in the Godhead. Differences there may be and are; but not in this. To deny supremacy of the Son or of the Spirit is to fall into the Arian heresy or the Macedonian. No doubt, as in Ephesians 4: 5, Christ is contradistinguished as "one Lord" from the Father; and so similarly in 1 Corinthians 8: 6. This however, far from derogating from His intrinsic divine glory, only shows us another glory which He receives as the exalted man who is made Lord and Christ. He, and He distinctively, has the official place of lordship, though of course as a term of dignity it belongs alike to Father, Son, and Spirit; and so any one can see who will take the trouble of comparing the scriptures.

There is no discrepancy in the authorities here that affects the sense, as in 1 Timothy 3: 16. Manuscripts and versions proclaim the truth with an unwavering voice: Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. The notion that Θεός is wanting in the citation of the early ecclesiastical writers is a mistake. They all read as we do, unless we conceive that Chrysostom omitted ὁ before ὤν, as, the Augian and Boernerian MSS. did τό before κατὰ σάρκα, which was probably mere inadvertence. What the Pseudo-Ignatius (ep. Tars.) or the Constit. Apostol.* may say is of no moment. As to Athanasius, not only is it not true that he ever wrote περὶ δὲ τοῦ εἷναι ἐπι πάντων Θεὸν τοῦ σταυρώθεντα φοβοῦμαι ("I fear to say that the crucified One is God over all"), but it was not even the Pseudo-Athanasius who is so represented, but the Pseudo-Arius in answering the citation of this passage. Wetstein therefore was wrong here and betrayed his Arian animus. (See Athanasii Opp. i. 125 B, ed. Col. 1686.) Erasmus is equally wrong in thinking that Cyprian and Hilary left out "Deus;" for it is only omitted by careless editors, and is found in all good copies. As to Origen, his wildness was such as to weaken the weight of his assertions; but what he does say, in answer to Celsus' charge that the Christians made Christ God the Father or greater still, is that, while some might be hasty enough to aver τὸν Σωτῆρα τὸν μέγιστον ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεόν· ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι γε ἡμεῖς τοιοῦτον οἱ πειθόμενοι αὐτῳ λέγοντι, κ.τ.λ. Now I do not admit that Origen (contra Cels. 7: 14) was justified in quoting the last clause of John 14: 28 (which he misquotes) where it was a question of the Son's Deity, while the text speaks of His place of earthly subjection. But even he does not go so far as to deny supreme Godhead to the Son; he does deny, as all taught of God must, the monstrous folly that the Son has power over God the Father. The doubtful opinion of Eusebius may indeed be cited, who did restrict, it would seem, τὸν ἑπὶ πάντων Θεόν to the Father;† but it is well known that he was feeble as to the great truth of Christ's Godhead if not an Arian. But these seem really all who have been exaggerated into "multi patres qui Christum τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεόν appellari posse negant" (Griesbach in loco), save indeed that by manifest fallacy it is assumed that to call the Father so is to deny it of the Son. But this is only the mistake handed down through Wetstein to the critic of Jena. The fact is that the fathers as a whole applied our text to the Lord Jesus without a suspicion of its incompatibility with Ephesians 4: 6. They are both equally true, is the Father and the Son are equally God. I grant that they speculated dangerously sometimes; and of their crude assertions controversy and heresy have availed themselves: the latter to cover its aberration from revealed truth; the former to make councils or the Pope the only securer of the truth, as against the earlier fathers and (what is worse) holy scripture. But from Irenaeus to Theophylact among Greeks, and from Tertullian to the middle ages among the Latins, it could be easily shown that the passage was accepted as we have it now in the Authorized Version and in the ordinary orthodox sense. Cyril of Alexandria is most express in contradicting from this text the Emperor Julian who was rash enough to say that Paul did not speak of Jesus as God. Nor is there a single name of sound reputation opposed to this.

*Even these spurious pieces seem to be only opposing the Patripassian or Sabellian notion (i.e., that the God and Father suffered), and affirming that He who did suffer was Jesus, not His God and Father who is over all.

†I am pained, but bound, to protest once more against such words as are allowed to continue from edition to edition in Dean Alford's work (in loco). "That our Lord (says he) is not in the strict exclusive sense, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός, every Christian will admit, that title being reserved for the Father." Every clause is a grievous blunder. Our Lord is in the strictest sense what He is said not to be, for ὁ ὣν ἐπὶ π. θ. is even stronger than ὁ ἐπὶ π. θ. Nor is it true that the Father is such in the "exclusive" sense, as he says; nor is it reserved for Him in a sense stricter than for the Son. He allows that Christ is ἐπὶ πάντων Θεός. Yet this, though true, is not what the apostle teaches, but a proposition about Christ still more stringent than his expositor essays to deny. I trust and am willing to believe that the Dean of Canterbury wished neither to lower our Lord nor to adhere to a most objectionable statement; and therefore would one beg the correction on so grave a matter of words which neither faith nor yet logic can justify. To reason from human order to the divine nature and relations is ground as unsafe as it is false. No doubt in the creature, being essentially limited, the highest place for one excludes another. But it is the direct road to the worst gulf of error so to think of the Godhead, as to which we have only to believe what is revealed from on high. This may be hard to the natural mind; but it is unambiguous, and too clear for faith to deny or explain away.

The ingenuity of criticism however, having neither various readings nor ancient versions to invoke, is not content with misrepresenting the testimony of the early christian writers and has strained itself in the most violent efforts to effect a diversion by the help of points; as it is well known that they are wanting in the most ancient copies. The Complutensian editors punctuate fairly. Erasmus, not in his earlier editions but later, suggested a period after σάρκα, as had been done before by the writers of two MSS. of the eleventh and twelfth centuries usually numbered 5 and 47 in the conventional list of Pauline copies. Lachmann and Tischendorf acted on this; and Vater clenched the rent quite as effectually by putting the cut-off clause or clauses within marks of parenthesis ended by a note of admiration. Now not only is this severance, however managed, in opposition to the mass of punctuated manuscripts, all ancient versions and citations, but, what is of more weight still, it is contrary to the invariable idiom employed to express such a blessing (or on the contrary a curse). The regular formula is to open the sentence with εὐλογητός or some kindred word.* Here therefore to bear regularly the desired punctuation the words should have run: — Εὐλογητὸς ὁ ἐπί π. θ., the ὤν in this case being worse than useless. The only apparent exception produced is from the Septuagint of Psalm 67, (68) 19, κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός. But judging by the old Latin quoted in Holmes' and Parsons' note, "Dominus Deus benedictus est," it is no exception, because it is an assertion about God, not an ejaculatory blessing. The latter follows immediately; and then the usual order appears. The former clause may indeed be an interpolation; as there is no Hebrew text to found it on.

*Even Socinus was clear-sighted enough to see this and honest enough to acknowledge it.

Further, the incongruity of such a doxology here, remembering the apostle's grief just expressed and the relation of the Jews to the Messiah, is also a decisive disproof; and, lastly, it would utterly mar the beautiful antithesis so characteristic of the apostle, even in the opening of this very epistle, in which he contrasts the human line of the Messiah with His divine dignity.

Another mode of punctuating, also suggested by Erasmus (who perhaps did not know that a Viennese MS. 71 of the twelfth century, represents it), and adopted by Locke, places the stop after πάντων with a shorter clause taken as the blessing, and is even more objectionable, as it is pressed by the additional difficulty that we ought in that case to have the article with Θεός. It should stand Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τ. αἱ. ἀμήν. But after all it would not effect what is desired, for it would connect ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων with the Christ; and it is impossible to have a stricter predication of supremacy. It is not merely, as Hippolytus and others thought, that the Father delivered all things to the Son, an important but different truth. Here we have what He is; and He is over all, being essentially divine.

Conjectural emendation of the text is another device of unbelievers to defraud the Lord of His glory; but this may be dismissed into its native obscurity. Even the Grotian expedient of dropping Θεός is contrary to all authority of MSS., and would be useless if conceded; for ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων is the strongest affirmation in itself of divine supremacy. Quite as futile was the effort to lower the sense of Θεός by reference to 2 Thess. 2: 4, and to translate the clause here, "who is as God," etc. For, first, the supposed analogy is cast out of that verse on the best authority; and secondly, it would tell, if genuine, in the opposite way; for certainly the man of sin will not claim to be God in an inferior sense. The absence of the article is a sign that character is meant to be conveyed, and has nothing to do with inferiority. Compare Romans 1: 21.

On the whole then the reader may rest assured of both the text and the sense of this most impressive testimony to Christ the importance of which may be in some measure inferred from the evident desire of so many since the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants, without reckoning Arians or Unitarians, who have done what they could to neutralize its force. Thanks be to God who vouchsafes the truth to be in us and to abide with us for ever.

Two things then the apostle had asserted with the utmost strength in the preceding verses of the chapter — his burning love for his brethren after the flesh and consequent grief at their low estate and danger; and his sense of their privileges far fuller and stronger than their own, demonstrated above all in his estimate of their Messiah's glory whom they depreciated and had even rejected to their own ruin. This last however is not openly said but unmistakably implied; for the apostle treats their difficulties with the utmost delicacy, caring for their souls with a love truly divine. Whether the expression of his grief then or of that glory of Christ which they refused in unbelief raised the question, which the free grace preached to the Gentiles indiscriminately with the Jews of itself put in the most direct form, whether such a proclamation of grace to every soul, Jew or Greek, be compatible with the special promises to Abraham and to his seed? The Israelite instinctively resented the gospel as annulling his distinctive place of favour, and viewed the apostle's deep concern for their salvation through faith in Jesus as an impeachment of God's pledges to their nation as vouchsafed to their fathers. How could this plighted troth be sure, if the Messiah had come and been rejected by them? if the door was now as open to the Gentile as the Jew? Where the value of the promises in either case? Did not the apostle's teaching clash with the trustworthiness of the divine word to Israel? This is fully met now.

"Not however as though* the word of God hath failed; for not all those that [are] of Israel [are] Israel; nor because they are Abraham's seed, [are] they all children, but, In Isaac shall a seed be called to thee.† That is, [it is] not the children of the flesh that [are] children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned for seed; for this word [is] of promise, According to this season‡ I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only [so], but Rebecca also, having conceived by one,§ Isaac our father (for not yet having been born, nor having done anything good or bad, in order that the purpose of God according to election should abide, not of works but of him that calleth), it was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger, according as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Ver. 6-13.)

*The version of Beza, E. Schmid, etc. (which Bucer adopted before them, and Macknight since), "It is not possible," errs, not so much in requiring τε as Calvin remarked (for it may dispense with this particle) as in the absence of the infinitive after it. Besides, even were it grammatically admissible, the other sense is better.

†Or, thy seed.

‡Or, time.

§There is no insuperable difficulty, I think, in ἐξ ἑνός. There was in this case a single mother, also one father. Its object is to give emphasis to both, in contradistinction to the former case.

The reasoning is as conclusive as it is concise and clear, founded on proofs from Old Testament facts and words which a Jew certainly could not gainsay. Did he reason from the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? From this very history the apostle refutes their unbelieving abuse of all. The word of God therefore retains all its force. Man only, the Jew specially, is proved to be faulty. Their objection assumed that God was bound to bless the entire race in natural descent from Abraham. But this would open the promises to the Ishmaelites. Not so, cries the Jew: the promise is only in the line of Isaac. Then, might the apostle rejoin, the natural descent is an unsound principle; for this embraces the Arabs sprung from Abraham after the flesh no less than the Jews. They themselves therefore to exclude the Ishmaelites must fall back on the promise tied to the line of Isaac. Promise therefore, not flesh, decides. How the answer of the apostle exemplifies the truth of the Jew and circumcision that God praises, stated already in the end of Romans 2, needs no proof. Hence it is equally said of Israel and of Abraham's seed. It is universally true. Fleshly descent alone insures no inward blessing. The Israelite indeed in whom is no guile is more than one of Jacob's posterity: all of Israel are not Israel, nor are Abraham's seed all children. Compare John 8: 37, 39. God must be left free; and He is pleased to call Isaac, not Ishmael after the same sort. The call flows from grace and is inseparable, in the restrictive personal sense here intended, from choice. Far from disputing it, the Jew could not hear the case without falling under its irresistible force; for he wished not to take in the sons of Ishmael and must therefore agree to the necessity of God's call, not mere natural line, in order to constitute an adequately valid claim. And this is made more telling by the striking circumstance that Isaac was born in an exclusively natural way like Ishmael but according to a distinct word of promise on God's part.

The apostle follows up the argument by a still closer instance; for Ishmael was born of a slave, a concubine, Isaac of the wife. But what of Rebecca? She was in no sense a bondmaid, but bore to Isaac twin sons. No case can be conceived therefore more in point. Yet without the children being yet born or having done anything good or ill which could determine between them, God revealed His purpose respecting the younger or lesser of the two, so that election might thus stand fixed and indisputable where His authority is owned.

Hence the apostle contrasts the call of God with works, rather than our faith, so as to cut off the poor semi-Pelagianism of such as Chrysostom of old or Tholuck of late, which would make election governed by the foreseen superiority of one to the other. Language cannot more precisely contradict this, the natural thought (not of natural men only but) of reasoning or imaginative saints. Esau had done no ill to disqualify him, Jacob no good to qualify him; but, before either of the twins was born, God in the exercise of His sovereign will chose that the greater should do service to the lesser. Such was His purpose. Their works had nothing to do with the matter and are excluded, so as to rest all on the caller, God Himself.

On the other hand, there is no ground favourable to that absolute reprobation which Calvin deduces from this place.* Not a syllable is hinted as to hating the unborn Esau in Genesis 25. Man hastily infers reprobation of the one from the choice of the other. This is unfounded. Out of two who have no claim to choose one to a superior place is to exercise will; but to show favour in one case is not therein to condemn the other. They were in themselves both born in sin, as they no doubt grow up in sins. This is to be obnoxious to condemnation, which turns on man's sins, not on God's purpose. It is not Jehovah's word to Rebecca, but by Malachi which speaks of hating Esau. It was at the very close of the Old Testament, after Esau had displayed his unrelenting enmity to Israel. The love to Jacob thus was free; the hatred had moral grounds in Esau.

*"Tamen ut discamus in nudo et simplici Dei beneplacito acquiescere, abhoc quoque intuitu nos tantisper Paulus subducit, donec hanc doctrinam stabilierit, Deum in suo arbitrio satis justam eligendi et reprobandi habere causam." Joh. Calvini in omnes Pauli Ap. Epp. i. 121, Halis Sax. 1831.

The assertion of divine sovereignty, though a necessary truth which springs out of the very nature of God, is repulsive to the natural mind. Yet no other thought consists with right, when the subject is duly weighed; and every scheme which man substitutes is unworthy of God and unbecoming to man. The doctrine which denies God His majesty is self-convicted of falsehood; equally so that which would represent Him as indifferent either to sin or misery. He is light; and light is incompatible with the allowance of the darkness which reigns in the heart and ways of man. He is love; and love is invariably free and holy. Doubtless He is almighty and He will judge the sin which despises or rebels against Him as well as the offences which the world seeks to deal with. And what is the universal state of mankind, which this Epistle had carefully proved not of the Gentile only, but yet more of the Jew who boasted of the living oracles which condemned his iniquity and transgression? It had stopped every mouth and brought in the whole world guilty before God.

When a sinner is awakened by the Holy Spirit to his own guilt and state before God, he owns this frankly, and justifies God in condemning himself, though crying for mercy which to his adoring wonder he finds already proclaimed to him in the gospel.

But man as such, ignorant of himself and of the true God, disputes the fact of his own utter and inexcusable evil and looks not to God, but rather writhes under His word and cavils at His ways. This, as it is the feeling of natural men in general, so particularly found expression in the probable objection which a Jew might feel. This the apostle confronts. "What then shall we say? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Far be it. For to Moses he saith, I will show mercy on whomsoever I show mercy, and will compassionate whomsoever I compassionate." (Ver. 14, 15.) That is, it is mere mercy and compassion on God's part wherever shown, not only without desert but in full view of the most grievous and destructive demerits. No one who feels his own real wrongs against God ever raises a question of righteousness with Him. Confounded at the sight of his guilty insubjection and disobedience and in short ungodliness, he is struck dumb before the concurrent and continual proof of the astonishing goodness and patience of God, were it only in dealing with Israel. So to the Jew (and of course for the profit of ourselves and all the world) the apostle alleges the solemn and most gracious words of Jehovah to His servant in Exodus 33. So apt a testimony, among almost countless passages applicable in principle, there is not in the Bible.

Consider the circumstances, and the conclusiveness of his answer will be apparent, though at first sight it might seem singular to meet such a question with such a citation. And can anything he more characteristic of divine revelation than this? Haste pronounces that irrelevant and unreasonable which, when fairly and fully searched, proves alone right and true, alone suited to meet man as he is, alone consistent with the character and glory of God.

The national history was scarce begun before all was morally ended by their idolatrous apostasy from Jehovah at the foot of Sinai, where the people with Aaron at their head danced naked before the golden calf. Unrighteousness with God! There was assuredly the grossest unrighteousness in Israel; and what could righteousness with God do but call aloud for their irrevocable condemnation? On that ground the objecting Jew, like the unbelieving Gentile, only shuts himself up to sure and unsparing judgment; for there can be no doubt of man's guilt, and justice on God's side has but to pronounce and execute the sentence of perdition.

Is God then bound to this and nothing else? He must be, on the blindly suicidal principle of man self-righteous yet unrighteous, who in his hurry to blame God forgets that it would be to his own helpless ruin. But God, though He can justly answer a fool according to his folly, may not in His grace. He has resources in Himself on which to fall back.

So in the passage before us the people disowned that Jehovah had delivered them from the house of bondage in their cry, "As for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." (Ex. 32: 1) Thereon Jehovah not only plagued the people for their idolatry (ver. 35), but told Moses to go up thence, "thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt into the land which I sware," etc. Forthwith Moses pitches the tabernacle without the camp, so that every one who sought Jehovah might go out there. But he does more; he there intercedes for the people, insists that they are Jehovah's people, and would turn the assurance of going with himself into one of going with him and them. "For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? Is it not in that thou goest with us? So shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth." Then, when Moses beseeches Him to manifest His glory to him, He says "I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Jehovah upon thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."

Thus the bearing of the declaration is as evident as it is appropriate and unanswerable. For a people in such a case to harbour the thought of unrighteousness with God is a monstrous forgetfulness not only of their actual state in relation to Him but of their only hope in His sovereign mercy. Once before they took the ground of righteousness in accepting the law; but before the tables of stone were brought down, they had forfeited every thing by their infraction of the most fundamental precept of the law. Hence hope there could not be, unless in His compassion. They had shown out what they were, and the sooner because of their self-confidence. Now it remained to learn what God is; and this is His word even in presence of the foul dishonour they had done Him: "I will show mercy on whomsoever I show mercy, and I will compassionate whomsoever I compassionate."

Things were no better in the apostle's day. For the people had meanwhile so gone on in idolatrous rebellion that God at length swept them away, first Israel by the Assyrian, then Judah by the Babylonian. And now the returned remnant were under Roman bondage, and had been guilty of rejecting their Messiah, as well as of quarrelling with God's grace to the Gentiles. It is plain then that man is apt to be most self-righteous when he has least reason for it. "Not this man but Barabbas" cried they all. "We have no king but Caesar" answered the chief priests. Their moral degradation was complete; their faith was null and void. Ill would it have become such a people at such a time to ask "Is there unrighteousness with God?" It is just there, however, that the human spirit is most ready to dispute with God.

But the word is exceedingly broad and deep: where does it put any man? where the sinner? We Christians should surely know that only grace saved or could save us, as it called us with an holy calling, not according to our works but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. When a soul is truly broken down and judges itself with integrity and a spiritually enlightened conscience, how sweet is the feeling that there is righteousness nowhere fully, truly, and intrinsically but with God, confessing its own manifold and utter unrighteousness, and welcoming His own expression of sovereign mercy! It is only hard self-righteousness which holds out and disputes. Faith bows before the God of mercy and blesses Him. If only low and bad enough in my own eyes, I shall be but too thankful for the mercy that was sovereign enough to come down and find out me; if I can rest on the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, for such a sinner as myself, shall I pare down or narrow the indiscriminate riches of His grace to any other? "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." There may be an allusion to the frustration of Isaac's notorious wish, and of Esau's efforts to gain through the chase, and of Jacob faulty enough to lose all by his trickery but for sovereign mercy which secured to him the promise. It is certainly the conclusion of grace against man's vain confidence in his own will and exertion.

But the greater the grace, the greater the sin of resisting God in it. Hence the other side needs to be presented. For the God who shows mercy is the judge of all, and will prove what it is to set at nought all that He is. So Pharaoh did of old; and what was the consequence? "For the scripture saith to Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." (Ver. 17.)

The king of Egypt was a thoroughly selfish, cruel, and profane man when God first sent him a message by Moses and Aaron. The effect of the summons on such a spirit was to bring out his blasphemy against Jehovah and more savage oppression of Israel. And as sign and his miracle told on his conscience, but evil desires and counsels prevailed, Pharaoh became incomparably worse till the obduracy of the king shocked his servants, and even after the concession was wrung out, false hopes of vengeance on Israel lured him and them to find a grave within the opened waters of the Red Sea. God thus made a most striking example of Pharaoh, not a mere exposure of his malice, but of His own power on that background, so that His name might be thus told abroad in all the earth. Never does God make a man bad; but the bad man Pharaoh, made yet worse by his resistance of the most striking divine appeals, He made manifest, raised up as he was from among men to such a height, that his downfall might tell on consciences far and wide throughout the world. Hard at first, God sealed him up at length in a judicial hardening. Such He warned the Jews by Isaiah should be the case with their impenitent hearts, and so He executed it when they rejected Christ (John 12) and the Holy Ghost's appeal in the gospel. (Acts 28: 25-28.) "So then to whom he will he sheweth mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." In both cases the unrighteousness is solely with man, who is, as far as he is concerned, irremediably evil and ruined; before God acts either in grace or in judgment for the display of His own great name to the wide, rich, and endless blessing of all who heed His word. He is always holy but always free. On the other hand fallen man is always evil and deserves condemnation. God freely acts in grace here, freely acts in judgment there, that any soul may beware of provoking His indignation and learning what He is in his own destruction, and that the guiltiest of sinners may know that no man is too far gone to be beyond reach of His mercy. I speak of man as such, not of such as have believed through grace.

These verses present a fresh objection, and the apostle's answer worthy of all attention not only in itself but as an inspired specimen of the best method of meeting a cavil, first with a moral remonstrance and then more directly.

"Thou wilt say then to me, Why then doth he yet find fault? For who withstandeth his purpose? Nay but thou, O man, who art thou that answerest again to God?" (Vers. 19, 20.)

The objection seems founded on the absoluteness with which the mercy of God as well as His hardening had been asserted by the apostle just before. The unbroken will of man avails itself of this to resolve all question of good and evil into the divine purpose. But this is a mere human deduction which loses sight of the moral glory of God as well as the responsibility of the creature. It offends therefore against first principles, and would destroy all truth, holiness, and righteous judgment.

Undoubtedly the purpose of God does stand, and there is no creature which does not in the end subserve His will: yet Satan, little as he intends it, only clenches it most when he seems most to succeed by his lies and destructive power in thwarting and persecuting those who are precious in the Lord's eyes. Take the cross itself as the plainest and most unanswerable example. But should this enfeeble our moral judgment of creature wickedness? Does it deny the fact that Satan and man are responsible for all they do against Him, or that both must be punished for it? Hence Peter taxes the men of Israel with the guilt of crucifying the Messiah: "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by hands of lawless men have crucified and slain." How different is the holy and perfect word of God! Everything is in its place, not one side only but both. God has His determinate counsel and foreknowledge. The Jews played their evil part, the Gentiles theirs. They together, however at variance in thoughts and feelings, manifested their characters and their guilt; but in the very same fact they fulfilled the prophets and gave occasion to the display of the holiest judgment of God and the accomplishment of the work of His grace.

Hence the ground of reasoning is wholly fallacious. The probation of man discovered his evil state, the fruit of his first departure from God who was dishonoured by him when all was very good, and whose every fresh trial only served to demonstrate with increasing evidence the depth and extent of sin and the irremediableness of the flesh. The wisdom of God is such that He can and does turn all that man pursues in his heartless folly to the account of His purposes; but this is altogether independent of man's will which is always and inexcusably evil. Not only therefore is God free to censure man, but He will judge him for all by the Lord Jesus at the last day.

If it were true, as Calvin says, that those who perish were destined to destruction by the will of God, the case were hard indeed. But scripture never really speaks thus, and the language of the texts usually cited in support of such a decree, when closely as well as fairly examined, invariably avoids such a thought, however near it may seem to approximate.

In truth it is but the expression of the heart anxious to gather an excuse for its own wilful evil and a plea against judgment from the irresistible will of God. Yet better is known in the heart of hearts all the while. It is never said in scripture that sin was God's purpose; but man fallen under sin is the platform where He does display His ways, counsels, and even Himself. God did not make any man to be evil; but from all (being evil already) He does choose according to His sovereign will and show mercy to some, not all, though all be no more guilty than the some may have been. It would be perfectly just to destroy all. But if pleased to spare whom he will, who shall say to Him, nay? It would be to set up a claim of superiority over God, and is really an attempt to judge Him. Now whenever a sinner is converted, he feels and owns the just judgment of God, even though such a recognition sanctions the execution of the divine sentence against one's self, yet withal never quits in despair, but looks and cries, feebly at first perhaps but with increasing earnestness, for mercy.

Cavils of the sort always presuppose the conscience not yet searched and the will not bent and broken before God. Neither insinuations of unrighteousness with God, nor the plea of the necessity of man's sinning as a part of God's purpose, could satisfy, or emanate from, a repentant soul. So the apostle first of all answers with a rebuke: "Nay but thou, O man, who art thou that answerest against God? Shall the thing moulded say to him that moulded, Why didst thou make me thus?" Is it possible a man so speaks? It is equally irreverent and unholy. As this challenge why God (whose purpose is so firm, inflexible, and sure of fulfilment) should any longer find fault, blots out moral government and denies the difference of good and evil, so the audacity which disputes against God and practically defies His right to condemn wrong, proceeds on the assumption that He is bound to save every one alike, or at least to punish none; that is, bound to be worse than the basest of those who despise and rebel against Him, bound to a moral indifference which they would not tolerate in their wives or children, in their family connections, in their servants or their tradesmen! Such is the worth of human reason when it does not surrender to the word of God. The fall is ignored, and its ruinous consequences. God did not form man as he is, but good and upright; and He warned him of his danger and of the inevitable issue of disobedience. In every point of view therefore the ground of unbelief is as false as it is also a forgetfulness of the majesty of God and of the due attitude of the creature toward Him.

The apostle takes occasion to affirm the sovereign title of God in the most unqualified way. "Hath not the potter authority over the clay out of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" Whatever the holy boldness of this language, however it is singularly free from swerving to the right hand or the left, it would be easy to prove by countless witnesses how prone the best and wisest of uninspired men have been to err, even with this divine chart before their eyes to guide them. But it is easy to slip on either side: the hard thing is to hold only to the truth of scripture, and not to speak where it is silent. The apostle does not say that God has exercised the right which He beyond just question possesses; but the divine title is maintained in its integrity. We shall see in the next two verses how the right is used; but it was due to God and wholesome for man that His absolute right should be owned. How seldom those who talk of rights seem to think that God has any! They are absorbed in themselves, in man: God is in none of their thoughts. Yet surely if any rights are to be respected, His ought to be the foremost whose sovereign will gave us being and all things. If we count ourselves entitled to do what we will with our own, what can we say of Him to whom belong ourselves and all that we have?

His right then over man as over every other creature is incontestable: a right which unbelief disputes only because it has never seriously thought of the matter, or it yields to a spirit of manifestly outrageous presumption and rebelliousness. There are no rights if the Creator has none: if they exist at all, His must be absolute over us as creatures. He can form as He pleases and assign to us a position high or low in the scale of creation as it seems fitting in His eyes. In the verses which follow there is the further consideration that we are not only creatures but sinners, which necessarily must bear its bitter fruit and judgment from God. But His sovereign title it was important to affirm in itself before the introduction of the actual state or the doom of man.

The absolute authority of God over the creature has been so laid down that none can fairly dispute it. But this is far from being the whole case: His power is unlimited, His title incontestable. "And if God, wishing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory, us whom he also called not from among Jews only but from Gentiles?" (Ver. 22-24.)

The mind of God was to display His wrath in this evil world and to make known His power where men easily and willingly forget Himself. But the way adopted was admirable and worthy of His nature. Arbitrariness there was none, but "much long-suffering." So He bore long with the corruption and violence of guilty man. Could man then justly tax God either with lack of compassion for himself or with haste to mark his iniquities? Impossible that a holy God could have fellowship with evil or be indifferent to it! But instead of promptly blotting out of this life the rebellious creatures who make of the world a field for incessant warfare against what they know of God, or who at least live negligent of His will though He has revealed it fully, the history of the world since nations began is the fullest proof of endurance on God's part. He never made them as they are; but the sin of man now fallen He endured spite of countless and constant provocation. They sinned, they transgressed, they despised His mercy, they braved His wrath; but He endured with much long-suffering.

Sinful men thus living in enmity against God are here styled "vessels of wrath," on the one hand; as those who believe are designated "vessels of mercy" on the other. They are objects respectively of wrath and of mercy, and are figuratively supposed to contain each that quality which will issue in destruction or in glory.

But there is a shade of difference as distinct as it is refined and profoundly true which no reader should overlook. The vessels of wrath are said to be "fitted for destruction." But it is neither said nor implied here, or anywhere else, that God fitted them for it. They were fitted by their sins, and most of all by their unbelief and rebelliousness against God. But when we hear of the faithful, the phrase is altogether different, "vessels of mercy which he before prepared for glory." The evil is man's, and in no case is it of God; the good is His and not our own. Not the saints, but God prepared the vessels of mercy for glory. More strictly He prepared them beforehand with a view to glory. That is, it was not their preparation while on earth, His only when the glory arrives. The apostle affirms here that God prepared them before unto glory. It was His doing. None doubts that they became by grace obedient, holy, and thus morally conformed to His nature; but it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to dwell here only on God's preparation of the vessels of mercy beforehand for glory. Thus the riches of His glory are made known upon the vessels of mercy, for so they are called, not vessels filled with these or those spiritual qualities, however true this might be, but vessels of mercy.

But in this passage as elsewhere there is no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of "glory" or to give the word the sense of God's mercy. Nor does Ephesians 1: 12 sanction this, where glory maintains strictly its own distinctive place, as will appear to him who thoughtfully weighs verses 6, 7, 12. The word grace is undoubtedly and most properly left out of the last, where grace is not intended to be expressed any more than in verse 14 where it could not be. The Spirit looks onward to the day when the purpose of God shall be accomplished.

Such is the inheritance when the excellence of what God has given and made us shall be displayed. But the relationships to Himself which His infinite love has brought us into, and in which He has revealed Himself are far deeper. Hence the word in verse 6 is "to the praise of the glory of his grace," the fulness of the revelation of Himself, as in verse 7 the abundant resources of His goodness, in view of our misery and guilt as once sinners. In all this then I see exact discrimination, not the confusion of different thoughts or words. No doubt then the wrath of God, long impending but long kept back, while He is sending forth the message of the mercy He delights in, will at length burst on those who have despised His warnings, but who will then prove what it is to be vessels of wrath. And the vessels of mercy will then be displayed in those scenes of divine excellence which no evil or failure shall ever sully.

Thus lost man will in the end be compelled to justify God and to take the entire blame on his own shoulders, who preferred to trust Satan as his friend and adviser rather than God; while the saved, however dwelling in bliss, will know and make known all as the riches of His glory, themselves debtors to His mere but unfailing and unfathomable mercy.

But the moment mercy is thus fully before the apostle's mind, he by the Spirit turns to the magnificent proof and exhibition God gave of it in calling — not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. The law distinguished and separated the people which was under it from all other nations which were not. Grace, as it supposes the total worthlessness not of the Gentiles only but also of the Jews, so it goes out and calls in not from Jews only but from Gentiles. Distinctions may be in place where there is still hope of man and the trial proceeds. Not so when the probation of the most favoured has ended in irremediable guilt and helpless total ruin. Then the door opens for mercy; and if God is pleased to exercise it, can the Jew pretend that the Gentile is not at least as good an occasion for mercy as himself? The greater the need, the misery, the darkness, the greater is the room for God to prove the depth and extent of His grace. On the footing therefore of His own mercy has God called (for it is a question of calling, not of governing a people already subsisting before Him under His law) even "us not from Jews only but also from among Gentiles." (Ver. 24.) He calls in grace, freely to all, shut up to none, from Jews certainly but from Gentiles too.

The quotations taken from Hosea are worthy of all consideration, both in themselves and in the comparison of the references here and in 1 Peter 2: 10. Some feel the difficulty; others, who do not seem to see anything particularly to be noted, prove how little they enter into the deep wisdom of God here displayed.

The call from among Gentiles is not the question with Peter, who accordingly does not cite Hosea 1: 10. He contents himself with using Hosea 2: 23, which he does not hesitate to apply even then to such of the Jews as came to the one foundation stone and became thus themselves living stones. Writing to the strangers of the dispersion throughout a part of Asia Minor, he had only the believing Jews directly before him. Hence there is remarkable force in telling them that they were a chosen generation and a royal priesthood. This their fathers attempted to make their own at Sinai on condition of their own obedience; and, as we know, broke down immediately as well as unceasingly ever afterwards, till the final sentence was pronounced and God by Hosea pronounced the Jew Lo-ammi (not my people). The apostle now, addressing those who had received the rejected Messiah, not only predicates unconditionally of them under the gospel what was only offered to their fathers under a condition which utterly failed, but shows that they do not need to wait for the glorious kingdom of the Messiah to be revealed before they can be assured of the gracious reversal of the old sentence: "which in time past (says he) were not a people, but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." The shining of grace from Christ risen on those that are His assures even now, not yet indeed of the setting aside of the power of evil in the world, but of the bringing the believing Israelites addressed into distinct, present, and known relationship with God. If the many still persevered in their unbelief and its bitter consequences, this did not hinder God from cheering the godly remnant by the apostle's employment of the prophet.

Our apostle cites the same scripture as Peter uses, and more fully too; but he also cites Hosea 1: 10 almost precisely as it stands in the Alexandrian copy of the LXX. Is it then certain that he quotes these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called to be the people of God? This is generally assumed* as manifest from the words themselves, and from the transition to Israel in verse 27, though many who say so confess that in the prophecy they are spoken of Israel, which, after being rejected and put away, was to be again received into favour by God.

*"The meaning (says Calvin in loc.) is evident: but there is some difficulty in the application of this testimony; for no one can deny but that the prophet in that passage speaks of the Israelites. For the Lord, having been offended with their wickedness, declared that they should be no longer His people: He afterwards subjoined a consolation, and said, that of those who were not beloved He would make some (?) beloved, and from (?) those who were not a people He would make a people. But Paul applies to the Gentiles what was expressly spoken to the Israelites!" Again, a very different mind writes thus in our day on Hosea 1: 10, "Both St. Peter (?) and St. Paul tell us that this prophecy is already, in Christ, fulfilled in those of Israel, who were the true Israel, or of the Gentiles to whom the promise was made, In thy seed shall all nations be blessed, and who, whether Jews or Gentiles, believed in Him. The Gentiles were adopted into the Church, which, at the day of Pentecost was formed of the Jews, and in which Jews and Gentiles became one in Christ . . . . . . . And so St. Peter (?) says that this scripture [expressly commenting on the latter part, which Paul only applies to the Gentiles now called] was fulfilled in them, while still scattered abroad through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." (Dr. Pusey's Minor Prophets.) On Hosea 2: 23 the latter is still bolder: "This which was true of Israel in its dispersion was much more true of the Gentiles. These too, the descendants of righteous Noah, God had cast off for the time, that they should be no more His people [not so; the Gentiles never had been as such in relationship with God as called nations, nor was Israel itself or any other people yet chosen], when He chose Israel out of them . . . . . . . . in reversing His sentence, He embraces in the arms of His mercy all who were not His people, and says of them all that they should be My people and beloved . . . . . . . Israel was not multiplied by itself, but through the bringing in of the Gentiles." It will have been noticed from the queries, or without them by the careful reader, that both are obliged to depart, by their system of thought, from the language of the text.

But it is always well for the believer to search narrowly an assumption of the kind, more especially when an apparent discrepancy is thereby insinuated between the Old Testament and the New. It is wise to try our own hypothesis over and over again, for we may rest assured that the One divine author cannot slight a word He has written. "Scripture cannot be broken." Is the assumption itself well grounded? We need not then dwell on the answers which are attempted to the difficulty which appears to me made by those who seek to answer it — answers with which those who give them seem themselves by no means satisfied, and no wonder. The question is as to the precise aim of the Spirit. For myself I cannot doubt that He contemplated the Jews and the Gentiles in the two citations from Hosea; for if He meant only the Gentiles in both, why quote them in so peculiar an order? Why place the fragment of Hosea 1: 10 after that of 2: 23? If on the other hand He means to illustrate the call of grace under the gospel first to the Jews, spite of their having lost their distinctive name of relationship, nothing can be more natural and appropriate than his use of Hosea 2: 23 before 1: 10 is quoted; and thus the apostles Paul and Peter are seen to be not only in perfect harmony with each other, but in their application exact to the evident bearing of the prophet. The common error sets all three in opposition. The very order too agrees precisely with the verse before (24) in Romans 9 which is followed up by the citations.

But if this be so with the employment of Hosea 2: 23 by the two apostles, if they both expressly apply to converted Jews that which the prophet expressly wrote of them and of them only, what of Romans 1: 10? This, it is freely granted, may not be so obvious, but in my judgment it is on mature consideration no less sure. Yet why should the latter part of the verse refer to the sons of Israel because the former does? Let it be observed that there is a striking break or at least offshoot in the middle of the verse, which might most naturally prepare the way for another disclosure of God's purposes of grace. I allow that it is somewhat veiled; but this was proper and intended. The turning aside to call in Gentiles was intentionally concealed till the time came; but when it did come, enough was found, expressed hundreds of years before by the prophets, to prove that all was ordered and left room for and justified in passages here and there, which could scarcely have prepared any beforehand for so momentous a change but fell in with it expressly when it was a fact. So there is to my mind a similarly rapid transition in Isaiah 65: 1, 2, of which the apostle makes use somewhat later in this very argument, and gives us divine certainty that, as verse 1 applies to the call of Gentiles, so verse 2 goes even farther than the early half of Hosea 1: 10, for it intimates the rejection of Israel. The apostle guided by the Spirit was tender to his brethren after the flesh and would not yet set before them so unpalatable a truth. All he is proving here from Hosea is that, as the ruin of Israel does not preclude but rather gives occasion for the call of grace in the gospel to the Jews spite of their dreadful estate, so the same prophet very remarkably leaves room for Gentiles to come in on a ground which shall yet bless Israel beyond measure and number. "And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said unto them, not my people, there it shall be said unto them, The sons of the living God." I see no more reason to doubt that Gentiles were not by accommodation but directly and primarily meant in this striking portion than in the first verse of Isaiah 65. The same apostle who warrants the application of two verses of Isaiah in Romans 10 warrants the application of two verses of Hosea in Romans 9. The call of Jews and Gentiles he attests in the latter; the coming in of Gentiles and the rebellion of Israel he proves from the former.

Thus there is no ground whatever for the idea that the inspired Paul does violence to the prophet by applying to Gentiles what was written about Jews; or that the principle on which he quotes is merely that of analogy, instead of direct divine authority. Still less is it true that God makes so light of the ground on which He set Israel as to allow the theory that the nations had ever been in any similar position before the call of Israel, or that Israel has lost it irrevocably to let the Gentiles in, and thus merge all for the future on one common level. Not so: the Gentiles have not stood by faith, but become highminded and will surely, because of unbelief, be broken off the olive-tree, whereon they are now grafted; and as surely the Jews, not continuing in unbelief but truly repentant and blessing Him who is coming in the name of Jehovah, will be once more in sovereign mercy graffed into their own olive-tree. This will not be under the gospel. For as concerning the gospel they are enemies for our sakes, jealous that we should meanwhile receive the truth and hating the grace which saves the vilest through Him whom they cast out. "But as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes," as will be demonstrated in that day, when it will be no longer the call of indiscriminate goodness as now, which ignores all earthly distinctions and unites to Christ in heaven, but the fulfilment of the magnificent purposes of God for the world, according to which the Israel of that day, converted and restored to their land, will be the most intimate and honoured and important instrument here below for the universal blessedness of the race and the earth. As the election of Israel was before the gospel was sent out, so it will be after the gospel shall have finished its heavenly work. Then the purposes of God for Israel, which came to naught under the first covenant, will be made effectual and stand for ever under Messiah and the new covenant.

Meanwhile, if any from Israel are blessed, it is on the principle of God's having called them, spite of the people being Lo-ammi, and giving them to obtain mercy anticipatively now, as the remnant will another day at the end of this age. But mercy now, as we of all men should know best, is not confined to them, but has called from among Gentiles also. Thus the two citations of Hosea were each equally required; and only the latter of the two used by Paul as the apostle of Gentiles, and in fact writing to saints at Rome, who were even more numerously Gentile than Jewish. Hence the reason and beautiful propriety of our finding the latter part of Hosea 1: 10 not in Peter's Epistle but in Paul's.

But there is another feature, not palpable to the careless eye, but most real and in the highest degree confirmatory of a Gentile reference as originally intended of God in the close of Hosea 1: 10. Thus the Holy Spirit does not say merely (as Dean Alford for instance like others ancient* or modern) "as a general assertion, that in every place where they were called 'not His people,' there they shall be called 'His people'." If Gentiles were not His people, like the Jews now for a time, those who receive the gospel are called, not "His people" merely as the Jews shall be, but "sons of the living God." It is the special well-known title which grace now confers on all who hear the rejected One who speaks from heaven; and the emphasis is brought out the more powerfully, because it is said so expressly of Gentiles who never enjoyed the title of the people of God, if scripture is to rule our thoughts. There is thus a propriety in the new title which suits the actual state of things, rather than the millennial day and the relationship of restored Israel; and this too pre-eminently fitting in with the call of Gentiles, who, if by the Holy Spirit made willing to take the place of dogs, find "the crumbs" richer fare than those ever tasted who once were free of the Master's table.

*It may be instructive to show by the following extract from Theodoret's comment that the errors of theology were introduced or at least sanctioned by the ablest of the early fathers. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ Θεὸς οὐ περὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν αὐτῶν εἴρηκε τῶν Ἰουδαίων. τῳ γὰρ Ὡσηὲ κελεύσας λαβεῖν γυναῖκα πόρνην, καὶ μέντοι καὶ μοιχαλίδα, οὕτω τὰ γεννηθέντα παιδία προσαγορευθῆναι ἐκέλευσε, τὸν μὲν οὐ λαόν, τὴν δὲ οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, τὰ συμβησόμενα, Ἰουδαίοις προλέγων, ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως πάλιν ὑπέσχετο αὐτοῖς χρηστά, ὅτι καὶ οὐ λαὸς κληθήσεται λαός, καὶ ἡ οὐκ ἠγαπημένη, ἠγαπημένη. σκοπήσατε τοίνυν, φησὶν, ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀεὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀπελαύσατε· ἀλλὰ ποτὲ μὲν λαός, ποτὲ δὲ οὐ λαός, καὶ πάλιν μὲν ἐχρηματίσατε καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ἠγαπημένη, εἶτα οὐκ ἠγαπημένη, καὶ πάλιν ἠγαπημένη. οὐδὲν τοίνυν ἀπεικὸς οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος γεγένηται. συνήθως γὰρ ἀπεβλήθητε· ἀλλὰ κᾳν πάλιν θελήσητε. καὶ γὰρ τὰ ἔθνη οὐ λαὸς ὄντες, νῦν λαὸς χρηματίζει. (Opera, ed. Schulze, tom. iii. p. 108.) Chrysostom is to the same effect.

The apostle now goes a step farther. He had shown from Hosea the grace which will reverse the solemn sentence of displeasure pronounced on the Jew in view of the captivity in Babylon, as well as the rich mercy for the Gentile to which the gospel lends so bright a light. He cites Isaiah 10 for God's ways with His people in view of the Assyrian. "Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: for [he is] completing [the] matter and cutting short in righteousness, because a matter cut short will [the] Lord make on the earth." The prophet looks onward to the close of the sorrowful history of the chosen people, when the Assyrian, whom God first employed as the rod of His anger, will no longer be a just object of dread, and those who used to stay themselves on a staff which smote them, or even on that broken reed, Egypt, shall stay themselves on Jehovah the Holy One of Israel in truth. It is the great crisis of prophecy, the end of the Lord with His people who prove Him to be very pitiful and of tender mercy, whatever the rough roads and stormy skies meanwhile. Israel may have been ever so numerous; yet not the mass but the remnant shall be saved. For He is finishing and cutting short the matter in righteousness. It will be no question then of patient mercy, but a matter cut short will the Lord make on the earth or land. And this is not the only testimony of the kind: from the beginning we read to the same effect. "And as Esaias hath said before, Unless [the] Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like as Gomorrha." Because He was dealing in righteousness with Israel, they should be cut down to the uttermost; because He was faithful to the mercy promised, His gracious power would hinder such a total extermination as befell the guilty cities of the plain. The remnant should be saved, a seed for sowing the earth afresh, when they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which Jehovah their God has given them. Great then shall be the day of Jezreel, when Jehovah will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn and the wine and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Ere it comes judgment must take its course; but in the end mercy glories over judgment, and the remnant, saved by grace, by grace is made a strong nation.

Plainly however, as the prophets lacked not the assurance of mercy to the Gentiles, so they still more abounded in warnings of judgment on Israel. This then was not the new testimony of grace which the Jews so keenly resented as interfering with their ancient privileges. Let them beware of fighting against God who had taught both these truths in the living oracles specially entrusted to themselves, and their boast, though certainly but little understood. If they therefore quarrelled with such a sentence, it was evidently not so much with Paul as with Isaiah and the Holy Spirit who had inspired him.

What a witness on the other hand of divine truth, of indiscriminate grace, that the gospel, in itself unprecedented and wholly distinct both from what was seen under the law and what will be when the kingdom appears in power and glory, does nevertheless find its justification from words both of mercy and of judgment uttered hundreds of years before by the various servants God sent to declare His message to His people! But as they blindly despised them and rejected His word then for idols, so now they fulfilled them yet more in the rejection of Christ and hatred of the grace which, refused by them, sought and was received by Gentiles, and thus yet more proved the word divine to the confusion of the unbelief which is as blind as it is proud and selfish.

Thus the case on both sides has been set out with the clearest testimonies of the prophets. It only remains to draw the conclusions so far.

"What then shall we say? That Gentiles that pursued not righteousness attained righteousness, yea, righteousness that is of faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, arrived not at a law of righteousness." (Ver. 30, 31.) Such precisely had been the bearing of the living oracles to which the Jews justly pointed as their peculiar treasure from God; yet these oracles declared unequivocally what was borne out by the actual facts. The Jews were completely broken as a nation. They had enjoyed the most singular favours: how was it now? Why their disruption? Why the carrying away to Babylon? why their subjection without so much as the shadow of a king of their own to the iron dominion of Rome? I speak not, it was useless to speak to them, of still worse impending. If they neglected the words of Isaiah, if they sought not into the visions of Daniel, it was vain to expect that they would heed the warnings of the Lord Jesus. But their own prophets amply sufficed to interpret the actual state around them and to prove that Jewish rebelliousness to God was as certainly revealed beforehand as Gentile acceptance of His mercy; and these are precisely the great and invariable characteristics of the time that now is, which Christianity supposes and Judaism denies. In the Gentiles grace is displayed and triumphs; by the Jews it is for the present refused and calumniated. Yet does all this only accomplish the prophecies every Jew owns as divine. That Gentiles, spite of their dark ignorance, their utter indifference to God, should be brought to the right way, not of law indeed (the Jews need not be jealous of that) but righteousness on the principle of faith, righteousness outside themselves, by the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, so that it might be through faith; that Israel, zealously in quest of a law of righteousness, had not reached it, was not more patent, if the gospel be true, than if the ancient prophets be accomplished.

The moral ground also is as plain as the word of God. For the pretension of man to take his stand before God on his own obedience of law is refuted; as on the other hand grace avowedly goes out to the basest and most careless, giving and forming what is good, as well as putting away the evil to the praise of divine mercy, but withal righteously; yet it is no righteousness of law, but rather of faith, so as to be open to those who knew not the law, as well as to such of Israel as were broken down as to self and taught of God to receive only of His grace in Christ. Thus God has glorified Himself as truly as He has convicted the first man of entire hollowness and constant failure.

Israel then has not come to a law of righteousness. "Wherefore?" As it was through no lack of privileges from God, so it was from no want of their own efforts in pursuing after it. But they pursued wrongly. They overlooked, as unbelief ever does, both God and themselves; alike what is due to His majesty, what necessarily flows from His nature; and again, what sin has wrought in the moral ruin and incapacity as well as guilt of man: in short, "because [it was] not of faith but as of works.* They stumbled at the stone of stumbling, even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; and† he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Ver. 32, 33.)

*There is excellent evidence to show that νόμου and πᾶς have been inserted by the copyists to add force, clearness, or symmetry to the apostle's citations from Isaiah. But there is nothing so good as the divine word as He gave it.

†Copyists probably added πᾶς from Romans 10: 11.

Sinful man understands duty to obey with a commensurate reward annexed to success; and he is ever slow to conceive his own failure and inability to meet the just requirements of God. The last thing he likes to do is to take all the blame of his evil on himself, unless it be to accredit the God he has wronged with real and perfect goodness toward himself in spite of his wrong against Him. But of all men the Jews were the least disposed to it and the most obstinate in their own thoughts. For why, reasoned they, should we have the law of God if it be not to attain acceptance with God by our faithful observance of its precepts? Where else is its value and its use? Error fatal to the ancient people, how much more in Christendom, where the gospel tells the wreck of Israel on this very rock of offence, that men who hear and bear the name of the Lord should not repeat it to their own yet surer destruction!

Unbelief of grace, self-righteousness, is far more inexcusable now than of old. For Christ the Son of God is come and has accomplished redemption; and the glad tidings God sends forth on the express ground of universal ruin in man that he may thankfully receive another, even Jesus, and rest on His work before God with peace and joy in believing. But men, baptized men, stumble still, as Israel stumbled, at the stone of stumbling, the Lord Jesus. If they felt their own real state, how would they not bless God for such a Saviour! But they were proud, and blind withal. They were satisfied with their own obedience, at any rate with their own efforts. They stumbled at the stumbling-stone; but the same Christ delivers the believer from hurt, from shame, from confusion. He was set, as Simeon said to Mary, for the fall and rising again of many in Israel and for a sign to be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed: no otherwise said Isaiah. (Isa. 28: 16.)

ROMANS 10.

The connection of the opening verses of Romans 10 with Romans 9 is full of instruction for the soul. To many a mind it may seem illogical; but this is only the narrowness and infirmity of man who is apt to reason from himself, not from the truth. God's revelation affords the only sure basis; for He alone sees all sides of every object, He alone imparts the suitable affection and enables one to form the sound judgment.

So here the apostle had refuted Jewish assumption of inalienable privilege necessarily bound up with every member of the Abrahamic family, and proved, on the contrary, their ruin and indebtedness to the sovereign mercy of God. Again, he had opened out with irresistible force and clearness the Old Testament scriptures, which declare that God would call Gentiles in His grace, yea, that the mass of Israel should perish for their rebellious unbelief and a remnant only be saved, namely, whoever believed on Christ the stumbling-stone, who therefore is in principle as free to the Gentile as to the Jew. But this amazingly comprehensive and connected sketch of the revealed ways and certain counsels of God as to man on the earth did not at all interfere with his ardent love for Israel. Men often pervert a scanty portion of such knowledge to shut up their bowels of compassion from those who are to blame and under God's peculiar chastening. But it was not so with the apostle: "Brethren, the delight* of my heart and the supplication toward God for them [is] for salvation." The substitution of "them" for "Israel," required by the more ancient and better authorities, appears to me really stronger as being more expressive of affection than the common text. It was needless to define more clearly for whose blessing he was so earnestly interested, and this the more because of their great danger. The threatenings in the prophecies verified in Israel's deepening unbelief drew out his strong crying to God on their behalf, and this for salvation. For what short of it could satisfy a heart that loved them? To say that "internal as well as external evidence is against" αὐτῶν and for τοῦ Ἰσραήλ proves nothing but the unfitness of him who could so speak to judge of questions which demand not learning only but critical acumen and spiritual discrimination.

*The word εὐδοκία means benevolent wish, or good will, where it goes beyond complacency and good pleasure. Compare the usage of the verb εὐδοκέω. It is more than ἐπιθυμία or ἐπιπόθησις.

"For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge." "Zeal of God" is an objectionable rendering, like "faith of the Son of God" in Galatians 2: 20. The Greek genitive is far more comprehensive than the English possessive case, and admits of an objective force as readily as a subjective. "The love of God" in that tongue equally means God's love to us or ours to Him: the context alone decides. Here there can be no question of the intended force. The Jews were zealous for God but not according to right or true knowledge (κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν). This filled the apostle's heart with so much the more affectionate care; for their zeal carried them the farther in the wrong direction, as ever must be in divine things where faith does not regulate according to the revealed mind of God.

"For they being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not been subjected [or submitted themselves] to the righteousness of God." No doubt, these self-righteous Jews were not justified before God. But the apostle goes farther, as indeed the principle goes deeper. They ignored the righteousness of God, not merely the doctrine of justification, though this of course follows. But they were ignorant of God's righteousness revealed in the gospel. Man's merits composed the basis of their hopes, eked out by divine promises, by priesthood, rites, and observances. Messiah Himself was regarded as the crown and complement of their privileges, not as a suffering substitute and a Saviour in the power of His resurrection after having borne their judgment on the tree. Hence they could only see an arbitrary choice backed up by their own confidence in their superior claims and deserts, but no ground of righteousness on God's part such as the Christian knows there is by virtue of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; no thought of God as through atonement just and justifying him that believes in Jesus. The grace of the Saviour by His work enables God to act righteously in accounting just us who believe, while it humbles us who own the truth of our utter sinfulness instead of leaving us to gratify self by setting up a righteousness of our own and hence keeping us from submitting to His righteousness in Christ as the sole ground of justification before Him.

Verse 4 has given rise to very various opinions. One which has prevailed from ancient times and perhaps still more among moderns, is that Christ is the accomplishment of the law. But there seems no ground whatever to confound τέλος with πλήρωμα. Others again take it in the sense of "object" or "aim." But the simplest meaning as decided by the context appears to be "termination," though we know it is also used for "issue" or "result." And in this meaning the representatives of the most various systems coincide: Augustine and Luther on the one hand; Meyer, De Wette, etc., on the other. "Christ is [the] end of law for righteousness to every one that believeth." The Christ of God is made unto us righteousness. "By law is knowledge of sin." Righteousness cannot be had thus; only the believer is justified. Yet so sure is this result, that it belongs to every believer.

The apostle then contrasts the two systems and this by citations from the law itself. "For Moses describeth the righteousness that is of the law, that the man that has done the things shall live in virtue of them. But the righteousness that is by faith thus speaks, Say not in thy heart, Who shall go up to heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, or, Who shall go down into the abyss? that is, to bring up Christ from among dead (men). But what saith it? Near thee is the word, in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach, that if thou confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from among dead (men), thou shalt be saved." (Vers. 5-9.) Faith applies when all is lost under law and its righteousness is impossible.

First then is quoted Leviticus 18: 5, which is indeed a general recognized principle of the law, as the spirit is embodied in many passages. The ground of the other side is found in Deuteronomy 30. I do not agree with those who conceive that the apostle has put the smallest strain upon the latter citation. As in the former he speaks of life or living, not of eternal life which is God's free gift and only in Christ; so in the latter his use of Deuteronomy is most profound. Moses is setting before Israel, not only the consequences of their unfaithfulness, but the divine mercy which meets them in their ruin when their heart turns to Him spite of the broken law. Now Christ really lies under the law however veiled. "The Lord is that spirit," where those who read only the letter see nothing of Him and abide in death. But He is ever before the Holy Ghost. Hence the righteousness of faith did not cast the repentant Jew upon his own efforts, let them be ever so great.

"Say not in thy heart Who shall ascend to heaven? that is, to bring Christ down, or, Who shall descend into the abyss? that is, to bring up Christ from among dead (men)." Man could do neither. Had it been possible, neither would have suited the glory of God. He in grace meets man. It was the Father who sent His Son into the world. It was by the glory of the Father that He was raised from the dead. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son;" and God raised Him from the dead. On both truths the scriptures of the New Testament are most explicit. But what says Moses in this very passage here cited? "Near thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart." The blessing is at the doors. Christ is given and preached. It is for man to name Him with his mouth and to believe with his heart. There is no question of heights to be scaled or depths to be sounded, which would put honour upon human earnestness and ability. Christ is proclaimed for the simplest to confess Him, and to believe on His name. "That is, the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from among dead (men), thou shalt be saved." The outward expression is put first, not of course as most important, but as that which first comes into notice to the praise of Jesus: nevertheless it is of no value for the soul save as the embodiment of faith. "In thy heart" does not seem to be meant as a measure of affection, however truly there ought to be love for Him who first loved us. It does suppose however that the heart is interested in the truth, and that it is brought to desire what it hears to be true, instead of any longer fighting against it — brought to rejoice in the conviction that it is the truth of God.

Hence, believing in thy heart as well as confessing with thy mouth, the blessing is thine. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from among the dead, thou shalt be saved. It will be observed that there is here no mention of death, but of resurrection. Death does not of itself imply resurrection; but resurrection does necessarily involve death. Jesus then is confessed to be Lord: why fear, why be anxious, if He who has undertaken to save is above all? You believe in your heart that God raised Him from among the dead. It is not only then that love came down to meet you and suffer for you, but power has entered, where Jesus was crucified in weakness. God entered the grave of Jesus in power and waked Him up — has raised Him and given Him glory, that our faith and hope might be, not in Christ only, but in God. He is for thee. He has proved it in raising up Jesus from among the dead. "Thou shalt be saved," — not forgiven only — but "saved." "If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son; much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

Thus we see in Deuteronomy, when the legislator has closed all the precepts and rites of the law, and shown Israel rebellious and ruined under that order of things, he does not fail to hint at the resources of grace. He supposes the Jew cast out of the land because of his infidelity to the legal covenant and of course to God Himself. Nevertheless though he could not draw near after that manner, the word was nigh him, in his mouth and in his heart. This is the word, says the apostle, which we preach. It is Christ, end of law to every one that believes. So it will be at the close of the age for the godly Israelite, who from his land of exile turns to God in the sense and acknowledgment of the people's ruin. If unbelievers were hopeless because they could not go up to Jerusalem, or cross the deep, for tithes or feasts or sacrifices, faith accepted the word which met their need in grace where they were. Christ ended law, yet was righteousness for the believer, and for every believer. It is too late to speak of living when the law is broken and you are banished in consequence under the sentence of death. Christ then is the one spring of confidence; but if for righteousness, He also closes law to every believer. The word of faith speaks a wholly different language from that of the law. Confessing Jesus as Lord (or the Lord Jesus) and believing that God raised Him from the dead is the word of faith; and it is not received only but preached. God is energetic in His grace and sends out the message far and wide.

Thus there is the very reverse of looseness or a merely imaginative ingenuity in the apostle's employment of the Pentateuch. The gospel anticipates indeed but is on the same principle of grace towards all which Deuteronomy 30: 11-14 holds out to the outcast Jew. For, according to the outward letter and man, their case will be seen to be hopeless. But with God all things are possible; and faith rests on God, who brings out in due time what was then among the secret things that belong to Him, in contradistinction to His revealed ways in the law. In Christ now revealed all is plain; and the Christian does not wait for a future day. To him it is indeed always the time of the end; and he looks for Jesus day by day, knowing that He is ready to judge the quick and the dead, and that God is not slack concerning His promise as some men count slackness, but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The repentant Jew in the latter day will by and by be awakened to recognize the reality of His grace towards him; and he will find the word very nigh him, in his mouth and in his heart, ashamed alike of his sins and of his self- righteousness, broken in spirit and looking to God and to the resources of His mercy. So does the soul that receives the apostolic preaching now.

He had used the order of mouth and heart as in the original words of Moses. And so in fact it is that the gospel goes forth and exhorts men. We hear the confession of the mouth and trust the belief of the heart accordingly. But it is plain that the inner reception of the word must precede and accompany the outer expression of it in order to a true and full work in a man. The apostle knew this better than any of us, and lets us hear it in his next words: "for with [the] heart faith is exercised* unto righteousness, and with [the] mouth confession is made unto salvation." Thus the whole case is accurately stated, every objection anticipated and met. Without believing there can be no righteousness. We are justified by faith and in no other way. But if there be no confession of Christ the Lord with the mouth, we cannot speak of salvation; as our Lord said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not [baptized even though he might have been] shall be damned."

*Literally, the verse runs, "it is believed. . . and it is confessed. . ."

"For the scripture saith, No one believing on him shall be ashamed." (Ver. 11.) Assuredly he whom God justifies can have no reason to be ashamed, but rather to be always confident and to rejoice in the Lord always. And here the apostle triumphs in the indiscriminate favour of the gospel. As before in Romans 3: 23 he had insisted that there is no difference, for all sinned and do come short of the glory of God; so now there is none, "for the same Lord of all [is] rich toward all that call upon him." And this he fortifies by a citation from Joel 2: 32; "for every one soever who shall call on the name of [the] Lord shall be saved." There he stops. On the great future day all Israel shall be saved; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as Jehovah has said, and in the remnant whom Jehovah shall call. Meanwhile the Spirit avails Himself of His own comprehensive promises preceding the clause which specifies that localized blessing and gives all possible breadth to the "whosoever" so dear to the large heart of the apostle of the Gentiles; He had indeed foreseen and provided for all. And it is as beautiful to hear the apostle using the part which falls in with his broad argument as it is to know what comfort the special promise in the entire verse will bring to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the day that is coming.

But this predicted opening the door so widely to all that call on the name of the Lord gives rise to a new development of the argument. As the Gentiles did not call on the name of Jehovah, a fresh instrumentality begins to appear with a view to awakening them from the dust of death and furnishing such a testimony as should draw out their hearts toward Him. It will be needed by the Israelites scattered up and down the earth among the Gentiles when their hour of national restoration draws nigh; but the Spirit applies it here, as He doubtless intended it, with admirable foresight to the Gentiles meanwhile. They must be called by the gospel in order to call on the name of the Lord for salvation. Preaching is thus eminently characteristic of the ways of God not under law, but since redemption. For "how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without one preaching? and how shall they preach unless they shall have been sent? According as it is written, How beautiful the feet of those that announce glad tidings of peace, that announce glad tidings of good things!"

The law did not call any one. It regulated the ways of the people to whom it was given; and hence with it was bound up a priesthood which transacted their spiritual business with God, drawing near to Him in the sanctuary and representing the people there, with both gifts and sacrifices for sins. But the gospel supposes a wholly different state of things, in which the grace of God acts energetically, giving and producing what is according to Himself, on the proved ruin not merely of the Gentiles but of the Jews in the rejection of their own Messiah. Hence it goes out freely toward all, not merely to the Jews but to the Gentiles; and if these were the more necessitous, to them the more emphatically. Was the guilt, was the ruin, indiscriminate? So is His mercy; and the gospel is the witness which calls souls, not to do their duty as the tenure of life, but to believe in the Lord Jesus whom God raised from the dead, to believe for righteousness and to confess for salvation. Thus it becomes a question not of the law; for on this score a Jew was himself condemned and the Gentiles knew nothing of it, and, if they did, could find in it no better hope than the Jews. For salvation is what a lost sinner wants; and as God's word demonstrates such a condition to be that of His own people, and salvation therefore to be their true want, so not even a Jew could deny the Gentiles to be lost sinners in the fullest sense. Would they then deny the Lord to be the Lord of any or of all? Would they affirm that He was poor, that He was not rich enough to meet the most deplorable need of all who should call upon Him? They might spare themselves the trouble of solving a question perhaps too knotty for Rabbis: God had decided it Himself long ago as Israel was sliding faster and deeper into the fulness of revolt from Jehovah. He had associated deliverance with calling upon His name; not with observance of law, which in fact those who had it had broken; and He had proclaimed it in terms so large as to encourage and warrant any one whatever. Consequently then the dealings of grace imply a testimony to be heard and believed by all that call upon His name; and this again, one to preach or proclaim it duly sent of God.

The cheering announcement of Isaiah 52: 7 is the authority here cited; but here again we may observe the wisdom of the citation. The apostle does not quote the latter clause of the verse "that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" For in truth, according to the just sense of prophecy, the very reverse appears from that day to this. The days of vengeance were at hand for that Christ-rejecting generation, not of salvation for the holy city. And Jerusalem is still trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. But assuredly the joyful tidings must come, for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken it; and then how beautiful, yea, on the mountains (which the apostle did not cite) the feet of him that publishes glad tidings of peace, that tells glad tidings of good things, that publishes salvation, saying to Zion, Thy God reigneth! No dust will make their very feet otherwise than beautiful because of the good news they bear. It is not as in Nahum the fall of Nineveh, nor yet of Babylon, for Babylon, as punisher or punished, is heard of no more after Isaiah 48. We have from Isaiah 49-57 entered the still more solemn charge which the prophet lays in Jehovah's name against His people, not for idol worship but for the rejection of the Messiah. Yet here we have the glad tidings of His pardoning and delivering mercy after reaching the lowest depths of rebellion. The apostle shows that in this as in so many other respects the gospel anticipates what repentant and restored Israel will receive from God in the latter day, (and may we not add?) in if possible a deeper form of the truth. For grace, as we know it in Christ (even beyond earthly glory itself, let it be ever so pure as in that day), gives the deepest motives to the earnest spread of the good news: and who so fit to apply the prophecy thus as that indefatigable minister of the gospel, through whom mainly the gospel was even then present in all the world, and bearing fruit and making growth, as we learn in Colossians 1?

No; the watchmen of Jerusalem cannot yet raise their voice nor sing together; for Jerusalem is still in the hands of the cruel foe, and the hearts of the Jews are still under a tyrant more deadly still; but eye to eye shall they see when Jehovah restores Zion, and the waste places of Jerusalem shall burst out and sing together after ages of desolation; for Jehovah will at length have comforted His people and redeemed Jerusalem when He makes bare His holy arm before all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of their God. But the grace of God is not idle nor inefficient. Zion remains in the hands of the stranger because Zion's sons received not their divine King, but slew Him on the tree by the hands of lawless heathens who could be swayed by them and join them in that fatal deed, out of which God has caused to shine the richest mercy for both, if they but heed His message. Hence He is sending out His gospel (as this epistle styles it), as Paul also had received grace and apostleship for obedience of faith among all the nations in behalf of Christ's name.

We see clearly too in this how the ministering of the preacher is tied to the gospel itself. How debasing as well as groundless to foist in man here as if he must be the sender, where the whole scope is to make nothing of him and to glorify God in all things by Jesus Christ our Lord! In no part of scripture is man said to send out the preacher: God keeps this prerogative in His own hands. Hence, said our Lord here below to the disciples, "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that He will send forth labourers into his harvest. And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, etc. These twelve Jesus sent out." He was man, and could pray and bid His disciples pray; but He was God, Emmanuel, Jehovah, Messiah; and so as Lord of the harvest He could and did answer the prayer by constituting the twelve His apostles and sending them forth on their mission. And if once dead, He is risen and alive again for evermore, and still He from on high has given gifts to men. Believe not the enemy's lie that, because He is unseen, He has abdicated His headship or abandoned for one moment His loving care in supplying all that is needful for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Others who intrude into His place of sending out ministers of the gospel are but usurpers; and those who submit to be so sent are consenting parties (and for what?) to their Lord's dishonour. His will, His word, is plain enough: all that is wanted is an eye in us single to Christ. We shall then see clearly how deeply all this concerns His name, even if it cost us everything in this world. Doubtless the gospel comes through men, however truly sent from above men: only it is not for a man, or for any number of men, to arrogate the Lord's rights, who entrusts to His own servants His goods, to one five talents (to another two, to another one, to each according to his several ability); and who on His coming will reckon with those servants. Such is the doctrine of the divine word as set out dogmatically in the epistles and maintained even in the parables of the Saviour. How false is the practice of Christendom; and how hollow the evasions or apologies (they cannot be fairly called interpretations) of theologians! Why sell themselves to do this evil? Are they blind to results plain before all other eyes? Do they heed not the warnings in the unerring word of God of still worse ills at hand?

Thus prophecy speaks, not of a law to be done or of ordinances to be kept, but of a testimony in which God has complacency as being of His own grace, and so a matter of faith. Even the Jew who had the law could only be blessed by the good news. The law had wrought ruin and condemnation and death for no fault of its own, but of Israel who had broken it and fallen under its curse. Good can only come by grace through a testimony sent them from God. But the prophet adds more in the following chapter, the solemn witness of unbelief even among the Jews. "But they did not all obey the glad tidings. For Esaias saith, Lord, who believed our report? So then faith [is] of report, and the report through God's word."* (Ver. 16, 17.) Israel too, it is here shown, was to be in part at least unbelieving, if the prophet is to be credited; for the apostle abounds in testimonies from the Old Testament to make good his solemn charge against the rebellious people of God, and vindicate hence the going forth of the good news to the Gentiles. It was not merely Paul but their most illustrious prophet long ago who gave this appalling picture of Jewish unbelief. But being a question of a testimony sent out to be heard and believed, the way was open to reach the Gentiles who had not the law.

* B C D E, with some cursives, versions, and fathers, read Χριστοῦ "Christ's" for "God's;" F G, etc. omit either.

"But I say, Did they not hear? Yes indeed, Their voice went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world" (οἰκουμένης, the habitable earth). The apostle quotes from Psalm 19 a striking and most apt illustration of the universality of God's testimony. For we readily see that the psalm divides into two parts, the works of God and the law of Jehovah alike testifying, one outward and universal, the other dealing with those who possessed it. The heavens belonged to no land in particular, nor do the sun and stars shine for Israel alone. They are for man in the earth at large according to the beneficence of Him whose rain falls on just and unjust, and whose sun is made to rise on evil men and on good. Just so, whatever the circumscribed sphere of the law, the gospel goes forth in the grace of God without restriction. God is not indifferent, if the Jews were, to the Gentiles; He pities and has given a testimony to them in their dark ignorance. Compare Acts 14: 17; Romans 1: 20. This however is general, though enough to assert and exemplify the principle.

The good tidings then came by a testimony sent of God through those who preached, not by the law which could only show the Jew his duty and convict him of sin because of his failure under it. The only hope of good therefore for a sinner is from the gospel; but, if so, it goes out not to some only but to all mankind. And as Isaiah proved that the message would be slighted by the Jews (they that preached having to complain to the Lord, "Who hath believed our report?"), so the Psalms bear witness to a universal testimony of God in creation as illustrative of the principle that He thinks of and cares for, and would be known by, the Gentiles. Granted that the law dealt with Israel, has God nothing but the law? And what had the law done for them? or rather what had they done under it? "By the law is the knowledge of sin." This is wholesome no doubt, and should be humbling; but what a sinner evidently wants is far more that this, even salvation, and to this the law does not pretend, but the contrary. It can kill, not quicken; it can condemn, not justify. Grace alone can pardon, reconcile, bless, and this righteously through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. But this is the voice of the gospel, not of the law, and goes out, as being grace, to sinners indiscriminately, be they Gentiles or Jews matters little or nothing. They are needy, guilty, lost; and God is saving such by the faith of Jesus proclaimed in the gospel, which goes out accordingly to all the world, being in no way tied to the land of Palestine or any other.

It was in vain again for the Jews to allege that this was a dealing without warning on God's part. He had not kept it so absolutely a secret that they should not have been apprised by His word in their hands. "But I say, Did Israel not know? First, Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy through [that which is] not a nation, through a nation without understanding I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold and saith, I was found by those that sought me not; I became manifest to those that inquired not after me. But to Israel he saith, All the day long I spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." Thus not only is the general principle illustrated from the psalms, but the lawgiver is himself summoned to give his ancient testimony to the future intention of God in provoking the Jews to jealousy on the occasion of His ways with those who were not a nation, or a foolish nation — an evident allusion to His mercy to the Gentiles, not abandoning His people, but provoking them to jealousy, and in fact drawing out their irritation. Still more explicit is the greatest of the prophets, who says outright that God should be found by those who were not seeking Him, and make Himself manifest to those who did not ask after Him — a description certainly anticipative of His call of the Gentiles; the more suitable because in the same context He says to Israel that He spread out His hands all the day long to a people disobedient and contradicting.

A Jew would not deny the law, the psalms, and the prophets; no honest mind could dispute the interpretation. The application is incontestable. From the beginning, in their greatest prosperity, and when their ruin was predicted formally and fully, such was the uniform declaration of the Holy Spirit. They should not have been ignorant. God had taken care to testify the unbelieving obduracy of Israel and the calling in of Gentiles. These find God under that gospel against which the Jews more than ever rage and rebel.

ROMANS 11.

It was the prophet Isaiah then, after Moses, not Paul, who had distinctly pronounced Israel a rebellious people, spite of God's daily pleading with them, and the call of the Gentiles who had not sought it. It was in vain to quarrel with the gospel on this score. The question is raised consequently whether Israel was wholly to lose their position in God's favour according to promise. The apostle proves the contrary in this chapter.

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? Far be it! For I also am an Israelite, of Abraham's seed, of Benjamin's tribe. God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the scripture saith in [the section of] Elias, how he pleadeth with God against Israel? 'Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have dug down thine altars; and I only am left, and they seek my life?' But what saith the divine answer to him? 'I have left to myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.'* Thus then in the present time also there hath been a remnant according to election of grace; but if by grace, no longer of works, otherwise grace becomes no longer grace [; but if of works, it is no longer grace, otherwise work is no longer work†]. What then? That which Israel seeketh for he did not obtain, but the election obtained, and the rest were hardened; even as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupefaction, eyes not to see and ears not to hear unto this day.' And David saith, 'Let their table be for a snare, and for a trap, and for a stumbling-block, and for a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened not to see, and bow down their back alway." (Ver. 1-10.)

*In the LXX, as the text at present stands, the masculine article is prefixed, not as here the feminine; but it may originally have been otherwise as elsewhere. (Judges 2: 13; Hosea 2: 8; Zeph. 1: 4.) The quotation is the sense, not the precise transcript of either the Heb. or the LXX. Abarbanel speaks of a male image for men, a female for women; but this scarcely accounts for the case before us. Others (as Authorized Version) suppose an ellipse of εἰκόνι.

†The Vatican, which is the best support of this doubtful clause, reads χάρις, grace.

This is the first answer to the question of Israel's total and final rejection. God foreknew* His people when He chose and called them; and, knowing all their evil beforehand, He certainly will not cast them off. He has not done so, as Paul's own case proved; for he was no bad instance — he who had shared in the nation's guiltiest prejudices and bitterest unbelief and rejection of Jesus; yet had God called him. His love lingered over His poor unworthy people even now, as Paul was also a pattern for them who should hereafter believe on Christ Jesus to eternal life. On him first was the Lord showing the whole of His longsuffering: yet was he also an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, the one recalling the ancient promises, the other subsequent sin, himself withal present electing mercy, a pledge of the future grace which would save the people fully. Were the exclusion absolute, Paul certainly could not have been brought into His favour. But there is further proof still. "Know ye not what the scripture saith" in the account of Elijah? The disheartened prophet saw himself alone faithful in that dark page of Israel's history — himself therefore the object of hatred unto death as far as king and people could. But the divine admonition let him know of a complete remnant, "seven thousand, such as bowed not the knee to Baal." Thus then in the present time also there has been a remnant "according to election of grace." It was electing grace now as then. The general state was at that time undeniably apostate: what was it in Paul's day?

* It is a mistake to call this an election before the world's foundation which is only said of Christians, of the church. Israel were chosen in time.

This gives the apostle the occasion, never let slip by the Holy Spirit, of asserting grace in its exclusion of works — in their mutual exclusion, if we accept the received reading. But I do not see that the bracketed clause adds to the precision of the truth; whereas it was natural enough to tack it on, especially as the form in the Vatican copy seems in evident error (χάρις instead of ἔργον in the end of the disputed clause).

How then stands the case? "What Israel seeketh, this it obtained not, but the election obtained; and the rest were hardened." It will be noticed that those we call ordinarily the remnant or righteous portion of Israel are designated "the election," while the mass are called the rest or remnant. "Hardened" also is the right sense, rather than blinded (though this is also taught elsewhere). It may be that ἐπωρώθησαν was confounded in thought and sense with ἐπηρώθησαν, as another has pointed out to be the fact in the Vatican text of Job 17: 7 in the LXX.

This leads the apostle to adduce the testimony of scripture, in the words (apparently mingled) of Isaiah 29: 10 and Deuteronomy 29: 4, followed up by the still more tremendous imprecation of David in Psalm 69: 22, 23, all speaking of the ungodly in Israel. Here again the law, the psalms, and the prophets gave their joint overwhelming evidence in terms so vehement that the apostle had rather to bring in "strong consolation" from the unfailing faithfulness of God for at least a remnant as we have seen, before he established every word by these "two or three witnesses" for the general condition of Israel. What more apt to clench the question? What wiser course possible for the apostle?

But let me refer to Calvin's comment on these quotations; for, able as he was, pious too and grave in general, his narrow system exposed him here to adventure remarks on the apostle no less unworthy than presumptuous. "Quae adducit testimonia, quanquam ex variis potius scripturae locis collecta, quam ex uno loco desumpta sunt, omnia tamen videntur aliena esse ab ejus proposito, si ex circumstanciis suis ea propius expendas. Ubique enim videas excaecationem et indurationem commemorari, tanquam Dei flagella, quibus jam admissa ab impiis flagitia ulciscitur: Paulus autem probare hic contendit, excaecari non eos, qui sua malitia jam id meriti sint, sed qui ante mundi creationem reprobati sunt a Deo. (?) Hunc nodum ita breviter solvas, Quod origo impietatis, quae ita in se provocat Dei furorem, est perversitas naturae a Deo derelictae. Quare non abs re Paulus de aeterna reprobatione (?) haec citavit, quae ex ea prodeunt ut fructus ex arbore, et rivus a scaturigine. Impii quidem propter sua scelera justo Dei judicio caecitate puniuntur: sed si fontem exitii eorum quaerimus, eo deveniendum erit, quod a Deo maledicti, nihil omnibus factis, dictis, consiliis suis, quam maledictionem accersere et accumulare possunt. Imo aeternae reprobationis ita abscondita est causa, ut nihil aliud nobis supersit, quam admirari incomprehensibile Dei consilium sicuti tandem ex clausula patebit. Stulte autem faciunt, qui simulac verbum factum est de propinquis causis, earum praetextu hanc primam, quae sensum nostrum latet, obtegere tentant: acsi Deus non libere ante Adae lapsum statuisset de toto humano genere quod visum est, quia damnat vitiosum ac pravum ejus semen: deinde quia peculiariter singulis quam meriti sunt scelerum mercedem rependit."* (Calv. in loc. i. 149, ed. Tholuck, Halae, 1831.)

* "The quotations which he adduces, collected from various parts of scripture, and not taken from one passage, do seem, all of them, to be foreign to his purpose, when you closely examine them according to their contexts; for you will find that in every passage, blindness and hardening are mentioned as scourges, by which God punished crimes already committed by the ungodly; but Paul labours to prove here, that not those were blinded who so deserved by their wickedness, but who were rejected by God before the foundation of the world." [Paul really does nothing less.]

"You may thus briefly untie this knot — that the origin of the impiety which provokes God's displeasure is the perversity of nature when forsaken by God. Paul therefore, while speaking of eternal reprobation, has not without reason referred to those things which proceed from it, as fruit from the tree or river from the fountain. The ungodly are indeed for their sins visited by God's judgment with the blindness; but if we seek for the source of their ruin, we must come to this, — that being accursed by God they cannot by all their deeds, sayings, and purposes, get and obtain anything but a curse. Yet the cause of eternal reprobation is so hidden from us, that nothing remains for us but to wonder at the incomprehensible purpose of God, as we shall at length see by the conclusion. But they reason absurdly who, whenever a word is said of the proximate causes, strive, by bringing forward these, to cover the first, which is hid from our view; as though God had not, before the fall of Adam, freely determined to do what seemed good to him with respect to the whole human race on this account, — because he condemns his corrupt and depraved seed, and also because he repays to individuals the reward which their sins have deserved." I purposely cite from the Calvin Transl. series, Comm. on Rom., p. 417. Edinb. 1849.

One could understand a believer perhaps saying that the citations of an apostle seemed foreign to his purpose when not examined with their context; but is it too much if we denounce as irreverent no less than unintelligent the man who could venture so to speak, for no better reason than a blind love of his own scheme? It is excellent and right that scripture should declare hardening to be an infliction of God after men have already proved their ungodliness. It is false and bad to say that Paul labours to prove here that the blinding was not because it was deserved but in consequence of eternal reprobation. In fact scripture teaches no such doctrine. Nowhere are any said to be rejected before the foundation of the world. Nor this only: they are punished at the world's end for their wickedness, not because of a divine decree. Indeed a judgment in this case would be nugatory. But they are judged each according to their works, and the lake of fire is their sentence; though scripture takes care after this to append the divine side, adding that, if any one was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. So in a previous chapter of this epistle Paul had carefully shown how God, willing to show His wrath and make His power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy which He had before prepared for glory. To me I confess it looks like the blinding influence of falsehood when men overlook the difference of vessels of wrath fitted on the one hand to destruction, and of vessels of mercy which He on the other hand before made ready for glory. It is guilty man who is the agent in sin and misery; God only who is the source of all the good, though His longsuffering be conspicuous most of all if possible in bearing with the evil who at last come into judgment.

In short then not only not Paul but no other inspired writer ever speaks of "eternal reprobation;" it is merely a dream of a certain school. So the curse of God follows, instead of causing, the impious ways of men. Arminianism is wholly astray no doubt in reducing God's election to a mere foresight of good in some creatures; but Calvinism is no less erroneous in imputing the evil lot of the first Adam race to God's decree. They both spring from analogous roots of unbelief: Calvinism reasoning, contrary to scripture, from the truth of election to the error of eternal reprobation; Arminianism rightly rejecting that reprobation but wrongly reasoning against election. Like other systems they are in part true and in part false — true in what they believe of scripture, false in yielding to human thoughts outside scripture: happy those, who are content as Christians with the truth of God and refuse to be partisans on either side of men! Our wisdom is to have our minds open to all scripture, refusing to go a hair-breadth farther.

The next position of the apostle is, in great part, decided by the question: "I say then, Did they stumble in order that they should fall? Far be it: but by their trespass salvation [is come] to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. But if their trespass be [the] world's riches and their loss [the] Gentiles' riches, how much more their fulness? Now* I speak to you, the Gentiles; inasmuch therefore as I am apostle of Gentiles I glorify my ministry, if by any means I shall provoke to jealousy my flesh and save some of them. For if their rejection [be the] world's reconciliation, what the reception but life from [the] dead?" (Ver. 11-15.)

* δέ "but," "now," is the reading of A B and other good authorities, instead of the more common and easy γάρ, "for." The difference in sense seems slight.

Thus the very slip of Israel from its place of witness and depositary of promise, turned as it is through divine mercy into present favour towards the Gentile world, becomes an argument in the hands of grace to assure their future restoration. The apostle alludes to the words of Deuteronomy 32, the bearing of which on the question is as evident as to the Jew their authority is indisputable. It was not Paul but Moses who declared that the Jew provoked Jehovah to jealousy, that he was unmindful of the Rock who begat him, the glory of God that formed him. It was Moses who testified that Jehovah said, "I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be; for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." Undoubtedly it is the sure and solemn threat of God's displeasure in turning from Israel to the Gentiles, as certainly as Israel used to turn from Jehovah to false gods. But the threat, now accomplishing after the utmost patience, and only accomplished when they added to their old idolatry the still graver sin of rejecting the Messiah and disdaining the gospel that offered them the pardon of these and all other sins by His blood, — the threat itself contains the no less sure intimation of restoring mercy in the end. For certainly He who acts with a view to provoke them to jealousy through blessing the Gentiles does not mean to cast them off eventually; rather the very reverse. One sees by such admirable reasoning and such profoundly accurate employment of the Old Testament scripture how truly it is the same Spirit who wrote of old by Moses working now by Paul.

Apart from any particular allusion, the state of things whether now or by and by accords perfectly both with the facts of Christianity and with the general prospects for the world according to the prophets. For it is just when the Jews lose all their place and nation no less than distinctive rank as a witnessing and worshipping people in their land that we see the Gentiles gradually renouncing their idols, and the true God and His word incomparably better known than even of old in Israel. Revealed truth, having its centre and display in Christ, alone accounts for the eclipse on the one side and the possession of a brighter light on the other. Did not the Jews reject the true light which now shines on nations so long benighted in idolatry? Again, while owning the mercy of God, which has thus wondrously turned aside to visit the Gentile with the gospel during the continued unbelief and consequently dark and wretched nothingness of the Jew, who can overlook the rich and full stream of Old Testament scripture which depicts the joy and blessedness of the whole earth only when God causes His face to shine on Israel? "God shall bless us" (says the inspired Jewish psalmist); "and all the ends of the earth shall fear him." It is right to preach, a privilege to look for souls to be blessed; but it is vain, because unscriptural, to expect universality of blessing and delivering power over the world as a whole till Zion's light is come and the glory of Jehovah is risen on her. Then and not before shall the Gentiles come to her light, and kings to the brightness of her rising; then the nation and kingdom that will not serve Zion shall perish — a state of things in evident contrast with the grace that goes out now to Jew and Gentile indiscriminately, and gathers believing souls by the Spirit for heavenly and eternal glory, instead of being a display of the righteous government of Jehovah-Messiah in Israel and over all the earth.

Hence it is obvious with what strict truth the apostle could affirm that the salvation to the Gentiles, by the slip or trespass of the Jews, is but to provoke them to jealousy instead of being a sign of being abandoned for ever as a people by God. Nay further he could reason, in harmony with the prophets, that if their trespass is the world's wealth, and their loss and diminution the Gentiles' wealth, how much more their fulness? The apostle here accounts, or, if one will, apologizes, for his bringing in the Gentiles when discussing the destiny of Israel. He was speaking to the saints at Rome, "to you the Gentiles." Further, "inasmuch therefore as I am apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry:" how or why should he forget the divine mercy to such hinging on God's ways with Israel that now occupied him? Especially too as he was thereby seeking to further that provocation to jealousy for which he had the authority of Him who alone is good and of whose compassion toward Israel he was no less assured than of His righteous displeasure at their sins. "If by any means I may provoke to jealousy [those who are] my flesh and may save some of them." (Ver. 14.) "For if their rejection [be the] world's reconciliation, what their reception but life from among [the] dead?" Such we have seen is the uniform impression left by the Psalms and the Prophets, as every candid and intelligent Jew must feel. Then only will be "the regeneration" when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory with His glorified assessors, and all the nations as well as the twelve tribes of Israel shall know what it is to have a king reigning in righteousness and princes ruling in judgment. It is the mistake of Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, of Meyer, Fritzsche, Tholuck, etc., to bring in the resurrection literally as meant here, though I doubt not that the first resurrection will have then taken place as proved by the most positive evidence of scripture. Nor is there just ground for Dean Alford's singular indecision who objects both to the true and to the erroneous view. Whatever the divine mercy in the "world's reconciling" which we now know while the gospel goes forth to every creature, a wholly different blessedness awaits the whole earth as "life from the dead," when all Israel received back and saved, far from their old envy and churlish scorn, shall bid all the lands to sing joyfully to Jehovah and come before His presence with triumphal song. If His house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations, in that day also is His name to be great among the nations, and in every place incense is to be burnt and a pure offering offered to His name. How far beyond the present, and how different, though the present may be an earnest and pledge! Will it not be for all on earth "life from the dead?"

It seems to my mind that Calvin is far from having a simple, clear, or strong view of the argument, though I do in no wise deny his generally grave and pious sentiments. But he says that you will be greatly hampered in understanding this discussion, except you take notice that the apostle speaks, sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, sometimes of single individuals. The truth is that the question is exclusively about the nation as God's witness on earth and inheriting the line of promise from Abraham. There was no doubt about individuals. But Paul, we have seen, beautifully uses the faith of himself and others as a proof that even during the judicial hardening there is a remnant according to the election of grace, and that the call of Gentiles meanwhile is but a provocation to jealousy, instead of implying that God cast away His people, and that they have fallen never more to be received as Israel. And here I cannot but deplore the presumption, as well as ignorance, with which even so godly a person as the Genevese chief speaks, especially on verse 12.* The apostle should have been humbly listened to, not corrected. Need I add that the rudeness of speech belongs exclusively to the critic, and that the inspiration is thoroughly exact, not the too confident commentator? A human antithesis, which Calvin ventured to say would have been more proper, is in force, beauty, and truth far short of that which the Spirit has given. A rising or raising up of Israel conveys no such import of necessary blessedness as their "reception" after their stumble, loss, and rejection. Even if we did not see and could not prove this, every believer is bound to resent such want of respect to scripture.

* "Magis autem proprie locutus fuisset, si lapsui opposuisset suscitationem. Quod ideo admoneo, nequis dicendi ornatum hic requirat, aut offendatur ista dicendi ruditate. Pectus enim, non linguam, ut formarent, haec scripta sunt." In loc. p. 151.

Here the apostle adds some observations which not only confirm but explain much: these the reader should the more sedulously weigh because they are in general ill understood. "But if the first-fruit* [be] holy, the lump also; and if the root [be] holy, the branches also. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast graft in among them and wast made fellow-partaker of the root and** of the fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches: but if thou boastest, not thou bearest the root but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches† were broken off in order that I might be graft in. Well; through unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, it may be he will not spare even thee." (Ver. 16-21.) From principles familiar to the Jew in the Old Testament the reasoning is drawn, and the ways of God in government are vindicated with singular force. The Jew, springing from Abraham, the one first chosen and called out to have promises in his line (though for all others in their effects), had been the natural trunk or branches of the olive tree. The Gentile grew wild outside. But God must have branches in keeping with the root, and, because the Jews were not, judgment proceeded against them. It was evident then, first, that boasting least became the Gentiles, who had no necessary or natural connection with the root, the father of the faithful, like the Jews; secondly, that they had most reason to fear, for if God had dealt with the failure of the seed of Abraham, it was not to be conceived that He would tolerate Gentile iniquity. It belonged to the plan of God to graft the Gentile into the line of promise on earth, in place of Jewish branches broken off through their unbelief. By faith the Gentile stands: let him not be highminded but fear. Otherwise God will not spare.

* There is not the least ground for the strange notion of Chalmers after Mede that by the first-fruit the apostle meant the earliest Jewish converts to Christianity, though no one denies that  James 1: 18 applies the term to the Christian believers out of Israel, as Jeremiah 2: 3 had already done to Israel originally as such. It is demonstrable from the context that by the figures of the first-fruit with the lump (compare Num. 15: 19-21) and the root with the branches the apostle is setting forth the relation and responsibility of those who followed him to whom the promises were given, as the stock of divine testimony on earth after men at large had fallen into idolatry. Theodoret, like Origen, indulges in the odd conceit that Christ is "the first-fruit," while rightly regarding Abraham as "the root." Both illustrations really point to the same.

The rendering here is as certain as the sense resulting from it is clear and good. With plurals or collectives ἐν regularly means "among," as in the Authorized Version, or "inter illos" as Grotius correctly translates The Vulgate ("in illis") is obscure; Calvin and Beza, not without predecessors among the fathers and followers in modern Germany, including even Olshausen and Meyer, give "pro illis" which is unequivocally without warrant. Erasmus is far more right in his comment than Beza who cavils at it and adopts the sense which the former justly censures. But there is no need of resorting to the influence of the Hebrew preposition in however largely true elsewhere in the New Testament. What we find here is as common in classical as in Hellenistic Greek; but ἐν = in loco (or locum) is the usage nowhere that I know, and in my judgment impossible to reconcile with the genius of the language.

** The καί "and" is doubtful; *  B C, with the Coptic, and Damasus, reject it, probably others also; and we can readily see why some might bring it in to soften a phrase seemingly rugged without it.

† A B C Dc F G L P and many cursives and fathers omit οἵ, which may readily have crept in from the context.

"Behold then God's goodness and severity: upon them that fell severity, but upon thee God's goodness if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they too, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be graft in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut off from the olive tree wild by nature, and contrary to nature wast graft into a good olive tree, how much more shall these who are according to nature be graft into their own olive tree?" (Ver. 22-24.)

* Θεοῦ is attested by A B C D* beside many ancient versions.

It is of the greatest moment to avoid confounding the continuous line of the inheritance of the promise on earth, the olive tree, with the mystery of Christ and the church where all is new and above nature. There is no breaking off members from the body, nor is the Jew a natural limb any more than the Gentile. All is heavenly grace and entirely distinct from the system of administered promises which began with Abraham, the first-fruit. No doubt those who compose the church, Christ's body, come in as branches standing through faith in the room of the broken off Jewish ones; but others do also who are mere professors of Christ, and do not appreciate God's goodness but forsake it for forms or scepticism or open evil, and will thus fall under His just severity when the moment arrives to cut off the faithless Gentile graft, as before the unbelieving natural boughs of Israel. It is no question of saving grace here but of earthly responsibility according to the respective testimony, first of Israel, next of Christendom. A man of exercised conscience, or even of ordinary knowledge of the New Testament, cannot look on the Gentile profession of Christ east, west, north, south, and affirm seriously that they have continued in God's goodness; if not, the sentence is excision for the Gentile, as of old for the Jew. Will the tree then be cut down? In nowise more in the future than in the past. Contrariwise the judgment of the Gentile branches makes way for the grafting in of the Jews, for they will then no longer abide in unbelief, and God is able to graft them in again. It is indeed "their own olive tree," which God never forgets, nor should the Gentile.

Thus we all may and should clearly see the distinctness of the responsibility of the creature, whether in Israel or in Christendom, from the security of the elect who are saved by grace. Salvation is of Him who is rich in mercy, possible only, though given fully and freely, to the believer in virtue of redemption. But this does not hinder the trial of now, as of Israel in the past. The revealed result is the apostasy; but grace will translate the saints risen or changed to meet the Lord at His coming, as His day will fall with unsparing judgments on His enemies and most severely on those who abuse in the worst way the best and brightest privileges. The cutting off of the apostate Gentile profession will make way for the reception of Israel.

The apostle had reasoned against the notion that God had cast away His people; first, from the remnant according to the election of grace, of whom he was himself a sample; and next, from God's revealed object in calling Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy, which brought in the beautiful and instructive episode of their own olive tree, still pointing in a similar direction; but now we come to a ground more definite and conclusive. The word of God has given express testimony to His purpose of recalling Israel in sovereign mercy after and spite of all their sins, giving them in the latter thorough repentance and turning their heart toward their Messiah so long rejected.

"For I do not wish you, brethren, to be ignorant of this mystery, in order that ye be not wise in your own conceits, that hardness in part is happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in; and so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is the covenant on my part to them when I shall have taken away their sins." (Ver. 25-27.) If the apostle used the Septuagint Version of two passages in Isaiah (Isa. 59: 20, Isa. 27: 9; compare also Jer. 31), in the Greek text as it now stands the phrase is neither "to" Zion, as in the Hebrew, nor "out of" Zion as in the epistle, but ἕνεκεν ("for the sake of"), save in two copies referred to by Holmes and Parsons in their great edition of the LXX, one of which is certainly a correction, the other probably so. That Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret cite according to the New Testament decides nothing against the common text of the Seventy. And this is confirmed by the plain fact that Origen, who had quoted the prophet when interpreting Psalm 14 according to the apostle's form of citation, gives in his Hexapla the text of the LXX. just as it now stands, while we see Aquila and Symmachus adhering precisely to the Hebrew. It is evident to me that the last verses of Psalm 16 and Psalm 52 fully and literally justify the apostle, who was directed by the Holy Spirit to use the Old Testament in such a way as looks lax to the hasty, careless, or unbelieving, too disposed to regard an inspired man as like themselves, but really with the most comprehensive wisdom and the nicest exactitude, so as to convey the mind of God as contained in His word, not in one text only but out of many interwoven into one. The Deliverer will come to Zion, out of which He will subsequently send the rod of His power for the full deliverance of His people, in the day that He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob and place him for ever under the new covenant.

Thus if the hardening of Israel (though, we may bless God, only in part) was then true and still goes on, long before announced, the same prophet and, we may add, the rest of the prophets anticipate the bright day for the earth when all Israel, as such, shall be saved. The πλήρωμα, fulness or full complement of the Gentiles, who now believe, will have come in; and so the long guilty, long chastened, people of Jehovah will turn to the Lord and own Him in the crucified Nazarene, their Lord and their God; even as Thomas who in this represents them, seeing Him and believing.

There is no comment in the New Testament more important for determining the just meaning of Old Testament prophecy. The allegorical school of ancients from Origen down to the moderns of our own day are in this far from the truth of God. Indeed it is as a system mere trifling and its root unbelief, as its dogmatic effect is to shake confidence in the plain written word, and its practical result is not only to deprive the ancient people of God of their hope, but to lower and obscure our own by substituting the earthly position of Israel (confused and spoiled by a so-called spiritualism) for separation to and union with Christ in heaven, the true place of the Christian and of the church. It will astonish some of my readers to learn that Origen, undoubtedly one of the ablest and most learned of the early Greek fathers, speaks of Zion as representing the Father in this very connection! Others may be more sober; but they understood the truth no better than he, if they did not commit themselves to such wild flights of fancy. If some might have hoped better things of Theodoret, like Chrysostom, I am forced to prove how precarious is the teaching which, after saying truly that the Jews will believe, on the conclusion of the work spoken of among the Gentiles, tells us that "all Israel" means those who believe whether of Jews or of Gentiles. Even this meagre expectation of blessing at the end for Israel is boldly denied by Jerome (Comm. Esai. xi.), who will have all to be understood of the first advent!

Nor did the reformers clear themselves from the ignorance and prejudice of the fathers, partly through their dread of Anabaptist violence and fanaticism in their dreams of a fifth kingdom, dreams which after all are far more akin to the theories of Rome and the fathers than to the holy and heavenly hopes given in the written word. For it will be observed that such visionaries look for a Zion of their own on earth, just as in a modified sense their adversaries interpret the prophets of the church. All were at fault, though in different directions; so must all be who do not see the church's portion to be a heavenly one with Christ at His coming, who will restore His people to the enjoyment of every promised blessing and glory on the earth, the nations being then only blessed as a whole though subordinately. But the risen saints will reign with Christ over the earth. We are blessed in heavenly places in Him.

Hence we can understand the vacillation of Luther. But Calvin was always wrong, as an instance of which may suffice his interpretation of this place where he makes "all Israel" to mean the whole of those saved, the Jews having only the superior place as the firstborn.*

*"Multi accipiunt de populo Judaico, acsi Paulus diceret instaurandum adhuc in eo religionem ut prius; sed ego Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum extendo, hoc sensu: Quum Gentes ingressae fuerint, simul et Judaei ex defectione se ad fidei obedientiam recipient: atque ita complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem ex utrisque colligi oportet: sic tamen ut priorem locum Judaei obtineant, ceu in familia Dei primogeniti." (Comm. in loc.) Nor is his reason sounder than his conclusion; for he considers the mystic sense to suit better because Paul wished to point out here the consummation of Christ's kingdom, "quae in Judaeis minime terminatur sed totum orbem comprehendit." The argument really goes to confirm what is denied; for the church is essentially an election out of Jews and Gentiles, and never can embrace the whole world; whereas the salvation of Israel at Christ's coming to reign inaugurates and characterizes His kingdom over all the earth. Compare Zechariah 12, 14.

Much more correctly have Beza on the Protestant side, and Estius on the Catholic expounded the verse and shown the opposition of πᾶς Ἰσραήλ in the future hardening ἀπὸ μέρους, which strictly means "in part," not a mere qualifying of a severe declaration, "until" also specifying the point of time at which the great change takes place. To say with Calvin that "until" (ἄχρις οὗ) does not mark this but only equivalent to "that" shows the strong prejudice of a good man whose knowledge of the language was imperfect and who missed to a great extent the point of the chapter before him, through that wisdom in one's own conceit against which the apostle is warning the Gentiles. That "the fulness of the Gentiles" cannot mean the general conversion of the world to Christ, is perfectly certain if it were only from the previous reasoning of the apostle in the central portion of the chapter, where he asks if the slips of the Jews were the world's riches, how much more their fulness? and shows how he was provoking them to jealousy to save some; for if their rejection be the world's reconciling, what their reception but life from among the dead? And this, as already shown, harmonizes with the constant testimony of the Law, and the Psalms, and the Prophets, which invariably make the blessing of Israel as a creation the condition and under God the means of the blessing of all the earth — a new state of things, not the gospel or the church as now known, both of which are inconsistent with it, but the kingdom in its manifestation of glory when in the broadest sense all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Here the commentators are, I must say, painfully defective. The effort of some ancients, and of moderns like Grotius and Hammond, to find the accomplishment in the apostolic times is of all schemes the grossest absurdity, and the most directly opposed to the text commented on.

It may be added that, though Dean Alford took the term Israel in its proper sense, he like the rest spoils much of the force of the truth by winding up with the assertion that the matter here treated is their reception into the church of God. Not so. The question of the olive tree stands wholly distinct from the church, though no doubt there are branches now in the olive tree since Pentecost which are also members of Christ's body, the assembly of God. But the olive tree is another idea altogether and embraces the dealings of God on the footing of promise since Abraham through Israel of old, the Gentile profession now, and Israel again in the millennial age, not believers only but responsibility according to the privileges given, with judgment executed on the faithless Jewish branches of the tree to let in the Gentiles, as it will be executed on the disobedient Gentiles when God will give repentance to Israel and remission of sins at the appearing of Christ and His kingdom.

Hence the apostle goes on to affirm what is wholly different from the gospel and church state. "According to the gospel, [they are] enemies on your account; but according to the election, beloved on account of the fathers.* For the gifts and the calling of God [are] irrevocable." (Ver. 28, 29.) The meaning is that, after the Jews proved their hostility to the gospel instead of being saved by it, which God turns, as we have seen, to His gracious call of the Gentiles meanwhile, election love will still prove faithful in the latter day to the sons for the sake of the fathers. This is not the principle on which souls are blessed now whether from Gentiles or from Jews. There is no difference. All are alike guilty and lost through their sins; all alike forgiven and saved through faith. But after the actual unbelief of the Jews, sovereign mercy will interpose at the end of the age. For the gifts and the calling of God admit of no regret on His part. He may repent of creation (Gen. 6), never of what grace gave in promise to Abraham and to his seed, never of His call which was first illustrated publicly in the father of the faithful. According to that "election" He will yet break their stony heart and put a new spirit within them.

*"Incredulos fuisse redditos misericordia Gentibus exhibita, paulo asperius est; nihil tamen continet absurdi, quia Paulus excaecationis causam non assignat, sed tantum significat, quod ad Gentes transtulit Deus Judaeis fuisse ademptum." Comm. in loc. ed. Tholuck, p. 158.

"For as ye were once disobedient to God but now have become objects of mercy through their disobedience, so have they also now become disobedient to the mercy shown to you, in order that they also may become objects of mercy. For God shut up together all in disobedience in order that he might show mercy to all." (Verses 30-32.)

Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, with the Vulgate, the Peshito and the Philoxenian Syriac, the Arabic, are here more correct than the Geneva Version, Beza, and the Authorized. Calvin seems nearer to the truth, but has not quite hit the mark. "That they became unbelievers through the mercy shown to the Gentiles" is indeed somewhat harsh; nor is there any need of his explanation for clearing up a difficulty created by his own mistake. The Jews rebelled against the mercy shown to the Gentiles as we learn from the Acts, 1 Thess. 2, etc., and as experience shows in fact to this day.

There appears to my mind not only an absence of any just sense in the modern view but positive error at issue with the chapter, the context, and scripture in general. With the chapter it clashes, because the previous argument treats the restoration of the Jews as life from the dead to the world, not the fulness of the Gentiles the means of their restoration; with the context, because the express point is to crush all conceit from both Jew and Gentile, and especially from the Gentile as now enjoying light whilst the Jew knows a dark and cold eclipse; with scripture at large, because nowhere is the mercy shown to the Gentiles hinted at as the (or a) means of Israel's recovery. No doctrine can be conceived more foreign to the Bible than that it is by the instrumentality of believing Gentiles that Israel as a nation shall at length look to Christ and so obtain mercy. As the Gentiles were warned that they must be cut off if they continued not in God's goodness (and none but the most unspiritual, not to say hardened, can affirm that they have so continued), the sentence is excision, not the honour of bringing Israel into the faith. No doubt the believing Gentiles will be translated to higher blessedness, as the believing Jews were when the faithless Jews were cut off. Thus the prime object is to extinguish all self-confidence and boasting. As mercy alone accounted for bringing in the Gentiles on Israel's rebellion against God, so the Jews when grafted into their own olive tree will feel that nothing but mercy could have done it or explain it, somewhat in unison of spirit with the apostle of the circumcision when at the council of Jerusalem he uttered the memorable words, so worthy of the occasion, "We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they" (the Gentiles), not they, even as we (the Jews).

Thus they were all sinners; and the dealings of God in holiness and love and truth only brought out the stubborn insubjection of both Jew and Gentile, on the one hand, and the incomparable mercy of God, on the other: man's claims, righteousness, privileges, all ending in unbelief and rebellion, but God never more truly shining as God than in His mercy enduring for ever.

Can one wonder that the large and fervent heart of the apostle, animated and filled yet guarded by the inspiring Spirit, breaks forth in an outburst of praise as he looks back on the grace and ways of God in Christ? "O depth of God's riches* and wisdom and knowledge: how unsearchable his judgments and untraceable his ways! For who hath known Jehovah's mind? or who became his counsellor? or who first gave to him and it shall be repaid to him? Because of him and through him and to him [are] all things: to him the glory unto the ages. Amen." (Ver. 33-36.) He is the source, means, and end of all He has counselled, accomplished, or purposes still to effect for His own glory.

*Or "both of God's wisdom" etc. as in the Authorized Version.

The appropriateness of the doxology to the epistle is not only remarkable in itself but exactly in place where it stands. Indeed it is not alone; for, as we have a very brief one in the first chapter, we have another very notable in the last. Here it is the admiration of his soul as he looks back on the triumphs of divine mercy — the last thing of which man would think in discussing the dispensations of God. Yet to the spiritual mind subject to the written word and confiding in the known characters of God as He has revealed Himself in Christ, such is the bright and blessed and adoring conclusion. The depth of His wealth, wisdom, and knowledge is to be seen, felt, proved, but unfathomable; His decisions beyond scrutiny, His ways not to be traced out, yet all open to our learning of Him with ever swelling praise. For who knew Jehovah's mind? or who became His counsellor? Yet has not the apostle touched on other and heavenly purposes for the glory of Christ in the church, of which he speaks to the Ephesian saints in due season. Here he had only been given to develop the righteousness of God in the face of man's unrighteousness, known from the beginning and revealed all along, and the methods by which God humbles the pride of each and gives the fullest scope to His mercy, causing evil itself to set forth good with the utmost lustre. Who then has given to God and made Him debtor to repay? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things: to Him be the glory for ever. The gospel is His, the righteousness His, the grace His, and so is the glory. To Him then with the apostle our hearts join in ascribing the display of perfect excellency without end.

ROMANS 12

The apostle had set forth the doctrine of grace in atonement and salvation; he had shown in the resurrection of Christ the living link that binds together the justification of the believer with life, and hence with holiness of walk and heart — a link too often forgotten in the teaching, if not in the practice, of the children of God. He had reconciled the indiscriminate grace of God in the gospel with the ways of God and the special promises to Israel, and shown by the past, present, and future course of dispensations on earth that, as man's part has been unfaithfulness through unbelief, and all its train of miserable consequences, so God's has been and will he the triumph of His goodness for the Gentiles now, for the Jew shortly, all concluded in unbelief that He might have mercy on all. Now he begins formally to exhort the saints by the compassions of God thus displayed in redemption, and even in His dispensations.

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the compassions of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, your reasonable service." (Ver. l.) It is the detailed application of the principle laid down in Romans 6, where we first hear of the Christian reckoning himself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus, under grace, not under law. From this there is no receding to law now, as the tone of the exhortation itself testifies. But the compassions of God are morally to form the believer within and without. Just as in Romans 10 the apostle had taught the value of confession with the mouth as well as of believing with the heart, so here the brethren are entreated to yield their bodies as a sacrifice to God. Many then as now would have been disposed to have professed an inward devotedness with license for the outward man. The possibility of this self-deception is here precluded, the more strikingly as the exhortation is made not to Jews with their system of external observances, but to Christians who know that without faith it is impossible to please God. Thus is secured the service of the man as a whole; just as the apostle says elsewhere in his desires for the Thessalonian saints, "The God of peace himself sanctify you wholly, and your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, the word "to present," or yield, is so put as to convey the idea of a completed act summed up in its conclusion. It is not mere effort as under law, but a thing done once for all, though of course stamped on the entire christian walk up to the last according to that beginning. The Spirit of God contemplates nothing less for every soul called of God out of this world, reconciled by the death of His Son and to be saved by His life. How could He lower the standard of Christ?

But the mention of "bodies" in God's wisdom associates itself with the thought of a sacrifice so familiar then to every mind even among the Gentiles. Only in Christianity it is an incomparably more intimate and personal question than in Judaism. Animals devoted to death and sacrifice do not suffice or suit, but our own "bodies," and this of course as a living sacrifice contrasted with those of dead beasts, which of themselves left self unjudged and untouched. With the Christian's self-sacrifice God is well pleased. It only is holy now, what was once legally so being in truth proved profane, now that the true light shines; it is acceptable to Him as the expression of giving God His true place, and of man, the believer, taking his. Without this the show of doing good and communicating is vain; with it such sacrifices are indeed well pleasing to God. Further, this is "our intelligent service." Worldly elements are condemned, carnal ordinances passed away, formal worship at an end. God will only be served now intelligently. It is no question of reason judging for itself without the word, but of the Spirit guiding the mind by divine revelation understood growingly.

"And be not conformed to this age but be transformed by the renewing of the mind that ye may prove what [is] the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Ver. 2.)

Here it is not the man personally devoted to God but a negative guard from external influence, and the direct contrary positively carried on by the renewing of the mind, the end being the thorough discernment of God's will. Thus, in order to prove practically that good and acceptable and perfect will, there is need on the one hand of being continually on the watch against the course of this age, the spirits and habits of men where opinion rules, and on the other hand of being transformed; yet this not after a mere outward sort but by the renewing of the mind. It is by practical exercise that one grows in learning His will, and proves that it and it only is good and well pleasing and perfect. Here again we see contrast with the Gentiles on the one hand who knew not God and therefore not His will, on the other with the Jewish people subjected to known definite requirements independent of spirituality. The whole course of men outside Christianity, even if it profess to recognize God in outward acts, is wholly ignorant of relationship with Him, and, having no faith, regards it as the presumptuous assumption of believers. Now the Spirit, in calling us to a path of separation from the ways of men, lays down no lines of outward difference but what follows the mind renewed, and this in steps of enlarging obedience. So Jesus learnt obedience (for as the eternal Son He had only known to command) — learnt it in a path of suffering unequalled. "Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;" and God's will He did and suffered at all cost, as we know now to everlasting joy.

In the age to come there will be no such discordance enjoined nor right nor even possible; for the world will be under the direct and displayed government of God in Christ the Son of David and the Son of man, the power of evil being publicly put down and expelled. But now it is otherwise in this present evil age, when divine life has to swim against the stream. Proportionate is the blessing of fidelity to the name of the Lord when His throne is unknown save to faith and disregarded by men as such. It is therefore a way of obedience hard to nature but pleasant to the new man directed of the Spirit that glorifies Christ, who is the way, and the only way, through the wilderness of the earth to the Father. "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." Self-will is detected and detested; the good and acceptable and perfect will of God is more and more discerned. This cannot be where the spirit of this age governs.

"For by the grace given me I tell every one that is among you, not to have high thoughts above what he ought to think, but to think so as to have sober thoughts, as God hath dealt to each a measure of faith. For just as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same function, so we, the many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of each other. And having gifts differing according to the grace given us, whether prophecy, [let us prophesy] according to the proportion of faith; or service, [let us occupy ourselves] in service; or he that teacheth, in teaching; or he that exhorteth, in exhortation; he that bestoweth, in simplicity; he that taketh the lead, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." (Ver. 3-8.)

From the more general principles of Christ's devotedness and obedience we descend to the reason the apostle gives. High-mindedness is incompatible with either; it is the very reverse both of the love which animated Him in giving Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling savour, and of the obedience which He closed in the death of the cross. High-mindedness hinders both the doing our own duty and others in theirs. So Paul speaks to every one among the saints at Rome. This was no pretentiousness on his part but the lowly discharge of the task assigned him by the Lord Jesus, and not the less decided because it was in lowly obedience. And as each did his own proper work according to the measure of faith dealt out by God, each would act with humility but with firmness, knowing it was God's will and his own service. Unbelief seeks great things and overlooks the one thing of moment — our own duty assigned of God without going beyond its measure or outside its nature. Let us remember however that there is a false modesty that fails to act, as well as the want of modesty that goes too far.

For it is in this after the pattern of the body with its many members, the doctrine so fully unfolded in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Here the apostle but touches on it in a practical point of view, to illustrate the importance of various members in one body mutually helpful; many as they may be, one body in Christ and severally members one of another.

Besides let us never forget that, whatever the differences, all are gifts; and the grace which has given has made one to differ from another but also each necessary to the others, as all in the one body. Whatever we have from the Lord, let us use all in subjection to Him, and for the object He had in view: if prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith. Such an exhortation is the more weighty, because we see that even the highest of the gifts of edification comes within the scope of such a caution. He that prophesied had to beware of overstepping what God had given. The reality of gift did and does not supersede the need of regulation by the word. None put the hearer's soul more directly in contact with God than prophesying; yet must it be conformable to the faith. And if a man's gift lay in ministering to the saints, not in the way of speaking but serving them otherwise in love, his wisdom would be to occupy himself in this, as also the teacher and the exhorter in their own work, not in a service for which they had no divinely given fitness. It is plain that each of these gifts is distinct, though of course God might give more than one sometimes to the same man. but commonly each would have his proper gift.

Another remark it will be well to make, that God guards us here from so sharp a distinction as would favour the ruinous distinction, into which the early church too soon slipped, of clergy and laity. Even the more moderate of those who would apologize for it seek to extract the transition from public to private gifts out of the omission of εἴτε ("whether" or "or"). But this is wholly fanciful; for the Holy Spirit has taken care to render such a scheme untenable by placing the most public gift possible, the ruler or leader (ὁ προι>στάμενος) between "him that bestoweth" and" him that sheweth mercy," all three being found after the omission supposed to mark the private gifts, The desire to avoid the force of this has led men into arbitrary meanings of ὁ πρ. as merely presiding over one's own household, which really demands that sphere to be defined as in 1 Timothy 3: 4, 5, 12; or a patron of strangers as in Romans 16: 2, which however is a different word. But 1 Thessalonians 5: 12 (not to speak of 1 Timothy 5: 17) clearly shows the true meaning where it occurs absolutely.

Again, we may notice that, as he that bestows has to take heed that he yield to no evasive pretexts, but to cultivate liberality (which with money is "simplicity"), so the leader or ruler is exhorted to diligence, and he that shows mercy to show it with cheerfulness, not as if he grudged the consolation. Some take ὁ μεταδιδούς as the official distributor of the public charities of the assembly, rather than as dispensing from his own property; but διαδιδούς in that case would probably have been the word chosen.

The apostle now goes out into broader ground and enjoins on the saints every sort of christian duty, not in outward conduct only, but perhaps even more as to the tone, temper, and spirit in which the Lord would have all done by them. "Showing mercy" or compassion naturally serves as a link of transition, and prepares the way for the more general exhortation to love, lowliness, and patient grace.

"[Let] love [be] unfeigned." (Ver. 9.) Love is of God. Therefore it is of the deepest moment that it should ever be genuine and incorrupt: for the higher its source, nature, and character, the more dangerous where that which is spurious usurps its place and name, misleading others and oneself under a fair but false pretension. It is not the same as the brotherly kindness of verse 10; and the reality of the distinction reappears in 2 Peter 1: 7. On the other hand it is far from being that kindness to all men, the perfection of which we know in the Saviour God as witnessed in Christ the Lord. Love is the activity of the divine nature in goodness, and hence is inseparable from that nature as reproduced in the children of God. Nevertheless this does not absolve them from the need of self-judgment that it be sincere and undefiled, seeking others' good according to God's will unselfishly. The letting in of hopes, fears, or objects of our own falsifies it.

Hence in the same verse the connected injunction, "abhorring evil; cleaving to good." It is a word the more needful in our own day especially, because we live in Laodicean times of sickly sentiment where latitudinarian charity abounds, the essence of which is a spirit of indifferentism toward evil, in particular evil against Christ And the danger as well as the sin is the more extreme, because it is and has long been that "last hour" of which John warns so solemnly, the hour not of Christianity prevailing but of many antichrists, though not yet of the Antichrist. But where love is real, there is and must be the detestation of evil, no less decidedly than the close attachment to good. If the latter attracts, the former offends and is often ill received in the world as it is. But the Christian must cherish the instincts of the new nature and be subject to God's word who has called him out to be a witness of Christ here below where evil meets him at every step and turn. The amiability which would shirk difficulties and apologize for sin is thus proved to lack the salt of the covenant of God, and will soon be seen to be honey and to end in leaven, instead of being the flour and oil which God looks for in such offerings.

"In brotherly kindness affectionately kind one toward another; in honour anticipating each other; in diligence not slothful; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;* in hope rejoicing; in tribulation enduring; in prayer persevering; distributing to the necessities of the saints, studious of hospitality." (Ver. 10-13.) Here we begin with the call to tender interest among brethren mutually; and so also not exactly to prefer or esteem others better than ourselves, as in Philippians 2: 3, important as such lowliness of mind is, the mind that was in Christ Jesus. It is here a question of not merely repaying the courtesy of others, but of taking the lead in treating them with honour and thus by example leading them on in these comely ways. Then, instead of allowing slothfulness, the apostle insists on zealous diligence. Lest this however should be only outside work, he immediately adds "in spirit fervent," and these with a blessed motive to both, "serving the Lord." It is well known that Griesbach, following a few MSS, versions, and fathers, joined with Erasmus in reading καιρῳ for Κυρίῳ, contrary to the mass of authorities and almost all other editors. It was, we may boldly say, infirmity in judgment; especially as the internal evidence is at least no less adverse than the external. Serving the time (rather "season" or "opportunity") seems at least somewhat unworthy, is little suited to the context in itself, and easily susceptible of the worst abuse. It is no fair instance of a more difficult and therefore preferable reading. The two words may have been confounded by an ignorant scribe, who took the abbreviated form of κῶ meaning καιρῳ instead of Κυρίῳ. Possibly it may have been wilfully altered, but we should be slow to suspect this when we can otherwise account for a change.

*I see no good reason here for taking the dative as a mere case of relation like so many others in the context, and for rendering it with M. Stuart, "as to the Lord, obedient or engaged in His service." The common construction as the complement of the participle seems to me more exact and simple.

Further, the mention of the Lord and of His service appears to me the link in the mind of the Spirit with the bright future ("in hope rejoicing"), as this again very simply connects itself with present suffering ("in tribulation enduring"), and with the grand support of the soul, come what may meanwhile, "in prayer persevering." This portion concludes with the remembrance of the poor saints, which stands in a similar relation here, as the third clause to the two former in the preceding, verse, in which (we know from his own touching account in Galatians 2) the apostle was ever diligent, as well as the pursuit of hospitality, which the conventionalities of modern life should not enfeeble if we would be wise in the Lord.

In verse 14 practical grace to enemies in power (or at least having the means of harassing the saints) is urged with emphasis. "Bless those that persecute you; bless and curse not." So did Jesus.

Sympathy in joy and sorrow next finds its place (ver. 15). "Rejoice with [any] rejoicing, and weep with [any] weeping; having the same mind one towards another, not minding high things, but going along* with the lowly." (Ver. 15, 16.) Spite of the antithesis tempting one to take the last word in the same gender as in the clause before, which is grammatically easy, I think that the differing form is both more in keeping with the fulness of the apostle's style and better in this passage, though "lowly things" may yield a sense not to be despised.† What a contrast with the self-exalting and disdainful spirit of the world! How blessed to see it exemplified in the human path of the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy, and enjoined by a servant of His whose qualities of mind and heart have found few if any equals among men! Nowhere perhaps, where they let out their thoughts and feelings, can one find the very opposite so painfully as among the Rabbis. Their scorn for the unlettered poor is unbounded. But indeed it is too natural to man as such. Here we have exhortations to Christians. He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself so to walk even as He walked

*It may seem more literal to take this as "led away," i.e. to the judgment seat of rulers, with the despised Christians when thus oppressed, as Schleusner, etc., or by them in the sense of conforming to them, as Grotius, etc. But the meaning given in the text seems far better.

†So far it seems to me that the text of the Authorized Version is preferable to the marginal alternative. But the phrase as a whole is otherwise given very unhappily. In no way does it mean "condescend to men of low estate," but rather to associate with them. Condescension is quite contrary to the spirit the apostle would have us cultivate: for it supposes the maintenance of worldly superiority in our own hearts, because it means showing kindness to the lowly in a patronizing tone. The Lord guards the disciples against similar feelings and ways in Luke 22: 25-27.

Following up this the apostle says, "Be not wise in your own eyes; recompensing to none evil for evil; providing things good before all men. If possible, as far as concerneth you, being at peace with all men: not avenging yourselves, beloved, but give place to wrath, for it is written, To me [belongeth] vengeance: I will recompense, saith [the] Lord. If therefore thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Ver. 16-21.)

Self-confidence is another and kindred danger, which in such a world as this would soon ensnare the saint in retaliation. In every way contrariwise we are called to be witnesses, not of the first man, nor of the law, but of Christ, and hence to be above suspicion before all men in providing things good or comely (for such is the true sense here, rather than benevolent); and this too in a spirit of peace with all as far as depends on us. It is a solemn thought that wrath and vengeance belong to God. It becomes us, instead of avenging ourselves, to bend before the blast, looking to God; nay, to render service to an enemy in need and distress. This will bring him to a point with God or with you: if he melt, so much the better for all; if he harden himself, so much the worse for him. For the Christian it is exercise in the divine nature, that is in faith and patience and love. For the christian rule is Christ, not to be overcome by evil, but to overcome it with good. So God, in our own case as with all who love Him, overcame our evil with His good in Christ our Lord; and now also He gives us to be imitators of Him in grace, which wins the victory in His sight and to our own consciousness, even when we may seem most downtrodden before the world. For this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith — of course faith working through love.

ROMANS 13

The apostle next enters on the relation to worldly authority of the saints, after treating of their attitude toward all men as the witnesses of the good they had learnt in Christ, where God overcame all evil with His good, and privileges us as partakers of it both to be active in it and to suffer for it.

"Let every soul be subject to authorities in power. For there is no authority save from God, and those that exist are ordered by God: so that he that setteth himself against the authority resisteth the ordinance of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For rulers are not a fear for the good work but for the evil.* Dost thou wish then not to be afraid of the authority? Do good, and thou shalt have praise from it; for it is God's servant to thee for good; but if thou do evil, fear; for not in vain doth it wear the sword; for it is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore [it is] needful to be subject not only on account of wrath but also on account of conscience. For on this account ye pay tribute also; for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing." (Ver. 1-6.)

*So it is in A B D F G P, and other authorities, instead of the common τῶν ἀγ. ἔπ. ἀ. τ. κ.

The holy wisdom of the exhortation is as worthy of God, as the suitability of all that is taught is apparent for those who, though not of the world, yet have relative duties in it, as they wait for the Lord and are called to do the will of God meanwhile. By a gradual transition we are brought from not avenging ourselves, and overcoming evil with good, as becomes the children of God, to our relation to the authorities in the world whose office it is to avenge evil, punishing evil-doers, and praising those that do well. It was pre-eminently in place from the apostle writing to the saints in the great metropolis of the Gentile world, imperial Rome. No otherwise had the apostle of the circumcision exhorted the christian Jews scattered over the East. The falsehood, the folly, the impurity, the abominations of the Gentiles would naturally expose those who mingled their idolatries with the civil power to find the latter jeoparded when souls discerned and rejected the former in the light of Christ. Hence the exceeding moment of pressing the place which worldly authority should have in the conscience of the saints from among either Jews or Gentiles as of God, spite of the heathenism of those who were in possession of it. "Let every soul" is more comprehensive (and I cannot doubt so intended of the Spirit) than every saint. No position exempts. The household too ought to feel it, children or other dependent relations and servants, as well as believers. It is laid down purposely in the broadest terms: compare Romans 2: 9. If the verb be regarded as in the middle voice, it would express the willingness of the subjection so much the more strongly: just as the other side, "he that sets himself against," is seen in verse 3.

Again, "authorities in power" (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις) is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that "there is no authority except from God." Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist are ordained by God." His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means "damnation," but "sentence," or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the apostle said he was, for our sakes: if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should sacrifice to an idol or an emperor, we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God's authority for obeying a command which dishonours and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up. But Calvin seems to speak unwarrantably when he goes so far as to say that tyrannies are not an ordained government;* and those who listened to him or shared his thoughts have proved that they did not count it beneath Christians to take an active part in overthrowing what they considered tyrannical.

* Nam etsi tyrannides ac dominationes inustae, quum plenae sint ἀταξίας, non sunt ex ordinata gubernatione: ipsum tamen ius imperii in humani generis salutem a Deo ordinatum est. Itaque quum et bella arcere et caeteris noxiis remedia quaerere liceat, Apostolus magistratuum ius et imperium tanquam humano generi utile, sponte et libenter a nobis suspici et coli iubet. Quas enim Deus infligit poenas hominum peccatis, non proprie ordinationes vocabimus, sed quae consulto media statuit ad legitimum ordinem servandum." (Comment. in loco, i. 173.)

It is a wholly inadequate apprehension to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Not that he may not be chosen in ever so various a form by man, but that he is God's servant, as here repeatedly said. He is His servant for good, not for evil. but if you practise evil, what then? Fear; for not in vain does he wear the sword; for he is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience. Wherefore one must need be subject not only on account of wrath (this would be merely a question of consequences from man), but also on account of conscience. "For on this account also ye pay tribute." This is connected with the foregoing exhortation as to magistrates, and prepares the way for more general relationships in the world. "For they are God's ministers [or officers], attending diligently unto this very thing,." Thus they are designated God's διάκονοι and also His λειτουργοί, the one as doing the work prescribed to them in keeping the order of the world in obedience to the laws, the other as public functionaries or officially appointed to it. The payment of φόρος was for the administation of government, a tribute or tax on persons or property or both, as τέλος was on merchandize and therefore fairly translated "custom." Hence the apostle (ver. 7) exhorts, "Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour." The greater and the lesser are thus taken in, each in its just measure; which the Christian can heartily say, inasmuch as he is entitled to acknowledge God in all without seeking anything for himself. For we are here occupied with what is of God in the repression of evil, and hence external to the proper sphere of christian life, save as honouring God in every respect,

But next we enlarge yet more. "Owe no one anything except to love one another; for he that loveth the brother [i.e. his neighbour] hath fulfilled law. For Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if [there be] any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to the neighbour: love therefore [is] law's fulfilment." (Ver. 8-10.) Thus the debt of love is the only one which is legitimate and in honour, good among men and acceptable to the Lord; the debt we should ever be paying, but never can pay off. Grace alone gives the power, but law is fulfilled thereby and indeed only thus. Law had continually claimed but never found it. Those under the law were under obligation but were wholly unable to make it good. Grace revealing Christ not only shows us His perfection and fulness but forms the heart accordingly. The commandments manwards are comprehended in loving one's neighbour; so are those Godward in loving God. Thus, what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of flesh of sin and for sin condemned sin in the flesh; in order that the righteous demand of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. (Rom. 8: 3, 4.)

There is another powerful motive for the believer, the nearness of that day when all that is not of Christ must be detected and pass away. "And this, knowing the meet time, that already [it is] time for you to be aroused out of sleep; for now [is] our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, and the day is drawn nigh.* Let us cast away therefore the works of darkness and put on the armour of light. As in daylight let us walk becomingly, not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and lasciviousness, not in strife and envy; but put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and take no forethought for the flesh for lusts." (Ver. 11-14.) For the earth the Sun of righteousness is not yet risen; for it the believer, though he has Christ the true light for himself, knows that it is night still. Yet daylight has dawned and the morning star arisen in his heart. Hence he sleeps not as do others; or, if he should, judges it as sin, for he is in the secret of the Lord and is charged with the gravest mission of love and holiness in the witnessing of His name as he passes through the world. Man slumbers heedless of danger, spite of solemn and reiterated warning. His evil conscience forbids his crediting the grace which is in God; his self-complacency blinds him to the moral beauty of the dependent and obedient Man, as well as to his own need of such a Saviour and such a salvation as God urges on him; and so he sleeps on till he perishes, waking up too late to the truth he has rejected and the grace he has slighted irreparably then. The believer with his soul saved already looks for a salvation worthy of Christ and of His redemption at His coming; and, though the interval may seem long sometimes, he knows that it is ever growing nearer. The works of darkness are therefore wholly incongruous and must be cast away. In such alas! the Gentiles used to walk when they lived in them; even as the Jews under the law occupied themselves with dead works. But now, dead to them, Christians would put on the armour of light; and though the day be not yet, they as children of it would walk comelily as in its light. What have such to do with revels and drinking bouts, with ways of lewdness and lasciviousness, with strife and envy? Are they not the blessed saints of God in full view of the speedy coming and day of the Lord? How suitable the call to put on the Lord Jesus Christ! As we have Him inwardly our life, may we wear Him outwardly, cherishing Him as our all, and make no provision for the flesh with a view to lusts. This were to revive the old man already crucified, to have believed and to hope in vain.

*Calvin (in loco) understands by "night" ignorance of God, in which lie the unbelieving, insensible to His truth and will; by "light" the revelation of divine truth by which Christ rises like the sun on us "Porro quoniam hic allegorica est, notare operae pretium est quid singulae partes significent. Noctem vocat ignorationem Dei, qua quicunque detinentur, veluti in nocte errant ac dormiunt. Duobus enim istis malis laborant infideles, quia caeci sunt ac stupidi stuporem vero istum paulo post per somnum designat qui est (ut ille dicit) imago mortis. Lucem nominat divinas veritatis revelationem, per quam sol iustitiae Christus nobis exoritur:" but the context proves that "night" here means the dark condition of the world while Christ is absent, "day" when He shall appear the second time for salvation. For the believer it is no longer night in the sense of ignorance of God, for him the light of day already shines: so it is seen in the sense of realizing the heavenly hope. 2 Peter 1: 19.

ROMANS 14

The apostle now proceeds to treat of a question exceedingly delicate and critical, especially in days and places where the saints consisted of any considerable mixture of converts, brought out of systems so opposed as those of Jews and Gentiles. What to the strong in faith is an indifferent matter may trouble the conscience of those who are weak, as the apostle here distinguishes them. The weak were such Christians as were still shackled in conscience by their old Jewish observances, as to days, meats, etc., by distinctions not moral but ceremonial; the strong were those who saw in their death with Christ the end to all such bondage and enjoyed liberty in the Spirit. Carefully must we guard against the offensive misinterpretation that the weak mean those who tampered with evil. Contrariwise so fearful were they of sin that they were needlessly burdened and thus cherished a conscience not tender only, which is of the utmost moment for all, but scrupulous. But they were in no way lax, which is an evil of the greatest magnitude and only exaggerated, not diminished, by increase of knowledge. The weak were really ignorant of the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free, and hence apt to burden themselves continually where they might have found rest for their souls. They knew not that His yoke is easy and His burden light.

The practice to which brethren are called in such matters is mutual forbearance (Rom. 14, Rom. 15: 7), all agreeing in doing what they do to the Lord, spite of difference in judgment of what should be done. Room is thus left for growth in knowledge as the word of God opens to our faith, while conscience meanwhile is respected. "Now him that is weak in faith receive, not to decisions of reasonings. One believeth that he may eat all things,* while he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth; but he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand. One esteemeth† day above day, while another esteemeth† every day. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day to [the] Lord regardeth [it], [and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord regardeth [it] not.]‡ And he that eateth to [the] Lord eateth, for he thanketh God; and he that eateth not to [the] Lord eateth not and thanketh God. For none of us liveth to himself, and none to himself dieth; for both if we live, to the Lord we live, and if we die, to the Lord we die. Therefore, both whether we live and whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this [end] Christ died and lived,†† that he should rule over both dead and living. And why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou too despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, [As] I live, saith [the] Lord, to me shall bend every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account about himself to God." (Ver. 1-12.)

*Calvin's criticism on the clause clearly demonstrates his own incompetence for questions of this sort. "In diversa lectione quid sequitus fuerit Erasmus, non video. Mutilam enim sententiam reddidit, quum plena sit in verbis Pauli; et pro articulo relativo improprie posuit: Alius quidem credit. Nec illud asperum aut coactum videri debet, quod infinitivum pro imperativo accipio; quoniam ista loquendi formula Paulo usitatissima est." There is no difference of reading here; and Erasmus is as right as Calvin is wrong. "Qui credit vescatur quibusvis" is a version so unfaithful that even Beza must needs agree substantially with Erasmus against his leader. The Vulgate ("credit se manducare") is an instance that what seems most literal may be erroneous and absurd.

†Literally, "judgeth." The word means originally to pick or choose, hence to decide, sentence, prefer, or even condemn.

‡The bracketed clause does not appear in A B C D E F G, besides cursives, Vulg., Cop., Aeth., with various Greek and Latin fathers,

††The common reading has no serious support of manuscripts. There is much discrepancy in the copies; but the best text is what I have here translated.

It is obvious that the Gentiles, as having been outside the law, world be least affected by such scruples. But the apostle puts the difference on a ground far deeper and holier than any such accidental and circumstantial distinction after the flesh. A believer whether a Jew or a Greek might freely realize his deliverance from questions of meats or days. Not a few Gentiles in those days knew the law and could not but feel the immeasurable superiority of its institutions as compared with the abominations of the heathen. So we might have difficulty in understanding that those regulations given by the true God through Moses to His people could vanish away, null and void for the Christian. Hence therefore we hear of him that is weak in the faith, as the next chapter opens with the conduct which becomes us who are strong in bearing the infirmities of the weak, the apostle identifying himself of course with such as see earthly restrictions at an end. But while grace alone produces strength in the faith, there is far more behind in the grace which produces it, and what savours more characteristically of Christ. The knowledge of faith is good; the love that is of God, of which Christ was the perfect expression, is still better; and he who has that knowledge is above all called to walk in this love, as indeed every one who is born of God must be. The question of eating and days may concern the least things, but it can only be rightly solved by the deepest truth and the richest grace. Both come through Jesus Christ, and are the portion really of the Christian. But how little Christians appreciated Christianity then, how much less now!

Undoubtedly then he who believed that he may eat all things is far more right in thought than he who makes a point of eating herbs. Still there was no ground in such prejudices or in their absence for making little of the weak and for judging the strong; for there was a double danger of fault — to him who knew his liberty, of despising the scrupulous; to him who was scrupulous, of judging censoriously the free. But such weakness is no more folly than such strength is laxity; even as divine love is always holy while always free. God has received the believer; and this is said emphatically of him who was judged licentious by the weak; as the brethren on the other hand are called to accept, but not to the determination of controversial questions, him that is weak in the faith. How much ignorance the Lord bears with in the most intelligent! "Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth." He beautifully adds (in answer doubtless to many a bitter anticipation of what would be the end of their liberty) "and he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand." For the strong have no strength of their own, but grace will hold them up. Would we wish it otherwise, if it could be? Do we not delight that all is of Him?

In speaking next of a day regarded above a day the apostle enlarges. Giving up idols the Gentiles saw nothing in one day more than another. The Jew was naturally disposed to cling to old religions associations. But in this the Lord's day is in no way included; for it rests on the highest sanction of the risen Lord (John 20: 19, 20), confirmed by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven (Acts 20: 7; Cor. 16: 2; Rev. 1: 10), and is no open matter as to which each is to be fully assured in his own mind. For a Christian not to regard the Lord's day would be a direct dishonour put on His own special meeting with His disciples on that day, an open slight to that witness of grace and of the new creation (as the sabbath was of the old creation and of law). Only we must bear in mind that, while some lower the ground on which the Lord's day is observed by reducing it to the mere practice or authority of the church, others unwittingly foist into Christianity what properly belongs to man and Israel. But the Christian is not a mere son of Adam or Israel. He is called out from both into an incomparably higher relationship. He is dead and risen with Christ; and to this change the Lord's day is not the least striking testimony. On it the Lord proclaimed His brethren set in the same place with His God and Father as Himself risen from the dead. To confound the Lord's day with the sabbath is to confound the gospel with the law, the Christian with the Jew, Christ with Adam. The very absence of a formal enactment in its case is admirably consistent with its nature as contrasted with that day which sanctified from the beginning, entered so prominently into God's dealings with Israel as to be a sign between Him and them.

Were the Lord in view then, it would be seen that the eater eats to Him, for he gives God thanks, and the abstainer abstains to Him and gives God thanks. The truth is that we belong to Him, not to ourselves, either in life or in death. Living or dying, it is to Him: whether one or the other therefore, we are His and this grounded on His dying and living (i.e. in resurrection), the grand doctrine of this epistle and the basis of Christianity. Thus is He Lord of all, dead and living. Hence one must be aware of meddling with His rights. "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou too despise thy brother?" We are forgetting our place and His, in thus turning either to the right or to the left.

"For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God." To this end is cited Isaiah 45: 24: every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us concerning himself shall give account to God." How incongruous for one to judge, for another to despise! We shall each give an account, and this about ourselves and none else. To bring in Christ truly is the due settlement of every question. To Him all bow that believe, as all unbelievers must bow in that day when He shall judge the quick and dead. The believer comes not into judgment, but shall be manifested there and give account. When those who believe not give account, it is judgment for them, and hence necessarily condemnation; for as they confess no Saviour, so they can no longer hide their sins. What David deprecated by the Spirit (Psalm 143: 2), we are assured by our Lord Jesus, will not be our lot. (John 5: 24.) Nor does the believer need judgment to vindicate Jesus; the unbeliever does because he refuses His grace. Thus admirably perfect are the ways of God with both, in everyone and in everything glorifying Himself by Jesus Christ our Lord.

From the account we shall render to God each concerning himself, the apostle draws the conclusion, "Let us not then judge one another any more, but judge this rather, not to put a stumbling-block or an occasion of fall before one's brother" (ver. 13): a principle as true for the strong as for the weak; for though the weak were the more prone to judge, the strong to despise, both are called to make this their determination, if they would not be an occasion of stumbling or offence, whether in act or thought.

Not but that the apostle had a judgment as to these questions. He was clear as to the Lord's mind, but be would not insist upon this at first, being more careful that the affections should be right, than merely to lay down an accurate judgment; and in truth it is thus only that soundness in determining all questions can be arrived at. Wrong feelings falsify the judgment, as on the other hand, if the eye be single, the whole body shall be full of light. When Christ is the object, the path will be unmistakably clear. Hence we need One to guard our hearts, and One only can, and He has called us to liberty, but we need to watch that this liberty be never perverted to license for ourselves any more than to slight others. Love is the bond of perfectness. Here the apostle says, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing [is] unclean of itself; except to him that reckoneth anything to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean." It is no question now of meats, in which they who walked were not profited. It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace. The Lord Jesus is also the truth, and has put everything in the light of God. But conscience must be heeded, and the strong must be careful not to weaken or wound another's conscience, whatever be his own conviction. "For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according to love." But love is the energy of the divine nature in which the Spirit guides, not in self-will. "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." The Holy Spirit speaks according to the tendency of our conduct. Anything that would stumble another tends to destroy. What a misjudgment to insist upon liberty as to meat so as to nullify the value of Christ's death as far as we can! Grace may, and no doubt does, deliver, but our misuse of liberty remains no less guilty in the sight of God. "Let not then your good be evil spoken of, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." This is a weighty practical truth, and we need, especially if we have knowledge, to guard against pressing anything beyond those who are but ill-instructed. It was not so that Christ walked and that God dealt with our own souls. And now that Christ has revealed God, it is of the deepest consequence that we insist only on what is grace and what makes for edification.

The reader will observe how "the kingdom of God" is used here, not so much dispensationally as morally. Indeed it is so where the phrase occurs in Matthew, who alone also uses the well-known formula "the kingdom of heaven." Only the latter phrase invariably occurs in a dispensational sense, and means that state of things where the heavens rule now that Jesus is cast out from the earth; first, while He is hid in God; secondly, when He comes again in the clouds of heaven with power and glory. But the kingdom of God might be said to be already there, already come upon them, when He, by the Spirit of God, cast out demons. The kingdom of heaven, contrariwise, could not be said to have come till He went on high. Thus the kingdom of God might be used where the kingdom of heaven occurs but also as here where it could not be. The apostle insists that the kingdom of God cannot be lowered to that which perishes with the using; it is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, the inward spirit and practical power of the Christian. "For he that in this serves Christ [is] acceptable to God and approved of men." It is walking in the Spirit, in short, the true guard against fulfilling any lust of the flesh. "Against righteousness and peace and joy there is no law." "Let us therefore pursue the things of peace and the things of mutual edification." God Himself is the God of peace, and the Lord is Himself the Lord of peace who gives us peace continually in every way. Knowledge puffs up, love alone builds up. And as He builds His church infallibly upon the rock, the confession of His own name, so we, by the godly use of His name, are called to build up one another. We can understand therefore how impressively the apostle again urges, "Do not for the sake of meat undo the work of God." "All things indeed [are] clean." This is freely allowed to the strong, but "it is evil to the man that eateth with stumbling." This is the danger for the weak, and love would lead the strong to consider the weak, assuredly not to help the enemy against them. "[It is] right not to eat meat nor to drink wine [nor anything] in which thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is weak." (Ver. 21.) There might be various degrees of danger; but the only thing that becomes the saint in this is to seek his brother's good. "Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God: blessed he that judgeth not himself in what he alloweth." To be strong in faith then is right: only it should be conjoined with the energy of love for those who are weak, guarding against all boast also in that which is received by grace from God. "But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [it is] not of faith; but whatever [is] not of faith is sin:" a maxim often strained in ancient and modern times to pronounce upon unbelievers and the worthlessness of every act in their lives. But this is clearly not in question here; rather is it a matter between Christians, some of whom saw their liberty, others being still in bondage. It is a great favour to enjoy the liberty of Christ in the smallest matters of every-day life; but he who has entered into this is so much the more bound to consider the believer who is still hampered with doubts as to this or that. To imitate liberty without believing its ground would be to endanger the work of God. Grace respects the conscience of him that doubts, and instead of trifling with scruples would rather seek to lead into the due application of Christ to the case by faith: without it all is vain or worse. "Whatever is not of faith is sin."

ROMANS 15.*

*It is well known that between Romans 14 and 15 certain old editors inserted (according to the testimony of many copies, versions, and fathers) the doxology of Romans. 16: 25-27. It was not surprising that Matthaei, etc., keeping close to Constantinopolitan manuscripts, adhered to them in this. But there is no sufficient reason to disregard the weightiest witnesses of the ancient text, confirmed as it is by the internal evidence. The Sinai, the Vatican (1209), the Parisian palimpsest, the Clermont, and the St. Germain Greco-Latin Uncials, with several good cursives (16. 80. 137. 176.), the Vulgate, Peschito Svriac, Coptic, etc., give the passage at the close of the epistle. The Alexandrian and the Porphyrian with some other authorities have it in both positions, a corrector of the Clermont MS in neither; while Boerner's Uncial, now in Dresden, leaves a vacant space at the end of Romans 14 — the Augian of Cambridge has a similar vacancy at the end of Romans 16; as opposed to Passionei's Cod. Angel. (L, now belonging to the Augustinian monks at Rome), backed up by about two hundred cursives, etc. The insertion here is resisted by the connection of the chapters; it is perfectly suitable at the end. The first seven verses of our chapter conclude the subject under discussion, with five transitional verses following which prepare the way for the notices of his ministry among the Gentiles to the end of the chapter.

The apostle identifies himself with the strong, as indeed might have been gathered from the latter part of Romans 14: 14-23. He had no difficulty himself as to any creature of God; nevertheless be maintains the claims of conscience inviolable in the weakest of the saints, and, as we have seen, is anxious to settle, not so much questions, as souls. He puts them all in direct responsibility to Christ as Lord and in view of the judgment-seat. Nevertheless the judgment he had received by grace he does not withhold. Having stated it however, he returns to the exercise of love. It would be wretched and a mere triumph for the enemy to make things in themselves indifferent an occasion of stumbling and of sin. "But we the strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves." (Ver. l.) To press our own convictions is neither the divine nor the human way to convince: not the human, because will only provokes will, and defers the end we most desire; not the divine, because it is not the way of faith either on our part or on theirs whom we hurry. How much better to walk in faith and leave God room to act! He can and will give efficacy to His own grace and truth. "Let each of us please his neighbour for good unto edification." (Ver. 2.) Love is better than knowledge, seeking not its own things but those of others. "For the Christ also pleased not himself, but even as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me." (Ver. 3.) Such was the perfection of devoted love in Christ. He identified Himself with God even as He was God. The zeal of His Father's house ate Him up, and as the image of the invisible God He bore the brunt of all that touched God. How wondrous that we should now stand in a similar place! Yet it is most consistent with the grace which has made Him our life and given us the family interests in all respects.

Thus, if we are called to be imitators of God as dear children and walk in love even as Christ loved us, so also to bear the world's enmity against God, as feeling for Him and with Him in the midst of a gainsaying generation. By grace we are one with Christ In practice too we are to cherish His portion here below; and thus, what the Old Testament says of Christ, the New says of the Christian. Hence all scripture is not confounded but interwoven, and every scripture becomes of the deepest interest and profit, to us above all who are brought into such an identity of place with Christ. "For as many things as were written before were written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope." (Ver. 4.) How gracious is God and how rich His provision! We might have been unprepared and disheartened otherwise. We are here shown that the path of love is the path of Christ, and that patience as well as comfort are meant to be the pathway in which we have our hope. Christ was the perfect pattern of all patience. Near but how far off, yet comparatively nearest to Him, come the apostles, notably Paul himself. May we seek this. It is the proof of power, and in the most excellent way. In the world as it is, it is ever called for, in heaven no longer needed. "May the God of endurance and comfort," says he, "give you to be of the same mind one toward another according to Christ Jesus; that ye may with one accord, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ver. 5, 6.) If Christ Jesus engages the thoughts and mind of each, there will be the same mind, and the God who made Him the channel, as He was the only full expression of endurance and comfort in a world full of misery, can give us to glorify Him thus. Oneness of mind or feeling is an illusion otherwise. Such unanimity glorifies the creature, the first man, not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We want no other motive, no object but Christ. This alone glorifies God. "Wherefore receive one another, even as the Christ also received you unto [the] glory of God." Certainly Christ did not receive souls for settling points of difference. He who died and rose for us is above the controversies and the scruples and the self-importance of men. Our best wisdom is to worship and serve Him, who glorified God here below and is now glorified by Him on high. But His glory is a safeguard no less than a motive: for, if it blot out by its brightness the questions which are apt to vex Christians in the inverse ratio of their intrinsic importance, it displays the true significance of what is involved in that which otherwise might seem of no moment. Who without it could have conceived that the truth of the gospel was compromised by Peter's no longer eating with Gentile believers, after certain came to Antioch from James? Who would have written so peremptorily to the elect lady and her children if one sought to visit them who brought not the doctrine of Christ? To receive such would have been to God's dishonour as distinctly as saints are to be received to His glory. Christ, not this question or that, abides the only unerring test. To receive one in His name is to God's glory, as surely as to reject those who plead that they are Christians so as to deny the Christ of God.

"For* I say that Christ became a minister of circumcision for [the] truth of God to confirm the promises of the fathers, and that the Gentiles should glorify God for mercy, according as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among [the] Gentiles, and will sing praises to thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, Gentiles, with His people; and again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles, and land him, all ye peoples. And again Esaias saith, There shall be the root of Jesse, and one that ariseth to rule over the Gentiles: on him shall [the] Gentiles hope." (Ver. 8-12.) It is plain here that we approach the same twofold line as we have seen from the beginning, where Jesus is viewed is Son of David according to flesh, Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection of the dead. He had been made a minister of circumcision for God's truth in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers; but also that the Gentiles should glorify God for mercy. For the one there were definite covenant grounds on which God entered with Israel: not so with the others, who were dealt with in pure grace. To some the latter may seem vague and insecure as compared with the former; but this only because God is feebly known. In fact His grace flows without limit when the people who had the promises rejected Him in whom alone they can be made good; and as there is no limit to the mercy of God, so there is no question of claim, competency, or desert in our own. Thus, while it did not become the Gentile believers to slight the Lord's connection in flesh with Israel, it was of great moment for the Jewish believers to note that the ancient oracles testified of that further outgoing in mercy when the truth was overlooked by, and unbearable to, self-complacent unbelief. The Psalms, the Law, and the Prophets bore concurrent witness to that mercy toward Gentiles which the Jew found it so hard to allow, save on conditions exalting to the first man instead of to the praise of the Second. None goes so far as to teach the one body of Christ in which all distinctions should disappear. This was the mystery kept hid from the ages and ages. But prophecy did declare mercy to Gentiles, and joy with Israel, and Messiah their object of hope as well as Governor. The first citation is general; the second joins them in gladness with Israel; the third asserts the universality of the nations' praise; the fourth speaks distinctly of Messiah's ruling Gentiles and of their hope founded on Him. The apostle makes no comment: the suggestion was plain, the bearing on the actual state at Rome full of instruction to such as had ears to hear, clenching his previous exhortation. He was led only to add the prayer, "And may the God of peace fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope by [the] power of [the] Holy Spirit." (Ver. 13.) Thus He who saves the believers already justified to have peace with Himself through our Lord Jesus Christ is entreated as "the God of peace" to fill them with all joy and peace in believing. Settling points of conscience however wisely could effect no such result; whereas, when hearts are thus filled with divinely-given happiness, not only do questions disappear without controversy, but the power of the Holy Spirit vouchsafes abounding hope, instead of a fleshly contest between the past prestige of the Jew and the present privileges of Gentile saints. He who goes forward with the revealed future in view will desire that whatever he does now, even in such matters as eating or drinking, may be to God's glory, not occupying those who are to share it with debates, but diffusing the joy and peace which fill himself in believing.

*Much the weightiest authorities give γάρ, not δέ like the received text, which breaks or alters the connection.

The application we have seen of the Old Testament to the actual call of Gentiles as well as Jews is the transition to a delicate, dignified, and withal affectionate apology, if such it may be called, which the apostle gives next. He explains why he had thus written to the Christians in Rome, and why he had not yet visited them, intimates what was in his heart as regards his work in relation to them, and asks their prayers, adding his own.

"But I am persuaded, my brethren, even I myself, concerning you, that yourselves also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. But I have written more boldly to you [brethren] in part, as putting you in mind because of the grace given to me by God that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, carrying on sacrificially the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by [the] Holy Spirit. I have then my glorying in Christ Jesus in the things that pertain to God." (Ver. 14-17.)

Thus the apostle lets these saints know, though a stranger to them as a company, his own personal assurance, spite of his strong expostulation and earnest caution throughout the epistle, of that which grace had already wrought among them in goodness and knowledge as well as in ability to admonish one another. As the apostle John tells the babes in his first epistle, he had written, not because they did not know the truth, but because they did. Yet he wrote the more boldly in part as reminding them, because grace had given him to be an official servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. They therefore came within his domain; but what tender consideration of others, what confidence in the precious fruits of grace and truth, and what a contrast with that haughty assumption which was most of all to go forth from that very city when at a later day she should sit as a harlot queen and make men drunk with the wine of her fornication!

It will be observed that there are energetic figures employed here, as where the apostle describes himself as λειτουργὸν Χ. Ἰ., and yet more, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐ. τ. Θ., and again, ἵνα γ. ἡ προσφορὰ τ. ἐθ. We can easily understand how ritualism catches at such phrases to eke out the semblance of a sacerdotal character for a servant of the Lord Jesus. But it is vain. Far more distinctly and with less ambiguity does the Spirit assert a priestly place for every Christian as such, as we may see not only in words but in the standing and functions to which all are called expressly; as in Hebrews 10: 19-22, 1 Peter 2: 5-9, Revelation 1: 6. The apostle once more magnifies his office; and if the Roman saints felt his weighty words, they must think of him as a public servant of Christ Jesus, occupied with presenting the Gentiles, that it might be an offering acceptable to God; as Aaron of old offered the Levites before Jehovah for an offering of the sons of Israel, the Christians being sanctified by the Holy Spirit as the Levites were by birth and ceremonial rites. The truth is that in this context the apostle uses λειτουργῆσαι of the Gentile believers serving the Jewish saints in carnal things, as he has λειτουργία in speaking of the service of the Corinthian and Philippian saints. (2 Cor. 9: 12, Phil. 2: 17, 25, 30.) Hence there is not the smallest ground for confounding ministry with priesthood, or for the notion that scripture admits of a sacerdotal caste between the Christian and God. On the other hand no intelligent believer will weaken either the perpetuity of christian ministry, or the extraordinary place of apostles, above all of him who was apostle not from men, nor through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead. Paul then had his ground of boasting in Christ Jesus in the things regarding God.

"For I will not dare to speak of any of these things which Christ did not effect by me for obedience of Gentiles by word and deed, in [the] power of signs and wonders, in [the] power of [the] Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about Illyricum I have fully set forth the gospel of Christ; and so zealously aiming to preach the gospel, not where Christ hath been named that I might not build upon another's foundation, but according as it is written, To whom it hath not been told concerning him, they shall see; and they that have not heard shall understand." (Ver. 18-21.)

Here he comes to matters of fact and how far the mighty offering of the Gentiles had been waved before the Lord. In a few pithy words and with the most genuine modesty he sums up his life of labour in the gospel. Truly it was Christ who effected it by Paul in the power of the Spirit. His principle was to preach Christ where His name was unknown, according to the word of Jehovah in Isaiah 52: 15. The Roman saints then could understand why he had been labouring elsewhere rather than in the great city where from the beginning of the gospel some seeds of the risen corn of the land had taken root and borne fruit. Labouring in the vast field where none had been borne he adds, "wherefore also I have been often hindered from coming unto you; but now having no longer place in these regions and having a longing to come unto you for many years whenever I go unto Spain; for I hope when I go through to see you and by you to be sent forward thither if first I be in part filled with you [i.e., your company]. But now I go unto Jerusalem ministering to the saints; for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints that [are] in Jerusalem. For they have been pleased, and they are their debtors; for if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they ought also in fleshly things to minister to them. Having finished this then and sealed to them this fruit, I will go away by you unto Spain; and I know that on coming unto you I shall come in fulness of Christ's blessing."

There is a time for all and a place for each, of which the Lord only is absolute judge; but He does not fail to give the sense of it to His servants: according to the measure of their spirituality they will gather it. The object which the Master had in view through the apostle being now achieved, he had no longer place in the East; and the old longing to visit the saints at Rome, often hindered, came up again when he proposed to go onward to Spain. For, it will be observed, Spain, not Rome, was the point sought, doubtless according to the measure of the rule which God apportioned him. His eye was on the regions beyond, but he hoped by the way to see the Roman saints and by them to be sent forward thither "if first I be in part filled with your company," for he will not allow that any time could exhaust his love for them or enjoyment of converse with them: hence he says, if I be in part "filled with you." Meanwhile he was engaged in an errand of compassion for the poor of the saints at Jerusalem. The saints of Macedonia and Achaia (at that time the two provinces into which the Romans long before separated Greece politically) had raised means to help their brethren; and this the apostle treats rather as a debt of love than its simple outflow. If the Gentiles were partakers in the spiritual privileges of the Jews, ought they not to remember their poor saints in fleshly things? They were pleased, he repeats, but they are their debtors. Grace pleads powerfully, for it sees with single eye and desires the reciprocation of love which exercises and unites the heart in all that are of God. The least things as well as the greatest afford the materials; and he who does not think a deacon's service beneath an apostle was inspired to write of all for our edification, assured of a fulness of Christ's blessing for saints at Rome when he came. Whether he attained his desire to visit Spain may be a question, as many have doubted it, though one may not be prepared to affirm it. Much depends on the point so much contested of a second imprisonment in Rome and that which filled up the interval of the apostle's free labours after the first. Certain it is that he came to Rome, when he did, differently from his expectations, a prisoner of Jesus Christ; but was it with less blessing?

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; that I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints; that I may come unto you with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed." (Ver. 30-32.)

It is sweet to find the earnest desire of the great apostle for the prayers of the saints, even of those he had never visited. But the knowledge of Christ, whilst it fills the soul with happiness, knits us up with all that are His, and enhances in our eyes the value of their prayers, always effectual on the part of godly men of all ages. Again, the Spirit, as He comes the witness and power of divine love in its perfection, so produces unselfish working of affection Godward as well as toward man. He sought their striving together with him in prayers to God for him: first, that he might be saved from those that believe not in Judea, ever implacable toward him who was once a leader of their unbelief, now a champion of the grace they hated; secondly, that his ministry for Jerusalem might be acceptable to the saints, for alas! the unbelief of believers, especially the Jewish ones, wrought deeply against the apostle, and none the less because he loved them so well and laboured for the relief of their need, in which this ministry of his consisted (Gal. 2); and both these, in order that he might come in joy to the saints at Rome by the will of God, "that I may be refreshed with you" (not merely you by me) added and most truly felt. How forcibly he closes this with "May the God of peace [be] with you all. Amen." (Ver. 33.) To seek the peaceful blessing of others is the happy pathway where the God of peace is with us. May we and all saints have Him thus!

ROMANS 16

Apostolic salutations follow. Not that the apostle had been to Rome, still less had he wrought there, but this the more illustrates the principle. There are such links of labour, and a special tie with the saints to which one is blessed of God. But the divine bond of love is both deeper and larger than that which is ordinarily recognized by christian men. Love is of God and goes out to all who are of God, yea, beyond them, in the overflowing of divine grace that seeks to save the lost. Besides, the apostle fully realizes his relationship as to the letting out of his heart among Gentiles, and so, as writing to the Christians in this city, the metropolis of the world, the wisdom of God had taken care that, boastful as it was, and far more boastful as it was going to be when the church utterly sunk into the world's ways and desires and ignorance of God, they should not truly boast of an apostolic foundation. The message of grace in redemption was carried to Rome, but it would seem rather by indirect means than by the express visit of any among the more known labourers of the Lord, still less by an apostle. That it was founded or governed by Peter is a mere fable, resting on no evidence save of fathers, whose statement as to facts in those early days is egregiously unreliable, and openly at variance with the inspired record. Peter was apostle of the circumcision, whether in Palestine or out of it, and where we do hear of his work outside, it is with the believers from among the Jews, according to the arrangement agreed on (doubtless by the Spirit of God) with the apostle Paul who had the apostolate of the uncircumcision; and this very epistle gives unquestionable evidence that Paul had not as yet visited Rome, though he fully recognizes the saints already there. It is possible those who first carried the gospel thither may have been the Romans sojourning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2: 10.) Certainly there were then dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, pious men, from every nation of those under heaven, and one cannot doubt that their visits or return or even communications to their own lands would help to spread the gospel far and wide.

However this may be, the apostle goes into remarkable detail in his salutations to those at Rome. "Now I commend to you Phoebe our sister, being minister* of the assembly that is in Cenchreae, that ye may receive her in [the] Lord, worthily of the saints, and assist her in whatever matter she hath need of you; for she also hath been a helper of many and of myself." (Ver. 1, 2.) We know from elsewhere that elderly females, especially widows, held a position official or quasi-official in which they rendered service to the assembly where they lived. A deaconess such as Phoebe was distinct from these widows; but the one illustrates the other: the value of this would be specially felt of old before Christianity had vindicated the place of women, and this too, particularly in the east as well as in dissolute Greece. Indeed at all times and in all places there are functions to be discharged from time to time more fittingly by a godly female rather than by any man, however pure-minded or elderly. Phoebe was one of these in the assembly of the port of Corinth — Cenchreae. As she had thus been honoured of the Lord and recognized by His chief servants in the ordinary circle of her christian duty, so the apostle now introduces her thus to the saints at Rome that they might receive her in a becoming sort, and this, not merely in spiritual things but in whatever business she might need their help, for she too, as be affectionately adds, had been a helper of many and of himself.

*It may be interesting to some to hear that Pliny, in his letter to the emperor Trajan, speaks of two maids who were ministers of the church, using the Latin term exactly corresponding to the Greek of the apostle.

"Salute Prisca* and Aquila my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus (which [οἵτινες†] for my life staked their own neck, to whom [οἷς†] not, I only give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the Gentiles), and the assembly at their house." (Ver. 3-5.) Here the apostle stamps them as his fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, the more carefully because Aquila and he had wrought in the same trade of tent-makers; but the natural occupation disappears, however rightly noticed in its own place. Grace acknowledges this converted godly Jew and his wife, not only as workers in Christ Jesus, but as fellow-workers with the apostle. Nor this alone: they had for his life risked their own neck, and thus earned the thankfulness not of himself only, but of all the assemblies of the Gentiles too. Further, he salutes the assembly also in their house. The trade of tent-maker, if pursued at Rome, would naturally furnish him with a large room, where not a few might assemble. We know that for a considerable time after this Christians were in the habit of so meeting, as is shown for example in the answer of Justin M. to the prefect Rusticus.

*Such seems the best reading here, 1 Corinthians 16: 19, and in 2 Timothy 4: 19. In Acts 18: 2, 18, 26, it is rather Priscilla, the diminutive form, but the same name.

†The reader will notice, as has been often done, the difference of character and fact in verse 4, and also 7.

"Salute Epaenetus, my beloved, who is [the] firstfruits of Asia for Christ." Achaia in the received text is wrong. The household of Stephanus were the first-fruits there, as we know from 1 Corinthians 16: 16. The apostle could not say that Epaenetus devoted himself in an orderly way to the service of the saints like the Achaian household; but at any rate he is not without honour in the Lord nor without the apostle's special affection.

"Salute Maria" (or Mary; the reading differs), "who laboured much for you." (Ver. 6.) It seems a question whether it be not us. Much as the apostle might value this, his loving heart delighted in her abundant labour for them.

"Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow captives which [οἵτινες] are of note among the apostles, who [οἵ] also were before me in Christ." (Ver. 7.) We see how the apostle delights in noticing every distinctive form of service, relation, or fellowship.

"Salute Amplias,* my beloved in [the] Lord. Salute Urban, our fellow-workman in Christ; and Stachys, my beloved." (Ver. 8, 9.) The reader will notice the shades of difference which love marks; for being unselfish it can see clearly, and promotes love and honour among the saints, being above the unworthy pettiness which disparages what we may not have ourselves or like not others to have.

*The Sinaitic, Alexandrian, Vatican and others read   Ἀμπλιᾶτον. A similar remark applies to this probably as to Prisca and Priscilla.

"Salute Apelles,† the approved in Christ. Salute those that belong to Aristobulus. Salute Herodion my kinsman. Salute those belonging to Narcissus that are in [the] Lord." (Ver. 10, 11.) Still do we find love, but it is discriminating no less than unfeigned. He who had stood trial for Christ is mentioned with honour; but the kinsman of Paul is not forgotten. He would conciliate his brethren after the flesh by thus naming one who was a Christian. Nor are certain great names without witnesses for Christ, even if Narcissus be not the famous freedman of Claudius executed some few years before the epistle was written. (Suet. Claud. 28; Tac. Ann. xiii. l.)

† Origen suggests, without the smallest reason save the similarity of the name and the distinction attached to it, that this may have been Apollos! I think it right to name such facts that the reader may know the guesswork of these ecclesiastical writers even as early as the third century.

"Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, that laboured in [the] Lord, Salute Persis the beloved, which (ἥτις) laboured much in [the] Lord. Salute Rufus, the elect in [the] Lord, and his mother and mine." (Ver. 12, 13.) Those christian sisters are here graciously named, but with due meed, those as labouring, this as having laboured much in the Lord: the two former as at present in the work; the latter for her past and great service. Christ opens the heart and mouth in the fullest recognition of work for His name; but He purges our dim eyes also. Nor had He forgotten Simon the passing Cyrenian, who, as he came from the field, was compelled to carry the cross by the mob of soldiers and others as they led Jesus out to His crucifixion. The Lord repaid with interest the burden of that day. Compare Mark 15: 21. Rufus is here before us "the elect in [the] Lord," and his mother who had been as such to the apostle. Salvation came to that house.

"Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren with them. Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints with them." (Ver. 14, 15.) The names of these Christians follow without specific notice, and among them one to whom many have attributed the allegory of the "Shepherd," read in the assemblies of the third and fourth centuries. But Origen and Eusebius err in their identification; for Hermas the author wrote about a century after the Epistle to the Romans was written, his brother Pius being then bishop of Rome.

"Salute one another with an holy kiss; all the assemblies of Christ greet you." (Ver. 16.) The Roman saints were enjoined to manifest mutual love in the Lord; and the apostle sends greeting from all* the assemblies of Christ. Who knew their minds and hearts better? He who wrought and wrote by Paul; He would keep the saints in the interchange of true and warm but holy affection in His grace.

*Copyists seem to have regarded the apostle's word as overstrong; and have tried to soften by omitting πᾶσαι "all." But he could speak from a large sphere without hesitation.

It is not all, however, the joy of love in these concluding messages of the apostle. The largeness of his heart had delighted to take note of whatsoever things were true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and of good report; if there was any virtue, if there was any praise, he thought on these things in writing to the saints at Rome, and inscribed a memorial of Christ on each name which came before his spirit. But there were other things very different, men of a temper and state diverse from those and wholly opposed to Christ. It needed, however, the power of the Spirit to detect these in their beginnings, and to descry both the character and the end of all such ways. For I cannot accept the notion of Olshausen, that the persons, against whom the apostle warns the saints in Rome, had not yet made their appearance there. The circumstance that it is only at the end of the epistle that we find a short admonition against divisions couched in general language, so far from being decisive, is no evidence at all that the persons in question did not actually exist at Rome. Such is not the way of the Spirit of God. He may speak prophetically, but He starts from an actual ground-work of hostility to the Lord and of danger to the saints. Naturally the evil would develop itself worse and worse, but in the epistles especially, as in scripture generally, there was moral mischief before His eyes at that time, which awakened His care for the saints, as to which He gives them admonition.

"But I beseech you, brethren, to consider those that make the* divisions and the* stumbling-blocks contrary to the doctrine which ye have learnt, and turn away from them; for such serve not our Lord Christ but their own belly, and by their plausibility and fair-speaking deceive the hearts of the guileless. For your obedience has reached unto all: as regards you therefore I rejoice, but I wish you to be wise unto the good and simple unto the evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you." (Ver. 17-20.)

*The actuality of the mischief at work in Rome would seem to be confirmed by the article in this place. Had it been merely characteristic tendency or a possible contingency not yet arrived, I think that the construction would have been anarthrous.

Insubjection of spirit is a dangerous thing among those who teach in public or in private, and quite as much in private only as in public. It is truth severed from Christ and that consciousness of divine authority and of dependence on grace which we all need to keep us right, most of all perhaps those who teach. Few men are in such danger of mental activity in divine things; and this not merely because of self-importance on their own part, but from the desire to satisfy the craving for what is new among the saints themselves. The excitement of novelty is apt to carry away the natural mind, especially among the weak, to the hurt of all, both teachers and taught. Divine revelation, not human thoughts about it, alone secures the glory of Christ and the well-being of souls. As the Holy Spirit wrote it to this end, so He alone can make it good in practice. Mental activity gathers round its own source and forms a school; truth wielded by the Spirit judges the flesh in its most specious form, nourishes the new man, and builds up the body of Christ to God's glory.

The brethren then are besought to beware of such as made these divisions and stumbling-blocks. What they had already learnt would serve as a test for these piquant statements which pampered nature under the show of utterly condemning it. Even asceticism is not the denial of self, still less is it Christ. The seemingly opposite snare of doing good in the world on a grand scale by the truth is yet more evidently apart from the cross and contrary to it. Whatever be the shape of contrariety to the doctrine we have been taught, the duty of saints is to turn away; for they that are such are slaves not to our Lord Christ, but to their own belly: so contemptuously does the Holy Spirit characterize their work, let it be ever so refined in appearance, let it ever so loudly boast of its own superior spirituality. But not he who commendeth himself, but whom the Lord commendeth. Still the hearts of the guileless are in danger of being deceived by the plausibility and fair-speaking of these makers of parties, and are warned accordingly. For the spirit of obedience which those teachers lacked exposed them with the taught if not accompanied with vigilance; I say not suspiciousness, for this is an unmitigated evil and the fruit of a corrupt heart, not the holy action of faith, jealous for the glory of the Lord and the good of saints.

If therefore those at Rome were conspicuous for their obedience, it was only a reason for the apostle not to weaken that which was truly of God, but to guard it by what is equally so. "As regards (or, over) you I rejoice; but I wish you to be wise as to the good and simple as to the evil." Such is the divine remedy, even as our Lord Himself put it figuratively in Matthew 10: 16; combining the prudence of the serpent with the harmlessness (or simplicity, it is the same word) of the dove. Human wisdom seeks to guard itself by a thorough knowledge of the world and of all evil ways. This is not the wisdom that cometh down from above, but earthly, natural, devilish. The wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceful, gentle, yielding, full of mercy and good fruits, uncontentious and unfeigned. It needs not to cultivate acquaintance with evil; it knows good in Christ, it is satisfied and adores. It hears and loves the shepherd's voice; a stranger's voice it knows not, and will not follow. And this, as it suits the simplest soul brought to the knowledge of God, it may be today, so it alone becomes the wisest, because it alone glorifies the Lord, as indeed it is the only path of safety for us, being such as we are and in such a world. For in it evil as yet has the upper hand, though the believer has the secret of victory over it, already vanquished in the cross of Christ. Still nothing as yet appears of that victory as a whole, whatever be the testimony of faith, at that time too not without external signs to unbelief; but in the midst of the conflict the heart is comforted and cheered, for the God of peace shall bruise Satan under our feet shortly. The first revelation of grace may to our impatience seem to linger, but faith can rest upon the word "shortly." Faithful is He who hath called us, and spoken it, who also will do it. This draws out afresh the prayer of the apostle, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you:" they needed it, and so do we.

The apostle then sends the salutations of others around him.

"There saluteth you Timothy my work-fellow, and Lucius and Jason and Sosipater my kinsmen." (Ver. 21.) Faith wrought at all times the first link with God for a soul outside of this fallen world, and this is brought into greater simplicity and strength than ever by the gospel. But the gospel produces a fellowship of heart, little if at all known before it. Hence the place and moment of these mutual salutations.

"I Tertius, who wrote the epistle, salute you in [the] Lord." (Ver. 22.) The epistle to the Romans was not, like that to the Galatians, written by the apostle's own hand, but dictated to an amanuensis, as indeed was the ordinary practice of Paul. (Cf. 2 Thess. 3: 17.) Love however gave him who wrote it down a place for christian greeting.

"There saluteth you Gaius, the host of me and the whole church. There saluteth you Erastus the steward of the city, and Quartus the brother. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen." In Gaius we see how Christ becomes the spring of large and holy hospitality. Erastus is the witness that conscience is not forced or hurried; not only was he the steward of the city, but he is expressly so described in scripture. Such a position in heathen times especially would expose him who held it to difficulties and dangers. But christian conduct should ever flow from the intelligent sense of our relationship to God and of the claims of His truth and grace. In order to this, room must be left for growth and the exercise of right and godly feeling. Quartus has his place in scripture as "the brother," traditionally, of course, one of the seventy, as most of the unknown names here are fabled to have been, and afterwards bishop of Berytus. These salutations too the apostle seals with the same benediction and, if possible, more fervently, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

Even so he cannot close this most comprehensive epistle without a burst of adoration, which serves the important purpose of linking on this unfolding of the gospel in its simplest elements, its practical results, its connection with the dispensations of God, and the duties consequent upon its reception, with the revelation of the mystery given in some of his later epistles, especially to the Ephesians and Colossians.

"Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to [the] revelation of [the] mystery kept in silence in times of the ages but now manifested and by prophetic scriptures according to commandment of the everlasting God made known for obedience of faith unto all the Gentiles, to God only wise, through Jesus Christ, to whom [be] the glory unto the ages of the ages (or, for ever), Amen." (Ver. 25-27.)

To the Roman saints the apostle does not develop the mystery. The gospel of the glory of Christ he proclaims to others. (2 Cor. 4.) Each aspect has its appropriate application. The heavenly side is not for all the most wholesome. Here they had a more primary and fundamental need, and this he has here supplied by unfolding to their souls the bearing of Christ's death and resurrection on their wants, first as sinners, then as saints. But the heavenly privileges of the Church are only alluded to, not set out. There is a season for everything, and the highest truth is not always the most important for the exigencies of souls. To the Ephesians he could disclose all the heavenly privileges of the body of Christ. To the Colossians, just because they were in danger of turning aside for philosophy and earthly ordinances of a religious character (for both snares were laid for their feet), he could and did bring out the glory of Christ as the head of the church, and indeed His divine fulness in all respects, but it was meat in due season to feed the Roman saints rather on Christ dead and risen. However, here at the close, he alludes to a mystery as to which silence had been kept in the course of ages, but now manifested and by means of prophetic scriptures made known unto all the Gentiles in order to obedience of faith. Carefully remark that the true word and thought is "prophetic scriptures," that is, not "the scriptures of the prophets" or Old Testament, but those of the New Testament, for we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Paul's writings, for instance, are prophetic scriptures, and in some of these the mystery of Christ and the church is fully made known, not merely touched on as in Romans 12: 5. This is according to commandment of the everlasting God; for the mystery, if the last in revelation, is first in purpose. Between them lay the times of the ages during which creature responsibility was fully tested and proved wanting; then, grounded upon the cross of Christ, exalted to heaven, is revealed the mystery, and this is during the days, not of the law given by Moses, but of gospel mission to all the Gentiles for obedience of faith, wherein God proves Himself alone wise, no less than good, through Christ Jesus, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.

The temporal ways of God were bound up with Israel and the earth. The mystery attaches to heaven and eternity, though the message of it is sent out to all the nations.

Titus., An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to.

W. Kelly.

With translation of an amended text.

Introduction.

The Epistle before us has a character a good deal in common with those to Timothy, particularly with the First Epistle, but not without a certain answer to the Second also. Order however is a prominent feature. A charge for its maintenance was given to Titus, rather than that care for doctrine which is so conspicuous, though order is not forgotten, in the First Epistle to Timothy. Without doubt the different circumstances called for these differences of object. Salvation shines brightly throughout.

There is another thing which modifies them all. Titus, though a trusty companion of the apostle, and his own child according to the faith no less than Timothy, did not stand in the same place of intimate affection as the younger labourer, into whose heart the apostle could pour out his feelings, sorrowful or bright, without reserve. This we saw strikingly in the Second Epistle to Timothy; it has no place in the Epistle to Titus where the exigencies of the work and of the workman occupy (with saving grace and the moral order of the saints) the Epistle. It is remarkable that Titus has no mention in the Acts of the Apostles,* where we hear so much of Timothy. But there is no warrant for supposing that his visit to Dalmatia subsequent to the present Epistle had anything in common with the state of Demas. The frequent and most honourable mention of his service in the Epistles of Paul ought to leave no doubt of his fidelity and devotedness from first to last.

*For whether we do or do not read Titus or Titius in Acts 18: 7, Justus was clearly a different personage from the companion of the apostle.

In Galatians 2 Titus comes before us in a deeply interesting manner. He was one of the "certain others" from among the saints at Antioch, who went with Paul and Barnabas to the great council at Jerusalem. No one was a more suited companion of the apostle; for Titus was a Greek, and so an uncircumcised man. He was therefore just a case in point. Must this Gentile believer be circumcised? Must he keep the law of Moses? The apostles and the elders, with the assembly as a whole, decided against any such compulsion. As the apostle Peter pointed out; the Holy Spirit had already decided the question by putting no difference between the circumcised and the uncircumised believers. Their hearts alike were purified by faith, and the heart-knowing God had given the Holy Ghost to both. It was to tempt God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which the fathers or the sons of Israel never were able to bear. Salvation is wholly through grace and by faith, consequently as open to the Gentile as to the Jew. If Moses had in every city those who preached him in the synagogues, it was now for all Christians a question of preaching our Lord Jesus Christ. The boldness of faith in the apostle was entirely vindicated at the council. And the grace already manifested in the call of Titus was confirmed by apostolic authority, not alone among the Gentiles, but in Jerusalem itself.

Some have confounded Titus with Timothy, and deliberately argued that the latter was Luke's name for the same person. Whatever may be the ingenuity of the argument, scripture is wholly opposed. Timothy is expressly said to be the son of a Jewish believing woman; and Paul took and circumcised him, not by compulsion, but on account of the Jews who were in those places where his father was known to be a Greek. The characters of the two men stand before us also with no small distinctness. For Titus had none of the yielding and sensitive spirit of Timothy; but as he was more mature, so was he also more courageous. Hence we find him sent to Corinth in the very critical circumstances of the church there, after the apostle had written his First Epistle out of much affliction and anguish of heart with many tears.

Paul had not only blamed their worldliness and carnal vanity, but had peremptorily called for the severest exercise of discipline in the cave of an unclean person who stood very high in the estimate of many. He was deeply burdened in spirit and anxious about the result; so when he came to Troas for the gospel, and when a door was opened to him in the Lord, he had no relief, because he found not Titus, "my brother." Taking his leave of them, therefore, he went off to Macedonia, which was the adjacent province. But there God that comforts the lowly comforted him by the coming of Titus; for he had learnt that the Epistle had produced the happiest effects, and among the rest longing, mourning, and zeal for the apostle. The apostle therefore had the deepest joy. Their grief was according to God. It had wrought repentance to salvation never to be regretted; '. earnest care, clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what longing, yea, what zeal, yea, what avenging: in everything ye proved yourselves to be pure in the matter."

The apostle bore witness to the joy of Titus, because his spirit had been refreshed by them all. The boasting of the apostle, as he calls it, was not put to shame, but found to be truth, and his inward affection was more abundantly toward them, while calling to mind the obedience of them all, how with fear and trembling they received him — a state of soul which grace alone produced, especially in such as the Corinthians.

And the apostle in the same Second Epistle to the Corinthians mentions his exhorting Titus, as having made a beginning before, to complete in the Corinthians their purposed liberality toward the suffering saints in Jerusalem. So had done the churches of Macedonia, which were as poor as the Corinthian church was rich. He thanked God for putting the same earnest care for the Corinthian saints into the heart of Titus; who, being himself very earnest, went forth to them of his own accord, and with him the brother whose praise was in the gospel through all the assemblies, sent by the apostle as he was chosen by the assemblies, for the ministration of this grace. The apostle, providing things honourable not only before the Lord but before men, avoided taking it upon himself but gladly helped it on.

It is to this servant of God, of long standing and ripe experience in the work, that the apostle now writes. For Crete had a most unenviable name in the ancient times; and when the freshness of grace and truth is no longer felt, evil characteristics like theirs are apt to rise again and display themselves. To maintain the glory of the Lord, in the help and correction of the saints there, was the urgent object of the Epistle to Titus. We shall see in the detail how wisely and worthily of God this fresh design was laid on the apostle's companion and fellow-labourer on their behalf.

Titus had been already left in Crete among other things for the authoritative nomination of elders; but the Epistle itself demolishes all thought of the permanent charge of a diocesan; as it also gives no countenance to the sole exclusive place of "the minister." He was to join the apostle at Nicopolis. The statements of Eusebius and others are negatived by scripture.

Titus 1.

"Paul, bondman of God and apostle of Jesus Christ according to faith of God's elect, and full knowledge [or acknowledgment] of truth that is according to piety" (ver. 1).

Bondman "of God" is unusual. Thus in the Epistle to the Romans it is "bondman of Jesus Christ." So it is in the Epistle to the Philippians, where Timothy is associated with the apostle. Here alone it is "bondman of God and apostle of Jesus Christ." No Christian ought to doubt that there is special suitability between that relationship to God and the Epistle. "God," as such, is prominent in all the pastoral Epistles rather than "Father," where "bondman" could not be appropriate or rightly conceivable. Nevertheless it is only to Titus that the apostle presents himself as here he does. We may be thereby assured from this fact that it falls in with the character of the Epistle before us even more than with any other of the pastoral letters.

The sixth chapter to the Romans may help a little to explain why. The great truth in the latter portion of this chapter is that, though we are under grace, we are bondmen to Him whom we obey. Once alas! we were bondmen of sin; now having got our freedom from sin, we have become bondmen to righteousness (ver. 18) and to God (ver. 22), having our fruit unto holiness and the end life eternal. A similarly fundamental depth is found in the Epistle to Titus: only here Paul predicates the term of himself, not of believers in general. If he calls himself '. apostle of Jesus Christ," he takes care previously to say that he was "bondman of God." It was important for Titus to take heed to this. At the very outset it was a solemn reminder from the Holy Spirit. If the apostle did not often so speak, it was always true; and the expression of the truth here seems intended of God to be a fresh lesson to Titus, and the rather because in the circumstances before him it might easily be forgotten. Practice if right should be based on principle.

Titus was called to a serious but highly honourable charge. Had it been only to exercise oversight, he who aspires to that desires a good work. But Titus was called amongst other things to establish overseers: clearly a far more delicate and responsible service. Self-importance might here readily enter, as it has often done even with most excellent men. Hence the apostle, who had authorised and directed Titus in that high service, begins with that emphatic statement, "Paul bondman of God." All was worthless, if the will of God were not done. The Son of God shows the perfection of a life wholly devoted to that one object, and first set it before all as a moral jewel of the first water. In order to do His will in that perfection, He emptied Himself, taking a bondman's form, coming in the likeness of men; and then when found in figure as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yea, death of the cross. In that perfection He stands alone; nevertheless He forms others according to His own blessed pattern, and none more evidently than the inspired man who now writes to Titus as "bondman of God."

Titus was not, and could not be, like Paul, "apostle of Jesus Christ;" but was it not open to him to be, no less than the apostle, "bondman of God "? His special position was according to the grace of the Lord Jesus, and he would fulfil its proper functions all the better if he valued, as the apostle did, the being "bondman of God." His own will was thus to be forfended; and the apostle implies this in an introduction so peculiar and impressive. For he expressly describes himself as God's bondman. We may be sure that the words were not lost on Titus, but that he laid each deeply to heart. Christians as such are said in Rom. 6: 22 to be freed from sin and enslaved, or made bondmen to God; so that the principle is clear and sure. Who needs to remember it more than an honoured minister of the Lord?

There is another peculiarity here which has greatly perplexed the learned. As is too usual in a difficulty, they have departed from the plain and obvious meaning of the text, not by a daring conjecture in the way of emendation as a substitute for it, but by a version, to say the least, of an arbitrary nature, which is quite uncalled for in the context. Two of the ablest recent commentators have joined in discarding "according to," and in adopting "for." But this is to lose the peculiar force of the scripture before us, and to construe kata; as equivalent to eij". To be apostle of Jesus Christ "for" the faith of God's elect is a commonplace. As in all such proposals, it is no doubt an easy way of understanding the clause; but the truth intended vanishes. "according to faith of God's elect" has the same ground as, and no less reason than, "according to piety" just afterwards, with which these commentators do not all tamper, though one at least deals in the same latitude here also. It is safest to translate correctly, even if one is obliged to feel or own we have no exposition to offer of which we are assured. The Revisers, therefore, as well as the Authorised translators, have acted more faithfully. Very possibly they might not have been able to explain the propriety of the phrase; but at any rate they have done no violence to the text in their respective versions. They have left the word of God for others to explain in due time, according to their measure of spiritual insight.

Is then the apostolic statement so hard to be understood? Not so, if we are simple. Aaron was anointed priest according to the law. There is now an entire change; a new system rests upon an altogether different basis. We have no longer the first man dealt with morally, or helped ceremonially There is the Second Man' the East Adam. Faith, therefore, is come and revealed. It is no longer a question of any being guarded under law: believing men, even of Israel, were no longer under the old child-guide. Paul, the Jew, and Titus, the Gentile, are alike sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, as is carefully explained to the Galatians.

Hence Paul here describes himself as "apostle of Jesus Christ according to faith of God's elect." Men are disposed to regard Christianity as a continuance of Judaism and an improvement on it more or less. But the entire system of legal ordinances has come to its end; Christ had effaced it, and taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. The ancient people of God are for the time completely eclipsed, with all the peculiarities of their probationary status. Man is viewed universally as wholly sinful and lost. It is now a question of what God has wrought and given, as revealed in the person of Christ; and hence, therefore, of faith on the part of God's elect. The elect nation is not now the platform of His ways. "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to all the creation." What is external in Christianity may be more or less apprehended by the world; but here the apostle points only to what is unseen and eternal, and God's elect alone enter in and enjoy. Thus we see that in this short Epistle there is more than one pithy, yet full, exhibition of the gospel in its deep moral power; wherein it is more distinguished than the two Epistles to Timothy. This is in keeping with the "faith of God's elect," and helps to illustrate why the writer describes himself as apostle of Jesus Christ according to that pattern.

At the same time it is instructive to note that in the two Epistles to Timothy the apostle describes himself in a way strikingly akin to what is found here. For in the First he says, "apostle of Jesus Christ according to commandment of God our Saviour and Christ Jesus our hope," and in the Second, "apostle of Jesus Christ through God's will according to promise of life that is in Christ Jesus." In every case the preposition bears its most ordinary sense, not "for" but "according to;" but each has its appropriate bearing. In the First it is according to our Saviour God's command, and hence is a testimony of glad tidings to all, and Christ Jesus, Man and Mediator, our hope. In the Second it is through God's will according to promise of life in Christ Jesus. Whatever be the ruin externally of Christendom; there is strengthening in the grace that is in Christ :Jesus, and the firm foundation of God stands.

Here he adds another particular. Paul was His apostle also according to full knowledge (or acknowledgment) of truth that is according to piety. This is the more remarkable, because we find him very soon afterwards speaking of his having left Titus in Crete to set right what was wanting, and establish elders in every city, as he had ordered him; but he in no way describes his own apostleship as being according to such a direction of authority. The delegation is not to be doubted in any way, and it is of high moment in its place; the apostleship is characterised after another pattern altogether. It was "according to faith of God's elect, and full knowledge of truth that is according to piety." Its stamp was not merely ecclesiastical but Christian, and its Christian description is the only thing on which the apostle here insists, even when he is about to notice the charge he had given Titus for ecclesiastical order.

If Christianity is bound up with the faith of God's elect, it is for that very reason also with "knowledge of truth that is according to piety." "The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ." Shadows and outward observances are now treated as vain. The body is of Christ. The truth must be known by faith, truth that is according to piety: else the apostle would have disowned it as having no living link with Christ. With this the reader can compare 1 Tim. 3: 16, where the truth of Christ's person is laid down as the secret or mystery of piety.

The apostle pursues what has been already begun in describing his mission. It was "upon hope of life eternal which God that cannot lie promised before the times of the ages (or everlasting),* but manifested in its own seasons His word in a preaching, with which I was entrusted, according to command of our Saviour God" (vers. 2, 3).

*This is a phrase peculiar in itself and difficult to transfuse well and truly into English. "Eternal" is clear, as said of God, life, punishment of sin. etc. But in combination with "times" it appears harsh, as in Rom. 16: 25, and still more where πρὸ precedes, as in 2 Tim. 1: 9 and here. Mr. T. S. Green gives "in all time" and "before all time" respectively, which seems weak or worse for the first case. Mr. Darby for Rom. 16 prefers "in [the] times of the ages," and for 2 Tim. and Titus "before the ages of time." But why invert thus? Would it not be better to adhere to the same order in all three, "times of ages?" Perhaps indeed "times everlasting" might be admissible for although the A.V. uses "eternal" and "everlasting" interchangeably, the latter is not necessarily so absolute as the former. We might say "before times everlasting" but hardly "before times eternal," and for more reasons than one. It is unfounded to conceive a difference of sense between its use in 2 Tim. 1 and Titus 1; and the wish springs from misunderstanding of the truth.

Life eternal is really given to the believer now; and this is a revelation by no means uncommon in the writings of our apostle. Its present possession is emphatically prominent in the writings of John, whether the Gospel or his First Epistle. But Paul frequently treats it according to its future display, as in the Synoptic Gospels. In the well-known passage of his, Romans 6: 22, 23, we have it clearly: "Ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is life eternal in Christ Jesus our Lord." He looks on to life in glory.

Here he describes his apostolic work in preaching as conditioned by the hope of life eternal. It is thus wholly different from the expectations of the pious Jew in Old Testament times, grounded as they were in the main on the promises of God to the fathers. If a prophet spoke of eternal life at all, it was bound up with the future kingdom of the Messiah. Under His sceptre the Israelite looked for every outward blessing, for all honour and power as well as goodness from God, for the display of beneficence and of blessing in every form; and all this will surely be accomplished on earth, without fail or stint, according to the word of the living God.

The apostle's work had a wholly different character; for it was based upon the total rejection and the heavenly exaltation of the Lord Jesus, whereby that hope of life eternal is realised now, and in a way altogether superior to the testimony of the prophets (Ps. 133, Dan. 12). So the Lord as the great Prophet on Olivet declared that the living righteous of the nations, who are severed from the wicked, enter into life eternal when He shall have come as the Son of man in His glory. Even the sheep realise their place but little: grace will abound exceedingly. But the apostle proceeds to show that the promise which the Christian actually enjoys goes not merely beyond the prophets, or the human race on earth, but back into eternity. This was necessarily a promise within the Godhead. The God that knew no falsehood promised it before the times of the ages. So we saw in 2 Tim. 1: 9, that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the ages. It was a promise within the Godhead when neither the world nor man yet existed, and therefore had a far higher character than promises made in time to the fathers.

These times, stamped with distinctive principles on God's part, are occupied with the history of man's trial and failure in every form. First we see him innocent and in paradise, with everything good around him, and put to the simplest test of obedience in a single, and in itself slight, exception. This was enough: man fell, not deceived like the woman, but ensnared through her in known deliberate transgression. Was man any better when an outcast left to himself, with the sentence of death before him? "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Therefore was man with the lower creation swept away from the earth. A spared remnant passed through the deluge in God's mercy, and the earth came under new conditions; for the sword of government was now instituted of God.

After a vain attempt (as we see in Gen. 11) by unity to make a name in the city and the tower of Babel, Jehovah scattered them after their families and tongues in their lands and their nations. Then, when idolatry had overspread the earth, by promise was man called and chosen and separated unto Him in the person of Abraham and his descendants. But even when they reaped the blessing by divine deliverance from oppressing Egypt, they did not appreciate the riches of divine favour. Therefore, when blessing was proposed at Sinai on the condition of their own obedience, the people unanimously answered, "All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do."

On such a ground sinful man never did and cannot stand. "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." Law may give knowledge of sin, but is never power against it. "For the law worketh wrath" (Rom. 4: 15). "The strength of sin is the law," says our apostle (1 Cor. 15: 56). The law "was added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3: 19); for sins were there long before; but when the commandment came, its violation made them overt acts of transgression, and thus sin became exceeding sinful. Law could only provoke and condemn sin.

Hence justification is gratuitous by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, says he elsewhere (Gal. 3: 10), "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse." It is a statement of uncommon force; not as many as have broken the law, but as many as stand on that ground or principle. "For it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." The law could curse, not save, a sinner.

Now this is cited from Deut. 27, in which chapter the facts stated are as striking as the words of the apostle to the Galatians. For Moses charged the people to stand, six tribes on mount Gerizim to bless them, and six upon mount Ebal to curse. But in the sequel of the chapter we have the curses carefully recorded, which the Levites were to say to all the men of Israel, without one word of provision for their blessing! "As many as are of [or, from, by, on that ground] works of law are under curse." There is no blessing provided or possible on legal footing. Only those that are of faith are truly blessed, none others. "And the law is not of faith." It works wrath and a curse: not that the law is not righteous (for the commandment is holy, just, and good); but man is sinful. "The law entered by the bye that the offence might abound." It is a ministry of death and condemnation. Sin was long before the law, as we see in the race of fallen Adam. Sin is not "transgression of law," but lawlessness (1 John 3: 4). The law made its evil plain and inexcusable rebellion against God's known commandment.

So the prophets, who exposed the growing rebelliousness of Israel, and even of favoured Judah, kept thundering in their ears; whilst they ever reminded them of their only hope in the coming Messiah, "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those that believe." At length, when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, become of a woman, become under the law. But the Jews refused Him, yea abhorred Him; so that His staff, Beauty, was cut asunder that He might break His covenant which He had made with all the peoples. For how could there be the predicted gathering, or obedience, of the peoples unto Him, if His own received Him not? They did worse; they weighed for His price thirty pieces of silver, and the field of the potter became the field of blood, Aceldama. Then His other staff, even Bands, was cut asunder, that He might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

The last link was broken in the cross of the Lord Jesus, even for the two houses of Israel. But sovereign grace through that very cross laid a foundation for an entirely new work, of which the Son of man, exalted at the right hand of God in heaven, is the author and crown. While Israel and the nations wholly disappear for all that was predicted of earthly blessing and glory, the Head of the new creation is revealed on high, and the Holy Ghost sent below. Thus a door of mercy lies open to every believer on terms of indiscriminate grace. This is Christianity for the faith of God's elect, according to which Paul was apostle. Could his office have a nobler character? Along with it goes that new building of God, the church, the body of Christ.

Thus we see that what the God incapable of falsehood promised before the times of the ages now shines upon the believer. What was first in purpose was last in accomplishment. Here, however, it is rather in purpose and upon hope, that "life eternal" comes before us. It is no less true that "this life is in His Son." There is no such life in any other. The first Adam was at best but a living soul; the last Adam a quickening Spirit. As Christ our life is risen from the dead, such is the character of the life we receive in Him. It is life after redemption was effected, that those who are quickened together with Him might have all their offences forgiven, dead with Christ and risen with Him, and even, as the Epistle to the Ephesians adds, seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Here, however, the apostle does not dwell so much on heavenly association as on the wondrous fact that the life of the Christian is life eternal, promised before the world began, outside of times or dispensations in God's dealings with man on the earth. It derives its character from Him Who is eternal, the Way and the Truth, the Head, centre, expression, and object of all the purposes of God. This we have now, as we shall have in glory with Himself; and therefore is it said to be grounded on or conditioned by "hope."

Nor is there anything vague or uncertain. It is not a law requiring what at best may, yea must, fail of fulfilment; for failure is invariable in man's hand. It is God's word manifested in a preaching which had His authority mace good by His "truth," the sure revelation of His mind. "We are of God (said another apostle): he that knoweth God heareth us." Not to hear is the spirit of error. During man's probation, law put him to the proof characteristically. Now God manifested His word in its own seasons. There was a divine work to speak, according to "full knowledge of truth that is according to piety." It is not for exercising the intellect. Piety is the model and aim.

Now, therefore, is the due time for bringing all out plainly. "In its own seasons He manifested His word in a preaching, wherewith I was entrusted according to commandment of God our Saviour." This is the "mystery of the gospel" (Eph. 6: 19), or at least it is a part, and an important part, of it. Ever since the apostle was sent forth on his mission, the greatest impulse was given, and that full development which we find written in his Epistles. It was embodied in Christ, Who died, rose, and was glorified in heaven; but the Holy Spirit was given in order that God's word as to this might be manifested; and manifested it was in Paul's preaching beyond all others, "according to command of God our Saviour." For never before did this title "Saviour God" receive such an illustration; never again can it be after such a sort, even when the glory shall be a defence, a cloud of smoke by day and a shining flame by night, upon every dwelling place, upon mount Zion, and upon her assemblies. And it is all the more glorious, because it is a secret known only to faith, and preached therefore, instead of being established in power and visible display. Therefore is it now a "commandment of God our Saviour." When glory dwells in the land of Israel, as it surely will under Messiah and the new covenant literally enjoyed by the earthly people, there will be no room for any such commandment. It will then be the day for the triumph of the most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, on the downfall of Satan's power. It will be a day, not so much for testimony by the word, and hence for faith, as the manifestation of divine power and glory in the subduing of all adversaries by the Son of man reigning over all peoples, nations, and languages Then too shall the world know that the Father sent His Son and loved those who now believe on Him during His rejection, when they behold them perfect in one and displayed in the same glory as was given to their Lord.

The address follows: — "To Titus, genuine child according to common faith: grace and peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Saviour" (ver. 4).

Thus we see the apostle gives Titus the same designation as Timothy in his first Epistle: only there it is simply "in faith"; here it is "according to common faith." They both believed the same truth of Christ, Paul the Jew and Titus the Gentile. It is not only that there is one body, the church, but a faith common to all Christians, common to the highest in spiritual place, power' and authority, with the least saint, were he a Scythian or a slave, that calls on the same Lord rich in grace toward all that call on His name.

But it will be observed, that Timothy is styled "beloved child" in 2 Tim. 1. Accordingly the apostle unbosoms himself to him as he does not to Titus. Nevertheless Titus thoroughly possessed his confidence, as he was entrusted with the important and delicate task of an apostolic envoy in Crete. It is the mistake of the old divines to confound this position with the gift of an evangelist, perhaps because Timothy was an evangelist. This Titus is never called. The truth is that the charge over doctrine, or the commission to appoint elders, is quite independent of an evangelist's gift. Titus had here a work within the church, not without; though no doubt an evangelist might also be appointed to such a charge by an apostle. But an ecclesiastic charge and the exercise of an evangelistic gift have a wholly distinct character, and in themselves no single link of connection. They might or might not be united in the same person.

According to the oldest MSS. and Versions, "mercy" is omitted in the verse; but Chrysostom is quite wrong, followed by Damasus, in asserting that "mercy" is only spoken of in 1 Tim. 1: 2, for it is equally found in 2 Tim. 1: 2. Here also Lachmann stands with the Received Text in giving it as found in the mass of the junior MSS. and the Versions, supported by the Alexandrian and a few other uncial copies.

It is difficult however to resist the overwhelming external evidence; and the inference would be, that the apostle's heart was drawn out to desire "mercy" especially for Timothy, whilst he contented himself with the wish for "grace and peace" in Titus' case, as he commonly did in writing to the saints generally. In the Epistle to Jude "mercy" is put in the foreground, with "peace and love" following, for those addressed on the broadest possible ground. This insertion is quite as exceptional for the saints in general, as the omission of it is to Titus. There saints are regarded as the objects of special tenderness, as they were exposed to the most imminent danger, from the growing rush of evil towards the last gulf of apostasy. But if "mercy" is not here expressly before us, "grace" really implies it; for it is the fountainhead from which mercy flows, and peace is the issue ever to be desired, no less than the ever-flowing fountain and channel — "from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Saviour."

"For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest order further the things wanting, and appoint elders city by city, as I directed thee. If any one is blameless (or, unaccused), husband of one wife, having children faithful, not under charge of profligacy, or unruly" (vers. 5, 6).

There is no doubt that the apostle left Titus in Crete only for a time in the fulfilment of the charge given him. Not a hint appears of his permanent residence there, but plain proof that he was to leave Crete for other quarters and different work. It is remarkable that the form of the word "left" has been changed from rather earlier days; and that this change falls in with permanence. So it stands in the commonly received text; but the best authorities followed by the critics agree that the original form quite coincides with the temporary character of the mission of Titus. The apostle's stay in the island was brief. Titus was left there for a while. Neither is said to have planted the gospel in Crete. It seems highly probable from Acts 2: 11,* that the glad tidings had been conveyed there almost from the great day of Pentecost. It was a question therefore for Titus to follow up that setting of things in order which the apostle began.

*It is one of the little inaccuracies of the Auth. V. that we find here "Cretes." and in Titus 1: 12 "Cretians" without any reason. The only correct form of course is "Cretans."

Even at Rome we learn from the first chapter of the Epistle that Paul longed to see those there, that he might communicate some spiritual gift to them, in order to their strengthening. Still more would this be called for in the far less frequented island where Titus was left. There would be things wanting which the short stay of the apostle could not suffice to complete. Further, there was the need of elders to be appointed, which was regularly, and sometimes long, subsequent to the gathering of the saints. It is implied that several cities, perhaps many, had assemblies in them, and that elders were later appointed in each. Bp. Ellicott is quite right in questioning the statement of Jer. Taylor, "one in one city, many in many" (Episc. § 15). It is a strange, as well as certainly a precarious, statement from an Episcopalian, though natural enough to one of dissenting ideas. There is nothing here to limit eldership to one person in each city; there may have been several. This would of course be modified by circumstances; but we know from elsewhere in the New Testament that plurality of elders in any given assembly was the rule, and so no doubt it was at Crete. Church order, though flexible, had a common principle and character. "For this cause," says the apostle to the Corinthians, "have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved child and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you to remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4: 17: compare 1 Cor. 11: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 33-37).

It should be observed, as a consideration of the greatest moment. that the apostle does not specify a particular gift as requisite for these local charges. Scripture takes marked care to guard from that dangerous confusion, which was soon to characterise Christendom, and to form the separation of clergy from laity, which is in fact a return to Judaism, and a denial in both principle and practice of the distinctive fulness of privilege for the church. It is not that a gift and a charge might not be combined in the same individual; but they are in themselves, and for most who have but one or the other, altogether different. The gift was one given by Christ to the church and from the greatest to the least, apart from all intervention of man. This can no more cease to be than Christ can abnegate His grace and living functions as the Head of the body. The charge of "elders" or "bishops" required not only fitness but also choice or appointment by competent authority defined by scripture.

Another weighty fact is that, so far from being interrupted by His ascension to heaven, Eph. 4: 8-10 is precisely demonstrative, that only from Him on high were they given, and given till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. As no right-minded Christian will aver that this is attained yet, so neither should he doubt the unfailing grace of Christ. Power in external testimony may not adorn the assembly, when unfaithful and no more a visibly united light as once here below. Yet the love of Christ cannot refuse all that is needed for the perfecting of the saints, unto ministerial work, unto building up of His body.

But elders or bishops were a local charge and depended for their nomination on-those who had discernment to choose and authorise (ultimately from Christ, to appoint them). Hence we never see them in scripture, among the Gentiles at least, save as chosen by apostles, or by apostolic men like Timothy or Titus expressly commissioned to that end. The democratic idea is a fiction; had it been of God, it would have saved much trouble, and simplified matters outwardly, to have left their election with the assembly. But it is never so heard of in God's word. All power and authority is in the hands of Christ, Who wielded it through those He chose. Hence He called personally the twelve on earth, as He called Paul from heaven; and they did directly, or indirectly through fitting agents as here before us, appoint elders, assembly by assembly, city by city. The assembly might look out deacons; but elders needed and had a different source, the authority of Christ through men whom He chose and fitted to select them. How solemn a consideration this is, alike for Nationalists and Non-conformists, here is not the place to discuss at large. If they are spiritual and of single eye, they can scarce fail to see how far present arrangements are alien from scripture; how fallen the church is, if it were only in the matter of gifts and charges. Alas! it is but a particular case of a ruin far more comprehensive and appalling.

Moral qualities and circumstances in accordance with them are here as elsewhere insisted on for elders. "If any one is blameless (or, unaccused)." How censure others, if open to it himself? "Husband of one wife." If married, he must have but one wife; for many heathen had several, that is, at one time; and Jews discarded a wife with facility when they liked another more. "Having children faithful, not under charge of excess (or, profligacy), or unruly." Next to personal probity stands family relationship; and as plurality of wives would bar (whatever the suitability in other respects), so too a disreputable offspring. How could he rule the house of God, who had already and manifestly failed in his own home?

The characteristics required for the office are now set out. "For the bishop (or, overseer) must be blameless (or, free from accusation), as God's steward; not self-willed, not passionate, not quarrelsome (lit. remaining over wine), not a striker, not a seeker of base lucre; but hospitable, a lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, temperate, holding to the faithful word that is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage in the healthful doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers" (ver. 7-9).

It is plain that there would be no force in the reason thus alleged, if "the bishop" and "the elder" were not identical. Titus was to appoint elders in every city as the apostle charged him: — "If any one is blameless, etc., for the bishop must be blameless," etc. Hence the Episcopalian is obliged to give up his idea that the bishop and elders in scripture represent two orders of officials, and driven to look for the prototype of the modern diocesan in such a one as Titus. But the Epistle itself, and other scriptures, refute the supposition of any such permanent functionary, though Titus of course did appoint elders in Crete.

The elder is expressive of the dignity of the person derived from the respect due to age; not that the elder must needs be an aged man, but one of experience. Thus the title was derived and applied even if there was no great age, where suitability for the position existed. The bishop, or overseer, expresses rather the nature of the office, which was to take account morally of the saints, and to maintain godly order. Oversight in short was the constant duty privately and publicly.

Hence it was a primary requisite that the overseer should himself be blameless, or free from charge against him, as God's steward. He had a governing post, and therein a moral responsibility to God. The apostle in 1 Cor. 4: 1 speaks of himself and of his fellow-labourers as "stewards of God's mysteries." Here we find no "mysteries" referred to. These were not the sacraments so called, but the new and hitherto secret truths of the New Testament revelation. Nowhere in scripture is baptism or the Lord's supper characterised as "a mystery," though the superstitious usage soon came in like a flood after the inspired apostles passed away. Popery, ever gross, avails itself of this abuse in Eph. 5: 32, where "the mystery" of the church's union with Christ is used for the godly walk of husband, and wives; as if it gave countenance to the notion that marriage is "a sacrament. "

Yet what is the result of this unnatural rendering? "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church:" a transcript of Jerome's Vulgate, and a gross travesty of the divine mind in the inspired Greek. Even Cardinal Cajetan and Dr. Estius expose the error. It is false in both substance and form, but serves, as error well suits, to sanction a sacrament of purely human invention. In no sense is "mystery," still less "sacrament," said of marriage, but in respect of Christ and in respect of the church; which are so united that He is the Head, and she the body. This mystery is indeed great; and it is the sole one here spoken of. Mark the emphasis, But I speak, etc. in contrast exact, though anticipative, with human thoughts. Then in the following verse he turns to the natural relationship, instituted of God in Eden and sanctioned ever since, in total opposition to a "mystery."

Again see its inconsistency when we apply the test of scripture. Has Popery ever instituted "the sacrament of piety" (1 Tim. 3: 16)? On the forehead of the great harlot that sits on the seven hills God has inscribed, Mystery, Babylon the Great, etc. This has equal claim, that is none, to be "a sacrament"; if one, how ominous, and awful!

Even the seven who in the early days of Acts. 6 were chosen for the external work of "serving tables," were appointed over this business by apostolic imposition of hands. Probably the like hands were similarly laid on the elders who were not chosen by the disciples. But it is expressly said of those elected to diaconal work. They in particular required and had its support for what else might have seemed only secular.

Now it is of some importance to observe that the elder, or overseer, might not be a teacher; still less did he stand in the higher place of apostle or prophet. Nevertheless he must be "apt to teach," as we shall see confirmed ere long in this very context, though not possessed of the teacher's distinct gift. But whatever his duty, he must act as God's steward, manifestly identified with the interests of His house. This would give seriousness of purpose, as it supposes moral courage with men and dependence on God and His word.

He must be "not self-willed," or headstrong. It is the grossest mistake that self-will implies courage, though it may lead to rashness or even recklessness. Nothing gives so much quiet firmness as the consciousness of doing the will of God. One can then be lowly and patient, but uncompromising. We are as children of God elect according to God the Father's fore-knowledge unto obedience as well as the blood-sprinkling of Jesus Christ. No principle takes precedence of that obedience for practice. It is the true exercise of the life of Christ given to us. Self-will haughtily disregards both God and man. How shameful in an overseer!

Again, he must be "not soon angry" or irascible. Scarce anything enfeebles authority more than proneness to the explosions of anger. The weight of a rebuke, however just it might be, is apt to be lost when a man is overcome with angry heat. Calmness gives weight and force to a needed rebuke.

The next negation is perhaps a figurative expression; literally it means not abiding long over wine or disorderly through it. Hence it comes generally to mean, "not a brawler." Undoubtedly the literal force of being addicted to wine or the like is excluded peremptorily. The fact seems represented by μέθυσος the habit by πάροινος. Even were a Christian free from the suspicion of so evil a source, the easily heated, the noisy and quarrelsome, character is unfit to be, and unworthy of being, God's steward. The overseer must be no brawler.

If this unmeetness refers to some such source, the next goes farther down into the much lower level of physical outgoing: he is to be "no striker." Here there is a still less seemly violence, the one very naturally leading to the other. The overseer must be neither. If he is the wielder of authority locally, appointed by a still higher authority in the Lord's name, he above all must not degrade that Name by ways so opposed to His.

There is another characteristic which men in authority are not a little apt to fall into, but it is unworthy of an overseer: he must not seek gain by base means, he must be firm against greed of filthy lucre. He who is called to rule before God among the saints must himself watch at least as much against this debasing evil as against those of violence. With what face, if he were thus faulty, could he rebuke these sins, as is his duty?

How blessed the contrast with all these uncomely traits we see in Christ! And if every Christian is called to be Christ's epistle, how much more are the elders? How could one, known to tamper with any of these evil things, reprove the failure of others with any show of consistency?

The absence of evil qualities is not enough. The assembly of God is the only sphere on earth for the exercise and display of that which is divine. To steer clear, therefore, of the ordinary snares of men in office never could satisfy the mind of God. The overseer, without a thought of invitation or recompence in return, was called to be hospitable; and we know from other scriptures, that this was not to be exercised after the manner of men but according to faith. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews the saints in general were called not to be forgetful of hospitality, for by it some have entertained angels unawares. It is plain therefore, that it was not in the least on the ground of previous knowledge, or of social equality. Had there been suspicion of a stranger, assuredly it would have excluded all such entertainment as God's word reports of old, and recommends now. So in faith and love Abraham received into hospitality, not angels only, but Jehovah Himself in the guise of man. Hospitality like this was not to be laid on the shelf, or vainly admired as a patriarchal virtue. Beyond question the overseer was not to be behind the saints in general, but to be a lover of hospitality.

Nor this only; for we read next that the elder was to be "a lover of good," not merely of good men, but of goodness — an important guard in the exercise of much more than hospitality. Self-pleasing might readily enter otherwise; and the indulgence of self ever is the service of Satan. Christ alone shows us truly and fully what good is, making it not only attractive but of power for the spirit and the walk. The overseer therefore was to be a "lover of good."

Further, he was to be "discreet" or sober-minded. A man might easily carry the love of good into either a sentiment or an enthusiasm; but the Spirit of God gives sobriety. He is "a Spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind." Thus is everything kept in its true place, because through Him all is seen and weighed in the presence of God.

Hence the overseer was to be "just;" he must rightly estimate the relationship of others and his own: a most important element, not merely in a general way, but especially for one in his place. Nothing would more enfeeble his weight than a failure in righteousness. Yet to be "just" is not enough. It is of course imperative; but there must be more along with it.

The overseer, it is added in due course as a higher call, must be "pious," or "holy" in that sense, "ὅσιος." It is not separate from evil, but gracious and upright, and is so used particularly of Christ in the Old Testament, as well as in the New.* It is that character of piety which appreciates God's mercy, and is itself merciful. This was looked for in an elder, while he and all believers were ἅγιοι or saints.

* The reader can consult Ps. 16: 10, Ps. 89: 18, 19, etc., and Acts 2: 27, Acts 13: 34, 35, with application to others also.

Further, he was to be "temperate," an expression much narrowed and so far misapplied in our day. Self-control not in one respect but in all is its real meaning. It is the quality of having every way and expression of feeling, or inclination, checked in the Christian by his sense of God's presence, grace, and fear.

These are the moral qualities which the Spirit of God insists on for elders, positively as well as negatively. But there is an addition of great value in verse 9, "Holding to the faithful word according to the doctrine, that he may be able both to encourage (or exhort) in (or with) the healthful teaching, and to convict the gainsayers."

Here the necessary aptness to teach appears in the peculiar and twofold obligation for which it was required. It might not be formal ministry in the assembly. The work of the elder lay as much, or perhaps even more, with the wants and dangers of individual saints in daily life. Such a one must adhere firmly to the faithful word. Uncertainty in his own perception of it, uncertainty in his handling it for others, would proportionately undermine the task laid on him to execute. The elder was not however to act according to his own wisdom; nor did his authority spring from himself, any more than from those that composed the assembly. He was God's steward, and the Holy Spirit made him an overseer, not in a mere flock of his own ("my people," as men say, or "my church"), but in "the flock of God."

The faithful word, therefore, must be his standard for walk, as well as the source from which he drew whatever material he used; and this not to nourish questions or indulge imagination, "but according to truth and love." If invested with authority, so was he a man under authority. He was God's steward, that God's will might be done and the will of man repressed. God is not the author of confusion but of peace, Who will have all things done decently and in order. Thus the light of the faithful word must guide the elder and indeed the Christian. The doctrine he was himself taught can alone determine what that order is; and now it is permanently in scripture. To that faithful word of God, therefore, the overseer must cling, avoiding strange notions as poison. Nor was it for his own guidance only. The elders were to rule, and, as made such by the Holy Spirit, were solemnly responsible to "rule well." But if any were to be accounted worthy of double honour, it was especially true of those who laboured in the word and in teaching (1 Tim. 5: 17), as some might if not all.

Now in the conflict of circumstances which would come necessarily before the overseer, there are two wants constantly claiming his care: as well the need to encourage some, as no less the need to reprove gainsayers. Hence says the apostle in this passage, "That he may be able both to exhort (or, comfort) with the healthful teaching, and to convict the gainsayers." For both, a single eye is needed; but the faithful word is the means or weapon of all moment, sharper than any two-edged sword, which can divide as well as wound. On the overseer would fall this duty from time to time, and the faithful word alone would enable him both to encourage with the healthful teaching, and to expose those who sought their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ.

In the later Epistles it is a sorrowful feature to observe how evil grows apace in the church of God. It had entered early, though apostolic vigilance and power held it in check; but it had never and nowhere entirely disappeared. Our Lord had prepared us for this, not as a question of fellowship for the church, but where the word of the gospel is sown in the world; for "the field," as He interprets it, is the world. In that field tares were sown early by the enemy, and Christ's servants were forbidden to root them out. This, from their prejudices as Jews, they would have been too ready to attempt. But the Lord lets them know that in the field wheat and tares, however sad their mixture, were to grow together until the harvest. It is for angelic hands to deal with the tares when judgment comes.

But meanwhile this is the day of grace, not of judgment. The servants of the Lord are to sow the good, not to essay the extermination of evil from the world. To root up the tares would be death at least. This, on the one hand, the false church avowedly executes in open disobedience of the Lord; on the other, discipline in the true church, even to putting away, is according to the Lord's will. Indeed the church ceases to be the church where that unalienable obligation is declined.

Thus the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 13) and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5) are in perfect harmony; but they refer to wholly distinct things. Wicked professors are to be put away from among the saints; they are not to be hurried out of the world. This the Lord reserves for the angels in the time of harvest, the end of the age. It is now sowing time, and the day of salvation. The judgment will fall by-and-by unsparingly; as grace should now reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. So it has reigned in the mighty work of redemption; so it ought to reign in the practical answer of the saints, individually or together.

It remains however that gainsaying abounds, the dark shadow which followed closely the glad tidings of God. "For there are many unruly ones, vain speakers and deceivers, specially those of [the] circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who are such as overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake" (vers. 10, 11).

This we see even before the apostle's service closed. There were already "many" of these disorderly men. Whatever discipline might have done to clear the Lord's name, and safeguard the saints from corruption, this scandal abounded. It was a bitter sorrow for the heart of him who was soon to depart and be with Christ; and the more so, when he thought of the church, the beloved of Christ, so exposed to the attacks and wiles of the enemy. If grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, there were many now who bore His name whose speech was vanity, not to edification, whose aim was their belly, not to serve the Lord Jesus; nor did they merely foam out their own shame, but deceived people's minds. They led away the unguarded and self-confident, even where there might be life Godward. Still more did they hurry on to destruction the borderers whose ear is ever open to that which accredits man, in ignorance of the truth of God which lays him in the dust.

These unruly persons were "specially of the circumcision." From without originally, yet more than the heathen had they knowledge of scripture, of course only of the Old Testament.

They were therefore quick to take the place of being a guide to the blind, a light to them that are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes. They had in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth. But if the name of God had been blasphemed among the Gentiles because of mere Jews who assumed the place of spiritual understanding, how much more was it about to be by the self-honour of these "many" men who were not circumcised only but baptised also! The apostle declares to Titus that they must have their mouths stopped. This of course could not be brought to pass by mere outward authority, but by the power of the word wielded in the Spirit. Titus seems one eminently suited for this work of vindicating God and His truth; as God would use his example and that of all who in faith act upon the apostle's word. Easy tolerance of evil may imitate grace, but is its shame and utter destruction. Grace maintains and is inseparable from the truth; otherwise it is no more grace, but a sham of good yet real evil, which demoralises, corrupts, and destroys. It is not only that God is dishonoured, but whole houses are subverted. This expression is morally important, "whole houses." It might be through the head of the house, whose faith was undermined, and whose ways were made loose. What havoc to the family I and the more surely, if some or many of the household were unconverted. :But even where all were converted, what a danger for them all! So much easier is it in this world to spread evil than to maintain what is good and true and holy.

No doubt the ways of these troublers were unruly; but evil teaching is still more pernicious, as it habitually clothes itself in thoughts which flatter human nature. Christ is not in it, Who is the life and nourishment of all who are born again. But these men were teaching things which ought not to be taught; and their aim was filthy lucre, not the glory of the Lord, but that which, as means or end, becomes an idol that tolerates lust and iniquity.

Evils are not everywhere the same; certain times and places have a character peculiar to themselves The Cretans had an evil repute beyond most, and this not merely with strangers, who might regard them with scanty affection, but even among their own countrymen, usually apt to be somewhat prone to indulgence of faults. So "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, 'Cretans [are] always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies' (i.e., gorged gluttons). This testimony is true: for which cause rebuke them sharply, that they may be healthful in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men turning away as they do from the truth" (vers. 12-14).

The apostle here quotes an ethic poet, Epimenides of Crete, in order the more to enforce the confessed dangers of those concerned. It is not to be supposed that he endorses him, this Gentile author, as a prophet of God. It was needful therefore to add, "This testimony is true." But it does show how grace condescends to use whatever is true, though the source might be impure. In the same spirit the apostle cited a celebrated comedian, the more impressively to convict the Corinthians: "Evil communications corrupt good manners." And if a heathen, not particularly circumspect over himself or in his plays, gave utterance to a sentiment so applicable to the danger at Corinth, it was the more severe a reproof from such a mouth to the careless saints there. Their levity deceived them; even Menander reproved them. So here one of themselves, a prophet of their own, as a heathen moralist, gave a true witness to the unreliable character, the mischievous activity, and the lazy self-indulgence of Cretans as such.

Natural character, which is all the unbeliever has, may be nothing for the life of faith. The Spirit of God works all that is good through Christ presented to the soul, as an object of faith, and spring of love, and giver of joy. But it is an important matter for the enemy, who skilfully acts upon the old man, if unjudged, to the Lord's dishonour. Where there is unwatchfulness, a fall ensues. Therefore the evil nature affords constant danger. When Christ is really leaned on and looked to, the Holy Spirit gives entire superiority over evil. Here it is a question of those who are walking after the flesh: hence the humbling testimony is applied in all its force. Titus did well to bear it in mind; nor could a Cretan well complain of the apostle's severity, where an eminent countryman of theirs had long since owned their racial character. "For which cause rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound (or, healthy) in the faith."

Pravity of conduct continually flows from something unsound creeping into the spirit. To be unsound in the faith is the high road to unholy ways. Here too we find the perverseness of Jewish fables. It had appeared even then, and undoubtedly long before. Religious imagination has wrought since to the incalculable evil of those that bear the name of the Lord. But there is more then "fable" to watch against, even "commandments of men turning away as they do from the truth." Never trust the practical exhortation or the moral ways of those who, having once professed the truth, turn aside from it. There is no greater evil ordinarily in Christendom. It has an apostate character. For God's word will never mingle with man's commandments: where it is essayed, in the long run the human element really prevails, and the divine becomes a powerless form.

We have to do with the truth, not with fable; and we are under grace, not under commandment of men alienated from the truth. Neither imagination nor human morality can mingle with Christian revelation. Scripture alone furnishes a bright sense of its living relationships and its glorious prospects, with which fable and the unspiritual mind can never compare. Nor can human commandments rise above their source; they are of the world, and therefore perishable. The word of the Lord abides for ever, and judges alike both fable and human commandment. "To the pure all things [are] pure; but to the defiled and unfaithful [is] nothing pure; but both their mind and their conscience have been defiled" (ver. 15).

Duty depends upon relationship, and relationship on the revelation of God in Christ our life. Otherwise we are only in our sins. Such once were we all: not all gross, nor all externally shameful, as were some. But now through grace we were washed, but we were sanctified, but we were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Such then is the source of Christian purity; and it is so much the more truly ours, because it is of God; Who, as He has called, will also keep His own, through our Lord Jesus — loved in the world, and loved unto the end. To such all things are pure, because they themselves are pure. It is no question now of abstinence from this or that; of allowance of legal sanctity; of fleshly uncleanness. The will of God as expressed by His word directs the believer, as we see its perfection in the Lord Jesus.

This, and not the law, is the true rule of life for the Christian. Without Christ there can be nothing but a rule of death. And to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure. What was forbidden provoked the flesh to desire it. Stolen waters were sweet; and so it is still where Christ is unknown. Nothing is pure to the defiled and unbelieving, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled: an awful sentence morally, but most true. It is not only that their lower nature is corrupt, but the highest part of them, even that which ought to delight in good, and presumes to discuss divine things and God Himself, is no less defiled. Religion in such a condition is at least as impure and loathsome as anything else.

It will be said, no doubt, that such persons know not God. This is undoubtedly true. They know neither the Father, nor Jesus Christ Whom He did send; yet they may, or even do, profess to own God, as men now in Christendom, save the openly hostile and unbelieving. "They profess to know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable and disobedient, and for every good work reprobate" (ver. 16). This surely is not religious progress. The germ of it was even then in apostolic days. The fruit abounds everywhere in our day; and it will be found advancing more and more to greater ungodliness. For their word will spread as a gangrene. It suits the fallen nature of man. His pride is pampered by it, and his will delights in it. Departure from the will of God in a moral way prepared for the gradual rejection of all revelation; for men are ashamed to profess what they hate, as well as what evidently condemns them. God's word sanctifies. It judges the will of man, as well as all its outward workings and effects. It brings in God and His will, which grace makes the directory, the food, the joy of the new man. Instead of this Satan presents fable on the one hand and commandments of men on the other, both which shut out conscience as well as God Himself.

It is evident that these instructions of the apostle are in full accordance with the teaching of the Master in Matt. 15, especially vers. 10-20; Luke 6: 40-45; 11: 34-44, and elsewhere. Christianity in the practical sense works outwardly from within: unless the soul be purified in obeying the truth, as with all that believe, there is neither the Father's name hallowed, nor sin truly judged, nor unfeigned love of the brethren. Neither can there be the worship of God in spirit and truth, any more than drawing near to the Father. All must be superficial and of the natural man. There can be nothing divine till one is born of the Spirit; whereas the gospel carries the soul, in the sense of God's favour in Christ, far beyond into peace, liberty, and power. For Christ is not only life but the deliverer in the fullest sense, as He is the revealed object before the soul from first to last.

Thus He, the unchanging One, changes all things for us, and if any one is in Christ, it is a new creation: old things have passed away, behold, all things are become new; and all things are of the God Who reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Such is the nature, such the character and ways, of God as He has now made Himself known to us in the gospel. How hateful to Him, and ungrateful for man, how base and rebellious in itself, to turn back from a revelation, so wondrous and blessed and complete, to the beggarly elements of Judaism! yea, lower still, to the filthy defiling puddle of human fable and commandments! It is man's religion using as much, or rather as little, of God's word as suits a deadly deceiver; who is behind it all, and avails himself of that little in order to claim divine authority and avoid the reproach of slighting the revelation of grace and truth in Christ the Lord, But the pure in heart, as they shall see God, are enabled to discern present dishonour done to His word, His Son, and the mighty work of redemption; before the light of which these religious efforts and vanities of men flee away as darkness in presence of the day.

We are not in the immediate context directed to the person of Him Who makes all this folly and evil manifest; nor have we dogmatic unfolding of the gospel; but grand moral principles of the utmost moment are laid down. There is room for all, but each in its season, as God is pleased to suit His word to every one who hears the Shepherd's voice. "To the pure all things are pure." How plain and assuring to those who are subject to the Lord! How vain, in presence of such a declaration, to say that "the church" forbids flesh to be eaten on a Friday or in Lent! The value of a real fast is not denied thereby: it is really of grace in presence of adequate passing occasion, and never in the New Testament a general law, still less the sham of eating fish and eggs. Scripture, however, goes farther still, and, not content with maintaining the holy liberty of the Christian, denounces solemnly those who would infringe it.

"But to the defiled and unfaithful nothing is pure, but both the mind and the conscience are defiled." Having part neither in divine nature nor in divine light, to which they plainly prefer human thoughts, feelings, and authority, they necessarily become a prey to the enemy whose malicious pleasure it is to dishonour God in man's dark and alien ways. Defilement accordingly taints every spring of inward and moral affection, as it pervades their entire life, be they or not openly corrupt, and at any rate unfaithful.

Here we do well to watch against a too common misconception of the opening words of ver. 15. They do not mean "to, or in, the mind of the pure," but for their use. How many victims of passion and lust, particularly among men and women accepted as holding a sacred position, have vainly sought to extract from this holy saying an excuse and cover for their iniquities! May we be kept from every illusion of the flesh and every delusion of our subtle enemy.

Open apostacy is not here in question; for they profess to know God, while in works they deny Him. They are guilty in their despite of any divine revelation, yet more if they scorn the fullest and last. For, as men acknowledge, the corruption of the best thing is the worst corruption. Such a state paves the way for apostacy.

It is in vain to boast in such a state of knowing God: as the Jews did of old, so do the superstitious now. But they alike prove the unreality of their boast; because "in works they deny Him, being abominable and disobedient, and for every good work reprobate." Hypocrisy, or at the least self-deception, is the inevitable result of their false position and state. The pretension to extraordinary holiness which essays to exalt self by ignorantly slighting God's creatures, instead of using them holily and thankfully to His glory, opens the door to Satan who drags such into all defilement of flesh and spirit, yea into abominations contrary to nature itself. Estranged from the truth and grace of God, and abandoned to self, what hope can there be of repentance? What more terrible moral sentence than that which the apostle pronounces, "for every good work reprobate (or, worthless)?"

Titus 2.

In contrast with the injurious and profane trash, of which we have been just warned, the apostle now exhorts his trusted child and fellow-servant, entering into details which we may profitably follow with all care. It is interesting to note how the apostle directs Titus to carry himself in his work toward the saints according to age and sex. It differs not a little from that which he laid down in the Epistles to the Ephesian and the Colossian saints. There he is addressing the saints directly; and the order he adopts is precisely and best suited to that purpose. He begins with the subject rather than the superior of each co-relationship. Thus he exhorts the wives before the husbands, the children before the parents, and the slaves before their masters. It is the true moral order, where the apostolic appeals were written to the saints that filled these relative places. The principle is that those in the subject position should take heed to their duty, as a most important means for the smooth working of such as held the higher relation. But all are put in mind of Him Who has given the light and grace of God on each and every place a saint stands in, that God may thus in all things be glorified through our Lord Jesus.

Peter in his First Epistle (1 Peter 2: 18) with fervour and consoling interest exhorts, not exactly "slaves," but "household servants" (oijkevtai); but there is no corresponding word to masters. In 1 Peter 3: 1 he speaks to "wives" at some length, and then briefly (ver. 7) turns to "husbands" likewise.

But here our apostle is writing to his confidential fellow-labourer, working alone in Crete, and this modifies the case considerably. He commences with elder men among the saints, and then he turns to elder women, as objects for the special dealings of Titus. We may observe the wise and holy way in which the latter is told to admonish young women, not directly but through the elders of their own sex. Yet 1 Tim. 5: 2 proves that scripture forbids an absolute rule in this respect. But purity is everywhere maintained, as is plain. What a contrast with the horrors of Romanism through the priest on earth that usurps the functions of the Great High Priest! He had passed through the heavens, and yet makes the throne of grace accessible with boldness to every believer, that we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help. Yes, He does this perfectly, as it could not be done if every soul had an earthly priest of unexceptionable character and zeal for his exclusive care and benefit continually.

Here "young men," to whom in particular Titus was to afford himself a pattern of good works, follow elder men and elder women in vers. 6-8. Then "bondmen" are to be objects of Titus' charge in vers. 9, 10. But very strikingly the grand basis of blessing for all is put in immediate connection with the despised slave, though surely the truth and motives and effects were for every saint.

Thus the apostle begins, "But speak thou the things which become the healthful teaching: that elder men be sober, grave, discreet, healthful in their faith, in their love, in their patience" (vers. 1, 2). Scripture leaves no room for the thought that the saints need not diligent instruction. We learn what value for the apostle there is in continual exhortation. No doubt we have to distinguish between the healthful doctrine and the things which become it. All right practice flows from divine principle; and all divine principles are concentrated in the person of Christ. He therefore is and must be the substance, the exemplar, and the test; for He is the object set before us, as well as the life we have, and the nourishment of that life.

For this very reason does the apostle urge fidelity on Titus. If he was steward of God's mysteries for the saints, he was no less to be a watchman on God's behalf. He was therefore to speak what befitted healthful doctrine. This he could not do without Christ continually before his own eyes; nor would any profit as they ought without Christ before theirs. There may be certain truths peculiar to certain times and seasons; but Christ is always in season; and, without giving Him His due place and connection withal, truth at any time is apt to fall flat, and, such is the infirmity of man, it may sometimes work dangerously. His grace is sufficient, as for the soul, so also for the servant; if he needs it for himself, he needs it for his ministry not a whit less.

Titus then was here enjoined by the apostle to speak the things which become healthful doctrine. Exhortation should ever follow teaching, as it flows from the same source, and needs to be continually fed with the fresh streams of truth. It will be observed that the word is not exactly "teach," but "speak thou the things," etc. The work of Titus was largely pastoral; and a vase deal of a pastor's work lies in speaking face to face with the objects of his care. This does not at all supersede the value of public teaching, on the one hand; but, on the other, teaching in public will never supply adequately all that every day's need requires. How many things may be happily nipped in the bud, which else would threaten danger to souls! Taken early, a kindly word may suffice; and what stimulus may be given by a few cheering words, where a soul might otherwise hesitate and in time turn aside! How much instruction also may be given individually, and with far greater impressiveness than in the general exhortations of public addresses! Again, how few there are who know how to speak privately in accordance with their healthful teaching! No doubt there may be legalism and a continual effort to preach in private as well as in public; but how happy when without restraint, and in unaffected love, there is fidelity everywhere, and the words at home are at least consistent with what has been heard in the open congregation!

It is evident therefore that the language of the Epistle to Titus here is large enough to take in his service both privately and publicly: "but speak thou the things which become healthful teaching." Another element has to be taken into account. The special relations of those that are addressed are themselves not an unimportant consideration for a servant of the Lord. And we learn how careful is the apostle as to the befitting ways of those who are mutually related (in the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians); as we see in the First Epistle of Peter with rather less prominence. Where mutual duties are pressed, the lesser or more subject relationship is regularly introduced before the greater. Thus the apostle exhorts wives before husbands, children before parents, and servants before masters. And this was done, one need not hesitate to say, in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. For even supposing that the more authoritative relation were to blame, how important that the subject one should feel and act aright before God! "A soft answer turneth away wrath." Nor is anything more comely than the incorruptible pearl of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.

Here to Titus the charge is different, and as proper in its own place. The apostle began with the aged or elder men. The first duty laid down is, that they may be "sober" or temperate. If this become any Christian, the lack of it is serious in an elderly man: he above all should set an example of that moderation in spirit and conduct which bespeaks circumspectness and sense of the presence of God. One can understand how the inexperienced mind of youth may break forth into extravagance of thought or conduct; but such a fault sits peculiarly ill on a man of years, even if he be not old in the knowledge of the Lord. Retrospect should not have been without effect now that he does know Him in the light of God.

But besides sobriety aged men should be "grave." It is not only that experience may be turned to the account of sobriety, but to an aged Christian things around, things before, ought surely to be viewed with no levity but with seriousness, as we now look upon the things (not that are seen, but) unseen and eternal.

Then, again, Titus was to see that aged men be "discreet" or "right-minded." Their position would give them a certain weight, unless there were painful incongruity in their ways and spirit. There are continual perplexities that appear in the practical life of Christians. Discretion therefore is specially needed, and in none so much as an elderly man; who, if he lack the energy of youth, is expected to show discrimination in the conflicting circumstances of intercourse one with another.

Further, they were to be "healthful in their faith." It is very far from being enough that one know the Lord. It is well to be exercised in mind about the truth generally; but that very exercise exposes to mistaken thoughts, unless there be a single eye in looking to the Lord, and vigilance over one's own ideas. Neither is it safe to set the mind on, however one may respect, this favourite teacher, or that, among uninspired men. The word is the great safeguard, but the word sought into as a revelation of Christ to the soul. Where this is done prayerfully, there will be healthiness in faith; where man is trusted (whether self, or a leader, or a party), error is not far off. For God is jealous of a rival and will never endorse our leaning on the creature. He will have us to walk by faith, not by sight.

Nor does it suffice to be "healthful in their faith." "In their love" is the next word of the apostle. The order is instructive. As faith alone introduces into God's love toward us, so faith alone enables us to abound in the love of one another. There is scarce anything in which we are more liable to be deceived than in this divine charity, blessed as it is where real and holy. But it must be "faith working through love;" for faith brings in God, and God is love. It is not meant merely in what He has done for us, but in what He is and works in us. "He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love;" and "he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him." This supposes not only the truth known and enjoyed, but present communion with Him Who has made it all known to us in Christ, and makes it good in those that are His; among whom questions are sure to rise which put the measure, and even reality, of love in us to the severest test.

There is another final want of which the apostle speaks: that the aged men be healthful — "in their patience" (or, endurance), as well as in faith and love. Evil abounds; but evil, where one abides in faith and love, will not seldom give the opportunity of being above it. It may cause suffering; but in this there is fellowship with the Master; and patience well becomes the aged saint. It was a primary sign even for an apostle; as few things seem more sad where it is lacking, particularly among elder men.

Exhortation is now given for the other sex. "That aged women likewise be in deportment reverent, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, teachers of good; that they may train (σωφρονίζωσι) the young women to be lovers of husbands, lovers of children, discreet [or, right-minded], chaste, workers at home,* good, subject to their own husbands, that the word of God be not ill-spoken of" (vers. 3-5).

*The Text. Rec., following many witnesses, and followed by the A.V., etc., has οἰκουρούς, "keepers at home"; which differs only by a letter easily omitted from οἰκουργούς, which most of the later critics prefer, as it is apparently the best reading.

As aged men were begun with, so aged women come next. With such dress may not be so special a snare as it is to the younger; but it is of great moment that, not their apparel only, but their general demeanour, should beseem and be consistent with those who have to do with sacred things. For such is the full literalism of the word employed. This, therefore, holds the first place. They would naturally be somewhat less restrained, from their age, and habits in all probability contracted before their conversion to God. But grace is superior to all difficulties, and forms by the truth, instead of finding, that which is pleasing to the Lord. The doctrine, however sound, would be put to shame by irreverent carriage or demeanour which might appear in the attire, but covers much more inwardly and outwardly. Where they bore themselves as those who had the fear of God before their eyes, it would commend their profession. It is apparent that in 1 Tim. 2: 9 the apostle directs Timothy in a way sufficiently distinct from his aim here with elder women. For there he speaks as to women generally, and καταστολὴ (while taking in far more than στολὴ) seems not so far reaching as κατάστομα a word primarily expressive of condition or even constitution, but applied also to dress.

The next snare against which they are warned is the abuse of the tongue. Aged women were not to be "slanderers." Unquestionably it befits none that call on the name of the Lord; but as men are more exposed to the snare of rough or violent actions, so elder women to give vent to their feelings in unseemly speech when in any way crossed. Idleness too (and often at their time of life there is apt to be a suspension of activity) would give room for injurious gossip. The Spirit of God therefore warns, in the next place, against abusive language on their part, and especially in traducing others. Hen are so described in 2 Tim. 3: 3; but women more, as in 1 Tim. 3: 11 and here.

Again, their age, especially in the country before the apostle's mind, would give them opportunity and desire for wine. Naturally, we all know that jaded body and tried mind might fall back on some such stimulant; as it is said in the last chapter of Proverbs, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts; let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." But the word is plain, "not enslaved to much wine."

Whatever may be the speculations of moderns, scripture will not bend to theory, but maintains liberty for the Christian in the use of every creature of God. Our Lord Himself personally and particularly disproved the assumption that all such use is evil in itself. Here too we have a clear proof that there is no absolute prohibition whatever. Timothy was even enjoined to use a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities. Aged women are simply cautioned that they be not enslaved to much wine. Such excitement as it can give beseems not those who, having Christ as their life, are exhorted to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5).

But the apostle is not content with guarding them against snares. It was fitting from their age that they should be "teachers of that which is good." By good in this clause he does not mean benevolent practice, but what was honourable (kαλοδιδασκάλους), what befitted themselves, and themselves in relation to the Lord. Aged women would have considerable opportunities. Set free from the calls on young and vigorous life, they have in old age a no less suited sphere of usefulness. Let them look to it that they be teachers, with the weight which experience gives, of that which is upright and comely. Whatever may be the tendency of nature, and the inclination from habit, grace brings in the name of Christ, and from Christ flows out all that becomes the saints, precious in God's eyes, whether they teach or are taught.

Next, the apostle looks at their relation to younger women, with whom they would as the rule have a strong influence. How were they to use their opportunities? "That they may train the young women to be lovers of husbands, lovers of children." Here they would be admirably in place, and with the Lord before their eyes their experience would prove invaluable for those that have to face the daily difficulties and dilemmas of human life. Not merely were they to school their youngers to be subject to their husbands; to cultivate affection in the home circle is particularly pressed. This would win with an adversary of the truth, where godliness might at first be repellent; along with it love to a husband and to children is indispensably to be cherished by the wife and mother. Christianity was never intended to enfeeble the affections. If Christ governs, He is also the spring of sure unfailing strength. There is no trial with the husband or the child to which His grace would not apply; and the elder women were of all the most suited to cheer and confirm the hearts of their youngers, that they should not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.

But there is another exhortation which fits in most suitably. They were to school their younger sisters to be "discreet" or right-minded: they might be liable to enthusiasm on the one hand, or to carelessness on the other. Discretion is therefore a most needed quality to preserve on the true path of godliness and wisdom in the midst of the difficulties of ordinary life.

Further, purity claims a great place in the exhortation of the elders to their youngers. They were to engage them to be "chaste," in deed, word, and spirit; where the Spirit of God, revealing Christ, is of all power. How little it was known among the Greeks, and even among the Jews to their shame! Their very religion defiled the Greeks; it was the consecration of every corruption, and made them far more polluted than if they had none. So mighty and so essential a quality is purity in Christianity, that it outwardly and really proved a wholly new element, where grace was forgotten and truth almost effaced. Yet even then and there the very artists of Christendom, the sculptors and painters, not to speak of poets, manifested how deeply the light of Christ had penetrated their conceptions, as compared with the voluptuous remains of ancient art. But here it was no question of a surviving or novel sentiment, but of a deep unprecedented rectitude, proper to the relationship and due to the sex (to say nothing of the other), as God made it, and now brought under the grace of Christ. Purity a selfish Jew, or a dissolute Greek, would not fail to appreciate in his wife and in family life.

The next thing pressed is that they be devoted to domestic occupation, — "workers* at home." One cannot but feel the gracious wisdom of such an exhortation as this; and it must have struck those who lived in heathen circumstances even more than ourselves, accustomed to the blessed contrast with heathen habits in days of Christendom, however degenerate. It is a fine example of the way in which the Spirit of God adapts Himself to the most ordinary duties in the present scene. See it in Christ, Who lived for so many years of His life subject to His parents, and Who, in the obscurest of conditions, advanced in wisdom as well as favour with God and man. It is He Who makes all these exhortations as simple and easily understood as they are morally elevating. He brings in His own grace as applicable to women as to men. He shows us the way in every sense, the pattern of obeying God, undoubtedly beyond all comparison; yet how many has He not led, and fashioned, and blessed, in that narrow path He trod in a wilderness where there is no way!

*It cannot be questioned fairly that the most ancient and best MSS. are in favour of this word, though we have no instance of its use in classical or even Hellenistic Greek, and the verbal form occurs only in Clem. Rom, perhaps derived from our text. Still it is a perfectly legitimate formation. The common word "keepers at home" is far inferior in moral force.

The next exhortation is of great value, following diligence in home-work. It is that the younger women should be "good (ἀγαθὰς)" in the sense of kindness. If Christ were not before their eyes, home-work might be despised as drudgery. But if the work were ever so well done, is this all that would satisfy or please a husband? Goodness diffuses happiness all round. Christ sheds a heavenly light on every earthly duty, answering to the riband of blue which God commanded the Jews to attach to their garments. But the exhortation to kindness in this sort has special wisdom in following home-work. There is no place where it is more valuable and less frequent. Nothing short of the Lord's grace could make it a constant habit, where countless little occurrences would inevitably turn up to try patience. But with Christ before the heart goodness would hold on its unobtrusive way. They would labour and persevere as seeing Him Who is invisible.

Last, but not least, is the unvarying call for wives to be in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not evil spoken of. What more irritating to a husband than the readiness on the wife's part to question his authority, or interfere with his plans? The habit of subjection is of all things the most suited to win a husband's ear; and assuredly the knowledge of Christ would give the secret of wisdom, whether he were a Christian or not. If he had experienced the danger and the evil of slighting advice, given very probably at his own desire, it would have the effect of producing the wish to hear again. But the wife's unjudged insubordinate spirit would completely counteract this happy influence, and make even what might be good to be shunned and disregarded. It was therefore of the greatest moment that the elder women should instil it into their youngers to be in subjection to their own husbands; and this not merely for the peace and profit of the household in general, and for the happy relation of the wife and husband, but "that the word of God be not blasphemed," or of evil report. The failure of a wife in adorning the doctrine of God our Saviour by subjection, even in that intimate tie, would not fail to bring reproach, not merely on herself individually, or her associates, but on the word of God itself. This may not be quite just; but it proves what men expect from such as claim the possession of His favour; and these are bound to acknowledge their responsibility.

The apostle comes to a fresh clause in due order. "The younger men likewise exhort to be right-minded, in all things showing thyself a pattern of good works, in the teaching uncorruptness, gravity, healthy speech that cannot be condemned, that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil to say concerning us" (vers. 6-8). As there were specialities in dealing with elder men and elder women, Titus is instructed particularly as to the younger men; not, it may be observed, as to the younger women directly, who fell rather under the immediate care of the elders of their sex.

The moral propriety of this is obvious. There is no need of such delicacy as to the younger men. He was to exhort them to a right mind or discretion. But his own example is brought into the foreground now; any failure on his part in discretion would be peculiarly prejudicial to his godly influence with such youngers. Therefore it is said, "In all things showing thyself a pattern of good (καλῶν) works," that is, of works right and honourable. For benevolence (ἀγ.) is not the point here, though of course it would not, and ought not to, be wanting. But benevolent characters often fall short in that which is comely (καλ.) or befitting the name of the Lord. They are too often weakly amiable, and ready to compromise for peace. It is therefore important to point out the true force of the word of God in this case, which all must feel once it is named.

Practical conduct, however indispensable it may be, is not everything. In his teaching he was to see to "uncorruptness." No quality can be, at any time or with any souls, of greater moment. But especially the younger men have to be thought of. They are more or less acutely observant, as they would be sure to be stumbled by any failure in this respect. Compromise of truth or holiness is of all things most damaging to Christianity. And here we have to do with one very honoured, who yet does not stand in the specially elevated place of an apostle, but approaches more nearly to that which the Lord supplies from time to time for the need of the church. Titus was not inspired, nor had he such a place of authority as belonged to an apostle, save where expressly delegated. Nevertheless he. had a position of great honour and equally great. responsibility. It was therefore of all moment that he should be vigilant for himself. An apostle even was in no way absolved from the necessity, both in his walk and in his ministry, of continual watchfulness, and keeping his body under, and bringing it into subjection, as the great apostle phrases it in 1 Cor. 9. Here, however, it is in his teaching that Titus is exhorted to show uncorruptness: his practical walk and works had already been insisted on.

Next we hear of "healthful speech" or discourse Assuredly if any deposit of truth could give moral elevation to one in authority and gracious care of his youngers, it is the revelation of God in Christ and in His work. As there incorruptness shines and moulds the believer accordingly ; so is the teacher of truth called to bear his witness with dignity in his bearing and ways.

Next, he was to show "gravity." Only the Spirit of God could maintain this high character in his occupation with the younger men. There would not lack ample opportunity for discourse more or less light. Excitement is often most agreeable, as well to the speaker as to those that hear. But the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ claims gravity. "Sincerity" too appears in the A.V. None should wonder that this is an addition resting upon rather slender authority. It is pre-supposed in the uncorruptness which is already urged; only that "uncorruptness" goes far beyond "sincerity," because it brings in that which is due to God and Christ, and not merely the honest character and way of him who teaches. The kindred word, ἀφθαρσία, is with similar feebleness misrepresented in Eph. 6: 24; for people might be sincere enough who sully the "incorruption" which there conditions the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is another quality, it seems, not confined to his teaching, though certainly not excluded from it. But the apostle presses "healthy speech that cannot be condemned," sound in itself, and not open to just censure, not merely on the more formal occasions of doctrine, but in all connections with the younger men. Assuredly we must all feel the great importance of this, even though it be a characteristic in which we have to acknowledge our own frequent failure. One thing alone is an adequate safe-guard — the conscious presence of God. But let us not forget that as Christians we walk in the light, as God is in the light. We cannot avoid this if we have life in Christ, for He is the light of life; and he that followeth Christ shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life, as He Himself declared. Let us not be content with it as a fact, and a privilege that faith boasts. Let us by the Holy Ghost see to it that we truly enjoy it, and that it be a consciously living actuality; not a mere abstraction into which carelessness would betray us,, as unbelief would make it an attainment to reward our fidelity. Is it not meant to be a reality in which we live here below, not for some believers but for all? In such a case healthy speech that cannot be condemned is but natural; but oh I how apt we are to sink below the blessed plane on which it is ours to stand in Christ the Lord.

The apostle next and finally gives moral aim to this last exhortation. "That he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say concerning us." We have to consider not friends only but foes, with their readiness to malign what condemns themselves. Let us seek then to cut off occasion from those that seek occasion, that even the adversary, of whatever sort he be, may have no evil thing to say concerning us. The word for "evil" (φαῦλου) is so extensive as to comprehend things from light or slight to mean paltry and worthless; whereas κακὸν just expresses what is bad, and πονηρὸν activity of evil, or mischievous. The term used is precisely suitable.

It will be noticed that the critical reading is "us" rather than "you": a confusion very frequent indeed in the MSS. In this case "you" is out of the question. It would have been "thee," if it had referred to Titus; but the general application to the family of God is the better sense. The vulgar or T.R. reading was a change from "us" to "you," which is wholly unsuitable. "Concerning us" (i.e. Christians generally) seems evidently the word which the apostle wrote and of course meant. The business of sound criticism is to eschew every human importation, no matter how early, and to restore the original text which came from God through His inspired messenger.

Slavery was one of the grave facts which Christianity had to face, then universal, in some places existing still to a certain extent. Nowhere does the power of Christ's work more clearly or more decidedly prove its heavenly source and character, than in dealing with masters and slaves.

The apostle bids Titus exhort "bond-servants to be in subjection to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not gainsaying, not purloining, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things" (vers. 9, 10). Here again subjection is the prime duty of such a relationship, and is accordingly put in the fore-ground — subjection to their Own masters. Occupation even in thought with others might only do mischief. No saint, no apostle or prophet, is free from the duty of subjection. Christ made its truth and its moral excellence plain to the faithful; for He, the Lord of all, manifested Himself a man, the pattern of absolute subjection in love and obedience of His Father, the Servant of all. What an example and motive for Christian bondmen?

"To be well-pleasing in all things" is sometimes a very great difficulty, it may be from the peculiarities of the master or from those of the bondman. Satan would love to insinuate that in any other circumstances they might better obey; and that it is in vain, as they are, to think of being well-pleasing "in all things" One's own master might be capricious or fault-finding. "Oh, if such a one were my master" But there is no lowering the claim of Christ; and it is Christ, and Christ alone kept before the eyes, that enables a bondman to be truly subject and to persevere in all things, instead of giving up-sometimes at least in despair. For faith, not resignation, is the true divine antidote to the passion of despair, which is never to be thought of by a Christian. Who more than a Christian slave needs to remember God's call to rejoice in the Lord always? "For Christ also pleased not himself, but even as it is written, The reproaches of those that reproached thee fell upon me" (Rom. 15: 3).

Further, the slave was to be "not gainsaying." Many a one could do or even bear much who finds it difficult to avoid contradicting or answering again in deed any more than speech; but the word of the Lord to the bondman is "not gainsaying." Is he not the Lord's freedman? Can there be such a manumission as His? Could money purchase emancipation like this? Let him give God thanks and go on his way rejoicing, forwarding and never thwarting his master's wishes to His Over-Lord and Saviour Whose eye is ever on him to cheer and guide.

Again, stolen themselves, or the children of those who were stolen, it was natural for slaves to have scanty respect for the rights of others whose very relationship was in general based on a wrong. But no reasoning is admitted on abstract rights as an excuse for "purloining." Is he not in his faith in possession of the true riches, which have no wings to flee away? Does he not look for the Lord to come and manifest it at any time, yet if He tarry at the best time? Is it for him to dishonour such a Lord, and to bring shame on all he believes and professes?

The apostle insists on Christian bondmen "showing all [or, every sort of] good fidelity." They were really serving the same Master as their masters if Christians; and without the sense of direct responsibility to the Lord, as well as of His grace, how could they go on thoroughly aright? So elsewhere grace teaches and exhorts that, whatsoever they do, they were to work from the soul as unto the Lord, and not unto men.

Nor was it enough that they were not to be inconsistent and unworthy saints; but as the apostle here says, "that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things." There is nothing, on the human side of the effects of the truth, more admirable than its practical power on the heart of those once degraded or even depraved. See it in the converted robber's bearing in the midst of the agonies of crucifixion. What newborn reverence! What confession of sins! What sense of righteousness! What boldness of Faith! Was not this, even then and there, to adorn the doctrine of our Saviour God?

God's gospel is glad tidings to the highest earthly personage no less than to the lowest, though (as the rule) to the poor it is preached as alone generally accessible. No king, no queen, no emperor, but what is infinitely indebted, if the heart be opened, to the grace of God. But if steeled against it, the message is of salvation all the same. How unspeakably sweet then for those in the painful and trying position of slavery!

It was this that wrought so powerfully on the affections of the blessed apostle. Therefore is he drawn out by the Holy Spirit in the full and beautiful declaration of the message of God's love. "For the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to all men, instructing us that, having denied ungodliness (or, impiety) and worldly lusts, we should live soberly (or, discreetly) and righteously and godlily (or, piously) in this present age" (vers. 11, 12).

No statement can be conceived more in keeping with the design of this Epistle. For, although it be an episode (like another in the chapter that follows, Titus 3: 4-7), both are stamped with that present living reality on which the apostle dwells constantly in his authoritative instructions to his own child according to common faith. It is not that God's own eternal counsels are left out any more than the hope of everlasting glory to come; but the aim is most manifest that all should converge on the heart for the practical ways of our pilgrimage here below. Nor do we read of any fellow-workman so suited to carry this out administratively as Titus in both his teaching and his governance or rule.

When the law was given by Moses, it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. All kinds of partitions barred man's way; clouds of incense and veils rose up between the Israelite and God, Whose manifestation was only for one representative man, the high priest, for a passing moment and with ample blood, within the holiest. For the law was the test of man already fallen, that sin might appear in its true colours. If sin were there, as it was, the law could only work wrath; for disobedience then takes the shape of open violation or transgression. Therefore is it said that the law came in by the way (παρεισῆλθεν), that the trespass might abound, and that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. Thus law in result must surely condemn the sinner. It could never justify nor save one guilty, being characteristically the ministration of condemnation and death. How wise and merciful that such a system of moral experiment, with its temporal promises and earthly judgments, should have been restricted for a while, and to a single people!

The gospel is wholly different in nature and effect where received in the heart. Therein the saving grace of God did appear to all men; for all lay in the direst need: they were lost. And we can add from elsewhere God's righteousness is therein revealed — the righteousness of faith which justifies, instead of condemning; because its effiacacy is grounded on the accomplished and atoning work of Christ. Its character therefore, as revealing God's righteousness, is "bringing salvation;" and this not to a single people like Israel under the law, but "to all men." The grace of God revealing Himself in Christ and His redemption is too precious to be limited; it is in itself infinite, for God is love as surely as He is light; and both have come out fully in Christ and especially in His atoning death,

God therefore is not of Jews only but of Gentiles also, Who justifies circumcision not by law but by faith, and uncircumcision through their actual faith, as we read in Rom. iii. if they do believe. A crucified Christ displays man as he really is. Jews and Gentiles are proved therein alike guilty and lost. But the love of God goes out "to all" alike indiscriminately, not judging by law but "saving by grace." Such is the gospel as here shown. It is no mere demand of works, no test of man, but distinctly founded upon the reconciling work of God Himself in Christ Who came and was here to do His will. It is therefore a revelation of His saving goodness for man to believe. "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Nor is this all. While His grace presents salvation to all, it is also said to be educating us. The change from "all men" to "us" is important, and ought not to be overlooked. The one is the universal message of God, which may or may not be received. The other is the distinct effect, whenever souls receive that message in faith. And to what end does God's grace lead us on? "Instructing us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godlily, in this present age." No mistake is grosser or more antagonistic to the teaching of the apostle, than, after believing the gospel, to cast the Christian on the law as his rule of life. It is not so. Christ alone remains, not only the Saviour, but the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In and through Him did the grace of God appear, and His grace alone saves by faith. But, besides, it educates us, having denied ungodliness and worldly lusts, to live soberly, and righteously, and godlily, in this present age. For repentance is as real as faith; and "ungodliness and worldly lusts" henceforth are hateful and denied. Either might work more or less to ruin the soul and dishonour God. In those who, believing in Christ, have a new and eternal life, a new character has to be formed; and old habits are and must be from the starting-point watched against, which once grew up unjudged in the days of our past evil and folly.

But that which is negative does not suffice for God as He reveals Himself in His Son. His grace, which goes far beyond law, instructs us, that we should live discreetly as regards ourselves, righteously as regards others, and piously in our highest relationship. For the present course of things, or age, is an evil one. But Christ gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of God our Father (Gal. 1: 4). As it is here, in this world and during this age, that we spend a little while for the present, we are therefore called to be so much the more vigilant, if indeed we hear His voice. We await His coming to receive us on high in the Father's house, and to accompany Him from heaven when He appears to establish His kingdom visibly in power and glory.

This is what the apostle next pursues here. For there is another all-important branch of truth and full of rich fruit for the believer: "Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (ver. 13).

It is the object before us which forms our character. The Christian object is the Lord in glory; we may say of it in this respect what David said of Goliath's sword, "There is none like it." Had it not done execution on him that had the power of death, that is, the devil? The essential thing for the soul's salvation undoubtedly is Christ and His work for us received in faith. But if the true hope be lacking to the believer, the blank even with that is irreparable. For the fact is so, even if energy of faith and love may do much to hinder the wiles of Satan; who would insinuate false hopes under fair pleas as a substitute for the "one hope" delivered to the saints. As Christ is the proper object of faith, and as the Spirit forms us practically by our beholding Him risen for us and in heavenly glory, thus transformed into the same image from glory to glory (as we read in 2 Cor. 3), so the right and divinely given object of hope is the coming of Christ to receive us to Himself.

Here the apostle presents it in a comprehensive way, not only the blessed hope, but the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Grace, we know, did already appear (ver. 11), saving grace for all men. This they reject at their peril; for salvation cannot be otherwise, and the richer and surer the grace that saves, the guiltier is the unbelief that refuses or slights it. The grace of God alone leads into a walk of communion, and of practical righteousness for every day. But we need also to look for "the blessed hope and appearing of the glory" (ver. 13). These are the two parts which comprise the revealed object God would have before our souls.

The one article given to the two objects brackets them together, not at all as if they are identical, but as here expressly associated to convey the complex and combined outlook. "The blessed hope" is that which alone can satisfy the heart; it is to be in the presence of Christ on high, changed at His coming into His likeness and with Him for ever. "The appearing of the" divine "glory" is bound up with it, and follows in due time, as that display or the divine manifestation in power, which our renewed souls cannot but desire to the utter exclusion of moral and physical evil and of Satan's guileful energy. It is the Lord Jesus Who introduces the world-kingdom of the Lord and of His Anointed (Rev. 11: 15). As He brought the grace of God here below, so will He bring the glory to appear in His day. He it is who is called "the great God" as well as "our Saviour" lest we might forget His essential nature, when He emptied Himself to become a bondman, and humbled Himself to the death of the cross, in accomplishment of the infinite devotedness of His love in redemption to God's glory. He is no little God, as Arians feigned, but our great God and Saviour.

There is nothing nobler to act on the affections and the convictions, on the ways and ends, of believing man here below. Not in the smallest degree weakening the faith which works by love, it cheers and animates in the face of all which makes him groan; and we do groan now because, reconciled to God ourselves, we see nothing yet reconciled around us. Yea, we not only know a perishing world but we must add a morally ruined church. It is not simply the Gentiles still without God, but the Jews most of all hating the gospel of the rejected Christ. And what deliverance have we wrought in the earth? how far have we Christians, individually or together, reflected the heavenly glory of Christ as a testimony to those without? If the righteous with difficulty are saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?

Truly there is no ground for boasting save in the Lord, "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all lawlessness, and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good (καλ.) works" (ver. 14). Thus, when bringing in the bright future of God, which along can dispossess the enemy and deliver a fallen race and ruined world, carefully does the apostle remind our souls that all has been of grace. We have no claim, no desert; we stand by and to nothing but the Saviour Who gave not this or that merely, nor all possible other things, however precious, which He indeed and only could give, but that which is beyond all price, "Who gave Himself for us." God the Father had His blessed part in the inestimable gift. He knowing all gave Him and sent Him. He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?

The effect too answers to the cause: there is no failure, nor can there be, in the result for those that believe. What was His aim? "That he might ransom us from all lawlessness, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works." Let us seek sedulously to make this good in our hearts, inasmuch as His grace would have a people for His own possession (not "peculiar" in words or manner, habit or feeling, but) for Him to have and delight in us as His own. How wondrous that He should care to have us, or make much of such a possession! What joy to the heart that so He feels and acts to us! May we for this be encouraged the more to be zealous of good works, not benevolent only but honourable and comely, not of forms or ordinances like Jews! nor of false gods like Gentiles, but of the fair and proper fruits of Christianity.

It is not only that the source lay in the unfathomable love of God, acting freely from Himself that He might surround Himself with beings brought out of all evil, with a nature given to them capable of enjoying and answering in practice to His goodness in the face of His and their enemy. The mighty work was laid on the Lord Jesus, not less God than the Father, and become man, so to defeat Satan and to save man at all cost. For indeed He gave Himself for us.

Here was the irrefragable ground of all the blessing. On the one hand sin could only be adequately judged in His death for us. On the other hand life eternal was only His to give consistently with God's character, and that sacrifice which abolished our guilt and imparted acceptance in His sight to those who without Him and His work were evil and lost. But for those that believe the result fails not, — that He might ransom us from all lawlessness (for the form might greatly differ) and purify unto Himself a people for His own possession.

God has a purpose to have Israel as His special possession in the land when Messiah reigns, and as Son of man has the far wider glory of a kingdom, where all the peoples, nations, and languages shall serve Him. But here it is the higher counsel of those who share Christ's rejection, know Him risen and glorified on high, and await His coming to join Him for heaven, and come forth with Him at His appearing.

"These things speak, and exhort, and reprove, with all authority. Let no man despise thee" (ver. 15). Arduous is the work of the ministry. Speaking, and exhorting, and reproving, must all have their place in faithful service. The truth needs to be spoken from God for the believer to know. But as flesh, world, and Satan make all possible hindrances, there is the constant want of exhortation. There may be will at work and evil may display itself. Reproof therefore is requisite for the forward or the laggard, the careless or the wayward. And "all authority" is thoroughly consistent with all humility. Woe be to those who despise Christ in the least of the servants whom He sends! Even the apostle did not escape slight from the refractory. "If any one thinketh himself a prophet or spiritual [for what will not vanity think itself?], let him recognise the things which I write to you, that it is the Lord's commandment" (1 Cor. 14: 37).

Titus 3.

From personal and domestic duties the apostle turns now to those which are more external.

"Put them in mind to be in subjection to principalities,* to authorities; to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be uncontentious, gentle, showing all meekness toward all men" (vers. 1, 2).

* The more ancient MSS. omit the copulative.

As the apostle Peter presses similar exhortations on the believing Jews in his First Epistle, so did our apostle very fully in writing to the Roman believers, who were mostly Gentiles. Now he charges Titus, himself a Greek, to lay similar injunctions habitually on the Cretan brethren, whose countrymen were notorious for their insubordination and other vices to boot. Never was such an exhortation more needed than now, when the lawlessness of the age so rapidly increases as to shock all the right-minded. Lawlessness in the world is no less flagrant than a similar spirit in the church, though no doubt it is specially hateful in the temple of God, where the Holy Ghost dwells. But it is very possible for men to hold a rigid theory of obedience within the church, and to trample under foot and deny a similar responsibility in the world. They are not in this taught of God. Perhaps it is still more common to insist on obedience to the world's authority, and to deny it in the church on the plea of its state of ruin. God's word condemns all such selfwill.

Scripture however is plain and decided: it is not enough that it be for wrath's sake, but for conscience. God is concerned in our subjection, for there is no authority but of God; those that be are ordained of God; monarchical, republican, or any mixture of the two, they are ordained of God. "wherefore he that resisteth authority withstandeth the ordinance of God." Nor does it matter whether it be a supreme ruler or those commissioned by him, as the apostle Peter lets us know (1 Peter 2: 13, 14), "For thus is the will of God." It was ordered in His providence that when the apostle wrote to the saints at Rome, one of the most cruel despots reigned: even so "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities." The worst ruler is better than anarchy. Nevertheless it is not because of this reason of utility that the word of God speaks. Whoever he may be, he is the minister of God for good. He beareth not the sword in vain. He is a minister of God, and avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. If this doctrine is strange in our day, it is the more incumbent on the faithful, not only to believe, but to practise accordingly.

Next, Titus was to remind them to be obedient in a general way. That this is the force of the word is plain from the New Testament usage (Acts 5: 29, 32; Acts 27: 21). There is no sufficient reason to translate "to obey magistrates," as in the A. V. On the contrary this is to lose an exhortation by making it a mere repetition of the former clause. Do people plead the rights of man? the true place of the saint is "to obey." Do they abuse obedience, in order to set aside the authority of God? the answer is, "We ought to obey God rather than men." But obedience always, and everywhere, is the duty of the saint. If not sure of the will of God, he ought to wait till he learns, being one of the elect in sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. We are neither Jews under law, nor are we lawless Gentiles. The spirit of obedience Godward, if not always of man, it is therefore of the highest moment to inculcate.

But, further, the apostle would have Titus to press readiness for every good work. The saint is called not only to be a righteous man practically, but a good man. So our Lord here below went about doing good. If we cannot, like Him, heal those that were oppressed of the devil, we are here exhorted to be ready for every good work. It is a real and effective testimony to Christ where the truth is held and confessed along with activity in good: if Christ be not owned, the divine light which should shine is lacking. All then turns to glorify man, not God our Father.

But again, he would have them put in mind "to speak evil of no one." This is no easy matter in a world where evil abounds on every side, and where so much of it is levelled at the children of God in both word and deed; but God's word to us is plain, "to speak evil of no one." There may be a duty to bear witness for a godly end. Let us take care that it is only thus we can be charged with so speaking. No part of scripture is clearer than this Epistle for reproving severely that which calls for it. This is not evil speaking, but of God and for God.

Moreover, it is very difficult for those who are in the truth not to seem "contentious" toward such as deny it, counting it unattainable or indifferent. With Christ before us, however, the clear place of the Christian is to be really far from any strife, though charity demands that we should bear our testimony to the truth, and always deal faithfully with our brethren. If the Jew was not to allow sin in his neighbour, how much more is the Christian to be watchful in love, and to speak truth, and the truth, in love! This can only be with God before our eyes as seen in Christ. Then love is used and is never really contentious.

Moreover, we are called to be "gentle." Here again Christ has left us an example that we should follow in His steps. None so withering in His exposure of hypocrisy and self-righteousness; yet none so tender and considerate even to the most faulty against Himself. He was meek and lowly in heart, and calls E[is own to take His yoke upon them and learn from Him, as the way to find rest unto their souls, where so much tends to ruffle and grieve.

Lastly comes "showing all meekness toward all men." What self-judgment is called for! what continual walking by faith and not by sight! Christ before our eyes believingly can alone either call it out or sustain it, whatever the circumstances. It is not only meekness in fraternal intercourse, but expressly "toward all men," and in every form of meekness. Who is sufficient for these things? Truly it is "of God": none other source avails and as it is through His Spirit, so also and only with Christ before the eyes of the heart.

The apostle now draws a very dark yet true and life-like picture, not merely of what man is here or all over the world, but of what we ourselves were once in our natural state. It is evident that this was intended to strengthen the duty of subjection to authority on the one hand, and on the other the spirit of mild and meek bearing toward all mankind, in all those who bear the name of the Lord. Grace was to prevail and display itself all round. This has been far from always the fact among God's children. And no wonder. They have been trained up for the most part under the mistaken' assumption that the law is the rule of life for the Christian. The consequence has been that the Christians so formed have manifested the spirit of earthly righteousness, much more than of heavenly grace. Necessarily in the measure of our uprightness we are really characterised by that which governs our thoughts and affections. If error rule there, as communion fails, the walk is proportionately perverted from the will of God. Christ being our life, risen and in heaven, so is His word in all its fulness the rule of our life, as the Spirit is the power which works and forms us as witnesses of Him to the glory of God.

No maxim more false than that the practical life is independent of the creed. Christ is set forth in the written word as the true rule of Christian life; and as He walked Himself, so He uses all the word of God in the power of the Spirit to create in us intelligence as well as divine motives flowing out of His love. Grace, therefore, is the predominant character of the Christian, the direct and essential opposite of law; yet grace reigns in every sense through righteousness. Undoubtedly God did of old test Israel by His law, and the commandment is holy, just, and good; but the object was to prove the impossibility of aught good in man, or to be got out of man. This the believer has to learn, and alone does learn, experimentally. On that ground nothing but the grace of God in Christ can deliver from guilt and sin, as well as from its consequences; but the practical effect is that the righteous import (τὸ δικαίωμα) of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. With those who theorise about the law, it begins with ineffectual struggles, and issues in disappointment or in delusion.

Hence the importance for us, who, as believers in Christ, are now the objects of divine grace, that we should draw lessons of lowly love, not only from the incomparable grace which has saved us, but from the utter depths of evil out of which we ourselves have been saved. "For at one time even we were foolish, disobedient, gone [or led] astray, in slavery to divers lusts and pleasures, passing time in malice and envy, abominable, hating one another" (ver. 3).

To the Greek mind especially, perhaps no description was less welcome than that with which the apostle commences, our folly, our want of understanding before God, for the life that is now, and for that which is to come. But this is the truth. Human knowledge has nothing to do with it, save (it may be) by making the contrast more glaring. See a man, on the one hand, full of science, sound information, and letters, as in Rom. ii.; on the other hand, a prey to every falsehood about God, wholly without Him, and insensible to any living relationship with Him. In the beast there cannot be such a link from its nature; there is for it no moral association with God. But man! He had even as man, he only had, God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life, whereby he became a living soul. Man is therefore immediately and ever morally responsible; he was made to obey God, as much as to rule the lower creation. On earth the brute looks down, man alone looks up. Sin has utterly ruined this, whilst the responsibility remains. He has become the slave of a mightier rebel than himself. What "folly" now? and what can the end be?

Accordingly we find the next description of the apostle is "disobedient." This is the universal condition of man; so he lives and dies in his natural state, never once obeying God here below. From a condition so desperate Christ, Himself the obedient Man though infinitely more than man, alone delivers; and this, by imparting His own life through faith. "He that believeth hath everlasting life." It is true that this could not avail without Christ's atoning death, which alone removes man's guilt before God by Christ's suffering, Just for unjust, on the cross. Yet even His death could only be a cleansing from every sin through His blood, and a blessed incentive to a new walk here below; in itself it could not be the new life on or rather in which the Holy Ghost would act by the word, were that all.

The urgently permanent want therefore of a sinful soul is the breath of a new and spiritual life. But herein was manifested the love of God in our case, that God has sent His Only-begotten Son into the world that we might live through Him. Life in Him is only and always an obedient life; thereby from the moment of conversion the Holy Spirit separates us from evil. It is wholly different from Pharisaic setting ourselves apart, being a divine work. For we are sanctified, as the apostle Peter says, to the obedience of Jesus Christ, no less than to the sprinkling of His blood. Without His blood we should be oppressed with the sense of unremitted sins. Spiritual life alone would rather deepen this sense; life could not remove it righteously It is there that His death by grace comes in effectually for us before God. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4: 10).

Thus the whole work of Christ is necessary for sinful man, and is the incomparable boon which faith enjoys in its fulness; but the practical aim of it all is that we, having died to sins, should live unto righteousness (1 Peter 2: 24), and walk even as He walked here below. "He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoso keepeth His word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected" (1 John 2: 4, 5). For man therefore is nothing good without obedience; yet we were once "disobedient," as we were "foolish" or lacking intelligence. God was not in our thoughts or hearts to obey. Our way was our folly in ignorance of God and gratification of self, or perhaps we fell into an ascetic dream of making God our debtor.

Further, we were not only wandering in error, but "led astray," however highly we may have thought of our independence and shrewd judgment. Nor should any one be surprised to learn that so it was. Were we not part of the world which lies in the wicked one, where the spirit of self-will governs all without exception, Jews and Gentiles, alike children of disobedience? "We also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest" (Eph. 2), wholly ignorant that through unbelief we were slaves of one who is a liar and the father of it. Nor is any lie so evil, subtle, and fatal, as human religion. God only can make known in His word what pleases Him.

Nor was the evil confined to desires of the mind. We were "in slavery to divers lusts and pleasures"; so much the more bondmen, because we flattered ourselves that we were pre-eminently free. We did our own will and pleased ourselves; we chose our pleasures here or there as we liked. What was this but to be slaves of the devil when severally pursuing divers lusts and pleasures? To do our will is to fall into his slavery. Christ was the blessed contrast, Who pleased not Himself but ever did the will of God, cost what it might.

Such ways as these exposed us to constant dangers, difficulties, strains, and miseries. Conflict of will broke in upon the calmest surface of amiability; gusts of feeling, yea, of passion, swept us along now and then; in short we were, as it is said here, "passing time in malice and envy," whatever might be the good opinion we had of ourselves or valued one from another. We had no love in any divine or real sense of doing good unselfishly. We disliked what condemned ourselves. We envied in others what we had not. Here again let us delight our souls in Christ, Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil; for God was with Him.

Lastly, the apostle does not hesitate to say we were "abhorred (or, hateful)" as well as "hating one another." We awakened the horror of other people, spite of all appearances or efforts; and others returned "hate" with no less bitterness of feeling. What a power of evil lay on us! What a reality of evil and shame is in alienation from God! What grace in Him Who alone could say, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst . . All that the Father giveth me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Man's extremity was God's opportunity, as always, then above all. When judgment might have seemed most due, His kindness and His dear love toward man appeared. Earthly deliverances were wholly short of the dire need. Prophets had spoken for this in vain; in vain for this the most striking powers, miracles, signs. Man was lost. Would God appear to save him? This is just what the apostle here declares in terms clear and certain.

"But when the kindness and the love to man of our Saviour God appeared." The A. V. rather fails in that it merges "the philanthropy" of God in His kindness; whereas, by a distinct article to each, the two things are presented separately, however closely associated otherwise. Next, God's love toward man is a single word, φιλανθρωπία, whereas the absence of the article in the English makes its natural meaning to be His kindness toward man in His love. Now this is not really the thought expressed by the apostle, which appears to be as one has here endeavoured to represent it.

It is a blessed and full statement of what God is in His kindness, contrasted with all that we were in our folly and evil aforetime. Corruption, violence, disobedience, and error described ourselves. God, Who is holy and of inflexible righteousness, is also the God of gracious goodness in His own nature, and has most especial love toward man. This is no longer hidden, no longer a manifestation to be waited for; it has appeared so completely that God Himself could not add to the full expression of His love. "The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." It is true that no man has seen God at any time. But this in no real way hindered the activity of His kindness and the proof of His love to man; on the contrary, it only gave occasion for its richest possible display. "The Only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He declared [Him]." Nothing could match this. It was beyond all thought of creature. The angels were lost in admiration; men, in stupid unbelief, think nothing about it; else their hard and senseless hearts would melt before the wonders of such love. The mind of man is incapable of fathoming grace, and therefore retreats into its own dark selfishness. And no wonder, if he judge, as he is ever apt to judge, of God by himself. Not one that ever was born would have had the heart for such a death, even if he could.

God sent His only Son to die for His enemies! To die for a good man, for a dear friend, is what some rare man might do, as it has been done; to die for one's enemies is an impossibility for man. But this is the very way in which the kindness of God and His love toward man appeared. Being characteristically divine, it can only be received by faith. Those who believe their own thoughts, and judge from their own feelings, refuse to receive it, give the lie to God, and are therefore lost, and this most justly. For is it not the rejection of God, alike in His grace and truth? Now, whatever may be the compassion of God toward foolish disobedient man, as we who were so once can but testify, God cannot pass by deliberate and persistent contempt of His love in the presence of His revealed light. And it is the true light of God which is now shining. Such is the gospel of Christ, in which more than in all else put together the kindness of God and His love toward man appeared. He therefore sent it forth to every creature, as the sun shines for every land.

It was not so with the law, however capable of dealing in a righteous way with every heart that takes it up. Still the law was given to Israel, and only they were formally and by divine authority placed under the law. According to the scriptures the Gentiles were without law; they are thus designated in contrast with Jews; and on this ground will they pass under God's judgment, as we are told in Rom. 2. But now even they, who were nothing but sinners, and had nothing but the conscience to accuse or excuse, have the unspeakable privilege of the gospel preached to them. As the Jews were without excuse in rejecting their Messiah when He came to them in love and amplest attestation, so the Gentiles are yet more inexcusable if they shut their eyes and ears to that Christ, Who lifted up draws all men unto Him. It was a wonder for God in His love to humble Himself and come down to man in the person of His Son become a man. It was a wonder infinite that a man Who was God incarnate died as a sacrifice for sinners on the cross. He now is raised from the dead and received up in glory, exalted to give repentance and remission of sins, not to Israel only, but to any poor sinner who believes in Him to the ends of the earth.

For the due time was scarcely less admirable than the way. It was after the sins in every form and degree, and before the judgment. Man had been tried, then left to himself, which ended in the flood. Israel had received the law and apostatised. The Gentiles had been given world-power and only demonstrated that they were "beasts" morally. Both Jews and Gentiles joined in rejecting God's Son, the Messiah Who could and would have shed nothing but light and good to God's glory. When all hope naturally was buried in His grave, God raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory; nor this only, but causes grace to appear in deeper and larger ways than ever by the gospel.

"This is love, not that we loved God [which was what law asked and never got], but that He loved us and gave His Son [this is the gospel] as propitiation for our sins." Thus did the kindness of God and His love toward man appear. It is matchless, full of comfort, deliverance, and blessing to every soul believing in Christ; but he who despises it, as he dishonours God in His deepest grace, so he incurs God's vengeance and everlasting judgment. In the solemn words of our Lord Jesus Himself, "He that believeth (or obeyeth) not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

It is remarkable that, if we find the word in its human application in Acts 28: 2, this is the only passage in scripture, where we hear of "philanthropy" or love of mankind predicated of God our Saviour. Is it not worthy of inspiration? The philanthropy of God means His special affection toward man and, as we shall see presently, shown in a way of which the creature is quite incapable. Benevolent men boast of their own philanthropy or of their fellows'. What can be more in contrast? The baser metal is displayed very often by heterodox, by Arians, Unitarians, and Deists, by infidel Agnostics and Positivists. Furthermore Christians of every sort scruple not to join frequently in an unholy alliance with any or all those enemies of the faith for social, educational, and political purposes. Men glory in these combinations so foreign to God's word and Christ's cross, a worldly counterpart for the unity of the Spirit we are enjoined to keep as members of the one body of Christ. They rejoice that any merely natural means should be applied to the relief of social distress and personal misery, careless of God's will, mind, and glory.

In what is purely external and of this creation men can all unite, whatever their faith or lack of faith — yea, opposition to the faith of God's elect. Such is the philanthropy of man, without serious thought of God's word or will, occupied with prisons and workhouses, the hospital and the asylum, people's parks, baths, and clubs, public bands, thus seeking to deal with every aspiring class, as well as the misery of the world in general. But our Saviour God deals with man by bringing in the light which discloses his ruin in the best circumstances from the throne down to the firstborn of the female slave that is behind the mill. God's philanthropy views the human philanthropists as perhaps most of all needing His saving love, because they are blinded to their sins by the consciousness of amiability or benevolence. Many of them on principle believe nothing unseen. They see only the facts of human misery and seek to alleviate it, wholly ignorant that they themselves are wretched before God, no less than the lowest of those they would relieve, and this for an eternity, which they not only do not believe but perhaps openly deny and defy.

God's philanthropy is as different as His nature is from man's, and springs from motives of love in Himself, as it is based on the sacrifice of Christ. So we are told in the verse before. No longer hidden as once, it once for all appeared; and man is the more responsible, because His kindness contemplates all, while it is valid only for those who believe. For it is "Not by works in righteousness which we ourselves did, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (ver. 5). Language cannot be clearer than this.

The works of a man as a ground for salvation are excluded; and most mercifully, for how could an unrighteous man — and such we were by nature before God — do works in righteousness? There is no doubt a work done in righteousness, if there ever was such, and an infinite one. Christ, the Righteous One, was come to do God's will, and did it all perfectly; as He dying said, "It is finished." Thus it terminated with His suffering for sins, but God therein glorified even as to sin. Thereby have we our blessed portion. We committed sins in unrighteousness abundantly; works in righteousness we ourselves never did, till we were justified by divine grace: even then could we stand in them before God? But in due time Christ died for ungodly men. God commends His love in that, we being still sinners, Christ died for us. According to His mercy God saved us. Thus is He God our Saviour. It is not only the title of His character: He has wrought for our need according to His mercy in Christ. Nor was it only to help but to "save."

It is not a theory but a fact; "according to His mercy He saved us." The best part of Judaism consisted of shadows which prefigured this; but Christianity is founded on facts in Christ come and suffering for us; and these facts are now through faith in the gospel applied to souls. Christ is the life eternal; and the Christian has that life in Him, not in himself but in Christ dead and risen to secure all. "He that believeth hath eternal life." Yet was he guilty and cannot deny his sins, but confesses and hates them before God. We needed therefore a Saviour to die for our sins as much as to give unto us life everlasting. This in both its parts was in the mercy of God; and thus according to His mercy He saved us.

But the mercy if unknown or doubtful in its application to the soul is shorn of half its blessedness. Such is not the philanthropy of God. He loves that we should know what Christ has done and suffered for us. Believing in Him we are saved, and we know it on His own word and in the delivering power of His Spirit. Hence it is added, "According to His mercy He saved us through a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Not only are we set in a new position through Christ's death and resurrection, of which baptism is the sign; but there is the effectual work in the soul from first to last. It is unbelief alone that doubts God's salvation, if we receive Jesus. For the word is that "He saved us," though it is only in a way most holy and that secures holiness in us.

"Regeneration" is a new state of things, and not merely "to be born again," as anyone can see in Matt. 19: 28. "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." It is the changed state of the earth which the Lord will introduce at His appearing, as the kingdom of God pre-supposes according to John 3. That state is not yet come. But there is an action of grace which already apprehends a believer for it, the moment he receives Christ and His work proclaimed in the gospel.

Of this new and changed state baptism is the sign — not of the new birth, but of deliverance from sin and its effects by the death of Christ, witnessed in the power of His resurrection which has taken away the sting. Hence it is that in 1 Peter 3: 21 we read, "Which figure also now saveth you, baptism." But it is carefully added, "not a putting away of filth of flesh, but request of a good conscience toward God through resurrection of Jesus Christ." Superstitious men, who know not God's grace in Christ, do only misuse the sign and confound it with the thing signified. The gospel may not dispense with the outward side; but it announces an everlasting reality in Christ risen. How blessed to have our part in this new creation even now (2 Cor. 5)! How wondrous to know that "if any one is in Christ, it is a new creation! The old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God that reconciled us to Himself through Christ." Before this is manifested to every eye, the Christian has both washing of regeneration now and renewing of the Holy Spirit also. This makes the force evident. If the washing of regeneration has an objective force, the renewing is a real and divine work in the soul In order that it should be so, the Holy Spirit, as He does invariably in the believer, takes His suited and efficacious part, which is no mere token but a reality in power suited to and worthy of redemption.

It is well known that some are disposed to understand here "the laver of regeneration." The A.V. did not recognise this; the margin of the Revised Version does. It is well that the Revisers did not venture farther. The notion is absolutely unfounded; for λουτρὸν never means laver but washing, or the water for the washing (in the sense of bath), as is notorious. Never in the N.T. occurs λουτὴρ which is the proper word for "laver." They are both found in the Septuagint, and even λουτρὼν, a place for washing or bathing-room. It is strange indeed that a commentator of learning could say that λουτρὸν is always a vessel or pool in which washing takes place, here the "baptismal font." Liddell and Scott do, it is true, give "a bath, bathing place," but not a solitary instance of such usage. Their abundant references are to hot or cold bathing in the sense of washing, or water for it, or even libations to the dead; but λουτὴρ is the tub or laver, as λουτρὼν is the place or bath-room. Bp. Ellicott and Dean Alford misrepresent the Lexx., of course only through haste or pre-occupation. The word is correctly translated "washing" in our text. There could be no question about the matter, unless there had been a prejudice to warp the mind. The wish was father of the thought.

Salvation then is no outward work, though based on Christ's work entirely outside ourselves; nor is it any mere deliverance by power, but personal and inward, "through a washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." There is a total change of position in Christ, a new place which is given to the believer, as well as another state subjectively. This is expressed by the washing and renewing. Old things are passed away, all things are become new. For now the believer is in Christ. As a man he was in Adam. Faith is now entitled to know that we all stand in Christ by God's mercy, and altogether independently of what we did ourselves. Thus the evil is gone before God and for the conscience; for Christ is risen, the full expression of the state into which the Christian is brought by grace.

But, besides what may be called objective place and subjective change, there is an incomparably blessed power which works in those who are brought into this standing. It is not only that there is real "renewing," perfectly true and important as this is; but the Holy Ghost Himself was poured out upon us in all fulness; as it has been said here, "Which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (ver. 6). This covers the entire Christian life. It is not merely that He effectually works, but He abides with us for ever. This is of immense value and in evident contrast with O.T. privilege where the danger of His leaving is felt and deprecated, as we see in Psalm 51. Under the gospel our privileges are known as abiding. The Holy Spirit Himself is even called in the Hebrews the eternal Spirit, though there it is in His special connection with Christ offering Himself without spot to God. But beyond controversy it is the same Spirit Who is now by grace imparted to us, or, as is here expressed with peculiar emphasis, "poured out upon us richly." Undoubtedly this could not be, save "through Jesus Christ our Saviour." But so it is added here, that we might dream of no other ground, on the one hand, and on the other have the fullest assurance of abundant and unfailing grace in the power of the Spirit personally through such a Saviour. It is a privilege which never can lapse, any more than God revokes it where faith is living, as it flows through Christ and His redemption; and these He will never dishonour.

We know that, on the day when this privilege was first made good, powers and wonders accompanied. But no mistake can well be more pernicious than to confound the gift (δωρέα) of the Holy Spirit with those gifts (χαρίσματα) and signs and miracles which were external vouchers, as well as the display of the victory of the ascended Man over all the energy of evil. The presence of the Paraclete is an incomparably higher and deeper thing than all the mighty deeds which He wrought. Just so the grace and truth of our Lord rose above the signs which pointed out Who and what He was. Even tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; and yet tongues, the characteristic Christian miracle, approach nearer to that which edifies than any other exertion of divine power. But the gracious action of the Holy Spirit conveyed by His personal presence rises far above all such accompaniments, as the cause does above some or all of its effects.

Hence the all-important truth for all saints is, that while displays of power have passed away, as unsuited to the ruined state of the church, that which always was and is most needed and precious abides, because it rests on His work, finished on earth and accepted in heaven, Who never changes; and it comes to us through Christ, the same yesterday and today and for ever. It is He Who gives us to cry, "Abba, Father," and this in the Spirit of the Son. It is He Who takes the things of Christ, and shows them to us and glorifies Him. It is He Who searches all things, yea the deep things of God. He gives us communion with the Father and the Son, no less than He helps our infirmity, and makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered, because He makes it for the saints according to God. It is He Who is all-powerful on the one hand for service in testifying of Christ, on the other for the worship of saints in the assembly above all.

The Holy Spirit has abdicated His relation to the assembly no more than to the individual Christian. It is only by the Holy Spirit that every believer can say that Jesus is Lord; but the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each to profit withal, for to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit. If there are external ornaments taken away, we can and ought surely to justify God; but He withholds nothing that is really necessary or profitable and for His own glory. Just as of old, so it is now: — one and the same Spirit works all, dividing to each one severally as He will, for He is sovereign; and woe be to those who presume to control Him! He abides therefore for the blessing of the church and individual saints to Christ's glory (John 14: 16).

The wealth of our privileges in the present gift of the Spirit corresponds to the nearness of relationship with the God and Father of Christ, and to the oneness with Christ into which the Christian only is introduced. Yet these are every one of them blessings not more intimate, and rich beyond all other times, than permanent: of none is this predicated more emphatically than of the Holy Spirit, that other Paraclete Whom the Father sent in Christ's name, that greatest of privileges, the Spirit thus personally given. But the unbelief of Christendom apprehends none of them as now revealed. Yea, even God's children for the most part are a prey to doubt and darkness as to each, through the spirit of the world that has invaded them all but universally, even where they have not become victims of the delusion of the enemy in a vain pretension to a special revival. From all this evil on either side faith preserves the soul in peace.

For if the Holy Ghost is still "poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (and to deny this is in principle to deny the perpetuity of Christ's body and of the personal Pentecostal presence of God's Spirit), there is no room for a restoration of what God never took away. But, again, if the Spirit is still here in person, constituting God's assembly, how sad and shameless for those who believe in it to allow arrangements, which grew out of unbelief in His presence and oppose His free action in the assembly, or by the gifts of the Lord for the edifying of His body! Would that they who err in spirit might come to understanding, and they who murmur might learn doctrine! "In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength;" so wrote the evangelical prophet.

Now comes the design of God. His kindness and His philanthropy appeared in saving according to His own mercy, and with all fulness of favour at this present moment: — "That, having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to hope of eternal life" (ver. 7).

It is a mischievous mistake to suppose that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on us richly is in order to our justification, as some have strangely conceived. All scripture proves that the gift of the Spirit follows faith, instead of being a preparation for justification. The effect is bad; for the Holy Ghost identifies His work with us: what He effects in and by us is ours. This accordingly would make the new work and walk of saints a means of justification, and thus grace would be no more grace. Not only does scripture elsewhere uniformly prove the fallacy and the evil of such a view, but the very clause before us refutes it. For we are said to have been justified by the grace of God; or, as it is expressed in Romans 8: 34, "It is God that justifieth." Certainly the believer is the last man to justify himself. God justifies, instead of laying anything to the charge of His elect, who abhor themselves before Him, owning not only their sins but their nature as vile and corrupt. They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3: 24).

Here it is put as a fact emphatically. "Being, or having been, justified by His grace." It is already done. Now grace on His part excludes desert on ours. "To him that worketh the reward is not reckoned as of grace but of debt; but to him that worketh not but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness" (Rom. 4: 4, 5); or (as applied in Rom. 11: 6) "if by grace, no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." Work justly calls for wages or reward; but what can justify the ungodly (and such were we once) save God's sovereign favour?

The grace of God assuredly produces works suitable to its source and its character. Holiness of walk follows in its train. But His grace implies necessarily that there was no good thing in us. It is in no way a question of desert in the object of His grace; who on the contrary is saved expressly and exclusively when a lost sinner. From the moment of new birth he becomes a saint and is called to walk thenceforth as such. But in this context it had been already and with precision laid down, "not out of works in righteousness which we had done, but according to His own mercy He saved us." The "we" or "ourselves" abandons all self-righteousness. Christ dead and risen is the sole possible means of God's salvation; and His work of redemption is the righteous ground, that it may be God's righteousness in contrast with ours. For our passover also was sacrificed, Christ, Who died for our sins, having suffered Just for unjust, to bring us to God Who is glorified thereby, as never before, nor so by aught possible again.

But it is well to note that the apostle speaks of justification with a triple connection. In Rom. 5: 1, it is justified by or out of faith. There is no other principle on which it could be without compromise. We look out of ourselves to Christ, and rest only on Him raised from among the dead, Who was delivered for our offences and raised for our justification. Therefore we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is of faith, not of works of law; and these were the two competing principles. If any works could justify a man, it must have been the works of God's law. Works of man's device could have no value with God. Works of law would have been all well, if man could do them. The truth is that man, being now a sinner, could not possibly face them, save in the blind and mad presumption of flesh. "All sinned, and do come short of the glory of God," which becomes the measure, now that Eden is lost by sin. All his works are necessarily vitiated by

his fallen condition, even if he had not been as he is, powerless through sin. Works of law therefore are wholly unavailing, save to detect and manifest the ruin of a sinner. If he is to be justified, it must be through Another by grace; and therefore it can only be by faith (ἐκ π.), not by law works. That the apostle in Rom 5: 1, 2, asserts, with its blessed results for our souls toward God, past, present, and future.

But in ver. 9 of the same chapter we are told that we were justified in virtue of (ἐν) His blood. Here the adequate power comes forward. Without the blood of Christ no sin could be purged really and for ever before God. But the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses from every sin, as 1 John 1: 7 declares. Hence if God justifies us, it is in virtue, or in the power, of Christ's blood; and as being now justified in or by His blood, " we shall be saved from wrath through Him." Our sins were the great difficulty, as the believer truly felt; but now they are gone, we were justified and shall be saved. Such is the confident assurance to us of the apostle: a monstrous piece of presumption and cruel cheat, if he had not been inspired of God to declare it as righteous and true.

In our text, Titus 3: 7, we are directed to the efficient cause from which justification flows. It is the grace of God, and not any merit in its objects. All glorying in flesh is thereby excluded for ever. It is therefore an unfailing source, with a ground in Christ's work which justifies God no less than the repentant soul who lays hold of Christ by faith. "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace." The result is according to the mind and love of God, "that, having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to hope of eternal life." We have therefore a title according to hope of life eternal, which was first in God's purpose and will be fully realised in glory.

It is difficult to conceive anything more complete than these three statements of the same apostle. The accuracy of the form too is as striking as the truth conveyed is blessed to him who believes. Indeed it is a threefold cord which cannot be broken for him who by grace, trusts God and the word of His grace.

Some object to "heirs" standing alone; but it is all the more absolute because it does. In Rom. 8: 16, 17, we are told that we who believe are children of God; and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and Christ's joint-heirs. It is not inheriting this or that but "heirs also," and to make it indefinitely rich, "heirs of God and Christ's joint-heirs" Again, in Gal. 4, the believer is no longer a bondman but a son, and if son, heir also through God (assuredly not through man, him. self or others). Thus we learn the double truth, that by faith, not by works of law, we are heirs of God, and this through God. What can be less tied to limits than this title? All is sovereign grace. It is He Who made us His heirs; and we are to inherit what Christ will inherit in glory. To Titus the apostle speaks so as to leave us "heirs" all the more largely, because it is quite indefinite. It was all by God's grace; and what of good for us has He withheld?

Yet we have important words which accompany it: "Heirs according to hope of eternal life." This life in Christ is the believer's now; but we have it in a body full of weakness, compassed with infirmities, and in fact mortal. Our bodies will enjoy the life when our hope is accomplished at the coming of Christ. Eternal life will be no longer hid with Christ in God, but manifested according to all the power of His glory, as it is even now the gift to faith, the inestimable gift of God's grace. "For our governing state subsists in the heavens, from which also we await the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, Who shall transform the body of our humiliation into conformity with the body of His glory according to the working whereby He is able to subdue even all things to Himself" (Phil. 3: 20, 21).

So in the Epistle to the Romans 6: 22 we read, "Ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal." The glorious future is here before us; then and there alone will the full character of eternal life be unhindered. But it is no less really true now, as verse 23 seems to show; for if the wages of sin is death, "the free gift of God (flowing from His favour) is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." We have at least the present title of His free gift in Christ. Both Gospel and Epistle of John assert its present reality as ours. What a privilege for the believer to enjoy now! What a responsibility to walk accordingly and bear a true witness to Him! It is nothing less than Christ in us the hope of glory. When He comes to Israel, the glory will be possessed and manifest. We have Him as life while He is hidden in God; and when He shall be manifested, then shall we also with Him be manifested in glory.

Nor was the apostle content with his full and clear statement of the gospel. He draws the attention of Titus to its importance and value in a formula not uncommon in the pastoral Epistles. "Faithful [is] the saying; and concerning these things I will that thou affirm strongly, in order that those who have believed God* may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men; but foolish questionings and genealogies and strifes and legal fightings shun, for they are unprofitable and vain" (vers. 8, 9).

*Tyndale is right here, and Wiclif, for with the latter "believen to" is equivalent to our "believed" simply. It is strange that the Rhemish did not cleave to the Vulgate which is correct, but errs with the later English Versions. Believing "God" means receiving His testimony, especially in the gospel, as just laid down, no less incumbent on and needed by Jews than by Gentiles. Besides this, we believe on (ἐπὶ) God and in (εἰς) Him, as made known to us in raising Christ from the dead (Rom. 4: 24; 1 Peter 1: 21). But this goes farther, and we have to distinguish things that differ.

There is no real ground for doubt that the apostle is here looking back on the development of the truth which had just occupied him. The salvation of God from first to last was simply and briefly stated in 1 Tim. 1: 15, 16. It was here more fully explained. The relationship of the Holy Ghost to it is brought out as an added privilege, no less than the grace of God as the spring of it all. In 1 Tim. 1 it is just the plain truth of Christ come into the world to save sinners. Certainly the object of faith is not left out here; and the Holy Ghost is said to be poured out richly, besides His renewing us, that, being justified by God's grace, we might be made heirs according to hope of eternal life. We are not waiting for life or salvation as to our souls; we do not wait for righteousness, being already justified; for we by the Spirit do of faith wait for the hope of righteousness (Gal. 5: 5), when eternal life shall swallow up our bodies also, and this in heavenly glory.

It may be alleged, no doubt, that "faithful is the saying" precedes in the former case, whilst it follows here. But 1 Tim. 4: 9, 10, is a clear proof that the order may vary without in any way affecting the certainty of the apostolic application. The A. V. like some others is at least ambiguous, if not misleading; for one might infer from it that the faithful saying was merely the call of believers to maintain good works. This however is a rather unworthy sense; which the text, as well as the truth generally, disproves. The apostle is laying down the only ground of power for a fruit-bearing course; and hence is urgent with Titus, that he should insist constantly and thoroughly on the sure but exclusive truth of salvation by grace in all its fulness as well as reality. This was the apostle's first theme for individual souls everywhere and always; he now presses it on Titus. Without it there is no readiness or power for good works; without it conscience is clouded, and the heart hardened: there is neither life nor peace where it is unknown.

But when we are saved after this divine sort, we are able to take everything to God as well as from Him. In a world which cast out Christ and where Satan reigns, trials and sorrows are expected for the faithful, yet do we give thanks; comforts and joys are given of God, and we give thanks. Faith sees and hears Him Who guides and guards, whatever the difficulty or danger. His will is acceptable as well as holy and perfect. We love not His commandments only but His word, having found its value in our deepest need, as He by it made known His love to us in spite of our alienation and hatred. Now we can say without presumption, we love Him and His honour. We desire to do His will, and to please Him; and this is the will of God, even our sanctification; for He has called us on terms of holiness, and we are ourselves taught of God to love one another: so the apostle has ruled.

Known salvation therefore, by God's grace in Christ our Lord, is the basis which the Holy Ghost lays for the walk of a Christian according to God. Nevertheless there is need for exhortation; and the word is full of cheer as of warning, the encouragements being varied and strong, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. Perhaps it is not too much to say that, if His grace justifies us, our fidelity thenceforth ought to justify Him, however poor our measure may be.

It may be well also to protest here against lowering this expression ("to maintain good works"), as if it only echoed ver. 14. It is not so. The expression may be similar; but the context is clear that the object of God differs in the two verses, as we shall see by-and-by. Undoubtedly ver. 14 has an important bearing; but it is of a narrower and lower character. In ver. 8 good works have nothing to do with "necessary uses," and must be taken in all their extent. They are the honourable works, which become a believer, not benevolent merely but suitable to the objects of divine favour and of everlasting blessing, in a world where evil abounds and God is unknown save to faith.

It is also well to add that it is not believing in God here as in the A.V., but "believing God." They have set to their seal that God is true, having accepted His testimony. Therefore they bowed to His conviction wrought inwardly, that they were hateful and hating one another, but oh! how thankfully also that according to His mercy He saved them. Yet if all the Trinity concerned itself in this truly divine salvation, without the cross it was not possible. Christ suffering for sins had made it righteous for God to exercise His grace without stint. Therefore is it God's righteousness. This the Holy Ghost can crown with the richest enjoyment and with real power for practice.

"These things are good and profitable to men." Here it need not be doubted that the apostle includes the maintenance of good works on the part of believers; but why should any wish to exclude the faithfulness of God's salvation from a still more direct and important place? The cause is surely of at least equal moment with the effect. In contrast with these good and profitable things the apostle bids Titus "shun foolish questionings and genealogies and strifes and fighting about law." It is the same apostle who told Timothy, as indeed we all know, that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. How so? It is not made for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, an unsparing weapon against all evil. What will produce honourable works? Nothing but the gospel of the glory of the blessed God which was committed to Paul and pressed on Titus no less than Timothy.

Here then the apostle denounces the misuse of the law. As it puffs up man who, ignorant of his sin and powerlessness, builds on it, so it engenders foolish questions and genealogies and strifes, and legal fightings. Gospel truths are "good and profitable to men"; legal squabbles are "unprofitable and vain"; and such is the misuse of law to which man's mind is ever prone, if indeed he pays any heed at all. The truth of the gospel, as it reveals grace, so it commands both heart and conscience of the believer. Where faith is not, there is the power of death unremoved, and darkness Godward. So is it with the race in its natural estate, which no rite can alter — only the Deliverer received in faith.

From questions dark or trifling and in either way quite unprofitable or even injurious, to which legalism tends, the apostle next warns of a still darker result which is too apt to appear, the uprising of party spirit in its most extreme shape, which scripture designates "heresy." 1 Cor. 11: 18, 19, is the first occurrence of the phrase αἵρεσις in the apostolic Epistles, which can alone precisely define its Christian application. "I hear that schisms exist among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that the approved may be made manifest among you."

Hence we learn how ordinary language differs from scripture. Men regard "heresy" as a departure from sound doctrine, which is apt to end in a separate party or sect characterised by it. In short they regard "schism" as the severed result, whether with (as generally is the fact), or without (as may be), the heterodox root. Now the inspired word appears to be irreconcilable with such thoughts. "Schisms" already existed in the church at Corinth. As yet there were no "sects" or separate parties; but this the apostle regarded as inevitable. Splits within lead naturally, and (as men are) necessarily, to splits without or sects. This was imminent at Corinth, unless grace gave self-judgment and thus nipped the bud, so that the evil fruit should not follow. But the danger was at work in the "schisms" that afflicted the Corinthian saints, though all as yet ate of the one loaf. If they did not repent, the issue would surely be "heresies" or sects, as in Gal. 5: 20.

It seems plain from this survey of usage, that the word in neither Epistle necessarily involves strange doctrine, however often this may be and is the animating spring of a party. The carnal preference, which set up Cephas against Paul, or Apollos against both, formed "schisms" in the assembly; and this, if not judged as sin, would issue at length in outward factions, or "heresies." For such fleshly feeling ever grows more hot and intolerant, so that Christ the centre of unity is overlooked, and the Spirit, being grieved, ceases to control those who are thus selfwilled and insubmissive to God's word.

But there is another step in the path of evil, of which we find the expression in the Second Epistle. Of Peter (2: 1). Here there is marked development; for we hear of false teachers (ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι), who are characterised as bringing in privily "destructive heresies," or sects of perdition (αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας). The context is clear, in this case alone, that it is not only personal or party selfwill breaking away from the unity of the Spirit, but that the factions or heresies anticipated by the apostle have the darker dye of ruinous heterodoxy also. Not a. hint of this appears in the usage of the word for the Galatians and the Corinthians. Bad as the case in its mildest form is, it ever presents a violation of church unity. It is only when the term is contextually enlarged and weighted with the distinct imputation of false teaching that we can tax the "heretic" with heterodoxy. Hence the unbelieving cavils of De Wette, etc., have no real ground. The traditional and mistaken sense of a later day does not apply to the Pauline usage of αἵρεσις.

Now this is of importance in helping us to a true and just discernment of the apostle's injunction to Titus, where there is an advance in fact on the warnings to the Corinthians and the Galatians. It does suppose that there was, or might be, a sect-maker in Crete, who had to be dealt with. Such an one had gone out in the pride of his heart and was after admonition to be declined. "An heretical man after a first and second admonition refuse, knowing that such a one is subverted and sinneth, being self-condemned" (vers. 10, 11).

Here the evil is not expressed in the aggravated form of false teaching; and consequently we are not entitled to lighten the sin of faction in itself, of which alone the passage speaks, by supplementing the case with its far more serious shape when denounced by Peter at the later day. By "heretical man" the apostle means any one active in originating or adopting a sect, even if he were orthodox. Not content with "schisms" inside, such were forming a separate school without. They might, as a general rule, fall into destructive views, more or less diverging from those whom such had wilfully and deliberately left, in order to justify themselves or oppose others vainly. But the apostle does not add a word, either here or elsewhere, to the evil of "faction" or "sect" in itself. Titus was to admonish once or twice. For there might be differing measures in his selfwill that had gone outside: one so determined that a first admonition would prove enough; another not so far gone might encourage the Lord's servant to persevere and admonish a second time.

Hence also explains, at any rate in part, why there is not a word about putting away the evildoer. Titus was to "eschew" or "avoid" him. Now παραιτοῦ is said of shunning old wives' fables (1 Tim. 4: 7), younger widows (v. 11), foolish and uninstructed questions (2 Tim. 3:  23), as well as a heretic in the scripture before us. In no case is excommunication meant, but just avoiding alike things or persons. It is granted that the Epistle does not embrace within its scope, like 1 Corinthians, all ecclesiastical action even to the last extremity; any more than excommunication is prescribed in the Epistle to the Galatians, or in those to the seven Apocalyptic churches whence the advocates for tolerating the worst evils within the assembly draw their unwise and unholy arguments. Only the heretic was outside.

Hence there is to be noticed another and more special reason why no such measure was to be laid on the church through Titus: the evil-doer had gone out. This is of the essence of "heresy," whatever its form; in this lies its advance on and exaggeration of "schism." Now how could you with propriety put away him who had already gone away? The utmost which could be done, when it was no mistake (perhaps with a right design yet an ill-guided conscience), but deliberate intention with wilful slight and defiance of the assembly, would be to close the door formally, so that he could not enter fellowship again without as formal restoration. This in effect, when it truly applied, might be equivalent to excommunication; but it would bear on its front the stamping the offender with the fact of his own selfwill; while the faithful also would show themselves not indifferent but vigilant and holy in the case. The assembly, by the Lord entrusted with the extreme act of putting away when God's word calls for it, does not overpass its responsibility in pronouncing on such a sin: the greater or at least more formal act includes what is less or akin. Some such action as this may be implied and inferred; but Waterland (Doctrine of Trin. ch. 4) goes too far in saying that the command to Titus contains as much. Still less is Vitringa (De Vet. Syn. iii. 1-10), after straining 2 Thess. 3 and Rom. 16, warranted in making it = ἔκβαλλε, the public excommunication following the admonition, or a private one as among the Jews: so Bp. Ellicott justly observes.

The truth is that the Holy Spirit applies in Gal. 5 to false doctrine the same solemn figure as He does in 1 Cor. 5 to immoral evil. It is leaven; and, where church action is enjoined, we are commanded to purge it from the assembly. Will any one contend that doctrinal leaven is to be kept in, and only immoral leaven is to be put out? Evil doctrine is the worse and more ensnaring; and if man as man does not trouble about it, the more is it incumbent on the faithful to care for God's honour. "Holiness becometh Thy house, O Jehovah, for ever." Now that our Passover, Christ, has been sacrificed, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. Let those who will have laxity speak out plainly and betray their evil aim, that we may by grace keep ourselves pure.

Again, men who bring not the doctrine of Christ, and deny the Father and the Son, are branded by the most loving of the apostles as antichrists, whom we are forbidden to receive into the house or even to greet. This goes far beyond what is fairly and withal imperatively taught by the exclusion of leaven in the Pauline Epistles. It is a deeper evil striking at Christ's person, the Rock on which the church is built, and hence demands a most prompt and thorough judgment for His sake, to say nothing of His people subtly imperilled by any tampering with them thereby.

Here Titus was simply to have done with a sectarian man (leader or adherent is but a question of degree) after a first and second admonition. What follows confirms without constraint and thoroughly the difference of the case before us from ecclesiastical dealing: "Knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned" (ver. 11). Whitby departs from scripture by adding, "is perverted from the true faith." 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20 and 2 Tim. 2: 18 teach this, but not the passage in question, which marks the evil of faction apart from heterodoxy, though the two often go together. Nor does αὐτοκατάκριτος mean "condemned by his own conscience," but self-condemned, i.e. ipso facto, without saying a word of conscience, which may have been quite dull or darkened, instead of giving sentence against the man. He was self-condemned, because, liking his own will and perhaps notions too, he could no longer brook the atmosphere of God's assembly; he preferred to be outside God's habitation in the Spirit, to have a church of his choice, or to be his own church.

Now, as sin is lawlessness, so if one had as a denizen known that holy temple built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner atone, to leave it of his own will (not forced out justly or unjustly) was to sin with a high hand and seal his own condemnation: words admirably suiting a deserter and self-exalting rival, but not by any means one whose sin had been solemnly judged and himself put away by the sentence of the church. In short "heresy" simply, here and elsewhere in the Epistles, means departure, not from the truth but rather from the assembly, which is its pillar and ground, where the Lord works by the Spirit to God's glory. It goes beyond "schism" which acts within, but it is not necessarily heterodox, though this may be often added and is likely to be its end.

The conclusion now follows. "When I shall send Artemas unto thee or Tychicus, give diligence to come unto me at Nicopolis, for there I have determined to winter. Set forward Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to them. And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. All that are with me salute thee. Salute them that love us in faith. Grace be with you all" (vers. 12-15).

It is a common mistake to suppose that words, so simple and common-place as these seem, have little value. We learn what the goodness of the Lord is through such a one as Paul, not merely in circumstances of great strain and difficulty, but in the most ordinary matters of daily spiritual life. Grace moulds the conduct and the words alike, in the least things as in the greatest; as there is no affectation, there is no levity. The consciousness of God's presence, the habit of having to do with Him, invests the simplest affairs with a garb that is holy and loving without an effort.

But the fact is that in these closing words we have that which ought to have cleared up many a controversy and been corrective of spurious tradition. Titus was in no way the fixed ecclesiastical ruler of Crete; he had served the Lord there in most important ways, and his work was come to a close as far as that island was concerned. The apostle was not indifferent. Into the vacuum that must be thus created there, he desired spiritual help for the saints and assemblies still; and therefore he proposes to send Artemas or Tychicus before Titus leaves. The fact that of one of these we know somewhat in the Acts of the Apostles, of the other not there or elsewhere, is full of interest. We learn that there were men whom the Lord honoured in a high degree who only appear incidentally like Artemas; and yet he is even put before Tychicus. It would be wrong to infer that he had a higher standing. The Holy Spirit does not regulate the affairs of God after the manner of a Lord Chamberlain. We may be assured that the apostle would not speak of sending Artemas or Tychicus, had he not believed that the one was no less spiritually qualified than the other. Comparisons however are not sanctioned in scripture.

But we can also see that the apostle did not think of sending both: it is "Artemas or Tychicus," not Artemas and Tychicus. Labourers suitable to help the church in a large way are not numerous. Other places had claims no less than Crete; but it is plain that both these labourers held a personal relation to the apostle. He proposed to send the one or the other to Titus in Crete: when either one or the other should have arrived, the apostle calls on Titus to be diligent in joining him at Nicopolis; "for there I have determined to winter."

From this we learn some facts of interest to all Christians. The apostle was certainly not a prisoner at this time. It appears to have been after his first imprisonment at Rome, and before the second which closed in his death. Had he not been free, how could he speak of his decision to spend a winter there? But this also convincingly shows us that the traditional appendix to the Epistle is unfounded. It was not really written from Nicopolis, any more than Titus was ordained bishop of Crete. Again, there is no sufficient reason to assume that it was Nicopolis in Macedonia, even if that city then existed. For it is certain that various cities of that name were built after the days of Paul — one or more by the emperor Trajan. Long before there was a Nicopolis in Alexandria, there was another Nicopolis in Cilicia. But the most important town of the name then existing, beyond a doubt, was in Epirus, looking down on a promontory of Actium (in Acarnania), built by Augustus Caesar in honour of the great victory over Antony, which had such a momentous bearing on the future of the Roman empire. It seems therefore reasonable, as there is no particular description given pointing to another quarter, that the apostle means the city that was most notorious.

Further, we may be sure that the zeal which consumed the apostle did not now summon Titus there for rest to himself any more than to the younger workman. In the last Epistle the apostle ever wrote it is said that Titus went to Dalmatia, which was in the neighbourhood of Epirus. This again affords some confirmation that the Nicopolis in question lay in that neighbourhood. The work of the Lord was to be pushed into the West as well as in the East.

Quite a distinct fact appears in the next verse, 13. "But forward Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to them." How beautifully unjealous love, and zeal for the Lord's glory, and care for the comfort of His labourers, are shown! And how confidently too Paul looks for this blessed feeling in Titus, the reflex of his own! Often and long he had proved him to be a faithful and gracious brother. He is sure that an elevated position in Crete had in no way impaired the old spirit of fellowship and value for others.

It is the more to be noticed, because neither of these two commended to his care were at all so associated with the apostle personally as many others. We never hear of them (as τοὺς περὶ τὸν Παῦλον) in the group which accompanied the apostle on his journey. What is or is not said appears to indicate the co-ordinate class of labourers, of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles as well as in the Epistles, Apollos notably being their type. Yet the heart of the apostle goes out and urges Titus in love no less for such than for his well-known usual associates.

Here again Zenas the lawyer is named before Apollos: this is the order not of the world, but of grace. It is not quite certain what sort of lawyer he was. Calvin dryly considers that he could not have been a forensic one: else he would not have wanted means. A graver but simple if not conclusive reason points in the same direction. Everywhere else in the N.T. "lawyer" is connected with Jewish learning rather than Roman or Greek law. Certain it is that Paul assumes that there might be need of the help enjoined. He had accepted help of the kind himself, as appears from his Epistles, and before this he asked for it on behalf of others. We find the same thing in the still later Third Epistle of John.

But it is a fine trait of Christ to see this gracious consideration laid so confidently on the shoulders of Titus, though the apostle does not stop there. "And let ours also learn to maintain good works for the necessary wants, that they be not unfruitful." If Titus was not to forget fellow-labourers, how incumbent it was on the saints generally? This is the force of "ours also." Only here it seems "ours" means the saints in Crete. They are exhorted to learn, what Titus had long learned, to be forward in good works, and, among all other calls, for the encouragement of devoted ministers of the Lord in His work. It is not merely the poor we should think of, but the work of faith and labour of love. Thus should believers be not "unfruitful." Nor is God unrighteous to forget that work or the love shown toward His name; and if it be so in ministering to the saints, will He fail to remember such as honour those who serve them at all cost?

Lastly, we have the salutation "All that are with me (μετ ἐμοῦ) salute thee;" it is not merely "with me" (σὺν ἐμοὶ) as in Galatians 1: 2. It is special connection, not simple companionship. This lends the salutation increase of force. Again Paul directs Titus to salute "those that love us dearly in faith." Faith is the connecting link with all that is eternal and of the Spirit of God, yea with God Himself.

His last word is not to Titus only, but "grace be with you all." His heart breaks forth in the desire of divine blessing towards all the saints in Crete, as we know it did in a general yet living way to all such on earth. For the faithful stand in a special, divine, and everlasting relationship, which no believer ought ever to forget. In entails duties as varied as their practical condition may demand, and for this scripture provides amply in the goodness and wisdom of God. But grace is needed by all and for everything. Who can wonder then that the apostle concludes with the desire that it might be with them all?

LONDON: THOMAS WESTON, 53, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1901.